Talk:Buffalo Sabres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When adding new players to the lists of players on this page, could you also ensure that you add the player here: List of Buffalo Sabres players. Masterhatch 5 August 2005

Contents 1 Irrelevancies 2 Captains List 3 1999 Stanley Cup Final -- Ignorance of Possesion Rules and Bias in wording 4 NHL's Brian Lewis Explanation of why the goal was allowed 5 West Germany 6 Anthems 7 Inaccurate? 8 Briere & Drury 9 Blue-and-gold? 10 Lindy Ruff 11 Possibly some image tidying up? 12 Buffalo Sabres logo edits, reverts, and issues 13 Fixed 14 Temporary Logo 15 Use of 'The Swords' 16 Team Captains, 2003-04 17 Play by Play guy 18 Vandalism 19 Team Captains (seeking consensus) 20 Current Roster 21 Old 3rd Jersey

[edit] Irrelevancies

Deleted out vandalism, the trivia about the mascot (if this is at all pertinent, it sure isn't top end), pruned out NTBF back to close to a dozen per Format, and again per Team Pages Format deleted out Gillies and Fuhr, who still don't register as significant Sabres. Those who disagree are welcome to visit the talk page for the Wikipedia Team Pages Format to see if they can get a consensus to change the format. RGTraynor 01:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Captains List

Interim-captains (In my opinon), shouldn't be on the captains list. Just because a player has worn the 'C', while the captain is injured & out of the line-up, he doen't belong on the Captains list. Example 1: Andreychuk & Mogilny don't belong on the Sabres Captains list. If we listed all the INTERIM-CAPTAINS on each Nhl article's "Captains List" some articles would be unecessary long lists. Example 2: the Habs have had Robinson & Skrudland & McPhee & Denis Savard serve as INTERIM-captains ,yet they don't belong on the Captains list. GoodDay 21:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying that Mogilny's captaincy which ran from 11/01/93 to 4/29/94 or all but 16 games of the season (longer than any of the captains of the ridiculous rotating captain season of 2003 - which are listed in the article by the way) should simply be ignored as if it didn't exist? It should be included, especially when the Sabres website lists it. Yankees76

My opinon is that, a Captain (LaFontaine), when injured & out of the line-up ,doesn't usually get stripped of his Captaincy (That's why I've disputed Mogilny's captaincy). However, since the Sabres website lists Mogilny as a captain (not interim-captain), then you're correct & I'm in error. I'll edit the LaFontaine & Mogilny articles (succession boxes), to show Mogilny was Captain. My apologies please, I needed you to convince me of my errors, which you have. GoodDay 22:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The NHL Media Guide cites Mogilny as having been a Sabres captain. It doesn't cite Andreychuk, however. RGTraynor 08:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1999 Stanley Cup Final -- Ignorance of Possesion Rules and Bias in wording

In the 1999 season summary, I believe there is significant bias in the article.

Point by Point:

In the sixth game of the seven-game series, Brett Hull's triple-overtime goal - one that remains in dispute - How can something remain in dispute 5 and 1/2 years after it was decided conclusively by NHL officials still be "in dispute" ? If something was decided, it can no longer be in dispute.

as Hull's skate was visibly in the goal crease--ended the series, and the Stars were awarded the Cup. (In 1999, it was illegal to score a goal whilst an offensive player's skate was in the goal crease. - This statement ignores the puck possesion continuance rule, that was was even discussed by Gary Thorne and Bill Clement while there 'appeared' to be some question to the legality of the goal. The 1999 NHL rulebook also allowed for a person in posession of the puck to enter the goal crease. Hull's first shot was from outside of the crease, while shooting momentum carried his foot into the crease. The subsequent 2 rebounds came right back to Hull's stick. The goal was allowed to stand by officials on the ice, and contrary to popular thought, was reviewed by replay officials. Possession of the puck was what made the goal legal in the eyes of NHL officials. The puck meerly bounced off Hasek's left leg pad, and was only controlled on the stick by Hull's 3 shots. Possesion of the puck was therefore maintained by Hull, which would make the goal legal.

At the time, even Dallas Morning News hockey writer Keith Gave questioned the legality of the goal. This may have been the case, but Keith Gave was notrious in Dallas for NOT being a pro-Stars beat writer. His tenure at the Dallas Morning News was short lived, in comparison to writers at the Morning News since. Regardless, the article fails to mention that those supporting the legality of the goal included Al Strachan of the Toronto Sun, Don Cherry of the CBC, and Wayne Gretzky - all of whom generally have broader appeal and understanding of the game than Keith Gave would.

