Murray and Muckler

[Minister of Offence]

If you think that getting Gryba and Regin in a single draft is a bad haul, then you need to seriously reevaluate what the chances are of draft picks actually making it to the NHL. First round picks have the highest chance of making it to the NHL, and only about ~60% of those actually do make it, and that chance is significantly smaller once you get into the later portions of the first round and beyond (where we picked most of the time under Muckler).

Most of the time, you hope to get a single player per draft that can play a significant amount of games in the NHL and hope that you hit the jackpot once every few years where you get multiple draft picks that can play in the NHL. And out of those, only a small percentage of them will actually have a significant enough impact to turn your franchise around.

It's not a coincidence that every single team (minus Detroit) that was a contender at the same time as the Sens were eventually bottomed out. Colorado, New Jersey, Dallas, Philadelphia, Toronto, Tampa Bay etc. have all had to spend time at the bottom of the standings (some for longer than others).

We might be Detroit if we had Hoffman, stone, karlsson, ceci, boro, etc coming through the system with the teams of 02-06.

Truth is, we had the opposite and players aged and left as is pretty normal.

 

[Micklebot]

If you think that getting Gryba and Regin in a single draft is a bad haul, then you need to seriously reevaluate what the chances are of draft picks actually making it to the NHL. First round picks have the highest chance of making it to the NHL, and only about ~60% of those actually do make it, and that chance is significantly smaller once you get into the later portions of the first round and beyond (where we picked most of the time under Muckler).

Most of the time, you hope to get a single player per draft that can play a significant amount of games in the NHL and hope that you hit the jackpot once every few years where you get multiple draft picks that can play in the NHL. And out of those, only a small percentage of them will actually have a significant enough impact to turn your franchise around.

It's not a coincidence that every single team (minus Detroit) that was a contender at the same time as the Sens were eventually bottomed out. Colorado, New Jersey, Dallas, Philadelphia, Toronto, Tampa Bay etc. have all had to spend time at the bottom of the standings (some for longer than others).

Gryba and Regin weren't drafted in the same year, Gryba was 2006 and Regin was 2004.

Muckler's drafting is so sad because outside of his 1st round picks, he's only managed to draft two 4th liners and a bottom pair defender (and whatever you want to call Elliot) to go along with a bunch of busts.

Lets put it this way, Toronto drafted significantly better than us during the Muckler years;

Stajan, White, Mitchell, Stralman, Stalberg, Reimer and Kulemin all outside the first round compared to Greening Condra, Regin, Elliot and Gryba.

I know which group I'd take.

 

[TonySoprano11]

Well, Hoffman and Stone are both pacing at >20 goals in their rookie years, that's pretty good for guys drafted in the 5th and 6th rounds. Zibanejad is also on pace for >20. Our drafted prospects were the currency used to get a top line forward in Ryan. So, yes, strong drafting has paid dividends.

Ceci looks great, I'm sure lots of teams would love to add him to their lineups, lots of teams would also love to have Lazar on their teams, the fact that he's not lighting it up at 19 is inconsequential. Lehner is still among the top young goalies in the league, and is certainly coveted by many teams.

As for drafting being one of the least important things, I really can't agree. Who are you, Cliff Fletcher???

This team is hamstrung by the lowest budget in the league. It's led to the re-signings of Phillips and Michalek, rather than going out after more expensive free agents. We've also lost a top 4 Dman (who plays on our top pair) in Methot and can't go out and get a replacement, again because of the budget.

Again this is all just potential. It's all "these guys MIGHT be really good!." When the Sens make the SCF under Murrays tenure or within 2-3 seasons after he is gone then you will have an argument to stand on.

Until then you just got a sub 500 team with a bunch of potentially decent prospects. That is what seven years have gotten us.

 

[Micklebot]

Again this is all just potential. It's all "these guys MIGHT be really good!." When the Sens make the SCF under Murrays tenure or within 2-3 seasons after he is gone then you will have an argument to stand on.

Until then you just got a sub 500 team with a bunch of potentially decent prospects. That is what seven years have gotten us.

First off, just knitpicking, but we are above 500, with 14 wins, 13 losses. We have 34 pts in 33 games.

Second, Hoffman is currently leading the team in goals, ahead of a proven 30 goal scorer in Bobby Ryan, who btw is also the return we got for drafted players that other teams coveted.

So, yeah, our drafting has gotten us something. We've got a very young team, with a very low payroll, and we're still hanging around with drafted players growing into key roles in the top 6.

Can you imagine this team if we had a Muckler level of drafting competency?

 

[pepty]

Fir
Can you imagine this team if we had a Muckler level of drafting competency?

True but Muckler was an anomaly, the previous GMs netted some great players and not just in the first round.

I wonder if the Muckler approach to drafting is part of the Edmonton system?

Even when they decide to build though the draft they just grab the consensus first over all pick and seem to ignore the rest of he draft after the first round or at least they dont seem to net any worthwhile players. Their development seems to be pretty poor too but you have to wonder if they take their drafting seriously.

