Rumor: Sabres looking for help to run team

[Randall Flagg]

2 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Toronto did just fine with it

I remember knowing in the pit of my stomach that Toronto was going to get away with it, watching their tank team actually dominate possession and just not have enough skill to score haha, while we got outshot 50-13 every night for 2 years 

[SwampD]

9 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

Oh well... it’s what I think. Too bad. I won’t convince you otherwise and visa versa. All good....

You can think that. It’s fine. And I can disagree, which I do, but it certainly isn’t because I’m incapable of “grasping the concept...”

Edited March 5, 2021 by SwampD

[Weave]

3 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I remember knowing in the pit of my stomach that Toronto was going to get away with it, watching their tank team actually dominate possession and just not have enough skill to score haha, while we got outshot 50-13 every night for 2 years 

What does that tell you?  They kept enough useful players to carry on some expectation of performance.  They never did a lose at all costs 2 seasons.  They did a rebuild, not a tank.

[Georgia Blizzard]

54 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

The tank was a great idea. Executed poorly. There is a distinct and clear difference between the tank being good/bad to do. And the execution of the tank being good/bad. Some fans can’t seem to quite grasp and separate the two main stages of tanking.

"The Tank" was a strategy to WIN longer term, by, losing in the short term.

That strategy failed.

You are arguing the "WIN longer term" portion failed and the "losing in the short term" succeeded.  We are saying the same thing.

The key difference, for me, NOW, is that by losing in short term, we inadvertently created a culture of losing that we can't eradicate ourselves from in order to win in the long term.

The Bills chose a different path and it worked.

 

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, Georgia Blizzard said:

"The Tank" was a strategy to WIN longer term, by, losing in the short term.

That strategy failed.

You are arguing the "WIN longer term" portion failed and the "losing in the short term" succeeded.  We are saying the same thing.

The key difference, for me, NOW, is that by losing in short term, we inadvertently created a culture of losing that we can't eradicate ourselves from in order to win in the long term.

The Bills chose a different path and it worked.

 

 

[SDS]

21 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I remember knowing in the pit of my stomach that Toronto was going to get away with it, watching their tank team actually dominate possession and just not have enough skill to score haha, while we got outshot 50-13 every night for 2 years 

This was sort of my point in my reply to maybe you yesterday. The depths we went to to get the first overall pick was far and away beyond what other teams had done to acquire talent that is probably better than what we got.

19 minutes ago, Weave said:

What does that tell you?  They kept enough useful players to carry on some expectation of performance.  They never did a lose at all costs 2 seasons.  They did a rebuild, not a tank.

But they got similar, if not better players.

[erickompositör72]

1 hour ago, Zamboni said:

The tank was a great idea. Executed poorly. There is a distinct and clear difference between the tank being good/bad to do. And the execution of the tank being good/bad. Some fans can’t seem to quite grasp and separate the two main stages of tanking.

Sorry if this comes across as insenstive:

 

Saying the tank worked is like saying about someone with anorexia: "their diet worked!"

 

No, it did not work.

[Randall Flagg]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

This was sort of my point in my reply to maybe you yesterday. The depths we went to to get the first overall pick was far and away beyond what other teams had done to acquire talent that is probably better than what we got.

Don't think I posted much of anything yesterday, but I definitely agree. For twice as long, too. 

I remember the Leafs winning Matthews just as much as I remember our draft lotteries. It was a big deal. That guy is unreal

[Zamboni]

6 minutes ago, Georgia Blizzard said:

"The Tank" was a strategy to WIN longer term, by, losing in the short term.

That strategy failed.

You are arguing the "WIN longer term" portion failed and the "losing in the short term" succeeded.  We are saying the same thing.

The key difference, for me, NOW, is that by losing in short term, we inadvertently created a culture of losing that we can't eradicate ourselves from in order to win in the long term.

The Bills chose a different path and it worked.

 

I’m not arguing anything. At all.

My belief is my belief only. Others can have theirs.

Darcy starting and Tim continuing to dismantle the team and stock it with mostly AHLers/4th liners so we can try to get a top draft pick was a great idea. And to acquire Reinhart and Eichel. I believe that action was successful. Me and me only. Not arguing anything. At all.

What followed the drafting of Eichel, was a failure and the Sabres continue to struggle and suck. And it seems more and more that it’s due to ownership and very poor hires. And to an extent the roster. It’s what I believe. Me only. Not arguing. At all.

 

Others can have their take. That’s cool. Won’t change my mind or argue against their opinion.👍🏼

[Thorny]

We argue/discuss a lot about the defining reason things backfired, but in the end all of these brutal choices are symptomatic, symptomatic of what has been an inept driving force. The Leafs had a lot go right, and we had a lot go wrong, because they were well-run overall and we were not. 

