The Official Pierre "high five" Dorion Thread | Part III

[NorthCoast]

Replies are in bold under each paragraph.

The problem here is that you over value draft picks. You see a 2nd and 3rd as NHLers, when the stats show how small a chance it is that either picks would ever be NHL regulars, let alone as good as Boedker. PD identified that instead of later picks that may yield players several years down the road, that it might be nice to get a solid NHLer to play on the roster this upcoming year instead. Especially given that we have a bunch of prospects developing, and several more picks on the way. We actually do need some quality bodies to play on the team, and we can't fill the roster with rookies.

Boedker is not holding up signing our top players, you know this, nice try. You're also undervaluing Boedker because the Sharks needed cap relief. his doesn't make him a bad player, nor does it make him a guy we could have just gotten for free. There was zero chance that the Sharks dump him for nothing, he's actually a pretty good player, some team would have traded for him if not us. Also, the trade was time sensitive given the accusations of cyber bullying, the trade was like done fast in order to help the Karlsson's feel supported rather than making it seem like asset management must always come first.

Look, not all his moves panned out as hoped or expected, some have been great in my opinion, some good, and a few have ended up bad. That goes for every team who has a GM willing to make trades. I for one like the kind of team that he wants to create, and like the types of players that we are bringing in and drafting. I'm willing to be patient and see the team he creates in the end, because the last few teams have been lacking, especially the PD took over.

What is your measure of success?

I ask because "like the team that he wants to create" isn't very quantifiable.

I propose that success for any GM is either winning the cup or at minimum building a team that is legitimately considered a cup contender for a 3-5 year window?

By this measure I would say he has not yet achieved success. Doesn't mean he won't in the future but he has not been a "successful" GM at this point I think we can agree on that.


PD Strategy Till Now

What was it? Did they think that the core of EK, Turris, Phaneuf, Methot, Stone, Brassard, Hoffman, Andersson, was good enough to be cup contenders for 3-5 years? It would seem that was the case because they brought in Phaneuf knowing he had a limited window, and got older with Brassard, and until Duchene most of the trades you mentioned were 3-4th line tweaks.

PD Strategy Going Forward

What is it? Are we building towards a 3-5 year window with EK, Stone, Duchene, Chabot, ....don't know... or are we going into a complete rebuild to try and get new pieces for the core?


If we can resign EK, Stone, Duchene, etc and build up around them by trading away the old for youth then at least I can understand the strategy. Doesn't forgive the lack of direction for the first couple years, but it makes sense in terms of getting to success during his tenure. GM comes in, keeps the developed core and retools the team to be younger to grow with the core, setting themselves up for a window.

^^^That is a strategy I can understand.

If the strategy is to trade away EK, Stone, Duchene and go into a complete rebuild them his tenure to this point has been a disaster because anyone can come in and strip it down. Maybe he builds it back up properly but it still wouldn't excuse that he waited a 2-3 years to go in this direction.


The fact of the matter is that if all you are doing is tweaking the roster every year to try and make the playoffs then you need to do WAY better than even on trades and drafting in order to build a multiyear window. I repeat, if you are not going to go through a full rebuild to acquire a contenting core then you must make out way better on trades and drafting than other teams. Because coming out even means you are not improving.



This is why up until now I don't think he has done a great job. Because I don't think the strategy was sound, and even if you agree with the strategy he didn't successfully execute it.

 

[BondraTime]

The team sucked last year and was on the verge of losing it's best goal scoring forward and you think that insisting on getting a player back is failure of assessment?!

You are as inconsistent as a Trumpkin. It's hard to not become what you hate, no hard feelings.

What is Boedker's value to the Sens? Is he in their plans at all, or just a player to fill the roster?

If the answer is that he's just a warm body, it was not smart. And I honestly can't see how anyone could think aby different.

I'd rather draft picks that "MAY" have a future with the Sens (we sure are pumping Formenton and other recent 2nd's up as future blocks) than a guy that is a place holder.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

What is Boedker's value to the Sens? Is he in their plans at all, or just a player to fill the roster?

If the answer is that he's just a warm body, it was not smart. And I honestly can't see how anyone could think aby different.

I'd rather draft picks that "MAY" have a future with the Sens (we sure are pumping Formenton and other recent 2nd's up as future blocks) than a guy that is a place holder.

We don't have our first this year, losing Hoffman and not getting an NHL able body in return was not an option.

Asking a GM to always prioritize the long term at the cost of the short term is not realistic. There needs to be some degree of balance because the Senators play in a weak market, they need to try and be competitive year-in and year-out.

