nfreeman

I agree with this and with most of what you've said in this thread. I do think though that there are 2 more questions: 1. Are the Pegulas competent at building a good organization, which presumably would lead to good on-ice results? 2. Are they greedy, insensitive jerks? I think the article today essentially argues that the answers to both of these are "no." Now, was the article -- and the assertions it made -- somewhat overblown and sensationalized, and likely based on sour grapes from people who have been let go? Yes, almost certainly. But it's undeniable that there has been a ton of turnover at PSE, and that the on-ice results have been awful. So it's not unreasonable for people to connect the dots, and for people to be skeptical about the Pegulas until they demonstrate that they deserve the benefit of the doubt. OTOH, one might think that their development efforts in Buffalo, their charity and the success with the Bills would buy them more goodwill than they seem to be getting here. Of course, this is a Sabres board, and the Sabres have been freaking terrible.

No. According to the article, there was a management presentation that included a powerpoint presentation, in which 1 of the slides laid out 3 main Pegula family goals: win championships, sustainability, and return on investment. The ROI goal included a sub-heading that read "fund businesses, taxes, lifestyle." The article also said: In other words, the 3rd of 3 articulated goals was for the business to pay for itself as well as to contribute to the family's lifestyle -- i.e. to turn a profit that the family could use to live large, or give to charity, or do whatever else they want with it. So, nothing too inflammatory or nutty there, although it was probably pretty tone-deaf to include "lifestyle," since it's pretty clear that they live quite large and it didn't need to be waved in everyone's faces that they intend to keep doing so.

Or that they won't fire him because they are sure he's an honorable guy, as compared with the scoundrels they've had to get rid of.

I was thinking the same thing -- maybe this embarrasses them enough so that they prioritize bringing in good people to run things.

The article certainly doesn't paint a pretty picture. It sounds like there are a lot of employees who don't like or trust the Pegulas, and that the Pegulas feel the same way about a lot of the people they've let go. A few more nuggets:

I don't think this is correct. Link?

Good stuff in here boys.

Sweet goal by Matt Ellis!

I generally agree, although I think it's pretty close to a lock that the cap is lower next year. I was just responding to a post that had stated with certitude that the cap is not decreasing next year.

He had some nice moments:

Sometimes I feel like I too am stricken with a dark hockey pathology!

I think Kaleta had the hockey IQ, the skating and good enough hands to have been much more than the dirty-playing disturber that he was. But he also had some kind of dark hockey pathology that made him keep crossing the line. If he could've tamed those impulses, he would've been the best player in his group IMHO. Playfair was the best fighter the Sabres have ever had, and one of the best in NHL history.

Well, I think "what we've been hearing" has been 90% speculation. I also think that since LQ mentioned health insurance specifically but not severance, it's possible-to-likely that this was a deliberate choice of words -- i.e. that he wanted to paint TP in a bad light, so he omitted mentioning severance. Bottom line IMHO is that in the absence of facts I prefer not to assume that people are acting in an avaricious manner.

That doesn't say that it came from Bettman.

The bolded raises an interesting question: what kind of severance are they getting? The article in the Athletic quotes LQ as saying: The implication is that they got zero severance, which I have a hard time believing. It seems much more likely that they got a normal severance package -- i.e. something like the 6 months that @Broken Ankles mentions. They probably need to pay for COBRA coverage, but that is no different from the situation of pretty much everyone else who gets laid off. Vogl should've figured this out and included it in his article.

link?

The bolded is simply false. The cap is adjusted each year based on the previous year's revenues. Since revenues for this year are going to fall, the cap will fall too.

And yet you invoked Liger, who freely uses that term and others. Tell me: before any of the multiple times you accused me of bias, did you look through the thread and consider the political leanings of all of the posts that weren't moved? Did you count those and weigh that total against the total number of posts you objected to? Did you factor in the number of posts that were moved, and break down the political leanings of those posts? Did you factor in the overall political leanings of the board? Did you do any type of analysis at all before making the accusations? Or did you just see a post you didn't like, assume that the reason it wasn't moved must be bias, and then blast away? It's lazy, it's destructive and it's offensive. And a hearty thank you sir for stirring up this particular poopstorm!

We've been over this multiple times. If I say that I don't choose the posts to be moved based on political views, and you say "yes, you do" -- you're calling me a liar. It's not OK.

As always, if either of you, or anyone else, thinks a post should be moved, all you need to do is point out the particular post. The ad hominem attack is gratuitous and, regrettably, not new. When you call me or anyone else a liar in this manner, you are, as it happens, manifesting a blind spot to your own poor behavior, since this of course is not how people should converse. You are also demonstrating your inability to engage in a conversation that is even peripherally related to politics without falling into such behavior -- which of course is why such conversation should stay in the politics club.

It's been moved.

I think the percentage of NHL ticket-buyers who will not be adversely affected by the current economic convulsion is quite low, and that there is a significant percentage of people who ordinarily buy tickets and will not be able to do so next season.

I think the point is that most people's incomes are likely to drop due to the current economic dislocation, which will make $300+ outings to hockey games less affordable.

Moved some posts to the politics club.

So, STL just gave Scandy a 4-year, $13.1MM extension. In other words, the reigning SC champs liked Scandy enough to give up a 2nd-rounder and a 4th-rounder, AND make a significant contractual commitment to him. Meanwhile, JB thought he was only as good as Frolik. JB must go.