Archie Lee

For clarity, are you now of the view that Benson should have gone back to junior? No worries either way, but just curious if your position has changed?

I'm not sure this is wholly accurate. Adams recommended the firing of Krueger and assistant coach Steve Smith. I'm sure Adams won't be keen to go to Pegula and recommend firing a coach who he is close with and who was recently given an extension. I think though that Pegula understands how it works. A year ago, things were going well and Granato was going into the last year of his contract; typically in that situation you give the coach an extension. Now things have gone south and Pegula's much larger investments in Dahlin, Cozens, Thompson, Power and Samuelsson are in danger of not getting the required return. If Adams gets to the point where he thinks Granato needs to go and he presents Pegula with a viable alternative, I would be surprised if Pegula did not give the green light for a change. The bigger problem to me is that Adams did not address enough of the team's short-comings in the off-season to know for certain what the root cause of this year's regression is. Of course, it is likely a combination of things. He didn't address the coaching, which was likely a big factor last year in poor special team's play and poor d-structure. We didn't address goaltending, and, somewhat frighteningly, if we had brought in a veteran, the odd man out may well have been Luukkonen. He didn't address the lack of depth up front when it was known Quinn was out, Tuch was battling something and Granato had wholly lost faith in Olofsson. Instead he opted to "not block" our youngsters and left a spot open for the prospect who showed best in camp. He then allowed himself to be fooled by the kid with the most confidence, and now Benson is getting 8-10 minutes on his way to an 8 goal season when his value as an asset could be soaring while he scores 50 goals and 130 points in junior (not Benson's fault as he just showed up and played hockey). The team had cap space and the necessary draft and prospect capital to trade for a Tyler Toffoli and sign an Alex Kerfoot. I fully acknowledge that this is in the category of hindsight is 20/20, but swap Appert and Peca with Elis and Christie (Ellis and Christie to Rochester), sign Cam Talbot to replace Anderson and partner with Luukkonen, send Levi to Rochester, trade Oloffson at 50% and a 2nd for Toffoli and give Kerfoot more AAV or an extra year of term to what he got from Arizona and I think we could be in a much different place right now. There are a hundred variations of this that could have been done. The good news may actually be Adams's inexperience. His inexperience might mean that he is not bad at what he does so much as he is learning. He has done some good things and there is no denying that the team improved sharply in the first two full seasons post-Krueger. I do think that sometimes when an inexperienced person has early success they can trick themselves into thinking it is because they are smart and did smart things and forget that they still need to observe and absorb what works elsewhere and for others. Here is hoping that Adams actually understands that he made off-season mistakes and learned from them and now starts to fix them.

Tage went on a 5 week heater from Oct 31 - Dec 7 last season. 18 goals and 36 points in 18 games. Outside of that stretch he had 29 goals and 60 points in 60 games. He is probably a 30-35 goal and 60-70 point guy, which is what he produced in his breakout season. I think I have seen enough good things from Tage this season to think he is going to give us several years of that at least. Also, a quick internet search of the top 10 scorers in the NHL over the last 30 years or so shows that there are lots of guys who had pretty substantial drop-offs in production within a year or two of having career years. I'm not saying Tage will never duplicate last year's performance (though I don't think he will), but I don't think the drop-off is as unusual as some are making it out to be.

I’ll confess that I was not expressing a lot of concern over the goaltending situation, forward depth, special teams play, and the more intangible things like toughness and experience, in the off-season. These were concerns, but after last season I just thought we were closer than we are. In hindsight I was wrong. The Sabres had multiple areas they needed to improve. They opted to address one of those areas and improve their depth and experience on defence. In the other areas, including with their inexperienced coaching staff, they opted for internal growth and development. While they can still jump back in it if they have a stretch like they did to end last season, it is looking increasingly unlikely that they will. They now look a little foolish for squandering developmental years for Levi and Benson (a bit less so for Ryan Johnson) on a season where they are looking like a bottom 10 NHL team again. Levi should just stay in Rochester.

Saw a Harrington tweet from yesterday where he blamed the analytics department for pressing the coaches to focus on D, resulting in a style change that “broke the team”. Here are a couple of analytics: 1.). The Sabres allowed 300 goals last season. 2.). The last time a team made the NHL playoffs allowing 300 goals was 1993. We were 100% not making the playoffs without improved D. Either our coaches are unable to teach a defensive system that does not sacrifice offence or our players are not yet mature enough to grasp that playing a good D structure does not mean you can’t also be good offensively. I sense it is a bit of both.

