doors Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 How bout these stats: Philly was the worst team in the NHL last season iwth 56 points. As of right now, they are in the playoffs with 91 points. Additionally, Philly fans are idiots (and boo everyone) and Briere is 11th in power paly scoring (which isn't included in +/-). The Rangers were 6th in conference last year and are competing for 3rd this year. Also, they are one of the best teams after the all star break in the entire NHL. The Sabres go from President's cup to missing the playoffs. I really don't count Zubrus because he was a rental player. Trust me, I'm one of the most positive people ever (I'm a Bills' fan, I have to be ). But the Sabres screwed up badly this offseason. You can't pay everyone but there are too many guys saying they would have taken less to stay here and the organization dropped the ball - whining about Edmonton with Vanek, the Teppo situation, waiting to the last minute to try and get a deal with Drury. This whole season has the reek of an organization that became smug and content (Larry Quinn makes an excellent face for that picture). You nailed it, could not agree more ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 How did they play this year? They were streaky and inconsistent. Just like I'd expect a young team to be. This is a retooling year. They happen. If they had a fire sale and blew up the young nucleus that'd be concerning. They didn't do that. They turned over the reigns and there are bound to be some hiccups with that. For the record, the Sabres had the most points in the league last year but were definetly not the best team. yes its a retooling (rebuilding) year, and they happen, but how many actually happen after a team wins an award for being the top regular season team, and 2 straight trips to the ECF's with a young team? And yes, I agree, they didn't have a fire sale, that would imply they sold stuff and received something back, a better description would be that they donated to charity Like it or not, what they did was their best imitation of the Oakland A's, Baseballs version of a Pro Farm team. They developped those players into what they are, and then let them leave. We will see if it was the best moves if/when they show us fans thay are committed to winning, and not just staying afloat. We will see if they actually use this "saved money" to make this team a winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 yes its a retooling (rebuilding) year, and they happen, but how many actually happen after a team wins an award for being the top regular season team, and 2 straight trips to the ECF's with a young team? And yes, I agree, they didn't have a fire sale, that would imply they sold stuff and received something back, a better description would be that they donated to charity Like it or not, what they did was their best imitation of the Oakland A's, Baseballs version of a Pro Farm team. They developped those players into what they are, and then let them leave. We will see if it was the best moves if/when they show us fans thay are committed to winning, and not just staying afloat. We will see if they actually use this "saved money" to make this team a winner Funny you mention the A's, because they had a 6 year run where they were competitive as anyone in the AL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 yes its a retooling (rebuilding) year, and they happen, but how many actually happen after a team wins an award for being the top regular season team, and 2 straight trips to the ECF's with a young team? And yes, I agree, they didn't have a fire sale, that would imply they sold stuff and received something back, a better description would be that they donated to charity Like it or not, what they did was their best imitation of the Oakland A's, Baseballs version of a Pro Farm team. They developped those players into what they are, and then let them leave. We will see if it was the best moves if/when they show us fans thay are committed to winning, and not just staying afloat. We will see if they actually use this "saved money" to make this team a winner the only player they lost out of the system so far is campbell and thye got bernier and a #1 for him. I wouldn't say we made Briere or Drury -edit- they dealt away biron and novotny but got something back in each case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 yes its a retooling (rebuilding) year, and they happen, but how many actually happen after a team wins an award for being We will see if they actually use this "saved money" to make this team a winner It's not really saved money either, it's just differently spent money. They didn't reduce payroll. it went up this year despite those losses. The question boils down to, in 2 years would you rather have Briere, Drury and Campbell for 24 million at least (with a roughly 50 million cap - and I flat don't believe they would have signed for 5 million.) or would you rather have Roy, Vanek, Pominville, and Miller with some money left over more help. It also gets to the point with the younger guys that they either have to play them in Buffalo, trade them or put them on waivers. They got lucky with Pominville when they sent him down - they could have lost him for nothing. They did lose Chris Thorburn for nothing because he was out of options and had no roster spot. The same thing was about to happen with Novotny before he was dealt. I'm not saying it was a primary cause but it's a problem when you discuss giving away developed players for nothing. Rochester was barren this year, next year they'll restock with more college kids who will go pro (Gerbe, Kennedy, etc.) and have some more room for some kids to come up from jr and over from europe (Enroth, etc). The AAA club was bad but we've got guys in AA and A ball who are ready to make the jump. It's all a cyclical thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 How do we know they can't support a $50 mil payroll? Have you seen their books? What part of "second lowest average ticket price in the NHL" didn't you understand? Right after the lockout they were only giving 1 year contracts, wanting to see the players develop to make sure they are going to be good. That is not a way to build a successful team if you are as cash strapped as everyone says. Huh? That sounds exactly like what a small market team has to do to avoid making a huge mistake that will tie up its cap for years to come. If they can't keep up with the Salary cap, then maybe buffalo can't support an NHL team either (financially). Having an NHL franchise is not a right, its a luxury. Amen to that. But go ahead and spend TBGs money as freely as you wish (in your dreams, anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 the only player they lost out of the system so far is campbell and thye got bernier and a #1 for him. I wouldn't say we made Briere or Drury -edit- they dealt away biron and novotny but got something back in each case. Drury is borderline as he was starting to become a good player before coming to Buffalo. Briere on the other hand became a star in Buffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 It's not really saved money either, it's just differently spent money. They didn't reduce payroll. it went up this year despite those losses. The question boils down to, in 2 years would you rather have Briere, Drury and Campbell for 24 million at least (with a roughly 50 million cap - and I flat don't believe they would have signed for 5 million.) or would you rather have Roy, Vanek, Pominville, and Miller with some money left over more help. It also gets to the point with the younger