LastPommerFan Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 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.......(1)not only is it that he doesn't know how to identify talented guys with heart, but (2)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. (1) This is the reason I would like to see him gone. (2) This is not a reason to get rid of him. Almost every employed person in the world does the exact same thing.
LGR4GM Posted February 21, 2012 Author Report Posted February 21, 2012 Not that I want into the middle of this argument but Darcy's true moment of epic fail was in 06 when he did not acquire a depth defensemen... 1 more vet defender and maybe we win game 7 against Carolina... and I have no doubt we beat Edmonton and yet Darcy is allowed to continue making poor decisions for this franchise.
Randall Flagg Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 The prospect of a playoff push that falls short is what scares people the most, because of the bad draft pick. However, with this team in near last place, Pegula still seems to believe that it is all okay, the injuries are to blame, keep everybody. Maybe a playoff push is what we need. We can all agree that if the sabres somehow get to eigth they will be destroyed by NY or Boston. I think a third straight first round loss would make Terry reconsider more than anything else that things need to change. If he can support Darcy/Lindy now, with the injuries as his buffer from reality, maybe a playoff drubbing will be what needs to wake him up, show him we aren't close to a cup. It would be a more painful way to look mediocre than sitting in 15th with a #2-3 pick, and could be a much needed catalyst. So I say let Darcy shed salary, and maybe bring back a player or two to help with the push towards eigth. And zubrus was a good player for us, that team wasn't going to win the cup anyway if the 05-06 team couldn't.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 (1) This is the reason I would like to see him gone. (2) This is not a reason to get rid of him. Almost every employed person in the world does the exact same thing. 2) Would you like to be operated on a doctor who just wants to just not have you die so you don't have a lawyer go after him? Or would you like a doctor that is going to be as aggressive as possible and has the talent to truly cure you, even if there is a chance of failure? Darcy is the perfect HOSPICE GM.
LastPommerFan Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 2) Would you like to be operated on a doctor who just wants to just not have you die so you don't have a lawyer go after him? Or would you like a doctor that is going to be as agressive as possible and has the talent to truly cure you, even if there is a chance of failure? Darcy is the perfect HOSPICE GM. Everyone would prefer the latter, everyone gets the former. Especially with doctors. It's in their oath. "Above all do no harm." I don't mean this as an attack on you personally, but that is a terrible example.
2ForTripping Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 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. no barrier, you seem to be missing the point but the Ghost points it out to you. as i said before Niles has 6 days to rid the team of dead weight and move forward. hopefully moving forward will be handing over the GM duites to someone new
korab rules Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 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. Your arguments are a leaf in the wind. Carry on. Why exactly are we talking about 2007 anyway? Have you seen what's happening lately?
Robviously Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 Your arguments are a leaf in the wind. Carry on. My first Zubrus mention was this: His brilliant move to put us over the top when we were trying to win the Cup in 2007 was acquiring Dainius Zubrus. Which is exactly what my last post was -- It didn't put us over the top. It wasn't enough. My argument is only inconsistent if you continue to imagine things that aren't there (e.g. that I said Zubrus was bad or a finesse player or whatever).
nfreeman Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 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. I have been calling for DR to be canned for a while. That doesn't mean that it's OK to rewrite his history as GM here. It's been pretty clearly established that TG/LQ were intimately involved in all contract decisions while they were on the scene, especially up to and including the Soupy debacle. And while I don't disagree that Bernier was a washout, the original sin in that trade was TG and LQ refusing to give Soupy the $5MM per year that he wanted in the summer of 2007, after he had been in the organization for TEN EFFING YEARS, only to realize their mistake and offer it to him 8 months later, when it was a day late and a dollar short. 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. But it's so much cooler to make stuff up! 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 Correct, although he wasn't worth what NJ paid him. 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. Also correct. 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. What does this mean? Do you really not think TG/LQ were calling the shots on Drury, Briere and Vanek?
