Where we went wrong.....

[Micklebot]

Of course, tons of people completely ignored the main point the OP was trying make. How many teams in the history of pro sports completely overhaul their front office after going further than they’ve even been before? Imagine the Patriots making Bill Belichick team President and promoting the offense coordinator to fill in his spot after winning their first SuperBowl? It wouldn’t happen, it doesn’t make sense.

Lots of damage was done by Muckler. It was pretty evident when you go back and look. Beyond that, Muckler was retiring soon anyways. Muckler was pushed out as part of the succession planning. Melnyck didn't want to lose a very well respected GM/coach in Murray like we lost Chiarelli a year earlier, so he offered Muckler another position (he was 73 at the time and was likely retiring after that contract anyways) and promoted a know commodity.

To make matters worse, Murray hired three consecutive duds as coaches that created instability and made the franchise a living joke. If Murray had stayed behind the bench, does the Heatley fiasco actually happen? We’ll never know but it sure as hell didn’t help matters.

While the coaches were part of the problem, the bigger issue was goaltending. League worst goaltending meant the breakdown of any system the various coaches tried to implement. Padock was getting .902 sv%, Hartsburg was gettng .901 sv%, Clouston .902 sv%. Very few coaches will survive that.

The drafting was crap with Muckler, of that there is no doubt and we did lose key pieces for nothing but you also have to keep in mind that this was around the time the salary cap kicked in and it hurt this franchise more than many other teams since the timing couldn’t have been worst.

The cap changed the landscape and forced some moves, but it was his decisions that hurt the most. Havlat certainly should have landed a better package. Redden over Chara was a colossal failure. The cap forced him to make tough decisions, but the decisions he made are still his own. Credit where it's due, the Hossa for Heatley move was actually pretty schrewd, unfortunately the way he did it was a black mark on the franchise.

Beyond that, had he drafted compotently, he'd have had the assets to find better deals, or the prospects to fill posiitions internally. He comprimised the foundation of any franchise, and that's lead to many future problems.

The reason why this team is mediocre through and through nowadays falls mostly on Murray. This ‘rebuild’ has been so half-assed that we can’t really be surprised that we now have half-assed results. Rebuilding team trades a first round pick for a bottom pairing defenseman from one of the worst team in the league? The biggest one, for me anyways, was not pulling the trigger on deals at the deadline when we could have cashed in big time on assets at their peak value. Neil was the most sought after commodity at the deadline a few years back and he should have been moved. Same with Phillips. What does Murray do? He keeps them on board and they’re now worthless and so embarrassingly bad we don’t even want to see them on the ice anymore. Brutal asset management.

Part of the problem now is that the team opted to try and remain competitive while rebuilding instead of following the Pit/Chi/LA route of hitting rock bottom. That decision likely comes in part from ownership. There is value in doing so; prospects need vets to insulate them and pass on their experience, but it does come at the cost of potential returns. I'm not sure the 2nd round picks we could have had for Phillips or Neil are the difference between us being a good team or a bad team though. We may have been able to cash in on Spezza, but an injury really killed that opportunity. Had he been healthy through 2012-13 and still playing like 2011-12, maybe we keep him, maybe we still trade him for a bigger return. Who knows.

Now look how Tim Murray managed the Ryan Miller situation. If Bryan was in Buffalo he probably would resigned Miller for seven years and traded their first round pick for Garth Murray or whatever.

Right... nice strawman.

 

[Kellogs]

While the coaches were part of the problem, the bigger issue was goaltending. League worst goaltending meant the breakdown of any system the various coaches tried to implement. Padock was getting .902 sv%, Hartsburg was gettng .901 sv%, Clouston .902 sv%. Very few coaches will survive that.

In fairness though, goaltending was far from the only problem with those teams. Paddock was a bad choice of a coach who mishandled the goaltending situation and contributed to a media circus that surrounded the team. He also promptly lost the room. Hartsburg had a terrible system which was ineffective at breaking out of our own zone and was responsible for every single one of our top players to have one of their worst offensive seasons. Clouston was a terrible communicator and had many issues with handling NHL players. Good goaltending would have just delayed his fate. Those three coaches were all duds.

