Our First Build VS. Our First Rebuild

[jbeck5]

1997-1998(one year after making the playoffs)

Players under 25 in the organization:

Forwards:
Arvedsson – 25 years old
Alfredsson – 24 years old
Dackell – 24 years old
Zholtok – 24 years old
Armstrong – 24 years old
Yashin – 23 years old
Daigle – 22 years old
Bonk – 21 years old
Ciernik – 19 years old
Hossa – 18 years old

Defense:
Bicakek – 22 years old
Neckar – 21 years old
Redden – 20 years old
Phillips – 19 years old
Salo – 19 years old
Rachunek – 18 years old

Goalies:
Hurme – 18 years old

............................
vs
............................
This year (1 year after making the playoffs)

Forwards:
Guillaume Latendresse – 1987 (25 years old)
Kaspars Daugavins – 1988 (24 years old)
Zack Smith – 1988 (24 years old)
Kyle Turris - 1989 (23 years old)
Jim O’Brien – 1989 (23 years old)
Jakob Silfverberg – 1990 (22 years old)
Mark Stone – 1992 (20 years old)
Mika Zibanejad – 1993 (19 years old)
Stefan Noesen – 1993 (19 years old)
Matt Puempel – 1993 (19 years old)

Defense:
Mark Borowiecki – 1989 (23 years old)
Erik Karlsson – 1990 (22 years old)
Patrick Wiercioch – 1990 (22 years old)
Jared Cowen – 1991 (21 years old)
Cody Ceci – 1993 (19 years old)

Goalie:
Robin Lehner – 1991 (21 years old)


Bolded are the players that had a big impact on the team, and players i think will have a big impact on the team.

I didn't have a poll in mind making this thread, so i won't put one, however a mod can add one later if you guys would like. I made this mostly to ask the older guys(30 years and up) what the differences,similarities,upgrades,downgrades todays sens team has vs the one we had 10-15 years ago? The 1997-1998 year is when i really started paying attention, however, being born in 89, i wasn't old enough to really understand the game and the prospects and stuff. Does it look like we're well on our way to another 10+ consecutive playoff years?

Discuss.

Click to read more...

 

[jbeck5]

Woah, cool topic!

 

[Bob Kudelski]

It's tough to put guys like Stone, Noesen and Puempel in bold when it's so unknown whether they'll be an good at the NHL level.

It's also interesting how all the important guys from the old team were very high draft picks with the exception off Alfie.

 

[Benjamin]

Biggest difference(besides Alfie)? Lehner.

 

[CanadianHockey]

1997-1998(one year after making the playoffs)

Players under 25 in the organization:

Forwards:
Arvedsson – 25 years old
Alfredsson – 24 years old
Dackell – 24 years old
Zholtok – 24 years old
Armstrong – 24 years old
Yashin – 23 years old
Daigle – 22 years old
Bonk – 21 years old
Ciernik – 19 years old
Hossa – 18 years old

Defense:
Bicakek – 22 years old
Neckar – 21 years old
Redden – 20 years old
Phillips – 19 years old
Salo – 19 years old
Rachunek – 18 years old

Goalies:
Hurme – 18 years old

............................
vs
............................
This year (1 year after making the playoffs)

Forwards:
Guillaume Latendresse – 1987 (25 years old)
Kaspars Daugavins – 1988 (24 years old)
Zack Smith – 1988 (24 years old)
Kyle Turris - 1989 (23 years old)
Jim O’Brien – 1989 (23 years old)
Jakob Silfverberg – 1990 (22 years old)
Mark Stone – 1992 (20 years old)
Mika Zibanejad – 1993 (19 years old)
Stefan Noesen – 1993 (19 years old)
Matt Puempel – 1993 (19 years old)

Defense:
Mark Borowiecki – 1989 (23 years old)
Erik Karlsson – 1990 (22 years old)
Patrick Wiercioch – 1990 (22 years old)
Jared Cowen – 1991 (21 years old)
Cody Ceci – 1993 (19 years old)

Goalie:
Robin Lehner – 1991 (21 years old)


Bolded are the players that had a big impact on the team, and players i think will have a big impact on the team.

I didn't have a poll in mind making this thread, so i won't put one, however a mod can add one later if you guys would like. I made this mostly to ask the older guys(30 years and up) what the differences,similarities,upgrades,downgrades todays sens team has vs the one we had 10-15 years ago? The 1997-1998 year is when i really started paying attention, however, being born in 89, i wasn't old enough to really understand the game and the prospects and stuff. Does it look like we're well on our way to another 10+ consecutive playoff years?

