Free Agency 2008

[inkman]

...but not enough money.

 

According to who?

[Screamin'Weasel]

Wolf, I want to say I always respect your posts and rarely, if ever, disagree with the content of them. Also, I'd like to point out that I am far from a front office supporter. I'd just like to wait and see without hearing all the trash talk before they can actually even begin to do anything other than the draft (which has been ripped apart just as unfairly, I might add).

 

I have never meant my comments to be condescending to anyone. I was simply saying that will always try to improve the team because it benefits themselves as well as us. Also, looking back, I see I did not correctly convey what I meant in the statement I made. It should have read "...you cannot justifiably blame management when you don't see the player you expected be acquired." It all goes back to my point of quite a bit of Sabre fan frustration being based on them not signing the player they, the fan, wanted them, the team, to sign.

 

You can see this approach alot here on these forums when, say for example, they sign Liles and he doesn't work out and out come the posters with winners like: "I knew they should have signed Orpik instead." Did the FO try to improve the team with the signing of Liles? Or if Orpick signs with another team on July 1 we hear, "The stupid management let another great addition slip by without trying." How do you know they didn't try? That was the point I was trying to make.

 

The hindsight is 20/20 comment meant only that management does (and will likely continue to) make mistakes...just like every other team does and will. If Chicago had known what Hasek would turn out to be, would we have ever seen him in a Sabres uniform? Does management deserve the blame for thier mistakes? Hell yeah! But again, my true point was that not all the actions (or inactions) that look like mistakes to us, the fans, can justifiably be called mistakes because we don't have all the information.

 

Lastly, folks, please feel free to respond in the threads to any comments I make you take issue with. Sending a pm about it isn't contributing conversation to this great forum. The 5 @ 25 comment I made was concerning Campbell, yes, but as Deluca has (delightfully and quite wittily, if I may say so) pointed out repeatedly, we hear these exact same numbers about so many players the Sabres failed to sign that it has become a joke, true or not.

[tom webster]

Wolf, I want to say I always respect your posts and rarely, if ever, disagree with the content of them. Also, I'd like to point out that I am far from a front office supporter. I'd just like to wait and see without hearing all the trash talk before they can actually even begin to do anything other than the draft (which has been ripped apart just as unfairly, I might add).

 

I have never meant my comments to be condescending to anyone. I was simply saying that will always try to improve the team because it benefits themselves as well as us. Also, looking back, I see I did not correctly convey what I meant in the statement I made. It should have read "...you cannot justifiably blame management when you don't see the player you expected be acquired." It all goes back to my point of quite a bit of Sabre fan frustration being based on them not signing the player they, the fan, wanted them, the team, to sign.

 

You can see this approach alot here on these forums when, say for example, they sign Liles and he doesn't work out and out come the posters with winners like: "I knew they should have signed Orpik instead." Did the FO try to improve the team with the signing of Liles? Or if Orpick signs with another team on July 1 we hear, "The stupid management let another great addition slip by without trying." How do you know they didn't try? That was the point I was trying to make.

 

The hindsight is 20/20 comment meant only that management does (and will likely continue to) make mistakes...just like every other team does and will. If Chicago had known what Hasek would turn out to be, would we have ever seen him in a Sabres uniform? Does management deserve the blame for thier mistakes? Hell yeah! But again, my true point was that not all the actions (or inactions) that look like mistakes to us, the fans, can justifiably be called mistakes because we don't have all the information.

 

Lastly, folks, please feel free to respond in the threads to any comments I make you take issue with. Sending a pm about it isn't contributing conversation to this great forum. The 5 @ 25 comment I made was concerning Campbell, yes, but as Deluca has (delightfully and quite wittily, if I may say so) pointed out repeatedly, we hear these exact same numbers about so many players the Sabres failed to sign that it has become a joke, true or not.

 

Briere and Campbell. Does two qualify as "so many?"

[Bmwolf21]

Wolf, I want to say I always respect your posts and rarely, if ever, disagree with the content of them. Also, I'd like to point out that I am far from a front office supporter. I'd just like to wait and see without hearing all the trash talk before they can actually even begin to do anything other than the draft (which has been ripped apart just as unfairly, I might add).

 

I have never meant my comments to be condescending to anyone. I was simply saying that will always try to improve the team because it benefits themselves as well as us. Also, looking back, I see I did not correctly convey what I meant in the statement I made. It should have read "...you cannot justifiably blame management when you don't see the player you expected be acquired." It all goes back to my point of quite a bit of Sabre fan frustration being based on them not signing the player they, the fan, wanted them, the team, to sign.

 

You can see this approach alot here on these forums when, say for example, they sign Liles and he doesn't work out and out come the posters with winners like: "I knew they should have signed Orpik instead." Did the FO try to improve the team with the signing of Liles? Or if Orpick signs with another team on July 1 we hear, "The stupid management let another great addition slip by without trying." How do you know they didn't try? That was the point I was trying to make.

