Jason Botterill Discussion 3

[Sabresfansince1980]

I'm either misreading as I've been up since 3am or perplexed. I don't agree with many of the trades made by Botts or Murray for that matter. I stand in neither court. But did you just say you'd rather have

Myers
Armia
Rsolovic
Brendan was never gonna play here whatever
McNabb

over ROR
Kane
lehner?

yes I Get there was other pieces mentioned...mostly hypothetical because we didn't draft them...could very well be adding eric conrell x3 to that list if we were drafting. Yes I'd take the 3 bonafied NHler players vs Grigorenko and a grab bag of meh.

Lets face facts none of these deals actually put us behind. I'll support Compher because I think hes a player and will give you that. Zads will be unprotected in the expansion draft and hasn't taken the step forward worthy of batting an eye at yet. Move the hell on. We gave up nothing and got basically nothing without expanding the ROR trade.

Well there is a LOT more to the list than what you typed. I'm arguing that the overall work of Murray was a massive net negative, mostly because he wasted draft picks which would have ended up being free, young, cheap (for a couple years anyway) impact players. A little less because of overpaying for the wrong types of players/people to lead the team in those trades.

I get your point about drafting 3 Cornel's, but only an idiot passes on White/Boeser/Konecny with #21, which Murray probably would've proven by selecting Samsonov. Roslovic was likely anyone's pick at #25, and Aho fell into the 2nd rd, making him a very reasonable pick at #31. But yes, it's not certain who Buffalo would have taken. It is certain that a good GM coming into a re-build with draft capital should use that to build a young and talented team, the old-fashioned way, especially when that draft class is the best in over a decade. Saying that Murray may have drafted poorly doesn't defend his logic to trade away those picks in a great draft pool.

Wasting those picks, and wasting the depth players and prospects (as mediocre as some were) for Kane, Bogosian, Lehner, is not defensible, and it landed the franchise in a worse position than when the tear down finished. The O'Reilly trade is defensible, if Aho would've been stupidly passed on anyway, or if the team was competitive enough with the other picks and depth retained to where ROR was still happy and motivated to stay. I still believe that using all the draft picks that year was by far the better option.

The continued blaming of Botterill (or whoever your preferred GM candidate was) for somehow not turning the crater left behind into a playoff team with a healthy farm club, in just three years, simply isn't reasonable.

 

[slip]

You can't expect to surround those 3 bonafied NHL players with cheap, quality talent when you sell the farm (both in terms of prospects and picks) to get them. You want a mix of both proven and unproven... Murray went too far in one direction, put all his eggs in the basket of a handful of proven NHLer's to lead the room, and it blew up on him.

So far, Botteril is arguably playing it too safe in the other direction... but that may very well be what the franchise needs if he can balance things out after the placeholder vets, who have been helping keep Rochester a stable and notably better place to develop prospects, are gone and the kids start graduating in greater numbers. Or maybe he'll ultimately end up relying on the wrong players too, and that may blow up on him.

People have a tendency to focus on the Sobotka's and the Hunwick's and the Pominville's and miss the forest for the trees. It's not about them, they've always just been warm bodies until their contracts are done and players like Olofsson, Asplund, Jokiharju, Borgen can bring a year or more of NA pro experience up with them.

These players are all Murray draft picks, or in the case of Joki, acquired via a Murray pick. Doesn't this kind of undermine your "Murray sold the farm" thesis?

 

[Dreakon13]

These players are all Murray draft picks, or in the case of Joki, acquired via a Murray pick. Doesn't this kind of undermine your "Murray sold the farm" thesis?

I don't think nailing a few later picks changes the fact he shipped out a ton of picks and prospects (most notably a few 2015 1sts). And perpetually neglected Rochester.

 

[sabremike]

Well there is a LOT more to the list than what you typed. I'm arguing that the overall work of Murray was a massive net negative, mostly because he wasted draft picks which would have ended up being free, young, cheap (for a couple years anyway) impact players. A little less because of overpaying for the wrong types of players/people to lead the team in those trades.

