Tim Murray has greatly impressed / Rehash Regier Era

[SoFFacet]

He over saw an organization that didn't win a playoff round for 6 seasons in a row, and only made the playoffs in 2 of those 6 years, before he finally gave up on his core and fired his coach.

Why is that celebrated?

That is outcome-oriented evaluation, a known illogical thought pattern. To evaluate decisions properly you need to focus on the process that motivated them. In any case there is a big difference between "celebrating" DR and insisting on the fact of the matter that he actually made overall solid decisions, even if they didn't ultimately translate to playoff rounds.

You want to call my opinion on the last 10 years of the Regier era delusional and back that opinion it up with literally nothing, go ahead. You have yet to make a valid point on anything regarding this conversation. The Sabres aren't where they are because Regier was a genius. They are where they are because he stagnated an entire NHL organization with his snail-paced methods until it dried up completely.

You're one to talk. All you've done in this thread is arbitrarily assert that anything good about the DR era was coincidental or irrelevant and anything bad was directly and solely attributable to DR.

1)Overpaying. Yeah, I get it. You want someone and you go and get it but it's made me uncomfortable that he may get stupid and pay Zads+1st for ROR which 29 GM's probably don't even consider. It's fine to overpay in magic beans like he did with the Fasching deal but the Kane deal was probably one asset too much and I really would be pissed off if he overpays for ROR. Someone with his shady contract history and only 1 actual year of term is really iffy. His willingness to overpay could make him one of the best GM's in the league and a legend in hockey or he may never get a GM job ever again.

He hasn't actually done that or even suggested it, how can that really bother you?

 

[ZeroPT*]

That is outcome-oriented evaluation, a known illogical thought pattern. To evaluate decisions properly you need to focus on the process that motivated them. In any case there is a big difference between "celebrating" DR and insisting on the fact of the matter that he actually made overall solid decisions, even if they didn't ultimately translate to playoff rounds.



You're one to talk. All you've done in this thread is arbitrarily assert that anything good about the DR era was coincidental or irrelevant and anything bad was directly and solely attributable to DR.



He hasn't actually done that or even suggested it, how can that really bother you?

it's not based on anything. Just an irrational fear

 

[wunderpanda]

it's not based on anything. Just an irrational fear

That's my line!

I do apologize if I contributed to that in any way, had a similar irrational fear but it was Zads, Grigs & the low 1st.

 

[SabreBlood]

That is outcome-oriented evaluation, a known illogical thought pattern. To evaluate decisions properly you need to focus on the process that motivated them. In any case there is a big difference between "celebrating" DR and insisting on the fact of the matter that he actually made overall solid decisions, even if they didn't ultimately translate to playoff rounds.

Or you could just say hindsight is 20/20.

But that's not right either.. Unless you're merely assuming that I was on board with so many of Regier's decisions, which you could not possibly know.

If Darcy Regier made "overall sound decisions" the Sabres would have never needed to be stripped down to the floor. You can only blame an owner like Golisano, who spent right up to the cap ceiling, for so much. Pegula opened his wallet even further, and Regier screwed that up at an incredible level. Golisano and Quinn didn't tell Darcy to keep Kotalik, Kalinin, and Afinogenov and to let Dumont leave for nothing. There are countless examples of poor decisions, most of them being overly patient decisions, which is a trait that was associated with Darcy Regier for his entire existence as Sabres GM. But there are other decisions as well, that go beyond overly patient, that were easily viewed at the time as poor by many fans and critics.

- The Leino contract.
- The Hodgson contract.
- Letting Dumont walk for nothing.
- Letting Lydman walk for nothing.
- Letting Tallinder walk for nothing.
- Missing the opportunity to sign Briere long term to what the arbitrator awarded him. - It's ridiculous that people still remove all blame from Darcy for losing Drury and Briere for nothing. Drury may have been out of Regier's hands.. But Briere absolutely wasn't. He chose to let Briere walk after learning of his arbitration award, put all his eggs in Drury's basket, and was caught with his pants down.
- Never replenishing the center position after that. Ever. This could be even worse than losing them both for nothing. He never found a way to get 4 natural centermen on the roster at the same time in the rest of his Sabres existence.
- Trading a 1st round pick for Paul Gaustad's injury replacement, Dainus Zubrus. For a team that was primed for a run at the Cup, losing Gaustad to injury and then merely filling his spot as his only "go for it" move, not nearly enough to improve the team for a Cup run, if at all.

