dudacek Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Weave said: I'm not calling him mindless. I'm sure he has his own ideas. But let's face it, the world is full of ambitious people that are willing to do what they are told now in the hopes that it gives them the opportunity to do what they want to do down the line. A slimmed down, automated organization is what the Pegula's asked of Botterill. That Adams chose to implement it doesn't assume that Adams believes it the best way to run the organization. It is equally likely that what he believes is he ca do it well enough to use it as a stepping stone to what he really believes in. He knows the room and is willing to work it to his own ends. Office politics 101. An important factor missing in this is that a slimmed down, integrated (I think that describes the vision we heard better than automated) organization is what the Pegulas asked of Botterill in the wake of a lengthy review conducted by Adams. Doesn't necessarily change your conclusion, but it does argue against the suggestion that Adams might not buy into the concept.
Curt Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 10 minutes ago, JohnC said: I want to emphasize that for the most part our views coincide except for a difference on the emphasis on the analytical factor. I don’t know if the Pegulas are specifically interested in analytics. I do think they were interested in ways to slim things down. They were pushing to be economical and efficient as they said many times recently. Im with you. I’m under the impression that the analytics ideas are Adams’, not him just parroting the Pegulas. 1
Thorner Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, LGR4GM said: We pretty much knew that Botterill was fired because he wouldn't do the downsizing plan. That was the only logical way to read what happened. Except Adams has already changed things from how Botts did them. You don't start bringing in guys that want to pair analytics with traditional methods or elevate them into higher roles because you are Botts 2.0 What players has he brought in so far? Its too early to judge. The pairing analytics with traditional methods stuff is really, really basic promotional speak. Everyone should be doing that - baseline competence. - - - As for the first bit, true, but I and many others had hoped that maybe it was more of a "straw that broke the camel's back" type deal. Edited September 8, 2020 by Thorny 1
Thorner Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 (edited) On 9/7/2020 at 4:38 PM, Curt said: It was fairly obvious. Especially since Pegulas stated that Botterill was fired because he wasn’t listening to them and wasn’t on the same page regarding the organization restructuring. They told us exactly why they fired him. No person is really someone else 2.0. Adams has already made significant changes and has expressed a philosophy that quite different from that of Botterill. The Pegulas are the power behind the throne, always. Adams is GM, Krueger is coach. I don’t know why Adams would be taking his orders from Krueger. Agree on all counts. Pegulas actually told everyone exactly why Botterill was fired. Adams is very different from Botterill. Expressing philosophy verbally. Awesome. We have, literally no idea if he's made significant changes re: on ice operations. Significant changes is a massive stretch full stop, actually. On 9/7/2020 at 5:28 PM, Weave said: The only difference between Botterill and Adams that we know anything about at all is, Adams was willing to follow the owners lead and Botterill felt strongly that their lead needed push back. The rest up until now appears to be Pegula decisions implemented by Adams moreso than Adams decisions. Right. We'll know about Adams when he starts making whatever roster alterations he's presumably preparing to make. Draft strategy should be very interesting too. There'll be no "well the draft was all operating under Botterill's prospect list" excuse caveats allowed, I'd imagine. Too much time in between firing and the draft. Edited September 8, 2020 by Thorny
Thorner Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 You guys could be totally right and he's way different than Botterill. Of course we are mostly all very much hoping that is the case - but it's such a concern that I can't begin to form an opinion on it until we start seeing some roster action.
Andrew Amerk Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 I’m not sure what there really is to deliberate here. Pegulas wanted to trim money, Botts didn’t agree, and was replaced by a yes man who will do what they want with no pushback. What is there to debate? 2
DeleteThisAccount Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 15 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said: So Who is the power behind the throne? Is this Ralph’s team now? Adams just a yes man there to Kruger? It's far more complicated than that. Ralph has real power because of the vacuum created, but I don't want to suggest that was the plan. As far as I can go. jw 2 2
PerreaultForever Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 17 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said: So Who is the power behind the throne? Is this Ralph’s team now? Adams just a yes man there to Kruger? It's Kim's team. Isn't that obvious? 2 hours ago, Andrew Amerk said: I’m not sure what there really is to deliberate here. Pegulas wanted to trim money, Botts didn’t agree, and was replaced by a yes man who will do what they want with no pushback. What is there to debate? Exactly. As far as the analytics approach goes, I still don't think the Pegulas know anything about hockey so now they don't trust hockey people (even though they never hired experienced hockey people to run it) but they are business people so numbers and computers and charts and stuff seem to make sense to them so ya they say let's try that shiny newer thing.
