Fun or business?
I've seen Darcy Regier in a lot of situations during the past six years. This was my first time seeing him at the NHL draft. It's a whole new experience.
Regier was in his element. He was smiling, he was talking at length with anyone who caught his attention (and beaming while doing it), he was walking into the stands and shaking hands with folks --- he was just having a grand ol' time. It was cool to see.
I think it's because there is little to no business during draft weekend. It's purely sports. You're looking at 18-year-old kids who play because they love it, and hearing their name called is a moment of pure joy. It was hockey people at a hockey event.
But, as I said, it's rare to see that -- from anyone, not just Regier. It's the unofficial start of unrestricted free agency (the official start is July 1), and it's back to business.
It's a shame. I don't think there's enough sports in sports anymore, and I'm not sure I even like the whole scene. It seems like there are three months of joy (the draft, training camp and the Stanley Cup playoffs) and nine months of garbage (whining over money, claims of small-market doom, talk show screaming matches and bitter message board "debates").
As I said, seeing Regier have so much fun made me wish sports was like that more often. I'm curious to hear any other thoughts. Vote in the poll and leave a comment explaining why you voted that way.
---John Vogl
I'd say the only "locks" for next year's EC Playoffs are Pittsburgh and Montreal. Rangers will likely make it, too, on the back of Lundqvist. Ditto for NJ and Brodeur. After that, I think it's pretty wide open. To add to what Elma said about various teams:
Ottawa- After the first line, they had nothing for the last 2 months of the season. Nothing. Would be better served spending their FA $ on two forwards rather than one Brian Campbell. Like Buffalo, not as dangerous if the NHL reverts to the old clutch-and-grab.
Washington- Slightly above average team becomes markedly worse if they lose Huet to the market. If they lose RFA Mike Green, too? Enjoy the bottom of the conference w/the Isles.
Philly- Really? After watching all the games against Buffalo, you thought they were better than the Sabres? I think we were watching different games. Snuck in the backdoor of the playoffs and made a run. Good for them. Hard to call a team that finished 4th in their division AND lost key players a "lock," don't you think?
The Eastern Conference is going to be extremely competitive next year. Besides the Islanders and Panthers, I don't see one team really being terrible next year. Was that "objective" enough for you?
Posted by: Chad | June 30, 2008 at 07:36 PM
Well, I suppose since you said they were "virtual locks", there's no room for anyone else.
How exactly did you "lock" them in without even knowing who they would lose or pick up in Free Agency?
Philly - Made playoffs by only two points and will likely lose Hatcher & Smith, and already lost Prospal & Umberger. How is that a "lock?"
Ottawa?? - In complete free fall at end of last season & has 8 UFAs. Also, not exactly the strongest goaltending.
Washington - snuck in on the last day of the season. As far as I can see, they also don't have a Goaltender as of today. I think you'd agree that knowing who your Goalie will be is pretty important in making a "lock" prediction.
Rangers - 8 UFAs and 4 RFA's, most of which were big pieces of the team, not just depth guys.
Penguins - I don't expect them to miss the Playoffs, but there's some big free agent losses there already. Heck, even losing Conklin may be important (it ended up being so for Buffalo, in hindsight).
If they don't make it this year, I'll probably need to evaluate why before I formulate an opinion on "cleaning house" (rather than making a prediction without relevant information).
Posted by: ElmaGolf | June 30, 2008 at 05:01 PM
Elma, I only react to "objective analysis" when I see it. I haven't seen it from you, ever, so I took some time off from the Sabre lovefest that you moderate here.
Now Mr. Objective, tell me how our team gets into the playoffs, because I see the following Eastern Conference teams as virtual locks to get in:
Pittsburgh
Montreal
Ottawa
Philadelphia
Washington
New York Rangers
New Jersey
Our team will fight with Carolina, Tampa and the Islanders for the final spot.
If they don't make it, they should clean house, don't YOU think?
Posted by: bean | June 29, 2008 at 01:27 AM
Wow Bean - it's been months since we heard from you, but your reaction to objective analysis is as predictable as it was then.
At least you didn't claim Lawrence ruined the Sabres in 1998 again.
Posted by: ElmaGolf | June 27, 2008 at 07:41 AM
Chad, the Lawrence needs another copy of your resume for his files. I don't know why you are suc*ing up so much, he already gave you the job.