There are still more, but I have to stop somewhere.

You're one to talk. All you've done in this thread is arbitrarily assert that anything good about the DR era was coincidental or irrelevant and anything bad was directly and solely attributable to DR.

No, not really. It's not 100% Regier's fault... More like 75%. At least I didn't call anyone "delusional" without backing it up; and Regier himself called the lockout rule changes "lucky".

 

[Crazy Tasty]

Or you could just say hindsight is 20/20.

But that's not right either.. Unless you're merely assuming that I was on board with so many of Regier's decisions, which you could not possibly know.

If Darcy Regier made "overall sound decisions" the Sabres would have never needed to be stripped down to the floor. You can only blame an owner like Golisano, who spent right up to the cap ceiling, for so much. Pegula opened his wallet even further, and Regier screwed that up at an incredible level. Golisano and Quinn didn't tell Darcy to keep Kotalik, Kalinin, and Afinogenov and to let Dumont leave for nothing. There are countless examples of poor decisions, most of them being overly patient decisions, which is a trait that was associated with Darcy Regier for his entire existence as Sabres GM. But there are other decisions as well, that go beyond overly patient, that were easily viewed at the time as poor by many fans and critics.

- The Leino contract.
- The Hodgson contract.
- Letting Dumont walk for nothing.
- Letting Lydman walk for nothing.
- Letting Tallinder walk for nothing.
- Missing the opportunity to sign Briere long term to what the arbitrator awarded him. - It's ridiculous that people still remove all blame from Darcy for losing Drury and Briere for nothing. Drury may have been out of Regier's hands.. But Briere absolutely wasn't. He chose to let Briere walk after learning of his arbitration award, put all his eggs in Drury's basket, and was caught with his pants down.
- Never replenishing the center position after that. Ever. This could be even worse than losing them both for nothing. He never found a way to get 4 natural centermen on the roster at the same time in the rest of his Sabres existence.
- Trading a 1st round pick for Paul Gaustad's injury replacement, Dainus Zubrus. For a team that was primed for a run at the Cup, losing Gaustad to injury and then merely filling his spot as his only "go for it" move, not nearly enough to improve the team for a Cup run, if at all.

There are still more, but I have to stop somewhere.

No, not really. It's not 100% Regier's fault... More like 75%. At least I didn't call anyone "delusional" without backing it up; and Regier himself called the lockout rule changes "lucky".

I might be wrong, but didn't Quinn refuse to negotiate with Briere after he chose to go to the arbitrator? I remember reading that way back when, Quinn felt slighted and chose to not sign Danny long term.

 

[SabreBlood]

You're right, he was traded for the purposes of:
A) handling specific matchups in the 2012 playoffs
B) proving to Suter the team was committed to winning
C) being an above average bottom six center

He's helped achieve maybe one of those.

D) Playing for the Nashville Predators long term.

Between Cullen/Hendricks/Stalberg/Nystrom, they spent ~12 million on bottom six forwards in the 2013 offseason. Paul Gaustad having more impact doesn't move some of that money elsewhere? Whatever you say.

No, not whatever I say. Whatever Nashville did. They liked Paul Gaustad enough to pay him over 3 million per season to play in their bottom 6. They made that decision. What are you arguing with me about that for?

And why do they keep the pick at 21?

If they didn't trade it away for Gaustad, I suppose they could have traded it away for someone or something else...Or used it to make a selection. But they used it to acquire Gaustad. So again, what are you even arguing here? You're upset with how Nashville utilized the 21st overall pick in the 2012 draft and you're arguing with me because I pointed out they still have Paul Gaustad on their 1st place team.

Only Ribeiro, who had ties to the area through Dumont (and likely was signing there regardless of NSH's overall strategy with Roy/Jokinen), has done anything to impact their current position.

You must watch a lot of Nashville Predators games.

Once again, they could've traded up. Or taken Maatta. Or traded that forward prospect because those guys still have more value than Jokinen/Roy/3 million dollars of Paul Gaustad.

Or they could have done what they did, traded it away for Paul Gaustad and keep him long term.

You can't tell me they would have had a different forward prospect in their bottom 6 instead of Paul Gaustad if they would have kept that pick and then tell me they could have drafted a defenseman.

