Ted Black refuses to answer this question

[Stoner]

Been asked at least six times on his WGR appearance going back to 2011. Credit to Howard, Jeremy et al. for being persistent. I suspect they know this is a key question.

 

"Hey, Ted, if Darcy has a deal, does he need Terry to approve it or can he just pull the trigger?"

 

Ted always answers by not answering. "We all work together and Darcy gets input from everyone and we all have a boss, and sure why wouldn't you run it by your boss." Fine, except the question is about APPROVAL.

 

Will Rick Dudley want to work someplace where the owner can thumbs up or thumbs down his moves? If this is an issue of not trusting Darcy, then why is Darcy still here? If it's an issue of Terry wanting to be de facto GM of an NHL team, then why will Rick Dudley, or any other good hockey man with a pair want to work here?

[Weave]

I HOPE they've got Darcy on a leash as those replies suggest. I'm not going to worry about whether they put every GM on a leash until I actually hear of them doing it. I don't have the emotional budget to worry about something that hasn't happened yet.

[That Aud Smell]

Been asked at least six times on his WGR appearance going back to 2011. Credit to Howard, Jeremy et al. for being persistent. I suspect they know this is a key question.

 

"Hey, Ted, if Darcy has a deal, does he need Terry to approve it or can he just pull the trigger?"

 

Ted always answers by not answering. "We all work together and Darcy gets input from everyone and we all have a boss, and sure why wouldn't you run it by your boss." Fine, except the question is about APPROVAL.

 

Will Rick Dudley want to work someplace where the owner can thumbs up or thumbs down his moves? If this is an issue of not trusting Darcy, then why is Darcy still here? If it's an issue of Terry wanting to be de facto GM of an NHL team, then why will Rick Dudley, or any other good hockey man with a pair want to work here?

 

I've heard him handle that question several times. He's deliberately fuzzy on how this gets handled. Here is what Ted has said:

 

* Darcy keeps his superiors (I'm actually not clear on who Darcy's direct report is -- Ted? Terry?) in the loop in "real-time" (that is a term that Ted used the other day) on player moves he is contemplating or working on.

* Ted stays out of Darcy's "kitchen" when it comes to hockey-related matters. Ted has not similarly vouched for Terry's staying out of Darcy's kitchen.

 

All of that does, as you infer, leave open the distinct possibility that Terry may weigh in on a contemplated deal with thoughts, suggestions, approval, or disapproval. We have no way of knowing how active Terry is in that process, or how much he defers to Darcy's judgment. Also, I'm not sure how different that sort of dynamic is from other management-ownership situations in the league.

[EasternOHSabresFan]

It is time for the rest of the management to go, point blank. Our roster keeps on getting worse and worse, and if Miller is retained, we'll spiral into the depths of obscurity fast. Ugh.

[spndnchz]

I HOPE they've got Darcy on a leash as those replies suggest. I'm not going to worry about whether they put every GM on a leash until I actually hear of them doing it. I don't have the emotional budget to worry about something that hasn't happened yet.

 

This.

[bunomatic]

I can see it now. Regier apologists will say Darcy was handcuffed by TP so any moves he made or didn't make were a direct result of ownership meddling therefore you can't blame Darcy for the state of the team. Now where have I heard this sad story before. Bah. What a load of crap. Darcy always gets an easy out.

[Iron Crotch]

I can see it now. Regier apologists will say Darcy was handcuffed by TP so any moves he made or didn't make were a direct result of ownership meddling therefore you can't blame Darcy for the state of the team. Now where have I heard this sad story before. Bah. What a load of crap. Darcy always gets an easy out.

 

Darcy is like teflon... nothing sticks to him!

[nfreeman]

The only reason not to jump off a bridge at the thought of DR running this trade deadline is TB's implication that others in the organization (hopefully Ken Sawyer, but at this point I'd be happy with Tom Sawyer) have to approve any trades.

[Claude_Verret]

The only reason not to jump off a bridge at the thought of DR running this trade deadline is TB's implication that others in the organization (hopefully Ken Sawyer, but at this point I'd be happy with Tom Sawyer) have to approve any trades.

 

Always hopeful, yet discontent. He knows changes aren't permanent. But change is.

[nfreeman]

Always hopeful, yet discontent. He knows changes aren't permanent. But change is.

 

Exit the warrior.

[Patty16]

The only reason not to jump off a bridge at the thought of DR running this trade deadline is TB's implication that others in the organization (hopefully Ken Sawyer, but at this point I'd be happy with Tom Sawyer) have to approve any trades.

 

Perhaps, as owner and senior mgt, they retain veto power, pretty common for GMs to run trades by ownership. Not sure why this is an issue on GR.

 

Do you think Calgary traded Iginla without ownership approval?

[dudacek]

Exit the warrior.

 

Please tell me you think Darcy is a warrior.

Also, are there any Darcy apologists left?

[TrueBlueGED]

Hey look, it's PA with another thinly(?)-veiled Pegula sucks post. Who would've thought.

