Player Discussion Artem Anisimov (C)

[BatherSeason]

Seems like a serious message does it not? It was a get lost we don't want you statement,

Still waiting for your proof there was even a thread for you to post it in.

 

[OttawaSenators11]

When guys get expensive locker room issues will be made up.

Zach Smith being a bad locker room guy isn't believable at all IMO.

 

[FormentonTheFuture]

He was waived because he wasn't very good and was owed a lot of money for three years. That's about it. No point arguing anything else. If he made a million I'm sure he'd still be here today.

 

[aragorn]

Zack Smith was a consummate professional & very well liked in the dressing room & in the community by his teammates, coaches & fans who know better. Smith was not an offensive player although when required he has played up in the lineup as Pageau has with Stone & others & done wells. Smith is a defensive forward & a damn good one, both he & Pageau led the league in short handed goals one yr & every team needs good defensive players who make it hard on the opposition. This will be an even easier team to play against than it has been in the past without Smith IMO. He was always the first one out there on the PK or on key faceoffs at either end, he brought an edge to the game that most of the players now on the team simply don't have. We all knew his time was coming to an end in Ottawa as PD continues to build a Team Butter, all the best of luck to Smith in Chicago.

 

[Samsquanch]

Erik Karlsson (not even 30):

- 2 Norris Trophies
- 4 1st team All-Star

Daniel Alfredsson:

- 1 Calder Trophy
- 1 1st team All-Star
- 1 2nd team All-Star

Dany Heatley:

- 1 Calder Trophy
- 2 1st team All-Star
- 1 2nd team All-Star

Jason Spezza:

- No personal hardware or accolades

I'm old enough to remember the PIZZA line (heck, I'm old enough to have been posting here at the time). I wasn't using hyperbole when I was stating that Karlsson (before he's even turned 30) has more personal accolades than that entire line combined. I'm not taking anything away from those three players, who were clearly all star players at some point in their careers (and 3 of the best to ever put on a Senators sweater). I just think Karlsson is THAT much better than any of them.

I dont disagree that Karlsson was the biggest start we've ever had... I even stated as much in my first post.

Just pointing out the fact that you were being a little dramatic in your OP when you made it seem like we traded the first good player we've ever had. Just because Karlsson was the best of the lot doesnt mean the other 3 were second rate stars. Heatley was a back-to-back 50 goal scorer, the first and only one in the first two years after the lockout. He was a superstar in every definition of the word.

 

[BatherSeason]

He was waived because he wasn't very good and was owed a lot of money for three years. That's about it. No point arguing anything else. If he made a million I'm sure he'd still be here today.

Somebody stated that it was because of a locker room issue. That's where the debate began.

 

[stempniaksen]

I dont disagree that Karlsson was the biggest start we've ever had... I even stated as much in my first post.

Just pointing out the fact that you were being a little dramatic in your OP when you made it seem like we traded the first good player we've ever had. Just because Karlsson was the best of the lot doesnt mean the other 3 were second rate stars. Heatley was a back-to-back 50 goal scorer, the first one to do it post lockout. He was a superstar in every definition of the word.

That could be how you interpreted it, but that's very different than the message I was trying to get across (a lot can get lost in translation in one line posts on a message board).

Heatley was great, but he also benefited from playing with the other two guys (just as they benefited from playing with him). He was also never "the best" at anything, which makes him a star, not a superstar (in my own personal estimation). In 05-06 he was the 5th leading goalscorer, in 06-07 he was 2nd.

We're arguing over semantics at this point though. It's clear we have differing opinions on what makes a superstar, and that's totally fine.

 

[Samsquanch]

That could be how you interpreted it, but that's very different than the message I was trying to get across (a lot can get lost in translation in one line posts on a message board).

Heatley was great, but he also benefited from playing with the other two guys (just as they benefited from playing with him). He was also never "the best" at anything, which makes him a star, not a superstar (in my own personal estimation). In 05-06 he was the 5th leading goalscorer, in 06-07 he was 2nd.

We're arguing over semantics at this point though. It's clear we have differing opinions on what makes a superstar, and that's totally fine.

Thats a really, really flawed/strange way to categorize players, but sure ok. Its your opinion, like you said..

 

[aragorn]

That could be how you interpreted it, but that's very different than the message I was trying to get across (a lot can get lost in translation in one line posts on a message board).

Heatley was great, but he also benefited from playing with the other two guys (just as they benefited from playing with him). He was also never "the best" at anything, which makes him a star, not a superstar (in my own personal estimation). In 05-06 he was the 5th leading goalscorer, in 06-07 he was 2nd.

We're arguing over semantics at this point though. It's clear we have differing opinions on what makes a superstar, and that's totally fine.

