Thorny

2 good ones in the east, one ok, one notable stinker

So we need a Casey Mittelstadt. Fair enough, there were always two parts to that trade. But, let’s ask the question, if we had Casey, would one of our needs be a second pair left shot D with bad analytics?

Echo chamber

Yep, I mean people are falling head over heals to anoint Adams for his honesty and forwardness, here - doesn’t go both ways. If that’s the case, drop the Pegula stuff. KA says it’s on himself

I’d love Bruce tbh

This group of players has such an uphill battle in the field of “likeablity”

We can judge him relative to the roster. I don’t think we “underachieved” nearly as much as many, but I do think Granato’s coaching left a few points on the table something like that would only presumably increase relative to a more apt coach once the roster improves. But that’s just my evaluation

True re: the “penalty” but he did re-sign him IIRC

Early returns say this remains an odd asset to cash Mittelstadt in for

It’s a good question. They probably decided on 5 years though

Ok. And if Adams gets a 6th year after not making the playoffs once his first 5, I won’t be here for it haha. Im not mad about it, but ya gotta draw the line somewhere

That doesn’t look like a man with a refreshing grasp of analytics to you?

Here ya go, since ya love bleacher report so much @LGR4GM

You *literally* edited your post after I responded to include that (as evidenced by the fact it is absent from my post that quotes yours) and then responded by saying you already told me lol come on dude you are so anti-good faith You can’t even seem to grasp the argument we are having: OF COURSE the opinion that Murray “raided the cupboards” (it didn’t even say empty) is EVEYWHERE. My *entire point* is that it’s a false, oft regurgitated narrative. It’s shallow and wrong. And everywhere. That’s a key part of my stance. you share it, and all you are doing is quoting some random bleacher report (lol!) article that states your opinion. You aren’t adding anything to the argument! Yes, I get that person is saying what you are. It doesn’t make it true. I’ve provided the data (as have others) that illustrate why we have a different take. You can choose to do so, or you can simply continue to do nothing to actually defend your opinion

Who is this person? Do they have a sabrespace account? Would they like to have an argument with me? I’d be open to it a screenshotted, random opinion online saying the same thing as you doesn’t contribute anything. It’s just a replication of your opinion. I could screenshot literally any argument I wanted to. Seriously, pick one. Pick the most absurd take you can think of and I’ll find you a screenshot. What you posted isn’t even a take it’s just someone trying to write interestingly for an article lol “he traded some picks but they still have a lot coming” you got me haha

Well, you’ve turned my “this likely means Adams is on the hot seat for 24-25” into “this might mean Adams is NOT on the hot seat, as he would have been had Granato stayed, for 24-25” so cool beans.

Right but for one reason or another I do not buy that just because Granato got fired that grants Adams an additional two years. You could can Adams and keep the coach. Or you could re-assign the coach to a hockey ops position to save face

Because IF MURRAY HAD BEEN RIGHT about the talent acquisition the price paid would have been more than fair. They only looked like overpays *because the talent analysis failed.*. Failure of execution. You have to remember back to the narrative at the time: it wasn’t just that we weren’t getting the right guys, it’s that, even if we had, we overpaid to do it. That we were specifically trading away too many of our long term assets at a point we should not. This was mistaken relative to quantity and quality league relative, Botterill relative, and in the idea it was somehow wrong to trade from that pool. There was a *specific* argument that Murray paid more of these assets, squandered more of these assets than normal, whether his moves proved wrong OR right. ANY GM will have a laundry list of “overpays” and “undersells” if their execution and talent evaluation is lacking He traded too many simply under the principle that ONE was too many cause he couldn’t make very good trades. But the idea of using the assets he did, at the time he did to make transactions wasn’t the problem: he just made consistently poor transactions by way of talent evaluation.

Exactly. He didn’t fail because the types of moves he was making were inherently bad and strategically flawed, he failed because he seemed almost exclusively capable of making bad moves in general Issue of execution not theory. He’d have failed employing Adams strategy, too

Lol this never happened Lol this never happened

It matters. But I’m cautioning against feeling like we can conveniently get where we need to go merely by adjusting a solitary variable

Does sound like the attitude of someone who is now on the hook Have to agree, and the Quinn answer isn’t very good

But it could. Adams would be right. that’s not my point. I’ll say it again: my point is that that alone isn’t enough. We *aren’t* Vancouver. We are the Buffalo Sabres and the franchise itself is leaking oil to the extent of absolutely needing a playoff berth. For the success of the core and the fanbase. It’s about our willingness to take steps to make the result we want and need a greater possibility: to leave less to luck and chance

I still think we are somewhat overselling the impact a coach has imo. Whether or not one human can come in and wave a magic wand and boom! power play is fixed and pow! slow starts are gone and schwing! no one gets hurt now… a lot of the determination for how much success the new coach has in these areas will ultimately come down to how much roster flexibility and depth the GM gives him to work with I don’t think it’s a matter of one coaching change necessarily bridges the gap to playoffs. It COULD, but the point is we can certainly ill-afford to take that chance, which is why I’m glad Adams seemed to strike a tone of expectation on his end, as well