Wednesday, June 30, 2010
24 Hours and Counting
I was going to write a "What I'd Like to See in Free Agency" post, but come on, I think we all know I'm only concerned about one thing when it comes to free agency. I don't really care about anything else.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
GM for a Day
Oh, happy day! Bucky's GM for a Day column has arrived. Patrick Sharp for unnamed prospects (and picks)? Check! Sheldon Souray? Check! I should probably be frightened at how well I know Bucky's thought process.
I hit on my problems with Sheldon Souray last post but one line in Bucky's column really stuck with me. "Dependable when healthy." I'm not sure that phrase even makes sense. The fact that he's been so unhealthy the last few years is what makes him the opposite of dependable. I also get the feeling every time Bucky talks about Souray (he's come up in previous off-seasons) that he thinks his size automatically makes him a big, physical defenseman and I really don't believe that's the case at all. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think Souray plays very much defense either. Which is scary in light of his whopping 4 power play points last season. Maybe - just maybe! - there's a reason Edmonton would love to get rid of him. Bucky uses the word "unload" to describe Edmonton's desire to move him. That's a bit of a red flag word, isn't it?
My main problem with Bucky's proposed roster is the defensive corp: Tomas Kaberle, Sheldon Souray, Tyler Myers, Craig Rivet, Steve Montador, Chris Butler, and Mike Weber. That doesn't seem like a very good defensive corp. He removed two of the biggest minute eaters and the two primary penalty killers and replaced them with two guys who don't play particuarly good defense. The other defensive options - Pavel Kubina, Joe Corvo - aren't much better. And while I would take Paul Martin, I think Bucky is wrong that he isn't going to get a raise from someone. One season of playing less than 73 games isn't going to undo his reputation. That's crazy. For all the talk over the last few years about the Sabres misreading the market (and there's some truth in that for sure), Bucky consistently does the same thing. When he's attempted to pin an actual number on a player, he's often way off which just goes to prove that this really isn't that easy.
I'm also a little surprised that Bucky went on and on about gamers and then lumped Jochen Hecht in with the deadweight. Okay, he's overpaid for a 20 goal scorer. But with the exception of one season, he's been one of the most responsible, hardest working players on the roster. I won't harp on it too much since Bucky didn't push for it hard but still, I'm not sure how you even come up with that idea. (On a side note, I don't think his ending works as well as he probably thinks it does. He spends the whole column talking about how the Sabres need gamers and then ends with, "Adam Mair is a gamer. (Get rid of him!)")
For the record, I tried to punch the numbers into Cap Geek's salary cap calculator to see if Bucky ended up within his $57 million target, but I kept losing track of his moves. Even though I kind of called it, it was pretty lame of him to trade Sharp for unnamed picks and prospects. And at the end of the column he just started throwing names out there so I have no idea who he was really adding to his total and who he wasn't or if he was even keeping a total or just hoping it all worked out. I know he didn't account for Mike Weber needing a new contract. I'm assuming it won't be a huge bump but still something that needs to be taken into consideration. I'm sure he doesn't know anything about Cap Geek, being scared of the internet and all which is too bad because it's an awesome tool and pretty fun to just play with..
I don't know, I guess the bottom line is that I'm not sure how much better Bucky's proposed roster is than the one we had last season. Patrick Sharp would be a definite upgrade at center. Kaberle does probably make the power play better which would be very nice. But is that enough offense to compensate for a defensive corp that seems more likely to leave Ryan Miller out hanging more than this past season's did? And what about the penalty kill? Will it be worse? Or would an improved power play balance that out?
Let's hear some opinions. What do you think of Bucky's plan? What do you agree or disagree with? Who do you really want to get rid of and who do you really want to pick up? Am I worried too much about the defense and penalty killing? Is it okay to get a little worse there if it means getting better on offense?
I hit on my problems with Sheldon Souray last post but one line in Bucky's column really stuck with me. "Dependable when healthy." I'm not sure that phrase even makes sense. The fact that he's been so unhealthy the last few years is what makes him the opposite of dependable. I also get the feeling every time Bucky talks about Souray (he's come up in previous off-seasons) that he thinks his size automatically makes him a big, physical defenseman and I really don't believe that's the case at all. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think Souray plays very much defense either. Which is scary in light of his whopping 4 power play points last season. Maybe - just maybe! - there's a reason Edmonton would love to get rid of him. Bucky uses the word "unload" to describe Edmonton's desire to move him. That's a bit of a red flag word, isn't it?
My main problem with Bucky's proposed roster is the defensive corp: Tomas Kaberle, Sheldon Souray, Tyler Myers, Craig Rivet, Steve Montador, Chris Butler, and Mike Weber. That doesn't seem like a very good defensive corp. He removed two of the biggest minute eaters and the two primary penalty killers and replaced them with two guys who don't play particuarly good defense. The other defensive options - Pavel Kubina, Joe Corvo - aren't much better. And while I would take Paul Martin, I think Bucky is wrong that he isn't going to get a raise from someone. One season of playing less than 73 games isn't going to undo his reputation. That's crazy. For all the talk over the last few years about the Sabres misreading the market (and there's some truth in that for sure), Bucky consistently does the same thing. When he's attempted to pin an actual number on a player, he's often way off which just goes to prove that this really isn't that easy.
I'm also a little surprised that Bucky went on and on about gamers and then lumped Jochen Hecht in with the deadweight. Okay, he's overpaid for a 20 goal scorer. But with the exception of one season, he's been one of the most responsible, hardest working players on the roster. I won't harp on it too much since Bucky didn't push for it hard but still, I'm not sure how you even come up with that idea. (On a side note, I don't think his ending works as well as he probably thinks it does. He spends the whole column talking about how the Sabres need gamers and then ends with, "Adam Mair is a gamer. (Get rid of him!)")
For the record, I tried to punch the numbers into Cap Geek's salary cap calculator to see if Bucky ended up within his $57 million target, but I kept losing track of his moves. Even though I kind of called it, it was pretty lame of him to trade Sharp for unnamed picks and prospects. And at the end of the column he just started throwing names out there so I have no idea who he was really adding to his total and who he wasn't or if he was even keeping a total or just hoping it all worked out. I know he didn't account for Mike Weber needing a new contract. I'm assuming it won't be a huge bump but still something that needs to be taken into consideration. I'm sure he doesn't know anything about Cap Geek, being scared of the internet and all which is too bad because it's an awesome tool and pretty fun to just play with..
I don't know, I guess the bottom line is that I'm not sure how much better Bucky's proposed roster is than the one we had last season. Patrick Sharp would be a definite upgrade at center. Kaberle does probably make the power play better which would be very nice. But is that enough offense to compensate for a defensive corp that seems more likely to leave Ryan Miller out hanging more than this past season's did? And what about the penalty kill? Will it be worse? Or would an improved power play balance that out?
