Post-Game Talk: SENS in the Habs Barn, Saturday night 7 pm

[HSF]

Ian Mendes said it best…the sens haven’t had a good 2nd pairing for over a decade

 

[HSF]

We have yet to replace Dadanov

we were hearing about a top 6 Center addition but now it looks like it’s Sanford who looks pretty weak as a top 6

 

[JD1]

Did you notice the other part of the post that was under the part you replied to?

Yes I did

 

[Big Muddy]

Yes I did

OK, cool.

So, I'll summarize then (using bullet points):

• Senators have landed UFAs before (forwards, defenders, etc.). It isn't anything that hasn't been done before. We can even cite recent examples of (minimally) mid size contracts ($5 m x multiple years) for a top 6 F (Dadonov).
• Melnyk doesn't really to have spend more money. Rather than that, he just has to use money more wisely i.e., one good acquisition versus multiple bottom of the roster (filler) type contracts.
• Its reasonable to wonder why we don't actually do that and end up with players like Derek Stepan/Gudbranson instead.
• No one is claiming its easy. As another poster said, if EM throws enough money at the equation, he'll get the resolution he'll need to build a better team.
• No one is saying that the emphasis should not be on continuing to build through draft picks and the young prospects. These are not mutually exclusive processes and you can do both at the same time i.e., you can walk and chew gum at the same time.
• Even if a player is signed to a contract that is slightly longer than the ideal contract length for a team building via its young prospects, teams can always trade said player. Decent defenders are always in demand & can be handled this way easily if the need be & the situation warrants.

Glad we agree on the above.

 

[JD1]

OK, cool.

So, I'll summarize then (using bullet points):

• Senators have landed UFAs before (forwards, defenders, etc.). It isn't anything that hasn't been done before. We can even cite recent examples of (minimally) mid size contracts ($5 m x multiple years) for a top 6 F (Dadonov).
• Melnyk doesn't really to have spend more money. Rather than that, he just has to use money more wisely i.e., one good acquisition versus multiple bottom of the roster (filler) type contracts.
• Its reasonable to wonder why we don't actually do that and end up with players like Derek Stepan/Gudbranson instead.
• No one is claiming its easy. As another poster said, if EM throws enough money at the equation, he'll get the resolution he'll need to build a better team.
• No one is saying that the emphasis should not be on continuing to build through draft picks and the young prospects. These are not mutually exclusive processes and you can do both at the same time i.e., you can walk and chew gum at the same time.
• Even if a player is signed to a contract that is slightly longer than the ideal contract length for a team building via its young prospects, teams can always trade said player. Decent defenders are always in demand & can be handled this way easily if the need be & the situation warrants.

Glad we agree on the above.

I didn't say I agree with what you've posted, I just think I'll pass on debating it.

 

[Big Muddy]

I didn't say I agree with what you've posted, I just think I'll pass on debating it.

OK - that's a good result, & would save further & likely pointless debate.

 

[Cosmix]

We have yet to replace Dadanov

we were hearing about a top 6 Center addition but now it looks like it’s Sanford who looks pretty weak as a top 6

There are a few more players in addition to Dadonov the team has not replaced with equivalent quality.

The Melnyk cap floor budget goal is one of the main reasons why this team is not better. Drafting has been good to very good but the acquisition of UFAs and players in trades has been poor.

 

[JD1]

OK - that's a good result, & would save further & likely pointless debate.

Pointless debate. Yes. That's why I didn't engage in it.

But you seem to want to be heard and you typed out all your bullets. Good on ya.

 

[Big Muddy]

Pointless debate. Yes. That's why I didn't engage in it.

But you seem to want to be heard and you typed out all your bullets. Good on ya.

Do you think anything I say would change your mind? Seems very unlikely to me.

 

[Ice-Tray]

It’s very simple. Revenue matches expenditures in Ottawa, we know this.

Money saved on rosters during the rebuild gets to be spent on the roster during the contending phase.

Pointless spending on expensive vets during the development period of our young players is a massive waste of limited resources.

We target high character mentor type players the first year, and this year we have targeted better skilled players, but still guys who know their roles on a developing team and didn’t need term. None of them cost a lot, and none are anything but temporary.

