Management GM Pierre Dorion/Front Office Thread - Part VIII

[SensontheRush]

We treading water and it's certainly up for debate. The notion that BondraTime's position isn't arguable is not true. We were a bubble team in and out of playoffs for years leading up to that. We were missing our two best defencemen, including our one superstar, who were both head and shoulders above our other D. One was gone and the other came back and played some of the worst hockey of his career due to injury and arguably never recovered. Neither goalie could stop a beach ball and we were still undermanned up front after loading up a bit for the run and getting Macarthur back.

I'd say in 2017-18 we had the same perception as the Jets this season, like oh boy, we are going to just miss the playoffs again, if anything, before trading for Duchene. That's why I am opposed to saying that Sakic traded for a 1st on a team in the "midst of disaster". No one at the time thought we were going to be the worst team in the league.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

Lots of analysts are ridiculed for their analysis. Freidman has never really been a well respected analyst imo, and I've certainly not seen anyone around here using his analysis of a player or play to bolster their position.

who are the good ones in your opinion?

 

[SensontheRush]

even the ECF team didn't look great.

We looked just as good as the Pens that ECF. It was a very even series.

 

[Micklebot]

who are the good ones in your opinion?

If your talking on air, I like Poulin, and ray Ferraro. Marty Biron can be good. Tends to be ex players that understand the game best. Elliott friedman doesn't really provide any worthwhile insight with his opinions, he gets by on his connections and scoops. Not sure how that's contentious at all

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

I'd say in 2017-18 we had the same perception as the Jets this season, like oh boy, we are going to just miss the playoffs again, if anything, before trading for Duchene. That's why I am opposed to saying that Sakic traded for a 1st on a team in the "midst of disaster". No one at the time thought we were going to be the worst team in the league.

That's fair. My argument is more just about the state of that team at that time and a lot of folk raising flags than getting in to semantics about draft pick predictions between the two deals. I just feel like there were a ton of warning signs, and it's not fair to say nobody was thinking it or that the collapse was some shocking turn of events.

If someone felt strongly at the time that they were not a Duchene upgrade on Turris away at the time and were in danger of being a bad team with a whole wack of contracts coming due in 2 years, its probably a bit patronizing to be told nobody thought that at the time and it's ridiculous.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

If your talking on air, I like Poulin, and ray Ferraro. Marty Biron can be good. Tends to be ex players that understand the game best. Elliott friedman doesn't really provide any worthwhile insight with his opinions, he gets by on his connections and scoops. Not sure how that's contentious at all

Friedman seldom dives into analysis. He may try a conversation on the subject. Ray Ferraro, Mike Johnson, Cheryl Pounder, Marc Methot , Bieksa on D play (Chabot excluded lol) , Poulin.. there are quite a few analysts that are better than Friedman.. I don't even think he'd call himself a hockey analyst

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

We looked just as good as the Pens that ECF. It was a very even series.

yea that was tight but it took Anderson playing great and Fleury choking. It was over as soon as they put in Murray.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

Friedman seldom dives into analysis. He may try a conversation on the subject. Ray Ferraro, Mike Johnson, Cheryl Pounder, Marc Methot , Bieksa on D play (Chabot excluded lol) , Poulin.. there are quite a few analysts that are better than Friedman.. I don't even think he'd call himself a hockey analyst

Bieksa? Are you sure about that?

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Bieksa? Are you sure about that?

as far as a better analyst than Friedman.. absolutely. the bar is very low

 

[coladin]

Sakic traded for the pick in the midst of a meltdown on a team that was playing extremely bad that lost it's #2D and replaced him with Oduya, and had a broken down Karlsson join the team 2 weeks into the season.

Sharks broke down close to 2 years after the pick was traded

One was very forseeable, the other much less so.

Perfectly fair to call the Karlsson trade a huge win, just like it's perfectly fine to call the Duchene trade a huge loss.

Both were lucky to get picks so high, one was much, much, much more lucky

There was no meltdown in November. They were 6-3-5 at the time of the trade. Getting Duchene at the time, hard to say it was foreseeable that they were going to end up tanking

So, Sakic was lucky and Dorion was brilliant in getting San Jose's pick that eventually turned out to be Stutzle?

I guess we are lucky to have Dorion then versus that crappy Sakic as GM.

Hope so because that means Dorion should have a great summer with all the teams that have cap woes, and we should make the playoffs easily then this upcoming season. Good to know.

