Jason Botterill Discussion Part 5

[BFLO]

Again I draw the Sabres/Bills parallel. Beane/McDermott sold the Pegulas on a long-term plan with step 1 being changing the culture, getting rid of problem children and getting our cap under control.

I think Botts sold the Pegulas on the same plan -- change the culture, get rid of problem children and get the cap under control. Difference is: Beane/McDermott knew who needed to go and who needed to stay. Botterill completely botched the who needed to go idea and has more or less completely mis-read the trade market. That and the Bills had a better base with which to work, but that's neither here nor there.

I disagree that the Bills had a better base to start from.

Botts had a great base of ROR and Kane as major trade chips. Or as valuable players to retain.

 

[Bendium]

I disagree that the Bills had a better base to start from.

Botts had a great base of ROR and Kane as major trade chips. Or as valuable players to retain.

Why do people think there was any way we were retaining Kane? He was leaving at the end of his contract from the day we traded for him. He was on the record wanting to go to a big city with the big city playboy life. He was always a couple year rental to be traded in the last year of his contract if we were not making the playoffs. We got fair market deadline trade value for him. What more did you want or expect? We got a 1st, 4th, and O'Regan for 2 months of Kane's contract time.

 

[OkimLom]

Why do people think there was any way we were retaining Kane? He was leaving at the end of his contract from the day we traded for him. He was on the record wanting to go to a big city with the big city playboy life. He was always a couple year rental to be traded in the last year of his contract if we were not making the playoffs. We got fair market deadline trade value for him. What more did you want or expect? We got a 1st, 4th, and O'Regan for 2 months of Kane's contract time.

We actually received a 2nd (cond), 4th, and an AHL body. But because of another team decided they wanted him there, we received a 1st instead of the 2nd. That change was completely up to another team. They could've easily have said we want to keep other guys on this team and build around them.

 

[Chainshot]

I am neither a big Botterill supporter or hater. I am a big Buffalo Sabres supporter and fan. I want my team to get better like everyone else. When I go back and look at all of Botterill's moves and the conditions and timing, I see plenty of hits, and plenty of misses. Most of the moves made sense on one level or another at the time of the move. This summer looked good to me until the last move of trading defense for the 2C fell thru. If that had gotten done I think our whole conversation is different right now as the club would have been much more balanced from the start.

I view him so far as a inexperienced but learning GM. However you view it, the roster is set to clear a lot of cap this offseason and next. Over half the roster will change out over the next 2 years. Every time you change coaches it takes them some time to figure out which players can and cannot play well in their system. Changing GM's right now is an almost certainty to also change coaches for the 7th coach in 9 years. You want to keep screwing up player development and the ability to build a team around a style or system? Keep changing coaches. This is my number one reason I do not want to change GM/Coach right now.

Ralph has had one year to develop his system and figure out which players belong on the Sabres bus and which don't. Now he and Jason can go into the deadline and offseason knowing the players they have, what they need in their system, and make choices by trade, UFA, RFA, draft, ect., that build on it. With as much cap availability and change that is about occur, I think it is just as big a risk to bring in a new coach and GM that don't know the core players. A lot of core players, including Jack appear to like playing for Ralph and are working with him to build a system they are vested in. That's a good thing that these players haven't had in a long time. I don't think changing that right now makes us better.

Rock and a hard place, but put me down on the side of going thru this offseason with Jason/Kruger in place. If by December we are not playing well with an improved roster, and legitimately looking like we are set for a real push for the playoffs, then I will be very much on board with a midseason GM change.

So you are saying that if he has the opportunity to do even more long-term damage to the team, let him and then look for a replacement in the middle of next season after qualified individuals will have taken other jobs and the damage to the cap space and whatever futures or current non-UFA pieces he's dealt to fill in for the departing UFA's are now entrenched, essentially leaving the next GM with years of work to undo? That sounds like a recipe for expanding the disaster he has already created.

 

[Chainshot]

We actually received a 2nd (cond), 4th, and an AHL body. But because of another team decided they wanted him there, we received a 1st instead of the 2nd. That change was completely up to another team. They could've easily have said we want to keep other guys on this team and build around them.

There were also reports they had a Kane deal ready to go but his off-ice issues during draft week in Buffalo sank that and his value. Was Botterill again too patient in making that move? It seems to be a trend.

 

[brian_griffin]

its the compounding nature of the ROR trade.

We spent the assets to acquire a #1 center and then dumped the #1 center.

it’s different when a team loses a #1 center they drafted and developed internally (Stastny, Duchene).

the compounding effect of the ROR trade... we paid top top dollar for a #1 center and sold him for pennies on the dollar in the same window

Further compounded by trading away the role-sheltering ROR would have provided lower-depth-chart center(s). 1.5 years of Mittelstadt may not have been wasted as badly. (I know you know this point. I'm reminding others.)

