The Future of....Bryan Murray & Cory Clouston

Big Ev wrote:Don't shoot the messenger, that's what the entire TSN panel agreed to. BM does have some success building, but all the teams start doing well once he leaves, and not all of it is because of him only (Anaheim was partly his but more of Burke's doing because of the D he assembled).

Plus like I've said before, age is catching up to him. Don't know if he can still do the job after this season, maybe 1 more max if he comes back as GM.

He'll retain his role as President or whatever else he has.

Michallica wrote:you guys actually think murray would/should be allowed to find another head coach?

jawal wrote:

Michallica wrote:you guys actually think murray would/should be allowed to find another head coach?

No. Despite Murray's past success, a big negative mark on his Ottawa service is his choice of head coaches. Paddock and Hartsburg were disasters. Clouston is a good coach IMO but wrong coach at this time for Ottawa.

I think Murray will be promoted to VP in charge of hockey operations, the Sens get a new GM and the new GM hires new coach.

marakh wrote:

Big Ev wrote:Don't shoot the messenger, that's what the entire TSN panel agreed to. BM does have some success building, but all the teams start doing well once he leaves, and not all of it is because of him only (Anaheim was partly his but more of Burke's doing because of the D he assembled).

Plus like I've said before, age is catching up to him. Don't know if he can still do the job after this season, maybe 1 more max if he comes back as GM.

He'll retain his role as President or whatever else he has.

Give me Getzlaf, Perry and Penner on entry level contracts and I'm gonna sign you Niedermeyer's bro.
Now, which of Muckler's picks led the team in playoffs points since the lockout? I can't blame Murray for patching holes on this team so that's why I don't mind having him back. In fact, I want him back.
Proonger and Beauchemin were sure awesome acquisitions, but when you have basement well built, finishing the house is way easier.

Big Ev wrote:

marakh wrote:

Big Ev wrote:Don't shoot the messenger, that's what the entire TSN panel agreed to. BM does have some success building, but all the teams start doing well once he leaves, and not all of it is because of him only (Anaheim was partly his but more of Burke's doing because of the D he assembled).

Plus like I've said before, age is catching up to him. Don't know if he can still do the job after this season, maybe 1 more max if he comes back as GM.

He'll retain his role as President or whatever else he has.

Give me Getzlaf, Perry and Penner on entry level contracts and I'm gonna sign you Niedermeyer's bro.
Now, which of Muckler's picks led the team in playoffs points since the lockout? I can't blame Murray for patching holes on this team so that's why I don't mind having him back. In fact, I want him back.
Proonger and Beauchemin were sure awesome acquisitions, but when you have basement well built, finishing the house is way easier.

So basically Murray is not a finisher. He couldn't get the job done in Anaheim, so they replaced him. Burke got it done and he deserves a ton of credit. He has actually won something, which Murray never has.

Michallica wrote:Anyone else getting the sense that the Euge is gonna re-sign this guy to another year as GM? I certainly am. He's been given the keys to so many key decisions that its gotta be a gentleman's agreement that he's coming back as GM.

Do I mind it? Not so much...but I want this fresh start to come asap. This means the coach. If Murray comes back, does it make sense for him to go find another coach? We know Murray is not going to be around for too long, but Clouston's contract is up after this season. Seems like a foregone conclusion that he'll be gone but I digress....what sense does it make to hire somebody new only to get rid of him when a new GM comes in?

Hoags wrote:Murray's trade for Anderson shows he can win a trade, although it's Sherman who wanted Elliott, BM did originally call asking about Anderson.

I'm really weary of getting a (one step forward two steps back) GM. Murray's been rebuilding the team since he got here while trying to keep us competitive. Not an easy thing to do.

Sometimes I wonder what an acceptable failure rate for an NHL GM is, I can't think of a single GM whose moves pan out except Ken Holland.

Hoags wrote:Murray's trade for Anderson shows he can win a trade, although it's Sherman who wanted Elliott, BM did originally call asking about Anderson.

I'm really weary of getting a (one step forward two steps back) GM. Murray's been rebuilding the team since he got here while trying to keep us competitive. Not an easy thing to do.

Sometimes I wonder what an acceptable failure rate for an NHL GM is, I can't think of a single GM whose moves pan out except Ken Holland.

marakh wrote:Like I said, how many trades does Holland do? Not a lot. The organization just develops players well and they have an awesome coach, that's it.

marakh wrote:

Hoags wrote:Murray's trade for Anderson shows he can win a trade, although it's Sherman who wanted Elliott, BM did originally call asking about Anderson.

I'm really weary of getting a (one step forward two steps back) GM. Murray's been rebuilding the team since he got here while trying to keep us competitive. Not an easy thing to do.

Sometimes I wonder what an acceptable failure rate for an NHL GM is, I can't think of a single GM whose moves pan out except Ken Holland.

Like I said, how many trades does Holland do? Not a lot. The organization just develops players well and they have an awesome coach, that's it.

Big Ev wrote:

marakh wrote:

Hoags wrote:Murray's trade for Anderson shows he can win a trade, although it's Sherman who wanted Elliott, BM did originally call asking about Anderson.

I'm really weary of getting a (one step forward two steps back) GM. Murray's been rebuilding the team since he got here while trying to keep us competitive. Not an easy thing to do.

Sometimes I wonder what an acceptable failure rate for an NHL GM is, I can't think of a single GM whose moves pan out except Ken Holland.

Like I said, how many trades does Holland do? Not a lot. The organization just develops players well and they have an awesome coach, that's it.

Yeah yeah, I'm tired of hearing about the Red Wings. The model franchise blah blah.

Oh and, I could coach that team and they would still be up there in the standings.

marakh wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

marakh wrote:

Hoags wrote:Murray's trade for Anderson shows he can win a trade, although it's Sherman who wanted Elliott, BM did originally call asking about Anderson.

I'm really weary of getting a (one step forward two steps back) GM. Murray's been rebuilding the team since he got here while trying to keep us competitive. Not an easy thing to do.

Sometimes I wonder what an acceptable failure rate for an NHL GM is, I can't think of a single GM whose moves pan out except Ken Holland.

Like I said, how many trades does Holland do? Not a lot. The organization just develops players well and they have an awesome coach, that's it.

Yeah yeah, I'm tired of hearing about the Red Wings. The model franchise blah blah.

Oh and, I could coach that team and they would still be up there in the standings.

I guess you could coach that 2003 Anaheim team to the SCF game 7 too?

marakh wrote:
Like I said, how many trades does Holland do? Not a lot. The organization just develops players well and they have an awesome coach, that's it.