Fire Kevyn Adams

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I don't blame Adams for not giving long-term deals in his first offseason.  It seems that it was decided to give it one last go with John and Samson and Linus and add Hall and that other guy and some other pieces to see what happened.

Adams knew that if it went wrong then the idea was to rebuild around a new core for this season and John and Samson would be traded.  Samson was not going to sign here long-term after last season after being jerked around with more bridges than Venice.

I do believe that Adams wanted to bring Ullie back for 2 more seasons for some stability in net, but not at any price.

Anyway, here we are.

In my opinion, Adams has done nothing fireable.  In fact, I think he has done a very good job.

[dudacek]

9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

 Next year, the results matter.

They matter this year.

I doubt we are defining "results" the same way.

Edited December 10, 2021 by dudacek

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

They matter this year.

I doubt we are defining "results" the same way.

Clarification:

Next year, the results that every other team measures itself by except us, matter. 

[dudacek]

Just now, Thorny said:

Clarification:

Next year, the results that every other team measures itself by except us, matter. 

Every team measures itself on a formula of (wins/expectations) x circumstances.

The only variable between teams is the patience of the ownership.

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, The Ghost of Doohickie said:

I don't blame Adams for not giving long-term deals in his first offseason.  It seems that it was decided to give it one last go with John and Samson and Linus and add Hall and that other guy and some other pieces to see what happened.

Adams knew that if it went wrong then the idea was to rebuild around a new core for this season and John and Samson would be traded.  Samson was not going to sign here long-term after last season after being jerked around with more bridges than Venice.

I do believe that Adams wanted to bring Ullie back for 2 more seasons for some stability in net, but not at any price.

Anyway, here we are.

In my opinion, Adams has done nothing fireable.  In fact, I think he has done a very good job.

In MY opinion, the most favourable summation of the job he's done should, at this point, be "incomplete". He can only have done a good job if the macro results are successful, and we have no idea if that is the case yet. A GM who steers a team to two bottom of the league finishes in two years being judged to have done a "very good" job is well beyond me. 

If we don't want to judge based on the overall output of the team, we should wait to pass judgement. IMO we don't have to lambast him for perceived negatives in the product right now, and the other side of that coin is he shouldn't be getting praise when he hasn't accomplished anything, either. 

It's either too soon to judge, or it's not. 

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

Every team measures itself on a formula of (wins/expectations) x circumstances.

The only variable between teams is the patience of the ownership.

You are being obtuse. You know what I'm saying - very few teams set the expectations as low as we have been. 

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

In MY opinion, the most favourable summation of the job he's done should, at this point, be "incomplete". He can only have done a good job if the macro results are successful, and we have no idea if that is the case yet. A GM who steers a team to two bottom of the league finishes in two years being judged to have done a "very good" job is well beyond me. 

If we don't want to judge based on the overall output of the team, we should wait to pass judgement. IMO we don't have to lambast him for perceived negatives in the product right now, and the other side of that coin is he shouldn't be getting praise when he hasn't accomplished anything, either. 

It's either too soon to judge, or it's not. 

This is exactly right. This franchise is still in the phase where the efforts have been focused on areas that aren't immediately measurable in wins and losses — rebuilding the hockey department, acquiring young talent, developing the young talent we have.

[Thorner]

@dudacek Brawndo already laid out that Adams has an additional two years to show improvement (in Brawndo's opinion, yes, but it's a strong source of such). So yes, by your framing ("every team measures itself") I have no doubt the expectations will be intentionally set so low next season we'd have a hard time falling short. I find that to be disheartening. 

I'm arguing from the point of view of my personal stance: the results matter next year.

And by results, I mean winning facking hockey games. 

That's MY bar. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Thorny

[dudacek]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

very few teams set the expectations as low as we have been. 

Adams has done this once.

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

This is exactly right. This franchise is still in the phase where the efforts have been focused on areas that aren't immediately measurable in wins and losses — rebuilding the hockey department, acquiring young talent, developing the young talent we have.

Agree - especially with the bold

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Adams has done this once.

Agree. As I've mentioned before, doing it twice jumps the shark. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Thorny

[Taro T]

41 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I mean sure, but without hearing that Reinhart *wasn't* open to a deal two offseasons ago, there's no reason to assume he couldn't have locked up Reinhart at that time. If you show him the money, he stays, if he's still two years out from UFA. As you mentioned, Adams was travelling with the team and had a good idea of the makeup right when he took over - he should have signed Sam then. If he knew the team was going to be bad and knew he had no chance of signing Sam the following offseason, by bridging him one more year he made the choice/put the team in the situation where they had to lose Sam. 

