Kim Pegula returning next season- Kim Pegula

[LGR4GM]

Let me try and clarify what I am saying because I think it is getting lost. 

I think as a reader we should always be somewhat critical of what we read. This includes wondering about the sources of information. Obviously in news those sources are confidential, which is fine and something I understand. That said I should still at least be curious about them as the reader to understand some of the motives. It is similar to reading a quote from Kim or Terry and thinking about why they said that in answer to a question. That is not disparaging of John's work or any journalist. It is simply making sure we think critically about things we read to understand where they fit in the context of the larger discussion, in this case the Sabres.

I took issue with the implication we should not critically evaluate or consider something but take it at face value. I don't think we should do that with almost anything. As a reader, we should consider who wrote something and why. That does not mean there is a nefarious end to something but for example if Vogl says "the Peuglas did X" as part of his story and X is something bad, is it being included because it needs to be there, it strengthens his argument, it is actual straight up new facts, or it is providing context for something else. If some source gave out information I am just curious as to why they gave that information at that time. A source of information could have an agenda or not. This applies to all writers from news to academics. For example I think it is appropriate to be critical of John's statement that the arena and harbor center are one entity and that the building of one meant the upgrade to the other. There can be an argument both ways but it was a curious addition to his article IMPO. Again, that is not blaming him or accusing him, that is me as the reader wondering out loud about one particular thing. It is just be critical of things I read. It is discussing it here and seeing if others agree or disagree.

I hope that helps clarify what I am saying. I think we should all be more critical in evaluating the things we read and that does include the source even if we will never know the source. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by LGR4GM

[darksabre]

I gotta be honest, I don't see why John should want to participate here. The currency of this forum is speculation and by occupation John is not allowed to trade in speculation. 

Unless he's going to provide us information beyond what is available to us in his published work, and the work of his colleagues, in order to enrich the debates, I don't know what he has to gain, or what we have to gain.

All we can offer him is debate on the information we have. If he has different or better information than us, but he can't introduce it, then all he can do is say "you guys don't know what you're talking about", which of course may be true, but is also completely unproductive. 

I think there's a reason media people don't fit here, and it's not the posters. It's the nature of the thing.

[shrader]

7 minutes ago, darksabre said:

I gotta be honest, I don't see why John should want to participate here. The currency of this forum is speculation and by occupation John is not allowed to trade in speculation. 

Unless he's going to provide us information beyond what is available to us in his published work, and the work of his colleagues, in order to enrich the debates, I don't know what he has to gain, or what we have to gain.

All we can offer him is debate on the information we have. If he has different or better information than us, but he can't introduce it, then all he can do is say "you guys don't know what you're talking about", which of course may be true, but is also completely unproductive. 

I think there's a reason media people don't fit here, and it's not the posters. It's the nature of the thing.

I’m hoping for the day we get a “new” poster here named wohn-jawrow. Well have no way of knowing it’s him and then he’s free to be a completely normal person. 

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, john wawrow said:

 

I'm guessing this was the post i was supposed to read in being invited back for a third time.

call it thin-skinned if you like, but i think you hit the nail on the head with your other observation in what's really the point of putting up with the aggravation of having to defend myself every time i post in the face of people questioning my sources, calling out my work as being filled with "whoppers" or reporting posts that essentially quoted my entire story, thus violating this board's rules when it comes to copyrights.

at the very least, on TBD, i've established a rapport with some of the posters, and feel i have some protection when the unfair attacks come.

here, it's just piling on.

jw

Well, I think a number of posters have stood up for you in this recent back-and-forth and have made it clear that they want you here, they respect your work and they don't expect you to reveal your sources. 

 

58 minutes ago, Weave said:

It is.  But it's mostly because the rest of us have decided that the people you are referring to aren't worth the energy.  It's like mud wrestling with a pig.  You either enjoy the mud or you don't.

I'd love to have you as a regular contributor, but understand the frustration.

Yes indeed.  You should of course do as you see fit, but I am certain that the vast majority of posters here, including me, would love to have you as a regular contributor.  As I mentioned upthread, I recognize that this would require you to let some annoying stuff slide by, but we all have to do that here -- it's just part of message board conversation.

