Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Doohickie

GDT: Buffalo @ St Louis, 8 PM ET, MSG

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SwampD said:

Good lord. Re-debating the tank...

It will continue to be snarkly added to posts until we all admit it was bad, which I will personally never do because I think the tank was the correct course.

Edited by LGR4GM
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

It will continue to be snarkly added to posts until we all admit it was bad, which I will personally never do because I think the tank was the correct course.

But it doesn't even matter if it was good or bad.  Answering that question doesn't help us a lick today.  It's like the internet was created for the purpose of endlessly debating unprovable, esoteric issues.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

And I believe it's fairly obvious the tank decision went above any GM or coach to Terry and his Pittsburgh posse. Darcy said as much. "There's a right way to rebuild (citing Minny).... The extent of the rebuild will be up to the owner." Spring 2013 (pre-suffering speech)

Well, as has been discussed ad nauseum, there's a huge difference between "the owner ordered his GM to tank" and "the owner signed off on his GM's recommendation to tank."  Darcy's quote does not indicate which way this decision was made.

 

1 hour ago, freester said:

Blaming the tank is absurd. Botteril arrived here long after the tank ended and proceeded to make a series of disastrous moves that set the franchise back five years. Had he been an experienced astute GM we would have been in the playoffs by now. 

Yet another credibility-destroying wild overstatement.

 

9 minutes ago, Thwomp! said:

There's many variables as to why the Sabres are bad and other teams like the Blues are good.  All variables lead to ownership.  You think the tank was bad and is the cause of current problems.  The tank was conducted with the ok of ownership.  I think the rebuild has been awful.  Ownership again, not putting the right people in place to make the right decisions.  Everyone wants to defend Terry, but he's owned the Sabres for almost a decade and the Sabres winning percentage in that time must be the worst in sports.  That's ultimately the result of poor ownership.

I think it's fair to hold TP accountable for hiring the wrong guys to run the team. 

I don't think this makes him a bad owner in the same category with guys like Dan Snyder or Haslam.  He's trying to do the right thing -- it just hasn't worked out, and it takes a while make that determination with a GM. 

His ownership has worked out reasonably well with the Bills -- IMHO because he was fortunate enough to find the right guy in  McD to run the franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

It will continue to be snarkly added to posts until we all admit it was bad, which I will personally never do because I think the tank was the correct course.

Right? 

They play well for a few weeks.... TANK WAS A SUCCESS!

They play bad for a few weeks... TANK WAS A MISTAKE!

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Right? 

They play well for a few weeks.... TANK WAS A SUCCESS!

They play bad for a few weeks... TANK WAS A MISTAKE!

Basically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No, I am stupid. That is why I have yelled into the void since 2014 that we have to draft and develop well even if we get a Jack. That's why I lost my ***** in 2015 and 2016 when we gutted all the tank fruit to bring in mediocre vets with the exception of ROR. That's why when the Bots ROR trade happened I almost quit posting and gave up on this team because it was blatantly obvious what a garbage move it was. I am just stupid and think that having Jack automatically makes us a good team. Life is simple right?

 

If you understand that having Jack isn't the same as having a good team, why did you say this?

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

It's funny that you mention Jack, the teams best player, in the same post as you bash the way we acquired him.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

It will continue to be snarkly added to posts until we all admit it was bad, which I will personally never do because I think the tank was the correct course.

I'm never going to change my stance either, and that's fine. I don't want to sound snarky with this, but if the correct course then was a tank, why isn't the correct course now, as well?

Everyone keeps saying that we need to draft well and develop well. It is going to take a while but that is how we will get out of this funk. I'll posit that if we had taken this same tack in 2012, we would be much further along than we are now, because our starting point would not have been as low.

That's where I stand. It's fine if you disagree. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I said he was Sobotka two and I hated the deal.

Agreed.

Frolik is a nothing player, it was a nothing trade, and it will do nothing to alter the landscape around here.

Next! 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

 

 

If you understand that having Jack isn't the same as having a good team, why did you say this?

 

 

Actually I changed my mind I will respond. You consistently think that the Sabres would magically be a better team without tanking. Alright, let's run this scenario out then. Without tanking we have no Eichel. So who do we have instead? Imagine we kept all the players we drafted otherwise. We also don't have any of the extra picks that we did. So all the extra draft capital is gone. No Montour or Skinner in this scenario as well. We also do not have Dahlin in this scenario. We keep Roy and Vanek and Miller and Pommers probably until about now because contracts in 2013 would have been about 6-7. Wow what team! We made the playoffs once in those 6 years, lost in the first round and drafted between 8-12th. No Dahlin, Cozens, Jack, Sam. 

Thank god we tanked. At least we have Eichel to watch instead of a team of nothing.

Our best forward would be what? Let's go worst case scenario. Here's our first round drafts... 

