Jason Botterill Discussion Part 5

[sabremike]

it WAS an idiotic hire. A guy with zero experience as a PRO head coach was hired for a team that needed experience and stability and needed to hit the ground running to learn how to win. We hire a guy who decided who to throw out on the ice from a stable of 6 top 4 defenseman. It was all risk with zero proof he can do the job.

There was no promise except the hype created by the media because he’s a hall of fame player.

You don’t need hindsight to see he was exactly the wrong hire for this organization. A rookie head coach and a rookie GM. What a great combination to stabilize a team.

I do take issue with this. At the time it wasn't a bad idea. The mistake was not realizing it was a complete disaster and not pulling the plug after one season when it was obvious it was a disaster (and really he should've been sacked before January of that first season like John MacLean was in NJ years ago)

 

[wnysupport]

I've not gone to 3 out of the last 4 games that I've had on my partial season tickets....the only other game that I'll go to if the Leafs game in a couple weeks on a Sunday because honestly it's part of a b-day gift for my brother. I'm done with this team with no action. I've had STs for the last 4 years, and I've already told my group that I'm not renewing SANs some radical changes from the top down.

Thanks Botts!

 

[Jim Bob]

I was expecting a different line to rhyme with “city” there at the beginning.

Me too.

 

[old kummelweck]

So now that they sat on their hands with Botterill, they screwed themselves around the trade deadline - how do you let this guy make any decisions that will impact this team long-term?

 

[OkimLom]

I do take issue with this. At the time it wasn't a bad idea. The mistake was not realizing it was a complete disaster and not pulling the plug after one season when it was obvious it was a disaster (and really he should've been sacked before January of that first season like John MacLean was in NJ years ago)

I disagree, it was a very bad idea. I would've thought this way for any other person that was just an assistant and never a pro Head Coach. It's not just because his name was Housley. If you want bring together a room, if you want to teach your players to win/play the game at a high level, you don't go for someone who has never SHOWN that ability. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not comfortable on rolling the dice and thinking "he might be able to do it". I want full confidence that "yeah, he can do it, just like he did in..." I didn't need Housley to be THE fix, we needed someone to get us back on path. IMO you go with someone with experience especially with a brand new GM who has to learn on the job. You want to make sure you have someone behind the bench who can handle a roster for those times that the GM makes a mistake (which he would at some point). We were not going to get the PERFECT fix at all, but when your GM makes a huge mistake, and you have a coach who is making mistakes because THEY TOO are learning on the job, you get in the hole that we were in.

Of course, this doesn't mean you hire just ANYBODY with experience.

 

[Gabrielor]

It’s no surprise McCabe called out confidence. I bet that was a locker room worry all training camp, once the team realized their gm was going to move no one and add only minor pieces.

 

[Jame]

I disagree, it was a very bad idea. I would've thought this way for any other person that was just an assistant and never a pro Head Coach. It's not just because his name was Housley. If you want bring together a room, if you want to teach your players to win/play the game at a high level, you don't go for someone who has never SHOWN that ability. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not comfortable on rolling the dice and thinking "he might be able to do it". I want full confidence that "yeah, he can do it, just like he did in..." I didn't need Housley to be THE fix, we needed someone to get us back on path. IMO you go with someone with experience especially with a brand new GM who has to learn on the job. You want to make sure you have someone behind the bench who can handle a roster for those times that the GM makes a mistake (which he would at some point). We were not going to get the PERFECT fix at all, but when your GM makes a huge mistake, and you have a coach who is making mistakes because THEY TOO are learning on the job, you get in the hole that we were in.

Of course, this doesn't mean you hire just ANYBODY with experience.

It's crazy, but when you look back at the 15-16 roster, with rookie Eichel/Reinhart... that team produced 81 points... some how.

Here's the defense:
Risto 82 games
McCabe 77
Gorges 77
Bogo 64
Franson 59
Pysyk 55
Coloaicovo 36
Weber 35

Chad f***ing Johnson started 45 games in goal...

And that was with a BAD experienced coach...

Experience matters... and this franchise has gone a decade with almost none

 

[RazielMoshman]

I disagree, it was a very bad idea. I would've thought this way for any other person that was just an assistant and never a pro Head Coach. It's not just because his name was Housley. If you want bring together a room, if you want to teach your players to win/play the game at a high level, you don't go for someone who has never SHOWN that ability. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not comfortable on rolling the dice and thinking "he might be able to do it". I want full confidence that "yeah, he can do it, just like he did in..." I didn't need Housley to be THE fix, we needed someone to get us back on path. IMO you go with someone with experience especially with a brand new GM who has to learn on the job. You want to make sure you have someone behind the bench who can handle a roster for those times that the GM makes a mistake (which he would at some point). We were not going to get the PERFECT fix at all, but when your GM makes a huge mistake, and you have a coach who is making mistakes because THEY TOO are learning on the job, you get in the hole that we were in.

Of course, this doesn't mean you hire just ANYBODY with experience.

