Mike Oxhurtz Posted April 10, 2008 Report Posted April 10, 2008 Ah, yup, sorry. I read your post in Mike Ox's (quoting yours) and mistook your intention as the all-to-common "we would have been better this year, so we should have signed them" argument. I would say that I highly doubt they would have been at the top again this year, but they would most likely have been in the playoffs. Of course, I think that would have been true with just one of two (preferably Chris), especially if Teppo had also played. No problem. I'm not saying we would have made it to the stanley cup or EC finals, but we would have been more competitive and made the playoffs this year with Drury & Briere.
deluca67 Posted April 10, 2008 Report Posted April 10, 2008 No problem. I'm not saying we would have made it to the stanley cup or EC finals, but we would have been more competitive and made the playoffs this year with Drury & Briere. And if they were here and didn't? The Sabres would be blamed for that.
deluca67 Posted April 10, 2008 Report Posted April 10, 2008 Thank you, my sentiments exactly!!! And another A-Pus circle-J is born.
apuszczalowski Posted April 10, 2008 Report Posted April 10, 2008 And another A-Pus circle-J is born. Are you just jealous that you can't even get one going with yourself?
Mike Oxhurtz Posted April 10, 2008 Report Posted April 10, 2008 And if they were here and didn't? The Sabres would be blamed for that. If management was able to keep these guys, then the blame would be on the Sabres if we missed the playoffs. But I don't see how we would have missed the playoffs with Drury & Briere, considering with them, we went to 2 EC finals. I think we would have at least made to the 2nd round (maybe further) but after last year, we needed help on defense and we didn't get it this past offseason.
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 10, 2008 Report Posted April 10, 2008 I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a wild guess and say that typically, if your plan is to go in another direction, you don't continually try to re-sign a guy (like they did with Drury) So then the problem lies with Drury being the one who really stiffed the Sabres and the fans... Some leader... <_<
apuszczalowski Posted April 10, 2008 Report Posted April 10, 2008 So then the problem lies with Drury being the one who really stiffed the Sabres and the fans... Some leader... <_< in some ways, yes, Drury may have been the bad guy here, I never said none of the blame is on him. If anything, he should be the one everyone is mad at. He said he wanted to be here, they spent most of their time negotiating only with him, they even offered to match any offer he was given, and he supposedly never even gave them a chance to and just signed with NY once they made him an offer. It wasn't a well kept secret that he wanted to be a Ranger and that the Rangers were probably going to make him a serious offer.
X. Benedict Posted April 10, 2008 Report Posted April 10, 2008 in some ways, yes, Drury may have been the bad guy here, I never said none of the blame is on him. If anything, he should be the one everyone is mad at. He said he wanted to be here, they spent most of their time negotiating only with him, they even offered to match any offer he was given, and he supposedly never even gave them a chance to and just signed with NY once they made him an offer. It wasn't a well kept secret that he wanted to be a Ranger and that the Rangers were probably going to make him a serious offer. I wonder how the Devils are feeling this morning with Gomez.....who ate them alive.
deluca67 Posted April 11, 2008 Report Posted April 11, 2008 If management was able to keep these guys, then the blame would be on the Sabres if we missed the playoffs. But I don't see how we would have missed the playoffs with Drury & Briere, considering with them, we went to 2 EC finals. I think we would have at least made to the 2nd round (maybe further) but after last year, we needed help on defense and we didn't get it this past offseason. The Sens, who went to the Finals and were a much better team than the Sabres, kept the same team and yet the Sabres only finished four points behind them. You just don't know what would have happened.
Mike Oxhurtz Posted April 11, 2008 Report Posted April 11, 2008 The Sens, who went to the Finals and were a much better team than the Sabres, kept the same team and yet the Sabres only finished four points behind them. You just don't know what would have happened. I would have rather taken a drop off in rankings and still made the playoffs, versus missing the playoffs completely. A 7th or 8th spot, is a hell of a lot better than 10th. Maybe our management team will get it right this offseason, but I have my doubts. I blame us missing the postseason on our management team, first for failing to resign either Drury, Briere or both, second for failing to fill the void when they were unable to resign Drury & Briere, third, letting Edmonton dictate the Vanek contract situation. Briere was our leading point scorer and co-captain, Drury was our other captain, both of them brought leadership to this team. So, since we have enough scorers, we needed help on defense and management failed to upgrade our defense the past offseason. I could have lived with not signing Drury & Briere if we brought in good quality defensemen that made a difference, but it didn't happen. I just don't see why some sabres fans are taking it out on Drury & Briere. If we had better management, Drury & Briere should have been offered contract extensions before the start of their last season under contract. Management admits they screwed up, well when your in a management position on a professional sports team, mistakes like those can really set your team back for years. Anywhere else, Quinn & Regier would have been fired already. Hopefully in our case, we can get the missing pieces of the puzzle, our younger guys can keep getting better, and things will fall back into place.
