Archie Lee

When Thompson was out and we went out west, I thought McLeod and Tuch worked well together. I thought it was an opportunity to try Cozens in the wing with Thompson when Thompson returned. Instead Ruff bumped McLeod to line 4.

I'm well past holding any of this against individual players. Tuch is a legit top-6 player on every team in the NHL. We have him for one more year on a bargain deal.

Quinn would be claimed by the Chicago Blackhawks, the league's worst team who have 1st waiver priority I think. There is zero risk to claiming a player like Quinn. HE won't, and definitely should not be waived. It should be noted, in some fairness to Adams, Ruff, etc., that Quinn's drop-off has been monumental. I was very skeptical of the view that some held that Quinn was on the verge of establishing himself as one of the best wingers in the league. I never imagined though, that a healthy Quinn would be less than a 15-20 goal, 40-45 point, middle-six winger, who would give us solid play at both ends of the ice. There was no predicting the level of drop off in his game that has occurred. I think he will bounce back, but the situation is concerning. For what it is worth, the same can also be said to a lesser degree about Cozens and to an even lesser degree about Benson (who was expected to take a step forward and at best is treading water with where he was a year ago, and has perhaps regressed a bit). Their performances have been worse than what reasonable people would have predicted. Granato paid the price for similar performance regressions in Cozens, Thompson, Tuch and Dahlin a year ago.

I think the 4th line has been fine, with the exception of Lafferty who been a pretty big disappointment. In hindsight, it was a pretty large red flag that Lafferty only produced 4 points in his last 41 games last year, including 0 points in 11 playoff games. Our 4th line wasn't the issue last year though. We would be more than fine with a 4th line of Krebs, Girgs and Robinson (arguably better). It is perhaps worth noting that Washington did just fine in replacing Malenstyn and Aube-Kubel with Brandon Duhaime and Taylor Radysh. This isn't a knock on Malynstyn and Aube-Kubel, who you could probably interchange with the other players I mention in this post, it's just that the 4th line upgrade was one of the off-season's three big canards (the other two being: 1.) The impact Ruff will have on the team; and 2.) The notion that Quinn and Benson were ready for top-6 duty).

In my view, Granato was done dirty. He coached a less talented and less experienced team to within a point of the playoffs. Last year they reverted to closer to their talent level. That wasn’t on Granato, that was on the GM for not having g the courage to step up and bring in players who could help us take the next step. Not saying Granato was perfect, but he squeezed a lot more out of less than Ruff currently is.

It’s something when Utah is half-heartedly celebrating goal 5 because they don’t want to embarrass us any more than they already have. Sheesh.

I think it was the opposite with Ehlers. My recollection on the reporting (which was in itself, unverified insider stuff), was that Ehlers accepted a trade to Buffalo but was in no hurry to extend. This scared the Sabres off as the acquisition cost was high and they did not think they could risk losing Ehlers to free agency after only one year. All of these are rumours though.

At 50% retention, I would take him. I would not claim him on waivers if I were Adams. I'm no expert on the Rangers, how they play, or on defensive systems in general. I understand that they play a man to man D-zone system and that Trouba and Lindgren are struggling with it. Either might be fine in a more conventional structure.

The best question from my perspective, largely because it directly addressed my pre-season belief that the Sabres are ultimately too young and inexperienced to be saddled with playoff expectations, came from Fairburn (I think). He stated that the Sabres are the league's youngest team, that it is hard to find examples of teams that make the playoffs with a roster as young as the Sabres, and asked Adams how he squares the young roster make-up that Adams chose with his own stated expectation of the playoffs. Sadly, Adams chose a snarky response and stated that he should have signed Craig Anderson again and then we wouldn't be the youngest team and the question wouldn't be asked. Sigh. Individual people have their own individual personalities. We see all kinds who are successful. There are GMs and coaches who would never scream and pound a table who win and there are those who scream constantly and pound every table who also win. I do not expect Adams to try to be someone he is not. In the end, you are judged by results. When he was not being defensive today, his answers would have been fine if he were the GM of the Chicago Blackhawks or San Jose Sharks. The Sabres are not in year two of a rebuild though. They are, generously, in year 4. And that is overlayed on a 13 year playoff drought and on the fact that the current rebuild was initiated not with the sell-off of a group of aging vets but with the trading of a group of players still in their prime who would be a reasonable starting core for a team with Stanley Cup expectations. Like all GMs, Adams will fail or succeed with the course he has charted. I'm not expecting a change in approach or direction.

