tom webster Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/593605.html While the league monitors the Flyer situation to see if they are manipulating the Briere injury to stay under the cap. Max says doctors cleared him since mid- February. The Sabres aren't anywhere near the cap, but they are violating the rules nonetheless and theoretically would be able to spend more to the cap because they left him on IR. Funny how the team plays by the rules when it suits their side of the story or what they want to accomplish.
SabresFan526 Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/593605.html While the league monitors the Flyer situation to see if they are manipulating the Briere injury to stay under the cap. Max says doctors cleared him since mid- February. The Sabres aren't anywhere near the cap, but they are violating the rules nonetheless and theoretically would be able to spend more to the cap because they left him on IR. Funny how the team plays by the rules when it suits their side of the story or what they want to accomplish. I read that too. I think what that means in this case is that the Sabres never activated Max because they would have been over the roster limit and they would have been forced to send Butler or Kaleta down, and they didn't want to. It's against the rules for sure, but it would have had no impact on the cap, only the active roster. I don't see the league doing anything to the Sabres on this one. I just hope they can get something for Max at the trade deadline, who clearly no longer wants to be here. Looks like Tallinder also does not want to be here either based on his comments in a similar article earlier last week.
stenbaro Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 I read that too. I think what that means in this case is that the Sabres never activated Max because they would have been over the roster limit and they would have been forced to send Butler or Kaleta down, and they didn't want to. It's against the rules for sure, but it would have had no impact on the cap, only the active roster. I don't see the league doing anything to the Sabres on this one. I just hope they can get something for Max at the trade deadline, who clearly no longer wants to be here. Looks like Tallinder also does not want to be here either based on his comments in a similar article earlier last week. I think the Sabres actions of not playing him are more telling than Max's statement..Clearly they dont want him..The way they are scoring goals all help needed..At the very least at least we could have something to bitch about..This team is so boring..They lose with no fight.....No playoffs 2 yrs in a row....They have dwindled so much talent off this roster that we dont even have to worry about losing anyone that another team would want this offseason..BUt at least we will be under the cap next year again... :thumbsup:
billsrcursed Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 I read that too. I think what that means in this case is that the Sabres never activated Max because they would have been over the roster limit and they would have been forced to send Butler or Kaleta down, and they didn't want to. It's against the rules for sure, but it would have had no impact on the cap, only the active roster. I don't see the league doing anything to the Sabres on this one. I just hope they can get something for Max at the trade deadline, who clearly no longer wants to be here. Looks like Tallinder also does not want to be here either based on his comments in a similar article earlier last week. Uh......buh-bye If we can't trade 'em, I say drop 'em. AND...... do it along with some negative press to make them both feel better :thumbsup:
Bmwolf21 Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 Uh......buh-bye If we can't trade 'em, I say drop 'em. AND...... do it along with some negative press to make them both feel better :thumbsup: Yep. If no one will take Max in trade, I say they release him outright and have a nasty, public, messy divorce complete with bickering through the press and dueling press conferences. At least it will take our attention off the crappy effort the Sabres are putting forth lately...
RR61 Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 The problem the Sabres have is Max's reputation around the league as a super talented skater who has all the hockey sense of a head of lettuce. I'm sure they have been shopping him for months, but can't find anyone who wants to take on his contract when they know they can wait it out and sign him on the cheap in the off-season after his deal is up.
Kevbeau Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 After their performance in the recent stretch of games, there is no reason Max should be sitting instead of MacArthur, Paille & Hecht (to name a few). Yeah I know there's roster considerations & we all know what Max brings to the table. The whole team has been giving up turnovers, what's a few more. At least Max also creates chances.
2ForTripping Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 After their performance in the recent stretch of games, there is no reason Max should be sitting instead of MacArthur, Paille & Hecht (to name a few). Yeah I know there's roster considerations & we all know what Max brings to the table. The whole team has been giving up turnovers, what's a few more. At least Max also creates chances. Add 29 to that list he's been as useful as tits on a boar
FearTheReaper Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 Lmao. I just read the article as well. I could not refrain from laughing. Healthy since mid Feburary? Even with Hecht playing as bad as he is,Lindy still wont take a chance on Max. So is it safe to say we know one guy they want to move wednesday?
ROC Sabres Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 Lmao. I just read the article as well. I could not refrain from laughing. Healthy since mid Feburary? Even with Hecht playing as bad as he is,Lindy still wont take a chance on Max. So is it safe to say we know one guy they want to move wednesday? At least we know we are going to be set on pucks for a while. I've been reading comments from people over at TSN about Guerin getting traded and people actually agree with one guy that he got traded straight up for Max. I'm guessing it was Eck.
