Jaroslav Spacek a Sabre

[Taro T]

I was being sarcastic, I had hoped that the "Duh" would have led you to realize that. :P

 

You would have had to sit someone though for Spacek. Who was it going to be? And how would you sit this person without making the players question management?

Which D-man to sit if Spacek comes in? The 1st choice would be Rory (assuming he was in replacing the injury-du-jour). Based on his performance at the time and the fact he was still recovering from injuries, Kalinin would have been my 1st choice of the top 7. I also, if all top 7 were healthy, would have given Teppo a day off here or there. If Kalinin were picking up his game to the level it was in the playoffs, and all were healthy, and I wanted to have Teppo in; I'd have sat Campbell as Spacek could easily replace his pp production. We even could have given Jay A night off as long as it was presented to him as a reward/break not a punishment.

 

I would sit whichever player it was simply because on that particular night he wasn't one of my top 6 (Teppo and Jay being the obvious exceptions). The Sabres had more than 12 forwards when healthy that deserved to play, Lindy figured that one out pretty well. I trust that he'd do the same with the D.

 

Also, remember, the cries for the extra d-man died down some when it bacame obvious that the Sabres injury bug was something out of the Twilight Zone. But people weren't real happy when Rory started seeing ice time. Had the Sabres picked up Spacek, Rory wouldn't have hit the ice nearly as much (and Jillson not at all). It was almost a given that the Sabres would suffer A injury on D during the stretch run / post season, so deciding which guy to sit really wouldn't have been too much of an issue. And it would have been nice for the Sabres (in the midst of a pretty legitimate SC run) to have 1 extra true NHL-level D-man. They would have been the ONLY team in the league with at least 1 spare NHL quality player at goalie, forward, and D.

[nfreeman]

Thanks for the newsflash. <_<

 

He was definitely available in January and rumored to be available again at the trade deadline. DUH!!

 

He was obtained in January for a 25 year old prospect winger playing in Finland. Gee, the Sabres didn't have too many prospect wingers in the system at the time. I'm certain they couldn't have beat that offer. /sarcasm

 

He was then (supposedly) being offered for Marty Biron at the deadline prior to Edmonton picking up Roloson. Again, I'm certain that the Sabres couldn't have possibly hoped to pull that deal off either. Also, it would have been tragic for the Sabres to have a ~$700k backup heading into this season vs. a $2MM+ backup. /sarcasm

Salmaleinen had scored 46 pts in the AHL in '04-'05. He went back to Finland and was ~a point / game player there. I think with the glut of forwards the Sabres have in the system, they could have parted with 1 of similar or better quality and not messed up the team's future too badly (or at all).

 

I'm not holding a run of 4 lost D-men and the team's most creative center on Darcy. No one could have forseen that. I am however not happy that Darcy didn't expect to have 2 injured D-men out at the same time based on the team's injury problems this season and Teppo's age. Especially when you consider that a guy with Spacek's ability was available for (IMHO) a very reasonable price, I wanted to see the Sabres bring him in last season. Unfortunately, that is water under the bridge, and on the plus side, they brought him in for this season.

 

As always, thanks for a very informative response. As for Marty, I can't give much credence to the reports that Edmonton would've given him to us for Biron, unless Kevin Lowe, Darcy or someone else with similar knowledge and standing is quoted for attribution on that. There's just too much BS floating around the internet.

 

As to whether we could've traded an equal or better prospect to Chicago compared with what they got from Edmonton -- that would've been pretty nice. I totally agree that Lindy would've made it work just fine. It wouldn't have cost that much, either -- only about half a season's salary for a guy making $2.25 million for the year.

 

Of course, we don't know whether Chicago had its heart set on Salmaleinen and thus it would've cost too much for us to top that offer, whether Chicago's GM owed Lowe something from a previous deal, etc. It's also certainly possible that Chicago's GM spoke with Lowe, liked the offer he got from Lowe and pulled the trigger without shopping around. Since Darcy tried hard to sign Spacek before last year, I have to believe that he would have known if Chicago was shopping him -- so I don't think Darcy was just asleep at the switch.

