Your faith in Murray?

[Kellogs]

Dont worry though. The prospects are coming! Those average prospects every team has but is actually extra awesome because Murray.

I lol'd at this part

I still can't believe the results of this poll

Never ceases to amaze

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

 

[Nabokov20]

blame murray all you want, but the problem remains the financial situation of this club and/or uncle eugene

 

[Spez]

It doesn't really matter what your faith in Murray is. He's not going anywhere until he retires. If things go completely south he'll just retire earlier than Melnyk expected. He's not going to be fired so the whole fire Murray comments are pointless.

 

[MtRundle]

It doesn't really matter what your faith in Murray is. He's not going anywhere until he retires. If things go completely south he'll just retire earlier than Melnyk expected. He's not going to be fired so the whole fire Murray comments are pointless.

You mean Melnyk doesn't troll this board for advice?

 

[arglebargle]

blame murray all you want, but the problem remains the financial situation of this club and/or uncle eugene

So what? The reality is that there is a budget and a decent team has to be built in spite of it. If Murray can't do that, then he's got no business being GM here.

Remember the Senators teams that made the playoffs from 1998-2004? The gap between them and the big market teams was bigger than it is now.

I mean yeah, you probably can't build a team like the Bruins or Blackhawks on a smaller budget. But you can definitely build a team that can finish higher than the 8th seed consistently.

 

[StefanW]

So what? The reality is that there is a budget and a decent team has to be built in spite of it. If Murray can't do that, then he's got no business being GM here.

Remember the Senators teams that made the playoffs from 1998-2004? The gap between them and the big market teams was bigger than it is now.

I mean yeah, you probably can't build a team like the Bruins or Blackhawks on a smaller budget. But you can definitely build a team that can finish higher than the 8th seed consistently.

Your point is very well made. I would have to look back, but I suspect we have a younger team now following the rebuild then we did back then. If the team continues to play the way it is now into next season your point seems pretty valid. I am guessing though that an extra year of experience and maturity will do wonders for our team, and it will be far better next season. I guess we'll see what happens.

 

[Nabokov20]

So what? The reality is that there is a budget and a decent team has to be built in spite of it. If Murray can't do that, then he's got no business being GM here.

Remember the Senators teams that made the playoffs from 1998-2004? The gap between them and the big market teams was bigger than it is now.

I mean yeah, you probably can't build a team like the Bruins or Blackhawks on a smaller budget. But you can definitely build a team that can finish higher than the 8th seed consistently.

at the end of the day, it comes down to making a profit and/or winning championships. unfortunately, the sens aren't doing either... even while being a budget team with killer players throughout their short history. hopefully this tv deal with tsn will signal in a new era because their internal budget puts any gm behind the 8 ball from day 1.

i get how "these are the parameters" but its going to take the perfect storm of a budget team to win lord stanley. less margin of error. i mean, patrick lalime

 

[Alfie#11]

So what? The reality is that there is a budget and a decent team has to be built in spite of it. If Murray can't do that, then he's got no business being GM here.

Remember the Senators teams that made the playoffs from 1998-2004? The gap between them and the big market teams was bigger than it is now.

I mean yeah, you probably can't build a team like the Bruins or Blackhawks on a smaller budget. But you can definitely build a team that can finish higher than the 8th seed consistently.

That was pre-salary cap and 7 years or age 27 UFA status. The old rules meant small market teams controlled the rights of players in their primes. If you couldn't afford a player or if they demanded a trade (ala Yashin), small market teams had far more leverage with dealing with those situations.

Furthermore, the rules for FA signings were far more punitive. You saw almost no RFA signings. As well, young player salaries rose far more slowly. Even if you were immediately a top player (like Yashin), teams would offer less than top salary because of the control over RFA. Now salaries for top young players explode after the first contract.

The funny thing about the post-cap world is that non-spenders are probably worse off in terms of fielding winners. Yes, there is a defined range for salaries but it's more important to be competitive financially because teams don't have control over players like they used to.

Pre-cap world salary differences between teams used to mean that rich team had a number of older, more expensive guys on the roster. Not spending didn't necessarily mean a small market team didn't have young stars or prime players, but that they lacked the top end vets. Now, the difference in spending means something different. It means small market teams aren't spending on prime age talent.

Which is a long way to say that in the capworld, if you don't spend then you don't win. It is harder to win with a budget team now then it was before the cap.

