Wooderson Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 You don't think we should re-up on Macarthur? He seems to have a knack for finding the back of the net, and it's not as if he would cost us that much. Also, Lydman has one year left on his contract, and has been our best defenseman on many accounts (aside from his frustrating giveaways). Bah, the best of the worst.
deep2evans Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 I disagree. I think it's solely because we no longer have Drury, Briere & Campbell. Regardless of their current production, on the Sabres they were world beaters and they're missed here terribly. deep2evans Posted Today, 12:34 AM I'd also like to add that our defense is !@#$ing terrible. Please GOD let Tyler Myers be the #1 d-man we've been lacking since 1970... Tim Horton?? I understand he's not available. His current team has a no-trade clause.. It's a tough call. Obviously, the trio listed above were studs in Buffalo. However, you need to pick your poison. Keep those 3 and say goodbye to 2 of Pominville, Roy, and Vanek - and then probably Stafford and Sekera this year. How good would Drury and Briere have been without the ridiculous secondary (or primary) scoring from the "3rd line"? I guess we'll never know.
Cornerville Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 I cannot provide you an name of a forward that the Sabres can get, but Vanek, Connolly, Roy, Pominville etc to me are very skilled...but to me I would like to see 1 player on offense that is a leader and can put it all together...someone who has been through the wars of the playoffs...someone all the players can look to for leadership...you now, someone like Drury (oh and in their biggest game last night, he DID score 2 goals, but I'm sure some here will still kill Drury just to make themselves feel better, but I digress) This team needs size and toughness...and I hate to say it, the fact that Darcy craves skill players who are under 5'9....to me he is one of the biggest issues. Regier made some great moves over his tenure (Gratton for Briere most notably) but I truly believed this at the time and believe it now: Regier was 'LUCKY' that the rules changed which fit his style of building a team and we flourished for over a year and a half, and at the end ofg the President's Trophy season, you started to see the Sabres struggle more and you knew the clock was going to strike 12 on Regier. Now that 'luck' has fizzled out, and we are left with a team treading water and hoping for the future...yet again. Remove Regier, extend Lindy, and change the philosophy. You can say this is about money, but this is a league with a cap. It is not like the Sabres can spend $20 million more, they need to spend it wiser.
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 You know, I'm pretty much done with the teams from this town. I really need to move on. Now that I've moved to northern CA when people ask where I'm from I say southern CA. I'd rather they hated me and called me a water thieving bastard than feeling sorry for me. I don't handle pity too well. GO 'Niners!
EndZoneCrew Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 You know, I'm pretty much done with the teams from this town. Sorry you cannot quit.....please try again
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 It's a tough call. Obviously, the trio listed above were studs in Buffalo. However, you need to pick your poison. Keep those 3 and say goodbye to 2 of Pominville, Roy, and Vanek - and then probably Stafford and Sekera this year. How good would Drury and Briere have been without the ridiculous secondary (or primary) scoring from the "3rd line"? I guess we'll never know. Drury is a winner plain and simple. His influence is not measured in points. Last night in a game the Rangers need to win to stay alive, he scored 2 goals. In his last season here, he blocked a potential goal in hte ECFs against Ottawa with his face. He got snitched up and returned shortly after that. The Sabres' front office screwed up that offseason about as bad as you could. They should have let Briere walked, signed Drury, and taken 4 1st rounders for Vanek. Instead, they lost 2 captains and signed a great goal scorer but soft overall player and blamed Edmonton for them not doing their job correctly. So instead of being in the midst of a mini-dynasty, we missed the playoffs for the 6 time in 8 years in a league where half the teams make it. I look forward to another offseason of hearing how "small market" Buffalo can't compete against the big boys. Awesome.
el Tigre Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Ruff needs to move to GM and time for a new coach Ted Nolan?