How many coaches can you say, without doubt, will come in and improve the team? Hiring a coach is a real risk and finding a good one that'll help the team you've built is near impossible. Byslma had won a cup, Housley did amazing things for the Preds defence. I get that experience helps in theory but let's be honest it's no guarantee. That philosophy has got NHL coaching into the 'old white men' incestuous state it's in right now.

Shame how bad the Lightning was since hiring Cooper. Or Bruins with Cassidy. Caps have tanked with Reirden.

 

[itwasaforwardpass]

How many coaches can you say, without doubt, will come in and improve the team? Hiring a coach is a real risk and finding a good one that'll help the team you've built is near impossible. Byslma had won a cup, Housley did amazing things for the Preds defence. I get that experience helps in theory but let's be honest it's no guarantee. That philosophy has got NHL coaching into the 'old white men' incestuous state it's in right now.

Shame how bad the Lightning was since hiring Cooper. Or Bruins with Cassidy. Caps have tanked with Reirden.

HEAD coach experience. All the guys you listed head coached at the AHL level before becoming NHL coaches.

Housley head coached high school and one world junior tournament. That was the risk.

 

[OkimLom]

How many coaches can you say, without doubt, will come in and improve the team? Hiring a coach is a real risk and finding a good one that'll help the team you've built is near impossible. Byslma had won a cup, Housley did amazing things for the Preds defence. I get that experience helps in theory but let's be honest it's no guarantee. That philosophy has got NHL coaching into the 'old white men' incestuous state it's in right now.

Shame how bad the Lightning was since hiring Cooper. Or Bruins with Cassidy. Caps have tanked with Reirden.

It's not a guarantee, but it sure as hell helps in controlling a room and correcting bad habits. As I said, you don't just hire anybody with experience. I agree with most of what you said about the risk of hiring any coach really. But you are setting yourself up for failure, if your two biggest NON-player roles/positions are rookies at doing their job at the same time, you should expect to see a mess. There should've been ONE person with experience, whether that's behind the bench or in the armchair. Personally I would've done a Vet HC/Vet GM mix, but I would've accepted a Vet HC/Rookie GM or even Rookie HC/Vet GM. Sure as hell, not a Rookie HC/Rookie GM.

To give you an idea where my head was at, my choice for HC when Botterill was hired, Sheldon Keefe.

Cooper: 3 years AHL head coaching experience prior to 1st NHL head coaching job
Cassidy: 6 years of AHL head coaching experience prior to Bruins job, 2 years NHL head coaching experience prior to Bruins job
Reirden: 2 years of AHL head coaching experience prior to 1st NHL head coaching job

 

[RazielMoshman]

It's not a guarantee, but it sure as hell helps in controlling a room and correcting bad habits. As I said, you don't just hire anybody with experience. I agree with most of what you said about the risk of hiring any coach really. But you are setting yourself up for failure, if your two biggest NON-player roles/positions are rookies at doing their job at the same time, you should expect to see a mess. There should've been ONE person with experience, whether that's behind the bench or in the armchair. Personally I would've done a Vet HC/Vet GM mix, but I would've accepted a Vet HC/Rookie GM or even Rookie HC/Vet GM. Sure as hell, not a Rookie HC/Rookie GM.

To give you an idea where my head was at, my choice for HC when Botterill was hired, Sheldon Keefe.

Cooper: 3 years AHL head coaching experience prior to 1st NHL head coaching job
Cassidy: 6 years of AHL head coaching experience prior to Bruins job, 2 years NHL head coaching experience prior to Bruins job
Reirden: 2 years of AHL head coaching experience prior to 1st NHL head coaching job

I don't disagree with the idea that hiring everyone as a rookie was probably not super smart. In fact, it was a risk that shouldn't have been taken given Sabres fans lacked patience then (something even the wider press remarked upon).

When I mentioned those guys I assumed you were excluding AHL head coaching, if not then fair enough.

On to more positive notes, who'd be your choice for a replacement GM. Assuming they fire RK as well (because they will), who'd be your choice of coach?

 

[truthbluth]

It's pretty easy to take individual failures from Botterill. RoR trade, Montour trade, Skinner extension, Handling of Mitts, Sam's bridge etc. The bigger problem, by far, is looking at all the moves in the aggregate, and how little sense any of it made even if it had worked. RoR was and obvious downgrade in roster talent, so it’s obviously a bit of a reset. Then why would you trade future assets for Skinner? On that topic, you know when you make that trade that you want to extend Skinner, so why trade for Montour, who would also need an extension? And then bridging Reinhart when you’ve trade for all these expiring contracts?

There is no plan, seemingly, besides “get speed,” which means, to me, that Botts didn’t fundamentally understand why the Penguins won the cup in Sullivan’s first two years. It wasn’t just because they were fast, it was because they got meaningful contribution from ELCs, including a world class goalie. They had room to add a legit middle six winger in Hagelin and veteran leadership in Daley. Sheary at 800k is very different from Sheary at 3m. If he really wanted to emulate the Penguins, then instead of Sheary and Frolik and Montour, they’d have CJ Smith and Ogelvie, and have cap to add a cheap veteran D...and still have the extra first from last year. It’s all just so dumb.

