TrueBlueGED

Yzerman wouldn't. But do we really know if Brisebois is any good?

If you have even a minimal interest in RPGs, you owe it to yourself to play.

Um. Sir. How dare you forget Dalton Smith?

Sure, but his reputation would suggest he isn't simply flinging poop at the wall.

It's certainly possible that Wawrow's source told him that, but I have a hard time believing reality is that simple.

My 2 cents, assuming there's a kernel of truth here: LaFontaine hired Murray and was prepared to take over as GM if he failed. I'd be pretty surprised if he hired Murray for the express purpose of failing.

No matter how many times you say this, it's still not true. Tim Murray is responsible for 20% of the team's cap usage. Sure, Bogosian and Okposo are bad cap usage, but Murray clearly isn't why we have no cap space when 80% of the cap are contracts signed by Botterill.

?????

4 years is what's been reported recently. I don't recall hearing anything when he was hired about it though.

The play was a real bad look for Sam, but the question was still dopey. Tim Graham had a very good explanation of why the question was poor journalism.

I don't need the team to instantly be a finished product any more than I need a drafted prospect to instantly be a complete player. But I need to see signs that point to a general level of competence and progression. Botterill hasn't shown any of those signs. I also think it's a red herring to suggest a new GM needs 2 years to get their program running. Not every GM is going to come in and pretend there's no evidence of what the roster is. Find a guy who says "The last 3 years have value for assessing the players even thought it was with a different coach/GM" and you've cleared the biggest hurdle to a quicker turnaround.

Is 3-year turnover for the GM really worse than letting a GM who has demonstrated zero team-building acumen toss around $30 million in cap space which can have ramifications for years?

So was Peter Chiarelli when Edmonton hired him.

Well, I think there's a difference between a slow rebuild and one with literally no tangible progress. I also think if Botterill sold them on a 4-5 year process that he'd probably have gotten at least a 5 year contract. Nobody thinks it's a good idea to have him a lame duck in the critical year of his plan, right? Three contracts on the team were inherited from Murray. That's it. This is Botterill's team. Looking at the forwards Botterill has brought in over his three years here, one of them (Skinner) has had an unquestionably positive impact. And even that was only true last year, not this season. Why should he have the opportunity to spend cap space when he has demonstrated an inability to use it well over three seasons?

I have an analogy to make, but I don't want another warning.

Under the "The Pegulas don't like to be embarrassed" theory of how they operate, all of the heat coming on the organization (national media, Ted Black, local radio), I'd imagine Botterill's seat is getting warmer.

It should, actually. He's making bad faith arguments to cause a ruckus. Shame this one is far less entertaining than his comically incorrect Matthews shtick. The best part is most of what he's trying to prove with respect to certain stats and team success have been analyzed longitudinally elsewhere, and his arguments thoroughly obliterated.

Being low on statistics that the likes of McCabe, Risto, Okposo, and Frolik are high on is the best compliment you can give a player. Congrats on inadvertently illustrating Reinhart's value.

Botterill's forward acquisitions should give no confidence he'll use that cap space effectively.

Well, I think he has lost a step in other ways, it's just that his shot is still lethal and the team around him enables him to maximize it. He doesn't skate quite like he used to and his physical game isn't anywhere close to where it once was. But he's still smart, can find the right spots, and let it rip.

Best goal scorer of all time. He may not top Gretzky's career total (though I kinda think he will), but adjusting for era, I don't think there's even an argument. Shush, you!

I honestly think Skinner was still playing well last year even when he wasn't scoring. Sometimes the puck just doesn't go in the net. He's been bad this year, for sure.

Jack Eichel? The guy who helped Skinner get 40 goals and is a perfect match? Did you hibernate through last season?

Not just the analysts, but people here in this board were adding up the points for Berglund and Sobotka and saying we wouldn't lose much.

Yea, we have to go all the way back to....last season...to see him working well with another player. It's Botterill's fault for not getting another viable center, but it's not his fault that Krueger has chosen to treat Skinner and Eichel like the world would end if they skate together. Correct. Johansson is a useful middle-6 winger who has been forced to play 2C because the GM stinks.