Adams Introductory Press Conference 2pm EDT

[Trettioåtta]

I do wonder what teams don't have meddling owners. I suspect some are less obvious about it than the Pegulas. However, every team is owned by a person who is a titan of their industry and has run very large and successful business. As a result all of them will feel they know how to run a successful company.

Secondly, they are all sports fans and like the sport the team plays, therefore will want to be involved - anyone here would love to sit on draft interviews and give their thoughts on players. But whats more you get to do that and people have to listen to you!

I don't think this is a return to the old ways, more it is recognition that the current way is not worth the money it is costing (can anyone disagree?) and therefore let's change how the Sabres conduct hockey operations.

I don't think the Pegulas believe a small unsupported operation is a good way to save money - the southern teams prove it is not. I think they just want to limit the damage until a model for success is identified and then they will provide the cash to support it.

Personally I have no issue with this, I have long thought the deep pockets are a slight curse - e.g. allowing us to throw horrible contracts at players who will not live up to it (Leino, Erhoff etc.).

Sometimes budget constraints do help - they force prioritisation and focusing on what matters  

[darksabre]

3 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Questions like that have the highest chance of receiving an answer (Mike's the only reason we got confirmation of how OSP ran the Sabres). Look at how the oatmeal questions get answered. They don't. I don't know why Vogl bothers to attend these things. The affiliate guys are the worst. It's like their bosses say, "Don't rock the boat, we need that B-roll for 11 o'clock." They all come off as intimidated to be speaking to such power. Except Mike. I want to be him when I grow up.

Mike's questions don't get answers though. They just make people mad.

There's a way to ask tough questions that get answers without being a massive douche. Mike is not smart enough to accomplish that.

[dudacek]

23 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

 

I can't find the posts that talked about Mike raising his voice and gave the impression he cursed. That was the worst of the Harrington criticism. The posts above run the gamut.

Here's what Mike said in a forceful way without shouting:

"Ultimately why should anyone have faith in you as the team president given the way virtually every former employee whether it's a coach, GM, executive or other worker points to your scattershot leadership as the number one problem in this organization?"

You would think he called her an ignorant slut or the c-word. Bunch of patronizing men trying to defend the little lady from Mean Old Mike. Ridiculous. This is the big league. Kim can fire with the best of them, dubbing herself the Black Widow. She can handle Harrington.

 

She can and did.

It’s your right to call me a patronizing chauvinist for calling out an ***** for being an *****.

It’s your right to defend an ***** for being *****.

Its my right to love you anyways.

[LGR4GM]

16 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Mike's questions don't get answers though. They just make people mad.

There's a way to ask tough questions that get answers without being a massive douche. Mike is not smart enough to accomplish that.

Well mike was stupid and actually asked her 3 questions which makes it easy to evade. 

[Stoner]

38 minutes ago, Trettioåtta said:

Secondly, they are all sports fans and like the sport the team plays, therefore will want to be involved - anyone here would love to sit on draft interviews and give their thoughts on players. But whats more you get to do that and people have to listen to you!

A million times no. Not if you're interested in winning. This is Terry's Achilles Heel. He'd rather meddle and never win than watch a Cup season without being involved, I am convinced of that. Truly a toxic fan.

35 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Mike's questions don't get answers though. They just make people mad.

There's a way to ask tough questions that get answers without being a massive douche. Mike is not smart enough to accomplish that.

Kim didn't get mad. Nor did Terry.

20 minutes ago, dudacek said:

She can and did.

It’s your right to call me a patronizing chauvinist for calling out an ***** for being an *****.

It’s your right to defend an ***** for being *****.

Its my right to love you anyways.

It's not an issue if Mike asks that question of Terry.

18 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Well mike was stupid and actually asked her 3 questions which makes it easy to evade. 

True. She did answer two of the three, sort of. The first-time GM trend question was not answered. Too bad, as it's very much the crux of the problem.

[That Aud Smell]

51 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

You would think he called her an ignorant slut or the c-word. Bunch of patronizing men trying to defend the little lady from Mean Old Mike. Ridiculous. This is the big league. Kim can fire with the best of them, dubbing herself the Black Widow. She can handle Harrington.

Obviously, had Harrington called her a slut or a C U Next Tuesday, or something even close to that, the board and the internet would have melted down. And Mike would have been fired. 

It is maybe interesting to reflect on whether people would have reacted differently if Harrington had lobbed that bomb at a male owner/executive. Maybe there's some gender dynamic in there. @dudacek seemed to hint at as much with his take. So, I'll cop to that. Maybe there's some chivalry underlying the response.

Kim can obviously handle Harrington. I did not intend to defend her when I said what I said about Harrington's question. Regardless of sex or gender (or whatever it's called nowadays), I think Harrington is an incurable and unrepentant arsehole. And not a good writer.

17 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Well mike was stupid and actually asked her 3 questions which makes it easy to evade. 

"objection to form," as they say in the biz.

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, PASabreFan said:

 

It's not an issue if Mike asks that question of Terry.

It is for me. But I already told you that.

[Stoner]

If he asked my dad that question, I'd bop him on the nose!

[dudacek]

6 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

If he asked my dad that question, I'd bop him on the nose!

You too, eh? Or my brother, my daughter, my teammate....

You going to continue to insinuate I’m a liar because my world view doesn’t match yours?

[Stoner]

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

You too, eh? Or my brother, my daughter, my teammate....

You going to continue to insinuate I’m a liar because my world view doesn’t match yours?

I'm not insinuating that. But you went with "wife" in your scenario, not brother or teammate. The instinct to protect a woman is not a bad thing, but it didn't need to pop up in that setting. Maybe something about how Mike spoke to her triggered some "real life" situations, I don't know.

[Mustache of God]

I've never been less excited about a organizational shakeup from the Sabres. No search? Another GM with no prior GM experience? 

I have two take-aways:

1. When we hear problems of communication, i believe that to mean , "they're not telling us words we like to hear".

2. Starting today the Buffalo Sabres' reason for existence will be to be efficient, effective and economic.

[dudacek]

Maybe.

Maybe some “real life“ experiences have triggered a blind spot when it comes to recognizing rudeness when it’s disguised as asking for accountability from authority, I don’t know.