- Jul 25, 2016
- 4,665
- 3,126
Jason Botterill Discussion 3
- Thread starter SnuggaRUDE
- Start date
- Status
sabremike
#1 Tageaholic
- Aug 19, 2005
- 16,177
- 4,786
10.5 months until this ass clown is relieved of his duties.
sabremike
#1 Tageaholic
Buffaloed
webmaster
How much influence will Krueger have in personnel decisions? I don't think Housley had any. My guess is that Botterill and Krueger's relationship will be more of a partnership with Botterill trying to get players that Krueger wants. Housley was never able to grasp the concepts of string theory and quantum mechanics that are required to even begin to discuss offensive and defensive systems with Botterill. Now Botterill has a coach that is on a higher intellectual plain than himself. It would not surprise me if their relationship evolves to the point where they can communicate without speaking. Actually it wouldn't surprise me if Krueger takes control of Botterill's mind. We can forget all the pain of the last 2 years. Botterill V2 has arrived.
DolanPlsGoSabres
スカンデッラ
I thought Phil and Botts already did this through gum chewing.
Montag DP
Sabres fan in...
I like how this post started off sounding reasonable and gradually devolved into Krueger taking control of Botterill's mind.
If you want nonsense, go check the "best Sabres UFA signing" thread. That should give you a chuckle.
It's funny to think that all Botterill had to do with the roster TM left him was to get a better HC. That roster, and the assets left over, were going nowhere. Do you not grasp the paltry condition that Rochester and the prospect pool were in? Do you truly think Kane, Bogosian, and drunk Lehner were going to be enough for Eichel and O'Reilly to build around as a core? That's straight bonkers.
Last edited:
A good coach, with a sound system that the players don't immediately rebel against because of its ineffectiveness perhaps buoys the room in what was Phil's first year. The idea that Phil's usage and deployment of O'Reilly, the constant defensive grinding while he was preaching an ineffective, easily broken defensive method, could have contributed to O'Reilly not being happy isn't hard to see as possible.
As for Rochester and the prospect pool, the pool remains thin and the Amerks will again be carried by the AHL-level vets they seek rather than an influx of certain NHL talent. That hasn't changed and again, good teams have found ways to win at that level for years now by paying attention to it. Botts has done that, cool, he's operating at basic competency. That doesn't forestall him from making roster moves.
And we've clearly seen that the "he couldn't make trades without mortgaging the future" narrative/excuse was just that since he has dealt a once well-regarded prospect (Guhle), a first rounder acquired in trade, the team's own 2nd and the team's own third in an effort to change the roster. He's done the same sort of things Murray was accused of having as flaws. The idea that they need to keep waiting, and doing nothing, was a mistaken belief.
I'm all for firing Housley, already said that makes a huge difference (it should anyway). It's a stretch to say it's Botterill's fault that O'Reilly didn't want to stay, because he didn't fire Housley sooner.
Rehabing an AHL roster and prospect pool is going to take years. The fact that it's still thin just goes to show. Signing a bunch of vets for that is "ok", but what you really want are talented draft picks that are worthy of being long-term Sabres to stock up on for 2-3 year stints in Rochester. Year two under Botterill can't possibly be enough time for that to happen.
Like I said already, focusing on draft/development isn't equal to "never trade a future". I don't like the Skinner trade, but I can be ok with it if Skinner re-signs. I like the Montour trade a lot. IMO it's the perfect use of 2nd level futures to fill a big hole in the line-up with a young player under team control. Those trades don't compare to the amount futures dealt by TM.
It's not a stretch that if he gets that hire right, the conditions of that first season are different. That was what I posted.
I've advocated on behalf of the Amerks on this site for almost 2 decades. That they aren't at the point of being a steady feeder system transcends three regimes. The recent regular season success of the team is not enough of a merit to laud as an accomplishment as has been done by people who are still defending Botterill's time as GM.
And yet there are plenty of posts that trumpet the idea that no action in year 1 was a result of not wanting to mortgage a supposed future when the future is actually already on the team. Building three or four years down the line is not the focus of team that already has Eichel and then subsequently Dahlin. It has to be about putting quality players who can win now into the lineup to support those players. Waiting proved foolhardy in year 1.
Recent regular season success by Rochester is not something I defend Botterill for. I defend him for the long-term plan...or at least going that route.
