NHL ownership survey, rate your owner

[Thorner]

The team has been very bad for a very long time. We can logically conclude that someone is responsible. Or someone(s). It doesn’t really matter who we blame in the end for causing it: because we know in the end the owner is tasked with fixing it. If not, who else? What we are discussing is mostly the semantics of whether Terry did it, or allowed / allows it to happen 

obviously Terry isn’t out here just hiring amazing GMs who’s incredible aptitude somehow consistently fails to manifest through a comprehensive analysis of the gamut of moves made in the micro, like, we’d see some iceberg poking above the surface of a 76 point average in 5 seasons. We know Adams was agreeable to the format Terry wanted for the team based on the conditions he took over the GM job, and otherwise unable to convince his owner of a more efficient plan. Removing the GM only matters if we hire someone better the next time, but as Promo points out re: other owned teams - it can happen by chance. Easy choice to make after an analysis period of 5 years, imo. The risk of employing an inferior GM is minimal

Edited Wednesday at 08:19 PM by Thorner

[JohnC]

19 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Obviously because one team is a champion contender and the other team is struggling to break a playoff drought. Ironically that same champion caliber team had it's own 17-year drought that seemed equally as hopeless, that ended under Terry's ownership.

I'm glad you used this example. If a team's success is such a direct reflection of the owner, then Terry must be a great owner, right? He already owns a twice-champion lacrosse team. (Did I just hear heads explode?) Oh right, we have an accepted narrative to explain that incongruity. 🤣

You don't even recognize the incongruity of your own view/logic. Why is his football team a success while his hockey franchise is a generational failing team? After the ludicrous PR hiring of Rex Ryan, whom he fired and walked away with the remaining portion of a rich contract, he hired quality staff (coach and GM) and let them run the operation. Compare that to how he has overseen the hockey operation? He's churned through coaches and GMs who he hired. Is he meddling in the operation? I don't know to what extent. What I can say for sure is that since he has owned the hockey franchise it has not only not made the playoffs in nearly a generation, but it has sunk to being an irrelevant and invisible franchise in the NHL with a steadily eroding fan base. No matter what metric one uses to assess his tenure as an owner  over the past 13 years, only one conclusion can be made: He has been a dismal failure. If you don't believe me then check the record. If your head is exploding it is from your twisted logic when attempting to declare success from stupendous in your face failure. 🙃

[PromoTheRobot]

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You don't even recognize the incongruity of your own view/logic. Why is his football team a success while his hockey franchise is a generational failing team? After the ludicrous PR hiring of Rex Ryan, whom he fired and walked away with the remaining portion of a rich contract, he hired quality staff (coach and GM) and let them run the operation. Compare that to how he has overseen the hockey operation? He's churned through coaches and GMs who he hired. Is he meddling in the operation? I don't know to what extent. What I can say for sure is that since he has owned the hockey franchise it has not only not made the playoffs in nearly a generation, but it has sunk to being an irrelevant and invisible franchise in the NHL with a steadily eroding fan base. No matter what metric one uses to assess his tenure as an owner  over the past 13 years, only one conclusion can be made: He has been a dismal failure. If you don't believe me then check the record. If your head is exploding it is from your twisted logic when attempting to declare success from stupendous in your face failure. 🙃

What you are doing is focusing only on the negatives to support your premise. Again, he has two successful franchises. 

[LTS]

3 hours ago, Thorner said:

To me, the entire reason the strategy was even *arguably* logical was because losing guaranteed one of the two. The framing around this website, for example, was much more so “McEichel.” I’ve come to disagree with the strategy entirely, but if it was in our control to achieve such a functional goal (be so bad on purpose we finish last, guarantee McEichel), I see the vision 

If they did it with the sole purpose of getting McDavid to the extent the strategy’s success was, in their opinion, dependent on it, they are absolute fools. I think they had a 20% chance of that, even if they DID finish last. That would be a horrendous, meandering gamble. 

