Thorny

Aren't some elements of effort a zero-sum game? In that the scale comprises 2 teams? It seems likely to me that the Sabres "better effort" early on was more a product of the leeway other teams were granting the buffalo sabres during an early season time frame where other teams aren't out to "prove to the world it's different now!" like the Sabres, than it is indicative of the effort specifically dropping off. When the good teams begin to close in the walls around us, there are less places for us to quickly hustle to

I guess it depends on how you frame it. A) is there a middle ground? Is it possible that it's ok for the record to be poor, yet it reach such a level that it somehow still becomes disappointing? With all context included, could we not have hoped for more? Actually asking. B) from the perspective of what the record *could* have been had Adams not gone so full-on rebuild? And whether or not that may have been a better course of action? Like I suppose we could say, what's done is done, this is the pathway. But I see no reason why debating the strategy itself doesn't make for an interesting discussion. Indeed, I've said all along that I can find quite a few positives for Adams *within the context* of his chosen strategy, yet be outright opposed to the strategy itself. There's a distinction there and I think there are interesting discussions to be had on either end of it

I feel that way about Aaron Rodgers

Well the topic of whether or not we'll be trading away our good players was brought up, thought it made an interesting discussion point. Your arguments for why they may move on from VO made sense to me even if I completely disagreed with them/the course of action that would lead to KA making those decisions, should he make them

I think the "due to age" thing is the kicker. It's not lost on me that my interchanging of "age" with "injury" can be nothing other than a bad omen for myself going forward I can only imagine lol

Definitely am/was. Simplified to use "hurt" here because the context of interest right now in injuries - I cannot deny though that I didn't think he could withstand a starter's workload after only playing 4 games last season. Especially without the aid of a capable back-up in Buffalo. Indeed, it was the combination of both his play being unlikely to hold up AND what I thought was a significant chance he couldn't physically keep it together that teamed together to make it such a low-odds bet. I truly didn't see it as a "maybe it will, maybe it won't", situation, it seemed doomed to fail. And that's not tooting my own horn - my opinion on this was merely a pebble in the sand of other posters who said the same thing

Okay but that sort of changes the question, no?

Would anyone be comfortable penciling in Anderson as the starter for next season? Actually asking. His numbers looked pretty good, if it's, "tough luck, injuries" - why not bring him back?

Don't really buy the Anderson argument personally. I thought he'd get hurt and he did. I think that's something KA should have easily seen/expected. IIRC the sticking point with Ullmark was term - salary at this stage of the game isn't a concern for the buffalo sabres, re: the cap. To me, sacrificing a bit of cash and term to ensure the future we are planning on actually *does* arrive, would be the way to go. By refusing to compromise on one iota of that future when it came to Ullmark, looks to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy where they are risking that future to a much greater extent in the process of trying to protect it.

VO. He could be right or not, just thought bringing that discussion over here made sense as a conversation point.. I am awaiting your comment!

Development, deliberation, determination, differentials...and development

@GASabresIUFANseems to think our leading point producer by rate this season might be on the chopping block..

If we keep the 5 "D"s of drafting in mind I'm sure we'll be ok

I don't like to go here, but does anyone think there's a chance that Strength of Division, as it stands currently, in any way factored into the timeline of the chosen rebuild path?

I wonder if KA would like a mulligan on declining the extra year or two with Ullmark... His sv% sits exactly where it did last year for the Sabres

Power is in the top 8, who else? Is Quinn 15?

4 centres at the top looks good to me...

I agree with your post in general but as for the last line: Not really? Dunno how many times we are going to go here with coaches. Is Granato a worse coach than Krueger? His record is worse. And Krueger's was a very low bar. It's the roster. The roster has less talent than one would even think - there's commentary in the GDT's about how poor the bottom 6 is - but the top 6 is just as relatively bad. We see the name "Cozens" and it looks fine, but he's not playing a spot in the lineup equivalent to his abilities. IMO his upside softens the perception when in reality, the roster is inferior, as it stands, top to bottom, potentially to a man? Is there a player in spot in our lineup that is NHL average in that position besides Dahlin?

I think what we are seeing is the extent of the belief some have in our prospect system. Only an exceptionally strong belief in such could allow such optimism for a team that has lost 23 of it's last 28 games. They have 5 wins in 3 months. I understand the belief in the prospects even if, for me, it has a bit of a "deja vu" feel. For me, my belief in the prospects (it looks like a very strong group) isn't as much of an issue as the baseline we are going to ask them to climb up from - it looks much lower than I'd have wanted it to be, and that's even with low expectations. It doesn't cause me to think the plan can't work, but certainly it seems it'll take longer than many thought - maybe more in line with @LGR4GM's timeline. If things work out, I'd say his timeline is pretty spot on. That it's so drawn out feeds into the concerns of why I had doubts it'd work, from the beginning. But there's no doubt an exceptionally slow back to credibility is plausibly the most likely outcome of the good outcomes. I really think what you are seeing is a greater talent gap than even expected. More so than a lack of effort

People remember that Rochester finished 3rd overall in 18-19, right? On the backs of promising prospects like Victor Olofsson, Rasmus Asplund, Alex Nylander, Brendan Guhle, Pilut, Bailey, Will Borgen, even Tage Thompson with a few.

And Adams doesn't get a pass on it because of the group he assembled that was always going to be bad was made even worse because of injuries. It can (and is) both: the position was handled terribly, and they've had bad luck on top of it. But the injuries don't retroactively make the group good, or even passable. Exactly

Easily the worst argument you see recycled on this website You give me all of the contacts Adams has and the phone numbers, I'll dive in and figure that out for you. I can flip the same putrid argument right back on you - "Who *couldn't* have Adams acquired?" Can you prove to me all of the other goalies weren't available for a price I'd pay? I'll hang up and listen. Actually I won't - cause your argument is terrible.

Adams' management of the goaltending position.......... Ya there have been injuries, but generally the players getting injured, nor their replacements, have been any good. When everyone could have (and did) predict the stable he assembled wasn't going to work out, there's no reason to think KA himself shouldn't have been aware of it, too. We could see it coming, after all. And we are message board posters.