This is pretty much where I'm at, though I don't think the overhaul need be as extensive. To the bolded, I genuinely believe that when a person who is relatively inexperienced has immediate success they can trick themselves into thinking it wasn't just smart decisions that lead to the success, but rather that the decisions were smart because they made them. This can lead to ignoring evidence and history and advice and assuming your next set of decisions will be just as successful. I think this (and, possibly, an internal cap) lead to the wasted summer of 2023 when nothing was done to advance the quality of the NHL roster. We are still catching up from that mistake.

I agree. Spending more and bringing in an additional veteran player or two would not guarantee a better outcome. Committing to not spending that money is a self-inflicted handicap though. Here is an example of an alternate off-season - They still trade for McLeod - They sign Zucker for $1 million less on his AAV by giving him a two year deal - They sign Warren Foegele to the same $3.75 AAV that LA got him at, by giving him a 4th year - They trade Quinn and Kulich and a pick to Winnipeg for Ehlers, who was willing to come to Buffalo but not willing to extend in advance - They opt against qualifying Jokiharju and trade for Cody Ceci - They pass on the Malenstyn trade but still sign Lafferty, Aube-Kubel, Gilbert and Reimer These deals would have made them a more-veteran, experienced, and talented team. And it comes in under the cap. Perhaps they aren't all realistic. Some might object to Foegele or Ceci because they don't think they are all that good. Some might hate trading Quinn and Kulich for a player who we might lose after a year. All points are good, but these are just examples. Would such moves have put us in the playoffs? I don't know. But they would have signaled that we were serious about the playoffs. Opting against such bold moves has not worked.

I just don't think the word rebuild applies. I'm not suggesting that we should be happy with our 91 and 84 point seasons that preceded this year, but teams that are amongst the youngest in the league and that post seasons with those point totals, are in need of enhancements, leadership, next-level coaching, etc.; they don't need a tear-down. The Sabres had an opportunity this past off-season to make meaningful change. There were multiple coaches available with multiple seasons of recent success. They had cap-space and prospect/draft capital that made making additions easier than it would ever be for an organization that is not currently a desired destination for players. They squandered this opportunity on middling bottom-six players and a nostalgia coaching hire. The good news is that Adams's general roster timidness has left them without any truly disastrous contracts (some will disagree), and he didn't extend Peterka, Quinn or Byram to big-deals prematurely. There will be lots of cap space and capital available this coming off-season, if anyone is given the authority to utilize it. These are all good points and I largely agree. I'm not making an excuse for Adams with this, but there is next to zero chance that the Sabres make a meaningful deal before mid-February. Right now there are 16 teams holding down playoff spots and another 11 who are within a 3-game winning streak (or less) of changing places with one or two of those playoff teams. All of these teams have a need or needs that could be addressed through trade...and yet, there are no trades. The time to have made meaningful roster moves was in the draft/free agency window. Adams missed the opportunity. The next opportunity comes at the trade-deadline window. Right now, we are trending to that being too late.

I understand this sentiment, but think it would be a disaster. Gutting the youngest roster in the league would make the Sabres the laughing stock of pro-sports (ok...maybe they already are...but, I think it would make them an even bigger laughing-stock). I think the current roster and overall talent pool is very salvageable. Additions/subtractions/changes are needed, but there does not need to be a sell-off. I remember the last days of the Tim Murray era. I was definitely in a group of fans who wanted a new GM. I thought that Murray had done reasonably well to remake the roster, but someone more subtle in their approach was needed to fine-tune what was missing. Botterill, as it turned out, was a disaster. The extent to which Pegula impacted his decisions will likely never be known, but his coaching hires and roster decisions set the franchise back years. The core of O'Reilly, Eichel, Reinhart, Foligno, Rodrigues, Mittelstadt, Risto, McCabe, Ullmark, that Botterill had at the onset of his tenure, with some obvious needed adjustments (including a worthy head coach), would not have reached contender status until maybe 21-22 or 22-23. The playoffs were attainable earlier, but methodically bold moves and top-level leadership were needed to take the team to the next levels. That's what we need now. We don't need someone who is going to tear it down. We need someone who will identify what is missing and go about intelligently and aggressively fixing what is wrong.

