The "Stupid Threads" Thread

[IKnowPhysics]

I did my part.

[SabresFanInRochester]

The logic a number of us bought into was the Regier Sabres were beyond redemption; they needed to be blown up. We wanted to be great, not good. And to do that, we needed to be bad first.

 

We've done it. We've been as bad as it gets, two years running.

 

And in the process Miller, Myers, Stafford, Vanek, Roy, Pominville, Gaustad have been replaced by Risto, Zemgus, Kane, Bogo, Reinhart, Ennis, McEichel and a slew of other youngsters who may emerge.

 

No more holding back, waiting for the draft to add reinforcements. These are the building blocks.

They need to get good. Then they need to get great. And Murray needs to make sure they get there.

 

The core is dead. Long live the new core.

:clapping:

 

Well said. I never want to be in a position where I am rooting for the opposing team to win. It sucked, but had to be done. We have the right people to serve as the core. Game on!

[Taro T]

Root for progress, for a young team to come together and start improving

Ab-so-####ing-lute-ly.

[deluca67]

Totally agree. But what if the Sabres are clearly out of the playoffs next February? Why not root for losses? I mean, the precedent has been set. Or would that be no different than what typically happens late in a season when your team is out of it? Might as well improve your lottery odds? It's all still so confusing.

 

Root for progress, for a young team to come together and start improving

 

Ab-so-####ing-lute-ly.

There will be a portion of the "fan base" that will feel the same way as this year's "tankers." Would those fans be any more/less right or wrong? 

[Andrew Amerk]

This started off good

[Huckleberry]

the tyler ennis for ROR

[thewookie1]

McEichel better win us a Cup next year or else!

[Taro T]

There will be a portion of the "fan base" that will feel the same way as this year's "tankers." Would those fans be any more/less right or wrong?

Not sure what you're getting at w/ the 'right or wrong' but here's my atempt to address what it seems you're getting at.

 

Two + seasons ago the decision was made to blow this team up and sink it to the bottom of Lake Erie. There are some that felt that occurred too late, others that felt it didn't need to be done then if ever, and others that likely felt it was the right time. Regardless of when/if people got on board with the tank, the management team had made the decision and we were left to root for the carcass, be indifferent towards it, or root for it being put on a funeral pyre to hopefully rise like a phoenix (ironic, huh); and management had put together a team that would lead to "suffering" on our part in the short term. This team had older players that didn't fit into the rebuild and had value to other GM's and they were traded. Except for Myers, no player with any potential long term use to the Sabres that the Sabres held the rights to beyond June were moved.

 

This team has gone through the process of accumulating young players (potential assets). They're now at the point where they are trying to develop those young players (hopefully converting them into true assets). They WANT (and need) these kids to win hockey games.

 

We've been through the suffering. All assets that weren't considered to be of use long term (at least all that had any positive value) were jettisoned for assets that MIGHT be of use long term. This team will at minimum be bringing in 2 top line players (Kane and McEichel) that have never been with the Sabres. They will also be bringing back Girgensons and Gorges and possibly Reinhart.

 

The goal last season was to be bad enough to have a shot at McEichel (they hit that goal like the exploding red at the top of a United Way thermometer). The goal this year is to get these kids some chemistry and win games.

 

If at the trade deadline, they aren't where they should be (close to the playoffs, but not quite there) then they should look at moving players that don't fit in for the long term for pieces that might, but there are 2 caveats to that: 1. most everybody on this roster will be here with the intention of either being part of the LT or necessary character guys designed to teach the younger ones how to be a part of the LT even though their usefulness LT is debateable (i.e. Gionta or Gorges); and 2 anytime TM has an opportunity to trade a couple of 2nd liners for a top liner, he will take it even if it seems he 'paid too much' because the guy that ends up with the better player at the end of the day wins 90%+ of trades. This team, as it'll be constructed won't have many (probably 1 or 2 'role players') tradeable assets that are young and don't fit in long term to this team. A year ago, this team had a lot of tradeable assets and traded most of them. This year, the quality of what they were looking to dump was lowered because they'd traded the high end expendable guys already. This coming year, they will likely have even fewer guys that are tradeable and that they'd want to trade for the value that would come back.

