Do The Sabres Perform Better Without Derek Roy?

by Andy Boron on Jan 9, 2012 7:35 PM EST in Crunching Numbers

For years there has been an argument, led publicly and voraciously by The Bulldog of WGR 550, that the Sabres are a better team without Derek Roy.

The argument as I can best describe it is as follows: Roy, while an above average offensive player, is lazy on the ice and has a poor work ethic which permeates the locker room and negatively affects his teammates. When he is not with the team, other players seem to rise up and give more consistent effort, which leads to better results for the team as a whole.

Since Roy is out again with an injury, and is the current holder of the "Tim Connolly/Everyone Hates You" award, this seemed like as good a time as any to try and determine, as objectively as possible, whether the Sabres as a whole are better without Derek Roy.

I started by looking at last year - Roy's injury and the Sabres' surge to the playoffs happened at almost the exact same time, so let's look at how the team performed before and after Roy.

Year	Record With Roy	Points %	Record Without Roy	Points %	Difference
2010-11	14-17-4	.377	29-12-6	.681	+.304

As you can see, the team earned points at almost twice the rate once Roy was on the shelf as they did when he was on the ice - so trade him 4 da bag of puckzz!!1!! and be done with it right?

Of course, by itself this data is meaningless; it could be nothing more than coincidence. Further mining of this train of thought won't be helpful either, as Roy has only played fewer than 75 games in a season twice: last year and all the way back in 2005-06, when he still played 70, so I don't think that's worth exploring.

But there has to be another way we can analyze his contribution to the team - head after the break to see how his absence changed his teammates' performance.

*Ed Note: Before we continue, I did explore other avenues of analysis such as Corsi numbers, quality of teammates/competition, and various combinations of on/off ice stats like goals for and +/-, but those results either wildly fluctuated from year to year or showed middling, non-conclusive results. If you can come up with anything more concrete than what I've got here, by all means feel free to share.

We've established that the team's record was better without Roy, but what about his specific line mates? When healthy, Roy himself was a point per game player in 2010-11, going 10-25-35 in 35 games. It's tough to argue with that production, but I'll try anyway. Roysie's most common line mates in 2010-11 were Thomas Vanek and Drew Stafford. Each put up big seasons, and finished with over 30 goals, but how much of that was due to #9?

Let's look at Vanek first: he finished last year with 32-41-73. When playing with Roy, Vanek managed 13 goals and 12 assists -- 25 points in their 35 games together for a .71 ppg average. However, once Roy went down, Vanek evolved into Atlas, throwing down 19 goals and 29 assists - 48 points in 45 games for a 1.1 ppg mark. Let's run through the short version for Stafford, who finished 31-21-52. With Roy, 9-5-14 in 20 games, good for .7 ppg. Without Roy, 22-16-38 in 42 games for .9 ppg.

The obvious conclusion is that both of Roy's most common line mates performed better when he was out of the picture, but there are a few just-as-obvious counterarguments to their increased production - Stafford has always come on stronger in the second half of the season, and Vanek's inflated assist numbers came from his taking over the playmaking void left by Roy, while his goals increased only marginally. And despite Vanek and Stafford's hot second half, Roy did still finish with the best points per 60 minute mark on the team.

And that's the frustrating part of it, folks. Every point in this argument has a counterpoint, and much of it can be passed off as coincidence. I don't think there's anyone who will argue that when Roy is firing on all cylinders, he makes the Sabres more dangerous. He is supposed to be a playmaker - someone who makes his line mates better, and is certainly capable of doing that. However, that version of #9 has been almost non-existent this season, though whether it's due to battling through injuries, an extended cold streak, or both, I can't say.

What I can say is that when Roy isn't producing offensively, he does next to nothing for the Sabres. His effort has lacked consistency for years, he's not dominant on faceoffs, and he gives no attempt to play a physical game. The question now becomes: is it worth waiting for him to turn it on, or is the problem with Roy having to wait for him in the first place?

