Around the NHL - Episode XLVI

Status
Not open for further replies.

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,703
9,650
Montreal, Canada
Bryan Murray said “having rookies in your lineup makes you a better team because they improve each game and at the end of the season when it’s playoff time you will have a better team because they improved.”

basically, rookies are a good investment. That’s why it makes no sense to have Galchenyuk. He will never improve, he can only just not hurt your team, he doesn’t make you any better. he offers very little else that Balcers or Abramov cannot already do on the PP, and they’d be playing hard and with passion for an NHL job, and improving each game.

stupid strategy to sign vets who aren’t improving. Josh brown is a vet who is getting better, but players like Galchenyuk, Naemtikov - no thanks.

Which is why we didn't need Stepan, Paquette and Coburn. They don't make the team better, Stepan cost a 2nd round pick on top of it (doesn't make sense for a 3rd liner with a 6.5 cap hit). I admit the Tampa Bay trade was beneficial (getting a 2nd + saving on Gaborik/Nilsson LTIR salaries) so you could still make that trade, have Coburn (probably last NHL contract year anyway) on the taxi squad, and flip Paquette to a team WHERE he wants to play (Montreal?). Get any pick for him, have an extra 2nd from TB, don't spend one on Stepan (we already have Tierney), don't lose Balcers on waivers and go with :

Paul-Tierney-Brown
Stutzle-Brown-Dadonov
Tkachuk-Norris-Batherson
Balcers-White-Watson
Galchenyuk-Chlapik


* PTB is the match up line, probably still gets most TOI/GP at ES
** you can still sign Galchenyuk. at only 1 M$ it's not a bad thing to have a PP/skill option as a back-up
*** Manage lines 2 and 3 ice time depending on how well they play. When the Chuck Norris line get more comfortable, start giving them more responsibilities/matchups. Use the Stutzle-Brown-Dadonov line on the offense as much as possible.
**** Balcers and White get reps higher in the lineup when injuries or maintenance days. They could even get some PP reps depending how well they play but KEEP THEM PLAYING.

Some will say I am asking for the moon where in summary, I only asked for Logan Brown and Balcers over Derek Stepan and Paquette. I like more skill, passing and shooting abilities.

Does anyone thinks my top-14 would do worse than the current forward group?

Ok so Pierre hit me up (jk Pierre, not looking for a job, particularly not one that will give me grey hair)
 
Last edited:

2CHAINZ

Registered User
Feb 27, 2008
14,435
20,003
Which is why we didn't need Stepan, Paquette and Coburn. They don't make the team better, Stepan cost a 2nd round pick on top of it (doesn't make sense for a 3rd liner with a 6.5 cap hit). I admit the Tampa Bay trade was beneficial (getting a 2nd + saving on Gaborik/Nilsson LTIR salaries) so you could still make that trade, have Coburn (probably last NHL contract year anyway) on the taxi squad, and flip Paquette to a team WHERE he wants to play (Montreal?). Get any pick for him, have an extra 2nd from TB, don't spend one on Stepan (we already have Tierney), don't lose Balcers on waivers and go with :

Paul-Tierney-Brown
Stutzle-Brown-Dadonov
Tkachuk-Norris-Batherson
Balcers-White-Watson
Galchenyuk-Chlapik


* PTB is the match up line, probably still gets most TOI/GP at ES
** you can still sign Galchenyuk. at only 1 M$ it's not a bad thing to have a PP/skill option as a back-up
*** Manage lines 2 and 3 ice time depending on how well they play. When the Chuck Norris line get more comfortable, start giving them more responsibilities/matchups. Use the Stutzle-Brown-Dadonov line on the offense as much as possible.
**** Balcers and White get reps higher in the lineup when injuries or maintenance days. They could even get some PP reps depending how well they play but KEEP THEM PLAYING.

Some will say I am asking for the moon where in summary, I only asked for Logan Brown and Balcers over Derek Stepan and Paquette. I like more skill, passing and shooting abilities.

Does anyone thinks my top-14 would do worse than the current forward group?

Ok so Pierre hit me up (jk Pierre, not looking for a job, particularly not one that will give me grey hair)

I mean the expectations should've been super low and we should've given Logan Brown 2nd line C spot and just seen what we had. If he doesn't work out he doesn't work out and that's perfectly fine. I dont like not giving a player with all the offensive talent in the world all the opportunity to be the best he can. Stepan trade was and is stupid, Tampa trade meh I wouldn't have helped their cap situation unless I was robbing them.

