Archie Lee

On Power. You are correct that he is not living up to the big contract. A bridge deal similar to what Dahlin had on his 2nd contract, might have been more suitable. Also, though he was never going to be a physical brute, his near complete lack of physical engagement is concerning. What I think you under estimate is how his deficiencies have been magnified by just how poorly he has been supported throughout his pro-career. On Soucy, he is actually not a good example as he has a full NTC (changes to 12 team next season). He did, however, sign with the Canucks in the summer of 2023, when the Sabres were starting to come off some no-trade-lists (reportedly). His contract is 3x$3.25. What I reject is that we can’t get players like Soucy in free angency, even if we are prepared to go an extra year or two on term or to a higher AAV. We have just decided not to pursue such contracts, in my view.

It is simply not the case that the sort of d-men you need to round out your top 4 and your 5-7 roles, all have trade protection.

The flaw with the Lysowski argument is that it makes the misguided assumption that every playoff team has a perfectly appointed 7 man D core, where you have a true #1 supported by a solid stay at home veteran #2, and then a 2nd pair with a #3 who could be a #1 and a #4 who could be a #2, etc. And then you look at the Florida Panthers and see Mikkola and Kulikov as the 2nd pair. Or Dallas and a right side of Lyubushkin, Dumba, and Ceci. Or Tampa and Raddysh on pair 1. Or Winnipeg with Samberg on pair two with Logan Stanley and Colin Miller as pair 3. It just isn't how it works. I'm not opposed to keeping both Power and Byram. But if we trade Power, for example, it is a myth that we need to acquire a couple of stud R shot D men like Rasmus Andersson and McKenzie Weegar to pair with Dahlin and Bryam in order to get better. Note: Calgary is somehow in the playoff hunt without Dahlin and Byram to pair with Andersson and Weegar.

I think on balance he makes bad decisions. Post-tear-down, the caution he has shown in making trades and signing UFAs has shown mildly positive results for individual players, but has not had a positive overall impact in the standings (quite the opposite). I think it would be flawed to expect that if he becomes more aggressive in these areas that the results would be good. His aggressive contract extensions for young players have not gone well. His aggressive pursuit of Ruff, ignoring many good alternatives, has been a disaster. There is just no reason to think a more aggressive Kevyn Adams in the areas of trading or signing UFAs, would yield positive results.

The Sabres need to move on from Kevyn Adams (and Lindy Ruff). Judging any player in the bottom-of-the-league environment that Adams has created, in this Adams’s 5th year as GM, is a flawed endeavour. At this point, if Adams stays on, the best we can hope for is that Adams accidentally stumbles into a line-up that can hang in the playoff race until the last few days of the season. He has proven himself capable of nothing more as GM. The sample size is more than large enough to draw conclusions.

Byram’s most common d-pairs this season at 5v5: Dahlin 524 min, Power 237 min, Joker 102 min. Power’s: Samuelsson 261 min, Byram 237 min, Joker 235 min, Dahlin 104. Byram is getting 1st pairing time with a legit Norris calibre d-man. Power is getting shuttled from one struggling young vet to another. I’m suspicious that our views on Power/Byram would be the opposite if their common d-pairings were also. Adams and Ruff have treated Power disgracefully.

Maybe. But by that logic, we have no chance of extending Zucker or Greenway or any player with any value. Granlund and Ceci, the players I referenced as examples, are, not unlike Zucker, 2nd and 3rd level free agents who are at a point in their careers where they might be enticed by term.

Not quite. Vesey never had a contract and wasn’t obligated to report to the Sabres. Any pending UFA that the Sabres trade for now, is ours until July 1st. At some point the organization has to have some belief in itself and in the notion that if they can get a player here then they can keep him. Or maybe not, and we just keep on with the defeatist attitude that because Jimmy Vesey had dreams of being a Manhattan Socialite that means there are no NHL players who would decide to re-sign with the Sabres.

I googled “can an injured NHL player be bought out?” and everything that comes up says no, unless the player gives permission.

