Post-Game Talk: Tim Murray Post-Deadline Presser

[Jame]

I have dodged nothing. I've stated repeatedly that it is the obligation of a sports team to do everything it can to win every game it is involved in. That is the ethical axiom I am basing the whole case on, it's in almost every answer I have given.

He believes the trade deadline actions of non playoff teams is unethical... Why is anyone still indulging this nonsense?

 

[haseoke39]

If you're indifferent to time, they ARE doing everything they can to win every game they play. It's just that the next 20 years of games > next 20 games.

 

[TehDoak]

Fun, we're talking about the morality of what the team is doing now?

First and foremost, the Sabres are a business entity. They field a sports team. Their main source of revenue come from 2 sources: Television contracts/advertising revenue as well as Fans in the form of tickets/merchandise.

Usually, most businesses answer to a few places if they have bad behavior. First and foremost would be the sources of their income. In the Sabres case, that means their advertisers/TV contract partners and Fans. Second would be any regulating body (In the sabres case NHL and to lesser extent, the NHLPA). Finally they do answer to their employees. In the sabres case, thats front office people and players.

Now, if I were a business and I decided to just start ripping off customers, sell them one thing and deliver another. I'd be out of business quick, right? Consumer protection would step in, Customers would stop leaving, employees would leave.

Now, what have the Sabres done "wrong" here? Are they lying to customers? Are they breaking NHL by laws? Are they mistreating to their employees? I think the stock answers is that "they are intentionally trying to lose", which isn't remotely true. Are the players throwing the puck in their own net? Is the GM calling the coach and telling him to throw games? Is there any incentive to any of the on ice players or coaches NOT to win? The answer to all those is no.

So, since the team on the ice is trying to win, the next step up is that "Are the Sabres fielding a competitive team?" My answer would be no. The Sabres answer would be no. However, this really isn't an issue. And there is 0 problems with that. Take an expansion team for example. No one will blame them for having a bad team. Nobody bats and eye when an expansion team is bad. They started with nothing, right? They have limited ways to acquire new players. And, come to trade deadline, if they have pending UFAs, they are going to trade them, right?

A rebuilding team is very similar to an expansion team. At some point, there is a decision in the ownership and management that the existing "core" of players isn't good enough. Look at the Sabres since Pegula took over:

2010-2011: Sabres made the playoffs as an 8 seed.
Offseason: Sabres went on a spending spree. Regehr, Leino, and Ehrhoff were brought in.
2011-2012: Sabres missed the playoffs by a few points. Gaustad is traded as he is a pending UFA. Kassian is traded for Hodgson
Offseason: Sabres trade Roy for Ott, Sabres agressively pursue free agents Doan (offering him 4 years, 30 million), Suter and Parise (offering both long term deals over 100+ million). They are rebuffed.
2012-2013: Lockout shortened season. Team starts awful. Coach is fired and replaced. Team captain in Pominville is traded as well as Regehr/Leopold. The rebuild begins.
Offseason: No major moves. Regier states that there will be a degree of 'suffering'
2013-2014: More pending UFA moves. Team is clearly the worst team in the NHL. GM and coach are both fired. Vanek, Miller, Ott, McCormick and Moulson are all moved out before the season is over.
Offseason: Team brings in several UFAs with the aim at leadership. Gionta, Moulson, McCormick, Mezaros, Strachan, and Benoit.
2014-2015: Team is still bad. No major front office moves. In probably the first major "building" trade, Buffalo acquires Evander Kane and Bogosion. They move several futures in the deal, as well as Myers and pending UFA stafford. Any remaining pending UFAs that could be moved are moved.

They attempted to augment the team via UFA and trade. Probably harder than any team in the league, offering some plain stupidly big UFA contracts. It. Didn't. Work. They attempted big trades (Spezza at the draft a few years ago). Nothing came of them. After 3 years of making the playoffs once and limited on ice success, it was determined (correctly, in my opinion) that the the team simply was fatally flawed in such a way a total rebuild was needed. No quick fixes would fix this team. They needed to start over. Coaches and GMs were fired. The players were literally all traded for futures. The focus is to build via the draft and augment that core via trade and UFA, rather than trying to build a core via trade and UFA.

