Jason Botterill: Is he a good or bad GM?

[jame]

4 minutes ago, ... said:

The take on Murray is dead on.

JBott having a massive head-start over Murray seems obvious, but, let's recall Murray assembled that roster - and that roster is what led to Dahlin.  I'm not sure how you pin the results of that roster on JBott.  What he did with that roster during the season and over the summer, fine, whatever happened then was - obviously - his doing.

The only question you don't seem to be asking is: with ROR, Eichel, Kane, Reinhart and I'll include McCabe and Risto in this list, why did they stink up the season?  I don't believe for one minute that it all comes down to goal-tending.  There should have been enough talent there to make two scoring lines, plus the fourth line is effectively the same as this year's.

And what could JBott have done - in season - to jump-start the "talent" and make them perform?

There are factors/parameters to what's going on that are missing.  That should be obvious as anyone assesses the reality that has unfolded before our eyes.  I don't know what those factors/parameters are, however it's clear that while it's fun to move pieces around on paper and in spreadsheets and call yourself a genius, saying they amount to obvious conclusions, the prior two GMs did exactly that and look where we are.  

We're discussing and judging these things while missing critical data and our conclusions are still speculative at best.  

Botts added Tennyson, Chad Johnson, Griffith, Pouliot, Josefson, Nolan,... and kept Moulson around... and went in to the season with a straight face. That's literally a 3rd of last year's roster... and none of them are in the NHL today.

Botts doesn't get a pass for putting last year's ***** show together...

They stunk it up last year because Botts hired an unqualified and inexperienced coach, made terrible depth moves for the roster, passed on making marginal improvements throughout the year, and hung the team out to dry.

 

[woods-racer]

1 minute ago, jame said:

Botts added Tennyson, Chad Johnson, Griffith, Pouliot, Josefson, Nolan,... and kept Moulson around... and went in to the season with a straight face. That's literally a 3rd of last year's roster... and none of them are in the NHL today.

Botts doesn't get a pass for putting last year's ***** show together...

They stunk it up last year because Botts hired an unqualified and inexperienced coach, made terrible depth moves for the roster, passed on making marginal improvements throughout the year, and hung the team out to dry.

 

 

Thant's known as a quiet successful tank to me.

But hey, whatever.

[jame]

1 minute ago, woods-racer said:

 

Thant's known as a quiet successful tank to me.

But hey, whatever.

The idea that a GM would choose to tank during the most important developmental years of Eichel/Reinhart... and with ROR in his prime... is incomprehensible.

But if you believe Botts tanked on purpose it puts a whole new spin on the ROR saga...

[Carmel Corn]

6 minutes ago, jame said:

Botts added Tennyson, Chad Johnson, Griffith, Pouliot, Josefson, Nolan,... and kept Moulson around... and went in to the season with a straight face. That's literally a 3rd of last year's roster... and none of them are in the NHL today.

Botts doesn't get a pass for putting last year's ***** show together...

They stunk it up last year because Botts hired an unqualified and inexperienced coach, made terrible depth moves for the roster, passed on making marginal improvements throughout the year, and hung the team out to dry.

 

and kept Moulson around.

So what exactly was he supposed to do with MM?  I don't think other teams were exactly standing in line to steal him away from the Sabres.

 

[woods-racer]

1 minute ago, jame said:

The idea that a GM would choose to tank during the most important developmental years of Eichel/Reinhart... and with ROR in his prime... is incomprehensible.

But if you believe Botts tanked on purpose it puts a whole new spin on the ROR saga...

It's comprehensible for a shot at a generational player because we have ROR and Sam and a team of bad players with really, really bad contracts?

[...]

1 minute ago, woods-racer said:

Thant's known as a quiet successful tank to me.

But hey, whatever.

That's where I'm at.  Consider that JBott's objective is to rebuild the pipeline and create a team that contends perpetually, he wasn't going to do it with what was handed to him on day one.  So, sure, use the "assessment year" excuse, try and get some draft capital back, and shoot for a generational defenseman.   What's to say that he wasn't told on the day he was hired that he *must* get rid of ROR (which I absolutely believe).  Which leads further down the path of speculation on motives, plans, strategies.  

I don't think we have enough data, simply put, to understand where we're at.  If he's fired at the end of the season, it makes a lot of speculation far more likely - jame's that JBott is indeed a failure and why would probably be close.  However, unlike Murray's tenure, where he promised a team that could compete in fewer years, JBott is likely to have sold, and is operating under, a much longer term plan.

Conversely, if Skinner is signed here, then their internal plan is right on track.

