Archie Lee

I have issues with our roster construction, but strongly disagree we are headed in the Leafs direction (setting aside the obvious, which is that we should be so lucky as to have a team that has been as good as the Leafs the past 5-6 years). We are built from the back end out. Our young D and goalies are, potentially, dramatically better than anything the Leafs have had during this stretch. Also, I think many of our top players (Dahlin, Byram, Cozens, Thompson, Tuch, Benson) do have more jam/grit in them than Toronto’s big 4. Our guys just haven’t been provided with the down the line-up toughness that allows the higher in the line-up guys to be a-holes and get away with it.

I have no idea how things will be when we finally get in. Almost all of us are now at the point, though, where we acknowledge there are issues with how the Sabres roster is constructed, both in the present and forward looking. Adams seemed to acknowledge this in his after the season press conferences. Contractually we are not constructed like the leafs though. The Leafs big 4 forwards were paid 48.5% of their cap this year. Next year the cap is projected to go up by $4 million. With the raises coming for Matthews and Nylander, their big 4 will take up 53% of the cap next year. All 4 of them have full NMCs. Unless one of them asks to be traded, they are stuck for another year until the Tavares and Marner deals are up. We are not in that sort of contractual bind. While we don’t know what will happen over the next year or two, there is currently no one on the Sabres roster who projects in the short term to be in line for a bigger contract than our current big 4 of Dahlin, Power, Thompson, Cozens (total salaries next year will = 38% of the cap). Of course, that doesn’t mean we will make effective use of the cap room that we have ( we haven’t for many years), but at this point we are not building anything like the situation the Leafs are in. The GM of the Sabres will have flexibility that the Leaf GM has not had.

Your perception of what a typical 4th line forward produces is off from reality (wildly off). Something around 500 forwards suited up for NHL games this year. If you are 201st in EVP you are not a 4th liner. I do agree with your earlier point though, that Benson should not have been in the NHL this season. It is my view. Not because he wasn’t capable. Indeed, he proved himself most capable of being a good middle 6 player. I am super excited about what he already brings and will bring to the team in the future. The reason he shouldn’t have been in the NHL is that the Sabres were in a must win year (see: Granato, Don: Fired). Teams that are in must win years and that are already young and inexperienced and that have millions of dollars in cap space don’t go into camp leaving a spot open for the forward prospect who shows the best. That’s what established veteran winning playoff teams do when they have an open spot and no cap space to bring in a veteran. Of course, this is not the point of this thread. It isn’t Benson’s issue that we don’t operate like a normal NHL team. I am thrilled that we have this kid.

The more I consider this, the more I think this off-season is the time for the buyout. If you look at this over the period of the next 6 seasons, the buyout #’s show that the only real negative to the buyout this June over next June is the 6th year cap hit of $2,444,445 (vs $0.00 in year 6 if we wait a year). That’s significant to be sure. But years 2-5 are nearly the same with a buyout this June costing a manageable extra amount of $444,445 per season. What sways me to this June is the $7,555,555 in savings this year. Now, we don’t know yet if the Sabres are ready to spend money. If they are, though, then the expected increase in the cap combined with the savings on a Skinner buyout would position the Sabres for a major roster overhaul. Assuming a reasonable extension for UPL, a Skinner buyout would leave around $25 million in cap space. It’s not so much that I think we can’t get anything useful out of Skinner next year as it is that I think we can get more useful things with the cap savings. No question if we spend to the cap this year it will create difficult decisions next off season re: new contracts for Quinn, Peterka, Greenway, Byram and potentially even Levi next year. There is risk. But if several of those guys have the type of year that it puts us in a difficult spot with the cap, then I believe the phrase is “it’s a good problem to have“.

I'm of two minds. I'm disappointed that we did not approach this the way a franchise committed to winning would approach a coaching hire. At the same time, I'm glad (relieved) that there is a guy with Ruff's background and experience who checks off many of the required boxes while also checking off the boxes that make him an option for a team like the Sabres, who don't operate the the way winning teams do. Ruff was the only real viable option. In my view, it is highly unlikely that any of the other oft-discussed and high profile candidates would have accepted a 2 year deal. I also don't think Pegula or Adams are comfortable bringing in a coach with an Alpha-male-type personality who they have no history or comfort with. In short, there was one qualified and available coach who the organization was comfortable with and one qualified and available coach who was comfortable with the organization. I think Adams moving as quickly as he did was to ensure Ruff was not alienated by a prolonged search that only could have ended with the Sabres offering Ruff the job. On the positive side. Ruff is legit. This time last year he was coaching a team that had just won 53 regular season games to a first round playoff victory over the Rangers. I think we are fortunate that Ruff was available.

