dumb_dumb88 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 At the end of the day, Regier is gone IMO. And it's about time. I don't have a problem with that. It's time to move on from him. As for Ruff, that's a question I am waiting to be answered. I have to wonder what Pegula's plans are for him, if any at all.
SwampD Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 And you all act like Darcy is supposed to have a crystal ball and know that would happen? Darcy built a team for what the NHL was supposed to be. And it worked and we'd probably be champs if it weren't for a freak rash of injuries to our defensemen. PTR I knew. It's one of the reasons I really wasn't that upset on Black Sunday. It's also the same reason why Philly struggled in the regular season and flourished in the playoffs last year. It's really not that hard to figure out.
LabattBlue Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 And you all act like Darcy is supposed to have a crystal ball and know that would happen? Darcy built a team for what the NHL was supposed to be. And it worked and we'd probably be champs if it weren't for a freak rash of injuries to our defensemen. PTR Darcy did not build the team for the post lockout era, as no one knew that the changes were coming. Plain and simple...he lucked into it.
Weave Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Darcy did not build the team for the post lockout era, as no one knew that the changes were coming. Plain and simple...he lucked into it. Yep.
Stoner Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Darcy did not build the team for the post lockout era, as no one knew that the changes were coming. Plain and simple...he lucked into it. But... but... THE PLAN. :rolleyes:
Lanny Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 If the case is that it has been decided that Regier is out, why delay the inevitable and wait until July? Do you really want Darcy making the decision at the deadline whether to buy or sell? If Craig Patrick or someone like him is going to be brought in as president, fire Darcy, have him act as GM for the remainder of the year and bring in his own GM after the season.
Assquatch Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 At the end of the day, Regier is gone IMO. And it's about time. I don't have a problem with that. It's time to move on from him. As for Ruff, that's a question I am waiting to be answered. I have to wonder what Pegula's plans are for him, if any at all. I would hope that would be up to the new GM, although according to John Murphy, Pegula “loves” Lindy Ruff as coach http://blogs.wivb.com/category/news-4-buffalo-sports/
Taro T Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Darcy did not build the team for the post lockout era, as no one knew that the changes were coming. Plain and simple...he lucked into it. I'd agree that there was a certain amount of luck involved, but before the lockout took place the team was moving in the direction of putting an entertaining (read quick & offensive) team on the ice. I'd like to believe that the decision to move in that direction was based on an analysis that the league had been making it's product highly unentertaining (was there ever a worse final than Calgary tackling Tampa 7 straight games) through an intentional attempt to keep scoring down (as in a non-salary capped world player costs would escalate at an even greater rate that they were escalating if the players were scoring; if a 35 goal scorer was worth $4MM, a 60 goal scorer would have to be worth more like $10MM in the precapped world); and coming out of the lockout either there would be "cost certainty" or the big guys would have the deck stacked in their favor even more than the deck is stacked in baseball. In a world of "cost certainty" there would be a reason to believe that the game might open up (having team budgets set at $44MM would keep the total player cost per team at $44MM regardless of whether that team's players were averaging 35 gpg or 20 gpg), in a world without "cost certainty" there was no reason to believe that the game would open up; but there was also no reason to expect the little guys could compete on a year-in year-out basis with the big boys. In the 2nd scenario, the Sabres would have a hard time selling tixs in all cases but they'd probably be a bit more successful by putting an entertaining product on the ice; in the 1st scenario, an entertaining product would probably be successful both at the box office and in the win column. So, while they were lucky that Goodenow overplayed his hand, they did seem to be planning for the possibility that the league would "win" the labor battle which went against conventional wisdom heading into the lockout. They were unlucky (or not forward thinking enough) in that they bought in to conventional wisdom that the league would bring in even less revenue that the '05-'06 salary cap was built on. Thus all the 1 year deals they signed in '05 expecting teams would have to jettison high priced players in '06 when the cap went down; the cap didn't go down but the worth of their players went up significantly that season and instead of being in the catbird seat they ended up losing McKee, Grier, and Dumont. Of course, it would be interesting to know how much of missing the boat on which way the cap would go after the 1st year was based on insights of the hockey department or the business department. Conventional wisdom was that leaguewide attendance would be down after the lockout, but the league had defied conventional wisdom back on '95 when they were the only league to have had a labor stoppage and then not see attendance significantly decrease. Taking a bit of a risk on that one could have set the Sabres in real good stead for a long time heading out of the lockout. And by taking a bit of a risk, simply having given Briere and McKee the 3 year deals they wanted in '05 would have totally changed the gameplan in '06 even with all those other contracts due. If the case is that it has been decided that Regier is out, why delay the inevitable and wait until July? Do you really want Darcy making the decision at the deadline whether to buy or sell? If Craig Patrick or someone like him is going to be brought in as president, fire Darcy, have him act as GM for the remainder of the year and bring in his own GM after the season. I'd like to see what Darcy can do when he doesn't have a warped set of external constraints placed on him. Under the criminals he had to keep cash expenditures low (anyone remember back to the days that almost EVERY player held out when his contract was due) and under the last regime he had to "break even." He had a deal worked out with Drury, he converted Gratton into Briere, Barnaby into Barnes, and had made some other good moves through the years. Perhaps he is too conservative to be a top GM, or perhaps his hands were tied tighter than people realize. Having the reins when the trade deadline hits will give TP an opportunity to determine which it is. If he continues to be too conservative, there is plenty of time to punt him before July 1; but if he pulls off another Gratton for Briere (Connolly for a hockey player anyone?) then maybe it makes sense to keep him. If, as you say, the decision has been made to punt Darcy, then yes he should be punted the day TP takes over. I guess we'll find out what TP has in mind pretty soon.