No, they were both lucky. Is that so hard to see? SJ didn’t think in million years they were going to implode. And neither did Ottawa.

 

[coladin]

Matt Duchene

for

1st
2nd
3rd
Bowers
Samuel Girard
Vladislav Kamenev
Andrew Hammond

or

Erik Karlsson
Francis Perron

for

1st
2nd (conditional on re-signing)
Josh Norris
Chris Tierney
Rudolfs Balcers
Dylan Demelo


I would say they cancel each other out nicely and is mostly a wash, but Stutzle and Norris being as high calibur as they are puts that one on top, no doubt imo. Would have been nice to get something for the NHL player formerly known as Chris Tierney, but that's on him for playing so poorly and ultimately being overpaid.

How is it a wash if Ottawa got two franchise players. I don’t see two franchise players for Colorado. And Nashville got annihilated.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

How is it a wash if Ottawa got two franchise players. I don’t see two franchise players for Colorado. And Nashville got annihilated.

Sleeping on Bo Byram would be a mistake, and Sam Girard has done wonders to stabilize that defence. It's not about the higher peak for Colorado, it was about getting the right players to take them over the top. They're heavy favourites in the playoffs, so sure seems to have worked out as they'd hoped. As for us... well, we'll see.

 

[coladin]

We treading water and it's certainly up for debate. The notion that BondraTime's position isn't arguable is not true. We were a bubble team in and out of playoffs for years leading up to that. We were missing our two best defencemen, including our one superstar, who were both head and shoulders above our other D. One was gone and the other came back and played some of the worst hockey of his career due to injury and arguably never recovered. Neither goalie could stop a beach ball and we were still undermanned up front after loading up a bit for the run and getting Macarthur back.

Bubble team right to the end is a 15-17th pick

 

[UglyPuckling]

No, they were both lucky. Is that so hard to see? SJ didn’t think in million years they were going to implode. And neither did Ottawa.

What Dorion did was perplexing (being kind here). He pushed his chips in and went hard after Duchene, and then 1 1/2 years later was rebuilding. Duchene's stay here was pretty much a rental. Sakic extracted good assets from the deal & the other 2 GMs involved.

Anyhow, lets see how this upcoming season unfolds. If the Senators get into the playoffs, Dorion has done an average job (5 years to make the playoffs) on this rebuild.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

No, they were both lucky. Is that so hard to see? SJ didn’t think in million years they were going to implode. And neither did Ottawa.

They should have at least considered the possibility considering the loss of their clear #2 dman with no replacement, multiple depth losses including Macarthur, along with the temporary loss and unknowns of Karlsson. It was a team that basically lost their two best dmen, one of which being their league MVP calibur player, on a team without a very good D corps to start with. The idea that this isn't even up for debate is what's absurd, but certainly it's not a slam dunk in either direction.

How is it a wash if Ottawa got two franchise players. I don’t see two franchise players for Colorado. And Nashville got annihilated.

Bo Byram has had tough luck. I'm still optimistic he will turn it around, but hard to say. Sam Girard is solid. Two top 4 d is nothing to scoff at and I pointed out the skewing of the trade with Stutzle and Norris.

Bubble team right to the end is a 15-17th pick

Okay. They struggled to even be a bubble team at times, so I guess that could or could not apply here, but the year before they were successful at it.

Why is it such a hard concept to grasp that the decision to make the Duchene trade was questionable? Because we were 6-3-5? I'm here giving credit for Dorion getting a great deal with Karlsson, but I won't sit here and pretend that acquiring Duchene was some slam dunk idea, especially with the benefit of hindsight telling us that's obviously not true.

 

[coladin]

They should have at least considered the possibility considering the loss of their clear #2 dman with no replacement, multiple depth losses including Macarthur, along with the temporary loss and unknowns of Karlsson. It was a team that basically lost their two best dmen, one of which being their league MVP calibur player, on a team without a very good D corps to start with. The idea that this isn't even up for debate is what's absurd, but certainly it's not a slam dunk in either direction.

Bo Byram has had tough luck. I'm still optimistic he will turn it around, but hard to say. Sam Girard is solid. Two top 4 d is nothing to scoff at and I pointed out the skewing of the trade with Stutzle and Norris.

Okay. They struggled to even be a bubble team at times, so I guess that could or could not apply here, but the year before they were successful at it.

Why is it such a hard concept to grasp that the decision to make the Duchene trade was questionable? Because we were 6-3-5? I'm here giving credit for Dorion getting a great deal with Karlsson, but I won't sit here and pretend that acquiring Duchene was some slam dunk idea, especially with the benefit of hindsight telling us that's obviously not true.

