Calvin Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 With Andy Sutton heading to Anaheim, and Shaone Morrisonn arriving in Buffalo, please permit me to uncross my fingers and ask the obvious question: Did the Sabres pick up the best of the available defensive defensemen? My answer is no. Last year - in 72 games - Sutton had 204 blocked shots and 197 hits, while Morrisonn had 104 blocked shots and 164 hits in 68 games. Those numbers suggest not only that Sutton is still a very effective defensive defenseman, but that he is still - even with the significant age difference - a more effective defenseman than Morrisonn. Plus you can add the fact that Sutton is more physical, and intimidating.* Sutton has never needed to be "prodded" to play a physical game.** Given a choice between Andy Sutton or Shaone Morrisonn - for the next two years - at a similar price, I would go with Sutton, the age difference notwithstanding. *A quick perusal of Andy's greatest hits on YouTube will provide some evidence. ** Howard Simon spoke this morning with a gentleman who follows the Washington Capitals who talked about Morrisonn sometimes needing to be "prodded" to play a physical game. Another Hal Gill, have we? Hate to burst your bubble here, but with the knowledge both players were UFAs, have you considered that maybe Sutton did not want to come here and maybe Morrisonn did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 That is my thinking as well. Something has to give. Not really. That is 14 blueliners. 7 for Buffalo and 7 for Portland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTTOnME Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Hate to burst your bubble here, but with the knowledge both players were UFAs, have you considered that maybe Sutton did not want to come here and maybe Morrisonn did? Calvin, I'd hate to think that Andy Sutton has become snooty in his old age. Don't forget that the last time Sutton was a free agent he signed with the New York Islanders. Could he really look down his nose at the Buffalo Sabres after that? When he signed with Anaheim, Sutton said he chose the Ducks because they are "a team that can go all the way ... It's a mature team, a veteran team and the sky is the limit with this club." Do the Ducks - in the short term - have a better shot at the Stanley Cup than the Sabres? Until proven otherwise, I will assume that Darcy Regier did not offer Sutton a contract. After allowing Henrik Tallinder and Toni Lydman to sign elsewhere, Regier had no intention of bringing an older defenseman to Buffalo. The contract Sutton signed with Anaheim was more than reasonable, so - if the Sabres did have any interest in him - they could have outbid the Ducks without busting their budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Not really. That is 14 blueliners. 7 for Buffalo and 7 for Portland. Right - based on the Kennedy presser I see anyone that can go down will go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Second time in 24 hrs, I went ... huh? Could this be an admission that Rivet might either take more time than expected to get back or is done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Second time in 24 hrs, I went ... huh? Could this be an admission that Rivet might either take more time than expected to get back or is done? Could also mean that the kids in Portland are not ready for fulltime roles up here yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 I noticed this guy was paired with Greene in Washington. I wonder if he is Myers new defense partner? They need a guy to back up Myers when he takes off, maybe. Morrissonn was down to less than 16 minutes per game in the playoffs last year. I think he'll be 3rd pair on the Sabres and in the mix for 2nd. I think Leopold will play with Myers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Morrissonn was down to less than 16 minutes per game in the playoffs last year. I think he'll be 3rd pair on the Sabres and in the mix for 2nd. I think Leopold will play with Myers. LOL. Considering what the Sabres are going into the season with at defense? Morrissonn is the second best blue-liner the Sabres have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 LOL. Considering what the Sabres are going into the season with at defense? Morrissonn is the second best blue-liner the Sabres have. Hahahahahah this is too funny. Morrissonn is easily our second best defensemen. He played on the Capitals top pair for most of last year, we got him cheap because veryone looked over him cuz green racks up so many points. Look for Myers to break out this year with Shaone as his partner, I think Myers will have the most goals of any defensemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Good signing on Morrisonn. I rather have defensemen who do not leave Miller out to dry and clear the puck out of the zone. We have several young defensemen who will need to compete for spots. The loser will join someone out the door to bring in a power forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Good signing on Morrisonn. I rather have defensemen who do not leave Miller out to dry and clear the puck out of the zone. We have several young defensemen who will need to compete for spots. The loser will join someone out the door to bring in a power forward. This comment is interesting indeed. Evaluating what the team does following training camp may very well be the way to go here. But if they are waiting to see who earns that final roster spot and who is going to be retained as the plan B defenseman in case of injury, that may end up leaving them making a trade well into the season. Kind of a risky move depending on if they wait until in the season to trade for a forward as you suggest, but it wouldn't surprise me any either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Good signing on Morrisonn. I rather have defensemen who do not leave Miller out to dry and clear the puck out of the zone. We have several young defensemen who will need to compete for spots. The loser will join someone out the door to bring in a power forward. Swamp, that's your cue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 I've had a few days to ponder this signing and I still don't get it... Saw in the USATODAY that Guerin is still out there... Billy Guerin anyone???