JohnC

Let me be clear with no equivocation: I'm not advocating tanking for whatever reason. It will have more of a damaging than positive effect with this young roster. If UPL isn't ready and is sent down, then so be it. Your list of paltry goaltenders is inadequate. That's not a difficult judgment to make. Maybe Anderson can serve as a useful backup but that group as a unit is grossly inadequate. I don't know if it will happen through a trade or a waiver cut but there needs to be help brought in.

Let his play speak for itself. If he is better than the other players then he should be afforded the opportunity to play. If he can't handle his position at the higher level then send him back down to Rochester.

You have your own narrative and are not responding to what I actually stated. What the heck are you talking about with your throwing to the wolves comment? What I did say is the opposite of your distortion. I said that he should be given the opportunity to compete for a job in training camp. That's a far cry from throwing him into a pack of wolves scenario. If he demonstrates that he can handle the higher level of play and he outperforms the other goalies that he is competing with for a roster spot, then why shouldn't he have a roster spot that he earned? What are you afraid of in giving him an opportunity to compete for a job? You have often stated that the current goaltending staffing is less than stellar. I agree with your assessment. That is an assessment that is obvious to most of us. If he doesn't play well enough in camp, he will be shipped back to Rochester. If he does play well enough to earn a roster spot then good for him. If he plays well to earn a roster spot but falters when the regular season starts then send him back down. What's the problem with that?

The Rochester team was stripped of much of its talent because the better players were brought up to the big club. That's the context in which those stats were based on. What's your fear? He will be given an opportunity to play in training camp and exhibition games. If he can't handle the higher level of play he won't make the roster. If he shows that he can play as well or better than the goalies he is competing with then why shouldn't he be on the roster?

Why are you assuming the organization believes that UPL isn't ready? Why is it not conceivable that the staff is willing to give UPL an opportunity to not only make the roster but also play him, at least to see if he can handle a substantial or less than substantial role in net? Too many people rigidly hold to a tenet that a young goalie has to play so many games at a lower level before being ready to play as a NHL goalie. That conventional approach might be the usual standard but there can be exceptions to the rule that isn't actually an rule. Cozens was rushed to the NHL and he acquitted himself very well until he fizzled at the end of the season. Mitts was rushed before he was ready and he struggled. He made a giant stride last year under Granato. No one who is realistic is going to argue that this is a playoff roster. But because of where this team is in its rebuild it might make sense to be aggressive in playing young players to see exactly what they are capable of. I'm not arguing that you should or should not play young players sooner than usual. What I am saying is let's not close the door on a player just because he is young and inexperienced. Let's be open-minded and allow players to show whether they can handle the jump to the NHL. That should be determined in training camp.

If Tage hits the 20 goal mark I will call that a success. If he plays in most of the games (injuries are an issue for him) it is doable. I'm just hoping there will be a better spread along the lines in goal scoring, and that includes the lower lines that have usually been barren.

The 96% in the survey indicating vaccination rates for doctor may actually be low. Some doctors within that 4% group that have not taken the vaccinations have specific health issues where vaccinations are not recommended. So in reality it is not unreasonable to believe that 98% of the doctors recommend taking the vaccinations unless one's medical conditions indicate otherwise.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/study-finds-96-of-physicians-are-vaccinated-for-covid-19#What-the-survey-found

I appreciate your comments and will take it to heart. But my stance on the Eichel trade issue has not been static. At first like most posters I was requiring a high yield in return for a trade. As time has gone on and the situation has evolved it is apparent that until his health status is clarified the return offers will not be consequential. The choice is either accept the lower return or wait until Jack is restored as a player (if that will happen) and then go back to the market. So in order to not create an obstruction on this topic I won't further post on it. At least for the foreseeable future.

In general, I agree with you that there were alternative strategies to take that would have (possibly) changed the course of this franchise. As you point out some key decisions were made that didn't work out and contributed to this downward spiral. As you noted just maybe if there was a different coach, an upgrade in a backup goalie, Ullmark being injured and also forgotten the effect from Covid that not only sidelined players but also had a lingering effect during the season. Those are a lot of ifs. Our roster and talent pool within the system wasn't deep enough to overcome those challenges . On the other hand the problems we faced are the same unanticipated problems that many teams face during the season. When your roster and system is thin and flimsy it doesn't take much for house to collapse when some replaceable parts can't be replaced. That's the lesson that needs to be learned. The talent base needs to be increased and spread out more.

You are missing the point. His current value because of his uncertain health status is severely diminished to a fraction what many people believe. And that is evident by the lack of movement on offers. In general. the offers being proposed are much higher than what would be realistically offered by any interested parties for this injured player. That's the point.

From a hockey perspective that yacht is adrift and is lost in a storm of its own making.

This is not going to happen. Until Jack's injury status is clarified I don't see any meaningful offers being made for him. Ask yourself why no team in the league (so far) has offered one of their top tier center prospects or young centers currently in a trade package for him? The clock is ticking. Assuming he gets a fusion surgery the recovery time is four months. That's how long it will take for the treated area to solidify. On top of that because of the nature of his surgery he won't be able to be physically active during his rehab. That means his conditioning will take another month or two to reach a level that will allow him to play. I want to be wrong on my prediction about when he will be able to play again. I just don't see him back on the ice this year. And witnessing the responses from other teams in making offers they don't seem to be willing to risk any of their valuable assets for a health gamble on another player.

