Jason Botterill Discussion 3
- Thread starter SnuggaRUDE
- Start date
- Status
Posts talking about Botterill being fine? I needed a good laugh this morning guys, thanks.
Sabre the Win
Joke of a Franchise
- Jun 27, 2013
- 12,959
- 5,577
sabremike
#1 Tageaholic
I am honestly hoping that his comments here are just for public consumption and that he's not banking on Casey being a credible #2 center for quite a while.
To be fair, 2C means different things to different people.
I think most people would want Mittelstadt in a sheltered, high Ozone start position and think we need to add a high defensive zone % center.
Is 2C defined by 2nd most offensive production or 2nd most TOI?
Rasmus CacOlainen
The end of the Tank
Im a Botts supporter in general...but I have to be honest that hiring Housley and keeping Housley too long are two separate big mistakes. His depth signings for the NHL or AHL/NHL tweeners have been beyond terrible as literally not a single one has worked out. His drafting so far seems good even if its early to say. His trades are acceptable on balance and good if we manage to keep Skinner. I support him but Im not twisting sensible logic just to show support.
Sabre Dance
Make Hockey Fun Again
- Jul 27, 2006
- 12,601
- 2,384
Depth usually stinks when your top players can't get the job consistently.
Dreakon13
Registered User
I think most GM's give Housley two years personally. The only way a coach is fired after a year or less is if management and players just flat out hate the guy, or if you're Edmonton. Neither of which I think was the case with Housley.
If he kept him after this past year, that would seem particularly egregious... but he not only didn't keep him, but wasted no time once the season ended. Just my personal opinion in the end, but that seems about right to me.
Rasmus CacOlainen
The end of the Tank
I personally would have fired him in January. The positive is it id another high draft tank pick. But one can only celebrate this so long.
old kummelweck
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2003
- 25,773
- 5,864
old kummelweck
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2003
- 25,773
- 5,864
Serious question for those of you that have a negative opinion of Botterill. What would need to happen in order for that to change?
I don't hate Botterill, I'm not particularly high on him, but if they start winning I predict the mood will change.
The reason for winning will be immaterial.
I also don't really have much of a bone to pick with Botts, he's really only on the hook for one pretty bad trade that didn't really look good to start with, and happened to turn out worse than we originally expected it would.
I'm not even gonna be nitpicky regarding the Housley hire, he was a hot candidate at the time that we all wanted and was also desired around the league. I'm not gonna let revisionist history tell me it was a bad idea to begin with, it just turned out really badly.
Other than that, trades have mostly been solid and his drafting has been exceptional. Leagues better than Darcy so far. For me the jury is still out on Botts and this offseason and next season will be the big indicator.
I'm not even gonna be nitpicky regarding the Housley hire, he was a hot candidate at the time that we all wanted and was also desired around the league. I'm not gonna let revisionist history tell me it was a bad idea to begin with, it just turned out really badly.
Other than that, trades have mostly been solid and his drafting has been exceptional. Leagues better than Darcy so far. For me the jury is still out on Botts and this offseason and next season will be the big indicator.
old kummelweck
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2003
- 25,773
- 5,864
This is one of the things that I think may be flaring up the botterill hate. With every game STL wins the wound festers.
Yeah, I think this extends to a lot of his record. I don't pay close attention to one individual posters think, at least I don't remember specifics like others do, but I do feel there is a bit of revisionism going on with the moves Botterill made that didn't work out. There is a big school of though in hockey that you have to be patient. The trick is that REALLY kills a team if you are being patient with decisions at the top that are wrong.
What is being done in Roch also seemed solid until they got bounced in the first round. That's the type of incremental failure I see on his record that is slowly swaying me from neutral to thinking he may not be the right guy. You can't just have an OK GM in this league and expect to survive.
I think the MIttelstadt and Thompson situations both blew up in his face spectacularly. Berglund/Sobotka were supposed to shelter Casey, and yeah, we were able to ditch the Berglund contact, but it also didn't help that Mittelstadt didn't really come to camp ready and it impacted his whole year. That's the risk with a young guy and why you ease them into the pro game through the farm. Thompson I think is fools gold. You see flashes, but there is nothing other than the opinions of the pro scouts that he will turn into something at the pro level. He certainly has no history.
Botterill seems to be finding undrafted guys to bolster the farm, but I am not sure if he does that better than any other NHL GM, who also seem to be doing this with some success.
Doug Prishpreed
Registered User
Jame posted a pretty thorough accounting of his job as a GM so far...I believe it might be earlier in this thread. It’s pretty damning, and he didn’t even nit pick or get into the expansion draft.
truthbluth
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2011
- 7,581
- 7,012
Someone would need to invent a f***ing time machine
OkimLom
Registered User
- May 3, 2010
- 15,590
- 7,025
There's nothing that's going to change my thoughts on the past moves he made, but I'm open to changing my opinion on him going forward.
