Unpopular premise

Want to see a blogger become unpopular in no time?

Here's one method - suggest that Darcy Regier is not the source of all of the Buffalo Sabres' problems, and that firing him at the end of the current season is no sure cure.

Here goes.

The Sabres have been a major disappointment again this season. Hopes were high when Terry Pegula bought the team, but so far the franchise hasn't been able to capitalize on the new approach and turn it into wins - or more to the point, playoff wins. A few players have been sent packing recently for various reasons, so the roster is more or less out of scapegoats there. Coach Lindy Ruff was sacrificed to the hockey gods earlier this season. That has helped a little in terms of won-loss record, but a playoff berth seems unlikely.

Housecleanings of the front office are always popular. They are a sign of action, and people like action in such circumstances. The media members like it, because it creates news. Fans like it, because everyone likes to play general manager ... although I don't think actually being one would be the least amount of fun.

Appropriate here? Much harder to say. Let's ask some questions.

What's the easiest way to get fired as a general manager? Not get along with the people above you, naturally. Ask John Muckler. Heck, ask Scotty Bowman, who drastically changed the team's front office culture and is still hated for it. We've had a variety of people involved in Sabres' ownership since Regier arrived in 1997. They all seem to think that Regier has done a good enough job to hang on to his position, and done it in a variety of circumstances - from bankruptcy to unlimited riches. A lot of people who see him work on a daily basis, up close, have been impressed. He's been a good soldier, taking the blame for organizational faults at times. Stability is also a virtue, and he's certainly provided that over the years. That's all worth something.

How is his record? The answer is mixed. It looks as if the team is about to go two straight seasons without making the playoffs, and six straight seasons without winning a playoff series. That's not a good sign, and some may want to stop here and show Regier the door. But the team was in the conference finals in two seasons before that, and probably was one healthy defenseman away in 2006 from winning the Stanley Cup. Before that, there were three years of sitting home in late April, and nothing but playoff appearances before that. It's not consistent excellence like the Detroit Red Wings' ledger, but it's not the Columbus Blue Jackets.

Are there extenuating circumstances? Absolutely. Bankruptcy is never a good sign, and we'll never know what working conditions were like in that era. We do know that a few years later under actual owners, the Sabres cut way back on their scouting budget and watched prospects through video. While the technique was rationalized at the time, it's tough to believe it didn't play a part in the team's problems for the past few years. In other words, the Sabres could be paying for it now.

How have Regier's transactions gone? Stay long enough, and you'll have some successes and failures. This month's housecleaning brought in several high draft choices that could turn out to be helpful in a few years. Know anyone who didn't like Cody Hodgson and Alexander Sulzer for Zack Kassian and Marc-Andre Gragnani? A first-round pick for Paul Gaustad? The original Robyn Regehr traded was helpful. Then again, deals for Brad Boyes and Raffi Torres didn't work out. And so on down through the years. Rarely, though, has a trade been announced and fans thought, "Just what was Darcy thinking there?" Regier supposedly is rather cautious in his negotiations and can be difficult to deal with, but it's hard to know just how true that is unless you are on the phone talking trade or contract with him.

How about free agent signings? Swings and misses. Christian Ehrhoff wasn't a bad pick-up. Ville Leino hasn't worked out so far. You get the idea. Hockey players peak at 25 or 26 for the most part, and free agents become available at 27. You never know how fast they'll slide, and teams often pay for past production that isn't duplicated.

And the ones that got away? I'm not willing to blame Regier for the loss of Chris Drury and Danny Briere once upon a time. Ownership didn't take a pro-active approach to those moves and let them get away. To be fair, Drury and Briere probably didn't earn their inflated salaries elsewhere. Buffalo did match the contract offers for Zach Parise and Ryan Suter last year, but they opted to go to Minnesota for the same money. Hard to complain too much about that.

