All Ottawa Senators General Manager Dicussions

[bigsby]

Thanks tips. Not sure I need to stoop so low to include personal attacks, just thought two guys with a similar opinion could chime in.

You post on Dahlen was very sarcastic. Re-read it and tell us all that you weren't mocking the poster who basically just gave his opinion.

With so much drama in this G.M.T
It's kinda hard being C H E triple Zeeee

I have no bone in this, just crappy lyrics. Sorry. Leaving.

 

[Micklebot]

We probably miss the playoffs without Burrows' run to finish the year, and it's just a typical throw away deadline deal like 2nd's for Sutton, Smolinski and Cullen in years past. Yes its lost assets but deadline deals usually are since they're expiring contracts. Its just that extension that has burned us.

Are you suggesting that if we grabbed a different player available for a similar or lesser price, we'd have missed the playoffs? Like, if we grabbed one of Boyle, Vanek, or Stafford, we miss the playoffs? Or that we miss if we did nothing.

I'm really not sure I'm following.

If it's the former, I really don't see how Burrows performance was key to the point that some other reasonable bottom six acquisition couldn't have provided the same or better. If it's the latter, I suppose that could be the case. Most agree that upgrading the bottom 6 was a reasonable course of action, though some would argue it should have been done by pushing a guy like Smith into the bottom 6 with a top 6 LW acquisition. We did have a highly touted prospect in White, but he wasn't available till a while after the deadline, and counting on Boucher to play a rookie is a dangerous game.

 

[Ice-Tray]

bitter persepective? he's probably right and says hes glad they did the run

id say that your perspective is the worst one to have, or least head in the sand like

hard to debate that, even thoughyou seem to look down on 90% of the board thatdisagree with you

but im positive!! stop thinking rationally you guys and just reminice about the time we almost did somethin!!

And who are you again?

Relax bud, I'm teasing BT because he's usually pretty level headed. Yes, I thought saying we'd be better off being out in the first round was a bitter perspective, and yes, I'll take that that makes me a head-in-the-sand-and-worst-perspective-guy to you.

I don't look down on folks around here, but I do try to bring a bit more off a positive perspective when I can. You misunderstand me, I don't care that you think 90% of posters disagree with me, and I couldn't care less that you think I'm irrational, etc...

I have "the worst perspective to have". Ah well, sucks to be me I guess, thanks for piling on.

 

[topshelf15]

I still think PD can be a good manager....He was kinda tossed to the wolves...Come on Randy Lee as your assistant!!!He is still a excellent head scout that can find gems in any draft....He needs a better pro scouting staff to help him make better decisions

 

[Tuna99]

Dorion made a big mistake with his Karlsson comments. And I’m sure he regrets it, but he’s a young GM working with an extremely difficult person in Melnyck who has fired everyone Dorion has ever worked with and Dorion has seen a ton of his scouts leave for (I am guessing better $$$), Alfie and Murray no longer with him and weren’t replaced.

The owner won’t step up and sign key players or keep them in town (Turris, Spezza, Alfie, Methot, with more to come).

Dorion made a mistake with the EK comments, he made a mistake with his Methot negotiation contracts back when he was an Assistant. He needs to be better in stressful moments with the media - and he will.

I’m happy Dorion is scouting and using those skills to start the re-build. This pick will be huge and he needs a huge draft.

Smart he got out of town to 1. Not talk to the media. 2. Announce the rebuild with a Euro scouting trip 3.Let the team fail and let the players answer the questions.

I’m still in Dorion’s corner even though he’s had a horrible sophomore season - his sophomore slump. He can readjust on the fly here and get younger - key signings need to be made, huge trades, huge draft, deadline deals.

But if has even 1 blunder between now and July 5 it could be fatal. Conversely, if he hits a home-run at the deadline, signs all of EK/Stone/Duch and can gets money out in Ryan/Phaneuf and makes some schrewd FA moves (ie MacCarthur) - he has a chance to really turn the team around by and do something spectacular.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Kempe, Vilardi, Clague and LA's 1st round picks in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.

or just Vilardi or am I just being unrealistic

 

[topshelf15]

Dorion made a big mistake with his Karlsson comments. And I’m sure he regrets it, but he’s a young GM working with an extremely difficult person in Melnyck who has fired everyone Dorion has ever worked with and Dorion has seen a ton of his scouts leave for (I am guessing better $$$), Alfie and Murray no longer with him and weren’t replaced.