Mike Oxhurtz Posted April 11, 2008 Report Posted April 11, 2008 With the title of this thread being "Anyone want to puke", we should be talking about Larry Quinn and his comments: Sure, we've made mistakes, but we've made good decisons as well. That should make anyone puke.
deluca67 Posted April 11, 2008 Report Posted April 11, 2008 With the title of this thread being "Anyone want to puke", we should be talking about Larry Quinn and his comments: Sure, we've made mistakes, but we've made good decisons as well. That should make anyone puke. Why? Do you even know why you don't like Larry Quinn? You don't have the success the Sabres have had without doing something right. It's hard to take any criticism about Larry Quinn seriously when you are unable to acknowledge his successes.
tom webster Posted April 11, 2008 Report Posted April 11, 2008 in some ways, yes, Drury may have been the bad guy here, I never said none of the blame is on him. If anything, he should be the one everyone is mad at. He said he wanted to be here, they spent most of their time negotiating only with him, they even offered to match any offer he was given, and he supposedly never even gave them a chance to and just signed with NY once they made him an offer. eIt wasn't a well kpt secret that he wanted to be a Ranger and that the Rangers were probably going to make him a serious offer. This just isn't supported by facts. As I have said before, if Nylander signs with the Rangers, they don't sign Drury, and as late as midnight Saturday the Rangers thought they had a deal. It was only after that deal fell apart that Drury came into play and yes, New York was the one place he wanted to go other than staying here.
X. Benedict Posted April 11, 2008 Report Posted April 11, 2008 [/b] This just isn't supported by facts. As I have said before, if Nylander signs with the Rangers, they don't sign Drury, and as late as midnight Saturday the Rangers thought they had a deal. It was only after that deal fell apart that Drury came into play and yes, New York was the one place he wanted to go other than staying here. The speculation was pretty open in the New York media even before last season was finished. Even Jagr was openly talking about the possibility of Drury coming. Mark Witkin, Drury's agent is a savy media fellow himself. I don't have facts, but I bet he used channels to get word out. Sather even said he didn't think he was bidding against anyone else. Drury did sign on day 1.
Taro T Posted April 11, 2008 Report Posted April 11, 2008 [/b] This just isn't supported by facts. As I have said before, if Nylander signs with the Rangers, they don't sign Drury, and as late as midnight Saturday the Rangers thought they had a deal. It was only after that deal fell apart that Drury came into play and yes, New York was the one place he wanted to go other than staying here. Where do you think San Jose fit into the picture? With Grier being out there, home in Manhattan Beach, wife from West Coast, and Snarks having a lot of cap room there was a lot of speculation prior to July 1 that they would take a major run at his services. Obviously with NY signing him on the 1st day that never became an option to Chris, but it'd be interesting to hear (or more accurately read) what his thoughts were on SJ.
tom webster Posted April 11, 2008 Report Posted April 11, 2008 Where do you think San Jose fit into the picture? With Grier being out there, home in Manhattan Beach, wife from West Coast, and Snarks having a lot of cap room there was a lot of speculation prior to July 1 that they would take a major run at his services. Obviously with NY signing him on the 1st day that never became an option to Chris, but it'd be interesting to hear (or more accurately read) what his thoughts were on SJ. X and Taro, I don't expect anyone to take my word on it, so I stress, that I am stating this without being able to back it up at all. a) As disappointed Drury was with not only how he was treated but also how Danny was treated, he was planning on resigning with Buffalo. He never hid his love for the Rangers but he was led to believe that wasn't an option. b) The Nylander deal fell apart at the twenty fourth hour. c) Only Buffalo can't make deals happen within one day. The CBA stipulates almost all clauses in a standard contract. Rangers knew where they could go, Drury knew what was on the table and in the end chose New York. It was not an easy decision and I would venture to guess not a decision he hasn't regretted at times. d) Chris does deserve some blame for how he handled it at the end, but there is a lot more to it than has been aired, and be sure, Larry's admissions that there were mistakes made was not something he made on his own.
carpandean Posted April 11, 2008 Author Report Posted April 11, 2008 If we had better management, Drury & Briere should have been offered contract extensions before the start of their last season under contract. The last year of Danny's contract was also the first year of Danny's contract. He received a one-year contract by that arbitrator and, at the time, most people scoffed at the fact that he was given $5 million. If they had extended him at that point and at that price, most people would have gone nuts. By the time people thought he might be worth that much, it was the all-star break and his market value had gone way up. BTW, I wrote "Anyone want to puke?" because it was Danny, who I don't really like, but everyone makes such a big deal about, basically crediting the Flyers' turnaround to a Sabres meltdown. It wasn't supposed to be a comment about whether or not we should have kept him.