Discuss.

I think you should compare the number of bolded players on each list and reevaluate how many guys will be impact players for this club post-rebuild. Mostly because the first list, you've bolded star players, whereas with the current rebuild, you've got mostly potential 2nd liners bolded.

 

[John Holmes*]

The biggest difference is that with the current "rebuild" we had some pretty nice pieces in place before the official "rebuild" began.

#1C
#1D
#1G

That and the original Ottawa Senators team was full of garbage players.

We weren't starting from absolute zero this time around.

 

[SensontheRush]

Looking back on this list, as I was not into Hockey at the time, all the names of the players seem off putting and weird to me. However, I find the names on our team now are in general much stranger. I guess its just I recognize and relate the current team members as the Sens.....

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!

 

[DrunkUncleDenis]

Looking back on this list, as I was not into Hockey at the time, all the names of the players seem off putting and weird to me. However, I find the names on our team now are in general much stranger. I guess its just I recognize and relate the current team members as the Sens.....

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!

So, to recap: you find the names of old players weird, and the names of new players strange.


I want some of your crazy pills.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Overall differences...

The original build had arguably three franchise forwards in Yashin, Hossa and Alfredsson. Obviously Yashin's shelf life as one was shorter, accelerated by the massive contract the Isles gave him, but we parlayed him into Chara and Spezza too, so that accelerated the rebuild. We also parlayed Hossa (after many good years) into Heatley in his prime. We also drafted Havlat in '99 and Fisher in '98, which is tough to expect going forward (although possible). Overall, the high end forwards in the original build were better. The good news for this team though, is Spezza is still gotta a lot of years left.

But for the current rebuild, I would also say the Karlsson-Cowen combo is better than Redden-Phillips (which is saying something). Mostly because Karlsson's upside is already surpassed Redden, and barring injuries, Cowen has already shown he is going to be a Phillips type worst case. Great combo in terms of complimenting each other, likely on different pairings.

This rebuild also has the advantage of having Lehner as a bonafide blue chip goalie who is ready for prime time. We never drafted one of those in the 90's really, until we nabbed Emery in 2001 (who showed similarly well at all levels before the NHL, as Lehner).

 

[benr]

At first I felt nostalgic, then got bummed out when I realized that two of the players on the original list are already dead

 

[Lenny the Lynx]

a. Finally a thread for the old people. Hopefully the ads on the page don't all get automatically switched to walk-in bath tubs and stairway lifts.

b. Its a pretty cool comparison. Obviously a lot of unknowns in our current list - of the guys you have bolded a few will definitely not live up to their full potential, but there are a few guys on the original list (ie Daigle) that would have been bolded if you made that list at the current time.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Obviously a lot of unknowns in our current list - of the guys you have bolded a few will definitely not live up to their full potential, but there are a few guys on the original list (ie Daigle) that would have been bolded if you made that list at the current time.

Yeah, was going to mention that. Bonk and Daigle were still considered "Bolded types" and had proven much more at the time than several of our question marks on the list.

What's has been interesting for me is to take a look back at the drafts in the late 90's, and follow it through to see where the problems started. After '97, we kept having drafts where we added a couple of key future pieces every year
1998 – Fisher & Neil
1999 – Havlat & Kelly
2000 – Volchenkov & Vermette
2001 – Gleason, Emery, Schubert, Laich (Spezza at #2 overall was really part of the Yashin more than scouting).

This run of decent drafts (not a ton of depth had from them other than ‘01, but two very good long-term players per year), was what kept our run going in 2000’s. Obviously Muckler dealing Gleason and Laich before they arrived in failed trade deadline upgrades hurt going forward, but we had the depth to deal.

But then from 2002 to 2006, it gets pretty bad other than ’04, with the best picks listed….
2002 – Klepis, Kaigorodov
2003 – Eaves, Elliot
2004 – Meszaros, Regin
2005 – Lee, Bass, Greening
2006 – Foligno, Gryba, Daugavins, Condra
2007 – O’Brien, Blood

So basically, out of those six drafts we got three decent mid-level players (Meszaros, Regin and Foligno) and a half dozen depth pieces (Eaves, Lee, Gryba, Daugavins, Condra, O’Brien).

In Murray’s first two drafts he yielded a much better return than in Muckler’s previous six (Karlsson, Cowen, Silvferberg, Lehner, Boro, Z Smith, Wierioch, Hoffman, Grant, Peterson)

Didn’t mean to turn this into a draft thread, but very interesting to see where the problems stemmed from.

