Recent Pegula press conf 3/26

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

26 minutes ago, Radar said:

While I tend to agree with this I also find agreement with Terry' s statement "something has to change". Frankly that has to be players or the coach. This team underperformed grossly after November. I think we need to stick with a plan but what plan? Whose plan? I assume the GM or owner. Housley should be on short leash. He ,I feel, has not got anywhere near the results the talent on this team should have. Playoffs? I didn't expect that. Take away that ten game stretch and we're worst than last year with more talent.

I'm so sick of the "take the streak out and" comments. It happened and there's 82 games in a season, not 72...get over it. the team is better over the 82g than last year with the same coach and less talent if your one to believe that ROR trade was a bad thing.

[Billznut]

2 hours ago, StuckinFL said:

I don't think he will. I think both will be given till Thanksgiving. The writing on the wall is that the talent is too low right now. I think ultimately getting rid of ROR was TP move, not a JBots one or that TP owns part of that decision. If that's the case, not having a 2C and teams just needing to shut down our first line absolutely killed this teams ability to consistently win hockey games and TP will give a little extra slack. I think one good off-season is all we need to set the ship right. Bringing in a decent 2C and graduating some of the kids from Rochester will make this a playoff caliber team. Especially if Mitts takes a progression next year in a 3C role. And as long as we don't have both goaltenders falling off a cliff at the same time like we did this year (please get a new GT coach) we should take a huge jump.

I get that we're all disappointed but the sky isn't falling. We've packed it in and aren't competitive right now because the team is in a 'here we go again' slide. We're fine. The Sabres will be fine. 

Awful lot of “IFs” in there. People have been saying this crap for 8 years now. It ain’t changing by next year either. 

[Hoss]

1 hour ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Still waiting. 

 

On 3/24/2019 at 10:34 PM, Hoss said:

Ya gotta admit... the draft lottery is kinda fun.

Case closed.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

8 minutes ago, Billznut said:

Awful lot of “IFs” in there. People have been saying this crap for 8 years now. It ain’t changing by next year either. 

I see only two (2) "if's" in the whole post.

[Cascade Youth]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Posted this in another thread, but it may fit better here:

Listening to the Pegulas just reinforced my belief that the plan in Buffalo right now is the long game. It involves hiring people you believe in, delivering a consistent message and persevering through adversity by continuing to do things the right way.

That explains Dahlin, that explains Thompson, that explains Mittelstadt. And it explains Housley.

The dilemma facing the franchise is where do you draw the line between perseverance and stubbornness? How do you make the decision that your good person isn't the right person? What do you need to see to convince you that your "right way" might be the wrong way?

Great interview recently in the Athletic with former Canuck GM Mike Gillis, who has spent his time away from the game studying the world's most successful sports franchises and what sets them apart. You can see a lot of what he shared in what Botterill is trying to do.

But asked what his biggest mistake was in Vancouver, he said it was talking himself into not making personnel moves (it was implied he was talking about firing his scouting staff) that he was seeing signs that needed to be made.

If you've wholeheartedly bought into this strategy with the idea that it demands patience, deciding when the time for patience is over must be a very tough call.

This is true, and it's a good post.  But my issue is: what are the metrics for success under this approach?  Any business organization requires measurables for evaluating its own success.  What are the Sabres', if winning in the short-term is not one of them?

[apuszczalowski]

21 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

I'm so sick of the "take the streak out and" comments. It happened and there's 82 games in a season, not 72...get over it. the team is better over the 82g than last year with the same coach and less talent if your one to believe that ROR trade was a bad thing.

It happened, but it has also been proven to be  fluke and not representative of the actual team out there. The rest of the season has shown over long more consistent periods of time that this team is at best, as bad as the team last year, but because of a fluke 10 game win streak, will look better and improved on paper when it really isnt. This team cant even string together 2 wins in a row

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

I'm so sick of the "take the streak out and" comments. It happened and there's 82 games in a season, not 72...get over it. the team is better over the 82g than last year with the same coach and less talent if your one to believe that ROR trade was a bad thing.

Why doesn't anyone ever bring up the other streaks. There were two 4 game losing streaks, one 5 game losing streak. and a seven game losing streak. 

Even with the 10 game winning streak, it is looking doubtful that the Sabres will reach the point total that got DDB and GMTM fired.

I admit that I, too, don't know what the answer is.

Edited March 27, 2019 by SwampD

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

Why doesn't anyone ever the other streaks. There were two 4 game losing streaks, one 5 game losing streak. and a seven game losing streak. 

Even with the 10 game winning streak, it is looking doubtful that the Sabres will reach the point total that got DDB and GMTM fired.

I admit that I, too, don't know what the answer is.

