another major trade

[Two or less]

You might have a point.

Who could they bring in that could improve on Goose's career high of 12 goals in one season?

Yeah that would be tough to replace alright, good point!

 

Yep we have a irreplaceable player in Guastad, Stanley cup here we come.

 

Seriously? You don't think teams need role players? Guys who are grinders? Guys who win faceoffs? Guys who can shut down other opponents? PKers? Leaders?

 

Riiight. Stick to the Xbox man.

[darksabre]

Seriously? You don't think teams need role players? Guys who are grinders? Guys who win faceoffs? Guys who can shut down other opponents? PKers? Leaders?

 

Riiight. Stick to the Xbox man.

 

Moore was better than Gaustad last year. He even played the body more often. If you want a grinder who is good at faceoffs and role playing, take Moore. Stop building Goose up to being more than he is.

[carpandean]

You are asking which is it, but I never said it was either or, it's both.

Clearly from what I have said, he has sh*t the bed twice.

Once in overvaluing both these players, and again by then failing to solve the logjam he and Ruff created.

He certainly will have a hard time trading Hecht so the logical step is to move Gaustad and open up a spot for a true center, scroll up to my original post and you'll see that I said just that.

No, I was saying or at least implying that it's either/or. If their contracts are so horrible, then how do you move them? If (hypothetically) Goose is only worth $1 million, then other GMs probably know this. If he comes with a $2.3 million cap hit, then Darcy has to give up roughly another $1.3 million in value to get another team to take him or taking back a player who is overpriced by roughly the same amount. The latter is actually more likely since the team would have to have $2.3 million in free space to take him in the first place. You can't say that these players were given really bad contracts and then say that Darcy should just get rid of them. The worse of a mistake that he made, the less chance there is that he can get rid of it. If he's lucky, it could happen, but to expect it is just foolish.

[Guru]

Seriously? You don't think teams need role players? Guys who are grinders? Guys who win faceoffs? Guys who can shut down other opponents? PKers? Leaders?

 

Riiight. Stick to the Xbox man.

Try to stick to what people actually say.

This way you won't be arguing between yourself and the fiction you dream up.

 

I guess with all these straw man arguments of yours xbox would be closer to reality for you.

 

And on another point I don't need a role player to win faceoffs. It's not a role player specialty. Since when do teams carry players to specialize in faceoffs?

 

On leaders...you mentioned leaders in a thread where I talk about moving Gaustad or Hecht, so is it the players that say they look to Hecht and/or Gaustad to lead them or is it you that says it?

[Guru]

No, I was saying or at least implying that it's either/or. If their contracts are so horrible, then how do you move them? If (hypothetically) Goose is only worth $1 million, then other GMs probably know this. If he comes with a $2.3 million cap hit, then Darcy has to give up roughly another $1.3 million in value to get another team to take him or taking back a player who is overpriced by roughly the same amount. The latter is actually more likely since the team would have to have $2.3 million in free space to take him in the first place. You can't say that these players were given really bad contracts and then say that Darcy should just get rid of them. The worse of a mistake that he made, the less chance there is that he can get rid of it. If he's lucky, it could happen, but to expect it is just foolish.

It does happen, those trades do get made but a gm has to be willing to sacrifice something of value in order to make the deal.

Why would Burke have said that he was willing to take on salary for the right deal if these trades NEVER happen?

 

As far you saying that I can't say this...see the gomez trade.

[carpandean]

It does happen, those trades do get made but a gm has to be willing to sacrifice something of value in order to make the deal.

Why would Burke have said that he was willing to take on salary for the right deal if these trades NEVER happen?

 

As far you saying that I can't say this...see the gomez trade.

I didn't say it couldn't happen. In fact, I actually said that it could happen. I followed that up with "to expect it would be foolish." In other words, if the contract is so bad, then to say that he should just unload it is unrealistic. The sacrificing of value is the hard part. Picks/prospects might do it for a team with lots of cap space, but that's the minority right now. Most other teams would have to give back salary or be given another player who is equally underpaid to afford taking Goose, much less Hecht. The extra pick doesn't help when you're cap challenged.

 

As for the Gomez trade, it's easier to convince a GM that a guy who consistently puts up 40+ assists and frequently 50+ assist and has a 30 goal/84 point season under his belt just needs a change of scenery to get back to that point. Plus, that was a case of a GM rebuilding a roster and needing to pick up a legitimate scoring-line center in an extremely thin FA market. Montreal took the chance because there weren't many other options available. If someone is looking to add a third-line center, then there are several other options available who are free (UFAs.)

[Guru]

I didn't say it couldn't happen. In fact, I actually said that it could happen. I followed that up with "to expect it would be foolish." In other words, if the contract is so bad, then to say that he should just unload it is unrealistic. The sacrificing of value is the hard part. Picks/prospects might do it for a team with lots of cap space, but that's the minority right now. Most other teams would have to give back salary or be given another player who is equally underpaid to afford taking Goose, much less Hecht. The extra pick doesn't help when you're cap challenged.

