Wild Jay Posted August 8, 2006 Report Posted August 8, 2006 Legace has signed with the St. Louis Blues :( http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...PDATE/608080427 Who's even left that would want Biron (and that could afford him)? Maybe LA or Columbus might be interested? But all of the teams that really needed a goalie have taken care of it now.
Ogie Oglethorpe Posted August 8, 2006 Report Posted August 8, 2006 http://www.stlouisblues.com/index.html This may have been part of a possible deal breaker with sending Dumont and Biron to St. Louis. Is there a market left for Marty or will he be yapping at Eric Staal from behind the bench on Oct. 4?
elcrusho Posted August 8, 2006 Report Posted August 8, 2006 Yeah on the Bench so he can win another 21 games for us...
The Jokeman Posted August 8, 2006 Report Posted August 8, 2006 Yeah on the Bench so he can win another 21 games for us... I'd rather shop him off to Washington for Brent Johnson, who may not be as good as Marty but feel is a good enough as a backup, and a prospect and save about $1.55 million against the cap.
apuszczalowski Posted August 8, 2006 Report Posted August 8, 2006 Yup, we are stuck with a 2 million dollar backup next season
LabattBlue Posted August 8, 2006 Report Posted August 8, 2006 There's always the possibility that Marty forces Darcy's hand. He could say that he has been a good team player throughout and he is not going to report, so you might as well trade me. It's not Marty's fault that Darcy has waited too long.
frisky Posted August 8, 2006 Report Posted August 8, 2006 The salary cap may forces Darcy's hand as well with Miller and Kalinin left to sign and hardly much room left under the cap. Even if it isn't Biron, someone's going to get shipped off to somewhere. But, I have to think that we're going to ship him off rather than some else that will contribute more. I could see us not getting much value back by trying to dump him though. I also haven't heard a peep about if they are going to sign that young goalie prospect Dennis.
VanekDrury Posted August 8, 2006 Report Posted August 8, 2006 There's always the possibility that Marty forces Darcy's hand. He could say that he has been a good team player throughout and he is not going to report, so you might as well trade me. It's not Marty's fault that Darcy has waited too long. Of course not, but obviously Darcy is not obligated to do anything.
apuszczalowski Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 There's always the possibility that Marty forces Darcy's hand. He could say that he has been a good team player throughout and he is not going to report, so you might as well trade me. It's not Marty's fault that Darcy has waited too long. Marty can force Darcy all he wants, they need 2 teams to make a trade, and I don't see any other team that could use a goaltender right now, and you are exactly right, he has been a team player and has not complained about any of it, Darcy waited too long and now will face the consequences when he has to release him for nobody, get rid of another player just to fit salary, or have Marty refuse to play and sit out until he's dealt.
deluca67 Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 There's always the possibility that Marty forces Darcy's hand. He could say that he has been a good team player throughout and he is not going to report, so you might as well trade me. It's not Marty's fault that Darcy has waited too long. Waited too long? Based on what? You expect the Sabres to deal Biron and leave themselves with no goalies under contract? Do you have any idea what the Sabres have beeen offered other then those reported on a website everyone agrees is crap? The Sabres know better then any team that goalies get injured. If Miller is signed, healthy and playing well then the Sabres can deal Biron to a team that isn't so lucky. I like the idea of having Marty as an insurance policy. If the issue is money? I know a quick way to clear $5 million of the cap ;)
apuszczalowski Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 I like the idea of having Marty as an insurance policy. If the issue is money? I know a quick way to clear $5 million of the cap ;) Wow, 5 million for Briere is way too much, yet starter money (maybe even more then the actual starter will make next year) is a good insurance policy? I would love to see Biron stay as an insurance policy too, but his salary makes it impossible to keep as a backup. And yes, Darcy waited too long, now because a deal is signed with him, the Sabres could be stuck with a 2 mil+ backup on a team that is supposed to be on a budget.
Goodfella25 Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 Waited too long? Based on what? You expect the Sabres to deal Biron and leave themselves with no goalies under contract? Do you have any idea what the Sabres have beeen offered other then those reported on a website everyone agrees is crap? The Sabres know better then any team that goalies get injured. If Miller is signed, healthy and playing well then the Sabres can deal Biron to a team that isn't so lucky. I like the idea of having Marty as an insurance policy. If the issue is money? I know a quick way to clear $5 million of the cap ;) LabbatBlue is right, Darcy waited too damn long for "the right deal" as he always says. He traded the wrong goaltender at the deadline and now we are stuck with a $2 million backup that has been on the trading block for about 6 months. Who cares about not having 2 goalies "under contract." You just go out and sign one like Mike Dunham or Legace or another backup who has been out there. Of course that could have been avoided had we traded Biron and held onto Noronen.
hopeleslyobvious Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 LabbatBlue is right, Darcy waited too damn long for "the right deal" as he always says. He traded the wrong goaltender at the deadline and now we are stuck with a $2 million backup that has been on the trading block for about 6 months. Who cares about not having 2 goalies "under contract." You just go out and sign one like Mike Dunham or Legace or another backup who has been out there. Of course that could have been avoided had we traded Biron and held onto Noronen. Maybe he didn't even get a decent offer.
