inkman Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Before anyone reponds with, WTF do you expect him to do with all these injuries, I think you need to hear me out on this. 1)Teams never make it through a seaon without injury. 2)Buffalo players have proven to be injury prone and soft. 3)Forward depth is not an issue. 4)Defensive depth is a major issue. 5)Did Darcy put too much stock into Card, Sekera and Funk? Without any salary cap room to play with Darcy was walking a fine line last offseason. So the question remains, could Darcy have done things differently this past offseason to bolster depth? Or he just played the cards he was dealt? With only seven defenseman with pro experience within the organ-eye-zation, I really think Darcy was walking a precarious line. A proven AHL vet wih some NHL experience could have helped. Here are a few: Matthieu Biron Dan McGillis Nolan Baumgartner Yannick Tremblay Patrick Traverse Brad Ference Jamie Pushor I don't know their contract status' before the seaosn but I have to imagine 1 or 2 were available.
jerryg Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Aw, man, you know if Darcy didn't spend to the cap last off season LOTS of fans, maybe even people that post here, would have been screaming taht TG and Darcy were trying to do it on the cheap. Everyone was lickig their chops ready to let go with that stuff until they started signing players to relatively big contracts.
inkman Posted February 19, 2007 Author Report Posted February 19, 2007 Yes, but some AHL depth could have been provided by the Sabres. Instead they went EL Cheapo. I don't think anyone can complain too hard. The Amerks are in first place.
Corp000085 Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 I thionk that the next CBA needs to have an emergency fund for AHL players... Teams who spend to the cap are royally punished because of injury callups. This whole "don't have enough money to cover our injured butts" thing is a major penalty and a major flaw in the new salary structure.
apuszczalowski Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Yes he did screw the pooch, but it wasn't last offseason, he was screwed by not offering some more long term contracts after the lockout. Sure he did not know exactly what players would respond to the new rules and how they would be enforced, but that is a gamble you have to take. He gave outtoo many one year deals and that meant last offseason he was either going to look like a genius because everyone was a flop and he could let them go without a hit to the cap, or he would get screwed over and players would become good and would demand big deals. So because of his cautious approach, we lost Dumont, McKee, and Grier, last offseason, and could probably lose Briere and Drury this offseason, along with Biron. The biggest problem is his reluctance to talk any kind of deal during the season. If a player like Drury or Briere are not offered a long term deal NOW, there is no point in signing anything until you see whats available on the market in the offseason. Both theire agents should be fired if at the end of the year either of them sign a long term deal before they see what the market holds for them, and unfortunately, if either sees the open market, they will not be back in Buffalo. That is why I see it as this season being the last chance at the cup the Sabres will have for a few years. But luckily we have Connolly locked up for a couple years and payed him good money this year
zow2 Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Your second point about Buffalo players being soft is absurd. Yes, they have had a couple really streaky injury situations pop up over the last 2 seasons. However it can happen to any team and usually does. We just don't care about it because its not the Sabres. Didn't Philly basically have to play half the Phantoms lineup a few years ago in the ECF vs. Tampa Bay? It happens to teams every year.
apuszczalowski Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Your second point about Buffalo players being soft is absurd. Yes, they have had a couple really streaky injury situations pop up over the last 2 seasons. However it can happen to any team and usually does. We just don't care about it because its not the Sabres. Didn't Philly basically have to play half the Phantoms lineup a few years ago in the ECF vs. Tampa Bay? It happens to teams every year. Yes teams get injuries all the time, but to say this team is not soft because other teams get injuries too is untrue. This team is soft, but most let it go because they think Buffalo's speed will get them by. Teams have already figured out that to beat Buffalo, all you have to do is play a very physical game to slow them down. Buffalo does not have the physical players to counter this kind of attack.
