Taro T Posted May 25, 2006 Posted May 25, 2006 I believe this would have made him the third highest paid player on the team and he would be sitting in the press box with Rory until someone got hurt. Trading Biron would have even been MORE scary. Marty for an UFA? We have been able to plug in 2 defenseman and a third is coming, but if Miller got hurt and Mika was all we had to drop in, we would be toast. At least Marty would give us a fighting chance. 698032[/snapback] Actually, it would have made him the 2nd highest paid player, but would have had him paid comparably with 5 others on the team. About 60% of the season was done at the time he was traded, so the Sabres would only have been picking up the excess salary for 40% of the sesaon. The Sabres revenues for the season were well ahead of projections by that time, so the Sabres knew that they could afford him at that time as well. Considering he is an UFA at the end of the season and Darcy did not negotiate the contract he has, I doubt highly that his salary would have caused friction in the dressing room. There is no way he would have been sitting in the press box had Buffalo picked him up. He is better defensively than Campbell and still can play the powerplay and he also is much better than Kalinin was playing at the time. He quite likely would have been paired with McKee, so the Sabres would have had 2 very solid top pairs, and Teppo w/ Campbell / Kalinin would also be considered to be a top 2 pairing but probably would have gotten slightly less 5 on 5 time to help keep Teppo strong for the playoffs and to limit the potential for problems in the Sabres end due to the "#6" guy. It would have given the Sabres a SOLID 7th D man (either Kalinin or Campbell) and then IF you lose 2 D-men (as the Sabres have now done) you are putting Rory in at that point as the 6th D-man, not the 5th. Chicago picked up a mid level prospect for Spacek and they already have Khabibulin, so it is doubtful that the Sabres would have given up Marty to get Spacek at that time. As I posted, I didn't have a problem with the Sabres not trading Marty for Spacek, my problem was with not trading a mid level prospect for Spacek.
erynthered Posted May 25, 2006 Posted May 25, 2006 In all fairness though Darin, this is a Bills message board and that's why I don't call out the bandwagoners too much. We know who the hockey people are. 698166[/snapback] You've got something on your nose.
shrader Posted May 25, 2006 Posted May 25, 2006 It was still trial by fire. There simply wasn't much of a choice for Lindy. 697863[/snapback] True. I think you summed up perfectly what I was trying to say.
HurlyBurly51 Posted May 27, 2006 Posted May 27, 2006 waiting.... 697971[/snapback] 18 defensemen traded at the deadline...food for thought. http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060...?tbd1062975.asp
Alaska Darin Posted May 27, 2006 Posted May 27, 2006 Something about 18 Defensemen being traded at the deadline. Let the excuses and rationalizations start in 3, 2, 1... http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060...?tbd1062975.asp 699117[/snapback] And? How many of them are left? That'd be Tarnstrom, Spacek, and O'Donnell. Carolina didn't make any blue line moves at the deadline and Anaheim added O'Donnell ( who may be good enough to beat our Rory Fitz, but no one else on this team). The reality is, no team in the NHL has a litany of NHL ready defensemen sitting around for emergencies. Winning the Stanley Cup is as much about luck as anything else. When the writers in this town talk about adding defensemen, they should be talking about changing out our current Top 6, not adding just for the sake of it. The fact of the matter is Darcy and Lindy were correct, our current group was more than good enough to win the Stanley Cup THIS season. Does anyone think Carolina would be in this series if Ward, Hedican, and Commodore went out to be replaced by Andrew Hutchinson (18 games of NHL experience, none this season), Anton Babchuk (5 games of NHL experience), and Oleg Tverdovsky (hasn't skated a shift in the NHL since the 2003 season)? What about Edmonton replacing Jason Smith, Chris Pronger, and Staios with Danny Syvret (no PROFESSIONAL experience), Matt Roy (no NHL experience), and Igor friggin' Ulanov (hasn't skated in the NHL this season)? Or the Ducks losing Niedermeyer, Beauchamin, and Ruslan Salei and instead suiting up: Jason Marshall (journeyman who has played a grand total of 47 NHL games in the last 3 league seasons), Brett Skinner (zero games of NHL experience), and some forward because they only have EIGHT defensemen on their postseason roster? The comparison to Carolina replacing Cole is a joke. It's actually sad that they had to make a trade because their organization isn't deep enough to fill the loss of a forward, something Buffalo has done numerous times this season when Briere, Connelly, Pyatt, and Dumont missed significant time. Shoot, we won the Ottawa series without Connelly, and he was the leading scorer IN THE PLAYOFFS when he went out and we were up 2-1 on Carolina without him before last night. He's at least as important to our team as Cole is to the Canes. No team left is carrying enough troops to lose 3 blueliners. Typical media bull schidt bought hook, line, and sinker by the card carrying lemmings that waste entirely too much of the planet's resources.