That Aud Smell Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 "The Sabres have been a club in need of something since Dominik Hasek left, and the Dominator, now 46, departed in the spring of 2001." interesting bit of insight. still, that line above was an egg. the drury/briere led edition of this team from 2005-2007 was nothing to sneeze at.
Kristian Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 And you all act like Darcy is supposed to have a crystal ball and know that would happen? Darcy built a team for what the NHL was supposed to be. And it worked and we'd probably be champs if it weren't for a freak rash of injuries to our defensemen. PTR Supposed to be? Hey, you won't get any argument from me regarding the high-speed, no-touch brand of hockey - It's a heckuva lot more interesting than the trap-fest we see every other night these days. But that's beside the point - Darcy built a team he thought could succeed in the NHL. As it turned out, that team was tailor made for the rule changes that were implemented post-lockout, and it ended up making Darcy look like a genius. I just don't believe he's a genius at all, cause even though he's started drafting bigger kids, he still believes the munchkin-brigade can be succesful in this league, even though the game changed on him years ago. I see no will, nor ability to adapt to a league that's left his preferred brand of roster behind years ago. That's not a sign of a genius at all, and as such I believe the post-lockout Sabres were pure luck on his part.
Patty16 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Darcy certainly has his shortcomings. But i find it funny how quickly we bash him while he's respected league wide as a top executive. Its not a secret around the league that he's had budget constraints in building this team. This teams woes stem from much more than "Darcy blows, fire him" The same for Ruff, he gets even more respect but too many are calling for him to be canned. Its pretty difficult to win in this league when youre top centers cant crack the top 150 in scoring. Pegula is no fool by many accounts. Dont expect a housecleaning on day 1. He has already been doing his homework and working his league contacts. He will have a good idea (better than us) of what Darcy is and isn't. He will make his decision after he reviews everything.
Stoner Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 I would hope that would be up to the new GM, although according to John Murphy, Pegula http://blogs.wivb.co...buffalo-sports/ I have to stop reading about Pegula. I am crushing hard. The cell phone story is great. The Ruff comment was a real ######-shrinker though.
Kristian Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Darcy certainly has his shortcomings. But i find it funny how quickly we bash him while he's respected league wide as a top executive. Its not a secret around the league that he's had budget constraints in building this team. That's all well and good. I'm sure any hockey writer can find at least 50 NHL'ers willing to call Tim Connolly a "great hockey player" too. That doesn't make Timmy any less of a bum. The point is, even if (and I say if, because I believe the bolded phrase is just one of those urban legends being tossed around amongst the fanbase) Darcy's peers probably have a whole different view of what makes a "top executive" than the fans do. Fans want to win, or at the very least be competitive - That's their sole ambition. Darcy hasn't made this team a winner, and and it's been quite a while since they were competetive. I couldn't care less if the league thought the man was the second coming of Jesus Christ, to me he's a guy who's clueless when it comes to putting together a hockey team I'm supposed to pay money to watch.
