Archie Lee

Agreed. He might be our best playmaking forward. He fits well with Norris and Thompson. Regardless of what I think about Benson being in the NHL, he’s here and he’s capable. He is a skilled player and he should be playing with other skilled players.

Fan assessment and debate on individual players is, of course, fine. It’s a big part of why many of us are here. I just think that every evaluation of a Sabre player needs an asterisk that clarifies that they are playing on a poorly constructed team, that is poorly coached, and that has a destructive culture. We have ignored those factors in our evaluations before.

I think Samuelsson is a victim of the same things all of our players are victims of. Adams has just assembled pieces, with no thought of how they fit together. I’m just done with singling out players. Step one is Adams and Ruff being fired. After that, the new guys can evaluate who fits and who doesn’t.

Maybe no team would want him. But if a buyout is on the table, would it not be better to see if he is tradable with retention. If we retain $800k, it gets his salary under $3.5 million and we are only on the hook for 5 years. It eats up a retention spot for 5 years, but then, that’s what retention spots are for. It was t that long ago that he was a well regarded young player. I do t think a trade is ridiculous. Samuelsson has become a lightning rod. I think all teams have guys who are not that interested in the scrums. If we were winning, and if he was playing better, I don’t think it would be a big deal that he doesn’t engage in the after whistle stuff. I think he is a victim of the same things that all our players are victims of. Our GM has just assembled pieces. Adams hasn’t put any thought into how the pieces fit together. None of our d-men have ever been provided with a partner who was specifically identified as the right fit for them.

Yeah, it’s not a forward line-up that would have the Sabres in the playoffs in any pre-season predictions. We would need better structure, improved D, better goaltending, to make the playoffs with that group. I like Kulich a lot, but he should be part of a package offered to get us a 3rd veteran centre.

This is the sort of thing that happens when an organization is an absolute $^!#-show. This is the sort of discourse that surrounded the team in the dying days of Krueger and during the Eichel controversy. It only ended when the Sabres exceeded expectations late in 21-22 and 22-23. Now we are back to being a laughing-stock, only it's arguably worse because we are in year 14, and this was the year it was supposed to get better, and not only didn't it get better it got exponentially worse. Unless and until the owner takes the step of replacing the GM* and set the team on a new path**, expect the media narratives around the Sabres to only get worse. * I realize that replacing the GM will not alone fix the issues. Depending on who gets the job and what they do, it could get better or worse. What's clear is that it is looking more and more unlikely that Adams has the answers and that a change at the top is needed. ** By new path, I don't mean another rebuild.

Fully agreed. My argument is not that Cozens is about to become the player we hoped he would be. Rather it is that if he does, then there will be variables (his new role, deployment, linemates; the new team structure, culture, expectations, etc.) that have impacted his improvement; there is no reason to discount that some variation of those variables could not exist in Buffalo. That seems obvious to me. Further, while Cozens might have been the most disappointing of our young players, I think it is fair to say that in general our young NHL players have not developed as hoped or planned. In the simplest of terms, we would not be dead last in the Eastern Conference if our young players were even collectively, not individually, meeting expectations. Cozens alone did not sink this season. On balance, over the past decade the Buffalo Sabres organization has not proven to be a place where young players thrive. That some have thrived, or eventually thrived, is not evidence that the organization is performing well in this regard. Indeed, if the young NHL player whose performance most disappointed in Buffalo (Cozens) were to go on to thrive elsewhere, that would seem to be a clear indictment of the organization, rather than the player.

We agree to disagree. I think that too much was asked of Cozens too soon and that there are reasonable things that could have been done to develop and deploy him more effectively. If Ottawa now does those things and he thrives, it is evidence that it could have happened here. Of course, we are now debating what the meaning will be of something that may not even happen. I would not say that Thompson "blossomed" in Buffalo. I would way he was a pretty big disappointment right up to the point where he exploded. Had he been traded prior to 21-22 (at a similar point in his career to where Cozens is, age-wise), few Sabre fans would have objected. Some would even have said "It doesn't matter if he now becomes good, because it never would have happened here". If a player can become good anywhere in the NHL, then it can happen in Buffalo. This is so obviously true, that I can't believe I am arguing it. Maybe not with Ralph Krueger as coach, maybe not with Kevyn Adams's "don't block prospects" philosophy, maybe not with Granato's or Ruff's lack of actual structure, but those are variables that have nothing to do with Buffalo and everything to do with bad management.

