The Seattle Kraken ushered in a new era this week, making a sweeping change at the top of the organization that was both surprising and unsurprising at the same time. On Monday, the team dismissed head coach Dan Bylsma after just one season behind the bench, then promoted assistant general manager Jason Botterill to GM, with Ron Francis moving upstairs to a new role as president of hockey operations. It was a dramatic shakeup that signaled the Kraken’s urgency to correct course after a disappointing season—and one that set the stage for a much different kind of end-of-year press conference on Tuesday.
The news came one day prior to what we expected to be Francis’ standard end-of-season press conference as the general manager, at which he has previously dissected what went right and wrong for his team and vaguely given his plans for the offseason. Two seasons ago, Francis sat next to then-head coach Dave Hakstol a few days after the team got knocked out of the second round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs and boasted about the success of the team. Last season, he held the presser alone and indicated he wasn’t sure about Hakstol’s future with the team, then fired him a couple days later.
This time, after the Kraken shocked many in the local media with the moves they officially made across Monday and Tuesday morning, they aimed to make the press conference more celebratory. While previous cleanout press conferences with the GM have been held in the Kraken’s Anchor Room, a private setting behind closed doors with minimal fanfare, this version was out in the open in the lobby of Kraken Community Iceplex and was attended by many in the local media and employees from several departments across the Kraken organization.
Upon arrival, there was a long table set to host Kraken chair and owner Samantha Holloway, Kraken CEO Tod Leiweke, plus Francis and Botterill. Behind the table was imagery of the two men tabbed with running Seattle’s front office, with the words “The Next Wave of Leadership.”
We are set to hear from Samantha Holloway, Ron Francis, Jason Botterill, and Tod Leiweke at 1pm. #SeaKraken pic.twitter.com/yK2be1GIq8
— Sound Of Hockey (@sound_hockey) April 22, 2025
From the jump, it was clear that the Kraken did not want this event to have a we-just-fired-our-coach tone, though there would surely be conversation about that topic. Ironically, this presser felt more like a congratulatory welcome-to-your-new-position event, akin to what Bylsma received last summer after he was promoted from the Coachella Valley Firebirds to become the second head coach in the history of the Kraken.
Encouraging words from Botterill
I gave my own thoughts on these moves in a separate article on Monday, but I will mention that I was not immediately enamored by the organization’s decision to move Botterill to GM and Francis to president of hockey ops. I’m reserving judgment and will remain hopeful that they can right the ship next season and beyond, but I also maintained a level of skepticism going into this presser.
That skepticism still exists now that we have gotten some clarity on what led to these decisions and what the plans are moving forward (more on those items in a bit), but I do feel better about the outlook of the team after the presser on Tuesday.
While Botterill comes across as serious—and although he has been with the team as an assistant general manager since Day 1—there’s also a certain exuberance that makes me think his promotion could inject some new life into the front office and encourage its members to look differently at the problem of building the team into a perennial contender.
He does seem to have a clear idea of what the Kraken’s identity needs to be—a team that plays with speed and uses its strength to get to the front of the net in the offensive zone while keeping opponents away from its own goal—and appears willing to upgrade the roster to get back to that identity.
“We have to continue improving and add to our skill level in all areas,” Botterill said. “It’s not as if we’re one player away right now from a Stanley Cup championship. We have to become a perennial playoff team first and then find our way.”
He also spoke about how excited he is at the resources that will be given to him in the role—something that may have lacked when he took the reins as GM in Buffalo back in 2017—and Holloway and Leiweke reinforced their commitment to making the Kraken into a winner.
“Everyone at this table is committed to winning,” Holloway said. “Our hockey folks and our staff have worked hard and deserve winning. Our partners and our fans who support us every night deserve winning.”
Why Bylsma was fired
While I wasn’t shocked to see Bylsma let go after just one season, I also did not expect the news on Monday. Whereas I had read the writing on the wall for Hakstol last season and had my “Hakstol fired by the Kraken” story prewritten several days in advance, I had no such story prepared this time around.
A firing simply felt too quick, especially considering that the team did finally seem to be playing better after the trade deadline, a line of commentary that was repeated on several occasions by Bylsma and the Kraken players down the stretch. Plus, I really liked Bylsma as a human, and it seemed many of the players did as well.
But as we’ve heard many times, hockey is a results-based business, and Bylsma did not get those results, posting a 35-41-6 record and finishing ahead of only the San Jose Sharks in the Pacific Division.
“The path of least resistance for [Francis and Botterill] and the owners was to do nothing on the coaching side, but they thought we could do better,” Leiweke said. “They thought that a move could actually move us closer to winning faster.”
