X. Benedict Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 If they were a better team they would have beaten the Bruins. They weren't and didn't. The were exposed as frauds by the Bruins who beat them physically as well as on the scoreboard. That exposure has carried over to this season. They were nothing more than a bad team with a really hot goaltender. This year they don't even have the hot goaltender. Fraud. :lol: I seem to remember 2 overtime losses in a 6 game series, a Sabres lead in every game, and watching their best skater hacked down in game two, a power-play that went cold, and a very hot Tukka Rask. That's not Fraud. That's hockey.
SDS Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Fraud. :lol: I seem to remember 2 overtime losses in a 6 game series, a Sabres lead in every game, and watching their best skater hacked down in game two, a power-play that went cold, and a very hot Tukka Rask. That's not Fraud. That's hockey. Please just learn to ignore him. I'd rather you stay and still post than have you fed up with his ridiculous rants.
deluca67 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Fraud. :lol: I seem to remember 2 overtime losses in a 6 game series, a Sabres lead in every game, and watching their best skater hacked down in game two, a power-play that went cold, and a very hot Tukka Rask. That's not Fraud. That's hockey. Leads in every game with a hot goaltender that held those leads during the regular season and failed to in the playoffs. The Sabres went as Miller went last season. As good as Miller was you need to bring more to the rink than just one aspect of the game. Anyone who thinks the Sabres were anything more than a hot goaltender are just lost in wishful thinking.
deluca67 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Please just learn to ignore him. I'd rather you stay and still post than have you fed up with his ridiculous rants. Right, because the Sabres were legit Cup contenders last year. :doh:
Stoner Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Right, because the Sabres were legit Cup contenders last year. :doh: Hey now, 29 other teams were trying really, really hard to win too.
deluca67 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Hey now, 29 other teams were trying really, really hard to win too. According to some they are all Cup contenders in their own way. Maybe the NHL should pass out trophies to all the teams just for trying. I really hope Pegula is a "fan" that sees the Stanley Cup as the only true success. If not, we will be doomed to more of the same old mediocre results.
Eleven Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Hey now, 29 other teams were trying really, really hard to win too. Only 5 of those 29 won their division. How people fault the Sabres for putting the team on the ice that they did last year, remains a mystery to me. Not like it was a ###### division, either; three teams made the playoffs. The two non-Sabre teams both beat division winners to advance.
thesportsbuff Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 I'm really late to this thread so sorry if it's already been discussed, but lol @ Golisano trying to get one last "what a guy!" from the fans by saying he had a better offer ($70 mil better) for the Sabres but declined because the bidder wanted to move them out of Buffalo. There may be some truth there but there's no way the league would have let the Sabres leave Buffalo, especially considering the state of Phoenix/Atlanta, the last thing they need is another team facing uncertainty. I think the more likely scenario is that A.) he made the whole story up to gain some lasting credibility on his way out or B.) he declined the offer mostly because it would be a waste of time, knowing the league would never approve a move... not so much because he cared whether they moved or not. Just my two cents.
Stoner Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Only 5 of those 29 won their division. How people fault the Sabres for putting the team on the ice that they did last year, remains a mystery to me. Not like it was a ###### division, either; three teams made the playoffs. The two non-Sabre teams both beat division winners to advance. The board has been very interesting the last several days. Lots of people are rehashing debates, repeating arguments from the past. Picking at old scabs. There's heckling, backbiting, gnashing of teeth. It's great. It's almost like the pro-Mubarak and anti-Mubarak protestors. Barricades have been put up. Rocks have been thrown. Molotov cocktails hurled. Our Mubarak is stepping down. Maybe one day soon we'll all just hug it out. Ride some camels together. We'll all be Egyptians again. It'll be nice for a while!
