Releasing the Kraken on Dale Tallon

CaptainScrewy

Registered User
Apr 9, 2003
678
416
Hollywood , Florida
Visit site
It usually happens in most pro sports that when new owners come in, they want "there guy". I really feel like Tallon will probably go either soon or during the off-season so they can bring in someone of there choosing to run the organization, pick the coach and decide the direction we go in. Not saying I agree or disagree with this strategy, just what I think is the most likely scenario.
 

Panthers Rock

Rebuild 10.0
Apr 17, 2006
6,286
43
Winter Springs, FL
It usually happens in most pro sports that when new owners come in, they want "there guy". I really feel like Tallon will probably go either soon or during the off-season so they can bring in someone of there choosing to run the organization, pick the coach and decide the direction we go in. Not saying I agree or disagree with this strategy, just what I think is the most likely scenario.

That would be an extremely dangerous scenario for this team. Our luck with GMs has been terrible at best. Tallon is someone who can make things happen, who can acquire some players we might not normally get. He convinced Campbell to come here and started a wave of players in 2011 signing with this team. Never would have happened without him.

I'm of the mind that Tallon was very hamstrung during the offseason and that screwed us over. We failed to replace a lot of our lost talent and that includes the past season. You don't lose a healthy Weiss, Garrison, Theodore and others and expect to be as good a team. I'm not saying they all should have been retained, but there was little option for replacing them. When you're biggest FA signing is Scott Gomez, and the only real players you acquired happened because of PTOs, it's not a good thing. The only reason they have Thomas is because of the new owners, no one was getting 3+ million a season to play for this team this offseason.

The question is, what will Tallon do now that he has money behind him. He definitely has to the end of the season to make something happen at the very least.
 

Doan Jidion*

Guest
It usually happens in most pro sports that when new owners come in, they want "there guy". I really feel like Tallon will probably go either soon or during the off-season so they can bring in someone of there choosing to run the organization, pick the coach and decide the direction we go in. Not saying I agree or disagree with this strategy, just what I think is the most likely scenario.

But who would that guy be? Does the new owner have the hockey background to know who would be a good GM? Or are you supposing that maybe with his Nets connections, that the Yormarks could collaborate on maybe plucking some lieutenant from the Devils or Islanders?

I'll be honest. As a Hawks fan, I haven't liked Tallon very much. Definitely a beloved part of the franchise, but as an executive, in way over his head. Great trader, but god-awful drafts, and terrible cap management for his sentimental favorites ($3 million x 3 for a Dustin Byfuglien whose position hadn't even been decided yet), to say nothing of not knowing the rules. When he was finally fired, it seemed like a lot of fans resented the organization for turning on a longtime guy, and that sort of bothered me. The Blackhawks are more than Dale Tallon. And so I'll admit that when he landed in Miami, I was sort of rooting from afar for him to be humbled a little bit, because it seemed like he had gotten the idea that he was a legitimate hockey executive and not just a guy who hung around through the bad Bill Wirtz days and got promoted to his level of incompetence through loyalty alone. I mean, the exact same thing happened to Denis Savard, but at least he had the good sense to realize he wasn't really a coach, quietly settling into getting paid to hang out and be friendly. If Tallon goes, I can see him coming home to do the same sort of thing, maybe some TV work again. That was really where he was best.

I think Tallon screwed up big by trying to do another 2011 signing party so late in the game, where the only people left were guys like Brad Boyes and Scott Gomez. Why not commit to getting playing time for your prospects? It looked so desperate.
 

Chino Oscar

Registered User
Jul 22, 2002
2,770
935
West Palm Beach
I think Tallon screwed up big by trying to do another 2011 signing party so late in the game, where the only people left were guys like Brad Boyes and Scott Gomez. Why not commit to getting playing time for your prospects? It looked so desperate.

Because it was only until new ownership bought the team that he had money to sign veterans.