And so, a move was made. Francis also gave a clear-cut and damning response for why the axe dropped on Bylsma.
“When we were watching the games, I didn’t like the way we were playing,” Francis said. “I thought our team could use more structure, more details in our approach, and at the end of the day, we didn’t get the results we were expecting this year.”
Botterill mentioned that he liked what the assistant coaches brought to the table and re-confirmed that Jess Campbell will be back next season. In speaking to him after the presser, he went as far as to say he expects her to be on the bench next season, though until the Kraken hire their next head coach, the exact responsibilities of Campbell and the other assistant coaches will remain question marks.
How the team will improve this offseason
Botterill spoke on several occasions about his expectation to look to a variety of channels for improving the team this offseason, including via free agency and trade. He also mentioned that he intends to leave roster spots open for young players in the organization to have a chance to compete for a spot in training camp.
“Ron and myself will look close at different opportunities to bring in players, whether that’s from a free agent standpoint or from a trade standpoint, but a big part of how we’re going to move the organization forward is our young players stepping in,” Botterill said. “And not only players from [Coachella Valley] or juniors making a step to the National Hockey League, but our young players in the National Hockey League taking another step.”
Also notable, when I asked if he would consider buying out any players, he did not shoot down the idea. We have surmised that there are a couple players who could be considered for buyouts this summer.
“I think it’s a situation where we’ll look at everything over the summer on where we’re at. At the end of the day, we’re making a commitment to improving our roster, and whether that’s buyouts, whether that’s trades, that’s the easy part of my job right now is the draft capital that’s at my disposal.”
Reason for optimism
That last point Botterill made about draft capital did feel like an important one. When you think about it, Botterill is coming into the Kraken GM role—his second chance at holding the GM title in the NHL—with a pretty great opportunity ahead of him.
There are good, young players like Matty Beniers, Shane Wright, and Ryker Evans who have all proven that they are ready to be full-time NHLers and could all take big steps forward next season. He also has a well-built pipeline of prospects, with several players knocking on the door and at least a couple that could turn into star players.
“We have a lot of different types of players that are coming up in our organization, so we’re not just dependent on one player. But it’s going to be exciting from trying to find more skill at the NHL level… but also finding the next level of younger players.”
There are also still some good core veterans like Jared McCann, Brandon Montour, and Vince Dunn, and a reliable starting goalie in Joey Daccord.
Now Botterill can hire his own coach and augment the roster using the cap space and draft capital amassed by Francis. And coming off the season Seattle just had, the only place to go is up.
I’m still skeptical that the moves made to start this week were the exact right moves to push this team into a perennial playoff contender, but Tuesday’s presser did inject a dose of optimism back into my increasingly pessimistic brain.
Darren Brown
Darren Brown is the Chief Content Officer at soundofhockey.com and the host of the Sound Of Hockey Podcast. He is a member of the PHWA and is also usually SOH’s Twitter intern (but please pretend you don’t know that). Follow him @DarrenFunBrown and @sound_hockey or email darren@soundofhockey.com.
I am with you on this one. I am skeptical and excited at the same time. I also think that lowering the ticket prices for the coming year was tied into these changes. I think upper management decided to to keep Francis because he sells Seattle as a good landing spot for free agents but his generosity of high salaries hurt this team. My “crystal balls” are tingling and it is a gut feeling that this is trade time for some of our older vets for younger players with lower salaries.
I don’t understand the obsession some people have with salaries. A team full of players making $850K-$3M is the thing that will make you happy? That’s what will make the team better, huh?
Do you think GM’s pull salaries out of thin air? They just stick their finger into the wind and make something up? Or maybe they have to pay certain amounts to entice decent players to play for a team with a lower chance of making the playoffs. Could that be it? Maybe a bunch of things go into it, and not a GM just arbitrarily deciding “hey! I think I want to overpay this guy!”
Odd as it may sound to a common person, a really good player may also decide to take a lower salary to play for a team already likely to go to the playoffs year after year. Imagine that!
Friedman said it again on 32 Thoughts this week. The team has been pleased with those two signings. Stephenson was able to take the matchups off Wright and Montour was fourth in the league among defensemen in goals behind Makar, Werenski and Cychrun.
The hand wringing over years four and beyond is, to me, a little absurd.
But Daryl how are we going to have any room to sign players in 5 years when the salary cap is over 135 million and Stephenson is taking up a whopping 4% of our cap space
Look up the Keith Yandle contract with the Panthers… yet they somehow managed a President’s Trophy and a Cup over the past two seasons. They were still paying him this year.
I’ll say it again… fans and the media trail the market.
The people that made the move say they are happy with the move. Not a high bar….
