K-9

This team imploded due to a totally dysfunctional locker room. I don't care how good a coach is, there is no magic wand that fixes that level of internal strife. Given how bad they were down the stretch last season, I doubt these players are capable of finding the essential team bond required to turn it around so I think some big parts will have to be shipped out. Fixing teams via FAgency seldom works unless your core is able to absorb new guys without missing a beat. Toronto's core blew up. GO SABRES!!!

This is a fair point to be sure.

Agreed. Breaking an agreement in principle is virtually unheard of in pro sports so I find the comparison to other businesses a bit off. And I'm not so sure it happens all that frequently in other businesses, either. Negotiating in bad faith is frowned upon, regardless of the type of business in which that negotiating is conducted. If all the reports about Babcock's turnaround are true, it just doesn't reflect well on the man. GO SABRES!!!

It is. But if what the Sabres have said is true and they thought Babcock had agreed to their deal (to the point of setting up a press conference to announce it if Tim Graham is to be believed), then it's anything but a standard procedure. It's the epitome of not negotiating in good faith and that's never standard procedure. GO SABRES!!!

Ah, gotcha now. I misunderstood the previous context, so disregard my question. I think it's still not good form if Babcock gave the Sabres the strong impression that he agreed to the deal in principle and then backed out once Toronto was reported to be back in the picture. I mean Toronto wasn't even mentioned yesterday in the midst of all the "it's down to Detroit and Buffalo" reports. Anyway, I'm over it. GO SABRES!!!

Good stuff, here. "Thermostat of my soul." Nice. I need to use that in the future. GO SABRES!!!

If Babcock spreads himself too thin with other player personnel issues (think Bowman when he came here), and he can't immediately turn around the lockerroom attitude from last year (and it was bad), I don't give him much of a chance with that roster in the short term. I think they'll actually finish worse than last year. Let me mull it over. GO SABRES!!! Not sure what that has to do with reneging on a deal he reportedly reached in principle with the Sabres yesterday. GO SABRES!!!

Then isn't is also true that Babcock leveraged his Buffalo deal as well? No matter how you slice it, if he convinced the Sabres he had agreed (and these recent reports suggest the Sabres were under that impression) then this is just poor form by Babcock all the way around. It's just not an above-board way of doing business. GO SABRES!!!

There is not an ounce of animosity in my post. And thanks for your support, but jeez Dwight, sometimes you are hard to follow. GO SABRES!!!

I don't doubt this for a second, especially in light of Wawrow's scoop yesterday. The Sabres wouldn't have leaked that otherwise. And I'm convinced more than ever that once Pegula learned that Toronto had re-entered the picture, he wasn't gonna be played and he pulled the offer. I think that reflects well on him, too. It's all well and good that Babcock found the job of his dreams and his family is OK with it, etc, but I don't think this reflects well on him at all. If he doesn't produce in Toronto, he may well have signed his last coaching contract for a long time. GO SABRES!!!

I'll lay odds Pegula pulled his offer as soon as he got wind of Toronto's (seemingly) renewed interest. And I'd be glad to find out that's true. From a personnel standpoint, he's going to the Sabres' situation of two years ago. Enjoy, Babs. GO BILLS!!!

You're staring at coffee grounds, though. No matter now many actual legit reasons Babcock will give to explain his decision, you'll be convinced it's because Tim Murray lacks the proper personality. GO SABRES!!!

What took you so long? No narrative, my ass. GO SABRES!!!

Bylsma can laugh all he wants and I wish him luck in San Jose, for "similar" money. If he's really better than Babcock, he should have no trouble getting Babcock money from somebody else, though. Surely, he can convince other teams as much as he's convinced you. You seem to be saying that no matter who we end up targeting next, that he will laugh and turn us down because we were willing to overpay for the best candidate out there and that we should be willing to offer the same overpayment to anyone else. It just doesn't work that way. GO SABRES!!!

I doubt they'd laugh as there isn't another Babcock-credentialed candidate at the moment. But if your point is that we need to offer that to Bylsma, I don't agree. But Babcock's stated goal improving the lot of all coaches in this process, will certainly be realized, that's for sure. But this touches upon my reasons for Pegula to shelve his offer if Toronto has just been laying in wait for Babcock to come back to them with our best and final. GO SABRES!!!

