Eleven Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I just watched Edmonton get shut out by Ryan Miller and the 'nucks. But, how can Edmonton get shut out with back-to-back-to-back #1 overall picks leading up their offense? Tanking guarantees future success I am told. Preach it! I am with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Some of these posts are little goofy. We stripped our team to rebuild. We are going to bad for a few years, shocker. No one has ever said rebuilding your team from scratch guarentees anything. I really hate the word tanking. We got rid of our old core for a full on rebuild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 No one has ever said rebuilding your team from scratch guarentees anything. Refresh my memory as to why we did it again? Oh, that's right. The GM that ruined a very good team sold it to us to cover his ass about the ###### storm of suck that was about to fall upon us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Some of these posts are little goofy. We stripped our team to rebuild. We are going to bad for a few years, shocker. No one has ever said rebuilding your team from scratch guarentees anything. I really hate the word tanking. We got rid of our old core for a full on rebuild. a very cogent distinction. Well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted October 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) Some of these posts are little goofy. We stripped our team to rebuild. We are going to bad for a few years, shocker. No one has ever said rebuilding your team from scratch guarentees anything. I really hate the word tanking. We got rid of our old core for a full on rebuild. Well they did more than that. The whole decision on Ehrhoff is the one I point to. Most on here will admit that he was/is a blue chip defensemen. He was unhappy, but under contract. Yet, TM let him walk. That is more than dismantling the core. He should have been one of the first elements of the new core. I don't care if he had to suffer through another season making 8M. He should have never been let go if this team was serious about turning it around. TM said if you don't want to play here, I don't want you here. Ehrhoff raised his 8M hand and Buffalo let him go. A blue chipper.. And then replaced him with Mezzaros. Edited October 18, 2014 by wjag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Well they did more than that. The whole decision on Ehrhoff is the one I point to. Most on here will admit that he was/is a blue chip defensemen. He was unhappy, but under contract. Yet, TM let him walk. That is more than dismantling the core. He should have been one of the first elements of the new core. I don't care if he had to suffer through another season making 8M. He should have never been let go if this team was serious about turning it around. TM said if you don't want to play here, I don't want you here. Ehrhoff raised his 8M hand and Buffalo let him go. A blue chipper.. And then replaced him with Mezzaros. Not only do I support the move to rid yourself of those who do not want to be part of the solution, I wonder why he didn't can Stafford, Hodson and others who think they are helping but are clueless to the fact that they aren't. I had to tear down and rebuild after a flood. I didn't keep the sofa as a placeholder for the new one. Everything went. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 See I can welcome these points you all just made and I think it's a legitimate discussion. If we needed to rebuild, why, was it the right choice, etc. The tank bashing gets a bit old as it's a little misguided. Well they did more than that. The whole decision on Ehrhoff is the one I point to. Most on here will admit that he was/is a blue chip defensemen. He was unhappy, but under contract. Yet, TM let him walk. That is more than dismantling the core. He should have been one of the first elements of the new core. I don't care if he had to suffer through another season making 8M. He should have never been let go if this team was serious about turning it around. TM said if you don't want to play here, I don't want you here. Ehrhoff raised his 8M hand and Buffalo let him go. A blue chipper.. And then replaced him with Mezzaros. I really think a big part of this release was be is recapture penatly. If he retired early, it would kill is later down the road. I think it shows they were most concerned with this as he wasn't traded away, instead just cut. I think it was a salary cap cut of a player that wasn't happy and may not finish out the contract on their end Refresh my memory as to why we did it again? Oh, that's right. The GM that ruined a very good team sold it to us to cover his ass about the ###### storm of suck that was about to fall upon us. What what are you trying to say, it sounds interesting, I'm just not following (sincerely) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 See I can welcome these points you all just made and I think it's a legitimate discussion. If we needed to rebuild, why, was it the right choice, etc. The tank bashing gets a bit old as it's a little misguided. Well, In my opinion tank supporting is misguided. So there. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) I didn't see any of the game(thankful for that). Based on TOI numbers, I am assuming Reinhart was on a line with McCormick and Deslauriers. If so, Nolan is a f***ing moron that makes me want to see him fired ASAP, and to just make the entire season disappear. Year 2 of the tank is going to be very painful, and as I have stated before, and others have mentioned tonight, I really hope that TM wasn't really trying to make this team better, because if so, we may be in trouble with him at the helm. If he is pro-tank(no one will ever really know), then he is a tank commander of the highest level. Edited October 18, 2014 by LabattBlue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Well, In my opinion tank supporting is misguided. So there. :P Haha no I just meant bashing a team who is I finally losing is fine, or bashing fans who are rooting for team to suck/lose is fine. I get all that, but I just don't know if that's really happening. I think the team is trying to win and there moves made to make this team better this offseason. It's just gonna take time and that sucks, no one enjoys watching this lol. Not even other team's fans can enjoy these games! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 To bring it back to a discussion of tonight's game, and to say something positive about our team (rare as it may be), I thought Risto played a much better game tonight than the past few games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Refresh my memory as to why we did it again? Oh, that's right. The GM that ruined a very good team sold it to us to cover his ass about the ###### storm of suck that was about to fall upon us. But Darcy also publicly hung the full rebuild on Pegula. Pretty ballsy. "Ownership will determine the extent of the rebuild." Same interview where Darcy very openly criticized the idea of adding expensive free agents before a foundation for success is in place, citing Minnesota's approach as the right way to build a team. Toward the end Darcy seemed to have no problem pinning the plight and the fate of the organeyezation on someone other than himself, namely TPegs. Again, ballsy? Or gutless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresBillsFan Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I just watched Edmonton get shut out by Ryan Miller and the 'nucks. But, how can Edmonton get shut out with back-to-back-to-back #1 overall picks leading up their offense? Tanking guarantees future success I am told. Nail Yak to me is a bust right now. Players are being thrown in without much development and they lack defense and goaltending. Like I said before u can have 20 1st rounders and if u don't give them time to develop your in trouble. Plus some picks are busts. Plus throw in last years weak draft and it's a big mess. This years draft is the most important. Let's face it we lack star players and picks 1 and 2 are going to be players you build around. I like Reinhart but it's so obvious since preseason that he needs more time to develop. It could be 1 season or 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) But Darcy also publicly hung the full rebuild on Pegula. Pretty ballsy. "Ownership will determine the extent of the rebuild." Same interview where Darcy very openly criticized the idea of adding expensive free agents before a foundation for success is in place, citing Minnesota's approach as the right way to build a team. Toward the end Darcy seemed to have no problem pinning the plight and the fate of the organeyezation on someone other than himself, namely TPegs. Again, ballsy? Or gutless? I don't know that it's either -- it is what it is: the truth. Pegula was presented with options, avenues, etc., and he evidently chose to get a whole lot worse before he got better. Black corroborated that when be talked about Pegula wanting to get off a treadmill of mediocrity (this was just following the PLF departure). Black also said at the time that the team could become a playoff bubble team, if it so chose (a la moves the Islanders made (although they have a franchise player)). Edited October 18, 2014 by That Aud Smell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjd1001 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) I'm not all that upset with this team yet. Sure, I'd like to see them lose 4-3 or 3-2 rather than 1-0, but not much more beyond that. I also don't think (yet) that this team is an absolute lock for last place and that they are going to as bad (or worse) than last year. ANY team, good or bad, that has a lot of changes from the start of one season to the next is going to take a while to 'gel', so to speak. On the top teams, you have a larger portion of the team that has played with each other for YEARS and know where each other will be on the ice (or at least the key players on the top line.) On the Sabres, it is going to be at least 20 games