papazoid Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20091127/SPORTS0101/911270330/tbd The current issue of ESPN The Magazine includes a short article called "Money Players: NHL Teams Need to Get the Most for Their Bucks." Four players were in the "Fool's Gold" category, and Drury (making $8.1 million with the New York Rangers this season) and Briere ($8 million with the Philadelphia Flyers) are two of them. Drury has 2 goals and 5 assists for 7 points in 19 games this season, with a minus-3 plus-minus rating. Briere has 10 goals and 6 assists for 16 points in 17 games this season, but he has a minus-3 plus-minus this season and is minus-29 in his two-plus seasons with the Flyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 http://www.democrata...1/911270330/tbd The current issue of ESPN The Magazine includes a short article called "Money Players: NHL Teams Need to Get the Most for Their Bucks." Four players were in the "Fool's Gold" category, and Drury (making $8.1 million with the New York Rangers this season) and Briere ($8 million with the Philadelphia Flyers) are two of them. Drury has 2 goals and 5 assists for 7 points in 19 games this season, with a minus-3 plus-minus rating. Briere has 10 goals and 6 assists for 16 points in 17 games this season, but he has a minus-3 plus-minus this season and is minus-29 in his two-plus seasons with the Flyers. 10 goals in 17 games. What a joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 10 goals in 17 games. What a joke! I thought the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Briere - 10 goals in 17 games. ($8 million) Vanek - 7 goals in 19 games. ($6.4 million) Drury - 2 goals in 19 games. ($8.1 million) Who's the fool's gold and who ain't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Well I would take Drury back in a heartbeat and give him the "C". He belongs in Buffalo. The cream puffs in the locker room need someone to get in their schitt. There is no leader on the Sabres now and no one listens to Ruff anymore. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted November 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 it was a huge mistake letting drury go. his leadership, clutch performer and two way play make him a special player. Briere is a player who plays well during the regular season and in overtime shoot outs, essentially someone who helps get you to the playoffs. But his play drops off in the playoffs. having said that i would take both of them back on our team at the original offer of about $5 per year. i would want neither at their current price of $8 million per year. i would rather use that money towards two top defenseman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 it was a huge mistake letting drury go. his leadership, clutch performer and two way play make him a special player. Briere is a player who plays well during the regular season and in overtime shoot outs, essentially someone who helps get you to the playoffs. But his play drops off in the playoffs. having said that i would take both of them back on our team at the original offer of about $5 per year. i would want neither at their current price of $8 million per year. i would rather use that money towards two top defenseman. I had to take the bait..... :wallbash: The only defenseman worth goin after would be Pronger or Phaneuf..Outside of those two forget it..I wouldve payed Drury 10 mill a yr to keep him..Briere earned his contract even though I agree he "dropped" off in the playoffs he was still our leading point producer in the playoffs hard to believe the way he played..Drury was the Captain and this team hasnt been a playoff team since he left nor before he came..Proof is in the pudding..This team is still waiting for one to show up.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 All this talk of fools gold and defensemen reminds me of Campbell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 All this talk of fools gold and defensemen reminds me of Campbell. Throw out the price tag he signed for and they still havent replaced him...They coulda had him for a song and a dance compared to that one..Hows Sekera playing these days...You dont let your stars go..You add players around them not subtract them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Well I would take Drury back in a heartbeat and give him the "C". He belongs in Buffalo. The cream puffs in the locker room need someone to get in their schitt. There is no leader on the Sabres now and no one listens to Ruff anymore. PTR I agree, but for 8 mill. a season, I wouldn't touch him with a 5 ft pole. Drury's an allrounder, with good offensive upside. He leads by example, plays in all situations, and he's clutch. All in all this makes for a very good player, but at 8 mill. a season he'd better be Ovechkin or Iginla. He isn't, and he never was. I'd take him back for 5 mill. easily though. Couldn't agree more on the immature, spoiled little brats in the locker room. The fact that some people would be willing to take back Drury at his current pricetag says a lot more about our current roster that Drury as a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 How quickly it's forgotten that Drury wouldn't sign with us no matter what we offered him. Drury didn't want to play for us, he really only wanted to play for the Rangers. Now he does, and he's not worth the salary hit to the Sabres, and he's definitely not worth the salary to the hapless Rangers. So, despite the fact we could've used him and fans loved him, despite that we were willing to overpay at >$7M/season, he still wouldn't play for us. So there's no point in arguing what-ifs about his return, and it's simply incorrect to say that we "let him go" when we offered everything we could to him during