What are your thoughts about Darcy?

[darksabre]

This is a fact. Both Darcy and Lindy would have been gone years ago had the team not gone through two ownership changes since they were hired. I don't care which side of the fence you are on, you have to admit this.

 

This is likely the case. Our ownership has never been stable enough for an owner to want to disrupt what amounts to average success levels. Ruff and Regier are good enough to make them money.

 

I suspect that they will find themselves in trouble as Pegula's tenure ages if they do not bring a Cup here in a timely manner.

[I am Defecting]

I think that Darcy has the tools to get the job done. He can scout, draft, trade, manage cap-space.

 

I think that his biggest flaw is being married to the coach, who doesn't have the psychological or technical nous required for the job. That relationship falls on Darcy's shoulders.

[RazielSabre]

This is likely the case. Our ownership has never been stable enough for an owner to want to disrupt what amounts to average success levels. Ruff and Regier are good enough to make them money.

 

I suspect that they will find themselves in trouble as Pegula's tenure ages if they do not bring a Cup here in a timely manner.

 

To be fair I also agree with this.

[papazoid]

i think Darcy is not good enough......

 

but i also think he deserves one more season ......he gets a pass to prove if Larry Quinn hindered his decisions.

 

 

making the playoffs is the minimum to keep his job.

[bunomatic]

i think Darcy is not good enough......

 

but i also think he deserves one more season ......he gets a pass to prove if Larry Quinn hindered his decisions.

 

 

making the playoffs is the minimum to keep his job.

 

I don't want to just make the playoffs. We aren't the Panthers or the wild or the leafs for that matter. Have we fallen that far ? The bar should be set way higher than that. Thats why maybe its time for Darcy to go. If at minimum Darcy manages to just get us into the playoffs and we get run over in the first round that to me is not progress. Just sayin.

[TheChimp]

I don't want to just make the playoffs. We aren't the Panthers or the wild or the leafs for that matter. Have we fallen that far ? The bar should be set way higher than that. Thats why maybe its time for Darcy to go. If at minimum Darcy manages to just get us into the playoffs and we get run over in the first round that to me is not progress. Just sayin.

Fallen? From what height, exactly?

[Punch]

Fallen? From what height, exactly?

 

Aside from the dearth of Stanley Cups/general playoff success--- which is paramount --- the Sabres have been one of the most successful NHL franchises since joining the league. They have the 4th highest Points Percentage in the NHL alltime, behind only Montreal, Philadelphia and Boston. In fact, Boston only passed Buffalo this year. It's interesting to note that Nashville vaulted ahead several spots this year and of the top 8 only Nashville and Buffalo have never won the Cup.

 

Without a Cup it's... well, it's not much of a consolation, but it's still pretty interesting:

NHLTeamRecords1.bmp

[RazielSabre]

Aside from the dearth of Stanley Cups/general playoff success--- which is paramount --- the Sabres have been one of the most successful NHL franchises since joining the league. They have the 4th highest Points Percentage in the NHL alltime, behind only Montreal, Philadelphia and Boston. In fact, Boston only passed Buffalo this year. It's interesting to note that Nashville vaulted ahead several spots this year and of the top 8 only Nashville and Buffalo have never won the Cup.

 

Without a Cup it's... well, it's not much of a consolation, but it's still pretty interesting:

 

Great post man.

[Marvelo]

Each GM is like an era. The Muckler Era had its "hardest working team in hockey" personality. The Darcy Era went with small, fast players like Briere, Drury and Ennis. Both teams almost won a Cup. I like the idea of a super tough. lunchbucket team that represents the real Buffalo, instead of a finesse team so I'd like to usher the Darcy Era out gracefully. I think it's best to end it one year early than one year too late.

[bunomatic]

Fallen? From what height, exactly?