 

[jbeck5]

It's tough to put guys like Stone, Noesen and Puempel in bold when it's so unknown whether they'll be an good at the NHL level.

It's also interesting how all the important guys from the old team were very high draft picks with the exception off Alfie.

Yeah, i admit, i am jumping the gun by bolding them. I shoul have just bolded karlsson,cowen,turris, silfverberg...and maybe zibanejad and lehner as i think theyll be big pieces going forward. Then again, who knows?

I think you should compare the number of bolded players on each list and reevaluate how many guys will be impact players for this club post-rebuild. Mostly because the first list, you've bolded star players, whereas with the current rebuild, you've got mostly potential 2nd liners bolded.

Yeah, a case of me jumping the gun with excitement. That's why i want you older fellas to calm me down.

Overall differences...

The original build had arguably three franchise forwards in Yashin, Hossa and Alfredsson. Obviously Yashin's shelf life as one was shorter, accelerated by the massive contract the Isles gave him, but we parlayed him into Chara and Spezza too, so that accelerated the rebuild. We also parlayed Hossa (after many good years) into Heatley in his prime. We also drafted Havlat in '99 and Fisher in '98, which is tough to expect going forward (although possible). Overall, the high end forwards in the original build were better. The good news for this team though, is Spezza is still gotta a lot of years left.

But for the current rebuild, I would also say the Karlsson-Cowen combo is better than Redden-Phillips (which is saying something). Mostly because Karlsson's upside is already surpassed Redden, and barring injuries, Cowen has already shown he is going to be a Phillips type worst case. Great combo in terms of complimenting each other, likely on different pairings.

This rebuild also has the advantage of having Lehner as a bonafide blue chip goalie who is ready for prime time. We never drafted one of those in the 90's really, until we nabbed Emery in 2001 (who showed similarly well at all levels before the NHL, as Lehner).

I was going to mention that we soon after drafted fisher,havlat,volchenkov, and spezza. But aside from spezza, they were all mid first round picks...I feel confident in murray that after we're still making the playoffs, murray can get a fisher/havlat/volchenkov type player with our first rounders. I hope so anyways. I agree with you in that i think we had better star forward power back then, but have better D and G depth. Our goaltending depth is better then we've ever had. I also agree that karlsson>redden and that at minimum,cowen should be able to do phillips' job. Guys like rachunek probably cancel out guys like wiercioch. Ceci is probably what puts us on top going forward

a. Finally a thread for the old people. Hopefully the ads on the page don't all get automatically switched to walk-in bath tubs and stairway lifts.

b. Its a pretty cool comparison. Obviously a lot of unknowns in our current list - of the guys you have bolded a few will definitely not live up to their full potential, but there are a few guys on the original list (ie Daigle) that would have been bolded if you made that list at the current time.

I was close to bolding daigle...then realized he got traded for prospal that year. I was then close to naming prospal as he was here for a couple years when we started making the playoffs.

Yeah, was going to mention that. Bonk and Daigle were still considered "Bolded types" and had proven much more at the time than several of our question marks on the list.

What's has been interesting for me is to take a look back at the drafts in the late 90's, and follow it through to see where the problems started. After '97, we kept having drafts where we added a couple of key future pieces every year
1998 – Fisher & Neil
1999 – Havlat & Kelly
2000 – Volchenkov & Vermette
2001 – Gleason, Emery, Schubert, Laich (Spezza at #2 overall was really part of the Yashin more than scouting).

This run of decent drafts (not a ton of depth had from them other than ‘01, but two very good long-term players per year), was what kept our run going in 2000’s. Obviously Muckler dealing Gleason and Laich before they arrived in failed trade deadline upgrades hurt going forward, but we had the depth to deal.

But then from 2002 to 2006, it gets pretty bad other than ’04, with the best picks listed….
2002 – Klepis, Kaigorodov
2003 – Eaves, Elliot
2004 – Meszaros, Regin
2005 – Lee, Bass, Greening
2006 – Foligno, Gryba, Daugavins, Condra
2007 – O’Brien, Blood

So basically, out of those six drafts we got three decent mid-level players (Meszaros, Regin and Foligno) and a half dozen depth pieces (Eaves, Lee, Gryba, Daugavins, Condra, O’Brien).