Never said it was slam dunk. I just find it funny how when Sakic lucks out he is a genius but Dorion is not given the same courtesy.

And all your analysis is perfect hindsight. You fail to take into account what acquiring Duchene may do to life the team. Like, zero analysis. You fail to take into account that Stone and Hoffman still had steps to take to get better. So, there was no reason to believe that the team could not get better or continue to push as a bubble team.

And Karlsson playing on one leg is absurd. He was lazy. He was fat. And Oduya was his choice . He passed his physical, right?

Bo Byram and Girard are nothing to scoff at. But they aren’t franchise players.

Should Dorion have done a better job of replacing Methot? Absolutely. But Methot was not the reason why this team went into the tank. Like really

 

[SensontheRush]

That's fair. My argument is more just about the state of that team at that time and a lot of folk raising flags than getting in to semantics about draft pick predictions between the two deals. I just feel like there were a ton of warning signs, and it's not fair to say nobody was thinking it or that the collapse was some shocking turn of events.

If someone felt strongly at the time that they were not a Duchene upgrade on Turris away at the time and were in danger of being a bad team with a whole wack of contracts coming due in 2 years, its probably a bit patronizing to be told nobody thought that at the time and it's ridiculous.

Before the Duchene trade we were pacing at .600, or a 99pt pace over a 82 game season. That's a playoff team every year except this year in the EC.

You did take me too literally lol. By "no one was thinking that" I mean it just wasn't part of the general discussion around the team, or how the team was perceived. You are right that some were thinking that we would implode because of these factors, but they only look so obvious in hindsight, and you would have been ridiculed if you said we were going to be in the bottom, just like you would be ridiculed today for saying Boucher will develop into an NHLer.

I'm not discounting the forecasting potential at the time, likely the Avs analytical team was on top of things, but I am discounting this "it's so obvious" mentality or that the team appeared to be in midst of self-destruction. If you were thinking this, you were a smartboi and ahead of the curve.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

1. Never said it was slam dunk. I just find it funny how when Sakic kicks out he is a genius but Dorion is not given the same courtesy.

2. And all your analysis is perfect hindsight. You fail to take into account what acquiring Duchene may do to life the team. Like, zero analysis. You fail to take into account that Stone and Hoffman still had steps to take to get better. So, there was no reason to believe that the team could not get better or continue to push as a bubble team.

3. And Karlsson playing on one leg is absurd. He was lazy. He was fat. And Oduya was his choice . He passed his physical, right?

4. Bo Byram and Girard are nothing to scoff at. But they aren’t franchise players.

5. Should Dorion have done a better job of replacing Methot? Absolutely. But Methot was not the reason why this team went into the tank. Like really

1. I didn't say that. Take that to people that argue it instead.
2. Hindsight, yes. That is a big factor in judging a GM's performance. Their job is essentially to try to predict outcomes. Disagree with your last point, the pieces in house were not enough.
3. That's just stupid. Guy practically destroys his leg and career so the team can go on a run and you want to say it's about conditioning. Oduya was maybe a fit for 6/7, anything higher was a poor assessment.
4. As I said in the original post you quoted, the trades are skewed because of those two.
5. Disagree. Methot was a huge component of success for this team and there was no replacement. No D men were near Karlsson/Methot's top pairing level and it showed that year and years prior. We had one year of a decent 2nd pairing in Phaneuf/Ceci, but that was thrown to the wayside quickly.

Before the Duchene trade we were pacing at .600, or a 99pt pace over a 82 game season. That's a playoff team every year except this year in the EC.

You did take me too literally lol. By "no one was thinking that" I mean it just wasn't part of the general discussion around the team, or how the team was perceived. You are right that some were thinking that we would implode because of these factors, but they only look so obvious in hindsight, and you would have been ridiculed if you said we were going to be in the bottom, just like you would be ridiculed today for saying Boucher will develop into an NHLer.

I'm not discounting the forecasting potential at the time, likely the Avs analytical team was on top of things, but I am discounting this "it's so obvious" mentality or that the team appeared to be in midst of self-destruction. If you were thinking this, you were a smartboi and ahead of the curve.

I think I actually misread a post and made a point that wasn't applicable.

I just find the tone around that trade patronizing here sometimes and people get talked to like it was some no brainer and that if you don't think it was a smart move you don't have a leg to stand on. I mean, if we consider hindsight especially, there's really no argument it was a good deal now that we know, so at best we're talking about the motives at the time and whether it made sense at the time and if things were assessed properly then.

