The Fall of Pierre

[Agent Zuuuub]

Losing Brown for nothing and the board being ok with it is probably THE stupidest thing I've read on this board this season. Congratulations. In the one sentence you've established that you have so little credibility that your content isn't worthy of being read.

are you new to hockey? teams lose players of Browns ilk for nothing to FA all the time. it barely matters.

what a bizarre post. NO ONE would care if we lost Brown for nothing lol.

you saying that this is the stupidest thing you've read says more about your conception about hockey than any credibility of mine.

 

[bert]

are you new to hockey? teams lose players of Browns ilk for nothing to FA all the time. it barely matters.

what a bizarre post. NO ONE would care if we lost Brown for nothing lol.

you saying that this is the stupidest thing you've read says more about your conception about hockey than any credibility of mine.

It quite clearly matters this year. Who cares about a 2nd round pick for a player that good. The sens lack of depth is why they have struggled so much.

I'd be criticizing Dorion for not using Brown to get an RD. Keeping him and him getting injured, especially after the situation with Formenton would've been understandable. But in that situation I'd still be smack talking him for not using Brown as a trade chip for D help.

The scenario he got hurt in means absolutely nothing. He wasnt hurt when they traded him. The GM knew about the Formenton situation so why give away a player like this for such a poor return.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

It quite clearly matters this year. Who cares about a 2nd round pick for a player that good. The sens lack of depth is why they have struggled so much.

yes that's my point. Brown would have been nice this year instead of the 2nd. even if it meant we lost him for nothing.

 

[DaveMatthew]

are you new to hockey? teams lose players of Browns ilk for nothing to FA all the time. it barely matters.

what a bizarre post. NO ONE would care if we lost Brown for nothing lol.

you saying that this is the stupidest thing you've read says more about your conception about hockey than any credibility of mine.

People have certainly taken the "can't let him walk, need assets" too far.

It makes sense when talking about the Mark Stones, Alex Debrincats, etc.

But a guy like Connor Brown? Yeah, get as much as you can out of him and let him walk for nothing. In hindsight, better depth for this season would have been more valuable for this team than another 2nd.

 

[Micklebot]

are you new to hockey? teams lose players of Browns ilk for nothing to FA all the time. it barely matters.

what a bizarre post. NO ONE would care if we lost Brown for nothing lol.

you saying that this is the stupidest thing you've read says more about your conception about hockey than any credibility of mine.

Lol, I mean, this board had people complaining we lost Balcers for nothing, so of course some people would care.

Some people thought we should have gotten a 1st for Brown and we're disappointed we only got a 2nd, there is no world in which no one would care... That's just naive at best.

Now, would the criticisms be fair, maybe, maybe not. Had we held on to him with the intent of flipping him at the deadline, or for a roster player along the way if a hockey deal arose, that would be a perfectly defensible decision, and should he have gotten hurt and been untradable, well thems the brakes. I'd personally have preferred we go that route in a bubble, but there are other factors. Does he want to be here, the human element suggests moving someone who wants out can be preferable even if it seems like a poor decision on paper. Did our budget allow us the flexibility to keep him around till the deadline? Idk. Did we have another trade lined up that required we clear the deck or get assets back in advance only to see the second trade fall through? Who knows.

 

[bicboi64]

The scenario he got hurt in means absolutely nothing. He wasnt hurt when they traded him. The GM knew about the Formenton situation so why give away a player like this for such a poor return.

I agree that him getting injured if we kept him would have meant nothing. Dorion deciding to keep him and him getting hurt would have been more stomachable considering we needed depth.

 

[bert]

This is a truly well written post.

Unfortunately it'll be lost on half the people that post here

They traded him when his value was probably its lowest. It simply didnt make sense especially with the Formenton situation.

A player of his ilk at the deadline returns way more than a 2nd. Even if he doesnt re -sign if they are in it they keep him. Great. If they are out they trade him for a better return. I dont know how anyone defends the deal. Had Formenton been a lock to return I get it but he wasnt and management knew it.

All Nick Paul wanted was 3 million and the team wouldnt come up. He is a big player that was still improving, terrible cap and player management.

