Management Rate Staios so far

[Micklebot]

Which points do you disagree with? Because it seems like all of them still stand in their validity.

Well, there's some interesting context omitted from this list

1. Traded a 1RP for a player on an expiring contract before they even discussed a contract extension.
And then Dorion failed to extend him while Staois succeeded in extending Ullmark. It's also important context that Ullmark had a 16 team NTC list and chose not to put Ottawa on that list, and the 1st rd pick was 25th OA not 7OA, that in itself changes the risk profile substantially.

2. Signed a scoring winger to a big enough contract that it put us in a cap bind to sign Pinto.
We weren't really in a bind to sign Pinto though, we still had 4 mil left after singing him (enough to keep Joseph if we wanted). When Dorion put us in a cap bind, we literally couldn't ice a 20 man roster opening night as a result, and were constantly juggling pieces to keep cap compliant all year, and still hadn't signed Pinto. You're creating a false equivalency

Just checked, had we kept Joseph, along with making all the other moves, we could have iced a 20 man roster with 514k in cap space, certainly not ideal to have no extra's but a very different situation than what Dorion did where we had, if I recall, ~11k in capspace before signing Pinto.

3. That scoring winger signing means we had to pay to unload Joseph, instead of recouping an asset.
As per above, we didn't have to trade Joseph, we chose to. We made a choice to get Amadio for joseph's role. Joseph was never going to return an asset of any real value imo, but I can see the argument for keeping Joseph over adding Amadio, they seem to have prefered Amadio, which I'm personally in agreement with, but I don't begrudge anyone who'd have prefered Joseph and a 3rd over Amadio.

4. Made a pretty significant reach at the draft with our 1RP, taking a guy at 7 who was consensus ranked in the mid-teens.
No we didn't, Yakemchuk went in the range he was expected to based on the Mackenzie scouting poll (the gold standard year after year). The composition of the draft was such that 5-15 was tight, this is nothing like drafting Boucher at 10, another false equivalency on your part.

5. Offloaded a 26yo top 4 D, who has another 8 years of NHL-quality play in him, for a guy who will be 34 when the season starts and has 2, maaaaaaybe 3, more years of NHL-quality play in him.
Yes, however Chychrun very clearly was not a fit. He was absolutely terrible last season with us, and Jensen has been great so far, as well as seems to have revitalized Chabot.

6. Talked about adding veterans and experience to the lineup in the lead up to the offseason and the only guy he brought in who fits that description is Perron, who more or less is exactly the same thing Tarasenko brought the year before.
Jensen is absolutely a vet with experience, not sure how you can miss him immediately after complaining he's too old... Cousins has over 600 career games, and another 60+ playoff games, including a Stanley cup ring, even Amadio has close to 400 games and a Stanley cup ring. All these guys add experience, particularly playoff experience. I do think Tarasenko was a good pickup by Dorion, but we moved out Kelly (177 games, 0 playoffs) and replaced him with Gregor (241 games, 2 playoffs), Kastelic (144 games, zero playoffs) and replaced him with Cousins (592 games, and 63 playoffs), Joseph (360 gp, 10 playoffs) replacing him with Amadio (369 gp and 21 playoffs), and Chychrun (467 gp, 9 playoff) with Jensen (562 gp, 27 playoffs). All those guys have more experience than we sent out especially when you include playoffs.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

He's done well but signing Ullmark this early looks dicey.
If Linus goes on to play 50+ or a majority of games and has excellent SP% and high danger SP% it's golden. As is though, he had one good game and two average games.
Ultimately, Staios will be judged on whether this team makes the playoffs, but he's had a lot of crap to clean up from Dorion. 2.5 stars, 3 if Ullmark never goes below .910-.913 in the rest of his games.

 

[OmniSens]

Honestly, could place him at a 4 star because we're coming off the Pierre Dorion era. But, some moves could have been better for sure. 3.5 stars. He's pulled the trigger on some awesome deals, some still need to pan out.

So far so good!

 

[Golden_Jet]

He's done well but signing Ullmark this early looks dicey.
If Linus goes on to play 50+ or a majority of games and has excellent SP% and high danger SP% it's golden. As is though, he had one good game and two average games.
Ultimately, Staios will be judged on whether this team makes the playoffs, but he's had a lot of crap to clean up from Dorion. 2.5 stars, 3 if Ullmark never goes below .910-.913 in the rest of his games.

