Jump to content
Eleven

Around the NHL 2019-20

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Josh Yohe mentioned that Jason Botterill is under consideration for an AGM Position in Pittsburgh.

He had this to say

 

13CE7CBC-CD7C-415C-8B89-1F9969AA29E6.jpeg

ricky gervais laughing GIF

spider man lol GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Thorny said:

Red Shirt. 

The Sabres didn't fail Botterill nearly as much as Botterill definitely failed the Sabres. 

Botterill refusing to do as told and flushing a coveted NHL job down the toilet doesn't sound like a "last straw" situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Botterill refusing to do as told and flushing a coveted NHL job down the toilet doesn't sound like a "last straw" situation?

There's no need to read between the lines when the printed text is clear as day.  Botterill sucked as a GM.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Botterill refusing to do as told and flushing a coveted NHL job down the toilet doesn't sound like a "last straw" situation?

The last, and only, straw for the Pegulas apparently, who from all indications fired Botterill not for his clearly documented poor performance but merely for the fact he wouldn't cut budget. Of course it looks bad on the Pegulas, they fired him for the wrong reasons and that doesn't bode well, at all.

But he still deserved to be fired. This is a case of two wrongs making a right. Whether that chasm the firing created was adequately filled, remains to be seen. There is little evidence thus far to suggest the operation knows what it's doing, top to bottom. 

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The last, and only, straw for the Pegulas apparently, who from all indications fired Botterill not for his clearly documented poor performance but merely for the fact he wouldn't cut budget. Of course it looks bad on the Pegulas, they fired him for the wrong reasons and that doesn't bode well, at all.

But he still deserved to be fired. This is a case of two wrongs making a right. Whether that chasm the firing created was adequately filled, remains to be seen. There is little evidence thus far to suggest the operation knows what it's doing, top to bottom. 

You're making a case against the Pegulas but at the same time discounting the possibility they were the lion's share of the problem. Darcy, Tim and Jason were good but flawed hockey execs who couldn't get anything done under these owners. When does the answer become obvious? Rumors of a forced hiring of a coach and a forced trades of a top player are central to this topic.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

You're making a case against the Pegulas but at the same time discounting the possibility they were the lion's share of the problem. Darcy, Tim and Jason were good but flawed hockey execs who couldn't get anything done under these owners. When does the answer become obvious? Rumors of a forced hiring of a coach and a forced trades of a top player are central to this topic.

No, I am making a case against the Pegulas but at the same time discounting they were the lion's share of BOTTERILL'S problems. 

He was demonstrably bad. Just go through his decisions. It's a chicken and egg argument. Are the Pegulas to blame because they hired a bad GM? Or is Botterill to blame for making the Pegulas look bad by being a complete dunce? 

Even a hamstrung GM could have done a better job than Botterill, is my contention. I'm not defending the Pegulas, I'm just saying he made too many moves where we've had no whiff of the Pegulas being culpable where he just totally mangled the situation. 

I'm not talking about ROR. Even the Pegulas knew locking up Jack to a big time deal was the way to go - Botterill didn't want to. He just wasn't made for this job. 

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

You're making a case against the Pegulas but at the same time discounting the possibility they were the lion's share of the problem. Darcy, Tim and Jason were good but flawed hockey execs who couldn't get anything done under these owners. When does the answer become obvious? Rumors of a forced hiring of a coach and a forced trades of a top player are central to this topic.

DR was GM under several ownership groups, including the league, and managed pretty well, until TP arrived.  Murray and JBOT were highly touted as GMs in waiting.  What happened there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, Darcy and Murray were GMs who made some bad decisions, probably suffered from their contact with the Pegulas, yet were people I could agree with philosophically and practically on a lot of the stuff they attempted. 

I've been at odds with Botterill's methods and practices since about the time he was hired. To me he was a unique case of ineptitude. The amount of blame one attributes to the Pegulas will depend on the individual, but you might as well go straight back to the hiring itself, then. 

Botterill was objectively a bad GM, the equation isn't missing enough potentially-pegula-filled-variables to say otherwise. We have the data we need - he was bad, regardless of ownership. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The last, and only, straw for the Pegulas apparently, who from all indications fired Botterill not for his clearly documented poor performance but merely for the fact he wouldn't cut budget. Of course it looks bad on the Pegulas, they fired him for the wrong reasons and that doesn't bode well, at all.

But he still deserved to be fired. This is a case of two wrongs making a right. Whether that chasm the firing created was adequately filled, remains to be seen. There is little evidence thus far to suggest the operation knows what it's doing, top to bottom. 