This year the Kraken would almost certainly have ended up going into the lottery with the 4th pick instead of the 6th. There have been reported to be 4 or 5 prospects that are a tier above. That is related to part of the reason some didn’t like the Stephenson signing. It’s generally better to get high picks and develop young players in years you aren’t going to make the playoffs.
I think most would agree Stephenson’s biggest positive impact on the team was slated to be in his early 30’s instead of his late 30’s (ugh). Well this year given the teams results and draft pick results there is an argument to be made his impact was negative. Sure he “protected” some young players, but he also kept some young players off the ice. But where else could that money have been used? A younger player like Geekie? To facilitate a trade which focused on future value? That extra cap space would have been put to use in some way. A way that focused on the future since this team wasn’t ready for the bright lights was my preference.
I don’t think I’ll ever agree his signing was a good one. I hope I’m proven wrong and he is a big part of a deep playoff run.
@Seattle G – point in case, I believe Chris Tanev turned down more money to go to TOR because he had family there and wanted to be a Leaf.
You know, I wonder why people care so much about salaries, too. I mean, at not point when watching sports have I ever wanted to be a general manager–someone who hires and fires people and negotiates contracts. There are real world jobs like that, and they are easy enough to get for the people who actually want them. No, when I watch sports I want to be one of the athletes–the guys who actually do incredible and exciting things by means of their extraordinary talent and dedication to the craft. They are the people who make me want to watch sports. They are the compelling story. I would rather just let the managers sign whatever papers they have to in whatever boring office they work in while I focus my attention on Mikey Eyssimont’s Michigan attempt, Chandler Stephenson’s break-away goal, and Matty Beniers’ greasy net-front tip-in.
I feel like the narrative about Francis giving high salaries shows an ignorance to the actual player market. Even Stephenson who is the poster child for folks that say this is only about .5 million over what the big board had him getting. Our cap hasn’t been a problem for us any season we’ve existed. This year was the closest we got but that was only due to the stagnant cap of Covid and the fact we went out and spent money to improve the team
I can’t speak for anyone else, but my issue with the Stephenson signing is that he is going to be taking up a top six center position where we might have a better younger option in the system for the second half of his contract.
It also seems to me like fans here in Seattle don’t fully understand what kind of player Stephenson is and why he was brought in . Seattle badly needed (still needs) scoring threats . Through his time in the league, Stephenson has generally been someone you can rely on to pretty consistently light the lamp, while at the same time get caved in defensively. He was a good option for Seattle this year, but going forward, we would want a better two way option at 2c, he isn’t a 1c, doesn’t seem to have the profile of a 4c. That leaves the “generally reserved for your sheltered youngsters” 3c spot for him. Personally, I would like to see one of our prospects in that spot down the road .
For this season though, I think Stephenson has done everything he was brought in to do. Also Montour has been totally bomb.
When I hear team executives so things like “we are primed to make big moves in the off-season” I get instinctively scared. I watched like a decade of bad signings in Vancouver get them no where with the same rhetoric preceding them .
I 200% agree with this, that has always been my argument. Sure he fills a hole for a few years then he becomes obsolete, I don’t like the 7 years and would have much preferred an option for a few years even if it meant we didn’t make the playoffs this season…. Oh wait 😂 we didn’t make the playoffs.
Very few people have a problem with the Montour signing. I feel the people defending the Chandler signing are just shot sighted and can’t count past 4…. The number of center positions on the roster. We definitely don’t want him as our 4th line center for cap and playing style reasons. He should not be a one or two option if we ice a good team and those roles should be filled with Matty and Wright regardless. I feel that after next season we’re going to want that 3rd center for our developing youth.
He isn’t though. That kind of proves the point. Hell be making Wennberg type money on the third line until he’s no longer needed useful and then you can move him easily. You kind of proved my point. A lot of fans really have no idea what the compensation is going to be in this new cap environment.
Nice to see that the Chandler Stephenson fixation is still alive and well. 🙂
The best comp we have for Chandler Stephenson (contract and performance) from last year’s FA class is Elias Lindholm. Both 30 yo’s with 7-year contracts. Lindholm’s AAV is ~ $7.8MM, CS AAV $6.3mm. In this context CS contract isn’t egregious. For the most part he’s done the dirty work – playing against 1st and 2nd lines, taking alot of faceoffs in defensive end – all of which has allowed Shane Wright to develop more gradually. No he hasn’t lit it up, but he’s far from the albatross people make him out to be.
And GEEZUS everyone keeps talking as though we’re stuck with him for life. When/if Beniers and Wright establish themselves as legit C1/C2 on a playoff caliber team, Stephenson will no longer have a role. The team could buy him out following next season and recognize total cap savings totaling $19.5mm over the last 5 years of his contract; his remaiing cap hit of $1.95mm annually is manageable and wouldn’t begin until the 31/32 season.
