Danny Briere 2 goals last night

[tom webster]

24 gp 9g 10 a and a plus 4. Not too bad.

 

He played for some really bad Islander and Kings teams. That shouldn't diminish what he was able to accomplish in a relatively short NHL career.

 

Briere would have to really kick up his game from his standard 60-70 points per season to reach Zigmund Palffy. Not only did Ziggy create offensively he also had 19 short handed goals to go with his nice plus rating. That is the type of player the Sabres need and have with Roy, Vanek and Pominville.

 

So in the regular season Palfy averaged 1.04 and then .79 in the playoffs and Briere has averaged .79 in the regular season and so far 1.0 in the playoffs. Thank you for making my point!

[deluca67]

So in the regular season Palfy averaged 1.04 and then .79 in the playoffs and Briere has averaged .79 in the regular season and so far 1.0 in the playoffs. Thank you for making my point!

The only playoff points that matter when it comes to Briere is the zero points in game #7 against the Canes. Or, the four points in five games against the Sens last season. The Sabres needed Briere when a chance at the Cup was on the line. He came up short, no pun intended.

[tom webster]

The only playoff points that matter when it comes to Briere is the zero points in game #7 against the Canes. Or, the four points in five games against the Sens last season. The Sabres needed Briere when a chance at the Cup was on the line. He came up short, no pun intended.

 

 

You are unbelievable. Again you are proven wrong and you change the argument. Show me one player that came through every time, in every situation, that was good enough to carry his team no matter what other factors were involved.

By the way, when you are looking up that players stats, you can't use any video game star.

[deluca67]

You are unbelievable. Again you are proven wrong and you change the argument. Show me one player that came through every time, in every situation, that was good enough to carry his team no matter what other factors were involved.

By the way, when you are looking up that players stats, you can't use any video game star.

We are talking about Briere not other players. If you want to start a thread regarding the top playoff performers of all-time I'll join in on the discussion. The topic is Briere who had two playoff runs with the Sabres. When it came down to crunch time and the Sabres needed Briere to be that elite offensive player and take the team over the hump he couldn't do it. If you want to expand the discussion to other Sabres who also failed to get this team over that hump I would gladly join that discussion.

[tom webster]

We are talking about Briere not other players. If you want to start a thread regarding the top playoff performers of all-time I'll join in on the discussion. The topic is Briere who had two playoff runs with the Sabres. When it came down to crunch time and the Sabres needed Briere to be that elite offensive player and take the team over the hump he couldn't do it. If you want to expand the discussion to other Sabres who also failed to get this team over that hump I would gladly join that discussion.

 

 

Well this brought a roar from the crowd. I'll let "X" respond again to this if he wishes. As I said on the other thread, you are no fun anymore.

[deluca67]

Well this brought a roar from the crowd. I'll let "X" respond again to this if he wishes. As I said on the other thread, you are no fun anymore.

That would be because you have no excuses for Briere's performances. I'm sure you tried to find one. There just isn't one.

[GoatheadInCT]

We are talking about Briere not other players. If you want to start a thread regarding the top playoff performers of all-time I'll join in on the discussion. The topic is Briere who had two playoff runs with the Sabres. When it came down to crunch time and the Sabres needed Briere to be that elite offensive player and take the team over the hump he couldn't do it. If you want to expand the discussion to other Sabres who also failed to get this team over that hump I would gladly join that discussion.

 

What exactly do you want the man to do, be great every playoff series?!?! Obviously our excellence and our trips to the ECF meant nothing to you, and need I remind you that the NHL is a TEAM sport, and I didn't see our defensemen holding up their end last year, nor the other damn Sabres the year before when Danny was hot. To put this on him and to say HE didn't get them over the hump is ludicrous... did you even WATCH the Sabres/Senators series last year?!? HOW MANY odd man rushes did our defensemen allow? How many Sens players came flying into our end?!

 

I'm really starting to get quite disgusted with this revisionist history going on here- it reminds me of how some fans treated Andre Reed when it was so obvious that Flutie was alienating the veterans who got us to Super Bowls. It is terrible, and it makes me sick... sick.

[SabreNod]

24 gp 9g 10 a and a plus 4. Not too bad.

 

He played for some really bad Islander and Kings teams. That shouldn't diminish what he was able to accomplish in a relatively short NHL career.

