4 Nations Face-Off

[K-9]

25 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Oh no it was awful, as was Paul Simon opening. I get the nostalgia but sometimes you need to recognize when it's over. It's long past over. 

What I found weird was Miley Cyrus singing a Sinead O'Connor song. Wasn't O'Connor banned from SNL for ripping up the picture of the pope? So was that a oops sorry to her memory or something? Seemed like an odd choice. 

I give him full credit for even having the courage to get out there in the first place. Same with Simon. Their appearances were solely for nostalgia’s sake as both had made multiple appearances on SNL and were part of its fabric. It’s unfortunate you lack the objectivity to appreciate the performance for what it was. 

The Sinead O’Connor song was another nod to SNL history as Sinead had the most controversial performance ever when she tore up the pope’s picture on live, national TV. She was ostracized and took a major hit for it, but she persevered throughout. And she ended up being 100% correct about the countless child abuses around the world by members of the catholic clergy. 

[Indabuff]

USA

[Broken Ankles]

35 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Oh no it was awful, as was Paul Simon opening. I get the nostalgia but sometimes you need to recognize when it's over. It's long past over. 

What I found weird was Miley Cyrus singing a Sinead O'Connor song. Wasn't O'Connor banned from SNL for ripping up the picture of the pope? So was that a oops sorry to her memory or something? Seemed like an odd choice. 

  I think it was a mea culpa, and agree it was odd.  I also think Miley’s covers (she did one Friday night at Radio City) were below average. As was Jellyroll covering Cash.  Weak sauce.  Whereas Eddie Vedders cover of Tom Petty was tight.  He can still bring it.  Of course he’s not an octogenarian like Sir Paul or Simon. 

[Indabuff]

[shrader]

27 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

  I think it was a mea culpa, and agree it was odd.  I also think Miley’s covers (she did one Friday night at Radio City) were below average. As was Jellyroll covering Cash.  Weak sauce.  Whereas Eddie Vedders cover of Tom Petty was tight.  He can still bring it.  Of course he’s not an octogenarian like Sir Paul or Simon. 

Did Vedder do I won’t back down? They have played that a lot since Petty died. 

[Indabuff]

I liked that PP camera angle

[Pimlach]

Just tuned into the US v SWE.   What happened to Brady Tkachuk?

[7+6=13]

5 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Just tuned into the US v SWE.   What happened to Brady Tkachuk?

I think he got hurt.  Rushing to the net.

[7+6=13]

On 2/16/2025 at 4:00 PM, PerreaultForever said:

This can't be true. It would mean every single possible piece had a NTC with Buffalo on it. The problem is the will and the courage to make the big moves needed. 

First off, spending to the cap. Not doing that when all your competition is doing that is an instant kick in the teeth to fans. The second is getting the players. It can be done. Adams has a massive amount of trade capital in picks and prospects. The problem is he wants to win trades and he has to be willing to overpay to get what he needs for a while and then when we make the playoffs we can get back to winning trades. You can get what you need if you really want it. Make them the offer they can't refuse. 

I think the overwhelming majority of  players that have a NTC, have Buffalo on it. 

Spending to the cap makes very little sense to me.  That depicts that we are the type of players we could sign / because they would sign with us in free agency away and I don't think that's close to true.

[Broken Ankles]

1 hour ago, shrader said:

Did Vedder do I won’t back down? They have played that a lot since Petty died. 

No he played “The Waiting”.  In the middle of the song he paid tribute to the SNL cast members who have passed. Starting with Gilda.  Moving effort.  

[bob_sauve28]

Come on, hold on! 

[Indabuff]

[bob_sauve28]

Nice!!! 

[Indabuff]

***** YOU DAHLIN!!!  

Wait, I didn't mean that. 

[PromoTheRobot]

52 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

I think the overwhelming majority of  players that have a NTC, have Buffalo on it. 

Spending to the cap makes very little sense to me.  That depicts that we are the type of players we could sign / because they would sign with us in free agency away and I don't think that's close to true.

This whole "spend to the cap" is a red herring. Sure, in a perfect world you find players you want and pay them. We made offers to Ehlers and Necas. Both said "no thanks." So do we run out and spend the cap on anyone willing to play here just to make a point?

[7+6=13]

12 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

This whole "spend to the cap" is a red herring. Sure, in a perfect world you find players you want and pay them. We made offers to Ehlers and Necas. Both said "no thanks." So do we run out and spend the cap on anyone willing to play here just to make a point?

I understand how fans can feel insulted that we aren't spending to the cap.  However, I don't want a Kyle Okposo signing just for the perception.  Then that player becomes a hindrance. Kyle's money hurt us.  I'd rather Terry saves the money and only spends when actual opportunity knocks.  

[PromoTheRobot]

5 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

I understand how fans can feel insulted that we aren't spending to the cap.  However, I don't want a Kyle Okposo signing just for the perception.  Then that player becomes a hindrance. Kyle's money hurt us.  I'd rather Terry saves the money and only spends when actual opportunity knocks.  

There's no escaping we are a hard case in the NHL. There is no magic spell that will change things overnight.

