Reviewing Adams' Off-season acquisitions at the half way mark

[Two or less]

7 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Savoie didn't have a roster spot unless you're getting rid of Benson or Peterka. That was the issue there. 

 

If he was on the team, he should be spending a lot of time in Rochester. But i don't hate the idea of trading him, but time will tell if trading him for McLeod made sense or not.

[JohnC]

20 minutes ago, Two or less said:

 

If he was on the team, he should be spending a lot of time in Rochester. But i don't hate the idea of trading him, but time will tell if trading him for McLeod made sense or not.

There was an excess of players who were in the same tier as Savoie in the system. Not all of them were going to make it to the big club even after more minor league seasoning. Basically, an excess piece/asset was dealt for an NHL ready player. Even if one wants to categorize McCleod as a little better than pedestrian, at least there is some NHL utility to his addition. Our Mr. McGoo GM has made a lot of blunders during his tenure. At least this transaction is defensible whether one agrees or not with it. 

 

[PerreaultForever]

8 hours ago, Carmel Corn said:

Me thinks McLeod was slated to play the 3C behind TNT and Cozens.  Fast forward to today, I think they’ve tried him everywhere including the 1C and 4C.  It’s the usual Buffalo strategy of throwing enough $hit on the wall in hopes something sticks.

It’s mind boggling to think they still view Krebs so highly….now he’s what, a 2C?  To me it still seems apparent that he’s playing so much because GMKA wants to somehow convince his critics that he won the Eichel trade.

Oh absolutely. The KA plan was Thompson, Cozens, McLeod. Lafferty/Krebs. Things don't work and players don't play up to their expectations and Ruff juggles and tries everything. 

There is a bias towards his own guys that is certain, but that's not unique. Most GMs do that. But yes, he'd like you to at least believe he made out okay on it. He did not. 

[Pimlach]

Regarding Savoie, why would anyone think he would not start to dominate the AHL?   

This is normal.  I expect he will be a good NHL player someday too.  Maybe not a star, but good.  He has skills.  

He is small (short) but built thicker and with a strong lower body.   Once he matures and gets stronger he will play somewhere in the NHL, probably middle 6 over a career.  Until then he will dominate in the AHL like many others.  

Edited Sunday at 10:27 PM by Pimlach

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Two or less said:

 

If he was on the team, he should be spending a lot of time in Rochester. But i don't hate the idea of trading him, but time will tell if trading him for McLeod made sense or not.

But to make the Sabres he has to push out either Benson or Peterka at some point. Do we want 2 sub 5'11" wingers?

[JohnC]

14 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Regarding Savoie, why would anyone think he would not start to dominate the AHL?   

This is normal.  I expect he will be a good NHL someday too.  He has skills.  

He is small (short) but built thicker and with a strong lower body.   Once he matures and gets stronger he will play somewhere in the NHL.  Until then he will dominate in the AHL like many others.  

If the Sabres were a more normally run NHL operation, a player like Savoie would have had more time to develop and increase his value, whether kept or parlayed for other talent. However, that is expecting too much from this stultifying franchise. This GM lacks the vision to project talent and utilize it to the maximum. When you are hanging on out of desperation it isn't a surprise that you make short-sighted decisions to hang on a little longer. When you are blind and competing against others in your profession that can see, you usually end up walking into walls and bumping your hard and empty head. This is a roadmap to going nowhere.

Edited Sunday at 10:40 PM by JohnC

[Two or less]

41 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

But to make the Sabres he has to push out either Benson or Peterka at some point. Do we want 2 sub 5'11" wingers?

Right. And that's a problem for the future. Peterka might be gone regardless even with Savoie gone. What makes him untouchable?

The point is, trading Savoie for a fourth liner, might come back to haunt us. Original post guy was wondering if we should even re-sign McLeod. That was the point. Throwing away prospects bc we might not have room for him in 2-3 years isn't a good way to build a team.

[Pimlach]

39 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If the Sabres were a more normally run NHL operation, a player like Savoie would have had more time to develop and increase his value, whether kept or parlayed for other talent. However, that is expecting too much from this stultifying franchise. This GM lacks the vision to project talent and utilize it to the maximum. When you are hanging on out of desperation it isn't a surprise that you make short-sighted decisions to hang on a little longer. When you are blind and competing against others in your profession that can see, you usually end up walking into walls and bumping your hard and empty head. This is a roadmap to going nowhere.

