Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It's all about picking and choosing what "counts"

Last offseason, close to when the season was about to start I had a several page discussion with John, where I said Adams couldn't be adjudged to have had a "good" offseason, yet, that he would need be judged on the results. What happened bore out the logic in my stance. 

But that doesn't really matter - that offseason doesn't belong to Adams anymore, it doesn't count. It was Adams when it looked good, now it's Krueger's. 

Heads I win, Tails you lose. Devious is a default for human nature, Incompetent is pretty common, too. Still, we have new scratch off tickets and we're set to get some prime tickets next year. It might not take genius to turn fortunes around. Seems to me there's more talent coming up now than the prior tank teams. I don't think that's simply forgetting the uncertainty that naturally accrues around youth before one determines how they end up. If it is, so be it. There's a plausible path for this team to be competitive in 2 or 3 years. If we can't reasonably hope for that, might as well find something else to do with our time.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Heads I win, Tails you lose. Devious is a default for human nature, Incompetent is pretty common, too. Still, we have new scratch off tickets and we're set to get some prime tickets next year. It might not take genius to turn fortunes around. Seems to me there's more talent coming up now than the prior tank teams. I don't think that's simply forgetting the uncertainty that naturally accrues around youth before one determines how they end up. If it is, so be it. There's a plausible path for this team to be competitive in 2 or 3 years. If we can't reasonably hope for that, might as well find something else to do with our time.

Totally agreed.

I just don't feel the need to offer Adams a reprieve for a last place finish during his tenure as GM, nor to pretend that the brain trust is doing anything differently on the marketing front to past years, while proclaiming the bolded to be true. ( I know you aren't doing that)

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, Thorny said:

 

We have been here before. Last time, however, we rushed it, and also drafted horribly.

1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

=

Ristolainen Zadarov Reinhart Compher Hurley Bailey Lemieux Cornel Karabacek

 

That's a sad gathering...

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Totally agreed.

I just don't feel the need to offer Adams a reprieve for a last place finish during his tenure as GM, nor to pretend that the brain trust is doing anything differently on the marketing front to past years, while proclaiming the bolded to be true. ( I know you aren't doing that)

So you expect failure until shown otherwise. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Gabrielor said:

I'd say it's a pretty obvious and rudimentary job at best. They aren't playing 4D Chess. It's ye-olde-book-of-marketing. Stop promoting Eichel, start telling fans every chance you get how lucky we are the Pegulas are here.

 

They're still idiots past and present tense when it comes to running a hockey franchise. We'll see if the future changes...Adams has done well so far. The Eichel trade will tell us more.

what has he done well?

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

So you expect failure until shown otherwise. 

We've been shown failure so no, I don't expect success.

Edited by WildCard
  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, nucci said:

what has he done well?

Adding a still-producing veteran center and high scoring winger to give the Eichel core one last shot.

Recouping what assets he could for Hall (free money), Risto (great deal), Reinhart (sucked at see Reinhart go, but he wasn't re-signing). Also, being patient on a Jack deal when it's clear he's been lowballed.

Committing to a longer term build rather than attempt #3 on the Eichel core.

 

He hasn't been perfect (goaltending), but this idea he's done nothing well a la Botterill is foolish.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
18 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

So you expect failure until shown otherwise. 

It's not about expecting "failure" - people so often want to make this some sort of Rorschach. It's not that. 

It's about the repetition of a pattern. What I see as the most likely result isn't based on a personal bias, it's based on an established pattern where significant common denominators are still present. 

16 minutes ago, WildCard said:

We've been shown failure so no, I don't expect success.

 

4 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

So you can't judge players or coaches beyond assuming they will fail. Gotcha.

It's about the bold, not the italicized

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, Thorny said:

It's not about expecting "failure" - people so often want to make this some sort of Rorschach. It's not that. 

It's about the repetition of a pattern. What I see as the most likely result isn't based on a personal bias, it's based on an established pattern where significant common denominators are still present. 

It is exactly a Rorschach test.  You see what you want to see. You can say the same about me. I expect to see young talent finally handled correctly, resulting in improvement. We'll see who's right.

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

Lol this post is ridiculous 👍

Not really. I lived through the Bills drought and everything is the same. Always assume failure. It's easier.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Gabrielor said:

Adding a still-producing veteran center and high scoring winger to give the Eichel core one last shot.

Recouping what assets he could for Hall (free money), Risto (great deal), Reinhart (sucked at see Reinhart go, but he wasn't re-signing). Also, being patient on a Jack deal when it's clear he's been lowballed.

Committing to a longer term build rather than attempt #3 on the Eichel core.

 

He hasn't been perfect (goaltending), but this idea he's done nothing well a la Botterill is foolish.

