Campoli is the type of guy you can easily acquire for free in free agency. Trading a 1st for a third pairing guy is always bad even if the chances of that late first becoming something is low. Tell me, would you all trade Puempel for a third pairing defenseman? I sure as heck wouldn't even with the injuries.
You completely ignored pretty much all my points.
For the billionth time, it was NOT Campoli for a 1st. It was a package deal.
Campoli < a very late first
Comrie > McAmmond
It was a fair trade.
Now, you're arguing 'why add a guy who you can pick up in FA' and the answer is really simple, almost every team is looking to add a guy at the deadline. We traded for a bottom-6 player who had the potential to be a top-4 guy. That is pretty much the upside of every single guy taken in the 25-30 range.
Puempel is a poor analogy because he was taken in a different draft (different years have different draft depth). A better analogy would've been to ask which of the guys taken around 25-30 in 09 are worth Campoli. Kyle Palmieri, Philippe Paradis, Dylan Olsen, Carter Ashton, and Simon Despres were guys available in that range. Which of those guys is so highly coveted that a bottom-pairing D with potential wasn't worth them?
Quote:
But that's not the worst part. It's the TIMING. Why are you stocking up your NHL roster and getting rid of picks when the team should have done the opposite? This is following Brian Burke's Guide to building an NHL franchise. (for the slow people: not a good thing)
lol @ whoever said upgrading McAmmond to Comrie was a good thing. yay to making the draft position worse.
You're adding hindsight bias to the equation with this. At the time we were committed to trying to make the playoffs, not trying to blow the team up and stockpile picks. Ergo, we were buyers.
Now that means adding Campoli was the right thing to do; he adds something to the immediate roster and has some potential for the future. Upgrading McAmmond to Comrie is also good because 1. it gets rid of a player who's unhappy with the team and 2. upgraded our top-9 at the expense of our bottom-line.
This was a fair value trade that you're trying to hyperbolize into being terrible. You're responding like it cost us a sure-fire NHLer and like Campoli added nothing and had no potential left in the tank. Campoli in his last season here was a reliable 4/5 guy and we got back a 2nd for him.
I'd also like to add that there is not one GM in the league that deliberately tries to lose hockey games to 'improve draft status'. They always want to win. Even when you blow up a roster, the objective isn't to tank for 30th, it's to change the culture so you stop losing.
Quote:
Maybe the instructions were coming from the top but Murray should have had the balls to say it wasn't the right thing to do.
Agreed. Mr Holmes sees it like it is and isn't a blind homer.
You clearly don't understand how an organization works. Murray is responsible to Melnyk. If Melnyk is insisting on playoffs, Murray can attempt to advise him (and he probably did), but ultimately Melnyk makes the call. If Murray says 'screw you' and doesn't attempt to improve the roster short-term, then he's going to be pissing off Melnyk and jeopardizing his job.
And no, just because we disagree with your opinion doesn't mean we're 'blind homers'
There are rational arguments to be made that the Campoli trade was fair value at the time and did not demonstrably impact the long-term future of the franchise.
__________________ CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
Last edited by CanadianHockey: 04-21-2012 at 05:04 PM.
He gave Heatley the monster contract. Michalek outperformed Heatley this year. 3 years later. He has been an injury machine up to this year, and was known damaged goods before he was acquired AND we had to eat Cheechoo's salary on top of that.
It was not a good trade. He could have made Heatley sit. He could have forced his hand. He could have held out for a better return. He was in charge. If Heatley vetoed a trade and failed to report, Murray could have said "That's fine Dany, you're suspended, have a nice day and enjoy watching the Olympics from your living room"
Heatley had the power to say no to Edmonton or whatever team he didn't want to go to. Murray had the power to end his career but didn't use it.
Leclaire was already known for being made of glass before we got him too.
How could Murray have known...past history maybe? The guy that gets injured blowing his nose is probably a safe bet to get injured again.
