Speculation: 2024-25 Roster thread

[JAHV]

I didn’t say it was unprecedented, and it doesn’t change my opinion even if it’s happened a handful of times over the last 20-something years. Although it’s funny that basically Babcock’s entire toronto tenure was without a captain.

Maybe it’s part and parcel of a rebuild, which would make it just another aspect of a rebuild that I don’t like. And I don’t buy that the choice is between having no captain and having to name someone who isn’t captain material. If you don’t have ONE guy on your team who you can put in charge on the premise that he’s the guy while the next generation matures, you’ve mismanaged your team.

You did ask this question earlier:

I don’t follow other teams that closely but how often in the modern era has it happened that a team has gone multiple years without naming a captain, even an interim one?

The answer is that it's happened several times. I assumed you asked that question because the answer was relevant to your opinion as to the wisdom of not having a captain for a few seasons. The fact that several teams have done it means that it's not considered outlandish in NHL management circles.

There are always leaders among a group of athletes, and those leaders can speak up or be examples whether or not they wear a letter. But actually naming a captain sets the direction of the franchise. I don't think this is necessarily part of all rebuilds, but it probably tends to happen more in rebuilds because you've got older players moving in and out, and younger players who might not be ready.

You might be right that the Ducks are making a mistake by not having a named captain. I thought Killorn might be that guy as a bridge between Getzlaf and when one of the youngsters is ready. The fact that Killorn didn't get the job might mean several things. One of them could be that ownership and management over-value longevity in the captaincy role, having had Getzlaf for so long.

My feeling is that I want them to take their time and make sure the captain is the right guy. If Killorn or Fowler wasn't going to get the job, it's seems clear that they want it to be a youngster who keeps the role for a long time. Make sure it's the right one. Hopefully they make that decision during camp in the fall and this becomes moot. But I wouldn't be surprised if it takes them one more year. I WOULD be surprised if the Ducks don't have a captain in 2025.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

You did ask this question earlier:


The answer is that it's happened several times. I assumed you asked that question because the answer was relevant to your opinion as to the wisdom of not having a captain for a few seasons. The fact that several teams have done it means that it's not considered outlandish in NHL management circles.

There are always leaders among a group of athletes, and those leaders can speak up or be examples whether or not they wear a letter. But actually naming a captain sets the direction of the franchise. I don't think this is necessarily part of all rebuilds, but it probably tends to happen more in rebuilds because you've got older players moving in and out, and younger players who might not be ready.

You might be right that the Ducks are making a mistake by not having a named captain. I thought Killorn might be that guy as a bridge between Getzlaf and when one of the youngsters is ready. The fact that Killorn didn't get the job might mean several things. One of them could be that ownership and management over-value longevity in the captaincy role, having had Getzlaf for so long.

My feeling is that I want them to take their time and make sure the captain is the right guy. If Killorn or Fowler wasn't going to get the job, it's seems clear that they want it to be a youngster who keeps the role for a long time. Make sure it's the right one. Hopefully they make that decision during camp in the fall and this becomes moot. But I wouldn't be surprised if it takes them one more year. I WOULD be surprised if the Ducks don't have a captain in 2025.

Yeah I know what I asked, but I didn’t say that any answer would change my opinion. This is ALSO not me saying the information wasn’t relevant; it was. It just wasn’t material. Please don’t burden me with any more false binaries.

I agree it might mean several things, but most of them I don’t like. I don’t agree that waiting for a perfect choice is a good idea, to me that implicates a mindset that isn’t well suited to the challenge of harmonizing long-term planning with the needs of the moment, or with recognizing how those two things are interdependent. Developing a captain for the long term doesn’t mean you can’t have one now, and ignoring the needs of now can (and I think does) negatively impact long term development.