This article has a general appearance of being either a) Pro-Buffalo Sabres or b) Anti-Dallas Stars or c) Both

I suggest opposing viewpoints on this 'controversial' event in the history of the Buffalo Sabres, Dallas Stars, and the NHL be allowed on this page.

Well, Hull's skate was also visibly in the crease, the 1999 rule was on the books, and I presume that Gave did indeed question the legality of the goal. Those are all facts, not conjectures or surmises, and that is what Wikipedia is about. Conjectures, surmises, speculations and irrelevancies include how long Gave was a Dallas-based reporter, what his reputation for being slavishly pro-Stars was, and who might be more knowledgeable about the sport. These might certainly be valid counterarguments in a debating forum -- although I can't think of a tangent less NPOV than discussing whether or not the fellow was a traitor to Dallas sports for calling a goal as he saw it, green and gold or not -- but against exactly what are you trying to argue? That the goal was one of the most notorious controversies in Stanley Cup history? That you started a debate on the issue is yet more proof -- if any demonstrations were needed -- to the contrary. Indeed, it may be the most controversial single goal in Cup history; I can't think of one more so, off the top of my head. RGTraynor 19:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its neutral as stands (minus that long-winded play-by-play that was deleted). Basically its stating that there was a controversy. Are you disputing that? By the way I'm neutral in this: I not very fond of either team: Sabres because I was in Rochester at the time and I had to put up with all the whining from the ESN sportcasters. Stars: because they made hockey utterly boring throughout the 90ies and into the 21st century. ccwaters 19:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NHL's Brian Lewis Explanation of why the goal was allowed

You keep ignoring my point that Hull maintained possession according to the league officials. Accusing me of conjecture?

Fine. Here is a quote and a link:

The debate isn't. NHL officials supervisor Bryan Lewis said Hull's goal counted because he maintained possession of the puck from the time he played it beyond the crease.

"A puck that rebounds off the goalie, the goal post, an opposing player is not deemed to be a change of possession," Lewis said. "Therefore, Hull would be deemed to be in control of the puck, allowed to shoot and score a goal, even though the one foot would be in the crease in advance of the puck."

link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/nhl/1999/playoffs/news/1999/06/20/sabres_bitter/

That explanation should be included in your article to present the counterpoint as to why the goal was allowed. That is -- if you are truly being neutral.

Present a fair argument for both sides. Because there are opposing arguments on this.

In addition, the comments of Gretzky and Al Strachan are as relevant as Keith Gave's. Also relevant is Keith Gave's bias against the team he was the beat reporter for -- the Dallas Stars. Gave reported, and was openly a fan of the Detroit Red Wings, a rival of the Stars. Having heard him on radio down here numerous times on KTCK 1310 and WBAP 820, as well as reading his columns, he was clearly not happy even being in Texas. That lead to his departure to CBS Sportsline in 1999. None of this is conjecture-- it is FACT.

Al Strachan's comments in the Toronto Sun can be found in Canoe.com/Slam Sports archives. He is one of the most respected hockey writers in Canada (far away from Dallas). But you choose to ignore his opinion while singling out the lone voice is lunacy who was BREIFLY in Dallas.

You present a FAIR point of view and acknowledge a difference in opinion on this, or I will edit the article again for you.

That there is a difference of opinion is already present and does not need to be belabored. Perhaps you are misunderstanding that Wikipedia is neither a debating forum nor a proper venue for partisan bullying. We are neither Sabres nor Stars fans here, we have no partisan axes to grind, and since we are not ourselves trying to debate the merits of the arguments, we're not really interested in who made the arguments or what their qualifications are. That the NHL officials made the call, and the grounds upon which they made it, is cited in the article. The relevance of Gave's citation is in so far as it is pertinent there was enough of a difference of opinion on the goal that a Dallas sportswriter disagreed with it. Perhaps you can turn all that energy onto the very scanty Dallas Stars article, which ironically enough -- and scarcely neutral, come to that -- does not mention the incident at all. RGTraynor 12:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Not acknowledging at all that the goal was controversial would be a mistake in my opinion. I'll tell you right now, I am a Sabres fan and always have been. And I can tell you that this event goes down in Buffalo sports lore as one of the greatest travesties in the history of sports. Whether it's true or not is not up to Wikipedia to decide, but the controversy has to be acknowledged. The Lindy Ruff "No Goal" proclamation at the parade should also be included. And, it should be noted that they did change the rule the next year. Why change the rule if it didn't cause controversy?