I get your point about drafting 3 Cornel's, but only an idiot passes on White/Boeser/Konecny with #21, which Murray probably would've proven by selecting Samsonov. Roslovic was likely anyone's pick at #25, and Aho fell into the 2nd rd, making him a very reasonable pick at #31. But yes, it's not certain who Buffalo would have taken. It is certain that a good GM coming into a re-build with draft capital should use that to build a young and talented team, the old-fashioned way, especially when that draft class is the best in over a decade. Saying that Murray may have drafted poorly doesn't defend his logic to trade away those picks in a great draft pool.

Wasting those picks, and wasting the depth players and prospects (as mediocre as some were) for Kane, Bogosian, Lehner, is not defensible, and it landed the franchise in a worse position than when the tear down finished. The O'Reilly trade is defensible, if Aho would've been stupidly passed on anyway, or if the team was competitive enough with the other picks and depth retained to where ROR was still happy and motivated to stay. I still believe that using all the draft picks that year was by far the better option.

The continued blaming of Botterill (or whoever your preferred GM candidate was) for somehow not turning the crater left behind into a playoff team with a healthy farm club, in just three years, simply isn't reasonable.

If we miss the playoffs again (something that almost everyone in the entire sport expects to happen) that will be 9 seasons of no playoffs. A third of that will have come under Bott's watch. So I'd like to ask: at what point do you feel he should be held accountable for failing to produce any tangible results? There have been countless teams who were taken over by GM's given hands every bit as bad as Botts was (heck, we just saw one last year that ended up with the 5th best record in the league) that didn't take 3 years to put together a credible competitive team.

 

[Dreakon13]

So I'd like to ask: at what point do you feel he should be held accountable for failing to produce any tangible results?

Whatever GM is here when the dead weight is gone after this year and we have a wave of young players being promoted from a successful Rochester team (with another wave waiting in tow to help keep Roch competitive)... is the GM that will likely get the credit for seeing this team turn around. Three years seems to be the arbitrary magic number in peoples eyes, but if this is an open question... I'd say next year is that point for me.

 

[jc17]

I dont think Botts is perfect but I also dont really think the perfect candidate is out there, and certainly not one that will make this board happy.

95% of the GM's out there have shown they have "questionable" (in quotes because its subjective) talent valuation. The same mistakes he's making people are making other places.

I can imagine the interview process.

"So how will you approach spending the team's budget in free agency?"

-"Uh, evolvinghockey.com's RAPM charts."

"That's it?"

-"No I'll use it for trades to"

"Draft strategy?"

-"Points and maybe I'll check Manny's twitter"

"Team culture?"

-"Winning"

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

If we miss the playoffs again (something that almost everyone in the entire sport expects to happen) that will be 9 seasons of no playoffs. A third of that will have come under Bott's watch. So I'd like to ask: at what point do you feel he should be held accountable for failing to produce any tangible results? There have been countless teams who were taken over by GM's given hands every bit as bad as Botts was (heck, we just saw one last year that ended up with the 5th best record in the league) that didn't take 3 years to put together a credible competitive team.

NYI had, and still has, a deeper roster than Buffalo, better D-corps, and still high-end talent like Barzal. The bigger factor was acquiring a great HC. Buffalo, regardless of GM, doesn't have the pull to attract top end HCs right now. I NEVER blamed Murray for hiring Dufus, you just can't make the best HCs want to come to a small market team that's struggling.

To your bigger question, my timeline depends on how quickly draft picks develop. Botterill has no other good option but to rely on very good drafting. Trading 3rds or 4ths here and there is fine depending on the reasons, but he has to hit on the 1sts and a couple lower rd picks. Trading those higher 1sts and 2nds (or equivalent prospects) for win-now players seems to be what most posters here want. Those types of moves require that you acquire the right players, because in Buffalo's case losing those draft picks is terrible for the mid-long-term health of the club if you swing and miss. The Skinner and Montour trades were near the edge of acceptable to me, but good moves considering the needs. Many more moves like that though, will sacrifice too much young talent via the draft. You can only rob Peter to pay Paul so many times. You can only take away from your draft capital so many times to ice a better team now, before you don't have a prospect pool worth a damn (again) anymore.

