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

[Agent Zuuuub]

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 3rd in league scoring after the 1st round, but then suffered a torn labrum that was so bad he could no longer take faceoffs.
View attachment 713695

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?

The series didn't turn because of Burrows it turned when Fluery started choking and we chased him out of the net. We didn't have the firepower to beat Murray after that.

And Brassard was good in the first round but it's not like he was the mastermind behind many of those points. Karlsson and Ryan were driving the offense that round. Brassard was a good corsi driver but Zibanejad would have been better.

 

[Hale The Villain]

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 are a big blow.

Let's be serious. He had 0 goals and 5 points in 15 games and was a complete non-factor.

At that point in his career he was too slow to accomplish anything. Crazy how bad our pro scouting staff is that they thought he was not only good enough to help the team but worth giving a 2 year extension too

 

[jhutter]

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.

Didn't he chip the puck off the boards to JGP on the GWG against the Rangers? I seem to recall a couple of significant plays from him. I actually liked Burrows, I just thought PD's decision to extend him at that term and $ was asinine, and I was worried Dahlen was going to be a decent player.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

I think it's fair to say he played his role well. The problem is the expectation. Fans would have liked them to bring in more than a 3rd/4th liner, but they brought in 3 of those bottom tier guys in Wingels, Burrows and Stalberg instead. I think they all played their role just fine, but none of them were going to come in and "push them over the top" like you might expect from a bigger addition. We brought in 3 role players that played their role, but their roles were not overly important in the grand scheme.

 

[swiftwin]

Didn't he chip the puck off the boards to JGP on the GWG against the Rangers? I seem to recall a couple of significant plays from him. I actually liked Burrows, I just thought PD's decision to extend him at that term and $ was asinine, and I was worried Dahlen was going to be a decent player.

Yes. Like I said earlier in the thread, he had two primary assists on OT winners. That was one of them. He also had the primary assist on Turris' OT winner in game 5 of that series.

 

[Hale The Villain]

I think it's fair to say he played his role well. The problem is the expectation. Fans would have liked them to bring in more than a 3rd/4th liner, but they brought in 3 of those bottom tier guys in Wingels, Burrows and Stalberg instead. I think they all played their role just fine, but none of them were going to come in and "push them over the top" like you might expect from a bigger addition. We brought in 3 role players that played their role, but their roles were not overly important in the grand scheme.

My argument at the time was that if we were going to trade a recent 2nd round drafted prospect and a 3rd, we should have gotten better players than a broken Burrows and a 4th liner in Stalberg. Wingels trade was fine as cheap depth.

It's hindsight to think we were in a position to throw big assets at a major deadline acquisition, as we weren't considered a legit contender at the time, but had Dorion actually got his money's worth at the deadline who knows what could have happened.

What we know is that his acquisitions Burrows, Stalberg and Wingels put up 0 goals and 7 points in a combined 41 playoff games. If people want to pretend they were in any way responsible for us going far in the post-season, they are lying.

 

[swiftwin]

I think it's fair to say he played his role well. The problem is the expectation. Fans would have liked them to bring in more than a 3rd/4th liner, but they brought in 3 of those bottom tier guys in Wingels, Burrows and Stalberg instead. I think they all played their role just fine, but none of them were going to come in and "push them over the top" like you might expect from a bigger addition. We brought in 3 role players that played their role, but their roles were not overly important in the grand scheme.

Burrows was behind Mark Stone and Bobby Ryan on the depth chart at RW. I'd argue he was exactly what we needed there. A veteran player that didn't hurt you on the ice, chipped in on some clutch plays in overtime, and could play some PK minutes despite not being a regular PKer.

After he went down in game 3, we had to play a washed up Chris Kelly who ended up only playing 3 mins in game 7, which left the team gassed, and was probably a reason we lost that game.

 

[swiftwin]

My argument at the time was that if we were going to trade a recent 2nd round drafted prospect and a 3rd, we should have gotten better players than a broken Burrows and a 4th liner in Stalberg. Wingels trade was fine as cheap depth.

It's hindsight to think we were in a position to throw big assets at a major deadline acquisition, as we weren't considered a legit contender at the time, but had Dorion actually got his money's worth at the deadline who knows what could have happened.

What we know is that his acquisitions Burrows, Stalberg and Wingels put up 0 goals and 7 points in a combined 41 playoff games. If people want to pretend they were in any way responsible for us going far in the post-season, they are lying.

All three were 3rd and 4th liners who were solid defensively. Why are you fixating on points?

Stahlberg even led the team in PK minutes per game among forwards.