I'm sure ya'll have strong opinions on Roy one way or the other, especially with the pressure on GM Darcy Regier to shake things up, so let us know what you'd do with Roy in the comments.

Tweet Comment 53 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

This is stupid. Roy is a good player and any team is better with him on it.
/TheEnd/

by JSCoope on Jan 9, 2012 8:00 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Thank you for your open-mindedness and consideration.

Die By The Blade - Your home for the best Buffalo Sabres talk online.
@andyboron

by Andy Boron on Jan 9, 2012 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

Sorry man, it was nothing against your article. I can appreciate the effort you put in and I didn’t mean to insinuate that YOU or the article are stupid.
I’m simply sick of the heat Roy constantly catches, the guy can do nothing right.

by JSCoope on Jan 9, 2012 8:43 PM EST up reply actions

Just busting your chops :)

Die By The Blade - Your home for the best Buffalo Sabres talk online.
@andyboron

by Andy Boron on Jan 9, 2012 8:57 PM EST via Android app up reply actions 1 recs

And answering your final question in the article:

I would keep Roy. His contract is budget friendly and he is a consistent presence in all areas of the ice and has shown vast improvement in the defensive zone. He may be playing out of his element as a 1st liner but is a great 2nd liner. We simply need that bonafide 1st line C (as we have all been aware of for years) to allow Roy to slide into the #2 spot. Losing Roy would SUCK for this team.

by JSCoope on Jan 9, 2012 8:46 PM EST up reply actions

The problem is that to trade for a number one center you most likely have to give up Roy in return. I’ve always argued that he’s cost effective, but not if he puts up 45 points.

Die By The Blade - Your home for the best Buffalo Sabres talk online.
@andyboron

by Andy Boron on Jan 9, 2012 8:57 PM EST via Android app up reply actions

Right. But getting a very good #2 C in order to get a #1 C doesn’t really help. The Sabres legitimately SUCK up the middle so losing our best guy isn’t going to help us. The only way I could see it helping is if we were to get a #1 and a top tier C prospect who could get some grind on the 2nd line and fill the void within a year or 2.

by JSCoope on Jan 9, 2012 9:27 PM EST up reply actions

And

Not to mention we are pretty stacked on the wings. There must be teams out there willing to give Boyes/Staff/Ennis/Hecht a shot. In other words, I feel we have better trade options to get us what we need other than losing our current best centerman.

by JSCoope on Jan 9, 2012 9:29 PM EST up reply actions

Would not trade Ennis because

1. His value is at a low, and
2. I like him so damned much.

Save Jenrry Mejia!
2012 Amazin' Avenue Offseason Plan: 2nd place

by Ogre39666 on Jan 9, 2012 9:34 PM EST up reply actions

I like him too. But in order to fill a need you have to give up talent to get talent.

by JSCoope on Jan 9, 2012 9:38 PM EST up reply actions

I just had a déjà-vu reading these comments.

Save Jenrry Mejia!
2012 Amazin' Avenue Offseason Plan: 2nd place

by Ogre39666 on Jan 9, 2012 9:21 PM EST up reply actions

Roy as a Sabre

I am not going to trash Roy like other people in the other posts and blogs are doing. His numbers have been good but not great. It does appear that others pick up their game when he is out. I do believe a change in scenery for him will do him good and the Sabres good. Most fans want to see a blockbuster trade, Nash, Getzlaf, Ryan, Stall etc. I would approach it differently. The three centers I would go after are Little from the Jets, Henrique from the Devils and O’reilly from the Avalanche. All three are good and upcoming young centers you have cap hits of 2.4, .9 and .9 million respectfully. If you could trade Roy, Stafford, Boyes and package them with a young defenseman, draft pick and/ or a prospect and get two of these three, you would start to have a very strong center mix along with Luke Adam. Then I would not resign Kaleta, Gausted or Hecht and you would have a Ton of Cap room to sign a top 6 forward and an experienced Center for your 4th line unless Gausted or Hecht would play for 1.5 million for the next two years. The young defensman I would trade first is Gragnani. His plus number is misleading because of the power play time. Take that out and what do you get, not much. Next would be Sekera because of his Value and finally would be Webber. With the cap space pick up a stay at home veteran D-man like a Gleason from Carolina. With all of that you start to have a Core that go into the playoffs and maybe make a run. Let’s hope the Sabres can make a run in 2012-2013.

