[Sabre Rattling]Thank you Tom G.

[SabresBeat]

I sit at my handmade (and poorly, at that) desk in my house with The Wife and The Daughter to my right as I write this there are a lot of things still going through my head from this season, and not all of them are good, unfortunately. Reading the front page at TSN [...]

 

http://www.sabresreport.com/blogs/?p=231

[Stoner]

Golisano's letter is a bit odd, isn't it? The formula for success next year: "Bring back most of the players" and hope for more luck. He never seems to hit just the right note with me, I don't know. As Dave B is fond of saying, the grade for ownership and management is still incomplete.

[Kristian]

Hmmm... Thet letter should've at LEAST said "Bring back most of the players, and make sure we have better depth on defense".

 

Yes yes, for #%^$#!'s sakes, yes I know - NOBODY could've forseen that 4 d-men would go down, but seriously : When Rory Fitzpatrick is your 7th d-man, you KNOW you're too thin on D.

[Corp000085]

Golisano's letter is a bit odd, isn't it? The formula for success next year: "Bring back most of the players" and hope for more luck. He never seems to hit just the right note with me, I don't know. As Dave B is fond of saying, the grade for ownership and management is still incomplete.

Hmmm... Thet letter should've at LEAST said "Bring back most of the players, and make sure we have better depth on defense".

 

Yes yes, for #%^$#!'s sakes, yes I know - NOBODY could've forseen that 4 d-men would go down, but seriously : When Rory Fitzpatrick is your 7th d-man, you KNOW you're too thin on D.

 

 

Guys, i got that letter too and i first thought that it would get grossly misread. I've met tom, i've heard him speak, and i've read his written letters... He's not an english professor... From a personal level, don't read between the lines here. he's simply thanking us.

[Kristian]

Guys, i got that letter too and i first thought that it would get grossly misread. I've met tom, i've heard him speak, and i've read his written letters... He's not an english professor... From a personal level, don't read between the lines here. he's simply thanking us.

 

You're probably right, god knows everybody knows him better than I do.

[Corp000085]

 

You're probably right, god knows everybody knows him better than I do.

 

 

Sweet, i am God for the night! In that case, peca nets a hat trick OT winner tonight.

 

 

 

but seriouslyl, don't read into that letter more than what it was written as, a thank you note.

[Stoner]

I kind of doubt he wrote it. Billionaires can afford ghost writers.

[jad1]

Golisano's letter is a bit odd, isn't it? The formula for success next year: "Bring back most of the players" and hope for more luck. He never seems to hit just the right note with me, I don't know. As Dave B is fond of saying, the grade for ownership and management is still incomplete.

 

You're kidding, right? Among the players they're probably not going to bring back are Fitzpatrick and Biron. Numminem is going to undergo heart surgery; is he guaranteed to come back? McKee might receive an outrageous UFA offer. And guys like Peters and Pyatt could be replaced by guys in Rochester.

 

So bringing back 'most' players doesn't sound odd at all.

 

No doubt that the luck he's referring to is staying healthy.

 

And he states that the Sabres 'will continue to play its own brand of up tempo, attack hockey.' Finding players to accomplish this, whether they come from the current roster, Rochester, or FA, is the 'formula for success next year.'

 

Considering that Golisano has brought the Sabres out of almost 10 years of instability and chaos (from Muckler vs. Nolan, to Peca vs. Mgmt, to Rigas indicted, to bankruptcy, to Hammister fiasco) I find it amazing that anyone, especially a Sabres fan, would give Golisano an incomplete grade as an owner.

[Kristian]

Personally I'd like to see us keep Pyatt, I think he looked strong in the playoffs.

 

Plus he had a horrible regular season, so it's no way like he's due for any big raise.

[Stoner]

You're kidding, right? Among the players they're probably not going to bring back are Fitzpatrick and Biron. Numminem is going to undergo heart surgery; is he guaranteed to come back? McKee might receive an outrageous UFA offer. And guys like Peters and Pyatt could be replaced by guys in Rochester.

 

So bringing back 'most' players doesn't sound odd at all.

 

No doubt that the luck he's referring to is staying healthy.

 

And he states that the Sabres 'will continue to play its own brand of up tempo, attack hockey.' Finding players to accomplish this, whether they come from the current roster, Rochester, or FA, is the 'formula for success next year.'

