Ducks Double Rainbow Situation: What Does it All Mean?!
by Daniel AC on Jan 22, 2012 10:00 AM PST
in From the Flying V
Email
PrintThings seem to be going well in Anaheim these days. A 7-0-1 run has fans murmuring about second half surges of the past and wondering if a miracle can happen to propel the Ducks into the playoffs. Along with the hope of a postseason birth will come the annual second half celebration of the job Bob Murray is doing. We'll get to that later. First, it's important to understand the hole the Ducks dug for themselves and what the future might actually hold for them.
The Ducks have had this great 7-0-1 streak, and as a result they've moved up one place in the standings. 13th never looked so good. However, there's a silver lining. The Ducks have games in hand on every team in front of them except the Dallas Stars. The bad news is that if they do win all those games in hand they won't pick up a single spot in the standings. That's how far out of the pack they are. The Ducks are 13 points out of 8th place in the Conference, or 7.5 games in baseball terms. Unfortunately, Conference standings work a little differently in the NHL. There are 5 teams between the Ducks and the playoffs and all of them will be playing each other.
It took 97 points to make the Western Conference Playoffs last season. The Ducks have 41 points with 36 games left, so they need 56. That's 28 wins of the last 36. More importantly, it probably has to be 28 wins, because if the Ducks try to pick up points with overtime losses, they'll most likely be giving points to teams that are ahead of them in the standings, which is the real problem. As I said earlier, there are five teams between the Ducks and the playoffs. Ever since the implementation of the shootout one team wins every night. Essentially, when teams 10 and 11 in the standing play each other, one of them puts distance between themselves and the Ducks. Considering that three of those teams are from the same division, Calgary, Colorado and Minnesota, chances are the teams ahead of the Ducks will be playing each other rather frequently. That means the Ducks will be hard-pressed to make up ground.
So, what does all of this mean? It means the Ducks aren't really doing anything right now except dropping down the draft order. That's probably not an awful thing for a fan base that needs an excuse to show up to the rink, but it might be bad for a franchise that has a chance for a top 5 pick for only the second time in the past decade. The Ducks do have impact players in the pipeline, such as Emerson Etem, Devante Smith-Pelly, and Justin Schultz. However, the impact of a number one overall player might be enough to propel them into elite status while saving them a little money with an entry level contract.
Finally, this should be a warning to those who don't think Murray should lose his job. Arthur noted in a recent editorial that the seasons in Anaheim have become somewhat formulaic.
As a sports fan, I long for the hope of a new season, its new-season smell and the promise of starting anew. But, at some point, Bob Murray took that from me. Instead of a blank slate, I came to expect that this season would look like its recent predecessors: an ill-conceived roster met with almost-scheduled adversity, then empty threats of major trades, then inexplicable job security for the coaching staff and its system, then finally, a barely successful or unsuccessful drive to make the postseason in a sport where over half the teams are guaranteed playoff games.
Yes, Murray got Bruce Boudreau and Boudreau has turned it around. He made an easy decision to pick up Niklas Hagman while Blake was laid up with that laceration. He made a good trade for Rod Pelley. But, at the end of the day, he's also a key reason why this team is in this mess in the first place. At some point, the fact that we have to suffer through bad first halves and pray for brilliant second half playoff runs has to be considered his fault. If you didn't read that piece, I recommend going back and reflecting on it.
As a fan, I always want my team to win, even now when it's probably not in the franchise's best interest. Still, the same old formula of a bad first half from a poorly constructed team, that leads to a second half run that only ruins draft position is something we can't keep doing if we want to be a Cup contender. More than likely, this season is lost. That doesn't mean I won't have fun watching it; it just means I'm left wondering if more could have been done to make sure this season wouldn't have been such a waste.
58 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I blame Carlyle.
I have my own little “conspiracy theory” here. I think the players hated Carlyle so much that they just dogged it for the first half of the last two seasons in the hopes that Carlyle would get fired. They played ok on offense in order to keep their own stats up but dogged it on defense. I guess you can blame Murray as well for not seeing that the team was not responding to the coach. Makes me think that there is not very good communication between players and management as well.
When the Ducks are playing well they are as exciting to watch as any team in the league and not having them in the playoffs would be a travesty and an injustice to all of us who love the team. I don’t care so much about draft picks, I just want to see this team win as many games as possible coming down the stretch regardless of whether or not they make the playoffs because I love watching this team play the way they are supposed to play.
Just wondering
Do you think Justin Schultz, and Emerson Etem are ready for the NHL next year?
OHHHHH dream weavehh
Ready
as in can make the roster, and grab one of the defense spots.
OHHHHH dream weavehh
by halosfan4ever on Jan 22, 2012 12:43 PM PST up reply actions
Or in Etem’s case can grab a spot on one of the lines.
OHHHHH dream weavehh
by halosfan4ever on Jan 22, 2012 12:45 PM PST up reply actions
Then yes. I think they will be NHL ready. I think they’ll be solid contributors too.
by Daniel AC on Jan 22, 2012 12:47 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Then this means we almost certainly are going to need a vetran defenseman to play with Schultz, right?
OHHHHH dream weavehh
by halosfan4ever on Jan 22, 2012 1:02 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe. Schultz is older than Fowler and he’s been playing against bigger players than guys who play in junior. He’s a little more mature than your average guy coming straight
Out of the draft.
Ideally, yeah, Schultz plays with a guy who has a few years in the league, but not necessarily a veteran guy. I love the idea of getting Jeff Schultz from Washington to play with him.
by Daniel AC on Jan 22, 2012 1:48 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
If Selanne retires do you think Etem immediately takes his place on the second line, or do they make a trade?
OHHHHH dream weavehh
by halosfan4ever on Jan 22, 2012 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
I think it depends on whether or not we move one of the big 3 or if we don’t if Boudreau wants to keep RPG together. If Selanne is going to retire, we are probably rebuilding the entire second line and I think Etem at least gets a look.
by Daniel AC on Jan 22, 2012 2:37 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Probably sign Toronto’s second line center if koivu retires. Move Ryan down to the second line and fill in the last winger spots with dsp/palmieri/etem
by DavidBL on Jan 22, 2012 3:01 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I think it might be better if we could ease him into a 3rd line spot, with top pp minutes. Give him easy minutes for his first year. Much like Boston has done with their younger players. I think it would be better for Etem in the long run.
