THN Yearbook: Sabres 11th in the East

Quite an exciting day to get the mail and get my copy of the annual yearbook from The Hockey News. I totally recommend it for anybody (full disclosure: I'm not on their payroll but our intrepid John Vogl is their Buffalo correspondent and does his usual outstanding job).

Be sure to check out their conference predictions on Page 64. They pick Detroit to win the Stanley Cup again. No biggie. But the game's premier publication has the Sabres 11th -- yes, 11th -- in the East. At this point in the summer, I'm still on the fence about the Sabres as a playoff team but I doubt they're going to get worse either.

Ryan Miller, Toni Lydman and Henrik Tallinder all have to be better than they were last year, don't they? Craig Rivet will help and so will small doses of Teppo Numminen. Roy-Vanek-Pominville strike me as three pretty darn good forwards. And the young players (think Sekera, Weber, Gerbe) show some promise.

Here's the mag's predictions. It's still August, nearly two months before the puck drops in HSBC Arena on Oct. 10, but what do you think about these?

---Mike Harrington

THN's East                 THN's West

1. Montreal                 1. Detroit

2. Pittsburgh              2. San Jose

3. Washington          3. Minnesota

4. Philadelphia          4. Dallas

5. Ottawa                     5. Anaheim

6. Rangers                  6. Edmonton

7. New Jersey             7. Chicago

8. Carolina                  8. Calgary

9. Tampa Bay             9. Nashville

10. Boston                 10. Phoenix

11. Buffalo                11. Vancouver

12. Florida                 12. Columbus

13. Atlanta                 13. Los Angeles

14. Toronto                14. Colorado

15. Islanders             15. St. Louis

Comments

[Buffalo Excuses]

Chad,

Waiting (TO DEAFENING SILENCE) for your retort...

Lindy says all we need is to get lucky and have guys mature...

ROFLMFAO!!!!

I can hear the Groundhog strumming his guitar out by the trough of despair...

We're Number 12!

We're Number 12!

We're Number 12!

We're Number 12!

We're Number 12!

[Buffalo Excuses]

Sure to be completely annoying, and SHOCKINGLY accurate, I will REPOST some of my favorites from the last year:

This is the heart of my post from when TSN picked us to end up 11th last year. Most Excuses fans riled that we were under rated. Well, I guess 10th is better than 11th.

"Hmmmm....Pittsburgh in 2nd, Philly in 4th...weren't they supposed to collapse!?! Detroit winning it all??? I thought you COULDN'T buy a cup!?! I know, I know, its just a prediction.

While I think The Excuses are too low, it is interesting to say the least that an objective observer would have them so low.

Heather, I think at this time of year, all fans, in all sports, try to see their team with rose colored glasses. There is always a way to have optimism, if they do this, and this, and this, and this.....Hellooooo Stanley Cup! Woohooo!!!!....NEWMAN!

Objective observers say, uhhh, that aint gonna happen (afinigenov returning to form), and THAT certainly aint gonna happen (Connelly making it through season) , and there is no way in he!! that THAT is going to happen (signing someone at trade deadline). So, the objective observer giggles, shakes his head, mutters somthing about the best laid schemes and the audacity of hope...and WE WIND UP IN 11th!"

BTW, it is even MORE hilarious how Philly, Detroit and Pittsburgh wound up after Chad AND Darcy predicted their decline...

[Charlie]

buffalonews.typepad.com to GoogleReader! Charlie

[ElmaGolf]

Dave H - I'll start with what we agree on - Boston / Styx / .38 Special and even Foreigner can still put on quite a show. There are certainly some good bands out there now - I just don't have the time to keep up with the new stuff.

As for your "Too Many IFs" statements, I agree that there are certainly quite a few "IFs" there.

What I find surprising is that you seem to assume that ALL (or even most) of those things have to come true for the Sabres to make the Playoffs.

NONE of those things happened last year, and the Sabres missed the playoffs by only 3 points.

Just turning one or two of those items would have been the difference.

The one big "IF" that you didn't mention was "IF" the Sabres can avoid the repeat of having 2 streaks of 0 wins in 10 games and 4 in 13, they'll be in much better shape. They went "on tilt" for 2 prolonged stretches last year - is that likely to repeat this year?

Look, I can't say with any great certainty that the Sabres will contend for the Cup, just like you can't say with any certainty that they'll finish in 10th agaiin. I just don't think it's far fetched to think they can close the gap this year.

In a way, when you make a lengthy list of things that "need to go better" this year, I think you're trying to show how "far fetched" it is for the Sabres to become a Playoff Contender.

But you end up having just the opposite effect. When all those things were missing last year, and they still came close, it tells me that their chances of making the Playoffs are even that much better this year.

Say the Sabres had only 3 things "below par" last year, they would need 2 of the 3 to improve this year (66% hit ratio).

But you listed like 8 things that were missing last year. If they get only 2 out of 8 to be better, they've closed the gap (i.e. thyy don't need 8 of 8 things to turn around).

But, having said all that, I realize there will be unforseen new "IFs" and issues to deal with which could go either way - I'm just excited to see how this team comes together this year after the "pre-rally decline" they had last year.

[goal10der44]

Dave H.

Every team has "If's". Even the defending champion Red Wings:

If Chris Osgood plays as well as he did last year and through the playoffs without Hasek as his backup.

Speaking of backups, the Wings signed Ty Conklin, who practically saved Pittsburgh's season with his performance while Fleury was out for 2 months, so IF he can play up to his level of last season (I doubt it).

If Pavel Datsyuk or Henrik Zetterberg don't sustain a long term injury.

If Chris Chelios doesn't die on the ice of old-age.

If their youngsters continue to develop like they did last year and not regress (Filppula, Clearly, Hudler, Kronwall, Lebda, etc...)

