Has the Adams rebuild failed completely?

[PerreaultForever]

Nothing in there about what the "next phase" actually is and he's just sticking to "the plan" so whatever. 

[seer775]

On 4/14/2024 at 2:07 PM, dudacek said:

@Flashsabre asked the question in another thread:

Has Terry had enough and does he want to get serious about fixing this mess?

Which brought up something I'm really curious about:

Does Sabrespace think the existing core of the Sabres can still grow into the core of regular playoff team, as Kevyn Adams has clearly preached and managed toward up until this point?

Has the Adams rebuild had a setback, or has it failed completely?

The second one.

[Pimlach]

On 4/14/2024 at 1:29 PM, Buffalonill said:

He built a environment that the players know they can have fun with no consequences

 

Having fun should always have severe consequences.  

[Claude Balls]

After watching tonight's Amerks game....huge failure. He has no clue, and prolly less of a clue than Botterill had. Small speedy Euros...keep em coming. Maybe we'll win someday. 

[Archie Lee]

7 hours ago, Claude Balls said:

After watching tonight's Amerks game....huge failure. He has no clue, and prolly less of a clue than Botterill had. Small speedy Euros...keep em coming. Maybe we'll win someday. 

When it comes to prospects there should be no rush.  I don't mean that we should be absolute in not trading any.  I also don't mean we should just patiently wait for this batch of prospects to be ready. 

The Sabre roster has many good pieces, but also some holes and some structural deficiencies.  Serious NHL teams that have cap space and assets address their holes and deficiencies, they don't leave spots open for the prospect who shows best in camp. Adams failed in not recognizing that a shift in perception had occurred by the end of 22-23 and that it was no longer going to be good enough to miss the playoffs with some young guys doing some good things.  By not taking advantage of the assets he had and moving the process forward last off-season, he ultimately took the team backwards. That failure cost him his plan, and likely some agency (and a coach his job). 

I think it would be a mistake though, to now over-correct and trade away their 1st rd pick and half their top prospects.  The Sabres have lots of assets at their disposal and don't need to move their 1st rd pick or top prospects to enhance the roster (I'm not absolute on this, I just think if they do things correctly then holding these assets will ultimately pay-off). 

The lesson from the Amerk's loss is that there need be no hurry to rush any of these kids to the NHL.  They can all be back in Rochester, get a year older, a year stronger, a year more mature, support them with a bit of a different style of coach and veteran player (much like should happen in the NHL this year) and let them take a run.  If things go as planned with the Sabres, there will be difficult cap decisions to make before 25-26.  Then there should be 2-3 of these young guys absolutely ready to step in and help and thrive at the NHL level. 

Edited May 11 by Archie Lee

[Pimlach]

6 hours ago, Claude Balls said:

After watching tonight's Amerks game....huge failure. He has no clue, and prolly less of a clue than Botterill had. Small speedy Euros...keep em coming. Maybe we'll win someday. 

I must assume you are embellishing this.  

The Rochester club has some potential NHL talent in Levi, Novikov, R Johnson, Rosen, Kulich, Östlund, and Walhberg -  and more are coming with Savoie.   

They didn't win in the playoffs, maybe because their opponent had more and better AHL lifers.   I am ok with that.  It is easier to fix that problem than it is to find that many good prospects - even if many are "the same" - we had to trade ROR (R Johnson), Eichel (Östlund), Reinhart (Levi and Kulich), and Risto (Rosen)  to get these guys.   Plus we lost Montour and Linus.  

Look at the caliber of players that left here.  We need to hit on a few of these kids, and rushing them is not the best way.  

[JohnC]

13 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

I must assume you are embellishing this.  

The Rochester club has some potential NHL talent in Levi, Novikov, R Johnson, Rosen, Kulich, Östlund, and Walhberg -  and more are coming with Savoie.   

