Sabres, Balsillie and The News

People on this blog, in e-mails, on other message boards, on talk radio and in the offices of HSBC Arena have asked: A) why didn't we have much on Tuesday's Toronto report saying Tom Golisano talked to Jim Balsillie in December about selling the Sabres; and/or B) whether The News and its writers have an "agenda" against the team.

The answers are easy. Let's start with A. While the sale talks from December might be considered news, it's hardly breaking news. Here is an excerpt from Bucky Gleason's column that ran Feb. 10:

"Over the past several weeks, there have been rumblings about the Sabres going up for sale. It sounds like Flip This Franchise. Make cosmetic changes, such as the uniforms, give fans a little ride and watch its value soar. Meanwhile, they've stripped the insulation, in this case the scouting department and farm system.

"Talk about nice flips, Minnesota sold for $260 million nine years after it was founded for $80 million. Edmonton is going for $200 million, while 10 years ago a group of investors pooled together $85 million for the club. Investors have a $206 million package for Tampa Bay, which Bill Davidson bought for $115 million in 1999.

"Golisano bought the Sabres for about $60 million, although some argue it was $92 million. Regardless, Forbes had the Sabres' value pegged at $162 million, which would amount to a pretty good score.

"Blackberry founder Jim Balsillie, who could line up $100 bills from here to his native Hamilton, wants an NHL team. I could see him being interested in the Sabres. Great hockey town, solid future, close to home."

There was a reason Balsillie's name was there. Believe it or not, we actually talk to people and research our stories. We don't just make stuff up.

And therein lies the rub. People don't believe we research our stories, or they do believe we make stuff up. A poll a few years ago revealed that only 25 percent of people think the honesty and ethical standards of journalists are "high" or "very high." It's a tough bias to overcome, even though a study showed journalism is one of the country's most morally developed professions.

Our job on the Sabres beat, in general terms, is to deliver to the readers what is going on at the foot of Washington Street. That's our only agenda. We don't control whether the news is "good" or "bad" in the eyes of fans. As Bucky has said, it's funny that we only get an agenda when the team goes from first overall to missing the playoffs. No one claimed we had an agenda when the team was making the right roster moves and going to consecutive conference finals.

As an aside, I've been dreading writing this for two days now. I don't believe in the mantra of he who yells loudest and longest gets their point across best. I have little desire to toot our paper's horn, so to speak, because I think (or used to think) people notice quality work without getting beat over the head with it. I don't spend much time discovering what people think of our last story, because after it's written, it's time to think about the next story. But the misinformation and outright bashing have been so pervasive during the last few days that even I noticed it.

---John Vogl

Comments

[Tom]

Let's bring this one back up for some air.

What's the difference between my shoe, Larry Quinn, and Hank Paulson?

At least my shoe has a soul.

[Sports and Business]

Personally, I am waiting for the "The Little Man who Could NOT" articles. Just like in Buffalo, Briere is getting bounced ALL OVER THE ICE. Maybe Regier knew was he was doing after all....

I love to see any ex-Sabre fail miserably. Dru-Who? Soup Swoon? GOOD RIDDANCE.

[jan]

What's done is done-- I personally don't want to see any more articles about mistakes made with Briere, Drury, etc. or whether the team might be sold, etc. Time to move on. Not much will happen until late June -- write stories on what happens then. I'm waiting for stories about which players stay, which ones are shown the door, will they sign Tim Kennedy, etc.

[David, North Bay]

I can see how the prospect of a sale to Basillie would worry those in Buffalo that by doing so would sound the death knell for the teams exsistence in the Queen City. But I also see a very passionate hockey fan with a boat-load of money who in my opinion would be willing to spend, not just for the team, but for salaries required to build and maintain a contender. I believe the NHL has been crystal clear with regards to the Sabres if they are ever sold. No movement.
Yes the Sabres are the poster-child of a small-market team, but that same small market teams demise would have a serious impact on the NHL as a whole. Don't kid yourselves about the level of support this team has, and the interest it creates, not just for it's own team, but the NHL as a whole.
I've been a Sabres fan since the begining and it would break my heart to see them relocate to ANYWHERE, I'm still holding onto the same dream of 1970, to bring an NHL champoinship to the city.
Big Jim has money, and lots of it, to not look seriously at offers from him, would be foolhearty in both the short and long term.

[Punch]

Heather B - whose Sabres blog is great - said everything here that I would've said. Spot on, sister. The team's beat writers on the paper are more than competent - but Bucky's act has worn rice paper thin; I haven't read something of his for going on 10 months.

[Chad]

Steve, it is very unlikely that such a rule would be struck down under federal antitrust laws. If the rule has been collectively bargained for (and even if it is a bylaw, it will be incorporated by reference into the CBA), the labor exemption will almost surely shield the rule from antitrust scrutiny. Owner approval of a move is a prerequisite in almost every sport and was utilized most recently in the NBA/Seattle Sonics fiasco. Either way, I don't think the rule is unlawful.

It seems that Balsillie is very much like Clay Bennett in the aforementioned Sonics/OK City debacle. He's saying all the right things but anybody with half a brain knows what his intentions are. I really don't think Golisano will ever sell to him. Balsillie should continue his quest to purchase a Sun Belt team and move it North.

[steve in the dacks]

Bucky Gleason;
I just don't get you sometimes, it seems you are doing everything possible to contribute to the decline of Buffalo. Selling to Balsille is the worst possible sale that could happen. That man will stick a gun to this city's head every year with the threat of movement of the team for whatever reason he wants. I live near Montreal and have heard quite few opinions that believe US anti-trust laws would sink the NHL's majority vote of the owners. You are incredibly naive to think selling to Balsillie is good for the BUFFALO Sabres it would however be good for the HAMILTON Sabres. Furthermore, what is the benefit of calling Golisano an idiot for not selling which is essentially what you are doing. Golisano is not perfect and he will certainly sell the team but at least give him credit for standing by our city and refusing to sell the team to an owner that will do everything possible to move the team. Balsillie would have no qualms about becoming another Irsay by bringing in the moving vans in the dead of night. He's got the money to fight it out with the NHL and is spoiling for a fight.

