waldo Posted January 17, 2012 Report Posted January 17, 2012 Better yet, throw in Pominville. That way, we can unload pretty much ALL of our scoring. Here's another idea. Keep those two and Myers, keep Kassian, Tropp, McNabb, Brennan, and McCormick up on a regular basis (ESPECIALLY Kassian), and unload pretty much everyone else. Also, trade Lindy for a bottle of Lortab or Percocet. We have scoring? (i think i called this a one line team months ago) You can keep Pom, he likes it here and loves Lindy. In case you have not noticed Vanek has been shut down. That is the way the year ends . Shutdown line,they man him up and when he touches the puck they send a second guy to him. .end of Vanek. Watch what they do when he is in the red zone. No other line/threat to worry about. Letting him go would be the right thing to do, .Trade him for youthfull scoring potential so all the kids can grow up together. If you wait for the kids Vanek will be old and gray... .Let him maximize his potential with a team that gives a sh---t and has the guns right now...so get what you can, which will be alot at the trade deadline. How about Lindy for one Aspirin.
RazielSabre Posted January 17, 2012 Report Posted January 17, 2012 Better yet, throw in Pominville. That way, we can unload pretty much ALL of our scoring. Here's another idea. Keep those two and Myers, keep Kassian, Tropp, McNabb, Brennan, and McCormick up on a regular basis (ESPECIALLY Kassian), and unload pretty much everyone else. Also, trade Lindy for a bottle of Lortab or Percocet. Brennan? Is it just me his not impressed.
LabattBlue Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 I heard the hosts on WGR this morning stating that Hamilton said the Sabres have been trying to trade Roy for a year now. If true, Regier should be FIRED ASAP for being too cautious. There is a market for a player like Roy, and a trade(especially over the offseason) could have been completed in no time at all. A year later, and he can't pull the trigger? NO EXCUSES.
wonderbread Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 I heard the hosts on WGR this morning stating that Hamilton said the Sabres have been trying to trade Roy for a year now. If true, Regier should be FIRED ASAP for being too cautious. There is a market for a player like Roy, and a trade(especially over the offseason) could have been completed in no time at all. A year later, and he can't pull the trigger? NO EXCUSES. Him and Bulldog have been saying this since last summer.
inkman Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 Brennan? Is it just me his not impressed. I haven't seen too much wrong with his game. With the Amerks, he's shown just enough of everything to lead me to believe he'll be more than just a serviceable Dman.
Iron Crotch Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 My only problem with trading Roy is we absolutely need a center (preferrably two) in return. Almost all of our forwards are wingers - we have Hecht and Leino playing center at times but they don't belong there. So I'd trade damned near any forward not named Vanek for a true center or two. Best rumor I've heard (totally unfounded, I'm sure) is Roy + some other pieces to Columbus for Carter and Brassard. We're so weak at center right now it's ridiculous. Did I mention how much I despise Darcy? :D
RazielSabre Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 I haven't seen too much wrong with his game. With the Amerks, he's shown just enough of everything to lead me to believe he'll be more than just a serviceable Dman. His mediocrity is just my worry he hasn't shown anything more than bottom pairing/spare dman potential. More trade bait than someone I'd love to have on my team.
obstructedorangeseats Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 Did I mention how much I despise Darcy? :D But why? He's so kind to animals and good with children. :P
Robviously Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 Jeremey White mentioned this morning that it is rumored that Chicago has a deal on the table for Roy. White goes on to say that the Sabres are best served to wait and see if a better deal comes along. WRONG! If the Chicago deal is one that provides a good return, just make the freaking trade. What if Chicago decides to look elsewhere while Buffalo is "waiting it out". "Sports talk for morons" should be WGR's slogan. Isn't this exactly why Roy is still on the team now? The Sabres were "close" to trading him over the summer but decided to hold out for too much. Now he's still here and his value is at an all-time low. Way to go, Darcy. That's the thing about Regier. For every trade where he fleeces someone, he probably misses at least a dozen (my guess) trades that are just "good" because he overvalues his own guys and holds out for too much. We can't evaluate Regier on just the trades he completes (and with the exception of Regehr, even those have sucked lately); we should be thinking about his failure to get trades done as well. BTW, Minnesota has a pair of center prospects that I'd love to add -- Granlund and Philips. http://www.hockeysfuture.com/teams/minnesota_wild Darcy should do everything he can to steal either one. (He won't though.)
