Speculation: Botterill and Slow Cooking

[joshjull]

My focus is to have a conversation about what worked and didn't and what Botterill may or may not do this summer.



Four of them seem like they should be locks at the moment (if Nelson is re-signed) with Smith and Bailey as possibles. Even Malone may be in the conversation to replace Josefson in that role with how he's progressed.

The thread isn't a dissection, it's an invite to conversation.

The following is the question you asked in the first line of the OP.

Is it fair to say that Botterill's first attempt at slow cooking his prospects showed that sprinkling in spent veterans is not going to make the process work?

That's what I was responding to with my post.

You created a thread about "slow cooking" but heavily focus on the poor play of the placeholder vets on the NHL. While related they're not the same thing. Which is why I said the focus is misguided. I also don't see any indication that the young players development or "slow cooking" was hurt by the play of those vets. I also don't get the semantic "its not a dissection, its an invitation to a discussion" as if I'm coming at this from left field.

You want to get away from using placeholder vets? Draft and develop well so we have options from within and don't need them. Doing that, more than the poor play of the vets this year, will get Botts away from using placeholders. Because they won't be needed.

 

[Dingo44]

They don't have to be worth anything, just bring the right attitude and still want to play in the NHL.

Talent not required?

So, basically guys who are good guys but no other team wants to sign and have no other options. Then waive Bailey, Baptiste, and Fasching and hope they clear. Good plan.

 

[Chainshot]

The following is the question you asked in the first line of the OP.

Is it fair to say that Botterill's first attempt at slow cooking his prospects showed that sprinkling in spent veterans is not going to make the process work?

That's what I was responding to with my post.

You created a thread about "slow cooking" but heavily focus on the poor play of the placeholder vets on the NHL. While related they're not the same thing. Which is why I said the focus is misguided. I also don't see any indication that the young players development or "slow cooking" was hurt by the play of those vets. I also don't get the semantic "its not a dissection, its an invitation to a discussion" as if I'm coming at this from left field.

You want to get away from using placeholder vets? Draft and develop well so we have options from within and don't need them. Doing that, more than the poor play of the vets this year, will get Botts away from using placeholders. Because they won't be needed.

Or the rest of the questions -

Does he adapt to how he fills needed roster holes this summer (aka. finding better fits) and possibly allow for internal graduation after a year of labor and reshaping on the farm? Does he react and trash his idea and simply let all the kids loose on the roster? Is there some happy medium?

Did it work and guys like Baptiste who's already performing in a 4th line role, Bailey, Smith, and others in Rochester have already put in the work to become what Botterill wants out of them?

I’m in lecture, I will respond further when I can. It’s an opening to talk about all of it.

 

[Ethan Edwards]

It’s so hard to tell what the development sweet spot is...everyone’s development curve could be drastically different. Players who are amazing in the minors often turn out to be a dud in the NHL, and then you have nobody’s like Klingberg who become elite once they hit the NHL.

I really think you need to customize your strategy for each player, and not do a blanket approach one way or the other.

Chalk up a home run with that post. You can't have a one-size-fits-all strategy when it comes to player development, not just in terms of timing, but also in terms of other processes. I won't go into those here since we're discussing timing, and there isn't much I can add to the bolded because it pretty much nails it.

 

[old kummelweck]

Optimism by fans at addressing depth and the possibility of being able to live into the conventional wisdom of development is something to disagree on? By my reading of what you wrote, we're actually aligned. Bringing in vet depth guys (Pouliot, Josefson, Tennyson, even Pominville, Nolan via waivers) was a way of facilitating more structured development. Beaulieu was a gamble and Griffith was the only real long-shot to make the team.

I think fans got excited about new blood and slotted these marginal players into the lineup with excitement, without acknowledging many of them were filler, reclamation projects, or needed to get back on track.

 

[joshjull]

Or the rest of the questions -



I’m in lecture, I will respond further when I can. It’s an opening to talk about all of it.

Fair enough.

 

[Jame]

Can anybody copy n paste the excerpt from Lebrun's article about Botterill and the Sabres?