 

The hindsight is 20/20 comment meant only that management does (and will likely continue to) make mistakes...just like every other team does and will. If Chicago had known what Hasek would turn out to be, would we have ever seen him in a Sabres uniform? Does management deserve the blame for thier mistakes? Hell yeah! But again, my true point was that not all the actions (or inactions) that look like mistakes to us, the fans, can justifiably be called mistakes because we don't have all the information.

 

Lastly, folks, please feel free to respond in the threads to any comments I make you take issue with. Sending a pm about it isn't contributing conversation to this great forum. The 5 @ 25 comment I made was concerning Campbell, yes, but as Deluca has (delightfully and quite wittily, if I may say so) pointed out repeatedly, we hear these exact same numbers about so many players the Sabres failed to sign that it has become a joke, true or not.

No worries. I'm not really trying to paint anyone with a broad brush, I just get irritated with some of the same arguments, and in fairness both sides repeat the same things ad nauseum. Personally, while I want to believe that the front office wants to improve and is going to work hard, the last 13+ months have, IMO, burned through any credit they had earned for putting together the team that went to the ECF's. Right now, Darcy and Larry have enough rope to hang themselves - the time for talk is over, they need to make the necessary moves to make this team better, even if it means giving up a prospect or two to make some of these deals work.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Sorry, no "in fairness" pass on this offseason, not from me. The FO should be very much under scrutiny and on the hot seat after last summer and last season. After last offseason and last year they get no benefit of the doubt, no "let's see how they screw up" nothing. They wasted an entire season based on their inability to improve on (or at least hold serve) an ECF team and failed to make improvements during the year, even when they stumbled out of the gate, went through a rough patch in December, etc.

 

I'm glad Darcy said that he wants to make changes. Bravo. He should have been saying that all last year, and he should get aggressive and go after the guys they want right now. Do you honestly believe they are going to out-bid anyone for Orpik, for Malone, for a second-line center? I don't. I'll be pleasantly surprised if they make a big-name splash, but I'm sure as heck not counting on it.

 

You're right about one thing - the FO complaining does get old, just like watching the FO supporters rush in whenever anyone makes a negative comment about the FO to set them straight, or tell them how tired we are of hearing it. I'd love to not have anything to complain about FO-wise. I would much rather go into this offseason confident that DR and LQ are going to make the necessary improvements to get this team back in the playoffs, but after the last 13 months I'm not brimming with confidence.

Wolf, I guess we'll again have to agree to disagree ... personally, my blood pressure can't handle re-hashing last offseason every time I talk about this offseason, it would drive me nuts. I think we can scrutinize their every move and keep the seat plenty hot without referencing last year every time, that's all I am saying. You'll have to explain to me how that is "giving them a pass." If I say Ryan Miller needs to play better next season, am I giving him a pass for last season? I don't think so, he wasn't good enough. Same with the FO ... they need to do more. I want to see it starting July 1 or very soon thereafter. They were not good enough last year, we all agree. Is that giving them a pass?

[tom webster]

Wolf, I guess we'll again have to agree to disagree ... personally, my blood pressure can't handle re-hashing last offseason every time I talk about this offseason, it would drive me nuts. I think we can scrutinize their every move and keep the seat plenty hot without referencing last year every time, that's all I am saying. You'll have to explain to me how that is "giving them a pass." If I say Ryan Miller needs to play better next season, am I giving him a pass for last season? I don't think so, he wasn't good enough. Same with the FO ... they need to do more. I want to see it starting July 1 or very soon thereafter. They were not good enough last year, we all agree. Is that giving them a pass?

 

I have stated before it is time to put last year behind us, however, I am concerned that the date for action seems to be slowing becoming a moving target. Already LQ has brought up the possibility of going to Thanksgiving. Darcy seems intent on making changes but even he raised the possibility of going into the season to see "were we are."

To be clear, I expect them to make changes and if they do, weasel won't have to worry about me questioning their acquisistions. I just want to know they have a plan.

If they don't...... well let's just say you will be longing for the days when I harped on Briere and Drury.

[BetweenThePipes00]

By "very soon thereafter" I mean like the first few days, not Thanksgiving or even the opening of camp. When camp opens, I want some reason to be excited other than hockey season is coming.

[tom webster]

By "very soon thereafter" I mean like the first few days, not Thanksgiving or even the opening of camp. When camp opens, I want some reason to be excited other than hockey season is coming.

 

I'm pretty sure we will be, but ........

[Bmwolf21]

Wolf, I guess we'll again have to agree to disagree ... personally, my blood pressure can't handle re-hashing last offseason every time I talk about this offseason, it would drive me nuts. I think we can scrutinize their every move and keep the seat plenty hot without referencing last year every time, that's all I am saying. You'll have to explain to me how that is "giving them a pass." If I say Ryan Miller needs to play better next season, am I giving him a pass for last season? I don't think so, he wasn't good enough. Same with the FO ... they need to do more. I want to see it starting July 1 or very soon thereafter. They were not good enough last year, we all agree. Is that giving them a pass?