taterhill Posted May 27, 2006 Posted May 27, 2006 And? How many of them are left? That'd be Tarnstrom, Spacek, and O'Donnell. Carolina didn't make any blue line moves at the deadline and Anaheim added O'Donnell ( who may be good enough to beat our Rory Fitz, but no one else on this team). The reality is, no team in the NHL has a litany of NHL ready defensemen sitting around for emergencies. Winning the Stanley Cup is as much about luck as anything else. When the writers in this town talk about adding defensemen, they should be talking about changing out our current Top 6, not adding just for the sake of it. The fact of the matter is Darcy and Lindy were correct, our current group was more than good enough to win the Stanley Cup THIS season. Does anyone think Carolina would be in this series if Ward, Hedican, and Commodore went out to be replaced by Andrew Hutchinson (18 games of NHL experience, none this season), Anton Babchuk (5 games of NHL experience), and Oleg Tverdovsky (hasn't skated a shift in the NHL since the 2003 season)? What about Edmonton replacing Jason Smith, Chris Pronger, and Staios with Danny Syvret (no PROFESSIONAL experience), Matt Roy (no NHL experience), and Igor friggin' Ulanov (hasn't skated in the NHL this season)? Or the Ducks losing Niedermeyer, Beauchamin, and Ruslan Salei and instead suiting up: Jason Marshall (journeyman who has played a grand total of 47 NHL games in the last 3 league seasons), Brett Skinner (zero games of NHL experience), and some forward because they only have EIGHT defensemen on their postseason roster? The comparison to Carolina replacing Cole is a joke. It's actually sad that they had to make a trade because their organization isn't deep enough to fill the loss of a forward, something Buffalo has done numerous times this season when Briere, Connelly, Pyatt, and Dumont missed significant time. Shoot, we won the Ottawa series without Connelly, and he was the leading scorer IN THE PLAYOFFS when he went out and we were up 2-1 on Carolina without him before last night. He's at least as important to our team as Cole is to the Canes. No team left is carrying enough troops to lose 3 blueliners. Typical media bull schidt bought hook, line, and sinker by the card carrying lemmings that waste entirely too much of the planet's resources. 699123[/snapback] it really bugs me that this is so hard for people to grasp...
HurlyBurly51 Posted May 27, 2006 Posted May 27, 2006 it really bugs me that this is so hard for people to grasp... 699126[/snapback] "In truth, their failure to come through in March merely exposed them in May. It was clear long before the trade deadline approached that they had too many goaltenders and not enough defensemen. Anybody paying attention could see depth along the blue line was their biggest flaw, a primary source of concern. " "The sensible move would have been moving Biron and forcing a deal for a defenseman. Eighteen were traded before the deadline. The Sabres needed at least one. They landed exactly none. " Pretty self explanatory for a guy asking what was available at the deadline.
