Sabres looking for Senior Advisor for Adams and Hockey Department

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Karmanos helped build the Sabres analytics department. The analytics department is why Benson and McLeod are here.

If Karmanos replaced KA as the GM, I would be ecstatic. I would definitely rather have him reworking the roster than the current feckless GM. I’m sure that KA is a fine fellow but he has demonstrated that he is not up to the challenges that the GM position requires. Some judgments are difficult to make; this is not one of them.

[dudacek]

17 hours ago, Thorny said:

I think the idea I have to argue why him caring, somewhat isn’t enough in the face of a 14 year drought is rather absurd  

I’d have to agree. Not sure why you are.

My post didn’t suggest it was, and “Terry cares, that should be enough” is not exactly a sentiment I see frequently posted around here. 🤷

[7+6=13]

23 hours ago, JohnC said:

The upper tier players who would be on the trading block would more likely than not have No Trade Clauses. That's the uncomfortable reality that this franchise faces due to its extended dysfunction. If that's the case where it is nearly impossible to make a blockbuster trade that would jolt the roster, then make a series of medium moves that will upgrade and better balance the roster

Look at the Capitals. Over the past year or two it made a number of B moves that altered the roster and made it one of the better teams in the league. They added Strome, DuBois, Chychrun,, Mangiapone, goalies Logan Thompson and Charlie Liindgren etc. and accomplished that substantial roster makeover for minimal costs. That's what a good front office does. 

The Sabres have plenty of assets to parlay that include roster players, prospects and draft picks. With a little creativity and moxie it can be done.   Is KA up to the task? Based on his prior performance, that is a tall task. Although I'm skeptical that he can do it, I'm not ruling it out. 

I don't understand most of this argument and it comes up regularly.  That's not a dig, BTW.  I would dispute some of the points you've made, but at the same time, I fundamentally agree that KA has failed.  

I think we have made some B to C type of trades. I also think we've had two blockbuster trades, so I don't think it's true that we can't.  IMO, we could find a trade partner for Tage and Dahlin.  

There aren't many players I want to trade. Most that I would trade, I don't think have much value.  Then some of our young talent hasn't been realized to a point we'd get a developed player back that I'd want enough to give up on potential.

In summary, I don't share the belief that I have wanted KA to do more.  He's done a lot.  It just hasn't worked.  

[Warriorspikes51]

every other franchise would be looking for an entire new front office 

[JohnC]

15 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

I don't understand most of this argument and it comes up regularly.  That's not a dig, BTW.  I would dispute some of the points you've made, but at the same time, I fundamentally agree that KA has failed.  

I think we have made some B to C type of trades. I also think we've had two blockbuster trades, so I don't think it's true that we can't.  IMO, we could find a trade partner for Tage and Dahlin.  

There aren't many players I want to trade. Most that I would trade, I don't think have much value.  Then some of our young talent hasn't been realized to a point we'd get a developed player back that I'd want enough to give up on potential.

In summary, I don't share the belief that I have wanted KA to do more.  He's done a lot.  It just hasn't worked.  

The failure doesn't relate to the quantity of moves as it does the inadequacy of his moves. There are some here who insist that blockbuster moves need to be made to shake things up and jolt the roster.  I'm not one of them. If a massive deal could be arranged that is beneficial, then go for it. There is nothing wrong with making a number of B to C type trades (your description) if it improves your roster. He hasn't made enough of those type of deals to sufficiently improve the team. 

He's a GM of a team competing against other GMs who are acting with more purpose and creativity to constantly upgrade their rosters. Based on the record, he's not keeping up. I'm confident in saying that no other owner other than Pegula would have made this type of odd hire. To make things even worse, no other owner would have retained their GM with a similar record. 

Our owner hired someone who was ill-equipped for the job. His performance during his tenure demonstrates that. It's beyond past time for a change. This need not become a nuanced discussion about success and failure and why. Your record is your record.  

 

[JP51]

6 hours ago, JohnC said:

I wonder how much influence Karmonos has in the Sabre hockey operation? I'm aware that he's the GM of the Amerks but does he also have meaningful influence within the Sabre realm? I'm also aware that he hasn't relocated his residence to western NY. Although I'm sure he does spend a lot of time further north to attend to his responsibilities, does it diminish his influence within the organization? I wonder how things would change if Karmonos was elevated to the GM position that KA currently has with KA moving to a more ceremonial position as an overseer of the operation.  Just curious. 

I know some people have a high opinion on Karamonos... I dont know enough about him to say one way or the other...  I do know this... 

1. Kevyn Adams has proven himself incapable and we cannot reasonably believe that if he continues in the organization that he will walk on water and right the ship.