Curt Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 9 hours ago, Thorny said: Expressing philosophie verbally. Awesome. We have, literally no idea if he's made significant changes re: on ice operations. Significant changes is a massive stretch full stop, actually. What are on ice operations? Adams has expressed a different philosophy and the front office structure has been changed significantly to align with that philosophy. As for player acquisitions, no one can know yet, we will see. To be clear, I’m not saying that Adams is good, just that he is different from Botterill and has structured the organization in a way that Botterill did not/would not.
MakeSabresGrr8Again Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said: It's Kim's team. Isn't that obvious? Exactly. As far as the analytics approach goes, I still don't think the Pegulas know anything about hockey so now they don't trust hockey people (even though they never hired experienced hockey people to run it) but they are business people so numbers and computers and charts and stuff seem to make sense to them so ya they say let's try that shiny newer thing. I think this is likely. Kim's statement about how they have more information than us fans somewhat confirms that.
LGR4GM Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 12 hours ago, JohnC said: I agree with almost all your responses with a slight difference about Botterill. The issue is as I see it is not that Botterill was adverse to an analytical approach because it is already a factor with all hockey operations. I'm sure that he was willing to cut staff but not to the extent that the Pegulas' were demanding. It certainly was going to be uncomfortable for the former GM to be forced to cut so many people that he hired. Because of the financial hemorrhaging the organization was already faced and with the gloomy future economic climate that their hockey business would have to contend with this austerity program was going to be installed no matter who was going to be the GM. It should be noted that no one outside the organization was considered for the job so it is clear that the owners had the person in hand who was going to implement what they wanted to do. I am not criticizing the owners. From a business standpoint what they did made sense. And they had a good argument that even when they were copiously spending money the results didn't come close to matching the invested resources. So altering their course of action in such a maelstrom made sense. Where I slightly deviate from your take is that I don't believe the issue of analytics was much of a factor for the GM departure. And I'm not getting caught up on how the slimmed down operation will change how things are done. The bottom line is: are Adams and his smaller staff able to make better hockey decisions that can turn the fortunes of this sputtering team? This offseason we should get a better sense of what the answer will be. As I, and others have stated, the organization is in a good situation this offseason to make some important hockey decisions. Will they sufficiently seize the opportunity? I am hopeful that they will. (I want to emphasize that for the most part our views coincide except for a difference on the emphasis on the analytical factor.) I don't think that was what he was saying at all. In fact your are mixing 2 conversations together, why Botterill was fired and why Adams has appeared to be different.
LGR4GM Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 10 hours ago, Thorny said: What players has he brought in so far? Its too early to judge. The pairing analytics with traditional methods stuff is really, really basic promotional speak. Everyone should be doing that - baseline competence. - - - As for the first bit, true, but I and many others had hoped that maybe it was more of a "straw that broke the camel's back" type deal. Only 2 or 3 teams in the entire league have made player moves since Botterill was fired because the season is still occurring. We have seen what? 2 trades total with Kapanen and Allen being the main things moved.
dudacek Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said: It's Kim's team. Isn't that obvious? Exactly. As far as the analytics approach goes, I still don't think the Pegulas know anything about hockey so now they don't trust hockey people (even though they never hired experienced hockey people to run it) but they are business people so numbers and computers and charts and stuff seem to make sense to them so ya they say let's try that shiny newer thing. Yep, never experienced hockey people. Well, except Stanley Cup winning GM Craig Patrick, 25-year scout and assistant GM Tim Murray, former NHL coach of the year Ted Nolan, Stanley Cup winning coach Dan Byslma, Stanley Cup winning 10-year AGM and MBA Jason Botterill, and two-time former NHL GM Randy Sexton, and hall-of-famers Phil Housley and Pat Lafontaine. I mean, where do they find these guys? Edited September 8, 2020 by dudacek
