Buyers or Sellers?

[apuszczalowski]

Well, there are quite a few mistakes in this proposition. They also got draft picks in the Soupy trade that turned into Ennis and Rivet. And they weren't "sellers" in the sense that they are this year -- i.e. not because the team was obviously going to miss the playoffs. They were "sellers" solely with respect to Soupy because he was a pending UFA.

 

Most importantly, the fact that they traded Soupy was almost certainly due to TG/LQ incompetence, not DR's decisions.

So basically the Sabres traded Soupy away for Ennis a few seasons later

[Who Else?]

I just hope the Sabres figure it out soon. The silver lining this year for being sellers, is having renewed interest in other teams. I don't know if its just me, whether it is Gaustad Roy Stafford or whoever on another team, I will be more likely to watch that team.

 

We don't get much exposure to the western teams, but if one of the Sabres gets moved to say San Jose, I'd be way more into rooting for or against them against Calgary in the playoffs, which would be a series I normally wouldn't turn on.

[Patty16]

The plan is to win the Cup in three years. This doesnt involve trading assets for picks, unless you need those picks to trade for another player.

The issue so far has not been DRs willingness to seek a deal, its that there is some hesitation league wide. Kinda like waiting for that new TV to drop to the right price, even though you want it now.

The Sabres do need some scoring help, and help at the Center position. There is no need for a "true #1" center, whatever that is, it takes a lot more than that. Its like the mystical "franchise qb" on the Bills board, although that position is far more important.

That being said, I dont see the Sabres beoming sellers, it doesnt fit into their grand scheme when the club was purchased. The drive to be a first class winning organization is very strong. I also dont see trading impending FAs as being sellers per se.

[apuszczalowski]

The plan is to win the Cup in three years. This doesnt involve trading assets for picks, unless you need those picks to trade for another player.

The issue so far has not been DRs willingness to seek a deal, its that there is some hesitation league wide. Kinda like waiting for that new TV to drop to the right price, even though you want it now.

The Sabres do need some scoring help, and help at the Center position. There is no need for a "true #1" center, whatever that is, it takes a lot more than that. Its like the mystical "franchise qb" on the Bills board, although that position is far more important.

That being said, I dont see the Sabres beoming sellers, it doesnt fit into their grand scheme when the club was purchased. The drive to be a first class winning organization is very strong. I also dont see trading impending FAs as being sellers per se.

You can be buyers and sellers at the same time too. Why can't the Sabres (well, besides the fact that DR is the GM) make moves to send off Roy and Stafford, and use the returns from those deals along with maybe some prospects to go out and deal for some help now too? Also, I don't have a problem moving Roy and Stafford in exchange for another player that the other team feels might nedd a change of scenery too, like Sam Gagner of the Oilers?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Wasn't Jillson brought in at the deadline for defensive dpeth?

 

Nope. He was on the roster all year and played 2 games for the Sabres during the regular season. The only trade at, or near, the deadline was Noronen to Vancouver for a 2nd round pick in the 2006 draft.

[korab rules]

 

His brilliant move to put us over the top when we were trying to win the Cup in 2007 was acquiring Dainius Zubrus. This is the guy you're trusting to make the right moves now?

 

 

Zubrus was a great pick up and played very, very well until he got hurt. Too bad the teams finances at the time precluded us from resigning him. He has been a steady player ever since.

[Patty16]

You can be buyers and sellers at the same time too. Why can't the Sabres (well, besides the fact that DR is the GM) make moves to send off Roy and Stafford, and use the returns from those deals along with maybe some prospects to go out and deal for some help now too? Also, I don't have a problem moving Roy and Stafford in exchange for another player that the other team feels might nedd a change of scenery too, like Sam Gagner of the Oilers?

 

Right. I agree.

I have the impression there will be more moves this deadline from the Sabres than in years past. I wouldnt be surprised to see Roy Staff and Gaustad gone. Really will anyone notice ?

[Robviously]

Well, there are quite a few mistakes in this proposition. They also got draft picks in the Soupy trade that turned into Ennis and Rivet. And they weren't "sellers" in the sense that they are this year -- i.e. not because the team was obviously going to miss the playoffs. They were "sellers" solely with respect to Soupy because he was a pending UFA.

 

Most importantly, the fact that they traded Soupy was almost certainly due to TG/LQ incompetence, not DR's decisions.

There are mistakes in your proposition. They got draft picks when they traded Bernier -- after his incredible 17 game run in Buffalo -- and then they traded those draft picks for Rivet (which also didn't work out).

 

The bottom line is that Brian Campbell was one of the top players available at the deadline and the centerpiece of what we got in return for him lasted 17 games before we realized he was a terrible fit and moved him, in effect, for a past-his-prime defenseman.