Let's hear some opinions. What do you think of Bucky's plan? What do you agree or disagree with? Who do you really want to get rid of and who do you really want to pick up? Am I worried too much about the defense and penalty killing? Is it okay to get a little worse there if it means getting better on offense?
Friday, June 18, 2010
Let the Games Begin!
I've been pondering the Stanley Cup Finals and what it all means, and the truth is, I don't know. While it would certainly appear that a team doesn't have to have a star goalie to win it all, wouldn't it have been a different final if one of the teams involved did have a great goaltender? Or even a very good one? Philly got there with a bunch of big free agents but Chicago had mostly guys still on their first or second contracts. (On a side note, how much do you think they regret Brian Campbell's contract right now? If they didn't have it, they'd be in better shape cap-wise and they'd probably be okay on the ice since he's not in their top pairing or on their first unit PK.) I do think the Blackhawks worked the current system just right. They won when their best talent was still young and cheap. Most of their roster has signed extensions but most of them haven't kicked in yet which means they still had money to fill out the rest of the roster. Unfortunately, that's not an easy method to execute since players talented enough to build a team around while they're still babies don't exactly grow on trees unless the team is bad enough for a lottery pick or two or three.
So yeah. Overall I was pretty ambivalent about the post-Sabres playoffs. But let the off-season begin! When I saw that Halak had been traded I was sure I was thinking about the wrong guy. Surely, that wasn't the guy who not only didn't get benched but stormed through the postseason? Oh, wait! It totally was! I suppose it could partly be a sign that, in light of how well teams without big money goalies did this season, GMs might be more reluctant to spend a lot of money on the position but I still don't get it. He was only an RFA so it's not like the Canadiens had to pay him huge gobs of money right now, right? And it seems like Carey Price is a little bit of question mark. Hopefully this is a sign of many crazy things to come in the next few weeks.
I'm going to assume that the upcoming draft and the opening of free agency means that Bucky Gleason's GM for a Day column is right around the corner. Now I could pretend that I'm not going to read it, but the truth is, despite cutting back on my Bucky intake, I wouldn't miss this one for the world. I love it, and I'll admit, in Bucky's shoes I wouldn't even attempt to write a column like that. Everything is either so specific (Tim Connolly, a second round pick, and three sticks for Kris Versteeg!) or so general (unnamed prospects for Patrick Sharp!) that it all seems a little silly. And while Bucky usually cushions the column with some line about how he knows it's not that easy in real life, I always get the idea that he thinks it is and that if he were GM he'd have the team straightened out in no time. Or maybe I'm just reading into things too much there.
I will tell you this: If the name Sheldon Souray pops up - especially if he drops Henrik Tallinder first - I'll break out the Buffalo News dartboard. I've seen Souray's name come up in a few places around the internet, and I am not feeling that one at all. In his three years in Edmonton he's missed half the season or more due to injuries twice. He was a -19 last season and his much ballyhooed shot netted zero power play goals. That's right, last season Souray - a PP specialist according to his reputation - scored as many power play goals as I did. He's not a great skater, he's not all that physical for his size, he's poor on the defensive side of the puck, he's injury prone, and at almost 34, he's not getting any younger. And on a personal level, he's greasy and seems like a bit of a douchebag. I could deal with one or two of those things maybe but all of them? No thanks. If the Sabres are going to make a run at Tomas Kaberle, they shouldn't touch Souray. I'm not down with dropping two defensive d-men in Hank and Toni Lydman and replacing them with two offensive d-men who don't kill penalties and are average or worse on the defensive side of the puck. One, fine. Both, no.
Whoops. Got carried away there. Maybe I should wait until I actually read the column before I go too crazy, huh?
Anyway, bring off the offseason!
So yeah. Overall I was pretty ambivalent about the post-Sabres playoffs. But let the off-season begin! When I saw that Halak had been traded I was sure I was thinking about the wrong guy. Surely, that wasn't the guy who not only didn't get benched but stormed through the postseason? Oh, wait! It totally was! I suppose it could partly be a sign that, in light of how well teams without big money goalies did this season, GMs might be more reluctant to spend a lot of money on the position but I still don't get it. He was only an RFA so it's not like the Canadiens had to pay him huge gobs of money right now, right? And it seems like Carey Price is a little bit of question mark. Hopefully this is a sign of many crazy things to come in the next few weeks.
I'm going to assume that the upcoming draft and the opening of free agency means that Bucky Gleason's GM for a Day column is right around the corner. Now I could pretend that I'm not going to read it, but the truth is, despite cutting back on my Bucky intake, I wouldn't miss this one for the world. I love it, and I'll admit, in Bucky's shoes I wouldn't even attempt to write a column like that. Everything is either so specific (Tim Connolly, a second round pick, and three sticks for Kris Versteeg!) or so general (unnamed prospects for Patrick Sharp!) that it all seems a little silly. And while Bucky usually cushions the column with some line about how he knows it's not that easy in real life, I always get the idea that he thinks it is and that if he were GM he'd have the team straightened out in no time. Or maybe I'm just reading into things too much there.
I will tell you this: If the name Sheldon Souray pops up - especially if he drops Henrik Tallinder first - I'll break out the Buffalo News dartboard. I've seen Souray's name come up in a few places around the internet, and I am not feeling that one at all. In his three years in Edmonton he's missed half the season or more due to injuries twice. He was a -19 last season and his much ballyhooed shot netted zero power play goals. That's right, last season Souray - a PP specialist according to his reputation - scored as many power play goals as I did. He's not a great skater, he's not all that physical for his size, he's poor on the defensive side of the puck, he's injury prone, and at almost 34, he's not getting any younger. And on a personal level, he's greasy and seems like a bit of a douchebag. I could deal with one or two of those things maybe but all of them? No thanks. If the Sabres are going to make a run at Tomas Kaberle, they shouldn't touch Souray. I'm not down with dropping two defensive d-men in Hank and Toni Lydman and replacing them with two offensive d-men who don't kill penalties and are average or worse on the defensive side of the puck. One, fine. Both, no.
Whoops. Got carried away there. Maybe I should wait until I actually read the column before I go too crazy, huh?
Anyway, bring off the offseason!
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Bring on the Soccer!
Okay, so I lied about posting every day this week. I'm sorry! Sheesh! It's the end of the school year which is always a busy time and for reasons I can't really go into publicly, the end of this particular school year has been a little more challenging and wearing than many others. I will have some kind of thoughts about the Stanley Cup Finals, free agency, and all that good stuff later, but for now, I'm off to babysit and then off to Allentown.
