LabattBlue Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 http://www.buffalonews.com/opinions/column...ory/386768.html Once you get a reputation for being a penny pinching organization(video scouting, letting key free agents walk when you have a team that is considered a "cup contender", etc...), it's tough to shake. Just a hunch, but I still believe Golisano will sell the Sabres as soon as the right offer comes along.
inkman Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Just a hunch, but I still believe Golisano will sell the Sabres as soon as the right offer comes along. At this point I'd rather have an owner spending foolishly, overpaying, over valuing and being just plain irresponsible if it means the Sabres would get the players they need to win it all.
ROC Sabres Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 At this point I'd rather have an owner spending foolishly, overpaying, over valuing and being just plain irresponsible if it means the Sabres would get the players they need to win it all. When is Lowe's tenure up?
X. Benedict Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 http://www.buffalonews.com/opinions/column...ory/386768.html Once you get a reputation for being a penny pinching organization(video scouting, letting key free agents walk when you have a team that is considered a "cup contender", etc...), it's tough to shake. Just a hunch, but I still believe Golisano will sell the Sabres as soon as the right offer comes along. Who did they recruit and not land, Bucky? I don't think there was a shopping list to begin with. It was a pretty poor UFA class really. Usually the UFA is a fools market. Chicago is sending the right message? What have they won? Overpaying for Huet, Campbell, and Havlat may fill seats in Chicago, but it ain't going to take you to the 2nd round of the playoffs.
tom webster Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 http://www.buffalonews.com/opinions/column...ory/386768.html Once you get a reputation for being a penny pinching organization(video scouting, letting key free agents walk when you have a team that is considered a "cup contender", etc...), it's tough to shake. Just a hunch, but I still believe Golisano will sell the Sabres as soon as the right offer comes along. I got "hammered" before for this, but in business, one of the credos is that perception is more importantly then reality. Word of mouth and disgruntled emplyees and customers are tough to overcome. Happy and content employees and customers rarely go out of their way to throw compliments around but a disgruntled employee/ customer will tell everyone within ear shot. It will take a long time to overcome the perception whether it is deserved or not. It is why they may have to overpay Pominville and Miller.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Who did they recruit and not land, Bucky? I don't think there was a shopping list to begin with. It was a pretty poor UFA class really. Usually the UFA is a fools market. Chicago is sending the right message? What have they won? Overpaying for Huet, Campbell, and Havlat may fill seats in Chicago, but it ain't going to take you to the 2nd round of the playoffs. Come on, X, you know he couldn't just write that Rivet was a good move and leave it at that, someone might confuse him with a hockey writer when he actually wants to be nothing but a columnist. So he mentions the Rivet move is good and makes it sound like a backhanded compliment as he rails away on hsi same old story. I liked him SO much more when he covered the team and occasionally dropped some opinion/scoop in his Sunday notes column ... now he is nothing but Sully Jr. ... no matter what happens, even if it the opposite of his agenda, he writes it with a "yeah, BUT..." ... sure they signed Rivet, BUT ... they are still cheap. Yeah, we know. The worst part is, sometimes they are right ... Bucky may actually be right that players don't want to play for the Sabres organization .... but they cry wolf SO much it turns into white noise.
ROC Sabres Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 I got "hammered" before for this, but in business, one of the credos is that perception is more importantly then reality. Word of mouth and disgruntled emplyees and customers are tough to overcome. Happy and content employees and customers rarely go out of their way to throw compliments around but a disgruntled employee/ customer will tell everyone within ear shot. It will take a long time to overcome the perception whether it is deserved or not. It is why they may have to overpay Pominville and Miller. I hope they do end up overpaying Pommers and Miller. So then if they do lock them both up long term and bust the bank on them, Bucky can write another article about how the sabres try to buy talent and blah blah blah. Most of the info coming from that article about the comparison of Buffalo and Motown is kind of a joke though. Comparing the teams based on the towns is probably one of the dumbest things you can do.
tom webster Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Who did they recruit and not land, Bucky? I don't think there was a shopping list to begin with. It was a pretty poor UFA class really. Usually the UFA is a fools market. Chicago is sending the right message? What have they won? Overpaying for Huet, Campbell, and Havlat may fill seats in Chicago, but it ain't going to take you to the 2nd round of the playoffs. Darcy did say they targeted two defensemen and didn't get either. Also, I keep hearing that free agency is a fools market but; a) There has been only three years of it b) how many teams have really been burned? Is the percentage of errors greater then the percentage of errors when it comes to trades or draft choices? c) What is considered a success? Did it work for Philly? Would the Rangers have gotten to the second round again without Drury and Gomez? d)How many of the players bought out where acquired via free agency? I'm not really sure of any of the answers, I just don't see where there is proof that it is a fools market? How many of the players bought out where acquired via free agency?
