dudacek

I think that’s an excellent question given how young the D corps is. By the eye test, I’d say every one of Dahlin, Bryson, Jokiharju, and Power is a better player now than he was when Wilford started. Samuelsson, probably not. Clifton and Power had rough starts then got better this year. I didn’t think Dahlin regressed; he produced less - how much of a factor were the forwards? From last year to this: Dahlin dropped in points, but had career bests in goals, hits, shots, blocked shots, ES Corsi and giveaways per 60 Power improved his hits and blocked shots but gave the puck away more. His counting stats and his Corsi were similar. Samuelsson’s stats were pretty similar to other years, except his ES Corsi, which was his career best Jokiharju had his best career numbers pretty much across the board. The exception was ES Corsi, which dipped from 50 to 49.1. He went from -12 to +14 Bryson went from -24 to +5. His ES Corsi got significantly worse. Clifton’s counting stats were down slightly, but pretty similar to his Boston #s. His ES Corsi improved very slightly I don’t know how much credit or blame Wilford deserves.

Karmanos was talking him up on the radio today. Seemed to really like his size and physical edge and said he plays a complete well-rounded game. Said the key for him is developing his skating.

it's pretty thoroughly acknowledged that Adams went to Florida during the 18-game skid with his "plan to fix this" and Terry signed off Even putting aside the Jack argument, at that time Ullmark, Reinhart, Montour, Ristolainen, McCabe and Hall — nearly every established vet on the team — were free agents who were not planning on re-signing. And this was a team in the midst of an historically bad season, on the heels of 3 consecutive years of considerably worse hockey than what we just watched, with what virtually everyone seemed to agree was a toxic culture and locker room. You can debate what form the rebuild needed to take, but I can't imagine circumstances where one was was more warranted than the Sabres in the spring of 2021 (edited) As for the bold, I think my initial post covers my thoughts. *** Of course Adams was, at the very least, complicit in that first year and takes some of the blame. My point remains, and, if anything, your post kinda adds to it: if Adams had a rebuild plan in the summer of 2020 and was talked out of/not allowed to execute it by Pegula, Krueger, Eichel or others, and instead simply carried out someone else's plan, how much of a real GM was he?

@PASabreFan I’m assuming the eyeroll you gave me is tied to “Next season win or die for Adams”? When would you have drawn that line? The 1st year after the tear down when the Sabres got 74 points when the hockey world expected dead last? The 2nd year after the team improved 16 points? In December after getting off to bad start? In April after regressing 7 points and missing the playoffs again? My impression is you think Adams should never have been hired in the first place, so the above is moot. But, if it’s not, what is your standard for a fair GM timeline, given what Adams started with? Legit asking.

Bennett is the type of asset in the type of situation I talked about earlier that may become available the same way Reinhart became a available. He is also the type of asset that generally costs the same type of price Reinhart cost: a 1st and a prospect. Finally, he is exactly the type of player this team needs: a good, nasty, middle-six veteran forward. I need @nfreeman or someone to swoop in here with a “they’re not trading Bennett” type post. You’re like selling the dream here and I can’t afford to get my hopes up.

I'm familiar with the quote in question. Don't buy what this implies. The entire nightmare that was the 20/21 season was specifically in response to an unhappy Jack wanting to win now or leave, and Krueger convincing Pegula they could. Adams launched his rebuild (and became the actual GM in the process) after that failed. Jack ultimately demanded a trade because of the organization's failures, yes. But this was hardly a case of him being a good soldier patiently waiting until Adams unnecessarily forced him out. He had made his unhappiness well-known long before Adams was hired. Adams decision to rebuild came during what was probably the worst stretch of hockey in franchise history. We did have to rebuild whether Jack wanted out or not. And the evidence suggests to me he wanted out regardless. I see his 'Because Adams wanted to rebuild' as convenience as much as truth.

