Darcy Regier, do you trust him with the rebuild?

[Weave]

"It's not the GM's job to build the team"? Did I really just read that?

[Taro T]

 

 

Would I be surprised if I'm still here at 3:01 tomorrow? Probably not.

How about day after the draft?

 

"It's not the GM's job to build the team"? Did I really just read that?

Yup. :doh:

[thesportsbuff]

One more thing I forgot to add to my post... yes we replaced Lindy Ruff. We replaced one member of an entire coaching staff. I'll be the first to admit I'm not a big x's and o's guy. I can't tell you if the team is playing a "different system" under Rolston than under Ruff (it doesn't seem that way to the naked eye tho). But I still see James Patrick and Kevyn Adams giving the orders half of the time, including on our abysmal powerplay. Firing Lindy was the GM's equivalent of a coach pulling his starting goalie after a bad first period. You do it because you hope it will create a spark -- but under the surface, nothing really changed at all.

[nfreeman]

what's a "bad" thing Darcy has done since Pegula took over? "Didn't sign Brad Richards" and "Didn't trade for Crosby" don't count.

 

Dear me.

 

How 'bout this:

 

The GM of a hockey team has ultimate responsibility for creating a successful team, and is ultimately accountable when the team is unsuccessful.

 

By definition, when the team is terrible, as the Sabres are, the GM has failed.

 

The cheapskate owner excuse (which was real, IMHO) has been gone since TP arrived.

 

The injury excuse of last year (which was BS, IMHO) is not applicable this year.

 

The Lindy excuse (also BS IMHO) is gone.

 

The team stinks.

 

Darcy has failed.

 

Darcy must go.

[thesportsbuff]

The cheapskate owner excuse (which was real, IMHO) has been gone since TP arrived.

 

The injury excuse of last year (which was BS, IMHO) is not applicable this year.

 

The Lindy excuse (also BS IMHO) is gone.

 

 

I guess then, what I'm saying, is that the cheapskate owner excuse (that you agree was at least a legitimate excuse) is still in play. He's had two off-seasons to work with, neither of which had strong free agent classes. I don't care who our GM is. Insert Penguins GM, insert Kings GM -- whoever. If the resources aren't there, ie there aren't any superstar free agents, there is little more a GM can do to improve the team outside of drafting and trading. I like the drafting, I like the trades we've made. Not sure who's a UFA this summer but if we land a Top 6 forward and a Top 4 d-man, we're a playoff team next year. Then you build on it, until you're a cup contender.

[tom webster]

Exactly how is this team significantly worse than when Pegula bought them? The year Pegula bought the team, it required a 16-4-4 finish to sneak into 7th place and lose in the first round of the playoffs. Last year the team went on a run at the end of the season and fell a few points short of the playoffs. This year we're in the same position -- we could go on a big run and make playoffs, or more likely we won't go on a big run and we'll wind up a handful of points short. So if we're basing the skill-level of the team on results, which is fair, then this team has neither improved nor regressed "significantly" since Pegula purchased it.

 

That doesn't mean it wasn't for lack of trying. You say you want a new decision maker. What benefits would a different GM have provided for us last summer? Would a different GM have not signed the second-best free agent available because he had some incredible foresight that Leino wouldn't be worth it? Would a different GM have not traded Derek Roy like everyone on this board has been clamoring for for upwards of four years now? You guys are quick to jump on Darcy because what he's doing isn't working, but you have to realize there simply aren't that many options available. A different GM doesn't mean we can suddenly trade for Sidney Crosby. A different GM doesn't mean suddenly there are tons of top notch UFA's for us to sign. And a different GM doesn't mean suddenly someone is going to give us a 1st round pick for TJ Brennan. Darcy is working with what he has to improve the team.