I think we should present both sides of the argument and maybe put forth that although the league officials made their final decision (that it was a legal goal), the debate continues on to this day with fans and hockey commentators. But you can't have an article about the Sabres and omit the most infamous play in team history. That would be like excluding Bill Buckner from the Red Sox article. Right or wrong, it was significant, and does continue to be debated.

Btw, I think that link you wanted is here Bill shannon 22:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Its mentioned as one of a series of blunders in recent NHL history the in lastest ESPN Magazine in the cover story about Crosby. I don't have it next to me but to paraphrase: Hull's skate became invisible. So it is still being referenced and is very much relevant in any account of Sabres/Stars/Cup/NHL history. ccwaters 00:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It Was a sad day for hockey when that goal happen, the NHL knows damn well that they totally screwed up that day. Thankfully, due to that happening, the In the crease rule was abolished. But the fact is, that rule should never have existed to begin with. Brett Hull's legacy was tainted by that goal. It shouldn't be. It just was an error on the NHL's part. And the Sabres fans have every right to be upset. However its unlikely the Sabres would have gone on to win the Stanley Cup if they would have won Game 6 anyways. Why? Because only 2 teams have ever won the Cup in a game 7 on the road. And that was the Leafs in 1942, and the Canadiens in 1971. This has been proven in the recent seasons, as the past 4 of 5 seasons we saw the Stanley Cup Finals go to 7 Games. and the home team won all 4 of them.

But rest assure Sabres fans, Your Stanley Cup is coming. Ugly Jerseys or not. It's coming.--Dr. Pizza 18:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the NHL changing the "in the crease" rule for the 1999/2000 season, I was under the distinct impression the league had decided to change this rule mid-season, or at least before the playoffs started. What I seem to remember is that it was not changed because of this incident, merely that the controversy happened to coincide with the last year of the rule standing, and that there was significant discussion about the impending rule change throughout the season. This is memory only and it may be very difficult to verify this, but if anyone can back this up it'd be appreciated; I can't seem to find anything supporting my memory of a hockey season that occurred when I was 11 years old unfortunately.--Silverandcold 07:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Germany

Yes I agree that Hecht was born in what was at the time, West Germany, however West Germany was never an official title anyway. Per the Article West Germany was used loosly by English speakers to refer to the Federal Republic of Germany. Also very little to no information is gained by linking to the extreamley short article on West Germany. Also, Hecht is still from the city of Mannheim, which is part of the Federal Republic of Germany I did not do an exhaustive search, but in the articles that I checked usually stating that someone was either born or died in West Germany infers that they are already dead, and usually died before the German reunification.

If someone can make a compelling argument to why this should remain West Germany in the next week, I'll change this back, however for now I've changed this to refer to the currently existing state of the Federal Republic of Germany.

T.C. 16:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already changed it back. The original research is appreciated, however the following sites list Hecht as being born in West Germany: ESPN.com, TSN.ca, CBSSportline.com, CNNSi, Yahoo sports, CBC.ca, The Washington Post, Fox Sports, Eurohockey.net, and USA Hockey. There are more that I haven't even listed. This is ore than enough to be verifiable (as per the Verifiability policy, Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. - all sites listed above are reputable. ) Change reverted. Yankees76 19:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

First off: it is convention to list birthplaces as they were at time of birth... So it is correct to list a place that may no longer exist. See any Czech, Slovak, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, etc player. I hope there isn't any issue there.