JohnC Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, LGR4GM said: I don't think that was what he was saying at all. In fact your are mixing 2 conversations together, why Botterill was fired and why Adams has appeared to be different. I disagree with you. It's clear that Botterill was fired because he was not willing to go along with the austerity program. It's easy for us to agree on that point because the reason was stated by the Pegulas. As far as the analytical issue being a significant factor for the firing that is a diversion and a manufactured rationale because analytics were already part of the evaluation system not only for the Sabres under Botts but for all teams. As far as Adams approach appearing to be different I don't know how you can say that because he hasn't made many hockey decisions yet other than staffing decisions. What we do know for sure is that he will be working with a thinned out staff because because he has no other choice. The Pegulas made the determination as to the more austere way of doing business. As I have said on numerous posts the Pegulas have a right to structure the organization any way they want. Ultimately, what is going to matter is the quality of hockey decisions made by the hockey people. It's not unreasonable to believe that a more austere operation can be more nimble and creative and make better hockey decisions than a bulkier run operation. That's what I'm hoping for. Edited September 8, 2020 by JohnC 1
Radar Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 John C I agree with you to a large degree. I agreed with the Sabres overhaul of a bloated and inefficient organization. My only misgivings are it's been replaced by a lot of inexperience. That doesn't necessarily mean they will fail but it's still , in my mind , a misgiving. I believe Adams is a pretty sharp guy but I question ownership and it's hiring rationale at this point. Hopefully between Krueger and Adams they can assemble a team rather than just a bunch of individual pieces. I think bolstering our goaltending and upgrading our forwards is an obvious need. 1
JohnC Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 28 minutes ago, Radar said: John C I agree with you to a large degree. I agreed with the Sabres overhaul of a bloated and inefficient organization. My only misgivings are it's been replaced by a lot of inexperience. That doesn't necessarily mean they will fail but it's still , in my mind , a misgiving. I believe Adams is a pretty sharp guy but I question ownership and it's hiring rationale at this point. Hopefully between Krueger and Adams they can assemble a team rather than just a bunch of individual pieces. I think bolstering our goaltending and upgrading our forwards is an obvious need. I agree with most of what you stated. As you noted bigger is not always better. That is not to say that it is always not better. But by culling the staff you hopefully will make it more nimble and creative. With smaller staffs the hockey departments are more likely to be better at interacting/communicating with one another. With respect to the issue of inexperience although Adams has made a lot of new hires that doesn't mean that they are less accomplished than the people they replaced. The bottom line determining success revolves around the hockey decisions that will be made this offseason. Only time will tell. Entering this offseason I'm more encouraged than discouraged. 1
LGR4GM Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, JohnC said: I disagree with you. It's clear that Botterill was fired because he was not willing to go along with the austerity program. It's easy for us to agree on that point because the reason was stated by the Pegulas. As far as the analytical issue being a significant factor for the firing that is a diversion and a manufactured rationale because analytics were already part of the evaluation system not only for the Sabres under Botts but for all teams. As far as Adams approach appearing to be different I don't know how you can say that because he hasn't made many hockey decisions yet other than staffing decisions. What we do know for sure is that he will be working with a thinned out staff because because he has no other choice. The Pegulas made the determination as to the more austere way of doing business. As I have said on numerous posts the Pegulas have a right to structure the organization any way they want. Ultimately, what is going to matter is the quality of hockey decisions made by the hockey people. It's not unreasonable to believe that a more austere operation can be more nimble and creative and make better hockey decisions than a bulkier run operation. That's what I'm hoping for. You are agreeing with me actually. Botterill was fired because he wouldn't can a bunch of ppl. No one is saying analytics was a significant factor, or at least I haven't seen that because we literally know he was fired because he wouldn't fire ppl. Not sure why you keep trying to make them some other argument that really no one is making. Adams is different then Botterill because he wants to integrate analytics into the decision making process more. Staffing results in hockey decisions so those 2 things go together. You don't make your analytics guy expressly part of the scouting department for shits and giggles. Edited September 8, 2020 by LGR4GM
JohnC Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said: You are agreeing with me actually. Botterill was fired because he wouldn't can a bunch of ppl. Adams is different then Botterill because he wants to integrate analytics into the decision making process more. Staffing results in hockey decisions so those 2 things go together. You don't make your analytics guy expressly part of the scouting department for shits and giggles. With respect to the highlighted segment about why Botterill was fired the reason you gave why he was fired is exactly what I have been saying in the dozens of my posts on this subject. So there is no disagreement on that issue. You didn't respond to what I stated. You distorted it. That's fine. There is no need to continue with this wasteful and foolish duet. Your need to always be right is tiresome. And forcing your self-declared brilliance on to others doesn't work with people who are not receptive to it.