Montreal went to the Conference Finals with Scott Gomez. Trading for him was worth it!

That's not even close to the same thing.

That you view the past 10 years as being defined by Regier alone instead of multiple ownership mandates is utterly backwards.

Site the ownership mandates. Regier made calculated decisions that were just flat out wrong. He wasn't the only GM in the NHL with a temporary self-imposed cap.

And are you qualifying things like "he almost completely screwed the Pominville deal" as valid points? Because I have issues with your scoring system.

If he traded for the wrong prospects, which is looking to be the case, then he screwed up the deal. Zadorov salvages it, and Devine convinced Darcy to take him.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

- The Leino contract.

Sucks.

- The Hodgson contract.

Is a bet you should make every. Single. Time.

- Letting Dumont walk for nothing.

Ownership.

- Letting Lydman walk for nothing.

Ownership.

- Letting Tallinder walk for nothing.

Ownership.

- Missing the opportunity to sign Briere long term to what the arbitrator awarded him. - It's ridiculous that people still remove all blame from Darcy for losing Drury and Briere for nothing. Drury may have been out of Regier's hands.. But Briere absolutely wasn't. He chose to let Briere walk after learning of his arbitration award, put all his eggs in Drury's basket, and was caught with his pants down.

Ownership.

- Never replenishing the center position after that. Ever. This could be even worse than losing them both for nothing. He never found a way to get 4 natural centermen on the roster at the same time in the rest of his Sabres existence.

This is actually a completely valid reason to hate Regier. Except you're also blame him for every bad thing to happen to this organization in the past 10 years. Hence people calling you delusional.

- Trading a 1st round pick for Paul Gaustad's injury replacement, Dainus Zubrus. For a team that was primed for a run at the Cup, losing Gaustad to injury and then merely filling his spot as his only "go for it" move, not nearly enough to improve the team for a Cup run, if at all.

He traded Biron and a 1st for Zubrus and moving down 3 spots. Cool your jets.

 

[SabreBlood]

Sucks.

And contributed to further sinking the already sinking ship.

Is a bet you should make every. Single. Time.

Not for that term. The player hadn't proved nearly enough.

Ownership.


Ownership.


Ownership.


Ownership.

Prove it. All 4 of them.

This is actually a completely valid reason to hate Regier. Except you're also blame him for every bad thing to happen to this organization in the past 10 years. Hence people calling you delusional.

Not people, just you.

He traded Biron and a 1st for Zubrus and moving down 3 spots. Cool your jets.

Rather than add to an already great team, he simply filled the hole left by Gaustad's injury. In my opinion, he didn't "go for it" when he should have.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

And contributed to further sinking the already sinking ship.

Actually, the lack of productivity at center combined with Lucic/Miller and Regier ****ing up the talent mix on defense by keeping Leopold were the catalysts that sank the ship.

Not for that term. The player hadn't proved nearly enough.

It's not a question of proving anything, it's a question of controlling costs. If Hodgson stagnated, he'd be in for the same exact deal he got as an RFA. If he had improved one iota, he would have commanded a sizable raise.

Prove it. All 4 of them.

They didn't have the cap space for Dumont because of Briere's arbitration award. Which only happened in the first place because Golisano gambled the wrong way on the direction of the league (I'm not finding his exact quote on wanting everyone on one-year contracts for you).

They knew they could only keep one of Lallinder because of the internal cap, settled on Lydman, and ended up with neither because Golly's bean counters wouldn't commit to a third year that Anaheim did.

Rather than add to an already great team, he simply filled the hole left by Gaustad's injury. In my opinion, he didn't "go for it" when he should have.

Except Gaustad wasn't consistently Drury's LW.

 

[SabreBlood]

Actually, the lack of productivity at center combined with Lucic/Miller and Regier ****ing up the talent mix on defense by keeping Leopold were the catalysts that sank the ship.

Regier put together the team that watched their face-of-the-franchise goaltender get his head knocked off. The Sabres were soft for years. You're exactly right. Regier was mainly responsible for sinking the ship.

It's not a question of proving anything, it's a question of controlling costs. If Hodgson stagnated, he'd be in for the same exact deal he got as an RFA. If he had improved one iota, he would have commanded a sizable raise.

You can't control costs by paying what the advanced stats said was the worst defensive forward in the entire NHL 4.25 per season for 6 seasons. That's the opposite of controlling costs; and Hodgson's offensive game didn't justify it at the time he signed the contract. Regier has a rich history of committing cap space to the wrong players. Hodgson is another one.

