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

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

I personally think we focus too much on goaltending right now. The defense and center ice are flawed which are two very important positions for team defense.

Even Gus will have bad numbers if we continue to play like we are

Arguably we might have been able to fix the defense or center had we not focused on goaltending (and wing), since Murray and Dadonov contracts could have been hung out there for defence and center instead and might have been able to draw a guy or two with an overpayment.

 

[HSF]

Arguably we might have been able to fix the defense or center had we not focused on goaltending (and wing), since Murray and Dadonov contracts could have been hung out there for defence and center instead and might have been able to draw a guy or two with an overpayment.

i mean we had a whole offseason to figure it out and didnt make a single improvement

 

[bicboi64]

Agreed on points where our defense isn't solid enough to give any goaltender a chance to succeed. Gus and Murray are being put in a position to have to be prime Hasek in order for us to succeed. I do think Murray won't be a part of the solution, but its somewhat unfair to evaluate him given how crap our D is

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

i mean we had a whole offseason to figure it out and didnt make a single improvement

The available money was already spent which was more what I was going for. It's just an interesting thought of where the team might be had they focused on more pressing areas with the cash that was available and spent the last two years.

Murray contract 6.25/year
Dadonov contract 5/year

That could potentially have brought in a couple quality dmen on short term overpayments when added to the UFA salaries we paid out for MDZ this year and Gud last year.

 

[swiftwin]

The available money was already spent which was more what I was going for. It's just an interesting thought of where the team might be had they focused on more pressing areas with the cash that was available and spent the last two years.

Murray contract 6.25/year
Dadonov contract 5/year

That could potentially have brought in a couple quality dmen on short term overpayments when added to the UFA salaries we paid out for MDZ this year and Gud last year.

Goaltending absolutely was a pressing area when we acquired Murray. Anderson and Nilsson were both gone. Who were we going to roll with to start last season? Hogberg/Gustavsson? Gustavsson didn't even play his first NHL game yet at the time, and Daccord had 1 NHL game under his belt.

We also only paid Dadonov $3.5m last season.

I'm very happy with Murray/Gustavsson going forward. Can't have a 22-23yr old kid take the reins solo on a rebuilding team. Just look at what happened to Carter Hart last season, and what is happening to Thatcher Demko right now. Goaltending is the hardest position for a young player. You need a veteran like Murray to lean on.

I also find it slightly ironic that you're saying we should overpay for a short term deal to fill a pressing need. That's literally what we did with Murray, which was by far our most pressing need at the time.

 

[Beech]

Goaltending absolutely was a pressing area when we acquired Murray. Who were we going to roll with to start last season? Hogberg/Gustavsson? Gustavsson didn't even play his first NHL game yet at the time, and Daccord had 1 NHL game under his belt.

We also only paid Dadonov $3.5m last season.

I'm very happy with Murray/Gustavsson going forward. Can't have a 22-23yr old kid take the reins solo on a rebuilding team. Just look at what happened to Carter Hart last season, and what is happening to Thatcher Demko right now. Goaltending is the hardest position for a young player. You need a veteran like Murray to lean on.

I also find it slightly ironic that you're saying we should overpay for a short term deal to fill a pressing need. That's literally what we did with Murray, which was by far our most pressing need at the time.

it was the correct action. Incorrect choice of goalie.

If pro scouting advised Dorion on this one..and Dorion himself said so!!!! They dropped the ball. 6.25 x 5 on a guy who was cut adrift by his former team..Supplanted by Jarry, who is not setting the world on fire. Made available for a song..at age 26, a mere 2 years removed from his greatest accomplishments...Fire alarms should have gone off...

A 1 year or 2 year offer at 3-3 1/2 million should have been it...If Murray did not accept, move on.

Their actions made no sense and their scouts were not on the ball... Holtby in Dallas is on a one year 2 million, prove yourself contract..The Sens should have done the same..Heck Holtby signed in Vancouver at 2 years, 4 million per in 202o in a similar, prove it kind of deal..He missed, they bought out year 2 and moved off of him...

 

[swiftwin]

it was the correct action. Incorrect choice of goalie.

If pro scouting advised Dorion on this one..and Dorion himself said so!!!! They dropped the ball. 6.25 x 5 on a guy who was cut adrift by his former team..Supplanted by Jarry, who is not setting the world on fire. Made available for a song..at age 26, a mere 2 years removed from his greatest accomplishments...Fire alarms should have gone off...

A 1 year or 2 year offer at 3-3 1/2 million should have been it...If Murray did not accept, move on.