This kind of veteran depth is something every team needs as they head into the playoffs.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

My argument at the time was that if we were going to trade a recent 2nd round drafted prospect and a 3rd, we should have gotten better players than a broken Burrows and a 4th liner in Stalberg. Wingels trade was fine as cheap depth.

It's hindsight to think we were in a position to throw big assets at a major deadline acquisition, as we weren't considered a legit contender at the time, but had Dorion actually got his money's worth at the deadline who knows what could have happened.

What we know is that his acquisitions Burrows, Stalberg and Wingels put up 0 goals and 7 points in a combined 41 playoff games. If people want to pretend they were in any way responsible for us going far in the post-season, they are lying.

Burrows was behind Mark Stone and Bobby Ryan on the depth chart at RW. I'd argue he was exactly what we needed there. A veteran player that didn't hurt you on the ice, chipped in on some clutch plays in overtime, and could play some PK minutes despite not being a regular PKer.

After he went down in game 3, we had to play a washed up Chris Kelly who ended up only playing 3 mins in game 7, which left the team gassed, and was probably a reason we lost that game.

I think there's validity to what both of you are saying here.

I think Burrows was a good fit on the 3rd line. He did not produce much on paper though, that can't be argued and same goes for the two below. I do think he had some important moments though and that means, well, something at least. Again though, 3rd liner, not gonna change the world for us unless they play like they aren't one.

Wingels and Stalberg were fine too, but they were 4th line type guys, and the type that might see the press box a few times during a run, so mostly inconsequential except for depth purposes, which ironically did sort of burn us at the end there anyways, but it also felt like a lot of the time we weren't truly a match for Pittsburgh anyways. The better team won imo.

I don't know, I just have a hard time criticizing these too much and its more about their decision not to do more. But like Hale said, that feels like hindsight being a cinderella type run and not a strong contender. Although, if they knew the tear down was coming, which I suspect Dorion had at least an inkling, maybe going for it should have happened. As erroneous and misguided as it was, they were sort of "going for it" initially with the ZBad/Brassard swap in the first place.

 

[Jhero]

wrong thread post

 

[Hale The Villain]

All three were 3rd and 4th liners who were solid defensively. Why are you fixating on points?

Stahlberg even led the team in PK minutes per game among forwards.

This kind of veteran depth is something every team needs as they head into the playoffs.

He was good defensively but contributed nothing offensively. I like players who aren't one-dimensional.

If a player isn't producing any offense he's by definition one-dimensional, but that label only gets thrown at skill players for some reason.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Often forgotten was that we were far from a lock to even make the playoffs, and Burrows scored at around a 0.5 clip down the stretch earning a few 1st star honours along the way (I think a few 2 and 3 star as well).

He made an impact as a deadline add of that there is no question, and it was well reported at the time that the extension was the cost of him ok’ing a trade to Ottawa. Savvy move by him to extend his career a bit, and PD was obviously fine to kick the can to help with the stretch run and playoffs. It almost worked.

The money never mattered in the end, and Dahlen never became a player. Burrows was a key player down the stretch and was solid depth with several key moments in the playoffs as well until he went down.

It was a win at the time for those who liked the trade, and should be regarded as a win using hindsight at this point as well in my opinion.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Can't wait till Dorion is gone and we get an actual GM so some people can stop pretending Burrows and Brassard are some genius GM moves.

 

[Golden_Jet]

He was good defensively but contributed nothing offensively. I like players who aren't one-dimensional.

If a player isn't producing any offense he's by definition one-dimensional, but that label only gets thrown at skill players for some reason.

Also Assisted on 2 OT goals, but that’s not good enough for a third or fourth liner apparently.
Just admit whatever PD did was not good enough, would be easier.
Good moves and bad moves like a lot of GM’s. Luckily Dubas wasn’t in charge of the rebuild.

 

[JungleBeat]

Burrows was complete crap in the playoffs for the Sens. Any objective viewer will say the same. Don’t know why it’s even a discussion.

We should all just rejoice that the Dorion era is almost over. Good riddance Pierre! I may just see you at the Orleans community rink.

 

[swiftwin]

Burrows was complete crap in the playoffs for the Sens. Any objective viewer will say the same. Don’t know why it’s even a discussion.

Any objective viewer would say the opposite, actually. Your obsession with Dorion is clouding your judgement.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Also Assisted on 2 OT goals, but that’s not good enough for a third or fourth liner apparently.
Just admit whatever PD did was not good enough, would be easier.
Good moves and bad moves like a lot of GM’s. Luckily Dubas wasn’t in charge of the rebuild.

You're lionizing him chipping the puck up the ice. Pretty sure that's how he got both those assists lol.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Burrows was complete crap in the playoffs for the Sens. Any objective viewer will say the same. Don’t know why it’s even a discussion.

