Silver Seven Senators Remain at Odds with Outside Scouting Consensus

[aragorn]

I always find it interesting when people claim if not for Burrows, then we'd never have made the conference finals. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, there really is no way of knowing what happens if we hadn't traded for him. Maybe White come in instead and plays well with the adrenaline, maybe we win the series in 7 game rather than 6, maybe we are swept in the first round. If you're going to take one goal he played a role in and determine that was the key to getting to the ECF, I'm sure you also must have done an analysis on every other time he stepped on the ice to determine he didn't play into some missed chances or goals against too, right?

The guy got 5 assists playing mostly in the top 6 with plenty of time on the PP. Really seems like some are giving him an outsized role in the team's success, you can certainly say we don't know if we would have made it that far if we changed anything since there's any number of variables, but we might as well say if not for Wingers we never make it

It is true because it happened, we all saw it play out, Burrows made the play that scored the goal to put them into the conference finals, that's a fact. Nothing else matters because nothing else played out that way. Maybe they could have gotten there without him is theoretical, maybe isn't real, it's trying to change history, we have no idea what could have been? He made the play, PERIOD. The rest of it is just hypothetical, like if we had Crosby, McDavid, Gretzky & OV we could have won the SC? Maybe we could.

 

[Micklebot]

We can say he helped more than Dahlen, ever did or will.

Hmm, not really seeing your point here.

If we traded a late first or early 2nd round pick for 5 assists out of top 6 mins with pp time, would that be a good trade? We basically got Stepan out of trading Dahlen, only we had to buy out Burrows, are you a big fan of acquiring Stepan?

 

[Micklebot]

It is true because it happened, we all saw it play out, Burrows made the play that scored the goal to put them into the conference finals, that's a fact. Nothing else matters because nothing else played out that way. Maybe they could have gotten there without him is theoretical, maybe isn't real, it's trying to change history, we have no idea what could have been? He made the play, PERIOD. The rest of it is just hypothetical, like if we had Crosby, McDavid, Gretzky & OV we could have won the SC? Maybe we could.

It is true he made a play that resulted in a goal, and it is true we made the ECF, it is speculative that if not for acquiring him, we would not have made the ECF.

 

[aragorn]

It is true he made a play that resulted in a goal, and it is true we made the ECF, it is speculative that if not for acquiring him, we would not have made the ECF.

It's also possible that in a parallel universe we didn't trade for Burrows & they signed someone else & still went on to conference finals & maybe win a SC. Or we went back in time ..... However, I was asked to leave work & get some rest when I brought up that whole alternative multi-verse, parallel dimension stuff, but I still think it's possible.

 

[Micklebot]

It's also possible that in a parallel universe we didn't trade for Burrows & they signed someone else & still went on to conference finals & maybe win a SC. Or we went back in time ..... However, I was asked to leave work & get some rest when I brought up that whole alternative multi-verse, parallel dimension stuff, but I still think it's possible.

Probably going to need to rewatch Loki to figure out the multiverse madness that would result should we not have pruned the reality where we didn't trade for Burrows...

 

[Ice-Tray]

I always find it interesting when people claim if not for Burrows, then we'd never have made the conference finals. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, there really is no way of knowing what happens if we hadn't traded for him. Maybe White come in instead and plays well with the adrenaline, maybe we win the series in 7 game rather than 6, maybe we are swept in the first round. If you're going to take one goal he played a role in and determine that was the key to getting to the ECF, I'm sure you also must have done an analysis on every other time he stepped on the ice to determine he didn't play into some missed chances or goals against too, right?

The guy got 5 assists playing mostly in the top 6 with plenty of time on the PP. Really seems like some are giving him an outsized role in the team's success, you can certainly say we don't know if we would have made it that far if we changed anything since there's any number of variables, but we might as well say if not for Wingers we never make it

His play down the stretch was more important in terms of making the playoffs at all. If I remember correctly he was a first star twice and a top three star another two times. He played a key role (not THE key role) in us making the playoffs on our great run to finish the season and finished off with .5 ppg (someone will undoubtably correct my memory here).

Trading Dahlen was worth that alone, and having Dahlen back isn’t close worth us redoing that stretch run and then playoffs to see if a different player could have done more.

The only people who felt Dahlen had super value were in here. He has been traded a few times now and not once for anything worth mentioning. Burrows is still the best player picked up for the guy. His sky high value is a HF Sens creation, and a myth.

In my opinion of course.

 

[Micklebot]

His play down the stretch was more important in terms of making the playoffs at all. If I remember correctly he was a first star twice and a top three star another two times. He played a key role (not THE key role) in us making the playoffs on our great run to finish the season and finished off with .5 ppg (someone will undoubtably correct my memory here).