by OhioSabresfan on Jan 9, 2012 8:17 PM EST reply actions

That’s quite a lot of moves to make. While I like O’Reilly and Henrique a lot, so do the Avs and Devils, and I bet they’ll be much more hesitant to give those guys up as Sabres fans are to give up either McNabb or Kassian, given their position and potential future with the organization.

Die By The Blade - Your home for the best Buffalo Sabres talk online.
@andyboron

by Andy Boron on Jan 9, 2012 8:36 PM EST up reply actions

Agree

I agree with what you say however, the devils want to make a big playoff push and need back line scoring and help on the power play and penalty kill depth. Ie. Sekera, Stafford and Gaustad. Seems like a lot but not really. The Avs want a more experienced center to go with Stastny and Duchene. A package of Roy, Boyes, and a young winger like Tropp and maybe a 3rd round pick might get it done. I would not give up Kassian or Mcnabb at this point but Brennan or Grags in either of these would be fine. Need to give up something to get plus give something they want or need especially in the Devils case. Thanks

by OhioSabresfan on Jan 9, 2012 9:20 PM EST up reply actions

.

the devils want to make a big playoff push and need back line scoring and help on the power play and penalty kill depth

So they are going to give up the guy centering their #1 line?

A package of Roy, Boyes, and a young winger like Tropp and maybe a 3rd round pick might get it done.

Roy for O’Reily straight up would give me pause let alone all of that.

Save Jenrry Mejia!
2012 Amazin' Avenue Offseason Plan: 2nd place

by Ogre39666 on Jan 9, 2012 9:24 PM EST up reply actions

You maybe right but...

I hear what you are saying. In the devils case Elias can easily slide to #1 and then Zuburus can slide over to #2 with Stafford taking his slot at RW, plus now they get the the other parts with Sekera and Gaustad. On the Avs trade, it really for the most part is Roy for O’reilly. Boyes is a UFA, they can decide what to do with him. He could fit into their team well for his salary. On Tropp, he is in a long line of wingers, how many do we need and if it helps get the deal done great. Maybe just the 3rd round is enough without him. Just some thoughts.

by OhioSabresfan on Jan 9, 2012 9:47 PM EST up reply actions

His plus number is misleading because of the power play time

are you referring to plus/minus? because you don’t get a plus if a power play goal is scored.
i would like to hold on to grags till next year. one, he is playing a hard position, two it is only his first year. give the kid time. he could turn out to be a karlsson from ottawa. i think leopold will be our offensive defenseman to unload at the deadline. i do know that devils fans do think highly of henrique.
i would rather keep roy, low cap hit, better at faceoffs this year, can turn out decent numbers.
and trade some of the huge stock pile of wingers we have. i think the only person that i would trade roy for right now would be Weber, or Parise (obviously more included in the deal). i know that none of those two are centers, but they are the two guys that would improve this team massively. then we can trade away someone like sekera, ennis, leopold, and such for a center.
kind of a sloppy response. just thinking outloud how much i would love to have those guys on our team!!!

by Matt the Rat on Jan 9, 2012 8:40 PM EST up reply actions

.

i think leopold will be our offensive defenseman to unload at the deadline

If we don’t turn it around agreed. He would look very attractive to a lot of teams.

Save Jenrry Mejia!
2012 Amazin' Avenue Offseason Plan: 2nd place

by Ogre39666 on Jan 9, 2012 9:26 PM EST up reply actions

i really hope we can get something nice for him…good pick or prospect.

by Matt the Rat on Jan 9, 2012 9:28 PM EST up reply actions

I could see a second rounder easily.

He’s signed through next year too (at a $3M cap-hit) so he wouldn’t be a pure rental either.

