Derrico Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 If these rumors are true then I'll be happy with the hire. As others have said we're not the ones conducting the interviews so don't have first hand knowledge on each candidates ideologies etc. However, I do know of a couple of Sens boards blowing up over this news and that's enough of an endorsement for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Yes, I was implying that Murray has been good with financial restrictions and that Benning has been good without them. Murray could then conceivably be very good to great without financial restrictions. Also I don't want Buffalo retread which i openly admit is biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 If Murray ends up being the hire I'll grill my brother in law for some more info on him through his association with the Sens (Sens one of his sponsors on PGA tour). For now he has just told me that he's a "good guy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 The owner thing is really big for me--the Murrays are basically working for a Canadian Rigas. They're 26th in the league in payroll and icing a decent team. Last season they had about every injury problem imaginable, and still made the playoffs--speaks to organizational depth, which Tim is largely responsible for. Also consider some of the moves Ottawa has made recently: Picks/prospects for Bobby Ryan: shows willingness to make a big move when the team judges it is near enough contention to do so. Also means drafting has been solid since they had desirable pieces to move for a top line player. Rundblad (D prospect) and 2nd round pick for Kyle Turris: Using an organizational strength to fill an organizational hole, taking a risk, and recognizing how important it is to secure the center position. FWIW, Rundblad has struggled mightily and might not even be an NHL regular going forward. Turris is also on a great value contract. Acquiring Ben Bishop for a 2nd round pick, then flipping Bishop for Cory Conacher: Not sure if they planned on flipping Bishop when they acquired him, but it still shows a willingness to give up a "spare" (Anderson is at least serviceable and Lehner is a high-end goalie prospect) asset to fill a roster hole Nick Foligno for Marc Methot: A good ol' fashioned hockey trade, with each team filling a need and no clear winner I know the results in the standings haven't been spectacular, but I see in Ottawa a team that has been willing to make genuine hockey trades to improve the team and fill holes, has drafted very well, and managed to avoid giving out abominable contracts. The approach is basically the anti-Darcy, even if the results aren't eye-popping. We'll never know how much of a role Tim had in any of this, but I don't think *too* much weight should be put on the W/L record when the process and approach has been, IMO, very sound. Obviously GMs will ultimately get judged on their W/L record (and rightly so, after a time), but I think there's a lot of encouraging signs here. You make some good points here. I completely agree with your appreciation of the Ryan and Turris trades -- Darcy NEVER jumped in opportunistically to snag a good player who was being auctioned off, which I hated -- and to a lesser extent the Methot deal. They probably didn't get fair value for Bishop given the year he's having. And I like the "anti-Darcy" approach, obviously. However, I can't agree with the bolded parts. The whole point of the enterprise is to deliver results. If the results aren't there, I don't give a crap about the process -- it's like PTR's nonsensical point about "winning the trade deadline." You don't get anything for winning the trade deadline and you don't get anything for having a good process. Of course, time will tell, and I'm happy to give PLF the benefit of the doubt. But the quote about the Bruins not wanting to let Benning leave until after the Olympics disturbs me -- it implies that Benning (who has delivered great results) was the first choice and PLF went with his 2nd choice in Murray because he wanted to get the GM in now. Hope and change. :devil: **shudder** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 However, I can't agree with the bolded parts. The whole point of the enterprise is to deliver results. If the results aren't there, I don't give a crap about the process -- it's like PTR's nonsensical point about "winning the trade deadline." You don't get anything for winning the trade deadline and you don't get anything for having a good process. This I think encapsulates what was wrong with Regier. He was worried about winning trades, not winning the Stanley Cup. "Starting today the Sabres reason for existence will be to win a Stanley Cup" If these words are true you need a GM who can sacrifice something like a prospect or a depth defender. Guess we shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I kind of feel the same. Not overly thrilled. Should I be ? I was hoping for someone who is trending up not treading water. Oh well, it could be worse. It could be Darcy. Murray is certainly trending up. He was likely to be the Sens GM very soon, and if they weren't decisive about it then it was only a matter of time before somebody stole him away. They weren't, and look where we are now. As for looking at results: he's been with more than just the Sens. He helped