As far as I can tell, you and you alone are saying that the Gaustad deal is so far out of whack that he cannot be traded.

I don't agree with that at all.

 

I think this team would be far better off with an actual center playing the 3rd line center in place of Gaustad.

With the way they sit cap wise I think it would be impractical to bring in a 3rd line center AND keep Gaustad and Hecht who they originally intended to fill the 3/4 line center roles.

 

I do not think that moving Gaustad's $2.3 million is impossible by any means.

It's a contract I feel could be moved if the Sabres made the deal worthwhile.

[nfreeman]

As far as I can tell, you and you alone are saying that the Gaustad deal is so far out of whack that he cannot be traded.

I don't agree with that at all.

 

I think this team would be far better off with an actual center playing the 3rd line center in place of Gaustad.

With the way they sit cap wise I think it would be impractical to bring in a 3rd line center AND keep Gaustad and Hecht who they originally intended to fill the 3/4 line center roles.

 

I do not think that moving Gaustad's $2.3 million is impossible by any means.

It's a contract I feel could be moved if the Sabres made the deal worthwhile.

While I agree that Gaustad is tradeable, wouldn't you rather unload Hecht, Tallinder or Lydman? While you and others have a reasonable position that Gaustad is overpaid, his $2.3MM is nowhere near as egregious as the $3MM+ that the other 3 are making. If we have to "bribe" a team with a pick or prospect to take an albatross off our hands, I would much rather it be Hecht. That roster spot and $3.6MM of budget room is worth giving someone Mancari or a 2nd rounder or both to take him off our hands, if not more.

 

FWIW, I think Gaustad has shown flashes of being good enough, both in terms of leadership and on-ice play, to make me think that he could be deserving of both his contract and being the #3 center. He hasn't locked it up yet, though. I'm cautiously optimistic that he gets there this year.

[nfreeman]

Haven't had that second cup of coffee I see. But if you're going to put ideas in my mouth, you didn't do badly with the idea of firing Ruff. His time has come and gone. No need to cover old ground again. Just consider one nugget from today's Snooze. Ruff said if Vanek's an elite player to start the season again (just 30 goals in 24 games, no pressure, Tom; edit: or 24 goals in 30 games!), he'll get elite ice time.

 

Of course the Sabres could improve if they make a good trade involving any of those players I mentioned! D'oh. That's why you trade. To get better. Do you feel Vanek would bring little in return?

Haven't you posted about 1000 times that Lindy should be fired?

 

As for Vanek, the question isn't whether he would bring little in return, it's whether he would bring equal or (hopefully) greater value in return. How many players are there in the NHL that you would trade a 25-year-old with 40+ goals in 2 of the last 3 years for? And how many of those players are employed by teams who would trade them for Vanek?

 

Yes, in theory, if we could get Ovechkin for Vanek and Pommer, I would do it in a heartbeat. But that's not out there. More likely it would be a couple of lesser players in exchange for Vanek. I'll pass.

 

Heatley didn't want to be there. They picked up a couple of guys who can put the puck in the net. If the change of scenery gets Cheechoo game turned around it would go from a good trade to a great trade.

 

And please, let's not pretend that if the Sabres would have traded for either of the players from San Jose many here on this board would posting with their Sabre at full mast telling everyone who would read what a great GM Regier is. Let's not down play the quality the Sens got in return. It's hard for some to believe but trades can actually help a team. Maybe because it's been so long since one has helped the Sabres it would explain why so many fail to recognize.

We won't know for sure until they play the games, but I completely disagree that this is a good trade for Ottawa. As I said, Michalek is a good player. Heatley is a much better player. Cheechoo is pretty close to a complete washout, with a Hecht-like albatross of a contract in the bargain.

 

Also, the Rivet trade was last summer, and it helped the team.

[Guru]

While I agree that Gaustad is tradeable, wouldn't you rather unload Hecht, Tallinder or Lydman? While you and others have a reasonable position that Gaustad is overpaid, his $2.3MM is nowhere near as egregious as the $3MM+ that the other 3 are making. If we have to "bribe" a team with a pick or prospect to take an albatross off our hands, I would much rather it be Hecht. That roster spot and $3.6MM of budget room is worth giving someone Mancari or a 2nd rounder or both to take him off our hands, if not more.

 

FWIW, I think Gaustad has shown flashes of being good enough, both in terms of leadership and on-ice play, to make me think that he could be deserving of both his contract and being the #3 center. He hasn't locked it up yet, though. I'm cautiously optimistic that he gets there this year.

I'd like to see Hecht moved, the cost would be high, higher than mancari and a 2nd, that's for sure.

