Management GM Pierre Dorion/Front Office Thread - Part IX [Mod Warning in post 1)

[Bileur]

For Burrows, i dont think that he was bought out is indicative of what he brought. I think the fact that he then became an assistant coach is indicative of that. The kind of vet character we seem to want now for our bottom 6 rather than the replacement level player that gets traded and then bought out with seeming ok stats.

I think you’re conflating separate issues.

Him becoming an assistant coach is a good sign that he’s a smart, character individual with good hockey knowledge but that doesn’t mean his body still had the ability to play at the NHL level.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I think you’re conflating separate issues.

Him becoming an assistant coach is a good sign that he’s a smart, character individual with good hockey knowledge but that doesn’t mean his body still had the ability to play at the NHL level.

Well, he was clearly able to play the game for the stretch run and most of the playoffs for which we acquired him.

The subsequent season not as much, though it was also the season where the room imploded and the entire team fell off a cliff so who knows.

The separate issues in my opinion are the reason and period we acquired him, and the required extension that played out after.

The buyout didn’t really have an effect on our cap floor squad, and the prospect we gave up never amounted to an NHL player, so not much to complain about in hindsight really.

Anyways, seems like this trade will remain a divisive one.

 

[swiftwin]

Stepan , Gudbranson, all of these guys are playing in roles suited for them in the bottom pairs/6. Meanwhile Dorion thought they were valid acquisitions for our top4/6.

But you even said it yourself:

We're literally trying to tank.

So, why the f*** does it matter?

 

[swiftwin]

Burrows didn't have a single goal that whole series. Burrows scored at a decent bottom 6 rate for us in the regular season, but he wasn't exactly the reason we made the playoffs

Burrows had two overtime primary assists (including Pageau's famous 4th goal), had a decent amount of PK minutes, averaged 14:24 mins a game and had an even +/-.

That's exactly the kind of depth player you need for a deep playoff run. After we got hurt against Pittsburgh, we were forced to play a washed up Chris Kelly, who was so unreliable, he only played 3:41 minutes in game 7. That meant that by the 2nd overtime, the rest of the team was completely gassed, and we lost. If Burrows doesn't get hurt, we can distribute ice time more evenly, and we probably make the finals.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Wasn't Duclair the guy that Torts said "he didn't think he knew how to play hockey"? He's on his 6th team, there must be something they see that we don't, but who knows what goes on with these things, I'm not much of a fan of Torts.

This is completely outside of this current debate which I wish to keep out of, but Duclair seems to be doing well this playoffs. I'm enjoying watching him (& the Panthers) play.

He only played 20 games this year, but had 58 points in 74 games in 2021-22.

 

[bicboi64]

But you even said it yourself:


So, why the f*** does it matter?

Because we're giving up assets during a rebuild, why is that so hard to understand? Its one thing if you're paying for guys that can be buffers for young guys during the rebuild and still be a part of the future, but Dorion happens to give up something a rebuilding team can use like a 2nd rounder for someone like Stepan, who's equivalent could be had for cheaper in FA. Its asset management 101

 

[swiftwin]

Because we're giving up assets during a rebuild, why is that so hard to understand? Its one thing if you're paying for guys that can be buffers for young guys during the rebuild and still be a part of the future, but Dorion happens to give up something a rebuilding team can use like a 2nd rounder for someone like Stepan, who's equivalent could be had for cheaper in FA. Its asset management 101

Properly insulating your young players with veterans so they can develop properly is part of asset management. If your young players don't develop properly, then you are effectively reducing their value as an asset, and therefore are doing poor asset management by not spending the assets required to bring in these veterans.

Making sure your young players like Tkachuk, Norris and Stutzle develop properly is far more important than depth draft picks. Especially when we would often recoup a draft pick for these players at the trade deadline anyways.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Properly insulating your young players with veterans so they can develop properly is part of asset management. If your young players don't develop properly, then you are effectively reducing their value as an asset, and therefore are doing poor asset management by not spending the assets required to bring in these veterans.

Making sure your young players like Tkachuk, Norris and Stutzle develop properly is far more important than depth draft picks. Especially when we would often recoup a draft pick for these players at the trade deadline anyways.

That's a simple point that I think most everyone can easily understand. It doesn't mean that a GM always needs to sign a crappy player and give away too much to acquire said player. Dorion has made some good moves and some bad ones just before someone gets tempted to categorize into the per usual "us versus them" camp. It seems like the Senators won a few too many games late season enigmatically if tanking was the objective and they did dip their toe into free agency a little here and there (e.g., Dadonov).

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

I liked the Burrows trade at the time and do agree with the sentiment that he contributed to the run in a positive way. Whether or not what he brought was required can be debated to death with no way to qualify it.

