stenbaro Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 Just curious what your opinions are on where this team would be now and where it would be heading if it had been able to keep the 05-06 team together and added a few players instead of subtracting players??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 Just curious what your opinions are on where this team would be now and where it would be heading if it had been able to keep the 05-06 team together and added a few players instead of subtracting players??? IMHO not much better than now. As great as the 05-06 team was, they benefited immensely from the "New NHL". Now that clutch & grab is back to stay, I would say there were still too many smallish forwards on that team, and I'd expect them to struggle for more than a 6th seed. Ryan "Very Average" Miller is also a big part of this. Unless they unloaded some of the smaller forwards, and two of our ultra-soft "puck moving defensemen", for some size and grit, I have a hard time seeing them being a contender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 over the salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 over the salary cap. Oh, snap. There's really no other reasonable answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 over the salary cap. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 Given the way that they're playing, we'd be complaining about how Drury is underperforming, how Briere and McKee are always injured and how Campbell is still terrible in his own end. Dumont and Griere would be nice, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted January 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 Oh, snap. There's really no other reasonable answer. Cause we are so far over the cap now..Obviously some players would have left but the ones that left were the heart and soul provided grit and scoring all of which you are all complaining about not having now..LOL....Good answers..Obviosusly all hypothetical question but so is the Sabres quest for this years playoffs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 over the salary cap. :worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 Given the way that they're playing, we'd be complaining about how Drury is underperforming, how Briere and McKee are always injured and how Campbell is still terrible in his own end. Dumont and Griere would be nice, though. I'm still amazed at how many people on this board never learned how to spell Grier... not that I'm trying to be a grammar or anything here, I just always get a good laugh when people combine him and Briere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 I'm still amazed at how many people on this board never learned how to spell Grier... not that I'm trying to be a grammar or anything here, I just always get a good laugh when people combine him and Briere. Damn, I knew that one, too. Brain fart. :blush: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 Cause we are so far over the cap now..Obviously some players would have left but the ones that left were the heart and soul provided grit and scoring all of which you are all complaining about not having now..LOL....Good answers..Obviosusly all hypothetical question but so is the Sabres quest for this years playoffs.. I prefer to have Vanek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted January 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 I prefer to have Vanek. You got him..And you got no playoffs..I guess ya got what ya wish for.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted January 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 I'm still amazed at how many people on this board never learned how to spell Grier... not that I'm trying to be a grammar or anything here, I just always get a good laugh when people combine him and Briere. Out of all the ones that hurt this team the most it probably goes Grier, Drury and Dumont.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 over the salary cap. I could have had them all under the salary cap till next year but of course i would be accused of 20/20 hindsight or assuming facts not in evidence. but since this is hypothetical, Drury, Vanek, Roy, Briere, Campbell, Dumont, I could have kept them all, everyone of them. Of course to paraphrase TG, I wouldn't have had Hecht, Max, The Skill, probably Jaro although I think I could have fit him too. This year's team Drury 5.3 3 years left on the deal Briere 4.8 1 year left on the deal Vanek 4.5 Roy 2.5 last year on contract Jason 1.2 last year on contract J.P. 3.3 last year on deal Gaustad 1.5 or gone Kotalik 2.3 last year Stafford .984 Mair .758 Paille 1.12 Kaletta .498 Peters .525 MacArthur .522 Campbell 4.8 Hank 2.562 Toni 2.875 Sekera .675 McKee 2.50 last year of deal Teppo 1.10 Paetsch .8550 Miller 2.667 Lalime 1.10 Total cap hit $48.96 million plus assume that something of value would have been acquired for dealing Max when he was still at his zenith and Hecht when he was an affordable two way forward. There would have been some decisions to make this off season but they would have had the benefit of this roster for two more years and would not have had every subsequent negotiation influenced by past mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crestwood Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Wondering where we'd be if we'd lost many of our key players. Because we're Buffalo sports fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted January 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I really meant this thread to go in another direction..I should have stated that if they were able to have signed all their key players instead of losing all of them where would this team be now and would it be a cup contender or would they be where they are now???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I really meant this thread to go in another direction..I should have stated that if they were able to have signed all their key players instead of losing all of them where would this team be now and would it be a cup contender or would they be where they are now???? Honestly, I don't see the point. What if the answer is "we'd have been a contender"; what then? Can we go back? :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Honestly, I don't see the point. What if the answer is "we'd have been a contender"; what then? Can we go back? :rolleyes: Well, armchair QBing (or GMing) is a big part of fan message boards. No different than posting wish lists of future trades or player moves, IMO...I mean you can post the same "what's the point" reply for trade rumors, potential free agents, whatever. It's all a big "what if" and is fun to imagine the possibilities...like what you dream of doing with the money if you won the big Mega Millions jackpot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Well, armchair QBing (or GMing) is a big part of fan message boards. No different than posting wish lists of future trades or player moves, IMO...I mean you can post the same "what's the point" reply for trade rumors, potential free agents, whatever. It's all a big "what if"... I armchair GM with the best of them, but that's about moving forward, not looking backward. With