JohnC

After 10 crown royals you are more likely to stagger and fall and be trampled by the more sober fans storming the field.

The below link is a WGR interview with Harvard beat reporter discussing Vesey. It is an 11 minute interview. http://media.wgr550.com/a/115839243/07-02-interview-w-harvard-men-s-hockey-beat-reporter-jake-meagher.htm

She wanted to iron out their differences.

With the signing of Okposo I am jubilant. If we sign Vesey I would be jubilant and ebullient.

A player whose name has been mentioned on WGR (speculation game) is Vanek. He is one of the most talented players at re-directing pucks around the net. As a second line forward on the power play unit that skill set would be an asset. I agree with you that Okposo would be an excellent fallback position for the Stamkos failed pursuit. What will bolster this team, maybe even more than new additions, is internal improvement and luck. Can Ennis regain his form and find linemates who are a good fit for him? Foligno periodically makes scintillating plays but can he smooth out his game and consistently play at a high level? Zemgus is more of a third line center (as you noted) but playing with better playmakers he should/could be more productive. You unintentionally bring up an intriguing issue? Should Rheinhart be on a line with O'Reilly or Eichel? If Vesey is added to the roster I will consider this offseason a big success. You are raising my expectations. If this acquisition doesn't materialize I will hold you accountable for my personal deflation! It's amazing how so many people make judgments on assumptions without regard to the actual facts. The moralists are more than willing to condemn people for something that they think has happened when in reality they don't know what actually happened. Letting the process run its course is not only a cliche but it is also the right thing to do.

There is still a lot of wheeling and dealing to do prior to the season. Can the Sabres sign Vesey? Is Osposo a reasonable option as a scorer? Would a a trade of Pysyk and Bogosian for Hall been a good deal for us or would it have created more holes to address? Is Murray going to keep Ennis and is he going to regain his scoring touch or is he simply currency for Murray to trade? Sometimes being patient and organically growing is better than getting impatient and forcing the issue on deals that in the short run appear to be appealing but in the long run set you back. Below is a WGR link of an interview with Kypreos discussing some deals. He offers a cautionary note on dealing for Osposo. http://media.wgr550.com/a/115815040/nick-kypreos-talks-subban-hall-and-stamkos.htm

I was commenting in on how to assess trades from a general perspective rather than from a specific perspective. I absolutely agree with you that Jersey got the better talent and got the better of the deal. Hall is a tremendous talent. My problem with the deal for Edmonton is not trading a good player so much as it is could they have gotten more for this high end talent? It's still early in the trade market so the follow-up deals certainly can buttress the prior deals. Edmonton is trying to remake and re-balance their roster on the defensive side of the game. So even if they got less in return from Jersey the deal still can make sense because with their abundance of offensive talent and an increase in defensive proficiency they can become a better team, even with the departure of a better player and the arrival of a lesser player.

As I said in a prior post the issue isn't who gets the better of the deal as it is does the deal make your team better. Edmonton just traded a talented young forward, Hall, for a good young defenseman, Larsson. From a talent standpoint most people would say that Hall was better than Larsson. But that wasn't the basis of the deal. Edmonton had an excess of forwards and a lack of defensemen. The opposite situation existed in Jersey, where they had a lack of scoring and less of a need for defense. So what the deal did for each team is balance out the roster. The same dynamic exits in the Buffalo trade with Florida. The Sabres needed a left handed shooting defenseman to possibly pair with Risto and the Panthers wanted a player who was a better fit for their analytical approach to the game. One way of looking at it is that it is a puzzle that requires a lot of shuffling to get the right pieces for the right location.

The risk of a Russian prospect staying in Russia and playing in the KHL is exaggerated. There is nothing wrong or damaging to the drafting team if the prospect stays a few years in the homeland. That isn't wasted time; it is the time used for development. If you drafted a player who is 18 yrs old and he stays in Russia playing that isn't wasted time. He is still playing, physically, emotionally and socially maturing. So when you get him a few years later (the same time frame for other prospects who stay in North America) you get a more finished product and a player who is more prepared to play. Take Vesey for example. He stayed four years at Harvard. He didn't waste his hockey development time while he was in school and playing at the college level. Each year he got better as a player and more mature physically, and now is ready to step in right away. My primary point is simple: Wherever the player is still will be used for player development. Most of these draftees, except for the top draftees, take a few years before they are ready. Whatever approach the player decides you still have to wait for the young player to develop into a man capable of playing at the NHL level. The Russian fear is much more diminished than it previously was.

It is difficult to get an exact reading of what the stats actually reflect because as you noted who you are on the ice with and when are factos. But the stats are broken down into great detail. The stats do indicate that when on the ice with Eichel, one of our best scorers, Eichel's numbers do go up. The bottom line in assessing Pysyk is that his plus/minus numbers are very good. It is very challenging to assess a trade until much later down the line. With the trade of Pysyk the Sabres moved up in the second round and drafted a player they felt was a first round value. It will be a couple or few years before we know how good he can be. In addition, I get the impression that the GM wants his defensemen to be bangers. That's certainly not the departed player's game. As Murray has repeatedly stated after making deals when trading for talent you have to give up talent. It's not about hustling anyone. It's about making deals that make your roster more balanced and better.

