Jason Botterill Discussion Part 5

[sabrebuild]

I will give credit to Botts and the Eichel signing. Felt like an overpayment at the time, but it's a deal when you look at some of the other players in his tier and age group. That's about it. All of his other signings have serious flaws.

With how some of the contracts, Toronto cough, have gone I would agree. However at the time, given Eichel's production and potential, 10 wasn't a steal. And even now its just appropriate, not a steal like Draisatl and McDavid.

 

[sabrebuild]

Did you listen to the interview yesterday? He has zero independence. Consulting on hockey related matters with owners who have no clue about hockey seems like a handcuff to me.

I did.

I'm just not sure that it means exactly what your saying.

He has never made a similar remark before, nor did Murray ever say anything like that.

To me, his whole interview sounded like a caged animal trying way too hard to keep himself together. My read off that interview, regarding ownership specifically, is that he got a tongue lashing because for the first time in years, the Pegula's themselves took a ton of heat for the last month. Publicly, locally and nationally.

And I don't think whatever story of patience he preached to them 3 years ago is still believable today.

To be honest, I suspect there is zero chance that the narrative posters here have lavished, the 5 year plan, must eliminate all murray bad contracts before we can compete yada yada, was ever sold to the Pegulas.

I bet he told them at most that he needed year one to assess and move some deals, Kane and O'Reilly, and then they would be able to compete by last year or the year before.

And then they came in last. And then they barely improved. And then this year they suck again with a maxed cap and barely any impact players that he brought in.

I translate talk to the Pegulas as I am pissy that I can't answer very gentle questioning and I suck at public speaking so I'm gonna let this slip out, cuz they slapped my pee pee.

Good lapdogs never publicly say they are lapdogs.

I think he is cracking big time.

I was doing laundry listening to the interview and punched the shit out of my towel pile when he talked about Jack and Sam as to his development results. Sweet christ.

 

[sabrebuild]

If Olofsson was considered a "vet", then so was Asplund.

Not really. Asplund had less experience, small but still, and was just not the overall player that Olofsson was in Sweden. Both in production and how he was trusted. Olofsson came over as one of the very best Swedish players. Asplund came over as a good player, with still some significant development to go in his game.

 

[Tatanka]

I did.

I'm just not sure that it means exactly what your saying.

He has never made a similar remark before, nor did Murray ever say anything like that.

To me, his whole interview sounded like a caged animal trying way too hard to keep himself together. My read off that interview, regarding ownership specifically, is that he got a tongue lashing because for the first time in years, the Pegula's themselves took a ton of heat for the last month. Publicly, locally and nationally.

And I don't think whatever story of patience he preached to them 3 years ago is still believable today.

To be honest, I suspect there is zero chance that the narrative posters here have lavished, the 5 year plan, must eliminate all murray bad contracts before we can compete yada yada, was ever sold to the Pegulas.

I bet he told them at most that he needed year one to assess and move some deals, Kane and O'Reilly, and then they would be able to compete by last year or the year before.

And then they came in last. And then they barely improved. And then this year they suck again with a maxed cap and barely any impact players that he brought in.

I translate talk to the Pegulas as I am pissy that I can't answer very gentle questioning and I suck at public speaking so I'm gonna let this slip out, cuz they slapped my pee pee.

Good lapdogs never publicly say they are lapdogs.

I think he is cracking big time.

I was doing laundry listening to the interview and punched the **** out of my towel pile when he talked about Jack and Sam as to his development results. Sweet christ.

My main point is that the Sabres Should be accountable to the Pegulas as they are the owners. But they also should be independent from PSE as should the Bills. Neither Botteril nor Beane should need to discuss options with two unqualified people. They should act and take the consequences for their actions. I do not believe This is how it works. The Sabres are the anchor tenant in that little corner of downtown, but the other interests, i.e. the real estate investments get equal attention from the Pegs. Look at the career section of the PSE website. The manager of Sabres customer service ticket sales is half way down the list of jobs available and trails the food service positions at 716 and Kaleida heath in the listing. The Sabres, top to bottom need a structure that is independent of that type of noise. A president empowered to run the show to ensure success on the ice that translates to economies off the ice. The Pegs need to hire someone and step away. Don’t come to us with trades, or hires or whatever. Just win. That they are so involved in things beyond their ability is the biggest problem this team faces. They do not know hockey. I doubt they ever will. They are trying to put all their eggs in one basket and actively manage things they lack the knowledge to manage.

 

[Der Jaeger]

I know I’m late to this video, but holy crap this is great!

 

[GameMisconduct]

Did you listen to the interview yesterday? He has zero independence. Consulting on hockey related matters with owners who have no clue about hockey seems like a handcuff to me.

There's a lot of flexibility in what the term consult can mean. Keeping owners regularly in the loop is not out of the ordinary, especially if thinking about major move (*suppresses a shiver of involuntary dread at Botts idea of what that might be*). On the other hand, if he's going in there and saying, "what do you think we should do Terry?" then there's a real damn problem. I just don't think that's what's happening, especially given the Bills as a parallel.