inkman Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 ...but in business, one of the credos is that perception is more importantly then reality. Or more to the point, perception is reality. (and you really need to work on that, than/then thing) :thumbsup:
tom webster Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 I hope they do end up overpaying Pommers and Miller. So then if they do lock them both up long term and bust the bank on them, Bucky can write another article about how the sabres try to buy talent and blah blah blah. you can Most of the info coming from that article about the comparison of Buffalo and Motown is kind of a joke though. Comparing the teams based on the towns is probably one of the dumbest things do. The point, if you really didn't get it, is that Detroit and Buffalo are in similiar situations as far as living conditions go, and the thought that players don't want to come here because of the living conditions is just rationalization.
LabattBlue Posted July 7, 2008 Author Report Posted July 7, 2008 Most of the info coming from that article about the comparison of Buffalo and Motown is kind of a joke though. Comparing the teams based on the towns is probably one of the dumbest things you can do. They are both small to mid market rust belt cities neither of which will ever be compared with San Diego, comparable ticket prices/attendance and revenue sharing to help balance things out. One has had MUCH greater success than the other. So how is the comparison a joke?
X. Benedict Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Darcy did say they targeted two defensemen and didn't get either. Also, I keep hearing that free agency is a fools market but; a) There has been only three years of it b) how many teams have really been burned? Is the percentage of errors greater then the percentage of errors when it comes to trades or draft choices? c) What is considered a success? Did it work for Philly? Would the Rangers have gotten to the second round again without Drury and Gomez? d)How many of the players bought out where acquired via free agency? I'm not really sure of any of the answers, I just don't see where there is proof that it is a fools market? How many of the players bought out where acquired via free agency? Well lets take the class of 06' UFA's - Stolen from Danny Tolensky - and their performance in year 1 of their new contracts. BOS: Zdeno Chara - $7,500,000 (change v prior year: 0 pts, team pt total: +2) PHO: Ed Jovanovski - $6,500,000 (change v prior year: -4 pts, team pt total: -14) LA: Rob Blake - $6,000,000 (change v prior year: -17 pts, team pt total: -21) BOS: Marc Savard - $5,000,000 (change v prior year: -1 pts, team pt total: +2) TOR: Pavel Kubina - $5,000,000 (change v prior year: -17 pts, team pt total: +1) MIN: Kim Johnsson - $4,850,000 (change v prior year: -3 pts, team pt total: +20) NAS: Jason Arnott - $4,500,000 (change v prior year: -22 pts, team pt total: +4) STL: Jay McKee - $4,000,000 (change v prior year: -16 pts, team pt total: +24) NYR: Brendan Shanahan - $4,000,000 (change v prior year: -19 pts, team pt total: -6) OTT: Martin Gerber - $3,700,000 (change v prior year: - 23 wins, team pt total: -8) MON: Sergei Samsonov - $3,525,000 (change v prior year: -27 pts, team pt total: -3) STL: Doug Weight - $3,500,000 (change v prior year: +2 pt, team pt total: +24) VAN: Willie Mitchell - $3,500,000 (change v prior year: +1 pts, team pt total: +13) BUF: Jaroslav Spacek - $3,333,333 (change v prior year: -22 pts, team pt total: +3) FLO: Ruslan Salei - $3,025,000 (change v prior year: +13 pts, team pt total: +1) TB: Filip Kuba - $3,000,000 (change v prior year: +12 pts, team pt total: +1) EDM: Petr Sykora - $2,900,000 (change v prior year: +2 pts, team pt total: -24) NYR: Matt Cullen - $2,875,000 (change v prior year: -8 pts, team pt total: -6) NAS: Brendan Witt - $2,766,667 (change v prior year: 0 pts, team pt total: +4) NYR: Aaron Ward - $2,750,000 (change v prior year: -9 pts, team pt total: -6) NYI: Tom Poti - $2,750,000 (change v prior year: +21 pts, team pt total: +14)
Stoner Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 At this point I'd rather have an owner spending foolishly, overpaying, over valuing and being just plain irresponsible if it means the Sabres would get the players they need to win it all. Hear hear! It's sad that so many fans want to play "fantasy owner" to see how they can improve the poor guy's bottom line -- as if it isn't, uh, padded enough anyway. Jamming those chicken teriyake sticks down your front pockets at the Chinese buffet helps -- AND he's happy to see you. Risking a few million here and there isn't going to kill the guy. Besides, his big payday will come when he sells the team and cashes in. AND, he's on record as saying he doesn't care about making a lot of money from year to year. In this market, in this so-called hockey town, the money's going to roll in only if the Sabres keep winning, remain relevant, are perceived as contenders. Didn't the two seasons before this last one teach these dolts anything? Teenagers in my small Appalachian town in the woods of northern PA started wearing the slug. And, guess what, you don't see it nearly as much anymore. Wonder why? Bucky's column was spot on. I will now prepare to be struck by lightning on a cloudless day. Of course we're all going to debate whether spending freely is the best way to win. The crux of the whole debate actually boils down to this. Is the current approach something hockey people crafted -- or did an edict come down from on high, and I include Quinn in the former camp.
