The ROR Beatification Station and Exclusion Zone (Discussion of ROR trade goes here!)

[Zman5778]

set the franchise back in total talent and development during the prime of Eichel's career.

While I agree that Botts has reduced the overall talent on the roster --- most of that is strictly due to the ROR deal and there's more nuance to it.

He's vastly increased the talent on the back end.....and done it in a way that parallels the way the NHL is going. Our back end is mostly mobile and mostly full of puck movers. By any stretch it's a big-time plus to me the way he's handled the defense.

However, while we might be a LITTLE deeper at forward than we were.....losing ROR means we're less talented by default. While I disagree with your notion that the trade set us back "5 plus" years...it has set us back. If we get Mitts back on track and keep Cozens on track and if Tage hits, and if one or two more picks hit......we're going to be looking darned good. That's a lot of "ifs" though.

If/when Botts is fired (and I don't think it'll be after this year unless we pull another disappearing act in Feb/Mar/Apr) I think his legacy is two-fold: He brought our D up to spec with today's NHL but made an ill-fated trade that ultimately he couldn't recover from.

 

[Icicle]

While I agree that Botts has reduced the overall talent on the roster --- most of that is strictly due to the ROR deal and there's more nuance to it.

He's vastly increased the talent on the back end.....and done it in a way that parallels the way the NHL is going. Our back end is mostly mobile and mostly full of puck movers. By any stretch it's a big-time plus to me the way he's handled the defense.

However, while we might be a LITTLE deeper at forward than we were.....losing ROR means we're less talented by default. While I disagree with your notion that the trade set us back "5 plus" years...it has set us back. If we get Mitts back on track and keep Cozens on track and if Tage hits, and if one or two more picks hit......we're going to be looking darned good. That's a lot of "ifs" though.

If/when Botts is fired (and I don't think it'll be after this year unless we pull another disappearing act in Feb/Mar/Apr) I think his legacy is two-fold: He brought our D up to spec with today's NHL but made an ill-fated trade that ultimately he couldn't recover from.

So your main negative is a trade that the Owner very likely forced his hand on?

 

[Zman5778]

So your main negative is a trade that the Owner very likely forced his hand on?

Yup, and I fully agree with the idea that his hand was forced by Pegula. He's also overpaid in several other deals....but I find that a little less severe. IMO, a GM needs to stand up to his owner in a case like ROR. If you get fired for it, you get fired for it. But there's no way you can let a stud two-way center like that go................unless you're getting back a hell of a deal.

 

[Icicle]

Yup, and I fully agree with the idea that his hand was forced by Pegula. He's also overpaid in several other deals....but I find that a little less severe. IMO, a GM needs to stand up to his owner in a case like ROR. If you get fired for it, you get fired for it. But there's no way you can let a stud two-way center like that go................unless you're getting back a hell of a deal.

If I was a GM and I had to deal with his asshole brother and his father, along with his total inability to show any positive attitude in the face of adversity despite being paid extra to be a leader-- I still side with Botterill. I think too many people siding with ROR are ignoring all the human factors involved here. And nobody go quoting his Stanley Cup--- their team was in dead last at this point last season under their deadbeat coach and ROR wasn't moving any needle there. The new coach and goalie did it all.

 

[Zman5778]

And nobody go quoting his Stanley Cup--- their team was in dead last at this point last season under their deadbeat coach and ROR wasn't moving any needle there.

ROR was the only one playing good hockey when the Blues started the way they did. Without ROR, they're in no position to make the crazy charge as they'd basically be where Detroit is now. Whatever points they got prior to 1/1/19 was basically on ROR's back.

 

[Jame]

While I agree that Botts has reduced the overall talent on the roster --- most of that is strictly due to the ROR deal and there's more nuance to it.

He's vastly increased the talent on the back end.....and done it in a way that parallels the way the NHL is going. Our back end is mostly mobile and mostly full of puck movers. By any stretch it's a big-time plus to me the way he's handled the defense.

However, while we might be a LITTLE deeper at forward than we were.....losing ROR means we're less talented by default. While I disagree with your notion that the trade set us back "5 plus" years...it has set us back. If we get Mitts back on track and keep Cozens on track and if Tage hits, and if one or two more picks hit......we're going to be looking darned good. That's a lot of "ifs" though.

If/when Botts is fired (and I don't think it'll be after this year unless we pull another disappearing act in Feb/Mar/Apr) I think his legacy is two-fold: He brought our D up to spec with today's NHL but made an ill-fated trade that ultimately he couldn't recover from.

i disagree... but who wants to really regurgitate and relitigate all his moves.

yes the ROR move is a big part of it, but his years of failing around the margins and flushing picks down the toilet is also part of it.

