Elliotte Friedman is reporting Pegula will meet the team in Montreal

[Sidc3000]

5 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I think I finally understand Terry’s plan.  He wants a new building in Buffalo.  He wants to use a lack of fan support to give him leverage with the NHL and various governments to either move the team to somewhere with palm trees or give him a new state of the art building.  
 

The meeting the team in Montreal is an announcement of either a new building or a potential move. 

He’s paying hundreds of millions Out of his own pocket for the bills stadium along with putting on a new roof on the arena. He’s not building a new building

Edited 4 hours ago by Sidc3000

[SDS]

6 minutes ago, EM88 said:

I wish to see what Kevin Adams can do as an actual General manager with some autonomy. I do not believe he has had it. Judging someone as a bad GM over 5 years when he has not been allowed to operate as an actual GM over those 5 years does not cut it for me.

This is the only thing I disagree with. I really don’t care if he gets another shot or not. He’s made a lot of money. He’ll be OK if he never gets to his NHL GM potential. Maybe it’s best that he didn’t and he can retire with millions of dollars in the bank with the thought that he could’ve been a contender, instead of being proven wrong.

[inkman]

 

[EM88]

2 minutes ago, Thorner said:

So your argument is that you’d hire Kevyn Adams to be the GM of your hockey team 

Lmao get real 

Be serious for one moment. He was ridiculously unqualified 5 years ago. Has he improved in standing? 

No that is not my argument at all, not in the least.  You are really trying to derive something that isn't there.

My argument is there is little way to know if he is or isn't a good GM.  The best way to find out is to remove the constraints he is under. Possibly the biggest part of my argument is any other GM that is brought in, if under the same constraints from the owner, is likely to have similar results to keeping Adams here.

Let Adams be a GM. He may be bad, but he may be good. We cannot tell if he is bad because he has not been allowed to be a "GM" freely.  If he fails at that point, remove him. 

 

[darksabre]

It's too bad that the other thread disappeared into the void, but my assertion that Adams has Terry sold on the whole "the NHL is a development league" thing that has been kicking around with the NHL talking heads looks correct.

They're going to let the kids figure it out on their own and that's it.

Can't be helped. Sorry about the playoffs guys, we're not even thinking about it.

[PerreaultForever]

1 minute ago, inkman said:

 

shocking. 

[EM88]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

This is the only thing I disagree with. I really don’t care if he gets another shot or not. He’s made a lot of money. He’ll be OK if he never gets to his NHL GM potential. Maybe it’s best that he didn’t and he can retire with millions of dollars in the bank with the thought that he could’ve been a contender, instead of being proven wrong.

I do not care if he gets another shot.  My point is there is no difference if he gets another shot or someone else is brought in under the same conditions.

Adams getting another shot without the constraints of ownership is better than someone else being brought in with the current ownership issues and under the same conditions.

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, EM88 said:

No that is not my argument at all, not in the least.  You are really trying to derive something that isn't there.

My argument is there is little way to know if he is or isn't a good GM.  The best way to find out is to remove the constraints he is under. Possibly the biggest part of my argument is any other GM that is brought in, if under the same constraints from the owner, is likely to have similar results to keeping Adams here.

Let Adams be a GM. He may be bad, but he may be good. We cannot tell if he is bad because he has not been allowed to be a "GM" freely.  If he fails at that point, remove him. 

 

No. Why let him be GM? That’s what I’m asking 

Remove pegulas restraints. Why the heck wouldn’t you also remove Adams too? You said you “wish to see” what the harbour centre head man can do at the head of an nhl Team. Why? Why would you want to hire an unqualified candidate?   

Edited 4 hours ago by Thorner

[DarthEbriate]

3 minutes ago, darksabre said:

It's too bad that the other thread disappeared into the void, but my assertion that Adams has Terry sold on the whole "the NHL is a development league" thing that has been kicking around with the NHL talking heads looks correct.

They're going to let the kids figure it out on their own and that's it.

Can't be helped. Sorry about the playoffs guys, we're not even thinking about it.

They really are on the Power timeline.

When Power is 27 years old, that's when the GM and owner expect this team to be competing for championships. Don't worry, because Dahlin and Samuelsson will still be under contract in 2029-30.

Edited 4 hours ago by DarthEbriate

[Crusader1969]

The only thing that any Sabres fan should care about is "what will it take for Pegula to sell the team?" .

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, EM88 said:

No that is not my argument at all, not in the least.  You are really trying to derive something that isn't there.

My argument is there is little way to know if he is or isn't a good GM.  The best way to find out is to remove the constraints he is under. Possibly the biggest part of my argument is any other GM that is brought in, if under the same constraints from the owner, is likely to have similar results to keeping Adams here.

Let Adams be a GM. He may be bad, but he may be good. We cannot tell if he is bad because he has not been allowed to be a "GM" freely.  If he fails at that point, remove him. 

