PASabreFan Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Yes, but when he wanted to have some fun running for public office he had NO CHANCE of winning, he flushed tens of millions of dollars down the dumper. A double-flusher, too -- I think he ran twice. When he bought the Sabres, I suspected it would be a vehicle to win some votes in WNY, or an expensive toy for an egomaniac, as is the case with many sports team owners. Either way, I thought it boded well for the Sabres. Now I'm certain he's "running it like a business" for one reason -- to sell it. Buy low, knowing the game and the league's financial outlook would improve dramatically, fix it up and cash in. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Yes, but when he wanted to have some fun running for public office he had NO CHANCE of winning, he flushed tens of millions of dollars down the dumper. A double-flusher, too -- I think he ran twice. When he bought the Sabres, I suspected it would be a vehicle to win some votes in WNY, or an expensive toy for an egomaniac, as is the case with many sports team owners. Either way, I thought it boded well for the Sabres. Now I'm certain he's "running it like a business" for one reason -- to sell it. Buy low, knowing the game and the league's financial outlook would improve dramatically, fix it up and cash in. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. I don't know very much about it, but I'm sure he gained something out of running for governor. Whether he gets some kind of tax write off, makes sure his ideas are heard, or actually thought he had a serious shot at winning, he didn't consider it to be a waste of money. There are a few possible reasons why he bought the team. The political motivations, like you mentioned are near the top of that list. Another thing that comes to mind is that he wanted to strengthen the economy in his home town (or home region, WNY, however you want to think about it). Yes, its a long process, but a stronger economy in this area means more money for him and his family in the long term. Then there's another idea, maybe he wanted to provide for the WNY area because he loves it. From day one when he bought the team, Golisano stated that he wanted the Sabres to be a self-sustaining opperation. Why would you ignore comments like that and think that the team would be a toy for his ego? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Yes, but when he wanted to have some fun running for public office he had NO CHANCE of winning, he flushed tens of millions of dollars down the dumper. A double-flusher, too -- I think he ran twice. When he bought the Sabres, I suspected it would be a vehicle to win some votes in WNY, or an expensive toy for an egomaniac, as is the case with many sports team owners. Either way, I thought it boded well for the Sabres. Now I'm certain he's "running it like a business" for one reason -- to sell it. Buy low, knowing the game and the league's financial outlook would improve dramatically, fix it up and cash in. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. So maybe he's just a selfish bastard who wants to show the team can make money and sell it for a profit ... to me that IS good for the Sabres ... like, in that they will still exist. If he did choose to treat them like an expensive toy and spend his own money to the cap limit, it's still no guarantee it would win a Stanley Cup, and he would soon get bored and want to get rid of a team that is bleeding money. And we could kiss them good-bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frisky Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 For teams like us, these things are inevitable. With our model, to keep competitive, we are going to have to draft well, develop the young talent and hope they produce until we can't afford to keep them any longer. JP has hit the point where we probably won't be able to keep him any longer and we just have to keep filling with apples fresh off the tree. No hard feelings towards JP as I know if I could get a substantial raise in pay at my job in the next year, I'd be saying where at cause I'll show up! I know I'm hoping for a raise in the next few weeks and if not I have to look ahead at see if I stay here or try to find some place that will pay better. Just that no one going to pay me millions...or even 6 figures. But there's always Lotto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFan Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Well, if I was on vacation and someone (in the media) asked me about my future employment, I would tell them I love my job and hope to stay with my current organization for the foreseeable future. If I had told them I thought my boss was cheap and I was hoping to leave as soon as possible to cash in at an opportune time, I would expect to have the locks changed on my office door and to look elsewhere for employment. Maybe it's just me though... :rolleyes: The reference was made 'on the golf course (shocker)' which is what I was commenting on, not his actual comments. I saw an interview and heard no such thing cross his lips. Different interview who knows... but to take a jab at the fact that he was golfing (and for charity) was not relevant since he is on vacation. That was the point :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 The reference was made 'on the golf course (shocker)' which is what I was commenting on, not his actual comments. I saw an interview and heard no such thing cross his lips. Different interview who knows... but to take a jab at the fact that he was golfing (and for charity) was not relevant since he is on vacation. That was the point :) Looking back I shouldn't have quoted you. I was thinking about replying to PASabrefan but I didn't want to start something with that cranky bastard. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCBoston Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 I'm shocked -- SHOCKED, I tell you -- that a player would be excited about making big money. I can't believe it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Yes, but when he wanted to have some fun running for public office he had NO CHANCE of winning, he flushed tens of millions of dollars down the dumper. A double-flusher, too -- I think he ran twice. When he bought the Sabres, I suspected it would be a vehicle to win some votes in WNY, or an expensive toy for an egomaniac, as is the case with many sports team owners. Either way, I thought it boded well for the Sabres. Now I'm certain he's "running it like a business" for one reason -- to sell it. Buy low, knowing the game and the league's financial outlook would improve dramatically, fix it up and cash in. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. Ah, I love a crusade! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Looking back I shouldn't have quoted you. I was thinking about replying to PASabrefan but I didn't want to start something with that cranky bastard. :P Oh yeah? You know what you can do with the pickle in your avatar? shrader, my impression that Golisano was an egomaniac who would spend like Popeye on Schnapps was formed while he was talking about buying the team. Once he took over, it became pretty clear he was going to run it like a Subway franchise. "Don't put too much cheese on there! What am I, made of money? You're fired, punk!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabregoats Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 I don't understand how a lot of you can be so cold-hearted and crass about the business of hockey, almost obsessively worried about ensuring the struggling Tom Golisano a profit, then get all emotional and illogical when a player takes the same tack. It works both ways. Both sides will do what benefits them. Now, about the "Patriot approach." I don't know. No player is bigger than the team? Tom Brady isn't? You know what that guy makes? Are the Patriots Super Bowl champs several times over without that guy? What are they right now without him? It seems to me the Sabres with Hasek in goal were more like the Patriots than they are now. I guess I don't get it. If keeping payroll low, getting rid of players once they hit their big contract and plugging in cheap spare parts is the key to success, how come everyone isn't doing it? When you find a Hasek or a Brady and surround them with a good coach and enough talent, that's when you win. Luck might have more to do with winning in sports than people think. Darcy has said as much about "The Plan." I am sorry but Tom Brady is not the reason that the patriots won those super bowls. He is a good QB with a great team, that team would have been still great with another QB he was just lucky to walk into that situation. The Sabres were an OK team with a great Goalie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Oh yeah? You know what you can do with the pickle in your avatar? shrader, my impression that Golisano was an egomaniac who would spend like Popeye on Schnapps was formed while he was talking about buying the team. Once he took over, it became pretty clear he was going to run it like a Subway franchise. "Don't put too much cheese on there! What am I, made of money? You're fired, punk!" Oh, so you own a Subway franchise... :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Hey, if Tommy G. likes short-term contracts so much, how about season tickets that are refundable after each month of the regular season? Hmmm? hopeles, I wasn't saying Dumont is our Tom Brady! I was just ridiculing the notion that New England has this master plan that works to perfection. IMHO, their "plan" works only because the Pats have Tom Brady -- and, oh yeah, Bill Belichick. I guess I just don't like master plans. Hitler's rubbed me the wrong way, then you had all those nutty Soviet five-year plans. Despite the fact that I have given you numerous opportunities, you have yet to comment on the fact that many of the big spenders last off season didn't have very successful seasons. In fact, some of them looked one dimmensional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 There are always exceptions to the rule. Generally speaking, though, over the years, there has been a correlation between spending and winning. Who were some of the big spenders in recent years? Colorado. Dallas. Detroit. Cups. The Tampa Bay Lightning were a rarity of the past 20 years or so, and maybe even unique in this regard: they didn't spend at least the league average in payroll and still won the Cup. (They did spend just a little under the average, if I recall correctly.) The Hurricanes also were not big spenders. Maybe things are changing. I hope so. It would appear to be our only chance. hopeles, would you like to comment on how so many of the low-spending teams were atrocious this season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFan Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Looking back I shouldn't have quoted you. I was thinking about replying to PASabrefan but I didn't want to start something with that cranky bastard. :P ROFL aaah I see... so you picked this cranky bastard instead Hmmmm... maybe I should say cranky bitch :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 There are always exceptions to the rule. Generally speaking, though, over the years, there has been a correlation between spending and winning. Who were some of the big spenders in recent years? Colorado. Dallas. Detroit. Cups. The Tampa Bay Lightning were a rarity of the past 20 years or so, and maybe even unique in this regard: they didn't spend at least the league average in payroll and still won the Cup. (They did spend just a little under the average, if I recall correctly.) The Hurricanes also were not big spenders. Maybe things are changing. I hope so. It would appear to be our only chance. hopeles, would you like to comment on how so many of the low-spending teams were atrocious this season? For starters, most of your comments are based on how teams fared under the old CBA. Buffalo, Carolina, Edmonton