Taro T

They haven't ALL been turned into sports complexes. In Ra-cha-cha they get turned into concert venues and restaurants. 😉

He brought in Johnson the Elder only and not much else because he and Granato were both convinced the team was pretty much a lock to make the playoffs if they simply kept working hard. Not only did they pretty much run the band back with almost no changes to personnel, they spent the preseason doing stuff like seeing if come March should they need to have someone step up from Ra-cha-cha would it be Kulich or Rosen that was the right fit on Thompson's line and so on and so forth. They forgot that the reason they'd been having great starts usually was them gearing up to hit the opening of the RS like it was the start of the playoffs and few of their opponents were taking it that seriously and those opponents definitely weren't taking the Sabres seriously. When they treated October just like everybody else treats it, October ended up looking a lot more like the rest of the calendar. My 2 cents. YMMV.

If ALL of the current coaches are still here, even with improvements to the roster, no, hope doesn't appreciably rise. On a macro level, there were 3 things that doomed this season: too much youth, too poor of a coaching job at the X's and O's (poor defensive structure; ridiculously bad PP design; etc.), and too inconsistent of goaltending. The moves you suggest, (at a minimum for arguments sake will say they) in large part allievate the 1st issue (as does the simple passage of time in large degree; 3 regulars that are vets in/just past their primes, an experienced goalie in his prime, and father time making everyone still here a year older); and on paper it also allieviates the 3rd issue. But the 2nd issue remains and that 2nd issue remaining could go a long way towards scuttling the perceived improvement of the 3rd issue. Remember how awful Miller was in St. Louis even though he was still a very good goalie? In large part that was because the system they used expected the players to take away as many shots as possible leaving the goalie with pretty much an equal chance of facing a shot from the current puck carrier or someone he'd passed to whereas he was used to Buffalo's system at the time which left the puck carrier the goalie's responsibility and taking away the passing lanes was the defender's responsibility. Having the team do the same dumb things they currently do doesn't inspire confidence that the next "good" goalie actually will be any better than what they currently have. Personally, expect that by the time the puck drops for real in October, will have hope they've finally gotten to a point they can do it (at least to a level that gets them in the dance), but if nothing has changed in the coaching staff then realize it'll almost certainly have been a hope derived from searching for things to be hopeful about rather than one derived from what has actually transpired.

At SOME point, even if Adams is the GM, this team will make the playoffs. Heck, he came within a kneed in puck of it happening 2 years ago. BUT after 5 years and overall 14, at some point they just have to cut bait. MAYBE this'll be the year it all comes together. MAYBE the revamped core will finally be old enough, experienced enough, and close enough to their primes to have a 100 point season. Firing or redeploying into an different role Adams doesn't guarantee that they do make the dance. The players seem to believe in themselves and 2 vets that had other options open to them decided to stick around. So, the players seem to have hope or belief or whatever else one wants to call it. (Though it very well may be they believe in themselves and not management. Or maybe they do believe in management too. Don't know, haven't spoken directly to any of them. 😉 ) But, right now, the fans need hope. And keeping things status quo doesn't provide that.

Kind of like teaching. You have to work hard to get established, but once you get tenure you CAN skate on by. Not saying that all or even more than a very small handful of them do it; but we've all had a teacher (or know of one) that was in that floating/skating until hitting retirement phase. Friedman seems to be fast approaching that point if he hasn't already done so. *

It's the wrong time to make a significant roster altering move, but bringing up an Amerk or making a change trading for a bottom sixer (or considering they were desperately missing their best player who isn't a F) or a 3rd pairing guy that brings that "new team bounce" and looks like worldbeater for a week before becoming what he really is could actually get them a couple of W's during that streak. That would at minimum get them 2 more points, likely 4 more, and doesn't end up deflating them and possibly doesn't ruin the entire season. It ISN'T a shortcut to "what could he have even done." He could've done SOMETHING.

