Robviously

We also tried to spend money on a 'center' last summer when we signed Leino. :doh:

He can move back when he retires. Right now he should be thinking about where he can go to have a shot at the Cup before his career is over. I'm not sure that's with us, but I'd love to have him here.

I got it as soon as you wrote it - GrigOREnkO. It's simple and concise so it could actually catch on. I'm already seeing some people using "Grigs" and "Griggy" and "Grigsy" and those are insanely boring and lame. When is the last time we had an athlete in Buffalo with a good nickname? (OK, a good nickname with positive connotations. I'm not counting "Captain Checkdown" or "Mr. Softee" even though they were funny.) I think fans could actually have fun with this:

Even the lunatics on this board agree that Miller is "a goalie worth having." My question is: Is he going to be worth having when he's 34? Because that's how old he'll be the season after his current contract expires. Are we building a young team to contend with a 34+ year old goalie? That works with Martin Brodeur but Brodeur might be the best goalie ever. OK, you clearly missed my point. I didn't say we aren't building for the future, I said we aren't going all-in on the future. As usual, Regier can't seem to decide if the plan is the win the Cup immediately or win the Cup in the future. Based on where we've been the last five years, we can't do both. If we're trying to build a contender for the future, we should go all-in on that future. The Sabres have a lot of young players I like but part of the reason we're all in love with our prospects is that we're all assuming they're going to reach their best-case-scenario potential. Not all these guys are going to make it. At least one of the guys we're counting on is probably going to be another Zagrapan or Persson. Look what happened to Luke Adam last year. Marcus Foligno has played exactly 14 NHL games so even he isn't a sure thing. The point is, if you're building for the future, you should have more prospects than you need. And, FWIW, hockeysfuture.com had the Sabres ranked no.14 in prospects in May. That's deceptive since some of our young guys are already in the NHL (Myers, Ennis, Hodgson) but it's also an indication that a lot of teams have comparable sets of prospects.

I've basically lost all interest in Bobby Ryan and Rick Nash. They'll both cost a fortune. Nash is coming off like a crybaby and Anaheim is determined to get Tyler Myers from us if a trade happens. The Sabres need to be decisive about whether they're trying to win this year (unlikely) or starting in 2013-2014 (or more likely 2014-2015). If we're not trying to win the Stanley Cup this year (which, again, seems unlikely given how far off we were last season and how many young players we have) they shouldn't be afraid to move. Miller, Vanek, and Pominville are all signed for this season and next. If they're not going to be re-signed to help with a 2014-2015 run, they should trade them for assets that will. (Note: I like these players so this would suck but it would pay off if it gets us where we're trying to go: a championship.) This goes back to my biggest problem with Regier. He's been the GM so long that he can't ever build for the future by letting the team bottom out -- because then he'd be fired. So instead of trading a bunch of guys for prospects and picks at the deadline this year, he just traded Gaustad. And as much as I like Steve Ott, I wonder if we should have been trying for someone younger (supposedly we were offered a 1st for Roy at the deadline). I hate that we're always half-trying to win right now and half-building for the future. It seems like a good way to always chase the no.8 seed. As for right now, St. Louis remains a really obvious trade partner since they have too many forwards and too few defense (and we're the opposite). Florida might be good too since they're apparently interested in winning right now (Luongo?) and have a ton of young players/prospects.

So if the plan is to hold onto Myers, McNabb, Pysyk, Hodgson, Ennis, Adam, Armia, Grigorenko, Girgensons, etc. and hope they all develop into a strong team in the next few years, where does Miller fit into that? He turns 32 in 10 days and he's signed for two more years. Are we going to re-sign him and hope he can still help us with a Cup run in 3 years (when all those players are nearing their prime)? I don't mind the "hold onto the kids and build around them" plan but I don't get how it works with Miller -- or for Miller. Does he want to spend this season in Buffalo with two 22 year olds and an 18 year old as his top 3 centers?

I really hope "Oreo Blizzard" catches on.