Anyway, Glasscal was just bad news. Funny how the one game that Anderson really sucked in, Glasscal was in the building. The guy is just cursed. He needs to be as far away from the team as is humanly possible.
I'll never understand the free ride that Murray gets in this city. Nothing is ever his fault. Heatley trade...waaaahh his hands were tied. Leclaire trade...well we couldn't have Vermette AND Fisher on the team, he had to make the trade.
Kovalev signing..waaaahhh Eugene made him do it.
I will stop there. I wish I could get a job where I could **** up repeatedly and not only keep my job, but get showered with praise when I do make a good move.
Incidentally, it's my opinion that the biggest reason for our quick turnaround is Erik Karlsson. Without him, our transition game is crap and we'd be relying on Gonchar and Kuba to run our offense from the back end. That's a scary thought.
Anderson was a good move too, but look at Elliott. #1 in just about every goaltending category there is.
Turris for Rundblad and a 2nd...who knows. We definitely needed to upgrade our forwards, but we still don't know how good Rundblad will be, what will become of the pick, or if Turris will be the next Joe Sakic or the next Andrew Cogliano.
I hate how everyone has to run to the extreme on this board.
I can give Murray his due credit for the good moves he's made. It doesn't erase the bad though. He should be held accountable for ALL of his moves.
Wait a second...are you trying to say that Murray isnt perfect and has made some mistakes along the way?
Judgement should be reserved for when the job is complete. If you put a microscope to anybody's career you will see mistakes, Murray is no different.
Life is a marathon, not a race.
I am happy Murray is at the helm of the Ottawa Senators and hope he retires and Ottawa Senator.
I am not going to get into a circular debate about the Heatley trade, Leclaire or any of the other debacles that litter the Bryan Murray GM tenure.
If you want to "appreciate" what he has done for the team in the past year, that is fine, and it is deserved.
You don't get to rewrite history though.
Murray is definitely on a hot streak right now, but he was ice cold for a few years before that.
In a few more years, the picks and trades he's made will be able to be evaluated fairly. Right now you can't give him credit for picking the Puempels, Noesens, etc... because they are still unknowns.
Maybe in the end Murray's body of work will be more positive than negative.
Enlighten us with what you thought was such a cluster**** like you say
He gave Heatley the monster contract. Michalek outperformed Heatley this year. 3 years later. He has been an injury machine up to this year, and was known damaged goods before he was acquired AND we had to eat Cheechoo's salary on top of that.
2 50 goal season's and being relatively young, you don't think any GM would try to lock up a player of this caliber? Hindsight is 20/20 and its much easier for you to say he ****ed up by extending Heatley to that contract now then when it happened because I am pretty damn sure no one on these boards complained when it happened.
It was not a good trade. He could have made Heatley sit. He could have forced his hand. He could have held out for a better return. He was in charge. If Heatley vetoed a trade and failed to report, Murray could have said "That's fine Dany, you're suspended, have a nice day and enjoy watching the Olympics from your living room"
He got the best of the situation. Heatley didn't want to play for Ottawa, what kind of a message do you send to your organization by keeping someone that doesn't want to be here.
Heatley had the power to say no to Edmonton or whatever team he didn't want to go to. Murray had the power to end his career but didn't use it.
Heatley pretty much ended his own career with what he did in Ottawa. He was never the same player
Leclaire was already known for being made of glass before we got him too.
How could Murray have known...past history maybe? The guy that gets injured blowing his nose is probably a safe bet to get injured again.
Anyway, Glasscal was just bad news. Funny how the one game that Anderson really sucked in, Glasscal was in the building. The guy is just cursed. He needs to be as far away from the team as is humanly possible.
Murray was trying to address the biggest hole in our franchise's history. He got 2 goalies for the price of a 3rd line center. And the one that's still with our franchise is touted to be pretty damn good if i'm not mistaken
I'll never understand the free ride that Murray gets in this city. Nothing is ever his fault. Heatley trade...waaaahh his hands were tied. Leclaire trade...well we couldn't have Vermette AND Fisher on the team, he had to make the trade.
