Bucky hammers "sugar packets" Golisano...

[Stoner]

...add to that mix the fact that golisano reportedly runs the franchise like a business (*gasp*), which means working to turn some profit (*double gasp*) in a predictable, stable and annually-replicable fashion, and you have a club that is going to take a slow and steady approach to building a franchise (regier's a perfect fit for that business model), rather than take a sailor-on-leave/devil-may-care approach.

 

I'll be damned if I could ever find the quote (might be able to with an hour to comb over the old headlines on this site), but Golisano made it quite clear early in his tenure he was not interested in "turning a profit." Even steven, a little above, a little below, was fine with him.

 

Anyone else remember this?

[nfreeman]

I'll be damned if I could ever find the quote (might be able to with an hour to comb over the old headlines on this site), but Golisano made it quite clear early in his tenure he was not interested in "turning a profit." Even steven, a little above, a little below, was fine with him.

 

Anyone else remember this?

 

I remember this. However, there's a lot of difference between break-even and losing $6-$8 million per year. If he (or any owner) looks at the numbers after 3 years and he's lost $20 million -- it's bye-bye Sabres.

[Stoner]

Well, this goes back to the debate we all had in 2006 -- ie does Golisano (or any owner) owe fans a duty to lose money in pursuit of a winning team? The answer is no, of course not, and that is the road to losing your franchise. And, btw, the Sabres were just below the average NHL cap number last year and spent more than Pittsburgh, Tampa and San Jose.

 

And what is "the current approach" you refer to? Is it not spending to the cap? If so, of course it came from above -- ie Golisano and Quinn worked out a budget for the team and told Darcy he had to work within those limits -- just like most of the teams in the NHL.

 

"Just below" the cap? Juuuuuuuust a bit outside. :)

 

The current approach is not spending to the cap, developing from within, shying away from free agency, a reluctance to lock up core players, video scouting, etc. Was all that Darcy's idea?

[carpandean]

I don't disagree that the UFA market, especially on the first day, tends to lead to out-of-control contracts. One reason it hasn't bitten anyone yet is because of the perfect storm of factors (Canadian $ vs. US $ growth, etc., move to highest % of revenues, etc.) that has caused the cap to continue to grow at an unbelievable and, frankly, unsustainable rate. As soon as we see a year or two with little to no cap growth, those teams that overspent in FA during the most recent years will get bitten badly. We all balked at the Briere contract last season, because with the cap where it was in 05-06, a contract with that hit for someone that wasn't a franchise-level player (e.g., Crosby, Ovechkin) was ludicrous. Now, with the cap nearly doubled, we have borderline top-six forwards and defensively-challenged puck-moving defensemen getting that much. Who knows when the cap growth will plateau, but when it does, some teams are in trouble. As it is, this year the Flyers are tight against the cap and trading off some quality players. Imagine if the cap had only gone up a million or two; they would have been buried under contracts like Danny's.

 

On the other hand, I believe that the FO has convinced itself that all FA signings are overpriced and, perhaps, have failed to accept just how much contracts/player's values have gone up. They also seem a little unwilling to take a chance that might make them look bad, but could also work out very well. This means that they will make good moves like acquiring Rivet, but will also not make some other necessary moves. The market for Max may be thin and his value might go up after starting with the team this season, but that doesn't mean it would have been a bad move to trade him for picks/prospects, even of the mid-range type, to clear up a roster spot and $3M in budget space. That spot/money could have been used to bring in another capable center, even if it were from FA. Those two moves alone would aleviate much of the remaining concern with this team.

 

This team will never be the NYR, nor should they be. However, they are not the cheapest, either. There were teams last year that did more but spent less (some, much less) and there are teams that did less and spent more (some, much more). It's about making the right moves at the right times. They have some solid core guys, but also some holes. Rivet fills one of those holes, Lalime may fill another, but they still have a couple left (another Dman, another top-line-capable center) that need to be filled. I hope that they are willing/able to pull the plug this offseason, but recent comments suggest they may be willing to ride out this season with Max/Timmy in the game plan. At the very least, though, their hands will be forced at the end of this season when their contracts are up.

 

Side note: relating to TW's comment about reputation, he is correct that perception of your company by its customers (often covered under what's called goodwill) is a significant factor in business decisions, because it often translates into the bottom line down the road. You can't only make decisions that will please your customers, but you also can't ignore their feelings either. Paying a half-million more per year than you think a guy is really worth for one "key" FA signing might be worth it simply for the added value of being perceived as an organization that is trying to do the right things.

