Has the Adams rebuild failed completely?

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Not making it once in 13 years is truly absurd. You know how i know? You can post it a million times and it never feels like belabouring a point (and I belabour a lot) because it’s SO THROUGHLY RIDICULOUS lol. Just make the freaking playoffs 

just make the playoffs. Seriously. Make the playoffs lol 

Washington SUCKED 

What does Washington have to do with anything?

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I would bet it’s more like every once in a while.

The rest draft early.

5 of the highest 16 payrolls missed the playoffs this year. 

that means 5 teams with a payroll in da lower half of da league made it

so. I guess you have a point. if you handcuff yourself and refuse to spend money you’ll only make it once every 3 years or so and even the sabres don’t have a drought of…WAIT YOU ARE SAYING ITS HOW LONG?!

Making the playoffs isn’t hard 

[SwampD]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Not making it once in 13 years is truly absurd. You know how i know? You can post it a million times and it never feels like belabouring a point (and I belabour a lot) because it’s SO THROUGHLY RIDICULOUS lol. Just make the freaking playoffs 

just make the playoffs. Seriously. Make the playoffs lol 

Washington SUCKED 

And while I agree about how how ridiculous the last 13 years were I don’t care about them. I care about what we’re being sold for next year.

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, SwampD said:

What does Washington have to do with anything?

Everything. They illustrate that you can suck and make the playoffs 

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Everything. They illustrate that you can suck and make the playoffs 

It actually shows how much more the Sabres sucked.

And spending doesn’t guarantee that you will win, but not spending shows that you aren’t even trying.

Edited May 12 by SwampD

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, SwampD said:

And while I agree about how how ridiculous the last 13 years were I don’t care about them. I care about what we’re being sold for next year.

We are and have been sold the idea that Adams told us, and is to this day proud of it (watch the seravalli interview) that this process needed to take 5 years.

It was a lie. If we make the playoffs next year, it wasn’t less of a lie. It has already taken too long. 

4 minutes ago, SwampD said:

It actually shows how much more the Sabres sucked.

And spending doesn’t guarantee that you will win, but not spending shows that you aren’t even trying.

It shows that Pegula isn’t trying 

Edited May 12 by Thorny

[SwampD]

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

We are and have been sold the idea that Adams told us, and is to this day proud of it (watch the seravalli interview) that this process needed to take 5 years.

It was a lie. If we make the playoffs next year, it wasn’t less of a lie. It has already taken too long. 

It shows that Pegula isn’t trying 

Absolutely. Kevyn is trying with what he’s been given. And in that case, we are screwed. Of course we could get lucky. But luck and hope are not sound GM strategies.

I truly hope that next year is the year that changes my policy of not giving the Sabres any of my money.

Edited May 12 by SwampD

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Absolutely. Kevyn is trying with what he’s been given. And in that case, we are screwed. Of course we could get lucky. But luck and hope are not sound GM strategies.

I truly hope that next year is the year that changes my policy of not giving the Sabres any of my money.

I just disagree, as I’ve stated. Pegula being a terrible owner is an admittedly crappy handcuff but that’s the job: Adams took it willingly, did he not? Winning with an owner who won’t spend is still possible when winning is defined as being top 16. It’s not a hard thing to do with competence

[PerreaultForever]

30 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Teams with low payrolls make the playoffs all the time. Making the playoffs isn’t hard 

This isn’t just something I/we say. I say it cause it’s true.

Washington was ASS this year 

Making the playoffs isn't hard? Well if that's true then I guess the Sabres aren't just a sh*tshow, they are a colossal sh%tshow. 

[Thorner]

Just now, PerreaultForever said:

Making the playoffs isn't hard? Well if that's true then I guess the Sabres aren't just a sh*tshow, they are a colossal sh%tshow. 

Is this post from 2019? 

What page are you on? Spoiler, the drought is still going. We left colossal shite show in the rear view several hundred miles ago 

[PerreaultForever]

Just now, Thorny said:

Is this post from 2019? 

Could easily be. I may have said something similar back then. It does often feel like we are going in circles and things repeat. The names change, the results don't. 

