Jump to content

Should the Sabres keep: Miller, Moulson, or Ott?


LGR4GM

Should the Sabres keep them?  

83 members have voted

  1. 1. Ryan Miller

    • Yes, keep him
      18
    • Maybe, if willing to sign a fair deal b4 trade deadline
      34
    • No, get what you can and move forward
      24
  2. 2. Matt Moulson

    • Yes, keep him
      23
    • Maybe, if willing to sign a fair deal b4 trade deadline
      25
    • No, get what you can and move forward
      28
  3. 3. Steve Ott

    • Yes, keep him
      48
    • Maybe, if willing to sign a fair deal b4 trade deadline
      21
    • No, get what you can and move forward
      7


Recommended Posts

Posted

Here are my thoughts on why resigning Miller to anything longer than a four/five year deal would be a mistake:

 

-The Olympic year debate. It's hard to deny that Miller really only excels every four years when it's Olympic time. It's happening now, and it happened during his Vezina season. He has been solid but not great outside of that.

 

-Goaltenders in recent years have shown that you can remain productive or even improve at a late age... If you have a very good defense in front of you. However, I don't think it's worth banking on.

 

-Players in their contract year almost always play well above the norm. There are plenty of examples of this, and it may be happening with Miller. But that's not it. Miller knows that it's now or never for his future. If he plays well then it makes all of he following more likely: he gets a big contract, a team trades for him and/or the Sabres decide to give him a big contract. What happens when that is resolved? A lot of players immediately settle for less effort, especially when it's been such a long "saga."

 

-His attitude. I love my players to have a bit of a fire in them, especially a star. But what happens if you give him a huge deal and he becomes more disgruntled in time? You're going to have a messy situation on your hands and an upset goaltender. That wouldn't be good for the front office, the locker room or the fans.

 

 

 

In the end, do you really to risk giving a guy 6-8 years and then having his play decline because his long situation is finally resolved, age and/or attitude? I don't think he's that good to risk it, by any means. Even four years is a risk because so much can change in that time.

 

I get that the team would likely be dead last next year, but I doubt it would go much farther. The team will start coming into its own over the next 3-4 years when prospects start shaping up. That's PLENTY of time to find a new starting goaltender (I get the examples of teams who have spent eternity trying to find a good goalie, but those teams didn't just spend two first rounders to add to an already impressive crop of defensive prospects).

I think trading Miller is the smart and only move. He might think the same thing.

Posted

I don't believe the report about the Vanek offer.

 

Believe it or don't believe it . The point was management leaked it after the trade to save face. A unecessary,unjustified, class-less move designed to embarass a player who delivered. Miller is a smart guy he knows he is next. He would have to be insane not to go into July to see all of his options on the table because in the end there are no personal or emotional attachments in hockey, just buisness.

 

As a side note , just listened to Hockey tonight and we got poo thrown at us. They said worst team in hockey, 5+ more years of rebuild given what we have now in picks and players and that Murray has the inside track for GM.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...