 

[joshjull]

By any reasonable and rational measure, trading away a conne smythe winning top 6 center for a very poor return, while creating a giant hole at exactly that position, and then failing to make the playoffs, or even improve the team’s record, in any of your 3 seasons at the helm would be a Fireable offense. If he’s not fired, it’s because ownership would rather have a nice GM than a good one.

By any reasonable and rational measure we didn’t trade away a Conn Smyth winner. We traded away a 24g 60pt real good two center. One with only 13 playoff games under his belt and none with us.

The major reasons for the trade were off ice. Don’t have to like it or agree with it but its getting old reading takes suggesting it was a “hockey” trade gone bad.

Reporting on the trade indicates there seems to have been a mandate to get him out of here before a bonus had to be paid. Logic would dictate that the only people that would care about such a thing would be the owners. So why would the owners fire the GM for doing something they wanted?



The trade pretty much has 3 parts to analyze .

1) The decision to move on from him -> I don’t have an issue with this for the reasons I believe it was done. But I’m sure many would disagree.

2) The trade itself and its return -> I don’t know what to make of this because of possibility of owners mandate. It changes the deal from getting the best you can to making sure you get rid of him. Leading up to the bonus deadline there weren’t that many teams showing interest.

3) Backfilling after losing the player —> Here is where Botts failed with no possible mitigating factors . He didn’t need to get an exact replacement. But he should have been able to get at least 1 or 2 NHL centers.

 

[slip]

Reporting on the trade indicates there seems to have been a mandate to get him out of here before a bonus had to be paid. Logic would dictate that the only people that would care about such a thing would be the owners. So why would the owners fire the GM for doing something they wanted?

I assume you are aware that ROR's contract consists of a huge upfront yearly bonus, followed by a nominal 1 million a year salary. So basically any attempt to trade ROR at any time during this deal would present management/ownership with the same dilemma regarding the bonus. I also assume you're aware that ROR was paid 10 million per season for the first two years of his contract, and was due an average of 6.25 million in actual salary the next 5 years.

Given that situation, I find it silly to paint management as hamstringing their GM by imposing a deadline on trading ROR before the 7 million dollar bonus for 2018-2019 kicked in. In fact, one could just as easily argue that Botterill had good leverage in a trade given that roughly 40% of ROR's contract had already been paid out, and that his actual salary would be almost 20% lower than his actual cap hit for the remaining 5 years. Given this context, why should ownership eat another 7 million in salary for a guy the GM -- and the GM only -- wants to trade? Especially when so much has been paid upfront to begin with? Why do some give Botts a pass because of the time/financial constraints of the trade due to the bonus, yet ignore the leverage he had due to the heavily front loaded nature of the deal which Buffalo already absorbed?

 

[Icicle]

I assume you are aware that ROR's contract consists of a huge upfront yearly bonus, followed by a nominal 1 million a year salary. So basically any attempt to trade ROR at any time during this deal would present management/ownership with the same dilemma regarding the bonus. I also assume you're aware that ROR was paid 10 million per season for the first two years of his contract, and was due an average of 6.25 million in actual salary the next 5 years.

Given that situation, I find it silly to paint management as hamstringing their GM by imposing a deadline on trading ROR before the 7 million dollar bonus for 2018-2019 kicked in. In fact, one could just as easily argue that Botterill had good leverage in a trade given that roughly 40% of ROR's contract had already been paid out, and that his actual salary would be almost 20% lower than his actual cap hit for the remaining 5 years. Given this context, why should ownership eat another 7 million in salary for a guy the GM -- and the GM only -- wants to trade? Especially when so much has been paid upfront to begin with? Why do some give Botts a pass because of the time/financial constraints of the trade due to the bonus, yet ignore the leverage he had due to the heavily front loaded nature of the deal which Buffalo already absorbed?

It was entirely about 7$MM dollars. It was made public knowledge there were before and after prices, and nobody was going to bite on the after prices at all. Even what Botterill got was long told to be an 'astronomical price' for ROR that dismayed most suitors on the before price. Ya'll just mad that ROR sunk his own value so low that's all he got.

 

[truthbluth]

By any reasonable and rational measure we didn’t trade away a Conn Smyth winner. We traded away a 24g 60pt real good two center. One with only 13 playoff games under his belt and none with us.

The major reasons for the trade were off ice. Don’t have to like it or agree with it but its getting old reading takes suggesting it was a “hockey” trade gone bad.