 

[bicboi64]

Lol, I mean, this board had people complaining we lost Balcers for nothing, so of course some people would care.

The reason there's outrage over Balcers, and so many moves of Dorion over keeping/moving players, its because he has no vision. Balcers is put on waivers, but instead we acquire plugs like Stepan, Watson, etc... Balcers on our 3rd line would've been more effective than either of those two guys. It just screams of no/poor direction just like the Brown trade

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

I lobbied to deal Brown and Paul based on assumed contract requirements, but I also assumed we'd be fixing the defence as a side effect of it, and I admit I was very wrong. I was still hoping Formenton would ultimately play as well, but I didn't have the luxury of knowing he wouldn't like the Senators would have.

In hindsight, Paul is obviously a better piece than Joseph for not much more. I also assumed we'd get more for Brown and would have been fine hanging on to him if that's all we could get. We've paid that for worse in the past.

 

[swiftwin]

are you new to hockey? teams lose players of Browns ilk for nothing to FA all the time. it barely matters.

what a bizarre post. NO ONE would care if we lost Brown for nothing lol.

you saying that this is the stupidest thing you've read says more about your conception about hockey than any credibility of mine.

Lmfao. Really? People lost their shit when we lost Balcers for nothing.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Lol, I mean, this board had people complaining we lost Balcers for nothing, so of course some people would care.

Some people thought we should have gotten a 1st for Brown and we're disappointed we only got a 2nd, there is no world in which no one would care... That's just naive at best.

Now, would the criticisms be fair, maybe, maybe not. Had we held on to him with the intent of flipping him at the deadline, or for a roster player along the way if a hockey deal arose, that would be a perfectly defensible decision, and should he have gotten hurt and been untradable, well thems the brakes. I'd personally have preferred we go that route in a bubble, but there are other factors. Does he want to be here, the human element suggests moving someone who wants out can be preferable even if it seems like a poor decision on paper. Did our budget allow us the flexibility to keep him around till the deadline? Idk. Did we have another trade lined up that required we clear the deck or get assets back in advance only to see the second trade fall through? Who knows.

Lmfao. Really? People lost their shit when we lost Balcers for nothing.

people were complaining we lost Balcers for nothing because they thought we could have used him instead of the shittier players we were using.

like we could have used Brown too instead of the shitty depth we are now playing..

 

[swiftwin]

People have certainly taken the "can't let him walk, need assets" too far.

It makes sense when talking about the Mark Stones, Alex Debrincats, etc.

But a guy like Connor Brown? Yeah, get as much as you can out of him and let him walk for nothing. In hindsight, better depth for this season would have been more valuable for this team than another 2nd.

I've long argued this too. I'm glad people are finally less obsessive about "aSsEt MaNaGeMeNt". But I have a sneaking suspicion that you're only taking this stance because it's anti-Dorion.

IMO, we moved Brown because we signed Giroux. We have Batherson-Giroux-Joseph on RW. There's just no room for Brown there. It would have been incredibly unfair to Brown to keep him around just to play on the 3rd or 4th line on the most important contract year of his life. He would have been PISSED. Players notice these things when it comes to contract extensions. There's a reason our core is signing fair deals for 8yrs.

 

[Micklebot]

people were complaining we lost Balcers for nothing because they thought we could have used him instead of the shittier players we were using.

like we could have used Brown too instead of the shitty depth we are now playing..

The point is people complain about things that are inconsequential, Balcers might be better than whatever crappy player we kept instead but the difference was meaningless in the context of a rebuilding year unless you felt Balcers was a long term asset. There are certainly other examples of people complaining about minor loses, its completely bonkers that you think people wouldn't complain about losing Brown for nothing, that's just not living in reality.

It's fair to suggest that those coplaints would be misplaced, but suggesting that they wouldn't happen borders on delusional.

 

[DaveMatthew]

I've long argued this too. I'm glad people are finally less obsessive about "aSsEt MaNaGeMeNt". But I have a sneaking suspicion that you're only taking this stance because it's anti-Dorion.

