dudacek Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 (edited) There is a segment of the fanbase that maintains part of the team’s problem is Terry Pegula forcing it to operate under a self-imposed cap. Adams’ general response has been that the lack of spending has more to do with the development plan: filling the roster with young players and force-feeding them ice time in order to accelerate their development; the implication being that money would be spent when team was ready to compete. He has been very explicit this off-season that the team is ready to compete. A few fans have pointed out that the team has the cap space to improve the roster without cutting Skinner, therefore why do it? One answer is that Skinner doesn’t fit with the team they are trying to build; another is that they plan to use the cap space and empty roster spot to improve the team. Another answer - one that hasn’t received a lot of traction - is that he’s getting cut simply because it puts an extra $7M in Terry’s pocket. I’ve been more patient with Adams than most of you because it was clear to me from the beginning that his plan was going to take 3 to 5 years to execute. The steps he took made sense to me within the context of the plan. And the 1st 2 years of the plan were about as successful as they could have been. Last year he failed to inject the necessary complementary pieces, much of his core took a significant step back, and his coach proved incapable of guiding a transition from developing to competitive. So now the Adams question becomes: what did he learn from those mistakes; how will he adjust? Will his faith in his young core pay off? Is he really only about job security and kicking the can down the road? The Sabres have the asset base to do what is required. But underlying the Adams question is the same bigger question that has plagued this franchise for 13 years: even if the GM really does have what it takes, can the owner stay out of his way? Edited June 22 by dudacek 1
Thorner Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 7 minutes ago, dudacek said: There is a segment of the fanbase that maintains part of the team’s problem is Terry Pegula forcing it to operate under a self-imposed cap. Adams’ general response has been that the lack of spending has more to do with the development plan: filling the roster with young players and force-feeding them ice time in order to accelerate their development; the implication being that money would be spent when team was ready to compete. He has been very explicit this off-season that the team is ready to compete. A few fans have pointed out that the team has the cap space to improve the roster without cutting Skinner, therefore why do it? One answer is that Skinner doesn’t fit with the team they are trying to build; another is that they plan to use the cap space and empty roster spot to improve the team. Another answer - one that hasn’t received a lot of traction - is that he’s getting cut simply because it puts an extra $7M in Terry’s pocket. I’ve been more patient with Adams than most of you because it was clear to me from the beginning that his plan was going to take 3 to 5 years to execute. The steps he took made sense to me within the context of the plan. And the 1st 2 years of the plan were about as successful as they could have been. Last year he failed to inject the necessary complementary pieces, much of his core took a significant step back, and his coach proved incapable of guiding a transition from developing to competitive. So now the Adams question becomes: what did he learn from those mistakes; how will he adjust? Will his faith in his young core pay off? Is he really only about job security and kicking the can down the road? The Sabres have the asset base to do what is required. But underlying the Adams question is the same bigger question that has plagued this franchise for 13 years: even if the GM really does have what it takes, can the owner stay out of his way? I was thinking the bold is possible, too On 6/19/2024 at 6:51 PM, Thorny said: There’d still be a point to that, just not one we like 1
Pimlach Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 7 minutes ago, dudacek said: There is a segment of the fanbase that maintains part of the team’s problem is Terry Pegula forcing it to operate under a self-imposed cap. Adams’ general response has been that the lack of spending has more to do with the development plan: filling the roster with young players and force-feeding them ice time in order to accelerate their development; the implication being that money would be spent when team was ready to compete. He has been very explicit this off-season that the team is ready to compete. A few fans have pointed out that the team has the cap space to improve the roster without cutting Skinner, therefore why do it? One answer is that Skinner doesn’t fit with the team they are trying to build; another is that they plan to use the cap space and empty roster spot to improve the team. Another answer - one that hasn’t received a lot of traction - is that he’s getting cut simply because it puts an extra $7M in Terry’s pocket. I’ve been more patient with Adams than most of you because it was clear to me from the beginning that his plan was going to take 3 to 5 years to execute. The steps he took made sense to me within the context of the plan. And the 1st 2 years of the plan were about as successful as they could have been. Last year he failed to inject the necessary complementary pieces, much of his core took a significant step back, and his coach proved incapable of guiding a transition from developing to competitive. So now the Adams question becomes: what did he learn from those mistakes; how will he adjust? Will his faith in his young core pay off? Is he really only about job security and kicking the can down the road? The Sabres have the asset base to do what is required. But underlying the Adams question is the same bigger question that has plagued this franchise for 13 years: even if the GM really does have what it takes, can the owner stay out of his way? The question remains: Does he have the gumption to make big hockey trades. (Not just unloading players that don't want to be here for futures.)
