I've been trying to avoid Bucky Gleason as much as possible the last year or so, but his most recent column just happens to touch on something I mentioned in passing in my last blog post. I said that I didn't think the Buffalo News had enough smart talk about the NHL and things that, as boring as they may be, have a huge influence on how a team functions: the salary cap, arbitration, revenues, that kind of thing. Bucky's whole column is a mess ("Here's a bunch of guys who were good at some point in the last three years. It was/will be a HUGE MISTAKE to not sign them!"), but the part I have a beef with is this:
Evidence [that expansion has worked] can be found in the salary cap, which is tethered directly to revenue. Many were predicting a $6 million decrease for this season after the economy tanked, but the cap actually increased by about $2 million.
This isn't entirely false. The salary cap is tethered to revenue. But it's not really true either. Based on revenues alone the cap probably would have gone down. Those predictions weren't wrong. The reason the cap is going up is because the players' union elected to approve a 5% inflator. Moneys the players put in escrow in case the actual revenues didn't live up to the projections are being used to push the cap up. In fact, this is the second year where the cap would have gone down or stayed flat had the players not elected to use the inflator.
Now, is all that tough to explain to a casual fan? Yeah, maybe, especially in a newspaper column where space is limited. But there's a difference between simplifying something for the average reader and simplifying it to the point where it's just not true and is, in fact, kind of wrong. If Bucky can't accurately explain how the cap works, then he shouldn't use it as support for his opinion. Especially since once you inject the inflator into the conversation, I think you have a debate about whether an increased cap is really good support for the argument that expansion has been successful. When I read the above excerpt my immediate response is to wonder if Bucky even knows how the cap works or what the inflator is, and that's not a good thing. Either he doesn't know, he doesn't care to explain it, he's incapable of explaining it, or he's choosing to ignore it because it doesn't fit in with his argument. Again, no good options there.
I once complained to Mike Harrington that TBN doesn't do enough behind-the-scenes talk, again things like the cap, RFAs, arbitration, that stuff. He told me that the average person doesn't want to read that stuff, that when the sports department has tackled stuff like that, there's been a lot of disinterest. I think that's crap. It's a part of sports. More and more, it's a huge part of sports. If you're going to write about Tim Kennedy going to arbitration, or the Sabres taking Patrick Kaleta to arbitration, or suggest that the Sabres buy players out, or talk about cap hits vs. actual salary, and whether and when the Sabres make a profit then I think you have the obligation to make sure your readers know what that stuff means, how it works. And if you don't think it'll fly in the newspaper, then put it on the blog where the more hardcore fans will find it. Sabres Edge shouldn't just be a regurgitation of what's in the newspaper and a lot of times, especially in the off-season when there are no game blog or links lists, that's what it is. Yes, there are a lot of casual fans in Buffalo who just want to know when the Sabres sign someone. But there are a lot of smart fans who are willing and able to dig in more. I think the ever-increasing popularity of writers like James Mirtle proves that. I mean, it's totally crazy but maybe if TBN raised the level of conversation, they'd be surprised at how many fans joined them.
The bottom line is that when I read local fan-written Sabres blogs, I feel like they have a better understanding of how the NHL works. I feel like I'm reading smart, informed, thoughtful writing from people who have actually watched a hockey game or two recently. The season before this last one, I sat in a Sabres chat and explained to two TBN staff members why exactly Tim Connolly wasn't eligible for an incentive-based contract under the current CBA. Today on Twitter, atleast ten people who I follow questioned whether Bucky knew what he was talking about regarding the cap. The only good analysis I can recall reading recently in TBN is Harrington's column on the current NHL no-name goalie trend. It's smart, well-written, and is actually based in the reality of the last few months in the NHL. Why is that so hard? Why don't we get more of that? I don't get it. For me, TBN is rapidly losing ground to bloggers even though we're supposed to be the lazy, irrational, uninformed ones. They have the access and for that, I'll stick around. But more and more, that's about it.
And for the love of all that is right and holy in this world, SHELDON SOURAY SUCKS AT HOCKEY NOW! Give it a FREAKING rest! no comments
Evidence [that expansion has worked] can be found in the salary cap, which is tethered directly to revenue. Many were predicting a $6 million decrease for this season after the economy tanked, but the cap actually increased by about $2 million.
This isn't entirely false. The salary cap is tethered to revenue. But it's not really true either. Based on revenues alone the cap probably would have gone down. Those predictions weren't wrong. The reason the cap is going up is because the players' union elected to approve a 5% inflator. Moneys the players put in escrow in case the actual revenues didn't live up to the projections are being used to push the cap up. In fact, this is the second year where the cap would have gone down or stayed flat had the players not elected to use the inflator.