Buftex Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Ted Nolan? If we are going the re-tread route, I wouldn't mind seeing Jim Schoenfeld get another crack...
deep2evans Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Drury is a winner plain and simple. His influence is not measured in points. Last night in a game the Rangers need to win to stay alive, he scored 2 goals. In his last season here, he blocked a potential goal in hte ECFs against Ottawa with his face. He got snitched up and returned shortly after that. The Sabres' front office screwed up that offseason about as bad as you could. They should have let Briere walked, signed Drury, and taken 4 1st rounders for Vanek. Instead, they lost 2 captains and signed a great goal scorer but soft overall player and blamed Edmonton for them not doing their job correctly. So instead of being in the midst of a mini-dynasty, we missed the playoffs for the 6 time in 8 years in a league where half the teams make it. I look forward to another offseason of hearing how "small market" Buffalo can't compete against the big boys. Awesome. I was the biggest Drury fan of them all. Hell, I would have led a !@#$ing parade for the guy 3 years ago. However, that $8 mil/year contract is scary bad, and 99% of Rangers fans have been crying to get rid of him and his contract for anything. The fact he scored twice last night is nice, but he's 2 years into one of the worst contracts in league history. And in the scenario you presented, you really think a core of Drury, Roy, and Pominville would be better off? That sounds like complete sh-- to me. Again, I'm not sure what the right answer was. Drury needed to have been signed in October '06 for $4.5 mil like it was rumored. If he is on this team at that price instead of Hecht, the team's complexion is much different. Also, no one in their right mind would have taken the 4 1st rounders for Vanek, especially after losing your co-captains. 23 year olds do not score 42 goals and lead the league in +/-. I'm still very glad Vanek is locked up. Hopefully Connolly can stay healthy next year and those two can build some chemistry.
RayFinkle Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 No, they aren't eliminated yet. If..... Sabres finish 3-0 (Leafs, Canes, Bruins) Rangers finish 0-2 (Flyers, Flyers) Panthers finish 1-1 (Thrasher, Capitals) So yes, it is highly unlikely...but crazier things have happened. Statistically, it is under a 2% chance, and yes I'm serious.
Buftex Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 No, they aren't eliminated yet. If..... Sabres finish 3-0 (Leafs, Canes, Bruins) Rangers finish 0-2 (Flyers, Flyers) Panthers finish 1-1 (Thrasher, Capitals) So yes, it is highly unlikely...but crazier things have happened. What you leave out of your scenario, is that the Rangers must lose both of their games in regulation, while the Panthers must lose at least one of their final two in regulation. Which brings me to an off topic, sort of: I am asking this question seriously, why does the NHL award 1 point, still, to a team that loses in OT, or in a shootout? I am one of the few who doesn't hate the shootout (though the novelty has kind of worn off for me), but I hate the fact that a losing team (no matter how they lose, beyond regulation) still gets a point. I wonder how much the standings would change, if you simply got 2 points, or no points. It bothers me, but am I missing something here? Is there something I am not thinking of. I always hated ties (I once went to 6 consecutive Sabres games on trips home, and all ended in ties..it sucks!), but I think I like this even less.
deep2evans Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 What you leave out of your scenario, is that the Rangers must lose both of their games in regulation, while the Panthers must lose at least one of their final two in regulation. Which brings me to an off topic, sort of: I am asking this question seriously, why does the NHL award 1 point, still, to a team that loses in OT, or in a shootout? I am one of the few who doesn't hate the shootout (though the novelty has kind of worn off for me), but I hate the fact that a losing team (no matter how they lose, beyond regulation) still gets a point. I wonder how much the standings would change, if you simply got 2 points, or no points. It bothers me, but am I missing something here? Is there something I am not thinking of. I always hated ties (I once went to 6 consecutive Sabres games on trips home, and all ended in ties..it sucks!), but I think I like this even less. I read recently that it actually makes the NHL money, because it keeps more teams in the playoff hunt at the end of the season. I don't like it either, and think they should go to a system in which 3 points are given out every game, but whatever.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 I personally don't understand why there can't j.ust be ties. Unless it's the playoffs, I don't even see the need for an overtime. Think of it this way... The game is played in the context of 60 minutes. If the teams are tied after 60 minutes, suddenly it becomes a 65 minute game. But both teams are rewarded 1 point just for not being able to win. If it's not decided in 65 minutes, it's decided by penalty shots (completely arbitrary, because you rarely see penalty shots in regulation). Does that situation make any sense? What is so horrible about a tie? Too inconclusive? Whatever.