2. Terry and his disorganization from the FO to the players have devastated this brand to the point it repels most players that we would look to make a quick and meaningful change. 

So, the guy in charge is terrible and not capable... to make matters worse he and Pegula have devalued the brand so badly that they have cut off access to some of the best players available via trade or FA...  

So that means rebuilding through the draft or changing the brand image so players do not consistently put us in a no trade clause or will reasonably consider us in FA. 

To do that I think you need to get a hot GM and Assistants with a track record for turning the ship around and winning...  to at least begin to address scenario 2.  Then maybe you can find some folks that are a hard no currently to change their tune a bit because you have injected theoretical competence and hope... 

IF you go with Karamonos... and maybe he is the Mecca of GMs... I am not sure that his history of turning around franchises and winning championships etc.. satisfies point 2... or at least to the level that a proven GM with success does.  So with him you must accept the likelihood that  you are rebuilding through the draft at the onset... and the road to brand fixing is gonna be a bit longer...  not saying this is the wrong way... but this is how I see it... 

Edited 7 hours ago by JP51

[tom webster]

6 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The failure doesn't relate to the quantity of moves as it does the inadequacy of his moves. There are some here who insist that blockbuster moves need to be made to shake things up and jolt the roster.  I'm not one of them. If a massive deal could be arranged that is beneficial, then go for it. There is nothing wrong with making a number of B to C type trades (your description) if it improves your roster. He hasn't made enough of those type of deals to sufficiently improve the team. 

He's a GM of a team competing against other GMs who are acting with more purpose and creativity to constantly upgrade their rosters. Based on the record, he's not keeping up. I'm confident in saying that no other owner other than Pegula would have made this type of odd hire. To make things even worse, no other owner would have retained their GM with a similar record. 

Our owner hired someone who was ill-equipped for the job. His performance during his tenure demonstrates that. It's beyond past time for a change. This need not become a nuanced discussion about success and failure and why. Your record is your record.  

 

Again you can’t argue with the lack of results but other owners do occasionally make out of the box hires and they hit a home run, or in the case of the Philadelphia Eagles, a grand slam. People point to the need for experience despite the fact that some of the most successful hires were first time guys without the prerequisite background. Adams has been a failure but it’s not like he was an elementary teacher when they promoted him.

[Archie Lee]

9 minutes ago, tom webster said:

Again you can’t argue with the lack of results but other owners do occasionally make out of the box hires and they hit a home run, or in the case of the Philadelphia Eagles, a grand slam. People point to the need for experience despite the fact that some of the most successful hires were first time guys without the prerequisite background. Adams has been a failure but it’s not like he was an elementary teacher when they promoted him.

I wholly agree. Pegula took a shot on a bright young guy with somewhat of a related background. For a brief period (21-22 to 22-23), it seemed he might have been onto something. Then it went south. It’s time to take another shot at it. Maybe it’s a veteran guy and maybe it’s a newbie. There is no model guaranteed to succeed. 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, tom webster said:

Again you can’t argue with the lack of results but other owners do occasionally make out of the box hires and they hit a home run, or in the case of the Philadelphia Eagles, a grand slam. People point to the need for experience despite the fact that some of the most successful hires were first time guys without the prerequisite background. Adams has been a failure but it’s not like he was an elementary teacher when they promoted him.

An owner can make an out of box hire and have it work out well as you cite with the Eagles example. It's a risk but calculated risks sometimes pay be dividends. The case in Buffalo is different. KA had little experience as a front office candidate. When Terry P fired his GM because he wasn't willing to fire staff in an austerity move, there was virtually no reviewing the market for GM candidates. It was his typical limited insular search. 

When you compare his credentials and experience to be a GM compared to the normal manner in which owners make hires for that critical position, he was more like daycare teacher elevated to teach a college math class. It made no sense at the time and in hindsight. 

I'm sure KA is a fine fellow. He was never fit for the job and shouldn't have accepted it. His performance shouldn't be a surprise. And his retention on the job (so far) is an example why the owner is a depressing weight on this struggling franchise. 

 

[PerreaultForever]

Remember when Adams said he interviewed lots of people and then chose Ruff? I'm reading today that the Bruins have actually interviewed 16 different people and are waiting (likely) to also talk to Donskov (in Dallas). Just a comment to consider the differences between how franchises are run. 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I wholly agree. Pegula took a shot on a bright young guy with somewhat of a related background. For a brief period (21-22 to 22-23), it seemed he might have been onto something. Then it went south. It’s time to take another shot at it. Maybe it’s a veteran guy and maybe it’s a newbie. There is no model guaranteed to succeed. 