 

[BondraTime]

We don't have our first this year, losing Hoffman and not getting an NHL able body in return was not an option.

Asking a GM to always prioritize the long term at the cost of the short term is not realistic. There needs to be some degree of balance because the Senators play in a weak market, they need to try and be competitive year-in and year-out.

So? If we wanted to compete we'd have done something to try and compete, which we did the complete opposite. We take the extra picks and have a tiny bit of a worse roster than we do now. Either way it doesn't matter because with Boedker we are still where we are. Rather than pay him the money, we could have gained picks, and used his money elsewhere (I mean, we have how many guys looking for raises that we can't pay already?) Of course not taking a body back was an option. It's not like ading Boedker did anything for the Sens other than fill a roster spot, because that's all it did.

Zero need filled, zero skill gained, salary added. Makes less than zero sense.

We either make the playoffs or we don't at this point, Boedker isn't going to affect that one way or the other, he just isn't. He isn't making us any more competitive, he's just a warm body. If he's the difference between having a 78 point season with extra picks or an 84 point season without, it's a pretty simple decision.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

We either make the playoffs or we don't at this point, Boedker isn't going to affect that one way or the other, he just isn't. He isn't making us any more competitive, he's just a warm body. If he's the difference between having a 78 point season with extra picks or an 84 point season without, it's a pretty simple decision.

That's silly. Of course he's going to influence our odds of making the playoffs next season, even if by just a tiny fraction.

A draft pick is what would not help at all on that front.

 

[BondraTime]

That's silly. Of course he's going to influence our odds of making the playoffs next season, even if by just at tiny fraction.

A draft pick is what would not help at all on that front.

Man, oh man.

If they were trying or even had thoughts of making the playoffs they would have done more than make the 30th place team in the league last year worse.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Man oh man

I know it's hard to fathom that a veteran player who isn't even 30 years old might help the team make the playoffs.

Crazy eh?

 

[BondraTime]

I know it's hard to fathom that a veteran player who isn't even 30 years old might help the team make the playoffs.

Crazy eh?

Yes, it is crazy. Subtracting Hoffman in exchange for Boedker on the 30th place team in the league in no way helps make the playoffs. We aren't a playoff bubble team adding Boedker. We are a bottom of the league team subtracting Hoffman for Boedker. Moronic really.

Very crazy.

 

[slamigo]

It's true. Dorion has taken this team from playoff 7-8 seed to "hopefully we don't finish dead last".

 

[Alex1234]

He had 15 goals last year wich is only 7 less then Hoffman and places him 5th on the team if you remove Brassard
Maybe with Duchene he hits 17-18 G next season
If EK has a normal season of +- 18 G (average 18.5 goals form last 4 seasons prior to last year) instead of 9 Im not sure Hoffman departure is that big of a deal scoring wise

Chemistry and room atmosphere is much more at risk IMO if the big 3 and Anderson really want to leave

 

[BatherSeason]

Asking a GM to always prioritize the long term at the cost of the short term is not realistic. There needs to be some degree of balance because the Senators play in a weak market, they need to try and be competitive year-in and year-out.

If they are "trying" they need to try a whole lot more than they are.

 

[coladin]

Yes, it is crazy. Subtracting Hoffman in exchange for Boedker on the 30th place team in the league in no way helps make the playoffs. We aren't a playoff bubble team adding Boedker. We are a bottom of the league team subtracting Hoffman for Boedker. Moronic really.

Very crazy.

You may lose Hoffman's 25 goals, but your GA falls by 15 when you take into account his lazy line changes that ended up in goals thanks to Hoffman the player. Hoffman is a flawed, one dimensional player and can be replaced. I would rather him on my team than not, but that is out of Dorion's control.

 

[branch]

What is Boedker's value to the Sens? Is he in their plans at all, or just a player to fill the roster?

If the answer is that he's just a warm body, it was not smart. And I honestly can't see how anyone could think aby different.

I'd rather draft picks that "MAY" have a future with the Sens (we sure are pumping Formenton and other recent 2nd's up as future blocks) than a guy that is a place holder.

Boedker def could have been had for a 3rd-4th rounder. They knew they f***ed up with that contract and were desperate to move it. Thankfully Mr. Dorion was able to step up to the plate.

 

[NorthCoast]

That's silly. Of course he's going to influence our odds of making the playoffs next season, even if by just a tiny fraction.

A draft pick is what would not help at all on that front.

Dude, really.

