shrader Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 I can SEE the first shot well ... stopping it is another issue .... ;) I think Auld could be a #1 someday but he's probably not ready yet. He did win 30 games last year. He put up respectable numbers and just barely missed the playoffs. Playing in any other division, they make the playoffs easily. He's more ready than you think.
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=171859&hubname=nhl Two teams have given Eddie physicals, and two teams have looked elsewhere. On a side note, I find it kind of funny that there are still people out there who think the Sabres played over their heads last year. Sorry apu, it wasn't a fluke.
BamBam Posted July 21, 2006 Author Report Posted July 21, 2006 http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=171859&hubname=nhl Two teams have given Eddie physicals, and two teams have looked elsewhere. On a side note, I find it kind of funny that there are still people out there who think the Sabres played over their heads last year. Sorry apu, it wasn't a fluke. Sabres played over their head last year because they knew that if they would succeed as a team then they would have to succeed as individuals with their contracts. They knew what Darcy was trying to do, and it back fired. Now the Orginization is left holding the bag with so many Unsigned RFA, and 2 #1 goalies that we can't move. Come on everyone. If Darcy was serious about the backup situation he would've picked one up when FA started. Now...as someone as already said, the best have been signed, and now will be forced to sign what ever is left over. And even then they may not sign because Marty is still on the team. Darcy blew this one.
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Sabres played over their head last year because they knew that if they would succeed as a team then they would have to succeed as individuals with their contracts. They knew what Darcy was trying to do, and it back fired. Now the Orginization is left holding the bag with so many Unsigned RFA, and 2 #1 goalies that we can't move. Come on everyone. If Darcy was serious about the backup situation he would've picked one up when FA started. Now...as someone as already said, the best have been signed, and now will be forced to sign what ever is left over. And even then they may not sign because Marty is still on the team. Darcy blew this one. Ok then, which backup should we have signed. How much should we have paid for him?
X. Benedict Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Ok then, which backup should we have signed. How much should we have paid for him? They will have to battle the Isles for Garth Snow's replacement.
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Sabres played over their head last year because they knew that if they would succeed as a team then they would have to succeed as individuals with their contracts. They knew what Darcy was trying to do, and it back fired. Now the Orginization is left holding the bag with so many Unsigned RFA, and 2 #1 goalies that we can't move. Come on everyone. If Darcy was serious about the backup situation he would've picked one up when FA started. Now...as someone as already said, the best have been signed, and now will be forced to sign what ever is left over. And even then they may not sign because Marty is still on the team. Darcy blew this one. Actually come to think of it. How many games did you watch last year? I find it hard to believe that anyone that watched the team close all year could still consider them playing over their heads.
BamBam Posted July 21, 2006 Author Report Posted July 21, 2006 Actually come to think of it. How many games did you watch last year? I find it hard to believe that anyone that watched the team close all year could still consider them playing over their heads. I actually watched all but 3 games. I don't know if that makes me any less of a fan, but unless I missed something this team did play over their heads. Did they not overachieve "Everyones" expectations. Thats all I am trying to say. Look at the list of people who are up for contracts. They will all get raises because they over achieved expectations.
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Overachieving expectations is not playing over their heads. The Sabres were one of the best teams in the league after the All Star Break in 2004. Not many noticed because they were so bad prior to the All Star Break that year. The lockout gave the younger guys an extra year to develop. The team added two good defenseman in Lydman and Numminen. They played to their level. No one expected that to be their level, but that's a different story.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Sabres played over their head last year because they knew that if they would succeed as a team then they would have to succeed as individuals with their contracts. They knew what Darcy was trying to do, and it back fired. Now the Orginization is left holding the bag with so many Unsigned RFA, and 2 #1 goalies that we can't move. Yet another conspiracy theory. The players went out and played their off and had the best season in team history, and why? because they hate management and wanted to screw them. :blink: That's an insult to these guys, because if they were just selfish and after the big bucks they could have just went out and tried to put up big numbers and not worried about winning. If their goal was to get big bucks and screw management at the arbitration table, most of them failed miserably because none of them scored more than 25 freaking goals and the one that DID have a true career year, Afinogenov, disappeared in the playoffs. And by the way, if your theory is correct, they'll probably win 65 games next season, because these guys will be REALLY ticked off that they are back and playing on one year deals.