Lurker Posted May 27, 2006 Posted May 27, 2006 No team left is carrying enough troops to lose 3 blueliners. Typical media bull schidt bought hook, line, and sinker by the card carrying lemmings that waste entirely too much of the planet's resources. 699123[/snapback] Defensemen are akin to O-linemen in the NFL...toughest position to fill and toughest to overcome injury losses at. Just bad luck all around for the Sabres over the past two weeks. Reminds me of the year the Oilers were up 3 games to 1 in a series and lost because the entire team came down with the flu. The news on Connolly is even more of a drag... His career could be in real jeopardy.
Lurker Posted May 27, 2006 Posted May 27, 2006 "The sensible move would have been moving Biron and forcing a deal for a defenseman. "699130[/snapback] And Miller goes down and then what do you do...use Leighton? Just as bad a scenario, IMO. To much "wishes and buts" when things get tough.
HurlyBurly51 Posted May 27, 2006 Posted May 27, 2006 waiting.... 697971[/snapback] Hmm, a team missing its top 3 defensemen go out and acquire 3 at the deadline. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/trade_deadline/news_...-trade_deadline
Alaska Darin Posted May 27, 2006 Posted May 27, 2006 Hmm, a team missing its top 3 defensemen go out and acquire 3 at the deadline. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/trade_deadline/news_...-trade_deadline 699139[/snapback] Do you have a point? We weren't missing 3 defensemen at the trade deadline and no one has a crystal ball to predict what's happened. None of the 3 metioned in this situation would have cracked our top six. Brown and Carney are plodding defensemen that are suited more for teams like the Flyers. Weinrich is THIRTY NINE years old. Of the three he's the only one who could possibly have helped us. Still, I wouldn't have traded a basket of pucks for him because it's unlikely he'd have been able to get on the ice and his acquisition would've done more to hurt our team's confidence than his limited production could've added. The moves worked out so well for Vancouver that they didn't even make the post season. Had we been in the same situation at the deadline and these are the 3 players Darcy acquired, we'd likely have lost in the first round of these playoffs.
HurlyBurly51 Posted May 27, 2006 Posted May 27, 2006 Do you have a point? We weren't missing 3 defensemen at the trade deadline and no one has a crystal ball. None of the 3 in this situation would have cracked our top six. Brown and Carney are plodding defensemen that are suited more for teams like the Flyers. Weinrich is THIRTY NINE years old. Of the three he's the only one who could possibly have helped us. Still, I wouldn't have traded a basket of pucks for him because it's unlikely he'd have been able to get on the ice and his acquisition would've done more to hurt our team's confidence than his limited production could've added. The moves worked out so well for Vancouver that they didn't even make the post season. 699147[/snapback] Yes, I think the point is that a move could have and should have been made at the deadline, contrary to the opinion of some on here that claim no one was available. IMHO, any of the names brought up would be a better option than Janek and Jillson. And I'm sure the last line referring to Vancouver in the playoffs was a joke, at least I hope it was because it is obviously not logical.
Alaska Darin Posted May 27, 2006 Posted May 27, 2006 Yes, I think the point is that a move could have and should have been made at the deadline, contrary to the opinion of some on here that claim no one was available. IMHO, any of the names brought up would be a better option than Janek and Jillson. Here's a challenge: Find ONE TEAM in the NHL that has the kind of defensive depth you're talking about. Be specific. One team that has EIGHT proven NHL defensemen on their roster. You can skip the final four teams in the playoffs because not one of them is even as good one through six as the Sabres are. And I'm sure the last line referring to Vancouver in the playoffs was a joke, at least I hope it was because it is obviously not logical. 699149[/snapback] It's not logical to point out that the team that changed 3 defensemen late in the season didn't make the playoffs? Are you some kind of retard? Team building in the real world isn't like video games. There are many factors to consider, not the least of which is chemistry and disruption. Carolina's GM talked about it when he acquired Weight so early this season because the players they added for their last run never found their place on the team and ended up being worse for them than the players they replaced, despite theoretically being much better players. Adding a player who isn't going to do anything but sit in the stands regularly WILL NOT help the team win. Never has, never will. I don't know why it's so difficult for "fans" to face reality but you (and anyone who thinks like you) is wrong.
