Jbot needs to go

[pi2000]

32 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

There is no ***** correlation between hits and winning. I'm not cherry picking you literally started this. 

Flagg did faceoffs. 

Why should I do your work for you? You prove there's a correlation and provide the raw numbers for blocks. Or continue to be wrong, either way I don't care. 

 

Flagg did hits, not faceoffs.   

The raw numbers are available at NHL.com, you know where to look.

Talking about hits, 5 of the top 7 hitting teams are playoff teams ? while 0 of the bottom 4 hitting teams are playoff teams.   

Say it with me... CORRELATION

[woods-racer]

4 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Flagg did hits, not faceoffs.   

The raw numbers are available at NHL.com, you know where to look.

Talking about hits, 5 of the top 7 hitting teams are playoff teams ? while 0 of the bottom 4 hitting teams are playoff teams.   

Say it with me... CORRELATION

Physical teams that can score win.

If this ever changes hockey will no longer be fun to watch.

The Sabres are not physical nor can they score. They are not fun to watch. Correlation also?

 

[LGR4GM]

6 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

2019-2020
5 teams in the top 10 of faceoff percentage are in the top 10 of NHL standings this year. 1 of the top 10 teams are in the bottom 10 of the NHL standings.
4 of the teams in the bottom 10 of faceoff percentage are in the top 10 of the NHL standings this year. 4 of the bottom 10 faceoff teams are in the bottom 10 of the standings.

2018-2019
4 top 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 3 top 10 F% teams in bottom 10 of standings.
3 bottom 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 4 bottom 10 F% teams are in bottom 10 of standings.

2017-2018
4 top 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 2 of top 10 F% teams in bottom of standings.
2 bottom 10 F% teams in to p10 of standings, 5 bottom 10 F% teams in bottom 10 standings.

2016-2017
2 top 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 4 top 10 F% teams in bottom 10 of standings.
4 bottom 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 2 of the bottom 10 F% teams in bottom 10 of standings.

2015-2016
3 top 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 2 top 10 F% teams in bottom 10 of standings
2 bottom 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 6 bottom 10 F% teams in bottom 10 of standings.

2014-2015
4 top 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 3 top 10 F% teams in bottom 10 of standings.
3 bottom 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 3 bottom 10 F% teams in bottom 10 % of standings

Got bored at this point.
So, 22/60 top 10 faceoff teams in the last 6 seasons have finished in the top 10 of the standings. 15/60 top 10 faceoff teams finish in the bottom 10 of the standings, an average of one fewer great faceoff team per year.

14/60 of the bottom 10 faceoff teams in the league have finished in the top 10 of the standings, while 20/60 of the bottom 10 faceoff teams in the league have finished in the bottom 10 of the standings. Again, an average of one more bottom 10 faceoff team per year is bottom 10 than top 10.

Of ten top ten faceoff teams in a given year, 3.6 of them are top ten NHL teams, 2.5 of them are bottom ten NHL teams, and 4.9 of them are somewhere in the middle.
Of ten bottom ten faceoff teams in a given year, 2.3 of them are top ten NHL teams, 3.3 of them are bottom ten NHL teams, and 4.4 of them are somewhere in the middle.

I have to say, this is hardly riveting stuff. It seems to be barely better than a coin flip. Sorta like faceoffs themselves, with even the BEST centers in the league at them.

This is not to discount the idea that it's really nice to have guys who are great at faceoffs taking them in important moments. It was nice to watch ROR break NHL faceoff win records as we plummeted to last place before trading him. But I wouldn't let this skill drive my search for players or my team building moves (though, in building a team with a strong center spine, I have to think you'd come across good faceoff players as good centers tend to have this skill).

Gonna spread out the above numbers to count how many times each faceoff split has given us playoff teams:
2014/15: top 10: 5, bottom 10: 6
2015/16: top 10: 6, bottom 10: 3
2016/2017: top 10: 5, bottom 10: 5 (with 3 other bottom 10 teams filling out the next 3 closest playoff teams)
2017/18: top 10: 6, bottom 10: 5
2018/19: top 10: 7, bottom 10: 4
2019/20: top 10: 6, bottom 10: 6

So over 6 years, 35 of the 96 NHL playoff teams have been top 10 in faceoffs, while 29 of the 96 playoff teams have been in the bottom 10 of all faceoff teams. Try doing the same thing for goals, goals against, goal differential, and even shot metrics, and they'll be far more decisive in doling out playoff spots, tbh. The score was a couple loser points away from being 35-33. Again, this argument isn't particularly riveting from a team-building view, even if it's of course better to win faceoffs than to lose them. I think the idea is just that faceoffs comprise a couple dozen out of hundreds of different kinds of puck battles that happen in a given game, so while the advantage is obviously good for any puck battle, their effect by themselves on the standings can be overstated.

