Huckleberry Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 The Kulikov trade that he is being blamed for wasn't that bad of a deal. Hell I thought it was a great deal, the pre-season injury is just unlucky. I'd even give him a 2x 3mill deal if I know his back can recover during the offseason. I'm convinced we are only seeing him at 50 %.
Scottysabres Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 I like GMTM and all the trades his made so far, I think some of you are just to impatient. :unsure: I'm not so sure on that. Afterall, it was prior to the 2014 draft when Tim Murray said a rebuild doesn't have to take 5+ years. If done right, it could be done in 3 year. Well, here we are approaching 3 years, the current situation of the team and the comments he made aren't lining up. He appears to be in over his head when assessing the moved he did make to attempt to expedite the time frame. What is really concerning is some of the payments made on trade deals in that effort.
nfreeman Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 Equity is the long view, or long-term return. He doesn't plan to sell the team and has stated it will be turned over to his daughter. I am sure that tradition will continue long after I've left this world. The write offs are not less than 70%. Those losses tie in to a multi-billion dollar company, PS&E which is the parent company of both the Sabres and Bills. As such those tax write offs become substantially more valuable at the parent corporation level on both the state and federal level. For example, I'm aware of a 650 million dollar corporation that got to write off 88% of a 102 million dollar capitol loss. Political capitol is the ability to effectively move future endeavors forward with an ease not met by other entities. If you believe it does not exist, and I'm not saying you do, but if that is the case, I know first hand that it does exist. As for pointing out the expanded fan base, many Buffalo expats become successful in other parts of the nation, but the inclusion of them was to point out areas such ad south and central Florida or Phoenix hold decent size expats that still spend on the team for merchandise. I didn't state he was planning on turning the Sabres in to a cash cow. What I did say was the expenditures being touted aren't always as large as they appear. I feel like we're in a Seinfeld episode here. If you make $1000 in one business and lose $400 in another business, you can, in certain circumstances, write off the $400 loss against the $1000 profit and thereby pay tax on the net of $600 -- so you end up with about $350. But if, instead of losing $400 in the 2nd business, you break even, there is no writeoff and you pay tax on the full $1000 -- so you end up with about $600. So although in the $400 loss scenario you are better off having the benefit of the writeoff than not having it, you are still substantially better off in the break-even scenario. What specifically are you suggesting as regards political capital?
Scottysabres Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 I feel like we're in a Seinfeld episode here. If you make $1000 in one business and lose $400 in another business, you can, in certain circumstances, write off the $400 loss against the $1000 profit and thereby pay tax on the net of $600 -- so you end up with about $350. But if, instead of losing $400 in the 2nd business, you break even, there is no writeoff and you pay tax on the full $1000 -- so you end up with about $600. So although in the $400 loss scenario you are better off having the benefit of the writeoff than not having it, you are still substantially better off in the break-even scenario. What specifically are you suggesting as regards political capital? I'm not specifically sighting or suggesting anything. Merely that 5he benefits exist.
GASabresIUFAN Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 Can we un-merge these threads. Firing GMTM has nothing to do with the econ of Pegula owning the Sabres which is what the orignial GMTM thread has devolved into.
dudacek Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 Has any GM ever been fired after 3 1/2 years? The first year and a half was about driving the team into the ground, agreed? The next year his team improved by 27 points, about as good as any team could expect to improve, agreed? This year the team has neither improved, nor regressed, agreed? Wouldn't any organization that fired its GM after the above be dysfunctional by definition?
GASabresIUFAN Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 Has any GM ever been fired after 3 1/2 years? The first year and a half was about driving the team into the ground, agreed? The next year his team improved by 27 points, about as good as any team could expect to improve, agreed? This year the team has neither improved, nor regressed, agreed? Wouldn't any organization that fired its GM after the above be dysfunctional by definition? At this point, I'd say this season is a regression. As the team we iced in the second half of last season was playing much better hockey then the current team. It's a fair question you ask, and I am not advocating firing him now. However, if we don't see substantial improvement early next season, GMTM should be placed firmly on the hot seat.
Huckleberry Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 Again haven't seen the interview, but if Murray put the onus on the players for this season, I wouldn't even mind him doing so. At some point players underperforming , and our GM pointing it out isn't a bad thing, might light a fire under some of them.
