Rumor: 2023-24 Trade Rumors and Free Agency: Season Thread

[lionsDen]

Typical answers from non-hockey players. I'm 6'12 and 457lbs, I'll beat anyone, including MacDermid's scrawny @$$ any day of the week!

Maybe in sumo

 

[Bender]

Yeah, that “if you disagree with me, you’ve never played competitive hockey” thing used to be much more prevalent in here. Hope it doesn’t make a comeback.

If ANY of you ever disagree with me for any reason : you've never played competitive hockey!

 

[Foppa2118]

Crazy how he's prevented all those dirty hits on Byram. That's worth it alone.

 

[Pokecheque]

Well it's kinda true.

People who have played at a high level know more than someone who hasn't. It's not rocket science.

And I'm telling you, playing against a team that had guys who were physically imposing changed the way you played against them.

The guys who would normally run around suddenly didn't run around as much if there was even the chance they would get smacked in the mouth.

I've played against teams that didn't have nearly the amount of skill we had but they were massive farm boys and tough as nails. They were extremely hard to play against.

Yeah it sure worked to have Reaves on the Toronto bench against Boston didn’t it.

 

[ANewHope]

If ANY of you ever disagree with me for any reason : you've never played competitive hockey!

I do think this one is different tho. Your being told by players for the most part that they think differently when those guys are on the ice. At that point your just pretending that it doesn't exist and your opinion is more important than what actual players think. I think it's the rare case where you probably do need to have played hockey/know people who did to understand it fully.

The impact/how important it is is certainly debatable. Especially nowadays. I'd be fine with Dermy being swapped out for a useful hockey player.

 

[The Abusement Park]

If Macdermid could actually play every game(or if it was pre 2003) I’d slightly understand him being on the roster. The issue is he plays ~45 games a season and is such a liability at actual hockey Bednar can’t even play him 9 minutes a game…

 

[ANewHope]

Yeah it sure worked to have Reaves on the Toronto bench against Boston didn’t it.

I'll never get this side of the argument. Dirty hits are going to happen no matter what. Enforcers, rule changes, suspensions/fines etc. Some people don't like to hear it but dirty hits are and will forever be apart of hockey no matter what. With how fast the game is and how quick decisions are made you could ban hitting and you'd still get some dirty collisions now and than.

Having players like Dermy/Reaves don't guarantee you zero injuries/dirty hits. They just make players think twice occasionally. Even just with confidence on your own team. Your rarely going to see the impact for yourself. I do agree it's certainly way less valuable in today's era and there's a good argument against it.

 

[Alienblood]

I'll never get this side of the argument. Dirty hits are going to happen no matter what. Enforcers, rule changes, suspensions/fines etc. Some people don't like to hear it but dirty hits are and will forever be apart of hockey no matter what. With how fast the game is and how quick decisions are made you could ban hitting and you'd still get some dirty collisions now and than.

Having players like Dermy/Reaves don't guarantee you zero injuries/dirty hits. They just make players think twice occasionally. Even just with confidence on your own team. Your rarely going to see the impact for yourself. I do agree it's certainly way less valuable in today's era and there's a good argument against it.

well said

 

[Foppa2118]

I do think this one is different tho. Your being told by players for the most part that they think differently when those guys are on the ice. At that point your just pretending that it doesn't exist and your opinion is more important than what actual players think. I think it's the rare case where you probably do need to have played hockey/know people who did to understand it fully.

The impact/how important it is is certainly debatable. Especially nowadays. I'd be fine with Dermy being swapped out for a useful hockey player.

I don't think you need to have played the game to understand this concept (though it obviously helps) and like I said before, it's hard to prove a negative on this, that Dermy actually deterred hits that never happened.

But one of the best arugments that he does, is how the players want him on the team. He makes them feel a few inches taller out on the ice, but more importantly, I think the real reason they like Dermy or Reeves on their team, is they know they think twice about making questionable hits when guys like that are on the other team. So they want them on their team to make the opposition think twice.

