Eleven Posted January 2, 2012 Author Report Posted January 2, 2012 fair....and how many ribbons worth of misses have we wrapped that present up with? Since June 25? I'm not sure. Can't evaluate Leino yet (although I think we're all pissed that it turns out that he doesn't want to or cannot play C); can't say yet whether Ehrhoff will be worth the money. But to get this back on track, Stafford was given a new contract that same off-season (I think before June 25 though), and that's the problem at hand. Get rid of him and get something for him. Even if "selling low," there's another concept called cutting one's losses.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 Since June 25? I'm not sure. Can't evaluate Leino yet (although I think we're all pissed that it turns out that he doesn't want to or cannot play C); can't say yet whether Ehrhoff will be worth the money. But to get this back on track, Stafford was given a new contract that same off-season (I think before June 25 though), and that's the problem at hand. Get rid of him and get something for him. Even if "selling low," there's another concept called cutting one's losses. At this point DR would have to be ordered to make any trade, especially one of the "core". I just can't believe that Mr. Pegula and Mr. Black will be buying what DR has been selling them for much longer.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 Even if "selling low," there's another concept called cutting one's losses. I know. I've been getting the same account statement for 14 years showing up in my mailbox. I just KNOW there is going to be another juicy dividend payment like in 1999.
RazielSabre Posted January 2, 2012 Report Posted January 2, 2012 At this point DR would have to be ordered to make any trade, especially one of the "core". I just can't believe that Mr. Pegula and Mr. Black will be buying what DR has been selling them for much longer. At this rate it really is only a matter of time. Pegula has made a pledge to win a cup as owner of the Sabres. If DR and LR can't do it they'll be shown the door.
Eleven Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Posted January 3, 2012 At this rate it really is only a matter of time. Pegula has made a pledge to win a cup as owner of the Sabres. If DR and LR can't do it they'll be shown the door. No one said this team was going to get the center it needs in year 1 A.P. But Darcy had better do something to get rid of the dead weight. All 202 pounds of it.
Taro T Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 No one said this team was going to get the center it needs in year 1 A.P. But Darcy had better do something to get rid of the dead weight. All 202 pounds of it. My main concern is that I want to see the team advancing towards a winner. As heading into this season, it was highly unlikely that they were ready to be built into that winner this year, it probably doesn't appreciably matter when those moves to advance it towards a winner occur (November, December, trade deadline) but there are moves that need to be made this year to continue the advancement. Though it probably doesn't matter when in season they occur, I'd definitely like to see 2 moves made sooner rather than later, primarily due to their impact on the development of the younger guys with the club and in the system and to send a signal that complacency will not be standard operating procedure. I don't want a 'Trader Phil' as the GM, and Darcy Regier will never be one, but as mentioned, I do believe that 2 moves need to be made. If those moves aren't made this season, I will have made my judgement of the current management.
Eleven Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) My main concern is that I want to see the team advancing towards a winner. As heading into this season, it was highly unlikely that they were ready to be built into that winner this year, it probably doesn't appreciably matter when those moves to advance it towards a winner occur (November, December, trade deadline) but there are moves that need to be made this year to continue the advancement. Though it probably doesn't matter when in season they occur, I'd definitely like to see 2 moves made sooner rather than later, primarily due to their impact on the development of the younger guys with the club and in the system and to send a signal that complacency will not be standard operating procedure. I don't want a 'Trader Phil' as the GM, and Darcy Regier will never be one, but as mentioned, I do believe that 2 moves need to be made. If those moves aren't made this season, I will have made my judgement of the current management. Tough to argue with this. I think we had some high hopes entering the season, but I also think that we all knew that without that true no. 1 center, it wasn't going to happen this year. Of course, no one foresaw quite the decline we've seen, either. Do you have two specific moves in mind, or just any two for a shakeup? (Shakeups, to me, tend to backfire; I remember Lanny McDonald's ouster from Toronto, and I certainly remember the jackassery performed by Bowman.) I would prefer a decent veteran player--hopefully someone who will contribute long-term--for Stafford, rather than draft picks. I think it's possible, especially if Stafford is packaged. They just need to go find that player that is similarly frustrating another team and make the swap, a la 2003. Edited January 3, 2012 by Eleven
