BuffalOhio Posted June 19, 2006 Report Posted June 19, 2006 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! I just don't think he saw Schaefer coming, because Schaefer came from the backcheck. When Tim was skating up the ice, Schaefer was at about 4 o'clock. Also, he was screened a little by Kotalik, who cut across Tim from right to left, leaving Tim no ability to see Schaefer coming. He was flying, so I don't really think his knees had anything to do with it. I just don' t know why guys try to avoid hits like this. If it's coming, it's coming, and if that's the case, to hell with the puck, just blast the guy coming at you and take your penalty. I'd have rather seen Tim get an elbowing penalty than what resulted from trying to avoid it.
X. Benedict Posted June 19, 2006 Report Posted June 19, 2006 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! Connolly had been making cuts to the middle like that all year to lead the transition rush. It was a matter of time.
Stoner Posted June 19, 2006 Report Posted June 19, 2006 BTP, it might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but there's a big difference between saying a team "may" be a one-spring wonder and asking "what if" they are. I don't think they were a fluke this season, but it's tough to ask a general manager to make a run at the Cup every year on a shoestring budget. I wouldn't ask Golisano to invest money he doesn't have. He has it! This whole discussion is premature, actually. When we find out what Darcy has to work with, I might very well be sitting here praising Tom. If payroll increases 15-20%, I will not complain. I will agree with all that the Sabres must do a very tenuous balancing act. It just seems like the teeter totter is always weighed making a profit by limiting expenses rather than generating more revenue. Even now, after having such a great season, ticket prices are not going up, which doesn't make a lot of sense. I know, I know, no one Buffalo has a pot to piss in, but wasn't it amazing how the 100 dollar bills flowed over the Falls in May and June? More than anything, it's the perennial poor-mouthing that gets on my nerves. Go win the goddamned Cup and let's solve the problem!
hopeleslyobvious Posted June 19, 2006 Report Posted June 19, 2006 It wasn't hysterical enough when you watched yourself piss this morning? PA I'm disappointed. You had an hour and 15 minutes and that's the best you could come up with. By the way, just while I am thinking about it (And I am not accusing anyone of anything until I know the answer) how many home games did you attend this year? Seems to me, the more games everyone attends, the more money the team has to spend on free agents. By the way, with your knack for spending other people's money, you might want to consider a career in politics.
Stoner Posted June 19, 2006 Report Posted June 19, 2006 I am offended and take great umbrage, whatever that is, to your comment! A politician! I attended no games. What are you going to accuse me of?
hopeleslyobvious Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 I am offended and take great umbrage, whatever that is, to your comment! A politician! I attended no games. What are you going to accuse me of? Just a thought that someone who attended no games can't complain as much about Golisano not spending money on the team. More people in the seats=more revenue=more profit=more players.
Stoner Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 Fans who attend games get to complain more about ownership than fans who don't? That's dumber than... than... than my little wee-wee joke from before. And, wow, that's saying a lot. Big head over little head, hopeles.
hopeleslyobvious Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 Fans who attend games get to complain more about ownership than fans who don't? That's dumber than... than... than my little wee-wee joke from before. And, wow, that's saying a lot. Big head over little head, hopeles. PA, the point being if the team made more money they would have more money to spend. If they sold more tickets, they would have more money. Since you didn't go to any home games, you're in less of a position to complain than say a season ticket holder who drops thousands of hard earned dollars every year. You've made crazier arguments than that in the past.