In Murray’s first two drafts he yielded a much better return than in Muckler’s previous six (Karlsson, Cowen, Silvferberg, Lehner, Boro, Z Smith, Wierioch, Hoffman, Grant, Peterson)

Didn’t mean to turn this into a draft thread, but very interesting to see where the problems stemmed from.

Wow was our drafting ever brutal in the 2000s. We did not pick a star player in all those years. Spezza in 2001, and karlsson in 2008. Imagine just picking 1 other star player in that span...we may have never rebuilt and made the playoffs consecutively. I hate to say it, but sub lee with kopitar in 2005, and it transforms the way our team looks

 

[Xspyrit]

Yeah, was going to mention that. Bonk and Daigle were still considered "Bolded types" and had proven much more at the time than several of our question marks on the list.

What's has been interesting for me is to take a look back at the drafts in the late 90's, and follow it through to see where the problems started. After '97, we kept having drafts where we added a couple of key future pieces every year
1998 – Fisher & Neil
1999 – Havlat & Kelly
2000 – Volchenkov & Vermette
2001 – Gleason, Emery, Schubert, Laich (Spezza at #2 overall was really part of the Yashin more than scouting).

This run of decent drafts (not a ton of depth had from them other than ‘01, but two very good long-term players per year), was what kept our run going in 2000’s. Obviously Muckler dealing Gleason and Laich before they arrived in failed trade deadline upgrades hurt going forward, but we had the depth to deal.

But then from 2002 to 2006, it gets pretty bad other than ’04, with the best picks listed….
2002 – Klepis, Kaigorodov
2003 – Eaves, Elliot
2004 – Meszaros, Regin
2005 – Lee, Bass, Greening
2006 – Foligno, Gryba, Daugavins, Condra
2007 – O’Brien, Blood

So basically, out of those six drafts we got three decent mid-level players (Meszaros, Regin and Foligno) and a half dozen depth pieces (Eaves, Lee, Gryba, Daugavins, Condra, O’Brien).

In Murray’s first two drafts he yielded a much better return than in Muckler’s previous six (Karlsson, Cowen, Silvferberg, Lehner, Boro, Z Smith, Wierioch, Hoffman, Grant, Peterson)

Didn’t mean to turn this into a draft thread, but very interesting to see where the problems stemmed from.

Yup and I have been saying that for years when most people were on the fire Murray train...

Excellent post like usual, one of the best posters around here

Wow was our drafting ever brutal in the 2000s. We did not pick a star player in all those years. Spezza in 2001, and karlsson in 2008. Imagine just picking 1 other star player in that span...we may have never rebuilt and made the playoffs consecutively. I hate to say it, but sub lee with kopitar in 2005, and it transforms the way our team looks

And we'd still have Rundblad or have Tarasenko!!!

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Wow was our drafting ever brutal in the 2000s. We did not pick a star player in all those years. Spezza in 2001, and karlsson in 2008. Imagine just picking 1 other star player in that span...we may have never rebuilt and made the playoffs consecutively. I hate to say it, but sub lee with kopitar in 2005, and it transforms the way our team looks

In the end, I had only one really big problem with our 1st round picks during that spell - Brian Lee. For Eaves, Foligno, O'Brien and Klepis, it's not liked we reached for them, or that the next 10 guys drafted all turned out better. They weren't great draft years to draft where we were at. A good scouting team would have traded up or down (i.e. Karlsson move), but ours didn't, so they are not without criticism. Of course, Murray was drafting for Anaheim one pick ahead of us taking Eaves and landed Cory Perry. But still, no major bone headed moves. Meszaros was a very good pick in his year, but the lack of quality in the later rounds was really bad.

But as has been documented, Lee was a major reach. And to do so when the best forward on the board had already dropped more than expected (Kopitar), or even to just take the consensus best d-man on the board (Marc Staal). Well, it was something that really set us back. I guess every 10 years a team does a move like that (Demitra for Olsson in the 90's). Let's hope we don't do one of those anytime soon.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Excellent post like usual, one of the best posters around here

Why thank you, sir. Right back at you.

 

[Emery]

I will always wonder 'what if' when i think of the 2005 draft.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

Biggest difference to me is that we had a group of youngsters that grew together, failed together then (almost) succeeded together.

Our team now has a lot of transitional veterans in Alfredsson, Phillips, Neil, Spezza (probably will remain) and Gonchar...but it's not completely a bunch of young lions making their own way. It's difficult to say what will happen when the safety net of an Alfredsson, Phillips et al. gets removed but that is one of the few things I am really, really, really looking for as fan.

