All Activity

I'm pretty negative on where the Sabres are at. Here is my attempt at some optimism, with a side of serious negativity, topped with a healthy serving of "I've been wrong before". NHL teams spending $5-$8 million below the cap, might not be a sign of mailing-it-in, like it has been in past years. This is a year where the increase in the cap has left some teams without enough good players to sign. There may be multiple good teams - expected playoff teams - that will spend $89-$91 million this year that will carry a lot of space for trade deadline additions. So, the Sabres coming in at $90 million, or thereabouts, shouldn't in itself be viewed as meaning they aren't icing a wild-card level team. The Sabres have 3 players who, if they stay healthy over most of the season, should keep them from being among the league's very worst teams. Dahlin is a legit top 10 (top 5, I think) NHL defenseman. Thompson and Tuch are legit 1st line NHL wingers. Thompson is among the best goal-scorers in hockey. Tuch is among the league's best two-way wingers. They both can drive their own lines, making our lack of having clear top-6 centres a little less of an issue (still an issue though, to be certain). The Sabres have many young players who might be poised to take a step forward in Benson, Quinn, Kulich, Doan, Power, and Byram for now. While they have some good veterans (Zucker, Greenway, McLeod, Danforth, a healthy Norris), this is an area where I think they could still use 2-3 additions. Swap in Fowler and Rust for Byram and Quinn (not straight up), and I think the Sabres could be a better team if not more talented. UPL is a year removed from playing like a legit NHL starter. I think this team could make a WC position, provided I am very wrong on one very important person: Lindy Ruff. This is how down I am on Lindy Ruff: If I could, right now, replace Adams or Ruff, I would choose Ruff. And it isn't close. I think that when you change a head coach you look to bring in a person who creates a positive culture change and breathes new life into a dressing room. I think Ruff did the opposite of that. I think, at this stage of his career, he is neither a system coach nor is he a culture/vibes coach. I think his time has past. I think that as bad as things were a year ago with the roster, the issues were magnified by having a below average tactician as an NHL head coach, who also lacks the ability to relate to today's players. I think Ruff's hiring set the team back. That said, I have been very wrong before. If I'm very wrong on Ruff, then I think there could be reason for some optimism.

