Speculation: Darcy Regier fired 5 years ago today.

Chainshot

Give 'em Enough Rope
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2002
148,124
96,701
Tarnation
Maybe he wouldn’t go balls out for McEichel, maybe he would.

But I don’t get the sentiment that he isn’t a builder that you’re agreeing with from @Chainshot.

He certainly has his warts. But he literally tore down and then rebuilt the Sabres into one of the best teams in the NHL. By any reasonable measure what he did would be building.

I have never been willing to grace him with gilded laurels for how the two post-lockout teams played. He and the team were the unwitting beneficiary of both the lockout which allowed key prospects a full season of AHL development time as well as another regular time to hone his game in Finland, and the shift in rules that moved away from dead-puck hockey to skill at the start of the return to work. Neither of those was foreseen and both worked to the benefit of the roster he had assembled. The talent influx of the Amerk grads was much needed. However, we do know that at the end of his tenure, he wasn't about slow cooking anyone and it appears they rushed key draftees into positions of need. That's why I question him as a potential builder (from the developing guys they've drafted side) and his history at the draft is plenty spotty.

There are too many "ifs" in how that team serendipitously came together to think he could have captured the essence of it again, especially with the history of what he did after that team came apart.
 

tsujimoto74

Moderator
May 28, 2012
29,802
21,844
I have never been willing to grace him with gilded laurels for how the two post-lockout teams played. He and the team were the unwitting beneficiary of both the lockout which allowed key prospects a full season of AHL development time as well as another regular time to hone his game in Finland, and the shift in rules that moved away from dead-puck hockey to skill at the start of the return to work. Neither of those was foreseen and both worked to the benefit of the roster he had assembled. The talent influx of the Amerk grads was much needed. However, we do know that at the end of his tenure, he wasn't about slow cooking anyone and it appears they rushed key draftees into positions of need. That's why I question him as a potential builder (from the developing guys they've drafted side) and his history at the draft is plenty spotty.

There are too many "ifs" in how that team serendipitously came together to think he could have captured the essence of it again, especially with the history of what he did after that team came apart.

Didn't most of his tenure as GM overlap with the video scouting era (Golissano's ownership)? While the development problem and later drafts could be attributed to Regier, it feels unfair to blame him for being bad at identifying draft prospects when he wasn't allowed to have scouts.
 

Chainshot

Give 'em Enough Rope
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2002
148,124
96,701
Tarnation
Didn't most of his tenure as GM overlap with the video scouting era (Golissano's ownership)? While the development problem and later drafts could be attributed to Regier, it feels unfair to blame him for being bad at identifying draft prospects when he wasn't allowed to have scouts.

2007-2011 was the video era. The results speak for themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slip

dortt

Registered User
Sep 21, 2018
5,297
2,656
Houston, TX
I have never been willing to grace him with gilded laurels for how the two post-lockout teams played. He and the team were the unwitting beneficiary of both the lockout which allowed key prospects a full season of AHL development time as well as another regular time to hone his game in Finland, and the shift in rules that moved away from dead-puck hockey to skill at the start of the return to work. Neither of those was foreseen and both worked to the benefit of the roster he had assembled. The talent influx of the Amerk grads was much needed. However, we do know that at the end of his tenure, he wasn't about slow cooking anyone and it appears they rushed key draftees into positions of need. That's why I question him as a potential builder (from the developing guys they've drafted side) and his history at the draft is plenty spotty.

There are too many "ifs" in how that team serendipitously came together to think he could have captured the essence of it again, especially with the history of what he did after that team came apart.

However, he did build the 2001 team into a very solid team. Took a bunch of flukes to keep us out of the ECF. We almost certainly would have easily handled NJ that year
 

Dreakon13

Registered User
Jun 28, 2010
4,276
1,305
Mighty Taco, NY
Darcy had already made a variety of the teardown deals and then he brought in Rolston. It was already in motion.
You can be "around" the start of the teardown and be in the teardown. Regier sold off assets, but IMO the worst was still yet to come with Murray bottoming us out the rest of the way.
 