Basically I agree with everything you said.
 

Ice-Tray

Registered User
Jan 31, 2006
16,288
8,100
Victoria
Bryan Murray said “having rookies in your lineup makes you a better team because they improve each game and at the end of the season when it’s playoff time you will have a better team because they improved.”

basically, rookies are a good investment. That’s why it makes no sense to have Galchenyuk. He will never improve, he can only just not hurt your team, he doesn’t make you any better. he offers very little else that Balcers or Abramov cannot already do on the PP, and they’d be playing hard and with passion for an NHL job, and improving each game.

stupid strategy to sign vets who aren’t improving. Josh brown is a vet who is getting better, but players like Galchenyuk, Naemtikov - no thanks.

Dude we have several of those types of players in the line up. Murray didn’t say ice a team of rookies, nor did he ever do that himself.

You’re just getting greedy now. Enjoy an entire kid line, and Jimmy this season, and likely Branstrom soon. Heck maybe even Brown!

Next year there will be three more kids to watch grow in the line up, a couple on the back end, and Formenton up front.
 
  • Like
Reactions: albator71

Tuna99

Registered User
Sep 26, 2009
14,714
6,803
Dude we have several of those types of players in the line up. Murray didn’t say ice a team of rookies, nor did he ever do that himself.

You’re just getting greedy now. Enjoy an entire kid line, and Jimmy this season, and likely Branstrom soon. Heck maybe even Brown!

Next year there will be three more kids to watch grow in the line up, a couple on the back end, and Formenton up front.

So you’d rather have Galchenyuk in the lineup over Balcers? Or Coburn over Wolanin? Anisimov over Colin White? Is that your point?
 

aragorn

Do The Right Thing
Aug 8, 2004
28,466
8,995
Bryan Murray said “having rookies in your lineup makes you a better team because they improve each game and at the end of the season when it’s playoff time you will have a better team because they improved.”

basically, rookies are a good investment. That’s why it makes no sense to have Galchenyuk. He will never improve, he can only just not hurt your team, he doesn’t make you any better. he offers very little else that Balcers or Abramov cannot already do on the PP, and they’d be playing hard and with passion for an NHL job, and improving each game.

stupid strategy to sign vets who aren’t improving. Josh brown is a vet who is getting better, but players like Galchenyuk, Naemtikov - no thanks.
Bryan Murray also said that he only likes to add 2 or 3 rookies at the most each yr because too many rookies can hurt your chances of being in a playoff race if your team is too inexperienced & you have too many young players making too many errors. It's a balance like everything else in life, I'm quite sure that every team would like to add too good young players every yr too.

I agree with you that they signed too many vets in the off season but on the other hand maybe he also believed like some of us that this team was going nowhere & he wanted to add some picks/prospects leading up to the trade deadline. Who knows? I'm not a fan of Galchenyuk either but he already looks more skilled than either Balcers or Abramov, but seems to be equally inept defensively as Abramov is. I do hope at some point we do see L. Brown & Formenton come up, but I think they need to get rid of a handful of players (UFAs) sooner rather than later.
 

RAFI BOMB

Registered User
May 11, 2016
7,378
7,619
no supplemental discipline..
Claude Julien basically said they would have to handle it on their own. The Habs dressed Corey Perry for this game. I am guessing there will be some goonery tonight.

On a positive note we play a 3 game series vs the Canucks next so the Habs can rough them up as much as they want and it will only benefit us.
 

Yourkeyparka

Registered User
Oct 15, 2010
658
130
If they are relying on Perry for fighting at his age - they are in for a rude awakening. He is a front of net presence only. Scares no one - much like Gallagher...lol
 

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,703
9,650
Montreal, Canada
Dude we have several of those types of players in the line up. Murray didn’t say ice a team of rookies, nor did he ever do that himself.

You’re just getting greedy now. Enjoy an entire kid line, and Jimmy this season, and likely Branstrom soon. Heck maybe even Brown!

Next year there will be three more kids to watch grow in the line up, a couple on the back end, and Formenton up front.

Yes, we have a few, but we don't have more than many teams... We also have LESS than SEVERAL teams. Those teams are not necessarily rebuilding.

