Gainey Stepping Down Did ownership force him because he didn't land Kovalchuk?
#3
Posted 08 February 2010 - 01:26 PM
Aside from the hockey business.
They are holding a playoff spot though.
Sixth in the conference -- and the Habs have a new GM. Say what you want -- these changes usually don't work out midseason, you need stability in the front office etc. -- but tell me it's not more fun being a fan of one of these teams. You don't meet high expectations, you make changes.
I feel like I've been married to Lindy and Darcy for 12 years. The seven-year itch came in 2004. Different is good.
#4
Posted 08 February 2010 - 03:37 PM
PASabreFan, on 08 February 2010 - 01:26 PM, said:
I feel like I've been married to Lindy and Darcy for 12 years. The seven-year itch came in 2004. Different is good.
It's not more fun being a fan of one of these teams.
Habs last 4 years: 1 playoff series won.
Sabres last 4 years: 4 playoff series won.
#5
Posted 08 February 2010 - 03:43 PM
#7
Posted 08 February 2010 - 04:36 PM
#8
Posted 08 February 2010 - 04:40 PM
Now- does Gauthier pull the trigger on Carey Price and sends him away? It's apparent Halak is the better goalie.
#9
Posted 08 February 2010 - 04:46 PM
PASabreFan, on 08 February 2010 - 04:33 PM, said:
Perhaps someone else is missing the forest for the trees. In 2006, I went to the first conference finals game in Buffalo in 7 years. There were Sabres jerseys everywhere you looked (in the city as well as in the arena). In the 2nd period, the Sabres exploded for 3 goals in about 8 minutes and laid out 3 or 4 big hits. The place was going crazy. It was one of the most fun times I've ever had at a sporting event.
The games, and winning the games, are the fun part -- not oohing and aahhing over the Scott Gomez trade and the Jaro Spacek UFA signing.
#10
Posted 08 February 2010 - 04:55 PM
nfreeman, on 08 February 2010 - 04:46 PM, said:
The games, and winning the games, are the fun part -- not oohing and aahhing over the Scott Gomez trade and the Jaro Spacek UFA signing.
The last decade was pretty thin gruel for Sabres hockey. Missed the playoffs more than made them. Won five playoff series in 10 years. Same coach. Same GM. A lot of the same cast of players year after year after year. And almost no excitement surrounding the trade deadline or free agency.
Yes, I know it's hard to look beyond our comfort zone here, but there are lots of teams with the Sabres' playoff success the last 10 years who are more fun to follow. Heck, look at Columbus the other night. Fired their coach, and the folks sure didn't look bummed out that Ken Hitchcock, a Cup winner, would be impossible to replace. I saw something in that arena I have rarely seen outside the playoffs -- a standing ovation with almost a minute to go. And, no, those weren't Sabres fans on their feet.
#11
Posted 08 February 2010 - 05:24 PM
PASabreFan, on 08 February 2010 - 04:55 PM, said:
Yes, I know it's hard to look beyond our comfort zone here, but there are lots of teams with the Sabres' playoff success the last 10 years who are more fun to follow. Heck, look at Columbus the other night. Fired their coach, and the folks sure didn't look bummed out that Ken Hitchcock, a Cup winner, would be impossible to replace. I saw something in that arena I have rarely seen outside the playoffs -- a standing ovation with almost a minute to go. And, no, those weren't Sabres fans on their feet.
Well, if you want to slice and dice the time period so you include the owners going to jail the team going bankrupt and almost moving, and then getting sold, and the lockout, but exclude a finals and 2 final 4 appearances, I suppose you are welcome to do so. Another way of looking at it might be that the Sabres have reached one finals and 4 final 4s in 4 of the last 6 years in which DR and LR weren't kneecapped by ownership.
As for Columbus -- in this decade you speak of, they have made the playoffs ONE time and won ZERO playoff games. But they got a standing O for winning their new coach's first game! Sweeeeeeeet!!
You keep coming back to some form of "change = good/fun." I keep coming back to "winning = good/fun" and "change makes winning more difficult."
Everyone wants to win. Everyone wants to have a shiny new toy at the trading deadline or on July 1. Everyone also likes Big Macs. They're tasty and they go down real easy. The people who eat too many don't live to enjoy 'em.
#12
Posted 08 February 2010 - 06:26 PM
nfreeman, on 08 February 2010 - 05:24 PM, said:
As for Columbus -- in this decade you speak of, they have made the playoffs ONE time and won ZERO playoff games. But they got a standing O for winning their new coach's first game! Sweeeeeeeet!!
You keep coming back to some form of "change = good/fun." I keep coming back to "winning = good/fun" and "change makes winning more difficult."
Everyone wants to win. Everyone wants to have a shiny new toy at the trading deadline or on July 1. Everyone also likes Big Macs. They're tasty and they go down real easy. The people who eat too many don't live to enjoy 'em.
Oh no you di'n't.
I would be almost unfair of me to pounce on that.
Has Phoenix been in the midst of an ownership/bankruptcy crisis? They're four points ahead of the Sabres.
#13
Posted 08 February 2010 - 09:28 PM
PASabreFan, on 08 February 2010 - 06:26 PM, said:
I would be almost unfair of me to pounce on that.
Has Phoenix been in the midst of an ownership/bankruptcy crisis? They're four points ahead of the Sabres.
That big lead-in, and then all you came up with was Phoenix? I suppose it's better than Columbus in your prior post, but still.
As for the substance -- yes, Phoenix did experience "change" in the sense that they finally got sold. Of course, what really happened was that their entire situation stabilized, so that the shadow of moving to Hamilton was finally removed -- and then, when the season started, the team improved. They didn't "blow up" their roster via trade or free agency, as many here seem to want the Sabres to do. Their best players continue to be Doan on offense and Jovanovski on defense. So one could easily take the view that when the upheaval ended and their team stabilized, their performance improved dramatically.
Also, I don't think, as a matter of board protocol, you can keep using "oh no you di'n't." That's gotta be a 2-3 times per year item, max.
#14
Posted 08 February 2010 - 09:34 PM
nfreeman, on 08 February 2010 - 09:28 PM, said:
As for the substance -- yes, Phoenix did experience "change" in the sense that they finally got sold. Of course, what really happened was that their entire situation stabilized, so that the shadow of moving to Hamilton was finally removed -- and then, when the season started, the team improved. They didn't "blow up" their roster via trade or free agency, as many here seem to want the Sabres to do. Their best players continue to be Doan on offense and Jovanovski on defense. So one could easily take the view that when the upheaval ended and their team stabilized, their performance improved dramatically.
Also, I don't think, as a matter of board protocol, you can keep using "oh no you di'n't." That's gotta be a 2-3 times per year item, max.
I brought up Phoenix to refute the idea that Lindy gets a pass for 02-03.
As for ONYD... my bad.
#15
Posted 08 February 2010 - 11:12 PM
PASabreFan, on 08 February 2010 - 09:34 PM, said:
But Golisano bought the team out of bankruptcy in the spring of 2003 -- so the analogous year for the Sabres would be '03-'04, right? That was their 1st year with Drury and 1st full year with Briere, as well as Marty's 3rd and final chance (which he blew) to establish himself as a starter. That team was decent enough, and with goaltending like Phoenix is getting this year (not to mention a captain like Doan and a defenseman like Jovo), it probably would've made the playoffs.

Sign In
Register
Help

MultiQuote