"Who knows, maybe Sam wanted to sign one year deals until he got out" isn't much of a defense. It's Adams job to lock up his key players. Of course Botterill's decisions factor in massively as well, but Adams could have also signed Reinhart. 

- - - 

As for the last bit - it's discouraging to learn that he has an additional two years to achieve progress. Like you, I'd hope for that progress next season. If he's allowed another write-off year, I do think the plan is in big trouble. 

But, not sure that he was given the green light from ownership to sign LT deals for real money during the shutdown.  @Brawndo & a couple others here would likely have more insight into that.  While the owners were still ridiculously wealthy, with the crash of hydrocarbon prices & the shutdown of their pro sports teams & most of their other service/entertainment related businesses, they were cash poor with a lot of uncertainty as to when their revenue streams would reopen. 

Not getting the LT contracts for Reinhart & Ullmark before last season is one IMHO that Adams gets a mulligan on as there was a lot beyond his control seemingly going into that decision.  Botterill should absolutely have gotten Reinhart under contract LT.

[dudacek]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

@dudacek Brawndo already laid out that Adams has an additional two years to show improvement (in Brawndo's opinion, yes, but it's a strong source of such). So yes, by your framing ("every team measures itself") I have no doubt the expectations will be intentionally set so low next season we'd have a hard time falling short. I find that to be disheartening. 

I've arguing from the point of view of my personal stance: the results matter next year.

And by results, I mean winning facking hockey games. 

That's MY bar. 

 

From where I sit, Adams chose not to overpay on long-term deals or sacrifice futures for veterans who may have made the team 10 points better this year, and instead see what the existing wave of kids could do in important roles while supplementing them with cheap, short-term deals and letting the second wave of kids develop away from the NHL.

Strategy-wise, what would you have done differently with this season?

[Thorner]

13 minutes ago, Taro T said:

But, not sure that he was given the green light from ownership to sign LT deals for real money during the shutdown.  @Brawndo & a couple others here would likely have more insight into that.  While the owners were still ridiculously wealthy, with the crash of hydrocarbon prices & the shutdown of their pro sports teams & most of their other service/entertainment related businesses, they were cash poor with a lot of uncertainty as to when their revenue streams would reopen. 

Not getting the LT contracts for Reinhart & Ullmark before last season is one IMHO that Adams gets a mulligan on as there was a lot beyond his control seemingly going into that decision.  Botterill should absolutely have gotten Reinhart under contract LT.

Ya, I suppose the benefit of having owners like the Pegulas is that whenever Adams doesn't do something right, we can just say it's their fault

The Pegulas are the impetus behind all the negative decisions, but all of the positive developments have "Adams" written all over them, but NOT the Pegulas. 

I keep forgetting. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Thorny

[Thorner]

12 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 

From where I sit, Adams chose not to overpay on long-term deals or sacrifice futures for veterans who may have made the team 10 points better this year, and instead see what the existing wave of kids could do in important roles while supplementing them with cheap, short-term deals and letting the second wave of kids develop away from the NHL.

Strategy-wise, what would you have done differently with this season?

I would have kept Reinhart, payed to keep Linus, and sought better depth than the JAGS we brought in. Most importantly, the new core would be under the impressions that winning this year is important. 

I am open to the pathway Adams took even if I disagree with it, but that openness expires this coming offseason.

If we are sitting, next December, with some promising looking prospects and a record of 8-14-3, the plan is failing - that's my contention. I do not think they can afford another "development" year. 

[Thorner]

If we are in a situation where the sentence "I wouldn't have given up the extra pick for that goalie in a year where we aren't going to contend anyways" is being commonly uttered, the plan is failing. etc etc

Bringing in that goalie is for next year is important, nay, mandatory. We didn't sign Linus because nothing of the future would be sacrificed for the now. Next season, the priorities can't be the same as they were this season. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Thorny

[dudacek]

You think keeping Reinhart was a possibility (this summer, not 2 years ago)?

Which of these deals should/could Adams have beat in free agency?

https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/nhl-free-agent-tracker-1.322102

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

You think keeping Reinhart was a possibility (this summer, not 2 years ago)?

Which of these deals should/could Adams have beat in free agency?

https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/nhl-free-agent-tracker-1.322102

No, two seasons ago. 

[dudacek]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If we are in a situation where the sentence "I wouldn't have given up the extra pick for that goalie in a year where we aren't going to contend anyways" is being commonly uttered, the plan is failing. etc etc

Bringing in that goalie is for next year is important, nay, mandatory. We didn't sign Linus because nothing of the future would be sacrificed for the now. Next season, the priorities can't be the same as they were this season. 

