[Ignoring the Coyotes, are the Sabres the worst run team in the NHL?]

No. Read the Athletic article on Columbus. 

[Kevyn and Don, should we really expect more after four years?]

11 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I’ve been known to lose the forest from the trees in getting caught up in the specifics of the wording, certain turns of phrase are admittedly triggers for me. Like I said I even agree we should give them another shot. It’s just definitively not “unreasonable” to have expected more. Dollars to donuts playoffs were the rightful expectation but even if that wasn’t one’s personal expectation, to say it was “unreasonable” to expect that is just a bridge too far. I wouldn’t even say it’s unreasonable to NOT expect playoffs this year, if that’s one’s own personal timeline. 

It’s funny, I was going to use “forest for the trees” earlier but images of a young Linda Ronstadt clouded my brain. 

[Kevyn and Don, should we really expect more after four years?]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

There is a give and take. The give and take is an argument about pulling the plug now and firing Adams, or acknowledging that while we failed this year, it would be in our best interest to give Adams another go. I fall down on the same side you do, in fact, in this regard

But that’s not the framing. I’m sorry if it doesn’t matter to you but it does to me. Suggesting it might be unreasonable to have expected more to this point is below the belt type jargon 

I believe in people’s perception being their reality so obviously “unreasonable” was a poor choice of words given the response it generated. I in no way meant to insult anyone or belittle their feelings.

If it makes anyone feel better I decided to attend my first game in a month tonight so it feels like punishment is being served.

[Kevyn and Don, should we really expect more after four years?]

43 minutes ago, Thorny said:

You specifically asked if it was “reasonable to expect different”. Not, “should we expect different?” (We all did pre-season, dudacek was chastising fans for not setting their expectations HIGH enough, that’s why I opened the thread with that response), and not even “is expecting different viable. “Is it reasonable” was the quote I was referring to. Ie: you are proposing it might be unreasonable to expect more. Not that you don’t, but get it: you asked if a position expecting playoffs was “unreasonable”.

No, is the answer. To answer your question: no, fans expecting playoffs are not unreasonable. Hope that helps 

I asked a question, I gave some history, thought I’d start a conversation. I was proposing it might be unreasonable given the history but I don’t believe anywhere I said it was.

There was a time when that lead to serious give and take. I was one at the beginning of the year that expected more. I was guy at last year’s trade deadline slamming the table trying to explain that development isn’t linear and you should go for it when you can. 

[Kevyn and Don, should we really expect more after four years?]

38 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Yes, it’s reasonable

With all due respect your take is frankly absurd. Your question isn’t even “what was the expectation?” it’s “was it reasonable to expect more.”

Was it reasonable in year 4. Can you imagine if you had posed this question pre-season? 

“Is it reasonable to expect playoffs this year?” 

You would have been met with a chorus of boos and the exclamation it’s not just reasonable it’s expected.

You can turn tail and run from what we all know to be what the actual expectations are or we can avoid that sort of sad, hypocritical thinking 

I posed a question. I never said anything about being unreasonable to disagree, I doubled down by playing devil’s advocate but I certainly never said I was not frustrated, quite the contrary. 
I think it’s a reasonable argument and I’m not surprised it’s gotten such a angry response but I am surprised by some of those who seem infuriated.

Have a great day everyone.

[Kevyn and Don, should we really expect more after four years?]

57 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Condescending much? I never mentioned the Mets even if the other poster did. Historical data I cited you dismissed. I ***** hate this place because this is what everything becomes. Your comment is perhaps the perfect example. 

Thanks for reminding me. 

What historical data? 

[Kevyn and Don, should we really expect more after four years?]

2 hours ago, LabattBlue said:

I didn’t mean the new HC & GM should be fired if they miss the playoffs in their 1st year.  Just don’t be like the current regime and run it back with an unproven and mostly the same team as the prior year. 

See I am in complete agreement with this only that I think if it wasn’t for the nine years prior to then we would be willing to give them a mulligan for this year. And for the record, to some of those up thread, I never said I was happy with the last couple of years. I do think, however, that history shows that we might have been expecting something that’s rarely if ever done given the current framework under which everyone operates.

[Kevyn and Don, should we really expect more after four years?]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

This. 

They have hardly been the league punching bag the last couple of years and of course loosing isn’t acceptable but the question is that given the available historical data is it reasonable to expect that anyone can turn any franchise around in four years? Like you and the original poster said, it took the Mets 8 years. Thanks for proving my point.

[Kevyn and Don, should we really expect more after four years?]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

It's really not that complicated.

Why is KA's plan so long and torturous?

If it's really his choice among so many other plans, he should be fired.

Of course it's not his choice.

Nothing changes unless Terry changes or sells the team.

The point is that no one in similar circumstances has come up with a faster plan. Vegas was an anamoly that will likely never be repeated. 

[Kevyn and Don, should we really expect more after four years?]

13 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

1. Fired their HC after the 2022 season
2. Fired the HC in 2023 after failing to make the playoffs by 2 points
3. Only in his 3rd year has HC for Seattle who is only in their 3rd year as a franchise
4. Just fired their HC Lindy Ruff recently after being bad (goalie issues) even though they will finish above Buffalo most likely
5. Fired their HC in 2022 and hired Torts who is their current coach. 
6. Fired their HC in 2023 and hired Tocchet
7. Lets add in LA, fired their HC in January 2024
8. How about Detroit, 2022 fired their HC

So every single one of those teams you listed fired and moved on from their HC in the time that Granato has been HC with the Sabres except for Seattle. I think Adams will stay but I see no reason why Granato should. At a minimum, every single one of this assistants except the goalie coach should be fired and replaced with an experienced veteran coach. Lack of accountability in Buffalo for a product that regressed (they play some really boring uninspired hockey for long stretches) and will miss the playoffs for the 4th straight year under Granato and Adams. 

Playing Devil’s advocate, they did all that and all except LA, are still either behind or on par with the Sabres and I wouldn’t bet against that being the case next year. Buffalo, Detroit and New Jersey are the real test case because all three are on roughly the same timeline and all three have issues to overcome.

For the record, I agree in the assistants.

[Kevyn and Don, should we really expect more after four years?]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

Absolutely we should have expected more from this year.

And that’s even if you subscribe to my personal belief that this is more realistically described as year 3 of a ripped-down-to-the-studs rebuild. (People seem to forget that we started ‘Adams 2.0’ with our top 6 forwards coming off seasons of 13, 10, 8, 7, 4 and 2 goals, respectively, and for 3 of those guys, those were career bests).

Last year’s Sabres team missed the playoffs by just 1 point coming off 2 years of steady improvement. It clearly had talent given the offence it had just put up. It was resilient, fast and explosive. Its holes — goaltending, PK, commitment to team defence, stoutness up front, and depth on the blue line were pretty obvious and should have been fixable.

Ironically, the team looks to have fixed, or at least improved, most of those holes. But in the process it got slower and easier to frustrate.

Sabrespace has wrongly excoriated this team as being terrible when really it’s kinda like it was last year — just a different shade of mediocre.

But the pieces and the opportunities were there last summer for Adams and Granato to make this year something more and they were unable to do so. Sure the core is callow, but Adams did not bring in the right pieces, nor Granato push the right buttons to smooth or mask the pitfalls of that reality.

I can’t see any way to describe this year as anything other than a failure. And they have to own that.

I don’t disagree with any of this. The point I was clumsily trying to make is that it hasn’t been as easy as some have implied to pass what was and has been the standard bearers for the last four years.

I expected more this year and believe there were opportunities to speed up the process. I also believe they deserve one more year.

[Do we have a single prospect that will be any good next year?]

11 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:

At risk of taking this off topic, my biggest thing is why do we still have starting pitchers in baseball? Pitchers should still pitch the same number of innings in a year, but spread them over less innings per game in more games. There are so many benefits:

-You can maximize lefty/lefty righty/righty matchups.

-Your weaker pitchers can pitch against the bottom of their order.

-The batters only see a pitcher once per game and never will time them up the 2nd or 3rd time around or recognize their tips.

-Your never leave a guy in too long.

-You should be able to manage and prevent injuries.

I know some teams like TB do dabble with this sort of thing sometimes, but try telling a Verlander that he's not a true starting pitcher anymore.

I believe a team could win 10-20 extra games a year if they adopted this full-time. Won't happen though.

I don’t follow baseball as closely as I did but I thought it had started to move in this direction.

[Kevyn and Don, should we really expect more after four years?]

You all owe this to LabattBlue, one of my favorite posters by the way.

I asked a question in a couple of different threads. Are we holding KA and DG responsible for the 9 years before they were put in charge instead of just the four years or so they have been here. Blue responded like the other poster with the usual, it's the NHL, 'everyone makes the playoffs." "parity" reigns, so on and so forth.

Today I had lunch with someone with an educated opinion so I started in on the discussion at which point he smiled and talked about how he's been pushing this story to people he perceived had the time to do the kind of research this topic probably needs.

Anyway, here is the abridged version.

After tearing down the whole organization, KA kept Ralph to start the 56 game, 20/21 season before replacing him with DG ezactly half way between the 56 games.

Out of the 16 teams that made the playoffs that year, 7 have made the playoffs all four years since then. 3 of them have made it three of the four years and three more have made it the last three years.

That leaves you with four teams who made the playoffs once in these four year and two likely to this year;

1) Montreal - a true anamoly

2) Calgary - a team on a rise set back byTkaczuk and other contract issues

3) Seattle - went all in on year two but now have taken a major step back

4) New Jersey - considered a year ahead of Buffalo last year, they too have taken a step back

5) Philly - a "Torts" surge likely to last this year but no excuses, they continue to win.

6) Vancouver - they've been out of the playoffs since 2014/2015 I believe

Further, 

Out of the bottom ten teams from KA's first year;

Six are behind Buffalo this year

LA has become a perenial playoff team but where well on their way when Buffalo started the rebuild.

New Jersey made it last year.

Detroit may this year.

I know, I know, It still sucks, none of this matters and we are all tired of waiting but the truth is, its not like all the other organizations are passing them by. They are holding their own, have the youngest roster in the NHL, apparently a boatload of prospects and other teams are nearing the end of their run, except Boston who somehow never rettreats. Like it or not, they can make a good case for earning another year.

 

Fire away.

 

[Do we have a single prospect that will be any good next year?]

9 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Oh yes you know inside my mind and what I believe and you are the superior view because you question everything. lmfao. You know nothing about me.

Young players need to be taught. That's a simple fact. Even the greats need to learn things when they hit the NHL. If your NHL team is just a big training camp all year sure, maybe it works and they get the individual attention to details they need, but if your NHL team is busy trying to win hockey games you need to send these kids to school.

I will tell you what is true Mr. Questioner, and that is you have lived in the Sabres bubble for far too long. 

Maybe I worded it wrong but what I meant is that most people in general have grown up believing unprovable facts are absolute because that’s the way it’s always been. I allow for the possibility you are right, I just doubt anything that is regarded “as the only way.”
Also, for the record, this has nothing to do with life in the Sabre bubble, quite the opposite in fact. In a perfect world, they agree with you.

Lastly, at 64, I don’t take anything personal and I don’t mean anything personal. I enjoy that back and forth. Sorry if I offended you.

[Do we have a single prospect that will be any good next year?]

9 minutes ago, ska-T Chitown said:

I would wager the advantage that the big club sees is that the player who "marinates" in the minors gets to make their growing pain mistakes in minors with no bearing on the big club's W-L. When a player is then granted access to the NHL as a more finished product, the difference is more glaring as most fans have not seen them before and marvel at the more polished version they are presented with. It takes more effort to objectively go back and look at the 18 yr NHL old rookie and compare him to his 22 yr old self. Not to mention the perhaps unrealistic expectations that come with entering the league at a younger age.

I don't suspect that much, if any, of Aaron Rodgers' mid-to-late career success had anything to do with the year or two he spent on the bench behind Brett Fah-ahhh-vruh. (sticking with the QB thing as our other example)

I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how a talented rookie learns anything from skating around the Brett Murray’s and other AHL pylons and scoring goals from the blue line against goalies who can’t move laterally.

Yes, I would wager the opposite. Let me know if you discover that alternative universe.
 

Sticking with the QB theme, I’m guessing Josh Allen didn’t gain anything from watching Peterman throw five first half interceptions.

