The Buffalo News' Agenda: Get Regier and Ruff Fired

[Aud Fellow]

Anyone listen to this interview?: http://blogs.buffalo...titiveness.html

It was extremely uncomfortable to listen to with the hostility running between the two of them.

I think Regier and Ruff have done well. The team has never bottomed out like so many of the tops teams in the league have, which is admirable. We have had a competitive team every year and this year could have been different with fewer big time injuries. I think the future is particularly bright and the run at the end of the season was a blast (despite not making it). The hate for Regier and Ruff is unjustified to me. Sure the goal is the cup, but it seems like the teams that win it need to stink for 5 years prior.

[obstructedorangeseats]

Considering that under Pegula there has been a cool relationship between Sabres management and the media, this is just part of the dance. But it won't work. We know from the media roundtable with Pegula early on that he puts a considerable onus on the media for the way they portray the Sabres and the overall negativity of the fanbase towards the team (real or perceived). So in the event that Ruff/Regier are fired, I doubt that Pegula took the local media's opinion into consideration.

 

This is first and foremost more of the same since the team decided not to hold a press conference. Like others have said, the WGR interviews with Lindy and Darcy went a long way towards the type of questions and responses we would have wanted to hear at a press conference. It's still not a press conference, and I am among those who want LR/DR gone, so I'm not saying these radio interviews should replace a press conference. But overall there is an antagonistic relationship between the local print media and the Sabres, and this is just par for the course, really.

[IKnowPhysics]

Jim Kelley rarely held back his criticism or his praise and usually supported it with hard fact. Unfortunately, his trainees aren't as faultless: Bucky seems to dole mostly criticism and Sullivan is often light on the facts. Often I'd feel like I had a good handle on what's going on with the team, but then I'd read the columns from those two typing monkeys, and I'd feel like I got dumber.

[Eleven]

B..., while I agree with you on Ruff and am cautious about Regier, I do not think The Buffalo News has an editorial bias one way or the other regarding the Sabres. I think the News wants to sell papers. Which is tough, when the paper (and I mean the more important sections) is ######.

[bcsaberks]

Jim Kelley rarely held back his criticism or his praise and usually supported it with hard fact. Unfortunately, his trainees aren't as faultless: Bucky seems to dole mostly criticism and Sullivan is often light on the facts. Often I'd feel like I had a good handle on what's going on with the team, but then I'd read the columns from those two typing monkeys, and I'd feel like I got dumber.

So good to bring up Jim Kelley. From my view he carried an appropriate level of respect to the people involved. After all, they are people doing their jobs as best they can, why be a d-bag? I think Paul Hamilton does the same, although arguably he's more of homer given the WGR relationship. Respect seems to be missing from this Buffalo News crew.

[shrader]

I will never understand how the media can be such the negative force that many like to think they are. The Buffalo hockey media is what, 3 people? Any negativity around here (Buffalo) goes far deeper than just those three.

[darksabre]

I will never understand how the media can be such the negative force that many like to think they are. The Buffalo hockey media is what, 3 people? Any negativity around here (Buffalo) goes far deeper than just those three.

 

And this forum is way better at it than they are.

[Andrew Amerk]

TBN's agenda is to sell papers.

 

Other than that, their reporters suck.

[FogBat]

B..., while I agree with you on Ruff and am cautious about Regier, I do not think The Buffalo News has an editorial bias one way or the other regarding the Sabres. I think the News wants to sell papers. Which is tough, when the paper (and I mean the more important sections) is ######.

It's really hard to find an objective rag these days.

[waldo]

B..., while I agree with you on Ruff and am cautious about Regier, I do not think The Buffalo News has an editorial bias one way or the other regarding the Sabres. I think the News wants to sell papers. Which is tough, when the paper (and I mean the more important sections) is ######.

