News Article: Jason Botterill Has Buffalo on the Right Track

[Chainshot]

Wanting the return to be just a little bit better either the pic or a prospect is the other side of the coin from when Murray was always including something extra in every move that he made. It’s very similar, the desire to see the team receive maximum value in return or retention.

 

[BuzzKillington90]

If he did, then he lied to everyone at all his press conferences.

I do feel inclined to point out that it wasn't just Tim Murray...

Lou Lamoreillo - Hired July 23 2015, Leafs finish: Dead Last
Kevin Cheveldayoff - hired 2009, bottom 8 finish, then bottom 5 finish
Ken Holland - Hired 1996 ( Edit: I had the wrong year, this year they finished high in their division)

None of these GMs were on record stating they were trying to lose..... all improved either the next year or afterwards.

Some of you will point out Jarmo, David Poile and someone like Ray Shero as year 1 success stories. Shero just got Crosby, Malkin and Staal for year one. David Poile was an expansion draft and Jarmo acquired a team in the middle of the pack.

The one comparable in all this is that all of these GMs are in their first/2nd year

 

[OkimLom]

I don't quite understand the fervor over the STL pick being top 10 protected. That pick is top 10 protected because STL is a really good team now.

I value a top 10 pick, Thompson + 2nd + 2 Contracts St Louis wants to get rid of, closer to the value of ROR, and with Buffalo doing so much to help St Louis out when Botts didn't have his back to the wall, I felt it was just a moment of Botts settling for a lesser value on the trade package. For me, it was a situation where you had an instance where you could really help out your pipeline, add high talent to your pool of players, and you took yourself out of getting the max return for a player of ROR's caliber.

For a Rental, I understand the reason for folding to settle on a lesser trade deal, but for a player in his prime, on a 5 year contract with 0 restrictions, I'm of the mindset that you don't settle on lesser pieces. You either keep your standards high, and force the other team to agree to those terms, if they want that player bad enough, or you find alternative methods to fix what your weakness is (locker room character in this case). Now, if Botts' standard of the value of ROR as a player is what he got, then that's a whole other matter that I have issue with Botts on.

 

[TheMistyStranger]

I value a top 10 pick, Thompson + 2nd + 2 Contracts St Louis wants to get rid of, closer to the value of ROR, and with Buffalo doing so much to help St Louis out when Botts didn't have his back to the wall, I felt it was just a moment of Botts settling for a lesser value on the trade package. For me, it was a situation where you had an instance where you could really help out your pipeline, add high talent to your pool of players, and you took yourself out of getting the max return for a player of ROR's caliber.

For a Rental, I understand the reason for folding to settle on a lesser trade deal, but for a player in his prime, on a 5 year contract with 0 restrictions, I'm of the mindset that you don't settle on lesser pieces. You either keep your standards high, and force the other team to agree to those terms, if they want that player bad enough, or you find alternative methods to fix what your weakness is (locker room character in this case). Now, if Botts' standard of the value of ROR as a player is what he got, then that's a whole other matter that I have issue with Botts on.

Odds are extremely slim that they would have had a top 10 pick, though, so it's a moo point.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

I value a top 10 pick, Thompson + 2nd + 2 Contracts St Louis wants to get rid of, closer to the value of ROR, and with Buffalo doing so much to help St Louis out when Botts didn't have his back to the wall, I felt it was just a moment of Botts settling for a lesser value on the trade package. For me, it was a situation where you had an instance where you could really help out your pipeline, add high talent to your pool of players, and you took yourself out of getting the max return for a player of ROR's caliber.

For a Rental, I understand the reason for folding to settle on a lesser trade deal, but for a player in his prime, on a 5 year contract with 0 restrictions, I'm of the mindset that you don't settle on lesser pieces. You either keep your standards high, and force the other team to agree to those terms, if they want that player bad enough, or you find alternative methods to fix what your weakness is (locker room character in this case). Now, if Botts' standard of the value of ROR as a player is what he got, then that's a whole other matter that I have issue with Botts on.

The clause has no affect on the pick. It's not a top 10 pick because STL is making the playoffs.

 

[OkimLom]

The clause has no affect on the pick. It's not a top 10 pick because STL is making the playoffs.

Odds are extremely slim that they would have had a top 10 pick, though, so it's a moo point.