Now, is all that tough to explain to a casual fan? Yeah, maybe, especially in a newspaper column where space is limited. But there's a difference between simplifying something for the average reader and simplifying it to the point where it's just not true and is, in fact, kind of wrong. If Bucky can't accurately explain how the cap works, then he shouldn't use it as support for his opinion. Especially since once you inject the inflator into the conversation, I think you have a debate about whether an increased cap is really good support for the argument that expansion has been successful. When I read the above excerpt my immediate response is to wonder if Bucky even knows how the cap works or what the inflator is, and that's not a good thing. Either he doesn't know, he doesn't care to explain it, he's incapable of explaining it, or he's choosing to ignore it because it doesn't fit in with his argument. Again, no good options there.
I once complained to Mike Harrington that TBN doesn't do enough behind-the-scenes talk, again things like the cap, RFAs, arbitration, that stuff. He told me that the average person doesn't want to read that stuff, that when the sports department has tackled stuff like that, there's been a lot of disinterest. I think that's crap. It's a part of sports. More and more, it's a huge part of sports. If you're going to write about Tim Kennedy going to arbitration, or the Sabres taking Patrick Kaleta to arbitration, or suggest that the Sabres buy players out, or talk about cap hits vs. actual salary, and whether and when the Sabres make a profit then I think you have the obligation to make sure your readers know what that stuff means, how it works. And if you don't think it'll fly in the newspaper, then put it on the blog where the more hardcore fans will find it. Sabres Edge shouldn't just be a regurgitation of what's in the newspaper and a lot of times, especially in the off-season when there are no game blog or links lists, that's what it is. Yes, there are a lot of casual fans in Buffalo who just want to know when the Sabres sign someone. But there are a lot of smart fans who are willing and able to dig in more. I think the ever-increasing popularity of writers like James Mirtle proves that. I mean, it's totally crazy but maybe if TBN raised the level of conversation, they'd be surprised at how many fans joined them.
The bottom line is that when I read local fan-written Sabres blogs, I feel like they have a better understanding of how the NHL works. I feel like I'm reading smart, informed, thoughtful writing from people who have actually watched a hockey game or two recently. The season before this last one, I sat in a Sabres chat and explained to two TBN staff members why exactly Tim Connolly wasn't eligible for an incentive-based contract under the current CBA. Today on Twitter, atleast ten people who I follow questioned whether Bucky knew what he was talking about regarding the cap. The only good analysis I can recall reading recently in TBN is Harrington's column on the current NHL no-name goalie trend. It's smart, well-written, and is actually based in the reality of the last few months in the NHL. Why is that so hard? Why don't we get more of that? I don't get it. For me, TBN is rapidly losing ground to bloggers even though we're supposed to be the lazy, irrational, uninformed ones. They have the access and for that, I'll stick around. But more and more, that's about it.
And for the love of all that is right and holy in this world, SHELDON SOURAY SUCKS AT HOCKEY NOW! Give it a FREAKING rest! no comments
I just want to give a very sincere thank you to everyone who's emailed, tweeted, or commented in the last few days. I also want to thank those of you who wanted to comment but couldn't find the comment button. I uh, didn't really think about that when placing the black veil of mourning over Top Shelf. I'll admit, I've had the use of S.O.S. planned for Hank's departure since the trade deadline. It seemed like a funny, over-the-top way to express what would probably be some sadness. I'm glad some of you enjoyed it. And apologies to those of you who had to explain to your co-workers why ABBA was suddenly blaring from your computers. Hee.
The truth is, as silly as the song was, I am genuinely sad, more than I really anticipated being. I had pretty much assumed that Hank was going to be moving on (and I figured it was going to be years more than money that was the sticking point) and I thought, okay, that's cool. I'm 32-years-old and he's a professional hockey player. Professional athletes move on, that's partly what they do. I'm not 9-years-old anymore, you know? But then I saw the first tweet that said "Tallinder to Devils" and well, I was a broken-hearted kid again. No tears (close but not quite) but a sad, heavy feeling that lingered for the rest of the day plus some? Definitely.