It's really simple. The reason the team isn't competitive is the fact that the Sabres are rebuilding. Why was Neuvirth traded? To finish last? No. Because they were last with him, he was a pending UFA, and Murray got offered assets for him. Same with Stewart and same with Mitchell. My guess is that the team wasn't going to qualify Flynn, and he was a pending UFA in their mind as well...so they got an asset for him. There's no moral quandary here. No vast conspiracy to finish at the bottom. Just a rebuilding team that is not very good in their current state.

The Sabres punishment for their non competitive team is clearly in the wallet. They are selling less merchandise, unable to charge as much for tickets, and overall taking a hit financially with their fans and advertisers. However, this is a sacrifice that the front office is willing to make for, in their estimation, rebuilding a team the "right" way. Time will be their judge on whether or not this worked, but for now, they are sticking to their rebuilding plan.

 

[Clock]

Just listening now. I love the line about how the team is in 30th place, our time is the future, and we just added assets to our future. Eloquent way to put it.

 

[Jim Bob]

That is an awesome post Doak.

 

[SatanwasaSlovak]

I mean, what is respect for the game of hockey? Before the draft was instituted, players were just signed by the team with the most money like the Canadians or Maple Leafs. If there was a draft in place in 1962, I'm sure the Rangers and Bruins would've tried to tank to get Bobby Orr. It was only 12 years ago that the Red Wings, Rangers, Maple Leafs, and Flyers just signed anybody they wanted because their owners had the most money. Was that disrespect for the game of hockey? Did we deserve them more because we worked harder? Did we get those great free agents? Does anyone care or remember now? Hell no, we didn't have the cash so we didn't get them.

In life nobody remembers the victims and losers. They only remember the winners. The 1999 Dallas Stars are Stanley Cup Winners and the 1999 Buffalo Sabres are Stanley Cup Losers. The 2015 New England Patriots are Super Bowl Winners and that will be in the record book until the end of time.

My best answer to your concern about ethics is, I get it, I know it's a thin line, but I don't care. It's not outright cheating, and I'd argue it's not even that shady. The positive end-result FAR outweighs the negative end-result. Champions do whatever it takes to be champions. The idea that Penguins fans have a bad taste in their mouth from 1983 is so absurd you could make a joke about it and everybody would laugh. 1983 is so forgotten it's literally a trivia question.

When we're going on a deep playoff run in 2018 with Connor McDavid or Jack Eichel leading the way for a budding dynasty, and the city is caught up in a fever bigger than 2007, we'll see how bad the taste in your mouth will be.

The thing is, people do remember losers. I became a Buffalo fan the year they went to the Stanley Cup-finals, even though they lost to Dallas Stars.

Why? Because they were a hard-working team, nothing too flashy except for the guy in goal. But still, a team that was easy to like. Why? Because they played with heart, pride and passion to win every game.

And i would assume most of the people here became a fan of the loser-team, because Buffalo has never won the cup. We're all fans of a loser team and became fans of a loser-team, but that doesn't mean we don't have fond memories of those teams.

Let's do something unusual, let's use a wrestling-analogy to make a point. There are bad guys and good guys in wrestling. The bad guys are the ones that do everything to win, they might have passion, hard or be very skilled look no further than Ric Flair, but all in all, they wants to win at any cost. The good guys, stands up for what they believe is right, they try to be morally right, avoid cheating to win even if it's possible.

The problem here is, i see Buffalo, my team since i was a little kid, now stopped trying to do what was right, stopped trying to fight with dignity, honor and pride. Instead they have lowered themselves to tanking (let's get this out of the way, how the **** can you say they don't tank when you the next post cheer on the tank?) in the means of trying to win.

But the problem is, i believe it's just a selling-point from Tim Murray. We don't know if he is capable of building a good team. Tim Murray is a damn rookie who will try something that is hard and neither he or we know if those prospects people talk so fondly about, will become legit NHL-players. We don't know that, and neither does Tim Murray. But it's a selling-point for him to keep his job atleast some years.