No UFA patch ups are going to help Buffalo if they waste picks, they have to hit draft picks and develop properly. Besides that Botterill has to find a non-high status HC that can still be effective. We shall see in regard to Krueger. I still think the roster is better than it showed last season, except for Housley's terrible d-zone system. Anyway, drafting above average, developing well in Rochester, and finding a good HC and staff are paramount. Next summer is huge to see what else Botterill might be able to do, or more accurately how well he did with drafts (Mitts, Cozens, others will take longer to evaluate) and acquisitions like Pilut, Thompson, etc, as they establish themselves as starters. The 2020-21 season is a big indicator for me.

I have to give any GM taking over a small-market team, relying on draft and development, anywhere from 4-6 years to judge. I can imagine the shock and horror that many posters here will have in this day and age of instant-everything. To insist on a faster determination is to insist that 18 yr olds develop and establish their value before age 22, and that would be just the first draft class. Euro signings and college FAs obviously come into the equation, but usually don't change a team's fortunes very much.

 

[Gabrielor]

This team is shaping to look eerily like last year’s. I guess “roster surgery” was a myth.

Johansson to center is basically a desperation move because he couldn’t figure out a better plan.

If he survives another 26-31st finish, I think it’ll be time to step away from this team for a bit, until he does.

 

[OkimLom]

Whatever GM is here when the dead weight is gone after this year and we have a wave of young players being promoted from a successful Rochester team (with another wave waiting in tow to help keep Roch competitive)... is the GM that will likely get the credit for seeing this team turn around. Three years seems to be the arbitrary magic number in peoples eyes, but if this is an open question... I'd say next year is that point for me.

It depends on what turns around the team. If there is a mass influx of prospects that turns this team around, I think Botterill and Murray should get the majority of credit (obviously the amount each gets would depend on how much, the prospects they drafted, impact the team) for getting the prospects and development in the system. If the team has a major turnaround due to an improvement in coaching and a large roster turnover of new players, then the majority of credit should go to the new GM.

Do note I said majority, not ALL credit. I think Darcy, Murray, and Botterill, should have some credit. As the years go by and the cycling of players in and out of the roster, the credit for each guy diminishes.

Edit: a word that changes the meaning of the statement.

 

[sabremike]

NYI had, and still has, a deeper roster than Buffalo, better D-corps, and still high-end talent like Barzal. The bigger factor was acquiring a great HC. Buffalo, regardless of GM, doesn't have the pull to attract top end HCs right now. I NEVER blamed Murray for hiring Dufus, you just can't make the best HCs want to come to a small market team that's struggling.

To your bigger question, my timeline depends on how quickly draft picks develop. Botterill has no other good option but to rely on very good drafting. Trading 3rds or 4ths here and there is fine depending on the reasons, but he has to hit on the 1sts and a couple lower rd picks. Trading those higher 1sts and 2nds (or equivalent prospects) for win-now players seems to be what most posters here want. Those types of moves require that you acquire the right players, because in Buffalo's case losing those draft picks is terrible for the mid-long-term health of the club if you swing and miss. The Skinner and Montour trades were near the edge of acceptable to me, but good moves considering the needs. Many more moves like that though, will sacrifice too much young talent via the draft. You can only rob Peter to pay Paul so many times. You can only take away from your draft capital so many times to ice a better team now, before you don't have a prospect pool worth a damn (again) anymore.

