New GM Watch

[Huckleberry]

I don't get what the hold up is, everyone is talking about Botterill being the new gm already.

if the league wanted the series be over first so the focus would be on the games only they failed.

[pi2000]

Nothing reliably gives me the sports internet lulz more than that word -- culture. 

 

You know how to change the culture? Get good players and be a good team. VOILA! Culture change. 

 

Culture inside the locker room is most definitely a huge thing.  

 

If your "leaders" are not 110% committed to doing everything it takes to win, then the team is going to struggle, no matter what the level of talent is. 

[Radar]

Culture inside the locker room is most definitely a huge thing.  

 

If your "leaders" are not 110% committed to doing everything it takes to win, then the team is going to struggle, no matter what the level of talent is.

 

I tend to agree with this. Seen it happen. This comes from top down.

[Samson's Flow]

Culture inside the locker room is most definitely a huge thing.  

 

If your "leaders" are not 110% committed to doing everything it takes to win, then the team is going to struggle, no matter what the level of talent is. 

But to PA's point, does that culture extend to periphery guys like the trainer and equipment manager types? Or is it too concentrated on the players/coach to have those other guys make any difference at all?

 

Unless the trainers/equip guys are total or really suck at their job, I don't think they make a meaningful difference to team performance.

[pi2000]

But to PA's point, does that culture extend to periphery guys like the trainer and equipment manager types? Or is it too concentrated on the players/coach to have those other guys make any difference at all?

 

Unless the trainers/equip guys are total ###### or really suck at their job, I don't think they make a meaningful difference to team performance.

 

I'm talking about players only.   The guys that actually play the game.  

 

IMO the trainer and coach don't have anything to do with the culture in the locker room.   That comes from within the players and how focused they are on the task at hand, how important winning is to them.   

 

Like Eichel said on locker clean out day.... there are too many guys satisfied with just being in the league.    They need more guys who hate to lose.

[PromoTheRobot]

No Schlitz Sherlock.

 

But that role to be filled by a hockey man hasn't only been open for a couple of weeks.

 

But we are all fans of nobody. Speaking of which, wtf is he?

My point is you can have all the layers you want. At some point the non-hockey Pegulas have to hire someone. You want them to get a hockey guy who knows what he's doing but they, who don't have enough hockey knowledge, hire that person. It's a conundrum.

[Taro T]

My point is you can have all the layers you want. At some point the non-hockey Pegulas have to hire someone. You want them to get a hockey guy who knows what he's doing but they, who don't have enough hockey knowledge, hire that person. It's a conundrum.

So, how does bringing in a football marketer improve THEIR hockey knowledge to make that choice? Short answer: it doesn't.

 

Longer answer: the marketer is looking to improve ST profits; the PHO (Patty rising from the ashes, anyone? :p) needs to have a LT outlook as HIS goal is supposed to be 'winning multiple Stanley Cups' to paraphrase a certain sports team's owner. Having a guy w/ no background & a ST oulook is neutral at best to the selection process & likely detrimental.

 

(And before you, or somebody else points out that he ISN'T the VP of marketing - we all know that. But you don't fully stop looking at issues from the perspective of your background just because you now have more responsibility. You also don't suddenly gain insight into a new area (hockey or football acumen) just because your title changes either. Many people criticize the Pegulas because they're learning on the job. Adding another person w/ no experience doesn't help in that area & can actually hurt it.)

[That Aud Smell]

Do you think a sports team is in any sense an organism? Is the health of the organism dependent on and affected by many individual parts? My operating theory here is that a cast of people closely surrounding the team can affect the team's performance. I don't have any idea if these people affect the performance net positive, net negative or neutrally. If I were a new GM, I wouldn't take any chances.

 

Here's one that is complete heresy. Rick's a Debbie Downer and might be infecting some of the youngens with his world-weary cynicism. "I hate traveling. I won't fly out West anymore, it's just too tough. Nuts to that."

 

Then there are environmental factors. The weather. Playing in a poor, Rust Belt city. The media. The dead arena. A community that is starving for a winner and puts pressure on the players. Not much you can do about those. Well, one thing winning could cure is the arena atmosphere.

 

I guess that's fair message board fodder. And characteristically imaginative of you. But I don't really buy into any of that. 

 

I'm a firm believer in that old adage about how hockey players aren't complicated people, as a group. I don't think their under-performance or generally not being very good are products of anything terribly complicated.

 

Culture inside the locker room is most definitely a huge thing.  

 

If your "leaders" are not 110% committed to doing everything it takes to win, then the team is going to struggle, no matter what the level of talent is. 

 

I don't disagree. 

 

What I think is misplaced is the talk about how "culture" can somehow be changed and then the winning will follow, maybe only over time (eventually).

