Charlie Mendola: New Director of Hockey Strategy

[tom webster]

10 hours ago, Weave said:

You sure aren’t getting any new ideas or culture change by continuously hiring from within.

Are you sure? Any hire had to be a “outside hire” at some point. And for you to be absolutely correct, all people in your organization are not doing anything to further their knowledge of their craft. 
What if this guy spent the last ten years immersing himself in the things that made other organizations successful and is strong minded enough to convince his superiors to change?

My colleagues will tell you that my greatest strength was listening to everyone, taking their ideas and molding them into mind. Everyone that knows me well will tell you a story of how I fired someone and within two days changed a process we used based almost entirely on the argument I had with that employee. The guy was a moron but he actually gave me his best idea on the way out the door.

I tend to believe you need to interview outside people but I don’t know that you necessarily have to hire them as long as the people you promote from within aren’t promoted just to be “yes” men.

[Pimlach]

13 hours ago, Weave said:

You sure aren’t getting any new ideas or culture change by continuously hiring from within.

This is an interesting topic in business.  I am consulting an a development  project that got off the ground with an organization composed mainly of leaders brought in from outside. The Program Manager came from outside, “shook things up”, and then left when things got hard.  Why did things get hard?   The project went from proposal/capture phase to the execution phase and many of new and inexperienced managers she brought in do not know what to do and lack the reach back into their functional areas to find the people who can help.  Trying to get the best people to join in and help has been difficult because of the culture established by the prior leadership.  Some of the original management  that were cast aside were experts in their disciplines and have since been absorbed within the broader organization.  

So bringing in new people might have helped win the contract but it is really hurting on the execution part as the shake up was too big.  

I think since Adams has such a small staff it only makes sense he brings in someone he knows and has confidence in.    As mentioned already, the work this guy will do is likely to be a lot of behind the scenes administrative stuff that we fans won’t have any way to gauge.  

Edited November 8, 2020 by Pimlach

[dudacek]

I get that people don't trust the Sabres to make the right decisions.

But if my choice is between a guy I think could be a good fit, and a guy I know is a good fit I take the known guy every time.

Wouldn't most of you?

Familiar doesn't mean sycophant

Edited November 8, 2020 by dudacek

[tom webster]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

This is an interesting topic in business.  I am consulting an a development  project that got off the ground with an organization composed mainly of leaders brought in from outside. The Program Manager came from outside, “shook things up”, and then left when things got hard.  Why did things get hard?   The project went from proposal/capture phase to the execution phase and many of new and inexperienced managers she brought in do not know what to do and lack the reach back into their functional areas to find the people who can help.  Trying to get the best people to join in and help has been difficult because of the culture established by the prior leadership.  Some of the original management  that were cast aside were experts in their disciplines and have since been absorbed within the broader organization.  

So bringing in new people might have helped win the contract but it is really hurting on the execution part as the shake up was too big.  

I think since Adams has such a small staff it only makes sense he brings in someone he knows and has confidence in.    As mentioned already, the work this guy will do is likely to be a lot of behind the scenes administrative stuff that we fans won’t have any way to gauge.  

Very good perspective. To be clear, I’m not necessarily advocating one side over the other but rather questioning whether either way is the correct approach all the time.

I think a good leader is always going to want to learn, be adaptable and be willing to be challenged by his people. 

[LabattBlue]

Sorry to be so negative on decisions made currently.  The Pegula era has been such a train wreck for such a long time, it is hard to find anything positive to say...especially when on paper the moves just reek of nepotism, and not thorough recruitments for experienced candidates. 
 

Maybe I just long for the 70’s era of Sabre’s hockey. 

[Thorner]

On 11/7/2020 at 8:15 PM, Weave said:

Call it a trend then.  Point still stands.

I agree. Botterill seemed to grab his guys from similar backgrounds to Adams guys so far, too. There are definitely plenty of things they seem to do differently, but the staff hirings/draft focus seem to be similar.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Thorny

[Hank]

7 hours ago, Thorny said:

.....draft focus seem to be similar.

Is this regarding the apparent aversion to drafting players from the CHL outside the first round (top eight in our case)?

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

Is this regarding the apparent aversion to drafting players from the CHL outside the first round (top eight in our case)?

Ya, I mean there's really not enough data to know for sure yet. They've only done 1 draft with KA. But I suspect it may be the case, it was the 4th year in a row we've completely avoided the CHL outside round 1 - maybe there's something to it organizationally. They also don't staff anyone from hockey Canada and Kevin Devine as far as I can tell is their sole Canadian scout. 

CHL guys at the top are going to always be a consideration cause there's so much info out there on them, but perhaps they've streamlined the scouting department such that they are concentrating on established leagues/areas of focus. 

It's certainly not driven by a national bias - Botterill's aversion to the CHL for example was all centred around wanting the "extra development years" drafting out of other leagues allows for.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Thorny

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Ya, I mean there's really not enough data to know for sure yet. They've only done 1 draft with KA. But I suspect it may be the case, it was the 4th year in a row we've completely avoided the CHL outside round 1 - maybe there's something to it organizationally. They also don't staff anyone from hockey Canada and Kevin Devine as far as I can tell is their sole Canadian scout. 

CHL guys at the top are going to always be a consideration cause there's so much info out there on them, but perhaps they've streamlined the scouting department such that they are concentrating on established leagues/areas of focus. 

It's certainly not driven by a national bias - Botterill's aversion to the CHL for example was all centred around wanting the "extra development years" drafting out of other leagues allows for.

Sample size makes this a tough tell, but aren't there analytics that support leaning toward college and European players in the late rounds — greater success rate that may or may not be tied to that increased development time?

It will be interesting to see if/how the scouting staff grows when hockey returns to North America.

By my quick count, the Sabres have picked 28 CHL players after the 4th round since the 2000 draft, four of them have had legitimate NHL careers. They're basically 0-for-18 since Paul Byron in 2007. Of course they are only 3-for-24 (Ullmark, Olofsson and Petersen) outside the CHL since then either

• 2016 6th Brandon Hagel 1game
• 2012 7th Brady Austin 5 games
• 2011 6th Lieuwen 7 games
• 2007 6th Paul Byron 448
• 2004 6th Kaleta 348 games
• 2004 7th Mancari 42 games
• 2004 8th Card 4 games
• 2003 7th Paestch 167 games
• 2001 8th Wideman 815 games
• 2000 7th Gaustad 727 games
• 2000 8th Sean McMorrow 1 games

[Thorner]

^ Can only speak for myself, I absolutely hate the strategy. Too much potential talent being willingly forgone in the pursuit of something that MIGHT matter down the line. 

Too many variables to say the reason the picks you outlined were bad was because they went CHL. Regardless, that's 4th round on and as we've seen with Buffalo lately it's been second round on. And like you alluded to, when talking 4th round or later it's hard to hit on anyone.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Thorny