Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Too many posts to quote, so I'll pick up on the points made together here.. 3. TC does not shy away from contact. He was forechecking, rushing the middle, and blocking shots when he was in there. To say he doesn't do that is revisonist history. Sure he doesn't play like OV, but very few do. 5. TC needs to grow his hair out. He looks like a cancer patient... Okay that one is mine. 3) He isn't lazy....he just is soft. My biggest memory of him was Game 1 of the Ottawa Series in '07 early in the game. Ottawa had a breakaway...Miller saved it....Connolly stopped in front of Miller...then Alfredson drilled Connolly right on top of Miller. Miller speared at Alfredsson but Connolly got up like it was junior high open skate and just lally gagged off the ice. I knew the team was chicken...but that was sad. 5) The hair thing adds to the prettyboy critique. He probably shaves his chest and pits too.
X. Benedict Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Past 4 years: Spezza 342 points Connolly 143 points To that extent, he is not what I would call flacid Based on that output, Spezza is worth $13.9 million per year in Connolly Dollars. Are we talking numbers or playing style here? I'll rephrase: is Spezza's playing style soft?
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Are we talking numbers or playing style here? I'll rephrase: is Spezza's playing style soft? For his size, he can play bigger. I don't know what that has to do with Connolly though. IF.....Connolly could put together an entire season and score 90 points, this wouldn't be a debate. If he could do it for 4 straight years.....he would be a cornerstone of the team. Problem is....he is a cornerstone of the team and is a metaphor for the entire franchise's failings.
inkman Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 5. TC needs to grow his hair out. He looks like a cancer patient... Okay that one is mine. 5) The hair thing adds to the prettyboy critique. He probably shaves his chest and pits too. What? As a bi-weekly headshaver, I have to take a little umbrage here. I'm fairly certain that no one has referred to me as a pretty boy.
That Aud Smell Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 there is something to be said for letting DR execute his plan without interference and see if he can make it work. If it doesn't work this year, he'll be gone and we'll see a new approach. hear, hear. If you are an opposing defenseman gaining control of the puck in your own zone and you see Connolly coming, do yourself a favor and hold a snow-cone cup down about knee-high, and you will probably end up with a refreshing treat as Connolly skids to a stop. while i think that this distorts the facts, i also think it's funny. I say his overall game when healthy is not that of a leader. i agree with this - i don't see connolly as someone who should wear a letter. Connolly in my opinion is a dolt. I think a Shetland Sheepdog has a better chance at an IQ test. i've never spoken to the guy, but, FWIW, i've heard the same thing several times from people who have met him. If TC was 100% healthy and priced much cheaper he would be a solid #3 1 center. fixed. (seriously, come on.) Roy makes people back up and is a very good forechecker. Connolly freezes people right in their skates and is wicked passer. Edge Connolly. agreed. the skill > the sausage.
K-9 Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Are we talking numbers or playing style here? I'll rephrase: is Spezza's playing style soft? Spezza is a Spuzzy! GO SABRES!!!
X. Benedict Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 For his size, he can play bigger. I don't know what that has to do with Connolly though. IF.....Connolly could put together an entire season and score 90 points, this wouldn't be a debate. If he could do it for 4 straight years.....he would be a cornerstone of the team. Problem is....he is a cornerstone of the team and is a metaphor for the entire franchise's failings. I just thought it made sense to compare him to the top centers in the division....Gomez, Savard, Spezza and whatever Toronto calls a center this month.
Packer76 Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 I agree, they will invest the minimum amount until fans stop going to the games. I haven't seen anyone post the real reaosn why we dont make a huge move or take on a large UFA contract.....Its Golisano, not FO (excluding Golisano) or DR. Clearly if season tix are maxed out, then there is no need to spend more $. There are two types of professional sports team owners: A) Those who hate to lose ( Mark Cuban, George Steinbrenner) :worthy: and B) Those who hate to lose money :thumbdown: I think we all know which one Golisano is..... :wallbash: ......If the cash cow aint broken, then why try to fix it
deluca67 Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 I haven't seen anyone post the real reaosn why we dont make a huge move or take on a large UFA contract.....Its Golisano, not FO (excluding Golisano) or DR. Clearly if season tix are maxed out, then there is no need to spend more $. There are two types of professional sports team owners: A) Those who hate to lose ( Mark Cuban, George Steinbrenner) :worthy: and B) Those who hate to lose money :thumbdown: I think we all know which one Golisano is..... :wallbash: ......If the cash cow aint broken, then why try to fix it The Sabres will be spending over $50 million this season. If Golisano is to be blamed it should be for being a absentee owner. The apathy and lack of accountability is staggering. There should be more to measuring success than the bottom line. It would be great if Golisano had any idea of what type of product he is putting on the ice.
