HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Ottawa Senators
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Bryan Murray on last legs in Ottawa

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-03-2011, 07:27 PM
  #51
ARS
Registered User
 
ARS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minister of Offence View Post
Relying on pro scouting can be a crap shoot but drafting good young players makes it easier to bring in players that are actually good, which in turn makes pro scouting look good. I'm really just talking about perception of pro scouting...because from afar...none of us really know who is actually to blame for some of the decisions that are made. For instance, it's widely speculated and somewhat widely accepted that Melnyk engineered the Kovalev deal.
I really don't think you understand the concept of pro scouting at all.

And this is the second time I've read you blaming Melnyk for the Kovalev signing without providing evidence. Heck, Murray previously signed another aging Russian coming off a good year that did not fit his team in Fedorov, so why is it so hard to believe that Kovalev was all Murray's doing?

ARS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 07:29 PM
  #52
Suiteness
Registered User
 
Suiteness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Time to Rebuild
Posts: 6,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minister of Offence View Post
We are in different pages, I'm glad that you see that. Their jobs are different and completely separate except for the fact that having more quality young assets in the system makes the life on pro scouts easier and the perception on them likely better because instead of trading for Pascal Leclaire you may have traded for someone better...(just an example).
So having better prospects would have helped our pro scouts realize that Leclaire is an injury prone mediocre goalie who had one great season in 8 seasons as a pro?

Suiteness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 07:31 PM
  #53
Minister of Offence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suiteness View Post
So having better prospects would have helped our pro scouts realize that Leclaire is an injury prone mediocre goalie who had one great season in 8 seasons as a pro?
No but it may have allowed us to trade for someone better? Is that not possible.

I'm not saying it makes pro scouting perfect...there are probably gaffes in our pro scouting regardless..but scouting is very difficult and even the best teams in scouting have failed trades.

Minister of Offence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 07:31 PM
  #54
Ohhh Franco
Registered User
 
Ohhh Franco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minister of Offence View Post
If Muckler left us with more players we may not have even had to go after guys in free agency and trade...or we may have had more expendable prospects which would create more flexibility in the trade market.

He's on the hook for the guys he signed, this isn't a defend Murray thing but we are an example of how this can work. If you draft well you give your team more flexibility in the trade market...or it means you don't have to resort to those inferior methods of building a contender...most teams that build contenders do so in the draft for the most part anyways.

I mean if Brian Lee was Marc Staal we may have never had to bring in Kuba or Campoli or Picard or whoever in the first place, this is just an example but I don't see how it doesn't apply. Or maybe Marc Staal is packaged with Nick Foligno and a 1st a couple years ago for a player that is actually proven and very good when we needed to fill a hole (with Campoli) because Brian Lee wasn't an NHLer 2-3 years removed from his 9th overall selection. Again, just an example.
I agree 100%, my exact rationale.

Ohhh Franco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 07:33 PM
  #55
Minister of Offence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARS View Post
I really don't think you understand the concept of pro scouting at all.

And this is the second time I've read you blaming Melnyk for the Kovalev signing without providing evidence. Heck, Murray previously signed another aging Russian coming off a good year that did not fit his team in Fedorov, so why is it so hard to believe that Kovalev was all Murray's doing?
Pro scouting is pretty simple.

And I'm not the only one that puts Kovalev on Melnyk...many have speculated that. I've heard it on the radio, from one of our insiders on the board. Not going to see many owners let that information get out...

Minister of Offence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 07:39 PM
  #56
ARS
Registered User
 
ARS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minister of Offence View Post
Pro scouting is pretty simple.

And I'm not the only one that puts Kovalev on Melnyk...many have speculated that. I've heard it on the radio, from one of our insiders on the board. Not going to see many owners let that information get out...
Yes it is simple, yet you still don't seem to understand it otherwise you would realize that amateur and pro scouting are two different things and you wouldn't be trying to relate the two with futile what-if scenarios.

And like I said, there's no evidence that Melnyk forced Murray to sign Kovalev so why are you still trying to support your arguments with that?

ARS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 07:40 PM
  #57
Suiteness
Registered User
 
Suiteness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Time to Rebuild
Posts: 6,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minister of Offence View Post
No but it may have allowed us to trade for someone better? Is that not possible.


Our pro scouts failed just by suggesting we acquire that injury prone goalie who sucks balls.

Suiteness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 07:48 PM
  #58
Minister of Offence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARS View Post
Yes it is simple, yet you still don't seem to understand it otherwise you would realize that amateur and pro scouting are two different things and you wouldn't be trying to relate the two with futile what-if scenarios.

And like I said, there's no evidence that Melnyk forced Murray to sign Kovalev so why are you still trying to support your arguments with that?
No I've just given you several scenarios on how strong amateur drafting can make it easier for better players to be brought in through trade which would in turn make the perception of a given teams pro scouting more favourable on a place like HfBoards where 99% of the people don't actually know who is to blame for certain decisions and and how they come to fruition.