This may mean they have to go shopping, and sign a couple 1 year players to put on that second line, but looking towards teh future i believe it to be a better choice
by BennyLightning on Jan 22, 2012 4:28 PM PST up reply actions
I read the other day that the ducks want Schultz now, and since his team isn’t going to make a long run may sign his ELC and play this year. They may have meant 2012. Wish I could remember where I read that.
by DavidBL on Jan 22, 2012 12:22 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I read the exact same thing. Although, I also can’t remember where. I’m pretty sure Schultz will get a cup of coffee this year.
by Daniel AC on Jan 22, 2012 12:45 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I'm still not ready to blame Murray
Maybe I’m wrong, but for the last 3 years I have truly believed that Murray has built this team for this upcoming offseason. He’s got massive payroll coming off the books and still has his core signed for two more years. I also believe that this team is 2 players away from being cup contenders (a number 1 Dman and a good 2-way center). Finally, I know Daniel will scoff at this, but I am willing to put a large part of this teams troubles onto Selanne. His indecision in returning every year up until weeks before the season starts would handcuff even the best GM. Hell, look what happened when they did it to Burke? Its a terrible situation to have where for now the 5 straight season a GM has to wonder whether or not a key player is going to return. It handicaps salary, prospects, free agents who might want to come and play, and leadership. If Selanne could actually just give a firm answer whether he staying or not, Murray could actually build a team around that knowledge.
I’m inclined to agree with you about Selanne. And know others who do as well. Do I love to see him play? Of course. Does he deserve the time to choose? Probably. Still doesn’t change the fact that it still handcuffs the GM a bit in their planning.
by DavidBL on Jan 22, 2012 1:05 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I don’t think that knowledge should handcuff any GM. If I’m in Murray’s shoes, I plan on Selanne coming back and live with the consequences. If he doesn’t come back, I know I have that money to make a deal. I’d have to pick up depth scoring anyway, so I don’t see the harm in getting a 15 goal guy for the third line and letting him play on the second line until I can trade for a top 6 guy. I can also use youth in the rotation. It’s not like you replace Selanne’s production anyway. Burke definitely mishandled that situation and if Murray is just sitting in his office saying “Gee, I can’t do anything until Selanne says he’s gonna play”, he doesn’t deserve to be a GM in the first place.
As for Murray setting himself up for this year, I think that’s wishful thinking. He’s had his core locked up ever since he’s been here and hasn’t done anything with it. He might have been close to the cap, but as I’ve said before he didn’t have any bad contracts. He’s turned a great core into an average team with his rotation of spare parts and inadequate deals.
by Daniel AC on Jan 22, 2012 2:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
didnt we live with consequences one year and grabbed bertuzzi and schnieder? that led to us moving macdonald. Im firmly in Kevins camp on this one.
by BennyLightning on Jan 22, 2012 4:17 PM PST up reply actions
No. Getting Bertuzzi and Schneider is the opposite of what I was saying. Those were big price guys not depth guys. I even said Burke made a mistake.
by Daniel AC on Jan 22, 2012 4:27 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
ah sorry i was only skim reading.
But the point remains, that selanne did handcuff both gm’s. They may have earned the right, but its still makes it difficult to plan for coming seasons.
by BennyLightning on Jan 22, 2012 4:32 PM PST up reply actions
My argument is that both GMs simply handled the situation poorly. I don’t think it’s a handcuff. I think it’s an example of two GMs going to opposite extremes instead of finding a good middle. Burke overreacted by getting players that were too expensive and difficult to move. Murray is too conservative and he waits and waits until it’s too late to do anything.
maybe there is no middle ground? or wasnt at the time. you might want a mid priced free agent, but they may not want to play here
by BennyLightning on Jan 22, 2012 5:34 PM PST up reply actions
I’d have to go back to check the free agency lists, but I’m pretty sure there’s always a middle ground. It’s a matter of having the ability to see it and make the move. Murray sits on his hands for most of the offseason. He nibbles around instead of being bold. I think the internal cap and Selanne’s decision making are excuses that keep him from focusing on the task at hand.
But, at the end of the day, he’s also a key reason why this team is in this mess in the first place.
so why is that Daniel? Why is Murray the one responsible for getting the team in this trouble every year, despite forming a pretty different roster every season.
My first response would be because he keeps putting these teams together. If the building falls over, you look to the architect and the construction team before you look at the materials. Even if he keeps building different teams, he’s the one doing the building.
Second, the GM needs to be responsible. If you are insinuating that Carlyle or Some piece of the core was the problem, then I would ask who’s job is it to recognize those problems exist? My answer would be the GM.
by Daniel AC on Jan 22, 2012 2:14 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I would argue that he has changed what he has seen as the problem. Hes done the right thing by a small market team and sood by the top players (right or wrong is open to debate), so hes moved lesserplayers, and kept a successful coach (who i liked, personal opinion). That hasnt worked so he moved said coach, again sticking by his top players.
you could argue that murray has picked up the wrong ‘lesser’ players, but it still remains that the people around through all troubles are the top players and murray. It is equally to blame on those top players. probably more so, since those same players have proven each year (admittedly late in the season) that they can play excellent hockey, and succeed with each different supporting cast they have had.
Im no murray fan, but i cant say he hasnt provided the grounds for a successful team because each year they go on a winning streak (like current) that makes you wonder why they didnt do it earlier. And they’ve done the same under 2 coaches now.
by BennyLightning on Jan 22, 2012 4:25 PM PST up reply actions
You can’t expect your top players to be hot all year. Look at it this way, Perry had a career year and we still struggled to start the season. At some point, the GM needs to realize that the formula around those core players isn’t working. Why do the top guys need to play out of their minds in order for us to make the playoffs? It’s because they don’t have a good enough team around them. That’s the GMs fault. Asking your top guys to carry a team for 82 games isn’t realistic, but it seems to be Murray’s plan.
not at all, but they do need to produce.
