Taro T

The Phlyers probably beat them to it.

How does where you live effect whether you're a bandwagonner or not? I can't honestly say that either of the 2 Devils wins makes me worry. They got a gimme goal from the refs and a fluke goal a few seconds later in one game and caught the Sabres toward the end of their injury streak in the other. The Sabres dominating play in the other 2 games and the gimme goal game up to that point should have you worried. It probably doesn't because IF you were watching any of the games, I'd be surprised if as soon as the Devs fell behind you didn't turn the TV off and turn on some really great music. Throw in the fact that the lousy refs should be gone by the time the Sabres play the Devs (if NJ gets that far), I'm not overly concerned about playing in the swamplands.

Heck of a way for BC to lose. (Had that game PiP during the Habs/Leafs game.)

They've gotta know they will sell a ton more merchandise if they offer at least the B logo or (even better) the "3rd" crest besides the abominable snot smear. The good stuff would go quick.

Welcome aboard. There's plenty of room for all on the bandwagon.

If the Habs had Huet I would be very nervous playing them (they worry me the most of any of the Eastern Conference teams). The Sabres have more talent, but Moe-ray-all has speed and that great powerplay. Having played so many close games with the Sabres and coming out with 4 wins, they will have confidence against the Sabres. Minus Huet, the Sabres should take them, but the games will be closer than we'd like. I'm not terribly worried about losing to TO (I like the idea of playing against Raycraft 5 or 6 times), but am not looking forward to losing a couple of skaters due to injury. I know some people have expressed concerns with people selling off tickets to TML fans, but with almost no STH's getting extras and no tix on sale to the general public, I don't expect more than a couple 1,000 Loaf fans in the Mmarena (2-4,000 is all they had in the building in '99; and it was a LOT easier to get tix that year even in the semifinals). The team I'd worry about the least is the Isles. Neither DiPietro (if healthy) nor Dubielewicz strike me as money goalies. Yashin perpetually disappears in the playoffs and the defense is fairly slow. Blake scares me, but not much else on that team. The Sabres have pretty much dominated play when they've played the Isles this year, I like the matchups. The only game the Isles were in at all was the 3rd game, and that was primarily because Miller was still in his "Post-All-Star Game Depression". Plus, if the Sabres were to finally get their names etched on Lord Stanley's Chalice it would be pretty cool to have beaten the Isles along the way as the Isles killed Sabre playoff runs a generation ago. Whether the Isles would pick up their play for Nolan is debatable, but for the most part they didn't against the Sabres this year; I don't know why that would change simply because the calendar had. So, as of today, I'd not like to see Montreal, TO, then the Isles in that order.

10th time this year that they came back from a 2 goal deficit. (For those who weren't able to watch the MSG broadcast.)

Apus, not necessarily disagreeing with you, just answering your question. What Carolina lost from last year to this year: Desire (they weren't hungry this year), Recchi, Ward (Aaron), Weight, Cullen, Gerber, the ability to sneak up on other teams, Stillman for a large part of the season, Kaberle for a large part of the season, a total of over 300 man games to injury and many of those were on D (gee, what playoff team from last year does THAT remind me of ) (they did lose a lot in the regular season last year as well, but they had cap room to make up for it and in the entire playoffs lost exactly 1 player to injury and he was replaced by Cole), and a great big horseshoe that was lodged in Gerber's or Ward's pants. The Sabres lose a TON of leadership if they lose both Drury and Briere. You will get absolutely no argument about that. They absolutely get reduced to darkhorse candidate to win the SC next year if they lose those 2. This team is young and maturing and most of the players will be better next year than this year simply due to maturation and experience. They are approaching their primes. This team won a lot of games without Briere last year, I think they'd still win enough to make the playoffs without him and Chris. They've dealt with much injury adversity during the past 2 seasons, so they likely wouldn't take as much of a downturn because of injuries as the Canes did. And having won once will lower their intensity slightly, but I don't think they play terribly far over their heads now, so I don't think that would have as big an effect on them either. I don't see them missing the playoffs, but I wouldn't say they are a lock (I'd say 95% lock). I will also agree with you that the Sabres primary strenghts are in net and at forward. But to say the defense is a weakness is a bit of an exaggeration, IMHO. I think the Sabres D is one of the top 5 in the league (top 10 minimum). They are fast, move the puck well, have size (although most of them don't use it), kill penalties well (when Hank is in the lineup), and still block a fair amount of shots even without McKee. Unless they can't sign Teppo, I don't see any changes on D next year. There will definitely be changes on forward (it's a question of who); I guess we agree on that as well.