I know i was a little bit more hot-headed yesterday, i try to keep my cool but it's hard. Especially when you're downright disgusted about what's going on, and how my fellow fans conduct themselves.

Winning isn't everything. And just because some people don't follow moral-codes, doesn't mean that yourself should avoid following your own.

 

[Gras]

Was it ethical when Gordon Bombay went to the league to force the other teams star player to play for his?

 

[OkimLom]

I have dodged nothing. I've stated repeatedly that it is the obligation of a sports team to do everything it can to win every game it is involved in. That is the ethical axiom I am basing the whole case on, it's in almost every answer I have given.

Can I ask you, WHAT would Buffalo have to do to make everything right? I think we get you don't like what's been done. So what SHOULD be done, because we can't go back. Are you just not going to root for them?

 

[DazedandConfused]

I once scored a goal by throwing it in with a closed fist. I probably should have told the refs what happened, but it ended up being the game winner. I've tried to live life by a higher moral code since that night.

I was a terrible person.

 

[Chainshot]

I couldn't disagree more.

The obligation of a professional sports team is to provide enough entertainment to it's fans to remain financially viable.

An effort to win an individual game is not required. And in plenty of cases doing everything you can to win certain games can be counterproductive to the larger goal of trying to win a championship.

Just like the San Antonio Spurs rest their big three at certain points during the season and every baseball team rests starters to line things up for the post-season, sellers at the NHL trade deadline move players on expiring contracts for future assets to further a rebuild of their roster.

While unfortunate, the shortest distance between where the Sabres were when Tim Murray was named GM to becoming a highly competitive team is the path that Murray has taken the Sabres on.

How many times have the Sabres finished 9th or 10th in the East since they drafted Vanek? How did that help get this team where people want it?

What's the old adage? You can sell two things in sports, wins or hope. Buffalo is selling hope.

As it is, I'm surprised someone can't see the longer term, broader scope here. Dealing UFA's for futures is all about attempting to use the system in place to be better in the longer term.

 

[SeanDog]

The thing is, people do remember losers. I became a Buffalo fan the year they went to the Stanley Cup-finals, even though they lost to Dallas Stars.

Why? Because they were a hard-working team, nothing too flashy except for the guy in goal. But still, a team that was easy to like. Why? Because they played with heart, pride and passion to win every game.

And i would assume most of the people here became a fan of the loser-team, because Buffalo has never won the cup. We're all fans of a loser team and became fans of a loser-team, but that doesn't mean we don't have fond memories of those teams.

Let's do something unusual, let's use a wrestling-analogy to make a point. There are bad guys and good guys in wrestling. The bad guys are the ones that do everything to win, they might have passion, hard or be very skilled look no further than Ric Flair, but all in all, they wants to win at any cost. The good guys, stands up for what they believe is right, they try to be morally right, avoid cheating to win even if it's possible.

The problem here is, i see Buffalo, my team since i was a little kid, now stopped trying to do what was right, stopped trying to fight with dignity, honor and pride. Instead they have lowered themselves to tanking (let's get this out of the way, how the **** can you say they don't tank when you the next post cheer on the tank?) in the means of trying to win.

But the problem is, i believe it's just a selling-point from Tim Murray. We don't know if he is capable of building a good team. Tim Murray is a damn rookie who will try something that is hard and neither he or we know if those prospects people talk so fondly about, will become legit NHL-players. We don't know that, and neither does Tim Murray. But it's a selling-point for him to keep his job atleast some years.

I know i was a little bit more hot-headed yesterday, i try to keep my cool but it's hard. Especially when you're downright disgusted about what's going on, and how my fellow fans conduct themselves.

Winning isn't everything. And just because some people don't follow moral-codes, doesn't mean that yourself should avoid following your own.

You are in the minority if you like a losing team. Do you realize what you are saying? I became a fan of this team when they were good from 05-07, I'll fully admit that I jumped on the bandwagon of those teams 100%. I became a hockey fan because I had a good team to root for in my area, it had nothing to do with their heart, passion, dignity or what have you and everything to do with the fact that they routinely scored more goals than the opponent.

