Joe Sakic - Record as Colorado Avalanche GM - Part II (Updates in First Post)

[Pokecheque]

The rut he cannot fall into again is giving out "reward" contracts. Look, if he decides to retain Wilson and Andrighetto, fine. I just want the criterion to be whether it's the best possible option and not because they're good in the room and performed relatively well this postseason, they kinda did that in 2014 and every one of the contracts they ended up signing guys to turned out to be a mistake.

The good news is, ironically, I'm reasonably confident Joe knows what NOT to do now. He suffered through the 2016-17 season with a team that was way too old and way too slow. I think the "adversity" narrative tends to get a little overblown I don't necessarily think it's without value.

The team must remain fast, it must maximize skill, and it should remain young. At this point he's adding talent to the fringes while also keeping an eye toward the expansion draft a year from now. A challenge, but not an insurmountable one. Unlike other GMs in the league, he won't be looking to overhaul the roster, add a core player, or hire a new coach.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

Nah, cgf is correct, Eagles. I heard this same dogma in 2014, posted by quite a few people.

I'm very much enjoying the run the team is on, but I am recognizing it as a run. They are playing their best hockey of the season, at the right time of the season, all driven by awesome goaltending. It's not sustainable for an entire season, and likely not sustainable for an entire postseason. We'll see.

While I agree that we as fans should be happy with said run, going into an offseason and only paying attention to a small amount of games - and ignoring two thirds of a season of underwhelming hockey - is not a prudent thing for Sakic to do. Or any of us to do. MacKinnon and Grubauer have been playing in the stratosphere, both of them probably the #1 player in the NHL at their respective positions over the past few weeks. How long is either sustainable? Take both of them down a notch or two, and what happens? If that happens, the team will need lots of production from its depth.

The team still has weaknesses, and those weaknesses need to be addressed in the offseason, if the team is to have a 3-4 year Cup-contending window.

Overall I agree with your post but don't with the bold part. It was well documented (by Cousin Eddie I think?) with stats that our bad stretch in Dec and Jan was mainly due to bad goaltending and our poor record in OT. Those stats showed that the Avs were still a top-10 teams throughout that stretch at least in the important stats and most of the other as well. They were still outplaying their opponents but they were just not getting the saves. Our goalies were playing at around .850-.870 SV%. At that level of goaltending it doesn't matter how well you play, you will lose most of your games. The reason we were taken lightly coming into the playoffs is because most people were only looking at our record during that stretch instead of looking at how we were losing.

It is actually ironic that people were quick to use advanced stats to discredit the Avs in our big season 13-14 (they were right) but just looking at the record this year to show they were just a bubble team. This team was much more than just a bubble team this year.

 

[cgf]

Well that's one way to think of it I guess......

First of all, you're looking at this from the most simplistic way possible to try and prove a point. Not really an effective point in any way, unless you also believe that any argument made by cherry picking stats is also effective every time.

Second, a team can have a very poor social cohesion and still be effective in regards to the task cohesion for the group. The two components are separate, and although it is usually preferential to have both it is in no way unreasonable to expect a team/group to have success or failure based on strictly on a lack of one (or in some cases potentially both, especially if other factors come into play). Even ignoring all the other factors that play into the cohesiveness of the group and only looking at those two components, you're out of your mind if you don't think that they have an effect on the capabilities of a group.

Don't get me wrong, some people might take it a bit far (in regards to the information that the majority of us actually have) and overstate the impact (or lack of impact) that a specific acquisition could have on the locker room. However, it is a very real thing that needs to be considered from a team perspective.

Hell even ignoring the research on the impact of the topic directly, you could look at the research on the effect of retaining players. Players tend to be more likely to stay with a team if they have a personal feel of good task cohesion within a team (I don't recall direct research in regards to the same effect with social cohesion but I'd assume it exists to some degree at least).

Finally, in regards to Makar. The Avs had so much information on the kid going all the way back to before the draft, that I'm sure they had a rough estimation in regards to how he would fit into the chemistry of the team. It's not like he's some "oh crap we can add this guy", they've been working towards this for literally years now.

