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

[SensFactor]

 

[DaveMatthew]

Good lord...

Ok, so you've gone from being critical of my suggesting he developed more than expected and backing up what we potentially expected out of him with Trent Mann's on the record account, to now saying well actually that initial Trent Mann projection is that of a high end prospect... I think I'm done here, your point is a moving target and i'm no longer interested.

I was critical of the original suggestion that Norris wasn't a "high quality" piece in the Karlsson trade, at the time of the deal. He was. Most fans just had no idea who he was until they Googled him when they heard the news. Which was true.

But you're right, let's leave it there.

At the end of the day, the Karlsson trade was a massive win for the organization and Norris is a star. The fans, myself included, were incredibly wrong with their initial reaction. As were the analysts who write articles and make lists.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Was hoping they’d do this at TD place in partnership with OSEG. Walk by traffic would have been great.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Both GMs are on record saying that Ottawa insisted that Norris be included in the trade. Wilson picked him in the first round the previous year, and Dorion said they viewed him as a high end piece of the trade.

Dorion’s was also really excited about Branstrom. Branstrom was an extremely highly touted prospect, labelled as one of the best young defencemen not playing in the NHL. He was definite hype-worthy, and received more than Norris.

Norris has panned out, and we’re waiting to see what Branstrom is, but how the player ends up in terms of reaching his potential in the NHL has little bearing on the excitement the GM showed when acquiring them.

Dorion was right to be excited about both young players.

Dave is obviously right about exposure. Even now American kids playing in college get far less press, and put up far less exciting numbers than kids in juniors. Most fans know a ton of Canadian Junior players, especially those on team Canada, while knowing very few college or US development players, unless they are in your system. This I believe is beyond argument.

Personally I don’t think you can really distill an argument down to simply choosing to thing that Dorion was lying about how he viewed a player he traded for, and choosing to go with the opinions of others.

In the same vein you can throw away Mann’s remarks given that they could clearly have been given as a means to compliment Norris’ excellent rise in the AHL (I had no idea he’d be this good, way to go Josh!), seeing as how it was given at that time, instead of being an honest assessment of his value at the time of the trade.

Much ado about nothing though. Regardless of how he turned out, or how good anyone expected him to be, he was without a doubt a must have player in the trade by Pierre, as intimated by Wilson.

Case closed.

 

[Micklebot]

Personally I don’t think you can really distill an argument down to simply choosing to thing that Dorion was lying about how he viewed a player he traded for, and choosing to go with the opinions of others.

This is a misrepresentation of the argument. Nobody suggested that Dorion was lying, or the team didn't target Norris, or that they didn't think he was quality piece in the trade. We can target a guy we project to be a third liner, we can really want him in the same way the the NYI really wanted Pageau when they sent us a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd for a UFA to be.

Dorion valuing Norris and insisting he be included in the trade doesn't mean Norris hasn't exceeded the teams expectations. It doesn't mean we expected him to be a top 6 center either. It just means that of the pieces SJ had to offer, that's one we insisted on. Maybe Dorion thought he was a top 6 guy or even a #1 center in the making, maybe not. We only really know he liked him enough to insist on him among the options given (which we also don't know) that's all.

 

[Ice-Tray]

This is a misrepresentation of the argument. Nobody suggested that Dorion was lying, or the team didn't target Norris, or that they didn't think he was quality piece in the trade. We can target a guy we project to be a third liner, we can really want him in the same way the the NYI really wanted Pageau when they sent us a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd for a UFA to be.

Dorion valuing Norris and insisting he be included in the trade doesn't mean Norris hasn't exceeded the teams expectations. It doesn't mean we expected him to be a top 6 center either. It just means that of the pieces SJ had to offer, that's one we insisted on. Maybe Dorion thought he was a top 6 guy or even a #1 center in the making, maybe not. We only really know he liked him enough to insist on him among the options given (which we also don't know) that's all.

Ok, so basically this whole debate you guys are having is pointless.

Your position is that maybe Dorion was high on him, and insisted he be included in the trade as the best player asset, because he had third line potential.

You’re basing this off an offhand comment from Mann when talking about how good Norris was in an interview two years later.

There is no way to prove that you’re wrong, so there is that for sure.

It just isn’t the most likely way it unfolded. The mostly likely situation follows along the comments of both GM’s involved in making the trade, along with the comments from the guy who traded for him at the time of the trade, added to the fact that this kid was a recent mid first round pick who wasn’t picked for his third line potential.

It’s an argument for the sake of argument.

In sum: you could be right, but most likely not.

