K-9 Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 Nice to read an opinion from someone without an obvious axe to grind. An opinion better informed by a little research into the reality of the numbers. Bucky writes like a fan instead of an informed journalist. Yes, I know it's op-ed but I'd find him more credible if he didn't continually sound like a jilted prom date. Take, for instance, his jab at the FO for not pursuing Orpik. Orpik was so much in demand on the free market that he ends up signing that blockbuster deal with the only team that SERIOUSLY pursued him; the SAME team he played for last year. But our FO is wrong while everyone else that DIDN'T pursue Orpik gets a pass? Or how about his constant theme of how players don't want to play for Buffalo and yet Briere and Dumont assure Lalime that it's a fine place to play? Just like the fans that can't forgive the FO for their fu*kups, Bucky just can't let it go either. And that gets in the way of everything he spews in his opinion pieces. GO SABRES!!!
apuszczalowski Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 Nice to read an opinion from someone without an obvious axe to grind. An opinion better informed by a little research into the reality of the numbers. Bucky writes like a fan instead of an informed journalist. Yes, I know it's op-ed but I'd find him more credible if he didn't continually sound like a jilted prom date. Take, for instance, his jab at the FO for not pursuing Orpik. Orpik was so much in demand on the free market that he ends up signing that blockbuster deal with the only team that SERIOUSLY pursued him; the SAME team he played for last year. But our FO is wrong while everyone else that DIDN'T pursue Orpik gets a pass? Or how about his constant theme of how players don't want to play for Buffalo and yet Briere and Dumont assure Lalime that it's a fine place to play? Just like the fans that can't forgive the FO for their fu*kups, Bucky just can't let it go either. And that gets in the way of everything he spews in his opinion pieces. GO SABRES!!! I believe that the quote was more about Buffalo being a great place to live So I'm guessing this Tim Scmitt talks about what a great job the FO is doing so he is better?
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 While I agree with some of what he said, his overall point was the Sabres made a couple mistakes and that is overshadowing all the good things ... while I am generally not a FO hater, he completely ignores the magnitude of the mistakes ... all moves are not created equal ... one bad one, or one bad offseason, can erase 30 or 40 smart moves ...
K-9 Posted July 8, 2008 Author Report Posted July 8, 2008 I believe that the quote was more about Buffalo being a great place to live So I'm guessing this Tim Scmitt talks about what a great job the FO is doing so he is better? No. You missed my point entirely. He's not better because he points out some of the positives of the front office. Opinions aren't BETTER or WORSE in and of themselves. They are opinions. Nothing more. I was merely pointing out that it's refreshing to read the occassional positive opinion. That we get so caught up in the negative all the time that we can't even accept the POSSIBILITY of something positive. But that's just one person's OPINION. GO BILLS!!!
shrader Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 Is this the same guy who said the Sabres were low-balling Gerbe?
frisky Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 He mentioned Danny Paille going to arbitration. I don't remember seeing his name on the arbitration list. Also, Paille said he expected to get a contract done before training camp and didn't mention arbitration. Other than that, I was a decent read.
gregkash Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 I believe that the quote was more about Buffalo being a great place to live So I'm guessing this Tim Scmitt talks about what a great job the FO is doing so he is better? They said great organization as well.
spndnchz Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 He mentioned Danny Paille going to arbitration. I don't remember seeing his name on the arbitration list. Also, Paille said he expected to get a contract done before training camp and didn't mention arbitration. Other than that, I was a decent read. I don't think that Paille is even eligible for arbitration given his years/games/age.
shrader Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 I don't think that Paille is even eligible for arbitration given his years/games/age. For some reason, my computer refuses to open pdf files right now, but if I remember correctly, the line for salary arbitration is 4 seasons (someone can correct me if I'm wrong). Paille's there.
spndnchz Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 For some reason, my computer refuses to open pdf files right now, but if I remember correctly, the line for salary arbitration is 4 seasons (someone can correct me if I'm wrong). Paille's there. CBA 12.1 states that a player who first signed SPC at age 18 needs four seasons. A season being 10 or more games at the NHL level. Paille was 18 when drafted in 2002 (20th overall mind you) so he needs 4 seasons. He played in 05-06 14 games, 06-07 29 games and 07-08 77 games. He doesn't get arbitration. Now if the SPC means when he signed on with the club, that's 06-07, so he'd only need two years, which he has. and I don't have time to figure that out right now. Any takers?
X. Benedict Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 I don't think that Paille is even eligible for arbitration given his years/games/age. He's not. Shmitty ain't the greatest fact checker. :wallbash:
SabresFan526 Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 I'm not necessarily a Bucky fan per se, but Tim Schmitt is hardly a great columnist. His articles have always had factual inaccuracies, including today's where he said Paille was going to arbitration, which is not the case. Also, specifically referring to my position on the Sabres, I have never ever once called them cheap. I disagree with their personnel moves. Looking at where they have been over the last 2-3 years, they have hit the ceiling of the cap in 2006-2007, and where above average last year and most likely above the median this year. I have never called them cheap. I think they spend too much for lower level players and too little for talented players. I feel like the Sabres have spent too much for guys like Gaustad, Connolly, Max, Kotalik, Vanek (I know hand was forced), Spacek, and some others. The extra dollars given to those guys are dollars that are taken away from really important players such as Briere, Drury, and Miller. Also, I would like to go on record saying that I supported the trade of Campbell. He's way overpaid and he will get bought out with certainty. I would rather have some more talented players then a bunch of guys all making $3.5 million/year. I know the philosophy is the sum of the parts are greater than the whole, but it just didn't work out last year. We'll see. I like the patience of this management team to resist temptation, but there are still deals to be had and the Sabres are not biting yet, which can be frustrating. Oh well, I for one, do not think the Sabres are cheap, I just think they overpay the wrong guys and underpay the right guys. That's my opinion.