and Anaheim were not really big spenders last off season. Yes, Carolina did bring in some extra help after Cole went down, but they still weren't really throwing money around. My point is, that most of the teams who spend big have most of their money invested in a couple of big name players. I would honestly much rather be in the Sabres position, of having 4 good lines and 6 good defenseman, and a good goalie, than a team like the Devils who have some star power, but are also over the cap with nowhere near a complete roster. If you want to spend big, it's going to cost some depth. EDIT: Again, I think you are not listening to what people actually say, but arguing with what you would like them to say. No one is saying the Sabres should go out and spend the cap floor. However, we are saying don't overspend on players. Also, don't spend money that the team doesn't have. When the team makes more money, it can spend more. So if you want the team to spend more money, go to a few games, buy some food while you're there, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 For starters, most of your comments are based on how teams fared under the old CBA. Buffalo, Carolina, Edmonton and Anaheim were not really big spenders last off season. Yes, Carolina did bring in some extra help after Cole went down, but they still weren't really throwing money around. My point is, that most of the teams who spend big have most of their money invested in a couple of big name players. I would honestly much rather be in the Sabres position, of having 4 good lines and 6 good defenseman, and a good goalie, than a team like the Devils who have some star power, but are also over the cap with nowhere near a complete roster. If you want to spend big, it's going to cost some depth. Nashville was a playoff team with a very small payroll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 There are always exceptions to the rule. Generally speaking, though, over the years, there has been a correlation between spending and winning. Who were some of the big spenders in recent years? Colorado. Dallas. Detroit. Cups. The Tampa Bay Lightning were a rarity of the past 20 years or so, and maybe even unique in this regard: they didn't spend at least the league average in payroll and still won the Cup. (They did spend just a little under the average, if I recall correctly.) The Hurricanes also were not big spenders. Maybe things are changing. I hope so. It would appear to be our only chance. hopeles, would you like to comment on how so many of the low-spending teams were atrocious this season? At the start of the regular season, there were only 7 teams with payrolls below $32MM (these 7 teams payrolls were actually below $29MM). 4 of these teams made the playoffs, 2 of these were in the conference finals, and 1 won the Stanley Cup. 2 of the other 3 teams were mediocre (Florida-85 points, Minn-84) and 1 was legitimately bad - Washington. So are we calling 80+ point seasons atrocious, or has Washington opened up branch offices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 There are always exceptions to the rule. Generally speaking, though, over the years, there has been a correlation between spending and winning. Who were some of the big spenders in recent years? Colorado. Dallas. Detroit. Cups. The Tampa Bay Lightning were a rarity of the past 20 years or so, and maybe even unique in this regard: they didn't spend at least the league average in payroll and still won the Cup. (They did spend just a little under the average, if I recall correctly.) The Hurricanes also were not big spenders. Maybe things are changing. I hope so. It would appear to be our only chance. hopeles, would you like to comment on how so many of the low-spending teams were atrocious this season? You are forgetting the correlation between spending and revenue. Again, fans who complain that Golisano should just throw his money away are deflecting from the bigger problem. It's simple. If you and others that want the Sabres to open up their check books and become a top spending team should open up your check book's and make them a top revenue team. If someone could explain to me why an owner of a sports franchise owes it to the fans to spend well beyond their revenues to make the team a winner I would be greatful? Why should someone who has a great business mind that put him into the position to be able to buy a team should disregard all he knows and just start throwing money away? I am also a Red Sox fan and I hate that King George spends over $200 million a year on players (that's = to $1 billion dollars since their last World Series win). He does so becuase because the $200 million doesn't come close to eating up all his revenue. Like it or hate it's good business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodfella25 Posted July 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 The reference was made 'on the golf course (shocker)' which is what I was commenting on, not his actual comments. I saw an interview and heard no such thing cross his lips. Different interview who knows... but to take a jab at the fact that he was golfing (and for charity) was not relevant since he is on vacation. That was the point :) Would you relax and take a deep breath? Good. Now that you are done trying to paint me up as someone who is against charity or something, you should know that my comment of "that's a shocker" meant wow a hockey player on a golf course in the offseason, surprise surprise....how does that get turned around into "that @sshole dumont, how dare he golf for charity??? You need to chill out before you just go attacking someone on the board here pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 Buffalo, Carolina, Edmonton and Anaheim were not really big spenders last off season. Yes, Carolina did bring in some extra help after Cole went down, but they still weren't really throwing money around. Actually, Anaheim had a high payroll number going into the season. Remember, they had to move Fedorov early in the season to free up some space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 At the start of the regular season, there were only 7 teams with payrolls below $32MM (these 7 teams payrolls were actually below $29MM). 