LabattBlue Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 It is clear by the amount of playing time that the 4th line got last night, that Lindy is much more confident in the 4th line with Paille replacing Peters. Assuming that Stafford goes back to Rochester when Max is healthy(you don't want Stafford playing 10 minutes a game on the 4th line), I believe that Paille will stay here and become a regular fixture on the 4th line. Peters will get a game in every now and then, but that's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cesna Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 It is clear by the amount of playing time that the 4th line got last night, that Lindy is much more confident in the 4th line with Paille replacing Peters. Assuming that Stafford goes back to Rochester when Max is healthy(you don't want Stafford playing 10 minutes a game on the 4th line), I believe that Paille will stay here and become a regular fixture on the 4th line. Peters will get a game in every now and then, but that's about it. Man, I hope your're right! Peters is a nightmare to watch on the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norfend Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 Man, I hope your're right! Peters is a nightmare to watch on the ice. I hate to say it, but after the last few games, i think im finally gonna have to jump onto the "I Hate Peters" bandwagon :bag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Playfair Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 mair will need to do peters job, and we will roll 4 quick lines. But the Rangers did take it to us in the hits and toughness department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 I don't hate Peters, he has a role to play with the team, albeit a small one. That said, I don't want to see him in the lineup for 50+ games. I would rather see Paille, Stafford - pretty much anyone from ROC with some skill - so Lindy can truly roll four lines w/out double-shifting guys, and the young guys can get some valuable experience, since they might be needed come playoff time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 I don't hate Peters, he has a role to play with the team, albeit a small one. That said, I don't want to see him in the lineup for 50+ games. I would rather see Paille, Stafford - pretty much anyone from ROC with some skill - so Lindy can truly roll four lines w/out double-shifting guys, and the young guys can get some valuable experience, since they might be needed come playoff time. i could not agree more -- besides, if i recall correctly, paille's game is physical and therefore well-suited to a 4th line that bangs around a lot, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 I thought Stafford showed substantially more than Paille last night. If that continues I'd expect Paille to go down when Max returns and Stafford to stay. I'm totally fine with a 4th line of Gaustad-Stafford-Mair. Speaking of Mair, he's shown less this year than I was expecting. If Paille really steps it up, maybe both Paille and Stafford stay and Mair starts joining Peters in the press box. (but I think this is pretty unlikely). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 i could not agree more -- besides, if i recall correctly, paille's game is physical and therefore well-suited to a 4th line that bangs around a lot, right? Paille's forte is playmaking. Not the Briere type playmaking but subtle things with positioning and reading plays. He can bang but does not always play that way and was sent to Rochester with orders to play more physical. I hope he and Stafford are here to stay. I don't know how there will be room for both when Max and then Timmy come back but I only want Peters out there if it is absolutely necessary. I still think Gaustad and Mair can fill in with their fists. Perhaps Peters career in Buffalo is coming to an end. I thought Stafford showed substantially more than Paille last night. If that continues I'd expect Paille to go down when Max returns and Stafford to stay. I'm totally fine with a 4th line of Gaustad-Stafford-Mair. Agree with the sentiment that Stafford should stay. I would rather have him with some skill guys than goose and Mair. Perhaps put Stafford on a line with Drury and drop Kotalik/Novotny to the fourth line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trey Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 I don't hate Peters, he has a role to play with the team, albeit a small one. That said, I don't want to see him in the lineup for 50+ games. I would rather see Paille, Stafford - pretty much anyone from ROC with some skill - so Lindy can truly roll four lines w/out double-shifting guys, and the young guys can get some valuable experience, since they might be needed come playoff time. Peter's has greatly improved his game this year, but as you said, he's still a role player and that role is not needed all that much in the "new" NHL. Last year, one of the best things about this team was that we could role 4 lines against anyone and we wouldn't miss a beat. That hasn't been the case this year and it has been quite dissappointing...up until last night. No, our 4th line still isn't as potent as last year, but with Paille or Stafford that line can get some quality minutes unlike when Peter's is in the lineup. I hope Lindy keeps it going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 Stafford (5G, 4A) was having a better statistical year in ROC than Paille (1G, 6A) was to this point. Stafford was on the ice in OT last night and made a postcard perfect pass to