apuszczalowski Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 Maybe he didn't even get a decent offer. Well, right now, anything is better then having to cut or deal away a guy who could be in the lineup every night to save some cash to afford a backup goalie
hopeleslyobvious Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 Well, right now, anything is better then having to cut or deal away a guy who could be in the lineup every night to save some cash to afford a backup goalie In hindsight yes. But every decision looks a lot earier after the fact.
deluca67 Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 Wow, 5 million for Briere is way too much, yet starter money (maybe even more then the actual starter will make next year) is a good insurance policy? I would love to see Biron stay as an insurance policy too, but his salary makes it impossible to keep as a backup. And yes, Darcy waited too long, now because a deal is signed with him, the Sabres could be stuck with a 2 mil+ backup on a team that is supposed to be on a budget. I'll spend $2.128 million for 21 wins ($101,333 per win) over $5 million for 58 points ($86,207 per point) anyday :o It's a much better return on the Sabres investment. Again. No one has any idea what the Sabres were offered or are asking in return. You jsut can't give away quality players when you have their rights;)
LabattBlue Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 I'll spend $2.128 million for 21 wins ($101,333 per win) over $5 million for 58 points ($86,207 per point) anyday :o It's a much better return on the Sabres investment. I'm trying to understand the logic here...If Briere had only scored 10 points last year, he would then be the better investment at $500,000 per point? :blink: :blink:
X. Benedict Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 I like the idea of having Marty as an insurance policy. If the issue is money? I know a quick way to clear $5 million of the cap ;) And we know that you know :P :)
eggo Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 He traded the wrong goaltender at the deadline and now we are stuck with a $2 million backup that has been on the trading block for about 6 months. Who cares about not having 2 goalies "under contract." You just go out and sign one like Mike Dunham or Legace or another backup who has been out there. Of course that could have been avoided had we traded Biron and held onto Noronen. I beg to differ. If he traded Biron instead of Noronen, we wouldn't have a backup now either. Noronen decided if he couldn't start he's better off playing in Russia. You make it sound so easy, just sign Legace or Dunham. Do you know how much their salary is? I didn't know we had so many NHL qualified GM's on this forum.
X. Benedict Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 I beg to differ. If he traded Biron instead of Noronen, we wouldn't have a backup now either. Noronen decided if he couldn't start he's better off playing in Russia. You make it sound so easy, just sign Legace or Dunham. Do you know how much their salary is? I didn't know we had so many NHL qualified GM's on this forum. A chicken in every pot and every man a GM. ;)
Taro T Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 I beg to differ. If he traded Biron instead of Noronen, we wouldn't have a backup now either. Noronen decided if he couldn't start he's better off playing in Russia. You make it sound so easy, just sign Legace or Dunham. Do you know how much their salary is? I didn't know we had so many NHL qualified GM's on this forum. Noronen did not necessarily decide that its better to play in Russia than be a backup. It looks to me like Noronen decided it's better to play in Russia for $1MM+ than to play in the AHL for $90,000. Noronen was not offered a 1 way contract. There was a very real possibility that he would have been in Manitoba this season. Larry, you really have to stop getting your panties in a wad. :P
inkman Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 Larry, you really have to stop getting your panties in a wad. :P I'm thinking it's him more and more. Where is that thread?
deluca67 Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 I'm trying to understand the logic here...If Briere had only scored 10 points last year, he would then be the better investment at $500,000 per point? :blink: :blink: Let me try to make it simple. The Sabres had 52 regular season wins. Biron had 21 or 40%. The Sabres had 760 total points (goals and assists). Briere had 58 or 7.6%. Which is more valuable? Wins or points? Well wins of course. Which is the better value? 40% of your teams wins at $2.128 million? OR 7.6% of your teams offense at $5 million. It seems pretty clear. :rolleyes:
LabattBlue Posted August 9, 2006 Report Posted August 9, 2006 Let me try to make it simple. The Sabres had 52 regular season wins. Biron had 21 or 40%. The Sabres had 760 total points (goals and assists). Briere had 58 or 7.6%. Which is more valuable? Wins or points? Well wins of course. Which is the better value? 40% of your teams wins at $2.128 million? OR 7.6% of your teams offense at $5 million. It seems pretty clear. :rolleyes: I wouldn't put it past you to make an argument that just about any player is more valuable to the Sabres than Briere. This has become a joke. You ask which is more valuable wins or points? How exactly is any player but a goalie supposed to get credit for a win? Guess what...a goalie can't get a win unless someone else on the ice GETS SOME POINTS! I'm starting to believe that you are arguing against Briere just for the sake of arguing.
SabresOnTheWarpath Posted August 10, 2006 Report Posted August 10, 2006 Goaltending is still the most important position in the game. Regardless of what happend or will happen with Briere, it is money spent wisely to have a good backup, especially with the nut job we have starting
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.