Serious question now that the offseason dust has settled: would you rather go into the 3rd-last game of next season with ...

[LastPommerFan]

They absolutely did both times they made it to the Finals. But, as I'd mentioned, the '06 team was 'closer to winning the SC' than the '75 team because there was NFW that team was winning in Filly. They'd NEVER done it in their history and it took them 2 more years to get win 1 in the Spectrum.

 

And since Bio specifically referred to the 2 Sabres teams that came closest to winning; the '75 squad was discounted. ;)

 

So GC, :nana:

 

I was simultaneously correcting both of you. :P

[biodork]

I was simultaneously correcting both of you. :P

 

;)

[Taro T]

 

 

I was simultaneously correcting both of you. :P

And that '75 team wasn't germane to the discussion because it isn't in the set comprised with the "2 Sabres teams that came closest to winning a Stanley Cup."

 

That team came the 3rd closest. :P

[LastPommerFan]

And that '75 team wasn't germane to the discussion because it isn't in the set comprised with the "2 Sabres teams that came closest to winning a Stanley Cup."

 

That team came the 3rd closest. :P

 

Closest to the cup, not teams talented enough to win the cup. 2 wins away is closer than 5. every. time. :flirt: (can I get a judges ruling on this?)

Edited August 8, 2014 by Glass Case Of Emotion

[Taro T]

 

 

Closest to the cup, not teams talented enough to win the cup. 2 wins away is closer than 5. every. time. :flirt: (can I get a judges ruling on this?)

Having a 0% chance of winning a game in Filly and having to win at least 1, and w/ losing once in Buffalo realistically 2, does NOT put them closer to winning than the '06 team came. It's like being on the near side of a collapsed bridge and needing to be 100 yards north of the bridge with the next closest bridge 10 miles away or being on the other shore 1 mile from that point 100 yards north of the bridge. The guy that's 'farther' is a heck of a lot closer.

 

When you've NEVER won in a building in 5 years, you have NFC of winning. Had they had home ice; they were closer. They didn't, they weren't. And, btw, they DID have the talent to win; just didn't have the right place. To paraphrase Dr. John, they was at the right time, but it must have been the wrong place.

[LastPommerFan]

Having a 0% chance of winning a game in Filly and having to win at least 1, and w/ losing once in Buffalo realistically 2, does NOT put them closer to winning than the '06 team came. It's like being on the near side of a collapsed bridge and needing to be 100 yards north of the bridge with the next closest bridge 10 miles away or being on the other shore 1 mile from that point 100 yards north of the bridge. The guy that's 'farther' is a heck of a lot closer.

 

When you've NEVER won in a building in 5 years, you have NFC of winning. Had they had home ice; they were closer. They didn't, they weren't. And, btw, they DID have the talent to win; just didn't have the right place. To paraphrase Dr. John, they was at the right time, but it must have been the wrong place.

 

I'm sorry Taro, but If either of those teams was facing a collapsed bridge, it's the one that had Rory Fitzpatrick and Doug Janik as the second pairing.

[Taro T]

 

 

I'm sorry Taro, but If either of those teams was facing a collapsed bridge, it's the one that had Rory Fitzpatrick and Doug Janik as the second pairing.

At a minimum, that team would've had McKee back in the next round. Probably would have had Teppo back too.

[LastPommerFan]

At a minimum, that team would've had McKee back in the next round. Probably would have had Teppo back too.

 

I feel the 2006 position requires an awful lot of prognosticating to overcome the 1975 position's stark fact of wins.

 

We'll send it to the jury.

 

I think this is a fantastic off-season debate. :)

[nfreeman]

Closest to the cup, not teams talented enough to win the cup. 2 wins away is closer than 5. every. time. :flirt: (can I get a judges ruling on this?)

 

Yes. You are correct.

 

Sorry Taro. Your position has great emotional resonance, but facts is facts.

 

Having a 0% chance of winning a game in Filly and having to win at least 1, and w/ losing once in Buffalo realistically 2, does NOT put them closer to winning than the '06 team came. It's like being on the near side of a collapsed bridge and needing to be 100 yards north of the bridge with the next closest bridge 10 miles away or being on the other shore 1 mile from that point 100 yards north of the bridge. The guy that's 'farther' is a heck of a lot closer.

 

When you've NEVER won in a building in 5 years, you have NFC of winning. Had they had home ice; they were closer. They didn't, they weren't. And, btw, they DID have the talent to win; just didn't have the right place. To paraphrase Dr. John, they was at the right time, but it must have been the wrong place.