X. Benedict Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 I haven't seen anyone post the real reaosn why we dont make a huge move or take on a large UFA contract.....Its Golisano, not FO (excluding Golisano) or DR. Clearly if season tix are maxed out, then there is no need to spend more $. There are two types of professional sports team owners: A) Those who hate to lose ( Mark Cuban, George Steinbrenner) :worthy: and B) Those who hate to lose money :thumbdown: I think we all know which one Golisano is..... :wallbash: ......If the cash cow aint broken, then why try to fix it Actually the additional season tickets will probably cause a drop from revenue on tickets from last year. I'm pretty sure the Season ticket discount will bite into the single ticket sales at full price.
Packer76 Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 The Sabres will be spending over $50 million this season. If Golisano is to be blamed it should be for being a absentee owner. The apathy and lack of accountability is staggering. There should be more to measuring success than the bottom line. It would be great if Golisano had any idea of what type of product he is putting on the ice. They are at $48 mm now, I'd be surprised if its much more than $50, yet, its still not at the cap and we could easily land two impact players at approx. 3 m per.... Sure Golisano is an absentee owner, but I think we knew that going in....He admits to knowing NOTHING about hockey Im all for an entire house cleaning.......Lindy too. (As much as it pains me to say it) I want an entirely new direction and I think we could use a "re-birth" for lack of a better description....
carpandean Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 They are at $48 mm now, I'd be surprised if its much more than $50, yet, its still not at the cap and we could easily land two impact players at approx. 3 m per.... Nope. They are currently at $51.3/51.5 million in salary/cap for 11 forwards (Vanek, Pominville, Connolly, Roy, Hecht, Paille, Gaustad, Mair, Ellis, MacArthur, Kaleta), 7 defensemen (Rivet, Lydman, Tallinder, Paetsch, Butler, Montador, Sekera) and 2 goalies (Miller, Lalime.) They will likely sign or bring up two more forwards, one of which will probably be Stafford and the other may be Kennedy or Gerbe. Even if they pass on the Staff and the Pirates, instead signing two players at the league minimum, they would be at about $52.5 million. With Stafford, they could easily hit $54 million. So, either a trade to dump salary is coming or we are going to be well over $50 million. For reference:
nfreeman Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Nope. They are currently at $51.3/51.5 million in salary/cap for 11 forwards (Vanek, Pominville, Connolly, Roy, Hecht, Paille, Gaustad, Mair, Ellis, MacArthur, Kaleta), 7 defensemen (Rivet, Lydman, Tallinder, Paetsch, Butler, Montador, Sekera) and 2 goalies (Miller, Lalime.) They will likely sign or bring up two more forwards, one of which will probably be Stafford and the other may be Kennedy or Gerbe. Even if they pass on the Staff and the Pirates, instead signing two players at the league minimum, they would be at about $52.5 million. With Stafford, they could easily hit $54 million. So, either a trade to dump salary is coming or we are going to be well over $50 million. Dead on, as always. This is why I've been saying that one expensive guy (ie Lydman or Tallinder) needs to be traded needs to happen just to get to their budget cap of $51MM -- and if there is going to be anybody new brought in, either via trade or as a FA, a second one needs to go too. Given the supply/demand situation around the NHL, I'm just not optimistic that DR will be able to unload 2 of the Sabres' bad contracts.
Packer76 Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Nope. They are currently at $51.3/51.5 million in salary/cap for 11 forwards (Vanek, Pominville, Connolly, Roy, Hecht, Paille, Gaustad, Mair, Ellis, MacArthur, Kaleta), 7 defensemen (Rivet, Lydman, Tallinder, Paetsch, Butler, Montador, Sekera) and 2 goalies (Miller, Lalime.) They will likely sign or bring up two more forwards, one of which will probably be Stafford and the other may be Kennedy or Gerbe. Even if they pass on the Staff and the Pirates, instead signing two players at the league minimum, they would be at about $52.5 million. With Stafford, they could easily hit $54 million. So, either a trade to dump salary is coming or we are going to be well over $50 million. For reference: I went to the link from this site and it said $48..... I stand corrected.
