EM88

I see the point. I do realize the NHL is a much more complicated league than much lower levels of hockey. But one of the fundamentals I was coached as a kid playing hockey, as well as through my teenage years, is that the center in the defensive zone covers the slot / front of the net. If a D-man is in the corner with the puck, you trust him to make a play or the winger comes down the boards to help him if he is outnumbered. Before a center leaves the slot and goes into the corner, we were instructed to turn our head to make sure our opposite side winger was behind us so no opposing players are left uncovered in the slot. If you have no help behind you, or you can't turn your head to look, then you do not leave the slot. It is almost like teams scout the Sabres and know when Cozens it out there they can sucker him out of position and lead to easy chances. He falls for it often.

For many of those guys it is a scientific phenomena known as The Cozens Effect. Whatever players you put on the ice with him eventually become a zombie player, offensive play a shell of what they are without him, and defensively becoming a magnet for minuses on the scoresheet. Quinn, on the other hand, has scored 3 goals in 2 games and not made any bad defensive plays in either game. Why? Cozens has not been on the ice with him for any of his goals.

I do not think the above is true. Tage is not a great set-up guy, but he is a great goal scorer. His goal scoring in most cases seems to be a result of him having options to go to his left or right, natively being in the center position on the ice. As a full time wing, the position necessitates spending more time with one of the walls next to you. Point being, as a winger he potentially loses a lot of his scoring chances and ability. To me its not worth the gain of any increase in defensive ability another play may bring, in particular with this team where there really isn't anyone who would step in and be better than him in that regard anyway.

He was hired into a position with the parameters set by Pegula. The power of the GM, the way decisions making is among several people, that is on Pegula, not Adams.

The missing choice #5 for me. As the above posts said, they stick to the plan while continuing to lose, albeit as a slower rate than December.

This team needs addition by addition, not addition by subtraction. What it has been lacking is not enough addition by addition. Dylan Cozens is the only player that I think might be addition by subtraction, but not totally. You should not give him away but get something for him. Most of the rest of the core players, I can see your point of them needing more, and better help, not giving up on them.

Something thing I would like to add. I do not thing that many people who are fans through this playoff drought and Pegula ownership period came into this with a grudge against him. It took a lot of failure and some specific incidents by him to get many of us to where we are. He bought the team saying he was a fan of it. He said he would spend whatever it took to win a Cup. He implied he would spend up to the cap by saying there was no cap on coaches or scouts of other parts of the organization. I took that to mean the Sabres would have a team most of the time at the cap, one he would spend to build the best hockey department in the NHL. What was not to like? To see what has happened to the team through the years and see all the changes in the organization, all the new faces, with only Pegula being the same at or near the top of it. One can think over time that if no changes make things better, that the one thing that is the constant would indeed be the problem. Take that fuzzy logic, and then add some of the specific stories mentioned above that imply, if not state outright, that he has been a problem, and you have where we are now with Terry Pegula.

Do you read many of the posts on this forum? I have only been posting for a few months. However, even I have read a lot of the things others in this thread are referring to. While much of it is opinion, much of it is not. There are many links to articles written by insiders. Also some direct statements by Kim and Terry Pegula have been brought up numerous times in previous threads.

The timing of those transition items might be tough.

Disagree. Although I am sure if you are being sarcastic or not due to others calling it a winless streak or not. If it is sarcasm I am missing, then this reply isn't needed. It is not a pointless streak of course. They have earned some points. Those OT losses are still losses. Hence, a losing streak.

Calm down? Yet you are the one who keeps responding asking me how to react to you? I think you need to look in the mirror and read your own comments. You are also the one who has called me, and others 'cute' nicknames that I can only think allow you to think that you are more clever than you are for putting them out there. Your act on this forum is tired. And I have not even been there all that long as an active poster.

I do think that is what most of us want. I think we had it. Was it or was it not Terry Pegula himself who said no? My understanding is when covid hit, Terry and Kim wanted to slash costs. They wanted to cut the scouting staff, the development staff and possibly spend less on the roster, although that last point is up for debate. Botts was the general manager and he said no. He told the Pegulas how that would impact the organization going forward. He was, in reality, being his own man, and telling the owner what was best for the organization from a hockey perspective. Pegula certainly was rich enough to continue to pay those guys. But Terry and Kim said no. They fired Botts for being his own man and looking out for the hockey department. Kim or Terry were quoted right after saying Botts was fired because he was not listening to them and the direction they wanted. I agree that having someone act as a yes man to the owner is a problem. But when the owner not only will not hire someone different, but actually fired someone he worked with for a couple years because he was being his own man? I just don't see how you get around that owner being the roadblock to what this team needs. I do not think anyone on this board knows what happened or his happening for sure. But putting together what we do know of the past. Articles. Quotes from Terry and Kim Pegula directly, Put all that together and it seems like there is so much more pointing to Terry and Kim wanting to protect their money and cut spending, rather than Kevin Adams deciding on his own to not sign veterans.

