El Chucko Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 The Ottawa Sun today had a breakdown of the buyers and sellers in the NHL, as the trade deadline approaches. They specifically listed Derek Roy as someone the Sabres would be willing to part with. BUFFALO SABRES STATUS: Buyer NEEDS: The Sabres are expecting to get C Tim Connolly back from his post-concussion issues, but that is complicated by a stress fracture in his leg. POSSIBILITIES: Will listen to offers for G Martin Biron, C Derek Roy and LW Ales Kotalik. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I'm just wondering, why Roy as opposed to anyone else?
slugspirit Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 The Ottawa Sun today had a breakdown of the buyers and sellers in the NHL, as the trade deadline approaches. They specifically listed Derek Roy as someone the Sabres would be willing to part with. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I'm just wondering, why Roy as opposed to anyone else? That's the first I've heard his name mentioned. The only reason I could think we may consider moving him is that he will be our most experienced RFA this offseason, meaning that the team may not find him worth the salary he'll command considering the other cap decisions they'll have. Personally, I think Roy is a great locker room presence for this squad and he's really taken huge strides this year - especially in his ability to create scoring chances for teammates. I don't think there's a trade out there that would make dealing Roy worthwhile.
apuszczalowski Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 The problem is, you have to deal something good to get something good back We aren't going to get Crosby by trading Peters
Done Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Looking around, Colorado might be the Perfect partner for a trade. 1) They are 9 points out of a playoff spot 2) Darcy has dealt with them before 3) They have experienced role players who are cheaper I can see a guy like Roy and a prospect going there for any combination of the following guys: Brad May (not a liabilty like Peters in playoffs), Ian Laparierre (we almost had him last year, Gaustad like), Pierre Turgeon (A 3rd center with experience and insurance against Connoly being out), and Ken Klee (slow yes, but +14 and a Darcy favorite over the years). All 4 of those guys come up just under $4 million in yearly salary. We probably wouldn't get all 4, but if you sit Timmy the rest of the regular season we could pick them all up and fit under the cap. These are the types of guys we need.
slapshot1619 Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 I wouldn't mind Jeanneret pulling a "oooh LA LA Pierre" out of the old one liner bins. :D
bcsaberks Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Say it isn't so. Roy has to stay as part of the young core including Miller, Vanek, Max, Pomers, Campbell, Gaustad. All these guys that "smelled diesel" together at some point in Rochester. When it's time to dig deep in the playoffs those friendships / history count for something don't they?
apuszczalowski Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Say it isn't so. Roy has to stay as part of the young core including Miller, Vanek, Max, Pomers, Campbell, Gaustad. All these guys that "smelled diesel" together at some point in Rochester. When it's time to dig deep in the playoffs those friendships / history count for something don't they? You have to do what you have to do to win, and if that means dealing Roy to get some reinforcements, I think the rest of the team and players will understand it was for tye best interest of the team trying to win a cup. We can have a team of best friends from the minors who will be forced out of the playoffs (in probably the best chance they are going to have to win the cup), or a team that will capitalize on their current situation of being a SC caliber team and win the cup this year
Kristian Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Turgeon? No thanks. If we're going to make a deal, why bring in another soft finesse player? We got that position covered, we need somebody with a decent set of hands, and a willingness to work for a living, and throw a bodycheck once in a while. And before someone starts talking about a whole team of Andrew Peters clones, I said "Somebody with a DECENT set of hands".
jad1 Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Looking around, Colorado might be the Perfect partner for a trade. 1) They are 9 points out of a playoff spot 2) Darcy has dealt with them before 3) They have experienced role players who are cheaper I can see a guy like Roy and a prospect going there for any combination of the following guys: Brad May (not a liabilty like Peters in playoffs), Ian Laparierre (we almost had him last year, Gaustad like), Pierre Turgeon (A 3rd center with experience and insurance against Connoly being out), and Ken Klee (slow yes, but +14 and a Darcy favorite over the years). All 4 of those guys come up just under $4 million in yearly salary. We probably wouldn't get all 4, but if you sit Timmy the rest of the regular season we could pick them all up and fit under the cap. These are the types of guys we need. Yeah, let's trade a productive player for a bunch of trash. Roy had 15 points in the playoffs last year. Roy has 38 points and is a +20 this season. Numbers that are better than the four Colorado players combined. Regier isn't going to replace a productive player like Roy with a bunch of slow, injured, over-the-hill, washed up players. People are working way too hard to replace Peters in the playoffs. He won't touch the ice in the playoffs, even if the Sabres don't make a trade. And if Regier really wants to trade for Peters replacement, it should take nothing more than a 4th round pick. A 5th round pick if he wants May.
JohnRobertEichel Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Roy should be one of the "untouchables." I am looking forward to watching the Vanek-Roy-Afinogenov line dominate in Buffalo for years; hopefully Regier is, too. Biron and Kotalik, on the other hand, are definitely expendable. Their value to the team is clearly much greater in the regular season than in the postseason (no playoff shootouts for Kotalik, backup goalie only plays in playoffs during injury emergency, etc...). Plus, Biron is good as gone next year and Kotalik won't even be playing for the rest of this regular season. It may be a bit risky losing them, but that's usually the case for any trade.
apuszczalowski Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Roy should be one of the "untouchables." I am looking forward to watching the Vanek-Roy-Afinogenov line dominate in Buffalo for years; hopefully Regier is, too. Biron and Kotalik, on the other hand, are definitely expendable. Their value to the team is clearly much greater in the regular season than in the postseason (no playoff shootouts for Kotalik, backup goalie only plays in playoffs during injury emergency, etc...). Plus, Biron is good as gone next year and Kotalik won't even be playing for the rest of this regular season. It may be a bit risky losing them, but that's usually the case for any trade. That is all true, but what kind of value do a backup goalie and an injured player who could be out the rest of the season have? You can't just get another team to trade a good player for our garbage. It takes talent to get talent. If Roy is on the block its because they are looking for some serious talent and out of the Sabres lineup, he may be the best value to use as trade bait to get something good in return.
