apuszczalowski Posted July 4, 2006 Posted July 4, 2006 So what if Darcy Regier has made the fans who doubt him look incredibly stupid several times as GM of the Sabres? 718140[/snapback] And what were those time he made his doubters look foolish? Because he made some good trades in the past? I agree losing Grier might hurt a little (mainly because of his chemistry/friendship with Drury and being a veteran leader), but there is such a logjam right now at forward, some have to go. That is why I can live with Grier leaving. I will also agree that Carolina hasn't taken a step forward yet because they have lost some good players, Pittsbugh hasn't done much of anything, Same with Montreal. Ottawa has lost Chara and now it looks like Hasek is gone, but they did get a decent goalie to replace him and freed some salary by letting Chara and Hasek go. Not much has happened in Montreal either except some resigning, and Tampa got a decent goalie. Toronto on the other hand has improved by just unloading Belfours contract and letting Domi go. They have a good younger goalie now and are starting to become an improved team. Of course this is all until they sign Roenick (wants to play in Canada now) and trade for Roberts (asked for a trade back to Toronto and apparently Toronto is just working out the details)
Taro T Posted July 4, 2006 Posted July 4, 2006 New JerseyPittsburgh Montreal Ottawa Tampa Bay Toronto (Hal Gill cancels out any move they can make) I don't see any improvement from any of these teams. 718147[/snapback] I was trying to cut the guy some slack because Carolina was the team that kept an injury depleted Sabres team out of the Finals. You are correct about those other teams not doing anything to substantially improve either. Until Florida gets a real goalie, they should be added into that mix as well.
Alaska Darin Posted July 4, 2006 Posted July 4, 2006 And what were those time he made his doubters look foolish? Because he made some good trades in the past? How about when he's been given a semi-level playing field he's embarrassed teams who've spent their capital on big name free agents? It's easy to rip the guy for not making the playoffs when he's at a 300% cash disadvantage but now that the number has been reduced to about 25%, Buffalo was the best team in the NHL for many stretches of the season - including the playoffs. I agree losing Grier might hurt a little (mainly because of his chemistry/friendship with Drury and being a veteran leader), but there is such a logjam right now at forward, some have to go. That is why I can live with Grier leaving. I don't disagree with that but the proof is in the pudding. I think someone like Gaustad or even Mair can handle Grier's role. Change is inevitable, though it looks like we'll have about 80-90% of the team returning that was 20 minutes away from the Stanley Cup Finals, despite being down 4 of their top 6 defensemen. I will also agree that Carolina hasn't taken a step forward yet because they have lost some good players, Pittsbugh hasn't done much of anything, Same with Montreal. Ottawa has lost Chara and now it looks like Hasek is gone, but they did get a decent goalie to replace him and freed some salary by letting Chara and Hasek go. Not much has happened in Montreal either except some resigning, and Tampa got a decent goalie. Toronto on the other hand has improved by just unloading Belfours contract and letting Domi go. They have a good younger goalie now and are starting to become an improved team. Of course this is all until they sign Roenick (wants to play in Canada now) and trade for Roberts (asked for a trade back to Toronto and apparently Toronto is just working out the details) 718231[/snapback] Tampa also gave up Freddy Modin, who is one of their more consistant night after night guys. I'll believe Toronto's moves will pan out when they actually do (their track record isn't too great and you'll forgive me for not fearing Hal Gill (pylon) or Gary Roberts (great player once but a shell of himself even when he's healthy, which ain't often)). The teams that remain successful over term in the NHL don't make significant roster changes each season. They may add a cog or two but for the most part the core remains the same.
