All Ottawa Senators General Manager Dicussions

[Ice-Tray]

Cool. Now demonstrate that the positive contributions exceed the negative (surely he made some mistakes in those 20 games), and that the totality of his contributions exceed the expected contributions of a replacement level player to such an extent that the team would have had 4+ fewer points without him.

The point is that you can’t just point to a couple of big goals and say the team would have lost those games without him.

He would have been replaced in the lineup by someone. That replacement player would have (very likely) scored a big goal or three and made some big defensive plays. Hell, Nate Thompson has had some big goals in wins this year.

Dude, you're argument is so ridiculous. I'm sure that's why you're arguing it alone save for Junkle's pot shots. You made a silly statement that Burrows was not a large part of two wins, I showed you where he was a large part of 4 wins, two wins in particular where he was the leading scorer and 1st start of both, not to mention that 11 points in 20 games is awesome for a bottom six winger, and you respond by saying that you think he probably made enough mistakes somewhere sometime to negate that.

Do you even hear yourself? How stupid a statement is that? You tried to apply some ridiculous baseball analysis and it failed miserably. Suck it up and move on, everyone agrees that Burrows has not been good this year, wrap yourself in that and stop with this silliness.

I mean Christ, he score all the goals in the first win, and your honest response was that you're sure someone else would have scored the goals if he wasn't there. How does a person even carry on a discussion with a person who does that? You're partner Junkle claims that the goals don't even matter because it was Colorado, even though those two wins were key to keeping our playoff hopes alive, I mean we had to beat the shitty teams as well!

All I can say is that this has been literally the lowest common denominator discussion I have ever had on here. A person couldn't argue and back track in a more ridiculous manner than the two of you. Does any of this mean Burrows is good this year or worth his contract? No, but it sure crammed your two game value argument back into the hole it came out of.

 

[slamigo]

The team needs a new GM right now. New stewardship and with time to make the draft pick this summer and orchestrate the player movement for the rebuild. PD has shown that he cannot be trusted with that task.

 

[slamigo]

PD should be NOWHERE near any deadline deals next month.

No more neophytes. Time for an experienced GM.

 

[inthewings]

Dude, you're argument is so ridiculous. I'm sure that's why you're arguing it alone save for Junkle's pot shots. You made a silly statement that Burrows was not a large part of two wins, I showed you where he was a large part of 4 wins, two wins in particular where he was the leading scorer and 1st start of both, not to mention that 11 points in 20 games is awesome for a bottom six winger, and you respond by saying that you think he probably made enough mistakes somewhere sometime to negate that.

Do you even hear yourself? How stupid a statement is that? You tried to apply some ridiculous baseball analysis and it failed miserably. Suck it up and move on, everyone agrees that Burrows has not been good this year, wrap yourself in that and stop with this silliness.

I mean Christ, he score all the goals in the first win, and your honest response was that you're sure someone else would have scored the goals if he wasn't there. How does a person even carry on a discussion with a person who does that? You're partner Junkle claims that the goals don't even matter because it was Colorado, even though those two wins were key to keeping our playoff hopes alive, I mean we had to beat the ****ty teams as well!

All I can say is that this has been literally the lowest common denominator discussion I have ever had on here. A person couldn't argue and back track in a more ridiculous manner than the two of you. Does any of this mean Burrows is good this year or worth his contract? No, but it sure crammed your two game value argument back into the hole it came out of.

You are not nearly as smart as you think you are. There were at least two straw men in this post alone. This discussion is going nowhere.

 

[inthewings]

I think the communication breakdown here is that we can't agree about how strong a claim it is that replacing Alex Burrows with a replacement-level player would have resulted in two fewer wins down the stretch last year. That's 4 points in 20 games. That's 16 or so points in 82 games.

I see that as an extraordinary claim that warrants an enormous amount of evidence, because that's a massive influence being attributed to a bottom six forward, albeit one who played his role satisfactorily.

