Darcy Regier, do you trust him with the rebuild?

[JJFIVEOH]

Stafford was signed to an extension after Pegula took over, he regressed. Leino was signed after Pegula took over, he regressed. Myers was signed to a fat extension after Pegula took over, he regressed. And that's not even getting into the whole team building aspect of being a GM. Pegula has owned the team for 2.5 years, I cannot fathom how anybody thinks Darcy's actions in that span have nothing to do with this team's regression.

 

The vast majority of the people in the hockey world, fans and media alike, considered Leino one of the top FA's available that year. Stafford and Myers were both acquired pre-Pegula regardless of their contract. You can't base argument on hindsight, hell anybody can make themselves look 100% correct after the fact.

 

It's really not Darcy's fault that players who had a good year don't put up the same numbers after being signed/extended/whatever. Sure he could have let Stafford walk after his 30-goal season, but if he went elsewhere and scored 25-30, everyone would want Darcy's head and be making comparisons to Drury/Briere leaving. The Leino deal sucks --put it down as a mistake if you want-- but Leino was one of a handful of UFA's who had put up decent numbers recently AND directly contributed to Philly's beat down of Buffalo in the playoffs. I think it was a good move to go after him, unfortunately it didn't work out so great. I liken it to the Vanek offer-sheet, where maybe taking the four picks would have been the smarter move, but Darcy HAD to match that offer sheet. It was the only option after losing Briere/Drury. Likewise, since Brad Richards was unrealistic and basically everyone knew he was headed for NYC, Darcy had to do something. I don't hold it against him.

 

The Myers extension was probably done prematurely.

 

Exactly. So many people on here have both sides covered depending on which side of the argument they decide to support.

 

Suter

Weber

Parise

Getslaf

Perry

 

(less offensive, but more well rounded players who some may consider better than Vanek)

Brown

Burns

Eriksson

Bergeron

 

I don't agree with some of those, but I respect your opinion.

[Robviously]

It's really not Darcy's fault that players who had a good year don't put up the same numbers after being signed/extended/whatever. Sure he could have let Stafford walk after his 30-goal season, but if he went elsewhere and scored 25-30, everyone would want Darcy's head and be making comparisons to Drury/Briere leaving. The Leino deal sucks --put it down as a mistake if you want-- but Leino was one of a handful of UFA's who had put up decent numbers recently AND directly contributed to Philly's beat down of Buffalo in the playoffs. I think it was a good move to go after him, unfortunately it didn't work out so great. I liken it to the Vanek offer-sheet, where maybe taking the four picks would have been the smarter move, but Darcy HAD to match that offer sheet. It was the only option after losing Briere/Drury. Likewise, since Brad Richards was unrealistic and basically everyone knew he was headed for NYC, Darcy had to do something. I don't hold it against him.

You just gave Regier a pass on three instances where he screwed up by doing the easy, obvious thing instead of doing something bold.

 

1. Stafford should have been traded after his career year. There were people on this board who saw it for what it was: a fluke. We could have sold high on him and got back someone we could rely on. But we were worried he might go be good somewhere else so we played it safe and signed him.

 

2. The Leino deal absolutely does suck and "we had to do something!" is a terrible excuse. Activity is not productivity. And doing something stupid is worse than doing nothing at all.

 

3. Matching Vanek for emotional reasons after blowing it with Drury and Briere is not smart. We could have let him go and underwent a massive rebuild six years ago. Where would we be now in that event? (I can respect matching the offer because they thought he was worth it though.)

 

This is what happens when your GM is terrified of making bold moves and prefers to just hold out on trades so that he can just make about ~2 lopsided "wins" per year and call it success.

[Taro T]

You just gave Regier a pass on three instances where he screwed up by doing the easy, obvious thing instead of doing something bold.

 

1. Stafford should have been traded after his career year. There were people on this board who saw it for what it was: a fluke. We could have sold high on him and got back someone we could rely on. But we were worried he might go be good somewhere else so we played it safe and signed him.

 

2. The Leino deal absolutely does suck and "we had to do something!" is a terrible excuse. Activity is not productivity. And doing something stupid is worse than doing nothing at all.

