That Aud Smell Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 EFFETE! Only you, me, Leo Buscaglia and Mike Emrick would use that word! don't forget bill o'reilly. (he uses the term in reference to himself at the very end of the clip with respect to whether he could take hannity in a fight.) by way of full disclosure: it was o'reilly's usage that put the term "effete" in my toolbox.
X. Benedict Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 Are you aware that the strength of competition Gaustad faces is near the bottom compared with other Sabres players ? You can't slide these misleading stats by me of all people. The NYR did have Jagr , Gomez and Drury , Ruff would almost need to bench Gaustad to see to it that he's not on the ice with one of their name players . You're not even close to being on the right track. FACT : The strengh of competition that Gaustad lines up against is one of the lowest among Buffalo Sabres Would you like a link ? Here is the second game I checked....... I don't know what you think of Marian Hossa, but here is another 1 goal game? http://www.timeonice.com/H2H0708.html?Game...9&submit=Go
inkman Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 What amazes me is how giddy fans were over the signing of Miller. What amazes me is the spectrum of Sabres fan's attitudes towards Miller. When you offer a player who is closer to the middle of the pack as far as goaltenders, top 5 money, it's not a huge achievement to sign him. Agreed. The franchise needed a place to hang their hat and Ryan is it. Yes, they overpaid but because of the PR disasters that were Briere/Drury/Campbell, they needed quell the fans worries. To my mind paying Gaustad and Miller a combined $8.55 million of the cap spells trouble. ...and paying Vanek a cap hit of $7.1 million doesn't? The Gaustad contract is mind boggling for a player who should be a 4th liner seeing 3rd line duty only when there are injuries. Whatever your opinion of Gaustad, by the end of his deal it will look like a bargain. Gaustad had to be the least skilled foward in the NHL with 1400+ minutes of ice time last year. Even if that ludicrous statement is true, would you rather have more ice time for Max? The only forward on this team that he's clearly more skilled than is Andrew Peters. You are quantifying skill through points only. An unfair analysis on any level. Do you think a team of 23 Vanek's would win a tea cup let alone a Stanley Cup?
spndnchz Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 ....Do you think a team of 23 Vanek's would win a tea cup let alone a Stanley Cup? They'd just keep passing it back and forth to one another until the shift change.
That Aud Smell Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 This post of yours should win some sort of hockey forum blooper award. makes it look like you are more interested in pissing people off rather than actually having a discussion. Every time you do it, you make it harder for people to take the rest of your stuff seriously. uh, yeah, see, here's the thing: if you're hell-bent on taking a scorched earth approach to an online community that you just joined today, then full marks to you. but if you'd like to stick around, have some fun with quality give and take, and possibly even learn something (*gasp*), then you'd do well not to take potshots at one of the board's more estimable members.
carpandean Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 I'm not applaused that he's behind those players in salary and it is not news to me that he is.Gaustad should be behind all those players in salary and he should be behind other players too. Did you know that each team has a highest paid and a lowest paid player? With that in mind I will tell you that Gaustad belongs towards the lower end not the higher end. If everything was in balance he should more paid than triple Goose's salary if not quadruple . Did you know that Vanek makes close to 10 times what Adam Mair does ? So why is the Goose a special banger why should he be paid 4 times more than Mair ? I do not underestimate his talent. He is in no way shape or form a 1400 minute of ice time player. He is a 3rd/4th line banger. Who ?? Who Finger from the Leafs ? LOL Tell me who these 'guys' are. Of course there are highest and lowest. My point is Gaustad isn't near the highest ($4.8 million below in cap hit and $6.3 million below in terms of salary next year) and not that much higher than the lowest ($1.75 million above Peter's cap hit and only $1.15 million more in terms of salary next year). He's right at the median and most of the guys that are below him (excluding Pommer who signed his deal after a half-season in the NHL and is worth much more) are on entry-level contracts (Stafford, Sekera, Weber, Kaleta), our #7 seven defenseman (Paetsch), our back-up goalie (Lalime) or true 4th-line bangers (Mair, Peters). The only guy that you could make an argument about is Paille based on potential. However, he has only had one good year and was basically given a two-year "prove you deserve a top-six spot" contract. Not sure where you get 4x? Next year salary: Gaustad/Mair = ($1.7M/$0.75M) = 2.26 Next year cap hit: Gaustad/Mair = ($2.3M/$0.758M) = 3.03 '09-'10 salary: Gaustad/Mair = ($2.5/$0.775M) = 3.23 Gaustad is younger, bigger, much better on face-offs, much better on the PP in front of the net and, yes, has more hockey skills and sense. I like Mair and he's a good fourth-line role player. Gaustad is a good third-line role player, who can contribute to special teams (face-offs on PP our very important, so is screening the goaltender.) If I get a chance, I'll go back and look at the list of signings, but I know there were a lot of contracts that I questioned far more than this one.