I've argued the tank can indeed be seen as the driving force, but an argument can also be made that we likely end up around where we are regardless, because the people that made that poor decision are still liable to make bad decisions at any juncture, and would have, even if it was a different bad decision. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Thorny

[Thwomp!]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

We argue/discuss a lot about the defining reason things backfired, but in the end all of these brutal choices are symptomatic, symptomatic of what has been an inept driving force. The Leafs had a lot go right, and we had a lot go wrong, because they were well-run overall and we were not. 

I've argued the tank can indeed be seen as the driving force, but an argument can also be made that we likely end up around where we are regardless, because the people that made that poor decision are still liable to make bad decisions at any juncture, and would have, even if it was a different bad decision. 

It should be painfully obvious to everyone by this point that the Sabres' problems start at the very top and cascade down from there.

[Pimlach]

10 hours ago, msw2112 said:

I don't want the Pegulas to sell the team.  They are great owners because they 1) have deep pockets; 2) badly want the team to be successful; and 3) are committed to Buffalo.  I DO want the Pegulas to put quality management in place, then get out of the way and let those folks do their jobs.  Adams has seemingly done a decent job in adding some talent to the roster (Hall, Staal) without giving up much, got guys like Reinhart re-signed to team-friendly deals, etc.  He didn't handle the goaltending situation very well and the roster seems to lack grit/glue guys.

Until recently, I was wiling to let things play out with Kreuger, but I just can't take it anymore.  Whatever he is doing is not working and the team is on a downward spiral, circling the drain.  At this point, this season is over, but perhaps they can get things moving in the right direction and create some momentum going into next year.  I just don't see how the current coaching staff can generate anything to build on and if we keep them on, next season will be more of the same.

I also thought certain guys were untradeable, but at this point, I just don't care if they blow it up and start over.  Keep Couzens and a couple of the young defensemen (Bryson, Borgen).  The rest can go.  The current core has been through several coaches - Bylsma, Housley, Kreuger - and nothing gets better.  They just keep spinning their wheels.  Is there a coach out there that can get this group to play to their potential?  Is it the players or the coach?

I am going to go bang my head against the wall....

I agree with a lot of this.  I think Adams had a good off season, only complaint is not improving the goaltending.  Looking at the way the team is playing now, especially since Linus went down, I doubt that matters too much anymore.  They can’t score enough to win with Hasek in net.  
 

I still prefer to bring in someone else to run Hockey Operations and to pick the next coach.  
 

Look at the last three coaches.  Bylsma, Housley, Krueger.   Each did worse then the previous and each had less NHL coaching experience.  Let the new Hockey Man bring in a veteran coach to start the culture change.  Let the new guys shape the roster, don’t resort to blowing it up and trading everything until some better people have done an evaluation.   I don’t trust anyone in this organization to make a major trade.  Trading from a place of desperation is bad. 
 

This job is not a one man operation.  

[Georgia Blizzard]

I think my epiphany regarding the tank was the harm it did to the culture.

I believe it created a losing mindset that we can't get rid of.

I agree 100% that the post-losing part of the tank has been bad; i.e. trades, draft picks etc.

But, watching what McDermott did with the Bills that first year has convinced me that you play EVERY game to WIN.

[Curt]

There is absolutely no precedent for the tank that Buffalo went through.  Go look at the records and goal differentials.  Toronto did nothing close.  I don’t think anyone ever has.

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

There is absolutely no precedent for the tank that Buffalo went through.  Go look at the records and goal differentials.  Toronto did nothing close.  I don’t think anyone ever has.

Funnily enough I think Detroit was actually worse last year. Maybe not differentials though can’t remember 

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

What does that tell you?  They kept enough useful players to carry on some expectation of performance.  They never did a lose at all costs 2 seasons.  They did a rebuild, not a tank.

Glad you can separate the 2 things when it suits you

11 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Funnily enough I think Detroit was actually worse last year. Maybe not differentials though can’t remember 

Yup

15 minutes ago, Georgia Blizzard said:

I think my epiphany regarding the tank was the harm it did to the culture.

I believe it created a losing mindset that we can't get rid of.

I agree 100% that the post-losing part of the tank has been bad; i.e. trades, draft picks etc.

But, watching what McDermott did with the Bills that first year has convinced me that you play EVERY game to WIN.

I think my epiphany was actually looking back on the 2013 team and realizing how devoid of talent it already was. 2012, wasn't much better. 

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

This is such a load of crap. And the funny thing is, is sounds like an even bigger load of crap when someone other than LGR says it.

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it's a load of revisionist crap. 

[SwampD]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Glad you can separate the 2 things when it suits you

Yup

I think my epiphany was actually looking back on the 2013 team and realizing how devoid of talent it already was. 2012, wasn't much better. 

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it's a load of revisionist crap. 

I would have had to revise my opinion for it to be revisionist. It’s never changed.

[Pimlach]

23 minutes ago, Curt said:

There is absolutely no precedent for the tank that Buffalo went through.  Go look at the records and goal differentials.  Toronto did nothing close.  I don’t think anyone ever has.

I think the Penguins were accused of tanking when they drafted Mario.  That was the first I recall of a team publicly accused of tanking.   