He was the best on this team at scoring 50 goals & 50 assists in two consecutive seasons something nobody else has ever done on this team in it's recent history, not to mention his record in International play where I believe he led Canada in scoring numerous times. He even tied Gretzky's record of scoring four goals in an Allstar game. He sure played like a superstar to me.

 

[stempniaksen]

He was the best on this team at scoring 50 goals & 50 assists in two consecutive seasons something nobody else has ever done on this team in it's recent history, not to mention his record in International play where I believe he led Canada in scoring numerous times. He even tied Gretzky's record of scoring four goals in an Allstar game. He sure played like a superstar to me.

I've already established this team has only had 1 superstar in it's history (imo) so comparing him to other Senators isn't relevant to this discussion.

He never lead the league in goals (finished top-three once) and never finished top-three in points despite having the opportunity to play with 2 other star players for the better part of three seasons. Also, mentioning 4 goals in a glorified game of shinny seems like a huge stretch to validate your point.

I'm not saying he was bad, I actually think he was really good! I just don't think he was ever a top-5 player in the league, which is pretty close to my barometer to be a superstar. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[GrantLemons]

Seems like a serious message does it not? It was a get lost we don't want you statement,

It happened before the season even started, yet Pierre literally said it was performance related.

In what world does that make any sense to you?

 

[MatchesMalone]

This is Dorion after Smith cleared:
"Zack is a high-character person, he's the heart and soul of that dressing room, but at the same time it was performance related," explained Dorion. "We knew that if we let the team know we won't accept what happened last year, including how Zack played, that, hopefully, the message will be passed through the room."

Thanks, I forgot about those comments.

 

[Clayonator]

One could almost make the case we essentially traded Smith for another Brassard.

 

[MatchesMalone]

Good post

Looking at the bits we have right now, I’m wondering whether we’ll be looking at this awesome team in a few years and ultimately praising what PD was able to build here.

In the end, the EK core team was Murray’s team, and what we’re seeing right now is ultimately PDs vision. It will be a few years yet before we see what its parts will become.

The wild card for me is always the budget. If we have room to grow, then things could look great, especially if we’re able to add a few more top prospects in the next two years, we really are being built the right way in my opinion (net out, massive character + skill core to add skill to). If we can’t afford to pay for the core and eventually get close to the cap as promised, then we are truly doomed until new ownership arrives.

I was never completely sold in the last core, especially after the year following the ECF run. But I am seriously enthused with this core of kids right now, so I’m willing to extend a trial period to see if EM will keep his word to his sponsors and business partners. It’s self serving, as I want to see this group make it, if it turns out that he puts his money back in, and this squad develops into what I think it can, I’ll have a ton of praise for what PD was able to build.

In the end, the team in the ice entertaining me is what matters most to me.

Completely agreed.

The way the collapse and rebuild was handled was a mess, but the collection of picks/prospects and young core Dorion has assembled coming out of it is impressive.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Completely agreed.

The way the collapse and rebuild was handled was a mess, but the collection of picks/prospects and young core Dorion has assembled coming out of it is impressive.

And the question now immediately turns to... can they pay up and keep them? They're already about to face it head on with their best player in Chabot.

That's the one hole in this plan and why there's little optimism. If people believed this next core would be kept, I think you'd see a lot more excitement about the rebuild and prospects they've compiled.

 

[MatchesMalone]

And the question now immediately turns to... can they pay up and keep them? They're already about to face it head on with their best player in Chabot.

That's the one hole in this plan and why there's little optimism. If people believed this next core would be kept, I think you'd see a lot more excitement about the rebuild and prospects they've compiled.

You can see my take on that here, if you're interested: Thoughts on the rebuild?

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

You can see my take on that here, if you're interested: Thoughts on the rebuild?

I just had a read. You have some good thoughts, but I think money is going to be a factor sooner than that will play out.

One thing I just cannot fathom is how they're going to pay a player such as Chabot knowing it both needs to happen prior to July 1 next year, and will require a ton of bonus money and possibly during the lockout year.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Sending a message would be sitting his ass in the press box for a few games. Putting him on waivers is trying to dump his salary for nothing.

Why would you "send a message" by putting a guy on waivers, when he could be claimed from you by any team? The message is what, "We need you to be better, so we're going to waive you and might lose you. That'll learn you.". I guess they'll just toss Brady on waivers as well if he needs a stern "message" delivered?

Taking anything the org says at face value after all of the bull**** that's happened over the last couple of years is kind of pathetic tbh.

To Supsens if it comes out of Dorion's pie hole it must be exactly like it is... Dorion tried to save face by saying .. its sending him a message. He said the same thing with Burrows. Waivers is not a message. Its trying to see if you can dump a player for nothing to get rid of their salary. Sending him a message would have been putting him in Belleville after he cleared. Its non stop exaggerations and pure unadulterated BS flying out of Dorion's mouth.. And its not for nothing , obviously some people buy it hook line and sinker and play it back for us here.

