130 replies to this topic

[Stormin Norman]

I have this feeling in my gut that Darcy is a weasel.  Maybe you think I'm in left field, but there are a few things banging around in my head that just don't help me think otherwise.  Such as:

- Building the current lineup and selling the "expectation of making the playoffs."  As the reality of what he's assembled now is revealed, Ruff becomes the sacrificial lamb at the expense of Darcy's heartless, mentally fragile roster.  
- Giving Ruff mediocrity to work with year after year and holding onto "his" guys beyond their useful life.  And adjusting way late to the size and toughness required come playoff time.
- Dismantling the leadership core of this team (Drury, Briere, McKee), then pouring salt on the wound by botching Vanek (leaving him exposed to an offer sheet) and Roy (allowing him to go to arbitration to ultimately be overpaid).  All the while, we're lead to believe he didn't have "the resources" (i.e., ownership with deep pockets) to prevent it.
- Offering Ted Nolan the one year contract when he became the GM.  Say what you will about Nolan, but he had the balz to tell Darcy where to put that embarrassment of a contract offer.

I can't help but think what a mess he's created now, and yet he remains unscathed.

[NWO23]

He should have done the right thing and stepped down upon firing Lindy. Be a man, admit you're part of the problem. Actions speak louder than hollow words.

[gramps]

The coach is only as good as the personnel on the ice ... and who is responsible for the personnel on the ice ? Does anyone think that Chicago would be playing any worse right now if Lindy was their coach ? Darcy needs to fess up ...

Edited by gramps, 22 February 2013 - 07:02 PM.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Yes

[grinreaper]

Stormin Norman, on 22 February 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

I have this feeling in my gut that Darcy is a weasel.  Maybe you think I'm in left field, but there are a few things banging around in my head that just don't help me think otherwise.  Such as:

- Building the current lineup and selling the "expectation of making the playoffs."  As the reality of what he's assembled now is revealed, Ruff becomes the sacrificial lamb at the expense of Darcy's heartless, mentally fragile roster.  
- Giving Ruff mediocrity to work with year after year and holding onto "his" guys beyond their useful life.  And adjusting way late to the size and toughness required come playoff time.
- Dismantling the leadership core of this team (Drury, Briere, McKee), then pouring salt on the wound by botching Vanek (leaving him exposed to an offer sheet) and Roy (allowing him to go to arbitration to ultimately be overpaid).  All the while, we're lead to believe he didn't have "the resources" (i.e., ownership with deep pockets) to prevent it.
- Offering Ted Nolan the one year contract when he became the GM.  Say what you will about Nolan, but he had the balz to tell Darcy where to put that embarrassment of a contract offer.

I can't help but think what a mess he's created now, and yet he remains unscathed.

Regier didn't get rid of Drury or Briere. It was circumstances above him that dictated that. He played the loyal employee and kept his mouth shut about it. McKee got more money elsewhere than he proved out deserving. With that said, I liked all three of those players. Vanek can thank his lucky stars that he got such a fine free agent offer, that at the time was ridicuously high. Regier came in and wanted to know if he could work with his coach, that's why Nolan only got a one year offer. Maybe Teddy shouldn't have gotten a hair up his ass over it and realized the situation? I bet he wishes he could do it all over, eh? Anyway, Darcy is not a weasel and Lindy was a good coach for the Sabres. It was time for a change though.

[qwksndmonster]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 22 February 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

Yes

I was surprised to see that this thread wasn't started by you.

I don't know the guy personally, but I'd guess that no Darcy is not a weasel and actually tries to build a winning roster to the best of his abilities.

