drnkirishone Posted September 9, 2013 Report Posted September 9, 2013 You're starting to get the counterpoint. Who's to say if we had or were willing to part with assets deemed valuable in Boston. Could anyone else but Dallas engineer, or be willing to engineer, the deal that went through? i think a few teams could have (not the sabres thou). The price wasnt that high for a player that has his potential. Mostly cause of the issues with his character that had been coming out. It will be interesting to see how his career looks in 2 years. Will he be Roy2.0 and do as he pleases with Ruff. Or will Ruff get him to mature in a way Roy never did.
apuszczalowski Posted September 9, 2013 Report Posted September 9, 2013 Seguin is hardly any less of a prospect than Hodgson. He's only played about 60 more games, and is lesser of a goal scorer (so far). Not to mention he's a playoff bust. Does he have potential to be a superstar? Sure. Will he? That remains to be seen. But at this point I wouldn't put him and Hodgson on different levels just yet. 203 games to 139 (64 Games)56 Regular Season Goals to 35 65 Regular Season Assits to 42 42 Career Playoff Games to 12 1 Stanley Cup to 0 Seguin has been eligible to play in the NHL for 3 seasons, Cody has played in prats fo 4 seasons. Seguin has missed playing in a total of 9 games in his career so far, Cody has yet to play more then 63 Games I think most people around the league would view Sequin as the more establiched NHL player compared to Cody Hodgson who is still just a guy with potential
drnkirishone Posted September 9, 2013 Report Posted September 9, 2013 203 games to 139 (64 Games) 56 Regular Season Goals to 35 65 Regular Season Assits to 42 42 Career Playoff Games to 12 1 Stanley Cup to 0 Seguin has been eligible to play in the NHL for 3 seasons, Cody has played in prats fo 4 seasons. Seguin has missed playing in a total of 9 games in his career so far, Cody has yet to play more then 63 Games I think most people around the league would view Sequin as the more establiched NHL player compared to Cody Hodgson who is still just a guy with potential didnt cody play like 81-83 games the year we traded for him?
MattPie Posted September 9, 2013 Report Posted September 9, 2013 didnt cody play like 81-83 games the year we traded for him? I wonder how much of it is being in Vancouver. Maybe there they really embrace roles for the lines, so an offence-first center won't get pushed into the 3rd or 4th line, since they have role players for those positions. (not trying to defend anyone here, but most agree that being on the 4th line wasn't worthwhile for Grigs *or* the Sabres)
Lanny Posted September 9, 2013 Report Posted September 9, 2013 Seguin has been eligible to play in the NHL for 3 seasons, Cody has played in prats fo 4 seasons. Seguin has missed playing in a total of 9 games in his career so far, Cody has yet to play more then 63 Games Cody's only played in parts of 3 seasons, one of them being for only 8 regular season games. One 83 game season and one 48 game season. I don't think he's missed any games due to injury since breaking in as a full time player. http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=96546
dudacek Posted September 9, 2013 Report Posted September 9, 2013 I wonder if Vanek for Seguin was ever discussed. Vanek's a better player than Erickson, or at least should be in the Bruins eyes.
IKnowPhysics Posted September 9, 2013 Report Posted September 9, 2013 i think a few teams could have (not the sabres thou). Precisely. Then why be disappointed.
deluca67 Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 Precisely. Then why be disappointed. It's a opporntunity to bring in 21 year old who has proven he can play at a high level in the NHL. Players like that don't become available that often. Except that in teh case of the trade Delucas arguing about, the player being moved is an actual proven NHL player, Kassian and Hodgson are still basically prospects who haven't done anything yet in the NHL. They moved Potential for Potential. Although Kassians position on the team was not at a position of strength for them, but they moved him for someone at a position of even greater weakness Somebody gets it. Seguin is hardly any less of a prospect than Hodgson. He's only played about 60 more games, and is lesser of a goal scorer (so far). Not to mention he's a playoff bust. Does he have potential to be a superstar? Sure. Will he? That remains to be seen. But at this point I wouldn't put him and Hodgson on different levels just yet. Seguin with 203 regular season games and 42 playoff games under his belt is far beyond prospect status. The kid has proven he can play in this league at a high level.
