Thorner

Casey is more less somewhere in between me, and Mario Lemieux Closer to Lemieux

Maybe slightly ya, I just don’t think Backstrom really serves your argument he’s sort of out there. He’s more less in between, but trending closer to Backstrom than Coyle, sure

In addition, Backstrom averaged a pace of 82 points per his first 6 seasons. Casey has average 45 per, over a similar frame

Backstrom isn’t a great comp. He *averaged* 77 points a year. Casey is pacing for 71 during what’s so far a career year. It would be a bastardization of the numbers. And I’m a Casey guy

Live look at Liger

Bill Belichick is not an average head coach what are we doing here lol

If Levi stays up, we definitely know who the goalies are next season if he gets sent down, I would think Adams *has* to bring in a competent backup for next year or it’s a “fool me twice” situation

Come on Cody you can do it! Remember this video? Might be a little less melancholy now if he completes his comeback

That’s the key point. The Sabres weren’t *trying* to make a long term trade with the deal. It torpedoed *their intent*. It being salvaged later on by a future GM doesn’t take away from its terribleness

It’d be a game-changer for me in so far as his increased output helps bridge the gap to a playoff berth this season.

The most hopeful thing is that they probably can/already have found the way to, provided they are somewhere in between what we saw last year and this, be a team at least not SO bad relative to the rest of the league that they just get in by chance eventually

That just means he struggled to win with a bad QB, not that he necessarily needed the GOAT. Brady “wins” cause he’s Brady, and he’s the guy actually playing and he got the extra title.. but no one who actually watched the earlier years of that run could deny what Bill Belichick was. Brady, aside from in the clutch, wasn’t even the utmost strength of those teams a big thing for me too, he was 11-5 the Matt Cassel year Bill Walsh was 17-23-1 without Joe Montana. Smaller sample size, but even worse math. It doesn’t take away from what they did once they got that guy.

You might be absolutely right. Truthfully, I suppose I’d say I just don’t really care. The league has demonstrated countless times over it doesn’t take 5 years to turn around a hockey team into one that converts on a playoff berth one solitary time. It is very uncommon to take 5 years, to go 4 years under one regime without a playoff berth. There are only *4 current teams* out of 32 in the entire NHL with active droughts longer than 4 years. Let that sink in. There are only 5 teams with a drought longer than 3 years. 4 years is a very long time and we are headed for that: that’s why the expectation was playoffs, THIS year. If we make it next year, it will be “damn, about time”, not “good job”. And like I said, teams don’t miss 5 straight years. Only 3 right now, league wide, besides us. Im sorry, if KA can’t do it in 5, if he’s equaling that putrid level of drought all by his lonesome, that only 3 other teams league wide get to, never mind the REST of our drought, I’m just done with the regime. More power to those who have an endless runway

Right, im good with calling a spade a spade too. We just shouldn’t pretend there’s any kind of expectations. Cause there aren’t. The strategy is the strategy and it takes how long it takes. Missing the playoffs 4 straight years doesn’t lead into a change in approach for next year, and like the post you quoted mentioned, it’ll likely be another 2 years until the roster is supposedly ready. If it’s not then, well, stay the course it is what it is at this point, it’s easier to give up the angst and choose apathy. Making it this year, taking till year 4 of your term, I would have said Adams did an ok job. Missing this year, if we do, ya..a strategy that takes 5 years to get a team in the playoffs isn’t a good one, regardless of if we made it next year. It’s not a situation where I’d think a GM particularly deserves credit. We already know it’s a lacking plan if we take until next year to make it, if we need till year 6 or whatever was implied, I mean… totally on board w/ the thinking. Bad strategy, bad GM, but if it takes 6 years it takes 6 years. Or beyond. I drew my personal line at 5. It’s the time I’ve got for this regime. I’m barely watching this year as is: hopefully they can put it together for next year, that 5th one

So it’s just a run back again, we are pretty much locked in to what we have and what happens happens We don’t need to approach the offseason any differently even though doing it that way leading into this season resulted in a disastrous year thus far just hope it goes better next time Honestly, I kinda do see it playing out that way, too.

👍

This would be awesome

I suppose, but whether it is for you or not, time is a big factor for me. It’s not merely about value in value out with no regard to ETA, for the same reason an NHL GM would value a first in 2024 more than a first in 2029. But especially with us, the 6 years we’ve been bad since is just a huge factor in my calculation. If we trade Tage today for a draft pick that’s ends up even better, it’s still not a good trade for me. Time is of the essence and has been for a good long while. But, I understand you are evaluating by different metrics and, I can respect that.

Ya like the reason I want Levi here is because he’s imo not insignificantly our second best option right now re: attempting to win hockey games I don’t think his development is harmed by keeping him here to the extent it should be prioritized over team result in the now - ie I don’t think it’s harmed very much by keeping him up tbh. Do I think he’d be better served being sent down? Probably, but that’s not what I’m prioritizing right now if we still think playoffs are in play. Like weave said, we shouldn’t even BE in that position, but we are so I’m making decisions based on what is and not what should be

A bad trade is a bad trade, just because it’s made in combination with a series of other bad decisions meaning success was theoretically never possible under said GM doesn’t therefore alleviate the badness of said trade. Why would it? again, if Adams traded Dahlin today, and Thompson tomorrow, and Power the next day, it would be like saying, “well, I guess the Dahlin trade wasn’t that bad, cause looking back, it didn’t matter cause we were never going to succeed in light of how bad Adams turned out to be.” I’m not really sure what odd, backwards mental gymnastics are going on but none of it makes any sense anymore lol

Lmao post of the day. Like in seriousness the bold made me laugh, just the wording I guess. Probably true. Poor JBot. To his credit, many of our good players are his additions - - - As for the conclusion you drew about being unable to succeed with ROR therefore the trade not being bad I completely disagree but I’ve already laid out my case above. We’ll just have to see it differently I can’t really explain my stance further

I agree completely.

You know what they say.. You smelt it, you dealt it