Buyers or Sellers?

[Who Else?]

St. Louis traded coaches, they should come off of the list.

 

I thought the Isles just made a trade as well.

 

According to TSN Isles have made zero traded in that timeline. You might be thinking of them extending Nielson.

 

If you go all the way back to the beginning of the season, the Sabres and Islanders are the only teams w/o a trade.

[LTS]

It's not year one, it's year 15. When you retain the Status Quo you don't get the benefit of a clean slate, the clock keeps ticking.

 

Reading posts from the Sunshine and Kitten brigade is like watching an episode of Hoarders, they'll talk about needing change but as soon as you try to throw out one box of jars filled with dead flies they get all spastic.

 

This franchise is going nowhere until they actually commit to change, another season of talk and half measures means nothing. You can't hide the core behind paint, rugs and token gestures and expect all fans to buy it. There will always be those fans that eat it up, other fans will know better.

 

You are going to continue to disagree. In Years 1-14 a contract like Leino's and a contract like Ehrhoff's were impossible. In Years 1-14 a trade for Regehr was no possible because Kotalik cost too much. It's Year 1 with different financial constraints.. are you ever going to acknowledge that?

 

You like to throw around all kinds of analogies "Sunshine and Kitten brigade".. seriously? You are impossible to have a discussion with. Stop lumping everyone who disagrees with your almighty position into one group. Part of me can't even believe I am responding to your post.. and in fact I will make sure it's the last time I do.

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more. They'll throw out excuses like Larry Quinn was carrying Darcys purse so Darcy couldn't accomplish the goal of winning the cup yet they'll also say this is year 1 and all those other years of failure don't count. Which is it ? Year 1 or year 15.

 

What the hell does this statement even mean? Who;s they? It has been established.. time, and time again, that Darcy had financial motives he had to adhere to for the team under Golisano and Quinn. No long term contracts for awhile, make the playoffs for revenue, so on and so forth. That has changed. Golisano and Quinn acknowledged some of that but they were still pinching the budget everywhere. Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that?

 

*I* will say that there were constraints upon Darcy Regier in what he was able to do and not able to do. Years of failure are years of failure. For 14 years the leadership team of the Sabres has not won the cup.. wait, no, scratch that. For 40 years the leadership team of the Sabres has not won the Stanley Cup. They are all failures, all of them. However, in Year 15, the leadership group of the Buffalo Sabres changed. So I guess, what, to you, constitutes a leadership change? Does it matter when the owner and team president change or not? Does it only matter when the GM changes? Only when the coach changes? Only if both change? Only if ALL of them change? Which is it?

 

So, for 40 years (and about to be 41) the fans of the Buffalo Sabres have seen their team fail at winning a Stanley Cup. We should just give up. Scotty Bowman couldn't win a cup with this team, Punch Imlach couldn't either. Rick Dudley failed and some people want him for GM. He clearly sucks.. he couldn't coach players why think he can pick them.. after all, in Atlanta it was a different leadership group.. or was it?

 

So please, explain whatever the hell your comment meant.

[bunomatic]

You are going to continue to disagree. In Years 1-14 a contract like Leino's and a contract like Ehrhoff's were impossible. In Years 1-14 a trade for Regehr was no possible because Kotalik cost too much. It's Year 1 with different financial constraints.. are you ever going to acknowledge that?

 

You like to throw around all kinds of analogies "Sunshine and Kitten brigade".. seriously? You are impossible to have a discussion with. Stop lumping everyone who disagrees with your almighty position into one group. Part of me can't even believe I am responding to your post.. and in fact I will make sure it's the last time I do.

 

 

 

 

 

What the hell does this statement even mean? Who;s they? It has been established.. time, and time again, that Darcy had financial motives he had to adhere to for the team under Golisano and Quinn. No long term contracts for awhile, make the playoffs for revenue, so on and so forth. That has changed. Golisano and Quinn acknowledged some of that but they were still pinching the budget everywhere. Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that?

 

*I* will say that there were constraints upon Darcy Regier in what he was able to do and not able to do. Years of failure are years of failure. For 14 years the leadership team of the Sabres has not won the cup.. wait, no, scratch that. For 40 years the leadership team of the Sabres has not won the Stanley Cup. They are all failures, all of them. However, in Year 15, the leadership group of the Buffalo Sabres changed. So I guess, what, to you, constitutes a leadership change? Does it matter when the owner and team president change or not? Does it only matter when the GM changes? Only when the coach changes? Only if both change? Only if ALL of them change? Which is it?