The issue I have with this particular hire is a reflection on how the owner has in general operated. There was no meaningful search to fill the position. It was based on an owner's whim. He's the owner and can do whatever he wants to do. That's the problem with him and how he has operated. If he had a legitimate search process to fill the position maybe he could have found a young underling candidate who worked with a successful franchise and was ready to make the jump. The process to hire KA was the same insular process used to hire Ruff. It was a limited and insular process that has kept this franchise as an outdated and out of step franchise. How about entering the modern world of NHL hockey and conducting business in a more intelligent manner?

[tom webster]

11 minutes ago, JohnC said:

An owner can make an out of box hire and have it work out well as you cite with the Eagles example. It's a risk but calculated risks sometimes pay be dividends. The case in Buffalo is different. KA had little experience as a front office candidate. When Terry P fired his GM because he wasn't willing to fire staff in an austerity move, there was virtually no reviewing the market for GM candidates. It was his typical limited insular search. 

When you compare his credentials and experience to be a GM compared to the normal manner in which owners make hires for that critical position, he was more like daycare teacher elevated to teach a college math class. It made no sense at the time and in hindsight. 

I'm sure KA is a fine fellow. He was never fit for the job and shouldn't have accepted it. His performance shouldn't be a surprise. And his retention on the job (so far) is an example why the owner is a depressing weight on this struggling franchise. 

 

Howie Roseman practically begged every NFL team for a job before the Eagles “hired” him as an intern. Five years later he was their GM. I could come up with ten more stories although not as crazy as his. Teams hire ex-players as GM’s all the time. People were jumping for joy when Terry hired Lafontaine.
 Hiring him has been an unmitigated disaster but the process has worked before. He was a well respected player, a team leader and has a masters agree. He was hardly the equivalent of a daycare teacher.

Again, I’m not advocating for him to be retained. I would have fired him last year but his hiring was not anymore out of left field then several other hires, including several that have hoisted a championship trophy.

[JohnC]

21 minutes ago, tom webster said:

Howie Roseman practically begged every NFL team for a job before the Eagles “hired” him as an intern. Five years later he was their GM. I could come up with ten more stories although not as crazy as his. Teams hire ex-players as GM’s all the time. People were jumping for joy when Terry hired Lafontaine.
 Hiring him has been an unmitigated disaster but the process has worked before. He was a well respected player, a team leader and has a masters agree. He was hardly the equivalent of a daycare teacher.

Again, I’m not advocating for him to be retained. I would have fired him last year but his hiring was not anymore out of left field then several other hires, including several that have hoisted a championship trophy.

Before KA was hired did the owner interview any other candidates? When the owner hired Ruff to be the new coach, did the owner interview any other candidates? Is that a smart way to do business?
 

When you conduct your business in an insular and whimsical manner it shouldn’t be a surprise that your franchise is considered to be a backwater and dysfunctional franchise. 
 

 

[dudacek]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Before KA was hired did the owner interview any other candidates? When the owner hired Ruff to be the new coach, did the owner interview any other candidates? Is that a smart way to do business?
 

When you conduct your business in an insular and whimsical manner it shouldn’t be a surprise that your franchise is considered to be a backwater and dysfunctional franchise. 
 

 

How did the thorough and professional searches that yielded Tim Murray and Jason Botterill end up?

How about the whimsical and insular hires of Rod Brind’Amour and Eric Tulsky in Carolina?

There is no magic formula; if there was everyone would follow it.

The Sabres haven’t sucked for a long time due to any one thing, as much as people need to find one. It’s through a series of poor choices exacerbated by the resulting fragility that has manifested within the organizational psyche.

TLDR: not enough good players and/or good leaders in the same place at the same time.

It’s not really any more complicated than that.

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

How did the thorough and professional searches that yielded Tim Murray and Jason Botterill end up?

How about the whimsical and insular hires of Rod Brind’Amour and Eric Tulsky in Carolina?

There is no magic formula; if there was everyone would follow it.

The Sabres haven’t sucked for a long time due to any one thing, as much as people need to find one. It’s through a series of poor choices exacerbated by the resulting fragility that has manifested within the organizational psyche.

TLDR: not enough good players and/or good leaders in the same place at the same time.

It’s not really any more complicated than that.

They had a thorough search for Murray? 

Terry Pegula is incompetent. It's not really any more complicated than that. 

[dudacek]

8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

They had a thorough search for Murray? 

Stretched it out for weeks.

People were accusing Lafontaine of dragging it out artificially and deliberately as way of fishing for intel.

[dudacek]

14 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

Terry Pegula is incompetent. It's not really any more complicated than that. 

As much as I agree with the bolded part, it’s proven that is nothing a sharp GM and capable coach can’t overcome

Edited 5 hours ago by dudacek

[JohnC]

14 minutes ago, dudacek said:

How did the thorough and professional searches that yielded Tim Murray and Jason Botterill end up?

