ESPN Article on the Sabres

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, msw2112 said:

Why would the argument be lost?  If Beane has a "free hand" it was given to him by his boss, Terry Pegula.  Why can't a POHO or GM be hired by the Sabres that has the same "free hand" given by the same boss?  Based on past history, I think it's very realistic that if a competent person is hired, that would be part of the deal.  Maybe a Rick Dudley or a Ken Holland?

As to Allen, you're not wrong that he's a generational player.  That said, the Bills made the playoffs BEFORE Allen was drafted and have built a great culture into which Allen fits perfectly.  The Bills without Allen would be structured differently, but would probably be a good team, whereas Allen makes them a great team.  At this point, most of us would take a good team for the Sabres.  Plus, Barkov, Tkachuk, and Reinhart are all excellent NHL players, but they're not McDavid, Ovechkin or Crosby level guys (not Josh Allen level guys) and they just won a Stanley Cup.  A well-run hockey team can be a playoff team and contend for the Stanley Cup without a generational player on the roster.  The 49ers went to the Super Bowl last year and nearly won the damn thing with Brock Purdy as their QB.  But, first things first, let's just get a competent front office in place for the Sabres so they can become a playoff team.

I love a good debate as much as the next guy, but I need to get back to work!

What a joke.

I honestly have so much rage reading this. Terry is a failure. He's a failure so epic that for 14yrs he's missed the playoffs in a league where half make it. What garbage this whole "but but the Bills!" Is. 

He's a ***** failure as a hockey owner. Prove otherwise. 

 

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Like I've said several times, he saved the Bills from moving to Toronto. He gets a lifetime's worth of indulgences from me for that. I also think his heart is in the right place. He got lucky with the McDermott hire, maybe he'll get lucky with the Sabres eventually. But at least both teams play in Buffalo!

[PromoTheRobot]

18 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

😂😂 Whatever. I'm going to be watching my BUFFALO Bills in the playoffs this weekend. What are you doing?

[7+6=13]

9 hours ago, JohnC said:

What's hard luck to you is systemic incompetence to me. You have created this fiction that the Sabres have to deal with obstacles that other franchises don't have to deal with. That's not true. This dismal organization created its own obstacles through its own efforts. You don't need to point to the Jets as an example of an owner bringing down his franchise because we have an owner in our own house, Pegula, who has done the same thing. 

The organization created obstacles that don't exist?

[Pimlach]

2 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

I like your post, but I have a slightly different take on the matter of Patty. This is going to be a long one. 

We’ve heard wild rumors of LaFontaine’s argumentative state and mood swings supposedly from his concussion history. Rumors of NDA’s. Playing into the stigma of his clinical depression that LaFontaine was very transparent about after his playing career ended.

https://www.ourmental.health/stars-struggles/hockey-heros-heartache-pat-lafontaines-battle-with-clinical-depression

BTW, the embedded video from the webpage was from approx 2013…the same year he was hired in Buffalo. 

Next, let’s see if we can learn anything from the public comments of an irritated and supportive (to Patty) head coach, Ted Nolan.

Nolan on his future with the team after Pat allegedly resigned:

“Right now is not about my contract,” he said. “It’s about the situation that just happened, what transpired in this organization, what happened to a very dear friend. We’ll leave it at that.”

“That was the main reason I got here is to try to turn things around and coach the Buffalo Sabres,” Nolan said. “Right now, especially, I’m going to really concentrate on that because we traded our franchise player (Miller). We traded our captain (Vanek). That’s tough enough as it is. Then, all of a sudden, a situation happens with Patty.”

BTW, LaFontaine didn’t fade into oblivion to never work again. He went back to work as the NHL’s vice president of hockey development, the position he left to join the Sabres. 

https://www.buffalohockeybeat.com/sabres-insist-pat-lafontaine-wasnt-fired-ted-nolan-upset-over-departure/
 

LaFontaine was President of Hockey Operations from November 13, 2013 to March 1, 2014. A total of 108 days.

He hired Tim Murray on Jan. 9, 2014. LaFontaine was Murray's boss. Murray reported to Patty and not to Pegula. LaFontaine and Murray worked together for 51 days.

