This team needs a shakeup

[burf]

Zibanejad was sent down this year for not playing "hard" enough for the Paulrus' system, so why is our captain allowed to float around the ice in the defensive zone all game? This team's identity is built around being fast and being hard on the puck, but our captain gets a free pass for lazily drifting around the defensive zone all game (and let's face it, when he's on the ice, the puck has tended to be in our zone more often than not). Michalek's got the same problem.

If Spezza's still injured, let him sit out a few games to recover. If he's not injured, get him to buy into the system, ship him out for a 1st pairing defenseman, or ride him hard at practice, because right now Turris and Ryan are doing a way better job leading by example. I still think he can come back to where he was before - after all, he sat out an entire season last year - but his off-the-puck performance so far this year sure hasn't been that impressive.

 

[Ohhh Franco]

I know it may have a minimal impact, but Pageau down, JOB up. I think a determined but lighthearted O'Brien could be more effective on and off the ice right now.

The bottom six just doesnt look right - both on paper and on the ice.

 

[CanadianHockey]

Still think we need a couple pieces while we have had good looking moments we have also had bad ones. Losing 3 key players from last year means we lose 3 roles. A big improvement in 1 sill leaves 2 holes.

And I don't get this whole tough competition talk. Don't we want to be a top team that is the tough competition, not just a bubble team

Because we should not confuse short-term and long-term goals. Right now, we should be more concerned about long-term goals (rebuilding the team into a contender) than short-term ones (winning the Cup this season, or winning most of our first twelve games).

What you're proposing is a shakeup trade; a reactionary trade based on short-term performance, aimed at salvaging a season, without any particular long-term interests in mind. Trading for the sake of trading, if you will. You haven't specified what the exact problem is, which players are problematic, or what pieces we'd need coming back to improve the team short-term or long-term.

If you want to shake-up the roster now, based on a dozen games, you'd run the risk of giving up on a prospect too soon, of mistaking a short-term trend to be indicative of a long-term problem (eg a player on a cold streak becomes undervalued), or of improperly identifying team problems based on limited viewings (eg you blame losses on team attitude, rather than tough competition).

That's not even touching on the market factors that may limit your ability to shake-up your roster. Which players are available, for what price, and the reality that other GMs may be interested in acquiring your players when their value is low.

tl;dr Trading for the sake of 'shaking-it-up' after twelve games is risky, especially when we have internal options available to address complacency, if that is in fact the issue.

 

[The Fuhr*]

They will need to do something soon... Can't imagine giving a lottery pick in the deal for Ryan as a good thing.

 

[MainDotC]

Yes this team needs a shakeup! Trade Kramer for Barberio!

 

[Icelevel]

Yes this team needs a shakeup! Trade Kramer for Barberio!

Not enough of an impact.

Kramer and a 2nd for Barberio

 

[The Fuhr*]

Yes this team needs a shakeup! Trade Kramer for Barberio!

If only... Barbeiro has a long leash in Tampa... Steve Yzerman said one if the reasons they did not draft Jones was because he thought Barbeiro could contribute similar offensively

 

[Quo]

There are usually five other Senators on the ice when Jason Spezza plays. Somehow, it's all his fault whenever something bad happens.

 

[Back in Black]

Not another rebuild......

 

[Toecutter]

Because we should not confuse short-term and long-term goals. Right now, we should be more concerned about long-term goals (rebuilding the team into a contender) than short-term ones (winning the Cup this season, or winning most of our first twelve games).

What you're proposing is a shakeup trade; a reactionary trade based on short-term performance, aimed at salvaging a season, without any particular long-term interests in mind. Trading for the sake of trading, if you will. You haven't specified what the exact problem is, which players are problematic, or what pieces we'd need coming back to improve the team short-term or long-term.

If you want to shake-up the roster now, based on a dozen games, you'd run the risk of giving up on a prospect too soon, of mistaking a short-term trend to be indicative of a long-term problem (eg a player on a cold streak becomes undervalued), or of improperly identifying team problems based on limited viewings (eg you blame losses on team attitude, rather than tough competition).

That's not even touching on the market factors that may limit your ability to shake-up your roster. Which players are available, for what price, and the reality that other GMs may be interested in acquiring your players when their value is low.

tl;dr Trading for the sake of 'shaking-it-up' after twelve games is risky, especially when we have internal options available to address complacency, if that is in fact the issue.

This is the most lucid post I've read tonight.

 

[Super Cake]

Because we should not confuse short-term and long-term goals. Right now, we should be more concerned about long-term goals (rebuilding the team into a contender) than short-term ones (winning the Cup this season, or winning most of our first twelve games).