Your Miller statement is apples and oranges to what you said about the FO. If you had said "the FO really dropped the ball last year and needs to do a better job this offseason" then we'd be talking about the same things. Your quote was "In fairness, then...let's let them screw up this offseason before ripping them for screwing up this offseason." Maybe I am reading too much into it, but that reads like giving them a pass on last year, the old "it's in the past, let's move on" attitude.

 

Not only have I not ripped them for anything this offseason (I simply said asked what, in response to Screamin's post, they had done to earn to improve the team over the last year) I didn't once mention Drury or Briere, nor did I rehash any of that. In fact you were the one to specifically bring up last offseason and the names of the departed. I'm looking at the FO's body of work over the last 13 months and saying the results are not good, so they need to prove how serious and dedicated theya re to improving the team, whether through FA or trades.

 

FWIW, don't make any mistake about what I'm saying re: the FO's mistakes - they extend far past not signing Briere and/or Drury. They were unsuccessful in upgrading the team's two biggest deficiencies - defense and grit/physical play - and subtracted (either through inaction, errors or by choice) from the biggest reason they won the Prez Trophy and made the ECF, the offense.

 

As I said in my last response to Screamin - in my eyes, over the last year they have burned any credit they may have earned in building the team, and they should be on the hot seat. They talk a good game - not bringing Kalinin back, maybe it's time for Max to move on, we want to be better defensively, get different players, whatever - but until we see results - Max & Kalinin actually gone, a new defenseman or two, etc. - I'm going to consider it all hot air.

 

My main point, going all the way back to my original response to Sreamin's rant - the FO hasn't done ANYTHING in the last 13 months to warrant much patience or to place them above questioning and criticism.

[nfreeman]

As for the "not wanting to wait" why should we want to wait? We were one game from the Cup finals three years ago, and two games from the Cup two years ago before not making the playoffs. We see the guys that are still here - Roy, Pominville, Vanek, Miller, etc. - and wonder why we have to wait for someone to grow into a spot when there are guys out there we could sign or trade for to fill that role immediately. Waiting for guys to develop from the minors has a rebuilding feel to it, and that's hard to swallow given how good the team was prior to this year.

 

Sorry, no "in fairness" pass on this offseason, not from me. The FO should be very much under scrutiny and on the hot seat after last summer and last season. After last offseason and last year they get no benefit of the doubt, no "let's see how they screw up" nothing. They wasted an entire season based on their inability to improve on (or at least hold serve) an ECF team and failed to make improvements during the year, even when they stumbled out of the gate, went through a rough patch in December, etc.

 

I'm glad Darcy said that he wants to make changes. Bravo. He should have been saying that all last year, and he should get aggressive and go after the guys they want right now. Do you honestly believe they are going to out-bid anyone for Orpik, for Malone, for a second-line center? I don't. I'll be pleasantly surprised if they make a big-name splash, but I'm sure as heck not counting on it.

 

I'd love to not have anything to complain about FO-wise. I would much rather go into this offseason confident that DR and LQ are going to make the necessary improvements to get this team back in the playoffs, but after the last 13 months I'm not brimming with confidence.

 

Excellent post. I'm fine with them not pursuing Orpik or Malone, since I think both will cost far too much, but as for the rest I agree. They should be embarrassed after last year, and they should take steps (and not just talk about taking steps) to fill the holes.

 

Personally, while I want to believe that the front office wants to improve and is going to work hard, the last 13+ months have, IMO, burned through any credit they had earned for putting together the team that went to the ECF's.

 

This is going a bit far for me, mostly because (i) I think Golisano is to blame for the Drury and Campbell debacles and (ii) the Sabres brought me enough happiness in the first 2 years post-lockout that I can't turn my back on Darcy after one year that I really don't think was his fault. But I feel your pain.

[Bmwolf21]

This is going a bit far for me, mostly because (i) I think Golisano is to blame for the Drury and Campbell debacles and (ii) the Sabres brought me enough happiness in the first 2 years post-lockout that I can't turn my back on Darcy after one year that I really don't think was his fault. But I feel your pain.

I understand, and I partially agree. I like what Darcy has done for the most part, and I do believe (without any corroboration) that ownership and upper management (specifically LQ) has inserted themselves too much into the hockey department, but unfortunately there is no real proof of that so ultimately the blame falls on Darcy. He's still the guy who, good or bad, has to make it work. He has to convince TG and LQ to open the purse strings, or sign off on a trade or whatever, so he gets as much blame as LQ and TG in my book.