Stoner Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 don't forget bill o'reilly. (he uses the term in reference to himself at the very end of the clip with respect to whether he could take hannity in a fight.) by way of full disclosure: it was o'reilly's usage that put the term "effete" in my toolbox. Is that all Billy O put in your toolbox? :ph34r:
That Aud Smell Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 I'll have to continue this later gtg like cheese, he uses the kids' text-ese. as best i can tell, the similarities end there. decisively.
That Aud Smell Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 Is that all Billy O put in your toolbox? :ph34r: :lol: :beer: :unsure: :doh: :bag: ;)
spndnchz Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 like cheese, he uses the kids' text-ese. as best i can tell, the similarities end there. decisively. Brain snert
The Brain Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 Of course there are highest and lowest. My point is Gaustad isn't near the highest ($4.8 million below in cap hit and $6.3 million below in terms of salary next year) and not that much higher than the lowest ($1.75 million above Peter's cap hit and only $1.15 million more in terms of salary next year). He's right at the median and most of the guys that are below him (excluding Pommer who signed his deal after a half-season in the NHL and is worth much more) are on entry-level contracts (Stafford, Sekera, Weber, Kaleta), our #7 seven defenseman (Paetsch), our back-up goalie (Lalime) or true 4th-line bangers (Mair, Peters). The only guy that you could make an argument about is Paille based on potential. However, he has only had one good year and was basically given a two-year "prove you deserve a top-six spot" contract. Not sure where you get 4x? Next year salary: Gaustad/Mair = ($1.7M/$0.75M) = 2.26 Next year cap hit: Gaustad/Mair = ($2.3M/$0.758M) = 3.03 '09-'10 salary: Gaustad/Mair = ($2.5/$0.775M) = 3.23 Gaustad is younger, bigger, much better on face-offs, much better on the PP in front of the net and, yes, has more hockey skills and sense. I like Mair and he's a good fourth-line role player. Gaustad is a good third-line role player, who can contribute to special teams (face-offs on PP our very important, so is screening the goaltender.) If I get a chance, I'll go back and look at the list of signings, but I know there were a lot of contracts that I questioned far more than this one. Do you think it's a good idea to piss away 3 million on these two players ?
nfreeman Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 Do you think it's a good idea to piss away 3 million on these two players ? IMHO, Goose and Mair are worth $3MM between them. In a perfect world, yes, it would be closer to $2.25MM, but we don't live in a perfect world. Since you don't seem to like the $3MM allocation, what is your proposed alternative use of the money? Please be specific. Would you rather have 3/4 of another Roy, and no Goose or Mair?
