Darcy webstream June 20

[spndnchz]

It is our duty to call him a turd.

[LGR4GM]

It is our duty to call him a turd.

Agreed, I can't believe I know more about what is going on than that turd... it is really sad.

[That Aud Smell]

Lol you called him a turd, and I found it amusing.

It is our duty to call him a turd.

 

now, now -- i called the article a turd.

 

i don't think i'd call bucky a turd.

 

harrington? i have him pegged as a troglodyte. i'm not sure it's the best fit, but i'm running with it.

 

i'm not sure what i'd call bucky. i'll think about that one.

[deluca67]

The eighth and 16th picks could be used in a package to move into the top three positions of the draft [snip]

 

http://www.buffalone.../130629605/1104

 

 

 

My take? He's been writing that piece for a while. He wrote that paragraph weeks ago, in a vacuum, without a fraction of the information we had here on the board about what the relative values of draft picks might be.

 

After the above quote, he went on to give his "alternative" plan for the draft:

 

"or they could be used with Vanek and/or Miller for a good, young prospect with experience. I would not be inclined to keep both picks and take my chances in the draft. It’s too risky."

 

In terms of two top-20 picks being "risky", he wrote that without dealing with the commonly received wisdom (I'm not saying it's true -- just saying it's what's being discussed as true, or likely true) that the 2013 draft is the deepest/best in 10 years (since the 2003 draft). Shoot, that troglodyte Harrington published a piece today that alluded to the comparison between the 2 drafts (and included a quote from Devine).

 

And then there's this beauty:

 

Panthers GM Dale Tallon is listening to offers for the second pick overall. It’s time to give him a call and find out the price tag. I would be willing to trade Miller, Vanek and a first-round pick for the second pick overall. Why? Because the chances of keeping one or both is minimal. It would require them signing extensions with Florida, of course.

 

That was evidently written before the disclosure from Regier (which I will take at face value) that the teams in the top 4 are all looking for a bundle of picks and top prospects in order to move (i.e., they don't want veterans). Gleason's idea about moving Miller, Vanek, and #8 for the #2 pick would have gotten him eye rolls and chuckles on this board.

 

Bottom line: Bucky had no feckin' clue what the market might be for the top 3 (4) picks when he wrote this thing. He might have had some idea, had he done his homework. It's just a complete and total turd of an article.

I would guess Bucky Gleason has a better idea what the market for one of the top four picks is than Darcy Regier. The idea that two playoff teams from a year ago (Nashville & Florida) wouldn't be interested in using found money and turn it into a player (or two) that can get them right back in to the playoffs is a pure Regierian way of thinking. I would throw Tampa in that mix as well. Nashville, Florida and Tampa are not in the same position as the Sabres are, these teams have pieces in place, enough where a Vanek and/or Miller could propel them right back into playoffs. In Tampa's case, IMO, Miller would make the Lightning a Cup contender.

 

It's not Bucky Gleason's fault the Sabres are where they. Just like it's not Milan Lucic's fault nor is it the guys at WGR's fault. Terry Pegula, Ted Black and Darcy Regier are the reason the Sabres are among the dregs of the NHL, blame them.

 

Bucky Gleason's article is a fantasy piece. Let's all pretend the Sabres had a competent GM and a turn around was actually possible. That's Gleason's only crime with this piece. Many of his ideas have already been discussed on this board. Gleason's base strategy is pretty sound, maximize assets. He has some pretty interesting ideas worthy of discussion. Since Gleason is on of those that continually point out what a joke this franchise has become it is highly unlikely.

 

Agreed, I can't believe I know more about what is going on than that turd... it is really sad.

No you don't.

 

It is our duty to call him a turd.

Sigh!

[tom webster]

The eighth and 16th picks could be used in a package to move into the top three positions of the draft [snip]

 

http://www.buffalone.../130629605/1104

 

 

 

My take? He's been writing that piece for a while. He wrote that paragraph weeks ago, in a vacuum, without a fraction of the information we had here on the board about what the relative values of draft picks might be.

 

After the above quote, he went on to give his "alternative" plan for the draft:

 

"or they could be used with Vanek and/or Miller for a good, young prospect with experience. I would not be inclined to keep both picks and take my chances in the draft. It’s too risky."

 

In terms of two top-20 picks being "risky", he wrote that without dealing with the commonly received wisdom (I'm not saying it's true -- just saying it's what's being discussed as true, or likely true) that the 2013 draft is the deepest/best in 10 years (since the 2003 draft). Shoot, that troglodyte Harrington published a piece today that alluded to the comparison between the 2 drafts (and included a quote from Devine).

 

And then there's this beauty:

 

Panthers GM Dale Tallon is listening to offers for the second pick overall. It’s time to give him a call and find out the price tag. I would be willing to trade Miller, Vanek and a first-round pick for the second pick overall. Why? Because the chances of keeping one or both is minimal. It would require them signing extensions with Florida, of course.

 

That was evidently written before the disclosure from Regier (which I will take at face value) that the teams in the top 4 are all looking for a bundle of picks and top prospects in order to move (i.e., they don't want veterans). Gleason's idea about moving Miller, Vanek, and #8 for the #2 pick would have gotten him eye rolls and chuckles on this board.