I do believe your columns have become a means to grinding your personal axe with the Sabres. Your writing no longer informs the public without your personal grudges becoming very prominent.

[Sports and Business]

Tom,

The sad thing is we agree on one thing: The days of Buffalo as a 2 sport town are gone. Personally, I would rather see The Sabres survive than The Bills. 40 game seasons (home) are more suited to small markets.

Actually, I think Wilson and The Bills are going about it the right way. How much more can you ask of Wilson? If there is any other way to telegraph to a community you are moving, I'd like to know.

And if you buy into the fact that Buffalo is too small for 2 teams, then it's not a bad thing. The Sabres will be stronger. For those diehard football fans, drive to Toronto.

[Tom]

Sorry S+B....shouldn't have been so snarky to you. I understand going on facts, but I guess the paranoia comes in because I have seen the song and dance of guys like Quinn, Golisano and Darcy...and I feel I can pidgeon hole them pretty well. I get defensive sometimes because it is tough getting people to look beyond the car in front of them and at the semi truck coming the other way that is ready to plant you into the median.

You make good points about the micros involved in both cases. I just find it very odd that Quinn would come out and use oil as an excuse in multiple press conferences. Nobody asked him about it, and Schoop and Bulldog laughed the issue off when they had him on the air. He could very easily point back and say "Look, I thought a small market like Buffalo could be competitive in a stagnant environment...but with inflation running out of control and Canada having much more of a say so, we really can't field a team anywhere near the salary cap. We wouldn't want to cheat the people of Buffalo by fielding a bad team. It was in everyone's best interest to move on."

I may be off figuring that Quinn doesn't have the type of money he is looking at in a sale, but when Golisano purchased the team, he was really only coughing up $30 million in cash. I can see Quinn getting 5% of the team for putting together the deal. He probably cashed in $1 million or so each year between his salary and team profit. If the team is sold for $200+ million, you are talking $10-13 million for Quinn. Who knows, he may even have up to 10% depending on the structure of the deal. It is hard for anyone to turn down a payout of 10x-20x of their yearly take.

I understand that the writing looks to be on the wall for the Bills, but an economic disaster would put the league itself into some trouble. There could very easily be 5 or so teams that are better candidates to move or be sold if franchise values get lopped off 30% in the major markets. That could make Buffalo just as profitable and viable as some of the teams in the top half of the league...by staying in Buffalo.

There should be some interesting times going forward. Trust me, I am not a longwinded guy for the most part. The issues we have been discussing the past 6 months with the Sabres and Bills are not simple hit and run issues. I agree with the poster here who said that there could be a bit of investigative reporting going deeper with the News. It is one thing to get coach-speak from Jauron after a game, but it is another thing when an organization won't even talk to you. Something tells me that we don't have much of an upgrade from the Rigas clan right now, and I hope that the city doesn't find out the hard way.

[Sports and Business]

Tom,

Last thoughts, issues that effect a company directly usually trump economic concerns.

Every business, in and out of sports, will have to deal with the dollar and oil. Therefore, your point is not moot, but only directionally correct.

If I heard you correctly, the major risk as Sabres fans is that Quinn needs to cash out which is sheer speculation, but does make a good yarn. I just don't buy it, sorry. And even if you are right, there is no cause for concern for Sabres fans. If Golisano is a good of a businessman as I think he is, he uses the opportunity to buy him out. If Quinn is the mighty hockey executive, Tommie has sufficient flow to keep him above water. The value of this franchise grows from here. Even if it is sold, it doesn't move from Buffalo.

My case is based on facts. The Bills are playing one less game in Buffalo than they did last year. Ralph Wilson will not live forever. Where I speculate is that it won't take 5 years for this to play out. Either way, the Sabres will benefit in the next 5 years. They will raise ticket prices. They will have more revenue. They SHOULD be able to spend to the cap. They SHOULD stop whining about economic conditions to Genny Cream slewing slobs like you and I who have real economic problems related to oil. That Tommie Boy makes one less million doesn't concern his customers who have to buy one less gallon of milk to buy one more gallon of gas. When those same folks buy one less Bills ticket, they will buy one more Sabres ticket. When this happens, no one should listen to any Sabre executive whine about profits. Oh, and if they are as good of business executives as you and I pretend to be, they should be investing into this growth, not cutting into it. But who am I?

BTW, my handle is a shot at The Sabres and The Bills. They run their teams like a business but ask us to look at them as sports. They need a financial return, we are asked to throw dollars at them as though they were idols. Seems ironic to me and frankly insulting. But for 40 plus years I have bought into it. Who is to blame then?

I'm not out to destroy sports, just whine a little bit about how insulting it is to hear Quinn, Regier and others tell me that "it aint my money they are spending" cause it is, or at least it was.

BTW, I mean nothing personal to you either. You seem smart but a little paranoid.

There. I proved I can write a long note too.

[dan]

My problem with the Buffalo News is that we need an investigative reporter to cover the sabres. Someone who will dig one step deeper. I remember years when the news gave you ten Bills articles and a recap of Sabres. It could be like Philly where you have two sports radio stations talking 24-7 on the eagles.

[Tom]

S+B....

What would you like me to say? All I am doing is giving fair warning. I said by the fall of 2009 the Sabres will probably be sold.

