The Fall of Pierre

[swiftwin]

So don't sign him to that and trade his rights.

The rest of your post is nothing.

How? His QO was way too high, plus he had arbitration rights.

The mere fact that he ended up signing as a UFA for way less than his QO shows how little value he actually had. We wouldn't have been able to trade his rights. It would have been a gross mismanagement of assets and cap space.

This just shows how little understanding you have.

Bobby Ryan

He was signed by Bryan Murray. Dorion was not responsible for that contract.

 

[bicboi64]

You'll be hard pressed to find any team that hasn't had to buyout or pay to dump a contract at any point. The amount of times Dorion has done it, and the cost when he has done it has been minimal. Recently, it's only been Murray, White and MDZ? The cost was minimal on all three. Plus, two of those were exacerbated by injuries.

On the flip side, you have so many good moves, like Giroux, DeBrincat, Chychrun, Hamonic, Holden/3rd, etc.

The whole point of bringing up the buyouts or paying to dump contracts is it was piss poor pro evaluation to acquire players in the first place or in Ryan's case, buying someone out to save money, only to spend more that same offseason.

-Murray, declining numbers behind a strong blueline (relative to ottawa), Doriong gets him. Sure, you want to take a chance, but don't sign the guy to a top 10 goalie cap hit.
-MDZ, we're a cash strapped team, what exactly did MDZ bring to the team that we didn't have? He didn't even play 50% of the season for us.
-White, this one isn't a bad move. Dorion gambled on a young star and injuries derailed his career while other prospects took up his spot.
-Ryan, we are in a tank year, need warm bodies and vet leadership, so we decide to buyout someone who's wore an A for us because we apparently need to save money by not paying Ryan his $5.5 million salary. But then we pay Murray $4 million, JBrown $1 million, Gudbranson $3 million, and $1.5 million to Watson. We keep Ryan, we save $4.5 million that could have still been distributed to get other stop gaps.

 

[Loach]

How? His QO was way too high, plus he had arbitration rights.

The mere fact that he ended up signing as a UFA for way less than his QO shows how little value he actually had. We wouldn't have been able to trade his rights. It would have been a gross mismanagement of assets and cap space.

This just shows how little understanding you have.


He was signed by Bryan Murray. Dorion was not responsible for that contract.

Any value is better than none. A team would have given something. He was director of player perso el.

 

[bicboi64]

On the flip side, you have so many good moves, like Giroux, DeBrincat, Chychrun, Hamonic, Holden/3rd, etc.

DeBrincat without an extension is not a good move. Its one thing if we acquired him and extended him long term the way LA did with Fiala. As it stands, Cat could sign for one year and we lose him/have to trade him for less than what we paid. Until he's extended, its hard to evaluate at best.

Hamonic was not a good acquisition considering Dorion paid more than what Vancouver initially asked. He was acquired to play a top 4 role, and has not been good enough to do that. Sanderson has been succeeding inspite of Hamonic, their pairing is literally bottom 15 in xGA. When Hamonic is not on Sanderson's pairing, all of his defensive stats go up.

Defensive Pairs - Natural Stat Trick

www.naturalstattrick.com

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

To try and be more specific, what do you mean exactly?

Is he too "buddy-buddy" with the players? Bad at pro scouting?

Not sure what you mean by "winning culture".

Someone who can put together a cohesive plan, someone who can lead and demand respect, someone who holds people accountable.

And I listen to guys like Yzerman, Sakic, Mourinho, Klopp etc and I compare that to Pierre Dorion and they are not even in the same stratosphere.

I have never heard Dorion speak and thought oh wow that's deep. It's just all copy paste cliches from him. When you hear the others speak they are straight dropping knowledge.


But even forgetting all that, since it is indeed vague and hard to describe and I'm obviously biased. Let's use whatever criteria you or anyone else has when they think of winning culture, of leadership, of respect and admiration. Is Dorion the face that appears when you think of these things?

