deluca67 Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 I dont want the status quo. I wanna see hecht go away and one of rw gone and morriosnn bye bye but ditching our only center and our franchise gt is retarded. Srry but you can not measure the team based solely off the stanley cup otherwise every single sabres team in franchise history has sucked. O and Miller won us a Presidents Trophy and a Vezina and a Silver medal. Miller "won us a Presidents' Trophy?" He was 16th in the league in save% and 20th in gga. How is that leading the Sabres anywhere? The Sabres won the Presidents' Trophy because they led the league in goals at 308. The only team over 300 goals for that year. They were 13th in goals against. A plus 66 goal differential. The Stanly Cup is the only measure. Terry Pegula pretty much said the exact same thing. He didn't come out and say "the Buffalo Sabres only reason for existence is to feel good about our failures."
Taro T Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Miller got beat by a goalie making less than a million and that gave gave the Sabres goals. Vanek is a goal scorer that rarely dominates games and Gaustad is a 6'4" face-off specialist. That is pretty "spot-on" as they say. MILLER got beat by the other goalies? Funny, looked to me like the Sabres got beat by the Phlyer forecheck. Miller was the only reason that series went 7. Vanek is a goal scorer. He is not a particularily great skater so you will not see him "dominate" a game on his own w/out a reasonable center. I am assuming you're using "dominate" in the sense of keeping the puck on his stick, rushing down the ice and finishing the rush; he is not set up to do that. There aren't many goal scorers in the league that are set up to do that. However, if you consider "dominating" as scoring important goals at key times and creating space for his linemates, I'd say he's been "dominating" in the playoffs this year and last. He had 5 goals in 7 games against Filly, and had Butler not taken that horribly foolish penalty 1/2 way through the 3rd, he'd have been the 2nd star behind Miller in Game 6. Gaustad is a very good 4th line center and a reasonable 3rd line center and a very good pk. He should stay on this team for his faceoffs alone. A big part of the Sabres' 10 year 2nd round drought was due to having NO centers capable of winning a faceoff after Peterson was traded away. (Though Peterson was the center that lost that fateful one in '83; I would have kept him.) Having been a Sabres' fan in the '80's and also seeing how bad the rest of the "centers" on this team are at faceoffs, I don't understand how you can discount the value of a faceoff specialist.
deluca67 Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 MILLER got beat by the other goalies? Funny, looked to me like the Sabres got beat by the Phlyer forecheck. Miller was the only reason that series went 7. Vanek is a goal scorer. He is not a particularily great skater so you will not see him "dominate" a game on his own w/out a reasonable center. I am assuming you're using "dominate" in the sense of keeping the puck on his stick, rushing down the ice and finishing the rush; he is not set up to do that. There aren't many goal scorers in the league that are set up to do that. However, if you consider "dominating" as scoring important goals at key times and creating space for his linemates, I'd say he's been "dominating" in the playoffs this year and last. He had 5 goals in 7 games against Filly, and had Butler not taken that horribly foolish penalty 1/2 way through the 3rd, he'd have been the 2nd star behind Miller in Game 6. Gaustad is a very good 4th line center and a reasonable 3rd line center and a very good pk. He should stay on this team for his faceoffs alone. A big part of the Sabres' 10 year 2nd round drought was due to having NO centers capable of winning a faceoff after Peterson was traded away. (Though Peterson was the center that lost that fateful one in '83; I would have kept him.) Having been a Sabres' fan in the '80's and also seeing how bad the rest of the "centers" on this team are at faceoffs, I don't understand how you can discount the value of a faceoff specialist. Vanek scored in only three of the seven games. Only once in a victory. Had zero assists and was a minus seven. That is not "dominating" by any definition.