Well, now we know why Blue doesn't trust memories from watching the game as much as he trusts the stats. :P

I don't know if there's room for Gerbe in the fiestier lineup. For that matter, I don't know if there's room for Tropp (who I really like) and Kaleta. With Grigorenko, we have 9 forwards for the top three lines: Stafford, Ennis, Foligno, Vanek, Hodgson, Pominville, Ott, Leino, Grigorenko So for the fourth line you have Scott, McCormick, Kaleta, Gerbe, Tropp Then there's Adam (still a legit prospect, everyone), Armia (signed and our top prospect after Grigorenko), and Girgensons (unlikely for this season but who knows?) Sabres literally have to make moves. They have too many forwards and too many defensemen right now.

I just don't think the 66% number is conclusive. It's easy to turn over a giant chunk of your roster in 28 months when your team has been awful for most of those 28 months. And I don't think a GM has to re-sign every player about to hit free agency to qualify as someone who overvalues his own players. Most GMs probably wouldn't hold on to the guys we parted ways with -- a lot of the guys we dropped seemed like no-brainers. Factor in Pegula's marching orders, and how much of the turnover was Regier and how much was the team's new leadership? I do think Regier overvalues his players. I *don't* think that's always a bad thing. Sometimes it serves us well and we win a very lopsided trade. Sometimes we wait way too long to make a deal or, I suspect, we don't complete a deal that probably should have been completed. Again, I think this is drifting into "internet exaggeration" territory. I don't think "Regier is in love with his players" is any more accurate than "Regier feverishly overhauling the roster". I think there's a middle ground because much of this roster turnover is occuring naturally, IMO.

How silly of me to think I could actually understand how well or poorly a player was performing by actually walking him play. Stats don't tell you the whole story either. We can check how many hits a player had from year to year, but we don't know the quality of those hits. Would you worry about a hit from Patrick Kaleta as much as you'd worry about one from Scott Niedermeyer in his prime? We know +/- is imperfect. We also know a goalie's GAA is imperfect based on how each team plays. We can track "scoring chances" but that's subjective as well. And what's the statistic for players just clicking together? How come statistics couldn't tell us that Foligno would play better than Kassian last year? I respect statistics just fine seeing as how they're critical to my line of work but sometimes it's OK to just watch the games and decide if you like what you see or don't. Read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. There is such a thing as too much information.

Didn't what? Which part are you responding to? Connolly walked after we re-signed him two years before -- when it was already clear we shouldn't. Trading Gaustad and Roy was a no-brainer, especially at the deadline when it was the ultimate seller's market last winter. Leino was a bold move, I guess. Throwing that much money at a guy who'd proven so little. On the other hand, he still wasn't willing to part with any of the core. When I think of bold moves, I think of what the Flyers did last summer. Or what the Kings did on their way to winning the Cup. Overspending on a bad free agent doesn't really do it for me. I don't know if I count Ehrhoff as bold since he was a pretty safe bet to be good. The contract is reasonable and we only lost a 4th round pick. EDIT: The bottom line is that I don't think you can equate roster turnover (which can't be avoided by any team) as some proof of how a GM does or does not view his own players. Contracts run out and borderline players don't stick in the NHL. I took a slightly different approach to my analysis. When each game began, I would use my eyeballs to watch each Sabres player play hockey. I formed judgements on each player based on what my eyeballs saw (and if there was a particularly loud hit, I used my earballs to make note of that). I subsequently made note of those judgements over an 82 game regular season and then synthesized them into final impressions.

Yeah, to me that was "OK." Look, I know I'm breaking the rules of the internet here by not declaring everything to be the best ever or worst ever, but sometimes I go crazy and just think things are "good" or "OK."

Plus/minus never tells the whole story but I thought Regehr was just OK last year.

