atoq

Ok, but who signed him to a 1 year deal via arbitration walking him to unrestricted free agency? Either lock up the player or trade him if he isn't in the plan. It's poor asset management. A common argument here is "it's not easy for KA to pick up a good goalie". Yes, because good GMs don't give them away for nothing. I believe Ullmark felt he needed a personal change. I don't believe for a second that going from a perennial losing team (after one of their worst seasons) to one of the best teams in the league didn't factor into his decision making, especially when the good team shows they want you by offering more money not pinching pennies in arbitration. Not something someone would likely say to the press, and not a compelling personal story a league reporter may choose to focus on.

Strange point to make about Vancouver in a post about how we shouldn't focus too much on the distant past with the Sabres. More relevant with Vancouver is that they are one of the top teams in the league this year, but that doesn't back up the "other organizations aren't passing us by" conclusion you're straining for.

Apologies for making wild exaggerations to suggest someone could be promoted from failed Sabres assistant coach to Sabres GM without first managing the Harborcenter.

My prediction: Assistant coaches: Nathan Paetsch and Patrick Kaleta Matt Ellis promoted to GM. Kevyn Adams promoted to President and extended. We want people that can't go anywhere else, I mean, that want to be here. Hire from within to keep developing the organizational culture. Outside voices concerned with winning will only create conflict in the locker room.

I totally agree with this. Some absolutely terrible takes in this thread. To those posters, you aren't coming across as bravely un-PC, you just look like idiots.

You all need to be more patient. It's only fair to give Matt Ellis a few more years to learn how to coach the power play.

So tired of this loser team.

They actually made it easier to leave downtown.

The highways were the failure that killed much larger portions of downtown.

This is the worst argument. Goaltending has been a problem since KA was hired years ago in 2020, and he's only let the position get weaker since then.

Besides goaltending, my biggest (yet pettiest) complaint is the "players that want to be here" slogan, which is such a cop-out coming from the person whose literal job it is to convince the right players they should want to be in buffalo, either through financial offerings or by selling the culture/region/future of the team. Obviously you can't convince everyone, but can we stop repeating this as an organizational motto, especially now that the Eichel-era transition is over? What does this even mean going forward?

I agree with this take. He's been neglecting the position since he started the job 3 years ago with Ullmark and vision-impaired Hutton on the roster. Not only has he not strengthened the position in the short-term, he let the best option we had walk for absolutely nothing, after the club spent years developing the player (within the division no less) That's just poor asset management, whatever you think about Ullmark or his Vezina. Get the player locked up or find another solution. I'm excited about Levi's future with the club (almost more than any other prospect), and hope he defies past trends with rookie goalies, but this position is still the biggest doubt going into the season. Also, the exaggerated topics obviously don't represent what most people think who are critical of recent goaltending decisions. A GM can make good moves, like Adams certainly has, but still neglect key aspects that limit the overall success of the club. Darcy, Murray and Botteril all made some good moves, but made some serious mistakes in specific areas too (playoff toughness, culture/character, finding a good coach, respectively).

A management philosophy that apparently extends to "Why hire a GM when the yes man at the arena can do it better?"

I'm confused. I followed the link to learn more and found a story very different that what this twitter pundit describes, in which Sanford Health is trying to distance themselves from an outgoing executive (who has a business background) who made comments downplaying the crisis and need for masks. Was the story later updated? Did Alex not read the original story? Did Alex have enough accountability to update his take on the story? As is so often the case with internet pundits, it doesn't appear so. It also seems he misrepresents how the situation in the Dakota's is being represented, at least in the media. I've seen articles pointing out that the Dakota's have among the worst metrics for hospitalization and mortality rates in the country, and that they are having to allow covid positive medical staff continue to work out of necessity. Both of these seem to indicate there is legitimate reason for concern, and that the situation is precarious. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/14/934185297/covid-19-hospitalizations-surge-in-dakotas-its-like-we-opened-up-a-spigot Is Alex's "team apocalypse" take based on people on Twitter reacting/overreacting to measured stories such as the above? If so, who cares?

That's right up there with bringing a convicted sex-offender from Trenton to Philadelphia to pretend to be a PA poll watcher alleging fraud in a press conference in front of a landscaping company.