The owner won’t step up and sign key players or keep them in town (Turris, Spezza, Alfie, Methot, with more to come).

Dorion made a mistake with the EK comments, he made a mistake with his Methot negotiation contracts back when he was an Assistant. He needs to be better in stressful moments with the media - and he will.

I’m happy Dorion is scouting and using those skills to start the re-build. This pick will be huge and he needs a huge draft.

Smart he got out of town to 1. Not talk to the media. 2. Announce the rebuild with a Euro scouting trip 3.Let the team fail and let the players answer the questions.

I’m still in Dorion’s corner even though he’s had a horrible sophomore season - his sophomore slump. He can readjust on the fly here and get younger - key signings need to be made, huge trades, huge draft, deadline deals.

But if has even 1 blunder between now and July 5 it could be fatal. Conversely, if he hits a home-run at the deadline, signs all of EK/Stone/Duch and can gets money out in Ryan/Phaneuf and makes some schrewd FA moves (ie MacCarthur) - he has a chance to really turn the team around by and do something spectacular.

We need an owner badly,that will spend to win...PD is trying at least...He needs much better support,and not to have to always be on the firing line for EM

 

[Handles1919]

And who are you again?

Relax bud, I'm teasing BT because he's usually pretty level headed. Yes, I thought saying we'd be better off being out in the first round was a bitter perspective, and yes, I'll take that that makes me a head-in-the-sand-and-worst-perspective-guy to you.

I don't look down on folks around here, but I do try to bring a bit more off a positive perspective when I can. You misunderstand me, I don't care that you think 90% of posters disagree with me, and I couldn't care less that you think I'm irrational, etc...

I have "the worst perspective to have". Ah well, sucks to be me I guess, thanks for piling on.

a poster on hfboards, and who are you?

 

[Ice-Tray]

Again, you're arguing the wrong thing.

Dahlen could've easily gotten us a better player than Burrows. We was viewed highly enough in the NHL to warrant a better return. Whatever kind of player he turns into in the future is irrelevant.

The thing is, that's an HFboard narrative, there is no evidence anywhere that Dahlen had greater value around the league. Some fans here loved the prospect and thus attributed value to him, that doesn't actually mean he has that value around the NHL. It's so irritating how board speculation turns into 'fact' especially when we all know how badly we fans overrate our prospects around here.

Bobby Mac's statement boiled down said that 1/3 GMs thought he could be t0p 6, 1/3 GMs though top 9, and 1/3 GMs weren't sure he was NHL material. Using this as 'evidence' is flawed at best, but's all we have other than what Dahlen actually was traded for.

So it looks like 1/3 may have valued Dahlen more than what we got for him, 1/3 valued him right around what we got for him, and 1/3 would have given up less or not traded for him at all. How many of those top 1/3 GMs actually wanted to make a trade, how many had a player we wanted? Who knows, but it does look like Dahlen actually returned pretty close to what his value was when averaged across the leagues GMs BASED SOLEY ON BM's uncorroborated assessment of GM interest concerning Dahlen.

In the end Dahlen isn't the issue, he returned about the median of what he was worth around the league, and there is no evidence to suggest that any teams that though highly of his potential were interested in engaging in trade talks. The ONLY issue that should be legitimately discussed is Burrows as the target for the trade. PD was very high on Burrows, and while he definitely contributed to wins at certain key times down the stretch and in the playoffs, there is potential that we could have gotten a better mid line up player.

But don't be confused, we didn't miss out on a top 6 player for Dahlen, we miss out on a different mid line up player. To me Burrows was a great choice given his pedigree, and the good season he was having up until the trade, but he has performed less than expected. The second year isn't a big deal at all if we were getting the guys we were supposed to be getting. Like everyone else, I would have loved to have gotten a better player in retrospect, but I was stoked on getting Burrows at the time, and I'm not about to go back and change up history to suit the present.