Let's take the Bruins for example... a team that has missed the playoffs only twice since 2007 (Cup + 2 SCFs)

Jack Studnicka 21
Trent Frederic 22
Jakub Zboril 23
Charlie McAvoy 23
Jeremy Lauzon 23
Jake Debrusk 24
Anders Bjork 24
Brandon Carlo 24
David Pastrnak 24 (injured though)

In comparison, Sens have played only 6 guys under 25 y/o, including Colin White who has totally fallen out of flavor with this coaching staff

Do you find that normal that the Bruins are playing more young guys in their lineup? It's kinda pathethic that as a rebuilding team, we are relying on mediocre vets more than a contender.


Finally, may I introduce you to this thread? I haven't compared with other NHL teams yet but like I did above with the Bruins, it wil look quite bad on the Senators.

The Ottawa Young Legs 2020-21
 
Last edited:

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,703
9,650
Montreal, Canada
Bryan Murray also said that he only likes to add 2 or 3 rookies at the most each yr because too many rookies can hurt your chances of being in a playoff race if your team is too inexperienced & you have too many young players making too many errors. It's a balance like everything else in life, I'm quite sure that every team would like to add too good young players every yr too.

I agree with you that they signed too many vets in the off season but on the other hand maybe he also believed like some of us that this team was going nowhere & he wanted to add some picks/prospects leading up to the trade deadline. Who knows? I'm not a fan of Galchenyuk either but he already looks more skilled than either Balcers or Abramov, but seems to be equally inept defensively as Abramov is. I do hope at some point we do see L. Brown & Formenton come up, but I think they need to get rid of a handful of players (UFAs) sooner rather than later.

Hey look at the link provided above, I think you already posted in that thread.

I totally agree with not too many rookies during the same season, when you are looking to make the playoffs you have to be careful with that, but for a rebuild team it's totally different. And it's not just a rebuild we went through, it's a 100% rebuild.

Murray was not afraid to have young guys on his rosters as you can see in that thread, and yet the team was much more competitive and looking to make the playoffs every year (made them 5/9 IIRC). And well to me the 2016-17 team was also a Murray team. The moves Dorion made were minor outside of Brassard and Burrows (which didn't turn out exactly well)
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,362
Vancouver with the 3rd period comeback against the habs

Edit and that didn't last long
 
Last edited:

Sens of Anarchy

Registered User
Jul 9, 2013
65,007
49,537
Yes, we have a few, but we don't have more than other teams... teams that are not rebuilding or have been rebuilding for a longer period. and we alsohave LESS than SEVERAL teams.

Let's take the Bruins for example... a team that has missed the playoffs only twice since 2007 (Cup + 2 SCFs)

Jack Studnicka 21
Trent Frederic 22
Jakub Zboril 23
Charlie McAvoy 23
Jeremy Lauzon 23
Jake Debrusk 24
Anders Bjork 24
Brandon Carlo 24
David Pastrnak 24

In comparison, Sens have played only 6 guys under 25 y/o, including Colin White who has totally fallen out of flavor with this coaching staff

Do you find that normal that the Bruins are playing more young guys in their lineup? It's kinda pathethic that as a rebuilding team, we are relying more on mediocre vets than a contender.


Finally, may I introduce you to this thread? I haven't compared with other NHL teams yet but like I did above with the Bruins, it wil look quite bad on the Senators.

The Ottawa Young Legs 2020-21

The Bruins have managed to keep their key vets while introducing these players in.. which is the best case ..
Dorion thinks any vet playing with a rookie or young player .. covers that off.
They had Chara and still have Bergeron, Marchand, Krejci , now Coyle ... guys that lead and players look up to
They'll have a rebuild done without missing a beat; If they would have hit at the 2015 draft they'd be in even better shape (2 of Connor, Barzal, Chabot) were right there. I like Debrusk but those 3 ; they'd be laughing for another 10 years
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrEasy and Xspyrit

JD1

Registered User
Sep 12, 2005
15,988
9,554
Yes, we have a few, but we don't have more than many teams... We also have LESS than SEVERAL teams. Those teams are not necessarily rebuilding.

Let's take the Bruins for example... a team that has missed the playoffs only twice since 2007 (Cup + 2 SCFs)

Jack Studnicka 21
Trent Frederic 22
Jakub Zboril 23
Charlie McAvoy 23
Jeremy Lauzon 23
Jake Debrusk 24
Anders Bjork 24
Brandon Carlo 24
David Pastrnak 24 (injured though)

In comparison, Sens have played only 6 guys under 25 y/o, including Colin White who has totally fallen out of flavor with this coaching staff

Do you find that normal that the Bruins are playing more young guys in their lineup? It's kinda pathethic that as a rebuilding team, we are relying on mediocre vets more than a contender.


