so why exactly did the NHL take control of the Sabres in 2002-03? So they could fall back into the same pattern? That’s what’s infuriating is that the NHL, of all the corrupt organizations, had to run the team for a season so they wouldn’t move, and now they’ve once again decimated their roster, trading fan favorites, and hard-balling some of the league’s top tier players into leaving via free agency. The Sabres have no plan other than to hoodwink their fanbase.

Posted by Percy Weaver from New York on 07/08/08 at 08:56 AM ET

Um, they took control because the previous owners were crooks. Now they have new ownership, who runs the team like a business, where they make money and not operate in the Red.

Posted by Jonathan from Buffalo on 07/08/08 at 09:12 AM ET

Ya, Percy, you forget the previous owners are in federal prison now.  Whatever the current owners are doing, at least it’s legal.

Posted by Ben from Buffalo, NY on 07/08/08 at 10:00 AM ET

who runs the team like a business, where they make money and not operate in the Red

Which is a polite way of saying, “if we’re putting butts in the seats, winning is secondary”. That’s worked out well for the Leafs, Bruins, Rangers, et. al. The owners, I mean—not the fans.

I hope the prospect of a profitable team puts a smile on your face in April, when there aren’t any Sabres games to watch. I guess that’s extra time for the “video scouting” department to do its “work”.

Posted by shep from california on 07/08/08 at 10:03 AM ET

should have let the oilers have vanek, that was a bad move.  im not that familiar with what the compensation was, but i think its in the order of 4 1st rounders considering how big the offer sheet was.  Plus last season may have shown that is only good when playing with good players (enter briere/drury).

Posted by callmedrw on 07/08/08 at 10:45 AM ET

This article makes a lot of sense.  The Sabres biggest mistake was miscalculating on what Drury would do.  Mistakes were made, but it wasn’t because they were cheap - Drury signed for (reportedly) the same deal the Sabres had offered.  Part of it was their incompetence in not getting him signed earlier, but once the season ended there was no reason for him not to go to July 1st.  He also wanted to play for the Rangers, being his favorite team from his childhood, and he stated in an interview with his college alma mater that he enjoyed playing in a city where he could be relatively anonymous in his private life (New York) rather than a city where everywhere he went he was recognized and a celebrity (Buffalo).

The Sabres didn’t mess up the Briere deal; he was never in their plans, given what he was going to cost and the fact that they decided to keep Drury. And with Campbell, I personally feel that it’s easy to say that he would have accepted a deal for much less money, but let’s not forget that these guys have agents.  The agents are the flea in the player’s ear, telling them why settle for 5 when you can get 7?  And it’s tough to believe what the players say after the fact since they want to appear magnanimous and avoid looking like the bad guy.  As I’ve said before, if the Sabres traded Rivet for Campbell and use the extra cap space to sign Pominville and Miller, that’s not a bad strategy.

So essentially, the entire source of the “Sabres are cheap” refrain goes back to a player who they actually fielded a competitive offer for but decided to play elsewhere.  That’s an instance of bad judgment and mismanagement, but not necessarily cheapness.  And if they had sealed the deal with Drury, would anyone have faulted them for letting Briere bolt for a $50 million dollar contract elsewhere, or for getting essentially Rivet and a first round pick for a defenseman they weren’t going to re-sign before he hit free agency - which is more than San Jose got for him after the trade? I don’t think so.

Posted by Dan from Pittsburgh on 07/08/08 at 12:59 PM ET

Jonathan & Ben, this is professional sports where winning is the goal; granted, profit is always a motive, but the Sabres were a year away from potentially winning the Cup, and now they have another decade before they’re competitive; I hope you’re a part owner and happy not to be operating in the red because the Sabres suck. Mind you, this is the same team that allowed their captain Michael Peca to miss an entire season because of a contract dispute, and then let their co-captains Drury and Briere go via free agency, and they also traded fan favorite Stu Barnes for some enigmatic reason. Basically, the Sabres are a disgrace to the National Hockey League, not a model franchise; also, the Islanders were also run by a corrupt owner who’s in jail but the league didn’t feel the necessity to take over their operations.

Posted by Percy Weaver from New York on 07/08/08 at 02:26 PM ET