2019/20 Roster Thread XXIX

[Beef Invictus]

Yet again another strawman. I have not one stated that I want Ghost gone from this team. I have stated multiple times that I am a huge fan of him.

His contract isn't a steal, he isn't being "sabotaged" by coaching, he really has lost a step of pace, and his shot, which was his most powerful asset appears to have deteriorated. I litterally picked 4 or 5 defenseman straight off the top of my head. There are probably plenty more that offer more than Ghost does in the same price bracket.

He's changed his game and is playing an ok level of defense. But his offensive game has fallen off a cliff. At 4.5 mil a year that isn't a steal, if we are going to start claiming he's a defensive stalwart now then he can start on the PK. Making all the excuses in the world isn't going to change things. It's just embarrassing to see his downturn in production is someone elses fault.

There's a whole lot of falsehood here.

Anyone who plays below their full market value is on a steal of a contract. Being utilized with bottom six players has a tremendous impact on someone's production; it's not like Ghost can operate his linemates like meat puppets to make them finish or set him up. You've elected to ignore the fact that he's absurdly good at moving play from his own end up the ice, which is of great value all on its own and gets those guys paid.

There aren't many more. It's an exercise we've played here numerous times. Those who exist don't get traded away often if at all, because their utility and cap value are too high.

Is there a a particular reason why we are ignoring the tremendous importance of usage and linemates on production? Remember Couturier in the bottom six vs top six? It was an instant difference. Those paying close enough attention had no problem seeing Couturier would definitely be more productive if given more skilled linemates. You will produce more if you're passing/being set up by Giroux, than if you're doing the same with Raffl.

Oh, and before you accuse me of using strawmen, you should probably check your own post history. You've called for Ghost to be traded.

 

[Adtar02]

From Meltzer...

Perhaps the most disappointing part of the now-completed road swing was the fact that young players who seemed to be turning the corner during the undefeated homestand -- including first-round picks Morgan Frost and German Rubtsov as well as second-rounder Isaac Ratcliffe -- regressed during the road trip. Kase's play in response to being a healthy scratch for one game was the main highlight among the younger players on the Phantoms.

What’s this in reference to.

 

[kudymen]

My favorite part of the roster threads is when it all goes downhill after a few pages and the same poor guy plays victim while

 

[bobbythebrain]

From Meltzer...

Perhaps the most disappointing part of the now-completed road swing was the fact that young players who seemed to be turning the corner during the undefeated homestand -- including first-round picks Morgan Frost and German Rubtsov as well as second-rounder Isaac Ratcliffe -- regressed during the road trip. Kase's play in response to being a healthy scratch for one game was the main highlight among the younger players on the Phantoms.

I thought Morgan Frost should be playing as our #1 center tho?

 

[kudymen]

I was told Laughton should be tried out at #1C soooo maybe we shouldnt really care about one or two posters

 

[Starat327]

I was told Laughton should be tried out at #1C soooo maybe we shouldnt really care about one or two posters

That same media moron is adamant that Chris Stewart belongs on the NHL team, so you'll have to forgive me for not thinking he's capable of evaluating NHL talent.

Appeals to authority never get old.

 

[deadhead]

Completely agreed on the last paragraph. It could be that none of those three were willing to sign here for whatever reasons and we have no way to extract the truth. However, the flip side of that coin is that I only looked at NHL UFAs. There's also the trade market and the EU Free Agents, which means that the pool from which I'm drawing is assuredly significantly smaller than Fletcher's options last summer.

I didn't consider what those guys were doing this year because that's backseat driving to me, but I'm willing to play along. Any seasons like Hagg's 16-17 where he played one Game would not be fair points of comparison, so I will leave them out. The following chart is for 5v5 only. If anyone isn't familiar with the metrics used, positive is good in all but the last column (HockeyViz Defensive Isolate).

