Two or less Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Let's keep in mind that Minnesota's system has traditionally inflated the stats of goalies. It happened with Rollie and Fernandez. Excellent point that little people make. Kind of like Scott Clemmenson with the NJ Devils last year. I want to see what Harding does in more then a back-up role, it's a much different game if you have to play game in and game out and top scorers see you often, then opposed to seeing you few times during the season, and also, i want to see what he can do in a not all-defensive system where many of the shots he faced were low quality shots due to Minnesota's style of trapping and eliminating the passing lanes.
Taro T Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 By saying "Goalies start coming into their own around 30", you are tacetly saying Miller is a young goalie...which is what we've heard from the front office the past 2 years. Hasek is a franchise goalie...so much so in fact that Lindy Ruff is a .500 coach in games which Hasek isn't in net. I said the only reason he wasn't a stud earlier is that he was behind Belfour and Fuhr, both Vezina winners, for half a decade. Your point on age is flawed. Most goalies that are shut down goalies show up to an elite level way before their 30th birthday. If youth and ability no longer matter....then Lalime and Thibault should have been awesome. They have plenty of successful starting experience. Maybe we should trade Enroth away for 10 years? I agree that Miller is a top 5-13 goalie......but that is pretty much all he will ever be. To tow the company line and HOPE he will improve and everything will go his way, is not the way I do business. I don't know enough about Harding to give an opinion. I would say however that to dismiss his chances of becoming better than Miller in a short amount of time because of his age is folly. No, I am not tacitly saying that Miller is young. I am definitely not saying it as an excuse for past performance, which is what you imply by the front office comment. Miller is entering his prime and nearly pulled a very average bunch into the playoffs last year. Miller has (except for a few notable stretches - immediately following the AS game, at the beginning of '07-'08 when his cousin was dying, and ~last November when his game noticeably went down for ~3 weeks after the Atlanta-Boston weekend) been very solid to spectacular. As he is entering his prime, he SHOULD get better. At a minimum, he shouldn't regress. We both place him at about the same spot (I say 6-10, you say 5-13, toe-may-toe, tah-mah-toe), in either case there aren't a whole lot of guys that we'd put as being better, though there are a few. And if he's at the top end of your ranking, I don't see where being #5, 6, or 7 is an indictment against him. OK, he wouldn't be a HoF'er in that case. I can live w/ that. I stated that I doubt that Harding will be better than Miller in the next 2 years. I didn't state that it's impossible, just that it's unlikely. That is based on several items: Miller's past performance, his experience, and his age; Harding's lack of NHL experience, his almost total lack of playoff experience, and his age (not having fully reached his potential yet, if he HAS reached his potential already, then yes it is impossible barring injury to Ryan for Harding to be better than him) being primary among those. You state that you use odds and percentages often in your work. What would you say the odds are that he'll be better than Miller this year? Unless you think the probability is high that he will be better and soon, then your comment about "folly" would appear to be mildly exaggerated. Nice strawman with the "youth and ability no longer matter." The Enroth comment is also beneath you. By saying "goalies start coming into their own around 30", I am stating that that is where they will likely play their best hockey. (You know, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - AROUND 30.) There are a lot of examples of that since the positional goaltending took hold. Not the least of which is Luongo. He's been touted as being all that for several years. This last season, he's really shown that he is ready to take the mantle of the best. You stated that "Marty Brodeur is the only franchise goalie that didn't win until older". If that's the case, then Kiprusoff and Hasek weren't "franchise" goalies. (We both agree that Hasek was a franchise goalie. I'd be surprised if you didn't consider Kiprusoff at the top of his game one as well.)
shrader Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Excellent point that little people make. Kind of like Scott Clemmenson with the NJ Devils last year. I want to see what Harding does in more then a back-up role, it's a much different game if you have to play game in and game out and top scorers see you often, then opposed to seeing you few times during the season, and also, i want to see what he can do in a not all-defensive system where many of the shots he faced were low quality shots due to Minnesota's style of trapping and eliminating the passing lanes. Did you just call me a midget?
