BamBam Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 Sabres trading for players rights? On the Sabres... The Sabres I am told are trying to acquire the negotiation rights to Vrbata and/or Huselius. According to a source, "The Sabres really are silently hoping against hope that The Lightning can't sign Rolston." By the way...I love what the Lightning are doing. ------------------------------------ Meanwhile...BamBam is hoping against hope that the Lightning sign Rolston, and remove the 34 year old from the Sabres Radar. Rolston is not the fit that we need. Also- Vrbata is a RW and Huselius is a LW...I didn't realize we had a need for more wingers.
tom webster Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 Sabres trading for players rights? On the Sabres... The Sabres I am told are trying to acquire the negotiation rights to Vrbata and/or Huselius. According to a source, "The Sabres really are silently hoping against hope that The Lightning can't sign Rolston." By the way...I love what the Lightning are doing. ------------------------------------ Meanwhile...BamBam is hoping against hope that the Lightning sign Rolston, and remove the 34 year old from the Sabres Radar. Rolston is not the fit that we need. You are seriously under valuing Rolston, both for his abilities and his leadership qualities.
carpandean Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 Sabres trading for players rights? On the Sabres... The Sabres I am told are trying to acquire the negotiation rights to Vrbata and/or Huselius. According to a source, "The Sabres really are silently hoping against hope that The Lightning can't sign Rolston." By the way...I love what the Lightning are doing. Why would we be going after more wingers!? We have too many of them and not enough centers (or tough d-men).
BamBam Posted June 30, 2008 Author Report Posted June 30, 2008 You are seriously under valuing Rolston, both for his abilities and his leadership qualities. Is he a good leader- Yes. Does he have good abilities- Yes..of course. But for the money he would command I'd rather have the team invest that in someone younger then 34 years old.
carpandean Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 Is he a good leader- Yes. Does he have good abilities- Yes..of course.But for the money and years he would command I'd rather have the team invest that in someone younger then 34 years old. Fixed it. I'd pay a 34 leader with skills a lot for a 3-4 years, but if it means a big contract for 5+ years, that gets risky. Not that it hasn't worked in some cases, but it's less of a certainty than with, say, a 30 year old.
Bmwolf21 Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 So just to clarify - there were a ton of people up in arms last year about giving a long-term deal to Drury and Briere, who were 30 and 29 when they hit the UFA market last year, respectively, but now we're OK with giving a LT deal to a 34-year-old?
SabresFan526 Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 I don't know, but maybe I'm the only one who would pony up to sign Rolston for 3 years at $12 million. Here's why. Everyone here continues to complain that this team does not have enough veteran leadership: Rolston fills the void Everyone here complains that we don't have a quality center that can play with Hecht and Pominville: Rolston fills the void as for the last 3 years he has been playing center for the Wild, very competently as well. He can play any forward position, but the last few years he has been a center. Don't think he's just a RW or LW, he can play center very very well. In fact, his skillset and competence at the center position kind of makes Kotalik obsolete as he's way better than Kotalik. Everyone complains that we have soft players and we need to be gritty with forwards who can play two ways: Rolston fills the void as he's an excellent penalty killer, excellent forward defensively, has an excellent slap shot, and even at his old age scored 30+ goals last year and for the last three years. Everyone complains that there is a huge void since Drury left that only Peca can fill: Rolston fills that void. I think people will argue with me here, but while Rolston does not have the flair for the dramatic that Drury does, I think he's more dynamic offensively (proven by the fact that he has scored 30+ goals on a defensive team) and better than Drury defensively. He brings leadership and grit. I think Rolston is better than Drury and better than Peca and costs a lot less than Drury. Yeah, it's a risk to invest $4 million/year on a 35 year old, but show me a year when Rolston has played less than 75 games in a season. You can't. He's worth it. If you're willing to spend $6.5 million/year on Drury for 6 years which was the offer that was made to Drury last year on June 30, why would you not give Rolston 3 years at $12 million? I am hoping Rolston does not sign with the Lightning today. I really really am hoping they do not agree to a deal.
stenbaro Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 So just to clarify - there were a ton of people up in arms last year about giving a long-term deal to Drury and Briere, who were 30 and 29 when they hit the UFA market last year, respectively, but now we're OK with giving a LT deal to a 34-year-old? I would give him a 4 yr deal..You see where our thought process landed us last yr??? Or do we need to be reminded again this yr???
