How many times have you heard someone say something like the Sabres are infatuated with too many of their players? The connotations of a statement like that make it a pretty serious accusation when you think about it. Are the Sabres really misjudging what’s most valuable to their competitive and financial success?
I’m curious about these things.
* * *
So the basis for the complaint as I understand it is the belief that the familiarity which exists between Sabres’ management and players has inflated the talent level of most players in the eyes of management. In doing so, the Sabres retain players for longer than they should and this is not in the team’s best interest. That is to suggest, it would have been appropriate to remove certain players from the roster for one of two reasons: (1) the player had been underachieving or (2) to alter the dynamic of the team. The most basic tenet here is the Sabres’ apparent reluctance to embrace change.
Part of me agrees with this sentiment but another part feels like this managerial behavior is purposeful and not a sign of a distorted point of view. I do believe some of the actions made or not made by the Sabres are a reflection of the management’s conservative attitude and I’m not quite sure it’s a bad thing.
Allow me to create a hypothetical situation to help explain what I mean. Let’s say for arguments sake that I’m married. Depending on how well you know me, the mere proposition of my being married at age twenty-two is hilarious to consider. Just try and get past that and focus on the big picture. So let’s assume I’m married to someone that’s smart, funny, digs sports and knows how to make a perfect carrot cake (don’t judge me). Everything in my marriage is going great. Now lets assume that after a few years of being married I’m introduced to a single woman, same age as myself, and the attraction is instantaneous and mutual. She loves sports and can also make a great carrot cake. Moreover, she’s even smarter and has an even better sense of humor than my wife. I’m excluding physical features purposefully but you should get the idea. Anyway, there will come a time when I need to decide whether or not to allow this relationship to proceed down the much maligned infidelity lane.
Here’s what I have to consider. On one hand I have my wife. She has a lot of great, great qualities. Our relationship began and has developed partly as a result of her having these qualities. We also have history. I really value our relationship. Then there’s this other woman. An argument can be made that she has even better qualities than my wife based on what I’m attracted to. The relationship could potentially one day be of even greater value than that which I currently share with my wife. We don’t have history but the physical attraction we share in each other’s presence is perhaps greater than that which I share with my wife. Partly because it’s new and the allure of possibility hangs ominously overhead; partly because I’m attracted to the qualities she shares with my wife, some of which appear to even succeed hers. So what do I do?
Those who approach important decisions with a conservative attitude would tell me not to try and replace that which has value: the relationship I have with my wife. There’s history and trust in that relationship. Stable love is not worth jeopardizing for the possibility of love with what appears to be a more desirable mate. It’s a decision based on value and risk assessment. Conserve that which has value when the alternative is just theoretical value. This mitigates the risk of loss.
Most people don’t think this way; it requires wisdom and an extra bit of mental horsepower. It’s easier to just take a peak at one’s emotional compass in a situation that involves powerful feelings. This is one reason why young people should not get married. Though relationships between people differ greatly from professional applications of this disposition — that is relationships hold personal, intrinsic value and not universal, particular value — I mention it here, now, to emphasize the practice of preservation and retention.
* * *
This seems like a good enough time as any to switch back to talking hockey management. I hope everyone was able to follow the point I was trying to make there. Some of the words floating around in your head now should be words like value, change, and conserve.
I think it’s fair to say the value in professional hockey is the player-talent as measured by production. Everyone knows that an individual’s production and quality of play changes every single year. So value changes. Every summer, management must evaluate and decide what each player’s expected production is in the following year. That’s the first step to the actual construction and consideration of a trade — the knowing-what-you-have step.
I’ll get back to the initial value determining aspect in a minute but first I want to go through the whole process. In the interest of brevity, I’ve simplified the criterion I like to think a management team would use to decided whether or not a trade is beneficial. Is the player’s value such that can be exchanged for a package that has equal or greater value currently or a high probability of having great value in the near future? Is the player’s expected production in the following year able to be replaced within the team or by the return package? Given the lack of player-for-player movement we’ve seen from the Sabres lately, the answers for quite some time have been no and no.