Posted by: bean | June 26, 2008 at 07:54 AM
Chad,
Kudos for actually thinking beyond this season. No one seems to do that anymore. Everyone is obssessed with the 'right now' in sports, which I think adds to the business over fun mentality that this blog post was really about in the first place. Everything is 'win now' and 'go big' in the sports world. There is no 'building for the future' anymore. Montreal's choices in this draft demonstrates that better than most examples from the past. Adding Tanguay makes them better, but they'll lose stuff following this year. And they probably won't even win because the talent level isn't that much between top and bottom.
Posted by: Tim | June 25, 2008 at 12:55 PM
"I know Montreal was busy getting better.."
And they're mortgaging their future to do it. This year is their last stand, in a lot of ways. Just look at the guys who will be UFA's after this coming season: Koivu, Tanguay, Kovalev, Komisarek, Bouillon, Dandenault, Begin, Kostopolous. Both Higgins and Plekanec will also garner some attention as RFA's after next season, too. Sundin, if they get him, is a short term move, as well.
They are going to be raided after this season. Gainey knows that, that's why he gave up a #1 to go for it this season. But, if they don't win it this year, it will be a long time before the Cup sees Montreal again (even with a stud like Price in net).
Posted by: Chad | June 24, 2008 at 03:31 PM
Why wouldn't Darcy be having a grand old time? He's making a big paycheck from paychex to be a talking head & he lives in a town who does not hold him responsible for anything. Like sheep people will fill the HSBC and route for a team that has no shot at a cup because the GM and flunky Quinn have no clue how to build a team to win a cup. The big move Darcy wil make is bringing back Nummanen who's 50 and already got burnt by alfredson in the playoffs allowing Ottawa to send us to the Golf course. How did Darcy make us better over the weekend? I know Montreal was busy getting better..
Posted by: Henry | June 24, 2008 at 11:02 AM
you never know what will happen with the draft -- teams roll the dice and pray. you have to hope that the scouts know what they are doing. sometimes you get lucky -- the player they drafted in the later rounds a few years ago that Lindy once called a "career AHL player" turned out to be Paul Gaustad.
Posted by: jan | June 24, 2008 at 06:54 AM
Darcy was proactive!
He was on fire draft night....I hear he won a mean contest of Rock Paper Scissors against Darryl Sutter to see who got to use the urinal first while waiting in line.
Posted by: Tom | June 23, 2008 at 06:50 PM
Calling BS, I think you're a little too upset about that whole Kings/Sabres trade. To echo Tim's sentiment, you have to give up something to make sure you get your guy. Nobody knows (besides the Kings, and maybe not even them) who this mysterious third team was going to pick at 12. You make it seem like it's so far-fetched that the third team would have selected Myers. I just don't know how you, or anyone, can be sure of that. Generally, 6'7'' defensemen who can skate and have good skills don't grow on trees. Additionally, he was thought of as a top-10 player. Teams probably wanted the guy.
If you have a chance to fill organizational need (size) like Buffalo did, and acquire a talent like Myers, then you have to make that trade. Maybe the Sabres had him as a top 6 or 7 player on their board. Maybe they thought there was a precipitous drop-off in talent, in which case giving up a 3rd round pick next year (far less of a sure thing) isn't that big of a deal.
I think the fallacy in your thinking is that you are implicitly suggesting that trades are a zero-sum game. In other words, if one team gets a good deal (Kings), then the other team got an equally bad deal. There is such a thing as a trade that benefits both teams (see Josh Hamilton for Edinson Volquez trade in MLB). This may be just that. LA picked up a pick next year and Buffalo got "their guy" while filling a need at the same time. Theoretically, that's how trades are supposed to work. I just don't think you have enough facts to make the determination that Darcy got played and should have just sat their with his fingers crossed, hoping that Myers would have fell into Buffalo's lap. Darcy was proactive, a quality many think that he doesn't display enough. Time will tell, but I think your ripping is unwarranted.
Posted by: Chad | June 23, 2008 at 04:03 PM
And on the topic of sports and business, the answer is the one the majority of voters have selected: business. There is still some fun left in the game, no matter what sport (even curling...) but for the most part, the dollar is winning out over that fun to be had. Golisano's stance that the team needs to be viable in this market is the correct one, even if it is something no fan wants to hear. It would be nice if this area could maintain a team playing near the top of the salary cap each year, but the truth is we can't. Just look at our scouting department. Anyone who says management doesn't want to spend the money to win should just look there. They gutted it because they needed the money to pay the players, who are after more and more money each year. I blame Martin Havlat.
Posted by: Tim | June 23, 2008 at 10:21 AM
calling BS, I disagree on your assumption that there was no gain for the Sabres. There was, and that gain is that they assured themselves that they were going to get the guy they coveted (and for good reason). In this business, if the guy you want is still there, even if there is a 10 percent chance the guy will be gone, you do everything in your power to ensure you get your guy.
