Will there be anymore deals?

[Bullwinkle]

Andreychuk.

 

Nope. He had 18 points in 42 games when he was dropped from the league.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Dumped...as in out of the league, meaning that he was useless to any team.

whatever, I don't know that you are proving anything ... if Tim Connolly can still get $4.75 million a year to play in the league while most everyone agrees he can be a liability, a PPG game player who can be a liability is going to find a job too. I never said "useless," you keep throwing that in there. Like I said before, someone is going to take a chance thinking they can cover up for him in other ways.

[sabres1970]

Anyone else hear about this alleged offer sheet by Pegula for Stamkos? It was reported by NHLinsights on twitter.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Anyone else hear about this alleged offer sheet by Pegula for Stamkos? It was reported by NHLinsights on twitter.

 

Who/what is NHLinsights? I mean I get it is someone on twitter but what site/source are they from ... there is no such site as NHLinsight.com or .net ...

[sabres1970]

Who/what is NHLinsights? I mean I get it is someone on twitter but what site/source are they from ... there is no such site as NHLinsight.com or .net ...

I heard it from "The Kaleta Dice Roll" on facebook. apparently some people have some trust in this account.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I heard it from "The Kaleta Dice Roll" on facebook. apparently some people have some trust in this account.

 

:blink:

 

Source aside ...

 

What is the procedure for signing someone to an offer sheet? Do you have to have the cap space (plus the 10% cushion of course) to cover whatever the deal is? Or do you just have to make space if the other team doesn't match? because if it is the former, the Sabres do not have the space to scare Tampa away, I would not think.

[korab rules]

Anyone else hear about this alleged offer sheet by Pegula for Stamkos? It was reported by NHLinsights on twitter.

 

There isn't and there won't be. Certainly not from the Sabres. Wishful thinking.

[Bullwinkle]

whatever, I don't know that you are proving anything ... if Tim Connolly can still get $4.75 million a year to play in the league while most everyone agrees he can be a liability, a PPG game player who can be a liability is going to find a job too. I never said "useless," you keep throwing that in there. Like I said before, someone is going to take a chance thinking they can cover up for him in other ways.

 

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can.

 

1. I said a PPG player has value to a team.

2. You said that's not necessarily true, because some PPG players have liabilities. You listed a couple.

3. I said, of course I know that, but I was speaking in general because if a player's liabilities > assets, no team would want him.

4. You said something about my talking in absolutes which I denied because I never claimed a PPG player had no liabilities.

5. I then said if you were right, then there would be an instance or two of a PPG player being forced out of the league because no one wanted him because his liabilities > his assets. I said I couldn't think of any.

 

I'm still waiting.

 

If there are none, then it goes to show that a PPG player has value to a team despite his liabilities. My initial premise is correct.

[Bullwinkle]

:blink:

 

Source aside ...

 

What is the procedure for signing someone to an offer sheet? Do you have to have the cap space (plus the 10% cushion of course) to cover whatever the deal is? Or do you just have to make space if the other team doesn't match? because if it is the former, the Sabres do not have the space to scare Tampa away, I would not think.

 

I believe they could if the deal was structured to be a 5 mil cap hit per year, for example. They have 6 mil with the 10% bonus. But Korab is right. It's all nonsense...probably originated from Eklund.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can.

 

1. I said a PPG player has value to a team.

2. You said that's not necessarily true, because some PPG players have liabilities. You listed a couple.

3. I said, of course I know that, but I was speaking in general because if a player's liabilities > assets, no team would want him.

4. You said something about my talking in absolutes which I denied because I never claimed a PPG player had no liabilities.

5. I then said if you were right, then there would be an instance or two of a PPG player being forced out of the league because no one wanted him because his liabilities > his assets. I said I couldn't think of any.

 

I'm still waiting.

 

If there are none, then it goes to show that a PPG player has value to a team despite his liabilities. My initial premise is correct.

 

The only way you can use "does he have a job?" as a definitive test is if EVERY player in the entire league's assets outweigh his liabilities. Was Pat Lalime a liability in 2009-10? Yes? But wait, he had a job last season, right? He MUST have been an asset!

[BetweenThePipes00]

I believe they could if the deal was structured to be a 5 mil cap hit per year, for example. They have 6 mil with the 10% bonus. But Korab is right. It's all nonsense...probably originated from Eklund.