Well put. While I do think it is time to discuss a Skinner buyout, I also recognize that Ruff had Afinogenov for 9 years. He can manage Skinner for 2-3 I think.

It can be hard to get a clear sense of their views. My summary, from the pod after Granato was fired AND the pod after Ruff was hired, is: - Peter’s was convinced it would be Ruff from the moment Granato was fired. Though part of the reason he thought this was what I think is a complete misunderstanding on his part of how coach contracts work in the NHL. He has a complicated history with Ruff, but respects him and thinks he will do a good job - Rivet did not think it would be Ruff and is a bit disappointed that there was not an actual search. He does think that Ruff will do a good job, but I sense he would have preferred someone else. - The most damning thing was Peters’ reference to the opinion of alumni. He indicated his texts blew up with the news with lots of former teammates texting including some he forgot had his number. He did not give names but referenced a few texts. The theme was that former players see this as the Sabres playing it safe, living in the past and generally continuing to not function like a normal NHL team. Again, this is my take on their comments.

I like the idea of Stephenson as a replacement for a bought out Skinner. If Krebs earns the 3C position then Stephenson can play wing. If Krebs does not earn the 3C then Stephenson plays centre.

MacDermid fits the role, but was acquired by the Devils three days before Ruff was fired. Not a lot of history there. An example of a somewhat similar player who has a history with Ruff and plays a similar role is Brendan Smith. He played for Ruff in New York and New Jersey. He is a UFA and broke Bedard's jaw.

I missed the first part of this. Is this indicating that any other coach would have been on a two year deal?

There are only 3 players left in Dallas from when he was there. NJ has no prominent UFAs. Brendan Smith is a gritty veteran player who actually plays D and wing. He might fit in as an 8th D or 13th forward. Smith was in NY when Ruff was an assistant with the Rangers.

On the down side, I think this is evidence that we are still not operating like a normal NHL team. On the plus side, there was a veteran coach available with a winning history and a strong connection to Buffalo, so we could not act like a normal NHL team and still hire a guy who, mostly, fits the description of what we need.

His middle name is Cameron.

I agree with your first paragraph. Less so the second. The Sabres are in the midst of a familiar narrative. Granato is perceived as having been soft on the players and the response is we need a coach who is more demanding. Hopefully that coach is successful for a period, but there is a better than even chance that 2-4 years from now we are looking for a coach who, as you say, treats the players like adults. Both styles can be successful. I tend to agree with Granato’s comments in the article. When a coach is fired a narrative forms. The players in their exit interviews, for the most part, stuck with the narrative. With nearly a week of distance between the firing and today, I am more certain than ever that the main culprit for last year’s team falling short is Adams (with a maybe to Pegula, as we may never know if there were spending limits). Yes the power play was bad and the slow starts were killers. These and other things got Granato fired. I’m ok with that. More accomplished coaches have been fired for less. But the Sabres as a playoff contender were a seriously flawed team. Those flaws were going to manifest themselves in some fashion. At best this roster was good for WC2 and a likely 1st rd exit. While that would be better than missing the playoffs, I can’t in good conscience say that I think Granato accomplished less, particularly when you consider last year as well, than Sullivan or Tortorella or Lalonde. I’m fine with the coaching change. I’ve said for several weeks now that the first and most significant thing that Adams could do to signal a change in expectation would be to replace Granato with one of a 1/2 dozen available coaches with a history of consistently winning 45+ NHL games a season. But make no mistake that we did not have a playoff roster. We were a team that needed everything to fall right to be seriously in the mix. Last year it did, this year it didn’t. If Adams doesn't address the roster there is little reason to be confident we will be significantly better next year, regardless of who the coach is.

Was it the coach? Or was it their experience and their players understanding how to win close games and drag games into extra time and manage the ups and downs of the long season. I have no reason to be critical of their coach, but I think I heard they have the worst for/against radio of a playoff team in history. I’m not ready to say they made the playoffs because of great coaching.

Agreed. The Blues roster was flawed and Berube was most likely getting as much out of them, give or take a few points, as there was to get. But, in my view, that’s what Granato did. The Sabres were not a playoff team. Some of that was on coaching, some was on the players underperforming and some of it (most in my view) was on poor roster construction. There are coaches who might have gotten this year’s team closer, but at best our roster was one that could stay with Washington and Philly and Detroit and NJ. Berube won’t drag us to being a contender without significant roster upgrades /changes.

