deluca67 Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 I agree with this statement. Regiers gunshy and he also overvalues his players to the extent that other G.M.s won't make deals with him. Why would it be "other GMs?" It's all on Regiers failures.
nfreeman Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 That is why this team no longer makes "hockey trades." It's not Larry Quinn. It's Regier's fear of losing a trade. It's been what? Eight years since the Drury trade? Eight years since Regier traded a useful member of his hockey team for a useful player on another team? How exactly do you know this? It's impossible to know the reasons why no trades were made last summer. It's quite possible the order came down from above prohibiting any significant moves because of the impending TP deal. What is inarguable is that there were plenty of good players that were available, that the team didn't acquire any of them, and that the failure to do so was unacceptable, and probably cost the team and its fans a year with no playoffs.
deluca67 Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 How exactly do you know this? It's impossible to know the reasons why no trades were made last summer. It's quite possible the order came down from above prohibiting any significant moves because of the impending TP deal. What is inarguable is that there were plenty of good players that were available, that the team didn't acquire any of them, and that the failure to do so was unacceptable, and probably cost the team and its fans a year with no playoffs. It's been eight years. It's not just about last summer.
nfreeman Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 It's been eight years. It's not just about last summer. Right, and for almost that entire 8-year period, there has been a new ownership group employing Darcy. We know that this group has been substantially involved in player decisions in the past, primarily as regards free agents. We don't know whether this is still the case or whether this involvement extends to trades.
X. Benedict Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 I am sure you know this already, there are players in the league that actually do both. One example, a player the Sabres could have had, Dustin Byfuglien has 16 goals, 25 assists and 72 hits in 44 games. Could have, But Byfuglien didn't go cheap. If they had stockpiled picks from trading Kovulchuk (a one and two),and had something equivalent to Jeremy Morin....(whose absence really hurt team USA at the world juniors when he was piledrived by a Finn). (btw....Morin was one of those weird ages that affected his draft, I think he should have been a top 15 pick). but I realize your point is not Byflin per se...but not making moves.
carpandean Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 Right, and for almost that entire 8-year period, there has been a new ownership group employing Darcy. We know that this group has been substantially involved in player decisions in the past, primarily as regards free agents. We don't know whether this is still the case or whether this involvement extends to trades. Not one of us knows for certain who is drawing the lines here. Darcy had some early success in trades, under different owners, but also under a different set of rules (cap). Maybe LQ has stuck his nose into every deal, preventing Darcy from being able to do anything. Maybe the rest of the league doesn't want to deal with Darcy after those deals. Maybe Darcy is afraid to make moves in the cap era. Maybe he just doesn't know how to negotiate deals with teams that are under cap pressure. He certainly seems to have reasons and excuses for every move or lack thereof. Is he begrudgingly regurgitating LQ's BS excuses, has he been brain washed over the years to believe them, or are they actually his own beliefs? I just don't see how Darcy could be such a great GM, but couldn't swing any significant deals, even with LQ sticking his nose into his work. Did LQ really nix every great idea that he had? Never once did Larry see what he wanted to do? At this point, I'd rather take the chance of losing a decent, but recently hamstringed GM, to get a fresh start than risk finding out that Darcy is who we think he is over another trade deadline and offseason. The organization is at a key point, where they will be in a position to make significant changes. Carrying over a key person like the GM or coach just opens the chance that the old way doesn't change. Edit: at the very least, Terry should sit down with Darcy and ask him point blank: Do you think you have done a good job? Do you stand by your moves? Do you think you were micromanaged or otherwise held back? If so, give me some examples of deals that you had set up and LQ nixed. He'd have to really make me believe that he wasn't allowed to work for me to keep him on.