Save Jenrry Mejia!
2012 Amazin' Avenue Offseason Plan: 2nd place

by Ogre39666 on Jan 9, 2012 9:35 PM EST up reply actions

i was sort of thinking a second rounder as well, just because it seems to be the standard for our team at the deadline. i think that would be easy as well. i sort of think that darcy may be able to pull off a little more as well. he has such an odd way of making deals, which i really like. i hope he can pull this thing together.

and oh yeah…did i mention weber and parise? hahaha. man that would be so awesome.

by Matt the Rat on Jan 9, 2012 10:03 PM EST up reply actions

Roy, Stafford, Boyes, a young defenseman, a draft pick, and a prospect….all for 2 young centers? Why not throw in the deed to First Niagara Arena?

by monk43085 on Jan 10, 2012 9:00 AM EST up reply actions

Roy is good...

as a 2nd line Center. But there is no way we can continue to pretend he is a top line pivot. I know #1 Centers dont grow on trees, but if were talking Roy…

we cant trade him in a package for a top Center because then it will just be creating a hole in the 2nd line. Its frustrating because I dont want him on this team anymore, but at the same time, I know its going to be to difficult replacing him, long term, if we dont bring in 2 Centers in a trade.

I hate that I love Buffalo.

by bflo on Jan 9, 2012 8:36 PM EST reply actions

I think we can trade Roy

If we get a true #1 C back we are getting something we haven’t had in how long? I like Roy, but wouldn’t you like to have that #1? I’d rather have to fill a 2nd line C than get a 1. So if we have to trade Roy+ to get that, I’m down. Of course if we can get a #1 AND keep Roy, the better.

by buffaloparks on Jan 9, 2012 11:47 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

Yes Id prefer a #1 Center over Roy...

but this team cant afford any holes in the top 6. Its just not going to work.

I hate that I love Buffalo.

by bflo on Jan 10, 2012 12:04 PM EST up reply actions

I’m neutral on Roy. He’s a fine player. Sometimes he bothers me some (looking to the sky when missing a chance instead of hustling after the puck, etc). But I don’t have any problem with him. I wonder, though, if they keep pairing Roy with the wrong types of players. After Roy’s injury last year, Vanek said something like “I have the puck much more now”. Roy isn’t necessarily a playmaker in the traditional sense. He will make passes and plays, but he looks for plays for himself also. Vanek might be better with a setup man or being allowed to be a setup man occasionally (instead of the “finisher”).

Now, do I think this team is better with Roy? Perhaps, but not in the traditional sense. Like above, perhaps an injury to a guy like him creates a void at a position that causes issues for the team (center) and caused some others to try to pick up the slack. I don’t know. I’m kind of thinking out loud here.

Now, do I want him as my top center? I don’t care, but who is the number 2? That is the problem. If you need a go to center. It’s Roy. Not even an option 2. Hopefully that changes at some point.

In conclusion: If Roy was producing this season as he was before his injury last year, I don’t think many people are having this discussion (or at least advocating a trade). If not, it will be a long rest of the season.

Thank you thank you thank you thank you sireric for bringing the furious punching cat back into my life. - poz

by bluecollarbuffalo on Jan 9, 2012 8:59 PM EST reply actions

Blame the star syndrome.

Which is odd because no one calls Roy a star. Knicks fans (or at least columnists) said it all the time with Ewing never mind that he was a top-5 center at the time. A large contingent of Mets fans were convinced that Carlos Beltran was doing irreparable harm to the team because he didn’t have a bubbly personality never mind that he was putting up 7+ WAR seasons. Roy is a good player. However, when there is only one “good” center on a team, you’re going to have some problems when he has an offseason. Thankfully Adam looks like he can become a #2 center going forward. Maybe we would be better off trading Roy, but now certainly isn’t the time to do it since his value is at an all-time low.

