Cascade Youth

My grandmother was never the same after hers.

Vesey, Petersen, Babcock, maybe McLellan? This organization is terrible at closing...

I don’t understand how anyone could declare that he’s “fine” or a “bust” as if it’s some inherent objective quality capable of being measured. He’s an unknown. He clearly has talent. What we don’t yet know is whether he’ll put in the strength training over the offseason (and future offseasons) to develop his body into that of an NHL player - or whether his frame will accommodate such training. Personally, I’m disappointed he’s not stronger by now, but if he puts in the work he can come back in 2019-20 with the strength to get his nose dirty in the boards or in front of the net. Will he burn off the baby fat? I don’t know - neither does anyone else.

He’s gone.

Really though, is it as complicated as you're making it sound? How about: "When I hired Jason Botterill I made it clear to him that he was authorized and expected to build this thing the right way, for the long-term. And based upon our analysis of other, similar buildouts around the league, we expect to be gradually more competitive, with the expectation that within three to five years from his hiring we've laid the foundation for a consistent playoff contender. If that hasn't happened, then we'll need to ask some really tough questions to figure out whether the plan, the execution, or both, have missed the mark." I.e., Botterill was hired in May 2017. If we're still not looking like a playoff team in May of 2020, after he's had three years to build his roster, I'm seriously considering starting over with a new person and/or new plan.

Fine - so one metric is achieving playoff hockey by ... when? 2020? 2021? I’m fine with a long-term plan but I’m concerned about whether Terry will know when he’s arrived...

This is true, and it's a good post. But my issue is: what are the metrics for success under this approach? Any business organization requires measurables for evaluating its own success. What are the Sabres', if winning in the short-term is not one of them?

Agreed. Why do the Pegulas' teams have to be development leagues for front office execs and coaches? Can't they just hire folks who actually know what they're doing from the jump?

So why don't you bring someone in from the outside who actually knows what they're doing, Terry? Why the resistance to handing over the reins to a proven NHL czar? THE PROBLEM IS YOU, TERRY. But also, if the only reason you can think of for holding onto a coach is that too much turnover is bad - that's not a good enough reason.

Team has quit.

They don’t hate losing. I keep saying it. In fact, most of them don’t seem to mind it at all. Much easier than putting pressure on themselves to compete every shift of every game. And that lack of accountability and urgency starts in the owner’s box. The well-meaning Pegulas have run two franchises into the ground through poor hires, mismanagement, a stubborn insistence on learning on the job, and the mistake of repeatedly trusting the last circus barker they spoke with. I thought the Wilson/Golisano years were bleak but these owners are somehow managing to lower the bar.

ROR used to hate losing - and then started to hate himself for not hating losing as much as he used to. THAT is the culture of this team, and it has been for a decade - they simply do not hate losing. They love winning, to be sure, but they don't seem to hate losing - and those are two very different things. The great players, coaches, and organizations, hate - HATE - losing. The Pegulas have this "just happy to be here" attitude, some of the fans seem to share it, and the players definitely do.

They do not hate losing.

What are they selling to the season ticket crowd this offseason? More of this?

They are going to have to start looking at the mirror instead of looking for patsies to blame. They have run both franchises into the ground through terrible management and hiring decisions.

I have never seen a team miss the net entirely as often as this one does.

Sometimes it’s just not your decade.

I read this as "dental" and it still kind of made sense.

Tim Murray’s problem was Doug Whaley’s problem which was understanding scouting but not understanding the concept of team-building. Put another way, Tim Murray evaluated individual players in a vacuum. Tim Murray’s revenge is this thread.

You've got a thing for Montour?

Why are we talking about hitting? Maybe Phil’s system simply requires elite goaltending - which the Sabres do not have. The defensemen focus on providing offensive support which leads to many breakdowns and chances on the other end. When our goalies stand on their heads, we can win. When they’re just average, as Hutts was tonight, we lose. Simple as that?

It’s funny, I suspect many folks wouldn’t have minded at all if BooLoo had been waived outright - but now that some team wanted him enough to trade for him we’re outraged that Botts couldn’t get more in return...

Bah. I know I'm not saying anything particularly profound. Just trying to add a new sub-topic for discussion...

I understand JB gave Phil a public vote of confidence, but I tend not to put too much stock in those. Structural changes such as a trade of future assets for a player who fits Phil's system, on the other hand, seems far more final.