Are you kidding me? A couple years ago Murray was on the chopping block and it was made known that certain fans were not very happy with what he's done. He got boo'ed FFS at SBP. He even addressed the media about it. Not sure where he gets a free ride.
I would take Fisher over Vermette any day of the week. Vermette proved time and time again he wasn't anything more than a 3rd line center.
Kovalev signing..waaaahhh Eugene made him do it.
It's the facts.
I will stop there. I wish I could get a job where I could **** up repeatedly and not only keep my job, but get showered with praise when I do make a good move.
Incidentally, it's my opinion that the biggest reason for our quick turnaround is Erik Karlsson. Without him, our transition game is crap and we'd be relying on Gonchar and Kuba to run our offense from the back end. That's a scary thought.
You could say the same thing about Kuba. Without Kuba, Karlsson may not be as effective as he is now or he may not have had the season he had. Without Anderson Karlsson may be one of the worst +/- players in the league and the talk for Norris consideration may not have ever existed. Without the bingo calls up we would never know that hard work and determination pays off.
There are too many variables to solely and blindly put it on one player for our turnaround.
Anderson was a good move too, but look at Elliott. #1 in just about every goaltending category there is.
Oh please, put any goaltender behind that bore of a system and you got yourself a goal tender with respectable numbers.
Turris for Rundblad and a 2nd...who knows. We definitely needed to upgrade our forwards, but we still don't know how good Rundblad will be, what will become of the pick, or if Turris will be the next Joe Sakic or the next Andrew Cogliano.
For the time being it seems this trade is benefiting us more than it is Phoenix. In the future who knows, but I know that when Turris scored the OT winner I've never been a happier fan since the 2007 birth into the Stanley Cup Finals.
I hate how everyone has to run to the extreme on this board.
I can give Murray his due credit for the good moves he's made. It doesn't erase the bad though. He should be held accountable for ALL of his moves.
Yup and the majority of his moves look great going forward.
1) It tells players that you are the boss, not them. They are not bigger than the team.
2) It tells rival GM's that you won't be bent over a barrell.
Remember Yashin? Sat out a couple of times, including an entire season, tried to force a trade, was forced by an arbitrator to return to the Senators, played and had an 80+ point season. If that guy can survive in a room where everybody hated him, then Heatley would have been just fine in a room where he was liked by the guys by all accounts.
It's just business. Hold outs and disputes are just par for the course.
Anyway, this is a three year old argument that obviously will never have everyone on the same page, so there is no point in rehashing everything.
I think what I think, you think what you think so lets just leave it at that. Let's focus our energy on the game tonight.
For the billionth time, it was NOT Campoli for a 1st. It was a package deal.
Campoli < a very late first
Comrie > McAmmond
It was a fair trade.
It was arguably fair value. I feel the Sens overpaid. Comrie wasn't good at all that season. I'm guessing no other team would have given a 1st for Campoli.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey
Now, you're arguing 'why add a guy who you can pick up in FA' and the answer is really simple, almost every team is looking to add a guy at the deadline. We traded for a bottom-6 player who had the potential to be a top-4 guy. That is pretty much the upside of every single guy taken in the 25-30 range.
Shouldn't have been looking to add a guy in the first place. And proper scouting would have told you Campoli did not have top 4 potential. Not big enough and not skilled enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey
Puempel is a poor analogy because he was taken in a different draft (different years have different draft depth). A better analogy would've been to ask which of the guys taken around 25-30 in 09 are worth Campoli. Kyle Palmieri, Philippe Paradis, Dylan Olsen, Carter Ashton, and Simon Despres were guys available in that range. Which of those guys is so highly coveted that a bottom-pairing D with potential wasn't worth them?
