Archie Lee

I agree that they could move anyone. Also, if Adams is gone it perhaps increases the likelihood that a recently extended or acquired player could be dealt. The Sabres have flexibility because they currently have no players with significantly restrictive trade or movement clauses. But, assuming we aren’t planning to walk away from Peterka or McLeod or Byram, then we have reached a point where taking on a contract will mean a comparable contract will need to go out. They won’t have the cap space to add an established NHL player who makes north of $3 million, without a similar contract going out.

With the extension and raise for Greenway, I imagine he will be in the middle-6. If we assume that Adams is back and that he isn’t likely to trade the recently extended Zucker and Greenway, or the recently acquired Norris, or core pieces Thompson and Tuch, or their currently most reliable centre in McLeod, then that leaves Peterka, Kulich, Benson as the players that could be moved to alter the make-up of the top 9. This makes some sense as it is basically fan consensus that the fatal line-up flaw this season is inexperience. I don’t think Benson is going anywhere.

I think it largely depends how you define a top 6 forward and a top 4 D. If you look at the depth charts of the top teams in the NHL, you find that Adam Lowry, Mason Appleton, Brett Howden, Cody Ceci, and Mikko Mikkola (and many more such players) fill these roles for contending teams. Good coaching, structure, experience, roster construction, are as important. We have none of those things.

If what we are getting from McLeod this year is what McLeod now is, then I think he can be and maybe is, a good 2nd line centre. That’s even with a regression in shooting %. Keep him with Tuch, who I think he has good chemistry with, and I think you have a really good matchup line. If he plays with good players, the shooting % may drop but perhaps the shots/chances increase. If Thompson returns to the middle effectively, or we add a 1st line centre (hard to imagine), Norris/McLeod at 2/3 is potentially very good centre depth (label them as you wish). I think he is still at a point where his 3rd line history, lack of multiple productive offensive seasons, draft pedigree, etc. could be a drag on his value.

Fully agreed on Thompson. His contract already is a huge bargain. Thompson is 13th in the entire league in goals since the start of 21-22. He is one of the best offensive players in hockey. None of the 12 players who have scored more than Thompson, make less. Kyle Connor has the exact same AAV, but is a UFA in 26-27 and will be getting a big raise. Of the top 25 goal scorers in this period, only Hyman and Brock Nelson make less, and Nelson is a UFA who will likely get a contract exceeding Thompson's. It may be that Thompson's deal is the best bargain contract in the league. I still very much believe in Power. I'm not opposed to including him in the right deal. But, as you suggest, the right deal is a legit #1 centre under 28 with years of team control. If St. Louis wants to trade us Robert Thomas for Power, I'm in. I don't think that is happening though.

It’s just my view, but Ruff demoting McLeod to line 4 because he went pointless during their 3 game win streak in California, was a small but, nonetheless, contributing factor to the 13 game losing streak. Ruff demoting McLeod is an indictment of Ruff, not McLeod.

You are probably right. This will mean that McLeod starting the year as #3 will be somewhat of a moot point as he will need to be elevated at various times when Norris is injured and Kulich, due to youth, struggles. My hope is that Kulich is the young centre that we can use in a package, along with Power/Byram and possibly other pieces, to get a veteran centre. That is not a likely outcome though.

I'm not making excuses for Adams's general failure to properly do his job the past two off-seasons. That said, it is unlikely another team is going to hand us their bona-fide top-6 centre, regardless of any overpay that we might be willing to offer (I'm not saying it can't happen, just that it is unlikely). McLeod is 4 months younger than Norris, and was drafted one year later and 21 spots deeper into the draft. Prior to the second half of this season, McLeod has not been used or viewed as a top-6 centre. Even this year it has been more out of necessity that he has been elevated. He's playing at a 52 point pace; I'm not sure that is sustainable, but then this is the 1st opportunity he has been given to have this kind of season, let alone to sustain it. Norris, from his arrival in the NHL, was projected to be a top-6 centre. He has played at around a 54 point pace per 82 games; as we know, he has had injury issues. In an ideal world we get a legit #1 centre this off-season. If not, an alternative would be for Thompson to return to that role. If we don't acquire a legit top-6 centre and we don't move Thompson back from wing, then my opinion is that we have a bigger issue with Norris as our #1 centre than we have with McLeod as our #2. There are 6-7 teams currently in a playoff position, who don't have a #2 centre producing at McLeod's current level. There are no teams in a playoff spot with a #1 centre in Norris's mold, who plays at a 55 point pace over 82 games, but typically only plays about 60 games per year. If we do add a legit #1 centre this off-season (or if Thompson returns to that role), there might be no good reason to distinguish between Norris and McLeod as #2 or #3.

