Jason Botterill Discussion 3

[Chainshot]

I think you're overreacting dude..... your opinion about those decisions is valid. And a lot of people agree with you. But it might do your argument more justice to make it in a civil way, instead of screaming at people... On the Internet

maybe try looking at the good and seeing both sides of the equation before drawing conclusions. You can't just take 2 pieces of information (1 which has already been corrected by the GM), and label him 'bad'. it's silly, and doesn't do the bigger picture any justice whatsoever

and just fyi, 'save for' does imply an exception. And the exception was that I think that other than those 2 decisions, botteril has done an above average job correcting the path this organization was on. I never gave him a pass. I listed the pros and cons, and you decided to only focus on the cons then have a freakout about how bad botteril is

I'm not scream at you. If you read it that way, take a breath. You've been here long enough to know that I was done with Botterill's lack of action and lack of success a long time ago.

Do you often find you think people being blunt or terse with you are freaking out?

 

[OkimLom]

where are you getting that information? not to argue, just curious

the NHL statistics page.

 

[Chainshot]

we are literally EXACTLY where we were last year points-wise this time last year. Same exact record to boot. That put us at 11th place last year. This year, we’re in 18th place.

Edit: this year we have less goals for, less shots for, less goals against, and more shots against.

They are worse in all the fancy stats except ES save percentage.

But hey, let's wait. Maybe a third year of waiting will get them closer to either being good or just having another bit of on-ice talent hemorrhage... at this point their collectively wasting our time.

 

[valet]

I'm not scream at you. If you read it that way, take a breath. You've been here long enough to know that I was done with Botterill's lack of action and lack of success a long time ago.

Do you often find you think people being blunt or terse with you are freaking out?

well can you at least reply to the rest of my opinion, instead of singling out 2 things you thought were bad? and using them as the only factors upon which you evaluate the gms performance?

It is kind of frustrating when someone won't even acknowledge half of what you say..... Especially after you've repeatedly acknowledged their views. I also find it fascinating that you believe a profanity laced post that really doesn't articulate the point it's trying to make wouldn't be seen as offensive. Like, really? You can't see how someone quoting one sentence from your post then dropping a bunch of f bombs isn't offensive?

 

[OkimLom]

They are worse in all the fancy stats except ES save percentage.

But hey, let's wait. Maybe a third year of waiting will get them closer to either being good or just having another bit of on-ice talent hemorrhage... at this point their collectively wasting our time.

I didn’t even look that in-depth.
But hey, they are collecting a lot of data and play on what not to do, at some point they review the compilation of their play and learn what not to do anymore.

 

[Chainshot]

I’ve given Botts more credit than you (massive understatement )

But the biggest sin I can’t forgive yet is Housley. It completely negated the other things Botts did well.

Pilut is a prime example of this. Getting Pilut was a coup. Sending him to Rochester to adept to NA ice and play with a vet like Redmond went amazing. Then he gets called up and Phil destroys his confidence. To the point that he was ineffective on his return to the Amerks. Phil effectively negated the addition of Pilut and ruined him for the Amerks playoff. From AHL all start to meh.

Phil grinding O'Reilly into the ice with that ridiculous d-zone use and minutes in his first season, with a system that was clearly non-functional is another - he set the table for O'Reilly's eventual departure. One leads directly into the other. The compounding factor was the poor quantitative return Botterill got in the eventual trade. (I'm talking about O'Reilly, not Kane... that was another move that viewed through the lense of waiting too long impact value due to off-ice shenanigans.)

Phil's player use being an area Botterill talked about as being up to the coach is another area we can hope he's learned his lesson. For supposedly being an advanced thinking guy, Phil was startlingly conservative and it looked like he needed guidance in trying to map a future regarding personnel combos. It's now 1/5th into the season with Krueger and we're seeing some similar tendencies from the staff and similar lack of adjustments to see if other combos might work.

 

[Chainshot]

well can you at least reply to the rest of my opinion, instead of singling out 2 things you thought were bad? and using them as the only factors upon which you evaluate the gms performance?

It is kind of frustrating when someone won't even acknowledge half of what you say..... Especially after you've repeatedly acknowledged their views

Perhaps I haven't been clear before. Let me try again: His two f***-ups are so monumentally bad that the rest of his lipstick-on-pig equivalent moves don't deserve further scrutiny. There is no need to legitimize the good in the face of the enormously bad.