I don't think there's a lot of evidence for the idea that they are pulling the strings on the day to day hockey stuff. More like they just want to know what's going on and be involved in their teams in some way--that's typical of lots of owners. I also think that it's unrealistic to think that owners aren't typically part of the chain of command at some level in sports--at the major move level lots of GMs across sports need to get support from ownership. That's par for the course--it's a problem if it starts going beyond the broad swath of major directions or moves.

They commit resources (which to me is the most important thing--the one job they should be doing). With the right person on the day to day stuff, they have the potential to be good owners. They just really, REALLY, need to get those people in place and get rid of the one person who has shown they can't do the job. Even if they still believe in Bott's alleged plan for the team (whatever that is, assuming there is one and he sold them on it) he hasn't shown much if any reason to think he can successfully execute it or that it's something no one else could.

If you buy the narrative that's come out about hiring, Botts is really the first GM they brought in on the hockey side (LaFontaine hired Murray), and at some level I can see why they would want continuity and be hesitant to fire him too quickly--even though the results should far and away trump that--especially as it didn't work out with their first attempt to bring someone in directly with Patty. Their failure here, and it absolutely is a failure, is keeping this guy in place or, alternately, not having someone else in place to oversee (or at least collaborate with him--sometimes you are capable of changing your behavior but you really need someone to help/force you to accept that your ideas suck/are wrong).

They need to get someone credible, and more importantly functional, on the hockey side--Pres of hockey ops sort of role. They can let that person be the one to fire Botts if they want. There is nothing to stop them from getting that sort of person in place while keeping Botts here. I also think that besides the GM, that person is needed to take a look at the other areas of hockey operation--do some of our pro/amateur scouts, staff suck? I think the answer is probably!

I think it's also critically important that they get someone in to actively and visibly spearhead some outreach and direct efforts with the fans and overhaul the arena game experience--especially with the lack of winning. Ted Black turned out to be a disappointment, but at least you could see that guy out there regularly. There has been no one front and center like that since, other than hockey people, certainly not Russ Brandon, who also sucked and deserved to be replaced. Maybe you can't solve the actual hockey success thing right away, but you can absolutely take meaningful actions for the fans on that front, probably for not much more than you're paying folks like Bogo/Hunwick. There needs to be turnover in that part of there business as well. Take it FWIW but I have a couple indirect lines over to that side of things and there and I have consistently heard and absolutely believe that there are some people that are too comfortable, don't give a care about much beyond getting their paychecks. Again, take it FWIW, degrees of separation, etc but it's always been relayed to me that it's more of a problem for reasons that actually go against what people might think--that the owners are too hands off there, only involved in pet project sort of stuff and there is no one accountable steering the ship.

But for the love of all that's good, the owners need to do something.

 

[Der Jaeger]

I hope being the laughing stock of the league and getting ripped at the national level wakes the Pegulas up.

 

[Chainshot]

Wait, wait, wait @GameMisconduct , you are telling me that there are people in Buffalo:

there some people that are too comfortable, don't give a care about much beyond getting their paychecks.

Yes, that is meant as sarcasm. That attitude was rampant when I lived there - get the job with security and then mail it in until retirement and the move to Boca.

I've heard similar under both this and the previous ownership.

 

[Tatanka]

There's a lot of flexibility in what the term consult can mean. Keeping owners regularly in the loop is not out of the ordinary, especially if thinking about major move (*suppresses a shiver of involuntary dread at Botts idea of what that might be*). On the other hand, if he's going in there and saying, "what do you think we should do Terry?" then there's a real damn problem. I just don't think that's what's happening, especially given the Bills as a parallel.

I don't think there's a lot of evidence for the idea that they are pulling the strings on the day to day hockey stuff. More like they just want to know what's going on and be involved in their teams in some way--that's typical of lots of owners. I also think that it's unrealistic to think that owners aren't typically part of the chain of command at some level in sports--at the major move level lots of GMs across sports need to get support from ownership. That's par for the course--it's a problem if it starts going beyond the broad swath of major directions or moves.

They commit resources (which to me is the most important thing--the one job they should be doing). With the right person on the day to day stuff, they have the potential to be good owners. They just really, REALLY, need to get those people in place and get rid of the one person who has shown they can't do the job. Even if they still believe in Bott's alleged plan for the team (whatever that is, assuming there is one and he sold them on it) he hasn't shown much if any reason to think he can successfully execute it or that it's something no one else could.

If you buy the narrative that's come out about hiring, Botts is really the first GM they brought in on the hockey side (LaFontaine hired Murray), and at some level I can see why they would want continuity and be hesitant to fire him too quickly--even though the results should far and away trump that, especially as it didn't work out with their first attempt to bring someone in directly with Patty. Their failure here, and it absolutely is a failure, is keeping this guy in place or, alternately, not having someone else in place to oversee (or at least collaborate with him--sometimes you are capable of changing your behavior but you really need someone to help/force you to accept that your ideas suck/are wrong).

They need to get someone credible, and more importantly functional, on the hockey side--Pres of hockey ops sort of role. They can let that person be the one to fire Botts if they want. There is nothing to stop them from getting that sort of person in place while keeping Botts here. I also think that besides the GM, that person is needed to take a look at the other areas of hockey operation--do some of our pro/amateur scouts, staff suck? I think the answer is probably!

