Archie Lee

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.

Fair enough. I’m not thrilled with Adams at this point. I just think there is a better chance that he can figure it out than there is that Pegula can hire a better replacement.

If Adams is fired, then Pegula, who has maybe the worst hiring track record in NHL history, will be hiring a replacement. Adams has done enough positive things to make me think he is bright and capable. My preference would be to see if he has learned from his mistakes.

The Sabres are not a good team. It should be noted that the Sabres are going to finish about where the pre-season models, based on talent and past-performance, had them finishing. I think there are experienced NHL coaches who could have squeezed more out of the team than Granato did, but I honestly think he got them to about the level that their talent, experience and make-up reasonably allowed. I don’t think Granato is the best coach to take them to the next level. A normal NHL team that is committed to winning with any degree of urgency would make a change. I could though, absolutely see Granato being successful in the short-term as a “breath of fresh air” mid-season replacement for a cup contending team that is underachieving with a hard-ass coach who has lost the room.

Staying the course is the correct thing to do. But it doesn’t mean making no meaningful changes. Staying the course means you remain committed to the vast majority of your young core (Thompson, Tuch, Cozens, Peterka, Quinn, Benson, Dahlin, Power, Byram, UPL, Levi) and that you don’t “blow it up”. Staying the course doesn’t mean running back something that failed. There are many meaningful changes that can be made in an attempt to advance this team to the playoffs that don’t involve steering off the current course (coaching changes and adding veterans in key positions are the obvious examples). To not make such changes is to do the opposite of what successful and serious professional sports franchises do.

Adams (with an assist to Pegula maybe) is the culprit for this year’s failings. Swapping out Boosh and Stillman for Clifton and Johnson was ok. Clifton upgraded the bottom of our D-corps. Johnson was bad. The problem though is that there were multiple other areas that needed to be addressed. Our special teams were bad last year. Those areas typically fall to assistants yet we opted for no changes. Comrie was a disaster last year. We opted not to upgrade the vet goalie position. Quinn was injured before free agency and we opted not to bring in a vet replacement. Granato had lost faith in Olofsson and we opted not to move him and bring in a replacement. Teams that are serious about moving forward, address these issues (maybe not all of them, but some of them). We had two assistants in Rochester sought after by NHL teams. We let them go rather than promote. With Comrie we sacrificed talent for vibes. We gave the starting job to Levi though he had a poor pre-season. The best goalie out of camp should have started, not the struggling rookie. A veteran winger should have been signed to replace Quinn. We should have ate some of Olofsson’s salary and attached a pick to move him and then bring in another vet who better fit a bottom six role. By not doing these things, a clear message was sent to the team: there is no urgency and we will get there when we get there. That is not how playoff teams operate. The culture that lacked urgency in my view is the reason for the poor start to the year and the carry over to how poorly we start games. I’ve been a supporter of Adams. I think he handled himself extremely well through his first 3 seasons. No GM makes only good decisions. Through his 1st three years he did well to navigate a toxic environment and position us for success. He crapped the bed this past off-season though. He was afraid to embrace success and expectation and urgency. Our best chance of moving forward is that he has learned from his mistakes.

The Sabres are 6 points off their pace from a year ago. They had 85 points after 78 games a year ago. Interestingly, they were actually further back of a playoff spot last year as they were 6 out at this point and are 5 out at the moment. Frustrating for me is that after missing last year by 1 point and with obvious flaws, from the end of last season to now there were only two moves made that can be argued as attempts to improve the team in the moment. These moves were linked, the adding of two veteran D in free agency. One, I would argue, turned out fine (I’m not entirely unhappy that we have Clifton at his AAV for 2 years), the other was awful (E. Johnson). That’s it. Watching yesterday’s game, it occurred to me that the Sabres have many players who are ready to be on a team that takes the next step. They really did need their owner and GM to have faith in them and help by addressing some of the weaknesses. At minimum, there should have been one or two changes in the assistant coaches and one or two veteran forwards added in the off-season to replace Quinn (injury) and Olofsson (who Granato had lost faith in). There are no guarantees, but where would we be today had we swapped Ellis and Christie to Rochester for Alpert and Peca and had we traded for Toffoli and signed, say, Alexander Kerfoot in free agency? Maybe we aren’t further along, but at least we could say there was an attempt. The sad thing is, I see zero indication that Adams thinks there is any need for such moves even now.

UPL is currently on a bridge deal. He is two seasons away from being a UFA (he will turn 27 in March 2026). He is also arbitration eligible. The only bridge that is left is a one year deal. A two year deal walks him to UFA status.

Yeah, that's the reason. Players/teams are willing to sacrifice the occasional break at a bad time in exchange for the harder and more accurate shot. I get that. In a world of analytics, it just surprises me that we haven't seen a movement to using a different stick in different scenarios. Back when it was somewhat common for teams to call for a stick measurement, it was typical that players would use a stick with an illegal curve only to change to a stick with a legal curve if they were leading late in the game (to avoid an inopportune penalty call against). I'm not blaming Benson at all for last night, but in that situation maybe it's time for teams to require that the players who are going to be relied upon to defend the lead switch to a different type of stick that is less likely to break.

