carpandean Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 I'm all for debating points based on facts and have no problem pointing out when somebody is incorrect, but there's no need to get so heated about it. There was some risk to the contract. Regardless of what it has done to any other goaltender in the league, the 70+ game workload did seem to affect Miller last year. I'd rather have a capable backup playing 20+ games and get 60+ top-level games out of Miller than overwork him and get 70+ games at a lower level. He also, like the rest of the team, didn't have the greatest year to start. As noted in one of the Miller threads, he seemed to change some of the way he handled certain situations (one-on-one, for instance) from '06-'07 to '07-'08 and then started switching back down the stretch last year. He has shown that he can be an elite goalie (not Hasek or Brodeur level, perhaps, but who else really is and how much do you think they would be paid now if they were 28?) and he's also shown that he has things to work on. The team as a whole needs to play better, providing him with better defensive and physical support, and the coaches need to provide him with more breaks. In looking around the league, there are both better (or, at least, more proven goaltenders) and worse goaltenders making similar or more money. Based purely on performance over the last three seasons, Miller was probably a solid $5.5 million/yr goalie. Add in "potential", plus a FO needing to stop the bleeding to keep from further harming its reputation (even if you don't believe it will help improve their reputation, not signing him definitely would have further hurt it) and you get $6.25 million/yr. It certainly wasn't a bargain signing, but it was still a good move for the team. How good will be remain to be seen, starting in October.
FogBat Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 I prefer FNG ("fenn-gee"). :lol: Very funny. Without digressing too much and quibbling over semantics, you knew what I meant. Still good for a barrel of laughs.
Bmwolf21 Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 I'm all for debating points based on facts and have no problem pointing out when somebody is incorrect, but there's no need to get so heated about it. There was some risk to the contract. Regardless of what it has done to any other goaltender in the league, the 70+ game workload did seem to affect Miller last year. I'd rather have a capable backup playing 20+ games and get 60+ top-level games out of Miller than overwork him and get 70+ games at a lower level. He also, like the rest of the team, didn't have the greatest year to start. As noted in one of the Miller threads, he seemed to change some of the way he handled certain situations (one-on-one, for instance) from '06-'07 to '07-'08 and then started switching back down the stretch last year. He has shown that he can be an elite goalie (not Hasek or Brodeur level, perhaps, but who else really is and how much do you think they would be paid now if they were 28?) and he's also shown that he has things to work on. The team as a whole needs to play better, providing him with better defensive and physical support, and the coaches need to provide him with more breaks. In looking around the league, there are both better (or, at least, more proven goaltenders) and worse goaltenders making similar or more money. Based purely on performance over the last three seasons, Miller was probably a solid $5.5 million/yr goalie. Add in "potential", plus a FO needing to stop the bleeding to keep from further harming its reputation (even if you don't believe it will help improve their reputation, not signing him definitely would have further hurt it) and you get $6.25 million/yr. It certainly wasn't a bargain signing, but it was still a good move for the team. How good will be remain to be seen, starting in October. You're just wrong and stupid. :thumbsup:
deluca67 Posted July 21, 2008 Author Report Posted July 21, 2008 Wrong that is just rhetoric put out by the Sabre's front office.And it never ceases to amaze me how effective they are with what should be transparent. (not just on this issue) Workloads don't effect Lunquist , Nabakov, Brodeur, Luongo , Kiprusoff. And many past goalies. This is a BS excuse. You would think if they agreed to make Miller the 4th highest paid goalie ( I believe that's right corect me if I'm wrong) they wouldn't need to make excuses for him as they are inking the new deal. I never heard of those goalies I mentioned crying about playing too many games, and it hasn't effected their play either. Am I wrong or were Millers numbers (2.64 gga and .910sv%) better this season than the previous year where he played less games (2.73 gga and .910 sv%)?