The AMA took a survey that indicated 96% of the doctors are fully vaccinated. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-survey-shows-over-96-doctors-fully-vaccinated-against-covid-19

I'm not trying to ridicule anyone or be dismissive. But when facts are no longer a factor in a discussion it becomes pointless to engage. The lesson to be learned is: Zealots can not be penetrated. They are in a world of their own.

You are out of decisively step with with the medical community.

The vaccinated are upset with the unvaccinated. And they should be. The entities that also should be very upset with the unvaccinated are the insurance companies. Having to pay out a lot of money to cover the medical costs of those unvaccinated who get sick and require comprehensive medical treatment must make them angry. So what should happen next. When the rates are determined for the next billing year it goes up for everyone in order to cover the costs of treatments that could have been avoided. What is the solution? There should be clauses in the insurance policy that if one foregoes being vaccinated for a designated category of illnesses the rates should be higher for this anti-vaccine population or the coverage will not be provided for those who contract the virus after willfully decide to go unvaccinated. There should be consequences for reckless behavior.

Who is your source? Is it your imagination?

I understand your sentiment and I feel it to. But the problem is that there are too many people who have not gotten the vaccine who not only are making themselves vulnerable to infection but because the pool of unvaccinated is still so large it is resulting in not only more infections variants but variants that are also capable of infecting the vaccinated. While the vaccinated are not getting seriously sick they become carriers of the of Covid and infect others. My biggest worry is that these new pernicious variants will become resistant to the current vaccines and will require new vaccines to provide protection. So the cycle repeats itself. It is the sabotaging of the community that has acted appropriately. Freaking insane!

Jack certainly wants out of Buffalo but that isn't his biggest concern. Far from it. The issue that is consuming him more than wanting to play elsewhere is his health situation. He very well knows that if he fully regains his health and gets back on the ice to play at his pre-injury level that he will be on the market with many suitors. Jack may be young and impetuous but he isn't a dummy. He may have found a doctor/s promoting a procedure that will quickly get him back on the ice but he and his advisers know very well that the predominant medical view from the best surgeons who deal with his type of injury are recommending a procedure that will keep him off the ice for maybe this season. Jack can get any procedure he wants. But after the procedure there are no guarantees that he will be able to return to form, and maybe even not play again. So I don't see him cavalierly breaking his contract and giving up his guaranteed money. Any way you look at this issue it is a very complicated situation for the player from a health and playing standpoint. The bottom line is that there are no easy solutions.

I wish you and your family the best. I just don' understand how people can minimize this health crisis that has killed more than 600,000 people and has affected millions more. They are living in their own delusional world and are sabotaging the efforts to deal with this pernicious virus. It's frustrating and maddening.

I have had surgery for spondylitis a long time ago and then disc surgery maybe a dozen years after that. Each surgery allowed me to return to normal pain free living. Much of that health outcome can be attributed to a healthy lifestyle that included regular workouts. What I can say is that after the surgeries that gave me relief there are things that I could not do and would not do, such as contact sports. For the sake of this discussion let's put aside the surgery that Jack prefers and discuss the fusion surgery that is recommended by the doctors in the field. If you look at the recovery time of 4 months for this surgery and you consider when it might happen it seems more likely that Jack won't play this season. I said this before and it drew harsh criticism. I'm sticking to this assessment. Even if he does return to the ice this season it probably will be sometime late in the second half of the season. And if he does play it will most likely be on a very limited basis. It isn't a surprise to me why a top 10-12 player in this league who is on the market is not attracting much in the way of offers. So far not one team is willing to give up a top tier young center prospect for him. That is an indication that other teams also are wary about his current and future health status. I hope my pessimistic view of this situation is wrong for Jack and the organization's sake. It seems to me that maybe the best outcome is for Jack to have the recommended surgery and then undergo the extensive rehab in order to get back to form. Then he should be placed back on the market. However, if he does get traded before the surgery I will be pleasantly surprised.

It's politically more advantageous to take the position that less support rather than more support in using taxpayer money for a stadium project that mostly benefits a billionaire owner. And I will go so far as to say that more western NY voters would also favor that position.

I'm not worried about the NMC. If he gets his health back and regains his form then his value will exponentially increase. If a team that he doesn't want to go to makes the best offer and refuses to go there then keep him. Jack clearly wants out. I'm confident that there are few places he wouldn't want to go to rather than staying here. I just don't see that limiting clause being so limiting.

Where do you get your data from? A Qanon website? When I hear people speak crazily about the vaccines I get so frustrated and angry. The vaccines have been a blessing that has given us a degree of freedom that we lost at the height of the pandemic. Now it seems that we are going back to that hellish period because of this lunatic cultish fringe with the mindset that is anti-science and and rationality. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/08/09/dick-farrel-dies-covid19/