Did Tim Murray destroy our rebuild?

[Icicle]

You just summed up perfectly what he said. Majority liked when Regier was fired. Majority liked when Lafontaine was brought in. Majority liked the Murray hire. Majority sided with Murray over Lafontaine. Majority liked going for Babcock. Majority liked hiring Bylsma. Yeah, in hindsight these all look like complete disasters, but the majority of fans loved these things when they happened.

I get your point, but I'd contest that a majority of fans did not like the Bylsma hiring when it happened. Anyone and everyone knew a Pens fan who told them to steer clear and Bylsma didn't taken long to show exactly why.

 

[Chainshot]

The impulsivity of the LaFontaine hire too has never sat well with me. They hired someone with no experience conducting a GM search, conducted a GM search and then the guy resigns due to a clash with the GM he supposedly went out to hire? Something was not right there. Then Black sort of slips away into the night after putting himself very forward at the beginning of the ownership change... also a head scratcher. Too many moves that seem like they weren't thought through and now we're still in this terrible holding pattern and there are still voids in the hockey department that need handling. If Botterill can right this ship, he'll win an executive of the year award.

 

[dotcommunism]

I think hindsight is a reductive way of describing things. Looking back at what happened and just seeing the results, and deciding they were bad decisions based on that, that's hindsight. But it's different to look back and re-evaluate things looking at the bigger picture. Pegula's been around long enough that he doesn't necessarily get the benefit of the doubt the way he used to. So things that might have been red flags that previously got ignored don't anymore. Especially when we see the same recurring patterns in the management of both the Sabres and the Bills.

Sure there's some hindsight involved, cleaning house to bring in Lafontaine certainly looks worse when he's out the door less than four months later, but there's more to it than that.

 

[1972]

Not getting a legitimate NHL bonified star after tanking an entire season in 2014 is on Tim Murray, he had to get that pick right and he didn’t. Then in 2016 he gets that pick wrong again, if he got those two moves right I think we’re in a very different position today.

 

[Jim Bob]

Not getting a legitimate NHL bonified star after tanking an entire season in 2014 is on Tim Murray, he had to get that pick right and he didn’t. Then in 2017 he gets that pick wrong again, if he got those two moves right I think we’re in a very different position today.

Murray didn't make a pick in 2017 and even if he took LD in 2014, that doesn't change a lot.

 

[joshjull]

Yep. You can make as many changes as you want on your team, be it with the head coach or with players, but unless Pegula changes his approach to this organization's leadership structure and giving his trust to an experienced Hockey Management Personnel team, then you will see the same mediocre results we've seen under his ownership. The team itself may get a few more wins here and there and fans may get a little happy, but this team is not structured for short term success with the state of the team's leadership, nor is it built for long term consistent success.

I think they finally got it right with our last GM search interviewing a lot of quality of candidates and then hiring Botts. IIRC the NHL was involved recommending options.

Botts had 11 years experience in scouting, player development, contract negotiations and cap management with one of the more successful franchises in the NHL. But a big reason I'm excited we landed him was his role in changing how the Pens developed their players. Its something he talked about after his hiring. That the Pens felt their development of talent had not been working effectively and they needed to make changes. He said it took a few years but they got it right as evidenced by the amount of players that have come up and helped them the last couple years.

He also understands it takes a strong management team as evidenced by the guys he brought in and more may follow. One example is getting an experienced GM for the Amerks. Sexton has built AHL teams before and so far the work there looks very encouraging. Because at the end of the day the life blood of our franchise will be our ability to find talent (draft, college UFAs, etc) and then develop it. That will give us the quality and quantity of depth needed to support the core of this team by developing NHLers or quality assets that can be traded for what we need. This is something Murray never addressed in any meaningful way.

 

[Jame]

I think they finally got it right with our last GM search interviewing a lot of quality of candidates and then hiring Botts. IIRC the NHL was involved recommending options.