I don't think it was wrong to focus more on defence than we had in the last two years. We didn't outscore our bad defensive play last year (though we came close). It is proper to have a goal of defending better than we did last year. I think there are several factors in why it hasn't worked: - As Bob Sauve28 has said, the PP has not held up it's end. If the PP was in the top-half of the league it would make a huge difference. As is, it is doubly detrimental in that not only is it not producing goals but it is directly leading to discouraged play on our part and inspired play by the opposition. If we were scoring more on the PP we would be in closer games, getting to overtime, not giving up empty net goals, etc. It all adds up. - We are too young. I'll write it again, the down the middle core of our team (Thompson, Mitts, Cozens, Krebs, Dahlin, Power, Sammy, Joker, UPL and Levi) had an average age of 22 to start the season. Collectively, that group is too young and inexperienced to have consistent success. Add in other young players like Peterka, Quinn, R. Johnson and Benson (the last thing this year's team needed was an 18 year old who can hold his own while on his way to an 8 goal / 28 point season) and I don't think we have the experience and discretion needed to understand how playing consistently good D structure does not require sacrificing offence or creativity. They can go together. We have too many young players who are learning this lesson at the same time without the necessary veterans surrounding them to help. - Granato and his assistants are perhaps just not good enough. This doesn't mean they are individually bad coaches. But if it was easy to coach an NHL team to the point where you are squeezing as much out of your line-up as you can then there would be more coaches who do it. There is a reason for why the same coaches get recycled and end up having new successes with new teams; it's because they are good at what they do. There is no doubt in my mind that we would be a better team today if in the offseason we had somehow flipped Granato and Power for Bruce Cassidy and Brayden McNabb (not suggesting for a second we make such a swap). Coaching matters. The good news is that we still have all of the assets that we had at the start of last off-season and that could have been used to make necessary roster adjustments. Also, there are and will be experienced coaches with winning track records available. The bad news is that we do not seem to be motivated to make the needed changes.

Factoring in everything (performance, contract status, cap hit, future value to team), I would say Girgs and Eric Johnson are the most likely to be moved assets. If we eat 50% and are willing, if needed, to take a contract back, then I think there are contending teams that might see them as valuable depth additions. I don’t think we trade Okposo unless he asks for it. I don’t think there are contending teams looking to add RFAs like Joker and Krebs. I think Olofsson’s contract, even at 50% retention, makes him hard to move and we have gone out of our way to make him nearly impossible to move with how he has been used. Unless Adams changes strategy and makes a big acquisition, it will be a quiet deadline. Maybe a couple of vets out (Girgs and Johnson) for 5th rounders.

The path to playoff / wildcard contention is to get to real or DeLuca .500. The teams that are ahead of us in the wildcard race are, respectively: - 3 games above real .500 (New Jersey) - 1 game above (Tampa, Detroit, Washington) - Even (Pittsburgh) - 7 games below (NYI and MTL) We are currently 5 games below real .500. With a win today we can get to 4 games below and accomplish step 1, which is getting back to NHL .500. Note that before our 9-2-1 finish last year, we were 33-31-6, or 4 games below real .500. That is where we will be if we win today. There is still enough runway if the team starts playing consistently good hockey.

I don’t know what to think about the retribution stuff. On the one hand, it’s just what teams do and it’s what’s expected in today’s NHL. On the other hand it’s just kinda silly. Kurashev got 5 and we scored the goal that iced the game during the penalty. I’m not sure why that isn’t retribution enough. I can’t say I know much about Kurashev, but his PM totals suggest he isn’t doing this sort of thing too often. It looked to me like he was trying to pinch EJ off and EJ turned at the last second. Lots of people will say that a vet like EJ should know better than to put himself in that position. The mood and tone of the game combined with how the play unfolded didn’t really make it feel like the sort of thing that required a major response. In short, I get that some teams might have gone after Kurashev. It just seems kind of ridiculous though.

This kind of summarizes it for me. The trade did not work out as intended at the time, but has worked our positively in the long run. I understand that some would argue that the trade can't possibly be deemed to have worked out positively because the team has failed to have any on-ice success (playoffs) since. To me though, this is like saying that none of our player acquisitions (draft picks/trades) have worked out for the past 12 years.

I don't think it takes more mental gymnastics to factor in what was or wasn't theoretically possible at the time of the trade, than it does to not factor in that we don't yet know what Thompson and R. Johnson will accomplish as Sabres. O'Reilly never wins a Conn Smythe with us. Tage might. As you said earlier, we likely just see it differently.

