The Official Pierre "high five" Dorion Thread | Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,140
30,351
Dorion's good moves as GM:

- Hiring Guy Boucher and Marc Crawford
- 4-year contract extension for Hoffman
- Stalberg for a 3rd round pick
- Acquisition of and then new 3-year contract for Mike Condon
- Bringing Tom Pyatt over from Europe
- Tommy Wingels for two AHL scrubs and a 7th round pick
- Signing Chris Kelly (played all 82 games and was a reasonable stop-gap as a 4th line center)

Dorion's still-to-be-determined moves as GM:

- Zibanejad plus a 2nd round pick for Brassard plus a 5th round pick
- Trading up to draft Logan Brown in 2016
- 4-year contract extension for Zach Smith
- Trading Lazar for a scrub and a 2nd round pick (used on Alex Formenton)
- Burning year one of ELC for Colin White with late season call-up and one playoff game

Dorion's bad moves as GM:

- Dahlen for Burrows
- Loss of Methot in the expansion draft for nothing

Agreed, but I'd move signing Kelly to the list of bad moves, or at the very least questionable. I really feel Kelly was a large part of the issue with our 4th line, but it's hard to determine the impact he made via his leadership and other intangibles (like coaching the team on faceoffs during the playoffs. Bergeron went from 60% in the reg season down to 54% against us in the playoffs, his worst playoff faceoff performance of his career, and lower than any reg season % aside from his rookie year.
 

BatherSeason

Registered User
Jun 16, 2009
6,640
3,702
Gatineau
Dorion's good moves as GM:

- Hiring Guy Boucher and Marc Crawford
- 4-year contract extension for Hoffman
- Stalberg for a 3rd round pick
- Acquisition of and then new 3-year contract for Mike Condon
- Bringing Tom Pyatt over from Europe
- Tommy Wingels for two AHL scrubs and a 7th round pick
- Signing Chris Kelly (played all 82 games and was a reasonable stop-gap as a 4th line center)

Dorion's still-to-be-determined moves as GM:

- Zibanejad plus a 2nd round pick for Brassard plus a 5th round pick
- Trading up to draft Logan Brown in 2016
- 4-year contract extension for Zach Smith
- Trading Lazar for a scrub and a 2nd round pick (used on Alex Formenton)
- Burning year one of ELC for Colin White with late season call-up and one playoff game

Dorion's bad moves as GM:

- Dahlen for Burrows
- Loss of Methot in the expansion draft for nothing

Every one of the good moves you have listed are very debatable. Were they good moves?

The only one that is non-debatable is the Boucher/Crawford hiring.

Signing Hoffman - That deal had to get done. Whether it was Dorion, Bryan Murray, or who ever, he needed to be signed, plus he was a RFA who scored 30 goals. Not sure this is classified as a "good move", more like a "no-brainer".

Trading for Wingels/Stalberg - Stalberg was playing hurt for a good chunk of the playoffs, while Wingels was really ineffective. Dorion addressed the depth on this team, which was also a "no-brainer", but we didn't win the cup and neither guy has resigned with the Sens, so really tough to classify this as a good move.

Tom Pyatt - the coach wanted Pyatt, not Dorion. Dorion got his coach what he wanted. How effective is Tom Pyatt really?

Mike Condon - I guess this organization really didn't learn from their Andrew Hammond mistake in rewarding a backup goalie for a nice little run. Condon's career Save % is worse than Hammonds and now we are paying a high price for 3 years. How did the 3-year deal work out for Hammond and the Ottawa Senators?

Chris Kelly - not a good move at all. Other than being a warm body, Phil Varone probably could have given us more.

These are just my opinions. Everyone has a different opinion and philosophy when building a hockey club. Acquiring 3 & 4 line depth players are not what makes a GM a solid GM. Being able to manage the cap and your assets while icing a competitive team is what does that.
 

YouGotAStuGoing

Registered User
Mar 26, 2010
19,339
4,913
Ottawa, Ontario
Every one of the good moves you have listed are very debatable. Were they good moves?

The only one that is non-debatable is the Boucher/Crawford hiring.

Signing Hoffman - That deal had to get done. Whether it was Dorion, Bryan Murray, or who ever, he needed to be signed, plus he was a RFA who scored 30 goals. Not sure this is classified as a "good move", more like a "no-brainer".

Trading for Wingels/Stalberg - Stalberg was playing hurt for a good chunk of the playoffs, while Wingels was really ineffective. Dorion addressed the depth on this team, which was also a "no-brainer", but we didn't win the cup and neither guy has resigned with the Sens, so really tough to classify this as a good move.