[drunken idiot]

Stormin Norman, on 22 February 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

I have this feeling in my gut that Darcy is a weasel.  Maybe you think I'm in left field, but there are a few things banging around in my head that just don't help me think otherwise.  Such as:

- Building the current lineup and selling the "expectation of making the playoffs."  As the reality of what he's assembled now is revealed, Ruff becomes the sacrificial lamb at the expense of Darcy's heartless, mentally fragile roster.  
- Giving Ruff mediocrity to work with year after year and holding onto "his" guys beyond their useful life.  And adjusting way late to the size and toughness required come playoff time.
- Dismantling the leadership core of this team (Drury, Briere, McKee), then pouring salt on the wound by botching Vanek (leaving him exposed to an offer sheet) and Roy (allowing him to go to arbitration to ultimately be overpaid).  All the while, we're lead to believe he didn't have "the resources" (i.e., ownership with deep pockets) to prevent it.
- Offering Ted Nolan the one year contract when he became the GM.  Say what you will about Nolan, but he had the balz to tell Darcy where to put that embarrassment of a contract offer.

I can't help but think what a mess he's created now, and yet he remains unscathed.

I really think that most of mental issues can be solely blamed on Ruff and nothing else. Seems as though he has the ability to mentally break down a player but does not have the ability to get them right again. Poor quality if you ask me.

Edited by drunken idiot, 22 February 2013 - 10:46 PM.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

qwksndmonster, on 22 February 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

I was surprised to see that this thread wasn't started by you.

I don't know the guy personally, but I'd guess that no Darcy is not a weasel and actually tries to build a winning roster to the best of his abilities.

I've said this for a decade...and Darcy admitted himself in the presser....."Lindy changing coaching styles turned out to be too big a risk."

A RISK OF WHAT????

Missing the playoffs 4 of the last 6 years and winning 5 playoff games combined? He risked being mediocre at best to try and improve?


Darcy is a weasel...

He has said in public at least a half dozen times that Lindy is his coach as long as he is the GM.....that's point enough.

Darcy is the type of person who stays quiet at work...and sits in the shadows....not sticking out, so he never has to take responsibility for anything and lets others take the fall while he piles up excuses and doublespeak whenever questioned.

Pure weasel.

Give me a man.

Someone willing to put it on the line and speak their mind. Not someone looking to pad their 401k and coast along.

Great...he probably makes a mean 3 bean salad for the neighborhood potluck......but workwise.....pure weasel.

Edited by Ghost of Dwight Drane, 23 February 2013 - 05:38 AM.

[Grumpy]

Stormin Norman, on 22 February 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

I have this feeling in my gut that Darcy is a weasel.  Maybe you think I'm in left field, but there are a few things banging around in my head that just don't help me think otherwise.  Such as:

- Building the current lineup and selling the "expectation of making the playoffs."  As the reality of what he's assembled now is revealed, Ruff becomes the sacrificial lamb at the expense of Darcy's heartless, mentally fragile roster.  
- Giving Ruff mediocrity to work with year after year and holding onto "his" guys beyond their useful life.  And adjusting way late to the size and toughness required come playoff time.
- Dismantling the leadership core of this team (Drury, Briere, McKee), then pouring salt on the wound by botching Vanek (leaving him exposed to an offer sheet) and Roy (allowing him to go to arbitration to ultimately be overpaid).  All the while, we're lead to believe he didn't have "the resources" (i.e., ownership with deep pockets) to prevent it.
- Offering Ted Nolan the one year contract when he became the GM.  Say what you will about Nolan, but he had the balz to tell Darcy where to put that embarrassment of a contract offer.

I can't help but think what a mess he's created now, and yet he remains unscathed.

Two thirds of that leadership core has been out of the NHL for a few years and didn't do much for their new teams. Nolan failed on next gig in the NHL.   We need to quit living in the past.

Most would say Roy contract was cheap for his point production.

The entire organization and local media sold playoff expectations.

Ruff had roster input and shouldn't get a free pass on what this team looks like.

And, I have wanted DR gone for several years, simply because it has been obvious he is out of touch with how to build a winner in today's league.

Edited by Grumpy, 23 February 2013 - 07:12 AM.

[billsrcursed]

I try to teach my 7 year old that name-calling is bad and childish.

She seems to get it.

I may not be happy with Darcy's body of work, but I don't know him personally and therefore certainly wouldn't critique him as a man.

Also, get real. How many GM's have voluntarily stepped down because some fans feel they're not getting the job done?? He'll leave when he's fired, but not before then. For the record, I hope it's soon, but just like Lindy, I wish no ill will on him as a person.

