Post-Game Talk: Tim Murray Post-Deadline Presser

[Mattilaus]

I think his idea was to just award the top pick in some way or fashion, but now that I say that I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't just arbitrarily say 17 and meant it exactly. Because in his mind that's rewarding a team for working hard to make the playoffs and just missing them when in reality you would still face similar problems as today. Bubble playoff teams who are looking at a 1st round and out would try to align themselves to land there and so on and so forth.

I don't really see any way to eliminate what some call "tanking", or others call rebuilding through the draft by getting top picks. Even with the top 3 picks being lottery picks next year, the worst teams still have the best odds of winning the lotteries, and at worst would pick fourth overall. You truly want to stop teams from trying to do what the Sabres are doing than you probably need to make it so that last place isn't even guaranteed a top 5 or top 10 pick. Point is there is no perfect system. I saw someone suggest that all draft eligible players are just tossed into a free agency, and teams can sign whoever they want. I think that might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard because some teams will never be able to get top players unless they get lucky.

Keep the odds slanted the way they are but draw for every draft spot to 14th. Last place has a good chance to get a good pick but theoretically could fall all the way to 14th

 

[ADoubleD]

Work for it as in developing the best players, having the best support staff, building the best team. As opposed to building the worst possible team and at the end be rewarded with a supreme talent.

An analogy: If your boss is a complete moron and decides that if you meet your performance goals you will get a 10% raise, but if you are the worst performing employee in the company you will get a 25% raise to help you do better.

The 'smart' thing to do is to abandon all personal pride and work ethic and slack off all year, harder than any other losers in the company then take the 25% raise and pretend you earned it fair and square. What I would do would be to try to do my best possible work, and I'd resent whomever decided to slack of for a little more money.

Except that this isn't all about one player! What will it take to get this through people's heads. This rebuild is all about acquiring as many assets in the form of young prospects and draft picks as possible, the higher the draft pick and better the prospects the better obviously. The Sabres have so many young guys coming up, more guys to draft, and an abundance of assets to add good NHL players with. This rebuild is about much more than just Eichel or McDavid it's about building a team that from top to bottom can contend for years to come. There are going to be plenty of guys that are key contributors when this team is a contender that we either traded for, signed, or did not draft in the top 2.

Honestly if we ended up picking 4-6, and we walked away from this draft with Dylan Strome or Mitchell Marner I'd still be beyond pumped for the future of this team because they'd have plenty of pieces in place to be great it would just take a little bit longer. McDavid or Eichel make it more of a sure thing you become great, and it will most likely happen a lot sooner, if you have the right team around them.

 

[JThorne]

You guys are being trolled. It has to be that.

 

[Uberpecker]

The thing is, people do remember losers. I became a Buffalo fan the year they went to the Stanley Cup-finals, even though they lost to Dallas Stars.

Why? Because they were a hard-working team, nothing too flashy except for the guy in goal. But still, a team that was easy to like. Why? Because they played with heart, pride and passion to win every game.

And i would assume most of the people here became a fan of the loser-team, because Buffalo has never won the cup. We're all fans of a loser team and became fans of a loser-team, but that doesn't mean we don't have fond memories of those teams.

Let's do something unusual, let's use a wrestling-analogy to make a point. There are bad guys and good guys in wrestling. The bad guys are the ones that do everything to win, they might have passion, hard or be very skilled look no further than Ric Flair, but all in all, they wants to win at any cost. The good guys, stands up for what they believe is right, they try to be morally right, avoid cheating to win even if it's possible.

The problem here is, i see Buffalo, my team since i was a little kid, now stopped trying to do what was right, stopped trying to fight with dignity, honor and pride. Instead they have lowered themselves to tanking (let's get this out of the way, how the **** can you say they don't tank when you the next post cheer on the tank?) in the means of trying to win.