Not every time like we both have said, but sometimes. I just don't see a good argument that he has no impact as a deterrent. Maybe not as much as in the past, and it's up for debate whether it's worth it in today's game, but he's not a non factor in this regard.

Players like Nate, who has such high standards for the way his teammates make plays with the puck, doesn't love Dermy on the team just for his personality.

 

[The Moops]

I don't think you need to have played the game to understand this concept (though it obviously helps) and like I said before, it's hard to prove a negative on this, that Dermy actually deterred hits that never happened.

But one of the best arugments that he does, is how the players want him on the team. He makes them feel a few inches taller out on the ice, but more importantly, I think the real reason they like Dermy or Reeves on their team, is they know they think twice about making questionable hits when guys like that are on the other team. So they want them on their team to make the opposition think twice.

Not every time like we both have said, but sometimes. I just don't see a good argument that he has no impact as a deterrent. Maybe not as much as in the past, and it's up for debate whether it's worth it in today's game, but he's not a non factor in this regard.

Players like Nate, who has such high standards for the way his teammates make plays with the puck, doesn't love Dermy on the team just for his personality.

Even if the premise is true (I'm not necessarily saying it's not), MacD isn't the guy to do it be doing it. He has never jumped anyone, and honestly I can't remember him even catching someone with a hit.

Naz and Landy could do both

Hit me up when MacD does something like this

 

[Pokecheque]

Having players like Dermy/Reaves don't guarantee you zero injuries/dirty hits. They just make players think twice occasionally. Even just with confidence on your own team. Your rarely going to see the impact for yourself. I do agree it's certainly way less valuable in today's era and there's a good argument against it.

No. They don’t. They never have and they never will. If anything they ESCALATE the violence. They don’t deter it. Guys like Frederic or Marchand don’t give one f*** that there’s some big oaf on the opposing bench with fists. Matt Cooke never hesitated because someone like Derek Boogaard was on the ice.

They make your team *feel* tougher, bigger, yes. That is the only conceivable argument to justify getting a guy on your team who can’t play a lick. But in the case of Reaves, the Leafs are realizing what the Rangers and Wylde realized last year—that he’s such an absolute detriment to any positive on-ice results that he’s not worth having around even as some kind of morale booster.

 

[Foppa2118]

Even if the premise is true (I'm not necessarily saying it's not), MacD isn't the guy to do it be doing it. He has never jumped anyone, and honestly I can't remember him even catching someone with a hit.

Naz and Landy could do both

Hit me up when MacD does something like this

A missing factor in this is that he's a heavyweight. And not just any heavyweight, arguably the toughest in the league. Reaves turns him down for fights all the time, including that Trouba game.

Smaller guys can square up with a guy, or grab a hold of them, and guys in their weight class will drop the gloves and fight.

Very few smaller guys are going to do that with MacDermid, and he still goes by the old school code, that you don't go after smaller guys when you're a heavyweight. And nearly all of the league is guys smaller than heavyweights now.

This is admittedly an argument in your favor of how much benefit there is for pure enforcers in today's game though.

 

[Foppa2118]

No. They don’t. They never have and they never will. If anything they ESCALATE the violence. They don’t deter it. Guys like Frederic or Marchand don’t give one f*** that there’s some big oaf on the opposing bench with fists. Matt Cooke never hesitated because someone like Derek Boogaard was on the ice.

They make your team *feel* tougher, bigger, yes. That is the only conceivable argument to justify getting a guy on your team who can’t play a lick. But in the case of Reaves, the Leafs are realizing what the Rangers and Wylde realized last year—that he’s such an absolute detriment to any positive on-ice results that he’s not worth having around even as some kind of morale booster.

If enforcers still do deter bad hits though, how would we know? How could we get inside the opponents head and prove that's why they pulled up on a bad hit that never happened?