 

Briere would have to really kick up his game from his standard 60-70 points per season to reach Zigmund Palffy. Not only did Ziggy create offensively he also had 19 short handed goals to go with his nice plus rating. That is the type of player the Sabres need and have with Roy, Vanek and Pominville.

 

:thumbsup:

 

RE: this ongoing beating of a dead horse, I'll say this: we all love the same team. We all want to see them win a cup. And I'm sure every one of us would be happy to buy another a beer and high-five an important goal, no matter how important or unimportant each of us considers the loss of Briere. Now, how about we let this thread fade out into the annals of time?

[Mike Oxhurtz]

Speaking of dead horse, the Kentucky Derby had a dead horse at the end. I forget the name of the horse, but the horse came in 2nd, then collapsed after the finish line. It turned out that the horses front ankles were broken, so they had to put it to sleep.

[SabreNod]

Umberger has been the big story of the Philly postseason so far. Unreal - I didn't know he had that kind of scoring knack. Sometimes it's just a matter of confidence to bring out the talent in these guys.

 

And Price the wunderkind is human.

 

Come on, MTL!

[Mike Oxhurtz]

Danny Briere- 3 Eastern Conference Finals in a row!!!!

[carpandean]

Danny Briere- 3 Eastern Conference Finals in a row!!!!

0 for 2 so far! :nana:

[Mike Oxhurtz]

0 for 2 so far! :nana:

 

And where are our beloved Sabres...on the freakin' golf course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :wallbash:

[Bmwolf21]

Umberger has been the big story of the Philly postseason so far. Unreal - I didn't know he had that kind of scoring knack. Sometimes it's just a matter of confidence to bring out the talent in these guys.

 

And Price the wunderkind is human.

 

Come on, MTL!

Gainey put a lot of pressure on Price's shoulders after 40 regular-season games, while some of us were a little hesitant to bestow the title of "next great Habs goalie" on Price. Gainey is going to be second-guessed for a while after this series and Price's play.

[bottlecap]

I want Quinn fired!

[ExiledInIllinois]

Is this the longest thread in SS history? :D

[deluca67]

What exactly do you want the man to do, be great every playoff series?!?! Obviously our excellence and our trips to the ECF meant nothing to you, and need I remind you that the NHL is a TEAM sport, and I didn't see our defensemen holding up their end last year, nor the other damn Sabres the year before when Danny was hot. To put this on him and to say HE didn't get them over the hump is ludicrous... did you even WATCH the Sabres/Senators series last year?!? HOW MANY odd man rushes did our defensemen allow? How many Sens players came flying into our end?!

 

I'm really starting to get quite disgusted with this revisionist history going on here- it reminds me of how some fans treated Andre Reed when it was so obvious that Flutie was alienating the veterans who got us to Super Bowls. It is terrible, and it makes me sick... sick.

Just in the two that mattered most for the Sabres.

 

People on this board put Briere on a pedestal as one of the top offensive players in the NHL and believe the Sabres should have paid him as such . He has 1 1/2 great seasons on his resume. The rest were just average.

 

4 out of 5 of the Sens games were decided by 1 goal or less. I have to think that if Briere shot more than the 6.1% the series may have gone a different way. And Danny was hot the year before. Until he got to game seven where he didn't even record a shot on goal.

[deluca67]

Is this the longest thread in SS history? :D

If not, it will be.

[stenbaro]

I want Quinn fired!

When can you find out if you move up on the season ticket list???? ROFLMA

 

 

:bag:

[nfreeman]

Just in the two that mattered most for the Sabres.

 

People on this board put Briere on a pedestal as one of the top offensive players in the NHL and believe the Sabres should have paid him as such . He has 1 1/2 great seasons on his resume. The rest were just average.

 

4 out of 5 of the Sens games were decided by 1 goal or less. I have to think that if Briere shot more than the 6.1% the series may have gone a different way. And Danny was hot the year before. Until he got to game seven where he didn't even record a shot on goal.

 

No. And for you to continue to claim this is just being obtuse.

 

To be clear, not a single poster that I've seen, in this thread or elsewhere, has stated the Sabres should've given Briere $50 million. What most have said is that we should've signed him for something in the ballpark of the $5 million x 5 years that he asked for. That is a couple of notches below the $7-$8 million per year that the elite offensive players in the NHL are getting.

 

You are free to believe that Briere isn't worth $5 million per year -- although it seems pretty obvious to me that you are completely out to lunch in believing that, based on Briere's productivity in the playoffs in each of the past 3 years. But if we're going to have an intelligent discussion, you can't put inaccurate words in people's mouths/posts.