Chainshot

Give 'em Enough Rope
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2002
148,124
96,701
Tarnation
You can be "around" the start of the teardown and be in the teardown. Regier sold off assets, but IMO the worst was still yet to come with Murray bottoming us out the rest of the way.

Neville Chamberlain was around for the start of something too.
 

DJN21

Registered User
Aug 8, 2011
9,424
2,566
Rochester
I've been here 20 years and as some can point out, I have almost never been happy about management. I have had heated conversations with two different regimes (Muckler, Luce, Carriere in a game in Niagara Falls; Regier, Benning, and Carriere in the the Swannie House during lunch).

Giving Botts a chance? I'm trying but he crisped up my good will in the first year on the job. I didn't like the job he was doing before he got fleeced in the O'Reilly deal. For Jack's production, I didn't think Eichel was worth the deal Botterill gave him and then he bridged Reinhart which looks like it will cost the team in the long run. Skinner, for a guy claiming he wanted to stay, hijacked them for another million. That doesn't make it palatable.

I liked what they did this year in the draft by taking high-skill OA's in later rounds. The self-importance of those two trade-ups puts a blemish on what they were doing. To borrow a take I happen to agree with on it: it cost them two more lottery tickets when volume is more important than position.

I like that they were reportedly in the running for some players and that they didn't get any stupid contracts. He did well not to get out from under Moulson and Pominville only to jump back in with foolish money to clutter up their roster further. However, he still has measurably bad players on the team, both optically and metrically in Sobotka and Scandella who he hasn't removed by any means necessary.



I remember cautioning people when they were on the winning streak that they weren't playing well despite the wins, to enjoy it because it wasn't sustainable. You want a good old take, since we are in the Regier thread? Early in the '06-07 season, I posted in here that this could be the high-water mark for this team since both of the co-caps were going to be UFA and that we should enjoy that last season for all it was worth. HG practically strangled me the next time I saw her and gaf at a game after that.

As for the trade, I've been over it. I know you don't usually post in this forum, you save your energy for the NHL Board. I've been down the path that the pieces received were not worth the player - Thompson was not Thomas or even Kyrou, Berglund/Sobotka were visually and metrically and contractually poor, and they didn't get a piece like Dunn. I don't hate Thompson, I hate the trade AND I hate the inconsistency of the message from the front office about how it is all about development and earning time, yet for "their" guys, it's gifted ice and roster slots. It's a bad look and does not build morale or team cohesion.



I like the moves toward mobile offensive defensemen. I don't like how Pilut was twisted by the old coach and the GM did nothing to step in there. There is a clear question of how the teams views player impact that does not fit with what we can observe externally, especially with how Pilut is the only partner to get Risto to a break even point in terms of shots for and against.

Ullmark... I don't know. I'm not impressed by his body of work so far in North America. I liked a bit of what I saw before he came over, but goalies are such voodoo. Hutton played like we expected over the full range of games, but what we didn't get was consistency. He went from uncharacteristically high save percentage to the opposite.

As of now UPL is on the shelf with the same hip surgery that Ullmark had and is going to have to be metered in his minutes and games played. Looking for him early will likely be disappointing - he's got to get healthy first and then show he can handle the rigors of the pro game in the same fashion he did in Sudbury. THEN he's due for a look. And still, goalies are voodoo - I wouldn't be keen to bank on him being a starter quality NHLer this soon. Would it be awesome if he turns out to be that, and it happens quickly? Damn right it would be. It just almost never happens (not just in Buffalo, but in general).




