The team after 2006-07

[inthewings]

FYI, Joe Corvo (who wasn't really that great but let's assume he was an important part of the team for argument's sake) was a headcase who demanded to be traded. He couldn't take having the scrutiny on him of playing in a Canadian market and he had his own personal issues that he wasn't dealing with very well.

He was never going to be staying here. Actually, Joe Corvo's legacy is that he was the reason Bryan Murray had Dany Heatley put his trade demand in writing because Corvo after being dealt told reporters that he never asked to be dealt which Murray was enraged by and swore that he would then have any player who did that in the future provide evidence.

I'm aware of the story. Corvo may have wanted out, but it didn't have to happen during the season and we didn't need to move him for two pending UFAs. He spent the next three seasons playing 24 minutes a night and we had nothing to show for him a few months after he was dealt. Then we used his cap space on Jason Smith.

 

[HavlatMach9]

He spent the next three seasons playing 24 minutes a night and we had nothing to show for him a few months after he was dealt.

He was a defeated player here. No use thinking about a player like Corvo/Lee.

 

[inthewings]

He was a defeated player here. No use thinking about a player like Corvo/Lee.

A lot of our guys looked like defeated players here at the time. Which takes us back to the original question: what went wrong? Probably some combination of awful coaching, entitled players, injuries, poor roster management, and bad luck. I'm just not convinced it was inevitable.

 

[DefenseMinister]

If you seem to be aware of all of the stories, then you should have a pretty good idea as to why all of these things transpired.

If you continue to ignore the fact that the Sens had nothing coming through the system in the years from 2006-07 until relatively recently (on account of the effects of drafting good or bad not manifesting until roughly 5 years later), then you're going to keep banging your head against the wall in this thread. Focusing on the smaller moves that Murray made over this time doesn't address the main structural issue that existed.

If you can't draft and develop young, cheap players who can either a) contribute to your core in a substantial way or b) be used to acquire higher end players then you're destined to spiral down until you fix that problem.

 

[arglebargle]

Yeah, like I mentioned earlier ultimately that's what did them in. It's not wrong to say Murray made several counterproductive trades from 2008-2010. If the team was to remain competitive he would have had to either make a few fantastic trades or sign some marquee free agents like Hossa or Gaborik, neither of which happened.

He was a defeated player here. No use thinking about a player like Corvo/Lee.

Corvo actually wasn't. He was having great season when Murray traded, he just got red hot when he arrived in Carolina.

In any case I'm not too put out by how the team ended up now.

 

[Magix]

Mike fisher wasn't really a second line player in the truest sense, he was more of a compliment to a second line rather than being the driving force of one. The guy couldn't create or get anything going without a strong winger (Kovalev/Alfie) on his line who would take the pressure off of him. Which is why the Sens were a 1 line team.

Please dont bring up "well he is the 1st c for nashville and they are perennial playoff team year in year out". They were a playoff/strong team before he got there and his numbers haven't improved.

 

[Mephias]

A lot of our guys looked like defeated players here at the time. Which takes us back to the original question: what went wrong? Probably some combination of awful coaching, entitled players, injuries, poor roster management, and bad luck. I'm just not convinced it was inevitable.

I'm sure it wasn't inevitable. I think the result was a combination of:

a) Locker room issues, as everybody pointed out.

b) Very poor coach choices by Murray. It took the guy 4 tries to finally find a good coach. In retrospect, it was probably a huge mistake to fire Paddock midway through the season too. Sent the message that the coach was to blame and that it wasn't the players' fault. As well, it may have exacerbated the problem of players not listening to the coaches (if the rumors are true). Back then though, I was elated when Paddock was fired.

c) Poor pro scouting/roster management. Sure, the players that Murray got rid of didn't do much after leaving the Sens, but Murray never found proper replacements for the roles that those players filled.

d) Lack of foresight/cap management (tied to c). Murray was really a very conservative GM, and was more reactive than proactive. He didn't get rid of one of Gerber/Emery after the Cup run, leading to the massive controversy the next season. As well, he really never traded anybody while their value was high. Emery ended up being bought out. Heatley was traded for Michalek and not much else. Don't forget that Murray was the one who handed all the big extensions (Heatley, Spezza, Alfredsson, Fisher). He could've made some bold trades after the Cup run if he wanted to (ala the Blackhawks after winning the Cup a couple years ago), but he played it ultra-conservative and just tinkered around with depth players.

e) Barren prospect pool.

f) Injuries and decline. Heatley got injured and regressed. Alfie and Phillips got older. Redden regressed even more.

Anyways, I'd just like to finish by saying that I've been a huge fan of everything Bryan Murray has done after the Dany Heatley trade. He's done an absolutely magnificent job of refilling the prospect pool. That said, I still think he deserves at least some blame for the team falling apart past the Cup run.

Also, I'm done talking about this. This horse has long been beaten to death.

