Have the Sabres ever had a great GM?

[tom webster]

We're getting somewhere now.

 

The Knox's, rightfully beloved by the fanbase, didn't have the coin to play with the big boys, and it showed.

 

Rigas was a crook who was in it to bleed the pig. He lucked into inheriting Hasek, otherwise we'd have looked like the Bill Wirtz version of the Blackhawks.

 

Golisano just wanted to break even every fiscal year.

 

The Pegulas have what we've always wanted our owners to have, Knox passion and dollars to back it up. So far their faral flaw had been in steering the ox. Hopefully they learn how to get it right while there is still a desire to win.

The Knoxes spent with the big boys for a large portion of their ownership. It wasn't till teams went from family ownership to corporate that they pulled back.

[JohnRobertEichel]

A lot of what you say is reasonable, but the bottom line is that I'm not going to rush to call Murray a "disaster" if 3 or so years down the line this team is (hopefully) a legitimate Stanley Cup contender with Lehner as the starting goalie and Reinhart, Okposo, O'Reilly, Nylander, and possibly Kane comprising the top 6 forwards (I'm excluding Eichel since every GM in the world would have drafted him 2nd overall that year). I suppose we're just arguing over the definition of "disaster." I agree that Murray deserved to be fired, but I don't think that his short tenure was a total waste of time.

 

 

Even if all of part 2 of your post all work out, TP having to fire him 3 years into his plan makes him a disaster.  Also the Kane trade can't work out because Bogo is such a drag on our cap and on the ice as well as Kane will be gone by the deadline.  In addition, the trades you mentioned, plus deals like Fasching (sending a D prospect and 2 draft picks for one prospect), ultimately are what emptied our pipeline.  

 

GM's have to manage the cap, the prospect pipeline, hire good coaches and staff, draft well, make good trades, all to build a winner.  TM failed in most of these areas.  Some good trades and drafting a few no brainer picks like Eichel and Reinhart don't excuse the failing on the rest.

[Marvelo]

We're getting somewhere now.

 

The Knox's, rightfully beloved by the fanbase, didn't have the coin to play with the big boys, and it showed.

 

Rigas was a crook who was in it to bleed the pig. He lucked into inheriting Hasek, otherwise we'd have looked like the Bill Wirtz version of the Blackhawks.

 

Golisano just wanted to break even every fiscal year.

 

The Pegulas have what we've always wanted our owners to have, Knox passion and dollars to back it up. So far their fatal flaw had been in steering the ox. Hopefully they learn how to get it right while there is still a desire to win.

 

LOL, Steering the ox.

[Weave]

The Knoxes spent with the big boys for a large portion of their ownership. It wasn't till teams went from family ownership to corporate that they pulled back.

Which was some time in the 80s I believe. Although they also had a couple of times where they went for it briefly (Lafontaine, Mogilny, Hawerchuck, Fuhr) and then pulled back because they couldnt afford to sustain it.

[Taro T]

The Knoxes spent with the big boys for a large portion of their ownership. It wasn't till teams went from family ownership to corporate that they pulled back.

  

Which was some time in the 80s I believe. Although they also had a couple of times where they went for it briefly (Lafontaine, Mogilny, Hawerchuck, Fuhr) and then pulled back because they couldnt afford to sustain it.

Before the players strike in the early '90's the Sabres spent w/ the big boys. Salaries began to explode after that & the Knoxes couldn't keep up & started selling a stake to Rigas.

 

Sabres had the 3rd highest payroll back before the Eulers East purge began.

[tom webster]

 

Before the players strike in the early '90's the Sabres spent w/ the big boys. Salaries began to explode after that & the Knoxes couldn't keep up & started selling a stake to Rigas.

 

Sabres had the 3rd highest payroll back before the Eulers East purge began.

Technically, started taking cash from Rigases which the Rigases "graciously" converted to ownership shares before eventually taking control of the team.

[Taro T]

Technically, started taking cash from Rigases which the Rigases "graciously" converted to ownership shares before eventually taking control of the team.