Something is broken in that dressing room and it isn't on Burrows.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Are you suggesting that if we grabbed a different player available for a similar or lesser price, we'd have missed the playoffs? Like, if we grabbed one of Boyle, Vanek, or Stafford, we miss the playoffs? Or that we miss if we did nothing.

I'm really not sure I'm following.

If it's the former, I really don't see how Burrows performance was key to the point that some other reasonable bottom six acquisition couldn't have provided the same or better. If it's the latter, I suppose that could be the case. Most agree that upgrading the bottom 6 was a reasonable course of action, though some would argue it should have been done by pushing a guy like Smith into the bottom 6 with a top 6 LW acquisition. We did have a highly touted prospect in White, but he wasn't available till a while after the deadline, and counting on Boucher to play a rookie is a dangerous game.

MB, look man, it's like the Simpson episode. You're advocating for choosing what's in the mystery box, and that's after the second best finish this franchise has EVER HAD.

Yes, we MAY have returned a better player, said player MAY have played better than Burrows. OR, he may not have, may have gotten injured, or none of those mentioned players may have been available to us anyways. Who knows, but are you trying to argue that it is worth it, after the fact, to rewrite and see?

We do know what did happen, it was an epic run, and Burrows played a part in that. Change the player and you change the outcome one way or another, and given how lucky you all have decided we were, it's not likely to have played out the same way, now is it.

I may be on an island, but I find it crazy that people would take it all back to sub Vanek for Burrows and take a chance on how things end up. Madness! I mean I guess it makes sense if you're an all or nothing fan, but I find it hard to believe that many fans around here would take all that fun and excitement back from last season on a chance that a different mid-lineup player would have helped get us further.

 

[topshelf15]

Meh PD rebuilt the bottom 6 in less than a year,yep for sure he made some mistakes....But we still have a solid group of assets here ,its not as if he drained the cupboards ...To make one run, as many here seem to think he did

 

[Handles1919]

Meh PD rebuilt the bottom 6 in less than a year,yep for sure he made some mistakes....But we still have a solid group of assets here ,its not as if he drained the cupboards ...To make one run, as many here seem to think he did

burrows
thompson
pyatt
domont

great rebuilding

tip of the hat to boucher for telling dorion what to do to get these guys to the team

dorion has a lot of things on his back that he has to deal with, but these things arent really a credit to rebuilding a bottom 6

 

[Micklebot]

Bobby Mac's statement boiled down said that 1/3 GMs thought he could be t0p 6, 1/3 GMs though top 9, and 1/3 GMs weren't sure he was NHL material. Using this as 'evidence' is flawed at best, but's all we have other than what Dahlen actually was traded for.

I guess the argument would be why'd we trade him for the return you'd expect from one of the teams unsure about him being NHL material?

Aging 3rd line wingers on pace for ~30 pts typically aren't getting that kind of return. Stafford got a 6th, Parenteau a 6th, Iginla a 4th, Boyle (who was having a much better season and is younger) a 2nd and an AHL callup. Why is Burrows getting the best return of that group?

 

[Micklebot]

MB, look man, it's like the Simpson episode. You're advocating for choosing what's in the mystery box, and that's after the second best finish this franchise has EVER HAD.

Yes, we MAY have returned a better player, said player MAY have played better than Burrows. OR, he may not have, may have gotten injured, or none of those mentioned players may have been available to us anyways. Who knows, but are you trying to argue that it is worth it, after the fact, to rewrite and see?

We do know what did happen, it was an epic run, and Burrows played a part in that. Change the player and you change the outcome one way or another, and given how lucky you all have decided we were, it's not likely to have played out the same way, now is it.

I may be on an island, but I find it crazy that people would take it all back to sub Vanek for Burrows and take a chance on how things end up. Madness! I mean I guess it makes sense if you're an all or nothing fan, but I find it hard to believe that many fans around here would take all that fun and excitement back from last season on a chance that a different mid-lineup player would have helped get us further.

Here's the problem. You seem to think the only way to get Burrows was by caving and giving up Dahlen. Overpaying for a player like Burrows isn't suddenly a good move because you have a good run in spite of making said bad move. If the penguins paid a 1st round pick for Streit instead of a 4th, it wouldn't still be a good move because he contributed 2 pts in 3 games.