 

The Hodgson trade was easily the best trade Darcy has made since the 04-05 lockout. Kassian is now playing in the AHL while Hodgson is a #1 center with a bright future. This move also had Vanek and Pommer playing at world-class levels to start the season. This was the first time Vanek had a legit #1 center since Derek Roy's 80 point season and he was among league leaders in points and goals for the first several weeks. It's not a fluke that they played so well together. Hodgson is by far the most important piece of this team's future -- we wouldn't have him if Darcy didn't have the balls to trade our "top prospect" for him.

 

Additionally, Darcy has done pretty well drafting. Ennis, Myers, Foligno, Armia, Grigorenko, McCabe- the list goes on. And we also can't forget that Darcy traded UP to get Myers, got the Ennis pick for trading a overpaid Brian Campbell, and landed Nashville's first (Girgensons) for Paul Gaustad. Those were all good trades made with the team's future in mind.

 

So it's interesting to me that everyone says, "fire darcy because he can't choose the players" yet the same people want to "rebuild" around these guys that Darcy drafted? I guess he did do a pretty good job choosing the players if these are the guys you want to rebuild around, huh?

 

I know you guys are sick of hearing it but Darcy hasn't had enough time under Pegula. Obviously Terry's way of running things has made a difference, as Darcy has been more pro-active than ever before in trying to acquire good players. He's had two mediocre free agent classes to work with (but still wound up with two of the big name free agents, Ehrhoff and Leino). And now, courtesy of the new CBA, he'll have the option to buy out Leino at no real cost should he choose to this summer, thus negating the only "bad" move Darcy has made under Pegula (i don't think they buy out Leino personally though).

 

So where are we now? We're outside of the playoff picture, yes. But we have a #1 center, the most important piece of the puzzle, who is only going to get better moving forward. We have a ton of young talent, with Ennis, Foligno, Tropp, Armia, Grigorenko, Girgensons factoring into our forward ranks over the next few years, along with McNabb, Pysyk, McCabe, and maybe more in the pipeline on defense. We have a legit world-class goal scorer in Vanek, and maybe not the best, but still very solid all around RW in Pominville. A Top 10, arguably Top 5 goalie in the world in net. A nice injection of grit and energy with Steve Ott, Tropp, Foligno, Kaleta in the bottom six. Not to mention a nice allotment of picks (and probably more on the way) over the next 2-3 drafts. Scott and Gerbe I expect will be the odd men out and eventually be let go.

 

The thing is, everyone looks at the results this season and says oh it's finally time to blow it up and rebuild. Well Darcy is one step ahead of you. He has been "rebuilding" for years. that's what the draft is for. that's what the hodgson trade was all about, and grigorenko (gaustad). hell, that's what the Roy trade was about too. Unfortunately we haven't been lucky enough to have an elite UFA class for Darcy to pick through yet, but we will be reaping the benefits of good drafting and good trading before too long.

 

sorry if you disagree, i don't mean to sound snarky either, just stating my opinion. Darcy's body of work under Pegula is worthy of more time in my opinion. the team's body of work? not so much. But only so much of that can be blamed on Darcy.

 

To answer your question, the results never speak for themselves. there's always more to the story.

 

It's the general managers job to make sure that the whole is greater then the sum of the parts. By "winning" trades but failing to see what pieces the team needs, you end up with a "flawed" team where you expect Ennis and Hodgson to co exist as your two centers and both have to sit when the other team's top center is on the ice or when an important defensive zone face off is happening. There are a whole assortment of other ills on the present day roster that I will leave to the X's and O's guys to disseminate.

 

On top of that, the pipeline is vastly overrated by some on this board. Read some un-biased assessments and you will see that only Girgerenko and Armia are considered top line material and while some of the defensemen are considered top 4 material, none of them are considered top pairing potential and the best goalie prospect was signed as an undrafted free agent.

[bunomatic]

I voted no. I don't have the energy to go into the reasons. Occasionally he makes a move that is good I'll give him that but collectively his body of work sukcs. Look at the product on the ice. Nuff said.

