Would you like to see Terry sell the Sabres?

[That Aud Smell]

We really take wording of posts way too literally here. I mean, I know it is all we have to go on, but none of us have the grasp of the language AND (or?) the disire to spend the time to carefully craft our posts to ensure the nuance is well worded.

 

It’s online tavern talk. Half a step up from radio caller Stephen from Cheektowaga.

 

I think you sell us short. 

 

Or, at least, you're selling PA short. The guy knows his way around a sentence.

[Weave]

I think you sell us short.

 

Or, at least, you're selling PA short. The guy knows his way around a sentence.

I dont know. I got his intent the first or second time he tried to point it out to you.

[That Aud Smell]

I dont know. I got his intent the first or second time he tried to point it out to you.

 

Gotcha. I'll stand by my reading and my point.

[Weave]

Gotcha. I'll stand by my reading and my point.

Your stand is that he lied about the meaning of his phrase? C’mon. He stands behind what he really means.

[That Aud Smell]

Your stand is that he lied about the meaning of his phrase? C’mon. He stands behind what he really means.

 

Looks like you misunderstand me.

 

There's a bunch of history and context to the debate I'm having with PA. And I trust you're familiar with most of it, even if only vaguely.

 

Most of what we're talking about is fairly ... academic (?) at this point, since he and I agree on it being a good thing that Pegula cares more (much more) about the Bills than the Sabres.

 

My continuation of the debate was directed mostly to clarifying whether PA thinks Pegula cares (somewhat) less about the Sabres than he did in 2011-2013 or, really, cares about them not at all, and what the implications of all of that might be.

[R_Dudley]

Hello my names R_dudly I have been drinking in Sabres hackey(Freudian slip maybe so I left it) for 40 plus years.

 

I am recovering from lack of Sabres meaningful hockey. I can't remember the last time I could make it through a complete game w/o drinking. 

 

I believe in a power HIGHER than TPEGS somewhere up there in the big pond in the sky and I know with the help of all of you here at SabreSpace, and my lucky rabbits foot(yeah not so much for the rabbit, but they can still run pretty fast with 3 away from predators right? anyway) that I will see real Hockey played by the Sabres again someday maybe soon.

 

I voted wait 12 months because either my liver quits or I do if i have to keep watching this years type of hockey.    

Edited April 12, 2018 by R_Dudley

[Stoner]

Man, you are harder to get a handle on than a greased pig.

 

Losing some interest is one thing.

 

Losing interest is another.

 

In all events, I think it bodes well for the Sabres that Pegula's attention is focused on the Bills. As long as PSE continues to cut checks (and as long as JBOTS can dooo eeet), the Sabres will have a terrific opportunity to become great.

That's splitting hairs about as thin as you can split them. I've lost weight. I've lost some weight. There's no real difference.

[That Aud Smell]

That's splitting hairs about as thin as you can split them. I've lost weight. I've lost some weight. There's no real difference.

 

Disagree on the take and the analogy. But, whatever, really. I take your meaning now.

 

I think.

[Stoner]

Disagree on the take and the analogy. But, whatever, really. I take your meaning now.

 

I think.

Good. I've lost interest in this.

[That Aud Smell]

Good. I've lost interest in this.

Haha - oh you old so and so.

[Thorner]

Disagree on the take and the analogy. But, whatever, really. I take your meaning now.

 

I think.

My OCD side is going to make me chime in for Smell here, even with my views on this discussion being irrelevant.

 

“Lost weight” isn’t the same as “Lost interest” because no one uses use the phrase “I lost weight” to declare they lost ALL of their weight (which is of course impossible, but I digress).

 

“Lost interest” can mean one has lost their interest as a whole, or in order of magnitude.

 

A point worth clarifying, I’d say. But it has been.

 

:D

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

An interesting point to think about....for newer owners in the league, what is their success? Arizona, Edmonton, Carolina and us are all part of the new guard. I'm optimistic on the strides that Terry and Kim appear to be making, with both franchises. St. Louis and Vegas are likely top of the pile in terms of early ownership success.

 

Reading through the comments here, what is the ideal for an owner? Not active in the day to day, but visible in media and the owners box?

 

I'm thankful we aren't Ottawa, or the Carolina panthers. And not having to worry about budget for either team. It's something I'm still getting used to.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Darryl Shannon's +/-

[Taro T]

An interesting point to think about....for newer owners in the league, what is their success? Arizona, Edmonton, Carolina and us are all part of the new guard. I'm optimistic on the strides that Terry and Kim appear to be making, with both franchises. St. Louis and Vegas are likely top of the pile in terms of early ownership success.