 

[supsens]

I am sorry but no, other teams used to spend twice what the sens did, now they spend 25% more, word it how you want, deflect the blame how you want, we get It, nothing is ever Murrays fault, it's the owner, it's the cap, it's the coach, its El Nino, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Alfie#11]

I am sorry but no, other teams used to spend twice what the sens did, now they spend 25% more, word it how you want, deflect the blame how you want, we get It, nothing is ever Murrays fault, it's the owner, it's the cap, it's the coach, its El Nino, whatever floats your boat.

I'm not saying Murray isn't too blame or that someone else couldn't do better.

I am saying that it doesn't matter who the GM is, if you don't spend in the current league you maybe have one or two years where all the stars align to be above average.

No GM is going to make this team more than a bubble playoff team with this budget. Period.

And if you can't see the difference the lowered UFA status has meant, you are being willfully blind. I mean, this team was more or less dismantled directly by that change.

 

[supsens]

I'm not saying Murray isn't too blame or that someone else couldn't do better.

I am saying that it doesn't matter who the GM is, if you don't spend in the current league you maybe have one or two years where all the stars align to be above average.

No GM is going to make this team more than a bubble playoff team with this budget. Period.

And if you can't see the difference the lowered UFA status has meant, you are being willfully blind. I mean, this team was more or less dismantled directly by that change.

If you can't see the difference between 25% and 100% spending you are being somewhat blind yourself, and no the team was dismantled because the cap came in and it was super low. Unless you mean the second time it was dismantled and that was because Murray the greatest GM ever born spent a ton and could not make the playoffs and get any playoff revenue

 

[Tundraman]

As a GM Bryan Murray is a players' coach.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

So what? The reality is that there is a budget and a decent team has to be built in spite of it. If Murray can't do that, then he's got no business being GM here.

Remember the Senators teams that made the playoffs from 1998-2004? The gap between them and the big market teams was bigger than it is now.

I mean yeah, you probably can't build a team like the Bruins or Blackhawks on a smaller budget. But you can definitely build a team that can finish higher than the 8th seed consistently.

Name me a GM that has done it?

Fact is the team is very young and inexperienced.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

If you can't see the difference between 25% and 100% spending you are being somewhat blind yourself, and no the team was dismantled because the cap came in and it was super low. Unless you mean the second time it was dismantled and that was because Murray the greatest GM ever born spent a ton and could not make the playoffs and get any playoff revenue

The team was dismantled simply because it was costing too much for the average results it achieved.

The Sens were close to the cap for several years after Melnyk purchased the team.

Obviously woke up one day and realized spending alone wasn't the answer, time to draft well and develop.

The post-Muckler approach takes time, those that don't understand the process should just jump off the bandwagon now, jump back on later.

 

[Kellogs]

That was pre-salary cap and 7 years or age 27 UFA status. The old rules meant small market teams controlled the rights of players in their primes. If you couldn't afford a player or if they demanded a trade (ala Yashin), small market teams had far more leverage with dealing with those situations.

Furthermore, the rules for FA signings were far more punitive. You saw almost no RFA signings. As well, young player salaries rose far more slowly. Even if you were immediately a top player (like Yashin), teams would offer less than top salary because of the control over RFA. Now salaries for top young players explode after the first contract.

The funny thing about the post-cap world is that non-spenders are probably worse off in terms of fielding winners. Yes, there is a defined range for salaries but it's more important to be competitive financially because teams don't have control over players like they used to.

Pre-cap world salary differences between teams used to mean that rich team had a number of older, more expensive guys on the roster. Not spending didn't necessarily mean a small market team didn't have young stars or prime players, but that they lacked the top end vets. Now, the difference in spending means something different. It means small market teams aren't spending on prime age talent.

Which is a long way to say that in the capworld, if you don't spend then you don't win. It is harder to win with a budget team now then it was before the cap.

Teams now have the same leverage they had back then. Some of the issues you allude to with the new CBA were a function of the climate created at its onset when Kevin Lowe was running around making two crazy offer sheets in one offseason. Salaries for top young players may explode after their ELC, but the cost of bringing in veterans is significantly cheaper than it was in the old CBA, so it balances out.

The biggest difference however, is in the salaries of the top end players. Back then, top end players made way more money than stars currently do. Top end players make in the same ballpark as a Jason Spezza or Erik Karlsson which we have no problem spending on. In the pre-cap CBA, we never could afford the top guys because their salaries went beyond what we could afford. Top end player salaries have not only drastically been reduced compared to the old CBA, but they have also remained relatively constant.