Also, I've been noticing that so many times, a center can "win" the battle such that the puck's trajectory on the ice is back towards his own team, while someone else then loses a battle and the puck goes to his opponent. The center gets the L even if he does the better job at puck drop. The opposite happens just as often. It muddies the water quite a bit for stats that have the characteristic that ROR averages only 1.6 more faceoff wins per GAME than a league average centerman. It's relevant - but as game-changing as a billion other things you can also control in your quest for team building

 

3 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Flagg did hits, not faceoffs.   

The raw numbers are available at NHL.com, you know where to look.

Talking about hits, 5 of the top 7 hitting teams are playoff teams ? while 0 of the bottom 4 hitting teams are playoff teams.   

Say it with me... CORRELATION

How many times does he need to say faceoff? 10?

5 of the top 7 but 6 of the top 10 hit teams are sitting in a playoff spot. Do you know what correlation means? There's only 7 playoff teams in the top 15 for hits. 

Good lord. You make so many misguided, bad faith, illogical arguments, and then can't even have the decency to read what ppl send back to you. 

Edited February 7, 2020 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

5 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

I just plotted team ranking versus ranking in hits over a span of the last 6.5 NHL seasons.

I can do blocked shots and faceoff wins tomorrow.

Wow,  what a correlation. I can draw a clear regression line based on hits correlated to wins right through that... 

There's clearly 0 correlation. None. If I made a textbook and had a section on things not being correlated, i would use this chart. 

[WildCard]

The bad news is, we suck.

The good news? There is no hope.  

[freester]

Did anyone hear chanting tonight of “Fire Botteril “.  The Pegulas need to hear that loud and frequently. 

[Randall Flagg]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Wow,  what a correlation. I can draw a clear regression line based on hits correlated to wins right through that... 

There's clearly 0 correlation. None. If I made a textbook and had a section on things not being correlated, i would use this chart. 

It really was comical how random-sample it turned out

[pi2000]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Wow,  what a correlation. I can draw a clear regression line based on hits correlated to wins right through that... 

There's clearly 0 correlation. None. If I made a textbook and had a section on things not being correlated, i would use this chart. 

I'll chalk it up to fuzzy math.

Winning faceoffs is better than losing faceoffs.   

Blocking a shot is better than not blocking a shot.

Taking the puck away from the opposition is better than letting them posses the puck.

Playing against a team that hits is more taxing than playing against a team that doesn't hit.

Buffalo would be a better team if they had players who could fill those roles.

 

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, freester said:

Did anyone hear chanting tonight of “Fire Botteril “.  The Pegulas need to hear that loud and frequently. 

Seriously is there anyone here who doesn't now think he needs to go (and it's overdue)? 

[Huckleberry]

After the trade deadline I'd say yes, but right now its to soon to get a new manager.   In my mind it doesn't make sense.   Any deal that Jbott had going would probably fall away.

[LGR4GM]

6 hours ago, pi2000 said:

I'll chalk it up to fuzzy math.

Winning faceoffs is better than losing faceoffs.   

Blocking a shot is better than not blocking a shot.

Taking the puck away from the opposition is better than letting them posses the puck.

Playing against a team that hits is more taxing than playing against a team that doesn't hit.

Buffalo would be a better team if they had players who could fill those roles.

 

This post is bad considering a chunk of it was disproved. The term better implied correlation. We have already shown 2 of the 4 100% do not correlate. 

Repeat after me. "I Pi, was wrong. In my attempt to smear Reinhart I used several stats that have no correlation to winning. I learned from this and am glad for the knowledge but I was wrong. "

[sabremike]

16 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

2019-2020
5 teams in the top 10 of faceoff percentage are in the top 10 of NHL standings this year. 1 of the top 10 teams are in the bottom 10 of the NHL standings.
4 of the teams in the bottom 10 of faceoff percentage are in the top 10 of the NHL standings this year. 4 of the bottom 10 faceoff teams are in the bottom 10 of the standings.

2018-2019
4 top 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 3 top 10 F% teams in bottom 10 of standings.
3 bottom 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 4 bottom 10 F% teams are in bottom 10 of standings.

