Why is Bryan Murray still in Ottawa? It's complicated
In the middle of June, National Post writer Noah Love looked at the Ottawa Senators and the work they needed to do in order to repair the franchise that just came off its worst season in more than a decade. The story wasn't well received by followers of the Senators, and was torn to shreds by fellow Sens blog The 6th Sens. I have little to add to what Tim wrote in that piece, but there is one question Love posed which has been asked by numerous others, including many Senators fans: Why is Murray still running this team?
The short answer is that it's complicated.
The long answer is even more complicated. It boils down to the fact that Murray inherited a roster that was on the verge of collapse regardless of what he did, as he's had to navigate the tricky waters of a demanding fanbase and a difficult (perhaps even overbearing) boss, and that a lot of the moves weren't bad at the outset--but that they turned south in a hurry, and ended up about as badly as they could have. That doesn't excuse all of the mistakes that have been made, but it explains some of them.
I'm not going to try and deny that Murray has made mistakes; he has, and they've been well-chronicled. But he's also found himself in a huge number of extremely complicated no-win situations, and the outcomes of those have hurt this team as much or more than the bad decisions Murray's made.
I'm also not going to fall back on the easy 'solid drafting' explanation. I won't because a lot of the credit has to go to the staff that surrounds Murray, including Anders Hedberg Forsberg (who has since moved on), Pierre Dorion, and--perhaps most importantly--Tim Murray. It's also a fact that, despite the high hopes people have for a huge number of Murray's acquisitions, the only thing we've really seen materialize from them is Erik Karlsson and a Calder Cup Championship. It remains to be seen if any of the prospects in the system can translate their success into NHL success, and if the percentage of players drafted in the Murray regime that turn into effective NHLers is anything greater than a historical average. Signs seems to be indicating that Murray's drafting has been above average, but it will likely take 4-5 seasons before we really know for sure.
I am, however, going to offer some explanations that go part of the way in explaining why Eugene Melnyk has kept Bryan Murray around to run his team.
There is an argument, one that was made by Love, that Murray inherited a Stanley Cup Finalist in 2007, and proceeded to dismantle it until the Senators reached their lowest point in over a decade last season. One thing is true: That Stanley Cup Finalist was dismantled, and it happened during Murray's tenure. That doesn't mean he's culpable for its dismantling, nor does it mean its dismantling wasn't inevitable.
For instance, a good portion of that Eastern Conference Championship squad wasn't dismantled--it crumbled. This includes most notably Ray Emery, who for whatever reason came back the next season without the right mindset to begin a season, and Dany Heatley, whose play diminished until his role followed suit and he demanded a trade. Neither of those personnel problems were directly the fault of Murray, but they were hugely important in the collapse whose goat horns Murray is currently wearing.
Aside from those two, take a look as well at a few more: Joe Corvo demanded a trade, Wade Redden and Tom Preissing have completely fallen off the map, and Daniel Alfredsson's age seems to be catching up to him. None of these facts are things a general manager can prevent.
The fact of the matter is that the team Bryan Murray inherited in the summer of 2007 was about as precarious as any Stanley Cup Finalist has been in recent years, and whatever could have gone wrong did go wrong. And in the process of trying to plug the holes on a sinking ship, Murray ended up making some things worse.
For instance, the acquisitions of Matt Cullen and Andy Sutton cost the Senators two second-round draft choices, and the prospects who could have been selected there would look good on a rebuilding team. But at the time of the trades, the Senators were tearing their way up the standings of the Eastern Conference; Murray is guilty of over-evaluating his team, but the Eastern Conference was vulnerable at the time, so it was a risk he decided was worth taking. Attempts to re-sign those players in order to make the cost worthwhile didn't work out: Sutton got an inflated offer from the Anaheim Ducks, and Cullen signed in his home state of Minnesota.
Goaltending has been the formost problem through Murray's term as GM, and his attempts to solve it didn't work out--so far. Pascal Leclaire was an unmitigated disaster, but that doesn't change the fact that the cost we paid was fairly minimal, and the trade looked good at the time it was made. Things are looking good for Craig Anderson so far, but that doesn't get us back the two years lost while waiting for Leclaire.
The one series of mistakes that can't be explained are the coach hirings Murray has gone through. I can't really explain why they went wrong, but it's Murray's job to predict how a potential coach will work with the players assembled, and it's obvious that Murray mis-judged the abilities of John Paddock and Craig Hartsburg with respect to their fit with the Senators team. The most successful hiring was the most accidental, but even Cory Clouston didn't quite work out. Time will tell if the fourth (or fifth, if you include Murray's stint as head coach) time is the charm.
But he also made some things better. The biggest problem with the 2007 squad was a lack of prospects in the system ready to make any type of meaningful impact on the team, and Murray quite obviously identified that and set out to correct it--a correction he seems to have implemented effectively. His from-the-net-out philosophy has set the Senators up with several very highly ranked defencemen (Karlsson, Jared Cowen, David Rundblad), as well as several other project prospects who, with a few years, may become everyday NHL players (Patrick Wiercioch, Eric Gryba, Craig Schira, Mark Borowiecki), not to forget the best goaltending prospect the franchise has ever had in Robin Lehner, who just led his team to the Calder Cup Championship and won the playoff MVP trophy in the process. There's still plenty of work to do in re-establishing the Senators as an offensive juggernaut as they were at the turn of the millennium, but any of several wild card prospects could feasibly turn in to top-six forward in the league (Bobby Butler, Stephane Da Costa, Andre Petersson, Mark Stone, Louie Caporusso), not to mention whatever forward prospect the Senators draft at sixth overall this year.
The salary balance of the team has never been better since the advent of the salary cap (although the fact that the team has little in the way of proven assets makes that easier). With ample space and plenty of cap-friendly entry-level contracts on the books, the way is cleared for significant acquisitions (whether through trades or free agency) when the prospect group show they're truly just one or two pieces away from Stanley Cup contention.
Rebuilding the depth of a franchise is neither a painless nor a simple process. It's made all the more difficult when as many things go wrong as have gone wrong for Bryan Murray.
187 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good read
Im probably wrong but I think you mean to say Anders *Forsberg?
by Sean32 on Jun 28, 2011 7:18 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Thanks for that
Got confused somewhere, I think.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on Jun 28, 2011 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Have we learned anything?
Thanks for a well written piece. Our demise can be interpreted in any number of ways and your interpretation is very sound.
Frankly I’m not much for going back through the history of my life or anything else to try to explain the causes of what happened. My mistakes are made for learning purposes and can be explained away by any large number of interpretations. Do I learn from my mistakes or am I a mouse who goes down the same maze line because it’s the right one? SO I’m interested if we have learned from our mistakes?