There are a couple of measurable that favor Pysyk when he is on the ice. Puck possession is one measurable but the critical measures are the plus/minus differentials when he is on the ice with the grouping he is playing with. The stats clearly indicate that Eichel's numbers are better when Pysyk is on the ice with him than when other defensemen are. What makes Pysyk's analytical numbers even more impressive is that he is not usually paired with the better defensemen on the team. When watching the games it may not be apparent to most because he is not a banger but he is one of the most efficient defensemen on the team in moving the puck out of the defensive zone to the forwards into the offensive zone. The below link is an analysis of the trade by Mathew Coller of WGR. http://www.wgr550.com/The-many-angles-of-the-Pysyk-for-Kulikov-trade/22791936

Although Stamkos is an elite scorer I don't particularly want him at the price he will garner, and more importantly (to me) the length of the contract that will overlap the time when Eichel and Reinhart's second deals will need to be negotiated. I would prefer to use the Stamkos money to get two or three good players and in general bolster the roster. I get the impression that Buffalo is going to push hard to sign Stamkos. It they get him under contract I won't complain. I would really love to sign Vesey. Even the cagey Murray is very candid about his desire to add him to the roster.

With respect to the GM's latest trade of Pysk for Kulikov what about it don't you like? He is a left handed shooting player that was needed to balance out the defense. There is a good chance that he will be paired with Risto. At the minimum he is a top four defenseman. I've always like Pysk because he is a very efficient player. For those who take an analytical approach to evaluating he is considered a darling. The bottom line is if you want a good player in a trade you have to give up a good player. When evaluating a deals the issue isn't so much how it helps the other team but it comes down to how the deals helps your team and balances out your own roster. From my perspective how the deals work out for the other teams is irrelevant. If your roster is bolstered then the deal is a good one. I also have doubts about on the Lehner trade. But it is still too early to make a conclusive judgment. He has had injuries that have stalled his development. If he becomes a #1 goalie it will turn out to be a good deal, if not it won't. Any GM who is very active is going to have misses. That isn't how you make a fair judgment. Over the past couple of seasons he has significantly turned the roster over and moved this team up the ranks to the point where next year they should be in the playoffs. and in a couple of more years they should be a serious team. The trading market is at a very early stage. There are still deals to be made. I'm very interested in the Vesey pursuit and we are still in contention for Stamkos. So there is a lot potential activity before a reasonable judgment can be made on Murray this offseason.

Nashville wanted to add him to the roster for the playoffs. They were deeply disappointed (to the point of being resentful) when they couldn't get him to sign a deal. As you stated there are no guarantees that a top tier college player will make the transition to NHL caliber of play. But from a number of comments I have read and heard the Sabres believe that if signed he would be playing as a forward on one of the two top lines. We are not the only team seriously interested in signing him. The Bruins, Maple Leafs, Detroit and other teams have an interest in signing him. So that tells you that the consensus is that he is going to be a productive forward in this league. A number of hockey scouts and analysts have been on WGR talking about prospects. When asked how Vessy would rate in this draft year the invariable answer is that he would be near the top of this draft. Also, Terry Murray is reluctant to be specific in talking about prospects. He was very candid when he said that he wanted to get him on his roster. That's enough of an endorsement for me.

I certainly would. Sometimes a change of scenery and listening to different voices breathes new life into a floundering player. In hockey, as in all team sports, it's not so much how talented you are as an individual as it is how you play with your teammates. A lot of talented prospects have a difficult time adjusting their scintillating individual style of play into responsible two way hockey that is required in the NHL. If you are going to take a risk on a player take it for a player who is talented. If it doesn't work at least you tried.

The person who brought the money holds the mic! I agree with you that although he is not very polished he seems to enjoy doing it. Terry B might appear to be shy and reserved in front of the mic but billionaires who started from scratch have very big egos even when it is not noticed by outsiders. Even more than the blustery types it is the quiet guys you don't cross.

Terry P certainly isn't glib. But what he does do is answer the questions. When asked questions regarding the stadium situation I get the sense that what he was saying was exactly where he was at on that issue. He doesn't dance around tough questions, he responds to them. The responses are in a simple form but they are truthful and unvarnished. There was a comment he made about Ralph Wilson. He essentially said that at the last stages of his life he was inattentive to his franchise. He wasn't bashing him and he was respective how he said it but the point he was making that his first task at hand was in modernizing the organizational structure. I agree with you (and so would he) that his speech lacks pleasing dulcet tones. But if you want unvarnished information from the most credible source he is the person you should lend your ear to. Or would you rather listen to Rex, the master of verbosity, that gives you nothing but bull shiiiiit?