LabattBlue Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I can't wait to see the sniveling sieve of a cross-eyed whiny bitch do his first "WTF" wave for the 2009 season. :lol:
Stoner Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 :lol: I can't wait to see Wilbur do his next WTF wave.
nfreeman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Not only is the idea that the Sabres would trade Miller and start somebody's backup from last year utterly outlandish, it is simply a terrible idea.
Stoner Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Not only is the idea that the Sabres would trade Miller and start somebody's backup from last year utterly outlandish, it is simply a terrible idea. Dominik Hasek was somebody's backup. Sports is a crazy business. Things like this happen all the time. Tom Brady anyone? Not you, spndnchz, sit down, he's not here. What are you afraid of? That the Sabres might fill some big holes by trading Miller and that Harding might be just as good as Miller, if not better? History is replete with examples of the kid getting his shot and knocking off the established, comfortable and overrated veteran. See David.
shrader Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Dominik Hasek was somebody's backup. Sports is a crazy business. Things like this happen all the time. Tom Brady anyone? Not you, spndnchz, sit down, he's not here. What are you afraid of? That the Sabres might fill some big holes by trading Miller and that Harding might be just as good as Miller, if not better? History is replete with examples of the kid getting his shot and knocking off the established, comfortable and overrated veteran. See David. Can you think of any cases where that backup was brought in and given the job immediately over an established starter? It seems like it's always the backup taking over after injury.
nfreeman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Dominik Hasek was somebody's backup. Sports is a crazy business. Things like this happen all the time. Tom Brady anyone? Not you, spndnchz, sit down, he's not here. What are you afraid of? That the Sabres might fill some big holes by trading Miller and that Harding might be just as good as Miller, if not better? History is replete with examples of the kid getting his shot and knocking off the established, comfortable and overrated veteran. See David. I'm afraid (not really, because I think there is zero possibility of this happening, but just to answer your question) that the Sabres, in a panic move, would unload their best player, leaving the most important position to a neophyte and precipitating a slide from the #5-#10 range in the EC to the #14-15 range.
Stoner Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I'm afraid (not really, because I think there is zero possibility of this happening, but just to answer your question) that the Sabres, in a panic move, would unload their best player, leaving the most important position to a neophyte and precipitating a slide from the #5-#10 range in the EC to the #14-15 range. I like the #5-#10 range. We are what we are. A 10-spot. Can't you admit it? I think you're afraid that the Sabres might no longer somewhat suck. It's a comfortable position, mediocrity.
carpandean Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 a slide from the #5-#10 range in the EC to the #14-15 range. Taylor Hall would look good in Blue and Gold in 2010-11!
... Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Too bad this would never happen, it would be the kind of ballsy move the Sabres NEED to make. If they were to make it a two-player combo where the terms were they'd have to move Miller AND Hecht in the same deal (irregardless of where those two wind up) - then hell yeah. Even better, since we're fantasizing, would be to include the Lalime in the deal, and pick up Marty. Two new goalies to start the season, and one killer forward. The Sabres need power, grit, and leadership up front. A testicular-fortified move like this is about the only way they're going to shed the impression that the FO is on some permanent golf-outing. FWIW, I hope that I am - and everyone else who has become a critic of the Sabres are - proven wrong this coming season.
carpandean Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 irregardless http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless :thumbsup: (Note: I do not support its usage; I just like pointing out that it is in the dictionary.)
inkman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 (Note: I do not support its usage; I just like pointing out that it is in the dictionary.) From said definition: It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
carpandean Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 From said definition:Use regardless instead.[/i] Yes, I agree. It's funny how language evolves, though, and I would not be surprised to find that it is commonly accepted before I die.
