That Aud Smell

Sir! Sir! You feigned, sir. FEIGNED I SAY!

The Smell will take Aud(acious) notice of Terry Pegula's nolo contendere conviction as a meddler. Dude's a meddling mcmeddleface. Look it up. I, in turn, was not picking up what you were putting down. Still don't get it. That's on me.

Good that you were picking up what I was putting down. I'm in a jag right now where feigned incomprehension as a rhetorical device is grinding my gears like a mofo.

Which is why I said "a little like." On message boards, 99 is not infrequently referred to as WG. I agree that no one IRL has ever referred to him as "WG." The first initial has three syllables!

Rahhhhkrooooooooooooooooooo!

Lulz. That's a little like being a regular on a basketball message board and asking "Who's MJ?"

YMMV with producers. Some are hands off. Some are extremely hands on. I can see a scenario in which JBOT stays on even with RaKru moving to an administrative role. McDermott the HC essentially hired Beane the GM, after all.

I started to reply before I noticed the second parenthetical. Ha. I've theorized (pontificated (spit bullsh1t)) about this on here in a few spots. It mostly comes down to my thinking (feeling) that they have (1) questionable decision making criteria and (2) bad instincts. One leading example was their decision to hire Rex Ryan. They got totally bamboozled. As part of that process, they allowed a retained sycophant (Russ Brandon) -- whose true colours they did not detect when they evaluated the organization -- to butter both sides of his bread by feeding the bloviating HC candidate key tidbits about the kinds of things that Terry Pegula enjoys and dislikes. So, again: Bad criteria, worse instincts. Bottom line: I don't think they're that bright. There are accompanying theories I have on the kind(s) of people the Pegulas are (e.g., largely incurious), but I won't get into them here because it would inevitably infringe on political talk.

Apotheosis level content there. I had not thought about the Sabres being worse than the Browns. But I think that's fair. As for the "it had to be done" line of thinking, I am allowing for the practical reality that the franchise's culture, direction, and stewardship may have made the move inevitable -- not some abstracted, universe-imposed, the fault is in our stars inevitability. My point was that the road they'd traversed together -- the team and that player -- led to that junction, and that a parting of the ways was a reasonable choice at that point. It's not to say that the course that was charted, the operators of the vehicle, navigational choices made, the choice of road side food joints, and so on didn't play a huge role. Because they did. I think there may be signs of life from the Pegulas when it comes to the Sabres. I've said it several times now, but I'll repeat it here because the context warrants it: I do not have much faith in the Pegulas. They have the money, and they are (or, at least, have been in the past) willing to spend it. As history would teach, that's not enough to build a winner. Often not nearly enough.

You're right that this properly belongs over in the ROR trade sucked thread. To the point above about ROR being 100% ready, willing, and able to stay and help ... I'm just not so sure. He might have been done here -- just spent. And I ain't even mad about it, if so. Fwiw, I meant "had to be done" from a sort of metaphysical standpoint. Maybe it just had to happen. No avoiding it. I dunno. This is a feeling I have based on the limited facts I've gathered.

Fair points. I find the suggestion that Terry Pegula is hands off with personnel to be eyebrow-arch-inducing. Now, the key word above (from Graham) is "increasingly." That I could buy. We'll see, I reckon. Also: It must be the heart of the off-season because we're here debating anew a subject that, in the past, generated a thread in the dozens if not hundreds of pages. But I suppose circumstances have evolved to warrant a revisiting. My point, which was clearly made notwithstanding any claimed inability to comprehend it, was that Terry Pegula has a demonstrated and admitted track record of involving himself in personnel decisions, strategies. The idea that I'd bitterly cling to anything here is ... wait for it ... silly. I'm an open-minded skeptic when it comes to matters unknowable -- sometimes, to a fault. Terry Pegula is the owner who in 2011 knew Paul Gaustad was a leader and a winner, judging by the proverbial cut of his jib. Of late, has he tried to back off that level of involvement? Maybe. Again, we'll see. We're well into the back 9 of graduation party season. A few weeks ago, I was at one such get-together, swilling craft beer from red solo cups with a guy who's a middle manager in the PSE group. The hockey game was on, and ROR was having a great game. Someone in our group asked the PSE middle manager what his take was on what had become of ROR. He professed ignorance, but then told a story about a managers meeting from this past fall that was called by a C-level PSE exec (not Kim or Terry). The exec talked about how important it was for the entire group of directors, managers, etc. to be working as a team, to have the right attitude, to be on the same page, etc. ... and then a specific comment was made to the effect of "so even if you're incredibly talented, but you don't have the right attitude and you don't really want to be here, I think the company's made it pretty clear that there probably won't be a place for you here." Given the timing, the takeaway from the people at this guy's table was that the exec was making a reference to ROR. Again, this was not a hockey ops person -- it was a PSE exec. I continue to think that the Pegulas had a significant say in the decision to move on from ROR. And, not for nothing, I am also open to the idea that it had to be done -- that there was no other good choice. I remain torn on the subject, though.

Yeah -- that's just weak sauce. It reads a bit like copy from a writer who's peddling a company's preferred narrative in exchange for access. His teams have no presidents of sports operations. He is therefore the de facto president of sports operations for those clubs.

Also, where's that quote from one of his kids who was gushing about how dad would identify free agent talent for the team to consider? I had thought we were done debating whether Terry's involved in hockey ops. (Because he is.)

I'd be interested to see the excerpt. OTOH, I'm more interested in what Terry's actually said in public on the subject. Mind you, I don't imagine that he's on the level of, say, a Jerry Jones. But from what T. Pegula has said, it's evident that his fingers are in the pie. (Ew.)

I'm not making a judgment one way or another. I'm responding to @Eleven saying that the Pegulas are hands-off when it comes to hockey ops.

^^ Re the discussion upthread and FWIW: There's chatter in the Twittersphere -- and not just among know-nothings -- about how the MTL offer sheet could have been done as something of a favour to CAR.

Huh? Terry is an owner who is on record saying that he watches "film" (video, whatever) with his teams' coaching staffs.

This is really quite intriguing. In an ideal world -- which is one @PASabreFan generally inhabits around these parts -- RaKru would have good success as HC, tap a successor (perhaps even mentor one for a season), and then move into a president's role.

And not a grain of salt in sight. I LIKE IT.

Hmm. Interesting take. To be clear: I'm saying that the activity of trolling is something that warrants condemnation. Hence, I don't see how trolling offers cover -- at least not around these parts. I am familiar with that guy's claim(s) that he's basically a wrestling heel (troll) who uses politics and current events as his entertainment fodder.

with respect to @Weave, i think what he's describing is more stirring the pot. I think @Weave called @PASabreFan an iconoclast; I think that's often right, as far as our purposes go around here. I would even go so far as to say that being a provocateur isn't the same as trolling. IMO, there's something gratuitous and disingenuous about internet trolling. If you're engaging in a bit of hyperbole in order to advance an argument that you genuinely believe, then you're not trolling. I don't think there's a single regular poster who's a troll or who trolls.

I'd forgotten this grievance -- that Vesey played Nashville. I don't think it's an unreasonable take that Vesey did Nashville dirty -- that he should have been more honest, etc. The stuff in bold is apt to make people's eyes roll out of their head, though.

I was gonna say something. But I think this about covers the waterfront. You can (may?) have a good cause, @PASabreFan, but if you choose to champion it based on bad facts, you lose ground. @pi2000's take-down of Vesey was preposterous.