Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Matt Murray (G) - 4 years, $6.25M AAV

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not 100% confident in Murray just yet. He did not look shaky at all, but I was concerned at his positioning on a few shots but that was his first game in a really long time. So far I would say all those goalies have looked less than stellar so I would not be concerned really.
 
I'm really torn on Murray. It was a high-risk move. Did we need to make a high risk move?

Like:

1. Contract term. Given his injury and consistency issues. getting a 4 year term was huge to limit potential blowback.
2. High-end potential. No one else that was going to come to Ottawa has the potential Murray does. Especially in our budget.
3. Acquiring a Vet. Just in general. Not running with a bunch of maybes in net should just give the team the stability they need to grow

Dislike:

1. Did we really NEED Murray, or could we have gone with a cheaper vet and achieved much the same thing?
2. If we don't intend on competing over the next 4 years, what was the point of Murray again? Just an unnecessary risk,.
3. With all his injury and consistency baggage, it kind of hamstrings us if he falters given his salary, arguing for a cheaper alternative or another high risk move.


I guess if you're Sens management, and you truly believe you have to compete in the next 4 years, Murray is 100% your best option. FAs aren't coming here. Any other option will have risks, and Murray is as good a risk as anyone. Plus, a 4 year term helps the Sens limit damage if it goes sideways.
It will be really interesting to see how the team develops in front of him.
 
IranCondraAffair said:
I'm really torn on Murray. It was a high-risk move. Did we need to make a high risk move?

Like:

1. Contract term. Given his injury and consistency issues. getting a 4 year term was huge to limit potential blowback.
2. High-end potential. No one else that was going to come to Ottawa has the potential Murray does. Especially in our budget.
3. Acquiring a Vet. Just in general. Not running with a bunch of maybes in net should just give the team the stability they need to grow

Dislike:

1. Did we really NEED Murray, or could we have gone with a cheaper vet and achieved much the same thing?
2. If we don't intend on competing over the next 4 years, what was the point of Murray again? Just an unnecessary risk,.
3. With all his injury and consistency baggage, it kind of hamstrings us if he falters given his salary, arguing for a cheaper alternative or another high risk move.


I guess if you're Sens management, and you truly believe you have to compete in the next 4 years, Murray is 100% your best option. FAs aren't coming here. Any other option will have risks, and Murray is as good a risk as anyone. Plus, a 4 year term helps the Sens limit damage if it goes sideways.
It will be really interesting to see how the team develops in front of him.
Click to expand...

#2 in the dislikes makes no sense. Why would you think they don’t plan on competing within 4 years?
 
FormentonTheFuture said:
#2 in the dislikes makes no sense. Why would you think they don’t plan on competing within 4 years?
Click to expand...

We finished among the worst teams.
We added very few high-quality pieces and arguably stayed level talent-wise from last season.
We are almost entirely relying on the development of young players to improve.

Just feels like Murray is a luxury for a team that is headed to the playoffs versus a team that is just trying to make progress
 
IranCondraAffair said:
We finished among the worst teams.
We added very few high-quality pieces and arguably stayed level talent-wise from last season.
We are almost entirely relying on the development of young players to improve.

Just feels like Murray is a luxury for a team that is headed to the playoffs versus a team that is just trying to make progress
Click to expand...
That really doesn’t make sense to me. If the sens finish low again this year, that doesn’t mean they don’t intend on competing within 4 years. There’s no reason this team shouldn’t be really good in a couple of years. Murray provides an experienced option who has been on the biggest stage and won two cups. Far better than hoping we get somebody like him out of our prospects.

look at Vegas, complete expansion team not expected to compete but they went out and got a legit cup winning starter in Fleury who really helped them do well right away
 
FormentonTheFuture said:
That really doesn’t make sense to me. If the sens finish low again this year, that doesn’t mean they don’t intend on competing within 4 years. There’s no reason this team shouldn’t be really good in a couple of years. Murray provides an experienced option who has been on the biggest stage and won two cups. Far better than hoping we get somebody like him out of our prospects.

look at Vegas, complete expansion team not expected to compete but they went out and got a legit cup winning starter in Fleury who really helped them do well right away
Click to expand...
Not saying it can't happen, but we honestly just have to wait and see.
 
