Two or less Posted January 12, 2009 Report Posted January 12, 2009 LOL ok, yeah keep believing keeping Bernier would have helped us in any form. I'm not going to argue STEVE BERNIER anymore though. Pointless argument. A 3rd line player to help the Sabres. Riiiight.
nfreeman Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 LOL ok, yeah keep believing keeping Bernier would have helped us in any form. I'm not going to argue STEVE BERNIER anymore though. Pointless argument. A 3rd line player to help the Sabres. Riiiight. Well, I understand why we chose not to keep him, but at the same time, he could end up with 20 goals and 40 pts this year -- probably substantially better than, say, Hecht, who's getting $3.5MM per year for no apparent reason. Since our offense is much more frequently constipated than it has been in several years, I don't think Bernier is anything to sneer at.
deluca67 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Well, I understand why we chose not to keep him, but at the same time, he could end up with 20 goals and 40 pts this year -- probably substantially better than, say, Hecht, who's getting $3.5MM per year for no apparent reason. Since our offense is much more frequently constipated than it has been in several years, I don't think Bernier is anything to sneer at. 24 years old and likes to hit. Those should be the type of players the Sabres should be finding room on the roster for. If there is any doubt of the importance of toughness and grit? Pay close attention to the Maple Leafs over the next few seasons. Brian Burke is going to build a big kick ass team which may change how Eastern Conference teams look at their rosters. It used to be that the East had the larger tougher teams and West had the finesse teams. That has changed, I think Burke is going to start the trend back to the tougher Wales Conference days.
SDS Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Well, I understand why we chose not to keep him, but at the same time, he could end up with 20 goals and 40 pts this year -- probably substantially better than, say, Hecht, who's getting $3.5MM per year for no apparent reason. Since our offense is much more frequently constipated than it has been in several years, I don't think Bernier is anything to sneer at. 2-3 nights ago NHL on the Fly discussed Bernier and it was mostly negative. They commented on how he goes through these short stretches where he looks amazing and then poof - he's gone for long stretches. The tone of the discussion was that this wasn't a little problem and that he is more poof than amazing.
shrader Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Well, I understand why we chose not to keep him, but at the same time, he could end up with 20 goals and 40 pts this year -- probably substantially better than, say, Hecht, who's getting $3.5MM per year for no apparent reason. Since our offense is much more frequently constipated than it has been in several years, I don't think Bernier is anything to sneer at. I think a good guy to compare him to would be MacArthur. He probably kept his roster spot thanks in part to the Bernier deal. Their production looks pretty similar too, so only time will tell how that comparison plays out.
SabresFan526 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 2-3 nights ago NHL on the Fly discussed Bernier and it was mostly negative. They commented on how he goes through these short stretches where he looks amazing and then poof - he's gone for long stretches. The tone of the discussion was that this wasn't a little problem and that he is more poof than amazing. Precisely why he's a perfect fit for the Sabres :thumbsup: All kidding aside, I would have liked to keep Bernier, but given the cap constraints and the fact that Gillis was going to go after him with an offer sheet that would have been too much, and then subsequently St. Louis signing him to an offer sheet that's way too much, I don't think he's worth it. He's definitely not worth the $2.5 million that he's signed for as he's done nothing in his career, including this year, to justify that number. When you consider that Kotalik has had three 20 goal seasons in his career and makes $2.5 million and a cap hit of $2.333 million, it's hard to justify that kind of money for Bernier who's never had more than 16 goals in his career and is not likely to score more than 20 at his current pace. That's my opinion at least.
Two or less Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 I think a good guy to compare him to would be MacArthur. He probably kept his roster spot thanks in part to the Bernier deal. Their production looks pretty similar too, so only time will tell how that comparison plays out. I don't think it's much of a comparison. MacArthur is a better hitter. Bernier only hits when he wants to. Some games i watch on center ice and he doesn't hit anyone, plays like Pyatt did with Buffalo. MacArthur has more goals then Big Bear, and doesn't have the benefit of playing with the Sedin's, and i don't have the statistical on how many times but a good amount, i don't know if the guy few posts under is correct but since he's from BC i will take his word for it. And Bernier plays on the PP (or played, he might have been taken off for poor results). I know first 20 or so games he was on the PP and resulted in almost nothing. Not sure if he's still on their PP unit or not. MacArthur doesn't get that benefit either.
deluca67 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 I think a good guy to compare him to would be MacArthur. He probably kept his roster spot thanks in part to the Bernier deal. Their production looks pretty similar too, so only time will tell how that comparison plays out. To me, the physical aspect of Bernier's game gives him the edge at this point. I guess the discussion also come back to the Sabres having open roster spots that Bernier could have filled. It may sound like beating a dead horse but as the trade deadline closes in the topicis going to be about filling the holes in the Sabres roster. I think the Sabres could have taken steps in filling the holes by keeping Bernier. I do have to question if the Sabres even consider the lack of toughness and physicality a hole.