It's like knowing if speed limits or DUI arrests have saved your life before.

People still die from reckless or drunk drivers hitting them. Does that mean speed limits and DUI arrests don't deter people from speeding or driving drunk?

Just like enforcers, they deters some people, in some situations, but not everyone, in all situations. Everyone is different and different scenarios cause different reactions.

Maybe one game a guy is wired up and isn't thinking about the consequences of a reckless hit, so he make it. But then another game that same guy is a little banged up, or just fought someone the last game and got his bell rung, and doesn't feel like fighting that night, so he tones things down. Or an AHL scrub in pre-season slams Bo's head into the glass in pre-season, but then an NHL regular who knows they'll see MacDermid and the Avs again, pulls up on a hit with Bo in a dangerous position.

I guarantee you these situations have played out before with MacDermid. How often and whether it's often enough to play MacDermid over someone else in today's game is debatable though.

 

[Pokecheque]

If enforcers still do deter bad hits though, how would we know? How could we get inside the opponents head and prove that's why they pulled up on a bad hit that never happened?

It's like knowing if speed limits or DUI arrests have saved your life before.

People still die from reckless or drunk drivers hitting them. Does that mean speed limits and DUI arrests don't deter people from speeding or driving drunk?

Just like enforcers, they deters some people, in some situations, but not everyone, in all situations. Everyone is different and different scenarios cause different reactions.

Maybe one game a guy is wired up and isn't thinking about the consequences of a reckless hit, so he make it. But then another game that same guy is a little banged up, or just fought someone the last game and got his bell rung, and doesn't feel like fighting that night, so he tones things down. Or an AHL scrub in pre-season slams Bo's head into the glass in pre-season, but then an NHL regular who knows they'll see MacDermid and the Avs again, pulls up on a hit with Bo in a dangerous position.

I guarantee you these situations have played out before with MacDermid. How often and whether it's often enough to play MacDermid over someone else in today's game is debatable though.

See I don’t buy this. This has always been the argument. Because it’s this weird, intangible, indiscernible thing, there’s no way whatsoever to measure it or even determine whether or not it exists. It’s the Mythical Unicorn of Deterrence as far as I’m concerned because MAYBE this one guy pulled up on a potential hit, or maybe that other guy thought twice earlier in the game before lowering his cheap shot in the third period. Nope. Sorry. I’ve seen way too much evidence to the contrary.

There’s just too much heavy lifting involved to justify the whole myth of “The Deterrent” for me to believe it’s real.

As for your “DUI” analogy, yes, the threat of actual, material, REAL punishment deters people from committing crime. And the only effective way you cut down on cheap shots in hockey is if DOPS actually does its job and hands down severe penalties. Then players either clean up their act or teams won’t keep them around any longer.

Goons are not the threat of “real” punishment. They’re the equivalent of “Scared Straight.” Anyone who doesn’t know what that is should look it up.

 

[Foppa2118]

See I don’t buy this. This has always been the argument. Because it’s this weird, intangible, indiscernible thing, there’s no way whatsoever to measure it or even determine whether or not it exists. It’s the Mythical Unicorn of Deterrence as far as I’m concerned because MAYBE this one guy pulled up on a potential hit, or maybe that other guy thought twice earlier in the game before lowering his cheap shot in the third period. Nope. Sorry. I’ve seen way too much evidence to the contrary.

There’s just too much heavy lifting involved to justify the whole myth of “The Deterrent” for me to believe it’s real.

As for your “DUI” analogy, yes, the threat of actual, material, REAL punishment deters people from committing crime. And the only effective way you cut down on cheap shots in hockey is if DOPS actually does its job and hands down severe penalties. Then players either clean up their act or teams won’t keep them around any longer.

Goons are not the threat of “real” punishment. They’re the equivalent of “Scared Straight.” Anyone who doesn’t know what that is should look it up.