Having said that, the whole team as a whole generally plays better in stretches. Alot of the players we’ve had have played well, we either just havent kept them around. We’ve persevered with youth, and that is generally going to stunt the performance of teams which means you have to play the vets more. The defence is a case in point. sibsa has improved, but hes has been terrible alot of the time, the case can be made that he needed to be up here, but thats going to put pressure on the rest of the defence to carry him. Fowler is the same…except i still think hes terrible and should be in the A. However playing these kids is necessary for our future.
Im not necessarily pro-murray and his choices, but he’s done the job required of him.
by BennyLightning on Jan 22, 2012 5:33 PM PST up reply actions
I think the defense is a bad example to use. We had to lean on youth because Murray couldn’t keep the right balance of NHL defenders on the roster. He kept picking up spare parts that couldn’t quite cut it. As a result, he might have stunted the development of some good young players.
I think Murray has done a job. I wouldn’t call it good, and it certainly could have been much worse, but I also don’t think the fact that hasn’t been horrible should excuse the fact that he’s been subpar.
defence is 1/3 of the roster (looking at forwards/defence/goal) and 1/3 of that are young. Most people would suggest we should be playing those kids (fowler/sibsa), and giving them good minutes. This means that we needed Lubo and Lydman to have career years (it also meant we over achieved).
We did probably play too many elderly in the forwards for too long, but that was likely to try and keep us in the playoff hunt, as this team needs fans in th stands. I dont necessarily agree with this, but i could see the reasoning.
I dont necessarily rate murray as a GM, but hes better than he was in chicago (in my opinion), and hasnt made any franchise crippling decisions yet. could he have made better moves, maybe…unless i was in on those discussions (or lack thereof) i couldnt say. Might simply be that people dont want to play in Cali
by BennyLightning on Jan 22, 2012 7:19 PM PST up reply actions
Just to chime back in
I’ve been away and noticed that my comments spurred some discussion. Daniel, you argue that Murray should make some moves to acquire average vets and unproven young guys to make up for the potential of Selanne leaving. I will remind you that he did exactly that when Neidermeyer left. He signed guys like Wiz and Whitney (average players) and when Scott finally called it quits had to rely on those two and young players (Mickelson and Festerling) to round out the Defensive corps. It killed this team and we are still trying to recover from it. Its always hard to find people to replace talent like Selanne and Neidermeyer. But its easier when you know if its going to happen.
People forget that Whitney and Sbisa were supposed to help cover the loss of Pronger (one immediately, the other down the road), but when Scott left it left another huge hole. We were lucky to get Lubo for Whitney and we were lucky to get Fowler in the draft. When replacing a huge talent like Selanne you need a stop gap and a guy for the future. I believe Etem or Palmari are those guys for the future, but they will not produce next year. If you truly think they will then I will point to DSP and Fowler as prime examples. Fowler is not Scotty and DSP is not Penner/Kunitz. It takes time to develop players and while at least now we have a coach who is capable and interested in doing so its still not going to happen over night.
Daniel, you argue that Murray should make some moves to acquire average vets and unproven young guys to make up for the potential of Selanne leaving. I will remind you that he did exactly that when Neidermeyer left. He signed guys like Wiz and Whitney (average players) and when Scott finally called it quits had to rely on those two and young players (Mickelson and Festerling) to round out the Defensive corps.
Wiz and Whitney weren’t average. They’re both top-4 pair players. You can blame Carlyle for why they didn’t work out. Same goes for Mikkelson and Festerling.
While I would agree that those two are talented, I believe that neither were really desired at the time (Whitney maybe more so than Wiz). Those weren’t the Suter and Weber of available players. They were supposed to be stop gaps, not really intended to take over for Scotty.
by Kevin Riach on Jan 23, 2012 12:06 AM PST up reply actions
Well, Whitney was used in correctly, and there was a reason that Chicago was so eager to get rid of Wisniewski, he’s crazy. Murray didn’t get good players. Scotty’s last year here was also Wisniewski’s last year here, so you can hardly call him part of the replace Scotty effort. Lydman might be considered part of replacing Niedermayer, and he worked. Even then, the Ducks D has been a patchwork since Murray took over. He knew he was going to have to retool it and instead he destroyed it. Whitney and Wisniewski were bad acquisitions and both of them were here with Pronger and Niedermayer. The Ducks D when Niedermayer retired was: Lubo, Lydman, Fowler, Sutton, Sbisa, Brookbank and Lilja. Later we acquired Beauchemin.
The D didn’t suffer because Murray didn’t overreact to the loss of Niedermayer. By the time Scotty retired, Murray had already constructed a pretty awful defense featureing: Lubo, Wiz, Eminger, Ward, Brookbank, Festerling and Mikkelson. Who knows how everything works out if he keeps his top pairing in tact instead of banking on Wiz, but he didn’t.
Murray’s moves have been mediocre at best, and as a result, we are a mediocre team.
Thats exactly what I'm saying
Murray’s moves have been mediocre. He got medicore players to “replace” great ones because he never knew when they were leaving. I will also add that the Bertuzzi and Schneider moves were difficult contracts to move because neither did really anything in their time here and had relatively big contracts. In fact I believe the Ducks bought out Bertuzzi’s because no one wanted him.
And also lets not make Brian Burke out to be some sort of saint either. I agree that Burke is a good GM, but he also made some pretty bad or mediocre moves in his time here as well. In Burke’s final offseason he acquires Morrison, Klee, Montador, Mciver, and Larson. Morrison was supposed to replace McDonald and ended up playing as a healthy scratch or 4th line center. We ended up waiving him and getting nothing in return. Klee and Larson were acquired in return for getting rid of Schneider. Klee was put on waivers and we got nothing in return, while Larson was hurt and never played a game with the team. Montador ended up being traded at the deadline as well due to underwhelming play in exchange for Nokelainen (ya remember him?) so basically nothing. And finally Mciver played 18 games and was later traded for Mike Brown. So there you have it, one of the “Great Brian Burke’s” offseasons in a nutshell. So while Murray is not great, he’s made moves that haven’t crippled this franchise and he hasn’t had to spend to the cap to do so.
