Archie Lee Posted June 23 Report Posted June 23 (edited) 2 hours ago, Thorny said: Absurd take imo It’s not cynicism in this case, not close. It’s merely an objective reading of the actual results. What you are doing - sometimes people need to have a black light taken to this bs- is spin. It’s intelligent spin, but my gosh is it ever spin. Your argument doesn’t make sense because by the logic of the argument you could wilfully ice the youngest team in the league every year, by choice, and never have any expectations. Dunno about you but by and large I don’t think people are dim enough to fall for it, nor would the perception of the team be positive *Being a young team isn’t an excuse*. Going into year 4 and 5 of a rebuild with the youngest team in hockey is a tactical error. You don’t get to cut off your nose to spite your face and claim “patience!” The line is the line *regardless of strategy*. Young team, old team, combination of both, big, small, fast, slow: the history books are filled with centuries of data illustrating that no plan needs to take close to this long. I don’t think you understand the key point: being up and coming team after 5 years of “building” isn’t good. That’s an extremely, extremely poor league relative outcome and demonstrates inarguably poor aptitude: the exact opposite of the management team you’d want running the show even if we did eventually get in the playoffs in year 9 I apologize for the bare language but your argument is very bogus. This is primarily because it fails by the principles of its own detail: it doesn’t haven an internal logical consistency. How could you possibly claim a 90 point finish is proof of being up and coming when it would *literally* have us in the exact same spot as 2 years ago? We’ll have gone nowhere in those 2 years, proving that 90 with a young team isn’t proof of anything at all. Hockey watchers can see and understand this. Your point IS a hot take because it’s wrong - the perception of the sabres won’t be positive. This is the tact the rest of the non-prospect washed hockey world take, “oh really? Wake me up when you are in the playoffs.” No one cares about a team missing 5 straight years being framed as “up and coming”. They’ve all heard it before. WE need to wake up, put our big boy pants on, and measure results the way the rest of the league does I didn’t make any excuses for Adams, nor did I suggest that you or I or anyone should view the team as up and coming, nor did I state Adams should not be fired if we miss the playoffs. I only pointed out that it’s far from a sure thing that he will be fired if we do miss the playoffs and offered an opinion on why the person who makes the decision, Pegula, might see it different than us. Edited June 23 by Archie Lee 1
Thorner Posted June 23 Report Posted June 23 15 minutes ago, Archie Lee said: I didn’t make any excuses for Adams, nor did I suggest that you or I or anyone should view the team as up and coming, nor did I state Adams should not be fired if we miss the playoffs. I only pointed out that it’s far from a sure thing that he will be fired if we do miss the playoffs and offered an opinion on why the person who makes the decision, Pegula, might see it different than us. I agree with that. i took issue merely with your idea the perception of the team would by and large be “up and coming”. I don’t think so. Some will no doubt tout that but I really think our persona right now, until otherwise, is “that team that never makes the playoffs” 1
Weave Posted June 23 Report Posted June 23 46 minutes ago, Thorny said: “We like the versatility of our centre core.” Adams said. ”We believe in Peyton and what he brings to the table. To the room, the community. He epitomizes the work ethic of what it means to be a Buffalo Sabre.” Adams went on to say he sees even bigger things in Krebs’ future. “We didn't want to stifle his opportunity to develop into a 200 foot centre for our hockey club. We feel the addition of Nic (Dowd, acquired last week from the Capitals for a 2nd round draft pick, and a 5th in 2026) to our centre unit allows flexibility up and down the lineup. We are comfortable relying on both Peyton and Nic to help contribute offensively while also doing the little things right in the defensive end. We’re excited to get to work in training camp.” ”Any time you can add a player, really, a human being with the versatility of Nic Dowd, particularly without having to sacrifice any of your future, your prospect pipeline, you have to feel good about it.” Adams added that he spoke with teams about deals that included some of his more valued prospects, and was comfortable moving on from one or more to facilitate a trade, but in the end felt it was unnecessary because Dowd represented the best fit available. The worst part is, I read this whole damned thing with the voice of 3 kids in an overcoat in my head. 1