If they were a normal team they would not have drafted Savioe, Östlund, Kulich, all centers, all in round 1 of the same year..  They took a center the prior year (Rosen).   How many 18 year old centers did they think they can use?  
 

Maybe one or two of those picks gets packaged for other critical needs that were more immediate?  More veteran help would have improved the team faster, while the teenagers develop.  
 

 

Edited Sunday at 11:18 PM by Pimlach

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

If they were a normal team they would not have drafted Savioe, Östlund, Kulich, all centers, all in round 1 of the same year..  They took a center the prior year (Rosen).   How many 18 year old centers did they think they can use?  
 

Maybe one or two of those picks gets packaged for other critical needs that were more immediate?  More veteran help would have improved the team faster, while the teenagers develop.  
 

 

What you are basically saying, that I agree with, is that there were plenty of assets within the system due to the accumulation of high draft picks that could have been marketed for more contributing veterans in return. The problem then becomes how do you overcome the manifest deficiencies of this GM who would be tasked to make the deals? It's a catch-22 that can't be resolved until there is a change at the GM position. 

[Flashsabre]

At the end of the Broncos games they talked about making the playoffs for the first time since 2015 and how the new ownership has changed things. And Romo said “Real change has to begin at the top”

God do we ever need real change at the very top of this organization.

[Pimlach]

55 minutes ago, JohnC said:

What you are basically saying, that I agree with, is that there were plenty of assets within the system due to the accumulation of high draft picks that could have been marketed for more contributing veterans in return. The problem then becomes how do you overcome the manifest deficiencies of this GM who would be tasked to make the deals? It's a catch-22 that can't be resolved until there is a change at the GM position. 

You can’t overcome the past, it exists.  Moving forward you can replace tne GM with a better qualified and proven successful NHL Exec.  Someone that is respected in the league.  Then you let that person run it.  

[Archie Lee]

24 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

You can’t overcome the past, it exists.  Moving forward you can replace tne GM with a better qualified and proven successful NHL Exec.  Someone that is respected in the league.  Then you let that person run it.  

There may be a natural date in this season for a change. The Sabres play their last game before the Four Nations on Feb 8. The Super Bowl is the next day. If things don’t improve before then, perhaps that week is a natural point for a change. I think Pegula will be preoccupied with the Bills for a bit. Hopefully through Feb 9th. 

[Pimlach]

2 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

There may be a natural date in this season for a change. The Sabres play their last game before the Four Nations on Feb 8. The Super Bowl is the next day. If things don’t improve before then, perhaps that week is a natural point for a change. I think Pegula will be preoccupied with the Bills for a bit. Hopefully through Feb 9th. 

The Bills are possibly going to and winning the Super Bowl.  Pegula said what he had to say to the Sabres players, coaches, and GM back in Montreal.  That’s it.   He will pay some attention to the Sabres in March.  Not sooner.  

[sabremike]

3 hours ago, Pimlach said:

The Bills are possibly going to and winning the Super Bowl.  Pegula said what he had to say to the Sabres players, coaches, and GM back in Montreal.  That’s it.   He will pay some attention to the Sabres in March.  Not sooner.  

If the Bills win it all the Sabres are dead because it would validate to Pegula how he runs things and change will at that point become impossible. The man is simply too stupid to understand the success of the Bills is completely down to him getting insanely lucky.

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

There may be a natural date in this season for a change. The Sabres play their last game before the Four Nations on Feb 8. The Super Bowl is the next day. If things don’t improve before then, perhaps that week is a natural point for a change. I think Pegula will be preoccupied with the Bills for a bit. Hopefully through Feb 9th. 

The fear of a Bills superbowl might be, however, that it convinces Pegula he does know what he's doing in sports and Sabres fans will be told to be patient and the Bills will be constantly referenced as to why he's a good owner.

(and yes, I know you people in Buffalo won't care because, well, you'll have a superbowl finally). 

[LGR4GM]

12 hours ago, Two or less said:

Right. And that's a problem for the future. Peterka might be gone regardless even with Savoie gone. What makes him untouchable?

The point is, trading Savoie for a fourth liner, might come back to haunt us. Original post guy was wondering if we should even re-sign McLeod. That was the point. Throwing away prospects bc we might not have room for him in 2-3 years isn't a good way to build a team.