The draft choices? Ups and downs, as could be expected. Tyler Myers was a fine choice, Marek Zagrapan was not. It's very, very difficult to try to look at an 18-year-old and figure out how he'll be at 23. It's a little easier if you have a top 10 pick. Care to guess how many top ten picks the Sabres had between 1997 and 2011? One, and it was Thomas Vanek. In other words, the Sabres usually haven't been bad enough to get great picks. 

See any slam-dunk reasons there, objectively speaking? I don't.

One of my pet theories about pro sports is that people in leadership positions help their own cause by being available and polished to the public. My Exhibit A was Dick Jauron of the Bills, who everyone said was a nice, brilliant man but who never spoke much and when he did, chose his words so carefully that it was hard to get a read on his personality. Jauron didn't get the benefit of the doubt when things turned bad.

Same here. Regier has always come across as shy to me. The internal drawback is that some people internally have complained about a lack of communication from the GM, which is not good. But more to our point is how Regier has dealt with the public, which is most obvious through the media. The fun in the job for him comes from working with people he likes and trusts, which is why Ruff certainly got the benefits of a few doubts over the years. Lindy had more chances to build up good will with the public since he was on television after every game and practice, but that area isn't Regier's strong suit.

So ... what do we have here? Certainly Regier's departure would be taken by many fans that ownership is willing to try new approaches to win. It's an ideal time to do that in the sense that a new GM could bring in his own coach in the offseason, as well as make other front-office moves.

But would it help? Is there someone obviously better equipped waiting at the door? That's a tough call. Sports teams win or lose for a reason, and usually the reason isn't obvious. When I worked for the Sabres from 1986 to 1992, I saw first-hand that the team's biggest problem was what I called "a commitment to mediocrity." In other words, ownership wasn't prepared to go the extra mile to win a championship; it was relatively content to have a competitive team. This may remind you of the Golisano years with the Sabres, when breaking even was a major goal.

You never know how any architect of a sports team will do in a particular set of circumstances. Glen Sather won a bunch of Cups in Edmonton, but has been blanked in New York while spending lots of money. Harry Sinden never won a Cup as a GM in Boston, although his teams won plenty of games. There are just too many variables to predict future results.

I guess I'd have to see have some good evidence from the inside that shoving Regier out the door would be helpful before pulling the trigger. That's mostly because change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good idea.

Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.

Boo boo

Steve Ott caused a bit of an uproar this morning when he described the Sabres' fans booing of his team on Sunday night as "completely ridiculous." I immediately had a bit of a flashback to the 1995 season, I think.

The Sabres had just completed a relatively dreary loss at home, the latest in a series of so-so efforts. I was talking to Wayne Presley, a veteran who had been around the block and for the most part was a very logical, insightful interview. I'm not sure how the subject came up, but someone asked about the fan reaction - which was not overly polite.

The response surprised me. It was something along the lines of "Nobody believes in us, only the guys in the locker room are behind us, we'll just have to get this done for ourselves."

I realized that this could be personally harmful to his popularity, and that it was uncharacteristic of him, so I did something I haven't really done before or since. I gave him a chance to bail out. I said something like, "Wayne, in fairness, the team hasn't played well lately, and the fans have filled the building and been generally supportive. Don't you think it was just a case of the booing briefly reflecting on the frustration of a bad night?"

Presley didn't take the life preserver. No, he said, everyone's given up on us, so the heck with everyone, we'll do it for ourselves. I included the second quote in my story.

Booing does happen at sports events, mostly at the pro level. When people pay a lot of money to see a game that doesn't have a happy ending, a few - and that's important to remember - are quick to voice their disapproval. Personally, there's usually only one thing that gets me to even think of booing if I'm in the stands, and that's a lack of effort. You don't try, you deserve the worst. Otherwise, I prefer giving the silent treatment.