I'm obviously a fan for life at this point and it pains me to see where this team has been since 2007. 2 first round playoff exits aren't exactly successful seasons in my eyes. I could care less if those teams tried their hardest because guess what, there is no award for trying.

Fans all seem to want competitive balance in sports but now they don't want to see teams tank for high picks? Free agency has become a wasteland devoid of elite talent. For bad teams to get good they must lose and lose big to rack up the high picks. Tim Murray has managed this team beautifully thus far doing everything in his power to set the Sabres up for long term success. Whining about what it looks like or the morality of it is completely pointless and unnecessary. If Tim Murray were to build a scrappy 18th overall team he would surely lose his job because Terry Pegula is a smart savvy business owner who clearly didn't let morality stop him from becoming a billionaire.

 

[SoFFacet]

It's really simple. The reason the team isn't competitive is the fact that the Sabres are rebuilding. Why was Neuvirth traded? To finish last? No. Because they were last with him, he was a pending UFA, and Murray got offered assets for him. Same with Stewart and same with Mitchell. My guess is that the team wasn't going to qualify Flynn, and he was a pending UFA in their mind as well...so they got an asset for him. There's no moral quandary here. No vast conspiracy to finish at the bottom. Just a rebuilding team that is not very good in their current state.

While I think it is possible to rebut nearly all criticism of TM's TDL with the asset management argument, that criticism can still be rebutted even if we accept the premise that some moves were made with the intention of decreasing the immediate quality of the team (through the 'best interest of the franchise' argument).

To me the Neuvirth deal is a perfect example. In the first place, TM brought him in because he was young and had another year under contract in which he could be evaluated as a possible goalie to move forward with. He played great. If that were the only factor at play, TM would have tried to extend him. Instead he was shipped, for the *dual purpose* of returning an asset and losing more of the remaining games this year.

The problem here is, i see Buffalo, my team since i was a little kid, now stopped trying to do what was right, stopped trying to fight with dignity, honor and pride. Instead they have lowered themselves to tanking (let's get this out of the way, how the **** can you say they don't tank when you the next post cheer on the tank?) in the means of trying to win.

Well first of all, there are many posters who readily agree that they are tanking, but do not find that to be objectionable since it is in the best interests of the franchise. But second of all, there is no logical connection between what the organization is doing and what certain fans are cheering for.

 

[Karate Johnson*]

who has time for these types of arguments. Sabres fans complaining about finishing last this season.... It's so confusing. Do these fans honestly not understand what's happening? Do they legitimate have a moral objection to tearing the team down?

Because I have a moral objection to stupidity in the name of "trying your best" whatever that means in this context.

I'm morally opposed to not doing something right. I'm morally opposed to not using strategy and maximizing value.

There is an argument here and on the main board that somehow being terrible and finishing last due to mismanagement and incompetence is somehow "better" or more honorable than have a plan that results in the team being very bad in the short term.



It's really helpful in showing who is capable of a certain level of understanding and who isn't.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

My stance is that the Sabres could have liquidated all their assets and still have iced a better team more suited to provide a real challenge to their opponent. Instead they have chosen, in my opinion, a path that leads to the worst possible team by adding absolute junk rather than useful pieces that could be had for the same price or cheaper in an effort to lose as much as possible and draft first. This is not a very controversial take on these boards, the only thing that separates me from almost everybody else here is that I find that approach morally wrong and I would like for the Sabres to represent their logo better.

So the crux of your argument is that since you and Tim Murray have differing opinions on player value he is acting Unethically?

Who died and made you arbiter of the universe? Look up hubris. You're living it.

 

[hizzoner]

The moralizing is too much. Why did TM bring in Bogosian if he was intent on losing with no interest in bettering the team? Neuvirth can be resigned in July if the parties agree. Does someone have inside information that MN was prepared to sign in Buffalo at a discount rather than test the market for maximum bucks? If so what is your source? If not--the discussion is over....Is anyone claiming they were prepared to offer more for our outgoing UFAs? I certainly have not heard of a single credible report--just dreamers who spout from their ivory tower--yes put our star with the concussion back in because he is our best and we must try to move up to 19th place sort of guy...The players try to win each and every game and so does the coach to keep their jobs. The GM must look to winning as many games as possible over a long term--to keep his job. Isn't that the way it is supposed to be?