Yup, Terry definitely picked out Beck Malenstyn 

I think this is what I was saying but perhaps failed to nail the point. They wanted McDavid, but the fact that Eichel was the consolation prize justified the strategy. However, the primary objective was to get McDavid and then they had to "settle" for Eichel. The continued point I had was that they didn't get first prize and while they settled for second, the decision to get him was taken out of their hands so they felt less ownership over it.

Yes, they could have NOT selected Eichel and went with the #3 pick in Strome, but that would have been an absolute career killing error.

2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

You are not providing anything but outcomes that you assign directly to Terry. There is no decision about A that results in B. Just "Attendance is down!! Blame Terry!!" But I get why my contrarian behavior irks you. This entire site is devoted to stories we repeat over and over and take as gospel.

I'm really trying to figure out how they guy who owns the organization and makes the top level hiring which enables the lower level hiring is not responsible for the team's performance.

If Terry hires Joe to be in charge of marketing and attendance and then Joe hires Curly, Larry, and Moe to run the program and they are not qualified, who is to blame? You might say Joe, but clearly Joe is not a good candidate to run marketing and attendance, so who hired that person?  Terry.

If Terry hires Larry to be the GM and Larry goes out an obtains players who cannot succeed, and hires a coach who cannot get the to succeed then who to blame? Again, ultimately it all goes back to the person who put the unqualified person in charge.  That's the owner.

28 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Obviously because one team is a champion contender and the other team is struggling to break a playoff drought. Ironically that same champion caliber team had it's own 17-year drought that seemed equally as hopeless, that ended under Terry's ownership.

I'm glad you used this example. If a team's success is such a direct reflection of the owner, then Terry must be a great owner, right? He already owns a twice-champion lacrosse team. (Did I just hear heads explode?) Oh right, we have an accepted narrative to explain that incongruity. 🤣

This is bad logic. The ability to operate a business in one vertical is not the same as another. A person might be great at running a financial tech company but would suck at running a social media tech company.

Moreover, to be successful in your job means more than getting it right once. Let's assume the Bills are considered successful. I guess making the playoffs is successful, but they have not won the Superb Owl yet. That said, Pegula failed at his first hire. He gets credit for listening to the person who suggested McDermott and he gets credit for listening to McDermott for Beane.  That said, it's only happened once.  It doesn't mean he's a good judge of talent, it just means he got it right once.

With the Sabres however, he's made the wrong decision, many times over. He's established a pattern of always doing the wrong thing and the results speak for themselves.  Other than a now defunct franchise, the Sabres are the worst team in the NHL over the past 10 years.

The original topic was rating NHL owners and by all measurements, as an NHL owner Terry Pegula sucks. He might be a good owner now in football, but will he continue to be?  Jerry Jones is usually not considered a great owner and yet he has three Super Bowl wins.  Hell his first 10 years as owner of the Cowboys were by all accounts one of the most successful decades of football ownership ever.  But is he a good owner now?
 

[DarthEbriate]

32 minutes ago, Thorner said:

The team has been very bad for a very long time. We can logically conclude that someone is responsible. Or someone(s). It doesn’t really matter who we blame in the end for causing it:

It’s time we started holding the fans accountable. They’re easy to blame and the most numerous. Every time one of them says “Because Buffalo!” Or “We can’t have nice things.” Or has too much hopium or predicts the team making the playoffs or has a weird delusional comparison between Terry’s purchase and the prequel Star Wars trilogy. That’s where the blame lies, placing any expectations for success on a franchise that doesn’t warrant it. That said, Darth Pegulas the Wise is a terrible hockey owner. 

[JohnC]

10 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

What you are doing is focusing only on the negatives to support your premise. Again, he has two successful franchises. 

I'm not trying to be impolite but your logic is askew. How in the world is the hockey franchise a success? Certainly, not by record and understandably lagging fan support. Your up is not my up and your down is not my down. The both of us have exhausted this topic. We're going in circles and will never intersect. 

