Archie Lee

I think he undoubtedly benefited that first year from an almost unprecedented and prolonged heater from Binnington. Still, he clearly didn’t get in the way of winning. The next three years (two of them Covid years) they averaged 103 points per 82 games. Unlike Bylsma, he did that without a Crosby or a Malkin. If we are expecting to become a playoff team and then a contender, then we will need to become a more balanced and more talented team. That is regardless of who the next coach is.

By sudden urgency I don’t mean that he just figured this all out in the last week. I mean his sudden “expression” of urgency. Prior to yesterday, he had made no public expression of urgency and had actually rejected the notion when publicly asked about it.

For a prospect to be blocked from the NHL, they need to be ready for the role that they are projected to play at the NHL level. Peterka and Quinn, as examples, were not promoted to the NHL until they were ready to perform a middle to top 6 role as NHL wingers. Adams’s position on not blocking prospects never meant that he would promote them before they were ready. I don’t know when the last time I heard Adams reference not blocking prospects, but I know it was a position he was still taking at last year’s season ending presser. That said: - Levi was not blocked from the NHL. He is clearly projected by Adams to be a NHL starter and, indeed, was given a shot at the starter’s job. He was only demoted when it became clear that being in the NHL was possibly hindering, not helping, his development. - Kulich has not shown that he is ready to be an NHL regular. Kulich, who is in his 2nd season post-draft, has been very good in the AHL but he is not where Quinn and Peterka were at D+3 when they became NHL regulars. Also, he was given an opportunity to win an NHL position in camp. Adams did not plug the hole left by Quinn’s injury. Kulich lost the battle to an 18 yr old Benson. - Johnson it can maybe be argued was blocked, but then you need to accept that Adams knew before the season that Johnson would be better than any returning veteran or player they would add. Also, I think they want Johnson to be able to play a role higher than 6th D, so I’m not sure he was blocked if he is benefiting from playing a top 4 role in Rochester - Rousek does not belong in this discussion. I hope he carves out an NHL career but he does not project to be more than an NHL/AHL tweener.

Assuming Brind’Amour is a pipe-dream, Berube probably tops my list. He’s got a long coaching record with winning seasons in the AHL, made the playoffs as head coach of the Flyers, post-cup in St. Louis he continued winning including a 49 win season two years ago. My sense is that the Blues were a team built for a short cycle.

Just finished watching the press conference. I find an incongruence between Adams’s prior consistent approach of patience (we won’t block prospects) and his now sudden urgency. I’m glad that he sees the need to move things forward, but had be showed a bit of this urgency last off-season we might not be here today. I am fine with moving on from Granato (great guy, good coach, moved us forward, well paid, he’ll be fine), but I’m comfortable saying he was not dealt a winning hand by his GM. The good news about last year’s complacent off-season is that nothing happened that will cripple the team this off-season. The decision Adams makes on the next coach, will be the most important decision he makes as the GM.

It did not go very well the last time we fired the GM and kept the coach. It could happen, but I think it would take more than missing the playoffs. It would take the kind of putrid season that left Pegula thinking he had no choice but to fire Adams.

I have a lot of affection for Lindy Ruff. He would be low on my list though. There are extenuating circumstances to be sure, but Ruff’s teams have missed the playoffs 50% of the time. I recognize what he represents to Sabre fans, but without the Buffalo connection I don’t think he would be considered an attractive option.

Perhaps interesting is that Gallant basically travels from team to team with one assistant, Mike Kelly.

I think it will be someone who has a past connection with either Adams or Karmanos. Brind’Amour would be 1st choice, but that seems unlikely. Sullivan if he shakes loose from Pittsburgh. Maybe Pittsburgh assistant Todd Rierden, who had two winning seasons with the Caps, but no playoff success, after Trotz left. Maybe long-time Carolina assistant Jeff Daniels. Appert likely is a candidate. I will be surprised if Adams steps out of his comfort zone and hires someone he, or someone he trusts, has no history with.

