Bryan Murray: "We Have To Make A Tweak"

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:This started off as being a judgment of the past three years of Sens drafting, and I questioned how many non-Top 5 picks in the past three years are making an impact.

Your reply didn't even come close to addressing my question as you cited draft pics from well beyond the range we were talking about.

Go back and read it if you like.

@Shabbs> it's not a judgement, and you missed my point.

My point being Ottawa hasn't drafted enough players who make the starting lineup, to replenish their roster over the past few years.

The ones they had, are gone.

Go back and read my post again.

Muckler traded picks and drafted poorly, beyond poorly really. That's the problem in Ottawa right now, Dave. It's not complicaed. Muckler really screwed this team.

Dave, if you want proof of how little faith Murray had in Mucklers scouts, look at the 3 draft picks he dealt in the 5th, 6th, and 7th round to Tampa for a 4th the next year.

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote:

shabbs wrote:When was the last time we had a Top 5 draft pick? How many young draft picks outside of the Top 5 are starting with their teams from the past three years?

We've got that silly "middle of the pack" pick syndrome going on...

Precisely. It's incredibly infrequent that teams stumble across prospects outside of that top area with both long-term potential and the ability to step in immediately.

The reason Karlsson wasn't a top-5 pick was because his physical dimensions prevented him from being a guy able to step in immediately, and Cowen's injury had the same effect.

Anyway, Murray can hardly be evaluated for 2007. That was all on the scouts, and our scouting has changed since then (dramatically for the better, IMO).

@ASQ> Nobody's talking about 'immediately'.

Of the Senators picks in the last five drafts, only two have become regulars.

You seem to be well versed on draft picks and prospects. How does Ottawa's record with developing its picks compare with other teams?

If you're going to criticize Murray (which may be misreading and misinterpreting on my part) then it follows that it's immediately.

Definitely, our drafting from 2002 to 2007 was pretty bad.

2002: Klepis, Kaigorodov, Luttinen, Dobben, Bjork, Hooten, Vavra, Atyushov
2003: Eaves, Mirnov, Seydoux, M. Karlsson, Cook, Gimayev, Colbert, Louhivaara, Elliott (good pick)
2004: Meszaros (good pick), Lyamin, Weller, Regin (good pick), Glass, Nikulin, McKenzie, Wick, Cooper, McIlvane, Wikner
2005: Lee, Anikeyenko, Bass, Zubov, Kolehmainen, Kudelka, Megalinsky, Greening (give him time)
2006: Foligno (good pick), Gryba (give him time), Daugavins, Lessard, Daniels, Koopman, Condra (give him time)
2007: O'Brien, Bashkirov, Caporusso (give him time), Blood

If you were to identify a problem, it would be Muckler's infatuation with Russians. In Mirnov, Lyamin, even arguably Kaigorodov, he got some pretty awesome talent, but obviously the relationship between the NHL and Russia has deteriorated.

This is a far cry from when Ottawa was walking out with Havlats, Hossas, etc. But with the influx of new scouts, and Anders Forsberg running the show in Sweden, even preliminary results show that this isn't a problem any more.

2008: Karlsson, Wiercioch, Smith, Petersson, Grant (wow!), Borowiecki, Sandin

That's five straight players who should see some time in the NHL, all possessing quite a bit of potential, then a local kid, then an under the radar guy who actually has a game that could translate nicely into the NHL.

2009: Cowen, Silfverberg, Lehner, Wideman, Hoffman, Costello, Cowick, Peltz, Sdao

Not quite as impressive, but you've walked away with two almost surefire terrific NHLers in Cowen and Lehner, a secondary scorer in Silfverberg and two guys who are longshots but with the potential to make the NHL in Wideman and Hoffman.

So yeah, no concern in the drafting department. It's the best thing going for the team. We're suffering quite a bit for the Muckler era in regards to drafting, and trading for prospects (Barinka and Hennessy, for two), but to identify the problem as occuring after the Cup Run isn't accurate, unless you're saying its only manifested itself after the Cup Run.

But, going by the parameters of the three (more accurately two) drafts that Murray's managed, you're not at all illustrating your point by identifying names like Keith and Seabrook.

asq2 wrote:You're misinterpreting Shabbs here. No one is going to argue that you can only get top players from top-5 picks - the greatest player in the history of our franchise was selected in the sixth round.