For now, let me just say that like a lot of the blogosphere, I'm going to attempt to get into the World Cup. And I'll admit here this morning that at least at first, I'm cheering for England. Why? For one simple, very scientific reason. I thought Wayne Rooney was awesome in that Nike spot that's been all over the internet for the last few weeks. (I'm not going to embed it since YouTube eats my blog, but if you haven't seen it - or haven't seen it lately - you should follow the link and check it out.) Rooney has my favorite part of the game sequence with the awesome, full-out backcheck and my favorite part of the fantasy sequence with the hugging of the queen, the nursery full of Waynes, and the calm, debonair defeat of a panicky, sweating Roger Federer. And how awesome would it be if we could make say, Derek Roy paint the lines on the ice every time he turned over the puck? As silly as it is (because hey, why get serious about this now?), I also adore the fact that "Wayne Rooney" is one of the lamest pro athlete names I've ever heard. It makes me think if Mickey Rooney which makes me picture Andy Hardy at the World Cup. I love it.
I've been told by Pookie and Schnookie, my World Cup fan friends, that cheering for England is akin to cheering for the San Jose Sharks. They always come in with one of the most talented rosters and always come up short. I'm not attached to England or Rooney though. I'm just starting out there. I'm ready to happily hop to whatever player or team strikes my fancy in the moment. I figure I'm not watching soccer again for another four years, you know? So hey, bring it on!
For now, let me just say that like a lot of the blogosphere, I'm going to attempt to get into the World Cup. And I'll admit here this morning that at least at first, I'm cheering for England. Why? For one simple, very scientific reason. I thought Wayne Rooney was awesome in that Nike spot that's been all over the internet for the last few weeks. (I'm not going to embed it since YouTube eats my blog, but if you haven't seen it - or haven't seen it lately - you should follow the link and check it out.) Rooney has my favorite part of the game sequence with the awesome, full-out backcheck and my favorite part of the fantasy sequence with the hugging of the queen, the nursery full of Waynes, and the calm, debonair defeat of a panicky, sweating Roger Federer. And how awesome would it be if we could make say, Derek Roy paint the lines on the ice every time he turned over the puck? As silly as it is (because hey, why get serious about this now?), I also adore the fact that "Wayne Rooney" is one of the lamest pro athlete names I've ever heard. It makes me think if Mickey Rooney which makes me picture Andy Hardy at the World Cup. I love it.
I've been told by Pookie and Schnookie, my World Cup fan friends, that cheering for England is akin to cheering for the San Jose Sharks. They always come in with one of the most talented rosters and always come up short. I'm not attached to England or Rooney though. I'm just starting out there. I'm ready to happily hop to whatever player or team strikes my fancy in the moment. I figure I'm not watching soccer again for another four years, you know? So hey, bring it on!
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Proud Member of the Robot Skeleton Army
So what, you ask, have I been watching these last few weeks if I haven't really been watching hockey? Well, there are a couple of answers to that question, but I'll get the big one out of the way first. I've been watching pretty much all the Craig Ferguson I've been able to get my hands on.
Back when the Late Night Wars were going on with Conan and Leno, I watched everything regularly for the first time in years, and while I was mostly on Conan's side there, I came away from those couple of weeks thinking that Craig Ferguson was the smartest, funniest, most endearing guy in late night. Even after that, it took a while for him to really take hold though. It was during the last few weeks of the college semester and the long, late nights of studying when I fell in love with him and while I try not to stay up as late now (emphasis on try), I did add him to the DVR and usually have a Craig-a-palooza at some point on the weekend.
His show is just wonderful. Ferguson has a super easy-going and likable presence and he's a really interesting and entertaining mix of sincere and irreverent. (He's also good-looking. And speaks in a Scottish accent.) I'm currently reading his autobiography, "American on Purpose," and so far it's been a good read. He seems like a thoughtful guy with some hard-earned wisdom. Success didn't come early or quickly and he has a good perspective on himself and what he does. Somehow he's able to speak sincerely and beautifully about things like the privilege of voting and the good in America one night and then turn around and use a cranky alligator puppet to host an entire show another night. And he makes both work.
If you've never watched Craig Ferguson, I beg you to give him a try. It's an easy and comfortable hour of TV, and I always feel happy when it's done. Which reminds me, one of my very favorite things about the show is the theme song which is one of the best things on TV period. I never, ever fast forward through it and I sing along every time, much to Mark's chagrin, I think. And he sings it himself! And I think he co-wrote it! Come on, if this doesn't make you smile, well, you have no soul.
While we're talking about TV, I've also been cranking through Simon & Simon, courtesy of Netflix on Wii which might be one of the greatest things ever created. Simon & Simon is an old favorite - I had a mad crush on Gerald McRaney's Rick and named my dog after his TV dog, Marlowe - and I've actually been looking at buying the DVDs so imagine my pleasure upon discovering that all 8 glorious seasons were available to stream right into my home. When I broke my ankle a couple years ago, I discovered the joy of sitting down and watching an entire season or series at one time (at the time I caught up on Battlestar Galactica), and now that there's not much new TV and no hockey, I'm hoping to tackle some shows I've been meaning to get around to. This is not the final list but I'm thinking Sports Night, Burn Notice, and The West Wing for sure. If anyone has any other recommendations feel free to share please!
Back when the Late Night Wars were going on with Conan and Leno, I watched everything regularly for the first time in years, and while I was mostly on Conan's side there, I came away from those couple of weeks thinking that Craig Ferguson was the smartest, funniest, most endearing guy in late night. Even after that, it took a while for him to really take hold though. It was during the last few weeks of the college semester and the long, late nights of studying when I fell in love with him and while I try not to stay up as late now (emphasis on try), I did add him to the DVR and usually have a Craig-a-palooza at some point on the weekend.
His show is just wonderful. Ferguson has a super easy-going and likable presence and he's a really interesting and entertaining mix of sincere and irreverent. (He's also good-looking. And speaks in a Scottish accent.) I'm currently reading his autobiography, "American on Purpose," and so far it's been a good read. He seems like a thoughtful guy with some hard-earned wisdom. Success didn't come early or quickly and he has a good perspective on himself and what he does. Somehow he's able to speak sincerely and beautifully about things like the privilege of voting and the good in America one night and then turn around and use a cranky alligator puppet to host an entire show another night. And he makes both work.
If you've never watched Craig Ferguson, I beg you to give him a try. It's an easy and comfortable hour of TV, and I always feel happy when it's done. Which reminds me, one of my very favorite things about the show is the theme song which is one of the best things on TV period. I never, ever fast forward through it and I sing along every time, much to Mark's chagrin, I think. And he sings it himself! And I think he co-wrote it! Come on, if this doesn't make you smile, well, you have no soul.
