Bucky Gleason STILL DOESN'T GET IT!

[BillsSabresB.C.T. Fan]

Now, the Sabres are back in the game.

The contract extension was critical on many fronts. For once, it didn’t take the Sabres an hour to make minute rice. The deal was done 18 days after they were eligible to begin negotiations. There were no lowball offers, no botching of tentative agreements, no animosity, no jerking around a star player, no distractions.

It was a grand departure from business practices that led to Chris Drury and Daniel Briere bolting, Brian Campbell getting traded and the franchise landing on its ear. By golly, maybe they’ve finally learned their lesson.

Miller wanted to remain here. The Sabres showed they were committed to keeping him. Everybody’s satisfied.

See how easy it can work?

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/sabresnhl/story/395085.html

[SabreEleven]

Sounds like Bucky is actually talking positive about the Sabres for once granted the Sabres gave him something to talk about....I'm not sure why you are dogging Bucky here...

[Nighthawk]

Honestly, Bucky is one of the few good reporters in this town. A good reporter is not supposed to kiss the ass of the organizations that he covers. The only person who doesn't seem to get it is you.

[Dr. Lecter]

Honestly, Bucky is one of the few good reporters in this town. A good reporter is not supposed to kiss the ass of the organizations that he covers. The only person who doesn't seem to get it is you.

He is crap who reports half of the story and tells half of the truth.

There is a shining lack of good reporters in this one newspaper town. Good reporters also don't ***** non-stop and act holier than thou at all times.

[Ebenezer]

He is crap who reports half of the story and tells half of the truth.

There is a shining lack of good reporters in this one newspaper town. Good reporters also don't ***** non-stop and act holier than thou at all times.
I have no problem with Bucky on this one. The funny thing is at one time we had Felser, Kelley and what's his name that writes for the NFL (sorry, brain cramp)...and now we have Sully and the boys?? ick.

[Nighthawk]

He is crap who reports half of the story and tells half of the truth.

There is a shining lack of good reporters in this one newspaper town. Good reporters also don't ***** non-stop and act holier than thou at all times.

And isn't that what you get from the FO? Just asking...

[Dr. Lecter]

I have no problem with Bucky on this one. The funny thing is at one time we had Felser, Kelley and what's his name that writes for the NFL (sorry, brain cramp)...and now we have Sully and the boys?? ick.

Carucci.

And this article is fine.

It is the rest of his articles that are crap. He has the sign everybody attitude. Give everybody what they ask for attitude.

Being critical is one thing. I like my journalists to be able to have balance. He does not.

[Nighthawk]

Carucci.

And this article is fine.

It is the rest of his articles that are crap. He has the sign everybody attitude. Give everybody what they ask for attitude.

Being critical is one thing. I like my journalists to be able to have balance. He does not.

You're leaving out one very important point about his articles...they've been all true! Everything he's reported, about Briere being had for less money, for Drury accepting an offer and the FO screwing it up and Campbell willing to take less money...it's all true! I'm missing how that is bad reporting?

[Dr. Lecter]

You're leaving out one very important point about his articles...they've been all true! Everything he's reported, about Briere being had for less money, for Drury accepting an offer and the FO screwing it up and Campbell willing to take less money...it's all true! I'm missing how that is bad reporting?

True based on what? His reporting? I am not saying they are not true, don't get me wrong. But all we have had on those stories is his reporting (the problem of a one paper town)

And, even if it is all true, they probably could have kept ONE of those players (Drury - Something Quinn himself said Friday)

It is also ALL he writes about. Ever. Any Sabres article goes back to Drury and Briere. We know that story (as he reports it). But not every single Sabres story needs to mention it.

His personal attacks on Max is another. He is not playing well in the playoffs because he broke up with his girlfriend? Huh? That was either wrong or a lie, since Max had a concussion and even if it was true has no place on the sports page.

Finally, he is an ass in PCs. Ask tough questions. Don't be an ass and ask leading questions.

One more thing - his reporting during the Gerbe and Kennedy negotiations sucked. It was bash, bash, bash. Guess the Sabres did sign the guys. Making an offer not at the max to start negotiating is not low-balling. Starting off with a max offer is stupid.