What we're saying is that it's very rare to have non-top-5 picks step in and make a big impact right after being drafted. Even more rare is the case of defencemen, unless they're drafted for almost specifically that reason.

Your comment serves more to highlight the miscues of the later Muckler era of drafting, rather than what Murray's done.

I'm sorry Dave, I think you're way off here. The drafting is the best part of our franchise at the moment.

@ASQ> I'm not misinterpreting anything, or nor am I off base.

The foundation of a hockey club is the organization's ability to achieve an optimal mix of prospects, along with astute acquisitions through trades or free agency.

The Ottawa Senators do not appear to have optimized their draft choices since 2002.

You can blame whoever you choose, Muckler, Murray, Melnyk, the scouts, whatever.

I'm giving you an outside, objective set of observations and facts, and you can accept them or reject them.

The subject of the thread being so-called "tweaks", my opinion is that the Senators may need more than a tweak to become a contending club again.

That's not a criticism of Clouston or the current players, who appear to be doing their best.

The Senators' organization, however, has not delivered the elements of a winning team.

What happens in the next few years is anyone's guess.

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote:You're misinterpreting Shabbs here. No one is going to argue that you can only get top players from top-5 picks - the greatest player in the history of our franchise was selected in the sixth round.

What we're saying is that it's very rare to have non-top-5 picks step in and make a big impact right after being drafted. Even more rare is the case of defencemen, unless they're drafted for almost specifically that reason.

Your comment serves more to highlight the miscues of the later Muckler era of drafting, rather than what Murray's done.

I'm sorry Dave, I think you're way off here. The drafting is the best part of our franchise at the moment.

@ASQ> I'm not misinterpreting anything, or nor am I off base.

The foundation of a hockey club is the organization's ability to achieve an optimal mix of prospects, along with astute acquisitions through trades or free agency.

The Ottawa Senators do not appear to have optimized their draft choices since 2002.

You can blame whoever you choose, Muckler, Murray, Melnyk, the scouts, whatever.

I'm giving you an outside, objective set of observations and facts, and you can accept them or reject them.

The subject of the thread being so-called "tweaks", my opinon is that the Senators may need more than a tweak to become a contending club again.

That's not a criticism of Clouston or the current players, who appear to be doing their best.

The Senators' organization, however, has not delivered the elements of a winning team.

Go back to my other post.

Nobody is debating you that the Sens need more than a minor move to become a contender, nobody is arguing that the Sens' picks haven't been good in regards to 2002 through 2007.

What I'm saying you're offbase on is identifying the problem as Murray's drafting. Perhaps that's a misinterpretation of your posts, but that's me going from the information you've given.

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote:You're misinterpreting Shabbs here. No one is going to argue that you can only get top players from top-5 picks - the greatest player in the history of our franchise was selected in the sixth round.

What we're saying is that it's very rare to have non-top-5 picks step in and make a big impact right after being drafted. Even more rare is the case of defencemen, unless they're drafted for almost specifically that reason.

Your comment serves more to highlight the miscues of the later Muckler era of drafting, rather than what Murray's done.

I'm sorry Dave, I think you're way off here. The drafting is the best part of our franchise at the moment.

@ASQ> I'm not misinterpreting anything, or nor am I off base.

The foundation of a hockey club is the organization's ability to achieve an optimal mix of prospects, along with astute acquisitions through trades or free agency.

The Ottawa Senators do not appear to have optimized their draft choices since 2002.

You can blame whoever you choose, Muckler, Murray, Melnyk, the scouts, whatever.

I'm giving you an outside, objective set of observations and facts, and you can accept them or reject them.

The subject of the thread being so-called "tweaks", my opinion is that the Senators may need more than a tweak to become a contending club again.

That's not a criticism of Clouston or the current players, who appear to be doing their best.

The Senators' organization, however, has not delivered the elements of a winning team.

What happens in the next few years is anyone's guess.

2008 and 2009 are a little different Dave. Again, you're points are valid and I agree 100% but I think you are putting it on the current managment and not the past. Murray has done a very good job in the draft. They players he has chosen have been very good to great for the most part where ever they are playing.

davetherave wrote:The Ottawa Senators do not appear to have optimized their draft choices since 2002.