dudacek Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 2 minutes ago, Pimlach said: The question remains: Does he have the gumption to make big hockey trades. (Not just unloading players that don't want to be here for futures.) He proved that he did just three months ago. Mitts for Byram was the biggest hockey trade of the deadline. He traded away the team’s leading scorer. 1 1
Flashsabre Posted June 22 Author Report Posted June 22 There is no way they would buyout Skinner to save the $7 million. Ruff would not be involved in that. The buyout is to get rid of a player who doesn’t fit and spend the money on a player or players who do. You don’t hire Ruff and say your job is on the line and it is playoffs or bust this year and then just do cost cutting moves. 1
Archie Lee Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 7 minutes ago, Flashsabre said: There is no way they would buyout Skinner to save the $7 million. Ruff would not be involved in that. The buyout is to get rid of a player who doesn’t fit and spend the money on a player or players who do. You don’t hire Ruff and say your job is on the line and it is playoffs or bust this year and then just do cost cutting moves. I would be surprised (not shocked) if the Sabres buyout Skinner and then don't spend at least 50% of the saved space, taking them to within $2-4 million of the cap. I can't imagine a more disastrous outcome to the season than using a Skinner buyout to scrimp, only to miss again while Skinner goes on to playoff games. The Sabers missing and Skinner being in the playoffs could easily happen (I might argue that it could be likely to happen), but for the organization to not even try to capitalize on the cap savings to better the team would be bordering on scandalous, I think. Also, I think you and some others are drawing some conclusions that aren't really there to be drawn. 1.) The "Ruff won't stand for it" and "Ruff is running the show" view that I read quite often is wishful thinking I think. Ruff put up with a lot of junk from cheap Sabre owners before. Maybe he is now in a spot in life where he is demanding things of ownership and management, but I doubt it. I'm sure his opinion is valued and that he will be involved in the off-season roster moves, but I don't see any reason to think Adams isn't the GM in the sense that every other team has a GM who ultimately is responsible for the roster. Ruff will coach the team he is given, I think. 2.) A lot of people have concluded that this is a playoffs or bust year for Adams. I have not seen or heard anything from Pegula or Adams that indicates that to be the case. I can certainly imagine a scenario where things go so badly that a change practically is forced on Pegula. I can also easily imagine, though, a scenario where we finish somewhere between where we did in the last two seasons, miss by a few points, and the general consensus in the hockey world is that the Sabres remain a young team pointed in the right direction and an Adams firing is not even a consideration. I agree that time starting to run out on the Adams tenure, but I don't think it is close to being a playoffs or bust year. 1
DarthEbriate Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Flashsabre said: There is no way they would buyout Skinner to save the $7 million. Ruff would not be involved in that. The buyout is to get rid of a player who doesn’t fit and spend the money on a player or players who do. You don’t hire Ruff and say your job is on the line and it is playoffs or bust this year and then just do cost cutting moves. If they aren't within $2M of the cap at the start of this season, they're not serious about making the playoffs. Likewise, if more than 1 rookie forward makes the opening day roster (barring 3+ training camp injuries), they're already aiming for '25-'26. That said, they (owner/GM) haven't said anything publicly about not being EEE yet, just the GM saying he's free to spend money and... hasn't, and their actions the past 4 seasons say have clearly had an internal cap, right down to taking Bishop to get to the cap floor and not retaining salary on outgoing traded players to sweeten returns. Edited June 22 by DarthEbriate 2