I didn't discount Thompson. He broke out as a player, pretty much out of nowhere, right around the same point that Cozens is at in his career. Prior to the Thompson breakout, nobody was saying we had done a good job "developing" him. If you think we did a solid job with how we developed Cozens and that his failings are nearly entirely on him and not on how he was developed or deployed by the Sabres, then we can just agree to disagree.

My answer to the question "Is Tage Thompson a Winger" is: It doesn't really matter, I'm just glad we have him. If Thompson plays centre, then it kind of solves our questions re: the centre-spine. Norris is 2, McLeod is 3, Krebs is 4. We have centre depth with Kulich moving to wing and Kozak becoming a 4th line player or 13th forward. Lafferty can be waived. All of this assumes, just for discussion, no trades involving these players and no trades to bring in a new centre. If Thompson stays on the wing, then it messes up the spine a bit, but I'm not sure it makes adding a centre to be critical. This is because Thompson has the offensive prowess to create 1st line production even without playing with a true #1 centre. I'm not advocating for the following (I think some roster changes to our top 9 are needed), but I think the following could work with the right coach, D-corps, goaltending: Peterka/Norris/Thompson (offence leaning 1st line) Zucker/Kulich/Tuch (two-way 2nd line) Greenway/McLeod/Benson (defense leaning 3rd line) *Malenstyn/Krebs/Kozak/Quinn/Rosen/Lafferty* That's not a great centre spine, obviously. It is relying too much on Kulich's development, but (unlike when Cozens was young) at least he would be playing with two veterans. Anyway, on the wing, Thompson is our Kaprizov or Panarin. Maybe not quite that good and not the same stylistically, but he doesn't need a #1 centre and can drive a 1st line from the wing.

Who are the players on the Sabres who have developed just fine? Dahlin and Peterka. We were ready to ship Thompson out before he broke through. Has Quinn developed just fine? Are we all happy with Benson being on pace for 28 points? Is Power where we thought he would be? Samuelsson? Krebs? Luukkonen? I don't know. It seems like our general track record is not great.

That's a good question. I've come around to the point @Thorner has made a few times (forgive me Thorner if I don't get this quite right): "We are no longer talking about winning a Stanley Cup or even being a contender. We are talking about making the playoffs. Once." The Sabres need to get in. Once they get in - once - then they can worry about becoming a contender. I would say that the fact that we haven't been able to get in even once is an indication of just how poorly this franchise has been managed. The streak has now reached 14 seasons. The first two years of the streak we were still trying to compete. Then came the tank. I would argue that in the 12 seasons since the start of the tank in 13/14, we have only truly tried to make the playoffs, maybe, 4 times (we haven't always been tanking, but there is a big gap between actively trying to lose and legitimately prioritizing winning). I would argue that in the post-Eichel years, since Dahlin became our franchise player, this is the first year where making the playoffs was a true stated priority. That's just not how normal NHL team's operate.

You did yeoman's work in making your point on Cozens. Frankly, you convinced me and I started seeing everything that you saw that was flawed in his game. "It doesn't matter what he does the rest of his career because he was never going to be good in Buffalo", is a bizarre take though. You have acknowledged in many posts the many things that the Sabres did wrong in their development and deployment of Cozens. I'm not fooled by Cozens's 1st three games as a Senator. Nothing would shock me, but it is obviously too early to draw conclusions. But if Cozens does turn it around in Ottawa and becomes something that resembles the player that he was projected to be, then it is absolutely the case that the same could have happened in Buffalo. Maybe not with Adams as GM and Ruff as head coach, but with the right coach, right system, right support. That's just obvious. Of course, the Sabres have no obligation to change direction in management or coaching to serve a single player.

I'm not saying Dahlin is above criticism or shares no blame, but it's pretty easy to reconcile, isn't it? O'Reilly, Ullmark, Montour, Reinhart, Eichel. How many examples are needed to draw a reasonable conclusion?