I'm not saying Murray isn't too blame or that someone else couldn't do better.

I am saying that it doesn't matter who the GM is, if you don't spend in the current league you maybe have one or two years where all the stars align to be above average.

And no one is arguing otherwise that realistically that's what we can hope and anticipate. But you can be a consistent bubble playoff team with a budget, and then if you time things right you could go on a run or two in the playoffs. But right now there are so many issues with this team that it goes beyond the budget.

And if you can't see the difference the lowered UFA status has meant, you are being willfully blind. I mean, this team was more or less dismantled directly by that change.

There are two completely different issues at play here. First, the lowered UFA age does not mean a team could not be assembled like the Sens of the early 2000s. That being said, the lower UFA age means your window for that team to win the cup is that much shorter.

The second issue is the dismantling of the team following the lockout. It wasn't so much the change in age that was an issue but rather the lack of forewarning that couldn't be given to teams about the changes. I would imagine teams have a long term plan in terms of what to do with certain players as their contracts come up, and whatever plans the organization had got thrown out the window when the new CBA was ratified. But now, teams have ample opportunity to formulate a strategy, so they shouldn't get caught with that nasty surprise of a player becoming a pending UFA less than a year from now.

Name me a GM that has done it?

Fact is the team is very young and inexperienced.

Nashville has done it 6 of the last 8 seasons while not spending to the cap and being bottom 10 in league payroll every season. Interestingly enough, they consciously decided to build their franchise in the mould of the old Ottawa Senators.

 

[Kellogs]

The team was dismantled simply because it was costing too much for the average results it achieved.

A large portion of that is highly attributable to the poor coaching selections made at the time.

The post-Muckler approach takes time, those that don't understand the process should just jump off the bandwagon now, jump back on later.

Everyone realizes that rebuilding takes time. However, in that time, people want to see incremental steps which shows signs of improvement. The fact is, people are getting frustrated (and rightly so) at seeing the same issues that have plagued this team with and without budget restrictions.

This fanbase has been told for several years now that we have one of the best prospect pools in the league, which should help turn this franchise around. However the sense I'm starting to get is that many people are starting to get concerned that we might be turning into another Florida, Columbus (pre-Scott Howson), Edmonton etc. where the franchise has a lot of highly regarded young players, but they're never able to take that next step and just spin their wheels.

 

[trentmccleary]

Your point is very well made. I would have to look back, but I suspect we have a younger team now following the rebuild then we did back then. If the team continues to play the way it is now into next season your point seems pretty valid. I am guessing though that an extra year of experience and maturity will do wonders for our team, and it will be far better next season. I guess we'll see what happens.

Those teams were extremely young. Many of the top players (top-6 forwards, top-4 d-men and #1 goalie) were 26yo or younger.

A large portion of that is highly attributable to the poor coaching selections made at the time.

...cough ---> WORST ****ING GOALTENDING IN THE LEAGUE FOR 3 1/2 STRAIGHT YEARS!... cough.

between the time Gerber realized that he wasn't Hasek in mid-Nov to the time Anderson was acquired in March... almost 4 years later.

 

[Kellogs]

...cough ---> WORST ****ING GOALTENDING IN THE LEAGUE FOR 3 1/2 STRAIGHT YEARS!... cough.

between the time Gerber realized that he wasn't Hasek in mid-Nov to the time Anderson was acquired in March... almost 4 years later.

And yet we are still almost last in goals allowed this season too, despite significantly more talented goaltenders. Coaching, the defensive system, our zone coverage have been constant and recurring problems with this team. Even at our worst with Elliot as our starter, we were giving up regular breakaways and even 2 on 0s like we saw in the Nashville game were common occurrences.

 

[coladin]

blame murray all you want, but the problem remains the financial situation of this club and/or uncle eugene

I don't understand why finances are the scapegoat, err, I mean issue here that people rail about. WTF is money going to do except sign Clarkson and a geriatric Alife? What, should we have keep Fisher, Kelly, etc...? I don't get the whining about Melnyk.

This team made the playoffs the last two years. They lost in the 1st round, then they won a round. Yes, this is a step back, no question, but where was all this hand wringing and crying about Murray after last year? We have prospects, we have young developing players, we have stars, we have a Norris winner on the blueline.