 

[Nibbler]

Was it ethical when Gordon Bombay went to the league to force the other teams star player to play for his?

You would do the same if you had a chance to get an Adam Banks on your team.

 

[SabresBillsBuffalo]

I once scored a goal by throwing it in with a closed fist. I probably should have told the refs what happened, but it ended up being the game winner. I've tried to live life by a higher moral code since that night.

I was a terrible person.

I once basically took a free kick in the crease in a scrum and buried it low pie.
V
We lost in overtime because a point shot hit my skate and went in. Karma, oh well score sheet doesn't lie.

I think sabres karma will b losing draft lottery but not like it hasn't happened before right

 

[kirby11]

Sounds like Gleason hopped on the "tanking is morally wrong" train as well this morning.

I'm kinda offended that the idiots at TBN get to write about sports for a living.

I think my favorite part was when he said changing the lottery so that the 17th placed team would get it would discourage losing

Ok...so if you sell a good deal of your future assets in an attempt to barely miss out on the playoffs to get the top pick, and don't get him, you have a team with little future promise (cause most of your players are vets), you're stuck near the cap limit, and you don't get the reward.

So you try that over and over again, and instead of building a team that can be good in the long run, you're stuck in a circle of mediocrity (aka the 2008-2011 sabres) with little hope for true future improvement.

Great idea, Buck

 

[Jim Bob]

Sounds like Gleason hopped on the "tanking is morally wrong" train as well this morning.

I'm kinda offended that the idiots at TBN get to write about sports for a living.

I think my favorite part was when he said changing the lottery so that the 17th placed team would get it would discourage losing

Ok...so if you sell a good deal of your future assets in an attempt to barely miss out on the playoffs to get the top pick, and don't get him, you have a team with little future promise (cause most of your players are vets), you're stuck near the cap limit, and you don't get the reward.

So you try that over and over again, and instead of building a team that can be good in the long run, you're stuck in a circle of mediocrity (aka the 2008-2011 sabres) with little hope for true future improvement.

Great idea, Buck

I intended to read what he wrote after his "questions" for Murray yesterday, but I didn't even bother.

The real irony is that he railed against the Rochester core and had his "GM for a Day" columns during the latter stages of Regier's time here.

But, I didn't notice one this off season. I wonder why....

My best guess is that Bucky doesn't want the Sabres to get McDavid or Eichel. If they do, that gives him less ammo to rail against the Sabres and their approach.

And complaining about how the Sabres are running things is his bread and butter.

How will he write columns that grab people if the Sabres turn into the Hawks or Kings or Bruins and are competitive and win a couple of Cups?

 

[ZZamboni]

Gleason will always find some immature, shallow angle to complain about. Why anyone wastes a few minutes of their day reading his thoughts I'll never understand. For me, Gleason and Milbury are in the same boat. I avoid them at all costs.

Don't read Gleason
Mute Milbury

 

[ADoubleD]

I will most likely never be able to walk away from the Sabres completely. They are too much ingrained into my personal life story to walk away. I really wish I could most days, but in some form the Sabres will always be a part of my identity. I understand that people do not put the same stock in what the Sabres mean as I do, that is quite obvious from the vast majority of posts on these boards. I don't pretend to have any illusions that anyone will change their mind and descend on the FNC with torches and pitchforks because of what I have to say. I guess I am trying to show how there can be people who are against the tank, even with McEichel at stake.

And you misunderstand if you think my stance is that we must win now. I would be perfectly fine with the Sabres losing for 40 more years, as long as they honor the team, the fans, the city and the game of hockey and always do everything in their power to be the best hockey team they can be. And yes, I understand that some feel that in order to be the best you can be you must lose first and draft McDavid. I disagree, that is being bad so you can be handed something rather than work for it.