This. Under Ruff, the Sabres are currently on pace to finish with 75-76 points. That’s what Granato got out of the team in his first full season, when we were still tearing down and the goalies were Tokarski and Dell and the we were using players like Wil Butcher and Andres Bjork.

Makes one wonder about the value of our analytics department. Are they not doing their jobs or just not being listened to? Cap space, especially on a team with an internal cap, has value. Remove Cozens, Quinn, Samuelsson, and Joker from our line-up and that's over $15 million in cap space (more next season, with whatever raise Quinn will get).

Yeah. Last night it worked, for the most part, because we were playing Columbus. Had we been playing a better and healthier team, it may not have gone so well. The Sabres wouldn't be the first team to play the "get a lead and then clog the neutral zone" style. There is some logic to them learning how to "grind" out points. But they don't seem built for this game. I assume Adams/Ruff imagined they would be getting more from Aube-Kubel and Lafferty and, of course, Greenway. Weird to me though that the 13 game losing streak saw McLeod largely on line 4.

You have won me over (wore me out? 😀) on the Cozens is not a centre argument. Honest question though. In 2-3 seasons when the cap is $105-$113 million, could a 20-25 goal, 45-50 point, Cozens on the wing, work for $7.1 million? It seems that 2-3 years from now, that won’t be out of line. He still could be a physical presence as a winger in a playoff lineup.

Rosen doesn’t look small out there.

I don't know that it is. But Weekes's schtick is for cryptic posts when something might be happening. This is not an endorsement. Pierre LeBrun's TSN report has the Flames (and, he says, 2/3's of the NHL ) inquiring about Cozens. I assumed people knew at least that much.

Apparently there has been some speculation about Calgary being interested in Cozens.

Agreed. 1) New GM 2) New coaching staff 3) Targeted roster surgery. No need for a grenade. A good GM will get the job done with a scalpel.

I agree. I think the ratio of “guys who stand up for their teammates” to “guys who need a teammate to stand up for them” is not what it needs to be. This is on the GM. I have been very critical of Ruff. I think his hiring was a sham and that no legit NHL contender would have had any interest; further, I think he has done a worse job than I feared. In this case though, I think he was just standing up for his team. I think he sees they have been playing better lately and does not want this to become a distraction. I would bet it was addressed internally and that it won’t take much of a transgression by Columbus to get a response. Just my view.

Totally agree. Of those three, Outlaws is the only good option (and is actually pretty good).

I largely agree with this. I think this is a case where the general lack of response that this team has to these situations, going back many years, has caused this singular case to be magnified. But this is what happens when you overlay a team that has been bad as long as the Sabres have been with them also having a reputation for being soft. It all comes back to the team the GM has built and to the reality that he is not equipped to fix it.

Watching a lot of NHL hockey, I will say that it isn’t always clear when a team will respond and when they won’t in these situations. The issue with the Sabres is less about this one situation than it is that after all this time under Adams and with much being made about changing the culture and, to a degree, the make-up of the team under Ruff, they still don’t respond in these situations in general. If you are a team that typically responds, you can plausibly point to the game situation or to nobody on the ice seeing the hit. When you are a team that doesn’t typically respond, it all just seems like more excuses. Anyway, every failure today brings me back to the same thing: this is what we have after almost 5 years of Adams as GM. There is just no reason to think that he is capable of managing the big picture needs that have to be addressed for this team to become a playoff group.

Man do I disagree with this take. I don’t always agree with @mjd1001, but I find their posts to be thoughtful and often more interesting than what you would find in the sports pages. I like the short-form stuff too. Read what you like and skip what you don’t.

I suspect the barrier with Zucker will be $$$ and term. If Zucker wanted to play for a contender he could have signed for much less with a contending team each of the last two years. If the Sabres offer something similar in AAV for 2 years, I would be surprised if Zucker leaves.

This is so true. But the right mix doesn’t just mean more capable vets. It also means less inexperienced kids. If we ever get a capable GM and they strive to actually find this balance, it will mean some kids leaving.

You could not be more wrong.