[nfreeman]

I guess then, what I'm saying, is that the cheapskate owner excuse (that you agree was at least a legitimate excuse) is still in play. He's had two off-seasons to work with, neither of which had strong free agent classes. I don't care who our GM is. Insert Penguins GM, insert Kings GM -- whoever. If the resources aren't there, ie there aren't any superstar free agents, there is little more a GM can do to improve the team outside of drafting and trading. I like the drafting, I like the trades we've made. Not sure who's a UFA this summer but if we land a Top 6 forward and a Top 4 d-man, we're a playoff team next year. Then you build on it, until you're a cup contender.

 

None of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa has signed a good FA in forever. Each is a better team than the Sabres -- and each is on the upswing while the Sabres bottom out.

[IKnowPhysics]

I voted yes. He's done nothing but good things since Pegula's purchase of the team. Other than the Brennan trade (which, really, pfft), Darcy has gotten the better end of every trade he's made.

 

I voted yes, but not because the supporting argument is that he's done bullet proof work, so here's my two word counterargument to yours: Brad Boyes. (FTR, I'm fine with moving Brennan to FLA, and I'm generally happy with most other moves he's made.)

 

I voted yes because, from the evidence I've observed and the root cause analysis I do in my own head, the bad record is neither incompetence on the GM's part nor incompetence on the coach's part. The fault lies with the players that underperformed. To do root cause analysis, I use the "five whys" trick. Engineers know what's up.

 

Problem: Sabres have a bad record.

Why do the Sabres have a bad record? They lose games.

Why do they lose games? Do they not score goals? No. They allow bad goals. (I'm ignoring special teams here for a moment)

Why do they allow bad goals? Is the defensive system bad? No. Is the goaltending bad? No. The players on the ice make bad defensive plays.

Why do the players on the ice make bad defensive plays? Do they not try? No. The players make mistakes.

Why do the players make mistakes? Are they bad players? No. The players have their heads up their ######. At the worst times.

 

I believe in player accountability. I believe that Darcy is a competent (and quite often good: see drafting, trades, more recently contracts) GM. I believe Ruff is a good coach. Rolston might be a good coach. I believe that the players that were brought here with expectations of performance have failed to meet that level of performance and that the onus of that failure is more directly on those players than it is on the GM or coach. The GM and coach may or may not take responsibility for their failure (and they have), but that doesn't mean that they are the source of the problem. It does mean, however, that they are most repsonsible for fixing it, and I believe they are capable of doing so.

 

I look forward to shipping out the bums and making the team better through trades, signings, offer sheets, and drafts.

 

Regier took us from 2003 to 2006; he is just as capable of advancing the team as he is regressing it. For the record, Regier is far from untouchable. One of the reasons I don't vote "maybe" is because it will take much of next season to see the results of this off season, especially with a new coach.

[Robviously]

"It's not the GM's job to build the team"? Did I really just read that?

Astonishing. Even for that internet, that sentence was astonishing.

[Grumpy]

I voted yes, but not because the supporting argument is that he's done bullet proof work, so here's my two word counterargument to yours: Brad Boyes. (FTR, I'm fine with moving Brennan to FLA, and I'm generally happy with most other moves he's made.)

 

I voted yes because, from the evidence I've observed and the root cause analysis I do in my own head, the bad record is neither incompetence on the GM's part nor incompetence on the coach's part. The fault lies with the players that underperformed. To do root cause analysis, I use the "five whys" trick. Engineers know what's up.

 

Problem: Sabres have a bad record.

Why do the Sabres have a bad record? They lose games.

Why do they lose games? Do they not score goals? No. They allow bad goals. (I'm ignoring special teams here for a moment)

Why do they allow bad goals? Is the defensive system bad? No. Is the goaltending bad? No. The players on the ice make bad defensive plays.

Why do the players on the ice make bad defensive plays? Do they not try? No. The players make mistakes.

Why do the players make mistakes? Are they bad players? No. The players have their heads up their ######. At the worst times.