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table, border-width: 2px"][THEAD][TR="bgcolor: #8DAAE0"][TD][/TD]
[TD]CF% Rel[/TD][TD]xGF% Rel[/TD][TD]HV Off[/TD][TD] HV Def[/TD][/TR][/THEAD]
[TBODY][TR="bgcolor: #CAE6CD"][TD]Hagg [/TD][TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #CAE6CD"][TD]16-17[/TD][TD]N/A[/TD][TD]N/A[/TD][TD]N/A[/TD][TD] N/A[/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #CAE6CD"][TD]17-18[/TD][TD]-6.11[/TD][TD]-3.76[/TD][TD]-9.4[/TD][TD] +2.7[/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #CAE6CD"][TD]18-19[/TD][TD]-6.17[/TD][TD]-6.28[/TD][TD]-11.8[/TD][TD]+19.2 [/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #CAE6CD"][TD] 19-20[/TD][TD]-9.31 [/TD][TD]-10.98 [/TD][TD]-17.4 [/TD][TD] +15.2[/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F092AD"][TD] MDZ[/TD][TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F092AD"][TD]16-17[/TD][TD]+1.42[/TD][TD]+2.32[/TD][TD]-5.1[/TD][TD] +9.6[/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F092AD"][TD]17-18[/TD][TD]-2.59[/TD][TD]-3.02[/TD][TD]-5.0[/TD][TD] +16.5[/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F092AD"][TD]18-19[/TD][TD]+1.90[/TD][TD]+1.81[/TD][TD]-0.6[/TD][TD]+14.7 [/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F092AD"][TD]19-20 [/TD][TD]-3.67 [/TD][TD] -3.74[/TD][TD] -4.9[/TD][TD]+12.7 [/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #B4B85A"][TD] Pouliot[/TD][TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #B4B85A"][TD]16-17[/TD][TD]-0.76[/TD][TD]-9.31[/TD][TD]-17.4[/TD][TD] +17.6[/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #B4B85A"][TD]17-18[/TD][TD]+3.41[/TD][TD]+3.45[/TD][TD]-7.7[/TD][TD] +6.3[/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #B4B85A"][TD]18-19[/TD][TD]+3.48[/TD][TD]+3.07[/TD][TD]-5.0[/TD][TD] +15.7[/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #B4B85A"][TD] 19-20[/TD][TD]N/A [/TD][TD]N/A [/TD][TD] N/A[/TD][TD] N/A[/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #8AA2AB"][TD]Marincin [/TD][TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #8AA2AB"][TD]16-17[/TD][TD]+2.71[/TD][TD]+3.29[/TD][TD]+10.3[/TD][TD]+7.6 [/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #8AA2AB"][TD]17-18[/TD][TD]N/A[/TD][TD]N/A[/TD][TD]N/A[/TD][TD]N/A [/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #8AA2AB"][TD]18-19[/TD][TD]+1.72[/TD][TD]+6.14[/TD][TD]-1.7[/TD][TD]+5.7 [/TD][/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #8AA2AB"][TD] 19-20[/TD][TD] +2.39[/TD][TD]+0.44 [/TD][TD] -0.7[/TD][TD] +6.7[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
Again, none of them are actively good at this point. However, all were bargain basement UFAs. All were measurably and significantly less terrible than the avenue Fletcher chose.

Yeah, you're talking minor upgrades with players who have no upside for what was after the June moves a 7th or 8th D-man role.
Flyers had their top six, Morin guaranteed a spot, Hagg as #7/#8, Friedman as #9. Bigras, Welenski and Witherspoon all with NHL experience.
Now if you're a marginal FA, would you choose to come here?
It's not like you can sit in the press box and luck into a ring, unlike say Toronto.

Hagg is only 24 in his 3rd NHL season, it's not unreasonable that a new GM/HC would like to find out if they could coach him up, given his low cost and physical skill package, versus a "bidding war" for a marginal talent with no upside. Players that age have turned the corner, and the downside was pretty small, basically he shows nothing and Morin beats him out.