But the problem is, i believe it's just a selling-point from Tim Murray. We don't know if he is capable of building a good team. Tim Murray is a damn rookie who will try something that is hard and neither he or we know if those prospects people talk so fondly about, will become legit NHL-players. We don't know that, and neither does Tim Murray. But it's a selling-point for him to keep his job atleast some years.

I know i was a little bit more hot-headed yesterday, i try to keep my cool but it's hard. Especially when you're downright disgusted about what's going on, and how my fellow fans conduct themselves.

Winning isn't everything. And just because some people don't follow moral-codes, doesn't mean that yourself should avoid following your own.

Of all possible fields you use wrestling as a comparison for your melodramatic good vs. bad narrative, really? The one sports/entertainment that is so heavily scripted and staged, that you can't take anything that happens during a "fight" at face value?

Without going into that too deeply, the concepts of "good" or "bad" in their narrow senses might work in a highly artificial and staged context like wrestling, but in a more complex and realistic environment like a professional sports league, what might seem "bad" turns into "good" pretty quickly and vice versa. The other team's fighter that beats up yours in order to protect their skill player might look bad to you, but if he helps prolonging a superstar's career by doing that, he helps the whole sport of hockey.

Same on the team scale. Had Pittsburgh not "tanked" for Lemieux, the franchise might not be there anymore, possibly killing a future cash-cow for the league and the beloved team of thousands.

I just can't find anything unethical in rebuilding through the draft and "maximizing your future assets" as Tim Murray would put, as long as it takes place within the rules and as long as the on-ice performance isn't directly interfered with.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

Tim Murray interview (3/3/15) - 3:43 Mins

[nhl]768625[/nhl]

 

[Foligno17]

It sounds like some people are offended by the concept of a draft. Without the draft, the NHL as a 30 team league would not exist. Large market teams would dominate and a large number of teams would fail, leading to less overall revenue throughout the league. That won't be allowed to happen. So it will remain wise for failing teams to trade for future assets. The system dictates this. Finally, this is a system that works well to keep the entire fan base interested. I don't have a problem with it. I'm looking forward to next season.

 

[Correct]

The thing is, people do remember losers. I became a Buffalo fan the year they went to the Stanley Cup-finals, even though they lost to Dallas Stars.

Why? Because they were a hard-working team, nothing too flashy except for the guy in goal. But still, a team that was easy to like. Why? Because they played with heart, pride and passion to win every game.

And i would assume most of the people here became a fan of the loser-team, because Buffalo has never won the cup. We're all fans of a loser team and became fans of a loser-team, but that doesn't mean we don't have fond memories of those teams.

Let's do something unusual, let's use a wrestling-analogy to make a point. There are bad guys and good guys in wrestling. The bad guys are the ones that do everything to win, they might have passion, hard or be very skilled look no further than Ric Flair, but all in all, they wants to win at any cost. The good guys, stands up for what they believe is right, they try to be morally right, avoid cheating to win even if it's possible.

The problem here is, i see Buffalo, my team since i was a little kid, now stopped trying to do what was right, stopped trying to fight with dignity, honor and pride. Instead they have lowered themselves to tanking (let's get this out of the way, how the **** can you say they don't tank when you the next post cheer on the tank?) in the means of trying to win.

But the problem is, i believe it's just a selling-point from Tim Murray. We don't know if he is capable of building a good team. Tim Murray is a damn rookie who will try something that is hard and neither he or we know if those prospects people talk so fondly about, will become legit NHL-players. We don't know that, and neither does Tim Murray. But it's a selling-point for him to keep his job atleast some years.

I know i was a little bit more hot-headed yesterday, i try to keep my cool but it's hard. Especially when you're downright disgusted about what's going on, and how my fellow fans conduct themselves.

Winning isn't everything. And just because some people don't follow moral-codes, doesn't mean that yourself should avoid following your own.

Regarding calling the 1999 Sabres as losers, I was just making an extreme example. That team was a winner in every way until the last series. We fell in love with a winning team (I became a fan around the same time), we did not fall in love with a bottom of the barrel team, which further proves my point.