RE: #1. I think this would be a disaster. Pegula just doesn't have ability to speak extemporaneously. The outcome of him taking questions would not be comforting. It does speak though to the need to have someone in a public-facing role who can do just that. At this point it isn't Adams. No reasonable person could take Adams seriously at this point. The hierarchy doesn't have anyone who could credibly take on that responsibility.

Epic.

I don’t have the heart or stomach for hoping or wanting anyone to be fired, cut, demoted, traded. I’m neither cynical nor naive. When pro sports teams fail, someone eventually pays the price. I don’t doubt that Pegula has some motivations beyond putting the best team on the ice, but I don’t for a minute think he wants to, or is even remotely ok with, subjecting fans to this. Adams has done things his way. He will likely not survive this with his job. I still think that the projected positive impact of Lindy Ruff was the greatest off-season canard. If I had to turn this over to anyone within the hierarchy it would be Karmanos, but I have no idea how that would turn out. I do believe that there are inflection points where a team can go in the right or wrong direction. After the 22-23 season Adams came to two roads diverged in the yellow-wood. In pro sports, there is lots of history and evidence to support what the best path to success is. For some reason Adams chose the road not taken and opted against providing veteran support to his youthful team that had missed the playoffs by a single point. That decision, in my opinion, set the team back both in performance and culture. He simultaneously passed on an opportunity to utilize a window of time to upgrade the talent and experience level of the team, while also sending the returning young players the message that winning was only a stretch-target; great if it happens, but not yet the organization’s top priority. That has made all the difference.

I can think of some home playoff losses in the 80’s that were pretty awful relative to fan expectation, but they were mostly pathetic efforts from the start and not monumental collapses. Worst seems like an unneeded distinction when it was about as bad as it could get. I guess we could have given up a 5 or 6 goal lead (and maybe we have somewhere in history), but the overlap of “the team desperately needs a win” and “team had epic meltdown”, makes this as bad as it can get. On a personal side note, I had a function to attend last night and couldn’t watch. Checked the score before I left home and was delighted if a little surprised to see us up 4-0. Not going to lie though, since it was Colorado and they have some studs, I had in my mind a game that we lost in Florida a few years back where we blew an early 3 goal lead. I checked the score before festivities began and saw we were up 4-1 late in the 2nd and felt pretty good. An hour or so later I saw we lost. Sadly, I was not shocked or even all that surprised. Also, my 17 year old son was with me. I showed him the final score on my phone. He just laughed. He knows nothing but this and thinks the Sabres are a joke.

I agree with this. I think our GM is now stuck in the rut of not wanting to rock the boat when things are going well and not wanting to over-react when things aren’t going well; not being willing to trade a youngster/prospect when they are playing well because their value is high and not trading them when they are struggling as their value is low.

Youth and inexperience are not advantages when it comes to winning in the NHL.

While Sabre fans are by no means monolithic in their view on paying the necessary acquisition cost to acquire such established forwards, I think it can be generally said that fans are not keen on giving up Quinn or Kulich (forget Benson or Peterka). All indications are that Adams feels the same way. Not that he wouldn’t trade them (in the right deal), but I doubt he is willing to deal them for what they would return. Neither would fetch a legit top 6 forward, under 30, with term. There were multiple rumours about the Jets’ demands for Ehlers in the off-season; one reported was a young NHL player and 1st rd pick. Had we made that trade in June, the cost was likely Quinn and Helenius. That’s steep for a pending UFA who would not commit to an extension. At what point though do you go all in on making the playoffs? Obviously there is no guarantee that Ehlers would have been the player who gets us over the playoff goal-line, but had we made such a trade we would still have Benson, Kulich, Rosen, Östlund, Neuchev, Wahlberg, our 1st in 2025, and a bevy of less-renowned forward prospects who shouldn’t be outright disregarded. The futures cupboard would still have been pretty well stocked.

On a near yearly basis there are teams that buck this trend. I certainly wouldn’t predict that the Sabres will, as the only time they have bucked the trend in the last 13 years was 18-19 (wrong direction). But there is a far greater than zero chance that there will be movement in the 6-10 or 7-11 spots through the rest of the season.