Does Dorion fulfill your personal definition when you think of winning culture?

 

[Loach]

DeBrincat without an extension is not a good move. Its one thing if we acquired him and extended him long term the way LA did with Fiala. As it stands, Cat could sign for one year and we lose him/have to trade him for less than what we paid. Until he's extended, its hard to evaluate at best.

Hamonic was not a good acquisition considering Dorion paid more than what Vancouver initially asked. He was acquired to play a top 4 role, and has not been good enough to do that. Sanderson has been succeeding inspite of Hamonic, their pairing is literally bottom 15 in xGA. When Hamonic is not on Sanderson's pairing, all of his defensive stats go up.

Defensive Pairs - Natural Stat Trick

www.naturalstattrick.com

The good moves coincide with Ryan Bowness being here. Is that a fluke?

 

[NyQuil]

Does Dorion fulfill your personel definition when you think of winning culture?

My definition is simply winning hockey games.

If you inherit a losing team, there’s a grace period, but ultimately winning is all that matters.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

My definition is simply winning hockey games.

If you inherit a losing team, there’s a grace period, but ultimately winning is all that matters.

That's after the fact though. You don't win first and then adopt a winning culture.

The culture has to be there first, and the manager is the most important part of setting the culture.

 

[Golden_Jet]

That's after the fact though. You don't win first and then adopt a winning culture.

The culture has to be there first, and the manager is the most important part of setting the culture.

Sens have a great team culture.

 

[Hale The Villain]

If anyone is interested in knowing why I think Dorion's asset and cap management was terrible during the rebuild, look at this list of players he traded for using draft picks and what we ended up getting back:

Murray (-2nd, -3rd)
Stepan (-2nd)
Paquette+Coburn (+2nd)
Zaitsev+Brown (-3rd)
Namestnikov (-4th, +4th)
Reilly (-5th, +3rd)
J.Brown (-4th, +7th)
Gudbranson (-5th, +7th)
Boedker (nothing)
Hainsey (nothing)

What was the net return in picks we got back for those players? We ended up losing a 2nd, 3rd, 4th and two 5ths.

And when you consider that Dorion could have gotten a 2nd, 4th and 5th from Florida for Hoffman, but instead chose to deal him to San Jose for a cap dump in Boedker because of the idiotic idea that he should be dealt outside of the division (even though we were rebuilding and didn't have a chance at the playoffs), it's even worse than that.

The total amount of money spent on those players?

Murray: 10M salary over 2 seasons + 3.75M salary retained over next 2 seasons
Stepan: 2M salary
Paquette: 1.65M salary
Coburn: 1.6M salary
Zaitsev: 18M salary over 4 seasons
Brown: 8.9M over 3 seasons
Namestnikov: 3M salary
Reilly: 3M salary over 2 seasons
J.Brown: 2.4M salary
Gudbranson: 3M salary
Boedker: 3M salary
Hainsey: 3.5M salary for 1 season

Total: 63.8M

So Dorion spent 63.8M in real money on those players, actually lost picks overall to add them to the roster, and obviously looking at those names they didn't help us much when they played for us, which wouldn't have mattered anyway since we were in a full rebuild at the time.

Compare that to what Bill Armstrong has been doing in Arizona and you can see what terrible mismanagement of our limited resources this was. Dude made the decision to weaponize his cap space by taking advantage of teams that spent their money unwisely in exchange for draft picks. Took on Ghost, Ladd, Roussel, Beagle, Eriksson, Stralman, Ritchie, Kassian, Nemeth and others, which helped garner about a dozen 2nds/3rds for his team.

Both GMs weren't able to spend to the cap during their rebuilds, but one decided it was better for his team to take on bad short-term contracts to accumulate a large amount of draft picks, while the other willingly acquired bad players on bad contracts and actually paid draft capital for the priviledge due to a complete inability to evaluate NHL talent.