[Kristian]

Weasel?

No idea, but I do know that he doesn't know how to build a hockey team, and that he overpays grossly for the wrong players.

I wasn't a Ruff fan, as I felt his message got old years ago, but Regier built a team that would never succeed, so to pin it all on the coach would be wrong.

Status Quo - One down, one to go.

[deluca67]

Kristian, on 23 February 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Weasel?

No idea, but I do know that he doesn't know how to build a hockey team, and that he overpays grossly for the wrong players.

I wasn't a Ruff fan, as I felt his message got old years ago, but Regier built a team that would never succeed, so to pin it all on the coach would be wrong.

Status Quo - One down, one to go.

That should be a t-shirt.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Don't get me wrong....I don't want Darcy to suffer as a person.....but in his body of work...for a guy who has collected $20 something million.....that's all he does....stick around.

Darcy is the type who would sit at a slot machine and play 1 credit, 1 cent pulls, just so he could get the free booze......but he probably only has a Fuzzy Navel maybe for his birthday and for New Years....so maybe that's a bad comparison.

He was a puppet for Quinn and looks to be the same for Pegula. How nobody in the media held him to his words from over the years....not just a few weeks ago....that he would never get rid of Ruff. The Darcy tried to weasel out of the statement from even 2 weeks ago.

Wade Phillips took the bullet because he didn't think Ronnie Jones should have been fired.

There is no doubt 30% of the NHL has been laughing at him and wondering how he has a job for close to a decade.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

No.

He is a liar, though.  And that to me is a major character flaw.

[weave]

Sabres Fan In NS, on 23 February 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

No.

He is a liar, though.  And that to me is a major character flaw.

That seems an unfair characterrization.  I cannot think of anything he's said in the past that he's outright lied about.

[nfreeman]

weave, on 23 February 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

That seems an unfair characterrization.  I cannot think of anything he's said in the past that he's outright lied about.

I agree and I'll also note that this thread is beneath us.

I also think it'll all be over for DR soon enough.

[Potato]

I think he's an aardvark... or maybe a hyena...  

[Sabres Fan In NS]

weave, on 23 February 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

That seems an unfair characterrization.  I cannot think of anything he's said in the past that he's outright lied about.

Did he not say that he would never fire Lindy Ruff?

Or, at the very least words to that effect.

[weave]

Sabres Fan In NS, on 23 February 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

Did he not say that he would never fire Lindy Ruff?

Or, at the very least words to that effect.

It isn't lying if you actually meant it but the situation has changed.

Have you ever told your child "we're going out for dinner" but the situation changed and then you couldn't go?  That's not lying.


And I have to agree with nfreeman.  Threads like this should be beneath us.  We are characterizing a man none of us know personally.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

weave, on 23 February 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

It isn't lying if you actually meant it but the situation has changed.

Have you ever told your child "we're going out for dinner" but the situation changed and then you couldn't go?  That's not lying.


And I have to agree with nfreeman.  Threads like this should be beneath us.  We are characterizing a man none of us know personally.

Point taken, weave.  I had not thought of it that way.

I also agree with you and nfreeman concerning this thread.  I regret my taking part.

[That Aud Smell]

The short answer is "no", I don't think DR is a weasel.

I think it's not unfair to say that he failed to take a chance to do a truly admirable thing here (by telling his bosses that if they were insistent that LR be let go, that he would need to go too***) - but I don't think that makes him a weasel. I think it makes him a dutiful soldier of sorts (as he has been described recently by at least one local writer).

In fact, I don't think dutiful soldier is the best analogy -- soldiers take orders and don't exercise a ton of discretion. DR is supposed to be more of an officer. I guess you can have dutiful officers as well. Whatever. To me, DR has, of late, become a faithful and often competent bureaucrat. But he presently seems to lack a vision for the organization that will take it to where he wants it to be. But let's be fair to the man: He had a vision that panned like a mofo in/around 2003-2004.

But, at present, I don't have the foggiest notion of what sort of team he's trying to build. I really don't.