 

Considering that Golisano has brought the Sabres out of almost 10 years of instability and chaos (from Muckler vs. Nolan, to Peca vs. Mgmt, to Rigas indicted, to bankruptcy, to Hammister fiasco) I find it amazing that anyone, especially a Sabres fan, would give Golisano an incomplete grade as an owner.

 

OK, so it's you and me, huh, jad? We're going to be the new feuding couple on here? Gotta do something for board ratings during the slow summer months, I guess. Fine, I'll dance. But I'm wearing the pants in this relationship, I'll tell you that. :)

 

I think the way the comment was framed was off the mark. Of course, even on Cup dynasty teams, only "most" players are brought back -- in other words, you always lose some players for whatever reason. The sentence communicated nothing except doubt, unless that was the intended message ("softening the blow"). I would have written, "We are going to do everything possible to make this team even better next season." That is, if that's the intention.

 

Incomplete is the grade for Golisano, because only now does his tenure as owner really begin, AFAIC (ask Dave about the shorthand). He's on his way to a very good grade, but this offseason will tell a lot. I am a little hesitant to give Goli a lot of credit -- all he has done so far is a buy a franchise for a song, keep payroll low, have one winning season, turn a modest profit and immediately indicate that said profit would be used to offset his losses to date, which contradicts a statement he made not long after buying the team -- that he wasn't all that interested in making a lot of money and that once the Sabres started turning a profit, he would put it back into team (which might very well happen... we just don't know, which is why the grade is incomplete).

 

Yes, I'm a jerk. I want the Sabres to win the Cup. I want to spend someone else's money to see it happen. We were within an eyelash this year, and I don't care if the multibillionaire loses a couple million. He'll sell the team in a few years for a tidy profit. Quit worrying about this guy's bank account!

[jad1]

OK, so it's you and me, huh, jad? We're going to be the new feuding couple on here? Gotta do something for board ratings during the slow summer months, I guess. Fine, I'll dance. But I'm wearing the pants in this relationship, I'll tell you that. :)

 

I think the way the comment was framed was off the mark. Of course, even on Cup dynasty teams, only "most" players are brought back -- in other words, you always lose some players for whatever reason. The sentence communicated nothing except doubt, unless that was the intended message ("softening the blow"). I would have written, "We are going to do everything possible to make this team even better next season." That is, if that's the intention.

 

Incomplete is the grade for Golisano, because only now does his tenure as owner really begin, AFAIC (ask Dave about the shorthand). He's on his way to a very good grade, but this offseason will tell a lot. I am a little hesitant to give Goli a lot of credit -- all he has done so far is a buy a franchise for a song, keep payroll low, have one winning season, turn a modest profit and immediately indicate that said profit would be used to offset his losses to date, which contradicts a statement he made not long after buying the team -- that he wasn't all that interested in making a lot of money and that once the Sabres started turning a profit, he would put it back into team (which might very well happen... we just don't know, which is why the grade is incomplete).

 

Yes, I'm a jerk. I want the Sabres to win the Cup. I want to spend someone else's money to see it happen. We were within an eyelash this year, and I don't care if the multibillionaire loses a couple million. He'll sell the team in a few years for a tidy profit. Quit worrying about this guy's bank account!

 

 

I'd refer to this as a conversation, rather than a feud, but if you're unable to handle disagreement to your points, it could be a feud if that's the case.

 

You're hung up on 'most' of the players being brought back instead of 'all,' and unfairly attribute it to Golisano's unwillingness to spend. Biron could leave to be a #1 goalie. McKee could leave to be a #1 defensemen (he's behind Tallinder right now), Fitzgerald could be released because he not good enough. All those are reasons other than Golisano tighfistedness.

 

As for Golisano's contributions, if you think you can make the point that the Sabres ownership isn't 100% better than it has been over the last 10-15 years, make the point. You're the historian.

 

As an owner he lets the hockey guys make the hockey decisions. He's shown his business acumen by building the season ticket base through clever incentives.

 

Last season, everybody bitched that this team didn't spend money to sign Zhitnik and Satan. Golisano was cheap, right? Turns out those were hockey decisions. Satan was an overpaid primadonna who dogged it 2 out of every 3 games. Zhitnik would have been the 3rd or 4th best defensemen on this team, but paid like the best.

 

So we learned our lesson, right? I guess not, because people are already bitching that if Golisano doesn't break the bank, he's not an owner dedicated to winning the Stanley Cup.

[SCSabresFan!]

This is getting good...