At the B&GI, Ruff addressed your Q to a degree. Because they had essentially an abbreviated TC and ran with the lines that seemed to make sense from last year while playing a full NHL team against 1/2 NHL squads it caused at least 2 issues. 1. The lines weren't optimized (my wording, not Ruff's) prior to facing an actual NHL caliber opponent. And 2. they thought they were better than they were because of the way the preseason played out (pretty much Ruff's words). Which resulted in them not being ready for the 2 games vs the Devils. They didn't get the structures in place that Ruff wanted installed before the bullets started flying. They played a little better when they got back to this side of the pond and might've had a better start with some puck luck (they definitely could've won the LA game at a minimum) but they didn't really even get to their more typical early season solid play for a couple more weeks. That had them chasing points early.

Byram replaced Mittelstadt. Personally, expected to take that trade harder than he did, but it is what it is. 😉

Any word on whether he's replacing the current VP of Revenue Strategy or is he going to be that person's boss now?

Our dog loved that fish commercial, because he'd get a special treat on Saturday morning and always told him "aw, but it's Saturday." As soon as he heard that, he was off to where the treats were kept. Didn't even need to hear "we were biting this morning, we were biting this morning."

Yep. IF they bring in a TRUE #2 D-man, the team is likely better off using him the way Anaheim used Pronger and Niedermayer than by pairing them together. And, it seemed that concept was something Ruff was trying to mimic after the deadline - having his 3 best D-men each playing with one of the bottom 3 guys. (Not going to debate whether Byram should be considered one of the top 3 via analytics; the Sabres considered him their 2nd best D-man.) The thinking heading into the season was through most of the game Dahlin would be paired with Samuelsson and then end the game with Power as the D-bench shortened at the end of close games. But with Dahlin not being 100% at the beginning, it didn't work. (It didn't come close to working.) When Samuelsson was paired with Dahlin at the end of the year, it worked much better. They seem to believe it was due to Samuelsson improving over the season; personally give at least as much of the credit for that improvement to Dahlin being at/near 100%.

Not just about 900 W's. In the RS, exactly 900 W's. (Took 5 tries to get #900, but he got there.)

If you've done nothing, you've earned nothing of value. BUT you still have a culture. It may be toxic, it clearly is unproductive, but it is still a culture. And, you've EARNED that culture you end up with. IF you've worked hard, and built up something positive, well, you've earned THAT too. Were culture necessarily a positive thing, would agree it necessarily is built. But culture can vary widely and what you get is what you've earned.

Same with the Labatt's Bear commercial where he's complaining the worst part about living in Canada is sleeping on hard rocks and then the hot brunette he's talking to says she's got a waterbed. "Check please." Spent an inordinate amount of time trying to find that one a few year's back.

Personally, expect that's been the case since at least the trade deadline. Adams brought Byram onto the roster to pair with Dahlin. Ruff said on day one that Dahlin should be paired with Samuelsson &/or Power. Dahlin and Byram were a pair for a long time. Muel was Dahlin's partner down the stretch. They traded out from their core leadership group a player that was supposed to be a strong, solid, smart 2 way player that would contribute significantly at both ends. They brought in a guy that is that (though only gives you 50 or so games per season. Both of those moves would seem to be moving away from Adams' vision. Both Ruff and Adams are constantly saying they themselves need to be better. Ruff states what he's been doing in season to be better and what he plans to do to continue to get better. Adams gives platitudes of what he'll do to be better. Of course, all of this could be simply reading into statements what one wants to hear from them. (Hope that's not simply the case.)

Or it's not built at all (at least not a positive, successful, sustainable one). Agree that the choice of "earned" seems off. But in some ways, it's more apt than "buiit." You earn what you've worked towards. If you're foundering around, you haven't earned much, but you also haven't built anything. And if you haven't earned much, well, that's the culture you end up with: entitled, lazy, confused, etc. (Wouldn't say the players are lazy; but would say they haven't had a cohesive plan to build upon nor have they had enough successful members showing them how to build and entitled and confused probably are accurate.) And the entitled and lazy don't BUILD ANYTHING. Nothing that'll stand even a modest storm at any rate. But have they earned being where they're at? Also, probably accurate. Even if you don't build anything, there is still a culture. It's simply not one you want. Personally believe the players DO in fact want to win and want to put in the work to do so. Don't believe they have 23 Miro Satan's on the roster. But the "developmental" coaches they've had haven't been able to have them working productively and proactively towards winning. As an example, they work on the PP a LOT; and the things they do seem to be ingrained (because they work at them). Well, when you have them work on foolish things, you aren't working towards success. Combine that with management's insistence on having more than a critcal mass of youth and then the players don't even have the example in front of them of how to do it the right way. And heck, even the article that led to this discussion shows they haven't built a positive culture. Positive cultures don't have players anonymously taking to reporters saying the team hasn't bought it. But, management does seem to have earned the culture they built. 😉

At the B&GI's back 6 or so weeks ago, Ruff said, what at the time seemed to be a very controversial statement - that several players were not the level of conditioning that he'd expected them to be and that it was a major problem and this coming off-season the Sabres were going to work more closely with individual player's off-season trainers to make sure young guys were developing the way they should. And personally read that comment as not just an indictment of the players but the staff here - how could they have no idea that the players weren't going to be where they expected them to be. Seeing "conditioning" being the buzzword du jour coming back, figured that Ruff must've made a comment to that effect elsewhere. The other thing that was beyond frustrating to hear on that evening was Ruff actually defended that stupid dropback pass they use to enter the zone on the PP. "We're actually in the top 3 in zone entries; the problem is we don't maintain that control." Well, if you don't maintain that control because not one single player other than the guy who carried the puck in has ANY speed at all as the other 4 players are all within 10' of the blue line as he's finally carrying the puck not just over the red line, but the blue line as well; then MAYBE just MAYBE you aren't ACTUALLY top 3 on entries and you should do something different. Yes, most all teams drop the puck back (on rare occassions significantly back, but that is on RARE occassions), but they typically drop it about 12' back, not 80' back, and it gives then 4 players coming in with pace (2 REALLY flying) and the puck carrier has several option upon crossing the red line - he can dump it to a corner, he can work a give and go with any of 3 teammates, he can skate it in himself, or he can pass it to the guy flying up with him who now has the same options he had just had prior to passing it. The other thing that was interesting about that night is, the questions for the most part were more pointed than the ones that the media asked at the end of season press conference. Didn't submit a Q myself as didn't expect they'd take "hard" questions via presubmission, and couldn't come up with anything to ask that they'd've wanted to answer. But they in fact did take hard Q's. Adams pretty well punted them but Ruff seemed very honest. When he was asked what he could've done better/different during the losing streak; he said that whenever you get into that situation (losing that many in a row) you pretty much always fire the coach. He also talked a fair amount about getting more veterans into the lineup. Really do expect to see them not be the youngest roster in the league this coming year.

Personally see the PoHO role as far more of a schmoozer than actually determining who is going to be on the ice. Ruff has ties to Hockey Canada so he's one of the insiders. Could Bettman possibly still be mad about Ruff's calling him out on No Goal? If not, could see it being a net positive having him in that role when the top brass get together and could see him getting involved on leaguewide competition committee at the ownership/operations level. Keeping owners out of the GM's hair on a day to day basis. Reining in the worst impulses of both ownerhsip and the GM. And helping to sell suites and convincing whatever local state power brokers that'd get involved in allowing the Sabres to mess up the MMArena even more than it currently is. (Some of the ideas on how to renovate the barn were whacked and personally can't see them working in this market. But we shall see.) And, yeah, until he came back to Buffalo, never saw him in that sort of a role. Saw him as more of an advisor to whomever was running the hockey department rather than being the ostensible boss. Darn shame they never reached out to Dudley back when the new owners took over. Alas, not meant to be. Neither. The owner. But, when there's a united front and a compelling reason why the pocketbook should be opened ...

So, of 6 head coaches between Lindy Ruff stints, at present, not one single one of them is coaching in the NHL. Im-forking-press-ive.