2017-2018
4 top 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 2 of top 10 F% teams in bottom of standings.
2 bottom 10 F% teams in to p10 of standings, 5 bottom 10 F% teams in bottom 10 standings.

2016-2017
2 top 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 4 top 10 F% teams in bottom 10 of standings.
4 bottom 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 2 of the bottom 10 F% teams in bottom 10 of standings.

2015-2016
3 top 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 2 top 10 F% teams in bottom 10 of standings
2 bottom 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 6 bottom 10 F% teams in bottom 10 of standings.

2014-2015
4 top 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 3 top 10 F% teams in bottom 10 of standings.
3 bottom 10 F% teams in top 10 of standings, 3 bottom 10 F% teams in bottom 10 % of standings

Got bored at this point.
So, 22/60 top 10 faceoff teams in the last 6 seasons have finished in the top 10 of the standings. 15/60 top 10 faceoff teams finish in the bottom 10 of the standings, an average of one fewer great faceoff team per year.

14/60 of the bottom 10 faceoff teams in the league have finished in the top 10 of the standings, while 20/60 of the bottom 10 faceoff teams in the league have finished in the bottom 10 of the standings. Again, an average of one more bottom 10 faceoff team per year is bottom 10 than top 10.

Of ten top ten faceoff teams in a given year, 3.6 of them are top ten NHL teams, 2.5 of them are bottom ten NHL teams, and 4.9 of them are somewhere in the middle.
Of ten bottom ten faceoff teams in a given year, 2.3 of them are top ten NHL teams, 3.3 of them are bottom ten NHL teams, and 4.4 of them are somewhere in the middle.

I have to say, this is hardly riveting stuff. It seems to be barely better than a coin flip. Sorta like faceoffs themselves, with even the BEST centers in the league at them.

This is not to discount the idea that it's really nice to have guys who are great at faceoffs taking them in important moments. It was nice to watch ROR break NHL faceoff win records as we plummeted to last place before trading him. But I wouldn't let this skill drive my search for players or my team building moves (though, in building a team with a strong center spine, I have to think you'd come across good faceoff players as good centers tend to have this skill).

Gonna spread out the above numbers to count how many times each faceoff split has given us playoff teams:
2014/15: top 10: 5, bottom 10: 6
2015/16: top 10: 6, bottom 10: 3
2016/2017: top 10: 5, bottom 10: 5 (with 3 other bottom 10 teams filling out the next 3 closest playoff teams)
2017/18: top 10: 6, bottom 10: 5
2018/19: top 10: 7, bottom 10: 4
2019/20: top 10: 6, bottom 10: 6

So over 6 years, 35 of the 96 NHL playoff teams have been top 10 in faceoffs, while 29 of the 96 playoff teams have been in the bottom 10 of all faceoff teams. Try doing the same thing for goals, goals against, goal differential, and even shot metrics, and they'll be far more decisive in doling out playoff spots, tbh. The score was a couple loser points away from being 35-33. Again, this argument isn't particularly riveting from a team-building view, even if it's of course better to win faceoffs than to lose them. I think the idea is just that faceoffs comprise a couple dozen out of hundreds of different kinds of puck battles that happen in a given game, so while the advantage is obviously good for any puck battle, their effect by themselves on the standings can be overstated.

Also, I've been noticing that so many times, a center can "win" the battle such that the puck's trajectory on the ice is back towards his own team, while someone else then loses a battle and the puck goes to his opponent. The center gets the L even if he does the better job at puck drop. The opposite happens just as often. It muddies the water quite a bit for stats that have the characteristic that ROR averages only 1.6 more faceoff wins per GAME than a league average centerman. It's relevant - but as game-changing as a billion other things you can also control in your quest for team building







 

 

You would be the guy to ask about this: wasn't there an NHL team several years back that did a study trying to find out the effect of winning faceoffs and basically it showed that it makes virtually no difference in game outcome whatsoever?

[LGR4GM]

7 hours ago, pi2000 said:

I'll chalk it up to fuzzy math.

 

You mean bull$#!t math. Fuzzy math implies that it wasn't clear. It is so clear that the only person still arguing hits or faceoffs has any ***** correlation to winning is you because you got caught spouting bs. Now you can't even admit that you were wrong and are still trying to peddle your lies and incorrect conclusions.

[LTS]

If anyone wants me to say it..

