News Article: Globe and Mail article slams Melynk

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

That is not quite the right question, IMO. If we lost those players the franchise would definitely be worse off. But the question is whether we have the means to add to it in order to build a contender.

Yes, the young players will grow and take on increasingly large roles with the team. Hoffman is pretty much at his ceiling given how fantastic he has been and factoring in his age. Ceci is up and down and could become more consistent. Stone is already one of our best forwards, but he can definitely put up bigger numbers. Ditto Zibanejad. Lazar is further away, but he will likely develop into a pretty good player.

Considering where we are at the moment, will all of these internal upgrades make us a contender or a playoff bubble team? Hard to say right now. But one thing I am pretty confident about is if we cannot spend on a decent supporting case, this young group will not get much further than the current group.

I think my main point is that we we're retaining all of our important pieces. Drafting and developing is easily the most important factor into franchise success. If we keep retaining what we draft and develop then I think we will head into the right the direction and be a contending team eventually.

It's the exact formula of how we became successful previously for over a decade. I admit it seems like we are spinning our tires a bit and I wouldn't mind a fresh voice in management while continuing to do what we're doing, but the doom and gloom for the state of our franchise, sorry I just don't see it.

But, as I've said a million times we are NOT UFA players in the market, never have been, and never will be. Of course every once in awhile we might nab a big guy, aka Kovalev and Gonchar, but our entire franchise history has been about developing within, because it's what we need to do to. When it comes to UFA we've always been a let the dust settle and see if there's anything worthwhile afterwards.

So this guy who cancelled his season tickets or whatever because of Melnyk, he kept his season tickets during the Bryden era why exactly? Because we were good? Is there some link between Bryden and the Sens being good as opposed to Melnyk and the Sens being average to mediocre right at this moment?

 

[BonkTastic]

So would your outlook be more positive or negative towards the franchise if we lost Methot, Anderson, and Ryan or kept them together in Ottawa?

Obviously it would be far more negative if we'd lost them. Clearly.

I was just playing devil's advocate, as I don't really think it was a particularly strong argument, at least as it was originally laid out.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Obviously it would be far more negative if we'd lost them. Clearly.

I was just playing devil's advocate, as I don't really think it was a particularly strong argument, at least as it was originally laid out.

That's fine. I just think the article was pretty crappy and kind of funny, and I think Melnyk says a ton of stupid stuff a lot of the time. He's still the most stable owner we've ever had financial wise and I think linking Melnyk to the Sens not being very good at the moment is so black and white and frankly, stupid.

Alfredsson is done, Spezza wanted to move on, Heatley wanted out because he hated Clouston and Heatley ended falling off the map anyway. Phillips is nowhere where he used to be and Redden declined rapidly. THAT'S why we're not very good right now, we had no prospects to replace such amazing talent. I don't see how this is on Melnyk besides one final year of Alfredsson where it would have made no difference. Muckler went for the brass ring when we we're peaking, we didn't grab it, it hurt our prospect pipeline, and now we have to re-establish it. Murray did a pretty decent job at doing that, and now we're in a little bit of no man's land and wait and see at the moment.

 

[Wondercarrot]

For anyone interested in my continued correspondence....

JS:

I appreciate your rose-coloured view, but some day of we bump into each other at the school we ca have a longer chat. On Greening, zi will simply tell you that Zi asked Randy Lee about him at a reception before he signed that mega contract and Lee replied he would never make it in the NHL because he wasn't tough enough to compensate for his other weaknesses. Lee wasn't an assistant gm the, but his analysis proved prescient. Too bad others who are paid to know these things didn't. As for Legwand, I can only presume you don't go to the games live, or if you do we are wE are watching different players. Good luck either your studies.

Myself:

Sounds like a great time to me!