until that happens..and by the time it does, they will be into the 'softer' part of the schedule. What do I think that means? I think you might still be looking at a 60-70 point team, UNLESS further trades are made to strip this team early (Myers, Stewart, and Stafford gone by the end of the year.) What is puzzling to me is the constant talk of the 'lack of effort' game after game? Are even the 'experts' who are saying that confusing lack of effort for lack of talent? I just don't see how the biggest goal of the offseason was to purge this team of guys who didn't show any effort, who didn't want to be here, and yet that still seems to be a major problem? I don't get that. Maybe it is just human nature, even the guys who are normally 'effort' guys aren't going to go 100% everyday until they feel they have a legitimate chance to win a good number of games? Edited October 18, 2014 by mjd1001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 But Darcy also publicly hung the full rebuild on Pegula. Pretty ballsy. "Ownership will determine the extent of the rebuild." Same interview where Darcy very openly criticized the idea of adding expensive free agents before a foundation for success is in place, citing Minnesota's approach as the right way to build a team. Toward the end Darcy seemed to have no problem pinning the plight and the fate of the organeyezation on someone other than himself, namely TPegs. Again, ballsy? Or gutless? You are trying to argue it both ways with Pegs. You want him to be the owner who ordered Darcy to chase the dream via free agency AND the owner who wanted a full tear down? Ask yourself which method went against Darcy's grain? I think we can all agree that chasing the dream via free agency was out of character for Darcy. Collect a mess of cheap prospects and build that way? That's got Darcy's DNA all over it. At the end of the day, It was truthful for Darcy to say that the owner determines the extent of the build, because the owner is where the buck stops. But at the end of that same day, it is the GM that is selling the build out and the extent of it. He's selling it to the man with the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Reasons not to follow through: Financial Survival of the Franchise : non-issue Media Sensitive Ownership that will take action based on Local Media furor : non-issue Fear of reprisal from the league for intentionally losing : non-issue with the signings, and Bettman sitting in the arena and flat out saying that no one is intentionally being bad this year Fear of the permanent loss of fans : non-issue, see "Bills, Buffalo" There was never a reason, never a reason, for him to do anything other than a full scale dive to McDavid. Even if it fails, we've lost nothing except one year of a middling-at-best finish. Certainly not necessary just 7 years removed from the President's Trophy and 4 Years from a divisional championship. The brilliance, the pure f'n genius of it is that the FA moves and the Gorges trade actually made the appearance of making the team better. Some saw through it, thought the team would be just as bad, but no one saw the team being worse, a lock for a top 2 pick. And the articles by the bought out players this week, just oozing with how badly they wanted to leave. F'n perfect. They had to go. GMTM had absolutely no choice but to buy out the contract of his best defenseman. I fully expect a new category in to be created by the Nobel Committee purely for Murray. Hell, they might even cancel the entire EGOT awards season and just rename the country "All Hail Tim". Exactly. Genius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 You are trying to argue it both ways with Pegs. You want him to be the owner who ordered Darcy to chase the dream via free agency AND the owner who wanted a full tear down? Ask yourself which method went against Darcy's grain? I think we can all agree that chasing the dream via free agency was out of character for Darcy. Collect a mess of cheap prospects and build that way? That's got Darcy's DNA all over it. At the end of the day, It was truthful for Darcy to say that the owner determines the extent of the build, because the owner is where the buck stops. But at the end of that same day, it is the GM that is selling the build out and the extent of it. He's selling it to the man with the money. This is for Aud, too. I don't want Pegula determining the strategic direction of the franchise. It's not his job. You hire good hockey people to figure out how to win a Cup. I know that's considered naive, and not how it's ever been done. Because wealthy guys get to do what they want. To me, the oil and gas man owner staying out of things is the most logical way to become successful. Does Pegula have "hockey people" advising him on these decisions? Not really. I worry about who some of these guys are. Patrick's resume is impressive, but he came on board after, apparently, Pegula, two accountants and a lawyer decided where to take the franchise. I especially worry about how great it is for some of