tom webster Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 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.) 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.) 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. B) I'll stand by my opinion that the Rangers will win the Atlantic C) Dubinsky will be a far better player then MacArthur, hell he's better 5 on 5 right now. D) Care to guess how much PP time each player has?
nfreeman 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. I'm going to refer all questions on this issue to my spokesman 526 from now on.
carpandean Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 D) Care to guess how much PP time each player has? Why guess? MacArthur Bernier NHL.com works, too, but I like CBS sports for a quick look at a lot of stats (Google players last name and SHTOI; it will always be the first or second site on the list.)
tom webster Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Why guess?MacArthur Bernier NHL.com works, too, but I like CBS sports for a quick look at a lot of stats (Google players last name and SHTOI; it will always be the first or second site on the list.) Because I know the answer and was trying to win my $50 back that I am sure to lose when the Lightning miss the playoffs.
carpandean Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Because I know the answer and was trying to win my $50 back that I am sure to lose when the Lightning miss the playoffs. Yeah, but he's right. Bernier (124:50 in 43 games, 2:54 per game) has more PPTOI than MacArthur (87:53 in 41 games, 2:08 per game) this season. About 36% more. MacArthur has a slight edge in total TOI (14:40 per game vs. 14:03) and a bigger margin in SHTOI (just over half a minute per game vs. basically none.)
tom webster Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Yeah, but he's right. Bernier (124:50 in 43 games, 2:54 per game) has more PPTOI than MacArthur (87:53 in 41 games, 2:08 per game) this season. Again, I knew that but my guess is that it is a lot closer than he thought. Besides, his initial point was that Clarke had no pp time and therefore no pp points. Truth be told, I like Vanek Man and could care less if he thinks MacArthur is a power forward or not. I was just trying to point out that his message is sometimes lost by his use of hyperbole and he is prone to inaccuracies. Obviously there is a lot he doesn't care for about me but I pride myself on my fight to be factually correct. I guess sometimes I impose that desire on others.
shrader Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 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. Or he was just trying to run up the payroll of an in-conference rival in St Louis and had no interest in doing the same to Buffalo. You also missed one big reason for the trade. It's also a money saving move. They wouldn't have to offer as much to Bernier if they traded for him. Obviously St. Louis screwed that up a bit. There's obviously a positive relationship between Vancouver and Buffalo. I doubt that Vancouver would've made an offer and screwed with that relationship. It is also pretty likely that the two had talked about the well in advance of when the trade actually happened.
SabresFan526 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Or he was just trying to run up the payroll of an in-conference rival in St Louis and had no interest in doing the same to Buffalo. You also missed one big reason for the trade. It's also a money saving move. They wouldn't have to offer as much to Bernier if they traded for him. Obviously St. Louis screwed that up a bit. There's obviously a positive relationship between Vancouver and Buffalo. I doubt that Vancouver would've made an offer and screwed with that relationship. It is also pretty likely that the two had talked about the well in advance of when the trade actually happened. Clearly, Gillis wanted him, there's no doubt about that. The question is, did he want Bernier at all cost? From Gillis' perspective it is obviously cheaper to trade for Bernier than give an offer sheet exceeding $2 million. But, if that's what it took to get him out of Buffalo, I don't see why he wouldn't do it since he had no fear in going after Backes. Also, the argument regarding screwing St. Louis' cap doesn't make sense. What vendetta does Gillis have against Davidson and Pleau? It'd be somewhat plausible if it was an in-division rival, but who cares about an in-conference rival? The out-of-conference rival didn't stop Clarke from going after Vancouver's Ryan Kesler. The out-of-conference rival did not stop Lowe from going after Vanek. Unless you have specific knowledge of a personal vendetta that Gillis has against Davidson, I don't see this argument as being plausible. With regard to the positive relationship between Vancouver and Buffalo, why is there a positive relationship? Because they came into the league together? Mike Gillis does not have a positive relationship with anyone. What does he care if he has a good relationship with Darcy or not? He had every intention of going after