If Brad Stuart plays like he did after the Wings acquired him or if he goes back to the way he played in LA/Calgary/Boston/SJ

If Tomas Holmstrom continues to be a beast in front of the net, but doesn't get blasted in the face by a slapshot

Shall I go on?

It's clear you're on the fringe of lunacy if you think Atlanta has a better team than Tampa and the Rangers are most definitely not in decline, though I might put them at mildy stagnant.

You're severly underestimating the talent on the Sabres and apparently, aren't even keeping up with the news, since the Sabres DID sign Numminen, I believe that IF can be crossed off of your list.

As for Max, even if he scores as little as he did last year, there is enough secondary (or primary) scoring to cover for it. I say that because the Sabres were the 4th highest scoring team in the league, so I don't believe that is cause for concern.

As for Connolly, I think everyone agrees that he has to stay healthy to be effective, so why don't we all call this a wash and forget he actually (attempts to) play for us?

Vanek, his point total only dropped by 20. For me, it was his inconsistency that had me troubled. With a year of maturity, I don't think that'll be a problem now.

Lalime is significantly better than Thibault and will make a large difference in this teams point total at the end of the year.

Rivet is a leader. As I've mentioned before, if you don't believe it, go read what the SJ fans were saying after the trade. I don't think anyone will replace the things Drury/Briere did here, but you know what? They're gone, get over it and move on to the next leader.

[Dave H.]

It's clear that the Hockey News's list is based on old information that the editors and writers had prior to several trades and signings made by various teams. Ottawa for example traded Mezaros recently for Kuba, and I'm not sure that helps them.

I'm not sold on Tampa being a playoff team, since I think Atlanta has a much better club then them, and certainly a better one than Buffalo. The Rangers are in decline for many of the reasons cited by the people who have posted here in this forum, but at this stage of the game I'd take them over Buffalo for making the playoffs.

Why? The Sabres making the playoffs this year requires too many "IF's".

IF Max has a better year than last year . . .

IF Connolly rebounds from his injuries . . .

IF Vanek rebounds from last year's dissapointing season . . .

IF Miller plays up to his potential . . .

IF The Sabres sign Numeniun . . .

IF Stafford plays like the player he showed signs of becoming two years ago . . .

IF Lalime can shoulder the burden of being Miller's back-up (I'm not convienced that Lalime is all that much better than what we had before)

IF Tallinder and Lydman can regain their form from two seasons ago . . .

IF Nathan Gerbe and the youngsters develop as advertised . . .

The list of "IF's" goes on and on and on, and I'm sorry but that's just way too many IF's in my book for the Sabres to be a playoff contender THIS YEAR. Maybe next year when they get a new influx of youth out of Portland . . . but until then, I'm sorry but this team is just a shell of what it once was. The Sabres have lost too many quality players over the last three seasons and their replacements just aren't good enough to get the job done. I personally think that this team is at least THREE MORE YEARS AWAY from being a playoff team, let alone a contender for the cup. This team has just too many holes right now, and there are other teams in our conference who have "leap frogged" us and are now better.

We essentially have the SAME TEAM AS LAST YEAR, with only a few minor adjustments. How does this make the Sabres a playoff team - if they couldn't get the job done last year? Answer: It doesn't. SAME CRAPPY TEAM = SAME CRAPPY RESULTS.

Do the Sabres have some good players? Yes. Do they have a quality coach ? Yes. But they lack depth, and character, and most importantly - LEADERSHIP.

Without leadership, this team is doomed, and I'm sorry - but I just don't think that Craig Rivet is going to replace Briere or Durry in the leadership department.

Bottom Line: Sabres miss the playoffs again this year, but don't look as bad as last year. In TWO seasons IF (there's that word again) their draft choices develop and pan out and they don't loose key players like Pominville this team has the potential be "special", but NOT THIS YEAR. I'm sorry Sabres fans, but that's the "plain simple truth" of the matter (to borrow a popular political phrase).

PS - Don't knock classic rock bands like Boston or Styx - they were and still are great bands. I can't think of any rock bands from the 90's that I liked then OR now. However, there are some pretty cool NEW bands these days like Airbourne, Poets & Porn Stars, Lunatica, and Steroside to name a few. . . and Journey's new album is actually quite good - even without Steve Perry.

[greg]

I can't believe my eyes. You guys are cowtowing (may be grammaticallyincorrect) to Mac.

Come on Mac, as I stated previously before, these guys are the best summer entertainment around. Don't shut them up. Rattle their cages, poke a stick at the hornets nest.

But if it may end, it has been an enjoyment.

[Mac]

Excuses, Elma, thank you both.

I've said it before but it bears repeating. Each of you is a credit to this blog and it would not be the same without your thoughtful contributions.

Gentlemen, the next round is on me!

Cheers,
Mac

[ElmaGolf]

Excuses,

Peace.

Elma

[ElmaGolf]

Mac -

Thanks for the perspective.

I'll cop to taking the sarcastic tone when refuting points from time to time. I'd rather not - but sometimes it happens in the moment and usually is realized upon re-reading. Like you said, we're all guilty of it and I can't pretend to be "holier than thou."

Correcting grammar - not my normal M.O. except for the one instance (and I passed on "grandizement" many times before) - it was an unnecessary shot while chastising BE for all the fat jokes. You won't see it again.

I thought Excuses & I were fine after our initial Salary encounter escalated, and seemed to be avoiding such things.

As can easily happen, tone is difficult to ascertain in written word. I probably misperceived something he wrote about the same time he misperceived what I wrote - and we both responded with hard-to-miss escalation. As you say, time to bring it to an end (sorry, Greg).

Thanks Mac!