 

[Micklebot]

In fairness though, goaltending was far from the only problem with those teams. Paddock was a bad choice of a coach who mishandled the goaltending situation and contributed to a media circus that surrounded the team. He also promptly lost the room. Hartsburg had a terrible system which was ineffective at breaking out of our own zone and was responsible for every single one of our top players to have one of their worst offensive seasons. Clouston was a terrible communicator and had many issues with handling NHL players. Good goaltending would have just delayed his fate. Those three coaches were all duds.

Paddock overused the pizza line tiring them out. We didn't have the depth to roll 4 lines, and in order to offset the terrible goaltending, he did what he had too. Team wasn't any better with Murray back behind the bench.

Hartsburg's system was terrible at the breakout, true. But because of the top end talent, we were still scoring enough to win games had the goaltending been anything but putrid. It's also worth pointing out that Hartsburg was brough in because of how poor the goalies were. It was thought a defensive system could help offset terrible goaltending, and while we gave up the 6th fewest shots in the league, it wasn't enough.

Clouston's first year as bench boss had lots of success (comparably). He was 19-11-4 after picking up where Harstburg left off. His first full season, we had the 4th fewest shots against in the league and a 44-32-6 record. That's pretty good with Alfie missing 12 games, Spezza missing 22, and a defense of Campoli, Phillips, Volchenkov, Kuba, Carkner, and rookie Karlsson. Heatley was already gone by this point too, so I guess 34 games of Clouston (winning games mind you) was enough to have him demand a trade?

Clouton may not be the best communicator, but the team won lots of games with him despite aweful goaltending. Players will compete for a coach they don't like if the wins are piling up (see Bowman), but with a sub .900 sv% no coach is going to keep the teams ear for long.

My point is, while these coaches weren't fantastic, they get a worse reputation because of something outside their control. Give any of them league average goaltending and they likely all have winning records and maybe are still employed with NHL teams. Goaltending was costing them 30-50 goals a year. Given Anderson's insane .930 sv%, they're allowing sub 180 goals a year instead of the 230-250 we actually allowed.

 

[Sensinitis]

Clouston was so awkward it's scary. Go look at him announcing to Karlsson that he made the All Star team on youtube.

Looks like such a poor social skills person. Dunno how he got to the NHL.

 

[Micklebot]

Clouston was so awkward it's scary. Go look at him announcing to Karlsson that he made the All Star team on youtube.

Looks like such a poor social skills person. Dunno how he got to the NHL.

Got to the NHL because he's a good x's and o's guy. Probably better suited as an assistant coach tbh. Might be a very good match with Trotz, who isn't great at the x's and o's, but is a superb communicator.

 

[pepty]

Got to the NHL because he's a good x's and o's guy. Probably better suited as an assistant coach tbh. Might be a very good match with Trotz, who isn't great at the x's and o's, but is a superb communicator.

It seems to me that he was coach of the Wheat Kings when Stone was there and was so bad that the team rebelled and Stone was the spokesman for them .Cant remember how all that worked out, but Clouston was finally fired. Not sure if he has a job as a coach anymore.

 

[bigfatfist]

I'm already bummed about the team, so I'm going to skip 6 pages of re-hashing everything that's gone wrong. So, sorry if ths is repetition:

1) When they built the stadium, both in terms of the debt it put on the team (which they still haven't been able to pay back) and the location.

2) When they let Tim Murray walk. I always thought he was going to be an excellent GM. Watching his pressers in Buffalo and how he's engaging in a total re-build...damn I'm jealous.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

That's completely ignoring the context. We had no good prospects coming up in the pipeline while we were in the finals - our best guys were Cody Bass, Brian Lee and Josh Hennessey. Murray happened to become the GM right as the team was on its downswing, and the accelerated exit of Heatley sure didn't help things.

Trading away "young speed," i.e. every player you mentioned, led to us getting either scoring skill (Ryan,) good prospects (Prince, Noesen [who turned into Ryan,] Lehner,) or players who could plug in on the then-depleted roster (Kuba before he went downhill.)

Alfie and Kovalev were both Melnyk issues, not Murray issues.

Murray is as responsible for this as Muckler was. Trades a 2nd round pick for Cullen, Sutton. Trades more picks for Picard. GIVES a pick when he trades Heatley. I mean, really? And does NOT trade Volchenkov, Phillips, Neil, so many others when he could have maybe got picks for them. Traded Fisher for less than he could have just to do him a favour. Brought in COUNTLESS slow plugs.