Here is what I understand happened. Tim Murray wanted to do whatever it took to draft McDavid, but LaFontaine was unwilling to take it down to the studs. He was fine with retooling or getting younger, but no tanking.  LaFontaine understood the culture of a locker room.  He knew tanking didn’t guarantee McJesus. He also told Murray that the 2014 and 2015 drafts were top heavy and we would be fine wherever we landed.

LaFontaine wanted leaders in the room and knew Ryan Miller would have kept the Sabres in games.

LaFontaine knew the risk of tanking. His boss and his subordinate did not.

Murray wanted to trade Ryan Miller and LaFontaine said no. So, instead of following his boss's orders, Murray went directly to Pegula to get permission. Pegula gave him the green light. On February 28, 2014, Murray traded Miller to St. Louis. The next day LaFontaine quit. 

That day ended up being a day of infamy. 
It killed the concept of a senior hockey executive running a hockey department in Buffalo. It killed the relationship with a former star player.  It enabled/empowered Pegs to be closer to hockey decisions. 

But most importantly, the risk of tanking that was ignored back then…well, how we feelin now boys? Thanks Terry!

TL/DR: I agree with Pimlach’s conclusion that you cannot defend Terry’s hockey record and I am here to tell you Pat LaFontaine tried to save us.

Thanks.  You are correct but there is no new info in here for me.  

Pat hired Murray.  Murray backstabbed him, and traded Miller and Pegula sanctioned it.  This happened when Pat was out of town is what I was told.  

I was going to tell that story, I have in the past, but decided to hold it back.  Talking about the FO gaffes is painful.   

My point is that LaFontaine was not the right guy, even with the good intentions that he had.   

Maybe Terry didn’t understand how the Org chart was supposed to work?  

[Pimlach]

2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Like I've said several times, he saved the Bills from moving to Toronto. He gets a lifetime's worth of indulgences from me for that. I also think his heart is in the right place. He got lucky with the McDermott hire, maybe he'll get lucky with the Sabres eventually. But at least both teams play in Buffalo!

I am grateful that he kept the Bills here and that he found McD.   
 

I also believe that he destroyed the Sabres and I will say it.   They are two separate things. I don’t dislike the man.  I just cannot sugar coat his record as a hockey owner.  

[LGR4GM]

6 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

I am grateful that he kept the Bills here and that he found McD.   
 

I also believe that he destroyed the Sabres and I will say it.   They are two separate things. I don’t dislike the man.  I just cannot sugar coat his record as a hockey owner.  

Bingo

[PromoTheRobot]

6 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

I am grateful that he kept the Bills here and that he found McD.   
 

I also believe that he destroyed the Sabres and I will say it.   They are two separate things. I don’t dislike the man.  I just cannot sugar coat his record as a hockey owner.  

We all want the Sabres to be good. But having the Bills is what puts Buffalo on the map, so to speak.

[msw2112]

1 hour ago, Sidc3000 said:

How much longer are we going to give him? 

The only thing we can do is stop buying tickets, stop watching games, and stop buying merchandise.  We really don't have much say in the matter.  We really don't "give him" time.  But I'd personally give Adams and Ruff the rest of this season and then reassess.  If the team ends up out with a losing record and out of the playoffs, a change in management is required.

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, msw2112 said:

The only thing we can do is stop buying tickets, stop watching games, and stop buying merchandise.  We really don't have much say in the matter.  We really don't "give him" time.  But I'd personally give Adams and Ruff the rest of this season and then reassess.  If the team ends up out with a losing record and out of the playoffs, a change in management is required.

See here I agree. We can't do much of anything.

[msw2112]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

What a joke.

I honestly have so much rage reading this. Terry is a failure. He's a failure so epic that for 14yrs he's missed the playoffs in a league where half make it. What garbage this whole "but but the Bills!" Is. 

He's a ***** failure as a hockey owner. Prove otherwise. 

 

You may have failed to comprehend what I have written.

I fully agree with you that Pegula has been an abject failure, to date, as a hockey owner.  Looking at his record, how can one say otherwise?