 

So, if Darcy had a chance to offer an expendable prospect to Chicago for Spacek, and if he passed -- then yes, I'd be disappointed in Darcy for that. But given how much cash we just laid out for Spacek, I have to believe Darcy would have traded a good forward prospect for him. I just don't think we know enough to conclude that Darcy dropped the ball on this one.

 

All water under the bridge now anyway.

[Chilly]

Which D-man to sit if Spacek comes in? The 1st choice would be Rory (assuming he was in replacing the injury-du-jour). Based on his performance at the time and the fact he was still recovering from injuries, Kalinin would have been my 1st choice of the top 7. I also, if all top 7 were healthy, would have given Teppo a day off here or there. If Kalinin were picking up his game to the level it was in the playoffs, and all were healthy, and I wanted to have Teppo in; I'd have sat Campbell as Spacek could easily replace his pp production. We even could have given Jay A night off as long as it was presented to him as a reward/break not a punishment.

 

I would sit whichever player it was simply because on that particular night he wasn't one of my top 6 (Teppo and Jay being the obvious exceptions). The Sabres had more than 12 forwards when healthy that deserved to play, Lindy figured that one out pretty well. I trust that he'd do the same with the D.

 

Interesting thoughts, but I do disagree. I think by the time the playoffs come around, you gotta find your pairings and stick with em (unless the injury bug bites, which no one could have predicted with 4 dmen). Same for the forwards, and I think we did that for the most part during the playoffs and leading up to it.

 

I also don't think saying to the players that they could lose their job because of injury is a beneficial thing to do either. Also, at the deadline there isn't a lot of time to figure out how a player would effect the lockerroom, something that Darcy seems meticulous about during the off-season, and a reason I think he shys away from trades during the season.

 

Sucks that the injury bug bit us, but there were plenty of reasons not to pull the trigger back then. The other thing I wonder is if management really had a lot of trust in Noronen. I think that also probably played a part in Biron not being traded.

 

Also, remember, the cries for the extra d-man died down some when it bacame obvious that the Sabres injury bug was something out of the Twilight Zone. But people weren't real happy when Rory started seeing ice time. Had the Sabres picked up Spacek, Rory wouldn't have hit the ice nearly as much (and Jillson not at all). It was almost a given that the Sabres would suffer A injury on D during the stretch run / post season, so deciding which guy to sit really wouldn't have been too much of an issue. And it would have been nice for the Sabres (in the midst of a pretty legitimate SC run) to have 1 extra true NHL-level D-man. They would have been the ONLY team in the league with at least 1 spare NHL quality player at goalie, forward, and D.

 

Yeah, and there is a reason besides the salary cap that it is avoided. Players like to play, bumping anyone down from a starting role on defense would make them disgruntled with the team.

 

I never have liked Rory, and would have rather seen a younger guy come up first, esp with the makeup of this team. The luxuries are nice, but at what cost?

[Taro T]

Interesting thoughts, but I do disagree. I think by the time the playoffs come around, you gotta find your pairings and stick with em (unless the injury bug bites, which no one could have predicted with 4 dmen). Same for the forwards, and I think we did that for the most part during the playoffs and leading up to it.

 

I also don't think saying to the players that they could lose their job because of injury is a beneficial thing to do either. Also, at the deadline there isn't a lot of time to figure out how a player would effect the lockerroom, something that Darcy seems meticulous about during the off-season, and a reason I think he shys away from trades during the season.

 

Sucks that the injury bug bit us, but there were plenty of reasons not to pull the trigger back then. The other thing I wonder is if management really had a lot of trust in Noronen. I think that also probably played a part in Biron not being traded.

Yeah, and there is a reason besides the salary cap that it is avoided. Players like to play, bumping anyone down from a starting role on defense would make them disgruntled with the team.