Botterill is not the problem, not yet.  The problem is recovering from the mistakes that were made prior.  This off-season is the critical off-season for him.  This is when so many salaries come off the books. The roster can be remade as he would like.  If he fails at that, then he should be gone.  If he even looks like he is failing at that then he should be gone. But at the moment, I can't fire the guy.  Pegulas are to blame for this mess. 

Instability in the front office in the first few years of ownership and a clear lack of understanding of the game of hockey kept the Sabres from getting any big names (although Botterill was considered an up and comer).  Firing him now would only enhance that image.  I can only imagine who would want to come lead the Sabres at that point.

 

 

 

[LGR4GM]

6 minutes ago, LTS said:

If anyone wants me to say it..

Botterill is not the problem, not yet.  The problem is recovering from the mistakes that were made prior.  This off-season is the critical off-season for him.  This is when so many salaries come off the books. The roster can be remade as he would like.  If he fails at that, then he should be gone.  If he even looks like he is failing at that then he should be gone. But at the moment, I can't fire the guy.  Pegulas are to blame for this mess. 

Instability in the front office in the first few years of ownership and a clear lack of understanding of the game of hockey kept the Sabres from getting any big names (although Botterill was considered an up and comer).  Firing him now would only enhance that image.  I can only imagine who would want to come lead the Sabres at that point.

 

 

 

You can only imagine what person would want 1 of only 32 jobs like it on the planet? Seriously? 

Botterill is part of the problem. There's 17million in salary on this team that he specifically brought in that has a combined 35 points. The ROR trade was and is a disaster. Botterill is complicit in this mess and if we want to give him until July 2nd to fix it, sure. Because at this point it doesn't matter. 

[WildCard]

I doubt you lure a guy like Krueger here only to rip the carpet out from under him one year in. He signed up for Botterill, he's going to get at least one more year of it

[LTS]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You can only imagine what person would want 1 of only 32 jobs like it on the planet? Seriously? 

Botterill is part of the problem. There's 17million in salary on this team that he specifically brought in that has a combined 35 points. The ROR trade was and is a disaster. Botterill is complicit in this mess and if we want to give him until July 2nd to fix it, sure. Because at this point it doesn't matter. 

Yes.  I said it in another thread when Lou Lamoriello was brought up.  Lou is a free agent GM.  Why on Earth is he coming to Buffalo?  He's not.

If you are an established hockey leader, you don't take jobs like the ones in Buffalo.  You don't go work for an owner who has shown incompetence.  You don't do this for quite a few reasons:

1. You are still getting paid from the last job you had.

2. You built your brand and reputation as a competent leader and that could be undone working for an incompetent owner.

3. You are on the short list of EVERY GM/coaching vacancy that comes up.  You can afford to skip this year because next year there will be 3 more.

Now you are being as irrational as the people you railed about in another thread.

The ROR situation was a disaster.  ROR forced the situation with his damn Eeyore tactics and the owner wanted him to get rid of him.  He ties the GMs hands.  Which, by the way, is a good indication of why an established GM might not want to come work for the Pegulas.  That said, keeping Eeyore wasn't going to help the team.  He thought the fans were against him. He didn't like hockey anymore. He's certainly the mentally tough person the Sabres needed. 

Botterill should have turned down the job too.  I would at this point.  Why would I want my first foray into being a GM to be at the mercy of an ownership group that is likely going to make me look stupid and incompetent?  Just because it's 1 of 32 jobs?  Not good enough.  You work your way up in the industry to get a shot you don't want to throw away years of work in building your reputation to have it tarnished by being put in a no win situation.

I guess I'll practice what I preached in the other thread at this point.

[LGR4GM]

8 minutes ago, LTS said:

Yes.  I said it in another thread when Lou Lamoriello was brought up.  Lou is a free agent GM.  Why on Earth is he coming to Buffalo?  He's not.

If you are an established hockey leader, you don't take jobs like the ones in Buffalo.  You don't go work for an owner who has shown incompetence.  You don't do this for quite a few reasons:

1. You are still getting paid from the last job you had.

2. You built your brand and reputation as a competent leader and that could be undone working for an incompetent owner.

3. You are on the short list of EVERY GM/coaching vacancy that comes up.  You can afford to skip this year because next year there will be 3 more.

Now you are being as irrational as the people you railed about in another thread.

The ROR situation was a disaster.  ROR forced the situation with his damn Eeyore tactics and the owner wanted him to get rid of him.  He ties the GMs hands.  Which, by the way, is a good indication of why an established GM might not want to come work for the Pegulas.  That said, keeping Eeyore wasn't going to help the team.  He thought the fans were against him. He didn't like hockey anymore. He's certainly the mentally tough person the Sabres needed. 