My position is that given a few factors, I believe that Pegula will eventually get the Sabres right and I strongly prefer him having the opportunity to do that rather than risk him selling to an outsider who could move the team to another market.  These are the factors:

1.  He has committed to the Buffalo and WNY markets and kept both pro sports franchises in the market. (Fact)  Many other owners would not have done that. (Opinion)

2. He has been successful with another professional sports franchise.  Even if it was by blind luck, it happened. (Fact)  If it happened once, it could happen again. (Opinion)

3. He has very deep pockets.  Deep enough to kept the team in Buffalo, despite low attendance, and deep enough to keep it there until things turn around. (Fact)

4. He is on record as being a long-time fan of the team. (Fact)  In my opinion, he very badly wants the team to succeed.  He's not simply looking it as a business venture. (Opinion)

I have an opinion that I believe is well-reasoned.  If you disagree, that's fine.  You are entitled to have a different opinion.

 

Edited January 10 by msw2112

[LGR4GM]

8 minutes ago, msw2112 said:

You may have failed to comprehend what I have written.

I fully agree with you that Pegula has been an abject failure, to date, as a hockey owner.  Looking at his record, how can one say otherwise?

My position is that given a few factors, I believe that Pegula will eventually get the Sabres right and I strongly prefer him having the opportunity to do that rather than risk him selling to an outsider who could move the team to another market.  These are the factors:

1.  He has committed to the Buffalo and WNY markets and kept both pro sports franchises in the market. (Fact)  Many other owners would not have done that. (Opinion)

2. He has been successful with another professional sports franchise.  Even if it was by blind luck, it happened. (Fact)  If it happened once, it could happen again. (Opinion)

3. He has very deep pockets.  Deep enough to kept the team in Buffalo, despite low attendance, and deep enough to keep it there until things turn around. (Fact)

4. He is on record as being a long-time fan of the team. (Fact)  In my opinion, he very badly wants the team to succeed.  He's not simply looking it as a business venture. (Opinion)

I have an opinion that I believe is well-reasoned.  If you disagree, that's fine.  You are entitled to have a different opinion.

 

We disagree about some but not all of this.

We need an "understood" emoji.

[7+6=13]

I recognize Pegula has failed.  I just don't agree totally on the why.  To me this is my disagreement with most here.  A conversation can't be had because the the nonsense starts, IMO.  

 

Just because I don't believe someone that believes the proof of meddling is, "he's literally in the meetings" or anything to that effect - doesn't mean I'm a shill, ball washing or waiting for Terry to buy me a yacht.

 

I don't believe Terry is making player decisions.  I don't think he's telling GM's to draft certain players.  I also don't think he's cheap. He has a significant history of spending, until very recently.  I don't know why and neither do any of you.  Maybe he's been talked into it by KA.  Maybe he told KA he's not making enough and spending to spend isn't something he wants to do.  

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

The organization created obstacles that don't exist?

The biggest obstacle that has made this franchise off-limits to many players is its deserved reputation for ineptitude. That's a reality that this organization did to itself. When is the last time you heard anyone associated with the NHL make the claim that the Sabres are a well run organization? If you want to believe otherwise, that is your prerogative. 

[7+6=13]

19 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The biggest obstacle that has made this franchise off-limits to many players is its deserved reputation for ineptitude. That's a reality that this organization did to itself. When is the last time you heard anyone associated with the NHL make the claim that the Sabres are a well run organization? If you want to believe otherwise, that is your prerogative. 

But you said these obstacles are fictional.  Now they're a reality?  I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.  I've never known the Sabres to be a favorite destination for free agents.  

They've never had a reputation as a well run organization in my lifetime.  I could be wrong because I tried understanding hockey later in life.

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, 7+6=13 said:

But you said these obstacles are fictional.  Now they're a reality?  I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.  I've never known the Sabres to be a favorite destination for free agents.  

They've never had a reputation as a well run organization in my lifetime.  I could be wrong because I tried understanding hockey later in life.

I'm not going to continue elaborating on this topic. There is a faction here led by @PromoTheRobot who make the argument that Buffalo is inherently handicapped because of factors beyond its control. My position is that is wrong. The so-called crippling handicap/s that we dealing with are created internally by an organization known for its ineptitude. It's like a person who shoots himself in the foot and then complains that he can't run well. I hope that this explanation is clarifying. 