carpandean Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 But i find it funny how quickly we bash him while he's respected league wide as a top executive. Is he? Has anyone spoken to other GM's or execs around the league off the record? With the exception of those cases where a GM does something like try to "steal" another team's RFA with an offer sheet, how often do you here them say anything negative about each other? Maybe they know he's an easy mark to get a second-round pick for their junk, so they try to stay on his good side. He's been around a long time, so everyone (media, commentators) has heard of him, and he's had some good years, so it's no surprise that he's written/talked about in a positive way.
korab rules Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Is he? Has anyone spoken to other GM's or execs around the league off the record? With the exception of those cases where a GM does something like try to "steal" another team's RFA with an offer sheet, how often do you here them say anything negative about each other? Maybe they know he's an easy mark to get a second-round pick for their junk, so they try to stay on his good side. He's been around a long time, so everyone (media, commentators) has heard of him, and he's had some good years, so it's no surprise that he's written/talked about in a positive way. Wasn't there an article posted recently that said the opposite - that Darcy is NOT well respected - that he has a reputation for not returning phone calls concerning deals and offers? WTF! Isn't that his JOB? The good thing is that whatever consultant Pegs brings on board will have a working knowledge of Darcy and his reputation - and that history will be considered when determining whether and for how long he remains employed. It was our buddy Bucky Gleason, who had this to say: Regier didn't return a telephone call Tuesday. No surprise. He has a reputation around the league for being slow to respond to, or ignoring, inquiries from counterparts who are willing to talk trades. NHL management types during All-Star weekend continued shaking their heads over his complacent approach, but now you can see why he's grown so comfortable.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Darcy has made 3 great moves, and they were all pre-lockout. Briere for Gratton Drury for Ballard and Rhett Dumont and Gilmour for Grosek Here's the funny part......as good as those moves were, he didn't have the foresight to lock those players up to reasonable deals before they hit their absolute prime. So in a sense, he didn't expect those guys to be as good as they were and sort of lucked out on them as well. If you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it.
Patty16 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Its not an urban legend, i posted links to several articles in another thread. Here's a recent one calling him and Lamoriello as previously thought of "untouchables". http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/01/14/how-to-live-to-make-another-trade/ He may not be the right guy in buffalo moving forward but those saying he's incompetent are off base. As to the point that you don't hear GMs bash each other, yea no kidding, but when one professional heaps praise on another you should take note.
Weave Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Its not an urban legend, i posted links to several articles in another thread. Here's a recent one calling him and Lamoriello as previously thought of "untouchables". http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/01/14/how-to-live-to-make-another-trade/ He may not be the right guy in buffalo moving forward but those saying he's incompetent are off base. As to the point that you don't hear GMs bash each other, yea no kidding, but when one professional heaps praise on another you should take note. Untouchable =/= Respected. And it is an opinion piece. Like your other links, there is no sourcing or contacts to back up the premise that Regier is well respected. What you have posted here is an out of town opinion piece that suggests Darcy was secure in his position. All that really says is that this reporter thinks that TG/LQ was satisifed with Darcy Regier. What we have are a couple local reporters who say Darcy is not well respected and a couple out of town reporters suggesting he may be respected. As Carpandean so nicely put it, none of us really have any idea what other GM's and team owners think of Darcy. We'll have a pretty good idea of what they really think should Darcy be out of a job early this Summer.
Patty16 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Untouchable =/= Respected. And it is an opinion piece. Like your other links, there is no sourcing or contacts to back up the premise that Regier is well respected. What you have posted here is an out of town opinion piece that suggests Darcy was secure in his position. All that really says is that this reporter thinks that TG/LQ was satisifed with Darcy Regier. What we have are a couple local reporters who say Darcy is not well respected and a couple out of town reporters suggesting he may be respected. As Carpandean so nicely put it, none of us really have any idea what other GM's and team owners think of Darcy. We'll have a pretty good idea of what they really think should Darcy be out of a job early this Summer. What are you expecting? http://us.m.yahoo.com/w/ysportshome/home/experts/article?offset=2&urn=urn%3Anewsml%3Asports.yahoo%2Cyhoo%3A20050301%3Anhl%2Carticle%2Crm-nhlpower011101%3A1&.ts=1294791581&c=remove&.intl=us&.lang=en&.ysid=xtVFbyarboPRWDQOgjhePNMG heres another one from a longtime hockey writer. http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/30/best-general-managers-buck-business-sports-hockey-valuations-10-managers.html Youre citing the lack of evidence as proof of something. Just because there isnt a readily available quote praising him doesnt mean its otherwise. Quotes like that arent really out there, for any GM. Is there anyone but local radio or bucky saying that darcy isnt good at what he does?? Lets see what he can do with a budget and no LQ.