Reading through the comments here, what is the ideal for an owner? Not active in the day to day, but visible in media and the owners box?

I'm thankful we aren't Ottawa, or the Carolina panthers. And not having to worry about budget for either team. It's something I'm still getting used to.

St Louis is kind of. They got very good (though long in the tooth) goaltending out of the gate & had an extremely physical veteran team. They were the cream of the new crop, but couldn't hold a candle to any of the old guard. Had the playoff format been different, they'd've been swept before reaching the Finals, unlike what they actually did, which is win the glorified AHL bracket & then get thumped by Boston or Montreal depending upon the year.

 

Somebody had to be best of the new guys. The Blues were it, but though they were best, they weren't particularly good.

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

Tampa and Winnipeg are part of newer list of owners too. So Tampa, though up and down with success likely are the best of that crop.

[Jsixspd]

OMG - lol!!!  I gather from some of the previous discussion, that if Pegula cares more about the Bills than the Sabres, that's a good thing for the Sabres?   Conversely implied to be a 'bad thing' for the Bills?  

If true, what does that say about Pegula the Owner?   lol!!!!  Don't get me wrong - I'm not disagreeing..... but if it's indeed true, it's horrendous!  

[That Aud Smell]

Wut

[Stoner]

Anywho, in a pretty healthy response of hardcore fans, 28% either want him to sell the Sabres or wouldn't outright say they don't want him to. Interesting. Much higher than I expected.

[darksabre]

Drawing any conclusions from your poll given the response options might make you faker news than Fox. 

[Stoner]

Drawing any conclusions from your poll given the response options might make you faker news than Fox. 

We're not as gullible as Fox viewers. Come on. No one here is that impressionable. It was a yes-no-maybe poll with some fluff language that didn't mean anything.

[darksabre]

We're not as gullible as Fox viewers. Come on. No one here is that impressionable. It was a yes-no-maybe poll with some fluff language that didn't mean anything.

I think if you changed the polling answers to something more reasonable you'd see different results. I might even cast a vote.

[Eleven]

We're not as gullible as Fox viewers. Come on. No one here is that impressionable. It was a yes-no-maybe poll with some fluff language that didn't mean anything.

 

If it doesn't mean anything, why include it?

 

You're damned right, we're not as gullible as Fox viewers, so stop treating it as if we were.

 

Lock or delete this thread and put up a simple yes, no, maybe poll if your language truly was meaningless.  (In other words, "put up or shut up.")

Edited April 13, 2018 by Eleven

[Stoner]

This is nuts. Just what is the objection to the no "fluff"? How would it prevent someone who doesn't want Terry to sell the team from voting no? If people are that impressionable, just a many people would be convinced to vote no as yes based on the additional wording.

 

I'm not redoing the poll because the results would be off. A lot of people won't vote a second time.

 

What's the problem, really? Too many people agree with me?

[Eleven]

This is nuts. Just what is the objection to the no "fluff"? How would it prevent someone who doesn't want Terry to sell the team from voting no? If people are that impressionable, just a many people would be convinced to vote no as yes based on the additional wording.

 

I'm not redoing the poll because the results would be off. A lot of people won't vote a second time.

 

What's the problem, really? Too many people agree with me?

 

1.  It doesn't look like very many people agree with you at all.

 

2.  Your "fluff language" so-called explanation is disingenuous.  You're better than this...anyway, I'm done w/ it for the day.

[That Aud Smell]

This is nuts. Just what is the objection to the no "fluff"? How would it prevent someone who doesn't want Terry to sell the team from voting no? If people are that impressionable, just a many people would be convinced to vote no as yes based on the additional wording.

 

For my own part, I didn't vote because I was not on board with the extra language associated with "no" (which I viewed as editorial content, not fluff).

[wsam4031]

ok I don't post that often but had to on this. WHY would you want him to sell. He loves Buffalo, never have to worry about him moving the team, has deep pockets and isn't cheap, and will go get guys if the gm recommends it. Blaming the recent failure on the owner is completely wrong except for the fact he let Pat L hire GMTM. The owner has done everything in his power to make this a winning franchise. Has just been sold on the wrong guys to do it with. Blaming the owner is just stupid