Should Bob Murray be fired?

[liquiduck]

Saying GM made mistakes but find me one that hasn't, and then follow it up with "lack of vision and inability to cultivate an identity" makes little or no sense. Lack of vision and inability to cultivate an identity is an offense that should fire you immediately, it's not some minor mistake. The first thing GM does when he assumes position of GM is laying out a long-term vision for a team and what kind of an identity the team will have.

I don't believe he lacks vision, and think vision (mandated by the state of ownership) for this team has been fulfilled in it's entirety. "Minor" prfoblem being the perception of said vision though, mostly due to game 7 fiasco's and somewhat to do with roster changes mistakes which are further emphasized by the lack of freedom (something very few GM's in the game have) to take neccessary steps to correct those roster mistakes. And there were also some statements by GM that contradict the actual vision for this team.

Im not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that ownership is dictating play style of the team, or are you saying BM's tendency to try and mimick the previous cup winner every damn year doesn't indicate a lack of vision?

You're free to feel however you want about the severity of an offense like that. For me it's not necessarily a deal breaker, if the team is still winning. It's been increasingly annoying, but he's been getting away with it because Bob does a great job accumulating good players. I don't think it's going to cost him his job, but it does separate him from the Yzermans of he NHL world. He also tends to be a bit reactionary in some of the choices he makes. Like the Brewer trade and Bryz signing.

I do appreciate his caution most of the time when dealing with assets, and his ability to stare down young players in RFA. The ducks have also been above average on the draft floor under his watch.


Overall, I'm fine with him as a GM. I trust him not to go out and do something completely stupid tomorrow, but he's not without his problems.

 

[mightyquack]

Why the hell are Buffalo fans obsessed with us now? If we got CI through a playoff draft, I have to presume that we got stuck with all these Sabres fans due to relegation.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

Im not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that ownership is dictating play style of the team, or are you saying BM's tendency to try and mimick the previous cup winner every damn year doesn't indicate a lack of vision?

You're free to feel however you want about the severity of an offense like that. For me it's not necessarily a deal breaker, if the team is still winning. It's been increasingly annoying, but he's been getting away with it because Bob does a great job accumulating good players. I don't think it's going to cost him his job, but it does separate him from the Yzermans of he NHL world. He also tends to be a bit reactionary in some of the choices he makes. Like the Brewer trade and Bryz signing.

I do appreciate his caution most of the time when dealing with assets, and his ability to stare down young players in RFA. The ducks have also been above average on the draft floor under his watch.


Overall, I'm fine with him as a GM. I trust him not to go out and do something completely stupid tomorrow, but he's not without his problems.

We're obviously not defining vision the same way. I was thinking of a vision as in how to achieve a goal. Contending teams have a goal to win a Stanley Cup, and how to achieve that (vision). Ducks have a goal to stay relevant (make playoffs) while staying under a cap, to which vision was adjusted.

"Inability to cultivate an identity" as in mimicking other teams is I think overstated. Everyone does it (until they win the Cup).

 

[Vipers31]

The Holland trade? What? He was an unproven forward that was overtaken by a superior player on the depth chart. He wasn't going to bring back any sort of impact asset.

The Holland trade was an absolute steal, really. Getting a chance at a pick as high as 2nd, and putting him into a situation where that condition could actually be met, was perfect. Guys like him are usually for free on the waiver wire. He himself might be just that in a few months.

 

[Vipers31]

"Inability to cultivate an identity" as in mimicking other teams is I think overstated. Everyone does it (until they win the Cup).

This. Totally this.

 

[Duck Off]

The Holland trade? What? He was an unproven forward that was overtaken by a superior player on the depth chart. He wasn't going to bring back any sort of impact asset.