put the finishing touches on a championship in Anaheim. If he had stayed around for just another year then we'd all be celebrating him as a champion. A lot of people consider Dudley a champion even though he left Tampa before they won it. Murray is a champion in the same sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 You make some good points here. I completely agree with your appreciation of the Ryan and Turris trades -- Darcy NEVER jumped in opportunistically to snag a good player who was being auctioned off, which I hated -- and to a lesser extent the Methot deal. They probably didn't get fair value for Bishop given the year he's having. And I like the "anti-Darcy" approach, obviously. However, I can't agree with the bolded parts. The whole point of the enterprise is to deliver results. If the results aren't there, I don't give a crap about the process -- it's like PTR's nonsensical point about "winning the trade deadline." You don't get anything for winning the trade deadline and you don't get anything for having a good process. Of course, time will tell, and I'm happy to give PLF the benefit of the doubt. But the quote about the Bruins not wanting to let Benning leave until after the Olympics disturbs me -- it implies that Benning (who has delivered great results) was the first choice and PLF went with his 2nd choice in Murray because he wanted to get the GM in now. In my defense, I did say that a GM should be judged by results eventually. But I'm not convinced an assistant GM can be properly judged by those same results when we don't know how much influence they had on the moves that were made, nor do we know what he himself would want to do that wasn't done. And while we certainly have seen enough here to know an open checkbook doesn't guarantee success, I think we can agree that consistently being limited to the bottom third of the league in payroll is going to limit how good we can expect a team to be from year to year, no? And we know for a fact that Tim is GM of Ottawa's AHL affiliate, which won the Calder Cup in 2011. So there's that :) Lastly, I disagree with the implication that Benning was the #1 choice. Boston gave LaFontaine a window to speak with Benning, which LaFontaine allowed to expire. If Benning were truly the top choice, I'd think LaFontaine would have gotten it done within the window given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 It would have been hard and perhaps a bit disrespectful for Ottawa to push out Bryan Murray at this time, when his retirement probably is within the next few years. I blame Tim's motivation to leave not on Bryan staying around longer, but on the much better ownership situation in Buffalo than Ottawa. Pat LaFontaine, with backing from Pegula, just crushed the Sen's succession plan for their front office. Definitely a perk. Bonus: it's within the realm of possibility that Bryan Murray later becomes a Senior Adviser for the Buffalo Sabres, a la Scotty Bowman for the Blackhawks. Pegula and LaFontaine want good hockey people working in the front office, and I believe that, over time, they'll get them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 New GM revealed via Sabres Twitter: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Losing trades also does not help win the Stanley Cup. I know it is not popular to say anything nice about Darcy, but I never understood how making good trades is a bad quality in a GM. In the end, I think that we also going to be happy with the last trade he made. Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 So winning trades is non-sensical? Let's just give back Girginson because he came from the #1 pick we got from Nashville for Gaustad. (Why no 57-page CoHo vs Kashian thread for that deal?) You know, the pick no one in their right mind said DR could get. This desire to crap on anything Darcy did is generating some pretty non-sensical posts too. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 It's not always about winning trades. It's about making the right trades. You can "lose" a trade in the sense that the better player went the other way, but if the new player makes you a more well-rounded winner then you're doing your job right. Not saying Darcy didn't make some "right" trades, just saying that trades are more than winning and losing. New GM revealed via Sabres Twitter: Need to see more of the back before I judge this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 It's not always about winning trades. It's about making the right trades. You can "lose" a trade in the sense that the better player went the other way, but if the new player makes you a more well-rounded winner then you're doing your job right. Not saying Darcy didn't make some "right" trades, just saying that trades are more than winning and losing. Sounds like a lame attempt to justify an absurd position. Not saying winning trades is the be all/end all. But how is getting better value from a trade a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Losing trades also does not help win the Stanley Cup. I know it is not popular to say anything nice about Darcy, but I never understood how making good trades is a bad quality in a GM. In the end, I think that we also going to be happy with the last trade he made. Just my two cents. So winning trades is non-sensical? Let's just give back