Hanging on to prospects forever because they might some day be something isn't a good way to build a team either. Also McLeod isn't a 4th liner. He's a middle 6 players but the Sabres would rather play favorites than win hockey games. 

[LGR4GM]

12 hours ago, Pimlach said:

If they were a normal team they would not have drafted Savioe, Östlund, Kulich, all centers, all in round 1 of the same year..  They took a center the prior year (Rosen).   How many 18 year old centers did they think they can use?  
 

Maybe one or two of those picks gets packaged for other critical needs that were more immediate?  More veteran help would have improved the team faster, while the teenagers develop.  
 

 

That's not logical. You can always move centers to wing. Also, savoie isn't a center at the NHL level impo.

Rosen isn't a center either. Drafting 4 centers aka 4 forwards is fine. 

[Archie Lee]

11 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

That's not logical. You can always move centers to wing. Also, savoie isn't a center at the NHL level impo.

Rosen isn't a center either. Drafting 4 centers aka 4 forwards is fine. 

I largely agree. When you consider though that they already had Tuch, Thompson, Mittelstadt, and Cozens in the NHL and that they had already used high picks on Quinn, Peterka, Rosen, Poltapov, and Kisakov, the logic starts to breakdown. Obviously not all picks are going to hit, but if you are using that many top picks on skilled forwards, at some point you need to move some of them to fill roster holes. Adams would argue, I’m sure, that he has done this with the Byram and McLeod trades (I’m fine with the value in each case, but still don’t like the logic on the Mittelstadt deal). He has not begun to scratch the surface though of the deals he needs to make. In my opinion, 3-4 of the forwards we drafted in rounds 1-2 after 2019, need to be dealt to fill existing roster holes. We are 1-2 years late on this actually. Such trades would also create some oxygen for our later rd picks like Sardarian, Marjala, Neuchev, Richard, and Miedema, all who are thriving but are mere afterthoughts. Better to risk trading a kid who goes on to be a star, than to let 7-8 rot on the vine. 

[JohnC]

11 hours ago, Pimlach said:

You can’t overcome the past, it exists.  Moving forward you can replace tne GM with a better qualified and proven successful NHL Exec.  Someone that is respected in the league.  Then you let that person run it.  

You are preaching to the choir. Tell that to the apathetic owner who is hiding behind the curtain of shame!

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

That's not logical. You can always move centers to wing. Also, savoie isn't a center at the NHL level impo.

Rosen isn't a center either. Drafting 4 centers aka 4 forwards is fine. 

Kulich wasn’t a center in Rochester either, but he is now in Buffalo.  Ok, so they drafted 4 first round forwards in two seasons   

My point is would trading one or two picks for players in their prime have been better?  I think it would have been. 

[Carmel Corn]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

That's not logical. You can always move centers to wing. Also, savoie isn't a center at the NHL level impo.

Rosen isn't a center either. Drafting 4 centers aka 4 forwards is fine. 

IMHO - Of the 4, I think only 1 of them is actually a natural play-making center (Östlund).

[DarthEbriate]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

That's not logical. You can always move centers to wing. Also, savoie isn't a center at the NHL level impo.

Rosen isn't a center either. Drafting 4 centers aka 4 forwards is fine. 

Drafting four 18-year-old forwards is fine as long as they're the best player available (or the highest rated on their board - because the BPA is debatable even years later). They can always be traded later or someone else can be moved if the pick hits.

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

I largely agree. When you consider though that they already had Tuch, Thompson, Mittelstadt, and Cozens in the NHL and that they had already used high picks on Quinn, Peterka, Rosen, Poltapov, and Kisakov, the logic starts to breakdown. Obviously not all picks are going to hit, but if you are using that many top picks on skilled forwards, at some point you need to move some of them to fill roster holes. Adams would argue, I’m sure, that he has done this with the Byram and McLeod trades (I’m fine with the value in each case, but still don’t like the logic on the Mittelstadt deal). He has not begun to scratch the surface though of the deals he needs to make. In my opinion, 3-4 of the forwards we drafted in rounds 1-2 after 2019, need to be dealt to fill existing roster holes. We are 1-2 years late on this actually. Such trades would also create some oxygen for our later rd picks like Sardarian, Marjala, Neuchev, Richard, and Miedema, all who are thriving but are mere afterthoughts. Better to risk trading a kid who goes on to be a star, than to let 7-8 rot on the vine. 

