Former NHL Scout dishes on what he sees wrong with the Sabres

[Archie Lee]

33 minutes ago, Big Guava said:

 

Let's be real for a second here...the NHL's business model is completely broken.

Only 6 teams actually make a profit.  That's absurd.  So effectively 26 teams either break even or lose money?

Expecting owners to pump in 30-40-50 million year after year of their own money is not a model that even makes any sense.

No NFL team loses money. Pretty sure the only reason an NBA team loses money is because they go way over the luxury tax cap trying to win a championship. MLB is similar to the NHL with the haves and have nots in terms of revenue and spending but even they have some sort of revenue sharing model.

It's absurd for the NHL to operate their business with a model where under 20% of teams make money.

Why are the players getting such a large revenue share when teams are struggling to make money?

This isn't the NFL where all player contracts are set by a salary cap based on TV revenue that essentially is free payroll for owners.

The NHL is way, way too reliant on game day activities like ticket sales, concessions and parking. That makes up 56% of NHL revenue. The NFL makes 65% of its money from National TV contracts, close to $13 Billion. Almost double what the NHL makes in total revenue from all streams.

Is it any wonder why teams are constantly moving around? They need to fix their business model..I sure as hell am not blaming an owner because he doesn't want to maximize his losses.

By being cheap Pegula is ensuring that his biggest potential revenue stream is significantly under-maximized. I did the math on what Pegula spending $8 million more on Sabres salaries would be relative to his net worth, and it would be like a family buying a couch. Not a really nice couch either. This would be like a couch from the Brick (perfectly fine…no disrespect to the Brick, where I have bought some things over the years). And all the couch gets a family is a place to sit, it doesn’t open up potential revenue streams. 

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

33 minutes ago, Big Guava said:

 

Let's be real for a second here...the NHL's business model is completely broken.

Only 6 teams actually make a profit.  That's absurd.  So effectively 26 teams either break even or lose money?

Expecting owners to pump in 30-40-50 million year after year of their own money is not a model that even makes any sense.

No NFL team loses money. Pretty sure the only reason an NBA team loses money is because they go way over the luxury tax cap trying to win a championship. MLB is similar to the NHL with the haves and have nots in terms of revenue and spending but even they have some sort of revenue sharing model.

It's absurd for the NHL to operate their business with a model where under 20% of teams make money.

Why are the players getting such a large revenue share when teams are struggling to make money?

This isn't the NFL where all player contracts are set by a salary cap based on TV revenue that essentially is free payroll for owners.

The NHL is way, way too reliant on game day activities like ticket sales, concessions and parking. That makes up 56% of NHL revenue. The NFL makes 65% of its money from National TV contracts, close to $13 Billion. Almost double what the NHL makes in total revenue from all streams.

Is it any wonder why teams are constantly moving around? They need to fix their business model..I sure as hell am not blaming an owner because he doesn't want to maximize his losses.

Not sure where you are getting these numbers but this doesn't look accurate - both conceptually and numerically.

First off, annual operating costs and valuation are not a 1:1 coorelation.  Think about it like home ownership.  These teams appreciate in value just like your home, but there are costs to maintain it. So even if you lose money annualy, your investment is increasing in value which results in a net profit.  

Secondly, all these teams are turning an annual operating profit (revenue - daily costs).  Here are the 2023 numbers:  https://www.forbes.com/lists/nhl-valuations/#:~:text=This past year%2C revenue rose,to the NHL's sponsorship growth.

Buying a professional sports team is a great investment if you control your operating costs.  There are different ways to do this, some better than others and each with its own risks and opportunitites, and this is where TP continually makes bad decisions that impact peformance on the ice.  

 

[LGR4GM]

48 minutes ago, Big Guava said:

 

Let's be real for a second here...the NHL's business model is completely broken.

Only 6 teams actually make a profit.  That's absurd.  So effectively 26 teams either break even or lose money?

Expecting owners to pump in 30-40-50 million year after year of their own money is not a model that even makes any sense.