Stoner Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 They are both small to mid market rust belt cities neither of which will ever be compared with San Diego, comparable ticket prices/attendance and revenue sharing to help balance things out. One has had MUCH greater success than the other. So how is the comparison a joke? One hires Scott Bowman to win a Cup. The other goes to the old ex-player ranks, gets a sniff once in a while and makes the dude coach for life. Owners matter.
deluca67 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Come on, X, you know he couldn't just write that Rivet was a good move and leave it at that, someone might confuse him with a hockey writer when he actually wants to be nothing but a columnist. So he mentions the Rivet move is good and makes it sound like a backhanded compliment as he rails away on hsi same old story. I liked him SO much more when he covered the team and occasionally dropped some opinion/scoop in his Sunday notes column ... now he is nothing but Sully Jr. ... no matter what happens, even if it the opposite of his agenda, he writes it with a "yeah, BUT..." ... sure they signed Rivet, BUT ... they are still cheap. Yeah, we know.The worst part is, sometimes they are right ... Bucky may actually be right that players don't want to play for the Sabres organization .... but they cry wolf SO much it turns into white noise. If those players are out there, name them. It's too easy just to print that statement and not have to back it up with any facts. Players and agents are like old women when it comes to secrets and private conversations. It should be easy for Bucky back up his statement if it is true. There are many points to legitimately rail on the Sabres for. Giving away what little toughness they have upfront with the Bernier trade is one. Relying on Max and Connolly for yet another season is another. Not having Miller and Pominiville already under contract may be the biggest. I do agree the Rivet trade was a good as a singular event. The off-season as a whole, including Rivet, has been a huge disappointment. I have an uneasy feeling it's going to get worse not better. I do think the Sabres will pick up a desperate for a contract vet by the end of summer. I don't believe Miller or Pominivlle will have contracts before the season starts. If that happens this season can be far worse than last.
X. Benedict Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 If those players are out there, name them. It's too easy just to print that statement and not have to back it up with any facts. Players and agents are like old women when it comes to secrets and private conversations. It should be easy for Bucky back up his statement if it is true. There are many points to legitimately rail on the Sabres for. Giving away what little toughness they have upfront with the Bernier trade is one. Relying on Max and Connolly for yet another season is another. Not having Miller and Pominiville already under contract may be the biggest. I do agree the Rivet trade was a good as a singular event. The off-season as a whole, including Rivet, has been a huge disappointment. I have an uneasy feeling it's going to get worse not better. I do think the Sabres will pick up a desperate for a contract vet by the end of summer. I don't believe Miller or Pominivlle will have contracts before the season starts. If that happens this season can be far worse than last. The UFA season I didn't expect much to happen. It still isn't over, however. I like the offseason so far: Gerbe, Kennedy, Butler under contract - Rivet is a good deal - Portland for development of a full minor league roster. I am really happy with the draft. If they sign Pomminstein and Miller to multiyears - I think it is a successful off-season.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 If those players are out there, name them. It's too easy just to print that statement and not have to back it up with any facts. Players and agents are like old women when it comes to secrets and private conversations. It should be easy for Bucky back up his statement if it is true. There are many points to legitimately rail on the Sabres for. Giving away what little toughness they have upfront with the Bernier trade is one. Relying on Max and Connolly for yet another season is another. Not having Miller and Pominiville already under contract may be the biggest. I do agree the Rivet trade was a good as a singular event. The off-season as a whole, including Rivet, has been a huge disappointment. I have an uneasy feeling it's going to get worse not better. I do think the Sabres will pick up a desperate for a contract vet by the end of summer. I don't believe Miller or Pominivlle will have contracts before the season starts. If that happens this season can be far worse than last. I can't disagree with anything you have to say ... I am just hoping you are putting on the reverse jinx, intentionally or not, like you were in october of 2005 when I first joined this board and you thought they would suck and wanted Satan back. To your credit, you owned up to being wrong ... I just hope you are wrong again ....