2014 Brendan Perlini, Josh Jacobs

2015 Lawson Crouse, Ryan Gropp

2016 Alex Nylander, Adam Mascherin

2017 Owen Tippett, Jarret Anderson Doaln

2018 Martin Kaut, Kody Clark

wait wait, I have to trade 1 of them because playoff push. So... whoever is the most successful just got traded, how about Perlini. In the end the team looks worse and there's no high end talent at all. Dahlin, Eichel, reinhart, Skinner, Montour are all not on the team but we are somehow better? 

We can play this what if game until the cows come home but I gotta say Nfreeman, its getting old. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I'm never going to change my stance either, and that's fine. I don't want to sound snarky with this, but if the correct course then was a tank, why isn't the correct course now, as well?

Everyone keeps saying that we need to draft well and develop well. It is going to take a while but that is how we will get out of this funk. I'll posit that if we had taken this same tack in 2012, we would be much further along than we are now, because our starting point would not have been as low.

That's where I stand. It's fine if you disagree. 

Yes that is possible. If we had stopped in 2012 and started to really focus on who we were drafting and how we were developing them we would be far better off and the tank would not have been necessary. But as I have just examined, that would have required us to draft well. In 2013 we knew we drafted mediocre and that was one of the original reasons for the tank to guarantee a highly talented player without the guess work. The tank was the right course of action in late 2013 when it became apparent that the team we had was simply not good enough to win. We can debate that for years but it is what happened. Getting Eichel was the smart part, all the dumb that happened after is why the rebuild failed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Actually I changed my mind I will respond. You consistently think that the Sabres would magically be a better team without tanking. Alright, let's run this scenario out then. Without tanking we have no Eichel. So who do we have instead? Imagine we kept all the players we drafted otherwise. We also don't have any of the extra picks that we did. So all the extra draft capital is gone. No Montour or Skinner in this scenario as well. We also do not have Dahlin in this scenario. We keep Roy and Vanek and Miller and Pommers probably until about now because contracts in 2013 would have been about 6-7. Wow what team! We made the playoffs once in those 6 years, lost in the first round and drafted between 8-12th. No Dahlin, Cozens, Jack, Sam. 

Thank god we tanked. At least we have Eichel to watch instead of a team of nothing.

Our best forward would be what? Let's go worst case scenario. Here's our first round drafts... 

2014 Brendan Perlini, Josh Jacobs

2015 Lawson Crouse, Ryan Gropp

2016 Alex Nylander, Adam Mascherin

2017 Owen Tippett, Jarret Anderson Doaln

2018 Martin Kaut, Kody Clark

wait wait, I have to trade 1 of them because playoff push. So... whoever is the most successful just got traded, how about Perlini. In the end the team looks worse and there's no high end talent at all. Dahlin, Eichel, reinhart, Skinner, Montour are all not on the team but we are somehow better? 

We can play this what if game until the cows come home but I gotta say Nfreeman, its getting old. 

 

Well, if you assume that the only alternative to tanking would've been complete status quo -- i.e. zero good draft picks, trades, FA pickups or other moves -- plus bad drafting, you've assumed away the entire discussion.

Here's something else that's getting old:  people pretending that "the tank was a success because we have Eichel."

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the bottom line, the tank happened. It got us Jack. Everything else after that point has not been good enough because of reasons we have discussed ad nauseam. I am glad we tanked because I firmly believe this team would be worse had it not. 

3 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, if you assume that the only alternative to tanking would've been complete status quo -- i.e. zero good draft picks, trades, FA pickups or other moves -- plus bad drafting, you've assumed away the entire discussion.

Here's something else that's getting old:  people pretending that "the tank was a success because we have Eichel."

But it was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tank right or wrong...we still suck and are not close to being a playoff team

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago and Pittsburgh tanked and it worked out to several Cups for each team.  The rebuild was completely mismanaged.  As bad as it could possibly of been done wrong.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gatorman0519 said:

Chicago and Pittsburgh tanked and it worked out to several Cups for each team.  The rebuild was completely mismanaged.  As bad as it could possibly of been done wrong.

Anybody who wanted to tank should have realized: what we have now was just as likely as getting what Chicago and Pittsburgh had

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, nucci said:

tank right or wrong...we still suck and are not close to being a playoff team

You're right. It doesn't matter if it was right or wrong. We aren't a good enough team. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gatorman0519 said:

Chicago and Pittsburgh tanked and it worked out to several Cups for each team.  The rebuild was completely mismanaged.  As bad as it could possibly of been done wrong.

This is wrong from the first sentence.  Neither of these tanked.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

Anybody who wanted to tank should have realized: what we have now was just as likely as getting what Chicago and Pittsburgh had

And this is 100% correct.  Tanking is equivalent to a GMTM draft.  High ceiling, low floor.   You’ve got just as much chance to end up with Cornel as you do Olofsson.

Not tanking raises the floor in all likelihood but doesn’t lower the ceiling.  It may lower the odds of reaching the ceiling, but that is more a function of GM than anything.

Tanking is so drastic in nature that it increases the likelihood of the floor result.  Your GM has to be damned near perfect.