Packer76 Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Nope. They are currently at $51.3/51.5 million in salary/cap for 11 forwards (Vanek, Pominville, Connolly, Roy, Hecht, Paille, Gaustad, Mair, Ellis, MacArthur, Kaleta), 7 defensemen (Rivet, Lydman, Tallinder, Paetsch, Butler, Montador, Sekera) and 2 goalies (Miller, Lalime.) They will likely sign or bring up two more forwards, one of which will probably be Stafford and the other may be Kennedy or Gerbe. Even if they pass on the Staff and the Pirates, instead signing two players at the league minimum, they would be at about $52.5 million. With Stafford, they could easily hit $54 million. So, either a trade to dump salary is coming or we are going to be well over $50 million. For reference: im not the idiot......thi site it... http://www.nhlnumbers.com/overview.php?team=BUF
carpandean Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 im not the idiot......this site is... http://www.nhlnumbers.com/overview.php?team=BUF No, they're just behind. They have TBA for Ellis and MacArthur, which adds up to about $2 million in salary/cap.
shrader Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 No, they're just behind. They have TBA for Ellis and MacArthur, which adds up to about $2 million in salary/cap. And Sekera.
carpandean Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 And Sekera. Oops. Yup, that would make up the rest of the $3 million difference.
Stoner Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Dead on, as always. This is why I've been saying that one expensive guy (ie Lydman or Tallinder) needs to be traded needs to happen just to get to their budget cap of $51MM -- and if there is going to be anybody new brought in, either via trade or as a FA, a second one needs to go too. Given the supply/demand situation around the NHL, I'm just not optimistic that DR will be able to unload 2 of the Sabres' bad contracts. I'll continue to point out that the "budget cap" figure is a figment of your imagination.
nfreeman Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 I'll continue to point out that the "budget cap" figure is a figment of your imagination. and I will continue to respond that Darcy said, very specifically, that it would be between $50MM and $51MM. Why don't you listen to the interviews with Darcy on the audio vault and sabres.com before continuing to pretend this didn't occur and repeatedly posting this folderol?
Stoner Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 and I will continue to respond that Darcy said, very specifically, that it would be between $50MM and $51MM. Why don't you listen to the interviews with Darcy on the audio vault and sabres.com before continuing to pretend this didn't occur and repeatedly posting this folderol? Listen, a monkey with a calculator could make a good guess as to what amount Regier has to work with. To say you know it precisely is farcical and, frankly, most lugubrious. In your reply you admitted don't know it precisely -- you just cha-chinged your tune by as much as one million dollars. Why on earth would Darcy want to advertise the real number?
nfreeman Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Listen, a monkey with a calculator could make a good guess as to what amount Regier has to work with. To say you know it precisely is farcical and, frankly, most lugubrious. In your reply you admitted don't know it precisely -- you just cha-chinged your tune by as much as one million dollars. Why on earth would Darcy want to advertise the real number? Obtuse. The point is that he said it. He didn't say a number more precise than the $50MM - $51MM range, but he confirmed that range specifically. You may think he's lying out of gamesmanship, but I don't think Darcy operates that way (perhaps to the team's detriment, but that's another story). Accordingly, since he said it, and since I'm not aware of any magical change in the economics of operating the Sabres, I believe it. Also, you've misused "lugubrious".
Stoner Posted July 29, 2009 Report Posted July 29, 2009 Obtuse. The point is that he said it. He didn't say a number more precise than the $50MM - $51MM range, but he confirmed that range specifically. You may think he's lying out of gamesmanship, but I don't think Darcy operates that way (perhaps to the team's detriment, but that's another story). Accordingly, since he said it, and since I'm not aware of any magical change in the economics of operating the Sabres, I believe it. Also, you've misused "lugubrious". You, sir, are a mugwump. And an obstreperous one at that. Let's see where the Sabres end up.
darksabre Posted July 29, 2009 Report Posted July 29, 2009 You, sir, are a mugwump. And an obstreperous one at that. Let's see where the Sabres end up. We'll finish in 9th place by losing a tie breaker with the Isles due to stellar goaltending by Dwayne Roloson.
nobody Posted July 29, 2009 Report Posted July 29, 2009 We'll finish in 9th place by losing a tie breaker with the Isles due to stellar goaltending by Dwayne Roloson. By the end of the season Marty will be the Isle's main guy. Of course the Sabres are done with them in January so you are probably right about Rollie.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.