Written by John Hinderaker: What an America First Foreign Policy Looks Like Marco Rubio is doing a brilliant job as Secretary of State. A prime example of his implementation of an America First foreign policy is the abolition of USAID and relocation of aid programs inside the State Department. On the State Department’s Substack, Rubio lays out the rationale for this change, putting to shame the Democrats’ absurd “millions will die” mantra: Every public servant has an obligation to American citizens to ensure any programs they fund advance our nation’s interests. During the Trump Administration’s thorough review of thousands of programs, and over $715 billion in inflation-adjusted spending over the decades, it became apparent the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) fell well below this standard. USAID had decades and a near-infinite taxpayer budget to advance American influence, promote economic development worldwide, and allow billions to stand on their own two feet. Beyond creating a globe-spanning NGO industrial complex at taxpayer expense, USAID has little to show since the end of the Cold War. Development objectives have rarely been met, instability has often worsened, and anti-American sentiment has only grown. On the global stage, the countries that benefit the most from our generosity usually fail to reciprocate. For example, in 2023, sub-Saharan African nations voted with the United States only 29 percent of the time on essential resolutions at the UN despite receiving $165 billion in outlays since 1991. That’s the lowest rate in the world. Over the same period, more than $89 billion invested in the Middle East and North Africa left the U.S. with lower favorability ratings than China in every nation but Morocco. The agency’s expenditure of $9.3 billion in Gaza and the West Bank since 1991, whose beneficiaries included allies of Hamas, has produced grievances rather than gratitude towards the United States. The only ones living well were the executives of the countless NGOs, who often enjoyed five-star lifestyles funded by American taxpayers, while those they purported to help fell further behind. This era of government-sanctioned inefficiency has officially come to an end. Under the Trump Administration, we will finally have a foreign funding mission in America that prioritizes our national interests. As of July 1st, USAID will officially cease to implement foreign assistance. Foreign assistance programs that align with administration policies—and which advance American interests—will be administered by the State Department, where they will be delivered with more accountability, strategy, and efficiency. We will not apologize for recognizing America’s longstanding commitment to life-saving humanitarian aid and promotion of economic development abroad must be in furtherance of an America First foreign policy. USAID viewed its constituency as the United Nations, multinational NGOs, and the broader global community—not the U.S. taxpayers who funded its budget or the President they elected to represent their interests on the world stage. USAID marketed its programs as a charity, rather than instruments of American foreign policy intended to advance our national interests. Too often, these programs promoted anti-American ideals and groups, from global “DEI,” censorship and regime change operations, to NGOs and international organizations in league with Communist China and other geopolitical adversaries. That ends today, and where there was once a rainbow of unidentifiable logos on life-saving aid, there will now be one recognizable symbol: the American flag. Recipients deserve to know the assistance provided to them is not a handout from an unknown NGO, but an investment from the American people. Equally importantly, the charity-based model failed because the leadership of these developing nations developed an addiction. State Department research finds the overwhelming sentiment in countries formerly receiving USAID funding is for trade, not aid. After engaging with nations across Latin America and Africa, we have consistently heard that developing countries want investment that empowers them to sustainably grow—not decades of patronizing UN or USAID managed support. The Department has consistently heard the same from people in these nations: a Zambian man told American diplomats it would be more helpful for his countrymen to learn how to fish than to be supplied with fish by the U.S. Government, an Ethiopian woman said she viewed the mutual benefits of investment as superior to the one-sided nature of aid, and too many other examples to recount. Americans should not pay taxes to fund failed governments in faraway lands. Moving forward, our assistance will be targeted and time limited. We will favor those nations that have demonstrated both the ability and willingness to help themselves and will target our resources to areas where they can have a multiplier effect and catalyze durable private sector, including American companies, and global investment. This work is well underway. We are already seeing tremendous progress in making the UN, other allies, and private funds pay a greater share of projects around the world, a process matched by the President’s success in convincing our NATO allies to meet their spending commitments. We are consolidating fragmented appropriations accounts to build more flexible and dynamic pools of funds, eliminating bureaucratic processes to move faster and respond to crises in real time, and implementing new efficiency criteria to measure impact quantitatively. By empowering diplomats on the ground through regional bureaus, we are creating a fast feedback loop to ensure programs align with American interests and the needs of partner nations. This model will also place us in a stronger position to counter China’s exploitative aid model and further our strategic interests in key regions around the world. We will do so by prioritizing trade over aid, opportunity over dependency, and investment over assistance. For Americans and many around the world, July 1st will mark the beginning of a new era of global partnership, peace, investment, and prosperity. This change is so appropriate, and so long overdue, that we can only wonder why it didn’t happen a long time ago.

Its not black and white with everyone. I'm interjecting a 3rd opinion, I'm not saying I totally agree or disagree with either of you, but for some of us, we don't like the last 14 years but that doesn't mean we hate everything about the team either. The NHL and the Sabres are entertainment for some of us. Each year, every change to the roster is new hope. Every bad coach or every bad GM CAN make a good decision. So no, we don't like the results, and may not think everyone in place is the best person for the job...but we do like to think of what each change can, and will bring, and not be negative about them all the time. I like to think of things 2 ways: 1.) The Sabres not winning the Cup doesn't mean everything is a total failure. I can watch each game each night and if they win, take that as one single night's positive entertainment. 2.) for some of us this time of year is just as fan as the actual season. The 'team building' the 'roster building' is as fun (or maybe even better than) the actual games. I likened this previously to someone who follows auto racing: Some people just want to watch the race. Others would much rather watch a documentary on the engineers designing the car in the off-season, they would rather see what changes are made to the car before the race, see the adjustments, follow the engineering aspects of designing the car. It can be the same with the results of the game and actually watching the games for some of us. Some of us want the results to be positive, but the 'hope' something can change ALONG WITH observing the results of the moves that are made are the primary entertainment for us.

Two counts as a couple. JJ interview: https://www.sltrib.com/sports/utah-hockey-club/2025/07/05/why-nhl-star-jj-peterka-sees/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

You only get the stuff that JohnC is so interested in. You have to bring g lower taxes to the millionaires bracket to trade for the good stuff.

