Confirmed with Link: Brady Tkachuk - The decider: signs 3 year ELC

[BondraTime]

One interview...(TSN 1200 Sept 13th)

Ian Mendes: Why is Pierre Dorion so excited about Brady Tkachuk?

Pierre Dorion: We're excited about BT because he brings the whole package. Was there possibly a player at pick number 4 who could have more talent, more skill....maybe. But what we're trying to achieve with the Ottawa Senators with our rebuild, is that we're trying to build character, leadership, accountability. Those three things are on a scale of 1 to 10 for Brady Tkachuk, are 12. But on top of that he is a talented hockey player.


Garrioch Article....(Sept 23rd)

Ideally, the Senators want the right mix, and that involves three factors.
“Leadership, chemistry and character,” Dorion said. “Leadership is a key fundamental. Some people are born leaders, but when you have a good culture you develop leaders, and that’s what we’re trying to do.
“When it comes to character, you look at a recent draft pick like Brady Tkachuk. There might have been more skilled players around, but we felt that character and getting the whole package was important. Chemistry is important because you need the players to care for one another.

_____

So let me get this straight. Dorion is a bumbling idiot, but I should only believe what he says if it backs up what you're trying to say here, and not if it backs up what I am trying to say, despite within a minute me being able to pull up multiple quotes from different interviews backing up the narrative that they possible passed on (their words not mine) players with more skill?

Well that should put that to bed

 

[danielpalfredsson]

I believe that in the same interview, and I am paraphrasing, Dorion also stated that they are done drafting skilled players and will focus on character and intangibles going forward as that is what it takes to win in this league. I will look for the exact quote.

Thanks.

This is ridiculous. I've had three posters attribute things I never actually said to my post. I assume because the few people who tried to push the narrative that Brady Tkachuk's potential is some weird Curtis Lazar/Chris Kelly 4th line leader hybrid really got to them.

 

[Ice-Tray]

One interview...(TSN 1200 Sept 13th)

Ian Mendes: Why is Pierre Dorion so excited about Brady Tkachuk?

Pierre Dorion: We're excited about BT because he brings the whole package. Was there possibly a player at pick number 4 who could have more talent, more skill....maybe. But what we're trying to achieve with the Ottawa Senators with our rebuild, is that we're trying to build character, leadership, accountability. Those three things are on a scale of 1 to 10 for Brady Tkachuk, are 12. But on top of that he is a talented hockey player.


Garrioch Article....(Sept 23rd)

Ideally, the Senators want the right mix, and that involves three factors.
“Leadership, chemistry and character,” Dorion said. “Leadership is a key fundamental. Some people are born leaders, but when you have a good culture you develop leaders, and that’s what we’re trying to do.
“When it comes to character, you look at a recent draft pick like Brady Tkachuk. There might have been more skilled players around, but we felt that character and getting the whole package was important. Chemistry is important because you need the players to care for one another.

_____

So let me get this straight. Dorion is a bumbling idiot, but I should only believe what he says if it backs up what you're trying to say here, and not if it backs up what I am trying to say, despite within a minute me being able to pull up multiple quotes from different interviews backing up the narrative that they possible passed on (their words not mine) players with more skill?

"Whole package" you're glossing over this term when you shouldn't.

"more skilled" does not equal better hockey player.

Using the loose definition of 'skilled' Hoffman is more "skilled" than Stone, but you wouldn't choose Hoffman over Stone now would you?

We chose to draft the Stone over the Hoffman, not exactly a skilled player over non skilled, more like the better all around hockey player with a bunch of intangibles, over the guy with a better shot and speed.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

"Whole package" you're glossing over this term when you shouldn't.

"more skilled" does not equal better hockey player.

Using the loose definition of 'skilled' Hoffman is more "skilled" than Stone, but you wouldn't choose Hoffman over Stone now would you?

We chose to draft the Stone over the Hoffman, not exactly a skilled player over non skilled, more like the better all around hockey player with a bunch of intangibles, over the guy with a better shot and speed.

No I am not. It really sounds like you should be having this debate with Pierre Dorion not me. These are things he has said as an explanation for his actions. They are very clear. If you want to argue with Dorion about his definition of skill, go to the CTC and find the guy.

