Jim Bob Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20051013/1003083.asp It looks as though gritty Sabres forward Adam Mair will come off injured reserve and skate tonight against the Tampa Bay Lightning in the St. Pete Times Forum. But the Sabres can't activate Mair until room is made on the roster. Ruff indicated the Sabres would not clear a spot by trading one of their three goalies. "That's probably not a question for me, but I don't anticipate it," Ruff said. The coach was asked if a player would be waived to facilitate Mair's return from a groin injury suffered in the preseason. "In all likelihood, yes," Ruff said. "Someone will have to go. That's a decision we'll have to make. We'd be over the roster if Adam comes off (IR). We'll have to make a move." All signs point to defenseman Jeff Jillson being the one who gets waived. Jillson has been a healthy scratch all four games and is on a two-way contract, meaning he'll be paid a much lower salary than the $833,910 he's making with the Sabres if no other team picks him up and he gets assigned to Rochester. Less likely candidates to be waived are goalie Mika Noronen and enforcer Andrew Peters. Noronen has been a healthy scratch for every game, but he's too valuable to risk losing for nothing. Peters' role has been greatly reduced, but he'll still be needed on occasion. Peters has been scratched once, and in the three games he has dressed he skated a total of 2:43.
hopeleslyobvious Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 That just seems like a bad idea. It was a year and a half ago, but I remember Jillson playing pretty good after we picked him up. He also looked pretty good when I saw him in Rochester last year. I could think of someone better to waive on defense *cough* Lydman *cough*
Kristian Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 For sh--'s sake, waive a goalie.....!!
Barnabov Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 I'm thinking someone will take Jillson if they waive him - so, STUPID MOVE REGIER!!! Way to botch the goalie trade by not taking Atlanta's offer of a 2nd round pick. I thought the feedback on Jillson's preseason was positive? It's virtually guaranteed that more than 1 Defenseman will be injured at some point this year or be playing crappy, meaning that Jillson would be needed in the lineup. I agree with the other poster - waive a goalie but make it Biron - if someone wants to take his +$2 mio salary then so be it. If they don't want to waive Biron, then send Peters down - what's the likelihood someone will pick him up - very low I should think and who's more valuable over the course of a season - Jillson or Peters? Waiving Jillson if it happens is another ridiculous move - right up there with extending Ruff's contract based on 4 games performance.
Guest Guest Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 There seems to be a bad pattern emerging.....give away the goods for nothing in return.....ex. Zhitnik, Satan, etc. If they are to waive anybody, I would like to see Pyatt go. I'm still not impressed with his play despite the rule changes. I simply don't think he has any intensity in his attitude to be successful at this. level. We'll never see him in Rochester, but even at that level I would not expect him to get much done there.
Kristian Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 There seems to be a bad pattern emerging.....give away the goods for nothing in return.....ex. Zhitnik, Satan, etc. If they are to waive anybody, I would like to see Pyatt go. I'm still not impressed with his play despite the rule changes. I simply don't think he has any intensity in his attitude to be successful at this. level. We'll never see him in Rochester, but even at that level I would not expect him to get much done there. Don't forget Hasek. If Regier waives Jillson one of the other stiffs, I'm gonna lose my lunch. The Sabres are piss-poor on the blueline, DON'T WAIVE ONE OF THE FEW D-MEN YOU HAVE!!
Taro T Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 I'm thinking someone will take Jillson if they waive him - so, STUPID MOVE REGIER!!! Way to botch the goalie trade by not taking Atlanta's offer of a 2nd round pick. I thought the feedback on Jillson's preseason was positive? It's virtually guaranteed that more than 1 Defenseman will be injured at some point this year or be playing crappy, meaning that Jillson would be needed in the lineup. I agree with the other poster - waive a goalie but make it Biron - if someone wants to take his +$2 mio salary then so be it. If they don't want to waive Biron, then send Peters down - what's the likelihood someone will pick him up - very low I should think and who's more valuable over the course of a season - Jillson or Peters? Waiving Jillson if it happens is another ridiculous move - right up there with extending Ruff's contract based on 4 games performance. The problem with waiving either of the 2 backup goalies is that they are on one way contracts. They will be making more than the $75,000 waiver up threshold and would have to clear waivers to move back into the NHL. Somebody would mess with the Sabres in that situation (assuming someone doesn't claim them on the way down), similar to when Buffalo needed a goalie due to injuries and they snagged Peter Skudra from Boston when they tried to send him down. In response to a question on another thread, "what's the urgency with trading a goalie?"; this is what the urgency is about. The Sabres have 3 choices, keep a useful healthy player on IR, risk losing a young player that may turn into a hockey player, or risk giving away one of the goalies for nothing. None of which are particularily good options. Considering goons tend to be a dime a dozen, I might go with a 4th option and risk sending Peters down; but don't like that option much better than the others with a road trip coming up. If you lose Jillson, at least you still have the #8 defenseman in Rochester - Janik. So I guess, he's the odd man out. Also, on the Lindy front. The deal was worked on in the offseason and agreed to in the preseason. It isn't based on what Lindy did in the 1st 4 games. I am glad that Lindy is signed through next season (whether they keep him beyond this one or not). If they want to keep Lindy next year and have him signed, they can go about the business of making the team better in the offseason; if he isn't signed, they will have to be wasting effort trying to get him signed. They also may end up in a bidding war for him (not as far fetched as some on this board might think). They also will have a hard time getting any UFA's to sign with the team until they have a coach in place. If they want him back next year, they should give him another 1 year extension in that off-season.
shrader Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 Waive Peters. No one will pick him up and he's barely playing anyway.
