Rumor: About Botterill’s Future Being in Doubt

[darksabre]

2 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I just listened to the interview. 

There is a good chance that we are looking back at this time wondering why the hell we ever let this guy handle our roster for three years

I've never felt this bleak about this team

He has no idea what the problems with this roster are, he thinks it's just players not doing what they are capable of, and that changing lines and magic Ralph words will fix it 

He is unaware of the problems his decisions with Tage and Mitts caused, and is about to do the same to Dylan

He doesn't understand our offensive zone woes and will not know how to find players that play in a way that fixes them

This is unreal 

I was really worried this might be where we would end up.

And the big red flag we'll all point to will be that Botterill fired a coach, but left the roster alone.

I don't think any of us around here believed in the off-season that hiring Krueger would be the only thing the team needed, or that it would end up being pretty much the only thing Botterill would do. But here we are in March and it sure looks like Botterill felt that hiring a new coach is all it would take.

[WildCard]

It's only bleak if you think he won't be fired.

[Randall Flagg]

He used the phrase "from that standpoint" or some slight variant of that (for example, "from a win standpoint" or "from a defensive standpoint") 13 times in this interview

"Situation" count was 7

 

[dudacek]

2 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I was just going to add, I guarantee that all makes sense to Terry and he's completely oblivious to how much Jason is floundering. He probably views this whole thing as a big mystery
 

I think there is a real chance that this is correct.

But I just don’t see how the man I listened to in that interview could inspire such confidence in the wake of what we see on the ice.

I used to chalk it up to “his way with the media” but nothing he says or does inspires confidence.

[LGR4GM]

8 minutes ago, WildCard said:

It's only bleak if you think he won't be fired.

i dont think he will be

 

7 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

He used the phrase "from that standpoint" or some slight variant of that (for example, "from a win standpoint" or "from a defensive standpoint") 13 times in this interview

"Situation" count was 7

 

[dudacek]

One of my best buddies is a hardcore Habs fan.

He says he spends most of his time wondering how they can let an idiot like Marc Bergevin run his team.

And then he listens to Bergevin talk and he finds himself saying “that made sense, we’re going to be fine” until the team starts sucking on the ice again.

Botterill can’t even provide the illusion of competence.

[darksabre]

8 minutes ago, WildCard said:

It's only bleak if you think he won't be fired.

I'm really on the fence about the chances of this happening, and I think it depends on what Botterill sold Pegula on, and whether Pegula thinks that he's achieving it.

For me, the choices Botterill has made since last spring indicate to me that he sold Terry on the long term benefits of patience and savvy asset management. If we use picks, prospects, and the cap properly we set the team up for long term success despite some short term pain.

But if we want to grade Botterill on his asset management, he has very clearly failed at that one thing. We've had plenty of patience and pain, but where's this "asset management"?

The question is whether Pegula sees it the same way we do, or is he still bought in to what Jason sold him.

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, darksabre said:

I'm really on the fence about the chances of this happening, and I think it depends on what Botterill sold Pegula on, and whether Pegula thinks that he's achieving it.

For me, the choices Botterill has made since last spring indicate to me that he sold Terry on the long term benefits of patience and savvy asset management. If we use picks, prospects, and the cap properly we set the team up for long term success despite some short term pain.

But if we want to grade Botterill on his asset management, he has very clearly failed at that one thing. We've had plenty of patience and pain, but where's this "asset management"?

The question is whether Pegula sees it the same way we do, or is he still bought in to what Jason sold him.

My question is how much has terry directed Botterill moves and so therefore would be on board with where things are. 

[pi2000]

19 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I just listened to the interview. 

There is a good chance that we are looking back at this time wondering why the hell we ever let this guy handle our roster for three years

I've never felt this bleak about this team

He has no idea what the problems with this roster are, he thinks it's just players not doing what they are capable of, and that changing lines and magic Ralph words will fix it 

He is unaware of the problems his decisions with Tage and Mitts caused, and is about to do the same to Dylan

He doesn't understand our offensive zone woes and will not know how to find players that play in a way that fixes them

This is unreal 

What do you expect him to say?  Throw 50% of the roster under the bus in his comments to the media?

That's not how it works these days.

He's going to stand behind the roster when talking the media.  Behind closed doors he's singing a different tune.

[darksabre]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

My question is how much has terry directed Botterill moves and so therefore would be on board with where things are. 

My feeling is that the Pegulas played a hand (the bonus) in the O'Reilly fiasco, and perhaps Botterill is getting a pass on that. But I don't get the feeling they've been involved in anything else he's done, and that's what he should be getting graded on at the very least.

[LGR4GM]

6 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

What do you expect him to say?  Throw 50% of the roster under the bus in his comments to the media?

That's not how it works these days.

He's going to stand behind the roster when talking the media.  Behind closed doors he's singing a different tune.

I don't believe this. He has yet to show us that. He keeps adding players that don't make sense and he keeps adding players that are not great at generating chances. The exception is Kahun but the rule is Simmonds, Frolic, Vesey, Sheary. 

[pi2000]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I don't believe this. He has yet to show us that. He keeps adding players that don't make sense and he keeps adding players that are not great at generating chances. The exception is Kahun but the rule is Simmonds, Frolic, Vesey, Sheary. 

Guys like Simmonds, Frolik, Vesey were not brought in to create offense.   They're role players.

I still think the only way out of this offensive malaise is to build through the draft.  Any established offensive player will either cost too much (Buffalo tax), or refuse to come here.   I like Kahun, but not as a top 6 guy... those guys need to come from within the organization.  I'm ok with Reinhart in the top 6, but only at the right price.