I'll throw some cold water on this as well. A lot of that roster movement was just contracts expiring. Are we really supposed to believe that Darcy doesn't fall in love with his players because he (finally) let Connolly walk at the end of a contract? Literally two years after he panicked and gave him a two-year extension that should have never happened? Likewise, I'm not sure I want to give Regier accolades for not losing his mind and re-signing Hecht, Montador, Grier, Lydman, Tallinder, Rivet, Mair, or Torres. A lot of the guys we traded were fairly unimportant (Paetsch, Butler, Paille). Another way to look at it is: How many bold moves has Regier made in the past few years, or even since the Drury trade in 2003? The only thing I've got is the Kassian for Hodgson deal. The other deals involved moving nobodies (Butler, Byron), trading guys who should have been dealt long ago (Gaustad, Roy), or picking up rentals who didn't work out (Torres, Moore). For all the supposed roster turnover last summer, he kept his core completely intact. Unless the definition of "good" changed at some point, then yes I'm saying it was a marked improvement. I'm just not "amazed" by it and I don't really see how anyone should be.

1. Having the team burn money like it did with Kotalik is unsustainable. It was fine as a one-time thing. 2. The 2nd round pick was probably the best part of the trade. 3. Regehr is part of a "much improved defense"? Our Goals Allowed per Game went from 2.78 to 2.72 last year. Regehr was a -12. It was a "good" trade, but certainly not amazing.

The Grigorenko pick does that? I don't see how. Darcy has used 1st round picks on risky Europeans before (Kruikov, Zagrapan). I think we're going overboard on how great Regier has been since Pegula gave him all this freedom (or whatever). The results so far: Traded 2nd round pick for Brad Boyes. Results: Bad. Traded Byron and Butler for Regehr, Kotalik, and 2nd round pick. Results: Good. (Regehr was OK, Kotalik was a giant waste of Pegula's money, and the 2nd round pick helped.) Traded 4th round pick for rights to Ehrhoff and signed him: Results: Good. Signed Ville Leino to a six year contract. Results: Terrible. There was no reason to believe he could live up to that contract and, predictably, he couldn't even manage 10 goals in his first season here. Also, we apparently signed him to play a position he can't play. The contract is impossible to move so he'll be taking up a valuable roster spot for the foreseeable future. Traded Gaustad for a 1st round pick. Results: Great. Incredible value for a crummy hockey player. Definitely benefitted from a seller's market at the deadline. Traded Kassian for Hodgson. Results: Unclear. Exciting trade but either guy could be the better player two years from now. Traded Roy for Ott. Results: Who knows? I'm happy to have Ott but I'm wondering if Roy's value may have been higher at the deadline (when even Paul Gaustad was worth a 1st round pick). It'll be interesting to see what the team does when Ott starts picking fights with every other team we play. I'm probably forgetting something but it's a pretty mixed bag so far. How much better are we than we were two years ago?

Yeah, no duh. If the Sabres had any other player with the sack to stand in front of the net and the skill to actually do something productive when he's there, we'd probably put that guy there instead of our most skilled forward. Unfortunately, we don't. So it's Vanek's job. BTW, this would be an example of "weight of the team" falling on Vanek. You say we need somone to do "more than score goals" as if the Sabres have an abundance of guys scoring goals. They have Pominville and Vanek. No one knows how Hodgson and Ennis will turn out long term. Stafford is anyone's guess from month to month. Leino is a waste of space. Goals we get from Ott, Foligno, Kaleta, etc. are basically a bonus. Vanek was drafted to score goals and has since become one of the greatest goal-scorers in Sabres history. Maybe we should be OK with that. When have you heard ANY player call out a teammate or take charge? We're fans. We don't hear these things. The closest we get to that is Miller basically trashing the whole team last year, and he got criticized for that. Vanek isn't Drury so any leading he's doing is on the ice, when he's scoring goals or going where other guys are scared (or incapable) of going (i.e. the front of the net).