 

The main question I have is - what else did management do that summer? Signed T-bo, matched the offer sheet to Vanek. Gambled on Connolly's health and the ability of youngsters to offset the free agency losses; also suspended Teppo. Anything else? Like I mentioned in my previous post, they were unable to upgrade the defense or makeover the finesse forwards, either by trade or FA, and that's what bothers me almost as much as losing both the captains. Was Darcy unable to pull off any trades, was he afraid of dealing off a prospect/young player, was he unable to convince LQ and TG of proposed deals, what? Why go into camp with a team that is significantly worse off than the team you ended the season with? Those are questions we'll probably never know the answers to, but in the absence of proof of interference from above, the responsibility has to fall on the G.M.'s shoulders.

[Kristian]

Unless, as some posters (including me) felt, the Sabres weren't interested in dumping him for a 2nd- or 3rd-round pick.

 

I'm not so sure that was the case though.

 

We may be willing to part with him, as fans, but Darcy has a long history of not giving away players for nothing, which is why he doesn't trade much.

[apuszczalowski]

I understand, and I partially agree. I like what Darcy has done for the most part, and I do believe (without any corroboration) that ownership and upper management (specifically LQ) has inserted themselves too much into the hockey department, but unfortunately there is no real proof of that so ultimately the blame falls on Darcy. He's still the guy who, good or bad, has to make it work. He has to convince TG and LQ to open the purse strings, or sign off on a trade or whatever, so he gets as much blame as LQ and TG in my book.

 

The main question I have is - what else did management do that summer? Signed T-bo, matched the offer sheet to Vanek. Gambled on Connolly's health and the ability of youngsters to offset the free agency losses; also suspended Teppo. Anything else? Like I mentioned in my previous post, they were unable to upgrade the defense or makeover the finesse forwards, either by trade or FA, and that's what bothers me almost as much as losing both the captains. Was Darcy unable to pull off any trades, was he afraid of dealing off a prospect/young player, was he unable to convince LQ and TG of proposed deals, what? Why go into camp with a team that is significantly worse off than the team you ended the season with? Those are questions we'll probably never know the answers to, but in the absence of proof of interference from above, the responsibility has to fall on the G.M.'s shoulders.

This was my biggest beefwith management last offseason, they didn't make any moves to build on what they already had, and actually got weaker by letting their top players go in FA. While other teams were getting better and taking steps forward, the Sabres were taking a step back, and they knew it and said it at a PC.

 

My views/opinion of Darcy did start just because of last season, they have been like this for a while as I believe the success they had the first 2 years after the lockout were more luck/enforced rule changes more then him actually building a team to compete in the new NHL. In the first year after the lockout, how many new players were added? Lydman, Teppo, They lt Satan and Zhitnik go........ The team they had going in was not supposed to be a top team, except that they somewhat overachieved and had some young players step up and surprise everyone by making the ECF. The next year they add Spacek, and basically brought back the same team, minus a few players and as the rules started to change back, they struggled. Most of the additions to the team post lockout were players already on the roster that were kept around on 1 year deals, so either they had a time machine and found out what the "new NHL" was going to be like, or they got a little lucky that the league decided it wanted to showcase the style of hockey the Sabres were going to play.

 

I just don't see Darcy as this hockey genius that some do, I see him as a mediocre/decent GM who got a little lucky that the players on his roster and in the minor leagues were the kind of players the league wanted to build around with the "new NHL". Sure he has made some good trades in the past and found some Diamonds in the Rough, but so do most Pro Level GM's, hell, detroits GM found its 2 superstar corner stones in the late rounds of the draft

[darksabre]

I don't think Darcy is a hockey genius, I just think he's a good GM who had his hands tied last off season and was unable to do what he wanted. I can't hate Darcy because I don't know what he's dealing with; none of us do. I'm going to reserve my judgment until the fall. I want to see what Darcy does before I decide he isn't doing enough.

[apuszczalowski]

I don't think Darcy is a hockey genius, I just think he's a good GM who had his hands tied last off season and was unable to do what he wanted. I can't hate Darcy because I don't know what he's dealing with; none of us do. I'm going to reserve my judgment until the fall. I want to see what Darcy does before I decide he isn't doing enough.

But if you don't know what he is dealing with, how can you then make a judgement on him this offseason? I have never complained about anything he has done this offseason yet (besides believing that the Sabres had to sign Gerbe this offseason before it was too late and they could end up losing a highly regarded prospect)

 

The job of an NHL GM is to sign and acquire players to build a team and put the best team possible on the ice with whatever he is given to work with. I don't believe that Darcy is being seriously hand tied more then any other NHL GM by TG or LQ as everyone else believes. I think that he has also been here long enough that I can make a decision on him off of his previous work and not have to keep giving him another year. Sure he has made some good moves in the past, but he has also made some blunders too, and there is no excuse for what happened to the team last year. Going from a favorite for the cup and Presidents trouphy winner to not even making the playoffs is unacceptable, and theres no excuses for it, they had plenty of time to improve on the team and replace what was lost in FA during the offseason, but instead just gave up and held a PC to tell us fans that have supported them (and held up our end of the deal by selling out the arena constantly) that they won't be as competitive as last year

[nfreeman]

I understand, and I partially agree. I like what Darcy has done for the most part, and I do believe (without any corroboration) that ownership and upper management (specifically LQ) has inserted themselves too much into the hockey department, but unfortunately there is no real proof of that so ultimately the blame falls on Darcy. He's still the guy who, good or bad, has to make it work. He has to convince TG and LQ to open the purse strings, or sign off on a trade or whatever, so he gets as much blame as LQ and TG in my book.

