PromoTheRobot Posted January 26, 2012 Report Posted January 26, 2012 Lindy and Darcy will not be fired. Source: Howard Simon via twitter Paul Hamilton was told if the Sabres lose every single game they will not be fired. Can you link that Howard Simon tweet? As far as I can find Howard doesn't use Twitter. PTR
spndnchz Posted January 26, 2012 Report Posted January 26, 2012 Can you link that Howard Simon tweet? As far as I can find Howard doesn't use Twitter. PTR @hsimon62 @pham22758 on @WGR550 right now. organization source told him lindy/ darcy will not be fired this season even if they lost every game left
Claude_Verret Posted January 26, 2012 Report Posted January 26, 2012 Thanks man. I don't think Lindy has lost his chops, nor do I think he deserves the lion-share of blame - nor do I think that the team has tuned him out - more a case of a team unable to respond to what he's asking. What I really think is that a rebuild starts with simplified play on the back end and stronger personnel at center. But hockey is not a moral universe - - it's a game. It is time to flush it. There always comes a time. Good to see you back, and as is usually the case I agree with the above 100%. Lindy and Darcy will not be fired. Source: Howard Simon via twitter Paul Hamilton was told if the Sabres lose every single game they will not be fired. This is completely in line with what a family source told me months ago based on lengthy one on one conversation he had with Darcy. And when the Sabres sell off at the deadline there is another built in excuse for them to lose more games.
korab rules Posted January 26, 2012 Report Posted January 26, 2012 Can you link that Howard Simon tweet? As far as I can find Howard doesn't use Twitter. PTR Hamilton said it on Simon's show this morning.
LabattBlue Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 @hsimon62 @pham22758 on @WGR550 right now. organization source told him lindy/ darcy will not be fired this season even if they lost every game left So they won't be fired during the season, or they won't be fired during the season or in the off-season?
R_Dudley Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 Haven't been able to post much due to some health issues. But it is time to blow it up. It starts on top. GM - Rick Dudley - This isn't a reach at all. It is a low-risk, competent move. Coach - Mike Sullivan - young - 40's - playing experience - coaching experience - pre-and post lockout with the Bruins. currently on Torts staff in New York. Also time to shuffle the parts. Nobody on this roster should be particularly comfortable. Time to sell, clear cap, and do a thorough rebuild creating a team that is deep down the middle. Good to see you posting again better to know you are well enough to join back in. Hope it continues to get better.
TrueBlueGED Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 So they won't be fired during the season, or they won't be fired during the season or in the off-season? Listening to it, they absolutely will not be fired during the season, and it's highly unlikely they would be fired after the season...although I suspect that if they continue the tank job even now that they're healthy, firings would be possible.
bunomatic Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 Our new guy is turning out to be crazier than Wang in Long Island. Too much of a fan. Too emotionally invested to make the smart choice.
TheChimp Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 OK, well if this is true, then that answers that. We can all focus on the players we want to see gone now. And by we I mean me. I wasn't ready to talk trades until I knew for sure that there was no hope that Ruff and Darcy would be replaced and we could see how these same players behaved for a new set of leaders. Now the question is, do I start some new threads or do I scour the back pages for threads that exist already? Sheesh, decisions, decisions....
Eleven Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 Our new guy is turning out to be crazier than Wang in Long Island. Too much of a fan. Too emotionally invested to make the smart choice. Well, unless you consider retaining Ruff to be the smart choice. It's not like he just gave Matt Ellis a twenty year deal as GM or anything.
deluca67 Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 Well, unless you consider retaining Ruff to be the smart choice. It's not like he just gave Matt Ellis a twenty year deal as GM or anything. I'm sure there were Islander fans that thought the Depietro contract was a good signing. So they won't be fired during the season, or they won't be fired during the season or in the off-season? The initial retaining of Regier and Ruff can be excused, to continue making that same mistake is inexcusable. I have no expectations that Ruff and Regier will be let go in the off-season, at this point I think it is foolish to even consider it. Pegula has shown his hand, he would much rather be everyone's buddy at the F'N Center than live up to his own words. "Only reason for existence" is as big a load of crap as "getting them the tools to finish the job." I'm sure Pegula will make the big changes in the off-season like a Zen garden retreat for the players, a cascading waterfall in the players parking lot and some accent pillows to match the new rug.
shrader Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 I'm sure there were Islander fans that thought the Depietro contract was a good signing. There couldn't have been many. That contract wasn't the start. We need to remember that they had already given Alexi Yashin a 10 year deal which blew up in their faces badly. So how do they respond to something like that? They go out and sign an even longer contract. Mind-numbingly stupid.