... Posted June 23 Report Posted June 23 1 hour ago, Thorny said: I never said stop doubling down, did I? I just pointed out that you took a super high degree of difficulty argument by taking the position Mitts had done “jack squat” If you take the L there and shift to “didn’t do enough”, you’d have a better fighting chance ill tko your argument rather that leave it staring at the ceiling Being unable to shift your stance is message board poison Oh, you're right. My bad. That's what I get for rage posting while distracted. I meant to say you "take the L" and Doohickie can take the "doubling down" and shove them up your derrières. For posterity and clarity: My stance is we did not lose a valuable enough asset in Mitts to keep referencing him as some lost talent. Mitts is not a good enough 2C for a playoff team that wants to go deep. I watched every Colorado game after he got traded and neither did he pass the eye test or are his playoff stats compelling enough to change my mind. Using a quote by anyone in an organization is laughable; and we have litigated that kind of evidence here countless times before. However, I understand there are people here with a crush on Mitts and don't like their boy being criticized. It is okay, you are welcome to your view. It is precious, though, how some view this place as some sort of intellectual arena where "ideas" win out over others by the sheer "weight" of their foundation and the conviction of those who typed them. "ill tko your argument" tee hee. Keep playing this imaginary game if it pleases you, it is very cute on certain people (but, not you, Thorny, if I'm being honest). Finally, to close the book, Mitts is quickly become O'Reilly the Lesser. Maybe people mentioning Mitts will get temp=bans, too. 1 1
Thorner Posted June 23 Report Posted June 23 13 minutes ago, ... said: Oh, you're right. My bad. That's what I get for rage posting while distracted. I meant to say you "take the L" and Doohickie can take the "doubling down" and shove them up your derrières. For posterity and clarity: My stance is we did not lose a valuable enough asset in Mitts to keep referencing him as some lost talent. Mitts is not a good enough 2C for a playoff team that wants to go deep. I watched every Colorado game after he got traded and neither did he pass the eye test or are his playoff stats compelling enough to change my mind. Using a quote by anyone in an organization is laughable; and we have litigated that kind of evidence here countless times before. However, I understand there are people here with a crush on Mitts and don't like their boy being criticized. It is okay, you are welcome to your view. It is precious, though, how some view this place as some sort of intellectual arena where "ideas" win out over others by the sheer "weight" of their foundation and the conviction of those who typed them. "ill tko your argument" tee hee. Keep playing this imaginary game if it pleases you, it is very cute on certain people (but, not you, Thorny, if I'm being honest). Finally, to close the book, Mitts is quickly become O'Reilly the Lesser. Maybe people mentioning Mitts will get temp=bans, too. Sorry, I’m not reading all that. I’m happy for you though! or sorry that happened 1
Brawndo Posted June 23 Report Posted June 23 2 hours ago, Thorny said: Also, I make an effort to be a person online, be honest, not hide behind a faceless avatar, so I take your point on stuff like that. Here’s my Twitter account What do you think about Dowd He would probably slot in as the 3C. Very good defensive metrics, had the largest percentage of defensive zone starts for Washington last season. He is not an offensive dynamo He would be a very good addition as matchup center for Ruff.
freester Posted June 23 Report Posted June 23 29 minutes ago, Brawndo said: He would probably slot in as the 3C. Very good defensive metrics, had the largest percentage of defensive zone starts for Washington last season. He is not an offensive dynamo He would be a very good addition as matchup center for Ruff. He needs to be anchoring our 4th line 1
kas23 Posted June 24 Report Posted June 24 1 hour ago, freester said: He needs to be anchoring our 4th line And why are we trading for a 34 year-old, who looks like he has never played a full NHL season. Is 2/3 of the season good enough?
