6/12/14 - WGR Staff Interviews Tim Murray

[K-9]

... Of course, none of us know precisely how the process works, but, if other private (heck, public) sector settings are any indication (and I say they are), there's a process whereby the top dog wants to sit down, hear what a senior manager has to say, explain the why's and wherefore's, explain what the effect and fall-out will be, how this fits into an overall plan, yadda yadda. The top dog listens carefully, asks whatever questions he wants, swishes it around in his mouth, and signs off if he's satisfied that what he heard made sense. ...

 

If for no other reason than to reassure himself he made the right hiring decision in the first place.

 

Conversely, I'm communicating with my owner to assure him of the exact same thing.

 

The whole idea of an owner of a pro sports franchise not being involved with his business is short-sighted.

 

GO SABRES!!!

[nfreeman]

Lulz. The GM of a company worth ~$200M is going to make a multi-million dollar decision, and he's supposed to give a mere courtesy call to the company's principal and owner that the decision is being made.

 

Also, you're almost certainly mischaracterizing what you call the "half step."

 

Of course, none of us know precisely how the process works, but, if other private (heck, public) sector settings are any indication (and I say they are), there's a process whereby the top dog wants to sit down, hear what a senior manager has to say, explain the why's and wherefore's, explain what the effect and fall-out will be, how this fits into an overall plan, yadda yadda. The top dog listens carefully, asks whatever questions he wants, swishes it around in his mouth, and signs off if he's satisfied that what he heard made sense.

 

But if he hears something that does not make sense to him (for whatever reason)? And then he doesn't get a satisfactory answer? Then he's probably tabling the proposal and asking for more information, a more persuasive presentation.

 

And, maybe as years go on, the manager earns more trust, and the process is simplified.

 

It is almost certainly a thoroughly unremarkable protocol.

If for no other reason than to reassure himself he made the right hiring decision in the first place.

 

Conversely, I'm communicating with my owner to assure him of the exact same thing.

 

The whole idea of an owner of a pro sports franchise not being involved with his business is short-sighted.

 

GO SABRES!!!

 

Bullseye.

[darksabre]

Lulz. The GM of a company worth ~$200M is going to make a multi-million dollar decision, and he's supposed to give a mere courtesy call to the company's principal and owner that the decision is being made.

 

Also, you're almost certainly mischaracterizing what you call the "half step."

 

Of course, none of us know precisely how the process works, but, if other private (heck, public) sector settings are any indication (and I say they are), there's a process whereby the top dog wants to sit down, hear what a senior manager has to say, explain the why's and wherefore's, explain what the effect and fall-out will be, how this fits into an overall plan, yadda yadda. The top dog listens carefully, asks whatever questions he wants, swishes it around in his mouth, and signs off if he's satisfied that what he heard made sense.

 

But if he hears something that does not make sense to him (for whatever reason)? And then he doesn't get a satisfactory answer? Then he's probably tabling the proposal and asking for more information, a more persuasive presentation.

 

And, maybe as years go on, the manager earns more trust, and the process is simplified.

 

It is almost certainly a thoroughly unremarkable protocol.

If for no other reason than to reassure himself he made the right hiring decision in the first place.

 

Conversely, I'm communicating with my owner to assure him of the exact same thing.

 

The whole idea of an owner of a pro sports franchise not being involved with his business is short-sighted.

 

GO SABRES!!!

 

I love you guys.

 

The Sabres are a corporation and within corporations the decision making process takes a certain shape. There's a game to be played, a dance. The GMTM-Pegula relationship is one such example. They both might agree that buying out Leino makes sense, and they've both probably discussed it at length. But Terry still wants to know why and how such a major some of money is going to be spent and what the costs/benefits are. They both might have a pretty good idea, but GMTM needs to pitch his plan and Terry gets to review it. It's not a complex system. It's how business works.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Why do I picture this scene at the start of Sabre top brass meetings ...

 

 

[Stoner]

I love you guys.

 

The Sabres are a corporation and within corporations the decision making process takes a certain shape. There's a game to be played, a dance. The GMTM-Pegula relationship is one such example. They both might agree that buying out Leino makes sense, and they've both probably discussed it at length. But Terry still wants to know why and how such a major some of money is going to be spent and what the costs/benefits are. They both might have a pretty good idea, but GMTM needs to pitch his plan and Terry gets to review it. It's not a complex system. It's how business works.