BamBam Posted July 21, 2006 Author Report Posted July 21, 2006 Yet another conspiracy theory. The players went out and played their off and had the best season in team history, and why? because they hate management and wanted to screw them. :blink: That's an insult to these guys, because if they were just selfish and after the big bucks they could have just went out and tried to put up big numbers and not worried about winning. If their goal was to get big bucks and screw management at the arbitration table, most of them failed miserably because none of them scored more than 25 freaking goals and the one that DID have a true career year, Afinogenov, disappeared in the playoffs. And by the way, if your theory is correct, they'll probably win 65 games next season, because these guys will be REALLY ticked off that they are back and playing on one year deals. Wow.. Thats it. You got it. I'm glad you jumped on board. Calm down pal. Have you head the comments that these guys are making in the offseason? We have Briere wondering if the team is going to spend the money, you have Dumont on Ch 2 saying that he can't wait to get the money. Come on now...That drives these guys. Its not a bad thing, but this team doesn't even come close to spending what it could. Doesn't that tick you off just a little as a fan? If I were a player it would be, and as I fan I ticked about it as well. Doesn't mean I don't support them.
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Wow.. Thats it. You got it. I'm glad you jumped on board. Calm down pal. Have you head the comments that these guys are making in the offseason? We have Briere wondering if the team is going to spend the money, you have Dumont on Ch 2 saying that he can't wait to get the money. Come on now...That drives these guys. Its not a bad thing, but this team doesn't even come close to spending what it could. Doesn't that tick you off just a little as a fan? If I were a player it would be, and as I fan I ticked about it as well. Doesn't mean I don't support them. The team spends what it can afford. You can't spend money that you don't have. The team had a very small budget last year, because that's all they could afford. They made a profit, so this year they will spend more. If they make a profit again, they will spend more next year. A lot of fans may not like it, but quite honestly it's the only way the team is going to survive in the long term. Also, the Spacek signing seems to defeat your argument. He is well paid, and it was a 3 year deal. Also, according to the News today, Briere and the team are talking long term deal.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Wow.. Thats it. You got it. I'm glad you jumped on board. Calm down pal. Have you head the comments that these guys are making in the offseason? We have Briere wondering if the team is going to spend the money, you have Dumont on Ch 2 saying that he can't wait to get the money. Come on now...That drives these guys. Its not a bad thing, but this team doesn't even come close to spending what it could. Doesn't that tick you off just a little as a fan? If I were a player it would be, and as I fan I ticked about it as well. Doesn't mean I don't support them. Sorry if you felt I jumped your ass with the conspiracy-theory comment. It was on the heels of yesterday's "The Sabres made a bad logo on purpose" theory ... didn't mean for it to sound harsh. I think they are spending what they can, especially since they are not sure how much they will have tied up in these arbitration cases. They made a profit only because of a deeper than expected playoff run and payroll IS going up quite a bit this season. They went out and spent legitimate cash on a free agent defenseman. Dumont saying he can't wait to get the money does not necessarily mean the Sabres are cheap. I don't blame these guys for wanting the money, and of course it is a motivating factor. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be this "us against them," players vs. management thing you are assuming. You make it sound like they had a players-only meeting before the season and said "these bastards wouldn't give us long-term deals, let's screw them ... by playing great!" I think they play for the money but they don't care where it comes from. If anything, if they hate the organization so much, they should all be happy to be playing out their deals so they can hit the market and go where the grass is greener. But today we have Briere saying that even after his arbitration case, his agent is trying to work out a long-term deal. Actions speak louder than words. What he said earlier was him being a good teammate and going to bat for Jay McKee, and that's what a captain should do. But if he hated management so much he would not still be trying to work out a long term deal. I'm not saying the players don't get frustrated with the system sometimes, I'm sure they do, but I'm sure the Sabres get frustrated when they get priced out of the market for certain guys. It's a two-way street, and the Sabres sometimes need to work within the confines of the system in order to stay above water. And sometimes that means making the minimum qualifying offer to a guy and not paying him market value because he is not on the market yet and he really has no choice but to play for them. The trade-off is some of these guys will leave when they can. The players sometimes seem to want it both ways ... they want a long-term deal with raises AND then they want their shot at free-agency when they are done.