[Taro T]

 

 

Perhaps, as owner and senior mgt, they retain veto power, pretty common for GMs to run trades by ownership. Not sure why this is an issue on GR.

 

Do you think Calgary traded Iginla without ownership approval?

Agreed. I don't see this as an issue. The owner has $MM's invested in the team; it's in upper management's best interest to make sure the GM is kept honest. Switching to a Bills draft analogy, you don't want your GM that doesn't really want to be there grabbing an Eric Flowers or 1 desperate to save his job grabbing an Aron Maybin.

 

Keeping an active interest is different than insisting Peca gets lowballed nor not signing a Drury deal for a few weeks.

[Patty16]

Hey look, it's PA with another thinly(?)-veiled Pegula sucks post. Who would've thought.

 

If Darcy needs approval, TP is meddling

If Darcy doesnt need approval, TP sucks for letting Darcy do it.

 

oh yea and analytics.

[That Aud Smell]

Always hopeful, yet discontent. He knows changes aren't permanent. But change is.

 

That song. Never. Gets. Old.

 

It just doesn't.

 

Hey look, it's PA with another thinly(?)-veiled Pegula sucks post. Who would've thought.

 

He's a cynic and a skeptic, I'll grant you. But it's a valid point of inquiry. My question is whether and to what extent other GM's in the league behave much differently. I don't think they do. The question comes down to how much the owner meddles or defers. That's something we just don't know.

[Braedon]

I just think it's a loaded question, or one that can be misconstrued multiple ways. If he says "No," it suggests disenfranchisement or lack of unity in the front office. If he answers "Yes," it suggests micromanagement ala Jerry Jones. In the presence of an increasingly unpopular GM, it's probably appropriate to answer conservatively.

[buftex]

Been asked at least six times on his WGR appearance going back to 2011. Credit to Howard, Jeremy et al. for being persistent. I suspect they know this is a key question.

 

"Hey, Ted, if Darcy has a deal, does he need Terry to approve it or can he just pull the trigger?"

 

Ted always answers by not answering. "We all work together and Darcy gets input from everyone and we all have a boss, and sure why wouldn't you run it by your boss." Fine, except the question is about APPROVAL.

 

Will Rick Dudley want to work someplace where the owner can thumbs up or thumbs down his moves? If this is an issue of not trusting Darcy, then why is Darcy still here? If it's an issue of Terry wanting to be de facto GM of an NHL team, then why will Rick Dudley, or any other good hockey man with a pair want to work here?

 

Or, it could just be that Darcys' future beyond this season is in question (we hope) and the owner wants to know what he plans to do with the roster, before he does it. At this point, in 2013, after what has transpired this season, I would definitely want Darcy answering to somebody. I am not down on Pegula (he is still relatively new) but I am fearful that he may be as attached to some of the players on this roster as Darcy seems to be. At the very least, it will be interesting to see what kind of moves the team makes at the trade deadline, if any. It may indicate Darcy's status.

[JJFIVEOH]

I can see it now. Regier apologists will say Darcy was handcuffed by TP so any moves he made or didn't make were a direct result of ownership meddling therefore you can't blame Darcy for the state of the team. Now where have I heard this sad story before. Bah. What a load of crap. Darcy always gets an easy out.

 

No

 

I just think it's a loaded question, or one that can be misconstrued multiple ways. If he says "No," it suggests disenfranchisement or lack of unity in the front office. If he answers "Yes," it suggests micromanagement ala Jerry Jones. In the presence of an increasingly unpopular GM, it's probably appropriate to answer conservatively.

 

It's a lose-lose or a win-win, depending on which way you look at it.

[IKnowPhysics]

Exit the warrior.

 

Yard.

 

Please tell me you think Darcy is a warrior.

 

Swing and a miss.

 

Also, lulz for expecting complete transparency regarding the highest levels of a privately-owned business in a hyper-competitive industry.

[LTS]

If Darcy needs approval, TP is meddling

If Darcy doesnt need approval, TP sucks for letting Darcy do it.

 

oh yea and analytics.

 

I disagree. Having experience with something similar.

 

You come into a situation where you are responsible for a team (in this case management team). This management team creates a product. They've shown the ability to do a decent job at times and they've also shown areas where things have failed in the past. There are questions about whether the failures were with the person in question or if there were other business factors at work that caused the problem. You can't be certain because there's evidence it could be a little but of both. Truthfully it's past history and only relevant for knowing that there WAS a problem and perhaps still WILL be a problem when under new leadership.

 

So, you set out to evaluate performance. The person in question begins to show some signs of life. You presume it's because they are no longer shackled by prior leadership. However, you can still see spots where the person isn't quite living up to expectations. Do you fire the person at that point or do you perhaps believe that they are capable of performing the job they might just need a little help? If you style is to upset the apple cart at a moment's notice then perhaps you fire the person straight away. If you aren't then you work with the person. You become more involved in the process than you normally would because you want to help them understand what you believe is the direction the product should be going.