It is almost as annoying as Sully's obsession with Tom Donahoe.

[Nighthawk]

True based on what? His reporting? I am not saying they are not true, don't get me wrong. But all we have had on those stories is his reporting (the problem of a one paper town)

And, even if it is all true, they probably could have kept ONE of those players (Drury - Something Quinn himself said Friday)

It is also ALL he writes about. Ever. Any Sabres article goes back to Drury and Briere. We know that story (as he reports it). But not every single Sabres story needs to mention it.

His personal attacks on Max is another. He is not playing well in the playoffs because he broke up with his girlfriend? Huh? That was either wrong or a lie, since Max had a concussion and even if it was true has no place on the sports page.

Finally, he is an ass in PCs. Ask tough questions. Don't be an ass and ask leading questions.

One more thing - his reporting during the Gerbe and Kennedy negotiations sucked. It was bash, bash, bash. Guess the Sabres did sign the guys. Making an offer not at the max to start negotiating is not low-balling. Starting off with a max offer is stupid.

It is almost as annoying as Sully's obsession with Tom Donahoe.

I'll agree on some points, but the fact is this FO is pretty pathetic. They really do seem to be a bit clueless or they just may not be interested in winning a cup. Either way, you can't believe everything you read or you're told. Have you ever seen the movie "Vantage Point"? If not, go out and rent it...it's pretty interesting in the fact that people believe whatever they see from their vantage point...no matter if it is fact. It really stirs you to think that maybe people should question what they're told a little more than we do. Very good movie.

[Ebenezer]

I'll agree on some points, but the fact is this FO is pretty pathetic. They really do seem to be a bit clueless or they just may not be interested in winning a cup.

or do they perceive that icing a team for a longer period of time is more important. Let's revisit.

The FO does exactly what the fans want. They resign DB, CD and BC for $5 mil a year for five years. I would assume they would still have matched the Vanek deal and signed Miller. So now you have five players making about $28 million of your cap. Please tell me who you put around these five players with your remaining $22 million. You need to give me nine more forwards and six more defensemen. And remember to include any buyouts (dead cap) of contracts that you make. Good luck.

[Philagape]

or do they perceive that icing a team for a longer period of time is more important. Let's revisit.

The FO does exactly what the fans want. They resign DB, CD and BC for $5 mil a year for five years. I would assume they would still have matched the Vanek deal and signed Miller. So now you have five players making about $28 million of your cap. Please tell me who you put around these five players with your remaining $22 million. You need to give me nine more forwards and six more defensemen. And remember to include any buyouts (dead cap) of contracts that you make. Good luck.

Let the Oilers have Vanek.

[SabreEleven]

Vanek should have been signed before the Oilers could have offered that contract...

[Ebenezer]

Vanek should have been signed before the Oilers could have offered that contract...
why would he? he does have an agent who knew exactly what he was doing.

[Ebenezer]

Let the Oilers have Vanek.
there was no way they were going to do that....but you still need to fill out the rest of the team....and in three years when DB and CD are ineffective who is going to score goals?

[Philagape]

there was no way they were going to do that....but you still need to fill out the rest of the team....and in three years when DB and CD are ineffective who is going to score goals?

We're talking about what we would have done, right?
What makes you think they'd be ineffective in their early 30s? That's still in their prime. Not to mention their leadership.

[Ebenezer]

We're talking about what we would have done, right?
What makes you think they'd be ineffective in their early 30s? That's still in their prime. Not to mention their leadership.
List your team.

[Philagape]

List your team.

For 08-09? And give me some time.

[SabreEleven]

For 08-09? And give me some time.

Hurry up, Darcy.

[Dr. Lecter]

Vanek should have been signed before the Oilers could have offered that contract...

They tried and Vanek's agent would not talk.

That came from both the Sabres and Vanek's agent.

They can't force him to sign.

[Philagape]

PLAYER CAP
Drury 5.5
Briere 5
Roy 4
Hecht 3.525
Afinogenov 3.333
Connolly 2.9
Kotalik 2.333
Gaustad 2.3
Paille 1.125
Pominville 1.033
Stafford 0.984
Mair 0.758
Peters 0.525
MacArthur 0.522
Kaleta 0.491

Rivet 3.5
Spacek 3.333
Lydman 2.875
Tallinder 2.563
Paetsch 0.85
Weber 0.75
Sekera 0.675

Miller 2.667
Lalime 1

52.542

If this is my team, I work with the entire NHL cap. And I'd intend to trade Max.