nfreeman Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 I wonder if Vanek for Seguin was ever discussed. Vanek's a better player than Erickson, or at least should be in the Bruins eyes. I think Vanek's contract status would've made that a non-starter for Boston.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 It's not about Seguin. It's about Chara-Lucic-Krejci-Seguin vs. Myers-Stafford-Ennis-Hodgson.....then compare 4's from there.
IKnowPhysics Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 I think Vanek's contract status would've made that a non-starter for Boston. Yep. That move's a sizable cap dump for Boston, on the order of $4-5M. If he's not making $5.75M per year, I think they'd find a way to keep Seguin.
Bullwinkle III Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 Also consider that it's rare for a team to trade with another team in the same division. Teams will sometimes accept a worse deal to avoid that.
Ross Rhea Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 But yeah, lets blame one of the few guys who has carried this team over the years for not being held accountable for the team sucking That's funny!
MattPie Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 That's funny! Because it's true? :)
nfreeman Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 It's not about Seguin. It's about Chara-Lucic-Krejci-Seguin vs. Myers-Stafford-Ennis-Hodgson.....then compare 4's from there. 4s? And what's with the italics? Yep. That move's a sizable cap dump for Boston, on the order of $4-5M. If he's not making $5.75M per year, I think they'd find a way to keep Seguin. I was actually referring to the fact that Vanek only has 1 year left on his deal -- so Boston wouldn't give up Seguin for just 1 year of Vanek. Eriksson has 3 years left. Also, Eriksson makes only $1.5MM less than Seguin -- so it really wasn't much of a cap dump. I think they made the trade because they like Eriksson more than they like Seguin. Also consider that it's rare for a team to trade with another team in the same division. Teams will sometimes accept a worse deal to avoid that. Generally yes, but Boston did trade Kessel to Toronto.
apuszczalowski Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 didnt cody play like 81-83 games the year we traded for him? Sorry, stand corrected, I was reading those stats as being seperate years and not together, he played 83 games that season
Ross Rhea Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 Because it's true? :) Where did he carry them to? 9th place, how about 10th place? 1st round exits? Where exactly did he carry them to? :blink:
apuszczalowski Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 4s? And what's with the italics? I was actually referring to the fact that Vanek only has 1 year left on his deal -- so Boston wouldn't give up Seguin for just 1 year of Vanek. Eriksson has 3 years left. Also, Eriksson makes only $1.5MM less than Seguin -- so it really wasn't much of a cap dump. I think they made the trade because they like Eriksson more than they like Seguin. Generally yes, but Boston did trade Kessel to Toronto. Boston has been cutting salary this summer, its been widely said around the league that the move was only to free some cap space As for the Kessel trade, sometimes teams will make big moves in the division, but they have to be overwhelmed/overpaid in the deal to make them, getting 2 1st and a 2nd for Kessel was a great deal for Boston, made even better by the Leafs being BAD that season and getting the #2 pick [/size] Where did he carry them to? 9th place, how about 10th place? 1st round exits? Where exactly did he carry them to? :blink: And where would they have been without him? Oh yeah, thats right, Enroth would have carried them to glory and the Stanley Cup, he has proven this in his less then 1 seasons worth of NHL games over his career.............