 

So, for 40 years (and about to be 41) the fans of the Buffalo Sabres have seen their team fail at winning a Stanley Cup. We should just give up. Scotty Bowman couldn't win a cup with this team, Punch Imlach couldn't either. Rick Dudley failed and some people want him for GM. He clearly sucks.. he couldn't coach players why think he can pick them.. after all, in Atlanta it was a different leadership group.. or was it?

 

So please, explain whatever the hell your comment meant.

 

Boy you sure told me. I feel so scolded. Try and calm down! Its not that hard. Sunshine and kittens either blame Darcys ineptitude on his bosses of the past 14 years or they say that doesn't really count anymore because we are starting over at year 1 because there is a new owner. Thats all I was saying. I'll repeat myself to get your panties in a real knot. Darcy has failed 14 times to bring home the hardware. This is his 15th attempt. I also agreed with what the other poster said. Is that what upset you. I agreed with DeLuca. Or was it that I formed my own opinion? You see what I did there? I said it was just my opinion.

[qwksndmonster]

There's black and there's white. If you're not on my side then you are on the OPPOSITE side with everyone else. Snide condescension isn't as fun to read as it is to write.

 

Oh please god let us be sellers.

[TheChimp]

If The Sabres brass is all about building a team over the long term to win the Cup in a couple years, then they will use any and all windows of opportunity to subtract players they don't see fitting into the picture (and they should know by now, a year in, which of their current roster in Buffalo and Rochester fall into the "sell" category). They don't control the other teams' decisions on any players out there that the Sabres brass covet, but they Do control who they feel definitely has to go to make room for those players. So, the more windows that open, like this trade deadline, where they don't make any moves, the more we can assume that they feel they have very few players that need to be removed.

 

And even after 15 years of trying and failing, I will still concede that perhaps they know better than I do about these things.

 

All I know is, I'm sick of about half of this team and its management. They are gutless and risk-averting in almost every way, both the team on the ice and the front office in everything they do. So I don't care if THEY think they are just another year or two away from winning the Cup, I'm willing to concede that getting rid of a bunch of them, along with the GM and HC, might set us back even farther. I don't care anymore, and am willing to take that chance. Because I want to be pumped up by my team. I want to be proud of their work ethic and blue-collar, blood-sweat-and-tears attitude and I want to be floored by their ballsy, risk-taking front office, geared to win that damned Cup EVERY October.

 

This team, aside from a small handful of players, bores me to tears.

 

SELL.

[deluca67]

You are going to continue to disagree. In Years 1-14 a contract like Leino's and a contract like Ehrhoff's were impossible. In Years 1-14 a trade for Regehr was no possible because Kotalik cost too much. It's Year 1 with different financial constraints.. are you ever going to acknowledge that?

 

You like to throw around all kinds of analogies "Sunshine and Kitten brigade".. seriously? You are impossible to have a discussion with. Stop lumping everyone who disagrees with your almighty position into one group. Part of me can't even believe I am responding to your post.. and in fact I will make sure it's the last time I do.

 

 

 

 

 

What the hell does this statement even mean? Who;s they? It has been established.. time, and time again, that Darcy had financial motives he had to adhere to for the team under Golisano and Quinn. No long term contracts for awhile, make the playoffs for revenue, so on and so forth. That has changed. Golisano and Quinn acknowledged some of that but they were still pinching the budget everywhere. Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that?

 

*I* will say that there were constraints upon Darcy Regier in what he was able to do and not able to do. Years of failure are years of failure. For 14 years the leadership team of the Sabres has not won the cup.. wait, no, scratch that. For 40 years the leadership team of the Sabres has not won the Stanley Cup. They are all failures, all of them. However, in Year 15, the leadership group of the Buffalo Sabres changed. So I guess, what, to you, constitutes a leadership change? Does it matter when the owner and team president change or not? Does it only matter when the GM changes? Only when the coach changes? Only if both change? Only if ALL of them change? Which is it?

 

So, for 40 years (and about to be 41) the fans of the Buffalo Sabres have seen their team fail at winning a Stanley Cup. We should just give up. Scotty Bowman couldn't win a cup with this team, Punch Imlach couldn't either. Rick Dudley failed and some people want him for GM. He clearly sucks.. he couldn't coach players why think he can pick them.. after all, in Atlanta it was a different leadership group.. or was it?