 

Also, there's no evidence that that trade was due to TQ or TG. Darcy had to move an asset that teams wanted and got the wrong young player in return. I doubt Quinn or Golisano was telling Regier which young player or prospect to target when moving Campbell. But let's go on believing that everything Regier ever did wrong was someone else's fault while everything he ever did right was because he's a brilliant hockey mind.

 

Zubrus was a great pick up and played very, very well until he got hurt. Too bad the teams finances at the time precluded us from resigning him. He has been a steady player ever since.

He's not a bad player but was completely wrong for what the 2007 Sabres needed to make a run. We basically tried to win the Cup with an all-star team of finesse players that year. A gritty, veteran like Mark Recchi would have worked wonders. (Recchi wouldn't have been available and I can't remember who would have been in March 2007, but you get the idea.)

 

In any event, it didn't work. The Ottawa series lasted 6 games but we were outmatched form the outset.

 

The plan is to win the Cup in three years.

There's nothing magical about that three years timeline though. It's just something Pegula said when he bought the team. And I doubt he said that after meeting with Regier and Ruff and formulating a plan for exactly how to do it.

 

I don't think it's realistic for the Sabres to ADD to Roy, Gaustad, Stafford, Miller, Vanek, Pominville, etc. and somehow end up the best team in hockey two seasons from now. I DO think it's possible that they build around Myers, Kassia, Adam, Ennis, Foligno, McNabb, etc. with the prospects they already have and some new young players to build a contender with veterans like Pominville and Vanek around.

[shrader]

The 1st round pick was the center piece. Those are always the highest valued pieces in deadline deals.

[Patty16]

There are mistakes in your proposition. They got draft picks when they traded Bernier -- after his incredible 17 game run in Buffalo -- and then they traded those draft picks for Rivet (which also didn't work out).

 

The bottom line is that Brian Campbell was one of the top players available at the deadline and the centerpiece of what we got in return for him lasted 17 games before we realized he was a terrible fit and moved him, in effect, for a past-his-prime defenseman.

 

Also, there's no evidence that that trade was due to TQ or TG. Darcy had to move an asset that teams wanted and got the wrong young player in return. I doubt Quinn or Golisano was telling Regier which young player or prospect to target when moving Campbell. But let's go on believing that everything Regier ever did wrong was someone else's fault while everything he ever did right was because he's a brilliant hockey mind.

 

 

He's not a bad player but was completely wrong for what the 2007 Sabres needed to make a run. We basically tried to win the Cup with an all-star team of finesse players that year. A gritty, veteran like Mark Recchi would have worked wonders. (Recchi wouldn't have been available and I can't remember who would have been in March 2007, but you get the idea.)

 

In any event, it didn't work. The Ottawa series lasted 6 games but we were outmatched form the outset.

 

 

There's nothing magical about that three years timeline though. It's just something Pegula said when he bought the team. And I doubt he said that after meeting with Regier and Ruff and formulating a plan for exactly how to do it.

 

I don't think it's realistic for the Sabres to ADD to Roy, Gaustad, Stafford, Miller, Vanek, Pominville, etc. and somehow end up the best team in hockey two seasons from now. I DO think it's possible that they build around Myers, Kassia, Adam, Ennis, Foligno, McNabb, etc. with the prospects they already have and some new young players to build a contender with veterans like Pominville and Vanek around.

to add?

I understand three years was arbitrary, although Terry strikes me as a guy whos says what he means.

I dont have a ton of faith in the younger kids, you need experience in the playoffs. Kassian had some quick flashes in the pan, and looks out of place now. Foligno is still in the American league. McNabb looks like a gamer.

[korab rules]

He's [Zubrus] not a bad player but was completely wrong for what the 2007 Sabres needed to make a run. We basically tried to win the Cup with an all-star team of finesse players that year. A gritty, veteran like Mark Recchi would have worked wonders. (Recchi wouldn't have been available and I can't remember who would have been in March 2007, but you get the idea.)

 

Zubrus a finesse player? He was a big checking center who could score - he played against the other team's top lines and did a great job. There were problems with the way that team was constructed, but Zubrus was an attempt to address that, not part of the problem. He hurt his knee in the Rangers seroies, and wasn't the same after that - he played hurt in games 1-3 against Ottawa, played only 4 minutes in game 4 and was out for game 5.

 

You can make your argument about Regier without mis-stating the record on his best deadline pickup after the lockout. He also had some good pickups in the the 98 and 99 seasons, but feel free to ignore those as well. Also, the Moore trade may have worked out better had he not broken his hand/wrist shortly after he arrived.