Should we be complaining bad contacts to bad contacts? I’d rather not be in that conversation, if we’re in that conversation it’s not good.
What I’m getting from this all in all (I don’t disagree with you I think you’re spot on) is that yeah if sucks(for his term and cap) but we can buy him out so we didn’t mess up? I’m just wondering if making the playoffs this season was worth a buyout in the next few years?
Seriously the biggest question is how this whole coaching change topic turned into a chandler argument. This is clearly the next Grubauer.
Isn’t the more prudent topic how team ownership is skirting the assistant coaches for obvious reason not related to team success?
Yes of course if anyone who believes the CS contract was a mistake they should make that case.
Your second point really hit the nail on the head. The Stephenson Derangement Syndrome has become so vitriolic that it (seems) to consume a big chunk of ANY thread regardless of the subject matter posted by SOH’s contributors.
The question regarding assistant coaches is critical, not just because of who but why. Normally when a head coach is fired the assistant coaches are rountinely terminated as well. RF stated clearly the team lacked structure and attention to detail (i.e. the team was sloppy), which is a really damning assessment for any HC, but wouldn’t the AC’s be responsible as well? I guess there’s no harm in retaining them (for now) until they hire a HC, but why? Did ownership have anything to do with this?
The Kraken press conference was, well, just weird and at least suggests some level of dysfunction within the organization. Management wants to develop a pipeline (critical for any team’s long-term success). Ownership wants to WIN NOW. If the dysfunction is real will the team be able to attract the best coach for this team?
Matt Calkins’ astute article in Seattle Times (quoting Brian Schmetzer) stated that while winning is critical, entertaining the fan base is just as important. In view of that I humbly submit the name of John Tortorella as the best HC candidate. While he was clearly burnt out given the moribund state of the Flyers franchise, would he ( with a guarantee from ownership that he’d be coach for next three years) be invigorated and excited about a commitment to build a perennial playoff contender? And an unspokent commitment from ownership that he could move into the front office as either GM or team president? All the other HC candidates seem like stolid, solid retread types. But if the team wants to excite and captivate the fan base Torts would a great choice.
I believe I read somewhere a comment from the press conference was the organization liked what Campbell brings to working with the young players. Since she has been a skating and skills coach in the past, perhaps they plan on retaining her in a role other than as a bench assistant.
I really don’t think any of the assistants rate this much attention… and before you tell me it’s about the organization’s decision making… puleeze!
They were fairly adamant that Jessica would be on the Bench next season, the only coach named that they said would definitely be returning. Big flashing lights behind them saying obvious reasons…..
It will be an interesting conversation with our coaching candidates… by the way you can pick your assistant coaches as long as your list has Jessica on it otherwise we will pick your assistant coaches 😂
The one thing that stood out to me was whilst Francis and Botterill talked pipeline, players taking the next step and building the team, Holloway answered a question about the standard and timing of success with “perrenial playoff team” and “ASAP”. They didn’t seem aligned on their messaging. Make no mistake RF & JB are under pressure to deliver some immediate roster upgrades and make the step next season. I don’t want to see Catton rushed into the lineup in order to try and be the difference maker if he’s still another year or two off. Or for us to over-reach in free-agency for someone who’s not a Top6 talent. But I fear that’s exactly what will happen.
Well said. Couldn’t agree more.
I don’t feel like Catton will be rushed into the lineup to be a difference maker. If they bring him up it will be because he can’t play in the AHL and jumping into the NHL a little early would be better for his future development than playing another year in the juniors.
It’s not just that the messaging wasn’t aligned, it’s that the messages are almost in complete conflict with one another. You cannot build a perennial contender by overpaying middling FAs and rushing young players. This was my main concern with the Stephenson and Montour signings — they seemed about 2-3 years too early, which signified that ownership was getting antsy and starting to mettle. I sympathize with their difficult position of trying to thread the needle between being competitive AND building through the draft, but the road to growing and maintaining a strong fan base is paved with multiple trips to the playoffs, not overspending money and draft capital to maybe be a bubble team.
Luckily they’ve done neither. Montour and Stephenson are far from middling players. You’d be lucky if ANY of our non top 5 prospects turn out to be as good as these guys. We also didn’t overpay them. These contracts are going to look cheap in a couple years and are easily movable. They also don’t interfere with roster spots as other guys in those roles will be rolling off contracts… almost like Ron setup the whole roster that way and isn’t as dumb as yall think.
It’s also funny people think the messaging was not aligned given Botterill said the same thing Samantha said, they intend to be active in FA.