Botts had 11 years experience in scouting, player development, contract negotiations and cap management with one of the more successful franchises in the NHL. But a big reason I'm excited we landed him was his role in changing how the Pens developed their players. Its something he talked about after his hiring. That the Pens felt their development of talent had not been working effectively and they needed to make changes. He said it took a few years but they got it right as evidenced by the amount of players that have come up and helped them the last couple years.

He also understands it takes a strong management team as evidenced by the guys he brought in and more may follow. One example is getting an experienced GM for the Amerks. Sexton has built AHL teams before and so far the work there looks very encouraging. Because at the end of the day the life blood of our franchise will be our ability to find talent (draft, college UFAs, etc) and then develop it. That will give us the quality and quantity of depth needed to support the core of this team by developing NHLers or quality assets that can be traded for what we need. This is something Murray never addressed in any meaningful way.

That is certainly the "half glass full" side. And I agree with all of it.

However, if Botts gets the NHL side wrong (Housley)... and the core continues to rot from the incompetence coaching it.... well, you can feed all the lifeblood you want in to a dead body, and it's not gonna do anything.

 

[joshjull]

That is certainly the "half glass full" side. And I agree with all of it.

However, if Botts gets the NHL side wrong (Housley)... and the core continues to rot from the incompetence coaching it.... well, you can feed all the lifeblood you want in to a dead body, and it's not gonna do anything.

Fair enough.

Though I would argue part of the problem may be with the Murray core itself (being generous in my interpretation of the core to include the vet group Murray brought in) as well as the overall team construction. All fixable by removing some and adding to whats left but it will take time. I agree this is a key task for Botts. And no I don't mean trade ROR before you ask. Removing guys like Kane and adding better quality dmen are examples of a good start. Preferably with guys that have winning experience and are good to great locker room guys.

I agree that the reinforcements from the minors are not going to fix things by themselves. But they can help transition away from certain players. Like say CJ Smith developing to the point that he could be a viable option to replace Kane or Guhle becoming a legit top 4 option down the line. Not saying these specific things happen this year, just using as examples. But down the road developing more and more of these options in the minors gives us more flexibility with addressing issues on the NHL roster.

A good start was the recent shakeup that saw Mouslon leave the organization, the acquisition of Wilson and the call ups of first Fasching and then Erod to replace the underperforming Griffith and Moulson.

 

[Sabre the Win]

I think the scouts of Buffalo are the true reasons our rebuild is destroyed. These are the players we should see contribution from. The 2014 draft jury can still be out on some but I think we know what we have with those who are left in the system.

2014 Entry	2	1	Sam Reinhart	C	Kootenay Ice [WHL]	197	45	56	101	24
2014 Entry	31	2	Brendan Lemieux	L	Barrie Colts [OHL]	7	1	0	1	19
2014 Entry	44	2	Eric Cornel	R	Peterborough Petes [OHL]
2014 Entry	49	2	Vaclav Karabacek	R	Gatineau Olympiques [QMJHL]
2014 Entry	61	3	Jonas Johansson	G	Brynas (Sweden Jrs.)
2014 Entry	74	3	Brycen Martin	D	Swift Current Broncos [WHL]
2014 Entry	121	5	Max Willman	L	Williston-Northampton (Mass. H.S.)
2014 Entry	151	6	Christopher Brown	F	Cranbrook Kingston (Mich. H.S.)
2014 Entry	181	7	Victor Olofsson	R	MODO (Sweden Jrs.)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

2013 Entry	8	1	Rasmus Ristolainen	D	TPS Turku [SM-liiga]	294	25	92	117	131
2013 Entry	16	1	Nikita Zadorov	D	London Knights [OHL]	168	7	26	33	170
2013 Entry	35	2	JT Compher	L	U.S. National Development Team [USHL]	43	7	8	15	16
2013 Entry	38	2	Connor Hurley	C	Edina (Minn. H.S.)
2013 Entry	52	2	Justin Bailey	R	Kitchener Rangers [OHL]	47	4	3	7	8
2013 Entry	69	3	Nick Baptiste	C	Sudbury Wolves [OHL]	18	3	1	4	8
2013 Entry	129	5	Cal Petersen	G	Waterloo Black Hawks [USHL]
2013 Entry	130	5	Gustav Possler	R	Modo Jrs. (Sweden)
2013 Entry	143	5	Anthony Florentino	D	South Kent (Conn. H.S.)
2013 Entry	159	6	Sean Malone	C	U.S. National Development Team [USHL]	1	0	0	0	0
2013 Entry	189	7	Eric Locke	C	Saginaw Spirit [OHL]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