I'd also assume that Columbus and Vegas both did their due diligence in regards to the players they acquired. Teams tend not to just roll the dice anymore and hope things work out with a player. Talent might be the deciding or majority of a decision, but the locker room effect can be a deal breaker.



It seems so odd to make statements like that, when there is so much research out there that shows the positive impact that these things have within a group or team setting (as well as the potential negative impact that is possible).


Edit: This isn't arguing one way or the other in regards to the acquisition of the people talked about. Just the comment itself, since it kind of bugged me

Personally I'd prefer to look elsewhere than Hayes or Ferland (especially at what I expect they will go for), if possible. Not the biggest fan of either at this point in time. Nor do I think they would fill the roles expected by their upcoming contracts (unless they don't sign the traditional UFA deals). I'm not completely against the players themselves or if the team goes in that direction though. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about them if the team opts to go that way.

I don't really disagree with any of this, but I also wasn't the one who turned this into a discussion about black & white. That was Eagles when he argued against making any significant additions, regardless of need, because chemistry was so paramount to our success.

I'm all about the grey areas that require context to navigate & balance...as should be evident to anyone following the draft threads lol. Which is why I think we shouldn't let chemistry prevent us from making the upgrades we need unless we're talking about a truly toxic individual; as there certainly are players I would not welcome to this locker-room regardless of their ability, and some manageable personalities that I just don't think are worth the hassle to us...aka there's a reason I've never really been championing Hamilton for us, ya know?

But since SE painted things in black & white, I responded within that framework.

 

[cgf]

Funny but that's kind of exactly what I want us to become - a team that's always in the playoffs, usually has a legit chance of winning the cup, and who manage to consistently find good players late in the draft.

See, the way I view the playoff is similar to how I view the draft - you need as many kicks at the can as possible, because whether or not you hit it out of the park is in many ways due to luck. You can say San Jose is a failure because they have failed to win the cup, but they also could easily have won several cups if things had worked out slightly differently. If a team loads up for a single run, then suffers a few key injuries, they've wasted their only chance. If they just tweaked rather than loading up, they might actually have a better chance because they'll have multiple chances.

I also don't buy this idea that teams must have a limited window of success just because of the cap. It's clear to me how to achieve sustained success - it's just hard. It's about knowing when to move on from players, and every few years trading away a good player for younger assets who re-stock your talent depth. That means every few years you have to part with a good player, but it also means you maintain the same level of success for as long as you keep making good decisions. Chicago nearly pulled it off, but made several mistakes like failing to address getting a replacement for Crawford and messed up with the Panarin trade (if they had to move him it should have been for multiple young assets, not Saad).

I don't think every team in the playoffs has a shot just because they made it...and I suspect that's our main point of separation. Yes LA won it all as an 8th seed & 'lumbus is a serious threat this year, but those were atypical 8th seeds who had made major upgrades that were still settling in prior to the postseason starting. So despite being 8th seeds, they had/have the pieces to contend. That's why I don't think you can argue that SJ has been a contender throughout Jumbo's tenure there. They were contenders in the 2000s and are contenders again now, but they absolutely fell out of that tier for an extended period as well...and despite all of those postseason berths they don't have a single cup to show for it.

So I don't disagree with the way you view the playoffs, I just don't think a playoff berth counts as a kick of the can unless you have the personnel to win it all. And what that formula is, we can see from examining past winners.


As for unlimited windows, that's just unsustainable. You can extend your window with shrewd maneuvering, but the margin of error is so small that the instant you stop pulling rabits out of your ass it all catches up to you & you're forced into the same kind of retool as ever contender who's window has closed without their core having retired. That's why Chicago ultimately failed, despite having the benefit of cap-circumventing contracts & teams thirsty to absorb their cap-mistakes.

 

[lonelybadger]

My only knock on Joe Sakic now is that he really seems to suck at the low risk high reward longterm RFA contract.

O'Reilly, Barrie, Rantanen all could have been on the team had he loosened the purse strings and bet on his staff/scouts.

 

[Pokecheque]

My only knock on Joe Sakic now is that he really seems to suck at the low risk high reward longterm RFA contract.

O'Reilly, Barrie, Rantanen all could have been on the team had he loosened the purse strings and bet on his staff/scouts.