FolignosJock Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 Isn't this exactly why Roy is still on the team now? The Sabres were "close" to trading him over the summer but decided to hold out for too much. Now he's still here and his value is at an all-time low. Way to go, Darcy. That's the thing about Regier. For every trade where he fleeces someone, he probably misses at least a dozen (my guess) trades that are just "good" because he overvalues his own guys and holds out for too much. We can't evaluate Regier on just the trades he completes (and with the exception of Regehr, even those have sucked lately); we should be thinking about his failure to get trades done as well. BTW, Minnesota has a pair of center prospects that I'd love to add -- Granlund and Philips. http://www.hockeysfu.../minnesota_wild Darcy should do everything he can to steal either one. (He won't though.) Didnt someone already compile all the trades that he has made??? He fleeces people way more than he gets fleeced. If there was a ranking he would probably be near the top for the compensation he has received for guys that ended up doing nothing.
apuszczalowski Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 Didnt someone already compile all the trades that he has made??? He fleeces people way more than he gets fleeced. If there was a ranking he would probably be near the top for the compensation he has received for guys that ended up doing nothing. Please provide some examples (besides the Briere trade from 10 years ago or any before then)Was it the Moore trade? Raffi Torres? Brad Boyes deal?
Who Else? Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 That's the thing about Regier. For every trade where he fleeces someone, he probably misses at least a dozen (my guess) trades that are just "good" because he overvalues his own guys and holds out for too much. We can't evaluate Regier on just the trades he completes (and with the exception of Regehr, even those have sucked lately); we should be thinking about his failure to get trades done as well. Darcy should do everything he can to steal either one. (He won't though.) What is wrong with fleecing someone. It takes two sides to make the deal. Isn't that what you try to do win a deal? It is a sport after all. I know the concept of "fleecing" came from that a--clown in Toronto running his jib. Now lets fleece some other teams. When they won't trade with us anymore (because they are stupid for being fleeced) get a new GM for them to deal with and start the shearing process over again.
Iron Crotch Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 BTW, Minnesota has a pair of center prospects that I'd love to add -- Granlund and Philips. http://www.hockeysfu.../minnesota_wild Darcy should do everything he can to steal either one. (He won't though.) I like the way you think! We should be adding young center prospects like Granlund or Brassard (CBJ)... if only we had a GM with a little bit of foresight (*sigh*)...
Robviously Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 Didnt someone already compile all the trades that he has made??? He fleeces people way more than he gets fleeced. If there was a ranking he would probably be near the top for the compensation he has received for guys that ended up doing nothing. Way to completely miss the point. Holding out on trades so that you can be absolutely, positively sure that you "fleeced" another team is a great way to 1. have a nice list of trades and 2. NEVER address team needs. For all his "fleecing", have we ever won anything? When is the last time a trade deadline deal helped us contend? The Sabres have had the same needs for years and have needed to trade the same players for years. It never gets done. It's not about compiling a list of impressive trades. It's about building a TEAM that can win the Stanley Cup. Regier has a nifty list of lopsided trades and a team that -- after 15 years and with an owner spending all the money he can -- is ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE when it comes to winning a championship. That's nothing to be proud of.