You are definitely not promoting board engagement. When you tell people they are wrong because of what you consider facts that others do not agree with, that is not promoting engagement, that is provoking confrontation. And do not fall down back-peddling too hard on your use of the word fact. I read your posts. You did not just push your opinions as fact one time, you did it over and over. Say something once in jest and it may be justified as just a word on the internet. With the level you pushed it, it is a lot more than that. It is a sign you refuse to accept someone elses opinioin and you are going to try to beat them down with your version of facts, which are not facts. Your rep on the board? what is the measure of that rep? Your post count? So I should bow down before your opinion because of your 'self assigned' rep on this forum? I will not. Dear Admins? Can you tell me where I may find the list of the rankings of posters by their rep on this board? Anyone? Or should I just refer to Thorner as the authority on this? I guess we can all have opinions, except when it goes against what Thorner states are his facts. Got it? No, I do not, and i will not.

No I was not but I never claimed to be. Read the context of the entire back and forth of my discussion. You can see asking me if I was every any of those things is not the issue, I didn't bring up that part of the converstation and topic.

It is apparent that no one else's thoughts or opinions matter other than your own. We all want to give our opinion, but you have a quality in your responses to me where you post wanting to be the sole authority on things. Responding to a post not with reasoning but just to call me wrong because my opinion doesn't meet your standard as fact? That is really coming from an ego centric thought process of posting. This is not a court of law. I should not be labeled as *in fact* wrong by you simply because I have not yet proven to you what you want, or do not want, to have proven.

Were you a player in the NHL? Were you a person who worked inside the building, possibly working with the scouting department? Were you a person who was an assistant coach, undoubtedly having conversatations with members of management while doing so? Your argument is so off base and you are stretching so much it is crazy.

This is what you just don't get. He is not DEFINITIVELY a problem in all of our minds. He might be a problem. With the conditions he operates under pegula, there is no way I can be confident he is a problem. There is a chance he pushed for the Cozens contract. There is a chance he decided he wanted his young guys locked up and pushed for the Cozens, Tage, Power and Dahlin deals. There is a chance he looked back at the Sabres of the past and saw all the young guys come up and succeed in 2005-06 and thought they could duplicate it with few veterans this time. And by all of the above, the 'he' I mention is Pegula not Adams. You can use the words of 'ending the debate', 'thats a fact' call me stubborn, sticking my head in the sand. Using terms like that don't make you right. Personally declaring something is a fact in a post on a message board does not prove it, not matter how much you want it to be true, you just might be wrong.

I do not care if he gets another shot. My point is there is no difference if he gets another shot or someone else is brought in under the same conditions. Adams getting another shot without the constraints of ownership is better than someone else being brought in with the current ownership issues and under the same conditions.

No that is not my argument at all, not in the least. You are really trying to derive something that isn't there. My argument is there is little way to know if he is or isn't a good GM. The best way to find out is to remove the constraints he is under. Possibly the biggest part of my argument is any other GM that is brought in, if under the same constraints from the owner, is likely to have similar results to keeping Adams here. Let Adams be a GM. He may be bad, but he may be good. We cannot tell if he is bad because he has not been allowed to be a "GM" freely. If he fails at that point, remove him.

Maybe there actually is a big trade in the works but the Sabres think the other side is trying to squeeze them on the deal. Letting word out that the team was told to not expect a big trade just might be the Sabres way of try send a message to the other team. I am not sure if that kind of thing works in the NHL circles but who knows.

Adams was hired with a General manager title, but he was not hired as a general manager. His job duties are that of one of a group of many in the hockey department, but also a shield for criticism that belongs to Pegula. A lap dog for Pegula. Someone to implement the fantasy hockey wishes of Terry Pegula. I wish to see what Kevin Adams can do as an actual General manager with some autonomy. I do not believe he has had it. Judging someone as a bad GM over 5 years when he has not been allowed to operate as an actual GM over those 5 years does not cut it for me.

When you say No one I would tend to disagree. There are not a lot of us but there are more than 2 of us who think Adams is not the problem.

You may be correct that Adams is the biggest problem with the team. I personally am not at that point yet thinking other issues around him are just as bad as him. We can disagree for a while. But as low as my current opinion of Terry Pegula is, him giving the team that message just lowered it a tad bit more.

The last part is the most disappointing. This team could use a shake up. But even if a trade is not on the horizon, why tell them that? This team seems to feel comfortable and appears to not push themselves too hard, there is a perception they are fragile mentally. If that is the case, and it appears it is the case, then I want that sword of damocles of a potential trade hanging over their head.

The issue is not so much who gets Pettersson going. Rather who can Pettersson help to get going. He is already 26. He has 436 regular season games and 30 playoff games. He has 438 regular season points. This is his 7th full season in the NHL. He would instantly become the most experienced/successful center on this team. If you are going to team anyone with the young wingers, he is the most qualified to do so.