3 game sample size on a goalie who had an injury, is dicey, sure ok.

 

[Micklebot]

3 game sample size on a goalie who had an injury, is dicey, sure ok.

We should definitely put more weight on a 3 game sample rather than the prior 5 seasons where he has a league best .922 sv%...

 

[BankStreetParade]

Well, there's some interesting context omitted from this list

1. Traded a 1RP for a player on an expiring contract before they even discussed a contract extension.
And then Dorion failed to extend him while Staois succeeded in extending Ullmark. It's also important context that Ullmark had a 16 team NTC list and chose not to put Ottawa on that list, that in itself changes the risk profile.

Who cares if we extended him. When we traded a 1RP for him, we hadn't even discussed a contract extension. That's not debatable. I can pull the quotes from both sides if you'd like.

2. Signed a scoring winger to a big enough contract that it put us in a cap bind to sign Pinto.
We weren't really in a bind to sign Pinto though, we still had 4 mil left after singing him (enough to keep Joseph if we wanted). When Dorion put us in a cap bind, we literally couldn't ice a 20 man roster opening night as a result, and were constantly juggling pieces to keep cap compliant all year, and still hadn't signed Pinto. You're creating a false equivalency

No false equivalencies here. When we signed Perron, it put us in a spot where we couldn't go long term with Pinto. Time will tell how much this short term deal will cost us on a long term extension in 2 years but there's no pretending that Perron's deal didn't take away our ability to sign Pinto long term.

3. That scoring winger signing means we had to pay to unload Joseph, instead of recouping an asset.
We made a choice to get Amadio for joseph's role. Joseph was never going to return an asset of any real value imo, but I can see the argument for keeping Joseph over adding Amadio, they seem to have prefered Amadio, which I'm personally in agreement with, but I don't begrudge anyone who'd have prefered Joseph and a 3rd over Amadio.

You can rewrite it however you want. We signed Amadio on July 1st and paid to get rid of Joseph the next day. Did Joseph have negative value? Seems weird for you to agree that he did if you also believe that an argument could be made for keeping him over signing Amadio. It can't be both.

4. Made a pretty significant reach at the draft with our 1RP, taking a guy at 7 who was consensus ranked in the mid-teens.
No we didn't, Yakemchuk went in the range he was expected to based on the Mackenzie scouting poll (the gold standard year after year). The composition of the draft was such that 5-15 was tight, this is nothing like drafting Boucher at 10, another false equivalency on your part.

McKenzie's final draft rankings had him 13th. His draft rankings are an aggregate of 10 scouts' draft lists. So, for the most part, the majority of scouts had him in the middle to second half of the draft. Whether he ends up working out or not, he was consensus ranked in the mid-teens. There's no false equivalencies. There's no mention of Boucher either. Nice try though.

5. Offloaded a 26yo top 4 D, who has another 8 years of NHL-quality play in him, for a guy who will be 34 when the season starts and has 2, maaaaaaybe 3, more years of NHL-quality play in him.
Yes, however Chychrun very clearly was not a fit. He was absolutely terrible last season with us, and Jensen has been great so far, as well as seems to have revitalized Chabot.

Chychrun was clearly not a fit...what does that have to do with the expected value of the player? Sorry, is Jensen 34 years old or not? Is Chychrun 26 years old or not? Did we trade a guy with about 8 years of NHL-quality play left in him for a guy who might have 2 or maybe 3 more? I never mentioned anything about fit. This is about maximizing asset value.

6. Talked about adding veterans and experience to the lineup in the lead up to the offseason and the only guy he brought in who fits that description is Perron, who more or less is exactly the same thing Tarasenko brought the year before.
Jensen is absolutely a vet with experience, not sure how you can miss him immediately after complaining he's too old... Cousins has over 600 career games, and another 60+ playoff games, including a Stanley cup ring, even Amadio has close to 400 games and a Stanley cup ring. All these guys add experience, particularly playoff experience. I do think Tarasenko was a good pickup by Dorion, but we moved out Kelly (177 games, 0 playoffs) and replaced him with Gregor (241 games, 2 playoffs), Kastelic (144 games, zero playoffs) and replaced him with Cousins (592 games, and 63 playoffs), Joseph (360 gp, 10 playoffs) replacing him with Amadio (369 gp and 21 playoffs), and Chychrun (467 gp, 9 playoff) with Jensen (562 gp, 27 playoffs). All those guys have more experience than we sent out especially when you include playoffs.