apuszczalowski Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 What is wrong with fleecing someone. It takes two sides to make the deal. Isn't that what you try to do win a deal? It is a sport after all. I know the concept of "fleecing" came from that a--clown in Toronto running his jib. Now lets fleece some other teams. When they won't trade with us anymore (because they are stupid for being fleeced) get a new GM for them to deal with and start the shearing process over again. Nothing, and no one is saying theres something wrong with it, just that Regier hasn't be able to do it for a long time.A good GM should be able to get atleast equal value in a trade, but thats not always the case, sometimes your dealing from a position of weakness and some moves may need to be made just for the sake of making the move Sometimes you also have to re-evaluate what you think a player is worth when you see what the market is willing to give up for it, instead of just holding on to it and waiting for someone to give you what you think its worth. Holding onto Roy didn't help this team, and it isn't helping Regier get a better deal for him. I'm sure the deal he may eventually have to make will be much less then what he was first offered
FolignosJock Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 Way to completely miss the point. Holding out on trades so that you can be absolutely, positively sure that you "fleeced" another team is a great way to 1. have a nice list of trades and 2. NEVER address team needs. For all his "fleecing", have we ever won anything? When is the last time a trade deadline deal helped us contend? The Sabres have had the same needs for years and have needed to trade the same players for years. It never gets done. It's not about compiling a list of impressive trades. It's about building a TEAM that can win the Stanley Cup. Regier has a nifty list of lopsided trades and a team that -- after 15 years and with an owner spending all the money he can -- is ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE when it comes to winning a championship. That's nothing to be proud of. We had an owner spending everything he could for 15 years? its been one year. We had a team that could compete for the stanley cup and with an owner that wouldnt allow us to keep the two most important pieces. Now we are starting to build a contender but guess what after 4 years of being underwhelming it is going to take some time. Whether its DR or some other GM that tthey bring in doesnt matter, there is a strong core being built with a lot of young talent coming down the pipe.... IT TAKES TIME
Who Else? Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 Nothing, and no one is saying theres something wrong with it, just that Regier hasn't be able to do it for a long time. A good GM should be able to get atleast equal value in a trade, but thats not always the case, sometimes your dealing from a position of weakness and some moves may need to be made just for the sake of making the move Wasn't agrueing with the assessment of Regier. I rather agree. I just wanted to make that general point and use a quote with the word "fleecing" in it.
FolignosJock Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 Nothing, and no one is saying theres something wrong with it, just that Regier hasn't be able to do it for a long time. A good GM should be able to get atleast equal value in a trade, but thats not always the case, sometimes your dealing from a position of weakness and some moves may need to be made just for the sake of making the move There are a lot of GMs out there that dont agree with this mentality.... I would even say most of them would disagree. Making a move for the sake of it is how teams put themselves back years.
Robviously Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 We had an owner spending everything he could for 15 years? its been one year. We had a team that could compete for the stanley cup and with an owner that wouldnt allow us to keep the two most important pieces. Now we are starting to build a contender This is what "starting to build a contender" looks like? Playing the worst hockey in the league after getting an owner that let you spend more money than everyone else last summer?? Regier sucks. For all his fleecing, when has he ever traded a player when his value was at an all-time high? What is the gutsiest trade he ever made? He plays it safe, often makes one deal a year, and occasionally fleeces someone. So what? Team needs are never addressed and we're as far from contending as we've ever been. There are a lot of GMs out there that dont agree with this mentality.... I would even say most of them would disagree. Making a move for the sake of it is how teams put themselves back years. Like spending a ton of money on Ville Leino? Nothing, and no one is saying theres something wrong with it, just that Regier hasn't be able to do it for a long time. A good GM should be able to get atleast equal value in a trade, but thats not always the case, sometimes your dealing from a position of weakness and some moves may need to be made just for the sake of making the move Or some moves need to be made where you help the team without "fleecing" someone. It's OK to give something up to get something you need in return. But that takes guts. Regier doesn't have any.
