Dangerously Low Levels Of Mustache Hair Avoided

Brian Murray has been hard at work since firing Cory Clouston from his position of Head Coach. Murray has been looking hard at the history of those privileged to hold the position of Head Coach for the Ottawa Senators, and after much deliberation has determined that the principle failing has been a failure to commit.

Thus enters the mustache.

Wearing a mustache in today's world is an act which required dedication and persistence in the face of a blizzard of Gillette and Phillishave advertising, all with one message: if you ain't in the playoffs, you must be shaving.

Similarly, a head coach must be dedicated to his system and persistent in espousing it to a young team suffering in the face of a blizzard of hockey media types who are keen on finding a scapegoat to hang the latest loss on.

Looking back through Murray's history of head coaches, it is clear that this has been a deficiency that has until now been steadfastly avoided:

• John Paddock? The man obviously owns shares in Schtick.
• Craig Hartsburg? Smoother cheeks than Mr. Clean.
• Cory Clouston? Was he even capable of growing facial hair?

Thus, Murray's search for a head coach has ended with the hiring of this mustache. Former Red Wings assistant coach Paul MacLean has agreed to wear the mustache for the foreseeable future, and speak for it when necessary.

Murray can rest assured that this highly qualified Head Coach can set a road forward on the ice for the franchise. However he must be aware that should the mustache prove insufficient to the challenge facing it, he will be forced to seek out a beard as a fill-in.

---

(Seriously, Mr. MacLean, welcome to Ottawa. We're lucky to have you, and I hope that Mr. Murray can give you the pieces needed to build a foundation for future success.)

It is over: Murray Stays; Clouston Goes

Wow. Get sick and want to be dead for three days and the world goes all to hell.

So. Briefly: I don't mind retaining Murray. I have been starting to think that the recent problem with the franchise has been higher up the foodchain than Murray is. And yes, the problem is that there really is only one seat higher up the organizational foodchain than the GM: the owner.

The GM ultimately works for the pleasure of the owner, and if the owner is convinced that we are one tweak away from winning it all, and he has particular tweaks he wants made -- well, that's what you as a GM do. You do your best to talk him out of it, sure, but at the end of the day, the owner's pleasure will carry the discussion.

I hope that Murry and Melnyk had a come-to-Jesus talk before the "dump salary" order that was issued in January. The current group of guys were clearly not going to get the job done, and the last four seasons have showed a steady decline in the franchise's fortunes.

Melnyk must have either come to Jesus or has decided that the rebuild is over and permitted Murray to see out this rebuild effort.

Or... Melnyk hasn't been the meddler this scenario makes him look like and Murray is responsible for the last four years of mediocrity. In which case, Melnyk is an idiot for retaining Murray. But frankly I don't see this as the most likely scenario. I think that Melnyk is no idiot, just a passionate fan who wants to see his team win, now, and happens to have the GM's private line.

Three years? I still think that's optimistic for a rebuild. It all depends if Melnyk is going to let Murray do his job.

Over to Coach Clouston. I don't think the problems on the ice were entirely his fault, but I don't think he is entirely blameless. When he swept in here a year and a half ago and turned around another hopeless season into a hopeless season with potential, I think we all got carried away. Frankly though the problems with the franchise have been much deeper than that, and that showed when everyone clearly stopped listening to him this year.

But the fact of the matter is, the players clearly did quit on Clouston, and many of those players remain.

Since this is a rebuild, and Clouston's contract is in fact up, now is an excellent moment to make this change.

So, in summary: I provisionally approve of both actions.

What I'd Do

So it has been a couple of weeks since the money behind the team announced that he'd seen the light, the cup isn't coming to Ottawa this year after all. Mr. Melnyk also announced that both Clouston and Murray would remain in their jobs for the rest of the year.

Color me underwhelmed.

I am of two minds about this.

Firstly, I approve of keeping Clouston as the coach for the rest of the year. Mr. Melnyk is already paying two other guys to not coach the team, he doesn't need a third. I've long said that the coach isn't the problem with this team.

