KO knew very early we didn’t have it - something was missing

[mjd1001]

On 5/16/2024 at 11:26 AM, Pimlach said:

100%. 

Contrast to Boston, who's team got booed after one lax home game.  Montgomery said the fans are right and that they are smart and know what's going on.  

Marchand shrugged and said if we play better they will cheer.  

Even fans in Buffalo and several here at SabreSpace dismissed this as a nothing because the fans salute is "stupid".  Maybe it is, but the players and coaches reaction was the exact opposite of what it should have been.  

 

 

I know people can't stand Marchand and Boston....but to think as fan how great it must have been to watch a team with Bergeron and Marchand on it, through their prime, for the greater part of a decade (lets not forget Chara through some of that time)  Only 1 cup for them, but aren't those the type of players that almost EVERY fanbase says they want but never really get?

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, B-U-F-F-A-L-O said:

I think we’ve already decided to do nothing this summer. It is going to be another year to develop prospects in Buffalo….

Kulich and Rosen are already locks on the 2024-25 roster. 
This is not what we need.

We need bigger, stronger, grittier players that win in the corners and go to the net without exception. We need forecheckers and backcheckers that win on the dot. We need players that make other players not want to play us.

Yes, of course you need talent too but talent without toughness does not win in the NHL…

Why do you think this?

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, B-U-F-F-A-L-O said:

I think we’ve already decided to do nothing this summer. It is going to be another year to develop prospects in Buffalo….

Kulich and Rosen are already locks on the 2024-25 roster. 
This is not what we need.

We need bigger, stronger, grittier players that win in the corners and go to the net without exception. We need forecheckers and backcheckers that win on the dot. We need players that make other players not want to play us.

Yes, of course you need talent too but talent without toughness does not win in the NHL…

So we only need 4 defensemen and 8 forwards?  

[LTS]

On 5/16/2024 at 1:10 PM, Malazan said:

Those goalposts are heavy. I'd also appreciate you not making stuff up. I never said he wasn't on the ice. You completely made that up. I never said he wasn't active. You completely made that up. He's on the bench most of the time like he should have been in Buffalo. He plays a role in Florida where he gets ~10 minutes of ice time. He is a broken down vet that doesn't add much.

So just admit you didn't know he lost the puck to Boston and it was recovered by Barkov who then single-handedly went up the ice through 3 opposing players to score.

 

Revisionist history usually takes longer to kick in.

Your initial post said on the bench and I called you out on it. Nothing made up. Bottom line. Also, I am aware of how the goal was scored, so there's nothing to admit. He was on the ice, he has an assist. The very fact that he has an assist means he was deemed to have been involved in the goal being scored. I don't make the rules of the game.

Have a great weekend and I hope your forgetfulness doesn't impact you forgetting where your phone, wallet, or keys are.

[Thorny]

On 5/16/2024 at 2:51 PM, Pimlach said:

Yes indeed.  I sure hope Adams turns out correct in the long term view.  

Taking 5 years to make the playoffs is already wrong. He can’t “turn out correct.”

the red wings aren’t relevant to that 

- - - 

The only reason people mention the red wings is to feel better about the sabres: our competition is with the league not one team. There is nothing gleaned by comparing the sabres “patient approach” and the wings “more aggressive” approach: both have sucked. Neither represents a verdict on the type of chosen strategy: the league has hundreds of teams providing hundreds of examples over a hundred years of GMs moulding their teams into playoff contenders over a year or two or 3, or teams successful implementing a more patient approach. We don’t need to look at these two failed approaches. 

Either strategy can work. Either strategy can fail based on the aptitude of the person implementing it. Both GMs have been bad. Trying to achieve a victory over Detroit is purely cope 

Edited May 18 by Thorny

[dudacek]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

Taking 5 years to make the playoffs is already wrong. He can’t “turn out correct.”

the red wings aren’t relevant to that 

- - - 

The only reason people mention the red wings is to feel better about the sabres: our competition is with the league not one team. There is nothing gleaned by comparing the sabres “patient approach” and the wings “more aggressive” approach: both have sucked. Neither represents a verdict on the type of chosen strategy: the league has hundreds of teams providing hundreds of examples over a hundred years of GMs moulding their teams into playoff contenders over a year or two or 3, or teams successful implementing a more patient approach. We don’t need to look at these two failed approaches. 

