Around the NHL 2019-20

[LGR4GM]

23 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You make excellent points. But why not simply play him on the Jack line where you can maximize his shooting talents? Skinner playing on the Jack line becomes a 30 plus goal scorer. If you are going to pay Skinner premium dollars then it makes more sense to get the best return that you can from him. 

My impression is that Skinner is not a player that Krueger is fond of. The only time I can recall when Krueger responded sharply with irritation in an interview was when he was asked on WGR why Skinner wasn't on the Jack line. That bothers me. 

Personally I would play Skinner with Jack and krueger needs to adapt to that.

[JohnC]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Personally I would play Skinner with Jack and krueger needs to adapt to that.

The Reinhart/Jack/Skinner line is a solid to upper tier first line in this league. From a goal scoring standpoint they click. By adding a second line center or winger this offseason a capable second line can be constructed from what is already on the roster. I believe that this offseason the Sabres will at the minimum have some good  secondary options if our primary second line options don't work out to buttress that second line. It is very doable. 

[LGR4GM]

6 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The Reinhart/Jack/Skinner line is a solid to upper tier first line in this league. From a goal scoring standpoint they click. By adding a second line center or winger this offseason a capable second line can be constructed from what is already on the roster. I believe that this offseason the Sabres will at the minimum have some good  secondary options if our primary second line options don't work out to buttress that second line. It is very doable. 

I think Olofsson is a borderline 2nd line player and his shot is really his greatest asset. They left him with Eichel because that was the best way to maximize him and spread scoring. We need that 2c and ideally a 2rw unless Kahun really is the answer there but if you bump Olofsson to line 2, you almost have to send Sam with him to give a Olofsson the support he needs, again depending on the 2c

[sabresparaavida]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I think Olofsson is a borderline 2nd line player and his shot is really his greatest asset. They left him with Eichel because that was the best way to maximize him and spread scoring. We need that 2c and ideally a 2rw unless Kahun really is the answer there but if you bump Olofsson to line 2, you almost have to send Sam with him to give a Olofsson the support he needs, again depending on the 2c

I’m curious, what do you think about Oloffson on his off wing, and going 
 

skinner-Eichel-Oloffson

kahun/Johansson-2C-Reinhardt 

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I think Olofsson is a borderline 2nd line player and his shot is really his greatest asset. They left him with Eichel because that was the best way to maximize him and spread scoring. We need that 2c and ideally a 2rw unless Kahun really is the answer there but if you bump Olofsson to line 2, you almost have to send Sam with him to give a Olofsson the support he needs, again depending on the 2c

I understand what you are saying about Reinhart and Olofsson. However, I believe that it would be better to keep Reinhart on the top line with Jack. My sense is that Krueger is more inclined to spread the talent around to get more balanced scoring. My inclination is when you have a golden first line don't subtract from it and make it a silver line. 

[IKnowPhysics]

Marcus Johansson can also be plugged in at 2RW, and will likely produce more points than if he plays 2C.

[dudacek]

40 minutes ago, IKnowPhysics said:

Marcus Johansson can also be plugged in at 2RW, and will likely produce more points than if he plays 2C.

Both Johansson and Kahun provide a great deal of roster flexibility, with their ability to play multiple positions, and the fact they can think the game well enough to play with more skilled guys.

I think either could substitute for Reinhart with Jack in a pinch, although that does waste Johansson’s abilities in transition.

The two of them with Olofsson makes for a very good third line, and they’d also work very well breaking in Cozens there if VO is playing higher up the depth chart.

[Gabrielor]

1 hour ago, sabresparaavida said:

I’m curious, what do you think about Oloffson on his off wing, and going 
 

skinner-Eichel-Oloffson

kahun/Johansson-2C-Reinhardt 

Olofsson played a ton of RW in the SHL, and was a RW prospect on my board for years before he got to NA.

Its been a bit, but he’s had success off wing; that elite shot travels.

[LGR4GM]

5 hours ago, sabresparaavida said:

I’m curious, what do you think about Oloffson on his off wing, and going 
 

skinner-Eichel-Oloffson

kahun/Johansson-2C-Reinhardt 

That first line is terrifying when it comes to any pretense of defense. 

[Zamboni]

Mike Milbury everyone ....

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl-condemns-mike-milbury-insensitive-insulting-comment-1.5695564

 

dude needs to just go away ... 

[SwampD]

4 hours ago, Zamboni said:

Mike Milbury everyone ....

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl-condemns-mike-milbury-insensitive-insulting-comment-1.5695564

 

dude needs to just go away ... 

Not really sure why that’s insulting or insensitive.

Oh, I know why, cuz some of the players are gay,...

Gottit.

 

Not saying he doesn’t need to go away, though.

[LGR4GM]

24 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Not really sure why that’s insulting or insensitive.

Oh, I know why, cuz some of the players are gay,...

Gottit.