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 Everyone would prefer the latter, everyone gets the former. Especially with doctors. It's in their oath. "Above all do no harm." I don't mean this as an attack on you personally, but that is a terrible example. No.....it's a good example. There are 30 NHL teams and each GM is making somewhere upwards of $1-2 million a year to do their job. They aren't making 30K as a data entry clerk or a shift manager at Wilson Farms. They SHOULD have a certain mindset which winning a championship is the goal, not just doing enough to make sure you aren't the worst of 30, but never doing enough to make sure you aren't the best of 30. That is Darcy's mindset. He is quite happy collecting his $20 million from the fans over the years with his goal of being somewhere between the 10th and 20th best at his job, and hoping for lightning in a bottle to strike and somehow everything goes right for a full season and you get a Cup. The doctor example is personal. If I listened to my doctors who were more worried about not making a mistake or punting on a decision so they don't get blamed, I would be dead, and they would have covered their butts. Luckily I went to Roswell for a second opinion a week later and the doctor said I'm on the operating table 6am the next morning. The other crew basically said "it could be cancer but keep an eye on it and get another scan in a few months". If I waited that few months, it probably would have reached my lungs and brain as it had already breached containment. Luckily I understood the first crew were being Darcys about it since if they operated and it wasn't cancer, I could have gone through a life altering proceedure for no reason. It was in his professional interest to punt. The guys at Roswell were more worried about ME than a possible malpractice. Sure, people Darcy it every day. Most people I would prefer to be safe and just not F-up their interactions with me. You need a different mindset when you play with the bigboys. Darcy has never shown that drive, save a 4th round pick for Ehrhoff and horribly frontloading a couple of contracts to get Pegula some skin in the game. Who knows, maybe Darcy didn't even want to do that, but if he was willing to be a pawn for Quinn, why wouldn't he give the new guy with full pockets some juice to keep him excited and maybe squeeze another year or two of employment for himself out of it?
korab rules Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 My first Zubrus mention was this: Which is exactly what my last post was -- It didn't put us over the top. It wasn't enough. My argument is only inconsistent if you continue to imagine things that aren't there (e.g. that I said Zubrus was bad or a finesse player or whatever). :rolleyes: What evs - the posts are there for everyone to read. So what available player did Darcy fail to add that would have put us over the top?
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 I have been calling for DR to be canned for a while. That doesn't mean that it's OK to rewrite his history as GM here. It's been pretty clearly established that TG/LQ were intimately involved in all contract decisions while they were on the scene, especially up to and including the Soupy debacle. And while I don't disagree that Bernier was a washout, the original sin in that trade was TG and LQ refusing to give Soupy the $5MM per year that he wanted in the summer of 2007, after he had been in the organization for TEN EFFING YEARS, only to realize their mistake and offer it to him 8 months later, when it was a day late and a dollar short. But it's so much cooler to make stuff up! Correct, although he wasn't worth what NJ paid him. Also correct. What does this mean? Do you really not think TG/LQ were calling the shots on Drury, Briere and Vanek? And Regier KNEW Briere wasn't in their plans and only he and not the fans knew Drury had been insulted by their pulling of the contract and reintroduction of the same terms, weeks later. That makes it an even bigger sin. The Sabres still managed to overpay half of their roster. You could have had Briere 5mil, Drury 5.5, Campbell 5, Dumont 2, Grier 1.5?, McKee 2.5, Pyatt 1 and 4 1st round draft picks for the same price as Connolly, Max, Hecht, Kotalik, Kalinin, Vanek. This is FACT! The Sabres under Golisano were always within 10% of the cap and sometime right up against it. I hate talking about this because it just reminds me of what a joke it is that he is still here.
SDS Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 And Regier KNEW Briere wasn't in their plans and only he and not the fans knew Drury had been insulted by their pulling of the contract and reintroduction of the same terms, weeks later. That makes it an even bigger sin. The Sabres still managed to overpay half of their roster. You could have had Briere 5mil, Drury 5.5, Campbell 5, Dumont 2, Grier 1.5?, McKee 2.5, Pyatt 1 and 4 1st round draft picks for the same price as Connolly, Max, Hecht, Kotalik, Kalinin, Vanek. This is FACT! The Sabres under Golisano were always within 10% of the cap and sometime right up against it. I hate talking about this because it just reminds me of what a joke it is that he is still here. Not quite fact. You don't know what the Oilers would have done given a different playing field. Also, it was Drury who pulled the offer off the table after the Sabres sat on it for weeks.