Is the defense actually stable though? They have 9 NHL bodies at the moment and it isn't clear what they will do for roles. Scandella remains. They just spent a season cleaning up after waiting to see what a coach could do with players in the previous season - it's time to stop hoping a player might maybe someday be good again and move on. He's the first one off the boot on the blueline since a defensive defenseman who can't defend is a clear detriment to the team. At least Risto's lack of ES defensive chops can be balanced against his raw scoring productivity, but Scandella? Nope. Bogosian is again hurt to start a season, one in which he is UFA at the end of and has not proven to be worth the contract he's on in the least. Pilut's also hurt and there is no clear indication that the team recognizes his value. Miller's a nice add in a cap squeeze and yet he was a scratch in the season and in the playoffs which should bear more scrutiny than it has. Montour was an interesting addition, yet it seems more that he'll be in the "fun" category 5-on-5 because he gets the puck up the ice on the rush and is not good at defending. McCabe is like smaller Bogosian - unreliable. He's started to actually get better in his own zone and he got hurt again, derailing AGAIN a season, albeit this time as he was starting to play well. Hunwick is overpaid for being a 7. Nelson is actually good at being a 6/7 on a cheap deal.

As for offense... after two full years on the job, Botterill has turned up two forwards in Skinner and Sheary who might be deemed worthwhile. He's had a metric ass ton that have not. I haven't seen anything in three summers that puts my growing sense of dread at what, if anything, he has as a plan that will put players on the ice who are better than what we have seen for a number of years now.

Perhaps I'm not willing to look at what the team does as "good" while you always seem irrepressibly embracing whatever they have done as good. Maybe your way is better. I know that I'm too old to change my spots at this point.

This is spot on super chief
 

joshjull

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
78,462
39,915
Hamburg,NY
I have never been willing to grace him with gilded laurels for how the two post-lockout teams played. He and the team were the unwitting beneficiary of both the lockout which allowed key prospects a full season of AHL development time as well as another regular time to hone his game in Finland, and the shift in rules that moved away from dead-puck hockey to skill at the start of the return to work. Neither of those was foreseen and both worked to the benefit of the roster he had assembled. The talent influx of the Amerk grads was much needed. However, we do know that at the end of his tenure, he wasn't about slow cooking anyone and it appears they rushed key draftees into positions of need. That's why I question him as a potential builder (from the developing guys they've drafted side) and his history at the draft is plenty spotty.

There are too many "ifs" in how that team serendipitously came together to think he could have captured the essence of it again, especially with the history of what he did after that team came apart.

Its not about tripping over ourselves to praise him. Its about accepting the fact that he accumulated a lot of talent during the rebuild to have a very successful team.

Ruff had already begun using the attacking offensive approach in the back half of the 02-03 season pre lockout. It was the best use of the talent on hand (that didn’t include the Amerks influx yet). Coming out of the lockout we would have been playing that way with or without the rules changes. The rule changes helped for certain but we still would have been a good team.

As for the “ifs” part, you know as well as anyone a lot of things need to break right for any successful team to come together. Just like things breaking the wrong way can tear one down. We got to experience both in very short order post lockout.

I’m crediting Darcy for collecting the amount of talent he did. That’s indisputable and something we desperately could have used as we tore down then came out on the other side of a tank. That in and of itself is why I wished he was here. Its not about gushing over him as a GM but valuing his ability of extracting max value in deals which was largely due to being ridiculously patient. That would have been a good tool to have at that moment in time.
 

Baccus

Garage League filled with Mickey Mouse teams
Feb 18, 2014
1,453
953
Maybe he wouldn’t go balls out for McEichel, maybe he would.

But I don’t get the sentiment that he isn’t a builder that you’re agreeing with from @Chainshot.

He certainly has his warts. But he literally tore down and then rebuilt the Sabres into one of the best teams in the NHL. By any reasonable measure what he did would be building.

I didn't say he wasn't a builder, I agreed that I'm not sold on his ability to do it. Especially at the level of tear down we would be theoretically talking about.

He'd probably be a good president of ops or something, though clearly that wouldn't work here at the time (or now), and I don't know if his seemingly meticulous trade/negotiation style would allow him let go of final decisions to somebody else. Would depend on how that hierarchy was set up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joshjull

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->