Hoss Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Even though we have a boatload of cash right now, I'd rather wait on the long-term deals. Spending excess money because you have it leads to cap issues later. Be smart at all time with your money. It's like spending your tax money before you actually get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 The Sabres will have a ton of cash and cap space, along with great facilities, a coach whom all players will speak highly of and a bounty of draft picks and young players suggesting that a rebound is in the hopper. There are also personal factors at work for Ott, Callahan and Orpik that could make them inclined to come here (or at least to consider it as a realistic option if the money is right). Give those 3 plus Stastny fat offers and it's not impossible that 2 or 3 of them accept. So I ask again: who wants to add those 4 guys, even if it means the Sabres finish 8th-last and not dead last next year? Not me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I don't see the appeal of a 33 year old physical stay at home defenseman who will be 34 when the season starts. These are the kind of guys who are ready to break down any second now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I'm not really interested in Ott or Callahan. I'm looking forward to seeing them getting deals elsewhere to put that to bed. Why not? I would at least want one for that type of player. Mentor Girgs in that type of the game and help protect the team from the media a bit. I don't see the appeal of a 33 year old physical stay at home defenseman who will be 34 when the season starts. These are the kind of guys who are ready to break down any second now. He'd "want" to play here, has a lot of experience, and a cup ring. I wouldn't pay him 7 years 7 mil per but I'd give him 20 mil over 4 years. Just to mentor and be a rock in the D-Zone, plus unlike Erhroff, he'd want to play every game with heart. I don't want us to field rejects and rookies next year, I couldn't deal with a team worse than this year's team. I want them to finish near the bottom, but still be at least somewhat competitive and not a team of 3rd and 4th liners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubkev Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I don't see the appeal of a 33 year old physical stay at home defenseman who will be 34 when the season starts. These are the kind of guys who are ready to break down any second now. Agreed, he's already slow. Next year I assume he'll just show up to the rink dressed as an orange road cone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Brooks Orpik is a very physical player, still. He's not just some 33 year-old pushover. He's not "slow." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Can we all agree not to refer to Mr. Murray as Timmy? And what will happen on the other 80 nights, LGR? Not sure what you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Jack Eichel just scored the game winning goal in the last minute to help the US beat Finland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Brooks Orpik is a very physical player, still. He's not just some 33 year-old pushover. He's not "slow." I disagree, he's definitely slow right now. Maybe not Hal Gill, but still slow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubkev Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 He's slow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Jack Eichel just scored the game winning goal in the last minute to help the US beat Finland. He is our savior. He will be ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 He is our savior. He will be ours. Damn, I love the way you think. I don't think Stastny is a good fit for what Murray has planned for next year, but I'd approach all four of Freeman's choices (plus Matt Moulson) and hope at least one signs. I would overpay for one of them, but not more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Not sure what you mean? You said something about the Sabres being a mix of vets and kids getting their collective butts kicked "both nights". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 You said something about the Sabres being a mix of vets and kids getting their collective butts kicked "both nights". Whether it be mainly vets or mainly kids we will lose next year "most" nights. Apparently there was an auto correct or a brain malfunction on my end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Damn, I love the way you think. I don't think Stastny is a good fit for what Murray has planned for next year, but I'd approach all four of Freeman's choices (plus Matt Moulson) and hope at least one signs. I would overpay for one of them, but not more. I could probably get talked into overpaying for one of them, but I don't think signing four guys to long term contracts helps build a contender, short term or long term...in fact, I think it would hinder efforts to build a contender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 We can qualify this all we want, "tank" or whatever, but next year is a building year. Murray and Nolan aren't planning on making the playoffs or making the moves necessary to put the best possible team on the ice. So whatever is between not trying to lose and not doing the things necessary to make the playoffs - that's what Buffalo will be it's been a minute for me, so i can't claim to have read through the entire thread. but put me in the camp of being slightly amused, and equally confused by the "don't call it a tank" theorem. i was at the meet and greet a couple of months ago where TB said it: the sabres could compete for the 7th or 8th spot next year, but they won't do it. they're choosing not to do it. they're choosing to suffer near-term suckage in exchange for the hope of long-term greatness. if that's not a tank -- or at least in the nature of tank, whether it be the planning, implementing, or finishing of one -- then i am not sure that a tank exists in pro sports. p.s. why