Because people in the know have alluded to it.

Minister of Offence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 07:51 PM
  #59
Minister of Offence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suiteness View Post


Our pro scouts failed just by suggesting we acquire that injury prone goalie who sucks balls.
Quote:
I'm not saying it makes pro scouting perfect...there are probably gaffes in our pro scouting regardless..but scouting is very difficult and even the best teams in scouting have failed trades.
All I'm saying is that people here judge decisions without having a clue how they are made, and who's actually to blame for them. If we had better young assets when we were trading for Campoli we may have brought in someone better which would give the "know it alls" here a better perception of the work our pro scouts are doing.

Minister of Offence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 07:51 PM
  #60
Kickabrat
WHAT - ME WORRY?
 
Kickabrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,907
vCash: 500
I think people are not quite following MoO position.

What I think he's trying to say is that if the amateur scouts had done a better job if drafting under Muckler, Murray would have had more pieces to use to acquire good players. The pro scouts can identify the players but what good is it if the other team wants a top notch player in return because you have no enticing prospects to offer? Therefore while the pro scout may be doing a great job in identifying players, the GM's hands are tied because he does not have enough good assets to acquire those players. Also, if the amateur scouting would have been better under Muckler and supplied good players, maybe Murray does not need to sign a Kovalev or a Gonchar and can instead use that money for other players.

Which makes a lot of sense.

Kickabrat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 08:00 PM
  #61
ARS
Registered User
 
ARS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickabrat View Post
I think people are not quite following MoO position.

What I think he's trying to say is that if the amateur scouts had done a better job if drafting under Muckler, Murray would have had more pieces to use to acquire good players. The pro scouts can identify the players but what good is it if the other team wants a top notch player in return because you have no enticing prospects to offer? Therefore while the pro scout may be doing a great job in identifying players, the GM's hands are tied because he does not have enough good assets to acquire those assets. Also, if the amateur scouting would have been better under Muckler and supplied good players, maybe Murray does not need to sign a Kovalev or a Gonchar and can instead use that money for other players.

Which makes a lot of sense.
Oh I fully understand what he's arguing, that with better prospects you can acquire better players in trades or not have to sign a specific player to fill a specific position, however that still has nothing to do with the quality of your pro scouting. Good pro scouting would have told Murray that Commodore and Kovalev were bad fits on this team, and that Leclaire wasn't as good as his one season made him out to be, yet he made moves to acquire those players, which tells us that our pro scouting is not that great.

Like I said before, his position is that no pro scouting required = good pro scouting and that is a logical fallacy.

ARS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 08:00 PM
  #62
Minister of Offence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickabrat View Post
I think people are not quite following MoO position.

What I think he's trying to say is that if the amateur scouts had done a better job if drafting under Muckler, Murray would have had more pieces to use to acquire good players. The pro scouts can identify the players but what good is it if the other team wants a top notch player in return because you have no enticing prospects to offer? Therefore while the pro scout may be doing a great job in identifying players, the GM's hands are tied because he does not have enough good assets to acquire those players. Also, if the amateur scouting would have been better under Muckler and supplied good players, maybe Murray does not need to sign a Kovalev or a Gonchar and can instead use that money for other players.

Which makes a lot of sense.
Exactly.

I mean if your going to tell me you know our pro scouting's reports were way off and all of the guys we brought in over the past couple years were the guys we wanted even if we had tons of expandable assets...then I'll retract my statement, but it's unlikely. Pro scouting is a pretty cushy job relative to amateur scouting, they get paid more, they usually have more pro experience...why? Because most of them know how to evaluate hockey games and players and what they see in front of them as opposed to amateur scouts that need to project and believe in young players desire, will and character.

If you don't know how the decisions are made...having good young assets will generally result in bringing in better players through trades and in the end result in a better perception of the work the pro scouts are doing.

I've made my simple point very clear in several different ways, but when someone engages in an argument with you because he misinterpreted your point...he's much more likely to continue to do so and continue to discredit your point in order to avoid appearing wrong...

Minister of Offence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 08:07 PM
  #63
Minister of Offence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARS View Post
Oh I fully understand what he's arguing, that with better prospects you can acquire better players in trades or not have to sign a specific player to fill a specific position, however that still has nothing to do with the quality of your pro scouting. Good pro scouting would have told Murray that Commodore and Kovalev were bad fits on this team, and that Leclaire wasn't as good as his one season made him out to be, yet he made moves to acquire those players, which tells us that our pro scouting is not that great.

