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

[Hale The Villain]

My take on Dorion thus far:


Dorion's good moves:

Hiring Boucher - passed up the coach with the highest winning percentage in history that wanted to come coach in Ottawa, which I thought was insane, but it is looking like a great move. Full credit to Dorion on this one. Boucher looks like the perfect coach for this hockey team. Other than EK, Boucher's amazing system was the biggest reason for this team making it all the way to game 7 of the ECF.

5th for Condon - good move to replace Andy when he had to leave the team for personal reasons. Not exactly an amazing move, considering Condon was available for free not long before we traded for him, and we obviously needed a better backup than Hammond behind Andy at that time too, but it was a good move nonetheless. Having said this, re-signing him to 2.4M for 3 more years is too long a term for too much money.

7th for Wingels - solid acquisition of a good 4th line winger for next to nothing. Not exactly sure why Dorion followed it up with two more forward acquisitions in Burrows and Stalberg, which pushed Wingels and Dzingel out of the lineup a lot of nights, but that's a whole different thing.

Signing Pyatt - this might be more of a Boucher-acquisition, but signing Pyatt for no assets was a great move. Great bottom 6 winger who provides some much needed speed. Also glad we re-signed him to a fair deal.

Dorion's bad moves

Zibanejad + 2nd for Brassard - a trade which looked bad when it happened and has done nothing but look worse and worse since. Traded a bigger, faster, younger and better center for a smaller, slower, older and worse center, and gave up an extra high pick as a cherry on top. Absolutely awful asset management.

Dahlen for Burrows - one of the single worst instances of asset management I've seen in the NHL in some time. You have a 36YR old 3rd line winger with a NTC who's only willing to go to the Sens, the only team that was apparently willing to give him a multi-year extension, and Dorion gave up a 1st-round quality prospect in the biggest buyers market in decades. And the contract he gave Burrows is just awful. Wouldn't have taken him at 2.5M for 2YRs on July 1st, let alone giving up a good prospect for the privilege of signing him to that contract.

Lazar for 2nd - brings Lazar up from the AHL early, despite him having done nothing in his stint in Bingo to warrant a call-up, kills his waiver wire exemption and his development gets ruined by playing beside Kelly and Neil all season. After destroying his value around the league, then trades him for a mediocre return of a mid-2nd. Sold low on a former 1st round pick that showed promise.

3rd for Stalberg - refuses to do anything on July 1, neglecting to fill the bottom 6 with another body, and then is forced to fix the bottom 6 via trade. Overpays for a 4th line winger in a major buyers market, and now it looks like he's not even going to re-sign with us. I like Stalberg, but we gave up too much for him, and after trading for Burrows, his acquisition wasn't necessary. Just pushed Dzingel/Wingels out of the lineup.

Not replacing Methot in FA - losing Methot instead of paying Vegas's insane ransom was the right move, but not trading for him after expansion was a mistake. Dallas got him for a 2020 2nd, which is worth about a 2017 late 3rd/early 4th in my books. If not Methot by trade, we should have traded for Scandella, who went to a divisional rival in Buffalo for diddly squat. If not by trade, Dorion should have signed a replacement in Kulikov/Alzner/Hainsey. Losing Methot and not replacing him with the money opened up is a big step in the wrong direction for the team.

Signing Kelly - I originally liked this move, more because I thought that it would mean Lazar would go to the AHL where he belonged, rather than because I believed Kelly was a quality center. Still I thought he could perform decent as the 4th line C of this hockey team. Did okay for the first half of the year, but faded massively as the year went on, to the point where he became a liability later in the year and had to be replaced by Smith, who's much better as a winger than as a center. Signing Kelly for 1M when Vermette went for 0.75M more, and the likes of Moore, Sceviour and Marchessault all went for around 1M, is looking like a bad decision right now.

Signing Thompson - 1.65M is too much money for a 4th line center and 2YRs is too long of a term for a guy with major injury issues the past couple years. Would have been happy if Thompson was signed for around 1M for 1YR to be our 5th center/13th forward, but the deal Dorion signed him to is just terrible. Could see Paul and White outperforming him at camp, with no center spot available for them for another 2YRs, as a budget team can't scratch 1.65M. Just another case of Dorion getting taken to the cleaners on a contract for a guy Boucher likes.

Losing Puempel on waivers - now don't get me wrong, I don't think Puempel is a future top 6 sniper or anything like that, but he's a young forward that was on pace for 30+ goals and close to a PPG in the AHL last season, and he didn't get any kind of a shot with this hockey team. He played almost every minute of his 13 game stint beside Kelly and Neil. That's not a place where a finisher can succeed. On the Rangers Puempel continued to play on the 4th line, but he played beside Lindberg and Pirri mostly - two guys who are much more skilled than Kelly and Neil. In his time with the Rangers he put up 6G and 9P in 27 games, which put him on pace for 18G and 27P over 82 games. That's not nothing - it's close to the production Burrows had this year, and is better than the production Stalberg had this year. I still think he could carve out a decent career as an Eaves-type player - a grinder who can pot the odd goal due to a good shot, goal scoring instincts and a willigness to go to the net. Wasted asset.


The bad far outweighs the good.

 

[jbeck5]

Why am I struggling with this chart so much. I get the colours. I also get that being more to the right is better...but why do some teams have the blue and yellow both on one side while others have then on opposite sides.

And why are we neutral? Does it not say we lost a good players while adding bad players? Or am I reading this wrong.

