nfreeman Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Would you stop complaining about Pominville he's not a bad player. The point is not that he's a bad player, it's that he's not worth anywhere near $5.3MM per year unless he rebounds to 06-07 productivity levels. If he stays closer to last year's production, he's a huge albatross around the team's neck for the next 5 years.
deluca67 Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 The point is not that he's a bad player, it's that he's not worth anywhere near $5.3MM per year unless he rebounds to 06-07 productivity levels. If he stays closer to last year's production, he's a huge albatross around the team's neck for the next 5 years. Exactly. It's not about the player. It's about the contract. I would have no problem with Connolly if he was a $1 - $1.5 mil cap hit. The Same for Lydman and Tallinder. If they made less than $2 million they would be considered serviceable. If Vanek stays around the 35 goal mark and doesn't improve defensively to a point he can play in all situations I'll have a big problem with his contract. The Sabres position is to a point where ever dollar spent needs to maximized.
shrader Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Exactly. It's not about the player. It's about the contract. I would have no problem with Connolly if he was a $1 - $1.5 mil cap hit. The Same for Lydman and Tallinder. If they made less than $2 million they would be considered serviceable. If Vanek stays around the 35 goal mark and doesn't improve defensively to a point he can play in all situations I'll have a big problem with his contract. The Sabres position is to a point where ever dollar spent needs to maximized. What would you want to see a 35 goal scorer paid?
Hawerchuk Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 A Vet Center or Vet R Winger. Then throw in a 3rd line banger who wants to forecheck and wants to f#*&ing win. SIGN SOME TOP TIER PLAYERS GDammit@!!!!!!!!!!!! I swear to god, Jochen Hecht better play his fu$&ing ass off this season!!!
deluca67 Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 What would you want to see a 35 goal scorer paid? Not over $6 mil if that is the only dimension to his game. Vanek needs to be on the ice for the PP, PK, trailing late and late with the lead.
Stoner Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Exactly. It's not about the player. It's about the contract. I would have no problem with Connolly if he was a $1 - $1.5 mil cap hit. The Same for Lydman and Tallinder. If they made less than $2 million they would be considered serviceable. If Vanek stays around the 35 goal mark and doesn't improve defensively to a point he can play in all situations I'll have a big problem with his contract. The Sabres position is to a point where ever dollar spent needs to maximized. Sounds like the very definition of tight parameters.
Taro T Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Please! Enough of the "tight parameters." He has $50 million to spend. The problem isn't the amount, it is how the money was spent. Regier has done a piss poor job evaluating talent and compensating that same talent. It wasn't Golisano that signed Connolly, Tallinder, Lydman and Pominville to god awful contracts. He trusted his Team President and General Manager to spend the money budgeted wisely, they failed. Until Tallinder broke, he was the Sabres best D-man down the stretch and in the '06 playoffs. If a $2.56MM cap hit is too big for that, what would you have offered him that would have made sense AT THAT TIME? I agree, he has not played nearly to the level he played down the stretch in '06. But given where things were back then, that contract isn't outrageous. And yes, I absolutely want to see him plying his trade elsewhere in '09.
henysgol Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 well said :thumbsup: I agree 100% There are a few players that need to get there heads out of their @$$3$ and play up to their potential.
apuszczalowski Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 But were they going to let him trade away Max for peanuts? Or will they let him dispose of Tallinder or Hecht for next to nothing? That's the kind of tight control I'm speaking of. It only makes sense to dump those guys even at a loss. I don't disagree that there's enough money to populate the roster with better players, but is DR that big of a fool on his own to not do anything about the roster? Personally I don't think he is, I think something else is at play with how the roster is made up. Hence, he must be operating under parameters set up for him. But there is no proof that he isn't. Everyone wants to run and blame Quinn for everything because they personally don't like him and want to believe that Darcy is a great GM, when there is no proof outside of Quinn talking at press conferences with Darcy that Quinn has control of the team. (And if Quinn did have control, wouldn't he also have control over the good moves people give Darcy credit for, and wouldn't Darcy then be his puppet?) I don't understand how someone who is supposed to be a good GM would want to continue ot re-sign with a team that would give him so little control and hand tie him into making their moves. I believe he did think he could get a great return for Max and he outplayed himself at the deadline.