Murray blamed Muckler but now it has been seven years since Muckler has been here. This team is Murray's and it is on him to take the brunt of responsibility. He will not, of course, because that is not how they (Tim and Bryan and Terry) operate. Always someone else's fault. I yearn for the accountability we had under Johnston and Muckler, where the media weren't deathly afraid to call them out.

And Dorion or the Murray kid or Richardson will be the next GM? I wish Melnyk would just leave. We need NEW blood and NEW ideas up top, and that will not happen while we keep recycling Murray's family, friends and ideas.

 

[Micklebot]

I'm already bummed about the team, so I'm going to skip 6 pages of re-hashing everything that's gone wrong. So, sorry if ths is repetition:

1) When they built the stadium, both in terms of the debt it put on the team (which they still haven't been able to pay back) and the location.

2) When they let Tim Murray walk. I always thought he was going to be an excellent GM. Watching his pressers in Buffalo and how he's engaging in a total re-build...damn I'm jealous.

If you're going to pinpoint a departure from management, Chiarelli is a better one than T.Murray; He's proven that he can build a championship team and our downward slid quickly followed, including losing Chara for nothing to him. T.Mur could be great, or he could flop. We have'y really gotten any worse since his departure, so it's not really when things went wrong (unless you're suggesting it's going to get worse)

 

[Micklebot]

Murray is as responsible for this as Muckler was. Trades a 2nd round pick for Cullen, Sutton. Trades more picks for Picard. GIVES a pick when he trades Heatley. I mean, really? And does NOT trade Volchenkov, Phillips, Neil, so many others when he could have maybe got picks for them. Traded Fisher for less than he could have just to do him a favour. Brought in COUNTLESS slow plugs.

Murray blamed Muckler but now it has been seven years since Muckler has been here. This team is Murray's and it is on him to take the brunt of responsibility. He will not, of course, because that is not how they (Tim and Bryan and Terry) operate. Always someone else's fault. I yearn for the accountability we had under Johnston and Muckler, where the media weren't deathly afraid to call them out.

And Dorion or the Murray kid or Richardson will be the next GM? I wish Melnyk would just leave. We need NEW blood and NEW ideas up top, and that will not happen while we keep recycling Murray's family, friends and ideas.

Picard came over as part of the Mezaros trade. We didn't move a pick for him. I think you might be thinking of Campoli.

So here's the thing: We blame Muckler for the collapse, which quite frankly is justified. Murray can be blamed for not righting the ship if you like; I think that's fair. The caveat is, he hasn't been able to right the ship with a shoe string budget. I'm not convinced anyone could have tbh, sure there are moves that may have helped, but you need to account for ownership's expectations. If Melnyk want's us to remain competitive, Murray doesn't get the go ahead to trade off vets.

It was clear that Muckler was given a win now mandate, and his moves reflected that. Murray seems to have had his mandate change from win now (first 3-4 years) to rebuild while remaining competitive (last 3-4 years). So while Acquisitions of Cullen and Sutton were considered a waste if you're rebuilding, they were pretty decent deadline acquisitions for a win now team, we just weren't good enough with or without them. Context is important, and much of is speculative. We know most of the context for Muckler, for Murray, it's foggy.

 

[h2]

Picard came over as part of the Mezaros trade. We didn't move a pick for him. I think you might be thinking of Campoli.

So here's the thing: We blame Muckler for the collapse, which quite frankly is justified. Murray can be blamed for not righting the ship if you like; I think that's fair. The caveat is, he hasn't been able to right the ship with a shoe string budget. I'm not convinced anyone could have tbh, sure there are moves that may have helped, but you need to account for ownership's expectations. If Melnyk want's us to remain competitive, Murray doesn't get the go ahead to trade off vets.

It was clear that Muckler was given a win now mandate, and his moves reflected that. Murray seems to have had his mandate change from win now (first 3-4 years) to rebuild while remaining competitive (last 3-4 years). So while Acquisitions of Cullen and Sutton were considered a waste if you're rebuilding, they were pretty decent deadline acquisitions for a win now team, we just weren't good enough with or without them. Context is important, and much of is speculative. We know most of the context for Muckler, for Murray, it's foggy.

