bob_sauve28 Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 I think its pretty obvious that losing these two guys has hurt. Hank obviouly had a very positive influence on young Tyler Myers and Tyler came right out and said he missed Hank and wished he was still here. I knew Lydman was gone last year when just out of the blue Lindy benched him for a game and Toni was just totally miffed by that. Exactly what was the point of benching a guy that plays hard every night and blocks a gazillion shots for you? Perhaps the team is still trying to find its chemistry after losing two key figures, along with Kennedy. I suppose we still have the closed door players only meeting to look forward to soon. But Jesus, which of the players would call that meeting and who would lead it? :blink:
Eleven Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 Hank is -5 in the best defensive system in hockey. He played well in a contract year, just as he had done in the past. Lydman, I think the team misses. But if the reason he didn't stay is because he wanted a longer contract, well, I don't think it's a great idea to give 4-year contracts to 33-year-olds.
Sterling Archer Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 I swear to god I'll pistol whip the next one of you that mentions Tim Kennedy.
Skibum Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 I swear to god I'll pistol whip the next one of you that mentions Tim Kennedy. Yes.
Hawerchuk Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 But remember Hank two seasons ago? He was terrible and everyone wanted him out of town. Loods was solid defensively and I think the team is missing that right now. The D this year is horrible!
bob_sauve28 Posted October 31, 2010 Author Report Posted October 31, 2010 The problem with Teallinder leaving, is that he seems to have taken Tyler's game with him
Stoner Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 Hank is -5 in the best defensive system in hockey. He played well in a contract year, just as he had done in the past. Lydman, I think the team misses. But if the reason he didn't stay is because he wanted a longer contract, well, I don't think it's a great idea to give 4-year contracts to 33-year-olds. Right, defensemen never play well into their mid to late 30s. The problem here is that a cheap organization wants to benefit when these players are younger and the contracts benefit the team, but they never want to overpay on the other end, when the worm has turned. You bean-counters will say that's the smart thing to do -- I give you one of the worst defensive teams in hockey.
Patty16 Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 Right, defensemen never play well into their mid to late 30s. The problem here is that a cheap organization wants to benefit when these players are younger and the contracts benefit the team, but they never want to overpay on the other end, when the worm has turned. You bean-counters will say that's the smart thing to do -- I give you one of the worst defensive teams in hockey. where do you come up with this stuff PA? All of the best organizations do this. You pay your key players and count on young cheap talent to contribute. See chicago last year and pitt the year before. Thats how the system works. Is chicago a bunch of cheapos bc they let a third of their stanley cup roster walk away......
Eleven Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 Right, defensemen never play well into their mid to late 30s. The problem here is that a cheap organization wants to benefit when these players are younger and the contracts benefit the team, but they never want to overpay on the other end, when the worm has turned. You bean-counters will say that's the smart thing to do -- I give you one of the worst defensive teams in hockey. You know the defenseman that we bitch about the most on here? The guy who is too old to keep up? He just turned 36. Of course, I never said that no defensemen ever play well into their mid- to late-30s (not that it should stop you from mischaracterizing my post or anything), but it's smarter to give contracts to those guys in two year segments, not four. Bet we all wish that Rivet had received a shorter deal with he was 33 (I'm aware that it wasn't the Sabres who gave him the deal).
inkman Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 Given all the criticism these two got over the years, the fact that this thread exists is bizarre.
Eleven Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 Given all the criticism these two got over the years, the fact that this thread exists is bizarre. No sh*t. But let's blame management for not resigning players whom we didn't want to long-term deals. There's plenty to criticize legitimately; why this?
bob_sauve28 Posted October 31, 2010 Author Report Posted October 31, 2010 Given all the criticism these two got over the years, the fact that this thread exists is bizarre. not from me, I was constantly praising Lydman who I considered a very good player. I think the fact that they are European was a big factor in them getting a heap of criticism. This hockey city will probably want to run Sekera out of town next, small AND European! Off with his head!
Eleven Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 not from me, I was constantly praising Lydman who I considered a very good player. I think the fact that they are European was a big factor in them getting a heap of criticism. This hockey city will probably want to run Sekera out of town next, small AND European! Off with his head! I actually liked Lydman as well. But I wouldn't have given him more than two years.
Stoner Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 I actually liked Lydman as well. But I wouldn't have given him more than two years. Why's that? The money? Or do you think he's going to drop off the face of hockey in a couple of years?
Stoner Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 Given all the criticism these two got over the years, the fact that this thread exists is bizarre. I found the criticism bizarre. Just as I found the passes given Myers last year bizarre, and the relative lack of criticism so far bizarre.
Stoner Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 where do you come up with this stuff PA? All of the best organizations do this. You pay your key players and count on young cheap talent to contribute. See chicago last year and pitt the year before. Thats how the system works. Is chicago a bunch of cheapos bc they let a third of their stanley cup roster walk away...... Chicago had to let players walk. The Buffalo owner, meanwhile, is sitting on five to seven million dollars.
Sterling Archer Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 Myers was easily our best defenseman last year as a rookie. Myers is struggling a bit. He's 20 yo. He's far from this team's biggest problem.
bunomatic Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 Myers was easily our best defenseman last year as a rookie. Myers is struggling a bit. He's 20 yo. He's far from this team's biggest problem. But he is their tallest problem.
Eleven Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 Why's that? The money? Or do you think he's going to drop off the face of hockey in a couple of years? I don't think he's going to drop off the face of hockey, but I don't think there are too many defensemen who are excelling at 35 and 36. Are there some? Sure. But I'll bet Rivet's situation is more common than Lidstrom's.
Patty16 Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 Chicago had to let players walk. The Buffalo owner, meanwhile, is sitting on five to seven million dollars. They have about 2.8 in cap room which puts them approx in the middle of the teams with cap room. where is 5 to 7 million coming from? The sabres problem isnt spending money, its the way they spend it. Goose got a $9 million contract, this is your 3rd but mostly 4th line center. Pommers make 5 million plus per season for 60 pts , Vanek gets 7 million.
thesportsbuff Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 Myers was easily our best defenseman last year as a rookie. Myers is struggling a bit. He's 20 yo. He's far from this team's biggest problem. I wouldn't say "far from." He may not be the biggest problem but at least four or five of his turnovers have directly resulted in goals. He's been awful. He deserves to be benched just as much as Rivet.
inkman Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 I wouldn't say "far from." He may not be the biggest problem but at least four or five of his turnovers have directly resulted in goals. He's been awful. He deserves to be benched just as much as Rivet. Except you don't bench franchise defenseman.
bob_sauve28 Posted October 31, 2010 Author Report Posted October 31, 2010 Except you don't bench franchise defenseman. Yes, you just have to let the kid play through it. Rivet is a totally different situation, he just may not physically be up to it now
thesportsbuff Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 Except you don't bench franchise defenseman. Says who? Lindy can bench whoever he wants, he just needs to grow a pair. Can you trade coaches??? I imagine if we packaged Ruff with Stafford and Connolly or Vanek, we could get a hell of a return.
Stoner Posted October 31, 2010 Report Posted October 31, 2010 They have about 2.8 in cap room which puts them approx in the middle of the teams with cap room. where is 5 to 7 million coming from? The sabres problem isnt spending money, its the way they spend it. Goose got a $9 million contract, this is your 3rd but mostly 4th line center. Pommers make 5 million plus per season for 60 pts , Vanek gets 7 million. A little less than five, according to nhlnumbers.com.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.