spndnchz Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 Don't go using that old math. To get the real answer you must eliminate any goals scored in 5 consecutive games, multiply by 2 any stretches of games were he doesn't score and credit only one half for a goal scored more then 5 feet away from goalie. Oh, also calculate his age in dog years in order to lose patience with the speed of his development. :worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 All valid points Taro. IMO it comes down to what does one percieve as significant positive change? Some (like you) are already convinced that significant positive change has happened. Others are going to wait until the roster shows significant improvement on the ice (or at least on paper this summer :D ). Both sides have a logical, well thought out basis for their position. Just thought I'd fix that to show what the other side sees. :blush: It really does come down to point of view and perspective. There have been some immediate and perceptible changes. In the long term Rosters are always in a state of flux...let's look at 2008-09 The defense from two years ago is 100% gone. I expect only Pominville, Hecht, Vanek, Stafford, Kaleta, Roy and Gaustad to be back from two years ago. That is 7 skaters out of 21 for nearly 70% attrition ....Which will probably exceed most of the league for that span. Now you can debate those six skaters, where they belong, scheme etc...but for someone like me who looks at the defense out, there has been significant change. (corrected for my creative math :lol: ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 Don't go using that old math. To get the real answer you must eliminate any goals scored in 5 consecutive games, multiply by 2 any stretches of games were he doesn't score and credit only one half for a goal scored more then 5 feet away from goalie. Oh, also calculate his age in dog years in order to lose patience with the speed of his development. See - there was an additional reason the Sabres hired Harry Neale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 There have been some immediate and perceptible changes. In the long term Rosters are always in a state of flux...let's look at 2008-09 The defense from two years ago is 100% gone. I expect only Pominville, Hecht, Vanek, Stafford, Kaleta, Roy and Gaustad to be back from two years ago. That is 7 skaters out of 21 for nearly 70% attrition ....Which will probably exceed most of the league for that span. Now you can debate those six skaters, where they belong, scheme etc...but for someone like me who looks at the defense out, there has been significant change. (corrected for my creative math :lol: ) I recall an interview with Darcy a couple seasons ago where he said that they plan on 100% turnover every 3-4 years. I don't think he meant every player gone, but rather 21 guys moving in and out in that time period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling Archer Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 Called it. Horton money. Boosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 I recall an interview with Darcy a couple seasons ago where he said that they plan on 100% turnover every 3-4 years. I don't think he meant every player gone, but rather 21 guys moving in and out in that time period. Great way to keep costs down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 I recall an interview with Darcy a couple seasons ago where he said that they plan on 100% turnover every 3-4 years. I don't think he meant every player gone, but rather 21 guys moving in and out in that time period. I remember it too, it was on WGR, but I can't find anything referencing his quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 Don't go using that old math. To get the real answer you must eliminate any goals scored in 5 consecutive games, multiply by 2 any stretches of games were he doesn't score and credit only one half for a goal scored more then 5 feet away from goalie. Oh, also calculate his age in dog years in order to lose patience with the speed of his development. I needed to bump this because this line had me chuckling all day yesterday. Then it had me crying last night while watching Danny Paille. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachedNLA Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Don't laugh, you make Pegula upset. On a note of irony, on the Buffalo News website, Stafford's signing is listed next to "Man robs M&T Bank" Late to game... Project at work has given me NO time to do anything sport-wise, other than see who won game NHL Finals / NBA, etc... (And in L.A., drew Stafford not on top / haven't been listening to gr55...), had NO Memorial day weekend, and trip out of country is on horizon to sort-out software / configuration mess. Just noted that Drew got the 4x4... But THIS (above) made me bust out... :) (Thanks, Ghost...) Definitely to be seen "what comes next", & how Stafford's career moves along from here... (but another thought..., and I've not read the other 17 pages of this thread...), is if Salary cap goes up, and this is a bargain (and Stafford's worth continues to rise, albeit not as high as it shot up last year), it does not put Drew in "un-trade-able" category... All of our assets, in a bad free-agent year, should be considered (You know all trades are being considered..., do not think Pegula's words were just idle talk..., the man will get smarter, as will people around him, and WANTS the cup, as we do...., "my belief"). Now if Drew would have gotten far-less than this, as an RFA, in arbitration, and he sux, moving forward, we have an egg of a contract (don't think that will be the case). With Stafford's relative on Oiler staff, and the mountain of youth they're piling (plus that huge game he laid on them 2 years ago / plays well against them...), I'd think that franchise might have looked Stafford's way this off-season, if he was still available (think Vanek...). We will need (without a complete tear-down) to go the trade route, to get better. Subtracting Stafford (with nothing in return / or in a lame-duck last RFA season) would make us worse (and in short-term, probably long-term too, his trade stock, unless ALL teams think like DeLuca) is now "up" (We held onto our own / he's a key piece here, no huge down-side). Yea, maybe if we don't sign him / take arbitration, or whatever, we maybe get his last monster year in Buffalo (but then "hockey heaven" talk takes a huge hit... And we end up in bad shape next year). I don't follow the Hockey "cap"-gistics like some of you guys, so feel free to tell me if my logic is wrong. As-always... Go BUFFALO Sabres!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.