It’s easy to say they’re overvaluing some of their own players and this is contributing to their inability to find an agreeable exchange. In the interest of balance though, I ask, who is more likely to be objective, the group of businessmen responsible for managing this team or the fans, the majority of whom allow their emotions to govern their reactions? Are the decisions management makes a result of overvaluing their current talent or is it reflective of a different perspective, one made from a group with more at stake? In truth, no one can say for sure. It’s probably some combination of both.
It can’t always been blind luck though. They deserve some credit for hanging onto players like Tallinder and Hecht after the 2008-2009 season ended. Connolly and Stafford have been floated around in trade rumors all summer but they could have productive seasons, especially Connolly who, when healthy, is a real scoring presence. He’s not the most prolific or ideal but he’s unquestionably above average and his production would be difficult to replace. I don’t want to project what I think is in Darcy’s head but let’s be real, he knows this. Maybe the return offers were just insufficient. If Connolly is traded, who makes up the points he scored last year? Connolly’s certainly not guaranteed to score as many points as he had last year but he’s probably much more likely to do so than the player the Sabres would have asked to fill that role had the Sabres decided to move Connolly. He has value.
Players with expiring contracts present a completely different situation for management to deal with. Those decisions are based on evaluating the price set by the free agency market and the team’s current positional depth. To go back to Connolly — he’s an unrestricted free agent next summer. He’s not a building block; he’s a placeholder. Same goes for Tallinder and Lydman. Building blocks don’t typically reach unrestricted free agency except in really special situations. There are plenty of placeholders available in every position. Some fit better than others. There’s a significant difference in value between building blocks and placeholders. The players that move around every summer in the free agency period are really just a collection of placeholder types. Not to minimize their value but they’re replaceable.
* * *
The Sabres seem to be very aware of what they have. They’re careful and they’re patient. They expect progress to come from minor adjustments (Grier), from prospects turning into talented professionals (Myers), and from current professionals elevating their production (Miller). In 2006 the team was able to progress in large part due to contributions of players like Numminen, Vanek, and Briere. The 2010-2011 team as it currently stands is built having used a very similar managerial philosophy with which the post-lockout squads had been built with. Now, is this the most effective method to building a championship caliber team? That’s a different debate. Is it the best available method given the financial constraints this organization is faced with? It could be.
Conserve that which has value. It frustrates me too sometimes but I’m not willing to proclaim it misguided or illfated.
I think in your hypothetical situation, you have to consider that your wife never does the dishes any more, bought an annoying little dog and refuses to have any children even though you told her it was your goal in life before the wedding.
I think what you’re getting at is that all marriages have kuh-ray-zy frustrating moments like when your wife’s Pomeranian taking a leak on your Nikes. That kind of stuff is included in the decision. I agree with what you’re saying but I didn’t want to lay it on too thick. Besides, I don’t think the level of happiness matters so much as the fact that I’m married and being married means that I’m satisfied with the commitment I made. I purposefully made the alternative to my wife seem better based on qualities and that type of shit. Not much better because I didn’t want to minimize the marriage but better, to be sure; enough to at least make the temptation reasonable and acting upon the temptation emotionally justifiable. So I didn’t feel the need to really get into the details of the marriage. Besides, I really don’t know what I’m talking about when it comes to marriage anyway.
I love carrot cake!!! great article
Surprise another Sabre fan that has some intelligence instead of flying off the handle when the Sabres improve themselves ie Morrisson vs Kennedy , Sabres are conservative no doubt , fans everywhere want change but in the end most of the calls DR has made have been good ones , don’t get focused on Sabres moves w/o looking at what other teams have done , most of the time their moves don’t work out , I suppose we could be terrible for 5-8 yrs a la Blackhawks and then have a chance but does anyone want to go thru that , Sabres might be elsewhere if it comes to that