 

A game to be played... That about sums it up. Terry wants to play this game. He has nothing to add to the decision-making process, but he wants to be in the room. You can't tell me Murray doesn't leave every meeting with Pegula rolling his eyes and grumbling to himself about this being the worst part of the job. As does almost every other GM, I'd imagine. Now, meeting with a Lemieux or an Ilitch might be a different story.

 

Like almost everyone says, you're fine with it — as long as Terry doesn't actually wield any power. Let's say he does. Maybe he's always liked Leino. And as a new owner, he doesn't want to start wooing free agents and then tossing them to the curb. He wants to support his players. So he argues for more time for Leino to get turned around. Re-dem-she-own.

 

I would love to see it happen. Then all y'all who argue for Terry's involvement would be shitting your pants.

[X. Benedict]

A game to be played... That about sums it up. Terry wants to play this game. He has nothing to add to the decision-making process, but he wants to be in the room. You can't tell me Murray doesn't leave every meeting with Pegula rolling his eyes and grumbling to himself about this being the worst part of the job. As does almost every other GM, I'd imagine. Now, meeting with a Lemieux or an Ilitch might be a different story.

 

Like almost everyone says, you're fine with it — as long as Terry doesn't actually wield any power. Let's say he does. Maybe he's always liked Leino. And as a new owner, he doesn't want to start wooing free agents and then tossing them to the curb. He wants to support his players. So he argues for more time for Leino to get turned around. Re-dem-she-own.

 

I would love to see it happen. Then all y'all who argue for Terry's involvement would be shitting your pants.

 

Owners wield all the power......and then they delegate it. That's what ownership does without exception.

 

Pegula is no exception.

 

That pretty much covers it.

What we onto next?

[dudacek]

I never noticed how much of a resemblance Brando has to Battista.

[That Aud Smell]

You can't tell me Murray doesn't leave every meeting with Pegula rolling his eyes and grumbling to himself about this being the worst part of the job. As does almost every other GM, I'd imagine. Now, meeting with a Lemieux or an Ilitch might be a different story.

 

I can't tell you he does, and can't tell you he does not. Who the feck knows? My bet: GM TM doesn't do much muttering and grumbling. He's a gruff sort of fellow, but he doesn't strike me as someone who wastes time and energy complaining about how you can't help but get wet in the rain.

 

Like almost everyone says, you're fine with it — as long as Terry doesn't actually wield any power. Let's say he does. Maybe he's always liked Leino. And as a new owner, he doesn't want to start wooing free agents and then tossing them to the curb. He wants to support his players. So he argues for more time for Leino to get turned around. Re-dem-she-own.

 

I would love to see it happen. Then all y'all who argue for Terry's involvement would be shitting your pants.

 

Welp, it did not happen.

 

And, fwiw, I'm not arguing for anything. I'm acknowledging the likely and presumptive realities that surround me but do not involve me, I am further acknowledging that they are out of my control, and I am moving the funk on.

 

If a whole bunch of whacky decisions started flowing from the franchise (the Myers contract made me *gulp* at the time (but I was sorta like YAY!)), and GM TM suddenly resigned, I would be very unhappy. That has not happened. Yet. And I tend to doubt that it will. At least, in such any kind of extreme manner.

 

What we onto next?

 

God willing, anything.

[X. Benedict]

I never noticed how much of a resemblance Brando has to Battista.

 

His looks or because he mumbles?

[darksabre]

A game to be played... That about sums it up. Terry wants to play this game. He has nothing to add to the decision-making process, but he wants to be in the room. You can't tell me Murray doesn't leave every meeting with Pegula rolling his eyes and grumbling to himself about this being the worst part of the job. As does almost every other GM, I'd imagine. Now, meeting with a Lemieux or an Ilitch might be a different story.

 

Like almost everyone says, you're fine with it — as long as Terry doesn't actually wield any power. Let's say he does. Maybe he's always liked Leino. And as a new owner, he doesn't want to start wooing free agents and then tossing them to the curb. He wants to support his players. So he argues for more time for Leino to get turned around. Re-dem-she-own.

 

I would love to see it happen. Then all y'all who argue for Terry's involvement would be shitting your pants.