 

3. Matching Vanek for emotional reasons after blowing it with Drury and Briere is not smart. We could have let him go and underwent a massive rebuild six years ago. Where would we be now in that event? (I can respect matching the offer because they thought he was worth it though.)

 

This is what happens when your GM is terrified of making bold moves and prefers to just hold out on trades so that he can just make about ~2 lopsided "wins" per year and call it success.

W/ all due respect, not matching the Euler offer after your boss just got done telling everybody that ANY offer would be matched would have been dumber (in a preserve your own skin sort of way).

[thesportsbuff]

You just gave Regier a pass on three instances where he screwed up by doing the easy, obvious thing instead of doing something bold.

 

1. Stafford should have been traded after his career year. There were people on this board who saw it for what it was: a fluke. We could have sold high on him and got back someone we could rely on. But we were worried he might go be good somewhere else so we played it safe and signed him.

 

2. The Leino deal absolutely does suck and "we had to do something!" is a terrible excuse. Activity is not productivity. And doing something stupid is worse than doing nothing at all.

 

3. Matching Vanek for emotional reasons after blowing it with Drury and Briere is not smart. We could have let him go and underwent a massive rebuild six years ago. Where would we be now in that event? (I can respect matching the offer because they thought he was worth it though.)

 

This is what happens when your GM is terrified of making bold moves and prefers to just hold out on trades so that he can just make about ~2 lopsided "wins" per year and call it success.

 

1. You can't trade free agents. So are you suggesting we should have re-signed him then immediately traded him? Traded his rights for a 4th round pick?

 

2. Enough about the Leino deal, really. Darcy took a chance and signed him, but whether you agree with that being a good idea or not is basically moot. It's not like Leino's salary prevented us from making any other acquisitions. There weren't any better free agents who we couldn't afford to sign because of Leino. He was a failed project and now we can buy him out for free if Darcy chooses to do so. Leino's play hasn't been a whole lot better than Stafford, but other than occupying a roster spot (which can be easily remedied through waivers) the Leino signing didn't really hamper this team. It added a piece we hoped could elevate us into the playoffs.

 

3. I respect Darcy matching the Vanek sheet as well. I also respect him signing Ville, because they thought he was worth it, too.

[JJFIVEOH]

 

You just gave Regier a pass on three instances where he screwed up by doing the easy, obvious thing instead of doing something bold.

 

1. Stafford should have been traded after his career year. There were people on this board who saw it for what it was: a fluke. We could have sold high on him and got back someone we could rely on. But we were worried he might go be good somewhere else so we played it safe and signed him.

 

2. The Leino deal absolutely does suck and "we had to do something!" is a terrible excuse. Activity is not productivity. And doing something stupid is worse than doing nothing at all.

 

3. Matching Vanek for emotional reasons after blowing it with Drury and Briere is not smart. We could have let him go and underwent a massive rebuild six years ago. Where would we be now in that event? (I can respect matching the offer because they thought he was worth it though.)

 

This is what happens when your GM is terrified of making bold moves and prefers to just hold out on trades so that he can just make about ~2 lopsided "wins" per year and call it success.

 

Hindsight is a beautiful thing isn't it?

[Robviously]

Hindsight is a beautiful thing isn't it?

None of those three are hindsight.

 

People on this board wanted Stafford traded, and people on this board hated the Leino signing. I wasn't around here for the Vanek situation in 2007 but there was definitely a debate about what to do when the Edmonton signing happened.

[JJFIVEOH]

 

None of those three are hindsight.

 

People on this board wanted Stafford traded, and people on this board hated the Leino signing. I wasn't around here for the Vanek situation in 2007 but there was definitely a debate about what to do when the Edmonton signing happened.

 

Again, Stafford was a free agent, he was couldn't be traded. Even if they signed and traded him, it didn't make any sense because at the time it was worth the risk. His performance at the end of last year was enough to propel this team into the playoffs had the injury bug been just a little less damaging. As far as Vanek, had he not been signed the people of BFLO would have personally hanged Darcy.

 

All those situations are in hindsight. Every one of them made sense to the majority, it's easy to say I told you so after the fact but you make it seem like the pending results were common knowledge.