Tom Pyatt - the coach wanted Pyatt, not Dorion. Dorion got his coach what he wanted. How effective is Tom Pyatt really?

Mike Condon - I guess this organization really didn't learn from their Andrew Hammond mistake in rewarding a backup goalie for a nice little run. Condon's career Save % is worse than Hammonds and now we are paying a high price for 3 years. How did the 3-year deal work out for Hammond and the Ottawa Senators?

Chris Kelly - not a good move at all. Other than being a warm body, Phil Varone probably could have given us more.

Just playing devil's advocate here. No need to jump down my throat.
You can't argue that you're playing devil's advocate when your entire posting history seems to be bashing Dorion, though.

To the 'common sense' moves, they're still good. One doesn't preclude the other. What's next, winning a round in the playoffs isn't commendable because it's a no-brainer?

RE: Wingels, he was acquired on the cheap and provided some depth that served us well when injuries struck, but was redundant and unneeded next season. Low cost for effective stop-gap duty seems like a win to me. With Stalberg, I'll agree that it's highly dependent on whether he re-signs... but in the meantime, playing hurt or not, he added some much needed urgency to the forecheck and was a useful piece in the playoffs even if he didn't light up the box score.

To Pyatt, every coach wants certain pieces. Not every GM can just go out and get them. Not that simple. Really seems like you're trying to hand-wave away a solid signing because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Condon has a proven history of getting better but slowing down if he's overworked. Hammond had the one year aberration mixed in with several years of nondescript and sometimes horrible play in the AHL. Different circumstances. I can understand why this is polarizing, but I feel much more confident having Condon than Hammond and I'm sure I'm not alone there.

Kelly: agree. I can't possibly see this as an effective signing or a good move.
 
Last edited:

BonkTastic

ಠ_ಠ
Nov 9, 2010
30,901
10,092
Parts Unknown
Kelly: agree. I can't possibly see this as an effective signing or a good move.

The Kelly signing was just about the most neutral roster move you could make.

Didn't really hurt the team, didn't help the team. Was just a warm body, and was immediately scratched once the playoffs started when we were suddenly flooded with extra players (Wingels/Stalberg/Burrows from trades, and MacArthur surprisingly returning from injury).
 

Vesa Awesaka

#KeepTheSenate
Jul 4, 2013
18,236
25
Dorion's good moves as GM:

- Hiring Guy Boucher and Marc Crawford
- 4-year contract extension for Hoffman
- Stalberg for a 3rd round pick
- Acquisition of and then new 3-year contract for Mike Condon
- Bringing Tom Pyatt over from Europe
- Tommy Wingels for two AHL scrubs and a 7th round pick
- Signing Chris Kelly (played all 82 games and was a reasonable stop-gap as a 4th line center)

Dorion's still-to-be-determined moves as GM:

- Zibanejad plus a 2nd round pick for Brassard plus a 5th round pick
- Trading up to draft Logan Brown in 2016
- 4-year contract extension for Zach Smith
- Trading Lazar for a scrub and a 2nd round pick (used on Alex Formenton)
- Burning year one of ELC for Colin White with late season call-up and one playoff game

Dorion's bad moves as GM:

- Dahlen for Burrows
- Loss of Methot in the expansion draft for nothing

I feel like good is to strong a word for many of the positive ones you listed. Good to me is winning a trade. Good to me is signing a player to a team friendly contract below value. A lot of the moves look like acquiringt assets for above value/ inconsequential moves.

Maybe its more i just have trouble getting exciting about many of the moves or seeing how they benefit a team that should be made to compete long term
 
Last edited:

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,140
30,351
Every one of the good moves you have listed are very debatable. Were they good moves?

The only one that is non-debatable is the Boucher/Crawford hiring.

Signing Hoffman - That deal had to get done. Whether it was Dorion, Bryan Murray, or who ever, he needed to be signed, plus he was a RFA who scored 30 goals. Not sure this is classified as a "good move", more like a "no-brainer".

Sure, re-signing Hoffman was a no-brainer (other option is trading him which also could have been good depending on the trade) but I personally feel that Hoffman's contract is a pretty team friendly one. It certainly wasn't a bad move by any stretch.