Did Chicago add a bunch of good and get rid of a bunch of bad? Why are they ranked low?

I'm so confused.

A) Ottawa has a yellow line going to 0.8
B) Ottawa has a blue line going to -0.7
C) Chicago has a blue line going to 2.8
D) Chicago has a yellow line going to -4.3
E) Carolina has both colours leading to 4.1
F) Washington has both colours leading to -4.8

What does each letter mean?

 

[Joider]

Dorion's bad moves

Zibanejad + 2nd for Brassard - a trade which looked bad when it happened and has done nothing but look worse and worse since. Traded a bigger, faster, younger and better center for a smaller, slower, older and worse center, and gave up an extra high pick as a cherry on top. Absolutely awful asset management.

This is a fair point. However, Zibanejad didn't have an amazing season or anything and Brassard's bad season could be attributed to learning the new system. At this point, IMO, it looks bad but not awful. It could improve.

Dahlen for Burrows - one of the single worst instances of asset management I've seen in the NHL in some time. You have a 36YR old 3rd line winger with a NTC who's only willing to go to the Sens, the only team that was apparently willing to give him a multi-year extension, and Dorion gave up a 1st-round quality prospect in the biggest buyers market in decades. And the contract he gave Burrows is just awful. Wouldn't have taken him at 2.5M for 2YRs on July 1st, let alone giving up a good prospect for the privilege of signing him to that contract.

I again agree that this was a bad trade. Dahlen was too much to give to Burrows. However, Burrows played very well and helped our team significantly in the playoffs. It was a move that made us better now, instead of whenever Dahlen was ready. Also calling Burrows' contract awful is dumb. He's a player who can play 3rd or 4th line and offers tremendous depth. Sure two years is a bit bad, but if he plays just as well this season as he did last season, I wouldn't call it a bad thing. It is still a risk, however.

Lazar for 2nd - brings Lazar up from the AHL early, despite him having done nothing in his stint in Bingo to warrant a call-up, kills his waiver wire exemption and his development gets ruined by playing beside Kelly and Neil all season. After destroying his value around the league, then trades him for a mediocre return of a mid-2nd. Sold low on a former 1st round pick that showed promise.

You are objectively wrong on this point. Sure, we didn't do the best job on Lazar's growth but we brought him into the lineup when we needed him most, and he didn't produce whatsoever. It's evident that he's a bust, as of now, and that fact that we got a second round pick for him is insane considering his production. He is in no way worth a first, and he's taking a roster spot when he's playing horribly. I wouldn't be surprised if the player we got for him turns out to be a way better. The return wasn't mediocre; it was quite good.

3rd for Stalberg - refuses to do anything on July 1, neglecting to fill the bottom 6 with another body, and then is forced to fix the bottom 6 via trade. Overpays for a 4th line winger in a major buyers market, and now it looks like he's not even going to re-sign with us. I like Stalberg, but we gave up too much for him, and after trading for Burrows, his acquisition wasn't necessary. Just pushed Dzingel/Wingels out of the lineup.

Mate, have you heard of the concept of depth? You literally complained about playing Lazar with Neil and Kelly last post, then get angry when we fill up our bottom six with WAY better players. Of course, he's going to cost a 3rd; he's a very good bottom six player. Also, consider that this draft was dead so we probably could have got him for less if this was a decent draft year.

Not replacing Methot in FA - losing Methot instead of paying Vegas's insane ransom was the right move, but not trading for him after expansion was a mistake. Dallas got him for a 2020 2nd, which is worth about a 2017 late 3rd/early 4th in my books. If not Methot by trade, we should have traded for Scandella, who went to a divisional rival in Buffalo for diddly squat. If not by trade, Dorion should have signed a replacement in Kulikov/Alzner/Hainsey. Losing Methot and not replacing him with the money opened up is a big step in the wrong direction for the team.

Vegas' ransom was reportedly next years first. There is no way you give that up for an aging 32-year-old. Yes, Methot's important, but if Dorion gave up him for that, you and everyone else would be pissed off. As well, why would McPhee come back to us afterward and say "Ok, you guys won, there's no market for him. You can have him back for significantly less." If McPhee did that, he would look like an idiot. There's no way he came back at us with an offer. I do agree that we should get a replacement, but we have to be realistic. I would have loved Scandella, but in the trade, Buffalo took Pominville's horrible contract. You know this sub would've complained about having ANOTHER awful contract on this team. We already have Phaneuf and Ryan, we don't need anyone else. Same thing goes for free agents. All of the ones you listed got awful contracts, maybe with the exception of Hainsey but I wouldn't rate him as a top two D, so it doesn't make any sense to acquire any of them. It's just another dead contract. I agree we need a replacement and if Dorion does nothing it will **** me off, but to claim that he's an idiot for not doing anything at this point is ignorant.

Signing Kelly - I originally liked this move, more because I thought that it would mean Lazar would go to the AHL where he belonged, rather than because I believed Kelly was a quality center. Still I thought he could perform decent as the 4th line C of this hockey team. Did okay for the first half of the year, but faded massively as the year went on, to the point where he became a liability later in the year and had to be replaced by Smith, who's much better as a winger than as a center. Signing Kelly for 1M when Vermette went for 0.75M more, and the likes of Moore, Sceviour and Marchessault all went for around 1M, is looking like a bad decision right now.

Not much to say about this. I pretty much agree with you. It's obvious Kelly was past his prime, and we took a risk. It just didn't turn out in our favor this time.