nfreeman Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 24 years old and likes to hit. Those should be the type of players the Sabres should be finding room on the roster for. If there is any doubt of the importance of toughness and grit? Pay close attention to the Maple Leafs over the next few seasons. Brian Burke is going to build a big kick ass team which may change how Eastern Conference teams look at their rosters. It used to be that the East had the larger tougher teams and West had the finesse teams. That has changed, I think Burke is going to start the trend back to the tougher Wales Conference days. I think the Leafs will be better and certainly more physical. I'm curious to see whether Burke can deliver a real contender though. So far I find him somewhat annoying and full of himself, although I would be psyched if I were a Leafs fan. 2-3 nights ago NHL on the Fly discussed Bernier and it was mostly negative. They commented on how he goes through these short stretches where he looks amazing and then poof - he's gone for long stretches. The tone of the discussion was that this wasn't a little problem and that he is more poof than amazing. I don't disagree -- he's far from a sure thing. I was just saying that 20 goals, 40 pts and some feisty play and a few big hits, even if he doesn't deliver consistently, is nothing to sneer at, which V-M seems to be doing. I think a good guy to compare him to would be MacArthur. He probably kept his roster spot thanks in part to the Bernier deal. Their production looks pretty similar too, so only time will tell how that comparison plays out. This is a good point -- if Bernier were here and, say, a 3rd-line winger, would his possible 20/40 be much better than what Mac will end up with? And would whatever spread there was between the 2 of them be worth paying the $2MM more Bernier would have cost (since Mac makes $522K)?
shrader Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 This is a good point -- if Bernier were here and, say, a 3rd-line winger, would his possible 20/40 be much better than what Mac will end up with? And would whatever spread there was between the 2 of them be worth paying the $2MM more Bernier would have cost (since Mac makes $522K)? I saw the theory out there earlier, but I don't for a second believe that Bernier would be making anywhere near that figure if he hadn't been traded. Still, the money difference would've been noticeable.
stenbaro Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 I don't think it's much of a comparison. MacArthur is a better hitter. Bernier only hits when he wants to. Some games i watch on center ice and he doesn't hit anyone, plays like Pyatt did with Buffalo. MacArthur has more goals then Big Bear, and doesn't have the benefit of playing with the Sedin's, and i don't have the statistical on how many times but a good amount, i don't know if the guy few posts under is correct but since he's from BC i will take his word for it. And Bernier plays on the PP (or played, he might have been taken off for poor results). I know first 20 or so games he was on the PP and resulted in almost nothing. Not sure if he's still on their PP unit or not. MacArthur doesn't get that benefit either. I know we are discussing this in another thread however jsut so everyone has the facts out there about theyre hits.. Bernier has 77 hits in 43 games to Macarthurs 49 hits in 41 games..They play two different positions..Typically your wingers are the ones doing the banging so Bernier should have more hits..He is a better and more powerful hitter than Macarthur will ever dream of becoming..I would take Bernier over Macarthur any day of the week..The only reason Macarthur is playing in the NHL is because the Sabres have the least talent at center and almost any skating stiff could play for them after Roy...
tom webster Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 I don't think it's much of a comparison. MacArthur is a better hitter. Bernier only hits when he wants to. Some games i watch on center ice and he doesn't hit anyone, plays like Pyatt did with Buffalo. MacArthur has more goals then Big Bear, and doesn't have the benefit of playing with the Sedin's, and i don't have the statistical on how many times but a good amount, i don't know if the guy few posts under is correct but since he's from BC i will take his word for it. And Bernier plays on the PP (or played, he might have been taken off for poor results). I know first 20 or so games he was on the PP and resulted in almost nothing. Not sure if he's still on their PP unit or not. MacArthur doesn't get that benefit either. Considering Sedins average 19 minnutes of ice time and Bernier averages 14, it should be pretty obvious he doesn't play with the Sedins. You make a lot of valid points Vanek-Man, but you kill a lot of your arguments with anecdotal "facts" based on something you heard or saw during a game or two.
Two or less Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Considering Sedins average 19 minnutes of ice time and Bernier averages 14, it should be pretty obvious he doesn't play with the Sedins. You make a lot of valid points Vanek-Man, but you kill a lot of your arguments with anecdotal "facts" based on something you heard or saw during a game or two. No, he played with them much more then a game or two. Sorry.
tom webster Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 No, he played with them much more then a game or two. Sorry. That's not what I meant. I know he played with them for much of the first half of the season. You just seem to make snap judgements based on what you see in a game or two. Its like the whole MacArthur is a power forward argument. While hits are a subjective stat, he has been credited with 49 this year while Bernier has 77. There are a lot of reasons why Bernier may or may not be here this year. My only point was that they didn't need to trade him to acquire Rivet which is what they have tried to get us to believe. Of course its better then just admitting they made a mistake in acquiring him for Campbell.
