Interesting viewpoint on Sabres from outside

[fan2456]

Thats not what was being talked about, I agree with you that they should be gone due to their recent lack of success but that isnt going to define their time here, they have had succss and put together some pretty great teams. If people here dont think that LR and DR will be at te top of the list for vacancies on other teams after they are fired here are kidding themselves. They are going to be highly sought after if they are fired here. LR is the Jeff Fisher of the NHL and will have his pick of jobs if he isnt here.

 

I wish them luck in their new positions!

[nfreeman]

PS Small market team is BS. Let me know where the Sabres ranked in terms of cap spending for each of the last 5 years(this season included). More like bad decisions on long term contracts that have been handed out like candy over the last 4-5 years.

 

Agree 100% and would just add that the decisions on which guys to let go and which guys to keep with the long term deals were bad decisions -- although to be fair this mostly occurred with TG/LQ calling the shots.

 

 

I don't think Regier was handcuffed much directly relating to the salary cap, but that's not all that matters. Our anemic (non-existent) European scouting presence is one example. Also, while he could spend just about to the cap, he couldn't give contracts the structure that really attracts free agents. Bonus money, long term, that kind of stuff just didn't happen. And with trades, he could NEVER have buried Kotalik's contract under Quinn/Golisano. So just because the Sabres routinely spent close to the cap doesn't mean Regier wasn't working with significant restrictions.

 

IMHO, by the summer of 2008 (when Miller, Pommer, Hecht and Gaustad got their extensions, each of which now looks like a mediocre-to-terrible decision), and since then, he's had fewer restrictions than 75% of the other GMs in the NHL. Unfortunately, by then the horse had left the barn and he hasn't been able to assemble a good replacement horse.

 

I agree with this a lot but most times that was the going rate. Stafford earned this contract with his play last year... sometimes players dont live up to it but if DR would have let stafford walk after he led the leauge in hat tricks, scored 40 goals and looked like he finally figured out the game he would be the laughing stock of the league. Hindsight is 20/20 but GMs have to take risks...

If he let Stafford walk and Stafford is having the year he is having, he would look like a genius. That's what GMs get paid for. There are many athletes who have their best years in their contract year. I think it was easy to tell that Stafford would be one of those players.

Name one NHL GM who has let a 30 goal scorer walk in RFA or in an instance where they didnt get outbid and looked like a genius.

 

There were other choices between the deal Stafford got and letting him walk. Stafford was restricted. What about a 2-year, $2.5MM per year deal? The Sabres wouldn't have tied up Stafford for 2 more of his UFA seasons, but they also wouldn't have been married for the next 4 years -- which they are now -- to a career underachiever who put up one good season in his contract year.

 

If Stafford wouldn't have gone for that deal and signed an offer sheet with someone for, say, $3.2MM per year -- then the Sabres would've gotten a 1st and a 3rd as compensation -- which we'd all be pretty happy to get for Stafford right now.

 

DR is paid to be right on exactly this kind of decision.

[LabattBlue]

DR was definately handcuffed by ownership in the past.

Nobody knows who is to blame for the D&B fiasco, the decision to match Edmonton's offer for Vanek, the contracts for Hecht, Gaustad, Connolly, etc.., but make no mistake about, the GM of your hockey team has to share some of the blame! Either that or he is a spineless figurehead.

 

One thing I do know...the makeup of this team sucks, ignoring the ongoing problem at center, refusal to trade his beloved players...Who is handcuffing Darcy in regards to all of this?

[TrueBlueGED]

While he may have been limited a little on long-term contracts, big up-front signing bonuses and burying contracts are the exception in the NHL, not the norm. Very few owners are willing to let their GMs spend that kind of money. So, not having that ability isn't being handcuffed, it just means that you're not spoiled. You don't have to be spoiled to be a successful GM. In fact, the Rangers have had only mediocre success (prior to this year, but Richards really wanted to go there) with a very spoiled GM, while others with more normal resources have done more.