What Ott needs to remember, even in moments of frustration, is that professional athletes are making a grand bargain. They earn a lot of money at their craft, to the point where it only takes a few years to have a big head start on everyone else when it comes to having no financial worries for the rest of their lives. They are generally treated like royalty, and admired by people in the community. When they do something well, the cheering rings in their ears. And when they don't, it only takes a good play to help to erase those bad feelings.

But there is a downside. The odd boo or remark from the stands is part of that. None of us would like it if, when we made a mistake on the job, we had people surrounding us, yelling a chorus of boos. There can be a lack of privacy and an excess of rumors about your personal life. There even may be criticism in the media based on incorrect information or just plain poor assumptions (hard to believe, I know).

If you don't want to accept that deal, fine. There's a line of people out the door who are willing to take it.

Athletes are never going to win this type of argument with fans. It's better to keep quiet and try to do better next time. Or, maybe say something like, "I felt like booing me too." Those athleties might remember that it's better to have them in the building and caring about the team than sitting at home watching a reality show on television. In that sense, apathy is the biggest boo of all.

Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.

Thumbs up

Back in the dark ages, sometime around 1990 I guess, my friend Dave Kerner got on the kick of asking people a classic question: Who is the most famous person to have shaken your hand? I said Jimmy Carter, who passed through Syracuse when his Presidential campaign was just starting in 1975. Dave said Buzz Aldrin, I think. I even used the question in a a couple of Sabres' media guides.

I think there's now a 21st century equivalent of that question. Who is the most famous person to have sent you a personal email?

My answer would have to be Roger Ebert, whose death was announced on Thursday.

Some years ago, I had watched the movie "Ali" with Will Smith. As a sports fan, I was very familiar with the Ali story to the point where some of the historical inaccuracies jumped out at me, and it spoiled the effect of the motion picture a bit. Ebert had his website fully up and running, and took questions from readers.I wrote and briefly recounted my experience, and asked the question, "Can a little too much knowledge about a subject spoil a biographical film?"

To my surprise, within about two days there was an email from, yes, Roger Ebert. He wrote, "I think it can. But remember, no person's life comes as a movie. RE." The right answer.

Ebert's life as a critic had more than one act. The first was when he was a newspaper critic in Chicago, and the Pulitzer Prize might indicate he was pretty good at it. Then Ebert started doing a PBS show with rival critic Gene Siskel, with its now-familiar thumbs up or down rating system. Around that time, I guess, he started publishing annual books that served as collections of reviews, and we all got to see his long, thoughtful reviews of movies. Ebert's enthusiasm always came through. If a movie was a dud, well, the next one had to be better - a line stolen from "Ed Wood" but one that is appropriate here.

When the Internet came along in the 1990's, we could start reading both Siskel and Ebert on line. As I recall I never saw a review from Siskel that was longer than a few paragraphs. Ebert's reviews were always better in terms of going into depth and exploring the subject thoroughly. Those reviews eventually piled up on Ebert's own website, where they served as a great resource for picking out good movies past and present. Even the loss of his voice through cancer couldn't silence him; he just kept communicating with us as he always did, through his words. Ebert's death hit with the peculiar feeling that comes with the loss of someone who you've never met, yet feel as if you know him well enough to feel a certain level of personal sadness.

It's tough to guess who will fill Ebert's niche when it comes to film criticism. Those are impossible thumbs to replace.

Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.

Zoo Review

Here's a story from the distant past that seems appropriate to tell on this particular night.

When I was a freshman at Syracuse, I eagerly anticipated the start of basketball season. This was only partially because the football team was rather awful. The basketball team was coming off an NCAA tournament season, and had a great showman as the star in Dennis DuVal. The games were played at Manley Field House, remembered for its intimate surroundings and its dusty floor that made it difficult to breath - especially for those playing.

We sat in the student section, better known at the time as "The Manley Zoo." The students sat right behind one of the baskets, and had developed a reputation for rude and obnoxious behavior. These were the polite good old days, when it was considered improper to wave one's arms during opposing free throws. It was something of an issue at games in the early portion of the season.