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Well, as has been discussed ad nauseum, there's a huge difference between "the owner ordered his GM to tank" and "the owner signed off on his GM's recommendation to tank."  Darcy's quote does not indicate which way this decision was made.

I think the quote clearly implies Darcy knew a rebuild was necessary, but that the degree of it would be up to Terry. It also implies there were varying opinions about how far to go and the owner would make the call. Would anybody be surprised to learn that there were factions working against each other at that time? Isn't that the leading theory as to why LaFontaine was in and out the door so fast (that he lost a power struggle with the Pittsburgh wing of the party)?

Also!

Here's a quote from Darcy's infamous suffering presser: “You could go to the bottom of the League for five years and hope you land on a Crosby or a Malkin,” he said, or the franchise can find something “in between” tanking and rebuilding on the fly.

Edited by PASabreFan
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I think the quote clearly implies Darcy knew a rebuild was necessary, but that the degree of it would be up to Terry. It also implies there were varying opinions about how far to go and the owner would make the call. Would anybody be surprised to learn that there were factions working against each other at that time? Isn't that the leading theory as to why LaFontaine was in and out the door so fast (that he lost a power struggle with the Pittsburgh wing of the party)?

Also!

Here's a quote from Darcy's infamous suffering presser: “You could go to the bottom of the League for five years and hope you land on a Crosby or a Malkin,” he said, or the franchise can find something “in between” tanking and rebuilding on the fly.

Yes, but again, you are avoiding the central question:  we have no idea whether “up to the owner” means TP had to sign off on DR’s recommendation (which is the case for all owners with all major franchise moves) or TP decided on the course of action without a recommendation from DR (highly unlikely IMHO).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Well, as has been discussed ad nauseum, there's a huge difference between "the owner ordered his GM to tank" and "the owner signed off on his GM's recommendation to tank."  Darcy's quote does not indicate which way this decision was made.

 

Yet another credibility-destroying wild overstatement.

 

I think it's fair to hold TP accountable for hiring the wrong guys to run the team. 

I don't think this makes him a bad owner in the same category with guys like Dan Snyder or Haslam.  He's trying to do the right thing -- it just hasn't worked out, and it takes a while make that determination with a GM. 

His ownership has worked out reasonably well with the Bills -- IMHO because he was fortunate enough to find the right guy in  McD to run the franchise.

The bolded is way over the top, before even delving into the merits on either side. 

As for “setting us back 5 years”, I wouldn’t say that’s the case yet, but there’s a reasonable possibility we go 5 seasons without a legit 2C (if we are waiting on Cozens?) which would lend merit to his point. 

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Curt said:

They already did this in the year 2014ish.  They ditched everyone who was any good.

Do you think perhaps it’s difficult to build a culture of winning, hard work and effort while loosing tons of games because the team has no talent?

Also, you in particular keep flopping back and forth on this.  When they win you say they put forth good effort, when they lose you say they don’t try hard and everything needs to be blown up.

I think the more likely explanation is that St Louis is a very good team and Buffalo can not match them on a player by player level.

yes, they already did it, but they didn't do it right.  If you do something in life and it fails or you do it wrong do you try again or do you just throw up your hands and say, oh well, I tried it once so no point in trying harder or doing it again (only the right way this time). Talent brought in gets worse in this culture. They didn't fix the culture. You do that first, not later. 

as for what you call my flopping, it's simply not true. I try to be optimistic. I really do. I want them to win. I want to be wrong and want JBot's idea to be the right idea. So when there are positives I try real hard to believe (again and again) but inside I know it's just hopeful optimism and the reality is much grimmer. It's not flopping, it's dumb hope. The deep reality for me is that this is a dumpster fire that has been burning for a decade and has no signs of ending. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I agree with @PASabreFan on some of his evidence against Terry, I think he's making it way more difficult than it needs to be.

Bottom line:  The Sabres have sucked the entire time Terry has owned them.  Certainly historical levels of sucking for this franchise and the even the entire league.  There's seemingly no light at the end of the tunnel.  For this reason alone, Terry is a bad owner. 

The one thing very bad owners have in common:  lots and lots of losing, usually at historically bad levels.

The fans can't even be proud of this franchise anymore.  This once proud franchise is an embarrassment in multiple ways and the laughingstock of the league.  Terry owns that, or he should anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

Here we are arguing over the tank, who's at fault, the players we got rid of, what we need going forward(2c, grit, RW, 'tender, etc) all while......5'4" Nathan Gerbe has 3g/ 2a in his 9gms ...LOL

Like that’s even remotely sustainable ?

Dude can’t stick with an NHL team. He’s on his 3rd NHL team and 2nd AHL team. And a couple seasons in the Swiss league. At 32, I predict he has one more year left in him in NA, then go over to Europe for two more.

He’s a cute little success story. A pat on the back, good job little fire plug guy. Heart of a lion and an engine that doesn’t quit. Frankly, I’m glad Sabres moved on from him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...