[hopeleslyobvious]

So we learned our lesson, right? I guess not, because people are already bitching that if Golisano doesn't break the bank, he's not an owner dedicated to winning the Stanley Cup.

 

Just ask the Penguins about how that worked out this year ;)

[Stoner]

1. There is a point somewhere between lowballing the payroll and breaking the bank, you know?

 

2. I'm not hung up on the word "most." I just think there had to be a better way of expressing this team's mission statement for the coming season.

 

3. If Jay McKee leaves, it won't be because he got a chance to be a number one defenseman. It will be because he got a chance to make number one defenseman money. And if the heart and soul of the team walks because of money, yes, I think "tightfisted" is the word I would use for Golisano.

 

4. Let me ask you how you liked our ownership situation in 1999 when we had a superstar goaltender getting superstar money, a good supporting cast and a Game 6 overtime in the finals with a chance to force a Game 7? Forget the magic hindsight glasses. Did you like John Rigas in June of 1999?

 

5. I have no problem with Golisano to this point in his tenure. Don't make me out to be an anti-Golite. Like I said, the next year will tell a lot. I respect your admiration and respect for the man, but I disagree with your statement that he lets the hockey guys make the decisions. At face value, it's true, but the hockey guys are saddled with such a financial burden, decisions cannot be hockey decisions strictly. Darcy and company knew the depth on defense could be a huge problem, but what were they going to do? Rub two nickels together and make a wish? What do you think Golisano would have said if Darcy had come to him at the deadline with a deal for a number one defenseman that would have added significant dollars to the payroll?

[SCSabresFan!]

I am putting you both in the box - 2 minutes for fighting!

[BetweenThePipes00]

3. If Jay McKee leaves, it won't be because he got a chance to be a number one defenseman. It will be because he got a chance to make number one defenseman money. And if the heart and soul of the team walks because of money, yes, I think "tightfisted" is the word I would use for Golisano.

 

Pardon my picking and choosing what to argue with, but you made it easy by enumerating your points ... Are you saying that if someone offers Jay McKee #1 defenseman money, say, $5 million/year, that letting him go means the Sabres are too tightfisted? I'm asking, because that would mean the guy would be making 66% more than ANYONE ON THE TEAM. Honestly, even if someone offers McKee just $3.1 million, half of what a #1 like Pronger makes, it makes him the team's highest-paid player. It just doesn't make sense. I love Jay McKee, but the system that will probably cost us Jay McKee is allowing us to have a team. It's like when the Colts gave Will Wolford more money than the Bills were paying Kelly and Thurman ... at some point doesn't it become about the player's true worth to your team? I understand guys are going to get raises, but on this team, with young guys like Miller and Briere up for raises and long-term extensions in the next year or two, paying a defensive defensman like McKee too much is opening the door for your stars to expect $6 and $7 million. And if they start doing that for too many guys, they start losing money again. Does that mean we will probably be the Oakland A's of hockey and end up dealing guys as they start to get to expensive? Maybe.

 

All we can truly ask for is that he spend what he makes on the team ... if he makes a $10 or $15 million profit a couple years in a row and shows no signs of investing to win, I will agree with you 100 percent. Right now he made a small profit only because they made a big-time run for which you really cannot budget. I don't want him overpaying and hearing about how they have to win 2 playoff rounds to break even and then if they don't they have to pull a Florida Marlins and have a salary dump.

 

We'll see what happens. I'm not saying I am going to like it. I'm just saying that reality dictates that the Sabres are always going to have less money to play with than some other teams. Tightfisted is when you have money and will not spend it. I don't think that is what is going on here. And please don't tell me he is a billionaire, the guy has lost millions already and has gone above and beyond the call of duty. When he starts hording money made off the Sabres, then we can complain, but he has hardly done that.

[Stoner]

jad is the one who speculated that McKee could be a number one defenseman. Then again, I speculated that McKee could be offered number one money. We're both probably exaggerating. If he's offered a boatload of money, of course we're out of the McKee derby. I'm guessing it's not going to be that clear cut. No one really can predict how it's going to shake out.

 

It's funny how I was criticized for being Mr. Objectivity in the Canes "hate threads," for not acting like an illogical fan. Yet, when we talk about our own team, here I am being an illogical fan and seemingly everyone else is Dr. Spock.

 

Can't we all just hold hands and say it together -- SIGN JAY MCKEE!

 

Think like a fan, not a comptroller.