I am expanding on the very things Larry Quinn has said. Is that not relevant? Quinn says that the CBA was not drawn up for teams like Buffalo to operate at the salary cap, but underneath the cap. The dollar is getting killed and small teams will not be able to come close to spending to the cap if the situation worsens. Good ol' Larry said that shouldn't be a factor in the longrun, because "many economists" see oil, which is directly related to the dollar, going back down to $70 a barrel.

Guess what. Oil was at $105 when he said that a month ago. It was at $120 the other day when the subject was first brought up. It is over $125 as I type this.

I don't trust the management group to begin with...hiding in their bunkers all year was a slap in the face to any self-respecting fan. For Quinn to put legitimate economic factors out on the table, then to have the situation go just the opposite way he "wanted or expected", it is just another reason on top of what is already out there for the team to look and cut bait.

If you feel I am being pompous and will change my handle when I am proven wrong...what handle do you suggest? I know "Sports + Business" is much less pompous than "Tom". I want to be more like you....just a regular guy, not touting anything.

I guess I should have just said..."Golisano's gonna sell the F'n team", then wet burped up my Genny Cream Ale.

[Sports and Business]

Tom,

I know you are here for your own grandisement. "Oh Tom, you are SOOOO smart!"

Are you satisfied? I am betting you are going to spell check grandisement and correct me.

Nice try though, it's still micro not macro economics. But keep peddling your nonsense as you look for validation.

Time will tell. I think you said by Fall correct? Which means you will be changing your screen name in The Winter and reappearing as a newbie...

[Tom]

Sorry..

Uncle Warren own Buff News

He little nicer than Uncle Rupert

Buff News size of big church bulletin

[Tom]

S+B....Quinn has used the Dollar as an excuse. Go find the transcripts.

I'll put it all in a summary for those that don't want to read.

USA buy shiny toys from China and Gooey Oil from Middle East for many decades

USA pay on credit card

USA banks and citizens use credit card to buy big house, shiny toys, and pretty pieces of paper

USA citizen have not enough money to pay USA bank

USA bank not have enough money to pay other USA bank

Nobody have money to pay USA government big taxes

Big Bank in sky make more pretty paper so USA bank can pay other USA bank

Middle East no longer accept credit card for Goey black stuff because Big Bank in sky make so much more pretty paper

USA send lots of big boats to Middle East to make sure we still get Black Goey stuff

Big Boom go off very soon

Middle East picks on USA friend and make more Big Boom

USA citizen pay half of pay check to make Car Go and Belly Full

USA Citizen and Company no more pretty paper and credit card to sit in pretty club seat and skybox

NFL owners go "boo-hoo"

Buffalo not scared because Buffalo still in 1973.

New USA Obama make Tommy G pay all his money to Government

Bettman go "boo-hoo"

Larry Quinn live East Amherst in big house looking at hockey score on new Blackberry he get from friend Basillie

Tweed coat now good again
Jerry Sullivan handsome

Uncle Rupert shut down some of paper Buff News size of church bulletin

Hope that helped!

[Sports and Business]

Tom,

Your post is too long, and long winded.

The dollar has NOTHING to do with the fact that the Sabres are in for a windfall when the Bills bolt.

The Sabres are more valuable due to the Bills defection. Simply put, if I can't buy a Bills ticket, I will buy 2 Sabres tickets. That is until they raise the price.

So macroeconomics aside (thanks for the breeze) micro economic forces are at play here. The Sports fan in Buffalo just lost an option (The Bills). If I am Golisano, I stake my health against Wilson's. Wilson probably won't see 5 years so the Bills will be long gone by then (sorry Ralph). When The Bills bolt, they free up tens of millions of dollars for The Sabres to soak up ANNUALY. Do a net present value on that and you will see there is no way the Sabres sell. If they do, I will buy. My guess is anyone who buys does not move the franchise. I will say again that the NHL won't let the franchise move.

The silver lining is that The Sabres will have no excuses then. If they are greedy it will be obvious. Of course, most will keep shelling it out anyway...

[BBQ]

The "bought and paid for" Hamilton on The Voice of the Sabres isn't as bad as Schope, who will go to just about any length to praise the management of the team. I can't listen to that station anymore. Now, it's the Sabres "road to redemption" all summer. Hey guys, how about discussing the reasons why redemption is even needed? Because Schope is management's mouthpiece, and most of our "sports station" is nothing more than a cheerleading squad in Buffaslug jerseys, I look forward to the Buffalo News coverage. At least they'll take a stand against something the team does.

[Mark B]

I read this blog regularly but rarely comment. But I have to say - I also stopped reading Bucky's columns. Most people have said it well in this thread, but Mr. Gleason's bitterness and lack of respect for the team and fans completely turned me away from him. On one hand he acts like the voice of the fan (which he is not) and on the other hand he blasts us for the way we cheer our team.

I admit the Sabres have made mistakes in the past but I think we still have a good core and I moved on from our old friends Briere/Drury last August or so. I'm a Sabres fan, not a Drury and Briere fan.

I generally like John and Mike's work for the most part. There's subtle jabs at the Sabres mistakes occasionally, but unlike Sully and Gleason, their writing doesn't come across as venom. And they don't treat their readers like idiots.

[Tom]

I'd like to see who is lending new money against a hockey team right now. The NFL has put out a directive to owners to clean up their balance sheets because we've only seen Round 1 of the credit crunch. Now that some of the big banks are back on decent footing for the next 3-6 months, they have the ability to start yanking bad loans that they couldn't a few months ago. The consumer is already coming up short on spending, and no matter how recession-proof Buffalo is, I find it highly doubtful that the Sabres will match '07-'08 revenues next year, let alone what they did the two years before that.

If the US goes into a prolonged economic slump, which is a reality, the NHL may not be a viable league in 5 years. At the very least, I find it hard to believe the Sabres will be worth much more in 5 years than they are today. The league had to give away their television rights for free during the biggest boom in consumer discretionary spending history. What makes anyone think there is any pent up demand during a recession?

