Player Discussion Matt Murray (G) - 4 years, $6.25M AAV
- Thread starter Stuzchuk
- Start date
- Status
cudi
Mojo So Dope
- Feb 2, 2020
- 8,023
- 12,055
you know the old saying, high scoring teams with shitty defence win championships.
Funny how no one being good on a bad team can be used as an excuse when some Sens fans look at other bad teams. Almost like an irrational double standard.
MDZ was pretty darn good for Columbus last year as well!
Glad we payed half for half the term for our Columbus guy playing like crap. Seems like a win.
Murray does actually have a history of good play. And after making changes to the fundamentals of his game looked have started to regain that form.
Once again apples to oranges. MDZ is a journeyman who bounces from roster to roster cuz he's not the most reliable. Savard has a history of top 4 shutdown experience.
Murray has been on the decline since the 2nd cup run. He has never performed like a top 10 goalie in his career and for him to be worth his deal and role, he needs to play at an unrealistic level. His role of a stop gap is easier to find then someone like Savard who's role is top4 hut down guy on the right side.
This isn't shitting on Murray for the sake of it. Its recognizing that paying big bucks for a stop gap goalie isn't the best plan for a developing team when we are in need for a shut down top 4 defender which actually requires money thrown at them to get lol
BonHoonLayneCornell
Registered User
Eh, as I said I disagree.
Lassi looks like he’s made the jump, Sanderson will be here once his season ends, Zub is here and so is Chabot. That high priced top 4 vet we spent assets to acquire would already be in the way, or be disgruntled at getting bottom 3 minutes.
But he wouldn’t have joined a team mid rebuild anyways so the point is moot.
It is difficult at times, but patience is key.
BonHoonLayneCornell
Registered User
Are you at least willing to entertain other possible outcomes when bringing in that top 4 guy and that nothing you've said here is guaranteed to play out that way?
Maybe that guy brought in is still the best of the bunch and the rest have to slot in behind him for a bit longer?
Maybe injuries happen like they're almost guaranteed to, long or short term?
Maybe Thomson stagnates and/or Sanderson struggles out of the gate?
Maybe it allows them to move out a guy like Zaitsev instead and have a better overall d corps with a guy or two playing below their ideal slot?
Maybe the new guys learn the most from this quality veteran and/or gets to play with them?
There's a reasonable argument for doing the opposite.
Of course I can see value there, but I also see the cost and the detractors to coming here.
I don’t disagree with the premise, I disagree that quality vets want to come here at this stage in their careers and our rebuild, and that if they do it us to be for term and money, or we have to pay assets to pry someone loose from another team.
At the same time we’re still heavily developing and need space for our own D picks to move in and up. It’s not like having 4 forward lines to space our talent. We really only have one spot on the right side top four to offer, and we have two kids that we want to fill it sooner than later.
I understand the idea of getting quality character vets that are willing to play short term for small money on the bottom pairing if eventually things go our way.
I just don’t think we had the picks of the litter, and some of those guys that were coveted look terrible, like Savard. He’s also not exactly an aging star vet either. I’d love to get Giroux, or a guy like that in the off season to actually make guys eyes open.
Say why we will about Murray, but I bet his presence and experience and his cups mean a lot to Gus.
BonHoonLayneCornell
Registered User
Those are fair points and they would have had to overpay in either money, term or in trade assets, but they did that with what they did bring in at other positions as well so it's not much different to me.
I'm less interested in hypotheticals about who would or wouldn't come here as I am in the line of thinking being accepted as just a different route for building up and that they all have some merit. IF, and that's a big if, but IF they had been able to bring in a quality top 4 dman or two over going the route they did with their funds last year, even if it's at the expense of Murray who has some value to this rebuilding team, they could be no worse off or imo would probably be better off right now.
I think they wanted to bring in a top 4, they said as much. But I think realities of who was willing to come here, what the price in term and dollars was for those who would, and what it would cost in a trade, led to a judgement call needing to be made.
If we were going to pushing for a playoff spot and really needed a few guys to push us over, I bet there would have been a willingness to spend more assets, but for this season it seems like the costs were too high.
Like I said, I love the idea of Giroux, and I like that we have Murray in net with Gus and Forsberg. I don’t know what the solution is on D if Lassi keeps playing the way he has. We’ll be looking at bribing in a player that has some cashe but is late in their career?
This squad is slowly starting to round out this season, and by the end of the season we’ll be looking at most of the ‘now’ rookie being on the squad. Grieg, Boucher, Kleven, Jarventie are all in the next group of kids to come up.