The UN does recognize the former "West Germany" as the current Germany. It was "East Germany" that was absorbed. The question is whether "West Germany" is an acceptable name. That's what I've always know the country as. I'll look into it. ccwaters 23:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[German language article for West Germany translated to English], sounds like it as commonly referred to as Westdeutschland (West Germany) there too. ccwaters 00:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthems

Is it true that they always play the Canadian national anthem at all home Sabres games, even when the opponents are both American teams? Can anyone verify this? hanes3777

Its been a good 6 years since I lived in Western New York, but I don't recall the Canadian anthem being played. ccwaters 20:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do play the Canadian anthem at home games. For example, I was just present for the Mar 12, 2006 home game against Boston, and they played the Canadian anthem then, as well as the game in January I attended that was against Phoenix. MiltonFV 15 March 2006

They do, but I was under the impression that the playing of both anthems was simply NHL policy. 69.162.199.46 07:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not in the least. It's only customary -- there's certainly no regulation requiring it -- to play the Canadian anthem in a US arena when a Canadian team is the opponent, and vice versa in Canadian arenas. Buffalo just must trade on its proximity to Canada and its longstanding campaign to draw in Canadian fans. RGTraynor 00:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Most NHL players are Canadian anyway, no matter what team they are on. 71.243.132.97 22:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate?

Second, during a face-off and through the fog, Sabres center Jim Lorentz spotted a bat flying across the rink, raised his stick, and killed it, thus marking the only time an animal was killed directly by a player during an NHL game

Human beings are animals aren't they? These people would seem to qualify then. Pedantry, I suppose. — GT 11:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the only one intentionally killed? Masterson and Cecil were accidental deaths. Vesperholly 06:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Briere & Drury

Just wanted to point out (due to recent anon edit), Briere & Drury are co-captains and listed as such. Briere and Drury take turns wearing the 'C' on a game-by-game basis. While one player is wearing the 'C' the other is wearing an 'A'. GoodDay 16:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue-and-gold?

The only source for the assertion I found was a sports editorial in the Buffalo News today at [1]. The pertinent bit is "It's been rumored for years, but it's time the Sabres switched back to the blue and gold. They reached the conference finals three times wearing the snorting goat, but there never was a sense of history with that uniform. Bring back the old buffalo and enjoy the infusion of money." A sportswriter on a nostalgia kick (as much as I agree with him) doesn't constitute fact. RGTraynor 15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bringing back the blue and gold has been thrown around for years. There's even a website dedicated to it. There is a rumor floating around that since next season will have the new Reebok jerseys that the Sabres will have an update on the current jersey with slightly altered blue and gold colors. The alternate would be the exact blue jersey worn in the Sabres early era. However no official statement has been released.Yankees76 15:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of reverting new blue and gold uniform edits. Wait until you have a verifiable source of information before you begin altering the article. That goes for you too NoseNuggets. While there are signs that the new jersey will be unveiled as soon as the draft this Saturday, there hasn't been an official statement from the team or league as of yet. Please don't make these edits until your statement can be verified. It's still vandalism - so don't jump the gun. Nice subtitles though 'nuggets, I like them. Yankees76 17:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't, after all, as if Wikipedia gives prizes to the first person making a new uniform edit. Wait until it's official. RGTraynor 21:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I have been told, the change will be in September during Training Camp. They will have an public unveiling during that time, as the Bills from what I am told usually hog the media attention around Lake Erie in September. I can also tell you that Chris Cramer, the internet sage of logs and colors in sports, is in on this.NoseNuggets 6:34 PM US EDT June 23 2006.

Verifiable source please. Otherwise I'll revert your edits and/have you blocked as a vandal - I don't want to, but you're jumping the gun and compromising the articles integrity.Yankees76 22:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am NOT jumping the gun in any way, shape or form. I am sending this dispute to arbitration. NoseNuggets 6:42 PM US EDT June 23 2006

Go ahead. You'll lose. None of your statements are verifiable. You might want to brush up on some Wikipedia policies before you waste more people's time and embarass yourself any further. This one especially: Wikipedia:Verifiability Yankees76 22:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I finally found a source. A podcast with Sabres managing partner Lawrence Quinn. It can be found at http://www.sabres.com/content/media/TMS-11-30-05.mp3 (You must be a subscriber to listen to this.) In it, at the 24:24 mark, the question was asked of when the Sabres would go back to the blue and gold scheme. This portion of the interview runs to the 25:43 mark, and you can ignore the "form-fitting" part of the interview. The look of the way the jerseys will be the same as the previous year, as that was told in March the NHL owners did not like the Nike-designed streamlined jerseys used during the Olympics in Turin. NoseNuggets 7:17 PM US EDT June 23 2006.