Finally, may I introduce you to this thread? I haven't compared with other NHL teams yet but like I did above with the Bruins, it wil look quite bad on the Senators.

The Ottawa Young Legs 2020-21

This is a fine example of finding numbers that supports the narrative you're espousing

Why under 25? It's an arbitrary number

Why not say under 23 and also a 1st line player for example?

Boston has been led by Chara since 06. They let him go this off season specifically to see what they had with their young players. Like Jake Zboril, who was Chabot's teammate in Saint John and drafted ahead of Chabot. So Boston is taking a flyer on a 1st rounder in his D+6 season, a former teammate of Chabot's and drafted ahead of Chabot and you're telling us that they are playing the kids. With a similar dev pattern, we'll see Sanderson and JBD in about 2025, 2026. Let's zero in on Brannstrom. Similar dev pattern, we'll try to work Brannstrom in as a full timer in the 22-23 season. That's his D+6 season, same dev pattern as Zboril. I mean why not, they're both mid first rounders right?

You don't like that? How about the other D, Lauzon. He too is a 2015 draftee, in his D 6 season with 35 nhl games on his resume. 2 years in junior, 3 in the A to make it as an NHLer.

Let's not pretend these two situations are similar. They've had the same captain for 15 years, always a veteran leadership group and huge stability.

They hit on 2 young D in Carlo and McAvoy but there hasn't been a lot of kids.

You've listed their future. Our future is < 22 years old + Chabot
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deku

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,703
9,650
Montreal, Canada
I had this at the start of the season

1. Montreal
2. Toronto
3. Vancouver
4. Winnipeg
5. Calgary
6. Edmonton
7. Ottawa

Probably overrated the Canucks and underrated the Flames

The Bruins have managed to keep their key vets while introducing these players in.. which is the best case ..
Dorion thinks any vet playing with a rookie or young player .. covers that off.
They had Chara and still have Bergeron, Marchand, Krejci , now Coyle ... guys that lead and players look up to
They'll have a rebuild done without missing a beat; If they would have hit at the 2015 draft they'd be in even better shape (2 of Connor, Barzal, Chabot) were right there. I like Debrusk but those 3 ; they'd be laughing for another 10 years

The ideal situation would have been to keep Stone and Pageau long term (then no need to sign Dadonov)

Tkachuk-L.Brown-Stone (name 2 better players to help out Logan to establish himself)
Paul-Pageau-Brown (ideal matchup line)
Stutzle-Norris-Batherson (not too much pressure on the kids, the matchup line get more ES TOI anyway)
Balcers-Chlapik-White (a 4th line of grinders is very 90's, I want them to get scoring chances and OZ time)
Anisimov

Instead of getting all of Stepan, Gudbranson, Brown, Watson, etc, you focus on getting a good veteran D-man with like 2 years left. I have Tierney and several 2nd round picks as part of a package. Maybe still get Gudbranson as well because our D prospects are not ready.

Chabot-Gudbranson
???-Zaitsev
Wolanin-Zub
Jaros

If only... I think Dorion really tried to sign Stone until the end, it was most likely just not possible. For Pageau I don't know... Will always wonder if it would have been possible if we "overpaid". It's true that these 2 contracts are "risky" but that's what good markets do, they take risks and if it doesn't work out anymore towards the end of the contract, they just manage it and accept that they will lose money. But staying competitive "at all costs" brought more revenues during the first few years of the contract so...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Icelevel

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,703
9,650
Montreal, Canada
This is a fine example of finding numbers that supports the narrative you're espousing

Why under 25? It's an arbitrary number

Why not say under 23 and also a 1st line player for example?

Boston has been led by Chara since 06. They let him go this off season specifically to see what they had with their young players. Like Jake Zboril, who was Chabot's teammate in Saint John and drafted ahead of Chabot. So Boston is taking a flyer on a 1st rounder in his D+6 season, a former teammate of Chabot's and drafted ahead of Chabot and you're telling us that they are playing the kids. With a similar dev pattern, we'll see Sanderson and JBD in about 2025, 2026. Let's zero in on Brannstrom. Similar dev pattern, we'll try to work Brannstrom in as a full timer in the 22-23 season. That's his D+6 season, same dev pattern as Zboril. I mean why not, they're both mid first rounders right?

You don't like that? How about the other D, Lauzon. He too is a 2015 draftee, in his D 6 season with 35 nhl games on his resume. 2 years in junior, 3 in the A to make it as an NHLer.