This isn't a mystery box situation, you paid the Lexus price for a used oldsmobile, and your saying it was all worthwhile because you still manage to get to work every day and you never know if that Lexus would have been a lemon. Sorry, you got ripped off. Glad your getting to work on time, but you got ripped off.

 

[coladin]

Really downplaying a good player here. He's currently leading that league in scoring as a 19 year old, and led his team as a 18 year old. The odds are he'll be an NHLer, not against it as you suggest.



Right, the staff that said drafting him was like getting a second 1st round pick didn't love him. More likely is our staff vastly overvalued Burrows.



We all now know a lot about Burrows that our scouting staff apparently didn't, jury has already rendered a verdict on that one.



It's not hard to like Dahlen as a prospect. It never was. He was a similar caliber prospect to Chlapik, and has gone on to have a very good season since.

I get that you had lots of fun with the playoff run, we all did. Trading for Burrows wasn't why that happened though. Acting as though it was trade Dahlen for Burrows or we miss out on that magic not only vastly overvalues the contribution Burrows had, but it also is a complete red herring in that the issue isn't about trading for Burrows, it's about overpaying for him, which was the consensus at the time, and likely more so now that he`s gone on to have a great year, and Burrows has predictably continued to regress as he ages.

Is Dahlen hyped more than David Rundblad? How did that work out? I'm with Ice on this, people are all professional scouts on the Sens HFBoards. He is way down this team's depth chart and I am willing to believe them more than all of you amateur scouts.

 

[topshelf15]

burrows
thompson
pyatt
domont

great rebuilding

tip of the hat to boucher for telling dorion what to do to get these guys to the team

dorion has a lot of things on his back that he has to deal with, but these things arent really a credit to rebuilding a bottom 6

Meh ,last season i was talking about.Remember Neil/Kelley/Lazar????Replaced by ,Wingles,Burrows and Stralberg....I didnt mind us signing Thompson either

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Are you suggesting that if we grabbed a different player available for a similar or lesser price, we'd have missed the playoffs? Like, if we grabbed one of Boyle, Vanek, or Stafford, we miss the playoffs? Or that we miss if we did nothing.

I'm really not sure I'm following.

If it's the former, I really don't see how Burrows performance was key to the point that some other reasonable bottom six acquisition couldn't have provided the same or better. If it's the latter, I suppose that could be the case. Most agree that upgrading the bottom 6 was a reasonable course of action, though some would argue it should have been done by pushing a guy like Smith into the bottom 6 with a top 6 LW acquisition. We did have a highly touted prospect in White, but he wasn't available till a while after the deadline, and counting on Boucher to play a rookie is a dangerous game.

I don't have the stats, but as bad as Burrows has been this year, he literally won games with clutch goals/plays down the stretch last year when we were sputtering and his impact was there. Whether or not a cheaper replacement could have done it we'll never know, I was just saying that in a bubble, to lose a 2nd rounder for that kind of impact is consistent with many deadline deals and they're almost always a sunk cost when they walk in the summer, so be it. It was the same thing with Sutton and Cullen years ago. Boucher, management and myself all obviously misjudged what Burrows had left in the tank and in hindsight it was a poor move to trade for him since it was conditional on an extension. Ironically in this case, the problem comes from actually retaining the deadline rental, but I don't see why so many are hung up on the original trade when he did absolutely impact our run.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I guess the argument would be why'd we trade him for the return you'd expect from one of the teams unsure about him being NHL material?

Aging 3rd line wingers on pace for ~30 pts typically aren't getting that kind of return. Stafford got a 6th, Parenteau a 6th, Iginla a 4th, Boyle (who was having a much better season and is younger) a 2nd and an AHL callup. Why is Burrows getting the best return of that group?

I think the answer is that none of those guys bring what Burrows was supposed to bring. Burrows was also know for being a playoff warrior. PD paid a little more, and was ok to sign him to two years, because he was trading for the superior asset. Aging 3rd line winger is a bit disingenuous as it avoids mention of all of the intangibles that Burrows was to bring. HF aside, Burrows was known around the league for leadership in the dressing room, something that was seen as an important part of the deal. We wanted veteran leadership for our stretch run and playoffs, and that leadership was to help the kids going forward as well.