Agreed. The tell with UPL is how much time he spends outside of his posts. When he is lacking confidence, not playing well, he frequently chases the game outside of his crease. He is doing that way too much. It’s like a free safety who doesn’t trust what anyone else in the secondary is supposed to do. It’s not an excuse (UPL needs to play better), but it’s reality. Hopefully he can learn from Reimer on this.

If you want to hang your hat on what Miller did under Ruff over a decade ago, Biron nearly 20 years ago, and Hasek a quarter century ago, have at it. Lehtonen: Was a .911 to .921 goalie (.906 as a rookie) his entire career pre-Ruff. He was .919 his first year under Ruff. He then dropped to .903, .906, .902. When Ruff left Dallas, Lehtonen then rebounded to .912 under Hitchcock, before retiring. Niemi: Was a .912 to .920 goalie his entire career. Then under Ruff he fell to .905 and then .892. He bounced around for one year after he left Dallas, but posted a .917 in 19 games with Montreal, before finishing his career with a bad .887. Blackwood: was .918 and .915 in his first two NHL seasons. Under Ruff he fell to .902, .892, .893. Last year in San Jose he was .899 but bounced back this year to .911 in San Jose and .917 in Colorado. Vanecek: Was a .908 goalie pre-Ruff. Was .911 in his first year under Ruff, the season NJ had 112 points (credit to everyone there, most certainly including Ruff). He then dropped to .890 in year two under Ruff. He has not had a positive bounce back this year in San Jose or yet in Florida. I'm sure there were multiple factors in each goalie's case. I'm not saying Ruff is solely responsible for the decline in performance of these goalies or UPL this year. But, there is zero evidence that a Lindy Ruff coached hockey team consistently executes a repeatable, structured, effective, defensive system that helps them limit chances, keep goals down, and win hockey games. Ignore this if you like. Replacing Granato with Ruff in order to ensure accountability and structure was and is a farce on the same level as Malenstyn/Lafferty/Aube-Kubel will be an ice-flipping, shut-down, game-changing, 4th line that plays 3rd line minutes. The sooner we dump the GM selling this stuff, the better.

I'm not opposed to trading anyone for the right return. History shows that top picks don't get traded. I guess the one factor that could alter the landscape is that the Sabres are an outlier. While it is true that these picks don't get traded, it is also true that there has never been a team that has missed the playoffs 14 years in a row, with a GM headed into his 6th season, who is in the last year of his contract. So, desperation being what it is, perhaps if there is a year where such a pick is traded, this is it. That said, I think we have lots of pieces to trade other than our 1st rd pick. My preference would be to trade one of Byram or Power and 2-3 of Peterka, Benson, Quinn, Kulich, Rosen, for players who change the culture, experience-level, and physical make-up of the team. That would still leave us with all our picks from this year (including a likely top 5), and Helenius, Östlund, Wahlberg, Ziemer, the Russians, Strbak, Kleber, our goalie prospects. There is no reason such moves would have to mean we are sacrificing the future. Of course, I don't want Adams or Ruff involved in any of it. I love the draft and free agency season and will be tuned in regardless. I have zero faith though, that the current GM/HC combo can steer us out of the mess we are in.

14 straight years out of the playoffs. What you still doing here fanboy?

You mean in the 1/2 year in San Jose? Vanecek imploded to .890 in year two under Ruff. You are right though that his save % got even worse this year with San Jose. Ruff can hang his hat on his system being better than the worst team in the league. Though, Blackwood’s save % tanked under Ruff and then got a lot better in San Jose…so maybe not.

I know you are half joking. But, there is no element of good or bad luck involved. This is the cumulative outcome of neglect and incompetence.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence. Ruff coaches a good structure, and every starting goalie just happens to have a down year when they play for him.

Ruff’s post-Ryan Miller history as a head coach reveals that his teams are where goalie save percentages go to die. So I’m skeptical that any goalie we could have signed would thrive under Ruff. But, it was always going to be risky in a must win year, to hand the net to a goalie with one good season under his belt and to have a kid and journeyman vet as the other options. The Sabres had the cap space to easily outbid Detroit for Talbot. Casey DeSmith, and Scott Wedgewood, might have been better options than Reimer, in the event we needed the back-up to play more games. The Sabres could easily have beat what the Capitals gave up to acquire Thompson (two 3rds). Adams is terrible.