They didn't win in the playoffs, maybe because their opponent had more and better AHL lifers.   I am ok with that.  It is easier to fix that problem than it is to find that many good prospects - even if many are "the same" - we had to trade ROR (R Johnson), Eichel (Östlund), Reinhart (Levi and Kulich), and Risto (Rosen)  to get these guys.   Plus we lost Montour and Linus.  

Look at the caliber of players that left here.  We need to hit on a few of these kids, and rushing them is not the best way.  

You look at the talent that was dealt to start over and rebuild our roster. The list includes Eichel, Rheinhart, Montour, Ullmark etc. and to a lesser extent Mitts who all are on Cup contending teams. (Eichel was on a cup winning team last year.) The return was mostly for futures (picks), also including young players such as Tage, that took time to develop. That phase of the rebuild or reconstruction is now over. 

Our GM has talked a lot about this new phase of competitiveness. Unless multiple players are added to this unbalanced roster, this franchise will continue to be stuck and remain being an inconsequential franchise with a withering fan base. (Compare the hockey fanbase to the Bandit fanbase!)

Some people are looking for a blockbuster deal that brings in a high-profile player. I'm not one of them. What I expect at the minimum are at least three good players (Greenway type players) added who fill out the third and fourth lines and play a tougher brand of hockey. Would I give up a first-round pick and a high-end prospect for a Cirelli type player? Yes. 

The GM has to demonstrate that he knows the difference between adding talent and molding a serious team together. 

[Dr. Who]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You look at the talent that was dealt to start over and rebuild our roster. The list includes Eichel, Rheinhart, Montour, Ullmark etc. and to a lesser extent Mitts who all are on Cup contending teams. (Eichel was on a cup winning team last year.) The return was mostly for futures (picks), also including young players such as Tage, that took time to develop. That phase of the rebuild or reconstruction is now over. 

Our GM has talked a lot about this new phase of competitiveness. Unless multiple players are added to this unbalanced roster, this franchise will continue to be stuck and remain being an inconsequential franchise with a withering fan base. (Compare the hockey fanbase to the Bandit fanbase!)

Some people are looking for a blockbuster deal that brings in a high-profile player. I'm not one of them. What I expect at the minimum are at least three good players (Greenway type players) added who fill out the third and fourth lines and play a tougher brand of hockey. Would I give up a first-round pick and a high-end prospect for a Cirelli type player? Yes. 

The GM has to demonstrate that he knows the difference between adding talent and molding a serious team together. 

I'm putting a lot of hope in 1) it seems KA may suddenly feel sufficient heat that he is incentivized to make bolder moves, and trade some young talent for NHL ready players, and 2) Ruff should be a voice that will prioritize elements necessary for a coherent team build that are currently lacking.

[JohnC]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

I'm putting a lot of hope in 1) it seems KA may suddenly feel sufficient heat that he is incentivized to make bolder moves, and trade some young talent for NHL ready players, and 2) Ruff should be a voice that will prioritize elements necessary for a coherent team build that are currently lacking.

To his credit, the GM has accumulated enough talent within the system to use them as chips for a trade. He also has the ability to go to the free agent market and acquire players who add attributes (mostly physicality) to significantly upgrade the lower half of the roster and better balance this roster. I would certainly be open to trading our first pick as part of a deal to bring in a first or second-line caliber of player. 

From an overview perspective, we have enough talent to fill out our top two lines. And I believe that our blue line has enough talent to put together suitable pairings. It's the third and fourth lines that need to be significantly fortified. 

What I'm not in favor for is blowing up this roster with so called blockbuster PR deals that deplete the talent base and end up setting us back again. (We have done that already.) For me, it's not so much about being dramatically bold as it is being wise and judicious. 

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

To his credit, the GM has accumulated enough talent within the system to use them as chips for a trade. He also has the ability to go to the free agent market and acquire players who add attributes (mostly physicality) to significantly upgrade the lower half of the roster and better balance this roster. I would certainly be open to trading our first pick as part of a deal to bring in a first or second-line caliber of player. 