You’re right, Stephenson is far from a middling player. He is terrible, especially at even strength. When he was on the ice, at 5 on 5, the Kraken had 39 percent of the expected goals this year (link below). He dragged down everyone who played on his line. He looked slow and disinterested all year. He was a turnover machine. The fact that the FO is patting itself on the back over this signing is the single greatest reason for pessimism. Unless it is just PR (which would be merely annoying), it indicates they truly have no clue how to diagnose the problems with the team an get better. I’d love to see Curtis’s year-end analysis of Stephenson’s performance, but I get the impression he has been prohibited from providing one.
https://www.naturalstattrick.com/playerreport.php?fromseason=20242025&thruseason=20242025&stype=2&sit=all&stdoi=oi&rate=n&v=p&playerid=8476905
Look at the shooting percentage on your own link!
When you look at that Naturalstattrick.com page and you see the situational change in faceoffs Stephenson has faced this season and you realize he still bagged 51 points… without Mark Stone! Seriously, I’ll tell you what Curtis would say, he’d say the same thing you are, “look at that expected goals percentage” without bothering to explore any of the context.
Seriously, the “analytics” take on Stephenson represents all of the worst aspects of the shortcomings of hockey analytics. If only Stephenson threw the puck into the goalies glove more often rather than being one of the best passers in the league… then he could prop up those xG% numbers by giving away posession more often.
What’s so annoying is the arrogance of folks like Luszczyszyn who just dwell on the xG number without asking why. The consensus No.2 free agent center and a guy who was pegged in the $5m – $6m range before the cap bump was announced is obviously terrible… and the numbers prove it. He even said recently, “The 51 points is nice, but the xG% is inexcusable.” (paraphrase) His individual xG numbers are low because he doesn’t take enough shitty shots and his on ice xG numbers are low because he and his linemates are getting the toughest assignments in the worst situations… but just keep looking at that one number and saying, “see”!
I appreciate everything Curtis brings, but this is the same guy who said Joey’s $5m x 5 was a year too much and a million too much – that’s a terrible take. I don’t hear him banging away on the “told ya so drum” with that one. He also said they should have waited to extend him – another terrible take. “Grubauer has been fine”. That was Curtis shortly before Gru got sent down to Coachella.
It’s easy to see the things that agree with the way you want to see them – I’m probably doing it right now – but don’t pretend the numbers make you right. I’ll say it again… oft credited to Mark Twain, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
If Stephenson was dishing awesome passes and creating great chances for his teammates, that would be reflected in his ON ICE xG% — but he’s not. At least not often enough. And xG accounts for shot quality so “shitty shots” would not improve the xG as much as good ones. And consistently, every single winger that has played on a line with Stephenson has performed way worse than without him. And the biggest problem was not even the quality of shots FOR, but the fact that the team was hemorrhaging shots AGAINST while he was out there at 5 on 5.
As for the 51 points — it is not impressive when you consider his high overall minutes, his 1st PP unit assignments, and the high number of secondary assists. As Curtis pointed out, he is something like 9th or 10th on the team on a rate basis (i.e. points per 60). (I can’t find the stat quickly right now)
The main argument yet again seems to be deployment — that, aside from all the PP time, Stephenson is absorbing the “tough situations.” And I guess this deployment strategy is specific to Stephenson and not his linemates? The reality is there is only so much control a coach can have over what situations a forward plays in at 5 on 5. Deployment matters, of course, but there is just no way that deployment can explain the extent to which he was getting killed out there, or the enormous gap between how his linemates perform with him vs. without him. And Curtis absolutely could and would look at the statistical impact of his deployment, in much more detail than I can, which is why I’d be interested in seeing it.
And there is no confirmation bias here. I did not set out this year believing Stephenson stinks and looking for confirmation. I really liked watching him in his prime. I was skeptical of the stathead takes then that he was pretty good but overrated. The stats and scouting reports that his performance dipped significantly in 2023-24 had me concerned last summer, but I was hoping that was wrong or just a blip, and that he would be good this year. But his stats got way worse than even his last year in Vegas, and he just looked like a guy way past his prime on most nights (hey, so am I).
His counting stats are pretty consistent – certainly not way worse – than last season in Vegas. When you take into account his linemates (not Mark Stone) and his deployments (way more D zone faceoffs and opposing top lines) then his xG numbers are obviously down.
His ON ICE xG% is sub-50% because he and his linemates are getting more than half their draws and starts in the d zone. In Vegas his draws and starts were in the 55% – 60% range… because he was playing with Stone. When you start in the o zone you’re more likely to face better players… which leads into the quality of opposition. This season Stephenson started in his own end against tougher competition… so his sub-50% xG ON ICE actually has an explanation other than “he’s terrible”. The fact that his linemates are better without him can easily be attributed to situation. In the notorious case of Mark Stone… more than half of Stone’s minutes without Stephenson last season were with Jack Eichel. Wow! hard to believe Stone was better playing with one of the premier centers in the world rather than a guy pulling down $6.25m this season.
