Management Dorion best moves

[MatchesMalone]

I mean, burrows was so bad we bought him out. Where does that factor in?

Re-signing him was a separate move. He was clutch that playoffs.

 

[stempniaksen]

People love to look at that Dahlen deal with hindsight and a take a victory lap.

Dahlen was an early/mid 2nd round pick who was trending up after a good season and WJHC. It would be like trading Pinto right now.

Burrows also seemingly gets a ton of credit for that playoff run and I have no idea why. He played 2-3 good games down the stretch, but this was a team that was (likely) going to make the playoffs, regardless of the contributions of a 4th liner. Then the playoffs roll around and he's just "fine" for the entirety of that run. Not bad by any means, but not a difference maker either. Certainly didn't have enough of an impact to claim that we would have lost out sooner than we did.

The only reason this isn't one of Dorion's worst deals is because Dahlen seems to have settled in as a talented player who can't hack it in NA, but that doesn't off-set the goddawful extension Burrows got as part of the deal.

 

[Micklebot]

He was bad when we no longer needed him, because everyone all the way to EK was bad the following year.

He was good when we needed him, which is why we traded for him, the rest was the price we paid.

Sure, but one Dorion's best trades? No chance. Burrows was a bit player on the 3rd line. That's not the kind of trade that should make best trade lists even with the most generous evaluations of his role in our run.

 

[stempniaksen]

Re-signing him was a separate move. He was clutch that playoffs.

He wasn't gonna waive his NTC without an extension. It wasn't separate, the moves are as linked as you can possible get.

I also disagree on the playoffs, one chip pass off the boards to set up an OT winner with ~18 games of being "just okay" doesn't make him clutch. EK was clutch, Bobby was clutch, Brass (for a time) was clutch. That's different than the impact Burrows had.

 

[Samsquanch]

People love to look at that Dahlen deal with hindsight and a take a victory lap.

Dahlen was an early/mid 2nd round pick who was trending up after a good season and WJHC. It would be like trading Pinto right now.

Burrows also seemingly gets a ton of credit for that playoff run and I have no idea why. He played 2-3 good games down the stretch, but this was a team that was (likely) going to make the playoffs, regardless of the contributions of a 4th liner. Then the playoffs roll around and he's just "fine" for the entirety of that run. Not bad by any means, but not a difference maker either. Certainly didn't have enough of an impact to claim that we would have lost out sooner than we did.

The only reason this isn't one of Dorion's worst deals is because Dahlen seems to have settled in as a talented player who can't hack it in NA, but that doesn't off-set the goddawful extension Burrows got as part of the deal.

Did Burrrows not get the primary assist on two seperate GWGs in overtime during that playoff run? Call me crazy, but those seem like some fairly important goals that he was a part of for us....

 

[Micklebot]

Re-signing him was a separate move. He was clutch that playoffs.

Trading for him was contingent on the extension. He wouldn't waive his ntc without it. You simply cannot separate the two.

 

[MatchesMalone]

You could argue Vancouver sold high on Burrows and should be given credit for getting a lottery ticket in Dahlen and avoiding re-signing Burrows to a liability of a contract.

Good for Dorion on identifying Dahlen as expendable. I doubt people would credit him for getting good value had he traded his 1st (who looks like a potential bust himself) so i am not sure it's fair to claim we gave nothing of value since Dahlen has gone on to bust.

The issue is we traded something of debatable value (whether you think he was worth a late 1st, a 2nd, 3rd or all the way done to nothing isn't the point here) for a 5 dollar bill, and an invoice to pay 20 dollars. We got negative value in Burrows when all is said and done. If that's on your list of best trades you are in a heap of trouble. Ditch the extension and the deal is ok but nowhere near his best trades imo, and that's taking into account that Dahlen busted.

We got to the conference finals. An overtime goal away from the finals.

And just because you didn't know Dahlen wasn't a very good prospect, doesn't mean others didn't.

 

[Micklebot]

He wasn't gonna waive his NTC without an extension. It wasn't separate, the moves are as linked as you can possible get.

I also disagree on the playoffs, one chip pass off the boards to set up an OT winner with ~18 games of being "just okay" doesn't make him clutch. EK was clutch, Bobby was clutch, Brass (for a time) was clutch. That's different than the impact Burrows had.