From an overview perspective, we have enough talent to fill out our top two lines. And I believe that our blue line has enough talent to put together suitable pairings. It's the third and fourth lines that need to be significantly fortified. 

What I'm not in favor for is blowing up this roster with so called blockbuster PR deals that deplete the talent base and end up setting us back again. (We have done that already.) For me, it's not so much about being dramatically bold as it is being wise and judicious. 

Well, I agree. I'm not advocating for blowing up the roster. I do think, and others have said this, that KA needs to figure out who he is going to bet on going forward and trade some of the other prior early picks for established players. He has to accept risk in a way that I think he has been reticent to do. If he trades enough assets, it may actually be worth keeping this year's pick. I would not be in a hurry to assume it is necessarily dealt, though it should not be off the table.

[Kristian]

On 4/14/2024 at 8:29 PM, Buffalonill said:

He built a environment that the players know they can have fun with no consequences

 

People have really short memories around here.

That culture was introduced by the likes of Roy, Pominville, Stafford of the late 00’s.

KA never built this, he just failed to change it. Just like everyone else.

[Jorcus]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

I must assume you are embellishing this.  

The Rochester club has some potential NHL talent in Levi, Novikov, R Johnson, Rosen, Kulich, Östlund, and Walhberg -  and more are coming with Savoie.   

They didn't win in the playoffs, maybe because their opponent had more and better AHL lifers.   I am ok with that.  It is easier to fix that problem than it is to find that many good prospects - even if many are "the same" - we had to trade ROR (R Johnson), Eichel (Östlund), Reinhart (Levi and Kulich), and Risto (Rosen)  to get these guys.   Plus we lost Montour and Linus.  

Look at the caliber of players that left here.  We need to hit on a few of these kids, and rushing them is not the best way.  

 

The Amerks lost to a team with younger players on the ice and less high level draft picks. They lost because Syracuse played a better positional team game. They intercepted pass after pass clogged the blue line and gave the Amerks few high danger chances. Often during the series there were 2 or 3 Amerks in the places where one should be. They had trouble clearing the D zone. A lot of that was on the forwards who never seemed to have an exit structure. On the night you needed Levi the most he was not the better goalie.

It's not to say that there are not solid players on this team that are going to be good NHL Players. I like most of them but the talent did not come through. It was very disappointing. The young guys schooled in this series.   

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, Jorcus said:

 

The Amerks lost to a team with younger players on the ice and less high level draft picks. They lost because Syracuse played a better positional team game. They intercepted pass after pass clogged the blue line and gave the Amerks few high danger chances. Often during the series there were 2 or 3 Amerks in the places where one should be. They had trouble clearing the D zone. A lot of that was on the forwards who never seemed to have an exit structure. On the night you needed Levi the most he was not the better goalie.

It's not to say that there are not solid players on this team that are going to be good NHL Players. I like most of them but the talent did not come through. It was very disappointing. The young guys schooled in this series.   

Sounds like the coaches got schooled too. 

 

Maybe Matty Ellis will end up being the Matt Ellis of AHL coaches next?  

[Thorny]

16 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Nothing in there about what the "next phase" actually is and he's just sticking to "the plan" so whatever. 

People are saying his messaging has been on point this offseason, and I can kinda see it at times, but if you watch that there still seems an incredible resistance to simply uttering the words “playoffs are the goal.”

the overall tone here was one imo more so of defensiveness: “if you remember 4 years ago, I said it would take time and patience. Well, you got it. Plan continues.”

And he started out by carefully highlighting that it was his 5th year of GM. At first I was impressed: ok, he’s saying year 5, he’s saying it’s been a long time now and it’s go time.

But he actually brought up year 5 to separate himself from the “13 years” frank led off with

Haha

Edited May 11 by Thorny

[Buffalonill]

3 hours ago, Kristian said:

People have really short memories around here.