I hope we have learned that giving up numbers of draft picks for short term players is short-sighted at best. I hope we have learned that there is no substitute for having tremendous depth at every position. And I hope we have learned that there is no substitute for BUILDING players, and that buying them needs to be done VERY CAREFULLY.
Finally I hope that we have learned that goaltending is REALLY important, and needs to be shored up every year. I’m not so sure that lesson is learned yet, as we enter into this season with precariously little depth in between the pipes… although we now at least hopefully have a solid number one goalie.
by Marvellous on Jun 28, 2011 7:31 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
One note
I don’t think that we actually overvalued the team the year we traded for cullen and sutton. We lost to the defending stanley cup champions in overtime of Game 6. Really it should have been game 7 because we played an additional game and a half worth of overtimes in that series. I still FIRMLY believe that we would have beat the penguins with Kovalev, Michalek and Kuba. We lost Kovalev in the last game of the season and Michalek in Game 1 of the series. I don’t think Murray could honestly see it coming that two of his top 6 forwards would get hurt before the series really started. I think without the moves he made we would have been in rough shape to play the penguins.
With those two (Michalek and Kovalev) back into the series I am sure we would have at least made the 2nd round where we would have played montreal (and I think we could have beat Halak).
Agreed
The east was wide open last year. None of the teams really scared me. If we had one or two of those injured guys back, or if the refs hadn’t been so biased, we’d have won that series for sure. And who else in the east was going to stop us? The overachieving Canadiens? The chocking Bruins? Michael Leighton? No.
by Sports Fan! on Jun 28, 2011 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't know
The East may have been wide open, but it follows that it would have been wide open for everyone. The overachieving Canadiens beat teams whose players were of a much higher calibre than those on the Senators; the Bruins might not have choked against the Sens (for all we know); and Michael Leighton led his team to the Finals. We might have been able to beat any of those teams; fine. But it would be just as true to say that any of those teams might have been able to beat us, had the Sens advanced past the Pens.
That's true
The same can be said for the other teams. But at the end of the day, it still means that we would have had as good a chance as anybody at coming out of the East.
Re: coaches
Were they really that bad or were they victims of the wheels falling off anyway?
Maybe the real issue is that no one recognized how bad this team actually was … ’til this spring
by Tom Camps on Jun 28, 2011 8:28 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
I agree, Bryan Murray's biggest mistake was overestimating
the calibre of this team…always thinking we were one deadline trade away from being a contender. Personally, I dont think you should be picking up deadline players to give your team a chance to win in the first round. Deadline players should be for when you are one or two wins away from a cup.
I don't believe that Murray simply "always thought" the team was one trade away
I don’t have any doubt that he overestimated the team he built, but I feel part of the problem was fans’ need to believe the team was still a contender. I still think Sens fans have yet to show they’ll support a losing cause (though I guess we’ll find out this year) and an illusion of competitiveness needed to be maintained for financial reasons.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
always thought, was an exaggeration
however, this past year the sens proved they will support this team, so if that was Murray’s mentality, I still blame him for his lack of faith.
I don't know if the fans proved anything
Attendance dropped while the team was losing, and picked back up once they started winning post-deadline. I think the jury is still out on that one.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't know about that
It picked up when the team started winning, but that coincided with a number of prospects coming up. Was it people attending because of the winning, or because of the opportunity to see the future of the franchise instead of tired old vets with nothing to prove?
Or is it because the team started giving away more tickets?
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on Jun 28, 2011 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions
I can't answer that
I think the only way to know for sure is to see how this year unfolds. I expect attendance to drop as the euphoria of the future of the franchise gives way to losing.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Team was unwatchable
The product on the ice last year was terrible. For the first time I, on more than one occasion, changed the channel in disgust. Last year I didn’t buy a game pack before the season started and by the new year I deemed it a waste of money (I drink more $11 dollar beers when the Sens lay a stinker) . Will this young team lose most of it’s games? Probably. But the games will be exciting compared to last years rendition of a dying donkey taking it’s final rest in the mud. I will be buying tix this year.
That is an awesome summary of the team's play
I sincerely hope most fans are like you.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Totally agree with this.
Last year was the first year that I was in a place financially to treat myself to Centre Ice, and I regretted it from about early-December on. The Heatley game – that was probably around when I knew that the season was hopeless. Yes, the Sharks are/were a better team than us, but to see that kind of effort on the one night of the season the fans expected something big? It was really disheartening. By the time the kids were up playing, and Anderson was in net, I had mostly lost interest.
If we’d gone young from the beginning of the season (if we knew then what we know now…), I’d have been more engaged all the way through; it would have felt like I was watching the future develop. I just didn’t have that sense last season.
I agree
I don’t think it was necessarily Murray who believed the team was a piece or two away from being a winner. I think it was the fanbase and the owner pushing that belief more than anything. Maybe BMur believed it and maybe he didn’t, but I seriously doubt that he was the driving force.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
That could be it, too
I think there was certainly fault with each of the coaches we had, but they can’t be blamed completely.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on Jun 28, 2011 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the over-valuing of the team went all the way up to the ownership suite. In the salary cap era there are going to be very few dynasties that see the same guys stay together and win over and over. You can’t keep your quality depth guys and teams can fall apart quickly. Everyone from ownership on down is going to have to realize that to stay competitive in the current NHL you have to be continually maximizing your assets. What the Flyers have done this past while may turn out to be very smart and an approach that all teams need to consider. Another template is Detroit who draft, scout and develop players very well and are often mixing and matching the middle third of their line-up around their high value stars(good production for the dollars earned: Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Lidstrom).
I believe
- although this is largely speculative – that if anything, most of the over-valuing came from the ownership suite.
Muckler dismantled the 2007 Stanley Cup Championship squad
During Muckler’s years the cupboard was completely emptied of prospects and due to his incompetence in the draft there was nothing to replenish it. Deals like Brooks Laich and a second round pick for Peter Bondra are the reasons that the 2007 team crumpled so quickly. There was no depth to support it!
Who built the 2007 Eastern conference championship team? Well, Muckler put on a few final touches, but the main pieces were brought into the organization by Sexton, Gauthier and Dudley. Muckler acquired Heatley(that worked out great in the end) and lost Chara(hmm, which of those two has a Stanley Cup ring?)
Why is Murray still around? Aside from the fact that he coached the ‘07 team to the finals (at least as important a factor as Muckler’s few roster tweaks). The reason Murray is still around is that despite his few missteps (some of which have Melnyk’s fingerprints on them) he has been methodically putting the Senators back together.