GASabresIUFAN Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) Here is another thing that is bugging me about GMTM's management of the team this year, if Kulikov and Bogo were playing through significant injuries this season why not leave them on IR until they get close to being 100%. A smart acquisition here or there might have given us the ability to weather their injuries, to leave them on IR until healthy and maybe we'd be discussing re-signing Kulikov. Instead both player had career worst seasons. Edited March 2, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN
dudacek Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 At this point, I'd say this season is a regression. As the team we iced in the second half of last season was playing much better hockey then the current team. It's a fair question you ask, and I am not advocating firing him now. However, if we don't see substantial improvement early next season, GMTM should be placed firmly on the hot seat. Four games ago this team had nearly closed the gap to a playoff spot and was playing better hockey than last year's stretch team. We'll see where we are at the end of the season, but with the way bounces go in this league, I'd say any season plus or minus five points realistically needs to be considered plateaued. But in terms of firing Murray, it is completely unrealistic to expect barring anything short of an utter collapse next year with a full roster. A GM needs to be given a realistic chance to build his team and typically that means he should be given a minimum of five years to do so, particularly a GM that has taken over a team that has bottomed out and is building with youth. It takes five years to reap the full benefits of a draft class. In addition to the coach he inherits and inevitably fires, he also gets to push the reset the button there at least once more. And he also gets to reset again with a big trade in his chosen core. That doesn't mean the ROR and Kane trades, it means trading guys like that or Jack and Sam away to try again. And if he shows some glimmer of success - a division title, a surprise playoff run, a big jump in the standings - it can typically buy him an extra year or two. Same with some unexpected adversity like major injuries or a holdout to a star player. Really, any GM who gets fired before five full years - even if he turns a successful team into a wasteland - must have done an absolutely horrible job selling his owner on his plan.
Scottysabres Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 Can we un-merge these threads. Firing GMTM has nothing to do with the econ of Pegula owning the Sabres which is what the orignial GMTM thread has devolved into. I digress, you are correct. I started this thread to have a conversation on Tim Murray.
dudacek Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 Ive only found seven GMs fired with less than five years on the job since the turn of the century: Montreal: Gauthier 2 years Tampa: Lawton 2 years Toronto: Nonis 2 years Colorado: Giguere 3 years Edmonton: MacTavish 2 years Calgary: Nieuwendyk 3 years Chicago: Tallon 4 years The majority of those were because of sweeping changes above them at the ownership or president level. Giguere, Niuewendyk and Tallon were the three axed strictly for performance reasons. Tallon, of course, built the organization Stan Bowman won cups with - I think the very next year.
GASabresIUFAN Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 We are in year 3 of the GMTM 3 year plan, that has now been extended to a 5 year plan. Ok. So now what, and what are thr consequences if we again make no progress?
dudacek Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) We are in year 3 of the GMTM 3 year plan, that has now been extended to a 5 year plan. Ok. So now what, and what are thr consequences if we again make no progress?If next year and the year after are repeats of this year? You have to consider pulling the trigger.To me, the needs of this team are pretty obvious: we're two good defencemen away from being a playoff team, and some growth from the kids and a new coach away from being a contender. What I think of Murray depends on how he addresses each area. I expect Jack to be a top 10 scorer, Sam to be in the argument as top forward from his draft year, Nylander to be in the NHL, and a few of the 2013 wingers to be NHL regulars as well within a couple of years and I expect to see a few other Murray picks pushing hard for jobs. If they aren't he hasn't done his job. I expect big ticket items Ristolainen, ROR, Kane, Lehner and Okposo to be overall mostly performing up to the price we paid for them - financially and in assets. If they aren't he hasn't done his job. I hope the coach is fired this summer. I can live with that not being the case, but if we are not in the playoff picture after 20 games, I expect him to be replaced. And I expect the replacement to improve the results. If Murray fails with two handpicked coaches, it's because he hasn't done his job: either in picking coaches or delivering his coaches good players. And I expect at least one and preferably three defencemen picked high this year, at least one free agent added to the blueline and hopefully at least one trade for a blueliner as well. If he can't he hasn't done his job. I don't expect every pick, trade, signing and hiring to work. Life doesn't work that way. I do expect him to turn us into a contender within a reasonable period of time and then keep us there. Five years is a reasonable window. Might be sooner, might be later depending on how we trend and why. I find a tendency when we lose a few in a row for people to overinflate Murray's "mistakes:" How many 21st overall picks is Lehner worse than? Would we really be that much better off with Myers than Bogosian? And an overlooking of the big picture improvement: Vanek, Miller, Pominville, Stafford, and Myers or ROR, Okposo, Kane, Lehner and Bogosian? While adding Eichel, and Reinhart? It's a no-brainer choice. You think we should be closer. History tells me its not that easy. I mostly like what he's done so far. I hope he can finish the job. Edited March 2, 2017 by dudacek