We're also talking about the GM, not our predictions, and imo a GM is basically being paid to try to predict outcomes and gets judged on how things turn out, so when they turn out very poorly, like they did in this context, part of the assessment is to point out that the GM obviously did not foresee things correctly, even if there were reasonable motives at the time.

 

[Micklebot]

Never said it was slam dunk. I just find it funny how when Sakic kicks out he is a genius but Dorion is not given the same courtesy.

And all your analysis is perfect hindsight. You fail to take into account what acquiring Duchene may do to life the team. Like, zero analysis. You fail to take into account that Stone and Hoffman still had steps to take to get better. So, there was no reason to believe that the team could not get better or continue to push as a bubble team.

And Karlsson playing on one leg is absurd. He was lazy. He was fat. And Oduya was his choice . He passed his physical, right?

Bo Byram and Girard are nothing to scoff at. But they aren’t franchise players.

Should Dorion have done a better job of replacing Methot? Absolutely. But Methot was not the reason why this team went into the tank. Like really

people made that analysis at the time of the trade though. They looked at the team and said this isn't the team to be making a win now play, they questioned bringing in a center when the backend was clearly the issue.

Without the benefit of hindsight, was Duchene, a guy that had basically produced at Turris's rate, coming in really going to give life to the team when Turris was really well liked in the room? Hindsight tells us Duchene eventually found life and became a clear cut #1 center for us, but that was far from obvious with his 54 pts pace over his last 3 seasons in Colorado.

Stone was going to get better? At the time of the trade when it was pretty clear the team was struggling, he had 16 pts in 14 games and a +12. He had already taken his step forward when we made the trade, we weren't improving from him going forward, at least not relative to how that season started. Hoffman had 13 pts in 14 games, should we reasonably have expected him to put up more pts based on the trade to finish the season?

We were a team that relied heavily on Karlsson since 2011-12, we won and lost on his "fat", "lazy" play, so watching him labour around the rink and clearly not playing the way we needed him to if we wanted to win made it predictable we were going to have a rough season. How rough, who knows for sure, I wouldn't have guessed 2nd worst, but I also wouldn't have thought Duchene over Turris would have saved the season by any stretch.

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

And Karlsson playing on one leg is absurd. He was lazy. He was fat. And Oduya was his choice . He passed his physical, right?

I've been lurking for a while here, and it's amazing to me how some fans of this team will completely slander the players who've actually given this city something to cheer about to defend... Pierre Dorion?

Bizarre.

I don't have any hate for the man. He's made some good moves and some bad moves, but overall, there are good pieces and building blocks here. The future looks pretty good. He deserves credit for that.

But c'mon. Karlsson suffered two major injuries here, and because he played through the last one to try and win a cup, he's now a shell of his former self. The guy is the defenseman version of Peter Forsberg, who's revered in Colorado for all the shit he played through. He gave this team the best years of his career and made the sacrifices everyone wants "playoff players" to make.

But sure, Karlsson was fat and lazy.

 

[Knave]

Never said it was slam dunk. I just find it funny how when Sakic kicks out he is a genius but Dorion is not given the same courtesy.

And all your analysis is perfect hindsight. You fail to take into account what acquiring Duchene may do to life the team. Like, zero analysis. You fail to take into account that Stone and Hoffman still had steps to take to get better. So, there was no reason to believe that the team could not get better or continue to push as a bubble team.

And Karlsson playing on one leg is absurd. He was lazy. He was fat. And Oduya was his choice . He passed his physical, right?

Bo Byram and Girard are nothing to scoff at. But they aren’t franchise players.

Should Dorion have done a better job of replacing Methot? Absolutely. But Methot was not the reason why this team went into the tank. Like really

I'm sure it is. Just like it's easy with hindsight to see Karlsson dropping off.

Which is my point.

Take a look at the Karlsson trade at the time. 2x Norris winner, very recently carried a team to ECF.
Take a look at the Duchene trade at the time. Won literally nothing. Not a shot at Duchene here. A strong centerman. But he's not a 2x Selke winner or an Art Ross winner.

At best when you look at the returns at the time of those trades - the return is equal. Personally I'd say Colorado got more but fine, we'll call it equal.