I have acknowledged before that I like what he's attempted to do with his defense and the farm. I find his speed of action, his forward evaluation and selection, his hands-off approach to on-ice personnel, his drafting hubris and habits, and his assessment of skill players to be criminally lacking.

 

[Chainshot]

I didn’t even look that in-depth.
But hey, they are collecting a lot of data and play on what not to do, at some point they review the compilation of their play and learn what not to do anymore.

Will that be under the next, next coach?

 

[valet]

Perhaps I haven't been clear before. Let me try again: His two ****-ups are so monumentally bad that the rest of his lipstick-on-pig equivalent moves don't deserve further scrutiny. There is no need to legitimize the good in the face of the enormously bad.

Maybe just don't watch the games then? Since the team is so bad and the gm is trash, and you already know what's going to happen? Even 1 or 2 years down the line....

my whole argument is predicated a long-term approach. the 2 moves you criticize are blips on the radar. we weren't going to have the depth to compete with prime ror like st. Louis can now. And Phil is already gone....

 

[Chainshot]

Maybe just don't watch the games then? Since the team is so bad and the gm is trash, and you already know what's going to happen? Even 1 or 2 years down the line....

I think I mentioned before that if you don't care for my content, there are ways you don't have to read it.

 

[valet]

I think I mentioned before that if you don't care for my content, there are ways you don't have to read it.

well, that wouldn't be any fun

 

[OkimLom]

Will that be under the next, next coach?

I, I don’t know. I do hope it’s under a new GM.

 

[CrazyPsycho]

Maybe just don't watch the games then? Since the team is so bad and the gm is trash, and you already know what's going to happen?

Why do you go to this argument? I love this team and am tired of it being run into the ground just like Chain is. I gave Botts a fair chance and he has not improved these guys at all, and I dont see the bright pipeline like others do (the D stockpile is pretty solid but the forwards are desperately lacking)

 

[valet]

Why do you go to this argument? I love this team and am tired of it being run into the ground just like Chain is. I gave Botts a fair chance and he has not improved these guys at all, and I dont see the bright pipeline like others do (the D stockpile is pretty solid but the forwards are desperately lacking)

my main point of contention is that I don't see how people think that all of it can be fixed in 2 seasons... It's just not a realistic foundation to argue from.

we had literally nothing when Murray was fired, and in 2.5 drafts (Botts came in literally right before the draft) you really only have time to address a small portion of those organizational needs. 2 years is not a fair chance. It's a totally unrealistic standard.

as to my distress tolerance (I guess), I'm just optimistic. I don't have any control over the team and I don't plan on forsaking sabres hockey.... soooooo, why bitch about it constantly, over and over and over? doesn't it make more sense to look at the bright side of things?

 

[Tatanka]

my main point of contention is that I don't see how people think that all of it can be fixed in 2 seasons... It's just not a realistic foundation to argue from.

we had literally nothing when Murray was fired, and in 2.5 drafts (Botts came in literally right before the draft) you really only have time to address a small portion of those organizational needs. 2 years is not a fair chance. It's a totally unrealistic standard.

as to my distress tolerance (I guess), I'm just optimistic. I don't have any control over the team and I don't plan on forsaking sabres hockey.... soooooo, why ***** about it constantly, over and over and over? doesn't it make more sense to look at the bright side of things?

He has had 3 drafts and 3 off seasons. 3 not 2. And he has had all the time in between. And remember, the moment the lottery balls dropped on Dahlin he had to do very little. He had a 1c and a 2 c. a potential 1 d. Sam on the wing. Nylander, Guhle Borgen in the pipeline. He couldn’t sign Petersen which should have beenthe first clue. He had the room to sign Skinner. He didn’t have to sign Sheary and Hunwick while giving away a pick or better yet give the higher pick and just grab Sheary. Your argument about time and the depth of the problem is specious. The immediate problem was Housley. He could have corrected that immediately and we would have been alot further ahead. All the subsequent moves for d still could have happened. But the lapse in judgement gives no comfort that given eons of time he will ever figure it out. We are going to waste Dahlins ELC. Probably Cozens as well.