Like I said before, his position is that no pro scouting required = good pro scouting and that is a logical fallacy.
What do you know about our pro scouting? Or any teams for that matter? It's completely different if you tell me you know what our pro scouts have reported to our management. But if you don't, then all you have is your perception on them based on the players they brought in...which could have been improved in the first place if amateur scouting was strong and expendable assets were better.

The bold is not all true and is a shortsighted take on my point. In a perfect world your pro scouts are evaluating other teams in general and providing strategy to beat them. In a perfect world no trades are needed....obviously that's impossible but the less you require trades the more likely your amateur scouting has been a big success...and if your amateur scouting has been a big success the few trades you do make are more likely to involve good young prospects in exchange for proven high quality players....which in turn provides ARS with a good perception of our pro scouts of whom he has no idea what kind of reports they have provided or how good they actually are.

Amateur scouting makes life easier on everyone...it is the basis of the way teams build.

Minister of Offence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 08:23 PM
  #64
Neil Patrick Harris
Playoffs right MEOW
 
Neil Patrick Harris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,353
vCash: 500
I won't lie. I'm surprised to hear that Melnyk stood up to Murray like that. I'm glad to hear it though.

Neil Patrick Harris is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 08:36 PM
  #65
ARS
Registered User
 
ARS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minister of Offence View Post
What do you know about our pro scouting? Or any teams for that matter? It's completely different if you tell me you know what our pro scouts have reported to our management. But if you don't, then all you have is your perception on them based on the players they brought in...which could have been improved in the first place if amateur scouting was strong and expendable assets were better.

The bold is not all true and is a shortsighted take on my point. In a perfect world your pro scouts are evaluating other teams in general and providing strategy to beat them. In a perfect world no trades are needed....obviously that's impossible but the less you require trades the more likely your amateur scouting has been a big success...and if your amateur scouting has been a big success the few trades you do make are more likely to involve good young prospects in exchange for proven high quality players....which in turn provides ARS with a good perception of our pro scouts of whom he has no idea what kind of reports they have provided or how good they actually are.

Amateur scouting makes life easier on everyone...it is the basis of the way teams build.
I don't need to know anything about pro scouting or know any pro scouts to know that the trades and signings we made have not worked out. And yes, I do blame that on our pro scouting, whether it was our scouts who made the call or it was Murray's own scouting on which he based his decision to make the moves.

You've essentially posted the same thing multiple times, and yet you still don't get it but are too stubborn to admit you don't. Amateur scouting =/= pro scouting, I'll repeat it again, amateur scouting =/= pro scouting, the two are unrelated, scouting Gonchar to see if he'll fit in with this team has nothing to do with amateur scouting, scouting Leclaire to see if he's actually a good goalie has nothing to do with amateur scouting. If our pro scouting was good we would've never traded Vermette for Leclaire(or traded for Leclaire in general), regardless of our other assets. Yes amateur scouting can give you the perception that our pro scouting is good, but that doesn't mean our pro scouting IS good(which is what I was saying).

Honestly you're starting to get me really annoyed. Our pro scouting is bad(with our acquisitions as evidence) and Muckler's drafting has nothing to do with it, it's not a hard concept to understand and I'm sure most people would agree. Saying otherwise is essentially absolving Murray of any blame for the signings and trades he's made.

ARS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 08:41 PM
  #66
pt_mck
Registered User
 
pt_mck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karlssonlee View Post
Why is there a stigma about Pierre Maguire.

Sure he's annoying, but he's a great scout and has ton of exposure of prospects.
We don't know what his abilities are when it comes to being a GM.
Because mcguire has never accomplished anything at the NHL level

He hasn't been active in the game for over 10+ years

He rode the coattails of other successful people

I don't know what your basing his scouting abilities on.

pt_mck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 08:41 PM
  #67
Suiteness
Registered User
 
Suiteness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Time to Rebuild
Posts: 6,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARS View Post
Saying otherwise is essentially absolving Murray of any blame for the signings and trades he's made.
He's a Murray apologist who's basically blaming Muckler for every single bad thing that's happened to this franchise.

Suiteness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 09:06 PM
  #68
ARS
Registered User
 
ARS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suiteness View Post
He's a Murray apologist who's basically blaming Muckler for every single bad thing that's happened to this franchise.
It's not even that for me, it's that he's essentially arguing that a team's bad trades and free agent signings are simply because of poor drafting in the past, which is just a ****ed up illogical argument. The fact that he's using what-if scenarios to back his argument up just annoys me even more.

ARS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 09:12 PM
  #69
Minister of Offence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suiteness View Post
He's a Murray apologist who's basically blaming Muckler for every single bad thing that's happened to this franchise.
Not at all, this can apply anywhere. I'd be an apologist of anyone who comes in and drafts well...and is forced to try and replace the likes of Chara, Redden, Havlat, Heatley and an aging captain right after a period of dismal drafting. That's all.