Pretty much.

 

The whole Rigas saga is laid out somewhere in the archive here. Too much stuff to do on what was hoped to be a "lazy" Sunday to rehash the details of the whole thing.

 

:beer:

[Marvelo]

The Rigas and Golisano regimes had immediate success, even if they built off the previous regimes. The erratic Pegulas have been an epic failure so far but not from a lack of trying. The others just didn't have to build a team from the ashes like the Pegulas did.

[tom webster]

Pretty much.

 

The whole Rigas saga is laid out somewhere in the archive here. Too much stuff to do on what was hoped to be a "lazy" Sunday to rehash the details of the whole thing.

 

:beer:

Yep, sitting pool side and not looking to put too much work into it either.

[Neo]

Scotty Bowman, of course.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

So the verdict, based on history and all the posts, is that we've probably never had a great GM.

[WildCard]

Think we have, just maybe not one that did a great job here

[Weave]

So the verdict, based on history and all the posts, is that we've probably never had a great GM.

 

IMO Punch is closest.  Bowman's best work was behind the bench, not in the front office.

[tom webster]

IMO Punch is closest. Bowman's best work was behind the bench, not in the front office.

Punch did a great job building a team from nothing to competing for a Cup within four years. Losing Dudley, never truly addressing the goaltending and the McNabb and Jacques Richard deals set them back.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Punch did a great job building a team from nothing to competing for a Cup within four years. Losing Dudley, never truly addressing the goaltending and the McNabb and Jacques Richard deals set them back.

DIdn't Punch draft Sauve and Edwards in 1975.  Didn't they win a Vezina together?

[kas23]

Ok, maybe calling Murray "excellent" was a bit much. He did have a great eye for talent though. His main problem was that he tried to force the rebuild. He traded away a lot of draft picks to spene up competitiveness. Now, I know 90% of fans want to be competitive yesterday, but that's just not the best way to build a team long term. I think JBott realizes this, and most fans are going to have to become comfortable wit this.

Edited June 26, 2017 by kas23

[GASabresIUFAN]

Kas your kidding right?  "Great Eye For Talent"  Who?

 

ROR was an established star

Okposo was an established star

Kane as well, but WPG couldn't get rid of him fast enough

Reinhart and Jack were consensus top 2 picks.

Lehner, had been under TM's watch since 2009

 

On the other hand, the 4 D he acquired (Franson, Kulikov, Bogo and Gorges) cost us 17 million in cap last season and made up most of the worst D group in the NHL.  I am frightened to think how bad the group would have been without Regier picks Risto and McCabe. 

 

The entire 2014 draft outside Reinhart looks like a bust.  Maybe 2015 and 2016 will yield something good.  I'm hopefully on Guhle. Jbot just dumped TM acquisition Carrier to LV in expansion and declined to offer a contract to one of our highest scoring prospects Estephen.  Delo and Fasching, who Tm acquired for McNabb and 2 2nd rd picks haven't exactly wowed anyone.  

 

Seriously, which player did TM"s great eye get for the Sabres?  There is none. 

Edited June 26, 2017 by GASabresFan

[matter2003]

DIdn't Punch draft Sauve and Edwards in 1975.  Didn't they win a Vezina together?

 

You mean with a save percentage of like .886?

[kas23]

Kas your kidding right? "Great Eye For Talent" Who?

 

ROR was an established star

Okposo was an established star

Kane as well, but WPG couldn't get rid of him fast enough

Reinhart and Jack were consensus top 2 picks.

Lehner, had been under TM's watch since 2009

 

On the other hand, the 4 D he acquired (Franson, Kulikov, Bogo and Gorges) cost us 17 million in cap last season and made up most of the worst D group in the NHL. I am frightened to think how bad the group would have been without Regier picks Risto and McCabe.

 

The entire 2014 draft outside Reinhart looks like a bust. Maybe 2015 and 2016 will yield something good. I'm hopefully on Guhle. Jbot just dumped TM acquisition Carrier to LV in expansion and declined to offer a contract to one of our highest scoring prospects Estephen. Delo and Fasching, who Tm acquired for McNabb and 2 2nd rd picks haven't exactly wowed anyone.