I think it's also critically important that they get someone in to actively and visibly spearhead some outreach and direct efforts with the fans and overhaul the arena game experience--especially with the lack of winning. Ted Black turned out to be a disappointment, but at least you could see that guy out there regularly. There has been no one front and center like that since other than hockey people, certainly not Russ Brandon, who also sucked and deserved to be replaced. Maybe you can't solve the actual hockey success thing right away, but you can absolutely take meaningful actions for the fans on that front, probably for not much more than you're paying folks like Bogo/Hunwick. There needs to be turnover in that part of there business as well. Take it FWIW but I have a couple indirect lines over to that side of things and there and I have consistently heard and absolutely believe that there some people that are too comfortable, don't give a care about much beyond getting their paychecks. Again, take it FWIW, degrees of separation, etc but it's always been relayed to me that it's more of a problem for reasons that actually go against what people might think--that the owners are too hands off there, only involved in pet project sort of stuff and there is no one accountable steering the ship.

But for the love of all that's good, the owners need to do something.

I get that ownership has its privileges. But when Botts was hired they lauded his communication,organization and people skills. Not a peep about talent evaluation, scouting or development that are the keys to the gm position. I think the Pegs want be in the loop far more than people think and I think they exert influence over decisions for which they lack the experience and knowledge to warrant that privilege. 9 years. They are the constant.

 

[OkimLom]

Not really. Asplund had less experience, small but still, and was just not the overall player that Olofsson was in Sweden. Both in production and how he was trusted. Olofsson came over as one of the very best Swedish players. Asplund came over as a good player, with still some significant development to go in his game.

Olofsson had 5 years (As did Pilut) in the same league that Asplund had 4 years in. This isn't a matter of the level of ability. It's a matter of experience when you are talking about being a "veteran". Olofsson also had a ton development to go, same with Pilut. All 3 players had come onto the team at the same time. If you want to say they were at different levels of ability, then that's fair, but I just take issue with claiming 2 of the guys were vets while one isn't when all 3 players had at least 4 years of experience in pro leagues.

 

[FormerSabresFan]

Wait, wait, wait @GameMisconduct , you are telling me that there are people in Buffalo:






Yes, that is meant as sarcasm. That attitude was rampant when I lived there - get the job with security and then mail it in until retirement and the move to Boca.

I've heard similar under both this and the previous ownership.

Sounds like this attitude largely permeates through the whole organization, from the office/admin side (Jersey issues, knock-offs, typos), to the Sabres PR/Social media team (lackluster), to the game presentation (embarrassing), down to the some of the players (not named Jack).

The entire Org. needs an enema.

Pegula needs to take a pressure washer to this thing...maybe wait until the season is over as they still need people to run the day to day but after that, flush all the lazy turds out.

Starting with the morons in charge of all the jersey crap...

 

[GameMisconduct]

Wait, wait, wait @GameMisconduct , you are telling me that there are people in Buffalo:






Yes, that is meant as sarcasm. That attitude was rampant when I lived there - get the job with security and then mail it in until retirement and the move to Boca.

I've heard similar under both this and the previous ownership.

I work in academia now, so yeah, tell me about it--though I ran into plenty of folks like that in my private sector days too. It's also definitely not just Buffalo. The negative impact of those sorts of people is so underestimated--even when they're in the the minority, which they always have been in my experience, it's just toxic for everyone around/under them, especially if they actually do give a crap. And there are also people over there on that side of things that that do, and others that at a minimum would if they were made to.

The sad/ironic thing is that there are plenty of people who are so invested, just from their fandom, that they could tap into for results and a cost savings. I guess I'm only half serious here--but really, hire a Duane to get some perspective and be willing to listen. They could do a lot worse.

 

[flashsabre]

There's a lot of flexibility in what the term consult can mean. Keeping owners regularly in the loop is not out of the ordinary, especially if thinking about major move (*suppresses a shiver of involuntary dread at Botts idea of what that might be*). On the other hand, if he's going in there and saying, "what do you think we should do Terry?" then there's a real damn problem. I just don't think that's what's happening, especially given the Bills as a parallel.

I don't think there's a lot of evidence for the idea that they are pulling the strings on the day to day hockey stuff. More like they just want to know what's going on and be involved in their teams in some way--that's typical of lots of owners. I also think that it's unrealistic to think that owners aren't typically part of the chain of command at some level in sports--at the major move level lots of GMs across sports need to get support from ownership. That's par for the course--it's a problem if it starts going beyond the broad swath of major directions or moves.

They commit resources (which to me is the most important thing--the one job they should be doing). With the right person on the day to day stuff, they have the potential to be good owners. They just really, REALLY, need to get those people in place and get rid of the one person who has shown they can't do the job. Even if they still believe in Bott's alleged plan for the team (whatever that is, assuming there is one and he sold them on it) he hasn't shown much if any reason to think he can successfully execute it or that it's something no one else could.

If you buy the narrative that's come out about hiring, Botts is really the first GM they brought in on the hockey side (LaFontaine hired Murray), and at some level I can see why they would want continuity and be hesitant to fire him too quickly--even though the results should far and away trump that--especially as it didn't work out with their first attempt to bring someone in directly with Patty. Their failure here, and it absolutely is a failure, is keeping this guy in place or, alternately, not having someone else in place to oversee (or at least collaborate with him--sometimes you are capable of changing your behavior but you really need someone to help/force you to accept that your ideas suck/are wrong).