[Buffalo Excuses]

Mac,

I see your point, but we have really beaten the same arguments to death and I guess I just flat out got bored. It was more fun to joust those guys than have the same, tired debate.

All in, fair enough.

Excuses.

[Mac]

Elma: Being loyal to the Buffalo Sabres organization and avoiding grousing and finger-pointing at every turn is commendable. No one is ever going to call you a fairweather fan. But you do yourself a disservice when you take on a patronizing tone toward Excuses and others on these boards. Taking the high road is admirable but let's not pretend you've never condescended in both tenor and tone while refuting the arguments of those you disagree with. Take it from me, as I've been guilty of the same, people do not like the know-it-all who is constantly correcting the grammar of fellow posters. (And yes, I'm addressing you too, Chad.) You make a good argument (whether I agree with you or not) and are adept at backing it up with facts and statistics, so stick to that and steer clear of the snooty rubbish.

Yes, posting on sports blogs is definitely not for the faint of heart. The hypersensitive among us might want to think twice about participating in this forum. But that said, I don’t think it unreasonable to show one another a degree of respect and basic civility here. We all come from different backgrounds and have divergent opinions on what is best for our beloved Buffalo Sabres, but the very fact that we are all devoted fans of this team should serve as common ground enough to avoid nasty, personal attacks. Come on, gents, we’re better than this. I mean, if this were a Flyers board, that would be a totally different story. So let’s get back to discussing what really matters: getting Pommer signed to a long-term contract and otherwise doing what it takes to make the Sabres a contender again. Fair enough?

[Mac]

Okay, guys, this debate really needs to come to a merciful conclusion now. Yes, I know you're well within your Constitutional rights to carry on exercising Free Speech into eternity, but really, is this accomplishing anything at this point?

Excuses: I frequently agree with your arguments on these boards and appreciate your sense of humour for the most part. Golisano and Quinn need to have loyal Sabres fans like you holding their feet to the fire if not just to keep them honest and focused on putting a winning team on the ice. But you must know that launching into ad hominem attacks is a losing game. One of the first things I learned in high school debating was that once you attack your opponent personally, instead of his argument, you have lost the debate, period. No, I'm not a hypocrite. I am certain I've allowed myself to slide into the personal stuff on more than one occasion here (or on the Billboard), but I'll also acknowledge that in doing so, I basically lost the debate. Please refrain from mocking Elma and Chad, if not only because you end up undermining your own argument in the process. You are more than capable of holding your own in these debates without resorting to that crap.

[Buffalo Excuses]

Elma,

Amazing. And all along, I thought YOU were hyper sensitive. And I was laughing at your "insults", but go ahead and pile on.

I think we can get back to hockey now. Well, there wasn't really much to talk about anyway! That Max Factor thing....Eh... And the Bernier thing was a little weak too. At least the rankings thing gave us something to debate.

Oh, and as an aside on the paint store thing, I thought I knew who you were. I grew up with a guy who argues alot like you post. He failed out of Canisius and worked for Sherwin Williams. He is incredibly paranoid so I thought it would be comical if you were really him. He is a know it all too (no offense...heh, heh, heh). You may also recall that I called you "Timmy from Elma". That's his name.

Peace.

Excuses.

[ElmaGolf]

Excuses -

Lighten up - I could barely hear your laughter through all that.

Wow - if you took "offense" in each of those comments, there's not much else I can do.

"go find 4 friends to keep up your supposed 5:1 ratio"

That wasn't even CLOSE to what you perceived. I didn't at all imply you didn't have 4 friends (that's usually your realm of insult) - I simply meant you need 4 more "votes" to maintain your ratio. If I have to couch my comments that much so you don't feel insulted at a benign comment like that - you'll end up insulted no matter what.

As for the Five Year Old Logic phrase - fine, I'll retire it if it makes you feel better. There are times that I think your "self stated facts" don't consider everything. In short, it oversimplifies things. When I say that, I don't mean you're a "simpleton" or an "idiot" - what phrase is acceptable when I feel you need to flesh things out?

If you're insulted by a little sarcasm, this probably isn't the place to be. I know you must think you're innocent of it, but get a grip.

Before you knew what I did for a living, one of your first comments to me was "your comprehension of statistics & math resembles that of a painst store salesman whio failed out of Canisius"

You seemed pretty happy to take the "superior" tone until you realized that it wasn't going to work. You didn't mind insulting non-professional occupations then. Wow, if I tried that line, I'd be an "self-important uppity accountant."

Even your last example in the post is a bit oversensitive. All I said is that we gave our points to show why we think we're not 100% wrong (or "delusional" - your term). Yet, you seem to think "oh, there he goes with his uppity legalese, what a condescending SOB."

Get a grip. If you're looking to be insulted, guess what - it's a FACT that you're gonna be, no matter what tone or words I choose.

Call it political spin, call it marketing, call it professorial and haughty, call it insulting, call it whatever you want - just give it a rest with you're poor "they're mean in how they talk to me."

[Buffalo Excuses]

Chad,

....

Excuses

[Buffalo Excuses]

Elma,

First of all, I am laughing through my posts, so never take them seriously. But let’s take your posts and try to retort. This will probably get lengthy, and I may just tire and concede cause it’s not worth the effort. I think I have less of a need to be proved right (publicly) than you or Chad. Less self GRandizement I suppose. But if I do concede, it won’t because I run out of arguments, it will be because I am tired of you, and the argument. I explained this before that sometimes you gotta let the other guy have the last word when you know he aint gonna end it unless you do. And since we are so close to the season, it is probably best to let the future be our judge.

********************
"Excuses -
I wasn't trying to personally insult you with the "Five Year Old Logic" thing - it's a permeating reference back to our past squabbles (just like you always calling me a Sabres Employee). I didn't realize it pushed a button that hard."