*** He said repeatedly over the years that, as long as he was GM, Lindy would be the coach. I can't find a link to DR saying that before the firing of LR, but Hamilton alludes to this truth here:

http://www.wgr550.co...tentId=12432352

I don't think there's any doubt that ownership/upper management prodded/directed DR to separate LR.

weave, on 23 February 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

It isn't lying if you actually meant it but the situation has changed.

Have you ever told your child "we're going out for dinner" but the situation changed and then you couldn't go?  That's not lying.

Wait a second. DR is the GM and has authority over hiring and firing of coaches. If he said repeatedly - which he did - that LR would coach the Sabres as long as DR was the GM - and said as much in the face of many struggles and losing streaks and non-playoff seasons - what "changed" when "he" decided to fire LR? Nothing changed. Well, nothing other than his resolve to stick to what he said he would and would not do. The fact that DR elected to be a good company man and take the hit for firing LR is what causes the problem. This pretty clearly was not his decision, not what he wanted to do. He was told to do it, in one way or another. He then owned the decision when it was made. It doesn't square with what he said in the past. I'm not saying it makes him a liar, outright, but it does bespeak a certain lack of ... I dunno. Principle? Honor? Sack?

Like I said, the move makes him look like a hollow bureaucrat.

Edited by That Aud Smell, 23 February 2013 - 01:07 PM.

[weave]

That Aud Smell, on 23 February 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

The short answer is "no", I don't think DR is a weasel.

I think it's not unfair to say that he failed to take a chance to do a truly admirable thing here (by telling his bosses that if they were insistent that LR be let go, that he would need to go too***) - but I don't think that makes him a weasel. I think it makes him a dutiful soldier of sorts (as he has been described recently by at least one local writer).

In fact, I don't think dutiful soldier is the best analogy -- soldiers take orders and don't exercise a ton of discretion. DR is supposed to be more of an officer. I guess you can have dutiful officers as well. Whatever. To me, DR has, of late, become a faithful and often competent bureaucrat. But he presently seems to lack a vision for the organization that will take it to where he wants it to be. But let's be fair to the man: He had a vision that panned like a mofo in/around 2003-2004.

But, at present, I don't have the foggiest notion of what sort of team he's trying to build. I really don't.

*** He said repeatedly over the years that, as long as he was GM, Lindy would be the coach. I can't find a link to DR saying that before the firing of LR, but Hamilton alludes to this truth here:

http://www.wgr550.co...tentId=12432352

I don't think there's any doubt that ownership/upper management prodded/directed DR to separate LR.

[/size]

Wait a second. DR is the GM and has authority over hiring and firing of coaches. If he said repeatedly - which he did - that LR would coach the Sabres as long as DR was the GM - and said as much in the face of many struggles and losing streaks and non-playoff seasons - what "changed" when "he" decided to fire LR? Nothing changed. Well, nothing other than his resolve to stick to what he said is what changed. The fact that DR elected to be a good company man and take the hit for firing LR is what causes the problem. This pretty clearly was not his decision, not what he wanted to do. He was told to do it, in one way or another. He then owned the decision when it was made. It doesn't square with what he said in the past. I'm not saying it makes him a liar, outright, but it does bespeak a certain lack of ... I dunno. Principle? Honor? Sack?

Like I said, the move makes him look like a hollow bureaucrat.

Every manager's job in every company is to do the owners wishes.  If the owners wishes have changed, than the situation has changed, no?

I understand why the guy did it.  There are only 29 other GM jobs in the league.  He wants to keep his job.  He didn't do anything 99% of everyone else wouldn't do.  It isn't like he was asked to do something unethical.  Frankly, I think it more than a bit unreasonable to expect him to resign.  would I have liked him to step down?  Yeah.  Is it reasonable to expect him to?  Nah.

[IKnowPhysics]

Perceptions of idiots.

You think Ruff would be fired and turn around to publicly endorse Regier because he's a weasel?