 

Why do you refuse to accept standard corporate structure? And why do you refuse to accept that someone like GMTM is familiar with and capable of working inside that structure without issue?

[That Aud Smell]

Why do you refuse to accept standard corporate structure? And why do you refuse to accept that someone like GMTM is familiar with and capable of working inside that structure without issue?

 

Maybe it's deliberate?

 

http://youtu.be/dakxwoVV7yM

Edited June 17, 2014 by That Aud Smell

[Stoner]

Why do you refuse to accept standard corporate structure? And why do you refuse to accept that someone like GMTM is familiar with and capable of working inside that structure without issue?

 

Because a hockey team whose reason for existence is to win a Cup is a whole different animal, or should be, than Nabisco or Target (hi Rob; come help me). Standard corporate structure does not help the Sabres win games, because that structure puts a hockey moron at the top of the chart.

 

Owners wield all the power......and then they delegate it. That's what ownership does without exception.

 

Pegula is no exception.

 

That pretty much covers it.

What we onto next?

 

And if Pegula — already the exception because he bought a team he allegedly "grew up" following, allegedly is a fan like us and allegedly doesn't care about making money — made himself even more of an exception by saying, "I'm the owner in name only. You guys run it," you don't think that could be an advantage for this franchise?

[That Aud Smell]

Because a hockey team whose reason for existence is to win a Cup is a whole different animal, or should be, than Nabisco or Target (hi Rob; come help me).

 

A whole different animal, huh? There are all kinds of corporations that get run all kinds of ways. A pro sports franchise isn't unique.

 

And if Pegula — already the exception because he bought a team he allegedly "grew up" following, allegedly is a fan like us and allegedly doesn't care about making money — made himself even more of an exception by saying, "I'm the owner in name only. You guys run it," you don't think that could be an advantage for this franchise?

 

Has this sort of thing ever happened?

[Jsixspd]

Why do I picture this scene at the start of Sabre top brass meetings ...

 

 

 

I was thinking along similar lines earlier today. Battista is like Sabres version of Clemenza.

 

"Leave Leino....take the cannoli" :)

[X. Benedict]

Because a hockey team whose reason for existence is to win a Cup is a whole different animal, or should be, than Nabisco or Target (hi Rob; come help me). Standard corporate structure does not help the Sabres win games, because that structure puts a hockey moron at the top of the chart.

 

 

 

And if Pegula — already the exception because he bought a team he allegedly "grew up" following, allegedly is a fan like us and allegedly doesn't care about making money — made himself even more of an exception by saying, "I'm the owner in name only. You guys run it," you don't think that could be an advantage for this franchise?

 

NO! 1000 times NO! The best scenario is an owner that is following a good GMs plan and advice, taking an active interest in financing that plan, and holding the GM accountable to executing the plan. That is the best scenario.

[dudacek]

 

 

NO! 1000 times NO! The best scenario is an owner that is following a good GMs plan and advice, taking an active interest in financing that plan, and holding the GM accountable to executing the plan. That is the best scenario.

 

So can we assume Terry failed part one and three with Darcy (he fired him shortly after the tanking plan started)

He succeeded in part two in spades.

And it remains to be seen if he learned any lessons that will be applied under Tim.

[X. Benedict]

So can we assume Terry failed part one and three with Darcy (he fired him shortly after the tanking plan started)

He succeeded in part two in spades.

And it remains to be seen if he learned any lessons that will be applied under Tim.

 

I think it is a mixed record for sure. In some ways however, we are still in Darcy's plan - suffering/bottoming out.Though I don't think even Darcy thought it would be this bad.

 

Pegula with his first GM, Darcy- yep, failing marks. How else can you look at it? However, he maintained the financing and ultimately held Darcy accountable. Though a little slow on the trigger.

 

New GM - new battle plan. And supposedly the model is Dean Lombardi's style of team building. Again, it will take patience. This team is going to suck for a couple more years at least if Murray follows Dean Lombardi's model.

[Stoner]

Has this sort of thing ever happened?

 

I don't know. What's the difference?

 

NO! 1000 times NO! The best scenario is an owner that is following a good GMs plan and advice, taking an active interest in financing that plan, and holding the GM accountable to executing the plan. That is the best scenario.