msw2112 Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 7 hours ago, Pimlach said: Proven winner? Lindy or Skinner? Lindy seems to have already made his assessment on Skinner, hence the trade/buyout rumors. Obviously the reference was to Lindy. The reference in question is in a sentence that reads: "Maybe Lindy can work with the guy to overcome his deficiencies. He'll likely have more influence than a Krueger or Granato did, as he's a proven winner in the league." The sentence about being a proven winner discussed his influence relative to that of Krueger or Granato, the previous two coaches, so it was clearly a reference to Ruff, the current coach. Also, Skinner has never made the playoffs, whereas Ruff made it plenty of times as a player and a coach, has won a number of playoff series as a coach, and is 5th all-time in the NHL in coaching wins. So, Ruff is the proven winner, not Skinner. As to the rumors, the buyout of Skinner was talked about long before Ruff became coach. He's got a huge contract and struggles defensively and struggles with structure. He was benched by one coach (Kreuger) and moved from the first line to the third line by the next one (Granato). I don't know whether a final decision has been made, but Adams did say that "everything is on the table," so clearly a buyout is one of the avenues they are considering. I assume they're looking at trade options first, and if those fail, then the buyout comes into play. If the Sabres retain salary, I could see a team having interested in a guy with Skinner's offensive skills and production. My understanding is that the buyout window is a fairly small one that starts 48 hours after the finals end and only runs through June 30, so we'll all soon find out. 1
Taro T Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 41 minutes ago, Archie Lee said: I would be surprised (not shocked) if the Sabres buyout Skinner and then don't spend at least 50% of the saved space, taking them to within $2-4 million of the cap. I can't imagine a more disastrous outcome to the season than using a Skinner buyout to scrimp, only to miss again while Skinner goes on to playoff games. The Sabers missing and Skinner being in the playoffs could easily happen (I might argue that it could be likely to happen), but for the organization to not even try to capitalize on the cap savings to better the team would be bordering on scandalous, I think. Also, I think you and some others are drawing some conclusions that aren't really there to be drawn. 1.) The "Ruff won't stand for it" and "Ruff is running the show" view that I read quite often is wishful thinking I think. Ruff put up with a lot of junk from cheap Sabre owners before. Maybe he is now in a spot in life where he is demanding things of ownership and management, but I doubt it. I'm sure his opinion is valued and that he will be involved in the off-season roster moves, but I don't see any reason to think Adams isn't the GM in the sense that every other team has a GM who ultimately is responsible for the roster. Ruff will coach the team he is given, I think. 2.) A lot of people have concluded that this is a playoffs or bust year for Adams. I have not seen or heard anything from Pegula or Adams that indicates that to be the case. I can certainly imagine a scenario where things go so badly that a change practically is forced on Pegula. I can also easily imagine, though, a scenario where we finish somewhere between where we did in the last two seasons, miss by a few points, and the general consensus in the hockey world is that the Sabres remain a young team pointed in the right direction and an Adams firing is not even a consideration. I agree that time starting to run out on the Adams tenure, but I don't think it is close to being a playoffs or bust year. Personally, don't expect Adams gone if they end up with say 98 points and miss the playoffs by a point because they didn't clear the 0.600 threshold by the slimmest of margins. But, didn't expect they were going to fire Granato either, so take that for what it's worth. But, should they struggle to get to 90 points once again and miss the playoffs once again, yep, he's toast. But, unless they have a serious rash of injuries that young teams simply shouldn't be suffering, or the goaltending doesn't hold up due to their youth (a much more likely scenario than the former), can't see this team struggling to get to 90 points. Can absolutely see this team (as currently constructed) not getting in, though personally do believe it's good enough to sneak into the last WC w/ 96-98 points. Which leaves absolutely no room for a couple of key performers having off years nor having a serious rash of injuries, nor the GT not being up to snuff. With the rebuild being at the point it is, can see Adams standing pat with G & D (because he's pretty much told us that's his preference for the past 3 months) but can't see any way there aren't at least 3 changes at F (and maybe 4-5) w/ at least 2 of which we'd consider significant (aka not just swapping out 4th liners). Not convinced the D will stay pat; maybe he makes 1 pseudo-major move, most likely Jokiharju going away and somebody else (w/ no idea at all of whom that would be) coming in to give them what they'd consider 5 legit top 4 D-men. 1
