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

[Flashsabre]

 

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

McLeod is giving you more goals than Cozens right now. At the same time he's way better defensively. 

I doubt it. Now you're asking for 2 centers, 1 middle 6 and 1 top 6. Idk how you trade for both. 1, sure I could see that. 

I really don't understand your McLeod hate. Guys done everything asked of him. It's a fairly indefensible position to suggest we shouldn't sign RFA McLeod and it's honestly bizarre to double down on it. He's a net positive for this team and for all the faceoff ppl, he wins those. 

He is having a career best scoring season so far. Yeah!  Lets say he finishes with 45 points.  How much are you paying for a career year?  How many years?  5-6 years $4.5 mill a season.  How do a I know this is a career year?  Just look at this shooting %.  It's 21.3 this season.  His other 3 seasons, 11, 14.1, 11.3.  This isn't Sam Reinhart.  Alarm Bells should be ringing.  Talk about a contract that won't look good sooner than later as this player doesn't drive offense as you freely admit and there is no way he'll sustain a 20%+ shooting %.  Are you really going to pay your 3rd line center, whose play got him demoted to the 4th line for weeks $4.5 a season?  How do I know that's what KA will give him if he hits 45 pts?  Because Adams always overpays.  No bargain allowed except ELCs.  

So why am I against McLeod, because I've seen enough lousy play from him to realize that he's wildly inconsistent and I fear another terrible contract being given to a guy off a career year.  

If you don't think this is a justified concern lets take Cozens for example:  Shooting % by season  6.5, 8.1, 14.7, 9, 10.4.  Guess which season Adams gave Cozens his long-term $7 mill a season deal? The off-season after the 14.7 season.  

[LGR4GM]

8 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

He is having a career best scoring season so far. Yeah!  Lets say he finishes with 45 points.  How much are you paying for a career year?  How many years?  5-6 years $4.5 mill a season.  How do a I know this is a career year?  Just look at this shooting %.  It's 21.3 this season.  His other 3 seasons, 11, 14.1, 11.3.  This isn't Sam Reinhart.  Alarm Bells should be ringing.  Talk about a contract that won't look good sooner than later as this player doesn't drive offense as you freely admit and there is no way he'll sustain a 20%+ shooting %.  Are you really going to pay your 3rd line center, whose play got him demoted to the 4th line for weeks $4.5 a season?  How do I know that's what KA will give him if he hits 45 pts?  Because Adams always overpays.  No bargain allowed except ELCs.  

So why am I against McLeod, because I've seen enough lousy play from him to realize that he's wildly inconsistent and I fear another terrible contract being given to a guy off a career year.  

If you don't think this is a justified concern lets take Cozens for example:  Shooting % by season  6.5, 8.1, 14.7, 9, 10.4.  Guess which season Adams gave Cozens his long-term $7 mill a season deal? The off-season after the 14.7 season.  

But you're arguing two different things. 

1. Don't sign him at all

2. Don't sign him for x based on a career year

That said, 4 yrs at 4.5 million actually sounds reasonable. He's probably having a career year in goals but you also need a 40pt 3rd line center. 

[Broken Ankles]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

He is having a career best scoring season so far. Yeah!  Lets say he finishes with 45 points.  How much are you paying for a career year?  How many years?  5-6 years $4.5 mill a season.  

Coyle, Karlsson, Compher, Pageau, Danault (originally brought in as #2, dropped to 3C), Mittlestadt, Lundell all 3Cs making around $5M and over.  If he signs for 5 at $4.5 it will be one hell of a 3C AAV in 2030.  I know, Karlsson and Lundell are more than 40 pt players.  What about Lars Eller?  He’s in the dictionary under 3C.  He signed a 6 year deal in 2018 for $3.5m.  Roughly 4.5% of cap.  A $4- 4.5M deal would be about the same in 2025-26 cap. And Lars never achieved a 40 point season with the Caps in those six years.  I hope KA is fired as well, but I would bet dollars to donuts the new GM offers McCloud a multi year extension if he continues to play well and doesn’t disappear for weeks at a time. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

4 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

Coyle, Karlsson, Compher, Pageau, Danault (originally brought in as #2, dropped to 3C), Mittlestadt, Lundell all 3Cs making around $5M and over.  If he signs for 5 at $4.5 it will be one hell of a 3C AAV in 2030.  I know, Karlsson and Lundell are more than 40 pt players.  What about Lars Eller?  He’s in the dictionary under 3C.  He signed a 6 year deal in 2018 for $3.5m.  Roughly 4.5% of cap.  A $4- 4.5M deal would be about the same in 2025-26 cap. And Lars never achieved a 40 point season with the Caps in those six years.  I hope KA is fired as well, but I would bet dollars to donuts the new GM offers McCloud a multi year extension if he continues to play well and doesn’t disappear for weeks at a time. 