 

The main question I have is - what else did management do that summer? Signed T-bo, matched the offer sheet to Vanek. Gambled on Connolly's health and the ability of youngsters to offset the free agency losses; also suspended Teppo. Anything else? Like I mentioned in my previous post, they were unable to upgrade the defense or makeover the finesse forwards, either by trade or FA, and that's what bothers me almost as much as losing both the captains. Was Darcy unable to pull off any trades, was he afraid of dealing off a prospect/young player, was he unable to convince LQ and TG of proposed deals, what? Why go into camp with a team that is significantly worse off than the team you ended the season with? Those are questions we'll probably never know the answers to, but in the absence of proof of interference from above, the responsibility has to fall on the G.M.'s shoulders.

 

Very fair questions, and I agree that Darcy should be held accountable at least for not bringing in a lower-priced vet or 2 to provide some stability, toughness and leadership. It does seem like they all just hid under the bed after the captains left. Poor performance all the way around.

 

Having said that, I'm just not ready to say that Darcy -- who has presided over 4 final 4 teams for us -- has burned up all of his goodwill. Some, yes, but not all, at least not IMHO.

 

I don't believe that Darcy is being seriously hand tied more then any other NHL GM by TG or LQ as everyone else believes. I think that he has also been here long enough that I can make a decision on him off of his previous work and not have to keep giving him another year. Sure he has made some good moves in the past, but he has also made some blunders too, and there is no excuse for what happened to the team last year. Going from a favorite for the cup and Presidents trouphy winner to not even making the playoffs is unacceptable, and theres no excuses for it, they had plenty of time to improve on the team and replace what was lost in FA during the offseason, but instead just gave up and held a PC to tell us fans that have supported them (and held up our end of the deal by selling out the arena constantly) that they won't be as competitive as last year

 

1. Do you not believe that Darcy had put together a deal for Drury that was derailed by upper-level delays? While no one has formally come out and admitted it specifically, it does seem like this is what happened. Assuming it's true, I'd call that an extreme example of a GM having his hands tied, and I'd be interested to hear any other similar examples. I've frankly never heard of that happening to an NHL GM.

 

2. Yes, of course you can judge him on his work based on his lengthy tenure here. IMHO, based on his entire tenure, he hasn't burned up all of his goodwill. You are of course free to disagree.

 

3. I agree that their downfall was embarrassing and unacceptable.

 

4. They could not have "replaced what was lost in FA". There was nothing even close to Briere + Drury available in FA at a price the Sabres could afford (or, for that matter, at any price). They certainly could, and should, have brought in a couple of veterans to provide some leadership.

 

5. They didn't hold the PC to tell the fans they weren't going to be as competitive. The PC was held to explain to the fans what happened and give the public the Sabres' side of the story. I think it was actually fairly admirable on their part to come out and face the music, since everyone was so PO'd at that time. The statement about not being as competitive was made by Darcy in a 20-second answer to one question in the course of a 30-minute PC.

[Bmwolf21]

Very fair questions, and I agree that Darcy should be held accountable at least for not bringing in a lower-priced vet or 2 to provide some stability, toughness and leadership. It does seem like they all just hid under the bed after the captains left. Poor performance all the way around.

 

Having said that, I'm just not ready to say that Darcy -- who has presided over 4 final 4 teams for us -- has burned up all of his goodwill. Some, yes, but not all, at least not IMHO.

Honestly, I debated posting something similar to the bolded part in my last post - basically I felt like after they lost the captains and matched TV's offer they seemed shell-shocked and I wonder if that affected the rest of the summer.

 

Maybe burned through all his credit is a little harsh, but the whole FO has a very short rope this summer. Like I've mentioned, I'm trying to be patient and give them the benefit of the doubt, since they are saying all the right things, but I want to see results, not hot air.

[apuszczalowski]

Very fair questions, and I agree that Darcy should be held accountable at least for not bringing in a lower-priced vet or 2 to provide some stability, toughness and leadership. It does seem like they all just hid under the bed after the captains left. Poor performance all the way around.

 

Having said that, I'm just not ready to say that Darcy -- who has presided over 4 final 4 teams for us -- has burned up all of his goodwill. Some, yes, but not all, at least not IMHO.