Regarding your wrestling analogy, that is too extreme as well. The Buffalo Sabres are not Ric Flair, like say the New England Patriots are with Spygate or Deflategate. We don't have the suspected Belichick/Brady mindset of do whatever it takes to win and if it's illegal, just don't get caught.

Rather, we are taking advantage of something that is "in style" right now among bottom-feeder professional sports franchises. It's a Moneyball strategy. Tank a lost season for a top notch prospect, in this case, two incredible generational prospects, thus making the plan even more profitable. As long as you don't outright purposely lose, you are not breaking any rules, so you field a team that is statistically more likely to lose than any other team.

If I could find a truthful adjective for what we are doing, I would say it is "slick". Similar to how real estate investors try to lowball an owner who they know needs to sell as quickly as possible and has no other alternatives. It's not illegal, but it is morally questionable. I would argue that tanking is less morally objectionable and more accepted among industry people than that example.

We are not "bad guys", we are just working the system in our favor. In a year where a top 2 draft pick possibly offers you a chance at a Stanley Cup in the future, the stakes are very high. High enough to look at every possible alternative that is not illegal to get one of those picks. That is what the organization is doing. I support it 100%.

 

[LaFontaineToMogilny]

He believes the trade deadline actions of non playoff teams is unethical... Why is anyone still indulging this nonsense?

Complete lack of understanding of the argument or intentional straw man? Who knows? Either way this is a meaningless contribution.

 

[LaFontaineToMogilny]

So the crux of your argument is that since you and Tim Murray have differing opinions on player value he is acting Unethically?

Who died and made you arbiter of the universe? Look up hubris. You're living it.

This is so far fetched and misses the mark that it's funny, but also a little embarrassing. In general I think name calling and insults are more effective if they are at least remotely grounded in a reasonable interpretation of the subject.

 

[Baccus]

My only question would be what era of the Sabres did you decide/start to follow/become a fan, because if you honestly looked at any Sabres (or any other NHL team) era, they wouldn't meet your ethical/moralistic standards. So this whole thing has been somewhat silly from my point of view.

 

[slip]

Complete lack of understanding of the argument or intentional straw man? Who knows? Either way this is a meaningless contribution.

What if a team clinches its playoff spot and decides to rest its top players for the last several games of the season? Is that ethical?

 

[jamers]

Complete lack of understanding of the argument or intentional straw man? Who knows? Either way this is a meaningless contribution.

It's a comment that bears discussion. Selling players off of a roster not destined for the playoffs is, by definition, taking a short term loss for future gains. (And is also done each and every trade deadline by many teams.) According to your words, teams should be trying to ice the best team every night, circumstances be damned.

Where's the line? Or is it just vaguely there and you're above describing where it is? Because that's what it seems like at this point.

We get you don't like tanking. What's irritating (and if you're trolling, well done) is that you dismiss counter arguments to your ethics in sports as missing the point, when you haven't really defined your point.

 

[Jame]

Complete lack of understanding of the argument or intentional straw man? Who knows? Either way this is a meaningless contribution.

Agreed. A basic summary of your nonsense is a meaningless contribution

 

[LaFontaineToMogilny]

Final post from me on this thread. It's not my intent to post and bail, but I don't have the free time available for this board to answer all questions and counterpoints in the way they deserve. I apologize for that and if anyone feels that they have points that are ignored or not answered, have additional comments or insults or similar, feel free to PM me away with it.

I've read the posts I've missed since last night and I'll try to address a couple of the common points briefly here and then I will leave this alone.

First, the obligation of a pro sports team is to make money, not win. I disagree with the premise. If we allow this to stand wouldn't that mean that Pegula is not fulfilling his obligation? Anyway, assuming this totally erroneous point is valid that would still not change a thing. Even if a sports team main objective is to run a profit it is still bound by the same ethical rules. A profit motive does not absolve the team from the moral obligation to attempt to win. That is a fundamental inherent rule of all sports, and in the case of the NHL even explicitly stated.