Right now I am MEH about the team but once Phillips, Neil, Alfie, Gonchar are all replaced with YOUNG players then I'll be ALL IN, ALL RED.

 

[saskriders]

Biggest difference to me is that we had a group of youngsters that grew together, failed together then (almost) succeeded together.

Our team now has a lot of transitional veterans in Alfredsson, Phillips, Neil, Spezza (probably will remain) and Gonchar...but it's not completely a bunch of young lions making their own way. It's difficult to say what will happen when the safety net of an Alfredsson, Phillips et al. gets removed but that is one of the few things I am really, really, really looking for as fan.

Right now I am MEH about the team but once Phillips, Neil, Alfie, Gonchar are all replaced with YOUNG players then I'll be ALL IN, ALL RED.

Phillips, Alfie, and Neil will all be key for mentoring the young guys. They are nothing to be meh about

 

[Xspyrit]

In the end, I had only one really big problem with our 1st round picks during that spell - Brian Lee. For Eaves, Foligno, O'Brien and Klepis, it's not liked we reached for them, or that the next 10 guys drafted all turned out better. They weren't great draft years to draft where we were at. A good scouting team would have traded up or down (i.e. Karlsson move), but ours didn't, so they are not without criticism. Of course, Murray was drafting for Anaheim one pick ahead of us taking Eaves and landed Cory Perry. But still, no major bone headed moves. Meszaros was a very good pick in his year, but the lack of quality in the later rounds was really bad.

But as has been documented, Lee was a major reach. And to do so when the best forward on the board had already dropped more than expected (Kopitar), or even to just take the consensus best d-man on the board (Marc Staal). Well, it was something that really set us back. I guess every 10 years a team does a move like that (Demitra for Olsson in the 90's). Let's hope we don't do one of those anytime soon.

Hmmm... I was having a good day until I read that

And well, I don't like to go back at things and say "what if" but the Lee vs Kopitar/Staal thing is an impossible one to ommit.

Why thank you, sir. Right back at you.

You're welcome

Right now I am MEH about the team but once Phillips, Neil, Alfie, Gonchar are all replaced with YOUNG players then I'll be ALL IN, ALL RED.

What is... ? I can't even...

 

[thinkwild]

Yeah you can really see the difference when a GM creates a great scouting organization. Perhaps Mucks wasnt given as much money for it either? Perhaps thats why he gambled on doing something different than most teams at the time and drafted Russians, advised by some Boris guy as scout, ouch.

Those first years of the Sens were tough, starting from the worst expansion draft in history, where it was a victory if on a Sens rush into the offensive zone they could actually manage a 2nd shot on net. It was 5 years of, well like Edmonton now perhaps. Except tanking for Daigle brought about some bad karma and most of our success didnt come until the next 5 years picks came around.

Its an interesting choice of years to compare, after those long years of building, the 7-11 year plan as it was initially sold as, you're comparing year 7? of the initial build with year 1 of the rebuild since last year was year 0?

Its tough for me to figure exactly when the rebuild started. Every year there was no salary cap, the Sens improved, then the cap came and first thing we did we traded hoss and de vries for Heatley. Still not rebuilding. Decided between Redden and Chara. Traded Havlat for magic beans. Still, not rebuilding. RFA's Vermette and Mesz go, still not rebuilding. Volchenkov walks, its just a flesh wound, Heatley asks for a trade, i keel you.

Finally, we traded Fisher and Kelly. It's considered year 0 of the rebuild. Its a tough comparison, when really did this one start?

 

[Canadian Time]

It's an intriguing thread. Your classification of "older" posters as being over 30 made me chuckle...I'm far older than that.

I very much remember posting on forums about the young guns in those days. The difference is that we can look back and easily know which ones didn't become stars and which did. Back then, like now, we didn't know which players would emerge and it was just as fun. Many of the non-bolded names back on the original team would have been bolded then.

I see many similarities between the two teams, the biggest one being that most of the analysts and other teams didn't/don't give much respect to youth-laden teams. The other similarity is that they will be wrong again.

This team has a fantastic mix with vets and young players ready to advance. But to answer your question, yes, I think this is a progression of multiple playoff years. Let's enjoy the ride.

 

[Hutz]

Biggest difference to me, none of the forwards of the present have the potential of Hossa or Yashin... Luckily we have Spezza who is arguably better, but I'd still love a guy with Hossa/Yashin level talent coming up the ranks now...

That said, Karlsson will likely be the best d-man this team has ever seen and Lehner is already better than Hurme ever was.