[raphael120]

It is also ALL he writes about. Ever. Any Sabres article goes back to Drury and Briere. We know that story (as he reports it). But not every single Sabres story needs to mention it.
.

Name one Sabres fan who doesn't bring up Drury and Briere when talking about the current sabres and them missing the playoffs. everyone does, it's not just the sports writer.

[Dr. Lecter]

If this is my team, I work with the entire NHL cap. And I'd intend to trade Max.

Quite honestly, I would rather have Vanek than Briere at this point in thier careers by quite a wide margin.

As for being all the way to the cap, that is not how businesses are always run and it gives a team no flexibility.

As for the Briere and Drury salaries, you are assuming that could happen and are ignoring their ages and only thinking about now and not two-three years down the line.

But you fit those two in under the cap, at least in theory. Although next year will be a mess once Miller's deal kicks in and (maybe) Pominville unless you let them walk.

[Philagape]

Yeah, I am thinking about now, because under them, the now was legit Cup contention, and I was willing to make sacrifices in the future to keep that run going as long as possible. I don't want to be mediocre now so we can be mediocre in the future.
Of course it would end sometime, probably next year. But at least then it would have been four years of making a legit run instead of two.
As for their ages, their deals would have ended with them in the 32-33 range, which is not too old.
And I wasn't all the way to the cap ... there was about $4 million left.

[SABuffalo786]

Bucky Gleason > Losman Wins

[CuseJetsFan83]

when are people going to learn, if they aren't from buffalo, losman wins will never support them!!

as far as gleason goes, he may not say the corporate kissass type of comment, but he does tell it like it is..... as much as the truth hurts sometimes.

[Ebenezer]

PLAYER CAP
Drury 5.5
Briere 5
Roy 4
Hecht 3.525
Afinogenov 3.333
Connolly 2.9
Kotalik 2.333
Gaustad 2.3
Paille 1.125
Pominville 1.033
Stafford 0.984
Mair 0.758
Peters 0.525
MacArthur 0.522
Kaleta 0.491

Rivet 3.5
Spacek 3.333
Lydman 2.875
Tallinder 2.563
Paetsch 0.85
Weber 0.75
Sekera 0.675

Miller 2.667
Lalime 1

52.542

If this is my team, I work with the entire NHL cap. And I'd intend to trade Max.
Nice job. A couple of problems at first look...

1. Miller's extension. It has to fit into next years cap which is the same as this years cap. The NHL doesn't work like the NFL.

2. How does your cap conform to past years? You are working with 2008 cap numbers. You would have had to shed some salaries to meet the 2006 and 2007 cap years.

3. You overspent the internal cap by $2million - trading Max would solve that.

4. You have no room in the future cap years to extend Pommers now. That means he walks at years end probably.

My major disagreement is the loss of Vanek. The way you listed that team it is pretty gutted after the 2009 playoffs. Who you going to have around?

[BillsSabresB.C.T. Fan]

when are people going to learn, if they aren't from buffalo, losman wins will never support them!!

as far as gleason goes, he may not say the corporate kissass type of comment, but he does tell it like it is..... as much as the truth hurts sometimes.

When Jim Kelley was writing Sabres columns for the Buffalo News he wouldn't go afer the Sabres FO like Bucky does. He would go after the players like Hasek. One incident I can remember During the 1996-97 playoffs series against Ottawa in game 3 Hasek left the ice in the middle of the game because he heard a pop in his knee and he skated to the bench and went to the locker room forcing backup Steve Sheilds to come in. The next day Kelley wrote a column in the Buffalo News that Hasek was "faking it". After game five of the series Kelley approched Hasek for an interview and Hasek jumped him and almost tore his whole shirt off. Kelley also did go after Muckler sometimes when he was coach and also when he was the GM in his column. But Kelley wouldn't go on and on about Briere and Drury either he would move on and write about something else about the Sabres in next Sunday's column. Kelley was a classy hockey writer and either it was a contract dispute or Kelley decided to part ways on his own the Buffalo News was wrong to let this guy go!

