Rumor: About Botterill’s Future Being in Doubt

[WildCard]

4 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

No. Changing GMs may mean a rebuild is more likely than it is with keeping the same GM, but that doesn't put the probability of a rebuild at 51%+.

Right that's what I'm saying though. Even if it's %16 to %15, it's more likely with a new GM. They want to clean house, like different prospects, get rid of old players from the new regime...this stuff usually constitutes a rebuild 

[TrueBlueGED]

Just now, WildCard said:

Right that's what I'm saying though. Even if it's %16 to %15, it's more likely with a new GM. They want to clean house, like different prospects, get rid of old players from the new regime...this stuff usually constitutes a rebuild 

So don't hire that guy. Hire the guy who has a radical idea to keep the good players and add more of them.

[WildCard]

3 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

So don't hire that guy. Hire the guy who has a radical idea to keep the good players and add more of them.

Which is a fine thing to say but nothing in our recent history shows it won't be that same guy. 

I get we pretty much have to fire Botterill, but the message that sends to a lot of fans is buckle in for another 3 years and then we'll be good 

[Curt]

3 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

So don't hire that guy. Hire the guy who has a radical idea to keep the good players and add more of them.

Just as the posters on this board sometimes disagree, GMs sometimes disagree about which players are the “good” ones.

[3putt]

Just now, WildCard said:

Right that's what I'm saying though. Even if it's %16 to %15, it's more likely with a new GM. They want to clean house, like different prospects, get rid of old players from the new regime...this stuff usually constitutes a rebuild 

Not every person who comes in will do what Bobblehead did and think that was what was needed.  Some will say hmm...I have a 1c a 4c (Larson that has to be signed),  a top 6 of Skinner, VO, Sam and a d pool of Dahlin, Joker, Miller, Pilut and pick one of Montour or Risto. I need to sign Linus add a good 1b like Greiss, or Markstrom and I need a 2c and a 3c.  Haula, Granlund whomever can shore up the spine until Cozens or this years pick is ready.  In the interim just making those moves and your probably closer than you think. With the cap space we should be able to parlay that in trade to shore up other spots like lhd and another rw.  The key is no more Veseys, Shearys, Hunwicks, Elies, or Nolans clogging up the roster.  The thing is if you use the term rebuild to refer normal roster augmentation, then yes there will be a rebuild. If rebuild is a total overhaul, then I don’t think that is what is needed.  The problem is finding a guy who can identify talent that fits with what we have to make it better.  

[TrueBlueGED]

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

Which is a fine thing to say but nothing in our recent history shows it won't be that same guy. 

I get we pretty much have to fire Botterill, but the message that sends to a lot of fans is buckle in for another 3 years and then we'll be good 

The message is irrelevant once the games start. Win games and nobody will care what their initial reaction to change was. 

1 minute ago, Curt said:

Just as the posters on this board sometimes disagree, GMs sometimes disagree about which players are the “good” ones.

Well, sure. But when I hear rebuild, I think trading current players for future players. That's the part that simply doesn't have to happen. 

[Randall Flagg]

59 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

I don't know if I can stomach another season of "... we're giving everybody a clean slate, let's see what we have here..." 

 

Completely with you. 

They have access to easily-navigated footage of the entire careers of every skater on this roster, and what they combined to produce as a team in the 2019-2020 season. Zero reason to not know exactly what this team is and what it needs by the time it's time for moves. Zero reason for any expectations to be below playoffs for next season, no matter who the GM is. 

[Scottysabres]

57 minutes ago, OverPowerYou said:

I’ve been waiting for this “potential” that the Sabres have for the last 9 years.

 

[3putt]

3 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Completely with you. 

They have access to easily-navigated footage of the entire careers of every skater on this roster, and what they combined to produce as a team in the 2019-2020 season. Zero reason to not know exactly what this team is and what it needs by the time it's time for moves. Zero reason for any expectations to be below playoffs for next season, no matter who the GM is. 

And if they bring in someone connected to the league they should have a handle on the rest of the talent available, whether thruoigh trade or FA.   

[Randall Flagg]

11 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Which is a fine thing to say but nothing in our recent history shows it won't be that same guy. 

I get we pretty much have to fire Botterill, but the message that sends to a lot of fans is buckle in for another 3 years and then we'll be good 

Even with your worry about the tendency to want his own guys versus his predecessor's, a baseline competent GM can make two medium sized correct offseason move and have this team in the playoffs next year, amid all of this. There is no world in which any GM comes to this roster and says "we need to be bad longer." They should be licking their chops that they have a completed defense, a decent goalie that can probably handle a now rather typical 40-50 games, and four pretty nice forwards, along with hopefully a complete fourth line. They can start the process of bringing their own guys in by making a middle six splash, adding a goalie, and continue tinkering while the Sabres finally join the >50% of teams that stumble their way into the playoffs any given year. 