A captain CAN be direction setting but it can also just be an acknowledgment that this group of nimrods needs a leader to keep them from being completely hopeless. Expansion teams do this all the time, and so do most rebuilding teams. If management observes that “no one on this time is fit to be captain right now,” then its answer shouldn’t be to do nothing but wait. It should be to remedy the problem. If they’re really wetting their pants for Carlsson to be the guy because he’s well spoken or something, fine, but that shouldn’t preclude filling that role right now.

 

[JAHV]

Yeah I know what I asked, but I didn’t say that any answer would change my opinion. This is ALSO not me saying the information wasn’t relevant; it was. It just wasn’t material. Please don’t burden me with any more false binaries.

I agree it might mean several things, but most of them I don’t like. I don’t agree that waiting for a perfect choice is a good idea, to me that implicates a mindset that isn’t well suited to the challenge of harmonizing long-term planning with the needs of the moment, or with recognizing how those two things are interdependent. Developing a captain for the long term doesn’t mean you can’t have one now, and ignoring the needs of now can (and I think does) negatively impact long term development.

A captain CAN be direction setting but it can also just be an acknowledgment that this group of nimrods needs a leader to keep them from being completely hopeless. Expansion teams do this all the time, and so do most rebuilding teams. If management observes that “no one on this time is fit to be captain right now,” then its answer shouldn’t be to do nothing but wait. It should be to remedy the problem. If they’re really wetting their pants for Carlsson to be the guy because he’s well spoken or something, fine, but that shouldn’t preclude filling that role right now.

That's fine if the answer didn't change your opinion, but I did some research to answer your question in good faith; a little less dismissiveness of the research could have made the discussion more pleasant.

The Ducks aren't necessarily waiting for the perfect choice; they're waiting for one that meets their standards. And this group of nimrods has plenty of leaders - Killorn, Gudas, Fowler, Terry, McTavish (by all accounts). There just isn't one the team feels meets their standards to wear the C.

Perhaps Killorn was the guy they wanted for that role (the language used when they signed him seemed to indicate he was meant to be a veteran leader) but either he didn't want the captaincy or the team felt someone else deserved it more but wasn't ready. The team also went after Stamkos this offseason, perhaps to fill that role, but weren't able to get him.

I definitely think it would be a mistake to have an interim captain if the team has someone else in mind to step into the role in the near future. Awarding a captaincy and then stripping it has the potential to be more painful, in my opinion, than simply not having one and letting the natural leaders in the room lead without the letter 'C' on their jersey. And I think it would also be a mistake to go get a player solely for the purpose of being the captain if that player doesn't fit the roster in other ways. I think Stamkos was a good fit, but he's in Nashville.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

That's fine if the answer didn't change your opinion, but I did some research to answer your question in good faith; a little less dismissiveness of the research could have made the discussion more pleasant.

Fair enough.

The Ducks aren't necessarily waiting for the perfect choice; they're waiting for one that meets their standards. And this group of nimrods has plenty of leaders - Killorn, Gudas, Fowler, Terry, McTavish (by all accounts). There just isn't one the team feels meets their standards to wear the C.

This is sophistry.

Perhaps Killorn was the guy they wanted for that role (the language used when they signed him seemed to indicate he was meant to be a veteran leader) but either he didn't want the captaincy or the team felt someone else deserved it more but wasn't ready. The team also went after Stamkos this offseason, perhaps to fill that role, but weren't able to get him.

I definitely think it would be a mistake to have an interim captain if the team has someone else in mind to step into the role in the near future. Awarding a captaincy and then stripping it has the potential to be more painful, in my opinion, than simply not having one and letting the natural leaders in the room lead without the letter 'C' on their jersey. And I think it would also be a mistake to go get a player solely for the purpose of being the captain if that player doesn't fit the roster in other ways. I think Stamkos was a good fit, but he's in Nashville.

Ultimately this boils down to you being willing to imagine acceptable reasons for not having a captain and then believing that those reasons are driving the decision. I’ve noticed that you’re pretty credulous when it comes to coaching/management decisions, maybe because you’re a coach yourself.

