darksabre Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 So, Roy put himself in the lineup? So it was Roy's decision, not the docs, Gm or coach. Really? You think that is how a pro sports team work? The coach couldn't tell he couldn't skate. LOL D4. Get over your hate for Roy and be objective. Like I said, I'm glad he is gone for OTT. We have heard incessently, how players want to play and the team has to protect them from themselves. Roy would have been cleared by the docs, but docs can clear you without being perfectly healthy. They do it every game. Roy should have been able to make a decision. A player knows when he's not playing to his ability, especially when injured. He should have taken himself out of the lineup if he was hurt. And yes Swamp, I'm dead serious. I understand your point and I agree, but I'm sure Crosby was not cleared to play. His return had more to do with medical clearance and less to do with him not rushing back. On the other hand I don't know if he delayed his return because he didn't feel 100% even after he was cleared to play by the docs. He very well could have. Many players will play despite lingering symptoms that might be mild, but of consequence. Crosby could very easily have told the docs that even if they cleared him, that it would be his decision on when he would return. I could also just say this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 I could also just say this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrFV5r8cs0 Can't afford to know them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAwGrSvuUfo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 So Roy's like Batman? That makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 Roy would have been cleared by the docs, but docs can clear you without being perfectly healthy. They do it every game. Roy should have been able to make a decision. A player knows when he's not playing to his ability, especially when injured. He should have taken himself out of the lineup if he was hurt. And yes Swamp, I'm dead serious. C'mon. Every player plays with injuries that if they waited longer to heal, they would be more effective. It just isn't practical,.. or, even remotely possible, in pro sports to wait until you are 100%. Also, the coach puts people on the ice based on performance (at least he should). Roy was 2nd (for forwards) in TOI and ended up forth in scoring. Even with a bum wing, he was one of our better options last year,.. ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 [snip] Even with a bum wing, he was one of our better options last year,.. ouch. Two bum wings, when he was centering Leino and Stafford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 bio :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 C'mon. Every player plays with injuries that if they waited longer to heal, they would be more effective. It just isn't practical,.. or, even remotely possible, in pro sports to wait until you are 100%. Also, the coach puts people on the ice based on performance (at least he should). Roy was 2nd (for forwards) in TOI and ended up forth in scoring. Even with a bum wing, he was one of our better options last year,.. ouch. Of course every player plays with injuries, but if those injuries severely hamper their abilities do they play? No. Roy rushed back from his injuries and played like sh*t all year. In my honest opinion if the dude was that messed up, he shouldn't have been playing. Two bum wings, when he was centering Leino and Stafford. :w00t: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabres13 Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 I just saw this posted on twitter by Jerry Sullivan it kinda pissed me off. "The Derek Roy news raises serious issues about the way the Sabres deal with injuries." This hurts the image of hockey heaven for Buffalo. Just because Roy had an injury and is just now fixing it his own problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 Of course every player plays with injuries, but if those injuries severely hamper their abilities do they play? No. Roy rushed back from his injuries and played like sh*t all year. In my honest opinion if the dude was that messed up, he shouldn't have been playing. Yep. He really screwed the team. Being as deep as we are at center, he really should have stepped aside, healed up propper, and let Ennis take over that #1 spot and give Adam or Szechuan a chance to light up the #4 spot. Again, c'mon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 I just saw this posted on twitter by Jerry Sullivan it kinda pissed me off. "The Derek Roy news raises serious issues about the way the Sabres deal with injuries." This hurts the image of hockey heaven for Buffalo. Just because Roy had an injury and is just now fixing it his own problem. This the standard Sullivan potshot. What do you expect him to say? If its not negative no one talks about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabres13 Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 This the standard Sullivan potshot. What do you expect him to say? If its not negative no one talks about him. I guess but it just makes buffalo look like a holes. If he only