We could (and have had) this argument ad nauseam. I don't mean to snip at you, it's a valid argument but we're all only able to look at what-if scenarios at this point.

Bottom line, the team was not yet ready, despite the surprise run of 2013-14. Years upon years of bad drafting would not yet nail the team until two years later, but the team had zero depth beyond the big names. The O'Reilly and Duchene trades have gone a long, long way toward addressing the severe organizational deficits that were present once Sakic took over. They TRIED to fill those gaps with free agents, both at the minor-league and major-league levels. Those plans failed miserably, and I don't think there would have been any way that it would have worked.

Could they have made it work with O'Reilly? We'll never know, but I have my doubts that they could have iced a contender and stayed under the cap...it would have taken completely mistake-free management at all levels (basically impossible, even under the best of circumstances). And I guarantee you that if they had made it work with O'Reilly and the team had stayed at least competitive, the roster would look very, very different right now, because Roy would still be in charge. Would Barrie still be there? Would Duchene? Probably a safe bet Makar isn't because in this timeline they didn't run aground in 2017, right?

Unfortunately, the team needed to fail for a little longer before they came to this point. The good news, I suppose, is that we know they never outright tanked it on purpose under Sakic, but they have appeared to take advantage of the benefits of that failure through the draft at least. Now we will see if they can continue to build off early success.

 

[lonelybadger]

We could (and have had) this argument ad nauseam. I don't mean to snip at you, it's a valid argument but we're all only able to look at what-if scenarios at this point.

Bottom line, the team was not yet ready, despite the surprise run of 2013-14. Years upon years of bad drafting would not yet nail the team until two years later, but the team had zero depth beyond the big names. The O'Reilly and Duchene trades have gone a long, long way toward addressing the severe organizational deficits that were present once Sakic took over. They TRIED to fill those gaps with free agents, both at the minor-league and major-league levels. Those plans failed miserably, and I don't think there would have been any way that it would have worked.

Could they have made it work with O'Reilly? We'll never know, but I have my doubts that they could have iced a contender and stayed under the cap...it would have taken completely mistake-free management at all levels (basically impossible, even under the best of circumstances). And I guarantee you that if they had made it work with O'Reilly and the team had stayed at least competitive, the roster would look very, very different right now, because Roy would still be in charge. Would Barrie still be there? Would Duchene? Probably a safe bet Makar isn't because in this timeline they didn't run aground in 2017, right?

Unfortunately, the team needed to fail for a little longer before they came to this point. The good news, I suppose, is that we know they never outright tanked it on purpose under Sakic, but they have appeared to take advantage of the benefits of that failure through the draft at least. Now we will see if they can continue to build off early success.

My biggest one is Rantanan. The rumors were long term starting with an 8, which after an 84 point season seems reasonable, and now I would buy a lottery ticket if it some how came under 10.

 

[cgf]

You can always be certain cgf will let you know.

Really? LOL! Very few of us are Sea Eagles.

JB has done a great job motivating all of the Avs players to play at this high level at the end of the regular season and carry it through into the POs. Players that you might not have viewed favorably have a funny way of sometimes stepping ups to the plate in the odd situation in the POs. That's what you really want as the coach. For your players to be healthy, hungry, focused and playing their best hockey. The Avs are on the right track.

Who said I'm not happy? I'm over the moon with this season. But if folks are going to talk about next season & the future in general, I'm going to respond as objectively as I can...i.e., even though it's obviously going to happen one day, I'm not cool with penciling Meloche onto our top pairing.

 

[flyfysher]

I wasn't specifically referring to you cgf as being unhappy with how the team is performing. My point was that EVERYONE always has a better idea how to improve the team and aren't happy to sit still. That part is true about you, me and every other Avs fan. I always appreciate reading your suggestions.

 

[Foppa2118]

My only knock on Joe Sakic now is that he really seems to suck at the low risk high reward longterm RFA contract.

O'Reilly, Barrie, Rantanen all could have been on the team had he loosened the purse strings and bet on his staff/scouts.

He got Landy and MacKinnon on pretty good long term deals. Negotiations just didn't go well with ROR and Barrie.