Weave Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 I just don't see how Darcy could be such a great GM, but couldn't swing any significant deals, even with LQ sticking his nose into his work. Did LQ really nix every great idea that he had? Never once did Larry see what he wanted to do? At this point, I'd rather take the chance of losing a decent, but recently hamstringed GM, to get a fresh start than risk finding out that Darcy is who we think he is over another trade deadline and offseason. The organization is at a key point, where they will be in a position to make significant changes. Carrying over a key person like the GM or coach just opens the chance that the old way doesn't change. Truthiness
nfreeman Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 Not one of us knows for certain who is drawing the lines here. Darcy had some early success in trades, under different owners, but also under a different set of rules (cap). Maybe LQ has stuck his nose into every deal, preventing Darcy from being able to do anything. Maybe the rest of the league doesn't want to deal with Darcy after those deals. Maybe Darcy is afraid to make moves in the cap era. Maybe he just doesn't know how to negotiate deals with teams that are under cap pressure. He certainly seems to have reasons and excuses for every move or lack thereof. Is he begrudgingly regurgitating LQ's BS excuses, has he been brain washed over the years to believe them, or are they actually his own beliefs? I just don't see how Darcy could be such a great GM, but couldn't swing any significant deals, even with LQ sticking his nose into his work. Did LQ really nix every great idea that he had? Never once did Larry see what he wanted to do? At this point, I'd rather take the chance of losing a decent, but recently hamstringed GM, to get a fresh start than risk finding out that Darcy is who we think he is over another trade deadline and offseason. The organization is at a key point, where they will be in a position to make significant changes. Carrying over a key person like the GM or coach just opens the chance that the old way doesn't change. Edit: at the very least, Terry should sit down with Darcy and ask him point blank: Do you think you have done a good job? Do you stand by your moves? Do you think you were micromanaged or otherwise held back? If so, give me some examples of deals that you had set up and LQ nixed. He'd have to really make me believe that he wasn't allowed to work for me to keep him on. Great post. I absolutely agree that DR would need to defend himself, especially last summer's paralysis, and make a compelling case that his hands have been tied, in order to keep his job. Last summer was totally unacceptable.
Eleven Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 How exactly do you know this? It's impossible to know the reasons why no trades were made last summer. It's quite possible the order came down from above prohibiting any significant moves because of the impending TP deal. What is inarguable is that there were plenty of good players that were available, that the team didn't acquire any of them, and that the failure to do so was unacceptable, and probably cost the team and its fans a year with no playoffs. Exactly. Regier used to absolutely FLEECE other teams until... It's been eight years. It's not just about last summer. ..exactly, again. Quinn has been there the entire time.
X. Benedict Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 Exactly. Regier used to absolutely FLEECE other teams until... ..exactly, again. Quinn has been there the entire time. As for hockey trades...I think it has much more to do with the CBA, myself. Even with the most active GMsm trades are made to manage the cap and turn out lopsided, 99% of hockey trades are AMEX types like Ville Leino for Ollie Tollensen variety.
nfreeman Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 As for hockey trades...I think it has much more to do with the CBA, myself. Even with the most active GMsm trades are made to manage the cap and turn out lopsided, 99% of hockey trades are AMEX types like Ville Leino for Ollie Tollensen variety. True, but every so often there are situations in which guys like Pronger or Phaneuf or Byfuglien become available -- and all of those happened last season! The Chicago situation last summer, where a Cup winner was forced to fire-sale a number of good players for draft picks, and a needy Sabres team just sat there and did nothing, was particularly galling.
X. Benedict Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 True, but every so often there are situations in which guys like Pronger or Phaneuf or Byfuglien become available -- and all of those happened last season! The Chicago situation last summer, where a Cup winner was forced to fire-sale a number of good players for draft picks, and a needy Sabres team just sat there and did nothing, was particularly galling. Not to quibble, but they were all different seasons in a sense. Pronger preseason 09, Phaneuf deadline '10, Byfuglien off-season prior to 10-11. Byfuglien is the headscratcher. Dudley foresaw moving him to Defense from forward as most thought Duds wildly overpaid. Although the Phaneuf trade was bold, it is starting to have quite an odor. (a Phil Kessle like odor). Anyway....if a trade is made, I want a center. I will personally urinate in the gastank of any Sabre GM that overpays for a defensemen.
nfreeman Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 Not to quibble, but they were all different seasons in a sense. Pronger preseason 09, Phaneuf deadline '10, Byfuglien off-season prior to 10-11. Byfuglien is the headscratcher. Dudley foresaw moving him to Defense from forward as most thought Duds wildly overpaid. Although the Phaneuf trade was bold, it is starting to have quite an odor. (a Phil Kessle like odor). Anyway....if a trade is made, I want a center. I will personally urinate in the gastank of any Sabre GM that overpays for a defensemen. Different seasons in a sense, yes, but all in 1 12-month period. As for Byfuglien, while there seemed to be a fair amount of 2nd-guessing on the price, I don't think the consensus was "wildly overpaid" so much as it was "he had them over a barrel and probably could've gotten it done for less." In any case Dudley got 3 regulars (Buff, Sopel and Eager) in exchange for a 1st, a 2nd, a prospect and 2 fringe players. With Byfuglien's step up in class, it looks like Dudley was the clear winner here. And as for Phaneuf, I think the consensus then and now was that while Dion is overrated and overpaid, Calgary still could've and should've gotten much more than the bunch of mediocrities they received from the Leafs. Dion certainly hasn't lit the world on fire in Toronto, but they didn't give away the #2 pick plus what will probably be a top 5 pick for him as they did for Kessel. Byfuglien or Pronger would of course have been better, but I also would've been happy for the Sabres to have cleared out some deadwood in exchange for Phaneuf the way the Leafs did.