 

[Back in Black]

I ain't even mad.

 

[dumbdick]

This is a good trade. I'm not convinced brown should be in the NHL and this insulates us against him crashing.

 

[Micklebot]

It's the same take I've had for several years Micklebot. It's there to see, you just don't choose to see it. In fact you participate in it.

It's just constant whining. Doesn't matter what happens, whine

That team was crucified in here two years ago. This board couldn't even be proud of a good run. All the things I mentioned were constantly brought up.

If the criticism were valid then, you'd think there'd be some positive vibes about that cast of characters being moved on from.

But here we are reminiscing about the good old days.

I was at work yesterday. Then I played hockey. Got home about 8. Lots of discussion at hockey about the Smith trade. I started thinking on my drive home about the thread that would be here about that trade. It is obviously an upgrade from a hockey view. But I had the over under at the 4th post before I'd read a negative comment about it. And I nailed it. 4th post. Boom.

This place is what it is. Fortunately I still play hockey a few times a week and the hockey conversation has a different tone to it

See, this is where you go off the rails a bit; if the criticisms were valid, people should be happy because the team didn't address them and instead gutted the team of the parts that weren't being criticized?

Most people have said this trade was a good move. You talk about 4 posts in for a negative take, a guy made a error regarding the facts around the trade and commented based on his incorrect understanding, was corrected, and edited his post to admit his mistake. Seems odd to criticize that. Then again, your still criticizing people who had concerns of the team when it was on it's playoff run; one would think given the absolutely catastrophic decline that followed, maybe some of the complaints had merit... but no, you're still dismissive of them because they must have just been negative for the sake of being negative.

 

[branch]

It's the same take I've had for several years Micklebot. It's there to see, you just don't choose to see it. In fact you participate in it.

It's just constant whining. Doesn't matter what happens, whine

That team was crucified in here two years ago. This board couldn't even be proud of a good run. All the things I mentioned were constantly brought up.

If the criticism were valid then, you'd think there'd be some positive vibes about that cast of characters being moved on from.

But here we are reminiscing about the good old days.

I was at work yesterday. Then I played hockey. Got home about 8. Lots of discussion at hockey about the Smith trade. I started thinking on my drive home about the thread that would be here about that trade. It is obviously an upgrade from a hockey view. But I had the over under at the 4th post before I'd read a negative comment about it. And I nailed it. 4th post. Boom.

This place is what it is. Fortunately I still play hockey a few times a week and the hockey conversation has a different tone to it

If say 75% of the visible fanbase on HF (including fans of other teams), and online in general, including Twitter and along with it a large number of pundits and ex-players/execs adopt a negative tone when talking about the team, and you yourself even acknowledge it in the above post, maybe you should take that as a signal that you are the outlying contrasting opinion. Which is fine too, consider yourself the grand optimist.

I play hockey too, 4-6 times per month and I am wondering what dressing room you're in. Because with my group of guys (big mix anywhere from 15-60 years old), whenever the Senators come up it is overwhelmingly negative.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

And the year before they were 3rd last with Karlsson + that group...

I know that 90% of the posters on HFboards believe that this rebuild is entirely driven by Melnyks desire to save money, but I mean come on. The absolutely terrible results from this team had to have at very least "a lot" to do with the decision to not commit the next 8 years to that core of players.

I know that if I was actually serious about winning a Stanley cup sometime in the next 8 years I would have had to think long and hard to committing 35+ million to a core of Karlsson, Stone, Duchene and Dzingle.

Is that group good enough to win a cup? We will never know, but my guess is that had we signed them, we would have a 1-2 year window to try winning (again, with the same group that fell flat) before we spent the next 6 years stuck with an aging and inadequate core.

San Jose, Columbus, and Vegas each got an extra round in the playoffs this year due to that group. Just fyi.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

San Jose, Columbus, and Vegas each got an extra round in the playoffs this year due to that group. Just fyi.

Vegas lost in the first round to SJ

 

[Samsquanch]

San Jose, Columbus, and Vegas each got an extra round in the playoffs this year due to that group. Just fyi.

Not only is that statement utterly false considering 2 of 3 three teams played each other in round 1, but this is pure speculation on your part.

But anyways, yes those teams traded away some of their future for the hope of winning now. Thats fairly obvious but I guess it wasnt clear somehow.

It didnt change the fact that collectively, when charged with carrying a team of their own, that core group was highly inconsistent. And if those teams depended on the players they got from us to make the playoffs, they might have missed altogether while waiting for them to make an impact (they were mostly all non factors after the trades).

One of my best friends is a life long Sharks fan, and losing Pavelski to re sign Karlsson is a very upsetting move to him. He still sees Burns as the superior player, especially now having seen them both closely. Karlsson isnt seen as the top 5 player that he was in Ottawa anymore, fwiw.