 

What Punch said. ;)

[Weave]

Each GM is like an era. The Muckler Era had its "hardest working team in hockey" personality. The Darcy Era went with small, fast players like Briere, Drury and Ennis. Both teams almost won a Cup. I like the idea of a super tough. lunchbucket team that represents the real Buffalo, instead of a finesse team so I'd like to usher the Darcy Era out gracefully. I think it's best to end it one year early than one year too late.

 

I'm afraid that any team that truly represents Buffalo would be undersized, underachieve, be very thin skinned, and take forever to enact real change.

 

 

Wait....... I think we already have that team. But hey, I bet they know where all the great wing and beer joints are. :P

[Robviously]

I'm afraid that any team that truly represents Buffalo would be undersized, underachieve, be very thin skinned, and take forever to enact real change.

 

 

Wait....... I think we already have that team. But hey, I bet they know where all the great wing and beer joints are. :P

BURN!!!1!

[TheChimp]

I still haven't had a chance to look at that site, so I'll ask the question anyway and risk the abuse that I might get for asking yet another dumb question. Is it possible for a team that consistently ends up in the middle of the pack and just misses the playoffs can end up looking way better than a team that has a couple Cups on their shelf and then tons of seasons in the basement in between them? Just wondering if the overall points thing isn't misleading.

[Punch]

I still haven't had a chance to look at that site, so I'll ask the question anyway and risk the abuse that I might get for asking yet another dumb question. Is it possible for a team that consistently ends up in the middle of the pack and just misses the playoffs can end up looking way better than a team that has a couple Cups on their shelf and then tons of seasons in the basement in between them? Just wondering if the overall points thing isn't misleading.

 

The Sabres don't "consistently end up in the middle of the pack and just miss the playoffs"--- that's been the case more often than not in the past ten years, but over their history they've had a healthy combination of a handful of excellent seasons, several good seasons, several middling to mediocre seasons and very few where they've actually bottomed out. It's the accumulation of each of their 41 regular seasons that rates rather favorably against the other teams in the league. But ZERO Cups is the final verdict on this franchise until they win one, regardless of how successful they've been in general. So ultimately, maybe it means nothing aside from being trivia.

 

Your question is basically: would you rather be the Billy Beane Oakland A's (more or less, what the Sabres have been) or the Florida Marlins (a couple of championships slotted in the midst of mostly awful years)? Both would suck, but having a couple of championships would clearly be the better option. I'd rather the Sabres aspire to annually challenge for the Cup, a la Detroit of the past 20 years.

 

This franchise has always lacked that finishing move that all Cup winners have had, but they've nearly perennially been "in the conversation". Your mileage may vary on whether or not that alone deserves to be considered success.

[TheChimp]

Weird that you mentioned Billy Beane a week after I finally saw Moneyball and officially became a fan of the A's. :wallbash:

 

And no, I'd have to disagree. A championship stuffed in between a hundred years of crap is better than this.

[Punch]

Your question is basically: would you rather be the Billy Beane Oakland A's (more or less, what the Sabres have been) or the Florida Marlins (a couple of championships slotted in the midst of mostly awful years)? Both would suck, but having a couple of championships would clearly be the better option.

Weird that you mentioned Billy Beane a week after I finally saw Moneyball and officially became a fan of the A's. :wallbash:

 

And no, I'd have to disagree. A championship stuffed in between a hundred years of crap is better than this.

 

I don't think we disagree... that's what I meant by "having a couple of championships would clearly be the better option". But I want even more than just spending in bursts toward achieving a title then breaking up the team afterward.

 

Moneyball was a terrific movie--- if you haven't read the book, it's really worth a look. It covers a lot of extra details that a 2 hour movie couldn't possibly include, especially the stuff on Beane's backstory and Hattieberg. In real life, he eventually did begin to figure out 1st base, to the point where he wasn't merely serviceable but actually very good. The funny part is, the success of Moneyball basically ruined he A's--- now that every team follows that philosophy to some degree, it's no longer an edge for Oakland.