People say I "defend" these decisions, it's more like I try to figure out ex ante WHY the FO makes decisions.
A lot of people attack decisions ex post, ignoring the risk/return calculus ex ante. Sometimes gambles don't work out.

 

[Striiker]

no, but when you word it like that you come off as talking down to people. Just sayin man

I understand what you’re saying. Don’t worry, it’s not directed at you or the majority of people on here, even ones who I disagree with.

Like I mentioned before, it’s a very specific group of people these posts are directed at. Maybe like 5 or so people, unless I’m forgetting some. They know who they are and there’s a reason they don’t get talked to with respect. Different opinions are fine, even an innocent/honest lack of knowledge is fine, but intentional dishonesty is not. That’s where I draw the line.

 

[bobbythebrain]

So what you're saying is:

Tampa's stacked forwards and stacked D couldn't beat a team that had neither.

So you're using 1 playoff round to make a general statement. Just want to make sure we are on the same page of logic here. So by your metric then Brayden Schenn is better than Connor MacDavid b/c he won a Stanley Cup.

That Capitals stacked forwards couldn't beat a team that was built around its defense, and had Petr Mrazek and McBackup as their goalies (since we now want to nuance this debate and add stipulations for context)

What part of they won by 1 goal did you miss? Also, it's a playoff round, I believe you're smart enough to know the best team doesn't always win.

And that Toronto, a team that went with the stack forward group has failed miserably.

Already explained that after Reilly, the quality of D dropped off huge

Theres also no mention of Nashville in your post - care to comment?

Yup. Nashville has a stacked D. No doubt

But I see there's no mention of Pitsburgh in your little post. You know that team that won it's last 2 cups based on a stacked offense which you claim never happens. That team had Letang who is a stud, but after that nobody was claiming that Pit had a strong D,,,infact, it was shocking they won w/ such a thin dcore, altho, they definitely weren't as thin as TO's


Just want to make sure were on the same page that in recent history, stacked forward groups/offensive firepower teams tend to not fair so well.

See above for disputed logic

 

[Starat327]

I'm not going to do a continuous back and forth with you. You asserted that teams are better off with stacked forwards than D, and i've demonstrated pretty thoroughly that that isnt the case in recent years. I acknowledged the Penguins in my first post, with mention of "outside of teams chock full of generational (i know we struggle with these adjectives lately, but im hoping we dont have to go down that part again) talents, teams who focus on offensive firepower tend to not fare as well". But, since you went there - its seems having a generational and franchise level (again, adjectives are hard) talent in Edmonton hasnt been super successful, either. Weird how that works out.

You seemingly acknowledge that Toronto's effort to build a team around offensive firepower while neglecting their D is somehow defensible with"yeah, but their D is terrible". Well yeah, thats kind of the crux of the debate - they stacked their forwards, did nothing on D, and can't win. Thats literally what were talking about - making your forwards stronger at the cost of your D isnt demonstrating to be a good idea.

Also, the idea behind a 7 game series is that the better team wins. Is it perfect? No. But when it mattered the teams who played better defense (Canes and Jackets) beat the teams who were known to be offensive firepower teams (Bolts and Caps). It mitigates small samples, allows teams to adjust to opponents, and play to their strengths.. Now, had you said "Hedman was hurt, and that probably impacted the series" maybe id have given you some credence, but since you went out instead and said Tampa's D core was superior to CBJs as well, I guess it shouldnt have mattered. Put down the shovel.

Lastly, somehow straw-manning "this team has a better D, and is a good indicator that thats whats important" to "Brayden Schenn is better than McDavid because he won a cup" is a strawman of insanely utterly epic proportions. We're talking about a team philosophy, not individual players. Ive also provided MULTIPLE examples, and yet somehow, thats construed as "1 playoff round". A simple "Hey, yeah I'd agree that recently, teams who focus on better D tend to do better in the long run than teams who stack offensive firepower" would have sufficed, and saved a lot of egg here. But hey, everyone has their own prerogatives, I suppose.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Yeah, you're talking minor upgrades with players who have no upside for what was after the June moves a 7th or 8th D-man role.
Flyers had their top six, Morin guaranteed a spot, Hagg as #7/#8, Friedman as #9. Bigras, Welenski and Witherspoon all with NHL experience.
Now if you're a marginal FA, would you choose to come here?
It's not like you can sit in the press box and luck into a ring, unlike say Toronto.

