Bryan Murray's capabilities as a GM

The Guy With The Mustache wrote:20 roster spots on a team. that means every year twenty players win the cup. It shouldnt be too hard to find players who have won the cup at one point.

would you rather have Ovechkin or Drew Miller? Having a cup ring means Jack Schit if you had little effect on winning it.

Who did Jack Schit play for again?

Springfield Isotopes

You don't know Jack Schit?

davetherave wrote:ASQ...as I said...

The last three Stanley Cup Champions all had at least one player on their roster with a Stanley Cup ring.

So this would seem to suggest this is an essential element--given all the others-- for any team that aspires to the ultimate prize.

Still, if you go into this off-season looking for Cup-Winners rather than players who will help your team, and miss the playoffs, what have you done?

If the player is both someone who fills a need and has a Cup Ring, then excellent. But I'd rather, in regards to the off-season, have Murray pursue players that he feels most help our team. You can bring in a Cup-Winner or two at the deadline, if need be.

All past three Stanley Cup Champions had a 34 year old on the roster. I doubt Murray took that into consideration when re-signing Shean Donovan or adding Jarkko Ruutu.

Obviously, that's far more likely to be a coincidence. But I think the type of player you add matters more than whether they have a ring or not. Continuing from what Dusty said, I doubt Drew Miller would stand up in a locker-room and deliver a rousing speech to rally the troops in a game-7 scenario because of their Cup experience. Gerber's ring certainly didn't help us out.

davetherave wrote:Acro, that's an extremely eloquent--even acrobatic--explanation.

There are more than a few Cup winners who don't cost Boyle money.

Francois Beauchemin and Travis Moen, to name but two who are UFAs this summer.

And you haven't answered the question: should getting one or more players with Cup rings be a priority for BM?

Unless you are a recent cup winning team, the odds of getting ring bearer are not that great. What's the turnover at a Cup winner? Divide that by 29 teams. However there's usually a former champion or few available in March, which is what they did last year and can do again.

Also, there are two ways to learn something. By doing it right, or by seeing someone else doing it right. You don't think there was a lesson in seeing Anahem hoisting the Cup?

wprager wrote:

davetherave wrote:Acro, that's an extremely eloquent--even acrobatic--explanation.

There are more than a few Cup winners who don't cost Boyle money.

Francois Beauchemin and Travis Moen, to name but two who are UFAs this summer.

And you haven't answered the question: should getting one or more players with Cup rings be a priority for BM?

Unless you are a recent cup winning team, the odds of getting ring bearer are not that great. What's the turnover at a Cup winner? Divide that by 29 teams. However there's usually a former champion or few available in March, which is what they did last year and can do again.

Also, there are two ways to learn something. By doing it right, or by seeing someone else doing it right. You don't think there was a lesson in seeing Anahem hoisting the Cup?

If there was, it wasn't learned...

davetherave wrote:
Warrior, yes...Stanley Cup Champion, no.

Key fact:

The last three Stanley Cup Champions all had at least one player on their roster with a Stanley Cup ring.

So this would seem to suggest this is an essential element--given all the others-- for any team that aspires to the ultimate prize.

This ingredient is currently missing from the Senators.

Should this be a priority for Mr Murray?

At the deadline maybe. I wouldn't advise going after a Cup winner just for the sake of it, unless it fits the profile of very big, very fast and with good hands - and I don't see many of those coming up.

I think he has a legitimate chance to take of a look at the Olympic Gold line of Axelsson - Pahlsson - Alfredsson, with Pahlsson bringing it some experience. But it would mean trading Chris Kelly, which in this economic nervousness could be an issue.

But, we're a couple of years away from turning into a real competitor, so...we'll have to deal with it one step at a time. Draft well this summer - please Murray!

I very wise friend of mine once said, "One of the things I love about being wrong is that it teaches me what it is I still have to learn."

I love being wrong.

The Ottawa Senators do indeed have a player with a Stanley Cup ring...at least we hope he does...as he played for a Cup winner.

He also happens to have the biggest heart on this team next to Daniel Alfredsson.

He is a hockey hero.

Mr. Ryan Shannon.

Now...how and why some of our Resident Sens Experts missed this...

davetherave wrote:

wprager wrote:

davetherave wrote:Acro, that's an extremely eloquent--even acrobatic--explanation.

There are more than a few Cup winners who don't cost Boyle money.

Francois Beauchemin and Travis Moen, to name but two who are UFAs this summer.

And you haven't answered the question: should getting one or more players with Cup rings be a priority for BM?

Unless you are a recent cup winning team, the odds of getting ring bearer are not that great. What's the turnover at a Cup winner? Divide that by 29 teams. However there's usually a former champion or few available in March, which is what they did last year and can do again.

Also, there are two ways to learn something. By doing it right, or by seeing someone else doing it right. You don't think there was a lesson in seeing Anahem hoisting the Cup?

If there was, it wasn't learned...

The year after was a mulligan for me. Paddock, Gerber, Emery, Redden, Bell (shakes fist). This year we didn't make the playoffs. So I'm not sure if those lessons have been learned or not. We *were* talking about playing int he post-season, right? Let's see if those under indictment show up the next time we reach at least the second round.