Reporting on the trade indicates there seems to have been a mandate to get him out of here before a bonus had to be paid. Logic would dictate that the only people that would care about such a thing would be the owners. So why would the owners fire the GM for doing something they wanted?



The trade pretty much has 3 parts to analyze .

1) The decision to move on from him -> I don’t have an issue with this for the reasons I believe it was done. But I’m sure many would disagree.

2) The trade itself and its return -> I don’t know what to make of this because of possibility of owners mandate. It changes the deal from getting the best you can to making sure you get rid of him. Leading up to the bonus deadline there weren’t that many teams showing interest.

3) Backfilling after losing the player —> Here is where Botts failed with no possible mitigating factors . He didn’t need to get an exact replacement. But he should have been able to get at least 1 or 2 NHL centers.

Stopped reading after the first sentence. If your central argument is that technically RoR hadn’t won a Conn Smythe yet then you aren’t worth arguing with on this topic.

There isn’t an analyst that I respect in the world that didn’t think RoR was a premier two way center in the league. Trading him was stupid at the time, and looks even more stupid now.

 

[lauraP]

By any reasonable and rational measure we didn’t trade away a Conn Smyth winner. We traded away a 24g 60pt real good two center. One with only 13 playoff games under his belt and none with us.

The major reasons for the trade were off ice. Don’t have to like it or agree with it but its getting old reading takes suggesting it was a “hockey” trade gone bad.

Reporting on the trade indicates there seems to have been a mandate to get him out of here before a bonus had to be paid. Logic would dictate that the only people that would care about such a thing would be the owners. So why would the owners fire the GM for doing something they wanted?



The trade pretty much has 3 parts to analyze .

1) The decision to move on from him -> I don’t have an issue with this for the reasons I believe it was done. But I’m sure many would disagree.

2) The trade itself and its return -> I don’t know what to make of this because of possibility of owners mandate. It changes the deal from getting the best you can to making sure you get rid of him. Leading up to the bonus deadline there weren’t that many teams showing interest.

3) Backfilling after losing the player —> Here is where Botts failed with no possible mitigating factors . He didn’t need to get an exact replacement. But he should have been able to get at least 1 or 2 NHL centers.

i've gone down that rabbit hole. it's not worth your time, some people just want another reason to hate botts. which i am fine with but this revisionist history where people think botts trading away a con smythe winner for peanuts because he thought it was a great hockey move is really getting old.

 

[lauraP]

Stopped reading after the first sentence. If your central argument is that technically RoR hadn’t won a Conn Smythe yet then you aren’t worth arguing with on this topic.

There isn’t an analyst that I respect in the world that didn’t think RoR was a premier two way center in the league. Trading him was stupid at the time, and looks even more stupid now.

no doubt it was stupid and everyone and their mother knew we were gonna regret the move. but there is more reason behind the stupidness beside Botts being a dum dum

 

[Jame]

no doubt it was stupid and everyone and their mother knew we were gonna regret the move. but there is more reason behind the stupidness beside Botts being a dum dum

You should read the original reactions to the trade on this very board...

 

[lauraP]

You should read the original reactions to the trade on this very board...

I think some people were just trying to stay optimist in these trying times lol

 

[truthbluth]

no doubt it was stupid and everyone and their mother knew we were gonna regret the move. but there is more reason behind the stupidness beside Botts being a dum dum

I've heard things, from from people I trust, and yet, and yet, he made one of the worst trades in NHL history. Was RoR's situation so complex and unique that literally no other team has had to deal with in the last 10 years? It's entirely possible a trade needed to happen, but Botts being a dum dum is clearly the biggest variable in the paltry return.

 

[mechaworm]

You should read the original reactions to the trade on this very board...

Mostly quite negative. There was even a poll that said we got bum-rammed.

 

[sabrebuild]

By any reasonable and rational measure we didn’t trade away a Conn Smyth winner. We traded away a 24g 60pt real good two center. One with only 13 playoff games under his belt and none with us.

The major reasons for the trade were off ice. Don’t have to like it or agree with it but its getting old reading takes suggesting it was a “hockey” trade gone bad.

Reporting on the trade indicates there seems to have been a mandate to get him out of here before a bonus had to be paid. Logic would dictate that the only people that would care about such a thing would be the owners. So why would the owners fire the GM for doing something they wanted?



The trade pretty much has 3 parts to analyze .

1) The decision to move on from him -> I don’t have an issue with this for the reasons I believe it was done. But I’m sure many would disagree.