Trading Dahlen was worth that alone, and having Dahlen back isn’t close worth us redoing that stretch run and then playoffs to see if a different player could have done more.

The only people who felt Dahlen had super value were in here. He has been traded a few times now and not once for anything worth mentioning. Burrows is still the best player picked up for the guy. His sky high value is a HF Sens creation, and a myth.

In my opinion of course.

He definitely had some good games after the trade, whether his contribution was the difference in us making or missing the playoffs is a bit of a tough one; we had 4 pts more than the two teams that ended up just missing, so to argue that Burrows was solely responsible for two wins above his replacement in 20 games is a big ask. I could certainly believe we might have ended up with a different matchup in the first round, maybe not have had home ice advantage. But hey, he had 4 pts in those two games against Colorado, maybe we lose both without him and idk who had the tie breaker, so we miss and the lighting get in.

In the end though, I still find he gets outsized credit to try and justify the trade. It worked out for us that Dahlen has yet to pan out, that's usually the case when you move an asset that holds the value of a second or late 1st Rd pick. Burrows certainly isn't the guy I'd have targetted to help the team at that time, and I definitely wouldn't have extended him (to me that's the bigger issue, trading a second or equivalent for playoff help is no big deal) but I do think help was needed.

 

[Ice-Tray]

He definitely had some good games after the trade, whether his contribution was the difference in us making or missing the playoffs is a bit of a tough one; we had 4 pts more than the two teams that ended up just missing, so to argue that Burrows was solely responsible for two wins above his replacement in 20 games is a big ask. I could certainly believe we might have ended up with a different matchup in the first round, maybe not have had home ice advantage. But hey, he had 4 pts in those two games against Colorado, maybe we lose both without him and idk who had the tie breaker, so we miss and the lighting get in.

In the end though, I still find he gets outsized credit to try and justify the trade. It worked out for us that Dahlen has yet to pan out, that's usually the case when you move an asset that holds the value of a second or late 1st Rd pick. Burrows certainly isn't the guy I'd have targetted to help the team at that time, and I definitely wouldn't have extended him (to me that's the bigger issue, trading a second or equivalent for playoff help is no big deal) but I do think help was needed.

I was happy at the time because I didn’t really care too much about Dahlen and really liked Burrows as a player (living out here kinda influenced that). I was underwhelmed by what he had to bring at that point in his career, but still enjoyed him down the stretch and into the playoffs.

It was an epic run, with loads of solid Sens memories. Looking forward to making more!!

 

[supsens]

Dahlen was looking like a great pick in D+1 season. Burrows was beyond his best before date and looking for a retirement contract. Dorion gave up the promising Dahlen for an old vet in major decline. Gave Burrows a 2 year contract too. This was not a great move by the GM.

Perhaps your hopes for Dahlen were not based in reality.

 

[Micklebot]

I was happy at the time because I didn’t really care too much about Dahlen and really liked Burrows as a player (living out here kinda influenced that). I was underwhelmed by what he had to bring at that point in his career, but still enjoyed him down the stretch and into the playoffs.

It was an epic run, with loads of solid Sens memories. Looking forward to making more!!

That's totally fair

I never liked Burrows much, though I didn't despise him like some, and while I did feel Salem was entirely expendable, I did think he was a good prospect with decent value.

In the end, the run was fun, whether Burrows was a key cog or not really doesn't matter, everyone was happy we had a deep run and the whole thing always felt like we were balancing on a razors Edge so maybe his 5 assists were the difference, but I'll never be a fan of that trade myself.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Dahlen's status as a prospect at that time, was roughly equivalent to Pinto's status as a prospect last summer. Would anyone here be happy trading Pinto for Stepan last year instead of a 2nd?

That is what some of us are trying to explain to the "Burrows trade was great" people. The trade was an overpayment on our part at the time. We're just lucky the kid didn't materialize into something good.

 

[Korpse]

Dahlen's status as a prospect at that time, was roughly equivalent to Pinto's status as a prospect last summer. Would anyone here be happy trading Pinto for Stepan last year instead of a 2nd?

That is what some of us are trying to explain to the "Burrows trade was great" people. The trade was an overpayment on our part at the time. We're just lucky the kid didn't materialize into something good.

I don't know that many are calling it great, just that it wasn't the absolute disaster it was labelled by many at the time. Also, given the path Dahlen has taken, it's probably fair to raise some questions as to whether the organization had soured on the player. I'm sure a development plan was discussed while he was Ottawa property and while I'll acknowledge I'm completely speculating, it may have raised some red flags.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Dahlen's status as a prospect at that time, was roughly equivalent to Pinto's status as a prospect last summer. Would anyone here be happy trading Pinto for Stepan last year instead of a 2nd?