An incompetent GM doesn't make the Nylander for Jokiharju trade. Or acquires a guy like Miller (admittedly at a highish price) to fill a need. Or a guy like Montour when it appeared as if Guhle had stalled. Or Jeff Skinner for a bag of pucks.

Yes, I agree that he's made some terrible moves. And given out some terrible contracts.

But I don't buy the argument that he's some bumbling baffoon.

The #92 for #10 trade was the equivalent of your next door neighbor knocking one very windy weekend morning holding several hundred dollar bills saying they were stuck in your hedgerow, so they must be yours. All Botts had to say was yes.

 

[sabrebuild]

Again I draw the Sabres/Bills parallel. Beane/McDermott sold the Pegulas on a long-term plan with step 1 being changing the culture, getting rid of problem children and getting our cap under control.

I think Botts sold the Pegulas on the same plan -- change the culture, get rid of problem children and get the cap under control. Difference is: Beane/McDermott knew who needed to go and who needed to stay. Botterill completely botched the who needed to go idea and has more or less completely mis-read the trade market. That and the Bills had a better base with which to work, but that's neither here nor there.

Couple things I have noticed about these parallels between the Bills and Sabres.

First, if the plan sold to the Pegulas by McDermott was the long plan, I would love to know the short plan. When McDermott first gets here, he brings in his safeties, and is a playoff team. One down year, after already choosing his qb of the future.

Second, the culture guys he moved out are both different and similar in a bad way. Dareus, was a high pick who had huge swings in quality of play, one of the biggest cap hits at his position and repeated drug issues. He just wasn't a top level player, at a position easily replaced and expensive. The other big name culture move, Watkins.... I mean, dude just was a big piece of a Superbowl win. Does anyone really think trading Sammy was an organizational win? Or contributed to their success?

Side track over, nfl team creation being very different from nhl not withstanding.

 

[joshjull]

Thats a pretty bold and stupid strategy. Because you never know who will be available, who wants to sign here and if you even have the space for all the maybe moves.

Just wasting seasons to get to a point that Botts sees fit to bring maybe good players in is really really bad.

I don’t think his plan has been about freeing up cap space to go hard after UFAs his coming summer. As you said that would be stupid. I think this coming trade deadline and offseason will be about using that cap space for trades and re-signing his own players.

I think his plan all along has been to clean up whatever mess he felt there was while also building up from within via the draft (Mitts, Bryson, Cozens, Pekar, UPL, etc.) smaller trades (Montour/Miller) and signing UDFA (Like Pilut/R2).

The big mistakes he’s made along the way have been Housley, ROR trade, handling of Mitts/Tage development and the “placeholders” he acquired to fill out the roster. The “placeholders” mistake is a combo of who he acquired as well as who he missed out on. Which led in no small part to the wasted seasons you’re referring to.

I’m not trying to sell you on the plan. I don’t have much faith he can make the necessary trades, retention signings, etc that are needed. But I will gladly eat crow if he does.

 

[Chainshot]

Can we stop making personnel improvement parallels between the Bills and Sabres? There isn't the freedom of movement in the NHL like there is in football, nor are teams drafting starters in the middle rounds of the NHL draft for that upcoming season. The volume of annual available talent is considerable in football.

Both teams are trying to sell the culture message. Differentiation happens when a team moves from losing to winning. The best way to build culture is to win games and the best way to win games is with good players, players who fit and embrace roles. The Sabres haven't shown competency at identifying and acquiring good players nor in rewarding hard roles. Hell, there are people who don't even notice how often players start a shift in their own zone or who they do so against and just hoot about how the players don't score enough or aren't tough enough.

 

[Buffaloed]

What does Botterill know about culture? Isn't he basically the Canadian version of Casey Mittelstadt?

 

[OkimLom]

What does Botterill know about culture? Isn't he basically the Canadian version of Casey Mittelstadt?

Are we talking NHL Botts or AHL Botts, because:

NHL Botts wishes he was NHL Mittelstadt, whereas AHL Mittelstadt wishes he was AHL Botterill...

 

[brian_griffin]

Are we talking NHL Botts or AHL Botts, because:

NHL Botts wishes he was NHL Mittelstadt, whereas AHL Mittelstadt wishes he was AHL Botterill...

well-played...

 

[KeyserSoze81]

Are we talking NHL Botts or AHL Botts, because:

NHL Botts wishes he was NHL Mittelstadt, whereas AHL Mittelstadt wishes he was AHL Botterill...

I actually liked Botterill as a player, even at the NHL level; too bad he had to sully his reputation by crippling the franchise as a GM.