Yes, building the best hockey team in the world is very hard. And yes, it becomes easier if you just sort of not try for a little bit and take a handout or two. But that is an upfront to everything I am looking for in a sports team. If and when the Sabres win the Stanley Cup I want it to be because they have worked better and smarter than everyone else and ascended to the top of the hockey world, not because they took the easiest route. To me, these principles are far more important than any one single player could ever be.

I'm just confused as to what constitutes earning a top pick and what doesn't? Because sports have always given top picks to the worst teams or if they have a lottery the worst teams still have the best odds of winning it. So in that system what to you constitutes earning the pick? Complete incompetence and mismanagement like the Oilers or the Isles when they got Tavares? Having a bad but not terrible year, getting lucky and winning the lottery? Just being plain bad? Trading away players to acquire assets to build for the future and being bad as a byproduct?

I really don't get how any of those options "earns" a top pick anymore than the others.

 

[CrankyJay]

Sounds like Gleason hopped on the "tanking is morally wrong" train as well this morning.

I'm kinda offended that the idiots at TBN get to write about sports for a living.

I think my favorite part was when he said changing the lottery so that the 17th placed team would get it would discourage losing

Ok...so if you sell a good deal of your future assets in an attempt to barely miss out on the playoffs to get the top pick, and don't get him, you have a team with little future promise (cause most of your players are vets), you're stuck near the cap limit, and you don't get the reward.

So you try that over and over again, and instead of building a team that can be good in the long run, you're stuck in a circle of mediocrity (aka the 2008-2011 sabres) with little hope for true future improvement.

Great idea, Buck

The Sabres being good is bad for the newspaper business. Sports writers don't get to sound original or clever cheering on a winning team, because the message will be the same across most writers. Instead, when a team is losing as miserably as the Sabres, they get afforded some leeway to be hypercritical or players, coaches, and ownership.

 

[Mattilaus]

Tank is a myth:

Players are doing their best to play
Coach is doing his best to coach
Manager is doing his best to Manage

Just because the manager's timeline and strategy doesn't match that of the Coach or Players doesn't mean he is deliberately being a poor manager.

 

[ADoubleD]

I don't know or care how Pens fans feel. I know that I will not take joy from the Sabres winning the cup with McEichel as a key contributing factor.

I know this will make your 'head explode' to hear, but to try to put it into something you can relate to. Try to imagine that the Sabres all season long blatantly broke some sort of ethical rule that was very important to you personally. To the point where the actions of the team you love makes you sick. I know you don't feel that way about the way the rebuild has been conducted, but try to imagine that something like that would happen.

That is how this year has played out for me, and continuous to play out. I say with some confidence that I love the Sabres as deeply as anyone on this board, but the way they are going about drafting high is completely revolting to me. It's a source of daily disappointment and disgust.

How do you think you would feel if the team you love is a team you can't morally make yourself get behind? It has made me more than a little salty. But who cares right? It is just me throwing a childish tantrum.

I just don't get why you hate Murray because of these things. The team was made terrible by Darcy. Darcy's mismanagement and bad acquisitions are what put the team in a situation to even consider having to blow up the team. Darcy is the one who traded at the time of the trade, our only proven top 6 center in Roy for a 3rd line grinder in Ott. He's also the one who traded away Pominville, Vanek, and Gaustad for futures and Matt Moulson. He signed Ville Leino and counted on him to be a top 6 center. Darcy is the one who traded for Hodgson, and then went into two straight seasons counting on Hodgson and Tyler Ennis to be the team's top 6 centers. Darcy hired an absolutely awful coach in Ron Rolston who was not only keeping the team from winning, but hurting players' development.

This team is as awful as it is because of moves made by Darcy Regeir plain and simple. The major moves were already made by time Murray got here. The only major pieces Murray has moved have been Miller and Myers. Miller wasn't resigning with us, Murray got pretty good value for him, and honestly his replacements haven't been much of a drop off from him if at all. Myers was moved in a hockey trade along with other pieces to bring in two pretty good players so that's not a tank move at all. Murray was handed a team of garbage and is doing the best he can and what he views to be the smart plan.