Although a mega contract at 2.65 million? Hardly.. and yes I differ
from most on Legwand (even after attending numerous games this year).
Despite several games in which he gave away the puck at the wrong
time, his contract value is certainly fair and worthwhile considering
our lack of NHL ready prospects who could hold up the third/fourth
line center position. In many ways we are essentially buying time for
our prospects and an easy return for 2016 trade deadline (likewise
with Michalek in 2017)


JS:

Yes $8 million for three years for a guy with one year in the league is both mega and stupid.

ME:


It is called a bridge contract, check Kyle Turris who was barely
relevant after his signing. For other examples, try Andrew Shaw or
Chris Kreider. Both barely relevant but received similar deals (albeit
their success).

honestly you are focusing on the wrong part.
there is no question the greening contract was stupid. it was stupid then and its stupid now.
that IS why GMs get paid, to evaluate the players in the system.
Murray blundered dramatically on this one, period.

Im no fan of Melnyk but there are other aspects of the article that are fuzzy more so than the greening debacle.
and yes it is a debacle, and mega etcectc, when you are the lowest payroll in the league with a strict internal budget you cannot afford to **** up as many contract as have the sens.
it is very limiting and has huge opportunity cost implications.

greening, phillips, michalek, legwand constitutes over $12 million of a $56 million payroll.
I'm no scientist but thats more than 20% of our payroll.

 

[Busboy]

It's frustrating how black and white the discussion is.

Disagreeing with the article doesn't mean we somehow believe we're on the cusp of contending. I simply find the article to be exaggerated and not well balanced. I don't have any illusions about the team being a model franchise, but I'm not so deluded to believe that the sky is falling and we're in some deep pit of despair that we'll never climb out of unless somehow merry billionaire waltzes in with money bursting from his pockets.

I think if you're calling the Greening contract a MEGA mistake, then give Murray some credit and call the Turris contract a MEGA win.

There's more clarity with rose coloured glasses than there is with **** stained glasses.

 

[pepty]

Meh, wannabe feel good leaf story while nothing else is going their way. I see a direction in Ottawa

People can agree or disagree with Simpson but he has no interest in making the Leafs feel good. He is a season ticket holding passionate Sens fan who is unhappy with he direction of the team.

 

[ChocolateLeclaire]

People can agree or disagree with Simpson but he has no interest in making the Leafs feel good. He is a season ticket holding passionate Sens fan who is unhappy with he direction of the team.

There are a lot of fans unhappy with the current direction of the team. Luckily for us, we're not given a national pulpit to write a ****** article complaining about it.

That's my primary concern with this article. It's a half-baked analysis of the problems of this team and if someone posted this on HF Sens, we'd think the poster was out to lunch. Maybe I just expect more from a veteran journalist and supposed "smart" professor but reading this and his correspondence with Rumjacs just spells out that he's just another sports fan with an ax to grind with Melnyk.

All that article does is perpetuate negative stereotypes about the team that aren't completely true. A hack job like that should never get past an editor.

TLR Jeffrey Simpson is an idiot. Even Yost could have written a better article about the Sens than he could. At least he'd use analytics to back it up.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

That editor's job is to make Toronto feel good about themselves

Everything the G&M does is with Toronto in mind, it's pathetic. Not even the National Post is that bad

 

[StefanW]

I think my main point is that we we're retaining all of our important pieces. Drafting and developing is easily the most important factor into franchise success. If we keep retaining what we draft and develop then I think we will head into the right the direction and be a contending team eventually.

It's the exact formula of how we became successful previously for over a decade. I admit it seems like we are spinning our tires a bit and I wouldn't mind a fresh voice in management while continuing to do what we're doing, but the doom and gloom for the state of our franchise, sorry I just don't see it.

But, as I've said a million times we are NOT UFA players in the market, never have been, and never will be. Of course every once in awhile we might nab a big guy, aka Kovalev and Gonchar, but our entire franchise history has been about developing within, because it's what we need to do to. When it comes to UFA we've always been a let the dust settle and see if there's anything worthwhile afterwards.

So this guy who cancelled his season tickets or whatever because of Melnyk, he kept his season tickets during the Bryden era why exactly? Because we were good? Is there some link between Bryden and the Sens being good as opposed to Melnyk and the Sens being average to mediocre right at this moment?