Thorner Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) ^ Well summized. I don't see how Murray is ever going to get that top-2 d-man that we need at this point. Maybe by trading one or more of our future first round picks? I really don't want to trade Kane, but maybe that's the necessary sacrifice for a top d-man. It's a shame Murray burned through all of our post-Regier trade assets without adding any defensemen beyond Risto, McCabe, and Guhle. And so much salary cap dead wood on next season's roster: Ennis and Gorges at about $4 million, Moulson at $5, Bogosian at $5.5...unbelievable. We also have to understand there is a chance that Murray is reasonably confident with what we have on D now, and isn't as fussed as we are in terms of wanting to add help back there. Maybe he's confident in McCabe, Ristolainen, Kulikov, and Bogosian as the top 4, supplemented by Guhle and Borgen as needed. I'm definitely thinking we need to add, but the above is a possibility, to my mind. Has any GM ever been fired after 3 1/2 years? The first year and a half was about driving the team into the ground, agreed? The next year his team improved by 27 points, about as good as any team could expect to improve, agreed? This year the team has neither improved, nor regressed, agreed? Wouldn't any organization that fired its GM after the above be dysfunctional by definition? Good points. I will say it's his apparent staunch support of Dan that to me remains one of the most troubling issues. Edited March 2, 2017 by Thorny
Sabre fan Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 TM has done prety darn good thus far. he has without a doubt had some very bad luck (maybe it's just the "Sabre curse"). Both Bogo and kulikov have been hurt and unable to play up to anywhere near their potential. Losing the 1st pick a few years back cost us McDavid and while Jack is good, very good in fact, McDavid is in a class of maybe 3 or 4 in the NHL. Furthermore, I thought Gorges was a good move and I still think the O"Reilly trade was a complete steal. yesterday teams made moves for the sake of making moves...nothing that will help any team long-term unless maybe Caps sign Shattenkirk (which doubt happens). Did we want Iginla or the other stiffs sent packing? Montreal added a bunch of nothing big guys and act like they "improved" the team. Whatever...everybody is looking for a top 2 d-man and so we are not alone in this. If i were that easy to put together a top defense every team would have done so by now. The fact is, it isnot easy and I have faith hat TM is at least trying and at least he doesn't do nothing like the guy before him.
Jsixspd Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 Why does Murray think he should be granted 5 years when he promised that the rebuild would be faster than 5 years? For those praising Murray - the team isn't even BACK to the winning % and points earned before the Pegulas bought the Sabres 6 years ago and turned 'em into a fire sale - 96 pts. When Rocky Wirtz took over the Blackhawks at the start of the 2007-8 season, they were a 71 pt team that was 20 games below .500 - they jumped to 88 points and 2 games below .500 the first year of Wirtz's ownership, and that was without Quenneville or Stan Bowman. Then the NEXT season, STILL without Quenneville as HC or Bowman as GM, the team soared to 104 pts, 10 games above .500, and the conference finals, So after 6 years with KimNTerry, we have a 96 point team when they bought it brought down to 80 points - after 6 years. 2 years with Rocky Wirtz - a 71 point team soars to 104 points. It can be DONE - it has been done. Just not with this owner. And apparently not with this GM. I don't know if the villain of the piece are the meddling owners, or Murray - but someone isn't getting results. 6 years of ownership and still an 80 point season! Those who are "Praising" the improvement from the tank seasons? LOL - that was a team intentionally set up to LOSE, where every bit of talent was sent out the door. Comparing the points of a historically bad tank team to a non-tank team and deeming that 'improvement'- that's like comparing apples to oranges. Ridiculous! How can anyone be satisfied with where this team is after 6 years of 'hockey heaven'? After so many years of fail??? Apparently Murray is completely complacent - he's got a fat contract - what does he care? He's probably just another bootlicking corporate yes man to the Pegulas, who is more likeable because of his gruff persona than his "I KNOW NOTHINK!!!" counterpart at the Bills, Whaley. EDIT - I said Wirtz took two years - I was wrong - he took over a horrible team from his father in Oct 2007. The Blackhawks hit 104 pts by April of 2009. That's only 1 1/2 calendar years of his ownership. That's a great turnaround, and what we could have seen with competent, savvy ownership instead of the Pegulas' committee driven dysfunctional structure.