Two or less Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 That's not what I meant. I know he played with them for much of the first half of the season. You just seem to make snap judgements based on what you see in a game or two. Its like the whole MacArthur is a power forward argument. While hits are a subjective stat, he has been credited with 49 this year while Bernier has 77. There are a lot of reasons why Bernier may or may not be here this year. My only point was that they didn't need to trade him to acquire Rivet which is what they have tried to get us to believe. Of course its better then just admitting they made a mistake in acquiring him for Campbell. You mean like when you told me Tampa Bay was a great team? Or when you told me the Flyers had no chance of winning the Atlantic? Or how you told me Brandon Dubinsky was the next coming? MacArthur IS a power forward. He's a young and undeveloped power forward. I mean, look at the games where he is successful. He scores "dirty" and "garbage" goals. He fights for the puck infront of the net and wins the battles and scores the goals. He's got 11 goals so far and many of them point to a power forward. If he's not a power forward, i'd like to hear your definition of what you think his role is on a hockey team? I never said he's a great player. I never said he's the next Vanek. But to say he's not a power forward is totally wrong. Bernier obviously has more checks and hits, but i could honestly care less about that. Compare who fights harder infront of the net. MacArthur is a warrior in front of the net. He plays with less talent then Bernier and doesn't see any PP time, and yet has more success. Not to mention Bernier has like 220 games under his belt while MacArthur is still under 100. It takes time.
deluca67 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 You mean like when you told me Tampa Bay was a great team? Or when you told me the Flyers had no chance of winning the Atlantic? Or how you told me Brandon Dubinsky was the next coming? MacArthur IS a power forward. He's a young and undeveloped power forward. I mean, look at the games where he is successful. He scores "dirty" and "garbage" goals. He fights for the puck infront of the net and wins the battles and scores the goals. He's got 11 goals so far and many of them point to a power forward. If he's not a power forward, i'd like to hear your definition of what you think his role is on a hockey team? I never said he's a great player. I never said he's the next Vanek. But to say he's not a power forward is totally wrong. Bernier obviously has more checks and hits, but i could honestly care less about that. Compare who fights harder infront of the net. MacArthur is a warrior in front of the net. He plays with less talent then Bernier and doesn't see any PP time, and yet has more success. Not to mention Bernier has like 220 games under his belt while MacArthur is still under 100. It takes time. MacArthur is a power forward? He's an average forward not a power forward. Most nights you don't even notice him on the ice. A power forward should be a physical presence laying the body to defenders every time he enters the offensive zone. MacArthur plays too much on the out side to be considered a power forward. I know it's been a long time since the Sabres had a power forward that'sno excuse to drop the bar to include MacArthur.
tom webster Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 You mean like when you told me Tampa Bay was a great team? Or when you told me the Flyers had no chance of winning the Atlantic? Or how you told me Brandon Dubinsky was the next coming? MacArthur IS a power forward. He's a young and undeveloped power forward. I mean, look at the games where he is successful. He scores "dirty" and "garbage" goals. He fights for the puck infront of the net and wins the battles and scores the goals. He's got 11 goals so far and many of them point to a power forward. If he's not a power forward, i'd like to hear your definition of what you think his role is on a hockey team? I never said he's a great player. I never said he's the next Vanek. But to say he's not a power forward is totally wrong. Bernier obviously has more checks and hits, but i could honestly care less about that. Compare who fights harder infront of the net. MacArthur is a warrior in front of the net. He plays with less talent then Bernier and doesn't see any PP time, and yet has more success. Not to mention Bernier has like 220 games under his belt while MacArthur is still under 100. It takes time. a) Didn't say Tampa was a great team, but I did think they would make the playoffs, but that was an opinion and not something I stated as fact b) Don't know what you are talking about, I always liked the Flyers, although I still think the Rangers win the Atlanatic c) Never said Dubinsky was the second coming but do feel he will be a top six forward in this league Finally, 9 of MacArthurs 20 points have come on the power play which again goes to my point with how loose you are with the facts By the way, only 6 of Bernier's 22 points have come on the power play
That Aud Smell Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 MacArthur IS a power forward. :blink: deluca makes a fair point -- maybe it's the fact that we haven't had one of these around for a significant period of time that makes us ready to annoint someone in error? macarthur projects to be a responsible 2-way player who will need to dig and scrap for loose pucks in order to get his 40 points a year. he does not project as a power forward, under any reasonable definition of what that position is. i'd also point out that a kid like kaleta can fly around and make twice as many hits as bernier, but he's not going to be a power forward. the last power forward we had? i'm not going to count bernier. i'm also taking a pass on pyatt. grier filled large parts of that role, but didn't have the hands or the vision to get to 40 points consistently (i think he was more in the 30 range). remember when michael grosek pledged to become the next cam neely? my hockey brethren wound up calling him euro-cam.