[Thorner]

Just now, PerreaultForever said:

Could easily be. I may have said something similar back then. It does often feel like we are going in circles and things repeat. The names change, the results don't. 

I’m of the opinion we undersell this stuff due to the nature of the news cycle and our media and the scroll culture and just an overload of content. We see a tweet that shows where the sabres sit in the record books and we “ha ha” but forget about the specifics cause “ya I know we suck I’ve heard it a million times.”

they have the longest playoff drought of *all time*. Just think about it for a bit. No one has been that bad, ever. In centuries. Multitudes of teams. It’s us: we are it. Hyperbole cannot and need not apply, ever

we are extraordinary 

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

I’m of the opinion we undersell this stuff due to the nature of the news cycle and our media and the scroll culture and just an overload of content. We see a tweet that shows where the sabres sit in the record books and we “ha ha” but forget about the specifics cause “ya I know we suck I’ve heard it a million times.”

they have the longest playoff drought of *all time*. Just think about it for a bit. No one has been that bad, ever. In centuries. Multitudes of teams. It’s us: we are it. Hyperbole cannot and need not apply, ever

we are extraordinary 

Our longest all time drought is THIRTY PERCENT longer than the next closest 

[Thorner]

Than the next closest ALL TIME 

[JohnC]

45 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Of course he won’t. It’s way cheaper to refill the bottom 6. And dudachek is right, that will not fix this team, anyway. Until there is any indication that EEE has been rescinded, we’re pretty much screwed.

Maybe I have misinterpreted @dudacek's comments but he seemed to say that our top two lines, however they are constituted, need to improve their play from last year. Does that necessarily mean some of those members need to be dealt to bring a change to those lines? You believe so while I don't necessarily believe that to be the case. Although I'm open to it if a deal or two at that level can be made. My preference would be to deal our top pick and prospects to get that type of deal done rather than shedding a player or two from our top lines. 

I've listened to KA on more than a few occasions since the season ended. It seems to me that his focus is on upgrading the lower lines and balancing out the roster with some tougher/grittier players.

Will those type of moves be adequate enough to change the dynamic of this team? I recognize that your response is absolutely not. My response is that I'm not sure. 

[SwampD]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I just disagree, as I’ve stated. Pegula being a terrible owner is an admittedly crappy handcuff but that’s the job: Adams took it willingly, did he not? Winning with an owner who won’t spend is still possible when winning is defined as being top 16. It’s not a hard thing to do with competence

Not really sure what Adams’ mindset when taking the job has to do with anything. Not even really sure what you are arguing, now that I think of it. I haven’t really disagreed with anything you’ve written. 

3 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Making the playoffs isn't hard? Well if that's true then I guess the Sabres aren't just a sh*tshow, they are a colossal sh%tshow. 

Wuh?

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Is this post from 2019? 

What page are you on? Spoiler, the drought is still going. We left colossal shite show in the rear view several hundred miles ago 

what he said.

Just now, Thorny said:

Than the next closest ALL TIME 

Ugh.

[French Collection]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

we are extraordinary 

I have been a part of this 13 year drought but I accept no responsibility.

[Thorner]

Just now, SwampD said:

Not really sure what Adams’ mindset when taking the job has to do with anything. Not even really sure what you are arguing, now that I think of it. I haven’t really disagreed with anything you’ve written. 

Wuh?

what he said.

Ugh.

I’m not arguing against you I’m arguing with you 

[GoPuckYourself]

1 hour ago, tom webster said:

That’s actually not been true till Adams. Say what you want about the people he has hired but he hasn’t just done nothing as the team has lost and underperformed.

 

Not sure what you mean, 4 years of Tim Murray, 3 years of Botteril, going on 5 years of Adams.

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, French Collection said:

I have been a part of this 13 year drought but I accept no responsibility.

you know what they say about responsibility 

Edited May 12 by Thorny

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I’m not arguing against you I’m arguing with you 

You don’t think are screwed, though. As long as the spending stays the same, I think we are, unless luck intervenes.

On a side note, I think we should all (as in everyone on here) change how we discuss this topic. I think we should say trying to not lose, instead of trying to win. I think they are very different and it would clarify many responses.