Their actions made no sense and their scouts were not on the ball... Holtby in Dallas is on a one year 2 million, prove yourself contract..The Sens should have done the same..Heck Holtby signed in Vancouver at 2 years, 4 million per in 202o in a similar, prove it kind of deal..He missed, they bought out year 2 and moved off of him...

Murray is far better than Holtby. Holtby is old and washed up. Going for Holtby is the equivalent of going for MDZ instead of a young defenseman entering his prime.

Edit: Also, get your fact straight. Murray is on a 4yr deal, not a 5yr deal.

Edit#2: I also find it utterly hilarious that you're saying we should have gone for a goalie who litteraly had to be bought out for sucking too much.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Goaltending absolutely was a pressing area when we acquired Murray. Anderson and Nilsson were both gone. Who were we going to roll with to start last season? Hogberg/Gustavsson? Gustavsson didn't even play his first NHL game yet at the time, and Daccord had 1 NHL game under his belt.

We also only paid Dadonov $3.5m last season.

I'm very happy with Murray/Gustavsson going forward. Can't have a 22-23yr old kid take the reins solo on a rebuilding team. Just look at what happened to Carter Hart last season, and what is happening to Thatcher Demko right now. Goaltending is the hardest position for a young player. You need a veteran like Murray to lean on.

I also find it slightly ironic that you're saying we should overpay for a short term deal to fill a pressing need. That's literally what we did with Murray, which was by far our most pressing need at the time.

Definitely not Hogberg. There were a lot of veterans shuffled around and they also re-signed Forsberg. Sure, goaltending was a need, but it's not like the only answer to it was trading for Matt Murray and handing out a massive medium term contract, especially considering their financial restrictions. Until Matt Murray is a significant positive contributor and stays in the lineup more than 2 weeks at a time, I have to assume we probably would have been just fine with another solution during these throwaway seasons and while saying they had two rookies helps exaggerate your point, we both know they would have gone in another direction and secured at least one veteran.

They dealt Dadonov earlier than expected, but by signing him, they were obviously prepared to payout that contract and also wouldn't have ended up with Holden's contract and ones like MDZ and/or Gud might have been able to be avoided as well.

If we went the route of putting those contract dollars towards a dman instead, worst case goaltending is a tire fire like the defense has been this year and last year since we can't afford to fix both, so pick your poison I guess. Really its just the same story its always been in Ottawa that defined 65's tenure with not being a spending team, they can't afford to fill a few big holes, so you just have to pick where those holes are and hope you gave your team the best shot.

Either way, my original question was hypothetical and was more than fair, its not like you can argue that the defense personnel isn't a glaring issue, at best it would be an argument that goaltending and a winger were more pressing needs. Where could this team be right now if they had focused on fixing the defense with those dollars instead?

 

[TheNewEra]

The thing with murray is that I would have definitely tried to reduce the term on the deal. Even if that meant paying him more. Swiftwin is right there is no way we should have been rolling Hog/Gus at the time we got Murray but this contract was way too long from the get go. Especially for a goalie who put up inconsistent results in Pittsburgh the last 3 seasons before coming to Ottawa.

He was a good goalie upgrade to get but I would have really preferred that we signed him to a 7-8 million per year deal on a 2-3 year. We have a few contracts that need to be dealt with while we have his increasing contract on the books. Not to mention with all of our goalie prospects in the system it just didnt make sense to tie ourselves into a long term deal on a goalie

 

[swiftwin]

The thing with murray is that I would have definitely tried to reduce the term on the deal. Even if that meant paying him more. Swiftwin is right there is no way we should have been rolling Hog/Gus at the time we got Murray but this contract was way too long from the get go. Especially for a goalie who put up inconsistent results in Pittsburgh the last 3 seasons before coming to Ottawa.

He was a good goalie upgrade to get but I would have really preferred that we signed him to a 7-8 million per year deal on a 2-3 year. We have a few contracts that need to be dealt with while we have his increasing contract on the books. Not to mention with all of our goalie prospects in the system it just didnt make sense to tie ourselves into a long term deal on a goalie

Depends on how you look at it.

There are two advantages in going with 4yrs instead of 2-3. First, you can backload the contract. Murray made $4m last season, $6m this season, then $7m and $8m in his final two. Secondly, if our young goalie prospects are that good and take the reins from Murray, we can trade Murray in his final, most expensive, year. Which means we would have paid Murray ~$5.75ish for 3 seasons, instead of the 7+ like you're suggesting, and we potentially get assets back. Don't forget, Murray was only 26yrs old when we signed him. He'll be 29/30 in his final year. That's the absolute prime for most goalies. He's not some ageing vet.