This might be a foreign concept to us as Sabres fans, but the only reason that this "switch" needs to entail being bad is because we hired a bad GM. It can happen while we have fun along the way. Had ROR been dealt for Lindholm instead, had we acquired decent forwards in 2017 rather than the worst UFA collection in Sabres history, that's what would have happened with Jason. 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Randall Flagg

[triumph_communes]

Well Chads got connections. Whoever steps in will have a much better situation than Botterill did when he started. Team is only a couple players, assistant coaches, and a healthy season away

[Randall Flagg]

Just now, triumph_communes said:

Well Chads got connections. Whoever steps in will have a much better situation than Botterill did when he started. Team is only a couple players, assistant coaches, and a healthy season away

Bruh, the Pegulas really like Botterill. If the situation was much better than the one he inherited, he wouldn't get fired 

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, TrueBlueGED said:

This is a red herring. A GM change doesn't inherently mean a rebuild. 

Unless you think Ralph should go, we’re on the same page,

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

Even with your worry about the tendency to want his own guys versus his predecessor's, a baseline competent GM can make two medium sized correct offseason move and have this team in the playoffs next year, amid all of this. There is no world in which any GM comes to this roster and says "we need to be bad longer." They should be licking their chops that they have a completed defense, a decent goalie that can probably handle a now rather typical 40-50 games, and four pretty nice forwards, along with hopefully a complete fourth line. They can start the process of bringing their own guys in by making a middle six splash, adding a goalie, and continue tinkering while the Sabres finally join the >50% of teams that stumble their way into the playoffs any given year. 

This might be a foreign concept to us as Sabres fans, but the only reason that this "switch" needs to entail being bad is because we hired a bad GM. It can happen while we have fun along the way. Had ROR been dealt for Lindholm instead, had we acquired decent forwards in 2017 rather than the worst UFA collection in Sabres history, that's what would have happened with Jason. 

It has to be a top 6 splash, at centre, but yes. 

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Unless you think Ralph should go, we’re on the same page,

He has a lot of questionable lineup decisions to his name. I'm pretty on the fence with Ralph. Leave it up to the new GM, if there is one. 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, WildCard said:

Which is a fine thing to say but nothing in our recent history shows it won't be that same guy. 

I get we pretty much have to fire Botterill, but the message that sends to a lot of fans is buckle in for another 3 years and then we'll be good 

Is that the message Philly got when they fired Hextall? If so, they forgot to read it. 

Watching them beat Washington tonight I was quite impressed with their play. They were only marginally better than us last year.

[Radar]

11 hours ago, darksabre said:

Man, I don't know if firing Botterill is the right idea, but I don't know if it's the wrong idea either. I'm firmly on the fence. 

I think if Krueger wasn't the coach I'd be off the fence. But I like Krueger. 

Me too. 

[Kruppstahl]

Oops.

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Kruppstahl

[Huckleberry]

9 hours ago, WildCard said:

Which is a fine thing to say but nothing in our recent history shows it won't be that same guy. 

I get we pretty much have to fire Botterill, but the message that sends to a lot of fans is buckle in for another 3 years and then we'll be good 

why ? because team sucks, besides the O'Reilly trade I can't see he did many things wrong.

[Kruppstahl]

10 hours ago, bunomatic said:

You and I both. Its always about the future. Its never about the present.

That's because it can always be about the future, even if your'e incompetent.  There's always going to be tomorrow or hope that things will get better.

In order for things to be good NOW, you actually have to get some things right.

 

 

[Kruppstahl]

9 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

So don't hire that guy. Hire the guy who has a radical idea to keep the good players and add more of them.

I agree here.  Keep in mind, too, that a really good GM  (if Pegula can find one and hire one) doesn't need to hack everything to pieces in order to produce a winner.  Anyway, Botterill is probably a bottom 5 GM league wide and has to go.  We know that much.

 

 

[TrueBlueGED]

9 hours ago, dudacek said:

Unless you think Ralph should go, we’re on the same page,

No, I don't think he's Housley-level bad. I just also don't think he's anything special that we should plan the organization around retaining. 

[freester]

5 minutes ago, Kruppstahl said:

I agree here.  Keep in mind, too, that a really good GM  (if Pegula can find one and hire one) doesn't need to hack everything to pieces in order to produce a winner.  Anyway, Botterill is probably a bottom 5 GM league wide and has to go.  We know that much.

 

 

Bottom 5 is far too generous.  There is none worse.  Other cellar dwellers teams don't spend over the cap and don't have a mediocre prospect pool.

[Pimlach]

Hard to find much solid evidence of what Botterill had done to improve the roster in 3 full seasons. A few good pick ups but more misses.   Rochester is better but the pool of prospects is not overflowing.  The Sabres are still in cap hell.  The team is about the same, despite the evolution of Jack and the drafting of Dahlin.  

Housley and RK are his picks for HC.   Both had limited nhl Coaching  experience.   Rookie GM + rookie HC => what we got.  

Does he deserve a 4th season?   The only thing in his favor is the bad optics of the franchise under Pegula.   
 

 

[triumph_communes]

14 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

Bruh, the Pegulas really like Botterill. If the situation was much better than the one he inherited, he wouldn't get fired 

That’s what I believe. But I also think Chad has sources and he tweeted on the subject. 

[pi2000]

24 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

That’s what I believe. But I also think Chad has sources and he tweeted on the subject. 

 

FWIW, my source says JBOT isn't going anywhere.