Regier has to be a business man in a super-competitive, cut throat business, operating in a position where he must hire and fire dozens of people when he's under intense public scrutiny.  I think he's done a good job at NOT ###### everyone he has a business relationship with, and his long tenure is part of a testament to that.  The Knoxes weren't dumb when they hired him.  He's got a lot less weasel in him, if any, than many, many other professional sports GMs.  Which is a pretty good ###### accomplishment, considering that all of the player agents he has to deal with are complete weasels.

Stormin Norman, on 22 February 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

- Building the current lineup and selling the "expectation of making the playoffs."  As the reality of what he's assembled now is revealed, Ruff becomes the sacrificial lamb at the expense of Darcy's heartless, mentally fragile roster.

Every team sells themselves as a playoff team.  There were lots of questions about the composure of this team before the season, but you chose to buy into it.  I bought into it too, but I'm not being a baby about it.

Quote

- Giving Ruff mediocrity to work with year after year and holding onto "his" guys beyond their useful life.  And adjusting way late to the size and toughness required come playoff time.
- Dismantling the leadership core of this team (Drury, Briere, McKee), then pouring salt on the wound by botching Vanek (leaving him exposed to an offer sheet) and Roy (allowing him to go to arbitration to ultimately be overpaid).  All the while, we're lead to believe he didn't have "the resources" (i.e., ownership with deep pockets) to prevent it.

We were under financial restrictions.  Doesn't matter how much money Golisano has if he's not willing to spend it.  If you thought Roy was overpaid, go back and look at McKee's post-sabres contract.  Regardless, go back and do the salary cap math to determine if we could've matched Vanek's offer sheet if we sign Drury ($7M+) and Briere ($5M+), nevermind that Drury didn't want to sign here at any price.

Quote

- Offering Ted Nolan the one year contract when he became the GM.  Say what you will about Nolan, but he had the balz to tell Darcy where to put that embarrassment of a contract offer.

Ted Nolan was feuding with the world-class franchise goaltender.  Darcy wanted to give them one year to work it out.  Darcy had the ball to offer a one year contract to the Jack Adams award winner because it was the right thing to do.  When that didn't work, he had the other ball to let Nolan go (a terrifically unpopular move in the eyes of fans), and then he hired a coach that would take them to the Stanley Cup Finals two years later.

[That Aud Smell]

weave, on 23 February 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

Every manager's job in every company is to do the owners wishes.  If the owners wishes have changed, than the situation has changed, no?

True, to a point.

When I was in high school, my Dad was a sales manager for what I will call a widget wholesaler (doesn't matter for the story whether they sold clamps, desks, pulp, whatever). His company was bought out and new management came in. They liked my Dad, but thought his 5 sales guys in/around Albany, NYC, and New England weren't up to snuff. They said they had guys who could cover that territory better than my Dad's guys did. My Dad disagreed, strongly. Plus, my Dad cared about those guys and their families -- they were like little brothers/sons to him. New management said that those guys had to go -- non-negotiable. So my Dad gave his 2-week notice, then and there.

Now, the situation wound up working its way out over the course of a year or more -- my Dad did end up moving on and some of those sales guys actually stuck with the acquired company. But the point is the same: My Dad hadn't told 10s of 1000s of rabid fans of his widget wholesaling company that he would never fire those sales guys. But he knew that he wouldn't fire them. My Dad was a mid-level sales manager with 4 tuitions to pay at that point in time. And he told new ownership to stick it. My Dad's just a guy -- a good guy -- a normal, ordinary, good guy. He's not some storybook hero.

That's my point.

EDIT: There were certainly many more mid-level sales manager positions available to my Dad than there are NHL GM positions available to DR. But, whatever.

Edited by That Aud Smell, 23 February 2013 - 02:02 PM.

[rbochan]

He should be fired for the Lieno deal alone.

[PASabreFan]

Would Lindy have quit if Darcy had been fired?

I'm probably just drawing a blank here, but did Darcy say he would never fire Lindy, or did Paul Hamilton say it so many times, we think Darcy said it?

[That Aud Smell]

PASabreFan, on 23 February 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

I'm probably just drawing a blank here, but did Darcy say he would never fire Lindy, or did Paul Hamilton say it so many times, we think Darcy said it?