Agreed. On the larger topic of sticks breaking though, why does the NHL and its owners and players accept this? I can’t think of an equivalent in the other major team sports. I’ve seen now dozens of examples of an NHL player’s stick breaking, often at an inopportune moment, with seemingly little to no force being placed on the stick. It would be like baseball gloves occasionally just having the pocket blow out when outfielders go to make a routine catch on a fly ball. It’s just odd to me that this has become something that could happen in the biggest moment of a game and the hockey world has shrugged its shoulders with acceptance.

He would hold all of them accountable. The only players Granato holds accountable are rookies and Olofsson.

I agree that there is risk. There are playoff teams right now though who are paying 8 million plus for their goalies. As the cap goes up, paying $10 million plus for two goalies who split the job would be a reasonable option for some teams. And, as you say, if both hit then you do have a good trade chip.

They aren’t making the playoffs. I know that. Still, last night I habitually went through the remaining schedule of all the potential WC2 teams. I actually think there is a plausible scenario where 88 or even 87 points gets you in. It makes me a little sad and frustrated that Adams did nothing to enhance the line-up at the deadline. The Mitts/Byram deal was a wash in the moment (strengthening one area while weakening another). 2-3 additional points since the deadline and we are right there. All that said, I suspect Tortorella’s rants in the past few days will have the desired impact on the Flyers. I think the Flyers come out tonight and make clear they are actually in the race and we will not be up to the physicality that they will display.

Nice work. If I was UPL’s agent, my comparable is Demko. They were both drafted in rd 2, three years apart. At age 25 Demko signed a 5x5 extension. Demko’s pro #’s were better and more consistent at that point then UPL’s, but: - Demko had played substantially fewer NHL games; - Goal scoring is up and save %’s are down since Demko signed; and - The cap is going up. We will find out this off-season how much Adams believes in UPL. If he does not get 4-5 years at $4 million plus, then Adams either is not sold on UPL or is still more of a believer in Levi, or both.

I’m not at all surprised. People recognize that since the Krueger firing the organization has not prioritized winning. It remains to be seen when they will make winning an immediate priority and, when they do, if they have the right people running the show to make it work. I think the men who were running Vegas at their inception would have taken our current roster and prospect/draft capital over what they received in expansion. Another question would be: would you trade Pegula, Adams, Karmanos and Granato for Bill Foley as owner, George McPhee as GM, Kelly McCrimmon as asst. GM and Gerard Gallant as HC? If the goal is to win next year, then that is a trade I would make; with the talent in the organization now, those men would make it work and soon I think. If the goal is to meander along with no clear timeline to win anything, then I would stay with the status quo.

I am ok with moving on from Granato. The team failing to reach any level of consistency in their play this season has moved me from thinking he was certainly returning to thinking it may be closer to 50/50. If Adams has a normal GM mandate, then the single most meaningful thing he could do this off-season to send a message that expectations are changing would be to bring in a new head coach who has NHL experience leading teams to winning records and playoff games. There is an argument that it is simply time. In fairness to Granato though, for most or all of this season it could be said that 1/2 the lineup or more was made up of players who have not yet reached the prime years of their career. Add in that the lineup had clear weaknesses in grit and leadership (not a shot against any individuals, just an obvious comment on the lineup) and I’m not certain there are many available coaches who would have got more from this team.

I hope Samuelsson has a great career AND that Novikov turns out to be even better. If the argument for Novikov being better than Samuelsson long-term is, at least in part, that Novikov has more offense in his game, then I would just point out that in his age 20-21 AHL seasons Samuelsson put up 28 points in 45 games. That's not an argument for Samuelsson having more offense in his game than you are crediting him for. Rather, I just have some doubt that the offense we are seeing from Novikov this year will translate at the NHL level.

Generally players don’t sign bridge deals a year early. If he signs this summer it will be long term.

They became a better team when they replaced Bill Peters with Rod Brind’Amour. Sure, Skinner is not a Brind’Amour kind of player, but neither is Tony DeAngelo and the Hurricanes have made the playoffs with him.

I can’t believe anyone is seriously wanting to move on from Power after one season where nearly the entire team fell short of expectations, as individuals and a group. The one thing that Adams could do to signal that expectations are changing is to replace Granato with an experienced NHL head coach with a multi year track record of 45+ win playoff seasons. There are a handful currently available and likely to be more when the season ends and after some 1st rd playoff failures. Personally, I wish Granato had been provided more to work with this year. That would make the decision easier. As is, it will take a new and experiences head coach to raise organizational expectations and fan optimism.

Adams did make clear after the Byram deal that he had been trying to get a d-man. I don’t think your recollection or assumption on what Arizona wanted for Chychrun is accurate. I acknowledge that I ultimately have no idea as it has never been fully reported what the precise ask/demand was from the Sabres. Here is what we know though: - Chychrun went to Ottawa for a protected 1st and two 2nds. - During the post deadline press conference last year Adams insinuated they were in on Chychrun but the price was too high. Someone asked if Arizona asked for a top prospect or Savoie and Adams was coy but his expression suggested yes. My take was that Arizona likely wanted Savoie and two 2nds because Adams was unprepared to trade a 1st or Arizona didn’t see our 1st as valuable as Ottawa’s. I could be wrong, but I don’t think the ask was a 1st plus Savoie. I think the ask of the Sabres was Savoie rather than the 1st and Adams balked. I can’t say I’m down on this as I don’t think Chychrun would have, by himself, moved the needle on us making the playoffs this year. A fair question though would be, going forward, would we be better with an extended Mittelstadt and an extended Chychrun or with Byram, Savoie and whoever we would have drafted with the two 2nds?