Either strategy can work. Either strategy can fail based on the aptitude of the person implementing it. Both GMs have been bad. Trying to achieve a victory over Detroit is purely cope 

For me it's less about coping with the Sabres and more about coping with @PerreaultForever, but we all gotta find our ways to get by 😜

*****

Two things have become really clear lately to me about your position on this rebuild:

• You think the Sabres of 2021 were in much better shape than I do
• And/or you think it's much easier to turn a really bad team into a playoff team than I do.

To the 2nd point, I took a look at other teams, going back 10 years to the lockout. Including teams that have done it more than once, there have been 14 sub-.400 non-expansion teams beyond the Sabres.

• the 2015 Oilers were in their 8th consecutive year out of the playoffs. They drafted McDavid, finally made it 3 years later and missed the next 2
• the 2015 Coyotes were in their 3rd consecutive year out of the playoffs. They missed 4 more years before finally making it, and have missed 4 years since.
• the 2017 Avalanche were on their 3rd consecutive year out of the playoffs and had missed 6 of their last 7. They made the playoffs the next season and have yet to miss since.
• the 2019 Senators were on their 2nd year out of playoffs and missed each of the 5 years since.
• the 2020 Wings were on their 4th year of missing the playoffs and have missed each of the 4 years since
• the 2021 Ducks were on their 3rd year out of the playoffs and have missed all 3 years since
• The 2022 Devils were on their 4th year out of the playoffs and had missed 9 of 10. they made the playoffs the next season, then missed last year.
• the 2022 Flyers were on their 2nd year out of the playoffs and have missed the 2 years since.
• the 2022 Canadiens went to finals in bubble the year prior and have missed the 2 years since
• the 2023 Sharks were on their 4th year out of the playoffs and missed again this year
• the 2023 Jackets were on their 3rd year out of the playoffs and missed again this year
• the 2023 Hawks were on their 3rd year out of the playoffs and missed again this year

I'm just not seeing many examples of GMs turning sad sack teams like the Sabres into playoff contenders in 2 or 3 years. The 2020/21 Sabres were a .330 hockey team.

Which comes back to my first point up top: your argument makes a lot more sense to me if you think the 2021 Sabres were like the 2016 Hurricanes or the 2022 Canucks.

I just don't think that's the case.

 

Edited May 19 by dudacek

[That Aud Smell]

⬆️ 

I’m watching Vancouver rn.

What about them? They stunk last year. (But was that an aberration?)

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, That Aud Smell said:

⬆️

I’m watching Vancouver rn.

What about them? They stunk last year. (But was that an aberration?)

Last year they stunk like the Sabres did this year. They were an 83 point team that had missed 3 years in a row and 7 of their previous 8.

But the previous year they had just missed, with 92 points (again, very much as the Sabres did)

[Thorny]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

For me it's less about coping with the Sabres and more about coping with @PerreaultForever, but we all gotta find our ways to get by 😜

*****

Two things have become really clear lately to me about your position on this rebuild:

• You think the Sabres of 2021 were in much better shape than I do
• And/or you think it's much easier to turn a really bad team into a playoff team than I do.

To the 2nd point, I took a look at other teams, going back 10 years to the lockout. Including teams that have done it more than once, there have been 14 sub-.400 non-expansion teams beyond the Sabres.