Robviously Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 Not quite fact. You don't know what the Oilers would have done given a different playing field. Also, it was Drury who pulled the offer off the table after the Sabres sat on it for weeks. This is the Sabres' side of the story. Drury and his agent contend that he agreed to an extension early in the 2006-2007 season but the Sabres got cold feet and never sent it over for him to sign. EDIT: This is the version of the story where the Sabres jilted Drury. If anything, this is the best example of TQ and TG both doing a terrible job and nullifying Regier's good work: http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Zeisberger/2008/09/21/6831601-sun.html
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 Not quite fact. You don't know what the Oilers would have done given a different playing field. Also, it was Drury who pulled the offer off the table after the Sabres sat on it for weeks. The Vanek thing is true as Edmonton smelled blood in the water. Drury......no, the Sabres and Drury agreed to a number and a contract was forthcoming. The Sabres did not present him anything concrete to sign until weeks later. Meanwhile the Sabres continued to go ballistic and Drury was doing great. Drury negotiated in good faith and the Sabres now knew "his" number. In a span of 2 weeks, Darcy could have shopped Drury to other teams with a number attached, could have talked to agents of other pending UFAs to feel around what ballpark it would take to get a guy, Drury could have cooled off or got injured......all the downside belonged to Drury with the Sabres waiting, The only leverage he had was to do what he eventually did and say..."Go stuff it! I'll go make more somewhere where they don't play games with their guys." Performance is fluid and worth goes with it. The list though is an example of how Darcy's decisions over a 2 year period pretty much put us where we are today. I don't think Pegula really followed the team much then, and when he came in didn't want to take all that into account as he views himself as a fresh start and everything will be better. Well, those were all decisions Darcy made on what accounted for pretty much 70% of a roster. Other than Roy and Lydman, you could pretty much say just about every other decision was not that wise. Drury and McKee didn't fire longterm, but they did so for 50% higher salary than Darcy could have had them locked up at. As a whole, it was a crappy bunch of dominoes that fell.
Who Else? Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 no barrier, you seem to be missing the point but the Ghost points it out to you. as i said before Niles has 6 days to rid the team of dead weight and move forward. hopefully moving forward will be handing over the GM duites to someone new You're Niles reference is a bit dated. I like to think of him more as Toby from the Office.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 This is the Sabres' side of the story. Drury and his agent contend that he agreed to an extension early in the 2006-2007 season but the Sabres got cold feet and never sent it over for him to sign. EDIT: This is the version of the story where the Sabres jilted Drury. If anything, this is the best example of TQ and TG both doing a terrible job and nullifying Regier's good work: http://slam.canoe.ca...831601-sun.html :sick: :sick: :wallbash: :wallbash: :doh: :doh: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:
Who Else? Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 Bottom line is this team was both really good and fun to watch. DR LR LQ TG disassembled that team when they were only a few moves away from a true cup contender, and have not offered us anything in return. For that they should all be gone. The two most difficult pieces to subtract are already gone.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 This is the Sabres' side of the story. Drury and his agent contend that he agreed to an extension early in the 2006-2007 season but the Sabres got cold feet and never sent it over for him to sign. EDIT: This is the version of the story where the Sabres jilted Drury. If anything, this is the best example of TQ and TG both doing a terrible job and nullifying Regier's good work: http://slam.canoe.ca...831601-sun.html Enjoyed the article. Especially the part about Miller's new long-term contract that "should look like a bargain when it reaches it's final stages" ... :w00t: .
SDS Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 The Vanek thing is true as Edmonton smelled blood in the water. Drury......no, the Sabres and Drury agreed to a number and a contract was forthcoming. The Sabres did not present him anything concrete to sign until weeks later. Meanwhile the Sabres continued to go ballistic and Drury was doing great. Drury negotiated in good faith and the Sabres now knew "his" number. In a span of 2 weeks, Darcy could have shopped Drury to other teams with a number attached, could have talked to agents of other pending UFAs to feel around what ballpark it would take to get a guy, Drury could have cooled off or got injured......all the downside belonged to Drury with the Sabres waiting, The only leverage he had was to do what he eventually did and say..."Go stuff it! I'll go make more somewhere where they don't play games with their guys." Performance is fluid and worth goes with it. The list though is an example of how Darcy's decisions over a 2 year period pretty much put us where we are today. I don't think Pegula really followed the team much then, and when he came in didn't want to take all that into account as he views himself as a fresh start and everything will be better. Well, those were all decisions Darcy made on what accounted for pretty much 70% of a roster. Other than Roy and Lydman, you could pretty much say just about every other decision was not that wise. Drury and McKee didn't fire longterm, but they did so for 50% higher salary than Darcy could have had them locked up at. As a whole, it was a crappy bunch of dominoes that fell. I don't know what you are saying about Vanek. Yes, Edmonton smelled blood in the water, but if the Sabres did what you said they SHOULD/COULD have done then there would be no "blood in the water". So, are you agreeing with me that the circumstances would have been different leading to an ambiguous outcome? Also, I don't know what you are saying about Drury either. I refuted your earlier characterization, but agree mostly with your latter version. Drury tabled his offer in the fall after the Sabres sat on a verbal agreement. Then only in the summer??? did they revist the contract again. This is the Sabres' side of the story. Drury and his agent contend that he agreed to an extension early in the 2006-2007 season but the Sabres got cold feet and never sent it over for him to sign. How is this different than what I wrote?
