Who's starting in goal tomorrow night?

[donteatyellowsnow]

I agree that starting Enroth tonight would be an earthshaking move, but I don't think it would mean that they are ready to trade Miller, or that it would signal the end of the Miller era -- although it would signal the POSSIBLE end of the Miller era.

 

I think it would just mean that the Sabres have 2 high-end goalies, and that whoever is playing better at any particular time is going to get more action. This is what happened when the Sabres had Edwards and Sauve. It's also happened in Boston with Thomas and Rask (remember that Rask took the job away from Thomas 2 years ago and began last year as the #1, until Thomas won the job back). Boston hasn't traded either of their guys and I see no reason why the Sabres would need to trade one of theirs. For one thing, it's hard to see the Sabres getting any kind of value in trade that would make it worthwhile. For all those posters claiming that the elusive true #1 center is sitting there waiting for the Sabres to trade Miller for him -- please give some specifics. That trade doesn't exist, IMHO. And the Sabres aren't going to trade Miller for anything less than an elite player.

 

 

What does this mean, exactly? You are saying that the poll of 90 dedicated Sabres fans isn't reliable data because it's a small group, but you've had conversations with people and some of them wouldn't mind trading Miller? Are your conversations somehow a more scientific method than the poll? How many of these conversations have you had? More than 90?

 

Moreover, what exactly is the point? That some of the people you've spoken with wouldn't mind trading Miller if it led to a Cup? Wouldn't anyone feel that way? I'm a fan of Miller's, but if someone could assure me that if we traded him today would result in winning the Cup, I'd drive him to the airport myself. I expect everyone here feels that way.

 

 

and the reason that happened? Because Thomas tore a hip labrum and was injured. He tried to play through it anyway, but it really didn't work out. That is the real reason Rask got to play.

[frissonic]

the only way you start enroth a third straight game is if youre considering trading miller. starting enroth back to back was shocking enough, if you go pass up miller now youre clearly making a statement hes not your undisputed franchise goalie anymore

 

which may not be a bad thing. i love miller but if the sabres think enroth is ready, and its hard to argue he isnt really close to being there, then you have to consider what is best for the club. you cant have two bonafide number ones on the same team, you can only have two mediocre starters if youre going to platoon them, so one simply has to go. miller would fetch far more in return at this point so hes the obvious one that would have to be moved

 

if enroth starts then it signals the beginning of the end of the miller era. i dont think they are ready to do that just yet so i would bet the house it will be miller

you, sir, have *the most* disturbing avatar i've ever seen. not that there's anything wrong with that ...

 

congratulations. i'm officially disturbed.

[frissonic]

I think you can safely say that nearly 100% of the fan base wouldn't mind if Miller left if it brought the team closer to a Stanley Cup. I'll go so far as to say that nearly 100% of the fan base wouldn't mind if *ANY* player left if it brought the team closer to a Stanley Cup. But it will be in hindsight. I'd be willing to bet that for a good percentage of the fanbase, they won't like the trade of any one of our core players *until* they see the Cup on Main St. in a parade. There will always be a high percentage of folks questioning the move of a marquee player until the fruits of that trade have been harvested.

 

The question at hand really is, is Enroth good enough to justify moving Miller in order to make this specualted trade? My opinion is that there isn't enough data yet to make that determination. But I am hoping that when we get enough data it shows that one or the other goalie can be moved, and has enough market value, to bring in another piece to the Stanley Cup puzzle. Until then, I'm OK with Enroth being second fiddle in a movement that often requires two fiddle players.

I don't know that trading either solves the Stanley Cup puzzle. Maybe Enroth *is* the piece of the Stanley Cup puzzle that we've been lacking. As has been pointed out by others in various threads, Boston won it all last year with*out* a marquee, star center. And let's face it--we don't have a top-tier center. We have good to great centers, but nothing in the elite category. And no--Enroth is not an elite goalie, and yes--his sample is small ATM, but maybe the tandem goal tending is what WE need to win the cup, and elite center be damned.

 

I love that Enroth is kicking ass and taking names. I love that Miller plays his best when he's flat-out pissed. I can't wait to see if he or Enroth start tonight. Either way, WHEN he comes back, he very well may have the game of his career.