Anything can happen. I believe St Louis will be a playoff team. I think everyone believes they will make the playoffs. So why is there a protection for a top 10 pick? It's because St louis wants it, and IMO, Botts should've held steady of asking for a 1st round pick regardless of where it is. But let's say they finish just out of the playoffs because of an injury riddled season, or because of the improved division, and they are able to get a top 3 pick because of the lottery...Being okay with allowing St. Louis to put that on the 1st round pick might not look that great. Chicago placed 25th this season, even though they still had a playoff calibre roster.

EDIT: that restriction on the pick could be the difference between an Evan Bouchard player vs a Dominik Bokk player

 

[TheMistyStranger]

Anything can happen. I believe St Louis will be a playoff team. I think everyone believes they will make the playoffs. So why is there a protection for a top 10 pick? It's because St louis wants it, and IMO, Botts should've held steady of asking for a 1st round pick regardless of where it is. But let's say they finish just out of the playoffs because of an injury riddled season, or because of the improved division, and they are able to get a top 3 pick because of the lottery...Being okay with allowing St. Louis to put that on the 1st round pick might not look that great. Chicago placed 25th this season, even though they still had a playoff calibre roster.

Sure, but it seems like a very odd hill to die on. You wanted Dunn instead of Berglund? Ok, fine. We can have that discussion and figure out what could have been different to get Dunn in the deal. But a top 10 protected 1st from a team that has made the playoffs in 6 of the last 7 years [last year being the exception, probably largely attributable to the somewhat perplexing trade with Winnipeg]? If they do miss, I think it's safe to assume they don't miss by much, in which case their odds at a top 3 pick are under 3%.

TLDR; it feels like you're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

 

[joshjull]

Or the pieces he received are what you would expect in that type of deal. a 1st, a near NHL ready Prospect, a 2nd, and two NHL players are what you expect to get for a guy like ROR (being a low end #1 center high end #2 center), without looking at the context of the contract situation, or the value of those pieces.

When I look at ROR's Contract of 5 more years + his age + his role and what he accomplished with the talent he had played with, I expect a little more value in some of the pieces; the 1st Round pick (I wish it was NOT top 10 protected), the near NHL ready Prospect (I didn't need Thomas but I expected better than Thompson), the 2nd is a throwaway for me for taking on two NHL contracts of Berglund (who I like a lot) and Sobotka(who had past issues in a locker room that has a much better history of success). My thought is that Botts settled on every single piece of the trade, when he didn't need to settle. He made himself have a deadline, HE decided ROR needed to go without exploring other avenues of addressing fixing the locker room impact. I don't like the decision, and I don't believe I will ever like the decision.

Thank you for making my point.

 

[OkimLom]

Thank you for making my point.

Anytime!
Sorry Coach JJ for having an opinion, I'll go sit back down on the bench...

 

[sabrebuild]

TLDR; it feels like you're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

From a fan perspective that doesn’t go into detail at a bar, you are totally right.

From a fan perspective who spends hours a week talking about the nhl and this team all the time, that’s a bizarre statement, given this is the biggest deal the team has made in three years. So you know, it should get scrutinized.

From the perspective of an nhl gm, these small points are literally the reason you have a job at all. They are hockey ceo/lawyers who should be looking for every advantage, no matter how small, they can get to help their franchise. Just like we expect a player to grind for every play.

After reflecting on the trade for a bit now, I’m going to take the positive view of Botts and say he consciously made the choice to take this deal and the details. I don’t think he got snookered.

I think ownership made the call on some level. Whether it was the dwi or the statement at the end of the year or whatever, someone over there decided, we are not writing this guy another check. Get him out.

Otherwise it makes little sense to rush a trade on him.

 

[joshjull]

Anytime!
Sorry Coach JJ for having an opinion, I'll go sit back down on the bench...

Save the personal crap and grasp whats being discussed.

Probably has to do with being able to assess the trade dispassionately.

League wide reporters don't have a dog in the fight like most do on this forum to one extent or another. They have none of the biases that drive all of us to one extent or another on here. So that allows them to dispassionately dissect the trade. That you responded to me posting the italicized with a passionate take down of the trade pretty much made my point.

You clearly don't get that's what I'm talking about and seem to think I'm disagreeing with your opinion of the trade. I wasn't even addressing it. How thats construed as my saying you can't have an opinion is beyond me.

 

[TheMistyStranger]

From a fan perspective that doesn’t go into detail at a bar, you are totally right.

From a fan perspective who spends hours a week talking about the nhl and this team all the time, that’s a bizarre statement, given this is the biggest deal the team has made in three years. So you know, it should get scrutinized.

From the perspective of an nhl gm, these small points are literally the reason you have a job at all. They are hockey ceo/lawyers who should be looking for every advantage, no matter how small, they can get to help their franchise. Just like we expect a player to grind for every play.