Brian Burke has only really worked for teams that have been able to spend up to the cap. Its a great gig considering you can make massive mistakes and just throw them under the rug. He’s done a pretty bad job in Toronto and yet we still glorify him. I understand that the situation that he went into was bad, but he has done equal good and bad in his time there. For every Lupul and Kaberle deal there is a Kessel and Komiserik that people just dont talk about. In Vancouver he benefited heavily from drafting well (something everyone says is not about the GM) and having the number 1-2 picks in the same year. Anytime you get two first rounders your team is eventually gonna be good (see Edmonton). The fact is he got lucky with a trade (Pronger), was lucky that a certain FA had a brother here (Neidermeyer), was lucky the team had drafted well before he got here (Getzlaf/Perry), and was/is fortunate to have a fantastic goaltending coach. Its a lot harder to have Murray’s job and never have the luxury of making mistakes, every move has to be perfect or at least be minor enough to keep the team moving. I honestly believe he’s done a pretty good job.
I said Murray should make good moves to replace Excellent talent, not bad ones. Wiz, Whitney and the spare part defense was a long string of bad moves. Schneider and Bertuzzi were Burke’s bad contracts, and Burke took care of them. Yes, it cost him McDonald, but I have never defended that. I’ve said that Murray AND Burke both mishandled these situations.
I’ve never said Burke was a saint. I have said he’s a better GM than Murray, and I’m going to stick to that considering he seems to get the better end of most of their deals. Saying Murray hasn’t done anything to damage the team is like being proud of a governor who inherits a budget deficit and only goes a little bit further into debt. Maybe Murray hasn’t crippled the franchise, but he certainly hasn’t done anything with the talent he inherited.
Burke was a primary architect for the team that Vancouver fans enjoy now. Anyone could have gotten Pronger, but Burke DID. I don’t think Murray even makes the phone call. Yeah, Niedermayer’s brother was here, but Burke found the dough to pay the man. He inherited good players and he did something with them. Murray inherited good players and tried to just rely on them to make the team great. The difference between Murray and Burke is the difference between someone who does no harm and no good, versus someone who actually gives you the opportunity to get out of the same rotation. Let’s all thank Murray for not ruining our franchise, although potentially wasting the last few years of Selanne’s season, and then we can show him the door in favor of a GM who has the ability to build a winner.
I completely agree
But I also think Murray has a much harder time “building a winner” when the owners have decided to run the team on a fairly strict budget. Even if Murray went out and acquired guys like Weber or Suter would he be able to pay them? Would it mean sacrificing guys like Getzlaf, Perry, Ryan, or Fowler down the road? I honestly can’t think of many teams that make the playoffs as often as we do with the budget we do. Nashville? Everyone seems to think there GM is pretty good. I understand Murray inherited a good core, but he’s made some good moves since coming here. Signing Koivu, not resigning Wiz, trading Whitney for Lubo, resigning Ryan to a good contract, signing Lydman (looked better last year admittedly), getting Beauchemin and Sbisa outta Pronger (in a round about way), picking up Hagman on waivers, trading Foster for Pelly. I mean we can stand here all day and pick apart any GM’s mistakes, but Murray has kept the team competitive and has been very good about reacting to his teams needs. Do I wish he was proactive instead of reactive? Of course, but I also think its hard when you don’t know the fate of a player (Selanne) that arguably dictates the fate of others (Blake, Koivu, Lydman, Lubo). Lets be honest, this team probably should have “rebuilt” once Neidermeyer left. Instead Murray has managed to assemble a very talented future (Holland, Fowler, Sbisa, Palmari, Bonino, Etem, DSP, Schultz) without sacrificing regular season success or key players (Selanne, Getzlaf, Ryan, and Perry). You say he is wasting away our core, I say he went out and got help through the draft rather than FA. He’s looking at this thing long term, and still managing to make this team look respectable in the short term. He’s not a fan, a GM really shouldn’t be, because if we need to “waste the last few years of Selanne’s career” in order to be a competitive franchise in a “non hockey market” for years to come then that is a difficult but necessary decision.
I feel like this has always been a somewhat personal argument for you and others who call for Murray’s head. Murray represents change, and that can always be scary. He represents the end of the “sandpaper” and grit game of the Burke years, the type of game a lot of us fell in love with and the type of game that won us a cup. He represents the end of Selanne’s career and without another cup win that will always seem disappointing. You see a guy like Ryan running around with number 9 on his back and you think he’s disrespecting one of your (and mine) favorite players. I’ve noticed over my time here that you especially are defensive over anyone who played here during the cup run. You’ll stand by guys like Getzlaf, Perry, Selanne, Beauchemin, Hiller, Giguere, Neidermeyer, Pronger, Paulsen, and Moen (all of whom are very talented players and deserve praise) but you are unwilling to give credit to guys like Ryan, Cogliano, Blake, or really anyone that has been acquired that doesn’t fill the “cup” mold that we once had. The fact is change is going to happen, and there is always more than one way to win a championship.