Secondly, I have mixed feelings about keeping Murray. I think that the on-ice product that the team has now has to be laid at his feet, no matter how badly the ice was tilted against him by his predecessor. Murray's handling of the big team's roster can only be described as poor, as if he is spending his time looking for the single missing piece that would return the team to their 2007 form. The problem is that those single pieces that he's come up with have underperformed, while at the same time key pieces have been slipping through his fingers.

On the plus side, he's drafted like a bear. The prospect larder is well stocked, perhaps to the point where the team will have to trade some defense prospects to avoid wasting their value. Forwards-wise we have some prospects who should fit in the second- and third-line positions quite nicely, even if we don't have any elite prospects in the pipeline.

The problem is, the draft is a long time away. The run up to deadline day has been about trading, and Murray's trading record isn't very strong.

He's also still making noises about a "one year rebuild", which isn't that much of a softening of his "one tweak and we're in" pattern of action over the last few years. So while he says everyone but Alfie and (we presume) Karlsson are for sale, I don't buy it.

So personally I'm worried about keeping him in place through this important trading period. The only thing keeping him in place as far as I'm concerned is a lack of a credible candidate to drop in right now to replace him.

My personal attitude is that we are looking at a full rebuild here, and the sooner Melnyk signs on to that the sooner we'll start actually building something and stop sinking further behind. This means a three, maybe five year program.

With that kind of schedule you have to wonder where your players are going to be in their careers when the stretch run comes. Of the current team today, who is still going to be playing like they belong on a contending team in three years?

If it were me:

Forwards:

Alfie: the fans love him, and he's given his life and soul for this team. That said, if a contending team offered anything, I'd approach Alfie about the trade. Alfredsson deserves a cup ring, and Ottawa won't be able to deliver him one. If a chance comes up, he deserves the opportunity to take it if he wants. Personally I doubt he'd take the chance. But should the opportunity arise, the decision needs to be his.

Spezza: Like him or loath him, Spezza is an elite centre. He can playmake out of nothing and when he's on, magic can happen. That said, where will he be in three to five years? Right now if a decent offer came, I'd trade him if possible because I know the team surrounding him can't make decent use of his skills, and I wonder if he'll still have it when the stretch run comes. And this better be a trade where in hind-sight we look back and say "that was worth it". No Heatley-style trades. Odds are he's untradable due to cap and no-movement. I'll enjoy his play if he stays, he's definitely an asset. He'll be the leadership of the immediate future if he stays.

Michalek: If I can keep him cheap, I'd keep him. He isn't the elite we perhaps hoped he would mature into, but he's a grinder and can make things happen. His speed seems to be coming back, too. He'd provide a good sense of leadership for the younger players.

Fisher: I would trade him if I could. Fisher is a popular player with the ability to score and make things happen, bu the bottom line is that he hasn't been playing to his salary. I would trade him for a salary dump from another team as long as the incoming contract ended before Fisher's does, just to get his money off the books.

Foligno: I would keep him. I suspect he will be cheap to re-sign next time around because he certainly isn't lighting up the numbers right now. I personally think he's capable of more, and if I can have it cheap, I'll take it.

Kelly: Probably too expensive to keep, trade if I can. I would prefer to keep, since the Kelly-Ruutu-Neil line provides energy, is entertaining to watch, and is liked by the fans. Plus they can get goals here and there too.

Kovalev: I love the guy's play to death, but he hasn't been worth $5 million by any stretch of the imagination. Trade him if I can -- even at firesale rates. Don't re-sign if I can't.

Neil: Keep for now. Personally I doubt contenders will be trading for his kind of "character".

Regin: Like Foligno, is underperforming and will probably be cheap to re-sign. I say keep.

Ruutu: His contract is up again this year. While he's a bit expensive for my tastes, I'd keep him, but I wouldn't consider it the end of the world if someone else wanted to trade for him.