While we're talking about TV, I've also been cranking through Simon & Simon, courtesy of Netflix on Wii which might be one of the greatest things ever created. Simon & Simon is an old favorite - I had a mad crush on Gerald McRaney's Rick and named my dog after his TV dog, Marlowe - and I've actually been looking at buying the DVDs so imagine my pleasure upon discovering that all 8 glorious seasons were available to stream right into my home. When I broke my ankle a couple years ago, I discovered the joy of sitting down and watching an entire season or series at one time (at the time I caught up on Battlestar Galactica), and now that there's not much new TV and no hockey, I'm hoping to tackle some shows I've been meaning to get around to. This is not the final list but I'm thinking Sports Night, Burn Notice, and The West Wing for sure. If anyone has any other recommendations feel free to share please!
Monday, June 7, 2010
Only Mostly Dead
I've been trying, you guys. I really have. All week I've been writing a post about Danny Briere and Brian Campbell, and how I was going to ignore the bitter and no fun "Too bad they're not still in Buffalo!" people and be happy for whichever one of them wins a Stanley Cup, but it just hasn't been sounding as good on screen as it has in my head, and I finally decided last night that it's because I don't care. I don't care at all about hockey right now. I don't know if it's the Sabres flame-out, weariness of all the second-guessing that followed, the seemingly endless break between the Conference Finals and the Finals, or a Finals match-up between two teams that not only do I not care about but that I actually kind of dislike, but I don't care. I don't even care enough to pretend I care. So I'll be happy to see Danny and/or Soupy lift the Cup, but that might be the only time I really and truly tune in to what's going on on the TV for the series. (I wrote that paragraph after Game One, but it's proven to be true. The TV has been on, but I couldn't really tell you much about what's been going on.)
But while I don't particularly miss hockey (how can I miss you if you won't go away?), I have missed blogging. I have no definitive plan for the summer. I'll probably do what I do every off-season and just blog about whatever pops into my head. Some of it will be hockey related - I mean, of course I'm going to respond when Darcy trades for Jarome Iginla which I'm sure will happen within days of the end of the season - but some of it, probably a lot of it, won't be. Like last year, we plan to see some things in Buffalo and the Buffalo area but there are also a few other trip planned including my very first visit to Fenway Park which I'm super, super excited about.
For now, let's just get back into the swing of things, shall we? I promise you at least one post every day this week. Really! And I promisenone of them most of them no more than one of them will be about Henrik Tallinder.
But while I don't particularly miss hockey (how can I miss you if you won't go away?), I have missed blogging. I have no definitive plan for the summer. I'll probably do what I do every off-season and just blog about whatever pops into my head. Some of it will be hockey related - I mean, of course I'm going to respond when Darcy trades for Jarome Iginla which I'm sure will happen within days of the end of the season - but some of it, probably a lot of it, won't be. Like last year, we plan to see some things in Buffalo and the Buffalo area but there are also a few other trip planned including my very first visit to Fenway Park which I'm super, super excited about.
For now, let's just get back into the swing of things, shall we? I promise you at least one post every day this week. Really! And I promise
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Hank and Toni, Toni and Hank
Like all Henrik Tallinder fans (there are legions of us, I tell you!), I've been pondering this for a while, and reading Kate's blurb about it tonight has me thinking about it again: What do the Sabres do with Tallinder and Toni Lydman in the off-season? Re-sign Hank, re-sign Toni, or let them both walk?
I said this in the comments of Kate's blog and I'll repeat it here. Thinking practically, I can totally see re-signing Toni and letting Hank walk. All told, Toni has been more consistent over the course of his contract. His highs haven't been as high as Hank's highs, but his lows haven't been as low. He's a little more physical which is something the team as currently assembled is short on. He's a little more under the radar so he'll probably be a little cheaper although I think the money will be close enough that it's not going to be a huge determining factor when it comes to the two of him. He's certainly been more durable. Toni shows up and does what he's supposed to do, gives you a funny quote, and then goes home. While he's good for a handful of mind-staggeringly bad turnovers a season, I think he's been unfairly abused by too many fans the last few seasons.
I think there are more question marks with Hank and I think some of the reasons to keep him are a little less concrete. How much do you take into consideration his chemistry with Tyler Myers this past season? Myers is probably good enough to learn to play with anyone, but I don't know, chemistry is a funny thing. How many times in the last two years did Lindy Ruff try to split up Hank and Toni only to discover that neither one of them played as well with someone else as they did with each other? Hank has said some interesting things in the aftermath of the playoffs about getting his head on straight, fixing himself mentally, finding a better balance between his personal life and work. Now maybe fixing himself mentally means telling himself, "For the love of Pete, Hank, it's a contract year. Get it together." (Concern over this season being the result of a contract year is completely valid.) But maybe it means more. Did something finally kick in this season that he wasn't quite getting before? Or did he just figure out something that was causing him problems last season? I don't know. I think re-signing Hank is arguably a bigger risk than re-signing Toni, but I think the potential reward is greater. If he and Myers continue to play together the way they did this past season, the Sabres have a legitimate top pairing for the next couple of years while some of the baby d-men get some NHL experience. I also think Hank at his best is better than Toni at his best, but now that I've written that I have to admit, I'm wondering if that's just the fan in me talking.
As sad as I would be to see Hank go somewhere else, I will admit that I'm more worried about the Sabres failing to re-sign either of them. I think that would be a mistake. It's 1:26 a.m. and I'm far too lazy to look this up right now (sorry, Mike - I'll look for it tomorrow, I promise) but during the Boston series Mike Harrington wrote a blog post about how both teams were relying heavily on two defensive pairings. For the Sabres, Tallinder-Myers and Lydman-Montador were carrying a bulk of the minutes. If you let Tallinder and Lydman both walk, you're losing two of your top four defensemen. In that case, I think the Sabres have to sign or trade for a veteran d-man. I'm excited about Mike Weber finally coming up but I think it's unfair and probably unwise to expect him to step right into that kind of playing time. That would be fine except that the Sabres already need at least one good forward, preferably a couple, and a more offensive d-man to work on the power play. How much are they going to have to pay or give up for all of those things? I think it makes more sense to give the money to a guy who you already know works in your line-up (assuming that they're on the same page as far as money and years go which is, of course, not a given). I'll be happiest if Hank stays - and yes, that statement is riddled with sentiment - but really I just want one of them to stay.