 

[CrazyPsycho]

my main point of contention is that I don't see how people think that all of it can be fixed in 2 seasons... It's just not a realistic foundation to argue from.

we had literally nothing when Murray was fired, and in 2.5 drafts (Botts came in literally right before the draft) you really only have time to address a small portion of those organizational needs. 2 years is not a fair chance. It's a totally unrealistic standard.

as to my distress tolerance (I guess), I'm just optimistic. I don't have any control over the team and I don't plan on forsaking sabres hockey.... soooooo, why ***** about it constantly, over and over and over? doesn't it make more sense to look at the bright side of things?

It's probably not enough time, but what has he really done at all to fix these guys except hit a lottery ball? Johansson is nice, but counteracted by getting Vesey for no discernable reason. Miller is OK, but certainly not a needle mover. They have played Risto over his head for his entire tenure, and wont try Reinhart at center. What do you have to lose to try things?

Is he gunshy to move players because of the outlash from ROR?

I just cant see what his plan isn't and it is extremely frustrating. After 8 years of losing my optimism is gone, whereas as an example with the Bills I am optimistic because I can understand their plan and can see the actual improvements over a couple of seasons

 

[valet]

He has had 3 drafts and 3 off seasons. 3 not 2. And he has had all the time in between. And remember, the moment the lottery balls dropped on Dahlin he had to do very little. He had a 1c and a 2 c. a potential 1 d. Sam on the wing. Nylander, Guhle Borgen in the pipeline. He couldn’t sign Petersen which should have beenthe first clue. He had the room to sign Skinner. He didn’t have to sign Sheary and Hunwick while giving away a pick or better yet give the higher pick and just grab Sheary. Your argument about time and the depth of the problem is specious. The immediate problem was Housley. He could have corrected that immediately and we would have been alot further ahead. All the subsequent moves for d still could have happened. But the lapse in judgement gives no comfort that given eons of time he will ever figure it out. We are going to waste Dahlins ELC. Probably Cozens as well.

I'm not sure about that. Lots of money coming off of the books this off-season, a luxury that Botts didn't ever have up to this point in his tenure.

Like I said earlier, even with ror we are not competing before we have a solid base of middle/bottom 6ers rolling through the pipeline, and those fruits aren't ever really born until d+3... I'm going to reserve judgement until next season. We just don't have enough evidence to assert that his development-based long term strategy isn't working, nor should we believe that he suddenly has the power to build a contender out of a team that was a laughing stock when he took over. Because no one in the history of the league has done it before

 

[valet]

It's probably not enough time, but what has he really done at all to fix these guys except hit a lottery ball? Johansson is nice, but counteracted by getting Vesey for no discernable reason. Miller is OK, but certainly not a needle mover. They have played Risto over his head for his entire tenure, and wont try Reinhart at center. What do you have to lose to try things?

Is he gunshy to move players because of the outlash from ROR?

I just cant see what his plan isn't and it is extremely frustrating. After 8 years of losing my optimism is gone, whereas as an example with the Bills I am optimistic because I can understand their plan and can see the actual improvements over a couple of seasons

hockey isn't football, they have different life cycles, and players out of the draft (even in rounds 3 & 4) tend to be able to play right away

we have good players in the system now (we didn't before), it just takes time before they're really ready. as far as the 8 years goes. Sure, it sucks. but Botts hasn't been in charge that whole time. This is the beginning of his 3rd year... Definitely not enough time to make some of the outlandish statements that people have been making here, judging his entire tenure on a plan the relies on a 3,4,5 year process

I'm not saying that we're gonna win a bunch of cups in the coming years, just that people need to pump the breaks on these over the top negative criticisms

 

[OkimLom]

I'm not sure about that. Lots of money coming off of the books this off-season, a luxury that Botts didn't ever have up to this point in his tenure.

Like I said earlier, even with ror we are not competing before we have a solid base of middle/bottom 6ers rolling through the pipeline, and those fruits aren't ever really born until d+3... I'm going to reserve judgement until next season. We just don't have enough evidence to assert that his development-based long term strategy isn't working, nor should we believe that he suddenly has the power to build a contender out of a team that was a laughing stock when he took over. Because no one in the history of the league has done it before

Botterill had a lot more to work with than Murray with close to the same amount of time to build a team. People wanted Murray gone without seeing any sort of evidence of HIS development plan working. Yet we’re supposed to expect the guy who has seen this team become more of a tire fire defensively compared to the previous regime and who hasn’t surpassed the two years that were on the path to compete, with more talent, to correct the ship?