How about the whimsical and insular hires of Rod Brind’Amour and Eric Tulsky in Carolina?

There is no magic formula; if there was everyone would follow it.

The Sabres haven’t sucked for a long time due to any one thing, as much as people need to find one. It’s through a series of poor choices exacerbated by the resulting fragility that has manifested within the organizational psyche.

TLDR: not enough good players and/or good leaders in the same place at the same time.

It’s not really any more complicated than that.

You are right that there are many reasons for a generation of failure. No one can dispute that. What can’t be challenged is that ownership matters. It sets the tone and creates the environment on how the franchise will be run. The record speaks for itself. And the empty seats on game day is a testament to that reality. 

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

As much as I agree with the bolded part, it’s proven that is nothing a sharp GM and capable coach can’t overcome

Who is the person who makes those critical hires?

[dudacek]

20 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You are right that there are many reasons for a generation of failure. No one can dispute that. What can’t be challenged is that ownership matters. It sets the tone and creates the environment on how the franchise will be run. The record speaks for itself. And the empty seats on game day is a testament to that reality. 

Who is the person who makes those critical hires?

Terry’s record indeed speaks for itself.

He is, however, the same guy who hired Brandon Beane and Sean McDermott and has left them alone.

He is capable of getting his way, even if by accident.

[Thorny]

No, we know the issue. We don’t spend to the cap and have the youngest team in hockey 

The answers are there and obvious

[Thorny]

It’s an elementary school logic problem: not all team that spend to the cap make the playoffs but teams that make the playoffs spend to the cap

will you make the playoffs if you don’t spend? No

will you make the playoffs if you spend? Not necessarily but you might

we haven’t spent to the cap or fielded the non youngest team in hockey for the duration of KA’s tenure 

Not making it when we did spend isn’t evidence to the fact that spending is irrelevant and it’s a terrible argument. Just because there’s no magic formula doesn’t mean there aren’t causation indicators that we DO know are causing the problems that they are indeed wilfully ignoring 

for purposes of this discussion there IS a magic formula to drastically increase our chances: not have an internal cap. They are indeed choosing to not win 

Edited 4 hours ago by Thorny

[dudacek]

17 minutes ago, Thorny said:

No, we know the issue. We don’t spend to the cap and have the youngest team in hockey 

The answers are there and obvious

And in 2021? 2017? 2013?

To be clear, you have jumped to a different conversation than the one between @JohnC and @tom webster that I was responding to: that conversation was about whether or not the current state of the Sabres is the inevitable result of not doing a thorough search for your leaders.

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

And in 2021? 2017? 2013?

To be clear, you have jumped to a different conversation than the one between @JohnC and @tom webster that I was responding to: that conversation was about whether or not the current state of the Sabres is the inevitable result of not doing a thorough search for your leaders.

Sample size 

 - - - 

2021 was a covid season full of anomalies in a bubble with odd divisions it shouldn’t be looked upon for much of anything 

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

And in 2021? 2017? 2013?

To be clear, you have jumped to a different conversation than the one between @JohnC and @tom webster that I was responding to: that conversation was about whether or not the current state of the Sabres is the inevitable result of not doing a thorough search for your leaders.

Didn’t even quote anyone lol 

Edited 3 hours ago by Thorny

[Thorny]

But a lot of these conversations bleed back into the same thing: until you admit that appearing at a Rochester game literally does not bear mentioning relative to our unwillingness to spend to the cap, and what that means for Terry’s commitment, you’ll go in circles

Almost everything Terry does is half assed where the Sabres are concerned: yes, that’s the answer for you. A lot of rich people behave this way: they see themselves so far above most others that to them, a 40% effort OUGHT to be enough, nay, rightly should be  

the sabres missing for 14 years straight is the opposite of a coincidence. And it’s not correlation: it’s causation. And yes, it’s inevitable. You can’t that many times in a row by chance: manual ineptitude. And what makes them so infuriating is I’m sick of hearing about how incompetent they are: cause that’s not it. They are willfully incompetent, which is much worse 

Yea, their non-thoroughness is a reason for the inevitable ineptitude. It’s the reason. Ownership is half assed. Why is this a question. I’ve been screaming this for 5 years I’m gonna start getting mad now: THEY AREN’T TRYING HARD ENOUGH TO WIN. What is non-thoroughness if not that? No stone unturned is what I say. They do they opposite 

the answers are in the room 

Edited 3 hours ago by Thorny

[Thorny]

They aren’t looking to make the playoffs: they are looking to make the playoffs while spending less

they aren’t looking for senior leadership: they are looking for senior leadership that will report to Kevyn Adams 

Manual. Ineptitude.