Save Jenrry Mejia!
2012 Amazin' Avenue Offseason Plan: 2nd place

by Ogre39666 on Jan 9, 2012 9:19 PM EST reply actions

Also, one suggestion as to what to look at to analyze "with Roy" vs. "without Roy" would be Time of Possession.

When ToP is high, teams tend to succeed. When it is low, they tend not to.

Save Jenrry Mejia!
2012 Amazin' Avenue Offseason Plan: 2nd place

by Ogre39666 on Jan 9, 2012 9:32 PM EST up reply actions

Interesting point. When I’ve watched Roy, especially with Stafford, they both tend to lose the puck a lot. I have to give Roy credit because he will backcheck hard. I’ve never thought of Roy as a lazy player at all. I think he frequently tries to do so much himself, especially lately and it tends not to work out.

by Philaster on Jan 9, 2012 11:08 PM EST up reply actions

Really interesting topic...thanks for writing about it.

Since I find the concept of a team playing better without a key player who, despite being statistically productive, may be negatively impacting the team from a chemistry/intangibles/locker-room/non-scoring play on ice viewpoint, I decided to do a little more digging into the numbers from last year. (Being unfamiliar with advanced hockey stats, this is relatively basic comparison, so please feel free to point out if I am leaving out other factors in my analysis or not interpreting the data correctly.)

Let’s take a closer look into the Sabres performance both before and after the December 23rd game against Florida, the game Roy was injured for the rest of the regular season:

As stated in the article, the team was 14-17-4 with Roy through Dec 23rd, good for .377% of possible points earned and 29-12-6 after Dec 23rd with Roy out of the lineup, good for .681% of all possible points.

But if we go deeper into the data, you can see a month-by-month trend:

Oct: 3-7-2 or .33% of all possible points
Nov: 6-6-1 or .50% of all possible points
Dec (up to 23rd): 5-4-1 or .55% of all possible points
Dec (after the 23rd): 1-1-0 or .50% of all possible points
Jan: 8-3-1 or .71% of all possible points
Feb: 6-4-2 or .58% of all possible points
March: 10-4-2 or .69% of all possible points
April: 4-0-1 or .90% of all possible points

As you can see, the Sabres best month with Roy was December (up to 23rd), when they won .55% of all possible points. But in looking at the months after Roy was injured, the only singular time period with a lower win percentage than Roy’s best month with the team was the 2 game end to December. Post Roy’s injury, the Sabres did not play a single month (the 2 game end to December excluded) with a winning percentage below Roy’s best month with the team.

Derek Roy, as stated in the article, was also a "point-a-game player" in his 35 games in 2010-11 season. Since such statistically impressive players are not easy to find, you would think Roy contributed greatly to the Sabres offense. Can it be possible to lose a player putting up such good stats and ultimately improve total production? Let’s take a look at the goals scored by Buffalo last season by month:

Oct: 30 goals in 12 games = 2.50 per game
Nov: 30 goals in 13 games = 2.31 per game
Dec (up to 23rd): 30 goals in 10 games = 3.0 per game
Dec (after the 23rd): 6 goals in 2 games = 3.0 per game
Jan: 39 goals in 12 games = 3.25 per game
Feb: 39 goals in 12 games = 3.25 per game
March: 50 goals in 16 games = 3.13 per game
April: 19 goals in 5 games = 3.80 per game

As you can see, the Sabres best month with Roy was December (up to 23rd), when they scored 3.0 goals per game. But again, in looking at the months after Roy was injured, the only singular time period when the Sabres did not score goals at a higher rate than Roy’s best month with the team was the 2 game end to December. The Sabres did not play a single month (the 2 game end to December excluded) with a goals scored per game percentage below Roy’s best month with the team.

Finally, Derek Roy has been in Buffalo for a while now, and I believe he is even an alternate captain, right? Well, when times are tough, teams look to their captains and veterans for stability and strength to get through difficult times. So I went back to see if there was anything I could learn from length of losing streaks from last year…here is what I found:

Losing streaks of two or more games with Roy in lineup: 3 two game losing streaks & 2 five game losing streaks in 35 games played.
Losing streaks of two or more games with Roy out of lineup: 1 three game losing streak in 47 games played.