Larry Quinn has mentioned macro-economic factors and the price of oil the past two sets of press conferences. On July 7, 2007 after the Vanek signing, he stated that the Sabres couldn't match the salary cap if the cap kept rising at the level it was. He blamed the rising cap on the falling US Dollar and it's relation to Dollar pegged Oil. At that time, the Canadian Dollar was worth 90 cents US. Quinn then came back this April and stated the same thing. He felt the loss of the Dollar was an anomaly and that Oil would retreat to the $70 a barrel level, sending the Canadian Dollar back to historical levels. Well, just since that comment in April, oil has gone from $105 to $124 a barrel. We have added 12 warships to the Persian Gulf in the past 3 months. The Dollar continues to weaken, and is only supported by foreign interests to protect their lending levels and exports. The Canadian Dollar is on par with the US, but can break out again at any moment as the US Dollar is bumping against key support levels that once broken through, can fall apart in a hurry. Larry says we need $70 oil to field a competitive team on a long term basis....Goldman Sachs just put out the call for $200 oil in early as 6 months.

Like I have said, at that point there are many more important issues than hockey, and Quinn agrees. Just the fact that Quinn was throwing out those numbers in the first place during a press conference leads me to feel he is setting up the undertones for a sale.

Gloom and doom isn't any fun, but this is reality. In an ironic twist, these same conditions will probably limit the chances of the Bills moving. Ralph has zero debt, the Buffalo community is already priced in at recession levels on a regular basis and is buffered on the downside, and a prolonged slump will bring more of the high flyers down to our level and limit the financing chances of a new owner, as stadium deals default or never get off the ground and giant corporations slash their costs and people.

In a great market I think this team was being prepped for sale. In the current market it makes too much sense not to happen. Then again, sense and the Sabres front office never really go hand in hand.

[Steve]

I believe the number one reason why Bucky Gleason no longer has any credibility as a jounralist is because he writes all of his stories in hindsight (a really well written point on the blog The Goose's Roost). Every story is a reaction to an event that's happened so he can always spin it to fit his agenda. It's become ridiculously tiring. I feel like I'm being scolded 2/3 the time I'm reading his articles for being an ignorant, loyal fan. He no longer masks his bitterness towards the Sabres's brass and it seems he gets upset with his reader's for not buying into his perspective. It's become old and he comes off as a bitter, boring journalist. Give us game analysis the day after big games, give us puff pieces on the Sabres' players, give us well thought out criticism that's backed up by relevant stats. But enough with Black Sunday and not having Drury and Briere anymore. Everyone else has moved on. He needs to do the same. There are intelligent fans in this area. Start writing up to our level, Buckster.

[Sports and Business]

Tom,

Larry's equity interest in this team can be used as collateral. Maybe not in this market, but certainly 2-3 years ago when money was easy. If he is that cash sensitive, he could have borrowed against his interest.

Now, if he did and made bad investments, then that is another story. But the cash will only grow from here as the value of the franchise rises. The "life changing money" only goes down if Larry does a bad job and the value of the franchise declines.

Larry is not going to find many better investments in this marketplace than a sports franchise in a 2 sport town that is about to become a 1 sport town. The Bills are as good as gone and that doubles, if not triples, the value of the Sabres. Selling now would be like letting Briere and Drury go again...Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Casey]

I find it funny that you guys blast TBN for a lack of objectivity on the Sabres, then praise Paul Hamilton, who works for the bought and paid for voice of the Sabres.

Irony, that.

[Blocity]

You guys call yourself writers? Talk about poor writing. I read your articles because i expect perfection!

What the heck am i doing paying for a subscription to a newspaper if i dont completely agree with everything you say.

I pay your salary so i expect you to write things only I agree with! What kind of a country is this, you fools with your pens and your papers on the "beat" whatever the hell that is. If you dont start writing articles that are 100% along with my opinions and views, well i may just have to not read the sports section.

In fact my whole life revolves around the sports section! When i pick up the paper i expect to have my opinions justified tenfold!

Why cant you be more like Fox news?

What a joke! Go back to college guys, college journalism 101 always write articles that your readers agree with, perfection is key! if i wanted opinions i would read the opinions section of the newspaper! And we all know that is the lamest section of the newspaper.

Maybe i'll start my own newspaper or write for the free WNY sports journal i read at jims steakout because artvoice is too intellectual for me(talk about wrong opinions!). And that is always like 3 weeks behind on sports happenings.

but i wont do that because i'm lazy and angry and got a 400 on the verbal SATS, so i'll just bash you on your blog because you'll never know who i am.

sucks to be you
love, me

[Heather B.]

I hate the incessant pounding of the same issues - 5/25, Drury's contract, Briere's arbitration etc. - and I hate the way those things have gotten shoehorned into everything from a column about Todd Marchant winning the Cup to an Inside the NHL column about Lou Lamoriello (especially since that column made a dig at Sabres management by pointing out that the Devils have all their upcoming UFAs re-signed already which isn't true in the case of a few players, namely Jay Pandolfo, one of the more important players on the team).

My main problem with the News' coverage however is the condescending tone that the columnists have taken on this season. It's one thing to say, "This is what I think" and it's another thing to say, "This is what I think and you're stupid if you disagree." Bucky Gleason has told me all year that I don't get it, that I don't understand what's going on, that I can't like the current team or boo departed players without approving of everything management has done over the past couple of years. I feel like he's taken an increasingly haughty tone with the people who he is allegedly speaking for (and that's according to him, not me). Does he really need to take potshots at Sabres fans for booing players who no longer play for them by making a comparison to one of the few times Philly fans have cheered something appropriate (Jeremy Roenick's 500th goal)? How am I supposed to respond to him suggesting that I'm worse than the fanbase that has a history of throwing things at people and booing players who take longer than 10 seconds to regain consciousness?