Shannon: Another underperforming youngster. I say keep.

Smith. See Shannon, Regin, Foglino. Keep.

Winchester: I think his window is closing. Trade if we can.

Defence:

Campoli: If we can keep him cheap, he might have a spot. The problem is that right now we are drowning in 3rd-pairing defencemen. If we can get value for him in trade, I say take it.

Carkner: He is what passes for muscle on this team, and I think for next year anyways we'd need to keep that around until we see if any of the new kids are capable of stepping up.

Gonchar: He's unmovable, but I'd keep him even if he wasn't. No wait, stop laughing. While he may be past his best-before date, and is almost definitely overpaid for what he produces, this guy has been there, done that, at the highest levels. Keeping him around should be a good on-ice influence on these allegedly elite defense prospects like Karlsson and Cowen et al.

Karlsson: I would keep him unless someone offered me the crown jewels. And I'd make them throw in a 1st and a 2nd on top of it. If the right offer came, I'd take it. But the price will be very, very high.

Kuba: I wonder if he is perhaps at the end of his line, he's making too many mistakes and doesn't seem to have much upside. I wouldn't protect him from a trade.

Lee: Seriously, why is Lee even still here? I'd trade him for future considerations, just to get rid of him. Plus it might get his career going as well. Neither the Senators nor Lee are benefiting from the current arrangement.

Phillips: I like Phillips' play. That said, he might have the kind of character that a contender might like. If the right offer came along, trade.

In goal:

Elliott: I'm not one to fit Elliott under the bus by any means. I think he's suffered from poor efforts on the ice in front of him, and to expect excellence from a player in that situation is virtually impossible. Even though I don't think he's a bad goalie, I don't think Elliott will be back next year.

LeClaire: Also suffered from poor efforts in front of him, even when he did play like the elite he's shown flashes of in the past he was let down by a total lack of offense from the guys up front. However since he can't stay healthy for 60 consecutive minutes it is entirely academic. He's untradable. He's injured, so he's unplayable. I think he's done here in Ottawa.

Lehner: Goalie of the future? I dunno, I don't see it. His two starts he was lit up like a pinball machine, even if both times the team provided some offense for once (even if ultimately in a losing cause). I think he'll be the next in a long line of guys who play reasonably well, but not well enough to compensate for a lack of offense up front and poor defensive coverage behind them. He'll be flavor of the month, then get run out of town like Elliott, Auld, Gerber, Emery...

What I'd want in trade: Primarily, picks and prospects. I'll take rookies with potential as well. I'll prefer forwards, since my larder is a bit bare there and I'm reasonably well stocked with defense. I'd make available select prospects in my farm system, but not too many of them, and they won't be cheap.

For long term contracts going out, I'll take short-term salary back as long as it ends this year.

My Plan:

I'm hoping for a three-year rebuild here, but planning for a five-year. Next year is going to be a brutal year for the team, since it will be composed of rookies and veterans who are perhaps past their best. If next year's rookies look like a core we can build around, then I'd go for the three year program; if not, I'd wait another year to see who else we can draft.

As far as my veterans go, I would keep who I could fit from the existing team. The fans like guys like Spezza and Fisher, plus the energy line of Neil-Kelly-Ruutu is entertaining.

In goal I want to grow my own goalie rather than trade for someone who might or might not be done. If Lehner's the guy then great, but I would still be on the prowl for another hot prospect. I'd also be looking for a senior goalie, someone who can be steady in net and can provide mentoring to Lehner (or whomever the next flavor of the month is) before he too gets run out of town, but frankly I'd expect I can pick up someone cheap in free agency for that role.

That's my plan. Not quite fire everyone, but trade who I can, discard who I can, and pack the team with kids with potential. Build the defense around Karlsson. Keep some veterans around to mentor the kids and entertain the fans here and there.

But what do I know?

"Do Something?"

Comment I left on SenSay article Pick Or No Pick, That Was Unacceptable, which boils down to

They’re playing like a team walking the plank…for F*** sakes, do something already!