IMO, one of Murray's weaknesses is knowing when to trade future assets (picks and prospects). I don't want him to necessarily turn into a GM that trades every 1st round pick every deadline, but I think he needs to be better at knowing when it's time to trade an asset. The Holland trade is an example of this. We got decent value out of Holland because his stock had plummeted. We lucked into their former GM being dumb enough to allow the condition to be met which turned the pick into a 2nd rounder. Ideally, Murray and co identify which of the prospects is most expendable and trade them before their value depletes. Palmieri is another example of him not knowing when to trade his assets for. In this case, I'd say it's just as much to know what to trade Palmieri for. There were zero reasons to trade Palms for what he was moved for.

 

[Opak]

We're obviously not defining vision the same way. I was thinking of a vision as in how to achieve a goal. Contending teams have a goal to win a Stanley Cup, and how to achieve that (vision). Ducks have a goal to stay relevant (make playoffs) while staying under a cap, to which vision was adjusted.

"Inability to cultivate an identity" as in mimicking other teams is I think overstated. Everyone does it (until they win the Cup).

I don't believe that's true. The important thing for each end every team is to figure out what works for them, mindlessly/aimlessly copying other teams' moves in order to replicate their success is just asking for trouble. Sure, at times you have to take a look at what the others are doing, but "benchmarking" the recent cup-winning team just isn't the way to build a great roster.

Chicago's plan is to rely on their expensive core players, while performing annual cap gymnastics and supplementing their roster with cheaper talent (wherever they can find it). LA's cup winning teams were known for their size, physicality and excellent defensive play. Tampa is a great example of a classic "draft and develop" -organization. JR made a couple of great trades in Pittsburgh, and eventually was able to build a winning roster on the fly. There are many ways to success, we can't just bounce around from one winning management philosophy to another, we have to figure out what works for us.

In that sense, criticizing Bob for a "lack of vision" is completely valid, as he hasn't exactly displayed an ability to think for himself, at least not after the Kings series two years ago. But all of this is just my opinion, you have the right to have a different one.

 

[OCSportsfan]

IMO, one of Murray's weaknesses is knowing when to trade future assets (picks and prospects). I don't want him to necessarily turn into a GM that trades every 1st round pick every deadline, but I think he needs to be better at knowing when it's time to trade an asset. The Holland trade is an example of this. We got decent value out of Holland because his stock had plummeted. We lucked into their former GM being dumb enough to allow the condition to be met which turned the pick into a 2nd rounder. Ideally, Murray and co identify which of the prospects is most expendable and trade them before their value depletes. Palmieri is another example of him not knowing when to trade his assets for. In this case, I'd say it's just as much to know what to trade Palmieri for. There were zero reasons to trade Palms for what he was moved for.

Palmieri was moved because Silf outplayed him. Why do people keep forgetting this. They were not going to keep Palmieri as a third line/4th line winger since he was due a big raise in a year and they would have to pay him like a top 6. Silf grabbed that 2nd line spot to play with Kesler at the time due to his playoff performance. Now the team looks different, and we could use him, but at the time he had to make a decision. I was a huge Palmieri fan and was still okay with the trade.

As far as BM, we do not know what trades dont happen, so although you can judge him on the results, no one knows what discussions were being done behind the scenes.

He could have offered Perron the same deal and Perron wanted to go back to ST. Louis. Maybe he offered edmonton a package for Hall (say Vatanen and both our firsts) and they chose Larsen. I agree it is not a great offseason so far, but the hate for him is unbelievable.

 

[Getzmonster]

Palmieri was moved because Silf outplayed him. Why do people keep forgetting this. They were not going to keep Palmieri as a third line/4th line winger since he was due a big raise in a year. Silf grabbed that 2nd line spot to play with Kesler at the time due to his playoff performance. Now the team looks different, and we could use him, but at the time he had to make a decision. I was a huge Palmieri fan and was still okay with the trade.

As far as BM, we do not know what trades dont happen, so although you can judge him on the results, no one knows what discussions were being done behind the scenes.

He could have offered Perron the same deal and Perron wanted to go back to ST. Louis. Maybe he offered edmonton a package for Hall (say Vatanen and both our firsts) and they chose Larsen. I agree it is not a great offseason so far, but the hate for him is unbelievable.