Signing Thompson - 1.65M is too much money for a 4th line center and 2YRs is too long of a term for a guy with major injury issues the past couple years. Would have been happy if Thompson was signed for around 1M for 1YR to be our 5th center/13th forward, but the deal Dorion signed him to is just terrible. Could see Paul and White outperforming him at camp, with no center spot available for them for another 2YRs, as a budget team can't scratch 1.65M. Just another case of Dorion getting taken to the cleaners on a contract for a guy Boucher likes.

Thompson's contract is a bit high, but on both of his previous teams, he was regarded as an amazing 4th line center. He just got unlucky with injuries. I also HIGHLY doubt he will be played ahead of White, there's room on the roster for both of them. Paul is severely overrated; he did **** in the AHL this year. I would rather have Thompson than Paul in my lineup. As well, isn't it better that Dorion got a player Boucher likes? Remember when we got Burrows and Stalberg, two types of players Boucher wanted, and went on a massive winning streak? I admit it could backfire, but if Thompson plays as he has before, barring a massive injury, I think he'll turn out to impress quite a few.

Losing Puempel on waivers - now don't get me wrong, I don't think Puempel is a future top 6 sniper or anything like that, but he's a young forward that was on pace for 30+ goals and close to a PPG in the AHL last season, and he didn't get any kind of a shot with this hockey team. He played almost every minute of his 13 game stint beside Kelly and Neil. That's not a place where a finisher can succeed. On the Rangers Puempel continued to play on the 4th line, but he played beside Lindberg and Pirri mostly - two guys who are much more skilled than Kelly and Neil. In his time with the Rangers he put up 6G and 9P in 27 games, which put him on pace for 18G and 27P over 82 games. That's not nothing - it's close to the production Burrows had this year, and is better than the production Stalberg had this year. I still think he could carve out a decent career as an Eaves-type player - a grinder who can pot the odd goal due to a good shot, goal scoring instincts and a willigness to go to the net. Wasted asset.

Are you really arguing about Puempel? Whenever he was called into our bottom six, he was garbage. 27 points over 82 games is not great, and if Burrows' point rate on our team was applied to our entire season, he would've had 40+ points, statistically. If he doesn't falter next year he'll still be a valuable asset. Definitely WAY more valuable than Puempel ever was and ever will be.

I'm not trying to sound like a management apologist, some things like the Burrows and Brassard moves are definitely not great and could turn out to be worse, but overall Dorion's put this team in a better position by improving where we need it most. A good coach. If he doesn't get a defensive replacement, I'll be pissed, but overall his impact has been positive IMO.

 

[Deku]

I can't believe someone is actually mad about Puempel

 

[God Says No]

They were all better than "OK". They all ranged from good to excellent. The only exception was maybe Kelly, but that was literally a zero risk ultra-cheap 1-yr deal.

Also, are you really nitpicking over a couple hundred k on the Thompson signing?? Not only that, but other contracts Dorion has negotiated have been amazing. The Smith deal is a phenomenal deal. Pyatt was also a great deal on a great term for us.

It says alot about how good a job Dorion has been doing if the worst you usual haters can come up with was a trading away a 2nd tier prospect and signing a few player for a couple hundred k too much.

Who are these "excellent" players? Burrows was up and down. I expected more. Stalberg looked good because he skates fast, but his defense is overrated. Wingels was scratched regularly. Kelly was on his last legs and was a liability 5 on 5. But I get what you are trying to do. Trying to over state the impact the players to rationalize the moves. But you missed my point where I said the Burrows and Thompson moves were over payments which were commonly agreed as those.

You may think a couple of 100K here, and a couple years too long there is not an issues. But to a internal cap team like the Sens it all adds up.

Wow, you are easily amused. I don't think the Smith deal was "phenomenal". It was pretty standard for a third liner that has score 30 to 40 points.

I think he is a good 200 foot versatile player that goes hot and cold pts wise. There were a number of our forwards that had long drought like stretches if I recall. He is excellent on the PK
What would you have done with him?

No, we had to sign him. He's very useful. I was just concerned with his dip in play. Hopefully it doesn't continue next year.

Yeah but the complaints are about almost non issues. Basically haters are gonna hate. If we went out in the 1st round, Dorion would have no leg to stand on, in this argument.

But he got tremendous results. Bottom line. There is basically no argument against his decisions right now without coming across as being totally jaded.

Not really. A bad deal is a bad deal. Sure Stalberg, Burrows, Wingels, etc were useful. But call a spade a spade. The Burrows trade was an over payment. It was pretty much unanimous opinion, except for few.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

The only bad moves he's done are the Zibanejad and Dahlen trades. Also probably his incompetence in completing other trades. He get's a solid C+ from me for this season.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

Don't let the dor ion hit you on your way out.

Listen up gang, this guy ended the thread right here. Y'all best stop posting unless you can do better.

 

[Icelevel]

Yes I think we will regret the lazar deal. Really bad handling of him.

 

[Sens Rule]

Yeah but the complaints are about almost non issues. Basically haters are gonna hate. If we went out in the 1st round, Dorion would have no leg to stand on, in this argument.

But he got tremendous results. Bottom line. There is basically no argument against his decisions right now without coming across as being totally jaded.

Agreed. Boucher was a great choice for coach. Pretty much all personnel decisions have been good and resulted in 7th game of 3rd Round.

Even losing Methot. We lost a good player in Expansion draft because the roster is full of good players. Luckily Chabot is pretty much ready and the team probably has a 20 min a night internal Methot replacement.