apuszczalowski Posted July 4, 2006 Posted July 4, 2006 How about when he's been given a semi-level playing field he's embarrassed teams who've spent their capital on big name free agents? It's easy to rip the guy for not making the playoffs when he's at a 300% cash disadvantage but now that the number has been reduced to about 25%, Buffalo was the best team in the NHL for many stretches of the season - including the playoffs. 718255[/snapback] So, the Sabres embarrassed the Sens in the playoffs when it counted. I the Sabres didn't lose 4 of 6 defencemen, they probably would have beat the Canes in the playoffs, and if the Sens had a healthy Hasek in net, we may not have even seen the Canes in the playoffs so that would throw out some of the theory that spending money brings you a losing team. Buffalo had a good team, but until the playoffs, they were not the best team in the league The teams that remain successful over term in the NHL don't make significant roster changes each season. They may add a cog or two but for the most part the core remains the same. 718255[/snapback] Well since we have only seen on year of the "New NHL" with a salary cap, its hard to say that teams that don't make significant roster changes will be successful. Do you believe Anaheim is not better because they brought in Pronger this year. THat was a significant roster change. I don't get where I'm being misunderstood as someone who wants to see the Sabres sign a bunch of Big name high priced FA's. I just want to see them keep the ones they have, but because they are showing an unwillingness to keep some key players, they are not showing me that winning the cup is their top priority. McKee will be a big loss that will not be easy to fill, and Grier (yes i know they matched the offer SJ gave him) turned them down because he, along with Briere have expressed they are all a little concerned with the direction of the team. I would like to see this team successful for many years to come, but if every year we have to rely on young "Up and Comers" to fill roles left by players that have played well enough to deserve a raise, then this team will be in trouble
Alaska Darin Posted July 4, 2006 Posted July 4, 2006 So, the Sabres embarrassed the Sens in the playoffs when it counted. I the Sabres didn't lose 4 of 6 defencemen, they probably would have beat the Canes in the playoffs, and if the Sens had a healthy Hasek in net, we may not have even seen the Canes in the playoffs so that would throw out some of the theory that spending money brings you a losing team. Buffalo had a good team, but until the playoffs, they were not the best team in the league. You mean because Hasek has been such a great playoff performer and Ottawa has always been a team that "nutted up" when it matters most? You'll forgive me for laughing at you for that take. As far as not being the best team in the NHL, the Sabres went 35-7-5 from Nov 14th through March 14th (you'll note in my previous post I said "for stretches"). That was the best record in the league. They also held the best records in the league for winning games when trailing after the first and second periods. Well since we have only seen on year of the "New NHL" with a salary cap, its hard to say that teams that don't make significant roster changes will be successful. Do you believe Anaheim is not better because they brought in Pronger this year. THat was a significant roster change. I don't worry too much about the Western Conference teams because we won't see them more than twice in a season and only one of them can make the SCF. Does the addition of Pronger mean big things for them? Who knows? It looks good on paper, certainly. I don't get where I'm being misunderstood as someone who wants to see the Sabres sign a bunch of Big name high priced FA's. I just want to see them keep the ones they have, but because they are showing an unwillingness to keep some key players, they are not showing me that winning the cup is their top priority. McKee will be a big loss that will not be easy to fill, and Grier (yes i know they matched the offer SJ gave him) turned them down because he, along with Briere have expressed they are all a little concerned with the direction of the team. I would like to see this team successful for many years to come, but if every year we have to rely on young "Up and Comers" to fill roles left by players that have played well enough to deserve a raise, then this team will be in trouble 718263[/snapback] Everyone justifies moving on. As I said before, change is inevitable. Were these same players concerned with the direction of the team when Darcy didn't make a trade for this year's SC run? Nope. They all said it gave them confidence. I suspect when the puck drops this fall the tune will be exactly the same.
Buftex Posted July 4, 2006 Posted July 4, 2006 Everyone justifies moving on. As I said before, change is inevitable. Were these same players concerned with the direction of the team when Darcy didn't make a trade for this year's SC run? Nope. They all said it gave them confidence. I suspect when the puck drops this fall the tune will be exactly the same. 718265[/snapback] I suspect you are right, unless the Sabres lose everyone. It sucks losing Grier and McKee, but what they bring to the table, should be easier to replace than, say, Briere brings to the table. I think what some people (self included, apuszczalowski, others) are concerned with, is that the Sabres seem to be taking the tact of letting other teams set the value for "our" players (as in the case of Grier), and then negotiating against the outside team. What is concerning, is the that the more players they lose (and Grier and Mckee, as unspectacular as they might have been at times, were both team leaders) other guys who are not signed might feel more inclined to think more seriously about leaving, should they get an offer. Maybe (hopefully) it works out for the Sabres, but don't you think it would send a more positve message to the other free agents if the team was making some sort of committment to some of these guys? It just seems like a dangerous way to gamble. Perhaps the Sabres really didn't want to keep McKee and Grier, which is understandable. But they have so many players to sign, it is hard to believe that Teppo was their greatest priority. All of Riegers moves have been understandable, but I think the whole "small market woes" theory is going to only go so far, for so long. Like apuszalowski said, nobody is whining because the Sabres aren't signing big name free agents, they are just expressing concern that they are not making a move to sign their own. They are taking a "let the dust settle" approach to keeping things going. Only time will tell if this is a better approach for a re-building team to take, than a team so close to where it wants to be.