Cousins? Played 1 game, less than 10 minutes total, in the Finals in their championship win last year. If he counts, then how does Joseph's Cup not count? Amadio has a Cup but so did Tarasenko, and he was far more instrumental in his team's championship than Amadio was. Kelly, Gregor, Kastelic are all a wash. No significant experience to be spoken of between all 3 of them. Perron, no comment until he's back and the things in his personal life are dealt with.

 

[bicboi64]

Solid 7/10 for me.

Improved goaltending by getting and extending Ullmark.
Improved the defense by finding the right fit in Jensen.
Signed veterans to insulate the mentally weak core we've had that can't seem to get going out the gate.
Screwed over a division rival by trading them Korpisalo

Some negatives/things that are hard to assess yet
-Paying to get rid of Joseph
-Signing Perron given out issues with staying disciplined
-Drafting Yakemchuk who fits the old mould of prospect that our dinosaur scouting has been high on
-Not getting rid of deadweight on the roster (Hamonic)

Staios has just pulled the band-aid off on getting rid of guys that he doesn't see as fitting here, even if the returns weren't the best and despite everything, he has iced a balance roster. This is night and day compared to Dorion and I'm content with it.

 

[Micklebot]

Who cares if we extended him. When we traded a 1RP for him, we hadn't even discussed a contract extension. That's not debatable. I can pull the quotes from both sides if you'd like.

Well, we're evaluating the GMs decisions, no? One GM took more risk, and ended up on the wrong side, the other took less risk, and came out on top. Seems pretty easy which one gets the better grade.

No false equivalencies here. When we signed Perron, it put us in a spot where we couldn't go long term with Pinto. Time will tell how much this short term deal will cost us on a long term extension in 2 years but there's no pretending that Perron's deal didn't take away our ability to sign Pinto long term.\\

It's absolutely a false equivalent, Staios had room to extend Pinto, and make all the other moves, and ice a cap compliant roster on Game 1. Dorion didn't have room to sign Pinto to a league min deal let alone a long term deal, we couldn't even ice a 20 man cap compliant roster on game one. The two situations are quite different and you doubling down on them being equivalent is truly embarrassing.

You can rewrite it however you want. We signed Amadio on July 1st and paid to get rid of Joseph the next day. Did Joseph have negative value? Seems weird for you to agree that he did if you also believe that an argument could be made for keeping him over signing Amadio. It can't be both.

Again, I think Joseph's a worse player than Amadio, so I prefer to pay a 3rd to make room to get the better player, but I can see the arguement that some might prefer to have the worse player and a 3rd round pick. So, yeah, it can be both, Joseph was overpaid, and a similar caliber player to Amadio. We had the room for both, we just prefered to have the cap space trading Joseph afforded us.

McKenzie's final draft rankings had him 13th. His draft rankings are an aggregate of 10 scouts' draft lists. So, for the most part, the majority of scouts had him in the middle to second half of the draft. Whether he ends up working out or not, he was consensus ranked in the mid-teens. There's no false equivalencies. There's no mention of Boucher either. Nice try though.

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote, or better yet, what MacKenzie wrote.

And depending upon the scout you talk to, there’s an incredibly varied view of how the blueliners should be ordered...
By the time you distill all those numbers, the differences between the trio of Dickinson, Buium and Parekh are minimal. Levshunov and Silayev appear to be in a consensus tier just above the other three, but there are varying degrees of crossover with that group of five blue-chippers.

There’s actually a sixth consideration, too. That would be TSN’s No. 13-ranked Carter Yakemchuk, the big 6-foot-3, 30-goal man from the Calgary Hitmen. He warrants inclusion in the same universe as the others. He was ranked as high as No. 4 on one list and as low as No. 20 on another, with four scouts having him in their Top 10.