Mikko didn't want to sign a deal before this season. Hopefully they make a good deal, but I'm not sure what to make of Dater saying Mikko wants a bridge deal. That doesn't make much sense to me but who knows.

 

[5280]

We'll know in a matter of months. Just saying I hope Joe isn't feeling himself too hard, lest he pull a last-summer.

I’m going have to jump in here. What would make you think Joe would ever be “feeling himself” too much. The dude has had no ego problem whatsoever in his entire playing and management career. Why would one appear now?

He pulled a “last summer” and we’re in the second round of the playoffs. He must have done something right.

I think some of you dudes can’t see the forest for the trees. You have some ideal way all of this should play out and disregard that there are many other factors to consider while trying to land a free agent or in building a team.

All you guys are torn up about windows this and windows that and are over looking the fact that we did indeed improve from last year. Maybe we didn’t have the ideal free agent signing and we weren’t the model of consistency throughout the season, but we did have success and did bring in some pieces that have contributed to this success.

There is a MO to all of this.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

I’m going have to jump in here. What would make you think Joe would ever be “feeling himself” too much. The dude has had no ego problem whatsoever in his entire playing and management career. Why would one appear now?

He pulled a “last summer” and we’re in the second round of the playoffs. He must have done something right.

I think some of you dudes can’t see the forest for the trees. You have some ideal way all of this should play out and disregard that there are many other factors to consider while trying to land a free agent or in building a team.

All you guys are torn up about windows this and windows that and are over looking the fact that we did indeed improve from last year. Maybe we didn’t have the ideal free agent signing but we did bring in some pieces that have contributed to our success.

This. One could argue that we did improve quite a bit in fact considering how our goalies performed during our bad stretch. Stat-wise this team has been performing at a top-10 level for most of the season. I would say Sakic did indeed do something right.

 

[cgf]

I’m going have to jump in here. What would make you think Joe would ever be “feeling himself” too much. The dude has had no ego problem whatsoever in his entire playing and management career. Why would one appear now?

He pulled a “last summer” and we’re in the second round of the playoffs. He must have done something right.

I think some of you dudes can’t see the forest for the trees. You have some ideal way all of this should play out and disregard that there are many other factors to consider while trying to land a free agent or in building a team.

All you guys are torn up about windows this and windows that and are over looking the fact that we did indeed improve from last year. Maybe we didn’t have the ideal free agent signing and we weren’t the model of consistency throughout the season, but we did bring in some pieces that have contributed to this success.

There is a MO to all of this.

Funny how perspective works. Cause from where I sit, 'not seeing the forest for the trees' is much more applicable to people arguing that we don't still need multiple top 6ers to win a cup just because we won a round in a down year for the western conference

This has nothing to do with some fantasy we've concocted but with a simple look at the teams who've actually won cups in the past decade. Which is why the bolded is terrifying if we end up with another summer of Joe following his MO & banking on internal growth for incremental progress that lets another cup chance go by the way-side because a perfect solution did not fall into our lap.

I don't see the point of arguing this, folks are dug in & we'll find out soon enough if my concerns are warranted. But when folks are pre-emptively gloating about something that'll happen in the future in this thread, it can be hard not to textually roll my eyes in response.

 

[5280]

Funny how perspective works. Cause from where I sit, 'not seeing the forest for the trees' is much more applicable to people arguing that we don't still need multiple top 6ers to win a cup just because we won a round in a down year for the western conference

This has nothing to do with some fantasy we've concocted but with a simple look at the teams who've actually won cups in the past decade. Which is why the bolded is terrifying if we end up with another summer of Joe following his MO & banking on internal growth for incremental progress that lets another cup chance go by the way-side because a perfect solution did not fall into our lap.

See, all of your arguments are straw men type of arguments. I can honestly say that I’m not scared at all having Sakic as a GM.
I’m not worried if things are done perfectly, I just want to see a good bottom line. I guess I’m just more of a realist.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

Funny how perspective works. Cause from where I sit, 'not seeing the forest for the trees' is much more applicable to people arguing that we don't still need multiple top 6ers to win a cup just because we won a round in a down year for the western conference

This has nothing to do with some fantasy we've concocted but with a simple look at the teams who've actually won cups in the past decade. Which is why the bolded is terrifying if we end up with another summer of Joe following his MO & banking on internal growth for incremental progress that lets another cup chance go by the way-side because a perfect solution did not fall into our lap.