tom webster Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Well lets take the class of 06' UFA's - Stolen from Danny Tolensky - and their performance in year 1 of their new contracts. BOS: Zdeno Chara - $7,500,000 (change v prior year: 0 pts, team pt total: +2) PHO: Ed Jovanovski - $6,500,000 (change v prior year: -4 pts, team pt total: -14) LA: Rob Blake - $6,000,000 (change v prior year: -17 pts, team pt total: -21) BOS: Marc Savard - $5,000,000 (change v prior year: -1 pts, team pt total: +2) TOR: Pavel Kubina - $5,000,000 (change v prior year: -17 pts, team pt total: +1) MIN: Kim Johnsson - $4,850,000 (change v prior year: -3 pts, team pt total: +20) NAS: Jason Arnott - $4,500,000 (change v prior year: -22 pts, team pt total: +4) STL: Jay McKee - $4,000,000 (change v prior year: -16 pts, team pt total: +24) NYR: Brendan Shanahan - $4,000,000 (change v prior year: -19 pts, team pt total: -6) OTT: Martin Gerber - $3,700,000 (change v prior year: - 23 wins, team pt total: -8) MON: Sergei Samsonov - $3,525,000 (change v prior year: -27 pts, team pt total: -3) STL: Doug Weight - $3,500,000 (change v prior year: +2 pt, team pt total: +24) VAN: Willie Mitchell - $3,500,000 (change v prior year: +1 pts, team pt total: +13) BUF: Jaroslav Spacek - $3,333,333 (change v prior year: -22 pts, team pt total: +3) FLO: Ruslan Salei - $3,025,000 (change v prior year: +13 pts, team pt total: +1) TB: Filip Kuba - $3,000,000 (change v prior year: +12 pts, team pt total: +1) EDM: Petr Sykora - $2,900,000 (change v prior year: +2 pts, team pt total: -24) NYR: Matt Cullen - $2,875,000 (change v prior year: -8 pts, team pt total: -6) NAS: Brendan Witt - $2,766,667 (change v prior year: 0 pts, team pt total: +4) NYR: Aaron Ward - $2,750,000 (change v prior year: -9 pts, team pt total: -6) NYI: Tom Poti - $2,750,000 (change v prior year: +21 pts, team pt total: +14) So what criteria are we using to label it a loser's market?
That Aud Smell Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 i don't read bucky any more, i just don't. and i won't. that said: i don't doubt that there is a sentiment within the players' ranks that the sabres are tight-fisted. but it's a joke for anyone (let alone gleason) to claim that there is a uniform consensus among the players on the issue of whether buffalo is an organization for which you want to play. and while it's true that most (all?) of our key additions in recent memory have been through the routes of draft-development, rfa offers, or trades, what does that mean: that we don't chase the ufa market? the idea that the sabres should become a club that's willing to chase the market on a regular basis (and thereby get "credentialed" as a club for which players want to play?) is, what ... not penny-wise/pound foolish -- it's pound foolish/solvency foolisher, or something like that. what i see in this team's ownership and fo is a group that owns and manages a team with a loyal following that is located in a media market that is not only among the nation's poorest but also a market that is either treading water or perhaps even in (further) decline. add to that mix the fact that golisano reportedly runs the franchise like a business (*gasp*), which means working to turn some profit (*double gasp*) in a predictable, stable and annually-replicable fashion, and you have a club that is going to take a slow and steady approach to building a franchise (regier's a perfect fit for that business model), rather than take a sailor-on-leave/devil-may-care approach. and i'm fine with that. i don't know a thing about golisano personally and have nothing on which to judge him outside of what he's objectively and verifiably done as the team's owner -- so, the sugar packet line of thinking and the pining for a "real" owner don't register with me. as fans, we always want the team to win this/next year, but it's a fool's proposition to insist that the club conduct its business in a way that imperils its long-(even short-)term viability.
X. Benedict Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 So what criteria are we using to label it a loser's market? Actually those prices are starting to look like bargains... :lol: I guess my point would be that a first year UFA signing rarely improves a team in the first year. It would be hard to argue that Briere and Biron didn't improve Philly...but they were dreadful. More often than not, it works out like it did for Toronto and Blake. Even Spacek who I was very excited about as a 1st year UFA had a down season adjusting, before he made what I thought was a solid contribution in the 2nd year. I think there are elite players that are exceptions....but nobody stood out this year. Hossa maybe. I think UFA's rarely improve your team, they may however help prevent a fall-off. I'll be most curious about the Rangers and how they do up the middle with Gomez and Drury in the second year of those contracts.