Would like to see a GM brought in that can come up with a F lineup that a 20 year old Benson slots into the lineup as a 3rd liner when all are healthy and if necessary climbs the ladder some when injuries do hit. Would like to see New Guy - Norris - Thompson Zucker - McLoud - Tuch Benson - Kulich - Greenway Malenstyn - Krebs - Lafferty as the starting 12. Don't want Peterka gone, nor is it desired to have Lafferty back. Would rather have a UFA taking Lafferty's spot, but don't expect it. And am expecting Peterka will be part of the package to fix the D and that Byram will be part of the package to find that guy that plays a large chunk of the season in Norris' spot and plays with him and Tage when Norris is healthy. Especially if they bring in a guy that makes Lafferty the 13th or 14th F, then when Norris is out they have options of bumping up any of Tuch, Zucker, Benson, or Kulich. And they'd probably still have Quinn around or could give Östlund, Kozak, Rousek, or Rosen looks to backfill depending upon who else is out. (Actually, would really like to see a 2nd new guy sliding Zucker down to play with Benson and Kulich, bumping Greenway onto a really good 4th line and Lafferty into the press box with Quinn. (Nobody is giving anything of value to take Quinn at this point. Might as well keep him around and see if his stightly improved play down the stretch can be a starting point to his living up to his draft pedigree.) But, with also needing to fix the D and ideally have more certainty between the pipes, not sure that 2nd top 6 guy is a luxury we'll get to see. (IF 2 of Norris, Greenway, and Power look like they'll start the year on IR; would REALLY like to see them try to make that 2nd new top 6 guy a reality.) And if Benson forces his way into a bigger role than 3L, cool. But good teams have good players actually showing up on the 3rd line.

He was. Personally, will run with the Housley effect takes longer to take hold but ultimately overtakes the positive effects of others around him. 😉

He might've played for the Pens; remember him and Danny Grant being 2 key pieces of the No Stars.

He slots as a 4th liner on a playoff team AT the age of 19. His is a really interesting case, because as @dudacek mentioned, he is a true outlier in being a non-high skill offensive guy playing in the NHL at the age of 18. Personally, expect his ceiling will be somewhere in the top 6, but the fact he's a capable bottom 6 guy at this age without prototypical size nor an overwhelming shot nor skating ability bodes well for his future. And if it takes until he's 22 or 24 to become that top 6 guy; it isn't that big of a deal. That's when most guys start getting their 1st real tastes of the NHL.

Why does it have to be an either or? Why can't it be a NEITHER and instead actually get a competent (at a minimum) or excellent GM?

The team never had O'Reilly AND Dahlin. Winning the lottery in '18 gave Botterill "flexibility" in how he could retool the team. As @Pimlach stated, Murray never could build a cohesive team because he didn't give 2 rat's bippies about the chemistry of a cohesive team. He saw the players as horses that you could just put into the stall and have them perform. He couldn't care less about anything other than their physical attributes. He didn't care that Bogosian and Kane were jerks that would not be good leaders for very young players. He didn't care that Lehner had some psychological issues that would be exacerbated should he be out of the lineup for a long time due to injuries. He apparently did nothing to help smooth over the owners' frustrations at his brand new established toy getting drunk and crashing his truck into a donut shop as pretty much his very first action after signing a big LT contract. Murray was gone by then, but when that player started publicly discussing how he'd lost his love of hockey; that pretty much sealed the deal that he'd be gone now that his new GM had this newly found flexibility. After he couldn't get the coach he wanted to land, he chose a coach that micromanaged the game and gave players 8 whiteboards worth of stuff to be thinking about in game every game. JUST the thing young players need when trying to adjust to the speed of the NHL game vs NCAA or juniors. So, yeah, Murray took big swings. But again, he never saw the players as people and thusly he was never going to build a winner. Though had the team not changed directions 2-3 times since; they almost definitely would've made the playoffs by now once or twice. Oh, boy, the Sabres could've been the current version of the Aisles. (Yeah, it's better than what WE have; but not exactly even remotely ideal.) But is THAT, or what Botterill built, in any way shape or form something we should "much rather have?" No. They're all giving us #### sandwiches. Personally, would much rather have none of the above.