Stoner Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree with it. However you earn the title of "fan" -- and I don't necessarily think it has anything to do with attendance at games -- once you earn it, you have the full rights and privileges as anyone else in the club. I would be interested in hearing what others have to say about this.
nfreeman Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree with it. However you earn the title of "fan" -- and I don't necessarily think it has anything to do with attendance at games -- once you earn it, you have the full rights and privileges as anyone else in the club. I would be interested in hearing what others have to say about this. You're entitled to criticize as much as anyone else. Having said that, I completely disagree with the whole "he's got money, he should spend it even if it means the team loses money so we fans can win a cup" theory. It's unrealistic and represents the road to ruin and losing the team. I'd rather be in the hunt every year with a stable, solid franchise, than blow up the budget in a desperation one-and-done shot at winning a cup. And it will be one-and-done. If our payroll puts us in a position where we are losing $6 million or more per year, guess what happens? We either (i) lose the team or (ii) start dumping salaries, which destroys morale and lands us on the golf course early in the spring. None of the NHL's final 4 teams this year had high payrolls. Yes, I want to keep McKee and Grier and Dumont and sign Chara and a veteran sniper too, but it's not gonna happen. It also doesn't matter that much. If it did, Detroit and the Rangers would win the cup every year. If Miller improves just a little bit next year (ie is as strong in the playoffs as during the regular season) and the rest of the young guys continue to grow and improve, we will win the cup with this team. More importantly, it doesn't mean TG is being a cheapskate. The man spent a ton of money to save something precious to us, lost a ton of money in the 1st couple of years, made good decisions that led to an unforgettable season, finally got into the black this year, and now he's a cheapskate if he doesn't decide to start losing money again?? No. The right answer isn't to make the wealthy spend their money because they can afford it. That approach ALWAYS results in the wealthy fleeing the area -- which, BTW, is slowly but surely destroying the city of Buffalo. The right answer is to make prudent decisions, stay within the budget and get the right guys on the ice. We've got everything or almost everything we need. We're going to lose McKee and probably Grier or Dumont. This will enable us to keep Miller, Briere, Connolly, etc. Other guys will step up and perhaps a value free agent or 2 will join. The overall approach will keep us in the upper echelon of the league for a long time -- not just next year. Go Sabres.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 The man spent a ton of money to save something precious to us, lost a ton of money in the 1st couple of years, made good decisions that led to an unforgettable season, finally got into the black this year, and now he's a cheapskate if he doesn't decide to start losing money again?? Exactly ... we have to stop thinking about the money Golisano has and think about the money the SABRES have ... when he starts making millions without investing in the team, like Wirtz in Chicago, then we can complain ...
Stoner Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 Again, my position is being distorted. I don't want to spend like a drunken sailor and mortgage the future of the franchise. But there's a point between doing that and spending $29 million. Actually, I am heartened by comments in the News today by Darcy Regier. "I have a sense (the payroll) is going to move up a few million dollars," Regier said. "Whether it's four, five, six . . . I don't have an exact number. We'll get into some hard numbers before the end of the month as to where we're going to go, but [Golisano and Quinn] realize that it has to go up." If it's on the high end of that range, no one, yours truly included, should be complaining. I HAVE offered some questions to think about, including whether investing more in the team can actually improve the bottom line. And whether it's fair to ask Golisano to take "a run" at it if the hockey department comes to him and says it can get a player to put us over the top. I would also question your statement that the Sabres can stay in the top echelon of teams for a "long time" taking the approach they do to payroll. I think that is highly debatable. Speaking of Connolly, is there any guarantee he will be back? That situation just adds to the complicated summer for Regier. Finally, reading between the lines and knowing DarcySpeak the way we do, his comments on Biron are very interesting. Remember how we weren't going to go into last season with a three headed goaltender monster? No one should be surprised if Biron is still a Sabre come October.