X. Benedict Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 I'm really late to this thread so sorry if it's already been discussed, but lol @ Golisano trying to get one last "what a guy!" from the fans by saying he had a better offer ($70 mil better) for the Sabres but declined because the bidder wanted to move them out of Buffalo. There may be some truth there but there's no way the league would have let the Sabres leave Buffalo, especially considering the state of Phoenix/Atlanta, the last thing they need is another team facing uncertainty. I think the more likely scenario is that A.) he made the whole story up to gain some lasting credibility on his way out or B.) he declined the offer mostly because it would be a waste of time, knowing the league would never approve a move... not so much because he cared whether they moved or not. Just my two cents. The league wouldn't want it to move from Buffalo, but.... Remember Al Davis in the National Football League, when he took the Raiders from Oakland to LA. Davis didn't just move the team to LA, he litigated it there. That's what the NHL fears. If Bassilie gets a team, Bassilie has the deep-pockets to litigate it anywhere he wants.
inkman Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Please just learn to ignore him. I'd rather you stay and still post than have you fed up with his ridiculous rants. I'm glad your disdain hasn't led to a ban for the likes of Deluca and PA. I find their views refreshing, okay the first 20 rant about same topic, and sort of a necessary evil in our sanctuary. At worst it's slightly annoying, at best they offer counter culture points. I always find them interesting reads.
Eleven Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 I'm really late to this thread so sorry if it's already been discussed, but lol @ Golisano trying to get one last "what a guy!" from the fans by saying he had a better offer ($70 mil better) for the Sabres but declined because the bidder wanted to move them out of Buffalo. There may be some truth there but there's no way the league would have let the Sabres leave Buffalo, especially considering the state of Phoenix/Atlanta, the last thing they need is another team facing uncertainty. I think the more likely scenario is that A.) he made the whole story up to gain some lasting credibility on his way out or B.) he declined the offer mostly because it would be a waste of time, knowing the league would never approve a move... not so much because he cared whether they moved or not. Just my two cents. Buff, I know you're late to the party, and sorry that I'm using your post as an example, but, hey, can we all stop picking on this? The man did step up, bought the team, KEPT IT HERE, and sold it to a buyer who wants to keep it here. Whatever your thoughts of the TG era (and mine are angry once LQ got involved again), let's not overlook the fact that we have the BUFFALO Sabres. Not Hamilton, not wherever. Buffalo. Here. Home. Sometimes, we can get too cynical. It's not healthy. Enjoy the team, and enjoy the fact that it's right here, where it belongs. Thanks, Tom. Good luck with your horse ranch in Florida. I mean it.
deluca67 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Only 5 of those 29 won their division. How people fault the Sabres for putting the team on the ice that they did last year, remains a mystery to me. Not like it was a ###### division, either; three teams made the playoffs. The two non-Sabre teams both beat division winners to advance. What Team? Relying on a goalie to steal you games is not building a team let alone a contender. As great as Hasek was he couldn't get it done by himself. It was foolish last season to think Miller could get it done by himself and it is even more foolish this year considering how far Miller's game has fallen off.