IranCondraAffair said:
I'm really torn on Murray. It was a high-risk move. Did we need to make a high risk move?

Like:

1. Contract term. Given his injury and consistency issues. getting a 4 year term was huge to limit potential blowback.
2. High-end potential. No one else that was going to come to Ottawa has the potential Murray does. Especially in our budget.
3. Acquiring a Vet. Just in general. Not running with a bunch of maybes in net should just give the team the stability they need to grow

Dislike:

1. Did we really NEED Murray, or could we have gone with a cheaper vet and achieved much the same thing?
2. If we don't intend on competing over the next 4 years, what was the point of Murray again? Just an unnecessary risk,.
3. With all his injury and consistency baggage, it kind of hamstrings us if he falters given his salary, arguing for a cheaper alternative or another high risk move.


I guess if you're Sens management, and you truly believe you have to compete in the next 4 years, Murray is 100% your best option. FAs aren't coming here. Any other option will have risks, and Murray is as good a risk as anyone. Plus, a 4 year term helps the Sens limit damage if it goes sideways.
It will be really interesting to see how the team develops in front of him.
Click to expand...

This team would have been a train wreck given their internal goaltending options going into this year .

There were a bunch of 1B tier stop gap guys on the FA market, which would have done nothing in terms of adding stability .

They clearly identified goaltending as a major weakness , and went after a known 1G at all time low value .

As much as they clown themselves sometimes, this is budget team 101.
 
In hindsight, its looking like a better and better move. Perfect stop gap who isn't exactly the best in the world, but has the potential to bounce back to form. But given how the nature of goaltending in the league is shifting to 1a/1b as oppose to strict starters and back ups, this lets us develop our young guys without having a viable option. Gustavsson, Daccord, Hogberg, etc... no point in throwing them to the wolves.
 
The Lewler said:
This team would have been a train wreck given their internal goaltending options going into this year .

There were a bunch of 1B tier stop gap guys on the FA market, which would have done nothing in terms of adding stability .

They clearly identified goaltending as a major weakness , and went after a known 1G at all time low value .

As much as they clown themselves sometimes, this is budget team 101.
Click to expand...

IDK, Holtby at 4.3X 2 years would have been nice if he were willing to come here.

Khudobin 3X3 would have been nice too.

I think they would have added stability even if Murray was a better long term option. Maybe those guys would never have come here.
 
IranCondraAffair said:
I'm really torn on Murray. It was a high-risk move. Did we need to make a high risk move?

Like:

1. Contract term. Given his injury and consistency issues. getting a 4 year term was huge to limit potential blowback.
2. High-end potential. No one else that was going to come to Ottawa has the potential Murray does. Especially in our budget.
3. Acquiring a Vet. Just in general. Not running with a bunch of maybes in net should just give the team the stability they need to grow

Dislike:

1. Did we really NEED Murray, or could we have gone with a cheaper vet and achieved much the same thing?
2. If we don't intend on competing over the next 4 years, what was the point of Murray again? Just an unnecessary risk,.
3. With all his injury and consistency baggage, it kind of hamstrings us if he falters given his salary, arguing for a cheaper alternative or another high risk move.


I guess if you're Sens management, and you truly believe you have to compete in the next 4 years, Murray is 100% your best option. FAs aren't coming here. Any other option will have risks, and Murray is as good a risk as anyone. Plus, a 4 year term helps the Sens limit damage if it goes sideways.
It will be really interesting to see how the team develops in front of him.
Click to expand...

The plan is definitely to be competitive in 4 years.
 
FormentonTheFuture said:
#2 in the dislikes makes no sense. Why would you think they don’t plan on competing within 4 years?
Click to expand...

