Barnabov Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 First, I don't know what Darcy was thinking tendering him an offer other than trying to reward someone who's been with the club awhile but I think Peters totally stabbed the Sabres in the back to request arbitration. He was a healthy scratch almost 2 out of every 3 games! Anyone know if the club can walk away from an arbitration award - say Peters gets more than the $495,000 qualifier (league minimum last year was $450k and he gets 10%). Can the Sabres say too rich for my blood - nice knowing you or can Peters still opt to take the $495? Personally, I think Andrew got some very very poor advice from his agent - he is lucky to have a job at all in the new NHL. If the Sabres need to save on payroll, they should sign a young goon (plenty out there) to a 2 way contract, put him in Rochester most of the year and call him up for the odd Flyers / Toronto (or Carolina now) game, then send him back down again. Lots of guys who'd be happy to get called up 28 times a year and earn $5,000 a game, then make $50,000 a year in the AHL for the remainder. Would save the Sabres $400,000+ and have the same net result. I agree with the guys who argued for qualifying Peters but this arrogance makes me want ties with him cut. Besides, he can't enforce from the penalty box.
Fronz1103 Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 Dude, i would never waste that much typing energy to a guy like Peters. That guy should be let go, why keep him around? I'm sure the Leaf's will be needing the golf expert more than we will in years to come....And i'm sure they would overspend on his *ss now that domi's *ss is grass.
ThePolishSabre Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 Dump Peters??? :angry: yea, so when we face a tough team like Toronto, who's going too keep the heavy hitters from killing the little guys on our team???
Eleven Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 Dump Peters??? :angry: yea, so when we face a tough team like Toronto, who's going too keep the heavy hitters from killing the little guys on our team??? Adam Mair and Paul Gaustad.
eliwhitneyradio Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 Keep Peters. I really enjoy watching him fight. He also had a few good shifts on the grinder line when he was asked to do so.
FogBat Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 Keep Peters. I really enjoy watching him fight. He also had a few good shifts on the grinder line when he was asked to do so. Not to mention the golf swing he did on the Laffs. Having said that, I don't think they'd want him in their locker room after that little incident. Also, it wasn't so much that he didn't want to play. Lindy made the call whether he wanted Peters in the lineup or not. This is especially true after the incident where Darcy Tucker ran into Jochen Hecht. I heard the post-game interview on XM Home Ice, and I can assure you guys that I would not have wanted to be in the same room with Lindy after the game. Thus, Lindy made it clear that he was going to put Peters in the lineup in order to put Tucker in his place if he had to.
Bmwolf21 Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 Adam Mair and Paul Gaustad. After watching WGRZ's piece on Mair and his struggles with post-concussion syndrome, I don't feel comfortable asking him to be an enforcer. If I had my choice, I'd rather keep someone like McMorrow in Rochester and call him up when we need him (Toronto, Philly) instead of risking the long-term health of someone like Mair.
Taro T Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 After watching WGRZ's piece on Mair and his struggles with post-concussion syndrome, I don't feel comfortable asking him to be an enforcer. If I had my choice, I'd rather keep someone like McMorrow in Rochester and call him up when we need him (Toronto, Philly) instead of risking the long-term health of someone like Mair. McMorrow is gone. He wasn't given a qualifying offer. But I'd be surprised if the Sabres don't have someone in mind to fill McMorrow's role. (Peters perhaps?)
shrader Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 McMorrow is gone. He wasn't given a qualifying offer. But I'd be surprised if the Sabres don't have someone in mind to fill McMorrow's role. (Peters perhaps?) I'm sure they could bring back McMorrow for next to nothing if they really wanted to.
LabattBlue Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 Dump Peters??? :angry: yea, so when we face a tough team like Toronto, who's going too keep the heavy hitters from killing the little guys on our team??? How come no one got "killed" in the 54 games that Peters DIDN'T play in? <_<
jad1 Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 How come no one got "killed" in the 54 games that Peters DIDN'T play in? <_< Luck. :ph34r:
Bmwolf21 Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 I was just using McMorrow as an example, considering he would be a much cheaper alternative and we can stash him at Ra-cha-cha and bring up to protect our assets...really any tough guy who wouldn't mind being a brawl call-up would suffice.