 

[TheNewEra]

Depends on how you look at it.

There are two advantages in going with 4yrs instead of 2-3. First, you can backload the contract. Murray made $4m last season, $6m this season, then $7m and $8m in his final two. Secondly, if our young goalie prospects are that good and take the reins from Murray, we can trade Murray in his final, most expensive, year. Which means we would have paid Murray ~$5.75ish for 3 seasons, instead of the 7+ like you're suggesting, and we potentially get assets back. Don't forget, Murray was only 26yrs old when we signed him. He'll be 29/30 in his final year. That's the absolute prime for most goalies. He's not some ageing vet.

Thats fair but at the same time outside of 3-5 teams a lot of teams do actually care about operating costs. So in order for Murray to be a tradeable asset he will need to perform and with some consistency. This is now his second year into the contract and both years he has missed time due to injury. Thats not even factoring in his performance. I dont see teams being interested in trading for him and then paying 7 million and 8 million in his last two years when he cant be in the lineup regularly. (Not counting his time out of the lineup due to COVID just everything else). Then if you factor in his sv% vs actual salary its really questionable how we get assets back (unless its a ceci for zaistev type deal which i really hope we dont do again ffs)

If we had controlled term more we would have had options for all of the above, either our goalies dont develop and we could reevaluate Murray a lot sooner or our goalies develop and we trade him or he underwhelms and we get out of the contract a lot sooner if we cant trade him. It really seems like we didnt win on the term or the cost in this contract which is rare when a player is coming off a bad season before extending

 

[Beech]

Murray is far better than Holtby. Holtby is old and washed up. Going for Holtby is the equivalent of going for MDZ instead of a young defenseman entering his prime.

Edit: Also, get your fact straight. Murray is on a 4yr deal, not a 5yr deal.

Edit#2: I also find it utterly hilarious that you're saying we should have gone for a goalie who litteraly had to be bought out for sucking too much.

no..the deal should have been similar to Holtby's and not: they should have chosen Holtby over Murray. ..Holtby is 31 and has been finished for 3 years, Murray is 27 and has been finished for 3 years. Incredible similarities..My guess is; injuries. One guy is toast 2 years after a cup and 3 years after a Vezina. The other toast 3 years after a cup (well 2 cups) and strong Vezina considerations. Incredible similarities isn't it!!

My apologies on the Murray contract, I should have paid better attention. 4 years, not 5.

Either case, they targeted the wrong guy (and no, Holtby was not a better choice, although Holtby's numbers are excellent this year for a back-up). And if they felt that Murray was a good risk, they needed to use the 2 year prove it option. Even if it worked out and he still chose to not resign, you trade him at the deadline for way more than what you paid.

they piggybacked two mistakes. now for the next 2.5 seasons, a possible mess. A mess, they could have been out of by buying him out this summer had they chosen a 2 year prove it deal.

Ohh well, The Euge's money...The more the merrier. I am starting to enjoy Groundhog day.

 

[branch]

Murray is far better than Holtby. Holtby is old and washed up. Going for Holtby is the equivalent of going for MDZ instead of a young defenseman entering his prime.

Edit: Also, get your fact straight. Murray is on a 4yr deal, not a 5yr deal.

Edit#2: I also find it utterly hilarious that you're saying we should have gone for a goalie who litteraly had to be bought out for sucking too much.

What is the difference between old and washed up and young and washed up?

 

[Ice-Tray]

Murray isn’t finished. Gus has looked great, and also been lit up; he’s still developing.

Gus needs Murray because Gus is a rookie on a rebuilding team and is not ready to be a starter on a regular club let alone a club rife with growing pains.

Murray has actually been very good for us since his turn around last season, there is absolutely zero reason to regret signing him.

Health has been a bit of an issue for Murray, though the Flu and COVID aren’t exactly true injury-prone issues. The silver lining is that it’s given Gus a chance to get some NHL games in during a season where he was supposed to log heavy minutes in Belleville.

Holtby is crap and the same people in here moaning about Murray would be hammering management for picking up the ‘Stepan’ of goaltending too.

 

[bicboi64]

Murray's still doesn't make sense for us. Forsberg and other stop gaps can provide the same 'stability' that Murray can and at a much cheaper rate. We're better off spending that extra cap room on defensive help then on a goalie who was under performing at the time of his acquisition. He's been decent for us this season, but he'll never play to his contract's value. No more trading assets for players and overpaying them. Go to UFA for stop gaps and hopefully PD can offload Murray this season for anything and (fingers crossed, prayers recited) acquire some defensive help.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Murray isn’t finished. Gus has looked great, and also been lit up; he’s still developing.

