Thorny

In a world where Girgensons makes 2 mil per, I'd be comfortable getting up to 4, 4.5 or so with VO. We don't have close to enough depth where we can afford to be punting these types of guys for picks right now if it can be avoided - so hopefully finding amicable terms here for both sides doesn't prove too difficult. He still has a rate of production this season greater than anyone else on the team, and we have a ton of flexibility with the cap. Even if we locked VO up to the tune of 5 mil next season, we'd be paying about 6 mil total between VO and Tage - seems reasonable to me. Just don't go crazy on term.

Good post. Agree with your conclusion - it's why I'm really hesitant to be in the Bedard sweepstakes and I hope that's not the plan

The rare set-up of: right shot - right shot - right shot left shot - left shot - left shot ...no particular comment, just a bit of a "scorigami" in terms of line configs this year

Saros is the only starter this year Don't really think the likes of Bernier or Raanta are what people have in mind when they are projecting out their hopes for Levi - prime level Khudobin though seems reasonable as a hope though, and represents a good example

How short the list is of goalies under 6'1 having success of late in the NHL is perhaps an underplayed point when it comes to levi. I'm super excited to see how his numbers start translating to pro players who have better success in picking their spots The list basically begins, and ends, with Juuse Saros - he'd be my hope

Not having the best track record in locking up college goalies, I'd prefer we locked up at least one of Levi or Portillo ASAP I think there's a reasonable chance the one that isn't the first to be signed sticks it out to become a UFA, if they think UPL/The Guy Signed represent an obstacle for them making the team

This is where I'm at, lately, in thinking about it. If we are to become good, I think that'll be the avenue. Provided Levi (or someone) manages to develop into a no-nonsense NHL starter.

Was referring more to the talent environment, but ya. And ya we'll have to see if E-Rod keeps it up.

The beauty of my argument in this case is that it's consistent. There isn't a hidden agenda here. I don't really care if you want to question my motives as a fan, it's no skin off my neck. I will provide one reference here so as to try and show you what I mean, if you actually have interest in giving me the benefit of the doubt: I had no problem shifting my stance when the results were different. I was singing a different tune. I always claim that I look to the bottom-line for the lion's share of evaluation (maybe that's the worst way to do it, I don't really care, just being transparent), the results, and as far as I know when the wins were there I was talking about how I may have been wrong, posting in the GDT's about how fun the wins were, etc. Perhaps some sort of anti-sabres bias would be reflected better by sticking to initial predictions in an effort to look cool rather than changing them on october 29th at the earliest chance it looked reasonable to do so. There's no point caring about what I say If you hate that that's the way I look at things. If you are correct that the wins are on the way, my point of view will shift to accurately reflect the results, in due time, and you'll be proven correct in the prediction. I don't care about being right. I've won enough arguments to last a lifetime. Maybe if my argument was that I was sure they'd be great, I wouldn't want to be proven wrong. I'm here to be swayed. Why do you think I engage @dudacek's posts so often

It's just such a small sample size. And, what, 5 of those games were early season? It was a fool's gold start to the year. We have a mere 5 wins since - the incredible drop off suggests the change was due to far, far more than just the GT. For the change to be that extreme. If the premise is that, with good goaltending, we'd be a better team - of course I agree with that. For my part, though, the context of the conversation is how the team is stacking up heading into next season - what we might expect (early guesses, type stuff). I'm admittedly pretty firm in my stance that Craig Anderson doesn't build too much of an argument, within this context. Do you actually believe he'd be able to replicate that short performance, over a full season next year, at his age? Would you be comfortable lining up with him between the pipes, to start next year? If the answer is "no", toting his stats early this year as evidence for why we might be better next year doesn't hold much water, not without telling me where that performance is going to come from. If the answer is, Adams needs to actively add to the roster, we'll have found common ground.

One would have to think, if the Sabres had any plans of moving Dahlin over to play the right side once Power is here, that they'd be experimenting a bit with Dahlin on the right. As far as I know his time on the right this season thus far has been negligible. Perhaps non-existent. But I haven't seen every game.

With the exception of your idea that they had "no other option" but to go this route, I see the rest of the post as plausible. The new process is not without risks. If the timeline you believe in is merely extended one further year, and there's another 2 full years after this one where we aren't "serious", I fear for the "culture." Hell, I fear for it with another bad year after the current. Is the top of the draft a priority again next year?

The results.

Goes pretty well with what I'm getting at in the other thread. Because we could add Eichel to this team and still finish last, and teams can add E-Rod and that guy can make a huge positive difference. It's about the overall environment. For the most part, a grouping buoys the individual, not the other way around. This isn't the NBA, or a QB in the NFL. Your best couple players *don't play* the majority of the game. Adding Casey Mittelstadt and Alex Tuch to this roster from game 1 wouldn't make us notably better. We shouldn't be surprised a Bjork or E-Rod couldn't, then. An MVP level player could not.