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Swamp, that's your cue. I'm just,... so,... tired. I rather have lots o stuff. Like forwards that are in better postions to help get the puck out instead of cupping Miller's balls. Like a center that backchecks instead of letting Chara get a slapshot off 20 feet directly in front of Miller. Like a GM who doesn't say that his goal is to win the Cup yet has an internal budget below the cap (For the record, my goal is to win the Cup. Even though I'm 41 and play in division 8 at my rink and can't seam to crack into division 7, my goal is still to win the Cup and will remain my goal until I'm dead.) Like a GM who addresses the real needs of this team instead of playing musical chairs on defense year after year with the hope of the forwards finally maturing. There's more but, I'm,.. so,.. tired,.. and now I have to go to work,.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Like a GM who doesn't say that his goal is to win the Cup yet has an internal budget below the cap. This doesn't make sense. If you want to replace "GM" with "front office", then I'd buy it. Darcy can, as he alluded to in his presser, make a case to the owners to increase the budget if he has an option to improve the team, but he does not get to set that budget. Sure, he can go to Larry and say "I've got a couple of trades that would see Connolly and Stafford go out and Savard and a decent right winger come in, which would definitely improve our chances of winning the Cup, but I'll need another $2.5 million on the budget to cover Savard's $7 million salary." Does that mean that Larry has to say "sure" and sign on? No. Many teams have internal budgets below the cap, some far below the Sabres', and their GMs can still have a goal to win the Cup, even though they know that they'll need to be especially good at their jobs to do so. Now, as I said in another thread, the more that a cost-conscious owner has faith in his GM's ability to turn increased budget into increased chances of making the playoffs, winning playoff rounds and, finally, winning the Cup, the higher of a budget he will be willing to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 This doesn't make sense. If you want to replace "GM" with "front office", then I'd buy it. Darcy can, as he alluded to in his presser, make a case to the owners to increase the budget if he has an option to improve the team, but he does not get to set that budget. Sure, he can go to Larry and say "I've got a couple of trades that would see Connolly and Stafford go out and Savard and a decent right winger come in, which would definitely improve our chances of winning the Cup, but I'll need another $2.5 million on the budget to cover Savard's $7 million salary." Does that mean that Larry has to say "sure" and sign on? No. Many teams have internal budgets below the cap, some far below the Sabres', and their GMs can still have a goal to win the Cup, even though they know that they'll need to be especially good at their jobs to do so. Now, as I said in another thread, the more that a cost-conscious owner has faith in his GM's ability to turn increased budget into increased chances of making the playoffs, winning playoff rounds and, finally, winning the Cup, the higher of a budget he will be willing to give. Like I said, my goal is to win the cup. Just because I say it doesn't mean that I'm going to (or even really trying). His goal is not to win the cup. His goal is to field(ice?) the best team he can with the resources he has and hope he gets lucky every once in a while to make a run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Like I said, my goal is to win the cup. Just because I say it doesn't mean that I'm going to (or even really trying). His goal is not to win the cup. His goal is to field(ice?) the best team he can with the resources he has and hope he gets lucky every once in a while to make a run. Ding Ding Ding Ding (cue the Price Is Right Music) We have a winner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 His goal is not to win the cup. His goal is to field(ice?) the best team he can with the resources he has and hope he gets lucky every once in a while to make a run. I hate to break it to you, but that is the same goal as every GM in the league. That's practically the job description. Fielding the best team that he can with the resources provided is how a GM tries to win the Cup. If it's not, how else would they go about it? Make bad decisions with the resources provided? Not use them all? Use resources not provided? Now, if you want to say that he uses the resources provided to field the most consistently good team (i.e., few highs or lows over the years) rather than giving the best chance in a single year for a Cup, even it means some down years, then I could buy that. I don't believe the Darcy is willing to risk a really bad year because he made a big move that didn't pan out. That, unfortunately, also hurts his chances of having one of those big years. He's too safe. Personally, I'd rather see a risk once in a while. If it does not work and results in a lottery-caliber season, then come out and say that you're in rebuilding mode, reap the benefits of the top pick(s), and make a run with those young stars under their rookie contracts, adding the appropriate mix of experienced veterans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korab rules Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 If it does not work and results in a