is it GMTM? we don't need to disambiguate him from Tim Macre, do we? is it just because GM-TM has a flow and flair to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 it's been a minute for me, so i can't claim to have read through the entire thread. but put me in the camp of being slightly amused, and equally confused by the "don't call it a tank" theorem. i was at the meet and greet a couple of months ago where TB said it: the sabres could compete for the 7th or 8th spot next year, but they won't do it. they're choosing not to do it. they're choosing to suffer near-term suckage in exchange for the hope of long-term greatness. if that's not a tank -- or at least in the nature of tank, whether it be the planning, implementing, or finishing of one -- then i am not sure that a tank exists in pro sports. p.s. why is it GMTM? we don't need to disambiguate him from Tim Macre, do we? is it just because GM-TM has a flow and flair to it? As for GMTM, it's pretty much just for the flow of it, at least IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 As for GMTM, it's pretty much just for the flow of it, at least IMO On my college football message board, everyone incessantly refers to players by their initials (LT, JM, TR, etc.). It is hugely annoying since there are 85+ players and figuring out each by their initials is confusing. Have we gotten so lazy that we have to type 2 letters instead of 5 or 6? :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 On my college football message board, everyone incessantly refers to players by their initials (LT, JM, TR, etc.). It is hugely annoying since there are 85+ players and figuring out each by their initials is confusing. Have we gotten so lazy that we have to type 2 letters instead of 5 or 6? :D I'm glad that I'm not alone on this one. It has been bugging me for a while now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) On my college football message board, everyone incessantly refers to players by their initials (LT, JM, TR, etc.). It is hugely annoying since there are 85+ players and figuring out each by their initials is confusing. Have we gotten so lazy that we have to type 2 letters instead of 5 or 6? :D I'm glad that I'm not alone on this one. It has been bugging me for a while now. In a world where "ur" is an acceptable substitute for "your", this surprises u? Pet theory: people that can't figure out your/you're/yore use "ur" because you can't screw it up; but I just assume they're morons anyway. BTW, the "u" above is intentional and meant in a humorous manner. The only time "u" made any sense was in the 12-key phone era, and even then it's questionable. Edited April 23, 2014 by MattPie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 On my college football message board, everyone incessantly refers to players by their initials (LT, JM, TR, etc.). It is hugely annoying since there are 85+ players and figuring out each by their initials is confusing. Have we gotten so lazy that we have to type 2 letters instead of 5 or 6? :D i'm not a fan of using the initials system where the universe of people is that large. i latched onto it with the sabres' FO (ha!) because we were dealing with a discrete set of people. i think i really took a shine to it when someone dropped PLF - that just captured my imagination a bit. also, i'm in an industry where we routinely refer to others by initials, so i took to it somewhat naturally. I'm glad that I'm not alone on this one. It has been bugging me for a while now. it's been bugging you that people around here taken to using initials to refer to the handful of people to whom we refer constantly? dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 On my college football message board, everyone incessantly refers to players by their initials (LT, JM, TR, etc.). It is hugely annoying since there are 85+ players and figuring out each by their initials is confusing. Have we gotten so lazy that we have to type 2 letters instead of 5 or 6? :D Isn't at least some of this just responding to the way players/coaches talk? I'm not saying I like it, but if the people themselves use this type of language, I think it makes sense that fans would follow suit. In a world where "ur" is an acceptable substitute for "your", this surprises u? Pet theory: people that can't figure out your/you're/yore use "ur" because you can't screw it up; but I just assume they're morons anyway. BTW, the "u" above is intentional and meant in a humorous manner. The only time "u" made any sense was in the 12-key phone era, and even then it's questionable. Acceptable my ass! I once gave a student an F on an exam for writing "ppl" for "people" in the written section...I literally stopped reading when I saw it and just stamped an F on the paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Acceptable my ass! I once gave a student an F on an exam for writing "ppl" for "people" in the written section...I literally stopped reading when I saw it and just stamped an F on the paper. *golf clap* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Isn't at least some of this just responding to the way players/coaches talk? I'm not saying I like it, but if the people themselves use this type of language, I think it makes sense that fans would follow suit. Acceptable my ass! I once gave a student an F on an exam for writing "ppl" for "people" in the written section...I literally stopped reading when I saw it and just stamped an F on the paper. Hhahahaha, that's great. But let's also keep in mind that you have to be a f*cking m-o-r-o-n to write that way on a final exam versus a message board. I generally type every letter out if I'm at a desktop computer but if I'm typing on my iphone then I'm shortening it up when I can. 'Ppl' are sometimes giving their two cents in on a subject as they're walking out the door or doing something else. I have no problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 *golf clap* Boooooo u ppl suk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.