Briere Envy

[SwampD]

I wouldn't agree with "the exact point" part, but your point is taken. For what its worth, I hate Roy but I wouldn't mind seeing how he would react next year if he was the 4th or 5th forward as opposed to the 2nd or 3rd.

I don't hate Roy at all but feel the same way about him being 4th or 5th. When I look at what is wrong with this team, his name is pretty far down on my list. As crazy as it may sound, I think he is one of our best defensive forwards and that is often overlooked when putting a value on him. And probably most importantly, he plays. I know I've said it before but for as small as he is, he is pretty darn durable.

[nfreeman]

The seventh year.

 

I'm pretty sure that Carp would tell you a six year average paints a better picture of who a player is than taking the two best years of a players career. And if you want to get technical, those were actually his 7th and 8th seasons.

The reason I used Briere's 5th & 6th seasons was to respond to DeLuca's "theory" that Roy, after 6 seasons, is ahead of where Briere was at the same point in his career. Again, I don't think it's even close that after 6 seasons, Briere was (and remains) a far superior player compared with Roy after 6 seasons.

 

Frankly, although Briere was significantly more productive in the regular season at the point in his career where Roy is now, that isn't even the key factor that distinguishes the 2 players. Briere has always been a money player. He delivers in the playoffs. He scores in overtime (regular season and playoffs). He converts in the shootout. He doesn't disappear down the stretch and in crunch time like Roy does.

 

Right now, no. But this is the exact point in Roy's career where someone else gave up on Briere, and Roy's got better numbers to this point.

Roy is 27. Briere was traded when he was 25.

 

I wouldn't agree with "the exact point" part, but your point is taken. For what its worth, I hate Roy but I wouldn't mind seeing how he would react next year if he was the 4th or 5th forward as opposed to the 2nd or 3rd.

I would be very happy with Roy as the #3 center and #5 forward.

 

I think he'd be good in that role, unfortunately Regier thinks he's a no. 1 center.

I think DR may have thought in the past that Roy could fill this role but he doesn't think it anymore. The problem is that #1 centers don't grow on trees.

 

I don't hate Roy at all but feel the same way about him being 4th or 5th. When I look at what is wrong with this team, his name is pretty far down on my list. As crazy as it may sound, I think he is one of our best defensive forwards and that is often overlooked when putting a value on him. And probably most importantly, he plays. I know I've said it before but for as small as he is, he is pretty darn durable.

I agree with all of this. I'm not desperate to unload Roy, although I wouldn't be unhappy if the Sabres did so. What I really want is for Roy not to be a critical piece of the team (so that what we get from him is a bonus, and if he disappears in the playoffs it doesn't mean that the Sabres are screwed), and for it to be crystal clear that the theory that losing Briere was OK because we had Roy has been completely debunked.

[SwampD]

The reason I used Briere's 5th & 6th seasons was to respond to DeLuca's "theory" that Roy, after 6 seasons, is ahead of where Briere was at the same point in his career. Again, I don't think it's even close that after 6 seasons, Briere was (and remains) a far superior player compared with Roy after 6 seasons.

 

Frankly, although Briere was significantly more productive in the regular season at the point in his career where Roy is now, that isn't even the key factor that distinguishes the 2 players. Briere has always been a money player. He delivers in the playoffs. He scores in overtime (regular season and playoffs). He converts in the shootout. He doesn't disappear down the stretch and in crunch time like Roy does.

 

The only problem is that you didn't use his 5th and 6th seasons. You used his 7th and 8th seasons.

 

In his first six seasons (I threw away '97-'98 where he only played 5 games),

Danny played 349 games and had 104 goals, 118 assists for 222 points. .636 PPG

 

In his first six seasons

Roy played 434 games and had 134 goals, 214 assists for 348 points. .802 PPG

[deluca67]

The only problem is that you didn't use his 5th and 6th seasons. You used his 7th and 8th seasons.