And if they KNOW someone will overpay for them, it becomes in their best interest to hold off on signing unless the Sabres overpay for them now. 1 year out on their deal, they have an entire season of uncertainty that could factor into their willingness to sign an extension. Again, I am very disappointed that the Sabres didn't get something worked out this past off-season. At this point in time, the only uncertainty they have left is the possibility of getting injured. And the odds of getting injured badly enough to affect their next contract at this point are far less than they were in August (in Chris' case) and less than they were in January (in Danny's case). The security of knowing they'll be staying in Buffalo is something that they can experience today, June 25, July 1, or really anytime prior to signing a deal with someone else; just sign with the Sabres and they have their security. I'm not saying they wouldn't sign now (I actually believe a deal could be worked out for 1 or possibly both at this time AND could also be worked out after the playoffs), but am curious, how much of a premium ($'s) do you think that piece of mind is worth to the players today. You've stated that either would only take an offer of $8.8MM/year to stay (I'm assuming that you're assuming they'd want 4 year deals in that scenario, but don't know that for certain) if the offer was received on June 22. What do you think the Sabres need to offer today to get them to sign? I'm not actually certain why we're arguing. We both would like to see both guys signed.

If that is the case, it appears you are saying that each will definitely receive an offer the Sabres can't match or can't come close enough to for the "hometown discount". If that isn't what you mean, please clarify. If that is what you mean, then why would either one sign at this time as they must know, or at least believe, someone else will beat the Sabres offer (should one, hypothetically, get put on the table today)? IF they are automatically gone on 7/1, then they should be as good as gone today, unfortunately. And I don't believe they are good as gone today (definitely not Drury, maybe not Danny).

I don't follow. If you didn't want to get into that, why did you post the original link?

It starts out with points. In a tie, they'd use the normal tiebreakers (where they are applicable).

I'm not certain what you mean by "let them go"? As for your question, why wouldn't they hold off on signing today for the same reasons; they are less than 90 days from becoming UFA's? The Sabres couldn't work out a reasonable deal with Briere prior to his arbitration decision, the same 2 individuals are still conducting the negotiations as agents for the same principals; I can't say I'm overly surprised that Danny has not been signed to date. Right now, the players hold far more cards than the Sabres do, and it will cost a premium to get either (or both) signed prior to 7/1. I've already stated that I would very much like to have seen the Sabres reach a deal with Drury last off-season (and last off-season I stated in FAR too much detail over on SDS's other board why signing a guy 1 year from becoming a UFA should be significantly cheaper than signing him just before he becomes a UFA) and I wouldn't be surprised if the dynamic of possibly alienating one or the other was the reason they've only apparently had cursory discussions with both since the calendar flipped. I don't agree that the Sabres would have to hit the max to keep the players out of FA (well, they wouldn't have to do that for Chris, they probably wouldn't have to do it for Danny but I'm not as certain about that), the players and agents have an expectation of what they will be worth on the open market; if the Sabres exceed that by enough and they like their current situation, they'll sign. (Heck, if they REALLY like it here, maybe just meeting the expected max salary would work.) Also, I think Drury could still be signed on/after 7/1; I'm positive that the conversations the Sabres have had with him and his agent have expressed how much they want him to remain the Captain and remind him that they have considered him the cornerstone of the franchise since they sent Warrener and Reinprecht out to Calgary. I am nowhere near as certain that Danny can be re-signed; primarily because I can very readily see a scenario where someone will give him $7MM+ for 3-4 years and the Sabres won't (or can't) be willing to match that.

Even if both parties were willing to have a "gentleman's agreement", I think Article 26 which deals with circumvention of the CBA and the salary cap itself would prevent one from happening. Agreed about losing both Drury and Briere. The team would still be strong, but would be at least 2, probably 3-4, years away from being a legit contender again. That would be a heck of a lot of leadership lost. Especially if Timmy can come back next year at 95%+ of where he was in the playoffs last year, and perhaps they re-sign Zubrus, I think the additional maturation of guys like Pominville, Vanek, Max, and Stafford could make up for a lot of the offense they'd lose if Danny walks. I just don't see how they replace the intangibles that Drury brings if he walks. The guy has won at every level in every sport he plays. I don't want to see them lose Danny, but am almost resigned to that. I will be EXTREMELY unhappy if Chris walks. (As an aside, as outrageous as Danny's request for nearly $9MM over 3 years looked 2 years ago, can you say "bargain"? Not only would it have saved money in the long run, it also would have put his contract up 1 year after Drury's which should have made it easier to negotiate with Chris during the season for a few reasons.)