You wanna play this game then who would you have picked? Personally the only one that I think is obvious, is I would have skipped Savoie and drafted Mintyukov. But both of your arguments make no sense at all. Who cares about having Tuch, Thompson, and Mittelstadt? It takes 2-3 years at the earliest for even first round picks to make an NHL impact. Your argument has no logic behind it other than "but we had drafted other forwards" which is like... well yea, we also have 2 first overall defenders and a 4th overall defender. Why would we be wasting high picks on more LHD? What would you have drafted there? Not centers? Wingers? I don't even understand your argument because it is so illogical. 

Maybe 1 of the bolded players will be an NHL regular. Sardarian has 26pts in 20 NCAA games which is his 3rd season. He'll be 22 in 1 month. Marjala has 33pts in 32 games in Liiga, he's another guy about to be 22. Those numbers from both look like 3rd or maybe 4th line guys after you get them a full AHL season. Neuchev is interesting as he looks decent in the AHL but is yet another guy a year or more away from the NHL. Richard maybe is a middle 6 winger in another 2-3 years. Miedema is an overager in the OHL so unless he puts up historic numbers, idc. He has AHL tweener written all over him. He maxes out at a 3rd line 30pt winger probably, that's on the high end. 

But again, this makes your argument even less logical. We shouldn't draft forwards high because we have too many and it hurts the forwards we drafted lower? What ? You draft talent and then trade for what you don't have. Also, this completely ignores the fact there are 12 forward spots and only 6 defense slots, 3 of which are taken by 1st overall, 1st overall, and 4th overall players. Also also, if these guys you claim might be good, why can't we trade them to an org where they will get "oxygen" if they are valuable? You think NHL gms go "oh man Neuchev looks really good but like he was drafted later than Östlund so we can't trade for him". 

SO my final question is, are you seriously arguing that Buffalo should have drafted fewer forwards and more defenders high? Granted this ignores the Kleber, Strbak, McCarthy picks or the Novikov and Komarov (if his skating improves) that are in the system. 

10 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

Drafting four 18-year-old forwards is fine as long as they're the best player available (or the highest rated on their board - because the BPA is debatable even years later). They can always be traded later or someone else can be moved if the pick hits.

Exactly, which is why you trade Savoie and draft Helenius. 

[LGR4GM]

18 minutes ago, Carmel Corn said:

IMHO - Of the 4, I think only 1 of them is actually a natural play-making center (Östlund).

Probably. Savoie is a winger in the NHL IMPO. Kulich is known for his shot not his playmaking, Östlund certainly is a playmaker. Rosen is a winger. 

Really you are looking at Helenius and Östlund as 2-way playmaking centers. That's about it in the system. 

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

Kulich wasn’t a center in Rochester either, but he is now in Buffalo.  Ok, so they drafted 4 first round forwards in two seasons   

My point is would trading one or two picks for players in their prime have been better?  I think it would have been. 

Sure but you can't trade a 1st round pick for really good NHL players. You have to add these days. It's why trading for McLeod makes sense, you can trade a former 1st round pick for that. 

In 2021 they should have drafted Cossa IMPO but Rosen wasn't much of a reach, the next defender to go is Ceulemans and then Lambos 10 picks later. Are we arguing Buffalo should have drafted a defender instead of Rosen? In 2022 the biggest ***** up was taking Leinonen when Noah Warren, Luca Del Bel Belluz and Seamus Casey were all still on the board. Also missed out on Tristan Luneau. 2023, you take Benson and punch old ladies on the way to the stage to do it. I don't here anyone complaining about Wahlberg in the 2nd and then we take a defender in Strbak. I think I can argue that Andrew Gibson would have been a doog pick but Detroit got him before we picked again and Wahlberg is probably the better choice. Sabres take another defender in McCarthy in the 3rd. 

Really since Buffalo got their drafting in order in 2022, they haven't done much that is awful, except Leinonen, that was stupid. They have drafted a decent mix of forawrds and defense. They also seem to realize the truth of the matter which is good "stay at home" (hate that term because it isn't how the NHL works in 2025) defenders can be found quite easily in rounds 2 and 3 but goal scoring forwards basically only come from the top of the draft.