[jame]

4 minutes ago, Carmel Corn said:

and kept Moulson around.

So what exactly was he supposed to do with MM?  I don't think other teams were exactly standing in line to steal him away from the Sabres.

 

What it took him 20+ games to figure out... 

[woods-racer]

1 minute ago, ... said:

That's where I'm at.  Consider that JBott's objective is to rebuild the pipeline and create a team that contends perpetually, he wasn't going to do it with what was handed to him on day one.  So, sure, use the "assessment year" excuse, try and get some draft capital back, and shoot for a generational defenseman.   What's to say that he wasn't told on the day he was hired that he *must* get rid of ROR (which I absolutely believe).  Which leads further down the path of speculation on motives, plans, strategies.  

I don't think we have enough data, simply put, to understand where we're at.  If he's fired at the end of the season, it makes a lot of speculation far more likely - jame's that JBott is indeed a failure and why would probably be close.  However, unlike Murray's tenure, where he promised a team that could compete in fewer years, JBott is likely to have sold, and is operating under, a much longer term plan.

I also believe this.

And.

If JBotts had Murray's two years as GM we would be much closer than we are now with a nice stocked Rochester.

[jame]

4 minutes ago, woods-racer said:

It's comprehensible for a shot at a generational player because we have ROR and Sam and a team of bad players with really, really bad contracts?

It should be nearly impossible to finish dead last with the level of talent we had.... to think that you could engineer an Eichel, ROR, Risto, Reinhart, Kane, Scandella, Pominville, etc roster to be a dead last team is frighteningly stupid. 

To then do it... for a 20% chance at Dahlin is insane.

Murray stripped everything away in a year where there was one generational superstar and an elite #1 level talent consolation prize. It's entirely different.

The premise that Botts intentionally threw away a season under the conditions he had is a fireable offense.

1 minute ago, woods-racer said:

 

If JBotts had Murray's two years as GM we would be much closer than we are now with a nice stocked Rochester.

That could very well be true... 

[jame]

6 minutes ago, ... said:

That's where I'm at.  Consider that JBott's objective is to rebuild the pipeline and create a team that contends perpetually, he wasn't going to do it with what was handed to him on day one.  So, sure, use the "assessment year" excuse, try and get some draft capital back, and shoot for a generational defenseman.   What's to say that he wasn't told on the day he was hired that he *must* get rid of ROR (which I absolutely believe).  Which leads further down the path of speculation on motives, plans, strategies.  

I don't think we have enough data, simply put, to understand where we're at.  If he's fired at the end of the season, it makes a lot of speculation far more likely - jame's that JBott is indeed a failure and why would probably be close.  However, unlike Murray's tenure, where he promised a team that could compete in fewer years, JBott is likely to have sold, and is operating under, a much longer term plan.

You think Botts was told that he HAD to get rid of ROR... and then proceeded to keep him on the roster for an entire season in which you think he was trying to tank out for Dahlin?

Does that make sense at all? Maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Edited January 31, 2019 by jame

[Carmel Corn]

4 minutes ago, jame said:

What it took him 20+ games to figure out... 

14 games in 2017-2018

[Sabres Fan in NS]

3 minutes ago, jame said:

It should be nearly impossible to finish dead last with the level of talent we had.... to think that you could engineer an Eichel, ROR, Risto, Reinhart, Kane, Scandella, Pominville, etc roster to be a dead last team is frighteningly stupid. 

To then do it... for a 20% chance at Dahlin is insane.

Murray stripped everything away in a year where there was one generational superstar and an elite #1 level talent consolation prize. It's entirely different.

The premise that Botts intentionally threw away a season under the conditions he had is a fireable offense.

Jbot will not be fired for going after Dahlin. He was instructed to do it.

 

 

[jame]

1 minute ago, Carmel Corn said:

14 games in 2017-2018

You need to factor in the games he was scratched for... He was placed on waivers Dec 4th, that was after the Sabres 27th game

 

[jame]

1 minute ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

Jbot will not be fired for going after Dahlin. He was instructed to do it.

 

I don't think Botts will be fired.

He was not instructed to go after Dahlin. I'm happy to hear any evidence that he was.

Edited January 31, 2019 by jame

[...]

1 minute ago, jame said:

It should be nearly impossible to finish dead last with the level of talent we had.... to think that you could engineer an Eichel, ROR, Risto, Reinhart, Kane, Scandella, Pominville, etc roster to be a dead last team is frighteningly stupid. 

To then do it... for a 20% chance at Dahlin is insane.