I've been saying it, this guy is more competitive and emotional than people thought, look at my new avatar. This board is going to explode when trades go down because I think big names are leaving.

Nothing meaningful in the article.... other than Okposo pointing to Mackinnon as an example of the next step Eichel needs to take.

 

[AustonsNostrils]

Nothing meaningful in the article.... other than Okposo pointing to Mackinnon as an example of the next step Eichel needs to take.

no quotes or hearsay about Botterill being fed up and ready to make big changes?

 

[Jame]

no quotes or hearsay about Botterill being fed up and ready to make big changes?

all fluff

 

[AustonsNostrils]

i wouldn't characterize this first quote as 'fluff'. He's talking about keeping/not keeping core guys.

 

[AustonsNostrils]

The lack of talent supporting the core isn't mentioned. This isn't just a culture problem, there is a severe lack of talent and that's his job, a big part of the bad culture is these players know the team sucks talent wise, they've been losing for years, and it has affected all of them, core and support group. Major changes are needed to the bottom of the roster than changes in the core but he may also feel the team needs a shakeup in the core group too.

 

[Jame]

i wouldn't characterize this first quote as 'fluff'. He's talking about keeping/not keeping core guys.

Yea.... fluff. That's standard, bottom of the league team GM commentary. Does that quote surprise you? Not exactly mind blowing...

 

[1point21Gigawatts]

i wouldn't characterize this first quote as 'fluff'. He's talking about keeping/not keeping core guys.

When practices aren't bringing in the results you want, maybe you look at the coach, botts.

 

[joshjull]

I think that you've basically created a self-fulfilling prophecy... "look we slow cooked, look their ready now".

Convince me that Casey Nelson, at 25 years old, needed to be "slow cooked". Prove it.

Baptiste and Bailey needed to start a 3rd season in the AHL, in their 5th post draft year, at 22 years old? Why?

- Bailey was called up by game 6 of the season. He got hurt in his 7th game on 10/28. He then struggled to get his game back on track recovering from that injury as well as suffering another injury during that stretch in Rochester. His game didn't get back on track until the 6 or 7 games before he was called up the last time . Injuries and trying to get his game back on track because of them are the reasons Bailey wasn't here not Botts.

- Nelson had not shown in any way that he was ready for the NHL in training camp/preseason. He was pretty much written off as a NHL dman by almost everyone. Which is why their was so much shock over his play during his call up. Many were waiting for it to collapse for the month of so and joked it was mirage. Give me a break that it was mistake he didn't start here. Or because of his age he gets a default spot on the roster.

-Baptiste wasn't given much of a look in training camp and was sent down to start the season. If you want to view that as a mistake that's fine. After not doing much in his first 5 games in Rochester, he went on a tear leading to his call up in early November. He didn't do much in those 4 games nor was he given a much of a chance either. If you want to argue he should have stayed up that's fine. I think that's as legit an argument as saying he needed more work on his game.

We didn't need to sacrifice a season, to re-set the development pipeline... it didn't need to be one or the other. Botts failed.

Its a bit ridiculous to hold up these three as proof the season was sacrificed for development.

 

[Jame]

- Bailey was called up by game 6 of the season. He got hurt in his 7th game on 10/28. He then struggled to get his game back on track recovering from that injury as well as suffering another injury during that stretch in Rochester. His game didn't get back on track until the 6 or 7 games before he was called up the last time . Injuries and trying to get his game back on track because of them are the reasons Bailey wasn't here not Botts.

There is no defense of slow cooking in the above. I'm aware of the injuries. They are not a defense of slow cooking. They are not a defense of Seth Griffith over Justin Bailey.

- Nelson had not shown in any way that he was ready for the NHL in training camp/preseason. He was pretty much written off as a NHL dman by almost everyone. Which is why their was so much shock over his play during his call up. Many were waiting for it to collapse for the month of so and joked it was mirage. Give me a break that it was mistake he didn't start here. Or because of his age he gets a default spot on the roster.

Matt Tennyson started here. Defend it.