…yeah, like what?

Fire Clouston — so that the team can quit on the replacement?

Fire Murray and replace him with… who? Really?

Trade? You can’t sell out if nobody’s buying. The last firesale the Sens had went really well — they traded Heatly for Michalek and the privilege of buying out San Jose’s bad contract. The rest of the league knows that Ottawa is verging on desperation here, why would any other team offer a fair deal if you can potentially force Ottawa into another firesale, and get a much better return for yourself?

Do “something”?

I don’t see what there is to be done.

Sack up man, this is life in the salary cap world.

Waiting For Deadline Day

It has been a hard year as a hockey fan. Frankly, the team's play hasn't been inspiring for more than short stretches (as in minutes, not games). So I'm only watching a period here and there... and not particularly caring if I see any more. Or less, frankly. It is so discouraging to flip on the TV and see stats like "the Senators have only 2 shots on net after 12 minutes of play." I'm obviously not missing much.

I've tried to write this article about a dozen times over the last month. Not once have I come up with anything intelligible, or indeed new, about the current state of the team.

What gets me going for this attempt is this article from Black Aces. It dissects a rumor that Murray wanted to fire Clouston about a month ago, but Melnyk squashed it by telling Murray that if Clouston went, Murray would be gone with him.

Now I don't think I've ever been in favor of firing a coach. Coach firing is a quick-fix for attempting to re-engage an unmotivated group of players, possibly trying to frighten them into playing well. The Ottawa Senators have given up on coaches before (see also Martin Gerber's entire stay here).

The fact of the matter is that the problems with this team begin and end with the roster, and the responsibility for the roster's state lies with the GM. I read or heard a saying recently that special teams' effectiveness is directly proportional to the effectiveness of the coach; the teams' effectiveness at five-on-five hockey is directly proportional to the GM's effectiveness. And while by that yardstick Clouston isn't covered in glory, his record book looks better than the turd sitting on Murray's.

It has been three long years with Brian Murray at the helm, and I think that the organization's state can finally be laid on his desk rather than blaming the mess that he inherited from Muckler. While Murray has done an arguably good job of filling the farm development system which should yield some quality (but possibly not stellar) players in the future, the current team is overloaded with overpaid, under-performing, over-the-hill veterans of past campaigns. Popular players, to be sure, but hockey is a "what have you done for me lately" business and this roster isn't getting it done.

But at the same time I'm not ready to get behind canning Murray.

The facts of life in todays salary-cap world is that you can't get trades done. How many trades, league wide, have there been since opening day? Five? So how come Murray is condemned for being unable to do what so many other GMs are also failing to do?

So given that we can't trade our way out of our problems, then what?

Well yes, Murray should stop giving out long-term contracts with no-trade or no-movement clauses like they are candy. But aside from that.

Start waiving 1-way players? The best case scenario here is that another team picks them up for half-price. Or maybe the best case is that they would clear waivers and then refuse to report to the AHL, that might save Melnyk some bucks. But the worst case is that they clear and report to the AHL, meaning we're still burning Melnyk's money and getting nothing out of it. And then we'd drag some AHL players up here possibly before they are ready.

I think that what needs to happen is that Murray needs to act like he has a plan. One that builds for a 3- to 5- year horizon. Stop trading and signing for short-term fixes.

If I were Melnyk, I'd be waiting to see what happenes at deadline day, since that's really the GM's last chance to put his mark on a team. After that a GM basically has his feet on his desk until June.

If Murray is still trying to buy up rather than sell down, I'd say clean house. If Murray is making intelligent trades that build for the 3- to 5- year term... well that would get him a reprieve from me.

But I'm not Mr. Melnyk.

We also perhaps have to look at the very top of this organization, and by that I mean Mr. Melnyk himself. Melnyk was on Hockey Night In Canada a month or so ago promising that they team was going to go all the way this year and he means the Cup so buckle up.

