Glen Murray coming to Ottawa

Hey guys,

I'm hearing that there's a chance Murray could be coming to Ottawa. Do you want him?

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:Hey guys,

I'm hearing that there's a chance Murray could be coming to Ottawa. Do you want him?

This is interesting. He obviously had other invitations, he's not all used up. I'm guess BM told him there's a legit chance for him to get some time in the top 6 (which would become quite sick if he were to do well). BM's a very cheap man sometimes - with good reason - I would expect this is a 1.2 million (or less) one year, bonus laced contract.

This cannot hurt!

I agree Heater at that price why not try him.

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:I agree Heater at that price why not try him.

Oh yeah, bring it on man! Bring it on...

Just don't pay him 2 million. I wouldn't love that.

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:Hey guys,

I'm hearing that there's a chance Murray could be coming to Ottawa. Do you want him?

Tough call. Bringing G. Murray could be a great move, adding a legitimate top-6 F who can score goals a-plenty...

... but we've already seriously got a log-jam up front and I'm not even sure if we're going to have room for more than 2 of Winchester, Foligno, and Bass right now... if Murray makes, then another young player loses a spot, which means perhaps only 1 of these youngsters makes the line up:

Heatley - Spezza - Murray
Vermette - Fisher - Alfie
Winchester - Kelly - Neil
Ruutu - McAmmond - Donovan
(Foligno, Bass)

Phillips - Volchenkov
Kuba - Smith
Lee - Schubert*
(Picard)

If Schubert plays forward instead of D -- which, I admit, grows less and less likely every day -- that means there's no room for all 3 young guys. We'd have to clear out a few bodies (McAmmond and Neil? McAmmond and Schubert?) to open up a few roster spots.

You have to start making room for the kids at some point....

... BUT, if B. Murray's got a plan in place to move a few players out to make room for G. Murray and a kid or two, then it just might work. In B. Murray we trust, I guess.

Depends how in shape he is and how hard he's willing to work for Hartsburg. I doubt he's going to be making any significant sums of money this year, so if those two items are good to go for him, then why not, he's a known quantity in this league.

Worst case scenario, his struggles continue, we go our separate ways at the end of the year and that's that.
Best case scenario, he's in great shape, fits in real well on the top line, puts up 35+ goals and 70 points and we're Diddle laughing.

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:Hey guys,

I'm hearing that there's a chance Murray could be coming to Ottawa. Do you want him?

Tough call. Bringing G. Murray could be a great move, adding a legitimate top-6 F who can score goals a-plenty...

... but we've already seriously got a log-jam up front and I'm not even sure if we're going to have room for more than 2 of Winchester, Foligno, and Bass right now... if Murray makes, then another young player loses a spot, which means perhaps only 1 of these youngsters makes the line up:

Heatley - Spezza - Murray
Vermette - Fisher - Alfie
Winchester - Kelly - Neil
Ruutu - McAmmond - Donovan
(Foligno, Bass)

Phillips - Volchenkov
Kuba - Smith
Lee - Schubert*
(Picard)

If Schubert plays forward instead of D -- which, I admit, grows less and less likely every day -- that means there's no room for all 3 young guys. We'd have to clear out a few bodies (McAmmond and Neil? McAmmond and Schubert?) to open up a few roster spots.

You have to start making room for the kids at some point....

... BUT, if B. Murray's got a plan in place to move a few players out to make room for G. Murray and a kid or two, then it just might work. In B. Murray we trust, I guess.

These are all good points. This might be too much, but if we had retained Stillman we would be in the same situation. There are going to be injuries this year no matter how many times we knock on wood. Perhaps this is the indoctrination into the NHL for the two way contracts, play well in Bingo and whoever plays the best will be call-up number one.

rooneypoo wrote:Tough call. Bringing G. Murray could be a great move, adding a legitimate top-6 F who can score goals a-plenty...

... but we've already seriously got a log-jam up front and I'm not even sure if we're going to have room for more than 2 of Winchester, Foligno, and Bass right now... if Murray makes, then another young player loses a spot, which means perhaps only 1 of these youngsters makes the line up:

Heatley - Spezza - Murray
Vermette - Fisher - Alfie
Winchester - Kelly - Neil
Ruutu - McAmmond - Donovan
(Foligno, Bass)

Phillips - Volchenkov
Kuba - Smith
Lee - Schubert*
(Picard)

If Schubert plays forward instead of D -- which, I admit, grows less and less likely every day -- that means there's no room for all 3 young guys. We'd have to clear out a few bodies (McAmmond and Neil? McAmmond and Schubert?) to open up a few roster spots.

You have to start making room for the kids at some point....