a power forward which is why he went after Backes and why he ultimately traded for Bernier. But, nothing indicates to me he would not have gone after Bernier had Darcy not made the trade. He probably called up Darcy to make a trade and threatened an offer sheet if he didn't make the deal. Edit: By the way, here's an article that disputes your point about driving up the cap for St. Louis. Gillis actually tried to make a trade with St. Louis for Backes, but the Blues thought it was a terrible deal, so Gillis decided to go the offer sheet route with Backes. Hence, I am now more convinced than before that had Darcy not pulled the trigger on Bernier, Gillis would have gone after him with an offer sheet: http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sto...5f-579a0086f6a6
Two or less Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Again, I knew that but my guess is that it is a lot closer than he thought. Besides, his initial point was that Clarke had no pp time and therefore no pp points. Truth be told, I like Vanek Man and could care less if he thinks MacArthur is a power forward or not. I was just trying to point out that his message is sometimes lost by his use of hyperbole and he is prone to inaccuracies. Obviously there is a lot he doesn't care for about me but I pride myself on my fight to be factually correct. I guess sometimes I impose that desire on others. I never said NO pp time. I watch the games. MacArthur isn't exactly the first one on the ice on PPs. I didn't exactly think he had such numbers on the PP and should have looked that up. That did surprise me. I did know for a fact Bernier had more time on the PP and i also knew his numbers were very low. Like i said, i watched several games early on and after 15-20 games or so, on sportsnet they did a intermission on Bernier how he wasn't scoring, and nobody knew why. He played with Sedin's and played on the PP. He obviously must have been demoted lines or something after that since like the guy from BC said, he doesn't play often with Sedin's anymore. As for you, you're wrong again. As i searched the quotes today i had to go back through tons of posts and i've even said on this forum once or twice that you're one of my favorite posters on Sabrespace. That remains the same. I don't care that we disagree often. I'm logged on to 3 other Sabres forums, and have more posts there then on two of them. However, i don't post anywhere else anymore because i do think this is the best forum with the best group of people. Obviously my definition of a power forward was a bit wrong. As for Dubinsky. I don't know if he is or isn't he better then MacArthur. As i stated, and agreed with people who joined our convo, he will remain in the league. Kid is a hard worker and does fight for the puck well, but, his talent will limit him to 15 goals a year or so. I still stand with that. He's on pace to prove me right this season, as others on this forum said he could reach 30. (After his quick start, 4 goals in like 7 games or whatever it was) I'm sure he might have a season or two in his career where he explodes and hits 23 goals or something, but not very often. That was my point on Dubinsky.
inkman Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Obviously my definition of a power forward was a bit wrong. It takes a real Vanek-Man to admit when he's wrong. :thumbsup:
deluca67 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 It takes a real Vanek-Man to admit when he's wrong. :thumbsup: Vanek, Vanek-Man You've got to be, a Vanek-Man Vanek, Vanek-Man You've got to be a Vanek!
tom webster Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Vanek, Vanek-ManYou've got to be, a Vanek-Man Vanek, Vanek-Man You've got to be a Vanek! The thought of you dancing around the kitchen, beer in one hand, spatula in the other, wearing your Briere jersey, shaking your a*s, its just too much for me to take.
deluca67 Posted January 14, 2009 Report Posted January 14, 2009 The thought of you dancing around the kitchen, beer in one hand, spatula in the other, wearing your Briere jersey, shaking your a*s, its just too much for me to take. I'll send you the thong I was wearing.
Bmwolf21 Posted January 14, 2009 Report Posted January 14, 2009 The thought of you dancing around the kitchen, beer in one hand, spatula in the other, wearing your Briere jersey, shaking your a*s, its just too much for me to take. I'll send you the thong I was wearing. Wow. This thread just got ugly.
stenbaro Posted January 14, 2009 Report Posted January 14, 2009 oohhhhh my stomach is killing me..I ate 1 beef burrito and 2 beef tacos from ETS...Hope that makes the thread feel a little better... :unsure:
Buffalo Fan Posted January 14, 2009 Report Posted January 14, 2009 Problem is we have no scoring and no grit. We have a bunch of floaters who don't want to get dirty in the corners or in front of the net, no playmaking centers, and inconsistent scoring outside Vanek, Roy and Pominville. It's a shame that Darcy and maybe even Ruff are so in love with everyone. They seem totally unwilling to part with anyone.