[Robviously]

Zubrus a finesse player? He was a big checking center who could score - he played against the other team's top lines and did a great job. There were problems with the way that team was constructed, but Zubrus was an attempt to address that, not part of the problem.

Yes, Zubrus was an attempt to address those needs (and obviously not another finesse player) but he didn't. That's not his fault; he is what he is. But we were trying to win it all that year and we picked the wrong guy to put us over the top.

[korab rules]

Yes, Zubrus was an attempt to address those needs (and obviously not another finesse player) but he didn't. That's not his fault; he is what he is. But we were trying to win it all that year and we picked the wrong guy to put us over the top.

What? This makes no sense at all, but then again, you are on a rant where facts just get in the way, so go ahead with your bad self.

[Robviously]

What? This makes no sense at all, but then again, you are on a rant where facts just get in the way, so go ahead with your bad self.

I'm saying he was an attempt to address the team's needs but not enough to address those needs. I'm not sure why this confuses you.

[2ForTripping]

Yes, Zubrus was an attempt to address those needs (and obviously not another finesse player) but he didn't. That's not his fault; he is what he is. But we were trying to win it all that year and we picked the wrong guy to put us over the top.

who should he have grabbed and this is Darcy we are dealing with so be realistic. who instead if Zubrus should he have picked up. Zubrus played 34 games total that year for the Sabs. He had 16 total points and was a solid physical presence. He OWNED Jagr in the Ranger series. Zubrus did well as a deadline pick up and I was disappointed when they didn't retain him

[Robviously]

who should he have grabbed and this is Darcy we are dealing with so be realistic. who instead if Zubrus should he have picked up. Zubrus played 34 games total that year for the Sabs. He had 16 total points and was a solid physical presence. He OWNED Jagr in the Ranger series. Zubrus did well as a deadline pick up and I was disappointed when they didn't retain him

You're asking me to go back in time five years to figure out which players were available for trades in March 2007? As I already said, I don't remember who was on all 30 NHL teams and which teams would have been looking to move players for future assets. I also have no idea how I'm supposed to "be realistic" and do this from Darcy's point of view.

 

Again, I don't have a problem with Zubrus as a player. But if ever there was a year to go all out and load up for a playoff run, it was 2007. Acquiring Zubrus wasn't enough.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

who should he have grabbed and this is Darcy we are dealing with so be realistic. who instead if Zubrus should he have picked up. Zubrus played 34 games total that year for the Sabs. He had 16 total points and was a solid physical presence. He OWNED Jagr in the Ranger series. Zubrus did well as a deadline pick up and I was disappointed when they didn't retain him

 

I will tell you who. He could have had Gary Roberts for a 2nd or someone like McArthur or Paille who were given up on a few years later.

 

He could have had Bill Guerin for Stafford and a top pick.

 

This trade deadline was my true start of disliking Regier for being a weasel. He had every right to let Afinogenov and Connolly stay on LTIR and add salary. Then you could have played EVRYONE in the playoffs as there was no cap. He came out in public stating that they would be healthy soon, thus eliminating adding salary. Afinogenov had just been diagnosed with a broken wrist and was projected out INTO the playoffs. Connolly was riding a stationary bike and hadn't played in almost a year.

 

Zubrus was fine to add, but in typical Darcy fashion, there were gritty, hardened forwards with talent out there, and even though he knew that would be their last real chance because Briere was leaving and he knew Drury wasn't happy about being jerked around with his contract, he chose to make a tinker instead of going for it. That's all I needed to see to truly understand he was only worried about his own job security, and not serious about bringing a championship to the city.

[2ForTripping]

You're asking me to go back in time five years to figure out which players were available for trades in March 2007? As I already said, I don't remember who was on all 30 NHL teams and which teams would have been looking to move players for future assets. I also have no idea how I'm supposed to "be realistic" and do this from Darcy's point of view.

 

Again, I don't have a problem with Zubrus as a player. But if ever there was a year to go all out and load up for a playoff run, it was 2007. Acquiring Zubrus wasn't enough.

you are the cat claiming darcy didn't do enough so i'd figure you'd have your ducks in a row before pontificating he didn't do enough

[LastPommerFan]

I will tell you who. He could have had Gary Roberts for a 2nd or someone like McArthur or Paille who were given up on a few years later.

 

He could have had Bill Guerin for Stafford and a top pick.

 

This trade deadline was my true start of disliking Regier for being a weasel. He had every right to let Afinogenov and Connolly stay on LTIR and add salary. Then you could have played EVRYONE in the playoffs as there was no cap. He came out in public stating that they would be healthy soon, thus eliminating adding salary. Afinogenov had just been diagnosed with a broken wrist and was projected out INTO the playoffs. Connolly was riding a stationary bike and hadn't played in almost a year.