 

Bottom line: Bucky had no feckin' clue what the market might be for the top 3 (4) picks when he wrote this thing. He might have had some idea, had he done his homework. It's just a complete and total turd of an article.

 

I still don't see where he says 8 and 16 gets you in the top 3. He says if he can't get on of the top 3 picks he will use the picks for trade bait, not to get those picks.

[SwampD]

Let’s get something straight. No GM should be allowed to rebuild his own team. Their job is to build. If a rebuild is required, which happens to be the case in Buffalo, it means a team was poorly built the first time. If you invest time and money in a core group of players, you need to be right. If you’re not, you need to be replaced.[/snip]

 

Kinda hard to argue with that.

 

Some people just need to shoot the messenger.

[TrueBlueGED]

I would guess Bucky Gleason has a better idea what the market for one of the top four picks is than Darcy Regier.

 

You know you're trolling when...

 

Let’s get something straight. No GM should be allowed to rebuild his own team. Their job is to build. If a rebuild is required, which happens to be the case in Buffalo, it means a team was poorly built the first time. If you invest time and money in a core group of players, you need to be right. If you’re not, you need to be replaced.[/snip]

 

Kinda hard to argue with that.

 

Some people just need to shoot the messenger.

 

In Darcy's case, sure. But in general don't GMs tend to keep their job long enough to get two cracks at building a winner?

[SwampD]

You know you're trolling when...

 

 

 

In Darcy's case, sure. But in general don't GMs tend to keep their job long enough to get two cracks at building a winner?

k, but it's still not unreasonable to think that 8,16 Vanek and/or Miller gets you a top 3 pick. Nor is it unreasonable to think that maybe we should do that.

[TrueBlueGED]

k, but it's still not unreasonable to think that 8,16 Vanek and/or Miller gets you a top 3 pick. Nor is it unreasonable to think that maybe we should do that.

 

This is where we disagree. Sometimes no just means no, not "give me more".

[SwampD]

This is where we disagree. Sometimes no just means no, not "give me more".

So you're saying that that is not enough to get us a top three pick, then? oof. We're screwed.

[TrueBlueGED]

So you're saying that that is not enough to get us a top three pick, then? oof. We're screwed.

 

From a pure value standpoint it's a pretty significant overpayment IMO....but I just don't think the teams at the top want to move, basically regardless of what they get offered. Minimum of 7 years of cheap labor from an odds-on all-star for a rebuilding team is close to invaluable.

[SwampD]

From a pure value standpoint it's a pretty significant overpayment IMO....but I just don't think the teams at the top want to move, basically regardless of what they get offered. Minimum of 7 years of cheap labor from an odds-on all-star for a rebuilding team is close to invaluable.

My "oof" stands then. If two known values, basically the only assets the Sabres have, are not enough to get one unknown value, then we are f##ked.

[...]

The Sabres will not be picking in the top three. The Magick 8 Ball says "no".

[CheckingLine]

Ok, it is time to raise the bull$#!+ flag. It is interesting, when your team is golfing to speculate and "play" GM. However, for Bucky, or any of the other miscreants in the media to call for someone's job, is idiotic. I hope they are doing it to generate ratings and do not truly think they are capable of making hockey ops decisions. It is also idiotic to say a coach or GM cannot rebuild a failed team in the same city. Most are rehired almost immediately. Do they get smarter? No, some learn from their mistakes. I am not happy with the results of th Darcy-Ruff tenure, but enough already. The owner has made his choice move on. Would they be OK, assuming the rebuild is successful, if they had to start over in a new city. Bucky to Dallas for Skip Bayless and a bag of pucks...

 

 

[stenbaro]

Darcy's track record shows that he will not move Vanek or Miller until the very end when its too late to get the most out their worth...Sorry folks he will hold on to them till we end up 9th best in the conference and drafting 8th again next year...We could have bottomed out this year and reaped the rewards but NOPE......Watch it happen again....Stupid is as stupid does

[Kristian]

Darcy's track record shows that he will not move Vanek or Miller until the very end when its too late to get the most out their worth...Sorry folks he will hold on to them till we end up 9th best in the conference and drafting 8th again next year...We could have bottomed out this year and reaped the rewards but NOPE......Watch it happen again....Stupid is as stupid does

 

Not only that, but seeing as both probably will be ticked off they weren't traded, neither will perform very well, which definitely won't help the youngsters.

 

And if the kids don't develop, that's effectively another wasted season.

 

Perfectly plausible, and to be expected from Regier.

[JJFIVEOH]

Good for Darcy. I'm glad he's not giving up the farm AND Vanek/Miller to get one unproven prospect. That's just rediculous. Nice to see he knows where to draw the line.

[stenbaro]

Good for Darcy. I'm glad he's not giving up the farm AND Vanek/Miller to get one unproven prospect. That's just rediculous. Nice to see he knows where to draw the line.

