Flyers/Sabres Deal

To BUF: Martin Biron

To PHI: Year 4 BUF 1st, Year 4 BUF 3rd, Prospect Luke Adam


Flyers Agree

Sabres Agree and get a solid Back up

Back up..lol
I have a feeling you will be dealing him for more once the season starts
Thanks for freeing up capspace for me.

hahaha......noooo i wasnt thinking that at all

I dunno about that Mark, lol. He's inconsistent at best and doesn't really steal the show.

I look at him like a younger Gerber. A solid 1A-B guy with potential he can't seem to tap.

Good move though for an emergency back up in case Mason fails.

yeah that was my plan A to have him as a back up but if i get solid offers on him i may need to move him (Plan B)

someone want to explain to me how a 30+yr old 2nd-3rd string G is worth a future 1st?!

He is worth that when it's a sim league and he has a decent rating (one that's higher then his NHL status).
A 71 goalie is worth a 1st 5 seasons from now.

Joe are you sure you dont have something personal against me??

Garth Snow wrote:

He is worth that when it's a sim league and he has a decent rating (one that's higher then his NHL status).
A 71 goalie is worth a 1st 5 seasons from now.

Yep, I'd agree. It's a little much for Biron, but not bad at all because he's quite a decent sim league goalie.

marc, if you think a G with a decent rating (71ov) whose future prospects are looking extremely bleak is worth a 1st we really ought to talk trade more often. biron likely has two sim seasons left before taking the serious re-rate hit that comes along with being a backup on the new york islanders.

as commissioner i have an issue with trades that send semi-distant futures for a return that is mediocre now and will likely turn to crap upon the next re-rates.

biron is nearly in goalie oblivion. he signed a 1 year deal with the islanders...

to be a backup...

or maybe a backup to the backup...

are guys like recchi and sundin worth 1st round picks?

bure_HOF wrote:

marc, if you think a G with a decent rating (71ov) whose future prospects are looking extremely bleak is worth a 1st we really ought to talk trade more often. biron likely has two sim seasons left before taking the serious re-rate hit that comes along with being a backup on the new york islanders.

as commissioner i have an issue with trades that send semi-distant futures for a return that is mediocre now and will likely turn to crap upon the next re-rates.

biron is nearly in goalie oblivion. he signed a 1 year deal with the islanders...

to be a backup...

or maybe a backup to the backup...

are guys like recchi and sundin worth 1st round picks?

In fairness, Biron still has some time left in him, and has shown flashes of being a capable #1 goalie. There's no way he went to the Isles with the intentions of being a third goalie. He is going to fight to be the #1, and DiPi is out for a while at the beginning of the season (I believe), so he'll get a chance there too. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he's traded from the Isles to a team that needs a goalie before the end of the year.

Quote :

In fairness, Biron still has some time left in him, and has shown flashes of being a capable #1 goalie. There's no way he went to the Isles with the intentions of being a third goalie. He is going to fight to be the #1, and DiPi is out for a while at the beginning of the season (I believe), so he'll get a chance there too. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he's traded from the Isles to a team that needs a goalie before the end of the year.

thats what you call optimistic speculation. the fact is that biron signed a 1 year $1.4M deal. roloson signed a 2 year $2.5M deal. i believe its pretty clear who the starter is.

even IF biron were to end up winning the job, or being traded to a team who needed a mediocre starter he's still not going to play as many games as he did last year, and games played is crucial in sim league goalie ratings. best case scenario for biron is he's like a 67ov next re-rate.

just as likely as your scenario that he ends up a starter somewhere is the scenario in which he's a 3rd string G on a bad team for the 09-10 nhl season.

FLYERS wrote:

Back up..lol
I have a feeling you will be dealing him for more once the season starts
Thanks for freeing up capspace for me.

Dealing him for more? I'm shocked he got as much as he did.

joe if you dont like the trade then veto it

my direct veto powers only apply to new GMs. you're supposed to know better, mark.


as an aside i wonder when the GMs in this league are going to smarten up a bit. philly had ZERO leverage to deal biron for a 1st unless there was more than one gm gullible enough to offer one up. so why give maximum value to a team when they're $3-4M over the cap? a yr2 2nd would have been a great return for philly at this point.

same thing with the win-phi deal. philly had a great team except for a G. so why doesnt winnipeg demand JVR, giroux or setoguchi in the deal? again, ALL of the leverage is on winnipeg's side, yet he just ignores that and settles for some 2nd and 3rd liners.

has nobody ever seen pirates of the carribean? its a matter of leverage. use it wisely.

I dont like the deal either. I think Biron has not much value and a 1st is an AMAZING return, but not veto worthy.

I agree with the above post, assets are being shipped left and right without much tought put into it. Cam Ward to Philly is the best thing that could have happened for this team, and I KNOW Mark would have paid more I would also have paid more for Brodeur and Joe would definately have paid more for Ovechkin, even if he might not say it

Quote :

and Joe would definately have paid more for Ovechkin, even if he might not say it

haha, you forget that i offered more with horton instead of ryder and frolik instead of wheeler.

bure_HOF wrote:

someone want to explain to me how a 30+yr old 2nd-3rd string G is worth a future 1st?!