the free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 I hate Drury, Briere, and now Campbell because they give Sabres fans "outs" and "what ifs". Drury would suck if he came back here because he left, as IKnowPhysics above stated, and he wouldn't be coming back here because he wants to be here. I guess people think if Grier could do it, so could Drury. But I don't think so - Grier's departure was a business decision by both parties; Drury's departure was a "I don't want to be here, period" decision. Two completely different mindsets at work. Campbell didn't jack for the Sabres' fortunes in 07-08. And besides, the Sabres now have Sekera, Myers, and Montador doing, essentially, what made Campbell valuable. I can argue least about Briere, other than I think he's as roster-shy as Connolly (or, at least, Connolly's reputation), and he's slightly taller than Roy. And the Sabres need another goal-scorer - maybe. Perhaps the Sabres don't need their old garbage, but some different type of player. Like a Grier-Ovechkin crossbreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JujuFish Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Grier's departure was a business decision by both parties; Drury's departure was a "I don't want to be here, period" decision. The Sabres matched the offer Grier got from San Jose. Grier turned it down because he didn't want to be here. Some say it was because of "family considerations", some say it was because Grier was not happy with the direction the team was taking. The following was on WGR's website back at that time: Regier also offered comment on losing Mike Grier to the San Jose Sharks earlier today. He believes that family considerations were the primary factor in Grier's decision to head west, as Grier's wife has a brother who lives in San Francisco. He says the Sabres were willing to match both the length and terms of San Jose's contract offer (3 years, $5.3 million) but that Grier opted to leave nonetheless. According to Regier, the Sabres "wanted him back badly." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbossy Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 How quickly it's forgotten that Drury wouldn't sign with us no matter what we offered him. Drury didn't want to play for us, he really only wanted to play for the Rangers. Now he does, and he's not worth the salary hit to the Sabres, and he's definitely not worth the salary to the hapless Rangers. So, despite the fact we could've used him and fans loved him, despite that we were willing to overpay at >$7M/season, he still wouldn't play for us. So there's no point in arguing what-ifs about his return, and it's simply incorrect to say that we "let him go" when we offered everything we could to him during the free agency. Like that girl that won't date you because you don't have the bling, dates your friend and your friend tells you she's a bad fu.. Would you really date her again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 How quickly it's forgotten that Drury wouldn't sign with us no matter what we offered him. Drury didn't want to play for us, he really only wanted to play for the Rangers. Now he does, and he's not worth the salary hit to the Sabres, and he's definitely not worth the salary to the hapless Rangers. So, despite the fact we could've used him and fans loved him, despite that we were willing to overpay at >$7M/season, he still wouldn't play for us. So there's no point in arguing what-ifs about his return, and it's simply incorrect to say that we "let him go" when we offered everything we could to him during the free agency. We really tend to have very short term memories here, don't we?? You're spot on there.. Drury wanted to fulfill his lifelong dream of playing at MSG bla bla bla and would love to be a Ranger.. &*(%#$ him! He was good while he was here, he didn't want to be here no matter what we paid for him and I'm glad we didn't throw truckloads of dough trying to keep him here. Between last season and this one, Briere has been more flimsy than TC - a lot of Sabres fans thought we overpaid for TC, but if we had to have one or the other, I'd rather have TC and his points total and lower cap hit and than pay Briere megabucks to be yo-yoing between the trainer's table and the press box. How good does that Soupy trade look now eh? Agreed that with Rivet's current playing it's nothing to be singing in the streets about, but definitely better than overpaying him for what is basically mediocre play. Losing JP.. now that I still have a serious beef about. I was very disappointed about losing him, and his play after moving has made it worth being regretful about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 We really tend to have very short term memories here, don't we?? You're spot on there.. Drury wanted to fulfill his lifelong dream of playing at MSG bla bla bla and would love to be a Ranger.. &*(%#$ him! He was good while he was here, he didn't want to be here no matter what we paid for him and I'm glad we didn't throw truckloads of dough trying to keep him here. Between last season and this one, Briere has been more flimsy than TC - a lot of Sabres fans thought we overpaid for TC, but if we had to have one or the other, I'd rather have TC and his points total and lower cap hit and than pay Briere megabucks to be yo-yoing between the trainer's table and the press box. How good does that Soupy trade look now eh? Agreed that with Rivet's current playing it's nothing to be singing in the streets about, but definitely better than overpaying him for what is basically mediocre play. Losing JP.. now that I still have a serious beef about. I was very disappointed about losing him, and his play after moving has made it worth being regretful about. You're right. Remember