inkman Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 the last power forward we had? Andreychuk
nfreeman Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 I saw the theory out there earlier, but I don't for a second believe that Bernier would be making anywhere near that figure if he hadn't been traded. Still, the money difference would've been noticeable. He was an RFA. There was a decent amount of interest in him around the NHL. IIRC, the threshold for increased compensation for signing RFAs was right around $2.5MM (i.e. above that amount, the number of draft picks increases). I remember thinking at the time that he was probably worth around $1.5MM, but that a team looking to snag him as an RFA that had some room in its budget could probably go up to $2.5MM because it would have known that this would pressure the Sabres. It's likely his agent knew this too, and wouldn't have agreed to a deal too far below $2.5MM. All conjecture, I know, but I think we probably would've had to pay at least $2MM per year to sign him before FA.
inkman Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 MacArthur IS a power forward. In my mind power=size=muscles. Clarke...not so much.
shrader Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 He was an RFA. There was a decent amount of interest in him around the NHL. IIRC, the threshold for increased compensation for signing RFAs was right around $2.5MM (i.e. above that amount, the number of draft picks increases). I remember thinking at the time that he was probably worth around $1.5MM, but that a team looking to snag him as an RFA that had some room in its budget could probably go up to $2.5MM because it would have known that this would pressure the Sabres. It's likely his agent knew this too, and wouldn't have agreed to a deal too far below $2.5MM. I don't think there was much interest other than through trades. But then again, outside of Edmonton, I don't think teams actually use the offer sheet process to go after a guy they want. They use it to strategically drive up prices for certain teams. If a team really wants a guy, they're much more likely to go the trade route so they won't have to deal with the "will they/won't they match the offer" ordeal. Bernier only got his offer because St. Louis saw their chance to get back at Vancouver for Backes.
That Aud Smell Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 the last power forward we had? Andreychuk sounds about right. it also occurs to me, however, that we may not be giving enough respect to vanek, and the beating he takes in front of/around the net. still, as much of a moose as he is/can be, i don't think he does enough in the physical play department to warrant the characterization at issue. then again, neither did andreychuck. :unsure:
Two or less Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 a) Didn't say Tampa was a great team, but I did think they would make the playoffs, but that was an opinion and not something I stated as factb) Don't know what you are talking about, I always liked the Flyers, although I still think the Rangers win the Atlanatic c) Never said Dubinsky was the second coming but do feel he will be a top six forward in this league Finally, 9 of MacArthurs 20 points have come on the power play which again goes to my point with how loose you are with the facts By the way, only 6 of Bernier's 22 points have come on the power play A.) Obviously it was opinion. How would you have known Tampa would make the playoffs as a fact? You wouldn't have put $50 on a little opinion either. B.) The Rangers will finish first or second in the conference as long as Lundqvist stays healthy. Not only has he been healthy, their entire team has been one of the most healthy teams in the league, if not the healthiest this season. C.) As for your comment on Dubinsky, if you are speaking as an irrational fan who hates the Rangers fine, if your are giving your educated opinion, you really know very little about hockey. Last quote came when you dissed me for saying Dubs will be a 15g player. He's got 6 now. But yeah, i know so little about hockey, Mr Hockey God Tom. And i'd be willing to bet Bernier has much more PP time then MacArthur.
SabresFan526 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 I don't think there was much interest other than through trades. But then again, outside of Edmonton, I don't think teams actually use the offer sheet process to go after a guy they want. They use it to strategically drive up prices for certain teams. If a team really wants a guy, they're much more likely to go the trade route so they won't have to deal with the "will they/won't they match the offer" ordeal. Bernier only got his offer because St. Louis saw their chance to get back at Vancouver for Backes. Yes, but remember Gillis is the guy who originally went after Backes with the offer sheet in the first place (not the other way around). This is why I believe Gillis would have gone after Bernier with the offer sheet had Darcy not traded Bernier to Vancouver. Look at the trade, it was a 2nd and 3rd rounder. Had Gillis offered between $1-2 million he would just give up a second rounder, had he gone above $2 million, he would have had to give a 1st and 3rd rounder. Clearly, the trade itself was a compromise between what compensation Buffalo would have gotten had Gillis given Bernier an offer sheet. Put two-and-two together and while it is speculation, the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory that Gillis would have gone after Bernier with an offer sheet just like he went after Backes with an offer sheet.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.