Man, you keep changing the parameters... first it was three years, now you're going back 7 years to 2002 to support your argument...

asq2 wrote: Go back to my other post.

Nobody is debating you that the Sens need more than a minor move to become a contender, nobody is arguing that the Sens' picks haven't been good in regards to 2002 through 2007.

What I'm saying you're offbase on is identifying the problem as Murray's drafting. Perhaps that's a misinterpretation of your posts, but that's me going from the information you've given.

@ASQ> not once in my posts, do I point a finger at Bryan Murray, who is a very intelligent and experienced hockey man.

I am looking at the possible reasons at the root of the Senators' difficulties, and you may want to read my post where it refers to the shortfalls in re-stocking the roster after the Cup run.

Part of that is choosing and developing prospects, and often those from lower rounds.

One can't make excuses, saying "we didn't have a Top 5 pick".

Good organizations know that.

Maybe you and others, being Sens fans, want to tell us how the Senators have reached this point.

I'm just an outside observer, but I see some Sens fans who are pretty frustated right now, and I empathize.

shabbs wrote:

davetherave wrote:The Ottawa Senators do not appear to have optimized their draft choices since 2002.

Man, you keep changing the parameters... first it was three years, now you're going back 7 years to 2002 to support your argument...

Well he's right. The players that make a difference will come along in 3, 4, 5 years from late round picks... Ottawa doesnt have anyone since 2002 coming in to help except for Regin and Elliott really. Foligno was a pretty solid pick in the 1st round but everything else has been useless and a waste.

shabbs wrote:

davetherave wrote:The Ottawa Senators do not appear to have optimized their draft choices since 2002.

Man, you keep changing the parameters... first it was three years, now you're going back 7 years to 2002 to support your argument...

@Shabbs> maybe because unlike you, I'm not trying to have an argument...just a discussion.

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote: Go back to my other post.

Nobody is debating you that the Sens need more than a minor move to become a contender, nobody is arguing that the Sens' picks haven't been good in regards to 2002 through 2007.

What I'm saying you're offbase on is identifying the problem as Murray's drafting. Perhaps that's a misinterpretation of your posts, but that's me going from the information you've given.

@ASQ> not once in my posts, do I point a finger at Bryan Murray, who is a very intelligent and experienced hockey man.

I am looking at the possible reasons at the root of the Senators' difficulties, and you may want to read my post where it refers to the shortfalls in re-stocking the roster after the Cup run.

Part of that is choosing and developing prospects, and often those from lower rounds.

One can't make excuses, saying "we didn't have a Top 5 pick".

Good organizations know that.

Maybe you, being a Sens fans, want to tell us how the Senators have reached this point.

I'm just an outside observer, but I see some Sens fans who are pretty frustated right now, and I empathize.

Combination of Bad luck, bad drafting, and poor character. (Emery, Redden, and Heatley).

Biggest thing is Chara Dave, lets face it, Muckler letting him go was probably the biggest mistake any team has made in the last 5 years of NHL hockey. Combined that with his drafting, he actually should be shot.

asq2 wrote:2005: Lee, Anikeyenko, Bass, Zubov, Kolehmainen, Kudelka, Megalinsky, Greening (give him time)
2006: Foligno (good pick), Gryba (give him time), Daugavins, Lessard, Daniels, Koopman, Condra (give him time)

Here are the two destructive drafts. There's one really nice pick in there in Foligno - which was a first rounder anyway - the rest are bad, period. And we're paying for that right now. Foligno has made the lineup and is now a regular NHLer, yet not one of the other players have made this team on a regular basis. That's ridiculous. 14 players drafted in 2005-2006 - who should be either in the NHL right now, or making strong headway to making it. And there's really only Lee, Bass, Greening, Gryba and Condra who could make it - if all goes well, but definitely won't be the guys who are moving other players off the roster because they're so electric.

Those two years have put us back 3 years IMO. Luckily Murray and his team have put us back on track, but he had no choice but to go with Muckler's scouts in 2007 - and that was basically a problem draft as well.

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:

davetherave wrote:The Ottawa Senators do not appear to have optimized their draft choices since 2002.