shrader Posted January 14, 2009 Report Posted January 14, 2009 ... Vanek, Kesler, Penner: All cases where the team's wanted the player and decided to attempt to take advantage of a cash/cap strapped team. Backes: They wanted him and made what they thought to be a fair trade offer. St. Louis didn't bite, which makes it pretty clear that they are going to keep him. Why not stick it to them and drive up the price a bit? If an in-conference team has a little less money to work with, Vancouver obviously has no problem with that. Driving up the prices on Buffalo serves no purpose though. All it does is increase the market value for players all around the league, including Vancouver. There is no reward in this instance, unlike the slight reward I mentioned above in the St. Louis situation. Positive relationship: Back to back years now there have been deals made in the off season between these two teams. Then there was Noronen back in '06. These teams seem to make a lot of minor trades. Yes, it was two different GMs, but it looks to me like there is some sort of positive relationship between these two teams. I don't see much of a point in Gillis burning this bridge so quickly in his first summer on the job.
Bmwolf21 Posted January 14, 2009 Report Posted January 14, 2009 It's a shame that Darcy and maybe even Ruff are so in love with everyone. They seem totally unwilling to part with anyone. My sense, just from listening to/reading some of Lindy's comments from time to time, is that he would make some moves if he had his way. So I suspect there is a disconnect somewhere higher up in the front office, whether it's Darcy, LQ or TG, that is preventing moves. Again, nothing solid to back this up, just my gut feeling based on Lindy's occasional comments.
tom webster Posted January 14, 2009 Report Posted January 14, 2009 My sense, just from listening to/reading some of Lindy's comments from time to time, is that he would make some moves if he had his way. So I suspect there is a disconnect somewhere higher up in the front office, whether it's Darcy, LQ or TG, that is preventing moves. Again, nothing solid to back this up, just my gut feeling based on Lindy's occasional comments. I don't think that's a reach. They have admitted to battling over the roster before and its probably good that they do. I don't think anyone doubts that Ruff wanted Barnaby and Gratton gone long before Darcy moved them. Obviously Reiger's patience isn't enough to make Ruff want out or he would have left long ago.
LabattBlue Posted January 14, 2009 Report Posted January 14, 2009 My sense, just from listening to/reading some of Lindy's comments from time to time, is that he would make some moves if he had his way. So I suspect there is a disconnect somewhere higher up in the front office, whether it's Darcy, LQ or TG, that is preventing moves. Again, nothing solid to back this up, just my gut feeling based on Lindy's occasional comments. I subscribe to this belief 100%
SabresFan526 Posted January 15, 2009 Report Posted January 15, 2009 Vanek, Kesler, Penner: All cases where the team's wanted the player and decided to attempt to take advantage of a cash/cap strapped team. Backes: They wanted him and made what they thought to be a fair trade offer. St. Louis didn't bite, which makes it pretty clear that they are going to keep him. Why not stick it to them and drive up the price a bit? If an in-conference team has a little less money to work with, Vancouver obviously has no problem with that. Driving up the prices on Buffalo serves no purpose though. All it does is increase the market value for players all around the league, including Vancouver. There is no reward in this instance, unlike the slight reward I mentioned above in the St. Louis situation. Positive relationship: Back to back years now there have been deals made in the off season between these two teams. Then there was Noronen back in '06. These teams seem to make a lot of minor trades. Yes, it was two different GMs, but it looks to me like there is some sort of positive relationship between these two teams. I don't see much of a point in Gillis burning this bridge so quickly in his first summer on the job. Believe what you want, but I don't buy it at all. John Davidson basically thought the trade offer for Backes was total garbage. Maybe if Gillis offered Kesler or something decent, Davidson may have made the trade, but you don't know what the trade was and for all we know, he could have offered a 7th rounder for Backes and if I'm Davidson, I'd say the same thing that it's a garbage trade. If Gillis wanted him that badly, he figured he would give him an offer sheet and see if Davidson would match it. Unless Gillis offered a first and third rounder (i.e. the exact same compensation for the offer sheet he gave Backes) and Davidson called that garbage then you may be right, but I doubt it. Gillis is known as a snake around the league (including how he weaseled his way into the job of GM), so I see no reason why he would not have given an offer sheet to Bernier if Darcy did not make the trade. As for the positive relationship between the two clubs, it's totally irrelevant what happened in the past. Brian Burke and Dave Nonis are completely different guys than the type of snake and creep that Mike Gillis is. So, I don't see how the historical relationship these two teams have had will have any impact on any future dealings with this regime as Mike Gillis is totally different from those guys.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.