Jason Botterill: Is he a good or bad GM?

[jame]

2 minutes ago, ... said:

Have you not been arguing in other parts of this here board that Scandella was an awful signing?  Yes you have.

Are you kidding me on trying to call Pomminstein "scoring"?  Haha! Really?  You are w-i-l-d-l-y inconsistent in your thinking.

Your Kane point is just weak and dumb and you should know that.

Your view on ROR is rigid and unimaginative. Maybe JBott was told to get rid of ROR.  That doesn't mean he agreed.  Perhaps he convinced the Pegulas to wait and see if getting rid of Kane solves "the problems".  And then ROR ruined it at the end of the year.

On the bolded - Tanks!

  

 

 

Yes, my view is Botts did a bad job....

not that the bad job he did was intentional 

noted: you’re saying Botts convinced the Pegulas to wait on trading ROR, and getting rid of Kane would solve the problem... yet he was trying to rank?

which is it? Solve the problem or tank?

Edited January 31, 2019 by jame

[...]

Just now, jame said:

Yes, my view is Botts did a bad job....

not that the bad job he did was intentional 

Very succinct.  And possible, but the evidence we have today, right now, says you're wrong.

[jame]

1 minute ago, ... said:

Very succinct.  And possible, but the evidence we have today, right now, says you're wrong.

There is no such evidence.

finishing last in and of itself proved nothing.

my view coincides with everything Botts did

your view looks at the outcome and tries to put a bow on it.

[...]

3 minutes ago, jame said:

There is no such evidence.

finishing last in and of itself proved nothing.

my view coincides with everything Botts did

your view looks at the outcome and tries to put a bow on it.

You're giving yourself too much credit.

[jame]

2 minutes ago, ... said:

You're giving yourself too much credit.

I didn’t realize it required credit to see the obvious. If your blueline is a mess, and you’re trying to tank, you don’t go out and try to improve the blueline

if your ownership gives you the green light to trade your 2nd best player, and you’re trying to tank... you don’t keep you’re second best player

we know what a tank looks like... last year was not it.

Edited January 31, 2019 by jame

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, jame said:

It should be nearly impossible to finish dead last with the level of talent we had.... to think that you could engineer an Eichel, ROR, Risto, Reinhart, Kane, Scandella, Pominville, etc roster to be a dead last team is frighteningly stupid. 

To then do it... for a 20% chance at Dahlin is insane.

Murray stripped everything away in a year where there was one generational superstar and an elite #1 level talent consolation prize. It's entirely different.

The premise that Botts intentionally threw away a season under the conditions he had is a fireable offense.

That could very well be true... 

But didn't you also say that last year's team did not underachieve?

Hmmmmmm?

Having said that -- I agree that last year was not a tank.  (Further evidence for which is that the DFL team had an 18% at #1, not 20%.)

 

1 hour ago, ... said:

On point one, the only thing you can rest the argument on is Housley.  That Housley survived to coach this season, and that he remains the coach now, makes it obvious that whatever happened last season was intentional.  You can call it stupid, but it clearly wasn't a surprise.

I don't agree.  I think JB decided (and TP agreed) that (i) last year's debacle was a roster issue, not a coaching issue and (ii) making a big-name coaching hire and then firing that coach every year or 2 is a bush-league move.

 

55 minutes ago, Carmel Corn said:

Scratches can also be coaching vs. GM decisions.  I still do not get your point...what was JB supposed to do otherwise with MM?  He only played 14 games and showed that he had nothing to offer in return for his GMTM salary.  JB removed him from the roster, but there was nothing that could be done to move the high salary.

I agree and would just add that it's not realistic to expect a new GM to blow into town and immediately waive a highly-paid veteran without giving him some games to prove/disprove himself.

 

41 minutes ago, jame said:

So, finishing last, means we tanked?

Sorry, this is a truly bizarre theory. I didn't realize that so many people actually thought we intentionally tanked last year. It's surprising... 

I'm trying to finish last... so I make a move to try to upgrade my blueline (Scandella) and bring in more goal scoring (Poms)

I'm trying to finish last... so I keep Evander Kane until the last possible minute, even while he was one of the hottest scorers in the NHL in the first 1/3 of the season

I'm trying to finish last AND my boss told me I have to trade ROR.... so I keep him for the entire year.

It's truly bizarre that you think this theory is so obvious

I'll give you credit for creativity

While as I mentioned I agree that last year was not a tank, bringing in Pommer was not an indication of anything.  Everyone knew Pommer was out of gas -- JB had to take the extra year of Pommer's contract (relative to Ennis' contract) as part of the price to get Scandy.

[spndnchz]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

 

You also need to take it down a notch, please. 

No! Keep going! 

More wins so far than all of last season must be something going right.