I’m not, and I’m not willing, and I don’t think there’s a good reason to wait this long that doesn’t implicate poor management. “Painful” I don’t buy for a second so long as the terms of the captaincy are clear from the beginning, so if it’s painful, again, that’s a matter of mismanagement, not prudence.

 

[Smirnov2Chistov]

I will give you everything in my bank account if they DONT pick in the top 10.

Running it back and hoping for internal improvement is a terrible idea.

I wonder how many games will be watchable this season.. over/under 40 games?

 

[JAHV]

Fair enough.

This is sophistry.


Ultimately this boils down to you being willing to imagine acceptable reasons for not having a captain and then believing that those reasons are driving the decision. I’ve noticed that you’re pretty credulous when it comes to coaching/management decisions, maybe because you’re a coach yourself.

I’m not, and I’m not willing, and I don’t think there’s a good reason to wait this long that doesn’t implicate poor management. “Painful” I don’t buy for a second so long as the terms of the captaincy are clear from the beginning, so if it’s painful, again, that’s a matter of mismanagement, not prudence.

I'm not at all trying to deceive anyone, so sophistry doesn't apply here. Nor am I imagining acceptable reasons for not having a captain - they are acceptable reasons. Whether those reasons really do apply here or whether they justify the decision in the Ducks' particular case is certainly up for debate. And I'm not arguing that the Ducks are making the correct decision; that is mostly unknowable and will have to be judged in retrospect, if it can be judged at all.

What we're discussing is whether not naming a captain is harming the team, or if naming one would provide more benefit than harm. I understand your arguments for naming a captain, but perhaps it is my role as a coach that has given me some insight into these decisions, namely that they are rarely, if ever, simple. The decision-making involves a lot of variables, many of them pertaining to players' perspectives, demeanors, backgrounds, motivations, and personalities, all of which are complex and varied, especially when turnover is significant. The only mismanagement would be to make a decision without carefully considering all of those angles, as well as the perspectives of other stakeholders (fans, owners, referees, etc.). There are many ways that this decision could cause pain - jealousy; an abrupt change in leadership style when one captain gives way to another; having to make a choice between a young player who is ready and a veteran who would need to be stripped of the captaincy prematurely.

We can't know without being in the room what the factors are that they're weighing or what impact they're having. You could be right that by not naming a captain, they're leaving a significant leadership void that is harming the development of the team. There has been a lack of improvement from the team as a whole, and it's possible that it's linked to the lack of a captain, but we can't know that. Nor could we know whether there is a member of the team qualified and willing to take on the captain role who would both benefit the team while not being burdened by the responsibility. Or what the impact of a short-term captaincy would have on the direction of the team. I'm not willing to dismiss those factors as insignificant, nor do I believe they are necessarily indications of poor management.

 

[AngelDuck]

• The Maple Leafs have gone without a captain for periods. They didn't have one between 2016 (Phaneuf) and 2019 (Tavares). Also between 2008 and 2010 and for a few years in the 80s.
• The Penguins went without a captain between 2001 and 2007.
• The Senators went without one between Karlsson (2018) and Tkachuk (2021).
• The Rangers went without between McDonagh (2018) and Trouba (2022).
• The Wild are weird, as someone mentioned above, with a bunch of temporary guys. I don't think that's any different than just having alternates. Buffalo also did this for a few years in the early 00's, sometimes with multiple players, sometimes just with Danny Briere and Chris Drury alternating.
• The Red Wings went without for a couple seasons between Zetterberg (2018) and Larkin (2021).
• The Blue Jackets went without between Nash (2012) and Foligno (2015).

As you can see, it's hardly unprecedented to go three or more seasons without a named captain. I think having a captain is important, but I think even more important is that it's the right guy. I would rather the Ducks take their time with this decision than name someone just to have a guy with a C on his chest, then have to strip it later or find someone new if that's not the right person.

