SabreFan78 Posted September 4, 2009 Report Posted September 4, 2009 This is right on...it's going to be a long season http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=Ar22z.Et8ovtg3Pjo9ukkCx7vLYF?slug=rm-sabrespreview090409&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
... Posted September 4, 2009 Report Posted September 4, 2009 That's the best preview I've read so far.
LabattBlue Posted September 4, 2009 Report Posted September 4, 2009 Seems right on to me. I just hope that he is wrong on Grier and that he has a little more left in the tank.
spndnchz Posted September 4, 2009 Report Posted September 4, 2009 That's the second article I've read that they say we have 8 million in cap space. With 5 players salaries unreported but should be @ 4.5 to 5 million for the bunch plus Stafford (if signed) we're done if we don't trade away someone.
MDSabresFan1 Posted September 4, 2009 Report Posted September 4, 2009 I agree with what he says about this team having to rely on its goalie on the same level as Vancouver, NJ, and Calgary. But, it's pretty scary that our plan b is still Patrick Lalime.
Stoner Posted September 4, 2009 Report Posted September 4, 2009 I agree with what he says about this team having to rely on its goalie on the same level as Vancouver, NJ, and Calgary. But, it's pretty scary that our plan b is still Patrick Lalime. Or that Plan A is Miller. Yeah, good thing the preseason previews are never wrong. See 05-06. 96-97. 79-80. And so on.
end the curse Posted September 4, 2009 Report Posted September 4, 2009 I think the article is expecting the Sabres to be worse this season without cause. They began by contending that had the team stayed healthy they would have been playoff bound, but then switch gears at the end and suggest the Sabres can't do better then 10th place. This makes no sense unless they are predicting we again lose Miller, Vanek, Connolly and Rivet for extended periods. Assuming that doesn't happen, and odds are we won't get hit THAT hard two years in a row, coupled with some increased toughness on the bottom two lines and defense, I think this team is good for 6th - 7th place finish in the conference.
Stoner Posted September 4, 2009 Report Posted September 4, 2009 I think the article is expecting the Sabres to be worse this season without cause. They began by contending that had the team stayed healthy they would have been playoff bound, but then switch gears at the end and suggest the Sabres can't do better then 10th place. This makes no sense unless they are predicting we again lose Miller, Vanek, Connolly and Rivet for extended periods. Assuming that doesn't happen, and odds are we won't get hit THAT hard two years in a row, coupled with some increased toughness on the bottom two lines and defense, I think this team is good for 6th - 7th place finish in the conference. Isn't that the gambler's fallacy?
end the curse Posted September 4, 2009 Report Posted September 4, 2009 Isn't that the gambler's fallacy? Fallacy or Phallacy? :nana:
Eleven Posted September 7, 2009 Report Posted September 7, 2009 Or that Plan A is Miller. Yeah, good thing the preseason previews are never wrong. See 05-06. 96-97. 79-80. And so on. Why is Miller not a "Plan A" goaltender? He's not a world-class goalie, but he's certainly a very good NHL starter. This team doesn't have a problem at the starting goalie position.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.