I would say hiring terrible coaches and trading for bad goalies
is a bit more severe than a few missteps. It seems people fall into either the category of hating BM or blaming it on Muckler; i think the reality is that neither did a very good job. However, with that being said, its not to say that Murray cant turn things around.
Another thing people fail to mention is the culture in the dressing room while Muckler was GM, and BM was head coach. People seem happy to say “BM couldnt have expected Emery to act badly, or Heatley to demand a trade”, but Muckler and Murray were responsible to create a positive, winning environment….obviously they failed at that, and while maybe they shouldnt be blamed for every negative aspect, they should take some responsibility for it.
Hartsburg and Clouston wouldn’t have looked half as bad if the talent base had not been eroding beneath their feet. With no organizational depth there was no one breathing down Heatley or Emery’s necks to take their spot in the line-up. That is finally starting to be the case again, but it takes a while to rebuild an organization that was nearly devoid of assets at any level below the actual NHL squad.
The Leclaire deal looked good at the time, though
And we do need to consider that it got us Lehner too. I don’t lay too much blame at BMur’s feet for that one. We knew Leclaire was hurt when we got him, but we didn’t know Mike Fisher would repeatedly use his head for target practice. And I can’t think of another bad goalie trade.
Unless it’s opposite day in which case OH YEAH ELLIOT FOR ANDERSON. Seriously that more than makes up for the Snoopy deal. Not that there’s much to make up for.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Many deals look good at the time.
I would argue, its a GM’s responsibility to have more foresight than the average fan and therefore he should be judged on whether deals actually end up being good. Perhaps the fact that he was injured when BM traded for him should have set off a red flag that there would be more injuries in the future.
I really don't think hip surgery could have warned us that Mike Fisher would repeatedly hit Leclaire in the head with a hockey puck
And that’s two of the big injuries right there. I really don’t see a way to foresee that.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
But with Leclaire if it wasnt one thing, it was the next.
Sure that was a bit of bad luck with Fisher, but him getting hit in the head was one of a myriad of injuries sustained by snoopy while here.
Let's review, then
This past season Leclaire had two injuries according to nhl.com: one groin, and one lower body. I’d argue that the second was connected to coming back too quickly from the first, but that’s speculation. I’d also point out that the team played like garbage in front of him so I’m guessing he had some confidence issues and wasn’t in a huge rush to come back after the second injury. Could that have been foreseen? Well an injury could have been foreseen maybe, but it’s ultimately the player’s call when he comes back and I don’t think Snoopy had a history of rushing back before being healed fully so I doubt anyone could have predicted the full extent of it.
Now the season before that, I don’t have such handy stats but I remember 3 injuries pulling Leclaire out of the lineup: a broken face, a concussion, and one I can’t remember but I assume was lower body. The broken face (Mike Fisher’s shot off the glass when Leclaire was on the bench) and concussion (Mike Fisher apparently hates Leclaire, and Leclaire must have thought they were playing soccer and went in for the header) were freak accidents and completely unforeseeable. That leaves one potentially foreseeable injury. Oh, and at the end of that Leclaire went on to set a franchise record (and in his first ever playoff start, I might add) in that marathon playoff game against the Pens.
So let’s not pretend that deal was absolutely horrible judgment on BMur’s part. There was a lot of bad luck involved and no one could have seen it coming.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
The one you can't remember was Android tossing a guy on Leclaire's knee
And then falling on it.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Mike Fisher would repeatedly hit Leclaire in the head with a hockey puck
Most hilarious mental image ever.
It's true!
And particularly funny in light of Melnyk’s comments about how the bad guys are gone. Maybe he did mean Fisher after all!
Oh Captain, my Captain!
That's an unreasonable expectation
Lecalire’s injuries during his tenure in Ottawa were a knee, a jaw, a concussion, and a hip. What, exactly, about his injured ankle makes him more susceptible to those injuries?
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Certain players are more fragile than others,
its as simple as that. Just like some people get sick more often then others.
Sorry, but it's not "as simple as that"
A broken jaw from a slapshot isn’t “fragile”; neither is a knee injury from Anton Volchenkov and another guy falling on it. There’s absolutely no link of causality between any of Leclaire’s injuries. They’re simply bad luck.
If Leclaire repeatedly injured the same ankle, you could argue that his ankle was fragile—but that wasn’t the case.
The label of “fragile” on any player is a prime example of selectively choosing facts to fit a preconceived conclusion, rather than the other way around. If you want to claim someone is “fragile”, you need to show not only that all of their injuries are related, but that an average human being wouldn’t suffer the same injury under the same circumstance. Good luck with that—100 out 100 people get their jaws broken from Mike Fisher slapshots, I (and the laws of physics) guarantee it.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Thank you!
This was not Dominic Hasek re-aggravating the groin injury that had led him to retirement before he came to us.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
By "re-aggravating", you mean "faking, because he is a coward who fears pressure"
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
You honestly dont believe certain people or groups are more susceptible
to injury than others? Why do you think it is that older players often have more severe and long lasting injuries than younger players? its because as their bodies age, they are less capable of sustaining that sort of impact and recovering quickly. Similarly, people age differently and have the natural ability to recover from things faster than others due to their genetic makeup.
While you could argue that fisher’s slapshot is just bad luck (and i would agree with you there), many of those other injuries wouldnt necessarily have happened to other players. The link in causality is Leclaire’s entire body (maybe his bones for example), not one particular part of his body like an ankle.
So im sorry, its not a preconceived notion, but a simple reality.
Well when you're back
Mark and I have listed Pascal Leclaire’s injuries in his time here. I’d love to hear your side of just how his injured ankle when we acquired him (my bad for saying earlier that it was his hip) should have tipped us off to them.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Some may be
But I really don’t think this was a case of it. Also, a lot of the time people use “fragile” interchangeably with “concussion-prone”, which is legit since science has told us that past concussions make someone more easily concussed in the future, but which doesn’t imply any weakness on the part of the concussion-prone guy.
Maybe Pascal Leclaire pissed off some gypsies and is cursed, or maybe he built a swimming pool on an Indian graveyard, but short of that I really don’t think there was something we should have seen in him that would have alerted us to how his time here would go.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
What I believe are facts
Older players’ injuries would only be relevant to the discussion if Leclaire were a “older player”.
Simply stating something “is” a reality does not make it so. You have yet to prove your “reality” with anything remotely resembling factual evidence. Here are your claims:
1) Murray should have known Leclaire was injury prone because he was injured at the time of acquisition.
Required proof: Factual evidence that an ankle injury makes someone more likely to suffer other injuries.