On the night of January 23, 1974, Bucknell came to Syracuse for a game. In those pre-Big East days, Syracuse scheduled anyone that was willing to drive on an Interstate to get to a game and pick up a check. Army, Colgate and Holy Cross also were on the schedule that year.

Coach Roy Danforth finally got tired of the Zoo's act, so he took matters into his own hands. Well before the game, he walked over to the student section and asked them personally to tone it down a bit. Danforth was well received, and then as I recall, he started to walk away. Then he turned around and added a postscript. It went something like: "And if we score 100 points tonight, I'll come over and lead the cheers myself."

The Syracuse-Bucknell game went as could be predicted. It was well in hand by the second half, as DuVal had 18 field goals. As the Orangemen rolled up the points, most of Manley's fans were either relatively quiet or searching for their coats. The student section, however, was getting louder. They wanted 100 points, unbeknownst to the rest of the crowd.

Syracuse went past 100 with a few minutes to go, setting off an explosion of noise in the student section. It was followed by chants of "We want Roy!"

Would Roy fulfill his bargain? Indeed. He walked down the sideline past the opposing team, and yelled, "Come on, let's go Orange!!" Then he walked back to his team, while the students chanted "Roy's all right!"

Bucknell was led by a promising young coach by the name of Jim Valvano, who was stunned that an opposing coach would turn into a cheerleader. He later wrote about the experience in his autobiography: "Walks right by me, leads them in cheers, walks back. Is this a fun profession or what?"

Valvano had the last laugh. He didn't come to Syracuse a year later, his last at Buckell. From there it was on to Iona and North Carolina State, where he won the national championship in 1983 in one of the greatest upsets in the sport's history.

A documentary on Valvano aired on ESPN tonight. It will be re-run down the road. It's worth your time.

Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.

Another phone call

The Buffalo Bandits announced Thursday that they had acquired the rights to goalie Steve Dietrich for a sixth-round 2015 draft choice from the Toronto Rock. I wonder how that conversation went ...

"Terry Sanderson."

"Hi, Terry, it's Steve Dietrich with the Bandits. How are you doing today?"

"Kind of busy, Steve. It's almost the trading deadline, as you know, so the phone's ringing a lot here in Toronto. Did you guys ever finish that game with Colorado last week, ha, ha, ha?"

"Very funny. I've still got a few guys that won't be suspended from that one. Look, I want to make a trade. As you know, the roster freeze is coming up on Friday, and we have only two goaltenders on our roster. So if one of them gets hurt, we're really in trouble."

"I'm not real anxious to help you, Steve, We are trying to beat you guys out in the division, and we need our two goalies on the roster."

"I had something else in mind, Terry. What I want to do is make a trade with you to acquire myself."

"What's that? The cell phone went out for a second. You want to make a trade for Scott Self? Didn't you just trade him to Rochester?"

"No, not Scott Self, or even Brad Self. Myself. I want to get my playing rights."

"Well, that's unusual. You think you can help the Bandits? Aren't you 43 years old? Come to think of it, though, that's younger than Dallas Eliuk or Ross Cowie. Heck, it's younger than one of your players."

"Don't remind me, Terry, although sometimes I think John Tavares is ageless. Anyway, we need a third goalie in case of emergency."

"Hmmm. This is different. Let's see. You want to acquire a goalie who is a former Most Valuable Player of the league? A Hall of Famer? That's going to cost you. For starters, I'd want Dhane Smith, Shawn Williams, Billy Dee Smith, and a couple of first-round picks. Do you have any left before 2020, ha, ha, ha?

"You're hilarious, Terry. I was thinking of a couple of large coffees at Tim Hortons. It's 'Roll up the rim' time, you know. You could be a big winner in the contest."

"That's tempting, Steve. OK, you did help us win a title back in 2010, so I guess I owe you for that. So how about just a draft choice down the road?"