[Trettioåtta]

None of those three are hindsight.

 

People on this board wanted Stafford traded, and people on this board hated the Leino signing. I wasn't around here for the Vanek situation in 2007 but there was definitely a debate about what to do when the Edmonton signing happened.

 

Vanek was 23 and put up 84 points - he had top 5 forward written all over him. 4 firsts, thought to be 15 and lower if they got Vanek and his stardom, would be unlikely to return a player of his apparent quality

 

I don't have a problem with Leino's signing. We are not stuck by the cap and I would rather try something and fail than just not do anything. Also Leino has 6 points in 8 games this season, so we have one bad season under him and one possibly promising one.

 

Stafford should probably have been traded, but $4 million for a 20 goal/50 point winger is money well spent - he didn't need to be on contract year for to earn it, he just had to be on previous 3 year form

[wonderbread]

People on this board wanted Stafford traded, and people on this board hated the Leino signing. I wasn't around here for the Vanek situation in 2007 but there was definitely a debate about what to do when the Edmonton signing happened.

I don't believe it was discussed.

[Robviously]

Again, Stafford was a free agent, he was couldn't be traded. Even if they signed and traded him, it didn't make any sense because at the time it was worth the risk. His performance at the end of last year was enough to propel this team into the playoffs had the injury bug been just a little less damaging. As far as Vanek, had he not been signed the people of BFLO would have personally hanged Darcy.

 

All those situations are in hindsight. Every one of them made sense to the majority, it's easy to say I told you so after the fact but you make it seem like the pending results were common knowledge.

You can trade an RFA. We had a huge thread on this board about trading for Ryan O'Reilly.

 

As for "worth the risk", obviously not everyone thought so and those of us on that side of the argument were right.

[JJFIVEOH]

You can trade an RFA. We had a huge thread on this board about trading for Ryan O'Reilly.

 

As for "worth the risk", obviously not everyone thought so and those of us on that side of the argument were right.

 

Whether you consider that a bad move or not, still doesn't negate the fact Darcy has made solid moves post-Pegula and that the current regression has nothing to do with what he has done in the last two years.

 

Pull up the Stafford/contract thread. You'll see the majority supported it.

[Robviously]

Whether you consider that a bad move or not, still doesn't negate the fact Darcy has made solid moves post-Pegula and that the current regression has nothing to do with what he has done in the last two years.

 

Pull up the Stafford/contract thread. You'll see the majority supported it.

He's made "solid moves" his whole tenure and where are we?

 

He doesn't build teams. He holds on out trades until they're completely lopsided and then he completes maybe a couple trades a year. Everyone celebrates the trades we "won" and meanwhile team's long term issues are never resolved and a good, cohesive team that can contend never materializes.

 

Anyone could do this: Never take risks and only complete a trade if you're extremely confident the other team is overpaying, ignoring what your team needs and never formulating a plan to win the Cup.

[JJFIVEOH]

He's made "solid moves" his whole tenure and where are we?

 

He doesn't build teams. He holds on out trades until they're completely lopsided and then he completes maybe a couple trades a year. Everyone celebrates the trades we "won" and meanwhile team's long term issues are never resolved and a good, cohesive team that can contend never materializes.

 

Anyone could do this: Never take risks and only complete a trade if you're extremely confident the other team is overpaying, ignoring what your team needs and never formulating a plan to win the Cup.

 

Wow, that's pretty vague. Sounds like you have all basis covered no matter what argument is presented.

 

I guess keeping Vanek wasn't a risk? Perhaps that just doesn't fit the narrative. Darcy needs to make more risky moves so we can all bitch about the ones that don't pan out.

[Robviously]

Wow, that's pretty vague. Sounds like you have all basis covered no matter what argument is presented.

I have all the "basis" covered because I've been consistent about what the problem is with Regier. He "wins" trades; he doesn't build teams. In 16 years, his boldest move was probably Kassian for Hodgson. Let that sink in.

[deluca67]

Wow, that's pretty vague. Sounds like you have all basis covered no matter what argument is presented.

He's not wrong.