Money is being allocated to long term high dollar deals for the young core as they come off their ELC’s. The team budget will increase each year as one or two guys need their new deals, and when it’s time to contend we can start added complementary pieces.

The problem as I see it in here is a simple lack of patience for a from-the-ground rebuild from some fans. They just want to see spending every year, which makes zero sense in this market, with this owner.

 

[JD1]

Do you think anything I say would change your mind? Seems very unlikely to me.

No I don't. I understood what you wrote, I don't agree with it and I let it go so that we need not have an endless, needless debate.

 

[GCK]

There are a few more players in addition to Dadonov the team has not replaced with equivalent quality.

The Melnyk cap floor budget goal is one of the main reasons why this team is not better. Drafting has been good to very good but the acquisition of UFAs and players in trades has been poor.

Who are the players we should or could have acquired this summer. Honestly not trying to be “That Guy” I just don’t remember too many fits that changed teams at reasonable costs, either financial or asset wise.

 

[Cosmix]

Who are the players we should or could have acquired this summer. Honestly not trying to be “That Guy” I just don’t remember too many fits that changed teams at reasonable costs, either financial or asset wise.

I was not referring to this past summer; I was referring to the players we have traded away in the past as they were approaching UFA such as: Zibanejad, Karlsson, Stone, Pageau. This team does not seem able financially or willing to retain its UFAs. Other Canadian teams are spending a lot more than Ottawa which is under the cap floor at this time.

Regarding which players could have been acquired this summer, there were a few UFAs available who I would have liked to see the Senators sign such as Hamilton and Nugent-Hopkins; however, they may not want to come to Ottawa unless the Senators offered higher salaries than they received, which obviously did not fit into Melnyk's budget.

 

[Masked]

I was not referring to this past summer; I was referring to the players we have traded away in the past as they were approaching UFA such as: Zibanejad, Karlsson, Stone, Pageau. This team does not seem able financially or willing to retain its UFAs. Other Canadian teams are spending a lot more than Ottawa which is under the cap floor at this time.

Regarding which players could have been acquired this summer, there were a few UFAs available who I would have liked to see the Senators sign such as Hamilton and Nugent-Hopkins; however, they may not want to come to Ottawa unless the Senators offered higher salaries than they received, which obviously did not fit into Melnyk's budget.

Zibanejad was not approaching UFA. He was a guy the Senators didn't feel comfortable moving forward with. It was a crap trade but the trade might have motivated him to become better.

The biggest downfall in not keeping players approaching UFA is that the team didn't have enough talent to be considered a true contender. And that flaw is due to not producing blueliners. The team simply could not draft defencemen worth a damn.

RNH did not hit the free agent market but even if he did, he'd have been a terrible signing. Hamilton would also have been a bad signing because you're looking him up long term when he's approaching the downside of his career. When you're ready to contend with your young players, you're looked into a significant cap hit with his contract and you don't have the cap space to pay your young players.

Assen na yo.

 

[Big Muddy]

No I don't. I understood what you wrote, I don't agree with it and I let it go so that we need not have an endless, needless debate.

OK, then I think we are on the same page about no need to continue the debate. It's all good.

 

[Big Muddy]

It’s very simple. Revenue matches expenditures in Ottawa, we know this.

Money saved on rosters during the rebuild gets to be spent on the roster during the contending phase.

Pointless spending on expensive vets during the development period of our young players is a massive waste of limited resources.

We target high character mentor type players the first year, and this year we have targeted better skilled players, but still guys who know their roles on a developing team and didn’t need term. None of them cost a lot, and none are anything but temporary.

Money is being allocated to long term high dollar deals for the young core as they come off their ELC’s. The team budget will increase each year as one or two guys need their new deals, and when it’s time to contend we can start added complementary pieces.

The problem as I see it in here is a simple lack of patience for a from-the-ground rebuild from some fans. They just want to see spending every year, which makes zero sense in this market, with this owner.

I think everyone gets these points, but that isn't what is being debated.

I am very patient and have been pushing and posting about being patient and building via the draft and via young ELCs/RFAs since Adam & Eve. "Cleverness is good, but patience is better" is an cliche I like to use & have used in here.