I quit reading Bucky after his ridiculous column about Drury's return to Buffalo in which he implied that half the fans in the building clearly didn't appreciate what Drury meant to the Sabres during his time here (I came across the bit about the Flyers fans on another blog) and I'm happier for it. He wasn't writing anything about what was going on on the ice with this year's team anyway so I don't think I missed much.

For the record, I have zero problem with the beat writers and reporters covering the Sabres.

[Jimmythegeek]

God bless the passion from both sides here — that's what makes this a great hockey town. That being said, could your britches get any bigger, Johnny?
The ultimate irony of this entry is that you say "believe it or not, we actually talk to people and research our stories. We don't just make stuff up," soon after the excerpt, "over the past several weeks, there have been rumblings about the Sabres going up for sale. It sounds like Flip This Franchise."
Where's the attribution there, Johnny? Rumblings?
If Bucky, et al, want to express their opinion, I personally have no problem with it. That's what gives talk radio the ability to fill entire days worth of programming. But to insist that you're the only media outlet to do things correctly just negates your argument that the media is unjustly untrusted. Don't you trust the other media? Is the Toronto Star making things up? Don't they talk to people?
YOU REFUTE YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, BONEHEAD!
Give us your opinion, that's fine. Just don't tell us how good you are, then expect us to take you real serious.

[Tom]

Elma...

I don't consider you a blind loyalist. You put together valid points and it isn't just the basic meat and potato answers. I'm talking about the "You aren't a real fan...F You!" crowd. Heck, even if you did work for the Sabres, you would have an excuse to try and defend your position. I agree that it isn't simple black and white.

My opinion is worthless as well. Opinions mean little when everybody has one and swings it like a sword. Any qualification I may have to comment on the front office is useless, as I am nothing but words on a blog page. Between myself and Elma, we are two examples of the lack of trust in general when it comes to current media and on a side, internet interaction. I have behind the scenes knowledge of Big Business, Politics, Professional Sports and how they all intertwine, yet Elma many times has told me to leave the complicated operation of a NHL franchise to the professionals. On the other hand, I am so jaded when it comes to money and lying to the customer or stockholder, that I have accused Elma of having connections to the Sabres organization.

Elma may have a connection to the Sabres, and I may be a Mister Softee driver...but the bottom line is that we are in a time where greed runs wild, and few want to extend the benefit of the doubt. In a traditional sense, a News Reporter is supposed to present the facts with no bias...but many in the public don't care what the facts are anymore. They want to feel good, and will do and say what they want in order to feel "in control". If that means calling Bucky Gleason names to keep the positive image of Buffalo hockey in their head, then they'll call him names.

On the subject of the sale...all we can do now is wait and see. If I see Pominville and Miller signed to long term deals, then I will call off the dogs. Signing a few prospects to total deals that combine to less than what one year of Ryan Miller will cost does not impress me, and smacks of a PR shot in the arm as season ticket invoices go out over the next few weeks. In my opinion, the best of men would have a hard time turning down the money involved in the sale of the team at this point in time. Because it didn't happen in December does not mean it won't happen over the next year. The franchise has been run too tight for me to believe money is going to be left on the table. Remember...Golisano isn't crying for cash, but the sale of the team could mean life-changing money for Larry Quinn.

Follow the $$$$$

[Sports and Business]

2 points:

Bucky is more of a fan than a journalist and I'm ok with it. This is sports, not world politics. Like they aren't biased there either...

I like reading most of your posts but candidly only read the short ones. It's like the comics...I will take BC over Prince Valiant any day. I'm lazy and proud of it.

[ElmaGolf]

Tom - good points - I have a few thoughts on your ideas.

"..things are so muddled that you can't expect to have an honest debate anymore. Nobody steps back, looks at the information, and says.."you know?, he could be correct!"

Tom, that's kind of what I've been saying as long as we've known each other on the Boards. The "extreme" black and white reactions keep people from having real debates - the reality of a situation is usually more nuanced than the extreme polar opinions.

"If you do your job and question those in power, the loyalists gripe that you have an agenda."

I think you probably group me into the "loyalist" group, but that's not really true. Those in power should be subject to some "questioning." That's why I prefer to use the term "imbalance of perspective" instead of the term "agenda" when I make my criticism of some of the writings. I don't think Bucky intentionally tries to grind an axe. HOWEVER, his blatant "imbalanced perspective" really is not conducive to any positive discussions. He "riles up" one of the extreme points of view, with no discussion of any counterbalancing considerations (even in cases when he is fully aware of the "counter balancing" argument from his own writings years earlier). If his "goal" is simply to create a "furor" with imbalanced statements, that's fine - he does his job. But that comes at a cost of losing credibility as an objective journalist & reporter.

"Then you have the current generation that just wants to beat you over the head with their worthless opinion."

Wow - and I've been the one accused of being "elitist" in the past.

"If you see it for what it is worth and don't pay attention to it, you look weak. If you battle in the trenches with your writing, you get viewed as unprofessional. You are in a no win....especially in this city."

I'm not sure why it's unprofessional for one of the writers to "defend their point" - I'd prefer to see it more, but also understand they probably don't have the time to do so. In the spirit of "debate," it would be great to see. But if it gets into name calling and insults, obviously that's not productive.