I’m sure Krieder’s partial NTC makes the Sabres a non-factor in any trade. That said, I don’t think anyone is suggesting JJP should be moved in such a deal. Quinn or Kulich are interesting. Kulich can still go down to the AHL, but at this point considering his role as a centre, he appears to be an NHLer (I would argue, as with Benson, that we didn’t draft him to be a middle-six plug-in and that he should be closer to producing at the NHL level before we promote him, but that ship has sailed with the Sabres’ current regime). At the moment, I don’t think we are getting a better player than Krieder in a trade for Quinn or Kulich (not without a ++ addition). So, if Quinn and Kulich (and Benson) are on the team, there really isn’t any space to add unless you are trading Cozens or JJP or Thompson, which is even less realistic. Krieder, in his decline, is on pace for a 38 goal season (82 games). Kulich and Quinn combined, are pacing for 7. I’m ok with patience and I’m ok with being aggressive. Adams has chosen to be patient while publicly promoting a willingness to be aggressive if a long-shot near perfect trade opportunity becomes available. He is, clearly in my view, hoping to shoot the gap and squeeze into the playoffs with the kids.

Just that using the same splits, they are 11-7-1, or 10-6, or 7-3 in their current stretch. Of course, that’s not how it works and you can’t just carve out the 0-3 start. But, we are trending positively in the win-loss column and a single, mostly well-contested loss after a 3 game win streak, isn’t something I’m going to worry too much over (and I’m not suggesting anyone is). If the Sabres get to 94 points and the playoffs (big ifs), they have somewhere around 28 more losses coming.

The team has played well enough since the 0-3 start (or 1-4-1 start, or 4-7-1 start; draw the line where you prefer), that I am no longer fretting over individual games. Last night was a combo of being goalied, bad puck luck, and, for portions of the game, not being prepared to get to the greasy areas. When you only give up one goal, it is perhaps unfair to point the finger at a particular defensive miscue, but the 4 on 1 that led to the Wild's only goal was a rather spectacular example of bad situational awareness on the part of either Thompson or Peterka (or both). Tuch and Dahlin were already deep and had gained possession when both Thompson and Peterka drove the net. When the centering pass failed and a turnover resulted, an odd-man rush was automatic. On top of that, Kaprizov was on the ice. I thought it was an example of how we are sometimes inpatient offensively. It seemed a little early to try and force an o-zone possession into a scoring opportunity and Thompson and Peterka ended up like two receivers whose patterns have taken them to the same spot on the field leaving them coverable by one d-man. One of them should have stayed high. Two things you don't want to do against the Wild is give them an odd-man rush with Kaprizov on the ice, and fall behind.

Krieder and Trouba are not likely to be realistic options. Both have partial NTCs with a 15-16 team list. It is near certain we are on the no trade side of their splits. So, it is likely a pointless discussion, except for considering both players as stand-ins for what might become available and what the acquisition cost would be. On Krieder specifically, I will defer to those who have seen him play this year more than me. Yesterday, Biron and Shayna Goldman were of the view that he is still an attractive player to add and that the 5v5 defensive system Laviolette runs is not well suited to many of the Ranger veterans. Interestingly, Biron and Goldman said this independently during different segments. My take from their comments, was that Krieder’s centre, Zibanejad, is struggling offensively because he has to focus so much on the defensive requirements of the system and this is impacting the even strength production of his line and Krieder. I have not seen Krieder play a minute this year though. Also, I understand the sentiment about not wanting to move players like Quinn or Kulich without getting a return that is a closer to a guaranteed good fit. The problem here is that, looking ahead to next year, Thompson, Tuch, Peterka, Cozens, Benson, Quinn, Kulich, McLeod = 8. Add in that Krebs is emerging as a possible middle-6 option and that’s 9. This assumes we just let Zucker and Greenway walk in free agency, which would be odd considering they have been very good in their roles this year. There is no room here to promote a prospect like Rosen. And how much better are we if we let Zucker go and replace him with the sort of vet you would get in return for Rosen? I don’t think we are getting a legit top 6 forward, under 30 with term and a reasonable AAV, for Kulich or Quinn (or both combined). If that is the required return, it is likely better to just say you are ok with what we have.