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I would have had to revise my opinion for it to be revisionist. It’s never changed.

Then it was and is blindingly unaware of the lack of talent in the Sabres prospect pool and how bad the team actual was in 2012 and 2013

[SDS]

First, let me say nothing compares to the viciousness of the Buffalo fanbase after they turn on someone. 

Am I the only one that can look at many decisions of the past and just say, "that didn't work out" (like 1000s or other coaches and GM hires prior) and not go into hyperdrive?

I didn't like Dan Bylsma as coach. But was he THAT unreasonable of a choice? Tim Murray? Phil Housley? 

Objectively, they all failed spectacularly in their ultimate goal. Can it not be more that it didn't work out instead of the thick layer of gross incompetence that gets thrown around when everyone gets spun up?

[SwampD]

8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Then it was and is blindingly unaware of the lack of talent in the Sabres prospect pool and how bad the team actual was in 2012 and 2013

No. Just confident that intentionally going in to not one, but two seasons,... TWO,... Jesus,... with the intent of losing the most games in the league, was not the way to fix it.

I said at the time that even after the Tank we then need a rebuild, so why not just rebuild. No, no, no, the only way out of this is to tank. It’s the only way to get top end talent.

And now we’re parsing different stages of the Tank to say this part worked but this part didn’t. Talk about revisionism.

[Scottysabres]

While I was one that supported going for McDavid/Eichel I was not one that wanted Vanek or Pominville moved. Although, admittedly I was supportive 0f Gaustad, Stafford and Miller being moved. So a mixed bag there.

In the end, the plan implemented to tear it down to the foundation and rebuild it has failed in a somewhat spectacular fashion. And I concur, it was a combination of removing individuals who had the passion, the desire to sacrifice to win and fostering the overall organizational environment that it is acceptable to lose.

Now comes the ultimate question, and it is not what you think. For the question is not how to change that, but what to do with the assets here, now, that are clearly a product of it.

In the end, it's what many of us, even those who supported the tear down, have been saying, an "Organizational Culture" issue. Like it or not, the last 10 years have marked the Sabres as one of the worst run NHL franchises in modern NHL history. Sadly, for myself in any event, I see no end in sight.

[Marvin]

24 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Glad you can separate the 2 things when it suits you

I think my epiphany was actually looking back on the 2013 team and realizing how devoid of talent it already was. 2012, wasn't much better.

I am going to disagree with you about there not being a difference between a rebuild and a tank.

What they have in common is the start: sell off current, preferably aging and over-valued assets, for draft picks, young talent, and roster filler for both the big club and the farm teams.  In the short term, they clearly make the top team less talented, but tends to stock a lot of talent in the system which you can develop into major league players.

Where they differ is the subsequent execution.  In a rebuild, you sign marginal to bottom-half-the-roster NHLers.  You install the system you and the GM agreed upon beforehand which you want to run.  If the major league team plays over its head, you reward it by maybe getting some better roster filler, give better youngsters a taste of the big leagues, etc.  The team tries to win, the GM supports any winning, and tries to improve the atmosphere so that older players can buy in and be positive around the younger players and feel that if they retired, but their tutees win the Cup, then they have contributed.  That includes making side-ways trades to fill in long-term holes, asking veterans on expiring deals what they would like to do, etc.

A tank is handled by what GMTM did.  You sign players who have no business being in the NHL; e.g., Meszaros, Strachan, Benoit.  Any player who is not in your long-term plans who is playing over his head gets moved for clearly inferior players.  Young players who are contributing often get sent back to the minors or the juniors.  The GM deliberately undermines the coach at each turn whenever the team is playing well.  Then you get a situation like the tank Sabres: according to several players, when they played very well, they joked with their teammates that they would get traded as a reward.  And the Sabres did this for TWO years.

14 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

I think the Penguins were accused of tanking when they drafted Mario.  That was the first I recall of a team publicly accused of tanking.   

Correct.  They and New Jersey were actively trying to lose at the end of the season by icing sub-optimal line-ups and deliberately playing inferior goaltenders.

[SwampD]

This sucks!

[SDS]

3 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

While I was one that supported going for McDavid/Eichel I was not one that wanted Vanek or Pominville moved. Although, admittedly I was supportive 0f Gaustad, Stafford and Miller being moved. So a mixed bag there.

In the end, the plan implemented to tear it down to the foundation and rebuild it has failed in a somewhat spectacular fashion. And I concur, it was a combination of removing individuals who had the passion, the desire to sacrifice to win and fostering the overall organizational environment that it is acceptable to lose.

Now comes the ultimate question, and it is not what you think. For the question is not how to change that, but what to do with the assets here, now, that are clearly a product of it.

In the end, it's what many of us, even those who supported the tear down, have been saying, an "Organizational Culture" issue. Like it or not, the last 10 years have marked the Sabres as one of the worst run NHL franchises in modern NHL history. Sadly, for myself in any event, I see no end in sight.

See the New York Islanders 1986 to 2000.