We should all just rejoice that the Dorion era is almost over. Good riddance Pierre! I may just see you at the Orleans community rink.

Thats not objective, that's hyperbole. Easily one of the best 12 forwards on the team and belonged on the ice based on the roster and certainly brought more than Wingels or Stalberg, our other additions that year.

Acquisition cost, the dumb contract, should they have aimed higher, and how effective he was or wasnt, while acknowledging the above, is the debate.

 

[JungleBeat]

Thats not objective, that's hyperbole. Easily one of the best 12 forwards on the team and belonged on the ice based on the roster and certainly brought more than Wingels or Stalberg, our other additions that year.

Acquisition cost, the dumb contract, should they have aimed higher, and how effective he was or wasnt, while acknowledging the above, is the debate.

The entire Sens bottom six sans Pageau was lacklustre and barely NHL forwards. It’s not a surprise that:

Burrows
Stahlberg
Wingeles
Neil
Pyatt
Kelly
Smith

Were all out of the NHL shortly after the playoff run. A historically BAD bottom six that had no business being on the ice. It’s a miracle Karlsson took that team to game 7.

Absolute trash group of role players that Dorion brought in.

 

[Hockeysawks]

The entire Sens bottom six sans Pageau was lacklustre and barely NHL forwards. It’s not a surprise that:

Burrows
Stahlberg
Wingeles
Neil
Pyatt

Were all out of the NHL shortly after the playoff run. A historically BAD bottom six that had no business being on the ice. It’s a miracle Karlsson took that team to game 7.

Absolute trash group of role players that Dorion brought in.

He put together a team that brought the pens to game 7 of the conference finals on a team with a crappy internal budget, twisting it into a failure or doing a poor job is just wrong.

 

[Ice-Tray]

He put together a team that brought the pens to game 7 of the conference finals on a team with a crappy internal budget, twisting it into a failure or doing a poor job is just wrong.

Welcome to HFSens where every good turn is an accident and every failed move is part of the plan.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

The entire Sens bottom six sans Pageau was lacklustre and barely NHL forwards. It’s not a surprise that:

Burrows
Stahlberg
Wingeles
Neil
Pyatt

Were all out of the NHL shortly after the playoff run. A historically BAD bottom six that had no business being on the ice. It’s a miracle Karlsson took that team to game 7.

Absolute trash group of role players that Dorion brought in.

Historically bad. Very objective of you. I'm not going to pretend it was amazing, but that's hyperbole. Neil basically didn't play getting in only 2 games. Wingels hit the press box a lot playing less than half. You can form a 4th line out of the remaining 3 just fine and end up with one guy out of Burrows, Stalberg or Pyatt slotted too high only when one of the top 9 forwards went down. A guy or two slotted too his is nothing new for this budget franchise under Melnyk and if anything, I'm just happy the unspectacular 4th line you don't like wasn't the 3rd line lol.

Burrows was given a contract extension he couldn't earn. He may have cost too much prospect currency at the time for what he was. People may not like him for biting a finger or other shenanigans. The team maybe should have aimed higher. He was obviously on father time's doorstep falling apart the next year along with a lot of other guys, but he was just fine as a 10-12 depth forward on that conference finals team. Produced 16 points in 35 games with us that year total which is right in line with that role. Special teams player with pk and 2nd pp net position. If anyone wanted more, Dorion acquired the wrong player, which is really my only argument. I love Karlsson as much as anyone, they wouldn't have been there without him and the teams roster was shamefully undermanned during his tenure, but the other players held their own enough that year to win those tight defensive games under Boucher and while Burrows contributions may be cast aside, there doesn't seem to be any memorable examples of negative contributions.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

The entire Sens bottom six sans Pageau was lacklustre and barely NHL forwards. It’s not a surprise that:

Burrows
Stahlberg
Wingeles
Neil
Pyatt

Were all out of the NHL shortly after the playoff run. A historically BAD bottom six that had no business being on the ice. It’s a miracle Karlsson took that team to game 7.

Absolute trash group of role players that Dorion brought in.

Are you really blaming the Sens' downfall on the bottom-6?

 

[Hockeysawks]

Welcome to HFSens where every good turn is an accident and every failed move is part of the plan.

On a team that spent he would have used up the millions in IR and the millions in cap space. not many people have done more with less.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

it was Karlsson.


We had a generational player playing 30 minutes+ for us. He was better than Alfredsson , Chara, Hossa, Spezza and a greater impact than even McDavid, because he played more and could play with all 4 lines. He could carry teams.

If Karlsson was only a normal player, say Chabot level, we would have been bottom 10 or 5 that year. Especially because of that bottom 6.

Can't believe Dorion is getting credit for Karlsson going supernova and carrying the team lol.