carpandean Posted April 11, 2008 Author Report Posted April 11, 2008 This just isn't supported by facts. As I have said before, if Nylander signs with the Rangers, they don't sign Drury, and as late as midnight Saturday the Rangers thought they had a deal. It was only after that deal fell apart that Drury came into play and yes, New York was the one place he wanted to go other than staying here. See: http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/nyr070612.html Note the date: June 12 They may not have known that they would definitely need both until the 24th hour, but they did know that they might. Also, even if they didn't need both, they would still have considered Drury.
tom webster Posted April 11, 2008 Report Posted April 11, 2008 See:http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/nyr070612.html Note the date: June 12 Thank you, I think that supports my version of the facts.
carpandean Posted April 11, 2008 Author Report Posted April 11, 2008 Thank you, I think that supports my version of the facts. Sort of, but see my edit while you were typing (you're too quick).
Mike Oxhurtz Posted April 11, 2008 Report Posted April 11, 2008 The last year of Danny's contract was also the first year of Danny's contract. He received a one-year contract by that arbitrator and, at the time, most people scoffed at the fact that he was given $5 million. If they had extended him at that point and at that price, most people would have gone nuts. By the time people thought he might be worth that much, it was the all-star break and his market value had gone way up. BTW, I wrote "Anyone want to puke?" because it was Danny, who I don't really like, but everyone makes such a big deal about, basically crediting the Flyers' turnaround to a Sabres meltdown. It wasn't supposed to be a comment about whether or not we should have kept him. When I said last year of their contracts, I should have been more clear on Briere's situation. Briere should have been made an offer during the year (05-06 season) that way it wouldn't have went to arbitration. I would have rathered seen Briere get Vanek's deal, than Vanek. Briere was a co-captain, plus had over 90 points in his last season (most since the 95-96 season for a Sabre), and if I remember correctly, he had over 70 points the year before. So, Briere was able to produce on the ice, plus provided leadership. I think he deserved a good contract, and I don't see how it's his fault that a deal wasn't done in Buffalo when management did approach any player until the offseason about their contracts. That's very poor contract management, and it should be managements fault that the deals weren't done, not the players. I give equal credit to Drury & Briere for the Sabres turnaround.
tom webster Posted April 12, 2008 Report Posted April 12, 2008 Sort of, but see my edit while you were typing (you're too quick). If you are talking about the date, I saw it, but it still backs up my version of the facts. Drury was option number three. Nylander was important because of Jagr. The funny thing was that when this article first came out we were amused because I believe it was the only article that connected Chris to New York.
carpandean Posted April 12, 2008 Author Report Posted April 12, 2008 If you are talking about the date, I saw it, but it still backs up my version of the facts. Drury was option number three. Nylander was important because of Jagr. The funny thing was that when this article first came out we were amused because I believe it was the only article that connected Chris to New York. What I meant is that you said it was only after the deal with Nylander fell apart that he came into play and what this article showed is that, about a month before the deadline, he knew that he would be either be: (a) one of two guys being considered for one spot (if Nylander did sign); or (b) one of the two guys that they would look at first to fill two spots (if Nylander didn't sign). If he really wanted to go to the Rangers, then there was very little risk in waiting until after the deadline. He knew the chances were pretty good that Nylander wouldn't sign and/or the Rangers wouldn't get Gomez or would even choose him over Gomez because of the terms each might want. Not only that, but the Sabres clearly wanted to keep him and don't like to sign UFAs, so he could be certain that he could fall back to them, if necessary.
tom webster Posted April 12, 2008 Report Posted April 12, 2008 What I meant is that you said it was only after the deal with Nylander fell apart that he came into play and what this article showed is that, about a month before the deadline, he knew that he would be either be: (a) one of two guys being considered for one spot (if Nylander did sign); or (b) one of the two guys that they would look at first to fill two spots (if Nylander didn't sign). If he really wanted to go to the Rangers, then there was very little risk in waiting until after the deadline. He knew the chances were pretty good that Nylander wouldn't sign and/or the Rangers wouldn't get Gomez or would even choose him over Gomez because of the terms each might want. Not only that, but the Sabres clearly wanted to keep him and don't like to sign UFAs, so he could be certain that he could fall back to them, if necessary. They were actually pretty sure that Nylander and Gomez would get done. There's is no doubt he knew Buffalo was ready to sign him. He rationalized that making Buffalo wait was no different then them making him wait after he thought they had a deal in October.
carpandean Posted April 12, 2008 Author Report Posted April 12, 2008 They were actually pretty sure that Nylander and Gomez would get done. In this league, no team can be too sure of signing a particular UFA until the ink is on the paper. Obviously there were doubts or they wouldn't have even been talking about Drury. The team made him wait, he made the team wait ... they share responsibility. Nobody wishes it had worked out more than I do, but it didn't. I really just wish that the Sabres had planned a second choice in case he did walk.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.