bunomatic Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 Why would it be "other GMs?" It's all on Regiers failures. What I said was he overvalues his players to the extent that other G.M.s won't deal with him. I didn't put it on the other G.M.s
X. Benedict Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 Different seasons in a sense, yes, but all in 1 12-month period. As for Byfuglien, while there seemed to be a fair amount of 2nd-guessing on the price, I don't think the consensus was "wildly overpaid" so much as it was "he had them over a barrel and probably could've gotten it done for less." In any case Dudley got 3 regulars (Buff, Sopel and Eager) in exchange for a 1st, a 2nd, a prospect and 2 fringe players. With Byfuglien's step up in class, it looks like Dudley was the clear winner here. And as for Phaneuf, I think the consensus then and now was that while Dion is overrated and overpaid, Calgary still could've and should've gotten much more than the bunch of mediocrities they received from the Leafs. Dion certainly hasn't lit the world on fire in Toronto, but they didn't give away the #2 pick plus what will probably be a top 5 pick for him as they did for Kessel. Byfuglien or Pronger would of course have been better, but I also would've been happy for the Sabres to have cleared out some deadwood in exchange for Phaneuf the way the Leafs did. Nice post. Duds also got Andrew Ladd for a song. Visnovfy (sp?)_ I saw the Phaneuf deal as a cap clearing move to all those years at 6.5 million off the books as well as Phaneuf's poisonous attitude.. Although I've always liked Nicolas Hagman's game. Phaneuf is young yet and with bloodlines with Clarke MacArthur (they are cousins) they might create some magic. :lol: (sorry laughing at my own jokes...but they are cousins) I guess I see Toronto making mistake after mistake, year after year, giving away too much.
deluca67 Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 Exactly. Regier used to absolutely FLEECE other teams until... ..exactly, again. Quinn has been there the entire time. How is that Regier "FLEECED" all these other teams and yet his team consisted only of Hasek and not much else? The idea that Regier was once this dominant GM is a myth created over time. When this team had only Hasek it should have been Regier's #1 priority to acquire a top tier offensive player. I don't mean an over the hill Doug Gilmour.
nfreeman Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 Nice post. Duds also got Andrew Ladd for a song. Visnovfy (sp?)_ I saw the Phaneuf deal as a cap clearing move to all those years at 6.5 million off the books as well as Phaneuf's poisonous attitude.. Although I've always liked Nicolas Hagman's game. Phaneuf is young yet and with bloodlines with Clarke MacArthur (they are cousins) they might create some magic. :lol: (sorry laughing at my own jokes...but they are cousins) I guess I see Toronto making mistake after mistake, year after year, giving away too much. Ladd is another guy whom the Sabres could've used and was there for the taking last summer. I agree on Toronto's poor decision-making.
X. Benedict Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 Ladd is another guy whom the Sabres could've used and was there for the taking last summer. I agree on Toronto's poor decision-making. In my dreamworld the guys Regier really missed on and didn't have to overpay were: Mike Cammalleri, Andrew Ladd, and making an RFA offer for Brandon Dubinsky. All guys that would have fit into the Sabres fore-check and defensive schemes nicely.
deluca67 Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 Ladd is another guy whom the Sabres could've used and was there for the taking last summer. I agree on Toronto's poor decision-making. Has anyone actually taken a close look at the Maple Leafs? They are in excellent cap shape in the years to come. And seriously, is there anyone here that wouldn't trade pretty much anyone off of the Sabres roster for Phaneuf, Kessel (on pace for 35 goals) and Versteeg? I'll take that "core" over anything the Sabres have to offer. They have some solid young players and two huge chips to play (Kaberle & Giguere) at this years trade deadline. If the Leafs have one huge advantage over the Sabres it is that the Leafs front office does not operate under the delusion that their team is a contender right now. I would expect the Leafs to be busy at this years trade deadline converting vets into assets while Regier and the Sabres do nothing relevant. The Sabres should be poised to dump Conolly, Hecht, Grier , Rivet, Neids, Leopold and should be ready to actually consider trade offers that come in on any player.