If I have the choice of:

1) Boedker @ 4m

OR

2) 2nd, 4th, 5th
+ one of Perron/Comeau/Versteeg/Pouliot, etc @ 1m (take your pick from still available UFAs that would be willing to sign for 1 mil)
+ 3m cap space/financial savings

OR

3) Give Hoffman away for nothing
+ Sign a 3m UFA like Grabner.
+ 1m cap space/financial savings


I take option #2. Heck I even take option #3.

The only reason you would do number 1 is that you think Boedker can hit another level in the next year and a half to justify flipping him at a trade deadline for more picks combined than SJ got for Hoffman + whatever you could flip the UFA you picked up in option #2 for. Otherwise how can you justify trading a player like Hoffman for something you could have gotten in Free Agency. Grabner signed for 3.35. You really think he wouldn't have come to Ottawa for another mil if we had to. Would Grabner (27 goals last year) not have been as good an option as Boadker?

It's just bad asset management plain and simple.

 

[topshelf15]

Dude, really.

If I have the choice of:

1) Boedker @ 4m

OR

2) 2nd, 4th, 5th
+ one of Perron/Comeau/Versteeg/Pouliot, etc @ 1m (take your pick from still available UFAs that would be willing to sign for 1 mil)
+ 3m cap space/financial savings

OR

3) Give Hoffman away for nothing
+ Sign a 3m UFA like Grabner.
+ 1m cap space/financial savings


I take option #2. Heck I even take option #3.

The only reason you would do number 1 is that you think Boedker can hit another level in the next year and a half to justify flipping him at a trade deadline for more picks combined than SJ got for Hoffman + whatever you could flip the UFA you picked up in option #2 for. Otherwise how can you justify trading a player like Hoffman for something you could have gotten in Free Agency. Grabner signed for 3.35. You really think he wouldn't have come to Ottawa for another mil if we had to. Would Grabner (27 goals last year) not have been as good an option as Boadker?

It's just bad asset management plain and simple.

The problem with hoping we can sign a FA is it was pretty likely none of those players would have chosen Ottawa....We got screwed royal on Hoffman,s value ,and while Bodker doesnt seem like much more than a 4 mil dollar 35 point man ,he at least gives us something else other than a kid or Dzingle on LW

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Dude, really.

If I have the choice of:

1) Boedker @ 4m

OR

2) 2nd, 4th, 5th
+ one of Perron/Comeau/Versteeg/Pouliot, etc @ 1m (take your pick from still available UFAs that would be willing to sign for 1 mil)
+ 3m cap space/financial savings

OR

3) Give Hoffman away for nothing
+ Sign a 3m UFA like Grabner.
+ 1m cap space/financial savings


I take option #2. Heck I even take option #3.

The only reason you would do number 1 is that you think Boedker can hit another level in the next year and a half to justify flipping him at a trade deadline for more picks combined than SJ got for Hoffman + whatever you could flip the UFA you picked up in option #2 for. Otherwise how can you justify trading a player like Hoffman for something you could have gotten in Free Agency. Grabner signed for 3.35. You really think he wouldn't have come to Ottawa for another mil if we had to. Would Grabner (27 goals last year) not have been as good an option as Boadker?

It's just bad asset management plain and simple.

It's bad asset management that your preferred scenario, which is entirely a fabrication of your imagination (none of those UFAs were going to end up here unless we massively overpaid and we all know this), didn't happen?

You take option 1 if the goal is to make the playoffs, you take option 2 if you are rebuilding.

Dorion was offered 2 and said no, Tallon said so. Therefore we know Dorion is not interested in rebuilding.

You can challenge his position on that front all you want, that's not what started this. What started this was FQL claiming that Dorion was "humiliated" and "no other GM respects him" because Wilson took the offer Dorion turned down.

 

[BondraTime]

It's bad asset management that your preferred scenario, which is entirely a fabrication of your imagination (none of those UFAs were going to end up here unless we massively overpaid and we all know this), didn't happen?

You take option 1 if the goal is to make the playoffs, you take option 2 if you are rebuilding.

Dorion was offered 2 and said no, Tallon said so. Therefore we know Dorion is not interested in rebuilding.

You can challenge his position on that front all you want, that's not what started this. What started this was FQL claiming that Dorion was "humiliated" and "no other GM respects him" because Wilson took the offer Dorion turned down.

Florida - Turned their 2nd + 4th + 5th into a 1st line winger

San Jose - Turned their cap dump into a 2nd + 4th + 5th + 5th

Ottawa - Turned their 1st line winger into a cap dump + 6th

I'd be embarrassed.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Florida - Turned their 2nd + 4th + 5th into a 1st line winger

San Jose - Turned their cap dump into a 2nd + 4th + 5th + 5th

Ottawa - Turned their 1st line winger into a cap dump + 6th

I'd be embarrassed.