Per my dear friend Prager:

"Unless you are a recent cup winning team, the odds of getting a ring bearer are not that great."

Let's have a look at a few of this year's 'Final Eight'.

Players with Cup Rings:

Boston Bruins: Mark Recchi, Stephane Yelle, Shawn Thornton
Chicago Blackhawks: Nikolai Khabibulin, Samuel Pahlsson, Andrew Ladd
Washington Capitals: Sergei Fedorov (multiple Cup championships)

Most recent Cups won by these teams:
Boston: 1971
Chicago: 1961
Washington: none

Your logic, based on the evidence, seems flawed, dear Prags.

What these players bring is an understanding of what it takes to WIN.

What these players bring is the being part of the irrefutable accomplishment of having done what it takes to achieve the ultimate in the sport of hockey.

This has value. This is a large part of why Peter Chiarelli, Dale Tallon and George McPhee have added them to their respective rosters.

Not accidentally, all three teams have not only risen measurably in the standings over the past two years, they are all into the second round of the 2009 SCPs.

Now...can the Ottawa Senators benefit from adding players who have accomplished this feat to their squad?

Does Bryan Murray, in the view of our esteemed members, grasp that value, and should he attempt to instill a 'championship culture' in his team by recruiting Cup winners?

Dave, I agree with you 100%. You should probably also say that these players cant be added at the deadline either. Picking up "proven winners" with 20 games to go isnt going to do much for a team, they need to be there the entire year, maybe even a couple for the team to really take notice and for his attitude to become ingraved in the team.

If there is one sport in North America where the quick fix never works, its hockey. This all comes down to the culture in the room changing and a part of that is a proven winner who can contribute on a regular basis at a high level.

Neely4Life wrote:Dave, I agree with you 100%. You should probably also say that these players cant be added at the deadline either. Picking up "proven winners" with 20 games to go isnt going to do much for a team, they need to be there the entire year, maybe even a couple for the team to really take notice and for his attitude to become ingraved in the team.

If there is one sport in North America where the quick fix never works, its hockey. This all comes down to the culture in the room changing and a part of that is a proven winner who can contribute on a regular basis at a high level.

Again, was Gerber's attitude engrained into the team?

It's not just the case of getting anyone who's won the Cup.

Thats why I said a proven winner who can contribute on a regular basis.

Neely4Life wrote:Dave, I agree with you 100%. You should probably also say that these players cant be added at the deadline either. Picking up "proven winners" with 20 games to go isnt going to do much for a team, they need to be there the entire year, maybe even a couple for the team to really take notice and for his attitude to become ingraved in the team.

If there is one sport in North America where the quick fix never works, its hockey. This all comes down to the culture in the room changing and a part of that is a proven winner who can contribute on a regular basis at a high level.

They have the be effective though. So who would you get that has recent Cup experience and is a good hockey player? I tell ya, the options are extremely limited.

504Heater wrote:

Neely4Life wrote:Dave, I agree with you 100%. You should probably also say that these players cant be added at the deadline either. Picking up "proven winners" with 20 games to go isnt going to do much for a team, they need to be there the entire year, maybe even a couple for the team to really take notice and for his attitude to become ingraved in the team.

If there is one sport in North America where the quick fix never works, its hockey. This all comes down to the culture in the room changing and a part of that is a proven winner who can contribute on a regular basis at a high level.

They have the be effective though. So who would you get that has recent Cup experience and is a good hockey player? I tell ya, the options are extremely limited.

Yup, they are, which is why the same players win the cup most of the time. The teams might change here and there but the players do not, at least the ones with the big impacts.

even then, let's look at a team that's gone out of it's way getting veteran leadership from the start of the year only to see all it's efforts go down in 6 games) SJS! now being in their fans position i would be frustrated... i could relate to them so well after having seen the sens finish for years first or second for so many years and then falter in the playoffs but we hadn't built our team with proven winners...

i think we can argue day and night about who and what should and could be added to win the cup at the end of the day it all comes down to the chemisry of the team heading into the playoffs( not to be understated, most stanly cups winners aren't big movers come trade deadline day), the level of fatigue the team is feeling(if you're battling like crazy to make the playoffs chances are you won't make the finals) and having a solid core of fowards/top 4 dman and a trusted goalie(although detroit proved that wrong last year). and by that i don't mean that we need to invest 16 millions in our top line. and lastly the one aspect that needs to be combined with the player aspect is a mix of young(cheap on the cap)and old(more experienced) tallent.
the capitals being my favourite example this year for that. there is a very small window of opportunity where your tallent is getting paid a fair price before you have to give them the superstar contracts. the year the sens went to the finals neither spezza or heatley commended the kind of money they have now. the caps will be in the very same cap situation the sens are ina few years.

now with all these factors in i think some of our big contracts can no longer stay with the team if we are to compete within the next few years.

personaly i thought heatley showed the least amount of heart this year. he looked like a player out there for his stats, and yes spezza not far behind. so what does murray need to do?

we need to reinforce our defence by trading one of our star fowards. i wouldn't want to be in his shoes on that one. but i trust murray.