wonderbread Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 That's crazy 800k. I would personally rather have Mckee than Montador. And for less? This would have a great move imo. As far as a vetern presence who already knows his way around the organization Mckee would heave been it and on the cheap. Now i'll get to hear every pen fan next year fawn over him all f'n year. :death: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 That's crazy 800k. I would personally rather have Mckee than Montador. And for less? This would have a great move imo. As far as a vetern presence who already knows his way around the organization Mckee would heave been it and on the cheap. Now i'll get to hear every pen fan next year fawn over him all f'n year. :death: Well, for the 40 games that he plays anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R_Dudley Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 That's crazy 800k. I would personally rather have Mckee than Montador. And for less? This would have a great move imo. As far as a vetern presence who already knows his way around the organization Mckee would heave been it and on the cheap. Now i'll get to hear every pen fan next year fawn over him all f'n year. :death: Wow double kick in the nut's, forgot about that angle...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Well, for the 40 games that he plays anyway. Montador 82 games at 1.55 Mckee 41 games at 800K Which one would you rather have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Montador 82 games at 1.55 Mckee 41 games at 800K Which one would you rather have? 82+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 82+ wouldn't we all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Montador 82 games at 1.55 Mckee 41 games at 800K Which one would you rather have? In all fairness, he played 66 or more games in each of the last two seasons and three of the last four. He had a terrible year in 2006-07 (23 games in St. Louis, which maintained the reputation that he started to get before the lockout of being constantly injured, but since the lockout he hasn't been that bad. Timmy C makes Jay look like an Iron man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Here is a pretty good post from Fanhouse about Kotalik. Regarding McKee, while I would've been happy to see him back with the Sabres, I really can't find anything to be unhappy about. I think I'd rather have Montador, Myers and Weber in our lineup before McKee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Here is a pretty good post from Fanhouse about Kotalik. Regarding McKee, while I would've been happy to see him back with the Sabres, I really can't find anything to be unhappy about. I think I'd rather have Montador, Myers and Weber in our lineup before McKee. Agreed. McKee would have been a nice supplemental pick up, but if Myers is ready for the NHL and we've already got Montador, that pretty much rules out a need for McKee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Here is a pretty good post from Fanhouse about Kotalik. Regarding McKee, while I would've been happy to see him back with the Sabres, I really can't find anything to be unhappy about. I think I'd rather have Montador, Myers and Weber in our lineup before McKee. If Dubinsky or Callahan sign an RFA offer sheet. The Rangers are screwed. Hell, I think they are already screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 If Dubinsky or Callahan sign an RFA offer sheet. The Rangers are screwed. Hell, I think they are already screwed. Indeed. Giving up on Zherdev is one thing, but putting themselves in a position, by giving Kotalik that much $$, to lose one of those 2 guys is idiotic. I'd be quite happy with either of them on the Sabres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Come on Darcy, dick the Rangers. Give Dubinsky an offer sheet. Dooo itttt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Come on Darcy, dick the Rangers. Give Dubinsky an offer sheet. Dooo itttt. I said it before. Screw Slats! offer a sheet Darcy. Grow a sack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 There's another thing we need to remember about McKee before we start this whole "why couldn't we have offered him that much" thing. Call me crazy, but I'd say he's far more likely to accept that kind of contract from the defending Stanley Cup champions, especially considering the fact that things didn't end here on the greatest of terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 There's another thing we need to remember about McKee before we start this whole "why couldn't we have offered him that much" thing. Call me crazy, but I'd say he's far more likely to accept that kind of contract from the defending Stanley Cup champions, especially considering the fact that things didn't end here on the greatest of terms. Fair enough. The Dubinsky offer sheet idea is now being floated for the second time, and it's an even better idea now than it was the first time. GET IT DONE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Apparently Buffalo was interest in Mckee as was Chicago, Nashville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 There's another thing we need to remember about McKee before we start this whole "why couldn't we have offered him that much" thing. Call me crazy, but I'd say he's far more likely to accept that kind of contract from the defending Stanley Cup champions, especially considering the fact that things didn't end here on the greatest of terms. Great point. OSP can't sell this team fast enough. The whole thing needs ripped apart and rebuilt from the ground up. It's all tainted, it seems. Of course the new owner would probably retain LQ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 OSP can't sell this team fast enough. The whole thing needs ripped apart and rebuilt from the ground up. It's all tainted, it seems. Of course the new owner would probably retain LQ! nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 anyone here interested in Sergei Zubov (Dallas, D)? link i saw somewhere that he's 39.. i've never really paid any attention to him playing, is he worth a shot at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 that pisses me off so much. if the FO doesn't think Jay McKee is an upgrade over both Tallinder and possibly Sekera then I don't like our chances of contending any time soon. For that kind of money... wow If they can pay the injury prone Connolly 4+ mil a year, why not pay the injury prone McKee 800k. Are they trying to say that McKee wouldn't fit nicely as a 5-6-7 guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Tallinder and