 

I believe in player accountability. I believe that Darcy is a competent (and quite often good: see drafting, trades, more recently contracts) GM. I believe Ruff is a good coach. Rolston might be a good coach. I believe that the players that were brought here with expectations of performance have failed to meet that level of performance and that the onus of that failure is more directly on those players than it is on the GM or coach. The GM and coach may or may not take responsibility for their failure (and they have), but that doesn't mean that they are the source of the problem. It does mean, however, that they are most repsonsible for fixing it, and I believe they are capable of doing so.

 

I look forward to shipping out the bums and making the team better through trades, signings, offer sheets, and drafts.

 

Regier took us from 2003 to 2006; he is just as capable of advancing the team as he is regressing it. For the record, Regier is far from untouchable. One of the reasons I don't vote "maybe" is because it will take much of next season to see the results of this off season, especially with a new coach.

So, he has brought in good and great players, molded a wonderful team, and they simply under perform. Wow. That that sounds like ivory tower academic rhetoric to me.

[Eleven]

I voted yes, but not because the supporting argument is that he's done bullet proof work, so here's my two word counterargument to yours: Brad Boyes. (FTR, I'm fine with moving Brennan to FLA, and I'm generally happy with most other moves he's made.)

 

I voted yes because, from the evidence I've observed and the root cause analysis I do in my own head, the bad record is neither incompetence on the GM's part nor incompetence on the coach's part. The fault lies with the players that underperformed. To do root cause analysis, I use the "five whys" trick. Engineers know what's up.

 

Problem: Sabres have a bad record.

Why do the Sabres have a bad record? They lose games.

Why do they lose games? Do they not score goals? No. They allow bad goals. (I'm ignoring special teams here for a moment)

Why do they allow bad goals? Is the defensive system bad? No. Is the goaltending bad? No. The players on the ice make bad defensive plays.

Why do the players on the ice make bad defensive plays? Do they not try? No. The players make mistakes.

Why do the players make mistakes? Are they bad players? No. The players have their heads up their ######. At the worst times.

 

I believe in player accountability. I believe that Darcy is a competent (and quite often good: see drafting, trades, more recently contracts) GM. I believe Ruff is a good coach. Rolston might be a good coach. I believe that the players that were brought here with expectations of performance have failed to meet that level of performance and that the onus of that failure is more directly on those players than it is on the GM or coach. The GM and coach may or may not take responsibility for their failure (and they have), but that doesn't mean that they are the source of the problem. It does mean, however, that they are most repsonsible for fixing it, and I believe they are capable of doing so.

 

I look forward to shipping out the bums and making the team better through trades, signings, offer sheets, and drafts.

 

Regier took us from 2003 to 2006; he is just as capable of advancing the team as he is regressing it. For the record, Regier is far from untouchable. One of the reasons I don't vote "maybe" is because it will take much of next season to see the results of this off season, especially with a new coach.

 

One phrase: One center.

[Taro T]

 

 

One phrase: One center.

Yeah, but in 2 years they MIGHT have 4. PLUS a 2nd round pick that they should be able to parlay into a 4th liner.

[Robviously]

Yeah, but in 2 years they MIGHT have 4. PLUS a 2nd round pick that they should be able to parlay into a 4th liner.

Playing the long game, baby.

[evilempire]

I doubt Darcy will be here for the rebuild as i think Darcy is only here for the rest of the season and is being a good soldier as he is already aware of his fate. By acquiring draft picks and shedding salary they are making the job of gm for this team way more attractive to perspective candidates. I would think that the owner is overseeing Darcy at every corner and has to ok everything he is doing. With the cap going down next year ( a lot of teams going to need to shed salary) and lots of ammo in draft picks and cap room a new capable gm could turn this around relatively quickly. But then again this is buffalo.

[Weave]

Flawed root cause analysis is flawed.

