Thorny

Exactly lol

If Adams can’t find a goalie more likely to be a 40 game starter next season than a guy who’s never played an NHL game, he’s not trying hard enough Undoubtedly

Even the worst GM of all time wouldn’t clear the deck at the position of all relevant talent for 3 years and accept the accompanying poor aptitude for that long, by choice, without being absolutely sure Levi was coming Adams’ plan literally *is* the Levi timeline. He’s signing. With a 5 part accompanying Sabres embedded series not a joke

I actually had to look up that winning out would only leave us with 103. Kinds crazy

Technically, no. Florida has the tie breaker on us and is 2 points up and we have 1 in hand, so we don’t technically control our own destiny. Edit - nm, we play Florida so in effect we DO We did have a very unlikely and lucky out of town scoreboard to your point which helps - like I was saying before even a couple games can shift the math quick

His poor (relative) play? I’d agree

It’s not even an experiment with isolated variables. What if Tuch had come back but Dahlin wasn’t playing? Wasn’t the board convinced Mattias freaking Samuelsson was our MVP because we lost when he was out? The truth is that ANY important player being removed from / returning to lineup will make a difference when we are still building depth

No They probably don’t Yes the team quit on Dahlin he’s not that guy it’s all about Tuch. We can absolutely boil it down to the results of 2 solitary games

This is an easy W. playing a bad team on a back to back and we are at home on the road. Tuch Thompson Skinner all with 3+ Power adds a G

Think Makar or Fox prob snags last nom

As much as I’d like to take the other side, objectively this one seems to be slipping away. That’s what a stretch of 1 point in 7 games with an accompanying -6 rating will do. Down to 4th in scoring for D league wide, 4th in team scoring, with Cozens closing in

Bryson carrying a lot of water in their attempt to keep Dahlin’s extension reasonable, I see

^ For me, Adams can reasonably be assigned some portion of blame for the goalie output we’ve seen the last two seasons not because he’s failed to supply good goaltending, but rather because he has supplied below average goaltending.

Looks good. print it

And let this serve as a warning for what we’ll have in store here from you, GA, should he not

I must have missed the part where we were talking all roster decisions in totality. Do we now NOT think he’s potentially approaching goalie differently / has performed weaker in terms of addressing G than the other positions? Isn’t the entire reason we are talking goalie because it’s one of the only spots on the roster where the results have been *DIFFERENT* to the rest?? Conflating Adams’ work on the roster as a whole to muddy the waters re: precedent isn’t in good faith considering his performance in that area has been demonstrably weaker and I thought that meant we were allowing, for the sake of argument, for the idea one position might be approached differently than others. if we think his poor results at goaltending relative to the rest of the roster is purely the result of randomness, and not any kind of blind spot philosophical or otherwise, ya, sure, just keep doing what we do and eventually it’ll fix itself by way of overwhelming process. That’s fine

No, I’m not ignoring anything, you just aren’t happy with the way I’m classifying it. Bias/narrative is harmful when it goes unacknowledged, when one hides their true intent. Im not doing that.I’m simply telling you that those “surface level things” are what I’m classifying as the “part” I consider true. I’m not saying these things are as important going forward as the positives, in terms of predicting future performance believe it or not, I think there’s actually merit in pointing out how things ARE, not entirely focusing on how we predict they WILL GO. This season, we WERE a cap floor team we DO have a rookie GM we DO have a first time coach we DID do the “no big FA signings“ thing These are some similarities pointed out - the other side of the equation, the hopefully much more predictive side, bodes much better for us

For next season - turns in October. Depends how you want to count 5 years I guess. I simply counted 5 full years as that was what was in my OP, so after 5 more seasons yes, the ages I quoted are what the players will be for that upcoming year. It is that season, 5 years (and a summer) from now and that I guessed Quinn will be our best F

The times Adams has declined to pay the price, and instead “save” them for a better option..say, Ullmark. Murray/Gibson. What was the precedent here? Does Adams seem to fall back to a budget option, or historically land a different, comparable fish? Until he establishes that he can come up with a viable plan B, I’m going to pray and advocate for him to find a way to consummate plan A

No. Just “bird in hand”, basic stuff ignore at will

In 5 years the line we currently live and die by will be the following, in human years: 36-31-32 I really like Quinn, him being our best F in 5 years isn’t something I think necessitates multiple cups. (Though, I’d certainly take it) Do people actually think Skins Tage and Tuch are going to be ripping it up in their prime still as Quinn Peterka and Cozens are in theirs? No wonder no one factors in timeline. There will be / already is some overlap but we won’t be seeing the top line we are seeing this year, in 5 years. They aren’t cryogenically frozen Could easily be the most productive season any of the 3 have, this season. Or maybe not. But it’s not a possibility so small it can be dismissed. id bet on it being Skinner’s, though

I know, that’s why I said “by all means don’t trade the 1st for Hart but the answer can’t be Comrie”. Im just saying that the 1st for Hart is better than doing nothing *under the prism of KA presumably evaluating Hart to be a viable starting G”

Ie I’d rather overpay for a good goalie than not get a goalie at all, but retain my “ahh, I’ve never been on the wrong end of a value swap in a vacuum, sweet” mindset. By all means don’t trade a first for Hart. But the result can’t be “so we kept Comrie” “losing” a deal in a vacuum is better WAY BETTER it’s ullmark all over again. Adams obviously thought he was a good goalie, he tried to sign him. If Adams thinks Hart is good enough to be the starter, he should trust his evaluation and pay the price We can turn down any deal based on talent evaluation. If the talent evaluation checks all the dots and we don’t make the deal, nor another similar, due to the trade not fitting our trade value parameters to a T, it’s a horrible decision

The supposition being that a trade can only be a good one if it’s in line with the market? The entire point is that it’s no good for Adams to remain a slave to the market if the market never produces a viable opportunity. It leaves us in the same place.

And the multiverse where we never dealt Eichel OR O’Reilly