The New Jersey Devils can do it, But not the Sabres.

[Thorner]

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

We could have signed Ullmark this offseason? News to me. 

Spending money to spend money doesn't guarantee a thing. When we're not in the cap basement next year I'm curious to see what angle you pivot to. 

So the rebuilds that spent money and worked I would use but the ones that spent money and didn't work I can't use. Again, you keep equating spending to the cap with success. That's not how any of this works. 

Spending doesn’t guarantee success but there is a positive correlation between spending and winning. Of course it’s not failsafe.

But “spend above the cap floor line, spend only TO the cap floor line” isn’t an irrelevant distinction. Generally spending aids roster construction more than it hurts it. 
 

The distinguishing variable among those that fail spending and those that succeed spending is GM aptitude 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

No one is saying we need to max out the cap - the argument doesn’t need to be distorted in that way. But frankly, spending as if we play in the arena Arizona does is prohibitive 

I mean I don’t even think that can be argued: the results DO speak. 
 

I think Adams’ contention is that we are willingly amounting to less on ice currently than strictly possible in the name of flexibility for a future time when we decide, “ah, now it’s time.” 

What makes Adams’ case particularly interesting is the extreme nature of his philosophy: we aren’t spending “less”, we are spending less than everyone, and literally, as *little as possible*

I really struggle with extreme lines of thought like this, living on the fringes like that - Botrerill’s NO chl players after rd1 really bugged me. It’s why I have difficulty with Adams and have from the start, even though he does honestly seem to be implementing some good things.

If he were to ever get results, id be happy to become his biggest fan - but it’s gotta be results, cause philosophically we are far apart 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Thorny

[Taro T]

58 minutes ago, Thorny said:

No one is saying we need to max out the cap - the argument doesn’t need to be distorted in that way. But frankly, spending as if we play in the arena Arizona does is prohibitive 

I mean I don’t even think that can be argued: the results DO speak. 
 

I think Adams’ contention is that we are willingly amounting to less on ice currently than strictly possible in the name of flexibility for a future time when we decide, “ah, now it’s time.” 

What makes Adams’ case particularly interesting is the extreme nature of his philosophy: we aren’t spending “less”, we are spending less than everyone, and literally, as *little as possible*

I really struggle with extreme lines of thought like this, living on the fringes like that - Botrerill’s NO chl players after rd1 really bugged me. It’s why I have difficulty with Adams and have from the start, even though he does honestly seem to be implementing some good things.

If he were to ever get results, id be happy to become his biggest fan - but it’s gotta be results, cause philosophically we are far apart 

Not happy about his stay at the cap floor philosophy.  His argument that it is to maintain flexibility in the future and have money to retain the current players that earn raises and not simply to be cheap seems plausible but would be more credible if he actually even used some of that cap space to take on an overpaid guy or 2 on the last year of a contract for prospects or picks.  The cap space they have today vaporizes in mid-April.  If some of it gets converted into assets that retain value that puts them so much closer to getting out of this Groundhog's Day of futility and having that exit back into the NHL that much more sustainable.

[Porous Five Hole]

6 hours ago, Marvin said:

As a specific name whom we could have signed last off-season: I think our D would be better if Mark Pysyk were our #6D instead of Bryson.

As a point of philosophy, I personally would slot Jokiharu on my 3rd D pair.

I think a top 6 D of Samuelsson-Dahlin, Power-Lyubushkin, and Pysyk-Jokiharu would have fared better with the injuries and in complementary styles in each pairing.

Only thing is Pysyk was hurt during the off-season and will be lost until December at the earliest (Achilles injury).  

[Thorner]

23 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Not happy about his stay at the cap floor philosophy.  His argument that it is to maintain flexibility in the future and have money to retain the current players that earn raises and not simply to be cheap seems plausible but would be more credible if he actually even used some of that cap space to take on an overpaid guy or 2 on the last year of a contract for prospects or picks.  The cap space they have today vaporizes in mid-April.  If some of it gets converted into assets that retain value that puts them so much closer to getting out of this Groundhog's Day of futility and having that exit back into the NHL that much more sustainable.