They need to get someone credible, and more importantly functional, on the hockey side--Pres of hockey ops sort of role. They can let that person be the one to fire Botts if they want. There is nothing to stop them from getting that sort of person in place while keeping Botts here. I also think that besides the GM, that person is needed to take a look at the other areas of hockey operation--do some of our pro/amateur scouts, staff suck? I think the answer is probably!

I think it's also critically important that they get someone in to actively and visibly spearhead some outreach and direct efforts with the fans and overhaul the arena game experience--especially with the lack of winning. Ted Black turned out to be a disappointment, but at least you could see that guy out there regularly. There has been no one front and center like that since, other than hockey people, certainly not Russ Brandon, who also sucked and deserved to be replaced. Maybe you can't solve the actual hockey success thing right away, but you can absolutely take meaningful actions for the fans on that front, probably for not much more than you're paying folks like Bogo/Hunwick. There needs to be turnover in that part of there business as well. Take it FWIW but I have a couple indirect lines over to that side of things and there and I have consistently heard and absolutely believe that there are some people that are too comfortable, don't give a care about much beyond getting their paychecks. Again, take it FWIW, degrees of separation, etc but it's always been relayed to me that it's more of a problem for reasons that actually go against what people might think--that the owners are too hands off there, only involved in pet project sort of stuff and there is no one accountable steering the ship.

But for the love of all that's good, the owners need to do something.

Last year when Botts said he talks to the Pegulas every day I thought, “That’s not good at all”. Successful businesses/organizations hire competent people and let them go and do their jobs.

 

[sabrebuild]

My main point is that the Sabres Should be accountable to the Pegulas as they are the owners. But they also should be independent from PSE as should the Bills. Neither Botteril nor Beane should need to discuss options with two unqualified people. They should act and take the consequences for their actions. I do not believe This is how it works. The Sabres are the anchor tenant in that little corner of downtown, but the other interests, i.e. the real estate investments get equal attention from the Pegs. Look at the career section of the PSE website. The manager of Sabres customer service ticket sales is half way down the list of jobs available and trails the food service positions at 716 and Kaleida heath in the listing. The Sabres, top to bottom need a structure that is independent of that type of noise. A president empowered to run the show to ensure success on the ice that translates to economies off the ice. The Pegs need to hire someone and step away. Don’t come to us with trades, or hires or whatever. Just win. That they are so involved in things beyond their ability is the biggest problem this team faces. They do not know hockey. I doubt they ever will. They are trying to put all their eggs in one basket and actively manage things they lack the knowledge to manage.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think your wrong with their general organization being big and unwieldy, and very likely the Sabres are an important, but secondary piece of their overall portfolio.

But for that exact reason, I doubt they are micromanaging Botts to the degree you are implying.

First, I think they are much more engaged in the Bills and their other businesses. They are not in the building, checking in with Botts on all his calls.

Like zero percent chance that Botts had to ask Pegula if he liked trading for Vesey or Sheary or Joker.

Does he have to give them a heads up if he wants to trade Dahlin or Eichel, you bet your ass.

But other than that, I don't think they are really involved that much, no more than the average owner. This isn't a Snyder or Jerry Jones situation.

This is not to say they are perfect owners, but when they let you make your resume defining trade, and your huge ufa contract and turnover 70% of the roster, it's just a situation, that doesn't feel like management is crimped on what they can do.

Here's a real deep read, at the time I assumed the big owner interfence was the O'reilly bonus nonsense, because no hockey person or professional negotiator could be that Pejorative Slured.

But now, with the cash payouts to Skinner and garbage, max cap with a poo roster....

I'm beginning to think that Pegula did not say something like trade O'Reilly and do it before the bonus. But rather, okay, if you think we need to trade him I would prefer to do it before the bonus or he stays for the year and you can try again next year unless someone blows you away with an offer.

I get how the interview sounded, I have to ask mommy and daddy, but I think that is bullshit.

 

[sincerity0]

Last year when Botts said he talks to the Pegulas every day I thought, “That’s not good at all”. Successful businesses/organizations hire competent people and let them go and do their jobs.

To be fair, most people have consistent communication with their immediate boss. In this case Botterill rolls directly into ownership since he is the head of hockey operations (technically). His communications with the Pegulas on a “daily” level likely include some generic emails about player injuries, availability, etc. mostly “in the loop” kind of stuff.

I’ve never gotten the impression from the Pegulas that they are meddling in day to day operations.

 

[Tatanka]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think your wrong with their general organization being big and unwieldy, and very likely the Sabres are an important, but secondary piece of their overall portfolio.

But for that exact reason, I doubt they are micromanaging Botts to the degree you are implying.

First, I think they are much more engaged in the Bills and their other businesses. They are not in the building, checking in with Botts on all his calls.

Like zero percent chance that Botts had to ask Pegula if he liked trading for Vesey or Sheary or Joker.

Does he have to give them a heads up if he wants to trade Dahlin or Eichel, you bet your ass.

But other than that, I don't think they are really involved that much, no more than the average owner. This isn't a Snyder or Jerry Jones situation.