Dorion has done an excellent job so far. There is no reasonable way to find great issues with his performance as GM so far.

 

[Sens Rule]

My take on Dorion thus far:


Dorion's good moves:

Hiring Boucher - passed up the coach with the highest winning percentage in history that wanted to come coach in Ottawa, which I thought was insane, but it is looking like a great move. Full credit to Dorion on this one. Boucher looks like the perfect coach for this hockey team. Other than EK, Boucher's amazing system was the biggest reason for this team making it all the way to game 7 of the ECF.

5th for Condon - good move to replace Andy when he had to leave the team for personal reasons. Not exactly an amazing move, considering Condon was available for free not long before we traded for him, and we obviously needed a better backup than Hammond behind Andy at that time too, but it was a good move nonetheless. Having said this, re-signing him to 2.4M for 3 more years is too long a term for too much money.

7th for Wingels - solid acquisition of a good 4th line winger for next to nothing. Not exactly sure why Dorion followed it up with two more forward acquisitions in Burrows and Stalberg, which pushed Wingels and Dzingel out of the lineup a lot of nights, but that's a whole different thing.

Signing Pyatt - this might be more of a Boucher-acquisition, but signing Pyatt for no assets was a great move. Great bottom 6 winger who provides some much needed speed. Also glad we re-signed him to a fair deal.

Dorion's bad moves

Zibanejad + 2nd for Brassard - a trade which looked bad when it happened and has done nothing but look worse and worse since. Traded a bigger, faster, younger and better center for a smaller, slower, older and worse center, and gave up an extra high pick as a cherry on top. Absolutely awful asset management.

Dahlen for Burrows - one of the single worst instances of asset management I've seen in the NHL in some time. You have a 36YR old 3rd line winger with a NTC who's only willing to go to the Sens, the only team that was apparently willing to give him a multi-year extension, and Dorion gave up a 1st-round quality prospect in the biggest buyers market in decades. And the contract he gave Burrows is just awful. Wouldn't have taken him at 2.5M for 2YRs on July 1st, let alone giving up a good prospect for the privilege of signing him to that contract.

Lazar for 2nd - brings Lazar up from the AHL early, despite him having done nothing in his stint in Bingo to warrant a call-up, kills his waiver wire exemption and his development gets ruined by playing beside Kelly and Neil all season. After destroying his value around the league, then trades him for a mediocre return of a mid-2nd. Sold low on a former 1st round pick that showed promise.

3rd for Stalberg - refuses to do anything on July 1, neglecting to fill the bottom 6 with another body, and then is forced to fix the bottom 6 via trade. Overpays for a 4th line winger in a major buyers market, and now it looks like he's not even going to re-sign with us. I like Stalberg, but we gave up too much for him, and after trading for Burrows, his acquisition wasn't necessary. Just pushed Dzingel/Wingels out of the lineup.

Not replacing Methot in FA - losing Methot instead of paying Vegas's insane ransom was the right move, but not trading for him after expansion was a mistake. Dallas got him for a 2020 2nd, which is worth about a 2017 late 3rd/early 4th in my books. If not Methot by trade, we should have traded for Scandella, who went to a divisional rival in Buffalo for diddly squat. If not by trade, Dorion should have signed a replacement in Kulikov/Alzner/Hainsey. Losing Methot and not replacing him with the money opened up is a big step in the wrong direction for the team.

Signing Kelly - I originally liked this move, more because I thought that it would mean Lazar would go to the AHL where he belonged, rather than because I believed Kelly was a quality center. Still I thought he could perform decent as the 4th line C of this hockey team. Did okay for the first half of the year, but faded massively as the year went on, to the point where he became a liability later in the year and had to be replaced by Smith, who's much better as a winger than as a center. Signing Kelly for 1M when Vermette went for 0.75M more, and the likes of Moore, Sceviour and Marchessault all went for around 1M, is looking like a bad decision right now.

Signing Thompson - 1.65M is too much money for a 4th line center and 2YRs is too long of a term for a guy with major injury issues the past couple years. Would have been happy if Thompson was signed for around 1M for 1YR to be our 5th center/13th forward, but the deal Dorion signed him to is just terrible. Could see Paul and White outperforming him at camp, with no center spot available for them for another 2YRs, as a budget team can't scratch 1.65M. Just another case of Dorion getting taken to the cleaners on a contract for a guy Boucher likes.

Losing Puempel on waivers - now don't get me wrong, I don't think Puempel is a future top 6 sniper or anything like that, but he's a young forward that was on pace for 30+ goals and close to a PPG in the AHL last season, and he didn't get any kind of a shot with this hockey team. He played almost every minute of his 13 game stint beside Kelly and Neil. That's not a place where a finisher can succeed. On the Rangers Puempel continued to play on the 4th line, but he played beside Lindberg and Pirri mostly - two guys who are much more skilled than Kelly and Neil. In his time with the Rangers he put up 6G and 9P in 27 games, which put him on pace for 18G and 27P over 82 games. That's not nothing - it's close to the production Burrows had this year, and is better than the production Stalberg had this year. I still think he could carve out a decent career as an Eaves-type player - a grinder who can pot the odd goal due to a good shot, goal scoring instincts and a willigness to go to the net. Wasted asset.


The bad far outweighs the good.

Seriously this analysis is kinda like dating Cindy Crawford and focussing on her mole and concluding.... the ugly mole far outweighs the rest of her beauty.

