Quickdraw Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 That way, we won't have to pay him very much, and if he agrees to sign here as a UFA after we've won the Cup, well great then! I like how you think.
LabattBlue Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 So you think Fitzpatrick will be back. ;) I'd take Fitzpatrick back. He'll come cheap and is good as a #7 dman for 40 games or so.
shrader Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 I'd take Fitzpatrick back. He'll come cheap and is good as a #7 dman for 40 games or so. I think they're ready to move away from Fitzy, but anyone who the team might bring in will be the same kind of player. If that's the case, why not bring him back. He already knows the system and the players, so there's no learning curve.
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 8, 2006 Report Posted July 8, 2006 I think they're ready to move away from Fitzy, but anyone who the team might bring in will be the same kind of player. If that's the case, why not bring him back. He already knows the system and the players, so there's no learning curve. The more I think about it, the more I agree with you. He's not a top 6 guy. But we don't need a top 6 guy right now, we need a #7 guy.
Taro T Posted July 8, 2006 Report Posted July 8, 2006 I think they're ready to move away from Fitzy, but anyone who the team might bring in will be the same kind of player. If that's the case, why not bring him back. He already knows the system and the players, so there's no learning curve. You've got a good point. I think the Sabres might want to bring him back in the #7 role, but I also think that he could possibly latch on somewhere as the #6 guy. (There are a lot of teams that have bad D, and he MAY be able to be a cheap enough upgrade over someone else that a team might take a chance on him being able to get his head into the new NHL. He's got the tools physically to be a solid #5 or #6, he just doesn't seem to "get it" mentally.) At a minimum, some team would probably give him a contract to try to win the #6 spot. He definitely is not better than any of Buffalo's top 6 though. So I'd be surprised if he wants to re-up with the Sabres because he really will only be an injury substitution and the Sabres would be reluctant to send him to the minors because he will be on a 1 way contract.
shrader Posted July 8, 2006 Report Posted July 8, 2006 You've got a good point. I think the Sabres might want to bring him back in the #7 role, but I also think that he could possibly latch on somewhere as the #6 guy. (There are a lot of teams that have bad D, and he MAY be able to be a cheap enough upgrade over someone else that a team might take a chance on him being able to get his head into the new NHL. He's got the tools physically to be a solid #5 or #6, he just doesn't seem to "get it" mentally.) At a minimum, some team would probably give him a contract to try to win the #6 spot. He definitely is not better than any of Buffalo's top 6 though. So I'd be surprised if he wants to re-up with the Sabres because he really will only be an injury substitution and the Sabres would be reluctant to send him to the minors because he will be on a 1 way contract. Is he guaranteed of having a 1 way contract due to age/experience? If not, I was actually talking about bringing him back as the 8th defenseman, spending most of his time in Rochester. Obviously this only happens if there is little to no interest in him around the league. If he's going to be playing in the AHL, I would think that Rochester would be his top choice since its the hometown.
Taro T Posted July 8, 2006 Report Posted July 8, 2006 Is he guaranteed of having a 1 way contract due to age/experience? If not, I was actually talking about bringing him back as the 8th defenseman, spending most of his time in Rochester. Obviously this only happens if there is little to no interest in him around the league. If he's going to be playing in the AHL, I would think that Rochester would be his top choice since its the hometown. I am assuming he'll get credit for 60+ NHL games during the lockout. If he does, he meets the criteria to be exempt from a 2 way contract.
deluca67 Posted July 9, 2006 Report Posted July 9, 2006 I'd take Fitzpatrick back. He'll come cheap and is good as a #7 dman for 40 games or so. Wouldn't it be better for the Sabres in the long run if Paetsch was the #7? I hate to see the kid judged on a few playoff games he was tosssed into. The kid is a solid prospect and would be better served being up with the team spot starting here and there. As we all know, the 82 game grind wears on a defense. Considering what happen to the Sabres defense in the playoffs I wouldn't be suprised if that's where teams tried to attack the Sabres this season. ;)
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 9, 2006 Report Posted July 9, 2006 Wouldn't it be better for the Sabres in the long run if Paetsch was the #7? I hate to see the kid judged on a few playoff games he was tosssed into. The kid is a solid prospect and would be better served being up with the team spot starting here and there. As we all know, the 82 game grind wears on a defense. Considering what happen to the Sabres defense in the playoffs I wouldn't be suprised if that's where teams tried to attack the Sabres this season. ;) I would rather see him get another year to develop in the AHL then sit in the Press box.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 9, 2006 Report Posted July 9, 2006 I would rather see him get another year to develop in the AHL then sit in the Press box. Well he could almost do both ... play in Rochester and be the 7th guy ... some flipped out when Roy started the season in Rochester last year but everyone should have known he would play a big role before it was all over and he did. Unless it is in the middle of their one trip out west, they could call Paetsch up on a few hours notice. I don't know ... maybe he would be better off playing every night, but depending on how all the arbitration cases go and what is left out there, keeping him around might be what is best given the circumstances.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.