Yeah, I get your point. I will agree to disagree about keeping important pieces though. Alfie left, which was bad at the time. We figured we could replace him, and are now out of the playoffs two seasons running since he hit the road. Gonchar left and we decided to replace him internally rather than picking up and paying for another vet D. I would argue that our lack of another top 4 D like Gonchar (not Gonchar himself, who is spent) is one of the main reasons we have been bad the past two season. Spezza also left, leaving a glaring hole at #1 C.

Taking individually these moves are not wonderful but they appear to give young guys a shot. Taken together, they seem to revolve around cost cutting in ways that make us less competitive. None of those players has been adequately replaced, and our team is worse for it.

 

[jason2020]

That editor's job is to make Toronto feel good about themselves

Everything the G&M does is with Toronto in mind, it's pathetic. Not even the National Post is that bad

There are many unhappy about the Jays some did think they would be bigger players this off season same with Toronto Fc so when they read something about Ottawa it gives them a bit of joy.

 

[Xspyrit]

The Sens are positioned that way for sure, but there is absolutely no guarantee that the team will move out of bottom 10 spending next season. All teams have to spend money to get to the floor, which means that all teams have to sign players to contracts. It is the spending above that amount that separates them.

We'll see I guess but I wouldn't surprised if the payroll gets higher every season for the next few years...

As you know, I have a wait and see approach for things I can't control (wisdom ) but the way I see things, the Sens payroll have decreased since the rebuild in 2011 (shed a lot of salary at the deadline). IMO it's wise to do that financially speaking (you don't need to do that if you're the Leafs, Rangers or Habs) because they were seeing that the Cup wasn't ready to compete for the Cup. But they have been competing for the playoffs every season, and that's what they sold. Yet, people are mad

 

[Laphroaig]

Speaking of "butt hurt", I thought you were done cheering for Ottawa because they were so "stupid" as to extend Anderson's contract? And that you had chosen to cheer for the Habs instead?

You are the worst kind of fan, one that revels in the desperation of trying to be right all the time that a one-sided piece written with the depth of analysis of a grade 6 book report speaks to your line of thinking.

Enjoy cheering your beloved Habs on. Most of us realize the shortcomings of this particular team but we also have the intelligence to see some of the positives that this small market franchise has. We'll continue to cheer for this team and not need to declare our love for the new flavor of the month because the Senators aren't winning enough for our tastes.

Truthfully, no one here really cares what naysayers like you, or Jeffrey Simpson, think.

Obviously if you didn't care what I or Jeffrey Simpson think then you wouldn't have responded so vociferously. I just happen to think that the Sens will be a mediocre team for many years to come especially if Eugene Melnyk remains the owner. It's an opinion. Get over it.

 

[ChocolateLeclaire]

Obviously if you didn't care what I or Jeffrey Simpson think then you wouldn't have responded so vociferously. I just happen to think that the Sens will be a mediocre team for many years to come especially if Eugene Melnyk remains the owner. It's an opinion. Get over it.

That's cool, but I don't really care about what front-running Hab fans think of the Senators. Let alone those whose hockey knowledge lead them to believe it's imperative that the Senators get rid of Anderson.

K. Thanks. Bye.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

The biggest surprise to me in the article is that Melnyk had 2 divorces, though I knew he had one.

And the whole blow up with Scotiabank was also a surprise.

Melnyk has only been divorced once, just another slight misrepresentation of the facts by the author.

At the end of the article:

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated Mr. Melnyk has been divorced twice. This version has been updated

 

[Holdurbreathe]

I'm sorry, but this is misleading to the point of being outright dishonest.

First off, 2004-14 is actually 11 years not 10. The 10 year stretch runs from the 2005-2014 draft, if you want to frame it that way.

In this era, LA won the cup 2 times and Chicago won the cup 2 times. That double counts those teams when you say that 8 of 9 teams had recent top picks.