 

42 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

The AP has strict policies on sourcing, limiting it to people having direct knowledge of the situation, and not provide opinion.

You obviously believe there's something more nefarious going on.

And yes, you are asking for my sources by questioning their legitimacy. You can't have it both ways.

Trust me, don't trust me, but at the very least check my track record.

jw

I agree that some posts have indeed essentially demanded that you identify your sources, and that this is ridiculous.  However, I don't think there is anything wrong with observing that your sources may have their own agendas, which is I think what @LGR4GM was driving at.

The bolded is interesting info.  Glad you mentioned it.

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, shrader said:

I’m hoping for the day we get a “new” poster here named wohn-jawrow. Well have no way of knowing it’s him and then he’s free to be a completely normal person. 

In my mind, Smell is already Gerry Meehan, WildCard is Marty Biron and you are Bob Sweeney.

PA, of course, Is Larry Quinn.

[shrader]

19 minutes ago, dudacek said:

In my mind, Smell is already Gerry Meehan, WildCard is Marty Biron and you are Bob Sweeney.

PA, of course, Is Larry Quinn.

Bob Sweeney went to BC. How dare you!

[dudacek]

3 minutes ago, shrader said:

Bob Sweeney went to BC. How dare you!

Exactly what Bob would want us to think.

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

This board is not an obnoxious circle jerk. 

except that @john wawrow said it is.

i find his reporting to be reliably very good and frequently excellent. 

i generally find his online persona(e) - mostly on this board and (too) often on Twitter - to be something i'd rather avoid.

i am also confident that, in the real world, i'd enjoy a "hang" with the guy. the persistent nonsense of teh interwebs ain't fer everyone.

[Kruppstahl]

On 6/11/2020 at 6:10 PM, inkman said:

I'm way more concerned about the language used to describe the teams financial state than who is doing what in the org.  As we've discussed for months, they are acting flat ass broke.  An operating revenue of $1.9 mill?  The teams payroll is 40 times that.  Something ain't right.  These people are bad at making money unless they have a printing press handed to them like an NFL team.  

In a back-handed way, this could help us as fans. 

I genuinely believe the Pegulas might sell the team if it becomes too large of a nuisance for them.  They have won the lottery of life and are enjoying some limited success with the Bills, which is the true jewel in their sports ownership crown anyway.

Why would they want to be confronted with a really negative situation over and over again with the Sabres?  

As I keep writing since last Tuesday, the purge is not inconsistent with ownership looking to sell in the near term.  They may be way ahead of me.

If not, I think selling is a viable option for them down the road.  

As long as they sell to someone with WNY connections in some way, expressing a good faith desire to leave the team where it is, I would gladly roll the dice with new ownership tomorrow.  

If the Pegulas are going to achieve success with the Sabres, it will be the result of blind luck.

 

[Kruppstahl]

On 6/12/2020 at 10:17 AM, PASabreFan said:

To change the subject, folks should note where the real action is at in owning a team. The lousy Sabres, playing in a small market, in a second-tier professional league, have more than doubled in value in the less than 10 years Terry has owned them. $400 million isn't chump change. OSP also saw the Sabres more than double in value in the eight years he owned them. The piddling few million dollars of profit or loss on a year to year basis don't mean all that much.

I wonder if the fact that Terry is making a small profit with that lousy team in that small market while spending lustfully and paying plenty of folks to not work for him changes @nfreeman 's opinion about the fate of the team if Golisano had remained owner. His theory was that the enlarging salary cap would have meant larger and larger losses for Old Sugar Packets, forcing him to the sell the team. The way I see it, with LQ and DiPofi on his side, the team would have been miles better on and off the ice, and the bottom line would have remained solid/OK/acceptable. And, yes, Darcy would still be GM.

This is a good point about franchise value increasing over time.  Indeed, this is where the real money is made in sports ownership.

I recall reading a year or 2 ago that the Bills had been estimated to already increase in value by like $200 million (or was it more) beyond the purchase price of what?  $1.3 Billion?  

It's also why the NFL ownership club immediately embraced Pegula and loved him.  He was a single owner, he paid cash, and he likely overpaid to get the Bills by probably a couple hundred million.

His overpayment helped push the value of all other franchises up that much farther.

I still believe that if the team doesn't improve, the day-to-day drain of ownership could make them want to sell.