 

I think there is a compelling argument to be made that the '75 team was closer than the '99 team.

 

My hope is that if they've been playing well enough to talk playoffs come March, either guys have re-signed or been made expendable by the younger players. And why do so many people seem to think full-tank is the only way? Neither of the two Sabres teams that came closest to winning a Cup had a Crosby-type player, and even the Pens have had plenty of years WITH Crosby without being relevant come April. There are many paths to the Cup, and if the Sabres don't get Eichel and/or McDavid, I'm confident GMTM will still find a way to make us contenders again.

 

Ahem!

[MattPie]

I feel the 2006 position requires an awful lot of prognosticating to overcome the 1975 position's stark fact of wins.

 

We'll send it to the jury.

 

I think this is a fantastic off-season debate. :)

 

1975 was closer. The Sabres needed a minimum of 4 goals to win that cup that year (3 to win Game 6, 1 minimum to win game 7). The Sabres needed a minimum of 6 goals to win: 2 vs. the Canes and then four 1-0 games. I get the "they can't win in that building" concept, but realistically a couple bounces would have tossed that.

Edited August 8, 2014 by MattPie

[TrueBlueGED]

My hope is that if they've been playing well enough to talk playoffs come March, either guys have re-signed or been made expendable by the younger players. And why do so many people seem to think full-tank is the only way? Neither of the two Sabres teams that came closest to winning a Cup had a Crosby-type player, and even the Pens have had plenty of years WITH Crosby without being relevant come April. There are many paths to the Cup, and if the Sabres don't get Eichel and/or McDavid, I'm confident GMTM will still find a way to make us contenders again.

 

Nobody is saying it's the only way, we're saying it's the road we want to travel after so many years of trying other stuff. And if you're not going to be making deep playoff runs every year, watching Crosby and Malkin for 82+ games is a pretty good silver lining for anyone who enjoys hockey :)

[biodork]

Ahem!

 

Lol I already clarified that I'd forgotten about the '75 team and was thinking '99 and '06. And I don't count Hasek because he's not a forward.

[TheMatrix31]

Let's remember that by the time the playoffs roll around, it will have been 4 effing years since we knew the gut-churning, unbearably tense thrill ride of playoff hockey.

 

April 22, 2011. That was the last time the Sabres won a playoff game (it OT, no less -- on an Ennis putback).

 

Would you really rather wait another 20 freaking months for the Sabres to play a playoff game? And do you want to wait that long in exchange for a 42% chance (probably less, since they are changing the rules) at the #2 overall pick?

 

And what about the regular season? Don't you want to wake up on a Wednesday, with the Sabres on a 3-game win streak and the Bruins coming to town, look forward to the game all day, wonder whether the Sabres can deliver a statement win, go crazy when Kaleta lines up Lucic, break the game down here afterwards and then go to bed happy?

 

Why do we care about this team anyway if not for the thrills?

 

The team last year was unbearable and completely insufferable. I checked out by like early January and that's probably being generous.

 

For a person trying to develop and hone his love for the game, these last couple years has been completely detrimental to my own development and I'm sick of it.

 

Give me a chance to fall---and stay----in love. It felt so damn good to watch meaningful hockey in the Olympics and the playoffs and it sickened me that the Sabres were not a part of it and were not only the worst team in the league but boring and an eyesore to watch. If you're going to be bad, at least be entertaining. We weren't. The team was downright detestable.

 

Nothing will develop the players more than meaningful hockey. If our management is now as good as we think it is, then we'll find a way to find players regardless of where we draft.

 

We have to remember that while the goal is Stanley Cups and that's obviously what we should strive for, we spend six months of our year watching this team night in and night out so we should be entertained and thrilled too. If that means a playoff chase that falls short, okay. If that means a first round exit, that's okay too. Just build. Languishing and hoping draft picks pan out is not building, no matter what anyone says. It's throwing a bunch of ###### together hoping that it will all click at once and suddenly we won't be bad anymore.

 

I'd kill for another thrill ride like the series against Philly in 2011, regardless of outcome.

 

Be the team that they say, "damn, AND they have all those picks to work with?" rather than the team that they say "well, at least they have all those picks to work with."

Edited August 8, 2014 by TheMatrix31

[Byebye]

Sell Stafford, Stewart, and mezaros at the deadline for whatever you can get for them. I'd expect a 2nd, a 2nd and a 4th but I'd take a bag of pucks and retain half the salary. Come summer time resign Stafford or Stewart if you feel like you want to. (remember Moulson?) if said it once, and I'll say it again. We have a bottom 3 team, so sell whomever you have to to finish last, as long as it's not hurting our future.(players noted above fit the bill). This year will be exciting only on the development side of things.