 

But a side goal won't be to try to end up doing the limbo (how low can you go); they'll give kids in Ra-cha-cha a chance to show what they can do and will still be trying to win.

 

As long as everybody within the team is on-board with winning as much as possible with what they've got, not sure why the fans wouldn't be. (Especially at this point where the team is stocked with up-and-comers.)

 

Sorry for this rambling so much. But the short answer to the question is, the goals and expectations are changed moving forward. Hard to see a scenario where a tank next year (even at the trade deadline) is beneficial. It's also hard to see a scenario where those hoping for a tank next season are doing anything but trolling.

[SwampD]

Not sure what you're getting at w/ the 'right or wrong' but here's my atempt to address what it seems you're getting at.

 

Two + seasons ago the decision was made to blow this team up and sink it to the bottom of Lake Erie. There are some that felt that occurred too late, others that felt it didn't need to be done then if ever, and others that likely felt it was the right time. Regardless of when/if people got on board with the tank, the management team had made the decision and we were left to root for the carcass, be indifferent towards it, or root for it being put on a funeral pyre to hopefully rise like a phoenix (ironic, huh); and management had put together a team that would lead to "suffering" on our part in the short term. This team had older players that didn't fit into the rebuild and had value to other GM's and they were traded. Except for Myers, no player with any potential long term use to the Sabres that the Sabres held the rights to beyond June were moved.

 

This team has gone through the process of accumulating young players (potential assets). They're now at the point where they are trying to develop those young players (hopefully converting them into true assets). They WANT (and need) these kids to win hockey games.

 

We've been through the suffering. All assets that weren't considered to be of use long term (at least all that had any positive value) were jettisoned for assets that MIGHT be of use long term. This team will at minimum be bringing in 2 top line players (Kane and McEichel) that have never been with the Sabres. They will also be bringing back Girgensons and Gorges and possibly Reinhart.

 

The goal last season was to be bad enough to have a shot at McEichel (they hit that goal like the exploding red at the top of a United Way thermometer). The goal this year is to get these kids some chemistry and win games.

 

If at the trade deadline, they aren't where they should be (close to the playoffs, but not quite there) then they should look at moving players that don't fit in for the long term for pieces that might, but there are 2 caveats to that: 1. most everybody on this roster will be here with the intention of either being part of the LT or necessary character guys designed to teach the younger ones how to be a part of the LT even though their usefulness LT is debateable (i.e. Gionta or Gorges); and 2 anytime TM has an opportunity to trade a couple of 2nd liners for a top liner, he will take it even if it seems he 'paid too much' because the guy that ends up with the better player at the end of the day wins 90%+ of trades. This team, as it'll be constructed won't have many (probably 1 or 2 'role players') tradeable assets that are young and don't fit in long term to this team. A year ago, this team had a lot of tradeable assets and traded most of them. This year, the quality of what they were looking to dump was lowered because they'd traded the high end expendable guys already. This coming year, they will likely have even fewer guys that are tradeable and that they'd want to trade for the value that would come back.

 

But a side goal won't be to try to end up doing the limbo (how low can you go); they'll give kids in Ra-cha-cha a chance to show what they can do and will still be trying to win.

 

As long as everybody within the team is on-board with winning as much as possible with what they've got, not sure why the fans wouldn't be. (Especially at this point where the team is stocked with up-and-comers.)

 

Sorry for this rambling so much. But the short answer to the question is, the goals and expectations are changed moving forward. Hard to see a scenario where a tank next year (even at the trade deadline) is beneficial. It's also hard to see a scenario where those hoping for a tank next season are doing anything but trolling.

I don't think that will fit in the thread title box.

[MattPie]

Any variation of "What would it take to trade into/out of pick #1/#2".

[LGR4GM]

Any variation of "What would it take to trade into/out of pick #1/#2".