Hagg is only 24 in his 3rd NHL season, it's not unreasonable that a new GM/HC would like to find out if they could coach him up, given his low cost and physical skill package, versus a "bidding war" for a marginal talent with no upside. Players that age have turned the corner, and the downside was pretty small, basically he shows nothing and Morin beats him out.

People say I "defend" these decisions, it's more like I try to figure out ex ante WHY the FO makes decisions.
A lot of people attack decisions ex post, ignoring the risk/return calculus ex ante. Sometimes gambles don't work out.

Well that's part of why I picked those three. They were paid so little that you could have offered them slightly more and probably could have gotten one at a slightly lower cap hit than Hagg with the benefit of the pick he returned. Or traded the pick for someone better.

I agree that the organizational thinking was along the lines of what you're suggesting, but as you're aware, I've never thought he was even good at the AHL level. My opinion of him as a player is certainly incomplete, but there are no signs. There are no glimmers of hope. It's a wing and a prayer and an NHL org should be able to do better than that.

There was an opportunity to work the margins. They passed that up for a long shot. I'm personally never going to be happy with that approach. I know you think there's more of a chance there's reasonable but significant improvement to come than I do, but I would guess that you don't find it a sizable one either?

 

[BritainStix]

There's a whole lot of falsehood here.

Anyone who plays below their full market value is on a steal of a contract. Being utilized with bottom six players has a tremendous impact on someone's production; it's not like Ghost can operate his linemates like meat puppets to make them finish or set him up. You've elected to ignore the fact that he's absurdly good at moving play from his own end up the ice, which is of great value all on its own and gets those guys paid.

There aren't many more. It's an exercise we've played here numerous times. Those who exist don't get traded away often if at all, because their utility and cap value are too high.

Is there a a particular reason why we are ignoring the tremendous importance of usage and linemates on production? Remember Couturier in the bottom six vs top six? It was an instant difference. Those paying close enough attention had no problem seeing Couturier would definitely be more productive if given more skilled linemates. You will produce more if you're passing/being set up by Giroux, than if you're doing the same with Raffl.

Oh, and before you accuse me of using strawmen, you should probably check your own post history. You've called for Ghost to be traded.

Honest question, do you know what a strawman argument is? It doesn't appear that you do. You have branched off into 4 seperate arguments with me alone.

Also a steal of a contract would be someone far exceeding their contract value, hence the term a "steal". Not someone that is playing marginally above their monetary amount.

They know who they are and there’s a reason they don’t get talked to with respect.

oh no.....

 

[kudymen]

Digging deeper should be an olympic discipline.
It would keep some busy

 

[Beef Invictus]

Honest question, do you know what a strawman argument is? It doesn't appear that you do. You have branched off into 4 seperate arguments with me alone.

Also a steal of a contract would be someone far exceeding their contract value, hence the term a "steal". Not someone that is playing marginally above their monetary amount.



oh no.....

A strawman is when you set up an argument that someone hasn't put forth. You have said in the past that Ghost should be on the block. So I wasn't setting one up there, just going off what you said. We are still discussing the exact same topic here, so I have no idea what you're gibbering about.

Ghost isn't playing "marginally" above his monetary amount, either. Again, we can look at the example of Carle. A player who was worse defensively and offensively than Ghost, but who was very good in transition. That alone got him a 9% cap share, which was and still is the norm for players like him hitting UFA. Ghost is easily as good in transition, is more effective defensively than he was, and is better offensively.