Terry Pegula is not the most polished speaker or engaging person to interview. His responses are very sparse. But don't be fooled by the paucity of words in his responses. What he does do is answer the questions posed to him. There are owners like Jerry Jones who are self-promoters and are more known for their bluster and their attraction to the spotlight. Terry P certainly doesn't fall in that category. What I got out of that interview is that Terry Pegula hires people to run his teams and for the most part doesn't interfere. That doesn't mean he doesn't know what is going on and lacks interest. What he does is empower those who are in charge and then holds them accountable. The most memorable response in the interview is when Shoop asked about some of the free agent transactions that didn't work out when he first took over the hockey team. His response was simply: If you don't make mistakes then you are not trying. Buffalo is very fortunate to have him as an owner in hockey and football.

His father killed his mother and was convicted. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921030&slug=1521769

I'm glad your son seems to be doing well. Just curious (You don't have to answer if you don't want to) but what are some of the triggering foods that cause problems? I know it can vary with each individuals. Also, what types of high caloric foods seem to prevent or calm episodes of the stomach acting up? Again, I'm not trying to pry but am curious.

It's obvious to all that I have little regard for Rex as a coach. However, he does excel in front of the cameras and speaking at the podium. Even when he loses he handles himself very professionally when facing the media. He has a large personality and he is glib. Without a doubt he knows the game and can with ease articulate his views on the game. When his coaching career is over he will shine as a member of the media and as a football analyst. My frustration boils over when I see Rex as the HC knowing that with him at the helm we are not going to accomplish much. It's like having Fitz as your qb. There are episodes of success but when all is said and done you are not going to accomplish anything meaningful with him as your starting qb. Over the past couple of years under Whaley our team was making progress with adding talent to the roster and the team was steadily moving up the rankings. I strongly believe that last year we should have been in the playoffs as a wildcard team. The takeaway from last year is that coaching matters. The year in which Marrone was hired Ariens was available as a HC. Last year Hue Jackson was available as a HC. Roman also would have been a credible hire. Instead the owners selected someone with an engaging personality with a mediocre record. Whatever happened to the concept of due diligence????? When you make your football decisions from a marketing perspective you end up getting a coach who makes sure the film is running when he jumps out of an airplane and rides a tandem bike with his corpulent brother. It's a lame and tiresome act that the organization created for itself.

When there is a discussion about Rex it mostly revolves around his antics and his comments. What you don't hear are comments describing the smart job he did coaching his team or how disciplined his team is. Rex's record in NY was less than .500. The longer he coached his team the more it steadily descended, culminating in a four win season. The reflexive response for the Rex devotees is that his failures are always due to others, players, GMs and coaches. Another example of his talent to deflect accountability for his failures onto others. Mario blatantly quits on the team to express his displeasure with his role. What does the tough talking coach do? He keeps him on the field and then criticizes the player after he is gone. Is that leadership? Rex jumps out of a plane when the camera rolls. Rex rides a tandem bike with his elephant sized brother when the cameras are rolling knowing that this bizarre behavior will be exposed on the market. The reality is that Rex is more known for his antics and thoughtless comments than he is for his coaching competency. Some words never associated with Rex is maturity and thoughtfulness. Rex is a marvel garnering attention for himself but he is a dud as a coach. Anyone who disagrees with this assessment should check his record. Making noise isn't a measure of success in the coaching ranks. He's an embarrassment that we are currently stuck with. He is a testament to the proposition that marketing people should have no input in football decisions.

The attached Buffalo News link is a story about Mike Robataille and his lawsuit against the NHL. It is a graphic description of the brutality associated with the old time game and the lack of medical attential and medical malpractice that injured players endured. It is a gruesome portrayal of hockey during Mike's era. At least now the league is trying to make the game safer and be more responsible in the way they players are treated. http://sabres.buffalonews.com/2016/06/17/former-sabre-mike-robitaille-and-103-other-former-hockey-players-sue-nhl/

His responses were the typical cliche responses that all coaches give in interviews at this early stage of preparation What did you want him to say that things look gloomy and this team doesn't stand a chance? As you know I'm a critic of the talkative coach. But manufacturing issues from something that all coaches not only do, but are expected to do in these interview settings, is stretching it a bit and is unfair. You will have plenty of opportunities to question Rex's judgment, but this isn't a good time to do so.

That's like the captain of the Titanic saying other than hitting an iceberg what other mistake did I make? That's like a parachutist rapidly descending in the air saying this is only the first time out of thousands of jumps that I forgot to pack a parachute. That's like saying in a stage play in which you shoot your counterpart that I won't again make the mistake of using my personal sig-saur automatic instead of the prop. The understudy has nothing to worry about working with me. That's like saying I thought the alligator I was petting was a fake alligator. Now I have only one arm. That's like saying just because I told you that Bernie Madoff was a financial wizard I didn't expect you to invest all of your life savings with him. No big deal. Stop crying like a baby Just start over. So what if you are 65 yrs old! You still have plenty time to recoup the lost money. That's like saying I really thought that this televangilist was speaking for god when I signed over the deed to my house to him to guarantee me a place in heaven. When you make a whopper you make a whopper. Just to let you know I thought Trent Edwards and Losman were going to be good qbs. I also thought that Tom Donahoe was going to rescue this flagging franchise. I also thought it was an impossibility for Donald Trump to get the republican nomination. I thought that those people who accused Lance Armstrong of using drugs were just disgruntled.