 

I never have liked Rory, and would have rather seen a younger guy come up first, esp with the makeup of this team. The luxuries are nice, but at what cost?

I don't quite understand your comment about finding pairings and sticking with them. Are you saying the team should not have brought in an upgrade at D because it might take a few games to figure out which defensive pairings would work? Or are you referring to my suggestion that when all were healthy Teppo could have been spelled a few games?

 

You totally lost me with the comment about guys losing their job due to injury. I was not advocating telling players they could lose their job due to injury. I was advocating telling guys (either Kalinin or Soupy) that they could lose their job because there was someone available that was (and is) a better player. Which is the model that the Sabres used this season at forward and goaltender. Technically, they did that at D as well, as Rory had been a top 6 guy prior to the lockout.

 

Fitzpatrick played 9 games out of the 21 played after the trade deadline in the regular season. The Sabres did have injuries after the trade deadline. You would have had your top 5 healthy guys (prior to the trade deadline) playing in almost 50% of the games even with Spacek on the roster.

 

If your response was regarding Kalinin being my choice to sit, notice that the 1st reason I gave for choosing him was "(b)ased on his performance at the time". The chance to give him more time to heal was simply a bonus to sitting him, it was not the primary reason.

 

As for Darcy not vetting Spacek properly in mid-season, that's not an issue as Darcy at minimum explored the possibility of signing him as an UFA prior to the season and I believe made him an offer (I can't confirm that). (EDIT: The Edmonton Journal article quoted further up in this thread had a quote from Spacek's agent stating that Chicago and Buffalo were the finalists in bidding for Spacek's services last off-season. So I guess I CAN confirm that after all. ;) )

 

The trust factor concerning Mika could have been (and in fact, probably was) a factor in the decision to keep Marty rather than get another D-man. It doesn't change the fact that the team would have been better with Spacek. It also doesn't change my long held belief that Mika has more long term upside than Marty does.

 

The cost would have been insignificant $ wise as Spacek made roughly what Marty made. The team also would have kept Mika rather than Marty, which was a non-factor come playoff time and would have been a benefit this season. I personally don't see introducing competition as a bad thing, but you appear to put a higher cost to that than I do (in terms of causing a player to be "disgruntled"). I think overall, the cost was very reasonable.

 

I think it's pretty obvious that we will not agree on this issue, so I am at the point of agreeing to disagree.

[jad1]

 

The cost would have been insignificant $ wise as Spacek made roughly what Marty made. The team also would have kept Mika rather than Marty, which was a non-factor come playoff time and would have been a benefit this season. I personally don't see introducing competition as a bad thing, but you appear to put a higher cost to that than I do (in terms of causing a player to be "disgruntled"). I think overall, the cost was very reasonable.

 

I think it's pretty obvious that we will not agree on this issue, so I am at the point of agreeing to disagree.

 

Actually I think Regier took a look at the lineup at the trade deadline and decided to protect the goaltending position rather than the defense.

 

Considering that Miller had been injured for a significant amount of time, and that he was a rookie, Regier decided keeping a 20 game winner was the better option than keeping the guy who played in 3 games.

 

The Sabres were 7-5 with Fitzpatrick in the lineup during the playoffs. Would they have won 7 games with Mika in the net if they had to sit Miller?

 

Who knows, but I think Darcy had more confidence with Fitzpatrick as the 5th or 6th defenseman in the playoffs than Mika as the starting goalie, and that's why no Biron trade was made.

[Chilly]

I don't quite understand your comment about finding pairings and sticking with them. Are you saying the team should not have brought in an upgrade at D because it might take a few games to figure out which defensive pairings would work? Or are you referring to my suggestion that when all were healthy Teppo could have been spelled a few games?

 

I was more or less talking about sitting different guys here and there. I think I misunderstood you, because from what you posted, I got the impression that you'd be sitting different guys to give them rest/what not.

 

What you posted makes more sense.