You're trying to gas light and argue to win. Not argue to understand each other and have an actual discussion. This is beyond ridiculous that I can post the exact quotes I was referring (after it being insinuated that I was intentionally or unintentionally making them up), have the quotes be incredibly straight forward, and then have people still try to contort things to "win" an argument. An argument, that even more ridiculously was partially based on ideas that I don't even subscribe to that were never said in my post.

 

[BatherSeason]

No I am not. It really sounds like you should be having this debate with Pierre Dorion not me. These are things he has said as an explanation for his actions. They are very clear. If you want to argue with Dorion about his definition of skill, go to the CTC and find the guy.

You're trying to gas light and argue to win. Not argue to understand each other and have an actual discussion. This is beyond ridiculous that I can post the exact quotes I was referring (after it being insinuated that I was intentionally or unintentionally making them up), have the quotes be incredibly straight forward, and then have people still try to contort things to "win" an argument. An argument, that even more ridiculously was partially based on ideas that I don't even subscribe to that were never said in my post.

Dorion discussed exactly this at his availability to the bloggers:

A Night at the CTC -- Meeting Sens Brass

"It’s always having a good room. It’s always having the veterans that can lead the kids into buying into what we can do. At the same time, I’ve talked to our amateur staff and we’re not always going to draft the highest skilled guy. We’re going to grab the guy that can help us win the most and that comes with character and that’s something… those are intangibles that we’re always going to try and (find). It’s easier to say now, but sometimes when you get into the fifth, sixth or seventh round and sometimes you try and hit a home run with a skilled guy, we’re going to do less and less of that now. Because at the end of the day, most of them don’t pan out.”

 

[Sensung]

"Whole package" you're glossing over this term when you shouldn't.

"more skilled" does not equal better hockey player.

Using the loose definition of 'skilled' Hoffman is more "skilled" than Stone, but you wouldn't choose Hoffman over Stone now would you?

We chose to draft the Stone over the Hoffman, not exactly a skilled player over non skilled, more like the better all around hockey player with a bunch of intangibles, over the guy with a better shot and speed.

Why don't you ever post evidence to back your assertions?

Does it inhibit your ability to gaslight to actually have to back up your claims?

 

[swiftwin]

"Whole package" you're glossing over this term when you shouldn't.

"more skilled" does not equal better hockey player.

Using the loose definition of 'skilled' Hoffman is more "skilled" than Stone, but you wouldn't choose Hoffman over Stone now would you?

We chose to draft the Stone over the Hoffman, not exactly a skilled player over non skilled, more like the better all around hockey player with a bunch of intangibles, over the guy with a better shot and speed.

Considering we had both Hoffman and Stone on the same team, you would think it would help people understand the difference between a player with more shooting/skating/puckhandling "skill" and a player that is undeniably more effective overall due to having a complete package that isn't driven by the traditional shooting/skating/puckhandling "skills". Stone and Hoffman were basically at polar opposites of that spectrum.

 

[swiftwin]

Dorion discussed exactly this at his availability to the bloggers:

A Night at the CTC -- Meeting Sens Brass

"It’s always having a good room. It’s always having the veterans that can lead the kids into buying into what we can do. At the same time, I’ve talked to our amateur staff and we’re not always going to draft the highest skilled guy. We’re going to grab the guy that can help us win the most and that comes with character and that’s something… those are intangibles that we’re always going to try and (find). It’s easier to say now, but sometimes when you get into the fifth, sixth or seventh round and sometimes you try and hit a home run with a skilled guy, we’re going to do less and less of that now. Because at the end of the day, most of them don’t pan out.”

Because character and intangibles drive a certain skillset that makes them a better hockey player, period. Like I said earlier in the thread, the latest trend in hockey is dominated by pace, possession and net drive. The character and intangibles they're referring to are essential factors in that skillset. All that matters at the end of the day is the fact that we're drafting the player that can help us win the most. Not the player that is most likely to win a skills competition.

 

[Lenny the Lynx]

Listen I will crap on our owner and GM anytime the mood is right (which is almost always these days). But Im going to go out on a limb here and agree with Dorion that we made the right decision on the pick (or that is was at least not nearly as easy a call as some here would make it).

Some players just have "it", special something that makes them greater than the sum of their parts. And I think that Tkachuk is showing already that he is exactly one of those types of players. His attitude and style of play are going to help change the culture of this franchise in a super positive way imo.