 

So please, explain whatever the hell your comment meant.

All that extra money spent by the Sabres has proven that money wasn't the issue with Regier as many have tried to hold onto. It doesn't matter how much Pegula is willing to spend if Regier is the person spending it. Misspent funds and missed opportunities is the legacy of Darcy Regier, it has been for 15 years now. No amount of Pegula's money will wash that away.

[RazielSabre]

It's funny that the Sunshine and Kitten crew has no problem telling Team Stormcloud that they shouldn't feel the way they feel, but when it is turned the other way, little Kitty's panties always get in a bunch.

 

For the record, I was never angry at LTS. He himself has stated that he doesn't get that worked up if they win or lose. I was just asking, in a somewhat hyperbolic way, what it would take for him to actually get mad and question the Sabres management, because anytime anyone has questioned Ruff or Darcy in the last week they have been called all sorts of things begining with batsh!t crazy.

 

The last time I went to a Sabres game, under my jersey I had a T-shirt that said Darcy is a DooDoo Head. It was awesome.

I don't post on here anywhere near as much because the subjects, posters and complaints never change. If you're telling me this place has gone from 'DR and LR should be shot' to 'they're great' I will be surprised. I'm not calling you a liar, but It'd be interesting to know.

 

For the record I want DR, LR, Stafford, Mccormick and Leopold gone. If we get something good for Weber as well take him. Boyes and Gausted are available as rentals, resign Goose but leave Boyes to find a new home. Prepare for next season by getting a couple of character players, people like Grier or Drury because imho we really do miss that 'never quit' attitude.

 

Also I get angry about this alot, but management hear us and ignore us. Stating 'we having given DR/LR enough time' or 'no-one wants our sorry ass players' as an excuse.

[LastPommerFan]

As a Member of Sunshine and Kittens, I would like to clarify that my personal position is that there are significant enough mitigating circumstances to believe that this roster with adjustments could be a contender.

 

I use these assumptions:

 

The Sabres have had greater than 50% more injury man-days than the statistical league wide historical average.

Defense takes significantly longer to adjust to new personnel than forwards, so the blue line will get better with time.

The Leino and Boyes contracts are both unmitigated disasters. But they can Both be gone next season. Walk away from Boyes and Kotalik the ###### out of leino.

 

I'm not going to lie to myself and act like Boyes and Leino are anything other than complete personnel misses by Regier. But on the same token, Regher and Erhoff are turning out to be really good value for the time being. Leino cost us nothing to sign, he has not NMC, he can't hurt the team next year unless they choose to let him.

 

The team is not there yet, but we're also not due for a implosion and overhaul. The healthy(ish) roster was/is pacing at 110ish points. That's a contender.

[LTS]

Boy you sure told me. I feel so scolded. Try and calm down! Its not that hard. Sunshine and kittens either blame Darcys ineptitude on his bosses of the past 14 years or they say that doesn't really count anymore because we are starting over at year 1 because there is a new owner. Thats all I was saying. I'll repeat myself to get your panties in a real knot. Darcy has failed 14 times to bring home the hardware. This is his 15th attempt. I also agreed with what the other poster said. Is that what upset you. I agreed with DeLuca. Or was it that I formed my own opinion? You see what I did there? I said it was just my opinion.

 

Yes, partially you jumped on the DeLuca bandwagon. One point. It's not an OR argument in my book. I blame some of the problems of the past 14 years on the financial constraints placed upon the GM. It's a a rather simple concept. You need X resources to win. Those X resources requires a system with Y capabilities. If you are given Z capabilities then you cannot hope to achieve X. The assumption is that Regier now has the Y capabilities to get X resources. If he suddenly goes out and gets F resources then he's an idiot. I'm not convinced he's gotten F resources, I know he has not gotten X resources yet.

 

There's no OR here.. that was what happened AND now we have this situation. So I am judging Regier now based on him being given Y capabilities.

 

And, like I said, all but 1 management team fails every year and for the Sabres every combination of management team has failed since Day 1, including having Scotty Bowman on staff. Bowman has won 12 Stanley Cups as part of a team's management structure, either as coach or in the front office but he couldn't help Buffalo. We're abject failures it appears. I'll have comments on what happens at the trade deadline and to date nothing Regier has done has endeared me to him. I'm not convinced Ruff is the coach the Sabres need either.