You may or may not agree, and this season has been garbage from top down, but Burrows was not billed as the same type of 'get' as those guys (who may or may not have been available to us). I disagree with your assessment of the player and the return. We traded a decent prospect that may or may not make the NHL in a few years, for a veteran playoff warrior who brings as much off the ice as he does on, to our young squad making a run. That's what we traded for, and that's what we gave up.

Whether that's what Burrows gave us last season is fairly debated, and whether Dahlen will end up any better than that will be shown in the future, but trying to sell Burrows in the same light as those other guys is just not the case. Personally I wouldn't take any off those guys in retrospect as they didn't bring what we needed for a run (maybe Iginla's intangibles). The only guy I find remotely interesting is Vanek for scoring, though he can also disappear and be weak on the puck, not exactly the veteran presence we were looking for.

 

[inthewings]

I don't have the stats, but as bad as Burrows has been this year, he literally won games with clutch goals/plays down the stretch last year when we were sputtering and his impact was there. Whether or not a cheaper replacement could have done it we'll never know, I was just saying that in a bubble, to lose a 2nd rounder for that kind of impact is consistent with many deadline deals and they're almost always a sunk cost when they walk in the summer, so be it. It was the same thing with Sutton and Cullen years ago. Boucher, management and myself all obviously misjudged what Burrows had left in the tank and in hindsight it was a poor move to trade for him since it was conditional on an extension. Ironically in this case, the problem comes from actually retaining the deadline rental, but I don't see why so many are hung up on the original trade when he did absolutely impact our run.

I don't think he had quite the impact you think he had. He would have had to be worth 2 wins in 20 games last year to make the difference between playoffs and no playoffs. Alex Burrows did not play like an 8-win player in his time here.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I don't have the stats, but as bad as Burrows has been this year, he literally won games with clutch goals/plays down the stretch last year when we were sputtering and his impact was there. Whether or not a cheaper replacement could have done it we'll never know, I was just saying that in a bubble, to lose a 2nd rounder for that kind of impact is consistent with many deadline deals and they're almost always a sunk cost when they walk in the summer, so be it. It was the same thing with Sutton and Cullen years ago. Boucher, management and myself all obviously misjudged what Burrows had left in the tank and in hindsight it was a poor move to trade for him since it was conditional on an extension. Ironically in this case, the problem comes from actually retaining the deadline rental, but I don't see why so many are hung up on the original trade when he did absolutely impact our run.

It's also hard to assess Burrows this season in a vacuum given that every single player on our roster has played worse to much worse than we would have wanted/expected. Everyone sucks, why is that?

I guess my point is that Burrows shouldn't be the focus of our anger, our much better players are playing far worse and are far more the cause of our current woes. Someone or something has killed our mojo, THAT is what the problem is this year.

 

[topshelf15]

The Burrows deal was a win now move,it didnt work out ...Many more have failed much harder at what we attempted last season

 

[Ice-Tray]

I don't think he had quite the impact you think he had. He would have had to be worth 2 wins in 20 games last year to make the difference between playoffs and no playoffs. Alex Burrows did not play like an 8-win player in his time here.

Well, he was definitely the difference between winning and losing two games, not much of an argument for 8 though.

 

[inthewings]

Well, he was definitely the difference between winning and losing two games, not much of an argument for 8 though.

Nah.

 

[Ice-Tray]

The Burrows deal was a win now move,it didnt work out ...Many more have failed much harder at what we attempted last season

Why didn't it work out though, because we didn't win the cup? I mean it wasn't a slam dunk or anything of the sort, but it worked out pretty well for the stretch and playoffs (until injury anyways). All of our deadline deals were helpful, definitely more so than pervious deadline deals to help with playoff runs (Bondra!)

I agree about the didn't work out as planned bit, but I attribute that to this years play.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Nah.

Well, his first game in an obvious. So I guess your argument is that he wasn't a deciding factor in any of the remaining games (11 pts in 20 gms). Not a discussion I want to engage in personally, so we'll agree to disagree.