 

[MiscBrah]

First off, just knitpicking, but we are above 500, with 14 wins, 13 losses. We have 34 pts in 33 games.

Second, Hoffman is currently leading the team in goals, ahead of a proven 30 goal scorer in Bobby Ryan, who btw is also the return we got for drafted players that other teams coveted.

So, yeah, our drafting has gotten us something. We've got a very young team, with a very low payroll, and we're still hanging around with drafted players growing into key roles in the top 6.

Can you imagine this team if we had a Muckler level of drafting competency?

We have 14 wins in 33 GP.

Our winning percentage is 0.424

 

[StefanW]

We have 14 wins in 33 GP.

Our winning percentage is 0.424

Your math is wrong. Points we gain for ties have to be in the equation.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

Murray basically saved us from turning to the Oilers: Edmonton is the cautionary tale for what happens when you draft like ass for a long time in the salary cap era

I think that's the biggest thing: times changed and what Muckler had done to try to get us to the Stanley Cup ended up costing a lot more due to the changing context. The salary cap and changes to UFA really wrecked what he had built.

I feel we are all a bit too hard on Muckler sometimes: his tenure saw us become a powerhouse and we went to SCF. He certainly paid through the nose to get us there but the whole thing collapsed with the lockout.

Maybe this has been said since you posted this, but Muckler didn't build anything he inherited all the core pieces, all that was needed was a solid goaltender.

When a GM is "going for it" what he does with all his assets matters in the quest for pushing the team over the top.

Muckler basically wasted his draft picks which would have been better currency in potential trades than the players he selected for the most part.

The few decent assets he drafted he traded away in trade deadline deals that lead to nowhere.

To add to that disaster he failed to move one of Redden or Chara prior to the introduction of the cap. Muckler was well aware he couldn't keep both of them, yet the Stanley Cup talk interfered with good asset management IMO.

 

[thinkwild]

Risks don’t always pay off. The question I think is whether you want to take risks, and whether they are good risks. Being too afraid to take risks out of fear of: “what if it doesnt work†or simply choosing to play it (presumably) safer and not to take risks describes one key difference between Murray and Muckler to me along with competence and contacts for setting up scouting organizations.

Oh and of course this.
Togas ftw

 

[Laphroaig]

Your math is wrong. Points we gain for ties have to be in the equation.

His math is right. Loser points are points gained in a loss. It's a cynical ploy by the NHL to convince naïve fans that their team is better than it actually is.

 

[StefanW]

His math is right. Loser points are points gained in a loss. It's a cynical ploy by the NHL to convince naïve fans that their team is better than it actually is.

It is exactly that.

But unless you plan to go on to say that the single points don't count in the standings those points still have to be accounted for.

 

[supsens]

Under the old rules it would be a tie and a point anyway so I am not sure what the ploy is

 

[StefanW]

Under the old rules it would be a tie and a point anyway so I am not sure what the ploy is

The Bettman point means that many games award a total of 3 points instead of two. The effect of this is to compress teams in the standings, which supposedly makes it more exciting for fans. A secondary effect is that it is harder to make up ground late in the schedule due to more points being awarded. So it ends up being a type of fool's gold, where you think your team is still in the race when they are done like dinner.

 

[mcnorth]

The Bettman point means that many games award a total of 3 points instead of two. The effect of this is to compress teams in the standings, which supposedly makes it more exciting for fans. A secondary effect is that it is harder to make up ground late in the schedule due to more points being awarded. So it ends up being a type of fool's gold, where you think your team is still in the race when they are done like dinner.

Fools a lot of GM's as well.

 

[MiscBrah]

Your math is wrong. Points we gain for ties have to be in the equation.

It is exactly that.

But unless you plan to go on to say that the single points don't count in the standings those points still have to be accounted for.

Under the old rules it would be a tie and a point anyway so I am not sure what the ploy is

You guys are mixing up "winning percentage" and "point percentage" (thanks Uncle Eugene).

You can't add up loser points and try to pretend that those count as wins.

I mean come on. We have 6 OT/SO losses. We're going to act like that's 3 extra 'wins' tacked on to our total. So we're 17-13, in 33 GP? What about the the three missing games?

You're just deluding yourself into thinking this team is better than it is.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Shootouts are ********, they should count as a tie.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

A big problem with OT points is that they can be extremely different, but are all counted under the same category.

Squeezing out an OT point against a team from a different conference is significantly different than losing in OT to a division rival. Yet, they are counted under the same category.

Two OT losses against teams from different conferences is basically the equivalent to 1 win and 1 loss against Western teams since how your team effects their spots in the standings are irrelevant. In 2 games, you've created two points.

It's over complicated.

 

[cage]

I don't see the point pitting these two against each other anymore. Muckler had 5 years here, Murray has had the last 7.

Muckler really seemed like a "win now" hire. All the talk back then was about how the sens had no heart, confidence, grit, etc and couldn't get it done when it mattered. He was supposed to come in and make the team realize how good they were and give them some balls. I think he succeeded in that regard as the team won the president's trophy and made the east finals the year he took over and eventually got them to the SC finals. But yes, his draft results speak for themselves and he failed there. Did we lose all our scouts or something during his tenure?