 

Well yeah it's total nonsense, just made me think about how the rule is written ...

 

Besides, Tampa would match that in a second. I can't imagine why Stamkos would sign it to begin with.

[Weave]

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can.

 

1. I said a PPG player has value to a team.

2. You said that's not necessarily true, because some PPG players have liabilities. You listed a couple.

3. I said, of course I know that, but I was speaking in general because if a player's liabilities > assets, no team would want him.

4. You said something about my talking in absolutes which I denied because I never claimed a PPG player had no liabilities.

5. I then said if you were right, then there would be an instance or two of a PPG player being forced out of the league because no one wanted him because his liabilities > his assets. I said I couldn't think of any.

 

I'm still waiting.

 

If there are none, then it goes to show that a PPG player has value to a team despite his liabilities. My initial premise is correct.

 

Your initial premise was based on this post;

Are you telling me that Roy was the reason the Sabres had a losing record when he was in the lineup? I'd have a hard time believing that since he was the only member of the team to have 1 PPG.

 

He was leading the team in points when he was injured in December, so I'd say that your argument that he's connected to the overall record of the team is rather weak.

and has grown exponentially since. If we keep this in the context of your original assertion that Roy couldn't have been the reason for losing because he was a PPG player, well, it's fooey. Addition by subtraction is a viable assertion here.

 

My own opinion is that the cause of last years start isn't as simple as just saying "Roy", but saying he *couldn't* be the reason because he was a PPG player is equally simplistic. PPG guys that drag teams down are why PPG guys get traded in this league. Ottawa said sayonara to Yashin because, although a terribly gifted scorer, he dragged the team down. Boston bid adieu to Thorton for the same reason. Buffalo moved Turgeon because he could score like hell but held the team back. And many more examples are out there.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Your initial premise was based on this post; and has grown exponentially since. If we keep this in the context of your original assertion that Roy couldn't have been the reason for losing because he was a PPG player, well, it's fooey. Addition by subtraction is a viable assertion here.

 

My own opinion is that the cause of last years start isn't as simple as just saying "Roy", but saying he *couldn't* be the reason because he was a PPG player is equally simplistic. PPG guys that drag teams down are why PPG guys get traded in this league. Ottawa said sayonara to Yashin because, although a terribly gifted scorer, he dragged the team down. Boston bid adieu to Thorton for the same reason. Buffalo moved Turgeon because he could score like hell but held the team back. And many more examples are out there.

 

I appreciate your support for "my side" ... but just to be clear ...

 

The statement I had a problem with was another post where he said "I simply fail to understand how a PPG player can be a liability to a team." As if it is 100% impossible. I guess I just fail to understand THAT.

 

And Turgeon is a bad example ... just because a franchise guy like LaFontaine came available because he was holding out doesn't mean Turgeon was a liability. You want LaFontaine you have to give up something pretty good. In the Sabres at 40 DVD, Gerry Meehan said it was a matter of style, he wanted more speed to go with Mogilny, not that Turgeon was bad.

[shrader]

I don't remember many tears shed in Boston when Joe Thornton was traded while averaging well over a point per game.

 

You weren't looking in the right place. The reaction there was pretty much 50/50. Half went the typical scape goating route and the other half whined about that one for years.

[BetweenThePipes00]

You weren't looking in the right place. The reaction there was pretty much 50/50. Half went the typical scape goating route and the other half whined about that one for years.

 

Well if I remember correctly, you would know better than I given your location.

 

EDIT: or I could not try to remember where you live and just look at your "Location:" in every post. I am an idiot.

[Bullwinkle]

The only way you can use "does he have a job?" as a definitive test is if EVERY player in the entire league's assets outweigh his liabilities. Was Pat Lalime a liability in 2009-10? Yes? But wait, he had a job last season, right? He MUST have been an asset!

 

 

OMG...we're talking about PPG players here, not anyone in the league. Isn't that clear? It was the total value of the PPG player that you questioned, not the total value of LaLime, who is totally irrelevant. The fact that you have not been able to come up with one who was dumped by the league proves that my initial statement (that you jumped on me for) was true.

 

I rest my case.