This is not to say they are perfect owners, but when they let you make your resume defining trade, and your huge ufa contract and turnover 70% of the roster, it's just a situation, that doesn't feel like management is crimped on what they can do.

Here's a real deep read, at the time I assumed the big owner interfence was the O'reilly bonus nonsense, because no hockey person or professional negotiator could be that ******ed.

But now, with the cash payouts to Skinner and garbage, max cap with a poo roster....

I'm beginning to think that Pegula did not say something like trade O'Reilly and do it before the bonus. But rather, okay, if you think we need to trade him I would prefer to do it before the bonus or he stays for the year and you can try again next year unless someone blows you away with an offer.

I get how the interview sounded, I have to ask mommy and daddy, but I think that is bull****.

The truth as usual probably lies somewhere in between. But with this group we probably will never really know.

 

[GameMisconduct]

I get that ownership has its privileges. But when Botts was hired they lauded his communication,organization and people skills. Not a peep about talent evaluation, scouting or development that are the keys to the gm position. I think the Pegs want be in the loop far more than people think and I think they exert influence over decisions for which they lack the experience and knowledge to warrant that privilege. 9 years. They are the constant.

I think I get why you're saying that, and I agree think the jury is pretty clearly in that it's a s*** hire. The things that you mention were touted about Botts I think were mostly because the lack of those qualities is largely why they fired the last guy (and also his lack of results). I don't think that means they ignored the other stuff, more that they were convinced by what Botts told them regarding what he wanted to do. And would you argue they could accurately assess the hockey stuff? I think there was plenty of chatter about what Botts did in the burgh and his being recommended by various interests to make it seem reasonable to view him credibly on that front. If anything to me this is why they need to have someone in the hockey ops/manager role, which they have only ever had briefly in LaFontaine. Ultimately, it doesn't matter in the end. They own that hire and its results and they need to fix it.

Looking at the Pegulas as the constant during this lack of success and then building off of that to concretely infer a management style, I don't think is really valid though. There's just too much being assumed, and you can easily apply that process the same way to find examples that go the other way and fall apart. Was the success that Wilson had during the Bills glory years due to his ownership? I think if the owners were meddling in the day to day like that it would have come out more directly and irrefutably, even with our crack local journalist squad, like so many other things that have leaked out.

Again, in the end though, it doesn't matter at some level if either of us is right with our assessments. They need to take action, and to get it right. Everything is going to come down to who they hire.

 

[sabrebuild]

Olofsson had 5 years (As did Pilut) in the same league that Asplund had 4 years in. This isn't a matter of the level of ability. It's a matter of experience when you are talking about being a "veteran". Olofsson also had a ton development to go, same with Pilut. All 3 players had come onto the team at the same time. If you want to say they were at different levels of ability, then that's fair, but I just take issue with claiming 2 of the guys were vets while one isn't when all 3 players had at least 4 years of experience in pro leagues.

Two guys are two full years older than one guy.

Two guys were elite players on their professional teams, one guy was not.

Two guys stepped into Rochester as fully formed players, aka their game was professionally effective and replicable, with some minor adjustments to North America.

One guy actually had a ton of pro skill to develop.

Two guys looked great the second they touched the AHL and NHL.

One guy was not and is not.

Look if you think technically a guy like Panarin was not a vet and Asplund were not vets, because at the time they joined north America they had no experience in NA, or conversely they both are vets, we just are not going to agree.

But to me, your age and how you were used in your professional league is a lot more important to your professionalism or veteran status than just that you played in professional league at all.

 

[sabrebuild]

The truth as usual probably lies somewhere in between. But with this group we probably will never really know.

Probably right. I doubt anyone will come out and say this was my poop party.

But at least for what we can concretely see as evidence, if Botts was handcuffed as a gm so far, tjose handcuffs came in velvet, with servants to bring beverages and fruit while a palm leaf cooled that Moon sized head. And a line of about 25 other gm's were thinking to themselves, how do I get some sweet handcuffs like that.

 

[Buffaloed]

Buffalo Sabres Digital Press Box
2-4 Jason Botterill with Schopp and the Bulldog
Transcript of Jason Botterill Interview 2/4/20 5:30PM