Let’s insert another little posting about 5 year olds that I let pass before we discuss insults:

“However, I'll humor your 5 year Old Logic and oversimplification (we've come full circle to when we first met).”

Again, this is CLEARLY not an insult, is it? Amazing how you miss this. But I wasn't too insulted, just not going to take the jabs lying down. You get personal, I get personal. No real offense intended by you I am sure and to be honest, I was more about having fun with it. I don't take this as seriously as you do. But don’t go flying off the handle as though you are holier than thou. It reeks of political spin.

********

"I use the term to challenge premises of your arguments that seem too oversimplified, such as:

' "The Rangers Won More Cups than the Sabres - so they're more likely to win the next one" - Explaining to a Five Year Old - that would make sense. But adults know there's much more to consider.'

Again, no insult here is there??? But let's consider your original retort...

"In the last 10 years, Sabres have made 4 ECFs - Rangers haven't made it out of the 2nd round. And why exactly would fans be "delusional" to believe the Sabres may win a Cup before the Blueshirts? Especially after you agreed that the Rangers seem to be falling back to the old "overpriced, no chemistry stars" template that got them 7 straight years of missing the playoffs.

I've cast my vote - go find 4 friends to keep up your supposed 5:1 ratio."

Again, I can’t see the insult in the friends part either. Oh, and keep in mind you "wrote down my response" so you were obviously baiting me. An inconvenient fact you leave out when you claim "all hell broke lose". SHOCKING!!!! I know for those who experience the consequences they are baiting. Nice try, but that's more spin I guess.

****************

“I know you're more intelligent than that - which makes it all more confusing to me when you try to present those statements as "Self-Evident Truths."

I know you're smart enough to realize that the fact that No Players, Coaches or Management remain from the 1994 Rangers makes it a meaningless analysis.”

Amazing how it was legit for you to go back 10 years though. But when I use The Ranger Cup from 14 years ago, I am in ancient history. So 10 years ago Vanek was how old??? A Bantam? Amazing how your logic doesn’t translate back to you. I know, Darcy was GM and Ruff was coach, but that was pre lockout no? Why is it ONLY ok for you to jump back then? When I do so discussing salary caps and ticket pries it is irrelevant? Here’s where I think you guys are political pundits as you unabashedly do not hold yourselves to the same logical standards as you do your opponent. Guys like you call this spin, guys like me call it deception, maybe even lying. But hey, it’s a free country and it is fun after all.

*************
“Perhaps you say those things just to be contrary or to get a rise. If so, I'll oblige with a response - if only to entertain Greg.”

This is most of it. Then again, sometimes I can't stand back and let a wind bag wind on from a soap box. Street corner preachers are fine as long as you aren't paying for their religion.

********************
“:But if you're upset that Chad & I always seem to have an answer or reason for supporting our positions (also referred to as "Excuses" by you), you have to ask yourself why you seem to run out of reasons in the course of the debate and have to resort to personal insults and professional stereotypes (or "signaling devices" as you say).”

Dude, upset is the least emotion I experienced. Just for giggles, re read this paragraph…your professorial and condescending tone is shockingly humorous; particularly because you are feigning humility. Again, just like a true politico.

Further, you insulted first, I am just better at it. When we get here, you boys back track out of the arena feigning shock and surprise it got personal and then re hash an old argument. Just move on to another subject and lick your wounds, it is more manly
(or is it manlier??? go ahead Chad and do your grammar thing….).

Now I know you want to hide behind the spin of your logic vs mine, but it just aint so. Sad thing is that if you keep drumming it along, it gets accepted as such. Bueller, Bueller (no insult intended – what a joke)
*******************

‘It's not that we think our positions are "FACTS" or can't be disagreed with, we just give our analysis to show you why we think we're not as "Self-Evidently Wrong" as you seem to think or to offer an alternative viewpoint to your "Self-Proclaimed Facts."’

You guys clearly win the legalese game. Did you lift this from the Constitution? Wow, lots o phraseology in there I can’t rightly follow.

Sincerely,
Wakeboy (this is catchy!)

Sincerely Excuses

[Frank]

I guess I came to the wrong place to hear people's opinions on this article...

[Chad]

There goes Sorry Excuse again. Pull the string, wind him up, same old act. It's rather tiresome at this point, actually. His smack is weak. His arguments are weaker.

My main problem with you, Excuses, is not that you have a different opinion than me, it's that whenever I or Elma disagree with you and give you reasons for our dissent, you resort to personal attacks. Rather than challenging the message, you attack the messenger. You say we're "spinning." You accuse us of "working for the Sabres." For all the injecting of politics that you do on these boards (constantly using Obama's "audacity of hope" line, saying we used to work for Spitzer, etc), you incessantly use the most predictable trick in any politician's book: when backed into a corner, start name-calling and personally attacking the opponent.

Instead of saying "ok, I see your facts, but here's why I disagree with them or don't think they tell the whole story," which would be fine, you try to make fat jokes, rip our professions (oh no! I've never heard lawyer jokes before. Please, I probably tell more of them than anyone) or annoint yourself the "winner" of some perceived contest that exists only in your head.

Grow up, guy. You actually have used the word "comebacks" about five times. That's the first I've heard of that word since I walked off my elementary school playground for the last time. You have a 5 year old and you still act like this? Congrats, buddy.

To you, as evidenced by your earlier statement on this board, there are two categories of people: people who agree with your (unfounded) decrees and people who are delusional. I can't think of a more self-important, self-aggrandizing ploy than that.

Keep running your mouth if you want. You seem to like to have the last word. It's yours if you want it. We'll all still be here when you want to start talking about the Sabres again.

[ElmaGolf]

"Elma was the original who CONSTANTLY argued with everyone."