 

Your argument applies to me

there is no way to know if I’d be a good GM. So give me a shot 

It’s such a foolish argument. You are ignoring the fact he was unqualified from day 1. Everyone isn’t just “equally likely to succeed until removed from pegulas’s shadow”

this place has nosedived 

Edited 4 hours ago by Thorner

[SDS]

2 minutes ago, Thorner said:

He was not a qualified hire. The burden of proof is on Adams. I cannot believe I have to argue this 

your argument that “we just don’t know” includes the refusal to glean *anything* from 5 years. And also a non-valuing of the fact he wasn’t a reasonable hire from day 1

The position makes no sense! 

You are conflating me with other people arguing this. My position is 100% correct. We don’t know what he would do in an ideal situation. However, you seem to think I am arguing for a continuation. I am not. Adams continued employment means nothing to me. I’ll say this again, I don’t care if he was replaced today. He was a below replacement level candidate who delivered poor results under the circumstances he agreed to operate under. He can go buy a nice house somewhere and shoot squirrels in retirement. 
 

Could a new GM do worse? Absolutely. Never challenge worse. Could they do better? Probably since there’s more room to grow than there is to shrink.

[EM88]

11 minutes ago, Thorner said:

I don’t care if you don’t think he’s the problem. I think my point is going over the Adams-stans heads (all 2 of them):

it’s not so black and white as to there only being 1 problem. It’s not a matter of “the” problem. Adams is A problem. Definitively. Like, if you can read all the data and not come to the conclusion he’s definitively and indisputably a problem, with all due respect I’d have to conclude one had zero idea what they were talking about and a scary inability to separate from bias 

we know he was an unqualified hire

That ends the debate. He is unqualified, that’s a fact. Even if you stubbornly stick your head in the sand and refuse to glean anything at all from 5 years, you’d be wrong: Adams is a bad GM and a bad choice for GM 

This is what you just don't get. He is not DEFINITIVELY a problem in all of our minds.

He might be a problem.

With the conditions he operates under pegula, there is no way I can be confident he is a problem.

There is a chance he pushed for the Cozens contract. There is a chance he decided he wanted his young guys locked up and pushed for the Cozens, Tage, Power and Dahlin deals. There is a chance he looked back at the Sabres of the past and saw all the young guys come up and succeed in 2005-06 and thought  they could duplicate it with few veterans this time.  And by all of the above, the 'he' I mention is Pegula not Adams.

You can use the words of 'ending the debate', 'thats a fact' call me stubborn, sticking my head in the sand.  Using terms like that don't make you right.

Personally declaring something is a fact in a post on a message board does not prove it, not matter how much you want it to be true, you just might be wrong.

[Thorner]

Just now, EM88 said:

This is what you just don't get. He is not DEFINITIVELY a problem in all of our minds.

He might be a problem.

With the conditions he operates under pegula, there is no way I can be confident he is a problem.

There is a chance he pushed for the Cozens contract. There is a chance he decided he wanted his young guys locked up and pushed for the Cozens, Tage, Power and Dahlin deals. There is a chance he looked back at the Sabres of the past and saw all the young guys come up and succeed in 2005-06 and thought  they could duplicate it with few veterans this time.  And by all of the above, the 'he' I mention is Pegula not Adams.

You can use the words of 'ending the debate', 'thats a fact' call me stubborn, sticking my head in the sand.  Using terms like that don't make you right.

Personally declaring something is a fact in a post on a message board does not prove it, not matter how much you want it to be true, you just might be wrong.

What could Kevyn Adams have even done 

Just now, Thorner said:

What could Kevyn Adams have even done 

Like we are actually there. It’s not a meme. The argument is we can’t glean anything at all from 5 years, and not only that, Adams has now become qualified 

It’s not that we can’t glean, he’s now worthy of the job 

[SDS]

5 minutes ago, EM88 said:

I do not care if he gets another shot.  My point is there is no difference if he gets another shot or someone else is brought in under the same conditions.

Adams getting another shot without the constraints of ownership is better than someone else being brought in with the current ownership issues and under the same conditions.

I think you have this backwards. We already know it doesn’t work. If the constraints don’t change, then clearly you have to make a change and hope somebody can make chicken salad out of chickenshit.

[EM88]

2 minutes ago, Thorner said:

Your argument applies to me

there is no way to know if I’d be a good GM. So give me a shot 

It’s such a foolish argument. You are ignoring the fact he was unqualified from day 1. Everyone isn’t just “equally likely to succeed until removed from pegulas’s shadow”

this place has nosedived 

Were you a player in the NHL? Were you a person who worked inside the building, possibly working with the scouting department? Were you a person who was an assistant coach, undoubtedly having conversatations with members of management while doing so?

Your argument is so off base and you are stretching so much it is crazy.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, EM88 said:

This is what you just don't get. He is not DEFINITIVELY a problem in all of our minds.

He might be a problem.

With the conditions he operates under pegula, there is no way I can be confident he is a problem.