Trading for Wingels/Stalberg - Stalberg was playing hurt for a good chunk of the playoffs, while Wingels was really ineffective. Dorion addressed the depth on this team, which was also a "no-brainer", but we didn't win the cup and neither guy has resigned with the Sens, so really tough to classify this as a good move.

Wingels was acquired for scraps, and helped in the playoff drive, as did Stalberg. I really hope we re-sign stalberg, but am not too torn up if we don't. At the very least, I'd call these neutral moves, but given the context of our team at the time of the moves, I personally think they were solid moves.

Tom Pyatt - the coach wanted Pyatt, not Dorion. Dorion got his coach what he wanted. How effective is Tom Pyatt really?

The coach apparently wanted Burrows, do we blame Boucher or Dorion for that trade? Pyatt was a pretty big part of our shutdown line. Not everything in hockey is about points...

Mike Condon - I guess this organization really didn't learn from their Andrew Hammond mistake in rewarding a backup goalie for a nice little run. Condon's career Save % is worse than Hammonds and now we are paying a high price for 3 years. How did the 3-year deal work out for Hammond and the Ottawa Senators?

If you can't see the difference between Hammond and Condon, I don't know what to tell you. Condon played great until the tail end of his franchise record consecutive start streak. The guy wore out, and it affected his numbers. Similar thing happened in Mtl the year prior. One thing is for sure, a 5th round pick to acquire him likely saved the season. Time will tell if the extension was warranted

Chris Kelly - not a good move at all. Other than being a warm body, Phil Varone probably could have given us more.

Not sure about Varone, but not a fan of what Kelly brought on the ice. So I agree there.

These are just my opinions. Everyone has a different opinion and philosophy when building a hockey club. Acquiring 3 & 4 line depth players are not what makes a GM a solid GM. Being able to manage the cap and your assets while icing a competitive team is what does that.

It's funny, because it was, at least in my opinion, the 4th line that was this teams biggest weakness for the vast majority of the season. Adding Wingels, Stalberg, and Burrows helped turn our depth players into more of a strength after the deadline, though late season injuries to Ryan Smith Stone and Burrows really tested that depth (not to mention Karlsson, Ceci, and Methot).

You can certainly argue that we should have identified the 4th line as a weakness before the season started, but I think losing MacArthur to a concussion after locking in the roster made it tough to address thanks to budget and missing UFA options.
 

YouGotAStuGoing

Registered User
Mar 26, 2010
19,339
4,913
Ottawa, Ontario
The Kelly signing was just about the most neutral roster move you could make.

Didn't really hurt the team, didn't help the team. Was just a warm body, and was immediately scratched once the playoffs started when we were suddenly flooded with extra players (Wingels/Stalberg/Burrows from trades, and MacArthur surprisingly returning from injury).

Oh, yeah. I don't think he actively hurt the team. But I can understand why there'd be objections to him being in the 'good move' category.
 

BatherSeason

Registered User
Jun 16, 2009
6,640
3,702
Gatineau
You can't argue that you're playing devil's advocate when your entire posting history seems to be bashing Dorion, though.

To the 'common sense' moves, they're still good. One doesn't preclude the other. What's next, winning a round in the playoffs isn't commendable because it's a no-brainer?

RE: Wingels, he was acquired on the cheap and provided some depth that served us well when injuries struck, but was redundant and unneeded next season. Low cost for effective stop-gap duty seems like a win to me. With Stalberg, I'll agree that it's highly dependent on whether he re-signs... but in the meantime, playing hurt or not, he added some much needed urgency to the forecheck and was a useful piece in the playoffs even if he didn't light up the box score.

To Pyatt – every coach wants certain pieces. Not every GM can just go out and get them. Not that simple. Really seems like you're trying to hand-wave away a solid signing because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Condon has a proven history of getting better but slowing down if he's overworked. Hammond had the one year aberration mixed in with several years of nondescript and sometimes horrible play in the AHL. Different circumstances. I can understand why this is polarizing, but I feel much more confident having Condon than Hammond and I'm sure I'm not alone there.

Kelly: agree. I can't possibly see this as an effective signing or a good move.

This word "agenda" gets thrown around here way too often. I do not think Dorion is a good GM, that isn't my "agenda" that is my opinion. The argument I was making was that the moves listed aren't necessarily "good moves".

Is Condon better than Hammond, in my opinion, yes. Do I think it was absolutely necessary to sign Condon at that specific term and price, NO.

I tend to think Boucher did the recruiting of Pyatt. The fact that Dorion let him is a check mark to Dorion for sure, but Dorion does not deserve full credit on that.

