Thorner

It’s liger lol - - - Thought this one was on tv here, doesn’t look like it. May have to miss Go Sabres, slump buster in order Ill refrain from predicting a W as it hasn’t worked

Lots of good points. And I agree with you. Particularly the bit about how strategies can be put together spending a lot, or spending not as much - that there is more than one way of doing things. This has been a repeated theme of my posts in this discussion. But, again, my issue with the current plan is the extreme nature to which we are not spending. You are trying to explain the nature of spending as if I have no understanding: as I have repeatedly belaboured - I don’t think Adams should be going out and breaking bank. I’ve said repeatedly - I do not thing spending at the CAP FLOOR right now is a means to the success we want, both short and long term. If you would like to defend the position of why we should spend at the cap floor, I’d be happy to have that discussion. If your point is more along the lines of judicial spending, I agree. - - - Otherwise, I’ll continue to opine that it would have been in our interest to not bind ourselves so stringently to spending the least amount possible this season - that adding another reasonable d man or forward, utilizing just a little of the cap space we have, would have been a good things. Heck, even picking up Reilly. We didn’t need to max out the cap to keep Ullmark, either. Making sure we spend nothing demonstrably prevents us from moves here or there that would seemingly add improvement: plenty of examples have been pointed out by board wide. - - - It’s about balance. We shouldn’t be spending at the floor right now, or the ceiling. Either is a needless and damaging extreme.

@LGR4GMim not sure you understand the mathematics at play here as well as I think you did, my apologies saying you can point out one example of a team that spent and didn’t win as a means to disprove the correlation between spending and winning is..a poor attempt at understanding what correlation represents. Curt already explained it in less words by pointing out how it would look on an x y axis. You are saying things like “there is literally no correlation” (an objectively false statement), so I don’t think we can have a math based discussion without you having at least a rudimentary understanding of the math. - - - Let me simplify: I agree with you that Adams should have spent at least a little bit above the cap floor: as you point out, you would have added a d-man, etc. This is, in fact, what I was saying all along, which you would have noticed if you ever had any inclination at all to have a good faith discussion with anyone. Your entry point into the discussion as it related to me was quoting my post that said there was a positive correlation between spending and winning, taking issue with that factual statement. I proceeded to defend the statement in terms of its accuracy, and off you went. For whatever reason, you chose to take that to mean I was saying we needed to max out the cap. I truly have no idea why, I wish the discussions didn’t have to go like this. Most of the rest of your word salad involves arguing against imaginary points I didn’t make, for reasons best known to yourself (ie - Adams should go spend all his money on expensive trades and signings) so, we’ll just ignore those, no harm no foul Hope that clears it up

This is barely intelligible and I stopped at circle jerk Yup, agree

Well I’m damn glad I *double checks Nervously * used correlation in my initial post. A big bit of it probably isn’t causation, ya, I buy that. But it defies logic to think that there wouldn’t be some. If you asked the 10 best gms to build a team not one would say their allotted budget was irrelevant. Im sure a fair few “good” gms who are spending would succeed just fine, spending less, and some bad gms spending little would still perform badly, spending a lot, and that would be a cool simulation if we could ever see it if I’m making any effort at consistency of argument here, I’ve said a hockey team can be built w/ slow build or faster builds and that in the end it comes down to the aptitude of the gm in question: I’d wager most good gms could succeed regardless of budget to an extent - again. the curious case of Kevyn Adams to me is more curious b/c we are spending not at all - in extreme cases like this I think it’s absolutely a handcuff. But everyone is saying that, so. in the end, the cap space is just a tool, and if we think we have a good Gm, why wouldn’t we want him wielding that tool? if he’s not a good gm, what are we doing anyway

Some pretty strong data in the article I linked - - - https://dobberhockey.com/2016/11/03/capped-how-nhl-teams-spend-their-money/ here’s a gooder, little more recent. It’s more just about *where* teams spend but it’s pretty fascinating. It does still allude to the fact you generally need to spend to win

Lol. No. v You wouldn’t have demanded I make a list for you had you read my post. I’ve mentioned this before, the most fruitless back and forth exchanges on this board often unfortunately include one of the imo best/most informative posters: you. You don’t read the things people say you just skim over and twist as John alluded to or outright ignore - - - My argument isn’t that *I* could do a better job. I certainly could not. “Oh here is what I would have done.” That’s ludicrous. It’s that the guy being paid millions to do a job only 30 people get, where half the teams make the playoffs, should be able to do a better job. It’s a relative comparison to the damn league not “ahh, this is what ID have done! Derpeedoo” Dont see how you can’t see this. Me being able to give you examples of moves when I have NO idea what sort of conversations I may or may not have been able to have with other teams is so pointless I don’t even try. Quick way to make my takes even more laughable. - - - I am a consumer of an entertainment product, not an armchair GM. I know I’m still technically a “new” poster relative to the old stalwarts but..*anyone* who puts up w/my content over the last 7 years could see very clearly that my posts fall much more so under that banner. I dare someone to find a trade proposal on this board suggested by Thorny. Seriously! If someone can find 2, I’ll eat my hat. My job isn’t to tell them how to fix it, nay, it’s not even my prerogative to *discuss* the specifics of how they should do it. I’m not clever enough to put together the trade and signing proposals. My jam is observation and noticing patterns: noticing things we do that other teams don’t that tend to lead to failure for us, and delving into the more philosophical side of what SHOULD be attempted re: macro theory. Ie - when should we shift the focus to winning. When is it ok to not want to win. i can’t fix it. the mechanics I leave to better posters like you Liger

