dudacek Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Not saying this dude is credible, but he also co-founded Octagon sports agency with Mike Liut, who is Ryan Miller's agent. I don't see any reason for Lawton to make anything up? So this isn't the Sabres camp floating a fake rumour in order to spark better offers, it's the Miller camp doing same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Shutouts aren't valued? The league keeps them as a stat. Fans get excited when one is near. Media won't mention it out of fear of bad juju. Goalies who get a lot of shutouts get into their opponents' head. They have a reputation. They, uh, dominate. I can guarantee that agents use shutouts to try and get their clients more money; I can guarantee they'd be a part of an arbitration hearing, from either side. They have value. Come on. As for the statement about what if Miller had seven shutouts this season? You know damned well it would be brought up left and right by his supporters. Except Emrick with 48 seconds left in the game!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted February 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 So this isn't the Sabres camp floating a fake rumour in order to spark better offers, it's the Miller camp doing same? Speaking on condition of anonymity, floating that language out there is telling other teams that; If they want to sign Miller it will cost them Lundqvist money Miller doesn't want to re-sign here The last one is to get GM's to call Murray back, saying it may not cost so much for Miller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Is anyone else troubled by if the reports that if the Sabres are unable to trade Miller by the deadline they are going to try and re-sign him? I want this new management team to have clear direction. Paying a ton of money to a goalie can have a huge impact on the future shape of this team. I'm not sayinjg I want or don't want them to re-sign Miller but if your decision is to trade him and move on then that's what you do. I don't want a lack of demand for a rental goalie at the deadline to force managements hand to re-sign him. Make your decision and stick to it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Is anyone else troubled by if the reports that if the Sabres are unable to trade Miller by the deadline they are going to try and re-sign him? I want this new management team to have clear direction. Paying a ton of money to a goalie can have a huge impact on the future shape of this team. I'm not sayinjg I want or don't want them to re-sign Miller but if your decision is to trade him and move on then that's what you do. I don't want a lack of demand for a rental goalie at the deadline to force managements hand to re-sign him. Make your decision and stick to it! The problem is that if you're not going to get anything of value back for Miller, there's no other option but to at least try to re-sign him before he goes to Free Agency. As I suspected months ago, the market for Miller isn't quite as strong as many expected it to be. When you narrow down the potential landing places, then ask yourself if they're not on Miller's list, then ask what they can give us in return, it suddenly looks very hopeless. Darcy f*cked us by not trading him during the off season. I won't be shocked if Murray decides not to trade him before the deadline due to a lack of any substantial offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) But is that not a Darcy move to see we can't get a ton for him at the deadline so we try and scramble and sign him. I for once want us to think long term, have a plan in place and go with it. It has seemed obvious to me that TM has wanted to trade Miller rather than re-sign. So get what you can (even if it's considerably less than you want) and follow the plan you have in place. I don't want him to go for nothing either but signing Miller to a Lundqvist type contract is a huge decision that I dont want to be decided based on a potential deadline deal in 2014 that may or may not materialize. I agree on the Darcy fu$king us over part. I guess I'm just getting tired of these reactionary moves.... Edited February 25, 2014 by Derrico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I suspect Miller is much like Vanek at this point. He's saying all the right things to the media, but he's been long gone for quite some time now. Unless they throw ridiculous money at him, which would be dumb, then there is 0% chance that he re-signs. Trade him for whatever the market is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I suspect Miller is much like Vanek at this point. He's saying all the right things to the media, but he's been long gone for quite some time now. Unless they throw ridiculous money at him, which would be dumb, then there is 0% chance that he re-signs. Trade him for whatever the market is. There's a message to be sent to the rest of the league, too, though, about not accepting insufficient offers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Is anyone else troubled by if the reports that if the Sabres are unable to trade Miller by the deadline they are going to try and re-sign him? I want this new management team to have clear direction. Paying a ton of money to a goalie can have a huge impact on the future shape of this team. I'm not sayinjg I want or don't want them to re-sign Miller but if your decision is to trade him and move on then that's what you do. I don't want a lack of demand for a rental goalie at the deadline to force managements hand to re-sign him. Make your decision and stick to it! Just because they may want to re-sign him doesn't mean he will. Whether he is traded or not, I doubt Miller is a Sabre next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Daddy Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) There's a message to be sent to the rest of the league, too, though, about not accepting insufficient offers. But then he leaves 7/1/14 and we get nothing. Edited February 25, 2014 by DGW54321 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Miller has to be traded; every GM knows this and only a few are interested. It's the definition of a buyer's market. the Blues want him, but a first (or Edmonton's second) is probably all Armstrong will have have to pay because no one is going to beat that offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 But then he leaves 7/1/14 and we get nothing. And neither do the teams making insufficient offers. It's ok to let the league know that the Sabres are not afraid to push the big red button. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 But then he leaves 7/1/14 and we get nothing. And that happens to every team, they lose FAs for nothing all the time. The issue with Drury/Briere thats different is that they had the ability to re-sign them and failed to do so. Briere was almost begging them to just make him an offer but they passed to focus on Drury who had already checked out and was obviously headed to the Rangers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 But then he leaves 7/1/14 and we get nothing. We might get nothing even if we trade him. I understand the something is better than nothing mentality, but if he isn't getting a reasonable return then let him play out the season here and put his fate in his hands come July. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 There's a message to be sent to the rest of the league, too, though, about not accepting insufficient offers. I agree with this, but there's also a point where you just have to say "look, the last guy made a complete mess and I have to make something out of it." I'd take the best or only offer at the deadline and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabre snipe Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Im curious to know why the NHL hasn't added in a compensatory draft pick system yet for this very reason. In the NFL if you lose a high profile free agent for nothing, at least you will most likely be awarded a 3rd round pick for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I do think the Lawton report is an intentional leak to get the offers coming in. Especially considering Miller's agent appears to be close with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I agree with this, but there's also a point where you just have to say "look, the last guy made a complete mess and I have to make something out of it." I'd take the best or only offer at the deadline and move on. It's tantamout to saying "hey, I'm new here, so I'm going to set the tone by allowing you all to lowball me." Bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 It's tantamout to saying "hey, I'm new here, so I'm going to set the tone by allowing you all to lowball me." Bad idea. I just don't think this is the time to try and play cute and make statements. You'll get laughed at. "Hey look at me, I'm not going to take your ###### offer St. Louis." Months later in July... "The St. Louis Blues are proud to announce the signing of Ryan Miller, who we gave nothing up to get..." Oh you got 'em Timmy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I agree with this, but there's also a point where you just have to say "look, the last guy made a complete mess and I have to make something out of it." I'd take the best or only offer at the deadline and move on. So you want to see them make a move for the sake of making a move? Priority #1 should be to re-sign him, the best thing a young developing team could have is having a strong goaltender in net that can allow them to not have to worry about mistakes so much and focus on other things other then trying to protect a young goalie. If he refuses to work on negotiating a new deal and you can get a reasonable offer for him at the deadline, then move him, if your not getting reasonable offers, keep him and continue to work on re-signing him then if you still can't convince him see if you can move his rights prior to July 1st like they did for Erhoff. In the Callahan thread everyone was gushing over giving him whatever he wants even if its overpaying because they have so much cap space available, so why can't this apply to Miller too? Why are people worried about overpaying a goaltender but not about overpaying a 3rd liner (whos salary demands are only a few million less then what Lundqvist was given a season)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 So you want to see them make a move for the sake of making a move? Priority #1 should be to re-sign him, the best thing a young developing team could have is having a strong goaltender in net that can allow them to not have to worry about mistakes so much and focus on other things other then trying to protect a young goalie. If he refuses to work on negotiating a new deal and you can get a reasonable offer for him at the deadline, then move him, if your not getting reasonable offers, keep him and continue to work on re-signing him then if you still can't convince him see if you can move his rights prior to July 1st like they did for Erhoff. In the Callahan thread everyone was gushing over giving him whatever he wants even if its overpaying because they have so much cap space available, so why can't this apply to Miller too? Why are people worried about overpaying a goaltender but not about overpaying a 3rd liner (whos salary demands are only a few million less then what Lundqvist was given a season)? Great post. I would rather overpay Miller to avoid Goalie Purgatory than throw money at a player like Callahan. We can develop that player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Miller has to be traded; every GM knows this and only a few are interested. It's the definition of a buyer's market. the Blues want him, but a first (or Edmonton's second) is probably all Armstrong will have have to pay because no one is going to beat that offer. I doubt they will get a #1 from STL (and for that matter I continue to doubt that STL goes for him at all). I continue to think that the best the Sabres will get for him is a low #2 or a decent but not great prospect -- someone like Larsson or Hackett. In the Callahan thread everyone was gushing over giving him whatever he wants even if its overpaying because they have so much cap space available, so why can't this apply to Miller too? Why are people worried about overpaying a goaltender but not about overpaying a 3rd liner (whos salary demands are only a few million less then what Lundqvist was given a season)? Well, I can't know what others are thinking, but I would guess that many think there is a decent possibility that Callahan would sign with the Sabres due to cash and hometown, but almost no possibility that Miller would sign here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I doubt they will get a #1 from STL (and for that matter I continue to doubt that STL goes for him at all). I continue to think that the best the Sabres will get for him is a low #2 or a decent but not great prospect -- someone like Larsson or Hackett. Well, I can't know what others are thinking, but I would guess that many think there is a decent possibility that Callahan would sign with the Sabres due to cash and hometown, but almost no possibility that Miller would sign here. I believe that if there is a deal to be done in St Louis for Miller, it won't be just a pick or a low prospect, its going to include either Halak or Elliot coming back the other way with maybe a pick. The Blues aren't going to keep 3 goalies on the roster, and getting someone like Halak back gives them someone they can re-sign and give them a starter for now until one of the guys in the minors can take the spot As for the Callahan part, I'm not even considering weither Callahan would sign here or not, my point was that there have been comments about spending whatever to try and bring him in and how the cap shouldn't be an issue so who cares if they overpay, yet in discussing miller, people comment that they should overpay and that they shouldn't tie up cap space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 It may be a possibility that in both Millers interest and team he does sign in Buffalo as at this time the market for goalie not high , signing Miller for Sabres would make him in fact more desirable in a year or two if they front end a contract with substantial bonuses , he later term money not as high a cap hit. At present Sabres not going to get value for him and Miller not going to be offered the money he would wish in terms of contract extension. A surprise in terms of a contract signing may very well be in the offing . They do it this way or get in return for him not very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 It may be a possibility that in both Millers interest and team he does sign in Buffalo as at this time the market for goalie not high , signing Miller for Sabres would make him in fact more desirable in a year or two if they front end a contract with substantial bonuses , he later term money not as high a cap hit. At present Sabres not going to get value for him and Miller not going to be offered the money he would wish in terms of contract extension. A surprise in terms of a contract signing may very well be in the offing . They do it this way or get in return for him not very much. I think the problem with this was well pointed out by Tank that why would Miller resign with Buffalo if there is even a hint that he will be traded in a couple of years? Why wouldn't Miller say thanks but no thanks, I'll sign for big money on my terms in a couple of months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.