Yeah I heard that months ago. It's about as credible as that site I posted above with the redesigned uniforms airbrushed on Miroslav Satan. Unfortuneately it doesn't count as a "credible, third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as per the policy. Otherwise major newspapers would be carrying this story already. Even emails send to the Sabres webmaster have not confirmed that what was said in passing by Larry is actually going to happen - let alone when. You'll have to do better than that. I've looked and trust me, if there was a verifiable source, it would be in the article. Until then have fun on the Sabres forum speculating with everyone else [2] Yankees76 00:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Let me know if this actually does go to arbitration, because I'll be happy to chime in. I can't for the life of me see what is so necessary and urgent about this (alleged) change requiring it to be reported here before the team does. Wikipedia is neither an editorial column, a forum, a blog or a rumor mill, and it is sure as hell not a crystal ball. I recommend Wikipedia: Reliable sources if there's further confusion. RGTraynor 11:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to be the 'first' person to add this to Wikipedia - be my guest (since some of you couldn't wait for a verifiable source last week). The Buffalo News has the scoop on the new uni. Have fun. [3] Maybe you can title the section - 'Sabres go from the Goat to the Slug'. [4]Yankees76 14:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I found another article from the Buffalo News confirming that the B with sword patch will not be used, however the online article is the only source I have found saying that. Since it will expire in 7 days and links to the news aren't recommended, how is this to be proven? [5]

You footnote the article, is what. Take a look in a few minutes and you'll see. RGTraynor 02:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok thanks. amsterdam528 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindy Ruff

Err ... I'm wondering under what criteria one could possibly call him a star? In only one season did he get as many as 20 goals and had only 300 points in his whole career. It's odd to compare him to Mike Foligno, a recognized star who scored 355 goals in his career with five 30+ goal seasons, and whose career scoring high is nearly twice that of Ruff's. Ruff was a good leader and had a decent career as a third-liner, but that's about it. RGTraynor 05:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're comparing two different types of players. Not a star in the scope of the NHL, but definitely a key player on the Sabres teams of the 80's. A players worth goes beyond mere goals and assists - after all he (not Foligno) replaced Perreault as the captain when Gil retired. I agree - not a "star" - "key player" is a better term and in terms of contributions to the franchise, he's now done more for the team than Foligno ever did, but I'll leave your edit. Yankees76 13:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well ... when it comes down to it, hockey's about two things, and two things only: putting the puck in the other guy's net and keeping it out of your own. No one ever claimed Foligno was poor defensively (anything but, actually), and he captained the Sabres himself (succeeding Ruff, come to that), so you can't knock his leadership either. Ruff has done a good job as coach, but no one would have ever dared trade him in his playing days even up for any of the other five guys mentioned, and probably not for some other key Sabres of the period either, such as John Tucker, Mike Ramsay, Tony McKegney or even the Christian Ruutuus of the world. RGTraynor 18:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And you can't forget Foligno's bucket too. He gets on the page just for that! In all seriousness, I probably underestimated Foligno and over estimated Lindy. Yankees76 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly some image tidying up?

The new logos being speculated as the upcoming 2006-07 logos don't really seem to do the article justice by being stuffed down where they are, and flowing into the team's record section. I'm not really sure how to go about making it look better, since putting them anywhere else in the article would not make much sense, as they'd no longer be placed alongside the section talking about the speculation. If anyone can think of a good way to take care of this, that'd be great.-Resident Lune 21:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffalo Sabres logo edits, reverts, and issues

Doing some digging in the news, it would appear that ... yes, several newspapers have actually run stories on the issue not only concerning fan's displeasure over the new, projected logo, but also on the Fix the Logo website, which there has been somewhat of a minor edit war over. The newspaper articles are here, and here.

With that said, there is the issue of the Buffalo News articles being removed after only a limited amount of time. But despite this, a verifiable and legitimate article is still a legitimate article, even if it may be removed after only a limited time. Is there anything we can do to try to get some sort of happy medium between this barrage of IPs editing in Fix the Logo and commenting on public opinion, or simply ignoring it completely?--Resident Lune 22:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We compromised already by allowing unconfirmed speculatory logos to appear in the article. In less than 2 months they will all buy their new jerseys anyway and the signatures will be forgotten along with all the other useless petitions at petitiononline.com. Yeah, its ugly, but the section dealing with the French Connection needs more attention. ccwaters 00:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - again refrain from posting non NPOV material regarding the new uniforms - that includes posting fan creations and speculative pictures of the jersey. What has been verified is that yes, there will be new jerseys with a new logo and they will be unveiled Sept. 24, that the original blue and gold jersey with the buffalo and crossed sabres will be their third jersey that they will wear at 15 home games this season, and that the logo that has been circulating the net is the new logo, but it is not the exact symbol - only a part of it, and that nearly 23,000 Sabres fans have already signed an online petition protesting this logo. That's it. Anything else is original research and has no place here. Yankees76 20:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's sometimes hard to maintain NPOV sometimes with an issue like this, with the fan's passion running so high. But Yankees76 is right - we have to resist the temptation to editorialize or do OR. Once the new sweaters are unveiled and the furor dies down, any objection to a sentence describing the controversy (such as it is) and adding http://www.fixthelogo.com/ to the links as a significant fansite? --Chancemichaels 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