Gus needs Murray because Gus is a rookie on a rebuilding team and is not ready to be a starter on a regular club let alone a club rife with growing pains.

Murray has actually been very good for us since his turn around last season, there is absolutely zero reason to regret signing him.

Health has been a bit of an issue for Murray, though the Flu and COVID aren’t exactly true injury-prone issues. The silver lining is that it’s given Gus a chance to get some NHL games in during a season where he was supposed to log heavy minutes in Belleville.

Holtby is crap and the same people in here moaning about Murray would be hammering management for picking up the ‘Stepan’ of goaltending too.

There's plenty of reasons to regret signing him.

a) He's being paid like a top 10 goalie, and his play hasn't been close to that level
b) He hasn't been in the lineup consistently
c) It's become clear that his contract and tenure won't line up with our competitive window

We're not competing this year. Chances are, we won't be competing next year (being a bubble team would be great). Realistically, we won't be a playoff team until 2023-24 - the last year of Murray's deal. After that, he probably won't be back.

Hindsight is 20/20, but in hindsight, we would have been better off signing an older, cheaper, more dependable veteran goalie who could play 30-50 games, mentor Gustavsson, and free up payroll for some of the other glaring holes on this roster.

James Reimer. Petr Mrazek. Jonathan Bernier. Anti Raanta. All would have been better options.

Murray was a mistake. Let's call a spade a spade. We'll pay him ~$20M and he'll, if we're lucky, play in one playoff run for us. Although the way it's going, it's more likely that he's the back-up when we make it.

 

[bicboi64]

There's plenty of reasons to regret signing him.

a) He's being paid like a top 10 goalie, and his play hasn't been close to that level

Just wanted to see exactly how high he was being paid, I knew it was top 10, but not sure what exact. He's 6th. Gibson, Fleury, Vasilevsky, Bobo, and Price above him...lol PD has made it impossible for Murray to ever succeed in Ottawa. He has to literally put up elite numbers to be worth his caphit unless we're cool with $6.25 million for a mentor/stop gap.

Even during his cup winning years. His save percentage was in the 20-25th percent range among goalies that played at least 50 games.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Murray isn’t finished. Gus has looked great, and also been lit up; he’s still developing.

Gus needs Murray because Gus is a rookie on a rebuilding team and is not ready to be a starter on a regular club let alone a club rife with growing pains.

Murray has actually been very good for us since his turn around last season, there is absolutely zero reason to regret signing him.

Health has been a bit of an issue for Murray, though the Flu and COVID aren’t exactly true injury-prone issues. The silver lining is that it’s given Gus a chance to get some NHL games in during a season where he was supposed to log heavy minutes in Belleville.

Holtby is crap and the same people in here moaning about Murray would be hammering management for picking up the ‘Stepan’ of goaltending too.

It shouldn't always need to be "hammering" or that sort of label when it comes to stuff like this.

We are a team with very limited resources, so while comments like "Murray is a trash can full of poop" are unwarranted and an exaggeration, to say you would have preferred a different use of those funds, maybe even accepting issues at the position you're diverting those funds from, is a respectable position that deserves consideration as a valid point of view and not just framed as crapping on the organization.

6 mil spent in column A means 6 mil less to spend in column B or C.

In a scenario where Murray wasn't signed and they instead signed a Dman for the same contract and they dealt with similar performance/health issues, we'd be having the same conversation really and anyone that said they'd rather have put that contract to a goalie would certainly have a leg to stand on.

 

[swiftwin]

There's plenty of reasons to regret signing him.

a) He's being paid like a top 10 goalie, and his play hasn't been close to that level
b) He hasn't been in the lineup consistently
c) It's become clear that his contract and tenure won't line up with our competitive window

We're not competing this year. Chances are, we won't be competing next year (being a bubble team would be great). Realistically, we won't be a playoff team until 2023-24 - the last year of Murray's deal. After that, he probably won't be back.

Hindsight is 20/20, but in hindsight, we would have been better off signing an older, cheaper, more dependable veteran goalie who could play 30-50 games, mentor Gustavsson, and free up payroll for some of the other glaring holes on this roster.

James Reimer. Petr Mrazek. Jonathan Bernier. Anti Raanta. All would have been better options.

Murray was a mistake. Let's call a spade a spade. We'll pay him ~$20M and he'll, if we're lucky, play in one playoff run for us. Although the way it's going, it's more likely that he's the back-up when we make it.

Ok, so then are you of the opinion that we shouldn't acquire better defensemen because "it doesn't matter anyways since we're not competing"???? You can't have it both ways.