[TheChimp]

I don't think we disagree... that's what I meant by "having a couple of championships would clearly be the better option". But I want even more than just spending in bursts toward achieving a title then breaking up the team afterward.

 

Moneyball was a terrific movie--- if you haven't read the book, it's really worth a look. It covers a lot of extra details that a 2 hour movie couldn't possibly include, especially the stuff on Beane's backstory and Hattieberg. In real life, he eventually did begin to figure out 1st base, to the point where he wasn't merely serviceable but actually very good. The funny part is, the success of Moneyball basically ruined he A's--- now that every team follows that philosophy to some degree, it's no longer an edge for Oakland.

The thought I had about Moneyball is, does the theory only help a team garner wins over the course of a long season and therefore does it hit a wall when you get into the playoffs? Is that why Oakland put together the seasons they have under Beane but still haven't won the WS?

[X. Benedict]

Priority one for Darcy should be upgrading at center.

 

Since 2007 this has been the major organizational failure.

 

5 years running.

 

Darcy needs to create a culture where the fiercest competition and most ice time goes to guys at center ice.

This means having 6 guys competing for the position on the regular roster. If you have to move pieces to create that culture, he needs to move pieces.

 

As it is ....now just Ennis and Hodgson, - and Roy in the past hasn't gotten it done.

[R_Dudley]

Priority one for Darcy should be upgrading at center.

 

Since 2007 this has been the major organizational failure.

 

5 years running.

 

Darcy needs to create a culture where the fiercest competition and most ice time goes to guys at center ice.

This means having 6 guys competing for the position on the regular roster. If you have to move pieces to create that culture, he needs to move pieces.

 

As it is ....now just Ennis and Hodgson, - and Roy in the past hasn't gotten it done.

 

I agree with and endorse this post :flirt:

[Punch]

The thought I had about Moneyball is, does the theory only help a team garner wins over the course of a long season and therefore does it hit a wall when you get into the playoffs? Is that why Oakland put together the seasons they have under Beane but still haven't won the WS?

 

Ultimately, I think the financial constraints the A's were under could simply not be overcome because the gulf was just too deep. Perhaps with a larger stretch of seasons to attempt it, but winning championships is a hard task and Moneyball isn't exactly rigging the game, it's just a smarter way to look at it. And of course, the games still need to be played.

 

As it was stated at the end of the movie, the Red Sox hired Bill James (kind of the originator of SABRmetrics) and they won the World Series just one year later using the philosophy. Most teams use some form of the Moneyball method which means those players are now being valued relatively equally throughout the league--- the rich teams are now paying premium prices for players that "create runs". It's no longer Billy Beane's secret, and the A's haven't won more than 80 games since 2006, I think.

 

The Sabres have very much utilized similar concepts over the years (for essentially the same reasons) and advanced statistical analysis in hockey has gained a lot of traction in the NHL in large part due to their relative success. The "Corsi numbers" were developed by the Sabres assistant Jim Corsi and it is used by other teams and analysts to varying degrees. I'm not really sure how helpful it is, but other posters here have discussed it from time to time.

[TheChimp]

Ultimately, I think the financial constraints the A's were under could simply not be overcome because the gulf was just too deep. Perhaps with a larger stretch of seasons to attempt it, but winning championships is a hard task and Moneyball isn't exactly rigging the game, it's just a smarter way to look at it. And of course, the games still need to be played.

 

As it was stated at the end of the movie, the Red Sox hired Bill James (kind of the originator of SABRmetrics) and they won the World Series just one year later using the philosophy. Most teams use some form of the Moneyball method which means those players are now being valued relatively equally throughout the league--- the rich teams are now paying premium prices for players that "create runs". It's no longer Billy Beane's secret, and the A's haven't won more than 80 games since 2006, I think.

AHHH yes. That's the part that went over my head.