HurlyBurly51 Posted May 28, 2006 Posted May 28, 2006 Are you some kind of retard? Adding a player who isn't going to do anything but sit in the stands regularly WILL NOT help the team win. Never has, never will. I don't know why it's so difficult for "fans" to face reality but you (and anyone who thinks like you) is wrong. 699152[/snapback] Ahh yes, when all else fails, resort to casting personal aspersions. Attempt to discredit the messenger in a veiled attempt to cloud the real issue. Who said anything about acquiring someone to sit in the stands? If by adding someone who bumps another out of the starting lineup, that's called building organizational depth and is a good thing, which at this point probably is the difference between advancing in the playoffs or not. And anyone who doesn't realize that is wrong.
Alaska Darin Posted May 28, 2006 Posted May 28, 2006 Ahh yes, when all else fails, resort to casting personal aspersions. Attempt to discredit the messenger in a veiled attempt to cloud the real issue. Ah, the age old trick of "I've been getting B word slapped, so now I'll concentrate on the single insult so I can pretend I'm winning the argument." Welcome to why I put that in there. So predictable. Who said anything about acquiring someone to sit in the stands? If by adding someone who bumps another out of the starting lineup, that's called building organizational depth and is a good thing, which at this point probably is the difference between advancing in the playoffs or not. And anyone who doesn't realize that is wrong. 699167[/snapback] You haven't named ONE player who is better than for the Sabres than anyone in our top 6, nor have you pointed out ONE team that entered the playoffs with better defensive depth than the Buffalo Sabres. Other than that you're dead nutz with your "we should have added someone, anyone who had played defense at some point, somewhere in the NHL."
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 28, 2006 Posted May 28, 2006 Ahh yes, when all else fails, resort to casting personal aspersions. Attempt to discredit the messenger in a veiled attempt to cloud the real issue. 699167[/snapback] Shame on you, Darin. From now on, be sure to only cast impersonal aspersions. Denny...part of the trick to successfully arguing your point is: knowing when you're getting your ass kicked by someone smarter than you....
HurlyBurly51 Posted May 28, 2006 Posted May 28, 2006 Welcome to why I put that in there. So predictable. 699176[/snapback] Seems like it's a regular part of your repertoire when you're wrong. Go go retard rollercoaster. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! 675155[/snapback] Congratulations, you were the first liberal to play the race card. You get the daily retard star. 644135[/snapback] The only difference between you and they is the color of your retard banner. 641411[/snapback] Nonetheless, not running off on your always changing wild goose chases won't change the fact the Sabres didn't address their defense, and are now being exposed for that mistake. Period.
Lurker Posted May 28, 2006 Posted May 28, 2006 Yes, I think the point is that a move could have and should have been made at the deadline, contrary to the opinion of some on here that claim no one was available. 699149[/snapback] I'd like to see some names of players that you think could have upgraded the top 6 on this team--which means better than Soupy--who were available at the deadline. No D-man of any stature moved and I'm hard pressed to see how any of the 18 that you keep pointing to "could have" made the team better. Anyway, I can't think of a team in the last ten years that lost three of its top 5 D-men in a single playoff run. What's happened to the Sabres is a "perfect storm" that no one could have anticipated. But hey, this is Buffalo, land of the second guess / 20-20 hindsight. Probably due to something they put in the water around here, I guess.
HurlyBurly51 Posted May 28, 2006 Posted May 28, 2006 Denny...part of the trick to successfully arguing your point is: knowing when you're getting your ass kicked by someone smarter than you.... 699177[/snapback] That's the best advice yet, the points been made for better or worse - I'm outta here.
Recommended Posts