[TrueBlueGED]

Exactly how is this team significantly worse than when Pegula bought them? The year Pegula bought the team, it required a 16-4-4 finish to sneak into 7th place and lose in the first round of the playoffs. Last year the team went on a run at the end of the season and fell a few points short of the playoffs. This year we're in the same position -- we could go on a big run and make playoffs, or more likely we won't go on a big run and we'll wind up a handful of points short. So if we're basing the skill-level of the team on results, which is fair, then this team has neither improved nor regressed "significantly" since Pegula purchased it.

 

To answer your question, the results never speak for themselves. there's always more to the story.

 

To save space, and because others have addressed most of the rest, I'll focus on these two points. To the first point, they finished 7th, 9th, and are currently on pace to finish 13-15 in the conference. It's been a steady regression. Even if I were to agree that Regier's moves have made the team better (which I don't), the team doesn't operate in a vacuum. What really matters is whether and to what degree the team has improved relative to the competition, which is objectively judged by the standings. Even if the Sabres haven't themselves regressed, the rest of the conference has improved at a faster rate.

 

To your second point, I phrased that a little poorly, because of course there's always more to the story. What I was really asking is, what is your breaking point where regardless of what you think of individual moves, if the results continue to be poor, do you say "we have to make a change because the results aren't good enough"? If they miss the playoffs the next two seasons even though you like the moves made, is that good enough? Everybody has to have a breaking point where the results override the rest.

 

 

Problem: Sabres have a bad record.

Why do the Sabres have a bad record? They lose games.

Why do they lose games? Do they not score goals? No. They allow bad goals. (I'm ignoring special teams here for a moment)

Why do they allow bad goals? Is the defensive system bad? No. Is the goaltending bad? No. The players on the ice make bad defensive plays.

Why do the players on the ice make bad defensive plays? Do they not try? No. The players make mistakes.

Why do the players make mistakes? Are they bad players? No. The players have their heads up their ######. At the worst times.

 

I believe in player accountability. I believe that Darcy is a competent (and quite often good: see drafting, trades, more recently contracts) GM. I believe Ruff is a good coach. Rolston might be a good coach. I believe that the players that were brought here with expectations of performance have failed to meet that level of performance and that the onus of that failure is more directly on those players than it is on the GM or coach. The GM and coach may or may not take responsibility for their failure (and they have), but that doesn't mean that they are the source of the problem. It does mean, however, that they are most repsonsible for fixing it, and I believe they are capable of doing so.

 

At what point do players having their heads up their ass too frequently make them bad players? Part of being a good player is consistently playing smart, quality hockey. If the players are making awful decisions on a frequent basis, there has to be a point where that makes them bad players regardless of their physical talent, right?

[dudacek]

Responding directly to the question:

Like he was was my dearly departed mother.

[IKnowPhysics]

At what point do players having their heads up their ass too frequently make them bad players?

 

Due to causality, at some point after they start having their heads up their ass. Not before.

 

We all had high expectations for this team. Were our expectations unrealisitic or did the players underperform? If it's the latter, whose fault is that? I think it's the players'. Nobody predicted how ###### this team was going to be, including the GM. So what can the GM do now? Fire the coach? Check. Dump the underperforming players? Working on it- but that's part of the rebuild.

[thesportsbuff]

It's the general managers job to make sure that the whole is greater then the sum of the parts. By "winning" trades but failing to see what pieces the team needs, you end up with a "flawed" team where you expect Ennis and Hodgson to co exist as your two centers and both have to sit when the other team's top center is on the ice or when an important defensive zone face off is happening. There are a whole assortment of other ills on the present day roster that I will leave to the X's and O's guys to disseminate.

 

On top of that, the pipeline is vastly overrated by some on this board. Read some un-biased assessments and you will see that only Girgerenko and Armia are considered top line material and while some of the defensemen are considered top 4 material, none of them are considered top pairing potential and the best goalie prospect was signed as an undrafted free agent.