I would like to see him become more proactive in reading situations. For example, It's obvious that he was willing to downgrade in talent and "bite" the bullet for "THAT" trade, for the supposed purpose of "changing the room", in hopes of improvement of the room. I wish he would do the same with the Okposo contract for example, in hopes of improvement of the cap situation, even if it you're taking a bad contract for two years. I'm sure there are posters that would be against that, and that's fine, but that type of thinking. It goes the other way, if you don't NEED to trade a guy, then don't just settle for whatever package. I would hope he would become better at assessing a situation and knowing when to sell high, and when to sell low.
I would like to see him improve upon the issues I've said for the past 2 years when it was obvious the issue with the team was the bottom 6. He needs to bring in more speed, more grit, and more role/glue guys. I would like to see him stop putting himself in positions of poor leverage. Please target guys that are more competent in the two-way game. In short, more team construction, and less collecting talent.
Jim Bob
RIP RJ
Fjordy
Registered User
- Jun 20, 2018
- 17,387
- 9,579
I think Botterill wanted to do the right thing when he traded ROR, but he was wrong about Sobotka and Berglund. Also I believe that we do not need a legal 2C on a permanent basis because we have Casey and we could take on the draft of Turcotte/Krebs/Dach or Zegras, we would have two potecial 2C in the person of Casey and one of this four, we need a temporary center, and better two to one played on the wing in the top 6, but could go to the center if the first would not be able to close this position. Relatively speaking Erik Haula and Rikard Rakell, both can play 2C and both can play on the wing, when Casey and Turcotte/Krebs/Dach or Zegras progressing, Haula or Rakell go on the wing. Also do not forget that we can always try Reinhart as 2C.
Steady improvement to the roster would be the first thing. If he can regularly find and acquire players who contribute at the NHL level, that would be a move in opinion of him.
Ending giving up conditions in almost every deal he makes would be a nice shift.
Operating consistent with his word without what appears to be bias toward players: send players down who are able to be sent down to the minors when they are clearly struggling, elevate players from the minors to play when they are clearly succeeding. Saying that internal competition is important is excellent, that earning ice time based on merit is excellent. NOT doing that is not consistent with operating consistent to his word and is going to erode the confidence of his players.
I would love it if he never opens his mouth again to lament things that are within his control as GM. That? That drives me nuts. Call-ups to get a look at guys, that's his control. Making selections late in the draft? Don't tell me you are basically done after punting on a 6th when some other team has leveraged a later pick in that draft into a higher pick in the next draft. That just looks inept. Stop looking inept. Start looking apt -- get that value in trade, make the roster move to get the look at farm hands, make the call to make sure the farm guys get the icetime to allow evaluation. Get the coach to buy in to the vision you have put forward to the fans -- Reinhart at center comes to mind -- rather than seemingly acting as though it is not within his power. Own the position. Set the agenda. Own the results.
Getting value in trades. He doesn't have to be Regier-esque in how long he holds on until he makes a deal. Nor does he have to "win" every deal. But value gained consistently would be another move in the right direction. That could be getting more for depth guys he has dealt or finding some advantage in making draft pick trades... ANYTHING there with regularity.
No GM is infallible, but my patience for his roster choices, his granting of trade conditions, the slowness with which he makes personnel changes in-season, and the foolishness that falls out of his mouth during candid moments.
Ultimately, when his acquisitions and hires start to win NHL games regularly will be the biggest barometer. Win games, a lot of the criticisms will disappear. Add buffoons, quantifiable buffoons who lose their matchups and lose games? He'll get roasted further.
I'd love to go back to 2011 and the purchase of the team to drop a hint to Pegula to find a quality, old boys network President of Hockey Operations to come in and oversee expansion of everything by Regier. And if Regier was found wanting... turfing him then. If only. Regier didn't get results with expanding the scouting staff, off-ice staff and acquisitions when the checkbook was initially cast open. LaFontaine and Murray were equally inexperienced -- we still don't know why Pat was sent packing and we know Murray over-tipped on almost every acquisition he made while not really getting as much out of the revamped scouting department. And now we see Botterill as another inexperienced GM making more inexperienced GM mistakes. Maybe a steady hand steeped in the business and operations of hockey would have mitigated some of the mistakes of the last three GM's.
Buffaloed
webmaster
There's a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Terry Pegula doesn't know it.
He does seem like the old trope of the country farmer, easily impressed by smooth talk and duped as a result. I'd like them to shake that off as either of his teams start to win.
He's probably also just getting more comfortable with public speaking. I've heard from people who talk to him in private that the jittery, unsure demeanor is purely a function of answering questions on the spot on live radio/tv.
It'd also be cool if his comfort came from having things go wrong because Pegulas stepped in on stuff, and now they finally said "okay we're done" and he can make the moves he wants when he wants with his actual coach. But that's speculation on speculation on speculation and wishful thinking
- Status