Excuses - you're taking part in the comment section of a Blog!!! And your criticism is that someone is likes to argue and disagree with you?

That's like being a guy in a Strip Bar looking around and saying "look at all the perverts in here."

[ElmaGolf]

Excuses / Chad,

I agree with Excuses about leaving the "spelling / punctuation" comments on the sidelines.

I normally leave such comments out because I agree that people know what you're saying.

The ONLY reason I corrected "grandizement" that ONE & ONLY TIME, was that it was in a response to a post that included something like 15 fat jokes, accountant stereotypes, etc. all under the premise of chasitising me for my posts "not having thoughtful commentary." I felt my "correction" was tame in comparison (and not my normal way of operating).

Excuses - I could care less what you do for a living and I don't think being a CPA / JD etc. adds anything to the validity of points made on sports. At the same time, my disagreeing with you isn't because I feel "superiorly educated" - it's just that I disagree with your point.

[ElmaGolf]

Chad,

Thanks for summarizing - I thought I missed something there. I think it's odd that this started by everyone agreeing the Rangers are heading south, and still ended up in a huge debate.

I thought we were having a decent debate on the Rangers vs. Sabres chances, and then all h'ell broke loose.

Excuses -
I wasn't trying to personally insult you with the "Five Year Old Logic" thing - it's a permeating reference back to our past squabbles (just like you always calling me a Sabres Employee). I didn't realize it pushed a button that hard.

I use the term to challenge premises of your arguments that seem too oversimplified, such as:

"The Rangers Won More Cups than the Sabres - so they're more likely to win the next one" - Explaining to a Five Year Old - that would make sense. But adults know there's much more to consider.

I know you're more intelligent than that - which makes it all more confusing to me when you try to present those statements as "Self-Evident Truths."

I know you're smart enough to realize that the fact that No Players, Coaches or Management remain from the 1994 Rangers makes it a meaningless analysis.

Perhaps you say those things just to be contrary or to get a rise. If so, I'll oblige with a response - if only to entertain Greg.

But if you're upset that Chad & I always seem to have an answer or reason for supporting our positions (also referred to as "Excuses" by you), you have to ask yourself why you seem to run out of reasons in the course of the debate and have to resort to personal insults and professional stereotypes (or "signaling devices" as you say).

It's not that we think our positions are "FACTS" or can't be disagreed with, we just give our analysis to show you why we think we're not as "Self-Evidently Wrong" as you seem to think or to offer an alternative viewpoint to your "Self-Proclaimed Facts."

Sincerely,
Wakeboy

[Buffalo Excuses]

Oh, and for the record, I don't know what an ellipsis is, nor do I care.

Now go ahead and diagram the sentence for us teacher and tell everyone how dumb I am that I couldn't figure it out from the syntax......

You are SO lame.

[Buffalo Excuses]

ChElma the tone deaf, two headed monster,

When I say Self grandizement, most on this board think, yeah I know what that means and it's funny cause I'm pretty sure it means some arrogant, self important idiot out to make his self appear, well, important. When you retort with Self AGgrandizement, the viewing audience says, "WTF is the difference?" Then they think, OMG, what an awesome example of self GRandizement!!!!!

I now think you guys are the same, cause when rolling in flames, the only thing you have as a comeback is....PUNCTUATION and SPELLING.

Go ahead, nerdboy(s). It's now FACTUAL that you have no friends and had to invent an alter ego. Weird, but predictable thing is that you screwed that up too. Alter egos are meant to be, well, different. In your world, they have to parrot everything you say.

Let's see, my guess is Elma was the original who CONSTANTLY argued with everyone. When people stopped paying attention to him, he invented someone who would (much like a 5 year old). But instead of inventing someone to argue with, Elma invented someone who agrees with everything he says. How narcissistic (go ahead a spell check Dork Boy). Thinking of an occupation for this new "virtual superhero" all that numbers could come up with was the ever exciting field of law. While most of us think it's BORING...hey, anything is exciting compared to accounting!

BTW, Walmart has wakeboards on sale....

[greg]

Gentlemen

It seems as though your usual banter has gone to the extreme. I Love It! You guys are on a roll. Keep up the good work.

Remember the childhood friend of yours that saw a hornets nest, and decided to poke it with a stick, just for the fun of it.

That was me!!!

[Chad]

Excuses,

An ellipsis used correctly only has three periods. For example...

Maybe if Darcy and Larry let Elma and I away from the Marketing Table for a little while, we could give you a dual vocab/punctuation lesson. Then again, the English language is only for "losers" like CPA's and JD's.

You're obviously pretty riled up. It can't be long before you officially become That Guy on the Blog and start to physically threaten us.

[Buffalo Excuses]

Chad,

....

Excuses.

[Chad]

What In God's Name Are You Talking About (see, I can title my posts, too)

Excuses, each time it seems like you're coming around and willing to engage in useful dialogue, you revert to your name-calling and petty insults. And each time, you essentially say "well you started it." Um, okay? C'mon, you're better than that. I can't speak for Elma, but I certainly don't mind that you have a differing viewpoint. It would be pretty mundane in here if everyone agreed about everything.

Now, in terms of your argument with Elma, I'm not sure why you're getting upset. Here's the argument as I read it (I'm sure you'll tell me that I missed something, but this is it, generally):

-We agreed that it seems like the Rangers are reverting to their pre-lockout ways of spending money without regard to chemistry.

-You declared that, in spite of this fact, Buffalo fans still think the Rangers will win a Cup before Buffalo by a 5:1 ratio and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Thus, according to you, there are two categories of people: people who agree with you and people who are delusional.