 

[aragorn]

I can remember arguing with a number of people on here who didn't think that Norris had #1 Centre potential & I think there are still some who don't think he is a #1 centre. People seem to have their own ideas as to what a #1 centre should be, but I don't think there is a cookie cutter style that a centre needs to be. He is very good at draws, he is a very good defensive forward & he is a very good goal scorer. Batherson is the playmaker & Tkachuk is the muscle that makes the line work so well.

Not sure what else the guy has to do to prove he is a #1 centre in this league & if they keep that trio together with Tkachuk, Norris & Batherson they will once again prove they are a great NHL line. Stutzle might one day out perform him at centre offensively, but Norris does all the little things right that coaches love including playing well defensively & winning draws to keep possession. Pinto IMO could be another great centre for this team, he has the sze, is also great at draws & already plays a very good defensive game. If & when he starts adding offensive production to his game he will be pushing to move up in the lineup too.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I can remember arguing with a number of people on here who didn't think that Norris had #1 Centre potential & I think there are still some who don't think he is a #1 centre. People seem to have their own ideas as to what a #1 centre should be, but I don't think there is a cookie cutter style that a centre needs to be. He is very good at draws, he is a very good defensive forward & he is a very good goal scorer. Batherson is the playmaker & Tkachuk is the muscle that makes the line work so well.

Not sure what else the guy has to do to prove he is a #1 centre in this league & if they keep that trio together with Tkachuk, Norris & Batherson they will once again prove they are a great NHL line. Stutzle might one day out perform him at centre offensively, but Norris does all the little things right that coaches love including playing well defensively & winning draws to keep possession. Pinto IMO could be another great centre for this team, he has the sze, is also great at draws & already plays a very good defensive game. If & when he starts adding offensive production to his game he will be pushing to move up in the lineup too.

I think the initial point that sparked this debate was that Dorion viewed and traded for him as a player with 3rd line potential, and that it was just dumb luck that he turned into what he is today. That and the ‘dumb luck’ of the 1st round pick being so high can turn the top two assets of the trade into simple luck, and take much of the praise of the trade away from the GM and place it on the shoulders of Lady Luck. Classic pointless argument by Hale to deny credit where it’s due. No idea why Mick latched on to the point.

Lucky to me would have been SJ winning one more game in the playoffs and thus giving us another 1st round pick….

 

[Micklebot]

Ok, so basically this whole debate you guys are having is pointless.

Your position is that maybe Dorion was high on him, and insisted he be included in the trade as the best player asset, because he had third line potential.

You’re basing this off an offhand comment from Mann when talking about how good Norris was in an interview two years later.

There is no way to prove that you’re wrong, so there is that for sure.

It just isn’t the most likely way it unfolded. The mostly likely situation follows along the comments of both GM’s involved in making the trade, along with the comments from the guy who traded for him at the time of the trade, added to the fact that this kid was a recent mid first round pick who wasn’t picked for his third line potential.

It’s an argument for the sake of argument.

In sum: you could be right, but most likely not.

I just love how if it doesn't align with your view, it just isn't likely. He was clearly the only prospect in the SJ system that's we'd be likely to have any interest in, so it's no surprise we insisted on him when their cupboards were bare. The alternatives were Merkley who was likely on our DND list, Balcers, who was included in the trade too, and Gambrell. It's just logical that if a prospect was part of the deal, we'd insist Norris was going to be it.

 

[aragorn]

I just love how if it doesn't align with your view, it just isn't likely. He was clearly the only prospect in the SJ system that's we'd be likely to have any interest in, so it's no surprise we insisted on him when their cupboards were bare. The alternatives were Merkley who was likely on our DND list, Balcers, who was included in the trade too, and Gambrell. It's just logical that if a prospect was part of the deal, we'd insist Norris was going to be it.

It may also have been a variable that Norris & Tkachuk were best friends & Norris would make an excellent centre for Tkachuk for the long term. Afterall, it was Tkachuk that said watch out for Norris making a run for the Calder when everyone was talking about Stutzle winning it.

 

[Micklebot]

uk were best friends & Norris would make an excellent centre for Tkachuk for the long term. Afterall, it was Tkachuk that said watch out for Norris making a run for the Calder when everyone was talking about Stutzle winning it.