[Bullwinkle]

Your initial premise was based on this post; and has grown exponentially since. If we keep this in the context of your original assertion that Roy couldn't have been the reason for losing because he was a PPG player, well, it's fooey. Addition by subtraction is a viable assertion here.

 

My own opinion is that the cause of last years start isn't as simple as just saying "Roy", but saying he *couldn't* be the reason because he was a PPG player is equally simplistic. PPG guys that drag teams down are why PPG guys get traded in this league. Ottawa said sayonara to Yashin because, although a terribly gifted scorer, he dragged the team down. Boston bid adieu to Thorton for the same reason. Buffalo moved Turgeon because he could score like hell but held the team back. And many more examples are out there.

 

And I never questioned that PPG players can get moved, it happens. You're right, this post began with the Roy example and has exploded.

 

However I still stand by my statement which you think is fooey. One man does not make a team, as I explained to freedman. Roy did his part with a PPG but you can't sell me on the point that when one guy has liabilities, the entire team sinks. freedman made the statement that the Sabres had a losing record with Roy at a PPG and improved after he was hurt. To tie the team's record to Roy is ridiculous. He's one man out of many and I still maintain that a PPG player is an asset to a team because there are so few of them. How much of an asset depends upon the player's other abilities. But the fact that no PPG player has been thrown out of the league while still at a PPG, says something.

 

That's how this all began.

[sabres1970]

There isn't and there won't be. Certainly not from the Sabres. Wishful thinking.

That is why i said alleged.

[BetweenThePipes00]

OMG...we're talking about PPG players here, not anyone in the league. Isn't that clear? It was the total value of the PPG player that you questioned, not the total value of LaLime, who is totally irrelevant. The fact that you have not been able to come up with one who was dumped by the league proves that my initial statement (that you jumped on me for) was true.

 

I rest my case.

 

Listen, YOU set the parameters, not me. You decided that the standard for whether or not a PPG player is an asset or a liability is if he has a job. I am just saying that it is a pretty damn low standard. Using Lalime was obviously sarcasm to illustrate the point that there are exceptions to every rule. I think there is a lot more that goes into whether or not a player is an asset or a liability than just whether he is collecting a paycheck.

 

There are a million little things that go into it. Scoring is a BIG chunk of that, i agree, I REALLY do, scorers SHOULD be cut more slack because they possess a rare attribute ... I get that. But you have turned this point-per-game standard into some sort of magic number and are being totally closed minded to the fact that every player is different ... they don't all become the same when they hit that magic number. Just like a player who rarely scores can balance that out by doing other things well and make himself an asset, a player who scores a lot can also balance that out by doing other things so poorly he's not worth keeping around.

 

I just don't see where you got the magic "PPG" standard from ... can a guy who scores 75 points in 82 games be a liability? If your answer is yes, why is it SO hard to believe that a guy who scores 82 points in 82 games can be one also? And if your answer is no, and a 75-point guy is also automatically an asset, where is the line? Seriously. Because I don't think there IS a line where it is automatic. That's all I am saying.

[Bullwinkle]

Listen, YOU set the parameters, not me. You decided that the standard for whether or not a PPG player is an asset or a liability is if he has a job. I am just saying that it is a pretty damn low standard. Using Lalime was obviously sarcasm to illustrate the point that there are exceptions to every rule. I think there is a lot more that goes into whether or not a player is an asset or a liability than just whether he is collecting a paycheck.

 

There are a million little things that go into it. Scoring is a BIG chunk of that, i agree, I REALLY do, scorers SHOULD be cut more slack because they possess a rare attribute ... I get that. But you have turned this point-per-game standard into some sort of magic number and are being totally closed minded to the fact that every player is different ... they don't all become the same when they hit that magic number. Just like a player who rarely scores can balance that out by doing other things well and make himself an asset, a player who scores a lot can also balance that out by doing other things so poorly he's not worth keeping around.

 

I just don't see where you got the magic "PPG" standard from ... can a guy who scores 75 points in 82 games be a liability? If your answer is yes, why is it SO hard to believe that a guy who scores 82 points in 82 games can be one also? And if your answer is no, and a 75-point guy is also automatically an asset, where is the line? Seriously. Because I don't think there IS a line where it is automatic. That's all I am saying.

 

OK, this is my final word on this subject. This has gone on long enough.

 

Obviously every player in the NHL has more abilities than liabilities or he wouldn't be playing there, regardless of what those abilities/liabilities are.