Do I think Murray has made this team better since taking over? Not yet, but I don’t think he ever intended for this team to go on a cup run. We had our opportunity to do that, that window closed, and now we have to move one. Do I think Murray has put us in a great position to EVENTUALLY become contenders? Yes, look at the talent he has assembled coming up through the minors. There is more than one way to win and there is more than one way to rebuild.
by Kevin Riach on Jan 23, 2012 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed. Wish i had the proper words to express what you said, but i agree.
by BennyLightning on Jan 23, 2012 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
I have a sense teaching schedule today, so I’ll turn your arguments around midnight tonight when I get home.
by Daniel AC on Jan 23, 2012 3:39 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Budget isn’t a problem. As I’ve said before, budget is an excuse. Last year, Poile traded a first round pick to get Mike Fisher. Conventional wisdom says budget teams build through the draft, so why would he give up a top pick? He saw an opportunity to help his team and he made a bold move. Moreover, it worked. The Preds did something they had never done in franchise history last year. Just because a GM has a budget it doesn’t mean he can’t make bold moves. Murray doesn’t make those moves. When Burke traded for Pronger, Lupul was a top 10 pick coming off a 28 goal season. He was a promising top 6 forward who was going to be a 30 goal scorer. Sound familiar? Burke essentially moved a Bobby Ryan type player. The saying goes that in a trade the person who gets the best player wins. Moving Bobby Ryan for a defender of Shea Weber’s caliber is a trade we win every time. I’m not saying he’s available, I’m just saying that moves like that are possible.
Going line by line for every one of those moves will take too much space. If you need my views on the Pronger for Lupul for Beauchemin deal, read this. As for other moves, I’m glad Selanne could help to lead Koivu here. When you say he didn’t re-sign Wisniewski, do you mean the summer when he re-signed him and gave him 2/3 of what Beauchemin got from Toronto, or do you mean the time he didn’t re-signed him and traded him to the Islanders? Lydman looked like a good deal last year and is an overpaid bottom pair guy this year, so which is it, good move or bad? As for the Lubo for Whitney trade, this highlights one of my gripes with Murray. He doesn’t really win trades. If you look at this deal, it’s basically a swap of top pair defenseman. As bad as Whitney was for us, he was more amazing for the Oilers, until he got hurt. the guy had 27 points in 35 games that year he got traded, was a plus player and logged crazy minutes for the Oilers. Murray just moves things around. He got the less often injured offensive defensman in the deal. Cool. However, as Arthur points out in the comment section of the article I linked you to, eventually fixing the mistake doesn’t make up for all the time we have to suffer with that mistake. Not signing Wiz the second time doesn’t magically give us a year of Beauchemin or another year of Niedermayer. Moving Whitney for Lubo doesn’t give us another playoff birth. As a fan, I find myself hoping Murray doesn’t make a mistake that I have to wait for him to fix, instead of hoping he’s going to make a move that will help the team. His small deals this year have been effective. I think the Pelley trade was a good trade and I said as much. I think picking up Hagman was a no-brainer, but he still did it. The minor good doesn’t overcome the multitude of bad and mediocre.
I’m going to call your next argument the “bias” argument. I think you’re trying to say that I don’t fairly evaluate Murray’s accomplishments because I am biased, and you say I am biased because I can’t accept change. I have two responses to this. First, it is fallacious, specifically a red herring. I’ll call it a red herring, because calling it an ad hominem would make me feel dirty. When examining facts consider the source, when examining an argument consider the argument. Whether or not I like Murray has nothing to do with whether or not my evaluation of him wasting assets is accurate. In other words, if I say he wasted assets in reacquiring a player he should have been able to re-sign because said player never wanted to leave Anaheim. You can’t just say I’m biased and therefore my argument is irrelevant. You have to prove that it isn’t a good argument. The same goes for any evaluation I make of a player. If I give a rationale, for example, Blake hits the logo and he holds the puck for too long. You have to demonstrate that he actually doesn’t, not just say I’m biased. It’s not just good arguing, it’s courteous.
Second, I’ve been a Ducks fan since their inception and I find your assessment of me being afraid of change laughable. I’m sure it’s a sufficient excuse in light of an inability to generate another explanation, but I’ve seen plenty of change as a fan of this organization. I’m not afraid of it. You say I don’t give credit to people who weren’t on the Cup team, but I frequently defend Hiller, who was actually not on the Cup team, Fowler, Sbisa when he wasn’t playing well, and Hagman. How do you explain that? Koivu wasn’t on the Cup team and I don’t have problems with him. I don’t like the players you listed because I don’t like them. I said this on the other thread, but Bobby’s number isn’t the only reason I don’t like him; it is one of many. If a player I liked wore the 9, maybe I wouldn’t be so obstinate about it. Then again, maybe I would. I don’t know, because it hasn’t happened. I’m sorry I couldn’t accommodate your convenient justification for my views, but it’s simply inaccurate, as I’ve demonstrated. I like change that wins or puts us in a better overall position to win. Under Murray’s tenure we haven’t really improved, which brings me to my next point.
I don’t think Murray has put us in a position to EVENTUALLY be a contender. The only thing I’ll say Murray has done is restock the cupboard. Of course, what’s the point of having a stocked cupboard if you don’t use it for anything. I honestly don’t think this team is in much better position to contend than it was when Murray inherited it. If it is in a better position, it’s because he has a ton of assets that he can use to get better players, but he doesn’t make those deals anyway. Murray can’t set this team up to EVENTUALLY win, because he can’t make the deals to push it over the hump. That’s the thing he’s clearly demonstrated throughout his tenure here. He hasn’t shown he can make the trade where the Ducks clearly get the better player that pushes them over the edge. I don’t think this team will ever be a contender while Murray is here, because he spends too much time hoping someone will overperform instead of getting the required player. He can do it on his budget, he’s just afraid to. I’d rather have a GM that tries to win, than a GM who simply tries not to lose. Maybe, that’s just me.
Finally, I have a question. When can I be a person who is making sense? When can I be the person who is just pointing out a perspective. I see people talking about my bias, but as I demonstrated earlier, I make arguments. I’m not out to get Murray, because I’m out to get Murray. I genuinely think he’s not doing a good job, and I make my point. I’m not making one sentence statements such as, “Murray sucks and doesn’t know what he’s doing.” What has to happen for people to believe that Murray isn’t doing a good job? Does he need to trade Lubo for Whitney? Does he have to clearly lose a Bobby Ryan deal? What will it take to convince you that Murray hasn’t done an adequate job? I think Murray needs to put together a roster that has a legitimate chance to compete from the beginning of the year to the end. I want to see him secure the bottom 6 instead of having a revolving door of spare parts. He’s gotten close this year, but his summer was terrible. I’m just curious, what’s it gonna take?