No idea how anyone could look at this and come to the conclusion that Dorion did a good job during the rebuild. Managed our assets and cap space terribly.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Sens have a great team culture.

They seem to be great friends and always backing each other up yes.

But they also seem not to be too bothered by losing. Previous Senators teams took losing a lot harder and personally even though they had less skill.

And winning culture is holding yourself and the team accountable to be the best in the league game in and game out. Is that really how we play? Our consistency is a big issue.

 

[bicboi64]

If anyone is interested in knowing why I think Dorion's asset and cap management was terrible during the rebuild, look at this list of players he traded for using draft picks and what we ended up getting back:

Murray (-2nd, -3rd)
Stepan (-2nd)
Paquette+Coburn (+2nd)
Zaitsev+Brown (-3rd)
Namestnikov (-4th, +4th)
Reilly (-5th, +3rd)
J.Brown (-4th, +7th)
Gudbranson (-5th, +7th)
Boedker (nothing)
Hainsey (nothing)

What was the net return in picks we got back for those players? We ended up losing a 2nd, 3rd, 4th and two 5ths.

And when you consider that Dorion could have gotten a 2nd, 4th and 5th from Florida for Hoffman, but instead chose to deal him to San Jose for a cap dump in Boedker because of the idiotic idea that he should be dealt outside of the division (even though we were rebuilding and didn't have a chance at the playoffs), it's even worse than that.

The total amount of money spent on those players?

Murray: 10M salary over 2 seasons + 3.75M salary retained over next 2 seasons
Stepan: 2M salary
Paquette: 1.65M salary
Coburn: 1.6M salary
Zaitsev: 18M salary over 4 seasons
Brown: 8.9M over 3 seasons
Namestnikov: 3M salary
Reilly: 3M salary over 2 seasons
J.Brown: 2.4M salary
Gudbranson: 3M salary
Boedker: 3M salary
Hainsey: 3.5M salary for 1 season

Total: 63.8M

So Dorion spent 63.8M in real money on those players, actually lost picks overall to add them to the roster, and obviously looking at those names they didn't help us much when they played for us, which wouldn't have mattered anyway since we were in a full rebuild at the time.

Compare that to what Bill Armstrong has been doing in Arizona and you can see what terrible mismanagement of our limited resources this was. Dude made the decision to weaponize his cap space by taking advantage of teams that spent their money unwisely in exchange for draft picks. Took on Ghost, Ladd, Roussel, Beagle, Eriksson, Stralman, Ritchie, Kassian, Nemeth and others, which helped garner about a dozen 2nds/3rds for his team.

Both GMs weren't able to spend to the cap during their rebuilds, but one decided it was better for his team to take on bad short-term contracts to accumulate a large amount of draft picks, while the other willingly acquired bad players on bad contracts and actually paid draft capital for the priviledge due to a complete inability to evaluate NHL talent.

No idea how anyone could look at this and come to the conclusion that Dorion did a good job during the rebuild. Managed our assets and cap space terribly.

So many acquisitions, if replaced by waiver wire pick ups or cheaper FAs would've allowed for the tank to still happen.

The argument that some of these players (Gudbranson, Stepan, etc...) provided leadership, how does one even measure that? No young player is going to talk smack about vets on their team. If asked if "player A" has been helpful, of course they'll say yes.

Yes we have a core that has potential. Its dope that Brady has found another gear offensively, Stu is an elite talent, and Sanderson looks like a #1 defender. But given what we had to start the rebuild with, we should have so much more and not be in a cap crunch, when we aren't even a playoff team.

 

[Byron Bitz]

They seem to be great friends and always backing each other up yes.

But they also seem not to be too bothered by losing. Previous Senators teams took losing a lot harder and personally even though they had less skill.

And winning culture is holding yourself and the team accountable to be the best in the league game in and game out. Is that really how we play? Our consistency is a big issue.