 

I look at 1 PPG as a special standard. Why? Because few players reach it. These are special players and I am recognizing that fact by saying that they are valuable to a team because of it.

 

When I claimed that about Roy, you had a fit. How could I say that he's an asset to the team just because of PPG? freedman chimed in with his two cents by claiming that Roy was on a losing team so he was a liability - or close to it - and that the team improved when he left. He then went on to look at Kovalchuk and claim that Atlanta rose when he left and NJ fell when he arrived (supposedly he was responsible for those events). Complete nonsense of course, but consider the source.

 

So this went around and around ad infinitum.

 

I stated...and still do state...that PPG players are a special lot and that they are assets to their teams by having a PPG attribute. I think I can safely say that no team in the NHL has released a PPG player who was dropped by the entire league because they are not easy to come by. And despite their liabilities (and some had big liabilities) they were still valued. However when they dropped below the PPG mark they were dropped like hot potatoes.

 

That is all that I have ever said. Controversial? I don't think so, but it certainly caused more of an uproar than I expected.

 

And that's all I have to say about that.

[nfreeman]

Dumped...as in out of the league, meaning that he was useless to any team.

Holy moving the goalposts Batman!

 

The only way you can use "does he have a job?" as a definitive test is if EVERY player in the entire league's assets outweigh his liabilities. Was Pat Lalime a liability in 2009-10? Yes? But wait, he had a job last season, right? He MUST have been an asset!

waste of breath...

 

Your initial premise was based on this post; and has grown exponentially since. If we keep this in the context of your original assertion that Roy couldn't have been the reason for losing because he was a PPG player, well, it's fooey. Addition by subtraction is a viable assertion here.

 

My own opinion is that the cause of last years start isn't as simple as just saying "Roy", but saying he *couldn't* be the reason because he was a PPG player is equally simplistic. PPG guys that drag teams down are why PPG guys get traded in this league. Ottawa said sayonara to Yashin because, although a terribly gifted scorer, he dragged the team down. Boston bid adieu to Thorton for the same reason. Buffalo moved Turgeon because he could score like hell but held the team back. And many more examples are out there.

The bolded part is right on. What we're being treated to from Bullwinkle is a steadily morphing "argument" that is heavily laced with "you see? I was right! I was saying this all along!" despite the original statements being a far cry from the current statements.

 

Hint: if you have to keep saying how right you are, you probably aren't.

 

As for Roy and last season's start: I completely agree that he wasn't the only reason they stunk at the beginning of the year. I think there were 3 main reasons:

 

1. Myers started in a funk

2. The team felt stomach-punched by management's failure to do anything over the summer despite earlier indications that there would be moves -- similar to how they reacted after Black Sunday.

3. The so-called "core" group of "leaders", i.e. Pommer, Vanek and Roy (and Rivet, who was still the captain), weren't good enough to counteract #s 1 and 2.

 

I'm quite optimistic about the Sabres this year, but I don't think Pommer, Vanek and Roy can lead this team anywhere. It has to come from elsewhere, which is what happened when Roy got hurt.

 

You weren't looking in the right place. The reaction there was pretty much 50/50. Half went the typical scape goating route and the other half whined about that one for years.

A fair amount of the whining is because the Bruins didn't get much back for him, though, right?

 

OMG...we're talking about PPG players here, not anyone in the league. Isn't that clear? It was the total value of the PPG player that you questioned, not the total value of LaLime, who is totally irrelevant. The fact that you have not been able to come up with one who was dumped by the league proves that my initial statement (that you jumped on me for) was true.

I rest my case.

Ugh. It wasn't your initial statement, it doesn't prove anything, and it's really neither here nor there. There are plenty of crappy players floating around the league, some of whom can score more than others.

 

And I never questioned that PPG players can get moved, it happens. You're right, this post began with the Roy example and has exploded.

 

However I still stand by my statement which you think is fooey. One man does not make a team, as I explained to freedman. Roy did his part with a PPG but you can't sell me on the point that when one guy has liabilities, the entire team sinks. freedman made the statement that the Sabres had a losing record with Roy at a PPG and improved after he was hurt. To tie the team's record to Roy is ridiculous. He's one man out of many and I still maintain that a PPG player is an asset to a team because there are so few of them. How much of an asset depends upon the player's other abilities. But the fact that no PPG player has been thrown out of the league while still at a PPG, says something.