Botterill should have turned down the job too.  I would at this point.  Why would I want my first foray into being a GM to be at the mercy of an ownership group that is likely going to make me look stupid and incompetent?  Just because it's 1 of 32 jobs?  Not good enough.  You work your way up in the industry to get a shot you don't want to throw away years of work in building your reputation to have it tarnished by being put in a no win situation.

I guess I'll practice what I preached in the other thread at this point.

nope

[LTS]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

nope

Should have expected this.  Tried to give you credit, you devolved into what others always call you out for.  Good day.

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, LTS said:

Should have expected this.  Tried to give you credit, you devolved into what others always call you out for.  Good day.

Nothing against you. I have explained my position and my thoughts so many times what is the point of doing it again? 

[LGR4GM]

13 minutes ago, LTS said:

Yes.  I said it in another thread when Lou Lamoriello was brought up.  Lou is a free agent GM.  Why on Earth is he coming to Buffalo?  He's not.

If you are an established hockey leader, you don't take jobs like the ones in Buffalo.  You don't go work for an owner who has shown incompetence.  You don't do this for quite a few reasons:

1. You are still getting paid from the last job you had.

2. You built your brand and reputation as a competent leader and that could be undone working for an incompetent owner.

3. You are on the short list of EVERY GM/coaching vacancy that comes up.  You can afford to skip this year because next year there will be 3 more.

Now you are being as irrational as the people you railed about in another thread.

The ROR situation was a disaster.  ROR forced the situation with his damn Eeyore tactics and the owner wanted him to get rid of him.  He ties the GMs hands.  Which, by the way, is a good indication of why an established GM might not want to come work for the Pegulas.  That said, keeping Eeyore wasn't going to help the team.  He thought the fans were against him. He didn't like hockey anymore. He's certainly the mentally tough person the Sabres needed. 

Botterill should have turned down the job too.  I would at this point.  Why would I want my first foray into being a GM to be at the mercy of an ownership group that is likely going to make me look stupid and incompetent?  Just because it's 1 of 32 jobs?  Not good enough.  You work your way up in the industry to get a shot you don't want to throw away years of work in building your reputation to have it tarnished by being put in a no win situation.

I guess I'll practice what I preached in the other thread at this point.

1) You might or you might not be getting paid. You assume that the person had a last job and that the only good ppl had a last job. Faulty logic.

2) If you are such a competent leader you should be able to lead your incompetent owner or at least keep him at bay. 

3) Oh so you admit there is a short list. You then assume you will get the next job? That's a ballsy strategy considering your window may close. The league is riddled with assistants and has beens who never got another job. So no this makes no sense. 

4) ROR trade has been discussed at length. He was traded because Botterill is a yes man and he said yes to Pegula having his feelings hurt so ROR had to go. That doesn't make it any less stupid. An Established GM should have held their ground. But Botts folded. 

5) There are only 32 of these jobs and the people in them are highly competitive. You honestly think that a laundry list them will be like "oh geez I won't be able to fix this because ownership might not like 1 of my players" hell no they will be like, of course I can fix this because I am awesome. 

6) You work your way up for 1 shot and you admit that you have 1 shot but you are saying no because you might be slightly concerned the owner will tell you to do what? Trade who at this point and again, you the gm don't have the balls to say no? Weak. 

[LTS]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Nothing against you. I have explained my position and my thoughts so many times what is the point of doing it again? 

Perhaps because I refuted your statement of why wouldn't someone want 1 of 32 jobs.  And yes, you have stated your position, and yes I have spoke about Eeyore ad nauseum.  So we can end the discussion and that's fine.  But, at least go one step further than just posting "nope".  I think the only thing that would have been more dismissive would have been to post some a GIF of some guy with bad hair saying "WRONG".

 

[Radar]

22 minutes ago, LTS said:

Yes.  I said it in another thread when Lou Lamoriello was brought up.  Lou is a free agent GM.  Why on Earth is he coming to Buffalo?  He's not.

If you are an established hockey leader, you don't take jobs like the ones in Buffalo.  You don't go work for an owner who has shown incompetence.  You don't do this for quite a few reasons:

1. You are still getting paid from the last job you had.

2. You built your brand and reputation as a competent leader and that could be undone working for an incompetent owner.

3. You are on the short list of EVERY GM/coaching vacancy that comes up.  You can afford to skip this year because next year there will be 3 more.