I do blame JBOT for the goalie situation tho.   The idea they need to rely on an ECHL goalie at critical points of the season, is a huge failure.

Edited March 6, 2020 by pi2000

[WildCard]

That means he's brought one person his entire time here to create offense 

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Guys like Simmonds, Frolik, Vesey were not brought in to create offense.   They're role players.

I still think the only way out of this offensive malaise is to build through the draft.  Any established offensive player will either cost too much (Buffalo tax), or refuse to come here.   I like Kahun, but not as a top 6 guy... those guys need to come from within the organization.  I'm ok with Reinhart in the top 6, but only at the right price.

I do blame JBOT for the goalie situation tho.   The idea they need to rely on an ECHL goalie at critical points of the season, is a huge failure.

He's added at most 2 offensive generators in his drafts. 

Also I disagree. If sheary, frolik, vesey, simmonds were not brought in to create offense then bringing them in was even more stupid. 

[pi2000]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

He's added at most 2 offensive generators in his drafts. 

Also I disagree. If sheary, frolik, vesey, simmonds were not brought in to create offense then bringing them in was even more stupid. 

Again, there's more to hockey than scoring goals.

[LGR4GM]

6 minutes ago, WildCard said:

That means he's brought one person his entire time here to create offense 

3 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Again, there's more to hockey than scoring goals.

Sure but our team doesn't create enough offense to score goals and at the end of the day, if you don't score more goals than the other team, the rest of it does not matter. 

[WildCard]

Just now, pi2000 said:

Again, there's more to hockey than scoring goals.

Really? Because for 3 years we can't score goals, miss the playoffs, and are a joke. I don't care whatever else you think there is to hockey, we cannot score goals and you need to score goals to win. It's that simple

[Randall Flagg]

3 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

What do you expect him to say?  Throw 50% of the roster under the bus in his comments to the media?

That's not how it works these days.

He's going to stand behind the roster when talking the media.  Behind closed doors he's singing a different tune.

I expect him to sound competent when talking about hockey in general, and about things his team needs. He is talking about things that this team needs, only he's doing it incoherently. This is how these interviews have gone for three years, and this questionable projection of hockey intellegence couples quite nicely to the bizarre moves we've seen the last three years, and makes our on-ice results make a lot of sense. 

I've never heard a GM sound less polished, not in public-speaking ability, but in understanding of what makes a successful hockey team. I don't purport to know how that should sound, but I am capable of comparing, and all Jason does is list off the most recent games in order, recapping what happens, and saying he likes that Ralph will continue to focus on the little things, we like our group, player A doesn't have as many goals so we just need to find his chemistry etc. etc. It's like he's unaware that all teams oscillate above and below a baseline level that represents their true abilities, sometimes playing better, sometimes playing worse. He takes those brief moments we spend playing well and talks like that should be our baseline, and would be if not for some mysterious factors, and seems to think that a conversion of our team's baseline to this level should be trivial and not related to roster construction.

 

 

[LGR4GM]

Let's logic this out. Our best offensive creator is Eichel. Who's the next best forward at creating offense? Creating offense is not just goals, it is chaos in the offensive zone that leads to quality shots. We keep bringing in players that what? Sheary was a supposed finisher with no one to get him in a scoring position. Frolic was brought to fix a PK which he didn't and he adds nothing else. Simmonds was brought in for grit but he isn't very fast and again adds no offensive chaos. What's the point of adding these pieces if the underlying problem of not scoring is there? The GLO/LOG line works because they create and generate chances. It is great they also suppress the other teams chances the way they do too because it allows them to be a bit worse and that offensive creation part. 

[Cascade Youth]

1 hour ago, WildCard said:

That means he's brought one person his entire time here to create offense 

Well, Skinner.

[Stoner]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Is he a reflection of what Terry believes?

Yup

"Terry, what kind of players do you like?" "I like hardworking, gritty players." —February 22, 2011 The question was farcical, because it shouldn't matter what kind of players the owner likes. That Terry answered it, and how he answered it, was worse. There we were. And here we are.

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

My question is how much has terry directed Botterill moves and so therefore would be on board with where things are. 

I think you've got it!

[Gatorman0519]

Yeah as I said yesterday, that interview on WGR was quite telling.  It's like he is talking about a completely different team then what we are all watching.  It was obvious to me we were screwed when I saw the return on the ROR trade.  Over my dead body would I of made that deal.

[WildCard]

17 minutes ago, Cascade Youth said:

Well, Skinner.

Yeah that's the one 

[pi2000]

19 minutes ago, Cascade Youth said:

Well, Skinner.

Oh yeah, that guy they're paying $9m for scoring 40g next to Eichel, only to move him away from Eichel for the entire ***** season?

Yeah, good one Sabres, brilliant asset management.     They'll probably give Reinhart $8mil out of desperation and play him with Girgensons and Okposo next season,  then wonder why nobody is producing.

[freester]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

One of my best buddies is a hardcore Habs fan.

He says he spends most of his time wondering how they can let an idiot like Marc Bergevin run his team.

And then he listens to Bergevin talk and he finds himself saying “that made sense, we’re going to be fine” until the team starts sucking on the ice again.

Botterill can’t even provide the illusion of competence.

I would give anything to have Bergevin as our GM.  He is so far ahead of Botteril in terms of roster construction and team building knowledge.  While Bergevin is not perfect,  he would be an enormous upgrade.