I don't think anybody is saying we don't need at least one top-6 players.

 

[cgf]

All your arguments are straw men type of arguments.

Such as?

I don't think anybody is saying we don't need at least one top-6 players.

Scroll up.

 

[Hasbro]

I don't think anybody is saying we don't need at least one top-6 players.

If there were only multiple methods available to accomplish that task.

 

[5280]

Such as?


Scroll up.

Honestly I’m not sure saying straw man is quite the best way of stating what I was getting at.

My point was you are assuming the worst with Sakic here. In all of your arguments you are concocting this fantasy world worst case scenario that COULD happen and judging Sakic by those merits. I don’t think that is fair or accurate.

 

[cgf]

Honestly I’m not sure saying straw man is quite the best way of stating what I was getting at.

My point was you are assuming the worst with Sakic here. In all of your arguments you are concocting this fantasy world worst case scenario that COULD happen and judging Sakic by those merits. I don’t think that is fair or accurate.

Joe sticking to his MO is a fantasy world I'm concocting?

And I'm not judging him yet. He has until the end of this offseason before we can start to judge him for better or worse.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

Scroll up.

Still not seeing it.

 

[5280]

Joe sticking to his MO is a fantasy world I'm concocting?

And I'm not judging him yet. He has until the end of this offseason before we can start to judge him for better or worse.

In think we see his MO as a bit differently. Which is ok, you’re a smart dude and, of course, entitled to your opinion.

I think you’re off a bit in your assumptions, here, though. Specifically- expecting the worst to happen when Sakic has not had a chance to prove either way whether he is capable of making the right decisions to get us to the next level or not, when he has already showed that he can and has made good enough decisions to get us to the level we are at already.

His MO to me is to build a strong organization, create a positive work environment, be patient and make smart decisions. Nothing about that philosophy leads me to believe that he won’t make good decisions going forward.

I’m not one of those people who analyze things with a should have or could have approach. I like to look at whether or not it worked or not, and I don’t buy the argument that things have “fallen into his lap.”

IMO he gets a lot of crap for things he could have done differently or should have done in retrospect and not given enough credit by those same people for what he has done well. While I’ll agree he has done a couple of stupid things here and there, to me his whole body of work is positive since taking over.

I agree with your second paragraph and think we’ll have to see how it turns out in the next couple of years. I’m not ready to give him the “keys to the kingdom” as a GM, but I sure am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt based on what I’ve seen.

 

[cgf]

Seems like we see his MO as a bit differently. Which is ok, you’re a smart dude and, of course, entitled to your opinion.

I think you’re off a bit in your assumptions, though. Specifically- expecting the worst to happen when Sakic has not had a chance to prove either way whether he is capable of making the right decisions to get us to the next level, when he has already showed that he can and has made the right decisions to get us to the level we are at already.

His MO to me is to build a strong organization, create a positive work environment, be patient and make smart decisions. Nothing about that philosophy leads me to believe that he won’t make good decision going forward.

I’m not one of those people who analyze things with a should have or could have approach. I like to look at whether or not it worked or not, and I don’t buy the argument ent that things have “fallen into his lap”.

IMO he gets a lot of crap for things he could have done differently or should have done in retrospect and not given enough credit by those same people for what he has done well. While I’ll agree he has done a couple of stupid things here and there, to me his whole body of work is positive since coming over here.

I agree with your second paragraph and think we’ll have to see how it turns out in the next couple of years. I’m not ready to give him the “keys to the kingdom” as a GM, but I sure as hell am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt based on what I’ve seen.

I don't really hold anything he has done against him too significantly, but that's a product of what worries me about Sakic. His moves show a distinct distaste for any sort of risk-taking that could blow back on him, which is why I do think it'll be fair to hold the moves-not-made against him if we don't make the additions we need this summer. If that happens, even if there's no risk-free solution available, we'll find ourselves in one of those situations where each individual decision can be justified in isolation, but the net result is failure -- which both sport- & world-history are littered with.