 

What you're talking about above -- leaders being 110% committed and hating to lose -- is just a matter of having good players who want to be great. That's how you win.

 

It's maybe a little bit of semantics. Or a bit of chicken and the egg?

 

My point is this: If the core of a team doesn't have it in them to install and instill a winning culture, then there's nothing to be done about it. No one can come in from the outside, go into that team's locker room, and "change the culture." The core of a team either can or cannot, will or will not create the culture by virtue of how how talented they are and how committed they are. And I place a premium on the first piece -- how talented they are.

 

In other words: Do you want a winning culture? Then assemble a really good team. They'll win. And then your team will have a winning culture. 

 

Like Eichel said on locker clean out day.... there are too many guys satisfied with just being in the league.    They need more guys who hate to lose.

 

Agreed here.

 

In this regard, though, take Sam Reinhart as a potential example. If Reinhart has a problem with his commitment and his utter disdain for losing -- then that's how and who he is. He wasn't some different way, arrived in Buffalo, and, through some toxic leaching process, slowly transformed into the second coming of Drew Stafford, or whoever.

 

It's become fashionable around here to hate on Chris Drury. Whatever. That motherfunkster HATED to lose.

Edited May 8, 2017 by That Aud Smell

[Stoner]

My point is you can have all the layers you want. At some point the non-hockey Pegulas have to hire someone. You want them to get a hockey guy who knows what he's doing but they, who don't have enough hockey knowledge, hire that person. It's a conundrum.

Very true. When did the universe begin?

 

The problem seems to be Terry doubling-down on meddling. He regrets not being more involved in the last coaching search. What does that mean for Botterill's first hire? I'd rather Terry not be involved in all in Botterill's business. (BTW, delayed reaction: really, Terry, you weren't heavily involved in the pursuit of Mike Babcock? Left that all up to your GM?)

[That Aud Smell]

(BTW, delayed reaction: really, Terry, you weren't heavily involved in the pursuit of Mike Babcock? Left that all up to your GM?)

 

Remember the reports about how someone in the Sabres war room cursed an absolute blue streak over what s/he saw as Babcock's duplicity?

 

I don't imagine that was Pegula.

 

Was it Black? Brandon?

[tom webster]

Remember the reports about how someone in the Sabres war room cursed an absolute blue streak over what s/he saw as Babcock's duplicity?

 

I don't imagine that was Pegula.

 

Was it Black? Brandon?

It was Benson.

[Stoner]

Remember the reports about how someone in the Sabres war room cursed an absolute blue streak over what s/he saw as Babcock's duplicity?

 

I don't imagine that was Pegula.

 

Was it Black? Brandon?

Was the war room in 716? Because I think that was the report, that one of the Sabres brass was in there and went beserk when Babcock babdicked us over. Not sure how that's either here or there to my point.

 

By the way, there's your winning horse. War Room.

[That Aud Smell]

It was Benson.

 

Ah - good call. For sure?

 

Was the war room in 716? Because I think that was the report, that one of the Sabres brass was in there and went beserk when Babcock babdicked us over. Not sure how that's either here or there to my point.

 

By the way, there's your winning horse. War Room.

 

Probably not in 716 - no. Somewhere in the central administrative offices at the former FNC. Remember those *meh* conference rooms depicted in the Beyond Blue and Gold pieces on the draft, and whatnot?

 

I'm not sure how it related to your point - other than a fleeting thought that it might have been Terry himself who went nuts. Or that someone else going nuts like that was indicative of how involved the big boss was (and maybe the tantrum was to show the big boss how invested that person was).

[tom webster]

I'm not sure if its the same situation but Benson blew a gasket when Babcock presser was playing as 716 opened up. Started calling him an effin liar and demanding that station be changed.

[Eleven]

I'm not sure if its the same situation but Benson blew a gasket when Babcock presser was playing as 716 opened up. Started calling him an effin liar and demanding that station be changed.

 

I think this is the incident people are referencing.

[That Aud Smell]

I'm not sure if its the same situation but Benson blew a gasket when Babcock presser was playing as 716 opened up. Started calling him an effin liar and demanding that station be changed.

 

I think this is the incident people are referencing.

 

Yes - thanks, both.

 

I think I had things conflated. It was separately reported by Graham that the Sabres brass were "livid" with how that process went down.

[pi2000]

What you're talking about above -- leaders being 110% committed and hating to lose -- is just a matter of having good players who want to be great. That's how you win.

 

 

It's not that simple.   Most good players want to be great... but there's a difference being be a great player and being part of winning culture.    

 

You can be a great player without doing the little things it takes to win... relentless back check, blocking shots, sacrificing your body in every way imaginable just to win a game.    Getting out of your comfort zone to contribute in ways that you aren't necessarily expected to.