[tom webster]

Just in the two that mattered most for the Sabres.

 

People on this board put Briere on a pedestal as one of the top offensive players in the NHL and believe the Sabres should have paid him as such . He has 1 1/2 great seasons on his resume. The rest were just average.

4 out of 5 of the Sens games were decided by 1 goal or less. I have to think that if Briere shot more than the 6.1% the series may have gone a different way. And Danny was hot the year before. Until he got to game seven where he didn't even record a shot on goal.

 

 

So, let's get you on the record so you can't change your argument, how many players qualify for your lists of"top" offensive players?" Does he have to be in the top five? , ten? what's the cut-off? Is it points per game, as you used in your Palfy example? Is it regular season as you use in Palfy's case or is it playoffs as you hold in contempt of Briere?

Finally, is there ever going to be an argument made where you don't twist the stats to say "yeah, but he didn't do it in 2006/2007!"

[carpandean]

To be clear, not a single poster that I've seen, in this thread or elsewhere, has stated the Sabres should've given Briere $50 million. What most have said is that we should've signed him for something in the ballpark of the $5 million x 5 years that he asked for. That is a couple of notches below the $7-$8 million per year that the elite offensive players in the NHL are getting.

While it's all speculation, I still believe that by the time anyone thought he was worth $5 million per year, it would have taken more than that. He wanted $5 million x 5 years when nobody believed that he was worth the $5 million x 1 year that he got in arbitration. It wasn't until midway through the season that people started saying that we need to lock him up for that kind of yearly money. Who knows, maybe he would have taken that kind of a home-town discount to stay, but I'd be willing to bet that it would have taken at least $6 million per year at that point. I can't prove it and nobody hear can disprove it, but just as you feel safe assuming that it wouldn't have taken $7 million per year, I feel safe assuming that it would have taken more than $5 million per year.

 

Just for the record, while this year's performance is good for Danny, you can't use it in judging the decision to keep him. In general, you can't judge a decision (ex ante) by the results (ex post). For example, if I told you that I would roll two dice and if they come up snake eyes, then I will give you $100, otherwise, you have to give me $100. The expected payoff for you is -$83.33, so it is a bad bet. If you take it and it comes up snake eyes, was it a good bet? No, it was a bad bet, but you got lucky. So, the only facts that you can use in judging the decision to keep Briere are his performances prior to last summer. This won't change most poster's opinions, but it is an important distinction, none the less.

[tom webster]

While it's all speculation, I still believe that by the time anyone thought he was worth $5 million per year, it would have taken more than that. He wanted $5 million x 5 years when nobody believed that he was worth the $5 million x 1 year that he got in arbitration. It wasn't until midway through the season that people started saying that we need to lock him up for that kind of yearly money. Who knows, maybe he would have taken that kind of a home-town discount to stay, but I'd be willing to bet that it would have taken at least $6 million per year at that point. I can't prove it and nobody hear can disprove it, but just as you feel safe assuming that it wouldn't have taken $7 million per year, I feel safe assuming that it would have taken more than $5 million per year.

 

Just for the record, while this year's performance is good for Danny, you can't use it in judging the decision to keep him. In general, you can't judge a decision (ex ante) by the results (ex post). For example, if I told you that I would roll two dice and if they come up snake eyes, then I will give you $100, otherwise, you have to give me $100. The expected payoff for you is -$83.33, so it is a bad bet. If you take it and it comes up snake eyes, was it a good bet? No, it was a bad bet, but you got lucky. So, the only facts that you can use in judging the decision to keep Briere are his performances prior to last summer. This won't change most poster's opinions, but it is an important distinction, none the less.

 

I love how the arguments change to adjust to the changing facts.

First, to say that no one thought he was worth $5 million prior to arbitration is a fallacy. Havlat, Arnott and others had already set the bar that the arbiter used in setting the award. The NHLPA chose Briere for the first hearing because they were betting he would get such a reward. If posters on this board or on radio call in show didn't appreciate the changing market then they could find employment working with the Sabres in market forecast.

Secondly, those who take management's side in the negotiation contend that Buffalo offered $4.5 million per year for 4 years so Buffalo apparently felt he was worth close to $5 million. Also, his agent most assuredly thought he was worth the $5 million or he would have had him sign the deal if it existed.