I dont know that i would call you biased, and you do make sense. however i do think you lean to far to one side, and dont really give ‘praise’ where its due. Yes hes made some bad moves, but hes made some good ones as well. Ill keep going back to picking up emery and now hagman, because they were solid moves that 28 other gm’s didnt make. You say he cant make big move sbut he can, he did move kunitz and tangradi (spelling??) for a player. sure that player didnt work here, but it showed he has the capacity to make a move. He also traded pronger out. he has made big moves, whether they can count as win/break even/lose, is up to you, but you cant say he hasnt and cant make big moves.
Your argument on wether the team is in a better position or not hinges on the assets that murray has collected. So for arguments sake lets say the team is about par. But hes accumulated good young players, and shed salary and has more to come off the books this year. how is that bad? Sure it may not be great, and were not challenging for SC, but you cant say we’re not in a position to improve and contend in the future. You say he wont use them in trade, but you cant prove that, your basing it on some notion that he wont include assets in trades but he has, the trade with pittsburgh, and the more recent and horrible trade with toronto shipping gardiner out.
Can murray win a trade….i dont know. its a point i will concede. Depening on how Bonino and sbisa work out, maybe, you can chalk them into the win column. and i guess youd have to take into account what ever picks we ended up with out of pronger too.
moving lupul and gardiner was…not really as bad as people are making out, lupul has been great, and gardiner has been, passable. but frenchie has beengood for us and something me needed.
Murray hasnt made any franchise crippling decisions, and has retooled a bare cupboard of prospects, by all accounts our affiliate team is moderately happy, and hockey continues to grow in orange county. He may not be a great gm, but hes not a bad one. what would it take for me to think he is a terrible gm? something similar to whats going on in montreal, or him trading for a certain NYI keeper.
by BennyLightning on Jan 24, 2012 5:27 AM PST up reply actions
I concede good moves, specifically picking up Hagman, and even a deal you never mention the Pelley trade. I thought that was a good trade. I’ve conceded he makes good moves, but I’ve said that the good doesn’t out weigh the bad. I’m drawn to that first comment by Arthur from the story I linked.
This is the part that bothers me. Even if every problem eventually gets fixed. And even if we got better value in the fix than we gave up (and so far, we haven’t), what about the time spent walking around the block? Do we ever get value worth an entire season out of the playoffs or an entire season watching a hodgepodge defense struggle? Will the fixes ever come at the same time, such that we have a strong team headed into the postseason?
Even if he fixes the mistakes, we never get those games back. I said this before, and it’s a point I believe I’m winning. Can Murray retool and keep this team a serious contender if he makes better moves? What if he uses Kunitz and Pahlsson to get better defenders. Are we a better team if he can actually find bottom 6 forwards instead of constantly settling for lesser players? I think so. I think he’s made bad decisions with players instead of getting one’s who fit what we want.
As far as the big moves you mention, I think they are moves going in the opposite direction. Pronger is the unloading of a big time player, not the acquisition of one. As I said in the post, Murray showed no creativity in the move. He got the exact same package. There’s something to be said for getting the price you paid, but there’s also something to be said for thinking outside the box and getting a better deal. The Kunitz trade was a pretty big deal. So, in his almost 3 full seasons here, Murray has made one big trade. That trade was disastrous. Sure, he flipped Lubo for Whitney, but what about all the wasted games with Whitney in the lineup. What if he couldn’t move Whitney? If you look at just the Whitney for Kunitz trade, it didn’t work. So why should I have confidence in this man?
Has Murray really shed salary while he’s been here, or has the cap simply gone up and the Ducks have kept spending the same. He picks up two million in space the Giguere trade, but he lost money in the Kunitz trade. He sheds Pronger, but we’re spending more now than when Prongs was on the team. I think the shed money argument has more to do with us letting contracts expire than actually not spending money. He’s got flexibility this summer…depending on who he brings back. I’ll see what he does with it before I make a decision on whether or not it’s a good thing.
As for the Toronto trade, I make the same argument. Murray overpaid for an asset he should have had in the first place, and therefore doesn’t deserve any credit for doing something good/right. It’s like buying a ham for Christmas, losing the ham, and having to buy another. Sure, he fixed the mistake, but maybe it costs one of the kids a Christmas present. It seems that people like to apologize for Murray by saying that he fixes his mistakes. That begs the question. How much better is this team over these past seasons, if it doesn’t have to constantly recover from Murray’s mistakes? Let’s face it, during his tenure this team has been a borderline playoff team. With this core, and a fairly serviceable budget we shouldn’t be a borderline team. We should be a borderline contender.
Murray hasn’t crippled the franchise, but I’m not sure he’s actually helped it. The Ducks have made good draft decisions, but Murray doesn’t actually make those decisions. He listens to the scouting department. The only reason he retooled the cupboard is that he hasn’t really helped the team. He’s let assets like Deschamps rot on the vine instead of selling high. The guy is timid. He’s gun shy. That’s why he threatens trades instead of making them. Also, hockey growing in Southern California is because of the Samuelis. Murray doesn’t pay for those “Anaheim Ice” rinks. He might show up at a few events.
As I said earlier, he hasn’t crippled the franchise, but he also hasn’t shown that he can make the moves to put us over the hump. I don’t think Murray has shown he can do anything except sit back and chase his tail. That’s not the type of effort I enjoy from a GM. I don’t have to give praise to people I don’t think have earned it. I think it’s unfair for me to be held to that standard. I don’t think I’m making irrational points; I think I’m simply unimpressed.
I actually think murrays biggest problem has been catering to the top players to much. Some of the players that have rotated throughour bottom 6 have been good, and have moved around to be good elsewhere. Lapierre would be one such player. The question should be why we dont keep players that are performing (Emery im looking at you). Also i was a big lover of RC, but how much was his influence in the turnover of the roster? Players that he recruited and let go could have been influenced by his guy say i want, i dont want. If that is the case that would be a boon to the GM for listening to his coach, and an negative on the coach. Point is, we dont know if this is the case.