The point is he was in the same tier as the other D, and went in that tier, given how tight the draft was from 7-15 or so. It's absolutely a complete reach on your part to compare that to Boucher who was off the map entirely.

Chychrun was clearly not a fit...what does that have to do with the expected value of the player? Sorry, is Jensen 34 years old or not? Is Chychrun 26 years old or not? Did we trade a guy with about 8 years of NHL-quality play left in him for a guy who might have 2 or maybe 3 more? I never mentioned anything about fit. This is about maximizing asset value.

He was terrible, it tanked his value. Jensen has been a better player for us than Chychrun was and likely would have been, and he'll bridge the gap until Yakemchuk is ready. The goal isn't to maximize asset value, it's to maximize team performance, and Jensen does that far better than Chychrun.

Cousins? Played 1 game, less than 10 minutes total, in the Finals in their championship win last year. If he counts, then how does Joseph's Cup not count? Amadio has a Cup but so did Tarasenko, and he was far more instrumental in his team's championship than Amadio was. Kelly, Gregor, Kastelic are all a wash. No significant experience to be spoken of between all 3 of them. Perron, no comment until he's back and the things in his personal life are dealt with.

Cousins has > 60 career games in the playoffs, compared to Joseph's 10, he's clearly the more experieced player
Why are you comparing Tank to Amadio instead of Perron, the guy you originally compared him to? I omitted both because they are essentially a wash,

Player In​	Reg​	Playoffs​	Player Out​	Reg​	Playoffs​
Jensen​	562​	27​	Chychrun​	467​	9​
Perron​	1131​	104​	Tarasenko​	751​	121​
Amadio​	369​	21​	Joseph​	241​	2​
Cousins​	592​	63​	Kastelic​	144​	0​
Gregor​	241​	2​	Kelly​	177​	0​
TOTAL IN​	2895​	217​	TOTAL OUT​	1780​	132​

So an extra 1115 games of reg season experience, and 85 of playoff experience, but in your world that's a wash?

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Which points do you disagree with? Because it seems like all of them still stand in their validity.

The clinging to your love for Dorion is obvious and inexplicable

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Well, there's some interesting context omitted from this list

1. Traded a 1RP for a player on an expiring contract before they even discussed a contract extension.
And then Dorion failed to extend him while Staois succeeded in extending Ullmark. It's also important context that Ullmark had a 16 team NTC list and chose not to put Ottawa on that list, and the 1st rd pick was 25th OA not 7OA, that in itself changes the risk profile substantially.

2. Signed a scoring winger to a big enough contract that it put us in a cap bind to sign Pinto.
We weren't really in a bind to sign Pinto though, we still had 4 mil left after singing him (enough to keep Joseph if we wanted). When Dorion put us in a cap bind, we literally couldn't ice a 20 man roster opening night as a result, and were constantly juggling pieces to keep cap compliant all year, and still hadn't signed Pinto. You're creating a false equivalency

Just checked, had we kept Joseph, along with making all the other moves, we could have iced a 20 man roster with 514k in cap space, certainly not ideal to have no extra's but a very different situation than what Dorion did where we had, if I recall, ~11k in capspace before signing Pinto.

3. That scoring winger signing means we had to pay to unload Joseph, instead of recouping an asset.
As per above, we didn't have to trade Joseph, we chose to. We made a choice to get Amadio for joseph's role. Joseph was never going to return an asset of any real value imo, but I can see the argument for keeping Joseph over adding Amadio, they seem to have prefered Amadio, which I'm personally in agreement with, but I don't begrudge anyone who'd have prefered Joseph and a 3rd over Amadio.

4. Made a pretty significant reach at the draft with our 1RP, taking a guy at 7 who was consensus ranked in the mid-teens.
No we didn't, Yakemchuk went in the range he was expected to based on the Mackenzie scouting poll (the gold standard year after year). The composition of the draft was such that 5-15 was tight, this is nothing like drafting Boucher at 10, another false equivalency on your part.