Dammit - I'm at work, and am now off to look for news archives.

EDIT: February 7 was the date of the "it won't be the coach" comment.

http://www.wgr550.co...tentId=12348789

EDIT:  message board talk from january 2012 that sorta comes up empty:

http://hfboards.hock.../t-1079001.html

EDIT: I'm done looking. It's bizarre, though, that I can't find a quote out there attributed to DR to this effect. The results that I get prior to the firing are almost all on message boards where people are saying "DR has said he will never fire LR."

Edited by That Aud Smell, 23 February 2013 - 02:46 PM.

[IKnowPhysics]

PASabreFan, on 23 February 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

a) Would Lindy have quit if Darcy had been fired?

b) I'm probably just drawing a blank here, but did Darcy say he would never fire Lindy, or did Paul Hamilton say it so many times, we think Darcy said it?

a) I doubt it.  He'd probably have a long discussion about the direction of the team with the incoming GM, like he did with Pegula before signing his contract extension, but extenuating circumstances aside, he'd likely have stayed.

b) I can't remember Darcy saying something exactly to that effect.  Folks may have gotten caught up in the "coach for life" mentality  Back on Feb 6th, Mike Harrington framed a lot of that up with paraphrasing and auxiliary quotes.  That story was picked up and retold by a few national-level rebloggers, who speculated Ruff wouldn't be fired this year.

[That Aud Smell]

IKnowPhysics, on 23 February 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

b) I can't remember Darcy saying something exactly to that effect.  Folks may have gotten caught up in the "coach for life" mentality  Back on Feb 6th, Mike Harrington framed a lot of that up with paraphrasing and auxiliary quotes.  That story was picked up and retold by a few national-level rebloggers, who speculated Ruff wouldn't be fired this year.

i think this is right. good man.

EDIT: and if'n it's true that DR never actually said such words, then my rant above about my Dad's travails in corporate amurica is a bit misplaced.

Edited by That Aud Smell, 23 February 2013 - 02:56 PM.

[PASabreFan]

FWIW Darcy outright denied at the Ruff firing presser that he ever speaks in "absolutes." And he went after Harrington for not putting the "it won't be the coach" quote in the context of the question, which was something like, "Will there be changes if the team has a bad weekend/loses two out of three?" Harrington came back with "What about your interview with Channel 2?" I didn't see the interview on Channel 2.

[IKnowPhysics]

Yeah, I don't know the details of the interviews.

I've alwayshad the impression that Darcy as a legitimate business professional, regardless of perceptions about his hockey accomplishments.  Even in the best of times, I didn't think he wouldn't say never to firing a coach. That's probably because that was one of his first lessons on the job- dismissing the Jack Adams winner from that year.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

IKnowPhysics, on 23 February 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

Yeah, I don't know the details of the interviews.

I've alwayshad the impression that Darcy as a legitimate business professional, regardless of perceptions about his hockey accomplishments.  Even in the best of times, I didn't think he wouldn't say never to firing a coach. That's probably because that was one of his first lessons on the job- dismissing the Jack Adams winner from that year.

It was some time ago, but I believe he offered coach Nolan a one year contract, which Nolan didn't accept.

[PASabreFan]

Darcy told Channel 2, "I do expect he and I to work together until the end."

Looking at Mike Harrington's "it won't be the coach" blog, he made it clear that his question was would there be changes if the Sabres had a bad weekend. So I don't know what Darcy's beef is.

[Grumpy]

PASabreFan, on 23 February 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

Would Lindy have quit if Darcy had been fired?

I'm probably just drawing a blank here, but did Darcy say he would never fire Lindy, or did Paul Hamilton say it so many times, we think Darcy said it?

Funny on Hamilton. That's where we've heard it certainly. The WGR mantra becomes reality KInd of like Washington or the nightly news. If it is repeated enough, it becomes the truth..

Look, I have been firmly on the side of both coach and GM going since we bowed out to Boston last time in the playoffs. It was obvious that THEIR (both DR and LR) vision for a team wasn't working in today's NHL. Clutching, grabbing ,and interfering requires big boys and guys with attitude as well as skill. We have skill without attitude and attitude without skill in general.