 

Darcy Regier has mastered the art of doing just enough to keep his job and fool those in charge. The reality is when you judge Regier on the sum total of his work here in Buffalo the conclusion is that he has failed miserably. The goal was, is and always will be winning a Stanley Cup. Regier can win every trade he makes, unless the culmination of all those trades is a Stanley Cup those trades are meaningless. Here we are at the end of another season and all of the work Regier has done has this franchise missing the playoffs, again, and likely finishing with one of the worst records in the NHL. Everything Regier has done previously has lead the franchise to this point in the teams history which happens to be one of the lowest points in team history.

[gpsabre]

I don't think you can have a maybe there.

 

I think Darcy is great at trades but shouldn't be choosing the players.

So don't you think this is why we are ONLY going after picks and future prospects????

I think he is definitely being limited. He may be on his way out. Pegula just saved face for him. NEW COACH , with NEW G.M. and a whole bunch of future draft picks to work with. Recipe for a good, solid rebuild!!!!

 

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.

AMEN BROTHER----You've read it perfectly!

[JJFIVEOH]

He's not wrong.

 

Darcy Regier has mastered the art of doing just enough to keep his job and fool those in charge. The reality is when you judge Regier on the sum total of his work here in Buffalo the conclusion is that he has failed miserably. The goal was, is and always will be winning a Stanley Cup. Regier can win every trade he makes, unless the culmination of all those trades is a Stanley Cup those trades are meaningless. Here we are at the end of another season and all of the work Regier has done has this franchise missing the playoffs, again, and likely finishing with one of the worst records in the NHL. Everything Regier has done previously has lead the franchise to this point in the teams history which happens to be one of the lowest points in team history.

 

You fail to address the point I was making in which he responded to. It is in regards to the transactions that have been made post-Golisano.

 

He's not right or wrong becuase he has every basis covered. Reading his posts is like reading a horoscope. It sure sounds like it fits but when it comes down to it, it applies to everybody and every situation.

 

Like bitching about not taking risks and then turning around and bitching about the results of taking a risk. It's typical of a contrarian.

[nfreeman]

 

 

Whether you consider that a bad move or not, still doesn't negate the fact Darcy has made solid moves post-Pegula and that the current regression has nothing to do with what he has done in the last two years.

 

Pull up the Stafford/contract thread. You'll see the majority supported it.

 

The "solid moves" have taken place on paper only. On the ice they have not worked at all.

 

Darcy built this mess. He's accountable for the results.

[Robviously]

I guess keeping Vanek wasn't a risk? Perhaps that just doesn't fit the narrative. Darcy needs to make more risky moves so we can all bitch about the ones that don't pan out.

The bold move would have been letting Vanek walk. We'd just lost Drury and Briere on the first day of free agency. The entire city and fan base was furious and the blowback from letting Vanek leave too would have been incredible. They definitely didn't want to sign him to that contract (way too rich for Buffalo considering they wouldn't give less money to their captains) but they gave in and matched the offer anyway.

 

The press conference was ridiculous too. Regier was emotional and pissed that Edmonton would even sign a Buffalo RFA and made some statement like "teams shouldn't think they can get our players." (Edmonton did nothing wrong, BTW.) It didn't even sound like a hockey decision.

 

That move wasn't bold by any definition. They'd just lost their two captains and the entire fan base was freaking out so they matched the offer.

 

You fail to address the point I was making in which he responded to. It is in regards to the transactions that have been made post-Golisano.

 

He's not right or wrong becuase he has every basis covered. Reading his posts is like reading a horoscope. It sure sounds like it fits but when it comes down to it, it applies to everybody and every situation.

 

Like bitching about not taking risks and then turning around and bitching about the results of taking a risk. It's typical of a contrarian.

Just for the record: you're the one in this thread whose arguments keep changing from post to post.

 

First you said complaints about the moves were all made with hindsight. (They weren't.)

 

Then you said, whatever, we couldn't have traded Stafford anyway. (We could have.)

 

Then you said, OK, but if you read the Stafford thread, the majority of the posters thought it was good. (Which is irrelevant.)

 

Now you're saying, so what, your arguments are vague. (Except that my "vague" argument is the same in every post while your stuff just morphs into something else every time you decide to write something new.)

[deluca67]

How about keeping the discussion on the topic?