If Melnyk seriously believes this team is a contender then Murray may be operating with both hands tied behind his back. If Melnyk is directing and vetoing Murray's planning and operations, the results... well the results might not be all that different from what we see here. Trading and signing as if the team was one small tweak, one veteran, one "dressing room character" away from being a contender.

I sincerely hope this isn't the case. If Murray can't get it done, we might have a chance by changing the GM.

If Murray is merely dancing to Melnyk's tune, well frankly we're screwed no matter who is in the GM's or coach's chairs.

I guess the question comes down to who's hand is really on the steering wheel of this organization? And beyond that... do they really know what they are doing?

Ottawa needs a plan. Ottawa needs a youth movement. Ottawa needs two or three years of awful results (kinda like this one) but with the promise that the organization is building, rather than the slow-motion collapse that last year continued into this year. Ottawa needs to make everyone and anyone available for a trade. Nobody should be safe, except perhaps Karlsson. But those trades need to be about the future. Not next week.

Or even next year.

Like I said, I'm waiting until deadline day.

Love for Coach Clouston

Houses Of The Hockey gives up some love for Coach Clouston.

At the end of the day, you can’t fault Clouston for where the Senators are in the standings. If Clouston, a winning coach and the best coach the Senators have had in years, can’t win with this roster, I’m not sure any other coach would fair much better.

And the fact of the matter is, other coaches have not fared better.

I said at the time that Hartsburg left that I didn't think the team's poor results were entirely his fault. The problem was that the guys on the ice were not putting in the consistent effort every night. My view was I'd like to see what Hartsburg could do with a real team before we decided if he was to be fired.

And the same problem is happening here. I've said before, I thought the problem was that 2007 happened a year too early. 2007 happened because Ray Emery played way, way over his head for the entire playoff series, and that inspired the rest of the team to increase their level of play. As a result, everyone thought that the construction of the team was complete, and we would challenge in 2008.

Reality was somewhat different, and since then we've been slowly tweaking ourselves into the current situation. While I think the guys on the ice are not playing to their capabilities, they are definitely not playing over their heads in the way required to succeed with this roster.

The other problem that GMs face is that they generally can't fire the entire roster due to contract limitations. If the GM thinks a change has to be made, the coach is the at-will employee closest to the players that can be fired.

We are still coming to grips with this cap-centric world, so while Murray has to take some of the blame for the current situation, the fact is that none of his colleagues have really shown they understand how to work the cap-centric world either. Until that happens, look for trades to be both infrequent and one-sided. Infrequent because the cap will govern any moves made, and one-sided because one side of the trade will inevitably be forced to accept less than one might otherwise consider fair. (See also Dany Heatley.)

The bottom line is that Murray has to be better about assembling the pieces. If we have to go through a dry spell, then I for one would like to see emphasis on picks and prospects, trying to trade intelligently for a future more than just 10 games away.

Until then, Clouston is a perfectly adequate coach and I don't see a reason to fire him.

A Metaphore for 08-09

I've been thinking about it, and I think the metaphor for me for this past season was the fact that the most entertaining hockey I watched involved the Montreal Canadians.

Oh, and I should mention that the Canadians were playing the Flyers and the Capitals at the time.

Both times I got treated to high-energy, high-skill, flowing hockey featuring two teams that wanted the win.

And the thing is I never got that feeling watching the Ottawa team.

This is why I have serious doubts about next year. This is, fundamentally, the same group of players who quit on Paddock and Hartsburg. Last night suggested that are not above quitting on their new golden boy Clouston. The effort shown was conspicuous mostly by its absence.

Clouston came in and did turn things around, and showed what a sustained effort could net you -- the team improved from being worse than the entire Western conference to being slightly better than the Toronto Maple Leafs. But can one really expect that the team could hold together that kind of effort and discipline through an entire season? Every season will have its ups and downs, and Clouston's tenure so far has been mostly up.

In the end, though, the proof will be in the results this time next year.