PASabreFan Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 If he needed to be told he was inheriting a rebuild, he shouldn't have been hired. As for Nolan, my personal supposition, based upon absolutely nothing but a blind guess, is that Murray knows that it doesn't matter who coaches this team. He'll pick his coach, Nolan or otherwise, when it matters. Then you have a lackey. Of course it's possible that Murray philosophically agrees with rebuilds like this and didn't need to do any mental gymnastics to get on board with hit before agreeing to take the job. The interesting moment could come when Murray, who has suggested he doesn't want to wait five years to win, tells Terry he wants to trade Zadorov/Reinhart/ a high first round pick in 2016. Would that not be the GM's call? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) Ugh I know I am fighting a losing battle here and always will. I don't want the owner's ear getting nibbled on by anyone. (Good morning Judge Smell.) The reason for existence isn't to win a Stanley Cup, it's to win a Stanley Cup with Terry Pegula as winner of the Conn Smythe. Wow, the ego. Some might say, so what, if they win the Cup, who cares? He's making it tougher to win, and I think the state of the franchise is the smoking gun. He's ridden the Segway of this franchise right over a cliff. Think about it. If they screw up this rebuild, they're setting things back years and years and years, and the fear is you might not ever get it back. You become the woebegone Islanders, who haven't won a playoff series since 1993. 2007-? 2018? 2023? 2029? It's scary where we're at right now. You are being unrealistic about the bolded. Do you think the Knoxes didn't require their ear being nibbled about direction and big dollar contracts? How about Jeremy Jacobs? Or rocky Wirtz? It is simply a fact of life that owners are consulted. Edited October 18, 2014 by weave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Hey man. This is all very well trod ground. We know what you want out of the billionaire owner, and we all know you won't get it. And we know what you want out of one of the billionaire owners, and we all know you won't get it. Welcome to my world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) Ugh I know I am fighting a losing battle here and always will. I don't want the owner's ear getting nibbled on by anyone. (Good morning Judge Smell.) The reason for existence isn't to win a Stanley Cup, it's to win a Stanley Cup with Terry Pegula as winner of the Conn Smythe. Wow, the ego. Some might say, so what, if they win the Cup, who cares? He's making it tougher to win, and I think the state of the franchise is the smoking gun. He's ridden the Segway of this franchise right over a cliff. Think about it. If they screw up this rebuild, they're setting things back years and years and years, and the fear is you might not ever get it back. You become the woebegone Islanders, who haven't won a playoff series since 1993. 2007-? 2018? 2023? 2029? It's scary where we're at right now. I have always understood your idea of not wanting an owner that meddles with decision making. I agree. But I just fail to see any evidence, I say a new trial Edited October 18, 2014 by Numark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Then you have a lackey. Of course it's possible that Murray philosophically agrees with rebuilds like this and didn't need to do any mental gymnastics to get on board with hit before agreeing to take the job. The interesting moment could come when Murray, who has suggested he doesn't want to wait five years to win, tells Terry he wants to trade Zadorov/Reinhart/ a high first round pick in 2016. Would that not be the GM's call? I think you may have missed my point: Any GM candidate worth anything would have looked at the roster last November and said "yeah, it's a rebuild." Has nothing to do with whether there's a lackey or a philosophical agreement. It is just that obvious that the team needs to be rebuilt. As to your last sentence, it damned well better be the GM's call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Well, that was inspiring hockey........I won't mention what it inspires me to, but it did none the less......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 You are being unrealistic about the bolded. Do you think the Knoxes didn't require their ear being nibbled about direction and big dollar contracts? How about Jeremy Jacobs? Or rocky Wirtz? It is simply a fact of life that owners are consulted. I have been made aware. I know I'm a revolutionary — I mean, I'm no Yuri Olesha. Blow up the world, forget everything we know and reinvent the professional sports owner. Please tell me how asking people who have no experience in a particular industry to make strategic decisions about the product being created makes the most sense? A good retort might be that, hey, the guy has to learn somehow. Fine. Before Pegula becomes the next Ilich or Kraft (pretty laughable, actually), you have these growing pains. It's not necessary, but for the massive egos at play. I think you may have missed my point: Any GM candidate worth anything would have looked at the roster last November and said "yeah, it's a rebuild." Has nothing to do with whether there's a lackey or a philosophical agreement. It is just that obvious that the team needs to be rebuilt. As to your last sentence, it damned well better be the GM's call. There are different kinds of rebuilds. And as to your last sentence, great, we agree! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I have been made aware. I know I'm a revolutionary — I mean, I'm no Yuri Olesha. Blow up the world, forget everything we know and reinvent the professional sports owner. Please tell me how asking people who have no experience in a particular industry to make strategic decisions about the product being created makes the most sense? A good retort might be that, hey, the guy has to learn somehow. Fine. Before Pegula becomes the next Ilich or Kraft (pretty laughable, actually), you have these growing pains. It's not necessary, but for the massive egos at play. It isn't about the owner making the decision as much as it is about apporval to spend large amounts of his time and money. The owner holds the purse strings. Of course a GM will need the blessings of the guy holding the purse strings. Hopefully, they hashed out the framework of the plan during the hiring process so the rest is rubber stamped. I would imagine GM's get fired when the GM no longer is able to convince the owner that his way is likely to be successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 There are different kinds of rebuilds. And as to your last sentence, great, we agree! There are different kinds of rebuilds. My earlier post was directed to the fact that this is a rebuild, and not the manner in which it is accomplished. I think we always have agreed that we don't want Terry Pegula making player decisions. Where we disagree is you think he is making player decisions, and I see absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I love how we've already had these exact discussions, yet, here we are... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I just watched Edmonton get shut out by Ryan Miller and the 'nucks. But, how can Edmonton get shut out with back-to-back-to-back #1 overall picks leading up their offense? Tanking guarantees future success I am told. God I hate that argument about tanking not working in Edmonton - For every Edmonton I can give you Tampa Bay, Chicago, Pittsburgh, LA. Its looking like we may have to add the NYI to the list of teams where tanking in the right years works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I love how we've already had these exact discussions, yet, here we are... Running over the same old ground, what have we found? Same old fears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I love how we've already had these exact discussions, yet, here we are... lol, agreed. The rebuild is going take longer than the 2 to 3 years being touted to the fan base however. But then, the fan base, at least the die hards, have most likely witnessed what has gone on in Edmonton and Florida and even Columbus and should realize were looking at a 4 to 5 year process to even contend on a serious scale for the cup. All of what is happening really shouldn't be surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I love how we've already had these exact discussions, yet, here we are... Makes the tank debate seem fresh by comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 God I hate that argument about tanking not working in Edmonton - For every Edmonton I can give you Tampa Bay, Chicago, Pittsburgh, LA. Its looking like we may have to add the NYI to the list of teams where tanking in the right years works. It took all of the teams you list longer than 3 years to find success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 lol, agreed. The rebuild is going take longer than the 2 to 3 years being touted to the fan base however. But then, the fan base, at least the die hards, have most likely witnessed what has gone on in Edmonton and Florida and even Columbus and should realize were looking at a 4 to 5 year process to even contend on a serious scale for the cup. All of what is happening really shouldn't be surprising. The time frame is just so freakin' convenient (say it like the church lady for added effect). Who will own the team by the time the Sabres contend again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 All right, at this point, I've gotta just walk away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 The time frame is just so freakin' convenient (say it like the church lady for added effect). Who will own the team by the time the Sabres contend again? I bit of drama there, don't you agree? No reason to seem remotely surprised by the string of events. A decision was made to tear it down and build anew after the first couple of years of throwing money at it didn't work. As you hear my state over and over again, it must be said again, patience is what is required here. Attacks on ownership are a moot situation. We have an owner, the team is in full on rebuild in accordance with a plan set forth, now, we just have to be patient and see if Mr. Pegula's advisors and management team are up to the task and worth a grain of salt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 There are different kinds of rebuilds. My earlier post was directed to the fact that this is a rebuild, and not the manner in which it is accomplished. I think we always have agreed that we don't want Terry Pegula making player decisions. Where we disagree is you think he is making player decisions, and I see absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. While I am on both sides of this argument, didn't he get on a plane to personally woo Regehr? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) While I am on both sides of this argument, didn't he get on a plane to personally woo Regehr? Rewriting my reply after realizing you're right and it was Regehr and not Ehrhoff, not that it matters: This doesn't mean he made the decision to acquire Regehr. It only means that he flew out to encourage Regehr to sign. Nothing wrong with him helping out his GM. Edited October 18, 2014 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Rewriting my reply after realizing you're right and it was Regehr and not Ehrhoff, not that it matters: This doesn't mean he made the decision to acquire Regehr. It only means that he flew out to encourage Regehr to sign. Nothing wrong with him helping out his GM. I personally would be surprised to find out that he had no say the past couple of years in these decisions. I pretty much stayed out of the Meddling Trial thread because I just thought that id didn't really matter, but I have to say that PA has had some really good posts in this thread and he's starting to sway my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 And we know what you want out of one of the billionaire owners, and we all know you won't get it. Welcome to my world. No YOU. What do you think I want out of Pegula? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 No YOU. What do you think I want out of Pegula? Which one? Come on Phil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 As for Edmonton, I've come to view them as an outlier. There's a toxic combo of stupidity and arrogance at play there. Which one? Come on Phil. Hahaha. Nice. The question was phrased as wanting something OUT not IN, so you know I'm talking about Terry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I'm not all that upset with this team yet. Sure, I'd like to see them lose 4-3 or 3-2 rather than 1-0, but not much more beyond that. I also don't think (yet) that this team is an absolute lock for last place and that they are going to as bad (or worse) than last year. ANY team, good or bad, that has a lot of changes from the start of one season to the next is going to take a while to 'gel', so to speak. On the top teams, you have a larger portion of the team that has played with each other for YEARS and know where each other will be on the ice (or at least the key players on the top line.) On the Sabres, it is going to be at least 20 games until that happens..and by the time it does, they will be into the 'softer' part of the schedule. What do I think that means? I think you might still be looking at a 60-70 point team, UNLESS further trades are made to strip this team early (Myers, Stewart, and Stafford gone by the end of the year.) What is puzzling to me is the constant talk of the 'lack of effort' game after game? Are even the 'experts' who are saying that confusing lack of effort for lack of talent? I just don't see how the biggest goal of the offseason was to purge this team of guys who didn't show any effort, who didn't want to be here, and yet that still seems to be a major problem? I don't get that. Maybe it is just human nature, even the guys who are normally 'effort' guys aren't going to go 100% everyday until they feel they have a legitimate chance to win a good number of games? Solid post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.