 

[OkimLom]

I actually liked Botterill as a player, even at the NHL level; too bad he had to sully his reputation by crippling the franchise as a GM.

At the AHL level, I can understand, but the NHL level...you poor soul.

 

[KeyserSoze81]

At the AHL level, I can understand, but the NHL level...you poor soul.

It was a simpler time back then, and I have a soft spot for high compete fourth liners. We were nearly bankrupt, the three headed GCT was burgeoning, and there I was watching every Golden Gopher goal that Vanek scored leading up to the draft. Those were the days!

 

[OkimLom]

It was a simpler time back then, and I have a soft spot for high compete fourth liners. We were nearly bankrupt, the three headed GCT was burgeoning, and there I was watching every Golden Gopher goal that Vanek scored leading up to the draft. Those were the days!

That's fair, your Botterill is my Matt Ellis.

 

[Bendium]

We actually received a 2nd (cond), 4th, and an AHL body. But because of another team decided they wanted him there, we received a 1st instead of the 2nd. That change was completely up to another team. They could've easily have said we want to keep other guys on this team and build around them.

If you want to split hairs over the terminology on a conditional vs certain 1st....that's fine. You are obviously wanting to paint the trade as a Botterill failure. Please do then. Tell us what should have happened instead? What better trade was out there that Botterill turned down? Tell us how we could have resigned him? Overpay him big time? Should we have not traded him hoping he had a change of heart and risked losing him for nothing? What better option was there than selling him as a rental?

 

[joshjull]

Can we stop making personnel improvement parallels between the Bills and Sabres? There isn't the freedom of movement in the NHL like there is in football, nor are teams drafting starters in the middle rounds of the NHL draft for that upcoming season. The volume of annual available talent is considerable in football.

Both teams are trying to sell the culture message. Differentiation happens when a team moves from losing to winning. The best way to build culture is to win games and the best way to win games is with good players, players who fit and embrace roles. The Sabres haven't shown competency at identifying and acquiring good players nor in rewarding hard roles. Hell, there are people who don't even notice how often players start a shift in their own zone or who they do so against and just hoot about how the players don't score enough or aren't tough enough.

The parallel works in terms of GM focus. Its on posters to understand it will take much longer to do in the NHL.

 

[Bendium]

So you are saying that if he has the opportunity to do even more long-term damage to the team, let him and then look for a replacement in the middle of next season after qualified individuals will have taken other jobs and the damage to the cap space and whatever futures or current non-UFA pieces he's dealt to fill in for the departing UFA's are now entrenched, essentially leaving the next GM with years of work to undo? That sounds like a recipe for expanding the disaster he has already created.

Your assuming that anything and everything he will do will be a massive mistake and failure. His record has some bad moves in it. It also has some good ones. Its not black and white. I am not at all confident in it, but the argument I made was that after a year of Krueger and Botterill together, they have chosen a team hockey system/playstyle with input and vestment from the player core, and have gotten an assessment on which current players do and do not fit it. They have as good or better chance of identifying the types of players they need and want, and making progress in that way with this team, than a new GM and coach coming in that will likely change playstyles, and need time to assess players themselves. A new GM is also likely to sell more futures than necessary to make quick splashy changes trying to appease the currently angry masses. It is just not as simple and easy a call as some here make it out to be. Botterill haters are conveniently ignoring the potential negative consequences of making a GM change right now.

 

[OkimLom]

If you want to split hairs over the terminology on a conditional vs certain 1st....that's fine. You are obviously wanting to paint the trade as a Botterill failure. Please do then. Tell us what should have happened instead? What better trade was out there that Botterill turned down? Tell us how we could have resigned him? Overpay him big time? Should we have not traded him hoping he had a change of heart and risked losing him for nothing? What better option was there than selling him as a rental?

Seeing how much a gap in quality of the pick changed because of actions outside of Botterill's control, yeah, I'm going to make sure it's known.

As for what I would've done, I would've had him for sale during the Expansion draft or at the 2017 draft, and I would've taken on salary, and hoarded a bunch of quality draft picks to do so. Not sure what better trade was out there, but seeing as Botterill has made comments 3 years after being hired about building relationships, I tend to believe he had nothing going on for trades. But I'd venture a guess Kane probably had more value in the Mittelstadt draft offseason than Kane was valued at the TDL of the 2017-2018 season.

Also, seeing as I saw Kane as an asset Murray acquired for a down the road trade, as it fit his comment about to get talent you have to have talent, I wasn't in the realm about re-signing him, so I was fine with the idea of moving him.

I'm of the mindset you go into trades with the idea that you get what you want in a trade, and accept the package that is good enough and get out and move onto other matters, and not have the worry about squeezing out every last drop to try and win the value of a trade.