But was it really the point total that got them fired? With GMTM I'm not so sure and DDB might have been a Murry hiring that he got caught up in.

[dudacek]

12 minutes ago, Cascade Youth said:

This is true, and it's a good post.  But my issue is: what are the metrics for success under this approach?  Any business organization requires measurables for evaluating its own success.  What are the Sabres', if winning in the short-term is not one of them?

Hard to pinpoint precisely, but I would think Botterill is progressive enough to have them and I would imagine they would be tied to culture buy-in (admittedly difficult to measure, but not hard to observe) and on-ice progress, which would be tied to a more measurable improvement in whatever issues you are emphasizing with a particular player.

Botterill has maintained he likes the culture and that he has seen growth, but the bulk of those statements came with the memory of the winning game streak fresh and the current 3-17 losing streak (and the corresponding decay in effort and morale) in its infancy.

An honest year-end evaluation, whatever the criteria, can’t be pretty.

Edited March 27, 2019 by dudacek

[ddaryl]

There is no case left to keep Phil

 

The team has quit on him and he hasn't made many, if any, smart coaching decisions. This team is clearly better than their record IMO so Phil must go

[LTS]

Plausible theory..

This forum has an overwhelming negative tone towards the Sabres right now and as of late any attempt to point out positives or to contradict the naysayers has been met with less than gracious responses.

Perhaps no one wants to wade into this territory.

 

[SwampD]

3 minutes ago, LTS said:

Plausible theory..

This forum has an overwhelming negative tone towards the Sabres right now and as of late any attempt to point out positives or to contradict the naysayers has been met with less than gracious responses.

Perhaps no one wants to wade into this territory.

 

That's because we're the only ones paying any attention to the Sabres right now.?

[LTS]

27 minutes ago, Cascade Youth said:

This is true, and it's a good post.  But my issue is: what are the metrics for success under this approach?  Any business organization requires measurables for evaluating its own success.  What are the Sabres', if winning in the short-term is not one of them?

And like business, some opt for long term success by eschewing short term goals and others look for short term success with an acceptance that it might lead to longer term instability or problems.

When companies make short term decisions to placate shareholders it is usually at the expense of long term success.  Things that last take time to build. They cost money to build. Time and money usually are enemies of short term revenue.

[Cheektorado]

Beane and McDermott are looking like a good team for the Bills.  The players work hard with passion and have bought in.

FA's are wanting to come to Buffalo.

Terry needs to find that management team with the Sabres.

Imagine if Terry/Kim "STUCK IT OUT" with Whaley and Rex!

[LTS]

Just now, SwampD said:

That's because we're the only ones paying any attention to the Sabres right now.?

Quite possibly.  I watched periods 1 and 3 last night.  I regretted tuning in.

I'll be out of town again starting Sunday so I will miss the rest of it.  Unless I decide to stream it in my hotel room... which is unlikely.

[Tondas]

I think Terry sees the Bills on the upswing with Beane and McDermott and thinks Jbot and Housley will eventually perform the same way.  Problem is McDermott had both his teams overachieve given the talent on hand, PH has not.  Plus, McDermott and Beane had a prior relationship in Carolina.  Jbot and PH did not.  I give Jbot a pass on hiring PH as his first coach.  PH was dubbed as an up-and-comer.  But as history has shown over the years, the best players don't necessarily make the best coaches.  I think Taylor in Rochester would be a better fit with Jbot and could at least display some semblance of continuity.  I'm not saying Taylor is the best candidate because I don't know who is available.  But I do feel PH has lost the team and the fan base.  I'm not willing to retool players for another year with PH at the helm only to find out it was poor coaching all along.  That puts us back ANOTHER year.

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, LTS said:

Quite possibly.  I watched periods 1 and 3 last night.  I regretted tuning in.

I'll be out of town again starting Sunday so I will miss the rest of it.  Unless I decide to stream it in my hotel room... which is unlikely.

Don't tell JJ, but I switched over to the Carolina game for a chunk.

Edited March 27, 2019 by SwampD

[Tondas]

I'll use the Sobotka Litmus Test.  If Jbot mandated to PH that he play Sobotka, then I fire Jbot.  If PH played Sobotka on his on volition with no interference from Jbot, I fire Phil.

[rickshaw]

Once again time for a new voice.

the 10 game win streak was fun though. Can’t believe we are 51 points behind Tampa now.