 

Zubrus was fine to add, but in typical Darcy fashion, there were gritty, hardened forwards with talent out there, and even though he knew that would be their last real chance because Briere was leaving and he knew Drury wasn't happy about being jerked around with his contract, he chose to make a tinker instead of going for it. That's all I needed to see to truly understand he was only worried about his own job security, and not serious about bringing a championship to the city.

 

Your saying that in 2007 Darcy had the ability to pay 2 multi-million dollar players to stay on IR and then add several more multi-million dollar salaries?

 

You can claim he should have resigned in protest, but it is a suspension of disbelief I am not willing to take to believe that that was an option more than 364 days ago.

[Robviously]

you are the cat claiming darcy didn't do enough so i'd figure you'd have your ducks in a row before pontificating he didn't do enough

Maybe there's a language barrier here, but you're missing the point.

 

1. We know he didn't do enough because we didn't win the Cup that year.

2. Did anyone actually think we would be unstoppable after we got Zubrus? Everyone liked him but was that the move to put us over the top? I don't remember feeling that way or hearing anyone else feel that way.

3. Yes, I'm sure if I dedicated the rest of the afternoon to researching the NHL in 2007, I'm sure I could come up with some names to target. But that's not really a good use of my time (or anyone's time). It's safe to say there were players available that we could have used; presumably the same types of players that Regier has never managed to bring into the organization in his 15 years.

[korab rules]

This

I'm saying he was an attempt to address the team's needs but not enough to address those needs. I'm not sure why this confuses you.

 

Is totally inconsistant with this:

He's not a bad player but was completely wrong for what the 2007 Sabres needed to make a run. We basically tried to win the Cup with an all-star team of finesse players that year. A gritty, veteran like Mark Recchi would have worked wonders. (Recchi wouldn't have been available and I can't remember who would have been in March 2007, but you get the idea.)

 

Which is why I am confused. You shift your claims when evidence comes up to refute it so that you can continue claiming Regier sucks. First, they needed toughness to win, and he added Zubrus - Darcy sucks!

 

When people point out that Zubrus was exactly what you say Darcy should have added, he wasn't enough toughness - so Darcy still sucks!

 

We get it - you think Darcy sucks. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to demonstrate this. You should raise some of them instead of claiming that everything Darcy has ever done sucks, because its simply not true.

[shrader]

Why exactly are we talking about 2007 anyway?

[Robviously]

This

 

 

Is totally inconsistant with this:

 

 

Which is why I am confused. You shift your claims when evidence comes up to refute it so that you can continue claiming Regier sucks. First, they needed toughness to win, and he added Zubrus - Darcy sucks!

 

When people point out that Zubrus was exactly what you say Darcy should have added, he wasn't enough toughness - so Darcy still sucks!

 

We get it - you think Darcy sucks. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to demonstrate this. You should raise some of them instead of claiming that everything Darcy has ever done sucks, because its simply not true.

My problem isn't that we added Zubrus, it's that we ONLY added Zubrus. The year we were trying to win it all.

 

Please continue to feign confusion.

[LastPommerFan]

Why exactly are we talking about 2007 anyway?

 

Because it was the last season that didn't include a long stretch that resembled a McCarthy's "The Road"?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Your saying that in 2007 Darcy had the ability to pay 2 multi-million dollar players to stay on IR and then add several more multi-million dollar salaries?

 

You can claim he should have resigned in protest, but it is a suspension of disbelief I am not willing to take to believe that that was an option more than 364 days ago.

 

He would have had to pay them for 6 weeks. In the playoffs, the team doesn't pay a lick. Every guy makes the same and it is a built in formula from the NHL.

 

Roberts wasn't making much. It would have been $500K. Gurin was more of an investment, but I firmly believe with both those guys on the team.....the Sabres would have been true favorites and not paper tigers.

 

It was all about NOT getting rid of Stafford, Paille, MacArthur, etc., because he needed cheap bodies to fill out the roster going forward as 7 good-great free agents will have left him between July 1, 2006 and July 1, 2007. He then went on to hand out inflated deals to Connolly, Hecht, Kalinin, Max, Kotalik, then broke the bank on Vanek. How anyone can defend this guy with a straight face.......not only is it that he doesn't know how to identify talented guys with heart, but he is willing to choose his spots in order to protect his job. He knew full well what was coming that summer and he bet $2 to Show instead of $100 to win. That is Darcy in a nutshell.

 

Why exactly are we talking about 2007 anyway?

 

Pegula had no clue what happened back then. I wish in hindsight I got to him and was able to give a 20-30 minute presentation on the history of Regier. Maybe he would better understand why much of the fanbase wants to kill themselves right now instead of listen to the excuses and tapdancing from this franchise.