2012 Entry	12	1	Mikhail Grigorenko	C	Quebec Remparts [QMJHL]	217	22	42	64	30
2012 Entry	14	1	Zemgus Girgensons	C	Dubuque Fighting Saints [USHL]	302	38	51	89	83
2012 Entry	44	2	Jake McCabe	D	U. of Wisconsin [WCHA]	192	8	33	41	103
2012 Entry	73	3	Justin Kea	C	Saginaw Spirit [OHL]
2012 Entry	133	5	Logan Nelson	C	Victoria Royals [WHL]
2012 Entry	163	6	Linus Ullmark	G	MODO Jrs. [Sweden]	21	0	0	0	0
2012 Entry	193	7	Brady Austin	D	Belleville Bulls [OHL]	5	0	0	0	4
2012 Entry	204	7	Judd Peterson	R	Duluth Marshall [Minn. H.S.]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

2011 Entry	16	1	Joel Armia	R	Assat Pori [SM-liiga]	128	18	21	39	40
2011 Entry	77	3	Daniel Catenacci	C	Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds [OHL]	11	0	0	0	0
2011 Entry	107	4	Colin Jacobs	C	Seattle Thunderbirds [WHL]
2011 Entry	137	5	Alex Lepkowski	D	Barrie Colts [OHL]
2011 Entry	167	6	Nathan Lieuwen	G	Kootenay Ice [WHL]	7	0	0	0	0
2011 Entry	197	7	Brad Navin	F	Waupaca H.S. (Wisc.)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

2010 Entry	23	1	Mark Pysyk	D	Edmonton Oil Kings [WHL]	236	12	36	48	68
2010 Entry	68	3	Jerome Leduc	D	Rouyn-Noranda Huskies [QMJHL]
2010 Entry	75	3	Kevin Sundher	C	Chilliwack Bruins [WHL]
2010 Entry	83	3	Matt Mackenzie	D	Calgary Hitmen [WHL]
2010 Entry	98	4	Steven Shipley	C	Owen Sound Attack [OHL]
2010 Entry	143	5	Gregg Sutch	R	Mississauga St. Michael's Majors [OHL]
2010 Entry	173	6	Cedrick Henley	L	Val d'Or Foreurs [QMJHL]
2010 Entry	203	7	Christian Isackson	F	St. Thomas H.S. [Minn.]
2010 Entry	208	7	Riley Boychuk	L	Portland Winterhawks [WHL]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Aladyyn]

There are 3 players in the 2014 draft that I could realistically see contributing to this team at some point. Not too shabby if I'm being honest, given how much scorn that draft gets on here.

 

[joshjull]

@Sabre the Win

I'm not getting your point. The scouts didn't do too bad in that chart you have and some of those players left in trades and thats why they're not contributing. Not because the scouts failed to hit on them.

 

[Aladyyn]

I'm not getting your point. The scouts didn't do too bad in that chart you have and some of those players left in trades and thats why they're not contributing. Not because the scouts failed to hit on them.

I think it's important to note the 2010 and 2011 drafts. Players from those draft years are currently in their primes and we have 0 of them on the team. Not that we had nearly enough to begin with.

 

[Jame]

Fair enough.

Though I would argue part of the problem may be with the Murray core itself (being generous in my interpretation of the core to include the vet group Murray brought in) as well as the overall team construction. All fixable by removing some and adding to whats left but it will take time. I agree this is a key task for Botts. And no I don't mean trade ROR before you ask. Removing guys like Kane and adding better quality dmen are examples of a good start. Preferably with guys that have winning experience and are good to great locker room guys.