It's a weak trade for sure but the point I'm making is that Dorion was offered the picks and turned it down. To claim he was "humiliated" and that "no other GM respects him" based on the Hoffman debacle is ridiculous.

 

[BondraTime]

It's a weak trade for sure but the point I'm making is that Dorion was offered the picks and turned it down. To claim he was "humiliated" and that "no other GM respects him" based on the Hoffman debacle is ridiculous.

I don't entirely agree with it, but I do think he is viewed as a guy easy to take advantage of from other GM's.

Tallon couldn't get Hoffman for what he wanted from Dorion (even though he said he never offered them to him....), so he got him for what he wanted from Wilson, who also got what he wanted from Dorion in taking his Boedker contract, and Dorion ended up getting the worst return of the 3 teams. I do definitely view that as being taken advantage of by 2 GM's in some respects for certain.

 

[Engineer]

ok

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I don't entirely agree with it, but I do think he is viewed as a guy easy to take advantage of from other GM's.

Tallon couldn't get Hoffman for what he wanted from Dorion, so he got him for what he wanted from Wilson, who also got what he wanted from Dorion in taking his Boedker contract, and Dorion ended up getting the worst return of the 3 teams. I do definitely view that as being taken advantage of by 2 GM's in some respects for certain.

I am reserving judgement personally. On paper it doesn't look great, I'd rather have the picks for sure.

But I'm gonna wait and see how Boedker performs before saying it is a disaster. That seems reasonable to me.

I don't think he was taken advantage of: everyone got what they wanted, like you said.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Dale Tallon has explicitly stated he did not offer those draft picks to Ottawa.

Possible. I remember him saying "Ottawa would not take picks"

So maybe he was offered lesser picks than what Wilson got?

 

[BondraTime]

I am reserving judgement personally. On paper it doesn't look great, I'd rather have the picks for sure.

But I'm gonna wait and see how Boedker performs before saying it is a disaster. That seems reasonable to me.

I don't think he was taken advantage of: everyone got what they wanted, like you said.

How did Ottawa get what they wanted?

If what they wanted was to turn Hoffman and a 5th into Boedker and a 6th, there are much bigger issues at play than being taken advantage of.

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

Replies are in bold under each paragraph.

The problem here is that you over value draft picks. You see a 2nd and 3rd as NHLers, when the stats show how small a chance it is that either picks would ever be NHL regulars, let alone as good as Boedker. PD identified that instead of later picks that may yield players several years down the road, that it might be nice to get a solid NHLer to play on the roster this upcoming year instead. Especially given that we have a bunch of prospects developing, and several more picks on the way. We actually do need some quality bodies to play on the team, and we can't fill the roster with rookies.

Boedker is not holding up signing our top players, you know this, nice try. You're also undervaluing Boedker because the Sharks needed cap relief. his doesn't make him a bad player, nor does it make him a guy we could have just gotten for free. There was zero chance that the Sharks dump him for nothing, he's actually a pretty good player, some team would have traded for him if not us. Also, the trade was time sensitive given the accusations of cyber bullying, the trade was like done fast in order to help the Karlsson's feel supported rather than making it seem like asset management must always come first.

Look, not all his moves panned out as hoped or expected, some have been great in my opinion, some good, and a few have ended up bad. That goes for every team who has a GM willing to make trades. I for one like the kind of team that he wants to create, and like the types of players that we are bringing in and drafting. I'm willing to be patient and see the team he creates in the end, because the last few teams have been lacking, especially the PD took over.

You're not really getting it. Boedker was literally a buyout/waiver candidate before we acquired him. The Sharks were willing to give him away for nothing.

NHL Rumors: San Jose Sharks and the Pittsburgh Penguins

From that link (feel free to search for more sources, there were tons of rumours around Boedker all year)

If put on waivers, it’s doubtful that anyone would claim Mikkel Boedker. He’s played a bit better of late, but he could be on thin ice.

 

[branch]

You're not really getting it. Boedker was literally a buyout/waiver candidate before we acquired him. The Sharks were willing to give him away for nothing.

NHL Rumors: San Jose Sharks and the Pittsburgh Penguins

From that link (feel free to search for more sources, there were tons of rumours around Boedker all year)

Ya for some reason people in this thread think Boedker is a really good player or something. Bizarre.