No UFA patch ups are going to help Buffalo if they waste picks, they have to hit draft picks and develop properly. Besides that Botterill has to find a non-high status HC that can still be effective. We shall see in regard to Krueger. I still think the roster is better than it showed last season, except for Housley's terrible d-zone system. Anyway, drafting above average, developing well in Rochester, and finding a good HC and staff are paramount. Next summer is huge to see what else Botterill might be able to do, or more accurately how well he did with drafts (Mitts, Cozens, others will take longer to evaluate) and acquisitions like Pilut, Thompson, etc, as they establish themselves as starters. The 2020-21 season is a big indicator for me.

I have to give any GM taking over a small-market team, relying on draft and development, anywhere from 4-6 years to judge. I can imagine the shock and horror that many posters here will have in this day and age of instant-everything. To insist on a faster determination is to insist that 18 yr olds develop and establish their value before age 22, and that would be just the first draft class. Euro signings and college FAs obviously come into the equation, but usually don't change a team's fortunes very much.

Not even the patron saint of that idea/tactic Chevy took more than 4 seasons to end up in the postseason. SIX seasons? Good lord. Also pointing out Trotz joining the Isles just kills the "No good coach would ever come to Buffalo" narrative dead because the Isles at that time had been a sad clown for nearly a quarter century, were about to get a Glasgow Kiss from their dishonorable weasel of a franchise player, were dealing with the two arena circus and were standard issue on every no movement clause in the league.

 

[OkimLom]

This team is shaping to look eerily like last year’s. I guess “roster surgery” was a myth.

Johansson to center is basically a desperation move because he couldn’t figure out a better plan.

If he survives another 26-31st finish, I think it’ll be time to step away from this team for a bit, until he does.

It's almost comical how much the MaJo signing could be Bott's response to what happened with Berglund. Like it feels as if Berglund stayed, that we wouldn't have gone after him. Much like Berglund, Johansson is a natural winger, but has played center before. He's a good locker room guy. He's also Swedish.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Not even the patron saint of that idea/tactic Chevy took more than 4 seasons to end up in the postseason. SIX seasons? Good lord. Also pointing out Trotz joining the Isles just kills the "No good coach would ever come to Buffalo" narrative dead because the Isles at that time had been a sad clown for nearly a quarter century, were about to get a Glasgow Kiss from their dishonorable weasel of a franchise player, were dealing with the two arena circus and were standard issue on every no movement clause in the league.

No...not six years to make the playoffs. 4-6 years to give a fair evaluation to a GM having to go the draft and development route. If Krueger proves competent, this season could be a playoff season. If any of the first crop of young players Botterill acquired pans out, and can be improvements over the deadwood UFAs set to leave, then it should be a playoff team.

NYI is still a better destination considering the area and vet talent they had when Trotz took the job, outside drama included.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

It's almost comical how much the MaJo signing could be Bott's response to what happened with Berglund. Like it feels as if Berglund stayed, that we wouldn't have gone after him. Much like Berglund, Johansson is a natural winger, but has played center before. He's a good locker room guy. He's also Swedish.

If that truly is his response, why is it comical to acquire a better player?

 

[joshjull]

It depends on what turns around the team. If there is a mass exodus of prospects that turns this team around, I think Botterill and Murray should get the majority of credit (obviously the amount each gets would depend on how much, the prospects they drafted, impact the team) for getting the prospects and development in the system. If the team has a major turnaround due to an improvement in coaching and a large roster turnover of new players, then the majority of credit should go to the new GM.

Do note I said majority, not ALL credit. I think Darcy, Murray, and Botterill, should have some credit. As the years go by and the cycling of players in and out of the roster, the credit for each guy diminishes.

I think you meant influx

 

[OkimLom]

I think you meant influx

Thanks, will make the correction.

 

[joshjull]

These players are all Murray draft picks, or in the case of Joki, acquired via a Murray pick. Doesn't this kind of undermine your "Murray sold the farm" thesis?

Not only doesn’t it undermine it. It actually drives the point home.