Also Bucky is from Buffalo, and I did used to like him when he first came to the Buffalo News that's before he became such a hardass.

[Ebenezer]

Nice job. A couple of problems at first look...

1. Miller's extension. It has to fit into next years cap which is the same as this years cap. The NHL doesn't work like the NFL.

2. How does your cap conform to past years? You are working with 2008 cap numbers. You would have had to shed some salaries to meet the 2006 and 2007 cap years.

3. You overspent the internal cap by $2million - trading Max would solve that.

4. You have no room in the future cap years to extend Pommers now. That means he walks at years end probably.

My major disagreement is the loss of Vanek. The way you listed that team it is pretty gutted after the 2009 playoffs. Who you going to have around?
bump

[Philagape]

Nice job. A couple of problems at first look...

1. Miller's extension. It has to fit into next years cap which is the same as this years cap. The NHL doesn't work like the NFL. Connolly, Max, Spacek, Kotalik and others will be FAs then, so I assume they wouldn't count unless they get re-signed. They're not under contract for next season.

2. How does your cap conform to past years? You are working with 2008 cap numbers. You would have had to shed some salaries to meet the 2006 and 2007 cap years. I don't know. I'm not going to go back and see what the salaries were back then, since I wouldn't even know where to look. Some would be different, like Roy, since it was before his extension. No Rivet, no Lalime, etc.

3. You overspent the internal cap by $2million - trading Max would solve that. I don't care about the internal cap. My team, my budget, like I said.

4. You have no room in the future cap years to extend Pommers now. That means he walks at years end probably. See #1.

My major disagreement is the loss of Vanek. The way you listed that team it is pretty gutted after the 2009 playoffs. Who you going to have around? Yeah, it'll be gutted, but then it would be four years of going for a Cup instead of two, and because there'll be no choice. And we rebuild using four of Edmonton's #1s. That's easier to swallow.

[Ebenezer]

The breakdown in your roster is with point #2. You had to conform to the old salary cap. There was probably no way to CD and DB the money they wanted and still keep all the players you wanted to keep. After the Carolina run the internal cap was like $40 mil. You would have had to get rid of other players - like Roy. Rivet and Lalime have no bearing on this discussion. You cannot have a discussion on the make up of the 2008 roster without looking back to the 2006 cap.

You have to work with the internal cap. Anybody can play fantasy manager. I wanted a list of players that would have been able to fit under the restraints the team is placed under. If you are unable to do that then the point of the exercise is moot. And if it is moot you cannot argue how the team should have conducted its business.

4 #1's?? Big deal. Most of them will never have a significant impact in the league. Edmonton got 4 #1's for Gretzky...I am in no way comparing Vanek to Gretzky but those four players didn't help them one iota. The pressure on Gelinas was insane and he was marginal at best.

[Philagape]

The whole discussion is about priorities, and keeping the right players. Of course the entire 2006 roster couldn't be left intact, so priorities had to be set. Mine are well-known, and so far have shown to be correct considering what happened to the team last season. I can't be more specific without all the 2006/07 numbers for each player.
For the 2006-07 season, Briere got what he wanted anyway (5 mil), so no difference there.

The restraints the team "is placed under" are self-imposed, and therefore fair game. The words "internal cap" mean absolutely nothing to me, and I'll say anything I want about it. Having an "internal cap" is part of the problem, and I don't care about the excuses.

How well any draft pick does depends on how well the team drafts.

[Ebenezer]

The whole discussion is about priorities, and keeping the right players. Of course the entire 2006 roster couldn't be left intact, so priorities had to be set. Mine are well-known, and so far have shown to be correct considering what happened to the team last season. I can't be more specific without all the 2006/07 numbers for each player.
For the 2006-07 season, Briere got what he wanted anyway (5 mil), so no difference there.

The restraints the team "is placed under" are self-imposed, and therefore fair game. The words "internal cap" mean absolutely nothing to me, and I'll say anything I want about it. Having an "internal cap" is part of the problem, and I don't care about the excuses.

How well any draft pick does depends on how well the team drafts.
And again, you are not "playing by the rules". We can do that for any team.