Yes its a tragedy a gm has picked up a player that hasnt worked out. Happens all the time in every franchise. Kaberle would be a case in point. That being said, i was happy with the aquisition of whitney at point of trade, i thought he was a player that could have been a good fit here. Turns out he wasnt, and he was moved on. But at point of trade it was possibly a good move. Kunitz was a good player, but not a geat one, and the prospect…well still hasnt come on, so its not that bad of a loss. Problem is, is that Kunitz was/is a favourite player, and whitney didnt work out here. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.
As for the games you say we lose, due to murrays incompetence, what about the games we lose, due to our top players not showing up? Theres a whole lot of finger pointing to be made about our slow starts, share the blame around. Our top 2 lines and even goaltending was sub par beginning this season, its not murays job to make them play. In fact the bottom 6 were actually the better players beginning this year. So does that mean murray did a good job putting them together?
As for the prospect argument being that its not murrays job he just listen to advice. Im sorry but thats just a terrible argument. Its the presidents job to listen to advice before he makes a decision too, but hes the man at the pointy end of the stick that cops the flak or gets the credit for the decision. why should murrays ability to listen to scouting staff not be a credited to him?At the end of the day, he still says yay or nay, its his decision and hes done well. As for growing hockey, agreed its partly because of the rinks being bought and partly because the ducks and kings are on tv. As much as bobby ryans moves get young kids (and me) excited about hockey and wanting to do those same things, its murrays job to keep him here. Im not saying that hockey is growing because of murray im saying its growing because hes putting a product on the ice that kids want to emulate. and yes i understand that point is debatable.
by BennyLightning on Jan 24, 2012 12:41 PM PST up reply actions
Sorry I had work this morning
I’ve had a lot of reading to catch up on. I would just like to start saying that I think my first comment was taken a little hashly. I think sometimes (especially on the internet it seems) arguments can seem very black and white or dismissive. Daniel I dont think you’re crazy or that what your saying is wrong or completely untrue. You’re touching on a lot of very good points that are all warranted. Benny has already done a great job defending a lot of the points I would make in defense, but I would like to add one thing to this argument.
If you look around the league, how many GM’s are really doing a better job than Murray? And how many of those GM’s are in large markets (Boston, NYR, PIT, PHI)? The fact is Anaheim (or really any team out west) isn’t exactly Toronto. We had a great GM and he left for a bigger market. We had a great coach too and he left for Detroit. The fact is Anaheim is a stop on most people’s career’s not a finish. I would take Murray over half of the league’s GM’s right now. Is he perfect? Hell no. But even the “elite” Gm’s make mistakes, they just have cap room to make it not seem has bad. Every GM has a Beauchemin situation…its just not always as noticeable when you cant trade around players and take on salary all the time. Is he timid? Yes, but I believe thats because of the cap and selanne situations. Also just to add while we are spending the same about the same amount, inflation has been brutal. Look at the contract Erhoff got vs the one we gave Scotty, it should tell you all you need to know about the state of inflated contracts in the NHL.
I don’t think it matters which other GM I’d like to have. Whether or not he’s better than any GM has nothing to do with how well he’s done here. Look at it this way: two fieldworkers are picking rows of strawberries. One has a row that is twice as long as the other. The one who has the longer row picks more strawberries than the one with the shorter row, but he leaves a lot of strawberries on the bushes, whereas the other picker gets every strawberry in his short row. Who did a better job? Murray inherited a core of players that is the envy of the league, and what has he done with it? He’s pretty much done nothing and hoped the core players will continue to carry the club. He leans on them, and leans on them. He hasn’t done a great job of developing depth around them. It’s taken him 3 years to put together a team that doesn’t look bad on paper. There’s a reason why this team is such an engima. It’s because it relies too heavily on its stars. I’ve seen this before. This is what the Ducks looked like during the Selanne and Kariya years. The stars get hot and we win some games. The good teams shutdown the stars and we don’t have anything else.
Murray can’t build a contender. Even if this team pulls off a miracle and wins the Cup this year, he’ll still be relying on a core that he didn’t build.
I don’t see the link between the top players and the bottom 6 rotation. I’ve made this argument several times, but it never seems to stick. The GM is responsible for getting players for the coach’s system. If Carlyle isn’t happy with the players he’s getting, then there’s two questions. 1) Why isn’t the GM getting the players needed for the coach’s system? 2) Why does the GM continue to stick with a coach who can’t get the most out of his players? Either way, Murray is the one making the decision. It’s his responsibility. If Murray can get credit for the decisions of his scouting staff, he should be reprimanded for the failures of his coaches.
Murray doesn’t have a good track record with acquiring players: Whitney, Wisniewski, Winchester, Christensen, Eminger, Boynton, Sutton, Pielmeir, Foster, Mara…Ok, I’m tired of writing them now. I expect a GM who to identify the player he needs and then know what he’s getting. When Murray acquires players I think he just says “that’s a good player” and tries to shoehorn him in. That’s not good planning. Recently, in the Register, Murray said he was beginning to wonder if in acquiring speed he had gone too far and lost some of the size on the team. That’s the sign of a GM who isn’t planning shit. I’ll have to find the link, because I think the story is a week or more old.
If it’s not Murray’s job to make them play, why does he threaten to trade them? That seems inconsistent to me. I’m sorry, but top players aren’t going to be top players 82 games a year. I’ve seen Sidney Crosby be invisible during whole games. It happens. That’s why you have depth. Well, the Ducks don’t have depth and I can’t help but wonder why that is. I don’t think it’s entirely the budget. I think it’s that Murray hasn’t found a way to work the budget. Nashville spends less than us and has good depth. If you look at the difference between our spending and Nashville’s it’s almost entirely the difference of the big 3. We can have Nashville’s team, our stars, and still be close to budget. For the first time in his tenure, Murray has a bottom 6 that’s working and entirely of his construction, except for Parros and I think Beleskey. I’ll start the slow clap. I would argue that the good move was Boudreau and not necessarily the construction of those lines. I’m not really sold on Cogs, personally.