 

[inthewings]

I'm sure it wasn't inevitable. I think the result was a combination of:

a) Locker room issues, as everybody pointed out.

b) Very poor coach choices by Murray. It took the guy 4 tries to finally find a good coach. In retrospect, it was probably a huge mistake to fire Paddock midway through the season too. Sent the message that the coach was to blame and that it wasn't the players' fault. As well, it may have exacerbated the problem of players not listening to the coaches (if the rumors are true). Back then though, I was elated when Paddock was fired.

c) Poor pro scouting/roster management. Sure, the players that Murray got rid of didn't do much after leaving the Sens, but Murray never found proper replacements for the roles that those players filled.

d) Lack of foresight/cap management (tied to c). Murray was really a very conservative GM, and was more reactive than proactive. He didn't get rid of one of Gerber/Emery after the Cup run, leading to the massive controversy the next season. As well, he really never traded anybody while their value was high. Emery ended up being bought out. Heatley was traded for Michalek and not much else. Don't forget that Murray was the one who handed all the big extensions (Heatley, Spezza, Alfredsson, Fisher). He could've made some bold trades after the Cup run if he wanted to (ala the Blackhawks after winning the Cup a couple years ago), but he played it ultra-conservative and just tinkered around with depth players.

e) Barren prospect pool.

f) Injuries and decline. Heatley got injured and regressed. Alfie and Phillips got older. Redden regressed even more.

Anyways, I'd just like to finish by saying that I've been a huge fan of everything Bryan Murray has done after the Dany Heatley trade. He's done an absolutely magnificent job of refilling the prospect pool. That said, I still think he deserves at least some blame for the team falling apart past the Cup run.

Also, I'm done talking about this. This horse has long been beaten to death.

This is a pretty accurate post.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

A lot of our guys looked like defeated players here at the time. Which takes us back to the original question: what went wrong? Probably some combination of awful coaching, entitled players, injuries, poor roster management, and bad luck. I'm just not convinced it was inevitable.

There were a lot of off-ice issues. As stated previously, ask some servers around town...rumours of Redden (and McGrattan when he was around) allegedly closing down restaurants for "private functions", then Ray Emery running wild all over, cliques forming between the vets (Alfie, Phillips, Neil, the latter of whom allegedly almost beat up Ray Emery (or at least allegedly threatened) when he wouldn't respond to coaches) ) and so on and so on.

Then you had the downswing of the finals and we didn't have much top-end talent coming...and though Murray must have known the team would decline, he likely felt pressured to give them all long-term deals. HEatley, who knows...I'm of the mind that he saw what was going on and thought it was too much, maybe he just bailed. Meh.

We never would have won with that roster. Everything kinda fell into place in 2007 with the team being under the radar, Alfredsson getting a burr under his ass with the Conroy trade rumours, the East being MEH (as it has been for a while)...

...and then the coaching choices, all baffling. Paddock the Yes Man that hadn't coached in the NHL in how long? Then Hartsburg the screamer. Then Clouston the angry one. Murray got coaches that had less NHL success than his team, whether he needed to feel control or not who knows, the players were off a Cup finals and they got served Paddock, they were never going to listen to him, or Harsburg or Clouston. MacLean works because he's got a pedigree and he was likely the last chance before a real blow up.

It's cool though, now we'll have new kids and soon the latst of the originals will retire and we'll really see where we stand...

 

[Germz]

I've already said my piece on this topic when I compared the 2007 Sens to the 1997 Flyers.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=52336473&postcount=136

The only thing I would add is that Murray does deserve blame for some poor coaching hires. This has been generally agreed upon in this thread and in countless others.

 

[trentmccleary]

The 4 years after the Cup Finals appearance were mostly terrible.

#1 = Goaltending
The beginning of those 4 years: subtract roughly 1/4 of a season when Gerber was playing out of his mind (& Emery/Elliott games)
The end of those 4 years: subtract another 1/4 when Anderson came in to save us (& McElhinney games).
What you have in between is 3 1/2 seasons of a putrid pile of wretched fecal matter posing as NHL quality goaltending. Paddock and Clouston weren't great coaches, but they probably would have had an extra year each without these ******** sabotaging the team at every turn.

It's a miracle that the team even made the playoffs twice with the same calibre of goaltending that the original Sens received in their first 4 season to finish dead last every year.

#2 = Lack of Prospects / Poor Cap Management... Muckler/Murray
In 5 years of drafting, Meszaros & Foligno may have been the only top-6/top4 players drafted. That said, Murray's management of the talent was bizarre. Schaefer, Comrie and Saprykin were moved immediately and no 2nd line players brought in to replace them long(er) term until Kovalev. Then he removes all of the offensive talent from the D-corps to make them extremely defensive and then eventually makes an extreme offensive D-corps again... with maximum balance & success achieved in 09-10 during that 4 year span.

#3 = Hartsburg --> the 48 game disaster.
Wow! You'd think that this guy was paid to lose. He was on pace for a 70 point season through his 48 games and left the league's best offense at 29th when he was fired. The other 3 1/2 seasons were on an 89 point pace. Either of Paddock or Clouston with remotely competent goaltending probably could have posted a 100 point season... but not this guy, because he decided that he didn't need offense to win games. Nope, just brainlessly whip the puck up the boards every single play even after the opposition gets wise to your plan 2 games into the season.