watched Roy play for buffalo then he would be so negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 Yep. He really screwed the team. Being as deep as we are at center, he really should have stepped aside, healed up propper, and let Ennis take over that #1 spot and give Adam or Szechuan a chance to light up the #4 spot. Again, c'mon. Would the end result really have been any worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 I guess but it just makes buffalo look like a holes. If he only watched Roy play for buffalo then he would be so negative. That or it serves to show Buffalo's lack for centers last year. I wouldn't read that far in to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 Would the end result really have been any worse? No. Maybe even better,.. we might have had an even higher draft pick and R + R would have been on the hot seat. :devil: I just think it's unreasonable to ask a guy to give up a season because it's "the right thing to do" immediately following a seaon that he was forced out due to injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 I'm going to reserve judgment until we know more details. that is completely irresponsible jumping to conclusions and flipping out is way more reasonable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 No. Maybe even better,.. we might have had an even higher draft pick and R + R would have been on the hot seat. :devil: I just think it's unreasonable to ask a guy to give up a season because it's "the right thing to do" immediately following a seaon that he was forced out due to injury. I don't think it's that unreasonable. If you're all gimped out what could you possibly contribute? Man up and take yourself to the press box. Let some kid who isn't functioning at half capacity get some experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 I understand your point and I agree, but I'm sure Crosby was not cleared to play. His return had more to do with medical clearance and less to do with him not rushing back. On the other hand I don't know if he delayed his return because he didn't feel 100% even after he was cleared to play by the docs. It was a team, medical department, and Sid agreement that he wouldn't play until he was back to 100%. He could have played sooner, but they all agreed that due to the increasing risk of longer and more severe injury if he came back too soon, that they would hold him out longer. And back to Roy, he's always had shoulder issues at the NHL level. That's why he wears the funky bubblepack underarmor beneath his shoulder pads. He always claimed that using that kept him in good enough condition to play. If the player says he can go and he passes medical clearance, he plays. Guys very often will play with lingering / nagging injuries for a long time to avoid surgery - surgery may make things better than they are but it rarely makes things as good as they were and if they can heal on their own that's usually the preferred course. Apparently, the Stars and Derek reached a different conclusion about his shoulder than Derek and the Sabres had. Perhaps the extra quarter year of seeing how it was recovering in the off-season influenced the conclusion. I'd be shocked if Dallas didn't know Roy had a ailing shoulder prior to making the trade. And addressing Moore from a post above, my understanding was that he broke the wrist that 1st game he played for the b&g. How is that an indictment of the trade or the Loafs' scruples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RazielSabre Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 Whatever. I'll see you first before determining my own motivation next time. Oh, and see trade between Edmonton and LA (Ryan Smyth for Colin Fraser) for example of one team trading damaged goods knowingly without disclosure and not having the trade voided by the league. Ah you mean the trade that was initially voided for medical reasons? Then Fraser was put in and whatever other broken piece taken out. Frasers medical issues were well known, LA chose to take it on as there was no other piece of Edmonton they wanted. At least thats what all the articles said at the time. Yep it didn't exactly help 'goodwill' and I'm not disputing that a limited amount of goodwill is important but business is business and only an idiot limits the people he deals with to 'nice people'. Btw, negativity is an attitude, not a motivation. There are no facts being thrown around here so people are assuming the worst, definition of negativity. Not aimed at you directly but if you want to take it personally fine, I really don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RazielSabre Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 I just saw this posted on twitter by Jerry Sullivan it kinda pissed me off. "The Derek Roy news raises serious issues about the way the Sabres deal with injuries." This hurts the image of hockey heaven for Buffalo. Just because Roy had an injury and is just now fixing it his own problem. Don't worry, with an attitude like that is going to be days before someone in the British media picks him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 Ah you mean the trade that was initially voided for