On a somewhat related note, in light of the possibility of Hank leaving, I've been having a lot of conversations with a variety of people about maybe having to choose a new favorite player. I've been avoiding thinking about that too much until I have to so I've been surprised to discover that everyone seems to think they already know who my replacement favorite is. I'd think they were crazy but everyone - and this is, I don't know, five or six different people - has named the same guy. I had no idea that I'd been that obvious about anyone beyond Hank, and while I was a little taken aback at first, I have to admit this guy makes sense.
So let's get interactive. I have two questions for you. One, if you're the Sabres, what do you do with Hank and Toni? (And don't worry about offending my senses. I can take it, I promise. As long as you don't call Hank ugly. That's decidedly untrue so in that case, I'll know you're just starting with me.) Two, if it comes to it, who do you think is in the running to be my next favorite Sabre? Who's the next guy in the Top Shelf header?
I said this in the comments of Kate's blog and I'll repeat it here. Thinking practically, I can totally see re-signing Toni and letting Hank walk. All told, Toni has been more consistent over the course of his contract. His highs haven't been as high as Hank's highs, but his lows haven't been as low. He's a little more physical which is something the team as currently assembled is short on. He's a little more under the radar so he'll probably be a little cheaper although I think the money will be close enough that it's not going to be a huge determining factor when it comes to the two of him. He's certainly been more durable. Toni shows up and does what he's supposed to do, gives you a funny quote, and then goes home. While he's good for a handful of mind-staggeringly bad turnovers a season, I think he's been unfairly abused by too many fans the last few seasons.
I think there are more question marks with Hank and I think some of the reasons to keep him are a little less concrete. How much do you take into consideration his chemistry with Tyler Myers this past season? Myers is probably good enough to learn to play with anyone, but I don't know, chemistry is a funny thing. How many times in the last two years did Lindy Ruff try to split up Hank and Toni only to discover that neither one of them played as well with someone else as they did with each other? Hank has said some interesting things in the aftermath of the playoffs about getting his head on straight, fixing himself mentally, finding a better balance between his personal life and work. Now maybe fixing himself mentally means telling himself, "For the love of Pete, Hank, it's a contract year. Get it together." (Concern over this season being the result of a contract year is completely valid.) But maybe it means more. Did something finally kick in this season that he wasn't quite getting before? Or did he just figure out something that was causing him problems last season? I don't know. I think re-signing Hank is arguably a bigger risk than re-signing Toni, but I think the potential reward is greater. If he and Myers continue to play together the way they did this past season, the Sabres have a legitimate top pairing for the next couple of years while some of the baby d-men get some NHL experience. I also think Hank at his best is better than Toni at his best, but now that I've written that I have to admit, I'm wondering if that's just the fan in me talking.
As sad as I would be to see Hank go somewhere else, I will admit that I'm more worried about the Sabres failing to re-sign either of them. I think that would be a mistake. It's 1:26 a.m. and I'm far too lazy to look this up right now (sorry, Mike - I'll look for it tomorrow, I promise) but during the Boston series Mike Harrington wrote a blog post about how both teams were relying heavily on two defensive pairings. For the Sabres, Tallinder-Myers and Lydman-Montador were carrying a bulk of the minutes. If you let Tallinder and Lydman both walk, you're losing two of your top four defensemen. In that case, I think the Sabres have to sign or trade for a veteran d-man. I'm excited about Mike Weber finally coming up but I think it's unfair and probably unwise to expect him to step right into that kind of playing time. That would be fine except that the Sabres already need at least one good forward, preferably a couple, and a more offensive d-man to work on the power play. How much are they going to have to pay or give up for all of those things? I think it makes more sense to give the money to a guy who you already know works in your line-up (assuming that they're on the same page as far as money and years go which is, of course, not a given). I'll be happiest if Hank stays - and yes, that statement is riddled with sentiment - but really I just want one of them to stay.
On a somewhat related note, in light of the possibility of Hank leaving, I've been having a lot of conversations with a variety of people about maybe having to choose a new favorite player. I've been avoiding thinking about that too much until I have to so I've been surprised to discover that everyone seems to think they already know who my replacement favorite is. I'd think they were crazy but everyone - and this is, I don't know, five or six different people - has named the same guy. I had no idea that I'd been that obvious about anyone beyond Hank, and while I was a little taken aback at first, I have to admit this guy makes sense.
So let's get interactive. I have two questions for you. One, if you're the Sabres, what do you do with Hank and Toni? (And don't worry about offending my senses. I can take it, I promise. As long as you don't call Hank ugly. That's decidedly untrue so in that case, I'll know you're just starting with me.) Two, if it comes to it, who do you think is in the running to be my next favorite Sabre? Who's the next guy in the Top Shelf header?
Monday, May 17, 2010
We're Now Entering a Sabres-Free Zone
The semester is over and I have my life back! Wooooooooo!
Before the playoffs started I just wanted one thing: the Sabres to win the Stanley Cup. Once the Sabres were eliminated I only wanted one thing: a Stanley Cup Finals that consisted of two teams that weren't the Red Wings or the Penguins. No matter what happens from here, that's going to happen and I'm pretty happy about it. As long as it's not the Flyers. I'm pulling for San Jose first, Montreal second, Chicago third, and Philly never. Now that there's a little space from the Sabres' elimination and now that we're left with teams that I mostly don't hate, I'm looking forward to the rest of the playoffs.
But here's the deal: I don't really want to think about the Sabres too hard during the playoffs. One of the things I do hate about sports is everyone's desire to look at everything that's happening now through a Sabres prism or tie everything that happens in the league to the Sabres. A certain columnist wrote a column about the Bruins and the Sharks and while I disagreed with the fundament idea of the column anyway (The Bruins in no way won that trade. The trade made them bad enough to get a lottery pick and enough time has passed that they've recovered. That's totally different.) I also thought it was a stretch to connect the situations those two teams were in to the Sabres. They were different for a number of reasons. Some things don't correlate especially now before anything's really been decided. There are still four teams left.
Don't get me wrong, I totally get the inclination to look at the winning team and see how what they did or have compares to the Sabres. I understand that local media guys are doing that as part of their job function, and I'd be lying if I said I'm never going to do that myself. I'm sure when all is said and done, I will at least to some extent. But I also feel like that path leads to madness and I'm not ready for madness yet. Right now I just want to enjoy some hockey. No angst, no strife, no if onlys or what ifs. If the Sabres do something personnel-wise (yay for re-signing Mike Grier!), I'll probably talk about it (and if that something involves re-signing Henrik Tallinder, I'll bring confetti), but other than that, I'm going to attempt to be Sabres-free for the next few weeks.
After someone's hoisted the Stanley Cup, all bets are off.