[7+6=13]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm not going to continue elaborating on this topic. There is a faction here led by @PromoTheRobot who make the argument that Buffalo is inherently handicapped because of factors beyond its control. My position is that is wrong. The so-called crippling handicap/s that we dealing with are created internally by an organization known for its ineptitude. It's like a person who shoots himself in the foot and then complains that he can't run well. I hope that this explanation is clarifying. 

I'm reading but there's still something missing for me but as you said, it's stale talking much more about it.

IMO, Buffalo has some inherent challenges and they've created some too.  That's why to me, the strict answer you're debating is, there are challenges other teams don't have.  Regardless of how.ni mean you're all but saying it,  they're stuck.

Id say the Sabres are like someone that ran slow, shot themselves in the foot and run slower.  

Further solidifying, IMO, the only way out is to build from the draft.  

[PerreaultForever]

6 hours ago, Pimlach said:

 

To me it’s not about liking Terry or not liking Terry.  I’m sure he is a decent and likeable guy.  
 

For me it’s 100% about his promises not being kept,  and even worse is that he is not even trying.   The franchise has been decimated and destroyed under his leadership.  It’s a laughing stock and you hear it every time you watch a non Buffalo broadcast.  No one else is to blame.  

Oh I agree with you 100% and to the bold, I'm not "sure". I mean he might be, but lots of rich corporate guys are definitely not nice guys so he might be, but he also might not be. Environmentalists certainly don't think he is. 

[gilbert11]

On 1/7/2025 at 3:50 PM, Pimlach said:

She must be reading the forum.  She nails it.  Both the players and ownership/management have to elevate their game.  

Levi needs a 2nd period speech by Ruff to want to win?  There’s one problem.  Is this team full of players that don’t care whether they win or lose?

[klos1963]

On 1/8/2025 at 6:16 PM, JohnC said:

What's evident is that during the Pegula tenure that has lasted nearly a generation the team's record has been dismal. It's nearly impossible to be out of the playoffs for more than 13 years, and still counting, because the system is designed for parity, advantaging the lower teams and handicapping the successful teams. The record is the record. It's established. You can't run away from it. 

One argument that doesn't resonate with me is that it is a challenge to get players to come here. That's unchallengedly true. The reason for that is of our own making. Why decide to go to the ghetto franchise when you have options to reside at more livable locations. It's like a person who shoots himself in the foot and then complains that he is handicapped when he is required to run a race. 

I'm not sure how top teams are handicapped.  I also don't agree that the system is designed for parity.

How often does the playoff picture change? It's generally the same teams year after year with minimal exceptions.  Teams are more often than not able to keep successful teams together making it difficult for non playoff teams to overtake them.

The Leafs were able to keep their stars, Tampa did for many seasons...Detroit  Ottawa, Buffalo, Chicago...continue to miss.

It's very difficult to climb over teams,  Buffalo can't afford to make mistakes on top of the natural difficulty in beating out those teams.  We need a new GM.

 

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, klos1963 said:

I'm not sure how top teams are handicapped.  I also don't agree that the system is designed for parity.

How often does the playoff picture change? It's generally the same teams year after year with minimal exceptions.  Teams are more often than not able to keep successful teams together making it difficult for non playoff teams to overtake them.

The Leafs were able to keep their stars, Tampa did for many seasons...Detroit  Ottawa, Buffalo, Chicago...continue to miss.

It's very difficult to climb over teams,  Buffalo can't afford to make mistakes on top of the natural difficulty in beating out those teams.  We need a new GM.

 

The Sabres have been a generational failure because of the accumulation of bad decisions they have made. You point out that the Leafs and Tampa have kept their stars. Let's not forget that we had stars such as Eichel and Reinhart. Both of them desperately wanted out because they knew that they were stuck in a losing system. I attribute this franchise's systemic failures to its systemic incompetence. When they both ended up with seriously run franchises, both of them ended up hoisting the cup.  When you constantly shoot yourself in the feet with bad decisions, you will badly limp along for a long time. 