Yes, shitty shots do not improve your expected goals as much a quality shots… but the do bump your xG, just look at Carolina. Much of xG and hockey analytics is built around a “high-volume”, north-south historical database of outcomes that favored volume over quality. Volume is, I believe, still the center of gravity, but I think quality and situation are poorly represented in the modeling. There seems to me to be a shift in lateral play and accuracy that is not fully reflected in the public models… but that’s just a hunch.
Hemorrhaging shots against… again… faceoffs and starts.
Whatever folks believe about their own biases or those of others, I believe the conversation around Stephenson is largely tainted by two factors: a poor understanding of the market and a simplistic reading of the “analytics”. I think you can argue otherwise and not be wrong, but to draw the conclusion that he’s “terrible”… to me that seems a bit much.
“When you take into account his linemates (not Mark Stone) and his deployments (way more D zone faceoffs and opposing top lines) then his xG numbers are obviously down.”
The issue is his xG% isn’t just bad for the Kraken and whatever linemates are with him, they’re some of the worst numbers in the entire league. I’d be fine with the “deployment” argument if there weren’t plenty of other centers and lines that get mostly D zone starts, and Stephenson’s line weren’t consistently worse than ALL of them.
And we’re not talking a mere “sub-50%”, we’re talking close to 40%. I agree there are certainly error bars to the public facing analytics, but the error bars could not possibly reach into good or even mediocre territory with this sample size. Maybe, MAYBE he’s just plain “bad” and not “terrible”, but thats about it. Hopefully he’ll be a passable 3C once Matty and Shane (hopefully) blossom into the 1C and 2C that this team needs them to be.
I can agree with the “he’s not terrible” statement. He’s a middling player who unfortunately is just on a contract 4 years too long.
Or maybe he would be more valuable at wing at this stage, especially since defense is his bigger problem nowadays? I have seen that suggested.
That was an embarrassing comment even for you.
I think with Stephenson when you combine his situations (d zone starts etc) and his low volume/high percentage shooting, you end up with a somewhat unique center whose actual quality and contribution is poorly reflected by xG%.
Just my thoughts.
Ah ok, thanks for the discussion.
Looking at hockey-reference.com, you would seem to have a major point here. This season was the first that Stephenson has had where he played primarily in the defensive zone since Vegas picked him up from Washington. You have already covered the effect it has had on his analytics, but it makes me wonder about how he was deployed this season. He is not an Alex Wennberg-type defensive center who will shut plays down and get the puck up-ice, although I am keen on his transition game. His passing and his shot are more in-line with a guy who should be deployed heavily in the offensive zone like Vegas had been deploying him. I know everyone really wants Matty Beniers to be that star 1C guy, but I wonder if he would be better playing the role that Stephenson did this year. It would not be the worst thing. We have already seen that he can handle the big minutes, and he is very good at getting the puck out of the zone. Why not play to his strengths? Also, we can be sure that Shane Wright is going to get a lot more ice time next season, so it is not like Matty will get skated half to death out there. Maybe have Stephenson fill that cagey-veteran-with-a-ring role on a “third” line with some promising young guys like Ryan Winterton and Jani Nyman who need sheltering while they get their offensive games down pat. I can imagine that playing beside a distributor as good as Stephenson is would make the transition to the NHL quite a bit easier on those fellas, and we know how effective Stephenson is with talented young scoring wingers at his sides.
Really, what I am getting at is that the guys on the roster have real, significant talents, so they should be allowed to do what makes them special. Matty should be allowed to be Matty; he shouldn’t have to keep trying to be Mike Modano. Likewise, Chandler Stephenson should not have to keep trying to be, ironically enough, Matty Beniers.
Now, I am a guy who defaults to trusting how Coach deploys his players, because he is Coach. He would not be Coach if he did not know better than 99.99999% of the population how players should be deployed. Now that we have no coach, my mind begins to entertain thoughts like, “why are guys who are so obviously good at certain things not being asked to do those things?” Why, for example, is Matty Beniers not on the penalty kill or taking the lion’s share of the defensive zone draws given how spectacular he is at clearing the puck? Or why are Adam Larsson and Jamie Oleksiak–who are very good at blowing up odd-man rushes–being asked to pinch into the offensive zone so often instead of staying between the high forward and the net? I hope more than anything else that it will be clear why Next Coach deploys players the way that he does.