LGR4GM Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, JohnC said: With respect to the highlighted segment about why Botterill was fired the reason you gave why he was fired is exactly what I have been saying in the dozens of my posts on this subject. So there is no disagreement on that issue. You didn't respond to what I stated. You distorted it. That's fine. There is no need to continue with this wasteful and foolish duet. Your need to always be right is tiresome. And forcing your self-declared brilliance on to others doesn't work with people who are not receptive to it. I am not even sure what you stated that I am "deliberately" ignoring...so here, tell me what your point is because I don't get it. "You didn't respond to what I stated." Okay well restate it so I know exactly what I didn't respond too. I wrote several things to this bolded. I deleted most of them. Why are you making this personal and this is out of line. Edited September 8, 2020 by LGR4GM
LGR4GM Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 2 hours ago, JohnC said: I disagree with you. It's clear that Botterill was fired because he was not willing to go along with the austerity program. It's easy for us to agree on that point because the reason was stated by the Pegulas. As far as the analytical issue being a significant factor for the firing that is a diversion and a manufactured rationale because analytics were already part of the evaluation system not only for the Sabres under Botts but for all teams. As far as Adams approach appearing to be different I don't know how you can say that because he hasn't made many hockey decisions yet other than staffing decisions. What we do know for sure is that he will be working with a thinned out staff because because he has no other choice. The Pegulas made the determination as to the more austere way of doing business. As I have said on numerous posts the Pegulas have a right to structure the organization any way they want. Ultimately, what is going to matter is the quality of hockey decisions made by the hockey people. It's not unreasonable to believe that a more austere operation can be more nimble and creative and make better hockey decisions than a bulkier run operation. That's what I'm hoping for. I don't think analytics had anything to do with Botterill being fired. If that was what you are arguing about then we can end that now. Botterill was fired for the singular reason he refused to go along with the Pegula's plans to downsize the hockey department. Analytics might have played a role in the new order if Botterill had agreed but he was fired for refusing or fighting the downsize. Analytics were a peripheral under Botterill as evidence by the fact decisions were made and then stats were asked to be provided to backed already decided upon things. In a sense then Analytics was part of the process but again, Adams has at least in appearance elevated it to be a primary part of the process.
Curt Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 11 minutes ago, JohnC said: With respect to the highlighted segment about why Botterill was fired the reason you gave why he was fired is exactly what I have been saying in the dozens of my posts on this subject. So there is no disagreement on that issue. You didn't respond to what I stated. You distorted it. That's fine. There is no need to continue with this wasteful and foolish duet. Your need to always be right is tiresome. And forcing your self-declared brilliance on to others doesn't work with people who are not receptive to it. I don’t get this. I think Liger had it right. You didn’t fully understand what I was saying. I clarified, it’s all good. When Liger clarified, saying the same thing, you respond like this???
Rasmus_ Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 (edited) With the Pegula's who knows, they could have this glorified puppet in for the next 5 years and we're suffering. I know that the Pegula's do not want to lose like we have been. Just see with the Beane/McDermott group, they hardly get involved. Can you please STAY OUT OF OUR HOCKEY OPS DEPARTMENT. Edited September 8, 2020 by TheCerebral1
JohnC Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 1 hour ago, LGR4GM said: I don't think analytics had anything to do with Botterill being fired. If that was what you are arguing about then we can end that now. Botterill was fired for the singular reason he refused to go along with the Pegula's plans to downsize the hockey department. Analytics might have played a role in the new order if Botterill had agreed but he was fired for refusing or fighting the downsize. Analytics were a peripheral under Botterill as evidence by the fact decisions were made and then stats were asked to be provided to backed already decided upon things. In a sense then Analytics was part of the process but again, Adams has at least in appearance elevated it to be a primary part of the process. I have said all along that Botterill was fired for not going along with the downsizing. What more can I say. And I have repeatedly stated that the peripheral analytical issue as it pertained to Botterill was not a consequential factor. You keep portraying my position as if it was otherwise. It is not!
JohnC Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Curt said: I don’t get this. I think Liger had it right. You didn’t fully understand what I was saying. I clarified, it’s all good. When Liger clarified, saying the same thing, you respond like this??? My problem is not with you. As I stated before with our exchanges you and I are basically in accord. My issue is with another poster who keeps twisting my position when it is clear that it is not what I am saying. This repeated distortion by him irritated me to the point that I responded with needless vigor.
Curt Posted September 8, 2020 Report Posted September 8, 2020 Just now, JohnC said: My problem is not with you. As I stated before with our exchanges you and I are basically in accord. My issue is with another poster who keeps twisting my position when it is clear that it is not what I am saying. This repeated distortion by him irritated me to the point that I responded with needless vigor. He isn’t twisting anything though. You think he is saying that you said Botterill was fired because of analytics? I’m almost certain that he isn’t saying that. I don’t know where you are getting that from.
Recommended Posts