We went with youth last year as a result of all the injuries we had and that lead us directly to the bottom of the NHL. He wanted to add veterans all along, he just was not in a position to do it, and by the time he was able to sign veterans, he had the bottom of the barrel to pick from. Even so, getting Boyes and Winchester turned out to be good, while others have not panned out as well.

Expecting GM's to hit homeruns every draft is very unreasonable. Just look at the last 10 drafts or so, and see how many of the players drafted in the 1st-3rd round have met all the expectations of them. VERY FEW (maybe with the exception of 2003 draft).
 

Doan Jidion*

Guest
Expecting GM's to hit homeruns every draft is very unreasonable. Just look at the last 10 drafts or so, and see how many of the players drafted in the 1st-3rd round have met all the expectations of them. VERY FEW (maybe with the exception of 2003 draft).

True, but Tallon's drafts were really bad. On the other hand, the Bowmans' drafts have been really good, so I feel confident in my assessment.
 

zeroG

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 5, 2006
8,166
1,735
Somerville, MA
Dineen was also the guy because he had a history if getting the most out if young players. He did wonders in Buf go their prospects and always seemed to get the best out of them.

Now the situation has obviously changed and he has lost the bench and locker room . Either we ride out Ramsay this season or bring in Lavy and go from there.

not sure if tallon ever said that publicly but even if it was said, i don't think that was the reason he was hired. i think dineen had earned the chance by having success in the AHL. i don't buy that he had any significant impact on the sabres prospects, just like i don't think deboer ruined kulikov or is ruining devils prospects now. those prospects were likely just good prospects who would've succeeded irrespective of coach. certainly coaches can have some effect on their players both in terms of the game and life but i think, in most cases, that effect (especially when it comes to the game) is overstated.

It usually happens in most pro sports that when new owners come in, they want "there guy". I really feel like Tallon will probably go either soon or during the off-season so they can bring in someone of there choosing to run the organization, pick the coach and decide the direction we go in. Not saying I agree or disagree with this strategy, just what I think is the most likely scenario.

i think that's less the case with owners and GMs than with GMs and coaches. it's not as if the new owner inherited a chump - he's got an established guy who had a big hand in putting together a championship roster. he'd have to have a huge ego to come in and fire tallon, especially knowing that the team is in the middle of a rebuilding stage.
 

Dread Clawz

LAWSonic Boom
Nov 25, 2006
27,301
8,649
Pennsylvania
I disagree with this a lot, both now and back then. Everyone at the time said we overpaid for the guys we signed...mostly because of the term, not just salary. Guys were signed for too long because Tallon thought he was saving money by doing so. But I think its pretty obvious that Tallon was hit & miss on evaluating the actual talent too. So that evaluation actually has ended up costing more money in the long run.

Now if we look back at 2011, there were plenty of UFAs that signed for less than 3 yrs, guys that had similar or better reputations to what we signed. Instead of signing Jovo for his leadership for 4 yrs, could've signed Roman Hamrlik for the same thing for 2 yrs (not a big upgrade but produced the same amount their 1st yr and then we actually we would've been free from that deal anyway in the 2nd yr when he was waived) and not stuck with an injury prone player for the last 2 yrs. Another guy we could've had for less yrs was Kaberle (3 yrs @ 4.25M/yr so same price as Jovo) and while he didnt work in Carolina, at least they traded him pretty quickly and got out from under that contract. Instead of sigining Upshall who was injury prone and only had one proven yr, he could've signed Michael Ryder to a 2 yr deal (same price too) and he was a more proven goalscorer. Heck sign Raffi Torres for 3 yrs instead of 4 and at least get more consistent play. There were plenty of guys too that would've signed for 1 yr instead of signing Matt Bradley for 2 yrs and having to buy him out (Konopka, Carcillo, re-sign Dvorak, Glass).