And that was my complaint about Bylsma nearly the entire season (I remember posting in at the beginning of November – before the Eberle injury – wondering if my Halloween pumpkins would last longer than the coaching staff).
The way he was deploying players was just weird. And the fact that he couldn’t stick with a lineup from period to period let alone game to game made it even more difficult to build any chemistry on the lines.
Thinking more, some of the questionable decisions even go back to the preseason games.
Everyone knew going into camp that with the salary cap situation that there was realistically one roster spot available and that it had to be someone at or near the league minimum. So it was going to come down to a seventh defenseman or a 13th forward.
It was obvious on the first day of training camp that Dunn was not ready, and not playing in the first 3 preseason games pointed to the last roster spot going to a defender – and most likely Mahura or Fleury.
There were also 2 forward lines centering around Stephenson and Wright that needed to be settled and 2 new defensive pairings, which quickly became 3 new pairings when Dunn went out immediately.
Instead of using the preseason games to get those lines and pairings solidified and clicking with each other, the preseason essentially ended up being tryouts for the Firebirds. Andj the Kraken started the season horribly unprepared.
RB, preseason is typically run that way in the NHL. It’s mostly used for getting vets up to game speed and looking at the pipeline. Usually that last few preseason games start to resemble an NHL roster, it’s the same for all the other teams as well.
You missed the part where Botterrill ALSO talked about being active in FA this year. It’s not a mismatch at all. It’s funny watching people hear what they want to hear.
I’m very curious how they like their assistant coaches (who were running the pk and pp) but didn’t like the head coach. I feel like we had a huge downgrade in our assistant coaches this season, very puzzling that they are somewhat adamant that they want to keep the assistant coaches after some of the worst defensive zone structure/pp/pk we’ve seen from the kraken. I’d be looking to clean house or at the least be saying assistant coaching positions will be evaluated by our future head coach. What was with the focus on Jessica being on the bench next season? I feel that she was hired for all the wrong reasons and our focus should be on winning, if that means upgrading our coaching positions then that’s what should be done during a transition like this.
I’m a little nervous about Botterills statement that he liked the FA signings last summer and woud like to continue that this summer. You can’t build through the FA market, you’re putting the team at a disadvantage by overpaying in term and cap. We don’t need any more older overpaid vets that are going to eat up roster space for six years, we have enough of them we need to be looking at a trade for a good player in their mid 20’s.
Darren what are your thoughts on Botterills trade and signing history as a GM in the past. Looking through his history I can’t see anything that makes me feel like he’s a good choice to be building our roster. I only see not great trades and over payment that turned into buyouts, am I missing something?
His history isn’t as bad as it once looked. He was most notably panned for the O’Reilly trade, but that trade netted them Tage Thompson who is now a total stud. It sounds like some of the other suboptimal trades were not totally under his control (eg Evander Kane). That being said, I’d be curious to see a SOH breakdown of Botterill’s past moves, and how being a part of an organization that actually wants to spend and compete now could potentially change the outlook.
Its interesting you completely missed Samantha’s comments that also alluded to why Bylsma was fired which was far more enlightening than anything else
Not sure I missed that Koist, what I’m saying is that the issues we had also fall directly onto the assistant coaches. You could even make a strong argument that our major issues were related to our assistant coaches rolls. It was interesting that they fully shifted the blame onto Dan while basically saying there is nothing more to see here was our only problem… and by the way Jessica is definitely coming back.. what is that?
You can’t make a strong argument that our major issues fall onto our assistant coaches because assistant coaches are working within the head coaches structure and scheme and lineup decisions. They’re also checking with the head coach directly before communicating power play sets to the team – Bylsma signs off on all of it. That all falls on the head coach. This is why head coaches are usually the first to go.
Every coach has a roll otherwise why are they there, sure it runs through the head coach but the majority of the work is through assistants doing their job. Look at our defensive zone system that was incredibly passive and opened up holes in coverage. The goaltenders even mentioned it early in the season regarding how the new defensive system was allowing shots from certain spots on the ice and they are going to need to be ready for shots from different areas. The passive defensive scheme didn’t work, I believe that was Woods (correct me if I’m wrong). Woods was also along with Jessica the PP coach, again a very passive system that and Jessica was very adamant in interviews that the players just need to make the plays that they have drawn up and that was the issue… was that the issue, what plays were they supposed to make, pass it around the point to the high boards and take a shot into their defenders shin pads?
I’m saying these are issues with the assistant coaching staff and we should not be pretending otherwise.