I find it ridiculous that everyone here bitches that we went bargain bin hunting on MDZ other other defensemen, but at the same time argue that we should have gone bargain bin hunting for a goalie (which is a FAR more important position).

 

[DaveMatthew]

Murray is far better than Holtby. Holtby is old and washed up. Going for Holtby is the equivalent of going for MDZ instead of a young defenseman entering his prime.

Edit: Also, get your fact straight. Murray is on a 4yr deal, not a 5yr deal.

Edit#2: I also find it utterly hilarious that you're saying we should have gone for a goalie who litteraly had to be bought out for sucking too much.

Let's look at their numbers since they left their former teams.

Matt Murray: 32 games. 10-17-1 record. .894 SV%. 3.33 GAA.
Braden Holtby: 29 games. 9-15-4 record. .897 SV%. 3.36 GAA.

The resemblance is uncanny! They both suck.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Ok, so then are you of the opinion that we shouldn't acquire better defensemen because "it doesn't matter anyways since we're not competing"???? You can't have it both ways.

I find it ridiculous that everyone here bitches that we went bargain bin hunting on MDZ other other defensemen, but at the same time argue that we should have gone bargain bin hunting for a goalie (which is a FAR more important position).

I'm suggesting we shouldn't sign bad players to cheap contracts AND we shouldn't sign bad players to expensive contracts. Let's stop signing bad players, in short. Matt Murray has been a bad player. There's no reason to believe he'll turn it around.

32 games. 10-17-1 record. .894 SV%. 3.33 GAA.

Those are not good numbers.

James Reimer, in comparison, and for example, has been a good player. I'd much prefer him.

 

[swiftwin]

I'm suggesting we shouldn't sign bad players to cheap contracts AND we shouldn't sign bad players to expensive contracts. Let's stop signing bad players, in short. Matt Murray has been a bad player. There's no reason to believe he'll turn it around.

32 games. 10-17-1 record. .894 SV%. 3.33 GAA.

Those are not good numbers.

James Reimer, in comparison, and for example, has been a good player. I'd much prefer him.

Now compare his first 16 games with us to his last 16 games against us. Murray is far better than his first 16 games with us suggests. But the reasons for this have already been brought many times, and you're just deliberately avoiding them. Instead you choose to cling to the first month or so from last season.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Now compare his first 16 games with us to his last 16 games against us. Murray is far better than his first 16 games with us suggests. But the reasons for this have already been brought many times, and you're just deliberately avoiding them. Instead you choose to cling to the first month or so from last season.

I mean, his save percentage this year is, once again, sub .900 and his GAA is above 3.0.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

I don’t think Murray is an AHL goalie. I think he’d be fine in a platoon situation, on a good team, making 3M a season.

But him with a 4 year contract at $6.25M per is objectively terrible. There’s no two ways about it.

At this point, I’m hoping he can split games with Gustavsson over the next 3 years and put up a .900-905 SV%. I’d be happy with that. But even if he does that, he’ll still be massively overpaid.

 

[swiftwin]

It shouldn't always need to be "hammering" or that sort of label when it comes to stuff like this.

We are a team with very limited resources, so while comments like "Murray is a trash can full of poop" are unwarranted and an exaggeration, to say you would have preferred a different use of those funds, maybe even accepting issues at the position you're diverting those funds from, is a respectable position that deserves consideration as a valid point of view and not just framed as crapping on the organization.

6 mil spent in column A means 6 mil less to spend in column B or C.

In a scenario where Murray wasn't signed and they instead signed a Dman for the same contract and they dealt with similar performance/health issues, we'd be having the same conversation really and anyone that said they'd rather have put that contract to a goalie would certainly have a leg to stand on.

Agree with this. Goalie is far more important of a position than defenseman. If we had spent Murray's $6m on a defenseman and gone bargain bin hunting for a goalie, we'd be far worse off.

 

[swiftwin]

I mean, his save percentage this year is, once again, sub .900 and his GAA is above 3.0.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

I don’t think Murray is an AHL goalie. I think he’d be fine in a platoon situation, on a good team, making 3M a season.

But him with a 4 year contract at $6.25M per is objectively terrible. There’s no two ways about it.

At this point, I’m hoping he can split games with Gustavsson over the next 3 years and put up a .900-905 SV%. I’d be happy with that. But even if he does that, he’ll still be massively overpaid.

You're cherry picking small sample sizes.

He's played 32 games with us. In the first half, he has a .883, and in the second half he has a .904. To me, that's a clear trend in the right direction, which correlates with the fact that he's been reinventing his style of play with a new goalie coach.