PerreaultForever Posted June 24 Report Posted June 24 4 hours ago, Thorny said: ”We believe in Peyton and what he brings to the table. To the room, the community. He epitomizes the work ethic of what it means to be a Buffalo Sabre.” This is a super odd sentence. I'd be okay with it if he'd said "he epitomizes what we want it to mean to be a Buffalo Sabre" but the idea that there's already a work ethic in place and that being a Buffalo Sabre has any meaning at all is questionable at best. 1
Thorner Posted June 24 Report Posted June 24 1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said: This is a super odd sentence. I'd be okay with it if he'd said "he epitomizes what we want it to mean to be a Buffalo Sabre" but the idea that there's already a work ethic in place and that being a Buffalo Sabre has any meaning at all is questionable at best. Isn’t that what makes the sentence on-point? You understand this was satire on my part, right? Lol
PerreaultForever Posted June 24 Report Posted June 24 29 minutes ago, Thorny said: Isn’t that what makes the sentence on-point? You understand this was satire on my part, right? Lol So it's not a quote? You really can't expect me to pay enough attention to notice satire during the off season do you? If you do, you'll be disappointed. 1
MISabresFan Posted June 24 Report Posted June 24 9 mill for a future 20 goal scorer is alot of money, on the backside of his career. Maybe worth half of that. Call Beane and rework that contract.
MISabresFan Posted June 24 Report Posted June 24 On 6/18/2024 at 2:10 PM, ... said: The reason you're hearing about this is to force Skinner to accept a trade. If he gets bought out then he has to deal with that shame and its stench follows him around the rest of his career and beyond. If he allows a trade, he gets a chance to play out a contract honorably, possibly on a team that only expects him to be Jeff Skinner as opposed to a player that he is not. It would be perfectly acceptable for it to be a complex trade for a piece that seems questionable on the surface, but might have the qualities Ruff and Addymns think could be transformed into something useful. So, like salary retention on our end, a late round pick going their way, another late round pick coming our way with, of course, the mystery player. LOL, Skinner worried about the stench - rumors. who gives a poop, he played in Buffalo for cry'n out loud! 1
Doohicksie Posted June 24 Report Posted June 24 15 hours ago, Thorny said: I never said stop doubling down, did I? No, that was me. And while @...'s opinion on Mitts is rubbish, he's right there: I shouldn't have taken it to ad hominem.
Buffalonill Posted June 24 Report Posted June 24 2 hours ago, MISabresFan said: 9 mill for a future 20 goal scorer is alot of money, on the backside of his career. Maybe worth half of that. Call Beane and rework that contract. Wish the NHL could do this but I don't think they will ever 1
Buffalonill Posted June 24 Report Posted June 24 On 6/18/2024 at 1:10 PM, ... said: The reason you're hearing about this is to force Skinner to accept a trade. If he gets bought out then he has to deal with that shame and its stench follows him around the rest of his career and beyond. If he allows a trade, he gets a chance to play out a contract honorably, possibly on a team that only expects him to be Jeff Skinner as opposed to a player that he is not. It would be perfectly acceptable for it to be a complex trade for a piece that seems questionable on the surface, but might have the qualities Ruff and Addymns think could be transformed into something useful. So, like salary retention on our end, a late round pick going their way, another late round pick coming our way with, of course, the mystery player. Lots of players get bought and go to different teams . He gets free money for doing nothing I'm sure he will be upset
Scottysabres Posted June 26 Report Posted June 26 Just now, LGR4GM said: Ya, looks like the movement will start this week.
WhenWillItEnd66 Posted June 26 Report Posted June 26 As long as their is a replacement for the goals that he brings, i do not care, not my money they are spending. Bring in someone that can score and play defense and it is an instant upgrade. There goes my last active player jersey though! LOL 2
thewookie1 Posted June 26 Report Posted June 26 5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said: Pisses me off because he'll go sign in Toronto and score 35 goals
Recommended Posts