That is what some of us are trying to explain to the "Burrows trade was great" people. The trade was an overpayment on our part at the time. We're just lucky the kid didn't materialize into something good.

Not a chance.

I mean sure, in Sens land where people were freaking out after the pic, but no chance the organization thought the same of them, or that they carried the same value. Mann insisted that they not trade down that that they use that 1st pick in the second round to get him.

 

[playasRus]

Would be interesting tohear what Burrows has to say about the state of the team he came into. Same with Brassard. Guys who got a look into our locker room yet weren't at all attached with the roster enough to be biased to keep tight lipped.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Would be interesting tohear what Burrows has to say about the state of the team he came into. Same with Brassard. Guys who got a look into our locker room yet weren't at all attached with the roster enough to be biased to keep tight lipped.

Burrows has already spoken about it. He regretted that he didn’t step in and try and help sort it out, but he was new to the team. There were clear lockeroom issues that year and the next.

 

[Tuna99]

I don't know that many are calling it great, just that it wasn't the absolute disaster it was labelled by many at the time. Also, given the path Dahlen has taken, it's probably fair to raise some questions as to whether the organization had soured on the player. I'm sure a development plan was discussed while he was Ottawa property and while I'll acknowledge I'm completely speculating, it may have raised some red flags.

I can’t believe there’s even a question of a busy prospect being used for true NHL minutes in a playoff run is even a question of who won the trade - Ottawa won that trade 100% and you won’t find anyone who looks at it objectively to say otherwise.

My guess is they drafted Dahlen, had a real chance to evaluate him and through the would end up a perimeter player who couldn’t impose his will on a game. And that’s true. And they used an asset that was overvalued at the time to acquire a real NHL hockey player - it’s a win

 

[JD1]

Dahlen was looking like a great pick in D+1 season. Burrows was beyond his best before date and looking for a retirement contract. Dorion gave up the promising Dahlen for an old vet in major decline. Gave Burrows a 2 year contract too. This was not a great move by the GM.

That was board hype. I clearly remember Dorion being on 1200 the next day and he referenced Dahlen as our internally rated #8 prospect

I can get on board with the idea that maybe we could have got a better asset than burrows but don't buy that dahlen was some can't miss type prospect. The year you're referencing Dahlen as a great pick he was playing with Elias Peterson and I'm thinking our people were watching that and attributing his success to Peterson

That said, Burrows played well for us when we went to the ECF. that run likely put 15M in the revenue coffers and Dorion's TDL moves resulted in him being nominated for GM of the year. That's not the narrative that this board prefers but it's factually true

 

[JD1]

He definitely had some good games after the trade, whether his contribution was the difference in us making or missing the playoffs is a bit of a tough one; we had 4 pts more than the two teams that ended up just missing, so to argue that Burrows was solely responsible for two wins above his replacement in 20 games is a big ask. I could certainly believe we might have ended up with a different matchup in the first round, maybe not have had home ice advantage. But hey, he had 4 pts in those two games against Colorado, maybe we lose both without him and idk who had the tie breaker, so we miss and the lighting get in.

In the end though, I still find he gets outsized credit to try and justify the trade. It worked out for us that Dahlen has yet to pan out, that's usually the case when you move an asset that holds the value of a second or late 1st Rd pick. Burrows certainly isn't the guy I'd have targetted to help the team at that time, and I definitely wouldn't have extended him (to me that's the bigger issue, trading a second or equivalent for playoff help is no big deal) but I do think help was needed.

Vintage Micklebot

You have an anti Sens disposition

You take a hypothetical position against something the team did that cannot be disproven and you argue it incessantly

Maybe a few guys here like @Ice-Tray and @aragorn can come together here, concede your hypothetical point that some other player might have achieved more and we can stop this stupid nonsense

 

[Micklebot]

I can’t believe there’s even a question of a busy prospect being used for true NHL minutes in a playoff run is even a question of who won the trade - Ottawa won that trade 100% and you won’t find anyone who looks at it objectively to say otherwise.

My guess is they drafted Dahlen, had a real chance to evaluate him and through the would end up a perimeter player who couldn’t impose his will on a game. And that’s true. And they used an asset that was overvalued at the time to acquire a real NHL hockey player - it’s a win

Replace the prospect with a pick, late first or a second rounder, and is there a conversation to be had? Picks in that range have about a 30% chance of becoming an NHL player, but if we had traded a first for Stalberg or Wingels you can bet that would be a bad trade regardless of whether the pick ended up busting and despite Stalberg/Wingels playing playoff mins.