When firing an employee, it’s rarely just one thing.  Would Botterill have still been fired if the Sabres had just won back to back Cups?  Or more realistically back to back deep playoff runs?  Somehow I doubt it.  They probably would have come to some agreement.

From my perspective, it was the very fact that what Botterill was doing obviously was not working which prompted, first an internal audit (performed by Adams no less) and then an ultimatum for changes.  If Botterill had been successful, I doubt they would have asked him to make the changes that they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Curt said:

When firing an employee, it’s rarely just one thing.  Would Botterill have still been fired if the Sabres had just won back to back Cups?  Or more realistically back to back deep playoff runs?  Somehow I doubt it.  They probably would have come to some agreement.

From my perspective, it was the very fact that what Botterill was doing obviously was not working which prompted, first an internal audit (performed by Adams no less) and then an ultimatum for changes.  If Botterill had been successful, I doubt they would have asked him to make the changes that they did.

This is all wishful thinking based on nothing concrete (thinking that I was clinging to myself).

It's just not something being reported, from neither Wawrow, or anyone. The only information we have is that Botterill was fired specifically for refusing to cut the department. Even if your theory is correct and there were factors prompting it, we do KNOW they weren't concern enough to fire him, sans his refusal to cut budget. 

The Pegulas were happy to keep Botterill if he cut the budget. This is the facts. His job performance in and of itself was not deemed to be a fireable offence. That's a worrying evaluation. And it's worrying re: Adams. 

It leaves open the possibility, logically, that an acceptable standard for Adams is being Botterill 2.0 for cheaper. Which, as said, we know the Pegulas would have accepted willingly. 

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

This is all wishful thinking based on nothing concrete (thinking that I was clinging to myself).

It's just not something being reported, from neither Wawrow, or anyone. The only information we have is that Botterill was fired specifically for refusing to cut the department. Even if your theory is correct and there were factors prompting it, we do KNOW they weren't concern enough to fire him, sans his refusal to cut budget. 

The Pegulas were happy to keep Botterill if he cut the budget. This is the facts. His job performance in and of itself was not deemed to be a fireable offence. That's a worrying evaluation. And it's worrying re: Adams. 

It leaves open the possibility, logically, that an acceptable standard for Adams is being Botterill 2.0 for cheaper. Which, as said, we know the Pegulas would have accepted willingly. 

I’m not making that up.

They did perform an internal audit of which Adams was a part.  This is known, innit?

I agree with you that they would have kept Botterill if he had instituted the changes that they wanted.  That’s pretty clear.  I also agree that Botterill wasn’t doing a good enough job.

Edited by Curt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Curt said:

I’m not making that up.

They did perform an internal audit of which Adams was a part.  This is known, innit?

I agree with you that they would have kept Botterill if he had instituted the changes that they wanted.  That’s pretty clear.  I also agree that Botterill wasn’t doing a good enough job.

So if they would have kept Botterill, they must not have weighted those performance issues close to as highly as they should have been, right? 

It comes to the same thing. The results he achieved in 3 full seasons were not seen as a fireable offence. How bad did they have to be, I ask, for them to be the primary motive?

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

So if they would have kept Botterill, they must not have weighted those performance issues close to as highly as they should have been, right? 

It comes to the same thing. The results he achieved in 3 full seasons were not seen as a fireable offence. How bad did they have to be, I ask, for them to be the primary motive?

Yeah, they probably didn’t weight the crappy performance enough.  It probably was enough to warrant a firing.  I’m not actually arguing against that.  They publicly said they were going to keep him on.

I was just saying that these things don’t happen in a complete vacuum.  I suspect that if Botterill was achieving great success, the Pegulas would have been more willing to compromise with him, or more likely would not have been reviewing the organization and subsequently asking him to make many changes in the first place.

In the end, the two are connected, because if the team was successful, they would probably be making more money too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

So if they would have kept Botterill, they must not have weighted those performance issues close to as highly as they should have been, right?

It comes to the same thing. The results he achieved in 3 full seasons were not seen a a fireable offence. How bad did they have to be, I ask, for them to be the primary motive?

Botterill was on the last year of his contract with no chance of him receiving an extension until after the season. That tells you that beyond the money issue there was no allegiance to him or expression of confidence in him. The owners were simply willing to let him finish the contract and then make a determination about extending his contract after the season. So just because they were willing to ride out the contract that didn't reflect a satisfaction in his stewardship. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Skeptical 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Botterill was on the last year of his contract with no chance of him receiving an extension until after the season. That tells you that beyond the money issue there was no allegiance to him or expression of confidence in him. The owners were simply willing to let him finish the contract and then make a determination about extending his contract after the season. So just because they were willing to ride out the contract that didn't reflect a satisfaction in his stewardship. 

