GM Speculation

[PromoTheRobot]

 

I am not desecrating anything. DR worried about winning trades because he thought he had to win trades to win the cup. That scenario I invented is not only plausible, I bet you money I could have traded our 2006 pick for a #4 defender.

Then bully for you. You win the 2006 Stanley Cup of your imagination.

 

Do I want my GM to worry about winning trades? You bet. It's a big part of the job along with everything else. Would you prefer a GM that builds a good team then gets bent over at the trade deadline?

[qwksndmonster]

Then bully for you. You win the 2006 Stanley Cup of your imagination.

 

Do I want my GM to worry about winning trades? You bet. It's a big part of the job along with everything else. Would you prefer a GM that builds a good team then gets bent over at the trade deadline?

Again the point is sailing over your head. Nobody is saying winning trades isn't important.

[TrueBlueGED]

Then bully for you. You win the 2006 Stanley Cup of your imagination.

 

Do I want my GM to worry about winning trades? You bet. It's a big part of the job along with everything else. Would you prefer a GM that builds a good team then gets bent over at the trade deadline?

 

If the alternative is a GM that builds a mediocre team and wins the trade deadline, yes, I'll take the guy who can build a good team.

[nfreeman]

Anaheim won the cup with a team built by the Murrays.

Ottawa and the Sabres were both built to peak in the back half of the past decade, both came close, neither got it done.

Ottawa has done a better job of transitioning than Buffalo, despite the fact it has a whack job owner.

 

Looks like Tim Murray has handled the talent evaluation for Uncle Bryan and I guess I like what has done with the cards he's been dealt.

Also seems to be a no-BS type in his interviews.

 

Well, Murray gets full marks for Getzlaf and Perry, but Niedermayer and Pronger were the guts of that Cup-winning Ducks team -- and both were acquired after Murray left.

 

I agree, with some chagrin, that the Senators have done a better job transitioning than the Sabres have -- but it seems more of an incremental difference than a quantum-leap difference. The Sens have 4 playoff appearances and 1 series win in the 7 years since Black Sunday as opposed to 2 appearances and zero series wins for the Sabres.

 

I guess I just wanted to see some rings, or some banners, or something that I could feel confident about.

 

This feels more like Dick Jauron than Bill Cowher.

[LGR4GM]

Then bully for you. You win the 2006 Stanley Cup of your imagination.

 

Do I want my GM to worry about winning trades? You bet. It's a big part of the job along with everything else. Would you prefer a GM that builds a good team then gets bent over at the trade deadline?

I will spell it out then. Darcy Regier, always won trades because he only made safe sound trades. He never gambled and he never built a team post 2007. His biggest gamble was probably the Kassian/Hodgson trade. He wasn't willing to gamble and lose a trade here or their on the way to success. Sometimes you have to lose a trade to win it all. That is not saying you should go out and lose trades or the gm shouldn't be worried about winning them. What that is saying is what is the bigger picture? My point that you brushed off illustrated my point.

 

Continue on your Darcy defense crusade and continue to bastardize my point. I am not sure I recognize it now.

[dEnnis the Menace]

Then bully for you. You win the 2006 Stanley Cup of your imagination.

 

Do I want my GM to worry about winning trades? You bet. It's a big part of the job along with everything else. Would you prefer a GM that builds a good team then gets bent over at the trade deadline?

 

his point is, you don't need to only look for trades that seem like a win on the surface. In '06, on the surface, that kind of trade he pointed out seems like a loss on the surface, but given the circumstances, having that depth would have been a win in the long run.

 

The knock on DR that they are referring to was his inability to look long term at trades. He only looked for the on the surface win in the trade it seemed. I want my GM to make smart trades that will help in the long run. That, to me, is winning a trade.

 

/snip.

 

and I see you were spelling it out too.

[Taro T]

Losing trades also does not help win the Stanley Cup.

 

I know it is not popular to say anything nice about Darcy, but I never understood how making good trades is a bad quality in a GM.

 

In the end, I think that we also going to be happy with the last trade he made.

 

Just my two cents.

The issue for most of us isn't that he won trades. That obviously is a good thing. The issue is more of wondering what deals which would have helped the team weren't made because there wasn't a 'guaranteed' win at the time the trade was made.

 

Sometimes sitting pat is more costly than making a slightly bad trade.

[MattPie]

"Went down to the cemetery lookin' for love"

 

Got there and Darcy was buried, I had to dig him up.

[Assquatch]

But how is getting better value from a trade a bad thing?