Pimlach Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 2 hours ago, dudacek said: He proved that he did just three months ago. Mitts for Byram was the biggest hockey trade of the deadline. He traded away the team’s leading scorer. He got rid of a guy that he decided he didn't want to re-sign, and he added a younger and promising player at another position. I don't feel that he proved anything with that trade. Are the Sabres better with Bryam instead of Mitts? We don't know yet until they fill the very big hole at center. 1
dudacek Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 5 minutes ago, Pimlach said: He got rid of a guy that he decided he didn't want to re-sign, and he added a younger and promising player at another position. I don't feel that he proved anything with that trade. Are the Sabres better with Bryam instead of Mitts? We don't know yet until they fill the very big hole at center. That's not what you said: you said he needs to show he has the gumption to make big hockey trades. First you said "not counting the disgruntled/departing for futures" Now it's "not counting players I don't think he really liked" Exactly what does that leave, and how many GMs have made those kind of trades over the past 3 years? Sounds to me like it's nothing about gumption, it's about him making a trade that gets you excited.
Taro T Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Pimlach said: He got rid of a guy that he decided he didn't want to re-sign, and he added a younger and promising player at another position. I don't feel that he proved anything with that trade. Are the Sabres better with Bryam instead of Mitts? We don't know yet until they fill the very big hole at center. Considering Mittelstadt's 26 and Byram is only 22 and playing a position that takes longer to develop, even if they bring in Danault or Eriksson Ek or the like to round out the top 3C's would still say that TODAY the team is worse off with Byram than with Mitts on it. Because Cozens or Mitts (or maybe even the other C they'd bring in) could slide to W leaving you Tuch, Mitts/Cozens, Peterka, & Quinn as your top 4 W's with Benson, Greenway, & Skinner (at least for another 2 days) rounding out the top 9 with Kulich or Savoie or maybe even Rosen ready to challenge for a spot in the top 9 come December which makes for a very formidible top 9 even if Kane doesn't finally fulfill his childhood dream. Whereas whatever Byram brings THIS year could likely have been supplied by either guys in house or via a lesser cost than a Mittelstadt to bring that in. Mitts for Byram was a 'we've got a whole bunch of guys to fill out the top 9 come '27 when we're really seriously challenging and now we expect we'll have a really formidible top 4 & even top 6 on the back end' that we wouldn't have had then without this deal. IMHO. That trade was made, again IMHO, because in the Sabres view it bolsters the team when it finally gets to its window and as Byram showed in his "new car smell" phase that it won't be much of a step back overall if any in this coming year when the full set of moves on the chess board are completed. Edited June 22 by Taro T 1
Pimlach Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 (edited) 19 hours ago, dudacek said: That's not what you said: you said he needs to show he has the gumption to make big hockey trades. First you said "not counting the disgruntled/departing for futures" Now it's "not counting players I don't think he really liked" Exactly what does that leave, and how many GMs have made those kind of trades over the past 3 years? Sounds to me like it's nothing about gumption, it's about him making a trade that gets you excited. I am talking about more hockey trades that bring in NHL players and actually improve the roster. Taking a few risks in an effort for high reward. He has players, many prospects, picks, and cap room. He did one hockey trade last year, Mitts for Byram. And that is a trade that on its own cannot help this team unless he replaces Mitts. It is an incomplete move since he left a void at center. He made one other decent trade the year prior, using draft picks to get Greenway. Besides that, he has played in the bargain bins for guys like Jost, Robinson, etc. Plenty of GMs make trades for NHL hockey players every season. Adams has gone on record complaining that other teams want his prospects for nothing, and that other teams took less for players than what he offered. Time for him to grow a pair and impress us with his shrewdness. Four full years have past since Adams took the reins, he needs to finish this rebuild and get this team back into the NHL. The year 5 clock has started. Edited June 23 by Pimlach