No NFL team loses money. Pretty sure the only reason an NBA team loses money is because they go way over the luxury tax cap trying to win a championship. MLB is similar to the NHL with the haves and have nots in terms of revenue and spending but even they have some sort of revenue sharing model.

It's absurd for the NHL to operate their business with a model where under 20% of teams make money.

Why are the players getting such a large revenue share when teams are struggling to make money?

This isn't the NFL where all player contracts are set by a salary cap based on TV revenue that essentially is free payroll for owners.

The NHL is way, way too reliant on game day activities like ticket sales, concessions and parking. That makes up 56% of NHL revenue. The NFL makes 65% of its money from National TV contracts, close to $13 Billion. Almost double what the NHL makes in total revenue from all streams.

Is it any wonder why teams are constantly moving around? They need to fix their business model..I sure as hell am not blaming an owner because he doesn't want to maximize his losses.

50 million is insanely high and unrealistic in terms of losses. I've heard at most 20million but let's split the differences and say Terry is losing 35million a year. He's owned the team 13 years (which is easy to remember because the team sucks for all 13 years). Let's say he has lost 35million a year, every year for 13 years (which isn't true). That gives us 455million. He bought the team for 165million so Terry is in 620million right now in the worse case scenario. His team is estimated to be worth about 1.14 billion currently. So if Pegula sold today, he would still net 520million dollars. 

Now if Pegula wasn't one of the dumbest NHL owners on the planet, he would have a product that fans want (see the Bills) and would be raking in money because that 35million would be made up for in concessions, ticket sales, merchandise sales, and playoff game revenue. 

Keep in mind when Pegula bought the team he was worth an estimated 3 billion dollars, today his estimated worth is 7.6 Billion. 

[LGR4GM]

Now one more thing, the profits from the Bills easily offset the 35 million Pegula theoretically could be losing because he ran the Sabres into the trash heap of worst NHL franchise. He's making roughly 100million a year on the Bills after costs. 

But we are not thinking like a billionaire. The value is not how much comes in but how much the asset is worth. Terry just sold a stake in the Bills for 1 billion bucks and still owns roughly 4 billion worth of Buffalo Bills. He paid 1.4billion for them so that asset in about 10 years has almost doubled twice. That is great ROI. The Sabres in 13 years have doubled almost 3 times now. 

Edited Friday at 02:08 PM by LGR4GM

[Slack_in_MA]

In terms of a problem solving exercise, I think this discussion gets to the root cause of the dysfunction, that is, the role the Sabres play in TP’s entire business empire.
 

It may be that he and his bean counters are “OK” with operating losses on a portion of the business portfolio because there is some other financial (or non-financial) benefit that we’re not aware of/ privy to.
 

But I guarantee there is some financial metric below which they will get antsy and do something (sell, actually commit to building a winner, etc). That and reputational damage, which is harder to measure. But as long as the Bills are playing well, that minimizes that risk.

Make no mistake, he is a businessman above all else. 

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Dude, they got pumped?? Well, alright

 

 

I mean, they did. Does the word offend you more than the performance?

[matter2003]

32 minutes ago, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:

Not sure where you are getting these numbers but this doesn't look accurate - both conceptually and numerically.

First off, annual operating costs and valuation are not a 1:1 coorelation.  Think about it like home ownership.  These teams appreciate in value just like your home, but there are costs to maintain it. So even if you lose money annualy, your investment is increasing in value which results in a net profit.  

Secondly, all these teams are turning an annual operating profit (revenue - daily costs).  Here are the 2023 numbers:  https://www.forbes.com/lists/nhl-valuations/#:~:text=This past year%2C revenue rose,to the NHL's sponsorship growth.

Buying a professional sports team is a great investment if you control your operating costs.  There are different ways to do this, some better than others and each with its own risks and opportunitites, and this is where TP continually makes bad decisions that impact peformance on the ice.  

 

Then why are teams constantly moving if they all make money?  That doesn't make sense.  Sure, some can be explained by arena situations, but the majority are because of hemorrhaging money like they had Ebola.