It would be a little odd to base the return on the biggest trade of your career on the friendship status of the kid you drafted a couple months earlier, I mean, it can't hurt, but I think the most likely scenario is something along the lines of 1) SJ wanted to avoid moving significant roster players as they were making this trade to win now, meaning no Hertl, Meier or Lebanc. 2) We then needed for a prospect to be included because SJ already traded off one of their next two firsts in the deal for Kane so we couldn't just add another first 3) As mentioned prior, with their pool being Merkley, Norris, Balcers and Gambrell, there wasn't a lot to choose from, Norris was the obvious option.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I just love how if it doesn't align with your view, it just isn't likely. He was clearly the only prospect in the SJ system that's we'd be likely to have any interest in, so it's no surprise we insisted on him when their cupboards were bare. The alternatives were Merkley who was likely on our DND list, Balcers, who was included in the trade too, and Gambrell. It's just logical that if a prospect was part of the deal, we'd insist Norris was going to be it.

Again you get bogged down thinking this is my view. The words of the very people who made the trade speak for themselves.

You have to twist them and discount them to make room for your theory. This isn’t between me and you, this is you vs Wilson and Dorion.

 

[Micklebot]

Again you get bogged down thinking this is my view. The words of the very people who made the trade speak for themselves.

You have to twist them and discount them to make room for your theory. This isn’t between me and you, this is you vs Wilson and Dorion.

Hey, look at that, we agree. Trent Mann's words speak for themselves. He's the only one in the room that actually directly said what somebody in the loop projected Norris as, and you have to twist Dorion saying they targeted him in order to infer something that may or may not be true!

 

[bicboi64]

1) SJ wanted to avoid moving significant roster players as they were making this trade to win now, meaning no Hertl, Meier or Lebanc.

Honestly I remember being salty that we didn't get one of Meier or Hertl. I was too emotional over the trade that I didn't really care about the prospects and picks. Just looked at Norris being a first round draft pick and that was "enough" for me, but I was salty that we got Tierney plus DeMelo instead of someone more proven in the top 6.

 

[DaveMatthew]

It would be a little odd to base the return on the biggest trade of your career on the friendship status of the kid you drafted a couple months earlier, I mean, it can't hurt, but I think the most likely scenario is something along the lines of 1) SJ wanted to avoid moving significant roster players as they were making this trade to win now, meaning no Hertl, Meier or Lebanc. 2) We then needed for a prospect to be included because SJ already traded off one of their next two firsts in the deal for Kane so we couldn't just add another first 3) As mentioned prior, with their pool being Merkley, Norris, Balcers and Gambrell, there wasn't a lot to choose from, Norris was the obvious option.

We could have chosen to trade Karlsson to another team, as multiple were interested.

You seem to be suggesting that San Jose was the only option, so we took the best prospect they had, and because there wasn't much to choose from, that was Norris. A lot of assumptions in your 1) 2) 3) of this is how it might have gone down.

If you look at the type of players that Dorion/Mann have looked to draft in recent years, Norris fits the bill to a tee. Size, good motor, two-way, coachable, high character. Is it that difficult to believe that they specifically targeted him, not just amongst the SJ pool, but amongst all of the available prospects at the time?

 

[Micklebot]

We could have chosen to trade Karlsson to another team, as multiple were interested. The day after the trade, Dorion said he had multiple offers in hand before deciding to make the move.

You seem to be suggesting that San Jose was the only option, so we took the best prospect they had, and because there wasn't much to choose from, that was Norris.

If you look at the type of players that Dorion/Mann have looked to draft in recent years, Norris fits the bill to a tee. Size, good motor, two-way, coachable, high character. Is it that difficult to believe that they specifically targeted him, not just amongst the SJ pool, but amongst all of the available prospects at the time?

This isn't at all what I suggested, I suggested that of the options SJ had to offer, Norris was clearly the obvious target. We don't know what other teams offered. We only know that what other teams were offering was not acceptable.

Dorion was asked directly by Bob McCown whether Norris was the top prospect that they got back and Dorion responded that while Norris was more NHL ready they saw both prospects (Balcers and Norris) as very close. SJ also offered a package of 6-8 pieces that potentially included 2 first round picks (3 if you count the crazy traded back to the east condition), Did other teams offer 6-8 pieces, that potentially include 2 first round picks? Maybe other teams offered prospects we liked better but wouldn't give up the extra conditional first or maybe they wanted any first to be conditional. We don't know, and knowing that we wanted Norris from SJ doesn't mean we automatically viewed him as a future top 6 player for us.

 

[aragorn]

It would be a little odd to base the return on the biggest trade of your career on the friendship status of the kid you drafted a couple months earlier, I mean, it can't hurt, but I think the most likely scenario is something along the lines of 1) SJ wanted to avoid moving significant roster players as they were making this trade to win now, meaning no Hertl, Meier or Lebanc. 2) We then needed for a prospect to be included because SJ already traded off one of their next two firsts in the deal for Kane so we couldn't just add another first 3) As mentioned prior, with their pool being Merkley, Norris, Balcers and Gambrell, there wasn't a lot to choose from, Norris was the obvious option.