 

On a related (to my side note) note: perception also gives Detroit a bit of an unfair advantage in any comparison. They have an historic past that spans much longer than the Sabres and, of course, with many more cups. They've also focused on certain types and, at times, nationalities (home many -ov's did they have in the 90's?) of players, which they use to build a team that wants to be together. All of those things mean that they will get considerations from players that few other teams will enjoy. Is there any other team that Hossa would have taken that contract with? Yes, they've made some great moves, but they also don't have to do as much of the work themselves. It's much like why Harvard remains in the top-3 for nearly every category of graduate schools year-in and year-out. They don't necessarily have better programs, faculty or facilities than other top schools, but the best apply there and accept offers from there simply because they are Harvard. It is a self-sustaining cycle and one that they and anyone looking to overtake them would have to do a lot to overcome.

[BetweenThePipes00]

For the record I'm not predicting they will suck. It's just there were improvements to be made and I don't think gaining Rivet and losing Bernier covers them. I like the Rivet trade a lot better with a bigger forward like Bernier on the roster. I think fans will regret the Sabres giving away Bernier like we did when they let Steve Begin go. This FO just has something against forwards with toughness.

 

 

No, no! Predict them to suck! Ever since you YOU went soft before the 06-07 season, the team has also, even when they were winning that year! Make them prove you wrong! ;)

 

On a serious note, I don't remember Bernier doing anything that set him apart from the rest of the team in the toughness department ... we can have the chicken-or-the-egg argument as to whether or not that is because they are told to play a certain way, but IF he truly is a bad ass and they are indeed instructed to play soft, then he was being wasted here anyway. If he is the most marketable guy and you are not going to use him properly, then they made a fine move getting rid of him.

[Stoner]

I remember this. However, there's a lot of difference between break-even and losing $6-$8 million per year. If he (or any owner) looks at the numbers after 3 years and he's lost $20 million -- it's bye-bye Sabres.

 

Did the Sabres lose that much, even in a non-playoff year? No. The Sabres aren't going anywhere. And can we please stop talking about how poor Buffalo is? Where in God's name did the millions upon millions come from for all that merchandise, all those playoff tickets? The money is there.

[X. Benedict]

Side note: relating to TW's comment about reputation, he is correct that perception of your company by its customers (often covered under what's called goodwill) is a significant factor in business decisions, because it often translates into the bottom line down the road. You can't only make decisions that will please your customers, but you also can't ignore their feelings either. Paying a half-million more per year than you think a guy is really worth for one "key" FA signing might be worth it simply for the added value of being perceived as an organization that is trying to do the right things.

I've considered TW's "perception is reality" thing more than once.

 

My main problem with it from a management standpoint is that your players are not your customers.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Did the Sabres lose that much, even in a non-playoff year? No. The Sabres aren't going anywhere. And can we please stop talking about how poor Buffalo is? Where in God's name did the millions upon millions come from for all that merchandise, all those playoff tickets? The money is there.

 

 

Yes, but those millions upon millions mostly came form average fans spending their disposable income, and it could go away if they start to suck. You know I am not one of the doom-and-gloom crew, but I do recognize that they can't go in the tank for a couple years moreso than most markets because they do not have a season ticket base made up of big companies buying up the most expensive seats... many of those seats are owned by Regular Joes ...

[ReneRobert]

One hires Scott Bowman to win a Cup. The other goes to the old ex-player ranks, gets a sniff once in a while and makes the dude coach for life.

 

Owners matter.

 

 

Of course, the Knoxes hired Scotty Bowman, and watched him massively screw up the team in his determination to show that he was really a great GM.... Thankfully for his historical reputation, he dropped that pretension and went back to focusing on coaching. Not that it made any difference in Buffalo.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Of course, the Knoxes hired Scotty Bowman, and watched him massively screw up the team in his determination to show that he was really a great GM.... Thankfully for his historical reputation, he dropped that pretension and went back to focusing on coaching. Not that it made any difference in Buffalo.