 

When winning at all costs becomes the singular focus of the locker room, then you'll start to win consistently.    However, as long as there are a few guys who aren't willing to do those little things... guys who only care about being in the league, collecting a paycheck, and putting up stats, then the team will not have consistent success.

 

It's more of a mindset than anything... when you take the ice, is your focus on protecting your spot on the team or on the scoreboard.     

[That Aud Smell]

It's not that simple.   Most good players want to be great... but there's a difference being be a great player and being part of winning culture.    

 

You can be a great player without doing the little things it takes to win... relentless back check, blocking shots, sacrificing your body in every way imaginable just to win a game.    Getting out of your comfort zone to contribute in ways that you aren't necessarily expected to.

 

When winning at all costs becomes the singular focus of the locker room, then you'll start to win consistently.    However, as long as there are a few guys who aren't willing to do those little things... guys who only care about being in the league, collecting a paycheck, and putting up stats, then the team will not have consistent success.

 

It's more of a mindset than anything... when you take the ice, is your focus on protecting your spot on the team or on the scoreboard.     

 

Hmm.

 

I think we're into the realm of semantics. Because I don't think of a player being great if s/he isn't committed to doing the little things that it takes to win. A "great player" who lacks that commitment sounds more to me like a player with unrealized potential.

[Taro T]

It's not that simple.   Most good players want to be great... but there's a difference being be a great player and being part of winning culture.    

 

You can be a great player without doing the little things it takes to win... relentless back check, blocking shots, sacrificing your body in every way imaginable just to win a game.    Getting out of your comfort zone to contribute in ways that you aren't necessarily expected to.

 

When winning at all costs becomes the singular focus of the locker room, then you'll start to win consistently.    However, as long as there are a few guys who aren't willing to do those little things... guys who only care about being in the league, collecting a paycheck, and putting up stats, then the team will not have consistent success.

 

It's more of a mindset than anything... when you take the ice, is your focus on protecting your spot on the team or on the scoreboard.

 

  

Hmm.

 

I think we're into the realm of semantics. Because I don't think of a player being great if s/he isn't committed to doing the little things that it takes to win. A "great player" who lacks that commitment sounds more to me like a player with unrealized potential.

As you 2 both know, Eulers & Isles met in back to back Stanley Cups in '83 & '84.

 

Isles won in 4 straight in '83 & the Eulers won in 5 in '84. After that win a LOT of the Eulers admitted that after the '83 Finals they realized that every single Isle looked like he'd been in a war & the Eulers didn't have nearly as many bump & bruises. The Eulers played much harder in the '84 Finals than they had in '83. Watching what the Isles did the previous year to them taught them a lesson. (It also helped that they got to play Minnesota in the semis & the Isles had to play a Moe-ray-all team trying to hold their predecessors place in history as the only 5 consecutive time champs.)

[Radar]

Hmm.

 

I think we're into the realm of semantics. Because I don't think of a player being great if s/he isn't committed to doing the little things that it takes to win. A "great player" who lacks that commitment sounds more to me like a player with unrealized potential.

Great talent doesn't equate to great player. I think of Mark Messier and that type as a great player. Talent,ultimate leader and did whatever it took to win. We at times say great player meaning great talent.

[Eleven]

   As you 2 both know, Eulers & Isles met in back to back Stanley Cups in '83 & '84.

 

Isles won in 4 straight in '83 & the Eulers won in 5 in '84. After that win a LOT of the Eulers admitted that after the '83 Finals they realized that every single Isle looked like he'd been in a war & the Eulers didn't have nearly as many bump & bruises. The Eulers played much harder in the '84 Finals than they had in '83. Watching what the Isles did the previous year to them taught them a lesson. (It also helped that they got to play Minnesota in the semis & the Isles had to play a Moe-ray-all team trying to hold their predecessors place in history as the only 5 consecutive time champs.)

 

I don't want to digress--just keeping the record clear--the Oilers did not win 5 straight.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I don't want to digress--just keeping the record clear--the Oilers did not win 5 straight.

 

He didn't say that they did.  They won in 5 games in 1984.

[shrader]

I don't want to digress--just keeping the record clear--the Oilers did not win 5 straight.

 

5 games

[pi2000]

Hmm.

 

I think we're into the realm of semantics. Because I don't think of a player being great if s/he isn't committed to doing the little things that it takes to win. A "great player" who lacks that commitment sounds more to me like a player with unrealized potential.

 

To me it's about individual greatness vs team oriented greatness.

 

Ovechkin is a great individual player, but when I watch him play and compare him to a Crosby or Toews, he just doesn't do enough of the little things consistently enough to earn the right to be called a Champion.

[Taro T]

I don't want to digress--just keeping the record clear--the Oilers did not win 5 straight.

:huh:

 

They won games 1, 3, 4, & 5. They Isles won game 2.

 

 

They were swpt by the Isles in '83.