SabresFan526 Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 CBA 12.1 states that a player who first signed SPC at age 18 needs four seasons. A season being 10 or more games at the NHL level. Paille was 18 when drafted in 2002 (20th overall mind you) so he needs 4 seasons. He played in 05-06 14 games, 06-07 29 games and 07-08 77 games. He doesn't get arbitration. Now if the SPC means when he signed on with the club, that's 06-07, so he'd only need two years, which he has. and I don't have time to figure that out right now. Any takers? I don't believe it's NHL seasons. I believe it is pro seasons. Since Paille played the 2004-2005 season in Rochester, that counts towards the number of pro seasons he has played. Therefore, since he has completed 4 professional seasons of hockey, I do believe he is eligible for arbitration but has chosen not to take that path nor sign a Group 2 offer sheet from someone else as per the other thread.
shrader Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 CBA 12.1 states that a player who first signed SPC at age 18 needs four seasons. A season being 10 or more games at the NHL level. Paille was 18 when drafted in 2002 (20th overall mind you) so he needs 4 seasons. He played in 05-06 14 games, 06-07 29 games and 07-08 77 games. He doesn't get arbitration. Now if the SPC means when he signed on with the club, that's 06-07, so he'd only need two years, which he has. and I don't have time to figure that out right now. Any takers? SPC stands for standard player contract. So when they say first signed SPC, they're talking about when he officially became a pro. That 10 game limit only counts for players who still have remaining junior eligibility, so it has nothing do do with Paille. Complete years in the AHL still count as a year of service, so he should be eligible. If I could ever get the damn pdf's to open, I could figure out the specifics.
apuszczalowski Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 They said great organization as well. I don't believe that his quote said that they said that, I believe when he was naming off the good thingd, one of the things he said was they are a good organisation, which was in a long list of other things he says he believes are good about buffalo.
shrader Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 He's not. Shmitty ain't the greatest fact checker. :wallbash: Ok, restarting my computer did the trick. Paille signed his first contract when he was 20. He had to complete 4 years of professional experience to be eligible for arbitration. He has done that, so he is eligible for arbitration.
X. Benedict Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 Ok, restarting my computer did the trick. Paille signed his first contract when he was 20. He had to complete 4 years of professional experience to be eligible for arbitration. He has done that, so he is eligible for arbitration. He isn't eligible, because he didn't file. Deadline was 2 days ago. (I didn't read spndnchz predicate, my bad) :blush: of course I'm not a journalist, but if I were, the X. Benedict Gazette would regret the error.
X. Benedict Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 Is this the same guy who said the Sabres were low-balling Gerbe? Yep. Without reference to league entry levels.
LabattBlue Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 I'll write in short sentences... Bucky is a columnist. Columnists write OPINIONS. Some columnists are more positive than negative. Some columnists are more negative than positive. What is so hard to understand about this? If you don't like Bucky's position regarding the Sabres, don't read his columns. ;)
djwilli3 Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 Schmitt is completely wrong about a number of things but the big one is, it ain't just spending money, but who and how you spend it. Buffalo may be spending a lot of money, but if spending some more would have helped us keep Drury, or gotten a top-D man that statistic would look great. And if we didn't have Edmonton to thank by forcing us to resign Vanek to his monster deal, you can shave off five mil of that total. That would knock us down into the cheapskate realm pretty fast. I don't care if they spend a ton of money, I want the FO to spend as much as they can to improve the team. Nothing of what Schmitt talks about shows how the FO has IMPROVED this team since the end of last season. Sorry, but Bucky was right on this one, regardless of whose perspective you think he was writing from.
DaFan Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 I believe that the quote was more about Buffalo being a great place to live In listening to Lalime shortly after the announcement he mentions the positives he was given for both, the management and city... by Briere, Biron, and Dumont... and I'd think Dumont would have an axe to grind... nice to know he doesn't.
Bmwolf21 Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 I'll write in short sentences... Bucky is a columnist. Columnists write OPINIONS. Some columnists are more positive than negative. Some columnists are more negative than positive. What is so hard to understand about this? If you don't like Bucky's position regarding the Sabres, don't read his columns. ;) That's just crazy talk, Labatt. If we didn't read Bucky who would we bitch about? :thumbsup:
shrader Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 He isn't eligible, because he didn't file. Deadline was 2 days ago. (I didn't read spndnchz predicate, my bad) :blush: of course I'm not a journalist, but if I were, the X. Benedict Gazette would regret the error. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. I'm willing to bet he wrote the column before that deadline.
LabattBlue Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 That's just crazy talk, Labatt. If we didn't read Bucky who would we bitch about? :thumbsup: Just find a whipping boy on the team(I haven't decided on Campbell's replacement yet :rolleyes: ) and put the pedal to the metal. :lol:
Bmwolf21 Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 Just find a whipping boy on the team(I haven't decided on Campbell's replacement yet :rolleyes: ) and put the pedal to the metal. :lol: You've lost Campbell, I've lost Kalinin...what are we going to do? Well we've still got Max (at least for now...) ;)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.