What is the logic behind this statement? I still don't see it.

 

[OCSportsfan]

What is the logic behind this statement? I still don't see it.

They were not going to have Palmieri play third/4th line and have to pay him like a top 6 player. Adjusted the OP

 

[Mr Rogers]

This summer reminds me of the one BOB had in 2009. He's just signing a whole bunch of debris that could potentially fill holes. I know it's early July, but I'm very, very worried about what the roster is gonna look like at this point.

 

[Opak]

They were not going to have Palmieri play third/4th line and have to pay him like a top 6 player

What on earth are you talking about? Palmieri was still under contract for the last season, we could've kept him and had him play "1RW" with Getzlaf, instead of signing Chris ****ing Stewart.

Perron - Getzlaf - Palmieri would've been a great "first line" for us. There was absolutely no reason to trade Palmieri at that time and for that return, versus trading his RFA rights to someone, IF he indeed was asking for too much money for his next contract. Bob ****ed up big time with KP, just admit it.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

They were not going to have Palmieri play third/4th line and have to pay him like a top 6 player

Sure. Much better to sign a bunch of bottom six wingers and play them in the top six. As soon as Bruce split the twins, we could have used Palms. Instead we got the listless loiterer Stewart, ineffective something-or-other Santorelli, poor man's Marchant Hagelin, and whatever other cheap garbage I can't remember. Problem wasn't fixed until Perron came aboard. Perron, a top six winger who was paid like one.

 

[Duck Off]

Palmieri was moved because Silf outplayed him. Why do people keep forgetting this. They were not going to keep Palmieri as a third line/4th line winger since he was due a big raise in a year. Silf grabbed that 2nd line spot to play with Kesler at the time due to his playoff performance. Now the team looks different, and we could use him, but at the time he had to make a decision. I was a huge Palmieri fan and was still okay with the trade.

The bold makes no sense at all.

Going into camp Bruce was very open about breaking up Perry and Getzlaf for the upcoming season. He wanted to spread the scoring out. Right then and there, that opened up a spot for RW. If you're saying that he didn't know Bruce wanted to do that, well that's still on Murray. Another issue I have of Murray is that he doesn't work closely enough with his coach, or at least didn't before this year. Based on the Boll move, that could be changing, which is a good sign.

I was fine with trading Palmieri, but as part of a package for an upgrade. Not for something we didn't need. Murray was well aware that Beleskey could leave in free agency. It was a career year, but aside from Perry, Beleskey was the best finisher on the team. Palmieri was frustrating, but he could finish. He proceeds to trade Palmieri for something we didn't need, and then signs Hagelin, who was the opposite of the player type we needed. That's a lack of vision.

As far as BM, we do not know what trades dont happen, so although you can judge him on the results, no one knows what discussions were being done behind the scenes.

He could have offered Perron the same deal and Perron wanted to go back to ST. Louis. Maybe he offered edmonton a package for Hall (say Vatanen and both our firsts) and they chose Larsen. I agree it is not a great offseason so far, but the hate for him is unbelievable.

You're right, he very well could have offered Perron the same deal, and Perron could have chosen St.Louis instead. However, according to Stephens, Murray could not offer Perron the money he got from St.Louis, which IMO, is a freaking joke. Perron was fantastic for this team when he was healthy. We've been searching for a winger not named Perry that had chemistry with Getzlaf for years. We found him, but since he's not left handed, he's not a priority. That's a joke.

I don't hate Murray. I think the idea that he shouldn't be on the hot seat is wrong. For some reason, it's okay to blame Bruce and the players for our shortcomings, but Murray's mistakes are ignored by many. Murray has now gone through 2 coaches (although he hired the first one again...), and has had several young players are bargain contracts, yet we appear no closer to a cup than we were a few years ago. Therefore, it's not just this off-season that I'm pissed about. If anything, last off-season is where he blew it. It's still too early to judge him on this off-season, but I think not being able/willing to offer Perron 3.7 million is a very bad start. I like the Raymond signing. I think the Boll signing is very poor, when you consider what he traded Maroon for, but there is still time; so I will hold off final judgment until September. He appears to have backed himself into a wall though.