Wraith Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 Before anyone reponds with, WTF do you expect him to do with all these injuries, I think you need to hear me out on this. 1)Teams never make it through a seaon without injury. 2)Buffalo players have proven to be injury prone and soft. 3)Forward depth is not an issue. 4)Defensive depth is a major issue. 5)Did Darcy put too much stock into Card, Sekera and Funk? Without any salary cap room to play with Darcy was walking a fine line last offseason. So the question remains, could Darcy have done things differently this past offseason to bolster depth? Or he just played the cards he was dealt? With only seven defenseman with pro experience within the organ-eye-zation, I really think Darcy was walking a precarious line. A proven AHL vet wih some NHL experience could have helped. I am having a difficult time following your logic. 1) True 2) Do you have any proof of this? If our players are soft and injury-prone, why is it our tough (i.e. not soft) players are going down with injury (Gaustad, Novotny, and Spacek) or at least big guys (Ales). Even Stafford, a big body who does not play soft was dinged. This is beside the point though, because it is points three and four below that I do not understand. 3) Forward depth is not an issue? Are you trying to say that coming into the season forward depth was not an issue or that it is STILL not an issue? Given our injuries (5 Forwards and 1 DMan) I can't fathom how you can say foward depth is not an issue. 4) Defensive depth is a MAJOR issue? Again, coming into the season defensive depth was our weak spot (although I would argue against it being all that weak, just weak compared to our Goalie depth and forward depth, which were both OUTSTANDING coming into the season. But how can you say that defensive depth is the issue now, given our injuries? Your argument seems to shift from Darcy made a mistake with the cap that left him inflexible now (possibly a legitimate argument) to Darcy made a mistake by not stockpiling defensive depth in the AHL. This doesn't make sense to me for several reasons: 1) If he had stockpiled defensive depth, we would be even further short-handed for forwards, making our current situation worse. 2) We have some d-man prospects who are currently playing with an excellent Amerks team. You discount them because they are prospects instead of "proven AHL vets." Proven AHL vets are AHL vets for a reason, they have no NHL upside. Prospects, while lesser in experience, have upside. Experience is great, but experience for experience sake to the detriment of TALENT is not so great. Last years team was built off of a loaded, young Amerks team from 04-05 (Miller, Roy, Gaustad, Pominville, Vanek, for example). Regier clearly is hoping that another young but loaded Amerks team can supply needed depth when necessary. It sounds like a sound strategy to me when the alternative is to rely on an older, not as talented Amerks team. Yes teams get injuries all the time, but to say this team is not soft because other teams get injuries too is untrue. This team is soft, but most let it go because they think Buffalo's speed will get them by. Teams have already figured out that to beat Buffalo, all you have to do is play a very physical game to slow them down. Buffalo does not have the physical players to counter this kind of attack. What does that have to do with them being "injury prone."
apuszczalowski Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 What does that have to do with them being "injury prone." It was in response to someone saying the team is not soft
inkman Posted February 19, 2007 Author Report Posted February 19, 2007 3) Forward depth is not an issue? I'd say calling up 4 forwards who have are legitimate NHL prospects good depth. 4) Defensive depth is a MAJOR issue? Again, coming into the season defensive depth was our weak spot (although I would argue against it being all that weak, just weak compared to our Goalie depth and forward depth, which were both OUTSTANDING coming into the season. But how can you say that defensive depth is the issue now, given our injuries? Not just the issue now, it's been the issue all season. The Sabres have just been healthy on the backend. 1) If he had stockpiled defensive depth, we would be even further short-handed for forwards, making our current situation worse. The Sabre are mandated by their agreement with Rochester to provide them with at least 10 players. I believe they are allowed to supply up to 12-13. These 2 or 3 players could be the difference. 2) We have some d-man prospects who are currently playing with an excellent Amerks team. You discount them because they are prospects... I discounted them because that is exactly what Lindy did when they got their shots. Sekera MAY be able to contribute right now but the other 2 are years away.