Yeah it seems pretty obvious that they're aiming to compete as early as next season. And given the ages of Chabot and Tkachuk that seems like the logical thing to do in the NHL these days.
 
FormentonTheFuture said:
#2 in the dislikes makes no sense. Why would you think they don’t plan on competing within 4 years?
Click to expand...

Chabot turns 28 y/o in 4 years, I hope we're going to be competitive then... if not, rebuild most likely failed.

IranCondraAffair said:
We finished among the worst teams.
We added very few high-quality pieces and arguably stayed level talent-wise from last season.
We are almost entirely relying on the development of young players to improve.

Just feels like Murray is a luxury for a team that is headed to the playoffs versus a team that is just trying to make progress
Click to expand...

Is there other ways I have never heard about for rebuilding teams? Outside of maybe the Rangers who can sign Panarins

And I don't know how many high-quality pieces you think a team can realistically have?

Tkachuk, Stutzle, Batherson, Norris
Chabot, Sanderson
Murray

Then you have several guys with potential to be high quality pieces or great support players : Logan Brown, Pinto, Formenton, Greig, Jarventie, Brannstrom, Wolanin, JBD, Kleven, etc plus a few goalies with potential.
 
Seems to me we'll be ready to compete within 4 years.

Having a two time winner still in his prime is a piece of the puzzle for sure

Other than Hasek who never played when it mattered, have we ever had a goalie where you ask yourself "is this guy good enough to win a cup?" And you answered YES.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zedrow and Crosside
JD1 said:
Seems to me we'll be ready to compete within 4 years.

Having a two time winner still in his prime is a piece of the puzzle for sure

Other than Hasek who never played when it mattered, have we ever had a goalie where you ask yourself "is this guy good enough to win a cup?" And you answered YES.
Click to expand...

I think Anderson could have won us a Cup. I mean we were pretty much a goal away. Lalime has some of the best playoff numbers of all time. Everyone remembers game 7 against the Leafs though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Que
Can easily end up as the best goalie in franchise history. I love that he’s already won 2 Cups and has been on the winning end of double overtime in the playoffs. He can really be that stabilizing presence for our young squad. Really cheering for him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crosside
Daffy said:
I think Anderson could have won us a Cup. I mean we were pretty much a goal away. Lalime has some of the best playoff numbers of all time. Everyone remembers game 7 against the Leafs though.
Click to expand...

Lalime got the shortest end of the stick imaginable.

Knowing now what I didn’t know then I give him full benefit of the doubt.

NHL dun goofed messing with goalie pads that aggressive, that quick. Ruined his career.
 
Que said:
Lalime got the shortest end of the stick imaginable.

Knowing now what I didn’t know then I give him full benefit of the doubt.

NHL dun goofed messing with goalie pads that aggressive, that quick. Ruined his career.
Click to expand...

You are alluding to something too interesting not to share. Please tell more.
 
Daffy said:
I think Anderson could have won us a Cup. I mean we were pretty much a goal away. Lalime has some of the best playoff numbers of all time. Everyone remembers game 7 against the Leafs though.
Click to expand...

Numbers wise I don't disagree. But did you ever feel super confident with either guy? I didn't. Both were really vulnerable to letting in a very bad goal at any point in time
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crosside
Have to be on the other side of 3 goal games. He’s been alright but Ottawa has to win most of their games with low scoring and I think Ottawa played the most 1 goal games in the NHL last year?

want to see Murray can be the guy who can do what Andy did and keep games even and eliminate bad 1st periods. Two games, first goal both games. Let in 3 goals. Not a formula for winning. I’m not convinced
 
Tuna99 said:
Have to be on the other side of 3 goal games. He’s been alright but Ottawa has to win most of their games with low scoring and I think Ottawa played the most 1 goal games in the NHL last year?

want to see Murray can be the guy who can do what Andy did and keep games even and eliminate bad 1st periods. Two games, first goal both games. Let in 3 goals. Not a formula for winning. I’m not convinced
Click to expand...
Sens scored first last night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom