waldo Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Now i understand why none of you guys will ever be GMs :rolleyes: I think the Chimp gets it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Now i understand why none of you guys will ever be GMs :rolleyes: I think the Chimp gets it Cool story bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 I was hoping for a better response from you than this. Players that have trade value. Vanek Miller (value drops with every start) Regier Ehrhoff Youngsters/prospects Myers Gerbe Adam Kassian Weber McNabb Enroth Ennis ( if he can ever get healthy) Jags (Just another guy in the league) Everyone else. The problem is that there is not enough trade value in the players with trade value and jags combined that will allow you to build a winning team while keeping your youngsters and prospects. The Sabres are facing a monumental franchise-wide rebuild, anything less would futile. It will take something larger than Montreal attempted to do a few years ago and what the Flyers did last off-season. It will take at least a 60%-70% NHL roster turnover. This team is not going to be turned around with a half-assed effort. Trading Roy, Stafford and the rest of dregs of the roster would be nice, it just wouldn't solve the overall problem which is that this team is nowhere near being a Stanley Cup Contender. This franchise is beyond token gestures. It has to be torn down to the foundations and rebuilt. I seriously think we are looking at a another 5 years before this team is a true contender. That is only if changes are made with the GM and Coach sooner rather than later. The longer we have to wait for a new GM and Coach the logger we have to wait for significant changes to the roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundevil14= Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Gerbe's problem is that he should be on a line with decent linemates. NOT kaleta and gaustad. put him with playmakers, and it'll make a world of difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Who's picking up Leino's tab for us? You want to eat $4.5m on the books for NOTHING? His salary will keep other free agents away.. because the Sabres can't afford to have it on the payroll and not have the player in the lineup. Besides, I think he's fine.. he's still showing a bit more than some other guys on the team who make near his salary. Money shouldn't be a issue in "Hockey Heaven." Lieno is a hack 4th liner with possibly the worst contract in the NHL. There is no doubt his contract means no team is going to trade for him. If the goal is to rebuild this team into a contender than one of the items on the checklist has to be get rid of Leino. If it takes waivers, buyouts or burying him in Rochester, so be it. It's the advantage of have a free-spending owner, the Sabres should use it. Gerbe's problem is that he should be on a line with decent linemates. NOT kaleta and gaustad. put him with playmakers, and it'll make a world of difference. Gerbe has shown well no matter who he has as his line-mates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 That is only if changes are made with the GM and Coach sooner rather than later. The longer we have to wait for a new GM and Coach the logger we have to wait for significant changes to the roster. We can argue about exactly how many players need to change and how long it will take to turn things around, but this part is really hard to argue with. Money shouldn't be a issue in "Hockey Heaven." ... buyouts These two can't be in the same statement. The one area where Hockey Heaven can't spend at will is against the cap. Buyouts count against the cap. Buying out Leino now would be $1.4M versus the cap for the next 10 years. Now, if he doesn't turn things around, that might prove worth it, but it's not free money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Harry Neale. Ever since he came in it's been nothin' but trouble. Bring back Jim Lorentz! Come on, Harry's a trip! Him and Rick are great entertainment, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Has Kassian played at all lately? Yeah. In Rochester. He isn't the type of player Lindy wants on the team anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 I'd like to see the following as my 6 defensemen: Myers Regehr Ehrhoff Sekera Weber McNabb with #7 being one of the kids in Rochester or a cheapo vet. If you'd rather trade Reggie and keep Leopold (since the $$ is about the same), fine, but I'd rather keep Reggie. leopold over sekera anyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullwinkle Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Harry Neale. Ever since he came in it's been nothin' but trouble. Bring back Jim Lorentz! Booo!!! I love Harry and I love his wit. We need someone with a sense of humor in the booth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullwinkle Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Gerbe's problem is that he should be on a line with decent linemates. NOT kaleta and gaustad. put him with playmakers, and it'll make a world of difference. I agree with this. Why he isn't on the PP is beyond me. That situation would give him the time and space to demonstrate what he can do...i.e. score! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fan2456 Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 How about Barnaby or Peca? They would have taken up issue with Lucic. Pommer is bigger than both of them and way softer. The team reflects it's captain. I get your point about the incident. I also have to read Nolan's name and all kinds of past Sabres' names on these pages. Maybe we need to look at the future and quit the past. Last time I checked, no collection of Sabres have ever won a cup while part of this team. They just never were the best team. (We didn't have a goalie in 1975 anywhere near the caliber of Philadelphia. Despite "no goal", we weren't good enough and Dallas was clearly the better team. Yea inuries conspired against us when Carolina won the conference finals in 2006, but we all want to conveniently ignore the fact that old man Brindamour badly outplayed Drury in that series.---And I was a Drury fan.) I am confident Pegs will eventually tire of his management, and hopefully do his due diligence to bring in people from winning organizations who know what it takes. When we can speak of the current GM, coach and many of these core players in the past tense, we will be headed in the right direction. In my opinion, we are just spinning our wheels until that occurs. However, for those who want to see a cup, waiting is very frustrating and these pages are a good release for that frustration. Lord knows I'm frustrated as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Booo!!! I love Harry and I love his wit. We need someone with a sense of humor in the booth. ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Mr.'s Irrelevant Ellis - Why is he collecting an NHL sized paycheck again? McCormick - this hurts me to admit because I like him and I like what he's done for us. But there are many like him and the role is being reduced in the league. Kaleta - He hasn't been an effective pest in two seasons. He's injury prone. Gets minimal points. Doesn't skate well enough to play in a lockdown role. Doesn't draw penalties anymore unless you include the ones called on him. Every roster is going to be rounded out with a guy or two like this. It's just a way of life in the salary cap era. They're a dime a dozen though, so it really is an interchangeable group. Ellis is by far the cheapest and most cost effective, so he'll continue to fill that role either here or somewhere else. The McCormick contract is such a head scratcher though. Unless something changes there, he'll be a potential buy out option in the next two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 It matters very little what we think they should do as they continually have done the wrong thing: 2011 season numbers: 2.99 Goals Per Game 2.79 Goals Allowed Per Game 0.585 EDIT: point% 96pts 2012 season numbers extrapolated out to 82 games: 2.61 Goals Per Game 2.95 Goals Allowed 0.500 EDIT: Point% 82pts So if the trends continue and I think they will, we will finish the season having a roughly 13% drop in offensive output, with a corresponding 5.5% increase in goals allowed, resulting in a 8.5% drop in wins or a 15% drop in points. Calculations that indicate we should finish in 12th or 13th depending on our implosion rate versus that of other teams. Summary prognosis: Offense down, goals allowed up, almost no one is playing up to potential (Vanek and Pommers the only exceptions), this team should be rebuilt and regardless of what happens in the next 46 days they need to be sellers at the deadline. If winning the Stanley Cup is the ultimate goal than the worst thing this season could turn into is a underqualified team limping into the playoffs and maintaining the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 It matters very little what we think they should do as they continually have done the wrong thing: 2011 season numbers: 2.99 Goals Per Game 2.79 Goals Allowed Per Game 0.585 win% 96pts 2012 season numbers extrapolated out to 82 games: 2.61 Goals Per Game 2.95 Goals Allowed 0.500 win% 82pts So if the trends continue and I think they will, we will finish the season having a roughly 13% drop in offensive output, with a corresponding 5.5% increase in goals allowed, resulting in a 8.5% drop in wins or a 15% drop in points. Calculations that indicate we should finish in 12th or 13th depending on our implosion rate versus that of other teams. Summary prognosis: Offense down, goals allowed up, almost no one is playing up to potential (Vanek and Pommers the only exceptions), this team should be rebuilt and regardless of what happens in the next 46 days they need to be sellers at the deadline. If winning the Stanley Cup is the ultimate goal than the worst thing this season could turn into is a underqualified team limping into the playoffs and maintaining the status quo. 36 wins out of 82 games being .500 is not an accurate "winning percetage." The winning percentage is .439. What you are using as a "winning percentage" is a points earned percentage, which is .500. They are two completely different things. The Sabres "winning percentage" last season was .524. The difference remains the same at.085. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 36 wins out of 82 games being .500 is not an accurate "winning percetage." The winning percentage is .439. What you are using as a "winning percentage" is a points earned percentage, which is .500. They are two completely different things. The Sabres "winning percentage" last season was .524. The difference remains the same at.085. sooooo if the difference remains the same its irrelevant, correct? also I changed it for ya to be more accurate. Either way its kind of interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 sooooo if the difference remains the same its irrelevant, correct? also I changed it for ya to be more accurate. Either way its kind of interesting. The .500 mark is misued by Sabre fans so much it's not funny. Not directed at you, just fans in general. As far as the numbers, they don't lie. When you score less and allow more goals you would think the winning % would suffer, and it has in a big way. The problems is roster wide. Offense, defense and goaltending. Rookies and veterans alike. I fear the problems are bigger than fans want to admit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 The .500 mark is misued by Sabre fans so much it's not funny. Not directed at you, just fans in general. As a fan who understands that playoff qualification is based on total points earned in the standings and NOT the number of wins, please tell me how I'm "misusing" that .500 mark. Or do you truly think that a great number of fans is so stupid that we can't figure out what our winning percentage is? I agree that the difference between winning percentage and percentage of points earned ARE two different things. Nobody here ever said they weren't. You decided to insert the DeLuca .500 into the conversation as a way of delegitimizing a team's qualification as a playoff team. You mean wins are BETTER than OT losses? Well who would have ever thought that? When teams make the playoffs by virtue of winning percentage alone I'll be happy to reevaluate my position. GO SABRES!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Or do you truly think that a great number of fans is so stupid that we can't figure out what our winning percentage is? I do. (not you in particular, or even the vast majority of board members here. But the fanbase at large? yep. They don't know the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 As a fan who understands that playoff qualification is based on total points earned in the standings and NOT the number of wins, please tell me how I'm "misusing" that .500 mark. Or do you truly think that a great number of fans is so stupid that we can't figure out what our winning percentage is? I agree that the difference between winning percentage and percentage of points earned ARE two different things. Nobody here ever said they weren't. You decided to insert the DeLuca .500 into the conversation as a way of delegitimizing a team's qualification as a playoff team. You mean wins are BETTER than OT losses? Well who would have ever thought that? When teams make the playoffs by virtue of winning percentage alone I'll be happy to reevaluate my position. GO SABRES!!! There is no "DeLuca .500", there is only .500. It is a number that is used in sports to represent the success of a team. To say a team is .500 when they have won 18 of 42 is ridiculous. As Weave said, there are many fans that do not know the difference. They actually think this team is a .500 team. They're not, it gives a false value to the success of a team. That is a fundamental flaw with the NHL's point system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChimp Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Winning percentage now. So interesting how many angles people play to defend and/or lambaste....just watch the games. The team sucks. It gets worse and worse every passing year. Blow the ###### up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RazielSabre Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Winning percentage now. So interesting how many angles people play to defend and/or lambaste....just watch the games. The team sucks. It gets worse and worse every passing year. Blow the ###### up. With all due respect thats why you were called a troll in the other thread, you might be annoyed just like we all are but really was just abrasive and not at all constructive. We could blow the team up and achieve success in 5 years, or we could get rid of a few parts and see what happens. I say get rid of Ruff, Regier and Roy and we could be successful. Additionally moves I'd make are moving Sekera, McCormick, Ellis, Ennis, Weber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChimp Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 With all due respect thats why you were called a troll in the other thread, you might be annoyed just like we all are but really was just abrasive and not at all constructive. We could blow the team up and achieve success in 5 years, or we could get rid of a few parts and see what happens. I say get rid of Ruff, Regier and Roy and we could be successful. Additionally moves I'd make are moving Sekera, McCormick, Ellis, Ennis, Weber. Why do I keep getting called not constructive? You want me to re-post all my thoughts every time I post? I am in full agreement with what you just said and have said so. Start with Ruff and Darcy, see what players survive a new management team and see where we are, that's blowing it up IMO. Sheesh, I have to write a novel to lose this debased moniker, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.