2019 Off Season

[Thorner]

16 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

That's the thing, though: the Sabres weren't broken. One could argue Botterill broke them, if going by team record in his first season. 

If one could somehow ask anyone on this board at the time Botterill was hired what they would think if we went the first 3 seasons of Botterill's tenure failing to even come close to a playoffs appearance, I think the answers would be pretty uniform. Big fail. 

We need big things this season and Botterill knows that, and it's why he'll make a trade for a 2C. 

....please!

Edited July 20, 2019 by Thorny

[TrueBlueGED]

2 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Fair point Blue.  But we're not sure he did break it.  We can either give him a 4th year to find out or fire him after 3.  If we fire JBOT after 3 years, then we are  now 4.5 years out to fixing the problem.  It's a good discussion.  The kind of discussion that Terry should have but is not experienced enough in hockey to make a proper decision.  This is why I think the Sabres need a Pres of Hockey Ops.

If we miss the playoffs by a whisker, I'm fine keeping him. That would represent real progress. But if we're not even close again, then cya. Over half the teams in the NHL make the playoffs. We have a legit #1 center and fell backwards into a franchise defenseman. There is simply no reason that we should have to keep waiting years to be a playoff team. 

[TrueBlueGED]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If one could somehow ask anyone on this board at the time Botterill was hired what they would think if we went the first 3 seasons of Botterill's tenure failing to even come close to a playoffs appearance, I think the answers would be pretty uniform. Big fail. 

We need big things this season and Botterill knows that, and it's why he'll make a trade for a 2C. 

....please!

Right. This whole "he has the team built the right way for the long term" is such nonsense. Just because "development" is every other word out of his mouth doesn't actually mean he knows what he's doing. It's year 3. He took over a flawed team and made it worst. It's time for some results. 

[Tondas]

6 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Right. This whole "he has the team built the right way for the long term" is such nonsense. Just because "development" is every other word out of his mouth doesn't actually mean he knows what he's doing. It's year 3. He took over a flawed team and made it worst. It's time for some results. 

It is frustrating.  But there is no "NHL GM for Dummies" book written yet.  I think progress (80+ points) this year gives JBOT another year to use the cap dollars he will get with the UFAs leaving. next year  I'd rather risk another year with JBOT than start the GM lather rinse repeat cycle that we'd be in again.

[TrueBlueGED]

7 minutes ago, Tondas said:

It is frustrating.  But there is no "NHL GM for Dummies" book written yet.  I think progress (80+ points) this year gives JBOT another year to use the cap dollars he will get with the UFAs leaving. next year  I'd rather risk another year with JBOT than start the GM lather rinse repeat cycle that we'd be in again.

The fact that progress is defined as matching Tim Murray's first post-tank season is maddening. That's not progress. I also disagree that changing GMs results in another 4-year rebuild. I guess it could, but there's no reason for that to be the expectation. 

[Tondas]

5 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

The fact that progress is defined as matching Tim Murray's first post-tank season is maddening. That's not progress. I also disagree that changing GMs results in another 4-year rebuild. I guess it could, but there's no reason for that to be the expectation. 

We both want JBOT to be successful this year.  If he is not,  I hope you are 100% correct for next year with a new GM and coach.

[Taro T]

17 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

The fact that progress is defined as matching Tim Murray's first post-tank season is maddening. That's not progress. I also disagree that changing GMs results in another 4-year rebuild. I guess it could, but there's no reason for that to be the expectation. 

PROVIDED the next GM would agree with Botterill as to what type(s) of players teams can win with, there is no reason to believe this team wouldn't/ won't be in the playoffs next year.

There IS a core of players that CAN play a quick, pressuring, possession game.  The issue is, there are 1-3 too few of those to have a #2 line currently.

Should Botts get canned this off-season, the next GM might have lucked into a great spot.  He'll have this year's squad minus most all the albatross contracts plus a year older Mittelstadt (possible solution then at 2C) & could have a young ELC riding 3C & 4C plus a really good '02 birthday player (as if Botts gets canned, we're looking at a good lottery pick at worst).