He is doing a good job, and he will take steps to fix this. You can get rid of the whole team but it won't fix what is ailing this team. A general lack of confidence and the lack of desire in some to fix their game.

Next year our young blueline will take from this learning experience. Gryba, Cowen, Wiercoch, Ceci will improve with experience. People fail to realize that these hiccups are part of the retooling/rebuilding process. It has to happen and there will be lumps along the way. Fans have to take the lumps too sometimes which ain't fun, but if you believe in the process it at least becomes palatable.

Goaltending hid a lot of our problems last year, and with average goaltending perhaps our defense have come to realize that they actually aren't that good. Humble pie will do wonders for all of them and a tremendous learning experience.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

A large portion of that is highly attributable to the poor coaching selections made at the time.

Nonsense.

Paddock started with the team setting records for the best start in NHL history, then the team collapsed and the players seldom get fired.

Hartsburg was a poor choice to correct what was wrong with the team, a team that had a few prima donnas. He was just too nice a guy.

Clouston arrived and turned things around, with a 19-11-4 record, following year the team was 44-32-6. Things went off the rails when he offended the superstar.

Everyone realizes that rebuilding takes time. However, in that time, people want to see incremental steps which shows signs of improvement. The fact is, people are getting frustrated (and rightly so) at seeing the same issues that have plagued this team with and without budget restrictions.

This fanbase has been told for several years now that we have one of the best prospect pools in the league, which should help turn this franchise around. However the sense I'm starting to get is that many people are starting to get concerned that we might be turning into another Florida, Columbus (pre-Scott Howson), Edmonton etc. where the franchise has a lot of highly regarded young players, but they're never able to take that next step and just spin their wheels.

Florida didn't rebuild through the draft, they signed every veteran they could lay their hands on and failed. Now they are attempting to build around their youth.

Columbus also traded some of its youth for veterans, in the hope of accelerating their progress. History showed that didn't work out well. Though Howson made some very astute moves near the end of his tenure that have helped the team immensely.

While you seem to claim people have been patient with the Sens rebuild, I disagree.

Over the summer of 2013, just two years after the start of the rebuild process people were making predictions the team was a cup contender.

With the return of Spezza, Karlsson, Cowen and Michalek, and the addition of Ryan and MacArthur to the team that went to the second round, it was a sure thing.

Then within weeks of the start of this season, fans were clamouring for top six forwards, top 4 Dmen, and Anderson was done.

Then as the season progressed the calls to trade Cowen, Wiercoich, Gryba, Phillips, Michalek, Greening, Condra, Smith, Neil, Spezza were in full force.

In other words let's become the NYI or follow in the path of Florida or Toronto.

At the first sign of a setback this fan base became hypercritical and the only thing that matter were immediate results.

Fact is improvement during a rebuild isn't measured by points in the standings as much as it is by the growth of the players.

By definition a rebuild means player movement, veterans out, youth in and potentially other adjustments to find the right make up.

This season Zibanejad, Hoffman, Da Costa, Pageau, Cowen, Wiercoich, Gryba, Ceci, Turris, Stone and Grant all had opportunities with the Sens.

None of them looked out of place and all will be better players next year from their experience.

The Senators are going through the unpredictable growth curve for many players, it takes time and patience.

By the 2015-16 season I believe this team will be a solid playoff contender, but not likely before then.

 

[Spez]

Out of the list of the coaches fired Clouston is the only who I feel didn't get a fair shake. He took us to the playoffs with a goaltending tandem of Glasscal/Elliott/Brodeur which is a miracle in itself. It's not his fault that the goaltending fell apart the following year. He may not have been the greatest communicator but that's normal for a young coach who only was in his 2nd full year on the job. I believe firing Clouston was a big mistake because everyone saw how the team played when Anderson stabilized the goaltending. No coach was going to get us into the playoffs with the goaltending we had that year. I remember when Greg Carvel threw Elliott under the bus when he got fired. How come Alfie doesn't get criticized for his leadership during the times we had the coach firings? He was part of the group of players who quit on three coaches in four seasons. I remember seeing him dog it after Spezza got hurt in Clouston's final season too. It's interesting that the team was in playoff contention until Spezza got hurt yet an Alfie led team only managed to win 1 game while Spezza was out. Goaltending was a big part of it but where was Alfie's leadership to help the team when Spezza was gone? Spezza is being thrown under the bus as if he's the main reason the team is struggling.