Good defensive structure is worth so much. I'm not sure about Sacco, but I'm sure with the Bruins there is some holdover from what Montgomery brought to them. When a solid structure has been engrained on a team, maybe when things start getting tough the default for players is to return to the structure. On the flip-side, when there is no solid structure, there is nothing positive to default to. The Bruins might just be the sort of team that is below-average talent-wise, but can squeeze out wins with structure, goaltending, and one star player.

On Power, I think there are lots of teams that fit in one of a few categories where acquiring Power would be appealing to them. Power has no trade protection. With the cap increases, his contract won’t be a problem for many teams; this is particularly so if he is getting 1st pair and 1st PP minutes and his offence increases accordingly. None of the western Canadian teams will be drafting top 10 this year. They are on a lot of No Trade lists. They either have no obvious #1 offensive d-man, or there are questions re: the long-term availability of the player they have (can the Oilers afford to extend Bouchard? Can Vancouver keep Hughes? Would Winnipeg like someone younger behind Morrissey). Power’s lack of trade protection may present an uncommon opportunity for such teams to acquire a future #1. Then there are American teams in the middle-top half of the standings who are not likely to be drafting high any time soon and who either don’t have such a player or the player is older (St. Louis, Washington, Tampa). In all the Cozens trade talk, it never occurred to me that he would be dealt to Ottawa for Norris. I think there are good trades out there for Power or Byram.

We should prep for this. It’s not going to stop. The discourse around the Sabres is going to be brutal. Wait until the lottery. The Sabres will be mocked mercilessly for being at the top of the draft yet again, with nothing to show for the last 4 times.

As crazy as this may seem, we can't sign a higher-priced UFA this off-season unless we trade a significant contract without taking one back in return. Just with pretty conservative contracts for our RFAs, we are right up against the cap with a full roster. Signing a truly big-ticket UFA, someone like Marner (won't happen), would mean moving out two contracts. I think change this off-season will come down to how well Adams manages to pulling off a couple of hockey trades.

The first part of your sentence, up to the comma, is all I have ever said. The second part, after the comma, is you making stuff up.

I support him in his endeavour to put pressure on ownership and management to improve the team.

I think he has a tonne of leverage. He starts by telling Adams he wants out. Then, if he isn’t moved by a certain date, he tells the world. His full NMC kicks in this summer on July 1. So the leverage is, trade him now when his value is high and there are lots of options, or trade him later when he’s pouting and his play sucks and you can only trade him where he wants to go. None of this seems consistent with Dahlin’s personality. But the leverage is there. Now, we could just say no, but the damage would be done. Terry, best to just fire Adams before it come a to this.

It is absolutely bonkers, that Adams looked at Dahlin and Thompson, two star-level, players, and concluded that the best way to serve them and take the next step as a team, was to surround them with kids under 23.

It’s incompetence. Adams isn’t unintelligent, he’s just not a good GM. I stand by my view that the early success post-Eichel (the better than expected outcomes in 21/22 and 22/23) had the adverse impact of convincing Adams he knew what he was doing. He found no reason to deviate from the path he chose, as the path was leading the team in the right direction (54 points to 75 points to 91 points). What he failed to recognize was that the success was driven almost entirely by the emergence of two players. Dahlin and Thompson went from being disappointing performers in 20/21 to star and then near super-star level performers over the next two years. This, I think, insulated Adams from reality. It was my hope that he was capable of learning from the lessons of the setback that was his do-nothing 2023 off-season. Sadly, the sham coach search leading to the Ruff hiring, the lack of any change to the d-corps, and the roll-back of a top-6 featuring Cozens, Peterka, Quinn, and Benson, was evidence that Adams had learned nothing. Now, inexplicably, he is going to get a third chance to show he can adapt and grow, on the job.

I agree. Lots of comments out of Ottawa that their GM, Staios, was not enamoured with Norris’s game. It’s pretty clear that this trade was as much about two teams moving on from players that they no longer had faith in, as it was about them acquiring players that they coveted. With that in mind, it might be more likely this does not go well for either team, than it is that it will be a win/win.

Ok, but if Cozens finds his game in Ottawa, the important variables won’t be the water, or the humidity, or the cuisine. The variables will be the hockey environment: who he plays with, what he’s asked to do, how well he is coached, what the expectations are, etc. If Cozens turns it around in Ottawa, then it means he WAS capable of turning it around and that the reason it wasn’t working here was less Cozens and more Sabres (of course, way too early to conclude anything).