I understand the sentiment, but here we are and Berube is looking for a job and the Blues are out of the playoffs. I will be very happy if we hire Berube or McLellan or Evason or any available veteran coach with a reputation for structure and holding players accountable. It is the one thing we have not tried, in the head coach role, since Ruff left. But it is worth noting that all the available veteran coaches that we are discussing are available because the same conclusion was made about them as was made about Granato: they were failing to get it done.

Not to mention that trainers and equipment staff don’t make the sort of income where moving every 2-3 years is feasible. It would be hard to get good people for those jobs if stability and security was not a feature of the positions.

I understand that the biggest knock against Benson is not his size but his skating. That doesn’t mean his skating is so bad that he shouldn’t be in the NHL (clearly not), but simply that it is a weakness. He makes up for his skating with his hockey sense and effort. He is rarely in the wrong position, he chooses good angles, he reads the play well and almost always makes the right decision on where to move the puck. And he is tenacious. He doesn’t out-skate many NHL players though.

I don't know which site has the most accurate #'s. Hockey Reference has UPL at +10.1 and Levi at -2.6 for what they call Goals Saved Above Average. Natural Stat Trick is similar at +10.2 for UPL and -2.56 for Levi (so close I wonder if they use the same data). These #'s more accurately reflect the 'eye-test' for me. Levi had some good games to be sure, and a couple great ones, I just don't think he played enough good games to get to a +9.4 when you consider the games he struggled in. Regardless, the MoneyPuck #'s tell a cautionary take for goalies. David Rittich +13.8.

I agree. With all the veteran coaches out there, replacing the existing coach is maybe the fastest way for a quick reset, culture change. Other coaches who might be vulnerable to a 1st rd playoff loss are Montgomery and Bednar. It seems crazy that either might have their jobs on the line, and I don’t think there is any indication that it is the case, but they both lost in rd 1 last year. A 2nd straight 1st rd exit and..

The guideline I think should be the Thompson contract that preceded his current deal: 3 x $1.4 million. It shows some commitment and belief from the team while giving the player the combination of security and some runway to clarify exactly what they are. Will the next contract be the same or less because they have made clear they are a bottom 6 or 4th line player? Or, will the next contract be a difficult decision for the team as there is not enough cap space to cover the warranted raise?

I think he undoubtedly benefited that first year from an almost unprecedented and prolonged heater from Binnington. Still, he clearly didn’t get in the way of winning. The next three years (two of them Covid years) they averaged 103 points per 82 games. Unlike Bylsma, he did that without a Crosby or a Malkin. If we are expecting to become a playoff team and then a contender, then we will need to become a more balanced and more talented team. That is regardless of who the next coach is.

By sudden urgency I don’t mean that he just figured this all out in the last week. I mean his sudden “expression” of urgency. Prior to yesterday, he had made no public expression of urgency and had actually rejected the notion when publicly asked about it.

For a prospect to be blocked from the NHL, they need to be ready for the role that they are projected to play at the NHL level. Peterka and Quinn, as examples, were not promoted to the NHL until they were ready to perform a middle to top 6 role as NHL wingers. Adams’s position on not blocking prospects never meant that he would promote them before they were ready. I don’t know when the last time I heard Adams reference not blocking prospects, but I know it was a position he was still taking at last year’s season ending presser. That said: - Levi was not blocked from the NHL. He is clearly projected by Adams to be a NHL starter and, indeed, was given a shot at the starter’s job. He was only demoted when it became clear that being in the NHL was possibly hindering, not helping, his development. - Kulich has not shown that he is ready to be an NHL regular. Kulich, who is in his 2nd season post-draft, has been very good in the AHL but he is not where Quinn and Peterka were at D+3 when they became NHL regulars. Also, he was given an opportunity to win an NHL position in camp. Adams did not plug the hole left by Quinn’s injury. Kulich lost the battle to an 18 yr old Benson. - Johnson it can maybe be argued was blocked, but then you need to accept that Adams knew before the season that Johnson would be better than any returning veteran or player they would add. Also, I think they want Johnson to be able to play a role higher than 6th D, so I’m not sure he was blocked if he is benefiting from playing a top 4 role in Rochester - Rousek does not belong in this discussion. I hope he carves out an NHL career but he does not project to be more than an NHL/AHL tweener.