-Elma disputed your opinion, arguing that he doesn't think Sabres fans would agree with you, at least in your hypothesized ratio, because the Rangers have not been close to winning anything in the last 13 years and Glen Sather doesn't seem to know what he is doing. He was only referencing the past performance of the Rangers, and their recent reversion to similar practices, to show that people wouldn't necessarily agree with what you said.

-You then, somewhat predictably, turned the argument into a "let's compare pasts of ______ and Buffalo." This is a favorite trick of The Detractors: when someone challenges one of your decrees (that usually can't be proven one way or another) that you seek to pass off as Truth, seek shelter in the comfort of the old reliable "what has Buffalo ever won in the past, why do you think they can possibly win the future?"

-Elma then called you on this change of course.

-You reverted to your personal insults and your "if you don't think this team is average, you must be paid by the Sabres" line.

I'm sure this will cause me to be called an "ambulance chaser" (though I have never nor will I ever deal with a car accident/personal injury case) or one of the few lawyer stereotypes you haven't yet tossed at me. All I'm saying is that you seem to know enough to engage other people without insulting them personally, yet you've just refused to do so.

And, by the way, I love how you tell me that I got "schooled" in our earlier barbing. What? You ripped off a plot line from Desperate Housewives(Gardener sleeps with busy, successful guy's wife) when trying to rip my profession. Don't worry, I won't give you up to the ABC copyright guys. Besides, I hate that show.

It's plain to me, at this point, that, to you, everything is about who wins or who loses and you take solace in calling other people "losers" and annointing yourself as the "winner" (you've done so about 8 times, already).

Now, let ME teach you a lesson and I won't even wrap it around some odd parent/child/vegetable metaphor that only seems to half-follow the subsequent analysis (yeah, I know, it was too deep for me, the gardener is smarter than the lawyer, yada yada yada): life is more than a Winner/Loser Dichotomy and, secondly, you're not right because you say you are or even that you believe you are. That's just not how life works. Time will tell who was right about this year. I can rest comfortable in that assurance. Maybe you should do the same rather than personally attacking everyone on this board who disagrees with you.

I now anticipate many more personal attacks. How about that for foresight. Go prove me right.

[Buffalo Excuses]

Lessons to a five year old:

Interestingly enough, you accuse me of resorting to personal insults, neglecting the fact that you insulted me. Ahhh, but in politics, that’s not deception (out and out lying) that is what is known as SPIN…..continuing my growing belief that you two clowns are holdovers from a lost fantasy of working for the “Guvnah”.

And yes, I did drop down to sophomoric insulting humor (Greg baited, I knowingly obliged) to make my point. But I also did so as a signaling device. Thanks for ignoring. Chad took the lesson, and you probably needled him the next morning at the marketing table for getting schooled. Given this, you were too “smart” to take the hint.

But, wait? Did I anticipate YOUR response???? If so, let me wax for a few minutes about guys like you and me (winners and losers). Let’s see if you can follow along….You seem pretty good at history….

THIS IS NO LIE: I have a 5 year old son. TONIGHT, I came home tonight late from a meeting and missed dinner. Starved, I go into the fridge and even in my neighborhood, I find leftovers…Grilled Chicken. So I proceed to make chicken salad. Problem is, there is only enough for one sandwich. I am starving and my 5 year old is curious and always willing to participate. Normally, I have no problems, actually we usually chat while we share my meal. But this time…well, the kids got everything and like I said, I am starving. Now keep in mind that this is not your average chicken salad sandwich….I like fresh tomatoes and banana peppers on it. So…I try to explain this to my 5 year old, but he insists, he will like it….so….as a test, I ask him to sample the banana pepper. Now while it seems a tad mean, and a bit comical, I know my 5 year old learned more about perception and reality than he did about the fact that he did not like banana peppers. If not, well there’s time to learn. After all, he’s 5.

Now Elma, you are considerably older than 5 and, yes, you did insult me as using 5 year old logic. While I shake my head at the irony, fortune usually favors the foolish (ME!). So let me TRY to translate the lesson to you:

You see, it’s all in your perspective…reality vs. perception…between both is what is called arbitrage. Fortunes are won and lost in the difference. Now I know you can define arbitrage, and you can ALWAYS and ARROGANTLY inform everyone else who will listen to you when it happens. But Elma…guys like you only see its wake. Guys like me, well…we anticipate it.

No, I am not a gambler making countless when The Excuses fold consistently. But the same can be seen, from afar or in the wake, in business. Bean counters are good at explaining what happened. Guys like you are spot on pointing it out AFTER it happens. There’s other folks who see it BEFORE it happens. Some act on it, others listen to the risks articulated by their accountants.

Now where’s the ironic translation??? You sell “hope”, I see the “Audacity of Hoopla”. Yes, you can make money when everyone else loses. No, there won’t be money made or lost, just pride. And yes, I am willing to concede I am at risk here. But I go by instinct as I know BS when I see it. Sometimes I’m wrong, but more often than not, I’m right.

For summary, I know I am not always right and some will call me foolish if they only look at one event. If I lose this event, what did I really lose? You may win this event, but what did you really win? Since there was no moey at risk, I would LOVE to be wrong here, cause sooner or later, I will be. Oh, and when I am wrong, the LAST thing you will hear from me is an EXCUSE. For me, its a lesson.

I know you are probably confused as, after all, you are 40, not 5. My kid got it, maybe he can traslate for you.

But let me...it comes back to what’s ventured vs. gained. Remember our risk discussion relative to winners and losers? Yeah, I know, I lost you at arbitrage. I had you at goodbye. It is a shame to say I have to tell you that goodbye translates to my wake, but you were SO KIND to transate for me...

Later wakeboy.

[ElmaGolf]

"Sounds like I really fired you up, huh Slim?"

Sure did - you fired me up to the point that I used logic to address your points.