Darcy stated a while back that he had discussions with their agents, but the way he said it made it sound like nothing remotely close to serious had been discussed. My guess as to why they haven't negotiated seriously since 1/1 when they finally could negotiate with Danny is they don't think they can afford to keep both of them AND keep the team intact currently and into the future. (I have no idea why they didn't negotiate with and work out a deal with Drury in the summer/ early part of the season (if in fact they didn't have serious negotiations back then, and all indications are they didn't). After Drury's fast start, his pricetag had to be high and hasn't gotten any lower; and Danny played very well prior to 1/1 as well and one has to assume that All Star Game MVP is something Danny's agent thinks deserves a premium. I expect both players to end up with at least 4 year deals and wouldn't be surprised to see Drury's average out close to $6MM/year and Danny's over $7MM. (I'd be shocked if Drury's deal averages less than $5MM or if Danny's averages $6MM or less, or if either deal is only for a couple of years.) I would also like to see deals worked out ASAP. I agree with you that Darcy should want both of these guys to sign now if he thinks they can both be fit under the cap and they don't have to jettison several players to get them signed, but if they believe they can only get 1 it probably does make sense to wait until after the playoffs to sign them at this time. (Although the cap is likely going up a little next year (it'll most likely be somewhere between $44-47MM) this team that was tight to the cap this year still needs to sign Vanek to a large raise (if not initiated by the Sabres, someone else will very likely give him an offer and I'd expect the Sabres to match if it isn't completely outrageous) and a few other guys are RFA's (Paetsch and Roy to name 2) as well and will likely get raises. If the team has a plan of setting aside a little money, say $2MM to cover injuries and or other needs for in-season cap relief, then that leaves little to no money for both guys without losing much more than just Biron and probably Teppo and Mair. If they did sign Briere and Drury today, what does that do to the morale of the midlevel guys who now know that at least 2, probably more like 4-5, will have to be gone after the season? It most likely doesn't effect their play, but that's not a definite.) My gut feel is that they'll make the strong play for Drury and reluctantly part ways with Briere. Were Chris signed today and Danny left hanging (or vice versa), I think we'd be looking at a divisive issue in the locker room at a time they don't need any distractions. (Additionally, if they do only plan on being able to sign 1 of the 2, how Connolly recovers could factor significantly into their decision on which one you keep and might be a reason for delay on the part of the Sabres.) While the Sabres might not want to announce the deal the day it's signed, it does have to go to the league office and would be made public. If they work out a deal, but don't sign it right away, there is nothing in it for the player. Contracts are guaranteed, so if Drury has a deal in principle with the Sabres it is in his best interest to get Larry's sig on the SPC ASAP, because if he gets hurt in the interim he gets none of that guaranteed money. (Nor, not insignificantly, does the agent get any of that money until a contract is signed.) And Drury and Briere aren't eligible for any signing bonuses or other type of bonuses, so with the exception of including or not a no-trade clause, I don't see how they get "close" to an agreement but decide to table negotiations until later to finalize a deal. (There are no details to finalize. How much the player's paid in a particular year needs to get hammered out once total $'s are determined, but that would seem to be a relatively minor point; and not worth it in the player's (or agent's) eyes to not sign the day the deal is worked out.) I disagree with your take on players not negotiating for a couple of months because free agency begins on 7/1. So something has to get done quickly after the playoffs AND as you mentioned, it's the agent that deals with it. The player can (hopefully) still be riding around to different Championship parties while his agent is doing the dirty work.

True, but if you're looking for things to discount an accomplishment, you also could look at the '75 team playing 8 games against expansion teams created from the dregs of the league which would truly have had trouble beating the Habs farm team. And while this year's team gets 4 vs. Filly, they don't get 4 each against a handful of horrible teams (1 of which that '75 team tied twice, go figure). But that '75 team WAS a great one. It tied for the league lead in points and made it to the Finals. And you are right, it was 80 games. I wouldn't discount this team's accomplishments too readily. Nor would I praise them too much until we see how the post-season has gone. But it has been 1 heck of a ride.

I should hope he'd be good at acting by now. After making 90,000 commercials this past year alone, he's had nearly as many lines as Nicholson.