apuszczalowski Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 I actually agree with PASabrefan on this. TG and Darcy have to ssit down and make sure they do everything they can to make sure this team stays in the hunt for many years. If they start eltting players go because they are trying to stick to a very tight budget, the team will suffer and the fans won't come back causing more of a loss in money for TG. They can't expect to let some veterans (like McKee and Grier) walk so they can save a few bucks by bring in another rookie to take their spot and expect not to lose a step. They don't have to spend to the cap, or even close to it, but they need to spend enough to keep this team together and fix the problem areas from last year to make sure they stay at the top of the league. Sure a few players may leave due to FA and a trade or 2, but a valuable replacement will need to be found for them, not just bring up a replacement from Rochester and hope he plays up to the guy he's replacing's level. To believe that this team can make a run at the cup operating on a tight Salary floor pay level is crazy, and it will not win any cups for Buffalo anytime soon.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 What you guys are missing is that they ARE going to spend more money ... and yet NO, they are not going to be able to sign expensive free agents. and in some cases, that will include our own free agents like McKee. I'm not advocating going bare bones like they did this past season every year. But to keep this core together, it is going to get more expensive. The core of this team that they need to keep together ... Miller, Drury, Briere, Tallinder, Campbell, Kalinin, Vanek, Roy, Hecht, Connolly (if healthy) ... give or take an Afinogenov, Kotalik or Pominville ... is young and improving ... if they all sucked and management refused to pay to get better, again, I'm right there with you. I will say this ... I would also like to see them make a move at the deadline next season if necessary. I really don't think it was a money issue that kept them from doing it this season, i think they were just stubborn about thinking they were good enough. Lesson learned ... I hope.
X. Benedict Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 Again, my position is being distorted. I don't want to spend like a drunken sailor There you go again. Disparaging the drunken sailor. It is possible to be a drunken sailor and fiscally frugal you know. :D
apuszczalowski Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 What you guys are missing is that they ARE going to spend more money ... and yet NO, they are not going to be able to sign expensive free agents. and in some cases, that will include our own free agents like McKee. I'm not advocating going bare bones like they did this past season every year. But to keep this core together, it is going to get more expensive. So your saying that McKee (who wore the A this year on his jersey) is not a core member of this team? We are talking about a defencemen that we could probably resign for 3 mil a year. Thats not an expensive free agent. We aren't talking about going out and signing Chara for 8 million. We are talking about 3-4 million for one of our top defencemen. I don't like how this team is heading, it seems to me they are going to play the were to poor and have to rely on rookies to replace our FA's every year. If they can't afford to resign key players to their team at reasonable contracts, this team is in serious trouble and will not be bringing home a championship anytime soon
BetweenThePipes00 Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 So your saying that McKee (who wore the A this year on his jersey) is not a core member of this team? We are talking about a defencemen that we could probably resign for 3 mil a year. Thats not an expensive free agent. We aren't talking about going out and signing Chara for 8 million. We are talking about 3-4 million for one of our top defencemen. I don't like how this team is heading, it seems to me they are going to play the were to poor and have to rely on rookies to replace our FA's every year. If they can't afford to resign key players to their team at reasonable contracts, this team is in serious trouble and will not be bringing home a championship anytime soon Of course McKee was a core member of the team ... but you are suggesting he should be the HIGHEST PAID PLAYER ON THE TEAM. And when that happens, and Miller deserves more than him, as does Briere, as does Tallinder (who IS the better defenseman, agreed?), etc etc etc ... well then things get ugly and you will be complaining about how we lost one of them and wasted $4million on McKee. They CAN'T keep everyone forever. I love Jay McKee and will be sad if he leaves, but I also know in my head (not my heart) that they have to pick their spots to spend money, and they are better off spending it to keep Miller, Briere, Tallinder, Campbell, etc. around for years.
nfreeman Posted June 20, 2006 Report Posted June 20, 2006 Of course McKee was a core member of the team ... but you are suggesting he should be the HIGHEST PAID PLAYER ON THE TEAM. And when that happens, and Miller deserves more than him, as does Briere, as does Tallinder (who IS the better defenseman, agreed?), etc etc etc ... well then things get ugly and you will be complaining about how we lost one of them and wasted $4million on McKee. They CAN'T keep everyone forever. I love Jay McKee and will be sad if he leaves, but I also know in my head (not my heart) that they have to pick their spots to spend money, and they are better off spending it to keep Miller, Briere, Tallinder, Campbell, etc. around for years. Exactly. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend that giving McKee $4 million per year wouldn't have ripple effects -- esp. at the same time as virtually ALL of our best players need new contracts.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.