JohnC

To the public/fans he certainly is silent. When's the last time you heard him make public statements about the direction of the franchise and his expectations? He's not a good public speaker so I don't expect much eloquence commentary from him. But that doesn't mean that he can't communicate his thoughts about his failed hockey team and what he is going to do about it through surrogates. When's the last time you seen him be interviewed or take questions from members of the media? It's not unusual for some owners to stay in the background. However, he's taken that invisible act beyond the boundaries of what is normal for a sports franchise owner. It's outright weird.

Jerry Jones talks too much, and Terry Pegula doesn't talk at all. The ying and yang of bad ownership.

There is such a disparity between how the owner oversees his football operation compared to the hockey operation. In the football operation, he ended up hiring a good coach and GM, and then without much interference allowed them to run the operation. Over the past five years or so, the Bills have been one of the most consistently well-run franchises in the league. Without question, it's a respected franchise in the league. In comparison, the hockey franchise has become a long-term stepchild that is not taken seriously in in the league. The silent owner's critical hires have gone beyond being bad to being simply odd. The hiring of KA made no sense other than he installed a sycophant who would allow him to intrude whenever he wanted to. And what's even worse is retaining him after his five-year record of abject failure. What followed was the fraudulent hiring process for a HC. It was a charade that fooled no one. The owner hired the person he wanted to in the first place, Ruff, and then amateurishly masked it as the end product of a legitimate search process. It seemed that nostalgia was the critical factor for the hire. Based on the record, it's not unfair to say that Pegula is one of the worst owners in the league. And based on the record, it's not unfair to say that KA is one of the worst GMs in the league. And few would argue that the Sabre's coaching staff that includes the assistants is a very accomplished staff. This is not a recipe for success.

You gave a very thoughtful and humanistic response. It's obvious that Mair has a serious drinking problem. He should be treated like others who have been involved in similar situations. He will certainly have to contend with the legal system that will direct him to a somewhat coercive course for first time offenders. What will the outcome be after he is directed into a rehabilitating setting? It depends on how seriously he takes the treatment. If he blows it off or just goes through the motions just to get this issue over with, he will then face bigger issues and more severe consequences. For those who blithely and reflexively say that he should be automatically fired, my response is that he is not a disposable human being who isn't capable of redemption. Addiction is a complicated and challenging issue to deal with. It affects not only the individual but the family and relationships around the person. We all know someone either in the family, friends and work circle who struggle to deal with what usually is a life-long tormenting battle. Anyone undergoing what he is currently undergoing needs support, not scorn and harsh judgment. And that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be held accountable for his behavior. I wish him well.

The legal process ran its course ending in acquittals. The legal standard was applied in the trial. And the outcome was acquittals for the accused. Because of the trial, a clearer picture of what happened in this tawdry episode is better known. The players should be allowed to place themselves on the NHL market. When teams are preparing their scouting reports on prospects character considerations are part of the evaluation. I wouldn't want any of them representing my organization. But that doesn't mean that they should be excluded from the profession if other teams are interested in them.

He was a worthy first person pick in that class. That's not to say that another player wouldn't have been a worthy pick for another team if they were making the pick. There is a difference between a tall player who can skate moving up the draft boards and a tall player who can skate being the first pick. With any player with that type of physical stature it normally takes more time to physically mature and reach a higher level. Tage is an example of that. Others can have their opinion on how Power ends up as a player. I'm in the column that very soon he will be an anchor defenseman for us.

Happy Birthday. We all appreciate your work in keeping this site going. 🍺

I don't understand the insistence of so many people for a player to play a game he is not suited for, and never will be. It's inarguable that Power needs to be more physical and responsible in the defensive zone. But he's not going to do that by knocking players on their derrieres. He's going to improve that aspect of his game with better positioning. Those who want to see him play like a gorilla and physically batter the players he is covering are going to be disappointed because it's not going to happen. That's not his makeup and that is not a style of play he is suited for. Assuming that Kesserling will be his partner (and maybe periodically Timmons) it should allow him to better accentuate his game which is skating and moving the puck out of the zone. There was a reason why he was the first pick in his draft year. That lofty draft position doesn't automatically make him a star but it is evident to me that he is going to be a very good player for us and eventually one of the better defensemen in the league. A side note: Dahlin, Byrum, Power, Kesserling, Timmons and Samuelsson seem to be a good group of talent. I expect a lot of our offense will be generated by the backside. The additions of Kesserling and Timmons should boost the unit.

I'm predicting that the Sabres will be competing for a playoff spot all season long. Will they finally qualify? Yes, if the goaltending is consistently respectable. That's the big question. Two years ago, UPL demonstrated that he was at a stage where it seemed that he was going to be a legitimate NHL starter. However, last year, he fell off the cliff Needless to say, he's a fragile player for a position that requires tough-mindedness. Handling failure is a big aspect of that position. Last year, the word resiliency was not part of his vocabulary. In @dudacek's excellent listing of his expectations for most of the players, a good summarization of the group is that the driving force for improvement will be internal improvement of our young players. The players I am very intrigued about who were on the roster last year are Quinn, Benson and Power. I'm hoping they have a leap year. And the new players that I will be following are Doan and Kesserling.