Wraith Posted February 19, 2007 Report Posted February 19, 2007 I'd say calling up 4 forwards who have are legitimate NHL prospects good depth. Not just the issue now, it's been the issue all season. The Sabres have just been healthy on the backend. The Sabre are mandated by their agreement with Rochester to provide them with at least 10 players. I believe they are allowed to supply up to 12-13. These 2 or 3 players could be the difference. I discounted them because that is exactly what Lindy did when they got their shots. Sekera MAY be able to contribute right now but the other 2 are years away. According to today's D&C, Buffalo is mandated to provide at least 10 players and up to 12 players for Rochester. Also, according to the D&C, Buffalo currently has 8 allocated to Rochester (With Stafford, MacArthur, Paille, and Ryan up with the big club). That means until recently, Buffalo has had the maximum amount of players, twelve, in the AHL.
deluca67 Posted February 20, 2007 Report Posted February 20, 2007 It would be great some more NHL ready players. You can never have enough. The question is how would he pay for them? If he let Briere walk that may have covered it. But would the Sabres be better? Doubt it. Now is not the time to break it up and try to rebuild it. If the Sabres fall short then fire will rain down on Regier. He has deserved the chance to let the season play out. Reevaluate him at the end of the season. If the season ends short of a Cup than Regier should be held accountable. At this point the only flaw in the team has been injuries. Freak injuries at that. Also, Are any of the players listed above better than anyone on Buffalo's opening day roster? I would say no. Regier built his team before the season started. What has it gotten him. The best team in the NHL.
jackb Posted February 20, 2007 Report Posted February 20, 2007 Interesting topic. For all the foresight the organization had going into and coming out of the lockout, I believe Darcy made a major tactical error in not offering contracts to Briere and Drury among others last Spring. By mid-March last season, it was obvious that both players exceeded all expectations. Briere, who made 2.1 million last year, would have probably jumped at a deal in the 3.4-3.7 range. To let 10!!! players go to arbitration in an unknown post lockout off season where offensive totals increased substantially was borderline idiocy. I can just see Darcy turn even whiter when he heard that #48 got 5 million a season. For all this though, Darcy probably has his biggest test in front of him this week. This team is so close to a championship and now the GM has to put them over the top. Cap room is a major issue but a heart and soul guy like Ian Laperriere comes in at under a million. I know its not adding scoring like Bill Guerin but this club has offense. It needs a "playoff" type F and D who are proven battlers over the two month grind. By no means is Lapperiere the answer to all things but Darcy needs to perfect the painting he has so carefully and methodically created. He just cant dip his brush, spatter the paint and hope for a Jackson Pollack. The team probably will not have this kind of talent for a few years to come considering the $$$$ 48 & 23 will command in the offseason. Its now or never for Darcy. Let's see how he responds to what may be the challange of his tenure here in Buffalo. Go Sabres!
inkman Posted February 20, 2007 Author Report Posted February 20, 2007 Are any of the players listed above better than anyone on Buffalo's opening day roster? I would say no. Regier built his team before the season started. What has it gotten him. The best team in the NHL. All the players I was talking about are in the AHL, and that's exactly where they would be in the Bufffalo organ-eye-zation. Therefore, these players would not be counted against the NHL salary cap because players in the AHL don't count against the cap.
deluca67 Posted February 20, 2007 Report Posted February 20, 2007 All the players I was talking about are in the AHL, and that's exactly where they would be in the Bufffalo organ-eye-zation. Therefore, these players would not be counted against the NHL salary cap because players in the AHL don't count against the cap. You forget one major point. The Sabres don't have endless streams of money. It's why they share a team with Florida. Anyway. The reason to have a farm team is to give your youngsters a place to play until they are ready. Where would this team be today if Pominville, Roy and Paestch didn't have a place to play because the Sabres gave those spots to 30 something year old has beens? Look at the ROC roster. Who would you sit. Which of those quality prospects do you let go so you can have some players who are in the AHL because they aren't good enough instead of just being young and learning the game. I want the Sabres to win as bad as anyone. But it's suicide to the future of this franchise is you cut off it's life line. This season, next season and 10 seasons down the road rely on this life line.
inkman Posted February 21, 2007 Author Report Posted February 21, 2007 ...so where does that leave Buffalo if they suffer any more defensive players? Welcome Andrej Sekera. After that this team is thin, scary thin.