 

good post

[LastPommerFan]

All News Media have a very clear bias, and that is a bias toward conflict. It completely make sense, who cares about the coaching situation in Detroit? There is no conflict there and you couldn't manufacture one if you tried. But in Buffalo, the ownership and management group has summarily dismissed the notion of conflict, let alone a "hot seat". So the Gleason, Sullivan, and occasionally their drone Vogl go out and create it. Sully and Bucky are editorial writers, so it's both appropriate and acceptable for them to do so. I wish the conflict were about whether Ruff/Regier are holding the team back or not. What it is, because these guys are less than strong writers, is a conflict between 2 writers and whoever happens to be on the other end of the Mic. TBN misses Kelley more and more each year. I wish there was someone on the sports editorial staff that could write an ACTUAL HOCKEY CONFLICT rather than creating a personality character to be opposed to whomever they are interviewing. I mean, ######, the intro about Sully's segment on WGR is about conflict with HIM not actual sports.

[waldo]

I just think there may be a little lefty. rust belt mentality seeping in to their prose. Darcy and Lindy have both been here for ever, they have never been sucessfull in any sense of the word, have mastered the Jim and Tammy Fae Baker routine, while the area continues to deteriorate, Ottawa makes the playoffs, and the sun still only shines every five days. A new owner comes in , we are going to win,rah, rah , rah, followed by a complete collapse. If you were a reporter and had to produce 1000 words every day what would you write? You would probably be depressed and a little negative too. One could argue that any objective article written about the Sabres would almost have to be a little negative.

[Aud Fellow]

B..., while I agree with you on Ruff and am cautious about Regier, I do not think The Buffalo News has an editorial bias one way or the other regarding the Sabres. I think the News wants to sell papers. Which is tough, when the paper (and I mean the more important sections) is ######.

 

Haha, well the paper as a whole does stink. And this forum and other blogs are far more interesting than the sports section in TBN and they will continue to dominate a paper that is joining the rest of its prehistoric brethren. There are 29 teams a year that 'don't get it done'. This year's issues were pretty apparent and I feel well discussed: injuries, lack of depth, lack of a top line, scoring center. Some increased maturity, improved youngsters, and not signing some weaker players might do the trick, plus a good draft and a free agent would help. Asking Darcy and Lindy what can be done going forward, who should be drafted, etc is productive. Asking if they feel lucky to be in town is just stupid and creates pointless animosity. TBN needs to figure out some real questions to ask, not those in the above interview.

[Taro T]

I just think there may be a little lefty. rust belt mentality seeping in to their prose. Darcy and Lindy have both been here for ever, they have never been sucessfull in any sense of the word, have mastered the Jim and Tammy Fae Baker routine, while the area continues to deteriorate, Ottawa makes the playoffs, and the sun still only shines every five days. A new owner comes in , we are going to win,rah, rah , rah, followed by a complete collapse. If you were a reporter and had to produce 1000 words every day what would you write? You would probably be depressed and a little negative too. One could argue that any objective article written about the Sabres would almost have to be a little negative.

The only way this statement is true is if success is ONLY defined as winning a Stanley Cup.

 

This your cover letter to join the staff at the Snooze?

[waldo]

[

The only way this statement is true is if success is ONLY defined as winning a Stanley Cup.

 

This your cover letter to join the staff at the Snooze?

 

Come on Taro..can you highlight the sentence in my post where i said that? .

 

a second round playoff every ten years with a team they built vs the one they inherited the last time they made it , would do the trick for me ..I would be just fine. My goals are not that high.

 

I just get a little confused when they say things like the team needs this, or the team needs that,we need to get bigger, we need to be tougher.............. like somebody else built the team they are talking about.

[Aud Fellow]

The only way this statement is true is if success is ONLY defined as winning a Stanley Cup.

 

This your cover letter to join the staff at the Snooze?

 

Exactly! TBN reporters are attempting to arbitrate Ruff and Regier's next contract.

[Eleven]

[ Come on Taro..can you highlight the sentence in my post where i said that? . a second round playoff every ten years with a team they built vs the one they inherited the last time they made it , would do the trick for me ..I would be just fine. My goals are not that high. I just get a little confused when they say things like the team needs this, or the team needs that,we need to get bigger, we need to be tougher.............. like somebody else built the team they are talking about.

 

But waldo, not two in ten, it's four second round wins in fifteen years--more than most teams can boast--together with a President's trophy, a Wales trophy, and a few division titles.

 

As Taro said, if success is defined ONLY as a SC win, then you have a premise for your 8:50 am post. I'm not defining it that way, though.

[Taro T]

[

 

Come on Taro..can you highlight the sentence in my post where i said that? .