2) The trade itself and its return -> I don’t know what to make of this because of possibility of owners mandate. It changes the deal from getting the best you can to making sure you get rid of him. Leading up to the bonus deadline there weren’t that many teams showing interest.

3) Backfilling after losing the player —> Here is where Botts failed with no possible mitigating factors . He didn’t need to get an exact replacement. But he should have been able to get at least 1 or 2 NHL centers.

I've never thought the aftermath mattered, that O'Reilly won the Conn Smythe, tho there were plenty of people who said he should be moved because he was slow.

But unless we only qualify the top ten or so centers in the league a 1C's, the O'Reilly you describe offensively alone is right on the edge of being a 1C. Look around the league and there are very few guys who play center with that kind of production. Now add in his elite defense and it's pretty bad analysis to say he wasn't a 1C at the time. The fact that he proved he was on Bergeron's level in the playoffs is just overt confirmation of what he did every year in Buffalo, just with little help.

 

[sabrebuild]

i've gone down that rabbit hole. it's not worth your time, some people just want another reason to hate botts. which i am fine with but this revisionist history where people think botts trading away a con smythe winner for peanuts because he thought it was a great hockey move is really getting old.

The only revisionist history is the significant group of people who talked about how it was a smart hockey decision for months before it happened and for months after it happened. I don't think the tide turned until this off-season.

Heck JJ told me I was nuts for thinking Pegula's screwed us fans over for petty behind the scenes stuff like the bonus payment deadline.

 

[sabremike]

Stopped reading after the first sentence. If your central argument is that technically RoR hadn’t won a Conn Smythe yet then you aren’t worth arguing with on this topic.

There isn’t an analyst that I respect in the world that didn’t think RoR was a premier two way center in the league. Trading him was stupid at the time, and looks even more stupid now.

I fall down laughing when people cite his not spectacular offensive numbers as some sort of indictment on ROR. He obliterated the record for most amount of hard minutes by a player in hockey history and had over a thousand defensive zone face offs in the past decade. Unless the opposing goalie is Brysgalov it's pretty difficult to rack up points in your own end.

And one thing that will never make any sense: if ownership was in fact forcing him to make this trade he had to know it would end up as the first line in the eventual obituary for his career as an NHL GM. Why did he not do everything in his power to convince the Pegulas not to force him to make such a terrible mistake?

 

[Jame]

Mostly quite negative. There was even a poll that said we got bum-rammed.

there were quite a few “good deal” and “great move”... but that’s in the past

 

[Jame]

Is that the one we gave them for Vessey? If so that trade just keeps getting better and better...

yes. Thats the one

 

[sabrebuild]

Mostly quite negative. There was even a poll that said we got bum-rammed.

Confirmed with Link: - Ryan O'Reilly traded to STL for Tage Thompson, Patrik Berglund, Vladimir Sobotka, 2019 1st, 2021 2nd

33 % thought big win for the Blues
37% thought a win for the blues
Who knows how we qualify that. A lot of votes, far more than how many people regularly post.

The rest thought it was a win or big win for the sabres.

And if you actually read the posts, many regular posters thought it was a great deal....

Sheesh, a lot of dumb analysis on their regardless of success or failure of the outcome.

 

[Jame]

Confirmed with Link: - Ryan O'Reilly traded to STL for Tage Thompson, Patrik Berglund, Vladimir Sobotka, 2019 1st, 2021 2nd

33 % thought big win for the Blues
37% thought a win for the blues
Who knows how we qualify that. A lot of votes, far more than how many people regularly post.

The rest thought it was a win or big win for the sabres.

And if you actually read the posts, many regular posters thought it was a great deal....

Sheesh, a lot of dumb analysis on their regardless of success or failure of the outcome.

you can always go back to that thread and find all of today’s ROR trade truthers and Botts defenders claiming it was a good move that day.

 

[lauraP]

you can always go back to that thread and find all of today’s ROR trade truthers and Botts defenders claiming it was a good move that day.

Theres not that many of them.

 

[lauraP]

Confirmed with Link: - Ryan O'Reilly traded to STL for Tage Thompson, Patrik Berglund, Vladimir Sobotka, 2019 1st, 2021 2nd

33 % thought big win for the Blues
37% thought a win for the blues
Who knows how we qualify that. A lot of votes, far more than how many people regularly post.

The rest thought it was a win or big win for the sabres.

And if you actually read the posts, many regular posters thought it was a great deal....

Sheesh, a lot of dumb analysis on their regardless of success or failure of the outcome.

that's not true 9% of people thought it was a win for the sabres. most of us knew it was terrible.