5. Offloaded a 26yo top 4 D, who has another 8 years of NHL-quality play in him, for a guy who will be 34 when the season starts and has 2, maaaaaaybe 3, more years of NHL-quality play in him.
Yes, however Chychrun very clearly was not a fit. He was absolutely terrible last season with us, and Jensen has been great so far, as well as seems to have revitalized Chabot.

6. Talked about adding veterans and experience to the lineup in the lead up to the offseason and the only guy he brought in who fits that description is Perron, who more or less is exactly the same thing Tarasenko brought the year before.
Jensen is absolutely a vet with experience, not sure how you can miss him immediately after complaining he's too old... Cousins has over 600 career games, and another 60+ playoff games, including a Stanley cup ring, even Amadio has close to 400 games and a Stanley cup ring. All these guys add experience, particularly playoff experience. I do think Tarasenko was a good pickup by Dorion, but we moved out Kelly (177 games, 0 playoffs) and replaced him with Gregor (241 games, 2 playoffs), Kastelic (144 games, zero playoffs) and replaced him with Cousins (592 games, and 63 playoffs), Joseph (360 gp, 10 playoffs) replacing him with Amadio (369 gp and 21 playoffs), and Chychrun (467 gp, 9 playoff) with Jensen (562 gp, 27 playoffs). All those guys have more experience than we sent out especially when you include playoffs.

Agree entirely, but I would add on point 5 that Chychrun was about to have UFA status and likely in need of a monster contract. That in itself sort of overrides the age factor considering they'd likely have had to lock in long term at big money and would have had some uncertainty all season had it not happened this past offseason.

 

[Micklebot]

Agree entirely, but I would add on point 5 that Chychrun was about to have UFA status and likely in need of a monster contract. That in itself sort of overrides the age factor considering they'd likely have had to lock in long term at big money and would have had some uncertainty all season had it not happened this past offseason.

That's fair, cap space is an asset and we definitely gained cap space long term by moving on from Chychrun. Hard to predict how his next deal would play out, but he likely would have had to improve his play relative to how he looked in Ottawa to be worth what he could demand.

 

[JackieDaytona]

Trading a low value 1rp vs the 7th overall is hugely different. Also, he managed to unload a massively terrible contract in Korpisalo all in the same deal. How staios dealt with goaltending issues was a masterclass performance. It’s not all in a vacuum, he not only had to find and make a deal that worked out for the team, he also had to undo a massive blunder made by previous management.

Staios hasn’t been perfect by any means, but it’s tough to criticize any aspect of how things have worked out on the handling of trades around goaltending with a straight face IMO.

Even if Ullmark slides a bit from his average performance over the last few years(which is top of the league correct?), it’s still a sizable upgrade from korps, there’s value in getting away from that albatross contract/player.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

That's fair, cap space is an asset and we definitely gained cap space long term by moving on from Chychrun. Hard to predict how his next deal would play out, but he likely would have had to improve his play relative to how he looked in Ottawa to be worth what he could demand.

Ya I sort of look at it purely from the perspective that to keep going down the road with Chychrun, regardless of what the specific contract would look like and how it would age, they would have had to hitch their wagon to him and essentially peg him as a core player in role, aav and term.

There's no in between when you're talking about a high profile guy 1 year from UFA. Move him or marry him.

But you're right. He would have had to have a heck of a year to sell us all that keeping him would be the right call, which includes him working out on the right side that doesn't seem likely. In a parallel universe, I'd have liked to see how that would have worked out and decide then, but I don't know if 55-60 games would have been enough to have me wanting to hand him something like 7x7 before the deadline.

 

[Micklebot]

Trading a low value 1rp vs the 7th overall is hugely different. Also, he managed to unload a massively terrible contract in Korpisalo all in the same deal. How staios dealt with goaltending issues was a masterclass performance. It’s not all in a vacuum, he not only had to find and make a deal that worked out for the team, he also had to undo a massive blunder made by previous management.

Staios hasn’t been perfect by any means, but it’s tough to criticize any aspect of how things have worked out on the handling of trades around goaltending with a straight face IMO.

Even if Ullmark slides a bit from his average performance over the last few years(which is top of the league correct?), it’s still a sizable upgrade from korps, there’s value in getting away from that albatross contract/player.