nfreeman Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 I'm sure there were Islander fans that thought the Depietro contract was a good signing. The initial retaining of Regier and Ruff can be excused, to continue making that same mistake is inexcusable. I have no expectations that Ruff and Regier will be let go in the off-season, at this point I think it is foolish to even consider it. Pegula has shown his hand, he would much rather be everyone's buddy at the F'N Center than live up to his own words. "Only reason for existence" is as big a load of crap as "getting them the tools to finish the job." I'm sure Pegula will make the big changes in the off-season like a Zen garden retreat for the players, a cascading waterfall in the players parking lot and some accent pillows to match the new rug. I don't agree with all of this post, but the bolded part is good stuff.
bunomatic Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 Well, unless you consider retaining Ruff to be the smart choice. It's not like he just gave Matt Ellis a twenty year deal as GM or anything. I should have clarified what I meant. I was thinking more in terms of making poor hockey decisions that handcuff your team which in my opinion keeping Regier does. Another thing Tpegs and Wang have in common is they get involved at the hockey level. Put the right person in charge and stay out of the way.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 I should have clarified what I meant. I was thinking more in terms of making poor hockey decisions that handcuff your team which in my opinion keeping Regier does. Another thing Tpegs and Wang have in common is they get involved at the hockey level. Put the right person in charge and stay out of the way. Let's hope he / they figure out who that is sooner, rather than later.
apuszczalowski Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 I should have clarified what I meant. I was thinking more in terms of making poor hockey decisions that handcuff your team which in my opinion keeping Regier does. Another thing Tpegs and Wang have in common is they get involved at the hockey level. Put the right person in charge and stay out of the way. But without Tpegs getting involved at the hockey level, Darcys only signing this offseason would have been overpaying Leino. Pegs had to fly out to Calgary with his wife to beg Regher to waive his no trade clause to come, and he had to help convince Erhoff that he should sign a contract that would grossly overpay him
nfreeman Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 But without Tpegs getting involved at the hockey level, Darcys only signing this offseason would have been overpaying Leino. Pegs had to fly out to Calgary with his wife to beg Regher to waive his no trade clause to come, and he had to help convince Erhoff that he should sign a contract that would grossly overpay him I understand that Ehrhoff is getting a lot of his total contract money up front, but leaving that aside, do you think he's overpaid at $4MM per year (cap hit)? I think he's a good player and that is actually a pretty good price for him from the Sabres' perspective.
apuszczalowski Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 I understand that Ehrhoff is getting a lot of his total contract money up front, but leaving that aside, do you think he's overpaid at $4MM per year (cap hit)? I think he's a good player and that is actually a pretty good price for him from the Sabres' perspective. Yes I do because I don't see him playing out that entire contract at the same level of play. In the final year are you going to say he is worth $4mil? If not, would you say he is a good value now for over $4mil?
shrader Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 Yes I do because I don't see him playing out that entire contract at the same level of play. In the final year are you going to say he is worth $4mil? If not, would you say he is a good value now for over $4mil? He's still relatively young (29). He should be playing at a high level throughout most of that contract. Who knows what the CBA or the cap will be like 10 years from now, so it really isn't a major concern. He probably retires before he hits that point, which would make the cap hit disappear.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 He's still relatively young (29). He should be playing at a high level throughout most of that contract. Who knows what the CBA or the cap will be like 10 years from now, so it really isn't a major concern. He probably retires before he hits that point, which would make the cap hit disappear. Unless it is due to injury, if I'm not mistaken under the current CBA there is a portion of the contract hitting the cap in the year of retirement in that situation ... Drury in NY for example.
Lanny Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 Unless it is due to injury, if I'm not mistaken under the current CBA there is a portion of the contract hitting the cap in the year of retirement in that situation ... Drury in NY for example. They bought Drury out of his final year, he didn't retire from the Rangers. He's still relatively young (29). He should be playing at a high level throughout most of that contract. Who knows what the CBA or the cap will be like 10 years from now, so it really isn't a major concern. He probably retires before he hits that point, which would make the cap hit disappear. Right, if the cap keeps going up $4M per year might be the proper price for a 2nd or 3rd pairing defenseman. Plus his salary for those final 3 years is only $1M per and can be bought out, waived & sent down to the AHL, or easily traded to a team looking to reach the floor.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 They bought Drury out of his final year, he didn't retire from the Rangers. That's right ... thanks.
shrader Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 Unless it is due to injury, if I'm not mistaken under the current CBA there is a portion of the contract hitting the cap in the year of retirement in that situation ... Drury in NY for example. No, retirement due to injury only means that they still get paid (or at least some portion of it). The only way a retired player counts against the cap is if he was 35+ years old when he signed his contract.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.