The next generation of Ducks stars is here. They may not be playing like it quite yet, but these are the guys that will be leading the team for the next half dozen years. One of these guys is captain material, but it may be too early to put that burden on him (Carlsson?) or perhaps they haven't matured into it quite yet (McTavish, Zegras, Mintyukov).

My own personal speculation (based on nothing but my own perspective) is that they want it to be Carlsson but they think it's too much for him right now. I think they'll let this season play out and see if he steps up to be the leader they think he can be. If not, I think it will go to one of the other kids who is now a year older and maybe has shown a bit more.

If they want it to be Carlsson in 2-3 years then why wouldn’t you give it to Gudas tomorrow morning?

 

[ADHB]

I didn't read this whole thing, but am I missing something? Didn't Verbeek state pretty clearly at the end of the season that we'd have a captain this coming year? It's not like there's a deadline and one has to be named now.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

I'm not at all trying to deceive anyone, so sophistry doesn't apply here. Nor am I imagining acceptable reasons for not having a captain - they are acceptable reasons. Whether those reasons really do apply here or whether they justify the decision in the Ducks' particular case is certainly up for debate. And I'm not arguing that the Ducks are making the correct decision; that is mostly unknowable and will have to be judged in retrospect, if it can be judged at all.

What we're discussing is whether not naming a captain is harming the team, or if naming one would provide more benefit than harm. I understand your arguments for naming a captain, but perhaps it is my role as a coach that has given me some insight into these decisions, namely that they are rarely, if ever, simple. The decision-making involves a lot of variables, many of them pertaining to players' perspectives, demeanors, backgrounds, motivations, and personalities, all of which are complex and varied, especially when turnover is significant. The only mismanagement would be to make a decision without carefully considering all of those angles, as well as the perspectives of other stakeholders (fans, owners, referees, etc.). There are many ways that this decision could cause pain - jealousy; an abrupt change in leadership style when one captain gives way to another; having to make a choice between a young player who is ready and a veteran who would need to be stripped of the captaincy prematurely.

We can't know without being in the room what the factors are that they're weighing or what impact they're having. You could be right that by not naming a captain, they're leaving a significant leadership void that is harming the development of the team. There has been a lack of improvement from the team as a whole, and it's possible that it's linked to the lack of a captain, but we can't know that. Nor could we know whether there is a member of the team qualified and willing to take on the captain role who would both benefit the team while not being burdened by the responsibility. Or what the impact of a short-term captaincy would have on the direction of the team. I'm not willing to dismiss those factors as insignificant, nor do I believe they are necessarily indications of poor management.

I don’t know why you think veracity and sophistry are at odds. You draw weird lines to obscure the holes in your argument, and in a meta way you’re drawing a weird line about the weird lines you draw.

Anyway I’m moving on because you’re just repeating yourself while also retreating to “hey who can really know anything.” Okay, sounds good. We’ll agree to disagree.

 

[FiveHoleTickler]

I didn't read this whole thing, but am I missing something? Didn't Verbeek state pretty clearly at the end of the season that we'd have a captain this coming year? It's not like there's a deadline and one has to be named now.

IIRC he didn't frame it definitively. "We'd like to name a captain" or "the plan is to name one." Something to that effect.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

IIRC he didn't frame it definitively. "We'd like to name a captain" or "the plan is to name one." Something to that effect.

Yeah I don’t think he committed. But I wonder what the condition is. Or was.

 

[Deuce22]

Some of you think everytime something comes out of Verbeek's mouth it's a promise.

 

[KelVarnsen]

Some of you think everytime something comes out of Verbeek's mouth it's a promise.

I think I'm the opposite as of now. I pretty much think he just talks out of his ass all the time and nothing he says is actually what he means lol.

 

[ohcomeonref]

I think I'm the opposite as of now. I pretty much think he just talks out of his ass all the time and nothing he says is actually what he means lol.