[SwampD]

7 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

Then why are teams constantly moving if they all make money?  That doesn't make sense.  Sure, some can be explained by arena situations, but the majority are because of hemorrhaging money like they had Ebola.

Teams aren’t constantly moving.

[Jorcus]

12 hours ago, Big Guava said:

A few main points:

1) Young players being rushed to the NHL too quickly. Says the main core of the Sabres isn't even close to their potential yet.

2) Disconnect between NHL team and AHL development plan.

3) Lack of enough solid vets on the team to allow younger players to develop in AHL

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/scouts-analysis-why-the-sabres-potential-isnt-paying-off/

 

It's a very insightful article and lines up with the Sabres philosophy of a few years ago during the flat cap era of the NHL. I remember Don Granato talking about how they had to develop players quicker because the salary cap was going make it harder to keep good older players. Adams talked about building a pipeline of talent because in the opinion of that time you were going to have to replace players that you lost to free agency. Add in the loss of revenue to having a crappy team, small market and Covid you pretty much can explain where we are. 

The article does not touch on one failure of bringing up the prospects too soon and that is loss of eligibility years and control of the contract. A lot of players on this team played games in the NHL a year before they needed to which affects waivers and contracts. In other words to some extent the opposite happened where they have higher numbers of RFA contracts that could end up forcing trades although we are nowhere near that point yet. 

As far as the disconnect part goes I think that is real. I think they have a bias toward certain players in this org. and are trying to force them to be good until they guy below them finally just outplays them to the point they are going to give in. Peterka vs Quinn, Levi vs UPL, Johnson vs Novikov. 

There is no absolute balance to having old players vs young. The Predators are the oldest most experienced hockey team in the NHL yet they are no better off than we are right now.  

[LGR4GM]

13 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

Then why are teams constantly moving if they all make money?  That doesn't make sense.  Sure, some can be explained by arena situations, but the majority are because of hemorrhaging money like they had Ebola.

Teams in the NHL rarely move. The Coyotes moved because they were playing in a 5k seat NCAA arena and their owner couldn't get a new stadium.

The Raiders moved because they couldn't get a stadium paid for by taxpayers. 

Almost every team that has moved recently has moved due to stadium blackmailing. The majority are not because of hemorrhaging money. 

7 minutes ago, Jorcus said:

 

It's a very insightful article and lines up with the Sabres philosophy of a few years ago during the flat cap era of the NHL. I remember Don Granato talking about how they had to develop players quicker because the salary cap was going make it harder to keep good older players. Adams talked about building a pipeline of talent because in the opinion of that time you were going to have to replace players that you lost to free agency. Add in the loss of revenue to having a crappy team, small market and Covid you pretty much can explain where we are. 

The article does not touch on one failure of bringing up the prospects too soon and that is loss of eligibility years and control of the contract. A lot of players on this team played games in the NHL a year before they needed to which affects waivers and contracts. In other words to some extent the opposite happened where they have higher numbers of RFA contracts that could end up forcing trades although we are nowhere near that point yet. 

As far as the disconnect part goes I think that is real. I think they have a bias toward certain players in this org. and are trying to force them to be good until they guy below them finally just outplays them to the point they are going to give in. Peterka vs Quinn, Levi vs UPL, Johnson vs Novikov. 

There is no absolute balance to having old players vs young. The Predators are the oldest most experienced hockey team in the NHL yet they are no better off than we are right now.  

I know, no one believes me, because JJP started with a bunch of goals, but Jack Quinn is a better hockey player than JJ Peterka. 

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

2 hours ago, matter2003 said:

Then why are teams constantly moving if they all make money?  That doesn't make sense.  Sure, some can be explained by arena situations, but the majority are because of hemorrhaging money like they had Ebola.

Revenue potential in a different market greater than the existing market with a clear plan on how to unlock it over a certain period of time.  Usually the current owner is doing a bad job in a bad market which necessitates the move.  Buffalo has a bad owner in a great market so relocation is more of a manufactured issue used as a tactic by an owner to solicit handouts from local entities rather than a legitimate claim.
 