Getting these players at lower than full market rate is what makes RFAs and ELCs so vital in the cap era. Trading those values away for less cap efficiency is how you end up in the Holmgren Cap Pit.

 

[bobbythebrain]

I'm not going to do a continuous back and forth with you. You asserted that teams are better off with stacked forwards than D, and i've demonstrated pretty thoroughly that that isnt the case in recent years. I acknowledged the Penguins in my first post, with mention of "outside of teams chock full of generational (i know we struggle with these adjectives lately, but im hoping we dont have to go down that part again) talents, teams who focus on offensive firepower tend to not fare as well". But, since you went there - its seems having a generational and franchise level (again, adjectives are hard) talent in Edmonton hasnt been super successful, either. Weird how that works out.

You seemingly acknowledge that Toronto's effort to build a team around offensive firepower while neglecting their D is somehow defensible with"yeah, but their D is terrible". Well yeah, thats kind of the crux of the debate - they stacked their forwards, did nothing on D, and can't win. Thats literally what were talking about - making your forwards stronger at the cost of your D isnt demonstrating to be a good idea.

Also, the idea behind a 7 game series is that the better team wins. Is it perfect? No. But when it mattered the teams who played better defense (Canes and Jackets) beat the teams who were known to be offensive firepower teams (Bolts and Caps). It mitigates small samples, allows teams to adjust to opponents, and play to their strengths.. Now, had you said "Hedman was hurt, and that probably impacted the series" maybe id have given you some credence, but since you went out instead and said Tampa's D core was superior to CBJs as well, I guess it shouldnt have mattered. Put down the shovel.

Lastly, somehow straw-manning "this team has a better D, and is a good indicator that thats whats important" to "Brayden Schenn is better than McDavid because he won a cup" is a strawman of insanely utterly epic proportions. We're talking about a team philosophy, not individual players. Ive also provided MULTIPLE examples, and yet somehow, thats construed as "1 playoff round". A simple "Hey, yeah I'd agree that recently, teams who focus on better D tend to do better in the long run than teams who stack offensive firepower" would have sufficed, and saved a lot of egg here. But hey, everyone has their own prerogatives, I suppose.

Ya, but what you did in your little tirade is focus on one thing, and one thing only. You completely ommited the part where I said I believe that we have a pretty decent top 4 already...so losing Ghost for an effective 3rd C wouldn't be as detrimental as some suggest. Not a warm body mind you....but a legit C

What you also conviantely fail to mention is that all the recent cup teams have one thing in common....they bolstered their 3rd line C

 

[Beef Invictus]

Ya, but what you did in your little tirade is focus on one thing, and one thing only. You completely ommited the part where I said I believe that we have a pretty decent top 4 already...so losing Ghost for an effective 3rd C wouldn't be as detrimental as some suggest. Not a warm body mind you....but a legit C

What you also conviantely fail to mention is that all the recent cup teams have one thing in common....they bolstered their 3rd line C

Remember when we neglected the third pair for years? How did that turn out?

Our strong forward group and the top 4 couldn't bail it out. We can upgrade our 3C for free with Frost. I doubt the utility of making our defense worse to accomplish something we can do for nothing without downgrading defense.

 

[deadhead]

There are different ways of building top teams. Let's look at SB winners since 2012-13

2013-14: Kings.
GF 25th, GA 1st
Kopitar (47), J Williams (36), Carter (35) - only forwards with 30+ ES points. Voynov (21), Doughty (20). ST goals 48 for/56 against. 3 goalies, cumulative .923 S%
PO (26 games): Kopitar (26), Carter (25), Williams (25), Gaborik (22), Toffoli (14), D Brown (14), Doughty (18), Muzzin (12). 20 PP goals. Quick .911 S%
(total scoring, HR didn't break out ES/PP that year)
Gaborik was TDL pickup for 2nd, 3rd rd picks.