I bit my tongue on this earlier ... but you are so right ... he was pissed he wasn't named Habs' GM and tried to prove how smart he was ... now, he obviously learned from those mistakes because he contributed greatly to building winners in Pittsburgh and Detroit ... but still, he took a talented but underachieving roster and instead of tweaking it to fix it, he ripped the heart out of it. But again, I bit my tongue because that is a whole other discussion.

[That Aud Smell]

I'll be damned if I could ever find the quote (might be able to with an hour to comb over the old headlines on this site), but Golisano made it quite clear early in his tenure he was not interested in "turning a profit." Even steven, a little above, a little below, was fine with him.

 

Anyone else remember this?

that squares with my recollection as well. the point remains the same: the guy's firmly committed to a sustainable business model. and, for that, he is decried by some as being paralyzingly cheap.

[That Aud Smell]

And can we please stop talking about how poor Buffalo is? ... The money is there.

true. and yet the margin of error is much, much smaller than it is in markets that are more flush with cash.

 

i'm not saying that the team is currently drawing blood from a turnip, i'm just ... wait--wha?! :bag:

 

EDIT: p.s. what pipes said.

[ReneRobert]

I bit my tongue on this earlier ... but you are so right ... he was pissed he wasn't named Habs' GM and tried to prove how smart he was ... now, he obviously learned from those mistakes because he contributed greatly to building winners in Pittsburgh and Detroit ... but still, he took a talented but underachieving roster and instead of tweaking it to fix it, he ripped the heart out of it. But again, I bit my tongue because that is a whole other discussion.

 

 

True, the Bowman legacy is a separate issue, but it is still germane here, especially if someone whose Sabre historical memory proves he should know better tries to draw the Bowman/Ruff comparison as a slam on current management. I am not sold on the idea of hiring superstar coaches in general (which is another separate issue), but it seems especially silly to me for someone to suggest that sticking with a coach who has turned out to have developed into something approaching a superstar is a bad move by management. I share every fan's frustration with how things have gone in the past year, but anyone who thinks that there is a single magic formula to winning (sign everyone! dump Peters! hire a coach people have heard of! bring back the goat head! stomp the slug!) is delusional.

[djwilli3]

I hope they do end up overpaying Pommers and Miller. So then if they do lock them both up long term and bust the bank on them, Bucky can write another article about how the sabres try to buy talent and blah blah blah. Most of the info coming from that article about the comparison of Buffalo and Motown is kind of a joke though. Comparing the teams based on the towns is probably one of the dumbest things you can do.

 

I've lived in Detroit for the last three years. Let me clue you in on something. If you think the economy is bad there in Buffalo, and it is, take a walk down here for a couple of years and your jaw will drop. A comparison between the two cities is more than fair. The difference is, Illych, the Wings' owner, is more than willing to spend his millions, open the bank vaults and pay player the money they are worth to win a championship. And gee, that strategy has worked. How many cups have they won in the last, say fifteen years? Three? Four? And he's always been willing to spend the money. Now, look at Golisano. Another really rich guy with hockey team in an economically depressed rust belt city. His FO won't pay ANYONE to come here. We grab a random free agent or two and they come in for a couple of years, but thn they leave without much fanfare. All because, the Sabres don't make enough money. Well, we have the lowest ticke prices in the league. Raise them. Fans will pay to see a winning team. Again, look at Detroit. Highest ticket prices in the league. Their games are regularly sold out. And why? Because they know that when they go to the games they are seeing a team that is built to win and that year in and year our they are a favorite to win the cup. Buffalo's FO seems like it could care less. People aren't going to pay to see an average team that they know is on the fringes of the playoffs our just outside every year. You have to pay to get players to help your team.

 

The FO has refused to do any such thing. Not only won't they pay to bring players in, they have refused to offer legitimate contracts to keep the good players that we actually have. I think Drury and Briere were only the end of a string of bad decisions made by the FO. Both players wanted to stay, but felt as if the FO was really short shrifting them, trying to supremely undervalue their worth to the team. And they were right to go elsewhere. Vanek would be gone too if Vancouver hadn't stepped in and saved our butts. Had they not offered him that contract, he would be gone at the end of the season, and only because Regier realized that he couldn't afford to lose every good player we had that he actually decided to pay Vanek. And he had to really pay, much more than if we had been able to give him a contract on our own terms. But these guys seem to lazy to do that. And if you expect more from them in the Miller and Pominville negotiations, your fooling yourself. They will try to get them on the cheap, the two of them will be offended at the way the FO is treating them and the work and effort they put in with the team, and they'll bolt. I really hope I'm wrong and that they change their tune, but I don't see that happening. The only one of the entire group that I have any respect for is Ruff. I don't care what people say, the guy is a winner and has done more with the lackluster talent we have had than most people could. As for the rest of them, the only reason I hope that we have another shi--y season is so that maybe, just maybe, they'll throw the bums out and we can get some decent management for a change. Even still, I don't think that would happen, because like it or not, Bucky was right. The team is cheap and has been for a while.