 

Post Golisano Regier was mentioned. IMO, the post Golisano era has been the most disappointing of the Regier Regime. For years all we heard was how Regier could be a great GM if the shackles were removed, Quinn was gone and he had resources to compete with the big boys. Here we are, circumstances have been laid out perfectly for Regier, what do we have to show for it? One of the worst teams in the NHL.

[Trettioåtta]

The bold move would have been letting Vanek walk. We'd just lost Drury and Briere on the first day of free agency. The entire city and fan base was furious and the blowback from letting Vanek leave too would have been incredible. They definitely didn't want to sign him to that contract (way too rich for Buffalo considering they wouldn't give less money to their captains) but they gave in and matched the offer anyway.

 

The press conference was ridiculous too. Regier was emotional and pissed that Edmonton would even sign a Buffalo RFA and made some statement like "teams shouldn't think they can get our players." (Edmonton did nothing wrong, BTW.) It didn't even sound like a hockey decision.

 

That move wasn't bold by any definition. They'd just lost their two captains and the entire fan base was freaking out so they matched the offer.

 

 

Just for the record: you're the one in this thread whose arguments keep changing from post to post.

 

First you said complaints about the moves were all made with hindsight. (They weren't.)

 

Then you said, whatever, we couldn't have traded Stafford anyway. (We could have.)

 

Then you said, OK, but if you read the Stafford thread, the majority of the posters thought it was good. (Which is irrelevant.)

 

Now you're saying, so what, your arguments are vague. (Except that my "vague" argument is the same in every post while your stuff just morphs into something else every time you decide to write something new.)

 

23 years old and 84 points - you just don't let that go. it might be the safe option, but it was the right one at the time. Vanek is also one of the few stars who has ever been offer sheeted and i think he was the first proper attempt

[deluca67]

23 years old and 84 points - you just don't let that go. it might be the safe option, but it was the right one at the time. Vanek is also one of the few stars who has ever been offer sheeted and i think he was the first proper attempt

Would the Sabres have let Vanek go if Drury and Briere re-signed? The mistake was allowing Vanek to reach free agency. You don't let other GM's negotiate contracts for your players.

[Robviously]

23 years old and 84 points - you just don't let that go. it might be the safe option, but it was the right one at the time. Vanek is also one of the few stars who has ever been offer sheeted and i think he was the first proper attempt

1. This means there is absolutely no way to call matching that offer a "bold" decision. From an emotional standpoint, it was the only decision.

 

2. From a hockey standpoint, there were arguments both for and against. If they honestly thought he was worth it, that's a good way to make this decision. Based on the press conference when it happened, I don't know how they made their decision.

 

Would the Sabres have let Vanek go if Drury and Briere re-signed? The mistake was allowing Vanek to reach free agency. You don't let other GM's negotiate contracts for your players.

This too. If they hadn't messed up with both of their captains, they probably would have taken Edmonton's picks and moved on.

[Brawndo]

Anyone hear Darcy on WGR earlier today?

 

He feels there are five to seven players at the top of draft that can be true difference makers.

 

Wants to rebuild a foundation of the team and then add free agents to supplement it.

 

Also brought up a draft mistake his first year. They had targeted a player in the draft, but rumors of Hasek retiring shifted their thinking to Mika Nornonen as a replacement for Hasek. The original target was Brenden Morrow.

 

He brought this up to discuss the importance of having depth at all positions.

[Trettioåtta]

Would the Sabres have let Vanek go if Drury and Briere re-signed? The mistake was allowing Vanek to reach free agency. You don't let other GM's negotiate contracts for your players.

1. This means there is absolutely no way to call matching that offer a "bold" decision. From an emotional standpoint, it was the only decision.

 

2. From a hockey standpoint, there were arguments both for and against. If they honestly thought he was worth it, that's a good way to make this decision. Based on the press conference when it happened, I don't know how they made their decision.

 

 

This too. If they hadn't messed up with both of their captains, they probably would have taken Edmonton's picks and moved on.

 

That whole offseason was a cluster-######. So much so you have to think some stuff was going on behind the scenes. I just don't think anyone trades a 23 year old 80+ point scorer for 4 late 1sts