Taro T Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Vanek scored in only three of the seven games. Only once in a victory. Had zero assists and was a minus seven. That is not "dominating" by any definition. 4 of his goals came on the pp and he was out there for at least 2 of the other 3 pp goals scored. He was the only offensive player the Phlyers had to worry about from the Sabres. He also had been the only offensive player the Bruins had to worry about the previous year from the Sabres. He was far better than you will give him credit for.
tom webster Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 For the record, I am a fan of Vanek, Miller, Gaustad and Pominville. That being said, it seems that even these players harshest critics admit to their value, just not in relation to their contracts. And while that may be a fair objection when put in context of a team with a $55 million budget, isn't the point moot now that they play for a team that will have a budget within a couple of a million dollars of a cap that may approach $65 million this year and $70 million next year. The max salary could approach $13 million per. Salaries were kept relatively lower the past couple of years while the NHL preached impending economic doom. Now with all this new revenue, salaries will start to rise again.
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 You do realize that what you proposing is pretty much (not exactly, but close) Regier's philosophy. Identify a core group and rotate the players in and out of the bottom of the roster. That has not worked. If this team is going to turn it around and become a serious Cup contender they need to divorce themselves from the Regierian way of thinking. It may take a bigger move involving "the face of the franchise" to get that done. The reason it hasn't worked is because either a.) the core group has been too large or b.) the right supporting cast has not been brought in right now one could argue our core is made up of Miller, Vanek, Pominville, Roy, Gaustad, Hecht, and Myers. I'm of the belief that it should be made up of Miller Vanek and Myers. I also don't understand how you can classify it as "Regierian", seeing as how you are not, as far as i'm aware, Darcey Regier, and as such do not have access to the inner workings of his mind. If i am mistaken i hope T-pegs sacks you immediately because throwing miller and vanek out on the curb is the worst idea i've heard in a while. It's pretty clear that you've made up your mind, and regardless of how many well thought out or logical talking points we give you, you won't bend, and i respect that. But at least try to see why we rationalize it the way we do. Last year, the team had no business making the playoffs based off our roster, let alone win the division title, but then Miller happened. And Thomas Vanek has been an admirable regular season, and playoff player. Regardless of how you view him personally, his numbers back it up. There's no question we're paying our best two players the most, but if we're anticipating a problem with the cap, it will be far more beneficial to drop the players who make 3 and a half million but play like 1 million, before we drop the guys who make 6 million, but play like 5.5 million.
LastPommerFan Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 I put the analysis in the July 1st thread, but: Putting Vanek in Prospective: He is the 12th highest cap hit Forward in the League. Since he signed the offer sheet: He Ranks 9th out of the top 25 cap hitters in goals He Ranks 19th out of the top 25 cap hitters in points Seems to me you can't get a much better player at a $7M cap hit.
LastPommerFan Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Also, the only team I've ever seen get better by trading away a franchise player is the Dallas Cowboys with the Herschal Walker deal. So all we need to do is find one GM so smitten with miller that he is willing to trade away EVERYTHING to get him. Good Luc.
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Vanek scored in only three of the seven games. Only once in a victory. Had zero assists and was a minus seven. That is not "dominating" by any definition. I'm sorry, i didn't realize that 5 goals in a playoff series was considered bad nowadays. This is a perfect example of rationalizing a scenario in the worst possible light to support a point. When Vanek is on the ice, he looks pretty responsible defensively, and the rest of his linemates are well... not so much. I remember signing him as a goal scorer not as a playmaker, but the longer the conversation goes on the more i realize that the only player you would be happy with would be a stamkos or an ovechkin. We'd probably be paying him too much too though.
LastPommerFan Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 There's no question we're paying our best two players the most, but if we're anticipating a problem with the cap, it will be far more beneficial to drop the players who make 3 and a half million but play like 1 million, before we drop the guys who make 6 million, but play like 5.5 million. This is how i see it was well. And we get to drop one of those guys this year, and two next year. Which will make some nice room to try and prevent Myers from making it to an offer sheet.
X. Benedict Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 I put the analysis in the July 1st thread, but: Putting Vanek in Prospective: He is the 12th highest cap hit Forward in the League. Since he signed the offer sheet: He Ranks 9th out of the top 25 cap hitters in goals He Ranks 19th out of the top 25 cap hitters in points Seems to me you can't get a much better player at a $7M cap hit. Interesting perspective.
SwampD Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Interesting perspective. Indeed, yet it tells us nothing about how he will play in the future.