[nfreeman]

Holy mackarel. I think my brain is going to explode. Maybe I just don't think I can make it until October.

 

Anyway, does anyone know when the first day we can sign McKee is? And when the first day is that he can sign with another team? And if the dates are different for the RFAs?

 

And whether we would've beaten Edmonton?

 

[Answer: with Connolly and 2 of the injured d-men, abso-effing-lutely.]

 

Go Sabres.

[jad1]

1. Who has Golisano lowballed? In hindsight, it looks like the moves made under Golisano have come from an assessment on how players fit into the Sabres scheme, rather than attempting to drive bargains.

 

2. The team's mission statement is to a play an up-tempo, attacking style of hockey. Signing 'most' of the current players is one way of accomplishing that. It's not the mission statement itself.

 

3. McKee will leave because of money and opportunity. He's not the #1 defenseman on the Sabres, Tallinder is, who is also due for a raise. It's likely that there will be a team in the league who will offer him $4 million to be their #1 (Florida, Rangers, Wild, Bruins could be wild cards in the McKee negotiations).

 

4. On the surface, Rigas was a great owner. But behind the scenes he was participating in activites that almost killed the franchise. Also, his business model was unsustainable, which caused the massive rebuilding project that resulted in successive non-playoff seasons. Golisano appears to have a much better financial footing than Rigas, and is following a much better buisness model, while achieving similar results.

 

5. Completely disagree with your assesment here. Satan was a hockey decision, as the players resented his lax approach to the game. Zhitnik wouldn't have been a top three defenseman on the roster, yet he would have been paid as a #1, and would have been paid more than Drury. Again, a situation that could mess with the chemistry of the team.

 

And enough about the defensemen trades. Tallinder proved that he was a #1 defenseman in the playoffs. It would have been hard for Darcy to trade for a #1 defenseman who would have scored key goals and been +14 in the playoffs. Teamed with Tallinder, Lydman was also +14. McKee was locked into the rotation, as was Numminen.

 

There was no need to go after a #1 defenseman. Now if Darcy had a good psychic who could foretell that the Sabres would lose an unprecedented 4 defensemen over two series, I would agree that he should have made a deal.

 

A lot of people argue that Fitzpatrick was a poor #7 d-man, and Regier should have made a deal. But the Sabres won playoff games with Fitzpatrick playing the #6, and #5 spots. In my mind, that indicates he was a good #7. With Janik and Paetch in the pipeline, ready to take over for Rory next year, there was no real need to make a trade for a #7, unless, again, Darcy could have predicted the future.

 

So the decision not to persue a defenseman at the trade deadline, in my mind, was a hockey one, not one driven by money. They like the guys they had, in Buffalo and Rochester, and saw no need to waste the draft picks on a deal.

 

 

1. There is a point somewhere between lowballing the payroll and breaking the bank, you know?

 

2. I'm not hung up on the word "most." I just think there had to be a better way of expressing this team's mission statement for the coming season.

 

3. If Jay McKee leaves, it won't be because he got a chance to be a number one defenseman. It will be because he got a chance to make number one defenseman money. And if the heart and soul of the team walks because of money, yes, I think "tightfisted" is the word I would use for Golisano.

 

4. Let me ask you how you liked our ownership situation in 1999 when we had a superstar goaltender getting superstar money, a good supporting cast and a Game 6 overtime in the finals with a chance to force a Game 7? Forget the magic hindsight glasses. Did you like John Rigas in June of 1999?

 

5. I have no problem with Golisano to this point in his tenure. Don't make me out to be an anti-Golite. Like I said, the next year will tell a lot. I respect your admiration and respect for the man, but I disagree with your statement that he lets the hockey guys make the decisions. At face value, it's true, but the hockey guys are saddled with such a financial burden, decisions cannot be hockey decisions strictly. Darcy and company knew the depth on defense could be a huge problem, but what were they going to do? Rub two nickels together and make a wish? What do you think Golisano would have said if Darcy had come to him at the deadline with a deal for a number one defenseman that would have added significant dollars to the payroll?