4 of these teams made the playoffs, 2 of these were in the conference finals, and 1 won the Stanley Cup. 2 of the other 3 teams were mediocre (Florida-85 points, Minn-84) and 1 was legitimately bad - Washington. So are we calling 80+ point seasons atrocious, or has Washington opened up branch offices? Yes. The Baghdad Bombers and the Kabul Rockets both missed the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 You are forgetting the correlation between spending and revenue. Again, fans who complain that Golisano should just throw his money away are deflecting from the bigger problem. It's simple. If you and others that want the Sabres to open up their check books and become a top spending team should open up your check book's and make them a top revenue team. If someone could explain to me why an owner of a sports franchise owes it to the fans to spend well beyond their revenues to make the team a winner I would be greatful? Why should someone who has a great business mind that put him into the position to be able to buy a team should disregard all he knows and just start throwing money away? And you might be forgetting the correlation between winning and revenues. Let me ask you a question, even though no one on here will ever answer a question, myself included. Let's say the Sabres were as bad as everyone thought they were going to be last season. They finish 10 games under .500 and lose $4 million instead of making $4 million. What would you do if you were Golisano? I have never advocated the Sabres spending to the cap or Golisano "throwing his money away." It's called investing your money. I'm on record as saying I would be happy with a 20% increase, to about $36 million. You will not hear me complaining if he makes this kind of commitment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 Actually, Anaheim had a high payroll number going into the season. Remember, they had to move Fedorov early in the season to free up some space. I forgot about the Federov move. My mistake. Still 3 of 4 is not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddaryl Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 Funny Spacek apparently didn't take notice of this when he was signing for more than $3 million a year. There is a difference between being cheap and picking your spots to spend your money. No doubt the Sabres will not spend to the cap limit, but neither will half of the league, I'm not sure it makes them all "cheap." And by the way, Golisano didn't become a billionaire by spending more than he makes and running his companies into the ground. For some reason that seems to be what some want him to do with the Sabres. Let's let the thing play out and see where payroll is this season. It's looking like it will be quite a bit higher than last season ... responsible without being "cheap." This is not my complaint. My complaint is that even in a salary cap league we are not financially equal. I do not expect Golsiano to use his personal cash to fund the team, I do expect the NHL to have a revenue system that puts all teams on equal footing. If 1/3 of the teams can't afford to spend to the salary cap, then the only purpose of the cap was to limit what the big markets can spend. In other words the salary cap in place is only a band-aid, it didn't fix much with the NHL financially IMO. We're still the piss poor team who has to live my a different financial model. Sure poor teams can have success, but I want more long term players on our team. Not players who come into their own then hit UFA and we let them go to try and find a cheaper replacement. I have no problem with letting a player or 3 go, but our model is too continually develope players then trade them or let them walk when they hit the UFA mark. That I don't like. How many UFA's do we have on the Sabres that are original Sabres draft picks. Most of our UFA's are replacement players who were the less expensive options wether by trade or by FA. My other complaint is that we are purposesly low balling our RFA's instead of being fair and signing them to solid 3 and 4 year deal. By fair I mean what the market would be willing to pay .If players are being forced to eat 1-2 year deals there not going to feel that great about staying with the Sabres long-term when they hit UFA status. In other words I forsee more and more players willingly moving to other teams just because the Sabres aggeesively kept their RFA's to short term club favored affordable deals. If the Sabres don't start spreading some love to their RFA's there will be a negative backlash, and other players will mumble between themselves. It may be the competitve way to run the business finacially, but I can't see how it's going to keep morale up on the team knowing that every year a handful of teammates are going to leave for greener more secure pastures. I can go on and on, but I don't like the financial position the Sabres are forced to play in. Maybe Darcy is the ultimate super-genius who will do nothing but pick FA gold, but odds are the continual swapping of players on the Sabres roster will probably keep us as the bridesmaids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFan Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 Would you relax and take a deep breath? Good. Now that you are done trying to paint me up as someone who is against charity or something, you should know that my comment of "that's a shocker" meant wow a hockey player on a golf course in the offseason, surprise surprise....how does that get turned around into "that @sshole dumont, how dare he golf for charity??? You need to chill out before you just go attacking someone on the board here pal. Good Gawd attacking you? Sounds like you need to chill a bit :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.