Personally, I think bringing in a goalie is mandatory now.

But I do recognize that Adams failure was betting on Ullmark without a backup plan, because there is no obvious fair deal solution to be found in-season.

Personally, in a vaccuum, I would find a 60-point season this year to be disappointing and a failure to improve at least 10 points next year disappointing.

Basically, though, I want to recognize my GM’s plan, see signs that it is progressing, and see him moving to address what isn’t working.

Im not really interested in worrying about whether or not, or when, I might need to fire him until it actually starts to become clear that I might need to fire him.

Edited December 10, 2021 by dudacek

[Thorner]

The current landscape highlighted by Brawndo was that Adams *knew* they'd be bad last season, that his original plan was a reset, and that he merely attempted to keep long term costs down while appeasing the Pegulas who wanted to "go for it", while navigating through the season he knew was doomed to fail, allowing him to initiate his actual plan, right? So he was in the long game since he took over. If he's had things mapped out, as is being contended, there's no reason the Reinhart situation shouldn't have been approached through that prism, by Adams, two offseason ago.

It's fair game for me to say I'd have approached the Reinhart situation differently, the plan as it stands wasn't beyond conception at that point - it was already a reality in KA's mind. Don't see a statute of limitations saying, if I had approached it differently, like your question posed, that would limit the changes I'd have made to just this past offseason

Edited December 10, 2021 by Thorny

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

So we just don't know. It's the results that matter, though. *Could* Adams have signed Reinhart? Yes. He was two years out from UFA when Adams took over. Throwing out a hypothetical, "maybe Reinhart wanted way too much" isn't a strong argument. By the same coin I could say, "maybe Adams wasn't convinced Reinhart was a core player" or "maybe Reinhart asked for a reasonable salary but his sticking point was term". 

Adams didn't sign him. He doesn't need to be tarred and feathered for it, but it wasn't a situation that had any sort of conclusive developments where it can be claimed he should be held blameless for how the Reinhart situation/trade turned out. 

He's simply responsible for the results. If they team gets good, or Levi turns out swell...the trade is fine. If he isn't able to turn the team around...of course his failure to lock up Reinhart should count as a strike on the negative side. 

I'm not building a case for why he should be fired. I'm maintaining the case that Adams is amendable to the results. 

Understood.  I took it as you pinning blame on Adams for not signing Reinhart.  I agree, we can’t do that with any certainty.

I better understand what you are saying now.  Ultimately, you are 100% correct.  Adams is going to own these results.

I don’t like the continued losing, but I can understand the why a rebuild might have been the best path forward for the Sabres.  In general, I am liking Adams’ process and the way that he is shaping the organization.

The one thing that I simply can not forgive him for is the goaltending situation, two years running.  He simply needs to fix this going forward.  This team can not survive simply waiting for UPL/Levi/Portillo to develop into an average or above NHL starter.

[Thorner]

12 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Personally, I think bringing in a goalie is mandatory now.

But I do recognize that Adams failure was betting on Ullmark without a backup plan, because there is no obvious fair deal solution to be found in-season.

Personally, in a vaccuum, I would find a 60-point season this year to be disappointing and a failure to improve at least 10 points next year disappointing.

Basically, though, I want to recognize my GM’s plan, see signs that it is progressing, and see him moving to address what isn’t working.

Im not really interested in worrying about whether or not, or when, I might need to fire him until it actually starts to become clear that I might need to fire him.

Ya. I mean it's not logical to say that one can't have an issue with the Plan until the initiator's chosen timeline has passed - what if a GM said they needed 10 years to turn it around. We need to be patient for 10 years? I disagree with KA's plan. To your point - I do think the plan should be recognized, everyone knows I don't like it but I'm not posting about how he should be fired. Indeed, I try to frame my arguments through the context of the plan Adams himself is initiating. 

It is my opinion though that, under that "rebuild" plan, a second year where winning doesn't matter would be a crucial mistake. Regardless of what a specific GM says his timeline is, everyones mileage will vary in terms of how long they feel comfortable waiting for the results they'd like to see. 

I don't like the plan, but I'm clearly giving it the benefit of the doubt. I can be against the plan, but still evaluate its results through the prism of what I believe a rebuild plan should look like. Even with it being, again, not the plan I'd have chosen. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Thorny

[Kruppstahl]

On 7/25/2021 at 12:08 AM, The Ghost of NS said:

To be fair “to be fairrrrrrr” McDavid looked very disappointed in his reaction to being selected by EDM 

 

On 7/25/2021 at 12:14 AM, Eleven said:

He looked like he wanted to cry when Edmonton won the lottery.  He wanted to be here.

 

On 7/25/2021 at 12:15 AM, Second Line Center said:

 

Very true.

 

He should have been a Sabre.  

East Coast team and exposure.  Best fan base in the league.  15K go see him play in Juniors.  It was supposed to be - I think the FO and Terry got sucked in to that without understanding its very likely to NOT happen.  

That look on McDavid's face wasn't so much "I wanted Buffalo" it was more "I have to move to Edmonton, Alberta?  Seriously?  I don't want to go there."

I assume that's how anyone would react to getting dumped off in Edmonton, and Edmonton is my long-standing second favorite team behind the Sabres!  LOL

But it has to be right up there with Winnipeg and Calgary as the top places you don't want to go to.

At least in other horrible locations you have some population and/or weather.

 

 

 

[Taro T]

28 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Ya, I suppose the benefit of having owners like the Pegulas is that whenever Adams doesn't do something right, we can just say it's their fault

The Pegulas are the impetus behind all the negative decisions, but all of the positive developments have "Adams" written all over them, but NOT the Pegulas. 

I keep forgetting. 

Not really.  

IMHO, there was a very high likelihood that Adams was under constraints tighter than those the rest of the league needed to operate within due to COVID impacts on the owners' cash flow.  If that assumption is incorrect, am very willing to say both those guys should have been given LT deals at that point.  (Well, technically, they should've regardless, but if they couldn't be given deals commensurate w/ their worth, it amounts to the same thing effectively.)

Completely put the goaltending mess on Adams' shoulders.  And absolutely agree that Reinhart should've been a Sabre LT.  But, don't pin that on him at that point in time.  Am very willing to revise that opinion if we get evidence that the final bridge was Adams preferred way forward.

[Thorner]

10 minutes ago, Curt said:

Understood.  I took it as you pinning blame on Adams for not signing Reinhart.  I agree, we can’t do that with any certainty.

I better understand what you are saying now.  Ultimately, you are 100% correct.  Adams is going to own these results.

I don’t like the continued losing, but I can understand the why a rebuild might have been the best path forward for the Sabres.  In general, I am liking Adams’ process and the way that he is shaping the organization.

The one thing that I simply can not forgive him for is the goaltending situation, two years running.  He simply needs to fix this going forward.  This team can not survive simply waiting for UPL/Levi/Portillo to develop into an average or above NHL starter.

Ya exactly. I try to keep the subjective and the objective distinct. Subjectively I think not locking him up when he took over the wrong move. But I don't call for Adams "firing" etc, even when what I claim to be the most important thing, results, have been bad - because objectively we don't know how the Reinhart move will work out within the context of what he's trying to achieve. If the plan were to fail, then we can start to dial in on why exactly it went wrong. And that may lead me to Reinhart. But it hasn't failed, or succeeded. Adams hasn't done a good job or a poor job - he's not done, at all. 

Just because I don't like the plan doesn't mean it won't succeed, and it would be ridiculous to say that within the context of the plan Adams is initiating that the losses this season represent any kind of verdict. 

Agree obviously with the goaltending - I do draw an objective line there: if he doesn't improve it this offseason, it's a mistake. As far as I am concerned. I think that betrays his own plan. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Thorny

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, Kruppstahl said:

 

 

That look on McDavid's face wasn't so much "I wanted Buffalo" it was more "I have to move to Edmonton, Alberta?  Seriously?  I don't want to go there."

I assume that's how anyone would react to getting dumped off in Edmonton, and Edmonton is my long-standing second favorite team behind the Sabres!  LOL

But it has to be right up there with Winnipeg and Calgary as the top places you don't want to go to.

At least in other horrible locations you have some population and/or weather.

 

 

 

My reputation must precede me..

- - - 

For the record, our weather is actually really good nowadays 

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Not really.  

IMHO, there was a very high likelihood that Adams was under constraints tighter than those the rest of the league needed to operate within due to COVID impacts on the owners' cash flow.  If that assumption is incorrect, am very willing to say both those guys should have been given LT deals at that point.  (Well, technically, they should've regardless, but if they couldn't be given deals commensurate w/ their worth, it amounts to the same thing effectively.)

Completely put the goaltending mess on Adams' shoulders.  And absolutely agree that Reinhart should've been a Sabre LT.  But, don't pin that on him at that point in time.  Am very willing to revise that opinion if we get evidence that the final bridge was Adams preferred way forward.

There was quite a lot of talk at the time that Hall's signing represented the reason we didn't/couldn't go LT with Sam.