Taro T Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 Tough to argue with this. I think we had some high hopes entering the season, but I also think that we all knew that without that true no. 1 center, it wasn't going to happen this year. Of course, no one foresaw quite the decline we've seen, either. Do you have two specific moves in mind, or just any two for a shakeup? (Shakeups, to me, tend to backfire; I remember Lanny McDonald's ouster from Toronto, and I certainly remember the jackassery performed by Bowman.) I would prefer a decent veteran player--hopefully someone who will contribute long-term--for Stafford, rather than draft picks. I think it's possible, especially if Stafford is packaged. They just need to go find that player that is similarly frustrating another team and make the swap, a la 2003. Basically, like you, I want Stafford Smehlik out. Though I am also on record as believing that Roy could/should be a strong #2 center (or ideally a really strong #3) and that he simply doesn't fit the billing for a #1, the continued lack of success of those on his line has pretty much gotten me on board the 'Roy must go' express. Obviously, the Sabres management agrees that Roy isn't even a poor man's #1, as Jochen is centering the top line. The team simply has too many young players around it for me to be comfortable with his brand of leadership being their introduction to the NHL. If the team didn't have so many young guys up, I would be more tolerant of the typical timeframe the Sabres take to make moves to see these guys moved. Roy's leaving does create another hole at the biggest position of need on this team, but based on how the team played last year after he left and how it's played this year, I think his leaving would be a case of 'addition by subtraction.' Slide Adam back to the #2 center if you don't get a center back for a Stafford (or a Stafford / Roy combo) package, and realize another injury to Jochen has either Boyes or Gaustad as one of the top 2 centers (neither of which is a good option). Though I don't have anyone specific in mind coming back for either / both, my preference would be a 'leadership' type vet that brings the Sabres something they are lacking right now and could pay dividends down the road as the kids learn 'how to be pros.'
Eleven Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Posted January 3, 2012 Basically, like you, I want Stafford Smehlik out. Though I am also on record as believing that Roy could/should be a strong #2 center (or ideally a really strong #3) and that he simply doesn't fit the billing for a #1, the continued lack of success of those on his line has pretty much gotten me on board the 'Roy must go' express. Obviously, the Sabres management agrees that Roy isn't even a poor man's #1, as Jochen is centering the top line. The team simply has too many young players around it for me to be comfortable with his brand of leadership being their introduction to the NHL. If the team didn't have so many young guys up, I would be more tolerant of the typical timeframe the Sabres take to make moves to see these guys moved. Roy's leaving does create another hole at the biggest position of need on this team, but based on how the team played last year after he left and how it's played this year, I think his leaving would be a case of 'addition by subtraction.' Slide Adam back to the #2 center if you don't get a center back for a Stafford (or a Stafford / Roy combo) package, and realize another injury to Jochen has either Boyes or Gaustad as one of the top 2 centers (neither of which is a good option). Though I don't have anyone specific in mind coming back for either / both, my preference would be a 'leadership' type vet that brings the Sabres something they are lacking right now and could pay dividends down the road as the kids learn 'how to be pros.' If the team packages those two together, it really could bring back a nice return. I'm not as frustrated with Roy as I am with Stafford, mostly because the team is weak down the middle but partially because I think he puts in more effort than Staff does. But I'm not married to him, either. I wouldn't mind seeing him go. Stafford, though, MUST go.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 Why hasn't anyone gone nuts on Sabres coaching for bringing back Roy in the playoffs for 1 game last year when he obviously wasn't ready? I speculated he was in trouble with that knee last year and thought it was stupid, and after seeing the results this year......what say you?
Taro T Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) If the team packages those two together, it really could bring back a nice return. I'm not as frustrated with Roy as I am with Stafford, mostly because the team is weak down the middle but partially because I think he puts in more effort than Staff does. But I'm not married to him, either. I wouldn't mind seeing him go. Stafford, though, MUST go. My problem with Roy isn't a lack of effort. My problem is, that it SEEMS the play of those around him tails off when he's out there with them. And you are probably correct in that a 30 goal scorer (who isn't anywhere close to that this year) and a guy that has been nearly a ppg player for the past few (who again, isn't anywhere close to that this year) that are both considered to be leaders (at least w/in their current organization) and get time on the pp and pk still in their 20's SHOULD be able to bring something reasonable back. Edited January 3, 2012 by Taro T
LGR4GM Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 Why hasn't anyone gone nuts on Sabres coaching for bringing back Roy in the playoffs for 1 game last year when he obviously wasn't ready? I speculated he was in trouble with that knee last year and thought it was stupid, and after seeing the results this year......what say you? considering it was his thigh muscle no, I do not believe Roy's knee had anything to do with this teams current lack of everything from scoring to physical play. Roy should be traded and so should stafford and probably a defensmen but DR neither has the balls nor the brain power to pull off a trade involving anyone of his precious core. I stand by what I said at the draft when they went out and got another skill rw instead of getting a tough physical center... DR needs to go, now.