Enjoy the summer

[Kruppstahl]

11 minutes ago, Tondas said:

I think Terry sees the Bills on the upswing with Beane and McDermott and thinks Jbot and Housley will eventually perform the same way.  Problem is McDermott had both his teams overachieve given the talent on hand, PH has not.  Plus, McDermott and Beane had a prior relationship in Carolina.  Jbot and PH did not.  I give Jbot a pass on hiring PH as his first coach.  PH was dubbed as an up-and-comer.  But as history has shown over the years, the best players don't necessarily make the best coaches.  I think Taylor in Rochester would be a better fit with Jbot and could at least display some semblance of continuity.  I'm not saying Taylor is the best candidate because I don't know who is available.  But I do feel PH has lost the team and the fan base.  I'm not willing to retool players for another year with PH at the helm only to find out it was poor coaching all along.  That puts us back ANOTHER year.

It's more than obvious to a slightly informed viewer that Housley is not the right man for the job and he needs to be replaced.  The sooner he goes, the sooner we have a chance to improve.  Note that the improvement is certainly not automatic and Phil can easily be replaced with someone equally inept, or even worse. 

There are a few problems however.  First, Terry Pegula has no clue what he's watching and is probably most heavily influenced right now by "Botts".  Botts is biased and wants to keep his job.  He's not a good source of objective information, but Pegula doesn't seem to realize that.

Second, if Pegula doesn't have the toolset to independently evaluate Botterill's performance, how in the world is he evaluating his performance?  Does he go by what seems about right?  Instinct?  

If there was ever an owner who needed a czar or director of hockey operations in place, it's Pegula, but he told us yesterday he's not interested in acquiring one.

I don't think a lot of fans realize that our problems for quite a few years now with the Sabres have started with Pegula himself.

It remains to be seen how this situation is going to correct itself.

 

 

 

[Cascade Youth]

31 minutes ago, LTS said:

And like business, some opt for long term success by eschewing short term goals and others look for short term success with an acceptance that it might lead to longer term instability or problems.

When companies make short term decisions to placate shareholders it is usually at the expense of long term success.  Things that last take time to build. They cost money to build. Time and money usually are enemies of short term revenue.

Fine - so one metric is achieving playoff hockey by ... when?  2020?  2021?  I’m fine with a long-term plan but I’m concerned about whether Terry will know when he’s arrived...

[Stoner]

15 minutes ago, Kruppstahl said:

If there was ever an owner who needed a czar or director of hockey operations in place, it's Pegula, but he told us yesterday he's not interested in acquiring one.

That answer was also intriguing. He answered by saying how he talks to Jason every day, sometimes three times a day. Was he suggesting he, Terry, is the czar? But he went on to talk about how smart Jason is and how he's doing a good job. So was the mention of his daily calls merely a way of explaining how he came to such a conclusion?

Edited March 27, 2019 by PASabreFan

[That Aud Smell]

9 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

That answer was also intriguing. He answered by saying how he talks to Jason every day, sometimes three times a day. Was he suggesting he, Terry, is the czar? But he went on to talk about how smart Jason is and how he's doing a good job. So was the mention of his daily calls merely a way of explaining how he came to such a conclusion?

Terry is absolutely the de facto president of hockey operations.

[nfreeman]

42 minutes ago, Tondas said:

I think Terry sees the Bills on the upswing with Beane and McDermott and thinks Jbot and Housley will eventually perform the same way.  Problem is McDermott had both his teams overachieve given the talent on hand, PH has not.  Plus, McDermott and Beane had a prior relationship in Carolina.  Jbot and PH did not.  I give Jbot a pass on hiring PH as his first coach.  PH was dubbed as an up-and-comer.  But as history has shown over the years, the best players don't necessarily make the best coaches.  I think Taylor in Rochester would be a better fit with Jbot and could at least display some semblance of continuity.  I'm not saying Taylor is the best candidate because I don't know who is available.  But I do feel PH has lost the team and the fan base.  I'm not willing to retool players for another year with PH at the helm only to find out it was poor coaching all along.  That puts us back ANOTHER year.

The last 10 games or so make the bolded seem pretty likely -- and if it's true, he has to go. 

I'd love for Howie to disprove this, but either way, JB needs to make the right call.

[LTS]

6 minutes ago, Cascade Youth said:

Fine - so one metric is achieving playoff hockey by ... when?  2020?  2021?  I’m fine with a long-term plan but I’m concerned about whether Terry will know when he’s arrived...

You want an answer to something that has so many variables to it to consider that providing an answer may not be possible.  What you ask is the question to so many things.  When is the right time to make a change?  That's followed by, a change to what/whom?

The one certainty right now is that the Pegulas will continue to be owners of this franchise.  If any fan doesn't trust the Pegulas to do the right things to make the Sabres successful it would be advised to perhaps find something else to spend time with.  Simply because it's something that is not changing.  Any fan can call for Botterill or Housley to be fired or for other changes because those have some reasonable probability of happening.  The Pegulas selling the franchise, at this point, seems a near zero probability.