I like this post and I agree with it. Very good points. My only comment will be that the remaining competitive while rebuilding direction is dangerous if not done correctly. I think it can be done, but if not done properly you are just setting the franchise in the direction of mediocrity for the next several years. I really wish a full rebuild was embraced back in 2011.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Dear Kitten, this will likely be an unpopular opinion, but I don't we actually DID any thing WRONG to end up where we are, and here's why:

Hockey success is extremely cyclical, it is the nature of the draft develop and play model.

Dear Kitten, Muckler was replaced because ownership saw there was no foundation going forward, and after evaluating Muckler's performance in the past, it was clear that his management is what got us there. We had a good GM as a coach, who had a track record for building a good foundation for good teams, so it made a lot of sense. His contract being up was a perfect time to make a switch with an eye to the future.

Dear Kitten, there were some good and some bad decisions made along the way, but many of you forget that hockey success is cyclical, and that goes for every team. Many of you are too young to remember how BAD Detroit used to be, how bad LA used to be before and after 99, how bad Pittsburgh used to be, how bad Chicago was, how bad Boston was, how St Louis, Washington and San Jose are perennial play off chokers. Forgotten how Toronto or Montreal haven't made the finals since 93, how Atlanta, Columbus, Florida have toiled in failure for years, how bad Edmonton and Carolina are. How bad Dallas, Philly and Colorado are with all of their firepower.

See Kitten, the teams that are good now, will slide into mediocrity soon enough, because that's what happens when you go years without drafting top line talent. Detroit, Boston, and San Jose are good examples of teams on the downswing, while Tampa and Montreal are good examples of teams on the upswing.

Yes Kitten, we are actually faring FAR better than all of the years of decrepitude that the top teams now had to go through, and we are on the upswing. The rebuild is when you sell of and acquire picks and prospects. We did that, and now we have to spend the years necessary to develop them. It's a hard time for the team, as most fans expect something more, regardless of what is clearly happening in front of them, and many stop enjoying the team. It takes courage from management to stay the course, regardless of the vitriol spewn by all the armchairs around the city.

So yes Kitten, it is a shame that we were never so bad that we drafted first overall in this cycle, and maybe it's a shame that even when at our worst we still made the playoffs, pushed the top team to seven, and then crushed another favourite the following year. Perhaps it sucks that we have Jack Adams level coaching, and the best goaltending tandem in the league, and maybe we'd be better off if our damn players and coaches would just let us lose more games, but even at our worst, with the most inexperienced and youngest team in the league, these ******** insist on staying firmly in the play off race.

Dear Kitten, I can agree that I would love to have the riches found on the Avs, or Oilers, or Tampa, but I'll never apologize for our young team not being able to suck enough to be among the worst teams in the league. It's not like we have vets carrying the play, it's our FUTURE that is carrying the team away from the league basement, and that is good news for me, no matter how I look at it.

In sum Kitten, things never went wrong, we're just on the other side of the cycle now sticking with the team, and being understanding during the down times, makes the good times so much better. We shouldn't be better than we are, and being in the place is inevitable in the cycle of hockey, try and adjust your expectations so that you can still enjoy what is suppose to be entertainment.

 

[Suiteness]

P
So here's the thing: We blame Muckler for the collapse, which quite frankly is justified. Murray can be blamed for not righting the ship if you like; I think that's fair. The caveat is, he hasn't been able to right the ship with a shoe string budget. I'm not convinced anyone could have tbh, sure there are moves that may have helped, but you need to account for ownership's expectations. If Melnyk want's us to remain competitive, Murray doesn't get the go ahead to trade off vets.

False. Melnyk might have tightened the purse string for the past couple of years but he wasn’t a tight fisted miser from the get-go. This team was spending at or pretty damn near cap for a bunch of years after he bought the team. The reality is he’s the one who has to sign the cheques for the three coaches that Murray hired and Fired in 4 and half years or what have you. For the amount of money that was being spent, this was also a quite mediocre team.

 

[Micklebot]

I like this post and I agree with it. Very good points. My only comment will be that the remaining competitive while rebuilding direction is dangerous if not done correctly. I think it can be done, but if not done properly you are just setting the franchise in the direction of mediocrity for the next several years. I really wish a full rebuild was embraced back in 2011.

A full rebuild takes management approval. Missing the playoffs costs lots of revenue. Sucking all year drives down ticket sales. Not only that, if the draft picks don't pan out as stars (say we get Yakupov and Huberdeau instead of RNH/Landeskog and Murray) then you may be tanking longer than expected. You still got good players, but far from the McDavid, Stamkos, Doughty, Hall. Hedman variety. TBH, had we outright tanked in 2011, it probably would have been the worst time. No truly high end talent until 2015 orhter than maybe McKinnon. 09 and 10 were the years to tank in.