They didn't have the cap space for Dumont because of Briere's arbitration award. Which only happened in the first place because Golisano gambled the wrong way on the direction of the league (I'm not finding his exact quote on wanting everyone on one-year contracts for you).

Wrong. They did have the cap space. Regier extended the wrong players. Afinogenov, Kotalik and Kalinin were signed to new deals. Dumont, who was just coming off of a 20 goal 20 assist season in only 52 games, as well as a 7 goal and 7 assist playoff performance was walked away from because he was awarded a 2.9 cap hit. Regier didn't believe he deserved that dollar amount. He was always behind the 8-ball when it came to predicting the ebbs and flows of the new cap era.

The jump in salaries comes after the Sabres negotiated significant raises with numerous players in an attempt to keep the core of their roster intact.

- "It had a little bit to do with the amount of the award, certainly."

- "I think this new system is about choices," Regier said

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2543424

Regier picked the wrong players.

They knew they could only keep one of Lallinder because of the internal cap, settled on Lydman, and ended up with neither because Golly's bean counters wouldn't commit to a third year that Anaheim did.

Amazing how every player that left was somehow out of Regier's hands. Again, he wasn't the only GM with an internal cap. He had a knack for choosing to keep the wrong players and allowed his prospect pool to dwindle. Hence why the Sabres became bad enough to need a complete restructuring.

Except Gaustad wasn't consistently Drury's LW.

True. It was still Gaustad out, Zubrus in. Almost a lateral move with an edge to Zubrus. Not at all enough of an improvement on what was already in place for the playoff run. He had a chance to go for it and didn't. After being bold and trading for Drury and Briere, he never actually took a real chance ever again.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

I love when people blame Darcy for everything. People forget so quickly this team was in bankruptcy protection and Golisano put a budget in place.

People really think it was darcy who decided,"we will not negotiate during the season."

The one failure I do put on Darcy is not acquiring defensive depth for the 05 cup run. That is on him.

So far I am not impressed with Murray. He is taking risks which people seem to like but the Myers trade could of been done at the deadline or at the draft and gotten a much better player then Kane. Kane is a huge risk coming off of shoulder surgery.

 

[Djp]

Or you could just say hindsight is 20/20.

But that's not right either.. Unless you're merely assuming that I was on board with so many of Regier's decisions, which you could not possibly know.

If Darcy Regier made "overall sound decisions" the Sabres would have never needed to be stripped down to the floor. You can only blame an owner like Golisano, who spent right up to the cap ceiling, for so much. Pegula opened his wallet even further, and Regier screwed that up at an incredible level. Golisano and Quinn didn't tell Darcy to keep Kotalik, Kalinin, and Afinogenov and to let Dumont leave for nothing. There are countless examples of poor decisions, most of them being overly patient decisions, which is a trait that was associated with Darcy Regier for his entire existence as Sabres GM. But there are other decisions as well, that go beyond overly patient, that were easily viewed at the time as poor by many fans and critics.

- The Leino contract.
- The Hodgson contract.
- Letting Dumont walk for nothing.
- Letting Lydman walk for nothing.
- Letting Tallinder walk for nothing.
- Missing the opportunity to sign Briere long term to what the arbitrator awarded him. - It's ridiculous that people still remove all blame from Darcy for losing Drury and Briere for nothing. Drury may have been out of Regier's hands.. But Briere absolutely wasn't. He chose to let Briere walk after learning of his arbitration award, put all his eggs in Drury's basket, and was caught with his pants down.
- Never replenishing the center position after that. Ever. This could be even worse than losing them both for nothing. He never found a way to get 4 natural centermen on the roster at the same time in the rest of his Sabres existence.
- Trading a 1st round pick for Paul Gaustad's injury replacement, Dainus Zubrus. For a team that was primed for a run at the Cup, losing Gaustad to injury and then merely filling his spot as his only "go for it" move, not nearly enough to improve the team for a Cup run, if at all.

There are still more, but I have to stop somewhere.

No, not really. It's not 100% Regier's fault... More like 75%. At least I didn't call anyone "delusional" without backing it up; and Regier himself called the lockout rule changes "lucky".

Its well documented that ownership played a major factor in all these moves.