Before the playoffs started I just wanted one thing: the Sabres to win the Stanley Cup. Once the Sabres were eliminated I only wanted one thing: a Stanley Cup Finals that consisted of two teams that weren't the Red Wings or the Penguins. No matter what happens from here, that's going to happen and I'm pretty happy about it. As long as it's not the Flyers. I'm pulling for San Jose first, Montreal second, Chicago third, and Philly never. Now that there's a little space from the Sabres' elimination and now that we're left with teams that I mostly don't hate, I'm looking forward to the rest of the playoffs.
But here's the deal: I don't really want to think about the Sabres too hard during the playoffs. One of the things I do hate about sports is everyone's desire to look at everything that's happening now through a Sabres prism or tie everything that happens in the league to the Sabres. A certain columnist wrote a column about the Bruins and the Sharks and while I disagreed with the fundament idea of the column anyway (The Bruins in no way won that trade. The trade made them bad enough to get a lottery pick and enough time has passed that they've recovered. That's totally different.) I also thought it was a stretch to connect the situations those two teams were in to the Sabres. They were different for a number of reasons. Some things don't correlate especially now before anything's really been decided. There are still four teams left.
Don't get me wrong, I totally get the inclination to look at the winning team and see how what they did or have compares to the Sabres. I understand that local media guys are doing that as part of their job function, and I'd be lying if I said I'm never going to do that myself. I'm sure when all is said and done, I will at least to some extent. But I also feel like that path leads to madness and I'm not ready for madness yet. Right now I just want to enjoy some hockey. No angst, no strife, no if onlys or what ifs. If the Sabres do something personnel-wise (yay for re-signing Mike Grier!), I'll probably talk about it (and if that something involves re-signing Henrik Tallinder, I'll bring confetti), but other than that, I'm going to attempt to be Sabres-free for the next few weeks.
After someone's hoisted the Stanley Cup, all bets are off.
Coming Soon!
I was blogging last night but then I got caught up in a very long, convoluted Twitter conversation. But the college semester is over and I WILL blog tonight, I promise! Don't you forget about me! (Too late?)
Friday, May 7, 2010
Checking In
I have actually been meaning to blog but it's the end of the semester and I have one more final to study for and a uh, a few essays to write. (At one point I had an entire semester to write fifteen one-page essays. I now have seven days to write fourteen of them. Whoops.)
I will say this: I seem to be cheering for the Sharks. I was not anticipating that, and I'm not entirely sure when it happened. I've actually always really enjoyed the Sharks as chokers even as recently as Dan Boyle's own goal in the first round. But I don't know, I think it's them. It helps immensely that I hate pretty much everyone else. More on that later.
But yeah, how's it going? Who ya got in the playoffs?
I will say this: I seem to be cheering for the Sharks. I was not anticipating that, and I'm not entirely sure when it happened. I've actually always really enjoyed the Sharks as chokers even as recently as Dan Boyle's own goal in the first round. But I don't know, I think it's them. It helps immensely that I hate pretty much everyone else. More on that later.
But yeah, how's it going? Who ya got in the playoffs?
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Sabres Will Probably NOT Suck Forever
A few weeks back, an otherwise positive Jerry Sullivan column contained the following line: "In Buffalo, people are conditioned to expect the worst — from their elected officials, from their weather and from their professional sports teams." That started a conversation among some of my Twitter friends (Paul from Hockey Rhetoric, Kate from The Willful Caboose, and Joe from Joe from NYC are the ones I remember chiming in but if I've forgotten you, I apologize) about whether or not that was true. All of us had slightly different opinions, but the one thing some of us did agree on was that people like Jerry Sullivan, whether he'd admit it or not, play a large part in that conditioning.
I read somewhere that dogs who are home alone for long periods like to have the TV or talk radio on. They're comforted by the sound of human voices. Mark turned on WGR for Marlowe before he left for work this morning so I happened to catch part of Sullivan's appearance on Howard Simon while I was getting ready. I'm admitting up front that I didn't hear his entire segment so it's possible I missed the build up to this but in the portion I did hear, here are some of the things Sullivan said, paraphrased because I'm too lazy to listen to the segment again: "Who's going to play defense next season?", "It's possible no one will pick them to win their division again," and "They might not even make the playoffs next season."
Really? Next season? We're already burying next season's team? That's ludicrous. You know why? BECAUSE NEXT YEAR'S TEAM DOESN'T EVEN EXIST YET! That's just pessimism for the sake of pessimism. Is it really that hard to try and be positive about something that hasn't even happened yet? Can't we save the complaining and criticism for stuff that's already happened (so we can all use our finely tuned hindsight)? Sullivan and Simon were discussing the parity in the Eastern Conference and how the postseason has shown that there's not a ton of difference between the top playoff teams and the bottom playoff teams, but why does that have to be a negative thing? I'll give Simon credit for addressing that. He made the suggestion that since everything is so equal, a couple of upgrades could make the Sabres one of the better teams in the conference but Sullivan couldn't deal with that suggestion. Why? BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAS TO BE BAD ALL THE TIME. EVEN IN THE FUTURE.
Bucky Gleason spent all of last season telling us that the Sabres were two years away from having what they felt would be their best team. That's still a year off. Isn't going from being a non-playoff team to being a division-winning playoff team improvement? Aren't they still, in fact, on track for being good next season? Why can't Bucky say that? It works with what he's been saying all along. What's so hard about saying "They're still on track and there's reason to be optimistic" instead of "This season was a disappointment." Or why can't it be a disappointment and progress? Things do work that way sometimes. Why the need for black and white?
I'm just, I don't know, I'm sick of it. I don't want puppies and rainbows all the time. If Sullivan had been saying he was worried about next year's team because he didn't quite believe the Sabres were going to make the needed changes well, that would be a valid criticism based on pass actions (or inaction) of Darcy Regier. I'm fine with valid criticism. I absolutely agree that there are changes that need to be made to the team, and I hope they get made. But the Sabres were just eliminated a week ago. No one's even won the Stanley Cup yet. I'm willing to give the Sabres brass, oh, a FEW DAYS OF THE OFF-SEASON before I decide next year's team isn't going to win the division or make the playoffs. And you know what, before the implosion at the end, which yes, is important, it was a good season. Here are ten good things about the Sabres 2009-2010 season:
1. Ryan Miller showed that he can be an elite goalie and for a few weeks, was the toast of the entire country.
2. Tyler Myers not only met but exceeded what were very high expectations.
3. Henrik Tallinder and Jochen Hecht returned to form and were both important, if lesser noticed, parts of the Sabres success.
4.The Sabres had one of the best penalty killing units in the league. Only a pulled goalie in the final game of the season kept them from being THE best.