Mike Oxhurtz Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 What position are you not satisfied with going into the 09-10 season? Vice President & General Manager
... Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 But there is no proof that he isn't. Everyone wants to run and blame Quinn for everything because they personally don't like him and want to believe that Darcy is a great GM, when there is no proof outside of Quinn talking at press conferences with Darcy that Quinn has control of the team. (And if Quinn did have control, wouldn't he also have control over the good moves people give Darcy credit for, and wouldn't Darcy then be his puppet?) I don't understand how someone who is supposed to be a good GM would want to continue ot re-sign with a team that would give him so little control and hand tie him into making their moves. I believe he did think he could get a great return for Max and he outplayed himself at the deadline. Whether you think DR is a fool or not is rather easy to decide - he has a long tenure here and his actions (and words) are all there for everyone to see. So, based on that I personally don't believe he is that big of a fool not to realize he has to do something, and I don't believe he's fool enough not to come up with strategies to best address the needs of the team. You are welcome to think differently. I never said that I think he is (or was) a great GM. However, business being what it is, no one but the top dog has carte blanche control over any business. And DR is not the top dog. This is just simple reasoning. DR clearly is working within parameters set by him by people up the ladder from himself. Whatever strategy he develops to manipulate the roster most likely has to be approved by his superiors. Again, this is axiomatic in the corporate world, no one has any reason to believe the opposite: DR does not have the final say in what happens to this team. So, DR may have some plans, and they may be good, great, so-so, or just foul - and you can bet that if the approved plans work out EVERYONE from DR up will take some credit although most will go to DR, and if they bomb, DR gets most of the blame. That's what happens to GMs.
apuszczalowski Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Whether you think DR is a fool or not is rather easy to decide - he has a long tenure here and his actions (and words) are all there for everyone to see. So, based on that I personally don't believe he is that big of a fool not to realize he has to do something, and I don't believe he's fool enough not to come up with strategies to best address the needs of the team. You are welcome to think differently. I never said that I think he is (or was) a great GM. However, business being what it is, no one but the top dog has carte blanche control over any business. And DR is not the top dog. This is just simple reasoning. DR clearly is working within parameters set by him by people up the ladder from himself. Whatever strategy he develops to manipulate the roster most likely has to be approved by his superiors. Again, this is axiomatic in the corporate world, no one has any reason to believe the opposite: DR does not have the final say in what happens to this team. So, DR may have some plans, and they may be good, great, so-so, or just foul - and you can bet that if the approved plans work out EVERYONE from DR up will take some credit although most will go to DR, and if they bomb, DR gets most of the blame. That's what happens to GMs. Not in Buffalo, that goes to Quinn What you are saying though is that because of what he has said and the length of his tenure in Buffalo, that he is not a fool, and therefore a good GM. What you are basically saying though is that he can come up with plans, but he isn't good enough at trying to convinvce his superiors that they are what is right for the team
... Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Not in Buffalo, that goes to Quinn What you are saying though is that because of what he has said and the length of his tenure in Buffalo, that he is not a fool, and therefore a good GM. What you are basically saying though is that he can come up with plans, but he isn't good enough at trying to convinvce his superiors that they are what is right for the team Please re-read what I wrote. I'm not making any blanket pronouncements for anyone. I personally can not accept the notion that DR is a fool. This is based on his RECORD during his tenure here, plus MY IMPRESSION from interviews and and other media appearances. Does this mean he is a good GM? I don't know, I'm less and less convinced of how good he is based upon the relative inactivity so far this off-season (and the performance of the team the past two seasons). With regards to his plans - who knows what he is planning or trying to achieve - nothing is happening now. Whatever he has come up with, it seems AT THIS MOMENT, at least, that he hasn't come up with something that will please his superiors on the one hand, and on the other hand garner praise from fans.
deluca67 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Sounds like the very definition of tight parameters. Smart business shouldn't mean "tight parameters." There is no denying that the Sabres can't eat their mistakes like other teams. That shouldn't prevent the Sabres from producing a playoff team considering their payroll of about $50 million. What it comes down to is that the Sabre GM job is as it is and the parameters in which it needs to be done are not changing. The person in the position now has shown an inability to get the job done. It's time to get someone in here who can.
deluca67 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Until Tallinder broke, he was the Sabres best D-man down the stretch and in the '06 playoffs. If a $2.56MM cap hit is too big for that, what would you have offered him that would have made sense AT THAT TIME? I agree, he has not played nearly to the level he played down the stretch in '06. But given where things were back then, that contract isn't outrageous. And yes, I absolutely want to see him plying his trade elsewhere in '09. You can group Tallinder in with Max. Tallinder's best year came after the lockout when the game was geared to the swifter skaters. The Sabres gambled that the NHL was stay that course and players like Max and Tallinder would have great value. The NHL didn't stay the course. The Sabres and Regier should get as much blame for not realizing that was going to happen as they did accolades coming out of the lockout expecting a wide open game. As soon as the physicality seeped back into the game Tallinder became less effective. You add in a skilled player's fear of injury you end up with the Tallinder we have today. I think you can certainly blame Regier for being in a hurry to reward the softer skilled players with contracts while not valuing the more physical skill sets. It goes back to Peca. Regier didn't realize than what grit and toughness meant to the team. He was more than willing to give the 'C' to a Stu Barnes who was a nice player for the Sabres but nowhere near the physical player and leader Peca was.
... Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Smart business shouldn't mean "tight parameters." The Sabres notwithstanding - you have no idea what you're talking about here. "Smart business" IS tight parameters. There is no other way to run a successful business. However, "tight parameters" does not equal, or imply, inflexibility. There is quite a difference between working within tight parameters and flexibility.
deluca67 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 The Sabres notwithstanding - you have no idea what you're talking about here. "Smart business" IS tight parameters. There is no other way to run a successful business. However, "tight parameters" does not equal, or imply, inflexibility. There is quite a difference between working within tight parameters and flexibility. Do the Yankees run their business under "tight parameters?" They are one of the most successful franchises in sports history. "Smart Business" is running your franchise to it's maximum potential in the current market place, respecting your limitations while not allowing them to control your business. Regier as a "Manager" far too often relies on excuses instead of finding ways to get the job done. They Sabres face many hurdles other teams don't. That shouldn't be used as an excuse for not getting the job done. I'm sick of hearing excuses why the job can't get it done, it's time the Sabres as a franchise start working around the hurdles.
carpandean Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Do the Yankees ... Did you seriously use the Yankees as an example of anything good? They are in a position to burn more money than any franchise in any sport and they do so frequently. They basically have no parameters to be limited by. They are the classic example of not being able to simply buy success. With by far the largest payroll, look at what they've done over the last five years ... nothing!!
deluca67 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Did you seriously use the Yankees as an example of anything good? They are in a position to burn more money than any franchise in any sport and they do so frequently. They basically have no parameters to be limited by. They are the classic example of not being able to simply buy success. With by far the largest payroll, look at what they've done over the last five years ... nothing!! What have the Yankees done over the past five years? They made a lot of money. They spend a boat load of money and it is expected of them by their fans. The Yankees know their market and play up to their role in the market maybe better than any other team in professional sports.
carpandean Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 What have the Yankees done over the past five years? They made a lot of money. They spend a boat load of money and it is expected of them by their fans. The Yankees know their market and play up to their role in the market maybe better than any other team in professional sports. And the fact that they haven't made it past the ALDS since 2004 means that several teams have done more with less. They are like the Rangers; they spend money because they have it and forget to think about what they are doing in the process. It doesn't make them smart or well managed; it makes them rich (and I don't mean that managing their team like that makes the rich. They are rich and will remain so because of their market no matter how poor their decisions are.) Either way, though, the Sabres are not in a situation where they can learn much of anything other than bad habits from the Yankees. There are better run franchises that don't have unlimited budgets that the Sabres could learn far more from.
deluca67 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 And the fact that they haven't made it past the ALDS since 2004 means that several teams have done more with less. They are like the Rangers; they spend money because they have it and forget to think about what they are doing in the process. It doesn't make them smart or well managed; it makes them rich (and I don't mean that managing their team like that makes the rich. They are rich and will remain so because of their market no matter how poor their decisions are.) Either way, though, the Sabres are not in a situation where they can learn much of anything other than bad habits from the Yankees. There are better run franchises that don't have unlimited budgets that the Sabres could learn far more from. For the record I am a Red Sox fan. The Sabres can learn plenty from a franchise like the Yankees. The Red Sox did. When you have the desire to win, to truly win, there are no obstacles that can not be overcome. Here we are on July 20th and the Sabres have yet to add even one NHL quality player to their 10th place roster. That's not a big market/small market issue. That's a competency issue.
carpandean Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 The Sabres can learn plenty from a franchise like the Yankees. The Red Sox did. When you have the desire to win, to truly win, there are no obstacles that can not be overcome. Here we are on July 20th and the Sabres have yet to add even one NHL quality player to their 10th place roster. That's not a big market/small market issue. That's a competency issue. Two separate discussions. I agree with the second line. However, there are much better role models (e.g., Detroit Red Wings) for the Sabres than the Yankees. Perhaps "nothing" was a bit of an exaggeration, but there are as many bad things that they could pick up as there are good things. Sure, the Sabres could and should have a desire to win, truly win, but they will still have obstacles that they can't overcome, unlike the Yankees. The funny thing is that they basically have no obstacles and still can't win (recently.)
deluca67 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Posted July 21, 2009 Two separate discussions. I agree with the second line. However, there are much better role models (e.g., Detroit Red Wings) for the Sabres than the Yankees. Perhaps "nothing" was a bit of an exaggeration, but there are as many bad things that they could pick up as there are good things. Sure, the Sabres could and should have a desire to win, truly win, but they will still have obstacles that they can't overcome, unlike the Yankees. The funny thing is that they basically have no obstacles and still can't win (recently.) I don't even know if the Sabres would even look to other organizations to model themselves. This is a front office that truly believes this is a playoff roster. Until changes are made to the front office this roster will remain intact. If two straight 10th place finishes doesn't warrant changes I don't see how the mind set of the front office is going to change after a third.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.