 

Not saying he doesn’t need to go away, though.

My advice to you would be to read some of the Women in hockey who have stated why it is offensive. 

[Wyldnwoody44]

Millbury has said and done a lot worse.

[SwampD]

23 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

My advice to you would be to read some of the Women in hockey who have stated why it is offensive. 

I find it offensive that some are so dismissive of all the straight players sexuality.

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I find it offensive that some are so dismissive of all the straight players sexuality.

... yea this isn't funny. I will tell you what, explain how his comment isn't offensive. Help me understand why saying that women are a distraction isn't offensive. 

[JohnC]

16 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

My advice to you would be to read some of the Women in hockey who have stated why it is offensive. 

Some women in hockey may find his comment offensive while some other women in hockey might not find it as offensive. A commentator makes a dumb or not very enlightened comment while calling a game and then quickly gets thrown off the broadcast. This trend for seeking justification to be morally outraged over a misplaced and badly tuned comment is getting tiresome. When one is in the talking business (as he is) with instant commentating then not everything one says is going to be smartly thought out and stated. The danger is in stifling thought and speech. 

Make no mistake what I'm saying here. This isn't a Don Cherry repeated neanderthal commentary or Thom Brennaman "*****" comment on a baseball broadcast. I'm tired of these quick draw relief of duties for an unintended and misguided comment.  

[Wyldnwoody44]

So we're saying women aren't a distraction for testosterone fueled 20 something year Olds who have millions of dollars. 

It wasn't classy, and it didn't have much couth, however, to say that the statement is 100% false would be a total lie. 

When I was in the military, a young testosterone fueled man, we had to separate men and women, especially during times of combat (in most situations), for exactly this reason. It's not sexist, it's simple DNA that we Chase beautiful women around at the expense of almost anything else in our youth. 

Millbury is still an idiot, but the offense that everyone takes over anything these days is getting just a bit out of hand 

 

[LGR4GM]

20 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Some women in hockey may find his comment offensive while some other women in hockey might not find it as offensive. A commentator makes a dumb or not very enlightened comment while calling a game and then quickly gets thrown off the broadcast. This trend for seeking justification to be morally outraged over a misplaced and badly tuned comment is getting tiresome. When one is in the talking business (as he is) with instant commentating then not everything one says is going to be smartly thought out and stated. The danger is in stifling thought and speech. 

Make no mistake what I'm saying here. This isn't a Don Cherry repeated neanderthal commentary or Thom Brennaman "*****" comment on a baseball broadcast. I'm tired of these quick draw relief of duties for an unintended and misguided comment.  

It isn't just one comment there is a pretty clear pattern: this if from 2011... https://theleafsnation.com/2011/12/16/the-problem-with-mike-milbury/

Quote

If anything, though, Milbury has worked hard at becoming more disliked by more people since moving into broadcasting. Whether he’s referring to the Russian national team has playing a “Eurotrash game,” talking about the “pansification” of hockey, referring to the Sedin twins as “Thelma and Louise,” analyzing about the Washington “Crapitals,” ridiculing Alex Semin as “a lazy, overpaid talent not worth the time,” threatening to send hockey players to beat up “meathead” Tiger “Wuss” Woods, talking about the German national team “getting peed on” by the Canadian squad or just defending his lackluster record as Islanders manager, he’s been nothing if not polarizing.

 

[LGR4GM]

I'll ask this before I close my computer. What did his comment add to that game? His job is to be a commentator on the game and in what way did he provide any insight into anything? His comment was misogynistic trash because he remembers his youth when he would chase women and can't possibly comprehend them as equals. When ppl show you who they are, believe them. 

"Not even any women here to distract your concentration" because apparently the only thing a women can do in hockey is distract a male hockey player. 

 

[IKnowPhysics]

31 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I find it offensive that some are so dismissive of all the straight players sexuality.

This is bad and you should feel bad.  There's no room for discrimination in the game or this message board.

Hurr durr muh straight rights isn't funny.  It's dog whistle language used by hateful ***** to gather others to oppress a marginalized group of people.  Know better.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

29 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I'll ask this before I close my computer. What did his comment add to that game? His job is to be a commentator on the game and in what way did he provide any insight into anything? His comment was misogynistic trash because he remembers his youth when he would chase women and can't possibly comprehend them as equals. When ppl show you who they are, believe them. 

"Not even any women here to distract your concentration" because apparently the only thing a women can do in hockey is distract a male hockey player. 

 

This guy needs to go away for good this time.  Terrible.

[Weave]

56 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Some women in hockey may find his comment offensive while some other women in hockey might not find it as offensive. A commentator makes a dumb or not very enlightened comment while calling a game and then quickly gets thrown off the broadcast. This trend for seeking justification to be morally outraged over a misplaced and badly tuned comment is getting tiresome. When one is in the talking business (as he is) with instant commentating then not everything one says is going to be smartly thought out and stated. The danger is in stifling thought and speech. 