Proof given? No.
2) Leclaire is “fragile” because he was often injured.
Required proof: Factual evidence of a link of causality between the injuries Leclaire suffered (e.g. his knee injury made him more likely to suffer a concussion).
Proof given? No.
3) Certain people are more susceptible to injury.
Required proof: Demonstrate that a scientifically acceptably average person would not suffer the same injury under the same circumstance.
Prove given? No.
What you are stating as “reality” is nothing more than your own opinion, backed by absolutely nothing except your own opinion.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
No, just a jerk
:)
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
his knee injury made him more likely to suffer a concussion
It’s well known that staying upright helps prevent trauma to the head. Lack of adequate support from joints, such as those of the knee, result in tipping to one side, which eventually results in a slow fall to the ice. Also, a bad knee makes you less able to quickly dodge slapshots from Mike Fisher.
PROOF GIVEN! :)
by The Tif on Jun 28, 2011 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Leclaire was on the bench not paying attention when his jaw was broken
Bad knees do not affect attentiveness (or common sense, apparently)
PROOF REFUTED! DUN DUN DUN
(rec’d, by the way)
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Bad knees result in an inability to move because you are distracted by pain!!
Refuted refutation refutified!
I look forward to Mark's refutification of the refutified refuted refutation.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
ARGUMENT SURRENDERED
Your proof is truly irrefutable.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
I think you are taking this a bit too far
There might not be a link between the injuries, but the guy just is naturally fragile every where. Maybe he has weak bones, or whatever, but he seems to get hurt a lot. Sometimes it is a freak accident, but sometimes it is just him injuring himself in a warm up in Binghamton.
Anton said it best, Pascal is made of dandelion.
An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.
Of the injuries Mark and I listed above
I’d like to know which category you think each falls into. It’s one thing to talk about general impressions of him being fragile, and it’s totally different to look at a list of the injuries that have taken him out of the lineup and to try and make the same statement.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Either way....
Is there a reasonable basis for having known that before trading for him? This whole section of the thread is built off the comment “Perhaps the fact that he was injured when BM traded for him should have set off a red flag that there would be more injuries in the future.”
I'm perfectly willing to accept that he's fraigle if someone can actually prove it
Otherwise, we have to accept that his injuries are just unfortunate coincidences, which is a far more logical conclusion.
Drawing a conclusion of fragility based on “he gets hurt a lot” is no different than drawing the conclusion of conspiracy on 9/11 because “It totally looks like the buildings were demolished”.
When we make a claim, we need to support it factually, and not something that appeals to our idea of common sense.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I am willing to accept that he's not if you can prove that he isn't
I would say that the sheer number of different injuries in such a short time span, however accidental in some cases, is circumstantial evidence at least.
There is no evidence to suggest he is not fragile.
I don’t see why the onus has to be prove he is, when given the injuries, it should be to prove that he is in fact not.
An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.
The onus is to prove that he is because that's the claim that was made
Asking me to prove he’s not because of his injuries automatically assumes that his injuries are proof—and as of yet, this hasn’t been proven with ANY facts at all.
I’m certain that no one with any legitimate medical training would agree that any of Leclaire’s injuries would lead to a greater susceptibility of any of his other injuries; I’d be happy to contact a few of the doctors that I know if you’re willing to consider that acceptable proof that he is not.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Well I can't prove it if you don't accept my proof as a proof
I am not a medical trained professional, but neither are you. In my opinion, the number of repeated injuries is a proof, or at least a strong correlation, between him being injured again.
An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.
Please explain the correlation
Once again: Mark and I have both listed the injuries. Please explain the connection between a slapshot breaking one’s face and hurting one’s knee when guys are thrown on top of it. And how an ankle injury should have let us predict any of it in the first place.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
That's just it, though
Your opinion does not constitute a fact, and therefore is irrelevant to a factual discussion.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Ha but if my opinion is irrelevant for being an opinion
Then so is yours.
An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.
It sure is
That’s why I’m asking for facts, and offering to provide medical opinions.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Okay, aside from the medical opinion below
So, in your Spezza article, when you said people his age miss about 12 games/season, doesn’t this use past historical data to project future injuries/missed games?
And that is using it for an entire group of players, with unrelated injuries. But using a player’s own history is irrelevant as factual evidence?
That you accept age as being acceptable evidence, yet prior injuries as not, again is not a fact. That is just your opinion. It is a perfectly valid opinion, but still just your opinion.
I am sure you will be able to find some medical source that validates your opinion, but I am sure there will be others that contradict it.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask people to research every single comment they make.
An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.
Hold on, now, let's keep things straight
I’m totally willing to accept the injuries as evidence if someone draws a factual correlation to them. In the Spezza article, I had about 1000 data points supporting the averages that I compared Spezza to.
No one’s provided any factual correlation between any of Leclaire’s injuries. The nature of Leclaire’s injuries cannot be ignored when discussing his injuries as evidence, but that’s exactly what happened. No one’s shown any data that proves he was more likely to break his jaw, sustain a concussion, or injure his hip because he previously had an ankle injury, and yet, that is exactly what is being claimed with the “fragile” label.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
And I agree, that is a valid conclusion
That Spezza will average around 70 games. I just don’t see how you can accept that, but then not accept something like, Pascal Leclaire injures himself once every _ time period, so he is likely to continue that.
Especially as Leclaire’s own injury history is more relevant to himself than one thousand 31 year olds to Jason Spezza.
An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.
I see what you're saying
It’s because of the nature of Leclaire’s injuries that I have a hard time accepting that conclusion. Too many of his injuries are the result of an accident that, in my opinion, would injure anyone—namely, the broken jaw, the leg injury, and the concussion.
Since I feel those are undeniably anomalous occurrences, I don’t think they can be used as data points, and that just leaves an ankle injury and a hip injury, which is not enough to draw a reasonable conclusion of fragility, since I’m guessing they’re in line with the frequency of other goaltender injuries.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
I assume then
that you took out all the “anomalous injuries” when you compiled the data for your analysis on the spezza article?
At what point does one determine things are anomalies? Broken jaws, concussions, and leg injuries are regular occurrences in the NHL, even accidental ones.
Let's not obfuscate here
We’re talking about two different things. No anomalies were removed from the Spezza data, because the point was to determine how many games he might play. If were discussing how many games Leclaire was likely to play, I would leave the anomalies in.
But that is not what we are discussing.
Once again, the claims are:
1) Murray should have known Leclaire was injury prone because he was injured at the time of acquisition.
Required proof: Factual evidence that an ankle injury makes someone more likely to suffer other injuries.