Right on schedule: with Roy gone, Vanek becomes the new team whipping boy. He's inconsistant because all goal-scorers are inconsistent. He's prone to injuries because no one else on the team is willing to stand in front of the net and get cross-checked in the back every powerplay while the other guys pass the puck around. He's somehow "not a leader on the ice" despite the fact that he and Pominville carried the team for the first few months of last season (before injuries set in). Sabres fans don't care about the player Thomas Vanek is (the no.2 goal-scorer from his draft class and the Sabres' no.7 goal-scorer all-time), they hate him for not being the player they wish he was. It's time to get over it. I like Sekera a lot, but we have plenty of defensemen that I like. He's a valuable trade commodity and if we can move him for the right player (in my brain, that's Patrik Berglund), I'd go for it. I'm not in a rush to trade him but I'm open to it.

He and Pominville carried the entire team the first half of last year. Three years ago in the playoffs, we were dominating the Bruins right up until they broke his ankle. Two years ago in the playoffs he had 5 goals in 7 games. Unfortunately, none of these facts fit the narrative that he doesn't care, won't lead, and doesn't try hard enough in general so they must never be brought up.

I've been thinking a lot about this too. We've been talking like Ryan and Nash are the only two players left in the NHL to trade for. I think I'm over them. They're going to cost a fortune. At this point I hope Darcy is working on something that isn't being talked about. I love the Patrik Berglund idea (I know I've brought him up before and he's coming off a crummy season). The Blues have too few defensemen and too many forwards, and the Sabres have too many defensemen and are looking for forwards. He'd cost a lot but I think he'd be worth it and a perfect center for Vanek. Also, we all like Nick Foligno. Maybe we could get him from CBJ as part of a non-Nash trade.

I wouldn't. I've wanted the Sabres to have a defenseman like McNabb for way too long to toss him him to get a deal done. I know he's still a prospect and might never develop into the guy we want (although 49 hits in his first 25 games is a good start) but if I'm trading him, he should probably be the centerpiece of that deal. Packaging him AND Vanek for one guy just seems nuts.

There's just a ton of anti-Vanek bias. He's not the player a lot of people wish he was (an elite, perennial all-star) and they don't appreciate the player he is (no.7 all-time on the list of Sabres goal-scorers, no.2 in goals from his draft class, and no.3 in points from his draft class). He's the guy standing in front of the net getting cross-checked in the back on every power play and I don't see any other Sabres stepping up to take on that role. I'd love to see him with some new line mates. Hodgson is intriguing, but his success last year with Adam makes me wonder what he could do if we landed Patrik Berglund from STL. The only time Vanek ever played with a big center (Adam), it was the best we've ever seen him. The fatalistic part of me would love to see him traded just to see what he could do with a fresh start. Vanek has been the team whipping boy since he signed that contract with Edmonton and the Sabres matched it. It was the perfect storm of him signing a contract that he couldn't live up to (remember, the Oilers gave him money they didn't think the Sabres would match) and him suddenly being the centerpiece after Black Sunday.

Insert the 'we don't know where those draft picks would have been if Vanek had been an Oiler the whole time' here. Insert the 'Vanek is sucks because we pay him to be a superstar in the NHL and he's not' here. Insert the 'Vanek isn't an NHL superstar and was never going to be no matter how much we pay him. He's just a good player and one of the Sabres' all-time best goal-scorers' here. I think that covers most of the broad strokes for every Vanek argument the last few years. Hopefully we can skip it this time.

Don't see where I said they should have been "expected to." I'm just saying it would have been a nice thing to do. It's bad enough you're taking the team from a city, but you could at least let them hang onto their heritage. If it's a matter of revenue from throwback merchandise, something could have been worked out for that. Even if this is a money thing, I doubt it could affect Dallas much. Dallas is one of the biggest, richest areas in the United States -- and it's just getting bigger and richer. Plus I really don't see how holding onto this asset has helped Dallas. Are the Coyotes worse off because because the team in Winnipeg is called the Jets again? Would the Avalanche suffer if Quebec City had a Nordiques team again? I can't imagine the Oilers moving Nugent-Hopkins for Vanek. I could see them wanting Vanek, or really any older established star, to help out their younger talent but that's pretty lopsided for Buffalo. They might be a good trade partner for us.