HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Buffalo Sabres (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Proposal: Pegula signature move? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1322657)

SabresFanNorthPortFL 01-13-2013 06:15 PM

Pegula signature move?
 
It's his team but Regier is the GM. Will Pegula make a signature move happen? Will Regier be capable of constructing said move?

It's no secret that Regier loves his players, and has not shown a willingness to trade a player when it appears said player might be better traded. Connolly should have been sent packing sooner, as should have Roy. I look at Vanek and the way Ruff uses him and think might he be sent packing???

Anyway, going on 2 years with Pegula in charge and no signature move. Is it time? With Hecht back is it sort of status quo??? Yes, Roy/Ott but where is the move to bring in a real winner??? Same leaders that never have shown a true win at all cost mentality...26, 29, 21, 55. We're counting on these guys to win and be good examples....is it time to sacrifice one youngster, one of 26-29-21, and a pick and bring in a stud???? Is it time to tell Regier to address this need and forget about having to "win" the trade because the guy you bring in will posativelly change the makeup/attitude of the team? Or do we trust Regier and the kids?????

Signature or not?

ZZamboni 01-13-2013 06:23 PM

What you think is a "signature move" may not be what others view as a "signature move". And visa versa. What, in your eyes is considered it? Explain your definition of a "signature move".

Stop Winnin 01-13-2013 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SabresFanNorthPortFL (Post 57549937)
It's his team but Regier is the GM. Will Pegula make a signature move happen? Will Regier be capable of constructing said move?

It's no secret that Regier loves his players, and has not shown a willingness to trade a player when it appears said player might be better traded. Connolly should have been sent packing sooner, as should have Roy. I look at Vanek and the way Ruff uses him and think might he be sent packing???

Anyway, going on 2 years with Pegula in charge and no signature move. Is it time? With Hecht back is it sort of status quo??? Yes, Roy/Ott but where is the move to bring in a real winner??? Same leaders that never have shown a true win at all cost mentality...26, 29, 21, 55. We're counting on these guys to win and be good examples....is it time to sacrifice one youngster, one of 26-29-21, and a pick and bring in a stud???? Is it time to tell Regier to address this need and forget about having to "win" the trade because the guy you bring in will posativelly change the makeup/attitude of the team? Or do we trust Regier and the kids?????

Signature or not?

If it improves our hockey team, sure. I'm all for trading one of Pominville, Vanek, Stafford, etc if it will improve our hockey team.

It's not like Darcy can just go out and wave his magic wand to trade one of our players for some guy who will bring us a cup.

Cannonball0828 01-13-2013 06:26 PM

It's not as easy as you make it seem. "bringing in a stud" is no simple task, if another team has a "stud" that they want to trade, they are going to want a "stud" back in return. If you look at the past few years, very very few of these trades go down.

littletonhockeycoach 01-13-2013 06:28 PM

My 2 cents worth are Pegula bucks will work best when the team shows it is playoff capable and ready to seriously challenge for SC.

And that's when and how you attract the talent that puts your team over the top. Not before.

Dressing rooms and low cost of living are nice add on attractions. But it's about winning the big prize.

With the kids in the pipeline, we won't have long to wait.

Old Navy Goat 01-13-2013 06:29 PM

Here I thought Terry's move was the robot with Teddy and Darcy doing some gangnam style in the background.

When I think of signature moves, the only real ones that pop to mind in the Sabres' history were Turgeon for LaFontaine, Housley for Hawerchuk or Scottie's let's swap everyone but Perreault for Detroit's team. You could argue that the Hoff and Leino signings were signature moves, as it showed the NHL that the Sabres had a new sheriff in town and the status quo was no mas.

Duddy 01-13-2013 06:31 PM

didn't we have this thread last offseason as well?

SabresFanNorthPortFL 01-13-2013 06:44 PM

I agree with the youth movement, and that it's not easy to trade but over the past few years guys like Kessel (don't want any part of the two first trade), Carter, Nash, Richards, Kovalchuk, Hossa, James Neal, Nathan Horton...to name a few were all traded.