When the part you're acquiring doesn't fit a plan to build a well-rounded team. I can get great deals on carbon-fiber shovel handles all day long which is great if I'm in business to flip them but if I'm supposed to move snow I'd better get some parts to do the dirty work.

[TrueBlueGED]

Well, Murray gets full marks for Getzlaf and Perry, but Niedermayer and Pronger were the guts of that Cup-winning Ducks team -- and both were acquired after Murray left.

 

I agree, with some chagrin, that the Senators have done a better job transitioning than the Sabres have -- but it seems more of an incremental difference than a quantum-leap difference. The Sens have 4 playoff appearances and 1 series win in the 7 years since Black Sunday as opposed to 2 appearances and zero series wins for the Sabres.

 

I guess I just wanted to see some rings, or some banners, or something that I could feel confident about.

 

This feels more like Dick Jauron than Bill Cowher.

 

http://iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/debunking-the-proven-winner-myth-in-the-national-hockey-league#.Us17OvRDt8E

 

This article is relatively lengthy, and sample size will always be an issue with this type of thing (championship-winning GMs don't generally lead a bunch of different teams after they win their first), but I submit it for your consideration nonetheless.

[nfreeman]

In my defense, I did say that a GM should be judged by results eventually. But I'm not convinced an assistant GM can be properly judged by those same results when we don't know how much influence they had on the moves that were made, nor do we know what he himself would want to do that wasn't done. And while we certainly have seen enough here to know an open checkbook doesn't guarantee success, I think we can agree that consistently being limited to the bottom third of the league in payroll is going to limit how good we can expect a team to be from year to year, no? And we know for a fact that Tim is GM of Ottawa's AHL affiliate, which won the Calder Cup in 2011. So there's that :)

 

Lastly, I disagree with the implication that Benning was the #1 choice. Boston gave LaFontaine a window to speak with Benning, which LaFontaine allowed to expire. If Benning were truly the top choice, I'd think LaFontaine would have gotten it done within the window given.

 

The point about Benning was that it was quoted somewhere today that Boston wouldn't let Benning leave until after the Olympics, which was too late for PLF -- and thus he let the window expire (i.e. the post-Olympic timing made it a non-starter for him). I do think this leads to the implication that Benning was the top choice.

 

It would have been hard and perhaps a bit disrespectful for Ottawa to push out Bryan Murray at this time, when his retirement probably is within the next few years.

 

I blame Tim's motivation to leave not on Bryan staying around longer, but on the much better ownership situation in Buffalo than Ottawa.

 

Pat LaFontaine, with backing from Pegula, just crushed the Sen's succession plan for their front office. Definitely a perk.

 

Bonus: it's within the realm of possibility that Bryan Murray later becomes a Senior Adviser for the Buffalo Sabres, a la Scotty Bowman for the Blackhawks.

 

Pegula and LaFontaine want good hockey people working in the front office, and I believe that, over time, they'll get them.

 

I agree with the bolded part, but not the bonus. Mumbles has a few solid accomplishments in the NHL, but nothing that makes me excited about him being a consigliere.

 

So winning trades is non-sensical? Let's just give back Girginson because he came from the #1 pick we got from Nashville for Gaustad. (Why no 57-page CoHo vs Kashian thread for that deal?) You know, the pick no one in their right mind said DR could get.

 

This desire to crap on anything Darcy did is generating some pretty non-sensical posts too.

 

PTR

 

It's not a desire to crap on anything DR did. It's the simple truth that "winning the trade deadline" is a nonsensical concept. You don't get a GD thing from a bunch of yobs on TSN saying that you got more picks/prospects for your good NHL players than they thought you would. You get wins in the playoffs by building a good team, which arises out of a variety of methods.

[MILFHUNTER#518]

The reaction on this Senator fan forum tells me all I need to know...

 

http://hfboards.hock...d.php?t=1550847

[TrueBlueGED]

The point about Benning was that it was quoted somewhere today that Boston wouldn't let Benning leave until after the Olympics, which was too late for PLF -- and thus he let the window expire (i.e. the post-Olympic timing made it a non-starter for him). I do think this leads to the implication that Benning was the top choice.

 

I still disagree with your reading of this. Benning being eliminated from the list of candidates because LaFontaine didn't want to wait until after the Olympics to name a GM is much different than Benning being the preferred candidate and not getting the job only because LaFontaine wanted to hire sooner than later.

[Hoss]

@SunGarrioch: I believe Tim Murray is meeting with the Sabres today This hire has to get owner Terry Pegula's approval. #Sens

 

 

[nfreeman]

I still disagree with your reading of this. Benning being eliminated from the list of candidates because LaFontaine didn't want to wait until after the Olympics to name a GM is much different than Benning being the preferred candidate and not getting the job only because LaFontaine wanted to hire sooner than later.