It seems that any way you look at last season, December 23rd (or right around there) can be considered a definitive "turning point" for the Buffalo Sabres. With Derek Roy out of the lineup, the Buffalo Sabres won a higher percentage of games, scored a higher percentage of goals per game, and had many fewer losing streaks in more games played. This data not only holds true for a general "before and after Dec 23rd" analysis, but also a "month by month before and after Dec 23RD analysis", which I think is much, much more damning.

I really think that the data makes the "Are the Sabres better simply without Derek Roy in the lineup?" a legitimate question, at least in my opinion. (And one that is really interesting to me to debate, because if you determine the answer to be "yes" in any amount, that points to Roy negatively impacting the team in some other areas…so much so that the fact he was a "point-per-game player" was completely offset by the negatives Roy may bring to the team.)

Again, I admit I don’t have much knowledge of advanced hockey stats, and I am not really considering outside factors…but I was still pretty shocked to see such definitive data. Please feel free to let me know if I think I am not looking at something correctly.

"WHEN THE WAGON BLASTER TAKES OFF dont try to get in. THE SPACESES ARE LIMITED FOR WINNING ATTITUDE GODZILLA IS COMING GET READY" - abayarde

by StroudFanClub on Jan 9, 2012 10:33 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Definitely interesting stuff.

I have two reservations
1) We still can’t prove that the correlation = causation. Losing a point-per-game player would not seem to cause an increase in Goals/Game. In order for us to do so (I would think), we would have to show a negative correlation between individual performance and team success.
2) The 23 game window in which we have to judge “with Roy” is probably bordering on too small of a sample. It is just over a quarter of a season, but 23 games doesn’t seem like a lot.

Save Jenrry Mejia!
2012 Amazin' Avenue Offseason Plan: 2nd place

by Ogre39666 on Jan 9, 2012 11:26 PM EST up reply actions

I dunno, I kinda see a trend of the Sabres getting better before Roy went down, Maybe they were just finally started the turn around with Roy in the lineup and then continued it after he went down.

Oct: 3-7-2 or .33% of all possible points
Nov: 6-6-1 or .50% of all possible points
Dec (up to 23rd): 5-4-1 or .55% of all possible points
Dec (after the 23rd): 1-1-0 or .50% of all possible points
Jan: 8-3-1 or .71% of all possible points
Feb: 6-4-2 or .58% of all possible points
March: 10-4-2 or .69% of all possible points
April: 4-0-1 or .90% of all possible points

Earning 55% of points possible in the month before he got injured, that shows a turnaround in the making to me.

"If we needed any more motivation to win a Cup sooner than later, we've got one now," Black said. "I really want to listen to the game that RJ calls when he finally gets to shout out, 'Buffalo wins the Stanley Cup.'"
"Do it or Die Trying."

by FloridaBuffalo on Jan 10, 2012 5:42 PM EST up reply actions

Never liked Roy

He’s a MASSIVE liability if he isn’t putting up numbers.

Get this joker off the team. He’s taking up too much cap space.

by LanceArmstrong_LIVESTRONG on Jan 9, 2012 10:55 PM EST reply actions

The argument about the team being better with Roy seems to have magnified this year

But it will end up not making as much of a difference because he’ll be back soon. I’m actually surprised he has inherited goat status from the likes of Leino and Gragnani.
Anyway, the argument seemed a little ridiculous last year because Roy played so well in the beginning part of the year. I don’t know if it’s even a comparison this year. Perhaps if Pominville went down and the team started playing a lot better. Roy has sucked this year and the team hasn’t seemed much better without him, in my opinion.
I always hear about Roy being a locker room cancer but just listening to him in post game interviews (which I admit isn’t necessarily a great barometer) he seems incredibly normal. His twitter feeds and hilarious Chippewa photo spreads seem awfully brotastic, but broism does not a locker room cancer make necessarily. It’s hard to say really. I honestly think that both Roy and the Sabres could use a change of scenery. I don’t even think the Sabres need a super talented center; I think I’d take solid but unspectacular at this point.

by Philaster on Jan 9, 2012 11:18 PM EST reply actions

I wouldn't mind a shakeup

I think Derek Roy is a good point producer, but I’m not sold on his overall contribution to the team. Not like Vanek, or even Pominville.