guys that they either have to play them in Buffalo, trade them or put them on waivers. They got lucky with Pominville when they sent him down - they could have lost him for nothing. They did lose Chris Thorburn for nothing because he was out of options and had no roster spot. The same thing was about to happen with Novotny before he was dealt. I'm not saying it was a primary cause but it's a problem when you discuss giving away developed players for nothing. Rochester was barren this year, next year they'll restock with more college kids who will go pro (Gerbe, Kennedy, etc.) and have some more room for some kids to come up from jr and over from europe (Enroth, etc). The AAA club was bad but we've got guys in AA and A ball who are ready to make the jump. It's all a cyclical thing. Thats depends, whats the cap situation like in 2 years, does it keep going up every year like it has? Have they addressed other spots that have been a problem on the team like defence? What are Pomminville and Miller making? How have other players developped? Right now, they would have had a better chance with a roster containing Briere Drury and Campbell to win a cup in the next 2 years. (In the last 2 years with those guys they made the ECF's twice, without them they didn't make the playoffs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 What part of "second lowest average ticket price in the NHL" didn't you understand? I understood it completly, but that doesn't mean they can't afford to raise the tickets a little to go along with the rising cost of an NHL team. And it still doesn't mean they can't afford a $50 mil. roster, as you are just going off of what you assume their total revenue to be. The fans showed that by giving them a great winning team, they will support them and spend the money. Huh? That sounds exactly like what a small market team has to do to avoid making a huge mistake that will tie up its cap for years to come. No, its what gets a team in trouble and keeps them from being able to re-sign players. Small market teams can't afford a wait and see approach with its top players because it will price them out off the team rather quickly. If you have a good scouting department and a good judge on player development you can tell what players have the better chance of becoming keys to the team. Amen to that. But go ahead and spend TBGs money as freely as you wish (in your dreams, anyway). I'm not going out and saying to spend his money freely, I am talking about spending it better then they have, and actually doing stuff to bring in good players to keep the team competitive instead of watching them walk and telling us that we should expect them to be as competitive. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money, and if they expect me to spend my money on them, they better be willing to put the best product on the ice they possibly can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I'm not going out and saying to spend his money freely, I am talking about spending it better then they have, and actually doing stuff to bring in good players to keep the team competitive instead of watching them walk and telling us that we should expect them to be as competitive. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money, and if they expect me to spend my money on them, they better be willing to put the best product on the ice they possibly can. What's the Madden '08 equivalent for the NHL? That's the best way to get bang for your buck in a perfect world... We'll never agree, so I don't see much point of continuing to waste space on Scott's hard drive over this. C'est la vie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 hindsight is always 20/20....IMO Briere Drury and soon to be Cambell will and are going to be payed like franchise players...they are not franchise players...while it sucks they had to go, it will be better for the long term health of the franchise....they had 2 kicks at the can and did not deliver the goods, also FWIW....the team was painfully average after the 2st of the year last year.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 Looking at the Sabres free fall, I have to look at Ralphie and think they guy ain't all bad. Sure he's made a few bad moves over the years but he's never scuttled his team in one season like Tommy Boy has. The Titanic sank slower. PTR I dunno---Golisano has to do a lot of stupid things for many many years until he reaches Ralphs level.--If he fires Regier and Lindy and keeps Quinn...then I'll start re-thinking my position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 I dunno---Golisano has to do a lot of stupid things for many many years until he reaches Ralphs level.--If he fires Regier and Lindy and keeps Quinn...then I'll start re-thinking my position. that's a classic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 hindsight is always 20/20....IMO Briere Drury and soon to be Cambell will and are going to be payed like franchise players...they are not franchise players...while it sucks they had to go, it will be better for the long term health of the franchise....they had 2 kicks at the can and did not deliver the goods, also FWIW....the team was painfully average after the 2st of the year last year.... Very true taterhill.....BUT they coulda had Briere at 5 mil/yr....and Drury as well....I think at those prices--if they had forethought---it woulda been worth it. Should they have paid what the Rangers and Flyers did?? NO. But they didn't have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpertOpinion Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 It's not really saved money either, it's just differently spent money. They didn't reduce payroll. it went up this year despite those losses. The question boils down to, in 2 years would you rather have Briere, Drury and Campbell for 24 million at least (with a roughly 50 million cap - and I flat don't believe they would have signed for 5 million.) or would you rather have Roy, Vanek, Pominville, and Miller with some money left over more help. It also gets to the point with the younger guys that they either have to play them in Buffalo, trade them or put them on waivers. They got lucky with Pominville when they sent him down - they could have lost him for nothing. They did lose Chris Thorburn for nothing because he was out of options and had no roster spot. The same thing was about to happen with Novotny before he was dealt. I'm not saying it was a primary cause but it's a problem when you discuss giving away developed players for nothing. Rochester was barren this year, next year they'll restock with more college kids who will go pro (Gerbe, Kennedy, etc.) and have some more room for some kids to come up from jr and over from europe (Enroth, etc). The AAA club was bad but we've got guys in AA and A ball who are ready to make the jump. It's all a cyclical thing. This crew in the Sabres front office is more than capable of signing Miller to a big contract and that will be the biggest mistake in the long series of blunders they have made in the past 2+ years. And Vanek hasn't played like a $10 million player. Not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpertOpinion Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 Very true taterhill.....BUT they coulda had Briere at 5 mil/yr....and Drury as well....I think at those prices--if they had forethought---it woulda been worth it. Should they have paid what the Rangers and Flyers did?? NO. But they didn't have to. exactly And Campbell's agent said that last off season the Sabres could have signed him for $5 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts