Two or less Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 This is probably in another thread, and if so, sorry. But, people can diss Darcy Regier all they want and laugh at him not trying to get a nice addition and not giving in to dealing a Biron for a 3rd round pick, now with Miller out, if we only had a Noronen for 6 weeks, we'd be in some serious trouble. Thank god we still have Biron and Mika on this team, it would have been better if it was just Mika and a nice d-men if we had dealt Biron, but if we traded Biron for a draft pick, we'd ALL BE GOING nuts if you admit it or not.
Larry Playfair Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 oh paalleeze. darcy lucked into this situation, completely by inaction.
Saber61 Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 oh paalleeze. darcy lucked into this situation, completely by inaction. agreed this was by no fault of his own... this makes him look smart but really it was just pure luck for him... miller goes down on an injury who else are you gonna use... obviously the 2 remaining are thrown in...
Sabresince70 Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 This is like taking the extra warranty on a car, paying all that money and then hoping something breaks so you can say "see it was a good move". How about we would have gotten a good 1-4 def. and whichever one we still had could play well for the 6 weeks until Miller got back with the guy from Roc. watching from the bench (except for 2/3 games?)
Two or less Posted November 3, 2005 Author Report Posted November 3, 2005 This is like taking the extra warranty on a car, paying all that money and then hoping something breaks so you can say "see it was a good move". How about we would have gotten a good 1-4 def. and whichever one we still had could play well for the 6 weeks until Miller got back with the guy from Roc. watching from the bench (except for 2/3 games?) You obviously didn't read my post. I wanted Darcy to deal Marty or Mika, but not for a draft pick, like alot of places say. You need a dacing partner to make a deal, Darcy can not call a team, demand a player, and finalize the trade. If we had traded Biron/Mika for a pick, we'd be in so much trouble and we all would have been killing Darcy. Thankfully, Darcy waited and waited to deal a goalie for a d-men, so if something like this does happen, we can have Mika play but the overall defense would be better because we recieved something for Marty.
Larry Playfair Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 huh? Id be happy as hell rt now if we had previously traded one of our gaolies for a top 4 d-man. Oh sorry, i re-read. I think we agree. Problem is...Darcy is never gonna pull off a trade for a d-man.
Eleven Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 oh paalleeze. darcy lucked into this situation, completely by inaction. If this is his good luck, I don't want to see the bad.
deluca67 Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 This is probably in another thread, and if so, sorry. But, people can diss Darcy Regier all they want and laugh at him not trying to get a nice addition and not giving in to dealing a Biron for a 3rd round pick, now with Miller out, if we only had a Noronen for 6 weeks, we'd be in some serious trouble. Thank god we still have Biron and Mika on this team, it would have been better if it was just Mika and a nice d-men if we had dealt Biron, but if we traded Biron for a draft pick, we'd ALL BE GOING nuts if you admit it or not. At least Darcy has his excuse to hold on to. "we were doing well then Miller got hurt". There is no happier man if Sabreland then Darcy right now. Man, he loves his excuses.
Kristian Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 At least Darcy has his excuse to hold on to. "we were doing well then Miller got hurt". There is no happier man if Sabreland then Darcy right now. Man, he loves his excuses. He sures does, AND he loves his sh!t-for-brains coach, thanks to who we now have two completely useless stiffs for backups, one of which was never even given a break in the NHL. Our blueline is as thin as tin foil, and we have no goaltending. Watch out Pens, here come the Buffalo Sabres. "Yo Mario, move over, there's room for one more at the bottom of the barrel".
Saber61 Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 He sures does, AND he loves his #%^$#!-for-brains coach, thanks to who we now have two completely useless stiffs for backups, one of which was never even given a break in the NHL. Our blueline is as thin as tin foil, and we have no goaltending. Watch out Pens, here come the Buffalo Sabres. "Yo Mario, move over, there's room for one more at the bottom of the barrel". haha i love it... i agree from top to bottom on that post... were in it now... and deep.
DrunkenSabre Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 i'd still happily move noronen or Biron and call leighton up. most chicago fans i know thought he should have beaten anderson out. i think it was done alphabetically in the end. lol. Regier did luck into this one, but now we're here lets worry about how we're gonna handle it.
Taro T Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 huh? Id be happy as hell rt now if we had previously traded one of our gaolies for a top 4 d-man. Oh sorry, i re-read. I think we agree. Problem is...Darcy is never gonna pull off a trade for a d-man. What defenseman was offered? I didn't hear of any offers including a defenseman that came from a legitimate source.
Jim Bob Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 What defenseman was offered? I didn't hear of any offers including a defenseman that came from a legitimate source. I think they were dreaming that Atlanta offered up Coburn for Biron.
Taro T Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 I think they were dreaming that Atlanta offered up Coburn for Biron. I had posted a while back that Buffalo might be interested in Coburn for Mika, but had not seen anything other than my own wild speculation.
Saber61 Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 I think they were dreaming that Atlanta offered up Coburn for Biron. i think they were dreaming when they though biron could take over after hasek left with peca
nfreeman Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 I completely disagree with the suggestion that we "lucked" into anything. Having Biron as the #1 goalie for the next 2 months is going to be a disaster. He stinks. He lacks confidence and mental toughness -- both of which Miller has plenty of -- and the team doesn't play nearly as well in front of him as they do for Miller, because they are not confident in him. He also hasn't played at all for 2 years, as evidenced by those awful performances against the Islanders and last night. Like everyone else, I wanted to get an NHL defenseman for him instead of a 2nd round pick, but this was not realistic. Now, with the rest of the league having seen him give up goals on the 1st shot of the game in his 1st 2 games in 2 years, and giving up 4 to the Islanders and 6 to the Senators -- there is no way we are going to get a 2nd round pick for him. More immediately, assuming Miller misses 25 games, the sabres are going to go at best 5 games under .500 while he is out. It is quite likely to be much uglier than that. This just took us out of potentially fighting for a top 4 spot in the east and puts us into a position where we will be fighting desperately for the #8 spot, i.e. Ottawa in the first round. Frankly I'd like to see Noronen get a few starts in a row so we can see if he can play. We know the answer on Biron and it's not a good one.
Kristian Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 Watch for Ruff to play Marty from there till christmas, there's no doubt in my mind who of the two he prefers. It's gonna be a long season.
PromoTheRobot Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 I hear champagne corks popping at DeLuca's house. PTR
MLH Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 I hear champagne corks popping at DeLuca's house. PTR Yeah, he's quite annoying. Darcy didn't luck into this. Waddell is on the record as saying DR (speculation, but obvious) didn't want to trade any goalies until a couple months into the season. They weren't going to trade Biron a week into the season because Miller might have fallen apart or get injured. It happened, we have to rely on Biron now. Better than relying on Mika. Biron generally plays well against the Habs, hopefully we'll split or better and then get Grier and Lydman back. Roy coming up is a good thing. Our season isn't over yet.
Taro T Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 Darcy didn't luck into this. Waddell is on the record as saying DR (speculation, but obvious) didn't want to trade any goalies until a couple months into the season. They weren't going to trade Biron a week into the season because Miller might have fallen apart or get injured. It happened, we have to rely on Biron now. Better than relying on Mika. I think Waddell's comments need to be kept in perspective. Atlanta thought they had a playoff caliber team heading into the season. They have had more goalies go down than Spinal Tap had drummers die / disappear under mysterious circumstances. I'm sure he is getting hammered with the "when are you going to get a goalie" chorus. It looks like his pat answer is, "I'd have us a goalie, but Darcy Regier is a dooie head that won't play nice." I've seen several references to Waddell claiming Darcy simply won't trade with him. I have yet to see Waddell say what he is willing to give up for a goalie. Until you know what is actually on the table, I'd take Waddell's words for what they are - merely words.
inkman Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 oh paalleeze. darcy lucked into this situation, completely by inaction. Maybe it wasn't luck. Maybe they had an "extra" frozen puck in practice to take him out. ;)
MLH Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 I think Waddell's comments need to be kept in perspective. Atlanta thought they had a playoff caliber team heading into the season. They have had more goalies go down than Spinal Tap had drummers die / disappear under mysterious circumstances. I'm sure he is getting hammered with the "when are you going to get a goalie" chorus. It looks like his pat answer is, "I'd have us a goalie, but Darcy Regier is a dooie head that won't play nice." I've seen several references to Waddell claiming Darcy simply won't trade with him. I have yet to see Waddell say what he is willing to give up for a goalie. Until you know what is actually on the table, I'd take Waddell's words for what they are - merely words. Well, Wadell said hat he was told Buffalo wasn't looking at moving a goalie and we disn't move a goalie. Logical conclusion is we weren't going to trade a goalie unless we were offered something ridiculously good.
Taro T Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 Well, Wadell said hat he was told Buffalo wasn't looking at moving a goalie and we disn't move a goalie. Logical conclusion is we weren't going to trade a goalie unless we were offered something ridiculously good. If all Waddell was offering was a 2nd rounder, I'd have told him to take a hike as well. If he offered something more than that, then I'd say there is more room to be critical of Darcy. All I have been able to find Waddell say is that "Darcy won't trade" but he has not given any indication of what it was he was offering. Sounds to me like Waddell trying to take heat off himself more than anything else. The "logical conclusion" is not that the Sabres would not move a goalie unless it was for something "ridiculously good", the logical conclusion is that Buffalo would not move a goalie for what Waddell was offering. Whether Waddell offered something "ridiculously good", "good", "bad", or "indifferent" is strictly conjecture at this point.
inkman Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 Don't use word like conjecture around here buddy. Me no likey!
MLH Posted November 3, 2005 Report Posted November 3, 2005 If all Waddell was offering was a 2nd rounder, I'd have told him to take a hike as well. If he offered something more than that, then I'd say there is more room to be critical of Darcy. All I have been able to find Waddell say is that "Darcy won't trade" but he has not given any indication of what it was he was offering. Sounds to me like Waddell trying to take heat off himself more than anything else. The "logical conclusion" is not that the Sabres would not move a goalie unless it was for something "ridiculously good", the logical conclusion is that Buffalo would not move a goalie for what Waddell was offering. Whether Waddell offered something "ridiculously good", "good", "bad", or "indifferent" is strictly conjecture at this point. Getting a 2nd for Biron would have been theivery. Average, rusty, overpaid goalies aren't exactly hot commodities. It's not just Waddell's comments, but the fact that we still had three goalies on our roster to start November. They clearly weren't 100% comfortable in putting all of their stock in Miller. This wait and see approach ended up paying off. You can play conspiracy theorist all day long, Waddell said the Sabres weren't interested in moving a goalie. We didn't move one to Atlanta, Edmonton, or anywhere else. So I doubt we were interested in moving a goalie until we saw about two months of Miller.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.