They absolutely wanted Myers with their pick and since LA was trading their pick to another team who could possibly draft him, you make your move to draft him instead. That isn't giving away a 3rd rounder, that's assuring yourself that you are getting a defenseman that by all accounts is a freaking stud.
Sometimes (actually all of the time), you need to give something up to get something in return. They traded a draft pick in the third round of next year's draft for the 100 percent certainty of drafting who many feel could be one of the top player in about four years.
Posted by: Tim | June 23, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Wonderful piece....enjoyed and agreed.
Posted by: Bster | June 22, 2008 at 09:10 PM
For us it's is fun, for the owners, managers, players, agents, and sports writers it is a business. Players can claim they have fun and I am sure they do, but on balance it is a business.
It has lost a lot of its fun for me in the last couple of years though.
Ironic how you seem to take a shot at those of us who engage in bitter online debates and then start one though. Gotta keep the fans engaged I suppose...
I guess that means it is a business for you as well.
Posted by: Sports and Business | June 22, 2008 at 08:14 PM
John,
What I wrote about the highlight of the night/draft and what you wrote are not that different, so don't act like I was that far off with my quote. My point that it was a stupid thing for Darcy to do, with no plus side for the Sabres, only plus side for the Kings.
Your strongly worded rebuttal of my post leads to me believe that I was right on with your train of thought. BTW you did analyze the trade when you said "They got him, and the two-day draft was a success from the start.
I am not sure that the other team wanted him, or that there even was another team. Your sub-standard journalism did not give me that information. I am only posting based on my instinct that he still would have been there. Teubert and Karlson were still available and plenty of forwards.
Other than that, Great job Darcy, and Greta article John!
Posted by: calling BS | June 22, 2008 at 08:14 PM
I didn't call it the highlight of the night. I called it "the highlight of Darcy Regier’s 2008 NHL draft." His anticipation of seeing the two pieces of paper and the relief/joy of seeing different names was cool for him, I can imagine.
I didn't analyze the trade. I just wrote what happened, so I guess you're right to say you overthought it by believing I wrote it as a "brilliant" move.
Last thing: I don't know how/why you're so sure the third team didn't want Myers. The guy was the fourth-ranked North American skater, and he was there at No. 12. I'm sure the Sabres weren't the only team that wanted him.
Posted by: John Vogl | June 22, 2008 at 06:06 PM
I think the sports world in the professional realm have been tainted wholly. They've fallen to the same foe that most corporations have; greed.
There is definitely a business element to sports teams, they need to make money to pay their players, coaches, and training staff. But in the past few years it seems more and more like the organizations are being run with profit in mind more than anything else.
The game has changed in small ways in the past 20 years, but the ticket prices have changed in major ways.
Bah, it turns my stomach. All hail the almighty dollar.
Posted by: B | June 22, 2008 at 05:37 PM
Common sense,
I'm with you, though I think the jury is still out on the last three 3rd rounders.
I posted because my initial read of John's article gave me the impression that he was writing this up as some brilliant move by Regier ("highlight of the night").
I could have overthought that, but I still think that there is at least a 90% chance that we gave away a 3rd rounder for no reason.
Posted by: calling BS | June 22, 2008 at 04:48 PM
One more short quip, I promise.
The NHL draft is similar to any other convention where people fly in from all over to talk business and have a conference during the day, but get liquored up and "talk" to some cute 23 year old at the bar at night. An insurance salesman that would sell his soul to the devil to make a $120 commission off of your grandmother seems to be nothing but a fun and jolly guy at these things.
I'm sure Darcy loves to scout and was in his element. Let's not confuse the draft with the gathering of Cardinals to elect a new Pope though.
Posted by: Tom | June 22, 2008 at 04:42 PM
Sabres recent 3rd round picks:
2005: Marc-Andre Gragnani (D)
2004: Andrej Sekera (D)
2003: Clarke MacArthur (LW)
2002: Michael Tessier (F) and John Adams (D)
2001: (none)
Posted by: Common Sense | June 22, 2008 at 04:29 PM
Thanks for that post. It brought a smile to my face to think about all these businessmen acting like kids in a candy shop.
That is why we all started to play sports - because it's fun. But, yeah, at the pro level it is all business. Bunch of mercenaries playing a kid's game.
Posted by: Mighty Larry | June 22, 2008 at 04:25 PM
calling BS - Yeah it's an unknown if the other trading partner would have taken Myers. But if the Sabres feel strongly that Myers was much better than whoever else would be available, then of course trading a 3rd round pick was smart.