 

[Micklebot]

And yet we are still almost last in goals allowed this season too, despite significantly more talented goaltenders. Coaching, the defensive system, our zone coverage have been constant and recurring problems with this team. Even at our worst with Elliot as our starter, we were giving up regular breakaways and even 2 on 0s like we saw in the Nashville game were common occurrences.

When Elliot was our starter. we allowed the 4th fewest shots per game (he pretty much split duties with year prior and we were 6th). The next year when the team all but stopped playing for Clouston, we dropped to 20th. While we had our defensive breakdowns, you're kidding yourself if you think it was anything like what we're having these days.

Our biggest problems those days were the quality of goaltending, and the backends ability to move the puck out of the zone with speed.

 

[Kellogs]

Nonsense.

Paddock started with the team setting records for the best start in NHL history, then the team collapsed and the players seldom get fired.

Everyone who watched the games knew that start was unsustainable. Hot goaltending by Gerber covered up a lot of defensive lapses from the team, while relying heavily on the Pizza line to carry the load for the team. He also quickly alienated many of the team's other players by leaning so heavily on the Pizza line and when they would attempt to discuss it with him privately, he would dismiss their complaints then subsequently aired it out in the media. Once Emery returned and Gerber's hot streak was over, he further enabled the toxic environment with his "you win and you're in" policy which completely backfired. Assistant coaches who get promoted from within the organization tend not to do well.

Hartsburg was a poor choice to correct what was wrong with the team, a team that had a few prima donnas. He was just too nice a guy.

The problem with Hartsburg wasn't that he was a nice guy, or that there were primo donnas. His system was ill-suited for the new NHL, and as noted by many observers, our breakout strategy was pathetic and we became one of the easiest teams to defend against. His system was so terrible that nearly every single one of our players were having an off-year offensively.

Clouston arrived and turned things around, with a 19-11-4 record, following year the team was 44-32-6. Things went off the rails when he offended the superstar.

Clouston was an improvement over the previous two tactically, however his poor communication abilities along with his abrasive way of dealing with players was unsustainable in the long term. He even refused to listen to legitimate advice from Murray about his dealings with players. Things really went off the rails because of our goaltending which exacerbated the players' hatred for the guy.

Florida didn't rebuild through the draft, they signed every veteran they could lay their hands on and failed. Now they are attempting to build around their youth.

I'm not talking about the post lockout Panthers. From 2000 on, they were definitely rebuilding through drafts and trades and accumulated a stockpile of young players and prospects including Jokinen, Weiss, Horton, Bowmeester, Luongo and the fact they had stockpiled two first round picks in each of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 drafts. Mike Keenan put an end to that after he took over following the lockout.

Columbus also traded some of its youth for veterans, in the hope of accelerating their progress. History showed that didn't work out well. Though Howson made some very astute moves near the end of his tenure that have helped the team immensely.

Trading youth for veterans doesn't mean you're not rebuilding or building through the draft. That's what we just did to acquire Bobby Ryan. A crapload of their draft picks ended up playing significant time with them - Nash, Brule, Zherdev, Leclaire, Mason, Methot, Brassard, Klesla, Voracek etc. Their prospect pool was generally well regarded throughout the league, however the biggest mistake they've made with many of them was rushing them into the NHL and not insulating them properly.

While you seem to claim people have been patient with the Sens rebuild, I disagree.

The problem is, we've been "rebuilding" for more than two years - at least that's what many who I've argued with initially claimed back in the days when we were spending to the cap. The free agent signings like Kovalev, Gonchar, Smith etc. were supposedly just stop gaps because Muckler emptied the cupboards and we had no talent coming in to make up for what we lost or for players who had regressed. So really, we've been trying to build through the draft close to 7 years now (Murray definitely gets a pass for that first draft, so 6 years this summer).

A large part of expectations are based upon the decisions, statements and actions coming from the organization. So when management has come out publicly and stated they're going for the cup within the next couple of years, and people see where the team is right now, they are absolutely correct in being upset because they know they're being played.

At the first sign of a setback this fan base became hypercritical and the only thing that matter were immediate results.

Fact is improvement during a rebuild isn't measured by points in the standings as much as it is by the growth of the players.

By definition a rebuild means player movement, veterans out, youth in and potentially other adjustments to find the right make up.

This season Zibanejad, Hoffman, Da Costa, Pageau, Cowen, Wiercoich, Gryba, Ceci, Turris, Stone and Grant all had opportunities with the Sens.