"Do I have to give one up? (Sigh) All right, would a sixth-round pick in three years work for you, Terry? That way I can leave the draft a little early and start the trip home that much sooner."

"You got a deal. Just remember, you can't be a general manager and player at the same time. You'll have to resign the GM job if you suit up. And I can't wait to hear about the contract negotiations if you do have to sign yourself."

"I know, I know. I'll fax in the paperwork to the league, Terry. And I'll see you in a couple of weeks in Toronto when we play each other."

"Hopefully, you'll be in uniform, ha, ha, ha."

Click.

Be notified of new posts from this site on Twitter @WDX2BB.

Three points

Think about a baseball game. Imagine that when two major-league teams moved into extra innings, the squads had to play eight players each. If teams didn't settle matters in 12 innings, a home-run hitting contest decided the game. And, a loss wasn't really a loss, but rather a partial win.

Welcome to the wacky world of the National Hockey League, which more or less does something like that.

Some years ago, it was determined that new fans to the NHL didn't like ties. They wanted to have an outcome to their games. Ties had been an acceptable results in non-playoff games for decades, but the NHL was all about growing the fanbase. Understood.

It still surprises me what was done. First, a five-minute overtime was adopted with each team short a man so it was four-on-four for skaters. That opened up the play quite a bit, as you could imagine. Then, if there was no winner after overtime, the teams took part in a shootout to determine a winner.

For all games, the team that scored in overtime or won the shootout earned two points. The team that lost in overtime or the shootout picked up one point. In other words, teams could play conservatively through the final minutes of regulation, make sure to get a point, and then play like heck in overtime in order to grab the extra point. It also makes the standings really ugly looking. Right now, an unlikely 10-5-6 record looks like a fine season when it really is the story of a sub-.500 team.

It's easy to sit back and say, does this make any sense?

It's particularly true right now because teams are only playing within their conference. If a team (let's use the Sabres as a really far-fetched example) is trying to gain ground in the standings, they have to watch other teams ahead of them play each other. Somebody is getting two points, and the loser is possibly getting one. That means the points keep accumulating throughout the league, making it more difficult to climb up the ladder. The Sabres not only have to win games, but they have to win them in 60 minutes to avoid giving points to their opponents.

I've got two options for the powers that be here. The easy one would be to call a win a win and a loss a loss. But it's not really fair to have a team make it to a shootout and not get some sort of reward.

Fine .Let's make every game worth three points. Win in regulation, and you get three points. Win in overtime or a shootout, you get two points. Lose in extra time, and you go home with one point. Lose in regulation, and you get no parting gifts.

I'm not completely sure what this would do to the flow of games, but it at least would make more sense than the current system.

Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.

Family lore

It's the first of the month. That often makes think of an incident from my childhood. I don't think I can't verify it because of a lack of witnesses - the main one probably doesn't remember it fully - but I believe it to be true.

My sister had heard a silly little tale that when you woke up on the first day of the month, you had to say the words "rabbit, rabbit" aloud the first thing in the morning. It was supposed to bring you good luck. That meant first thing. If you stepped on the floor before saying the words, it was too late.

Naturally, it was easier in concept than execution. My sister and I would try to remember, but we'd always stagger out of bed, slap our heads (or the equivalent), and move on to the rest of an unlucky month.

One first of the month, though, I remember that I asked my sister if she had remembered this time around and she said yes.

Later that day, Jane felt a sharp pain in her side that wouldn't go away. That resulted in a trip to the hospital, which resulted in her appendix coming out. She later told me that, just to add to the hurt, she wasn't covered my health insurance at the time. So our parents had to pay for it, and then she paid them back ... at $10 a week. I think she's still sending checks to the estate.

You think I've said "rabbit, rabbit" on the first of the month since then? Not a chance. I prefer to keep my appendix right where it is, thank you. I never paid tribute to rabbits since that day.

Be notified of new posts through Twitter @WDX2BB.