-Baptiste wasn't given much of a look in training camp and was sent down to start the season. If you want to view that as a mistake that's fine. After not doing much in his first 5 games in Rochester, he went on a tear leading to his call up in early November. He didn't do much in those 4 games nor was he given a much of a chance either. If you want to argue he should have stayed up that's fine. I think that's as legit an argument as saying he needed more work on his game.

Matt Moulson was playing his minutes. Defend it.

Its a bit ridiculous to hold up these three as proof the season was sacrificed for development.

It doesn't matter which rochester guys it is.... they aren't the proof. Moulson, Nolan, Griffith, Tennyson, etc are the proof that the season was sacrificed.

 

[Jame]

When practices aren't bringing in the results you want, maybe you look at the coach, botts.

Yea... what major lineup changes reflect individuals not putting in the effort? If we have practice issues (poor work ethic, complacency, etc) AND we are talking about moving someone from the core out.... then why has Risto never ever been demoted from the top pair? When has ROR ever been taken off the PP or had his ES role reduced?

GM/Coach are either completely disconnected, or completely clueless... or both

Jordan Nolan must practice his butt off....

 

[Chainshot]

The following is the question you asked in the first line of the OP.

Is it fair to say that Botterill's first attempt at slow cooking his prospects showed that sprinkling in spent veterans is not going to make the process work?

That's what I was responding to with my post.

Repeating the parts of the post that you skipped -

Does he adapt to how he fills needed roster holes this summer (aka. finding better fits) and possibly allow for internal graduation after a year of labor and reshaping on the farm? Does he react and trash his idea and simply let all the kids loose on the roster? Is there some happy medium?

Did it work and guys like Baptiste who's already performing in a 4th line role, Bailey, Smith, and others in Rochester have already put in the work to become what Botterill wants out of them?

You created a thread about "slow cooking" but heavily focus on the poor play of the placeholder vets on the NHL. While related they're not the same thing. Which is why I said the focus is misguided. I also don't see any indication that the young players development or "slow cooking" was hurt by the play of those vets. I also don't get the semantic "its not a dissection, its an invitation to a discussion" as if I'm coming at this from left field.

Do you want to answer any of the questions or no? Converse about what he might do?

You want to get away from using placeholder vets? Draft and develop well so we have options from within and don't need them. Doing that, more than the poor play of the vets this year, will get Botts away from using placeholders. Because they won't be needed.

I didn't make any such assumption. I have no idea what he's going to do nor did I express what he's going to do or even what I want him to do.

 

[GellMann]

- Bailey was called up by game 6 of the season. He got hurt in his 7th game on 10/28. He then struggled to get his game back on track recovering from that injury as well as suffering another injury during that stretch in Rochester. His game didn't get back on track until the 6 or 7 games before he was called up the last time . Injuries and trying to get his game back on track because of them are the reasons Bailey wasn't here not Botts.

- Nelson had not shown in any way that he was ready for the NHL in training camp/preseason. He was pretty much written off as a NHL dman by almost everyone. Which is why their was so much shock over his play during his call up. Many were waiting for it to collapse for the month of so and joked it was mirage. Give me a break that it was mistake he didn't start here. Or because of his age he gets a default spot on the roster.

-Baptiste wasn't given much of a look in training camp and was sent down to start the season. If you want to view that as a mistake that's fine. After not doing much in his first 5 games in Rochester, he went on a tear leading to his call up in early November. He didn't do much in those 4 games nor was he given a much of a chance either. If you want to argue he should have stayed up that's fine. I think that's as legit an argument as saying he needed more work on his game.



Its a bit ridiculous to hold up these three as proof the season was sacrificed for development.

This rational take is far too similar to reality for me to accept! My narrative must live on!

 

[AustonsNostrils]

He seems to be putting most of the blame for such a terrible season on character flaws and i guess culture. I really doubt the team's practice habits are so egregious. If there are players that he and Housley have identified as not giving a **** in practice then get them the hell off the team but still isn't the reason we suck so bad. He doesn't mention just how bad many of our players are at hockey and it has zero to do with effort. Okposo and Pominville are trying their hardest, I think Girgensons and Larsson do too. So who's left - Pouliot, he's a huge slacker, Nolan maybe but i doubt he's a slacker.