The website in question offers no value other than being a gateway to petitiononline.com. I don't see it becoming anymore than that. ccwaters 19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed

I've redone the Sabers site to reflect the team's new colors and logo.

And I've reverted your edits. Please see the dicussion above. Note that the leaked logo is not the final logo and will not be revealed until September 16, 2006. Thanks. Yankees76 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary Logo

I've placed the new logo on the page and placed the second one elsewhere. This is only a temporary image until someone can find a better (cleaner) version.

Kal 15:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Great find on that new image. Perfect replacement.

[edit] Use of 'The Swords'

Would someone be so kind as to advise me if it's standard practice to use 'The Swords' interchangeably with 'The Sabres'? I'm unaware of any such precedent and my prior edit to correct this was reverted. 24.50.118.245 01:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved 24.50.118.245 03:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team Captains, 2003-04

I've added a discription of the Sabres captaincy in the 2003-04. Pointing the fact ,the captaincy was being rotated. I'v done this edit for unfamilliar readers. If anyone disagrees with my edit, then by all means revert, I won't dispute. GoodDay 18:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Play by Play guy

What's the name of the Sabres play-by-play guy that goes "SCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!"Ohyeh 16:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You're looking for the amazing Rick Jeanneret --T-rex 17:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow; how that guy got himself a job doing play-by-play is gonna to amaze me!Ohyeh 02:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding - he's one of the best in the league. He's a living legend in Buffalo. Yankees76 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Just before the vandalism of 15:07, 6 December 2006 (edit) by 168.169.26.3, he made another (minor) edit that changed a number - someone might want to check it. -DoctorW 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team Captains (seeking consensus)

Seeking consensus (for other team pages as well). How should we list them? 'By season'? (New York Rangers, for instance use 'by season' method). Or leave it 'by players'? Here' what I mean-

If consensus is for 'by season', then I'll make the required edits. GoodDay 23:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm signing out for the night. Hope to get feedback, on my proposal. Cheers. GoodDay 23:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there's been no objections, I'll add the new edits. If disagree, revert, I won't dispute. GoodDay 18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's a bit late now, but I like how you've changed it, it seems to follow a better flow --T-rex 19:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not too late. GoodDay 20:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer by player, myself. RGTraynor 01:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer by player. Provides the info in a more compact and readable presentation. -- Jeff3000 20:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My reasons for proposing, list by seasons? There were a few NHL team pages that had their list by seasons, while others were by players. I was looking to have all 30 team pages the same. However if consensus is for 'list by players' (by 22:00 UTC today), I'll edit ALL 30 teams in that fashion. Then I'll not tamper with NHL page team captains list, anymore. GoodDay 20:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's past 22:00 UTC. Consensus are 1-For, 2-Against. Now will change to 'list by players'. GoodDay 22:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've now edited ALL 30 NHL team pages' team captain lists. They're all 'now' listed 'by players' (even edited the defunct NHL teams). Thanks for your (my peers) imput. GoodDay 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Roster

To differentiate Captains & Alternate captains from acting Captains & acting alternate captains (eg. Phillips filling in for Alfreddson & Warrener filling in for Yelle). I propose making acting 'C' & 'A's bolden, while regular 'C' & 'A's, are wiki-linked to Captain (ice hockey) & Captain (ice hockey)#Alternate captains. EXAMPLE: Ottawa's current roster- Alfredsson - C while Phillips is C. Prosposal made with unfamillier NHL team page readers in mind. GoodDay 22:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, this proposal (if accepted) will cut down on near weekly wiki-link changes (due to injuries & recoveries of players). GoodDay 01:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old 3rd Jersey

isn't that a puck?