And I don't know why you don't understand why I keep doing it. We don't have key players. We have a roster literally designed with the idea of "next man up" being strictly viable. People have been saying in threads all year our roster is ideally structured for exactly that. Because it's true. Put someone in, take someone out. Put a couple in, take a couple out - it's not going to matter in the standings. The gap from Mittelstadt and Tuch to Eakin and whoever, when compared to the gaps other teams have, OR EVEN DON'T HAVE, when looking at their injury or covid situations, are but a drop of urine in the ocean. With the exception of Dahlin, the rest is mostly interchangeable. - - - We could add Jack Eichel to this roster and we'd be at the bottom of the league. How do I know? Cause I freaking saw it already! We aren't adding that kind of talent to this roster if we somehow could retroactively grant the team a clean bill of health for the full year. Add every single player that's been hurt and they don't add as much value as replacing Krebs with Eichel would.

I've been thinking we are in the Wonder Years.

whoops sorry it wasn't supposed to read aggressively, LGR. my apologies. - - - I legitimately believe people forget about the development Eichel underwent because it was, you know, even "expected" is probably the wrong word. It was pre-ordained. But it still did happen. Even if it wasn't to a generational level. Not saying you, specifically.

It's okay to be of the position that says, "Not only could we not have expected better on-ice this season, from the players we have, our GM also had no choice in assembling said roster the way he did, and taking the pathway he did." - it just doesn't leave any room for discussion. We are simply witnessing justified inevitability, then. I do know that certain posters I may or may not be conversing with right now were posting screengrabs of the Sabres' position in the standings this past October after a few games, so I have indeed been under the impression taking a stance on the actual results may have merit, and/or bear discussion.

Ghost is having a really good year. Surprised that guy got through waivers.

I like how people pretend Eichel didn't develop. He had a more linear upward trajectory than any Sabre in my memory. Reinhart also had a strong, strong development curve. Eichel went from a 56 point scorer as an 18 year old rookie to a player who finished 11th in the ENTIRE LEAGUE in points per game at 19 lol. I guess that doesn't count though because it was, as they say, "All part of the plan" - The Joker. It's all framed through expectation. - - - The advanced metrics identify Eichel-the-rookie as contributing more negatively to possession than positively - and in a mere 4 years he was top 10 in league MVP voting. Development.

I agree with the first bold. As for the second, I don't think you are understanding my argument. My entire point is that the Sabres being "less able" to deal with disruption isn't something that should be construed as "bad luck" or a potential area for improvement, heading into next season. We will continue to be hampered by injuries to a greater extent than other teams if we continue to have a lack of depth relative to other teams. It's a self-made failing. The roster with a lack of depth is the roster we chose to assemble.

Will the Sabres benefit from inside improvement more than some other teams? I could see it. Without added depth, they'll almost certainly lose a portion of that increased benefit due to injury, once it has it's affect on our team next year, as it will with all others. Would need to see some outside addition to the roster this summer from KA to prevent that portion of loss. We will also lose a portion of that benefit due to other teams also having an influx of talent. Will we lose the full benefit? No, I think overall we have more talent on the way than average, but I am perhaps biased towards the Sabres - can't claim to be as familiar with the prospects units of all the other teams. Owen Power seemingly presents a notable exception, which is encouraging. Again, one need only look at the general statistical WAR of players across the NHL to see we are looking at a near-insurmountable gap, over one year, should we be adding said young players to a 60 point team. What's the expectation? That brining back the same team plus rooks nets us 70-75 points? It is uncommon for a team to improve that much year over year, but I could see it being possible. If the conversation is, Jack Quinn, JJ Peterka, and Owen Power are going to come in year 1 and with the addition of one of Casey or Tuch (one will be injured, yes, we can assume a non-healthy lineup) we'll be fighting for a playoff spot - I'm not there.

I can acknowledge the 10 guys, but I'm also aware most teams undergo similar turnover in most other years. I can't remember who posted it a little while back, but changing out a third or so of your roster *every* year is really quite common. Maybe the Sabres turn over a couple more guys than normal? My argument isn't so much that we don't have talent coming - we do. It's that it *isn't* being added to a team that is being misrepresented by it's point total this year. The Sabres are where they *should* be in the standings this year - that they didn't have the depth to withstand injury, something every team is tested on, every year, is not a mark in Adams' favour. They can't have expected better, is my point. They do not have an absurd amount of talent missing relative to other teams, one can't reasonably expect Craig Anderson to amount to more than he has. It was a bad bet to begin with. There's no credit there. If we start the projection for next year out from a ~ 60 point, bottom 5 (soon to be bottom 4) roster, I think we are more/less on the same playing field here. We may differ on how much improvement we'll see, next season, by Adams doing what everyone wants him to do - which is sit on his hands and draft players. You may just see more improvement coming from the infusion of youth than I do. Or, you may not - maybe I see the same and I just see the starting point as much lower. All I can do is keep consistency of argument, it's what matters to me - I've said all along that I was NOT ok with a "this season wasn't about winning anyway" attitude, and I know you are familiar with my posts. Nothing has changed for me, I'm not skewing anything to fit my stance: I wanted to see the team perform better *this* season. For me, if we were seeing more promise from the young players and team we have now, if Adams had added further supplementation, whatever the reason may be - I'd be a lot more confident the guys we have coming could serve to bridge the gap. To me, things look a lot further away than next season. And it's a good point. Owen Power is the one guy who gives me hesitation in predicting little improvement next season should Adams more/less sit on his hands.