2009 & 2010 draft picks...

[LabattBlue]

With the swapping of picks on draft day, plus the trade yesterday, where does that leave the Sabres in terms of picks in 2009 & 2010?

 

Thanks!

[spndnchz]

With the swapping of picks on draft day, plus the trade yesterday, where does that leave the Sabres in terms of picks in 2009 & 2010?

 

Thanks!

Plus this minus that, I think , at the end, losing Campbell for Rivet and a 3rd round pick.

 

Rivet signed a 4 year deal last summer. Unfortunately, it was for $14 million. I guess its better than 8 years and $56.8 million so I'll have to give 'some' credit to the Sabres on this whole debacle.

[RuffRuff]

Plus this minus that, I think , at the end, losing Campbell for Rivet and a 3rd round pick.

 

Rivet signed a 4 year deal last summer. Unfortunately, it was for $14 million. I guess its better than 8 years and $56.8 million so I'll have to give 'some' credit to the Sabres on this whole debacle.

 

Debacle? Where the heck is the debacle? Did you want to overpay for Campbell? I loved the guy too but he was priced to absurdity. he's not a 7 million dollar defenseman, period. Might be the most overpaid defenseman of all time.

 

So again, where's the debacle in your view? I'm feeling pretty effin great about all things Sabre.

[carpandean]

We gave Campbell and a seventh (2008) to the Sharks for Bernier and a first (2008).

We gave Bernier to the Canucks for a third (2009) and a second (2010).

We gave two seconds (2009, 2010) to the Sharks for Rivet and a seventh (2010).

 

So, net, we gave up Campbell for three months, plus a second (2009) in order to get Bernier for three months, Rivet for three years, a first (2008) and a third (2009). We also traded a 2008 third for a 2010 third. Going forward, not counting any other moves, we'll have no second next year, but two thirds and we'll also have two thirds in 2010.

 

I wouldn't call this a debacle.

[gregkash]

We gave Campbell and a seventh (2008) to the Sharks for Bernier and a first (2008).

We gave Bernier to the Canucks for a third (2009) and a second (2010).

We gave two seconds (2009, 2010) to the Sharks for Rivet and a seventh (2010).

 

So, net, we gave up Campbell for three months, plus a second (2009) in order to get Bernier for three months, Rivet for three years, a first (2008) and a third (2009). We also traded a 2008 third for a 2010 third. Going forward, not counting any other moves, we'll have no second next year, but two thirds and we'll also have two thirds in 2010.

 

I wouldn't call this a debacle.

 

for real.

 

campbell, i love him, i do, but what he got was totally unreasonable.

[carpandean]

Going forward, not counting any other moves, we'll have no second next year, but two thirds and we'll also have two thirds in 2010.

... oh, and

!

[djwilli3]

And what Campbell got in FA this year was NOT what Buffalo would have had to pay. We probably could have signed him to around 6 mil a year if the FO had gotten off of its Buffaslug behind and tried to negotiate. That's the problem. In the end, we came away with an older veteran journeyman defenseman who may plug a hole on the team. Campbell, on the other hand was relatively young, had turned into a top d-man in the NHL, and was a leader on the team. If you call that a plus for this FO, so be it. Keep in mind, we essentially traded Campbell for a first round pick next year as we didn't even try to resign Bernier, who is also yound and very talented and who never really had a chance to get adapted to the Sabres system. Laughable.

 

Anyone who is excited about all things Sabres right now must be burying their head in the sand. This team is no better than when we ended the season, and are perhaps a bit WORSE off. If you think there is going to be some miracle improvement on this team in the near future you are fooling yourself. Buffalo needs at least one more TOP D-man before I'll even start to credit the FO as having done anything and before you can really say they are improved over last year. Jason Smith or Bouwmeester are the two deals were are supposedly involved in that would show me some intent on the part of the FO to get things rolling in the right direction. Otherwise expect another out of the playoffs finish next year.

[carpandean]

And what Campbell got in FA this year was NOT what Buffalo would have had to pay. We probably could have signed him to around 6 mil a year if the FO had gotten off of its Buffaslug behind and tried to negotiate. That's the problem.

We could have had him for less than $6M; probably more like $5M. The FO didn't think he is worth that much and many here would agree. I definitely don't think he is worth $6M per.