• the 2015 Oilers were in their 8th consecutive year out of the playoffs. They drafted McDavid, finally made it 3 years later and missed the next 2
• the 2015 Coyotes were in their 3rd consecutive year out of the playoffs. They missed 4 more years before finally making it, and have missed 4 years since.
• the 2017 Avalanche were on their 3rd consecutive year out of the playoffs and had missed 6 of their last 7. They made the playoffs the next season and have yet to miss since.
• the 2019 Senators were on their 2nd year out of playoffs and missed each of the 5 years since.
• the 2020 Wings were on their 4th year of missing the playoffs and have missed each of the 4 years since
• the 2021 Ducks were on their 3rd year out of the playoffs and have missed all 3 years since
• The 2022 Devils were on their 4th year out of the playoffs and had missed 9 of 10. they made the playoffs the next season, then missed last year.
• the 2022 Flyers were on their 2nd year out of the playoffs and have missed the 2 years since.
• the 2022 Canadiens went to finals in bubble the year prior and have missed the 2 years since
• the 2023 Sharks were on their 4th year out of the playoffs and missed again this year
• the 2023 Jackets were on their 3rd year out of the playoffs and missed again this year
• the 2023 Hawks were on their 3rd year out of the playoffs and missed again this year

I'm just not seeing many examples of GMs turning sad sack teams like the Sabres into playoff contenders in 2 or 3 years. The 2020/21 Sabres were a .330 hockey team.

Which comes back to my first point up top: your argument makes a lot more sense to me if you think the 2021 Sabres were like the 2016 Hurricanes or the 2022 Canucks.

I just don't think that's the case.

 

A post that ignores not only real world context, but the point I reiterated multiple times: Jack Eichel played 21 games, total, while hurt during that “season”. We played in a ridiculous division that “season”. The Covid relatives anomalies of that season are BLINDING. No, our record over 40 games does not define what they “were” and your comparative stats are rendered unfortunately rather meaningless

We were nearly a .500 hockey club in 19-20. We didn’t morph into a .300 club overnight. I beg anyone to please just look at the *real world* context.

Adams WAS THE GM WHO TOOK OVER the .500 team

Can we be serious for one moment lol. Your telling me Adams can be placed at the helm of a .500 club, manually cause or allow the team to be changed into a .300 club on his watch, thereby granting HIMSELF, according to you, what, 5 years?

This take isn’t based in reality. Like it sounds like what Kevyn Adams would say, I’m sorry 

You gotta pick one, here. If poor Adams is blameless for 2021 then our record is unreflective because it’s covered in Krueger related taint. Combined with the other factors I mentioned I’m inclined to consider the reason unreflective, yes, and not count it towards “Adams plan”. We know the bones of what we had was represented by the near .500 the year previous 

Edited May 19 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

For me it's less about coping with the Sabres and more about coping with @PerreaultForever, but we all gotta find our ways to get by 😜

*****

Two things have become really clear lately to me about your position on this rebuild:

• You think the Sabres of 2021 were in much better shape than I do
• And/or you think it's much easier to turn a really bad team into a playoff team than I do.

To the 2nd point, I took a look at other teams, going back 10 years to the lockout. Including teams that have done it more than once, there have been 14 sub-.400 non-expansion teams beyond the Sabres.

• the 2015 Oilers were in their 8th consecutive year out of the playoffs. They drafted McDavid, finally made it 3 years later and missed the next 2
• the 2015 Coyotes were in their 3rd consecutive year out of the playoffs. They missed 4 more years before finally making it, and have missed 4 years since.
• the 2017 Avalanche were on their 3rd consecutive year out of the playoffs and had missed 6 of their last 7. They made the playoffs the next season and have yet to miss since.
• the 2019 Senators were on their 2nd year out of playoffs and missed each of the 5 years since.
• the 2020 Wings were on their 4th year of missing the playoffs and have missed each of the 4 years since
• the 2021 Ducks were on their 3rd year out of the playoffs and have missed all 3 years since
• The 2022 Devils were on their 4th year out of the playoffs and had missed 9 of 10. they made the playoffs the next season, then missed last year.
• the 2022 Flyers were on their 2nd year out of the playoffs and have missed the 2 years since.
• the 2022 Canadiens went to finals in bubble the year prior and have missed the 2 years since
• the 2023 Sharks were on their 4th year out of the playoffs and missed again this year
• the 2023 Jackets were on their 3rd year out of the playoffs and missed again this year
• the 2023 Hawks were on their 3rd year out of the playoffs and missed again this year

I'm just not seeing many examples of GMs turning sad sack teams like the Sabres into playoff contenders in 2 or 3 years. The 2020/21 Sabres were a .330 hockey team.