His line is a cross between a bad dose of cianide and rohypnol....and he is trying to serve it to all the minions called season ticket holders

[CheckingLine]

Darcy's track record shows that he will not move Vanek or Miller until the very end when its too late to get the most out their worth...Sorry folks he will hold on to them till we end up 9th best in the conference and drafting 8th again next year...We could have bottomed out this year and reaped the rewards but NOPE......Watch it happen again....Stupid is as stupid does

Where is it written that the best deal can be had before the draft? I am sure Nashville would not have coughed up a 1st round choice for Goose prior to a draft. LA might have gotten more for Bernier at the deadline from a contender with an injury or shaky net minder. You should wait until after the deal or contact renewal then decree your judgement.

[That Aud Smell]

I would guess Bucky Gleason has a better idea what the market for one of the top four picks is than Darcy Regier.

Dude. You're a true fan and a smart guy. Just stop with this stuff. Many of us (including me) don't like and/or have grown tired of Darcy's persona, approach, philosophy, choice of eye-wear, and/or voice,*** but it is nonsense to suggest that a guy who's actually a GM of a real NHL franchise has less of a sense as to what the market is for a top-3 pick this year than a marginal writer like Gleason.

 

***I'm mostly in the sick of his approach/philosophy camp

 

It's not Bucky Gleason's fault the Sabres are where they.

I did not suggest it was. It is his fault, though, that he is a sh!tty, lazy, and unimaginative writer. It is to his credit that he's managed to craft a career out of the tools at his disposal, though.

 

Let's all pretend the Sabres had a competent GM and a turn around was actually possible. That's Gleason's only crime with this piece.

Well, that and publishing a column comprised partly of recycled schlock and largely of theories that are out of sync with reality or have no basis therein.

 

The eighth and 16th picks could be used in a package to move into the top three positions of the draft [snip] http://www.buffalone.../130629605/1104

I still don't see where he says 8 and 16 gets you in the top 3.

 

:blink:

[LGR4GM]

No you don't.

Challenge Accepted.

[shrader]

Here's my opinion on that Gleason be a GM piece. It was just about the most arrogant thing I've ever read. Then again, that's what you're always going to get from that type of story. They are complete filler and a total waste of time.

 

Oh, and I'm so sick of this idea that our new front office needs to be composed of former Sabres. Why is this idea so widespread? If the best man for the job just happens to be a former Sabre, go for it. But that is a detail that should be so far buried down the list of what characteristics we are looking for in our hires.

[SwampD]

:blink:

The eighth and 16th picks could be used in a package…

 

If you don't see it know, you're not going to.

[That Aud Smell]

I still don't see where he says 8 and 16 gets you in the top 3.

The eighth and 16th picks could be used in a package[/size]…

 

If you don't see it know, you're not going to.

 

Gotcha, gotcha. I just deleted a fairly ranty reply. I think I see T-Web's reading of that paragraph now. FWIW, I don't think that's the right reading of what Gleason wrote (this actually goes to my main beef with the guy: he's not a good writer by any measure -- he does not express his thoughts clearly or interestingly). Here's the entire sentence:

 

The eighth and 16th picks could be used in a package to move into the top three positions of the draft or they could be used with Vanek and/or Miller for a good, young prospect with experience.

 

So, he's saying either 8+16 in a package or 8+16 ("they" (he didn't say "one of them")) with Vanek and/or Miller for a prospect.

 

By framing it that way, Gleason said (whether he intended to or not) that it's an 8+16 "package" (i.e., the 1 first rounders are the package) or it's an 8+16+a vet combination.

 

So, my inference is that 8 + 16 was the package. Others may read it differently, but, IMO, that's not what's written.

 

In fact, as I read that piece of crap sentence again, I'm less clear on what's being said. As written, he suggests that 8+16+Vanek would yield a top prospect. A single player? Again, that may not be what he meant, but it's what he wrote.

 

One last bit on this, for Swamp and T-Web, do you read that Gleason proposal in substance as follows?

 

The eighth and 16th picks could be used in a package with a rostered player to move into the top three positions of the draft or one of those picks they could be packaged used with Vanek and/or Miller for a good, young prospect with experience.

[deluca67]

Dude. You're a true fan and a smart guy. Just stop with this stuff. Many of us (including me) don't like and/or have grown tired of Darcy's persona, approach, philosophy, choice of eye-wear, and/or voice,*** but it is nonsense to suggest that a guy who's actually a GM of a real NHL franchise has less of a sense as to what the market is for a top-3 pick this year than a marginal writer like Gleason.

 

***I'm mostly in the sick of his approach/philosophy camp

What is "nonsense" is the idea that a GM that continually comes out every trade deadline and July 1st with wide eyed bewilderment admitting he was surprised and couldn't get a handle on the current market will suddenly have his finger on the pulse of other teams and know what the market is for the top three picks. \

 

Darcy Regier is a joke, I'm too tired and frustrated by where this franchise is to be polite and pretend otherwise as to not hurt anyone's feelings. This team is 4-5 years of rebuilding, at least, until they can look to be contenders. Sadly that clock doesn't start until Regier is gone. Gleason has the ballz to go on the record on that. Hats off to Gleason, Sullivan and the guys are WGR for refusing play "lets pretend Regier is a good GM", now if we can get some fans to quit playing that game we would all be better off.