So because Lars Eller was a poor signing we should make a similar deal with McLeod? 

I won't re-sign McLeod at all because he is wilding inconsistent and doesn't drive offense.  I concede that given our lack of centers, my wish is unlikely to come true.   

However giving a long-term extension to a wilding inconsistent center who doesn't drive offense and is having a career year is a contract we are destine to regret.  At most I'd give him 3 years and certainly not more than 3.75 per season.  He just isn't worth it.

[LGR4GM]

7 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

So because Lars Eller was a poor signing we should make a similar deal with McLeod? 

I won't re-sign McLeod at all because he is wilding inconsistent and doesn't drive offense.  I concede that given our lack of centers, my wish is unlikely to come true.   

However giving a long-term extension to a wilding inconsistent center who doesn't drive offense and is having a career year is a contract we are destine to regret.  At most I'd give him 3 years and certainly not more than 3.75 per season.  He just isn't worth it.

He drives defense though. He isn't a positive defensive player by accident and he uses that to create rush offense. He might not be driving shots for but he does prevent shots against. You allow McLeod to work with a playmaker at wing and have a good middle 6 line. 

I wish we had Porter Martone because he'd worked well with McLeod due to the playmaker and rush ability. 

[LTS]

8 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

So because Lars Eller was a poor signing we should make a similar deal with McLeod? 

I won't re-sign McLeod at all because he is wilding inconsistent and doesn't drive offense.  I concede that given our lack of centers, my wish is unlikely to come true.   

However giving a long-term extension to a wilding inconsistent center who doesn't drive offense and is having a career year is a contract we are destine to regret.  At most I'd give him 3 years and certainly not more than 3.75 per season.  He just isn't worth it.

I don't see wildly inconsistent. He might currently be enjoying that higher shooting percentage but until the end of the season comes around it's hard to know how it will all play out there.

I see a player who is second on the team in +/- who wins more than 50% FO, 6th in scoring and a great penalty killer. I don't think McLeod is just having a career contract year. I think he's just a 25 year old player who's putting it together.

I'd sign him. I wouldn't even consider not.

[JohnC]

11 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

He is having a career best scoring season so far. Yeah!  Lets say he finishes with 45 points.  How much are you paying for a career year?  How many years?  5-6 years $4.5 mill a season.  How do a I know this is a career year?  Just look at this shooting %.  It's 21.3 this season.  His other 3 seasons, 11, 14.1, 11.3.  This isn't Sam Reinhart.  Alarm Bells should be ringing.  Talk about a contract that won't look good sooner than later as this player doesn't drive offense as you freely admit and there is no way he'll sustain a 20%+ shooting %.  Are you really going to pay your 3rd line center, whose play got him demoted to the 4th line for weeks $4.5 a season?  How do I know that's what KA will give him if he hits 45 pts?  Because Adams always overpays.  No bargain allowed except ELCs.  

So why am I against McLeod, because I've seen enough lousy play from him to realize that he's wildly inconsistent and I fear another terrible contract being given to a guy off a career year.  

If you don't think this is a justified concern lets take Cozens for example:  Shooting % by season  6.5, 8.1, 14.7, 9, 10.4.  Guess which season Adams gave Cozens his long-term $7 mill a season deal? The off-season after the 14.7 season.  