inkman Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Sorry if you felt I jumped your ass... Don't apologize, a simple kiss afterward would have sufficed. :ph34r:
apuszczalowski Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Who would I trade for Marty? Who knows, I'm not an NHL GM so I am not in the loop as to who is being shopped and what teams are interested in Biron. But seeing as how around the draft, there were many teams looking for goaltenders and now, 2. I have a weird feeling his stock has now dropped since there are still some good goaltenders available and not enough buyers for all of them. Therefore it is definitly a buyers market right now and prices will have to go down if you want to sell. As for being overachievers, I'm not saying its a bad thing, the team gave 110% almost every night, that is a good thing, and thats why they exceeded everyones expectations. But, if like what everyone is saying, and Regier is such a smart GM that he knew EXACTLY what it takes to win in the new NHL and last year the team did not overachieve, Why didn't he lock up some of these players that would be successful in the new NHL to longer Deals? I'm not saying all of them, but there had to be some that he knew would be successful. Or could it be, that his plan was just to put a team on the ice that fight the budget TG gave him and hope they would end up improving on the season before the lockout and really didn't know exactly what it would take to be a winner I'm not complaining that he isn't bringing in high priced "Superstars", I am just not willing to hand the guy "GM of the millenium" or praise him for his successful "Plan" he had when I have only seen one successful year from it. And incase you were wondering, I watched any game I could get on TV here in Canada (even the french broadcast ones against Montreal), which wasn't alot, and I was in attendance at the Home Opener, and Games 1 and 2 against the Phlyers, and # and 4 against the Senators.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Don't apologize, a simple kiss afterward would have sufficed. :ph34r: I think you are in the wrong thread ;) ... lots of man-love on that "hottest Sabre" thread ...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Who would I trade for Marty? But, if like what everyone is saying, and Regier is such a smart GM that he knew EXACTLY what it takes to win in the new NHL and last year the team did not overachieve, Why didn't he lock up some of these players that would be successful in the new NHL to longer Deals? I'm not saying all of them, but there had to be some that he knew would be successful. Or could it be, that his plan was just to put a team on the ice that fight the budget TG gave him and hope they would end up improving on the season before the lockout and really didn't know exactly what it would take to be a winner. I'm not complaining that he isn't bringing in high priced "Superstars", I am just not willing to hand the guy "GM of the millenium" or praise him for his successful "Plan" he had when I have only seen one successful year from it. I can't speak for others, but I don't think he is GM of the millenium. In fact, to rate his overall performance over 10 years I'd probably give him a C+ ... 3 conference finals in 8 seasons is good results, but I am left feeling it could have been better. I think he f'd up the goalie thing years ago and he is paying for it now. And the Peca debacle, which resulted in the Hasek debacle, may have been an ownership decision to a point, but he REALLY butchered it. And like many I would have liked a defenseman at the deadline last season and I said it then, not just after the plague hit in the Carolina series. BUT ... I don't think he should be taking the crap he is for not signing guys to longer deals last off-season. Do I think he is a genius and this was all part of his plan? Hell no, he even has said that they got lucky and it came together faster than anyone expected. I think it is closer to what you said: "his plan was just to put a team on the ice that fit the budget TG gave him and hope they would end up improving on the season before the lockout" ... although I think they had a feeling they would be better than most thought. But still, who should he have rewarded with a long-term deal last offseason? Briere I will give you, but the guy was still 2 years from free agency so he had some time. A long-term deal for Briere would have meant upping his salary for last season too. They couldn't possibly have been planning to make a big profit, they had no idea how strong the fans would come back after the lockout or that they would make a deep playoff run. Probably a money decision, but I'll give you that Regier screwed up and should have put his money where his mouth was on Briere. Who else? Did Afinogenov deserve a long-term deal before last season? I would have been pretty skeptical if they had given him a nice raise and a long contract before last season. Pominville? Gaustad? Connolly? Kotalik? All these guys that now look so indispensible were big question marks by any measure before last season, and even last season none of them had such huge individual years that they would get rich on the open market. Lydman and Tallinder WOULD get rich given the D-man market but did ANYONE think before the season "Geez wish Darcy would lock those guys up for the next 3 years." I think having this many guys arbitration eligible and on 1-year deals is unfortunate, but it's a better problem to have than having dead weight signed to more expensive 3-year deals. And other than Briere, all these guys had dead-weight potential.