Knightrider Posted February 21, 2007 Report Posted February 21, 2007 The only thing I wish he'd done differently is that he should have traded Kotalik and paid Pyatt. That is of course with 20/20 hindsight... Grier simply did want to be on the east coast. McKee and Dumont were just not worth the money. WRT the defense, we had Rory, Janik, and Jillson (aka AHL depth) playing in the conference finals. We have first hand experience that they were not going to get us a cup. We are developing that depth now, and while they couldn't handle the NHL in November, their upside may allow them to do a better job than the career AHLers in May. Calling Paetsch up last year wasn't exactly something I was looking forward to last year. Sekera is this year's Paetsch. Also, our #7 D is significantly upgraded from last year. Overall, we are in better shape this year than last on the blue line.
inkman Posted February 21, 2007 Author Report Posted February 21, 2007 Also, our #7 D is significantly upgraded from last year. Overall, we are in better shape this year than last on the blue line. While healthy...
Knightrider Posted February 21, 2007 Report Posted February 21, 2007 Looking at the regular season last year, we had 61 defensive man games lost. With 22 games remaining, we have had 42 defensive man games lost. On defense, this team is no more hurt than last year. Rory had to play in 56 games last year. :sick: If a team has to reach down to their 9th D-man (Sekera being #8), they're screwed. Like I said, we had the AHLers last year, had to call on them in the playoffs, and they weren't good enough.
inkman Posted February 21, 2007 Author Report Posted February 21, 2007 If a team has to reach down to their 9th D-man (Sekera being #8), they're screwed. Like I said, we had the AHLers last year, had to call on them in the playoffs, and they weren't good enough. Don't be surprised if it happens again. The guys who were called up and filled in last year were vastly more experienced than the crew we have this year. Last years least experienced D-man (Janik) had more proexperience than all our propects combined this year. Fitzpatrick, Paetsch, Janik, Delmore>>>>>>>>>>>>Paetsch, Funk, Card, Sekera.
LoveAndWarrener Posted February 21, 2007 Report Posted February 21, 2007 Anyone know if we can send Paille down to help cover our obligation to the Amerks, despite his injury? May want him to get a game in at Rochester before he comes back up, anyway.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 21, 2007 Report Posted February 21, 2007 Ink, I understand the feeling given what happened last year, but you are stressing too much. Any team that has to reach into the 8th and 9th spots on defense is probably going to lose. Every team faces these issues. You can't control everything. Did New Jersey screw the pooch because they have no legit, playoff-calibre depth in goal behind Brodeur? It's the same thing. If you were a Devils fan, would you be saying they are screwed because IF Brodeur gets hurt Clemeson can't get it done? Somehow I doubt it, because you just are used to the fact that if your #1 goalie goes down, you are screwed. If Peyton Manning goes down, the Colts don't win the Super Bowl; Not because Polian screwed up, because you can only have one of those guys. Likewise, if the Sabres get hit with 3 more injuries on defense AGAIN, yeah, they are in trouble. But no more so than any other team in the NHL. Also, so what if the Sabres had a couple of those guys you mention down on the farm? Not only would they still not be good enough to win the Cup if they got called up, they would be playing valuable minutes all season in Rochester, and retarding the development of Sekera, Funk and Card in the process. Then 2 years from now we'd be crying the Sabres can't develop defensemen. You have to pick your poison.
Knightrider Posted February 21, 2007 Report Posted February 21, 2007 Don't be surprised if it happens again. The guys who were called up and filled in last year were vastly more experienced than the crew we have this year. Last years least experienced D-man (Janik) had more proexperience than all our propects combined this year. Fitzpatrick, Paetsch, Janik, Delmore>>>>>>>>>>>>Paetsch, Funk, Card, Sekera. Being from WNY, I won't be surprised, but I think the defensive injuries last year during the playoffs were a touch atypical...
deluca67 Posted February 21, 2007 Report Posted February 21, 2007 ...so where does that leave Buffalo if they suffer any more defensive players? Welcome Andrej Sekera. After that this team is thin, scary thin. It's like saying where will the Sabres be if Miller and Biron get injured. Mike Shoop takes a lot of heat on the Buffalo sports boards. He did hit it right on the head. The Sabres have been hit with injuries yet are rolling. They have 1 regulation loss in their last nine. And are winning the close 1 goal games. Not to mention the Sabres get to take a close look at some of the prospects. The same prospects teams will be seeking in any trade talks.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.