NowDoYouBelieve Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 Unfortunately, I DO think we're in that type of trouble. Regier's job will seem a lot more secure if we make a miraculous playoff run, or even make a run that just falls short. Lends credence to the idea that it was all just those gosh darn injuries. A firesale would be admitting that we'd failed as a franchise. Do you really think our GM (of 15 years) wants to do that? Or that he wouldn't look for any excuse not to do that? It's human nature. Which, in fairness, can't be completely ignored. I think the blue line getting healthy is reason #1 for the recent mini-surge. That and Miller playing MUCH better, but the two concepts feed into one another.
Derrico Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 Unfortunately, I DO think we're in that type of trouble. Regier's job will seem a lot more secure if we make a miraculous playoff run, or even make a run that just falls short. Lends credence to the idea that it was all just those gosh darn injuries. A firesale would be admitting that we'd failed as a franchise. Do you really think our GM (of 15 years) wants to do that? Or that he wouldn't look for any excuse not to do that? It's human nature. I hear ya, I just hope DR already has a plan in place for what he's going to do and not let tonight's outcome waver that.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 The fan in me will not allow me to cheer for the Sabres to lose, but the thinking man in me hopes that they do. IMO, that is not quite the same thing. I also believe this line of thinking is the way most of TSC really looks at the situation. As a member of TSC I feel if the Sabres really crap out the rest of the season this will help in seeing the real changes that IMO need to be made. Some players need to be changed, but the first thing that needs to happen (again IMO) is for a new GM to be brought in and, as a result, a new coach. A real "hockey man" needs to also come in, unless he is the GM. The only way for this to happen, the way I see it, is for Mr. Pegula to be a real owner and not just a fan. Unless that changes he will not have Mr. Black make the changes outlined above. To me the fact that Mr. Pegula is a fan first, at least it appears that way, is the root of the problem.
deluca67 Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 Don't we have this argument every December about the Bills? I HATE these arguments. I understand we're all sick of the status quo (I am, too), but what kind of fans are we if we root for our favorite team to lose? And before you answer that, don't think for a millisecond that I don't understand why. I get it...but I won't be caught dead rooting against the Sabres. The "kind of fans" that understand the value of long term satisfaction over instant gratification. Right now the Sabres are in a series of one night stands with success. I want a long term relationship with being a Stanley Cup contender.
darksabre Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 I want them to lose because I'm afraid that if they don't, Darcy won't "get it" and we'll be stuck with the same garbage for another season.
nucci Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 I'm tired of my teams losing. I have no control over the management of the Bills and Sabres so all I care about is they win every game they play. Everyone is making good points but as a fan winning is all that matters.
nfreeman Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 Nobody who ever wants their team to miss the playoffs or lose on purpose has the right to celebrate any future successes. I am so disgusted with this line of thinking. Well, I don't agree with Blue either, but I think you have to remember that the supporters of this approach are real Sabres fans too. They just want a better team to emerge next year. I'm not satisfied with the current team (or the team of the last 5 years for that matter) and I expect you aren't either. It's not unreasonable to think that changing some or all of the roster, DR or LR and getting a better draft position are necessary in order to improve the team. I can't support this. NHL Playoff hockey is about getting hot to win 16 games in about 25 played. Any team can ride a hot goalie and a few timely goals. The way Miller is playing of late, he can carry this team into and in the playoffs. It is hard for me to imagine TP blowing up the team the way you suggest. I just don't see that kind of turnover happening. And it is just not in my nature to root for the negative in hope for a positive. Also quite reasonable. It comes down to looking at your team realistically and being honest with yourself. It is good to see that so many posters are able to see this team for what they are and see exactly where they are in comparison to being a Stanley Cup contender. Right now the Sabres are in some sort of hockey limbo. They are neither a Cup Contender or rebuilding. Until they are willing to replace the excuses with actions I don't see anything changing in the future. The Oilers have some amazing young talent and are in a great position Cap wise. I would much rather the Sabres be in their position than where the Sabres currently are, which is nowhere. I 100% agree that real actions are necessary. I don't agree that the Oilers are in a better position than the Sabres. Anyone want to toss out an over/under before the lock? This one's got potential. very nice. So what if they sell AND the kids continue to climb in the standings? That would make the future look a little brighter. This is what I'm hoping for. I really, really want Roy and Stafford gone by Monday. I'd also like to see Gaustad and Leopold traded for picks/prospects but am less determined on those 2. I don't think unloading Roy or Stafford would have much impact on their ability to make the playoffs this year and actually would be reasonably likely to help in an addition-by-subtraction manner. Unloading Gaustad and/or Leopold, OTOH, would hurt their ability to make the playoffs this year, but I would do it anyway. I