[Bmwolf21]

Pardon my picking and choosing what to argue with, but you made it easy by enumerating your points ... Are you saying that if someone offers Jay McKee #1 defenseman money, say, $5 million/year, that letting him go means the Sabres are too tightfisted? I'm asking, because that would mean the guy would be making 66% more than ANYONE ON THE TEAM. Honestly, even if someone offers McKee just $3.1 million, half of what a #1 like Pronger makes, it makes him the team's highest-paid player. It just doesn't make sense. I love Jay McKee, but the system that will probably cost us Jay McKee is allowing us to have a team. It's like when the Colts gave Will Wolford more money than the Bills were paying Kelly and Thurman ... at some point doesn't it become about the player's true worth to your team? I understand guys are going to get raises, but on this team, with young guys like Miller and Briere up for raises and long-term extensions in the next year or two, paying a defensive defensman like McKee too much is opening the door for your stars to expect $6 and $7 million. And if they start doing that for too many guys, they start losing money again. Does that mean we will probably be the Oakland A's of hockey and end up dealing guys as they start to get to expensive? Maybe.

 

All we can truly ask for is that he spend what he makes on the team ... if he makes a $10 or $15 million profit a couple years in a row and shows no signs of investing to win, I will agree with you 100 percent. Right now he made a small profit only because they made a big-time run for which you really cannot budget. I don't want him overpaying and hearing about how they have to win 2 playoff rounds to break even and then if they don't they have to pull a Florida Marlins and have a salary dump.

 

We'll see what happens. I'm not saying I am going to like it. I'm just saying that reality dictates that the Sabres are always going to have less money to play with than some other teams. Tightfisted is when you have money and will not spend it. I don't think that is what is going on here. And please don't tell me he is a billionaire, the guy has lost millions already and has gone above and beyond the call of duty. When he starts hording money made off the Sabres, then we can complain, but he has hardly done that.

 

 

1. Who has Golisano lowballed? In hindsight, it looks like the moves made under Golisano have come from an assessment on how players fit into the Sabres scheme, rather than attempting to drive bargains.

 

2. The team's mission statement is to a play an up-tempo, attacking style of hockey. Signing 'most' of the current players is one way of accomplishing that. It's not the mission statement itself.

 

3. McKee will leave because of money and opportunity. He's not the #1 defenseman on the Sabres, Tallinder is, who is also due for a raise. It's likely that there will be a team in the league who will offer him $4 million to be their #1 (Florida, Rangers, Wild, Bruins could be wild cards in the McKee negotiations).

 

4. On the surface, Rigas was a great owner. But behind the scenes he was participating in activites that almost killed the franchise. Also, his business model was unsustainable, which caused the massive rebuilding project that resulted in successive non-playoff seasons. Golisano appears to have a much better financial footing than Rigas, and is following a much better buisness model, while achieving similar results.

 

5. Completely disagree with your assesment here. Satan was a hockey decision, as the players resented his lax approach to the game. Zhitnik wouldn't have been a top three defenseman on the roster, yet he would have been paid as a #1, and would have been paid more than Drury. Again, a situation that could mess with the chemistry of the team.

 

And enough about the defensemen trades. Tallinder proved that he was a #1 defenseman in the playoffs. It would have been hard for Darcy to trade for a #1 defenseman who would have scored key goals and been +14 in the playoffs. Teamed with Tallinder, Lydman was also +14. McKee was locked into the rotation, as was Numminen.

 

There was no need to go after a #1 defenseman. Now if Darcy had a good psychic who could foretell that the Sabres would lose an unprecedented 4 defensemen over two series, I would agree that he should have made a deal.

 

A lot of people argue that Fitzpatrick was a poor #7 d-man, and Regier should have made a deal. But the Sabres won playoff games with Fitzpatrick playing the #6, and #5 spots. In my mind, that indicates he was a good #7. With Janik and Paetch in the pipeline, ready to take over for Rory next year, there was no real need to make a trade for a #7, unless, again, Darcy could have predicted the future.

 

So the decision not to persue a defenseman at the trade deadline, in my mind, was a hockey one, not one driven by money. They like the guys they had, in Buffalo and Rochester, and saw no need to waste the draft picks on a deal.

 

Two real good posts here - I'm not sure there's much I can add to this - and I don't want to risk being be the 3rd man in and getting a game misconduct... :D

[SCSabresFan!]

Two real good posts here - I'm not sure there's much I can add to this - and I don't want to risk being be the 3rd man in and getting a game misconduct... :D

 

Or a 5 minute major!

[Stoner]

jad, I didn't say the Sabres lowballed any player specifically. I said the payroll was lowballed. "Here's 29 million, Darce, now make it work." We're asking for a miracle out of the front office every year. Again, I am not advocating spending like a drunken sailor. Just that Darcy be given some room to breath. And that very well might be given him this offseason. We'll see. That's why the grade is incomplete.