I agree that the reinforcements from the minors are not going to fix things by themselves. But they can help transition away from certain players. Like say CJ Smith developing to the point that he could be a viable option to replace Kane or Guhle becoming a legit top 4 option down the line. Not saying these specific things happen this year, just using as examples. But down the road developing more and more of these options in the minors gives us more flexibility with addressing issues on the NHL roster.

Agreed. It's a tall order. And without knowing the damage done to the young core.... let's just say I've taken the train to pessimistville...

A good start was the recent shakeup that saw Mouslon leave the organization, the acquisition of Wilson and the call ups of first Fasching and then Erod to replace the underperforming Griffith and Moulson.

You mean.... doing what I said they should've done 6-8 weeks ago... to which you argued against?
I'm sure you recall differently

Scott Wilson was available to start the season. Botts went with Nolan.
Fasching was available to start the season. Botts went with Moulson.

 

[Jame]

I think it's important to note the 2010 and 2011 drafts. Players from those draft years are currently in their primes and we have 0 of them on the team. Not that we had nearly enough to begin with.

small corrections:
Johan Larsson 2010 2nd rounder
Nathan Beaulieu 2011 1st rounder
Scott Wilson 2011 7th rounder
and of course... let's not forget Jason Kasford AND Adam Wilcox 2011 6th rounders

 

[Aladyyn]

small corrections:
Johan Larsson 2010 2nd rounder
Nathan Beaulieu 2011 1st rounder
Scott Wilson 2011 7th rounder
and of course... let's not forget Jason Kasford AND Adam Wilcox 2011 6th rounders

Sure, but those are all players we traded for. Not the same thing.

 

[Sabre the Win]

@Sabre the Win

I'm not getting your point. The scouts didn't do too bad in that chart you have and some of those players left in trades and thats why they're not contributing. Not because the scouts failed to hit on them.

I don't get what you see, 2010 and 2011 were complete busts, Pysyk returned us Kulikov and Asplund, so jury is still out on Asplund so alright theres 1 player that might make the NHL out of 15 players in 2 drafts. Those drafts should be our veterans contributing but we have absolutely none currently contributing and only one is actually contributing anything positively in the NHL elsewhere. In 2012 we have one player on the current roster, sure Grigorenko was a piece that brought in O'Reilly but Girgensons can't find his game or where he belongs, Ullmark needs more time but could be the biggest steal in that draft and McCabe is a tire fire that can't be extinguished. The rest are whatever your opinion is on them. In the 2013 draft we are still praying Bailey and Baptiste can become something because the other guys I wouldn't count on them. Almost 11 picks squandered, thank god we got Risto but hes not our answer at 1D and Zadarov was able to bring us O'Reilly. In 2014 we have Reinhart playing but currently maybe on the outs, who else in that draft do you see making a positive impact in the NHL?

I didn't include 15/16 or 17 since a lot of those kids aren't even signed yet and the jury should be fully out still but if we don't hit on those drafts then we are in for a lot longer of a time suffering. We can't just not hit on picks and then trade for older players. That's not how you rebuild properly.

Even adding in the players we got in trade for some prospects, look at where the Sabres are currently, we aren't even the youngest team in the NHL for a team rebuilding anymore. The drafts and the GM's trades all contributed to a perfect storm and now we are all caught in the middle trying to ride it out.

 

[Jame]

Sure, but those are all players we traded for. Not the same thing.

Yea... but your reference to those players being in their prime, inferred a lack of prime aged players on the roster... (I agree with the premise of the statement)... with turned out two draft classes and wound up with 2 low end NHLers.

Mark Pysyk/Joel Armia
vs
Beaulieu/Larsson

same difference.

 

[joshjull]

Agreed. It's a tall order. And without knowing the damage done to the young core.... let's just say I've taken the train to pessimistville...