^ this... all of this.  

[thewookie1]

If a Hodgson falls in a forest, does it make a sound?

 

Lindback/Enroth/Neuvirth/Irbe/Hackett/Markarov Vezina worthy?

 

Why Phaneuf should be our captain next year...

[Taro T]

I don't think that will fit in the thread title box.

Eh, a couple of topic tags and it should all work. ;)

[PromoTheRobot]

All these Stanley Cup wins are meaningless because Murray lied about finishing 30th back in 2015.

[Samson's Flow]

Any variation of "What would it take to trade into/out of pick #1/#2".

You mean the thread that was actually made and is currently at the top of the board?

 

I can't believe that actually became a thread. :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:

[MattPie]

You mean the thread that was actually made and is currently at the top of the board?

 

I can't believe that actually became a thread. :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:

 

That thread was my inspiration, my muse, my raison d'etre

[Samson's Flow]

That thread was my inspiration, my muse, my raison d'etre

You're all right MattPie.

 

Not sure about this Met'yuPirog guy though... :unsure:

[MattPie]

You're all right MattPie.

 

Not sure about this Met'yuPirog guy though... :unsure:

 

Da, he not as nice.

[That Aud Smell]

From about 10pm last night forward, we root for wins.  [ ]  No more ###### tanks.

Totally agree. But what if the Sabres are clearly out of the playoffs next February? Why not root for losses? I mean, the precedent has been set. Or would that be no different than what typically happens late in a season when your team is out of it? Might as well improve your lottery odds? It's all still so confusing.

Root for progress, for a young team to come together and start improving

 

Hear, hear.

 

I am concerned, though, that there's been some smart posting in the stupid thread.

 

Also, one of the good TO writers (Mirtle? Friedmann? [sic]) tweeted something to the effect that his predictive rule of thumb proved accurate again this year. Something about -- what was it -- if you're *more* than 4 points out of the playoffs on November 1, your chances of making the playoffs are quite small (and that maybe no one who was outside that 4 point zone on 11/1/14 made the playoffs this year?). It was a bizarre, and sobering, stat.

[Taro T]

Hear, hear.

 

 

I am concerned, though, that there's been some smart posting in the stupid thread.

 

Also, one of the good TO writers (Mirtle? Friedmann? [sic]) tweeted something to the effect that his predictive rule of thumb proved accurate again this year. Something about -- what was it -- if you're *more* than 4 points out of the playoffs on November 1, your chances of making the playoffs are quite small (and that maybe no one who was outside that 4 point zone on 11/1/14 made the playoffs this year?). It was a bizarre, and sobering, stat.

The stat is possible, but not likely significant. There were only 4 teams that met that criterion this year (Buffalo, Carolina, Edmonton & Arizona) and Edmonton's total only met the criteria in 2 of the 4 divisions (Pacific and Atlantic were the 2).

 

The year before there were 6 teams that qualified. But 2 of those teams got to the show. (Filly & Dallas)

 

The year before nobody met that criteria and in '11 only 3 met the cut and 1 (B's) got in.

 

Basically that stat is saying if you've managed to fall 2 games below the average teams after only 10-12 games you're probably bad and are in trouble; but it's not a death sentence.

[MattPie]

"Is GMTM a Weasel?"

[Cereal]

"Is GMTM a Weasel?"

Hehehe.

 

How about: The "meddling" Kim Pegula???

[That Aud Smell]

The stat is possible, but not likely significant. 

 

Quite so.

[deluca67]

Not sure what you're getting at w/ the 'right or wrong' but here's my atempt to address what it seems you're getting at.

 

Two + seasons ago the decision was made to blow this team up and sink it to the bottom of Lake Erie. There are some that felt that occurred too late, others that felt it didn't need to be done then if ever, and others that likely felt it was the right time. Regardless of when/if people got on board with the tank, the management team had made the decision and we were left to root for the carcass, be indifferent towards it, or root for it being put on a funeral pyre to hopefully rise like a phoenix (ironic, huh); and management had put together a team that would lead to "suffering" on our part in the short term. This team had older players that didn't fit into the rebuild and had value to other GM's and they were traded. Except for Myers, no player with any potential long term use to the Sabres that the Sabres held the rights to beyond June were moved.