7th game OT round 3 >>>>>> a few mid level futures.

 

[Sens Rule]

I can't believe someone is actually mad about Puempel

People are still mad we drafted Brian Lee or let Da Costa go to Europe or Prince.

Somebody was mad we let Eaves go a decade ago because he had a good healthy season this year. Posted about it several times.

Me. I am still furious they let Frank Nighbor join the Leafs in 1929.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

Seriously this analysis is kinda like dating Cindy Crawford and focussing on her mole and concluding.... the ugly mole far outweighs the rest of her beauty.

7th game OT round 3 >>>>>> a few mid level futures.

That was ALL Karlsson, not Dorion

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

That was ALL Karlsson, not Dorion

I doubt if Karlsson makes that big a deal about the mole

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

Why am I struggling with this chart so much. I get the colours. I also get that being more to the right is better...but why do some teams have the blue and yellow both on one side while others have then on opposite sides.

And why are we neutral? Does it not say we lost a good players while adding bad players? Or am I reading this wrong.

Did Chicago add a bunch of good and get rid of a bunch of bad? Why are they ranked low?

I'm so confused.

A) Ottawa has a yellow line going to 0.8
B) Ottawa has a blue line going to -0.7
C) Chicago has a blue line going to 2.8
D) Chicago has a yellow line going to -4.3
E) Carolina has both colours leading to 4.1
F) Washington has both colours leading to -4.8

What does each letter mean?

My unexpert analysis:

A. Players we lost this offseason (Kelly, Neil, Methot) amount to a total of 0.8 Game Score Value Added (i.e., addition by subtraction) ((though I'd wager Methot would be a net positive, just that Neil and Kelly dragged us down that much))
B. Players we added this offseason (Thompson) had a net negative effect on our GSVA. Bad signing, according to this metric.
C. Chicago's additions (Sharp, Wingels, Saad, Bouma) have improved the team significantly.
D. The players Chicago lost (Kruger, Panarin) hurt the team significantly more than their additions helped.
E. Carolina's added players (Williams, Teravainen) contribute to a GSVA of 3.2, and the players they lost (Lack, Murphy) also effectively help the team. Addition by subtraction PLUS addition by addition.
F. Washington's offseason additions (Smith-Pelly, Connolly) marginally hurt the team, but the players they lost REALLY hurt (Shattenkirk, Williams, MoJo.)

 

[TeamRenzo]

My take on Dorion thus far:


Dorion's good moves:

Hiring Boucher - passed up the coach with the highest winning percentage in history that wanted to come coach in Ottawa, which I thought was insane, but it is looking like a great move. Full credit to Dorion on this one. Boucher looks like the perfect coach for this hockey team. Other than EK, Boucher's amazing system was the biggest reason for this team making it all the way to game 7 of the ECF.

5th for Condon - good move to replace Andy when he had to leave the team for personal reasons. Not exactly an amazing move, considering Condon was available for free not long before we traded for him, and we obviously needed a better backup than Hammond behind Andy at that time too, but it was a good move nonetheless. Having said this, re-signing him to 2.4M for 3 more years is too long a term for too much money.

7th for Wingels - solid acquisition of a good 4th line winger for next to nothing. Not exactly sure why Dorion followed it up with two more forward acquisitions in Burrows and Stalberg, which pushed Wingels and Dzingel out of the lineup a lot of nights, but that's a whole different thing.

Signing Pyatt - this might be more of a Boucher-acquisition, but signing Pyatt for no assets was a great move. Great bottom 6 winger who provides some much needed speed. Also glad we re-signed him to a fair deal.

Dorion's bad moves

Zibanejad + 2nd for Brassard - a trade which looked bad when it happened and has done nothing but look worse and worse since. Traded a bigger, faster, younger and better center for a smaller, slower, older and worse center, and gave up an extra high pick as a cherry on top. Absolutely awful asset management.

Dahlen for Burrows - one of the single worst instances of asset management I've seen in the NHL in some time. You have a 36YR old 3rd line winger with a NTC who's only willing to go to the Sens, the only team that was apparently willing to give him a multi-year extension, and Dorion gave up a 1st-round quality prospect in the biggest buyers market in decades. And the contract he gave Burrows is just awful. Wouldn't have taken him at 2.5M for 2YRs on July 1st, let alone giving up a good prospect for the privilege of signing him to that contract.

Lazar for 2nd - brings Lazar up from the AHL early, despite him having done nothing in his stint in Bingo to warrant a call-up, kills his waiver wire exemption and his development gets ruined by playing beside Kelly and Neil all season. After destroying his value around the league, then trades him for a mediocre return of a mid-2nd. Sold low on a former 1st round pick that showed promise.

3rd for Stalberg - refuses to do anything on July 1, neglecting to fill the bottom 6 with another body, and then is forced to fix the bottom 6 via trade. Overpays for a 4th line winger in a major buyers market, and now it looks like he's not even going to re-sign with us. I like Stalberg, but we gave up too much for him, and after trading for Burrows, his acquisition wasn't necessary. Just pushed Dzingel/Wingels out of the lineup.

Not replacing Methot in FA - losing Methot instead of paying Vegas's insane ransom was the right move, but not trading for him after expansion was a mistake. Dallas got him for a 2020 2nd, which is worth about a 2017 late 3rd/early 4th in my books. If not Methot by trade, we should have traded for Scandella, who went to a divisional rival in Buffalo for diddly squat. If not by trade, Dorion should have signed a replacement in Kulikov/Alzner/Hainsey. Losing Methot and not replacing him with the money opened up is a big step in the wrong direction for the team.