You'll see me mocking him if the drafts since 2008 are poor but so far they look quite good.

Minister of Offence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 09:19 PM
  #70
Minister of Offence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARS View Post
It's not even that for me, it's that he's essentially arguing that a team's bad trades and free agent signings are simply because of poor drafting in the past, which is just a ****ed up illogical argument. The fact that he's using what-if scenarios to back his argument up just annoys me even more.
Don't let me make you mad...

Your taking my point to be much more causal or black and white then you should be.

All I've said is that strong drafting will help facilitate a better perception (by people like you or me) of our pro scouts in a lot of instances because the young assets we can use to bring better players in can make them them look better. I don't pretend to know what our scouts have reported on...but I expect most of them know what players are good and who may have limits.

But when pro scouts and managers are put into situation where their team has lost stars for various reasons over time using a bare cupboard to try and replace those players is likely to result in a "spinning wheels" effect as the team stumbles because the help they trade for is done with assets of limited value because the few assets of value need to be kept.

My point is not causal. It's not black and white. All I'm talking about is the perception fans have of something they actually have no idea about.

Minister of Offence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 09:26 PM
  #71
Tubby Tuke
Drafting my Overalls
 
Tubby Tuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suiteness View Post
He's a Murray apologist who's basically blaming Muckler for every single bad thing that's happened to this franchise.
And you're one of the people living in the past 'Oh those good ole' days with Muckler'. Two can play the "I'm an idiot with a stupid opinion, putting words into the mouths of people" game!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARS View Post
Oh I fully understand what he's arguing, that with better prospects you can acquire better players in trades or not have to sign a specific player to fill a specific position, however that still has nothing to do with the quality of your pro scouting. Good pro scouting would have told Murray that Commodore and Kovalev were bad fits on this team, and that Leclaire wasn't as good as his one season made him out to be, yet he made moves to acquire those players, which tells us that our pro scouting is not that great.

Like I said before, his position is that no pro scouting required = good pro scouting and that is a logical fallacy.
Ridiculous. Pro scouting helps but they're not masterminds and this is not NHL11. They can give you a good idea but some of the things you expect out of pro scouting - ridiculous.

Tubby Tuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 09:28 PM
  #72
guyzeur
Registered User
 
guyzeur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,245
vCash: 50
Fact: Murray did not ask for a safety check before trading for Leclaire

guyzeur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 09:33 PM
  #73
JoeSakic
Registered User
 
JoeSakic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,224
vCash: 500
I'm failing to understand the disconnect here. The prospect pool of an organization has NOTHING to do with the pro scouting department. If the position is that a deeper prospect pool allows for more activity by the GM (i.e. trades based on recommendations of the pro scouts) it still does not correlate to the quality level of the pro scouts. It would mean chances are you have busier pro scouts (in terms of trades for NHL players)...but that's about it. A quality pro scouting organization will identify players like Rich Peverly on the waiver wire and identify that he, in the right role, can be a very solid NHL player. Good pro scouts would be able to identify players that are not producing in their current environment and know if they were brought into the new organization and played in the proper role they would thrive.

JoeSakic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 09:33 PM
  #74
John Holmes*
Spuds MacLean™
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,214
vCash: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minister of Offence View Post
Not at all, this can apply anywhere. I'd be an apologist of anyone who comes in and drafts well...and is forced to try and replace the likes of Chara, Redden, Havlat, Heatley and an aging captain right after a period of dismal drafting. That's all.

You'll see me mocking him if the drafts since 2008 are poor but so far they look quite good.
So far he has 1 NHL player in Karlsson from all his draft picks. Flip a coin on O'Brien since he was the #1 the year that Murray hamstringed Muckler.

Redden was a piece of crap and thankfully Murray let him walk with the help of Sather. Heatley...not this again.

IF ONLY there was some way he could have not traded Heatley for a pile of garbage. Oh wait...that's right. Nevermind.

Bottom line, his time is up, and if it isn't, it should be and Eugene...please get this moron out of here before he screws something else up.

John Holmes* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 09:35 PM
  #75
guyzeur
Registered User
 
guyzeur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,245
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeSakic View Post
I'm failing to understand the disconnect here. The prospect pool of an organization has NOTHING to do with the pro scouting department. If the position is that a deeper prospect pool allows for more activity by the GM (i.e. trades based on recommendations of the pro scouts) it still does not correlate to the quality level of the pro scouts. It would mean chances are you have busier pro scouts (in terms of trades for NHL players)...but that's about it. A quality pro scouting organization will identify players like Rich Peverly on the waiver wire and identify that he, in the right role, can be a very solid NHL player. Good pro scouts would be able to identify players that are not producing in their current environment and know if they were brought into the new organization and played in the proper role they would thrive.
like Matt Carkner

guyzeur is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:39 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.