If Olofsson becomes an effective/established NHLer. He will be the first player to do so that came up through our system in Jack/Sam’s time as Sabres. A big reason for that were the trades Murray made moving out a lot of picks and prospects. He created a hole in the system. That some of the prospects helping refill the system are his picks doesn’t really change that

I’d also point out the players you’re using to defend him don’t quite make the case your trying to make.

Murray was targeting Asplund in the trade for that pick. We gave up Pysyk and got the pick + 1yr of Kulikov. We basically got no better in the short run and in the medium run got worse. All to hopefully have a good player 4 to 5 years later.

Also trading for Joker was basically correcting the screw up Murray made by drafting him instead of a few available dmen (Sergachev/McAvoy). Guys who could have been playing for us and helped shore up a weak defense.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Not only doesn’t it undermine it. It actually drives the point home.

If Olofsson becomes an effective/established NHLer. He will be the first player to do so that came up through our system in Jack/Sam’s time as Sabres. A big reason for that were the trades Murray made moving out a lot of picks and prospects. He created a hole in the system. That some of the prospects helping refill the system are his picks doesn’t really change that

I’d also point the players you’re using to defend him don’t quite make the case your trying to make. Murray was targeting Asplund in the trade for that pick. We gave up Pysyk and got the pick + 1yr of Kulikov. We basically got no better in the short run and in the medium run got worse. All to hopefully have a good player 4 to 5 years later.

Also trading for Joker was basically correcting the screw up Murray made by drafting him instead of a few available dmen (Sergachev/McAvoy). Guys who could have been playing for us And helped shore up a weak defense.

I was being nice in my earlier posts, not piling on about the Nylander pick. That one is right up under Persson instead of Foligno (the good one).

 

[slip]

Not only doesn’t it undermine it. It actually drives the point home.

If Olofsson becomes an effective/established NHLer. He will be the first player to do so that came up through our system in Jack/Sam’s time as Sabres. A big reason for that were the trades Murray made moving out a lot of picks and prospects. He created a hole in the system. That some of the prospects helping refill the system are his picks doesn’t really change that

I’d also point out the players you’re using to defend him don’t quite make the case your trying to make.

Murray was targeting Asplund in the trade for that pick. We gave up Pysyk and got the pick + 1yr of Kulikov. We basically got no better in the short run and in the medium run got worse. All to hopefully have a good player 4 to 5 years later.

Also trading for Joker was basically correcting the screw up Murray made by drafting him instead of a few available dmen (Sergachev/McAvoy). Guys who could have been playing for us and helped shore up a weak defense.

Not sure what to say other than to reiterate that Murray, for all his flaws, didn't really "sell the farm," anymore than Jason Botterill, as we are told, restocked it. Both propositions are obvious exaggerations, with the truth lying somewhere in the middle.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Not sure what to say other than to reiterate that Murray, for all his flaws, didn't really "sell the farm," anymore than Jason Botterill, as we are told, restocked it. Both propositions are obvious exaggerations, with the truth lying somewhere in the middle.

I think Murray used a normal amount of draft picks, drafted fairly poorly, and wasted many of the prime, extra picks that were at his disposal from the tear-down. I think Botterill has used a normal amount of picks, traded a couple to temporarily patch some holes, and hopefully drafts better than Murray's tenure (giving due credit to the scouting depts under each GM). But I do not think Botterill has fully re-stocked the farm system. He didn't have any extra players/assets with trade value enough to re-stock. He has to draft well above average to make up for lost time.

 

[jc17]

I disagree with a fair amount of Botterill does but I still think firing him is a huge risk.

Its a fast track to employing another GM who feels that getting "his" guys in will fix the team, and wasting 3 more years when it doesn't.

Trades, free agent signings, and GM turnover show that there's a league-wide inability to assess general managers before hire. Like it or not, the "ideal" candidate is a unicorn. I have more confidence that Botterill can fix the roster, than I do that Sabres management or whoever can find and hire that ideal candidate. Same for the coveted "director of hockey ops". Adding another layer of management will only result in the same old boys club hire.

