Chris Johnston: The Sabres yearly struggles are "a concern at the league level"

[#freejame]

9 hours ago, tom webster said:

A) it’s not uncommon for big holding companies to focus on problem areas of their business

B) The Shanahan stuff has been deemed hogwash by most reputable sources

C) The doom and gloom is not universally shared and some national publications list Buffalo in the more improved and fringe playoff range.

D) Most of these media pundits have an agenda

E) The league’s bigger problem is the divide between the halves and halves nots which they try and hide with their silly points system.

This has been true much of the last 10 years. That doesn’t mean those people have all been wrong when it’s all said and done. 

[Mango]

1 hour ago, #freejame said:

This has been true much of the last 10 years. That doesn’t mean those people have all been wrong when it’s all said and done. 

I'll add to this that sure, the doom and gloom isn't "universally" shared.  But that's basically a technicality.

If you asked my 100000 year old grandma about the Sabres she'd talk about what a nice boy Alex Tuch is.

But if you asked 100 people on the street about the Sabres 88 of them would say "they suck".

So sure, there are a couple of "Grandma Mango's" in every group. But it's still "universally agreed upon" that the Sabres suck.

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, Big Guava said:

It doesn't even make sense. Typically if a team struggles for a long period of time it's because they draft very poorly.  This is not the case with the Sabres. They have drafted very well for the most part.

It's nearly impossible to be this bad for this long with their drafting track record.

Not entirely true. A lot of very high picks so a lot of players but how many Sabres picks do we have on the roster aside from the 2 number one overalls? Quinn, UPL, Samuelsson as guys who should be good by now. Benson and Kulich (and maybe Kozak) as young prospects on the roster. Is that really a great draft haul for a team this bad this long? 

How have the later rounds worked out for us? Now they rarely work for anybody, but you really can't say we have "drafted very well". 

[SwampD]

12 hours ago, tom webster said:

A) it’s not uncommon for big holding companies to focus on problem areas of their business

B) The Shanahan stuff has been deemed hogwash by most reputable sources

C) The doom and gloom is not universally shared and some national publications list Buffalo in the more improved and fringe playoff range.

D) Most of these media pundits have an agenda

E) The league’s bigger problem is the divide between the halves and halves nots which they try and hide with their silly points system.

Freudian slip? Or do you mean whatever talent good teams have, the Sabres have half that amount?

[inkman]

35 minutes ago, Mango said:

I'll add to this that sure, the doom and gloom isn't "universally" shared.  But that's basically a technicality.

If you asked my 100000 year old grandma about the Sabres she'd talk about what a nice boy Alex Tuch is.

But if you asked 100 people on the street about the Sabres 88 of them would say "they suck".

So sure, there are a couple of "Grandma Mango's" in every group. But it's still "universally agreed upon" that the Sabres suck.

I mean who hasn’t searched grandma’s mangoes for Christ's sake 

[PromoTheRobot]

8 hours ago, jahnyc said:

I think the point in the pod cast was that Byram (maybe, more specifically his agent) may still want to go to free agency in two years even if traded to a team that wants to sign him long term.  Any team interested in Byram would take that into account in terms of the value they will be willing to give up for him.

Instigators podcast? Chad D?

[tom webster]

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

Freudian slip? Or do you mean whatever talent good teams have, the Sabres have half that amount?

Good catch.

5 hours ago, #freejame said:

This has been true much of the last 10 years. That doesn’t mean those people have all been wrong when it’s all said and done. 

Valid point.

[tom webster]

7 hours ago, MattPie said:

https://thehockeynews.com/news/latest-news/nhl-summer-splash-rankings-no-32-buffalo-sabres

 

I’m not sure anyone considers the hockey news a major publication anymore but two things;

1) I didn’t say it was universally accepted 

2) it’s no coincidence that old school hockey people don’t like the Sabres approach.

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, tom webster said:

I’m not sure anyone considers the hockey news a major publication anymore but two things;

1) I didn’t say it was universally accepted 

2) it’s no coincidence that old school hockey people don’t like the Sabres approach.