 

Seriously, which player did TM"s great eye get for the Sabres? There is none.

I'm talking about the players he drafted. Ghule, Asplund, Pu. You can't deny that. The problem with GMTM is he caved to the fan pressure to make this team competitive ASAP. He took the "I heard of him" approach to acquiring players (and HC too!), instead of just focusing on the draft and system of play. ROR, Kane, & Okposo are great, but will they be great in 3-4 years when we're actually a serious contender? We look at TOR and EDM and it took them well over 5 years to get to where they are. Murray tried to do it in 3 years and failed.

[Eleven]

Hyperbole like this last line (and the other side does it too) is why this debate will be had here for years, even though nobody actually thinks like the hyperboles claim

 

Exactly.  He wasn't terrible; he wasn't great.  He managed a rebuild and the results are yet to come.

[Marvelo]

Punch did a great job building a team from nothing to competing for a Cup within four years. Losing Dudley, never truly addressing the goaltending and the McNabb and Jacques Richard deals set them back.

 

If you read Imlach's book "Heaven and Hell in the NHL" you'll find out why Dudley left, why McNabb demanded a trade, the reasoning behind trying to rehab Jacques Richard's career and the goaltending fiascos played out year after year. Plus all of the other dramas with Schoenfeld, Ramsay, Gare, Rick Martin,  and others. Stuff I never knew and was fascinated to read about. We shouldn't forget that the Knoxes appointed Imlach in 1970 and he had a heart attack in 72 and had to step down as coach...

[Samson's Flow]

I think more importantly, the Sabres have never had a truly horrible, Garth Snow level GM.

 

Which is pretty good I guess.  :flirt:

[GASabresIUFAN]

I'm talking about the players he drafted. Ghule, Asplund, Pu. You can't deny that. The problem with GMTM is he caved to the fan pressure to make this team competitive ASAP. He took the "I heard of him" approach to acquiring players (and HC too!), instead of just focusing on the draft and system of play. ROR, Kane, & Okposo are great, but will they be great in 3-4 years when we're actually a serious contender? We look at TOR and EDM and it took them well over 5 years to get to where they are. Murray tried to do it in 3 years and failed.

I don't TM think gave into Fan pressure to acclerate the rebuild. That was his stated plan from the day he was hired,

 

Also lets talk about the draft and talent evaluation. Using Scott Cullen's research I went and calculated the % chance that a player would play 100 NHL games based on where TM drafted. We made 25 selections during TM's tenure and the math says we should get 7-8 players from these draft who play 100 games. This is not to say they'll be impact players. It's just that they will at least grind out 100 games. The math says we should develop 3-4 players into top 4d/top 6 forwards.

 

So Murray gets a head start with Jack and Sam on these goals. Guhle looks like he could be the 3rd player draft to eventually plan 100 games. However even if Murray gets to 8 players from these 3 draft who play 100 games, that is just average performance.

 

To earn the moniker of "great eye for talent'' I think you would agree his results must be above average (maybe 10+ NHLer players) with a couple of late round gems making an impact with the Sabres. As of now that simply isn't the case. Looking at our prospects pool, outside of Guhle, Asplund, Nylander and Pu, I don't see anyone TM drafted who looks like an NHL players at this point.

Edited June 26, 2017 by GASabresFan

[IKnowPhysics]

I greatly disagree with you on Regier's drafting prowess.  One of the things that absolutely sunk this team was all of our first round failures during his regime.

 

Heisten, Kryukov, Novotny, Ballard in consecutive drafts in the first round says it all about Regier's drafting.

 

I prefer science.

 

Every team hits and misses in the 1st round, especially where we drafted in the 1st during those years (Regier had only one selection in the top 5 and one selection in the 6-10 range).