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 I don't know what you are saying about Vanek. Yes, Edmonton smelled blood in the water, but if the Sabres did what you said they SHOULD/COULD have done then there would be no "blood in the water". So, are you agreeing with me that the circumstances would have been different leading to an ambiguous outcome? Also, I don't know what you are saying about Drury either. I refuted your earlier characterization, but agree mostly with your latter version. Drury tabled his offer in the fall after the Sabres sat on a verbal agreement. Then only in the summer??? did they revist the contract again I agree with you on Vanek. If the Sabres did the prudent thing and had signed all the others at discounted rates from what they ended up getting elsewhere, Edmonton wouldn't sense weakness and probably doesn't come with a sheet. Everything else though is stone cold, and by doing so, it led to overpaying Vanek and having to sit on their hands and avoid a fan revolt instead of taking the picks. I understood at the time they HAD to sign Vanek, but they did it to themselves. Kobe could have avoided giving his wife a $10 million jewelry gift for boinking that broad in the dupa, but he HAD to do it. It didn't work out for him long term either.
Robviously Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 How is this different than what I wrote? Maybe it's not. I thought you were saying the deal was agreed to, but Drury balked at the last minute when it was on the table. Based on what you just wrote above, I think we're saying the same things (i.e. the deal never made it to Drury and he gave up on them).
nfreeman Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 This has devolved into a whole lotta talking past each other. My bottom line is that while I firmly believe that TG/LQ, and NOT Darcy, were responsible for the 2006 and 2007 debacles (including pretty much all of the decisions on Drury, Briere, Soupy, Vanek, Grier, McKee, Dumont, Max, Connolly, Roy, etc.), Darcy has been more or less in charge since the summer of 2008 and the rebuild hasn't worked. He gave big contracts to his guys -- Miller, Pommer, Hecht, Gaustad and Stafford -- and they collectively delivered a pathetic game 7 run for the bus last year in the playoffs and the most disappointing performance in the NHL this year. There's an ongoing lack of heart and determination that leads to continual failure at key inflection points. It's not good enough. He's accountable. It's time for someone else to take over the construction of this roster.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 This has devolved into a whole lotta talking past each other. My bottom line is that while I firmly believe that TG/LQ, and NOT Darcy, were responsible for the 2006 and 2007 debacles (including pretty much all of the decisions on Drury, Briere, Soupy, Vanek, Grier, McKee, Dumont, Max, Connolly, Roy, etc.), Darcy has been more or less in charge since the summer of 2008 and the rebuild hasn't worked. He gave big contracts to his guys -- Miller, Pommer, Hecht, Gaustad and Stafford -- and they collectively delivered a pathetic game 7 run for the bus last year in the playoffs and the most disappointing performance in the NHL this year. There's an ongoing lack of heart and determination that leads to continual failure at key inflection points. It's not good enough. He's accountable. It's time for someone else to take over the construction of this roster. Eh....it's the same reason a court will convict Jeffrey Dahlmer for things like unlawful entrapment and obstruction of justice. He's going away for life for making a Billy Sandwich, but it's all part of building the case.
nfreeman Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 Eh....it's the same reason a court will convict Jeffrey Dahlmer for things like unlawful entrapment and obstruction of justice. He's going away for life for making a Billy Sandwich, but it's all part of building the case. Well, just 'cause there's not much else worth discussing: if a major part of the case that is presented is flawed, there's a real risk that the jury gets hung up on a catchy rhyme ("if it doesn't fit, you must acquit") relating to that part of the case, resulting in the baby getting drained with the bathwater, and the wrong result may obtain. So here, if those arguing to can DR get hung up on past actions that are likely attributable to TG/LQ, the risk is that TP says to himself "that stuff was TG/LQ, not DR, so I'm keeping DR" -- and ignores the fact that DR can fairly (IMHO) be held accountable for the unacceptable results we've seen since October 2008.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.