[RazielSabre]

Let's not.... he gave plenty of rebound in the Philly game as it is.

 

... oh man completely misread that, sorry.

 

:lol: True he was kind of nuts in that game, more like a rubber wall.

[RazielSabre]

I think you can safely say that nearly 100% of the fan base wouldn't mind if Miller left if it brought the team closer to a Stanley Cup. I'll go so far as to say that nearly 100% of the fan base wouldn't mind if *ANY* player left if it brought the team closer to a Stanley Cup. But it will be in hindsight. I'd be willing to bet that for a good percentage of the fanbase, they won't like the trade of any one of our core players *until* they see the Cup on Main St. in a parade. There will always be a high percentage of folks questioning the move of a marquee player until the fruits of that trade have been harvested.

 

The question at hand really is, is Enroth good enough to justify moving Miller in order to make this specualted trade? My opinion is that there isn't enough data yet to make that determination. But I am hoping that when we get enough data it shows that one or the other goalie can be moved, and has enough market value, to bring in another piece to the Stanley Cup puzzle. Until then, I'm OK with Enroth being second fiddle in a movement that often requires two fiddle players.

 

Without knowing we'll be in the finals without him there is no way of telling that. Move Miller after 4 bad games and a huge amount of the fan base will be pissed, i guarantee that.

[Drunkard]

Miller and Miller. Time to see if his time on the bench has lit a fire under his ass when it comes to performing, not just words. Personally, I think it has.

[Weave]

Without knowing we'll be in the finals without him there is no way of telling that. Move Miller after 4 bad games and a huge amount of the fan base will be pissed, i guarantee that.

 

You mistook what I said in that reply.

 

Let's say we trade Miller tomorrow. Yes, a big chunk of the fanbase gets pissed. If we win the Cup the following year and the player(s) we obtained for Miller were key reasons why..... noone's pissed that Miller got traded anymore. It will be a judgement based on hindsight.

[ROCBuffalo]

Miller needs to get back in there after dropping F bombs to the media.

[Samson's Flow]

You mistook what I said in that reply.

 

Let's say we trade Miller tomorrow. Yes, a big chunk of the fanbase gets pissed. If we win the Cup the following year and the player(s) we obtained for Miller were key reasons why..... noone's pissed that Miller got traded anymore. It will be a judgement based on hindsight.

Yeah, but say the trade doesn't work out in our favor and the guys we traded for are busts/injured/whatever. You could have a fanbase blowout similar to black friday if it doesn't work. High risk/high reward for sure.

[korab rules]

Yeah, but say the trade doesn't work out in our favor and the guys we traded for are busts/injured/whatever. You could have a fanbase blowout similar to black friday if it doesn't work. High risk/high reward for sure.

You are right. We should never trade anyone or sign free agents because it might not work out, and the fans will be pissed.

 

You know what pisses fans off? The fear of trying. Mediocrity. Being told that our aging core will be better next year.

 

Black Friday wasn't a result of trading stars for players who didn't work out - it was because management let them walk for nothing.

 

Did the fan base blow up when we traded turgeon, peca, stu barnes? Hasek? Barraso? It won't blow up if we trade miller either.

[frissonic]

Did the fan base blow up when we traded turgeon, peca, stu barnes? Hasek? Barraso? It won't blow up if we trade miller either.

no one was pissed after trading barraso because we all got to talk about puppa stepping up. and in the sabres' history, i can't think of another name that has been more fun to say than darren's.

 

yes, i'm physically 39. mentally ... not so much.

[nfreeman]

Yeah, but say the trade doesn't work out in our favor and the guys we traded for are busts/injured/whatever. You could have a fanbase blowout similar to black friday if it doesn't work. High risk/high reward for sure.

 

 

You are right. We should never trade anyone or sign free agents because it might not work out, and the fans will be pissed.

 

You know what pisses fans off? The fear of trying. Mediocrity. Being told that our aging core will be better next year.

 

Black Friday wasn't a result of trading stars for players who didn't work out - it was because management let them walk for nothing.

 

Did the fan base blow up when we traded turgeon, peca, stu barnes? Hasek? Barraso? It won't blow up if we trade miller either.