lottery-caliber season, then come out and say that you're in rebuilding mode, reap the benefits of the top pick(s), and make a run with those young stars under their rookie contracts, adding the appropriate mix of experienced veterans. Pittsburgh, Washington, Philadelphia and Chicago would agree with this philosophy. Seems to be working OK for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Pittsburgh, Washington, Philadelphia and Chicago would agree with this philosophy. Seems to be working OK for them. ...and none of them are in rebuilding mode. They all have a core of 5 or 6 players they feature and a supporting cast which does exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 ...and none of them are in rebuilding mode. They all have a core of 5 or 6 players they feature and a supporting cast which does exactly that. Not now, but they were. Also, Kane and Toews had a combined salary/cap hits of $1.725 million last year (excluding whatever bonuses they actually fit in.) Now, they'll be a combined $12.6 million, not to mention the carried over bonuses from last year. They took advantage of an opportunity last year that they won't have a again. They'll be competitive because they locked up that young core for relatively low salaries, but they won't have the same opportunities in filling out their roster as they did last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 I hate to break it to you, but that is the same goal as every GM in the league. That's practically the job description. Fielding the best team that he can with the resources provided is how a GM tries to win the Cup. If it's not, how else would they go about it? Make bad decisions with the resources provided? Not use them all? Use resources not provided? Now, if you want to say that he uses the resources provided to field the most consistently good team (i.e., few highs or lows over the years) rather than giving the best chance in a single year for a Cup, even it means some down years, then I could buy that. I don't believe the Darcy is willing to risk a really bad year because he made a big move that didn't pan out. That, unfortunately, also hurts his chances of having one of those big years. He's too safe. Personally, I'd rather see a risk once in a while. If it does not work and results in a lottery-caliber season, then come out and say that you're in rebuilding mode, reap the benefits of the top pick(s), and make a run with those young stars under their rookie contracts, adding the appropriate mix of experienced veterans. Other than the 2 years during the rules hiatus, how does the phrase "consistently good" apply to Darcy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Other than the 2 years during the rules hiatus, how does the phrase "consistently good" apply to Darcy? We were talking goals, not execution. I don't think he's vary good at, well, being good. However, even after the mass exodus, they never fell into the bottom third of the league. Again, he won't take a big risk to try for a great season, if it means risking a year or two at the bottom. I have a picture in my mind, a chart really, of the Sabres moving up and down around a steady mid-league mean, maybe just slightly above, with noise of +/-5 spots, while the rest of the league has slightly more noise, but also more significant swings in the mean over time. Of course, there are a couple teams oscillating around the bottom consistently, but the better-managed teams turn a big downward swing into a subsequent and comparable upward swing. Few teams, Detroit and New Jersey come to mind (Pittsburgh may become one, though they certainly weren't previously), seem to have just noise around a high mean without the big downward swings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 We were talking goals, not execution. I don't think he's vary good at, well, being good. However, even after the mass exodus, they never fell into the bottom third of the league. Again, he won't take a big risk to try for a great season, if it means risking a year or two at the bottom. I have a picture in my mind, a chart really, of the Sabres moving up and down around a steady mid-league mean, maybe just slightly above, with noise of +/-5 spots, while the rest of the league has slightly more noise, but also more significant swings in the mean over time. Of course, there are a couple teams oscillating around the bottom consistently, but the better-managed teams turn a big downward swing into a subsequent and comparable upward swing. Few teams, Detroit and New Jersey come to mind (Pittsburgh may become one, though they certainly weren't previously), seem to have just noise around a high mean without the big downward swings. Is this picture of a chart in your mind post lock out? And couldn't you denote the teams that hover with noise around the high mean would actually have those larger swings to the down side with the more years (or time) you add to that chart? I would think New Jersay is probably the most consistant in the past 20 years of high side, correct? While Washington had some larger swings and more down side prior to the Ovechkin era there, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Is this picture of a chart in your mind post lock out? And couldn't you denote the teams that hover with noise around the high mean would actually have those larger swings to the down side with the more years (or time) you add to that chart? I would think New Jersay is probably the most consistant in the past 20 years of high side, correct? While Washington had some larger swings and more down side prior to the Ovechkin era there, correct? I would say that's all correct. Detroit did have a down period, but was a while ago. In general, I think that the Sabres try to emulate the Red Wings both in management philosophy and in coaching. They just aren't as good at 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.