The Wiz Posted May 24, 2014 Posted May 24, 2014 [Are you aware there used to be a pre Nascar racetrack on that site in the fifties and early sixties ? Aware yes but too young to have seen it for myself.
3rdand12 Posted May 24, 2014 Posted May 24, 2014 How did you get the pic of Gugny for your avatar? Talk about a thread devolving !! You noticed . That good fellow Gugny has many faces Aware yes but too young to have seen it for myself. Me too . But just found out a couple years ago and thought it nifty trivia .
PromoTheRobot Posted May 24, 2014 Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) I carry a grudge over the Briere/Drury CF but I've heard many people argue, including Paul Hamilton, that TG saved the Sabres and overall did good. Edited May 24, 2014 by PromoTheRobot
JohnC Posted May 24, 2014 Posted May 24, 2014 I carry a grudge over the Briere/Drury CF but I've heard many people argue, including Paul Hamilton, that TG saved the Sabres and overall did good. http://www.wgr550.com/Is-Golisano-owning-the-Bills-all-that-bad-/19068210 The above link written by Paul Hamilton for WGR explains both the Drury and Briery situations. It presents a more favorable or at least a context for how and why both of these players left the organization. If players whose contracts have expired want to leave a franchise then that is their prerogative. In addition, when Golisano sold the team to Pegula he inserted a clause in the deal that if Pegula ever sold the team that it can only be sold to someone who would keep the team in Buffalo. Pegula was agreeable to that clause. Golisano needs to be commended for paying off vendors he wasn't legally obligated to pay off in the bankruptcy takeover. He did so because it was the right thing to do.
jahbonas Posted May 24, 2014 Posted May 24, 2014 http://www.wgr550.co...t-bad-/19068210 The above link written by Paul Hamilton for WGR explains both the Drury and Briery situations. It presents a more favorable or at least a context for how and why both of these players left the organization. If players whose contracts have expired want to leave a franchise then that is their prerogative. In addition, when Golisano sold the team to Pegula he inserted a clause in the deal that if Pegula ever sold the team that it can only be sold to someone who would keep the team in Buffalo. Pegula was agreeable to that clause. Golisano needs to be commended for paying off vendors he wasn't legally obligated to pay off in the bankruptcy takeover. He did so because it was the right thing to do. Forget the Brierre /Drury - what followed was perhaps the worst trade (non-trade) in Buffalo sports history and thats not taking the 4 1st rd draft picks from Edmonton for Thomas Vanek Thats more a reflection on Larry Quinn than on Golisano
bbb Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 I don't remember any fans at the time who wanted to let Vanek go. Not after losing the other two.
jahbonas Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 I don't remember any fans at the time who wanted to let Vanek go. Not after losing the other two. So that's the criteria you use to determine a trade successful or not? It can be argued no player in any sport is woth 4 1st round draft picks...- and we said no - for Vanek who may have made 1 all star game.
The Wiz Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 So that's the criteria you use to determine a trade successful or not? It can be argued no player in any sport is woth 4 1st round draft picks...- and we said no - for Vanek who may have made 1 all star game. I get where you are coming from but considering without Vanek, they had the 6th, 22nd, 10th and then finally 1st overall pick in those 4 drafts. With Vanek, it could have been worse.
bbb Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 So that's the criteria you use to determine a trade successful or not? It can be argued no player in any sport is woth 4 1st round draft picks...- and we said no - for Vanek who may have made 1 all star game. Yeah, I take context into account and don't do revisionist history. Fans would have been in total revolt if they lost a third star that summer.
Peter Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 I don't remember any fans at the time who wanted to let Vanek go. Not after losing the other two. For the most part, you are correct about that. It is easy for some to wear their 20/20 hindsight glasses.
jahbonas Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 I get where you are coming from but considering without Vanek, they had the 6th, 22nd, 10th and then finally 1st overall pick in those 4 drafts. With Vanek, it could have been worse. Not exactly because Edmonton then used the $7 million they had allocated for Vanek and paid a free agent and added to their team and they still finished 6th 10th etccc as you indicated.. We could have had multiple picks in the top 10 for number of years - Sabre fans currently are happy as hell they are tanking for all the premium picks ahead when they in essence had that situation and flushed it down the toilet. The key point is - No player is worth four 1st round picks in any sport (maybe basketball because that one player is one of only 5 and plays both offense & defense). If ever offered it you run to the podium and say thank you, I'm sorry BBB and Co didnt see that at the time.....