Second, several posters have attempted to show how the Sabres are not really tanking, just successfully rebuilding. As I have pointed out, there is no clear cut point where you can say that it's no longer a pure rebuild but a tank job. It's something everyone has to sort of decide for themselves. Everybody should do that mental work for themselves though. Just deciding that the Sabres are not tanking because it is a more comfortable way of thinking is intellectually lazy. This doesn't mean that I think everyone should agree with me that the Sabres are indeed intentionally losing, I respect well formed arguments for why they are just rebuilding. I do wish everyone would do a proper evaluation though and not just go to the most convenient conclusion.

That brings me to the point I've tried to make. It up to everyone to decide for themselves if the Sabres have crossed the line of acceptable 'tanking' or not. For me they have. That fact that many other observers feel the same way should be a prompt for anyone to do their own thorough evaluation. The defaulting to "They are haters" or "they are jealous" is too easy. Similarly, leaning on deflections and fallacies is also a lazy out. If you are tempted to justify the tank because the reward is so great, or the fact that if we don't tank someone else will the evaluation is on shaky ground. My intent is to spur people who has not made this thorough ethical examination to do so. Some might not even have considered that this is a process that they could go through.

Again, thank you to everyone who has brought up good points and counter arguments. Thanks to everyone who has been able to keep emotions in check and refrained from insults and belittling, smh to the ones who couldn't.

Let's Go Buffalo!

 

[Myllz]

That brings me to the point I've tried to make. It up to everyone to decide for themselves if the Sabres have crossed the line of acceptable 'tanking' or not. For me they have.

Nobody really has an argument with you thinking the tank is wrong. You can think whatever you want about that. It's the fact that you said you wouldn't be excited if the Sabres won a cup with McDavid or Eichel leading the team that makes everyone here question your sanity.

 

[Yatzhee]

Final post from me on this thread. It's not my intent to post and bail, but I don't have the free time available for this board to answer all questions and counterpoints in the way they deserve. I apologize for that and if anyone feels that they have points that are ignored or not answered, have additional comments or insults or similar, feel free to PM me away with it.

I've read the posts I've missed since last night and I'll try to address a couple of the common points briefly here and then I will leave this alone.

First, the obligation of a pro sports team is to make money, not win. I disagree with the premise. If we allow this to stand wouldn't that mean that Pegula is not fulfilling his obligation? Anyway, assuming this totally erroneous point is valid that would still not change a thing. Even if a sports team main objective is to run a profit it is still bound by the same ethical rules. A profit motive does not absolve the team from the moral obligation to attempt to win. That is a fundamental inherent rule of all sports, and in the case of the NHL even explicitly stated.

Second, several posters have attempted to show how the Sabres are not really tanking, just successfully rebuilding. As I have pointed out, there is no clear cut point where you can say that it's no longer a pure rebuild but a tank job. It's something everyone has to sort of decide for themselves. Everybody should do that mental work for themselves though. Just deciding that the Sabres are not tanking because it is a more comfortable way of thinking is intellectually lazy. This doesn't mean that I think everyone should agree with me that the Sabres are indeed intentionally losing, I respect well formed arguments for why they are just rebuilding. I do wish everyone would do a proper evaluation though and not just go to the most convenient conclusion.

That brings me to the point I've tried to make. It up to everyone to decide for themselves if the Sabres have crossed the line of acceptable 'tanking' or not. For me they have. That fact that many other observers feel the same way should be a prompt for anyone to do their own thorough evaluation. The defaulting to "They are haters" or "they are jealous" is too easy. Similarly, leaning on deflections and fallacies is also a lazy out. If you are tempted to justify the tank because the reward is so great, or the fact that if we don't tank someone else will the evaluation is on shaky ground. My intent is to spur people who has not made this thorough ethical examination to do so. Some might not even have considered that this is a process that they could go through.

Again, thank you to everyone who has brought up good points and counter arguments. Thanks to everyone who has been able to keep emotions in check and refrained from insults and belittling, smh to the ones who couldn't.