Mike Schopp: Jason, nice to see you again.
Jason Botterill: Thank you for having me on.
MS: I would say in the last couple of weeks — maybe it’s home games, the losses last week, maybe it’s the Bills ending — the knives are out on the Sabres a little bit. The fans are like — I feel like it’s louder than it was before, maybe it’s just later on in the season. I wonder to what extent you maybe agree with that or have noticed that and how are you feeling? How do you think this is all going?
JB: Well I think it’s a situation where you have your All-Star break, you have time off, it’s a reflection on where the season’s at. Let’s be totally honest, we had two games last week against Ottawa and Montreal that we had to win, we should win. And from day one of the season, Ralph [Krueger] and myself have talked about having a home-ice presence. I think you look at our home-ice record, we’ve done a fairly good job with that, but in crucial situations, when you have an opportunity to have a team come in that’s below you in the standings, you have to capitalize on it. So, yeah, I can understand our fans’ frustration standpoint. Our organization’s frustrated by that. My dialogue with Terry and Kim is frustrated from that and as an organization, for us to take the step forward, we got to make sure that we capitalize on games like that.
MS: We had a caller on Wednesday, Bulldog should talk about it, I wasn’t there. Jeremy [White] lost his mom and we were at the wake and the funeral; we took turns going. This caller was just really hot about ownership and the thing went nation-wide. A part of it that I want to ask you about is the ownership piece, and you just referenced the Pegulas. I think some fans wonder just where they’re at in all this. You know, especially the way it started and big talk before you were here about plans for the organization, no doubt a lot of money has been spent, but there aren’t results yet. What can you tell fans about Terry and Kim Pegula’s feelings about this and what they want to see get done?
JB: Well, to put it bluntly, my conversations with Terry and Kim, they’re frustrated with the results. They want better results. Our dialogue — we’re in constant dialogue — the dialogue goes to, “What are the solutions? What are we doing to get better?” But from a management standpoint, it’s one of the reasons I came to this organization was the resources are given to us to have success, whether you want to, from a Rochester standpoint, to opportunity for developing our scouting staff, to development staff, Rochester, they give us the resources. If you’re frustrated with the results, hey, challenge management. But what our ownership has given us, they give us the tools to have success.
Chris Parker: Do you feel some urgency because of that? For right now, like to do something maybe, I don’t want to say out of character necessarily, but just something impactful and dramatic?
JB: There’s always urgency to do something. From day one on the job, you want urgency to get the job done and to move the organization forward. You look at our team, you look at portions of our season, we’ve played very well. But over the course of the bulk of it, the majority of the season, we haven’t gotten the results we wanted. You can talk about the development of our star players, how they’re having career years, but the entire group — we haven’t done it well enough. So, yeah, I’ve talked to you about this before, we’re always looking to improve the team. Am I going to do something drastic because it’s imperative we do something right now? We’re always looking to do something, but I’m not going to harm what this organization needs. It’s about developing and making it long-term important, but also have short-term success for our group. My job as general manager, I have to take a longer-term picture, but my dialogue right now, my focus right now is to work with Ralph on, hey, what do we have to do to get this roster performing better? What do we have to do to some of our players who haven’t hit their norms for NHL goals or points? What do we have to do from that chemistry structure to get this going in the right direction?
MS: How much of a better season than this did you expect? The cap being where it is, you’ve got contracts here that maybe you’ve wanted to get out of in one way or another. It’s mostly the same team as last year, you’ve added a few guys, but it’s mostly, like very few guys have been taken off the roster. So logically, one might expect kind of the same points total, right? The same place in the standings. That’s kind of where you’re headed. Are you surprised that this team isn’t better?
JB: I think you’re looking for development in your young players. You’re looking for everyone to take that step. I think this team has shown in October, and the difference from this team I say compared to last year, last year after our 10-game win streak, we never really got playing again and found our game, as Ralph would like to say. I thought this year — whether it was the start of December, played Nashville, St. Louis, Edmonton, Islanders, even you look right before the break, having wins against Vegas, Dallas, having a good effort in Nashville — I felt we were making progress from those areas there. So, yeah, I think it’s a situation where you feel there’s more to be given from this group and there’s more situations where we kept some players, younger players are developing from that standpoint. We did bring in players; a guy like Brandon Montour’s here for the entire season, a young player like Henri Jokiharju comes into the group. I think Linus Ullmark has taken a big step as our goalie. We brought in Marcus Johansson. So we brought some players in that we felt could help us move forward.
CP: Do you feel like there could be another layer of management here? I know you’ve got a staff below you, I don’t need to read the depth chart, but assistants and scouts and amateur scouts and pro scouts and all that. Between you and the Pegulas, an experienced hockey person. Is that something that you would welcome, like another tier of management? Another set of eyes? Another experienced person to sort of help steer this?
JB: Well that’s why I brought Randy Sexton onto my staff. He’s a former general manager in the league. That’s why I brought in Steve Greeley to be sort of our player personnel guy. I wanted to make sure that I surrounded myself with people that brought in different ideas. I brought in Randy because he was with me in Pittsburgh and sort of knew that model. Steve had success winning a Stanley Cup with the Los Angeles Kings, had been around the Eichel family, Boston University, seen how things worked in New York too. So to me, there’s always different ways to develop a team and I wanted to have sort of a diverse group that came in from there. I love the fact that my interaction is directly with Terry and Kim. I respect that and certainly think that’s a strength of our organization. And I think the fact that we’ve built people around there, I have strong ideas — strong people providing ideas to me. What I like about our group is they’re not afraid to challenge me on different things. I don’t have a bunch of “yes guys” around me. I feel comfortable with the management group we have and we understand that we have to continue to be better.
MS: I know we’ve talked about this along the way here many times. When you have a team that’s on the outside of the playoffs, especially with it kind of being your mantra and even your reputation for the most part, coming here and this word development. I don’t know how that’s going, really. I know [Casey] Mittelstadt was sent down and you’ve lost [Tage] Thompson; who else is down there that’s maybe somebody you would expect to have be on this team next year? Or if you end up selling, I mean you’ve got several forwards that might make room, you’ve got very few under contract here. Do you have reinforcements?
JB: We’ve utilized two of my three high draft picks on forwards to come into our system. We feel that Sam Reinhart continues to develop as a player, Jack Eichel continues to develop as a player. You’ve seen Victor Olofsson make the jump this year. But look, we’re focused on right now as we have a group of players that are proven NHL scorers who aren’t up to their NHL norms right now for goals. Whether it’s chemistry, lines, that’s what we’re trying to work on right now to get more out of them because we think there’s another level that they can get to.
MS: How is Mittelstadt doing?
JB: Mittelstadt, saw him down on Friday down in Rochester, I think he’s done a great job down there. He’s gone down with the right attitude of being engaged, working very closely with Chris Taylor. You see him in power play, penalty killing, in all situations out there. He’s starting to produce more from an offensive standpoint. You look at, not just his offensive numbers, but what he’s creating from a chances standpoint. It’s top of the league from that situation. Very similar to what Tage Thompson was doing at the start of the year. We’ve been very happy with Casey’s maturity in the situation. I think they’ve won five in a row here in Rochester and he’s certainly a big part of that.