Slide a USEFUL Mitts into the 2nd line and that could be quite good with Johansson & Reinhart.  Give Cozens Sheary & Vesey, Thompson, Davidsson, or totally new guy & that line could work too getting the 4th most ice time.

Plus, perhaps we've got that Ristolainen converted 2nd liner to fit in among that mix as well.

2 seasons from now, playoffs is not an option.  Provided the Pegulas don't change direction again.  Change the skipper if necessary, but keep heading towards the same port.

[Thorner]

14 minutes ago, Taro T said:

PROVIDED the next GM would agree with Botterill as to what type(s) of players teams can win with, there is no reason to believe this team wouldn't/ won't be in the playoffs next year.

There IS a core of players that CAN play a quick, pressuring, possession game.  The issue is, there are 1-3 too few of those to have a #2 line currently.

Should Botts get canned this off-season, the next GM might have lucked into a great spot.  He'll have this year's squad minus most all the albatross contracts plus a year older Mittelstadt (possible solution then at 2C) & could have a young ELC riding 3C & 4C plus a really good '02 birthday player (as if Botts gets canned, we're looking at a good lottery pick at worst).

Slide a USEFUL Mitts into the 2nd line and that could be quite good with Johansson & Reinhart.  Give Cozens Sheary & Vesey, Thompson, Davidsson, or totally new guy & that line could work too getting the 4th most ice time.

Plus, perhaps we've got that Ristolainen converted 2nd liner to fit in among that mix as well.

2 seasons from now, playoffs is not an option.  Provided the Pegulas don't change direction again.  Change the skipper if necessary, but keep heading towards the same port.

Like, not this coming season, but the next? 

[Curt]

2 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

That's the thing, though: the Sabres weren't broken. One could argue Botterill broke them, if going by team record in his first season. 

I don’t know.  That team basically self destructed.  Rifts between coach and players.  Rifts between amongst the players.  It fell apart.  

I understand that Botterill’s Sabres need to deliver some better results, but I think that Sabres team at the end of Murray’s tenure was absolutely broken.

[Taro T]

5 hours ago, Thorny said:

Like, not this coming season, but the next? 

Not really.  This year should be playoffs or bust.  But, if there are extenuating circumstances & they're close; missing MIGHT be acceptable. 

It's NOT acceptable in year 10 of this ####.

And swapping GMs does NOT buy the next guy time.

[Richard Noggin]

13 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

My reaction would simply be Botterill has failed until the record at game 82 says he hasn't. 

OF COURSE results ultimately dictate a manager's employment status, but for the purposes of following, analyzing, and discussing a team's (or any organization, for that matter) performance and approach (like we're doing here), we can discuss things QUALITATIVELY. Otherwise, what's there to say? Why bother?

[TrueBlueGED]

5 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

OF COURSE results ultimately dictate a manager's employment status, but for the purposes of following, analyzing, and discussing a team's (or any organization, for that matter) performance and approach (like we're doing here), we can discuss things QUALITATIVELY. Otherwise, what's there to say? Why bother?

There was a qualitative response. The only forward Botterill has brought in to this point who has been unquestionably good is Skinner. If his solution to his own mess is Marcus Johansson and Jimmy Vesey, then he has failed. Full stop. 

10 hours ago, Curt said:

I don’t know.  That team basically self destructed.  Rifts between coach and players.  Rifts between amongst the players.  It fell apart.  

I understand that Botterill’s Sabres need to deliver some better results, but I think that Sabres team at the end of Murray’s tenure was absolutely broken.

And yet, that broken team was better than, or at least as good as, Botterill's second season. What does that say about the current state of the team? 

[Curt]

5 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

And yet, that broken team was better than, or at least as good as, Botterill's second season. What does that say about the current state of the team? 

It says that the Buffalo Sabres are not a very good team, obviously.  That needs to change.  I stated this in my original response.  

My point was to contradict your assertion that the 2016-17 Sabres were not broken.  That Botterill should have been able to seamlessly continue whatever upward trajectory that the team was on.  My point is that it was an 80-point (big whoop) broken team that was coming apart at the seams and that it did need to be corrected.

Honestly, I think the end of that 2016-17 season was a real low point.  The team disappointed, the players were openly pouting and complaining to the media.  There were lots of rumors about problems in the room.  Between players and coaches and GM.  It was actually embarrassing.  That needed to change.  A team can’t function with a ***** environment like that.  It didn’t even seem like a team.  It actually carried through the end of the 2017-18 season a bit, but it seems a lot better now.  

I believe that the issue I described above is not trivial.  It is the definition of a broken team.  I think that correcting that was one of Botterill’s main objectives.  I don’t think that can be overlooked or hand waved away when evaluating why the Sabres made the moves that they did.

[LTS]

11 hours ago, Taro T said:

Not really.  This year should be playoffs or bust.  But, if there are extenuating circumstances & they're close; missing MIGHT be acceptable. 

It's NOT acceptable in year 10 of this ####.

And swapping GMs does NOT buy the next guy time.

It doesn't?  That's sketchy.

It's completely unreasonable to expect that a GM can undo the mistakes of a prior GM in a single season and potentially even two given the time to develop talent and the limitations on what moves are possible in any given year.  If Botterill were replaced at this point and the next GM had success in the following year it would be most likely that Botterill was the one who created the potential for success and the next GM lucked into the spot.  The question then would be if the new GM could sustain success. 

Even then, Botterill's skill set might be best suited for teams that need to build and develop a talent pool whereas another GM might be more adept at managing older rosters.  So, putting either of those GMs in the wrong spot would most likely lead to failure.  Neither is successful in all facets of the game and neither are abject failures either.

The Sabres tried a tactic, it didn't work or they were not determined to see it through.  How much the clock starts over depends greatly on how much overlap there is between philosophies of the GMs and the fit of the existing resources to the new GM's vision.

No fan has to accept it or like it, but that doesn't change the reality. 

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, LTS said:

It doesn't?  That's sketchy.

It's completely unreasonable to expect that a GM can undo the mistakes of a prior GM in a single season and potentially even two given the time to develop talent and the limitations on what moves are possible in any given year.  If Botterill were replaced at this point and the next GM had success in the following year it would be most likely that Botterill was the one who created the potential for success and the next GM lucked into the spot.  The question then would be if the new GM could sustain success. 

Even then, Botterill's skill set might be best suited for teams that need to build and develop a talent pool whereas another GM might be more adept at managing older rosters.  So, putting either of those GMs in the wrong spot would most likely lead to failure.  Neither is successful in all facets of the game and neither are abject failures either.

The Sabres tried a tactic, it didn't work or they were not determined to see it through.  How much the clock starts over depends greatly on how much overlap there is between philosophies of the GMs and the fit of the existing resources to the new GM's vision.

No fan has to accept it or like it, but that doesn't change the reality. 

Clearly, should Botterill get canned this off-season, his successor won't be canned the following year for missing.  Though a case can readily be made, that should the next guy agree that the style Botts is going for, that he should make the playoffs in his 1st year & I expect him to do so.  He would not be the 1st (nor will be be the last) GM to ride the coattails of the guy that came before him.

And most everything you are saying about continuity was already said in my prior post that you didn't quote.  Which wasn't repeated because it was answering a question asked of that earlier post.

It's likely moot anyway, as I expect this team to play well enough that Jason doesn't get canned in the summer of '20.

[dudacek]

20 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

That's the thing, though: the Sabres weren't broken. One could argue Botterill broke them, if going by team record in his first season. 

I think if you polled the majority of this board at the end of the 2017 season, we would have said the team was broken. 

I think the vast majority of the people within the organization would have said it was broken. Tim Murray himself seemed to think it was broken and didn’t know how to fix it.

Of course, most of the board would have said the same thing about the team to finish last season as well.

[Thorner]