[Thorny]

4 hours ago, jame said:

I don't think Botts will be fired.

He was not instructed to go after Dahlin. I'm happy to hear any evidence that he was.

Wasn't Botterill seen to be slamming doors and stuff last year when we were losing? I agree we weren't attempting to lose. 

Edited January 31, 2019 by Thorny

[Weave]

36 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Wasn't Botterill seen to be slamming doors and stuff last year when we were losing? I agree we weren't attempting to lose. 

There is some real dissonance between the idea that we soft tanked and Botteril's reactions to last seasons losing.  I tend to side with, playoffs weren't expected but it also wasn't intended that they were so awful either.  I'm not 100% convinced of his ability to fill the bottom 2 lines and bottom pair of a team.  He's had two swings and two misses at big lower half roster changes as far as I can tell.

[RonHextallsShoulderPads]

On 1/30/2019 at 11:55 AM, PerreaultForever said:

Blatantly untrue.

Philly traded Richards because he had a long deal and they got into trouble after they dumped all the money on  Bryzgalov. It was financial issues, not culture issues. 

As for Kane, he was drafted as the glory boy but played his way down the roster as he turned into a problem child. Winnipeg is where they are due to good trades and good drafting like Kyle Connor for example. 

If JBot is a bad GM for you, Murray must have been what, Satan?   You want the definition of a bad GM that's your poster boy. Colin White would have looked pretty good in the blue and gold or better yet Brock Boeser or even Konecny. Trading away your roster for draft picks and then giving away those draft picks is the definition of a bad GM. Worst GM EVER.

Pretty cheap shot at Miroslav. 

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, nfreeman said:

 

FWIW, my recollection on this jibes with jame's -- but neither of you have bothered to post any links in support of your factual assertions here.

Doesn't matter but, since you asked:

https://thehockeywriters.com/5-years-later-richards-carter-trades/

and more importantly:

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/flyers/20151117_Ex-Flyer_Mike_Richards__sudden__mysterious_fall.html

The latter being even more amusing since it contains a Tim Murray quote - lol.

Yes, he did party, like most young guys, but that was not the reason he was dealt. To quote:

Peter Luukko said the Flyers front office was unaware of Richards' problems when they traded the center to Los Angeles in 2011. Luukko, the Panthers' executive chairman, was Flyers' president at the time of the deal. "He never had any issues like that at all," Luukko said last month.

 

But like, whatever. ROR drove drunk into a Tim's, so I guess that's why he was traded - LOL.

[PerreaultForever]

8 hours ago, nfreeman said:

 

I think Draisaitl is better.

 

I think so too, but he's really only had that one good playoff run to base it on. If he is still on the roster when we do make the playoffs I will be interested to see if Sam has a second level. Some players do, some don't. My gut tells me he won't, because my general issue with him is, while he does go to the front area of the net, he does not play tough and when things get physical he throws the puck away blindly or too quickly to avoid a pending hit or contact. Smart or scared? I guess that can be debated, but I know where I stand on it.

[jame]

48 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Doesn't matter but, since you asked:

https://thehockeywriters.com/5-years-later-richards-carter-trades/

and more importantly:

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/flyers/20151117_Ex-Flyer_Mike_Richards__sudden__mysterious_fall.html

The latter being even more amusing since it contains a Tim Murray quote - lol.

Yes, he did party, like most young guys, but that was not the reason he was dealt. To quote:

Peter Luukko said the Flyers front office was unaware of Richards' problems when they traded the center to Los Angeles in 2011. Luukko, the Panthers' executive chairman, was Flyers' president at the time of the deal. "He never had any issues like that at all," Luukko said last month.

 

But like, whatever. ROR drove drunk into a Tim's, so I guess that's why he was traded - LOL.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/787028-philadelphia-flyers-3-off-the-ice-reasons-for-the-richards-carter-trade?share=other#slide0

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nhl-news/192974-report-lifestyle-issues-behind-philadelphia-flyers-trading-mike-richards-jeff-ca

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/flyers-richards-carter-partying-2011-7

https://www.crossingbroad.com/2011/07/welcome-to-peter-laviolettes-dry-island-the-place-that-may-have-gotten-mike-richards-and-jeff-carter.html

[PerreaultForever]

The part of those articles you are conveniently ignoring is those RUMORS were all denied by management and other players. So your contention is believe the rumors, the fake news if you like, and everything the actual people say is clearly untrue. Fine, go that way if you want to even if the scenario that those were expensive long term contracts on the books going into what everyone knew was going to be a hard negotiation year (lockout occurred thereafter) makes more sense from a business point of view - and it is a business - but whatever. I mean really, if everyone was trading away every young guy that parties, there'd be no league.  There has to be much bigger problems than that to even think about dumping stars and it's always been that way.