As to his public statements, ownership, or GM often endorse their unerlings to the media and public. It is common. We've all heard the sports center comment "Joe Blow just got endrsed by his GM." Then the following statement from the broadcaster: "that's the kiss of death."

Edited by Grumpy, 23 February 2013 - 04:26 PM.

[gilbert11]

NWO23, on 22 February 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

He should have done the right thing and stepped down upon firing Lindy. Be a man, admit you're part of the problem. Actions speak louder than hollow words.

C'mon. Easy to say.  Would you quit your job without having another?

[bunomatic]

gilbert11, on 23 February 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

C'mon. Easy to say.  Would you quit your job without having another?

  Well if I had 15 years of accumulated wealth from his G.M. job in Buffalo I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

That Aud Smell, on 23 February 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

True, to a point.

When I was in high school, my Dad was a sales manager for what I will call a widget wholesaler (doesn't matter for the story whether they sold clamps, desks, pulp, whatever). His company was bought out and new management came in. They liked my Dad, but thought his 5 sales guys in/around Albany, NYC, and New England weren't up to snuff. They said they had guys who could cover that territory better than my Dad's guys did. My Dad disagreed, strongly. Plus, my Dad cared about those guys and their families -- they were like little brothers/sons to him. New management said that those guys had to go -- non-negotiable. So my Dad gave his 2-week notice, then and there.

Now, the situation wound up working its way out over the course of a year or more -- my Dad did end up moving on and some of those sales guys actually stuck with the acquired company. But the point is the same: My Dad hadn't told 10s of 1000s of rabid fans of his widget wholesaling company that he would never fire those sales guys. But he knew that he wouldn't fire them. My Dad was a mid-level sales manager with 4 tuitions to pay at that point in time. And he told new ownership to stick it. My Dad's just a guy -- a good guy -- a normal, ordinary, good guy. He's not some storybook hero.

That's my point.

EDIT: There were certainly many more mid-level sales manager positions available to my Dad than there are NHL GM positions available to DR. But, whatever.

Thank you!

gilbert11, on 23 February 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

C'mon. Easy to say.  Would you quit your job without having another?

Yes....I have out of principle after protecting people that were about to get f'd. That's why this board has been graced with my presence.

I stick by my guns. Will Darcy give out Halloween candy to the kids? Sure.

Will he do anything to survive and collect a paycheck as fans fork over tens of millions a year? Yes.

[That Aud Smell]

I combed Hamilton's twitter page over the weekend. A couple of followers asked him for a published, quoted source for DR's alleged "I'll never fire Lindy" stance. Hamilton came back with "yes, Darcy told me that many times", but did not say "go look at the article/video from such and such..."

The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether it's fair to say that DR pledged never to fire LR. I see reference to a channel 2 interview where DR expressed an expectation (hope?) that he and LR would remain a tandem with the Sabres. But that's not the same as promising not to fire LR.

[PASabreFan]

That Aud Smell, on 25 February 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

I combed Hamilton's twitter page over the weekend. A couple of followers asked him for a published, quoted source for DR's alleged "I'll never fire Lindy" stance. Hamilton came back with "yes, Darcy told me that many times", but did not say "go look at the article/video from such and such..."

The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether it's fair to say that DR pledged never to fire LR. I see reference to a channel 2 interview where DR expressed an expectation (hope?) that he and LR would remain a tandem with the Sabres. But that's not the same as promising not to fire LR.

Paul's been around forever. Darcy's been around forever. We KNOW these guys like we know our family members. Can anyone here really envision Darcy telling Paul, "I'll never fire Lindy Ruff. As long as I'm here, he's here."? I can't. I think there have been many statements of faith, references to the Torrey-Arbour partnership and so on.

[IKnowPhysics]

Right.

And there's been more than a few tough times that encouraged the media to badger Regier about what has to change and he's put in a position where he almost has to say that to get them off his back about Ruff, but I still don't think he'd try to give the impression that it could never happen.  Seems unprofessional.