On the other hand, calmness permeated your comments. Let's see:

"Must be nice not to have any friends" - Thanks for your concern - I do OK.

"pocket protector" - very original, but I usually wear golf shirts to work.

"sweat that dribbled off your third chin" - I have Air-Conditioning - no sweat.

"slugging the extra 350 lbs you have on me" - you weigh negative 150 pounds?

"Sucking down hotdogs and swilling beer at the turn does not make you a good golfer." - Darn, Kobiyashi must be disappointed.

"stenchy gaps of your yellowed teeth" - Wow! Very descriptive!

"my pencil tip broke and I'm fresh out of sharpners. Seems there's a CPA convention in town and they bought them all up" - I invested heavily in mechanical pencil technology to avoid such a calamity. Besides, the convention's usually in Orlando or DC.

You could have simply left it at "I will let the future deal with both of us" but I guess you wanted your "insult creativity" practice.

(BTW, trying to assert some level of superiority while making "fat" insults is pretty shallow - even for a blog. But I suppose you were trying to show me the "thoughful commentary" you felt was missing from my self-AGgrandizement.)

[Buffalo Excuses]

Elma the windbag,

The only thing predictable able you is the length of your posts. Must be nice not to have any friends and have all that time to go on, and on, and on...You're like the energizer bunny with a pocket protector.

Similar to Chuckie Chad though, your posts are more about self grandizement than thoughtful commentary.

Sounds like I really fired you up, huh Slim? Take a breath dough boy. From the sound of your anticipation, you probably were so excited that you had to wipe the sweat that dribbled off your third chin onto the key board. Make sure you don't miss the twinkie crumbs.

Rather than rehash championship history (BTW, The Excuses have none) I will let the future deal with both of us.

Unfortunately for both of us fans (with only one being compensated for being so), THE FACTS are this team is AVERAGE. I don't like it any more than most, but am not so weak kneed as to rah, rah, rah it off. Then again, your weak kneedness comes more from slugging the extra 350 lbs you have on me. Must be tough to hit the ball over that expanse you call a "tummy". But when you do, I am sure it sails nicely for you.

So "put off" pocket protector. Sucking down hotdogs and swilling beer at the turn does not make you a good golfer.

When objectors stop debating you, it isn't becuase they lost, it's because they're fearful of the projectiles coming through the stenchy gaps of your yellowed teeth.

I know, you predicted this response too, didn't you? You're great at predicting history. Oh, and I predicted yours too! See how easy that is! I didn't write mine down though cause my pencil tip broke and I'm fresh out of sharpners. Seems there's a CPA convention in town and they bought them all up, just in case they need 'em....

[ElmaGolf]

Exvuses - you know, I actually wrote your response down before you even posted it, that's how predictable you are.
*****************
"Now, why did you ONLY go back 10 years? Hmmmm...."

Well, because it's idiotic to think that Mike Keenan & Neil Smith (Coach & GM in 1994) have any bearing or influence on the Rangers chances of winning the Cup.

10 years roughly correlates to the presence of Lindy & Darcy, and is roughly the same tenure as GM Glen Sather in New York. Considering these people are the ones with any influence on the current teams - I guess you have your answer.

(FYI - the object of using rhetorical questions to cement your point is that there's not supposed to be a good answer.)

******************
"You know, CHAMPIONSHIPS??? I know, we have gotten so close in our history SO MANY times that you confused it. "

Yeah, I'm sorry, Excuses, I had this silly understanding that getting to the Final Four repeatedly may actually improve your chances of closing the deal. I suppose if you were a Golfer, you'd say it was meaningless to be in the final pairing consistently.

By your logic, Steve Jones was in a much better position to win the PGA than Sergio Garcia based on his triumph at Oakland Hills in 1996. Sergio may not have closed the deal, but I'm willing to bet he's closer than Steve Jones.

******************
"4 Stanley Cups in a 10 second scan of their history, that is still 4 more than The Excuses."

Again, see my discussion above regarding what 1994 has to do with "who will win the Cup from here." Trying to consider older Cups won in a "6 team, pre-free agency NHL" renders your point even more meaningless.

However, I'll humor your 5 year Old Logic and oversimplification (we've come full circle to when we first met).

By your logic, the Toronto Maple Leafs should be one of the next to Win the Cup, with their 13 Cups.

How did Edmonton look going into last season, with their 5 Stanley Cups? (BTW - that's what an effective rhetorical question looks like).

By your standards, the Islanders must be one of the Top 5 positioned teams, based on their 1980s runs.

You may as well complete the lunacy and tell me the Montreal Maroons are in better shape than the Sabres.

**************

Go ahead - hold your thesis that a franchise quickly reverting to its wildly unsuccessful model of "expensive stars with no role support" is better positioned than a very young core of Sabres, simply because Mike Kennan & Neil Smith once strung things together in the mid-90s (when Thomas Vanek was 10 years old).

************************
I'll spare you the Mathematical Regression Analysis, but the Correlation between Cups won 15 years ago under a completely different management team and a team's current performance is pretty weak.

Any other oversimplifications for me to debunk tonight?

Bueller....

Bueller.....

[Buffalo Excuses]

Elma,

WOW! Are you kidding me? 4 ECFs!?! A whole 4 in 10 years????? Wow....That's 40%! Now, why did you ONLY go back 10 years? Hmmmm....

And....I'm sorry, I thought I was talking about Stanley Cups. You know, CHAMPIONSHIPS??? I know, we have gotten so close in our history SO MANY times that you confused it.

But let me clear things up for you...

While I could only find 4 Stanley Cups in a 10 second scan of their history, that is still 4 more than The Excuses.

And if you want to compare them against The Excuses History, they still have 1 more.