Let's not pretend these two situations are similar. They've had the same captain for 15 years, always a veteran leadership group and huge stability.

They hit on 2 young D in Carlo and McAvoy but there hasn't been a lot of kids.

You've listed their future. Our future is < 22 years old + Chabot

lol not really. if you think I am a biased poster pushing agendas, then GOOD FOR YOU. It's never been about being positive or negative for me but telling things like I see them. Dorion didn't inspire a lot of confidence in his first 2 years on the job and I was giving him a bit the benefit of the doubt. I liked many of the moves he did when "selling" so I was starting to get optimistic. But now I have a lot of doubts again. If you have trust in any of Melnyk/Dorion/DJ that they know what they are doing, please let me know because I have a hard time to see that currently.

Why not 25? It's a round number and pretty much the age where the vast majority of NHLers are established. Also getting pretty close to UFA status and where pretty much all players don't have waivers protection anymore. It's pretty much the "make or break" age. Look at guys like Nick Paul or Mike Hoffman, they arrived at 24/25

Do you think it would look better if we take u-23 as the cutoff? Ok sure, then what? Are we proud to say we have 21 y/o Tkachuk and 19 y/o Stutzle + 21 y/o Norris playing because we literally SUCKED the last 3 years and also traded one of the best players in Sens history? Thank God Dorion made the SJ trade (and not a Mark Stone type trade instead), because without it our future would look a lot bleaker

Who else under 23? Batherson? Turns 23 in 3 months. Logan Brown also turns 23 in a few weeks

As for the Bruins explanation, I don't see what it changes from the fact that they have all these young guys in their lineup. They also have 25 y/old players Kase, Ritchie and Clifton. We have Nick Paul and maybe Wolanin who both turn 26 y/o in March.

Do you want me to find other teams? It was just one example... There's plenty... and they ARE NOT necessarily rebuilding... yet they are not scared to play young players.

In the end Dorion/DJ are the ones building the team, it's their decisions, but at least don't have the nerves to take me for an idiot and tell me "blabla young legs".

For Christ's sake.
 

JD1

Registered User
Sep 12, 2005
15,988
9,554
lol not really. if you think I am a biased poster pushing agendas, then GOOD FOR YOU. It's never been about being positive or negative for me but telling things like I see them. Dorion didn't inspire a lot of confidence in his first 2 years on the job and I was giving him a bit the benefit of the doubt. I liked many of the moves he did when "selling" so I was starting to get optimistic. But now I have a lot of doubts again. If you have trust in any of Melnyk/Dorion/DJ that they know what they are doing, please let me know because I have a hard time to see that currently.

Why not 25? It's a round number and pretty much the age where the vast majority of NHLers are established. Also getting pretty close to UFA status and where pretty much all players don't have waivers protection anymore. It's pretty much the "make or break" age. Look at guys like Nick Paul or Mike Hoffman, they arrived at 24/25

Do you think it would look better if we take u-23 as the cutoff? Ok sure, then what? Are we proud to say we have 21 y/o Tkachuk and 19 y/o Stutzle + 21 y/o Norris playing because we literally SUCKED the last 3 years and also traded one of the best players in Sens history? Thank God Dorion made the SJ trade (and not a Mark Stone type trade instead), because without it our future would look a lot bleaker

Who else under 23? Batherson? Turns 23 in 3 months. Logan Brown also turns 23 in a few weeks

As for the Bruins explanation, I don't see what it changes from the fact that they have all these young guys in their lineup. They also have 25 y/old players Kase, Ritchie and Clifton. We have Nick Paul and maybe Wolanin who both turn 26 y/o in March.

Do you want me to find other teams? It was just one example... There's plenty... and they ARE NOT necessarily rebuilding... yet they are not scared to play young players.

In the end Dorion/DJ are the ones building the team, it's their decisions, but at least don't have the nerves to take me for an idiot and tell me "blabla young legs".

For Christ's sake.

You're saying that they have all of these young guys

The two D they are breaking in are in their D+6 season and you're using that as an example of playing kids.

I think there's a big difference between 23 - 25 and <23.
 

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,703
9,650
Montreal, Canada
You're saying that they have all of these young guys

The two D they are breaking in are in their D+6 season and you're using that as an example of playing kids.

I think there's a big difference between 23 - 25 and <23.

Many of our 23-25 guys are sitting/gone in favor of crappy/mediocre short term vets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->