IKnowPhysics Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 Advanced stat warning: Goals versus salary (GVS) says something prettya little interesting about Tyler Seguin. GVS is like Goals Versus Threshold, but instead of comparing the player's contribution to the team's goal differential to a replacement player's contribution, you compare it to a replacement player's salary, in an attempt to see who contributes most for the dollar. It's a metric of value. Seguin was Boston's leader in GVS this year at 7.3, because he contributed well (not great, but well), and had a base salary of only $900k. BUT if you gave him a base salary of $5.75M, like he'll receive next year, his GVS drops like a rock to -1.3, 11th worst on the team. Peverly, by the way, as paid, was -3.3, 7th worst on the team. For a cap-strapped team like Boston, there's some stat-supported evidence for moving those two. Loui Ericksson, was in the top ten in the league in GVS in '08-'09 when he had his breakout season while under his entry level contract, but Dallas paid him more over the next couple of years, understandably, because he was putting up consistent 70+ point seasons. However this season, he was only on pace for a 50 point 82 game season. Maybe it was time for a change of scenery for him, and Boston wanted LWs.
TrueBlueGED Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 I was actually referring to the fact that Vanek only has 1 year left on his deal -- so Boston wouldn't give up Seguin for just 1 year of Vanek. Eriksson has 3 years left. Also, Eriksson makes only $1.5MM less than Seguin -- so it really wasn't much of a cap dump. I think they made the trade because they like Eriksson more than they like Seguin. But if the comparison is Seguin for Eriksson vs. Seguin for Vanek, then you're really comparing Eriksson's salary to Vanek/s, and then the comparative savings is $3MM. Combine that with the years remaining you pointed out, and add in Eriksson's significantly better two-way game, and I don't think Vanek is even close to a viable substitute for Eriksson in the trade.
... Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 And where would they have been without him? Oh yeah, thats right, Enroth would have carried them to glory and the Stanley Cup, he has proven this in his less then 1 seasons worth of NHL games over his career............. Apparently they would have been in an excellent position to rebuild through drafting, as Regier and half of this message board look at it.
MattPie Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 [/size] Where did he carry them to? 9th place, how about 10th place? 1st round exits? Where exactly did he carry them to? :blink: 9th place. There's only so much a goalie can do, they'd have been really close to last otherwise. (and perhaps that'd be better long-run, but that's not Miller's fault)
Ross Rhea Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 9th place. There's only so much a goalie can do, they'd have been really close to last otherwise. (and perhaps that'd be better long-run, but that's not Miller's fault) :wallbash: Last, 9th, who cares it's still not good enough. When you have missed the playoffs in 4 out of the last 6 years and have not won a playoff series in 7 years, the goaltender is part of the problem as is everyone else. Face it Miller is just not good enough, he's good but not good enough, and that's not good enough for me and shouldn't be good enough for you or any Sabre fan.
apuszczalowski Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 :wallbash: Last, 9th, who cares it's still not good enough. When you have missed the playoffs in 4 out of the last 6 years and have not won a playoff series in 7 years, the goaltender is part of the problem as is everyone else. Face it Miller is just not good enough, he's good but not good enough, and that's not good enough for me and shouldn't be good enough for you or any Sabre fan. Maybe one day you will understand the sport of hockey.Do you realise that theres more then just a goalie on the ice in Hockey and 5 other guys at a time out there that need to score goals and help keep the puck out of the net too? THE LAST THING THATS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR THE SABRES FRANCHISE FOR THE LAST DECADE PLUS HAS BEEN GOALTENDING. Ever since Hasek the Sabres have been one of the better teams in the league with their goaltenders, aside from maybe a few seasons of transition between Miller and Hasek
Kristian Posted September 10, 2013 Report Posted September 10, 2013 :wallbash: Last, 9th, who cares it's still not good enough. When you have missed the playoffs in 4 out of the last 6 years and have not won a playoff series in 7 years, the goaltender is part of the problem as is everyone else. Face it Miller is just not good enough, he's good but not good enough, and that's not good enough for me and shouldn't be good enough for you or any Sabre fan. How good is good but not good enough? Miller has his weak spots sure, but he's still a guy with way more positives than negatives. He might not be Hasek or Brodeur, but he's solid enough for a decent team to make it past the first and perhaps even second rounds. The fact that they end up in 9th tells a horrifying story about the rest of the team, though. I'm usually one of the more vocal people when it comes to how bad I think the team is, top to bottom, but Miller while overpaid, is probably the least of the on-ice problems here.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.