I completely understand that Alex Burrows played very well in a few wins down the stretch. He scored a couple of big goals! I just think it's an error of reasoning to take that and assume that the team would have won two fewer games without him, for the simple reason that he would have been replaced with someone, and that someone would almost certainly have played well in wins. We've seen Chris Wideman contribute to wins this year. Nate Thompson. Alex Burrows. A replacement level player will almost certainly contribute meaningfully to several wins over the course of 20 games. That doesn't mean you'd expect the team to have performed tangibly worse if that player was replaced with some other replacement level player.

I'm jot even saying I think Burrows was replacement level last year. He was probably a bit better. I'm saying that the claim that he was so good that the team would have been 4+ points worse without his 20 games is actually an extraordinarily large claim, and I think that overstates the caliber of his play last year.

 

[coladin]

Good to see that some people are still hanging on to those couple of goals Burrows scored against a historically bad Avalanche team lol.

Leave it to this board to downplay or minimize the 2 primary assists on OT winners against the Rangers. Sorry for you all , but we don't beat the Rangers without him. Try to sleep tonight.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I think the communication breakdown here is that we can't agree about how strong a claim it is that replacing Alex Burrows with a replacement-level player would have resulted in two fewer wins down the stretch last year. That's 4 points in 20 games. That's 16 or so points in 82 games.

I see that as an extraordinary claim that warrants an enormous amount of evidence, because that's a massive influence being attributed to a bottom six forward, albeit one who played his role satisfactorily.

I completely understand that Alex Burrows played very well in a few wins down the stretch. He scored a couple of big goals! I just think it's an error of reasoning to take that and assume that the team would have won two fewer games without him, for the simple reason that he would have been replaced with someone, and that someone would almost certainly have played well in wins. We've seen Chris Wideman contribute to wins this year. Nate Thompson. Alex Burrows. A replacement level player will almost certainly contribute meaningfully to several wins over the course of 20 games. That doesn't mean you'd expect the team to have performed tangibly worse if that player was replaced with some other replacement level player.

I'm jot even saying I think Burrows was replacement level last year. He was probably a bit better. I'm saying that the claim that he was so good that the team would have been 4+ points worse without his 20 games is actually an extraordinarily large claim, and I think that overstates the caliber of his play last year.

Sorry for my exasperation. We are miscommunicating, you are coming from a baseball algorithm, and I'm coming from a hockey stat standpoint. I'm not trying to say that he won games single handedly, you could never isolate that in a hockey game, or even over a stretch of game segments, nor am I claiming that in his absence we could not have fared the same or better.

I agree that it is possible that a different player, or new player could have helped us win the same games, or even more games. What I'm saying is that the guy that we did pick up did help us win some important games down the stretch. He wasn't a waste of space, and as a bottom six forward he was actually good for us in general, and key for us in several games.

That's the beauty of a deadline pick up, we can't extrapolate that play over a season because these guys are fired up playing for a new squad heading into the playoffs, coming from a dead in the water team slated to miss the dance. All we really needed, and what we wanted when we traded for him, was a boost down the stretch and into the playoffs. Burrows insisted on some term for his family's stability in order to be that guy, and PD obviously felt it was worth it. We didn't get as far as we all would like, but we got further than we could ever have hoped, and that's a win, even if the following season saw Burrows, and the team as a whole, lay an egg.

It is possible that all kinds of alternate scenarios could have occurred, but the one we chose was actually pretty good, and going back and wishing we had done different could very likely end up with us doing worse instead of better. You can't subtract Burrows' performance and simply claim that it would have been replaced by X, you can only hope that it would be, so I guess the question ends up being is it worth not having our excellent run for the chance at another player having performed as good or better? Does any of this guarantee a better playoffs? If not, then why are we considering losing the run we had to see what's inside the mystery box.