The team is underperforming. While Ruff takes some of the blame, I’m in the “Keep Lindy” camp – I really don’t think another coach would do significantly better. And there’s been several years when we’ve sang his praises.

So I think it’s time to shake up our core. And who would you trade from our core? Obviously not Vanek. Probably not Pominville. That leaves Stafford, Roy, Gaustad. Hecht & Boyes are also available. I like Gaustad as our checking center. So trading Roy probably makes the most sense – I think you’d get more in return for him than Stafford.

by kallinan on Jan 10, 2012 6:51 AM EST reply actions

I'd trade Pominville

I’d have to get something good in return to do it, but I’d do it. This is Pominville’s team now and it’s not performing. I don’t think “lead by example” is working.
I’d keep Hecht. Best two way forward on the team by a mile and they are in short supply now on the team. But then he’s been so tied to Pominville over his career that if Pominville left, I might get rid of Hecht too.
Gaustad just isn’t very good.

by Philaster on Jan 10, 2012 9:50 AM EST up reply actions

I don’t think the Sabres are better without Roy. I think there are other variables that may have contributed to the Sabres’ push for the playoffs last year. There is also nothing that says it wouldn’t have happened without Roy.

This team needs centers. Roy is the best one Buffalo has. How can you say they are better without their top center? He may not be a “True #1 Center”, but given the other choices, I’d rather it be Roy or Goose on the draw.

by Binthet on Jan 10, 2012 8:34 AM EST reply actions

It is Easy to Blame Roy

Roy is a good hockey player; not a great hockey player. It seems that fans think he is a great hockey player who is lazy. I beg to differ. He is playing on a team that is short of high-caliber talent. Fans expect Roy to be something that he isn’t, namely, a first-line center. He will never be a first-line center and struggles to be even a second-line center. The Sabres are not a better team without him and they are not a good with him, but that is not his fault. There is a lack of chemistry, dedication and leadership on this team and none of that is Roy’s fault. It would be stupid to trade Roy; we wouldn’t get equal of better value from such a trade.

One of the reasons for the inflated fan expectations for Roy and numerous other Sabres is that they are over promoted by Regier and Ruff who want to convince us that they know hockey talent and how to draft the best players. Remember, Roy is part of that “core” that was supposed to bring the Cup to Buffalo.

by Geolover on Jan 10, 2012 10:02 AM EST reply actions 4 recs

I’m reminded of Pierre Turgeon. Turgeon was the second and last first overall draft pick the Sabres had. When he was drafted, all that was discussed was Gilbert Perreault, and how Turgeon was going to be the next Perreault. Turgeon never lived up to that hype. While he scored an impressive 40G 66A 106 points during the 1989-1990 season and 58G 74A 132 points in 1992-1993 (for the Islanders), he never broke the 90 mark another season during his Sabres career. By contrast, the player he was in part traded for, Pat LaFontaine, had 53G 95A 148 points during the 1992-1993. Both Turgeon and LaFontaine subsequently had concussion issues, but Turgeon basically became a solid 2nd and 3rd liner for the Stars and Blues.
Roy’s numbers aren’t nearly as gaudy as Turgeon’s or LaFontaine’s, but even adjusting the fact that the league has changed, Roy just isn’t a first line center material, and expectations should be adjusted accordingly. But the reason why Roy’s expectations are so high is because even if Roy isn’t a first line center, Roy is still the most talented Center the Sabres have, and it’s been that way since 2007.
Part of the reason I brought up Turgeon though is to be critical of the way Darcy operates in the sense that by trading the best player on the Sabres for the best player on the Islanders, both teams were benefited. It’s hard to discuss who “won” that trade. I can’t even conceive of Darcy making the trade that I believe Gerry Meehan made then. I think that might have been what Brian Burke was alluding to when he made that comment recently.