Which comes back to my first point up top: your argument makes a lot more sense to me if you think the 2021 Sabres were like the 2016 Hurricanes or the 2022 Canucks.

I just don't think that's the case.

 

But it's not 2-3 years, it's 13. 

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

A post that ignores not only real world context, but the point I reiterated multiple times: Jack Eichel played 21 games, total, while hurt during that “season”. We played in a ridiculous division that “season”. The Covid relatives anomalies of that season are BLINDING. No, our record over 40 games does not define what they “were” and your comparative stats are rendered unfortunately rather meaningless

We were nearly a .500 hockey club in 19-20. We didn’t morph into a .300 club overnight. I beg anyone to please just look at the *real world* context.

Adams WAS THE GM WHO TOOK OVER the .500 team

Can we be serious for one moment lol. Your telling me Adams can be placed at the helm of a .500 club, manually cause or allow the team to be changed into a .300 club on his watch, thereby granting HIMSELF, according to you, what, 5 years?

This take isn’t based in reality. Like it sounds like what Kevyn Adams would say, I’m sorry 

You gotta pick one, here. If poor Adams is blameless for 2021 then our record is unreflective because it’s covered in Krueger related taint. Combined with the other factors I mentioned I’m inclined to consider the reason unreflective, yes, and not count it towards “Adams plan”. We know the bones of what we had was represented by the near .500 the year previous 

First bolded:  I don't think this supports your point.  Yes, Eichel missed most of the season, which certainly contributed to that being a .330 team.  He also played 0 games for the Sabres the following season, which increased the magnitude of the required rebuild.  This is @dudacek's point -- i.e. the Sabres had an enormous mountain to climb -- a mountain that historically the vast majority of NHL teams have failed to climb in the period you are insisting KA climb it in.

Second/Third bolded -- do you or do you not count 2020-21 against Adams?  You seem to be taking both sides here.  In any case, I think Krueger had at least as much say as KA that season, so I'm inclined not to really count KA's tenure until the summer of 2001.  I appreciate that YMMV.

 

[Thorny]

3 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

First bolded:  I don't think this supports your point.  Yes, Eichel missed most of the season, which certainly contributed to that being a .330 team.  He also played 0 games for the Sabres the following season, which increased the magnitude of the required rebuild.  This is @dudacek's point -- i.e. the Sabres had an enormous mountain to climb -- a mountain that historically the vast majority of NHL teams have failed to climb in the period you are insisting KA climb it in.

Second/Third bolded -- do you or do you not count 2020-21 against Adams?  You seem to be taking both sides here.  In any case, I think Krueger had at least as much say as KA that season, so I'm inclined not to really count KA's tenure until the summer of 2001.  I appreciate that YMMV.

 

Disagree. 

of course it supports my point - it’s not fair to look at a 50 game output and claim it’s fairly reflective - a look at the 3 previous seasons in combination would present a far more accurate sample size PARTICULARLY because of Covid related anomalies.

Jack Eichel was apart of our talent base - trading him or not he was still an asset that wasn’t reflected due to injury in the 21 season to the extend we knew he had value to the team and we could have a) kept him and B) the trade accounts for Tuch who we didn’t have in 2021 and is a much better output than hurt for 21 games Jack 

[Archie Lee]

I will straddle the fence here. I think Adams took over a disastrous situation, did a good getting things turned in the right direction, and then messed up by not approaching last off-season with enough urgency. 

Now we see if he can do what he should have tried to do last off-season.  

[nfreeman]

15 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Disagree. 

of course it supports my point - it’s not fair to look at a 50 game output and claim it’s fairly reflective - a look at the 3 previous seasons in combination would present a far more accurate sample size PARTICULARLY because of Covid related anomalies.

Jack Eichel was apart of our talent base - trading him or not he was still an asset that wasn’t reflected due to injury in the 21 season to the extend we knew he had value to the team and we could have a) kept him and B) the trade accounts for Tuch who we didn’t have in 2021 and is a much better output than hurt for 21 games Jack 

Well, the 4 seasons ending in 20-21 included 2 seasons below .400, which is the mendoza line that was cited in dudacek's original theory, one at .463 and one at .493.  That is a pretty pathetic 4-season run -- at the end of which their best player demanded a trade (and I'm not sure why you think we could've kept him at that point -- it's pretty clear that he was done playing here at that point). And the best player coming back in that trade, Tuch, missed 32 games in his first season for the Sabres, 21-22. 

