Archie Lee

Some GMs don’t spend much time worrying about how happy a player is.

As a qualifier, every player gets one path to the NHL (some more winding than others, but a single path nonetheless). The reality is that if a player fails to reach their potential, there is no way to know with certainty whether that failure relates to a poor development process or to the player simply not being good enough. So, I really don't think it is possible to say that Benson's offensive game has been, will be, or won't be stunted by being in the NHL; that is, unless he develops into an offensive star, in which case it can be said that being in the NHL from day-one, didn't hurt his offensive game. Benson never went back to junior and we will never know how going back to junior might have impacted his game. That said, I don't think there is any way to say that Benson being in the NHL for D1 and D2 means there is a better chance, let alone a "far better chance", of a breakout this year. There is, relatively speaking, a long list of forwards drafted between 11th and 15th overall (Benson was 13th), who did not fully make it to the NHL until D3, and who had rookie seasons that would qualify as a "breakout year" for Benson. Respectfully to my fellow Benson admirers, there is a tendency to see Benson as a different sort of Cat who was/is uniquely able to adapt to the pro-game as an 18 year old right out of junior, while also thinking that he somehow doesn't have traits that would have allowed him to develop in junior ("He's too good for junior and going back would have stunted his development"). Benson is a unique Cat. He would have developed fine either way and would, in my view, be a legit rookie of the year candidate if he was coming into the NHL this season.

I think it remains that the Sabres are collectively (not individually) too young and inexperienced. Their three best players, are not though. Dahlin, Thompson, and Tuch, are keys. I don't think they all need to have career years, but they need to be the elite players that they are. I think it is possible those three are talented enough to drag a team into the playoffs.

And the great thing about Benson is that even if these underlying offensive numbers never translate to him being a big point producer, he has so many other positive traits that he is going to be an effective player for a long-time. Someday, it will be a lot of fun to watch him in the playoffs.

I agree with this. I suppose there is an argument for not firing an assistant until you are certain you can hire a better replacement. But, the proper way to do it (my view) is to start by firing the assistant you want to replace. This accomplishes a couple of things: 1). It creates an urgency or necessity to find someone better; and 2). It serves to cast a wider net than you would by merely calling a few coaches you hope might be interested. In other words, interested coaches will contact you. I’m ambivalent on Wilford. Better is better. I imagine though that we would all swap Ruff for Brind’Amour before we would swap Wilford for Tim Gleason.

Let’s assume the following: - a team’s goal is to win now; and - salaries aren’t an issue . Given those parameters, if you polled every NHL GM and HC in the NHL and told them they could have only one of Quinn, Kulich, or Mittelstadt, I believe the vast majority would take Mittelstadt.

I don't disagree with this in theory. As you say though, it is reasonable to have a "show me" approach. Olofsson, Skinner, and Mittlelstadt, weren't Sabres last year. Malenstyn, Lafferty, and Aube-Kubel were. I'm not convinced that Doan and Danforth get 12-14 minutes per game. Our 4th line upgrades last year, came to us having received 12-14 minutes of ice time per game on their prior teams, only to have that cut to 9.5-10.5 minutes per game here.

I’m no expert on NHL coaching. My understanding though, is that generally the system or structure that a team uses is the preferred structure of the head coach and that the implementation is a shared responsibility with the assistants. Last year when Ruff spoke out about Cozens and Thompson struggling, he didn’t say that they are struggling with Wilford’s system, he said they are struggling with what he asks centres to do in his system.

I’m not sure about “60 game starter”, but I think it is abundantly clear that Adams was certain Levi would be his starting goalie by now. When asked prior to 23-24 about whether Levi needed AHL time he was rather dismissive and referred to Levi as “special”. They then gave Levi four straight, mostly ineffective, starts to begin that season; there is no question in my mind that he believed Levi was his starting goalie two years ago. I think this ties in to my point. Adams hasn’t been able to address multiple loose ends at one time. He, largely, focuses on one element and seems caught off guard when another issue inevitably rises.

I think it is clearly intentional. I think it does matter, but it can be hard to follow the logic. Adams seems to become focused on a certain area or trait related to asset acquisition, rather than focus on acquiring a collection of traits that will equate to a successful team. He started with acquiring picks, then the focus was on skilled forwards, an insistence on building out the pipeline, then it became tall defensemen, then upgrading the 4th line, then being tougher to play against, and now tall AND right-handed defensemen. Perhaps this is the year where he has finally put together the needed combination of skill, toughness, and experience that equates to a playoff level team. It seems there are more conventional ways to do this.

I’m not going to pound the table for Wilford. I don’t think he is responsible, though, for the team’s overall defensive structure.

This is a good point. It’s been a long time since I thought about Bylsma’s system. My very amateur evaluation is that Bylsma struggles to communicate that playing defensively responsible hockey does not mean playing passively. I think this is something we struggled with last year. Teams that play good defensively, defend with vigour, strength, aggression. It’s not a task for the meek. A less than sound structure, implemented by a coach who does not possess the best modern communication skills, on a youthful, inexperienced, and not yet physically developed team, is a bad combination.

