Sens Reality Check: YOU are the GM!

marakh wrote:I think you answered your own question. Cash said it perfectly, Murray doesn't have the depth Holland has because our drafting was absolutely horrendus the last 3 years before 2008. If Wiercioch and Karlsson, and hopefully Caporusso and a few offensive guys that will be drafted this year pan out, I think Murray will look a lot much better.

For the record, I don't think much of Muckler's era as Sens GM either. IMHO he and Bryan Murray are certainly experienced hockey men--and extremely smart guys who know the politics of the hockey business.

But I believe the roots of the Senators' current difficulties go back to their inability to understand the changes taking place in the NHL around the time of the lockout.

The rule changes and the shift in the economic landscape due to the salary cap meant that going forward, teams needed to have a very clear idea of what their team would be, not just year to year, but over a five- to ten-year period.

You couldn't simply spend your way to a championship, or even attempt to.

Muckler and Murray being part of the same team, my read on the situation--from what I have been able to read and research--is that they are each proportionately responsible for the problems plaguing the Sens.

I don't see being 'pro' or 'anti' Murray as having any point, but I do feel we can discuss the issues objectively.

Agreed?

davetherave wrote:

cash wrote:
Thats faulty reasoning. How is it Bryan Murray's fault that we don't have depth? That, my friend, falls at the feet of a mister John Muckler. This is what people overlook....Murray is still busy fixing Muckler's mistakes, and now he has to fix his own mistakes to boot. His own mistakes were born out of Muckler's, however...that and 'gene's desire to win and win now!

What part of my statement that Bryan Murray is not as good a manager as Ken Holland is faulty reasoning?

I didn't say Murray was responsible for the lack of depth, neither did I imply it. I simply stated a fact about the lack of depth.

But this thread is really about what YOU would do to rebuild the Senators, not an evaluation of Bryan Murray...

To be honest Dave, I read it the same as Cash. I am not sure I would make a blanket statement that Holland is a better manager. They have drafted well for sure but they have also had an owner with deep pockets prior to the cap and have benefitted from the most consistently successful defenceman in the last 20 years. IMO they will slip down huge once Lidstrom retires. Additionally Holland has been on the job for a long time. Murray has only been here as GM for less than 2 years. I think it takes 4 to 5 for a GM to completely have his stamp on a team. I say we judge Murray in a couple of years.

BTW, for those of you who want to be Virtual Sens GM, this report by Forbes Magazine "The Business of Hockey" provides a useful snapshot of the financial picture of all NHL teams.

The Sens link here:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/31/nhl08_Ottawa-Senators_318444.html
(I suggest you ignore the writer's comments about Filip Kuba being 6'5" and some of his gratuitous remarks about the GM losing his job...but the facts and figures are IMHO fascinating.)

As you all know, part of a GM's job is to ensure that the team meets its fiscal objectives as well.

You'll note that according to Forbes, Ottawa's budget for player salaries, $48MM in 2004, has gone up progressively since the lockout, from 42MM in 2006 to 54MM in 2008. Coincidentally, the Senators have been sliding in the standings for the last three years.

As an interesting point of comparison, the Red Wings' player expenditures shown here, went from $80MM in 2004 to $49MM in 2006 and have moved north just $4MM since, and was unchanged from last year to this one.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/31/nhl08_Detroit-Red-Wings_314898.html

So if part of your mandate is to make what you spend deliver maximum result, as Virtual Sens GM, what do YOU do?

davetherave wrote:BTW, for those of you who want to be Virtual Sens GM, this report by Forbes Magazine "The Business of Hockey" provides a useful snapshot of the financial picture of all NHL teams.

The Sens link here:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/31/nhl08_Ottawa-Senators_318444.html
(I suggest you ignore the writer's comments about Filip Kuba being 6'5" and some of his gratuitous remarks about the GM losing his job...but the facts and figures are IMHO fascinating.)

As you all know, part of a GM's job is to ensure that the team meets its fiscal objectives as well.

You'll note that according to Forbes, Ottawa's budget for player salaries, $48MM in 2004, has gone up progressively since the lockout, from 42MM in 2006 to 54MM in 2008. Coincidentally, the Senators have been sliding in the standings for the last three years.

As an interesting point of comparison, the Red Wings' player expenditures shown here, went from $80MM in 2004 to $49MM in 2006 and have moved north just $4MM since, and was unchanged from last year to this one.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/31/nhl08_Detroit-Red-Wings_314898.html

So if part of your mandate is to make what you spend deliver maximum result, as Virtual Sens GM, what do YOU do?