CP: Is the plan, if there is a hard plan, and I realize these things can always change, the trade deadline, injuries, his performance, but would you be inclined to just sort of let him cook down there for the rest of the year and enjoy a playoff run and then take a new run at the NHL next fall? Or could he be a call-up candidate?
JB: Well I think it’s always a situation we’re looking at, but I think you touched on the playoff experience. Playoff experience needs to happen for a lot of players in our organization, and I think that’s extremely key. That’s a big step in anyone’s development — getting that experience, whether it’s at the National Hockey League level, American Hockey League, just playing in those type of games.
CP: Has Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen played down there yet?
JB: Yep, he played last Friday against Syracuse. Won that game, stopped a penalty shot in the first period. Obviously disappointed with Ullmark going down up here, but it is an opportunity for Jonas [Johansson] to come up here and it’s an opportunity for [Luukkonen] to gain more starts in Rochester.
CP: Would you think he could get a look at some point here? Or do you think…
JB: The next step in his development, look, everything was taken a step back because of the offseason surgery. We understood that, but you’ve got to look at the long term for a talented young kid like that. He’s done his job at the ECHL level. I think it’s great that now he’s taken the role of working with [Andrew] Hammond in Rochester and the next step is for him to get games in there and then take over that role and stuff to be a go-to goalie at the American Hockey League level.
MS: Jason, what do you know at this point or think coming up here in the next three weeks that the trade deadline will look like? There seem to be interesting factors, like whether Seattle is a factor in it or teams, well you’ve got 22 thousand something in cap space, like nothing really, no room to do anything. If you wanted to be a seller here in the next few weeks, how do you think you could do? How much action do you think?
JB: The first thing that we’re doing is we have 10 games before the break; we want to see what materializes in these 10 games. As a manager, you’re having conversations with teams, some are from both sides, to be prepared for both scenarios. We’re very optimistic on we have, I believe, seven of the next eight games at home. Didn’t start off the way we wanted it. I thought getting a win on Saturday against Columbus was key. Now tonight will certainly be a challenge but we have an opportunity for our home games here to get some results, and that’s what we’re going to be looking for.
MS: Can you offer any kind of numbers on that? Like you’re 10 or 11 out, the Leafs and the Hurricanes aren’t even in and they’re in the way, Montreal. What would get you to that point where you think you would actually go for it?
JB: We’ll continue to see how it plays out. I’ll have to continue my dialogue with the Pegulas on what’s right for this franchise moving forward here. But it’s going to be challenging, we understand that, but that’s also why you’ve heard Ralph talk a lot about keeping the picture small. And it’s not like our players don’t realize the challenge of the bigger picture, but trying to keep it small and trying to get the small results, that’s the only way we have to go to make progress here.
MS: What do you think Seattle might mean to the deadline? Will there be more moves? Different kinds of moves?
JB: I think you’ll see more moves maybe this summer in preparation for that. I think right now it’s still too far out from that bit. You have so many teams that are still in the race from that standpoint. I think people are more looking at “what can we do to have success this year” versus looking at Seattle down the road.
CP: Do you think there’s the potential for, I guess, “hockey trades” is how I think you people in the business refer to it, at the deadline as opposed to just sell-offs?
JB: I think so. There’s certainly going to be a couple of high-end players, I think, that are going to be in the rental market that will be the big — that will gain a high price. You’ve just seen it over the years, people continuing to see the value in first-round picks and understand, even the top-end teams understand that they have to have those young players coming through their system if they’re going to sustain this at all. I think you’ve heard a lot of general managers talk about they’re looking for, “We’ll move a defenseman for a forward or we’ll move a forward for a D-man” for specific things, but less about the rental market but more about helping out the team out right now what their team needs but the player that can help them in the future too.
MS: I have a theory, if I may, and I don’t know if this is something you hear or even subscribe to, maybe. But I’m into the numbers and I’ve brought this up with Bulldog earlier and even maybe last year too. I think with the league as competitive as it is, teams from the back of the playoff pack winning the Cup and all of that, with the money that it costs, I don’t see buying as really mathematically very smart most of the time. How many wins above replacement, how many wins are you gaining by trading a first-round pick for a player? I think in the analytics world here, I don’t know to what extent hockey’s really there, but I feel like in baseball they would just never do this. They would never trade for these guys if it were the way hockey is, to the first point, how competitive it is and everything. Do you think that makes sense? Do you hear that? Do you agree with it?
JB: Well I think certainly, yeah. You look at the models that’s going now with how salaries are being structured, these teams that have success or are at the top, they’re paying their young players, their star players an even [larger] percentage of the cap. So how do you keep that sort of model going? It’s imperative that you have some younger players contributing and coming up through your system. The only way you’re getting young players is through the draft and as much as it’s difficult to pinpoint drafts on 18-year-old kids, that’s where you’re bringing the talent within your organization.
MS: Some of these Cup teams — the Kings, I think, maybe the Blues and the Capitals too — they would’ve had a prized, or a relatively prized, young player maybe at the AHL level that, “Okay, well we’re good and we want to win and Washington and St. Louis had never won so do we trade X?”
CP: I feel like [Jakub] Vrana would’ve been that player for Washington the year they won the Cup. He was just sort of coming and they could’ve traded him in for something more proven and probably done great but they hung on to him and he ended up producing.
JB: And if you are going to utilize first-round picks in trades, that’s imperative your second- and third-round players continue to contribute to your group. You look at different organizations: Tampa Bay, Washington, Pittsburgh, they’ve had some success in the second and third round for players coming in there, so that at least gives them more flexibility to maybe move a first-round pick. Boston’s another example that’s done a great job in strengthening their organization through second- and third-round picks.
MS: Who is the best second- or third-round pick you’ve got anywhere in this organization right now?
JB: In this organization?
MS: Yeah, like who’s got the highest upside?
JB: Well it’s a challenging position, but [Luukkonen]. Just his track record, from winning last year, from what he did coming over to North America in the OHL. He has the tools; it’s just that position, I understand people don’t want to hear it, but it’s patience with that position.
MS: No doubt. It’s also like the Wheel of Fortune with that position year-to-year. You have basically [Henrik] Lundqvist, who’s always good, and everybody else is, you know, just crazy.
CP: I’m all about patience with goalies. Don’t worry, I know the drill.
JB: We’re seeing it first hand just with our goalie right now, Jonas Johansson. Here’s a goalie that’s 24 years old now getting an opportunity and has worked his way up from the ECHL to Rochester to this year in the American Hockey League. It’s taken time for him, but he’s put the time in with both Seamus Kotyk, our goalie development coach, and now Mike Bales. It’s great to see him being rewarded here now.
MS: I think even Ullmark, I would say, has been up and down. You guys, like Ralph Krueger and a little bit you have talked about how really good he’s been. I don’t know, some of those numbers a month ago weren’t quite saying that, but he’s playing every game too.
CP: He was going really well then he got hurt.
JB: Linus has made a huge step in his development. You look at our numbers, especially even-strength save percentage, he’s done a great job for us. That’s certainly one of the disappointments, especially least week before we went to the All-Star break, I thought he did a great job there. I think that’s a huge step for a goalie, no matter what age, to go from more of that backup to that challenge of being the guy day in and day out. His mental strength has certainly been impressive this year.