Year one wasn't "no action", it just wasn't action that was intended to make the Sabres roster playoff contenders at the expense of quality futures (top prospects, top picks). It was a bunch of "meh" added to simply change out atmosphere in the room. I myself wasn't expecting anything more, just a step in a better direction, with Housley hopefully being a major difference (which clearly failed). Going harder at improving the roster would cost better futures that I don't think would be worth it, when the pipeline isn't fit to sustain long-term support for a consistent playoff team. Eichel and Dahlin don't change the plan for me. Two guys aren't worth rushing things when those players can still be around in prime, 3-5 years from now, with a healthy franchise from top to bottom.
The first year very much was no action. He added no piece of NHL long-term worth that summer and made no moves to fill holes in season one when they were apparent. We've had this conversation in circular fashion now for almost two years - you think he's doing well, I think he isn't. We're going to have to agree to disagree.
I think we both want them to be competitive and ultimately win it all. Our thoughts on their methods are just different. I appreciate your candor.
Bad decisions of former GMs doesn't prove UFAs won't come here (Okposo). While good mid range signings like Numminen and Spacek show what CAN be done.
81 points with a rookie Eichel/Reinhart....
followed by 78 points while leading the league in man games lost including huge chunks from star players
I understand the gap that was created, and the minimal skills a GM should have to handle that gap (hint: it's not signing garbage like Nolan, Griffith, Tennyson, etc)
No, it was going to take quality coaching and a good GM to supplement and continue building upon the roster... not the worst coaching in the league, followed by a moronic GM who blames a star player for his own short comings.
What the f*** was that contract about? How does a cap genius turn a ~700k qualifying offer for waiver level talent into a 2 year 1.0 per contract?
It’s dumber than Murray’s 2 year Deslauriera deal....
Not sure if it's dumber, but it is on par with it. I'm still waiting for him to make a quality signing in an area of need, internal, external, whatever, that isn't simply due to the boundaries of the CBA.
EichelsJockStrap
Registered User
- Oct 4, 2007
- 748
- 21
This season will make or break Botterill’s future with us . I really like the Krueger hire and I think he learned from his mistake from hiring a rookie coach with no coaching experience .
This time he hired a coach with loads and loads of experience that has coached at every single level ( World Cup, Olympics, NHL, management experience etc and got results wherever he went with what he had to work with . Especially his work with Switzerland and Team Europe those were both not easy tasks but he thrived . So this move gives me a little more confidence in Botterill.
But we have the rest of the offseason to go before I will totally defend him but so far he is off to a good start
I mean, are you really gonna just conveniently leave out it was to avoid arbitration? And on a completely non-factor of a contract too. Come on guys...
No I think you're really grasping at every possible straw in a very petty manner to continuously hate on everything a guy has ever done. Quite frankly it's getting really annoying. That contract counts more against the contract limit than it does against the cap, and for a 4th line guy that can usually fill in fine where needed, who cares.
Yes. I am criticizing everything the GM has done and not pretending that it’s just 1-2 bad decisions when there is a trail of poor decisions at every single level.
Sorry, you'll never be able to convince me that a contract that couldn't be much more irrelevant to the cap situation is anything remotely worth caring about. Get back to me after this offseason, then maybe I'll come to your side depending on how it goes.
The point isn’t the cap, it’s that Botts thought Wilson was someone he needed to avoid arbitration with.
This is the same GM that thought Jordan Nolan belonged on an NHL roster.
@Tsyolin
Moving to where it belongs....
The point of criticizing the small moves isn’t primarily because of the impact they have, it’s what they represent.
Trading a 6th for a future 6th isn’t the end of the world, it’s just another example of a GM out of his league.
Having a condition on trading Hunwick doesn’t ruin anything, it’s just another example of a GM our of his league.
Signing Wilson for 2 years at a value well above his worth isn’t going to break the cap, it’s just another example of a GM out of his league.
Moving to where it belongs....
The point of criticizing the small moves isn’t primarily because of the impact they have, it’s what they represent.
Trading a 6th for a future 6th isn’t the end of the world, it’s just another example of a GM out of his league.
Having a condition on trading Hunwick doesn’t ruin anything, it’s just another example of a GM our of his league.
Signing Wilson for 2 years at a value well above his worth isn’t going to break the cap, it’s just another example of a GM out of his league.
- Status