 

All that extra money spent by the Sabres has proven that money wasn't the issue with Regier as many have tried to hold onto. It doesn't matter how much Pegula is willing to spend if Regier is the person spending it. Misspent funds and missed opportunities is the legacy of Darcy Regier, it has been for 15 years now. No amount of Pegula's money will wash that away.

 

It's not how MUCH money you have to spend. It's how you are allowed to spend it. You remain convinced that Regier was acting alone and that his constraints have been the same this entire time and that's simply not true. I stated above why I don't buy that mentality and it holds true here. Even this year's acquisitions were not of Regier's own making. Presumably it took the owner flying to Regehr's house to convince him to come to Buffalo, so Regier didn't act alone, even in that. It took the owner allowing Regier to bury salary in the AHL and in Europe to acquire that resource. He didn't act alone in that either.

 

You're at a point where nothing Regier can do can be the answer to the problem. That's fine, but is there a reason you can't be open to a rational discussion on the topic? Very few things are as finite as we believe them to be. Speculation problems aside, what if the Sabres did win in 1999 or 2006? What would be your stance now? You can't really blame Regier for the NHL allowing a goal that shouldn't have counted.. if nothing else you accept that he got the team to Game 6 of the Stanley Cup finals. In 2006 you can blame him for not having the defensive depth going up to #11, but who does? What team would not suffer when the majority of the defense are not regular starters?

[nfreeman]

Yes, partially you jumped on the DeLuca bandwagon. One point. It's not an OR argument in my book. I blame some of the problems of the past 14 years on the financial constraints placed upon the GM. It's a a rather simple concept. You need X resources to win. Those X resources requires a system with Y capabilities. If you are given Z capabilities then you cannot hope to achieve X. The assumption is that Regier now has the Y capabilities to get X resources. If he suddenly goes out and gets F resources then he's an idiot. I'm not convinced he's gotten F resources, I know he has not gotten X resources yet.

 

There's no OR here.. that was what happened AND now we have this situation. So I am judging Regier now based on him being given Y capabilities.

 

And, like I said, all but 1 management team fails every year and for the Sabres every combination of management team has failed since Day 1, including having Scotty Bowman on staff. Bowman has won 12 Stanley Cups as part of a team's management structure, either as coach or in the front office but he couldn't help Buffalo. We're abject failures it appears. I'll have comments on what happens at the trade deadline and to date nothing Regier has done has endeared me to him. I'm not convinced Ruff is the coach the Sabres need either.

 

 

 

It's not how MUCH money you have to spend. It's how you are allowed to spend it. You remain convinced that Regier was acting alone and that his constraints have been the same this entire time and that's simply not true. I stated above why I don't buy that mentality and it holds true here. Even this year's acquisitions were not of Regier's own making. Presumably it took the owner flying to Regehr's house to convince him to come to Buffalo, so Regier didn't act alone, even in that. It took the owner allowing Regier to bury salary in the AHL and in Europe to acquire that resource. He didn't act alone in that either.

 

You're at a point where nothing Regier can do can be the answer to the problem. That's fine, but is there a reason you can't be open to a rational discussion on the topic? Very few things are as finite as we believe them to be. Speculation problems aside, what if the Sabres did win in 1999 or 2006? What would be your stance now? You can't really blame Regier for the NHL allowing a goal that shouldn't have counted.. if nothing else you accept that he got the team to Game 6 of the Stanley Cup finals. In 2006 you can blame him for not having the defensive depth going up to #11, but who does? What team would not suffer when the majority of the defense are not regular starters?

 

You make a lot of good points, and I have been a defender of DR's for quite a while here, and I completely agree with you that the "15 years and no cup" argument is complete BS.

 

But, but, but...

 

It's been obvious to me and many others here for quite some time that this team has had 2 fundamental flaws:

 

- not nearly enough heart/guts/mental toughness

 

- "top 6" not nearly good enough to win in the playoffs

 

The list of episodes demonstrating these flaws is long and discouraging, and doesn't need to be listed in gory detail again, but suffice it to say: Gomez, terrible top 6 vs Bruins in playoffs, terrible top 6 vs Philly in playoffs, run for bus in game 7 vs Philly, Lucic.

 

I completely agree that DR's hands were tied by previous ownership/management. I also completely supported the guys DR brought in last summer, and still do (yes, I'm still on board with Leino). But I can't get past DR's refusal/inability to revamp the Sabres' forwards. The top 6 still isn't good enough to produce in hard situations, and there still isn't much heart/clutch play/toughness in the forward group as a whole.