It was a Sunday.

[Samson's Flow]

You are right. We should never trade anyone or sign free agents because it might not work out, and the fans will be pissed.

 

You know what pisses fans off? The fear of trying. Mediocrity. Being told that our aging core will be better next year.

 

Black Friday wasn't a result of trading stars for players who didn't work out - it was because management let them walk for nothing.

 

Did the fan base blow up when we traded turgeon, peca, stu barnes? Hasek? Barraso? It won't blow up if we trade miller either.

Hey hey hey...

 

I never said it was a bad idea or even that I was adamantly against trading Miller, I was just pointing out the other side of the argument of what weave said. He pointed out how things could all come together and be the missing piece to a cup, and I wanted to point out that trading away your 'franchise goalie' could result in serious setbacks to the ultimate goal. It is a very high risk strategy after what amounts to 15 games of Enroth.

 

No need to get aggressive and sarcastic with your response... :unsure:

[Samson's Flow]

It was a Sunday.

Sorry guess I got a bit too excited for the Thanksgiving deals :oops:

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

no one was pissed after trading barraso because we all got to talk about puppa stepping up. and in the sabres' history, i can't think of another name that has been more fun to say than darren's.

 

yes, i'm physically 39. mentally ... not so much.

 

At one point in net on the same roster we had Puppa, Bare...I mean Barrasso, and Jacques Cloutier. It was a pelvic trinity.

[korab rules]

Hey hey hey...

 

I never said it was a bad idea or even that I was adamantly against trading Miller, I was just pointing out the other side of the argument of what weave said. He pointed out how things could all come together and be the missing piece to a cup, and I wanted to point out that trading away your 'franchise goalie' could result in serious setbacks to the ultimate goal. It is a very high risk strategy after what amounts to 15 games of Enroth.

 

No need to get aggressive and sarcastic with your response... :unsure:

sorry - didn't mean to offend - but I vehemently disagree with the reason you proffered for not trading Miller, even if it was just playing devil's advocate. Sometimes I think we have been too patient and too attached to our "stars". This is not to say I think we should run off and trade Miller because Enroth played well for 19 games, but I also don't think we should entirely write off the possibility of doing so at some point. No one should be sacrosanct.

[korab rules]

It was a Sunday.

If that's the only error you could find in my post then I am doing OK. :thumbsup:

[Weave]

Yeah, but say the trade doesn't work out in our favor and the guys we traded for are busts/injured/whatever. You could have a fanbase blowout similar to black friday if it doesn't work. High risk/high reward for sure.

 

Of course. Maybe I am just not communicating my point well.

 

For the 3rd time, hindsight will be what judges the (hypothetical) trade, good or bad. As it should be.

 

Frankly, I'd be a bit disappointed with a fanbase that went rioting because the team tried something big and failed. After the last 15 years it is a pleasant change of pace to see the team taking risks. THe NHL is a high risk, high reward league.

[Claude_Verret]

Miller and Miller. Time to see if his time on the bench has lit a fire under his ass when it comes to performing, not just words. Personally, I think it has.

 

Will you be raping and pillaging with us on the 18th?

[Samson's Flow]

sorry - didn't mean to offend - but I vehemently disagree with the reason you proffered for not trading Miller, even if it was just playing devil's advocate. Sometimes I think we have been too patient and too attached to our "stars". This is not to say I think we should run off and trade Miller because Enroth played well for 19 games, but I also don't think we should entirely write off the possibility of doing so at some point. No one should be sacrosanct.

Maybe I read it wrong. No harm no foul.

 

I always thought that a shake up in the core players (i.e. Roy, Pommers, Vanek, Goose, Stafford) was needed, and still do, in order to get tougher to succeed in the playoffs when the game gets tighter. I just don't understand how everyone seems to be okay with trading Miller after one bad stretch and roll with Enroth because he had a nice run over 19 games (~23% of a season) but the forwards seem to be untouchable.

 

I think anyone should be fair game for a trade if it puts the team in a better position to win a cup. That's the goal. Right now I don't think trading Miller does that unless some team blows us away with a top center/scorer. I don't see that trade out there atm.