It’s no wonder he has seemingly no interest in bringing in players that will help now/challenge the guys we have here, why the heck would he want to challenge the rookies he already KNOWS, somehow, are going to earn big money extensions? 

It’s better to count dem chickens now, while we still can 

..Right? 

[Thorner]

Don’t want to “block” anyone 😂

Only the Buffalo Sabres would de-prioritize roster supplementation in favour of prioritizing the ability to, in some unnamed, obscure future, potentially lock up a core that is, currently, performing at a level among the worst in the league lmao. What a terrible odds-play.

The strategy to this extreme is honestly hilarious. Not even being salty haha. I hope it works, god love this franchise 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Thorny

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Don’t want to “block” anyone 😂

The strategy to this extreme is honestly hilarious. Not even being salty haha. I hope it works, god love this franchise 

Well, that gets back to a comment this kid was making this summer.  Want to believe that Adams is sincere about wanting to win this year (though it only being a co-goal w/ development) but can't help but wonder if he really wouldn't mind 1 final really high draft pick before finally making winning the primary goal of the hockey department.

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Well, that gets back to a comment this kid was making this summer.  Want to believe that Adams is sincere about wanting to win this year (though it only being a co-goal w/ development) but can't help but wonder if he really wouldn't mind 1 final really high draft pick before finally making winning the primary goal of the hockey department.

Then we’ve already lost 

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Then we’ve already lost 

Not necessarily.  It's just a concern.  One that hasn't been alleviated nor confirmed to date.

[Thorner]

Uh oh....crap, I’m “on one” now, my apologies. 
 

We don’t want to *block* anyone. We don’t want to bring in players who will “block” our other guys.

The sheer, utter, terrifying hubris.

What a theme with this team, hubris, from this, to not wanting to build a team that, merely, oh so *merely*, wins now, to instead focus on building a team that can win in the area of the season they haven’t been able to get to since the iphone was invented. 
 

The sheer hubris to say that, not only are you quite sure all your picks are going to make it, to the extent you are already mapping out their *long term deals*, but also to REFUSE TO ADD GOOD PLAYERS because you are SO CONFIDENT in your abilities to do so that if you add said players, they will *surely* be so good so as to make removing them from the lineup impossible, thus blocking the youth. 
 

“We don’t want to get ourselves into a situation here where we have too many good players, we need to think this through..”

el oh el 

 

6 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Not necessarily.  It's just a concern.  One that hasn't been alleviated nor confirmed to date.

If Adams really “wouldn’t mind” a high pick, I’m *confident* in saying he’s not the Gm for me 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Thorny

[Taro T]

13 minutes ago, Thorny said:

...

 

If Adams really “wouldn’t mind” a high pick, I’m *confident* in saying he’s not the Gm for me 

And, again, it's just a thought/speculation.  Not saying it's right nor wrong.  So, can't say that he "really" wouldn't mind it.  (Can't say he wouldn't either.)

[Thorner]

48 minutes ago, Taro T said:

And, again, it's just a thought/speculation.  Not saying it's right nor wrong.  So, can't say that he "really" wouldn't mind it.  (Can't say he wouldn't either.)

I mean, yes, I am on the record saying I don’t think he actually wants a high pick. Was just reacting to your hypothetical. 
 

Cause if the goal really is a high pick..really, if it’s even just a situation like you were getting at, hypothetically, where he’s “Perfectly fine” with finishing low enough to get a “really high” (to use the words you used within your proposed hypothetical) pick, it would be quite a massive red flag. 
 

Any finish that results in a “really high” pick can’t be spun as anything but a disappointment 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

Spending doesn’t guarantee success but there is a positive correlation between spending and winning. Of course it’s not failsafe.

But “spend above the cap floor line, spend only TO the cap floor line” isn’t an irrelevant distinction. Generally spending aids roster construction more than it hurts it. 
 

The distinguishing variable among those that fail spending and those that succeed spending is GM aptitude 

No,  there literally isn't. 

Look, I think Adams should use at least some of the money we are not using but I also don't think the options available to him would have helped as much as we wanted. 

