spndnchz Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/30/best-general-managers-buck-business-sports-hockey-valuations-10-managers.html and the yahoo story: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Some-surprises-on-Forbes-NHL-general-managers-r?urn=nhl-291203 So they're saying he does well with what he's got to spend, just needs to be able to spend more eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/30/best-general-managers-buck-business-sports-hockey-valuations-10-managers.html and the yahoo story: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Some-surprises-on-Forbes-NHL-general-managers-r?urn=nhl-291203 So they're saying he does well with what he's got to spend, just needs to be able to spend more eh? 2 comments: 1st off, if Don Waddell is the 5th best GM, you've got a SERIOUSLY flawed methodology. 2nd, while I agree that Darcy could very likely do better "unshackled," there is no guarantee that he will. IMHO, Muckler was a very good GM when he was given a tight budget (and told no more Euler re-treads), but I wouldn't say his efforts without significant constraints were even remotely close to good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 As a side note: one reason that I hate the current point system is that this is one of Darcy's "five straight winning seasons": Sabres 2007-08 Regulation wins: 30 Regulation losses: 31 OT/SO wins: 9 OT/SO losses: 12 Overall reported record: 39-31-12 So, more losses than wins in regulation, more losses than wins in OT/SO, and (of course) more total losses than total wins, but it is considered a winning season. :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 Someone please hide this story from Pegs. (Actually, let him see it; it sounds like he's very much up on what's been going on in Sabreland; he knows the score; today is use more semicolons day.) "You have to like the consistency under Regier." ???!!! On the verge of missing the playoffs for the sixth time in nine years (Eleven and Jack, you checked the standings lately?). That's really not the consistency you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 Briere, Drury, Dumont, Pomminstein, Hecht, Vanek , 2 successful 1st round picks in 8 years (and 1 that was traded away) [sarcasm] Yeah, he does a great job with what he's got. [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 Sorry, but Regier has had times where he could spend to the cap, he has just not spent the money well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 2 comments: 1st off, if Don Waddell is the 5th best GM, you've got a SERIOUSLY flawed methodology. 2nd, while I agree that Darcy could very likely do better "unshackled," there is no guarantee that he will. IMHO, Muckler was a very good GM when he was given a tight budget (and told no more Euler re-treads), but I wouldn't say his efforts without significant constraints were even remotely close to good enough. Totally agree on Waddell. Everyone keeps telling me what a great GM he is, but I've seen no empirical evidence of such. The Thrashers made the playoffs a whopping one time under his watch, and wasn't he the guy that "built" the awful U.S. Olympic hockey team in 2006? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 As a side note: one reason that I hate the current point system is that this is one of Darcy's "five straight winning seasons": Sabres 2007-08 Regulation wins: 30 Regulation losses: 31 OT/SO wins: 9 OT/SO losses: 12 Overall reported record: 39-31-12 So, more losses than wins in regulation, more losses than wins in OT/SO, and (of course) more total losses than total wins, but it is considered a winning season. :wallbash: Random question: Do you know what it would look like if you separated the shootout wins/losses from those numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelo Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 2 comments: 1st off, if Don Waddell is the 5th best GM, you've got a SERIOUSLY flawed methodology. 2nd, while I agree that Darcy could very likely do better "unshackled," there is no guarantee that he will. IMHO, Muckler was a very good GM when he was given a tight budget (and told no more Euler re-treads), but I wouldn't say his efforts without significant constraints were even remotely close to good enough. sounds like a hit new movie: Darcy Unshackled! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 Random question: Do you know what it would look like if you separated the shootout wins/losses from those numbers? Sabres 2007-08 Regulation wins: 30 Regulation losses: 31 OT wins: 5 OT losses: 3 SO wins: 4 SO losses: 9 Overall reported record: 39-31-12 So, if you ended games after OT with ties, then ignoring any effect that would have on play at the end of OT, they would have been 35-34-13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 2 comments: 1st off, if Don Waddell is the 5th best GM, you've got a SERIOUSLY flawed methodology. :lol: I was thinking I would read this. But I saw this and decided to pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 :lol: I was thinking I would read this. But I saw this and decided to pass. That was pretty much my reaction too. Forbes has their formulas for this stuff and they do apply in a certain way, but it all means different things to different people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.