Signing Kelly - I originally liked this move, more because I thought that it would mean Lazar would go to the AHL where he belonged, rather than because I believed Kelly was a quality center. Still I thought he could perform decent as the 4th line C of this hockey team. Did okay for the first half of the year, but faded massively as the year went on, to the point where he became a liability later in the year and had to be replaced by Smith, who's much better as a winger than as a center. Signing Kelly for 1M when Vermette went for 0.75M more, and the likes of Moore, Sceviour and Marchessault all went for around 1M, is looking like a bad decision right now.

Signing Thompson - 1.65M is too much money for a 4th line center and 2YRs is too long of a term for a guy with major injury issues the past couple years. Would have been happy if Thompson was signed for around 1M for 1YR to be our 5th center/13th forward, but the deal Dorion signed him to is just terrible. Could see Paul and White outperforming him at camp, with no center spot available for them for another 2YRs, as a budget team can't scratch 1.65M. Just another case of Dorion getting taken to the cleaners on a contract for a guy Boucher likes.

Losing Puempel on waivers - now don't get me wrong, I don't think Puempel is a future top 6 sniper or anything like that, but he's a young forward that was on pace for 30+ goals and close to a PPG in the AHL last season, and he didn't get any kind of a shot with this hockey team. He played almost every minute of his 13 game stint beside Kelly and Neil. That's not a place where a finisher can succeed. On the Rangers Puempel continued to play on the 4th line, but he played beside Lindberg and Pirri mostly - two guys who are much more skilled than Kelly and Neil. In his time with the Rangers he put up 6G and 9P in 27 games, which put him on pace for 18G and 27P over 82 games. That's not nothing - it's close to the production Burrows had this year, and is better than the production Stalberg had this year. I still think he could carve out a decent career as an Eaves-type player - a grinder who can pot the odd goal due to a good shot, goal scoring instincts and a willigness to go to the net. Wasted asset.


The bad far outweighs the good.

I dont see how the bad far outweigh the good when the first two "good moves" you listed are key factors to making game seven of ECF.

I never liked the Zib trade and with Brassard having a wonky shoulder I like it even less however I think Zib will always leave his fans wanting more and will never realize his true potential.

Dont care about losing Puemple and the Dahlen may never amount to anything the NHL. Agree on the Lazar, hope he finds his game in Calgary.

 

[Boud]

My take on Dorion thus far:


Dorion's good moves:

Hiring Boucher - passed up the coach with the highest winning percentage in history that wanted to come coach in Ottawa, which I thought was insane, but it is looking like a great move. Full credit to Dorion on this one. Boucher looks like the perfect coach for this hockey team. Other than EK, Boucher's amazing system was the biggest reason for this team making it all the way to game 7 of the ECF.

5th for Condon - good move to replace Andy when he had to leave the team for personal reasons. Not exactly an amazing move, considering Condon was available for free not long before we traded for him, and we obviously needed a better backup than Hammond behind Andy at that time too, but it was a good move nonetheless. Having said this, re-signing him to 2.4M for 3 more years is too long a term for too much money.

7th for Wingels - solid acquisition of a good 4th line winger for next to nothing. Not exactly sure why Dorion followed it up with two more forward acquisitions in Burrows and Stalberg, which pushed Wingels and Dzingel out of the lineup a lot of nights, but that's a whole different thing.

Signing Pyatt - this might be more of a Boucher-acquisition, but signing Pyatt for no assets was a great move. Great bottom 6 winger who provides some much needed speed. Also glad we re-signed him to a fair deal.

Dorion's bad moves

Zibanejad + 2nd for Brassard - a trade which looked bad when it happened and has done nothing but look worse and worse since. Traded a bigger, faster, younger and better center for a smaller, slower, older and worse center, and gave up an extra high pick as a cherry on top. Absolutely awful asset management.

Dahlen for Burrows - one of the single worst instances of asset management I've seen in the NHL in some time. You have a 36YR old 3rd line winger with a NTC who's only willing to go to the Sens, the only team that was apparently willing to give him a multi-year extension, and Dorion gave up a 1st-round quality prospect in the biggest buyers market in decades. And the contract he gave Burrows is just awful. Wouldn't have taken him at 2.5M for 2YRs on July 1st, let alone giving up a good prospect for the privilege of signing him to that contract.

Lazar for 2nd - brings Lazar up from the AHL early, despite him having done nothing in his stint in Bingo to warrant a call-up, kills his waiver wire exemption and his development gets ruined by playing beside Kelly and Neil all season. After destroying his value around the league, then trades him for a mediocre return of a mid-2nd. Sold low on a former 1st round pick that showed promise.

3rd for Stalberg - refuses to do anything on July 1, neglecting to fill the bottom 6 with another body, and then is forced to fix the bottom 6 via trade. Overpays for a 4th line winger in a major buyers market, and now it looks like he's not even going to re-sign with us. I like Stalberg, but we gave up too much for him, and after trading for Burrows, his acquisition wasn't necessary. Just pushed Dzingel/Wingels out of the lineup.