Buffalonill Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 1 hour ago, msw2112 said: Obviously the reference was to Lindy. The reference in question is in a sentence that reads: "Maybe Lindy can work with the guy to overcome his deficiencies. He'll likely have more influence than a Krueger or Granato did, as he's a proven winner in the league." The sentence about being a proven winner discussed his influence relative to that of Krueger or Granato, the previous two coaches, so it was clearly a reference to Ruff, the current coach. Also, Skinner has never made the playoffs, whereas Ruff made it plenty of times as a player and a coach, has won a number of playoff series as a coach, and is 5th all-time in the NHL in coaching wins. So, Ruff is the proven winner, not Skinner. As to the rumors, the buyout of Skinner was talked about long before Ruff became coach. He's got a huge contract and struggles defensively and struggles with structure. He was benched by one coach (Kreuger) and moved from the first line to the third line by the next one (Granato). I don't know whether a final decision has been made, but Adams did say that "everything is on the table," so clearly a buyout is one of the avenues they are considering. I assume they're looking at trade options first, and if those fail, then the buyout comes into play. If the Sabres retain salary, I could see a team having interested in a guy with Skinner's offensive skills and production. My understanding is that the buyout window is a fairly small one that starts 48 hours after the finals end and only runs through June 30, so we'll all soon find out. Skinner is old he's not going to changes his ways that's probably why rod brind'amour wanted him gone. He's a good player but buffalo needs to make the playoffs and if they believe this is key to doing that then I'm all for it
Pimlach Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 16 minutes ago, Taro T said: Considering Mittelstadt's 26 and Byram is only 22 and playing a position that takes longer to develop, even if they bring in Danault or Eriksson Ek or the like to round out the top 3C's would still say that TODAY the team is worse off with Byram than with Mitts on it. Because Cozens or Mitts (or maybe even the other C they'd bring in) could slide to W leaving you Tuch, Mitts/Cozens, Peterka, & Quinn as your top 4 W's with Benson, Greenway, & Skinner (at least for another 2 days) rounding out the top 9 with Kulich or Savoie or maybe even Rosen ready to challenge for a spot in the top 9 come December which makes for a very formidible top 9 even if Kane doesn't finally fulfill his childhood dream. Whereas whatever Byram brings THIS year could likely have been supplied by either guys in house or via a lesser cost than a Mittelstadt to bring that in. Mitts for Byram was a 'we've got a whole bunch of guys to fill out the top 9 come '27 when we're really seriously challenging and now we expect we'll have a really formidible top 4 & even top 6 on the back end' that we wouldn't have had then without this deal. IMHO. That trade was made, again IMHO, because in the Sabres view it bolsters the team when it finally gets to its window and as Byram showed in his "new car smell" phase that it won't be much of a step back overall if any in this coming year when the full set of moves on the chess board are completed. I am not even sure Byram will be a Sabre after this season. Lets see what players they bring in this off season, and at what cost. Lets see what Byram does after a full season too. 1
sabresparaavida Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 1 hour ago, Taro T said: Personally, don't expect Adams gone if they end up with say 98 points and miss the playoffs by a point because they didn't clear the 0.600 threshold by the slimmest of margins. But, didn't expect they were going to fire Granato either, so take that for what it's worth. But, should they struggle to get to 90 points once again and miss the playoffs once again, yep, he's toast. But, unless they have a serious rash of injuries that young teams simply shouldn't be suffering, or the goaltending doesn't hold up due to their youth (a much more likely scenario than the former), can't see this team struggling to get to 90 points. Can absolutely see this team (as currently constructed) not getting in, though personally do believe it's good enough to sneak into the last WC w/ 96-98 points. Which leaves absolutely no room for a couple of key performers having off years nor having a serious rash of injuries, nor the GT not being up to snuff. With the rebuild being at the point it is, can see Adams standing pat with G & D (because he's pretty much told us that's his preference for the past 3 months) but can't see any way there aren't at least 3 changes at F (and maybe 4-5) w/ at least 2 of which we'd consider significant (aka not just swapping out 4th liners). Not convinced the D will stay pat; maybe he makes 1 pseudo-major move, most likely Jokiharju going away and somebody else (w/ no idea at all of whom that would be) coming in to give them what they'd consider 5 legit top 4 D-men. 98 points and missing the playoffs would be an NHL record. 