nfreeman Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 I got "hammered" before for this, but in business, one of the credos is that perception is more importantly then reality. Word of mouth and disgruntled emplyees and customers are tough to overcome. Happy and content employees and customers rarely go out of their way to throw compliments around but a disgruntled employee/ customer will tell everyone within ear shot. It will take a long time to overcome the perception whether it is deserved or not. It is why they may have to overpay Pominville and Miller. Agree 100%. Yet another reason why last summer was a debacle. Risking a few million here and there isn't going to kill the guy. Besides, his big payday will come when he sells the team and cashes in. AND, he's on record as saying he doesn't care about making a lot of money from year to year. In this market, in this so-called hockey town, the money's going to roll in only if the Sabres keep winning, remain relevant, are perceived as contenders. Didn't the two seasons before this last one teach these dolts anything? Teenagers in my small Appalachian town in the woods of northern PA started wearing the slug. And, guess what, you don't see it nearly as much anymore. Wonder why? Bucky's column was spot on. I will now prepare to be struck by lightning on a cloudless day. Of course we're all going to debate whether spending freely is the best way to win. The crux of the whole debate actually boils down to this. Is the current approach something hockey people crafted -- or did an edict come down from on high, and I include Quinn in the former camp. Well, this goes back to the debate we all had in 2006 -- ie does Golisano (or any owner) owe fans a duty to lose money in pursuit of a winning team? The answer is no, of course not, and that is the road to losing your franchise. And, btw, the Sabres were just below the average NHL cap number last year and spent more than Pittsburgh, Tampa and San Jose. And what is "the current approach" you refer to? Is it not spending to the cap? If so, of course it came from above -- ie Golisano and Quinn worked out a budget for the team and told Darcy he had to work within those limits -- just like most of the teams in the NHL. The off-season as a whole, including Rivet, has been a huge disappointment. I have an uneasy feeling it's going to get worse not better. I do think the Sabres will pick up a desperate for a contract vet by the end of summer. I don't believe Miller or Pominivlle will have contracts before the season starts. If that happens this season can be far worse than last. While in the back of my mind I have the same uneasiness you do about Miller and Pominville, and I agree that it would be a disaster not to sign them, I believe we are going to sign them both in the next month or so. If that happens, and if we bring in a tough veteran forward (which I think is about 50/50), then I think this offseason will have been a success. The UFA season I didn't expect much to happen. It still isn't over, however. I like the offseason so far: Gerbe, Kennedy, Butler under contract - Rivet is a good deal - Portland for development of a full minor league roster. I am really happy with the draft. If they sign Pomminstein and Miller to multiyears - I think it is a successful off-season. I agree.
Stoner Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 There are many points to legitimately rail on the Sabres for. Giving away what little toughness they have upfront with the Bernier trade is one. Relying on Max and Connolly for yet another season is another. Not having Miller and Pominiville already under contract may be the biggest. Re: the toughness issue. I don't think you're wrong at all. But I wonder about this idea that you look for players who are "tough" (read: size). Toughness has to come throughout the lineup, and not just goonery, or even physical toughness, but mental toughness too. An attitude. A chip. Miller has to be mentally tough enough to not let that point shot go over his glove in a tight game or not overplay the puck behind the net or (insert Miller pet peeve here). Pominville has to be tough enough to say "screw that sweet MILF Lady Byng" and split the breastbone of the next cretin who takes a run at Miller, tear out his heart and feed it to him. Or give him a one-way ticket to Queersville. Roby! Sekera has to be tough enough to win a little one on one battle in the corner. You see where I'm going with this. Ultimately, though, the coach has to be tough, and to instill that in his players, come hell or high water. I can't believe I'm saying this about old Scarface, but he's gotten quite soft in his older years. Anyone else miss the Ruff who would rip his team in the postgame press conference? Anyone else also thinking winning the Adams changed this guy a lot?
deluca67 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 I can't disagree with anything you have to say ... I am just hoping you are putting on the reverse jinx, intentionally or not, like you were in october of 2005 when I first joined this board and you thought they would suck and wanted Satan back. To your credit, you owned up to being wrong ... I just hope you are wrong again .... For the record I'm not predicting they will suck. It's just there were improvements to be made and I don't think gaining Rivet and losing Bernier covers them. I like the Rivet trade a lot better with a bigger forward like Bernier on the roster. I think fans will regret the Sabres giving away Bernier like we did when they let Steve Begin go. This FO just has something against forwards with toughness.
shrader Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 The only thing I'll take issue with is the statement that Hossa signed with Detroit because they treat their players right. If that was the case, he would've signed for more than one year. He signed there for one simple reason, they offered him the best chance to win a cup.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.