I would say that trading O'Reilly was part of a series of bad decisions made in the Botterill era. The 1st bad decision of that era was the actual hiring of Botterill. Then the hiring of Housley as head coach. Then, the complete dismantling of the team's toughness through the loss of Carrier in the expansion draft followed by the trading of Foligno, Deslauriers and eventually Kane (not critiquing any of those as individual moves, but collectively it was a a bad strategy). Next was the O'Reilly trade, but by that point it was too late. We were dead last in the NHL the season before the O'Reilly trade. Remember that Botterill is the guy who, when given a 2nd chance to hire a head coach, chose Ralph Krueger. It was a hopeless situation. In hindsight, we are fortunate that Botterill got lucky and Thompson turned out to be a legit goal scorer/point producer and R. Johnson looks like he will be a good long-term addition on the blue-line. In the context of how bad things were and, more importantly, how incredibly unlikely it was that a turnaround of any significance could have happened under Botterill, I struggle to say that the outcome of the trade was bad. We were not turning it around with O'Reilly unless we fired Botterill that off-season and that was never happening. I don't think it is close to the worst trade in team history. Andreychuk, Puppa and a 1st for Fuhr was terrible. Calle Johansson and a 2nd for Ledyard and Malarchuk turned out awful. We drafted 4 Hall of Fame players between 1982 and 1987, completely lost patience and traded them all for a sum that got us a 1st round win over the Bruins in 1993. Yuck.

I will be stunned if we get anything of value for Olofsson. If he was worth anything to other NHL teams he would have been traded months ago. He is a scoring winger who can't get in the line-up ahead of a sheltered 18 year-old on pace for 9 goals, on a team that struggles to generate offence that has a wretched power-play. And he makes 4.75 million per year. That said, if he were to be moved it would not be at all stunning if he scored at a 30 goal or better pace wherever he goes.

Reinhart is a lesson in patience. It's a generalization (there isn't necessarily a lot of crossover), but today we have fans lamenting our lack of patience with Reinhart while wanting to move-on from players on the youngest team in the NHL. In fairness, I think fans can be forgiven for wanting results and for not always being able to recognize the difference between a player who is not delivering due to their own shortcomings v. a player who is being held back by his environment (losing culture, poor talent around him, bad coaching). Reinhart was good here, but in his best season as a Sabre he put up numbers that almost exactly match what Mittelstadt is putting up this year. Of course, the inflection point was probably when Botterill hired Housley. A more-experienced, veteran coach with a winning track record at that moment likely changes the trajectory of the franchise and of the careers of many players.

I'm glad Quinn is back and no question he makes the team better. We were 3-2-1 in the 6 games before he came back as well. We have played at a 92 point pace over the past 16 games. The team was trending up and playing a bit better already after a 1-5 stretch from Nov 25 and to Dec 5. We have a chance over the next 6-7 games to move our trend line heading into the post all-star stretch. I think it is fair to criticize Adams. Quinn was out, Tuch was banged up (per Ray's hot-mic moment) and the organization had lost faith in Olofsson. There were players available (Toffoli, Zucker, Kerfoot) who could not only have bridged the gap but have been upgrades. Instead we opted to give the opportunity to the prospect who most rose to the challenge in camp. I love Benson, but we needed more from that position this year than a 10 goal pace from an 18 year old who needs occasional sheltering (as Quinn and Peterka needed at times last year).

1.) Speaking of false narratives, there is literally no hand-wringing in this thread about the loss of Cederqvist as an individual. 2.) I wholly agree with you that it is not the case that our top-prospects are entirely skilled offensive players with little or no forechecking ability/defensive ability/and grit. Indeed, most of our top forward prospects, with Kulich being the exception maybe, have shown a good to strong two-way acumen. None seem afraid to forecheck when playing at their current appropriate level. It is true that none are full on "bangers", but none are solely offensive minded, perimeter players who are fearful of going to tough areas. What they will be at the NHL level is not yet known.

I’m not close to bent out of shape over this. But it does perhaps speak to the issue of having too many bodies within a certain age-range. Without trading an established forward, there is little room for our high-end prospects in Buffalo. And the sheer # of prospects that we have, means there is insufficient oxygen for the b and c level players to grow and develop. This not only means that few will make it to Buffalo but also that they will have diminished to no value.