Fair enough

You mean.... doing what I said they should've done 6-8 weeks ago... to which you argued against?
I'm sure you recall differently

Scott Wilson was available to start the season. Botts went with Nolan.
Fasching was available to start the season. Botts went with Moulson.

Man thats some tortured logic

1) How on earth can you assume Wilson is available to us at the time Nolan was grabbed off waivers? He started with the Pens and only left them a couple weeks into the season as part of a trade for Riley Sheahan (Were we trading Larsson or Girgs for him?/ If it was Larsson I'm quite confident you would not be pleased). Its far more logical he only became available to us because the Red Wings didn't see him as a fit and wanted to get the 5th back they lost in the initial trade. There is nothing to indicate Wilson could have been had by us to start the season as easily as Nolan was. Its some pretty convoluted logic to assert we went with Nolan off waivers instead of getting Wilson for a 5th.

2) Its also worth noting Botts used the acquisition of Nolan to waive and then trade Des to get Redmond. Many dislike Nolan and IMO are too hard on him. But his add was a free lockerroom guy that also led to an awesome add for the Amerks. That seems like pretty good asset management to me.

3) Fasching should have been sent to the AHL. There is little doubt in my mind that was the right move. He had little pro experience due to injury and needed development time. He started off poorly and finally put a couple strong weeks together leading to the call up. Everything about his development this year was handle as it should be.

4) Erod probably would have made the team if he didn't break his hand and Griffith starts with the Amerks. Nothing could have been done about this unfortunately.

5) I didn't view using Mouslon, Nolan and Griffith as placeholders as an issue then and I don't now because the youngster were either sent where they should have been or were injured (Erod). I've also argued we wouldn't want to waive Mouslon to send him to the Amerks because they were trying to build something there. I got that half right. Erod returning to health and playing great for a couple weeks along with Fasching getting his game rolling for a couple weeks allowed the moves we recently made take place.





I get being frustrated by the placeholder options. I was too. But with Erod hurt and the others needing development its hard to argue the wrong moves were made sending them down. Botts used what we had at hand for placeholders along with Nolan. Plus the issues with this team go well above the placeholders and their play. Many of our top 6 members have struggled and in some cases struggled badly. I might add after these moves and the Avs game we see those struggles continue. More work ahead for our GM. This line of attack from you seems like reaching quite a lot just to bitch about the GM to me.

 

[Jame]

Man thats some tortured logic

1) How on earth can you assume Wilson is available to us at the time Nolan was grabbed off waivers? He started with the Pens and only left them a couple weeks into the season as part of a trade for Riley Sheahan (Were we trading Larsson or Girgs for him?/ If it was Larsson I'm quite confident you would not be pleased). Its far more logical he only became available to us because the Red Wings wanted to get the 5th back they lost in the initial trade. There is little to indicate Wilson could have been had by us to start the season as easily as Nolan was. Its some pretty convoluted logic to assert we went with Nolan off waivers instead of getting Wilson for a 5th.

Because I don't believe he went from "not available" to "available" in the span of 2 weeks....

Riley Sheahan was a cap dump.

Yes, Riley Sheahan was available for free.... thanks Botts.

2) Fasching should have been sent to the AHL. There is little doubt in my mind that was the right move. He had little pro experience due to injury and needed development time. He started off poorly and finally put a couple strong weeks together leading to the call up. Everything about his development this year was handle as it should be.

As long as we phrase it properly. Fasching was given extra development time, at the expense of the Sabres roster.

3) I didn't view using Mouslon, Nolan and Griffith as placeholders as an issue then and I don't now because the youngster were either sent where they should have been or were injured (Erod). I've also argued we wouldn't want to waive Mouslon to send him to the Amerks because they were trying to build something there. I got that half right. Erod returning to health and playing great for a couple weeks along with Fasching getting his game rolling for a couple weeks allowed the moves we recently made take place.

It's funny how easy it is to recognize the value excising incompetence from the lockerroom, but how difficult it is to admit the problems it caused in the first place.