The Brain Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 ...and paying Vanek a cap hit of $7.1 million doesn't? You're not another one of those that assign comments to people are you ? I never mentioned Vanek's contract and never implied that his is a good deal for the Sabres. Why I'm explaining this I don't know but it seems like a constant on forums, defending against statements I never made. What else is new ? Even if that ludicrous statement is true, would you rather have more ice time for Max? You are quantifying skill through points only. An unfair analysis on any level. Do you think a team of 23 Vanek's would win a tea cup let alone a Stanley Cup? Bizarre ! Well here I go again....I never mentioned ice time for Max. I stated what should be obvious but apparently isn't to some, a player like Gaustad has no need for 1400 minutes of ice time. If he's the best they have to put out on the ice for 1400 minutes it is not an aberation that they missed the playoffs. You are quantifying skill through points only. An unfair analysis on any level. Do you think a team of 23 Vanek's would win a tea cup let alone a Stanley Cup? If 23 Vaneks are playing against 23 Gaustads they'd go undefeated during the regular season and win the cup.
The Brain Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 IMHO, Goose and Mair are worth $3MM between them. In a perfect world, yes, it would be closer to $2.25MM, but we don't live in a perfect world. Since you don't seem to like the $3MM allocation, what is your proposed alternative use of the money? Please be specific. Would you rather have 3/4 of another Roy, and no Goose or Mair? 3/4 of another Roy ???? You should be aware that we have lost a number of top players on money issues. I find it strange that they lose all these skill players then make nothing of overpaying a 3rd line luch pail player. And beyond that sell the idea of this being a core player to the unwitting fans. There's no need to go into how to allocate that money if they didn't overpay on Gaustad, because there are far too many options. There's Stafford , Spacek just as 2 examples. The fans don't seem very particular about the product on the ice. They watch the Sabres lose Drury Breire Dumont Cambell. Then these same fans absent mindedly react to Gaustad's deal by saying...so what who is the team going to spend it on anyways. LOL I guess it is getting to that point , they lost so many top players that they just might have room under the cap to throw an extra million at Goose just for the hell of it.
X. Benedict Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 I guess it is getting to that point , they lost so many top players that they just might have room under the cap to throw an extra million at Goose just for the hell of it. Waiting on that link.....
The Brain Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 Waiting on that link..... Here is the link you are waiting for Sorted by quality of competition Notice that the only 3 Sabres facing a lower quality of competition are...drumroll... Mair Peters Kaleta And that is the group of players he is closest to in ability .
The Brain Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 Just because I was doubting my own sanity..... I checked a head to head chart from a close game, the March loss to the Rangers. Gaustad shared 11.2 minutes of Jagr time and was clearly matched with the Jagr-Dubinsky-Avery http://www.timeonice.com/H2H0708.html?Game...5&submit=Go http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20072008/GS021045.HTM See I understand where you are going wrong here. You are failing to see that Ruff had Hecht and Pomenville against the Jagr line. Hecht and Pomenville are legitimately players that are matched against top lines. When I hear Hecht Pomenville Gaustad vs the Jagr line my first reaction is NOT ...Ruff is using the Goose to shut down Jagr. Apparently though that's how you read it. If you go to the link I gave you , take note that Pomenville and Hecht are near the top for facing opponents best lines. Those are the players Ruff has shutting down Jagr. That's the way I read it. And Goose played on their line. Good way for him to learn the ropes.