 

In the end, we came away with an older veteran journeyman defenseman who may plug a hole on the team. Campbell, on the other hand was relatively young, had turned into a top d-man in the NHL, and was a leader on the team. If you call that a plus for this FO, so be it.

He didn't show much leadership when he was here and the team didn't do any worse after we brought Sekera and Weber up (and got Spacek back) than it did when he was playing (with Spacek healthy to keep the comparison fair).

 

Keep in mind, we essentially traded Campbell for a first round pick next year as we didn't even try to resign Bernier, who is also yound and very talented and who never really had a chance to get adapted to the Sabres system. Laughable.

:blink:

You'll have to explain that one to me. First, it was a first round pick this year. We used it. Second, we traded Bernier for two more pick, so at the very least we got those. Third, the better of the two picks that we traded him for was half of what we traded for Rivet. See my post for what the net of the three was. The only thing that you could argue is that we might have gotten more for Bernier's rights than we did, but that's pretty hard to prove.

[shack & duff]

I've mentioned it before and will again now. I see mostly Sabres vs. Rangers and Sabres vs. Bruins games and what I saw of Campbell last year was not worth the 5 million for five years discussed here nor the contract he actually signed. The Rangers game, in particular, near the trading deadline was a blow-out with the Slugs down by something like 5 goals by the end of the second period and it seemed like Soupy was involved in most of them.

 

Other games I viewed, and other games commented upon on this board, didn't seem a lot different even if not so extreme. He has his positives but we need gritty, stand up for your goalie D-men and I'm a lot happier with Rivet than Soupy.

[wonderbread]

I've mentioned it before and will again now. I see mostly Sabres vs. Rangers and Sabres vs. Bruins games and what I saw of Campbell last year was not worth the 5 million for five years discussed here nor the contract he actually signed. The Rangers game, in particular, near the trading deadline was a blow-out with the Slugs down by something like 5 goals by the end of the second period and it seemed like Soupy was involved in most of them.

 

Other games I viewed, and other games commented upon on this board, didn't seem a lot different even if not so extreme. He has his positives but we need gritty, stand up for your goalie D-men and I'm a lot happier with Rivet than Soupy.

 

There are very few defensemen worth Soupy's contact...and I have to say he isn't one of them. As far as I see it the FO did what they could. Every free agent knows he could cash in. Why not? Look what Campbell got he is proof of it. How about Hossa he knows if he does well next to two of the best offensive forward in the league he is worth 9+ next year for 6-8 years easy. There are no loyalties anymore except to the mighty dollar. He might have been able to net 7.5 this year for 7 years. His choice to ride it out one more year could potentially net him 12 million more just one year later.

 

All in all I feel DR did what he had to. I would like to see one more D man brought in.

[Kristian]

I've mentioned it before and will again now. I see mostly Sabres vs. Rangers and Sabres vs. Bruins games and what I saw of Campbell last year was not worth the 5 million for five years discussed here nor the contract he actually signed. The Rangers game, in particular, near the trading deadline was a blow-out with the Slugs down by something like 5 goals by the end of the second period and it seemed like Soupy was involved in most of them.

 

Other games I viewed, and other games commented upon on this board, didn't seem a lot different even if not so extreme. He has his positives but we need gritty, stand up for your goalie D-men and I'm a lot happier with Rivet than Soupy.

 

Problem is, that under Ruff's "I'll micromanage hits - live with it" system, gritty players have a nasty habit of turning into fairly soft, average players.

 

Ask Gaustad about that.

[tom webster]

Problem is, that under Ruff's "I'll micromanage hits - live with it" system, gritty players have a nasty habit of turning into fairly soft, average players.

 

Ask Gaustad about that.

 

 

You have referred to this micro manage thing several times. I still don't see were you get this. You really think Ruff tells them not to hit anybody?

[inkman]

You have referred to this micro manage thing several times. I still don't see were you get this. You really think Ruff tells them not to hit anybody?

 

Ruff was quoted last year on how he feels hitting doesn't equate to winning.

[Kristian]

You have referred to this micro manage thing several times. I still don't see were you get this. You really think Ruff tells them not to hit anybody?

 

That's exactly what I'm saying.

 

Ruff was both quoted on saying he believes hitting doesn't equal winning, and to get off his players backs about not initiating enough contact, because his players were to hit and play physical ONLY when HE told them to.

