SoFFacet
Registered User
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?