[Onceagain]

Unfortunately we cannot issue a verdict on JBotts for several more years. Given his philosophy is draft and develop, he buys himself a few more years,

[Onceagain]

On 1/29/2019 at 9:07 AM, jame said:

uh, thought we covered this...

ROR Trade

Reinhart bridge

Sheary/Hunwick trade

Mitts/Tage in Buffalo with no buffers

 

 

You cannot only include negatives in this analysis. Yes, he got owned thus far in the ROR trade, but he also owned Carolina in the Skinner trade.

[sweetlou]

Not sure if anyone has made this point...ROR was traded to make room on the roster for Mitts, long term.  JBotts tried to find a bridge player and that is why he got Berglund in return. That part has failed so far.  

The other side is that the Sabres probably didn't have cap space to trade for Skinner, a fast, speedy goal scoring winger to play with Jack,  unless he traded ROR.

JBotts keeps ROR, then no Skinner.

That is why it is imperative to sign Skinner long term.

 

[jame]

2 hours ago, sweetlou said:

Not sure if anyone has made this point...ROR was traded to make room on the roster for Mitts, long term.  JBotts tried to find a bridge player and that is why he got Berglund in return. That part has failed so far.  

The other side is that the Sabres probably didn't have cap space to trade for Skinner, a fast, speedy goal scoring winger to play with Jack,  unless he traded ROR.

JBotts keeps ROR, then no Skinner.

That is why it is imperative to sign Skinner long term.

 

You don't trade ROR to make room for a 20 year old with 6 NHL games under his belt. You make Mittelstadt force you to trade ROR over multiple years of play.

The Sabres easily could've had Skinner and ROR under the cap.... Berglund+Sobotka = ROR cap wise.

 

[Carmel Corn]

3 hours ago, sweetlou said:

Not sure if anyone has made this point...ROR was traded to make room on the roster for Mitts, long term.  JBotts tried to find a bridge player and that is why he got Berglund in return. That part has failed so far.  

The other side is that the Sabres probably didn't have cap space to trade for Skinner, a fast, speedy goal scoring winger to play with Jack,  unless he traded ROR.

JBotts keeps ROR, then no Skinner.

That is why it is imperative to sign Skinner long term.

 

Also disagree on the notion that ROR was traded to make room for CM.  A good GM will keep adding cheaper young prospects to fortify the lineup for injury (ex. Eichel) or just to create competition.  If ROR was still on the team as a 2C, I would still want to see CM developing and perhaps flourishing as a 3C to create 3 scoring lines.  I think back to the President's cup team that I believe had Derrick Roy, Thomas Vanek and Maxim A. as the third line, which created match-up problems for other teams.  We still had Drury and Briere in those days. 

[jame]

2 minutes ago, Carmel Corn said:

Also disagree on the notion that ROR was traded to make room for CM.  A good GM will keep adding cheaper young prospects to fortify the lineup for injury (ex. Eichel) or just to create competition.  If ROR was still on the team as a 2C, I would still want to see CM developing and perhaps flourishing as a 3C to create 3 scoring lines.  I think back to the President's cup team that I believe had Derrick Roy, Thomas Vanek and Maxim A. as the third line, which created match-up problems for other teams.  We still had Drury and Briere in those days. 

And we were so close to being in position to replicate that 2005 roster structure...

Skinner-Eichel-Reinhart is even better than Hecht-Briere-Dumont/Poms 

XXXX-ROR-XXXX could've matched XXXX-Drury-XXXXX

XXXX-Mitts-XXXX probably wouldn't have performed at the RAV level, but it would've been interesting to see what some combo of Mitts and Nylander/Olofsson could've done with elite lineup sheltering from line 1,2, and 4 (Larsson/Girgs)

 

[Formerly Allan in MD]

Too early to tell about JBot.  The bigger question in my mind is whether Housley is a good or bad coach.

[LGR4GM]

IF ROR is so ***** damned good why does he lose everywhere he goes? 

[...]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

IF ROR is so ***** damned good why does he lose everywhere he goes? 

[Drunkard]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

IF ROR is so ***** damned good why does he lose everywhere he goes? 

The same reason Ovechkin never won the Stanley Cup until last season. It takes more than one good player to win, even if that player is a stud.

[Carmel Corn]

2 hours ago, Formerly Allan in MD said:

Too early to tell about JBot.  The bigger question in my mind is whether Housley is a good or bad coach.

This to me is my biggest question mark with the organization.  Whether fans like Housley or not, I don't think most wanted to see him fail.  That being said, he's had enough time to address some things (ex. PP) and has not done so.  I personally am not agreeing with many of his decisions on who plays (vs. sits) and player combinations. 

IMHO, he is not the right coach to achieve the ultimate goal...the question is what will it take for the front office to agree and make a change.