Again, not easy but it can be done. Signature trade....Pomms for Ryan o'Reily to keep youthful. Of course B Ryan. We traded for LaFontain in his prime, trades happen.

Shoey 01-13-2013 07:53 PM

The way teams in this league win is by developing their own talent and adding a piece when it becomes available. It's not like the Sabres aren't trying to be active in the free agent market, wasn't it reported that they offered Parise and Suter even more money than the Wild did?

Change the culture, and eventually great players will want to play here. It's really as simple as that.

Myllz 01-13-2013 08:07 PM

Well, he did put a fireplace in the locker room.

Old Navy Goat 01-13-2013 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myllz (Post 57555435)
Well, he did put a fireplace in the locker room.

You can't forget the juice bar and espresso machines...he's the antithesis of the villainess from Major League

vcv 01-13-2013 11:43 PM

Why the emphasis on a signature move? Is that what will make the team into an actual contender on a consistent basis? No.

While I don't think he's done a perfect job, I like that he's focusing on the big picture and the long game a lot. He's aiming to change the culture inside and out. That can't be done with just a trade or GM/Coach.

Besides, you don't go for the home runs unless it gives you a really good chance AND you can recover from it if it fails. This team isn't there yet and it might take longer than most fans want to wait.

sba 01-14-2013 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcv (Post 57564315)
Why the emphasis on a signature move? Is that what will make the team into an actual contender on a consistent basis? No.

SEE: Kessel, Phil

Rob Paxon 01-14-2013 02:44 AM

I just remembered that whole 'signature move' thing from WGR and puked in my mouth. Pegula's signature move won't have anything to do with the roster because that's silly. His signature moves: buying the Amerks, arena renovations, buying the adjacent lot, opening up the purse strings for hockey operations.

Chainshot 01-14-2013 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcv (Post 57564315)
Why the emphasis on a signature move? Is that what will make the team into an actual contender on a consistent basis? No.

While I don't think he's done a perfect job, I like that he's focusing on the big picture and the long game a lot. He's aiming to change the culture inside and out. That can't be done with just a trade or GM/Coach.

Besides, you don't go for the home runs unless it gives you a really good chance AND you can recover from it if it fails. This team isn't there yet and it might take longer than most fans want to wait.

Building on this:

People point to the Wings as the model for teams. Detroit took 13 years from drafting Yzerman to get to their first Cup win in decades. Their "culture of winning" took a great deal of floundering after Illitch took over -- they were trying to reverse a decade of incompetience the level of which Buffalo has never experienced. Putting the hockey department back in order, putting in ammenities and treating his staff well will take years to reverse some of the stigma 15-ish years of miserly treatment at the hands of various owners.

As for most "signature moves" in terms of personnel, there is having the talent to make the deal and someone having a need elsewhere to make such a deal. And there is also the risk appetite for the GM to pull of a re-defining trade. They don't yet have the talent, nor do they seem to have a GM with risk appetite, so even if they can find someone who may want to make a deal, it may not matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Paxon (Post 57567447)
I just remembered that whole 'signature move' thing from WGR and puked in my mouth. Pegula's signature move won't have anything to do with the roster because that's silly. His signature moves: buying the Amerks, arena renovations, buying the adjacent lot, opening up the purse strings for hockey operations.

I was thinking his signature move was buying the team too.

SackTastic 01-14-2013 06:14 AM

'Signature move' is a term that talk radio fans use. It does't mean anything.

HiddenInLight 01-14-2013 06:39 AM

Does he need a "signature move?" Honestly? I don't really think so. I think this is a concept based on wishful thinking. I understand that every fan wants a blockbuster trade for a superstar, but TBH its hard to say that the lack of one is a failure. BTW. A signature move is something you'd only be able to designate years after IMO. So asking for it now is kind of pointless.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.