medical reasons? Then Fraser was put in and whatever other broken piece taken out. Frasers medical issues were well known, LA chose to take it on as there was no other piece of Edmonton they wanted. At least thats what all the articles said at the time. Yep it didn't exactly help 'goodwill' and I'm not disputing that a limited amount of goodwill is important but business is business and only an idiot limits the people he deals with to 'nice people'. Wrong. The deal was Smyth for Fraser. There was no trade other than that one. LA approached the league to complain after they found out that Faser was injured so I doubt they knew about the injury beforehand. The trade wasn't voided after the complaint because LA and Edm came to an agreement for additional compensation on their own. There was no other trade beforehand that Fraser was subsituted for. Btw, negativity is an attitude, not a motivation. There are no facts being thrown around here so people are assuming the worst, definition of negativity. Not aimed at you directly but if you want to take it personally fine, I really don't care. re-read and show me where anyone assumed the worst. There was an expression of "oh, I hope noone dealt in bad faith". That is not an assumption that the deal is unfair. Lol at me taking it personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 re-read and show me where anyone assumed the worst. There was an expression of "oh, I hope noone dealt in bad faith". That is not an assumption that the deal is unfair. I Think it could be reasonable assumed that both sides knew. Best I can tell, it would be impossible that Dallas didn't know prior to the trade and the headline was not immediately "Dallas asks league to void trade". That would have occurred prior to the surgery, at the initial diagnosis. Both you and Drane suggested the impossible possibility that Dallas didn't know, yet was no challenging the trade. I think it is a reasonable conclusion that this suggestion was based on a negative view of the Sabres Organization (harrington tweeted something to the effect of "no one will ever trade with him again") rather than any actual information. It is the equivalent of accusing a Cyclist of doping simply because he goes up the Col de Columbier really fast. That accusation is based on a negative view of doping in cycling, not any actual evidence of PEDs. Does any of that make sense? I'm not saying that the negative view of DR is patently wrong, just that those suggestions come from a negative, untrusting viewpoint. <_< Still not sure if I'm making any sense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelo Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 I just saw this posted on twitter by Jerry Sullivan it kinda pissed me off. "The Derek Roy news raises serious issues about the way the Sabres deal with injuries." This hurts the image of hockey heaven for Buffalo. Just because Roy had an injury and is just now fixing it his own problem. "Twitter is for twits." Bill Murray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 Perhaps the reason for the Pardy salary dump? I think you nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 Dallas had to know of the shoulder since players have to pass a physical in order for trades to go through league office. My thoughts are that nagging shoulder was most likely disclosed to Dallas and they were o.k. with situation and considered it minor. All this talk of Regier pulling the wool over the stars eyes is bunk. IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 I Think it could be reasonable assumed that both sides knew. Best I can tell, it would be impossible that Dallas didn't know prior to the trade and the headline was not immediately "Dallas asks league to void trade". That would have occurred prior to the surgery, at the initial diagnosis. Both you and Drane suggested the impossible possibility that Dallas didn't know, yet was no challenging the trade. I think it is a reasonable conclusion that this suggestion was based on a negative view of the Sabres Organization (harrington tweeted something to the effect of "no one will ever trade with him again") rather than any actual information. It is the equivalent of accusing a Cyclist of doping simply because he goes up the Col de Columbier really fast. That accusation is based on a negative view of doping in cycling, not any actual evidence of PEDs. Does any of that make sense? I'm not saying that the negative view of DR is patently wrong, just that those suggestions come from a negative, untrusting viewpoint. <_< Still not sure if I'm making any sense... I'll speak for myself as I cannot speak for others. But I'll note that X Benedict had the same thought and he certainly isn't a Darcy hater. Myself, it doesn't come from a distrust of Darcy. I am rather neutral on the guy and do not participate in the Darcy bashing (or the Lindy bashing). My expression was merely a "wow, Roy had an injury when we traded him? Was that known by all parties?" sort fo response. And frankly, I don't see how that is accusatory unless the accuser is assuming a negative view of me (or Dwight, or X). And that's on them, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.