 

[Dreakon13]

Not sure what to say other than to reiterate that Murray, for all his flaws, didn't really "sell the farm," anymore than Jason Botterill, as we are told, restocked it. Both propositions are obvious exaggerations, with the truth lying somewhere in the middle.

I mean, you're right...

Murray didn't trade every last pick/prospect that he had. But he traded a lot of them, and a lot of prospects.

Botteril also has not kept all of the picks/prospects he's had. But he kept a lot of them, and a lot of prospects.

That's all I was driving at. Assign whatever word/phrase you want to it.

 

[slip]

I disagree with a fair amount of Botterill does but I still think firing him is a huge risk.

Its a fast track to employing another GM who feels that getting "his" guys in will fix the team, and wasting 3 more years when it doesn't.

Trades, free agent signings, and GM turnover show that there's a league-wide inability to assess general managers before hire. Like it or not, the "ideal" candidate is a unicorn. I have more confidence that Botterill can fix the roster, than I do that Sabres management or whoever can find and hire that ideal candidate. Same for the coveted "director of hockey ops". Adding another layer of management will only result in the same old boys club hire.

I don't think anyone who dislikes Botts is looking for unicorns. I think most would settle for someone competent at their job. The ROR trade, rushing Mitts, gifting Tage, riding Housley, and icing a team with gaping holes in the lineup yet still somehow managing to push us over the cap suggests our GM doesn't quite meet the minimal standards of competence.

 

[slip]

I mean, you're right...

Murray didn't trade every last pick/prospect that he had. But he traded a lot of them, and a lot of prospects.

Botteril also has not kept all of the picks/prospects he's had. But he kept a lot of them, and a lot of prospects.

That's all I was driving at. Assign whatever word/phrase you want to it.

Both GMs have overseen 3 drafts, yet Murray -- the farm slayer -- has 40% more picks than Jason Old McDonald Botterill.

Again, the stats don't quite support the narrative.

 

[Dreakon13]

Both GMs have overseen 3 drafts, yet Murray -- the farm slayer -- has 40% more picks than Jason Old McDonald Botterill.

Again, the stats don't quite support the narrative.

I'm not really sure what those stats are.

If true, my gut would be that Regier/early Murray were still in sell mode, so he had a lot more picks to play with later on than your average GM. Leading to possibly him picking more overall in volume, but not nearly as much as you'd want/expect for a team that just did a complete teardown and needs to restock.

And that doesn't really address all of the prospects he shipped out as well. They were also part of the farm.


EDIT: He also traded several 1sts from a stacked 2015 draft, so even if he didn't "sell the farm" in sheer numbers, he did by denying us the opportunity to use those unusually high quality picks.

 

[sabremike]

I disagree with a fair amount of Botterill does but I still think firing him is a huge risk.

Its a fast track to employing another GM who feels that getting "his" guys in will fix the team, and wasting 3 more years when it doesn't.

Trades, free agent signings, and GM turnover show that there's a league-wide inability to assess general managers before hire. Like it or not, the "ideal" candidate is a unicorn. I have more confidence that Botterill can fix the roster, than I do that Sabres management or whoever can find and hire that ideal candidate. Same for the coveted "director of hockey ops". Adding another layer of management will only result in the same old boys club hire.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking: In my opinion Botts has proven conclusively and without a shadow of a doubt he is a terrible GM. The only guy in the league right now who you can claim has done a worse job is Benning. He has a track record that is awful and it would be quite the stretch to think he somehow manages to ever become competent. Therefore it would be almost impossible to hire someone who would do things like willingly acquire (with the possible exception of Uncle Leo) the worst player in the entire sport or somehow see his team luck into contending for a playoff spot in mid January, seeing the team is being sucked straight into the abyss by a coach who is clearly out of his depth and has no business being behind an NHL bench and doing nothing but let another season go to crap.