He only play 15 not all 19 games.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but trading Phaneuf and Thompson for Gaborik and Shore was decent. We saw Gaborik for the rest of that season then went on the LTIR for the rest of his career. Got out of Phaneufs deal easier than I thought. Leafs had to pay a 1st to have Marleau's 1 year 6M deal bought out. Phaneuf had 3 years left at 7M.

While this is true, Murray credited Dorion for orchestrating the original Phaneuf acquisition while Murray was working less and less.

In hindsight, that was a mixed bag that led to some good things, but also being hamstrung with a big money long term deal for about a year and a half of decent play. Might have been better off going another route or letting our short term money expire.

I give him credit for being creative to get the money off the books for the most part with that Gaborik trade, but at that point things had gone off the rails already and only served to benefit Melnyk's wallet to circumvent the cap. Similar to Smith for Anisimov, too little too late to matter in the big picture, the bonus is just not having to watch Smith in a Sens jersey anymore. These types of moves would have deserved more kudos if the shuffling could have been done before things fell apart.

 

[MatchesMalone]

He wasn't gonna waive his NTC without an extension. It wasn't separate, the moves are as linked as you can possible get.

I also disagree on the playoffs, one chip pass off the boards to set up an OT winner with ~18 games of being "just okay" doesn't make him clutch. EK was clutch, Bobby was clutch, Brass (for a time) was clutch. That's different than the impact Burrows had.

Ah, I forgot about that.

But there's a lot more to Burrows' game than scoring goals, on and off the ice. What a young team needs for a long playoff run is veterans who have been through it, and to have been through the battles with Chicago that Bur was, you can't put a value on that.

 

[Micklebot]

We got to the conference finals. An overtime goal away from the finals.

And just because you didn't know Dahlen wasn't a very good prospect, doesn't mean others didn't.

So is every trade no matter what that year Dorion's best trade because we made it to the ECF?

Mckenzie talked about Dahlen and how he was viewed around the time if the trade. Some teams loved him, some liked him and some thought he wouldn't amount to anything. The idea that he had now value at the time is revisionist history at its best. Certainly some people overvalued him at the time, but you are currently trying to undervalue him now.

 

[tardigrade81]

I'd include drafting players such as Chabot, Tkachuk, Formenton, and Batherson.

Definitely.

 

[ijif]

Pretty much every trade is impossible to evaluate (in terms of evaluating GMPD) or most people do it illogically. The best example of this is the Karlsson trade.

 

[Dingle]

Judging Dorion's best moves will be based upon the future ones. What he has done to date has filtered down to the 2020 and 2021 drafts.

If he gets them right, then he is a genius and all past moves become brilliant.
If he get them wrong, then not only are those moves bad, but past moves become wrong.

By Nov/Dec of 2021, maybe early January of 2023. He will either be lauded as the best GM, or will carry the burden of being the worst.

It is incredible to see this. To see an individual and an organization, put themselves in a simple, Go/No Go situation.

Man not only is Eugene a gambler, Dorion maybe an even bigger gambler.

 

[stempniaksen]

Pretty much every trade is impossible to evaluate (in terms of evaluating GMPD) or most people do it illogically. The best example of this is the Karlsson trade.

Not every trade can simply be looked at from a logical perspective though. There's context and nuance at play.

Is it logical to allow a 40 year old to test free agency coming off his 2 worst offensive seasons of the last decade? Of course
Did it work out to the benefit of the team in the short/medium/long term? Probably not.

Trading is more art than science, imo.

 

[Micklebot]

Top Trades in no particular order:
Brassard to the Pens - Great deal for us. Got a solid pick, a good goalie prospect, and a 3rd to boot.
Lazar for a 2nd - Thought that was solid value and the fact that we drafted Formenton makes it even better.
Phaneuf to LA - this one only works in hindsight, but the way things went we unloaded a liability and insurance is paying the bill
Karlsson to SJ - Took some time for me to come around, but with the benefit of hindsight who can argue with SJ's 1st (looking like a potential top 5 pick), Norris, Balcers, Tierney, DeMelo (flipped for a 3rd) and a 2nd.
Dzingel to Clb - Two 2nds and Duclair, got a younger better player and the picks? Homerun

Honourable mentions:
Smith for Anisimov - Good value for us for sure.
Duchene to Clb - Solid pick, and a couple decent prospects. Could turn out really good.
Pageau to NYI - 1st and a 2nd is pretty much the asking price, and I think he stuck to his guns and got it. Time will tell how it turns out but as of now I see it as a win even though I'm sad to see Pageau go.