X. Benedict Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Indeed, yet it tells us nothing about how he will play in the future. No. But one thing is certain, there will be players signed to more money that him, so I expect he'll drop out of the top 50 for compensation.
X. Benedict Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Miller "won us a Presidents' Trophy?" He was 16th in the league in save% and 20th in gga. How is that leading the Sabres anywhere? Did you notice that the Sabres rolled 4 lines and pinched like crazy that season? You can do that when you have a goaltender that can be left on an island. 40 wins in 62 starts. 40 wins is really hard to argue with. Baseball has VORP stats...it would be interesting for the NHL.
LGR4GM Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 The Stanly Cup is the only measure. Terry Pegula pretty much said the exact same thing. He didn't come out and say "the Buffalo Sabres only reason for existence is to feel good about our failures." Fine if the cup is the measure than every single sabres team for the last 40 years has sucked and we should be ashamed of them. Bottom line trading miller for anything other than Malkin, Crosby, or Kesler makes your team worse not better.
SwampD Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 No. But one thing is certain, there will be players signed to more money that him, so I expect he'll drop out of the top 50 for compensation. I actually like Vanek. I have no problem with his salary or production and think he should be on the team for a long time. I was just going along with your "prospective" theme. :D
deluca67 Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 Did you notice that the Sabres rolled 4 lines and pinched like crazy that season? You can do that when you have a goaltender that can be left on an island. 40 wins in 62 starts. 40 wins is really hard to argue with. Baseball has VORP stats...it would be interesting for the NHL. Biron won 12 games in 19 appearances (18 starts) that year with a .899 save% and a 3.04 gaa.
deluca67 Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 Fine if the cup is the measure than every single sabres team for the last 40 years has sucked and we should be ashamed of them. Bottom line trading miller for anything other than Malkin, Crosby, or Kesler makes your team worse not better. Trading Miller and using the savings to make the Sabres better is the bottom line. For the record, Miller is not the 4th best player in the NHL. He is not the 4th best goalie in the NHL. There are many players you did not list that would make the Sabres better.
X. Benedict Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 Trading Miller and using the savings to make the Sabres better is the bottom line. For the record, Miller is not the 4th best player in the NHL. He is not the 4th best goalie in the NHL. There are many players you did not list that would make the Sabres better. No. But Miller is the best Sabre. Hands down. And at 6.2 Million he's a good deal. Even if the organization has more money available ......that doesn't mean there is a comparable player available on the free agent market. Look at this year. There is b. Richards. That's it.
SwampD Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 Trading Miller and using the savings to make the Sabres better is the bottom line. For the record, Miller is not the 4th best player in the NHL. He is not the 4th best goalie in the NHL. There are many players you did not list that would make the Sabres better. There is no way that is the bottom line. If we had Philly's goalie situation, you'd be crying a blue streak that "We need to get [someone of Miller's caliber]! I don't care what it costs! Overpay him if we must but we HAVE to get [someone of Miller's caliber]!" I agree with you often, but this is just dumb.
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 The Stanly Cup is the only measure. Terry Pegula pretty much said the exact same thing. He didn't come out and say "the Buffalo Sabres only reason for existence is to feel good about our failures." If this is really your only measure of success, the championship count, then I have to ask... Why are you a Buffalo Sports fan? How do you do it?
X. Benedict Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 There is no way that is the bottom line. If we had Philly's goalie situation, you'd be crying a blue streak that "We need to get [someone of Miller's caliber]! I don't care what it costs! Overpay him if we must but we HAVE to get [someone of Miller's caliber]!" I wonder if Paul Holmgren in Philly can leave his house without having a goalie conversation.... "But look at the money we saved!"
DR HOLLIDAY Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 I wonder if Paul Holmgren in Philly can leave his house without having a goalie conversation.... "But look at the money we saved!" He probably owns an egg proof shirt....... :beer:
TheChimp Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 Don't forget Vanek. I'm actually thinking Darcy should be calling Philly today and shop Miller. Drop some salary and Philly has some young forwards I wouldn't mind seeing here. Miller for Briere maybe? I'd do it.
SwampD Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 Miller for Briere maybe? I'd do it. I'm glad you're not the GM.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.