 

[Chainshot]

Your assuming that anything and everything he will do will be a massive mistake and failure.

Actually no, I don't think anything and everything will be a massive mistake and failure. He's had one massive roster mistake - the trade return in the O'Reilly deal. What he's had are a plurality of poor smaller moves.

His record has some bad moves in it. It also has some good ones. Its not black and white.

Not buying it. Skinner having control and the Hawks seeking Jokiharju are his best two deals. Beyond those? Lazar maybe? His talent evaluation for roster fulfillment has been regularly and consistently poor. That's my fear - he's going to make a bunch of his "reasonable" smaller moves that soak up cap space and piddle away more 2nd-4th round draft picks but he has not found an ability to move the needle with his deals.

I am not at all confident in it, but the argument I made was that after a year of Krueger and Botterill together, they have chosen a team hockey system/playstyle with input and vestment from the player core, and have gotten an assessment on which current players do and do not fit it. They have as good or better chance of identifying the types of players they need and want, and making progress in that way with this team, than a new GM and coach coming in that will likely change playstyles, and need time to assess players themselves. A new GM is also likely to sell more futures than necessary to make quick splashy changes trying to appease the currently angry masses. It is just not as simple and easy a call as some here make it out to be. Botterill haters are conveniently ignoring the potential negative consequences of making a GM change right now.

So his systemic and repeated failings at talent evaluation and roster construction are ignored out of some boogieman of "it might be worse"? We know that he's not been good at roster construction. We've gotten three years of his maneuvers, his signings and his hires that indicate his ability to identify good players for the roles he needs them to play is at best suspect. There is no indication that they understand how to find a good forward and his eye toward the blueline is such a mish-mash thus far. Ray Ferraro's comment that "it's all just stuff" is putting it politely.

And the defense of his three years of inept action is... it might be worse if he leaves? Sure, it might. So far we've had almost 12 years of poor management and owners who have not shown they can get a GM hire correct yet. But as Roosevelt put it, "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing." Leaving him as GM is doing nothing.

I'm game to see if they can f*** up with another GM hire. I'm game to see if they happen to have an accidental moment where they stumble over their version of Bill Polian. I'm not game to continue to watch the guy who's bumbled his way through the last three seasons continue to harm the team, particularly so with all of the small moves he gets wrong.

 

[Zman5778]

The parallel works in terms of GM focus. Its on posters to understand it will take much longer to do in the NHL.

That's what I was trying to get to. Thanks for saying it so succinctly.

 

[OkimLom]

Your assuming that anything and everything he will do will be a massive mistake and failure. His record has some bad moves in it. It also has some good ones. Its not black and white. I am not at all confident in it, but the argument I made was that after a year of Krueger and Botterill together, they have chosen a team hockey system/playstyle with input and vestment from the player core, and have gotten an assessment on which current players do and do not fit it. They have as good or better chance of identifying the types of players they need and want, and making progress in that way with this team, than a new GM and coach coming in that will likely change playstyles, and need time to assess players themselves. A new GM is also likely to sell more futures than necessary to make quick splashy changes trying to appease the currently angry masses. It is just not as simple and easy a call as some here make it out to be. Botterill haters are conveniently ignoring the potential negative consequences of making a GM change right now.

The reality of the situation is that the new GM (assuming a competent one), whether from outside or inside the organization would trade off the UFA contracts if they could, and evaluate what he has on his roster for the rest of the season. Any sort of core or big roster changing moves would be done in the offseason.

 

[Sabre Dance]

The parallel works in terms of GM focus. Its on posters to understand it will take much longer to do in the NHL.

Much longer in what way? Teams go from bad to good in the NHL all the time. It doesn't take 5 years. So I don't agree with that. Botterill is moving like he has a 5 year plan but it didn't need to take that long.

 

[Chainshot]

The reality of the situation is that the new GM (assuming a competent one), whether from outside or inside the organization would trade off the UFA contracts if they could, and evaluate what he has on his roster for the rest of the season. Any sort of core or big roster changing moves would be done in the offseason.

Whoever is running the team this summer is going to have to use futures because their stock of prospects is so poor. Taking no high skill, higher risk draft picks in 2018 certainly hampers them. Their three straight second picks being safe versus being talented? That hurts them. Trading multiple late round picks instead of using them on high skill light round players hurts them. And it hurts them because none of those guys are easy sells, goaltenders are not a commodity and big defensive defenseman are not en vogue. So it’s going to have to be draft picks and it’s also going to have to be UDFA signings this spring to get even a bump of forward talent that isn’t in their stable already. I’m at least pleased to hear that Greeley is working Finland and Sweden. They need to look at the Swiss and the KHL. Wouldn’t it be nice if they stumbled their way into somebody like Kubalik?