Would You Have Made The Duchene Trade?

Would You Have Made The Trade?


  • Total voters
    190

Knave

Registered User
Mar 6, 2007
21,627
2,226
Ottawa
I find it amazing hOw the stories keep changing to fit viewpoints. At one point many said that Duchene was a modest upgrade at best. It's pretty evident he's more than a modest upgrade so the story changes to something else

Our record states otherwise. Since some of you want to ignore the reality of Turris and his playing situation the fact is we are dead last with Duchene. He's incredibly overrated and only shines when his teams are literal garbage. He has been on two teams and this has held true.
 

Do Make Say Think

& Yet & Yet
Jun 26, 2007
51,157
9,904
Our record states otherwise. Since some of you want to ignore the reality of Turris and his playing situation the fact is we are dead last with Duchene. He's incredibly overrated and only shines when his teams are literal garbage. He has been on two teams and this has held true.

Would you say that Duchene is responsible for the historically bad season the team is having?

I mean, Duchene is way, way better than Turris; I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.
 

Sens of Anarchy

Registered User
Jul 9, 2013
65,002
49,522
I hated it then.
Now it just looks like the franchise destroying trade that people will reference when they reminisce about the Ottawa Senators.

They gave up too much that I agreed with all along. Where we sit today unraveling from that trade is absolutely ridiculous. Its reeks of incompetence and gross negligence
 

JD1

Registered User
Sep 12, 2005
15,988
9,554
Duchene has drastically outperformed peoples (read fans here) expectations, and to his credit, Dorion likely saw that potential. We paid a price that makes sense for how he performed, but at a time where you could still argue it wasn't appropriate (could we afford to spend to the cap, because that's pretty much what it was going to take to re-sign all of Stone Karlsson and Stone)

I thought Duchene would only be a moderate upgrade, he proved me wrong, so I changed my opinion with the benefit of hindsight. I still don't think the trade was a smart move unless we were willing to spend to the cap afterwards, which I find unlikely given how things have played out, and I thought we paid too much at the time which with the benefit of hindsight, I now think the return was reasonable had we not tanked in the standings both this year and last.

People can both be rationally upset with the trade now, and then, even when changing opinions with the benefit of hindsight.
People were rationally upset at tye time of the trade because duchene was only a modest upgrade. Duchehe has proven to be much more thah a modest upgrade. Now they are still upset but have had to change what they are upset about
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,133
30,346
People were rationally upset at tye time of the trade because duchene was only a modest upgrade. Duchehe has proven to be much more thah a modest upgrade. Now they are still upset but have had to change what they are upset about

Look at Duchene's performance in Colorado in the years prior to the trade and look at his performance now. If you think they are the same, then I don't know what to tell you.

Even Colorado fans were down on Duchene prior to the trade and didn't think he'd be performing the way he has in Ottawa.

You're looking for a reason to call people out but ignoring the context at the time. There's no shame in not expecting this explosion in production Duchene has had since being traded (well after that first 20 games anyways). He'd been a ~55 pts center for the 3 years leading into the trade, and was trending to do the same again, so people rationally expected we'd be getting something in that territory.

Now, Duchene has potentially priced himself out of our ability to keep him. Trading a huge haul for somebody you can't or won't keep is a perfectly rational reason to be upset, particularly when you aren't a cup contender.

Now, had we traded a package that was fair for a modest upgrade, and Duchene exploded and was now worth far more in a subsequent trade, you wouldn't see people complaining that we can't keep him (well as many anyways). The problem is Dorion traded a package like he knew Duchene would play this well, so he has to have the foresight to realize that he'll cost a premium to keep around. When we traded for Duchene, it was clear we'd need to be a cap team to keep everyone (Karlsson, Duchene, Stone, ect) together. If Dorion knew that wasn't possible, then he deserves every bit of criticism he gets.
 

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
34,828
9,251
Regarding Duchene...how many times have we seen this? A guy in a pivotal contract year in his career have an amazing season? This is a tired old story. It's almost guaranteed he is going to regress next year, and whoever signs him to a mega UFA deal isn't going to be happy down the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Variable26

JD1

Registered User
Sep 12, 2005
15,988
9,554
Look at Duchene's performance in Colorado in the years prior to the trade and look at his performance now. If you think they are the same, then I don't know what to tell you.

Even Colorado fans were down on Duchene prior to the trade and didn't think he'd be performing the way he has in Ottawa.

You're looking for a reason to call people out but ignoring the context at the time. There's no shame in not expecting this explosion in production Duchene has had since being traded (well after that first 20 games anyways). He'd been a ~55 pts center for the 3 years leading into the trade, and was trending to do the same again, so people rationally expected we'd be getting something in that territory.

Now, Duchene has potentially priced himself out of our ability to keep him. Trading a huge haul for somebody you can't or won't keep is a perfectly rational reason to be upset, particularly when you aren't a cup contender.