I get being frustrated by the placeholder options. I was too. But with Erod hurt and the others needing development its hard to argue the wrong moves were made sending them down. Plus the issues with this team go well above the placeholders and their play. Many of out top 6 members have struggled and in some cases struggled badly. This seems like reaching just to ***** about the GM to me.

It's not frustration. It's understanding the impact. Everybody recognizes after it's too late.

It shouldn't have taken 10 weeks to remove Moulson.

Fasching and everyone in Rochester were not the only options on this hockey earth. Scott Wilson wasn't the only guy available.

Daniel Winnik was on a PTO...

Botts deserves a ton of credit for what he's done with Rochester. But he failed in handling Buffalo correctly. It's not surprising were his experience lies...

I don't know why this is an argument. Botts chose to go in to the season with Matt Moulson, Seth Griffith, and Jordan Nolan as regulars.... He also kept Gorges around, even though there was a well reported rift between the "old letters" and the "franchise kids".

For everything he's done right in Rochester, he's done the opposite in Buffalo (for now). An experience GM wouldn't have let the lockerroom fester. You want to make Jack the francise? Give him the C, get rid of the Moulson's and Gorges', and build from the foundation you believe in.

Instead... you show a lack of belief... use the season as a mulligan.... and, that's the teams identity now.

 

[dasaybz]

I don't know how much more of this micro analyzing crap I can take. Please Sabres start winning.

 

[Chainshot]

Because I don't believe he went from "not available" to "available" in the span of 2 weeks....

Riley Sheahan was a cap dump.

Yes, Riley Sheahan was available for free.... thanks Botts.



As long as we phrase it properly. Fasching was given extra development time, at the expense of the Sabres roster.



It's funny how easy it is to recognize the value excising incompetence from the lockerroom, but how difficult it is to admit the problems it caused in the first place.




It's not frustration. It's understanding the impact. Everybody recognizes after it's too late.

It shouldn't have taken 10 weeks to remove Moulson.

Fasching and everyone in Rochester were not the only options on this hockey earth. Scott Wilson wasn't the only guy available.

Daniel Winnik was on a PTO...

Botts deserves a ton of credit for what he's done with Rochester. But he failed in handling Buffalo correctly. It's not surprising were his experience lies...

I don't know why this is an argument. Botts chose to go in to the season with Matt Moulson, Seth Griffith, and Jordan Nolan as regulars.... He also kept Gorges around, even though there was a well reported rift between the "old letters" and the "franchise kids".

For everything he's done right in Rochester, he's done the opposite in Buffalo (for now). An experience GM wouldn't have let the lockerroom fester. You want to make Jack the francise? Give him the C, get rid of the Moulson's and Gorges', and build from the foundation you believe in.

Instead... you show a lack of belief... use the season as a mulligan.... and, that's the teams identity now.

Marcus Kruger was available as a cap dump this summer. With not knowing how Johan would play coming off his injury, or Sam at center learning a new position, they could’ve plugged in a defensive center whi can come to camp with a couple of Cup rings on his fingers.

Wengels went to the Hawks on a PTO. He is another “just a guy” with plenty of the sort of game Wilson offers who could’ve been had in summer time. Plenty of options, still trying to figure out what Botts is doing.

 

[HaNotsri]

Are we really complaining about Botts not getting Krüger and Sheahan? Can you imagine how p***** off we would have been in the summer if those guys were brough in?

As a new leader you can’t just fire everyone first thing. You gotta give people a chance. Then you fire them or send them across the country...

 

[joshjull]

Because I don't believe he went from "not available" to "available" in the span of 2 weeks....

Riley Sheahan was a cap dump.

Yes, Riley Sheahan was available for free.... thanks Botts.



As long as we phrase it properly. Fasching was given extra development time, at the expense of the Sabres roster.



It's funny how easy it is to recognize the value excising incompetence from the lockerroom, but how difficult it is to admit the problems it caused in the first place.




It's not frustration. It's understanding the impact. Everybody recognizes after it's too late.

It shouldn't have taken 10 weeks to remove Moulson.