Didn't we already spend 19 pages talking about what we'd do? lol

I'd hire Detroit's front office staff and get out of the way.

MurderOnIce wrote:
To be honest Dave, I read it the same as Cash. I am not sure I would make a blanket statement that Holland is a better manager. They have drafted well for sure but they have also had an owner with deep pockets prior to the cap and have benefitted from the most consistently successful defenceman in the last 20 years. IMO they will slip down huge once Lidstrom retires. Additionally Holland has been on the job for a long time. Murray has only been here as GM for less than 2 years. I think it takes 4 to 5 for a GM to completely have his stamp on a team. I say we judge Murray in a couple of years.

MOI, if you read it that way, then I respectfully suggest you've missed my point as well.

I base my opinion of Holland on what he has accomplished with Red Wings in terms of managing his assets. Ken Hollland and his team have consistently kept the Red Wings at an elite level as a hockey team over the last decade, winning two Stanley Cups and several Conference Championships in the process. Holland himself has three Stanley Cups as a GM since he took over the Wings in 1998.

Bryan Murray has not achieved that level of success on any team of which he been GM.

As for your suggestion that "it takes 4 or 5 years for a GM to put his stamp on the team"--which was Bryan Murray's stated justification for his own approach--Peter Chiarelli and Paul Holmgren's success in less than three years, would tend to contradict that perspective.

Again, IMHO it all depends if you are willing to look at the situation objectively.

And again, this is not meant to turn into a referendum on Bryan Murray's abilities. I used Ken Holland as a benchmark of excellence among hockey executives. That's it.

hemlock wrote:
Didn't we already spend 19 pages talking about what we'd do? lol

I'd hire Detroit's front office staff and get out of the way.

...and a great discussion it has been so far... thanks everyone!

Not sure if it matters what you do at this point - other than hording draft picks like there's no tomorrow. I can let Murray slide by trading SJ's 1st rounder for Campoli, but at the same time we need to follow the model of drafting talent, developing it and then having it play in the NHL for cheap.

There are a couple of nice players in the 30 range of this draft. They're not kidding when they say it's a deep draft. I said it before - and I'll say it again - you have to trust your scouts.

That said, there's no way that your payroll is going down now. Even if you trade Spezza for a pick, there's going to be holes to fill, there's the Fisher, Kelly, Vermette, Alfie, Heatley, Phillips, Volchenkov etc. Some of these are moveable, but you'll need a solid 45 million in cap space to put together a team that's worth anything. Then you need to step back and realize how good the attendance has been and how hurtful gutting the team could be.

If Spezza isn't the guy, you move on, but you use your instincts (Murray) and you use your scouts properly.

It's tempting to put a failing grade on Bryan Murray. The cons probably outweigh the pros, but at the same time, he's added a couple of pieces to the prospect cupboard that have the potential to start turning this franchise back to a playoff team.

The Cons:

-Trading Joe Corvo, who at the time had 2 more years at 2.75 million. A bargain for what he brought to the table. Acquiring Stillman was fantastic - if he did what he should have done and tied him down to a contract the second he acquired him. 3 years, 9 million - on the spot. Don't wait, there's very little good to come of that. You've done your scouting, you've identified this guy as a guy you want on the roster, he's waived his NTC, you have to ensure he stays. Commodore sucked, but the deal was a good one - minus not extending Stillman. I'm quite critical of that to this day. Why did you even bother? Did you think those two alone would take us out of the Dung we were in? You wasted a first round pick by trading Corvo and getting nothing back essentially.

-Letting Stillman go. ^ See above paragraph - not good.

-Being too scared to make a move this summer - and getting caught holding your weiner when all is said and done. San Jose? Problems on the back end? No problem, Rob Blake and Danny Boyle. Bang, top of the conference/league. Stillman gone? No problem, we'll sign Jarkko Ruutu? A good signing, but a depth one at best.

-Complete and utter mishandling of the Gerber/Emery situation. Should have traded Gerber when Emery was returning. If Emery doesn't work and you end up buying him out - at least you're not saddled with a 4 million dollar contract in the AHL.

-Hired John Paddock. Mulligan here, I can see why he did it. Why disrupt too much behind the bench.

-Fired Paddock too late - I mean...come on. It should have been done ions before it was.