The funny thing is, I'm kind of happy about that. I'm a firm believer in that old adage that you cheer for the front of the jersey and not the back. I wish Hank well in Jersey, but I'll happily cheer for Mike Weber in his place next season. I'd drop Derek Roy off a cliff yesterday, but he's a Sabre and I'd rather him lead the league in points than any player on any other team. But the truth, for me at least, is that it does partly matter who's wearing the jerseys, and I'm happy to know that's as true for now as it was when I was a kid. I spend a lot of time here talking about things like the salary cap, small markets vs. large markets, free agency, all kinds of numbers. And while I do find that stuff really interesting and I think there's a lack of smart talk about it in Buffalo, at least from the mainstream media (lots of blogs have filled that gap), the bottom line of being a sports fan, again for me at least, is the attachment you feel to a team and the individuals who make up that team. We can certainly debate how valuable Hank was to the Sabres, whether he was worth keeping or whether the Devils overpaid, but we can't debate this: I loved Hank an awful lot. I can't even really tell you why, I just did. I enjoyed watching him play, he played a kind of game, I appreciated, but I also just liked him. I rooted for him to do well and felt an admittedly warped but genuine pride when he did. I defended him when he was criticized - even when he deserved it - and I liked seeing and hearing him. And for all the (understandable) focus around here on Hank, I really liked Toni a lot too. If you asked me to name my three favorite guys on the team, well, that's two of them. While I'm old enough to understand that players don't love us as much as we love them and the league works under certain financial constraints and players move on, it appears that I'm still young enough at heart to occasionally say, "That SUCKS and I don't like it ONE BIT!" Because speaking purely on an emotional level, this sucks and I don't like it one bit.
I wasn't really planning on changing the look of the blog yet, but when I put the black on, I forgot to write down the code for the blue I was using. I had been planning on trying out some new templates so since I couldn't get the old look back, I figured now was as good a time as any to look at some different things. The look that's up now isn't permanent - I hate the yellow background on the text boxes but I haven't quite figured out what to do with them yet. And while the banner isn't necessarily permanent either - I'm still playing with various photos - the guy in them probably is, at least for this season, even if he rarely ever goes Top Shelf. Unless it went off the goalie's head first. But more on that another time. For now, dude, I'm pretty bummed out. no comments
The truth is, as silly as the song was, I am genuinely sad, more than I really anticipated being. I had pretty much assumed that Hank was going to be moving on (and I figured it was going to be years more than money that was the sticking point) and I thought, okay, that's cool. I'm 32-years-old and he's a professional hockey player. Professional athletes move on, that's partly what they do. I'm not 9-years-old anymore, you know? But then I saw the first tweet that said "Tallinder to Devils" and well, I was a broken-hearted kid again. No tears (close but not quite) but a sad, heavy feeling that lingered for the rest of the day plus some? Definitely.
The funny thing is, I'm kind of happy about that. I'm a firm believer in that old adage that you cheer for the front of the jersey and not the back. I wish Hank well in Jersey, but I'll happily cheer for Mike Weber in his place next season. I'd drop Derek Roy off a cliff yesterday, but he's a Sabre and I'd rather him lead the league in points than any player on any other team. But the truth, for me at least, is that it does partly matter who's wearing the jerseys, and I'm happy to know that's as true for now as it was when I was a kid. I spend a lot of time here talking about things like the salary cap, small markets vs. large markets, free agency, all kinds of numbers. And while I do find that stuff really interesting and I think there's a lack of smart talk about it in Buffalo, at least from the mainstream media (lots of blogs have filled that gap), the bottom line of being a sports fan, again for me at least, is the attachment you feel to a team and the individuals who make up that team. We can certainly debate how valuable Hank was to the Sabres, whether he was worth keeping or whether the Devils overpaid, but we can't debate this: I loved Hank an awful lot. I can't even really tell you why, I just did. I enjoyed watching him play, he played a kind of game, I appreciated, but I also just liked him. I rooted for him to do well and felt an admittedly warped but genuine pride when he did. I defended him when he was criticized - even when he deserved it - and I liked seeing and hearing him. And for all the (understandable) focus around here on Hank, I really liked Toni a lot too. If you asked me to name my three favorite guys on the team, well, that's two of them. While I'm old enough to understand that players don't love us as much as we love them and the league works under certain financial constraints and players move on, it appears that I'm still young enough at heart to occasionally say, "That SUCKS and I don't like it ONE BIT!" Because speaking purely on an emotional level, this sucks and I don't like it one bit.
I wasn't really planning on changing the look of the blog yet, but when I put the black on, I forgot to write down the code for the blue I was using. I had been planning on trying out some new templates so since I couldn't get the old look back, I figured now was as good a time as any to look at some different things. The look that's up now isn't permanent - I hate the yellow background on the text boxes but I haven't quite figured out what to do with them yet. And while the banner isn't necessarily permanent either - I'm still playing with various photos - the guy in them probably is, at least for this season, even if he rarely ever goes Top Shelf. Unless it went off the goalie's head first. But more on that another time. For now, dude, I'm pretty bummed out. no comments
If you're here and the blog looks godawful ugly, it's because I'm in the middle of a re-design crisis. If it's still like this Sunday night, don't worry, I probably just gave up on blogging completely.
no comments
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.
no comments
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? no comments
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? no comments
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! no comments
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! no comments