Short term impact: new owners willing to pay for the relocation make everyone money by providing an infusion of liquidity into all of the owners bank accounts/organizations.  
 

Long-term:  increases NHL exposure in a new market creating new short and long term consumers, making it attractive to new and old sponsors alike.

[SabresVet]

Terry believes he knows hockey still after almost 14 failed years as an owner.  That's the root cause of the problems.

He meddles in decisions and it's reached a point where no career-minded front office executive would work there.  And yet, that's made worse because Terry doesn't know people across the league nor seems to have made much of an attempt.  It's why they relied on the league to give them names which led to hiring Botterill.   

It's the perfect storm of stupid: owner thinks he knows stuff and is on an island with the league.  

At this point, I don't seem them ever getting a respected GM for those 2 reasons.  That's how you wind up with someone as miscast as Adams.  

Only way it could happen is, someone interviews and tells Terry to his face that unless he essentially delegates full control over hockey ops, then no one will work for him.  

[mjd1001]

19 minutes ago, SabresVet said:

Terry believes he knows hockey still after almost 14 failed years as an owner.  That's the root cause of the problems.

He meddles in decisions and it's reached a point where no career-minded front office executive would work there.  And yet, that's made worse because Terry doesn't know people across the league nor seems to have made much of an attempt.  It's why they relied on the league to give them names which led to hiring Botterill.   

It's the perfect storm of stupid: owner thinks he knows stuff and is on an island with the league.  

At this point, I don't seem them ever getting a respected GM for those 2 reasons.  That's how you wind up with someone as miscast as Adams.  

Only way it could happen is, someone interviews and tells Terry to his face that unless he essentially delegates full control over hockey ops, then no one will work for him.  

If they make a change at GM, and if Pegula can even get any decent interviews, what needs to happen is something like this:

Pegula:  "I'm letting you know I have probably reached into hockey decisions quite a bit in the past, and previous GM's haven't so much as had a 'budget' but have had to run ever line item by me.  I'm ready to make a change, to let you, as the new GM make decisions without my input and to give you a budget that is a number to do with almost as you please, just inform me of big moves before you make them.  If I initally disagree with your moves, I will not veto those moves, but instead only listen to you give me your reasons behind them so I understand why you are making them. I'm also going to let you pick your entire hockey department and I will pay what is required for it."

Pegula needs to do that first, and then write a really REALLY big check with lots of 0's on it to that GM to make it worth their while to come here.

I don't quite think he's ready to do that.

[GoPuckYourself]

The sad part is I know it, the fans know it, this board knows it, some scout on another team knows it but our coaching staff, GM and owner do not. 

[Dr. Who]

10 minutes ago, GoPuckYourself said:

The sad part is I know it, the fans know it, this board knows it, some scout on another team knows it but our coaching staff, GM and owner do not. 

Once again, I request the hybrid sangry emoji.

[SwampD]

4 hours ago, GoPuckYourself said:

The sad part is I know it, the fans know it, this board knows it, some scout on another team knows it but our coaching staff, GM and owner do not. 

They know. They just don’t care.

[Mango]

On 12/19/2024 at 9:07 PM, bunomatic said:

Exactly what many of us have been saying. Look at the successful teams. The thought of no blocking the youngsters is insane. KA s philosophy is and has been an abject failure. 

It will ruin what has been good enough drafting to get this team over the hump.

[Jorcus]

When I saw our third line last night it brought out what this article was saying. I can just see it after the game. Benson and Kulich handing Krebs $20 for a 12 pack because they are not old enough to buy beer. Still we have to throw them out against one of the better teams in the NHL. 