John Ferguson Jr tried to initiate a full rebuild before he was axed but management told him to make the playoffs. Because he didn't get to go ahead, instead that opportunity waited for Burke. JFJr gets slacked for not trading off his assets and maintaining mediocrity, but the blame should lay with MLSE ownership.

 

[cage]

Drafting/GMing and coaching has regressed since the glory years. Martin's system, especially in the mid-late 90's, was the "star" of the team. Then as the players grew and got better we became one of the elite teams. It just totally sucks the leafs had our number because people seem to use that as a reason to write off all the good Martin did here. Right now we don't have much talent, so a coach like Martin, who was able to design a system able to get the best out of the roster would really help. MacLean's early success looks more and more like a product of elite goaltending

Drafting has gotten better since Murray took over but we're not mentioned anymore when people talk about the best drafting teams. We used to be considered one of the best

 

[RedeyeRocketeer]

Bruins fan who has lived in Ottawa his whole life, so I'll chime in.

Although the Bruins aren't tearing it up right now by any stretch, they've been a perennial playoff team in the East because Chiarelli did what I thought Muckler and Murray could not do: make tough decisions on trades where you get something back, instead of seeing guys walk away for nothing. On the B's I can only think of Horton who "left" without the B's retaining any sort of compensation, and in the end he's maybe done in hockey anyway.

Sometimes you win those deals, sometimes you lose them, but it keeps you stocked up with assets moving forward. I think that outside of Spezza, the Sens org never did a great job in doing this, and today some of their struggles are a result of that.

But like others said, I feel they draft very well, and if they were allowed to spend to the limit, they may be in a very different spot today.

 

[Sensfanatic]

We went wrong when we decided to go with size rather than mobility on defense. In today's NHL, your top 4 must be extremely agile and able to make quick, crisp, accurate passes out of the zone.
Karlsson, Ceci and Methot (if he plays) are all capable. Not sure about Cowen, and the rest, forget about it.

 

[Micklebot]

False. Melnyk might have tightened the purse string for the past couple of years but he wasn’t a tight fisted miser from the get-go. This team was spending at or pretty damn near cap for a bunch of years after he bought the team. The reality is he’s the one who has to sign the cheques for the three coaches that Murray hired and Fired in 4 and half years or what have you. For the amount of money that was being spent, this was also a quite mediocre team.

Murray had a middle third payroll for his first 3 years (top only 10 once), and has been bottom 6 four years running. We ranked the following for payroll during his time here: 25th (lots of expiring entry level deals), 12th, 8th, 13th, 26th, 25th, 26th 30th.

Yes, he had money when he took over a sinking ship, but once the mandate became rebuild he's had nothing to work with.

His biggest fault is not finding a quality goaltender early enough. That sank the team while we were still trying to compete. Coaching was just a scapegoat.

 

[Micklebot]

Drafting/GMing and coaching has regressed since the glory years. Martin's system, especially in the mid-late 90's, was the "star" of the team. Then as the players grew and got better we became one of the elite teams. It just totally sucks the leafs had our number because people seem to use that as a reason to write off all the good Martin did here. Right now we don't have much talent, so a coach like Martin, who was able to design a system able to get the best out of the roster would really help. MacLean's early success looks more and more like a product of elite goaltending

Drafting has gotten better since Murray took over but we're not mentioned anymore when people talk about the best drafting teams. We used to be considered one of the best

Maclean's first year here he was a jack adams finalist with .910 team sv%. Not a product of goaltending that year at least. Jack Adams year, we certainly did get elite goaltending, but we also maintained a posession system despite losing somwhere in the vicinity of 20 mil worth of personelle to injuries. It takes more than elite goaltending to make the playoffs, just ask Florida in the Luongo days. This year and last year have been crap though. Karlsson has really not been the same, and the rest of the D corps is not good enough to even be a bubble team. We need Karlsson at his best.

 

[Micklebot]

We went wrong when we decided to go with size rather than mobility on defense. In today's NHL, your top 4 must be extremely agile and able to make quick, crisp, accurate passes out of the zone.
Karlsson, Ceci and Methot (if he plays) are all capable. Not sure about Cowen, and the rest, forget about it.