GrimFandango Posted July 6, 2006 Report Posted July 6, 2006 Everyone dislikes Peters on this board for some reason or another... regardless of the amount of games he played, i think everyone forgets he is a part of this team and is there day in and day out... after being the odd man out throughout my athletic career, i say give the guy a break. I doubt he is going to arbitration to stick it to the team... just what are the odds that the Sabres said to peters, "we don't know what to pay you because of the role you have, and we dont want to insult you by paying you the min. salary, so lets go to arbitration and we will have a number that we have to use"??? anyone think he isnt a team guy enough to accept something along those lines
ThePolishSabre Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 Peters get's paid almost nothing, it won't hurt to just keep him around.
deluca67 Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 I'm no Peters fan. But look it up. The Sabres winning percentage is higher last season with him in the lineup then it was with him out during the regular season.
ThePolishSabre Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 I'm no Peters fan. But look it up. The Sabres winning percentage is higher last season with him in the lineup then it was with him out during the regular season. I'm not going to look it up, but all i'm saying is that Peters is a cool guy and since were going to be $10mil under the cap anyways. it doesn't hurt to keep him around.
WanderingEye Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 Peters is good for some laughs, and I don't believe Gaustad or Mair could take on a "heavyweight fighter" role anyway. I think he should consider himself lucky to have even received an offer in the "new NHL", but does anyone blame him for at least giving arbitration a shot and trying to squeeze a little more money out for himself?
shrader Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 I'm no Peters fan. But look it up. The Sabres winning percentage is higher last season with him in the lineup then it was with him out during the regular season. Coincidence. Look it up. Or it's just dumb luck. It has little to do with him.
LabattBlue Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 Peters get's paid almost nothing, it won't hurt to just keep him around. He gets paid 500k to play 2 minutes a game...that is when he dresses for a game. I'm not sure if Thorburn can fill the role of fighter on the rare occasion it is needed, but he certainly brings skill to the table and can contribute more than just knuckles and a concrete head. All I hear is that the Sabres have 4 great lines that they can roll, but it's a given when Peters is in the lineup, it will be an 11 man rotation.
Carmel Corn Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 He is a "role" player and performs that role well. Granted there may be less of a need in the new NHL, but I don't believe for a second that the league will maintain the new style of play indefinitely. Let's be objective....how many players on this team actually create some space for themselves? Most of our players do not cause the other teams to look over their shoulders much or crash our goal's crease. We still lack toughness (even more with Grier gone) and other teams know they can do as they please and not pay a price physically. Peters is cheap insurance and worth keeping if the price remains reasonable.
LabattBlue Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! I give up... Let's keep Peters because... His golf swing was funny The NHL may return to the days of the broad street bullies He is ONLY going to cost the Sabres 500k He is going to keep some of the smaller forwards from getting killed He only plays 2 minutes a game, but every time he does, he changes the momentum of the game etc... I've said all I need to on this hack. If Darcy can't find somebody who can fight when needed, but also contribute to the team in other ways, then so be it. He's the one working with the limited budget.
shrader Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 I've said all I need to on this hack. If Darcy can't find somebody who can fight when needed, but also contribute to the team in other ways, then so be it. He's the one working with the limited budget. Well the Leafs did buy out Domi's contract. :lol:
Swedesessed Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 look, at least the Sabres did not give Peters a 2 year contract and a no trade clause...what team would do such a stupid thing, give a goon a 2 year contract with a no trade clause...that would never happen right? Wait, it did happen...George Laraque got that 2 year no trade clause deal from Phoenix!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 7, 2006 Report Posted July 7, 2006 Peters game - or lack thereof - is a no-trade clause in itself. He's a necessary piece of the puzzle who should be paid as little as possible.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.