After reflecting on the trade for a bit now, I’m going to take the positive view of Botts and say he consciously made the choice to take this deal and the details. I don’t think he got snookered.

I think ownership made the call on some level. Whether it was the dwi or the statement at the end of the year or whatever, someone over there decided, we are not writing this guy another check. Get him out.

Otherwise it makes little sense to rush a trade on him.

It's being evaluated in a vacuum, though. Maybe if Botts insists that there is no protection on the pick, StL doesn't include Tage. There's no way to evaluate the ins and outs of that piece of minutia without more information. I know I'd much rather have TT than an unprotected 1st that's likely to be in the 20+ range anyway.

 

[sabrebuild]

It's being evaluated in a vacuum, though. Maybe if Botts insists that there is no protection on the pick, StL doesn't include Tage. There's no way to evaluate the ins and outs of that piece of minutia without more information. I know I'd much rather have TT than an unprotected 1st that's likely to be in the 20+ range anyway.

Agreed, there is not enough info to know what happened either way.

For example the idea that you would trade RoR for an unprotected 1st, a 2nd and two over priced middle six guys at best, is laughable.

So if we want to agree about not knowing the ins and outs, then we have to agree that we can only measure the trade on what came in and what went out. Not the rumors or guesses, since no one has come out to say anything about O’Reilly or Botts’ thought process.

Which leaves me wanting. Certainly in the short term. I hope Thompson and the picks work out.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

It's interesting how the general response to the ROR deal by the guys who cover the entire league seems to be much less negative than the general response here. It ranges anywhere from "not terrible" to "pretty good," whereas the general response here has been "terribad." I am personally in the "not terrible" camp.

The trade was pretty much universally panned by national writers with pretty much any level of familiarity with advanced stats.

Most of the people I’ve seen praise the trade are still measuring defense with +/-, or are praising Botterill getting his ask of “1st + prospect” and uncritically buying the need for culture change.

 

[sabrebuild]

Save the personal crap and grasp whats being discussed.

Probably has to do with being able to assess the trade dispassionately.

League wide reporters don't have a dog in the fight like most do on this forum to one extent or another. They have none of the biases that drive all of us to one extent or another on here. So that allows them to dispassionately dissect the trade. That you responded to me posting the italicized with a passionate take down of the trade pretty much made my point.

You clearly don't get that's what I'm talking about and seem to think I'm disagreeing with your opinion of the trade. I wasn't even addressing it. How thats construed as my saying you can't have an opinion is beyond me.

Jj, you can’t seriously think that league reporters are neutral or unbiased?

They have sources they need to play nice with, players they need to keep happy.


They are humans. They have friends who are gm’s who have personal biases. I mean, have you read the McKenzie and league email scandal stuff? We are not talking about super savvy, honest, smart people who dispassionately give you an audit on the trade.

Most haven’t watched more than two Sabres games in 5 years due to no playoffs and garbage hockey.

 

[Sabre the Win]

Also wondered about us having so few draft picks the last two years with such a poor team.

Doh! Thanks Tim.

Every player he brought in is now out.

 

[valet]

It's interesting how the general response to the ROR deal by the guys who cover the entire league seems to be much less negative than the general response here. It ranges anywhere from "not terrible" to "pretty good," whereas the general response here has been "terribad." I am personally in the "not terrible" camp.

as usual, it is the vocal minority that feels the need to put the opinion that it was the worst trade possible on blast... to most people it's clear that this wasn't a fleecing. We got decent value

and the thing that no one wants to admit is that this probably puts us in a much better situation long-term, both against the cap and with the type of team we're trying to build, on and off the ice

obviously the verdict isn't out yet, but we'll get there eventually, and my hunch is that this trade will matter a lot less than some folks are making it out to be in the long run

 

[TheMistyStranger]

as usual, it is the vocal minority that feels the need to put the opinion that it was the worst trade possible on blast... to most people it's clear that this wasn't a fleecing. We got decent value

and the thing that no one wants to admit is that this probably puts us in a much better situation long-term, both against the cap and with the type of team we're trying to build, on and off the ice

obviously the verdict isn't out yet, but we'll get there eventually, and my hunch is that this trade will matter a lot less than some folks are making it out to be in the long run

I dunno. I can see TT getting 14 goals during a Cup run.

 

[Jim Bob]

Doh! Thanks Tim.

Every player he brought in is now out.

Who did they get for Eichel and Reinhart?

 

[joshjull]

Jj, you can’t seriously think that league reporters are neutral or unbiased?