Solid post. I like him so far, but not ready to put quite as high praise or expectations on him. He looks like he'll be a solid top 6 player with some character, and if this rebuild works we'll need a bunch of players of that caliber.

The topic about giving up the pick vs keeping for next year, it really does come down to probabilities vs the depth of each draft.
If somehow the Avs get Hughes there's going to be this BS about 'the Sens gave up Hughes for Tkachuk which really isnt fair.
As you point out, it's at best an 18.5% chance that pick gets the 1st overall. Less than 1/5. Most likely if they come last they pick 4th. So given that the organization was so high on Brady it was pretty reasonable to take the bird in hand.

Trading this pick in the first place was still a terrible, terrible move but picking 2018 vs 2019 I'm OK with

 

[slamigo]

Tkachuk is hard to dislike. He's high skilled, faster than I expected and puts on a show. Great pick from what I've seen so far.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Tkachuk is hard to dislike. He's high skilled, faster than I expected and puts on a show. Great pick from what I've seen so far.

He's probably going to be one of the more marketable players this team has had in a long time.

An anecdote I shared in the GDT for the previous pre-season game. The guy is so noticeable on the ice. There were a bunch of people behind me, who judging by their comments (and the fact they had no idea who #7 was) were probably pretty casual fans. They kept remarking about how good #7 was. He does a lot every time he is on the ice, I think the guy is gonna be a household name here in Ottawa. (The Tkachuk name helps...)

I was surprised when I came home and found out he only played 12 minutes. Just based on the impression he made on the ice, I didn't figure he played that little.

 

[Xspyrit]

We saw how Wilson allowed Washington to dominate over more skilled teams in TB and Pitts. He played a mighty role in their success.

We saw Tuch give absolutely FITS to Winnipeg and SJ.

Don't get me wrong, you still need a Kuznetsov and William Karlsson on C(as well as a Holtby or MAF in net)

but guys like Tkachuk tilt the ice in your favor if you're playing a team that you're similarly skilled to or they are a bit more skilled than you.

That's why I was over the moon when we drafted Tkachuk. I thought for sure it meant we keeping EK. Having both those guys on the team, and Stone, would have given up a tremendous diverse skill set.

Ah well.

What are you talking about? Building a core around

Stone, Duchene, Tkachuk
Karlsson, Chabot

Is a very bad idea

We absolutely had to go FULL rebuild.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

"Whole package" you're glossing over this term when you shouldn't.

"more skilled" does not equal better hockey player.

Using the loose definition of 'skilled' Hoffman is more "skilled" than Stone, but you wouldn't choose Hoffman over Stone now would you?

We chose to draft the Stone over the Hoffman, not exactly a skilled player over non skilled, more like the better all around hockey player with a bunch of intangibles, over the guy with a better shot and speed.

I don't consider Hoffman more skilled than Stone. Hockey IQ is a skill, and the most important one. more skilled means better hockey player,

 

[Hale The Villain]

Dorion discussed exactly this at his availability to the bloggers:

A Night at the CTC -- Meeting Sens Brass

"It’s always having a good room. It’s always having the veterans that can lead the kids into buying into what we can do. At the same time, I’ve talked to our amateur staff and we’re not always going to draft the highest skilled guy. We’re going to grab the guy that can help us win the most and that comes with character and that’s something… those are intangibles that we’re always going to try and (find). It’s easier to say now, but sometimes when you get into the fifth, sixth or seventh round and sometimes you try and hit a home run with a skilled guy, we’re going to do less and less of that now. Because at the end of the day, most of them don’t pan out.”

The bolded is really concerning because our worst picks, relative to their draft position, have been exactly those types of players:

Lazar, Englund, Cowen, White, Bowers (still early in the case of the latter two).

I'd much prefer the scouting staff focus on what they have proven to be good at, which is selecting players with high end skill and hockey sense.

And the part about not drafting skilled players in the later rounds hoping for a home run is absolutely moronic. I've never understood the attraction in drafting low skill low upside players in the latter rounds. They rarely work out and even when they do, they almost always become replacement level players ala Boro, Claesson, McCormick, Harpur, etc.. that don't significantly impact the game in a positive way.

Just like our track record in the top 2 rounds, our most successful picks in rounds 3-7 have been high skill players: Hoffman, Stone, Dzingel, Batherson, Wideman, etc.... we should be selecting more skilled players in the latter rounds, not less.