Thirdly, you can most surely judge the decision based on the results of that decision if you know what variables went into making that decision. We already know that the decision not to keep him was based in part on the belief that they would sign Drury and Connolly would remain healthy (speaking of a bad bet) so already the decision making process was flawed. People who believe it was right to let him go tell us that Buffalo will be better off for it in the long run and that Danny's contract will out live his production. So if Buffalo doesn't get better and Briere continues to excel, then Buffalo made a bad decision. Philadelphia has already reaped the initial rewards of their deal no matter how much credit you or others may want to give Briere for their resurgence.

As for your gambling analogy, if you make the bet using false or misguided assumptions of the risk/ reward involved, then you can invalidate that decision when the bettor tries to change his rational as to why he made the original decision

[SabreNod]

While it's all speculation, I still believe that by the time anyone thought he was worth $5 million per year, it would have taken more than that. He wanted $5 million x 5 years when nobody believed that he was worth the $5 million x 1 year that he got in arbitration. It wasn't until midway through the season that people started saying that we need to lock him up for that kind of yearly money. Who knows, maybe he would have taken that kind of a home-town discount to stay, but I'd be willing to bet that it would have taken at least $6 million per year at that point. I can't prove it and nobody hear can disprove it, but just as you feel safe assuming that it wouldn't have taken $7 million per year, I feel safe assuming that it would have taken more than $5 million per year.

 

Just for the record, while this year's performance is good for Danny, you can't use it in judging the decision to keep him. In general, you can't judge a decision (ex ante) by the results (ex post). For example, if I told you that I would roll two dice and if they come up snake eyes, then I will give you $100, otherwise, you have to give me $100. The expected payoff for you is -$83.33, so it is a bad bet. If you take it and it comes up snake eyes, was it a good bet? No, it was a bad bet, but you got lucky. So, the only facts that you can use in judging the decision to keep Briere are his performances prior to last summer. This won't change most poster's opinions, but it is an important distinction, none the less.

 

 

Good post, and I agree. It's as if everyone has forgotten that when Briere was awarded 5 in arbitration, the vast majority of fans thought that was on the excessive side. They would not have felt that way if Briere had a long history of production justifying 5. Darcy saw something in him despite his having done...not so much...in the league at the point of the trade.

 

Today, I would certainly agree that Briere is worth 5. Maybe 6, Not 7, Not 8. Five. I think Pommer is actually worth more because he can do more. He's not as sneaky finding soft zones to give him tap-ins (about 30-40% of his goals) but Pommer's scoring ability is equal to Briere's, plus he's a two-way player, while Briere is not, and no one is going to argue that. All these points hold true for Roy as well.

 

So while I liked Briere as a Sabre, I would still much rather have Pommer and Roy. Roy probably has the most upside of the three - and look at his salary next to Briere. Roy gives you more, for less pay. Period.

 

So now that that has been punctuated, let's move on, shall we?

 

;)

[tom webster]

Good post, and I agree. It's as if everyone has forgotten that when Briere was awarded 5 in arbitration, the vast majority of fans thought that was on the excessive side. They would not have felt that way if Briere had a long history of production justifying 5. Darcy saw something in him despite his having done...not so much...in the league at the point of the trade.

 

Today, I would certainly agree that Briere is worth 5. Maybe 6, Not 7, Not 8. Five. I think Pommer is actually worth more because he can do more. He's not as sneaky finding soft zones to give him tap-ins (about 30-40% of his goals) but Pommer's scoring ability is equal to Briere's, plus he's a two-way player, while Briere is not, and no one is going to argue that. All these points hold true for Roy as well.

 

So while I liked Briere as a Sabre, I would still much rather have Pommer and Roy. Roy probably has the most upside of the three - and look at his salary next to Briere. Roy gives you more, for less pay. Period.

 

So now that that has been punctuated, let's move on, shall we?

 

;)

 

I agree with the last three paragraphs, although you still don't seem to understand that it didn't need to be either or. As for your continued urging to move on, this thread is continued more by those who want to diminish everything he does rather then by those who want to continue to rip on management for screwing up. We are happy for Briere and right now, Buffalo is neither playing nor signing anyone to give us anything else to talk about.

 

What I do want to take issue with is the continued notion that Briere did nothing in Phoenix prior to his trade. In the 2001/2002 season he had 32 goals and 60 points in a year were only four players cracked the 80 point threshold. Why Phoenix then gave up on him a half a year later says more about their history as a franchise then Danny's development as a player.