 

You totally lost me with the comment about guys losing their job due to injury. I was not advocating telling players they could lose their job due to injury. I was advocating telling guys (either Kalinin or Soupy) that they could lose their job because there was someone available that was (and is) a better player. Which is the model that the Sabres used this season at forward and goaltender. Technically, they did that at D as well, as Rory had been a top 6 guy prior to the lockout.

 

Oh I agree with you there, I didn't think you were advocating that, but rather as that is how the players would have perceived it, which I think Kalinin might have, thats what I was trying to get at.

 

As for Darcy not vetting Spacek properly in mid-season, that's not an issue as Darcy at minimum explored the possibility of signing him as an UFA prior to the season and I believe made him an offer (I can't confirm that).

 

Interesting, didn't know that. If so, it throws a lot of what I was thinking down the tubes.

 

The trust factor concerning Mika could have been (and in fact, probably was) a factor in the decision to keep Marty rather than get another D-man. It doesn't change the fact that the team would have been better with Spacek. It also doesn't change my long held belief that Mika has more long term upside than Marty does.

 

The cost would have been insignificant $ wise as Spacek made roughly what Marty made. The team also would have kept Mika rather than Marty, which was a non-factor come playoff time and would have been a benefit this season. I personally don't see introducing competition as a bad thing, but you appear to put a higher cost to that than I do (in terms of causing a player to be "disgruntled"). I think overall, the cost was very reasonable.

 

I think it's pretty obvious that we will not agree on this issue, so I am at the point of agreeing to disagree.

 

I do think there is a high risk of it happening, but more so during mid-season then during free agency. I also think its more of a concern with the Sabres then other teams, given the team first attitude on this squad.

 

There are several factors as to why Darcy didn't do it, and I'm more or less playing devil's advocate here as to why Darcy didn't do it.

 

I just don't think it was a bad decision not to, as there are merits to not doing so, which is what I'm trying to get at. Would the Sabres have been a better team with him? At least on paper. Were the rewards worth the risk? Well, its hard to say. If we would have beaten Carolina in game 7, I think we would have won the cup. With Spacek, I think we definitely would have won it on paper, but would we have been in that situation in the first place, continuing to play as a team?

[Taro T]

I was more or less talking about sitting different guys here and there. I think I misunderstood you, because from what you posted, I got the impression that you'd be sitting different guys to give them rest/what not.

 

What you posted makes more sense.

Oh I agree with you there, I didn't think you were advocating that, but rather as that is how the players would have perceived it, which I think Kalinin might have, thats what I was trying to get at.

Interesting, didn't know that. If so, it throws a lot of what I was thinking down the tubes.

I do think there is a high risk of it happening, but more so during mid-season then during free agency. I also think its more of a concern with the Sabres then other teams, given the team first attitude on this squad.

 

There are several factors as to why Darcy didn't do it, and I'm more or less playing devil's advocate here as to why Darcy didn't do it.

 

I just don't think it was a bad decision not to, as there are merits to not doing so, which is what I'm trying to get at. Would the Sabres have been a better team with him? At least on paper. Were the rewards worth the risk? Well, its hard to say. If we would have beaten Carolina in game 7, I think we would have won the cup. With Spacek, I think we definitely would have won it on paper, but would we have been in that situation in the first place, continuing to play as a team?

Fair enough.

 

I think we both would answer your final questions differently and I truly doubt that either will change the other's mind at this time. Although, now that Spacek is a Sabre this season, that will give us the opportunity to see how well he fits in with the rest of the team (minus McKee obviously), and may very likely change one or both of our answers to the questions.

[gregkash]

whose to say Edmonton would have even made that deal?

 

And then Spacek would just be another UFA this season that we had to dela with.

[Chilly]

Fair enough.

 

I think we both would answer your final questions differently and I truly doubt that either will change the other's mind at this time. Although, now that Spacek is a Sabre this season, that will give us the opportunity to see how well he fits in with the rest of the team (minus McKee obviously), and may very likely change one or both of our answers to the questions.

 

Lets hope he kicks some ass. :D