 

In his first six seasons (I threw away '97-'98 where he only played 5 games),

Danny played 349 games and had 104 goals, 118 assists for 222 points. .636 PPG

 

In his first six seasons

Roy played 434 games and had 134 goals, 214 assists for 348 points. .802 PPG

How about just taking the last three seasons :

 

Briere

 

183 games, 68 goals, 82 assists for 150 points. .820 PPG

 

Roy

 

240 games, 86 Goals, 134 assists for 220 points. .917 PPG

 

Considering the disparity in the talent surrounding the two players you would thing Briere would have the better offensive production. Roy is able to outproduce Briere while maintaining some defensive responsibility being a + 17 over the past three years and a +47 for his career. Briere is a -25 over the past three seasons and a career -30. Roy is also a better penalty killer and face-off man.

 

Roy does all of this for millions less.

[carpandean]

I'm pretty sure that Carp would tell you a six year average paints a better picture of who a player is than taking the two best years of a players career.

Actually, neither is inherently better. An average is better for removing noise - for example, looking at Vanek, he's pretty up and down, so using the average of the last four years might be a better picture of what he is capable of - but tends to lag behind a trend - for example, Jonathan Cheechoo has average almost 27 goals per year since the lockout, but can't find a job because his goals per seasons look like this: 56, 37, 23, 12, 5. I would say that at the same point in their respective careers, Roy has been a more consistent scorer, having risen faster, but seemingly plateaued or even regressed. Briere took longer to come into his own, but was trending up very quickly. So, while Roy's average is better, his underlying trend at this point is less significant. The question with any forecast, though, is whether history is a good indicator of the future. With a hockey player's career being such a small sample, (apparent) trends can start and stop frequently.

 

I have never felt that the comparison between the two is a good one. Roy is much more of a two-way forward than Danny, but (seemingly) not as good offensively.

[nfreeman]

The only problem is that you didn't use his 5th and 6th seasons. You used his 7th and 8th seasons.

 

In his first six seasons (I threw away '97-'98 where he only played 5 games),

Danny played 349 games and had 104 goals, 118 assists for 222 points. .636 PPG

 

In his first six seasons

Roy played 434 games and had 134 goals, 214 assists for 348 points. .802 PPG

I think the driver here is which seasons you throw away. There were 2 other seasons in Phoenix in which he spent the majority of the year in the minors -- one with 13 NHL games and another with 30. I think it's reasonable to exclude those when you're comparing how they did in their "first 6 seasons."

 

How about just taking the last three seasons :

 

Briere

 

183 games, 68 goals, 82 assists for 150 points. .820 PPG

 

Roy

 

240 games, 86 Goals, 134 assists for 220 points. .917 PPG

 

Considering the disparity in the talent surrounding the two players you would thing Briere would have the better offensive production. Roy is able to outproduce Briere while maintaining some defensive responsibility being a + 17 over the past three years and a +47 for his career. Briere is a -25 over the past three seasons and a career -30. Roy is also a better penalty killer and face-off man.

 

Roy does all of this for millions less.

So...you still think Roy is a better player? You would still rather have Roy on your team than Briere?

 

Certainly Briere hasn't scored as much in the regular season as Philly would've hoped (or as much, it must be noted, as Lindy got out of him). Meanwhile, Roy does a fine job at "putting up numbers," just like an overrated NBA player on a crappy team -- ie his numbers are good but he doesn't contribute much to winning. And, critically, he doesn't deliver when the team really needs it. This is the whole issue. In games 2 through 6 vs. Boston this year, he delivered one assist. That's it. Meanwhile, Briere has been huge for the Flyers this year and in their prior playoff run (and, of course, for the Sabres in the playoffs and the regular season before they let him go).

[SwampD]

Actually, neither is inherently better. An average is better for removing noise - for example, looking at Vanek, he's pretty up and down, so using the average of the last four years might be a better picture of what he is capable of - but tends to lag behind a trend - for example, Jonathan Cheechoo has average almost 27 goals per year since the lockout, but can't find a job because his goals per seasons look like this: 56, 37, 23, 12, 5. I would say that at the same point in their respective careers, Roy has been a more consistent scorer, having risen faster, but seemingly plateaued or even regressed. Briere took longer to come into his own, but was trending up very quickly. So, while Roy's average is better, his underlying trend at this point is less significant. The question with any forecast, though, is whether history is a good indicator of the future. With a hockey player's career being such a small sample, (apparent) trends can start and stop frequently.