Man, you keep changing the parameters... first it was three years, now you're going back 7 years to 2002 to support your argument...

@Shabbs> maybe because unlike you, I'm not trying to have an argument...just a discussion.

Yes, but understand that your earlier parameters were what got Shabbs and I going.

I'm not trying to have an argument, either, I'm just stating that Murray's drafting has been superb.

Ottawa's drafting problems have only become manifest after the Cup Run, but are prior to it and no longer an issue.

N4L wrote:
Combination of Bad luck, bad drafting, and poor character. (Emery, Redden, and Heatley).

Biggest thing is Chara Dave, lets face it, Muckler letting him go was probably the biggest mistake any team has made in the last 5 years of NHL hockey. Combined that with his drafting, he actually should be shot.

And then this, yeah. We let Chara walk, Redden began his decline into sucksville, Emery was a lazy, good for nothing punk who should have been sent to the minors that year he was constantly late and not rehabbing properly (that one's on Murray BIG TIME). Heatley turned out to be a good for nothing suck who wanted out of Ottawa - great, thanks a lot arsehole. Corvo was moved, Stillman and Commodore were underwhelming and didn't re-sign. Gerber sucked, we never drafted a goalie to take his place, although, luckily for us Elliott was making some headway.

The D was ignored - and Murray's a big piece of this for sure - we should have acquired a Visnovsky, Pitknanen, someone who can move the puck and is a real NHL player. We did well in turning Meszaros (who also turned into a sucky player) into Kuba, Campoli and Picard, but now as the time starts to tick away, Campoli and Picard don't look great, and we've thrust Kuba into the number one D-man status on this team, something that he can handle, but not for a full year without some help.

Because of the lack of prospects at forward (and there's still a huge black hole in our system), Murray was forced to dip into the free agent market and sign someone. He rolled the dice on Kovalev, and so far, it has NOT worked out IMO. But it still can...one has to hope anyway.

N4L wrote:

shabbs wrote:

davetherave wrote:The Ottawa Senators do not appear to have optimized their draft choices since 2002.

Man, you keep changing the parameters... first it was three years, now you're going back 7 years to 2002 to support your argument...

Well he's right. The players that make a difference will come along in 3, 4, 5 years from late round picks... Ottawa doesnt have anyone since 2002 coming in to help except for Regin and Elliott really. Foligno was a pretty solid pick in the 1st round but everything else has been useless and a waste.

And I agree with that. Murray's last two drafts should be a lot more promising than anything we've seen with Muckler. That's for sure.

But that wasn't DTR's original statement.

davetherave wrote:@ASQ> not once in my posts, do I point a finger at Bryan Murray.

Here's your original post:

davetherave wrote:Unfortunately, the only way teams can really rebuild is by drafting talent that makes its way to the big club sooner rather than later.

Looking at the Senators' draft record since BM has taken over, and from the three drafts he has managed, not one player is starting with the Sens.

Only two draft picks since the lockout, Foligno and Regin, have managed to get a regular spot with the NHL club, and they precede Murray's tenure as GM.

When one looks around the league and see how much young talent is making a difference for so many teams, one could ask why the Senators don't have young talent making a difference right now.

So no, you don't explicitly point to Murray as the problem, but it's pretty easily interpreted that way.

Shabbs and I were merely challenging that interpretation, that it is Murray's drafting, rather than Muckler's, which is at the root of the problem.

This stemmed into the idea that it is quite rare to have prospects step in outside of the top-5 immediately and make a big impact, taken from your line about identifying young talent playing for other teams. Of course Doughty, Bogosian, Stamkos etc. are helping their teams out.

EDIT:

I'm also surprised to wake up this morning and not see Campoli and Picard waived. What the heck good are they? We need a real D-man and we need to start clearing some roster spots.

I would expect Picard to be gone soon enough personally.

SpezDispenser wrote:I'm also surprised to wake up this morning and not see Campoli and Picard waived. What the heck good are they? We need a real D-man and we need to start clearing some roster spots.

I would expect Picard to be gone soon enough personally.

The market's pretty thin, unless you pony up tremendous assets (Cowen) to land Niedermayer.

Pitkanen is a more sane solution, but what would we offer?