I hope the link below works. It is to a recent Instigators podcast (Sabre fan podcast). The guest is Kevin Woodley of InGoal magazine and NHL.com. He breaks down the goalie situation in Buffalo. Woodley gets his advanced stats from Clear Sight Analytics. I believe the host is Chris Ostrander, who I think does a fine job. https://t.co/Rc1b9zrLa7 I highly recommend listening to anyone interested in understanding the impact of environment on goaltenders. To summarize, Woodley explains why the environment in Buffalo has been terrible for goalies. Last season the Sabres finished in the bottom 1/3 in pretty much all defensive areas that impact scoring chances. Further, they were 30th in the NHL in the critical area of preventing cross-ice scoring chances. Woodley references what he believes is the cumulative impact on a goaltender that comes from playing in that environment. A goalie who is being leaned on to start at a 65 game pace (UPL last year), playing in such an environment is likely to have it negatively impact his performance. A goalie can't trust what is happening in front of him and starts to cheat on cross-ice passes, which leads to disaster. Woodley has some good anecdotes on Lehner and Comrie that illustrate how the environment has been an issue in Buffalo for many years. He also explains why it has little to do with how talented your defensemen are, and everything to do with system and structure, starting with the forwards. As well, Woodley provides interesting stuff on Dustin Wolf's game and how Levi might (or might not) benefit from implementing some changes that Wolf made. And there is a brief discussion on how the Sabres might manage Ratzaff and Leinonen this season; playing in the ECHL can be a very chaotic environment for young goalies who are often sent there without the necessary coaching support (and he is clear that he thinks highly of Sabre development coach Seamus Kotyk and that he is certain Kotyk has a plan to address this). Again, a good listen for the dog days of the off-season.

Perhaps this is not a meaningful thing, but the thread being revived a bit today got me back to thinking about the salary cap and the position that Adams had put the franchise in. I did an exercise on PuckPedia of recreating last year's roster with this year's salaries (reverse the Peterka and Clifton trades; bring back Lafferty for Danforth, Reimer for Lyon). If you recreate last year's end of season roster using the current salaries of those players, the Sabre cap hit would be just over $97 million. That would be the 4th highest cap hit in the NHL. The only 3 teams with a current higher projected cap hit are Vegas, Montreal, and Florida, and unlike the Sabres they all have an obvious high-salaried LTIR candidate for the start of the season. Obviously, this didn't happen and Adams should not be criticized for something he didn't ultimately do. But, what he did do last season was ice the youngest roster in the league, that produced a 79 point season (7th worst in the NHL), and that if kept together would have had the highest LTIR-excluded cap-hit in the NHL this season. Again, perhaps not meaningful. Or perhaps, evidence of gross incompetence (as it relates to his job duties).

We just have different views on these players. I think Benson is a better all around player than Quinn or Kulich already. Indeed, when I look at our forward group, I think that Quinn and Kulich are the obvious positions where improvement could be made via trade. I would move them for Rust and Rakell without hesitation, if such a trade was available. Agreed though, that Benson should not have been in the NHL two seasons ago, not because he was ruined or because he was unable to compete at the NHL level, but because there was just no good reason to keep an 18 year old, 13th OA pick on the roster of a team with $10million+ in cap space. That was negligence on Adams's part.

Just for clarity, are you saying Zucker and Norris are bonafide first line forwards or top-6? I would not consider either, nor Benson, to be a "bonafide first-line" forward. A healthy Norris, perhaps, has a chance to be; we really don't know what an 80 game healthy Norris is. Last year's Zucker, I think, can certainly be a top-6 player on a playoff team and could play on the first line of a playoff team in the right set of circumstances, but I don't think he's anyone's idea of a legit/bonafide first-line player. But, I think we really just we have different views of what Benson is going to be this year (not what he has been). I think his scoring will improve to 40 points at minimum and he will prove to be a legit, effective, top-6 winger this year. That's just my projection though; I acknowledge I could be very wrong.