Where the heck are you coming from? You act as if I would be a critic if Tuch got signed to a long term deal. Your responses make no sense to me as it relates to this topic.

I just checked the Sabre site and it noted that the start date hasn’t officially been given yet. The first preseason game is against Columbus on Sept. 22. I suspect camp will start next week.

That all! 😀

Do you know how much he paid for his big boat?

When did I say that everything the Sabres did is bad? You are the one creating a false narrative (as it applies to me) to justify your fawning attitude towards a franchise that hasn't made the playoffs in a generation. Certainly, not all criticisms are merited. But that isn't to say that many aren't.

San Jose took an action that it felt was beneficial for them. And it was within the rules. So what is the problem with that and the reason for criticism of what they did? That's the heart of the discussion on this topic. I simply made the point that I have no criticism for the cap maneuver they made that was within the cap rules.

Whether you or I like the rule is not the point. Teams are allowed to buy or sell a contract without gaining the services of the player in order to reach the cap floor. It comes down to a team taking an action that is permissible that it feels is beneficial. So what's the problem with that? People legally/appropriately take tax deductions even when the specific deduction is outdated. Why would you criticize the person who takes the lawful deduction when it is allowed under the tax rules? Everyone is playing under the same rules. Some organizations use them to their advantage more so than others. And when they do they are acting within the established lines.

How many people are saying that everything the organization does is bad? There is a small slice of posters among the many who reflexively criticize every decision. So what! They don’t represent the prevailing view that the hockey staff doesn’t makes enough good decisions to keep up with their competitors. When you check the record you will find that it is a reasonable view to have.

Read carefully to what I wrote. I said that they are not likely and inclined to do so. I didn’t say never. And that is a fact. The SABRES can handle their contract situation any way they want. That’s not the end all or be all when evaluating them. The bottom line is their record. On that measurement they are lagging.

Why do you have a problem with San Jose taking on a contract to get to the cap minimum? You might not like the contract maneuver but it’s within the rules. It’s not something that the Sabres would likely do, and I’m fine with that. But I’m not going to criticize another organization that is more creative and willing to take unconventional actions to improve their situation.

Are you arguing that he shouldn't be signed for a long-term deal? If you are, it is a perplexing stance to take because not signing him makes the Sabres a lesser team.

This would be a good deal for both parties. I would prefer a 7-year deal. But if he gets an 8-year deal, then so what. From an organizational standpoint, not getting a deal done because of an extra year on a contract would make no sense at all for this lagging franchise.

You are extrapolating from a decidedly minority view in order to justify your lenient view of not holding the organization accountable for their poor record. It was a minority view that Tuch would not extend with Buffalo. There were follow-up discussions regarding what it would mean if he didn't sign. I was involved in that discussion and made the point, also made by many others, that it would be a devasting blow to the team and what it might mean for some of the other players, such as Dahlin and Tage. It's rare that you will get unanimity of viewpoints when you have a large and varied audience. You are taking a minority view and attributing it to the majority in order to support your position. The problem I have with this organization is not that they get all things wrong. That would be an absurd position to take. The problem that I have is that it doesn't do enough things to put the team in a more favorable position. It shouldn't be a surprise that when you have a stolid person as your GM that there will be a lack of imagination and initiative in his actions. I didn't advocate for a substantial roster remake this offseason. However, I expected a little more activity in adding to the roster. Unsurprisingly, it didn't happen.

Your response makes no sense to me. I am assuming that he will sign. And that will be a good thing. Signing an extension with one of your own players is what is normally done. You seem to portray it as if it is an exceptional act. It’s not. It’s how most franchises conduct business. And maybe you are not aware of it but not making the playoffs for a generation is not an example of a normally functioning franchise. That’s why I expected a little more action by the GM this offseason.

Tuch was a young player who projected to be the player that he has become. If that wasn't the case then the Eichel deal made absolutely no sense for us. As it stands, it's still a net loss from a talent standpoint, but in this is the case you have to accept your weak position and try to retrieve as much as possible. I have argued before that the Sabres should have kept Eichel, happy or not. He was under contract. This franchise did what it often does when making personnel decisions, it miscalculated and set the team further back, as demonstrated by the Eichel deal. I liked the additions of McCleod, Zucker and Tuch. But those solid additions have not elevated this team to a playoff spot because the roster still needs additions. That's my basic point. As I said before, if you improve your roster while other teams improve theirs more, then you are falling back.

I di like the acquisitions of Doan and Kesserling for JJP. However, that doesn't mean more couldn't been done to improve the roster. The meaningful issue isn't that the Sabres are improved as it is have they improved enough to be a playoff team. You are not competing against yourself; you are competing against other franchises that are also improving. Ambling along in a road race may be good enough when you are competing against arthritic seniors. But it's not good enough when competing against serious competitors. The Sabres have been out of the playoffs for 15 straight years. Don't be afraid to raise your level of expectations for this systemically mediocre franchise. Dumbing down your standards may be sufficient for some people but it is not for me.