Now, had we traded a package that was fair for a modest upgrade, and Duchene exploded and was now worth far more in a subsequent trade, you wouldn't see people complaining that we can't keep him (well as many anyways). The problem is Dorion traded a package like he knew Duchene would play this well, so he has to have the foresight to realize that he'll cost a premium to keep around. When we traded for Duchene, it was clear we'd need to be a cap team to keep everyone (Karlsson, Duchene, Stone, ect) together. If Dorion knew that wasn't possible, then he deserves every bit of criticism he gets.
Mickelbot my boy i think you are reaching tremendously to rationalize your negative outlook on this franchise
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,133
30,346
Mickelbot my boy i think you are reaching tremendously to rationalize your negative outlook on this franchise
No, I'm using logic, something sorely lacking when defending moves this team has made of late.

People were upset when we gave up a kings ransom for a player that had put up 55 pts a season for the past 3 years and had demanded a trade. This was a very logical reaction.

People are now upset that we moved a kings ransom for a player we apparently can't keep due to budget constraints a year and a half later. Given that we all know it would have taken a cap team to retain all our stars (and that's not even taking into consideration just how much Duchene exceeded expectations), we are left to accept one of two options; the team expected to be a cap team going forward, or they moved a great deal of futures for a player knowing they'd be losing key pieces of the team in the near future with all the star players needing new contracts.

People are not irrational for changing their opinions based on new information, in fact, I'd argue the opposite would be true. Just because their opinions are negative in both cases doesn't really matter, the facts fit the opinion.
 

AchtzehnBaby

Global Matador
Mar 28, 2013
15,017
8,898
Hazeldean Road
No, I'm using logic, something sorely lacking when defending moves this team has made of late.

People were upset when we gave up a kings ransom for a player that had put up 55 pts a season for the past 3 years and had demanded a trade. This was a very logical reaction.

People are now upset that we moved a kings ransom for a player we apparently can't keep due to budget constraints a year and a half later. Given that we all know it would have taken a cap team to retain all our stars (and that's not even taking into consideration just how much Duchene exceeded expectations), we are left to accept one of two options; the team expected to be a cap team going forward, or they moved a great deal of futures for a player knowing they'd be losing key pieces of the team in the near future with all the star players needing new contracts.

People are not irrational for changing their opinions based on new information, in fact, I'd argue the opposite would be true. Just because their opinions are negative in both cases doesn't really matter, the facts fit the opinion.

Agreed. Generally, people who are upset make irrational arguments.

Some people need to move on. It is really easy to put negative spin on everything against this team.

We all want new ownership with deep pockets. We all want the best trades and the best players performing at their peak.

Did we have a chance to get better with the trade? Yes. Did it happen? Not really.

Duchene most likely is gone, and we will get some more pieces for him and the rebuild continues.
 

JD1

Registered User
Sep 12, 2005
15,988
9,554
Agreed. Generally, people who are upset make irrational arguments.

Some people need to move on. It is really easy to put negative spin on everything against this team.

We all want new ownership with deep pockets. We all want the best trades and the best players performing at their peak.

Did we have a chance to get better with the trade? Yes. Did it happen? Not really.

Duchene most likely is gone, and we will get some more pieces for him and the rebuild continues.

Yes people that are upset make irrational arguments....like the modest upgrade argument 15 months ago
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,133
30,346
Yes people that are upset make irrational arguments....like the modest upgrade argument 15 months ago
People made that argument before the trade and before knowing turris was on the way out. It was based on their relative production over the past three years. Incorrect assessment sure, but irrational? Seemed to me more like they were using evidence to support a position which is pretty much the definition of a rational argument.
 

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
34,828
9,251
Turris is also being used in a different role (2C opposed to 1C here) which also affects his numbers. He has a different skill set and supports his team and linemates differently than Duchene. Calling it a modest upgrade is closer than folks calling it a huge upgrade.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,133
30,346
Turris is also being used in a different role (2C opposed to 1C here) which also affects his numbers. He has a different skill set and supports his team and linemates differently than Duchene. Calling it a modest upgrade is closer than folks calling it a huge upgrade.
He would probably still be gettong aroung 60 points a year here and playing a better two way game than Duchene but given Duchene has put up a point per game i would still have him a fair bit ahead with the benefit of hindsight
 

branch

#GirlBoss #Vibes
Jan 12, 2008
8,837
7,233
Agreed. Generally, people who are upset make irrational arguments.

Some people need to move on. It is really easy to put negative spin on everything against this team.

We all want new ownership with deep pockets. We all want the best trades and the best players performing at their peak.

Did we have a chance to get better with the trade? Yes. Did it happen? Not really.

Duchene most likely is gone, and we will get some more pieces for him and the rebuild continues.

Definitely not a rebuild bro...come on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Upgrayedd

Upgrayedd

Earn'em and Burn'em
Oct 14, 2010
5,306
1,610
Ottawa
The trade was great.

It was the series of events that followed including stripping away almost all surrounding talent and likely never having permission to spend to the cap that makes it insane.