Except the veteran centre was awful and the high-scoring winger couldn't score.

The verdict on Hall, Risto, Reinhart, Eichel and the long-term build are yet be determined.

Moves you agree with (I like most of them too) aren't the same thing as "doing well."

He will have "done well" if the new core he is building shows its quality and the team starts contending again.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

It is exactly a Rorschach test.  You see what you want to see. You can say the same about me. I expect to see young talent finally handled correctly, resulting in improvement. We'll see who's right.

Not really. I lived through the Bills drought and everything is the same. Always assume failure. It's easier.

Its not that it's easier, that has nothing to do with it. Nothing Adams has done makes me believe in him. Nothing he accomplished before the Sabres makes me believe in him. Nothing the Pegulas have done as the Sabres owners again, makes me believe in them.

There is a mountain of actual results that points to this GM and this organization continuing to be a failure. What single thing can you point to and say 'yeah we're more likely to succeed that fail'.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
Just now, GASabresIUFAN said:

I have a copy of this plan on my computer.  Can you imagine if they actually followed the plan?

They followed it last time too. Just have to hope the people following it this time are better.

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

It is exactly a Rorschach test.  You see what you want to see. You can say the same about me. I expect to see young talent finally handled correctly, resulting in improvement. We'll see who's right.

No, it's really not. And I already explained why. It's not about "seeing what I want to see". Why the hell would I want them to lose? As I explained, it's merely the expected continuation of a plainly observable pattern. 

When measurable results are borne out differently, the pattern will cease to exist and there'd be no reason to expect it's continuation. Is it a Rorschach that I think Colorado is going to be really good this year?  

It's fine that you want to base your expectations on a different metric than I do, and call it your personal Rorschach (that's two! Drink!), but that's simply not the case for me - I am laying out the reasoning for my thinking in plain sight. 

If it turns out the team becomes really good really quick - I will certainly admit I was wrong about that happening in the fashion it did. But I wouldn't ever claim that my expectation at this time was logically unfounded, to have been wrong to have this current expectation - I think predicting a struggle in the relatively near term looks sound based on the established data and patterns. 

YMMV.

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 3
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, dudacek said:

I wish I had gif game.

I appreciate some of Adams moves and seeming direction, but he iced a terrible team last year and his decisions this year can be described as a gamble at best. The roster appears to have huge holes that threaten his plan.

He has not "done well."

Last season KA went out and signed Taylor Hall, added veteran leadership in E. Staal, and other role players (Eakin, Reider, etc..).   At the time expectations were high, he put the team in "win now" mode.   He gave Eichel and Co the supporting pieces they've been asking for.

However, Eichel and Co failed to lead and when things started to go sideways they sprinted for the emergency exit.    That's not on KA.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thanks (+1) 3
Posted
10 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I have a copy of this plan on my computer.  Can you imagine if they actually followed the plan?

@dudacekwas always a big proponent of Botterill having a clearly distinguishable plan, with his failing being centered around execution. 

So you are saying it was the same with Murray?

That's funny, cause that's kinda pretty much exactly the point I am making in this thread about Adams. 

Posted
1 minute ago, pi2000 said:

Last season KA went out and signed Taylor Hall, added veteran leadership in E. Staal, and other role players (Eakin, Reider, etc..).   At the time expectations were high, he put the team in "win now" mode.   He gave Eichel and Co the supporting pieces they've been asking for.

However, Eichel and Co failed to lead and when things started to go sideways they sprinted for the emergency exit.    That's not on KA.

Speak for yourself I hated those signings. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Speak for yourself I hated those signings. 

Of course you did 🙄

And you would've hated if he sat on his hands and didn't sign anybody, smh.

Posted
Just now, pi2000 said:

Of course you did 🙄

And you would've hated if he sat on his hands and didn't sign anybody, smh.

You're right I would've. Those moves and not making one are still, and wait for it...a bad move. Crazy how two things can be similar.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Except the veteran centre was awful and the high-scoring winger couldn't score.

The verdict on Hall, Risto, Reinhart, Eichel and the long-term build are yet be determined.

Moves you agree with (I like most of them too) aren't the same thing as "doing well."

He will have "done well" if the new core he is building shows its quality and the team starts contending again.

zactly. 

Posted
43 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Except the veteran centre was awful and the high-scoring winger couldn't score.

The verdict on Hall, Risto, Reinhart, Eichel and the long-term build are yet be determined.

Moves you agree with (I like most of them too) aren't the same thing as "doing well."

He will have "done well" if the new core he is building shows its quality and the team starts contending again.

He tried.

Do? He did not.

  • Like (+1) 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...