[Tom]

John,

The sad fact is, society has reached a breaking point where logic, patience, and honesty are all rare. The job of advertising, which is tied hand and hand to most media, is to throw so much junk at the consumer so quickly, and with such boastful certainty, that the consumer is left spinning. Instead of stepping back and breaking down events and data, the consumer is too scared he is going to miss the next soundbite, so he is left accepting the previous statement as fact. It's good ol' fashioned fast talking...and that is what we are left with on television and the internet. ESPN, CNBC, FOX....anything that is traditional and tries to lay out the facts for an educated consumer to form their own opinion is on the outs. Every newspaper in the country is on the ropes. Traditional nightly news...no good. Honesty doesn't matter, nonpartiality doesn't matter..just spit it out as fast and loud as possible.

A guy with the writing style of Jerry Sullivan used to be controversial. It was a great go-to for a newspaper. Unleash the cynic or the blow-hard (not that Jerry is a blow-hard!), watch the readers get into a tizzy, and you now have attention and gold. Everyone thinks they are Sully now. The truly opinionated person no longer has an edge to them. In fact, the most intelligent and honest out there usually stay quiet now, because things are so muddled that you can't expect to have an honest debate anymore. Nobody steps back, looks at the information, and says.."you know?, he could be correct!"

Be it actual media persons, fans, the government, corporations... nobody believes anyone else anymore because everyone is so full of it themselves. Buffalo is probably one of the more honest cities out there, but then blind loyalty has it's costs, as this city has been in pretty much the same rut since 1970. In that sense I think the job of a News Reporter is doubly tough because you are getting squeezed from both sides. If you do your job and question those in power, the loyalists gripe that you have an agenda. Then you have the current generation that just wants to beat you over the head with their worthless opinion. If you see it for what it is worth and don't pay attention to it, you look weak. If you battle in the trenches with your writing, you get viewed as unprofessional. You are in a no win....especially in this city.

There is no easy answer anymore. This blog is an offshoot of the current media situation, but the regular posters here are pretty solid in comparison to what else is out there.
By definition, you are going to get some brainstorming and crazy ideas on a blog. I can't tell you with 100% certainty Golisano is going to sell this team over the next 15 months, but my experience and knowledge leads me to believe it is a very valid possibility. The problem with a blog is that on a nominal level, my typing has no more validity than a 13 year old posting from school. That in itself causes a lack of faith from others. In that starts a chain reaction of other issues.

Bottom line....we as a nation and world are in for a "fun" ride the next few years that will make some of the insults and bickering having to do with hockey look very foolish. Larry Quinn himself has said that if oil keeps going up in price, we have a lot bigger problems to worry about than hockey. With that, I agree...and with that, I say the team is as good as sold!

[Turd Ferguson]

Paul Hamilton just blasted Bucky about his over the top article panicking about the Sabres not signing their prospects yet. He didn't name Bucky, but you knew who he was talking about.

[Chad]

I'll keep my response to this particular blog post short because Elma has articulated many of my own sentiments. In fact, I don't even feel the need to address the assertion that TBN only reports the facts and does not put their own spin on said facts.

My biggest issue with some of the reporting is the consistent, complete and utter omission of ANY facts or statistics that cut against the argument that not re-signing Drury or Briere was a monumental mistake. If I went back and read some Bucky Gleason articles, how many times would I see Briere's +/- referenced, John? How many times did Sullivan and Gleason discuss how Briere was one of the worst even strength players in all of hockey (and it only cost Philly $10mil, no less)this year? How many times was it mentioned that Briere scored 23 less points this season than last? Or how Drury's numbers went down this season? Or how the signing of Drury really didn't make the Rangers that much better? What about how Vanek had more game winners than Captain Clutch himself, and only one less than Drury and Briere combined?

Do I think this is based on a lack of research? Not usually, but I have found some Jerry Sullivan articles to be poorly researched (see Elma's earlier post). I just think the facts are completely disregarded, at worst, or negligently omitted, at best. I find it difficult to see why writers find it hard to believe that their credibility is damaged when they don't, at the very least, acknowledge that there are facts cutting against their arguments. If a writer wants to say "While Briere had a -22 plus/minus this year, here's why I don't think that's too important," I'd be fine with that, even if I didn't agree with the argument. Just show me that you see the other side of the issue. I think your readers deserve that much if you're going to sing the praises of Drury, Briere and Campbell each time they do something positive.

That's all for now.

[Mike M.]

Elma - Bucky's comments taught me one thing: If I ever decide to go in to real estate flipping, not to bring him along. You don't strip the insulation and foundation when you flip.

[ElmaGolf]

Mike M. - "Am I the only person who finds this Balsillie "story" as a giant non-story."

No, you're not alone - there's nothing "shocking" about it to me. In a way, I'm glad it came out, in that the Sabres were able to confirm that they are committed to the region, by refusing to consider a lucrative offer if it means moving the team.

However, the story just gave another example of Bucky's "objective" perspective. Some people would perceive the Balsille offer story as confirming Golisano's commitment to the region (even if he's not the owner for decades to come).

Almost predictably, Bucky skewed this news as Tom G. being some type of absentee slumlord, looking to "cash out" with his "crumbling foundation" of a hockey team (I'd consider Vanek & Roy more akin to a "solid foundation" than a "cosmetic coat of paint.")

Perhaps the story received little recent coverage from TBN because Golisano's actions (not "flipping" the team with complete disregard to the community) didn't fit with the image painted in February by Bucky.

[Philly Mark]

I'll agree with those here who have said that Bucky Gleason is the main problem. Most of us had/ have beefs with Sabres management. But there's a big difference between legitimate criticism and having an axe to grind. Gleason's whining has just gotten way out of hand.

The Gerbe article was a perfect example. Gleason has pretty much lost all credibility in my eyes.

[Mike M.]

Don't get too upset about the 25% rating. Journalists did rank ahead of car salesmen and attorneys, so there's that.