just can't root for the Sabres to lose. That's where I am at. I can't root for them to lose. If you have an organization that can accept that as a philosophy then I think you have to question whether it can ever be great. It's one thing to give away some pieces that temporarily set you back for the long term gain but out and out wanting to lose is awful. We're not even talking about trading the team's best assets here. Still, losing.. wanting to lose, I can't get behind that. And that's what i hope for. I would like to see the team make space to bring back Adam, Foligno, and McNabb this year (especially McNabb). If that leads to winning, then great. It leads to losses, that's fine too because next year's players are getting the experience they need. I can't either. Aside from the crime-against-nature aspect, I think losing begets losing. It also makes the Sabres less attractive to FAs. And I definitely want to see if the new guys can play. On the other hand, I'm worried that they're going to win tonight and decide that they can't possibly afford to sell anyone at the deadline. So they keep Gaustad, Leopold, etc. (maybe trade Boyes) and pull all their hopes on another miraculous run to 8th place. So we don't win the Cup this year (because no one lower than a 5th seed has ever won the Cup) and we're no closer to winning the Cup next year or beyond. Ugh. This has the cold ring of high likelihood and would be unacceptable to me. The problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes all we have to do is fire LR and DR and all our problems are solved. As if LR and DR have never gotten this team to competitive. I'm not saying changes aren't needed, but the idea that we have to scuttle the season to make it happen in ludicrous. PTR Why is it ludicrous? To me it seems very reasonable that if the Sabres make a run and get back into the playoffs, DR won't be fired, while if they finish in 14th or so in the EC, he will be.
deluca67 Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 I'm tired of my teams losing. I have no control over the management of the Bills and Sabres so all I care about is they win every game they play. Everyone is making good points but as a fan winning is all that matters. The wife came up with a great analogy. The Bills and Sabres winning is like winning on the penny slot machines, sure you're at the Casino and you're winning more than losing, it's just at the end of the day you only have a few bucks to show for it, nothing substantial.
qwksndmonster Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 The wife came up with a great analogy. The Bills and Sabres winning is like winning on the penny slot machines, sure you're at the Casino and you're winning more than losing, it's just at the end of the day you only have a few bucks to show for it, nothing substantial. Next year the Bills and the Sabres both win the championship. What would any of us really have to "show" for it?
Kristian Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 And how many years did they have to endure being the laughing stock of the NHL to get those picks? Do you think the Oilers will share the same success in a couple of years? Who cares how many years they needed to endure, in case you didn't notice - We've been the laughing stock of the NHL for quite a while now, as Buffalo is notorious for being a place nobody wants to play. Both the Avs and Pens won multiple cups. I'm not laughing at them. Are you?
... Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 If the organization is basing their entire decision on deadline moves based on one game then we're in bigger trouble than we thought. Perhaps I misunderstood, but that was precisely how DR put it yesterday on WGR.
LGR4GM Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 It has been no secret how I feel. This team will continue to be mediocre unless something happens. At this point there is an opportunity to accomplish some things that can lead to a cup. By losing we can draft a #1 center (potentially) and I do not believe Regier is capable of acquire one through any other method. Personally the goal should always be to win. If no one can tell I am extremely competitive but there is a bigger picture here. The real question is not win or lose but do you sacrifice the end of a crappy season to increase the chances of drafting someone who can help us. Also after doing tons of research on a couple of players I think Radek Faksa is the player for this team. If we can draft him, excellent.
Derrico Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 Who cares how many years they needed to endure, in case you didn't notice - We've been the laughing stock of the NHL for quite a while now, as Buffalo is notorious for being a place nobody wants to play. Both the Avs and Pens won multiple cups. I'm not laughing at them. Are you? Laughing stock of the league? Come on, that's a little far. I'm not really sure fans are laughing at Buffalo. Take a look down the QEW, Leafs haven't even made the playoffs since 2004 and they've spent to the cap, basically threw a parade when Burke was hired and are completely collapsing down the stretch this season. Perhaps I misunderstood, but that was precisely how DR put it yesterday on WGR. Wow, I never heard that clip. That's encouraging for us :doh: I hope nobody misunderstands me, as much as I want this team to succeed, I would most certainly rather have a competant GM in place.
... Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 The "kind of fans" that understand the value of long term satisfaction over instant gratification. Right now the Sabres are in a series of one night stands with success. I want a long term relationship with being a Stanley Cup contender. I think the idea that our individual fan-dom should be dictated by public scrutiny is ridiculous. Why should I, or anyone else, accept an outside assessment of how "good" a fan I am. Really, there is fan elitism? What gives these so-called "elites" the authority to label the rest of us? And why should the labeled go along with it?