5. Mike Grier surprised a lot of people who thought he was washed up by being a big contributer to the team on the ice and off.
6. Patrick Kaleta became a better hockey player.
7. The Sabres won the Northeast Division.
8. The Sabres made the playoffs.
9. Ryan Miller was nominated for the Vezina.
10. Tyler Myers was nominated for the Calder.
11. Tyler Ennis came up from Portland at the end of the season and was one of the best forwards on the ice. (Try this idea on for size, people complaining that Ennis should have been up in January: Maybe he was so good in April because the Sabres let him play top line minutes all season in Portland. Maybe he wouldn't have been ready in January. What about that, HINDSIGHTERS?)
I wrote that list without even thinking about it! And I actually came up with 11 things because I accidentally had two number 4s. It's not that hard to occasionally, just to switch things up, look on the bright side.
Going back to the first paragraph of this post - I know it seems like a very distant memory - I fell somewhere in the middle of the "Is Buffalo negative?" discussion. I think there's definitely a streak of negativity here. I think there is a fair share of Buffalonians who protect themselves from being disappointed by trying not to get their hopes up too high in the first place. But one thing I love about Buffalo, maybe the thing I love most about it, is that I think Buffalo wants to hope and dream and have the best. I do wonder sometimes if the suggestions that we're people who expect the worst, influence us more than we realize. Does the negativity become a self-fulfilling prophecy? That's who we're told we are so that's what we become?
I don't know. What I do know is that I think I'll find something else to leave Marlowe with than WGR. I mean, look at the poor thing. This is how I found her when I came home.
I read somewhere that dogs who are home alone for long periods like to have the TV or talk radio on. They're comforted by the sound of human voices. Mark turned on WGR for Marlowe before he left for work this morning so I happened to catch part of Sullivan's appearance on Howard Simon while I was getting ready. I'm admitting up front that I didn't hear his entire segment so it's possible I missed the build up to this but in the portion I did hear, here are some of the things Sullivan said, paraphrased because I'm too lazy to listen to the segment again: "Who's going to play defense next season?", "It's possible no one will pick them to win their division again," and "They might not even make the playoffs next season."
Really? Next season? We're already burying next season's team? That's ludicrous. You know why? BECAUSE NEXT YEAR'S TEAM DOESN'T EVEN EXIST YET! That's just pessimism for the sake of pessimism. Is it really that hard to try and be positive about something that hasn't even happened yet? Can't we save the complaining and criticism for stuff that's already happened (so we can all use our finely tuned hindsight)? Sullivan and Simon were discussing the parity in the Eastern Conference and how the postseason has shown that there's not a ton of difference between the top playoff teams and the bottom playoff teams, but why does that have to be a negative thing? I'll give Simon credit for addressing that. He made the suggestion that since everything is so equal, a couple of upgrades could make the Sabres one of the better teams in the conference but Sullivan couldn't deal with that suggestion. Why? BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAS TO BE BAD ALL THE TIME. EVEN IN THE FUTURE.
Bucky Gleason spent all of last season telling us that the Sabres were two years away from having what they felt would be their best team. That's still a year off. Isn't going from being a non-playoff team to being a division-winning playoff team improvement? Aren't they still, in fact, on track for being good next season? Why can't Bucky say that? It works with what he's been saying all along. What's so hard about saying "They're still on track and there's reason to be optimistic" instead of "This season was a disappointment." Or why can't it be a disappointment and progress? Things do work that way sometimes. Why the need for black and white?
I'm just, I don't know, I'm sick of it. I don't want puppies and rainbows all the time. If Sullivan had been saying he was worried about next year's team because he didn't quite believe the Sabres were going to make the needed changes well, that would be a valid criticism based on pass actions (or inaction) of Darcy Regier. I'm fine with valid criticism. I absolutely agree that there are changes that need to be made to the team, and I hope they get made. But the Sabres were just eliminated a week ago. No one's even won the Stanley Cup yet. I'm willing to give the Sabres brass, oh, a FEW DAYS OF THE OFF-SEASON before I decide next year's team isn't going to win the division or make the playoffs. And you know what, before the implosion at the end, which yes, is important, it was a good season. Here are ten good things about the Sabres 2009-2010 season:
1. Ryan Miller showed that he can be an elite goalie and for a few weeks, was the toast of the entire country.
2. Tyler Myers not only met but exceeded what were very high expectations.
3. Henrik Tallinder and Jochen Hecht returned to form and were both important, if lesser noticed, parts of the Sabres success.
4.The Sabres had one of the best penalty killing units in the league. Only a pulled goalie in the final game of the season kept them from being THE best.
5. Mike Grier surprised a lot of people who thought he was washed up by being a big contributer to the team on the ice and off.
6. Patrick Kaleta became a better hockey player.
7. The Sabres won the Northeast Division.
8. The Sabres made the playoffs.
9. Ryan Miller was nominated for the Vezina.
10. Tyler Myers was nominated for the Calder.
11. Tyler Ennis came up from Portland at the end of the season and was one of the best forwards on the ice. (Try this idea on for size, people complaining that Ennis should have been up in January: Maybe he was so good in April because the Sabres let him play top line minutes all season in Portland. Maybe he wouldn't have been ready in January. What about that, HINDSIGHTERS?)
I wrote that list without even thinking about it! And I actually came up with 11 things because I accidentally had two number 4s. It's not that hard to occasionally, just to switch things up, look on the bright side.
Going back to the first paragraph of this post - I know it seems like a very distant memory - I fell somewhere in the middle of the "Is Buffalo negative?" discussion. I think there's definitely a streak of negativity here. I think there is a fair share of Buffalonians who protect themselves from being disappointed by trying not to get their hopes up too high in the first place. But one thing I love about Buffalo, maybe the thing I love most about it, is that I think Buffalo wants to hope and dream and have the best. I do wonder sometimes if the suggestions that we're people who expect the worst, influence us more than we realize. Does the negativity become a self-fulfilling prophecy? That's who we're told we are so that's what we become?
I don't know. What I do know is that I think I'll find something else to leave Marlowe with than WGR. I mean, look at the poor thing. This is how I found her when I came home.
"I hate the Sabres AND myself. Kill me now."
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Darcy, Derek, Bucky, and Soupy (Among Other Things)
I like Darcy Regier immensely, and even Larry Quinn doesn't bother me much, so it probably won't surprise anyone to hear that I have a mostly favorable impression of this morning's press conference. Yes, the plan was vague, but it has to be at this point. The season isn't over. No one knows who's going to be on available on the trade market or who's going to be demanding what on the free agent market.