They don't need the money, and likely don't need the headache. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Thorner]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

As I said earlier, I respect your work and would love an opportunity to talk hockey with you.

I also appreciate how bigmouth keyboard warriors can make Interaction a waste of time for someone in your position. And I am sorry that is the impression your interactions here have reinforced, but I think @nfreeman and @Weave have responded well to those concerns.

This board is not an obnoxious circle jerk. Like any community, you will enjoy the company of some more than others. But by and large, it is place where a lot of good people and smart Sabres fans get together to talk passionately about their passion. Spend any length of time here and I think you will see that.

Sums it up well. 

3 hours ago, darksabre said:

I gotta be honest, I don't see why John should want to participate here. The currency of this forum is speculation and by occupation John is not allowed to trade in speculation. 

Unless he's going to provide us information beyond what is available to us in his published work, and the work of his colleagues, in order to enrich the debates, I don't know what he has to gain, or what we have to gain.

All we can offer him is debate on the information we have. If he has different or better information than us, but he can't introduce it, then all he can do is say "you guys don't know what you're talking about", which of course may be true, but is also completely unproductive. 

I think there's a reason media people don't fit here, and it's not the posters. It's the nature of the thing.

Well, he'd be posting here as a fan, not as a part of his occupation. He's still certainly allowed to speculate with the rest of us, correct? Not saying he should definitely do that or that it would be appealing/easy for him to do here, but I don't see why it can't be an option. 

[Torpedo Forecheck]

Any site where you can tell another poster to Phuck off as I've seen happen on here -amongst many other uncivil things(in the presence of a mod), and for no apparent reason other than they were disagreed with isn't worth the time. You try that stuff on 2BD and your in deep doo doo, here it's tolerated and even supported.

[DeleteThisAccount]

11 hours ago, SwampD said:

I just find it a little curious that an article comes out on Thursday, June 11th, titled “Pegula focused on efficiency; staying on as Sabres President,” then a full bloodletting occurs a few days later.

Not nefarious, but certainly not coincidence, either.

Why not just ask me, rather than speculating.

You say not nefarious but not coincidence, suggesting there was some sort of agenda here.

Again, you could’ve asked nicely and I’d gladly answer this question.

But the continued skepticism in this thread alone leaves me wondering what it is this board actually wants:

Answers or the comfort of posting mere speculation in order to justify one’s smarts knowing they wouldn’t be called out on it.

Ive for one poster going on and on and on trying to convince either me or himself that they’re not asking me for sources (he is).

And then this.

If you cant figure out why I’m skeptical in regards to this board being welcoming, based on this thread alone, well I guess we’ll never know.

sheesh

jw

[IKnowPhysics]

@john wawrow, thanks for looking into that dumb Harborcenter ice melt yarn today.  It sounded like an excuse for some to go even more off the rails about ownership.

Even the smallest kernels of truth help us all.

[nfreeman]

I’d guess that @SwampD is wondering whether whomever @john wawrow spoke with in preparation for writing that article had an agenda that he/she was promoting.  That’s not a mean-spirited insinuation IMHO.

(Similarly, when I wondered in a different thread whether @john wawrow had read TP’s purchase agreement for the Bills and if so how ironclad the no-move clause was, I intended no snark.  Perhaps this is what @That Aud Smell was referring to when he mentioned how tones can be misconstrued online that wouldn’t be in person.)

[SwampD]

18 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

Why not just ask me, rather than speculating.

You say not nefarious but not coincidence, suggesting there was some sort of agenda here.

Again, you could’ve asked nicely and I’d gladly answer this question.

But the continued skepticism in this thread alone leaves me wondering what it is this board actually wants:

Answers or the comfort of posting mere speculation in order to justify one’s smarts knowing they wouldn’t be called out on it.

Ive for one poster going on and on and on trying to convince either me or himself that they’re not asking me for sources (he is).

And then this.

If you cant figure out why I’m skeptical in regards to this board being welcoming, based on this thread alone, well I guess we’ll never know.

sheesh

jw

Dude. Ya gotta relax. I genuinely don't think you have an agenda. 

Did someone contact you for that piece? Did you seek it out on your own? It was factually based and accurate. I just find the timing curious.

[DeleteThisAccount]

20 minutes ago, IKnowPhysics said:

@john wawrow, thanks for looking into that dumb Harborcenter ice melt yarn today.  It sounded like an excuse for some to go even more off the rails about ownership.

Even the smallest kernels of truth help us all.

Not sure what I was told was accurate.

[DeleteThisAccount]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

I’d guess that @SwampD is wondering whether whomever @john wawrow spoke with in preparation for writing that article had an agenda that he/she was promoting.  That’s not a mean-spirited insinuation IMHO.

(Similarly, when I wondered in a different thread whether @john wawrow had read TP’s purchase agreement for the Bills and if so how ironclad the no-move clause was, I intended no snark.  Perhaps this is what @That Aud Smell was referring to when he mentioned how tones can be misconstrued online that wouldn’t be in person.)

The presidents story came from the same Botterill is staying interview from May 26.

Couldnt squeeze both things in same story and wanted to do some more research on the president story.

Given real life got in the way with me covering the Buffalo protests, things got delayed.

Had I been real smart, I would’ve worked in her comments on Kevyn Adams, which I tweeted on Black Tuesday.

 

jw

Edited June 20, 2020 by john wawrow

[Sabres Fan in NS]

13 hours ago, Torpedo Forecheck said:

Any site where you can tell another poster to Phuck off as I've seen happen on here -amongst many other uncivil things(in the presence of a mod), and for no apparent reason other than they were disagreed with isn't worth the time. You try that stuff on 2BD and your in deep doo doo, here it's tolerated and even supported.

And yet here you are complaining that this site is not worth the time?  Rather odd, but whatever.

[LGR4GM]

9 hours ago, john wawrow said:

Why not just ask me, rather than speculating.

You say not nefarious but not coincidence, suggesting there was some sort of agenda here.

Again, you could’ve asked nicely and I’d gladly answer this question.

But the continued skepticism in this thread alone leaves me wondering what it is this board actually wants:

Answers or the comfort of posting mere speculation in order to justify one’s smarts knowing they wouldn’t be called out on it.

Ive for one poster going on and on and on trying to convince either me or himself that they’re not asking me for sources (he is).

And then this.

If you cant figure out why I’m skeptical in regards to this board being welcoming, based on this thread alone, well I guess we’ll never know.

sheesh

jw

I am not asking for your sources. I've tried to explain to you multiple times what I'm saying. If I wanted your sources, I would come out and say that. In response you've told me I'm dumb more or less. What a great conversation, I'd guess you think I'm some blue collar worker who isn't smart enough to comprehend your writing because I'm not educated enough. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by LGR4GM

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Are we sure about this?

Jason and all those others were told they were coming back next season right up until the second that they were told they were not coming back next season.

Even the mighty (not that Mighty) KP has to answer to someone.

[LGR4GM]

9 hours ago, john wawrow said:

Why not just ask me, rather than speculating.

You say not nefarious but not coincidence, suggesting there was some sort of agenda here.

Again, you could’ve asked nicely and I’d gladly answer this question.

But the continued skepticism in this thread alone leaves me wondering what it is this board actually wants:

Answers or the comfort of posting mere speculation in order to justify one’s smarts knowing they wouldn’t be called out on it.

Ive for one poster going on and on and on trying to convince either me or himself that they’re not asking me for sources (he is).

And then this.

If you cant figure out why I’m skeptical in regards to this board being welcoming, based on this thread alone, well I guess we’ll never know.

sheesh

jw

I think a lot of us speculate based on the info we have. It's kinda like that bar conversation you have with friends but on the forum. That's why we're wrong sometimes because we can only draw conclusions on the info we have. Like the ROR trade for example, we've speculated a lot about was that a botterill or pegula decision and why did it occur. 

[DeleteThisAccount]

24 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I am not asking for your sources. I've tried to explain to you multiple times what I'm saying. If I wanted your sources, I would come out and say that. In response you've told me I'm dumb more or less. What a great conversation, I'd guess you think I'm some blue collar worker who isn't smart enough to comprehend your writing because I'm not educated enough. 

Don’t be so hard on yourself 

[Tondas]

      Kim and Terry, please:

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

Don’t be so hard on yourself 

So that's a yes? Good to know.