Now that's funny! As to the banks being guilty and admitting it, yawn. Just another slap on the wrist, pay the penalty, and get on to their next scam. For the life of me, I don't understand the shift in our collective thinking since the 80s towards idolizing the great corporations and holding them up as icons of the private sector while at the same time denigrating labor and public programs as evil. Unfettered capitalism is dangerous. The greatest success our country has had were during times when controls were in place, corporations had more incentive to reinvest vs. hoarding dollars, and workers were valued as vital to the operation, if not as partners, rather than a drain on the bottom line for shareholders to demonize.

I'm making these assumptions based on what's been reported. Limited info or not, highly unlikely or not, that's all I have to go by. And to repeat, based on those reports, it appears Babcock and Toronto have been waiting to see what our best and final was gonna be. I don't think it's good business acumen to be used in that fashion as it sets a bad precedent for Pegula moving forward. It's not unheard of to shelve offers for this reason. I happen to agree, based on my assumptions based on what's been said publicly to this point. If you disagree, fine. But given how these events have unfolded, again based on what's been reported, it's not as though my assumptions are way out of line. GO SABRES!!!

Depends on how you look at it. Based on reports, Pegula made an unprecedented offer to make Babcock the highest paid coach in league history and by miles. Based on reports, as of last evening, it was down to Detroit and Buffalo with no mention of Toronto. And if Toronto has been laying in the weeds all along, then Babcock has done nothing but wait until he had Buffalo's final offer to leverage. Based on that, it is not petulant AT ALL to shelve my historical offer. It's a matter of setting another precedent moving forward. GO SABRES!!!

I'm inclined to agree. But as I said, if there's truth to it, if I'm Pegula, I take my offer off the table. GO SABRES!!!

If it's come down to a last second bidding war after Pegula agreed to make Babcock the historical offer in the first place, then I say good riddance Mike Babcock. Pegula should walk away with his head high and his honor intact. GO SABRES!!!

If there's any truth to that, if I'm Pegula, I walk away with my head high and honor intact. No way I'd be used as a wedge after giving an unprecedented offer to Babcock. And if that's what Babcock is doing here, good riddance. GO SABRES!!! Agree entirely. Just not that complicated. But I understand the need for some that were against Murray's strategy last season, to make an issue out of it. If you think that finishing last was not a good strategy, then Murray can't be given any quarter. The concept of tanking and disrespect of Nolan will always be conflated by that segment of the fan base. GO SABRES!!!

I'm pretty sure it's your narrative. Murray indeed detailed how poor the communication was. But communication is always at least a two-way street and, given Nolan's temperament, I can't even suspect Murray was the cause for all of that dysfunction. I'm curious though, does Murray have a previous history of not getting along with others like Nolan? I agree that firing Nolan wasn't a foregone conclusion when Murray came aboard. Quite the opposite, in fact. I think Nolan had every opportunity to solidify his position but he doesn't have the chops for it at the NHL level. No shame in that, but Murray had a season and a half to evaluate Nolan as a coach and co-worker before making the decision to let him go. I don't think it's any more complicated than that and I don't think Murray's "personality" got in the way then nor do I see it being a limiting factor in the pursuit of Babcock. If Babcock comes aboard, it will be in part because of what he perceives Murray's acumen as a hockey man to be, not because he has a great personality, anyway. GO SABRES!!! Little to none is not the same as ZERO, as PA represents it. And I believe Nolan absolutely got chafed over it. Easy to understand, given that Murray and Nolan had entirely different team goals last season. GO SABRES!!!

Your narrative, PA. I just don't think things need to rise to the same level of doubt as you do. I don't believe for a second that Nolan had ZERO input on player personnel. I don't think he always got his way, though, either. And I believe Nolan was resentful because of that. Indeed, I think Nolan was downright obstinate. I also think Murray had every reason to question Nolan's ability as a coach which caused him to lose confidence in Nolan's ability, including his ability to evaluate personnel. Lastly, I think you're over thinking Babcock's and Murray's discussion about levels of control over player personnel. I don't see Babcock's request for more control as something to question Murray about at this point. It's one thing for Murray to limit Nolan's involvement and quite another to give Babcock more leeway. Babcock has earned that given his success. Nolan, not so much. GO SABRES!!!

I was just trying to answer your post by giving two reasons why I give him a pass. I don't have any desire to debate what I think is a trivial point regarding how Miller was notified. I suspect there's a bit more to it than what you imply here, though. But it suits a narrative, so who am I to stand in the way? GO SABRES!!!

Not trying to nitpick, especially because I agree entirely with the premise of your post, but let's call a spade a spade: PL got his cranky, easily agitated ass fired. Pegula and Co. did the classy thing and gave him a nicer way out by letting him announce he had decided to pursue other opportunities. GO SABRES!!!