We’re growing slow no doubt, but I just don’t see it being the wrong way.
Loach
Registered User
- Jun 9, 2021
- 3,393
- 2,413
I just see Murray as a good back up. Unfortunalty for him, he caught lightning in a bottle for a year and a bit on a very good team under strange circumstances. Now he is a failing starting goalie instead of a successfull backup that took advantage of a situation. I didn't mind the trade...thought he would split duties. What followed was and is madness.
Adrianopolous
Registered User
I've disliked him since the "incident" in May 2017 and now I dislike him 10 times more.. Why we went and got him I am not sure at this time...
BonHoonLayneCornell
Registered User
Just imagine how bad it could be if we hadn't at least added that 2nd top 4 dman.
Because without Zub, we still needed two defenders that were good enough to play the 2nd pairing? Zaitsev is only a 2nd pairing guy for us because DJ Smith doesn't trust the youth and for some reason wants Brannstrom to play on his off ice. Its not revisionism to state that we've needed defensive help since moving on from EK.
Who are the individuals, let alone, "everyone" that is acting like we didn't add a top 4 in Zub?
His name is already called out every time he touches the puck or makes a play - pretty sure the masses understand he is good for us.
Almost everything I read is about needing a 2nd pairing RD to play with Sanderson now because ideally we don't saddle TC with Z again.
Talk about hijacking the narrative!
BonHoonLayneCornell
Registered User
If anything everyone was upset he was only signed for 2 years and then is UFA!
aragorn
Do The Right Thing
- Aug 8, 2004
- 29,281
- 9,984
They needed a top 4 RD & added Zub last season & created a good top pairing with Chabot & Zub. They need to do the same for the 2nd pairing & Thomson looks like he is emerging as a front runner for a top 4 spot. Most assume that when Sanderson gets here he should have a top 4 spot as well.
However, since both are rookies it might make more sense to split them up with the top pairing & create two good pairings with Chabot & Thomson & Sanderson & Zub for a while at least. JBD is another possibility to emerge at some point as a top 4 D too & I assume that Kleven will eventually be a decent 3rd pairing guy.
However, since both are rookies it might make more sense to split them up with the top pairing & create two good pairings with Chabot & Thomson & Sanderson & Zub for a while at least. JBD is another possibility to emerge at some point as a top 4 D too & I assume that Kleven will eventually be a decent 3rd pairing guy.
If Thomson continues to play well, do we add another D this off-season? Or do we just roll the dice on:
Chabot - Thomson
Sanderson - Zub
As our top 4. Bit risky but I don’t hate it.
aragorn
Do The Right Thing
- Aug 8, 2004
- 29,281
- 9,984
Who knows, but my own opinion is they will stick with the plan & go with what they have. They might be able to add a pretty good RD in this upcoming draft too, there are a few good ones available rather than trade for one. Add Kleven & JBD to those four that you have & it could be a decent defence in a few yrs.
swiftwin
★SUMMER.OF.STEVE★
- Jul 26, 2005
- 24,185
- 13,901
The funny thing is with the way last season ended, people here were happy with the idea of rolling with guys like Mete, Brannstrom and even Brown this season, because they were playing so well at the end of last season. It made total sense to just roll with those guys until Sanderson came along. Despite this, Dorion still went out and added Holden, which caused many around here to be upset because he was going to take away time from Mete, Brannstrom, etc. Now everyone's like "why didn't you add even more!"
swiftwin
★SUMMER.OF.STEVE★
- Jul 26, 2005
- 24,185
- 13,901
People love him when he plays, but when we're discussing team management decisions, people pretend he doesn't exist, or pretend acquiring him wasn't a management decision.
BonHoonLayneCornell
Registered User
You're missing the context of most of those comments. It was about who they brought in like it usually is. They were bringing in bodies not upgrades for a couple off seasons, so it was more about not blocking guys like Brannstrom for another non upgrade re-tread, sort of like Holden that you reference.
That move gets a ton of credit and I see it all the time from posters that get labelled "haters" because they have a different opinion. It was even included as a poll option in the Dorion's best moves thread.
Sens of Anarchy
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 67,193
- 52,936
To be honest Playah I think that's the ideal scenario. It means Thomson would have passed the DJ test to play top-4. The way Sanderson plays right now, I think he will be just fine, especially with Artem "the most interesting man in the world" Zuuuub!
I would still grab another true veteran defenceman somewhere to round out the top-6. A true veteran who can play, not a 7th/8th defenceman overpaid to play the role.
- Status