I do want to see this team coached by a more experienced NHL coach with a winning pedigree. But, I also would have liked to see Granato coach a team that was built with winning in mind. I do think Granato could be a successful mid-season replacement for an underachieving team whose head coach is in the “hard to play for” category. It maybe just too early to read anything into who was fired and who wasn’t. I wonder if Appert is the fallback option. If Brind’Amour or Sullivan (or similar) are available and willing, they come in and decisions get made on Ellis and Wilford. If Adams can’t get his top choices, then Appert gets his shot.

The mistake is in equating a ranking of the talent and depth of prospect pools as relevant to how those pools are managed. That the Bruins are really good at managing the assets they have does not mean that their assets (in this case their prospects) are better. If you are saying you have more faith in what Boston will do with their limited prospect pool than what Buffalo will do with an objectively better pool, then you won’t get an argument from me. Buffalo’s prospect depth and talent is better though.

The Bruins would trade their prospects, including all those kids you mention, for Buffalo’s in a second. If the Bruins had our pool there would be 4-5 of our prospects who would have made their debut this year as the Bruins are in greater need of inserting a few players on ELCs. Now, there is no guarantee that a team can turn its top ranked prospect pool into a contending NHL team. That is clear. It is also clear that having a low ranked prospect pool does not mean you have to accept that you are just going to eventually be a loser. Make no mistake though, no NHL GM would take the Bruin’s prospect pool over the Sabres’ pool, and there wouldn’t be anything that resembles a debate. Of course, you know this.

You are correct that much of my thoughts are “in hindsight”. I don’t know how else to evaluate the situation. I was onboard with much of what he did and did not do last offseason. Now that the season is over it is time to evaluate the results. In hindsight, what’s worse for the future: That Adams didn’t have the urgent conviction of getting this team to the playoffs? Or that he so badly misunderstood where the team was that he thought Clifton and Johnson were the missing pieces? Maybe I’m the optimistic one. I think the organization can shift its level of conviction and urgency this off-season. I’m not sure we can overcome a GM who thinks that what we needed to take the next step was to replace Lyubushkin and Stillman with Clifton and Johnson.

I do not think Adams made moves last off-season with a conviction towards making the playoffs. At the end of last season, both Adams and Granato bristled when asked if they had missed an opportunity by falling short of the playoffs and also when asked if not making the playoffs this season would be considered failure. Note that I am not saying they are actively trying to lose. Rather, that they have not shown, in my view, any sign of accepting that not being a playoff contender this season is an unacceptable outcome. I agree with you that Adams has made clear what his intended pathway to success is. I am not eager for him to be replaced and want to see him continue as GM. I do think though that there are moments in a team’s progression where there needs to be a clear directional shift from rebuilding to contending. I’m not talking about a hollow “drill more wells” or “the rebuild is over” statement. I mean actions that set the tone. Last off-season, the decision to not make any changes on the coaching staff, to not move Olofsson (who Granato had lost all faith in), to bring back Jost, to not bring in a replacement for Quinn and change the make-up of the forwards, to not utilize existing cap space or draft/prospect capital to get better talent, to then start the season by rolling out a struggling Levi for 4 straight games, sent a clear message that winning was not an urgent matter for Adams and Granato (and Pegula, to be fair). There is no specific individual I want replaced, fired, cut, traded. What I want is for the Sabres to operate like a team that expects to make the playoffs in the coming season. There are around 22 or so NHL teams that operate that way in any given year. Not all are successful, obviously. We have not operated that way under Adams yet. My opinion is that he is a year overdue and that every year that he puts it off is a year that takes us further away and not closer to the goal.

Call the above what you will (committed, urgent, methodical, purposeful). The next time Adams makes such moves with the specific conviction of making the playoffs in the upcoming season, will be his first time.