IMO, we moved Brown because we signed Giroux. We have Batherson-Giroux-Joseph on RW. There's just no room for Brown there. It would have been incredibly unfair to Brown to keep him around just to play on the 3rd or 4th line on the most important contract year of his life. He would have been PISSED. Players notice these things when it comes to contract extensions. There's a reason our core is signing fair deals for 8yrs.

Lol anti-Dorion? I'm pro-winning. This team has not done nearly enough winning. I'll criticize anyone that sucks. Coaches, management and players. Dorion has sucked. DJ has sucked. Batherson has sucked. Chabot has sucked. I'll also compliment the guys that are doing well (see: Tkachuk, Sanderson, Stützle, etc).

But I agree with one point - the reality of it is that Brown was set to make $4M in salary this season, and that money had to be moved out in order to fit Giroux and Debrincat in. IMO, it was purely a budgetary decision.

The "oh it'd be unfair to have him play on the 3rd line and players would have noticed" reasoning? That's crap. Same with the "we have a deal lined up to use that 2nd in a trade for a D".

Choosing to trade Paul for Joseph, and then signing Joseph to a contract you wouldn't offer Paul, is a much bigger reason to criticize Dorion than the Brown trade. That was a dumbo move.

 

[BankStreetParade]

Choosing to trade Paul for Joseph, and then signing Joseph to a contract you wouldn't offer Paul, is a much bigger reason to criticize Dorion than the Brown trade. That was a dumbo move.

Pretty sure they offered Paul the exact same contract they gave Joseph but he wanted to either get more AAV or more term. I remember hearing a few times that they were talking about a 4 year extension.

Good on Paul for betting on himself and getting what he thought he deserved but I don't think your version of events is correct.

 

[Micklebot]

I've long argued this too. I'm glad people are finally less obsessive about "aSsEt MaNaGeMeNt". But I have a sneaking suspicion that you're only taking this stance because it's anti-Dorion.

Asset management will always be important, but there's always going to be a tradeoff. To be dismissive of cricisms of asset management can be just as absurd as the the initial complaint about managing the assets in the first place.

There are fair criticisms of how assets have been used during Dorion's tenure, and there are unfair ones. Personally I think the idea we should have held onto Brown is valid in a vacuum, but might not work out as well in real life when all the hidden variables come out.

As for it being unfair to him to play Brown on a third line, boo hoo. Lots of better players than him have played on third lines.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Pretty sure they offered Paul the exact same contract they gave Joseph but he wanted to either get more AAV or more term. I remember hearing a few times that they were talking about a 4 year extension.

Good on Paul for betting on himself and getting what he thought he deserved but I don't think your version of events is correct.

From what I remember, the topped out at $2.75MX4 as an offer, Paul was looking for ~$3Mx4, but they wouldn't get up that high.



Then they gave Joseph $2.9Mx4.

 

[Micklebot]

Pretty sure they offered Paul the exact same contract they gave Joseph but he wanted to either get more AAV or more term. I remember hearing a few times that they were talking about a 4 year extension.

Good on Paul for betting on himself and getting what he thought he deserved but I don't think your version of events is correct.

I think we were in the same ball park if nothing else, but whatever. Long term I don't really think there was a fit for Paul here, particularly if the Formenton situation didn't go south.

Who are we playing Paul ahead of, not Tkachuk or DeBrincat on the left, certainly not Pinto, Stützle or Norris at center.

So third line LW was the only spot he could fit in, we thought we had Formenton who was 5 years younger and outscoring him, and a Greig waiting in the wings. Kelly seemed locked for that 4th line LW spot.

Trading Paul for Joseph made sense, we got younger moved a position of strength to an area with more need and hoped that Joseph would bloom with more opportunity. Unfortunately it was Paul who bloomed, but there's still time for Joseph.

 

[Beech]

From what I remember, the topped out at $2.75MX4 as an offer, Paul was looking for ~$3Mx4, but they wouldn't get up that high.



Then they gave Joseph $2.9Mx4.

WHAT ???????

f***ING WHAT??????? they destroyed their 3rd line, lost a versatile player who could in a pinch cover 2nd line minutes...for 100 K a year, so 400 K total...

a playoff game is ~ $2 Million. An extra 1000 fans a game is ~ 80 K a game, so ~ 3.3 Million a year, so 13 plus million over the 4 years... FOR 100 K a year..