Yes, depth was needed. Was it the right depth? Stalberg was for sure, if Dorion can resign Stalberg, then he definitely gets a pat on the back for that one.
 

HSF

Registered User
Sep 3, 2008
26,058
7,601
Dorion's good moves as GM:

- Hiring Guy Boucher and Marc Crawford
- 4-year contract extension for Hoffman
- Stalberg for a 3rd round pick
- Acquisition of and then new 3-year contract for Mike Condon
- Bringing Tom Pyatt over from Europe
- Tommy Wingels for two AHL scrubs and a 7th round pick
- Signing Chris Kelly (played all 82 games and was a reasonable stop-gap as a 4th line center)

Dorion's still-to-be-determined moves as GM:

- Zibanejad plus a 2nd round pick for Brassard plus a 5th round pick
- Trading up to draft Logan Brown in 2016
- 4-year contract extension for Zach Smith
- Trading Lazar for a scrub and a 2nd round pick (used on Alex Formenton)
- Burning year one of ELC for Colin White with late season call-up and one playoff game

Dorion's bad moves as GM:

- Dahlen for Burrows
- Loss of Methot in the expansion draft for nothing

People here were ******** bricks (not surprisingly) that we wouldn't be able to sign him

Burning a year and giving him some experience to get him to sign is a solid move
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,140
30,351
I think the Condon bullet should probably be split into two;

Acquiring Condon was very clearly a great move for the team, belongs in the good category.

Re-signing Condon for three years really is yet to be seen. If he becomes a starter for us, even as an average starter in a stop gap capacity, it's a very good move. If he's a good to great backup, it's probably pretty neutral, if he's a below average backup, it's a pretty bad move.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,140
30,351
People here were ******** bricks (not surprisingly) that we wouldn't be able to sign him

Burning a year and giving him some experience to get him to sign is a solid move

It`s a long term thing; he gets to RFA one year sooner, which could be good or bad. If he breaks out the year after signing his first RFA deal, it`s actually a positive that we burned off a year.
 

delchief

Registered User
Jun 10, 2006
920
0
I feel like good is to strong a word for many of the positive ones you listed. Good to me is winning a trade. Good to me is signing a player to a team friendly contract below value. A lot of the moves look like acquiring is to get assets for above value/ inconsequential moves.

Maybe its more i just have trouble getting exciting about many of the moves or seeing how they benefit a team that should be made to compete long term

Perhaps. I viewed "good moves" as ones that had a positive impact on the team which outweighed the cost of player acquisition. Kelly only cost them a small amount of money for 1 year and he was a better option than trying to wedge in one of their AHL players in that role. You could possibly argue that they could have got someone better in that role but for a budget team, I feel they did alright with the Kelly pick-up.

Ditto for Pyatt, Stalberg, and Wingels. Cost them nothing material. Condon helped save their season when Hammond was hurt and Andy was away from the team. Cost them very little and there weren't a lot of other inexpensive goalie options out there.

Probably the most impactful moves were his coaching hires and the Zibanejad trade. So good and TBD there. Everything else was minor stuff, relatively speaking. Even the loss of Methot, given the D prospects they have in the pipeline.
 

Ice-Tray

Registered User
Jan 31, 2006
16,288
8,100
Victoria
I think Dorian has done a great job so far. I really enjoy having a GM that goes out and get what we need in any given situation.

The Muckler years were super frustrating because we never went out and got even small pieces that we actually needed, and while Murray was better, he hesitated to make bold moves, and quick moves.

Dorian has assessed and made moves on the fly, fixing situations as the come up, and immediately. Of course it opens him up to criticism from segments of the fan base, but such fans will gnash their teeth no matter what.

I love the chemistry and passion that our team plays with, and for the first time in a long time it looks like every single player on the team has a defined role that fits their skill set. It's so much easier to buy in and win when each guy knows his job and everyone else's job, and each guy is able to do a raisable job fulfilling it.

I love the Burrows add, given that I'm in 'Nucks land I probably see him more than 90% of fans on here, but adding a guy like him to the roster for a reasonable cap hit, and a prospect in return was a no brainer for me. The small term is good in my mind, I don't actually think constant turn over is a good thing for a team. Dahlen may end up being a solid player in the NHL, and he may not, but i'm happy with the value as we have better prospects in the system, and even those guys are going to be fighting for spots.