nfreeman Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 3/4 of another Roy ???? You should be aware that we have lost a number of top players on money issues. I find it strange that they lose all these skill players then make nothing of overpaying a 3rd line luch pail player. And beyond that sell the idea of this being a core player to the unwitting fans. There's no need to go into how to allocate that money if they didn't overpay on Gaustad, because there are far too many options. There's Stafford , Spacek just as 2 examples. The fans don't seem very particular about the product on the ice. They watch the Sabres lose Drury Breire Dumont Cambell. Then these same fans absent mindedly react to Gaustad's deal by saying...so what who is the team going to spend it on anyways. LOL I guess it is getting to that point , they lost so many top players that they just might have room under the cap to throw an extra million at Goose just for the hell of it. I am acutely aware of the players we have lost. I have criticized the FO quite a bit here for last summer's CF regarding Drury, Briere and Soupy. However, we should remember that Gaustad's deal is a fraction of what those guys got. One thing really has nothing to do with the other. And we should also remember that as pointed out above every good hockey team has a mixture of skill guys and physical guys. I am also aware that even having lost these players, we were still 4th in scoring in the league last year (7 goals out of 1st place), and were #1 for a while with a few weeks to go in the season. I am further aware that what this team was missing last year was NOT scoring or skill. It was leadership and mental toughness. Now, you can certainly question whether Gaustad and Mair are capable of providing those ingredients. But signing Gaustad and Mair cannot reasonably be said to require us to sacrifice skill and scoring. As for Stafford and Spacek: what, exactly, has Stafford done that makes you think he's worth $3 million? Or, for that matter, $1.5 million? He was as lousy as anyone on the team last year. I like Spacek but he's had one lousy year and one decent year here, both injury-marred. Finally, while you may legitimately question how core of a player Gaustad is (and I think most of us thought he had a disappointing year last year like pretty much the entire team), I don't think it's remotely plausible to suppose that Darcy is throwing around $2.3MM per year to anyone "just for the hell of it". Darcy obviously sees real value and potential in Gaustad. Miller does too -- he mentioned Gaustad's extension repeatedly in his recent interview on WGR. So the guys who are in position to know value Gaustad. You are of course free to believe that none of them knows anything about hockey.
X. Benedict Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 Here is the link you are waiting for Sorted by quality of competition Notice that the only 3 Sabres facing a lower quality of competition are...drumroll... Mair Peters Kaleta And that is the group of players he is closest to in ability . Thanks for the link...the trouble with that system is it is still based on on/off ice plus/minus. The plus/minus of the line you are trying to shut down does not really tell you the strength of competition. If you check Chris Drury, the only forwards he is ahead of on his team are Betts, Callahan, Orr, and Fredrickstom. But you can use those tables to show that Gaustad has twice as many pts. per 60 minutes as Rob Neidermeyer.
SwampD Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 I just got home and was completely entertained by this thread while eating my late dinner. The one thing I came away with is that The Brain, of all people, is naught to be trifled with. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> I guess we're all just Pinkys. And I like Goose. I really thought this was a non-issue.
shrader Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Here is the link you are waiting for Sorted by quality of competition Notice that the only 3 Sabres facing a lower quality of competition are...drumroll... Mair Peters Kaleta And that is the group of players he is closest to in ability . I'd love to see some validation for that stat because its full of flaws. I'm not even going to start with possible interpretations of that stat and the holes that lie in that, but look at how little variation there is in those figures. Gaustad is as close to the top of the roster as he is to the bottom.
carpandean Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 I just got home and was completely entertained by this thread while eating my late dinner. The one thing I came away with is that The Brain, of all people, is naught to be trifled with. I guess we're all just Pinkys. I love Pinky and the Brain!! I wouldn't post something like this saying how this proves their value, because it's just one enforcer-type moment. However, it is my favorite Goose/Mair moment, so I'm going to show it anyway: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
rbochan Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 I just got home and was completely entertained by this thread while eating my late dinner. The one thing I came away with is that The Brain, of all people, is naught to be trifled with. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> I guess we're all just Pinkys. And I like Goose. I really thought this was a non-issue. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I think so, Brain, but where are we going to find a duck and a hose at this hour?
R_Dudley Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 I just got home and was completely entertained by this thread while eating my late dinner. The one thing I came away with is that The Brain, of all people, is naught to be trifled with. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> I guess we're all just Pinkys. And I like Goose. I really thought this was a non-issue. :beer: :beer: :beer: :lol:
Stoner Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 I love Pinky and the Brain!! I wouldn't post something like this saying how this proves their value, because it's just one enforcer-type moment. However, it is my favorite Goose/Mair moment, so I'm going to show it anyway: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> The Sabres... always responding. Why?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.