How many 3rd round picks end up even being average NHL regulars? I'll bet it's less than 10%. So there's a 90% chance whoever they would have taken would end up beng an AHL player or maybe not even that.
Posted by: Common Sense | June 22, 2008 at 04:16 PM
Don't worry...sports is so much of a business right now that we are 5-10 years away from not having those talk show fights and streetfights on your blog. The 13-25 generation has grown up with free agency, highlights over teamwork, holdouts, strikes and lockouts, and the internet. There is no longer the "nurturing" of a young sports fan to the extent there was back in the 50's and 60's, all the way up into the early 90's. I can only speak for myself, but as I grow older, I see the posturing and money plays for what they are. I still love the "event" that is going to a Bills game and pay attention to almost any football game if it is on TV, but as this new generation becomes not just the fans but the players, it is easy to lose that "magic" of sports.
I still root for the Sabres in the sense that it would be nice to see the city of Buffalo celebrate, but I am at the mercy of those in control of the team. Go back to the 70's when guys like Schoney and Korab would kill you for just looking at the French Connection the wrong way. Guys like Gare, Foligno, and even shifty little guys like Audette and Craig Ramsay would go to great depths to protect their team and still managed to play a smart and skilled brand of hockey. Now the NHL, and the Sabres in particular seem to be turning into more of an NBA product where it is about a show and not so much substance. That is great for teams trying to make a buck off of the masses, but how do you expect to grow a loyal fanbase of a "product", when there is no loyalty or character in the game itself?
Some will try to dismiss my point as simply wanting Goon Hockey, but if you take an objective look at my comments, you will see the reality of the situation. Why should I pledge my loyalty and hard earned money to a group of executives that won't tell me the truth and to a group of players that have no respect for the roots of the game? I have much more fun watching 8yo pee-wees trying their hearts out on a Saturday morning. At least they don't try to sell me something at every whistle when I go to their arena.
The Bills are on watch as well. At a certain point, I can't keep ignoring the off the field antics that go on. Sure, things always happen with football players and even the glory days had a bunch of shennanigans going on, but the players had a respect for their job and the game. There is a dangerous cliff that is being approached now by the NFL. Lucky for them the internet has opened up publicity and wagering opportunities to the masses. With that flow of information comes a look into many of these guys private lives that I really don't want to know, because at a certain point I will be forced to answer the question, "What the heck am I doing wasting so much time and money on all these clowns?"
This may be a moot issue soon as both local teams have a realistic chance of being gone in the next few years. If that is the case, then it is case closed for me.
Posted by: Tom | June 22, 2008 at 03:56 PM
John,
I clearly see the benefit for the Kings. They played us (and perhaps another team) and got what they wanted.
I still don't think it is accurate to call this a win for Darcy. Unless there is some information which indicated that Myers was in danger of being selected by that other unknown team (I doubt it) then we basically just gave up a 3rd rounder cuz Darcy didn't have the ball$ to wait it out 10 more minutes.
Posted by: calling BS | June 22, 2008 at 03:27 PM
John:
Unfortunately, the players have become solely money grubbers. They say they haven't but actions speak louder than words.
Posted by: mark | June 22, 2008 at 01:56 PM
L.A.'s plan was to trade 12 and get another pick. They had two offers. In deal with Sabres, they move down only one spot and get a third-rounder. In other deal, they move down a little further but get a better pick. That team might pick Myers, which leaves Sabres with none of the three guys they wanted.
Benefit for Sabres: Guaranteed to get guy they wanted. Benefit for Kings: They pick up their extra selection and still guaranteed to get guy they want. If they had taken other deal, they were not guaranteed to get their guy because they were moving down further and someone in middle might have taken him.
If Kings' guy was Myers, all deals were off. They now knew that Sabres would take him at 13, so moving down with other team to get him wouldn't work.
But L.A.'s goal was to get another pick, and in two-thirds of the scenarios that was happening.
Posted by: John Vogl | June 22, 2008 at 01:54 PM
John,
I don't understand this morning's artticle about Regier and the paper swap. How is that a victory? If the Kings wanted Myers they would have got him. They didn't, so we would have got him without giving up a pick. You mention that LA was going to trade the 12th pick to someone, but what does that mean? Do we think that that trade was going to lead to Myers being picked with the 12th? I don't see it. It seems to me that Regier gave that pick away for nothing.
Posted by: calling BS | June 22, 2008 at 01:18 PM