We've heard a lot to the contrary. It's been reported he'd have remained on by several sources, and he was also stated by the Pegulas as remaining on, before the cuts deal. 

I understand the "can't trust a vote of confidence thing", but in a post where you formulate your argument purely based on filling in the blanks from him not already having an extension, stating there was no allegiance based on that assumption, I feel the statement bears mentioning.

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thorny said:

We've heard a lot to the contrary 

I don't know what you heard but the fact is that he was not given an extension which is typical for coaches in their last contract year. His last year was a do or die year. If he would have agreed to the Pegula restructuring and had a good offseason that led to a successful season he would have earned another contract. Under no circumstances was he going to be given an extension until his last contract year was over with. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JohnC said:

I don't know what you heard but the fact is that he was not given an extension which is typical for coaches in their last contract year. His last year was a do or die year. If he would have agreed to the Pegula restructuring and had a good offseason that led to a successful season he would have earned another contract. Under no circumstances was he going to be given an extension until his last contract year was over with. 

So we agree he'd be here still if he'd agreed to the cuts. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Thorny said:

We've heard a lot to the contrary. It's been reported he'd have remained on by several sources, and he was also stated by the Pegulas as remaining on, before the cuts deal. 

I understand the "can't trust a vote of confidence thing", but in a post where you formulate your argument purely based on filling in the blanks from him not already having an extension, stating there was no allegiance based on that assumption, I feel the statement bears mentioning.

The Pegulas keeping Botterill on if he had made the cuts is not necessarily the same as the Pegulas being happy with him.

I am with you that his job performance should have been enough on its own to get him fired, but it was not. That does not mean that his job performance was irrelevant to his being fired.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The Pegulas keeping Botterill on if he had made the cuts is not necessarily the same as the Pegulas being happy with him.

I am with you that his job performance should have been enough on its own to get him fired, but it was not. That does not mean that his job performance was irrelevant to his being fired.

I'm not really making this argument now, though. 

My point is that it clearly wasn't being given close to the relevance it should have been. The fact that it wasn't enough to get him fired, after how bad I considered it to be, is the entire point. 

It represents a massive discrepancy in evaluation, it merely not being enough to get him fired. I don't think it should have been even reasonably close. I was so far beyond "ya, I guess the decision should be to let him go". And their view of his performance wasn't even that severe.

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Thorny said:

So if they would have kept Botterill, they must not have weighted those performance issues close to as highly as they should have been, right? 

It comes to the same thing. The results he achieved in 3 full seasons were not seen as a fireable offence. How bad did they have to be, I ask, for them to be the primary motive?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thorny said:

So we agree he'd be here still if he'd agreed to the cuts. 

Absolutely! I've said that all along. It was clearly stated by the Pegulas who said that after a number of discussions they couldn't get him to agree to the downsizing. So he was fired. But even if he agreed to the conditions that doesn't mean that the owners were enamored with his performance. What they wouldn't have done, even if he remained, is commit to give him an extension until after his contract ran out. What the owners didn't want to do, but were forced to do, was fire him and end up eating the last year of his contract. 

Edited by JohnC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm inclinded to agree with the point PA is making.  I think JBott was throttled by the Pegulas.  My gut feeling was that he was an implementer of Pegula decisions and not a maker of his own decisions.  We are leaving a trail of beaten and crushed GM's in the wake of this Pegula led team. I'm ready to believe that the bad decision making wasn't necessarily the GM choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He sucked.  The writing was on the wall three weeks before he was fired when the Pegulas said his job status was all good.  That means "fired" across all sports, even across the ocean.

He was fired because he sucked.  In other words, he was not good at his job.  

There is no need for further inquiry or speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Eleven said:

He sucked.  The writing was on the wall three weeks before he was fired when the Pegulas said his job status was all good.  That means "fired" across all sports, even across the ocean.

He was fired because he sucked.  In other words, he was not good at his job.  

There is no need for further inquiry or speculation.

Could it be that he voluntarily quit at the ideal time? Think about it.

Let's say you want out of a job (one where you hired some friends/acquaintances). You were publicly assured your job by the owner. The owner then comes to you and wants clean house including some of your hired. 

Knowing that your hired will be fired anyway, you refuse knowing you also will lose your job. 

It's perfect timing. After being assured by the boss your job was safe and then being fired for not wanting to put people out on the street, you put the onus on the owner all while appearing loyal to your friends.

You appear to be fired but secretly quit and only you know it , but some what save face. Especially with the people you may need in your next job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...