Unfortunately, his contract ended up being part of that overpaid support group that couldn't seem to pull their weight all of a sudden. Burrows, Smith, Anderson, Condon plus the Phaneuf/Ceci pairing sort of all just fell off a cliff at the same time. Granted, we'd lost some guys up front like Mac and Brassard still recovering, while losing Karlsson's effectiveness and Methot entirely, so Phaneuf/Ceci being relied on too much was a big part of the problem for those two in particular. Only two of those guys in Ceci and Anderson continued in the league at borderline replacement player level, so fair to say they were mostly washed at that point as a group.

 

[Crosside]

Pierre will be at the Cam and Strick podcast tomorrow

 

[Xspyrit]

So does Colin White & two of the Stall brothers. Sometimes you get lucky where you end up on the right team at the right time.

Staal plays 10, White plays 7. Vastly different roles. Duclair is a threat at ES and teams have to respect his speed and skill.

Spending $4m on a player that was PROVEN to only be worth $1.7m on the open market is the absolute peak of hfsens armchair GMing.

My dog could actually explain you a lot of things. Because everybody and their dog know that 1.7 was very contextual. I would have still GLADLY overpaid Duclair at 4.0 AAV for 4 years over some of the crap your idol did.

We're literally trying to tank. Waiving Balcers to play old vets served no purpose whatsoever when we are still rebuilding. Besides, we wouldn't necessarily have signed him to the same deal the Sharks did. Even their buying out of Balcers was questionable at the time since he had 23 points in 61 games and was the Shark's 6th highest scoring forward.

And the same season Dorion decides to waive Balcers, he also decides to acquire and sign Murray to a $6million aav, paying a 2nd for Stepan, and acquire Gudbranson. Dorion can't evaluate much at the pro level.

Sharks buying out Balcers was pretty contextual asthey just named a new GM (Grier) who wanted to become harder to play against. Balcers metrics were excellent and all Sharks fans liked him, particularly at his cheap AAV. A cheap fast 2-way player who can contribute offensively is valuable vs the dead corpses we iced all 2020-21 season

But the point is not even about Balcers, it's more about NOT HAVING half the vets we iced in 2020-21. This was an absolutely HORRIFYING off-season. It made Milbury look like the best GM of all time. We could use the excuse "but we were taking"... lol we reached for Tyler freaking Boucher at 10th OA. Dorion clearly was not trying to tank. He actually thought with his vets moves that we could actually be decent. Why throw 6.25 AAV at a goalie if you're trying to tank?

Having these really bad vets at hockey actually HURT the rebuild. It didn't show anything positive to the young players, it didn't insulate them at all, it actually threw them to the wolves and some are still affected by that (Chabot for example). I would much rather have a young guys hustling like Balcers than a guy who clearly DID NOT want to be here (Paquette). Everyone in Quebec knows that. Same for Stepan apparently lol

Cedric Paquette had a role in Tampa because he had "fire in his belly". Without it, he's not a NHL caliber player. Thinking he would come to Ottawa with it is a GM rookie mistake, except that Dorion has been our GM for a while now...

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

It would have been very easy to get a better player than 37 year old Burrows at the TDL. Instead we got Burrows because he was good 5-6 years ago and not at the moment, typical unfortunate Dorion flaw. By the time we got him he was washed.

Probably the difference between a cup and not.

Gave him a f***ing 5 mill contract as well. Ridiculous.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Probably the difference between a cup and not.

Haha keep up the funny takes, it’s great in the off season.

 

[swiftwin]

My dog could actually explain you a lot of things. Because everybody and their dog know that 1.7 was very contextual. I would have still GLADLY overpaid Duclair at 4.0 AAV for 4 years over some of the crap your idol did.

Funny how it's contextual when Florida signs him, but that same context doesn't apply to us when we're literally talking about the same player in the same off-season. Keep that double standard going!

Sharks buying out Balcers was pretty contextual asthey just named a new GM (Grier) who wanted to become harder to play against. Balcers metrics were excellent and all Sharks fans liked him, particularly at his cheap AAV. A cheap fast 2-way player who can contribute offensively is valuable vs the dead corpses we iced all 2020-21 season

Once again, applying context when convenient for you. Rules for thee, but not for mee.

But the point is not even about Balcers, it's more about NOT HAVING half the vets we iced in 2020-21. This was an absolutely HORRIFYING off-season. It made Milbury look like the best GM of all time. We could use the excuse "but we were taking"... lol we reached for Tyler freaking Boucher at 10th OA. Dorion clearly was not trying to tank. He actually thought with his vets moves that we could actually be decent. Why throw 6.25 AAV at a goalie if you're trying to tank?