 

Last summer, DR finally had a no-BS, no-excuses chance to revamp the forwards. Bottom line is that other than Leino, he and LR essentially doubled down on the existing group. They didn't unload Roy, they gave Stafford a fat extension, and they anointed a new "leadership group" that has utterly and completely crapped the bed. And they didn't bring in any of the other good players who were either on the market (Spezza) or who have changed teams SINCE TP took over (Horton, Setoguchi, Smyth, Richards) and who would've made a difference here.

 

DR seems like a good, honorable guy. He did a commendable job under the previous 2 ownership groups. I'm hoping against hope that he gets it done this weekend. But I can't avoid the conclusion that so far, he's put the Sabres' eggs in a terrible forward basket and for that he is accountable.

[LabattBlue]

 

But, but, but...

 

It's been obvious to me and many others here for quite some time that this team has had 2 fundamental flaws:

 

- not nearly enough heart/guts/mental toughness

 

- "top 6" not nearly good enough to win in the playoffs

YES and YES!!!

[deluca67]

Yes, partially you jumped on the DeLuca bandwagon. One point. It's not an OR argument in my book. I blame some of the problems of the past 14 years on the financial constraints placed upon the GM. It's a a rather simple concept. You need X resources to win. Those X resources requires a system with Y capabilities. If you are given Z capabilities then you cannot hope to achieve X. The assumption is that Regier now has the Y capabilities to get X resources. If he suddenly goes out and gets F resources then he's an idiot. I'm not convinced he's gotten F resources, I know he has not gotten X resources yet.

 

There's no OR here.. that was what happened AND now we have this situation. So I am judging Regier now based on him being given Y capabilities.

 

And, like I said, all but 1 management team fails every year and for the Sabres every combination of management team has failed since Day 1, including having Scotty Bowman on staff. Bowman has won 12 Stanley Cups as part of a team's management structure, either as coach or in the front office but he couldn't help Buffalo. We're abject failures it appears. I'll have comments on what happens at the trade deadline and to date nothing Regier has done has endeared me to him. I'm not convinced Ruff is the coach the Sabres need either.

 

 

 

It's not how MUCH money you have to spend. It's how you are allowed to spend it. You remain convinced that Regier was acting alone and that his constraints have been the same this entire time and that's simply not true. I stated above why I don't buy that mentality and it holds true here. Even this year's acquisitions were not of Regier's own making. Presumably it took the owner flying to Regehr's house to convince him to come to Buffalo, so Regier didn't act alone, even in that. It took the owner allowing Regier to bury salary in the AHL and in Europe to acquire that resource. He didn't act alone in that either.

 

You're at a point where nothing Regier can do can be the answer to the problem. That's fine, but is there a reason you can't be open to a rational discussion on the topic? Very few things are as finite as we believe them to be. Speculation problems aside, what if the Sabres did win in 1999 or 2006? What would be your stance now? You can't really blame Regier for the NHL allowing a goal that shouldn't have counted.. if nothing else you accept that he got the team to Game 6 of the Stanley Cup finals. In 2006 you can blame him for not having the defensive depth going up to #11, but who does? What team would not suffer when the majority of the defense are not regular starters?

Do posters realize that arguing that Regier really wasn't the GM for 13 1/2 years is not a good argument?

[LTS]

Do posters realize that arguing that Regier really wasn't the GM for 13 1/2 years is not a good argument?

 

Then you can't blame him for failing as a GM for 15 years can you? So which is it? Was he a failure for 15 years or has he only been GM for 18 months?

[TheChimp]

Regier is simply the master of the 20-year plan. Patience, people, patience!!

[deluca67]

Then you can't blame him for failing as a GM for 15 years can you? So which is it? Was he a failure for 15 years or has he only been GM for 18 months?

He's a failure for 15 years. I thought that was pretty clear. I think you misread the post.

[Derrico]

Only a couple of more days now and I really hope that something is done to this roster. Several posters have mentioned (and there is even a thread about it) that they hope the team loses so we can change over this roster. Why can't we have both. DR can not be so inept that he can't see obvious flaws in the team. Can't we continue to win and changes are made within the next 54 hours?

[LTS]

He's a failure for 15 years. I thought that was pretty clear. I think you misread the post.