The issue with McCleod is more about what his contract will be than about him as a player. I wouldn't want to sign him for 5-6 year term, at whatever price, but would be interested in him with a 3-4 year term. It seems to me that @LGR4GM is on the right track with a 3-4 yr term at $4.5 M. I see him as a 3C. If you want to get more production out of him then bring in another player or two who will upgrade the lower line he would be on. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

Fairburn of the Athletic reviews all of Adams trades for the last 5 years.  https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6132221/2025/02/13/sabres-kevyn-adams-trade-rating/

Here is his list of trades with a positive impact

1) McLeod and Tullio for Savoie  - Possible long-term answer of 3C job.

2) Mitts for Byram - Mitts struggling in Colo and Byram on our top pair, but needs a new contract.

3) Greenway for a 2nd & a 5th - reliable contributor when healthy, but hasn't exceeded his career high 32 points.  UFA.

Big trades that aged poorly

1) Eichel for Tuch, Krebs, a 1st (Östlund) & a 2nd (used to help acquire Greenway).  Eichel has a Cup and is a two way star.  Tuch has been good but not Eichel and the rest have had little impact

2) Reinhart for a 1st (Kulich) and Levi - Reinhart is a star and a Cup winner.  Kulich and Levi still have significant potential but....

3) Montour for a 3rd (Sardarian) - Montour has a Cup and is now a top tier D, while Sardarian may never play for the Sabres

Big trades that sucked

1) Hall & Lazar for Bjork and 2nd (Kisakov) - so basically Hall traded for nothing

2) Johansson for Staal and then Staal for a 3rd (Bloom - since traded for Stillman) and a 5th (Marjala - who returned to Finland) 

Trades that might still work out

1) Risto for Hagg, a 1st (Rosen), and a 2nd (Wahlberg) - Two prospect who still can make an impact in Buffalo

Smaller trades that didn't make an impact

1) Lyubushkin for a 2025 4th - Lost a physical RHD which we could certainly use

2) Bloom for Stillman - Was supposed to help with physical play. LOL, played 18 games and then Rochester in year 2.  

3) Malenstyn for a 2nd (Cole Hutson) - Malenstyn playing 4 minutes a night less in Buffalo than Washington. A 2nd was a steep price to pay for such a player

4) Robinson for a 7th - Having a career best season for Carolina

Smaller deals that could help the Sabres.

1) Portillo for a 3rd (Gavin McCarthy) - McCarthy is still in college

2) Butcher & a 5th (Komarov) for Future Considerations - Butcher sucked in Buffalo, but Komarov has developed into a decent prospect

3) Jonas Johansson for a 6th (Novikov) - Johansson has played in the NHL and sometimes well, but Novikov has developed into a decent prospect with a shot at the NHL

Conclusion

Quote

Adams has some hits, particularly with his recent trades for Byram and McLeod. But the big misses with Eichel and Reinhart are still a stain on his record. What this also shows is that Adams hasn’t made enough truly impactful trades to reshape the Sabres’ roster over the last few seasons. Most of what he has done was around the fringes of the roster. He’s gotten decent value in draft pick trades but hasn’t added enough NHL talent to supplement the young core in recent years. He also hasn’t made a trade since the summer while the Sabres season has slipped away.

My bottomline, even the 3 "decent" trades have not really improved the team.  Greenway, who I like, is oft injured.  McLeod is having his best season, but the Sabres were a better team with Mitts in the role. Byram has shown significant improvement this season, but still is a defensive liability, and is going to cost a large extension. Despite these "good" moves the Sabres have gone from just missing the playoffs to the bottom of the Eastern standings.  

Now add that Adams has failed to support the team over the last 3 seasons in season and has never truly fixed any of the real issues with his roster, I'd say all of these moves are failed moves.

[Archie Lee]

8 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Fairburn of the Athletic reviews all of Adams trades for the last 5 years.  https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6132221/2025/02/13/sabres-kevyn-adams-trade-rating/

Here is his list of trades with a positive impact

1) McLeod and Tullio for Savoie  - Possible long-term answer of 3C job.

2) Mitts for Byram - Mitts struggling in Colo and Byram on our top pair, but needs a new contract.

3) Greenway for a 2nd & a 5th - reliable contributor when healthy, but hasn't exceeded his career high 32 points.  UFA.

Big trades that aged poorly

1) Eichel for Tuch, Krebs, a 1st (Östlund) & a 2nd (used to help acquire Greenway).  Eichel has a Cup and is a two way star.  Tuch has been good but not Eichel and the rest have had little impact

2) Reinhart for a 1st (Kulich) and Levi - Reinhart is a star and a Cup winner.  Kulich and Levi still have significant potential but....

3) Montour for a 3rd (Sardarian) - Montour has a Cup and is now a top tier D, while Sardarian may never play for the Sabres

Big trades that sucked

1) Hall & Lazar for Bjork and 2nd (Kisakov) - so basically Hall traded for nothing

2) Johansson for Staal and then Staal for a 3rd (Bloom - since traded for Stillman) and a 5th (Marjala - who returned to Finland) 

Trades that might still work out

1) Risto for Hagg, a 1st (Rosen), and a 2nd (Wahlberg) - Two prospect who still can make an impact in Buffalo

Smaller trades that didn't make an impact

1) Lyubushkin for a 2025 4th - Lost a physical RHD which we could certainly use

2) Bloom for Stillman - Was supposed to help with physical play. LOL, played 18 games and then Rochester in year 2.  

3) Malenstyn for a 2nd (Cole Hutson) - Malenstyn playing 4 minutes a night less in Buffalo than Washington. A 2nd was a steep price to pay for such a player

4) Robinson for a 7th - Having a career best season for Carolina

Smaller deals that could help the Sabres.

1) Portillo for a 3rd (Gavin McCarthy) - McCarthy is still in college

2) Butcher & a 5th (Komarov) for Future Considerations - Butcher sucked in Buffalo, but Komarov has developed into a decent prospect

3) Jonas Johansson for a 6th (Novikov) - Johansson has played in the NHL and sometimes well, but Novikov has developed into a decent prospect with a shot at the NHL

Conclusion

My bottomline, even the 3 "decent" trades have not really improved the team.  Greenway, who I like, is oft injured.  McLeod is having his best season, but the Sabres were a better team with Mitts in the role. Byram has shown significant improvement this season, but still is a defensive liability, and is going to cost a large extension. Despite these "good" moves the Sabres have gone from just missing the playoffs to the bottom of the Eastern standings.  

Now add that Adams has failed to support the team over the last 3 seasons in season and has never truly fixed any of the real issues with his roster, I'd say all of these moves are failed moves.

I have a little bit of a different view on the outcome of the tear-down trades that saw Hall, Montour, Staal, Risto, Reinhart, and Eichel moved.   Those trades looked at individually, were never going to be wins unless one of two things happened:  1.) The player we traded fell on his face; or 2.) We somehow lucked into a star-level-talent in return.  Both of those outcomes were always unlikely.  Individually, the probability was always high that they would be losses. The point of the teardown was asset acquisition.  You bring in a plethora of top picks and prospects and build an asset-base that eventually feeds your NHL roster through players that develop in your system and through trading those assets for NHL ready players.  Adams did fine with the first part of the plan.  He has failed miserably after that.

I think that the absolute and utter failure of this season has cast a shadow of complete failure on Adams and his plan.  I think that in many ways that conclusion is justified. The bottom-line is that in his 5th year at the helm, when the team should be at it's highest level of performance during his tenure, we are playing as badly as we have under him (post-Krueger).  He owns that.  Completely.  He should be fired. The sooner the better.  But, it should not be overlooked that in April 2023 we missed the playoffs by one point, with one of the 2-3 youngest rosters in the NHL, and while having a top 5 rated prospect pool. Adams's failing was not in the tear-down and was not with the assets he acquired in that period.  His failure came from falling in love with those picks and prospects and not proactively moving the team forward when it was obvious to anyone paying attention that it was time to do so. As a GM, his failing is not in the moves and trades that he made, but in those he failed and refused to make.

 

[thewookie1]

9 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Fairburn of the Athletic reviews all of Adams trades for the last 5 years.  https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6132221/2025/02/13/sabres-kevyn-adams-trade-rating/

Here is his list of trades with a positive impact

1) McLeod and Tullio for Savoie  - Possible long-term answer of 3C job.

2) Mitts for Byram - Mitts struggling in Colo and Byram on our top pair, but needs a new contract.

3) Greenway for a 2nd & a 5th - reliable contributor when healthy, but hasn't exceeded his career high 32 points.  UFA.

Big trades that aged poorly

1) Eichel for Tuch, Krebs, a 1st (Östlund) & a 2nd (used to help acquire Greenway).  Eichel has a Cup and is a two way star.  Tuch has been good but not Eichel and the rest have had little impact

2) Reinhart for a 1st (Kulich) and Levi - Reinhart is a star and a Cup winner.  Kulich and Levi still have significant potential but....

3) Montour for a 3rd (Sardarian) - Montour has a Cup and is now a top tier D, while Sardarian may never play for the Sabres

Big trades that sucked

1) Hall & Lazar for Bjork and 2nd (Kisakov) - so basically Hall traded for nothing

2) Johansson for Staal and then Staal for a 3rd (Bloom - since traded for Stillman) and a 5th (Marjala - who returned to Finland) 

Trades that might still work out

1) Risto for Hagg, a 1st (Rosen), and a 2nd (Wahlberg) - Two prospect who still can make an impact in Buffalo

Smaller trades that didn't make an impact

1) Lyubushkin for a 2025 4th - Lost a physical RHD which we could certainly use

2) Bloom for Stillman - Was supposed to help with physical play. LOL, played 18 games and then Rochester in year 2.  

3) Malenstyn for a 2nd (Cole Hutson) - Malenstyn playing 4 minutes a night less in Buffalo than Washington. A 2nd was a steep price to pay for such a player

4) Robinson for a 7th - Having a career best season for Carolina

Smaller deals that could help the Sabres.

1) Portillo for a 3rd (Gavin McCarthy) - McCarthy is still in college

2) Butcher & a 5th (Komarov) for Future Considerations - Butcher sucked in Buffalo, but Komarov has developed into a decent prospect

3) Jonas Johansson for a 6th (Novikov) - Johansson has played in the NHL and sometimes well, but Novikov has developed into a decent prospect with a shot at the NHL

Conclusion

My bottomline, even the 3 "decent" trades have not really improved the team.  Greenway, who I like, is oft injured.  McLeod is having his best season, but the Sabres were a better team with Mitts in the role. Byram has shown significant improvement this season, but still is a defensive liability, and is going to cost a large extension. Despite these "good" moves the Sabres have gone from just missing the playoffs to the bottom of the Eastern standings.  

Now add that Adams has failed to support the team over the last 3 seasons in season and has never truly fixed any of the real issues with his roster, I'd say all of these moves are failed moves.

Mostly I agree with Fairburn here; however I do feel the Eichel (asked out) and Reinhart (1 year RFA) should be in some sort of "effective for the circumstance"  

Montour was more a casualty of Krueger's style than anything else.

 

 

Adams tenure, thus far and hopefully not much longer, can be summed up by multiple inconsequential trades with a handful of mediocre outcomes and few that in hindsight hurt our souls. A GM that values his players more than his contemporaries and only has an elementary knowledge of team building. He definitely understands "team building" as a concept unlike Tim Murray but has limited skill to pull off his own goals much less ours.

I picture the following

- Pegula isn't cheap as much as frugal (give him a reason to spend money and he would, he just paid Dahlin 11.5 mil a year and Power over 8mil. The traditionally cheap owner lets players walk upon their first large contract which isn't what's happening here)

- Pegula likes to be involved in the information, scouting, etc meetings when possible. (What fan wouldn't?)

- Adams either lacks the confidence or skill to convince Pegula of spending to the cap on players. (Or worse, he himself doesn't feel the need to)

Essentially I think Pegula has his checkbook on the table and Adams for some reason just never asks for its use or else can't give legitimate reasoning for its use.

One theory in regards to staffing would be Adams used inefficiencies and wastefulness as a primary point for why Botts needed to be fired. If you tell someone 10 scouts are inefficient, I can do better with 8 upon hiring; how exactly do you then a couple years later ask for more scouts without effectively undercutting your own perceived competence?   

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

I have a little bit of a different view on the outcome of the tear-down trades that saw Hall, Montour, Staal, Risto, Reinhart, and Eichel moved.   Those trades looked at individually, were never going to be wins unless one of two things happened:  1.) The player we traded fell on his face; or 2.) We somehow lucked into a star-level-talent in return.  Both of those outcomes were always unlikely.  Individually, the probability was always high that they would be losses. The point of the teardown was asset acquisition.  You bring in a plethora of top picks and prospects and build an asset-base that eventually feeds your NHL roster through players that develop in your system and through trading those assets for NHL ready players.  Adams did fine with the first part of the plan.  He has failed miserably after that.