when Drury was interviewed in NY during the playoff series and he gushed about his boyhood love of the Rangers and dream of playing in the Garden? He was already a Ranger. Neat trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VansTheMans Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Not to take away from the Drury bashing, but how quickly we forget contract talks happened in January of 2007, and the deal looked good to go but...that fax machine in LQ's office broke down. Shucks. Drury and Briere were prepared to stay, but as the season dragged on and we approached the end, with no contract in sight, it became painfully obvious to them the Sabres were not seriously interested. And we were not. If we were seriously interested, they would have been signed to deals midway through the season. Darcy's practice of not signing players to extensions during the season is what cost us Briere and Drury. That's undeniable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Not to take away from the Drury bashing, but how quickly we forget contract talks happened in January of 2007, and the deal looked good to go but...that fax machine in LQ's office broke down. Shucks. Drury and Briere were prepared to stay, but as the season dragged on and we approached the end, with no contract in sight, it became painfully obvious to them the Sabres were not seriously interested. And we were not. If we were seriously interested, they would have been signed to deals midway through the season. Darcy's practice of not signing players to extensions during the season is what cost us Briere and Drury. That's undeniable. I deny it. :) Drury and the Sabres got off to such an unbelievable start, and his value went through the roof. IMHO Drury's agent put the brakes on a deal with the Sabres and went shopping, making backchannel contacts with the Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Not to take away from the Drury bashing, but how quickly we forget contract talks happened in January of 2007, and the deal looked good to go but...that fax machine in LQ's office broke down. Shucks. Drury and Briere were prepared to stay, but as the season dragged on and we approached the end, with no contract in sight, it became painfully obvious to them the Sabres were not seriously interested. And we were not. If we were seriously interested, they would have been signed to deals midway through the season. Darcy's practice of not signing players to extensions during the season is what cost us Briere and Drury. That's undeniable. The contract offer sat on Tom's desk in the Fall of '06. (That's not on Darcy or Larry.) When the Sabres didn't get the paperwork to him in a timely manner, that's when Drury decided to back out of that deal. If Nylander re-signs w/ NY, maybe Drury's still a Sabre. If the Sabres give Drury the paperwork when they'd agreed to it, he definitely is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VansTheMans Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 The contract offer sat on Tom's desk in the Fall of '06. (That's not on Darcy or Larry.) When the Sabres didn't get the paperwork to him in a timely manner, that's when Drury decided to back out of that deal. If Nylander re-signs w/ NY, maybe Drury's still a Sabre. If the Sabres give Drury the paperwork when they'd agreed to it, he definitely is. Larry and Darcy do not get out of this one unscathed. I'm not entirely sure how TG runs the team, but I'm assuming he knows very little of what goes on. Running the organization is LQ and DR territory. They failed to sign Drury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Larry and Darcy do not get out of this one unscathed. I'm not entirely sure how TG runs the team, but I'm assuming he knows very little of what goes on. Running the organization is LQ and DR territory. They failed to sign Drury. Tom owns the team. The offer was on his desk. He pays the money, he sat on the offer. Sometimes guys are unable to convince their boss to do the correct thing; this was one of those occassions. Could Darcy or Larry have done something different to convince Tom to not sit on this? No data, but either way, Tom had final decision on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Tom owns the team. The offer was on his desk. He pays the money, he sat on the offer. Sometimes guys are unable to convince their boss to do the correct thing; this was one of those occassions. Could Darcy or Larry have done something different to convince Tom to not sit on this? No data, but either way, Tom had final decision on this one. Is this hearsay, speculation or verifiable fact? That OSP had the offer and sat on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VansTheMans Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 There was an offer, and it was sat on. We know that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Is this hearsay, speculation or verifiable fact? That OSP had the offer and sat on it? It's verbal reports from multiple reliable sources. As such, I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind. Just stating what it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VansTheMans Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 The Sabres matched the offer Grier got from San Jose. Grier turned it down because he didn't want to be here. Some say it was because of "family considerations", some say it was because Grier was not happy with the direction the team was taking. The following was on WGR's website back at that time: Yup. Grier left because he didn't like the direction the team was heading. He saw problems in the organization, and he bounced out. Drury left because the Sabres screwed up his negotiations. Same goes for DB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.