The only moves Murray has made that truly have "made the team worse" have been him dumping pending UFAs near to or at the deadline. None of those guys were part of the long term future here, or if Murray likes them they might be able to be resigned as free agents in the offseason. But if Murray is willing to move them for futures that aren't even close to "knock your socks off" types of deals, then clearly he isn't overly concerned if he isn't able to get them back later on. Murray has not dumped any guy who has a part to play in this team's success going forward. If he had traded guys like Moulson or Ennis yesterday, guys whose most recent deals he signed, for somewhat meh returns then I could understand people being annoyed and maybe even angry. But he didn't do that, he traded away pending UFA scrubs who he clearly doesn't view as being part of the team's success going forward.

This rebuild has been going on for a few years now. We have had to endure two looong years of bad and boring hockey, they are currently in last place in the league, and are 19 games away from potentially getting a franchise changing/defining player. Why hang onto 4th liners, average and replaceable goalies, and other similar players who have no part in your team's future to try to win a few more meaningless games? Why wouldn't you trade those guys away to give yourself the best shot possible at getting the top pick since you are already in last place? If we were sitting in 23-25 place too far back to make the playoffs, and also too far ahead to finish last, and we had made these moves there wouldn't be a peep out of anyone.

But since we're already in last place, doing what all bad teams do at the deadline is apparently morally wrong, and should make us be embarrassed and feel shame. I mean let's consider this in a lost season we could either have Chris Stewart, Torrey Mitchell, and Brian Flynn, who we all know what we have in him, play and maybe help us win a few more games and then leave in offseason. Or we could trade them, and now we can give guys like Varone, Schaller, Grigorenko, Larsson, Dalpe etc. extended looks in the NHL and see what we've got in them. I'd consider the latter along with getting a franchise player bigger priorities than winning a few meaningless games to appease a fringe section of the fanbase and the local newspaper's sports writers.

Also I'll ask this what could Murray realistically have done last offseason to markedly improve the team going forward? The guys we did add all came here because in one form or another they had some connection to either the team, the area, or Murray himself. There really weren't all that many difference makers or impact players available in free agency, and the ones that were available most likely weren't signing here anyways. Also what big names were available via trade that would've made sense and been good fits for the team at the time? Not really anyone. I wholeheartedly believe that if a guy like Seguin had been available last summer, and Murray had had the assets to make it happen he would've. But that type of guy wasn't available so Murray didn't waste assets on a guy like Spezza when he didn't have the team to justify making that type of acquisition.

 

[ADoubleD]

Sounds like Gleason hopped on the "tanking is morally wrong" train as well this morning.

I'm kinda offended that the idiots at TBN get to write about sports for a living.

I think my favorite part was when he said changing the lottery so that the 17th placed team would get it would discourage losing

Ok...so if you sell a good deal of your future assets in an attempt to barely miss out on the playoffs to get the top pick, and don't get him, you have a team with little future promise (cause most of your players are vets), you're stuck near the cap limit, and you don't get the reward.

So you try that over and over again, and instead of building a team that can be good in the long run, you're stuck in a circle of mediocrity (aka the 2008-2011 sabres) with little hope for true future improvement.

Great idea, Buck

I think his idea was to just award the top pick in some way or fashion, but now that I say that I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't just arbitrarily say 17 and meant it exactly. Because in his mind that's rewarding a team for working hard to make the playoffs and just missing them when in reality you would still face similar problems as today. Bubble playoff teams who are looking at a 1st round and out would try to align themselves to land there and so on and so forth.

I don't really see any way to eliminate what some call "tanking", or others call rebuilding through the draft by getting top picks. Even with the top 3 picks being lottery picks next year, the worst teams still have the best odds of winning the lotteries, and at worst would pick fourth overall. You truly want to stop teams from trying to do what the Sabres are doing than you probably need to make it so that last place isn't even guaranteed a top 5 or top 10 pick. Point is there is no perfect system. I saw someone suggest that all draft eligible players are just tossed into a free agency, and teams can sign whoever they want. I think that might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard because some teams will never be able to get top players unless they get lucky.