The same way Zdeno Chara is worth nothing?...care to explain that one please

leverage is a state of mind joe, not a certainty.

Joe, in all honesty, as someone who was the benficiary of one of the most lopsided trades thsi offseason, you should not be complainig about how gms are valuing their players.

Garth Snow wrote:

Joe, in all honesty, as someone who was the benficiary of one of the most lopsided trades thsi offseason, you should not be complainig about how gms are valuing their players.

marc, in all honesty, if you think that trade was so lopsided you need to learn a little more about hockey. and, in all honesty, as league commish its my job to weigh in with my opinions where i see fit. and, in all honesty, if me acquiring ovechkin and morris at the *huge* discount of four players and four picks and then commenting on other trades is a big problem for you then you're in the wrong league.

I'm just saying, not everyone thinks that every trade is fair, people overpay for player all the time. Buffalo wanted Biron, there were a handful of teams who wanted him, and the Sabres paid what they needed to to get him. It's as simple as that.

You expressed your opinion, I expressed mine, and they differ. No harm there.

I would not have made that Ovechkin trade in a million years

I'm going to speak on this whole ordeal from the perspective of someone who has a 'repuatation' for pulling off one-sided deals.

Every single deal is available to be challenged. ALL of them, not just those that are not done by the Commissioner. The Ovechkin deal was posted and while many weren't happy with how cheap he went for (yes, Joe, it was a steal) the bottom line is that no one challenged it.

Is that Joe's fault? No. It's yours, Jake. And Garth. And Jay. And Dev. And mine. And everyone else who let it go. You should have challenged the deal at the time if you didn't like it.

So, does the fact that the OV deal was lopsided now take away Joe's 'vote' or 'voice'? No, why should it? He's a GM in this league just like everyone else, trying to build a team while doing what he can to stop other teams from being better than his.

Let's face it, we don't challenge deals because we feel sorry for the guy getting ripped off. We challenge them because if that player can be had for such a low price, we want a crack at him too...or because we want to see the GM pay more, instead of bolstering his lineup for next to nothing.

Everyone has this holier than thou attitude, when --to coin a phrase-- IN ALL HONESTY, there is not one of you out there who wouldn't do the Ovechkin deal if it were YOU getting Ovechkin, and not think twice about it. That's okay, there's nothing wrong with that. We all want a steal. We all want a bargain. I know this because I deal with most of you.

I'm also aware that some GMs' deals are more apt to be challenged than others. Mark is one of those GMs. Joe is another. I'm another. But it unfortunately works both ways, because, you see...GMs like us won't have our deals challenged if we're getting the short end of the stick.

Is that fair? Probably not. Do we care? Sometimes, but hey...as the saying goes, you live by the sword...

Before I stray too far off topic, I'll say this:

Mark got a great return for Biron. Better than I would have offered, for sure. Better than most would have offered. In fact, I've talked to Mark on a few occasions regarding Biron and the offers he's got has been crap. So, let's look at it from Mark's point of view:

He has a goalie that, for two SDHL seasons, can be of great help to another team, or serve as a great backup for him. (Or even a starter, for that matter)

He wants to trade him, as he's managed to secure a more long term solution to his goaltending.

He's let it be known that Biron is available.

Rather than deal him for a 3rd round pick, as I'm sure is about the most popular offer, he would rather keep him until someone comes along really needing a goalie.

Enter the other Mark.

Buffalo made the mistake of mishandling their goaltending situation, and is now in a tough spot. He's willing to make the payment he made, he has no issue with it.

What's the problem here? The Flyers had the advantage...they had something the Sabres wanted...nay...NEEDED. It's called supply and demand. A seller's market, if you will.

Get over it, the deal's fine. Biron may even be starting for another team by the time some of those picks are even used. In any case, Buffalo wants to be a contender NOW, and Biron gives them NOW goaltending. They traded away both their prospect goalies...what does that tell you?

Anywho...I've jumped around a bit, so let's summarize:

--Joe, Commissioner or not, is allowed to have a voice in this league just like every other GM.
--Joe, like every other GM in this league, has the right to try and pass ludicrous deals through in the hopes they don't get challenged.
--If a GM has something that a few people want, he can pretty much name his price. It's up to the other GMs to decline and say they won't pay that price.

The Cap was brought into the NHL to stop GMs from spending foolishly. We all know it was supposed to be an easy fix that hurt the players, rather than expecting GMs to be responsible with their finances. As we've seen, not only has the cap not slowed GMs down from spending like idiots, they try to use it as a tool to hurt the players.

This is, in its own way, the same thing. It's GMs spending foolishly. The Trade Committee, so to speak, is the Cap...but it can only do so much. Eventually, a GM is going to get a bad deal through.

Understand what I'm saying here?