Murray stripped everything away in a year where there was one generational superstar and an elite #1 level talent consolation prize. It's entirely different.

The premise that Botts intentionally threw away a season under the conditions he had is a fireable offense.

On point one, the only thing you can rest the argument on is Housley.  That Housley survived to coach this season, and that he remains the coach now, makes it obvious that whatever happened last season was intentional.  You can call it stupid, but it clearly wasn't a surprise.

On point two, with that strategy they had a 100% chance of one of either Dahlin, Svechnikov, or Kotkaniemi.  That gamble was very worth taking, no?  A second chance at a generational talent - take it, considering with circumstances (point three).

On point four - you are quite obviously absolutely wrong.  JBotts is still here, as you may have noticed.  

 

[...]

5 minutes ago, jame said:

You think Botts was told that he HAD to get rid of ROR... and then proceeded to keep him on the roster for an entire season in which you think he was trying to tank out for Dahlin?

Does that make sense at all? Maybe I am misunderstanding you?

You aren't misunderstanding me, you're not reading what I've typed with a clear and open mind. I said, many times if you'll note, we are missing data...critical data.  Life doesn't unfold simply like the linear boxes on a spreadsheet.  Of the data we're missing (meaning that this is only one data point of many that we're missing) is the dynamic inside the organization over what to do with ROR.

[jame]

1 minute ago, ... said:

On point one, the only thing you can rest the argument on is Housley.  That Housley survived to coach this season, and that he remains the coach now, makes it obvious that whatever happened last season was intentional.  You can call it stupid, but it clearly wasn't a surprise.

On point two, with that strategy they had a 100% chance of one of either Dahlin, Svechnikov, or Kotkaniemi.  That gamble was very worth taking, no?  A second chance at a generational talent - take it, considering with circumstances (point three).

On point four - you are quite obviously absolutely wrong.  JBotts is still here, as you may have noticed.  

 

Point 2... big Kotkaniemi fan.... not a player you tank for

On point 4.... How am I wrong? You guys have to prove that Botts intentionally threw away a season.

It's interesting that after the tank failed so epically for Murray, that people think Botts got the job by selling a tank 2.0

"You have to trade ROR, and make sure you do everything possible to get Dahlin"

"Ok, so Im going to keep Kane until the trade deadline, and keep ROR all year... because executing on goals is my strong suit"

1 minute ago, ... said:

You aren't misunderstanding me, you're not reading what I've typed with a clear and open mind. I said, many times if you'll note, we are missing data...critical data.  Life doesn't unfold simply like the linear boxes on a spreadsheet.  Of the data we're missing (meaning that this is only one data point of many that we're missing) is the dynamic inside the organization over what to do with ROR.

I'm not sure how much more clear and open my mind needs to be to accept such conflicting premises 

[Carmel Corn]

5 minutes ago, jame said:

You need to factor in the games he was scratched for... He was placed on waivers Dec 4th, that was after the Sabres 27th game

 

Scratches can also be coaching vs. GM decisions.  I still do not get your point...what was JB supposed to do otherwise with MM?  He only played 14 games and showed that he had nothing to offer in return for his GMTM salary.  JB removed him from the roster, but there was nothing that could be done to move the high salary.

[woods-racer]

Jame your making one big assumption to me. That JBotts had to do much of anything to tank. We where historically bad when he took over, even with Kane and ROR. One of the worst teams ever.

Him doing nothing more than *evaluation* on this teams players for a year was extending a tank year.

Edited January 31, 2019 by woods-racer

[...]

1 minute ago, jame said:

Point 2... big Kotkaniemi fan.... not a player you tank for

On point 4.... How am I wrong? You guys have to prove that Botts intentionally threw away a season.

It's interesting that after the tank failed so epically for Murray, that people think Botts got the job by selling a tank 2.0

"You have to trade ROR, and make sure you do everything possible to get Dahlin"

"Ok, so Im going to keep Kane until the trade deadline, and keep ROR all year... because executing on goals is my strong suit"

On point four I don't have to prove jack.  You are the one asserting his actions were a fire-able offense.  There is no way you can prove that to be true - ever - and I pointed out why. 

Tank 1.0 did not fail epically - we have #9.  Tank 1.0 was not handled properly at all.  See darksabre's posts elsewhere for a good analysis on why (I think it was him). Tank 1.0 was incomplete and they needed to start over again, so, yes, why not Tank 2.0 because, as I have been pointing out, the prizes were right there and it's only one additional season.