I think it was clear that the three guys on the stage were disappointed with how things turned out - Lindy in particular appeared to have not quite shaken the season loose yet - and I also think it was clear that they know where the shortcomings lie. One thing I've always appreciated about Darcy is that he doesn't pander. He doesn't make huge, bold declarations about all the free agents he's going to sign and all the fancy trades he's going to make. He's realistic and he's not afraid to be that way even though it's not what fans want to hear. I know there are probably fans somewhere who were unhappy about things said but what are you going to argue with really? The biggest team in the NHL (the Caps) is out of the playoffs, one of the most determined and successful teams of the last decade (the Red Wings) doesn't have much size. Most teams that have a really gifted number one center were bad enough to get a lottery pick. Teams don't trade away large, skilled top line centers or offensively gifted defensemen, not often enough that picking one up is as easy as wishing it into existence. For all his faults - and he does have them - Darcy has his head on straight and has a good understanding of the league. I respect and appreciate that.
I am a little disappointed that it sounds like they're going to be more willing to cut loose Drew Stafford or Tim Connolly than Derek Roy. I won't go on about all the things I dislike about Roy because I think that's been pretty well established, but I feel like he'd be an example of addition by subtraction. This also speaks to one of Darcy's problems: he sometimes hangs on to his babies too long. Of the three players mentioned above, Roy is probably the most valuable on the trade market. He's productive, he's clearly talented, and he has a very favorable contract with multiple years left on it. For a team that already has a number one center, he'd be a very good fit. I feel like we've kept Stafford and Connolly just long enough for other GMs to catch on to how disappointing they could end up being (Stafford more so than Connolly who, all things considered, had a mostly fine regular season). But hey, I've certainly been surprised by the level of stupidity found in GMs before.
I actually thought the only goat of the presser was Bucky Gleason. I don't want to turn this into a Bucky screed after doing a pretty good job of ignoring him all season, but I thought it was pretty stupid of him to waste part of the press conference asking why they never had a press conference last season. First of all, we could all guess the answer to that. (They were embarrassed, they were chicken, they were angry, some combination of those.) Second of all, it was a freakin' year ago. Jeez. They were in middle of a press conference that, in my opinion at least, was pretty high on honesty and pretty low on B.S. Everyone involved said, and more importantly, looked and sounded disappointed and let down. The only reason anyone asks that question right then is because he's a self-centered a-hole who wanted to embarrass someone. I'm sure Bucky would tell you he was doing it for the people but come on, most of the people have forgotten about last year's press conference at this point. Certain writers at TBN have opined on blogs and in chats that Tom Golisano is too thin-skinned and holds grudges and while that certainly appears to be true, I think there are people in TBN's sports department who have that in common with him and unfortunately for them, it often makes me question the objectivity in some of their work.
Anyway, who's everyone cheering for now that our beloved Sabres are out? I think I hate everyone left in the Eastern Conference for one reason or another. (The one team I don't really hate is Pittsburgh but I want something other than Pittsburgh-Detroit this year.) I'm still feeling out the Western Conference. I briefly flirted with the idea of cheering for San Jose but then Dany Heatley scored, reminding me that he still exists. It didn't feel quite right after that. Maybe Chicago. Crazily enough considering some of the posts I wrote after his departure, I've decided I might want Brian Campbell to win a Stanley Cup. I don't know. My temporary affection is still up in the air.
I think it was clear that the three guys on the stage were disappointed with how things turned out - Lindy in particular appeared to have not quite shaken the season loose yet - and I also think it was clear that they know where the shortcomings lie. One thing I've always appreciated about Darcy is that he doesn't pander. He doesn't make huge, bold declarations about all the free agents he's going to sign and all the fancy trades he's going to make. He's realistic and he's not afraid to be that way even though it's not what fans want to hear. I know there are probably fans somewhere who were unhappy about things said but what are you going to argue with really? The biggest team in the NHL (the Caps) is out of the playoffs, one of the most determined and successful teams of the last decade (the Red Wings) doesn't have much size. Most teams that have a really gifted number one center were bad enough to get a lottery pick. Teams don't trade away large, skilled top line centers or offensively gifted defensemen, not often enough that picking one up is as easy as wishing it into existence. For all his faults - and he does have them - Darcy has his head on straight and has a good understanding of the league. I respect and appreciate that.
I am a little disappointed that it sounds like they're going to be more willing to cut loose Drew Stafford or Tim Connolly than Derek Roy. I won't go on about all the things I dislike about Roy because I think that's been pretty well established, but I feel like he'd be an example of addition by subtraction. This also speaks to one of Darcy's problems: he sometimes hangs on to his babies too long. Of the three players mentioned above, Roy is probably the most valuable on the trade market. He's productive, he's clearly talented, and he has a very favorable contract with multiple years left on it. For a team that already has a number one center, he'd be a very good fit. I feel like we've kept Stafford and Connolly just long enough for other GMs to catch on to how disappointing they could end up being (Stafford more so than Connolly who, all things considered, had a mostly fine regular season). But hey, I've certainly been surprised by the level of stupidity found in GMs before.
I actually thought the only goat of the presser was Bucky Gleason. I don't want to turn this into a Bucky screed after doing a pretty good job of ignoring him all season, but I thought it was pretty stupid of him to waste part of the press conference asking why they never had a press conference last season. First of all, we could all guess the answer to that. (They were embarrassed, they were chicken, they were angry, some combination of those.) Second of all, it was a freakin' year ago. Jeez. They were in middle of a press conference that, in my opinion at least, was pretty high on honesty and pretty low on B.S. Everyone involved said, and more importantly, looked and sounded disappointed and let down. The only reason anyone asks that question right then is because he's a self-centered a-hole who wanted to embarrass someone. I'm sure Bucky would tell you he was doing it for the people but come on, most of the people have forgotten about last year's press conference at this point. Certain writers at TBN have opined on blogs and in chats that Tom Golisano is too thin-skinned and holds grudges and while that certainly appears to be true, I think there are people in TBN's sports department who have that in common with him and unfortunately for them, it often makes me question the objectivity in some of their work.
Anyway, who's everyone cheering for now that our beloved Sabres are out? I think I hate everyone left in the Eastern Conference for one reason or another. (The one team I don't really hate is Pittsburgh but I want something other than Pittsburgh-Detroit this year.) I'm still feeling out the Western Conference. I briefly flirted with the idea of cheering for San Jose but then Dany Heatley scored, reminding me that he still exists. It didn't feel quite right after that. Maybe Chicago. Crazily enough considering some of the posts I wrote after his departure, I've decided I might want Brian Campbell to win a Stanley Cup. I don't know. My temporary affection is still up in the air.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)