Tallinder isn't critical to me because he's on his last season anyways.

Lydman isn't a liability in my opinion and in fact is a good buy for his contract.

 

We disagree an Gaustad, I think he is significantly overpaid and he's no 3rd line center.

On leadership, that seems to me to be a fan thing more than something from players.

I don't hear players saying...we need to get Goose back from injury or we follow the Goose's lead.

In fact their win loss record was better with him out of the lineup.

[nfreeman]

I'd like to see Hecht moved, the cost would be high, higher than mancari and a 2nd, that's for sure.

Tallinder isn't critical to me because he's on his last season anyways.

Lydman isn't a liability in my opinion and in fact is a good buy for his contract.

 

We disagree an Gaustad, I think he is significantly overpaid and he's no 3rd line center.

On leadership, that seems to me to be a fan thing more than something from players.

I don't hear players saying...we need to get Goose back from injury or we follow the Goose's lead.

In fact their win loss record was better with him out of the lineup.

Miller said he thought it was an important move by management to extend Gaustad.

[carpandean]

As far as I can tell, you and you alone are saying that the Gaustad deal is so far out of whack that he cannot be traded.

I don't agree with that at all.

 

I think this team would be far better off with an actual center playing the 3rd line center in place of Gaustad.

With the way they sit cap wise I think it would be impractical to bring in a 3rd line center AND keep Gaustad and Hecht who they originally intended to fill the 3/4 line center roles.

 

I do not think that moving Gaustad's $2.3 million is impossible by any means.

It's a contract I feel could be moved if the Sabres made the deal worthwhile.

I didn't actually say that Goose couldn't be traded. I started by saying that that hypothetically if he were really only worth $1 million (rough figure for a 4th-line winger, which you seem to think that he is), he wouldn't be tradeable at $2.3 million; not in the current market. If he's really a 4th-line winger, nobody wants to pay that type of player $2.3 million. Right now, GMs can't afford to take on an (hypothetically) overpaid 4th-liner even if they are give a pick or prospect. However, if he's actually capable of being an effective 3rd-line center, then a GM might be willing to pay him that (given that guys like Moore still are signed and he's reportedly now looking for below $2 million, even that's not guaranteed.)

 

I do believe that Goose is tradeable, but I also have a higher estimation of his value than you do.

[carpandean]

On leadership, that seems to me to be a fan thing more than something from players.

I don't hear players saying...we need to get Goose back from injury or we follow the Goose's lead.

Clearly not... :rolleyes:

Rivet saw firsthand why the Sabres acquired him. There weren’t enough other players on the team willing to step up and will the Sabres to victory. But the captain saw signs that have him looking forward to next season.

 

“I think there was obviously some issues with leadership, and I think throughout the year and near the end of the year there was some real positive signs with some younger guys coming up that did a better job,” he said.

 

“No. 1 would definitely be Paul Gaustad. He really moved himself into more of a role, more vocal in the room, which I think this team needs."

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/649924.html

[Guru]

I didn't actually say that Goose couldn't be traded. I started by saying that that hypothetically if he were really only worth $1 million (rough figure for a 4th-line winger, which you seem to think that he is), he wouldn't be tradeable at $2.3 million; not in the current market. If he's really a 4th-line winger, nobody wants to pay that type of player $2.3 million. Right now, GMs can't afford to take on an (hypothetically) overpaid 4th-liner even if they are give a pick or prospect. However, if he's actually capable of being an effective 3rd-line center, then a GM might be willing to pay him that (given that guys like Moore still are signed and he's reportedly now looking for below $2 million, even that's not guaranteed.)

 

I do believe that Goose is tradeable, but I also have a higher estimation of his value than you do.

That's fine that you have a higher estimation of his value, we disagree.

We also disagree about the ability to trade overpaid players.

It can be done depending on what's involved in the trade.

[Guru]

Miller said he thought it was an important move by management to extend Gaustad.

What stock do I place in that?

Since when do players make statements that question contracts given to teammates?

[Guru]

Clearly not... :rolleyes:

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/649924.html

This really isn't a thread trying to argue how much of a motivational speaker he is.

He can be hockey's Knute Rockne off the ice or in the locker room, I'm only concerned with what happens on the ice.

[...]

I don't hear players saying...we need to get Goose back from injury or we follow the Goose's lead.

 

 

Miller said he thought it was an important move by management to extend Gaustad.

 

 

Rivet saw firsthand why the Sabres acquired him. There weren’t enough other players on the team willing to step up and will the Sabres to victory. But the captain saw signs that have him looking forward to next season.

 

“I think there was obviously some issues with leadership, and I think throughout the year and near the end of the year there was some real positive signs with some younger guys coming up that did a better job,” he said.

 

“No. 1 would definitely be Paul Gaustad. He really moved himself into more of a role, more vocal in the room, which I think this team needs."

 

 

What stock do I place in that?

 

 

I think you may be smoking a bit too much of the KK6666. On just the Sabres website alone there are probably a dozen clips of player interviews where they reference "the locker room" and "leadership". Even the Devils have Peters at camp because he brings "something unique" - and it sure ain't his wrist shot. I mean, it's pretty evident from league-wide pre-season stories and interviews alone that the GMs, the coaches, and the players find value in players who provide some type of leadership.

 

The preceeding was not a defense of Gaustad; just pointing out that leadership guys and role players have significantly more value amongst those IN professional hockey, than those who criticize the people in professional hockey.

 

I honestly would prefer a better third line center, too. Gaustad is like Peters with a little more skill.

[Guru]

I think you may be smoking a bit too much of the KK6666. On just the Sabres website alone there are probably a dozen clips of player interviews where they reference "the locker room" and "leadership". Even the Devils have Peters at camp because he brings "something unique" - and it sure ain't his wrist shot. I mean, it's pretty evident from league-wide pre-season stories and interviews alone that the GMs, the coaches, and the players find value in players who provide some type of leadership.

 

The preceeding was not a defense of Gaustad; just pointing out that leadership guys and role players have significantly more value amongst those IN professional hockey, than those who criticize the people in professional hockey.

 

I honestly would prefer a better third line center, too. Gaustad is like Peters with a little more skill.

You're not IN professional hockey to know.

 

Again what fans hear is filtered, if a report asks about a 'leader' 99.99% of the time a player is going to tell them exactly what the lead-in question is seeking.

 

What do you think a player is about to say?....I play my game without or without a cub scout leader there's millions of dollars at stake.

 

Is that what you think you're about to hear?

 

Do you really really really believe that players like Vanek who have been in hockey since they could walk are in need of a low skill player to give them motivation?

Lead us lead us please lead us we're lost.

 

Myself I put way way less stock in this locker stuff than most fans.

 

The glaring question is why did they have a better win rate without Gaustad in the lineup?

How could that be possible with all this overwhelming evidence for this leadership thing you supposedly have here?

[SteamRoller72]

Gomez, Pronger and Heatley all traded, but moving Hecht seems to be over Regier's head.

So why not unload Gaustad and use that cap space to sign a center?

 

Regier has $5.8M wrapped up in Hecht and Gaustad, both of whom are ineffective as 3rd line center.

Regier himself says it's an area of need.

 

But instead of making the logic move, they'll drag out this charade of Goose as an NHL 3rd line center and Quinn will give the fans green team commercials.

 

Hecht is a given.

What is your issue with Gaustad?

He wins face-offs, he's physical, he'll drop the gloves. He's an ideal NHL 3rd line center.

In your expert opinion....who is a worthy 3rd line center?

[Guru]

Hecht is a given.

What is your issue with Gaustad?

He wins face-offs, he's physical, he'll drop the gloves. He's an ideal NHL 3rd line center.

In your expert opinion....who is a worthy 3rd line center?

There's dozen of centers in the NHL so a list isn't practical, all I'm saying is that Gaustad isn't a 3rd line center.

I should reword that because they're playing him there, but you get the idea.

 

Let me ask you this , how do you arrive at him being the "ideal NHL 3rd line center"?

That statement throws me.

Gaustad is the ideal 3rd line center?

[Foot In The Crease!]

What a bunch of haters on here this morning.

 

I agree, Gaustad is NOT a 3rd line center. He is entertaining as everyone at the rink likes to chant 'GOOSE' when he touches the puck. Yippee. Unfortunately, 'GOOSE', does not inspire the same success that 'BRUUUUCE' used to, and besides standing in the crease of opposing teams, he really has little to no value.

 

I would love to see a Peca or a Moore brought back for the 3rd line center role and not only bring some scoring touch, but a little toughness, grit, and leadership is sorely needed.

 

Well, that and winning some faceoffs would be cool too.

 

So your trying to say D.Moore has more grit than the Goose?????????????????????????????????? :wallbash:

[wjag]

Gaustad is like Peters with a little more skill.

Ouch.

[Guru]

So your trying to say D.Moore has more grit than the Goose?????????????????????????????????? :wallbash:

Moore is a better overall player than Gaustad.

[inkman]

Moore is a better overall player than Gaustad.

Problem is, they are both tweeners.

[carpandean]

The glaring question is why did they have a better win rate without Gaustad in the lineup?

How could that be possible with all this overwhelming evidence for this leadership thing you supposedly have here?

There isn't a (statistically) significant difference in their performance with and without him in the lineup. In fact, their regulation win %'s are identical. The only difference is that a couple of OT/SOs went the other way. How much do think leadership matters in a SO? Without looking at the breakdown of opponents, other players out of the lineup, etc., in games with/without him, it's hard to even begin to say anything about the relative performance.