 

The Rangers are a truly interesting case. Under Sather they've been less successful than the Sabres have under Regier. Hell, just the past few years they've been worse than Buffalo and their fan base wanted everybody down to the janitors fired. Now they're the top team in the league (to this point....I don't know if they keep it up or not) and the only two additions they've made were Richards and Mike Rupp (as if he really matters). Did Tortorella suddenly become a genius coach, or did they simply add a #1 center? More to the point, WGR this morning was talking about how Dolan and Sather back in I think 2005, decided to change the way they do business. Eschew constant big-time free agent signings and instead decide to grow from within, develop their own players and stick with them regardless of how ugly it was at times. And now it's working out pretty well for them. And they're even doing it with their own version of Stafford! (Dubinsky).

 

My point is the Rangers for the past 3 seasons were largely viewed as completely inept by their fan base (missed playoffs, 1st round exit to the Caps) and now have the best record in the NHL. Interestingly, they're still far from your typical high flying regular season powerhouse. They play great team defense, have a goaltender earning every penny of his $6.75 million salary, and have a top penalty killing unit. Their offense is still average, they don't display a lot of tic-tac-toe pretty passing plays, and their powerplay is a mess. Tortorella hasn't done anything different with his coaching, he simply got better horses (Richards through free agency and other young guys improving their game).

 

@nfreeman: I think a lot of the bad contracts the Sabres now were classic over compensations for the Briere/Drury debacle. I don't know exactly how much of that was Quinn and how much of that was Regier, but I think it was pretty clear that the team made a conscious effort to change their bad reputation and went too far in doing so. The whole couple year stretch of contract decisions, starting with Briere/Drury and then followed by the overpayment to keep other players is certainly grounds for firing. What I'd love to know is whether the one chiefly responsible for those moves has gotten his (Quinn) or if he's still running the show (Regier). It's a shame we can't go back in time with Pegula as owner to see how Regier would have handled things if it was entirely up to him.

[nucci]

Name one NHL GM who has let a 30 goal scorer walk in RFA or in an instance where they didnt get outbid and looked like a genius.

No.

nfreeman has my back.

[nfreeman]

The Rangers are a truly interesting case. Under Sather they've been less successful than the Sabres have under Regier. Hell, just the past few years they've been worse than Buffalo and their fan base wanted everybody down to the janitors fired. Now they're the top team in the league (to this point....I don't know if they keep it up or not) and the only two additions they've made were Richards and Mike Rupp (as if he really matters). Did Tortorella suddenly become a genius coach, or did they simply add a #1 center? More to the point, WGR this morning was talking about how Dolan and Sather back in I think 2005, decided to change the way they do business. Eschew constant big-time free agent signings and instead decide to grow from within, develop their own players and stick with them regardless of how ugly it was at times. And now it's working out pretty well for them. And they're even doing it with their own version of Stafford! (Dubinsky).

 

My point is the Rangers for the past 3 seasons were largely viewed as completely inept by their fan base (missed playoffs, 1st round exit to the Caps) and now have the best record in the NHL. Interestingly, they're still far from your typical high flying regular season powerhouse. They play great team defense, have a goaltender earning every penny of his $6.75 million salary, and have a top penalty killing unit. Their offense is still average, they don't display a lot of tic-tac-toe pretty passing plays, and their powerplay is a mess. Tortorella hasn't done anything different with his coaching, he simply got better horses (Richards through free agency and other young guys improving their game).

 

@nfreeman: I think a lot of the bad contracts the Sabres now were classic over compensations for the Briere/Drury debacle. I don't know exactly how much of that was Quinn and how much of that was Regier, but I think it was pretty clear that the team made a conscious effort to change their bad reputation and went too far in doing so. The whole couple year stretch of contract decisions, starting with Briere/Drury and then followed by the overpayment to keep other players is certainly grounds for firing. What I'd love to know is whether the one chiefly responsible for those moves has gotten his (Quinn) or if he's still running the show (Regier). It's a shame we can't go back in time with Pegula as owner to see how Regier would have handled things if it was entirely up to him.