2) Leclaire is "fragile" because he was often injured.
Required proof: Factual evidence of a link of causality between the injuries Leclaire suffered (e.g. his knee injury made him more likely to suffer a concussion).
3) Certain people are more susceptible to injury.
Required proof: Demonstrate that a scientifically acceptably average person would not suffer the same injury under the same circumstance.
You have still provided no proof for any of these statements, and attacking other work I’ve done does not constitute proof, nor is it relevant to your original—still unproven—claims.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
1. I said maybe it should have been a red flag, i never said he definitely should have known, therefore i dont have to prove anything there.
2 and 3. I have shown you the medical evidence to support that there are such things as fragile or injury prone players, you can ignore it if you so choose.
I'm not "ignoring" anything
You’ve shown a medical article that says some psychologically unstable players are more susceptible to athletic injury—I accept that for item number 3, even if we disagree on whether the cause of most of Leclaire’s injuries was athletic or accidental.
What you still have not addressed is item number two, the specific claim that Leclaire is fragile because he is frequently injured. To prove this, you must show factual evidence of a link of causality between the injuries Leclaire suffered (e.g. his knee injury made him more likely to suffer a concussion).
You have not done this. At all.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Well Mark and I have both cited facts and sources
You have used big words (albeit you used the jargon properly) to make a totally unsupported argument.
I argue that it’s not that Pascal Leclaire is fragile, it’s that his teammates hate him and keep trying to hurt him. My proof is that Mike Fisher broke his face with a slap shot, concussed him in a practice skate, and Anton Volchenkov threw a guy on his knee then fell on top. But I’ll admit that I’ve done things wrong again according to you since there I went supporting my hypothesis with actual facts.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Let's be civil, now
No need to poke at Adnan’s word choices.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
I gave him credit for using the jargon right!
But it’s become a pet peeve of mine when non-lawyers throw around lawyer words to make themselves sound smart. Which is not to say that Adnan was doing that, but lawyers themselves (at least the non-pompous-jerk ones) avoid the jargon, and a lot of the time it’s unnecessary. Like in that comment.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
I must have missed taking "Legal Jargon"
in law school and I think I’m non-pompous and I know I’m not a jerk.
If you claim Leclaire is fragile, then the burden is on you to prove it. Those who disagree should not be asked to prove a negative, which is virtually impossible. I can give you case law to back that up.
Without question, Pascal suffered some bizarre injuries, and he did not seem to be a fast healer compared to some hockey players. To be fair though, a goalie is expected to play 60 minutes a game. He may have returned faster if he was only going to play 8 or ten minutes a game. But there’s no way to work a goalie up from 10 minutes a game to 60. He really couldn’t come back until he was ready to play a full game.
We're not the ones making a claim here
You said he was fragile. We’re asking for proof.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
I was going to reply to all of the other things
but Adnan sums it up nicely. The empirical evidence proves my point. How many times does Leclaire have to get injured before its apparent that its not just a huge big coincidence? If its just luck of the draw, you would imagine Elliot (a player in the exact same position as Leclaire on the same team), would at least have had a small percentage of the same injuries (which isnt really the case). The facts (which you claimed that i dont have) speak for themselves, you are just afraid to accept the correlation now that you’re in too deep.
p.s. the fact that “you’re certain that anyone with any legitimate medical training would agree” is not a point or a fact, thats simply your opinion.
That's it, I give up.
I can’t argue with someone who refuses to answer my arguments. You can keep repeating a conclusion over and over again, but that doesn’t mean you’ve addressed the other side’s position or that you’ve proved your point in any way.
Peace out, everyone!
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Correlation is not causation
A string of injuries that would have injured anyone just show that Leclaire had a recurring habit of being in the wrong place at the wrong time – not that he was more susceptible to injury than any other player.
And none of it – not a single injury he sustained while on Ottawa’s roster – could have been predicted at the time of the trade.
lets be honest, without reading medical studies on this matter and citing them, its impossible for us to scientifically prove it (and im not willing to go to that effort), i however refuse to believe that its all one big coincidence (poor Snoopy)…lets leave it at that.
And if you read my original post, i said maybe it should have been a red flag, i didnt say murray should have definitely predicted everything that was going to happen.
p.s. referring to empirical evidence is not “repeating a conclusion” sorry AlfieGirl. All right, thats enough of this for me for today, time to get some work done :)
No medical studies necessary for a puck to the face
As for a red flag – I’m saying it wasn’t even “maybe”. I’m saying that Murray couldn’t have predicted even ONE of the injuries.
Not a single one!
Wait, what facts?
Where did you cite facts proving:
1) Murray should have known Leclaire was injury prone because he was injured at the time of acquisition.
Required proof: Factual evidence that an ankle injury makes someone more likely to suffer other injuries.
Proof given? Still no.
2) Leclaire is "fragile" because he was often injured.
Required proof: Factual evidence of a link of causality between the injuries Leclaire suffered (e.g. his knee injury made him more likely to suffer a concussion).
Proof given? Still no.
3) Certain people are more susceptible to injury.
Required proof: Demonstrate that a scientifically acceptably average person would not suffer the same injury under the same circumstance.
Prove given? Still no.
you are just afraid to accept the correlation
You haven’t proven ANY correlation. You’re just repeating that he got hurt a lot.
p.s. the fact that "you’re certain that anyone with any legitimate medical training would agree" is not a point or a fact, thats simply your opinion.
You’re right. I also offered to contact medical professionals to support my opinion. Is that not an acceptable approach for you?
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
A study I found...maybe Leclaire was psychologically fragile
“One important model that highlighted the stress-injury relationship cited both situational factors (i.e. importance of situation) and personal characteristics (i.e. personality traits) as important determinants of outcome (2). This model cited the interaction between factors as crucial and provided an impetus for future research. An athlete who tends to view situations as threatening (high trait anxiety), who has a history of life stressors (major life-changing events and daily hassles) and has poor coping resources (lacks social support, etc.) is considered to be more likely to experience a negative stress response and consequently is more prone to athletic injury. Although the relationship between stress and injury is complex, one study that used a large sample size â€" 452 athletes (3) â€" showed that as predicted, athletes with more life stress, little social support and poor coping skills were associated with more days of non-participation due to athletic injury. "
(2) Andersen, MB, & Williams, JM (1988). ‘A model of stress and athletic injury: Prediction and prevention’. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 294-306.
(3) Smith, RE, Smoll, FL, & Ptacek, JT (1990). ‘Conjunctive moderator variables in vulnerability and resilience research: Life stress, social support and coping skills and adolescent sport injuries’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 360-369.