Kristian Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 At least we know we are going to be set on pucks for a while. I've been reading comments from people over at TSN about Guerin getting traded and people actually agree with one guy that he got traded straight up for Max. I'm guessing it was Eck. True, and at the very very least, it shows that Darcy is at ready to dump at least SOME of this immense pile of dead wood he's assembled over the years. Kalinin one year, Max the next year. Max for Guerin straight up? Only if Milbury were still in charge, of course I'd love to be proven wrong on this.
LabattBlue Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 Are you telling me that it wouldn't have been worth a shot to play Max for a game or two in the last week in order to spark a little interest. If there was another team dumb enough to give the Sabres a mid to late round pick, they weren't going to do it without seeing him in some recent game action. :wallbash:
billsrcursed Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 True, and at the very very least, it shows that Darcy is at ready to dump at least SOME of this immense pile of dead wood he's assembled over the years. Kalinin one year, Max the next year. Max for Guerin straight up? Only if Milbury were still in charge, of course I'd love to be proven wrong on this. I'd be ready to proclaim Darcy Mayor of Buffalo in waiting if he got Guerin for Max straight up.......
Kristian Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 Are you telling me that it wouldn't have been worth a shot to play Max for a game or two in the last week in order to spark a little interest. If there was another team dumb enough to give the Sabres a mid to late round pick, they weren't going to do it without seeing him in some recent game action. :wallbash: Darcy must've given Lindy 100% control of who plays down the stretch, regardless of trade value of individual players, or lack thereof. What I think has happened in this case is that both have given up on Max, both as a player and a trade asset. Lindy long before Darcy, but eventually he's given up on getting something for him too. Not saying this is a smart move. Moving him in the off-season would've been a smart move, but likely Darcy was asking too much and perhaps ended up painting himself into a corner on this one? I'd taken a 2nd rounder for him in August, a 3rd rounder in November.
BamBam Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 What is it with the front offices of our sports teams in Buffalo lately? Its one mis-step, error, no action, accepting terrible results day after day. People in WNY deserve alot better.
Spudz Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 I hope he continue to sits, and if they don't plan on trading him, Darcy or Lindybetter hire someone to go Tanya Harding on his @$$ to keep him on the bench. Last thing they need right now is a turnover factory on the ice.
SHAAAUGHT!!! Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 Are you telling me that it wouldn't have been worth a shot to play Max for a game or two in the last week in order to spark a little interest. If there was another team dumb enough to give the Sabres a mid to late round pick, they weren't going to do it without seeing him in some recent game action. :wallbash: I originally thought the same thing, but there is probably more trade value with Max by just "thinking" about what he "could" do instead of "seeing" what "actually" does, which isn't much of anything but skating fast and committing turnovers at the top of the circle.
darksabre Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 Tell Max we'll give the Russians a call and they can play some soccer together.
inkman Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 Darcy or Lindy better hire someone to go Tanya Harding on his @$$ to keep him on the bench. I'm sure Jeff Gilooly and his fat friend aren't doing anything.
... Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 Last thing they need right now is a turnover factory on the ice. Especially when Roy has been filling in for Max in that role just fine. :censored: They should have played him the past couple of games - he could do no worse than the rest of them.
LabattBlue Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 Especially when Roy has been filling in for Max in that role just fine. :censored: They should have played him the past couple of games - he could do no worse than the rest of them. Comparing Roy with Max? Good comparison. <_<
... Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 Comparing Roy with Max? Good comparison. <_< Come on - they both do the same thing: either take it down the boards, turn around and lose it, or try and sneak it past a defender at the blue line and lose it. Then, of course, are those attempts at a pass through the slot that get intercepted.
LabattBlue Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 Come on - they both do the same thing: either take it down the boards, turn around and lose it, or try and sneak it past a defender at the blue line and lose it. Then, of course, are those attempts at a pass through the slot that get intercepted. One player has 54 goals and 138 points over the last two seasons and the other one has 12 goals and 40 points. You're right...they are the same player. :wallbash:
... Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 One player has 54 goals and 138 points over the last two seasons and the other one has 12 goals and 40 points. You're right...they are the same player. :wallbash: Gee, perhaps you could point out for me where I said they were the "same player". Maybe you could go back and figure out that I'm talking about both of them being "turnover factor(ies)" - and then explain to me how that has anything to do with the points on their stat sheets. And then bash your head against the wall a little more.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.