-Hired Craig Hartsburg. Better be careful Murray. When no one is really celebrating the hiring, instead people are wondering why a seasoned vet wasn't brought it - not great. It could have worked, but honestly after the Paddock thing, it should have been someone with a wealth of experience.

-Fired Craig Hartsburg way too late. Wake up man. Come on!

-Didn't send Emery home, or waive him to Bingo the instant he started to cause an issue. Like right away, gone. We'll take Goalie X as the backup to Gerber. This was all handled so poorly...

-Chris Kelly was diddling redundant. You already blew your wad on Fisher, Spezza and Heatley - what the Diddle? What are you doing?

-The Diddle is Filip Kuba and Alex Picard? What the heck? We needed a number one, not a number 4 and number 7. < This Dung leads to a number two piece of Dung (boo!)

The Pros:

-Great contracts for a prolific, young center and a back-to-back 50/50 man. Great. No one was complaining around here (that I know of).

-I'll give Murray the Mike Fisher contract. Hartnell kind of franked up our entire design. In hindsight, it was ludicrous, but at the time Murray felt he need the grit to go with the silk.

-Signed Jason Smith. Now the pro to this is that we got a great leader and a warrior - the con is that we didn't use the money on a killer number one D-man.

-Sign Sharko Ruutu. Again, great signing, great term - but you have to do a little more that just that in the off-season.

-His drafting have put us back on almost a level playing field. The two years that he was in charge, he produced solid prospects - a good number of whom have a chance to play in the NHL. Including E.Karlsson, Weircioch, Caparusso, O'Brien and Z.Smith.


If Muckler had drafted a little better, I don't think there would have been the ridiculous need to draft so surgically - and we'd probably have a lot more freedom than we do right now.

It's half and half both of their faults right now - but Murray still has the fruits of his drafting - and hopefully the fruit of his latest trade in Campoli.

Diiiidle, that was long. Sorry. :****:

I haven't invested a tonne of thought into it, but here are some things I'd do:

I'd try to get rid of one of the big salaries. Alfredsson is obviously a no-go, and I've been pretty clear in my preference of Spezza over Heatley, despite Heatley recently mopping the floor with Spezza playing-wise.

So, movero uno:
To Edmonton:
Heatley - makes sense, they've been wanting a sniper for Hemsky for a really long time and Heatley is absolutely one of the best.

To Ottawa:
Sam Gagner - finally a legit second line centre behind Spezza, with Marc Savard-esque qualities and pretty high potential.
Jordan Eberle - Losing Heatley hurts, so you've got to try to replenish your wing depth. Eberle is a huge step in the right direction
Edmonton's first round pick

Most Edmonton fans I've talked to are pretty happy to extremely happy with this deal. You could perhaps even add more on Edmonton's side.

In addition to moving Heatley, I'd also try to move Fisher, although if you can't he's valuable to keep around as a role model.

At the deadline, Kuba goes for a first and Neil goes with a 4th (we have two) for a second.

Then, at the draft, I'd offer up Vermette, and the two first round picks for another shot at the top-7 in addition to our own (and perhaps more).

My targets would be MSP and Jared Cowen, since I think Hedman will be off the table. I'd like MSP in this scenario because with Spezza - Gagner - O'Brien - Bass our centre depth would be set for many, many years and MSP could hopefully develop into an Alfredsson replacement.

I'd also like Jared Cowen because he has the ability to be a franchise defenceman, which are almost impossible to acquire via trade and far too expensive on the open market. It'd be better to develop our own, and Cowen, Karlsson, Lee, Volchenkov, Wiercioch and Campoli/M. Karlsson could constitute a pretty awesome d-core in the future.

In the off-season, I'd pursue mentors for the younger kids. I'm obviously more interested in going with a youth movement, but I recognize also that the kids can develop more fully with role models to learn from. In that respect, I'd keep Jason Smith around and I'd also go after Mattias Ohlund, much as I think he's declining, so as to play a mentor's role. I'd avoid JayBo because I think he's going to be far, far too expensive.

So, my sort of ideal team of the near-future:

Alfredsson (mentor) - Spezza - Zubov
Eberle - Gagner - MSP
Z. Smith - O'Brien - Foligno
Winchester - Bass - whomever

Cowen - Karlsson
Campoli - Volchenkov
Lee - Wiercioch

Elliott
whomever

It probably wouldn't be particularly competitive next year, but I think it would set us up well for the long-term and the non-competitiveness next year could also result in more talented added.