I agree, he was SJs best prospect & had to be included in the deal. I also think that being friends with Tkachuk helped & being a centre they could see these two on a line together for the next decade. They also had Batherson in Belleville at the tiime who looked like he could be a very good playmaking future RW & would complement those two & it's turned out great for the team. Not sure Dorian was thinking along these lines, but I was.

I would now like to see them put together a future line that includes Formenton - Pinto - Sokolov which IMO could be a very productive 3rd line. IMO Sokolov has the potential to be a decent playmaker & scorer, a Batherson lite if you will who could add some offence to a 3rd line. They would have the speed in Formenton, the defensive expert in Pinto & the playmaker in Sokolov. It has all the makings of a very good 3rd line IMO.

 

[DaveMatthew]

This isn't at all what I suggested, I suggested that of the options SJ had to offer, Norris was clearly the obvious target. We don't know what other teams offered. We only know that what other teams were offering was not acceptable.

Dorion was asked directly by Bob McCown whether Norris was the top prospect that they got back and Dorion responded that while Norris was more NHL ready they saw both prospects (Balcers and Norris) as very close. SJ also offered a package of 6-8 pieces that potentially included 2 first round picks (3 if you count the crazy traded back to the east condition), Did other teams offer 6-8 pieces, that potentially include 2 first round picks? Maybe other teams offered prospects we liked better but wouldn't give up the extra conditional first or maybe they wanted any first to be conditional. We don't know, and knowing that we wanted Norris from SJ doesn't mean we automatically viewed him as a future top 6 player for us.

Of course it doesn't mean we automatically viewed him as that. It wasn't a given. But it doesn't mean we didn't think that was his upside, if everything clicked.

This Mann interview you keep quoting, do you actually have exact thing he said? Because all I could find, besides the Mendes quote, was this:

Mann: Josh Norris can develop into a 2nd/3rd line centre in the NHL

Steve and AJ are joined by Belleville Senators head coach Troy Mann to discuss the weekend that was, including the Kids Are Alright 2 road trip with TSN 1200, they chat about the signing of Cole Cassels and the development of some of the Ottawa Senators prospects.

www.tsn.ca

That interview was after the first 2 weeks of Norris' AHL season, so even before he broke out as a Pro, Mann was already seeding top 6 as his upside. "Mann projected him as a 3rd liner and that's it" seems like a stretch. Mann likely had a view on the upside, downside, and most likely progression.

Did they think he'd pace for 43 goals as 23 year old? Probably not.
Did they think he'd only max out as a 3rd liner in the prime of his career? Also probably not.

It was most likely something in between. Based on Dorion's comments, I'd venture to guess he had a slightly more optimistic outlook compared to Mann. And at the end of the day, the trade was his call.

Did Ottawa fans undervalue him at the time of the trade due to a combination of 1. a justified anger towards everything Melnyk and Dorion did and 2. a lack of knowledge about the player? Absolutely.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Hey, look at that, we agree. Trent Mann's words speak for themselves. He's the only one in the room that actually directly said what somebody in the loop projected Norris as, and you have to twist Dorion saying they targeted him in order to infer something that may or may not be true!

Sure, the head of amateur scouting’s words speak for themselves, but how valuable are they to the subject at hand?

He didn’t make the trade, Dorion did.

How exactly am I twisting words? Dorion has said the Norris was a key piece of the trade and was a must have, which was confirmed by Wilson, you know, the other guy making the trade.

Your premise is that this ‘must have’ player was viewed by Dorion as a guy with 3rd line centre potential, and that Dorion probably was being over-exuberant because he was also stoked on Branstrom.

Me: going by the words of both GMs who made the trade.

You: going by the words of the head amateur scout.

You’re essentially arguing “so you mean there’s a chance”. Try applying some common sense. Dorion saw top six potential in Norris and thus targeted him.

 

[Micklebot]

Sure, the head of amateur scouting’s words speak for themselves, but how valuable are they to the subject at hand?

He didn’t make the trade, Dorion did.

How exactly am I twisting words? Dorion has said the Norris was a key piece of the trade and was a must have, which was confirmed by Wilson, you know, the other guy making the trade.

Your premise is that this ‘must have’ player was viewed by Dorion as a guy with 3rd line centre potential, and that Dorion probably was being over-exuberant because he was also stoked on Branstrom.

Me: going by the words of both GMs who made the trade.

You: going by the words of the head amateur scout.