deluca67 Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 In my dreamworld the guys Regier really missed on and didn't have to overpay were: Mike Cammalleri, Andrew Ladd, and making an RFA offer for Brandon Dubinsky. All guys that would have fit into the Sabres fore-check and defensive schemes nicely. Don't forget Nathan Horton.
bunomatic Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 Nice post. Duds also got Andrew Ladd for a song. Visnovfy (sp?)_ I saw the Phaneuf deal as a cap clearing move to all those years at 6.5 million off the books as well as Phaneuf's poisonous attitude.. Although I've always liked Nicolas Hagman's game. Phaneuf is young yet and with bloodlines with Clarke MacArthur (they are cousins) they might create some magic. :lol: (sorry laughing at my own jokes...but they are cousins) I guess I see Toronto making mistake after mistake, year after year, giving away too much. I agree with the mistake after mistake statement. Burkes always been a guy that trips over his own ego and has absolutely no patience. That being said at least he tries to improve his team whether it looks to be working or not. Regier sits back and lets his team try to fix itself.
RazielSabre Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 I don't blame Ruff's system for ruining the players, I think its after they get these big contracts they really lose some motivation. Yer being guaranteed millions of dollars does give you less incentive to work hard. What is there to achieve, and people with the natural drive and determination to be the best even with that kinda money are rare, sadly. I really dont think we're the only team in the NHL like it.
X. Benedict Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 Don't forget Nathan Horton. I'm not fond of Horton. Just a preference. Especially not at center. And as you know, I'm not fond of Kessel especially at center. Buffalo needs to get stronger up the middle. The Leafs don't have a center. That's pretty much why I've never been enamored with any of Burke's moves.
nfreeman Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 Has anyone actually taken a close look at the Maple Leafs? They are in excellent cap shape in the years to come. And seriously, is there anyone here that wouldn't trade pretty much anyone off of the Sabres roster for Phaneuf, Kessel (on pace for 35 goals) and Versteeg? I'll take that "core" over anything the Sabres have to offer. They have some solid young players and two huge chips to play (Kaberle & Giguere) at this years trade deadline. If the Leafs have one huge advantage over the Sabres it is that the Leafs front office does not operate under the delusion that their team is a contender right now. I would expect the Leafs to be busy at this years trade deadline converting vets into assets while Regier and the Sabres do nothing relevant. The Sabres should be poised to dump Conolly, Hecht, Grier , Rivet, Neids, Leopold and should be ready to actually consider trade offers that come in on any player. This is crazy. Myers, Vanek and Roy are far superior to those 3 (and Vanek and Roy aren't even that good). Versteeg has been a huge disappointment for the Leafs. Also, Kaberle has a NTC, and Burke is on record as saying that he does not ask players to waive NTCs. And while the Leafs don't have that much in committed cap expenditures for next year, that is because they only have 6 forwards and 4 defensemen (2 of which are grossly overpaid) under contract. Their "young players" have also been disappointing, since Kadri can't seem to stick at the NHL level and Schenn has taken a step back. The Sabres will be better than the Leafs this year, next year and the year after that. Also: why do you want the Sabres to dump Leopold? He's a pretty solid defenseman at a reasonable contract. Pommer is the one they should look to unload (in addition to the others you mentioned).
Eleven Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 How is that Regier "FLEECED" all these other teams and yet his team consisted only of Hasek and not much else? The idea that Regier was once this dominant GM is a myth created over time. When this team had only Hasek it should have been Regier's #1 priority to acquire a top tier offensive player. I don't mean an over the hill Doug Gilmour. Do you remember who came with that over-the-hill Doug Gilmour? And what the Sabres gave up for him? Right, it was Grosek for Gilmour (a great trade in and of itself) AND JP Dumont. That is fleecing Chicago. How about Gratton for Briere? That is fleecing Phoenix. Warrener for Drury. That is fleecing Calgary. The man made excellent trades--in the first two instances, complete crap for all-stars, and in the last, a decent player for an all-star. His team consisted of Hasek and not much else? No, the team he inherited did. Then he started building. Then Quinn arrived on the scene and construction was halted. Myth, my ass.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.