nfreeman Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Darcy has made 3 great moves, and they were all pre-lockout. Briere for Gratton Drury for Ballard and Rhett Dumont and Gilmour for Grosek Here's the funny part......as good as those moves were, he didn't have the foresight to lock those players up to reasonable deals before they hit their absolute prime. So in a sense, he didn't expect those guys to be as good as they were and sort of lucked out on them as well. If you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it. What about: -drafting Miller in the 5th round -trading up to draft Myers -signing Roy to an under-market extension -getting Lydman for a 3rd-round pick -drafting Soupy in the 6th round As for not having the foresight to lock those players up -- there are quite a few people who think this wasn't his decision to make, and quite a lot of evidence (most of which is admittedly circumstantial) to support this theory. I don't think you can just conclusively state that he didn't have the foresight.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 What about: -drafting Miller in the 5th round -trading up to draft Myers -signing Roy to an under-market extension -getting Lydman for a 3rd-round pick -drafting Soupy in the 6th round As for not having the foresight to lock those players up -- there are quite a few people who think this wasn't his decision to make, and quite a lot of evidence (most of which is admittedly circumstantial) to support this theory. I don't think you can just conclusively state that he didn't have the foresight. You could list his draft clunkers as well. I am saying he went out of the way to actually make acquisitions. He signed Roy...he also signed Connolly/Hecht/Pominville/Kotalik/Afinogenov Miller....nice pick. Now if he could identify a quality backup goalie to let Miller play the proper amount of games..... Soupy....yes, an afterthought until the rules changes, then was traded for Rivet....... Lydman. Nice player. And if they weren't his decisions to make...then he was basically a $1 million a year housewife. I have no respect for that, and I am sure his peers do not either. Let's see what THE MARKET says about Darcy.
Weave Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 What are you expecting? http://us.m.yahoo.com/w/ysportshome/home/experts/article?offset=2&urn=urn%3Anewsml%3Asports.yahoo%2Cyhoo%3A20050301%3Anhl%2Carticle%2Crm-nhlpower011101%3A1&.ts=1294791581&c=remove&.intl=us&.lang=en&.ysid=xtVFbyarboPRWDQOgjhePNMG heres another one from a longtime hockey writer. http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/30/best-general-managers-buck-business-sports-hockey-valuations-10-managers.html Youre citing the lack of evidence as proof of something. Just because there isnt a readily available quote praising him doesnt mean its otherwise. Quotes like that arent really out there, for any GM. Is there anyone but local radio or bucky saying that darcy isnt good at what he does?? Lets see what he can do with a budget and no LQ. No. I am citing lack of evidence as LACK of proof of something. In this case, you keep insisting thet Darcy is respected around the league but have yet to quote a league source. Look, I don't really have a horse in this race. I'm on the fence about Darcy and don't really know just how good a GM he is or isn't. And I don't think either of us can make a case as to whether Darcy has league cred, at least not with opinion pieces written by folks whose job it is to churn out reading material that generates reaction and conversation.
nfreeman Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 And if they weren't his decisions to make...then he was basically a $1 million a year housewife. I have no respect for that, and I am sure his peers do not either. Let's see what THE MARKET says about Darcy. I would guess that most if not all of his peers (i) also have to get ownership signoff on major contracts and (ii) wouldn't quit their jobs (which are, at the end of the day, the dream jobs for these guys) if they didn't get contracts approved. As for seeing what the market says -- we shall see. If the Sabres make the playoffs this year, I think DR has about a 60% chance of being retained for next year.
SDS Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 And if they weren't his decisions to make...then he was basically a $1 million a year housewife. I have no respect for that, and I am sure his peers do not either. When Darcy was asked for his rebuttal to this comment, his only word was "scoreboard"....
X. Benedict Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Darcy has made 3 great moves, and they were all pre-lockout. Briere for Gratton Drury for Ballard and Rhett Dumont and Gilmour for Grosek Here's the funny part......as good as those moves were, he didn't have the foresight to lock those players up to reasonable deals before they hit their absolute prime. So in a sense, he didn't expect those guys to be as good as they were and sort of lucked out on them as well. If you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it. Those were great moves...but he made a lot of good ones IMO. Klepis for Grier Barnaby for Barnes Pyatt for a bag of donuts. :D (JK on that one).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.