Dude, I don't think you're being realistic. You have to entertain the possibility that some of the guys you mentioned were offered deals by us but didn't want to sign here. We'll never know, but you can't just say "we should have signed this guy" every time. Yeah, Tallon could have made a couple of better signings probably, but you can say that about every GM. You have to account for real life factors. Tallon did a very good job that summer all in all.

Everyone said we overpaid that summer because 1) they were jealous of us, 2)they don't understand or just ignore because they hate us the fact that we have to overpay to get players to come here. We might have also had to tack on another year or two in some cases to outbid another team. Again, the real life factor. You can point to other players we could have signed, but perhaps those were not Tallon's 1st or 2nd choices. He made some mistakes, but again, he did a very respectable job. You are expecting way too much perfection. With that many UFA's signed, we hit on a lot of them(at least in 11-12 which allowed us to make the playoffs for the 1st time in a decade), and it was a tremendous success rate. Usually a GM signs just a handful of UFA's and a couple don't work out(as we see this season on our team, and admittedly Tallon didn't do the best UFA job this summer. But in 2011 he did a great job).

I think that tells you a lot actually. First, it means Tallon is relying on the talent he has already brought in here because he is going to wait the 3-5 yrs for those college guys to develop (which as we've now seen, isnt working). Second, while the quality of the NCAA has improved, its still not the main source of talent for most NHL teams when drafting & developing. Sprinkling some NCAA guys to your pool is good but we've been focusing way more heavily on that instead. Lastly, when you draft a few more CHL kids and have to develop them on your own, it means you have to be smarter about how you manage your AHL team as well. The Rampage has had such up & down success since we re-affiliated with them which seemed to be a direct reflection of the talent there and how to manage the roster. They've either never had enough good talent (because most prospects were in college) or they've had to sign mediocre (and/or the wrong) veterans to bridge the gap that they havent had any sustained success in the AHL.

And again, Tallon may not be personally making the picks but he HAS to be directly influencing the scouts to select those guys. So Tallon is responsible in one way or another, even if he's not specifically saying, "draft that kid from University of Michigan/Minnesota/Denver/etc". You cant totally put this on the scouts.
[/QUOTE]

We cannot have taken many more CHL players than we have. With your mindset, a bunch of them would be doomed to fail anyway then, and I'm glad our organization doesn't have that mindset. And if we did have some good CHL prospects that we would then have to cut loose because we don't have contracts for them, then how would that make sense? It makes more sense to develop more NCAA kids so they can stay in your system for several years.

The NCAA is a great league. It is better than the CHL for some kids, because some kids need more time in the weight room, and more time developing in amateur hockey before they hit the pros. Yeah, it's not as good as the CHL, but a ton of NHL players have come out of college, so it's not like you're making out. There's no reason to think a prospect that goes the NCAA route has a minimal chance of making the NHL. If he's a serious NHL prospect, he has a great chance. There are a lot more players in the NCAA than the CHL. So of course the success rate isn't going to be the same.

Also, how can you say our college kids aren't working out? Sure, some of them are bound to fail. But Bjugstad? How's he looking? Matheson is a stud. Rau is looking great. Grimaldi is looking very good. McCoshen is looking very good. Downing is looking solid. Brittain has had injury setbacks which is not his fault, but he's having a solid senior season as well. I still maintain Brickley could have a role in the organization in the future. He been alright, and he was never projected to be a top 6 guy.

The Rampage have suffered a little from a lot of our talent being in the NCAA, but part of it has also been that the CHL have disappointed. Petrovic is still inconsistent. Which is fine, he is still young, just saying though. Robak has been OK, but for a 4th year pro he's not where he should be. Howden hasn't scored as much as we've hoped. Also, Tallon, or more specifically Santos, did not make the best free agent signings in the summer of 2012. THat's why the Rampage suffered greatly last season. They were short on quality veteran talent. You can ask any Rampage fan, that would be their #1 reason for why the Rampage sucked last season.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->