[MattPie]

Bob Matthews on Sports Talk on WHAM 1180 pointed out the other night that even teams that have Stanley Cup wins change coaches and GMs more frequently than the Sabres. when there is a concern that team is slipping in quality. Like myself and many fans, Bob cannot fathom the utter lack of interest in shaking up the Sabres front office to try and make the team better.

 

Considering every team changes their front office more often than the Sabres (maybe excepting the Preds), that's a pretty thin argument. He could have just as easily said, "every team that has never won a cup or hasn't in the last 30 years (I'm looking at you, Toronto!) change their coaches and FO more often than the Sabres".

[Kristian]

Look, everyone can debate whether or not Darcy and Ruff should be fired or not, and whether a replacement GM/coach could bring a cup to Buffalo better than the current GM/coach.

 

All I know for a fact is that the current GM/coach have had 15 years to produce a cup, and have a finals appearence and three ECF to their credit.

 

Here's where things get tricky :

 

Some believe that should serve as a credit to Darcy and Ruff.

 

I see things differently.

 

I believe they wasted the greatest goalie ever in his prime, and the most ideal rule change the franchise could wish for, by not being willing to take the final steps necessary.

 

Hasek couldn't score for his teams, and the 05-06 team got battered once the play started getting nasty and physical, once they got deeper into the post-season. The 06-07 team picked up too many bad habits during their Presidents Trophy run to succeed in the playoffs, to properly evaluate, which some could blame on coaching. I really don't care either way, all I remember is the Sens outhustling them, BADLY.

 

I also believe a good GM would've found a way to bring in the piece that would've pushed either team over the hump, within the constraints of various ownership.

 

Others feel different.

[deluca67]

Look, everyone can debate whether or not Darcy and Ruff should be fired or not, and whether a replacement GM/coach could bring a cup to Buffalo better than the current GM/coach.

 

All I know for a fact is that the current GM/coach have had 15 years to produce a cup, and have a finals appearence and three ECF to their credit.

 

Here's where things get tricky :

 

Some believe that should serve as a credit to Darcy and Ruff.

 

I see things differently.

 

I believe they wasted the greatest goalie ever in his prime, and the most ideal rule change the franchise could wish for, by not being willing to take the final steps necessary.

 

Hasek couldn't score for his teams, and the 05-06 team got battered once the play started getting nasty and physical, once they got deeper into the post-season. The 06-07 team picked up too many bad habits during their Presidents Trophy run to succeed in the playoffs, to properly evaluate, which some could blame on coaching. I really don't care either way, all I remember is the Sens outhustling them, BADLY.

 

I also believe a good GM would've found a way to bring in the piece that would've pushed either team over the hump, within the constraints of various ownership.

 

Others feel different.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to see a different GM and Coach take over the Buffalo Sabres. 15 years is more than enough time to develop that opinion.

[darksabre]

Look, everyone can debate whether or not Darcy and Ruff should be fired or not, and whether a replacement GM/coach could bring a cup to Buffalo better than the current GM/coach.

 

All I know for a fact is that the current GM/coach have had 15 years to produce a cup, and have a finals appearence and three ECF to their credit.

 

Here's where things get tricky :

 

Some believe that should serve as a credit to Darcy and Ruff.

 

I see things differently.

 

I believe they wasted the greatest goalie ever in his prime, and the most ideal rule change the franchise could wish for, by not being willing to take the final steps necessary.

 

Hasek couldn't score for his teams, and the 05-06 team got battered once the play started getting nasty and physical, once they got deeper into the post-season. The 06-07 team picked up too many bad habits during their Presidents Trophy run to succeed in the playoffs, to properly evaluate, which some could blame on coaching. I really don't care either way, all I remember is the Sens outhustling them, BADLY.

 

I also believe a good GM would've found a way to bring in the piece that would've pushed either team over the hump, within the constraints of various ownership.

 

Others feel different.

 

How many teams have had five different owners over 15 years?