1. Do you not believe that Darcy had put together a deal for Drury that was derailed by upper-level delays? While no one has formally come out and admitted it specifically, it does seem like this is what happened. Assuming it's true, I'd call that an extreme example of a GM having his hands tied, and I'd be interested to hear any other similar examples. I've frankly never heard of that happening to an NHL GM.

 

2. Yes, of course you can judge him on his work based on his lengthy tenure here. IMHO, based on his entire tenure, he hasn't burned up all of his goodwill. You are of course free to disagree.

 

3. I agree that their downfall was embarrassing and unacceptable.

 

4. They could not have "replaced what was lost in FA". There was nothing even close to Briere + Drury available in FA at a price the Sabres could afford (or, for that matter, at any price). They certainly could, and should, have brought in a couple of veterans to provide some leadership.

 

5. They didn't hold the PC to tell the fans they weren't going to be as competitive. The PC was held to explain to the fans what happened and give the public the Sabres' side of the story. I think it was actually fairly admirable on their part to come out and face the music, since everyone was so PO'd at that time. The statement about not being as competitive was made by Darcy in a 20-second answer to one question in the course of a 30-minute PC.

Sure, Darcy has been the GM for 4 final 4 teams in Buffalo, but was it all because of him? I'd say the first 2 were on the back of Hasek, not because Darcy put together a great all around team. The next 2 were as much luck as it was Darcys team he assmebled, as the team he started building was exactly the kind of team the NHL wanted when they came out of the lockout with the rule changes for the "New NHL", but that team was only built for the new NHL and that was evident once the NHL started resorting back to its old ways. Instead of adapting, he continued on with his plans. He's not the worst GM ever, and things could be worse, the team could be just like Toronto right now, but I won't give him all the credit and let him live off of the 4 final 4 appearances.

 

Now to answer your other points

 

1. The Sabres may have had a deal already for Drury, but I don't think that it was all TG's or LQ's fault it didn't get done. Isn't it part of Darcy's job to convince ownership what money should be spent on the team? Shouldn't he have then done a better job in convincing TG that the deal needed to get done right away and that it would be money well spent?

 

2. I on the other hand will not let him live off of 2 ECF appearances that were more about a team being carried by a goalie (it definitly wasn't the offence carrying those teams) and 2 more that were dependent on the game being called a certain way

 

3. Something I think the majority can agree on. theres no reason last season should have happened the way it did

 

4. They didn't have to acquire someone at the exact same level as those 2, but anyone who could atleast replace some of their production would have helped improve the team, and replacing the leadership is something they could not do from within with their young prospects. Also, they had time to find someone, they didn't have to wait til both captains left before making offers. They already knew Drury was going to test the market, and made no serious attempt to keep Briere. The difference is, a great GM wouldn't sit back and hope that those players get back to them and come back, they would be pro-active and move on finding their replacement as soon as they can, knowing that the good players get snatched up early.

 

5. It doesn't matter what the entire PC was about, or how long it took Darcy to make the comment. It was not admirable, it was a way for them to try and save face by coming out and trying to "pass the buck" by saying we tried and they passed. Did the Devils come out and have a PC after Gomez left? They key is, the comment was still made by the only people who have control to fix what was wrong with the team as a way to keep the fans off their back if the team took a step down. Instead of sitting their holding a PC, basically telling the fans that they tried but failed, so don't expect much fom this coming season, just days after FA started, why was he not working harder to make sure the team didn't take a step back, especially to a fan base that has shown they would do anything the team asks of them if they are winning

[tom webster]

Sure, Darcy has been the GM for 4 final 4 teams in Buffalo, but was it all because of him? I'd say the first 2 were on the back of Hasek, not because Darcy put together a great all around team. The next 2 were as much luck as it was Darcys team he assmebled, as the team he started building was exactly the kind of team the NHL wanted when they came out of the lockout with the rule changes for the "New NHL", but that team was only built for the new NHL and that was evident once the NHL started resorting back to its old ways. Instead of adapting, he continued on with his plans. He's not the worst GM ever, and things could be worse, the team could be just like Toronto right now, but I won't give him all the credit and let him live off of the 4 final 4 appearances.

 

Now to answer your other points

 

1. The Sabres may have had a deal already for Drury, but I don't think that it was all TG's or LQ's fault it didn't get done. Isn't it part of Darcy's job to convince ownership what money should be spent on the team? Shouldn't he have then done a better job in convincing TG that the deal needed to get done right away and that it would be money well spent?

 

2. I on the other hand will not let him live off of 2 ECF appearances that were more about a team being carried by a goalie (it definitly wasn't the offence carrying those teams) and 2 more that were dependent on the game being called a certain way

 

3. Something I think the majority can agree on. theres no reason last season should have happened the way it did

 

4. They didn't have to acquire someone at the exact same level as those 2, but anyone who could atleast replace some of their production would have helped improve the team, and replacing the leadership is something they could not do from within with their young prospects. Also, they had time to find someone, they didn't have to wait til both captains left before making offers. They already knew Drury was going to test the market, and made no serious attempt to keep Briere. The difference is, a great GM wouldn't sit back and hope that those players get back to them and come back, they would be pro-active and move on finding their replacement as soon as they can, knowing that the good players get snatched up early.