Despres easily. Also doesn't mean we would have picked those guys, obviously. O'Reilly, Smith, Elliott, Clifford, Morin, Shore and probably Lander are guys picked shortly after who > Campoli.
Regardless, that doesn't mean you should be trading off every single draft pick because they only have a 25% chance of working out. Otherwise let's trade all our draft picks why don't we? The past has proven this is not the way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey
You're adding hindsight bias to the equation with this. At the time we were committed to trying to make the playoffs, not trying to blow the team up and stockpile picks. Ergo, we were buyers.
Er, my memory isn't the best, but pretty sure we sucked balls that season and weren't anywhere near the playoffs. A strong finish pushed us to draft 9th.
And yes, not trying to blow up the team is exactly the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey
Now that means adding Campoli was the right thing to do; he adds something to the immediate roster and has some potential for the future. Upgrading McAmmond to Comrie is also good because 1. it gets rid of a player who's unhappy with the team and 2. upgraded our top-9 at the expense of our bottom-line.
I don't give a rats ass about McAmmond's unhappiness. He was a UFA in a few months, tough it out.
Again, upgrading = not good that season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey
This was a fair value trade that you're trying to hyperbolize into being terrible. You're responding like it cost us a sure-fire NHLer and like Campoli added nothing and had no potential left in the tank. Campoli in his last season here was a reliable 4/5 guy and we got back a 2nd for him.
You're right this trade isn't make or break, isn't the most important thing ever. But it all adds up. The next year Murray traded a couple of 2nds for useless rentals. If you lose a trade once in a while, it's not so bad. But when you deal a bunch of high picks when in need of rebuilding and drafting young players, there is no doubt it hurts you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey
I'd also like to add that there is not one GM in the league that deliberately tries to lose hockey games to 'improve draft status'. They always want to win. Even when you blow up a roster, the objective isn't to tank for 30th, it's to change the culture so you stop losing.
Yes there is. Not at the beginning of a season/off-season, but mid-season you can bet your ass there is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey
You clearly don't understand how an organization works. Murray is responsible to Melnyk. If Melnyk is insisting on playoffs, Murray can attempt to advise him (and he probably did), but ultimately Melnyk makes the call. If Murray says 'screw you' and doesn't attempt to improve the roster short-term, then he's going to be pissing off Melnyk and jeopardizing his job.
I never said Euge didn't have the last call. There is no way of knowing if Murray tried to convince him of a rebuild in 2009. Props if he did. Are you saying it would have been the right thing to do? You're confusing me here man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey
And no, just because we disagree with your opinion doesn't mean we're 'blind homers'
There are rational arguments to be made that the Campoli trade was fair value at the time and did not demonstrably impact the long-term future of the franchise.
blind homers as in you forgive all the bad seasons and decisions with one relatively successful year. Like the Leafs fans, no matter how bad Burke does, they defend their man (although they've been turning on him recently).
I didn't say you did quote me, I said you ignored my counterarguments.
It was arguably fair value. I feel the Sens overpaid. Comrie wasn't good at all that season. I'm guessing no other team would have given a 1st for Campoli.
No other team was willing to give up a 2nd and a top prospect for Turris. If you want something, you have to outbid all other teams. And again, you're constantly ignoring that we didn't trade a 1st for Campoli, we traded a 1st and McAmmond for Comrie and Campoli.
Shouldn't have been looking to add a guy in the first place. And proper scouting would have told you Campoli did not have top 4 potential. Not big enough and not skilled enough.
Hindsight bias again. There was nothing at the time to indicate he'd peaked. He wasn't a rookie with huge upside obviously, but that doesn't neglect that he had the potential to improve. It's like arguing Chara was the obvious guy we should've re-signed instead of Redden - at the time, it's not clear.
Despres easily. Also doesn't mean we would have picked those guys, obviously. O'Reilly, Smith, Elliott, Clifford, Morin, Shore and probably Lander are guys picked shortly after who > Campoli.