[jad1]

So what is Bucky bitching about here? That the Sabres had to trade for Rivet (who he admits is a good fit for the Sabres) instead of signing Orpik as a UFA? Is that the problem?

 

Well the Sabres chose Rivet's expericence and leadership over Orpik's youth. They also like his offensive skill. He'll play the Teppo role if Teppo doesn't return. A player with that type of experience wasn't available on the market, so the Sabres traded Bernier.

 

Honestly, what's the problem? It was a sound hockey decision.

[tom webster]

I've considered TW's "perception is reality" thing more than once.

 

My main problem with it from a management standpoint is that your players are not your customers.

 

But the same notion applies. As an organization, you are trying to recruit players, who unlike most employees, have an option as to where they go. It is becoming apparent through four years of free agency, that players aren't necessarily going to the best offer. All most players have as a reference tool is things they see when they come here (not particularly good), things they read about (oh oh) , things they have heard from other players( areas great, but??) and things they have heard from their agents(ugh)

 

While perception can be reality as Inkman so succinctly put it, the reality can win out but it takes a lot longer to change perception than it takes to change reality.

[carpandean]

Some interesting discussion of this issue on TSN.ca:

 

http://tsn.ca/nhl/

 

Click on "Extra Extra" video to the right.

 

Notice at the 7:30 mark, one guys talks about exactly what I said earlier with respect to the cap going up.

[nfreeman]

"Just below" the cap? Juuuuuuuust a bit outside. :)

 

The current approach is not spending to the cap, developing from within, shying away from free agency, a reluctance to lock up core players, video scouting, etc. Was all that Darcy's idea?

 

My post stated that the Sabres were just below the average cap number for all NHL teams -- ie the average each NHL team's total cap hit (as distinguished from their actual cash outlay). Not just below the total cap limit. My point really was that the Sabres are right in the middle in terms of how much they spend on players.

 

As for "reluctance to lock up core players" -- I don't think that is a team policy, from either Darcy or above. I think they made hockey/budget decisions (ie player X wasn't worth what it would cost to keep him) not to keep Briere, McKee and Dumont and they butchered the Drury and Soupy situations out of sheer incompetence. Hopefully they have learned their lessons from last year and will not repeat those mistakes this summer with Miller and Pominville.

 

As for not spending to cap -- this is definitely a decision from above, as it is with the 20+ other NHL teams that don't spend to the cap. Shying away from the UFA bidding frenzy is a natural by-product of living within a budget. Developing from within is or should be a priority of every NHL team. The video scouting thing is much more hysterical negative hype than substance.

 

 

Did the Sabres lose that much, even in a non-playoff year? No. The Sabres aren't going anywhere. And can we please stop talking about how poor Buffalo is? Where in God's name did the millions upon millions come from for all that merchandise, all those playoff tickets? The money is there.

 

Weren't the Sabres allegedly losing $10MM+ per year when the criminals owned them? And you can pretend WNY is rolling in cash if you like, but that and $2 will get you on the 3-stop subway system.

 

So what is Bucky bitching about here? That the Sabres had to trade for Rivet (who he admits is a good fit for the Sabres) instead of signing Orpik as a UFA? Is that the problem?

 

Well the Sabres chose Rivet's expericence and leadership over Orpik's youth. They also like his offensive skill. He'll play the Teppo role if Teppo doesn't return. A player with that type of experience wasn't available on the market, so the Sabres traded Bernier.

 

Honestly, what's the problem? It was a sound hockey decision.

 

Good post. I think the Sabres (and most GMs) simply preferred Rivet to Orpik. I also think a lot of GMs weren't as enamored of Orpik as most fans were -- otherwise he would've gotten a bigger deal.

[nobody]

It would have been idea if the Sabres traded for Rivet AND signed Orpik (or whoever Darcy had tagged as the 2 UFA dmen that he had interest in.)