those guys to be in a place where they know they can slash payroll and still not lose the fan base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 This is for Aud, too. I don't want Pegula determining the strategic direction of the franchise. It's not his job. You hire good hockey people to figure out how to win a Cup. I know that's considered naive, and not how it's ever been done. Because wealthy guys get to do what they want. To me, the oil and gas man owner staying out of things is the most logical way to become successful. Does Pegula have "hockey people" advising him on these decisions? Not really. I worry about who some of these guys are. Patrick's resume is impressive, but he came on board after, apparently, Pegula, two accountants and a lawyer decided where to take the franchise. I especially worry about how great it is for some of those guys to be in a place where they know they can slash payroll and still not lose the fan base. All well and good, but you have absolutely no way of knowing today who has the ear of Pegula regarding the direction of the on ice product. You don't know if it is Black, Patrick, or TMGM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Here's the other thing weave. Tim Murray is a pretty young guy getting his first shot at a GM job. Was he told the lay of the lay of the land before getting hired? He didn't bring in his own coach, which is unusual. Was he told he'd be inheriting Nolan and a full-on rebuild? Darcy's gone but the tank isn't. That tells me the decision was made higher than Darcy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Here's the other thing weave. Tim Murray is a pretty young guy getting his first shot at a GM job. Was he told the lay of the lay of the land before getting hired? He didn't bring in his own coach, which is unusual. Was he told he'd be inheriting Nolan and a full-on rebuild? Darcy's gone but the tank isn't. That tells me the decision was made higher than Darcy. If he needed to be told he was inheriting a rebuild, he shouldn't have been hired. As for Nolan, my personal supposition, based upon absolutely nothing but a blind guess, is that Murray knows that it doesn't matter who coaches this team. He'll pick his coach, Nolan or otherwise, when it matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 What is puzzling to me is the constant talk of the 'lack of effort' game after game? Are even the 'experts' who are saying that confusing lack of effort for lack of talent? I just don't see how the biggest goal of the offseason was to purge this team of guys who didn't show any effort, who didn't want to be here, and yet that still seems to be a major problem? I don't get that. Maybe it is just human nature, even the guys who are normally 'effort' guys aren't going to go 100% everyday until they feel they have a legitimate chance to win a good number of games? I agree. Something doesn't jive. My suspicion is that Nolan's got one way of seeing things and a heavy (heavy) bias toward heart/guts/effort, and therefore sees failure through that lens. He may lack the imagination to see failure as a more nuanced issue; perhaps in the same way he can't or won't coach a puck possession game (dump and chase). Another thought: He wants rookies and plugs to run through a brick wall, and he sees their inability to do so as a failure of effort. But when you bang your head against a brick wall, you generally end up with a headache and no progress. I'll look forward to any and all replies along the lines of "Teddy Nolan, simple game, heart, hur dur, effort, compete, desire." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Two questions... #1 Was the Sabres supposed new anthem "One Buffalo" played at the game last night? #2 How loud was the booing at the games end? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 All well and good, but you have absolutely no way of knowing today who has the ear of Pegula regarding the direction of the on ice product. You don't know if it is Black, Patrick, or TMGM. Ugh I know I am fighting a losing battle here and always will. I don't want the owner's ear getting nibbled on by anyone. (Good morning Judge Smell.) The reason for existence isn't to win a Stanley Cup, it's to win a Stanley Cup with Terry Pegula as winner of the Conn Smythe. Wow, the ego. Some might say, so what, if they win the Cup, who cares? He's making it tougher to win, and I think the state of the franchise is the smoking gun. He's ridden the Segway of this franchise right over a cliff. Think about it. If they screw up this rebuild, they're setting things back years and years and years, and the fear is you might not ever get it back. You become the woebegone Islanders, who haven't won a playoff series since 1993. 2007-? 2018? 2023? 2029? It's scary where we're at right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 (Good morning Judge Smell.) Hey man. This is all very well trod ground. We know what you want out of the billionaire owner, and we all know you won't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.