apuszczalowski Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 I agree 100%. i didnt see your post when i was writing mine but i agree. i dont blame darcy/lindy, i blame Larry Quinn for managing this team into the ground. the sabres current situation is his fault. He is not getting nearly enough blame, and i am afraid that when this is all said and done that he will make darcy and/or lindy "the fall guy" and then just say "we think we are good enough and we have the talent but miller got hurt, we are going to maintain continuity and will be better next year". that is my biggest fear. He is not getting nearly enough blame because there is no proof that he has his hands in the decision making as much as fans want to believe. Maybe he is making the moves, but then he should also then given credit for the good, unless ofcourse all he does is make bad moves, and Regier only makes the good ones Regier has just as much blame, he likes his players too much and is just waiting for the day the NHL decides to try the "New NHL" again. As for Ruff, he can only do so much with what he is given, and with what Regier has given him, there aren't many coaches that would turn them into something competitive
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 I personally don't understand why there can't j.ust be ties. Unless it's the playoffs, I don't even see the need for an overtime. Think of it this way... The game is played in the context of 60 minutes. If the teams are tied after 60 minutes, suddenly it becomes a 65 minute game. But both teams are rewarded 1 point just for not being able to win. If it's not decided in 65 minutes, it's decided by penalty shots (completely arbitrary, because you rarely see penalty shots in regulation). Does that situation make any sense? What is so horrible about a tie? Too inconclusive? Whatever. Haven't you heard? A tie is like kissing your sister.
Buftex Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 I personally don't understand why there can't j.ust be ties. Unless it's the playoffs, I don't even see the need for an overtime. Think of it this way... The game is played in the context of 60 minutes. If the teams are tied after 60 minutes, suddenly it becomes a 65 minute game. But both teams are rewarded 1 point just for not being able to win. If it's not decided in 65 minutes, it's decided by penalty shots (completely arbitrary, because you rarely see penalty shots in regulation). Does that situation make any sense? What is so horrible about a tie? Too inconclusive? Whatever. I don't know if you have gone to a lot of Sabres, or NHL games. But, I had season tickets in the early 1980's, when ties were still in style... the joke back then was, Q: "What do you think the Sabres will give Scotty (or whoever was behind the bench) for Christmas this year? A: "Another tie." Then, I went home numerous times in the 1990's, and would go to a Sabres game whenever I could. Six random games in a row I went to, over the course of about 5 years, and each one ended in a tie. Its' not the best thing, its' not the worst, but it was just boring hockey, and kind of disappointing, if you actually paid to go to a game. I was less inclined to want to go, after that...it is just a bad way for a good game to end. Hell, baseball, as dull as it can be, doesn't even have a tie as an option... Even when they added the 5 minute overtime period, the way hockey was played back then (and it is returning) you just got the feeling that teams were happy to settle for a tie. There was no real sense of urgency to win the game. At least, with the shootout, a team that isn't real offensively skilled, might be more inclined to go all out in the 5 minute session, to avoid it. I will admit, however, the novelty of the shootout has diminshed for me...it was kind of fun when the Sabres were ruling the Eastern Conference though...the swashbucklers on ice! I just think the option of the tie makes the game a little less compelling. I am all for, you win, or you lose. I just think hockey, when it is played the right way, is possibly the most exciting team sport of all. A tie just doesn't fit with the game, for me. But stop giving teams a point, when they lose!