Drury and Briere---ownership didnt want to pay.
Dumont---he was caught in numbers. Buffalo had other player to replace him and had Stafford coming up their sytem. Money also played a factor here as well.

Talinder and Lydman---part of it was ownership not wanting to pay and another part was that year buffalo was in the mix for the playoffs so they couldnt sell them at the deadline. Had they been outside they likely would have sold them. This has happened to all GMs where they kept a UFA for a playoff run then see him walk.

Leino---new ownership wanted a splash.

Hodgson---this was debated ad nauseum on here about the contract even before it was signed---should he get a bridge or a long term contract. I was saying bridge because of the Vanek an dPominville effect wouldnt be there.

the deals were a late 1st (26-30) for a rental and they traded Biron for a 2nd 9 a high second. these picks ended up being about 4-5 spaces apart. As for trading a 1st. The likelihood of getting an impact player(top 6 forward, top 3 Dman) at 26-30 is slim.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Regier put together the team that watched their face-of-the-franchise goaltender get his head knocked off. The Sabres were soft for years. You're exactly right. Regier was mainly responsible for sinking the ship.

Regier made several egregious decisions that led to the team being blown up. You've cited almost none of them. Hence my derision.

You can't control costs by paying what the advanced stats said was the worst defensive forward in the entire NHL 4.25 per season for 6 seasons. That's the opposite of controlling costs; and Hodgson's offensive game didn't justify it at the time he signed the contract. Regier has a rich history of committing cap space to the wrong players. Hodgson is another one.

I'd prefer to wait for that contract to actually negatively impact the team. Hodgson got six years because he was going to spend three of them in the top six of a rebuilding team and if he got any better would be lost for nothing or overpaid because of UFA status.

Wrong. They did have the cap space. Regier extended the wrong players. Afinogenov, Kotalik and Kalinin were signed to new deals. Dumont, who was just coming off of a 20 goal 20 assist season in only 52 games, as well as a 7 goal and 7 assist playoff performance was walked away from because he was awarded a 2.9 cap hit. Regier didn't believe he deserved that dollar amount. He was always behind the 8-ball when it came to predicting the ebbs and flows of the new cap era.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2543424

Regier picked the wrong players.

They signed all their non-arbitration RFAs - including Miller - over Dumont. But you only mentioned the players that ended up worse. Convenient.

Also, you forgot:

"It had a little bit to do with the amount of the award, certainly. The other part, quite honestly, we're up against the cap."

Amazing how every player that left was somehow out of Regier's hands. Again, he wasn't the only GM with an internal cap. He had a knack for choosing to keep the wrong players and allowed his prospect pool to dwindle. Hence why the Sabres became bad enough to need a complete restructuring.

Nah, just the four you cited. Interesting that you resort to snark and more vague platitudes in response to the actual facts of those players departures.

True. It was still Gaustad out, Zubrus in. Almost a lateral move with an edge to Zubrus. Not at all enough of an improvement on what was already in place for the playoff run. He had a chance to go for it and didn't. After being bold and trading for Drury and Briere, he never actually took a real chance ever again.

Do you remember what those players actually were in 2007? Zubrus was centering Ovechkin and Gaustad was a fourth liner. We probably lose to the Rangers if not for Z. Delusional.

 

[Zip15]

Zubrus certainly put a great tackle on those Rangers forwards, which led to Drury's game-tying goal in Game 5.

 

[sabrebuild]

Lemieux was something we didn't have in the organization ... Barbashev was.

Seems cut and dry to me.

Edit: Maybe I shouldn't say cut and dry because I'm sure other factors played a part ... but I'm willing to bet it was at the top of the list.

Ya I don't really see why you think that. Zero said Barbashev is most closely similar to girgs. But more directly to the lack of Lemieux types, we have Deslauriers, Foligno and more importantly guys like Lemieux are always available. Carcillo Shaw Kaleta types are always around around for cheap. Or certainly available for a second round pick when they are already developed.

It remains a concerning pick.

 

[SabreBlood]

Regier made several egregious decisions that led to the team being blown up. You've cited almost none of them. Hence my derision.

Cite away then. You've qualified yourself.

I'd prefer to wait for that contract to actually negatively impact the team. Hodgson got six years because he was going to spend three of them in the top six of a rebuilding team and if he got any better would be lost for nothing or overpaid because of UFA status.

You actually think it was intelligent to sign him to that contract.