 

[Jim Carr's Rug]

Buffalo Sabres Digital Press Box
2-4 Jason Botterill with Schopp and the Bulldog
Transcript of Jason Botterill Interview 2/4/20 5:30PM


MS: We had a caller on Wednesday, Bulldog should talk about it, I wasn’t there. Jeremy [White] lost his mom and we were at the wake and the funeral; we took turns going. This caller was just really hot about ownership and the thing went nation-wide. A part of it that I want to ask you about is the ownership piece, and you just referenced the Pegulas. I think some fans wonder just where they’re at in all this. You know, especially the way it started and big talk before you were here about plans for the organization, no doubt a lot of money has been spent, but there aren’t results yet. What can you tell fans about Terry and Kim Pegula’s feelings about this and what they want to see get done?
JB: Well, to put it bluntly, my conversations with Terry and Kim, they’re frustrated with the results. They want better results. Our dialogue — we’re in constant dialogue — the dialogue goes to, “What are the solutions? What are we doing to get better?” But from a management standpoint, it’s one of the reasons I came to this organization was the resources are given to us to have success, whether you want to, from a Rochester standpoint, to opportunity for developing our scouting staff, to development staff, Rochester, they give us the resources. If you’re frustrated with the results, hey, challenge management. But what our ownership has given us, they give us the tools to have success.

Jesus, take some responsibility Jason. I would have more confidence if you at least acknowledged some of your mistakes are contributing to the problem. We need to feel that you'll do better. Ignoring your missteps does not instill confidence.

 

[GrierIsGod123]

Botts is such an idiot. Reading that just made me feel ill. He's a clueless, big headed drag on this organization. I hate him.

 

[MagnumForce2]

When was the last time you were truly excited and optimistic about this team? ( other than the 2 win streaks to start last year and this year )

 

[Buffaloed]

Botts is such an idiot. Reading that just made me feel ill. He's a clueless, big headed drag on this organization. I hate him.

Here's a dramatization of the interview that landed Botts the GM job:

Spoiler: Botterill Inteview

 

[OkimLom]

When was the last time you were truly excited and optimistic about this team? ( other than the 2 win streaks to start last year and this year )

Truly excited and optimistic about the team's future? Probably looking back to sometime in the 15-16 season. And that was killed because of Bylsma.