Thorny

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.

Ya, I suppose the benefit of having owners like the Pegulas is that whenever Adams doesn't do something right, we can just say it's their fault The Pegulas are the impetus behind all the negative decisions, but all of the positive developments have "Adams" written all over them, but NOT the Pegulas. I keep forgetting.

Is he really going to be in the K for that whole time? Is he even draftable then? Setting up for that tournament to be as overrated as ever, honestly FTFY. If the Sabres come away from a draft loaded with centres, where they have 3 first round picks, and don't take a single one after not taking a centre of note in either of the last two drafts either, they are doing it wrong. Teams don't go that long, with that many picks, without taking a C. It's exactly the thing that would be first pointed to in a few years if our C depth isn't strong enough: "hey, maybe we *shouldn't* have gone 3 straight years without drafting a C in the first two rounds".

Last line is the kiss of death for sure lol

That's a lineup.

Might wanna get that checked out, dude. - - - The Rangers are a joke. Just are. Please beat them. They have to win in Winnipeg for me, so, 3 straight?

Agree - especially with the bold Agree. As I've mentioned before, doing it twice jumps the shark.

@dudacek Brawndo already laid out that Adams has an additional two years to show improvement (in Brawndo's opinion, yes, but it's a strong source of such). So yes, by your framing ("every team measures itself") I have no doubt the expectations will be intentionally set so low next season we'd have a hard time falling short. I find that to be disheartening. I'm arguing from the point of view of my personal stance: the results matter next year. And by results, I mean winning facking hockey games. That's MY bar.

In MY opinion, the most favourable summation of the job he's done should, at this point, be "incomplete". He can only have done a good job if the macro results are successful, and we have no idea if that is the case yet. A GM who steers a team to two bottom of the league finishes in two years being judged to have done a "very good" job is well beyond me. If we don't want to judge based on the overall output of the team, we should wait to pass judgement. IMO we don't have to lambast him for perceived negatives in the product right now, and the other side of that coin is he shouldn't be getting praise when he hasn't accomplished anything, either. It's either too soon to judge, or it's not. You are being obtuse. You know what I'm saying - very few teams set the expectations as low as we have been.

Clarification: Next year, the results that every other team measures itself by except us, matter.

Did we ever find out if there was truth to the rumours that Rutherford joining the Sabres depended on how "hands off" Pegula would be, or was that all noise?

This is getting pedantic but my point was merely that, standings wise, they actually improved in season from the point he bought the team. The following season, it crashed, yes.

3 straight near bottom of the league finishes is egregious. Next year, the results matter. Obviously, it looks like Pegula's mileage may vary on that one.

So we just don't know. It's the results that matter, though. *Could* Adams have signed Reinhart? Yes. He was two years out from UFA when Adams took over. Throwing out a hypothetical, "maybe Reinhart wanted way too much" isn't a strong argument. By the same coin I could say, "maybe Adams wasn't convinced Reinhart was a core player" or "maybe Reinhart asked for a reasonable salary but his sticking point was term". Adams didn't sign him. He doesn't need to be tarred and feathered for it, but it wasn't a situation that had any sort of conclusive developments where it can be claimed he should be held blameless for how the Reinhart situation/trade turned out. He's simply responsible for the results. If they team gets good, or Levi turns out swell...the trade is fine. If he isn't able to turn the team around...of course his failure to lock up Reinhart should count as a strike on the negative side. I'm not building a case for why he should be fired. I'm maintaining the case that Adams is amendable to the results.

I mean sure, but without hearing that Reinhart *wasn't* open to a deal two offseasons ago, there's no reason to assume he couldn't have locked up Reinhart at that time. If you show him the money, he stays, if he's still two years out from UFA. As you mentioned, Adams was travelling with the team and had a good idea of the makeup right when he took over - he should have signed Sam then. If he knew the team was going to be bad and knew he had no chance of signing Sam the following offseason, by bridging him one more year he made the choice/put the team in the situation where they had to lose Sam. "Who knows, maybe Sam wanted to sign one year deals until he got out" isn't much of a defense. It's Adams job to lock up his key players. Of course Botterill's decisions factor in massively as well, but Adams could have also signed Reinhart. - - - As for the last bit - it's discouraging to learn that he has an additional two years to achieve progress. Like you, I'd hope for that progress next season. If he's allowed another write-off year, I do think the plan is in big trouble.

Thanks, that's right. I doubt they were in 15th overall either then, if they were 5 points out of 8th in the east. But ya.

They still needed a guy last year though. I'm not complaining he traded an expiring asset for the return he did, I was complaining he let the asset get to the point that it was expiring.

Weren't we in last place? Then we went on that sweet run to the playoffs, no? Ennis goal in game 5 OT probably the last truly great Sabres moment, I guess?

Easy money is easy.

I agree with this, though I'll add the Sabres have been much more vague about these things than the crappy team that lives where I do

Yes but at that point, as I've mentioned before, I don't think Adams was willing to sacrifice one iota of "the future" in the name of present day achievement. As always, a choice. Adams punted the decision on Reinhart, and, if it's true he "knew they'd be bad" (yes, I am going to have a field day with this one, too many times, sorry folks lol) he punted the decision to a time when he would have KNOWN signing Reinhart wouldn't be possible. By bridging Reinhart, he was literally deciding to trade Reinhart. This is the scenario being presented.