Now maybe you think Burrow provided good value, maybe you'd be just as happy with the trade had we sent a 2nd rounder or even a first for him instead of Dahlen, that's fine, but I suspect you'd find a lot that expect more of an impact player at that price. Maybe you don't see Dahlen as having held that value, it's fine. But Dahlen busting doesn't mean he never held that value, picks and prospects that aren't top picks bust 70% or more of the time, doesn't mean that they don't have value prior to busting.

We don't claim the 6th round pick we used for Stone was invaluable at the time we used it to select him, so we should not view Dahlen as having little value at the time of the traded because he eventually busted,

 

[BondraTime]

Replace the prospect with a pick, late first or a second rounder, and is there a conversation to be had? Picks in that range have about a 30% chance of becoming an NHL player, but if we had traded a first for Stalberg or Wingels you can bet that would be a bad trade regardless of whether the pick ended up busting and despite Stalberg/Wingels playing playoff mins.

Now maybe you think Burrow provided good value, maybe you'd be just as happy with the trade had we sent a 2nd rounder or even a first for him instead of Dahlen, that's fine, but I suspect you'd find a lot that expect more of an impact player at that price. Maybe you don't see Dahlen as having held that value, it's fine. But Dahlen busting doesn't mean he never held that value, picks and prospects that aren't top picks bust 70% or more of the time, doesn't mean that they don't have value prior to busting.

We don't claim the 6th round pick we used for Stone was invaluable at the time we used it to select him, so we should not view Dahlen as having little value at the time of the traded because he eventually busted,

He’s got a spot in San Jose’s top 9 this year, can still carve out a nice career, hasn’t busted yet other than not playing in the NHL.

 

[Micklebot]

Vintage Micklebot

You have an anti Sens disposition

You take a hypothetical position against something the team did that cannot be disproven and you argue it incessantly

Maybe a few guys here like @Ice-Tray and @aragorn can come together here, concede your hypothetical point that some other player might have achieved more and we can stop this stupid nonsense

Actually my point is that it is just as hypothetical to suggest if not for Burrows we have no ECF run. We don't know one way or another but some are quick to claim otherwise.

 

[Micklebot]

He’s got a spot in San Jose’s top 9 this year, can still carve out a nice career, hasn’t busted yet other than not playing in the NHL.

Yeah that's fair, I referenced him as a bust for simplicity, but he could carve out a nice career yet. Does it change anything though, not imo, he held a certain value at the time of the trade and whether he goes on to become a bust or a star doesn't change that.

 

[Tuna99]

Replace the prospect with a pick, late first or a second rounder, and is there a conversation to be had? Picks in that range have about a 30% chance of becoming an NHL player, but if we had traded a first for Stalberg or Wingels you can bet that would be a bad trade regardless of whether the pick ended up busting and despite Stalberg/Wingels playing playoff mins.

Now maybe you think Burrow provided good value, maybe you'd be just as happy with the trade had we sent a 2nd rounder or even a first for him instead of Dahlen, that's fine, but I suspect you'd find a lot that expect more of an impact player at that price. Maybe you don't see Dahlen as having held that value, it's fine. But Dahlen busting doesn't mean he never held that value, picks and prospects that aren't top picks bust 70% or more of the time, doesn't mean that they don't have value prior to busting.

We don't claim the 6th round pick we used for Stone was invaluable at the time we used it to select him, so we should not view Dahlen as having little value at the time of the traded because he eventually busted,

I said we traded him at his highest value after he had a good World Junior - so credit to PD. It was a good trade but he gave Burrows to much money, but that’s separate.

This is an example of excellent asset management by PD. If he had traded Logan Brown 2 years ago before he busted and even got a depth Dman or a depth winger for him that also would of been a good trade - but he did t and the asset has no value. At this point getting a Burrows type for Logan Brown would be a win in my books

 

[GCK]

Dahlen's status as a prospect at that time, was roughly equivalent to Pinto's status as a prospect last summer. Would anyone here be happy trading Pinto for Stepan last year instead of a 2nd?

That is what some of us are trying to explain to the "Burrows trade was great" people. The trade was an overpayment on our part at the time. We're just lucky the kid didn't materialize into something good.

Dahlen was only viewed as a good prospect on HFSens at the time of the trade. He was a B prospect, which in no way validates the trade with extension.

 

[Micklebot]

I said we traded him at his highest value after he had a good World Junior - so credit to PD. It was a good trade but he gave Burrows to much money, but that’s separate.

This is an example of excellent asset management by PD. If he had traded Logan Brown 2 years ago before he busted and even got a depth Dman or a depth winger for him that also would of been a good trade - but he did t and the asset has no value. At this point getting a Burrows type for Logan Brown would be a win in my books

The trade was contingent on the extension as Burrows wouldn't waive without it, so no it's not a separate issue, it's part and parcel of what we traded for and why many didn't like the trade.