Dahlin Met With GMKA, Turn it Around or He’s Gone

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

No disagreement.  We are in no position to put pressure on the NHL to change the owner though.   

The league should communicate to the owner that his incompetence is affecting revenues for other franchises. An irrelevant franchise is not a good thing for the league, other franchises and TV market. No question that a gutted local market is not good for anyone in the business of the NHL. 

[LTS]

20 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

There's obviously a huge debate ongoing about this. And I don't mean to try to resolve it here.

I am speaking from personal experience -- for myself as an individual, regarding my company's experience generally, and regarding the businesses of many other organizations with which I am connected. In my experience, the management trend is inexorably bent toward getting people together, face to face, as much the labor force will abide. And that sort of thing varies from industry to industry, from profession to profession.

Recent example: I was part of a search committee for a C-Suite exec (not the CEO - but a direct report) of a 9-figure annual nonprofit. We had one leading candidate currently residing ~80 miles from headquarters. They asked if they could work remotely for most of the time and be on-site a few times a month or otherwise as needed. We've passed on their candidacy. The current CEO and the other C-levels agree: We need that person here with us.

Associate GM!

You are speaking from personal experience, as am I. The key is that I am not casting absolute statements about how the Sabres need to operate whereas you are. In your experience, you needed an onsite. It doesn't mean the Sabres need that.

I also did not get a job because I would not relocate or even be willing to spend 3-4 days per week in their office locations. This was a company that came to me for the position even. I considered driving the six hours (the pay was VERY nice) but in the end said I wasn't interested.  They had others on the executive team who did choose to do that. Ultimately, in my mind, if their mindset was that you can only be productive in an office setting then it demonstrated their lack of progressive thinking and focusing on the wrong factors in how to be successful. I wondered what other challenges I would face with their thinking based on that.

I think it's valuable for teams to come together multiple times a year, but not constantly in the office or even forcing it 3-4 days a week.  It also limits candidates for a position. Either you can get someone to relocate, which is quite disruptive to life, or you are stuck with candidates in your area that tend to exhibit a form of group think, especially at the higher levels.

[Weave]

18 minutes ago, LTS said:

You are speaking from personal experience, as am I. The key is that I am not casting absolute statements about how the Sabres need to operate whereas you are. In your experience, you needed an onsite. It doesn't mean the Sabres need that.

I also did not get a job because I would not relocate or even be willing to spend 3-4 days per week in their office locations. This was a company that came to me for the position even. I considered driving the six hours (the pay was VERY nice) but in the end said I wasn't interested.  They had others on the executive team who did choose to do that. Ultimately, in my mind, if their mindset was that you can only be productive in an office setting then it demonstrated their lack of progressive thinking and focusing on the wrong factors in how to be successful. I wondered what other challenges I would face with their thinking based on that.

I think it's valuable for teams to come together multiple times a year, but not constantly in the office or even forcing it 3-4 days a week.  It also limits candidates for a position. Either you can get someone to relocate, which is quite disruptive to life, or you are stuck with candidates in your area that tend to exhibit a form of group think, especially at the higher levels.

I think you have to use the gauge of team performance to determine if remote teams are working.  That is not to suggest that the Sabres lack of success is a result of a remote team, rather the teams lack of success strongly suggests to me that they need every advantage to overcome this, and there is no inherent advantage to a remote team supporting a local operation.  This team needs the on hand collaboration a helluva lot more than a team that is succeeding.

My $0.02 anyway.

[JohnC]

8 minutes ago, LTS said:

You are speaking from personal experience, as am I. The key is that I am not casting absolute statements about how the Sabres need to operate whereas you are. In your experience, you needed an onsite. It doesn't mean the Sabres need that.

I also did not get a job because I would not relocate or even be willing to spend 3-4 days per week in their office locations. This was a company that came to me for the position even. I considered driving the six hours (the pay was VERY nice) but in the end said I wasn't interested.  They had others on the executive team who did choose to do that. Ultimately, in my mind, if their mindset was that you can only be productive in an office setting then it demonstrated their lack of progressive thinking and focusing on the wrong factors in how to be successful. I wondered what other challenges I would face with their thinking based on that.

I think it's valuable for teams to come together multiple times a year, but not constantly in the office or even forcing it 3-4 days a week.  It also limits candidates for a position. Either you can get someone to relocate, which is quite disruptive to life, or you are stuck with candidates in your area that tend to exhibit a form of group think, especially at the higher levels.

In the hockey business, you don't get stuck with local candidates for upper echelon jobs. Some top management positions, such as a GM position, are limited in availability. You usually get outsiders bidding for an opportunity to fill that type of position. In a team oriented business, if you have a choice for a high caliber person working remotely vs a high caliber person working on site, the smart choice (my opinion) would be to select the on-site candidate. 

Internal dynamics are a critical component in management. If you have a choice between regular face to face interactions vs mostly remote interactions, I would take the former. The Sabres are a failed operation. There are a variety of causes not associated with any one specific reason. So I don't want to over-inflate the remote working arrangement for this high-ranking staffer.  My preference would be to have the upper echelon staff sitting face to face at the table when discussing important issues. 