When you look at the teams that did win, Carolina won the year after drafting Jack Johnson, who was not a factor, 3rd overall. They picked Eric Staal 2nd overall 3 years before, and he led the team in scoring during the cup winning playoff run. So that one is fine.

Anaheim selected Oleg Tzeverdovsky 2nd overall in 1994 and he was long gone by the time the Ducks won the Cup. They selected Ryan 2nd overall just prior to the Cup win, but Ryan did not play on the cup winning team and was not a factor. It is an error to this team in the stat you generated.

Detroit was a cup winner without a top 3 pick, and this is the one you probably spotted.

Pittsburg won the cup, but only after having 4 top 3 picks: 2003: Marc-Andre Fleury (1st overall), 2004; Evgeni Malkin (2nd overall), 2005; Sidney Crosby (1st overall) 2006; Jordan Staal (2nd overall). They picked Malkin, had a miracle lottery win to get Crosby, and they still sucked badly enough to get a 2nd overall. That gives a bit of context.

Chicago won the cup 2 times, and had 3 recent top 3 picks: 2004 Cam Barker (3rd overall); 2006 Jonathon Toews (3rd overall); and 2007 Patrick Kane (1st overall). The won a miracle lottery to get Kane while they were on the upswing.

Boston won the cup with recent top 3 picks of 1997 Joe Thornton (1st overall); 2010 Tyler Seguin (2nd overall). Thornton was long gone by the time they won the cup, and while Seguin did play he was a bit player who finished 15th on the team in scoring during that playoff run. So this should not have been counted in your stat.

LA won the cup 2 times after picking Daughty 2nd overall in 2008. This is a good example.

So what we are left with is LA and Caroline winning the cup with the help of a single top 3 pick. We also have Pittsburg and Chicago winning the cup with numerous top 3 picks.

There are 3 first round picks per year, so 30 over the past 10 years and 45 over the past 15. Eight of those players were contributors to cup winning teams, which sound good until you realize that 6 of those 10 were from two teams (Pittsburg and Chicago).

Sounds a little less impressive, doesn't it?

No it doesn't really, unless of course one ignores the fact there is only one winner every year.

So if 8 contributed to their teams winning, not bad 8 out of 10 or 15 depending on the term you want to use.

But seriously I thought the point of the original poster was for those teams to draft in that position they had to bottom out to get a #1 pick and subsequently went on to win a cup.

Of course the possibility exists that trades may have shifted ownership of a top pick and one or more of the teams on the winners list might not have hit rock bottom.

If this actually happened (I don't know and don't intend to do the research), then wouldn't it be appropriate to include assets acquired for top draft picks in any calculation/analysis?

IMO what is relevant is the effect top draft picks have had on the winners of the cup, not limited to the player drafted.

For example Pronger, value two first round picks both in his trade from and to Anaheim. He definitely was a key factor in the Ducks cup win. So in any analysis regarding the impact of draft picks on winners, shouldn't this type of asset movement be factored in?

I also believe looking back 10 or 15 years is ignoring the current trend in the NHL.

As more teams spent closer to the cap the teams that are challenging for the cup or have won it in recent years have built their core through the draft.

 

[Charliebox]

I am not sure why everyone is so angry with this article.

To me, most of it is bang on. If anything, the author could have added more to the Melnyk saga.

A few points he could have brought up, but missed:
1. the fact that Melnyk owns capital tickets and capital sports management (the latter which owns the building/parking lots/concessions and charges the Sens 'rent'). If you take all of his companies that ONLY exist because of the Sens, they are surely profitable. I'm pretty sure that's what Forbes took into consideration when determining the value of the Sens and the operating income of 22.5M last season. Now, maybe his interest expenses are so huge that they take a good chunk of that, but as fans, is that our problem? If you are so filled with debt, go get a partner. Thing is, any partner with that much money would NOT be dumb enough to just buy into the Sens without getting a piece of capital sports management (CSM) too. Why would anyone want to partner with a man who will just end up filtering your money into another company that he owns, solely?