 

I'm aware that only Grigorenko and Armia really project to be top line players, but that doesn't mean Foligno, Tropp, etc don't factor in to the equation at all. You mention that Hodgson and Ennis don't even take draws at the most critical times, which may be true, but that's part of the growing process. If we "rebuild" and trade Vanek Pommer Miller and hire a new GM, we're still going to be relying on those guys unless we make a major trade or a FA signing. Even if we get the #1 pick and draft McKinnon (he's a center right?), he's probably not going to be a pro at faceoffs off the bat either.

 

None of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa has signed a good FA in forever. Each is a better team than the Sabres -- and each is on the upswing while the Sabres bottom out.

 

Those are good arguments and I don't really have a retort for it other than that I think Darcy can get there given more time. The Leafs fired Brian Burke, but the team on the ice that has pretty much solidified a playoff spot is still his team. All those teams have also had Top 5 draft picks (IIRC) to work with.. altho Morgan Reilly isn't playing for the Leafs yet so he dioesn't really count, but they parlayed their first rounders into Phil Kessel... a 30 goal scorer who along with the addition of JVR and the emergence of Kadri have helped the Leafs turn the corner.

[JJFIVEOH]

I'm not going to go back and read the threads from during the offseason. However, if I remember correctly, most of this board was accepting (and in most cases supporting) of the fact that Darcy made some good moves at last year's deadline and during the offseason that was going to help build for the future. With the addition of Hodgson, the emergence of Ennis (at the time) as a center and also setting up two 1st rounders to get centers that will be NHL ready in the very near future. Most of this board figured this year would suck as we would be short one veteran center but the future looked bright with three potentially starting centers. Most of us were expecting a non-playoff year this year.

 

Now that this has all panned out the way we expected, why is it a surprise? With the slight exception of Darcy not picking up a stud, veteran center (which most would agree would have been difficult without ridding the team of other stars) for this year, he really hasn't made any bad moves since Pegula took over. The flaw with this team does not lie in the moves he's made recently, it lies in the moves he made in the past while on a leash. I'm not sure how many people I speak for, but with the injuries this team had last year, combined with a strong late season run, I'm pretty sure most of us wouldn't have made any other significant moves. Look back before the season started, everybody was excited about what this team might look like in 2014 based on last years moves.

[Kristian]

Yeah, but in 2 years they MIGHT have 4. PLUS a 2nd round pick that they should be able to parlay into a 4th liner.

 

True, but being short on centers is not something that happened overnight with this team, it goes right back to when Hecht was first used to fill the center position, simply due to lack of depth on in the organisation.

 

Should've been adressed then. Heck, should've been adressed BEFORE then.

 

It's strange, cause from the late 90's until 2007, we were stocked down the middle. We had several centers playing wings, simply due to the extensive depth there.

 

We went from one extreme to another, and if I absolutely HAVE to choose between one or the other, I prefer centers playing wing positions, over wingers playing center.

[Hartman]

The results speak for themselves.

[Jsixspd]

Of course I don't trust him! He's been with the Sabres longer than the legendary 17 year lifecycle of the friggin' 17 year Cicada for CRYIN OUT LOUD!

 

Only a Buffalo team could be run that stupidly. Even Ralph Wilson Jr. wouldn't keep a dead-wood GM that long.

[TrueBlueGED]

I'm not going to go back and read the threads from during the offseason. However, if I remember correctly, most of this board was accepting (and in most cases supporting) of the fact that Darcy made some good moves at last year's deadline and during the offseason that was going to help build for the future. With the addition of Hodgson, the emergence of Ennis (at the time) as a center and also setting up two 1st rounders to get centers that will be NHL ready in the very near future. Most of this board figured this year would suck as we would be short one veteran center but the future looked bright with three potentially starting centers. Most of us were expecting a non-playoff year this year.

 

This isn't my recollection at all. I believe the vast majority expected playoffs, or at worst a near miss. And just about nobody thought they'd be one of the worst teams in the league.