Eleven Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 I have no problems with the lack of moves yesterday.
Sabel79 Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 I've been up for about 28 hours, and am currently four beers into trying to remedy that, but hear me out: next season is year three of the rebuild. The McEichel tank squad represented year two (Electric Boogaloo) of the to-the-studs tear down. Year 0 A.E. (after Eichel) was a massive improvement. By any measure. Year 1 A.E. (this season) flatlined, because of reasons. Reasons I will not rehash here because none of us agree on them. Next Season: 2 A.E. I'd be willing to bet will be better. Playoffs better. Maybe winning a couple rounds in the playoffs better. How do we get there? Were it me I'd hire a coach who had an original thought more recently than 2004, play a faster game, maybe get at least one more competent defenseman, and go from there. The raw materials are there. The asshat trusted to hammer them into the finished product broke both of his thumbs, somehow. Thanks for reading; goodnight Sabrespace.
SwampD Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 I have no problems with the lack of moves yesterday. Me too. It's always darkest before the dawn.
The Dominator Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) Me too. It's always darkest before the dawn. I can't even count how many years I've been saying that about the Bills. With that being said, I have much more faith in the Sabres moving forward than the Bills Edited March 2, 2017 by TheDominator
darksabre Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 Did he actually throw the players under the buss, doesn't seem his style. Will have to listen to the interview when I get home. http://www.wgr550.com/Sabres-Murray-explains-why-there-were-no-trades/23029184 “The players are the game. We played really well going into the break except for the last two periods against Chicago. We had a very condensed schedule so the Chicago game, they have a hell of a team and I can live with a loss like that. I’m still going to be pissed off after the game, but I’ll be rationally pissed off and then we go out west and we can’t play and that’s to me is squarely on the players.” He backpedals a bit after that, but he clearly doesn't see anything wrong with what the coaching staff is doing.
Georgia Blizzard Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 I feel like we're in a Seinfeld episode here. If you make $1000 in one business and lose $400 in another business, you can, in certain circumstances, write off the $400 loss against the $1000 profit and thereby pay tax on the net of $600 -- so you end up with about $350. But if, instead of losing $400 in the 2nd business, you break even, there is no writeoff and you pay tax on the full $1000 -- so you end up with about $600. So although in the $400 loss scenario you are better off having the benefit of the writeoff than not having it, you are still substantially better off in the break-even scenario. What specifically are you suggesting as regards political capital? Equity is the long view, or long-term return. He doesn't plan to sell the team and has stated it will be turned over to his daughter. I am sure that tradition will continue long after I've left this world. The write offs are not less than 70%. Those losses tie in to a multi-billion dollar company, PS&E which is the parent company of both the Sabres and Bills. As such those tax write offs become substantially more valuable at the parent corporation level on both the state and federal level. For example, I'm aware of a 650 million dollar corporation that got to write off 88% of a 102 million dollar capitol loss. Political capitol is the ability to effectively move future endeavors forward with an ease not met by other entities. If you believe it does not exist, and I'm not saying you do, but if that is the case, I know first hand that it does exist. As for pointing out the expanded fan base, many Buffalo expats become successful in other parts of the nation, but the inclusion of them was to point out areas such ad south and central Florida or Phoenix hold decent size expats that still spend on the team for merchandise. I didn't state he was planning on turning the Sabres in to a cash cow. What I did say was the expenditures being touted aren't always as large as they appear. Said another way If you lose $400M, and you "write it off", you still are out $400M less the tax savings, which, in U.S. is 35%. So, $400M loss becomes a $260M CASH loss Either way, NOT GOOD !!
Drunkard Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 Can we un-merge these threads. Firing GMTM has nothing to do with the econ of Pegula owning the Sabres which is what the orignial GMTM thread has devolved into. That's what happens when threads get closed right in the middle of a discussion.
bunomatic Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 I have no problems with the lack of moves yesterday. As am I. Making a move for the sake of appeasing a fan base doesn't do much for me. Had GMTM found a trade partner or trade that actually improves the team going forward we'd still have arguments back and forth for or against. Trading a serviceable d-man for a 4th or 5th round pick at this point does not improve the team. Most of what I'm reading is chicken little stuff. We are where we thought we might be when we discussed possible outcomes pre-season. They're just worst case scenario. Carry on. Upwards and onwards.
Recommended Posts