Now I would do the math for you, but a FACT is that division by ZERO is undefined.

4 ECFs! Sounds an awful lot like 4 Excuses!

[Michael Jones]

I think Buffalo is going to end up at 6th in the east. Who did we lose? I know Cambell is gone but Rivet is just as good at 3million lessthan Cambell wanted. If Max comes to play this year, And Tim is healthy enough to trade>>> yes trade... we all love him but we need someone who has his skills that can take a hit... we will be better than last year. We have a great 2nd golie nowand some of the best up and coming players in the NHL.

[greg]

I agree with Elma. Now you are going to need to find 8 people!

How's the golf been going Elma?

[ElmaGolf]

"That is a sad fact."

I refer you back to my previous comments that "facts" don't work like that. You can't make Papal decrees of reality anymore.

In the last 10 years, Sabres have made 4 ECFs - Rangers haven't made it out of the 2nd round. And why exactly would fans be "delusional" to believe the Sabres may win a Cup before the Blueshirts? Especially after you agreed that the Rangers seem to be falling back to the old "overpriced, no chemistry stars" template that got them 7 straight years of missing the playoffs.

I've cast my vote - go find 4 friends to keep up your supposed 5:1 ratio.

[Buffalo Excuses]

Chad,

I agree with you for the most part. But here's the rub....

You ask any Excuses fan who will win the cup first and by a ratio of AT LEAST 5:1 they will say The Rangers. The others are dilusional. That is a sad fact.

[Chad]

If they don't sign Sundin, the Rangers will be this year's big disappointment in the Eastern Conference. Call it a hunch.

Good to see that organization learned absolutely nothing from their pre-lockout failures. Rather than re-signing the heart and soul of the team (Avery) and their best player/top scorer (Jagr), they instead spend $40 mil on Wade Redden, a guy whose offensive numbers (his best skill) have steadily declined over the last two seasons. NY’s record with Avery in the lineup since he was acquired: 50-20-16. Without Avery: 9-13-3. Pretty big difference. I hate the guy, but you can’t argue his importance to that team. Markus Naslund won’t make up for Jagr’s numbers and this is a team already lacking offense and playmaking ability (24th in goals). And $5 mil/year on Roszival? While letting a better defenseman (Fedor Tyutin), who they could have had for just over half the cost, go to Columbus? Save for a few players like Dubinsky, Dawes and Staal, this team is once again turning into a bunch of highly paid mercenaries with no chemistry. At least Regier tries to learn from his mistakes. Can't say the same for Glen Sather.

Lundqvist will save their behinds quite a bit, but I won’t be surprised when this team is scrambling for a playoff spot in the last 5 games of the season. Enjoy Dmitri Kalinin.

[Dee]

I believe the Sabres will be in the top four. Vanek and Max will have outstanding seasons, We need these two players to have a break out season. If they don't, Trade them next year for Gaborik.
No, Just joking. However, I believe in this team and any team coached by Lindy Ruff.

[Rick]

What a joke. Buffalo never gets any respect anyway. They will finish way higher than this and will make the playoffs. Ottawa has much to worry about. And Im not sold on Philly either. This could be the longest year the Devils have had in over a decade. I say Vanek scores 40 minimum and Buffalo and Montreal slug it out for the division. And where do they think the Rangers are going? Sabres in the top 4 for sure.

[Chad]

I think the whole "what have they done to pass _____" logic is very flawed. What did Montreal do last summer to go from 11th to 1st? They did nothing and made no changes of not yet jumped ten teams. It's a new season with at least some new players on every team. Last year is next to irrelevant at this point.

[Adam]

These look about right to me. It's not so much that the Sabres are worse, but they aren't particularly better... Carolina and Tampa are...

I think you could certainly leapfrog Boston, and possibly NJ, but that Brodeur factor is tight... I think the Sabres will finish ahead of Tampa, despite their improvement, but I'm not sure that'll be enough

[Dave]

I get a kick out of prediction lists like this one. Carolina ahead of Buffalo? Please. Ottawa and Washington as high as they are? Yeah, ok. This list looks like it was assembled by a football broadcaster at ESPN.

[Rick]

How can these bird brains rank Philly and Ottawa so high? what a joke. The Sabres will eat them for breakfast. Montreal's collapse to Philly in the playoffs showed that they are not that good after all. Their young goalie will do better but Buffalo will bounce back and should win the division in my opinion.

[ebscer]

I think the west looks about right, but not at all in the east. Washington, Ottawa, and Tampa Bay are all too high, while Buffalo is way to low...

[to67to09]

hmm, I like these perdictions better, found them at www.crashthecrease.com they had theirs out before THN..

[Amanda]

As far as players being better, I believe Max and Al Kotalik are both in contract years. That always helps their level of play. For both I think they will be UFA's too, so they're going to try to stack the UFA deck in their favor by having a good year this year. I don't think the Sabres will sign either one as a UFA, so let's enjoy their productivity while they're here.

[Buffalo Bill]

Perfect. No pressure and high expectations to start the season. Just pure motivation to prove all the so called experts wrong. What more can you ask for. My prediction: We make the playoffs and finish second behind Montreal in the division.

[Heather B.]

Ah, gotcha, Excuses. Somehow I missed the whole prediction thing earlier. Which is just as well. I hate making prediction outside of "they'll make the playoffs." Too much stuff you can't account for.

"I guess I should have said "insert your favorite Sabre" instead of Afinigenov returning to form."

Okay, well, THAT certainly applied to me.

[greg]

$0.50 vodka drinks, wednesdays at Stage One. Those were some wild times. Think the Sabres were even more pitiful back then. Remember the days of lacombe, Creighton & Cyr. On the plus side I got 18 holes in today before the rain buckets came down. I'm ready for them to drop the puck.