Turnover, opening day last year vs this year

[dudacek]

Just now, Thorner said:

Really? I’m saying your use of  “track record of excellence” is poorly, wantonly applied, and to the wrong players 

Ah, I've found when people react unexpectedly it often is a result of poorly chosen words.

In this case, the phrase I used was "with excellence", not "of excellence". Easy to read over, or misinterpret even if read correctly.

i should have written "Johnson is the only departure who had any sort of track record of playing with excellent players on an excellent team."

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Ah, I've found when people react unexpectedly it often is a result of poorly chosen words.

In this case, the phrase I used was "with excellence", not "of excellence". Easy to read over, or misinterpret even if read correctly.

i should have written "Johnson is the only departure who had any sort of track record of playing with excellent players on an excellent team."

lol no, it was my mistake. You said “with” clear as day 

My entire post was responding based on that misreading 

send in the tar and feather (singular)

Edited October 2 by Thorner

[dudacek]

8 minutes ago, Thorner said:

Still, I disagree throughly with the subtext, the suggestion of your post, regardless of where you come down on it: no, I don’t think we benefit due to the “track record with excellence” of the players we brought in relative to the ones we sent out: it would be an incredibly small factor, if a factor at all, relative to the talent comp 

This I would tend to agree with.

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, dudacek said:

This I would tend to agree with.

At this point the only thing in thread i have an issue with is the counting of UPL as turnover. I think we’ll benefit from a lack of 3 headed monster should we choose to not apply one, and therefore there’s potential ground for improvement there (relative to our start last year) - but it seems to be counted for the sake of the hypothetical as a full season change based on the percentages used and that seems inaccurate to me. Not as inaccurate as my embarrassing reading comprehension, but nonetheless inaccurate  

Edited October 2 by Thorner

[French Collection]

16 minutes ago, Thorner said:

At this point the only thing in thread i have an issue with is the counting of UPL as turnover. I think we’ll benefit from a lack of 3 headed monster should we choose to not apply one, and therefore there’s potential ground for improvement there (relative to our start last year) - but it seems to be counted for the sake of the hypothetical as a full season change based on the percentages used and that seems inaccurate to me. Not as inaccurate as my embarrassing reading comprehension, but nonetheless inaccurate  

I can see KA telling Lindy that he is keeping 3 goalies because Levi is better than Reimer but he is scared to lose him to waivers.

I would prefer to have Levi start when UPL needs a break and have him play in Rochester as much as possible. Reimer can backup UPL and go on the long road trips to get the odd start.

[Thorner]

26 minutes ago, French Collection said:

I can see KA telling Lindy that he is keeping 3 goalies because Levi is better than Reimer but he is scared to lose him to waivers.

I would prefer to have Levi start when UPL needs a break and have him play in Rochester as much as possible. Reimer can backup UPL and go on the long road trips to get the odd start.

Pretty much agree. The issue will also sort itself out very quickly. Unless we have a really bad problem, or a really good problem 

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

I meant to say "Team", not league.

I will correct it/edit it, but at the moment for some reason I cannot edit that post?

Ah, best forechecker on the Sabres. Maybe. We weren't a forecheck team last year so hard to say. I suspect some of the new bottom 6 guys will fall into that category though. I hope. 

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, Thorner said:

2 teams spending the way we do have made the playoffs in the last decade. We are all incredible homers for saying they are 50/50 to make it. Logically it’s a bad prediction. If it turns out right, it’ll still have been a bad prediction. The only reasonable projection right now, talking gun to head, is for them to miss. Of course it is. We just choose to have hope because it’s sports and it doesn’t really matter

Well maybe, but there are a few new factors this year that could potentially create a large point increase and thus maybe put us in the running the way Detroit and Philly and Washington were last year.  Most likely though a lot of things have to go right for us and many things have to go badly for a few of last year's playoff teams. 

[Stoner]

Looking at it that way is pretty depressing.