Daheln can't play Burrows role on our team, and he is not going to bump a top 6 roster player on our squad in the short term let alone one of our top prospects. Arguing value is always a nebulous affair, but the reality is that he was worth what his return was. Until he returns more or less in another trade, or a GM comes out and says he was willing to give more or less, fan assessment of 'market value' is nothing but a reflection of their personal feelings of the player, which of course has no tangible connection to the actual NHL market.

In the end Dorian has built us team that had a deep run that was, in my opinion, a lot less about luck (man some of you LOVE to minimize achievement and accentuate perceived failures!) and a lot more about a system of play populated with the proper players in proper roles. We won games because we were good, because we believed that we could win, and because we had the talent to beat two other good teams, and push the champs to the limit.

Dorian put this team together, and personally I'm excited about the squad next year as I feel it will be even better. Thompson is a serious upgrade on Kelly, and by all accounts is excellent for his role. The hole opened up by Method will allow Claesson, Jaros, Englund, or Harpur to take a crack at the team. I liked Methot but find that any one of our top D prospects can fill his role, with potential to be better (especially Jaros).

Great job by the GM, coach, and players!
 

BatherSeason

Registered User
Jun 16, 2009
6,640
3,702
Gatineau
I think the Condon bullet should probably be split into two;

Acquiring Condon was very clearly a great move for the team, belongs in the good category.

Re-signing Condon for three years really is yet to be seen. If he becomes a starter for us, even as an average starter in a stop gap capacity, it's a very good move. If he's a good to great backup, it's probably pretty neutral, if he's a below average backup, it's a pretty bad move.

I would agree with this.
 

YouGotAStuGoing

Registered User
Mar 26, 2010
19,339
4,913
Ottawa, Ontario
This word "agenda" gets thrown around here way too often. I do not think Dorion is a good GM, that isn't my "agenda" that is my opinion. The argument I was making was that the moves listed aren't necessarily "good moves".

Is Condon better than Hammond, in my opinion, yes. Do I think it was absolutely necessary to sign Condon at that specific term and price, NO.

I tend to think Boucher did the recruiting of Pyatt. The fact that Dorion let him is a check mark to Dorion for sure, but Dorion does not deserve full credit on that.

Yes, depth was needed. Was it the right depth? Stalberg was for sure, if Dorion can resign Stalberg, then he definitely gets a pat on the back for that one.

If we're being pedantic, the definition of agenda is "the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group." Most of your posts come back to blaming Dorion for something or another, even if the initial post isn't directly related. That, my friend, is an agenda – although, in this thread, fair enough.

Condon had many teams gunning after him, one of which was strongly rumoured to be the Leafs. I can't fault management for wanting to lock him up and keep him away from a divisional rival. Did we overpay to keep him? Sure, maybe a bit. But it shores up our goaltending for the next few years with a goalie we know is capable of operating effectively within Boucher's framework. This is the first time I can remember where, if someone said "We're starting our backup," I don't automatically pencil it in my mind as a loss.

RE: Pyatt, then Dorion doesn't deserve full credit for the Burrows move either, since it's heavily assumed that he went out and got a player Boucher targeted. This very much cuts both ways and is why it's sometimes hard to separate a coach and GM's achievements.
 

delchief

Registered User
Jun 10, 2006
920
0
Updated based on good feedback on this thread....

Dorion's good moves as GM:

- Hiring Guy Boucher and Marc Crawford
- 4-year contract extension for Hoffman
- Stalberg for a 3rd round pick
- Acquisition of Mike Condon
- Bringing Tom Pyatt over from Europe
- Tommy Wingels for two AHL scrubs and a 7th round pick

Dorion's neutral moves as GM:

- Signing Chris Kelly (played all 82 games and was a reasonable stop-gap as a 4th line center)
- Re-signing Tom Pyatt to a 2-year deal for upcoming season

Dorion's still-to-be-determined moves as GM:

- Zibanejad plus a 2nd round pick for Brassard plus a 5th round pick
- Trading up to draft Logan Brown in 2016
- 4-year contract extension for Zach Smith
- Trading Lazar for a scrub and a 2nd round pick (used on Alex Formenton)
- Burning year one of ELC for Colin White with late season call-up and one playoff game
- Signing Condon to a 3-year contract extension
- Signing Nate Thompson to a 2-year deal (AAV $1.65 mil)

Dorion's bad moves as GM:

- Dahlen for Burrows
- Loss of Methot in the expansion draft for nothing
 
Last edited:

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,140
30,351
Pyatt was extended for 2 years, not one. Another yet to be seen move could be the Thompson signing.
 

delchief

Registered User
Jun 10, 2006
920
0
Pyatt was extended for 2 years, not one. Another yet to be seen move could be the Thompson signing.