Lanny Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 Perhaps I misunderstood, but that was precisely how DR put it yesterday on WGR. That's not how I heard it. Paraphrased of course: Schopp: Would like your feeling with 2 games to go, we've talked with Ray, Paul, & Harrington and they seem to be guessing that these 2 games are pivotal in determining what you want to do Darcy: They play a role but it's not everything, the focus for us has to be on how even in it's finest form this team can be better going forward, and if it means we have to take a little bit of a step back in the short term to do that I would argue that it's worth it. -Then they get into a 3 minute argument about what .500 is and get off track.- Bulldog: Take a step backwards, does that mean you're open to potentially be spinning off potential unrestricted free agents, almost despite what happens this weekend? Darcy: It means that if there is an offer in some shape or form that will advance us going forward, to Mike's earlier point about how we can become better in our finest form, so that we can move closer to your reference of Detroit winning, then that's what we'll look to do. If there's a short term cost to that that's going to move us forward in the long term than that's the direction we need to go. To be specific I won't get into the details of what that might mean, but if it happens I'll be happy to explain it after the fact. Bulldog: There have been other years that you have pointedly told us that you were open to the idea of renting players, it hasn't been often and then your actions would have backed that up, Raffi Torres and Domonic Moore would be two recent examples. How about this year considering where you are, would you trade away futures for a guy that's only going to be on your team until July. Darcy: Less likely this year. Link to the Audio: http://audio.wgr550.com/a/52252794/2-24-darcy-regier-w-schopp-bulldog.htm?pageid=28473
K-9 Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 It's ironic that we'd want the coaches to coach and the players to play in a way that we all find reprehensible, as LOSERS. I believe that's the very reason we all want the changes we want in the first place. GO SABRES!!!
Weave Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 That's not how I heard it. Paraphrased of course: Schopp: Would like your feeling with 2 games to go, we've talked with Ray, Paul, & Harrington and they seem to be guessing that these 2 games are pivotal in determining what you want to do Darcy: They play a role but it's not everything, the focus for us has to be on how even in it's finest form this team can be better going forward, and if it means we have to take a little bit of a step back in the short term to do that I would argue that it's worth it. -Then they get into a 3 minute argument about what .500 is and get off track.- Bulldog: Take a step backwards, does that mean you're open to potentially be spinning off potential unrestricted free agents, almost despite what happens this weekend? Darcy: It means that if there is an offer in some shape or form that will advance us going forward, to Mike's earlier point about how we can become better in our finest form, so that we can move closer to your reference of Detroit winning, then that's what we'll look to do. If there's a short term cost to that that's going to move us forward in the long term than that's the direction we need to go. To be specific I won't get into the details of what that might mean, but if it happens I'll be happy to explain it after the fact. Bulldog: There have been other years that you have pointedly told us that you were open to the idea of renting players, it hasn't been often and then your actions would have backed that up, Raffi Torres and Domonic Moore would be two recent examples. How about this year considering where you are, would you trade away futures for a guy that's only going to be on your team until July. Darcy: Less likely this year. That is an encouraging exchange. We'll see how it plays out.
... Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 Even paraphrased, I interpret that as a BS way of saying "I don't know where we're at, let's how this weekend goes."
Weave Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 It's ironic that we'd want the coaches to coach and the players to play in a way that we all find reprehensible, as LOSERS. I believe that's the very reason we all want the changes we want in the first place. GO SABRES!!! You are misunderstanding. Noone is calling for the players to mail it in. Even the folks who prefer the team to lose want to see good effort as the season winds down. The difference is they want to see core players moved on and young guys who may or not be ready come in and get a long audition, even though it likely means that the team loses.
JJFIVEOH Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 Who cares how many years they needed to endure, in case you didn't notice - We've been the laughing stock of the NHL for quite a while now, as Buffalo is notorious for being a place nobody wants to play. Both the Avs and Pens won multiple cups. I'm not laughing at them. Are you? OK so that accounts for 3 out of the last 16 Cup winners. How did the others do it? The Red Wings sure didn't. The Bruins sure didn't do it. Neither did the Flyers, How did the Rangers get to where they are now? It certainly wasn't because they were a bottom 3 team for several years straight to get the best picks. Your theory is flawed because the majority of the teams did not become Cup winners by being at the bottom of the league for many years straight. And in this day and age of the Cap era, IF any team wins a Cup because of 3-4 years of top picks, their success will be short lived. Just ask the Blackhawks. Dale Tallon learned from his mistakes in Chicago and is going about things a different way down here.