I truly believe that Giroux is very bothered by all the losing. He didn’t come here just to retire in his hometown, he came here to win. You can tell by the looks on his face when the camera would go on him after many of the losses, especially after the disastrous November, he seemed like the only one who truly understood the gravity of the situation.

 

[NyQuil]

That's after the fact though. You don't win first and then adopt a winning culture.

The culture has to be there first, and the manager is the most important part of setting the culture.

That’s why there’s a grace period.

You can only determine whether there’s a winning culture retroactively after you start winning.

If you have a winning culture and never win enough games, it’s hardly a winning culture now is it?

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

I truly believe that Giroux is very bothered by all the losing. He didn’t come here just to retire in his hometown, he came here to win. You can tell by the looks on his face when the camera would go on him after many of the losses, especially after the disastrous November, he seemed like the only one who truly understood the gravity of the situation.

Oh yea totally agree. Now imagine the team without Giroux.

Previous Senators teams would get physically agitated, bitter and annoyed they were losing or lost, Giroux as well.

I don't get the same desperation from the roster as a whole and especially not from Dorion who is the head. Need to cut off the head.

 

[Micklebot]

That's after the fact though. You don't win first and then adopt a winning culture.

The culture has to be there first, and the manager is the most important part of setting the culture.

How do you, from the outside, identify that the culture of a losing team is a winning culture adopted as part of the path towards becoming a winning team?

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

How do you, from the outside, identify that the culture of a losing team is a winning culture adopted as part of the path towards becoming a winning team?

Just what I see on the ice and I compare it to the other teams I see on the ice. The successful teams and the losing teams.

And a bad leader can make a great entity suck, while a great leader can pull a bad entity forward.

I think from his own words, and from the stories we hear of Dorion and from his rise to the top by selling his soul to Melnyk ( the lying) i thinks its fair to say Dorion is not a high character, leader type individual.

 

[NyQuil]

The easiest way to detect the absence of a winning culture is the absence of winning.

 

[bicboi64]

Forget winning culture, i'm good with just some accountability. If Chabot is playing crap and isn't injured, reward other guys who've been playing better with their limited minutes, like Brann.

If someone coming off an injury isn't able to do a basic task associated with his position, don't play them (Norris situation). Players will have a bullet wound, and still try to play, but its up to leadership in your staff to make calls and say "no, chill". Rehab until you can take a faceoff or surgery.

 

[Hale The Villain]

So many acquisitions, if replaced by waiver wire pick ups or cheaper FAs would've allowed for the tank to still happen.

The argument that some of these players (Gudbranson, Stepan, etc...) provided leadership, how does one even measure that? No young player is going to talk smack about vets on their team. If asked if "player A" has been helpful, of course they'll say yes.

Yes we have a core that has potential. Its dope that Brady has found another gear offensively, Stu is an elite talent, and Sanderson looks like a #1 defender. But given what we had to start the rebuild with, we should have so much more and not be in a cap crunch, when we aren't even a playoff team.

Never really used the waiver wire and could have used a fraction of the money spent on those players to sign minor UFAs to fill spots. Crazy that we were trading picks for immediate help during a rebuild in the first place.

It was just bad asset and cap management - pure and simple. Wasted money and assets

People will say look at all the young talent we have, and it's true we've got a great young core, but coming out of a complete tear-down-rebuild and picking in the top 10 for the last 5 years, we should be absolutely swimming in young assets ala New Jersey or Buffalo. We should have prospects and picks to burn right now, but the pool is already pretty barren.

DeBrincat and Chychrun acquisitions would hurt a lot less had Dorion weaponized his cap space and managed his assets properly during the rebuild.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Forget winning culture, i'm good with just some accountability. If Chabot is playing crap and isn't injured, reward other guys who've been playing better with their limited minutes, like Brann.

If someone coming off an injury isn't able to do a basic task associated with his position, don't play them (Norris situation). Players will have a bullet wound, and still try to play, but its up to leadership in your staff to make calls and say "no, chill". Rehab until you can take a faceoff or surgery.