Hecht - when they were playing great everyone here was solidly on the bandwagon. when they played crap like last season, suddenly everyone's hating on them. ups and downs will happen - i highly doubt Tallinder gets traded. the Sabres orgzn is becoming famous for giving players second, third, fourth, nth chances.. Tallinder hasn't been the same player for a couple of years now. It is time to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 nonsense. When you're next to Edmonton as the least desirable place to play in the league, you think that's not an indication for wholesale change, of people, of culture, of almost everything? Now, take your retarded one-word retorts and go fall on a Fusilli Jerry, your better side first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 When you're next to Edmonton as the least desirable place to play in the league, you think that's not an indication for wholesale change, of people, of culture, of almost everything? Now, take your retarded one-word retorts and go fall on a Fusilli Jerry, your better side first. If you're going to post nonsense, you're going to get called on it. As for the substance of your "thoughts": we aren't going to do any better than OSP. At this point, he's a wealthy owner who provides a budget and then stays out of the way. We all might wish for someone willing to spend another $10MM per year on the team, between payroll and front office, but that person isn't going to materialize out of thin air just because we wish for it. The NHL has a hard enough time finding owners for its teams in the larger and wealthier markets. As for Quinn, he's here for as long as TG is. Calling for him to be fired is about as useful as calling for him to sprout wings and fly away. Second, if the team doesn't improve this year, the coach and GM are both going to be gone. That's pretty substantial change. Third, you (obtusely) refuse to acknowledge that Buffalo and Edmonton might be viewed as less desirable for wealthy young men and their families than other cities for reasons other than their respective front offices. Again, I'm not interested in a quality-of-life debate, but when you look at the other cities in the NHL, just about all of them are clearly more attractive locations than Buffalo and Edmonton. You can pretend it's not the case, but it is. This can be overcome for a place like Pittsburgh when you offer players the opportunity to play with Crosby and Malkin and win a cup, but otherwise it's a significant handicap. It can also be overcome by overpaying for free agents (like the Bills do), but the Sabres currently don't have the budget or the inclination for this. Bottom line is that some perspective is needed. As I've mentioned, the Sabres need to walk a very fine line due to their budget. Blunders like losing their cocaptains and overpaying mediocre veterans hurt them more than they hurt a team like the Rangers or Philly. That is going to be the case regardless of who the owner is. But getting PO'd and demanding new ownership, more money, etc. is just so much hot air (or pixels). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 If you're going to post nonsense, you're going to get called on it. As for the substance of your "thoughts": we aren't going to do any better than OSP. At this point, he's a wealthy owner who provides a budget and then stays out of the way. We all might wish for someone willing to spend another $10MM per year on the team, between payroll and front office, but that person isn't going to materialize out of thin air just because we wish for it. The NHL has a hard enough time finding owners for its teams in the larger and wealthier markets. As for Quinn, he's here for as long as TG is. Calling for him to be fired is about as useful as calling for him to sprout wings and fly away. Second, if the team doesn't improve this year, the coach and GM are both going to be gone. That's pretty substantial change. Third, you (obtusely) refuse to acknowledge that Buffalo and Edmonton might be viewed as less desirable for wealthy young men and their families than other cities for reasons other than their respective front offices. Again, I'm not interested in a quality-of-life debate, but when you look at the other cities in the NHL, just about all of them are clearly more attractive locations than Buffalo and Edmonton. You can pretend it's not the case, but it is. This can be overcome for a place like Pittsburgh when you offer players the opportunity to play with Crosby and Malkin and win a cup, but otherwise it's a significant handicap. It can also be overcome by overpaying for free agents (like the Bills do), but the Sabres currently don't have the budget or the inclination for this. Bottom line is that some perspective is needed. As I've mentioned, the Sabres need to walk a very fine line due to their budget. Blunders like losing their cocaptains and overpaying mediocre veterans hurt them more than they hurt a team like the Rangers or Philly. That is going to be the case regardless of who the owner is. But getting PO'd and demanding new ownership, more money, etc. is just so much hot air (or pixels). OK, at least that's something I can respond to. But don't continue to bitch-slap me with one-word insults like I'm some kind of newbie. I won't sit for it. I've never called for LQ to be fired. I think the organization here is tainted. If it doesn't start at the top, where does it? You have an owner who lapped up the limelight during good times, then disappeared at the first drop of a hat. The team will be sold, probably sooner than later. I'm willing to risk that the next guy is worse than OSP. "We aren't going to do any better than OSP" sounds too much like "Who's better than Ruff?" Change can't be feared. Anyway, it's just a hockey team. As for the respective cities, I tend to think the almighty dollar rules all. I laugh whenever an athlete says he's going to consult with his family to figure out what's best for everyone. Bull. Making money is best for everyone. When you have an owner who has two and a half cents of the first nickel he ever earned, a GM who plays hardball to keep his job, a defensive coach who can't coach offensive talent... well add it all up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Come on Darcy, dick the Rangers. Give Dubinsky an offer sheet. Dooo itttt. I said it before. Screw Slats! offer a sheet Darcy. Grow a sack. Fair enough.The Dubinsky offer sheet idea is now being floated for the second time, and it's an even better idea now than it was the first time. GET IT DONE! /just wants to join the angry mob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.