If this were a good counter arugment though, that would mean enforcers were never a deterrent. That only the DoPS has been able to deter bad hits.

That it's always just been smoke and mirrors, and Wilson passed up that hit on MacKinnon because he was worried about getting suspended, and Trouba ran away from MacDermid out of position because he's bad at hockey, and nobody has ever changed their game because MacDermid was playing.

I respect your difference of opinion, but that's a ton of heavy lifting yourself, and not really believable IMO. Most everyone believes enforcers used to deter bad plays, and it had the same problem back then of how do you prove someone deterred a hit that never happened.

Really the evidence that you have to contrary is that there are still bad hits. Which is why we keep saying that they deters some hits, but not all. There is no evidence to the contrary of this.

Saying we can't prove it isn't my argument. The best argument I see that enforcers still deter some bad plays, is that players still want guys like MacDermid and Reaves on their team. They know better than anyone whether enforcers still have an impact, and someone like Nate who won't hesitate to let his teammates have it when they make a bad pass in practice, isn't going to push to add a guy like MacDermid if he doesn't think he can help them in other ways.

 

[Pokecheque]

If this were a good counter arugment though, that would mean enforcers were never a deterrent. That only the DoPS has been able to deter bad hits.

That it's always just been smoke and mirrors, and Wilson passed up that hit on MacKinnon because he was worried about getting suspended, and Trouba ran away from MacDermid out of position because he's bad at hockey, and nobody has ever changed their game because MacDermid was playing.

I respect your difference of opinion, but that's a ton of heavy lifting yourself, and not really believable IMO. Most everyone believes enforcers used to deter bad plays, and it had the same problem back then of how do you prove someone deterred a hit that never happened.

Saying we can't prove it isn't my argument. The best argument I see that enforcers still deter some bad plays, is that players still want guys like MacDermid and Reaves on their team. They know better than anyone whether enforcers still have an impact, and someone like Nate who won't hesitate to let his teammates have it when they make a bad pass in practice, isn't going to push to sign a guy like MacDermid if he doesn't think he can help them in other ways.

DOPS COULD deter bad hits. They choose not to. They’re intentionally vague and erratic on how they hand out punishment. The fact they have a former goon running the joint just encapsulates what a joke that arm of the league is. They know if they actually did their job there’d be no reason whatsoever to further employ goons.

And just because a lot of well-respected hockey types believe that enforcers actually deter dirty hits doesn’t mean that it’s true.

And yes, I know, PLAYERS want guys like that. And that’s why they get them. I get it. But that’s the only justifiable reason. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, to coin a phrase from you.

I know a lot of people think MacDermid made Trouba skate a certain direction that one time but that’s just not enough for me.

 

[UncleRisto]

MacDermid is real f***ing bad at everything, and too much of a heavyweight to fight anyone. How is there this long of an argument?

 

[Vaslof]

I'll take MacDermid over some random AHL dude that would replace him

 

[Foppa2118]

MacDermid is real f***ing bad at everything, and too much of a heavyweight to fight anyone. How is there this long of an argument?

That's not really the discussion though. It's just one element of it. The discussion is about whether enforcers still deter bad plays. MacDermid still fights, and whether people want to fight him or not, doesn't really address whether he may still deter some bad hits.

I would also argue that it's very hard to believe that all of the people that turned down MacDermid for fights, weren't deterred from making questionable hits. They'd have to all be gutless rats that were scared to fight him, but not scared enough to change their game.

 

[Vaslof]

That's not really the discussion though. It's just one element of it. The discussion is about whether enforcers still deter bad plays. MacDermid still fights, and whether people want to fight him or not, doesn't really address whether he may still deter some bad hits.

I would also argue that it's very hard to believe that all of the people that turned down MacDermid for fights, weren't deterred from making questionable hits. They'd have to all be gutless rats that were scared to fight him, but not scared enough to change their game.