 

[OkimLom]

I don't disagree with the idea that hiring everyone as a rookie was probably not super smart. In fact, it was a risk that shouldn't have been taken given Sabres fans lacked patience then (something even the wider press remarked upon).

When I mentioned those guys I assumed you were excluding AHL head coaching, if not then fair enough.

On to more positive notes, who'd be your choice for a replacement GM. Assuming they fire RK as well (because they will), who'd be your choice of coach?

What I would do, is hire Scott Bradley from Boston or Chris Drury for Senior Advisor to the GM position (like Bradley is already), and try to hire Pat Verbeek as GM seeing as he has experience in the player personnel department. He's an assistant with Yzerman at the moment.

Head Coach, I haven't really researched that much, though I've thought that it's time for Benoit Groulx to get his chance.

 

[K8fool]

No gm is this f**kin incompetent.. No way. The more i read and the fact that he never replaced Berglund.. This is a joke on us and the team who decided to tank til contracts were cleared..

F them. W Eichel we are two tough scoring players and a goalie away from the playoffs that would be exciting w Jack Eichel. He Jason joe Boo has f'd the town, the team and the fans w a moronic plan that dooms the team to future irrelevancy by creating a toxic environment where no FA wants to come here w a superstar in chains..

The players are outgunned and have no help from gm and ownership.. We need mercy killngs before eichel and everyone that leaves it all out there developes a f**k it button of apathy that comes w the mental damage if losing.

I love hockey and need the f'n entertainment but i might have to boycott this planned trainwreck if he lets them twist w no top 6 help. Fn pricks.

Two scorers and we aren't that bad.. F**k you botts and Terry..

 

[Gabrielor]

We hired this generation’s Milbury.

Just accept that more insanity is coming.

 

[explore]

We hired this generation’s Milbury.

Just accept that more insanity is coming.

No. I don't want to believe this. That's nightmare fuel.

 

[RazielMoshman]

What I would do, is hire Scott Bradley from Boston or Chris Drury for Senior Advisor to the GM position (like Bradley is already), and try to hire Pat Verbeek as GM seeing as he has experience in the player personnel department. He's an assistant with Yzerman at the moment.

Head Coach, I haven't really researched that much, though I've thought that it's time for Benoit Groulx to get his chance.

I like the GM picks, although I suspect Drury will want a proper GM gig if he moves from NYR at all.

Assuming RK goes as well what about Laviolette? He got fired recently.

 

[1point21Gigawatts]

We hired this generation’s Milbury.

Just accept that more insanity is coming.

More insanity is definitely coming, but the milbury bit is a little too much. Botts is bad, but not arrogant prick bad. Botts is more of a naive failure bad.

 

[OkimLom]

I like the GM picks, although I suspect Drury will want a proper GM gig if he moves from NYR at all.

Assuming RK goes as well what about Laviolette? He got fired recently.

For the purpose of getting us back on track, which is what we need, I wouldn't hate it.

 

[Montag DP]

I've been a Botterill supporter since he was hired, but I'm running out of patience. I don't know what the answer is, though. GMs are such a crapshoot. I would also like to keep RK around. Maybe move Krueger into a president-type role, hire Laviolette, and let Krueger pick a new GM. (Not necessarily in that order.)

 

[sufferer]

No. I don't want to believe this. That's nightmare fuel.

The nightmare was trading O'Reilly (and for what was clearly trash) almost immediately after securing Dahlin. I'm not quite sure what we're experiencing now, but it vaguely resembles hell.

 

[Jame]

We hired this generation’s Milbury.

Just accept that more insanity is coming.

The scariest part of the nightmare... is no matter what Botts does (everything, anything, nothing)... is it's still insane. Anything short of firing him, leads to insanity... watch:

1. Botts keeps his job... but feels the pressure.... so makes deadline trades like the Montour trade, and offseason trades like the ROR trade.... NIGHTMARE

2. Botts keeps his job, feels no pressure, sticks to his plan....and does nothing but sell rentals for late round picks... the offseason comes, and sticks with the plan. He makes no major changes, beyond another round of Pouliot and Vesey like acquisitions..... NIGHTMARE

3. Botts keeps his job, feels pressure, but is a deer frozen in headlights. He does nothing. The help is the same help he's been selling for the last 2 years (Mitts, Tage, Pilut, Cozens, etc).... NIGHTMARE

All roads with Botts driving... are insane.

 

[K8fool]

I like the GM picks, although I suspect Drury will want a proper GM gig if he moves from NYR at all.

Assuming RK goes as well what about Laviolette? He got fired recently.

Drury may be the choice on so many levels .

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

Drury may be the choice on so many levels .

I'm all for "anyone but Botts" right now, but do we really want yet another GM with no GM experience?

 

[Chainshot]

I'm all for "anyone but Botts" right now, but do we really want yet another GM with no GM experience?

That's where I'm at. And I know it is purely coming from the point that the last two inexperienced GM's haven't worked, while the previous two did. So... it is definitely recency bias on my part.

And as for Drury, he has made statements of devotion to the Rangers and they to him. Beyond my visceral reaction to his departure being a "f*** him and the horse he rode off on", there is that whole blocking thing.