 

The FO does seem to have a perception problem with players in the league and Bucky has a perception problem with the vast majority of people on this site. They both have good days but it is hard to overlook the perception.

 

As djwilli3 said - Detroit is willing to spend money and always has been. Before the cap they were always one of the highest budgeted teams so players knew they were spending to win. Now top players take a little pay cut and sign on for a year or two to get on the team to win a Cup before they move on to another hugh contract with another team. If the Rigas family actually spent the extra stolen dollar as they promised to win a few Cups then perhaps the Sabres would be a team players would be willing to go to still.

[carpandean]

As for not spending to cap -- this is definitely a decision from above, as it is with the 20+ other NHL teams that don't spend to the cap.

In fact, most teams in the NHL were at least $3M below the cap last year before the trade deadline and the majority were several million below that (some were even double-digit millions below.) In fact, after adjusting for LTIR and bonus cushions, had Teppo not gone down in August, we would have had basically the same cap space that Detroit did last year.

 

The main reason that Detroit got Hossa for one year this summer is because they have almost their entire cup-winning (dominating?) team back for extremely low money, giving them a great chance to repeat, but face a larger list of FA forwards after next season (Zetterberg, Franzen, Samuelsson, Hudler) and even more at both ends the year after that.

[X. Benedict]

As djwilli3 said - Detroit is willing to spend money and always has been.

 

Check out the Detroit roster. If that entire team was given free agent status today and re-signed them at market value they would have a 80 million dollar pay role.

 

Throwing around money is exactly the thing they are not doing.

[nucci]

So what is Bucky bitching about here? That the Sabres had to trade for Rivet (who he admits is a good fit for the Sabres) instead of signing Orpik as a UFA? Is that the problem?

 

Well the Sabres chose Rivet's expericence and leadership over Orpik's youth. They also like his offensive skill. He'll play the Teppo role if Teppo doesn't return. A player with that type of experience wasn't available on the market, so the Sabres traded Bernier.

 

Honestly, what's the problem? It was a sound hockey decision.

Exactly. But what you say won't get people talking as we are on this thread and it won't fill up a page in The Buffalo News. <_<

[nobody]

Check out the Detroit roster. If that entire team was given free agent status today and re-signed them at market value they would have a 80 million dollar pay role.

 

Throwing around money is exactly the thing they are not doing.

 

 

Actually I think you made my point with your first statement.

To reiterate:

 

"Now top players take a little pay cut and sign on for a year or two to get on the team to win a Cup before they move on to another hugh contract with another team."

 

Maybe I shouldn't have said "little" in terms of pay cut.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Actually I think you made my point with your first statement.

To reiterate:

 

"Now top players take a little pay cut and sign on for a year or two to get on the team to win a Cup before they move on to another hugh contract with another team."

 

Maybe I shouldn't have said "little" in terms of pay cut.

Other than Hossa, who was not on the Cup winning team, who took a paycut to play there? Datsyuk makes $6.7 million a year, 8th in the NHL for a center ... they have two of the top 11 paid defensemen in the NHL in Lidstrom and Rafalski ... Zetterberg is only getting paid less because he never hit free agnecy yet ... I am sure he will get close to market value to stay .... I agree they are not throwing around money in a stupid fashion, but guys don't stay there because they feel warm and fuzzy. They pay them very well for performance.

[djwilli3]

Other than Hossa, who was not on the Cup winning team, who took a paycut to play there? Datsyuk makes $6.7 million a year, 8th in the NHL for a center ... they have two of the top 11 paid defensemen in the NHL in Lidstrom and Rafalski ... Zetterberg is only getting paid less because he never hit free agnecy yet ... I am sure he will get close to market value to stay .... I agree they are not throwing around money in a stupid fashion, but guys don't stay there because they feel warm and fuzzy. They pay them very well for performance.

 

And your last sentence pretty much said it all. Buffalo does not pay their players for performanc. They'd rather offer them a contract at significantly less than they are worth, and let them go make the big bucks and help other teams, usually those that we see at least four times a year. That's why the FO is a blundering machine that can't get it right. Youth and skill aren't enough to win in hockey, you need veterans on a team that care about the organization as much as the organization cares about them. Until the FO learns that you can't just have the pretense of negotiations and actually do have to offer your best players a contract that shows you value their contribution and want them to stay, this team is going to languish.