Kids will follow any star that’s around. Kids wanted to emulate Selanne and Kariya while they were here. I think you’re grasping at straws to make him seem more responsible than he is. I just don’t see the argument that keeping Bobby Ryan grows California hockey. When Arthur and I went to the summer tournament for the high school kids, David McNab was there, not Bob Murray.
I’ll give him credit for listening to his scouting staff if you’ll concede my point from my first paragraph. That Murray is responsible for the mess of a bottom 6 for the past 3 seasons. As I said earlier, you can’t have it both ways. If he gets credit for the good work of his coaching staff, he should also be blamed for not properly handling his coach.
No, im happy to conceded the good with the bad. My original point is that i dont think you give enough credit, when its due. Hence why im arguing the other points. Ive always said that i think murray could be better, but hes not as bad youve made out.
And it isnt murrays job to make them play, its the coaches job to make them play. If they dont play to standard then its his job to move them for someone who will. Hence my arguements on a previous post about moving getzlaf. People keep making he nashville comparision and in terms of market share and budget i guess its close, but do we really want their record? Dont get me wrong i like the construction of their team (because i like defence over offence), but they’re not going to win a cup, and with one playoff series win…ever? im not convinced i want their record at all. Id prefer ours.
by BennyLightning on Jan 24, 2012 2:11 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t give Murray a lot of credit, because I sincerely feel he hasn’t done anything. I think of Murray as the man shuffling chairs on deck, not the guy running the ship. That’s the impression he gives me, as if he is simply watching things happen then occasionally moves something so people think he’s paying attention.
As for the Nashville comparison, my point is simply that it’s still possible to do more with less. We are slightly larger and better funded than Nashville. Yet, under Murray’s tenure, we’ve been Nashville: the team that seems content to simply make the playoffs. I suppose my point operates on two levels. 1) Nashville proves how small market GMs can be creative and get impact players without giving up a lot in assets. 2) We should be able to do that, but on a larger scale because we have more assets in Nashville. Essentially, we should be doing better than a team like Nashville.
I feel like this is a whole other conversation
But I will entirely concede to you on one point Daniel, one that I believe has led to your beliefs about Murray. He COMPLETELY mishandled his coaching situation here. I know he and RC were friends but RC is a terrible coach for Murray’s “system” and a budget franchise. I think he’s a great coach, but he has no ability to foster young talent or use depth. Now I know you will probably point to the cup year when he used rookies and had 4 lines, but I haven’t seen that since then. BB is doing that now with the same exact talent that RC had. RC should have been dealt with years ago, but its hard to find a reason to fire a coach that won a cup and was getting this team into the playoffs consistently.
The reason Nashville’s system works so well is because they draft well AND they have a coach that develops young talent well (especially defensemen and goaltenders). Now that we have a coach that can do that we can successfully use cheap young talent to fill gaps in our roster, Murray can create players from within rather than having to go out and buy guys. With Bonino playing like he has and really good talent coming up, Murray can focus on getting things we don’t have in the farm (top Dman) and allow his young guys to play the other roles.
I think you’re right in thinking that the coaching situation is the reason I dislike Murray so much. For a little over a year, I was saying that if Murray didn’t want to get the players that Carlyle wanted, then he should get rid of Carlyle. I don’t think it’s that Carlyle is bad with young talent per se, I think he just needs a security blanket to make him feel better about leaning on them. He never had that under Murray.
There’s really nothing left to do but wait and see what happens now that Murray has this coach that he apparently always wanted. Maybe it works out, but that will never change that he basically wasted these past couple of years hoping for something better to come along.
thats not fair, the young players comment. Some have come and gone, but this year Max has been good, sibsa has improved over the past 2 years, also RPG. I know some have been down in the minors, but often that is the best course of action. Holland would be case in point, he was good up here, but it served the team better inthe future for him get lots of minutes, he gets that in syracuse. Sorry, i may argue the murray points on principal and for arguments sake, but i really feel carlyle has been getting the short straw around here
by BennyLightning on Jan 24, 2012 5:37 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t want to get all Burkean, but Carlyle has become the scapegoat for things that weren’t necessarily his fault. I don’t think he handled all the youth well, but I think the one’s he did like he handled well. I think he was forced to play the youth in ways he probably wasn’t comfortable with because he wasn’t able to lean on other players. If you look at why PPG worked so well, it was because Carlyle had 3 other lines that he fully trusted, so letting the kids earn their time wasn’t a problem. Near the end, he only had two line he trusted, so he wasn’t really trying to get the kids out there.
Wiz hasnt really workd out anywhere hes been, so hardly think you can blame RC for that. And Mickelson and Festerling quit frankly werent any good.
Whitney i agree, though was played out of position, and didnt really suit our needs (well we couldnt make him play the way we wanted him too) That i will pin somewhat on Carlyle. But overall as a coach i think he has been unfairly criticised on this blog in recent times.
I think the overall arguement is that murray may have gone for the wrong veteran players. On paper Sutton would be what we need, as a big crease clearing D…except he cant play. hence the wrong choice.
Overall though, i think that murray has done an adequate job retooling on the fly, and at the end of the day, whether we do a good job or a bad job, we get judged on the result. Facts stand that we are a near perennial playoff team since the lockout, and since murray has taken over. Could he do better. yes. could be worse we could be montreal, and who knows what is going on over there
by BennyLightning on Jan 23, 2012 1:06 AM PST up reply actions
As much as i enjoyed the high draft pick thinking I’d much rather win 60% of the rest of the games. Those first 3 months were just depressing as hell. On draft day i’ll regret not getting a lottery pick but it’ll b worth it to not walk around in a dark cloud kicking puppies until then. Playoffs are a pipe dream but winning games is pretty nice too.
As to the Bob Murry support. Its natural to come to love and maybe need a little the one who beats you but the rest of us wish you’d leave him.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Anaheim Calling
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
CK Photo Galleries