Weave Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 OK so that accounts for 3 out of the last 16 Cup winners. How did the others do it? The Red Wings sure didn't. The Bruins sure didn't do it. Neither did the Flyers, How did the Rangers get to where they are now? It certainly wasn't because they were a bottom 3 team for several years straight to get the best picks. Your theory is flawed because the majority of the teams did not become Cup winners by being at the bottom of the league for many years straight. And in this day and age of the Cap era, IF any team wins a Cup because of 3-4 years of top picks, their success will be short lived. Just ask the Blackhawks. Dale Tallon learned from his mistakes in Chicago and is going about things a different way down here. All that means is that there are multiple ways of building a cup winning team. One of which happens to include sucking for a bit. The real bottom line here is that continuing to "build" our team pretty much the same way we have in the past is pretty well proven to not work, so it is time to change what is being done here.
K-9 Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 You are misunderstanding. Noone is calling for the players to mail it in. Even the folks who prefer the team to lose want to see good effort as the season winds down. The difference is they want to see core players moved on and young guys who may or not be ready come in and get a long audition, even though it likely means that the team loses. Ah yes. The concept of "nuanced" losing. Let's still lose to improve our position and better cement the idea to Pegs and Co. that real change is needed, but lets make sure we give noble, 100% efforts while losing so we look good doing it. Whether they win out or lose out, the question is: can the Sabres win it all as presently constructed? I think that answer is painfulluy obvious to everyone, even to those in charge, and that's why I think changes are coming in the offseason, regardless. In the meantime, the coaches will coach and the players will play without any regard to future draft position, etc. Just as it should be. GO SABRES!!!
deluca67 Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 OK so that accounts for 3 out of the last 16 Cup winners. How did the others do it? The Red Wings sure didn't. The Bruins sure didn't do it. Neither did the Flyers, How did the Rangers get to where they are now? It certainly wasn't because they were a bottom 3 team for several years straight to get the best picks. Your theory is flawed because the majority of the teams did not become Cup winners by being at the bottom of the league for many years straight. And in this day and age of the Cap era, IF any team wins a Cup because of 3-4 years of top picks, their success will be short lived. Just ask the Blackhawks. Dale Tallon learned from his mistakes in Chicago and is going about things a different way down here. The Blackhawks story has yet to be completed. Toews and Kane have not seen their last Stanley Cup. Only injuries will keep Crosby and Malkin from winning additional Cups. Both teams have a solid foundation to build on because they took advantage of hitting rock bottom.
JJFIVEOH Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 All that means is that there are multiple ways of building a cup winning team. One of which happens to include sucking for a bit. The real bottom line here is that continuing to "build" our team pretty much the same way we have in the past is pretty well proven to not work, so it is time to change what is being done here. You're right, there are multiple ways to build a team, and the way you mentioned is one of them. Your way is for teams that suck and have nothing going for them. This Sabres team does not suck, in fact far from it. Without shipping off the entire team in an effort to hit rock bottom, your way will never work. If a GM were to dump his entire team the entire city would be calling for his head. For ###### sake, this is the FIRST year in the Pegula era. If anybody thought this team would be transformed into a Cup contender in one year they are insane. In fact, go back on this forum and read what we were all saying, the general concensus was that it would take a couple of years. This team is substantially better than last year and (I don't like to use this excuse) if it weren't for all the injuries we wouldn't be worrying about getting into a playoff spot right now. We might not be a top 3 team, but we wouldn't be scoreboard watching every night. It's been one year!! Some people have so little patience yet they say they are willing to be at the bottom of the league for multiple years to get good draft picks. I just don't get it. If a deal is to be had that can improve this team now and for the future, do it! If not, let's ride this wave and see if we can make the playoffs again and improve during the offseason. What is our record this year when the team is healthy (80% of our starters in the lineup)?
Weave Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 Ah yes. The concept of "nuanced" losing. Let's still lose to improve our position and better cement the idea to Pegs and Co. that real change is needed, but lets make sure we give noble, 100% efforts while losing so we look good doing it. Whether they win out or lose out, the question is: can the Sabres win it all as presently constructed? I think that answer is painfulluy obvious to everyone, even to those in charge, and that's why I think changes are coming in the offseason, regardless. In the meantime, the coaches will coach and the players will play without any regard to future draft position, etc. Just as it should be. GO SABRES!!! Well, you've got it a bit backwards. The proper order needs to be, Pegs and Co. realize that real change is needed, change is made, team loses in short term because of it. Team is stronger down the road. And yes, coaches still coach and players still play without regard to draft order. That part should be a given. Not sure if that was condescension. If it was, I'd appreciate it ended. I'm not bringing it. I'd like to see the discussion continue without it.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.