Obfuscation can be a really great thing in business. But when it comes to the captaincy of the team, what's the point? I really am curious if he's just waiting to name his guy, or if something came up which throws his previous pick into question.

 

[91Fedorov]

Obfuscation can be a really great thing in business. But when I comes to the captaincy of the team, what's the point? I really am curious if he's just waiting to name his guy, or if something came up which throws his previous pick into question.

Had his guy picked, then had to bail his future captain out of a Vegas jail for an altercation in a strip club involving a happy ending in front of other patrons. I bet that was it...

 

[KelVarnsen]

Obfuscation can be a really great thing in business. But when I comes to the captaincy of the team, what's the point? I really am curious if he's just waiting to name his guy, or if something came up which throws his previous pick into question.

I think I gave up trying to interpret him. He is so odd when he speaks and awkward with his responses, I truly don't know what he actually means.

 

[Dirk316]

I wonder how many games will be watchable this season.. over/under 40 games?

Maybe the first week

 

[JAHV]

I don’t know why you think veracity and sophistry are at odds. You draw weird lines to obscure the holes in your argument, and in a meta way you’re drawing a weird line about the weird lines you draw.

Anyway I’m moving on because you’re just repeating yourself while also retreating to “hey who can really know anything.” Okay, sounds good. We’ll agree to disagree.

That's fine. I'm not sure what weird lines you think I'm drawing and I'm certainly not trying to obscure anything. My point boils down to there being legitimately justifiable reasons for not having selected a captain yet. I feel like I've laid out those reasons clearly. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

I didn't read this whole thing, but am I missing something? Didn't Verbeek state pretty clearly at the end of the season that we'd have a captain this coming year? It's not like there's a deadline and one has to be named now.

Yeah, I was wondering if I missed a post where Verbeek said he changed his mind about having a captain this coming year. People are going nuts making assumptions he won’t just because he hasn’t yet. UFB.

 

[Bergey37]

Good heavens, what's the hangup some people have about naming a Captain now? So he can preside over the dog days of summer? Frankly, the optics of naming someone know would look like an afterthought to a season most want to forget. Name the Captain around Labor Day - the first step of a new season and a new commitment to winning. I said it on the Captain's thread, but I'll say it here: have Killorn wear the C for the remaining 3 years of his deal, and let the kids earn their A's on the way to being a successor.

 

[MMC]

Haven’t really seen anyone mention him but gotta think Strome is a candidate if PV wants to name a captain from the current group of vets

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Haven’t really seen anyone mention him but gotta think Strome is a candidate if PV wants to name a captain from the current group of vets

You’d think so, didn’t PV specifically highlight his role as a mentor when he signed him? Plus Strome is pretty much the only regular who’ll defend a teammate. He’d be a good captain.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Good heavens, what's the hangup some people have about naming a Captain now? So he can preside over the dog days of summer? Frankly, the optics of naming someone know would look like an afterthought to a season most want to forget. Name the Captain around Labor Day - the first step of a new season and a new commitment to winning. I said it on the Captain's thread, but I'll say it here: have Killorn wear the C for the remaining 3 years of his deal, and let the kids earn their A's on the way to being a successor.

It’s the offseason. People are looking for something to talk about that isn’t “we fell flat on our face in free agency after big plans were promised, then sorta promised, then didn’t happen”.

It’ll be something else next week.

 

[CrazyDuck4u]

You’d think so, didn’t PV specifically highlight his role as a mentor when he signed him? Plus Strome is pretty much the only regular who’ll defend a teammate. He’d be a good captain.

Vatrano as well.

 

[FiveHoleTickler]

Plan the parade, boys!

Duhatschek mailbag: Which NHL bottom feeder will be competitive first, concussions and more

Which bottom-feeder team has done the best job rebuilding? And should something be done to address violent contact to the head in the NHL?

www.nytimes.com