 

[Duck Off]

They were not going to have Palmieri play third/4th line and have to pay him like a top 6 player. Adjusted the OP

You realize that he would have been under contract last season right? I don't follow your logic here. If he performed like he did last year here, then yes, he'd justify a raise. However, your logic makes no sense.

 

[OCSportsfan]

What on earth are you talking about? Palmieri was still under contract for the last season, we could've kept him and had him play "1RW" with Getzlaf, instead of signing Chris ****ing Stewart.

Perron - Getzlaf - Palmieri would've been a great "first line" for us. There was absolutely no reason to trade Palmieri at that time and for that return, versus trading his RFA rights to someone, IF he indeed was asking for too much money for his next contract. Bob ****ed up big time with KP, just admit it.

At the time of the trade, Perry and Silf were the top two right wings. They tried Palmieri at LW with the twins and BB decided not to keep him there, hence he was playing on the third/fourth line during the playoffs.

Yes he was under contract, but his game was not set up to be a third/fourth line player. Why keep him when you dont have a place for him, even if he is under contract. That was a BB decision not to play him in a top 6 role, not BM. They traded him and signed a player that they thought could have played with the twins. Pretty simple actually. And yes, it now looks like a terrible idea, but I blame BB more than BM for Palmieri.

He should have kept him on the top line, I thought he looked good with the twins.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

I don't believe that's true. The important thing for each end every team is to figure out what works for them, mindlessly/aimlessly copying other teams' moves in order to replicate their success is just asking for trouble. Sure, at times you have to take a look at what the others are doing, but "benchmarking" the recent cup-winning team just isn't the way to build a great roster.

Chicago's plan is to rely on their expensive core players, while performing annual cap gymnastics and supplementing their roster with cheaper talent (wherever they can find it). LA's cup winning teams were known for their size, physicality and excellent defensive play. Tampa is a great example of a classic "draft and develop" -organization. JR made a couple of great trades in Pittsburgh, and eventually was able to build a winning roster on the fly. There are many ways to success, we can't just bounce around from one winning management philosophy to another, we have to figure out what works for us.

In that sense, criticizing Bob for a "lack of vision" is completely valid, as he hasn't exactly displayed an ability to think for himself, at least not after the Kings series two years ago. But all of this is just my opinion, you have the right to have a different one.

This team's main identity has not changed past 3-4 seasons. Relying on Getz, Perry and later Kesler, heavy on the cycle and heavy on forecheck. That has been a constant. BM has tried to adjust to cover recent winner(s) (who else are you going to cover and copy anyway? Leafs?) and at times overdid it (I criticized him plenty, especially before this past season), but the main identity of the team has not changed much, if at all.

Chicago has: Norris defender, Seabrook, selke C and perhaps the most skilled scoring winger in the game. That doesn't mean they didn't make adjustments, or didn't try to have neccessary players to combat other teams strengths. Everyone makes adjustments according to league trends and past winners, either through signings, trades or drafting certain players. There was an article on THN asking a question whether will Pens winning the cup spawn copycats league wide, and for a reason.

 

[Getzmonster]

They were not going to have Palmieri play third/4th line and have to pay him like a top 6 player. Adjusted the OP

Don't mean to dogpile on you after the other responses, but just to be clear he would have still been under his first cheap RFA contract through all of last season. His big raise wouldn't have forced the issue until right now. That's why I don't understand the statement that he couldn't have played in a depth scoring role because he was due for a raise a year down the road. Then again, that was the only explanation Murray offered, so maybe there is some aspect that I'm missing.

[edit] I see you further explained above. And I can see the logic in the argument that regardless of his contract, he had played himself out of a logical role on the team. I would disagree, but that idea does at least make more sense than using his next RFA contract (a year away from being a factor) as the main motivation to sell him off for picks.