Stenbar Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 Not exactly because Edmonton then used the $7 million they had allocated for Vanek and paid a free agent and added to their team and they still finished 6th 10th etccc as you indicated.. We could have had multiple picks in the top 10 for number of years - Sabre fans currently are happy as hell they are tanking for all the premium picks ahead when they in essence had that situation and flushed it down the toilet. The key point is - No player is worth four 1st round picks in any sport (maybe basketball because that one player is one of only 5 and plays both offense & defense). If ever offered it you run to the podium and say thank you, I'm sorry BBB and Co didnt see that at the time..... I was very angry as a Sabres fan when that summer went down..I was mad that Edmonton would do that to another team after they were kicked in the nuts already. Even with all that said the best move for the "team" in that time was to let the player go and take the picks. It was a ridiculous price to pay for any player. They shouldve let him go. With that said I cant blame them for not matching the offer..Emotions were running high and they were backed into a corner..
bbb Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 Not exactly because Edmonton then used the $7 million they had allocated for Vanek and paid a free agent and added to their team and they still finished 6th 10th etccc as you indicated.. We could have had multiple picks in the top 10 for number of years - Sabre fans currently are happy as hell they are tanking for all the premium picks ahead when they in essence had that situation and flushed it down the toilet. The key point is - No player is worth four 1st round picks in any sport (maybe basketball because that one player is one of only 5 and plays both offense & defense). If ever offered it you run to the podium and say thank you, I'm sorry BBB and Co didnt see that at the time..... If by Co, you mean everybody in Buffalo, you've got it right. The team comes off the President's Trophy, loses it's two captains, and anybody is supposed to be happy to lose it's best scorer for some picks that may or may not pay off many years into the future?
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 I don't remember any fans at the time who wanted to let Vanek go. Not after losing the other two. A good GM doesn't give a damn what the fans think if it really makes the team better. What is a better scenario? False fan anticipations, or building a real winner with four extra chances at blue chip talent? I say this as someone who really admired Vanek and understood his contributions to the game. That guy took a beating in front of the net and still camped out down there for scoring chances. Extending Vanek was entirely a face-saving move that overpaid Vanek early in his career after losing both Drury and Briere due to miscalculating their value. Keeping Briere (who wanted to be here and was, make no mistake, lowballed) and letting Vanek take the Oilers's offer might have completely altered the Sabres' trajectory.
bbb Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 They didn't have that choice. Briere was already gone when the Oilers pulled this. I bet that's what they would have done if they could have.
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 They didn't have that choice. Briere was already gone when the Oilers pulled this. I bet that's what they would have done if they could have. Well, they didn't have that choice in that order, that's true. But one has to suspect that the Oilers would still have made the offer regardless. Unless this was a move made explicitly to F the Sabres (which it could have been). They had more than a year to hammer out an extension with Briere, who has proven worth the money he earned both with his play and with his intangibles. He has been on many more playoff teams than the Sabres since he left us.
bbb Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 They definitely messed up the Briere/Drury thing. But, regarding Vanket, it doesn't matter if the Oilers were going to do it or not. I doubt they told the Sabres on 7/1/07, that they were going to do it. Both Briere and Drury were gone by the end of that day. From what I understand, the Sabres didn't hammer out the Briere extension, because they really wanted Drury more. I have to say, I did, too............Another move that looks bad in hindsight.
jahbonas Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 They definitely messed up the Briere/Drury thing. But, regarding Vanket, it doesn't matter if the Oilers were going to do it or not. I doubt they told the Sabres on 7/1/07, that they were going to do it. Both Briere and Drury were gone by the end of that day. From what I understand, the Sabres didn't hammer out the Briere extension, because they really wanted Drury more. I have to say, I did, too............Another move that looks bad in hindsight. BBB it was the Herschel Walker deal of the NHL and Quinn turned it down - HUGE HUGE mistake - even if you did not realize it at the time.
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 They definitely messed up the Briere/Drury thing. But, regarding Vanket, it doesn't matter if the Oilers were going to do it or not. I doubt they told the Sabres on 7/1/07, that they were going to do it. Both Briere and Drury were gone by the end of that day. From what I understand, the Sabres didn't hammer out the Briere extension, because they really wanted Drury more. I have to say, I did, too............Another move that looks bad in hindsight. I felt the same way, but it was a huge mistake. I think the best GMs try to look at these moves both in a vacuum and in context, and to do so without worrying about placating fans. Letting the first two go could have been justified in a "reload" mode accelerated by an insane number of high-profile picks to use and deal with. It is in fact what should have been done. Regardless, it's hard to say what parts Golisano and LQ played in all this. I tend to think he/they were dispassionate about extending/re-signing either.
bbb Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 BBB it was the Herschel Walker deal of the NHL and Quinn turned it down - HUGE HUGE mistake - even if you did not realize it at the time. NFL draft picks pay off way earlier than NHL picks. I assume these #1 picks would have been 2008-2011. We drafted 5 guys in the first round in those years. Myers, Ennis, Kassian, Pysyk, and Armia. Four more of those guys - with two of them still pretty much in Rochester, we're still in the same place.
Recommended Posts