Done Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 If everyone is so gung ho on keeping the Rochester Sabres together, then so be it. I'm sure McArthur, Paille, Ryan, Stafford, Peters, and Mair are all ready to take 15 minutes worth of shifts in the playoffs. And I'm sure there is no way that any coach would put together a line to try and shut down Briere. Max- 50/50 for being ready by the playoffs. One little setback and he is gone for the year. Connolly- He is so out of shape that his shin splints started to break off. Even if his head clears, it may take a month of playing to get back his edge. We don't have a month to wait Novotny- Not that he's a world beater to begin with, but he's done the same ankle twice in a month. Either he will blow it again if he comes back too soon, or he will not take the sharp corners and quick stops on a regular basis as to not do it again. Kotalik- Will probably be fine, but there is a risk he buckles again. The problem is we have a solid month to go without all of these guys. The trade deadline is a week away. I don't want to hear everyone cry when we are 5-8-2 over the next 15 games, saying we should have made a trade. The good thing is that even Darcy can't be THAT thickheaded to think we are OK right now.
apuszczalowski Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 The problem is we have a solid month to go without all of these guys. The trade deadline is a week away. I don't want to hear everyone cry when we are 5-8-2 over the next 15 games, saying we should have made a trade. The good thing is that even Darcy can't be THAT thickheaded to think we are OK right now. Have you heard his recent comments abouting wanting to keep the team together that got them in this position?
Done Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Have you heard his recent comments abouting wanting to keep the team together that got them in this position? Yeah, they're together......in the ER of ECMC :doh:
slugspirit Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Have you heard his recent comments abouting wanting to keep the team together that got them in this position? Those comments were made before the injury to Kotalik, and I believe before a time table was put on Max. Consider this quote from today's Buffalo News concerning Marty; "We were leaning toward keeping Marty, but things have changed," Regier said. "What it means is, given the injuries and where we are now, you're always revisiting things as the season progresses." I originally doubted that we'd make any moves. We were too close to the cap and didn't really need to make any additions with the depth we had. The problem is that those players that make up our solid depth are now skating regularly with no one behind them. I honestly didn't want to see Michael Ryan touch the ice in Buffalo again this year. Now I don't see how we can't make a move. The injuries have "solved" the cap issue and our depth is suddenly thin.
nucci Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Have you heard his recent comments abouting wanting to keep the team together that got them in this position? Yeah, a GM is supposed to tell you about his plans and let everyone know who he is thinking of trading?!
inkman Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 I honestly didn't want to see Michael Ryan touch the ice in Buffalo again this year. I thnk you are being a little hard on the chowdahead. I think during his first stint, he really had a case of the jitters. He's got the best wheels in the organ-eye-zation, this side of Max. Of course, he could be the next Brian Holzinger.
slugspirit Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 I thnk you are being a little hard on the chowdahead. I think during his first stint, he really had a case of the jitters. He's got the best wheels in the organ-eye-zation, this side of Max. Of course, he could be the next Brian Holzinger. I didn't mean for that to be a shot at Ryan. Other than his jitters and 'own-goal' this year, I love what he can bring. 2 hat tricks in 3 games with the Amerks says it all. I just meant that if Ryan were called up, then you know we're depleted by injuries, which is currently the case. I don't think we've gone past Ryan and McArthur on the depth chart this year, which is as far down as I could go and still be confident in who we put on the ice.
apuszczalowski Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Yeah, a GM is supposed to tell you about his plans and let everyone know who he is thinking of trading?! Where did I say He should be letting everyone know who he is planning on dealing? Saying you are looking at bringing in a certain type of player or are going to be looking at making a couple deals to prepare this team for the Cup run is not showing your hand
phSabres84 Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Yeah, a GM is supposed to tell you about his plans and let everyone know who he is thinking of trading?! Are you saying he is suppose to be updating the fans of the :doh: team? I don't think so!! He has a responsibility to the owner, and the fans receive the results of actions to that end. This is not team management by democracy.
nucci Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Are you saying he is suppose to be updating the fans of the :doh: team? I don't think so!! He has a responsibility to the owner, and the fans receive the results of actions to that end. This is not team management by democracy. I was responding to another posting saying Regier was not going to make a move. My point was just what you said. He is not going to tell us anything that he is planning. I was trying to state what you just did, just better than me.
drnkirishone Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 I think you guys are missing something here with this talk of giving up someone good to get someone good. Remember we are most likely getting a rental player someone that is UFA next season and with deals like that you hardly ever give up productive and good players. You normally give up prospects, some one in a slump, or someone that is unproven and Roy to me is none of thous. So if we trade Roy I expect us to be getting more then just a rental
apuszczalowski Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 I think you guys are missing something here with this talk of giving up someone good to get someone good. Remember we are most likely getting a rental player someone that is UFA next season and with deals like that you hardly ever give up productive and good players. You normally give up prospects, some one in a slump, or someone that is unproven and Roy to me is none of thous. So if we trade Roy I expect us to be getting more then just a rental Don't get me wrong, I have said before that you need to give up something good to get something good, but You don't give away a guy like Roy for a rental player. If Roy goes anywhere it will probably be for someone who is either already under a contract for more then this season, or is included with picks for someone of greater value. (like dealing him and a couple picks for a player of Forsbergs caliber, and yes I know Forsberg has already been dealt, just an example)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.