[SwampD]

56 minutes ago, Stoner said:

Kevyn has said he talks to Terry every day. Does that seem normal or healthy?

Could be either. In this case it’s bad.

54 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Exactly. Thanks for getting that.  But as I mentioned in another response, if the Bills and Bandits are so successful, is that not a reflection of ownership too?

15 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

What you are doing is focusing only on the negatives to support your premise. Again, he has two successful franchises. 

K great. We agree. He’s a great NFL and NLL owner. But that also makes him an historically bad NHL owner

You seem to want to ignore that.

[Pimlach]

50 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Exactly. Thanks for getting that.  But as I mentioned in another response, if the Bills and Bandits are so successful, is that not a reflection of ownership too?

 

Yes.  The same criteria applies.  The Bills and Bandits are successful, and the owner must be given credit for running the program and hiring good people, and providing the resources, and maintaining a high level for several years running.   

He just has not got there in the NHL.  Why he hasn't been successful is the debate.  It is not because he is a bad person, or not smart, or whatever else you read here.  A lot of people say he meddles - I join you in the "I'm not there to see it camp" on this topic, so you don't see me posting that he meddles.  All  of his GMs are first timers and taking on stretch assignments.  Maybe this is a reason?  He does not spend to cap.  Maybe this is another reason?  

[PromoTheRobot]

15 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Could be either. In this case it’s bad.

K great. We agree. He’s a great NFL and NLL owner. But that also makes him an historically bad NHL owner

You seem to want to ignore that.

 

9 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Yes.  The same criteria applies.  The Bills and Bandits are successful, and the owner must be given credit for running the program and hiring good people, and providing the resources, and maintaining a high level for several years running.   

He just has not got there in the NHL.  Why he hasn't been successful is the debate.  It is not because he is a bad person, or not smart, or whatever else you read here.  A lot of people say he meddles - I join you in the "I'm not there to see it camp" on this topic, so you don't see me posting that he meddles.  All  of his GMs are first timers and taking on stretch assignments.  Maybe this is a reason?  He does not spend to cap.  Maybe this is another reason?  

I would like to politely bow out of any further discussion on this matter. We will not agree. I just want to follow my team and cheer for success.

[Pimlach]

54 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

I would like to politely bow out of any further discussion on this matter. We will not agree. I just want to follow my team and cheer for success.

Me too.   What's funny though is that I thought we just converged on common ground.   Cheers!  

 

[Broken Ankles]

14 hours ago, Pimlach said:

What Terry contributes is obvious as he is accountable for it all.  His performance is one of the easiest to rate since the buck stops with him and he is the only constant in the organization since he took over   Every other key leadership position in the organization have been replaced, some numerous times.  

How about his hires for GM?   Business operations?  COO?  How about his decision to put his wife in charge?  

How about the fact that he designs the entire organizational structure and is responsible, at a minimum, for all the direct reports to him.  

How about he has final say on the payroll for his execs, for the players, for the staff? 

How about his self proclaimed plan to run the Sabres in an “efficient, effective, and economic“ manner?  That strategy was put in place in 2020, discussed publicly, and has been going on for 5 years now?   Any thoughts at all on how that is working out?  

How about the in game experience, the TV experience, the condition of the arena, the marketing and communications aspects of the team?   You’re a season ticket holder, right?   How is the overall product value to you?  

How about the Sabres record on the ice and in the box office?   Obvious indicators that you want to ignore.   

How about the Sabres franchise and brand - the perception, reputation, and culture?   

We never established that most teams are just lucky hiring GMs.  That’s an absurd generalization.   Teams like Boston and Tampa have been competitive for decades.   Washington is retooling right now without hitting the bottom and tanking.  Many teams were down in the standings when we were, and have since risen up the standings. I seriously doubt that it’s all about luck.  

You don’t want to admit the obvious.   His grade for Sabres Ownership is an F.  It’s been nothing short of a massive failure so far.  

His positives are two things, and they are big things, he has not moved them and Harbor Center.