But, rather than discuss what is obvious and the advancing the strawman arguments, the real point being debated is that if we are going to sign multiple bottom of the roster (filler players) type vets anyhow, why not save the money on 2 (or 3) of these guys and just get one decent player that can actually play decently?

This can't be so obtuse of a point and so subtle that it triggers these completely tangental and off-target responses that everyone is agreeing with anyhow.

And, whether or not EM will spend more money as time progresses and the team gets better remains to be seen. I truly hope this is the case, but many (myself included) will probably take the "show me" stance. We seem to lose our best players as they get older & better when they hit their "payday" type contracts with regularity. There is history here. I for one did not expect EM to open his wallet this year given the COVID economics and significant revenue decreases over the last couple of years, so the fact that it didn't happen this offseason was of no surprise to me whatsoever.

But, all of this seems to get deflected and the arguments (rebuttals) morph into something different (tangental) that people are not really talking about or complaining about anyhow. Seems to be a very weird practice imho.

 

[Hale The Villain]

It’s very simple. Revenue matches expenditures in Ottawa, we know this.

Money saved on rosters during the rebuild gets to be spent on the roster during the contending phase.

Pointless spending on expensive vets during the development period of our young players is a massive waste of limited resources.

We target high character mentor type players the first year, and this year we have targeted better skilled players, but still guys who know their roles on a developing team and didn’t need term. None of them cost a lot, and none are anything but temporary.

Money is being allocated to long term high dollar deals for the young core as they come off their ELC’s. The team budget will increase each year as one or two guys need their new deals, and when it’s time to contend we can start added complementary pieces.

The problem as I see it in here is a simple lack of patience for a from-the-ground rebuild from some fans. They just want to see spending every year, which makes zero sense in this market, with this owner.

We spent almost 20M between Murray, Tierney, Dadonov, Gudbranson and Stepan last year, and none of them helped the team win games.

Sure would be nice to have had that 20M this off-season I bet.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I think everyone gets these points, but that isn't what is being debated.

I am very patient and have been pushing and posting about being patient and building via the draft and via young ELCs/RFAs since Adam & Eve. "Cleverness is good, but patience is better" is an cliche I like to use & have used in here.

But, rather than discuss what is obvious and the advancing the strawman arguments, the real point being debated is that if we are going to sign multiple bottom of the roster (filler players) type vets anyhow, why not save the money on 2 (or 3) of these guys and just get one decent player that can actually play decently?

This can't be so obtuse of a point and so subtle that it triggers these completely tangental and off-target responses that everyone is agreeing with anyhow.

And, whether or not EM will spend more money as time progresses and the team gets better remains to be seen. I truly hope this is the case, but many (myself included) will probably take the "show me" stance. We seem to lose our best players as they get older & better when they hit their "payday" type contracts with regularity. There is history here. I for one did not expect EM to open his wallet this year given the COVID economics and significant revenue decreases over the last couple of years, so the fact that it didn't happen this offseason was of no surprise to me whatsoever.

But, all of this seems to get deflected and the arguments (rebuttals) morph into something different (tangental) that people are not really talking about or complaining about anyhow. Seems to be a very weird practice imho.

I was actually just asking what people thought if this is indeed the strategy for our club. Obviously EM will have to prove himself in time.

Just curious if folks thought it was just cheap for cheap, or cheap for saving. Doesn’t really matter, just a momentary distraction from
Brady lol.

It’s all good, I guess I fall into the group that likes to hope it will turn out well, but don’t worry, I’ll be disappointed like everyone else if/when it doesn’t.

 

[Ice-Tray]

We spent almost 20M between Murray, Tierney, Dadonov, Gudbranson and Stepan last year, and none of them helped the team win games.

Sure would be nice to have had that 20M this off-season I bet.

I mean I don’t disagree, but I think I’m in the boat now that would be ok with a gamble on an injured JE at the right price for the salary bump, but otherwise I really don’t want more Dadonov’s each year.

 

[JD1]

We spent almost 20M between Murray, Tierney, Dadonov, Gudbranson and Stepan last year, and none of them helped the team win games.