Edited 19 hours ago by Jorcus

[Archie Lee]

The Sabres had enough talent to finish with 91 and 84 points the last two years.  That's not anything to celebrate, but in aggregate those totals were neither a gross over or under achievement, in my opinion. I believe strongly that what we are seeing today (12 straight losses, on pace for 64 points) is the accumulated sum of GM/ownership complacency, malpractice, and neglect. Only 2 off-seasons ago (2023) the word was that the Sabres were starting to come off of some player's no-trade-clauses. By not being aggressively proactive the past two off-seasons, Adams has set this franchise back yet again. The young players on this team are not ready and the veterans have now lost hope. For the players, it isn't a lack of effort it is a lack of oxygen.

On the positive side, I think we are still in the window where it is very fixable (not for this season, obviously). A fire-sale is not needed and nor is a massive overhaul.

Adams made an enormous strategic error going into this season with the youngest roster in the league. We had 6 forwards 23 and under on the ice last night (Krebs, Cozens, Peterka, Quinn, Benson, Kulich).  Plus Power and Byram on defence.  Plus Rosen, Kozak, Johnson, and Levi as first call-ups at their positions. This is as talented of a 23 and under group as there is in the league.  But, it is simply not the roster of an NHL playoff team.  It wasn't in July 2024 and there is zero reason to think it will be in July 2025.

The path is still there.  I'm not advocating for the trade of any particular aged 23 and under player. But we simply have too many to be a successful NHL team. Right now, Adams is failing both his veterans and his youngsters by somehow creating an environment where neither can reasonably be expected to thrive.  He is the man who created this. He is not the man to fix it.

[Pimlach]

On 12/20/2024 at 8:43 AM, LGR4GM said:

I know, no one believes me, because JJP started with a bunch of goals, but Jack Quinn is a better hockey player than JJ Peterka. 

Is or was?

Prior to this season I think many people would have agreed with you, and many more wanted to believe you. 

Compared to Quinn, JJP is physically stronger and more durable, he skates better with quicker acceleration, and he is more willing to get dirty in the offensive zone and get around the net.  His play lacks in the defensive zone, and that should improve with age and experience (and coaching).  

Even with his recent slump, JJP is on a 24 goal and 60 point pace - this is his 3rd full season and he turns 23 in January.  He might not reach 24/60 playing with Cozens/Quinn/Benson, but he is at least 2nd line material on this team.    He needs to work on the two way game more.  He looks like a guy that would thrive on a good team.  

Quinn is also in his 3rd full season (last year he missed a lot due to serious injury) and he is on a 9 goal and 19 point pace.   He has a team low -15.  He is passing up opportunities to shoot and his defensive play is mostly non-existent.  There is no physical aspect to his game, he fell twice against Toronto while losing puck battles.  The falling down is a sign of a player that is being overpowered and is not confident.  At one time he looked like a smart player that sees the ice, and can make crisp passes and shoot accurately, but that part of his game is gone.  His defensive game looks to be behind his peers (Peterka, Benson, Cozens and Kulich). 

Peterka, Benson, Cozens, Kulich, Quinn - I rank them in that order right now based on this season.   I like Peterka and Benson the best of that bunch, the other 3 are a full step down in on-ice performance.   Kulich shows promise but should be sent down so as not to lose his AHL eligibility.  

We have too many young players that are lost and regressing, that fold under pressure, and that cannot play a heavy game. 

Adams did it wrong but a good GM would have a lot of capital to fix it.  

Edited 18 hours ago by Pimlach

[Pimlach]

23 hours ago, SabresVet said:

Terry believes he knows hockey still after almost 14 failed years as an owner.  That's the root cause of the problems.

He meddles in decisions and it's reached a point where no career-minded front office executive would work there.  And yet, that's made worse because Terry doesn't know people across the league nor seems to have made much of an attempt.  It's why they relied on the league to give them names which led to hiring Botterill.   

It's the perfect storm of stupid: owner thinks he knows stuff and is on an island with the league.  

At this point, I don't seem them ever getting a respected GM for those 2 reasons.  That's how you wind up with someone as miscast as Adams.  

Only way it could happen is, someone interviews and tells Terry to his face that unless he essentially delegates full control over hockey ops, then no one will work for him.  

