KK6666 Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 Zurbrus played very well in the postseason the last time buffalo got there He was largely invisible.
KK6666 Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 Yeah but Max has made slightly more than Zubrus during the two seasons since his departure. And i dont think anyone can argue Max's production against Zubrus'. 2008/09 season stats: Zubrus = 82 gp for 15-25-40 Max = 48 gp for 6-14-20 Not to mention the size difference between the two. I stand by my theroy. If you put Vanek-Connolly-Zubrus on the ice,and they played a couple games. Theres no way they dont develop chemistry and dominate. Afinegenov played almost exclusively on the 4th line up until the trade deadline. Zubrus wouldn't have registered 2 goals all season on a line with Mair, Kaleta, Peters etc. Playing on a line with Chris Drury and playing full time with the 1st unit PP The great Danius Zubrus scored 16 points in 34 games with the Sabres. He scored a grand total of 4 goals. And we burned a 1st round draft pick.
shrader Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 Afinegenov played almost exclusively on the 4th line up until the trade deadline. Zubrus wouldn't have registered 2 goals all season on a line with Mair, Kaleta, Peters etc. Playing on a line with Chris Drury and playing full time with the 1st unit PP The great Danius Zubrus scored 16 points in 34 games with the Sabres. He scored a grand total of 4 goals. And we burned a 1st round draft pick. What, no love for Novotny? :D Really though, that pick and the pick they got in return for Biron were essentially a wash. Looking back, even with his poor performance, I really can't complain about a Biron-Novotny for Zubrus deal. The Sabres more than likely got the same player (Brenan) that they would've taken without ever making those trades.
KK6666 Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 What, no love for Novotny? :D Really though, that pick and the pick they got in return for Biron were essentially a wash. Looking back, even with his poor performance, I really can't complain about a Biron-Novotny for Zubrus deal. The Sabres more than likely got the same player (Brenan) that they would've taken without ever making those trades. Those two trades have zero to do with each other. ZERO. You don't wash a horrible trade away because you got a pick for Biron in an unrealated trade. The should have had Brennan AND a 1st rounder.
tom webster Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 Those two trades have zero to do with each other. ZERO. You don't wash a horrible trade away because you got a pick for Biron in an unrealated trade. The should have had Brennan AND a 1st rounder. Actually, that's exactly what you do. The Sabres' acquired Zubrus to help in their playoff push and until he got hurt, he was doing exactly that. Biron was gone anyway at the end of the year so anything they got for him was a bonus.
tom webster Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 He was largely invisible. If you completely disregard anything but goals and assists. Until he got hurt putting a whooping on Jagr, he was a physical force.
shrader Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 Actually, that's exactly what you do. The Sabres' acquired Zubrus to help in their playoff push and until he got hurt, he was doing exactly that. Biron was gone anyway at the end of the year so anything they got for him was a bonus. Not to mention the fact that Biron was moved to free cash, allowing them the space to make the Zubrus deal.
KK6666 Posted September 8, 2009 Report Posted September 8, 2009 If you completely disregard anything but goals and assists. Until he got hurt putting a whooping on Jagr, he was a physical force. Wow he had that hit on Jagr huh? Wow. That was worth a 1st rounder.
KK6666 Posted September 8, 2009 Report Posted September 8, 2009 Not to mention the fact that Biron was moved to free cash, allowing them the space to make the Zubrus deal. Biron being traded to Philly meant that blowing a 1st rounder on Zubrus made sense? LOL
wjag Posted September 8, 2009 Report Posted September 8, 2009 Wow he had that hit on Jagr huh? Wow. That was worth a 1st rounder. He was a disruptive force to the Jagr line in that playoff series. It wasn't just the hit. But I see your point. He was the most physical player on the ice during that series..
KK6666 Posted September 8, 2009 Report Posted September 8, 2009 Actually, that's exactly what you do. The Sabres' acquired Zubrus to help in their playoff push and until he got hurt, he was doing exactly that. Biron was gone anyway at the end of the year so anything they got for him was a bonus. Nope actually that is not what you do. Not at all. As far as any injury, there wasn't much difference in the way Zubrus played hurt or injured, he was mostly invisible either way. On Biron's trade, it had ZERO to do with Zubrus.
KK6666 Posted September 8, 2009 Report Posted September 8, 2009 He was a disruptive force to the Jagr line in that playoff series. It wasn't just the hit. But I see your point. He was the most physical player on the ice during that series.. The only thing Zubrus disrupted was taking playing time from better players.