Make no mistake what I'm saying here. This isn't a Don Cherry repeated neanderthal commentary or Thom Brennaman "*****" comment on a baseball broadcast. I'm tired of these quick draw relief of duties for an unintended and misguided comment.  

If I remember correctly, this was your stance with the Roenick comments too.  I think you have a blind spot.

Having said that, this certainly wasn't one of Milbury's worst comments on the air.  Is it deserving of backlash?  Probably.  Is it worthy of outrage?  Probably not.  It's one of his typical, juvenile, borderline comments he's made a career out of.

[dudacek]

Katie Strang answered why Milbury’s comments were offensive in an Athletic piece:

https://theathletic.com/2014223/2020/08/21/strang-do-we-honestly-have-no-better-options-than-mike-milbury/

”Think about how insulting and insidious those comments are. Does Milbury not understand how many women probably were integral in making sure this whole bubble hockey experiment works? From the league? The NHLPA? The NHL clubs? His own broadcast? There are women doing advance scouting and using data analysis to ensure their teams are prepared to play. There are women working to handle every logistical nightmare within this bizarre environment and every awkward Zoom press conference we see. There are likely women gathering, distilling and providing him with the very information he uses each broadcast!

And let’s not forget those who are sacrificing and doing the yeoman’s work outside the bubble, too. There are women who are balancing school and work while plagued by uncertainty about a partner who will be gone for an unknown length of time and incurring risks we probably have not even begun to understand. There are women who are supporting entire families on their own without a partner to help shoulder the exhausting work that entails, especially amid a global pandemic.

Women are not distractions. They are essential.

Milbury’s comments are insulting to players, too. Resorting to such lazy tropes about professional athletes is antiquated and unoriginal. It’s also not true. He’s making assumptions that his feelings about women are shared by those playing the game. My experience would suggest otherwise”

It was part of a piece that makes a bigger point: Do we honestly have no better options than Mike Milbury?

“This is not about “cancel culture.” This is about standards. Milbury has not evolved with the times and, perhaps most importantly, he hasn’t demonstrated a desire to do so. Instead, he seems like someone who either lacks the awareness to realize how many people he alienates on a nightly basis or realizes it and doesn’t care. Either should be disqualifying.

Are we honestly not better served by providing pathways and promoting people who draw more fans to the sport rather than putting them off?

I’m not asking for Milbury to provide a feeble apology, like the one he issued Friday claiming he was “trying to be irreverent” and “took it a step too far.” I’m not suggesting the appropriate type of discipline he should be assessed or whether he should keep his job. I’m simply asking to not have to hear this type of ***** anymore.

I prefer my hockey with a beer, some snacks and analysis that adds nuance and texture to a game.

What we heard Thursday was garbage. And it’s distracting.”

Apologies to the mods if I quoted too much of the article. There is more, and it is worth reading.

[Randall Flagg]

5 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

So we're saying women aren't a distraction for testosterone fueled 20 something year Olds who have millions of dollars. 

It wasn't classy, and it didn't have much couth, however, to say that the statement is 100% false would be a total lie. 

When I was in the military, a young testosterone fueled man, we had to separate men and women, especially during times of combat (in most situations), for exactly this reason. It's not sexist, it's simple DNA that we Chase beautiful women around at the expense of almost anything else in our youth. 

Millbury is still an idiot, but the offense that everyone takes over anything these days is getting just a bit out of hand 

 

Nature doesnt exist, humanity as we knew it for millenia has been properly scrubbed clean in a few short years and any acknowledgment of brutal truths this attempts to hide (poorly) will ruin your life, and the new zeitgeist of western elites, who became revolted when the proles gradually came around to their used-to-be-unique worldview, is what we will shoehorn everywhere now. The flimsiness of this grasp upon any serious inspection is exactly why we must scold and punish so severely, as it cannot stand on its own merit

Er, I mean, shut up bigot

Edited August 22, 2020 by Randall Flagg

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

1 hour ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

So we're saying women aren't a distraction for testosterone fueled 20 something year Olds who have millions of dollars. 

It wasn't classy, and it didn't have much couth, however, to say that the statement is 100% false would be a total lie. 

When I was in the military, a young testosterone fueled man, we had to separate men and women, especially during times of combat (in most situations), for exactly this reason. It's not sexist, it's simple DNA that we Chase beautiful women around at the expense of almost anything else in our youth. 

Millbury is still an idiot, but the offense that everyone takes over anything these days is getting just a bit out of hand 

 

I give you credit for speaking out this way.

What he said is not nearly as offensive as what likely are the thoughts people have because of what he said and the fact they are not willing to admit it.

He made a very general statement that could likely be taken a 100 different ways but, people always seem to think the worst. And I'm not saying that he didn't mean it that way either. 

I'm Native-American and don't give one bean about the Redskins name for example.