jad1 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 But, if like what everyone is saying, and Regier is such a smart GM that he knew EXACTLY what it takes to win in the new NHL and last year the team did not overachieve, Why didn't he lock up some of these players that would be successful in the new NHL to longer Deals? I'm not saying all of them, but there had to be some that he knew would be successful. Or could it be, that his plan was just to put a team on the ice that fight the budget TG gave him and hope they would end up improving on the season before the lockout and really didn't know exactly what it would take to be a winner I'm not complaining that he isn't bringing in high priced "Superstars", I am just not willing to hand the guy "GM of the millenium" or praise him for his successful "Plan" he had when I have only seen one successful year from it. Who's claiming that Regier knew EXACTLY what it took for a team to win in the NHL? He emphasized speed, mobility and youth, and it paid off. It was an educated risk. And the Sabres have been to the ECF 3 times under Regier. That makes him, playoff record-wise, the most successful GM in Sabres history. Your main argument against Regier seems to be centered around the short term contracts. No doubt Regier was working under a strict budget last season. For years the team lost money and was emerging from bankruptcy. The league was returning from a lockout, and wasn't sure how quickly the fans would return to the game. The TV revenue was laughable, even worse than the measley deal they had with ESPN. Financially, '05-'06 could have been a disaster for the Sabres and the league. Second, what if the new enforcement of the rules didn't take? What if the refs continued to allow the clutch and grab? What if Hatcher was the prototype defenseman for the new NHL instead of Tallinder? Regier hedged his bets here and was sure to have cap room if he had to retool the roster this season. His gambled paid off, as guys like Roy, Pominville, Gaustad, and even Vanek became contributors more quickley than expected. So Regier has some difficult negotiations this off season. Big deal. For the most part, he's kept control of the budget, and has the cap space to bring back the majority of the team. In the end, Regier has gotten a maximum return on a minimum investment. To me, that's the sign of an excellent GM.
apuszczalowski Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Fine, you believe he is an excellent GM, It will take me more then one successful season to call him that. 3 trips to the ECF is great but how many did he make it to without riding the machine we called the Dominator? I'm not saying he's the worst GM, Buffalo could have worse (like Fergusen in T.O) And BTP, I am not trying to single you out, most of my comments are refering to the general attitudes around the board. I do agree, some players didn't deserve long term deals. But if you are confident that you are going to have a successful team and will have what it takes to win, you try to lock them up for a little longer then one year. And some of the guys you mentioned were still under their first contract (Roy, Pommenville, etc) so adding a year or to extra to allow them to get a look at them in the NHL would have been a good move. Some of the veterans that were underachievers before (Connolley comes to mind) I can understand why they were a little hesitant at long term deals. Now Regier has to spend most of his time just trying to resign his team (to much larger contracts I might add) rather then being able to evaluate other potential players who could help improve this team, or take care of problems like finding a backup goalie and trading Biron.