Bmwolf21 Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 Just still trying to figure out how a 5-year-deal for a 30-year-old guy with relatively few games missed to injury is a bad thing, but a a 4-year-deal to a 34-year-old with a similar injury history is now a good idea.
stenbaro Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 Just still trying to figure out how a 5-year-deal for a 30-year-old guy with relatively few games missed to injury is a bad thing, but a a 4-year-deal to a 34-year-old with a similar injury history is now a good idea. Thats the question of the day..
SabresFan526 Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 Just still trying to figure out how a 5-year-deal for a 30-year-old guy with relatively few games missed to injury is a bad thing, but a a 4-year-deal to a 34-year-old with a similar injury history is now a good idea. I don't know if that question is to me as I'm defending the signing of Rolston, but it really ought not to be. I think I have been extremely clear about my frustration last summer in losing Briere and Drury, especially Drury. My rationale for Rolston is that no one has replaced the void left by Briere and Drury. I just think Rolston could be the guy to replace the void left by Drury, and I think he fits the Sabres system really well of speed and two way play. He brings the veteran leadership and the goal scoring. If I had it all over again, I would not want to be in this position of hoping that Rolston does not sign with Tampa because Drury should be on the Sabres entering the second year of his long term contract. Drury should still be a Sabre right now, but I since he's not, we need to do something to replace what he brought to the team and Rolston is the closest to it. But, I'm very much in the pro-Drury camp.
Bmwolf21 Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 Wasn't directed at you specifically, 526 - it was more a rhetorical query. It just seemed that after Dru and DB got the long-term deals last year - off the top of my head, IIRC Dru's takes him to 36, while DB's takes him to 38 but can easily be bought out - there were a lot of people agreeing that it was a bad idea to give a LT deal to anyone over 30. Now this year we are so desperate for help that we're backtracking on that line of thought and willing to go LT with a guy who will be four-five years than CD and DB when the season starts.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 I think if his cap number was going to be over $7 million like Drury and Briere's, it would look less attractive. But you are right to a point, I think a lot of us rationalized after the fact that not paying those guys was OK because they would be older.
Goodfella25 Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 LOL yea that will help us...this team could definitely use more soft europeans :death:
Bmwolf21 Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 I think if his cap number was going to be over $7 million like Drury and Briere's, it would look less attractive. But you are right to a point, I think a lot of us rationalized after the fact that not paying those guys was OK because they would be older. That's the wild card, though - we have no idea what he's going to get once noon rolls around tomorrow and all the big spenders get out their checkbooks. If we could get Rolston at $4M for 3 years I'd be OK with it. (I wouldn't go much past that in either years or salary.) But I don't think that's going to get it done - some idiot is probably going to overpay for him.
tom webster Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 Wasn't directed at you specifically, 526 - it was more a rhetorical query. It just seemed that after Dru and DB got the long-term deals last year - off the top of my head, IIRC Dru's takes him to 36, while DB's takes him to 38 but can easily be bought out - there were a lot of people agreeing that it was a bad idea to give a LT deal to anyone over 30. Now this year we are so desperate for help that we're backtracking on that line of thought and willing to go LT with a guy who will be four-five years than CD and DB when the season starts. The same people questioning the LT deals last year are the same people who would like to believe that the Sabres had some sort of plan and they just didn't screw up. FTR - I would give Rolston a three year deal unless the fourth year was needed to close the deal.
BamBam Posted June 30, 2008 Author Report Posted June 30, 2008 So just to clarify - there were a ton of people up in arms last year about giving a long-term deal to Drury and Briere, who were 30 and 29 when they hit the UFA market last year, respectively, but now we're OK with giving a LT deal to a 34-year-old? I agree. That was the big argument.
stenbaro Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 I agree. That was the big argument. No I think it was the money..Followed by age for a close second
stenbaro Posted June 30, 2008 Report Posted June 30, 2008 The same people questioning the LT deals last year are the same people who would like to believe that the Sabres had some sort of plan and they just didn't screw up. FTR - I would give Rolston a three year deal unless the fourth year was needed to close the deal. There plan was to stick there heads in the sand..The problem was they missed the sand and stuck em in the arse where they have been ever since...
SabresFan526 Posted July 1, 2008 Report Posted July 1, 2008 Looks like both Vrbata and Huselius are going to hit UFA. I'm not as big a fan of Huselius. He's a bit soft and his relationship with Tallinder and Lilja is probably really awkward after the alleged rape incident. I just don't think I'd want him on the Sabres. Vrbata is a good player who had a pretty good year, but with the glut of forwards on this team already, who do you get rid of to make room for Vrbata? And, because he's a UFA it will cost some decent cash to sign him. Is he worth it if his job can be done by committee in Buffalo? Probably not in my opinion.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.