It’s one thing to get talent on the team, it’s a whole other issue to get the RIGHT talent on the team.

 

[joshjull]

Why do you go to this argument? I love this team and am tired of it being run into the ground just like Chain is. I gave Botts a fair chance and he has not improved these guys at all, and I dont see the bright pipeline like others do (the D stockpile is pretty solid but the forwards are desperately lacking)

If forwards are desperately lacking in the pipeline that’s largely on Murray. His draft record sucked. We’ll see how Botts is doing in a year or so with Pekar and Cozens likely here next season. Kind of hard to expect anyone else he drafted to be here yet outside of Mitts.

He also added a potential starting goalie in the pipeline with UPL. We’ll see how that turns out.

 

[sabrebuild]

If forwards are desperately lacking in the pipeline that’s largely on Murray. His draft record sucked. We’ll see how Botts is doing in a year or so with Pekar and Cozens likely here next season. Kind of hard to expect anyone else he drafted to be here yet outside of Mitts.

He also added a potential starting goalie in the pipeline with UPL. We’ll see how that turns out.

I mean Murray's draft picks, the ones that are likely to hit, went right to the nhl. Reinhart, Eichel, Lehner, Kane.

I mean realistically, anybody getting an nhl player out of a non first round pick is getting pretty lucky and it will take a while.

The only real miss Murray had on young player/prospect that could help now or was hoped to have helped, was Fasching.

Truly, as depth goes, that all three of Baptiste, Bailey and Fasching all busted, screwed the team for what should have been depth forwards with speed and physicality.

 

[sabrebuild]

I should not waste my time, but I have seen too many people repeat the same nonsense about how Botts came into a horrible situation. It's absurd.

The team when Murray was canned was not a bottom 5 team. It was around 80 points, with Baby Jack and Sam.

The team had all of its first round picks. They had a still valuable Nylander. They had a valuable Guhle. A well respected Risto. Kane. O'Reilly.

Let's all live in reality. Was the team stacked? No. But then again teams seldom hire new GMs when everything is perfect.

But were they setup well for the longterm and the short? Yes they were. They had a couple bad deals, but some good ones, elc's for the twins, great cap for O'Reilly, Risto.

Then Botts did absolutely nothing to impactfully build the team in year one. Hired a moron with a bad resume, who was awful and they failed unimaginably bad.

And then the heavens opened up and we actually won a lottery and got the best prospect at the most needed position. And then Jeff Skinner became available with such a limited list of teams he was given away.

Now realistically anybody, feel free to explain how botts got a raw unimaginably bad starting point.

I mean crap, the delusions need to stop. Murray failed because he didn't do good enough. Botts has been failing because he didn't do good enough.

Botts wasn't buried by anything. He buried himself with trash choices like trading O'Reilly for poop, keeping a coach who was horrible for a year longer than necessary, picking up bad cap hits for bums and not finding the right deal to bring enough offensive talent to win.

It wasn't good enough when @struckbyaparkedcar was validly describing how they were not identifying or even trying low cost options.

It wasn't good enough to let a young team have to eat two full seasons of Housley.

It wasn't good enough to go into 3 consecutive seasons with the exact same number of impact forwards as the gm you replaced left you with.

I get that nobody wants to admit they were really wrong about something they argued for collectively. But its exhausting to have people tell you ignore your lying eyes day after day.

 

[jcbeze]

No questions about the trade market by schopp/bulldog tonight....shocking

 

[Chainshot]

No questions about the trade market by schopp/bulldog tonight....shocking

Why be blunt when it’s easier to pander?

 

[Moskau]

"Botteril had nothing to work with."

The guy traded away a top 10 C for nothing. He had plenty to work with if he doesn't take the worst deal imaginable for RoR. Actually less than nothing when you consider Sobotka's contract is potentially preventing us from making trades. Actually less than less than nothing when you consider Berglund retiring immensely helped out the team.