When a team is owned by someone like Eugene Melnyk and it's cancerous from the top down, there's no such thing as real accountability, or very little of it. The accountability we did get was when Melnyk was fed up and got involved, which wasn't ideal. That's slowly changed and will continue to improve with a respectable owner. I'm optimistic.

 

[Micklebot]

Just what I see on the ice and I compare it to the other teams I see on the ice. The successful teams and the losing teams.

And a bad leader can make a great entity suck, while a great leader can pull a bad entity forward.

I think from his own words, and from the stories we hear of Dorion and from his rise to the top by selling his soul to Melnyk ( the lying) i thinks its fair to say Dorion is not a high character, leader type individual.

The stories we hear about DJ, Brady, Giroux, and Stü all seem to be those of high character, and really care,

Quenneville seems to have had some pretty serious character flaws back when the Hawks were winning cups, did they have a losing culture because of his character flaws?

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

The stories we hear about DJ, Brady, Giroux, and Stü all seem to be those of high character, and really care,

Quenneville seems to have had some pretty serious character flaws back when the Hawks were winning cups, did they have a losing culture because of his character flaws?

Win at all costs, the game is above everything, Jon Voight from Varsity Blues style from the sound of it. Not sure that's a good thing.

 

[Xspyrit]

Man traded an entire top 6 (Stone, Zibanejad, Duchene, Hoffman, Pageau and Dzingel) in their prime and all we have left to show for it is Greig, Kleven, Brannstrom, JBD, Thomson and Sokolov.

Thanks to our 2020 draft, Greig and Kleven were great picks but it could have been worse then that... Past top-6 tends to be underrated because scoring was about 2.75 goals per game back then... and we were playing in more defensive systems

Stone, Zibanejad and Duchene are still elite/high end players (when healthy) 6-7 years later...

The terrible returns garnered for so much talent traded away is one thing, but it's crazy that coming out of a 5 year tear-it-down rebuild we had to play talentless plugs like Kelly, Gambrell, Brown, etc... in our bottom 6 this year.

This is mind numbing, we literally had one of the worst, if not THE worst bottom-6 this season. Like if it was not that important. What an archaic way of seeing the game

We should be overflowing with young talent and the fact that our depth is already getting stretched thin is a function of Dorion's horrid asset and money management during the rebuild.

Not only did he not weaponize our cap space when we were overflowing with it - but he did the opposite - he traded picks for immediate help, and almost all such acquisitions blew up in our face. Now we're starting to pay the price for his mismanagement.

The excuse brought up has been Melnyk and that he wouldn't pay to "weaponize cap space" but do we need to look back at how we spent the money? Just in 2020-21 :

Stepan 6.5 AAV
Murray 6.25 AAV
Dadonov 5.0 AAV
White 4.75 AAV
Anisimov 4.55 AAV
Zaitsev 4.5 AAV
Gudbranson 4.0 AAV
Tierney 3.5 AAV
Dzingel 3,375 AAV

The money the best well spent in NHL history™

I mean, if the plan was to TANK, ok that would have been the perfect roster, but we selected Tyler... Freaking... Boucher... with our 10th OA pick, one of the biggest REACH in the 1st round in a long time

Seriously, you can't make this shit up. And some posters are calling me out on all this. I mean, I am simply stating the cold truth

Don't even have the desire to start talking about the wasted picks... Just getting rid of Zaitsev and Murray cost 2nd + 3rd + 4th + 7th (despite 25% retention on Murray)

Speaking of Murray, I like his ability but why would you give a 6.25 AAV x 4 years contract to a guy who had such an injury history already? Look at Gaborik (who was an elite talent) for example and how his injury history reduced his potential earnings significantly

Anyway, we could go on for hours

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Why is Pierre a loveable guy?

I have found nothing for this personally.