2014-15: Chicago
GF 16th, GA 1st
Toews (46), Kane (42), Hossa (43), Saad (42), Richards (30), Sharp (29), Keith (28). ST 49/42. 3 goalies, .928 S%.
PO (23g): Kane (16), Toews (14), Hossa (11), Sharp (11), Richards (10), Saad (10), Keith (16), Seabrook (10). 12 PP goals. Crawford/Darling .926 S%.

2015-16: Pittsburgh
GF 3rd, GA 6th
Crosby (61), Malkin (31, 57g), Kessel (42), Kunitz (34), Hornqvist (32), Letang (37), ST 59/45. 3 goalies, .921 S%.
PO (24g): Hagelin (15), Bonino (14), Kessel (11), Crosby (10), Hornqvist (10), Malkin (9), Letang (9), 18 PP, 1 SH goal. Murray (20 st) .923 S%

2016-17: Pittsburgh
GF 1st, GA 17th
Crosby (64), Malkin (49, 62g), Sheary (48), Kessel (40), Guentzel (30, 40g), Rust (27, 57g), Schultz (31), Letang (19), ST 65/59, Murray/Fleury .917 S%
PO (25g): Crosby (18), Guentzel (17), Malkin (16), Kessel (11), Kunitz (10), Schultz (6), PP 16, SH 2 goals. Fleury/Murray .929 S%

2017-18: Washington
GF 9th, GA 15th
Ovechkin (56), Kuznetsov (52), Backstrom (45), Wilson (33), Eller (32), Oshie (29), Carlson (39), Niskanen (28), Orlov (27), ST 59/57. Holtby/Grubeur .913 S%
PO (24g): Kuznetsov (20), Ovechkin (16), Wilson (15), Eller (14), Backstrom (10), Oshie (10), 22 PP goals. Holtby (22st) .922 S%.

2018-19: St Louis
GF 15, GA 6th
ROR (52), Tarasenko (46), Schenn (42), Perron (32), Schwartz (31), Bozak (30), Dunn (27), Pietrangelo (25), ST 55/50. Binnington/Allen .910 S%.
PO (26g): ROR (18), Schwartz (18), Perron (12), Tarasenko (10), Bozak (10), Schenn (9), Pietrangelo (15), Parayko (9). 13 PP. Binnington .914 S%

Conclusions:
1) you can have either a top offense and mediocre defense, or average offense and top defense.
2) teams rarely have more than 2 lines of 30+ ES scorers, your bottom six just has to tread water
3) teams rarely have more than one D-man who's a top offensive force at ES, if you have two, then less pressure on forwards to score
4) you don't need superstars, they help but balanced scoring over two lines is just as good.
5) the key on STs isn't PP scoring, but overall play on both PP and PK, only 2015-16 Pens have a big ST goal margin. Hot PP helps in playoffs
6) a hot goalie in the playoffs really helps, but you can win with average or slightly above average goalie play, see Quick and Binnington.

The absence of Lindblom and Patrick really hurts, because with them the Flyers have two solid lines and the depth to fill out the bottom six.
Hart's development is the key issue, he has to become the guy who can carry them through the playoffs.
Flyers have better defenseman offense than most SC winners. That reduces the need to develop superstar forwards. But they need to play better defense.

 

[Starat327]

Ya, but what you did in your little tirade is focus on one thing, and one thing only. You completely ommited the part where I said I believe that we have a pretty decent top 4 already...so losing Ghost for an effective 3rd C wouldn't be as detrimental as some suggest. Not a warm body mind you....but a legit C

What you also conviantely fail to mention is that all the recent cup teams have one thing in common....they bolstered their 3rd line C

Tirade? Theres no tirade there, just a presentation of facts. I'm sorry that those facts go against you're preferred method of having a stacked forward group instead of a strong D core and the effects that has on playoff chances.

Remember when we lost because we had to play a combination of players on our third pair that were out of the NHL shortly after, like Ryan Parent? Having a 3ed pair that can reliably play more than 10 minutes a game is a huge boon. Look at the blues last year - stacked D and defensively responsible forwards. Kings? Stacked D and defensively responsible forwards. Chicago? Stacked D and defensively responsible forwards, though having a franchise winger like Kane doesnt hurt. The penguins are the exception to the rule, and this is, again, because it's rare to be able to play 2/3 of the game with a generational talent on the ice.