^also, I'm fully aware that that probably isn't realistic.

Oh...were we supposed to do it that way - and if so...did I do it in the other 19 pages lol.

I don't know what I'd do with the forwards yet to be honest. I think I would trade Jason Spezza over Dany Heatley if I had to. Heatley is a machine, he'll constantly be a threat for 50 for the rest of his career. He's friggin streaky, but I'd rather take my chance on getting an 80 point center from the free market - or via trade - than trying to replace a 50 goal guy.

I'd still try to keep them both though. I maintain with Karlsson and possibly Wiercioch coming up, the Sens as we know they will come alive. Hopefully Campoli comes in and adds a spark in the meantime.

It's not really a decision if J-Bo agrees to come here July 1. I'm doing it, 7 X 7, 7.5 X 5, whatever. Doesn't matter. He's the guy you're trying to draft. Just get him and watch the Diddle out when he and Karlsson are together and Wiercioch and Campoli/Volchenkov are the 2nd pair. We're coming at you in waves man.

The cost of J-Bo? Probably Vermette and Kelly (because I can't move Fisher...yet ), but Fisher's time will come too. I'm getting a diddling plugger for line 3. Axelsson? Pahlsson? Grier? Whatever, these guys are a dime a dozen. I don't like losing Vermette, but I will.

So in Fantasyland, this would be my lineup:

Heatley - Spezza - Alfie
Foligno/Zubov - Fisher - Comrie
Foligno/Zubov - Regin - Shannon (eat it, we're coming at you fast )
Ruutu - Bass - Donovan

Schubert (you heard me, I need the cheap utility man)

J-Bo - Campoli/Lee
Volchenkov - Campoli/Lee
Phillips - 3rd pairing UFA/M.Karlsson

Elliot
Auld

I would pray for one of the firecracker forwards to draft and develop. Obviously, I'm hoping that one or two of Z.Smith, Caparusso or O'Brien develop as well. And I'm also hoping that one of Wiercioch or E.Karsslon develop into a top pairing D-man so I can remove Lee from beside J-Bo (where I guarantee he learns a lot).

EDIT: I never did get Axelsson (or comparable) - but if Boston can't re-sign him, I'd love to get him for line 3 with Regin and Shannon and move Foligno up - or move Shannon up with Fisher - something like that.

I cant stand Heatley, but the guy scores, doesnt matter what the hell he does, he scores. I wish he didnt, but he does. Can't teach that, cant work on that.

^ Look at that ~ 52 million bucks for that lineup. Such bang for the buck!

Neely4Life wrote:I cant stand Heatley, but the guy scores, doesnt matter what the hell he does, he scores. I wish he didnt, but he does. Can't teach that, cant work on that.

That's how I'd look at it if we're getting to the short strokes.

I can find my Andy MacDonald (I know he re-signed, but you know what I mean), but I can't really find my Dany Heatley replacement.

Meh...keep 'em both, or don't. That's the best kind of 'trade one of them' scenario I can offer.

Heatley is 28 to Spezza's 25.

It's possible that when Karlsson/the draftee this year/Wiercioch become impact players, Heatley stops being one and is reduced to a more expensive current Shanahan.

TOugh choices are going to be made, I dont know what I would do... so...

asq2 wrote:Heatley is 28 to Spezza's 25.

It's possible that when Karlsson/the draftee this year/Wiercioch become impact players, Heatley stops being one and is reduced to a more expensive current Shanahan.

At 30? Or 31? I just don't see that personally. But again, if we can swing it to keep both...wow, look out, I think there would be goals aplenty in the near future.

Here's my shot...I am focusing on reducing the salary cap to $50MM or less. I see 2009-10 as a transition year.

March 4:
Fisher>CLB for Filatov, Kiesla
Kuba, Neil, Kelly>MTL for Subban, Higgins
Schubert waived

June:
Sign Dwayne Roloson to 1 year deal 3.5MM (as mentor for Elliott)
Comrie walks, wants too much $

Total cost 48MM-50MM for line up 2009-10:

Spezza-Heatley-Alfredsson
Vermette-Ruutu-Foligno
Filatov-Shannon-Higgins
Bass/Regin-Donovan-Petersson

Volchenkov-Kiesla
Phillips-Subban
Smith-Campoli
Lee

(Picard and Bell to Bingo)

Roloson-Elliott-Auld