Correct that we wouldn't necessarily have selected those guys, but it also doesn't mean we would have picked those guys, either. Smith was taken in the 4th round, we could've easily moved picks earlier than he went had we wanted to, so throw him out of the argument. I'd argue the same for Elliott, Morin, and Lander. We had at least one pick before them and took another guy (Silfv). The only guy I can buy is O'Reilly, and even so, had Murray thought he was a great prospect he would've known before he traded that Sharks 1st.
Regardless, that doesn't mean you should be trading off every single draft pick because they only have a 25% chance of working out. Otherwise let's trade all our draft picks why don't we? The past has proven this is not the way to go.
This isn't what I said at all. I said at the time, we were pushing to be competitive and wanted a guy who could play now and had a bit of potential down the line. If anything you're contradicting yourself by suggesting there's something inherent about a draft pick with a 25% chance of making it that makes a roster player who's already in the NHL with a chance to get better is somehow always wrong.
Er, my memory isn't the best, but pretty sure we sucked balls that season and weren't anywhere near the playoffs. A strong finish pushed us to draft 9th.
And yes, not trying to blow up the team is exactly the problem.
I don't give a rats ass about McAmmond's unhappiness. He was a UFA in a few months, tough it out.
Again, upgrading = not good that season.
Sorry, you are right about that season, for whatever reason I keep thinking we've only missed the playoffs once post-lockout.
Doesn't necessarily discredit my point that we were still trying to be competitive. Actually reinforces my point that Murray thought Campoli would be a good fit for his 'new direct' club that emphasized puck-movement if he was willing to make a deal for Campoli.
The upgrade on McAmmond to Comrie wasn't paramount, sure, but think of it as a trial. We got Comrie to see if he could play his way to an extension. McAmmond wasn't getting one.
At any rate, I don't buy the argument that 'dropping in the standings' cost us substantially. We got Cowen with that pick.
You're right this trade isn't make or break, isn't the most important thing ever. But it all adds up. The next year Murray traded a couple of 2nds for useless rentals. If you lose a trade once in a while, it's not so bad. But when you deal a bunch of high picks when in need of rebuilding and drafting young players, there is no doubt it hurts you.
The guys he picked up were useful players for us, they just couldn't be re-signed due to cap constraints. I highly doubt Murray tossed those 2nds around without consulting his scouts. For all we know, they didn't see many players of interest around the 2nd round.
Regardless, you can draft well without having high picks.
Yes there is. Not at the beginning of a season/off-season, but mid-season you can bet your ass there is.
I disagree. Great management doesn't tank, even late in the year. Just look at last season. We could've easily tanked, but instead we tried to build confidence and experience for this season. That's because GMs like Murray understand that tanking isn't the best possible outcome, it's winning and building confidence (developing) and drafting well regardless of position.
I never said Euge didn't have the last call. There is no way of knowing if Murray tried to convince him of a rebuild in 2009. Props if he did. Are you saying it would have been the right thing to do? You're confusing me here man.
You're right, there's no way of knowing. But that didn't stop you from declaring Murray hadn't pressed Melnyk hard enough. Could just as easily argue Melnyk was just stubborn and didn't want to rebuild if he could avoid it.
At any rate, there's a process. We tried using the same roster, didn't work. We tried retooling, didn't work. Then we decided to blow up. Either way, we had some short term mediocrity, but we've always had long-term goals in mind given how quickly our rebuild is showing results (Murray's been drafting and developing well for years, even while trading away picks and players).
blind homers as in you forgive all the bad seasons and decisions with one relatively successful year. Like the Leafs fans, no matter how bad Burke does, they defend their man (although they've been turning on him recently).
The majority of Murray-supporters aren't exonerating him of guilt, we're acknowledging that short-term, we had some mediocre to bad teams, but his long-term direction has warranted him staying here and is probably for the betterment of the club. All GMs make mistakes, otherwise it'd be the same franchise winning every year.