 

Yes, you are correct. Reading and posting on a forum at 2am is bad.

 

Do posters realize that arguing that Regier really wasn't the GM for 13 1/2 years is not a good argument?

 

It's not an argument that he was NOT the GM. It's an argument that in a given role he had a certain set of capabilities from which to work and now that has changed. Please argue against that statement. Please tell me how you think the situation is the same regardless of the owner

 

On a different note... how much higher can Roy's value get? 9 points out (okay, 5 but let's remember that Florida has 2 games in hand). Trade away players.. see if what you put in those places hurts you. You can trade a D.. hell Sekera upped his value after last night too.

 

Does anyone think that putting McNabb into the lineup on a daily basis would hurt the Sabres?

 

Oh.. and funny how Gragnani has all but disappeared.

[Derrico]

 

On a different note... how much higher can Roy's value get? 9 points out (okay, 5 but let's remember that Florida has 2 games in hand). Trade away players.. see if what you put in those places hurts you. You can trade a D.. hell Sekera upped his value after last night too.

 

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't trade players, because we should. I just want to correct you on how many points out we are. Florida does have two games in hand which means they really should be leading their division instead of Winnipeg. Now if Winnipeg is really then the 8th team, we've got two games in hand on them and like another poster said in a different thread, we're really only 4 points out, not 9.

 

On a separate note, if there was anytime to squeak into the 8th seed it's probably this year. The Rags have been great this year. However, other than Richards (who some say is not living up to his contract) isn't this team similar to the one that finished in 8th last year? Boston looks good period. Although Philly destroyed us last meeting, Pronger is out for the playoffs. Pitt is decent but Crosby is a big question mark. Ottawa, Florida, Winnipeg or any other team making a run at the final playoff spot do not scare me at all. The east just doesn't seem like a powerful conference this year.

[deluca67]

Yes, you are correct. Reading and posting on a forum at 2am is bad.

 

 

 

It's not an argument that he was NOT the GM. It's an argument that in a given role he had a certain set of capabilities from which to work and now that has changed. Please argue against that statement. Please tell me how you think the situation is the same regardless of the owner

 

On a different note... how much higher can Roy's value get? 9 points out (okay, 5 but let's remember that Florida has 2 games in hand). Trade away players.. see if what you put in those places hurts you. You can trade a D.. hell Sekera upped his value after last night too.

 

Does anyone think that putting McNabb into the lineup on a daily basis would hurt the Sabres?

 

Oh.. and funny how Gragnani has all but disappeared.

Having an owner willing to cover Regier's mistakes with money doesn't make Regier a better GM. Just look to the money wasted on Lieno and Stafford. I like Regehr but he hasn't been worth his contract and the value of Kotalik's contract. I have no issues with Ehrhoff other than the only reason he is a Sabres is because he is making $18 mil the next two years. There is no doubt that the additional financial resources will someday be a huge benefit. That day doesn't come until there is a GM in place that can use those resources wisely.

[qwksndmonster]

Having an owner willing to cover Regier's mistakes with money doesn't make Regier a better GM. Just look to the money wasted on Lieno and Stafford. I like Regehr but he hasn't been worth his contract and the value of Kotalik's contract. I have no issued with Ehrhoff other than the only reason he is a Sabres is because he is making $18 mil the next two years. There is no doubt that the additional financial resources will someday be a huge benefit. That day doesn't come until there is a GM in place that can use those resources wisely.

 

1st bold: Nobody said that Regier is a better GM.

 

2nd bold: I don't understand your point here, Pegula just ate Kotalik's contract and we didn't have to worry about the cap hit. Were you expecting Regehr to play like a 7 million dollar D-man?

 

3rd bold: Dead on.

[carpandean]

A few points about Regier under TG vs. under TP:

 

1) He is operating under a different set of mandates and constraints that could how effective DR can be.

 

2) We have a much smaller sample from "under TP", so it's hard to say whether he is definitely more, less or equally effective.

 

3) Overpaying cannot be explained away by the tighter financial constraints under TG (unless the player in question is Tim Connolly.)

 

4) Not bringing in a #1 (especially a FA one) center may be explained by the tighter constraints, but not having more than two scoring lines centers for five seasons now, especially when one has a huge injury history) cannot be.

 

5) Some of what we've seen under TP has looked like more of the same (Stafford, lack of centers, etc.), while some looks different (trading young players for Regehr to fill a hole, signing free agents from the top of the barrel rather than the bottom, trading for Ehrhoff's rights, etc.)