Under Murray we've been mediocre, have seen the "pizza line" leave under pretty crappy circumstances, and have seen way too many coaches. Despite his superior drafting and a flukey lockout season it's been a forgettable 7-8 years in terms of team success.

 

[StefanW]

You guys are mixing up "winning percentage" and "point percentage" (thanks Uncle Eugene).

You can't add up loser points and try to pretend that those count as wins.

I mean come on. We have 6 OT/SO losses. We're going to act like that's 3 extra 'wins' tacked on to our total. So we're 17-13, in 33 GP? What about the the three missing games?

You're just deluding yourself into thinking this team is better than it is.

Actually, no. In sports where ties are allowed they factor into winning percentage. You can check here as a starting place, and everywhere else if you still don't believe me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winning_percentage

And no again, I am not one for deluding myself into thinking the team is better than it is.

 

[MiscBrah]

Actually, no. In sports where ties are allowed they factor into winning percentage. You can check here as a starting place, and everywhere else if you still don't believe me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winning_percentage

And no again, I am not one for deluding myself into thinking the team is better than it is.

I said 'loser points', not ties.

IIRC you can't do the same thing with the NHL though because there is an extra point given to the winning team. It's not fair to split the OT/SO losses because it wouldn't equal out to 1.000

Anyways, our 'point percentage' is exactly .500

The whole thing started because someone said we aren't even a .500 team and then someone else said "yes we are, we have 14 wins and 13 losses"

This has gotten so off track it's not even funny. If you want to say we are a .500 team using point percentage, that is correct. We do not have a 'winning percentage' of .500 though.

I wasn't even talking about the standings, I was purely talking about wins.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

I don't see the point pitting these two against each other anymore. Muckler had 5 years here, Murray has had the last 7.

Muckler really seemed like a "win now" hire. All the talk back then was about how the sens had no heart, confidence, grit, etc and couldn't get it done when it mattered. He was supposed to come in and make the team realize how good they were and give them some balls. I think he succeeded in that regard as the team won the president's trophy and made the east finals the year he took over and eventually got them to the SC finals. But yes, his draft results speak for themselves and he failed there. Did we lose all our scouts or something during his tenure?

Under Murray we've been mediocre, have seen the "pizza line" leave under pretty crappy circumstances, and have seen way too many coaches. Despite his superior drafting and a flukey lockout season it's been a forgettable 7-8 years in terms of team success.

Yeah our team has been crap for the last while. But so have plenty of other teams. At least we have a system in place that drafts and develops players. (Takes around 7-10 years to fully see the fruits of that labor). Some teams don't even have that.

 

[supsens]

The Bettman point means that many games award a total of 3 points instead of two. The effect of this is to compress teams in the standings, which supposedly makes it more exciting for fans. A secondary effect is that it is harder to make up ground late in the schedule due to more points being awarded. So it ends up being a type of fool's gold, where you think your team is still in the race when they are done like dinner.

If both teams got 1 point for the tie, would that not compress the teams more in the standings?

 

[Back in Black]

Shootouts are ********, they should count as a tie.

Not even. Who ever wins in O/T or SO should get the 2 points, and the loser should get O points.

A loss is a loss

 

[SlapJack]

If you want the true measure of a team, go by their regulation time record. What happens in 4 on 4 OT and shootouts mean nothing after the playoffs start, neither method is how tie breaking works there. And calling it the loser point is ridiculous, there's an extra point awarded to the winner of the skills competition.

On topic, Mucker messed this team up. He was no different than any politician that is in power who spends like mad without planning for the future in a boom period, and then leaves a mess for the next guy who has to deal with a recession. But it looked good when the next guy started so he must be doing something wrong, correct?

This team would be Oilers level incompetent without Murray. And Edmonton has been patient as a city supporting their team throughout and buying tickets. 1 bad season here and people stop going.

 

[thinkwild]

I still dont like the idea of calling it a loser point. It's the same one point each for a regulation tie that has been around since the Ottawa Senators won a Stanley Cup in 1927. The change is the new winner point. And when looking at the actual effect of it in the standings, it turns out to be a lot more negligible than we would have thought.

Setting aside the new bonus point for winning the shootout, the overtime bonus point was always premised on the fact that by guaranteeing both teams the point for the tie, it will allow them to open up and have an exciting, offensively oriented, go-for-broke, overtime. And that has indeed been the case as overtime is sometimes the only exciting part of some otherwise boring tie games.

So if we got rid of the shootout, but had 4 on 4 OT followed by 3 on 3 OT and then a tie if no one won, would you not still want to allow both teams to keep their point for the tie so as to incent an exciting end to regular season games that still fit into the regular season tv time slot they are scheduled for? I think i would.

With ROW now being the primary tie breaker, i think that is enough to reward those teams that won their games in regulation time over overtime. Its not that significant a difference that it should be worth an extra point to me.