I'm going to add that Adams has not wavered in his trust in the process. He views last year as a stumble, not proof of failure. He's told us what he's going to do: target areas of improvement: Ruff, Appert, Byram, (and, promised at least) harder-to-play-against style, middle and/or bottom 6 forward additions, and better PP, while maintaining his faith in the core he's built. He's climbed his hill and planted his flag. Next season is win or die.

Adams is more than complicit, he is fully responsible. He built it, watched it flounder and failed to quickly react. Some context is necessary here: GMs can't and don't work on a game-to-game basis, the system doesn't allow it: proof of his failure happened in real time, over a 2-month span. By the time he and those around him were convinced their judgement was wrong, the season was already lost. @Thorny nailed this yesterday. He was done in by his own stubbornness and trust in his process.

I'm not sure, but it is the way I understand it. Apparently there is language in standard coaching contract that covers these situations, and it's a bit of a 3-way negotiation. When they are fired, they are still property of the team that fired them, and still entitled to the money they signed for. If another team wants to sign them, they first have to ask permission of the firing team. The firing team is usually happy to grant it on the condition they won't have to pay the full salary any more. In practice, it works out to the coach getting at least as much as he was getting from his old team, the old team paying out less than what they would have had to, and the new team paying more or less 'market value'. That's the way I've seen it explained, anyway.

He's not. It's probably a reference to the fact New Jersey may be paying a portion of his salary. Like if New Jersey owes him $3M this year and the Sabres signed him for $2M, Lindy would stlll be making $3M, with NJ paying $1M

Thanks for answering. You know the Sabres were 11th in goals against last year, right?

You'll be the 3rd person I ask: why do we hate Wilford?

Sure, I’d appreciate that. You guys usually make me do stuff like that myself. 😘

Not sure who the better prospect is, but Yakemchuk is a much better fit. The more I look at mocks and rankings, I think they're going to be looking at one of Catton, Helenius or Eiserman still on the board as "a guy we never thought would be available."

I'd be surprised if they sign a free agent better or more expensive than Clifton. And I'm actually OK with that because those deals generally aren't the answer. I think better answers can be found in trade

I was going for "general perception that they stick within their comfort zone." If you want to remove the "general perception" part I won't argue.

You are certainly not alone in this. This is a team that in the past 2 months traded its captain, traded its leading scorer, and fired its coach. I think it says something when they’ve swapped out possibly the 3 most high-profile positions in the organization and the overwhelming reaction is that they are not doing anything and are hopelessly married to the status quo.

Not in the limited playoff games I saw. Looked real good when Peterka and Quinn were anchoring it for him.

This is basically what I was going for with the “organizational stereotypes” comment.

I posted this a few weeks back in regards to a similar post and didn’t get a response: what are the specific concerns with Wilford? This team has a ridiculous number of young defencemen and it’s my perception his job is largely their development. Jokiharju, Dahlin, Bryson all seem better than they were before he arrived. Johnson seemed fine. Power and Clifton came on after poor starts. I’m not defending him - I’ve got no strong feelings about him - just curious as to why he’s on some people’s hit list.

This. Adams thinks the plan is working and is adjusting within the plan. Fandom thinks the plan is failing and a new plan is needed. Reactions will proceed accordingly.

Regardless of anyone’s personal feelings about him, Seth Appert is eminently qualified to be an NHL assistant coach. The pushback is partly about his fit for this particular role, partly about the “new” staff as a whole, and mostly about the perpetuation of fears about organizational stereotypes.

Cap space this year is only an issue if they add some expensive players this summer. Its only an issue next year if Peterka and Quinn break out. And if that happens, they do what good teams do, they move a contract out and backfill with one of the many prospects they have accumulated. That’s kinda the whole purpose of accumulating prospects and locking up your core long-term.

This is him responding to patterns he wants to see the Sabres break through the lens of evidence today that they won’t.

It’s a good indicator of how rock-bottom people feel when the hiring of an assistant coach threatens to push them over the edge.