Thorner

No I used we so I’d be included, I made the mistake of essentially writing him off

Of course you look at the return. My point is that, if we get the same relative return for that pick as we do any other asset we are dealing, I move the pick It’s as much on the table as any asset, a reasonable return is always implied

People were saying Reinhart was a bust 3 years into his career, and he didn’t play in the nhl his first post draft year obviously we were wrong in saying that, but it doesn’t change the fact it was said because we wanted the production then, that would only come in time. Even with guys like Reinhart it’s usually years away from making a meaningful standings impact i understand it’s my bias, but im always very forward about it: I just can’t place value on “the future” anymore. It is VERY unlikely the pick has a meaningful on-team impact in any sort of immediate fashion, to me it’s exceptionally more valuable to convert the pick into a now asset if possible you don’t have to agree with it, but I’m comfortable sitting firmly on a “it’s about THIS season RIGHT NOW” mantra to a T, to a fault, when it’s been going on 14 years

Yes, consensus first overall phenom Michael Misa

If we are penciling first round draft picks into meaningful spots in the lineup we are no better than Adams and Terry Well, other than the fact they are being PAID to eff up

Jason Botterill

The problem is that the type of uncreative, out-of-ideas thinking that leads a team to electing to tank as their best option in the FIRST PLACE is indicative of a management group unlikely to have the aptitude to built out a team on balance *at all*, never mind one that’s been burned to the ground and salted. The point being missed is that finishing last was the easiest part of that strategy. The strategy fails if its very processes in being implemented render the roster nearly unsalvageable to those that implemented the strategy. Let me explain: if the strategy to get rich is to rob a bank at gunpoint, they are going to give you the money. That’s the easy part. Once you get caught shortly after, because your plan to get the money (hey, we got it!) was so frivolous it created a situation that collapses on itself, was the bank robbery a success? that’s what you are saying essentially. “Well, we got the money” I got you

I cannot imagine not winning this game. They are in 29th and drew a matchup with a team lower than them, after the big Pegula visit where he said “it’s on them.” Everyone watching. Event game. We win this, probably going away. right?

Friedman was on The Fan Hockey Show today - said the name of the game right now with Buffalo is patience. The franchise is preaching patience - wonders how long they can preach that considering the fan base “We haven’t built a good enough team so it’s not worth spending more on it” Ok? lol

Exactly. To say Terry is the actual GM started as a meme and moved into an absurd narrative. Terry meddles and places restrictions: he’s not the actual GM. He signs off on the team ADAMS built and they are in agreement on how to build it. As I always say, part and parcel and i struggle to see how that’s a defence of Adams. You’d *think* calling him a puppet would be to his detriment but in reality people are using that as a reason for why the unqualified man should get another shot at it. So, remembering that KA had a big part in the actual build, in addition to starting out as wholly unqualified, bears mentioning

No, YOU watch it! Having to actually watch the product is just seen as the worst lol

Franchise is hilarious tbh

Calm down, Braveheart lol so, why do you think Adams was qualified to be hired as GM? You still haven’t gotten to that or really said anything about anything…but me. Your GM sucks. I’m not your enemy. Stop taking out your anger on me Well said. And as it turns out, even the good drafting gets undercut by the other components not being up to scratch. Finding the right balance is the essence of team building

No, I didn’t say you had to concede that at all. Where? - - - 1) I think it would be reasonably possible to argue otherwise at the very least - dunno where the “anything short of” thing is coming from 2)even if I did think it was inarguable i wouldn’t care what your opinion is further than enjoying debating it. I don’t expect you to change your mind. The only stance I find ridiculous is the one that amounts to Adam’s essentially being an unknown quantity

We’ve come so far through the desert that team sunshine’s new platform is “Adams is a normal failure.” I’m going to rest my case/digress. I think the above says enough Should also be noted your statement is “normal level of failure in sports” under the prism of him needing to rebuild (which you started with): which isn’t something I ever agreed with in fact I vociferously did the opposite. He’s done nothing but prove me right: the rebuild especially the extent of it was absurd. And hindsight need not apply: I said it 5 years ago

It’s all well and good to say this but historical president doesn’t render it realistic again, 2 teams spending in bottom 10 have made playoffs in last 10 years. This is a ridiculously compelling statistical trend that suggest “buck up and play better” isn’t realistic once you add the handcuff of youth, when the youngest team ALSO statistically doesn’t make the playoffs, and I think it’s clear we need to look to construction

You know how many GMs are employed with droughts longer than Adams? 1. Adams has a longer drought than anyone but Yzerman. We aren’t just normal bad

It’s only a normal amount of failure relative to the sabres (and even then, only if you unreasonably dismiss the variable of time: Adams is about to field 5 teams that missed the playoffs to JB and Tim Murray’s 3 each). It took Darcy 11 years to miss the amount of times Adams is going to do in 5. No, missing 5 years in a row isn’t historically bad. But it’s certainly not a “normal” level of failure, either: aside from buffalo only 4 teams in the entire league have droughts of 5 years. JUST ADAMS TENURE ALONE would be good for the 5th longest playoff drought in the league currently.

That’s my point. He started off with nothing to his name. He didn’t have the qualifications to support a hiring. IF we are counting his 5 years as anything, I struggle to see how it can be anything but negative. Where are we looking to find body of work that supports him? on his resume before we hired him? No since taking office? Also no theres no argument FOR. Just a bunch of “well we haven’t isolated each variable individually” nonsense because the sum total is so inarguably bad

Right, my issue with Adams is he’s had 1,800 tomorrows. The results haven’t come in any of them

If either of you two would actually like to, you know, CHALLENGE my opinion that it’s a fact to say Adams was an unqualified hire, why don’t you have at it? Instead of merely arguing me with on the principle? Does it matter to you so much i think it’s a fact Adams was unqualified? Make an argument for why he was a qualified hire 1 “he played in the nhl 2 “he managed a skating rink” 3 … and so forth

I don’t need to be penalized against my rep on this board, which obviously precedes me as it should. I am a legend. If not a poet. But probably both. but me typing “*fact*” is just that: words on the internet. It doesn’t MAKE it fact just because the great Thorny said it. You can kindly disregard it or call the post inane, I don’t care Me saying it doesn’t suggest a board ruling. I don’t have that kind of power. It’s not an attempt at stifling conversation. If there’s one thing I do it’s promote engagement, we can ask SDS but id be shocked if otherwise I’m not always right People just follow me cause I’m awesome

So, it’s your call. Do you fire Adams today or no

Also I dunno what you are doing with your post but sounds like a lot of projection. you should know I don’t think about you at all.. and it sounds like you are dreaming about me

Do you think Adams was a qualified hire? If so, explain