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 4, 2006 Posted July 4, 2006 Perhaps the Sabres really didn't want to keep McKee and Grier, which is understandable. But they have so many players to sign, it is hard to believe that Teppo was their greatest priority. 718301[/snapback] Well, while there are priorities, the restricted guys are all pretty much ours or they sit. So they do need to get done sooner or later, but all can opt for arbitration and try their wares there, and it doesn't preclude their agreeing to something longer term until then (though it doesn't look like the Sabres want to go any longer than 3 years these days). In the meantime, the team's lost a couple guys, and it looks good to be retaining one of them who provides a strong vet presence and played well last year -- and to give him a raise. I think something has got to be working on the trade front. There are simply too many forwards (and Marty still left over) to believe otherwise.
Buftex Posted July 4, 2006 Posted July 4, 2006 Well, while there are priorities, the restricted guys are all pretty much ours or they sit. So they do need to get done sooner or later, but all can opt for arbitration and try their wares there, and it doesn't preclude their agreeing to something longer term until then (though it doesn't look like the Sabres want to go any longer than 3 years these days). In the meantime, the team's lost a couple guys, and it looks good to be retaining one of them who provides a strong vet presence and played well last year -- and to give him a raise. I think something has got to be working on the trade front. There are simply too many forwards (and Marty still left over) to believe otherwise. 718302[/snapback] Sorry, I guess I barely undrestand the NFL free agency thing, I wasn't aware that so many of our guys were "restricted" free agents. As Emily Litella used to say "Oh...never mind..."
Taro T Posted July 4, 2006 Posted July 4, 2006 Sorry, I guess I barely undrestand the NFL free agency thing, I wasn't aware that so many of our guys were "restricted" free agents. As Emily Litella used to say "Oh...never mind..." 718316[/snapback] Rory, Janik, and a handful of other older Ra-cha-cha boys are the only UFA's left in Buffalo's system. The Sabres made qualifying offers to all RFA's in system other than Leighton and McMorrow. So in order for them to lose anyone else this off-season a team would have to make an offer that the Sabres aren't willing to match and also be willing to lose up to 4 1st rounders for that player. The Sabres have far more leverage with the RFA's than they did with the UFA's (with whom they had absolutely no leverage). Most of the RFA's will qualify for arbitration. Any that want to go that route must file for it by 5:00 PM tomorrow.
bills_fan Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 Darcy has made some terrific moves and drafted very well for the past few years given our budget constraints. To be fair, however, that 2nd round pick he got for Mika sure helped us when we kept losing D-men in the playoffs. Grier and McKee were good players, not great players. But they brought a physical presence to the ice every night and our team needs to replace that. Also, I'm a little concerned about the apparent references by Grier and Briere about Buffalo being committed to winning. Show some love with long term contracts. I think that would send a message to the locker room that the team was committed to winning. Doling out a few L-T contracts and signing a couple of guys who bring it every night, physically, would make a huge difference towards building on last year's momentum.
ACor58 Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 Ooh, ooh! Let me start! What is he, like 80? Wasn't there anyone older available? Are we gonna sign his brother Harpo, too? Is that the guy from Seinfeld who used to deliver the mail? He's too fat to play hockey! 717997[/snapback] I really can't get enough of people "Complaining" about other posters "Complaining".
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 I really can't get enough of people "Complaining" about other posters "Complaining". 718663[/snapback] Must be why you had to add to it...
ACor58 Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 Must be why you had to add to it... 718665[/snapback] I was waiting for that. And for the record, my post was an observation with a sarcastic slant, not a complaint about complaining about a complaint.
Buftex Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 I really can't get enough of people "Complaining" about other posters "Complaining". 718663[/snapback] Because that never gets old...
Recommended Posts