What the hell kind of asset management is this? The organization salvaging the Karlsson trade with Norris panning out and getting lucky SJS imploded is not a reason to celebrate the initial trade. Or maybe we paid way too much for Duchene. I don't know but it's beyond me how anyone can try to claim the Duchene trade was a bit of a wash and we won the Karlsson trade. The way to simplify this is: did we pay too much for Duchene or did we get too little for Karlsson? It's more complex than that obviously but lets keep it simple.

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

I'm sure it is. Just like it's easy with hindsight to see Karlsson dropping off.

Which is my point.

Take a look at the Karlsson trade at the time. 2x Norris winner, very recently carried a team to ECF.
Take a look at the Duchene trade at the time. Won literally nothing. Not a shot at Duchene here. A strong centerman. But he's not a 2x Selke winner or an Art Ross winner.

At best when you look at the returns at the time of those trades - the return is equal. Personally I'd say Colorado got more but fine, we'll call it equal.

What the hell kind of asset management is this? The organization salvaging the Karlsson trade with Norris panning out and getting lucky SJS imploded is not a reason to celebrate the initial trade.

I think you should judge GMs on trades in hindsight, not by what they looked like at the time. If you go back in time, you could justify Yashin for the 2nd pick and Chara, because Chara was a 10 minute a night goon. But that was a brutal, brutal trade for Milbury.

Dorion absolutely crushed the Karlsson trade. An incredible return.

But the Duchene trade was bad (both acquiring him and then what we got when trading him). And the Stone trade was an abomination.

It pretty much evens out, because the Karlsson return was so fantastic. But going 1-2 on those trades is why we're still "rebuilding". If he had nailed all 3 of those trades, or even two of the three, we'd probably be in the playoffs right now.

Imagine if we had actually got a young top 6 winger for Duchene and a young top 4 defenseman for Stone? That would have pretty much covered all our needs. Instead we have nothing to show for Duchene and Brannstrom trying his best... but not doing much.

 

[Knave]

I think you should judge GMs on trades in hindsight, not by what they looked like at the time. If you go back in time, you could justify Yashin for the 2nd pick and Chara, because Chara was a 10 minute a night goon. But that was a brutal, brutal trade for Milbury.

Dorion absolutely crushed the Karlsson trade. An incredible return.

But the Duchene trade was bad (both acquiring him and then what we got when trading him). And the Stone trade was an abomination.

It pretty much evens out, because the Karlsson return was so fantastic, which is why we're still "rebuilding". If he had nailed all 3 of those trades, we'd probably be in the playoffs right now.

Imagine if we had actually got a young top 6 winger for Duchene and a young top 4 defenseman for Stone?

Why could he not get even more like Sakic did?

Sure, you should have some hindsight - good job on zeroing in on Norris but that was the only conscious decision Dorion and his team made.

Pretty pathetic for a 2x Norris winner return if you ask me.

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

Why could he not get even more like Sakic did?

Sure, you should have some hindsight - good job on zeroing in on Norris but that was the only conscious decision Dorion and his team made.

Pretty pathetic for a 2x Norris winner return if you ask me.

Eh, getting a center prospect who was a first round pick and has gone on to score 35 goals before the age of 25 in the NHL is a pretty good return, even if that was the only piece we got for a 2x Norris winner.

Norris was unknown because he was picked 19th by San Jose, a team that no one cares about. If he was drafted six spots earlier by a team like Montreal or New York, people would have considered him a top, top prospect.

 

[Micklebot]

I think you should judge GMs on trades in hindsight, not by what they looked like at the time. If you go back in time, you could justify Yashin for the 2nd pick and Chara, because Chara was a 10 minute a night goon. But that was a brutal, brutal trade for Milbury.

Dorion absolutely crushed the Karlsson trade. An incredible return.

But the Duchene trade was bad (both acquiring him and then what we got when trading him). And the Stone trade was an abomination.

It pretty much evens out, because the Karlsson return was so fantastic. But going 1-2 on those trades is why we're still "rebuilding". If he had nailed all 3 of those trades, or even two of the three, we'd probably be in the playoffs right now.

Imagine if we had actually got a young top 6 winger for Duchene and a young top 4 defenseman for Stone? That would have pretty much covered all our needs. Instead we have nothing to show for Duchene and Brannstrom trying his best... but not doing much.

I think both ways of evaluating a trade have merit. If I trade Sidney Crosby for a 2nd round pick, it doesn't matter that I somehow draft the next gretzky with that pick, or that Crosby throws out his back picking up groceries the next game, that wasn't getting max value. But, it's results oriented business, so obviously results are important too.