That culture was introduced by the likes of Roy, Pominville, Stafford of the late 00’s.

KA never built this, he just failed to change it. Just like everyone else.

? The culture started when we decided to tank where losing was acceptable.

 

[Thorny]

There’s a statute of limitations on all this “when the poor culture started” stuff. It can change year over year simply by fielding a winning team. The mistakes of the tank aren’t a literal obstacle anymore. We missed the playoffs by 1 point last year, and that’s all we need to shake it: we weren’t prevented from gaining that 1 point by some mystical lingering culture force 

[dudacek]

31 minutes ago, Thorny said:

People are saying his messaging has been on point this offseason, and I can kinda see it at times, but if you watch that there still seems an incredible resistance to simply uttering the words “playoffs are the goal.”

the overall tone here was one imo more so of defensiveness: “if you remember 4 years ago, I said it would take time and patience. Well, you got it. Plan continues.”

And he started out by carefully highlighting that it was his 5th year of GM. At first I was impressed: ok, he’s saying year 5, he’s saying it’s been a long time now and it’s go time.

But he actually brought up year 5 to separate himself from the “13 years” frank led off with

Haha

Do you think playoffs are the goal?

I’m familiar with your position on that personally, and that’s not the discussion I’m going for here. I’m looking for your reading of Adams.

Previously, Adams has always been pretty explicit that his goal was to build a team that could be a contender for a long time. Ideally, Tampa/Chicago, but if not, at least Carolina/Boston/Washington.

I don’t think that has shifted at all. He’s not switched into “playoffs or bust” mode, I think he’s “critical mass is now here for long-term success” mode.

Might be semantics as far as this season goes, but in general do you think his mindset has shifted?

Edited May 11 by dudacek

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Do you think playoffs are the goal?

I’m familiar with your position on that personally, and that’s not the discussion I’m going for here. I’m looking for your reading of Adams.

Previously, Adams has always been pretty explicit that he goal was to have a team that could be a contender for a long time. Ideally, Tampa/Chicago, but if not, at least Carolina/Boston/Washington.

I don’t think that has shifted at all. He’s not switched into “playoffs or bust” mode, I think he’s “critical mass is now here for long-term success” mode.

Might be semantics as far as this season goes, but in general do you think his mindset has shifted?

I think the way you worded it is pretty accurate.

Adams is a man of conviction. No absence of the typical human stubbornness we are all prone to. As mentioned, the prevailing tone of that video is “I told you this would happen.”, it really was.

There won’t be an urgency to turn over every stone in a pursuit of any lose cheerio that may provide the nutrients of a season in which we can finish top 16: but you can see it in his face and demeanour - there’s certainly an urgency for the a top 16 finish *by way of the natural fruition of his plan*.

He thinks that’s probably this coming season but, the goal is never going to come before a descriptor of the process in any uttered sentence from him, do you know what I mean?

Not sure if that answers your question 

[Kristian]

33 minutes ago, Buffalonill said:

? The culture started when we decided to tank where losing was acceptable.

 

No, we tanked when our previous core failed because losing was acceptable.

The Roy, Pominville, Stafford, Ennis, Myers years were the shitshow that got us all into this god-awful mess in the first place.

Losing being acceptable was a culture well in place before the tank.

[Thorny]

He might value long term success as much as I/we do: I’m not inside his head. Seems like it’s plausible. But he doesn’t value a playoff berth in and of itself as highly as I do: I think that’s clear 

Both in terms of product value outright, and also strategically in terms of it’s usefulness as an almost alchemical tool in building future success 

for him playoffs are a “achieve by way of the successful implementation of..” and for me they are a little more of a “will result in more success” dynamic.

For him playoffs are symptom of success, for me I think they may be cause, in large part - such is the nature of this mystical 13 year stretch 

Edited May 11 by Thorny

[French Collection]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

He might value long term success as much as I/we do: I’m not inside his head. Seems like it’s plausible. But he doesn’t value a playoff berth in and of itself as highly as I do: I think that’s clear 

Both in terms of product value outright, and also strategically in terms of it’s usefulness as an almost alchemical tool in building future success 

I get this.