Having these really bad vets at hockey actually HURT the rebuild. It didn't show anything positive to the young players, it didn't insulate them at all, it actually threw them to the wolves and some are still affected by that (Chabot for example). I would much rather have a young guys hustling like Balcers than a guy who clearly DID NOT want to be here (Paquette). Everyone in Quebec knows that. Same for Stepan apparently lol

Cedric Paquette had a role in Tampa because he had "fire in his belly". Without it, he's not a NHL caliber player. Thinking he would come to Ottawa with it is a GM rookie mistake, except that Dorion has been our GM for a while now...

Cool your jets. Paquette was shipped off less than a month into the season, likely because he wasn't a good pro. In return, we got Dzingel, who we shipped off for and additional two 2nd round picks a year earlier (plus Duclair). That's on top of the 2nd we got for taking Paquette. That's basically three free 2nd round picks and still had Dzingel at the end of that trade tree. ...and people have the audacity to say Dorion has bad asset management.

Stepan and Gudbanson on the other hand were absolutely good pros and were important for the development of the young players. Norris even said so. There's a reason those two are still in the NHL 3 years later, and Paquette and Balcers are not. No amount of hysterical shrieking is going to change that fact.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Haha keep up the funny takes, it’s great in the off season.

What do you mean? It's a game of inches. I mean we literally went out on a flutter shot in game 7 double ot.

Maybe if we had a better player than a 37 years old Burrows who didn't like contact anymore and couldn't skate well anymore, maybe just one more better player who could step in and play top 6/9 and be dangerous and we win a Stanley cup.

But please go ahead and worship Dorion like getting Burrows or Brassard is the reason we went deep.

Zibanejad + fast, two way top 9 >>>> Brassard and Burrows. The former means a cup.

 

[Golden_Jet]

What do you mean? It's a game of inches. I mean we literally went out on a flutter shot in game 7 double ot.

Lmao, losing in in double OT, is now on Burrows.
Keep these takes coming, love the off season now.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Lmao, losing in in double OT, is now on Burrows.
Keep these takes coming, love the off season now.

its not on him. its that we were a team that just came short. if only we were slightly better we probably win. and we could have done so much better than burrows very easily. not his fault, dorions fault.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Burrows was one of the only guys willing to take the punishment to stand in front of the net and personally I think we really missed him in game 7. The what if's of getting a better player leading to better results feels hollow in a Cinderella run context over a team that was "supposed" to be there. The butterfly effect alone probably takes us out of being there in game 7 Conference Finals OT in the first place.

The only move I really hated that year was the Zbad deal, but I think that's about the one that basically every Sens fan agrees on.

 

[inthewings]

Lmao, losing in in double OT, is now on Burrows.
Keep these takes coming, love the off season now.

His point wasn't that any one loss was squarely on Burrows. It was that incremental improvements to the team might have made the difference in a series that went to double OT of game 7.

 

[swiftwin]

What do you mean? It's a game of inches. I mean we literally went out on a flutter shot in game 7 double ot.

Maybe if we had a better player than a 37 years old Burrows who didn't like contact anymore and couldn't skate well anymore, maybe just one more better player who could step in and play top 6/9 and be dangerous and we win a Stanley cup.

But please go ahead and worship Dorion like getting Burrows or Brassard is the reason we went deep.

Zibanejad + fast, two way top 9 >>>> Brassard and Burrows. The former means a cup.

Except for the fact that we were up 2-1 in the series against the Pens when Burrows got hurt and didn't play again for the rest of the playoffs.

Brassard was also 2nd in league scoring after the 1st round, but then suffered a torn labrum that was so bad he could no longer take faceoffs.

What I really want to know is how you figured a portal to an alternate universe. There's no explanation as how you believe these "alternative" facts. Did you build some sort of Dorion-hate shrine or something?

 

[swiftwin]

Lmao, losing in in double OT, is now on Burrows.
Keep these takes coming, love the off season now.

Burrows was spotted eating nachos in the press box during the second overtime. It shattered the team's will to continue.

 

[Ouroboros]

They needed to add a Rudy Balcers/Sean Farrell type talent at the 2017 deadline, but instead they added a 900 game veteran. Very disrespectful.

 

[Golden_Jet]

His point wasn't that any one loss was squarely on Burrows. It was that incremental improvements to the team might have made the difference in a series that went to double OT of game 7.

Except Burrows helped the team in his role. Was in on some key OT wins, including in the second round, to help get to the third round.

 

[jhutter]

The Burrows trade and particularly the extension was a bit of a head scratcher, but I thought he performed reasonably well during the playoff run.

 

[swiftwin]

The Burrows trade and particularly the extension was a bit of a head scratcher, but I thought he performed reasonably well during the playoff run.

Exactly. You can debate the trade or the extension.

His performance in the playoffs really can't be debated. He was a solid, effective depth player. Losing him in game 3 against the Pens was a big blow. Saying he wasn't good is pure revisionism to fit certain narratives.