Not replacing Methot in FA - losing Methot instead of paying Vegas's insane ransom was the right move, but not trading for him after expansion was a mistake. Dallas got him for a 2020 2nd, which is worth about a 2017 late 3rd/early 4th in my books. If not Methot by trade, we should have traded for Scandella, who went to a divisional rival in Buffalo for diddly squat. If not by trade, Dorion should have signed a replacement in Kulikov/Alzner/Hainsey. Losing Methot and not replacing him with the money opened up is a big step in the wrong direction for the team.

Signing Kelly - I originally liked this move, more because I thought that it would mean Lazar would go to the AHL where he belonged, rather than because I believed Kelly was a quality center. Still I thought he could perform decent as the 4th line C of this hockey team. Did okay for the first half of the year, but faded massively as the year went on, to the point where he became a liability later in the year and had to be replaced by Smith, who's much better as a winger than as a center. Signing Kelly for 1M when Vermette went for 0.75M more, and the likes of Moore, Sceviour and Marchessault all went for around 1M, is looking like a bad decision right now.

Signing Thompson - 1.65M is too much money for a 4th line center and 2YRs is too long of a term for a guy with major injury issues the past couple years. Would have been happy if Thompson was signed for around 1M for 1YR to be our 5th center/13th forward, but the deal Dorion signed him to is just terrible. Could see Paul and White outperforming him at camp, with no center spot available for them for another 2YRs, as a budget team can't scratch 1.65M. Just another case of Dorion getting taken to the cleaners on a contract for a guy Boucher likes.

Losing Puempel on waivers - now don't get me wrong, I don't think Puempel is a future top 6 sniper or anything like that, but he's a young forward that was on pace for 30+ goals and close to a PPG in the AHL last season, and he didn't get any kind of a shot with this hockey team. He played almost every minute of his 13 game stint beside Kelly and Neil. That's not a place where a finisher can succeed. On the Rangers Puempel continued to play on the 4th line, but he played beside Lindberg and Pirri mostly - two guys who are much more skilled than Kelly and Neil. In his time with the Rangers he put up 6G and 9P in 27 games, which put him on pace for 18G and 27P over 82 games. That's not nothing - it's close to the production Burrows had this year, and is better than the production Stalberg had this year. I still think he could carve out a decent career as an Eaves-type player - a grinder who can pot the odd goal due to a good shot, goal scoring instincts and a willigness to go to the net. Wasted asset.


The bad far outweighs the good.

I think there's no debate for the Burrows trade and the Brassard trade. Both these trades looked bad from the start and they really never looked good after that either. Whether Dahlen pans out is actually irrelevant, his value as an asset was far higher than what we should've given for Burrows.


However I don't agree at all with the Puempel lost on waivers, Lazar traded for a 2nd, signing Kelly and signing Thompson.

Puempel: Just an example to consider here is the Mike Hoffman situation. I think the Sens wanted to keep Puempel, but in the end he wasn't good enough to make the team. In which case you have to send him down and other GMs are not stupid, they won't give up anything for a player that'll most likely be on waivers. Puempel hadn't done anything in his last 2 years here to prove he had value - at least value on the trade market. The Hoffman situation was similar, you want to keep the guy but at some point other young players deserve a shot and if you can't trade him for anything you want then you have to take a chance and send him down. You'll tell me it's bad asset management, but imagine we'd have traded Hoffman for a 7th rounder (?) before we put him on waivers... Also it probably means that the team thought he could overcome his struggles (like Hoffman). I think you take a chance that a team doesnt pick him up and hopefully keep the player. At that point the trade literally becomes I take a chance to keep the player vs getting a terrible return that I don't really want.


Lazar... I mean I thought it was a great trade. Lazar is the kind of player you draft in later rounds. He won't be much better if at all compared to a Zack Smith, Pageau, McCormick.. At this point I think he's very comparable to what McCormick or Paul could become in the NHL. We had White coming up... A 2nd rounder for a guy that did basically nothing and that had 3 concussions in a year in pretty good for return.The guy has a very limited skillset. I'd argue that it was a questionnable pick over a bad trade. Almost all of the guys on that Oil Kings team was just plain overrated.We got Formenton I believe out of that?

Thompson is basically what Stalberg is but he's a little more physical and can take faceoffs. His stats are not so good because of injuries... but other than that I have no idea why people are legit MAD about this signing. He'll provide more value to this team than Stalberg IMO and he was really good in the playoffs this season. He even was promoted to play with Getzlaf and Perry at some point... Stalberg and Thompson put up very similar numbers on a healthy season.

The Kelly signing... I think you're pushing it a little bit here... Every single year there are steal contracts (Marchessault being an example) but just a handful of teams out of the 30 end up with a steal like that. Besides, I'm pretty sure Vermette wanted to play 2nd/3rd line in Anaheim where they have no depth over 3rd/4rth line in Ottawa. One of the big goal in bringing Kelly was to add someone who won a cup before, a leader. Marchessault doesn't do that either and all of that always brings us to the next point of... we actually have no idea if these players had any interest in signing here.

 

[Punchbowl]

Seriously this analysis is kinda like dating Cindy Crawford and focussing on her mole and concluding.... the ugly mole far outweighs the rest of her beauty.

7th game OT round 3 >>>>>> a few mid level futures.

I disagree with about half of what Hale posted (and think he/she is far too critical of Dorion) but this post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is pandemic on this board at the moment.

We cannot unequivocally state "Dorion's moves were clearly justified because we made the third round and were a goal from the SCF;" we don't know how we would have done without those moves. Moreover, there is a host of other factors involved in any playoff run.

Just because a result occurred after some event does not mean the event perforce caused the result.