[LGR4GM]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

No one is saying we need to max out the cap - the argument doesn’t need to be distorted in that way. But frankly, spending as if we play in the arena Arizona does is prohibitive 

I mean I don’t even think that can be argued: the results DO speak. 
 

I think Adams’ contention is that we are willingly amounting to less on ice currently than strictly possible in the name of flexibility for a future time when we decide, “ah, now it’s time.” 

What makes Adams’ case particularly interesting is the extreme nature of his philosophy: we aren’t spending “less”, we are spending less than everyone, and literally, as *little as possible*

I really struggle with extreme lines of thought like this, living on the fringes like that - Botrerill’s NO chl players after rd1 really bugged me. It’s why I have difficulty with Adams and have from the start, even though he does honestly seem to be implementing some good things.

If he were to ever get results, id be happy to become his biggest fan - but it’s gotta be results, cause philosophically we are far apart 

List moves you wish or think Adams should have made. I've said repeatedly we needed to add another top 4 defender. 

[grinreaper]

Just looking at things in a general manner. The Sabres believe they have a lot of potentially good to great players in their pipeline and also on the present Sabres. If they believe that their path to rebuilding this team is the correct one they also must believe that there will be several players that are presently in Buffalo and in 2-3 years players in Rochester or in Juniors will be worthy of decent contracts with some that are on the hefty side. The young players that are presently playing for the Sabres have to play so that management can see what they have. At some point in time there are going to be more NHL quality players either on the Sabres or in their system than they can give playing time to. At this point in time they need to have had enough experience working with them to make decisions on who to keep and who to trade (I'm thinking they'll trade a multitude of young players for a bonifide star in his prime). To have filled up the roster with veteran players would of course block the young players from developing but make it difficult for management to know what they have. They would also be fielding players that might be either on the end of their hockey career and just playing out the string or knowing that they aren't in the Sabre's future plans. So, with the above said anything different than a goaltending or defensive tweak would be contrary to their rebuilding scheme. The Sabres have been criticized for years for their failure to become a winning franchise. I believe that the main reason for this failure is the many changes in management and philosophy. They need to let their plan play out for once and carry it through. 

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

No,  there literally isn't. 

Look, I think Adams should use at least some of the money we are not using but I also don't think the options available to him would have helped as much as we wanted. 

Let me clarify: 

There is a positive correlation between spending above the cap floor and winning 

Teams that spend above the cap floor literally do win more than those thats don’t 

- - -

If spending more had no bearing on winning more, there would be no need for a salary cap at all. It’s specifically designed to promote parity for that very reason. 
 

Here is a good literal article detailing how much more teams that spend have literally won more historically than those that don’t, literally: 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/nhl-teams-that-spend-tend-to-win/article4209975/

“From a purely statistical point of view, there's a pretty strong relationship between what teams have spent and how often they've won.” It’s a Myrtle article. 
 

It’s a little older but it’s the most in depth article on the clear correlation I could find with a quick perusal, nothing newer I could find suggests it’s changed drastically, if at all 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

List moves you wish or think Adams should have made. I've said repeatedly we needed to add another top 4 defender. 

Lol. No. 
v

5 hours ago, Thorny said:

If you don’t have access to all the contacts and tools a GM, being paid to make the decisions, has at his disposal, no, a message board poster isn’t required to “name names” to prove their argument lol 

It’s enough to compare Adams’ work at goaltender vs/relative to the work across the league as a whole: Adams has not successfully addressed goaltending. Without being privy to the variables, on both sides of the equation, the best marker is results. 

Unless one wants to argue that Adams *could not* have improved the goaltending in 3 years? It’s just seeking to prove a negative and it’s folly.

You wouldn’t have demanded I make a list for you had you read my post. I’ve mentioned this before, the most fruitless back and forth exchanges on this board often unfortunately include one of the imo best/most informative posters: you. You don’t read the things people say you just skim over and twist as John alluded to or outright ignore 

- - - 

My argument isn’t that *I* could do a better job. I certainly could not. “Oh here is what I would have done.” That’s ludicrous. It’s that the guy being paid millions to do a job only 30 people get, where half the teams make the playoffs, should be able to do a better job. 