 

I disagree that no one could have foreseen the injuries. I myself predicted it. When we started getting players back at various points late in the season, and everyone breathed a sigh of relief, I warned that this seemed like one of those years where they would just keep piling up. Why would the playoffs be any different? Part of the problem is that once a player has suffered a significant injury, he's more prone to be injured again. Who can say Connolly's knee injury didn't play a small part in his inability to get out of the way of that monster hit in Ottawa? Kalinin, too, had had injury problems in the regular season. As for Numminen's issues, at his age and with his history, it wasn't that surprising he didn't finish the season.

 

Darcy should have been thinking Cup with the team we had, and he should have known the grind that winning it represents. There's no way that hockey brain wasn't nervous about Rory Fitzpatrick being our depth at defense.

 

Sorry, maybe you buy the company line, but I sure don't.

 

You make great points and defend your position well. I know I'm getting killed in this debate. I'm just frustrated that the Sabres philosophy is that you try to make money by restricting investment in the product. It worked this year. Not to be a nervous nellie, but what if we're one of those "one spring" wonders? Teams make runs to the conference finals and are never heard from again. Then you weaken your defense, lose some grit in Grier and Pyatt, maybe play hardball with Briere or Afinogenov and they hold out, and don't add much to the mix -- and you finish .500 next year and out of the playoffs. What does that do to the bottom line?

 

I know I'm just thinking as a fan, but this seems like one of those situations where the owner with the deep pockets takes a run at it. We were that close, and I think we are potentially that good next year, if we keep this team intact and add a piece or two to it.

 

(Here's another good academic debate to have -- why does everyone think getting rid of Martin Biron is the sensible thing to do? Because of the dollars, sure. But what happens in December when Ryan Miller gets Rolosoned and blows out his knee? We're going to get rid of Biron and sign some cheap scrub to back up Miller, and most of you are going to very happy about that, because it saved us some money.)

[hopeleslyobvious]

Who can say Connolly's knee injury didn't play a small part in his inability to get out of the way of that monster hit in Ottawa?

 

Thanks PA, I needed a good laugh this morning. :lol:

[Stoner]

It wasn't hysterical enough when you watched yourself piss this morning?

 

Connolly tried to veer away from the hit, but he just buckled. I'm not saying the knee injury is why he got hurt, just pointing out the possible domino effect of injuries. These guys are human beings, not machines. Oh yeah, an even better illustration of the domino effect would be Connolly's previous concussion. Only a guy with mashed potatoes for brains would have cut to the middle like that!

[BetweenThePipes00]

I'm just frustrated that the Sabres philosophy is that you try to make money by restricting investment in the product. It worked this year. Not to be a nervous nellie, but what if we're one of those "one spring" wonders? Teams make runs to the conference finals and are never heard from again. Then you weaken your defense, lose some grit in Grier and Pyatt, maybe play hardball with Briere or Afinogenov and they hold out, and don't add much to the mix -- and you finish .500 next year and out of the playoffs. What does that do to the bottom line?

You're probably going to be frustrated for a long time then, because you seem to be saying they should invest more than they have. You acknowledge that they may be a one-spring wonder, and yet you want them to spend money they do not have and only will have if they make a very deep run every year. they are a small market team which means a balancing act. All it takes is one big mistake like the Pens made with Gonchar and the whole thing gets thrown out of whack. We're probably never going to go into a season thinking "Wow, this team can't really get better ANYWHERE, they are loaded for a Cup run!" Again, not saying that I like it, but don't blame management, they are playing the hand they are dealt, and their hand has lower cards than most of the opponents when it comes to TV revenue and even ticket revenue if they want to keep prices affordable for fans.

 

(Here's another good academic debate to have -- why does everyone think getting rid of Martin Biron is the sensible thing to do? Because of the dollars, sure. But what happens in December when Ryan Miller gets Rolosoned and blows out his knee? We're going to get rid of Biron and sign some cheap scrub to back up Miller, and most of you are going to very happy about that, because it saved us some money.)

I don't think anyone wants to get rid of Biron, but they can't pay him 4 times more than Miller again either. There is a middle ground between a $2million backup and "some cheap scrub" ... let's give them a chance to find that guy before we assume Leighton or his equivilent is the backup next season.