I think that the absolute and utter failure of this season has cast a shadow of complete failure on Adams and his plan.  I think that in many ways that conclusion is justified. The bottom-line is that in his 5th year at the helm, when the team should be at it's highest level of performance during his tenure, we are playing as badly as we have under him (post-Krueger).  He owns that.  Completely.  He should be fired. The sooner the better.  But, it should not be overlooked that in April 2023 we missed the playoffs by one point, with one of the 2-3 youngest rosters in the NHL, and while having a top 5 rated prospect pool. Adams's failing was not in the tear-down and was not with the assets he acquired in that period.  His failure came from falling in love with those picks and prospects and not proactively moving the team forward when it was obvious to anyone paying attention that it was time to do so. As a GM, his failing is not in the moves and trades that he made, but in those he failed and refused to make.

 

We didn’t have to make those trades. 

It’s like people take the fact we had to long form rebuild as set in stone. It was not. Eichel asked to be traded only after he got wind of Adams wanting to build thst way. Reinhart said he was open to a LT deal (under Adams). He owns the result because the deals themselves were a choice not an imposed handcuff. They are *professionals*. Their job is to convince them to stay. Remember when we were going to trade for Hellebuyck? Cheveldayoff sorted it out and signed him long term instead weighing a rebuild unwise 

[SwampD]

12 minutes ago, Thorner said:

We didn’t have to make those trades. 

It’s like people take the fact we had to long form rebuild as set in stone. It was not. Eichel asked to be traded only after he got wind of Adams wanting to build thst way. Reinhart said he was open to a LT deal (under Adams). He owns the result because the deals themselves were a choice not an imposed handcuff. They are *professionals*. Their job is to convince them to stay. Remember when we were going to trade for Hellebuyck? Cheveldayoff sorted it out and signed him long term instead weighing a rebuild unwise 

Adams ***** sucks.

[Archie Lee]

4 hours ago, Thorner said:

We didn’t have to make those trades. 

It’s like people take the fact we had to long form rebuild as set in stone. It was not. Eichel asked to be traded only after he got wind of Adams wanting to build thst way. Reinhart said he was open to a LT deal (under Adams). He owns the result because the deals themselves were a choice not an imposed handcuff. They are *professionals*. Their job is to convince them to stay. Remember when we were going to trade for Hellebuyck? Cheveldayoff sorted it out and signed him long term instead weighing a rebuild unwise 

I completely agree. There is a world where a different “new” GM has one meeting with Ralph Krueger and goes to Pegula and says the first thing I’m doing is firing this phoney.  Then I’m hiring a real coach.  Then I’m extending Reinhart and Ullmark and telling Eichel to go have his surgery.  

My point is not to defend the decision to tear things down. 

But, if Adams manages things properly starting in June 2023, I don’t think we are having this discussion.

If we break it down to three questions:  

1) Did the tear down need to happen?  No, it didn’t.

2) Was the tear down managed well?  Sure, but that was always going to be the easy part. 

3) Have things been managed well since making the playoffs has been a reasonable expectation?  Not close. Disastrously bad. 

[LGR4GM]

List all the top 6 forwards Adams has added to the organization since becoming GM. These are players who would be top 6 players on a playoff team, not Krebs or even Benson who occasionally play top 6.

I have Tuch. I suppose we can count Zucker and Peterka maybe. 

[thewookie1]

59 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

List all the top 6 forwards Adams has added to the organization since becoming GM. These are players who would be top 6 players on a playoff team, not Krebs or even Benson who occasionally play top 6.

I have Tuch. I suppose we can count Zucker and Peterka maybe. 

Tuch, Zucker more or less

 

Technically Staal and Hall were supposed to be Top 6 Forwards

 

I don’t like counting prospects only because it falls in a different skill set than acquisitions 

[Thorner]

5 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

I completely agree. There is a world where a different “new” GM has one meeting with Ralph Krueger and goes to Pegula and says the first thing I’m doing is firing this phoney.  Then I’m hiring a real coach.  Then I’m extending Reinhart and Ullmark and telling Eichel to go have his surgery.  