There is a chance he pushed for the Cozens contract. There is a chance he decided he wanted his young guys locked up and pushed for the Cozens, Tage, Power and Dahlin deals. There is a chance he looked back at the Sabres of the past and saw all the young guys come up and succeed in 2005-06 and thought  they could duplicate it with few veterans this time.  And by all of the above, the 'he' I mention is Pegula not Adams.

You can use the words of 'ending the debate', 'thats a fact' call me stubborn, sticking my head in the sand.  Using terms like that don't make you right.

Personally declaring something is a fact in a post on a message board does not prove it, not matter how much you want it to be true, you just might be wrong.

No, you are *in fact* wrong, because you can’t make an argument he was a qualified hire 

[Weave]

14 minutes ago, Flashsabre said:

Translation: Pegula “I’m not spending anymore money. None. I’m not firing anyone to bring on new salaries. I’m not trading anyone and bringing in more salary. The solution has to be in this room because it’s not coming from outside this room at all.”

This has the acrid stink of accuracy all over it.

[Thorner]

My argument is, and has always been, that Pegula and Adams are both bad and both need to go. If someone wants to argue otherwise from THAT, after 14 years and a 10 game losing streak where GM howdy-duty took a sh*t all over a city I don’t even live in but was livid to see thrown under the bus by that yokel, 

As if “GM and owner both bad” can be construed as a hot take, amidst this dearth,

kindly jog on

Edited 4 hours ago by Thorner

[mjd1001]

Just now, Thorner said:

No, you are *in fact* wrong, because you can’t make an argument he was a qualified hire 

Let see....when Thorner declares a fact is a fact, that is it! close the book....no further discussion or argument is needed.

We can't have someone state an opinion without him escalating it....using as many "definitive terms" to say someone else is just wrong...can't have that!  No place for discussion on an ACTUALY discussion forum without him putting his foot down when he KNOWS he is right.

This place is a joke.  Not the fact that others people have different opinions....but more so that when you do have different opinions...jokers like that want to put you under their foot and press down until you concede to their 'higher intellect'. lol..They know what is right. For you to even SUGGEST something isn't 100%....its laughable.

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Let see....when Thorner declares a fact is a fact, that is it! close the book....no further discussion or argument is needed.

We can't have someone state an opinion without him escalating it....using as many "definitive terms" to say someone else is just wrong...can't have that!  No place for discussion on an ACTUALY discussion forum without him putting his foot down when he KNOWS he is right.

This place is a joke.  Not the fact that others people have different opinions....but more so that when you do have different opinions...jokers like that want to put you under their foot and press down until you concede to their 'higher intellect'. lol..They know what is right. For you to even SUGGEST something isn't 100%....its laughable.

Do you think Adams was a qualified hire? 

If so, explain 

[SDS]

Just now, Thorner said:

My argument is, and has always been, that Pegula and Adams are both bad and both need to go. If someone wants to argue otherwise from THAT, after 14 years and a 10 game losing streak where GM howdy-duty took a sh*t all over a city I don’t even live in but was livid to see thrown under the bus by that yokel, 

kindly jog on 

Advocating for new ownership is just one of those wishing in one hand, shitting in the other and see which one gets filled first scenarios. To me, ownership changes occur so infrequently, that it’s just a waste of time to constantly bring it up. 

Regardless of how bad it may feel to not make it to the playoffs, this team isn’t so horribly misplaced from the league that this is seen as a league wide issue that needs to be resolved.

[Thorner]

Also I dunno what you are doing with your post but sounds like a lot of projection.

you should know I don’t think about you at all.. and it sounds like you are dreaming about me 

3 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Let see....when Thorner declares a fact is a fact, that is it! close the book....no further discussion or argument is needed.

We can't have someone state an opinion without him escalating it....using as many "definitive terms" to say someone else is just wrong...can't have that!  No place for discussion on an ACTUALY discussion forum without him putting his foot down when he KNOWS he is right.

This place is a joke.  Not the fact that others people have different opinions....but more so that when you do have different opinions...jokers like that want to put you under their foot and press down until you concede to their 'higher intellect'. lol..They know what is right. For you to even SUGGEST something isn't 100%....its laughable.

 

[Carmel Corn]

If the reports are true about TP’s message, then I say keep losing.  Only catastrophic failure can possibly move the pathetic needle here (but don’t hold your breath!)

Edited 4 hours ago by Carmel Corn

[EM88]

4 minutes ago, Thorner said:

No, you are *in fact* wrong, because you can’t make an argument he was a qualified hire 

It is apparent that no one else's thoughts or opinions matter other than your own. We all want to give our opinion, but you have a  quality in your responses to me where you post wanting to be the sole authority on things. Responding to a post not with reasoning but just to call me wrong because my opinion doesn't meet your standard as fact?  That is really coming from an ego centric thought process of posting.

This is not a court of law. I should not be labeled as *in fact* wrong by you simply because I have not yet proven to you what you want, or do not want, to have proven.