I'm as guilty as anyone of letting my posts digress into indictments of Adams and Ruff (and this post will be no different). To the bolded though (Thorny's comments on what his first line would be), a couple of things: 1.) Of course there are wingers better than Benson and of course Benson would be ideally slotted lower in the line-up. In the context of the Sabres's current roster, he is likely to be a top-six player though. In that regard and context, I think he is going to be good, and he is not high on my list of concerns. I'm much more concerned about Norris and Kulich filling top-6 centre roles than Benson playing left wing on a line with Thompson or Tuch. Which lead's me to: 2.) Please define what a "bonafide first line forward" is, and then list the NHL teams that have 3 of them? I'm not defending Adams's roster: We don't have a #1 centre (maybe we do in Thompson, but the coach can't/won't adjust his system to allow this to be effective); the current 6 roster defenseman and starting goalie are average aged 25 with the oldest being 27; only 8 of our projected 23 player roster have been in an NHL playoff game; etc.. But, it's just not the case that playoff teams have three "bonafide" 1st line players with a spare fourth one on line 2, and then three or 4 bonafide 2nd liners, with 1 or 2 playing on line 3, and so forth. If the point here is that in this critical off-season, Adams should do more to build a more playoff-likely roster and that if he did so that would more appropriately slot Benson in the middle-six instead of the top-six, well, no argument from me. I'm not sure though, what that has to do with someone having the opinion that Benson can be a good/effective (even "very" good) top-6 player this year. Thompson and Tuch are legit 1st line NHL players and Dahlin is a legit Norris contender, and that hasn't made us a playoff team. A fan thinking that the balance of evidence supports Benson can and/or will be an effective top-6 player this year, doesn't by any extension mean that they also think everything is ok with the roster.

I do think the Sabres should trade for a veteran player or two and that it would increase their chances of making the playoffs if they made the right trade(s). I would trade Kulich and Quinn for Rakell and Rust without a 2nd thought , as an example. There was no two part question here though. The question is how good do you think Benson will be this year, not how good do you think Benson will be this year and what does that mean to the Sabres chances of making the playoffs if they don’t make any additional roster moves? If it had been the two part question, I would have added to my praise of Benson that as good as I think he is, it won’t be nearly enough to help the Sabres be a playoff team.

I love the kid. I think he can and will be an effective top 6 player this year. I think fans who look at his point total and don’t see a top 6 player, are under the false impression that playoff teams have 1st lines of 70+ point players and 2nd lines of 60+ point players, etc., when this is just not the case. If Benson plays the entire year on a line with Thompson or Tuch and gets some PP time, he will get 40 points at minimum and that combined with his defensive acumen and the grit and energy he brings will make him a very good top 6 player. I also think that his skating and, to a lesser degree, his size, do represent legitimate issues and probably cap his ceiling below that of a true 1st line, star calibre player. But, so what?

I'm not sure I would say no risk. Had Skinner not had a NMC, the Sabres could have (in theory) ate 50% of his contract and attached a pick or prospect to trade him to any team in the league who would take him. That would have got them out of the dead-cap situation in 3 seasons instead of the 6 seasons that the buyout will apply to; and they would have avoided the worst of the buyout seasons ($6.44 million next season).

Absolutely. I also don’t think UPL’s bad year was solely related to what happened in front of him. He did not respond well to the combination of being the undisputed #1 goalie on a very bad defensive hockey team. I would not be opposed to acquiring an upgrade. On balance though, I still think there is more to like than dislike in his background, skill-set, and potential. Of the current in house options, I think he remains by far the most likely solution to the goaltending issue, in both the short and long term

Wasn’t last season the only season where UPL wasn’t trying to win a job or playing for a contract? It seems the sample size you are relying on for this conclusion that UPL got lazy and unfocused, is pretty small. I would argue that, as goalies go, UPL was/is, still pretty young. He had a lot of pressure on him last year to be the undisputed starter on a team with a playoff drought longer than a decade. The year prior, when he played really well, there wasn’t the same level of pressure. Levi had been anointed the 1 goalie and was given the label of “Special” by the GM. It was only when Levi, AND Comrie, faltered in 2023-24, that they fully turned to UPL. By then, he had become a bit of an afterthought. For a young player, I suspect that expectations are a big factor in the pressure you feel to perform well. UPL’s setback last year is, contextually, perhaps not much different than what we saw from Cozens, Quinn, Samuelsson, or Power. None were ready for what was being asked of them. When Ryan Miller was UPL’s age and going into his age 26 season, he had started 66 NHL games. The year prior he became a full time NHL player and started 48 games, on one of the league’s best teams. UPL is going into his age 26 year and has already started 155 games, all on a well below average NHL team by any defensive metric. I’m going to be a little more patient with UPL.

Having watched my son play minor hockey through U18, I’m comfortable saying that no player makes it to the NHL without having been exposed to multiple defensive systems and structures. So much of a team’s ability to play a consistent and repeatable and effective defensive system/structure at the highest level, comes down to the same things that it does at lower levels: the teaching and communication skills of the coaching staff and, above all, the head coach. I agree that our forwards were bad at defensive hockey. I don’t think it is because they are, as a collective, intellectually or temperamentally unsuited for playing a well-coached defensive structure.

Kadri has 4 years left on his contract. If things continue as projected, by year 4 the cap will be around $120 million. I don’t think his contract is even viewed as bad.

The “Sabresy” thing about this, is that 2 years ago Levi was gifted the starting spot. At that time if you had told fans that his next contract would be 2x$812k, and that he would headed to a 3rd year in the AHL, most would have laughed. There is, almost always, a “Sabresy” angle. Don’t limit yourself to contract term or AAV in your search.