Allan in MD Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 Peters. Pyatt would not bother me either, even though someone will likely pick him up. He becomes there soft spot. Jillson played decently when I saw him in the preseason. Doesn't make much sense to lose a developing defenseman when you have better options. It won't happen, but if you waive a goalie, Biron should be his name.
Barnabov Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 My idea of waiving Biron is so that someon would take him on waivers - coming up or down. Yes, ideally it'd be good to get something in return but his salary makes it less likely that he would be taken over Noronen who's virtually certain to be claimed by some team taking a flyer. I personally like Marty over Noronen for backup -especially if Miller slumps but I like losing Jillson the least! If teams are willing to claim Andy Delmore year after year off waivers, what makes Management think Jillson won't go too? Sounds like Ruff has decided Jillson doesn't fit in his plans and has told Regier to get rid of him (so why don't you trade him super-GM - there have to be teams willing to entertain a trade instead of just doing a waiver). Once again it seems like poor planning - they surely knew that Mair was coming off the IR sometime soon so why the last minute decision to free up roster space through a waiver?
Sabresince70 Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 I think what gets under most fan's skin about Darcy is just that. He seems to wait until the last minute when all his options are up, and then take whatever any one is willing to give (because they have the upper hand). He waited till the midnight hour to complete Hasek's deal and what did we get? He waisted an intire year on Peca - does anyone think we might have gotten more than Pyatt and Connolly if he would have traded him B4 he sat an entire season? The goaltending situation speaks for itself - Darcy himself claims that he needs to move one, but he just can't pull the trigger. It's like he is afraid of losing his job by making a mistake instead of showing everyone how well he can do. The team is playing well so far (it's early, I know) but maybe he was right by keeping them young. I hope so. Be right again, trade a goalie and get someone. I would like nothing more than to say, Gee, Darcy had me fooled, he is a good GM, but he keeps waiting and waiting and then, nothing.
Saber61 Posted October 14, 2005 Report Posted October 14, 2005 Don't forget Hasek. If Regier waives Jillson one of the other stiffs, I'm gonna lose my lunch. The Sabres are piss-poor on the blueline, DON'T WAIVE ONE OF THE FEW D-MEN YOU HAVE!! definatly agreed... if he waves one of the few we have well have nothing back there... at all... i would like to not see brian campbell play full time... he's gettin better but if we can put someone else in then lets do it.
Saber61 Posted October 14, 2005 Report Posted October 14, 2005 oh also if we were to waive peters and replace with mair, he could easily take on that enforcer role and still be an effective checker and 10-15 goal scorer... maybe... its better then losing jillson completly.
Carmel Corn Posted October 14, 2005 Report Posted October 14, 2005 I'm not particularly thrilled with what I've seen from Lydman either....Could Jillson play any worse than he has? I'd like to see Jillson get a shot at playing before the management decides to give away another player for nothing. The new (hopefully permanent) style of the NHL really emphasizes a different skill set than previous years. If we lose Peters (instead of Jillson), we can always call up Sean McMorrow to replace him as the enforcer.
inkman Posted October 14, 2005 Report Posted October 14, 2005 First off, we aren't going to lose Peters. Secondly, the thing Lydman brings to the game is skating. Their is a premium on this due to the rules being enforced. He may make his share of mistakes but his skating and puckhadling should more than off set this. :rolleyes:
Knightrider Posted October 14, 2005 Report Posted October 14, 2005 My idea of waiving Biron is so that someon would take him on waivers - coming up or down. Yes, ideally it'd be good to get something in return but his salary makes it less likely that he would be taken over Noronen who's virtually certain to be claimed by some team taking a flyer. I've been thinking the same thing. However, if no one claimed him, would he automaticaly go to Rochester, or would he become a free agent? I don't know.
Taro T Posted October 14, 2005 Report Posted October 14, 2005 I've been thinking the same thing. However, if no one claimed him, would he automaticaly go to Rochester, or would he become a free agent? I don't know. Depends on whether the Sabres assign him to Rochester or relinquish his rights. I can't see them releasing him outright as they'd be on the hook for 1/3-2/3 of his salary (including all future years if it is a multiyear deal). (By the way, I don't see them sending him to Rochester either.)
Hawerchuk Posted October 14, 2005 Report Posted October 14, 2005 OK. Well its now FRIDAY and I didn't see MAIR on the ice last night. Dropping Jillson would be a bad move IMO. Waive a goalie for crying out loud.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.