We were fine on D when we had Kuba, Gonchar, Karlsson, Cowen, Carkner, Lee/Gilroy, and Phillips. That's not exactly a mobile D. It's just far more skilled with 3 vets a rising star and some good depth.

We need Methot to get us even remotely close to that level of D corps. Preferably, we'd have Methot (our Kuba replacement) and another top 4 D (Gonchar replacement).

 

[Burrowsaurus]

You know what else I was really upset didn't happen. Sens acquiring kovalchuk back when Atlanta was shopping him. Could have outbid New Jersey. Contract was massive though.

 

[StefanW]

Just a general comment without taking time to go back and quote the posters who said this sort of thing, but using TM as a frame of reference for how to do things is premature. He started his position last year, he sold off assets, and his team is historically bad this year. It will improve in the next few years simply by virtue of not having room to go down, but there is nothing right now that says his big rebuilding plan will work to make them a contender anytime soon.

 

[CanadianHockey]

Despite my best intentions, I did not mean to create a Murray vs Muckler thread.

The discussion I was hoping we could have is why this franchise choose to replace its coach and GM the year after it went to the Stanley Cup Finals.

How was this a good decision, and what was the mindset of ownership to think this was the right move. I mean, wouldnt it have made more sense to keep what was working in place for at least one more season?

Just does not seem logical to make such a major shakeup after the most successful season this franchise ever had.

On this point I agree with you entirely.

It made no sense to me at the time, and with hindsight I still think it was bad timing and backfired horrendously.

 

[Micklebot]

On this point I agree with you entirely.

It made no sense to me at the time, and with hindsight I still think it was bad timing and backfired horrendously.

The team was destined for failure with or without Muckler. The goaltending he acquired was probably league worst, and he chose a declining Redden over a rising Chara (in hindsight).

 

[Stylizer1]

It's not the 1st rounders that were a problem with Muckler though (well, Klepis, Lee and Gleason, who I don't reall blame on Mucks, were disapointing), it was everything else. Once you get past the first round, you're position in the draft is far less important, and if you see a prospect you like, you can usually trade up at minimal cost.

When the best players you drafted outside the first round is Brooks Laich (who you promptly traded for a redundant piece) and Erik Gryba, there's a problem. From Murray, we already have Lehner, Hoffman, Stone, Silfverberg, Smith, Borowiecki, Wiercioch, and Stone. Guys like Pageau, Claessen, Prince, Grant, Wikstrand, and Wideman look like they may potentially add to that list.

It's also worth noting that Mucklers 7 drafts have all had the time to fully develop; we know that we got nothing much from his regime. Murray has 3 drafts that we have a very good idea of, and 4 that are still in the development cycle. There could still be some surprises out there.

Also, saying Muckler "got" Spezza from the draft while Murray got Karlsson is disingenuous. Marshall Johnston moved his disgruntled all star center to get the #2 pick. Muckler was gifted a can't miss pick, to go along with the acquisition of a future Norris trophy winner. He was with the team for a couple weeks prior to the draft, so likely had little to no input on the draft given that all the legwork was long over. Funny part is that was by far the most successful draft under his guidance.

I'd also like to point out that you're attributing both the 2001 draft (Muckler was there for a couple weeks and likely didn't wiegh in heavilly on many decisions) and the 2007 draft (Murray had taken over a couple weeks prior, but again likely wasn't involved heavilly) to Muckler. You can't have it both ways. IMO, 2001 is a Johnston draft as they did all the leadup, and 2007 is a Muckler draft. If you agree with that, Muckler loses Spezza, Gleason, Laich, Emery, and Shubert for his "successful" draft picks leaving an even more disapointing group.

Defending Muckler's drafting is like defending kicking puppies and kittens. You should feel ashamed.

I wouldn't say I was defending his picks. Anyone can see the majority of them were not good.

He was responsible for those bad picks along with his scouting staff. At the time he was drafting for positions of need. Tim Gleason was a good American prospect at the time who may not have been that great as a professional. If you look at other Dmen taken that year after the Gleason pick a few are regarded as full time NHLers.

Time will only tell if the picks Murray has made will turn this team around. It just seems as though he s not sure when to give up on guys. Did Muckler sign any terrible contracts that hurt us?

Why would I defend kicking puppies and kittens? Seems like they can defend themselves.