deluca67 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 I'm glad your disdain hasn't led to a ban for the likes of Deluca and PA. I find their views refreshing, okay the first 20 rant about same topic, and sort of a necessary evil in our sanctuary. At worst it's slightly annoying, at best they offer counter culture points. I always find them interesting reads. He's just mad because we cause most of his server space to be eaten up. With our posts and the dozens of responses having a realistic view will cause. :thumbsup:
nfreeman Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Buff, I know you're late to the party, and sorry that I'm using your post as an example, but, hey, can we all stop picking on this? The man did step up, bought the team, KEPT IT HERE, and sold it to a buyer who wants to keep it here. Whatever your thoughts of the TG era (and mine are angry once LQ got involved again), let's not overlook the fact that we have the BUFFALO Sabres. Not Hamilton, not wherever. Buffalo. Here. Home. Sometimes, we can get too cynical. It's not healthy. Enjoy the team, and enjoy the fact that it's right here, where it belongs. Thanks, Tom. Good luck with your horse ranch in Florida. I mean it. Good call. My 2 cents on the presser: 1. I agree that TG sounded a bit thin-skinned. Both he and LQ clearly read the Sabres coverage in the Buffalo News. 2. Having said that, I was fine with most of what TG had to say, and I don't think there was too much gratuitous patting himself on the back as some posters have stated. He really did take over a franchise that was on its deathbed, and he really did restore it to a very healthy position. I also thought that it was fair for him to point out that the team has the 6th-best record in the NHL since he became the owner. 3. The point he made that I didn't like was when he refused to take any blame or admit any mistakes in losing Drury & Briere, and he hid behind the "if we had signed them we couldn't have afforded other guys" meme -- ie implying that they could only have signed signed them for the contracts they received as UFAs. As we all know, they could've signed those 2 guys for what they paid Max, TC, Tallinder and Kotalik. 4. I don't see why anyone should be surprised at TG's mention of the $100K in costs associated with having the federal government approve the sale. He's clearly not a guy who likes to pay taxes. As for the notion that he shouldn't complain because he can afford it -- this is irrelevant. No one should be happy (especially not at this point in the country's economic history) with flushing an unnecessary $100K into the federal government sinkhole. Wouldn't you prefer that the $100K go to charity? 5. I also disagree that TG is somehow to blame for the $30MM of debt forgiveness. He bought the team out of bankruptcy, in which debt is often reduced to pennies on the dollar. I don't doubt that LQ worked the political angles to facilitate the deal, including the debt forgiveness, but any buyer could have found a guy like LQ to work the system. Bottom line is that TG is the only one who stepped up and did so, and even with the debt forgiveness, he took about $65MM in equity risk. Ask Jerry Moyes (who lost his shirt on the Coyotes) whether that investment was a guaranteed payday. 6. One question I would've liked to have heard was whether LQ put any restrictions on DR last summer. TG said that he (TG) didn't do so other than to stay the course (which I interpret as stay within budget), but I don't believe I heard anything about whether LQ did so. I will say this though: I don't think TG is the type to lie in response to a question, so I think he was telling the truth about not restricting DR, but he could've left that bit of dirty work to LQ. If neither of them restricted DR last summer, and DR just failed to make any improvements in the top 6 on his own, then TP should fire DR yesterday. 7. I can definitely see TG buying the Bills. 8. Adios Tom. Thanks for everything you did.
That Aud Smell Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Sorry if this has been stated up-thread of this, but this morning I have dubbed that presser "The Reign of Break Even." I still can't believe the word "reign" escaped that guy's lips. It's almost like the pro-Mubarak and anti-Mubarak protestors. Barricades have been put up. Rocks have been thrown. Molotov cocktails hurled. Our Mubarak is stepping down. Maybe one day soon we'll all just hug it out. Ride some camels together. We'll all be Egyptians again. Did someone mention an Egyptian battle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU4TDGlbTz8&feature=player_embedded#
Assquatch Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 The board has been very interesting the last several days. Lots of people are rehashing debates, repeating arguments from the past. Picking at old scabs. There's heckling, backbiting, gnashing of teeth. It's great.
nfreeman Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Sorry if this has been stated up-thread of this, but this morning I have dubbed that presser "The Reign of Break Even." Now, there is a term that is an excellent innovation. I might have to start using it myself.
That Aud Smell Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Now, there is a term that is an excellent innovation. I might have to start using it myself. *sigh* ... i as hoping that "reign of break even" would be the phrase to catch you eye. (in truth, i was pretty pleased with up-thread -- it had started out as upstream.)
SDS Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 *sigh* ... i as hoping that "reign of break even" would be the phrase to catch you eye. (in truth, i was pretty pleased with up-thread -- it had started out as upstream.) Any thread with DeLuca involved has a "stream" in it...
spndnchz Posted May 11, 2011 Author Report Posted May 11, 2011 Random. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlDQ8mWCZQ&feature=related
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.