...

Based on the fancy stats of the players we got and the possibilities suggested by those fancy stats, I'm not disappointed in the way the bottom six was re-tooled. I fully expect Krebs and Kulich to compete for the 3C position, assuming Krebs isn't traded away (which I hope he is). If Krebs doesn't win it he literally has no role on this roster. As others have noted, we now have Lindy, which between the bottom six changes and Lindy's system, such as it may be, we will be a completely different team before even considering our top six. The top six won't change excepting perhaps the addition of a big gun - if available at a price Adams can swallow. Without Skinner, both lines ought to be more responsible outside their zone generally, and, generally, the offensive zone production ought to pick up from last season's regression, especially if you include a healthy Quinn. Lindy's influence ought to change how they execute in the offensive zone; ideally establishing a more consistent net-front presence and a (dare I add "substantially") improved PP. We knew Adams likes his top six and I don't disagree we ought to expect more out of them than we saw last year, therefore not shocked or upset that, so far, a big gun addition hasn't manifested. Even without such an addition, I expect improvements. The D has been set since the trade deadline, so no surprises there. Goal-tending shook out over the course of last season so, again, no surprises there. Are we a Stanley Cup team? You never know, likely not. Are we a playoff bound team? I think it's reasonable, even as things stand right now, to have that expectation.

Everyone needs to brace themselves for the presser on today. Adams will say they filled positions of need, mainly across the bottom six. He'll say the top six doesn't have a problem generating offense, even despite last season's regression, and therefore he didn't need to worry about adding top six players if no "deals" were to be had. "We think we are definitely tougher to play against now, and our top lines will be free from having to execute duties outside of their expected roles."

Tyson Jost: 2025 Stanley Cup finals hero.

Mitts is not a 3C. See: Colorado Avalanche. I don't make roster decisions for the Sabres so it doesn't matter who I think our 3C could be, but it wouldn't surprise me if KA is banking on Kulich taking that roll. And, no, I don't know what he does with Krebs. I hope Krebs is jettisoned from the team so people stop being distracted by his presence.

In a grotesque way, I'm kind of glad this is how that transformation occurs. I maintain that committing to Mitts would have been the wrong move for this Sabres roster.

He'll be expected to move between the second and fourth lines, depending on need. KA: "guys who can do that don't come cheap."

Eric Comrie's NHL career survives another season? God bless him!

Who in the media that peddles in unnamed sources doesn't get things wrong? There are far more inaccurate persons, literal tools of one-sided propaganda, who are propped up as erstwhile, respectable reporters of fact all over the media landscape. In this case we're dealing with someone who the cool kids don't seem to like personally and is also guilty by association, so whatever he says will be rejected and panned long before being considered as having merit.

There's your Skinner replacement.

No and no. The English language forces all of its speakers to speak in nuance. I'm not defending Peters here so much as pointing out how ridiculous and petty it is to reject a claim A) based on one's personal feelings of the person making the claim, B) because the words used to assemble the content of the claim can be nuanced, and C) that is supported to some degree or other by observations made by persons other than the claimant. So, sure, you can twist my meaning as you like, so long as it keeps you in favor of the outspoken group here who don't like Peters. I wouldn't want anyone to suffer having to be an individual.

Regarding the bolded: that's exactly the kind of deal I think Peters is referring to. The challenge here is that the word "deal" is a nuanced word. There's a difference between the hyped version of "DEAL!" used in advertising to the utilitarian version that's synonymous with "transaction". The word "bargain" is similar, although IMHO a more clunky word when not applied to mean "an advantageous purchase". (FWIW, synonyms for "bargain" are: noun: buy, deal, pennyworth, snip [British], steal; verb: chaffer, deal, dicker, haggle, horse-trade, negotiate, palter) So, with that being said, we better keep an eye on Byram because otherwise the Avs definitely got a deal in Mitts the SS Heartthrob. Those small "dealings" are whatever. So far, none of the "dealings" for us have paid off. Not. A. One. (13 years) Therefore, while KA surely has been in contact with other GMs to "deal" he has been unable to walk away with a "deal". Meanwhile, Florida, Vegas, and Colorado are pretty sure today they got "deals" in their "dealings" with KA. I mean, again, with all the moaning on this board about Adams and his inability to do anything of substance, I'm stupefied that all of sudden people are talking themselves out of those views. It must be painful - you all have my pity. PS. For anyone who needs a car, I have a Chevrolet Citation with the most exquisite patina on all the panels. Just needs a little brake work. I'll make you a deal you can't refuse.

Something about a small, uncommitted fan base in Florida.

The responses to that post and to the following post are hilarious.

He could wear a cowboy hat and chaps to a dance club and not look out of place.

What about him?

I see. So, before Peters it's Adams overpays for an underwhelming player and therefore pundits with no league insight can caterwaul over how Adams is in over his head and has put the team in a position where it must overpay because GMs aren't willing to - wait for it - make a deal with the Sabres. And after Peters tweets out feedback he received from one of his league connections that GMs aren't willing to "deal" with the Sabres it's oh no! We can't have that! Certainly it must not be true! Why, look, Adams did indeed complete a trade. Never mind that it's not a bargain, and that we overpaid for a player of questionable utility, by God Adams executed a transaction.

Really, you're going to put this up as evidence to the contrary? https://www.sabrespace.com/community/topic/37030-sabres-acquire-forward-beck-malenstvn-for-43rd-overall/?do=findComment&comment=1742987 https://www.sabrespace.com/community/topic/37030-sabres-acquire-forward-beck-malenstvn-for-43rd-overall/?do=findComment&comment=1743008 https://www.sabrespace.com/community/topic/37030-sabres-acquire-forward-beck-malenstvn-for-43rd-overall/?do=findComment&comment=1743331 What is your objection to their show?

Don't be so pedantic. If you listen to their show, they don't do "open phones". Peters and Rivet are still quite connected with the NHL if their guest list is any indicator. He's referring to someone whom he was talking to. Peters is also always first to say the rumours and chit-chat he gets from where ever are just that: rumours and chit-chat - just like he did in that tweet.

What if we can provide Stamkos a compelling offer?

Totally possible. We're both speculating on how this player showed up on the Sabres radar and then warranted a second round pick. If both Ruff and Appert were aware of him it makes sense.

Yes, Lindy's approval is a given. My point is that it's thanks to Appert this guy showed up on the radar.