 

Using draft data from wikipedia and the draft averages calculated from this article, one can calculate and compare Regier's drafting to the league average:

 

Percentages of draft picks playing at least 1 NHL game and percentage of draft picks playing at least 100 NHL games.  Player deviation is the difference of the two averages multiplied by the number of Regier's selections in those ranges, to simulate how many players he was able to draft better or worse than average.  Less than roughly a one player difference likely means no difference.

 

, 

 

He had a few more 4th and 5th round players than average never play in the NHL, and was about one player short of the NHL from the 1st round.

 

However, of players that played at least 100 games, those deficiencies only manifest in the 5th and 7th-to-9th rounds.  Regier showed above average proficiency in the 1st and 6th rounds, especially crushing it in the 2nd round (and he selected more 2nd rounders than any other individual round, btw).  He statistically drafted four more players that would go on to play at least 100 games than what the NHL average would have drafted.

[GASabresIUFAN]

I prefer science.

 

Every team hits and misses in the 1st round, especially where we drafted in the 1st during those years (Regier had only one selection in the top 5 and one selection in the 6-10 range).

 

Using draft data from wikipedia and the draft averages calculated from this article, one can calculate and compare Regier's drafting to the league average:

 

Percentages of draft picks playing at least 1 NHL game and percentage of draft picks playing at least 100 NHL games.  Player deviation is the difference of the two averages multiplied by the number of Regier's selections in those ranges, to simulate how many players he was able to draft better or worse than average.  Less than roughly a one player difference likely means no difference.

 

, 

 

He had a few more 4th and 5th round players than average never play in the NHL, and was about one player short of the NHL from the 1st round.

 

However, of players that played at least 100 games, those deficiencies only manifest in the 5th and 7th-to-9th rounds.  Regier showed above average proficiency in the 1st and 6th rounds, especially crushing it in the 2nd round (and he selected more 2nd rounders than any other individual round, btw).  He statistically drafted four more players that would go on to play at least 100 games than what the NHL average would have drafted.

 

While basic math is fine to show that Regier was a "decent" drafter in terms of finding warm bodies, but what about where those players played and what their impact was on the Sabres?  For example, your analysis gives credit to Regier for drafting Wideman and Hejda.  While both were drafted by us and both would have made an impact if signed, neither was signed by us.  In fact Wideman wasn't even offered a contract.  Add Mike Zigomanis to the list of lost assets as well by incompetence. Now his + 4 doesn't look so hot.  

 

However I agree that he was better then average in the second round, Zigomanis or no Zigomanis. Between 1997 & 2013 Regier made 23 2nd rd picks.  Highlights Roy, Pommers, McCabe and Tallinder.  Low lights; 7 guys who played 9 or less games.   Using Scott Cullen's excellent research as a guide( http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-expected-value-of-nhl-draft-picks-1.317819), Cullen's stats say the average GM finds about 8 players in 23 picks, Regier found between 9 & 12.  The 12 includes Zigomanis, who Regier didn't get signed as well as Compher and Bailey who have yet to reach 100 games but should. The stats also say that the average GM should find between 2 & 3 top 4 D/ top 6 Forwards.  I'd argue that Regier found 4 in Tallinder, McCabe, Roy and Pominville.  Way to early to know if Compher or Bailey achieve that status.  

 

Where Regier really failed us is in the 1st rd.  He had 20 picks.  The math says 14 should play 100+ games and 16 did.  Where the problem comes in is in impact.  Cullen's math say 6 should be consistent top 6 forwards/ Top 4D.  Regier managed to draft Vanek, Ristolainen and Myers.  After that Ennis, Stafford, and Ballard all spent some time on top lines, but most of their careers are as 3rd pairing D or top 9 forwards.  Also the biggest issue is a lack of drafting productive centers.  Darcy drafted centers Ennis, Novotny, Zagrapan, Kryukov, and during the tank Grigorenko and Girgensons.    Ennis has the most points (season and career) of any Regier drafted 1st rd center with 49 and 236 and most of these came playing the wing.  If you want to look at why Regier's Sabres failed, look no further then here. 

Edited June 26, 2017 by GASabresFan