 

[jame]

3 minutes ago, woods-racer said:

Jame your making one big assumption to me. That JBotts had to do much of anything to tank. We where historically bad when he took over, even with Kane and ROR. One of the worst teams ever.

Him doing nothing more than *evaluation* this teams players for a year was extending a tank year.

we were ~80 point team when he took over. We were not historically bad... the historically bad team was the one Murray took on.

2 minutes ago, ... said:

On point four I don't have to prove jack.  You are the one asserting his actions were a fire-able offense.  There is no way you can prove that to be true - ever - and I pointed out why. 

Tank 1.0 did not fail epically - we have #9.  Tank 1.0 was not handled properly at all.  See darksabre's posts elsewhere for a good analysis on why (I think it was him). Tank 1.0 was incomplete and they needed to start over again, so, yes, why not Tank 2.0 because, as I have been pointing out, the prizes were right there and it's only one additional season.

 

I asserted that IF his actions were intentional (intentionally tanking an Eichel team), then it would be a fireable offense.

I obviously do not believe he intentionally tanked. I believe he made terrible depth moves, had no idea what he was doing in a coaching hire, and was a deer frozen in headlights through the first half of the season.... he got a much worse outcome than he expected. And every interview he gave from the mid point of the season on confirms that.

I agree with you second point about the tank 1.0. Tank wasn't a fail, murray's accelerated rebuild was the fail.

Edited January 31, 2019 by jame

[...]

7 minutes ago, jame said:

we were ~80 point team when he took over. We were not historically bad... the historically bad team was the one Murray took on.

I asserted that IF his actions were intentional (intentionally tanking an Eichel team), then it would be a fireable offense.

I obviously do not believe he intentionally tanked. I believe he made terrible depth moves and got a much worse outcome than he expected. And every interview he gave from the mid point of the season on confirms that.

This team started looking bad in the 2011-2012 season. I would call that historically bad.

That it was an intentional tank is obvious after the fact.  There is no other conclusion - except yours.  Which doesn't make sense given the facts that we have.

You can't possibly be relying on JBott interviews in the media to justify your position on this...right?  These must be something better to back up your position.

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by ...
Spock...

[...]

17 minutes ago, jame said:

I'm not sure how much more clear and open my mind needs to be to accept such conflicting premises 

There's a certain lack of creativity in your speculation.  

[jame]

3 minutes ago, ... said:

This team started looking bad in the 2011-2012 season. I would call that historically bad.

That it was an intentional tank is obvious after the fact.  There is no other conclusion - except yours.  Which doesn't make sense given the facts that we have.

You can't possibly be relying on JBott interviews in the media to justify your position on this...right?  These must be something better to back up your position.

 

So, finishing last, means we tanked?

Sorry, this is a truly bizarre theory. I didn't realize that so many people actually thought we intentionally tanked last year. It's surprising... 

I'm trying to finish last... so I make a move to try to upgrade my blueline (Scandella) and bring in more goal scoring (Poms)

I'm trying to finish last... so I keep Evander Kane until the last possible minute, even while he was one of the hottest scorers in the NHL in the first 1/3 of the season

I'm trying to finish last AND my boss told me I have to trade ROR.... so I keep him for the entire year.

It's truly bizarre that you think this theory is so obvious

1 minute ago, ... said:

There's a certain lack of creativity in your speculation.  

I'll give you credit for creativity

Edited January 31, 2019 by jame

[...]

1 minute ago, jame said:

So, finishing last, means we tanked?

Sorry, this is a truly bizarre theory. I didn't realize that so many people actually thought we intentionally tanked last year. It's surprising... 

I'm trying to finish last... so I make a move to try to upgrade my blueline (Scandella) and bring in more goal scoring (Poms)

I'm trying to finish last... so I keep Evander Kane until the last possible minute, even while he was one of the hottest scorers in the NHL in the first 1/3 of the season

I'm trying to finish last AND my boss told me I have to trade ROR.... so I keep him for the entire year.

It's truly bizarre that you think this theory is so obvious

I'll give you credit for creativity

Have you not been arguing in other parts of this here board that Scandella was an awful signing?  Yes you have.

Are you kidding me on trying to call Pomminstein "scoring"?  Haha! Really?  You are w-i-l-d-l-y inconsistent in your thinking.

Your Kane point is just weak and dumb and you should know that.

Your view on ROR is rigid and unimaginative. Maybe JBott was told to get rid of ROR.  That doesn't mean he agreed.  Perhaps he convinced the Pegulas to wait and see if getting rid of Kane solves "the problems".  And then ROR ruined it at the end of the year.

On the bolded - Tanks!