fushetti Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 This could go on forever. 1997 21 Mika Norenan we could of used pick 23 Scott Hannan or how about pick 25 Brendan Morrow I think he is their Captain. 1998 18 we did get Kalinin but how about 19 Robby Rehger or 22 Simon Gange or 27 Scott Gomez 1999 20 Barret Heisten how about 21 Nick Boyton, boy he would look good or 26 Martin Havlat 2000 15 Artim Krukov how about 20 alexander Frolov or 28 Justin Williams The other thing is all of our great first round picks are run out of here and are playing on other teams. Good thing we did run Tim Connelly and Pyatt out of here, YET. Todd, every draft is a crapshoot. You can nitpick each and every team and their draft picks til youre blue in the face. I guess you've proven your point that the Sabres draft in all friggin 36 years in existence have not been the best but I guarantee that theres at least 20 other teams out there with the same problem.
fushetti Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 hey Obviously I ment try Googling on how information goes from the GM to the press and what the difference is between speculation and rumor. Not googing to find rumors. You can learn how the information network works. People will expain to you it. Such as many reporters have friends on the inside or Retired Hockey players now anylists have inside information. Like i said do a little research on how information moves about. It is very insightful. I wonder how you find anything on google with your excellent spelling. haha. ;) i'm sorry, that was a low blow. I'm ashamed of myself.
hopeleslyobvious Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 How about this, would you go along with the idea that sometimes scouts are wrong? Hockey players are drafted at a pretty young age, so sometimes there are going to be players that turn out to be pretty good that get passed over, and players not so good that get picked early. When players are drafted they still have a long way to go in their development. You know what they say hindsight is 20/20.
Toddkaz Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 Frushetti you are completely right. Some teams are better then other. you are right we probably aren't the worst at it. I have to go along way to prove a point. If drafting is a crapshoot and #1 picks are highly saught after then why not use them to package a deal. Biron and a #1 could get a pretty could return then just Biron alone.
Toddkaz Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 actually I do have bad spelling but my laptop mouse bad is kinda messed up so it jumps around makes things worse. I just got it at costco last year it is a acer what a peice of crap
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 Gm's call other Gm's to see what they can get. Ie Theodore and Richards the press gets a hold of it and prints it. You have never heard of CHATTER? Do i always have to explain things. The press ges a hold of this information from NHL teams. NHL GM's always use the press to bargain with. Buffalo has said, JP Dumont, Pyatt, Norenan to name a few names have been used by our team for trade bait. See how it works now? Then teams here through the wire and call GM's if they are interested. That is just one of many ways the Media is involved. try googling it and maybe you can see. Dude, what do you do for a living? Because with all your access to legit NHL GM chatter you obviously should have Bucky Gleason's job. I swear, I check in on this board every couple months hoping you will be gone ... but since you're not I guess I will see everyone in April ... I think I have absorbed enough hockey knowledge from Todd to last me a couple months ... of course my spelling skills are shot to hell now ...
shrader Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 Every team in the NHL passed on Daniel Alfredsson several times in the draft. We can go over scenarios like this in every single draft. It's pointless.
hopeleslyobvious Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 Every team in the NHL passed on Daniel Alfredsson several times in the draft. We can go over scenarios like this in every single draft. It's pointless. Thank you...Much better way of articulating my point.
Knightrider Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 Tampa Bay laughs and hangs up. I think some people are underestimating how good Brad Richards is. A package that's centered around Derek Roy isn't going to give you a sniff of an elite forward like Richards. Biron will be an UFA after the 06-07 season, he's making over $2 million, and isn't a huge upgrade over their current goaltending situation. Roy is a decent sparkplug with offensive skill, but he's undersized and will never be close to elite. They're going to need a lot more than a 20 spot draft pick upgrade to even consider this. Any Sabre fan that doesn't want to make this deal is delusional. Richards is a point per game center that's been doing it consistently on the second line. He's thrived in big game situations and would immediately become our most skilled player. That said, it's a 'mute' point as Feaster hangs up unless the package involves Vanek. If he is a UFA at the end of the season, that is a great deal for TB... Depending on TB's cap situation next year, they may not be in the running to resign Richards, anyway. They get plenty for next to nothing.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 If he is a UFA at the end of the season, that is a great deal for TB... Depending on TB's cap situation next year, they may not be in the running to resign Richards, anyway. They get plenty for next to nothing. Yeah but ... doesn't it seem highly unlikely that Tampa is going to make a deal that helps a team ahead of it in the East? I mean, I know they have struggled at times but this is largely the same team that won the Cup ... they have to be wanting to make another playoff run of some sort. Once Briere and Connolly are healthy, Roy is basically an extra center for the Sabres ... so why would Tampa give a player like Richards to a team it is chasing and might have to go through at some point for that team's backup goalie and 5th center? I understand they might lose Richards for nothing and Roy and a draft pick might be good for their future, but if the premise is that the Sabres should go for it and not think too much about the future, shouldn't we assume the team that is defending the Cup might have the same philosophy and might want to keep Richards for the stretch run?