 

[Artorius Horus T]

And now Palmieri plays for Devils and next season his linemates
are going to be Hall (LW) Henrique (C) all 3 potential 40 goal scorers.

Both Palmieri&Henrique scored 30 goals last season,
now gets to play with Hall,only fool would say that
Palmieri nor Henrique wont improve from their last season.

Ducks and Murray's one of the worst trade's was Palmieri trade.

You guys are in deep **** with your team,because of Murray.

 

[Duck Off]

At the time of the trade, Perry and Silf were the top two right wings. They tried Palmieri at LW with the twins and BB decided not to keep him there, hence he was playing on the third/fourth line during the playoffs.

Yes he was under contract, but his game was not set up to be a third/fourth line player. Why keep him when you dont have a place for him, even if he is under contract. That was a BB decision not to play him in a top 6 role, not BM. They traded him and signed a player that they thought could have played with the twins. Pretty simple actually. And yes, it now looks like a terrible idea, but I blame BB more than BM for Palmieri.

He should have kept him on the top line, I thought he looked good with the twins.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

The time of the trade was in the off-season when Bruce and Bob were reshaping the roster. Well, Bob was, since it's pretty clear he didn't get much input from Bruce.

The decision was made before camp to break up Perry and Getzlaf, so they most certainly did not sign a player to play with the twins. They signed a player for the vacant RW position that was open due to trading Palmieri.

Bruce moved Palmieri off the top line because he's a natural RW and better suited for that spot. The decision to move Palmieri would make a little more sense if they did planned on keeping Getz-Pery and Kesler-Silf together. That's why I was open to trading Palmieri as well. As part of a package that brought us a better winger, who was a better fit. However, there was no reason to trade him for futures, period.

 

[Paul4587]

They were not going to have Palmieri play third/4th line and have to pay him like a top 6 player. Adjusted the OP

But there was a spot open on the 1st line RW. It got handed to Chris Stewart who was far worse and more expensive.

 

[Exit Dose]

Sure. Much better to sign a bunch of bottom six wingers and play them in the top six. As soon as Bruce split the twins, we could have used Palms. Instead we got the listless loiterer Stewart, ineffective something-or-other Santorelli, poor man's Marchant Hagelin, and whatever other cheap garbage I can't remember. Problem wasn't fixed until Perron came aboard. Perron, a top six winger who was paid like one.

Yep. And even if we couldn't keep him the following summer, we'd likely have gotten more from an offersheet or by trading his rights in the aftermath of his contract year. It was just a bad trade, plain and simple.

 

[OCSportsfan]

But there was a spot open on the 1st line RW. It got handed to Chris Stewart who was far worse and more expensive.

When they started training camp maybe, but I dont think that was the plan at the time of the trade. Also, I always thought they brought in Stewart to play LW with the twins.

I think if BM had it over, knowing what BB was going to try, he would have kept him and dealt him at the draft this year as a RFA. Having KP was a much better option as it turned out once they split the twins.

Unfortunately, the wheels were probably in motion.

 

[Duck Off]

When they started training camp maybe, but I dont think that was the plan at the time of the trade. Also, I always thought they brought in Stewart to play LW with the twins.

I think if BM had it over, knowing what BB was going to try, he would have kept him and dealt him at the draft this year as a RFA. Having KP was a much better option as it turned out once they split the twins.

Unfortunately, the wheels were probably in motion.

If they've gone into camp thinking one thing, it was decided before then. If Murray didn't know, than maybe he should get more input from his coach. Either way you spin it, that's on Murray.

Stewart is a RW, not a LW.

Obviously BM would change the way he handled that trade if he could. It's one thing to say Bruce shares the blame on this trade (I don't see it that way, but oh well), but it's comical to blame him more than Murray for this one. Bruce already lost his job; now we're blaming him for bad trades too?

 

[Nordic*]

Name one GM in the NHL who is clearly worse than Murray.

Just one.