 

You're certainly right that A does not necessarily equal B. However, when you add the fact that a number of reputable sources (including Elliotte Friedman) were reporting a few days ago that it was going to be Benning, and then we find out that Boston said it would have to wait until after the Olympics, and then Murray is chosen -- it's a pretty plausible inference, IMHO.

[TrueBlueGED]

You're certainly right that A does not necessarily equal B. However, when you add the fact that a number of reputable sources (including Elliotte Friedman) were reporting a few days ago that it was going to be Benning, and then we find out that Boston said it would have to wait until after the Olympics, and then Murray is chosen -- it's a pretty plausible inference, IMHO.

 

That's fair. I will say that I would be quite disappointed if LaFontaine chose to forego his top choice because of the timing of the hire--I agree with what Tom Webster said earlier in the thread, that getting the right guy should trump every other concern, even if it means waiting until the offseason.

[Hoss]

 

 

The point about Benning was that it was quoted somewhere today that Boston wouldn't let Benning leave until after the Olympics, which was too late for PLF -- and thus he let the window expire (i.e. the post-Olympic timing made it a non-starter for him). I do think this leads to the implication that Benning was the top choice.

 

Maybe I'm wrong but wasn't the report that we missed the window on Benning and can't talk to him until the OFFSEASON?

 

Anyways, I don't think he was the front runner. If he was they wouldn't have missed the window. And there are reports that they have certain unspecified issues with Benning that PLF couldn't ignore.

[LGR4GM]

The reaction on this Senator fan forum tells me all I need to know...

 

http://hfboards.hock...d.php?t=1550847

Tim Murray- "Its a done deal. 4yrs. 1.1 million. Hes taking Dorion and Murphy with him."

That second quote was found rummaging through the forum. Not sure how true that it is but I somehow doubt the Sens would let Murray abscond with half of their upper management team.

[dEnnis the Menace]

That second quote was found rummaging through the forum. Not sure how true that it is but I somehow doubt the Sens would let Murray abscond with half of their upper management team.

 

what do those guys do? hopefully not scout, as we have so many of those already, don't we?

[TrueBlueGED]

what do those guys do? hopefully not scout, as we have so many of those already, don't we?

 

I believe Dorion is their directer of amateur scouting. While I'm with LGR in that I'd be surprised if Ottawa let him leave with Murray, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Murray wanted to replace Devine with his own guy.

[FolignosJock]

According to that site this is a reputable source. I like it!

[26CornerBlitz]

I believe Dorion is their directer of amateur scouting. While I'm with LGR in that I'd be surprised if Ottawa let him leave with Murray, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Murray wanted to replace Devine with his own guy.

 

@SunGarrioch

I don't see Pierre Dorion leaving to go with Tim Murray if he gets the job. I believe he and Randy Lee will move up the ladder. #Sens

[Hoss]

One poster on there said he wouldn't be surprised to see Luke Richardson become our next coach. Anybody know anything about him?

 

Not that there is any real reason to believe it'll happen. Just wondering.

[nfreeman]

Maybe I'm wrong but wasn't the report that we missed the window on Benning and can't talk to him until the OFFSEASON?

 

Anyways, I don't think he was the front runner. If he was they wouldn't have missed the window. And there are reports that they have certain unspecified issues with Benning that PLF couldn't ignore.

 

Well, it was from Harrington, so take it with however much salt you like:

 

 

The Sabres were also known to be high on Boston assistant GM Jim Benning, a former Buffalo director of amateur scouting.

 

But the Bruins apparently did not want Benning to leave for another job until after the Olympics because GM Peter Chiarelli is on the executive board of Team Canada.

 

The Sabres, meanwhile, were unwilling to wait that long for Benning because the NHL trade deadline is March 5, just a week after the Sochi Games end.

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/feed/on-snow-day-sabres-close-in-on-murray-20140107

 

Notice how he uses the word "apparently" -- I interpret this as "I don't have any of my own sources on this, but someone else said it, so I'm going to use it."

 

In any case, I doubt we'll ever know whether Benning was the top choice.

[Brawndo]

That's fair. I will say that I would be quite disappointed if LaFontaine chose to forego his top choice because of the timing of the hire--I agree with what Tom Webster said earlier in the thread, that getting the right guy should trump every other concern, even if it means waiting until the offseason.

 

Agreed, if Benning was PLF Top Choice he would have waited until the end of the Olympic Break. If a trade deal came up in the meantime, Benning would have had a say in the final decision.