I appreciate the optimism, but from my angle he holds almost no cards. He's a 6th year GM who has never made the playoffs and who has at present assembled a team and staff that will be predicted to make the playoffs in 25-26 by nobody except the most optimistic of Sabre fans (I mean no disrespect to optimistic Sabre fans as I was one just 14 months ago). And the big thing he has accomplished this off-season is to protect the Sabres against a potential offer-sheet on a player who, let's be honest, nobody is 100% certain is actually good (at least in the $7-9 million AAV context).

Can I bring palm trees and trade them For the items?

I think this is true. I don't think they are as down on Samuelsson as the fanbase is. If Byram is dealt and a top 4D does not come back, then I think the top-4 is likely just Dahlin, Power, Kesselring, and Samuelsson, in some configuration.

I am not so sure you aren’t injecting alot of bias into this opinion. And we’ve already traded one high demand player for two lesser assets with dubious expectations for on ice results. Why the ***** would you want to do it again?

Everyone has a kink.

Is he? Andersson was awful last year. He's got rumors out there he'll only sign in Vegas. Trading Byram for 1yr of Andersson and some futures piece isn't good business. I think Byram with Dahlin is better than Andersson with Dahlin.

Yes, but would should at least get another asset back in addition to Andersson. Plus Andersson is an upgrade on Byram on the ice plus Andersson is deadline tradable if the team is again out of the playoffs.

If bringing back BB is a status quo move then isn't that better than making a move that sets you back further? I don't agree that any move he makes will be inadequate. The JJP trade was a reasonable deal for us considering the circumstances. (He didn't want to be here.) It's certainly not impossible that a fair deal can be constructed, sooner or later, that will be beneficial. We seem to be going in circles here. What it appears to me is that you are making a negative assumption before an act has been made. What I'm suggesting is that it might be better to just wait before making a judgment.

We're on year 5 of Adams just ignoring gt.

You have to admit that trading for Andersson has the same risks as re-signing Byram in regards to kicking the can down the road a season or two. The risk of Andersson not signing is every bit as high as the risk of Byram leaving at the end if a short term deal.

Bringing back Byram is a status quo move and the status quo is failure. I agree that any trade Adams makes will likely be inadequate, but it’s the only chance the team has to get better heading into next season.

Wtf, dude?

That doesn’t have to be the case. I’ve suggested Byram to Calg for Rasmus Anderson plus another asset. Anderson is on a reasonable 1 year deal and might enjoy playing with Dahlin enough to re-sign. I would then hope that a second move could be made using the Calg asset and someone like Quinn to acquire a top 6 playmaker.

The Sabres are certainly a better team with Byram than if the return for him is insufficient. So what if they kick the Byram issue down the road? If it ultimately leads to a better return, then that's a positive action, not a negative action. Most of us are aware that the Sabres have multiple issues to address. (In my view, the goalie position is the most critical issue.) What you are doing is conflating the Byram issue with the other team issues. That seems to be an unreasonable/unfair approach to take when discussing the Byram issue.

Ryan Smith by far. He's not the same owner who created a lot of commotion in Arizona.

Sure he can keep him, but that doesn’t make the team better. That’s the whole point. The goal of the offseason was for the Sabres to get better. So far Adams, unsurprisingly, has failed again. All keeping Byram does is kick the can down the road for another season of failure. Great! What a smart solution. The only way to get better is to move him to a team that needs his skillet and get piece(s) we need like a playmaker for the top 6, a starting goalie, and or a defensively sound top 4 D.

What's the definition of "Deja vu"?

Being critical of KA's performance is like stating water is wet. It's obvious to all. Few people would argue otherwise. However, what you are doing is overlaying his overall performance to how he has handled the individual Byram issue. Based on your prior post, you seem to encourage him just to make a deal in order to end this ordeal. That would be the worst course of action that the GM could take. He's not obligated to trade him if the return isn't a fair return. He can keep him. As far as what would be a fair return for BB? I would take either a top two pairing or a top two-line player. If that type of deal can't be made, then just keep him. There is a lot of things to be critical of this flaccid GM. In my view it is not how he has handled this particular situation.

So what is the solution? I honestly don’t know I agree, Dahlin is great and makes everyone he plays with look decent even if they aren’t.

Just want to note Dahlin is very good in his own end. Not necessarily disagreeing with your main point. ???? - Dahlin Power - Kesselring Samuelsson - Timmins Bryson Even if you put Samuelsson with Dahlin, we're still short a defender. Really hope Novikov makes lots of skating strides this offseason.