Organizational structural averages would be nice

[SDS]

We have no idea if what happened today is permanent or not, but it would probably be instructive if a comparison was made to what the Sabres look like today (or in the new near future if there are changes) to what other organizations look like. Maybe a sampling of big market teams versus small-market teams.

despite the interest, I don’t have the desire to do this myself. But the comparison would be informative.

[dudacek]

There was a report from about a year or two ago that put the Sabres at one of the smaller scouting staffs, maybe the bottom third?

I think this was in the wake of Botterill’s purge and there was a suggestion at the time more hiring might be coming.

[SDS]

7 hours ago, dudacek said:

There was a report from about a year or two ago that put the Sabres at one of the smaller scouting staffs, maybe the bottom third?

I think this was in the wake of Botterill’s purge and there was a suggestion at the time more hiring might be coming.

I read one article from, I think, two years ago that said we had one of the larger organizational structures in the league.

[Getpucksdeep]

10 hours ago, SDS said:

We have no idea if what happened today is permanent or not, but it would probably be instructive if a comparison was made to what the Sabres look like today (or in the new near future if there are changes) to what other organizations look like. Maybe a sampling of big market teams versus small-market teams.

despite the interest, I don’t have the desire to do this myself. But the comparison would be informative.

Yes. And it will be interesting to see if Ottawa, Detroit, etc follow suit in the coming days.  If all these crappy teams, or maybe all the teams (except Toronto and Rangers?), have this huge hit to revenue March - Dec it's possible the Pegula's just set the bar.  Obviously Jbot is a special case of not performing, so not suggesting big cut of GMs, but the supporting staff perhaps.  Creates some interesting dynamics - should big $ players pitch in to help bridge the gap (Eichel give back $1M per year?)? Owners? Or pecking order is what it is, off you go assistants.  Apply same to MLB, NBA, NCAA? Really all pro sports dependent on butts in seats.  Interesting times.

[Weave]

3 hours ago, SDS said:

I read one article from, I think, two years ago that said we had one of the larger organizational structures in the league.

It wasn’t that long ago Terry was bragging that we will spend to be better in areas that aren’t covered by the salary cap, so I would expect this.

[inkman]

14 minutes ago, Weave said:

It wasn’t that long ago Terry was bragging that we will spend to be better in areas that aren’t covered by the salary cap, so I would expect this.

It also wasn't long ago when the Pegulas were supposedly making money.  

[SDS]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

It wasn’t that long ago Terry was bragging that we will spend to be better in areas that aren’t covered by the salary cap, so I would expect this.

Yeah, I think those conditions have changed for the for seeable future.

[SDS]

Hmmm... ?

 

[Randall Flagg]

17 minutes ago, SDS said:

Hmmm... ?

 

Was just gonna mention that I saw that on twitter. Funny

[Weave]

Someone willing to provide cliff notes?

[Brawndo]

Here’s a breakdown from John Vogl’s Article

 

[tom webster]

If analytics is evolving to the point that it can pinpoint with 90% accuracy how players will develop, and if the draft itself is such a crap shoot and varies on depth every year and if the margin of error is so slim between the 5th best team versus the 25th best team, smart managers will realize that they are paying 2 to 5 assistant GM’s, 20-30 scouts and stocking two minor league teams with the sole mission being to find one or two outliers per year.

McDonalds is heading to the day when robots cook the hamburgers, sports is realizing they are investing in a for profit fundraiser for failed jocks.

[darksabre]

11 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Here’s a breakdown from John Vogl’s Article

 

Vogl's tweet seems misleading given the content of this table.

It looks like there's a decent amount of variability between teams as far as what they think works for them staff-wise. There are good teams on here with a small staff, bad teams with a large staff, and a bunch in-between.

All I can take away here is that there's nothing to say that the Pegulas and Adams are inherently wrong for deciding a smaller staff might work for them.

[dudacek]

How much value do your five worst scouts add? Is it actually negative value because it weighs down the averages of the good ones?

Analytics-based questions need to be applied to the front office just as much as the on-ice product.

Edited June 18, 2020 by dudacek

[darksabre]

8 minutes ago, dudacek said:

How much value do your five worst scouts add? Is it actually negative value because it weighs down the averages of the good ones?

Analytics-based questions need to be applied to the front office just as much as the on-ice product.

Six Sigma up in this b***h.

[shrader]

39 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Vogl's tweet seems misleading given the content of this table.

It looks like there's a decent amount of variability between teams as far as what they think works for them staff-wise. There are good teams on here with a small staff, bad teams with a large staff, and a bunch in-between.

All I can take away here is that there's nothing to say that the Pegulas and Adams are inherently wrong for deciding a smaller staff might work for them.

And the positions are going to have different responsibilities from team to team. Chicago clearly has a different definition of what a scouting director is. 

[Kruppstahl]

13 hours ago, tom webster said:

If analytics is evolving to the point that it can pinpoint with 90% accuracy how players will develop, and if the draft itself is such a crap shoot and varies on depth every year and if the margin of error is so slim between the 5th best team versus the 25th best team, smart managers will realize that they are paying 2 to 5 assistant GM’s, 20-30 scouts and stocking two minor league teams with the sole mission being to find one or two outliers per year.

McDonalds is heading to the day when robots cook the hamburgers, sports is realizing they are investing in a for profit fundraiser for failed jocks.

Not necessarily *failed* jocks, but yes, it's true.

I have noted through my entire life the ex-Sabre player names that show up down the road as scouts.

I honestly believe that system is a leftover from the days when NHLers didn't make anything close to what they make now, had no formal education (many still don't of course), and still needed to make a living for many years once their playing days were over.

Teams sort of took care of their own with scouting positions. 

Mike Schopp, everyone's favorite radio announcer in Buffalo, has been harping on this forever.

I.E., the "scouting" information is now available for free, all over the place and most people tend to agree on the pecking order.

So then just take whoever is up at a given slot, and move on with it.

On top of that, never trade UP giving up picks, trade DOWN and acquire more.

The more swings of the wheel, the more probability your number will hit.

 

[Weave]

3 hours ago, Kruppstahl said:

 

On top of that, never trade UP giving up picks, trade DOWN and acquire more.

The more swings of the wheel, the more probability your number will hit.

 

I don’t have enough interest to seek out the articles, but it’s been statistically shown that trading down is a BAD play in the NHL draft.  Odds of success drop way off as you move down places in the draft until you get to the 3rd round.  

[Taro T]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but is it possible that having so many scouts tended to cause the Sabres to have lesser quality scouts as it would be harder to stand out & less of an opportunity to move up the ladder (being 1 of 12 looking for the inside track to an AGM role would seem to be a tougher sell than being 1 of say 8, right?)

Just spitballin'.