After watching the press conference, my takeaway is, #1 they were underwhelmed with Bylsma and didn’t think he could do much better OR #2 they were underwhelmed BUT have someone in mind for the job and needed to make way. I thought Francis was believable when he said he didn’t like the way the team was playing. I read that as, he disagreed with the coaching. They are being nice and don’t want to disparage. Samantha did say that sometimes you make the wrong decision, but you keep on trying.
They might be playing it safe by saying the assistants are staying, meanwhile knowing a new coach will likely bring his own. Good cop.
Relating to the coaching change, one notable omission from the coverage has been the reaction of Kraken players. Genuinely curious as to whether or not players thought their problems were systematic. I think there is some value in continuity and thought Bylsma’s firing was over-reactive, but I also liked Tod’s comment about not taking the path of least resistance. Although my confidence in those steering the ship has suffered some, I appreciate that they care about the product and are committed to efforts to make it better. Also, as much as we love discussing this stuff in public forums, we know SO MUCH LESS than the people making the decisions!
One other thought. Building a winner with home-grown talent takes a *long* time. Look at Winnipeg’s draft history under current GM (Cheveldayoff). Their core of that team includes so many home-grown players that were drafted more than a decade ago (Scheifele & Lowry, 2011; Hellebuyck, 2012; Morrissey, 2013; Ehlers, 2014; Connor, 2015). They made the playoffs once in six seasons between 2011-17, and are 7 of 8 since (with three seasons of 110+ points).
Good point regarding the lack of reaction by the players.
I have a lot of doubts about the narrative that the coach was “well-liked” by the players. Maybe when the season started, but I think that waned as the season progressed.
My big question: can any of the players look back on this season and honestly say that the coaching staff aided in their development and helped them improve their game?
What I saw was a bunch of veterans who pretty much kept playing the game they’d always played, for better or for worse, and younger players who performed inconsistently and continued to make a lot of the same mistakes at the end of the season that they were making at the beginning. So I question how much effective “coaching” actually occurred.
One thing that stuck out to me in a bad way from this Article. GM’s should have autonomy to build the team as they want. I didn’t like where our new GM said he and Francis would be looking at players to bring in this Summer. Too many chefs makes for a bad product.
For some reason there was no reply box to respond to Daryl W take at 3:06 pm. On Chandler Stevensen.
I couldn’t have said it better on what you laid out…
Thank you!!
I don’t know… read Foists post at 3:39, kinda put that argument to bed.
Something tells me Foist, Boist, and Koist are all the same person.
As for the subject matter we can all agree to disagree at times.
OMG…can we PLEASE move on from blaming Ron Francis and Chandler Stephenson for all that is wrong in the world? Did they also start the first Peloponnesian War and cause the extinction of the dinosaurs???
For the Francis-haters, please share those amazing rosters you would have built from the expansion draft, trade market and free agency…with the same available players and actual market-value salaries?
For the Stephenson-haters, care to provide some constructive criticism of the other 21-22 players on the roster? And keep in mind that there are no end of season awards for “expected” goals.
Ha! The thing is, having better underlying process typically leads to better results. Thats the only reason I care — I want to think about how this team could be better next year, ie did they have a great underlying process and just get unlucky. The answer to me is, unfortunately, no. They played badly, and got bad results. During the inaugural season, they played decently but got AWFUL results. During their playoff year, they played well and got really awesome results.
We have many months to break down the flaws of this roster, but I think a big part of the blame goes to Vince Dunn. He had one of the largest gaps between expectation and performance on the team, both offensively and defensively. Maybe he never fully recovered from his injury, or maybe Bylsma’s system (or lack thereof) didn’t suit him. Whatever it was, he appeared to be a shell of his former self.
Grubauer was also obviously disappointing, but at least in terms of expectation vs performance, I never expected him to be good or even average. “Worst goalie in the league” wasn’t on my bingo card, though he was pretty much solely responsible for the atrocious 1st year. But hey, that got us Shane Wright! Good guy Gru.
You know who was most impressive at the press conference? Certainly not Leiweke with his new(?) goatee and past successes. Francis was his normal low-pulse self. Botterill seemed to be a bit unpolished, with his lack of eye contract. He’s looked very much like an assistant GM.
It was Sam Holloway, who came across as someone you could count on. I took her to imply that that if these people working for her do not achieve the on-ice success in short order, she will find some people who will.
This is the thing the franchise has been missing since Day 1, someone you could pin your ribbon to and totally believe will get it done. I fully expect her to be asking hard questions about the development of young players now that Francis has that responsibility and how any new coach option is going to make the team a playoff contender and how each UFAs signed is an improvement over what is in the pipeline.
Definitely a positive that we have ownership that wants results and holds people accountable. She is a bright spot for sure. Time will tell if overactive ownership becomes a problem, I feel that probably is why we have our new favorite target chandler.