 

That's how this all began.

That's not what you "explained." You claimed that since Roy was averaging a PPG, the team's poor performance couldn't possibly have anything to do with him.

 

Stop spraying BS around and congratulating yourself for winning arguments based on statements you didn't make.

 

Listen, YOU set the parameters, not me. You decided that the standard for whether or not a PPG player is an asset or a liability is if he has a job. I am just saying that it is a pretty damn low standard. Using Lalime was obviously sarcasm to illustrate the point that there are exceptions to every rule. I think there is a lot more that goes into whether or not a player is an asset or a liability than just whether he is collecting a paycheck.

 

There are a million little things that go into it. Scoring is a BIG chunk of that, i agree, I REALLY do, scorers SHOULD be cut more slack because they possess a rare attribute ... I get that. But you have turned this point-per-game standard into some sort of magic number and are being totally closed minded to the fact that every player is different ... they don't all become the same when they hit that magic number. Just like a player who rarely scores can balance that out by doing other things well and make himself an asset, a player who scores a lot can also balance that out by doing other things so poorly he's not worth keeping around.

 

I just don't see where you got the magic "PPG" standard from ... can a guy who scores 75 points in 82 games be a liability? If your answer is yes, why is it SO hard to believe that a guy who scores 82 points in 82 games can be one also? And if your answer is no, and a 75-point guy is also automatically an asset, where is the line? Seriously. Because I don't think there IS a line where it is automatic. That's all I am saying.

I was going to reply to this post asking why are you bothering, and then I find myself replying to a bunch of these posts.

 

It never occurs to my mother-in-law that she could be wrong either (and she also freely changes her story under pressure).

[BetweenThePipes00]

OK, this is my final word on this subject. This has gone on long enough.

 

Obviously every player in the NHL has more abilities than liabilities or he wouldn't be playing there, regardless of what those abilities/liabilities are.

 

I look at 1 PPG as a special standard. Why? Because few players reach it. These are special players and I am recognizing that fact by saying that they are valuable to a team because of it.

 

When I claimed that about Roy, you had a fit. How could I say that he's an asset to the team just because of PPG? freedman chimed in with his two cents by claiming that Roy was on a losing team so he was a liability - or close to it - and that the team improved when he left. He then went on to look at Kovalchuk and claim that Atlanta rose when he left and NJ fell when he arrived (supposedly he was responsible for those events). Complete nonsense of course, but consider the source.

 

So this went around and around ad infinitum.

 

I stated...and still do state...that PPG players are a special lot and that they are assets to their teams by having a PPG attribute. I think I can safely say that no team in the NHL has released a PPG player who was dropped by the entire league because they are not easy to come by. And despite their liabilities (and some had big liabilities) they were still valued. However when they dropped below the PPG mark they were dropped like hot potatoes.

 

That is all that I have ever said. Controversial? I don't think so, but it certainly caused more of an uproar than I expected.

 

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

Sorry this has dragged on like this, I really am, I just can't help myself when something is so illogical to me. Absolutes and "magic numbers" like this just make me crazy, especially in a game with so many variables such as NHL hockey.

[shrader]

A fair amount of the whining is because the Bruins didn't get much back for him, though, right?

 

Definitely/ It was really a strange reaction in general. And even better, the people who actually made the move were gone not too long after. Of course, I'm sure the revisionist are now trying to spin that as the day everything changed. We've had our little complaints around here lately about the optimists vs. the pessimists, but man, we've got a long way to go if we're ever going to compare the the insanity that is the Boston sports fan.

 

Sorry this has dragged on like this, I really am, I just can't help myself when something is so illogical to me. Absolutes and "magic numbers" like this just make me crazy, especially in a game with so many variables such as NHL hockey.

 

It reminded me a bit of someone else around here actually. There was a whole lot of rambling going on and I'm glad people like you actually have the patience for it.

[BetweenThePipes00]

It reminded me a bit of someone else around here actually. There was a whole lot of rambling going on and I'm glad people like you actually have the patience for it.

 

HA! Patience?!? I wish that was it ... it's a sickness, I can't stop arguing.

[bunomatic]

So...will there be any more deals? :blush: