Thorny

It’s not that shocking when we consider it’s hard for a player to drop off from somewhere they never actually got on. Putting up good *metrics* in small sample sizes and then projecting that over a full 82 game season in *actual production* is a fools errand. It’s ok we do stuff like that on this website as fans: as a GM it’s abhorrent. i’m honestly more surprised people think stats work that way. It’s an entirely different animal when you expect projected results from a small sample to extrapolate over a much larger frame where much more is expected of the player. Call it the Comrie effect. A *frequent* misstep and characterization of Adams’ tenure is projecting out best case scenario development before it happens. His strategy essentially IS counting on maybes, for things to happen that we haven’t actually seen yet

Maybe because he’s lacking the greatest goalie of all time that Peca had, and the best overall roster I’ve ever seen the Sabres assemble, that Drury had. Maybe we should reckon with those (quite sizeable) variables in the equation before jumping to a mystic intangible? the closer one gets to pinning the issues on one player, they further they get from a salient reading of the situation. We’ve been there so many times recently with so many good players im surprised we still go there

This exactly

It’s been 13 years and Terry Pegula is STILL the viceroy of the Sabres federation

Why build a playoff team now when you can map out a championship team for in a few years, amirite? We are the Buffalo Sabres, we are above such trivial concerns: our sole purpose is to win the Stanley cup. Let the dregs of the league set goals as lowly and embarrassing as merely scratching out an honest playoff berth every two years and seeing what happens

I’d wager it’s far closer to “inconsequential” than “big”.

This just *feels* like a Kevyn Adams move

Salient, when it comes to how poor Byram has been at actually playing defence up until the last few games

My *sole* concern has always been this board…and its members. The culprit has been..identified? I presume?

A flat junior chicken with unsalted small fries and a coke with melted ice

Oh ffs

No I use “amendable to the results” all the time and it’s indeed wrong - thanks for letting me know I had something in my teeth. The word I was looking for is “Amenable”, as you point out. I don’t agree “amenable” would be wrong, though, the meaning I was going for was: formal : able to be controlled, organized, or affected by something —usually used with to “Affected by something” the noteworthy portion: ie what I’m always trying to communicate is that Adams himself, specifically our *evaluation of* his performance - is affected by the results. Ie the results are the determining factor. It’s a competing viewpoint to the “what could Kevyn Adams have even done?” line of thought you see creep up, that would find Adams evaluation NOT amendable (affected by) the results we see

Of course it can be done. We are looking at a 5 season period, here. All excuses wash away like beaded water on resistant material But not the same half, every year

I enjoyed that film too. I feel like not enough people saw it. Also, I saw HERETIC (2024) yesterday. What a delicious performance from Hugh Grant. Hilariously compelling film. See it!

Chicken parm you taste so good 🎵

I’d also rather have Mittelstadt and McLeod. McLeod was a sweet trade. The message here imo as many others have said is to trade prospects for current players. Which we’ve been harping on for a long time. People will talk about the risk of dealing prospects who may amount to something…IMO who cares. You are wagering future acumen. Aren’t we through with the “future” by now? Way riskier to trade on roster talent, as we see with Mitts/Byram. It feels good to be the team that pulls ahead in the now, (McLeod / Savoie) because if your eyes are on the now, the current, we really don’t need to give a sh*te about the future. You start to find you don’t need to look down the road to a vague future to find hope

I don’t know that anyone was as outspoken against the deal as me tbh. Don’t really agree with the premise you responded to that the board would have made a different decision: the board loved the deal IIRC The issue is, as I said at the time, there was no reason to pay him when we did. He wasn’t going to bump up his AAV - was never going to be a stat monger even if he excelled, and he didn’t excel there was only risk to the deal, no upside: and the risk bore out

If the refs can’t take their anger at not being good enough to make the show out on the youngest (and therefore most in-need-of-a-lesson) players, what’s the point of being a REF

Cozens finding his game is quite promising

^ Canary in a coal mine if I’ve ever seen one