My point is not to defend the decision to tear things down. 

But, if Adams manages things properly starting in June 2023, I don’t think we are having this discussion.

If we break it down to three questions:  

1) Did the tear down need to happen?  No, it didn’t.

2) Was the tear down managed well?  Sure, but that was always going to be the easy part. 

3) Have things been managed well since making the playoffs has been a reasonable expectation?  Not close. Disastrously bad. 

Well said. 2) was indeed when the hype was grandest: Adams was the toast of the town for a while when Tuch stripped Eichel. He was, as you say, excelling at the easy part 

[GASabresIUFAN]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

List all the top 6 forwards Adams has added to the organization since becoming GM. These are players who would be top 6 players on a playoff team, not Krebs or even Benson who occasionally play top 6.

I have Tuch. I suppose we can count Zucker and Peterka maybe. 

Since rebuild 3.0 started and outside of draft picks Tuch is the only one and he gave up a top line center to get him.  Byram is the only top 4 defenseman he has acquired and he gave up a top 6 forward to get him.  

Zucker is a 3rd line forward on a good team.  McLeod is probably a 3rd/4th line center on most playoff teams.    Greenway is also a 3rd/4th line player on good playoff teams.   Everyone else he acquired are 4th line/bottom pair players or AAAA players.

Since he came to Buffalo, Adams has let an all-star goalie walk (Ullmark).  Traded away a top line all-star center (Eichel), a top line all-star winger (Reinhart), a top pair D (Montour) and a top 6 forward (Mitts).  He has only arguably replaced Montour with Byram.  Eichel and Reinhart are on the top lines for their countries in the 4 nations tournament.  Ullmark is also representing Sweden.  

Edited February 15 by GASabresIUFAN

[JohnC]

23 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

I have a little bit of a different view on the outcome of the tear-down trades that saw Hall, Montour, Staal, Risto, Reinhart, and Eichel moved.   Those trades looked at individually, were never going to be wins unless one of two things happened:  1.) The player we traded fell on his face; or 2.) We somehow lucked into a star-level-talent in return.  Both of those outcomes were always unlikely.  Individually, the probability was always high that they would be losses. The point of the teardown was asset acquisition.  You bring in a plethora of top picks and prospects and build an asset-base that eventually feeds your NHL roster through players that develop in your system and through trading those assets for NHL ready players.  Adams did fine with the first part of the plan.  He has failed miserably after that.

I think that the absolute and utter failure of this season has cast a shadow of complete failure on Adams and his plan.  I think that in many ways that conclusion is justified. The bottom-line is that in his 5th year at the helm, when the team should be at it's highest level of performance during his tenure, we are playing as badly as we have under him (post-Krueger).  He owns that.  Completely.  He should be fired. The sooner the better.  But, it should not be overlooked that in April 2023 we missed the playoffs by one point, with one of the 2-3 youngest rosters in the NHL, and while having a top 5 rated prospect pool. Adams's failing was not in the tear-down and was not with the assets he acquired in that period.  His failure came from falling in love with those picks and prospects and not proactively moving the team forward when it was obvious to anyone paying attention that it was time to do so. As a GM, his failing is not in the moves and trades that he made, but in those he failed and refused to make.

 

Your last sentence is a concise and indictable description of KA's tenure as a GM. There are different stages in a rebuild, especially a nearly complete tear down. He didn't understand where he was on that spectrum or simply misjudged (over-rated) and miscast the roster he had on hand. He was in the fifth year of the gruesome rebuild course that he established when he was given the reigns by the owner. The rebuild blueprint was set and was being executed. Last offseason, he had the assets and cap room to make some enhancing deals that would have accelerated the roster reconstruction. He simply didn't have the imagination and fortitude to make enough roster moves to solidify the roster that he had on hand. I strongly believe that if he would have parlayed some of the bountiful assets that he had on hand within the system (players, draft picks, prospects and cap space) this last offseason, the discussion about this team would be so different. The sabotaging trait for this GM was that he was too passive when there were opportunities to seize. (As you point out.) So this "could have and should have" scenario played out that he "didn't".