FogBat Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 Am I wrong or were Millers numbers (2.64 gga and .910sv%) better this season than the previous year where he played less games (2.73 gga and .910 sv%)? Brain, whatever you do, don't PO this guy. Trust us, we know...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 Am I wrong or were Millers numbers (2.64 gga and .910sv%) better this season than the previous year where he played less games (2.73 gga and .910 sv%)? Well you're half wrong ... his GAA was indeed lower but is Sv pct also dropped from .911 to .906 ... which translates to roughly 10 or 11 more goals on the 2,104 shots he faced ... of course that doesn't tell the story of when the goals were scored and all that ... goal allowed in a tight game this past season obviously hurts more than one allowed in a 7-4 win in 06-07 ... and then there was the shootout issue ... So yeah, his GAA did go down ... but not even the FO that has supposedly been making excuses for him is suggesting he had a good year.
FogBat Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 He's just another Troll who is coming over here to try and ruffle everyone's feathers He hasn't even been here a day yet and he is already calling other posters idiots for not agreeing with him I didn't think about the "Troll" issue until you brought it up. Thanx. I haven't seem him respond to my exhortation yet. I have to wonder if the mods have already shown him the door.
apuszczalowski Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 I didn't think about the "Troll" issue until you brought it up. Thanx. I haven't seem him respond to my exhortation yet. I have to wonder if the mods have already shown him the door. Nope, thats doubtful I think in another post he said he had to go and would be back later. His babysitter probably finished making him his lunch and she made him log off the computer to go eat. This person has been on the board for only 4 hours, and anytime someon tries to debate his points or give him a reply that doesn't say that he is correct, he attacks back with insults, typical childish attitude (and coming up with a user name like the brain shows signs that he believes he is smarter then everyone else)
That Aud Smell Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 :lol: Very funny. Without digressing too much and quibbling over semantics, you knew what I meant. Still good for a barrel of laughs. wasn't quibbling at all -- i like noob -- like you, just having a laugh. :thumbsup:
inkman Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 ummm...Ink, where are you? :D :D :D Too many words in this thread to sort through to inject comedic relief... :thumbsup:
carpandean Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 You're just wrong and stupid. :cry: :thumbsup: :D
FogBat Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 Nope, thats doubtful I think in another post he said he had to go and would be back later. His babysitter probably finished making him his lunch and she made him log off the computer to go eat. This person has been on the board for only 4 hours, and anytime someon tries to debate his points or give him a reply that doesn't say that he is correct, he attacks back with insults, typical childish attitude (and coming up with a user name like the brain shows signs that he believes he is smarter then everyone else) Arrogant and puerile would be two other words to describe "The Brain." I also like to think of him as Ishmael, because "his hand is against every man."
deluca67 Posted July 22, 2008 Author Report Posted July 22, 2008 Well you're half wrong ... his GAA was indeed lower but is Sv pct also dropped from .911 to .906 ... which translates to roughly 10 or 11 more goals on the 2,104 shots he faced ... of course that doesn't tell the story of when the goals were scored and all that ... goal allowed in a tight game this past season obviously hurts more than one allowed in a 7-4 win in 06-07 ... and then there was the shootout issue ...So yeah, his GAA did go down ... but not even the FO that has supposedly been making excuses for him is suggesting he had a good year. The site I used rounded up. I'm not saying Miller had a banner year. He didn't fall off the face of the earth either. The shootouts are the key issue. I think back to the season when Miller said that the hardest part about the workload was not being able to work on things between games. I think there is something to that. Miller is a guy you relies heavily on preparation. If he had a few days here and there to work on his game maybe shootouts would have been less of an issue.
connee Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 The Sabres are going into the season with basically the same roster just replacing Campbell with Rivet which I don't believe anyone would consider that an upgrade. Defensively it's a major upgrade. Let's face it, Campbell is a center playing defense, And seeing that the Sabres were 4th in offense last year, it's a good tradeoff.
inkman Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Defensively it's a major upgrade. Let's face it, Campbell is a center playing defense,And seeing that the Sabres were 4th in offense last year, it's a good tradeoff. Long time no...er...read.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.