 

I have never felt that the comparison between the two is a good one. Roy is much more of a two-way forward than Danny, but (seemingly) not as good offensively.

Great analysis.

 

As to nfreeman's statement, "...and for it to be crystal clear that the theory that losing Briere was OK because we had Roy has been completely debunked." I'm not sure it has. The fact that Danny is having a unbelievable playoffs cannot be denied, but if he had stayed with the Sabres and none of the other pieces were changed, we would be in the exact same position we are in now with Roy.

 

People keep forgetting that Drury and Briere weren't enough to get past Ottawa when we had them. I guess, like Connolly, they play better for the Sabres when they are not playing.

[bunomatic]

Brier owed the sabres absolutely nothing. There is no loyalty in sports. It was Briers hard work and determination that got him to where he is. I don't blame him for going where he felt he would be appreciated and compensated for that hard work. Buffalo management is layin in the bed it made.

[Mbossy]

If you remove the "e", does it make him less Canadian?

[nfreeman]

Great analysis.

 

As to nfreeman's statement, "...and for it to be crystal clear that the theory that losing Briere was OK because we had Roy has been completely debunked." I'm not sure it has. The fact that Danny is having a unbelievable playoffs cannot be denied, but if he had stayed with the Sabres and none of the other pieces were changed, we would be in the exact same position we are in now with Roy.

 

People keep forgetting that Drury and Briere weren't enough to get past Ottawa when we had them. I guess, like Connolly, they play better for the Sabres when they are not playing.

1. The Sabres did get past Ottawa with Drury and Briere.

 

2. It's not just this year that Briere is highly productive in the playoffs. It's every year.

 

3. The position the Sabres are in with Roy and without Briere: 2 out of 3 years with no playoffs, and zero playoff series wins. The position they were in with Briere: 4 playoff series wins and 2 straight ECFs. I don't see how this is "the exact same position."

[SwampD]

1. The Sabres did get past Ottawa with Drury and Briere.

Not in '07, and it didn't help them get past Carolina in '06.

2. It's not just this year that Briere is highly productive in the playoffs. It's every year.

He's never had a year this good in the playoffs but you are right.

3. The position the Sabres are in with Roy and without Briere: 2 out of 3 years with no playoffs, and zero playoff series wins. The position they were in with Briere: 4 playoff series wins and 2 straight ECFs. I don't see how this is "the exact same position."

That's a little bit of hyperbole seeing as that's the position they were in with Drury, Briere, and Roy. With the team as it has been for the last three years, there would be no difference with the results if Briere had been swapped in for Roy.

[tom webster]

Great analysis.

 

As to nfreeman's statement, "...and for it to be crystal clear that the theory that losing Briere was OK because we had Roy has been completely debunked." I'm not sure it has. The fact that Danny is having a unbelievable playoffs cannot be denied, but if he had stayed with the Sabres and none of the other pieces were changed, we would be in the exact same position we are in now with Roy.

 

People keep forgetting that Drury and Briere weren't enough to get past Ottawa when we had them. I guess, like Connolly, they play better for the Sabres when they are not playing.

 

 

The thing that continues to annoy the ###### out of me is that because they lost that year, certain people (and I'm not sure you fall into that group) think that team never would have won. Does that mean that the Capitals need a complete overhaul because they lost the last couple of years? Look at Detroit the first three or four years before they finally broke through. People seem to think that playoff failure in one year means that there is no hope for that team in the future.

I believe that if they kept that team together, without any additions but with the continued growth of some of the younger players being taught by two players that hate to lose like few others, that team would have contended for a Cup the last three years.

[nfreeman]

Not in '07, and it didn't help them get past Carolina in '06.

 

He's never had a year this good in the playoffs but you are right.

 

That's a little bit of hyperbole seeing as that's the position they were in with Drury, Briere, and Roy. With the team as it has been for the last three years, there would be no difference with the results if Briere had been swapped in for Roy.