Let me clarify: There is a positive correlation between spending above the cap floor and winning Teams that spend above the cap floor literally do win more than those thats don’t - - - If spending more had no bearing on winning more, there would be no need for a salary cap at all. It’s specifically designed to promote parity for that very reason. Here is a good literal article detailing how much more teams that spend have literally won more historically than those that don’t, literally: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/nhl-teams-that-spend-tend-to-win/article4209975/ “From a purely statistical point of view, there's a pretty strong relationship between what teams have spent and how often they've won.” It’s a Myrtle article. It’s a little older but it’s the most in depth article on the clear correlation I could find with a quick perusal, nothing newer I could find suggests it’s changed drastically, if at all

I mean, yes, I am on the record saying I don’t think he actually wants a high pick. Was just reacting to your hypothetical. Cause if the goal really is a high pick..really, if it’s even just a situation like you were getting at, hypothetically, where he’s “Perfectly fine” with finishing low enough to get a “really high” (to use the words you used within your proposed hypothetical) pick, it would be quite a massive red flag. Any finish that results in a “really high” pick can’t be spun as anything but a disappointment

Uh oh....crap, I’m “on one” now, my apologies. We don’t want to *block* anyone. We don’t want to bring in players who will “block” our other guys. The sheer, utter, terrifying hubris. What a theme with this team, hubris, from this, to not wanting to build a team that, merely, oh so *merely*, wins now, to instead focus on building a team that can win in the area of the season they haven’t been able to get to since the iphone was invented. The sheer hubris to say that, not only are you quite sure all your picks are going to make it, to the extent you are already mapping out their *long term deals*, but also to REFUSE TO ADD GOOD PLAYERS because you are SO CONFIDENT in your abilities to do so that if you add said players, they will *surely* be so good so as to make removing them from the lineup impossible, thus blocking the youth. “We don’t want to get ourselves into a situation here where we have too many good players, we need to think this through..” el oh el If Adams really “wouldn’t mind” a high pick, I’m *confident* in saying he’s not the Gm for me

Then we’ve already lost

Don’t have an issue w/the move at all on its face

Don’t want to “block” anyone 😂 Only the Buffalo Sabres would de-prioritize roster supplementation in favour of prioritizing the ability to, in some unnamed, obscure future, potentially lock up a core that is, currently, performing at a level among the worst in the league lmao. What a terrible odds-play. The strategy to this extreme is honestly hilarious. Not even being salty haha. I hope it works, god love this franchise

It’s no wonder he has seemingly no interest in bringing in players that will help now/challenge the guys we have here, why the heck would he want to challenge the rookies he already KNOWS, somehow, are going to earn big money extensions? It’s better to count dem chickens now, while we still can ..Right?

No one is saying we need to max out the cap - the argument doesn’t need to be distorted in that way. But frankly, spending as if we play in the arena Arizona does is prohibitive I mean I don’t even think that can be argued: the results DO speak. I think Adams’ contention is that we are willingly amounting to less on ice currently than strictly possible in the name of flexibility for a future time when we decide, “ah, now it’s time.” What makes Adams’ case particularly interesting is the extreme nature of his philosophy: we aren’t spending “less”, we are spending less than everyone, and literally, as *little as possible* I really struggle with extreme lines of thought like this, living on the fringes like that - Botrerill’s NO chl players after rd1 really bugged me. It’s why I have difficulty with Adams and have from the start, even though he does honestly seem to be implementing some good things. If he were to ever get results, id be happy to become his biggest fan - but it’s gotta be results, cause philosophically we are far apart

Spending doesn’t guarantee success but there is a positive correlation between spending and winning. Of course it’s not failsafe. But “spend above the cap floor line, spend only TO the cap floor line” isn’t an irrelevant distinction. Generally spending aids roster construction more than it hurts it. The distinguishing variable among those that fail spending and those that succeed spending is GM aptitude

If you don’t have access to all the contacts and tools a GM, being paid to make the decisions, has at his disposal, no, a message board poster isn’t required to “name names” to prove their argument lol It’s enough to compare Adams’ work at goaltender vs/relative to the work across the league as a whole: Adams has not successfully addressed goaltending. Without being privy to the variables, on both sides of the equation, the best marker is results. Unless one wants to argue that Adams *could not* have improved the goaltending in 3 years? It’s just seeking to prove a negative and it’s folly.

Sir, this is a Wendy’s

Ahhh it’s not 13th man forwards we are after - it’s elite human beings My mistake

You better lawyer up! You better...lawwwwwwwyer up!

Right, which I did mention:: So, it wasn’t a case of Adams getting unlucky once, there were several factors at play here that suggest a different outcome was certainly possible Well, because you said there’s nothing we could have done, right? If you admit negotiations could have wrapped up before Boston was a factor, then things certainly could have gone differently. If it’s not Boston specifically and you are saying he had just outright made his mind up that he was leaving, why did he negotiate for months, reportedly? You mentioned people change their mind, and it’s true. But there was a window of quite a while to work with: again, not a case of Adams getting unlucky once

You’re*

So theoretically negotiations could have concluded prior to Boston riding in? Could it not be arguable that a GM could have made a greater effort/put a higher priority on persuading said player, knowing how IMPORTANT it was to get it done? I’m not mad, these are the jokes I make on this website when I’ve so thoroughly tanked someone’s argument. next

I also made a good faith argument as to why our own organizational choices may have affected/had a part in his desire to be here, too (really, how couldn’t they?) but I suppose that’s just wheel spinning

Lol good stuff. If in depth and thoughtful discussions aren’t your thing maybe try Twitter?