None of them looked out of place and all will be better players next year from their experience.

The Senators are going through the unpredictable growth curve for many players, it takes time and patience.

By the 2015-16 season I believe this team will be a solid playoff contender, but not likely before then.

There are setbacks, and then there are collapses like this season. We can't even say that this team gave a good effort or fought tooth and nail until the bitter end. If you look at the successful rebuilds since the implementation of the cap, teams like Chicago, Boston, St-Louis, LA, when they started to rebuild, you see consistent progression in their point totals. You see consistent improvements in their team defense.

Do they experience setbacks? Of course, they don't always finish with more points than previous seasons, they don't necessarily make the playoffs every year, but when they do drop, it's not as pronounced as what we've seen with this team. It's not the fact that we're not in the playoffs that upsets the fanbase, it's how it all went down which leaves a bad aftertaste.

 

[Spez]

When you look at the teams on that list though I don't recall any of them overachieving though like we have the past two seasons. In all those cases the teams bottomed out hard and got high draft picks. Unfortunately sometimes it's hard to control that aspect of hockey unless you dress up an AHL line up. We weren't supposed to make the playoffs the past two seasons yet we defied the odds of what rebuilding teams do. It reminds me of the raptors this year who were supposed to be tanking for Wiggins yet caught fire and now are going to be playoff bound.

You could argue what we did the past two seasons is just not normal and we're more of an outlier than the norm. Things looked on schedule when the team started 1-6 back in the 11-12 season yet the team fought back from that and made the playoffs. I can understand the fan base being upset but so many people knew this team was going to be a bubble team and saw our flaws. That doesn't excuse the poor play or the poor work ethic but this team showed nothing last year that they were anywhere close to being cup contenders. The way Pittsburgh dismantled us showed how far we really are from reaching that step. I don't understand why some hacks in the media or any fans thought this team was a legit cup contender. Even if we had pushed Pittsburgh hard like the Islanders did we still wouldn't be cup contenders. There was just too many holes to fill to reach that level in just one off-season.

 

[DrEasy]

Out of the list of the coaches fired Clouston is the only who I feel didn't get a fair shake. He took us to the playoffs with a goaltending tandem of Glasscal/Elliott/Brodeur which is a miracle in itself. It's not his fault that the goaltending fell apart the following year. He may not have been the greatest communicator but that's normal for a young coach who only was in his 2nd full year on the job. I believe firing Clouston was a big mistake because everyone saw how the team played when Anderson stabilized the goaltending. No coach was going to get us into the playoffs with the goaltending we had that year. I remember when Greg Carvel threw Elliott under the bus when he got fired. How come Alfie doesn't get criticized for his leadership during the times we had the coach firings? He was part of the group of players who quit on three coaches in four seasons. I remember seeing him dog it after Spezza got hurt in Clouston's final season too. It's interesting that the team was in playoff contention until Spezza got hurt yet an Alfie led team only managed to win 1 game while Spezza was out. Goaltending was a big part of it but where was Alfie's leadership to help the team when Spezza was gone? Spezza is being thrown under the bus as if he's the main reason the team is struggling.

I agree with a lot of this. One common theme during Clouston's last season was all the players who were playing through an injury (Alfie, Fisher, I believe Kovalev and I forget others) or recovering from one (Kuba). Then we also had the goaltending issue. Our team improved instantly the moment we traded away Fisher and Kovalev and acquired Anderson. Same coach, different results.

This year we have significant players coming back from significant injuries (Karlsson, Spezza, even Anderson to some extent), and at least one significant player who seems to be playing through an injury (Ryan). Compare this with last season where, yes, a lot of players got injured, but at least they didn't play through their injuries. We had a group of young, healthy, fast guys, i.e. maybe that's the definition of "pesky". Same coach, different results.

I find that in a league with so much parity, the health status of significant players makes a big difference. I am often critical of McStache, but I can also find him some mitigating circumstances. It's risky business for a coach to sit Bobby Ryan because he's playing through an injury, or wait till Spezza has fully recovered from his nagging injuries before playing him (see the difference pre- and post-Olympic break?), because you risk losing these guys when their contract is up, or worse, they ask to be traded.

But in terms of pure performance, I find that often a subpar but fully healthy player is better than a superstar playing through an injury. A healthy Da Costa > an injured Spezza. But in the real world you can't just scratch Spezza and run with Da Costa.