 

[Beerz]

i wouldn't characterize this first quote as 'fluff'. He's talking about keeping/not keeping core guys.

Practice? We're talking about practice , Botts?

 

[Chainshot]

He seems to be putting most of the blame for such a terrible season on character flaws and i guess culture. I really doubt the team's practice habits are so egregious. If there are players that he and Housley have identified as not giving a **** in practice then get them the hell off the team but still isn't the reason we suck so bad. He doesn't mention just how bad many of our players are at hockey and it has zero to do with effort. Okposo and Pominville are trying their hardest, I think Girgensons and Larsson do too. So who's left - Pouliot, he's a huge slacker, Nolan maybe but i doubt he's a slacker.

There was a comment on a broadcast about just how much players on good teams work beyond just showing up at practice. It was talking about Crosby and Malkin doing video work, about other Pens coming in to do additional board work drills not at "regular" practice. O'Reilly's practice clutch seems to have gone away unless HamHam has simply stopped talking about it.

The kids may be doing too much live and direct. Some younger vets - Larsson, Girgensons, Lehner -- have all markedly stepped back from previous levels. Okposo's struggles have been many. O'Reilly has had some seriously cold games.

If there are bad practice habits, they didn't take anyone's icetime or scratch people. *shrug*

 

[Snippit]

I like the quote. It means there’s a chance he trades ROR.

ROR is overpaid and inconsistent. He also doesn’t fit in with the age of the rest of the core. I question how many years he has left in his prime. He’s already more inconsistent than he was in his debut year.

 

[joshjull]

Repeating the parts of the post that you skipped -

Does he adapt to how he fills needed roster holes this summer (aka. finding better fits) and possibly allow for internal graduation after a year of labor and reshaping on the farm? Does he react and trash his idea and simply let all the kids loose on the roster? Is there some happy medium?

I thought I did address this.

What I was bringing up about the placeholder vets vis a vis development was it was a necessary evil coming into this season. IMO we had no options from within. Going forward we should have some options with the players I listed (and you mentioned Malone). So I think he would be willing to use them. That would be the happy medium you reference. Something I don't believe was realistic to start this year. I guess I'm saying he would come to that happy medium less from adapting from the vet experience this year than from incorporating options I don't think he had previously.

Did it work and guys like Baptiste who's already performing in a 4th line role, Bailey, Smith, and others in Rochester have already put in the work to become what Botterill wants out of them?

Does Botts have enough faith in these guys to use them as depth? Of the guys we've mentioned.......

- Guhle/Ullmark are givens IMO
-Nelson probably is as well if he's signed. (I'm not sure of his waiver status which would impact this)
- Bailey/Baptiste, we won't know for sure until its time to tender QO. If they get them then they'll be here due to their waiver status.
- CJ Smith and Malone its impossible to say even with the talk that Smith would have been here a few weeks ago had he been healthy.

I didn't make any such assumption. I have no idea what he's going to do nor did I express what he's going to do or even what I want him to do.

Fair enough. I have no idea what to expect either mostly because I don't know what his plans are. Is he looking to tweak and be patient? Doesn't sound like it. Is he looking to move out bigger pieces? If so, how big will those pieces be? Will those moves include any of the youngsters we discussed?

 

[haseoke39]

If you give me the choice between having placeholder vets who are TERRIBLE get those spots

vs

young prospects who are merely BAD because they're not ready,

then I take slow cooking all day. The prospects should look good when they come up, and not just better than a trainwreck, because we are invested in them learning how to succeed.

I'm not aware of the player who was too good for their AHL development this year.

 

[joshjull]

This is literally the worst time to be impatient... I hate the idea of subtracting from the core, before a proper team has been built around it.

Depends on how he defines the core and who he sees in it. GMs may not view it as narrowly as some on here do.