 

5. It doesn't matter what the entire PC was about, or how long it took Darcy to make the comment. It was not admirable, it was a way for them to try and save face by coming out and trying to "pass the buck" by saying we tried and they passed. Did the Devils come out and have a PC after Gomez left? They key is, the comment was still made by the only people who have control to fix what was wrong with the team as a way to keep the fans off their back if the team took a step down. Instead of sitting their holding a PC, basically telling the fans that they tried but failed, so don't expect much fom this coming season, just days after FA started, why was he not working harder to make sure the team didn't take a step back, especially to a fan base that has shown they would do anything the team asks of them if they are winning

 

I have been as hard on the FO as anyone but you can't pick and choose what they get credit for and what they don't. There is no denying the facts as far as how successful this team has been under Darcy's leadership. Was luck involved ? Sure it was. But how lucky has Detroit been for the way Datsyuk and Zetterberg have developed? Don't tell me how it was their expert scouting department. Do you honestly believe they would have waited till the seventh round to pick Zetterberg if they knew what they were getting? How about the New England Patriots? Is Belichek a genius if a certain sixth round draft choice doesn't turn into a hall of famer?

We know they screwed up last year. Like you said, the biggest mistake was not having a back up plan. But to dismiss the four final appearances is ludicrous. Besides, anyone who witnessed 98 and 99 knows that as good as Dom was in the regular season, it was acquisitions like Barnes and Warrener meshing with a delicate chemistry that carried that team to within a game of the Cup.

[nfreeman]

Sure, Darcy has been the GM for 4 final 4 teams in Buffalo, but was it all because of him? I'd say the first 2 were on the back of Hasek, not because Darcy put together a great all around team. The next 2 were as much luck as it was Darcys team he assmebled, as the team he started building was exactly the kind of team the NHL wanted when they came out of the lockout with the rule changes for the "New NHL", but that team was only built for the new NHL and that was evident once the NHL started resorting back to its old ways. Instead of adapting, he continued on with his plans. He's not the worst GM ever, and things could be worse, the team could be just like Toronto right now, but I won't give him all the credit and let him live off of the 4 final 4 appearances.

 

Now to answer your other points

 

1. The Sabres may have had a deal already for Drury, but I don't think that it was all TG's or LQ's fault it didn't get done. Isn't it part of Darcy's job to convince ownership what money should be spent on the team? Shouldn't he have then done a better job in convincing TG that the deal needed to get done right away and that it would be money well spent?

 

2. I on the other hand will not let him live off of 2 ECF appearances that were more about a team being carried by a goalie (it definitly wasn't the offence carrying those teams) and 2 more that were dependent on the game being called a certain way

 

3. Something I think the majority can agree on. theres no reason last season should have happened the way it did

 

4. They didn't have to acquire someone at the exact same level as those 2, but anyone who could atleast replace some of their production would have helped improve the team, and replacing the leadership is something they could not do from within with their young prospects. Also, they had time to find someone, they didn't have to wait til both captains left before making offers. They already knew Drury was going to test the market, and made no serious attempt to keep Briere. The difference is, a great GM wouldn't sit back and hope that those players get back to them and come back, they would be pro-active and move on finding their replacement as soon as they can, knowing that the good players get snatched up early.

 

5. It doesn't matter what the entire PC was about, or how long it took Darcy to make the comment. It was not admirable, it was a way for them to try and save face by coming out and trying to "pass the buck" by saying we tried and they passed. Did the Devils come out and have a PC after Gomez left? They key is, the comment was still made by the only people who have control to fix what was wrong with the team as a way to keep the fans off their back if the team took a step down. Instead of sitting their holding a PC, basically telling the fans that they tried but failed, so don't expect much fom this coming season, just days after FA started, why was he not working harder to make sure the team didn't take a step back, especially to a fan base that has shown they would do anything the team asks of them if they are winning

 

Certainly Darcy doesn't get all the credit for the 4 ECFs, but he doesn't get all the blame for last year's debacle either. However, he's the GM and as such has ultimate accountability -- for both failure and success. If you're going to hold Darcy accountable for the team failing, then you have to give him credit for the 4 final 4 appearances. With the Hasek teams, he took what he had to work with and made the right decisions to get that team as far as possible. Remember that the Sabres' payroll in that era was less than half of Detroit, Rangers, Toronto, etc.

 

As for Darcy failing to convince Golisano -- you can hold Darcy accountable for failing to convince his billionaire boss to act on something immediately if you like, but you might want to consider whether you could do the same with the owner of your employer. Life imposes certain limits on one's ability to get stuff done at the office.