So, again, the 50 games was not a non-indicative small sample size but rather was entirely reflective of how atrocious the state of the team was when we arrived at the summer of 2021, as well as the beginning of the 2021-22 season.

5 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I will straddle the fence here. I think Adams took over a disastrous situation, did a good getting things turned in the right direction, and then messed up by not approaching last off-season with enough urgency. 

Now we see if he can do what he should have tried to do last off-season.  

Now this is a fair criticism.

[Malazan]

12 hours ago, LTS said:

Revisionist history usually takes longer to kick in.

Your initial post said on the bench and I called you out on it. Nothing made up. Bottom line. Also, I am aware of how the goal was scored, so there's nothing to admit. He was on the ice, he has an assist. The very fact that he has an assist means he was deemed to have been involved in the goal being scored. I don't make the rules of the game.

Have a great weekend and I hope your forgetfulness doesn't impact you forgetting where your phone, wallet, or keys are.

Goalposts are heavy. Put them down. Stop lying as well. It's not a good look.

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

I will straddle the fence here. I think Adams took over a disastrous situation, did a good getting things turned in the right direction, and then messed up by not approaching last off-season with enough urgency. 

Now we see if he can do what he should have tried to do last off-season.  

That was my view before this season started. We missed the playoffs by one point and rather than make a concerted effort to take a leap forward and make them his attitude seemed to be "oh 1 point that's nothing, we are fine. All I need is Conor Clifton"

[dudacek]

4 hours ago, Thorny said:

A post that ignores not only real world context, but the point I reiterated multiple times: Jack Eichel played 21 games, total, while hurt during that “season”. We played in a ridiculous division that “season”. The Covid relatives anomalies of that season are BLINDING. No, our record over 40 games does not define what they “were” and your comparative stats are rendered unfortunately rather meaningless

We were nearly a .500 hockey club in 19-20. We didn’t morph into a .300 club overnight. I beg anyone to please just look at the *real world* context.

Adams WAS THE GM WHO TOOK OVER the .500 team

Can we be serious for one moment lol. Your telling me Adams can be placed at the helm of a .500 club, manually cause or allow the team to be changed into a .300 club on his watch, thereby granting HIMSELF, according to you, what, 5 years?

This take isn’t based in reality. Like it sounds like what Kevyn Adams would say, I’m sorry 

You gotta pick one, here. If poor Adams is blameless for 2021 then our record is unreflective because it’s covered in Krueger related taint. Combined with the other factors I mentioned I’m inclined to consider the reason unreflective, yes, and not count it towards “Adams plan”. We know the bones of what we had was represented by the near .500 the year previous 

 

Yes, I get that you think the Sabres didn't need to reset in in March of 2021 because:

• The 25th-place 81-point (prorated from 69 games) 2020 team was pretty good and trending upward.
• The Sabres 31st-place 54-point (prorated from 56 games) 2021 team was a mirage because Jack Eichel was hurt and COVID

I get that you think that team had enough pieces that it could have become a playoff team relatively quickly with the right tweaks. And that you think Adams has pushed that possibility back when he did not have to.

The point I was trying to make was simply that it is not typical for a really bad team to turn into playoff regular in 2 or 3 years. I didn't even mention Adams, let alone the hyperbole-filled bold. That's all you.