[Do we have a single prospect that will be any good next year?]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Under the current system which doesn't allow him to start off in Rochester I agree with you that he should be on the big club roster. Playing in the juniors would not have served much value for him from a developmental standpoint. This is just my opinion but I believe that if the Sabres had their preference they would have started him off in Rochester if that option was available to him. 

I’m not sure that’s true but that is old school thinking so you might be right. I think the difference between Benson and Kulich and Rosen is that Bensin’s game is mature enough for the NHL and then putting on weight and years, things he’ll do without playing in the AHL, there is nothing he could have learned from the AHL experience.

[Do we have a single prospect that will be any good next year?]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

There are ways to do it but it would take a lot of time that I'm not going to put in and I'm sure nobody else will either. You simply compare teams and how they do it and consider their success rates comparable to their draft positions. That math could be done and done over a long time period. 

 

You can get all the data you want but there’s no way of knowing player A became a better player than player B because team Y kept player A in the minors three years while team X made player B play in the NHl right away. You believe that because that’s what you were taught your whole life along with other great truisms like rookie QB’s can’t play in the NFL. I don’t because I learned to question everything. My belief is that player A was just the better player all along but team Y had no room on its NHL roster.

[Do we have a single prospect that will be any good next year?]

37 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The issue with Benson that separates him from other prospects is the quirky age and junior rule that wouldn't allow him to play in the AHL this year. I believe most people would agree that if that AHL option was available to the organization, that is where he would have started off this season. I'm in the camp who believes that this youngster is going to be a good player for us for a long time. 

Good teams, which usually get undo credit for player development, leave players in the minors three years because they have no room for them in their lineup.

I’m of the camp that doesn’t believe Benson should be in minors. NFL teams have realized that rookie QB’s can start immediately. In the NHL it’s a little different because of age but if they can handle the physical part of the game, slowly teams will realize that nothing is gained by playing in the AHL.

[Buffalo Bills 2024 Thread]

5 minutes ago, JustOneParade said:

Have you seen the new kick-off rules? Absolutely bizarre. The NFL is trying to eclipse the NHL on the stupidity scale.

I think they are better than the current rules. Kickoffs had become a non event. Either removing them  completely or tweaking them was the only option 

[Do we have a single prospect that will be any good next year?]

6 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

As someone who really likes seeing old school bunk get disproven, it'd be cool if someone could do the research on this. 

There really is no way to know. 
i believe that “development” or lack thereof, is just an excuse when someone doesn’t turn out like was expected. The player blames the team. The scout blames the team. The fan who was sure Luke Adam was the next Phil Esposito blames the team, etc.

[Do we have a single prospect that will be any good next year?]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Oddly we conclude completely different things from thew same example. 

Development is not bunk. Sabres development plans however are. the results speak for themselves. 

As I’ve stated before, there is no real way to prove the point unless you were able to create an alternate universe. Would player A turn out any different if he was drafted by another team? How can you ever know? 

[Do we have a single prospect that will be any good next year?]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

Sure he has, but that's not what I was saying. Rookies have irregular development paths and when you rush them in they often have fall backs before putting it all together. Again, look at Mitts path as an example of a first rounder drafted roughly around the same level. Up, down, looked like a bust, got it together, came into his prime. It took years. 

Benson might have a quicker and more direct path but he could also easily take huge steps backwards first. It's just the way it is, and we rush our prospects as a "plan" and it's not a good "plan". 

Casey is a perfect example of how the whole “development” thing is bunk. As you said, all players have different development curves. Good players figure it out or grow into or whatever. The whole notion that you can ruin a player by putting him in bad situations has always been old school garbage to me.

[Sabres Prospect Updates 23-24]

4 hours ago, Flashsabre said:

Very Briere like goal

Everytime I see a highlight of him it screams Briere. I am interested to see how he develops.

 

[Sabres Prospect Updates 23-24]

45 minutes ago, shrader said:

I think it’s time for a lesson on acronyms. 

Granted, not an acronym in any sense of the word. I apologize for the lack of clarity.

[Sabres Prospect Updates 23-24]

34 minutes ago, shrader said:

RBM?

Rod Brind’ Amour. Carolina has still not extended him and there have been rumors that Buffalo would offer to make him the highest paid coach in the NHL. First, he’s likely to stay. Second, like Babcock before him, his wife would likely veto any move to Buffalo.