 

a second round playoff every ten years with a team they built vs the one they inherited the last time they made it, would do the trick for me ..I would be just fine. My goals are not that high.

 

I just get a little confused when they say things like the team needs this, or the team needs that,we need to get bigger, we need to be tougher.............. like somebody else built the team they are talking about.

What, with Dwight apparently on a self imposed vacation, you feel the need to take up the hyperbole bandwagon?

 

By your own definition above, A 2nd round trip in 10 years, they've been successful. They've been to the 3rd round twice in the last 7 years; won a Presidents Trophy in that span as well.

 

Aside: Just outside of your 10 year window, they also were in the 2nd round in '01 w/ a team that had little to no resemblence (other than Hasek) to the team 'they'd inherited.' They also were in the 3rd round and are still waiting to finish the 4th round earlier in their tenure during a period that wasn't obviously excluded from your original post.

 

My original response to you was merely pointing out that the only way you can say they 'have never been successful in ANY sense of the word' is if you are defining success as winning a Stanley Cup. It's hyperbole.

 

There are plenty of legitimate cases that can be made against either or both of those 2, but claiming they have never been successful at all does not help make any of those cases and in fact detracts from any legit case you might be trying to make. With all the legitimate tools in your kit available to you, why go and pick out a rusty piece of bent angle iron to use as a hammer when building a case against them?

[LastPommerFan]

What, with Dwight apparently on a self imposed vacation, you feel the need to take up the hyperbole bandwagon?

 

By your own definition above, A 2nd round trip in 10 years, they've been successful. They've been to the 3rd round twice in the last 7 years; won a Presidents Trophy in that span as well.

 

Aside: Just outside of your 10 year window, they also were in the 2nd round in '01 w/ a team that had little to no resemblence (other than Hasek) to the team 'they'd inherited.' They also were in the 3rd round and are still waiting to finish the 4th round earlier in their tenure during a period that wasn't obviously excluded from your original post.

 

My original response to you was merely pointing out that the only way you can say they 'have never been successful in ANY sense of the word' is if you are defining success as winning a Stanley Cup. It's hyperbole.

 

There are plenty of legitimate cases that can be made against either or both of those 2, but claiming they have never been successful at all does not help make any of those cases and in fact detracts from any legit case you might be trying to make. With all the legitimate tools in your kit available to you, why go and pick out a rusty piece of bent angle iron to use as a hammer when building a case against them?

I just think there may be a little lefty rust belt mentality seeping in to their prose. Darcy and Lindy have both been here for ever, they have never been sucessfull in any sense of the word, have mastered the Jim and Tammy Fae Baker routine, while the area continues to deteriorate, Ottawa makes the playoffs, and the sun still only shines every five days. A new owner comes in , we are going to win,rah, rah , rah, followed by a complete collapse. If you were a reporter and had to produce 1000 words every day what would you write? You would probably be depressed and a little negative too. One could argue that any objective article written about the Sabres would almost have to be a little negative.

 

See that unrelated, non sequitur he stuck in there. You think you can have a reasonable argument with someone who can summon irrelevant and unrelated charges to defend his position?

[RazielSabre]

I just think there may be a little lefty. rust belt mentality seeping in to their prose. Darcy and Lindy have both been here for ever, they have never been sucessfull in any sense of the word, have mastered the Jim and Tammy Fae Baker routine, while the area continues to deteriorate, Ottawa makes the playoffs, and the sun still only shines every five days. A new owner comes in , we are going to win,rah, rah , rah, followed by a complete collapse. If you were a reporter and had to produce 1000 words every day what would you write? You would probably be depressed and a little negative too. One could argue that any objective article written about the Sabres would almost have to be a little negative.

Ban the gays! (joke btw).

 

See that unrelated, non sequitur he stuck in there. You think you can have a reasonable argument with someone who can summon irrelevant and unrelated charges to defend his position?

 

Your sig is legend.

[waldo]

But waldo, not two in ten, it's four second round wins in fifteen years--more than most teams can boast--together with a President's trophy, a Wales trophy, and a few division titles.

 

As Taro said, if success is defined ONLY as a SC win, then you have a premise for your 8:50 am post. I'm not defining it that way, though.

But waldo, not two in ten, it's four second round wins in fifteen years--more than most teams can boast--together with a President's trophy, a Wales trophy, and a few division titles.