It’s a relative comparison to the damn league not “ahh, this is what ID have done! Derpeedoo”

Dont see how you can’t see this. Me being able to give you examples of moves when I have NO idea what sort of conversations I may or may not have been able to have with other teams is so pointless I don’t even try. Quick way to make my takes even more laughable. 
 

- - - 

I am a consumer of an entertainment product, not an armchair GM. I know I’m still technically a “new” poster relative to the old stalwarts but..*anyone* who puts up w/my content over the last 7 years could see very clearly that my posts fall much more so under that banner. I dare someone to find a trade proposal on this board suggested by Thorny. Seriously! If someone can find 2, I’ll eat my hat. 
 

My job isn’t to tell them how to fix it, nay, it’s not even my prerogative to *discuss* the specifics of how they should do it. I’m not clever enough to put together the trade and signing proposals. My jam is observation and noticing patterns: noticing things we do that other teams don’t that tend to lead to failure for us, and delving into the more philosophical side of what SHOULD be attempted re: macro theory. Ie - when should we shift the focus to winning. When is it ok to not want to win. 

i can’t fix it. 
 

the mechanics I leave to better posters like you Liger

Edited November 22, 2022 by Thorny

[Taro T]

14 minutes ago, grinreaper said:

Just looking at things in a general manner. The Sabres believe they have a lot of potentially good to great players in their pipeline and also on the present Sabres. If they believe that their path to rebuilding this team is the correct one they also must believe that there will be several players that are presently in Buffalo and in 2-3 years players in Rochester or in Juniors will be worthy of decent contracts with some that are on the hefty side. The young players that are presently playing for the Sabres have to play so that management can see what they have. At some point in time there are going to be more NHL quality players either on the Sabres or in their system than they can give playing time to. At this point in time they need to have had enough experience working with them to make decisions on who to keep and who to trade (I'm thinking they'll trade a multitude of young players for a bonifide star in his prime). To have filled up the roster with veteran players would of course block the young players from developing but make it difficult for management to know what they have. They would also be fielding players that might be either on the end of their hockey career and just playing out the string or knowing that they aren't in the Sabre's future plans. So, with the above said anything different than a goaltending or defensive tweak would be contrary to their rebuilding scheme. The Sabres have been criticized for years for their failure to become a winning franchise. I believe that the main reason for this failure is the many changes in management and philosophy. They need to let their plan play out for once and carry it through. 

The bolded is a huge part of the problem.  Since "suffering" was announced they've had Regier sell off most of the usable assets primarily for picks but also a few prospects.   They followed that up w/ Murray who continued the selloff to guarantee McRichel and then was more than willing to overspend prospects & picks to ensure he got the horses, er, players he wanted regardless of whether those players fit in the room.  He wanted to build a heavy team ala the Kings from earlier that decade.  He eas followed by Botterill who wanted to rebuild Pittsburgh or Chicago and got rid of pretty much all of the non-2nd overall pick forwards Murray had accumulated and never saw a 3rd round draft pick tjat wasn't worth an overpriced 3rd liner that had been a 5th liner elsewhere but would be used as a 2nd liner in Buffalo.  Adams is now trying to follow the Beane blueprint and has jettisoned most all of J-Botts NHLers but has kept most of his prospects.

3 major direction changes beyond the initial major direction change all in only 11 years.

[grinreaper]

12 minutes ago, Taro T said:

The bolded is a huge part of the problem.  Since "suffering" was announced they've had Regier sell off most of the usable assets primarily for picks but also a few prospects.   They followed that up w/ Murray who continued the selloff to guarantee McRichel and then was more than willing to overspend prospects & picks to ensure he got the horses, er, players he wanted regardless of whether those players fit in the room.  He wanted to build a heavy team ala the Kings from earlier that decade.  He eas followed by Botterill who wanted to rebuild Pittsburgh or Chicago and got rid of pretty much all of the non-2nd overall pick forwards Murray had accumulated and never saw a 3rd round draft pick tjat wasn't worth an overpriced 3rd liner that had been a 5th liner elsewhere but would be used as a 2nd liner in Buffalo.  Adams is now trying to follow the Beane blueprint and has jettisoned most all of J-Botts NHLers but has kept most of his prospects.

