carpandean Posted April 16, 2008 Report Share Posted April 16, 2008 And that's when they needed him to step up, and like Drury, display those intangibles. Like I said, I like him, just think he's overpaid for that fifth or sixth spot unless you believe he brings the intangibles that Drury does and I haven't heard him talked about in that way. By whom, the media? He was certainly talked about in that way ("save our PK") on here when was injured. There were several posts like "I didn't realize how important he was until he went out." He also was given the "C" twice, which means that he showed Lindy his leadership abilities. You don't hear about his contributions as much because (a) he's not as clutch as Drury and (b) he doesn't have that great life story (Little League World Series, ...). However, he only costs half what Drury does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 By whom, the media? He was certainly talked about in that way ("save our PK") on here when was injured. There were several posts like "I didn't realize how important he was until he went out." He also was given the "C" twice, which means that he showed Lindy his leadership abilities. You don't hear about his contributions as much because (a) he's not as clutch as Drury and (b) he doesn't have that great life story (Little League World Series, ...). However, he only costs half what Drury does. Yeah, Lindy gave Lydman the "C" , too. When was the last time you have seen him give a post game interview? When have you heard his teammates refer to his leadership? When he came back it became apparent that he wasn't the problem with the PK. And no matter how you shape the numbers, he was irrelevant for too many games down the stretch and was even worse than irrelevant for a couple of them. Another thing regarding part "b" of the Drury comment. I have heard this sarcastic reference before. You may want to re-evaluate your cause and effect. There are ten thousand great "little league stories" per year, most become "glory day" stories because most of the individuals involved don't turn into one of the great clutch performers of their generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Yeah, Lindy gave Lydman the "C" , too. When was the last time you have seen him give a post game interview? When have you heard his teammates refer to his leadership? When he came back it became apparent that he wasn't the problem with the PK. And no matter how you shape the numbers, he was irrelevant for too many games down the stretch and was even worse than irrelevant for a couple of them. Another thing regarding part "b" of the Drury comment. I have heard this sarcastic reference before. You may want to re-evaluate your cause and effect. There are ten thousand great "little league stories" per year, most become "glory day" stories because most of the individuals involved don't turn into one of the great clutch performers of their generation. Yeah, but he didn't give Lydman the "C" twice. Once is trying a guy out; twice is because he showed you something. He did give many post-game interviews (I remember Chris giving one or two, but he was definitely not a media guy) and there have been mentions by both players and FO about Hecht's leadership. Clearly, not to level that Chris was, but he was mentioned. As for the PK, it did solidify some when he came back, but think about what happed to our defense in that time as well. As much as Campbell isn't a great defensive defenseman, he's actually decent on the PK and logged a lot of minutes. He left when Hecht was out and Kalinin moved up (yikes). Then, Spacek went out. Neither Weber nor Sekera logged any significant PK time. Basically, it was down to Lydman (led most games in PK time) and Pratt/Tallinder/whoever else. Since defense is half of your PK, unlike the PP, the impact of those losses hurt it a lot. Don't get me wrong, I am not belittling any of Drury's accomplishments. I want to cry watching the Rangers games. However, articles like "The Winner" wouldn't get written if weren't for the rest of that story (and, yes, I realize that all of those accomplishments are because he truly is and always has been "clutch".) Hecht is by no means Drury, but he is the same type of player. Drury is a tier-one version and is paid as such. Hecht is the tier-two version, so he gets paid half as much. I'd prefer to have both on my team. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Hecht is a bargain at what he signed for, but I also wouldn't say that he is overpaid. He is definitely worth $3 million, so $3.5 isn't too much of a stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Yeah, but he didn't give Lydman the "C" twice. Once is trying a guy out; twice is because he showed you something. He did give many post-game interviews (I remember Chris giving one or two, but he was definitely not a media guy) and there have been mentions by both players and FO about Hecht's leadership. Clearly, not to level that Chris was, but he was mentioned. As for the PK, it did solidify some when he came back, but think about what happed to our defense in that time as well. As much as Campbell isn't a great defensive defenseman, he's actually decent on the PK and logged a lot of minutes. He left when Hecht was out and Kalinin moved up (yikes). Then, Spacek went out. Neither Weber nor Sekera logged any significant PK time. Basically, it was down to Lydman (led most games in PK time) and Pratt/Tallinder/whoever else. Since defense is half of your PK, unlike the PP, the impact of those losses hurt it a lot. Don't get me wrong, I am not belittling any of Drury's accomplishments. I want to cry watching the Rangers games. However, articles like "The Winner" wouldn't get written if weren't for the rest of that story (and, yes, I realize that all of those accomplishments are because he truly is and always has been "clutch".) Hecht is by no means Drury, but he is the same type of player. Drury is a tier-one version and is paid as such. Hecht is the tier-two version, so he gets paid half as much. I'd prefer to have both on my team. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Hecht is a bargain at what he signed for, but I also wouldn't say that he is overpaid. He is definitely worth $3 million, so $3.5 isn't too much of a stretch. Good post. Tom's argument is compelling as well. On a related note, Drury was the best player on the ice tonight as the Rangers beat the Devils to take a 3-1 lead in the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Good post. Tom's argument is compelling as well. On a related note, Drury was the best player on the ice tonight as the Rangers beat the Devils to take a 3-1 lead in the series. Whoa....were you paying attention to Gomez. I think he won 7 straight faceoffs at one point and was flying everywhere. He is absolutely dismembering the Devils. Drury played pretty good, but strangely couldn't win a faceoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Whoa....were you paying attention to Gomez. I think he won 7 straight faceoffs at one point and was flying everywhere. He is absolutely dismembering the Devils. Drury played pretty good, but strangely couldn't win a faceoff. Gomez did indeed play well and has been having a strong series, but I thought Drury was the man last night. Jagr (with TEN shots on goal) was also a force for the Rangers, as was Staal. Average play by both goalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Yeah, but he didn't give Lydman the "C" twice. Once is trying a guy out; twice is because he showed you something. He did give many post-game interviews (I remember Chris giving one or two, but he was definitely not a media guy) and there have been mentions by both players and FO about Hecht's leadership. Clearly, not to level that Chris was, but he was mentioned. As for the PK, it did solidify some when he came back, but think about what happed to our defense in that time as well. As much as Campbell isn't a great defensive defenseman, he's actually decent on the PK and logged a lot of minutes. He left when Hecht was out and Kalinin moved up (yikes). Then, Spacek went out. Neither Weber nor Sekera logged any significant PK time. Basically, it was down to Lydman (led most games in PK time) and Pratt/Tallinder/whoever else. Since defense is half of your PK, unlike the PP, the impact of those losses hurt it a lot. Don't get me wrong, I am not belittling any of Drury's accomplishments. I want to cry watching the Rangers games. However, articles like "The Winner" wouldn't get written if weren't for the rest of that story (and, yes, I realize that all of those accomplishments are because he truly is and always has been "clutch".) Hecht is by no means Drury, but he is the same type of player. Drury is a tier-one version and is paid as such. Hecht is the tier-two version, so he gets paid half as much. I'd prefer to have both on my team. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Hecht is a bargain at what he signed for, but I also wouldn't say that he is overpaid. He is definitely worth $3 million, so $3.5 isn't too much of a stretch. Sorry to hop in on this but there is no playerin the NHL now that does what Drury does..To be the same type of player infers he does the same things..There is no player on this sabre team that does the things on the Ice as well as Drury, not to mention the things he brings to the bench. I thought Hecht played his best hockey this year as a Sabre since he has been here however I believe they overpaid him..Thats ok they wanted him so they paid him its just they maybe shoulda done that with a few more of them and we might be playing still..I know you said some of the same things but I had to type...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Whoa....were you paying attention to Gomez. I think he won 7 straight faceoffs at one point and was flying everywhere. He is absolutely dismembering the Devils. Drury played pretty good, but strangely couldn't win a faceoff. Last year in the series against the Sens he had a hard time winning some there too...If I remember correctly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Yeah, but he didn't give Lydman the "C" twice. Once is trying a guy out; twice is because he showed you something. He did give many post-game interviews (I remember Chris giving one or two, but he was definitely not a media guy) and there have been mentions by both players and FO about Hecht's leadership. Clearly, not to level that Chris was, but he was mentioned. As for the PK, it did solidify some when he came back, but think about what happed to our defense in that time as well. As much as Campbell isn't a great defensive defenseman, he's actually decent on the PK and logged a lot of minutes. He left when Hecht was out and Kalinin moved up (yikes). Then, Spacek went out. Neither Weber nor Sekera logged any significant PK time. Basically, it was down to Lydman (led most games in PK time) and Pratt/Tallinder/whoever else. Since defense is half of your PK, unlike the PP, the impact of those losses hurt it a lot. Don't get me wrong, I am not belittling any of Drury's accomplishments. I want to cry watching the Rangers games. However, articles like "The Winner" wouldn't get written if weren't for the rest of that story (and, yes, I realize that all of those accomplishments are because he truly is and always has been "clutch".) Hecht is by no means Drury, but he is the same type of player. Drury is a tier-one version and is paid as such. Hecht is the tier-two version, so he gets paid half as much. I'd prefer to have both on my team. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Hecht is a bargain at what he signed for, but I also wouldn't say that he is overpaid. He is definitely worth $3 million, so $3.5 isn't too much of a stretch. I think that sums up my point, given Buffalo's apparent, self imposed cap, they will not be able to afford both type of players, so my concern is by signing "Drury light" they will not be able to sign "Drury like." On the other hand, you have made some compelling arguments. Again, I am not stating he is grossly over paid, I just think he is slightly over paid. I might spend some time this weeked looking for a comparable player to Jochen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Gomez did indeed play well and has been having a strong series, but I thought Drury was the man last night. Jagr (with TEN shots on goal) was also a force for the Rangers, as was Staal. Average play by both goalies. I guess I have always wondered what Gomez could do once he got out of that dredded trap in NJ. Him and Drury are such smart players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Drury played pretty good, but strangely couldn't win a faceoff. Last year in the series against the Sens he had a hard time winning some there too...If I remember correctly That's the triple truth, Ruth. I guess I have always wondered what Gomez could do once he got out of that dredded trap in NJ. Him and Drury are