If anyone cares enough about this, they could go count things like hits that led to injury and number of fights in general. Compare pre-MacDermid era to post-MacDermid era. Then you would have actual data on this argument.

 

[Foppa2118]

DOPS COULD deter bad hits. They choose not to. They’re intentionally vague and erratic on how they hand out punishment. The fact they have a former goon running the joint just encapsulates what a joke that arm of the league is. They know if they actually did their job there’d be no reason whatsoever to further employ goons.

And just because a lot of well-respected hockey types believe that enforcers actually deter dirty hits doesn’t mean that it’s true.

And yes, I know, PLAYERS want guys like that. And that’s why they get them. I get it. But that’s the only justifiable reason. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, to coin a phrase from you.

I know a lot of people think MacDermid made Trouba skate a certain direction that one time but that’s just not enough for me.

Ok let’s simply it a little bit, and look at it this way.

Can we agree that enforcers used to deter some bad hits back in the day?

We’re there still bad hits back in the day?

I think the answer to both is yes, which disproves the notion that since there’s still bad hits, it means enforcers don’t deter bad hits anymore.

Which brings us back to the idea that sometimes they do and sometime they don't. Just like back in the day. Maybe even more so back in the day, even though I would agree that enforcers are less of a deterrent than they used to be.

 

[Foppa2118]

If anyone cares enough about this, they could go count things like hits that led to injury and number of fights in general. Compare pre-MacDermid era to post-MacDermid era. Then you would have actual data on this argument.

You could perhaps drill down on one specific player in the modern era like that, but I think the sample size would be too small to draw much of a conclusion from.

I thought about doing this for hits in general across the board, but you can't really do that accurately for this either. You can do that with things like seat belt laws or DUI arrests, versus deaths, because it's a massive sample, with a clear starting point, so it weeds out the variables.

But there's too many variables with hockey. They've made too many changes in the last 15-20 years. How do you control for all the things that could have an impact?

Was the increase/decrease because of enforcers or because the rule changes led to less enforcers and less physical hockey? How much of it was because the instigator was implemented? And how do we account for the DoPS changing their standards over a period of 5-10 years, and if that's the reason for more/less hits.

It would be interesting to see the data, but I'm not sure it would be worth the effort, because it wouldn't be a very scientific study.

 

[MacKaRant]

That's not really the discussion though. It's just one element of it. The discussion is about whether enforcers still deter bad plays. MacDermid still fights, and whether people want to fight him or not, doesn't really address whether he may still deter some bad hits.

I would also argue that it's very hard to believe that all of the people that turned down MacDermid for fights, weren't deterred from making questionable hits. They'd have to all be gutless rats that were scared to fight him, but not scared enough to change their game.

I keep thinking back to a Tony Twist interview that was in The Athletic a few months ago. There was a lot of word salad in there, but he also said that in order for deterrence to really work, an enforcer has to show he's willing to flip out on someone on the other team (whether in terms of a one-sided fight or repeated slashes to a star player) if liberties are being taken. Still waiting for MacDermid to do this to someone, who the league is put on notice and there is a more credible deterrent. Yeah, there was/is a code that you don't fight outside your weight class, but old school enforcers could be nasty in other ways toward the skill players on other teams as a way of message sending.

 

[ABasin]

Well it's kinda true.

People who have played at a high level know more than someone who hasn't. It's not rocket science.

I believe you missed my point.

It's your assumption that others haven't played at a competitive level - an assumption driven by the fact that they disagree with you - that fuels my distaste.

 

[ABasin]

If ANY of you ever disagree with me for any reason : you've never played competitive hockey!

I find that approach so intellectually lazy. "You obviously don't watch hockey" is another one. Talk about a couple of baseless assertions with zero factual evidence.

I mean, this is a hockey discussion board, we're debating crap all of the time. Given how long you and I have been in here, I suppose 100% of the other posters in this forum have never once laced up a pair of skates.