 

So to answer your question, yes I believe the standard formula for the Buffalo Sabres is "Don't hit or play physical unless specifically told to".

 

I'm guessing the "protect your goaltender" part of the job falls under that formula as well, based on how we fared in that department last season.

[BetweenThePipes00]

That's exactly what I'm saying.

 

Ruff was both quoted on saying he believes hitting doesn't equal winning, and to get off his players backs about not initiating enough contact, because his players were to hit and play physical ONLY when HE told them to.

 

So to answer your question, yes I believe the standard formula for the Buffalo Sabres is "Don't hit or play physical unless specifically told to".

 

I'm guessing the "protect your goaltender" part of the job falls under that formula as well, based on how we fared in that department last season.

That's not how I remember it. he did say "hitting doesn't equal winning," but he also said he didn't want them running around hitting for the sake of hitting, taking runs at people and getting out of position. When they are forechecking within the system, and they can hit the guy with the puck, they damn well better do it. What he doesn't want is after the guy passes the puck someone taking 3 strides extra to hit him and show up on the stat sheet. Maybe he has made them tentative as a result, but I think it is as much a function of the type of player they have had, especially on defense.

[deluca67]

That's exactly what I'm saying.

 

Ruff was both quoted on saying he believes hitting doesn't equal winning, and to get off his players backs about not initiating enough contact, because his players were to hit and play physical ONLY when HE told them to.

 

So to answer your question, yes I believe the standard formula for the Buffalo Sabres is "Don't hit or play physical unless specifically told to".

 

I'm guessing the "protect your goaltender" part of the job falls under that formula as well, based on how we fared in that department last season.

The "protect your goaltender" part is the most disappointing. You shouldn't have to be told to protect the goalie. It shouldn't matter who says you shouldn't. If someone runs your goalie you take care of it right there and then. I have no respect for any player that just stands there with that dumb look on their face like we saw a lot of the past few seasons.

[Kristian]

That's not how I remember it. he did say "hitting doesn't equal winning," but he also said he didn't want them running around hitting for the sake of hitting, taking runs at people and getting out of position. When they are forechecking within the system, and they can hit the guy with the puck, they damn well better do it. What he doesn't want is after the guy passes the puck someone taking 3 strides extra to hit him and show up on the stat sheet. Maybe he has made them tentative as a result, but I think it is as much a function of the type of player they have had, especially on defense.

 

Only problem with that theory though was that it didn't matter a damn thing if we WERE in position, as opposing forwards would just walk through our defensive guys, cause neither ever threw a hit.

 

I believe this also hurt us on the other end of the ice, cause you'd see our forwards come in over the line, get pasted, and just sit there with that "WTF!?! That never happens in practice" look on their faces.

 

So, whether Ruff actually micro-manages or not, which I'm sure he doesn't do literally, at the very least there is no doubt in my mind that he has instilled a "system" that is way too soft, and it hurt us immensely this year.

 

Hitting doesn't equal winning, no. But more often than not, NOT hitting while getting hit yourself equals losing.

 

And every team in the league knows the way to play us is to rough up our D and our goaltender.

[tom webster]

Only problem with that theory though was that it didn't matter a damn thing if we WERE in position, as opposing forwards would just walk through our defensive guys, cause neither ever threw a hit.

 

I believe this also hurt us on the other end of the ice, cause you'd see our forwards come in over the line, get pasted, and just sit there with that "WTF!?! That never happens in practice" look on their faces.

 

So, whether Ruff actually micro-manages or not, which I'm sure he doesn't do literally, at the very least there is no doubt in my mind that he has instilled a "system" that is way too soft, and it hurt us immensely this year.

 

Hitting doesn't equal winning, no. But more often than not, NOT hitting while getting hit yourself equals losing.

 

And every team in the league knows the way to play us is to rough up our D and our goaltender.

 

While I agree that there wasn't enough commitment to sticking up for your teammates especially the goaltender, the Sabres did have 5 guys in the top 106 as far as hits go while Detroit had 2 and only 1 that payed the entire year with them.

[X. Benedict]

Ruff was quoted last year on how he feels hitting doesn't equate to winning.

 

That was all in context. Hits that take you out of position don't equate to winning.