Am I the only person who finds this Balsillie "story" as a giant non-story. Seriously, the guy probably started with Atlanta and went in alphabetical order after his Nashville dream got axed. If I called John Vogl and offered to buy his house, does that mean Mr. Vogl is looking to sell his house?

[Turd Ferguson]

Don't get too defensive, Mr. Vogl, I don't think you've received too much criticism here. It's generally directed toward your co-worker, Bucky. I think your work has been pretty fair towards the team. The Sabres are not immune from criticism, but Bucky is ridiculous. Exhibits A and B: Bucky getting into a argument with Quinn like a school child after last season and Bucky getting in an arguement with Ryan Miller like a school child after the trade deadline this year.

[Ox]

You mean it's ok for you clowns to bash the teams and players all the time, but it's NOT ok for anyone to bash you guys? Interesting.

[Matt]

Ah yes, yet another self-serving "defend the embattled sports desk" blog. Seems like someone else had one only a few weeks back. Listen Vogl, this may be unfortunate, but the last thing people want to hear is journalists defending themselves. Apparently they are supposed to be crapped on by everyone no matter what they do. TBN could have the best sports section in the country and it would still have plenty of nay-sayers. People LOVE to bash the media; it is an easy and accessible target and by its very nature, its mistakes are a lot more obvious than other industries' mistakes. I think there are quite a few non-journalists out there who think they could do the job better. Most of them would be wrong. (Signed, A Bitter Journalist.)

PS: I do agree with my fellow commenters about the poor quality of Bucky Gleason's work. His stuff is basically unreadable at this point. That other Bucky, the one who was on the run in '06, could probably do a better job.

[ElmaGolf]

Coolrobc -
"Overall I don't dislike TBN's coverage of the Sabres, and enjoy most of it. I think most of the writers do a fine job."

Rob - I agree with that statment, and enjoy the level of coverage and obvious hockey knowledge TBN possesses. It's just the times that TBN tries to "over reach" with their spin that makes them lose credibility in my eyes (which is sad, given the level of quality work for the most part). "Inside the NHL" was a great column until every week was a new version of "when will they learn?" or "Did I mention Briere / Drury?"

I enjoy the various blog topics that John & Mike bring up. I think Mike & John sometimes take a little too much glee in the implicit "See, I told you so" when an Ex-Sabre has a good performance, but for the most part, they are much more balanced than their counterparts. I've found Mike to be pleasant and funny in e-mail exchanges that have occurred outside of the Blog.

And in case I'm lumped into that "anonymous aliased critic" mentioned below, I have written direct e-mails to Bucky, Sully & Mike, so they know my real name. Like I said, Mike is great and responds to e-mails in depth. Sully just ignores them. And Bucky? Well, let's just say he doesn't respond well to constructive criticism.

[Jim]

John,

Keeping in mind everything you mention in your article, it is still crystal clear to me that Bucky has a specific agenda with regards to the Sabres. He is going to air that agenda no matter what.

Journalists with agendas don't deserve to call themselves journalists.

[coolrobc]

ElmaGolf - Very well said.

In my opinion the columnists, Bucky in particular, seem to lack objectivity, and tend to come across as though they have an ax to grind.

Overall I don't dislike TBN's coverage of the Sabres, and enjoy most of it. I think most of the writers do a fine job.

[ElmaGolf]

Tom-Tonawanda -

"John, I hear ya. I bet you guys didn't take half the grief the last two years that you did this past season. I guess it's just the fans needing somebody to lash out at. Still, it's bizarre."

What puzzles me is why some people feel that criticizing some of TBN's coverage automatically means that Sabres' Management is exonerated from it's mistakes.

I believe that Management made a number of mistakes and should be criticized "to some extent" for them.

But, at the same time, I can also be critical of TBN's coverage, "disporportionate" level of criticism aimed at management and use of hindsight judgment to make actions from two years ago seem worse than they really were.

That's the problem I have with the coverage. There were plenty of things for TBN to be justifiably critical of. But then some of the writers started wanting to spin "tough judgment calls" as "no-brainers blown by inept management."

Failing to finalize the Contract with Drury was a no-brainer f*ck-up. However, Bucky wants to put that mistake in the same breath as not accepting a $25/5 pre-arbitration offer from Briere, which NO ONE (not even Bucky) would have done that Summer given where salaries were AT THE TIME and the number of FA's the Sabres had that summer. He wants us to perceive not signing Campbell to a long-term contract as a no-brainer mistake (despite the fact that Campbell struggled the last time the league "bogged down" and only flourished when the league opened up it's style). Bucky wants you to belive it was a mistake to sign your leading scorer from three years ago to a fairly modest (compared to Briere's award) $3MM contract because the league has shifted back to a bogged down style of play.

Sully wants you to perceive that having veterans like Drury, Briere, Grier, McKee & Dumont make you impervious to blowing 2 Goal leads - despite the 2003-04 evidence to the contrary.

So the performance of the News' Writers can be critiqued irrespective of the team's performance. They're saying "don't blame us, it's the team that went bad." I respond, "don't blame the Sabres for your reporters' own contradictory writings, use of hindsight judgment, and ignoring of research that doesn't support your point."

[Nick]

While I can agree that the News reporters likely hold themselves to higher ethical standards (when it comes to reporting) than the fans/readers realize, the pervasive lack of professionalism I have witnessed recently is disconcerting. Verbal sparring with faceless posters on message boards is something I expect to see from regular fans, high-school kids, and perhaps the occasional News delivery boy. Part of being a member of the press is understanding the fact that you are subject to criticism, mild or harsh. When you make the conscientious judgment to write articles which blow up in your face (Mr. Gleason's doomsday piece about Nathan Gerbe is an excellent example), you must be prepared to face the consequences of your actions.