[mjd1001]

On 1/8/2025 at 8:16 PM, JohnC said:

What's evident is that during the Pegula tenure that has lasted nearly a generation the team's record has been dismal. It's nearly impossible to be out of the playoffs for more than 13 years, and still counting, because the system is designed for parity, advantaging the lower teams and handicapping the successful teams. The record is the record. It's established. You can't run away from it. 

I like to post this, usually at this point ever year. With regard to your above bolded comment, this seems to be time for this season's version. I posted the math much more in depth in a previous post, but here goes the summary:

 

Statistically, you can say you have a 50% chance of making or missing the playoffs in a given year.  For any time, after 2 years, the 'odds' are 25% you miss both years, 25% you make it both years, and 50% chance you miss one year and make it the next...and so on and so on.

Now, with expansion, the odds change slightly. It hasn't always been EXACTLY 50%, sometime you had a BETTER chance (beginning of the drought, 8 of 15 teams in the conference made the playoffs, so your odds to make it were even better than they are now. (Not to mention I didn't even add in the Covid year, where the odds increased, so the numbers below actually should be a tad worse)

So, what are the pure statistical odds that any hockey team would take a 12 year period and not make the playoffs even once?  0.018% chance.  Or, in other words, a 1 in 5,531 chance that, over the last 12 years, any team in the Sabres division/conference would not make the playoffs even ONE single time.  If you 'simulated' an average team through 12 seasons, 5,531 times, only ONE of those times, on average, would a team miss 12 years in a row.

Missing for 13 years in a row, with half the conference making the playoffs again, the odds of missing 13 years in a row would be 1 in 11,062.

Chances of missing 14 years in a row?  1 in about 22,000.  Or 0.0045%   If you could find a sportsbook to give you odds that ANY team, starting today, would miss the playoffs for the next 14 years.....you would likely win about $2 million dollars on a $100 bet.

 

 No team in NHL history has ever had a longer playoff drought, not even close (no one else ever made more than 8 seasons).

And they have done that over that time period with no cap troubles. With 20 first round draft picks. 10 of those being top 10 overall.  2 2nd overall and 2 first overall. We aren't talking about not making, or winning the cup with all those assets. Not even MAKING THE PLAYOFFS with all those assets is just...mind blowing.

Edited January 11 by mjd1001

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, mjd1001 said:

I like to post this, usually at this point ever year. With regard to your above bolded comment, this seems to be time for this season's version. I posted the math much more in depth in a previous post, but here goes the summary:

 

Statistically, you can say you have a 50% chance of making or missing the playoffs in a given year.  For any time, after 2 years, the 'odds' are 25% you miss both years, 25% you make it both years, and 50% chance you miss one year and make it the next...and so on and so on.

Now, with expansion, the odds change slightly. It hasn't always been EXACTLY 50%, sometime you had a BETTER chance (beginning of the drought, 8 of 15 teams in the conference made the playoffs, so your odds to make it were even better than they are now. (Not to mention I didn't even add in the Covid year, where the odds increased, so the numbers below actually should be a tad worse)

So, what are the pure statistical odds that any hockey team would take a 12 year period and not make the playoffs even once?  0.018% chance.  Or, in other words, a 1 in 5,531 chance that, over the last 12 years, any team in the Sabres division/conference would not make the playoffs even ONE single time.  If you 'simulated' an average team through 12 seasons, 5,531 times, only ONE of those times, on average, would a team miss 12 years in a row.

Missing for 13 years in a row, with half the conference making the playoffs again, the odds of missing 13 years in a row would be 1 in 11,062.

Chances of missing 14 years in a row?  1 in about 22,000.  Or 0.0045%   If you could find a sportsbook to give you odds that ANY team, starting today, would miss the playoffs for the next 14 years.....you would likely win about $2 million dollars on a $100 bet.

Your post is illuminating and stupendously depressing. The Pegula era has made me mad. It's so outrageously stupid. 

[Pimlach]

23 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I like to post this, usually at this point ever year. With regard to your above bolded comment, this seems to be time for this season's version. I posted the math much more in depth in a previous post, but here goes the summary:

 

Statistically, you can say you have a 50% chance of making or missing the playoffs in a given year.  For any time, after 2 years, the 'odds' are 25% you miss both years, 25% you make it both years, and 50% chance you miss one year and make it the next...and so on and so on.