This is where I am at as well, I had no issues with the move at the time and still wouldn't had the team not been systematically stripped solely for the personal finances of the owner, if this info was clearly known ahead of time by the GM, then yes it was an awful trade.

I struggle daily with laying blame at the GM's feet or really anyone else in the org, as it has been confirmed the owner is as toxic a person and businessman as he clearly is I can't imagine working under him.
 

NorthCoast

Registered User
May 1, 2017
1,250
1,167
I'll repeat what i said 10 pages ago.


The answer is No...and I really like Duchene.

The only way I see this as a good trade for Ottawa would have been if we truly were trying to add the one last piece that put us over the top. As great as the run was in the playoffs, we were not a bonafide contender that just needed one piece. We were still building, even if we had kept EK, and I don't think as a small market that we can lose trades unless we are virtually that close.

Why did we lose this trade? Because there's very little upside to Matt Duchene at this stage in his career. Even with the season he is having, is it that much better than the value we paid for? IMO you win a trade when two players at the time of the trade have equal value, and are expected to have similar value going forward, but soon after the trade it is clear that the person you traded for has significantly more value than the person you gave up (Hall-Larson). Furthermore, if the person you trade for is locked into a good contract for a few years then that is even better, because what's the point in acquiring more value if you lose that value having to resign the new player to a huge contract that forces someone else off your team. (exception would be if you have cap room or can clear out dead weight to make room....which we don't/can't)

If Turris wasn't going to resign then I understand involving him in the trade, but I would have gone after a younger center that still hadn't broken out yet, but who has the potential to become a 1c. Of course you can hit/miss on these but this is how a small market punches above it's weight and adds talent to the roster at a below market price, both in salary and assets given up to trade for them.

We need to start winning some trades. Period. I don't care if it's stars or 3rd lines, but at some point if PD cannot acquire some players that cost less than their value to replace the ones that cost more than their value (Ryan, Anderson, Boedker) then all we will be doing is spinning our wheels.

You can call this negative if you want, but it's also called reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HF Reader

branch

#GirlBoss #Vibes
Jan 12, 2008
8,837
7,233
I mean, we could be rebuild our townhouse into a storage shed... still a rebuild

.
Technically rebuilding something. Sure I guess. But context is everything in this case. Rebuild implies the goal to restructure the team and get better in good faith. I could also say we are not going to experience the "building" phase of the rebuild. Instead we probably will be mired in a perpetual rebuilding phase where we are stuck in the beginning stages for quite some time as the owner tries to save cash due to dwindling revenues.

Semantics make my head hurt.
 

Tnuoc Alucard

🇨🇦🔑🧲✈️🎲🥅🎱🍟🥨🌗
Sep 23, 2015
7,994
1,897
The right move was to trade Ceci before the expansion draft for picks and prospects (when he still had some value), and then use that additional capital to replace him after the draft while keeping Methot. .

Keeping Methot over Ceci would have been wrong on a number of levels.

Methot was a "top pairing" D man, only because he was parented with EK65.

Who even ever heard of him, while he was playing in Columbus? I'll bet a lot of people were wondering "who is this guy" he came to Ottawa.

As stated earlier, Methot benefited immensely from playing along side EK65 while he was in Ottawa. Being the "stay at home" partner for EK65 is the best job in the NHL, and recovering and passing the puck to EK65 so that he can start the defensive zone exit, probably helped pad Methot's point totals.

Methot while in Columbus was averaging .185 P/Ga, vs .224P/Ga while in Ottawa ( If my math is correct).

In Dallas, Methot has 3 points in 45 games ........ so obviously protecting Ceci, over Methot, as much as a lot of people hate Cody, was the right thing to do.

And I suspect, IF Dorion had done what a lot of armchair GMs wanted (keeping Methot and letting Ceci go for nothing) they's be slamming PD for doing so.
 

The Lewler

GOAT BUDGET AINEC
Jul 2, 2013
4,675
2,815
Eastern Ontario Badlands
Keeping Methot over Ceci would have been wrong on a number of levels.

Methot was a "top pairing" D man, only because he was parented with EK65.

Who even ever heard of him, while he was playing in Columbus? I'll bet a lot of people were wondering "who is this guy" he came to Ottawa.

As stated earlier, Methot benefited immensely from playing along side EK65 while he was in Ottawa. Being the "stay at home" partner for EK65 is the best job in the NHL, and recovering and passing the puck to EK65 so that he can start the defensive zone exit, probably helped pad Methot's point totals.

Methot while in Columbus was averaging .185 P/Ga, vs .224P/Ga while in Ottawa ( If my math is correct).

In Dallas, Methot has 3 points in 45 games ........ so obviously protecting Ceci, over Methot, as much as a lot of people hate Cody, was the right thing to do.

And I suspect, IF Dorion had done what a lot of armchair GMs wanted (keeping Methot and letting Ceci go for nothing) they's be slamming PD for doing so.

Methot was a better D man than Ceci.

The reason he has no points in Dallas is his knees are totally done.

Keeping Methot and Karlsson was the right thing to do.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->