Thanks. I edited the Tom Pyatt thing and I already included the Thompson signing in the update Good/Neutral/Bad list.
 

The Lewler

GOAT BUDGET AINEC
Jul 2, 2013
4,675
2,815
Eastern Ontario Badlands
But Dahlen guys. Dahlen.

We can't go a page without mentioning him.

I mean it wouldn't be unfair to say that we haven't even discussed that trade and his awesomeness enough.
 

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
- Zibanejad plus a 2nd round pick for Brassard plus a 5th round pick
- Trading up to draft Logan Brown in 2016
- 4-year contract extension for Zach Smith
- Trading Lazar for a scrub and a 2nd round pick (used on Alex Formenton)
- Burning year one of ELC for Colin White with late season call-up and one playoff game
- Signing Condon to a 3-year contract extension
- Signing Nate Thompson to a 2-year deal (AAV $1.65 mil)

Are we defining moves by waiting to see how they turn out, or are we defining them based on what we felt would be the right course of action with what we knew at the time?

If it's the latter...

- Zibanejad plus a 2nd round pick for Brassard plus a 5th round pick
Solid move. Zibanejad had consistency issues dating back to the Paul MacLean days. He had TONS of upside and there's an element to this trade where you know he could break out and make the Sens look foolish for pulling the trigger, but the reality is if Zib's lack of consistency was part of the reason for making this move even know he is younger the Sens probably only have 3 more years of him due to arbitration and not wanting to commit big money to a long term deal. We got what was supposed to be a comparable player with added vet experience and leadership skills locked down at 3.33M in real money. At the time, this was a solid move.

- Trading up to draft Logan Brown in 2016
A big topic on this forum is how badly this team needs a franchise center. Brown was labeled as a hugely risky boom/bust pick who had that potential. Aside from some people being embarrassed because they felt Dorion got hustled out of a 3rd round pick, go back and read the draft GDT, a good majority of posters here were hoping for Logan Brown. Now this pick could go sideways in the future, but again, at the time it should be considered a positive move.

- 4-year contract extension for Zach Smith
25 goals the year before, was red hot when put with Brassard and Stone. Looked like he could hit 20 again. Look at Matt Beleskey for an example of what that kind of forward might attract in terms of UFA offers. Solid contract extension at the time....

- Trading Lazar for a scrub and a 2nd round pick (used on Alex Formenton)
This is a two sided move. The team made a big mistake by keeping Lazar up past his waiver exemption GP limit, but at the same time he would have had to be waived at training camp this upcoming season if he didn't make the team. I firmly believe Lazar will become a solid bottom 6 forward and that Calgary got a great deal here, but at the same point this seems like the type of scenario where Lazar needed a change of scenery and wasn't going to make it on Guy Boucher's Senators. A negative for not keeping him in the AHL, neutral for the return.

- Burning year one of ELC for Colin White with late season call-up and one playoff game
Burning a year of a blue chip prospects ELC who no longer qualifies for an ELC slide is almost customary in the NHL. This is why the proposal of White taking an ATO was so baffling. I wouldn't consider this a big enough deal to be on the list as a positive or a negative because it's pretty much what happens in the NHL with these kind of prospects. Although, having White around the team and in the room in a deep run like the Senators had was probably a big positive.

- Signing Condon to a 3-year contract extension
There's some risk in the extension, and I don't think Condon has the upside to be anything more than an average starter. He also got a bigger contract than I expected. With that in mind, the only people who I'd imagine would call the extension a bad move are those who believe we could have magically had him for cheaper. There were multiple teams in on him including the Leafs. Craig Anderson will be 37 at the end of this season and Driedger/Hogberg have zero NHL experience up to this point. If people were polled under the premise of "Offer Condon a 3 year 2.6M contract, or else he walks away and we lose him" I think most people would take the contract. From that point, I'd qualify it as a good move.

- Signing Nate Thompson to a 2-year deal (AAV $1.65 mil)
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:


Not counting Nate Thompson, and how the Lazar situation unfolded, all of those above were very solid moves at the time. All have potential to unravel and end up bad. But it comes down to this, do we want to judge moves in hindsight, or judge them with what we knew at the time?

None are HOMERUNS. But if people need every move their GM makes to be a homerun, they are going to be perpetually dissatisfied.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->