Briere. That says a lot about what Lindy sees as his potential IMO. Each gets about a half dozen games to showcase their talent. My guess is the decision will be easy to make by then. Six games against Florida, Philly, Carolina, Senators (2), and Pittsburgh ought to be enough to judge whether they are ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 Don't forget games played and the waiver rule. The Sabres are going to be very careful not to lose anyone in the near future, therefore they will limit the amount of games played by whichever player is most affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted November 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 Agree with the sentiment that Stafford should stay. I would rather have him with some skill guys than goose and Mair. Perhaps put Stafford on a line with Drury and drop Kotalik/Novotny to the fourth line. I don't want to see Stafford getting 4th line minutes as a pro hockey rookie. I'd rather see Paille(who will probably be a 3rd or 4th line NHL forward at best) on the 4th line and Stafford(who will probably end up being a 1st or 2nd line NHL forward) in Rochester getting all the minutes he can handle. No need to demote Kotalik or Novotny to the 4th line. They have paid their dues and deserve a chance on the top 3 lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 I don't want to see Stafford getting 4th line minutes as a pro hockey rookie. I'd rather see Paille(who will probably be a 3rd or 4th line NHL forward at best) on the 4th line and Stafford(who will probably end up being a 1st or 2nd line NHL forward) in Rochester getting all the minutes he can handle. No need to demote Kotalik or Novotny to the 4th line. They have paid their dues and deserve a chance on the top 3 lines. I totally agree, although if Lindy wants to reward Gaustad with an occasional shift on the Drury line I am fine with that too. But I liked what I read from Lindy after the game, saying that if he puts Paille with Gaustad and Mair they can match against the other team's top line and take some of that burden off the Drury line. Not trying to turn this into a bash Peters thread, but it just makes so much more sense ... that's what they'll do in the playoffs anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingcongkorab Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 Peters fight with the dude from Toronto was pretty lame. Both guys looked like they were hoping for the linesmen to intervene and wanted no part of each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 Don't forget games played and the waiver rule. The Sabres are going to be very careful not to lose anyone in the near future, therefore they will limit the amount of games played by whichever player is most affected. Stafford and Paille can be moved freely between Rochester and Buffalo. Waivers isn't an issue for either of them. They won't have to worry about Stafford and waivers for 3 years (not that I think this will ever be an issue). Paille is in his last season where he can move waiver-free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 I thought NHL games played affected a player like Stafford's status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 I thought NHL games played affected a player like Stafford's status. Stafford isn't subject to the waiver process until he plays either 3 years or 80 games, whichever comes first. That number of games is usually 160, but since Stafford is 21, the number's lower. So yeah, the games played does have an effect on his status, but it really doesn't look like it will be an issue at all. The other issue with games played that you may be thinking of is for players who have already cleared waivers, someone like Michael Ryan, if he was called up would be exempt from waivers if he played less than 10 games after being called up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 Stafford isn't subject to the waiver process until he plays either 3 years or 80 games, whichever comes first. That number of games is usually 160, but since Stafford is 21, the number's lower. So yeah, the games played does have an effect on his status, but it really doesn't look like it will be an issue at all. Actually, this is exactly what I was referring to. I have to believe that this number will be in the back of Darcy's mind come time when the team starts getting healthy. If as an organ-eye-zation, in particular with salary cap madness amongst us, teams will look to hold onto their assets as long as possible. Thus, a kid like Stafford won't be rushed to that 80 games number unless it's apparent he is a bonafide NHLer. Make sense? Hell if I know... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 Actually, this is exactly what I was referring to. I have to believe that this number will be in the back of Darcy's mind come time when the team starts getting healthy. If as an organ-eye-zation, in particular with salary cap madness amongst us, teams will look to hold onto their assets as long as possible. Thus, a kid like Stafford won't be rushed to that 80 games number unless it's apparent he is a bonafide NHLer. Make sense? Hell if I know... :rolleyes: He can only hit the 80 game mark if he stays the entire year and into the playoffs (those count too). It's so far off so it's not something that should weigh to heavily on Darcy's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 Actually, this is exactly what I was referring to. I have to believe that this number will be in the back of Darcy's mind come time when the team starts getting healthy. If as an