Thorny

A big part of why they are “getting” the goaltending is because of a renewed team wide commitment to D. Is it a coincidence the goals for have dried up under UPL? Of course not.

At what point in the 17 losses in the last 20 am I supposed to see this “difference”?

Murray's is actually probably second lol This is what I mean, what Adams has done so far can be best summed up by A) What @Archie Leesaid: Things that are not terrible, and B) commit a couple of strong looking drafts to paper. I really do think A factors in as much as B, too, to the positive perception. You hear a lot of pretty glowing reviews for a GM who's team has literally just accumulated losses since he took over. People want the "just let everything develop" route. No "quick fix" effort. He hasn't really done very much. He's the guy who drafted Jack Quinn and JJ Peterka and didn't handcuff the organization long term with anything.

It's quite clear that by far the best group here is Botterill's, for whatever that's worth

Ya true, was mostly just joking though honestly

On this we cannot agree.

^ I've got a signed Miller sluggo haha

Ya - I don't think a high pick is the goal. It's the expected result once the priorities have been implemented.

Agreed in full - and I'd also add that those factors you outlined that contribute to a reasonable free pass being given to Adams, by the same token illustrate why that particular season doesn't exist as a strong argument for why a more balanced approach for the now couldn't have been possible. It was a pretty big outlier of a year, and to me does not represent conclusive proof that we NEEDED to go long-scale rebuild. Basically, I don't believe any plan that included a component of "winning now" was necessarily doomed to fail. Even though THAT season, was.

Comparables leave a little something to be desired, but that all looks really great. Can someone explain the second tweet to me? It's purely concerning prospects playing in the AHL, correct?

I'm not all that big on primary assists being elevated as highly above secondary, for a d-man. When it's a players job to initiate the play, I think a high secondary assist total looks pretty favourable.

Because of how the Ullmark situation unfolded and what we were willing to pay failing that, I've been under the impression winning has been very near the bottom of the priorities list this season, personally. I've maintained it's not a tank, Adams doesn't WANT to lose. But not winning is wholly accepted. Indeed, Adams is smart enough to know that working subject to his own priorities would lead to that result.

Not too big on memorabilia but, maybe my signed LaFontaine hockey card? Maybe the personalized Rick Jeanneret cameo vid we got my Dad for his birthday where he talks about the sabres winning the stanley cup. @PASabreFanyou've mentioned before you'd hope the Sabres are smart enough to have some sort of Rick stanley cup call recorded, just in case. If they don't, I've got it covered.

Vontae Davis? lol

Granato doesn't know? lol its like they want as few ppl knowing the extent of the injuries as possible to limit culpability

There was quite a lot of talk at the time that Hall's signing represented the reason we didn't/couldn't go LT with Sam.

My reputation must precede me.. - - - For the record, our weather is actually really good nowadays

Ya exactly. I try to keep the subjective and the objective distinct. Subjectively I think not locking him up when he took over the wrong move. But I don't call for Adams "firing" etc, even when what I claim to be the most important thing, results, have been bad - because objectively we don't know how the Reinhart move will work out within the context of what he's trying to achieve. If the plan were to fail, then we can start to dial in on why exactly it went wrong. And that may lead me to Reinhart. But it hasn't failed, or succeeded. Adams hasn't done a good job or a poor job - he's not done, at all. Just because I don't like the plan doesn't mean it won't succeed, and it would be ridiculous to say that within the context of the plan Adams is initiating that the losses this season represent any kind of verdict. Agree obviously with the goaltending - I do draw an objective line there: if he doesn't improve it this offseason, it's a mistake. As far as I am concerned. I think that betrays his own plan.

Ya. I mean it's not logical to say that one can't have an issue with the Plan until the initiator's chosen timeline has passed - what if a GM said they needed 10 years to turn it around. We need to be patient for 10 years? I disagree with KA's plan. To your point - I do think the plan should be recognized, everyone knows I don't like it but I'm not posting about how he should be fired. Indeed, I try to frame my arguments through the context of the plan Adams himself is initiating. It is my opinion though that, under that "rebuild" plan, a second year where winning doesn't matter would be a crucial mistake. Regardless of what a specific GM says his timeline is, everyones mileage will vary in terms of how long they feel comfortable waiting for the results they'd like to see. I don't like the plan, but I'm clearly giving it the benefit of the doubt. I can be against the plan, but still evaluate its results through the prism of what I believe a rebuild plan should look like. Even with it being, again, not the plan I'd have chosen.

The current landscape highlighted by Brawndo was that Adams *knew* they'd be bad last season, that his original plan was a reset, and that he merely attempted to keep long term costs down while appeasing the Pegulas who wanted to "go for it", while navigating through the season he knew was doomed to fail, allowing him to initiate his actual plan, right? So he was in the long game since he took over. If he's had things mapped out, as is being contended, there's no reason the Reinhart situation shouldn't have been approached through that prism, by Adams, two offseason ago. It's fair game for me to say I'd have approached the Reinhart situation differently, the plan as it stands wasn't beyond conception at that point - it was already a reality in KA's mind. Don't see a statute of limitations saying, if I had approached it differently, like your question posed, that would limit the changes I'd have made to just this past offseason

No, two seasons ago.

Lmaoooo

If we are in a situation where the sentence "I wouldn't have given up the extra pick for that goalie in a year where we aren't going to contend anyways" is being commonly uttered, the plan is failing. etc etc Bringing in that goalie is for next year is important, nay, mandatory. We didn't sign Linus because nothing of the future would be sacrificed for the now. Next season, the priorities can't be the same as they were this season.

BUT NOOOOOOOOT OUT!

I would have kept Reinhart, payed to keep Linus, and sought better depth than the JAGS we brought in. Most importantly, the new core would be under the impressions that winning this year is important. I am open to the pathway Adams took even if I disagree with it, but that openness expires this coming offseason. If we are sitting, next December, with some promising looking prospects and a record of 8-14-3, the plan is failing - that's my contention. I do not think they can afford another "development" year.