I read this same study
It’s very possible this explains Leclaire’s poor recovery from his hip injury, but it doesn’t indicate that psychological state has an effect on on bone strength, concussion susceptibility, nor the weight the knee joint can bear before giving out.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Since, after all, those aren't "athletic injuries" per se
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
OK, what athletic activity typically sustains a broken jaw?
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
playing hockey apparently..
i have shown medical evidence that there is such a thing as a fragile player, now you are just trying to fight me on semantics.
besides,
I agree the fisher slapshot was bad luck, unfortunately, not all of leclaire’s injuries were slapshots to the head.
But two of them were
And one was about 400lbs falling on his knee. That leaves just 2 of his 5 injuries as “athletic”. So… he’s been hurt playing hockey twice in his career. That’s hardly “fragile”.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
People fall on other people (especially goalies) in the NHL all the time,
they dont always get injured, i think that could easily be considered an athletic injury.
Again, this is obfuscation
We are not talking about people “falling on each other”, we are talking about the ability of the human knee to support 400lbs of weight perpendicular to the joint.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
I'm not "fighting" anyone
The study you cited claims:
athletes with more life stress, little social support and poor coping skills were associated with more days of non-participation due to athletic injury
The nature of most of Leclaire’s injuries was not athletic, but accidental. That’s not semantics.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Guess we need to ditch a few more "fragile" players then
Pity, I really do like Jason Spezza (Knee x2, hip flexor, chest injury, back, groin x2, torn MCL, shoulder) and Daniel Alfredsson (Hip x4, cracked ribs, knee x2, back x2, broken jaw, shoulder, groin).
Pfft, sure
If we can sucker anybody into taking damaged goods! Just bury them in Bingo and if we’re lucky someone will pick them up off waivers, or buy them out and be done with it.
No, we can't buy out injured players
WE’RE FUCKED
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
You forgot a groin injury
But your point still stands – an ankle injury has zero connection to them, and alone would give zero reason to believe the guy is injury prone overall.
Wasn't the groin determined to be his hip later on?
Or am I forgetting another injury outright? There have been so many, the poor bastard.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Could have been
But I thought they were back-to-back injuries.
I don't know for sure
We have an information black hole when it comes to the injury that ended his time in Ottawa, but I was under the impression that it was misdiagnosed as a groin, didn’t respond well to rehab, then after it was aggravated in Bingo, determined to be a hip injury.
I could be wrong, though.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
I seriously think confidence was a part of it too
I imagine he rushed back the first time because he knew his future in the NHL was at stake after his previous fluky season, and the team was just garbage in front of him even though he was decent. Then it reaggravated and I would think he’d have been pretty discouraged by then.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
It sure feels like he rushed back
But obviously, we’ll never know for sure. It’s just unfortunate that his time here was such a waste.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I really didn't have a problem with the Leclaire deal
Murray identified goaltending as a need, and traded for a guy who had shown he could perform the job at a high level. Unfortunately he didn’t, mostly because of injuries. That sucks, but I won’t ever fault Murray for Leclaire having a broken jaw.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
I still think the Leclaire deal was a good one
At the time, analysts thought the Senators did very well. Vermette never found his niche here, and Ottawa needed to gamble on a goaltender. They did, and it didn’t pay off. Oh well. These things happen.
Silver Seven: the Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators blogs.
Me too
But we now know that taking a risk and re-signing Leclaire is not worthwhile.
WE HAVE TO WRITE THAT POINT/COUNTERPOINT THIS WEEKEND.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on Jun 28, 2011 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Who is offering the counterpoint that it’s worthwhile? Leclaire?
Silver Seven: the Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators blogs.
Ha, I am actually looking forward to read it!
An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.
2011 Turning Point
I predict that the spring of 2011 will be considered a major turning point in Sens history. Winning a Calder cup and the 2011 entry draft adding several top six forwards prospects to a squad with several high end defensive prospects, and a bonafide goalie prospect, means the future is brighter for the Sens than it has been for many years. The light at the end of the tunnel is growing, rather than narrowing, as it was in 2007.
It will take a few years to reach any contender status, but it is going to be a HELL of a lot more fun to watch than the putrid efforts we saw the aging, diminishing core put in, with the few pluggers Murray could get together to complete the roster, for the last couple years. The man should get a metal for being able to actually ice a somewhat respectable NHL team in the shambles Muckler left it in. I understand Muckler was gunning for a cup at the time (and he came within a few non-calls against the Ducks from getting it) so it’s somewhat excusable, but the demise of Ottawa’s contender status should rest mostly on Muckler.
I hope (and would like to believe you're right)
and that we dont become the leafs,who constantly think the light at the end of the tunnel is growing, when in reality its a mirage.
I doubt it
The Leafs are an organism unlike any other in the NHL. The worse they do the more money they make. You see the Leafs and their owners prey on a soft headed species of fan that can be found in every rink in NA it seems. This “special” prey has a short memory and responds joyously to small winning streaks at the start, but more likely at the end of useless seasons of unfulfilled promises. They also are easily distracted by bright lights and crappy TO rap artists. So why would the Leafs change their tactics when they work so well? Most other fans, we included, eventually vote with their dollars until things improve.
re. non-calls on the Ducks
I’m pretty sure the Bruins watched the ‘07 SCF tapes before the Vancouver series. Want to beat a smaller market Canadian team in the finals? Cross check, trip, spear, charge, board, and generally bully them every chance you can get. The refs will only call a few of the blatant ones, and you’ll likely draw matching penalties and a diving penalty or two in the process. Break their will to play after a few games and the cup is yours.
“smaller market” Canadian team? Vancouver’s not a very small market.
Silver Seven: the Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators blogs.
Yeah they had double the TV ratings of Ottawa's final
Although I’d say there’s no such thing as a small market Canadian team, really.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Market Potential
Very true. I believe they were hoping to grow the fan-base in California. It’s certainly a huge, mostly untapped market.
When you compare population counts, it's relatively untapped
California has more people than Canada, and less than half as many hockey teams.
Duck made soup of us
Before the Wings got knocked out by the Ducks they were complaining about Anaheim getting away with murder. Once the Sens met them they, like the Wings, were used to another standard of officiating and got run over. Pronger only got ONE game for taking McAmonds head off for gawd sakes. Even though I think the better team won I have no doubt Bettman, Burke and Campbell were praying for a cup in SOCAL.
To be fair, though, the Sens lost the game with Pronger out of the lineup
Ottawa had their chances in the series, and didn’t capitalize on them. The Ducks capitalized on theirs.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
It was over after game 2
Emery stood on his head and the Sens did nothing with it.