You’re essentially arguing “so you mean there’s a chance”. Try applying some common sense. Dorion saw top six potential in Norris and thus targeted him.

the difference is you are inferring a projection based on the GMs agreeing that he was a target, where as I am quoting a projection from somebody in the know.

All I am saying is that we don't know what Dorion projected Norris as and using the fact that we targeting him specifically in the trade doesn't mean we projected him as more than what Trent Mann is on record as saying, but we do know what Trent Mann did project him as.

I never said what Dorion certainly projected him as, I specifically said that he may have been higher on Norris than Mann, but that all the stuff we have from other who actually provided a projection was more modest.

What I'm essentially arguing is that you're inferring things that aren't a given and treating them as fact even when evidence to the contrary is presented.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

Dorion has said the Norris was a key piece of the trade and was a must have, which was confirmed by Wilson, you know, the other guy making the trade.

Dorion saw top six potential in Norris and thus targeted him.

This conclusion is not supported by your evidence.

 

[DaveMatthew]

the difference is you are inferring a projection based on the GMs agreeing that he was a target, where as I am quoting a projection from somebody in the know.

All I am saying is that we don't know what Dorion projected Norris as and using the fact that we targeting him specifically in the trade doesn't mean we projected him as more than what Trent Mann is on record as saying, but we do know what Trent Mann did project him as.

But you're not reflecting Trent Mann's projection accurately. You're saying that Mann did not project Norris as a top 6 player, when in fact, before he even broke out as a pro in the AHL, Mann is on the record that Norris projects to develop into a 3rd or 2nd line center.

The more accurate projection to extrapolate from Mann's comments would be: Safe bet to be a 3rd line center, with 2nd line upside if everything clicks.

So far, Norris has hit the high-end of Mann's projection. Can he go even further and become a #1? Hopefully.

 

[Micklebot]

Of course it doesn't mean we automatically viewed him as that. It wasn't a given. But it doesn't mean we didn't think that was his upside, if everything clicked.

This Mann interview you keep quoting, do you actually have exact thing he said? Because all I could find, besides the Mendes quote, was this:

Mann: Josh Norris can develop into a 2nd/3rd line centre in the NHL

Steve and AJ are joined by Belleville Senators head coach Troy Mann to discuss the weekend that was, including the Kids Are Alright 2 road trip with TSN 1200, they chat about the signing of Cole Cassels and the development of some of the Ottawa Senators prospects.

www.tsn.ca

That interview was after the first 2 weeks of Norris' AHL season, so even before he broke out as a Pro, Mann was already seeding top 6 as his upside. "Mann projected him as a 3rd liner and that's it" seems like a stretch. Mann likely had a view on the upside, downside, and most likely progression.

Did they think he'd pace for 43 goals as 23 year old? Probably not.
Did they think he'd only max out as a 3rd liner in the prime of his career? Also probably not.

It was most likely something in between. Based on Dorion's comments, I'd venture to guess he had a slightly more optimistic outlook compared to Mann. And at the end of the day, the trade was his call.

Did Ottawa fans undervalue him at the time of the trade due to a combination of 1. a justified anger towards everything Melnyk and Dorion did and 2. a lack of knowledge about the player? Absolutely.

Two different interviews with different people. Troy Mann said that after seeing him in the AHL for a month, he saw him as a for sure 3rd liner with the upside to develop into a 2nd liner. The tweet from Mendes was about an interview with Trent Mann, the Chief scout about a year later. I can't find the interview either but I do vividly remember the discussion that followed.

 

[Micklebot]

But you're not reflecting Trent Mann's projection accurately. You're saying that Mann did not project Norris as a top 6 player, when in fact, before he even broke out as a pro in the AHL, Mann is on the record that Norris projects to develop into a 3rd or 2nd line center.

The more accurate projection to extrapolate from Mann's comments would be: Safe bet to be a 3rd line center, with 2nd line upside if everything clicks.

So far, Norris has hit the high-end of Mann's projection. Can he go even further and become a #1? Hopefully.

See my post above, you are conflating two different interviews with two different people.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Norris being viewed as a potential 2nd/3rd line guy is probably accurate. That was a reasonable projection at the time he was drafted.

A relatively poor freshman season probably made a projection as a 3rd liner more likely than a top 6 forward, but he still had good potential and his value at the time of the trade was probably around a late 1st.

That doesn't mean he was an ideal centerpiece for one of the best D in the league. I think everyone was hoping that a more promising young player would be coming back.

The trade at the time looked like several young likely 3rd liners (Tierney, Norris, Balcers), a 1st and a couple 2nds for an elite #1 RD. No one besides a few incessant management defenders who would defend literally any return was happy with it and no one should have been.