 

Good post. I completely agree with the bolded parts.

 

I also agree on the Rangers. Frankly I see their team this year as what the Sabres should aspire to -- i.e. great goaltending backstopping mostly home-grown talent (including a rock-solid captain who plays an excellent 2-way game) that is supplemented with maybe one elite UFA per year. And if you look at their salary breakdown, they DON'T (unlike the Sabres) have a bunch of guys who are decent but not great and making $3MM - $5MM per year. They have a few highly-paid stars, a couple of $3MM-$4MM guys and the rest are inexpensive younger guys.

[FolignosJock]

Agree 100% and would just add that the decisions on which guys to let go and which guys to keep with the long term deals were bad decisions -- although to be fair this mostly occurred with TG/LQ calling the shots.

 

 

 

 

IMHO, by the summer of 2008 (when Miller, Pommer, Hecht and Gaustad got their extensions, each of which now looks like a mediocre-to-terrible decision), and since then, he's had fewer restrictions than 75% of the other GMs in the NHL. Unfortunately, by then the horse had left the barn and he hasn't been able to assemble a good replacement horse.

 

 

 

 

 

There were other choices between the deal Stafford got and letting him walk. Stafford was restricted. What about a 2-year, $2.5MM per year deal? The Sabres wouldn't have tied up Stafford for 2 more of his UFA seasons, but they also wouldn't have been married for the next 4 years -- which they are now -- to a career underachiever who put up one good season in his contract year.

 

If Stafford wouldn't have gone for that deal and signed an offer sheet with someone for, say, $3.2MM per year -- then the Sabres would've gotten a 1st and a 3rd as compensation -- which we'd all be pretty happy to get for Stafford right now.

 

DR is paid to be right on exactly this kind of decision.

 

Stafford would have went to arbitration and got more money for less years

 

Good post. I completely agree with the bolded parts.

 

I also agree on the Rangers. Frankly I see their team this year as what the Sabres should aspire to -- i.e. great goaltending backstopping mostly home-grown talent (including a rock-solid captain who plays an excellent 2-way game) that is supplemented with maybe one elite UFA per year. And if you look at their salary breakdown, they DON'T (unlike the Sabres) have a bunch of guys who are decent but not great and making $3MM - $5MM per year. They have a few highly-paid stars, a couple of $3MM-$4MM guys and the rest are inexpensive younger guys.

What about the three seasons where they were viewed as complete inept??? What about the drury contract, the gomez contract, kaberle..... Of course you wanna be like the top team this year but you cant throw out how bad they were for the last few years and all the horrible contracts that they had.

 

Every fan and front office in the league would love to have all ups and no downs but it doesnt happen. You keep saying you want this you want that but it comes with a price. We were that team in the drury briere days and look at us now.

[apuszczalowski]

What about the three seasons where they were viewed as complete inept??? What about the drury contract, the gomez contract, kaberle..... Of course you wanna be like the top team this year but you cant throw out how bad they were for the last few years and all the horrible contracts that they had.

The End justifies the means?

 

Right now, everyone will tell you that they would sit through a few bad years of growth, as long as the end result is what the Rangers are experiencing now. But we all know that this place would hit sub "Retard Rodeo" status around here if they were bad for a few years..........

[LabattBlue]

And with trades, he could NEVER have buried Kotalik's contract under Quinn/Golisano. So just because the Sabres routinely spent close to the cap doesn't mean Regier wasn't working with significant restrictions.

Having an owner willing to eat salary to free up cap space is not a handcuff. How many GM's do you think have the luxury of having an owner willing to bury dead weight in the minors or in Europe? Not many.

[FolignosJock]

The End justifies the means?

 

Right now, everyone will tell you that they would sit through a few bad years of growth, as long as the end result is what the Rangers are experiencing now. But we all know that this place would hit sub "Retard Rodeo" status around here if they were bad for a few years..........