Old and new school hockey people don’t like the Sabre approach for the primary reason that it hasn’t work. There are a variety of methods to success. The problem for the Sabres is that it is ineptly implemented.

[Cranky old man]

The league should be beyond worried, when one of its owners acts like a feckless used car salesman with one of their precious franchises. Or does Pegula’s success with the Bills and the Bandits make them as delusional about his impact on their success as he is? 

[JP51]

Bottom line to me we have seen this show in some variation 14 times... we made some precursory changes by trying to get a bit better defensively and grit wise by removing offense and one of our better young offensive players... still need a G, and a C... the more it changes the more it stays the same most people will view this until it actually does change. Maybe it will maybe it won't but I can't blame the same ol same old folks... I am probably one of them hoping against hope a new mix of player finally gets it to click... but deep down i know that isn't a likely forgone conclusion... 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, JP51 said:

Bottom line to me we have seen this show in some variation 14 times... we made some precursory changes by trying to get a bit better defensively and grit wise by removing offense and one of our better young offensive players... still need a G, and a C... the more it changes the more it stays the same most people will view this until it actually does change. Maybe it will maybe it won't but I can't blame the same ol same old folks... I am probably one of them hoping against hope a new mix of player finally gets it to click... but deep down i know that isn't a likely forgone conclusion... 

A C?  Do you mean center or assistant coach(es)?  Team could use at least 1 more good 1 of each.

[Big Guava]

12 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Not entirely true. A lot of very high picks so a lot of players but how many Sabres picks do we have on the roster aside from the 2 number one overalls? Quinn, UPL, Samuelsson as guys who should be good by now. Benson and Kulich (and maybe Kozak) as young prospects on the roster. Is that really a great draft haul for a team this bad this long? 

How have the later rounds worked out for us? Now they rarely work for anybody, but you really can't say we have "drafted very well". 

Reinhart, Eichel, Dahlin?  2 of them aren't here anymore but they did draft them.

[Indabuff]

2 hours ago, Cranky old man said:

one of its owners acts like a feckless used car salesman with one of their precious franchises. 

Feckless fracking featherhead 

[LTS]

22 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Don't you think Buffalo has been fringe playoff for the past three off seasons (counting this one)?   Yet there was a portion of last season when the Sabres were last in their conference and the solution was said to be in the room.    

What is the media pundits agenda with regard to the Sabres?  And don't say more clicks because that pretty much applies to every story on every team in every league.  

Agree on (E), the divide between the haves and the have-nots.   One solution is to take away the no trade/ no movement clauses.  Which will probably never happen.  

More food for thought.  I got this from Google AI

List of Stanley Cup finals viewership by metro area:

Data regarding specific Stanley Cup Finals viewership by metro area is not always readily available in a comprehensive, publicly released list. However, some individual ratings for specific markets have been released, especially for regions with a strong hockey following

For example, data from STLtoday.com shows the following television ratings for the 2024 Stanley Cup Finals: 

West Palm Beach, Fla.: 6.9

Miami: 6.2

Buffalo: 5.4

Pittsburgh: 4.2

Las Vegas: 3.5

Detroit: 3.4

Minneapolis: 3.3

Fort Myers, Fla.: 3.3

Boston: 3.3

Denver: 3.1 

It's important to note that viewership can fluctuate depending on various factors, including the teams involved in the final, the networks broadcasting the games, and the overall sports landscape at the time. For example, the 2025 Stanley Cup Final, shown on cable channels only, saw lower U.S. viewership compared to previous years when some games were broadcast on over-the-air television. 

 

Any way you want to slice it, the Buffalo hockey market has been getting a big disservice from their teams ownership.  At some point being just happy to have a team will go away.  