To a degree. Yes, Byram is not as good without Dahlin. But not everyone is as good with Dahlin as Byram.

Now, I’m not saying Dahlin and Byram are Makar and Toews. But when Colorado put Makar and Toews together and realized they had something special, they didn’t then spend a lot of time splitting them up to see if they were as good with, or if they could lift the games of, other players. They locked them up, kept them together, considered themselves blessed to have the best d-pairing in hockey, and figured out who their 2nd and 3rd pairings are. The Sabres, on the other hand, break up their top pairing to see if they can get Samuelsson going.

I wonder who sat down first? Were they offended when the other guy opted to sit as far away as possible? What’s the “nearly empty luxury box seating etiquette”? Always leave at least two seats and an aisle between you and the other person?

On the failed Dahlin clearing attempt that led to the winning goal, I don’t mean to beat up on him, but it was a truly woeful display of unforced panic. For an elite NHL d-man, anyway. The puck was out of the danger zone; he could have simply taken it behind the net. When they showed the replay from behind the net, I was looking for the breakout odd man rush option, thinking Dahlin must have seen something. Dahlin is one of the few players in the game who can see and execute an offensive play from that position. But there was nothing there. Again, not trying to beat up on Dahlin who is amazing, but it wasn’t just the bad execution of fanning on the clear attempt. The decision to attempt to clear the puck was the worst part of the play. In the larger context, and considering the failure to get the puck on net at the end in order to get the power play, and how we see these types of plays over and over, even from our best players, and I just come back to culture and coaching. In my view, hiring Lindy Ruff was throwing gas on the fire.

It's kind of a tone deaf move. Bryson wasn't going anywhere until July 1st at the earliest. It's not a big material move (he can be waived with no cap impact), but Adams could have waited until after some off-season maneuvers were completed and then determined if Bryson was a depth addition that was needed. Or, is this an indication that our internal analytics view Bryson more highly than public models? I guess that one of the limitations of the proprietary analytics of individual teams, is that there is a limited pool of players available. Just because you have analytics that tell you a player isn't very good, doesn't mean you can just go out and get a better one. Teams still need $900k 4th pairing d-men. It's just, when you are in year 14 out of the playoffs and as a GM you are headed into year 6 of your tenure, you would think there would be some level of self-awareness that this isn't the sort of move that will instill optimism in anyone. If anything, it's the opposite.

It was a pretty entertaining game. There were lots of Sabres that did some things for stretches of time that gave me cause to think that a good hockey person could get this on the right path fairly quickly. And, we lost, again, in a rather embarrassing fashion; so, there is at least, maybe, a small possibility that the accumulative impact is that Pegula has had enough and opts to make the needed changes. I never want the Sabres to lose, but in times like this there is at least a silver lining in defeat.

To me, the thing to remember is that we were right there. One point out. We finished 22-23 with 2 more points than what Montreal is on pace for this year. Adams had us on the brink, and then p!$$3d it away on a “don’t block the kids” philosophy and on a flawed concept of roster construction. I read an interview with Montreal GM Kent Hughes where he actually spoke about learning from the mistakes made by the Sabres. How sad is it that other teams are learning more from Adams’s mistakes, than Adams has learned?

At the time, Hall was much more highly regarded than he is now. I’m sure he had other offers. I doubt he would have taken a one year deal with the Sabres, in the middle of Covid, without a full NTC. Without the NTC, he almost certainly does not sign with the Sabres.

I was thinking about this when it comes to Cozens. It might well be that Norris is the all around better player than Cozens. What is almost certain though, is that Norris is not better than what Cozens was projected to be. When he signed his big contract, I think it is fair to say that we fans generally thought Cozens was the long-term, 30 goal, 70 point, two-way, big, hard to play against, 2nd line centre, that cup-contending NHL teams dream of. That was probably too much to expect. Norris isn’t that. Add in that we no longer are sure that Thompson is a centre, let alone a 1st line centre, and it’s pretty sobering. My point? Adams, or whoever the GM next year might be, can’t hide behind “building for long-term success” any longer. A big piece of the foundation, is gone. It is (past)time to pivot to primarily serving the now and not the future. I’m not talking about recklessly throwing away assets. But, in my view, Dahlin, Byram, Power, Clifton, Thompson, Norris, Tuch, McLeod, Zucker, Greenway, Peterka, Benson, Luukkonen, are more than a good enough starting point (give or take a trade or two), for a playoff team. We should have been there this year. There are no excuses except for ineptitude.