Now you are being as irrational as the people you railed about in another thread.

The ROR situation was a disaster.  ROR forced the situation with his damn Eeyore tactics and the owner wanted him to get rid of him.  He ties the GMs hands.  Which, by the way, is a good indication of why an established GM might not want to come work for the Pegulas.  That said, keeping Eeyore wasn't going to help the team.  He thought the fans were against him. He didn't like hockey anymore. He's certainly the mentally tough person the Sabres needed. 

Botterill should have turned down the job too.  I would at this point.  Why would I want my first foray into being a GM to be at the mercy of an ownership group that is likely going to make me look stupid and incompetent?  Just because it's 1 of 32 jobs?  Not good enough.  You work your way up in the industry to get a shot you don't want to throw away years of work in building your reputation to have it tarnished by being put in a no win situation.

I guess I'll practice what I preached in the other thread at this point.

I'm afraid you're maybe hitting the nail on the head. I'm more and more looking at ownership as a problem here. One could argue that the Bills seem to be heading in the right direction under the same ownership but that could be just luck more than design. I hope that our ownership has not become a reason for good, qualified managers to why away from here because that follows all the way down the line and would basically kill this franchise or at best give us what we're seeing  now. Hope I'm wrong. Scary that I'm moving towards PA's position more and more with the end of another bad season approaching.

Edited February 7, 2020 by Radar

[LTS]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

1) You might or you might not be getting paid. You assume that the person had a last job and that the only good ppl had a last job. Faulty logic.

2) If you are such a competent leader you should be able to lead your incompetent owner or at least keep him at bay. 

3) Oh so you admit there is a short list. You then assume you will get the next job? That's a ballsy strategy considering your window may close. The league is riddled with assistants and has beens who never got another job. So no this makes no sense. 

4) ROR trade has been discussed at length. He was traded because Botterill is a yes man and he said yes to Pegula having his feelings hurt so ROR had to go. That doesn't make it any less stupid. An Established GM should have held their ground. But Botts folded. 

5) There are only 32 of these jobs and the people in them are highly competitive. You honestly think that a laundry list them will be like "oh geez I won't be able to fix this because ownership might not like 1 of my players" hell no they will be like, of course I can fix this because I am awesome. 

6) You work your way up for 1 shot and you admit that you have 1 shot but you are saying no because you might be slightly concerned the owner will tell you to do what? Trade who at this point and again, you the gm don't have the balls to say no? Weak. 

1. You might not be getting paid, true.  But you have money.  It's not like these guys are desperate.  Hell, they could be hired as "special advisors" somewhere.

2. You ever try to lead an incompetent leader?  Yeah.. that doesn't work.

3. There's a short list, and if my name is someone like Lou Lamoriello or Peter Laviolette, then yes, I am getting a call.  We're talking about the established hockey people here, those with good reputations.  Not the one shot assistants who failed.  Those are the guys who took their shots, failed, perhaps because of incompetent owners, and now have to hope like hell they get another shot.  Yet those guys might be gun shy to go try and lead again with another incompetent owner, because if that owner leads them to failure again, now they are a two time failure.

4. Botterill says no to Pegula he gets the LaFontaine treatment.  Then he has to choose whether he calls out the owner or stays silent.  You call out the owner and every other owner is going to look at that and say, "This guy is only out for himself. I'm not hiring him."

5. I think a guy who is well established is not going to walk into a situation with an incompetent owner and spend the energy to try and overcome that incompetence. It's like saying the old guy wants to train the young snot nosed brat.  That narrative works in the movies, not in real life.

6. See my point on #4.  You get your one shot you have to make it work.  You tell owners to stick it and they fire you.  You get to play the game of calling out the owner or being the company guy and falling on your sword.  You may want to be that guy who says "Dude, this owner was a clueless *****."  You'll get to say it... then you'll not work again because the owners... they don't want someone who tells them they are idiots.  It doesn't end well for those guys... in any sport... hell... in any job in the world.  Tell your boss he's an idiot and see what happens next.

 

 

[Kristian]

While I agree that ownership might not exactly be the most hockey-savvy ownership in the league, it''s hard to point at any of the recent coaches/GM and say "he was moving things in the right direction".

Tim Murray didn't move this franchise in the right direction, and Phil certainly wasn't the answer for the coaching position either. My guess is they're warming up to firing JBot too.