2. The TV deals. He didn't even really bring that up. That money pretty much went straight into Melnyk's pocket. Maybe, he just tripled the 'rent' the Sens pay to CSM, so he can continue to cry poor.

3. Since Murray has been the owner, he has only taken on substantial money through trade ONCE, and that was due to Alfie leaving a few hours earlier. Melnyk has certainly handcuffed Murray, not only with spending on players, but also on good, established coaches. Anyone ever wonder why we have only had rookie coaches under Melnyk?

Now, I do agree that the author seems to miss the point of a 'rebuild' a bit. Much of his criticism seems to be misdirected.

At the end of the day though, his thesis is bang on.

Melnyk came in as a savior over a decade ago, and after a few free spending years, he has been running this franchise into the ground.

 

[Charliebox]

The article also illustrates how good of a job Murray and his management group has really done since taking over from Muckler.

Murray has turned over the entire roster (minus Phillips and Neil), without completely bottoming this team out. The Sens are back on the upswing and they never even got a top 5 pick over that time.

On top of this, Murray has had no money over that time to use on upgrades through trade or free agency. Picking up Boychuck and/or Leddy would have expedited the rebuild process. The Sens had the assets (prospects and picks) to use to make those trades, but I'm convinced Melnyk would have never let it happen.

We also have to add to that, that the Sens have had a revolving door of coaches due to the fact that Melnyk won't spend on an established, veteran coach.

 

[Vesa Awesaka]

I am not sure why everyone is so angry with this article.

To me, most of it is bang on. If anything, the author could have added more to the Melnyk saga.

A few points he could have brought up, but missed:
1. the fact that Melnyk owns capital tickets and capital sports management (the latter which owns the building/parking lots/concessions and charges the Sens 'rent'). If you take all of his companies that ONLY exist because of the Sens, they are surely profitable. I'm pretty sure that's what Forbes took into consideration when determining the value of the Sens and the operating income of 22.5M last season. Now, maybe his interest expenses are so huge that they take a good chunk of that, but as fans, is that our problem? If you are so filled with debt, go get a partner. Thing is, any partner with that much money would NOT be dumb enough to just buy into the Sens without getting a piece of capital sports management (CSM) too. Why would anyone want to partner with a man who will just end up filtering your money into another company that he owns, solely?

2. The TV deals. He didn't even really bring that up. That money pretty much went straight into Melnyk's pocket. Maybe, he just tripled the 'rent' the Sens pay to CSM, so he can continue to cry poor.

3. Since Murray has been the owner, he has only taken on substantial money through trade ONCE, and that was due to Alfie leaving a few hours earlier. Melnyk has certainly handcuffed Murray, not only with spending on players, but also on good, established coaches. Anyone ever wonder why we have only had rookie coaches under Melnyk?

Now, I do agree that the author seems to miss the point of a 'rebuild' a bit. Much of his criticism seems to be misdirected.

At the end of the day though, his thesis is bang on.

Melnyk came in as a savior over a decade ago, and after a few free spending years, he has been running this franchise into the ground.

I dont like the article because it was dishonest and an exaggeration. Hinting that bingo's record, top 50 prospects or his belief as to why spezza left was dishonest. Not pointing out the team is projected to add 15-20 mil in salary next year was also problematic for me. At least tell that even if it puts hole in the other things you say.

 

[Charliebox]

Sorry for the triple post, but here's another point:

What owns the globe and mail? Bell media. Who just gave the Sens an assload of money this year? Bell media

As soon as Melnyk took their money, he basically signed them up as 'investors'.

Up until now, the media has been pretty soft on Melnyk considering all the stories they could have run with when it comes to this guy.

At the end of the day, if they feel as though the investment they made into this team (and owner) is not being used properly, and TV ratings plummet, you can expect to see a lot more of these types of articles.

 

[Vesa Awesaka]

Sorry for the triple post, but here's another point:

What owns the globe and mail? Bell media. Who just gave the Sens an assload of money this year? Bell media

As soon as Melnyk took their money, he basically signed them up as 'investors'.