The good news is there are comparable players on that list who are not among the games most highly paid. Mittelstadt, as an RFA whose overall #’s don’t quite match his 5v5 #’s, should slot in below Thomas/DeBrincat and above the current Guentzel and Hyman deals. The bad news is, based on how the 1st half of this season has gone, we will likely go into next season as a bottom 10 team with our highest paid 8 players (current roster) making nearly 70% of the cap and with only one of them, Mitts, coming off a good season.

The Ice/Wild WHL franchise is in their first year in Wenatchee. I’m sure their management would love to go for it, but long-term it maybe makes more sense to try and build something bigger for 3-4 years down the road. Maybe they keep everyone and take a run if Benson had been sent back. I’m not a huge fan of trading 16-19 year old kids mid-season. Savoie has been through a lot of moves though and players of his status get the best billet homes. He will be taken care of. Moose Jaw will be loaded with fun players to watch in the 2nd half.

The Sabres are in a somewhat unique situation in that they have two waves of young players, each of which is worth getting excited about. Somewhat arbitrarily, you can separate these players by whether they were acquired pre-arrival of Adams and post-arrival of Adams. Pre-Adams: Luukkonen, Dahlin, Samuelsson, Jokiharju, R. Johnson, Thompson, Mittelstadt, Cozens. Adams: Levi, Power, Strbek, Krebs, Quinn, Peterka, Savoie, Östlund, Kulich, Rosen, Benson, Wahlberg. The pre-Adams group is, for the most part, ready as individuals to play their roles on winning NHL teams. Collectively they are young though. Outside of Skinner, Tuch and maybe Greenway and Clifton, there are no older veterans in higher-end roles to support this group. Indeed, we are largely supporting the pre-Adams group with even younger players acquired by Adams. If the players in the pre-Adams group are not yet near to reaching their full potential, then how long will it be until a critical mass of players from the younger group reaches their potential? If the plan is to slowly integrate the even younger players into the line-up, then fans will be asked for not just patience but for extreme patience.

Reasonable people would say we are in year 3 of the Adams/Granato plan. Maybe we are approaching the end of year 3, if you consider that Granato's 3rd anniversary as head coach is coming up March 17th. Prior to this season, the trajectory was positive. This season has thus far been a setback. My opinion, based on how the team has played for 2.5 months, is that there is little hope for a turnaround this season. We will see if Adams makes moves that reflect a belief that a change in approach is needed or if he will stay with a "trust the process" approach. I think Adams is kidding himself if he thinks the 9 years that preceded his arrival should have no influence on how he manages the team.

There is nothing inpatient about making smart roster moves or coaching changes in an effort to win more hockey games. There aren't many people who are actively calling for Adams to do something dumb and shortsighted. I do agree that patience is important. Those who want to dismiss the positive results Adams has rendered and ridicule him for having a 10-15 year plan are being rash. Things were very bad (frankly, as bad as it can get) when he took over and up until this off-season we had seen steady positive progression under Adams. He should rightly get credit for that. I think it would be a mistake though, for Adams to think he can operate in a vacuum where the 9 years out of the playoffs that preceded his arrival are meaningless to the fans and to the players on the team. Dahlin, Thompson, Mittelstadt are in year 6 of this. Incredibly, Cozens is in year 4 of it. Losing is what lead to some players not "wanting to be here". He is fooling himself if he thinks the same can't happen with the current group of players.

Good coaches get fired all of the time. Lots of fans want us to bring in Bob Woods who was fired because the Wild special teams were terrible. Doesn't mean he's a bad coach. Sometimes the sum equals less or more than the parts.

I don't doubt that bringing up Appert was determined to be the least disruptive way to proceed. I do think it was an unusual decision though and that it does speak to the lack of NHL experience on our coaching staff. I think that most NHL teams have an assistant or two on staff whose presence would make the idea of bringing up the AHL coach for the weekend a non-consideration.

As a fan, one can only judge coaching by outcomes. We aren't in the room, don't see what is being taught or how the lesson is communicated. I have no reason to think that any of our coaches are incapable or are out of their league as individuals. The desired outcome has not been there though. Matt Ellis worked as a development coach on the same Sabre staff as Granato (under Krueger). I don't know that there is any reason to think that Granato has had any issue with Ellis being on his staff. We don't know what discussions occur internally. For all we know, Adams may have been interested in flipping Ellis/Christie to Rochester for Peca/Alpert and Granato said no (I'm not saying this occurred; but what do we know about internal discussions that may or may not have occurred?). The bottom line is, regardless of who made the decisions, it isn't working. When things aren't working you can let the people you have entrusted to the job adjust and try and do better, or you can replace the people. For now, Adams is opting for the former over the latter.