nfreeman Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 Why hasn't anyone gone nuts on Sabres coaching for bringing back Roy in the playoffs for 1 game last year when he obviously wasn't ready? I speculated he was in trouble with that knee last year and thought it was stupid, and after seeing the results this year......what say you? The entire team other than Miller crapped the bed in that game. Roy didn't stand out. Now, if you want to suggest that Roy's return caused his teammates to crap the bed, I won't stand in your way.
beerme1 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 Why hasn't anyone gone nuts on Sabres coaching for bringing back Roy in the playoffs for 1 game last year when he obviously wasn't ready? I speculated he was in trouble with that knee last year and thought it was stupid, and after seeing the results this year......what say you? I hate him but thats besides the point. He had medical clearance to plaoy and we were looking at elimination. If he was cleared and ready why not? You're saying he wasn't ready and that certainly appeared to be the case and we should go nuts on everyone for letting him play. I agree but then I want them gone too. I cant imagine anyone watched him practice and said he looks good to go. I can only imagine the fog of an elimination game set in and they thought they were being smart by letting him play and give the team an emotional and competitive edge. LOL haha ah :doh: They should all be fired for that thinking.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 My problem with Roy isn't a lack of effort. My problem is, that it SEEMS the play of those around him tails off when he's out there with them. And you are probably correct in that a 30 goal scorer (who isn't anywhere close to that this year) and a guy that has been nearly a ppg player for the past few (who again, isn't anywhere close to that this year) that are both considered to be leaders (at least w/in their current organization) and get time on the pp and pk still in their 20's SHOULD be able to bring something reasonable back. I truly think Roy would be a fine #1 between Vanek and Iginla. A guy like Iginla goes full speed and would open up ice for those two while taking away a lot of the physical beating Vanek has to put up with. Roy back in the day was a decent forechecker, but he was on the wing at the time so I don't know if that translates perfectly to center. If they had that one guy to groove with though, I could see Roy putting up 25-60-85 and Vanek at 40 and Iginla 30 very easily. You need to find synergy instead of giving guys away because of the hole management and coaching philosophy has built. I think it's cheaper bringing in a gamechanger at wing than overpaying in a trade to try and land another center to play #1 at this point.
Taro T Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 I truly think Roy would be a fine #1 between Vanek and Iginla. A guy like Iginla goes full speed and would open up ice for those two while taking away a lot of the physical beating Vanek has to put up with. Roy back in the day was a decent forechecker, but he was on the wing at the time so I don't know if that translates perfectly to center. If they had that one guy to groove with though, I could see Roy putting up 25-60-85 and Vanek at 40 and Iginla 30 very easily. You need to find synergy instead of giving guys away because of the hole management and coaching philosophy has built. I think it's cheaper bringing in a gamechanger at wing than overpaying in a trade to try and land another center to play #1 at this point. On paper, that would be a strong line. On ice, I don't think the chemistry would be there. Though I'd be very happy seeing Iginla in a Sabres uni (~10 years too late) and would absolutely put Vanek on the ice with him, I'd rather see Adam or Hecht (or better yet, that mythical 1st line center not currently on this roster) centering them than Roy. I could be wrong, but I don't see Roy finding that synergy on this team. I think a change of surroundings would be beneficial to both him and the Sabres. It's taken me a long time to get to this point with him. And the reality is, you have to give up something to get something. If another team's Dr's. were to give Roy a clean bill of health, I think his past results and still being only 28 (IIRC) would cause some other GM's and coaches to be willing to give something up for him especially if he's part of a package. Iginla, even though he's very long in the tooth, would be excellent in that role of showing the forwards how to be professionals. The team doesn't necessarily need the #1 center this year, but they will need one w/in the next 3 years.
drnkirishone Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Things where so much simpler when we all had Connelly to hate on.......
inkman Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Things where so much simpler when we all had Connelly to hate on....... I was happy when he left because I thought I wouldn't seen his name butchered to no end.
SwampD Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 I was happy when he left because I thought I wouldn't seen his name butchered to no end. :lol:
carpandean Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 I was happy when he left because I thought I wouldn't seen his name butchered to no end. Double :lol:
james duncan Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 We have Kassian at 870,000 a year for the next 2 seasons. Elite centers don't grow on trees. Well, every few years, you'll see a team purge its top two centers and get nothing in return for them...but that's old news.
drnkirishone Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 I was happy when he left because I thought I wouldn't seen his name butchered to no end. guess you get to be unhappy then :P
Recommended Posts