Hopefully, this postseason helps make those additions a reality without there being many downsides to acquiring them...but I will be very anxious if solutions don't fall into our lap and Joe's forced to choose between punting another season & pulling the trigger on something that could blow up on him. As we've simply never seen him make that kind of proactive move that could blow-back on him, but is necessary for us to take the final steps to contention, before. We've seen him making low-risk/low-reward moves & we've seen him make big moves that he was forced into...and so couldn't be blamed for fully, if they didn't work out...but winning a cup has required more than that so far.

 

[5280]

I don't really hold anything he has done against him too significantly, but that's a product of what worries me about Sakic. His moves show a distinct distaste for any sort of risk-taking that could blow back on him, which is why I do think it'll be fair to hold the moves-not-made against him if we don't make the additions we need this summer. If that happens, even if there's no risk-free solution available, we'll find ourselves in one of those situations where each individual decision can be justified in isolation, but the net result is failure -- which both sport- & world-history are littered with.

Hopefully, this postseason helps make those additions a reality without there being many downsides to acquiring them...but I will be very anxious if solutions don't fall into our lap and Joe's forced to choose between punting another season & pulling the trigger on something that could blow up on him. As we've simply never seen him make that kind of proactive move that could blow-back on him, but is necessary for us to take the final steps to contention, before. We've seen him making low-risk/low-reward moves & we've seen him make big moves that he was forced into...and so couldn't be blamed for fully, if they didn't work out...but winning a cup has required more than that so far.

Yeah, I’ll agree that he hasn’t really made any risky moves and that it is definitely not his MO to go out on a limb or take risks. Having said that, I DO feel we can win with this approach if we make crucial moves at the right time going forward.

I do understand where the general trepidation and your “show me” approach to this comes from. We’ve sucked some serious ass for the better part of a decade at least. To be frank- I’m sick of sucking ass, too.

Bottom line, to me, he’s showed enough to make me think he can get this done. It looks like you are a tougher sell.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

I don't really hold anything he has done against him too significantly, but that's a product of what worries me about Sakic. His moves show a distinct distaste for any sort of risk-taking that could blow back on him, which is why I do think it'll be fair to hold the moves-not-made against him if we don't make the additions we need this summer. If that happens, even if there's no risk-free solution available, we'll find ourselves in one of those situations where each individual decision can be justified in isolation, but the net result is failure -- which both sport- & world-history are littered with.

Hopefully, this postseason helps make those additions a reality without there being many downsides to acquiring them...but I will be very anxious if solutions don't fall into our lap and Joe's forced to choose between punting another season & pulling the trigger on something that could blow up on him. As we've simply never seen him make that kind of proactive move that could blow-back on him, but is necessary for us to take the final steps to contention, before. We've seen him making low-risk/low-reward moves & we've seen him make big moves that he was forced into...and so couldn't be blamed for fully, if they didn't work out...but winning a cup has required more than that so far.

You do realize that we are just two years removed from a 48-pt season right? You seem to forget that...very often.

Besides the Duchene for Zib and Chabot rumored trade I'm still not sure what other trades or non-trades you are blaming him for. Yeah we would have Zib and Chabot but we also would not have Girard and most likely not Makar and Timmins. Our depth wouldn't be as good as well so there is no proof we would be doing better than we are right now.

 

[cgf]

You do realize that we are just two years removed from a 48-pt season right? You seem to forget that...very often.

Besides the Duchene for Zib and Chabot rumored trade I'm still not sure what other trades or non-trades you are blaming him for. Yeah we would have Zib and Chabot but we also would not have Girard and most likely not Makar and Timmins. Our depth wouldn't be as good as well so there is no proof we would be doing better than we are right now.

No more often than you forget that the cap exists

ROR, Schenn & Hayes moved recently for prices we could've matched, and there have been other players that would've fit our needs who either did move or where on the block. We got none of them. That's the problem, not that he shot down one specific trade for an asset that in the long run he ended up getting close to similar value for.

PS - out of Bowers, Kamenev & Hammond; which of them is providing us depth atm?