Another good point, 25OA to dump the Korpisalo trade on it's own is probably pretty close to fair value. Getting "just" a year of Ullmark and the ability to negotiate an extension is arguably just the cherry on top.

 

[Cosmix]

I just don't understand why we gave Joseph away. Otherwise all good though.

To create cap space and salary dollars to pay Amadio is my guess and to also provide some cap space to use during the season.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Which points do you disagree with? Because it seems like all of them still stand in their validity.

1 - 3 were Dorion moves as you know, so no worries.

#4 - Yakemchuk looks good, not much of a reach if any at all.

#5 - Sounds (cast as) negative but Jensen has been good.

and #6. Staois added other vets and not just Perron as you stated.

In general, it would seem wiser to wait at least until American Thanksgiving before evaluating off season events. JMHO.

 

[lancepitlick]

Pretty much every move made has worked out so far or has at least been neutral. Also, the team on ice in terms of how they play looks much better this year, at least so far. Whether that is new players, Green, maturation of existing players, or some combo of all three. Or it's just a small sample size. And they've had some bad luck in terms of injuries for this early in the season and still look good (Zub, Linus, Pinto, Perron, Greig).

You can't judge someone like Chychrun as a 26 year old Top4 D, without context. The context being that he duplicates existing roles (style/shot), played pretty badly as a Sen and was soft as Charmaine for a liver eating hulk. Is injury prone. And he's due for a long term commitment.

The third and fourth lines, as well as the D, look better without Joseph, Kelly, Brannstrom, Chychrun. That might not be because they are bad, but might not be the right fits here in Ottawa. The GM has to figure that recipe out. So far it looks like the ingredients are gelling OK, which Dorion couldn't achieve once in like 7 seasons.

 

[Masked]

Some negatives/things that are hard to assess yet
-Paying to get rid of Joseph
-Signing Perron given out issues with staying disciplined
-Drafting Yakemchuk who fits the old mould of prospect that our dinosaur scouting has been high on
-Not getting rid of deadweight on the roster (Hamonic)

If he wanted to replace Joseph on the roster how else could he have done it other than buying him out?

Yakemchuk looks like a fantastic pick. Anyway who says otherwise didn't watch him in training camp. And he's a perfect fit on the roster.

There was no way to get rid of Hamonic.

 

[BankStreetParade]

Well, we're evaluating the GMs decisions, no? One GM took more risk, and ended up on the wrong side, the other took less risk, and came out on top. Seems pretty easy which one gets the better grade.

It's a yes or no question: did we pay a 1RP for a guy who we hadn't discussed a contract extension with yet?

We don't need to debate the outcomes. If the vast majority of people fundamentally disagreed with the concept of paying a 1RP for a guy before discussing a contract extension then it should apply to this situation too.

It's absolutely a false equivalent, Staios had room to extend Pinto, and make all the other moves, and ice a cap compliant roster on Game 1. Dorion didn't have room to sign Pinto to a league min deal let alone a long term deal, we couldn't even ice a 20 man cap compliant roster on game one. The two situations are quite different and you doubling down on them being equivalent is truly embarrassing.

Could have paid to offload Joseph just like we did this year to make space. We'd still have the same cap space to start our offseason to sign Amadio on July 1st.

Another yes or no question: did we have enough cap space, with the moves that were made in free agency, to sign Pinto long term?

Again, I think Joseph's a worse player than Amadio, so I prefer to pay a 3rd to make room to get the better player, but I can see the arguement that some might prefer to have the worse player and a 3rd round pick. So, yeah, it can be both, Joseph was overpaid, and a similar caliber player to Amadio. We had the room for both, we just prefered to have the cap space trading Joseph afforded us.

I'm fine with you believing that. No need to argue over who's the better player.

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote, or better yet, what MacKenzie wrote.

The point is he was in the same tier as the other D, and went in that tier, given how tight the draft was from 7-15 or so. It's absolutely a complete reach on your part to compare that to Boucher who was off the map entirely.

4 of 10 scouts had him in the top 10, which means 6 of 10 did not. 1/10 had him #20 on their list. Again, you can say the draft was tight from whatever arbitrary number you like but the majority of scouts polled my McKenzie did not have him at #7.