Briere, Drury and Campbell's contracts with their current teams and the contracts that we have now, there is no feasible way to put that team back together. That's not "what if"; that's "what could have been" ... I will give you that this is no sillier than "let's trade Max, Connolly and Tallinder for some other team's star" trade discussions, but I try to keep mine a little closer to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I armchair GM with the best of them, but that's about moving forward, not looking backward. With Briere, Drury and Campbell's contracts with their current teams and the contracts that we have now, there is no feasible way to put that team back together. That's not "what if"; that's "what could have been" ... I will give you that this is no sillier than "let's trade Max, Connolly and Tallinder for some other team's star" trade discussions, but I try to keep mine a little closer to reality. I'd argue that TW did a decent job presenting how that team could have been kept together, but I see your point. It's also interesting to wonder how things would have changed with certain players here, how other players' roles would have been impacted, how the roster would have changed for good and/or bad. Besides - reality has no basis here, . We're all about trading all our garbage for one rising superstar (e5) and everyone else for draft picks (e3) and calling everyone up from Portland, ready or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I'd argue that TW did a decent job presenting how that team could have been kept together, but I see your point. I didn't want to go through that list again, but just the "Vanek 4.5" is a HUGE assumption. He probably could have been had for less than what he got, but I'd say that it would have taken more than $4.5 million per to get he and his agent to back down from the "we're going to wait and see what is offered" stance that they had taken, especially for anywhere near the same number of years. There are several other salaries on that list that are best cases. I'd guess that the team listed would have been at the cap right now and some BIG decisions would need to be made next year. I would agree, though, that we could comfortably have kept some of those key players had the right decisions been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FearTheReaper Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I think that if we had the same team from 05/06 in 06/07 we would of won the cup that year. I said it before,our team from 05/06 was very similar to the Ducks team that won the cup in 07'. We were a little bit smaller then the Ducks. But still,the same concept was there. Everyone seen what happened to us in the 07 playoffs. We got banged around the rink by Ottawa,and never had a chance. I think with Mckee,Dumont,and Grier that would not of happened. Plus we still could of made the same move to unload Biron and uptain Zubrus. So you figure with those 3 players above,Zubrus and Gaustad,theres no way we would of got destroyed like we did. My lines would be: Lw: C: Rw: L1 * Hecht - Briere - Dumont L2 * Roy - Drury - Grier L3 * Vanek - Connolly - Zubrus L4 * Paille - Gaustad - Mair Defense: D1 * Campbell - Spacek D2 * Mckee - Lydman D3 * Numminen - Tallinder Not only would that lineup give us more size,but it also would give us a great gameplan for winning. L1 is used as a scoring line. That line was spectaular in the 06 playoffs. L2 is used as a shutdown line. They would of seen alot of the Jagr line,along with Spezza,Heatley,and Alf. L3 is used as a scoring line that tries to slip under the radar. L4 is used as a solid checking line that tries to weaken the opposing teams' d men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante23x Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I think that if we had the same team from 05/06 in 06/07 we would of won the cup that year. I said it before,our team from 05/06 was very similar to the Ducks team that won the cup in 07'. We were a little bit smaller then the Ducks. But still,the same concept was there. Everyone seen what happened to us in the 07 playoffs. We got banged around the rink by Ottawa,and never had a chance. I think with Mckee,Dumont,and Grier that would not of happened. Plus we still could of made the same move to unload Biron and uptain Zubrus. So you figure with those 3 players above,Zubrus and Gaustad,theres no way we would of got destroyed like we did. That would have helped. I would rather have those 3 then have resigned Hecht, Max, and/or Kotalik. If the Sabres and that idiot Regier had been more proactive with their contract negotiations, we may have been able to avoid the Vanek contract fiasco, not to mention Black Sunday when we lost both captains without much effort in retaining them. The Sabres will never advance past mediocrity until Regier is ousted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FearTheReaper Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 That would have helped. I would rather have those 3 then have resigned Hecht, Max, and/or Kotalik. If the Sabres and that idiot Regier had been more proactive with their contract negotiations, we may have been able to avoid the Vanek contract fiasco, not to mention Black Sunday when we lost both captains without much effort in retaining them. The Sabres will never advance past mediocrity until Regier is ousted. Agreed. I think that the 06 playoffs might be as close as we'll ever get to winning the cup,as long as Regier is here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I didn't want to go through that list again, but just the "Vanek 4.5" is a HUGE assumption. He probably could have been had for less than what he got, but I'd say that it would have taken more than $4.5 million per to get he and his agent to back down from the "we're going to wait and see what is offered" stance that they had taken, especially for anywhere near the same number of years. There are several other salaries on that list that are best cases. I'd guess that the team listed would have been at the cap right now and some BIG decisions would need to be made next year. I would agree, though, that we could comfortably have kept some of those key players had the right decisions been made. The only contract that is a reach is the Vanek deal and I have stated before, Nathan Horton signed for a 4 million dollar per year deal just two weeks before the start of free agency at a time when a lot, if not most hockey observers felt he was a better all around player. There were all sorts of reports that Horton wanted out of Florida and that his agent was trying to orchestrate an offer sheet to get him out of Florida. Sound familiar? Briere's deal is what he was asking before arbitration and he probable would have signed for less but I wanted to be fair. Drury's and McKee's numbers were discussed ad nauseum. Dumont's is his current number. In the end, its just hypothetical, as we all know the dynamics would have been a lot different if they had inked Drury and Briere. They might have even traded Roy in a package to acquire Kane if they had the other 2. Maybe they trade Briere after a couple of years in that deal. Who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.