 

This team has gone through the process of accumulating young players (potential assets). They're now at the point where they are trying to develop those young players (hopefully converting them into true assets). They WANT (and need) these kids to win hockey games.

 

We've been through the suffering. All assets that weren't considered to be of use long term (at least all that had any positive value) were jettisoned for assets that MIGHT be of use long term. This team will at minimum be bringing in 2 top line players (Kane and McEichel) that have never been with the Sabres. They will also be bringing back Girgensons and Gorges and possibly Reinhart.

 

The goal last season was to be bad enough to have a shot at McEichel (they hit that goal like the exploding red at the top of a United Way thermometer). The goal this year is to get these kids some chemistry and win games.

 

If at the trade deadline, they aren't where they should be (close to the playoffs, but not quite there) then they should look at moving players that don't fit in for the long term for pieces that might, but there are 2 caveats to that: 1. most everybody on this roster will be here with the intention of either being part of the LT or necessary character guys designed to teach the younger ones how to be a part of the LT even though their usefulness LT is debateable (i.e. Gionta or Gorges); and 2 anytime TM has an opportunity to trade a couple of 2nd liners for a top liner, he will take it even if it seems he 'paid too much' because the guy that ends up with the better player at the end of the day wins 90%+ of trades. This team, as it'll be constructed won't have many (probably 1 or 2 'role players') tradeable assets that are young and don't fit in long term to this team. A year ago, this team had a lot of tradeable assets and traded most of them. This year, the quality of what they were looking to dump was lowered because they'd traded the high end expendable guys already. This coming year, they will likely have even fewer guys that are tradeable and that they'd want to trade for the value that would come back.

 

But a side goal won't be to try to end up doing the limbo (how low can you go); they'll give kids in Ra-cha-cha a chance to show what they can do and will still be trying to win.

 

As long as everybody within the team is on-board with winning as much as possible with what they've got, not sure why the fans wouldn't be. (Especially at this point where the team is stocked with up-and-comers.)

 

Sorry for this rambling so much. But the short answer to the question is, the goals and expectations are changed moving forward. Hard to see a scenario where a tank next year (even at the trade deadline) is beneficial. It's also hard to see a scenario where those hoping for a tank next season are doing anything but trolling.

Well said and I get what you are saying. 

 

IMO, if the Sabres are mired in the bottom third of the league next season there is going to be a portion of this fan base that are going to be focused on the stud of the 2016 draft class wanting the Sabres to dump veterans and take a run at whomever the 2016 top pick is projected to be. I'm not in favor of this at all, just to be clear. I'm just interested in how the 2015 "tankers" will react to the 2016 "tankers."   

[Taro T]

Well said and I get what you are saying. 

 

IMO, if the Sabres are mired in the bottom third of the league next season there is going to be a portion of this fan base that are going to be focused on the stud of the 2016 draft class wanting the Sabres to dump veterans and take a run at whomever the 2016 top pick is projected to be. I'm not in favor of this at all, just to be clear. I'm just interested in how the 2015 "tankers" will react to the 2016 "tankers."

Truthfully, the 'tankers' make up such a disparate group, I'd be surprised if there's any consistency in the response if the situation arises.

 

And odds are they'll be ~20th overall next year (hoping for higher and there are still off-season moves to be made, but it isn't realistic to expect much more) as Florida was 20th w/ 91 points. A year ago 20th was 88 points. (37 and 34 points better than this year's Sabres respectively.) If they're looking high 80's or low 90's, I'd be surprised if any non-trolls were calling for it to get blown up yet again. (Not that there'll be anything but a foundation to be blown up anyhow at that point.)

 

Even if they're only looking at high 70's/low 80's that's still more than 10 extra wins. Just don't see a legit 'pro-tank' group coming together next year. That's my 2 cents.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Taro T