He was terrible, it tanked his value. Jensen has been a better player for us than Chychrun was and likely would have been, and he'll bridge the gap until Yakemchuk is ready. The goal isn't to maximize asset value, it's to maximize team performance, and Jensen does that far better than Chychrun.

One second you guys say the coaching was terrible, the next you say it was the goaltending, the next you say it was the GM's fault...it doesn't change the fact that teams are always looking for young, top4 D. You don't see a lot of guys his age traded for guys in their mid-30s, do you? So why were we so quick to sell him for so little. It's this double-standard critique of the team I don't get. Years of talking about asset management and now it's fine because you want it to be.

Cousins has > 60 career games in the playoffs, compared to Joseph's 10, he's clearly the more experieced player
Why are you comparing Tank to Amadio instead of Perron, the guy you originally compared him to? I omitted both because they are essentially a wash,

Player In​	Reg​	Playoffs​	Player Out​	Reg​	Playoffs​
Jensen​	562​	27​	Chychrun​	467​	9​
Perron​	1131​	104​	Tarasenko​	751​	121​
Amadio​	369​	21​	Joseph​	241​	2​
Cousins​	592​	63​	Kastelic​	144​	0​
Gregor​	241​	2​	Kelly​	177​	0​
TOTAL IN​	2895​	217​	TOTAL OUT​	1780​	132​

So an extra 1115 games of reg season experience, and 85 of playoff experience, but in your world that's a wash?

Yes, generally speaking, old players have been around for much, much longer. Perron is 36, Tarasenko is 32. Jensen is 34, Chychrun is 26. Kastelic, Gregor and Kelly don't make any difference to me, all 4th line guys with limited roles. Cousins brings experience, we'll see if it amounts to anything. I'm already on record saying I don't believe most of these guys were the right veterans to bring in.

 

[BankStreetParade]

1 - 3 were Dorion moves as you know, so no worries.

Each of the points refers to something Staios has done that mirrors a Dorion move. The whole point is that people are looking past the same circumstances because the name is different.

#4 - Yakemchuk looks good, not much of a reach if any at all.

What does him looking good (post-draft) have to do with what his consensus draft ranking was and where he went in the draft?

#5 - Sounds (cast as) negative but Jensen has been good.

He's been fine. He's had some really good games and some really stinky ones. We're still waiting to see how things unfold over the entire season. It still doesn't change the fact that we traded a 26yo top 4 D for a guy who's 34.

and #6. Staois added other vets and not just Perron as you stated.

In general, it would seem wiser to wait at least until American Thanksgiving before evaluating off season events. JMHO.

Then why did you bump the post if it's wiser to wait until at least Thanksgiving? You're not even following your own goddamn advice...

 

[Masterplan]

I'd give him 5 W's out of 9.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Andlauer and Staois are a godsend compared to Melnyk and Dorion.

We have an organization that projects class and intelligence now. Just for that they are 10/10.

 

[Micklebot]

It's a yes or no question: did we pay a 1RP for a guy who we hadn't discussed a contract extension with yet?

This type of framing is why you get accused of false equivalencies. Is 25 a higher number than 7, it's a yes or no question, are they different? More to the point, do they have substantially different trade values?

We don't need to debate the outcomes. If the vast majority of people fundamentally disagreed with the concept of paying a 1RP for a guy before discussing a contract extension then it should apply to this situation too.

The vast majority agree that 7 OA and 25 OA are not the same, and should not be treated the same, but again, this is you just trying to reframe things to create false equivalencies. Dorion traded an extremely valuable pick for a guy he had no clue would be willing to resign, while Staios traded a cap dump with a much less valuable pick (yes it was a 1st round pick, but not even close to the same value) for a guy who at the very least, made a conscious decision not to block the Sens as a trade option when eliminating half the league from potential destinations.

So that's one clear as day strike before even getting to outcomes for you, they aren't at all the same. Add in outcomes and it gets even more obvious, which is probably why you have no interest in including outcomes, they undermine your position, but outcomes are in the end what matters. Every trade has risk, GMs are paid to get good outcomes

Could have paid to offload Joseph just like we did this year to make space. We'd still have the same cap space to start our offseason to sign Amadio on July 1st.