What?  He was a youth hockey legend in Olean and Fredonia.  @Stoner would bring his team up from Erie and consistently get pounded by the Olean Arrows.  

https://www.oleantimesherald.com/sports/columnists/remember-when-pegula-was-a-local-hockey-coach/article_b369f874-d847-11e5-b387-67e32cba2312.html

OK Seriously - Him relying on the NHL to find and introduce him to Boterill (and others) was not a bad thing.  He also interviewed Zito back then.  What if?  He should be using all the league resources he can to find the best FO talent available,  that is more logical than listening to cronies and yes men.  

[JP51]

On 12/20/2024 at 9:05 AM, LGR4GM said:

Now one more thing, the profits from the Bills easily offset the 35 million Pegula theoretically could be losing because he ran the Sabres into the trash heap of worst NHL franchise. He's making roughly 100million a year on the Bills after costs. 

But we are not thinking like a billionaire. The value is not how much comes in but how much the asset is worth. Terry just sold a stake in the Bills for 1 billion bucks and still owns roughly 4 billion worth of Buffalo Bills. He paid 1.4billion for them so that asset in about 10 years has almost doubled twice. That is great ROI. The Sabres in 13 years have doubled almost 3 times now. 

100% agreement.... may we also add that a team that is competitive would clearly increase the value of the franchise... maybe if you had a contender perennialy maybe a new arena is in play increasing the value more.... and on and on ... now I am not on about a new arena etc... the point is that the value of the franchise clearly nets him an asset profit and bringing the team to respectable status will increase the asset value not to mention increase revenues in ticket and merch sales... may not make him profitable in this market it might but it would close the gap 

[Archie Lee]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Is or was?

Prior to this season I think many people would have agreed with you, and many more wanted to believe you. 

Compared to Quinn, JJP is physically stronger and more durable, he skates better with quicker acceleration, and he is more willing to get dirty in the offensive zone and get around the net.  His play lacks in the defensive zone, and that should improve with age and experience (and coaching).  

Even with his recent slump, JJP is on a 24 goal and 60 point pace - this is his 3rd full season and he turns 23 in January.  He might not reach 24/60 playing with Cozens/Quinn/Benson, but he is at least 2nd line material on this team.    He needs to work on the two way game more.  He looks like a guy that would thrive on a good team.  

Quinn is also in his 3rd full season (last year he missed a lot due to serious injury) and he is on a 9 goal and 19 point pace.   He has a team low -15.  He is passing up opportunities to shoot and his defensive play is mostly non-existent.  There is no physical aspect to his game, he fell twice against Toronto while losing puck battles.  The falling down is a sign of a player that is being overpowered and is not confident.  At one time he looked like a smart player that sees the ice, and can make crisp passes and shoot accurately, but that part of his game is gone.  His defensive game looks to be behind his peers (Peterka, Benson, Cozens and Kulich). 

Peterka, Benson, Cozens, Kulich, Quinn - I rank them in that order right now based on this season.   I like Peterka and Benson the best of that bunch, the other 3 are a full step down in on-ice performance.   Kulich shows promise but should be sent down so as not to lose his AHL eligibility.  

We have too many young players that are lost and regressing, that fold under pressure, and that cannot play a heavy game. 

Adams did it wrong but a good GM would have a lot of capital to fix it.  

Agreed. I’m not close to writing off Quinn, but he is not playing like someone who can help us win hockey games. I believe that we should have moved one of Quinn/Benson and one of Kulich/Rosen in the off-season for veteran talent. We still should, though I think Quinn and Kulich likely have diminished value (certainly Quinn does). There is no reason to believe this group will be good enough to collectively play roles on a playoff team as soon as next year.

In fairness to Quinn, he is playing in about the worst possible environment for a young player who is struggling with his game and his confidence. We have put all of these young players in a position that no other team does. The other teams that are down where we are (in the standings and in average age), are just looking for progression. We have put our kids in a position where they are expected to carry the weight of a 13 year playoff drought and rescue the fortunes of a failing (failed?) franchise. It has proven to be a little much. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Archie Lee