 

As for adding players to replace Drury and Briere -- I agree (and have stated above) that we should have brought in a tough veteran or 2. My point was simply that those 2 were not "replaceable" with comparable players.

 

As for the PC -- again, I think they felt (and correctly so) that they owed the fans an explanation. I also think their explanation was fair -- that even though they made some mistakes, ultimately Drury didn't want to stay. I don't agree that taking the time to hold the PC detracted from their ability to bring in other players. What did detract from that ability, IMHO, is what BMWolf said above -- that they were just shell-shocked. And, btw, the Devils had a PC on July 12, 2007, in which they discussed the Gomez and Rafalski departures as well as their new coach.

[apuszczalowski]

I have been as hard on the FO as anyone but you can't pick and choose what they get credit for and what they don't. There is no denying the facts as far as how successful this team has been under Darcy's leadership. Was luck involved ? Sure it was. But how lucky has Detroit been for the way Datsyuk and Zetterberg have developed? Don't tell me how it was their expert scouting department. Do you honestly believe they would have waited till the seventh round to pick Zetterberg if they knew what they were getting? How about the New England Patriots? Is Belichek a genius if a certain sixth round draft choice doesn't turn into a hall of famer?

We know they screwed up last year. Like you said, the biggest mistake was not having a back up plan. But to dismiss the four final appearances is ludicrous. Besides, anyone who witnessed 98 and 99 knows that as good as Dom was in the regular season, it was acquisitions like Barnes and Warrener meshing with a delicate chemistry that carried that team to within a game of the Cup.

I'm not really picking and chosing, I'm merely saying to those that are saying he deserves this credit for building teams that made it to 4 ECF's, that not much of it was on what he did. He didn't bring in Hasek, he just rode on his back with the rest of Buffalo to their success, and Barnes and Warrener were decent acquisitions, but take away Dom and the team does nothing. The next 2 were because of rule changes that worked for Buffalos style of play, and we have all seen what happens when the rules start to change. I could give him more credit if he would have done more instead of sit back and rely on the Luck and Hasek. Had he improved the offence a little more to help Dom out, or adapted to the rules going back to pre-lockout, I would give him more credit.

 

Luck plays alot into sports, I understand that. With Detroit, I would say they have some of the better scouts in the league, and from what I hear, they were one of the only teams to really scout Zetterburg and Datsyuk, and if you know they are going to be available later cause you are the only ones looking into them, why wouldn't you wait a bit to get them?

[apuszczalowski]

Certainly Darcy doesn't get all the credit for the 4 ECFs, but he doesn't get all the blame for last year's debacle either. However, he's the GM and as such has ultimate accountability -- for both failure and success. If you're going to hold Darcy accountable for the team failing, then you have to give him credit for the 4 final 4 appearances. With the Hasek teams, he took what he had to work with and made the right decisions to get that team as far as possible. Remember that the Sabres' payroll in that era was less than half of Detroit, Rangers, Toronto, etc.

 

As for Darcy failing to convince Golisano -- you can hold Darcy accountable for failing to convince his billionaire boss to act on something immediately if you like, but you might want to consider whether you could do the same with the owner of your employer. Life imposes certain limits on one's ability to get stuff done at the office.

 

As for adding players to replace Drury and Briere -- I agree (and have stated above) that we should have brought in a tough veteran or 2. My point was simply that those 2 were not "replaceable" with comparable players.

 

As for the PC -- again, I think they felt (and correctly so) that they owed the fans an explanation. I also think their explanation was fair -- that even though they made some mistakes, ultimately Drury didn't want to stay. I don't agree that taking the time to hold the PC detracted from their ability to bring in other players. What did detract from that ability, IMHO, is what BMWolf said above -- that they were just shell-shocked. And, btw, the Devils had a PC on July 12, 2007, in which they discussed the Gomez and Rafalski departures as well as their new coach.

I'm not blaming Darcy for everything, or taking away all the credit, I'm just saying I don't think he deserves all the credit he has been getting from everyone.What did Darcy have to do to make the team competitive when he started besides keep Dom happy? What else did he do? He didn't build on the offence to give Dom more support, so he wasn't force to win all the games for the team.

 

I can't say weither I would be able to convince a billionaire to spend the money, but I don't have to, its not my job, but its Darcy's. And if he can't convince the billionaire owner to sign off on a reasonable contract offer for one of the teams top players, the veteran leader who was considered part of the heart and soul of the team, I don't think he is doing a good job. As a general manager of a pro sports franchise, part of your job is to find and sign players to make your team better, and convince the owner to spend the money to get those players. Trying to convince an owner that a guy like Drury needs to be signed now should not be a hard sell.

 

As for the Devils, was the point of the PC to introduce the new coach and the media tuned it into asking about the departures? Or was it like Buffalo where the point was to try and difuse a situation where the fans would be furious at seeing a SC contender slowly dismantled?