I think you make valid points. While the Wings aren’t out of it yet, if they miss it will be 5 years out of the playoffs under Yzerman. I’m not sure they have enough high end young talent to move into perennial contender status. I also agree that longterm we are better positioned than Wash, Pitt, Phi, NYI and even some of the contenders (Bos, TB). Your last point about coaching and leadership is critical. Keep in mind that teams behind us are coming (or will at least be trying to). NJ will almost certainly add an experienced head coach and will get healthier over the summer. Ottawa sounds like they will hire Evason or Berube as their coach. They will get tougher to play against. Montreal is where we were 2 years ago; I saw a segment on one of the sports networks recently where it was indicated the expectation in Montreal (organizational) is that they are in the playoff race next year. There is no sign that the teams ahead of us are about to tank. I can’t help but think that the floundering of the Sabres, Wings and Senators has sent the message that deliberately being bad comes with risk of taking longer than expected to become good. At some point there needs to be some level of organizational urgency to end this drought. Last year at this time I thought we were better than 50/50 to end the drought this season. Right now I would put us at under 10% to make the playoffs next year. I just can’t find 8 teams in the East that I am confident we will be better than. How long until our current players have had enough?

Agreed. And FLA was playing for 1st in the division, so it wasn’t meaningless to them. Over the course of the season the Sabres needed about 6-8 more games like yesterday’s. Games where they dragged the outcome into extra time. Had they done that they would have won about 1/2 of those games and they would have 8-12 more points in the standings.

For sure. Im not saying they aren’t worthy.

Prior to this year, Weber and Peca had zero experience coaching in the NHL and far less overall coaching experience than Wilford or Christie. I’m not defending our staff, but at this point they are quite a bit more experienced as NHL assistants than Peca or Weber (in other words, experience is not a supportive argument for having replaced anyone on our staff with Peca or Weber). More broadly, I do agree the lack of NHL coaching experience on our staff has been an issue (though, our assistants now have over 12 years of NHL experience combined). The best supporting example is Jon Cooper’s start in Tampa. Prior to taking over, Cooper had zero NHL experience as either a player or coach. I’m not sure whose decision it was, but for his first 5 years as coach of the Lightning he had Rick Bowness as an assistant.

I’m hoping they trade some prospects for NHL players and make this pick. That would better stagger the ages of the young players in the pipeline.

Catton has “drop to the Sabres” written all over him. I’m ok with that.

I don’t get “old man hockey vibes” from Forton at all. Quite the opposite. He isn’t from the analytics era, but everything I’ve read and heard from him suggests he has embraced analytics as an important part of the scouting process.

We might be splitting hairs at this point, but if a GM trades a significant amount of prospect and draft capital without achieving the desired outcome, then “squandered” is as good a word as any to describe what they did. Of course, we don’t know how things would have turned out had they stuck with Murray and Bylsma. I think it probably turns out better than it did under Botterill.

I might have the source wrong, but I think it was Paul Maurice. He was quoted as saying that the role of a head coach is to design a game plan, teach the game plan and hold the players accountable for committing to the game plan. He then stated that the best coach n the NHL at doing this is Brind'Amour. I think Maurice and Brind'Amour go back a long way, so take it for what it's worth. There isn't a coach I would rather have though. Maybe DeBoer I don't think Brind'Amour is leaving Carolina. If he isn't extended yet though and they lose out in rd 1 or 2, a change is not impossible to imagine. Other coaches who might be vulnerable if they miss the playoffs or lose out early: Montgomery, Keefe, Sullivan. The Western teams already made their moves (McLellan, Evason, Woodcroft).

Murray was hired Jan 9, 2014. Most of the tear down started before he got here. The only big piece that he traded was Miller, who along with Ott netted some pieces and a 2015 1st. As someone else mentioned he also then moved Moulson for a couple of 2nds. The thing that happened under Murray's watch, and it isn't clear if this was entirely his plan or if he was instructed to accelerate the rebuild and then tried to do so as best he could, is he moved out four players (Armia, Grigorenko, Zadorov and Compher) recently drafted in rd 1 and 2, and the 1st rd picks that we got for Vanek and Miller, and Myers, Stafford, Lemieux and a 2nd, to return Kane, Bogosian, O'Reilly and Lehner. It's debatable whether he got good value; I would argue no, as I think only O'Reilly was both very good talent and a person without (much) baggage. At the time of the trade though, it served to do two things: 1.) It negatively impacted our organizational depth 2.) It made us negligibly better in the short-term, which served primarily to drop our draft position in 2016 and 2017. Now, we might have ended up drafting Olli Juolevi and Cody Glass, but we also could have ended up with Matthew Tkachuk and Cale Makar. If the argument is that Botterill was worse, I won't quibble.