Let's Go Buffalo!

To long.
The bottom is, the NHL franchise known as the Buffalo Sabres have violated no NHL rules or bi-laws.
The NHL cannot, by it's own laws, tell an owner and their representatives of the organization how to manage their assets if it violates no rules.

As for the terms tanking versus rebuilding, cynics call it tanking, professionals call it retooling or rebuilding. And in the Sabres case, they are not only retooling or rebuilding the roster, they are rebranding the product to include a new on ice identity of the product, off ice investment of both the league and sport itself and finally, are a cog in a larger entertainment package being built by the Pegulas.

Short term sacrifice for long term success is common practice in business in some cases, this happens to be one of those.

 

[Matt Ress]

It's all silly. A franchise's obligation is to generate revenue for the owner. Terry Pegula does not have an obligation, the franchise has an obligation to him. Furthermore, "winning" is a competitive tool used by a franchise to achieve revenue that is obliged to the owner. "Winning" is not a necessity of a franchise, merely a tool. In this case, "winning" May not be a chosen tool by that franchise at that time. And "Trying"...there is no trying in business.

 

[wunderpanda]

It's all silly. A franchise's obligation is to generate revenue for the owner. Terry Pegula does not have an obligation, the franchise has an obligation to him. Furthermore, "winning" is a competitive tool used by a franchise to achieve revenue that is obliged to the owner. "Winning" is not a necessity of a franchise, merely a tool. In this case, "winning" May not be a chosen tool by that franchise at that time. And "Trying"...there is no trying in business.

I agree with this on its own, as long as Pegula makes money he has no obligation or incentive to put a good product out there. Between the waiting list for season tickets, league revenue sharing, tv money and good crowds, this rebuild can theoretically last as long as the fanbases patience.

Not sure it fits with the ethical question that was raised though.

 

[Clock]

"Starting today, the Buffalo Sabres' reason for existence will be to win a Stanley Cup."

 

[chadthestampede]

"Starting today, the Buffalo Sabres reason for existence will be to adhere to a strictly ambiguous ethical code"

 

[Reddawg]

"Starting today, the Buffalo Sabres' reason for existence will be...oh hey look, the Bills are up for sale!"

 

[slip]

"Starting today, the Buffalo Sabres' reason for existence will be...oh hey look, the Bills are up for sale!"

 

[vcv]

"Starting today, the Buffalo Sabres reason for existence will be to adhere to a strictly ambiguous ethical code"

You made my morning, thank you.

 

[Yatzhee]

"Starting today, the Buffalo Sabres' reason for existence will be to win a Stanley Cup."

tried it one way, not successful. If at first you don't succeed.......

"Starting today, the Buffalo Sabres reason for existence will be to adhere to a strictly ambiguous ethical code"

What ethics would those be? Loyalty of product for the wallet, the NHL or the localized fan base?

"Starting today, the Buffalo Sabres' reason for existence will be...oh hey look, the Bills are up for sale!"

A businessman from a region doing business, in the entertainment sector, color me shocked.

Where's the references to the overwhelming capital invested in infrastructure for hockey..........hmmmmmn

 

[Matt Ress]

I agree with this on its own, as long as Pegula makes money he has no obligation or incentive to put a good product out there. Between the waiting list for season tickets, league revenue sharing, tv money and good crowds, this rebuild can theoretically last as long as the fanbases patience.

Not sure it fits with the ethical question that was raised though.

It definitely doesn't but fundamentally, it is a business. And, in this case, the consumer is not calling for a better product, because of the "promise" of a future great product.

If the players were asked to throw games, or decided to throw games on their own, an ethical line would be crossed. Then, and only then, would ethics even be part of the discussion. It's not unethical to supply a ****** product. Especially when you're telling consumers that it is a ****** product. Also, the league exists because the team's exist, not the other way around. Sure, it's a governing body but rebuilds such as this one can occur because other owners understand the value of it and may have done it themselves or feel they may need to at some point.