Relentless, Unchecked Beat Down
I believe that, like the Canuks, the Sens collective will was broken after the relentless beat down the Ducks got away with in the first few games. When their will was broken, the team folded. For the Sens, things got so bad they started scoring on themselves. For the Nucks, they left their wild stallion goalie out to dry and he had a meltdown of spectacular proportions.
Seriously?
Vancouver was easily just as bad, if not worse. i.e. How they embarrassed themselves in the late stages of Game 7.
Cannot play with 'em, cannot win with 'em, cannot coach with 'em. Cant do it.
Vermette
Not sure why Vermette gets no respect. He’s playing his best years in Columbus and on the Sens his point totals would put him behind only Spezza – not to mention he made the World Championship team.
Sens gave up a great player for Leclaire.
Having said that, I think young defence and goaltending wins championships so the next couple years look promising!
That was the gamble. Leclaire can be a legit #1 if he's healthy.
Sometimes gambles pay off, and some times they don’t. However, Vermette turned into Leclaire and Lehner. And one of those guys just helped his team win a cup!
I didn't mean any disrespect towards Vermette
I simply meant that he wasn’t the kind of player who would have led the Senators out of their doldrums. He’s a great support player, and I like him personally, but I don’t see him as a true core player.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on Jun 28, 2011 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Great in Columbus
I don’t know that he would have had quite as much success here. On our roster, I think Vermette would have been bumped down to a lower line and just wouldn’t have had the chance to rack up the same numbers.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Good read Peter
Nice balanced view of BM’s record thus far. A part of me hope that BM will stick around after his contract to look over the scouting dept and let another GM put the finishing touches on the team. My dream scenario would be Chiarreli come back home and be the GM. (Wishful thinking on my part). Most likely Tim will inherit the GM position.
The 2007 Stanley Cup Finals Team
A point Noah entirely missed, and one that wasn’t laid out in this article was the fact that 2007 was kind of a fluke. You could probably contest that the year previously we had iced a much stronger team, with Hasek between the pipes and Chara and Havlat still in the fold. The Sens had been good for quite awhile and I would say they had peaked as far as potential.
I don’t think the Sens run in 2007 was any different than say Carolina in 02, or Anaheim in 03 or Edmonton in 06. They were all clubs that were entirely unheralded before the playoffs. The only people who would have told you they were making the finals before the playoffs were the delusional fans of those clubs. This wasn’t a Sens team like years before where people were marking us down as favourites.
Even though we made the finals, we were already on the slippery slope down to where we are now. The Cup appearance just delayed the inevitable for a couple years longer than it should have really. Murray inherited the hollow shell of a team that had drafted well in the 90s but not so well after that. All those young prospects were now NHL veterans and looking for their payday on the free agent market. Not having any reinforcements in the pipe basically caused the house of cards to collapse.
I think 2006 was definitely a better team
Even 2003 might have been a better team than the 2007 squad. You need a bit of luck to get to the Finals, and the Sens got it in 2007.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on Jun 28, 2011 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
I think you're right on with this
The 2007 team was the best one in the Eastern Conference for the last 3 months of the season (April-June), of that I have no doubt. They were playing hockey at an exceptionally high level.
But as 2008 showed, that level of play—everyone executing at their peak—isn’t sustainable forever.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions
2006 was one of the deepest and best teams I’ve ever seen. If only they had gotten by Buffalo…
by Sports Fan! on Jun 28, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
The Horror... The Horror...
Damn you Jason Pominville and your unbridled speed and soft hands!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEpr8moQBPs
(Or was it Alfie’s lack of defensive awareness and Emery’s brain fart?)
Sorry...
I had a moment there when Buffalo and 2006 were mentioned. One of the worse moments in sporting history as far as I’m concerned. Shouldn’t have shared it I guess… I promise I won’t post any links that involve Lalime and/or Nieuwendyk…
I'll admit I'm posting this without reading the whole article
But if you’re not going to credit Murray’s drafting, I will. The best scouting team in the world can’t help if you have a hard-headed GM who doesn’t listen to them. From what I’ve heard, BMur has worked out a system where his scouts do some of the most detailed reports in the league, and he hangs onto them for years, and call me crazy but I think that might have something to do with his recent success in college signings as well (it never hurts to have a report from a few years before when a player might have been draft-eligible but didn’t get picked). Of course the credit needs to be shared, and there are other highlights to BMur as well, but I think the centrepiece is his drafting. Why is Bryan Murray still in Ottawa? Because we’re only now seeing his planning and hard work come together on this team.
K, now I’ll go read the rest.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
He credits his drafting, but notes that we can’t count the chickens before they’ve hatched — though his drafting looks strong, we haven’t seen if these picks can play at the NHL level (aside from Karlsson, of course).
Silver Seven: the Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators blogs.
True
But that’s what I mean about just starting to see his plan come together. We’ve seen it turn into not just Bingo’s first playoff appearance since the lockout, but the Calder Cup and Lehner’s MVP. And we’ll be seeing those players at the NHL level next year, so I would think Murray’s still here in recognition for what he’s done so far and so we can see his work come to fruition.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Maybe BM should be head of scouting or have Tim's job then...
there is more to being a GM then drafting well, and so far, this seems to be the only major positive of what he has done in Ottawa.
by alfie4PM on Jun 28, 2011 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Right
There’s also the best blowup of a team that I’ve ever seen or heard of (particularly in a post-lockout environment) this past February. A blowup that included such amazing deals as Campoli for a pick and a prospect (steal!), and Elliott for Anderson. Even the Gonchar deal is something I’ll put in the win category for us – we may not be in a position to best utilize him and his numbers might be down a bit, but Karlsson learning from Gonchar for a couple of seasons is huge.
I think people focus too much on BMur’s mistakes and blame him for some of the bad luck, but ignore a lot of the good moves.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
I'll give you that...
the blowup was pretty good. I dont know how great a victory gonchar was, we will have to wait and see on that one.
All of which ignores the fact that there's a big difference between being a good scout
And orchestrating a great scouting system. I think BMur is doing the second of those, and that it would be a huge waste to move him from pulling the strings to being one of the scouts out there in the field.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Thats fair, but as I have already mentioned
there is more to being a good GM than implementing a good scouting system, and in my opinion, he has failed in those other areas. From free agent signings, and deadline pickups, to coaching selection.
In which case
See above where I talked about the past trade deadline and one of the FA signings. Coaching is the one area I’ll give you. But I seriously think you’re underrating his success in pretty much everything else and chalking too much of the negative up to him.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Thats definitely a bonus, ill admit that
I’m just not sure if a teaching role warrants $5 million a year.