They have sources they need to play nice with, players they need to keep happy.


They are humans. They have friends who are gm’s who have personal biases. I mean, have you read the McKenzie and league email scandal stuff? We are not talking about super savvy, honest, smart people who dispassionately give you an audit on the trade.

Most haven’t watched more than two Sabres games in 5 years due to no playoffs and garbage hockey.

Wow...

It's interesting how the general response to the ROR deal by the guys who cover the entire league seems to be much less negative than the general response here. It ranges anywhere from "not terrible" to "pretty good," whereas the general response here has been "terribad." I am personally in the "not terrible" camp.

The above is what I initially respond to.

My response to that post was .... Probably has to do with being able to assess the trade dispassionately.

The point isn't that they don't have biases. The point is they don't care to the level we do. So they don't feel the need to argue for or against the trade based on such feelings. They aren’t likely to have built in frustrations with our GM or our team in general that will influence their takes on the trade. Doesn’t make them any more right or wrong. But it does make it understandable that as a group their takes on the trade aren’t as negative.

 

[sabrebuild]

Wow...


The above is what I initially respond to.

My response to that post was .... Probably has to do with being able to assess the trade dispassionately.

The point isn't that they don't have biases. The point is they don't care to the level we do. So they don't feel the need to argue for or against the trade based on such feelings. They aren’t likely to have built in frustrations with our GM or our team in general that will influence their takes on the trade. Doesn’t make them any more right or wrong. But it does make it understandable that as a group their takes on the trade aren’t as negative.

The post I quoted in its entirety is naive at best.

 

[Onry]

Wow...


The above is what I initially respond to.

My response to that post was .... Probably has to do with being able to assess the trade dispassionately.

The point isn't that they don't have biases. The point is they don't care to the level we do. So they don't feel the need to argue for or against the trade based on such feelings. They aren’t likely to have built in frustrations with our GM or our team in general that will influence their takes on the trade. Doesn’t make them any more right or wrong. But it does make it understandable that as a group their takes on the trade aren’t as negative.

I listen to Sirius NHL all the time and, if I understand the original context leading to this post, it derived from the opinion of Jim "Boomer" Gordon and Alberga of their GM Report Card opinion of the Sabres.

Using them as the specific example, IMO it's less their ability to assess dispassionately and more reflects their lack of detailed knowledge of the specifics of the dynamics of each team. For example, in that GM report card analysis on goalies, they generalized the potential of Lehner and cited .920 +/-...but presumably don't know the finer detail of Robin's shoot-out performance and the points it cost this team, nor the reported refusal by him to practice.

Gordon had to ask, on the air in that segment, if Mittlestadt was out of school.

 

[sabremike]

The biggest reason I hate the ROR trade: before it was made because of having a guy who many feel will be a generational talent dropped into our lap there was hope. Dahlin and Casey gave us hope that if we just make a few shrewd moves we could have our first enjoyable season in close to a decade. We could actually play meaningfull games after the all star break, and even if we failed to make the playoffs (which would probably be the ultimate result but you never know) we could all hold our heads high and be proud of our team and how they were no longer the league punching bag. The ROR trade all but destroyed any chance of that happening. The 3 guys we got (and I'm including TT even though I suspect he is Rochester bound) don't come close to filling the huge hole getting rid of ROR left. Barring a total miracle we get another brutal waste of a season. I was at what was literally the last meaningful game this team played that they won, the game 5 OT win in 2011 (The last meaningful game this team has played period was the game 7). 7 years of complete meaningless and pointless hockey with no joy whatsoever is enough.

 

[sabremike]

I listen to Sirius NHL all the time and, if I understand the original context leading to this post, it derived from the opinion of Jim "Boomer" Gordon and Alberga of their GM Report Card opinion of the Sabres.

Using them as the specific example, IMO it's less their ability to assess dispassionately and more reflects their lack of detailed knowledge of the specifics of the dynamics of each team. For example, in that GM report card analysis on goalies, they generalized the potential of Lehner and cited .920 +/-...but presumably don't know the finer detail of Robin's shoot-out performance and the points it cost this team, nor the reported refusal by him to practice.

Gordon had to ask, on the air in that segment, if Mittlestadt was out of school.

That last part is like Mike Francesca when he is forced to talk hockey and it's clear he has no idea what he is talking about and he's winging it.

 

[valet]

I dunno. I can see TT getting 14 goals during a Cup run.

what do you mean? I feel like there's a disconnect.

I like tage too, if he puts it all together he could be a 30 goal guy