 

There were too many things that I didn't like about DR from before the switch that likely weren't a consequence of constraints that I'm heavily leaning toward not liking him under TP. I wanted him gone last year and if the deadline goes as expected, I will want him gone even more. What does or does not happen during the next two days will be enough for me to get a good feel for whether he can behave differently with different constraints and mandates. I expect not, however, I do at least allow for the possibility that I'll be surprised (mostly because I can't fire him.)

[bunomatic]

A few points about Regier under TG vs. under TP:

 

1) He is operating under a different set of mandates and constraints that could how effective DR can be.

 

2) We have a much smaller sample from "under TP", so it's hard to say whether he is definitely more, less or equally effective.

 

3) Overpaying cannot be explained away by the tighter financial constraints under TG (unless the player in question is Tim Connolly.)

 

4) Not bringing in a #1 (especially a FA one) center may be explained by the tighter constraints, but not having more than two scoring lines centers for five seasons now, especially when one has a huge injury history) cannot be.

 

5) Some of what we've seen under TP has looked like more of the same (Stafford, lack of centers, etc.), while some looks different (trading young players for Regehr to fill a hole, signing free agents from the top of the barrel rather than the bottom, trading for Ehrhoff's rights, etc.)

 

There were too many things that I didn't like about DR from before the switch that likely weren't a consequence of constraints that I'm heavily leaning toward not liking him under TP. I wanted him gone last year and if the deadline goes as expected, I will want him gone even more. What does or does not happen during the next two days will be enough for me to get a good feel for whether he can behave differently with different constraints and mandates. I expect not, however, I do at least allow for the possibility that I'll be surprised (mostly because I can't fire him.)

 

Great post

[Derrico]

[RazielSabre]

A few points about Regier under TG vs. under TP:

 

1) He is operating under a different set of mandates and constraints that could how effective DR can be.

 

2) We have a much smaller sample from "under TP", so it's hard to say whether he is definitely more, less or equally effective.

 

3) Overpaying cannot be explained away by the tighter financial constraints under TG (unless the player in question is Tim Connolly.)

 

4) Not bringing in a #1 (especially a FA one) center may be explained by the tighter constraints, but not having more than two scoring lines centers for five seasons now, especially when one has a huge injury history) cannot be.

 

5) Some of what we've seen under TP has looked like more of the same (Stafford, lack of centers, etc.), while some looks different (trading young players for Regehr to fill a hole, signing free agents from the top of the barrel rather than the bottom, trading for Ehrhoff's rights, etc.)

 

There were too many things that I didn't like about DR from before the switch that likely weren't a consequence of constraints that I'm heavily leaning toward not liking him under TP. I wanted him gone last year and if the deadline goes as expected, I will want him gone even more. What does or does not happen during the next two days will be enough for me to get a good feel for whether he can behave differently with different constraints and mandates. I expect not, however, I do at least allow for the possibility that I'll be surprised (mostly because I can't fire him.)

 

Nice post, the only thing I'll say about the centers is that there weren't many no.1 centers available last season on the free agent market. However that doesn't excuse him for not trading for one.

[carpandean]

Nice post, the only thing I'll say about the centers is that there weren't many no.1 centers available last season on the free agent market. However that doesn't excuse him for not trading for one.

 

I actually wouldn't take one offseason of not finding an elusive position player, in trade or in FA, as much evidence against him. Over four seasons under Golisano, however, he should have been able to find one, and I'm simply saying that financial concerns may have kept him from getting it done. My biggest problem was Darcy going with Roy-Connolly for four years, knowing that Connolly is always a question mark health-wise, and never having a #3 choice better than Hecht. Instead of having five wingers who "can" play center, bring in another center who can play on the wing. Most can. Roy can; he's done it here. Then, this season, he went from 1-1/2 scoring-line centers to one and a poke-and-hope in Leino, a guy who hadn't played center since his second-to-last season in Finland, the switch from which led to his best season in that league. If a true #1 really wasn't available this year (of the three that moved: one Richards was going to NY no matter what, the Flyers may have wanted to send the other two outside of the conference) and we couldn't move Roy off, then Darcy needed to find another solid #2 type center to trade for. The plan could then have beed to keep looking for that #1 and once you find it, Roy goes for whatever you could get and the #2 you brought in fits nicely below that #1.