MLH Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 If he is a UFA at the end of the season, that is a great deal for TB... Depending on TB's cap situation next year, they may not be in the running to resign Richards, anyway. They get plenty for next to nothing. A) Even if he was a UFA and the cap was staying at $39 million, they could get a better deal. I don't see how TB is is a worse position this upcoming offseason than Ottawa was this past offseason with Hossa. They got Heatley for him. When you have a chance to get an elite 26 year old Center with a SC ring and a Conn Smythe, you don't bank on the other GM dealing from a position of weakness. TB's cap situation will not harm Richard's value. B) The cap will be around $46 million next season, so TB will have plenty of money to sign him. C) Richards meets neither the age requirement nor the accrued seasons requirement to be an UFA. He, like Biron, will be in his last year of restricted free agency next season. If the Sabres want Richards, Vanek+ will be going the other way.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 In fact, now that I think about it, if I am Tampa and I really want to get something for Richards, I would try to deal him to Detroit for Osgood and something (gotta take some salary back, Wings have to be up against it) ... then at least they are getting a goalie who is playoff proven and they're not helping an eastern rival ... Again, Detroit might want no part of this and it might not work with the cap, but that is the kind of deal Tampa has to be looking for.
Knightrider Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 Yeah but ... doesn't it seem highly unlikely that Tampa is going to make a deal that helps a team ahead of it in the East? I mean, I know they have struggled at times but this is largely the same team that won the Cup ... they have to be wanting to make another playoff run of some sort. Once Briere and Connolly are healthy, Roy is basically an extra center for the Sabres ... so why would Tampa give a player like Richards to a team it is chasing and might have to go through at some point for that team's backup goalie and 5th center?I understand they might lose Richards for nothing and Roy and a draft pick might be good for their future, but if the premise is that the Sabres should go for it and not think too much about the future, shouldn't we assume the team that is defending the Cup might have the same philosophy and might want to keep Richards for the stretch run? Yup. I would if I were the TB GM. I was just saying that it really wasn't a bad deal for them if they were hoping to re-sign him in the off season. BTW our depth is obviously very good, at goal and forward, and our backups are better than starters on many teams. :) I don't like it for the Sabres. I actually would like more than a rent a player for Biron as he is great insurance if Miller goes down again. Maybe Mika for Richards as Mika has a low salary with plenty of upside. A potential #1 goalie that is cheaper than either of the two they have? Same performance for half the cost would allow them some cap space... Roy, IIRC, has a two way contract, so could go back to the Amerks.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 Yeah his play may not warrant it but once the Sabres get healthy (if they ever get all the way there) they really have 14 forwards (counting Peters) ... someone is going to have to go back down ... in a perfect world dealing some of that depth for a defenseman would be nice, but EVERY playoff team is looking for an extra solid defenseman, it just may not happen.
Knightrider Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 A) Even if he was a UFA and the cap was staying at $39 million, they could get a better deal. I don't see how TB is is a worse position this upcoming offseason than Ottawa was this past offseason with Hossa. They got Heatley for him. When you have a chance to get an elite 26 year old Center with a SC ring and a Conn Smythe, you don't bank on the other GM dealing from a position of weakness. TB's cap situation will not harm Richard's value. B) The cap will be around $46 million next season, so TB will have plenty of money to sign him. C) Richards meets neither the age requirement nor the accrued seasons requirement to be an UFA. He, like Biron, will be in his last year of restricted free agency next season. If the Sabres want Richards, Vanek+ will be going the other way. I have no idea whether he is going to be a UFA or not. I was working to the premise that was presented at the beginning of the thread. There is no way I'd trade Vanek for someone who had the potential to bolt at the end of next season.
Guest Bona Alum Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 Roy or Kotalik have to go. Package them with Biron/Norenen to get a defensive defenseman. I'm sick of seeing Jay McKee as the only old-time blue-liner on the team. No one else has his grit (or lack of speed for that matter). Roy is very dispensible. He may make a play every other game, but he's small and too inconsistant. Kotalik, other than his one-timer, is not good. He's one dimensional. He can't/won't backcheck, should really have 30+ goals, and can easily be replaced in the lineup. At this point, and I don't care how many goals he has, Pominville has moved past Kotalik on the depth chart. Tell me, who wouldn't trade Kotalik/Norenen for Bergeron/Draft Pick on Edmonton? As soon as Briere and Connolly come back someone has to sit. So make the decision easy on yourselves, Sabres, and make a trade. I would like the lines to look like this heading into the playoffs, unfortunately I don't think Mair will be back or I would get rid of both Roy and Kotalik. 1: Vanek Drury Grier 2. Afinigenov Briere Dumont 3. Pyatt Connolly Roy/Kotalik 4. Hecht Gaustad Pominville D McKee Campbell Numminen (NEW DEFENSEMAN) Lydman Tallinder Bench: Peters, Fitzpatrick, Biron, ???
MLH Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 I have no idea whether he is going to be a UFA or not. I was working to the premise that was presented at the beginning of the thread. There is no way I'd trade Vanek for someone who had the potential to bolt at the end of next season. Well he is a RFA. I agree that I wouldn't trade Vanek. I'm just trying to show that there's no way TB moves Richards and there is a lot of homerism in this thread. Why aren't we trying to trade away Briere? Or even better, McKee and Numminem?