What you're proposing is a shakeup trade; a reactionary trade based on short-term performance, aimed at salvaging a season, without any particular long-term interests in mind. Trading for the sake of trading, if you will. You haven't specified what the exact problem is, which players are problematic, or what pieces we'd need coming back to improve the team short-term or long-term.

If you want to shake-up the roster now, based on a dozen games, you'd run the risk of giving up on a prospect too soon, of mistaking a short-term trend to be indicative of a long-term problem (eg a player on a cold streak becomes undervalued), or of improperly identifying team problems based on limited viewings (eg you blame losses on team attitude, rather than tough competition).

That's not even touching on the market factors that may limit your ability to shake-up your roster. Which players are available, for what price, and the reality that other GMs may be interested in acquiring your players when their value is low.

tl;dr Trading for the sake of 'shaking-it-up' after twelve games is risky, especially when we have internal options available to address complacency, if that is in fact the issue.

I could not have said it better myself. Bravo.

 

[Step]

Trade the captain for an actual leader.

You know...posts like these make me crazy.

 

[Berserker*]

Send Michalek in a package for either Wayne Simmonds or Scott Hartnell.

 

[fringie]

Send Michalek in a package for either Wayne Simmonds or Scott Hartnell.

How about straight up MM for Hartnell/Simmonds? Those two are struggling badly too in Philly, could be a steal for Sens again if Philly bite on that one.

 

[Sens Rule]

Zibanejad is shaking things up. For the first 2 periods they played really well and generated a ton of chances. The best time for a team to struggle is early on. Did anyone really think that the Senators would not have a rough patch? I really am not too worried. We have a lit of good pieces, and we managed to get the chemistry right for much of last year with mostly the same but some different pieces. I am not worried, I think we will make the playoffs. Anderson, Lehner, Karlsson, Spezza, Ryan are too good not to. Plus all the rest of the players.

Doing a big shakeup right now would be a HUGE mistake. The next dozen games should be better then the first dozen.

 

[PaGEEsBack]

Anderson + Michalek for Simmonds + Emery

Lehner/Emery combo dominates.

 

[dumbdick]

Bring in a defensive specialist as an assistant coach or special assistant to Maclean.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

Anderson + Michalek for Simmonds + Emery

Lehner/Emery combo dominates.

Nice lets go back to this.

 

[Fandlauer]

I disagree. Nobody expects us to be able to beat good teams anyway, only mediocre to bottom feeders. When we start playing more crap teams hopefully we can get enough wins to solidify a playoff spot. It's just too bad you have to beat good teams in the playoffs.

 

[Here I Pageau Again]

Because we should not confuse short-term and long-term goals. Right now, we should be more concerned about long-term goals (rebuilding the team into a contender) than short-term ones (winning the Cup this season, or winning most of our first twelve games).

What you're proposing is a shakeup trade; a reactionary trade based on short-term performance, aimed at salvaging a season, without any particular long-term interests in mind. Trading for the sake of trading, if you will. You haven't specified what the exact problem is, which players are problematic, or what pieces we'd need coming back to improve the team short-term or long-term.

If you want to shake-up the roster now, based on a dozen games, you'd run the risk of giving up on a prospect too soon, of mistaking a short-term trend to be indicative of a long-term problem (eg a player on a cold streak becomes undervalued), or of improperly identifying team problems based on limited viewings (eg you blame losses on team attitude, rather than tough competition).

That's not even touching on the market factors that may limit your ability to shake-up your roster. Which players are available, for what price, and the reality that other GMs may be interested in acquiring your players when their value is low.

tl;dr Trading for the sake of 'shaking-it-up' after twelve games is risky, especially when we have internal options available to address complacency, if that is in fact the issue.

You are a smart kid! (Yes I assume everyone here is a kid compared to myself).

But I couldn't have said it any better. Its not even a full month in, and people want to just trade in the entire team. Like I had stated in another thread, what if we had done this in 2006-2007? The team was pretty awful in their first few months, yet they went on to the cup finals. I'm not suggesting that our team will go to the cup finals, I'm simply suggesting that 11 games is too small a sample size to throw away years of rebuilding.

 

[Tundraman]

What we need is a goaltender like Bishop and a forward like Silfverberg but those kind of players don't come cheap. It would take half our roster and our top picks for the next 3 years to acquire those types of players. I guess no one ever trades players like that but..... if only ..... We can dream can't we?

 

[Icelevel]

Should have gone with kleinendorst

 

[Two Line Pass]

We've had a very difficult schedule. When we have a few consecutive weeks against soft teams this board will think we're cup contenders again.

 

[Super Cake]

They will win on tuesday. I have a gut feeling.

 

[PoutineSp00nZ]

Remember when people were just happy top have an NHL team to root for?