 

We're not that far apart. I just don't know what Terry following Murray's plan means. If you all want Terry just to be a figurehead and rubber stamp for Tim, we're actually very close to agreeing. What started all this? Terry needed multiple (at least two) meetings to discuss Leino with Murray. That's nuts.

[darksabre]

I don't know. What's the difference?

 

 

 

We're not that far apart. I just don't know what Terry following Murray's plan means. If you all want Terry just to be a figurehead and rubber stamp for Tim, we're actually very close to agreeing. What started all this? Terry needed multiple (at least two) meetings to discuss Leino with Murray. That's nuts.

 

It's only nuts if you don't believe in corporate heirarchy. The first meeting might have lasted five minutes and the final meeting an hour. Or vice versa. We don't know the details, only that two meetings were had. There's nothing we can infer from that unless we start fabricating details.

[MattPie]

It's only nuts if you don't believe in corporate heirarchy. The first meeting might have lasted five minutes and the final meeting an hour. Or vice versa. We don't know the details, only that two meetings were had. There's nothing we can infer from that unless we start fabricating details.

 

Meeting one: "we're buying out Leino." "Yeah, it hasn't been good. Have you called around to see if anyone wants him?" ".... Not.. really..." "OK, tell you what: make a few calls and if by tomorrow nothing turns up, cut him lose."

 

Meeting two: "Yeah, I got nothing." "OK, cut him lose. It's only money."

[X. Benedict]

We're not that far apart. I just don't know what Terry following Murray's plan means. If you all want Terry just to be a figurehead and rubber stamp for Tim, we're actually very close to agreeing. What started all this? Terry needed multiple (at least two) meetings to discuss Leino with Murray. That's nuts.

 

Here is where we are miles apart though. Terry is not just the owner of the Sabres, but of the league itself. Terry is Bettman's boss too. Terry needs to be fully informed to vote for the Sabres interests on the Macro scale, not just rubber stamp the Micro (which is the Sabres). He needs to be saying to Tim Murray and Craig Patrick - how should we vote on this? What do I tell Bettman when I call him etc.....

 

Here's the contradiction: You can't be accountable to a figurehead. If the GM isn't accountable to someone, what does that even mean?

 

Think of it this way....Terry needs to park his money, instead of a financial planner, he has a hockey planner. The hockey planner designs and executes all the short and long term goals of the investor (the owner) Without the investor, there is no need for a planner. No financing, no team. Now whether or not the investor talks to his planner everyday or not - ultimately it is the owners money, the owners plan, and de facto the owner's strategy. The hockey planner is the "plan architect."

 

The GM never acts like the team is his own. Simply because it is not. Just as a financial planner never pretends the investment portfolio is his own.

Edited June 17, 2014 by X. Benedict

[I am Defecting]

It's only nuts if you don't believe in corporate heirarchy. The first meeting might have lasted five minutes and the final meeting an hour. Or vice versa. We don't know the details, only that two meetings were had. There's nothing we can infer from that unless we start fabricating details.

 

I for one, believe in corporate hierarchy. It's a matter of fact, indeed. It's what made Regier sign Leino, and it's what will make Murray consult Pegula on every major decision. GMTM is nothing special, for one that believes in corporate hierarchy.

[drnkirishone]

So... if terry being TMs boss should not have meetings and wield power over decisions... does that mean the head amatuer scout makes the call on draft picks? How about the head pro scout on free agent signings? I mean after all TM hired them or kept them to do a job and he should back off and let them do it right! Right?

Edited June 18, 2014 by drnkirishone

[That Aud Smell]

I don't know. What's the difference?

 

A big one. What if what you're prescribing is a scenario that exists outside the realm of the possible? The practicable?

 

I tend to think it does; hence why I took to calling you PAngloss.

[Stoner]

A big one. What if what you're prescribing is a scenario that exists outside the realm of the possible? The practicable?

 

I tend to think it does; hence why I took to calling you PAngloss.

 

It's certainly possible. Maybe I can even find an example. How about the Bandits? Terry owns them, no? Does he involve himself in player personnel decisions? Strategic decisions about the direction of the franchise? I highly doubt it. Does Steve Dietrich huddle with Terry to talk about the future of John Tavares? I highly doubt it.

 

PAngloss out.