NHL ownership survey, rate your owner

[JohnC]

7 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I'm being asked for an opinion of ownership without knowing what Terry contributes to team operations. Is he a meddling micro-manager? Is he just an observer, listening to what Adams tells him? I don't know. I'm not there watching him. So how can I pass judgement? His record is obvious but not indicative of his role in it, beyond the hiring of GM's. And we've already established most team owners are just lucky/unlucky with hires.

There are a variety of styles of ownership in hockey and all sports. There are involved owners who have a say in decisions and there are laissez-faire styles of ownership where the owner is completely detached from the operation. Regardless of the management style in the end what's being evaluated is the overall record. From that standpoint, our owner has been a dismal failure. You may find the question of rating our owner a difficult and complex issue. I don't. It's as simple as counting wins and losses. 

[EM88]

12 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I think the difference is that Terry  knows he doesn't know anything about football so he lets the hired people do their job and just enjoys his investment. 

On the other hand, he THINKS he knows a lot about hockey so he's the de facto GM. 

Exactly. 100%.  It does not have to be more complicated than this.

That is why changing the GM without changing everything around him does very little. I firmly think as you said Pegula is the defacto GM. He lets Adams make the phone calls and do the paperwork, but nothing gets done without his approval, and more significantly the bigger things are likely more his decision than the hockey department.

Even if one wants to think the above is not true, then the next logical step is to take their word on something else. Adams and other members of the Sabres say that most decisions the hockey department makes are more 'group think' among them rather than Adams running rough-shot over the hockey department.  If that is the case and you hire a new gm but Karmanos and Jakubowski and Forton and Ventura are still there contributing to decision making, not much changes. Even less so if one of them is your new GM.

Edited November 20 by EM88

[Pimlach]

8 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I'm being asked for an opinion of ownership without knowing what Terry contributes to team operations. Is he a meddling micro-manager? Is he just an observer, listening to what Adams tells him? I don't know. I'm not there watching him. So how can I pass judgement? His record is obvious but not indicative of his role in it, beyond the hiring of GM's. And we've already established most team owners are just lucky/unlucky with hires.

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.  

 

 

[SwampD]

Lots of history being rewritten in this thread.

I thought it was McD who brought in BB.

And according to Eichel, it was Terry himself who soured the relationship.

 

[shrader]

24 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Lots of history being rewritten in this thread.

I thought it was McD who brought in BB.

And according to Eichel, it was Terry himself who soured the relationship.

 

Do we know who was consulting him at the time of the McDermott/Beane hires?  Would it still have been Brandon at that point?  I'm not so sure how much of a factor that initial help played in both cases, but we do know that the Sabres ownership started with LaFontaine immediately pulling the Abe Simpson:

[LTS]

19 hours ago, Thorner said:

Zero accountability from the organization, when it mattered most. Why is that? *THEY* tanked to get Jack Eichel. Prioritizing Jack above the rest of the roster wasn’t just what they signed up for, it was their *enacted strategy from day one*. They thought they could renege in the end, after failing to build a team around the man they torpedoed the team for, and anointed savior?

They refused to lie in the bed they made, when a franchise player asked out, not even because of their failings, but because they intimated they wanted to replicate them, in enacting another long form rebuild, their cheap “hack” to get high talent, at the cost of the prime of the player they burned the first go-round?

So full of hubris. 

You let him get the surgery. Look at the results of situation, with an honest eye, I dare you, or anyone 

He doesn’t get credit because his teams have averaged 76 points a season since he took over. These teams are inclusive and reflective of the moves you mention 

results 

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they tanked for McDavid and had to settle for Eichel? Certainly the prevailing wisdom at the time was that either or would net you a player you build a roster around, but I would be fairly certain they would have preferred McDavid.

The rest still being the same, but given that they had to "settle" for Eichel they might have felt slightly less attached to him.

------

I'm never letting Pegula off the hook. The bottom line of any analysis of Terry Pegula is the record of the team he has owned.  From 2014-2024 only the Coyotes, a now defunct organization, and a complete tire fire when they existed have a worse overall record and they at least made the playoffs once.

I'm not sure how you can take in that information and believe that at least when it comes to hockey, Terry Pegula isn't the worst owner in the league.

 

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour 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.  

 

 

Yes. If tropes are what you go by. "The buck stops here." Mystery solved.

[spndnchz]

29 minutes ago, shrader said:

Do we know who was consulting him at the time of the McDermott/Beane hires?  Would it still have been Brandon at that point?  I'm not so sure how much of a factor that initial help played in both cases, but we do know that the Sabres ownership started with LaFontaine immediately pulling the Abe Simpson:

 

[Pimlach]

4 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Yes. If tropes are what you go by. "The buck stops here." Mystery solved.