sabresman17 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 By saying "Goalies start coming into their own around 30", you are tacetly saying Miller is a young goalie...which is what we've heard from the front office the past 2 years. Hasek is a franchise goalie...so much so in fact that Lindy Ruff is a .500 coach in games which Hasek isn't in net. I said the only reason he wasn't a stud earlier is that he was behind Belfour and Fuhr, both Vezina winners, for half a decade. Your point on age is flawed. Most goalies that are shut down goalies show up to an elite level way before their 30th birthday. If youth and ability no longer matter....then Lalime and Thibault should have been awesome. They have plenty of successful starting experience. Maybe we should trade Enroth away for 10 years? I agree that Miller is a top 5-13 goalie......but that is pretty much all he will ever be. To tow the company line and HOPE he will improve and everything will go his way, is not the way I do business. I don't know enough about Harding to give an opinion. I would say however that to dismiss his chances of becoming better than Miller in a short amount of time because of his age is folly. Wow are you guys high you want to trade Miller. He's are franchise player. And worst of all you want to trade him for Josh Harding a goalie who has never really broken out and definately is not considered a top 15 goalie. We have a top 5 goalie in Miller stop your complaining goaltending is not the problem.
That Aud Smell Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I think he's a sniveling sieve of a cross-eyed whiny bitch. that just made me laugh. good to see PA having some mid-summer fun with hockey (i realize there is much that is serious here being said in jest ... but, still) -- may as well have our laughs now -- it's more likely than not that come 2010, we won't be in a position to laugh about this team.
sabresman17 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Maybe he can't carry a team on his back to a Cup, and maybe the Sabres have so many problems that the best move IS to trade him. I said I was open to just about anything in the right deal. My issue was with the "sniveling sieve of a cross-eyed whiny bitch" comment ... he's not a sieve and the rest of that is just PA trying to be funny (and admittedly succeeding a little) ... I believe in the 05-06 play-off run when the sabres lost to carolina in the confrence finals Miller was a huge part in that run. Besides Game 1 in the ottawa series he had a an amazing post season. Can't belive you guys are rippin on the most solid part of the team.
inkman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Can't belive you guys are rippin on the most solid part of the team. You'll come to learn that Miller has plenty of detractors in this forum.
nfreeman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I like the #5-#10 range. We are what we are. A 10-spot. Can't you admit it? I think you're afraid that the Sabres might no longer somewhat suck. It's a comfortable position, mediocrity. Before Miller got hurt, the Sabres were a few points out of the #5 spot. If they stay healthy and get some breaks this year, they could easily find themselves in #5 or #6. They could just as easily be #9 or #10 again. There just isn't that much separating the teams at that level.
sabresman17 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 You'll come to learn that Miller has plenty of detractors in this forum. I see well i guess they aren't a fan of goaltending.
carpandean Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Before Miller got hurt, the Sabres were a few points out of the #5 spot. If they stay healthy and get some breaks this year, they could easily find themselves in #5 or #6. They could just as easily be #9 or #10 again. There just isn't that much separating the teams at that level. Skill-wise, I believe that they have it in them to be in the #5-#10 range, as shown by their ability to beat "better" teams. However, it's the proverbial "heart" that has put them at the bottom of that range for the past two seasons. Not only did they find ways to lose to teams below them, but "just missing" is actually an indicator of this, too. They would play well to get back in it, then let up and slip back out. Either they will finally find this drive within themselves, this drive will be demonstrated to them by a player acquired later this Summer or they will again struggle with the consistency necessary to keep a hold on one of those #5-#8 spots. For the record, I don't believe that they should be content with being a #5-#10 team.
X. Benedict Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Hasek is a franchise goalie...so much so in fact that Lindy Ruff is a .500 coach in games which Hasek isn't in net. I said the only reason he wasn't a stud earlier is that he was behind Belfour and Fuhr, both Vezina winners, for half a decade. Ruff is 146-86-1 with Ryan Miller in goal.......hmmmmmmm......... this place does get antsy in the offseason....
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.