jc17
Registered User
- Jun 14, 2013
- 11,035
- 7,765
So, how do you judge the job a GM has done if not by looking at the on ice results of the team he manages?
First of all, I didn't say you can't look at the on ice results. Using points as a metric is a stretch though. Are we going to forget the Darcy Regier hate for keeping the Sabres as a middling team? I didnt hate darcy but if we're going off of points, he's far better than Botterill and Murray, which would have sounded impossible to people at the end of his reign. Was Chiarelli better than all other GM's when his team won the cup? Was Jim Benning a better GM in 2014-15 than he was in 15-16?
Anyway, I think you look at intended direction of the team vs what is actually happening and if the two align.
Scenario 1 (what actually is happening): Botts wanted depth and we got Sobotka/Berglund with years left on their contracts, and finish the season with 78 points. That's a failure.
Scenario 2 (what didn't happen but would have been nice) What if before this season Botts thought Nylander, Smith, Olofsson were going to be studs and depth for the future, after one more year of development? In that case you would want to improve the current team while not taking spots from the future depth, and also not sacrificing a lot to "punt for a year". So lets say he traded late draft picks and insignificant parts for temporary depth on one year contracts which happened to be as bad as Sobotka/Berglund. In this example the team also finishes with 78 points but Nylander, Smith, Olofsson, flourish and continue to develop and dominate the AHL. At the end of the season the bad depth comes off the books opening spots for the young guys.
In each scenario, the team finishes with 78 points but the 2nd scenario is obviously better.
You can say that the moves Botts made don't indicate he has an intelligent long term plan, but just using point totals in incomplete.