[nfreeman]

Of course. Maybe I am just not communicating my point well.

 

For the 3rd time, hindsight will be what judges the (hypothetical) trade, good or bad. As it should be.

 

Frankly, I'd be a bit disappointed with a fanbase that went rioting because the team tried something big and failed. After the last 15 years it is a pleasant change of pace to see the team taking risks. THe NHL is a high risk, high reward league.

I don't disagree with your views on this generally, but I will say that I think the question of how the fans react to a trade is really neither here nor there. Who gives a poop (speaking of palindromes) how the fans react? What matters is whether the trade improves the team. In any case, if the results show up in the wins column and especially in the playoffs, the fans will be fine with the trade.

 

Maybe I read it wrong. No harm no foul.

 

I always thought that a shake up in the core players (i.e. Roy, Pommers, Vanek, Goose, Stafford) was needed, and still do, in order to get tougher to succeed in the playoffs when the game gets tighter. I just don't understand how everyone seems to be okay with trading Miller after one bad stretch and roll with Enroth because he had a nice run over 19 games (~23% of a season) but the forwards seem to be untouchable.

 

I think anyone should be fair game for a trade if it puts the team in a better position to win a cup. That's the goal. Right now I don't think trading Miller does that unless some team blows us away with a top center/scorer. I don't see that trade out there atm.

Good post, although I don't think most here view the forwards you named as untouchable except perhaps Vanek. I don't regard any of them as untouchable.

[Samson's Flow]

Of course. Maybe I am just not communicating my point well.

 

For the 3rd time, hindsight will be what judges the (hypothetical) trade, good or bad. As it should be.

 

Frankly, I'd be a bit disappointed with a fanbase that went rioting because the team tried something big and failed. After the last 15 years it is a pleasant change of pace to see the team taking risks. THe NHL is a high risk, high reward league.

I'm starting to regret playing devil's advocate in response to your earlier post. :(

 

Hindsight is what makes the Briere trade a good one. Same with trading away Campbell. If Regier thinks that trading Miller away makes us better long term to winning a cup, then i'm all for it. What I was trying to convey is the average fan relates the Sabres pretty closely to Miller, and management should be pretty confident in what they have since there will be public questioning should the day that Miller is traded come.

[nfreeman]

I'm starting to regret playing devil's advocate in response to your earlier post. :(

 

Hindsight is what makes the Briere trade a good one. Same with trading away Campbell. If Regier thinks that trading Miller away makes us better long term to winning a cup, then i'm all for it. What I was trying to convey is the average fan relates the Sabres pretty closely to Miller, and management should be pretty confident in what they have since there will be public questioning should the day that Miller is traded come.

How is the Campbell a good trade in hindsight?

 

Note: please do not include in your response the assumption that in order to keep him, the Sabres would've had to have paid him what he got as a UFA. That is classic TG/LQ dissembling.

 

Note #2: I apologize if you had no intention of including the above assumption in your response.

[Samson's Flow]

I don't disagree with your views on this generally, but I will say that I think the question of how the fans react to a trade is really neither here nor there. Who gives a poop (speaking of palindromes) how the fans react? What matters is whether the trade improves the team. In any case, if the results show up in the wins column and especially in the playoffs, the fans will be fine with the trade.

 

 

Good post, although I don't think most here view the forwards you named as untouchable except perhaps Vanek. I don't regard any of them as untouchable.

It's not that they are viewed as untouchable, it is moreso that we all seem to get attached to certain players and expect higher return for them than they are worth in the trade market. The offseason "our trash for their star" type trade rumors that pop up around here.

[Weave]

I think anyone should be fair game for a trade if it puts the team in a better position to win a cup. That's the goal.

 

This is exactly the point I was responding to favorably. The trick is, noone knows if the trade is successful in putting the team into a better position until after-the-fact.

 

 

I don't disagree with your views on this generally, but I will say that I think the question of how the fans react to a trade is really neither here nor there. Who gives a poop (speaking of palindromes) how the fans react? What matters is whether the trade improves the team. In any case, if the results show up in the wins column and especially in the playoffs, the fans will be fine with the trade.

 

I agree and I think you essentially re-worded what I was trying to convey.