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 Bergeron? Here is TSN.ca's scouting report on Bergeron ... Assets: Moves the puck quickly and efficiently out of danger. Has the ability to rack up points if given enough ice time. Flaws: At 5-9, 190 pounds, he'll always have trouble handling big NHL forwards. As a result, he'll never be able to log a ton of ice time at the highest level. Career potential: Power play specialist. In other words, he's Brian Campbell. Kotalik brings more to the table than you give him credit for ... he is bigger than most of the Sabres forwards and when they stick him in Peters spot with Gaustad, Pyatt and/or Mair he works the forecheck very well with them. I'm not saying he is indispensible, just that he is not the liability you make him out to be.
Guest Bona Alum Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 I admit Bergeron is not God's gift to the blue line. But look how valuable Campbell has become, plus Bergeron is 23 or 24 years-old. I have something against Kotalik, I don't know what it is. And since Roy can go back to Crapchester during the season, I'd rather see Kotalik moved for a more valuable part.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 Well it's not that I dislike Bergeron it's just that he doesn't fit the McKee mold you said you were looking for ... not to mention the fact that maybe the reason the Sabres are doing so well in the new NHL is that they don't have too many big slow old school defensemen ... but I would love to add a solid defenseman somehow, I just think it's going to be hard to find a trading partner ... everyone is looking for one
hopeleslyobvious Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 Well he is a RFA. I agree that I wouldn't trade Vanek. I'm just trying to show that there's no way TB moves Richards and there is a lot of homerism in this thread. Why aren't we trying to trade away Briere? Or even better, McKee and Numminem? It's not homerism, it's wanting to make changes to the weaker aspects of our team before we go out and rent a center. It's a matter of not wanting to give up our biggest bargaining chip for someone who plays a position where we have plenty of depth as opposed to going out and bringing in a defenseman that we really need.
hopeleslyobvious Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 Roy or Kotalik have to go. Package them with Biron/Norenen to get a defensive defenseman. I'm sick of seeing Jay McKee as the only old-time blue-liner on the team. No one else has his grit (or lack of speed for that matter). Roy is very dispensible. He may make a play every other game, but he's small and too inconsistant. Kotalik, other than his one-timer, is not good. He's one dimensional. He can't/won't backcheck, should really have 30+ goals, and can easily be replaced in the lineup. At this point, and I don't care how many goals he has, Pominville has moved past Kotalik on the depth chart. Tell me, who wouldn't trade Kotalik/Norenen for Bergeron/Draft Pick on Edmonton? As soon as Briere and Connolly come back someone has to sit. So make the decision easy on yourselves, Sabres, and make a trade. I would like the lines to look like this heading into the playoffs, unfortunately I don't think Mair will be back or I would get rid of both Roy and Kotalik. 1: Vanek Drury Grier 2. Afinigenov Briere Dumont 3. Pyatt Connolly Roy/Kotalik 4. Hecht Gaustad Pominville D McKee Campbell Numminen (NEW DEFENSEMAN) Lydman Tallinder Bench: Peters, Fitzpatrick, Biron, ??? The reason I like Roy so much is because when he was Centering Vanek and Afinogenov, other teams were really struggling with that line. The Anaheim game comes to mind. Anaheim controlled most of that game. But the Roy, Vanek, Afinogenov line produced a ton of chances. Even though they are not playing on the same line right now, I would really like to see the three of them still together in a few years when Roy and Vanek have had more time to develop.
Toddkaz Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 You guys should give DARCY a little more credit(hopeleslyobvious) that if we are overloaded at center trading for a center that REIGER wil trade for a Defenceman and even up the roster. Roy is expendible. For you homers saying you wouldn't trade Roy for Richards you are nuts.
MLH Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 It's not homerism, it's wanting to make changes to the weaker aspects of our team before we go out and rent a center. It's a matter of not wanting to give up our biggest bargaining chip for someone who plays a position where we have plenty of depth as opposed to going out and bringing in a defenseman that we really need. Once again, he's no more of a rental than Briere, Drury, or Biron. Our "biggest bargaining chip" is an example of the homerism. You're not going to get all that much for Marty Biron. He's a "rental", he's overpaid, he's fairly average, he has no playoff experience, and he's not seeing game action. As for the postion of need BS, it doesn't fly. We would be getting an elite center and trading a 3rd line center. That's a huge upgrade (so huge that it's completely unrealistic) at the cost of an overpaid backup and 20 draft slots. Anyone that wouldn't take this deal is overvaluing our players or just not all there. The whole point is a trade this uneven comes about once in 10 years. Even if you're completely content with our forward situation, not making this trade would be insane. We could easily trade Richards and a 2nd for any d-man not named Phaneuf, Pitkanen, and a few others. Roy, Biron, 1st would get you significantly less. Would you trade Peters and a 3rd for Kovalchuk?
Toddkaz Posted February 9, 2006 Report Posted February 9, 2006 hey what does it mean when you have a 20% warning??? Hey when I said that trade for Richards most people that I was insane and Buffalo was getting ripped off.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.