SwampD Posted September 8, 2009 Report Posted September 8, 2009 Nope actually that is not what you do. Not at all. As far as any injury, there wasn't much difference in the way Zubrus played hurt or injured, he was mostly invisible either way. On Biron's trade, it had ZERO to do with Zubrus. tom webster is right. you are wrong.
KK6666 Posted September 8, 2009 Report Posted September 8, 2009 tom webster is right. you are wrong. Is that supposed to mean anything coming from you? If anything it just makes my case stronger.
SwampD Posted September 8, 2009 Report Posted September 8, 2009 Is that supposed to mean anything coming from you? If anything it just makes my case stronger. ...and you are?... If you know someone is going to leave the team at the end of the year anyway, you get whatever you can for him to help you in the playoffs. Zubrus did just that as he negated the Jagr line in that series. He was far from invisible. But I don't need to tell you that...you know everything.
tom webster Posted September 8, 2009 Report Posted September 8, 2009 Nope actually that is not what you do. Not at all. As far as any injury, there wasn't much difference in the way Zubrus played hurt or injured, he was mostly invisible either way. On Biron's trade, it had ZERO to do with Zubrus. Look, I will try this one more time. Darcy Reiger, the way he values draft choices, would not have made the Zubrus trade, if he had not acquired Philly's 2nd round pick earlier. He knew at the time that Philly's 2nd round pick would be the 1st or 2nd of the 2nd round (31 or 32). Furthermore, he knew that his own 1st pick would be somewhere from 27 through 30. Its no different then how he connected Rivet and Bernier and Kotalik and Moore. He would not have made one trade without the other. Now if you Nick Petrecki's kid, I apologize but otherwise, good bye.
Knightrider Posted September 8, 2009 Report Posted September 8, 2009 Is that supposed to mean anything coming from you? If anything it just makes my case stronger. First, welcome to the board! Second, did you take the time to read the TOS before you click you had? We have friendly discussions among Sabres fans, here. If you keep respectful of your fellow posters, you'll like it here. Posts like the one above are the type that usually get deleted and the poster at the very least warned. Since you just registered, yesterday, I thought we'd see if you can reel in the insults before we sent you on your way.
carpandean Posted September 8, 2009 Report Posted September 8, 2009 Look, I will try this one more time. Darcy Reiger, the way he values draft choices, would not have made the Zubrus trade, if he had not acquired Philly's 2nd round pick earlier. He knew at the time that Philly's 2nd round pick would be the 1st or 2nd of the 2nd round (31 or 32). Furthermore, he knew that his own 1st pick would be somewhere from 27 through 30. Its no different then how he connected Rivet and Bernier and Kotalik and Moore. He would not have made one trade without the other. Now if you Nick Petrecki's kid, I apologize but otherwise, good bye. I think his point, and it has some validity, is that you can logically connect the trades if you like, but that does mean that both were good. In other words, just because you have traded A for B and A for C would be a nice end result doesn't mean that you should take a B for C offer. The question should be: was renting Zubrus worth a late first-round pick? Having another similar pick might have given them a warm and fuzzy about giving up that pick, but it doesn't change what the actual second trade was (assuming that it wasn't a fixed three-way trade where the Sabres couldn't have taken the pick for Marty and walked.) Now, in this case, the answer depends on what the team felt its chances were for a cup at the time (probably pretty good after winning the PT), what they felt that they needed to give them the best chance (a big, somewhat physical center/winger was a good piece to add) and what the availability/cost of such rental players was at the time. If there was no cheaper option without sacrificing the quality of the acquired players, then a very late first-round pick was probably worth giving up to add Zubrus to give them the best possible chance to take the cup, especially when they new that they had a lot of big contract decisions to make at the end of the year. Without the benefit of hindsight, it wasn't a clearly bad decision and probably a pretty good one, which is more often than not all you can say about a trade (teams rarely flat-out win a trade; you have to give something to get something.)
Stoner Posted September 8, 2009 Report Posted September 8, 2009 First, welcome to the board! Second, did you take the time to read the TOS before you click you had? We have friendly discussions among Sabres fans, here. If you keep respectful of your fellow posters, you'll like it here. Posts like the one above are the type that usually get deleted and the poster at the very least warned. Since you just registered, yesterday, I thought we'd see if you can reel in the insults before we sent you on your way. Nope, can't have insults here.
spndnchz Posted September 8, 2009 Report Posted September 8, 2009 Nope, can't have insults here. Like a stowaway on a kamikaze plane, so are the PA's of our life. :nana:
wjag Posted September 9, 2009 Report Posted September 9, 2009 Like a stowaway on a kamikaze plane, so are the PA's of our life. :nana: That's pretty good...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.