such smart players. We wonder not so much now, eh? (Although didn't Gomez have a devil of a time getting uncorked this year during the regular season?) If they're not the two (hockey-)smartest players in the league, I think they're both in the top 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 That's the triple truth, Ruth.We wonder not so much now, eh? (Although didn't Gomez have a devil of a time getting uncorked this year during the regular season?) If they're not the two (hockey-)smartest players in the league, I think they're both in the top 5. Yes, and a nice turn of phrase. ;) Mostly that was the defense's inability to get the Ranger forwards the puck with speed. Without the ability to operate at speed in space, even Drury and Gomez can turn into two short guys on skates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 I think that sums up my point, given Buffalo's apparent, self imposed cap, they will not be able to afford both type of players, so my concern is by signing "Drury light" they will not be able to sign "Drury like."On the other hand, you have made some compelling arguments. Again, I am not stating he is grossly over paid, I just think he is slightly over paid. You may be right. Though, if you can unload some over-paid third and fourth liners (Max and maybe Kotalik), then you can easily afford to upgrade Connolly to "Drury like", even with "Drury light". We're probably not too far off on his value. I think he's between the right price and the higher end of what he's worth, while you think he's slightly above that higher end. If I could trade off certain player's contracts, he wouldn't be high on that list for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 You may be right. Though, if you can unload some over-paid third and fourth liners (Max and maybe Kotalik), then you can easily afford to upgrade Connolly to "Drury like", even with "Drury light". We're probably not too far off on his value. I think he's between the right price and the higher end of what he's worth, while you think he's slightly above that higher end. If I could trade off certain player's contracts, he wouldn't be high on that list for me. I would agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Yes, and a nice turn of phrase. ;) Mostly that was the defense's inability to get the Ranger forwards the puck with speed.Without the ability to operate at speed in space, even Drury and Gomez can turn into two short guys on skates. Hey "X," I know its off topic, but I had a couple of people ask me why "Tom Webster?" You want to tell them his significance to Buffalo Sabre history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Hey "X," I know its off topic, but I had a couple of people ask me why "Tom Webster?" You want to tell them his significance to Buffalo Sabre history? :lol: I'd be lying if I said I knew. The only thing that comes to mind is all those 70's trades with "Player to be named later" Was he the first player to be named later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Hey "X," I know its off topic, but I had a couple of people ask me why "Tom Webster?" You want to tell them his significance to Buffalo Sabre history? Google says he was drafted second by the Sabres in the 1970's expansion draft from the Bruins. He was then dealt to Detroit for Roger Crozier. He ended up playing in the World Hockey Association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Hey "X," I know its off topic, but I had a couple of people ask me why "Tom Webster?" You want to tell them his significance to Buffalo Sabre history? :lol: I'd be lying if I said I knew. The only thing that comes to mind is all those 70's trades with "Player to be named later" Was he the first player to be named later? Google says he was drafted second by the Sabres in the 1970's expansion draft from the Bruins. He was then dealt to Detroit for Roger Crozier. He ended up playing in the World Hockey Association. Waaaaiiiiit -- X and Google aren't effectively one and the same when it comes to all things hockey? ... :unsure: ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Waaaaiiiiit -- X and Google aren't effectively one and the same when it comes to all things hockey? ... :unsure: ;) So Tom Webster is actually Roger Crozier? :unsure: I'm so confused. :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Balls Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 So Tom Webster is actually Roger Crozier? :unsure: I'm so confused. :blink: No silly, if you Google the name "Tom Crozier", he is the player "X" to be named later. What are you not getting? :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Waaaaiiiiit -- X and Google aren't effectively one and the same when it comes to all things hockey? ... :unsure: ;) I going to challenge Google to some chess. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreNod Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Still talking about Briere and Drury? :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 My eyeballs are bleeding after reading the last 4 posts but that is a good bit of trivia on Webster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 My eyeballs are bleeding after reading the last 4 posts but that is a good bit of trivia on Webster. Now, the rest of the story. First, notice in Wikipedia that it says order might not be right. Second, When the expansion draft was about to commence, Detroit came and told Punch Imlach that they had a deal in place to deal Roger Crozier to Boston for Tom Webster but they preferred to cut Boston out of the picture. In return, Detroit would owe Buffalo future condisderations. Not knowing this, Boston came to Punch and asked him to draft Ace Bailey because they had a deal to send Tom Webster to Detroit. The also offerred future considerations. Punch told Boston he would do it. However, when the draft started, Tom Webster became the first player ever drafted by Buffalo and Punch quickly sent him to Detroit for Roger Crozier. In those days future considerations weren't fully disclosed so no one really knows what Punch got for doing the deal with Detroit rather than Boston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoatheadInCT Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 I'm related to Tom Webster because his ancestor (and Noah of dictionary fame), the Governor of the Colony of Connecticut, is mine as well :P Roger Crozier? I have his rookie card, that's about it! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.