They were awfully close to beating Carolina in '06. In '07, you are of course right that Ottawa won, but the Sabres lost 3 games in OT in that series and in any event still made it to the final 4. It was miles better than what they've achieved without him.

 

As for Briere's prior playoff years -- he was 4th in the NHL in playoff scoring in '06, 7th in '07 and 8th in '08 (and his team didn't make the finals in any of those years). Not as good as #2 so far this year, but very strong nevertheless.

 

You are right that the comparison is skewed because Drury and Roy were on the prior teams. However, I completely disagree that replacing Roy with Briere for the past 3 seasons wouldn't have made a difference. The team completely fell apart in '07-'08 because losing the captains was a major stomach punch that they couldn't recover from. Keeping Briere would've reduced that loss substantially. In '08-'09, they fell apart down the stretch and missed the playoffs by 2 points. I think Briere's contributions in OT and the shootout would've gotten them more than those 2 points. This year, they lost a very close, competitive playoff series in which a few goals or sweet setups would've meant the difference in the series. Again, Roy scored 1 point (an assist) in the last 5 games of the series. I think Briere would've contributed much more and probably swung the series to the Sabres.

 

The thing that continues to annoy the ###### out of me is that because they lost that year, certain people (and I'm not sure you fall into that group) think that team never would have won. Does that mean that the Capitals need a complete overhaul because they lost the last couple of years? Look at Detroit the first three or four years before they finally broke through. People seem to think that playoff failure in one year means that there is no hope for that team in the future.

I believe that if they kept that team together, without any additions but with the continued growth of some of the younger players being taught by two players that hate to lose like few others, that team would have contended for a Cup the last three years.

+1

[Stoner]

The thing that continues to annoy the ###### out of me is that because they lost that year, certain people (and I'm not sure you fall into that group) think that team never would have won. Does that mean that the Capitals need a complete overhaul because they lost the last couple of years? Look at Detroit the first three or four years before they finally broke through. People seem to think that playoff failure in one year means that there is no hope for that team in the future.

I believe that if they kept that team together, without any additions but with the continued growth of some of the younger players being taught by two players that hate to lose like few others, that team would have contended for a Cup the last three years.

 

I don't want to dredge up the Drury-Briere Affair again, but how were they going to afford to keep that team together?

[SwampD]

The thing that continues to annoy the ###### out of me is that because they lost that year, certain people (and I'm not sure you fall into that group) think that team never would have won. Does that mean that the Capitals need a complete overhaul because they lost the last couple of years? Look at Detroit the first three or four years before they finally broke through. People seem to think that playoff failure in one year means that there is no hope for that team in the future.

I believe that if they kept that team together, without any additions but with the continued growth of some of the younger players being taught by two players that hate to lose like few others, that team would have contended for a Cup the last three years.

I don't want to dredge up the Drury-Briere Affair again, but how were they going to afford to keep that team together?

 

One of the things that annoys me about it all is how all the blame goes to Darcy and Golisano. Why does Ruff get a pass? He was part of the Darcy-Lindy duo that admitted they were waiting to see the direction the league was going before making a decision. Why do the to players get a pass? As much as Danny was talking out of one side of his mouth saying he wanted to stay, he was saying yes out of the other side to a deal with another team. Drury, well, he was gone.

 

Without some kind of hometown discount (which those two obviously had no intention of giving) they weren't going to keep both and they still needed a change in the makeup to go further anyway. There is a reason Dustin Byfuglien has thrived these last seven weeks.

 

 

 

You are right that the comparison is skewed because Drury and Roy were on the prior teams. However, I completely disagree that replacing Roy with Briere for the past 3 seasons wouldn't have made a difference. The team completely fell apart in '07-'08 because losing the captains was a major stomach punch that they couldn't recover from. Keeping Briere would've reduced that loss substantially. In '08-'09, they fell apart down the stretch and missed the playoffs by 2 points. I think Briere's contributions in OT and the shootout would've gotten them more than those 2 points. This year, they lost a very close, competitive playoff series in which a few goals or sweet setups would've meant the difference in the series. Again, Roy scored 1 point (an assist) in the last 5 games of the series. I think Briere would've contributed much more and probably swung the series to the Sabres.

 

 

Make the playoffs?.. Maybe although not a given. Win a series or two?.. Maybe although also not a given. Either way, he alone would not have brought us a Cup (or even a SCF appearence) and not worth it at the price he wanted.

[deluca67]

I think the driver here is which seasons you throw away. There were 2 other seasons in Phoenix in which he spent the majority of the year in the minors -- one with 13 NHL games and another with 30. I think it's reasonable to exclude those when you're comparing how they did in their "first 6 seasons."

 

 

So...you still think Roy is a better player? You would still rather have Roy on your team than Briere?

 

Certainly Briere hasn't scored as much in the regular season as Philly would've hoped (or as much, it must be noted, as Lindy got out of him). Meanwhile, Roy does a fine job at "putting up numbers," just like an overrated NBA player on a crappy team -- ie his numbers are good but he doesn't contribute much to winning. And, critically, he doesn't deliver when the team really needs it. This is the whole issue. In games 2 through 6 vs. Boston this year, he delivered one assist. That's it. Meanwhile, Briere has been huge for the Flyers this year and in their prior playoff run (and, of course, for the Sabres in the playoffs and the regular season before they let him go).

I'll take a younger Roy at this point. Roy has his issues but he has one thing going for him Briere does not, youth and time. Roy's biggest problem is lack of maturity. If that clicks in and he grows up a bit the kid can accomplish a lot.

 

I will agree Briere played well for the Flyers especially in the playoffs. That said, placing a Derrick Roy amongst a Gagne, Richards, Carter, Hartnel and Pronger I would guess his maturity would be accelerated and could produce just as well as Briere has. Not to mention the ability to play in all facets of the game.

[tom webster]

I don't want to dredge up the Drury-Briere Affair again, but how were they going to afford to keep that team together?

 

 

I don't want to either. However, if they were proactive they could have easily kept that team together and even added a few pieces.

[SwampD]

I don't want to either. However, if they were proactive they could have easily kept that team together and even added a few pieces.

Ah, the proverbial 5 for 5. I have never believe that either one of those guys would have accepted that if they had only been offered it a little earlier.

[tom webster]

Ah, the proverbial 5 for 5. I have never believe that either one of those guys would have accepted that if they had only been offered it a little earlier.

 

There's no debate, Briere asked for the $5 before arbitration and Drury accepted the $5.3 in October.

[SwampD]

There's no debate, Briere asked for the $5 before arbitration and Drury accepted the $5.3 in October.

You should know by now that I don't let facts get in the way of my beliefs.

[tom webster]

You should know by now that I don't let facts get in the way of my beliefs.

 

 

Good one, but if you don't mind, I'd like this to be the end of this historical review or revision.

[Mike Oxhurtz]

I'd rather have Briere, Dumont, Drury & Campbell back on this team instead of Connolly, Roy, Stafford and Pominville.

[SwampD]

Good one, but if you don't mind, I'd like this to be the end of this historical review or revision.

Let's just say that having worked in news for 20 years, you will have to excuse me if I'm a little skeptical. We don't really know if any of that actually happened. Either side could say whatever they want to show themselves in a better light.

 

 

I can't believe I'm back in this. I need to call my DB sponsor. This really is my last post ever on the topic because at this point, I just don't care. What are they going to do now to get better. That's all I care about.

[Stoner]

I don't want to either. However, if they were proactive they could have easily kept that team together and even added a few pieces.

 

The players and their agents hold too much power now.

[tom webster]

Let's just say that having worked in news for 20 years, you will have to excuse me if I'm a little skeptical. We don't really know if any of that actually happened. Either side could say whatever they want to show themselves in a better light.

 

 

I can't believe I'm back in this. I need to call my DB sponsor. This really is my last post ever on the topic because at this point, I just don't care. What are they going to do now to get better. That's all I care about.

 

Amen to that.