 

Personally, I get all warm and fuzzy inside thinking about it. Maybe it's a little premature, but it's going to be cool to say in 5 years when we are SERIOUS competitors that we got to see it before blossom before our very eyes. I'll watch another season of losing, I'll watch 3 if I have to. I know the day will come. The day I say to my friends, that's why I'm a buffalo fan. I'll say it with pride too. Our fan base is going to quadruple in the coming years, much like Chicago. We however, will be able to say we believed when nobody else did

[darksabre]

 

 

Nobody is saying it's the only way, we're saying it's the road we want to travel after so many years of trying other stuff. And if you're not going to be making deep playoff runs every year, watching Crosby and Malkin for 82+ games is a pretty good silver lining for anyone who enjoys hockey :)

 

Bingo. I'm tired of executing the same middle of the road rebuilds and ending up with the same "not quite good enough" teams.

[SabresBillsFan]

We made it this far with the rebuild what's one more year of the tank when their are two guys at the top who are franchise changing quality. Who gives two shits about making the playoffs if your not serious cup contenders. We have been down this road for almost this franchises whole existence. Make the playoffs and get knocked out early or be a so so team and miss the playoffs and draft in the teens. No thanks let's complete the tank please.

[SwampD]

Bingo. I'm tired of executing the same middle of the road rebuilds and ending up with the same "not quite good enough" teams.

The thing is, there were none of these. There were no "They traded who!?" trades of one of the core to shake up the roster or make a real difference. The idea that Darcy did everything he could and that a tank was the only thing left is complete BS. He brought in the same players the same coaches year after year and expecte a different result.

 

I find it hilarious that the same GM that used "not mortgaging the future" to bring in real elite talent was the same guy that initiated "the Tank" and suffering.

 

This f#####g sucks!!!!

[darksabre]

The thing is, there were none of these. There were no "They traded who!?" trades of one of the core to shake up the roster or make a real difference. The idea that Darcy did everything he could and that a tank was the only thing left is complete BS. He brought in the same players the same coaches year after year and expecte a different result.

 

I find it hilarious that the same GM that used "not mortgaging the future" to bring in real elite talent was the same guy that initiated "the Tank" and suffering.

 

This f#####g sucks!!!!

 

I'm going back a lot farther than Darcy on this.

[Claude_Verret]

Darcy wasn't fired until it was too late for any GM to do anything else but continue with the tank. It is the plan like it or not. GMTM will manipulate the roster as to give us the best possible draft pick in 2015. Still, I don't believe the team will be as unwatchable as last season. We've got rid of way too much dead weight / AHL talent to see that again.

[SwampD]

I'm going back a lot farther than Darcy on this.

Me too. I'm just giving him as the reason why so many are accepting of this.

 

Remember, the last "generational talent" that we had on this team, we didn't get by tanking.

[MILFHUNTER#518]

Imagine if the Isles fall off AND we tank one more season (bottom 5).... YEAH BABY! :flirt:

[Claude_Verret]

Imagine if the Isles fall off AND we tank one more season (bottom 5).... YEAH BABY! :flirt:

 

IF that were to happen....you wouldn't read the word "tank" on this board for at least the next 10 years.

[nfreeman]

The thing is, there were none of these. There were no "They traded who!?" trades of one of the core to shake up the roster or make a real difference. The idea that Darcy did everything he could and that a tank was the only thing left is complete BS. He brought in the same players the same coaches year after year and expecte a different result.

 

I find it hilarious that the same GM that used "not mortgaging the future" to bring in real elite talent was the same guy that initiated "the Tank" and suffering.

 

This f#####g sucks!!!!

 

Truth.

 

Darcy wasn't fired until it was too late for any GM to do anything else but continue with the tank. It is the plan like it or not. GMTM will manipulate the roster as to give us the best possible draft pick in 2015. Still, I don't believe the team will be as unwatchable as last season. We've got rid of way too much dead weight / AHL talent to see that again.

 

Also truth.

[darksabre]

Me too. I'm just giving him as the reason why so many are accepting of this.

 

Remember, the last "generational talent" that we had on this team, we didn't get by tanking.

 

And we didn't win a Cup either.

 

Also, Perreault was the best this team ever had. And we technically got him by tanking.

[MattPie]

You can't rebuild a team in a year without cutting corners. In this case, cutting corners would be using players if they're not ready and bringing in whomever they can get whether they're a good fit or not. I'm willing to wait for this to be done right.