96 points and missing the playoffs has only happened 3 times in NHL history. Last year, 91 points made it, the year before 92 was good enough.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 Why in the blazes would the Sabres buy Skinner out. Or trade him. Really ?? I did not read the thread, but why ?? The Sabres need to score more goals. The Sabres have a 30+ goal scorer on the roster. It makes no sense to buy or trade a 30+ goal score. Sure buy him out to save a few bucks so they can sign a 30+ goal score for $10M a season. Or let's trade our 30+ goal scorer and retain salary to get a 25 goal scorer and pay them $9M per season. Am I the only one thinking that this is a terrible idea ?? I just don't get it. 1
Stoner Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 16 minutes ago, Sabres Fan in NS said: Why in the blazes would the Sabres buy Skinner out. Or trade him. Really ?? I did not read the thread, but why ?? The Sabres need to score more goals. The Sabres have a 30+ goal scorer on the roster. It makes no sense to buy or trade a 30+ goal score. Sure buy him out to save a few bucks so they can sign a 30+ goal score for $10M a season. Or let's trade our 30+ goal scorer and retain salary to get a 25 goal scorer and pay them $9M per season. Am I the only one thinking that this is a terrible idea ?? I just don't get it. He's a lazy undisciplined inconsistent me first one zone one trick crybaby who has done nothing but lose his entire career and the punchable face of the drought who picks at imaginary bugs in postgame pressers. I got more. 1 1
PerreaultForever Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 57 minutes ago, sabresparaavida said: 98 points and missing the playoffs would be an NHL record. 96 points and missing the playoffs has only happened 3 times in NHL history. Last year, 91 points made it, the year before 92 was good enough. Point total won't matter as much as what happens relative to the rest of the division. Winning on home ice has to become a thing, we need to get some loser points instead of losing in regulation and we win to win season series with Detroit, Ottawa, Boston, Toronto, Tampa, etc. 1
Taro T Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 1 hour ago, sabresparaavida said: 98 points and missing the playoffs would be an NHL record. 96 points and missing the playoffs has only happened 3 times in NHL history. Last year, 91 points made it, the year before 92 was good enough. There often is a team or 2 that doesn't hit NHL 0.600 but still makes the playoffs. In the modern era, exactly 1 team (the '70 Habs) hit that mark and missed the playoffs. And that was in a year that ALL the new teams that pretty much stunk were in one division and all the established teams were in the other and the Habs actually tied the Rags for 4th but lost out on tiebreakers, the 1st of which was goals scored so in their final game of the year when it became clear they wouldn't win that game they pulled the goalie trying unsuccessfully to get enough goals to get the tiebreaker over the Rags. 98 points is just below that 0.600 threshold; 99 is just above it. You break 0.600 and you get it; you miss it, you take your chances. The post you replied to was in response to a post saying if the Sabres miss the playoffs Adams is gone. Was pointing out, it depends on HOW they miss, should they. 98 and a miss and he likely gets one final try. 91 and a miss, and it's bye bye Kevyn. 1
Stoner Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 So that was partly an attempt at humor, but honest to God why would anyone be married to Jeff Skinner at this point. I have to give yall Ras. I would not want to see Peterka go. Everyone else can take a hike. There's nothing to lose. 1