 

As Taro said, if success is defined ONLY as a SC win, then you have a premise for your 8:50 am post. I'm not defining it that way, though.

 

True ...eleven ...their playoff record is better than a lot of teams in the last ten.I did say ten no? but i do not care about the others.. they have been to the 2nd twice ? in the last ten (2001/11 years) i think and in the playoffs???? 3 times including the cf. i should be happy by my own definition. it is better than most teams ..but not good enough .

[waldo]

A non sequitur is a conversational and literary device, often used for comedic purposes

See that unrelated, non sequitur he stuck in there. You think you can have a reasonable argument with someone who can summon irrelevant and unrelated charges to defend his position?

 

editorial liscense..did not mean to offend you ..i was trying to add some humor and.paint a gloomy picture.. you know... conservative reporters/ heavily dem/liberal city...rustbelt..no sunshine, underperforming team, that was the context

 

and you come at me with he said "lefty" ...a PC police captain thing followed by 'non sequitur' oh my,a big word... ....."A non sequitur is a conversational and literary device, often used for comedic purposes" which is exactly what i was going for.

[spndnchz]

What, with Dwight apparently on a self imposed vacation, you feel the need to take up the hyperbole bandwagon?

 

By your own definition above, A 2nd round trip in 10 years, they've been successful. They've been to the 3rd round twice in the last 7 years; won a Presidents Trophy in that span as well.

 

Aside: Just outside of your 10 year window, they also were in the 2nd round in '01 w/ a team that had little to no resemblence (other than Hasek) to the team 'they'd inherited.' They also were in the 3rd round and are still waiting to finish the 4th round earlier in their tenure during a period that wasn't obviously excluded from your original post.

 

My original response to you was merely pointing out that the only way you can say they 'have never been successful in ANY sense of the word' is if you are defining success as winning a Stanley Cup. It's hyperbole.

 

There are plenty of legitimate cases that can be made against either or both of those 2, but claiming they have never been successful at all does not help make any of those cases and in fact detracts from any legit case you might be trying to make. With all the legitimate tools in your kit available to you, why go and pick out a rusty piece of bent angle iron to use as a hammer when building a case against them?

 

While your point is valid, I do see this year as a step back for the organ-eye-zation. They had so much going for them to start the year and blew it. Just plain blew it.

[waldo]

What, with Dwight apparently on a self imposed vacation, you feel the need to take up the hyperbole bandwagon?

 

I was trying for sarcastic. A bad attempt agreed?

 

By your own definition above, A 2nd round trip in 10 years, they've been successful. They've been to the 3rd round twice in the last 7 years; won a Presidents Trophy in that span as well.

 

I seem to remember three playoff show in the last ten , . 2001.. one conference final?

 

Aside: Just outside of your 10 year window, they also were in the 2nd round in '01 w/ a team that had little to no resemblence (other than Hasek) to the team 'they'd inherited.' They also were in the 3rd round and are still waiting to finish the 4th round earlier in their tenure during a period that wasn't obviously excluded from your original post.

 

My original response to you was merely pointing out that the only way you can say they 'have never been successful in ANY sense of the word' is if you are defining success as winning a Stanley Cup. It's hyperbole.

 

It is always and only about the cup Taro? true

 

There are plenty of legitimate cases that can be made against either or both of those 2, but claiming they have never been successful at all does not help make any of those cases and in fact detracts from any legit case you might be trying to make. With all the legitimate tools in your kit available to you, why go and pick out a rusty piece of bent angle iron to use as a hammer when building a case against them?

 

For me it seens it has been moving backwards from 2006...

 

[Taro T]

While your point is valid, I do see this year as a step back for the organ-eye-zation. They had so much going for them to start the year and blew it. Just plain blew it.

No doubt. But I don't see where anything I wrote contradicts that.

 

...

 

I seem to remember three playoff show in the last ten , . 2001.. one conference final?

 

It is always and only about the cup Taro? true

 

...

Close. 4 since the last trip to playoffs prior to the lockout. 2 conference finals, 2 1st round exits.

 

 

OK, so success to you is apparently only winning the SC, which is fine if that is how you are defining it. Now that you are apparently back to your original statement, this discussion is getting tedious.