Girginson because he came from the #1 pick we got from Nasville. You know, the pick no one in their right mind said DR could get. This desire to crap on anything Darcy did is generating some pretty non-sensical posts too. PTR Wow really? You both think people on this board believe that winning trades is nonsensical and losing trades win the Stanley Cup. Please show us or quote the poster who is actually proposing this. What was said was "Darcy was more worried about winning trades". That does not say losing trades wins the cup or winning trades is nonsensical. What is says is that instead of focusing on the cup, the ultimate goal, it appeared most times Darcy wouldn't make a trade unless he could win the trade outright. But let us exaggerate things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 New GM revealed via Sabres Twitter: I see gray... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Sounds like a lame attempt to justify an absurd position. Not saying winning trades is the be all/end all. But how is getting better value from a trade a bad thing? Because sometimes it's about team building. If you "win" every trade en route to acquiring 12 Cody Hodgsons (and I like Hodgson a lot), your team isn't going to win a championship or even be better than mediocre, and "winning" those trades in terms of value means zilch. A GM's job is to build a coherent roster with pieces that fit together and roles that can be filled with players who have the proper skill set...coming out on the better value end of a trade doesn't inherently mean this is going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Sounds like a lame attempt to justify an absurd position. Not saying winning trades is the be all/end all. But how is getting better value from a trade a bad thing? Its trade deadline 2006, I am DR. I get an offer for a 4th/5th best type of defender. He is decent but not a franchise guy. The team wants my 1st rounder for 2006. That is an overpayment for a 4th/5th defender. Instead I don't take the deal because I would lose the trade. Instead I lose the stanley cup and draft Dennis Pearsson. Now what would you rather have Dennis Pearsson or a Stanley Cup? Sometimes you have to lose trades and most times you need to win them. Successful GM's know that and are willing to gamble. Sometimes they suck at it and you end up like Calgary, sometimes they succeed at it and you end up like LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Exaggerate things? Pot meet kettle. Is saying that DR focused all his effort on winning trades not an exaggeration, like he was unable of doing anything else while negotiating trades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Again no one has said winning trades is dumb. You exaggerated some posts and I am calling ###### Exaggerate things? Pot meet kettle. Is saying that DR focused all his effort on winning trades not an exaggeration, like he was unable of doing anything else while negotiating trades? Good thing I didnt say this. You overreacted in an effort to defend DR. BTW DR I think is a good gm and master at trades but as PHD said, it isn't always about winning trades it is about team building and I think post 2007 DR failed to build a team that was competitive in this style of NHL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Sorry. Inventing scenarios is not proof of anything. DR is gone. Isn't that enough? Do we have to desecrate his corpse too? Its trade deadline 2006, I am DR. I get an offer for a 4th/5th best type of defender. He is decent but not a franchise guy. The team wants my 1st rounder for 2006. That is an overpayment for a 4th/5th defender. Instead I don't take the deal because I would lose the trade. Instead I lose the stanley cup and draft Dennis Pearsson. Now what would you rather have Dennis Pearsson or a Stanley Cup? Sometimes you have to lose trades and most times you need to win them. Successful GM's know that and are willing to gamble. Sometimes they suck at it and you end up like Calgary, sometimes they succeed at it and you end up like LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 This I think encapsulates what was wrong with Regier. He was worried about winning trades, not winning the Stanley Cup. Here is my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Sorry. Inventing scenarios is not proof of anything. DR is gone. Isn't that enough? Do we have to desecrate his corpse too? "Went down to the cemetery lookin' for love" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Sorry. Inventing scenarios is not proof of anything. DR is gone. Isn't that enough? Do we have to desecrate his corpse too? I am not desecrating anything. DR worried about winning trades because he thought he had to win trades to win the cup. That scenario I invented is not only plausible, I bet you money I could have traded our 2006 pick for a #4 defender. The point is you exaggerated my point and again I call ######. It isn't what I said nor was it implied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 New GM revealed via Sabres Twitter: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Sorry. Inventing scenarios is not proof of anything. DR is gone. Isn't that enough? Do we have to desecrate his corpse too? Wait, Darcy's dead? Did I miss the lynching ceremony? :censored: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.