... BUT, if B. Murray's got a plan in place to move a few players out to make room for G. Murray and a kid or two, then it just might work. In B. Murray we trust, I guess.

I just don't see how it would be a choice for Murray between Neil and McAmmond over Foligno and Bass. I wouldn't hesitate in the slightest to move those two out to make room for Foligno and Bass.

Glen Murray's point totals have been trending downward since he put up 92 points in 2002-03.

Last season, Murray put up his lowest point totals since the mid-90's and is coming off a buyout.
He is a minus-24 in the past three seasons and he doesn't play against the other teams best players...
More importantly: Glenn Murray has a history of disappearing in the playoffs - 42 points in 94 games and a minus-15.

I think you all should be a little more reluctant to take him on. Its not always greener on the other side.

Chris Kelly can handle being our 30 point guy; at least his production doesn't dip in the post-season and he is reliable in any situation.
Glen Murray - no thanks.

cash wrote:Glen Murray's point totals have been trending downward since he put up 92 points in 2002-03.

Last season, Murray put up his lowest point totals since the mid-90's and is coming off a buyout.
He is a minus-24 in the past three seasons and he doesn't play against the other teams best players...
More importantly: Glenn Murray has a history of disappearing in the playoffs - 42 points in 94 games and a minus-15.

I think you all should be a little more reluctant to take him on. Its not always greener on the other side.

Chris Kelly can handle being our 30 point guy; at least his production doesn't dip in the post-season and he is reliable in any situation.
Glen Murray - no thanks.

What's the health situation? Is he going to be 100% to start the NHL year? If not, there's really no point in us even inviting him to camp. If he's healthy (now I may be way off here), but if healthy I would expect him be be the third forward down low on a PP with Alfie and Kuba on the points. Or Lee and Kuba on the points, with the Big 3 down below, leaving Murray as a huge body for Vermette, Fisher on unit 2.

If he can stay healthy for one year, he could put up big numbers, seriously. I think he could hit 25 goals and 55 points if he was to play in 60 games. I know it's unreasonable to think he will, but he's had some real bad luck injury wise in recent years. His groin was acting up badly, then he had a hip flexor or something last year and couldn't go at 100% until he was forced out of the lineup.

My big concern with him is: will the groin/hip hold out? If it does, we're walking away with a 25+ goal scorer for what should be just over a million.

Make him pass several physicals before anything happens contract wise!

If his health is even remotely a concern, we need to pass and let the young kids step up. He really is a bull, but its not easy coming back from a string of injuries. He hasn't played more than 63 games since the lockout....

cash wrote:If his health is even remotely a concern, we need to pass and let the young kids step up. He really is a bull, but its not easy coming back from a string of injuries. He hasn't played more than 63 games since the lockout....

I can agree. If things aren't 100%, then we can't afford to cut the time of Zubov or Winchester or Foligno etc.

Winchester is slated for the second line. Foligno would look great on Kelly's wing at least to start next year. That leaves Zubov on the top line? Can he really succeed in that role?

PKC wrote:Winchester is slated for the second line. Foligno would look great on Kelly's wing at least to start next year. That leaves Zubov on the top line? Can he really succeed in that role?

Wait a sec...

If Winchester's on the 2nd line, then wouldn't it be:

Heatley - Spezza - Alfie
Vermette - Fisher - Winchester

or some variation of that?

PKC wrote:Winchester is slated for the second line. Foligno would look great on Kelly's wing at least to start next year. That leaves Zubov on the top line? Can he really succeed in that role?

Where did you heard/read that? I thought a top-six role would be Foligno's to lose, after what he showed last year. Maybe even as far as putting him on the top line to create some space for 15+19 and to bury some garbage.

On the other hand, if Winchester is *that* ready, having a third line that will actually pop in a few goals on a regular basis would be awesome. Is Zubov ready for a top-six role, though?

The more I think about it, the more I think we'll simply go back to Alfie-Spezza-Heatley and one of Winchester/Foligno lining up beside Fisher-Vermette. Whoever sticks on the second line, the other guy slides to third. I don't mind seeing what Zubov can do on the third line, maybe even platoon him there with Winchester. Winchester is not used to playing an 82 game schedule.

But I think Hartsburg will have to decide whether he wants a third line with some scoring (Zubov, Winchester) or a shut-down line (Donovam-McAmmond?) or a pest-line (Neil-Ruutu). Personally, I would prefer a line that will be solid defensively (Kelly) and provide some decent offense. Maybe even go as far as playing 5-man units where the third line is paired up with a solid defensive unit, so that they (the forwards) are not forced to sakte backwards for most of their shift.