organ-eye-zation, in particular with salary cap madness amongst us, teams will look to hold onto their assets as long as possible. Thus, a kid like Stafford won't be rushed to that 80 games number unless it's apparent he is a bonafide NHLer. Make sense? Hell if I know... :rolleyes: I does make sense, it's just that there is now no way he reaches 80 games this season, so he definitely will not need to go through waivers next season. And by 2008-09, if they are even worrying about sending him down, it means he is a horrible disappointment. Chances are he will get his 80 games in between this year and next, but that's OK because at that point he should be contributing enough on the NHL level they will not want to send him down. EDIT: I didn't realize the playoffs count, although it makes sense ... so in theory if he is skating a regular shift on a deep playoff run he could get there this year but ... like Shrader said, very unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawerchuk Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 I don't hate Peters, he has a role to play with the team, albeit a small one. That said, I don't want to see him in the lineup for 50+ games. I would rather see Paille, Stafford - pretty much anyone from ROC with some skill - so Lindy can truly roll four lines w/out double-shifting guys, and the young guys can get some valuable experience, since they might be needed come playoff time. Roger that, Bmwolf! :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 He can only hit the 80 game mark if he stays the entire year and into the playoffs (those count too). It's so far off so it's not something that should weigh to heavily on Darcy's mind. With how tight they are up against the cap, I have to think it will matter some. Keeping assets in the organ-eye-zation isn't Darcy's #1 priority but it's in the top 3. There is not a lot of room on the roster for kids in the coming years. Darcy will need to be very careful as to not lose anyone that needs to clear waivers. We lost Thorburn (which probably wasn't a terrible thing), there is a good chance we will lose Ryan(he is just starting to show his promise) next year and McCarther won't be far behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 With how tight they are up against the cap, I have to think it will matter some. Keeping assets in the organ-eye-zation isn't Darcy's #1 priority but it's in the top 3. There is not a lot of room on the roster for kids in the coming years. Darcy will need to be very careful as to not lose anyone that needs to clear waivers. We lost Thorburn (which probably wasn't a terrible thing), there is a good chance we will lose Ryan(he is just starting to show his promise) next year and McCarther won't be far behind. You're assuming that they keep everyone that's on the big club right now. Briere, Drury, Mair, Numinen, and Biron are all UFA's at the end of the year. I'll just look at the 3 forwards since D and goalie aren't really an issue at this point. None of those three are a lock to be back next year. We've talked about Briere and Drury over and over on this board, so I'll look at Mair a bit. Would you rather keep him on the team at around $700K or would give Paille, Stafford, or MacArthur their shot at around $850K? MacArthur should still have one more year left of being waiver-free, so they don't have to risk losing him yet. As for Ryan, he falls in the Thorburn category, a nice guy to have in the system, but not a blue chip prospect. If they lose him, they'll get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted November 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 You're assuming that they keep everyone that's on the big club right now. Briere, Drury, Mair, Numinen, and Biron are all UFA's at the end of the year. I'll just look at the 3 forwards since D and goalie aren't really an issue at this point. None of those three are a lock to be back next year. We've talked about Briere and Drury over and over on this board, so I'll look at Mair a bit. Would you rather keep him on the team at around $700K or would give Paille, Stafford, or MacArthur their shot at around $850K? MacArthur should still have one more year left of being waiver-free, so they don't have to risk losing him yet. As for Ryan, he falls in the Thorburn category, a nice guy to have in the system, but not a blue chip prospect. If they lose him, they'll get over it. I have no problem keeping Mair as a 4th liner or even a 40-60 game a year guy as a 13th forward, but Peters has to go. I don't mind keeping someone like Mair who can be physical, but who can also play more than 1 shift a game. If you took the current team and subtracted Peters AND Mair, that doesn't leave you with much in the physical play department(I'm not talking aobut fighting). If MacArthur, Paille and/or Stafford prove that they can play at this level, the Sabres will find a place for them some way some how. Whether it is Briere or Drury not being re-signed, some other vet traded(Kotalik) in the off-season or another forward moved down to the 4th line(Novotny). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveAndWarrener Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 Remember things happen in the injury department -- in fact, they already have been. So Darcy could think of using one of these guys in a package to bring in a quality replacement blueliner if he needs to. I am a bit worried about Numminen. Love his experience, but it also looks like he's either lost a step or is still battling a slight groin issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.