by Philaster on Jan 10, 2012 10:29 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Forgot to add that Mogilny played with both Turgeon and LaFontaine on their lines. I think that Darcy would obsess about the chemistry of that line and discuss that as a reason for not making that trade. Yet after the trade, Mogilny had his best years with LaFontaine. Not to say that things were not working with Turgeon.

by Philaster on Jan 10, 2012 10:31 AM EST up reply actions

This was the first player that came to mind as well – Turgeon.

Another part to Turgeon leaving was he (and Dave Andreychuk, so some degree) became the poster childs for first round playoff failures during the late 80s and early 90s.

It wasn’t just the Lafontaine trade at that time. During those few years, Meehan and Muckler went out and changed the entire core of the Sabres, bringing in Dale Hawerchuk and others … guys who were considered “soft” and not playoff ready, like Uwe Krupp, Darren Puppa, and others were also shipped out.

It went from a Pierre Turgeon/Dave Andreychuk team to Hawerchuk and Lafontaine’s team. They were moves that changed the culture of the locker room. Injuries, age, and salary ultimately tore it apart.

by sabre74kkn on Jan 10, 2012 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

People complained loudly at the time about Turgeon being incredibly soft despite his large frame. Goalscoring is never enough for people it seems. Turgeon was solid but not a superstar by any means. It seems like the names change but the problems haven’t changed since the late 80s early 90s.

by Philaster on Jan 10, 2012 2:59 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed.

Might be the first time I’ve ever rec’d one of your posts.

by lassathrax on Jan 10, 2012 11:58 AM EST up reply actions

Agreed.

Except for the obligatory garbage about Ruff and Darcy. And Roy is an fine #2 center.

Save Jenrry Mejia!
2012 Amazin' Avenue Offseason Plan: 2nd place

by Ogre39666 on Jan 10, 2012 2:09 PM EST up reply actions

If i could make moves three years after the fact, i’d have fired Darcy just for drafting Marek Zagrapan.

Of course, he goes and redeems himself with better drafting before i can compile enough evidence that his drafting is terrible.

Mike Weber Pressbox Incarceration Status: Free to roam the blueline.
"Ville Leino may stink but he’s still way better than Matt Ellis."

by Ubiquitous on Jan 10, 2012 4:28 PM EST up reply actions

I think this quote sums up Roy

Taken from Bill Hoppe’s mid-season review…

“We had high expectations at the start of the year. We knew that," said Sabres center Derek Roy, who has only eight goals and 24 points. "Going forward now there’s low expectations. So now it’s easier to play. We just play loose, play fun. Go out there and play hard.”

In my opinion, that’s a pathetic thing to say.

by krytime on Jan 10, 2012 4:47 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Basically he’s saying they can’t handle the pressure?

by FloridaBuffalo on Jan 10, 2012 5:44 PM EST up reply actions

I think the context of this is that the expectations and pressure were making it harder to win games, and now that the expectations are low (as they were in previous years) it is easier to play comfortably and hopefully start winning. This was probably meant more as optimism than laziness or whatever.

by lassathrax on Jan 10, 2012 6:17 PM EST up reply actions

How is that pathetic?

He’s just saying that they have to get back to playing the way they/he knows they can play (i.e. play loose, fun, and hard) What’s so bad about that?

Save Jenrry Mejia!
2012 Amazin' Avenue Offseason Plan: 2nd place

by Ogre39666 on Jan 10, 2012 8:25 PM EST up reply actions

Way to go, posting this

Now the team feels the need to score 0 goals and lose every game until Roy returns just to prove this wrong! If you had instead written a piece entitled “Do the Sabres Enjoy Losing?” they might win some games to prove you wrong… (Or maybe they’d all make accounts and reply “yes, sir”…)

by lassathrax on Jan 10, 2012 10:12 PM EST reply actions