 

 

These ratings are percentages right?  And that matters since the league makes money on people, not on percentages.

not scientifically gathering population to make sure all sources are the same and I am rounding  but:

• Buffalo - 1.125M = 61K viewers
• Pittsburgh - 2.457M = 103K viewers
• Las Vegas - 80.5K viewers
• Detroit - 4.3M = 148K viewers
• Minneapolis - 3.75M = 124K viewers
• Boston - 4.9M = 162K viewers
• Denver - 3.05M = 94.5K viewers

In the end, Buffalo is the lowest in that list to actual people who spend actual money. It's good to know that Buffalo has a strong percentage of hockey fans but in the end, it's a small market with a lower amount of wallets to be opened.

Now, factor into all of that the cost of living in each of those locations and the amount spent on "entertainment" and that's what REALLY matters.  Not sure how high Buffalo ranks.

[JohnC]

6 minutes ago, LTS said:

These ratings are percentages right?  And that matters since the league makes money on people, not on percentages.

not scientifically gathering population to make sure all sources are the same and I am rounding  but:

• Buffalo - 1.125M = 61K viewers
• Pittsburgh - 2.457M = 103K viewers
• Las Vegas - 80.5K viewers
• Detroit - 4.3M = 148K viewers
• Minneapolis - 3.75M = 124K viewers
• Boston - 4.9M = 162K viewers
• Denver - 3.05M = 94.5K viewers

In the end, Buffalo is the lowest in that list to actual people who spend actual money. It's good to know that Buffalo has a strong percentage of hockey fans but in the end, it's a small market with a lower amount of wallets to be opened.

Now, factor into all of that the cost of living in each of those locations and the amount spent on "entertainment" and that's what REALLY matters.  Not sure how high Buffalo ranks.

The reason why the wallets in the area are not opened for the Sabres is because the product has consistently been inadequate. Compare that to the Bils and the Bandits where the wallets are opened and the seats are filled? If you count southern Ontario and the surrounding region as part of the hockey market, then the market is wider than many people portray. 

[JP51]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

A C?  Do you mean center or assistant coach(es)?  Team could use at least 1 more good 1 of each.

Well i meant Center but absolutely assistant coaches for sure 

[SwampD]

I just wonder how much (if at all) TP’s influence spills over to coaching. The fact that Ruff answers directly to him is a concern.

Forget about talent on the ice, the biggest gap with the rest of the league might actually be with the talent behind the bench.

Until that gets addressed, I think the Sabres will continue to underperform.

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

These ratings are percentages right?  And that matters since the league makes money on people, not on percentages.

not scientifically gathering population to make sure all sources are the same and I am rounding  but:

• Buffalo - 1.125M = 61K viewers
• Pittsburgh - 2.457M = 103K viewers
• Las Vegas - 80.5K viewers
• Detroit - 4.3M = 148K viewers
• Minneapolis - 3.75M = 124K viewers
• Boston - 4.9M = 162K viewers
• Denver - 3.05M = 94.5K viewers

In the end, Buffalo is the lowest in that list to actual people who spend actual money. It's good to know that Buffalo has a strong percentage of hockey fans but in the end, it's a small market with a lower amount of wallets to be opened.

Now, factor into all of that the cost of living in each of those locations and the amount spent on "entertainment" and that's what REALLY matters.  Not sure how high Buffalo ranks.

The thing is Buffalo helps with the American average and viewership percentages.

Even with a smaller real number we create a legitimate percentage booster when kept at a macro level.

[KC Scouts]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

These ratings are percentages right?  And that matters since the league makes money on people, not on percentages.

not scientifically gathering population to make sure all sources are the same and I am rounding  but:

• Buffalo - 1.125M = 61K viewers
• Pittsburgh - 2.457M = 103K viewers
• Las Vegas - 80.5K viewers
• Detroit - 4.3M = 148K viewers
• Minneapolis - 3.75M = 124K viewers
• Boston - 4.9M = 162K viewers
• Denver - 3.05M = 94.5K viewers

In the end, Buffalo is the lowest in that list to actual people who spend actual money. It's good to know that Buffalo has a strong percentage of hockey fans but in the end, it's a small market with a lower amount of wallets to be opened.