Thorner Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 (edited) 5 hours ago, Archie Lee said: I would be surprised (not shocked) if the Sabres buyout Skinner and then don't spend at least 50% of the saved space, taking them to within $2-4 million of the cap. I can't imagine a more disastrous outcome to the season than using a Skinner buyout to scrimp, only to miss again while Skinner goes on to playoff games. The Sabers missing and Skinner being in the playoffs could easily happen (I might argue that it could be likely to happen), but for the organization to not even try to capitalize on the cap savings to better the team would be bordering on scandalous, I think. Also, I think you and some others are drawing some conclusions that aren't really there to be drawn. 1.) The "Ruff won't stand for it" and "Ruff is running the show" view that I read quite often is wishful thinking I think. Ruff put up with a lot of junk from cheap Sabre owners before. Maybe he is now in a spot in life where he is demanding things of ownership and management, but I doubt it. I'm sure his opinion is valued and that he will be involved in the off-season roster moves, but I don't see any reason to think Adams isn't the GM in the sense that every other team has a GM who ultimately is responsible for the roster. Ruff will coach the team he is given, I think. 2.) A lot of people have concluded that this is a playoffs or bust year for Adams. I have not seen or heard anything from Pegula or Adams that indicates that to be the case. I can certainly imagine a scenario where things go so badly that a change practically is forced on Pegula. I can also easily imagine, though, a scenario where we finish somewhere between where we did in the last two seasons, miss by a few points, and the general consensus in the hockey world is that the Sabres remain a young team pointed in the right direction and an Adams firing is not even a consideration. I agree that time starting to run out on the Adams tenure, but I don't think it is close to being a playoffs or bust year. lol the consensus in the hockey world would be that the sabres are eternally bad not that things are headed in the right direction. Aside from unserious prospect outlets who aren’t in the business of doing anything but selling their bottom line, literally no one takes the narrative we are “up and coming” but Sabres fans and media. It’s a significantly greater divide than you realize. The rest of the league lives in the real world where success is measured by results not future watch headlines Saying a guy who may go 5 straight years without making the playoffs “isn’t close” to being on the hot seat is an exceptionally sad state of affairs Edited June 22 by Thorny
Thorner Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 (edited) 3 hours ago, dudacek said: That's not what you said: you said he needs to show he has the gumption to make big hockey trades. First you said "not counting the disgruntled/departing for futures" Now it's "not counting players I don't think he really liked" Exactly what does that leave, and how many GMs have made those kind of trades over the past 3 years? Sounds to me like it's nothing about gumption, it's about him making a trade that gets you excited. I think it’s about him making moves that make the team good 2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said: Point total won't matter as much as what happens relative to the rest of the division. Winning on home ice has to become a thing, we need to get some loser points instead of losing in regulation and we win to win season series with Detroit, Ottawa, Boston, Toronto, Tampa, etc. it’s literally about making the playoffs. Full stop. To your point, division success will help facilitate that but it means nothing without conversion Edited June 22 by Thorny 1
Crusader1969 Posted June 23 Report Posted June 23 3 hours ago, Sabres Fan in NS said: Why in the blazes would the Sabres buy Skinner out. Or trade him. Really ?? I did not read the thread, but why ?? The Sabres need to score more goals. The Sabres have a 30+ goal scorer on the roster. It makes no sense to buy or trade a 30+ goal score. Sure buy him out to save a few bucks so they can sign a 30+ goal score for $10M a season. Or let's trade our 30+ goal scorer and retain salary to get a 25 goal scorer and pay them $9M per season. Am I the only one thinking that this is a terrible idea ?? I just don't get it. Maybe Jeff Skinner is now the player we saw from December on? I think everyone can agree that he was terrible and infuriating to watch He's lost the top line role to JJP, I can even see them thinking that they prefer Benson up the lineup over Skinner That would knock him down to the 3rd line and he just isn't the type of player they want in the bottom 6
Taro T Posted June 23 Report Posted June 23 1 hour ago, Thorny said: I think it’s about him making moves that make the team good it’s literally about making the playoffs. Full stop. To your point, division success will help facilitate that but it means nothing without conversion It should be about making the playoffs. And, expect that in large part it IS about making the playoffs. But personally don't expect that Pegula would fire Adams if they get to 98 points and it isn't good enough to get into the dance.
Recommended Posts