Apparently Dorion isn't content in destroying this team through his shortsighted trades and signings, he also wants to change the scouting staff (the only competent department in the organization) from focusing on what they've been successful at to what they havent been successful at. Unbelievable.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Anyway I love him and how he plays but he was still drafted too high. He's not an elite player and we passed on a lot of elite players to get him.

You get guys like Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Kuznetsov, Mackinnon first than you surround them with the Tkachucks.

Instead we're moving forward as Brady and Boro the faces of the franchise.

 

[Karl Prime]

I hope the team doesn't get a top 4 pick next June. Forget Hughes, if Colorado gets Cozens, Dach, Kakko, Broberg, or Podkolzin, and they turn out to be better than Tkachuk, then that's not really fair to Brady. I understand taking Brady because if a lot of things go right then this won't be a 28th-31st ranked team. But the hope that the team will be better would be easier to swallow if EK was here and he could at least help the team from October to February.

 

[HSF]

Anyway I love him and how he plays but he was still drafted too high. He's not an elite player and we passed on a lot of elite players to get him.

no we didn't

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

no we didn't

2018 + 2019 will have a lot of stars. especially 2019

exhibit A. this guy might not even go first.

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

What are you talking about? Building a core around

Stone, Duchene, Tkachuk
Karlsson, Chabot

Is a very bad idea

We absolutely had to go FULL rebuild.

Man... Chabot would have been the perfect number 2 to Erik Karlsson. Tkachuk the perfect number 2 to Stone and Logan Brown could be perfect number 2 to Duchene.

Karlsson was the vital piece. There's still a glimmer of hope.. I hope Melnyk sells or he experiences some devastating loss that makes him sell. I don't want him no harm or to go bankrupt but to sell.

 

[HSF]

2018 + 2019 will have a lot of stars. especially 2019

exhibit A. this guy might not even go first.

I already said Hughes or Kakko are probably the only two guys that have higher potential

 

[Ice-Tray]

No I am not. It really sounds like you should be having this debate with Pierre Dorion not me. These are things he has said as an explanation for his actions. They are very clear. If you want to argue with Dorion about his definition of skill, go to the CTC and find the guy.

You're trying to gas light and argue to win. Not argue to understand each other and have an actual discussion. This is beyond ridiculous that I can post the exact quotes I was referring (after it being insinuated that I was intentionally or unintentionally making them up), have the quotes be incredibly straight forward, and then have people still try to contort things to "win" an argument. An argument, that even more ridiculously was partially based on ideas that I don't even subscribe to that were never said in my post.

Hmmm, not really bud. You characterized our picking strategy by using a few quotes that say directly what you're arguing. What you have purposely failed to do is provide any of the context. PD delivered his first take on the BT pick with Trent Mann following up with a more fleshed out explanation of why they chose BT. If you bother to listen to both together it would be more clear to you, and you wouldn't;t be arguing your point. Instead of doing what I suggested and considering Trent Mann's words that went along with PD's, you merely googled as many single incidences of PD talking about leaving some skill on the table.

The problem is that when you don't include context, and don't provide additional information from the other key player in the team's drafting strategy, your point loses credibility, especially when you purposely avoid doing it.

The reality is that they were very clear that they chose the guy who was the 'whole package' which to equates to overall better player. Perhaps to you it means something different.

Anyways, as soon as folks start deflecting by talking about 'gas light' and 'winning' the discussion is over.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

I already said Hughes or Kakko are probably the only two guys that have higher potential

what kind of potential do you think tkachuck has?

 

[JungleBeat]

I already said Hughes or Kakko are probably the only two guys that have higher potential

Dach,Cozens,Krebs and Lavoie. IMO all have higher potential than Tkachuk.

Dorion agrees with you though and thinks he’s better than anybody is th draft other than Hughes.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

what kind of potential do you think tkachuck has?

He has the potential to be traded for some picks and a prospect or two

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I already said Hughes or Kakko are probably the only two guys that have higher potential

Cozens or Dach as well. 2019 have some very good players. None of them are Brady Tkachuk. I am not saying they aren't better players overall .. but Tkachuk is a rare thing and I am glad we have him. I think 2019 will be deep enough but I think 2020 is our year at this point and that draft should be very good as well. bWe can't chose between them anymore so might as well get on the Tkachuk train .. I think it will be a good ride.