Now, with expansion, the odds change slightly. It hasn't always been EXACTLY 50%, sometime you had a BETTER chance (beginning of the drought, 8 of 15 teams in the conference made the playoffs, so your odds to make it were even better than they are now. (Not to mention I didn't even add in the Covid year, where the odds increased, so the numbers below actually should be a tad worse)

So, what are the pure statistical odds that any hockey team would take a 12 year period and not make the playoffs even once?  0.018% chance.  Or, in other words, a 1 in 5,531 chance that, over the last 12 years, any team in the Sabres division/conference would not make the playoffs even ONE single time.  If you 'simulated' an average team through 12 seasons, 5,531 times, only ONE of those times, on average, would a team miss 12 years in a row.

Missing for 13 years in a row, with half the conference making the playoffs again, the odds of missing 13 years in a row would be 1 in 11,062.

Chances of missing 14 years in a row?  1 in about 22,000.  Or 0.0045%   If you could find a sportsbook to give you odds that ANY team, starting today, would miss the playoffs for the next 14 years.....you would likely win about $2 million dollars on a $100 bet.

Seriously, you are providing good information but to be 100 %  correct don't all the teams (variables) have to be of the same quality? 

I get that 14 years is along time - in that time period Florida was a bottom feeder (they picked Ekblad 1OA), a Presidents Trophy winner, a Cup winner, and all the points in between.   NJD has gone from bottom feeder to contender.   Tampa and Boston seemed to be in it every year.   Buffalo has been at the bottom every season with only two seasons (the Covid special year and the infamous 91 point season) that they were even in the running in March.  

So, the inputs to your statistical analysis are not the same.  There is no factor for the quality of each team in each year.  Not every team is random input, at the start of each season there are teams with much better odds.  

I bring this up because for most of the 14 years the Sabres have not even been trying to win, so why would they even count as a possibility to win other than random luck?  

[mjd1001]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

Seriously, you are providing good information but to be 100 %  correct don't all the teams (variables) have to be of the same quality? 

I get that 14 years is along time - in that time period Florida was a bottom feeder (they picked Ekblad 1OA), a Presidents Trophy winner, a Cup winner, and all the points in between.   NJD has gone from bottom feeder to contender.   Tampa and Boston seemed to be in it every year.   Buffalo has been at the bottom every season with only two seasons (the Covid special year and the infamous 91 point season) that they were even in the running in March.  

So, the inputs to your statistical analysis are not the same.  There is no factor for the quality of each team in each year.  Not every team is random input, at the start of each season there are teams with much better odds.  

I bring this up because for most of the 14 years the Sabres have not even been trying to win, so why would they even count as a possibility to win other than random luck?  

At the beginning of Pegula's Reign, they were trying to win, so that is the starting point. I was simply bringing it up to say at any given point, what are the statistical odds.

Even if some teams are 'better than others so they have a better chance, well, that is the whole point of this. The Sabres are and have not been one of those better teams. So the argument that other teams have better odds because they are better, isn't that the point of just how bad the pure numbers are....because other than the tank years, the sabres were trying to win.

Oh, and the "tank" that they went through, that was their attempt to, a few years later (and during the statistical streak), in their minds GUARANTEE they would be making the playoff every year.  Take a long enough sample size, and the numbers and circumstances statistically even out. Basically, if you remove the years they 'weren't trying' from the equation, that should actually swing things back in the other direction and even the numbers out a few years later when they are 'enjoying' the benefits of what you got for not trying.

Also, I think to say they weren't trying to win most years isn't accurate. 2 years leading up to the McDavid draft yeah, that qualifies.  But even the years they drafted Dahlin and Power, I don't think they were full-on 'tank' years. It was just they were bad.  

And finally, almost every year, there are teams 'not trying to win'.  So on the years the Sabres ARE trying to win, there are other teams 'not trying', so that should increase their odds even more in those years.  I think it all washes out and the numbers still hold somewhat close to being true.

Remember, this is 'Hockey heaven' The reason this franchise exists is to not only make the playoffs but to win the cup.

Edited January 11 by mjd1001