This thread is simply acknowledging his panache for rebuilding.
- Campoli just had never shown the skill needed to produce big numbers as a defenseman. Never. He was also never big or strong enough to be a top 4 defenseman without high scoring offense. Therefore, career 3rd pair
- I ment Reilly Smith but he was 3rd round. oops. Orlov is another 2nd rounder
- Murray wasn't thinking about O'Reilly or any other prospect in February with that pick. He was thinking potential top 4 D/top 6 F like you. My point was, the pick could have easily become a better player than Campoli
- You're the one using hindsight bias now with Cowen. How could we have know the #9 would have been similarly good as the #5 (where we might have drafted). Say we had the #5 + #26 --> might be able to move up? Dare I say hello Kane/Duchene? Who knows.
Bottom line is Comrie and Campoli did nothing for the long term good of the franchise, and likely hurt it (maybe just slightly, but it's still a 1st rounder). Rebuilding teams DO NOT make this kind of move (especially at the deadline in bad seasons before seeing UFA options). Therefore, Murray and Euge were under the delusion that this team had a shot of winning with the current core, and were satisfied with the state of the prospect pool. WRONG.
And yes, based on the current direction of the team, I would not mind Murray staying.
1) It tells players that you are the boss, not them. They are not bigger than the team.
2) It tells rival GM's that you won't be bent over a barrell.
Remember Yashin? Sat out a couple of times, including an entire season, tried to force a trade, was forced by an arbitrator to return to the Senators, played and had an 80+ point season. If that guy can survive in a room where everybody hated him, then Heatley would have been just fine in a room where he was liked by the guys by all accounts.
It's just business. Hold outs and disputes are just par for the course.
Anyway, this is a three year old argument that obviously will never have everyone on the same page, so there is no point in rehashing everything.
I think what I think, you think what you think so lets just leave it at that. Let's focus our energy on the game tonight.
LOL??? Heatley was not going to hold out. The guy was gonna play to get paid. There's no way he holds out for a trade. He was gonna play for us if we didn't trade him. Murray's hands were tied. He was the cancer of the room. Of course they are going to not criticize him publically. You could tell in the interviews they weren't happy that Heatley was a distraction all summer long.
Pretty sure you missed that entire summer or just don't recall. But yeah let it be. It's over.
This is an Appreciation thread where things are overblown for positive reasons. You should have known what you were getting yourself into. Why try to tell us the wrongs of Bryan Murray when were here to appreciate the good things that he's done. You chose to rehash old memories.
I am all too happy to appreciate the good things Bryan Murray has done for the team.
What I won't do is rewrite history.
I already recognized that Murray deserves credit for a lot in the past year. If you want me to join in the rainbow parade and blow sunshine up his ass for some of his more brutal mistakes...well you have the wrong poster.
Holmes is basically saying that he knows Heatley would have sat out and exactly what would have happened if they made him stay.
Heatley asked for a trade. Fact
Heatley had a no trade clause. Fact
Michalek is now the better player. Pretty close to fact.
Sens are still in the playoffs, Min and SJ are not. Fact
What happened in Ottawa wasn't working, Murray was forced to change course and at the same time was forced to go for the cup based on the owners wants. Rome wasn't built in a day and this is a perfect example.
I am all too happy to appreciate the good things Bryan Murray has done for the team.
What I won't do is rewrite history.
I already recognized that Murray deserves credit for a lot in the past year. If you want me to join in the rainbow parade and blow sunshine up his ass for some of his more brutal mistakes...well you have the wrong poster.
No you're not. Your first post in this thread trashes him.
Murray does deserve his due credit for where the team is now, and I have no problem giving it to him, but in my eyes he is making the most out of life #9.
Terrible trashing there.
I hope you wear a helmet when you leave the house.