Fasching and everyone in Rochester were not the only options on this hockey earth. Scott Wilson wasn't the only guy available.

Daniel Winnik was on a PTO...

Botts deserves a ton of credit for what he's done with Rochester. But he failed in handling Buffalo correctly. It's not surprising were his experience lies...

I don't know why this is an argument. Botts chose to go in to the season with Matt Moulson, Seth Griffith, and Jordan Nolan as regulars.... He also kept Gorges around, even though there was a well reported rift between the "old letters" and the "franchise kids".

For everything he's done right in Rochester, he's done the opposite in Buffalo (for now). An experience GM wouldn't have let the lockerroom fester. You want to make Jack the francise? Give him the C, get rid of the Moulson's and Gorges', and build from the foundation you believe in.

Instead... you show a lack of belief... use the season as a mulligan.... and, that's the teams identity now.

You were discussing things evenhandedly before you went back to agenda mode with this.

Still waiting for you to admit the play of ROR hasn't been what we needed, not even close for much of the year. Or that Sam has been very disappointing. No? Didn't think so. Instead it's a deep dive to henpeck the GM for what's ultimately your anger over Carrier leaving, Jack getting a deal and a letter and ROR not getting the "C".

A big part of the issue with the bottom 6 not working was Sam's failure as 3rd line center. Nothing but a ton of excuses and cute pet stories. Like Sam makes elite players better but gets dragged down by lesser players. Another way to put it is he can't produce without playing with top talent, like Girgs. The bottom 6 also suffered due to poor play from Larsson/Girgs and Josefson getting injured. You could throw Erod's injury in as well.

When this team was healthy, about a week or so before the season, I saw very little complaining about our potential center spine of Jack/ROR/Sam/Josefson. In fact I saw a ton of excitement. When the season started Jack and Josefson were the only ones pulling their weight in their roles. Then the excuse making began in earnest for ROR and Sam with blame getting thrown everywhere. It was everyone's fault but theirs.


Look to the struggles of ROR, Okposo, Sam, Girgs and Larsson combined with our decimated defense and coaching mistakes with the PP as the reasons for our bad start. That's if we're being rational and not pushing an agenda or not trying real hard to defend favorites. The placeholders weren't helping but they were well down the list of problems and there is the rub. To acknowledge the bigger issues is to go against some of your favorites. Can't have that.

 

[joshjull]

Marcus Kruger was available as a cap dump this summer. With not knowing how Johan would play coming off his injury, or Sam at center learning a new position, they could’ve plugged in a defensive center whi can come to camp with a couple of Cup rings on his fingers.

Wengels went to the Hawks on a PTO. He is another “just a guy” with plenty of the sort of game Wilson offers who could’ve been had in summer time. Plenty of options, still trying to figure out what Botts is doing.

He got a very good defensive 4th line center in Josefson. In theory we are supposed to have a strong center group. Adding Josefson should have made it even stronger. Instead 4 of the centers were underwhelming as centers or overall to start the season (ROR, Sam, Larsson and Girgs) and Josefson got hurt. Before the season another option for center and the bottom 6 was injured(Erod) Is it Botts fault all these things happened? I find it hard to blame him.

I get the overall frustration with everything Sabres. But listing every possible guy he could have acquired doesn't seem like a fair critique. Would Wingels even come here on a PTO? We are still one of the worst teams in the NHL. I find it hard to believe he comes here over a chance in Chicago.

As for what Botts is doing, it looks like he is working on a transition from what Murray left him (too many not too smart/quick players) to the roster he'd like to see. All while building up the proper development environment. That's not going to happen overnight and may take more work than I thought.

 

[Chainshot]

I think it's important to note the 2010 and 2011 drafts. Players from those draft years are currently in their primes and we have 0 of them on the team. Not that we had nearly enough to begin with.

That's been part of my indictment of Regier and his era. And why they should have cleaned house at the top after the ownership change -- there were a lot of complacent scouts who had very limited results. Botterill showed most of the staff the door this summer, holdovers included.