Theres also a wild difference in "upgrading a 3C" to having "stacked forwards". Nashville upgraded their 3C to one of the best in the game, and it largely had no impact on their overall results - still a good team carried by their D.

 

[Starat327]

Remember when we neglected the third pair for years? How did that turn out?

Our strong forward group and the top 4 couldn't bail it out. We can upgrade our 3C for free with Frost. I doubt the utility of making our defense worse to accomplish something we can do for nothing without downgrading defense.

Heh, great minds.

 

[TCTC]

Remember when we neglected the third pair for years? How did that turn out?

Our strong forward group and the top 4 couldn't bail it out. We can upgrade our 3C for free with Frost. I doubt the utility of making our defense worse to accomplish something we can do for nothing without downgrading defense.

I thought it was Leighton's fault.

 

[kudymen]

This is getting painful again. See you in part XXX

edit a minute later - oh it truly is

 

[bobbythebrain]

Tirade? Theres no tirade there, just a presentation of facts. I'm sorry that those facts go against you're preferred method of having a stacked forward group instead of a strong D core and the effects that has on playoff chances.

Remember when we lost because we had to play a combination of players on our third pair that were out of the NHL shortly after, like Ryan Parent? Having a 3ed pair that can reliably play more than 10 minutes a game is a huge boon. Look at the blues last year - stacked D and defensively responsible forwards. Kings? Stacked D and defensively responsible forwards. Chicago? Stacked D and defensively responsible forwards, though having a franchise winger like Kane doesnt hurt. The penguins are the exception to the rule, and this is, again, because it's rare to be able to play 2/3 of the game with a generational talent on the ice.

Theres also a wild difference in "upgrading a 3C" to having "stacked forwards". Nashville upgraded their 3C to one of the best in the game, and it largely had no impact on their overall results - still a good team carried by their D.

I wouldn't call Bortuzzo and Gunnarson a "stacked" d, but yes, the strength of Parayko and Peitrangelo makes it a strong dcore

The Kings? I recall they traded their (at the time) perceived stud dman playing 20+ min a night for Jeff Carter, and then won the cup

Chi? I recall they added Brad Richards


We did that this summer, adding Hayes to slowly get passed by Patrick...but we see that isn't happening

IMO the best chance to contend THIS year would be to fill that 3c with a legit C

 

[BiggE]

Cups are won mainly with 2 things.
1. Stellar goaltending
2. Great depth

A deep team with a hot goalie gives you the best chance to win

 

[deadhead]

Problem is this season, given Frost's sheltered play and his precipitous drop off his last 8-10 games or so, and his failure to dominate the AHL, you have to wonder if he's much of an upgrade this year. He'd give them more offense, but would be a liability on the road. He's a work in progress, but is physically underdeveloped v Suzuki or other fast talented centers at 20 like Barzal. And it matters because Frost doesn't have the "shake and bake" of many undersized forwards who succeed at a young age.

A veteran bottom six center would solidify the lines for a playoff run, but with Patrick in the wings, and Frost a good bet to win a job next season as he physically matures and gets professional experience in the AHL - not worth an overpay this season when Hart isn't ready for a long playoff run.

 

[bobbythebrain]

Remember when we neglected the third pair for years? How did that turn out?

Our strong forward group and the top 4 couldn't bail it out. We can upgrade our 3C for free with Frost. I doubt the utility of making our defense worse to accomplish something we can do for nothing without downgrading defense.

Frosty...love that kid. But he's not a guarantee needle mover this year

I'm of the opinion that BOS sees themselves as a cup contender every year. So what did they do last year? They had Donato showing decent offense also...but they elected to go into the playoffs not banking on their rookie and instead traded for a legit player in Coyle