Sure, we could have moved Joseph, but at the time the rumour cost of doing so was significantly higher, but again, we didn't need to move Joseph, he would have fit in under the cap. Again, different situations,

Another yes or no question: did we have enough cap space, with the moves that were made in free agency, to sign Pinto long term?

We don't even know Pinto was willing to sign long term or that we would have wanted to given the risk of giving a guy with less than 2 full seasons worth of games a long term deal. The likely answer to that is no given he a career high of 35 pts and him likely seeing this year as a potential launch for a significantly stronger bargaining position.

I'm fine with you believing that. No need to argue over who's the better player.

Sure, and I'm fine with other people preferring Joseph. What seems clear though is Staios prefers Amadio,

4 of 10 scouts had him in the top 10, which means 6 of 10 did not. 1/10 had him #20 on their list. Again, you can say the draft was tight from whatever arbitrary number you like but the majority of scouts polled my McKenzie did not have him at #7.

MacKenzie outright said he was in the same group. You can ignore that part all you want, but the talk about this draft was always how tight it was after the top 5. Nobody was particularly surprised with Yakemchuk being an option at 7, everyone was in utter shock when Boucher's name got called at 10. These were wildly different situations despite your best efforts to whitewash Dorion's blunder and create false equivalencies.

One second you guys say the coaching was terrible, the next you say it was the goaltending, the next you say it was the GM's fault...it doesn't change the fact that teams are always looking for young, top4 D. You don't see a lot of guys his age traded for guys in their mid-30s, do you? So why were we so quick to sell him for so little. It's this double-standard critique of the team I don't get. Years of talking about asset management and now it's fine because you want it to be.

Chychrun was terrible all year, I, among others, said that all year. More than one thing can be bad. Do you think that Staios took what you think was a bad deal even though everyone would have given up more for him? Maybe you should consider that other teams weren't lining up for Chychrun, who we'd been trying to move since the deadline.

Yes, generally speaking, old players have been around for much, much longer. Perron is 36, Tarasenko is 32. Jensen is 34, Chychrun is 26. Kastelic, Gregor and Kelly don't make any difference to me, all 4th line guys with limited roles. Cousins brings experience, we'll see if it amounts to anything. I'm already on record saying I don't believe most of these guys were the right veterans to bring in.

Lol, you complain that Staois said he wanted to get vets with experience but didn't, I show you that he in fact did acquire vets with experience, now you compain that they are old. Can't make this crap up. The funniest part is you saying the 4th line don't make any difference to you, they've been fantastic so far this year and proven how important depth players are.

 

[Icelevel]

4.5-5 stars
Considering the mess he was left with.
Really pleased with all the additions. I think Perron will help out once he’s back and up to speed.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

A. What does him looking good (post-draft) have to do with what his consensus draft ranking was and where he went in the draft?

B. He’s been fine. He's had some really good games and some really stinky ones. We're still waiting to see how things unfold over the entire season. It still doesn't change the fact that we traded a 26yo top 4 D for a guy who's 34.

C. Then why did you bump the post if it's wiser to wait until at least Thanksgiving? You're not even following your own goddamn advice...

A. LOL. So, consensus draft ranking is more important than actual results in your bizarre world then? We got a very good RD prospect, exactly what we needed. This is an important cornerstone piece for the future.

B. We needed a steady, defensively dependable RD that could complement Chabot’s skillset. That’s what we got in Jensen. We didn’t have that in Chychrun who was really an offensive oriented LD. Jensen’s age is less important given that he only has to play well this year & next (the strawman was a nice try though). His cap hit is less than Chychrun's and likely far less than Chychrun’s next contract who will be UFA next year. This addresses a current need. BIG WIN for Staois.

C. I was actually directing that comment at you because you seemed to be in a rush to evaluate this summer which of course provided ZERO time for viewing & evaluation. I can see why you’d try to deflect attention away from that. Yes, I’m still waiting until U.S. Thanksgiving as I stated. Thanksgiving is an early milestone in terms of evaluating, but an important one as we have pretty much been eliminated by Thanksgiving in years past.

I merely asked you a question to see if you still had the same thinking now as you did in the summer when you made that post. YOU HAVE more info now than you did in the summer.