Sure would be nice to have had that 20M this off-season I bet.

You can go around the league and pick off 5 lower performers and add up their contracts and you're going to land on 20m or more on many teams

But I'll one up ya, I don't need to name 5 guys

LA - Kopitar and Doughty 21m
SJ - Burns, Karlsson and Mark the pickle 26.5m

I named less guys, more money on teams with less wins

I mean... Surely I should get a prize no?

 

[Big Muddy]

You can go around the league and pick off 5 lower performers and add up their contracts and you're going to land on 20m or more on many teams

But I'll one up ya, I don't need to name 5 guys

LA - Kopitar and Doughty 21m
SJ - Burns, Karlsson and Mark the pickle 26.5m

I named less guys, more money on teams with less wins

I mean... Surely I should get a prize no?

You likely could do that, but Kopitar, Doughty and Burns, while definitely overpaid, are still decent players (not saying their play hasn't declined of course). And those 3 got their payday contracts late in their NHL careers which is way the system has been for years.

I'm going to guess that motivation for signing a player like Stepan was that after his signing bonus was paid, he was only owed $2 m dollars. Anyone who followed hockey that watched a few non-home team games knew the guys career was pretty much done. In my mind, those are not directly comparable situations.

But I suppose we have to hope that MDZ will play decently enough that we don't have another Stepan-like fiasco on our hands. That's our best hope. I watched a bunch of late regular season & VGK playoff games and thought Holden played pretty decently, so I think we could have a better chance of him carrying that forward this year for the Senators.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

OK, then I think we are on the same page about no need to continue the debate. It's all good.

I think you should not let this go.

 

[aragorn]

With RFAs now wanting to be paid much earlier in the process this will not only drive up the salary cap & cost of admission, but it could also create a definitive split between the star players & the rest of the team creating a two tier team wedging out middle tier players or pushing them down. The business side of hockey is starting to affect the enjoyment of watching hockey & as we become older & more cynical our expectations are becoming less realistic as we expect them to produce consistingly due to the money they earn. The guys in the bottom tier will get crapped on when the team does poorly while the guys in the top tier will get all the credit when the team does well.

The star players don't care what fans expect, they see more & more opportunity to become richer sooner & are doing all they can to achieve that especially when they have the leverage. I assume that the NHL will need to adjust the next CBA to maybe increase the ELC from 3 yrs to 5 yrs or have it incrementally go up each yr for 5 yrs so that it is better controlled. Something will need to be done specifically for small markets that don't want to lose their best players after only 3 yrs. We don't want to become the Expos of Hockey who can't afford to keep players. It's interesting.

 

[GCK]

With RFAs now wanting to be paid much earlier in the process this will not only drive up the salary cap & cost of admission, but it could also create a definitive split between the star players & the rest of the team creating a two tier team wedging out middle tier players or pushing them down. The business side of hockey is starting to affect the enjoyment of watching hockey & as we become older & more cynical our expectations are becoming less realistic as we expect them to produce consistingly due to the money they earn. The guys in the bottom tier will get crapped on when the team does poorly while the guys in the top tier will get all the credit when the team does well.

The star players don't care what fans expect, they see more & more opportunity to become richer sooner & are doing all they can to achieve that especially when they have the leverage. I assume that the NHL will need to adjust the next CBA to maybe increase the ELC from 3 yrs to 5 yrs or have it incrementally go up each yr for 5 yrs so that it is better controlled. Something will need to be done specifically for small markets that don't want to lose their best players after only 3 yrs. We don't want to become the Expos of Hockey who can't afford to keep players. It's interesting.

ELC term will never go up. Hard salary caps tend to put the squeeze on older players.

2 CBA changes I’d like to see from 3 perspectives.

Owners perspective - Reduce max term to 5 and 6 years from current 7 and 8, Eliminate Full NMC/NTC until you have 8 years service with one team when it becomes automatic.

Players perspective - Lower compensation on offer sheets, more robust revenue sharing

Fans perspective - Shrink gap between cap floor and ceiling to a more reasonable gap, add playoff teams with a 3 game play in round between 4th and 5th place.

EDIT: add arbitration off ELC for players