Now, factor into all of that the cost of living in each of those locations and the amount spent on "entertainment" and that's what REALLY matters.  Not sure how high Buffalo ranks.

So then by extrapolation our NFL viewership numbers are insignificant too.....Correct?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Who ??

 

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

These ratings are percentages right?  And that matters since the league makes money on people, not on percentages.

not scientifically gathering population to make sure all sources are the same and I am rounding  but:

• Buffalo - 1.125M = 61K viewers
• Pittsburgh - 2.457M = 103K viewers
• Las Vegas - 80.5K viewers
• Detroit - 4.3M = 148K viewers
• Minneapolis - 3.75M = 124K viewers
• Boston - 4.9M = 162K viewers
• Denver - 3.05M = 94.5K viewers

In the end, Buffalo is the lowest in that list to actual people who spend actual money. It's good to know that Buffalo has a strong percentage of hockey fans but in the end, it's a small market with a lower amount of wallets to be opened.

Now, factor into all of that the cost of living in each of those locations and the amount spent on "entertainment" and that's what REALLY matters.  Not sure how high Buffalo ranks.

Good info @LTS.   I don't know if the hockey ratings are straight percentages but a quick Google told me that TV ratings are expressed as a percent of the population (1.0 is 1%) so it is a reasonable assumption to say yes to that question.  

The second part - factoring the cost of living and average amount spent on entertainment is beyond the scope I am willing to go.  

First part - As you know "Buffalo Metro" does not include the portion of Southern Ontario that comes to their Metro area regularly, attends Bills and Sabres games, and spends money.   This is an unfortunate disadvantage and it makes their scores lower than the reality of the actual situation.  

So is your bottom line that the NHL should not care about Buffalo and they are not a viable market?  

What will happen in Salt Lake City if they go even 4 straight years of no playoffs?  The league would hate that after they failed in Phoenix.  

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, Big Guava said:

Reinhart, Eichel, Dahlin?  2 of them aren't here anymore but they did draft them.

But they are not here. You can't say we have the guys we got from picks we traded for if we are unloading the guys we picked to get those picks. There's no progress there. What we got for Eichel and Reinhart does not equate to what they are.

Dahlin as I said was one of the two first overalls. I'm not going to say "we drafted well" when we pick the top ranked overall #1 pick cause we were first pick. Nobody is going to say Islanders GM was a genius this year for picking Shaefer. You could also argue we should have taken Draisaitl not Reinhart but what would be the point of that?

The point is IF we were truly great at drafting we'd have a roster filled with our draft picks and we would have hit on several lower picks as our bottom six and depth at least so we wouldn't have to trade for that and keep getting that wrong as well. 

Considering how high we consistently get to pick and how many extra picks we have, our drafting has been mediocre at best. 

[Pimlach]

11 hours ago, tom webster said:

I’m not sure anyone considers the hockey news a major publication anymore but two things;

1) I didn’t say it was universally accepted 

2) it’s no coincidence that old school hockey people don’t like the Sabres approach.

I have a huge family in Buffalo.  I have 7 nephews and 4 nieces in the area ranging from 21 to 38.   Six of the boys played youth hockey and love the game.  None of them will by Sabres tickets, the last one that did just gave up his seats for this season, he is 34.  None of the girls or their husbands attend games either.  

I think the new school hockey people don't like the Sabres approach either.  An entire generation of the fan base only knows losing.  

I don't think you can find a single demographic that likes the Sabres approach.  

[Thorny]

20 hours ago, Big Guava said:

It doesn't even make sense. Typically if a team struggles for a long period of time it's because they draft very poorly.  This is not the case with the Sabres. They have drafted very well for the most part.

It's nearly impossible to be this bad for this long with their drafting track record.

Well, ya - because it’s a choice. They aren’t actually stupid, they understand they are literally handcuffing their chances of winning by prioritizing savings. They are bad on purpose, in that very real sense 

1 hour ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:

Who ??

 

Nachoooooooooooooo