They signed all their non-arbitration RFAs - including Miller - over Dumont. But you only mentioned the players that ended up worse. Convenient.

Deciding to sign 3 players that were worse isn't enough? Sound logic. Why even mention signing Miller? That was a no-brainer. The hard part for a GM is putting the right pieces around the cornerstone players like Ryan Miller was at the time. Regier picked at least 3 wrong pieces, yet that's not enough evidence for you. You deserve some sort of medal.

Also, you forgot:

I didn't forget anything. As I said, he signed the wrong players. That's why they ran out of cap space for Dumont. This really isn't complicated.

Nah, just the four you cited. Interesting that you resort to snark and more vague platitudes in response to the actual facts of those players departures.

So Tom Golisano was the main reason the Sabres had to rebuild from the bottom, up. Not the gentleman that was in charge of his hockey department before and after he left, right? Basically, poor Darcy Regier was just an innocent victim.. That's a load of garbage. He had plenty of money to spend, he chose to spend it on many of the wrong players. The evidence is everywhere. This is why I started posting in this thread in the first place. I completely disagree with the opinion that Regier was a great GM. I realize it's an opinion that is very popular around here.

Do you remember what those players actually were in 2007? Zubrus was centering Ovechkin and Gaustad was a fourth liner. We probably lose to the Rangers if not for Z. Delusional.

Zubrus was a large body at the center position that could win a draw and put pucks in the net. We traded for a depth center after we lost a depth center to injury. Who Zubrus was centering in Washington is a moronic point. On the Sabres, he was their 3rd or 4th best center option.

Highlighted by the addition of forward Dainius Zubrus, the Sabres completed four trades Tuesday to bolster an injured-depleted lineup - "He's a big strong man and he gives us some size down the middle," Regier said, referring to the 6-foot-4 forward.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022700899.html

Gee, I wonder which injuries they were addressing by acquiring a center with size for the middle of the ice. Ruff played him at wing. That's another conversation all together.

 

[SabreBlood]

Zubrus certainly put a great tackle on those Rangers forwards, which led to Drury's game-tying goal in Game 5.

That was the best thing he ever did while wearing a Sabres sweater! Loved that play.

 

[Karate Johnson*]

Rather than add to an already great team, he simply filled the hole left by Gaustad's injury. In my opinion, he didn't "go for it" when he should have.

This is the time I truly started hating Darcy. I believe Bill Guerin was available as a rental that year and I wanted him so bad. But Darcy played it safe once again and I knew that no matter what we were never going to make it all the way with him.

The other stuff is bad... But every GM gives a bad contract or mismanages a UFA from time to time.

But to me the problem with Darcy was at the very core of his makeup.... He had no balls.

 

[old kummelweck]

 

[Beerz]

I just want someone to take this post and rebut each word of mine.

 

[Foligno17]

I just want someone to take this post and rebut each word of mine.

Perfect.

 

[Moskau]

The guy is a superb judge of talent that much is very clear.

Keeping Pysyk in the AHL as long as he possibly could while signing guys like Mez, Benoit and Kraken alone probably resulted in us having 4 or 5 less points than we should have. How many people could have guessed that would have played such an important role for the tank in October?

Going out of his mind trying to trade up and draft Larkin who is now a top 10 drafted prospect in all of Hockey if not top 5.

Going out of his mind trying to get Bryan Murray to draft Getzlaf and then trade up and draft Perry. His role in drafting Karlsson.

He's just a very good judge of talent.

 

[Beerz]

Ya I don't really see why you think that. Zero said Barbashev is most closely similar to girgs. But more directly to the lack of Lemieux types, we have Deslauriers, Foligno and more importantly guys like Lemieux are always available. Carcillo Shaw Kaleta types are always around around for cheap. Or certainly available for a second round pick when they are already developed.

It remains a concerning pick.

Des and Foligno are not Lemieux ...

Let me put this bluntly ...

I want an ass hole on this team ... Get me a talented one at that? .. Yes please.

 

[Paxon]

Des and Foligno are not Lemieux ...

Let me put this bluntly ...

I want an ass hole on this team ... Get me a talented one at that? .. Yes please.

We just need to lock up last place. There's a really talented one sitting there waiting for us.

 

[ZeroPT*]

One thing that amuses me about Murray is that he asked a GM if he wanted to trade a prospect he had drafted the day before