 

[starling]

Why am I struggling with this chart so much. I get the colours. I also get that being more to the right is better...but why do some teams have the blue and yellow both on one side while others have then on opposite sides.

And why are we neutral? Does it not say we lost a good players while adding bad players? Or am I reading this wrong.

Did Chicago add a bunch of good and get rid of a bunch of bad? Why are they ranked low?

I'm so confused.

A) Ottawa has a yellow line going to 0.8
B) Ottawa has a blue line going to -0.7
C) Chicago has a blue line going to 2.8
D) Chicago has a yellow line going to -4.3
E) Carolina has both colours leading to 4.1
F) Washington has both colours leading to -4.8

What does each letter mean?

In case of Ottawa, the team got better overall by losing players (Kelly, Neil, Wingels, yellow going right) and got worse by acquiring players (Thompson, blue line going to the left).
Basically Dorion is adding by subtraction and subtracting by addition. In the end, it neither got better nor worse.
Anyway, it's just this guy's player's evaluation model, I wouldn't read into it much.
Carolina btw is doing picture perfect moves analytics-wise. One of the prominent ex-twitter analytics guys is working for them.

 

[RICKY SPANISH]

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I would still make the Brass for Zbad trade today.

Zib seemed like a good team guy, but IMO seemed to lack the 'drive' it would take to win when push comes to shove. We were never going anywhere with him as our 1 or 2C. Brass isn't much of an upgrade (I would even say a wash), however, cash/cap wise, the trade works in our favour.

Brass is already on a team friendly deal, and when his time is up we can just part ways. Zib will be due for a significant raise soon, and again, IMO, that's money better spent elsewhere, in-house (Stone, Turris, Karl, etc.).

 

[Sensinitis]

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I would still make the Brass for Zbad trade today.

Zib seemed like a good team guy, but IMO seemed to lack the 'drive' it would take to win when push comes to shove. We were never going anywhere with him as our 1 or 2C. Brass isn't much of an upgrade (I would even say a wash), however, cash/cap wise, the trade works in our favour.

Brass is already on a team friendly deal, and when his time is up we can just part ways. Zib will be due for a significant raise soon, and again, IMO, that's money better spent elsewhere, in-house (Stone, Turris, Karl, etc.).

Agreed.

When it comes down to it, he didn't prove to be a core player, like the guys you mentioned. When push came to shove and Turris was injured, it was Pageau who stepped up and played #1 minutes with Stone and Smith.

We weren't gonna pay a non-core player as much as Zbad would have wanted, and Brass is in his prime and performed well for us in the playoffs. He should rebound nicely next year with 50+ points hopefully.

 

[Boud]

Agreed.

When it comes down to it, he didn't prove to be a core player, like the guys you mentioned. When push came to shove and Turris was injured, it was Pageau who stepped up and played #1 minutes with Stone and Smith.

We weren't gonna pay a non-core player as much as Zbad would have wanted, and Brass is in his prime and performed well for us in the playoffs. He should rebound nicely next year with 50+ points hopefully.

Here's the thing though... When Turris got injured Zibanejad got 20 points in the last 20 games of the season.

 

[aragorn]

It's a team game, it takes everyone to have gotten them that far. Ryan & Brassard had pretty good playoff games, Pageau had a great 4 goal game, Hoffman was good, Anderson was good, Smith was great at faceoffs, Claesson & Harpur came in & did well. There were lots of good game winning goals that were not scored by Karlsson. He gets way too much credit around here, he's a very good defensceman, probably the best defenceman in Sens history but he can't & doesn't do it alone, he needs teammates. Dorion helped with his acquisitions & GB helped with his coaching too & the trainers who got these guys back into games helped, it's a complete team effort. They would not have gotten that far without everyone pitching in & Dorion regardless of overpayments or not brought in a few guys who played their roles & pitched in here & there. It's the results that matter & they had a very successful season by all accounts. This yr is a different story that will require different solutions & hopefully he can pull another rabbit out of his Sens cap & the Sens will go on another long playoff run, that's all that matters & winning the cup. The yr before Ottawa was out of the playoffs, Dorion made a bunch of moves & not only were they in the playoffs they went on the second longest winning streak in this modern day age history & that is the very definition of a successful season.

 

[Boud]

More nonsense, it's a team game, it takes everyone to have gotten them that far. Ryan & Brassard had pretty good playoff games, Pageau had a great 4 goal game, Hoffman was good, Anderson was good, Claesson & Harpur came in & did well. There were lots of good game winning goals that were not scored by Karlsson. He gets way too much credit around here, he's a very good defensceman, probably the best defenceman in Sens history but he can't & doesn't do it alone, he needs teammates. Dorion helped with his acquisitions & GB helped with his coaching too & the trainers who got these guys back into games helped, it's a team game.

= Sarcasm

 

[DrunkUncleDenis]

Here's the thing though... When Turris got injured Zibanejad got 20 points in the last 20 games of the season.

Ya, while the whole team was playing fast and loose. Turning it on in the last 20 games of a lost season doesn't count for ****.

 

[Sensinitis]

Here's the thing though... When Turris got injured Zibanejad got 20 points in the last 20 games of the season.

Here's two things though:

1. You're inventing stats. He had 12 points in his last 19 games. 15 in his last 20 if you include the hat-trick against the Flames.

2. That's exactly my point. He got his points once we were eliminated from playoff contention (or at the point where it was damn near impossible to reach the playoffs). Excelled when it mattered less.