Taro T Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Who's claiming that Regier knew EXACTLY what it took for a team to win in the NHL? He emphasized speed, mobility and youth, and it paid off. It was an educated risk. And the Sabres have been to the ECF 3 times under Regier. That makes him, playoff record-wise, the most successful GM in Sabres history. Your main argument against Regier seems to be centered around the short term contracts. No doubt Regier was working under a strict budget last season. For years the team lost money and was emerging from bankruptcy. The league was returning from a lockout, and wasn't sure how quickly the fans would return to the game. The TV revenue was laughable, even worse than the measley deal they had with ESPN. Financially, '05-'06 could have been a disaster for the Sabres and the league. Second, what if the new enforcement of the rules didn't take? What if the refs continued to allow the clutch and grab? What if Hatcher was the prototype defenseman for the new NHL instead of Tallinder? Regier hedged his bets here and was sure to have cap room if he had to retool the roster this season. His gambled paid off, as guys like Roy, Pominville, Gaustad, and even Vanek became contributors more quickley than expected. So Regier has some difficult negotiations this off season. Big deal. For the most part, he's kept control of the budget, and has the cap space to bring back the majority of the team. In the end, Regier has gotten a maximum return on a minimum investment. To me, that's the sign of an excellent GM. Your point about the uncertainty heading into last season cannot be understated. The league chose $1.8B as their estimate for leaguewide revenues this season because they expected to see a backlash from fans for the lockout. Even though the NHL was the only NA professional sports league ever to have average attendence increase after a work stoppage back in '95, this was totally new territory as they also were the only NA professional sports league to lose an entire season. While fans in Canada and the NE US could be expected to "forgive and forget" in a reasonably short period of time, nobody knew if the league had nuked it's southern fan base entirely. MANY people last off-season were predicting that the league wouldn't come close to $1.8B, much less the $2.1B that was actually reached last season. Had leaguewide revenues been lower than $1.8B, the salary cap would have gone down for '06-'07 (there were several predictions of the cap being in the $35-37MM range rather than the $44MM that it actually is). Also, back in August when the Sabres were reassembling their team, the general (but far from unanimous) consensus was that the Bills would be playoff bound and the Sabres would be also rans. While the Sabres clearly didn't agree with the assessment of their potential, they had to assume that most fans would agree with that assessment and that the rink wouldn't start selling out until sometime around February (vs. the Decemberish timeframe that ended up reality). With the player cost structure that was in place, the Sabres needed to average over 14,000 fans/game to "officially" break even. If they averaged 12,000/game until the Bills playoff run were completed (remember, we're talking August expectations here, not late September's), 14,000 would have been a reasonable target. Anything more though would have been a reach. That target did not factor in the # of injuries that the Sabres incurred as the Sabres were paying more players NHL salaries than they had expected to heading into the season. Had the Bills not gone into the tank in week 2 or had the league only embraced the officating crackdown half-heartedly the Sabres would not have sold nearly as many tickets as they did. Heck, had the general makeup of the NHL fanbase not been what it is (far greater %age of rabid fans vs casual fans than other sports) the leaguewide (and Sabres specific) revenues would have been down. Any of which would have led to substantially lower revenues for the Sabres. The last bit of uncertainty heading into last season which has been addressed oftentimes is that NONE (with the exception of Briere and maybe Grier (who wanted a crack at FA this year)) of the unsigned players last season were entering the year without question marks. I believe that the Sabres would have tried harder to lock players into LT deals last off-season if they had felt more confident about the salary cap holding steady or increasing this off-season. As it was, the Sabres expected the salary cap to decrease just like most everyone else expected. Had the Sabres locked McKee into a 3 year, $6MM deal before last season and he played like he did in '03-'04 and the salary cap dropped to $35MM, Darcy would have looked like an idiot AND the Sabres would have been locked into an untenable contract. (Although, I personally had hoped last summer that the Sabres would lock up Jay with the 3 year deal he wanted.) Darcy and the rest of the management team rolled the dice last season and unfortunately lost the bet. But given the situation at the time, he had taken the safe bet. HAD the salary cap gone down, which was the conventional wisdom at the time, his decisions would have looked very sound right now. I've stated several times that Darcy's grades are incompete. How he handles these next 2 weeks and the rest of the off-season will go a long way towards finalizing those grades.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Now Regier has to spend most of his time just trying to resign his team (to much larger contracts I might add) rather then being able to evaluate other potential players who could help improve this team, or take care of problems like finding a backup goalie and trading Biron. I hear ya, I guess I just don't think all this is so bad. Every guy we are talking about has no choice but to re-sign with the Sabres unless they get such a huge ruling in arbitration that the team cuts them loose. (And like I said the team was greater than the sum of its parts, no one had such an amazing season that payroll will get out of control. I think if they were worried about that, no way they spend the cash on Spacek.) Either way, odds are all these guys will be on the team and the roster is pretty much full, so he would not be spending much time looking for new players anyway. I don't know ... maybe you are right but I don't get the feeling he is overworked and hasn't done a deal for Biron because he can't get to it. He's being stubborn and holding out for the best deal, and you can argue that is wrong and he should just cut the cord already, but ... somehow I doubt he would found a deal by now even if it was the only thing on his plate.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.