3 major direction changes beyond the initial major direction change all in only 11 years.

Constantly changing coaches and schemes was what the Bills did for years. A perfect example was when Greg Williams became head coach he decided to change the defensive scheme. The Bills defense had ranked #2 in the NFL in the previous year. When asked about why he was going to change he stated that his defense had ranked #1. Well, he didn't have the players for a 4-3  and it showed. I'm thinking that if a study was done on long term successful pro teams that the one factor that would stand out would be continuity of management/coaching. 

[Curt]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

No,  there literally isn't. 

Look, I think Adams should use at least some of the money we are not using but I also don't think the options available to him would have helped as much as we wanted. 

I bet there is a correlation.  There has to be some.

If you charted out $ spent on player salaries on the X axis and wins on the Y axis, I bet it looks a little like this…..

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, Curt said:

I bet there is a correlation.  There has to be some.

If you charted out $ spent on player salaries on the X axis and wins on the Y axis, I bet it looks a little like this…..

Some pretty strong data in the article I linked 

- - - 

https://dobberhockey.com/2016/11/03/capped-how-nhl-teams-spend-their-money/

here’s a gooder, little more recent. It’s more just about *where* teams spend but it’s pretty fascinating. It does still allude to the fact you generally need to spend to win 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Thorny

[Curt]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Some pretty strong data in the article I linked 

Missed it on first skim.  It’s 10 yes old, but probably holds true.  Granted, I think it’s more correlation than causation going on there.

[Thorner]

Just now, Curt said:

Missed it on first skim.  It’s 10 yes old, but probably holds true.  Granted, I think it’s more correlation than causation going on there.

Well I’m damn glad I *double checks Nervously * used correlation in my initial post. 
 

A big bit of it probably isn’t causation, ya, I buy that. But it defies logic to think that there wouldn’t be some. If you asked the 10 best gms to build a team not one would say their allotted budget was irrelevant. 
 

Im sure a fair few “good” gms who are spending would succeed just fine, spending less, and some bad gms spending little would still perform badly, spending a lot, and that would be a cool simulation if we could ever see it 

if I’m making any effort at consistency of argument here, I’ve said a hockey team can be built w/ slow build or faster builds and that in the end it comes down to the aptitude of the gm in question: I’d wager most good gms could succeed regardless of budget
 

to an extent - again. the curious case of Kevyn Adams to me is more curious b/c we are spending not at all - in extreme cases like this I think it’s absolutely a handcuff. But everyone is saying that, so. 

in the end, the cap space is just a tool, and if we think we have a good Gm, why wouldn’t we want him wielding that tool?

if he’s not a good gm, what are we doing anyway

[PerreaultForever]

7 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Power and Cozens and Samuelsson plus a whole bunch of prospects. 

Hopefully, but unproven at this point. Certainly cannot be considered "core" YET. 

[sabremike]

10 hours ago, Thorny said:

No one is saying we need to max out the cap - the argument doesn’t need to be distorted in that way. But frankly, spending as if we play in the arena Arizona does is prohibitive 

I mean I don’t even think that can be argued: the results DO speak. 
 

I think Adams’ contention is that we are willingly amounting to less on ice currently than strictly possible in the name of flexibility for a future time when we decide, “ah, now it’s time.” 

What makes Adams’ case particularly interesting is the extreme nature of his philosophy: we aren’t spending “less”, we are spending less than everyone, and literally, as *little as possible*

I really struggle with extreme lines of thought like this, living on the fringes like that - Botrerill’s NO chl players after rd1 really bugged me. It’s why I have difficulty with Adams and have from the start, even though he does honestly seem to be implementing some good things.

If he were to ever get results, id be happy to become his biggest fan - but it’s gotta be results, cause philosophically we are far apart 

Botts really was an Ed Johnston/Mike Millbury level clueless moron as a GM. It's insane looking back at all the damage he inflicted on this franchise with his stupidity and he somehow got hired by Seattle in a non zamboni driver position.