If you want to discuss whether the reset itself was prudent, sure. When I check my 'real world context' from March of 2021 I see:

• a franchise player whose health will probably make him unavailable for the coming season
• an owner who is unwilling to give that player the surgery he wants
• a roster and a failing season unlikely to keep Eichel happy, or deter him from a trade request, no matter what new offseason promises I make
• my best healthy player, Sam Reinhart, saying he would not be signing a long-term contract with us
• my $9M winger coming off miserable 14- and 7-goal seasons
• my $6M big free agent acquisition unlikely to stay, or bring back a big haul in a trade
• half my defence corps — Montour, Ristolainen and McCabe — headed toward free agency and not wanting to talk contract
• uncertainty as to whether or not I can re-sign my starting goalie
• an owner who may or may not back off on the austerity program he launched during COVID
• a dressing room that had grown 'toxic' due mostly to the wear of years of constant losing
• a reputation among players and agents as a place to avoid

These are issues I can't ignore. Even if I do accept handwaving the 2021 disaster as just the product of an unhealthy Jack and the bubble, I don't think an 81-point team can withstand all that, let alone a 54-point team. And I don't handwave 2021. Every team was in a bubble. Every team has injuries — you've said it yourself several times. And whether you accept it as representative or not, the Sabres literally did morph into a .330 team.

My take in that moment is that I don't see this mix becoming a playoff team relatively quickly with the right tweaks

Regardless of how we got there, or what we've done since — I guess I need to stress this is not about Adams' overall performance as a GM — I think a reset at that time was absolutely the right move. I respect your take, I just see it differently.

Edited May 19 by dudacek

[Pimlach]

14 hours ago, Thorny said:

Taking 5 years to make the playoffs is already wrong. He can’t “turn out correct.”

the red wings aren’t relevant to that 

- - - 

The only reason people mention the red wings is to feel better about the sabres: our competition is with the league not one team. There is nothing gleaned by comparing the sabres “patient approach” and the wings “more aggressive” approach: both have sucked. Neither represents a verdict on the type of chosen strategy: the league has hundreds of teams providing hundreds of examples over a hundred years of GMs moulding their teams into playoff contenders over a year or two or 3, or teams successful implementing a more patient approach. We don’t need to look at these two failed approaches. 

Either strategy can work. Either strategy can fail based on the aptitude of the person implementing it. Both GMs have been bad. Trying to achieve a victory over Detroit is purely cope 

Lots of passion here @Thorny   
 

I am still going to hope Adams plan is the right one for the long term, it’s already failed in the short term, as you mentioned 5 years is long enough.   Since he started with a deliberate, slow, long term approach, that is what we have and were we are. 
 

[French Collection]

9 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Lots of passion here @Thorny   
 

I am still going to hope Adams plan is the right one for the long term, it’s already failed in the short term, as you mentioned 5 years is long enough.   Since he started with a deliberate, slow, long term approach, that is what we have and were we are. 
 

It is time.

Deliberate, slow and long term should have an expiry date of April 2025.

[nfreeman]

8 hours ago, Malazan said:

Goalposts are heavy. Put them down. Stop lying as well. It's not a good look.

This is obnoxious.  Do not communicate like this here.

[JohnC]

14 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Lots of passion here @Thorny   
 

I am still going to hope Adams plan is the right one for the long term, it’s already failed in the short term, as you mentioned 5 years is long enough.   Since he started with a deliberate, slow, long term approach, that is what we have and were we are. 
 

You have a good perspective on where we were and where we are now.  @dudacek demonstrates in detail that the GM decided on a major deconstruction, and then reconstruction. Based on how the GM wanted to rebuild this flattened franchise, it was never going to be a quick fix (@dudacek's central point.) There was a tsunami of bad decisions that led to Jack and multiple UFAs on this team (now thriving on cup contending teams) to be determined to get out of this wrecked franchise. 

It has gotten fatiguing reprising the past and pointing out what went wrong. That's not a major challenge to do. It's like shooting at fish in a well-stocked barrel and then act as if you accomplished something challenging. 

By the time the upcoming season arrives, the GM will have had enough time to show that his long-term strategy to rebuild is a success or failure. (Your point.) This has to be a constructive offseason where he adds the necessary pieces so at the minimum get this team into the playoffs. If our GM succumbs to his conservative instincts and sticks with the status-quo, then his tenure will clearly and fairly be labeled a failure. 