 

[Handles1919]

Leave it to this board to downplay or minimize the 2 primary assists on OT winners against the Rangers. Sorry for you all , but we don't beat the Rangers without him. Try to sleep tonight.

a scarecrow controlled by a remote control from Wisconsin could have chipped a puck off the boards in his own end for a primary assist

here we are saying burrowas was integral there when pageau skated from end to end with the puck and scored on his own. burrows was a bystander who frantically slapped the puck off the boards hoping to get it out iof the zone

we could hvae had 99.9% of any guys in the nhl in his place and we still win that series

but yea "we won and there is no way to prove it"

 

[Handles1919]

Sorry for my exasperation. We are miscommunicating, you are coming from a baseball algorithm, and I'm coming from a hockey stat standpoint. I'm not trying to say that he won games single handedly, you could never isolate that in a hockey game, or even over a stretch of game segments, nor am I claiming that in his absence we could not have fared the same or better.

I agree that it is possible that a different player, or new player could have helped us win the same games, or even more games. What I'm saying is that the guy that we did pick up did help us win some important games down the stretch. He wasn't a waste of space, and as a bottom six forward he was actually good for us in general, and key for us in several games.

That's the beauty of a deadline pick up, we can't extrapolate that play over a season because these guys are fired up playing for a new squad heading into the playoffs, coming from a dead in the water team slated to miss the dance. All we really needed, and what we wanted when we traded for him, was a boost down the stretch and into the playoffs. Burrows insisted on some term for his family's stability in order to be that guy, and PD obviously felt it was worth it. We didn't get as far as we all would like, but we got further than we could ever have hoped, and that's a win, even if the following season saw Burrows, and the team as a whole, lay an egg.

It is possible that all kinds of alternate scenarios could have occurred, but the one we chose was actually pretty good, and going back and wishing we had done different could very likely end up with us doing worse instead of better. You can't subtract Burrows' performance and simply claim that it would have been replaced by X, you can only hope that it would be, so I guess the question ends up being is it worth not having our excellent run for the chance at another player having performed as good or better? Does any of this guarantee a better playoffs? If not, then why are we considering losing the run we had to see what's inside the mystery box.

because the better playoffs resulted in nothing other than a pat on the back to the conference final. i forgot they gave out awards for winning 2 playoff series.

a mystery box is undoubtedly better than what we have now which is what matters because looking at the past losing seasons as a accomplishment is stupid

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

because the better playoffs resulted in nothing other than a pat on the back to the conference final. i forgot they gave out awards for winning 2 playoff series.

a mystery box is undoubtedly better than what we have now which is what matters because looking at the past losing seasons as a accomplishment is stupid

Why can’t you just enjoy a season and a ride? Winning the cup isn’t some easy feat and a lot has to go right and there’s always a little luck involved.

What you’re saying is we should never talk about the Sens past because each season we had in franchise history is considered a losing season? That’s so dumb.

 

[BatherSeason]

Leave it to this board to downplay or minimize the 2 primary assists on OT winners against the Rangers. Sorry for you all , but we don't beat the Rangers without him. Try to sleep tonight.

I thought that we didn't beat the Rangers without Chris Neil standing up to Tanner Glass?

 

[Langdon Alger]

Leave it to this board to downplay or minimize the 2 primary assists on OT winners against the Rangers. Sorry for you all , but we don't beat the Rangers without him. Try to sleep tonight.

Karlsson deserves more credit than Burrows for Turris’ winner against the Rangers. Burrows really didn’t have a huge impact in the series overall.

 

[operasen]

Playoffs are done. We overachieved and lucked in to a range of teams with huge injury issues. We are not full value for the "one goal away" discussion.

I look at Burrows this year (and next). He adds nothing and frankly takes up the space for some prospect who could grow. Giving up Dahlen was enough. He was a 42nd pick and has a bright future. Burrows does not. Much rather we kept Dahlen. Too late now.

 

[coladin]

Why can’t you just enjoy a season and a ride? Winning the cup isn’t some easy feat and a lot has to go right and there’s always a little luck involved.

What you’re saying is we should never talk about the Sens past because each season we had in franchise history is considered a losing season? That’s so dumb.

How does he even get out of bed in the morning...such negativity. That was incredible and the memories will last a lifetime.

 

[coladin]

Karlsson deserves more credit than Burrows for Turris’ winner against the Rangers. Burrows really didn’t have a huge impact in the series overall.

Exactly. Just like I said.