apuszczalowski Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Drury is a winner plain and simple. His influence is not measured in points. Last night in a game the Rangers need to win to stay alive, he scored 2 goals. In his last season here, he blocked a potential goal in hte ECFs against Ottawa with his face. He got snitched up and returned shortly after that. The Sabres' front office screwed up that offseason about as bad as you could. They should have let Briere walked, signed Drury, and taken 4 1st rounders for Vanek. Instead, they lost 2 captains and signed a great goal scorer but soft overall player and blamed Edmonton for them not doing their job correctly. So instead of being in the midst of a mini-dynasty, we missed the playoffs for the 6 time in 8 years in a league where half the teams make it. I look forward to another offseason of hearing how "small market" Buffalo can't compete against the big boys. Awesome. Thats pretty much what they tried to do. They let Briere walk, even though he was coming out and saying publically he wanted to be back but they hadn't made any offers to him. They tried to re-sign Drury, but Drury wasn't as interested in Buffalo as Buffalo was in Drury, and he wanted to see if the Rangers would be interested. As for Vanek, by the time Edmonton made the offer, the abres had to re-sign him or risk Armagedon in the streets outside HSBC arena. Instead, they should have realised sooner that Drury's heart wasnt in Buffalo 100% and wanted to be a Ranger, and had conversations with the guy that wanted to stay here. Then, when Edmonton makes the offer for Vanek, you can atleast think it over instead. Atleast then, the Sabres would have taken a smaller hit losing just Drury
Buftex Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Thats pretty much what they tried to do. They let Briere walk, even though he was coming out and saying publically he wanted to be back but they hadn't made any offers to him. They tried to re-sign Drury, but Drury wasn't as interested in Buffalo as Buffalo was in Drury, and he wanted to see if the Rangers would be interested. As for Vanek, by the time Edmonton made the offer, the abres had to re-sign him or risk Armagedon in the streets outside HSBC arena. Instead, they should have realised sooner that Drury's heart wasnt in Buffalo 100% and wanted to be a Ranger, and had conversations with the guy that wanted to stay here. Then, when Edmonton makes the offer for Vanek, you can atleast think it over instead. Atleast then, the Sabres would have taken a smaller hit losing just Drury Perfect summary of what went down. Sabres management completely blew this one... it still boggles my mind that they didn't nail down a contract with Drury while the season was in progress. I realize, that might have been because they had no intention of re-signing Briere, and wanted his full effort the rest of the season. But they really screwed it up. And, honestly, I lost a ton of respect for Drury, in the aftermath. It sounds like he wasn't real forthcoming with the Sabres either. If it is true, that they had a contract ready for him in January, and had a verbal agreement, but the Sabres waited too long for him to sign it, he could have inquired about it too. Or, once the season ended, and they were trying to work something out, Drury could have come out and just said, "I don't want to come back" so the Sabres could have, maybe, made some attempt to sign Briere. The whole thing dragged on so long, by that time, the Sabres had pretty much alienated Briere. Its' a shame too. Briere may not have been the mucker that Drury was, but I really think the Sabres have missed him, almost as much. Either way, the blame ends up on the desks of Quin and Reiger, for not knowing their team.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 I don't know if you have gone to a lot of Sabres, or NHL games. But, I had season tickets in the early 1980's, when ties were still in style... the joke back then was, Q: "What do you think the Sabres will give Scotty (or whoever was behind the bench) for Christmas this year? A: "Another tie." Then, I went home numerous times in the 1990's, and would go to a Sabres game whenever I could. Six random games in a row I went to, over the course of about 5 years, and each one ended in a tie. Its' not the best thing, its' not the worst, but it was just boring hockey, and kind of disappointing, if you actually paid to go to a game. I was less inclined to want to go, after that...it is just a bad way for a good game to end. Hell, baseball, as dull as it can be, doesn't even have a tie as an option... Even when they added the 5 minute overtime period, the way hockey was played back then (and it is returning) you just got the feeling that teams were happy to settle for a tie. There was no real sense of urgency to win the game. At least, with the shootout, a team that isn't real offensively skilled, might be more inclined to go all out in the 5 minute session, to avoid it. I will admit, however, the novelty of the shootout has diminshed for me...it was kind of fun when the Sabres were ruling the Eastern Conference though...the swashbucklers on ice! I just think the option of the tie makes the game a little less compelling. I am all for, you win, or you lose. I just think hockey, when it is played the right way, is possibly the most exciting team sport of all. A tie just doesn't fit with the game, for me. But stop giving teams a point, when they lose! Yeah my brother has season tix, so I go to quite a few games when I'm in town. And I guess, for me, I'd rather have something make logical sense than be entertaining.
Recommended Posts