Managerial decisions:

Drafting Tkachuk and Chabot both look like great decisions, though you could argue maybe somebody better was available, both guys are punching well above their weight class (where they were drafted) imo so I call that a win.

 

[MatchesMalone]

So is every trade no matter what that year Dorion's best trade because we made it to the ECF?

In philosophy we have this thing called the "principle of charity". You should look into it, Principle of charity - Wikipedia

Mckenzie talked about Dahlen and how he was viewed around the time if the trade. Some teams loved him, some liked him and some thought he wouldn't amount to anything. The idea that he had now value at the time is revisionist history at its best. Certainly some people overvalued him at the time, but you are currently trying to undervalue him now.

Here's my post from the time of the trade, after everyone was already shitting on it,

"Burrrr!!!!!

Oh my God! What an exciting time to be a Sens fan!

Boucher finally has this team playing like a playoff team, and now over the course of this season, Dorion has added Burrows and Wingels to the crop of young stars, while hardly giving up anything in terms of futures...

I didn't bother to read other comments, I was so excited to come post, but I can see _____'s comment at the top of my screen so... Dahlen is a pretty good prospect, sure, but we've got enough depth of prospects, and some much better prospects, to be able to afford to give up one to help try to win this year. And to compare Dahlen to Forsberg is RIDICULOUS. Forsberg was a 10th (11th?) overall pick, Dahlen was a third rounder. If he does make the NHL, he's likely a well-rounded top nine forward with some skill.

Lets look at it this way, if I give you 20 dollars for 50 cents, but there is about a 50% chance that 50 cents becomes 20 dollars in a few years, and a 5% chance it becomes 100 dollars, would you do that trade? It would probably depend on your situation, right? If you're in a situation where you don't need to buy anything right now, but you want to invest for the future, it would make sense to take the 50 cents and hope, but if you're someone who is just a few dollars away from buying something really important in the immediate future, it would make sense to take the 20 dollars..."

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

It's difficult to truly analyze without knowing what other moves/routes were on the table at any given point in time.

There's so many directions that you can take things that it's hard to truly say.

He has done an amazing job building up some premier draft stock here, but it's a much easier thing to do when you go full nuclear, trade anything and everything, and write off 3-5 seasons entirely. It's sort of like playing video game GM for a few years.

 

[Micklebot]

In philosophy we have this thing called the "principle of charity". You should look into it, Principle of charity - Wikipedia

the point is how far we went in the playoffs is only relevant if he played a major role in that that nobody else could have. I'd argue that's a very generous interpretation on his impact. It's also not as though it was burrows or nothing. We identified a need, would likely have looked elsewhere had Chicago managed to land Burrows instead of us (they were apparently the other team interested). We could have paid a bit more and gone after a player like Boyle for example, and not ended up with a negative value extension.

Here's my post from the time of the trade, after everyone was already shitting on it,

"Burrrr!!!!!

Oh my God! What an exciting time to be a Sens fan!

Boucher finally has this team playing like a playoff team, and now over the course of this season, Dorion has added Burrows and Wingels to the crop of young stars, while hardly giving up anything in terms of futures...

I didn't bother to read other comments, I was so excited to come post, but I can see _____'s comment at the top of my screen so... Dahlen is a pretty good prospect, sure, but we've got enough depth of prospects, and some much better prospects, to be able to afford to give up one to help try to win this year. And to compare Dahlen to Forsberg is RIDICULOUS. Forsberg was a 10th (11th?) overall pick, Dahlen was a third rounder. If he does make the NHL, he's likely a well-rounded top nine forward with some skill.

Lets look at it this way, if I give you 20 dollars for 50 cents, but there is about a 50% chance that 50 cents becomes 20 dollars in a few years, and a 5% chance it becomes 100 dollars, would you do that trade? It would probably depend on your situation, right? If you're in a situation where you don't need to buy anything right now, but you want to invest for the future, it would make sense to take the 50 cents and hope, but if you're someone who is just a few dollars away from buying something really important in the immediate future, it would make sense to take the 20 dollars..."