Speaking as a Catholic that doesn't have a problem with the statue, I'm sure your view that what's offensive to some of them is the "human-ness" of Christ portrayed by the artist is correct. Which I agree seems rather silly, as they believe Jesus was both 100% man AND 100% God. Having urges doesn't necessarily mean that he acted upon them. (I think he probably had more willpower than the average Joe. ) I wouldn't be surprised though if a lot of the protests were more of a response against what they see as a non-believer taking ANOTHER pot shot at them for fun and profit. (Can't say I condone death threats over it either. Someone must have missed the "turn the other cheek" lesson at CCD.) I don't see this as being anywhere nearly as clearly meant to tweak as the "Piss Christ" or Madonna covered in dung were. So, again, I am having a hard time developing much outrage over this "incident". But, if these people want to peacefully protest and/or write letters and make phone calls, while I find it silly I don't see a problem with it. (I DO have problems with death threats.) At least he made the sculpture out of chocolate rather than his usual media choice - cheese. I could see where people would find that to be rather tacky.

That's been obvious since the Eugenics discussions began, although I've been hoping I was wrong about that which is probably why I've been going back and forth as to whether he's serious or pulling people's legs in many of these threads. (Although I will admit to not understanding how the "regression to the mean" phenomena support a Eugenics program.) I guess I have developed over these past few months some strange fascination with watching as he contradicts himself, and in this particular thread am curious if we'll see it go straight 720, or stop at 270 and veer back 45 degrees a couple of times before making the double loop-de-loop. By his logic, at least that which he's put to keyboard, if everyone in this country bred with someone outside their particular ethnicity, then the nation would be more unified. (Of course, by his apparent beliefs, it appears we'd be much better off if only we'd be able to keep our races segregated and with no immigration. Although, I suppose emigration of undesirables would be acceptable.) Our problems apparently stem from the fact that we've got whites and blacks and reds and yellows and FAR too many browns. It's interesting, in that the African nations, most of whose borders were determined by Europeans, where borders cross historical tribal boundaries, provide examples of racial similarity not leading to unity. Of course we've never seen anything like this in say the Alsace-Lorraine region or western Poland or around the Baltics. Of course, in the U.S., where there is less racial similarity than in any other nation on this planet, there hasn't been a Civil War in over 140 years. (It must be because we were ALL white and God-fearing in 1940. ) I'm guessing someone on this board whose favorite quarterback is now backing up a "Schwartzer", would get a big kick out of a very good friend of mine with a PhD and happening to be descended from slaves marrying and having 2 very bright children with a native German PhD. I KNOW that's what he implied. There's just something compelling about actually reading it right there out in the open, without any veiled references to subsidizing intelligent women to breed 3.5 children.

Now I'm confused. It reads as if you are stating that having Americans of differing ethnic stocks intermarry won't lead to a unified nation but having separate pockets of pure _pick an ethnicity here_ will lead to a unified nation. Is there where you are going with this, or are you heading towards no new outsiders should become Americans because that will prevent the U.S.ofA. from being a united nation? Or is the point something else entirely?

Either you are putting me on, or you are truly this daft. Either way, I'm done with it.

Has it been in their #$@%% newspaper? NO. Not putting it in the newspaper when it is the HOMETOWN politician IS not covering it. Not covering it is the evidence they are not covering it. What part of THAT is so difficult to comprehend? But, but, but, they said they'd think about running a story on it. My bad, I guess they MUST be covering it then. If they run a story 3 weeks from now, they aren't exactly covering it in a timely manner now are they? Shouldn't something thats NEWS actually be NEW (current)?

She resigned, what, 4 days ago? And they are still trying to decide whether it's newsworthy? If they run an article 3 weeks from now, its not exactly NEWS, now is it. They have not covered it to date, SnR is correct they APPARENTLY are refusing to cover it.

By not putting it in their paper, that is how they are "refusing to cover it". Regardless of whether she did anything inappropriate or not, and by Washington standards I doubt she did (by any other standard, maybe), don't you think the editors would at least find it worthy to put SOMEWHERE in the paper that the Senator who hails from their city stepped down off a particular subcommittee? Naaah. It makes much more sense for them to wait to print an article until they understand the full ramifications of what this means and are able to hector in extreme detail to their readership what it means to them, rather than simply write "Feinstein resigned from a subcommittee".

So, you're finally admitting that you really are BF, HA, and in a surprise twist, Ed?