[Archie Lee]

Something to remember about the rebuild that Adams undertook in earnest after the Krueger firing, is that the Sabres were not a team that had been good for years and was crumbing due to age and the wear and tear of playoff runs.  He was starting rebuild on a team that had been bad for years.  While he moved out Hall, Montour, Risto, Reinhart, Eichel and (not purposely, Ullmark), he was not in a position of starting from scratch.  The team that he started a rebuild with had drafted in the top 10 every year post- Eichel-draft and had also fairly recently traded Ryan O'Reilly for future assets.  Adams started a rebuild with a team that already had the following assets:  Thompson (2016 draft), Mitts, Joker, Luukkonen (2017 draft), Dahlin, Samuelsson (2018), Cozens, Johnson (2019) and Quinn, Peterka (2020, the first Adams draft).  Then he had the luxury of a 1st OA in year one of the rebuild with Power.  The base of talent that already existed when the Adams rebuild started, is why we were able to come within a point of making the playoffs in 22/23. The disaster he took over was more due to toxic culture than to being bereft of talent; this was not a rebuild that was starting from near ground zero, such as what is happening in Chicago and San Jose at present.       

[Archie Lee]

17 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You have a good perspective on where we were and where we are now.  @dudacek demonstrates in detail that the GM decided on a major deconstruction, and then reconstruction. Based on how the GM wanted to rebuild this flattened franchise, it was never going to be a quick fix (@dudacek's central point.) There was a tsunami of bad decisions that led to Jack and multiple UFAs on this team (now thriving on cup contending teams) to be determined to get out of this wrecked franchise. 

It has gotten fatiguing reprising the past and pointing out what went wrong. That's not a major challenge to do. It's like shooting at fish in a well-stocked barrel and then act as if you accomplished something challenging. 

By the time the upcoming season arrives, the GM will have had enough time to show that his long-term strategy to rebuild is a success or failure. (Your point.) This has to be a constructive offseason where he adds the necessary pieces so at the minimum get this team into the playoffs. If our GM succumbs to his conservative instincts and sticks with the status-quo, then his tenure will clearly and fairly be labeled a failure. 

I think Dudacek was correct to point out that the precedent is for these rebuilds to take significant time to yield results.  That said, we did miss by a point in 22-23 and most of us now agree that there were moves Adams could have made to get this team into the playoffs, or to more aggressively compete for the playoffs, that season and certainly in the season just past. There is a degree of incongruence in the argument that this process takes lots of time when one considers how close we were to getting in just 13 months ago.   

Edited May 19 by Archie Lee

[JohnC]

20 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I think Dudacek was correct to point out that the precedent is for these rebuilds to take significant time to yield results.  That said, we did miss by a point in 22-23 and most of us now agree that there were moves Adams could have made to get this team into the playoffs, or to more aggressively compete for the playoffs, that season and certainly in the season just past. There is a degree of incongruence in the argument that this process takes lots of time when one considers how close we were to getting in just 13 months ago.   

I agree that the GM overestimated where the team was at based on the surprisingly good results of the 22-23 season. Instead of building on that success, he made an assumption that this team was on track to move up the ranks. He was wrong in his assessment. He should have built on that prior success (meaning adding players) instead of coasting from that prior success. As a lot of people have already stated: He miscalculated.

Each year is a new year. It's not just about improving your team, it's also about competing with teams that are also taking actions to improve. It's not a static league. Our GM seemed to be too comfortable with where his team was at. He should have been less nonchalant (@Thorny's incisively biting word) and more proactive.

[Malazan]

On 5/18/2024 at 10:45 AM, LTS said:

Revisionist history usually takes longer to kick in.

Your initial post said on the bench and I called you out on it. Nothing made up. Bottom line. Also, I am aware of how the goal was scored, so there's nothing to admit. He was on the ice, he has an assist. The very fact that he has an assist means he was deemed to have been involved in the goal being scored. I don't make the rules of the game.

Have a great weekend and I hope your forgetfulness doesn't impact you forgetting where your phone, wallet, or keys are.

On the bench where he spends most of the game compared to Buffalo where he played an average of 18 minutes. If you didn't know the bench is where players sit while not on the ice.. that's not on me.

You clearly weren't aware that he gave away the puck to Boston while he was on the ice.. He had next to nothing to do with the goal besides screwing up and be bailed by an amazing play from Barkov. It seems like you still haven't actually watched it.