They really are this stupid, aren't they?

 

[DaveMatthew]

I think we were in the same ball park if nothing else, but whatever. Long term I don't really think there was a fit for Paul here, particularly if the Formenton situation didn't go south.

Who are we playing Paul ahead of, not Tkachuk or DeBrincat on the left, certainly not Pinto, Stützle or Norris at center.

So third line LW was the only spot he could fit in, we thought we had Formenton who was 5 years younger and outscoring him, and a Greig waiting in the wings. Kelly seemed locked for that 4th line LW spot.

Trading Paul for Joseph made sense, we got younger moved a position of strength to an area with more need and hoped that Joseph would bloom with more opportunity. Unfortunately it was Paul who bloomed, but there's still time for Joseph.

At the time of the negotiations with Paul, we didn't know that Formenton would be involved in a major scandal. But we also didn't have Debrincat on the roster. So he was a non-factor in the decision process.

At that point, after the trade, our depth at LW was Tkachuk - Formenton. Not really a strength.

There are all sorts of variations that can be considered. Maybe if we keep Paul, we can go out and trade for a lesser than Debrincat LWer once the Formenton situation arises, and use the 7OA to improve our defense instead of adding a forward. Would that have been better? Possibly.

 

[Alex1234]

From what I remember, the topped out at $2.75MX4 as an offer, Paul was looking for ~$3Mx4, but they wouldn't get up that high.



Then they gave Joseph $2.9Mx4.

Thanks for clearing that up

 

[Micklebot]

At the time of the negotiations with Paul, we didn't know that Formenton would be involved in a major scandal. But we also didn't have Debrincat on the roster. So he was a non-factor in the decision process.

At that point, our depth at LW was Tkachuk - Formenton. Not really a strength.

Fair enough, though we did have Greig who would likely be here before that 4 year deal was done. And neither Paul or Formenton looked like truly top 6 wingers, so they were signing him for the 3rd line slot, not the top 6. Whether we had DeBrincat or not, you can bet we were looking to improve the top 6 long term.

 

[bicboi64]

There are all sorts of variations that can be considered. Maybe if we keep Paul, we can go out and trade for a lesser than Debrincat LWer once the Formenton situation arises, and use the 7OA to improve our defense instead of adding a forward. Would that have been better? Possibly.

This is part of my issue with Dorion. I loved that he aggressively pursued and got Cat, but getting Cat was a luxury given how bad our defense was. Dorion gambling that Hamonic would be good enough for 2RD is another 'vision' complaint.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Its fine to say these decisions had some logic at the time, but that's just pointing out Dorion's likely thought process. There shouldn't be so much need to make it seem like it it was the best decision now that we have the advantage of hindsight. Call a spade a spade. Clearly, we would have been better off signing Paul over Joseph, and not dealing Brown for a 2nd. The team would likely be in a better position for this season at minimum. Paul instead of Joseph and Brown slides in Formenton's role on the 3rd line where he belongs. Dorion hedged his bets poorly this time and it happens. He's the guy that's paid to try to predict performance.

 

[BankStreetParade]

From what I remember, the topped out at $2.75MX4 as an offer, Paul was looking for ~$3Mx4, but they wouldn't get up that high.



Then they gave Joseph $2.9Mx4.

If they were willing to give Joseph $2.9Mx4, I'm sure that offer was going to be available to Paul as well. Consider what he signed for in Tampa Bay and convert that to what he would have to get from Ottawa to make the dollars equal. We can set aside the term for the time being and just discuss the dollars straight up.

Tax Calculator - Cardinal Point

Athlete Advisors

gavingroup.ca

According to these guys, the difference in tax paid is approximately $518K per year. Let's say you can mitigate some of the difference with some clever/well-paid accountants and financial advisors, you're still talking about, at least, $250K difference. So Ottawa would have had to offer somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3.5M to match Tampa's offer, assuming he's still happy to take 4 years term for that AAV.

Look, the guy bet on himself and it worked out beautifully for him. But saying we offered Joseph a contract we wouldn't offer Paul doesn't seem to be accurate.