Classic response.   I provided lots more content, some compelling points to consider, including a few positives,  but you cling to "the buck stops here".   Tell me in what business, or in what organization, is the leader/owner not responsible for its performance?   

Look at your own posts for tropes and lots of excuses.  Continue to ignore 13 years worth of measurable and undisputable performance.  

20 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Buffalo was never the easiest place to get players to sign and the drought doesn't help. So Adams is trying to build through the draft, which takes longer. I like most of Adam's picks. Granato got the team moving in the right direction. Now I'm hoping Ruff completes the job. I see progress but they have to be consistent. Injuries keep setting us back. 

10 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I'm being asked for an opinion of ownership without knowing what Terry contributes to team operations. Is he a meddling micro-manager? Is he just an observer, listening to what Adams tells him? I don't know. I'm not there watching him. So how can I pass judgement? His record is obvious but not indicative of his role in it, beyond the hiring of GM's. And we've already established most team owners are just lucky/unlucky with hires.

 

[LGR4GM]

16 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I think the difference is that Terry  knows he doesn't know anything about football so he lets the hired people do their job and just enjoys his investment. 

On the other hand, he THINKS he knows a lot about hockey so he's the de facto GM. 

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they tanked for McDavid and had to settle for Eichel? Certainly the prevailing wisdom at the time was that either or would net you a player you build a roster around, but I would be fairly certain they would have preferred McDavid.

The rest still being the same, but given that they had to "settle" for Eichel they might have felt slightly less attached to him.

------

I'm never letting Pegula off the hook. The bottom line of any analysis of Terry Pegula is the record of the team he has owned.  From 2014-2024 only the Coyotes, a now defunct organization, and a complete tire fire when they existed have a worse overall record and they at least made the playoffs once.

I'm not sure how you can take in that information and believe that at least when it comes to hockey, Terry Pegula isn't the worst owner in the league.

 

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. 

16 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I think the difference is that Terry  knows he doesn't know anything about football so he lets the hired people do their job and just enjoys his investment. 

On the other hand, he THINKS he knows a lot about hockey so he's the de facto GM. 

Yup, Terry definitely picked out Beck Malenstyn 

[PromoTheRobot]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Classic response.   I provided lots more content, some compelling points to consider, including a few positives,  but you cling to "the buck stops here".   Tell me in what business, or in what organization, is the leader/owner not responsible for its performance?   

Look at your own posts for tropes and lots of excuses.  Continue to ignore 13 years worth of measurable and undisputable performance.  

 

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.

[JohnC]

24 minutes 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.

Why do you think attendance is down for the Sabres? I watched the KC game in Buffalo where the stadium was not only filled but was rocking from the beginning to the end? Why do you think there is such a difference in fan participation between the two franchises located in the same region?

[Thorner]

13 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Why do you think attendance is down for the Sabres? I watched the KC game in Buffalo where the stadium was not only filled but was rocking from the beginning to the end? Why do you think there is such a difference in fan participation between the two franchises located in the same region?

Doesn’t that fact the “everything is actually fine” defence is being employed wantonly, after a stretch of hockey that, according to history, literally couldn’t have been worse, illustrate to you are arguing with an unmoveable position? There’s no standard. There’s nothing you could point out that classifies as failure: hockey history dealt its most significant blow and the position was left undaunted. There’s no proof against it: the team is simply fine until such a time as it’s good: those are the parameters 

[mjd1001]

4 hours ago, SwampD said:

Lots of history being rewritten in this thread.

I thought it was McD who brought in BB.

And according to Eichel, it was Terry himself who soured the relationship.

 

People who want Adams gone can best make their argument that its the GM's fault for the organizations woes currently.  Lots of stuff out there about Pegula being involed in on-ice decisions, quotes and stories about him wanting to fire Botts because "the pegulas" weren't having their input taken into consideration enough by the hockey department.  Pegula meddles, its likely every decision has to be run by him and he has major input in the bigger ones, and even suggests stuff.  But yeah, if you want to blame Adams, it doesn't really support your case to look at the history of what Pegula has done to this franchise.

[Pimlach]

11 minutes 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.

The outcomes are assigned to Terry because he is the boss.  It's not complicated, he is the owner and he is responsible for the performance and outcomes of his business.  He sets the vision, the direction, and the parameters for which the business is run.  He did that as recently as 2020 when he gave us his EEE speech.  If is chooses to step aside and assign any of that to someone else, he is still ultimately responsible for the results that that person brings.  Ownership comes with that responsibility. 

I do like contrarian inputs and I value them, which is why I asked how you would rate the owner - the very subject of the thread.   

Your response is clear.  You have no opinion because you have no personal insight into the day to day decisions that are made, and you will not hold Terry accountable for the measurable outputs of the team.    

I see plenty of measurable outputs to evaluate,  which include ~14 years of wins, losses, playoff appearances, attendance, profits, player movement/acquisitions, and my personal game day experience when I go to the arena.   Not to mention the less measurable but equally important team reputation and its perceived culture.  

Provide a contrarian view if that is your intent.  But it seems that your intent is to tell us that we don't know the inside details, so we don't know anything, so we can't blame Terry.  

I gave you two very big positives as well.  I appreciate that he kept the team in Buffalo, and I really like the Harbor Center.  

Someday the law of averages with prevail and they will win again.  When that happens he will get bouquets and accolades, deserved or not, and that also goes with being the owner.  

 

 

[SwampD]

8 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

People who want Adams gone can best make their argument that its the GM's fault for the organizations woes currently.  Lots of stuff out there about Pegula being involed in on-ice decisions, quotes and stories about him wanting to fire Botts because "the pegulas" weren't having their input taken into consideration enough by the hockey department.  Pegula meddles, its likely every decision has to be run by him and he has major input in the bigger ones, and even suggests stuff.  But yeah, if you want to blame Adams, it doesn't really support your case to look at the history of what Pegula has done to this franchise.

The Sabres own social media team makes a point of showing how involved he is, ffs! They show him in all the meetings and on all the calls.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

The Sabres own social media team makes a point of showing how involved he is, ffs! They show him in all the meetings and on all the calls.

And the social media team showed Adams over the moon at snagging Matt Irwin. 

It’s documenting ineptitude across the board, we already knew this 

When fans don’t see their owners involved they scream, “absentee owner!”. 

Edited November 20 by Thorner

[SwampD]

We really need a win tonight.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

We really need a win tonight.

I still think Adams can get it done, this season 

[JohnC]

30 minutes ago, Thorner said:

Doesn’t that fact the “everything is actually fine” defence is being employed wantonly, after a stretch of hockey that, according to history, literally couldn’t have been worse, illustrate to you are arguing with an unmoveable position? There’s no standard. There’s nothing you could point out that classifies as failure: hockey history dealt its most significant blow and the position was left undaunted. There’s no proof against it: the team is simply fine until such a time as it’s good: those are the parameters 

You hit a chord with me on the issue of having, or I should say, not having a standard to judge by. What a faction of the lenient evaluator crowd want many of us to do is to suspend the normal standards for evaluating success and failure. (As you noted.) It's basically dumbing down the standard and being required to be happy with the participation ribbon. I'm not going to fall into that debased world of mediocrity. I will not passively accept that standard in a competitive endeavor that has a simple basis to judge: W/Ls. Up is up and down is down. For most of us, we know the difference. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. For some, it's a challenge. 

 

[Weave]

1 hour 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.

A wise individual once told me that if you are embarrassed of the crowd around you, you either find a new crowd or be proud of what you really are.

Edited November 20 by Weave

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Why do you think attendance is down for the Sabres? I watched the KC game in Buffalo where the stadium was not only filled but was rocking from the beginning to the end? Why do you think there is such a difference in fan participation between the two franchises located in the same region?

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. 🤣

Edited November 20 by PromoTheRobot

[Stoner]

36 minutes ago, SwampD said:

The Sabres own social media team makes a point of showing how involved he is, ffs! They show him in all the meetings and on all the calls.

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

[PromoTheRobot]

52 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

The outcomes are assigned to Terry because he is the boss.  It's not complicated, he is the owner and he is responsible for the performance and outcomes of his business.  He sets the vision, the direction, and the parameters for which the business is run.  He did that as recently as 2020 when he gave us his EEE speech.  If is chooses to step aside and assign any of that to someone else, he is still ultimately responsible for the results that that person brings.  Ownership comes with that responsibility. 

I do like contrarian inputs and I value them, which is why I asked how you would rate the owner - the very subject of the thread.   

Your response is clear.  You have no opinion because you have no personal insight into the day to day decisions that are made, and you will not hold Terry accountable for the measurable outputs of the team.    

I see plenty of measurable outputs to evaluate,  which include ~14 years of wins, losses, playoff appearances, attendance, profits, player movement/acquisitions, and my personal game day experience when I go to the arena.   Not to mention the less measurable but equally important team reputation and its perceived culture.  

Provide a contrarian view if that is your intent.  But it seems that your intent is to tell us that we don't know the inside details, so we don't know anything, so we can't blame Terry.  

I gave you two very big positives as well.  I appreciate that he kept the team in Buffalo, and I really like the Harbor Center.  

Someday the law of averages with prevail and they will win again.  When that happens he will get bouquets and accolades, deserved or not, and that also goes with being the owner.  

 

 

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?

20 minutes ago, Weave said:

A wise individual once told me that if you are embarrassed of the crowd around you, you either find a new crowd or be proud of what you really are.

That's good advice.