apuszczalowski Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 We had an owner spending everything he could for 15 years? its been one year. We had a team that could compete for the stanley cup and with an owner that wouldnt allow us to keep the two most important pieces. Now we are starting to build a contender but guess what after 4 years of being underwhelming it is going to take some time. Whether its DR or some other GM that tthey bring in doesnt matter, there is a strong core being built with a lot of young talent coming down the pipe.... IT TAKES TIME The Sabres are not "Now starting to build a contender". Thats one of the dumbest statements I have heard on this board in a while. The guys everyones running out of town were the start of the build to a contender. We were saying the samething about those guys, "Strong Core" and the "young talent coming down the pipe" Where was the proof that the former owner would not let Darcy keep Briere and Drury? I don't ever remember hearing him, or Regier, or anyone else say that he didn't want them. Drury wanted the chance to play for his boyhood dream, and Darcy focused on trying to re-sign him while Briere almost begged the team to atleast make him an offer, which they finally did after he said he would test the market a few days before the start of FA because the Sabres didn't seem interested making him an offer. This team didn't need a full rebuild this offseason, they were already on their way to being a SC team, they just needed a few pieces, which DR failed to obtain
Weave Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 This team didn't need a full rebuild this offseason, they were already on their way to being a SC team, they just needed a few pieces, which DR failed to obtain I'll respectfully agree to disagree with this statement. Two different (and supposedly upgraded) defensemen and one forward added, otherwise it is the same team as last season. Are we still just a couple of pieces away in your mind?
nfreeman Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 Nothing, and no one is saying theres something wrong with it, just that Regier hasn't be able to do it for a long time. A good GM should be able to get atleast equal value in a trade, but thats not always the case, sometimes your dealing from a position of weakness and some moves may need to be made just for the sake of making the move Sometimes you also have to re-evaluate what you think a player is worth when you see what the market is willing to give up for it, instead of just holding on to it and waiting for someone to give you what you think its worth. Holding onto Roy didn't help this team, and it isn't helping Regier get a better deal for him. I'm sure the deal he may eventually have to make will be much less then what he was first offered What's with not using periods?
apuszczalowski Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 What's with not using periods? I used them, occasionally I'll respectfully agree to disagree with this statement. Two different (and supposedly upgraded) defensemen and one forward added, otherwise it is the same team as last season. Are we still just a couple of pieces away in your mind? Theres a difference between just adding players, and adding the right players. And just because Ehrhoff was signed for a lot of money, doesn't make him a great player. The problem this offseason was that they did not make the right moves. They didn't need another winger that they hoped could become a servicable Centre after never really seeing what he could do at the situation. Ehrhoff may have been the biggest name defencemen available, but talk to anyone in vancouver that watched him play and they would tell you he is good, but not great, and not worth anywhere near what Buffalo paid. They were fine with letting him go if he wouldn't come back for less then $3-4 mil a year.
FolignosJock Posted January 18, 2012 Report Posted January 18, 2012 I used them, occasionally Theres a difference between just adding players, and adding the right players. And just because Ehrhoff was signed for a lot of money, doesn't make him a great player. The problem this offseason was that they did not make the right moves. They didn't need another winger that they hoped could become a servicable Centre after never really seeing what he could do at the situation. Ehrhoff may have been the biggest name defencemen available, but talk to anyone in vancouver that watched him play and they would tell you he is good, but not great, and not worth anywhere near what Buffalo paid. They were fine with letting him go if he wouldn't come back for less then $3-4 mil a year. Yeah adding the right players is what they thought they were doing... Ehrhoff was a great defenseman on a really good team. We dont score so it is kinda hard for an offensive defenseman to look good. Scoring talent helped ehrhoff which we are missing. The Sabres are not "Now starting to build a contender". Thats one of the dumbest statements I have heard on this board in a while. The guys everyones running out of town were the start of the build to a contender. We were saying the samething about those guys, "Strong Core" and the "young talent coming down the pipe" Where was the proof that the former owner would not let Darcy keep Briere and Drury? I don't ever remember hearing him, or Regier, or anyone else say that he didn't want them. Drury wanted the chance to play for his boyhood dream, and Darcy focused on trying to re-sign him while Briere almost begged the team to atleast make him an offer, which they finally did after he said he would test the market a few days before the start of FA because the Sabres didn't seem interested making him an offer. This team didn't need a full rebuild this offseason, they were already on their way to being a SC team, they just needed a few pieces, which DR failed to obtain I remember saying we dont have depth at defense and we had a good young core back then but it lost its vital leadership. We are just starting to build a contender, we had one, we lost it and now it has to hapen all over again. I thought that the team that got booted the last two years was only a few pieces away but it isnt sadly.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.