[SwampD]

12 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Maybe I have misinterpreted @dudacek's comments but he seemed to say that our top two lines, however they are constituted, need to improve their play from last year. Does that necessarily mean some of those members need to be dealt to bring a change to those lines? You believe so while I don't necessarily believe that to be the case. Although I'm open to it if a deal or two at that level can be made. My preference would be to deal our top pick and prospects to get that type of deal done rather than shedding a player or two from our top lines. 

I've listened to KA on more than a few occasions since the season ended. It seems to me that his focus is on upgrading the lower lines and balancing out the roster with some tougher/grittier players.

Will those type of moves be adequate enough to change the dynamic of this team? I recognize that your response is absolutely not. My response is that I'm not sure. 

Fair.

What if we, god forbid, miss next year?

Edited May 12 by SwampD

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, French Collection said:

You’re right that these guys need to generate more. I think Skinner’s new range is 24-30 goals.
Quinn and Peterka may make a move to the top of this lineup, diminishing Skinner’s ice time and points. Finding a 2-3C could mean the most balanced top 9 in a long time.

There is room to improve on Okposo, Girgs and Jost as 4th liners.

This is low-key an interesting question about the roster next year IMHO.

JJP, Quinn and Tuch are locks for 3 of the top 4 winger spots.  Who will be the 4th?  Skinner?  Benson?  Greenway?  A FA or trade FNG?  A hastily promoted rookie?  A deservedly promoted rookie? 

[French Collection]

2 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

This is low-key an interesting question about the roster next year IMHO.

JJP, Quinn and Tuch are locks for 3 of the top 4 winger spots.  Who will be the 4th?  Skinner?  Benson?  Greenway?  A FA or trade FNG?  A hastily promoted rookie?  A deservedly promoted rookie? 

If KA can find a good 3C then Lindy could put Skinner on that line to achieve the balance I am talking about. Greenway could round out that line and provide corner work and a net front presence while Skinner buzzes around. Benson moves up in my scenario, unless KA adds a winger like Joshua, who would push Benson down to 3rd line and Greenway to the 4th line.

[DarthEbriate]

9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Making the playoffs isn’t hard 

It's not necessarily hard, although with 32 teams it is now harder than ever before.

But the Sabres have done everything in their power to make it difficult, including actively dissolving core(s) and outright tanking in 5 of those seasons, plus the laundry list of all the other issues along the way.

[dudacek]

12 hours ago, SwampD said:

Of course he won’t. It’s way cheaper to refill the bottom 6. And dudachek is right, that will not fix this team, anyway. Until there is any indication that EEE has been rescinded, we’re pretty much screwed.

@Brawndohas touched on this few times too, and hasn’t got a ton of traction on here yet.

But this is a year where it should. The idea of keeping space set aside for internal raises starts to lose its heft when you have the number of long-term commitments that the Sabres now have.

Once they pay UPL and maybe Byram, they’ve basically got their core locked up. The Quinns and Peterkas are 5 years away from UFA status. They will have to do what all the adult teams do, make hard decisions on who to keep. Teams don’t have cores of 10.

The Sabres were $8M under the cap this year. They didn’t have to be then and they don’t have to be now.

They are $23M under the cap for next year. Once they pay/replace UPL, Joki, Krebs, Girgensons, they should have at least $10M available to fill the roster spots occupied Olofsson, Jost and Robinson.

Adams needs to spend that cap space on real players.

11 hours ago, Thorny said:

Than the next closest ALL TIME 

It’s even more crazy when you look at the competition.

New Jersey has been terrible. They’ve missed 10 times in the past 12 years. But they still managed to make it twice.

Florida was worse: 16 times in 18 years. But they still managed to make it twice.

Columbus missed 11 of their first 13 seasons. But still got there twice.

Coyotes 11 of 12. Ottawa 6 in a row and 7 of the past 8. Vancouver 7 of the past 8. Detroit 8 in a row.

Bad teams in the NHL post lockout tend to stay bad for a while, but they usually sneak in at least one outlier.

But the Sabres, nope. It’s really quite remarkable.

12 hours ago, SwampD said:

 

11 hours ago, Thorny said:

 

Edited May 12 by dudacek