 

I lived this exact situation. I contemplated firing people, the pain of bringing in new people with different ideas and the lag it creates in the product cycle. All of it. Terry has shown that he is a patient person and so I believe he's simply evaluating what he has. From a simpler perspective, if it's my dollar that funds the organization I am going to have to make sure I have complete trust in someone to spend my money. Just because I don't have complete trust doesn't mean I should fire the person. Even new employees, no matter their history, have to earn a little bit before they get carte blanche. While we've seen DR for a long time the current ownership has not. It's clear they are fairly calculating about things as Ruff was fired this year despite statements saying he wasn't going anywhere.

 

I think it's ignorant to presume they don't know what they are doing. Ted Black has consistently said one thing. We each have responsibilities and as a courtesy we discuss things with each other. It's a collaborative effort at times. Black has said that he does not get into the hockey operations piece but I take that to mean that the day to day operations is not his thing. Managing the players on the roster, the financials of the organization and other factors sit above that level at the organizational management level.

 

I think people listen to the media spin questions and prognosticate on the answers as though they really know what is going on. It's clear the Sabres operate very much like the Patriots in that you'll know what they are doing when they do it and not much sooner than that. There's something to be said for that.

[Stoner]

 

The only reason not to jump off a bridge at the thought of DR running this trade deadline is TB's implication that others in the organization (hopefully Ken Sawyer, but at this point I'd be happy with Tom Sawyer) have to approve any trades.

 

Non-hockey guys approving trades makes you feel better? Lawyers, network executives, financial executives, accountants, and oil and gas men. Great.

 

Hey look, it's PA with another thinly(?)-veiled Pegula sucks post. Who would've thought.

 

Interesting that that's how you took it. Maybe deep down you know he sucks.

 

It's been two years, so I think it's too early to make a declaration of suckitude. But he's well, well on the road to it. The results have certainly sucked so far.

 

Agreed. I don't see this as an issue. The owner has $MM's invested in the team; it's in upper management's best interest to make sure the GM is kept honest. Switching to a Bills draft analogy, you don't want your GM that doesn't really want to be there grabbing an Eric Flowers or 1 desperate to save his job grabbing an Aron Maybin.

 

Keeping an active interest is different than insisting Peca gets lowballed nor not signing a Drury deal for a few weeks.

 

Again, Ted started answering the question that way in 2011. You don't trust your GM then and he's still here now and in the interim you've missed the playoffs and are on the verge of missing again? Makes no sense. Will Darcy be here next season "on a short leash"? Terry's comment about Darcy, "I can work with him" carries more and more meaning to me.

 

If Darcy needs approval, TP is meddling

If Darcy doesnt need approval, TP sucks for letting Darcy do it.

 

oh yea and analytics.

 

I would never say an owner sucked for letting his hockey man do the job.

 

I'd like to get some consensus here.

 

Yes or no, simply put, should Terry set the mission, hire good people, write the checks and get out of the way?

[IKnowPhysics]

Believing that he is accountable for this information also assumes that Ted, as Team President, serves directly on the management line between the Owner and the General Manager/Hockey Department. That could likely be the case, but I don't know if that's the case for sure. If that's not the case, he could very well be stating the public relations version of "that ain't my ######in' business."

 

Or it could just be the public relations version of "that ain't your ######in' business."

 

All of this makes any sort of TP-controlling-DR hypothesis very flimsy- as posted previously, there's no evidence for this yet.

[Stoner]

Believing that he is accountable for this information also assumes that Ted, as Team President, serves directly on the management line between the Owner and the General Manager/Hockey Department. That could likely be the case, but I don't know if that's the case for sure. If that's not the case, he could very well be stating the public relations version of "that ain't my ######in' business."

 

Or it could just be the public relations version of "that ain't your ######in' business."

 

All of this makes any sort of TP-controlling-DR hypothesis very flimsy- as posted previously, there's no evidence for this yet.

 

Day One. "I like gritty players." Maybe your GM doesn't. The issue doesn't get any more complicated than that.

 

Then you fold in one of the Tweetie birds letting it slip that her dad liked the cut of Ehrhoff's jib, then Ehrhoff becomes a Sabres. Circumstantial, yes.

 

They boast of a "flat management structure" where input from all corners is considered, where no one has a "monopoly" on hockey knowledge. Terry flies to meet players, he's in the deadline room, the draft room, he "camped out" at the arena last summer according to Ted. I mean, they're giving you the answer to this question. Some don't want to believe it, maybe because the idea of an oil and gas man/hockey dimwit having this much control scares people.

 

And then they can't make the playoffs under him, can't get on Iginla's trade-to list two years into Hockey Heaven... Terry's honeymoon is fading but still alive and well. I just don't think people want to admit it's amateur hour at the arena and that the answer is more Rick Dudley in Buffalo and a lot more Terry Pegula in Florida, which is where he promised to be, you know, "for his family."

[LGR4GM]

Exit the warrior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNZru4JG_Uo