Certainly, it can be said that using aliases to attack those criticizing your work on message boards is not merely improper, it's downright childish. Perhaps the editors of the Sports section at the News should consider asking its staff who thought it was a good idea to create the alias "maxsacne" and use it to vehemently thrash anyone who so dared to criticize the work of the journalists employed by the news. Such actions do not result in a favorable outlook from the News readers on the quality of its reporting.

As Mr. Vogl notes, only 1 in 4 people believe that the ethical standards held by journalists are "high" or "very high." Maybe he, and the rest of the Buffalo News Sports staff, should consider why the public holds that belief, instead of resorting to juvenile attacks or referencing studies performed by other journalists.

[ElmaGolf]

John,

I appreciate you expressing your thoughts on these issues, but some of us who are critical (at times) of the TBN coverage do have some pretty valid concerns. Please allow me to address a few comments.

"Our job on the Sabres beat, in general terms, is to deliver to the readers what is going on at the foot of Washington Street. That's our only agenda. We don't control whether the news is "good" or "bad" in the eyes of fans."

John, that's a nice theory from Mass Comm 101, but please don't try and act like columnists don't try and control whether the news is perceived as "good" or "bad". There are always different ways of viewing events and spinning them. If you don't believe Bucky or Sully have quite an imbalance of cynicism and pessimistic spin, you have to be ignoring their articles. Paul Hamilton has the same "job" on the Sabres beat, but you certainly don't hear the same type of furor over his "agenda" because sometimes he's critical, and other times he sees the positive side of things. There's a much more rational and balanced approach coming from people like him (which only further highlights how "imbalanced" some of the TBN coverage is). But to backtrack a little, I take that back - there is occassionally some furor about Hamilton's "agenda" - but it usually comes from TBN along the paraphrased lines of "he's an indirect employee of the Sabres."

"I don't believe in the mantra of he who yells loudest and longest gets their point across best. ....I think (or used to think) people notice quality work without getting beat over the head with it."

Apparently Bucky doesn't share your view. He feels perfectly happy repeating the same $25/5 or Drury Fall Mistake in article after article. When we say we're sick of hearing the same thing over and over, it's not that his original point was wrong, but that it's just ridiculous to keep beating the same point over & over. Scooping the story last July WAS quality work - repeating it for the "umpteenth" time was not.

"I don't spend much time discovering what people think of our last story, because after it's written, it's time to think about the next story."

Here, I think Bucky may even go farther than you do. He even ignores what HE wrote, yet alone what others thought of his comments. When he tries to portray accepting a $25/5 pre-arbitration offer from Briere as a "no-brainer," he conveniently ignores the fact that HIS OWN WORDS from July 2006 indicate he was shocked by the award and felt that an award of $3.8MM would have been deserved. But now he wants us to believe that he always knew a $25/5 offer was a bargain that would have been gobbled up by "anyone with an ounce of hockey knowledge."

He makes snarky comments like "Gee, maybe the Sabres made a mistake re-signing Afinogenov", but HIS OWN WORDS from 2006 indicate that the Sabres better "get moving" in signing their leading scorer.

So, am I to conclude that Bucky is being an "impartial person telling you what's going on at the foot of Washington Street" when he makes such comments, in blatant contradiction of his own writings? If he doesn't have an agenda of "stirring controversy" (and hoping no one compares his past writings to his current spin), then I am simply left to conclude that he's a poor journalist.

"People don't believe we research our stories, or they do believe we make stuff up."

In some cases, I believe the research is "limited" in scope to only those things that support the "spin." The best recent example was Sully's "Blown Two Goal Lead" column. He researched enough to know that the Sabres had lost 7 two-goal leads in 2007-08 and eagerly concluded that leader-rich teams with the likes of "Drury, Briere, McKee, Grier, Dumont, Campbell" would NEVER have gone through such a horrible experience. However, with just a little more effort at research, Sully would have learned that the 2003-04 Sabres (with all the aforementioned players) actually blew EIGHT (8) Two-Goal Leads and collapsed in March to just miss the Playoffs. When available research is completely ignored, then it either indicates an "agenda / imbalance in perspective" or is an example of poor journalism.

"As Bucky has said, it's funny that we only get an agenda when the team goes from first overall to missing the playoffs."

No - it wasn't the team's performance that led to me perceiving Bucky's "imbalance of perspective" (better term than "agenda") and overuse of hindsight judgment. When things are going well, there's less oportunity for Journalists to use hindsight judgment and revisionist history. But when the team starts to fall, it is BAD Journalism to start making hindsight judgments that actually contradict your own writings. So, the reason Bucky started getting perceived negatively wasn't because the Sabres' performance started slipping. Rather, it was Bucky's performance that started slipping, which became clear to me when I actually started researching his past writings (or read the same version of his Drury / Briere story for the "umpteenth" time).

[maxsacne]

That needed to be said, John.

[Tom-Tonawanda]

Hambone: that's why you're name is that. You're a total hambone. Like John said, did BUCKY let Briere and Drury go? No. The Tommy, Larry and Darcy show did. What in the world do you think the papers in other cities would be writing about their hockey team had that happened???

I could make the case the News has been KIND to the Sabres compared to what you'd see in Philly, Toronto, New York, etc. YES KIND....

John, I hear ya. I bet you guys didn't take half the grief the last two years that you did this past season. I guess it's just the fans needing somebody to lash out at. Still, it's bizarre.

[Hambone Johnson]

25% isn't so bad. You guys were lucky to get in double digits.

As for Bucky, maybe he doesn't have an 'agenda'. But all last year he basically wrote all of his articles in advance and changed minor details along the way. The only problem is that he wasted so much time writing about how Drury lead the Rangers to the Cup. Guess that didn't work out too well, huh.

[Dave]

I understand people are concerned and upset for the team, but I've never understood why anyone thinks the Buffalo News has anything to do with it.