No, but he also plays pretty well
Not the worst defenceman on our roster last year. Not by a long shot.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Hey, seems like you missed it
The Sens drafted this guy called Zibanejad with their sixth overall pick. Apparently he’s going to be just like Fisher.
by Desario is a freak on Jun 28, 2011 11:38 AM EDT reply actions
Ha!
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jun 28, 2011 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
The Team Was Actually good in 2009/2010
I agree with the posters here who have pointed that out. If two of it’s top 4 forwards had not gone down to injury it is very probable that they would have pushed past Pittsburgh and gone even further in the playoffs. and don’t forget THEY MADE THE PLAYOFFS! The only real failure was with LecLaire, but it was well known that he had the skill and his health was the gamble. So that was a bad trade. Wait … IT WAS AN AWESOME TRADE! A blessing in disguise. first, it got us Lehner. Second, it assured that a decent team tumbled to the depths of the cellar , yielding one hell of a draft harvest. So what was Murray’s bad move?
Brooks Laich signs 6 year deal with Caps
I guess there goes the chance to make a past Sens blunder right.
SENATE REFORM II: MUCKLER STRIKES BACK
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Washington = Muckler era Ottawa
Except the Capitals have a good farm system.
by Alexander Calloway on Jun 28, 2011 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Great post Peter!
I like how you discuss Murray’s mistakes and misfortunes. I am glad he is still around and I have faith in him and the team!
I think at some point he was trying to multi-task and that didn’t work out too well. The fans and Melnek were demanding a contending team, meanwhile he had already came to the conclusion that the team needed a rebuild. For some reason I believe that if he had the choice (with unanimous support) this rebuild would have started before this season.
by Los Blancos Chicca on Jun 29, 2011 1:36 PM EDT reply actions
I think you're on to something with this
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Brian Murray is not stupid nor is he inexperienced.
The way he started the build did not coincide with his signings. So I feel he was trying to do both at the same time but it didn’t quite work out.
As Peter mentioned, our first deficiencies were on defence. No one could have forseen that our offence was going to crumble at the same time. With the demand for a Stanely Cup contendor and having to rebuild our defence, he had to find quick solutions for our offence (ex: Cullen and Sutton, Kovalev). Each year you focus on an area of defeciency since you can’t do it all in one year. Since defence was identified first, the plan was to start there. So he used stop gaps on offence to fill the holes and hoped he would meet fans’ and Melnyk’s expectations to be contendor. Now that he restocked the cupboards with prospects on that side of the puck, he moved on to offence.
by Los Blancos Chicca on Jun 30, 2011 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Murray isn't an idiot for sure but...
…he is over his head in the cap era.
The cynic in me says that Murray is here because he’s “local” (how Shawville is local I don’t know…it’s not like it’s within a 10 minute drive from the downtown core or even inlcuded with Ottawa city limits) and people in this town cling to local people, again not sure why as success (Stanley Cup championship, or at the VERY LEAST Conference Finals) should be the barometer.
Back to my first point, Murray is over his head in the cap era.
He just seems incapable of saying NO to anyone that asks for a no-trade clause, a long-term deal or a one-way contract. This weakness will come back to haunt Murray if it hasn’t already. I yearn for a GM that steps up to a player in this situation:
“Hey Murray I wanna NTC and a 3 year deal and lots of money.”
‘No.’
“What does that word mean? I’m a star NHLer.”
“No.”
“I’ll play elsewhere!”
(Opens the door)
“Bye!”
Wouldn’t that just make most players shit their pants, especially the ones that aren’t established here? It might also make a few of the already too comfortable players (Phillips, I’m looking at you) understand that this is a performance-based business, not a family Home Hardware store. Neil should not have a NTC, limited or no. Neither should Gonchar or Phillips. Those things should go to FRANCHISE PLAYERS, not every Tom, Dick and Kuba. I’d really like to see someon else take care of contracts.
My second issue with Murray…he talks to much and shoots from the hip too much.
Examples:
One day last spring I turn on Team 1200 and I hear Murray RANTING about Roy MacGregor and Wayne Scanlan. I’m a little embarrassed at this, to be honest. I don’t know if Murray knows but Roy has been covering sports for about as long as Murray’s been involved in them. He’s a pro. If he writes something it is not to stir the pot, but rather to inform and offer a fact-based opinion. (Yes, I know “opinion” and “fact” don’t always coincide, but in this case the man’s rep precedes him.) Same with Scanlan.
It says a lot about Murray that the people in the local media that give him the most rope are Don Brennan and the Sun…
A more insidious, well perhaps not insidious but striking perhaps, was the coaches.
He never stood up for them. Instead it was like “Well they were the right coaches at the time, blah blah!” instead of standing up for his men. And this has come up over and over, Murray just has a tendency to let self-preservation instinct kick into overdrive instead of doing the right thing and taking the high road.
Just recently, when he was addressing Jagr he said something along the lines that well…Jagr probably doesn’t want to play with young kids, but the Flyers HAVE young players AND Jagr is going to be a freaking Hall of Famer! It’s always this stirring the pot crap and it’s tiresome. I WISH we had a GM that just did his freaking job and kept it under wraps unless a publick announcement needed to be made. It’s cringe-inducing hearing Murray sometimes.
Don’t want to dredge TOO MUCH into the past but anyone remember Roy A. Mlakar?
That guy, and I met him multiple times, could sell a freezer to penguin colonies in Antarctica. He had charm, he had the ability to connect with you and he was seen in charity orgs and ops all over. You really felt like you were close to the Senators when he was around, you felt that connection. I don’t know whether it’s the fact Murray is a poor public speaker or just that he doesn’t self-censor eough, but when he steps to the podium I just wait for the other shoe to drop and he isn’t very inspiring.
I’m also leery of the fact that the team may just be wallowing in perpetual-rebuild mode where Murray doesn’t have to win to keep his job…but that’s another chapter for another day I guess.
TLDR:
-Get someone else to ink deals, learn to say no.
-Would be great if he said less, or even said what was absolutely necessary and nothing more.
-Reinstate class and professionalism at the top, this team has been to much of a circus the psat five to seven years.
by Quizzical Quorum on Jul 8, 2011 12:10 PM EDT reply actions
Spelling/grammar.
Sorry for all the spelling/grammar errors, just a rush post. I don’t hate Murray at all but he’s very…unpolished. In an era where information is spread at the speed of byte, maybe the Senators need someone a bit more wary or cautious at the top.
by Quizzical Quorum on Jul 8, 2011 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions

by 





