 

This

 

 

Guess what guys we are in one of those bad years

 

Having an owner willing to eat salary to free up cap space is not a handcuff. How many GM's do you think have the luxury of having an owner willing to bury dead weight in the minors or in Europe? Not many.

 

Most of the good ones.....

[LabattBlue]

Most of the good ones.....

I'd love to see a list of teams that have $5 mil in salaries(Morrisson & Kotalik) buried in the AHL or Europe. This is the exception not the rule.

[TrueBlueGED]

The End justifies the means?

 

Right now, everyone will tell you that they would sit through a few bad years of growth, as long as the end result is what the Rangers are experiencing now. But we all know that this place would hit sub "Retard Rodeo" status around here if they were bad for a few years..........

 

That's a great point. It's really easy to SAY you're ok with being awful for a few seasons if it means long-term growth, but actually going through it is awful. And even if the team is improving, it's not like it's some awesome linear improvement...there's peaks and valleys. As recently as the first month of THIS season, the Rangers didn't even look like a professional hockey team, especially offensively where they couldn't complete a pass. Go ahead and read some of their fan forums from early in the year, it's hilarious how reactionary fans are.

[nfreeman]

Stafford would have went to arbitration and got more money for less years

 

What about the three seasons where they were viewed as complete inept??? What about the drury contract, the gomez contract, kaberle..... Of course you wanna be like the top team this year but you cant throw out how bad they were for the last few years and all the horrible contracts that they had.

 

You are right that Stafford would've gone to arbitration, but I don't think he would've gotten much more than $4MM -- and, most importantly, it would've been a 1-year contract. Wouldn't you rather be paying Stafford $5MM for this year and zero for the next 3 than be married to him at $4MM per year for the next 3?

 

As for the Rangers -- yes, they've been lousy for a long time and have made a ton of mistakes -- although their last really bad one was the Redden signing in 2008. I did say that THIS YEAR they have the kind of team that the Sabres should aspire to. I don't think the Sabres as currently constructed have that kind of team.

[FolignosJock]

 

You are right that Stafford would've gone to arbitration, but I don't think he would've gotten much more than $4MM -- and, most importantly, it would've been a 1-year contract. Wouldn't you rather be paying Stafford $5MM for this year and zero for the next 3 than be married to him at $4MM per year for the next 3?

 

As for the Rangers -- yes, they've been lousy for a long time and have made a ton of mistakes -- although their last really bad one was the Redden signing in 2008. I did say that THIS YEAR they have the kind of team that the Sabres should aspire to. I don't think the Sabres as currently constructed have that kind of team.

 

And at the end of last regular season rangers fans wanted a team like the sabres. I dont think we ae married to stafford at all. Somone out there is going to deal for him, he is big, skilled and has scored goals in the past. A GM out there is going to try and change his scenery.

[nfreeman]

And at the end of last regular season rangers fans wanted a team like the sabres. I dont think we ae married to stafford at all. Somone out there is going to deal for him, he is big, skilled and has scored goals in the past. A GM out there is going to try and change his scenery.

 

Stafford at 2 years x $2.5MM is much more marketable, and would bring back a much better yield, than Stafford on his current contract. With Stafford's current contract, the Sabres will be lucky if they avoid taking back someone else's lousy contract in any deal for him. And auctioning him off at the deadline last year (which I was not in favor of, but in retrospect would've been the right move) would've produced the best yield.

[FolignosJock]

Stafford at 2 years x $2.5MM is much more marketable, and would bring back a much better yield, than Stafford on his current contract. With Stafford's current contract, the Sabres will be lucky if they avoid taking back someone else's lousy contract in any deal for him. And auctioning him off at the deadline last year (which I was not in favor of, but in retrospect would've been the right move) would've produced the best yield.

 

Hindsight and a deal at 2.5 wasnt going to get done, with his numbers last season he demanded a pretty steep price its too bad we were the ones that paid it.