So, a couple points;

1. Nobody compared Dahlen's value to Forsberg, this is a tired strawman that keeps getting rehashed. He was mentioned because they were both producing at a similar rate in the same league on the same team, but that does not mean anybody thought they were similar value (Dahlen was a year older for one). It's funny that you post the principal of charity and immediately go on to post a quote of yourself not doing exactly what it suggests (also, you were mistaken, Dahlen was taken in the top half of the 2nd, not a 3rd). The reason people referenced that was to show growth in Dahlen's game, he was playing at a high level with other high level prospects. This is what you hope for out of a 2nd round pick, that's all.

2. I agree with you that you when you trade off futures there's always inherent risk that sometime down the road the futures will outvalue the return you get now, and it's all about balancing the risk and returns to meet both your current and future needs. I have zero issue with us giving Dahlen in a trade at that time. Heck, Burrows is an alright option to target for a playoff run (not who I would have targeted, I didn;t like him all that much) my issue is we a) extended him which to me shifts the value in a bad way both in foresight at the time, and with the benefit of hindsight, and b) this trade being listed as one of Dorion's best, which imo, even if we ignored the extension, it should be nowhere near being considered a top trade by Dorion.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Sure, but one Dorion's best trades? No chance. Burrows was a bit player on the 3rd line. That's not the kind of trade that should make best trade lists even with the most generous evaluations of his role in our run.

Oh, haha, yeah it wasn’t one of his best trades, in my opinion, agreed!

 

[Micklebot]

Oh, haha, yeah it wasn’t one of his best trades, in my opinion, agreed!

Cool, that's all I'm asking for here, I can at least understand not wanting to undo the trade because the chain reaction it would cause might mean no ECF run, bird in the hand afterall, but I just don't see how that trade belongs in this thread of all places...

Just my opinion and all, and I'm sure y'all are tired of hearing it so I'm just going to move on.

 

[MatchesMalone]

the point is how far we went in the playoffs is only relevant if he played a major role in that that nobody else could have. I'd argue that's a very generous interpretation on his impact. It's also not as though it was burrows or nothing. We identified a need, would likely have looked elsewhere had Chicago managed to land Burrows instead of us (they were apparently the other team interested). We could have paid a bit more and gone after a player like Boyle for example, and not ended up with a negative value extension.



So, a couple points;

1. Nobody compared Dahlen's value to Forsberg, this is a tired strawman that keeps getting rehashed. He was mentioned because they were both producing at a similar rate in the same league on the same team, but that does not mean anybody thought they were similar value (Dahlen was a year older for one). It's funny that you post the principal of charity and immediately go on to post a quote of yourself not doing exactly what it suggests (also, you were mistaken, Dahlen was taken in the top half of the 2nd, not a 3rd). The reason people referenced that was to show growth in Dahlen's game, he was playing at a high level with other high level prospects. This is what you hope for out of a 2nd round pick, that's all.

2. I agree with you that you when you trade off futures there's always inherent risk that sometime down the road the futures will outvalue the return you get now, and it's all about balancing the risk and returns to meet both your current and future needs. I have zero issue with us giving Dahlen in a trade at that time. Heck, Burrows is an alright option to target for a playoff run (not who I would have targeted, I didn;t like him all that much) my issue is we a) extended him which to me shifts the value in a bad way both in foresight at the time, and with the benefit of hindsight, and b) this trade being listed as one of Dorion's best, which imo, even if we ignored the extension, it should be nowhere near being considered a top trade by Dorion.

1. Somebody on that forum, the _____ I was replying to, literally did.

And what made Burrows such an important acquisition, and why I was so excited, is the thing I'd been arguing for on that forum (I'm sure I could find more quotes if you want), that for a team in our situation that had the talent to make a run but lacked experience, the one thing we needed to add was players with experience going deep in the playoffs. As a Canucks fan, I watched first hand the battles they went through year after year with Chicago. We had nobody on our roster so battle hardened, nor was there likely anyone else available who could bring that.

 

[MatchesMalone]

Double post

 

[Icelevel]

luchuk and a 7th for peca

(i don't need a winky face here do i?)

 

[Sweatred]

Walking away from UFA’s. Having 3-5 Boat anchor, under preforming, negative value contacts on this team is not a sustainable way to build a franchise. Tough love but that could easily add up to $20+ million a year in negative value and we just can’t get around building a competitive cap floor team with a $20 mill titanic boat anchor.