Up until now, the media has been pretty soft on Melnyk considering all the stories they could have run with when it comes to this guy.

At the end of the day, if they feel as though the investment they made into this team (and owner) is not being used properly, and TV ratings plummet, you can expect to see a lot more of these types of articles.

I get what you're saying but i think you're making a lot of jumps. I HIGHLY doubt bell media pressured Simpson to write an article on Melnyk because they felt the money was misuesed. Simpson has bashed the team far before Melnyk cried poor or Bell made a tv deal with the senators.

I believe Melnyk has taken a substantial hit to his portfolio in recent years and that the debt is scary but theres just to many jumps people are taking or assumptions people are making.

 

[Charliebox]

I dont like the article because it was dishonest and an exaggeration. Hinting that bingo's record, top 50 prospects or his belief as to why spezza left was dishonest. Not pointing out the team is projected to add 15-20 mil in salary next year was also problematic for me. At least tell that even if it puts hole in the other things you say.

Sure, they are going to add salary, but they are also going to shed it, too. Phillips, Neil, Greening, Legwand (total over 10M) will all be coming off the books shortly.

The Sens still don't project out to be anywhere near a cap team for the foreseeable future.

I have never been the type to promote trying to buy a team. It just bothers me that last year, there were two great Dmen available due to other team's cap issues, and we weren't in on either. There wasn't even one rumor linking us to those deals.

The same thing is going to happen this summer. Teams will be looking to shed salary again. There will be some really good players available. If Murray isn't in on any of those, then I think it's reasonable to assume it is because of Melnyk.

 

[Charliebox]

I get what you're saying but i think you're making a lot of jumps. I HIGHLY doubt bell media pressured Simpson to write an article on Melnyk because they felt the money was misuesed. Simpson has bashed the team far before Melnyk cried poor or Bell made a tv deal with the senators.

I believe Melnyk has taken a substantial hit to his portfolio in recent years and that the debt is scary but theres just to many jumps people are taking or assumptions people are making.

I am not saying they pressured him to write the article.

Think about it this way: What Canadian owner is easier to write an article about than Melnyk?

I'm sure many journalists wanted to tackle his story (and what he has done to the Sens) for a few years now, but didn't get the green light, or their article didn't make it past the editor. I said the media has been pretty soft on him over the past while. He has got a free pass, and until they start talking about what he has done with CSM and Capital tickets, we still aren't even hearing the whole story.

 

[Vesa Awesaka]

I am not saying they pressured him to write the article.

Think about it this way: What Canadian owner is easier to write an article about than Melnyk?

I'm sure many journalists wanted to tackle his story (and what he has done to the Sens) for a few years now, but didn't get the green light, or their article didn't make it past the editor. I said the media has been pretty soft on him over the past while. He has got a free pass, and until they start talking about what he has done with CSM and Capital tickets, we still aren't even hearing the whole story.

Simpson doesnt need much of a green light to write article. The guy is basically a legend it would seem. I'd wager theres probably not a substantial difference in the amount of articles written on katz versus melnyk in relation to their hockey teams. Remember that i believe Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver(till recently) and even Montreal(till recently) havent had perfect faces to their ownership like Melnyk or Katz

 

[jason2020]

I am not saying they pressured him to write the article.

Think about it this way: What Canadian owner is easier to write an article about than Melnyk?

I'm sure many journalists wanted to tackle his story (and what he has done to the Sens) for a few years now, but didn't get the green light, or their article didn't make it past the editor. I said the media has been pretty soft on him over the past while. He has got a free pass, and until they start talking about what he has done with CSM and Capital tickets, we still aren't even hearing the whole story.

What has he done with Capital Tickets.

 

[Charliebox]

What has he done with Capital Tickets.

Making a pile of cash that he doesn't declare when he talks about the financial troubles of the Sens.

That company only exists because of the Sens and falls under that umbrella.