[Archie Lee]

3 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

I understand how fans can feel insulted that we aren't spending to the cap.  However, I don't want a Kyle Okposo signing just for the perception.  Then that player becomes a hindrance. Kyle's money hurt us.  I'd rather Terry saves the money and only spends when actual opportunity knocks.  

Spending more money and wisely would be  best. Unfortunately, we do neither. We leave millions unused and the money we do spend we often waste. We are spending $10-12 million more against the cap than Calgary and Columbus and we are trailing both by 11 points. I think you are right, our GM has done such a poor job spending the money available to him, it may well be foolish to give him authority to spend more. 

[7+6=13]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

Spending more money and wisely would be  best. Unfortunately, we do neither. We leave millions unused and the money we do spend we often waste. We are spending $10-12 million more against the cap than Calgary and Columbus and we are trailing both by 11 points. I think you are right, our GM has done such a poor job spending the money available to him, it may well be foolish to give him authority to spend more. 

We can't spend wisely.  Not on the type of players we need.  We don't have near enough draft capital to trade for them and the rest restrict us trading for them.  

We're a team ready for the Reinhart and Eichel draft years now.  Then we'd be good.  

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, K-9 said:

I give him full credit for even having the courage to get out there in the first place. Same with Simon. Their appearances were solely for nostalgia’s sake as both had made multiple appearances on SNL and were part of its fabric. It’s unfortunate you lack the objectivity to appreciate the performance for what it was. 

The Sinead O’Connor song was another nod to SNL history as Sinead had the most controversial performance ever when she tore up the pope’s picture on live, national TV. She was ostracized and took a major hit for it, but she persevered throughout. And she ended up being 100% correct about the countless child abuses around the world by members of the catholic clergy. 

Seriously? I "lack the objectivity" ? I would think anyone who thinks that McCartney performance was good would be lacking in objectivity. You do understand what the word means don't you? 

As for the Sinead song that's what I'm asking. SNL banned her and she had repercussions from it. So does this performance say they were wrong or right that's what I was wondering. I know the history. I saw it when it aired. 

I mean it's not like they had someone roll around on the ground singing "With A Little Help From My Friends". Now that was SNL history. 

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

I think the overwhelming majority of  players that have a NTC, have Buffalo on it. 

Spending to the cap makes very little sense to me.  That depicts that we are the type of players we could sign / because they would sign with us in free agency away and I don't think that's close to true.

RFAs and other players in the first half of their careers generally do not have NTC clauses. It's only the older guys who have earned them or demanded them as a condition of signing. Those are the guys you should be able to trade for if you are willing to make solid offers. 

I don't follow what you're saying on spending to the cap. If you are spending less than the other guy chances are you will have less. You shoot yourself in the foot before you even start. 

[7+6=13]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

RFAs and other players in the first half of their careers generally do not have NTC clauses. It's only the older guys who have earned them or demanded them as a condition of signing. Those are the guys you should be able to trade for if you are willing to make solid offers. 

I don't follow what you're saying on spending to the cap. If you are spending less than the other guy chances are you will have less. You shoot yourself in the foot before you even start. 

I agree.  I'm saying those RFA's worth a crap aren't coming to Buffalo.  Unless you find a nice guy like Okposo that you over pay and offer an opportunity to be something no other team would offer, because he isn't good enough to be offered that there.  They might come.  I don't want that.

Maybe a better way for me to explain my opinion is, I don't think we're a 2nd line center, a RHD, and a tougher guy away from anything significant.  We're bereft of top NHL talent.  IMO, we have the rest.

[Pimlach]

7 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

There's no escaping we are a hard case in the NHL. There is no magic spell that will change things overnight.

What has to happen is not magic.  The “young core” has to stop believing that they are too young to win and start winning.  Things like 13 losses in a row can’t happen.  Players like Dahlin and Thompson have to put the team on their backs.   Leadership and hating to loose has to emerge.   Start winning and players will think differently about coming here. 

[Ctaeth]

 

6 shots against in almost 60 minutes toi 5v5 for jokiharju.  Pretty ridiculous stat considering who the competition was at this tournament 

[K-9]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Seriously? I "lack the objectivity" ? I would think anyone who thinks that McCartney performance was good would be lacking in objectivity. You do understand what the word means don't you? 

As for the Sinead song that's what I'm asking. SNL banned her and she had repercussions from it. So does this performance say they were wrong or right that's what I was wondering. I know the history. I saw it when it aired. 

I mean it's not like they had someone roll around on the ground singing "With A Little Help From My Friends". Now that was SNL history. 

I didn’t say it was “good”, I said I appreciated it for what it was; a tip of the hat and a show of respect for an iconic performer who is a part of the SNL fabric. You viewed it thru a strictly binary, good or bad lens. Lack of objectivity often prevents us from seeing the bigger picture. It happens. Do you understand what the word means in this context? 

If you saw the original Sinead O’Connor performance that got her banned and ostracized for tearing up the pope’s picture, then it should be readily apparent as to why SNL chose to have that song performed. What SNL was saying is up to Lorne Michaels and others to explain definitively, but I saw it as a huge apology and admittance that they got it wrong 30 some odd years ago.