Make the playoffs even if you need to move a young asset and keep building on the success of being a playoff team.

Make the playoffs.

[Thorny]

3 minutes ago, French Collection said:

I get this.

Make the playoffs even if you need to move a young asset and keep building on the success of being a playoff team.

Make the playoffs.

It’s that simple for me.

Me and Adams are very different (beyond the full luxurious head of hair thing).

Adams is a Stanley Cup champion. I have decided a Stanley cup is never likely therefore useless as as both justification, and utter goal, of being a Sabres fan 

[dudacek]

He really is very much a "trust the process" man.

If I'm honest with myself, I think I am too, and that's why probably why I'm willing to give him every opportunity to play this out.

I think by and large his strategy is the correct one given this market and the crater that has been built in it.

But just because the strategy is correct, that doesn't mean the execution is correct.

That's where I tend to see things differently than @PerreaultForever a lot. I think Adams actually is trying to do a lot of the things he complains about in terms of culture and building from within.

It's the execution where the two of them differ: Adams went speed and skill first over grit and defence, and force-feeding youth responsibility early rather than shielding them behind a collection of Pat Maroons and Brian Giontas.

Given where we started in the summer of '21, I personally think we'd be in about the same place right now, had we followed the Maroon/Gionta path: a playoff bubble team, crossing our fingers that the youth was about to break out. But we will never know.

What we will find out over the next 12 months is whether Adams did indeed blow it, and a Lindy-led core of Thompson/Tuch/Cozens/Quinn/Peterka/Bryum/Dahlin/Power/UP/Levi - developed the way he has chosen to develop it - has the right stuff.

Because that is what Adams has built, entirely by design, and that is where he will sink or swim.

Edited May 11 by dudacek

[PASabreFan]

Sometimes I think there's only one fan left who is still buying what Adams is selling.

[Thorny]

41 minutes ago, dudacek said:

He really is very much a "trust the process" man.

If I'm honest with myself, I think I am too, and that's why probably why I'm willing to give him every opportunity to play this out.

I think by and large his strategy is the correct one given this market and the crater that has been built in it.

But just because the strategy is correct, that doesn't mean the execution is correct.

That's where I tend to see things differently than @PerreaultForever a lot. I think Adams actually is trying to do a lot of the things he complains about in terms of culture and building from within.

It's the execution where the two of them differ: Adams went speed and skill first over grit and defence, and force-feeding youth responsibility early rather than shielding them behind a collection of Pat Maroons and Brian Giontas.

Given where we started in the summer of '21, I personally think we'd be in about the same place right now, had we followed the Maroon/Gionta path: a playoff bubble team, crossing our fingers that the youth was about to break out. But we will never know.

What we will find out over the next 12 months is whether Adams did indeed blow it, and a Lindy-led core of Thompson/Tuch/Cozens/Quinn/Peterka/Bryum/Dahlin/Power/UP/Levi - developed the way he has chosen to develop it - has the right stuff.

Because that is what Adams has built, entirely by design, and that is where he will sink or swim.

All reasonable. I definitely have a differing opinion on the bolded bit, that’s probably my biggest contention: playoff berths are things that can be shaped year over year, with a different GM and or strategy I definitely think we could have made it already, probably a couple times. The entire point of this strategy was to specifically de-prioritize the immediate for future success: build *sustainable* success. Adams said it himself. I happen to just be of the opinion it was more important to simply achieve a LEVEL of success first, and go from there.

I’m glad you said we can judge Adams’ in the coming season because really by the timeline of his own plan we should have made it this season 

1 minute ago, PASabreFan said:

Sometimes I think there's only one fan left who is still buying what Adams is selling.

It’s me, right?

It’s me 

Edited May 11 by Thorny