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

I think you have to use the gauge of team performance to determine if remote teams are working.  That is not to suggest that the Sabres lack of success is a result of a remote team, rather the teams lack of success strongly suggests to me that they need every advantage to overcome this, and there is no inherent advantage to a remote team supporting a local operation.  This team needs the on hand collaboration a helluva lot more than a team that is succeeding.

My $0.02 anyway.

I agree with you. Your 2 cents is a dollar's worth of advice. 

[Pimlach]

58 minutes ago, Weave said:

I think you have to use the gauge of team performance to determine if remote teams are working.  That is not to suggest that the Sabres lack of success is a result of a remote team, rather the teams lack of success strongly suggests to me that they need every advantage to overcome this, and there is no inherent advantage to a remote team supporting a local operation.  This team needs the on hand collaboration a helluva lot more than a team that is succeeding.

My $0.02 anyway.

Agree.  And the Marek interview with LL suggested that Adams has no senior exec help. No advisors and consultants.  

In WNY Dudley, Bowman, and Luce all do this for other teams, all do it remotely.  I’ll bet most hockey teams have advisory help. Most corporations have advisory help.  Outside opinions are valuable. 

Not saying Karmanos has to be there every day, although there are times he probably needs to be in Buffalo or in Rochester and he probably is.  No one can argue with Rochesters success on the ice. 

Adams not wanting help is the real issue.  Ruff moving into that role and out of coaching might be good.  Appert is the obvious next coach, not that I like it but that is “the plan”.  

2026 will be a roll it back, hopefully with some significant roster moves. 

[That Aud Smell]

5 hours ago, LTS said:

You are speaking from personal experience, as am I. The key is that I am not casting absolute statements about how the Sabres need to operate whereas you are. In your experience, you needed an onsite. It doesn't mean the Sabres need that.

I also did not get a job because I would not relocate or even be willing to spend 3-4 days per week in their office locations. This was a company that came to me for the position even. I considered driving the six hours (the pay was VERY nice) but in the end said I wasn't interested.  They had others on the executive team who did choose to do that. Ultimately, in my mind, if their mindset was that you can only be productive in an office setting then it demonstrated their lack of progressive thinking and focusing on the wrong factors in how to be successful. I wondered what other challenges I would face with their thinking based on that.

I think it's valuable for teams to come together multiple times a year, but not constantly in the office or even forcing it 3-4 days a week.  It also limits candidates for a position. Either you can get someone to relocate, which is quite disruptive to life, or you are stuck with candidates in your area that tend to exhibit a form of group think, especially at the higher levels.

As someone else noted or suggested, the nature of high-level sports management is such that people relocate all the time as they seek to climb the ladder.

And I’m a firm believer in the value of in-person working relationships — especially in settings with complex, fluid dynamics as well as the need for constant collaboration, exchanges of information, and group learning.

We’re not changing each other’s minds, obviously. 

All of this could be mooted, of course, if Terry were willing to pay for a legitimate FO.

[Crusader1969]

This time next year, assuming Sabres aren't battling for last again, there will be debates about who is the best Dman in the NHL.  Makar vs Dahlin 

[LTS]

5 hours ago, Weave said:

I think you have to use the gauge of team performance to determine if remote teams are working.  That is not to suggest that the Sabres lack of success is a result of a remote team, rather the teams lack of success strongly suggests to me that they need every advantage to overcome this, and there is no inherent advantage to a remote team supporting a local operation.  This team needs the on hand collaboration a helluva lot more than a team that is succeeding.

My $0.02 anyway.

So, Karmanos is in Pittsburgh and the team is failing, the remote location is a problem. But before him the team was failing with people in Buffalo. So, maybe that logic doesn't quite work out?

The question to ask is this, assuming Karmanos' skill set is a benefit to the Sabres, does allowing him to work from Pittsburgh really matter?  Do you really believe that if he were in Buffalo all the time there would be a difference?  I don't and not for a single moment.

The other question to ask is, if they could not have Karmanos because he wouldn't relocate, what execs do you believe would choose to relocate to come to Buffalo? There's always talk about players don't want to be here, that Pegula is horrible, so if an exec is willing to relocate for the Sabres, are they any good?

Bottom line we don't know, but we're burnt as fans and people want to latch onto this as it's some big reason why the team fails. I feel confident that all the discussion that occurred prior to last week on why the team continues to be horrible seriously has more impact than where Karmanos lives.

43 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

As someone else noted or suggested, the nature of high-level sports management is such that people relocate all the time as they seek to climb the ladder.

And I’m a firm believer in the value of in-person working relationships — especially in settings with complex, fluid dynamics as well as the need for constant collaboration, exchanges of information, and group learning.

We’re not changing each other’s minds, obviously. 

All of this could be mooted, of course, if Terry were willing to pay for a legitimate FO.

Sure, they do.  Part of my response was talking about corporate life not so much high-level sports management. That said, I still don't think it matters as much as people believe it does.

I can collaborate with people across the world, in real time, any day. If the Sabres cannot figure out how to use a web conferencing application or a telephone the issue is not the location of the executives, it's the executives themselves.

And agree, we clearly disagree on this. However we know that many organizations operate successfully with remote executives. We know that organizations with local executives also can operate horribly and I don't think the sample size of The Buffalo Sabres is enough to base an opinion on to declare where Karmanos lives as the problem, or even a problem.  For all we know, he is a problem and would be regardless of where he is.