Archie Lee

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.

There are probably a few fans like me on this one, who just see him as a decent goalie prospect who was probably taken a 1/2 rd early, and who think that patience is needed.

Why would anyone take that deal? Trading for Kadri would not automatically make the Sabres a playoff team. There are just no such guarantees. In the year that Vegas made their biggest swing of a trade (the Eichel deal), they missed the playoffs. But, that was/is no deterrence to them. Because Vegas does not see such trades as short-term thinking. They traded Nick Suzuki for Max Pacciorety. For a while Pacciorety was good for them, but that’s a bad trade. Nobody would say otherwise. But, so what? If your goal is to win championships, you take swings. If you make a bad deal, then you take another swing. If the Sabres traded Kulich as the centrepiece in a Kadri deal, they would have centre depth of Kadri, and Norris (27) and McLeod (26) and Krebs (24) and Thompson (28) who can play centre, and Östlund and Helenius, and their 1st rd picks going forward. If it doesn’t work out, you take another swing. The Sabres have somehow positioned themselves under Adams, where any such trade is viewed as giving up the future for a shot at the present. It doesn’t have to be that way.

I think you are right and they should start out with them together. I have no issue with it. And, as you say, they don’t have to be “line 1”. However, the stat that shows they were so good on the ice together, is very reminiscent of last year’s Quinn is one of the best 5v5 producers in the league stat, that was used to support he was ready for a breakout. Maybe this time it is true. That Quinn was being compared to McDavid and MacKinnon, was likely evidence that the sample size was far too small to give it any credence.

Fair enough. Adams has been willing to trade younger core players for similarly aged players, when the team is out of it at the deadline or when the player makes it clear he doesn’t want to be a Sabre. Of course, for all I know he is working the phones daily trying to move Quinn and Samuelsson and a prospect or two for more experienced players.

This is very close to what I would go with. I actually really like the roster, from a talent perspective and from the angle of potential for future success. Of that roster though, how many players would you say have most likely already played the best hockey of their careers, or the best that is expected of them? I would say 5 or 6. Tuch, Zucker, Greenway, Danforth, Lyon. Maybe Thompson. Now do the same with the teams that made the playoffs last year. You need to get down to Montreal and Ottawa to get close. That’s great if we are still primarily focused on building for the future, and we are just hoping that this is the year we sneak into WC2. But it’s still a roster built largely on hope. If we are really serious about playoffs, this is the year to better balance the roster.

I agree. I like all of those young players also. I’m not suggesting we dump them for futures. It’s time to move a younger player or two (or three) for a good veteran or two who can help us win now. This doesn’t have to be about sacrificing the future. A good GM can manage winning now while not forsaking the years to come.

This is year two of this argument. That the Sabres are not a group of kids on ELCs who nobody should have expectations for. You are right. They are not kids. But it remains that they will be one of the 2-4 youngest teams in the league. There is no question that they could all be transplanted to a playoff or contending team and play a meaningful role; in some cases they could play the very role on a contender that is expected of them with the Sabres. But collectively they lack age, leadership, and experience. Maybe this is the year where they reach a critical mass of key players reaching a point where skill overcomes collective youth and from here they are on their way. Maybe.

Yes. I’m referring to players who Adams would consider core players. And you are right, he traded Eichel, Reinhart, and Peterka. Now, which of those players did he decide to trade with the goal of being better in the moment?

Because they don’t tie themselves to waiting for players like Quinn and Samuelsson and Power to earn their roster spots and contracts. They trade them for players who are good now. And then they dump those players when someone better is available.

Sorry, I guess I didn’t make my point very well. You’ve made it better. Yes, they could have easily kept Peterka (or added Marner, or Ehlers, or Gavrikov, or all of them), from a cap perspective, but not without moving out other pieces. They could have traded Quinn or Greenway or Samuelsson. But they weren’t going to do that. I’m not defending Adams as a victim of the cap. There was no way to keep all the RFA’s AND enhance the line-up with additions, unless Adams was willing to move out players more meaningful to him than Clifton and Lafferty. Even now they could add a Peterka level contract or higher, but not without Adams having the courage to trade a more core piece. He continues to be the author of his own demise.

And, as was stated through the first half of the off-season, their cap situation was such that they couldn’t keep everyone and re-sign their RFA’s. Even with dumping Lafferty and Clifton, they didn’t have space to extend Peterka unless he was willing to take a bridge at a lower AAV. It is some kind of work to be the youngest team in the league, finish 7th from the bottom with 79 points, AND be in cap trouble.

Exactly…on every point.

If Adams hadn’t done that, we would have been so screwed if Byram had received an $11 million offer-sheet.

Move out Quinn and they have over $8 million in space to add a legit veteran top-6 forward.

UPL has to be better. He can’t let his confidence and technique slip so easily if he wants to be a good NHL goalie. But… When Ruff got to Dallas, his goalie was Kari Lehtonen. Lehtonen’s career save % was .912. Without Ruff it was .914. With Ruff .908. One season post-Ruff .912. (Note: league wide, save %’s were higher then). When Ruff got to Jersey, his goalie was Mackenzie Blackwood. Career save % .906. Without Ruff .909. With Ruff .889. Post-Ruff .905. UPL career .898. Without Ruff .904. With Ruff .887. Maybe a coincidence. But we might need to see UPL with a different coach and/or team to know how good he is.

I agree with your point that these are not kids. It remains for me though, that they are collectively young and inexperienced. Individually, any of them could fit in and play their role on a playoff/contending team. What is unclear is if they are talented enough to overcome* their collective youth and inexperience. *They also will likely need to overcome that they will not be playing within a sound, easily repeatable, defensive structure. I acknowledge that Ruff knows more about coaching hockey than I could learn in a dozen lifetimes, and also that he has not been blessed with having the most talented teams to coach since he left Buffalo. But it is undeniable that his teams have been bad defensively on a pretty consistent basis. Our D will not be playing in a system that demands structure and accountability and that is repeatable night after night, like the systems of a Cassidy, DeBoer, Maurice, or Brind’Amour.