Alex Edler - Part II

[Ventana*]

The first mistake you made was comparing Robinson to Lidster.

Why? Who cares how they compared to each other when they played. Both had long NHL careers, both have won multiple cups, and both were outstanding d-men, not that it even matters. Just like Gretzky as a coach, it does not matter how they were as players. By saying I hope he brings a similar success to Robinson in the coaching field, does not mean I think he was as good as Larry Robinson, one of the best d-men of all time.

 

[David71]

im gonna go out on a limb here and say. 1 of 2 things. either edler bounces back with a 45-50 pt performance. the occasional brainfarts in the dzone. lays big hits. moves the puck and notches a few goals or whatever *insert amount* or.. 2 he still sucks. fans are frustrated with edler and the posters here want his head on the chopping block and want him traded.hope lidster can get the best out of alex.

 

[banme*]

im gonna go out on a limb here and say. 1 of 2 things. either edler bounces back with a 45-50 pt performance. the occasional brainfarts in the dzone. lays big hits. moves the puck and notches a few goals or whatever *insert amount* or.. 2 he still sucks. fans are frustrated with edler and the posters here want his head on the chopping block and want him traded.hope lidster can get the best out of alex.

So either he's good or he's bad. Big gamble there, take it easy.

 

[Cocoa Crisp]

im gonna go out on a limb here and say. 1 of 2 things. either edler bounces back with a 45-50 pt performance. the occasional brainfarts in the dzone. lays big hits. moves the puck and notches a few goals or whatever *insert amount* or.. 2 he still sucks. fans are frustrated with edler and the posters here want his head on the chopping block and want him traded.hope lidster can get the best out of alex.

Edler's game is, maybe more than most players, predicated on confidence. We saw glimpses of him slowly working his way back to his old self even last year. But then one or two things don't go his way and all of that momentum is lost.

What Alex needs if he's ever to take his game to the next level - I'm not holding my breath on this one - is to have a bigger ego, some extra swagger, something to insulate him from the mistakes and bad luck that inevitably happens to everyone.

 

[Bleach Clean]

its a mistake because he could be in a reality where the team has more value and instead it has less. there might not be any errors in the process used or the thinking applied, but there is a reality where the team is better off and its not ours, so getting to this point necessitates an error of some kind. i dunno if its particularly useful or reasonable to judge him for it, but it was a mistake nonetheless.

It's judged a mistake now, not at the time (me2's post). Further, was that mistake made by overvaluing his player? At the time, with the information available, I would say no. It would not have been apparent to me that Gillis passed due to having his 2011 Edler blinders on (narrative)...

I'm not an Edler fan, but when a player like that is shopped, 'usually' a 1st is part of the package. It's standard fare. Peculiar move by DET not to include one.

Note: I'm speaking about the first 'ask', not the later price increase. The first ask was 2 players and a 1st (reasonable). The second ask was 3 players and a 1st (absurd). I've provided my reasons for the increase. The key point is that the first ask was reasonable - DET just refused to pay it.

 

[Proto]

It's judged a mistake now, not at the time (me2's post). Further, was that mistake made by overvaluing his player? At the time, with the information available, I would say no. It would not have been apparent to me that Gillis passed due to having his 2011 Edler blinders on (narrative)...

I'm not an Edler fan, but when a player like that is shopped, 'usually' a 1st is part of the package. It's standard fare. Peculiar move by DET not to include one.

Note: I'm speaking about the first 'ask', not the later price increase. The first ask was 2 players and a 1st (reasonable). The second ask was 3 players and a 1st (absurd). I've provided my reasons for the increase. The key point is that the first ask was reasonable - DET just refused to pay it.

You're needlessly over-complicating this narrative with variables that don't need to exist. Gillis made an ask. Detroit declined. Detroit came back and met Gillis's price and Gillis declines because he has Horvat. That was a miscalculation. End story.

 

[Bleach Clean]

You're needlessly over-complicating this narrative with variables that don't need to exist. Gillis made an ask. Detroit declined. Detroit came back and met Gillis's price and Gillis declines because he has Horvat. That was a miscalculation. End story.

Nope, DET never met Gillis's asking price.

 

[Proto]

Nope, DET never met Gillis's asking price.

Look, you can continue to do that thing you do where you create these false paths to your arguments, but I'm not interested. I can't imagine anyone reading this exchange even understanding what you're trying to argue right now.

The argument was simply that Gillis made a miscalculation. You are free to disagree

 

[Bleach Clean]

Look, you can continue to do that thing you do where you create these false paths to your arguments, but I'm not interested. I can't imagine anyone reading this exchange even understanding what you're trying to argue right now.

The argument was simply that Gillis made a miscalculation. You are free to disagree

The argument you posed was: Gillis overvalued all 2011 players, example Edler at 2013 draft. I counter by saying he didn't get the 1st he wanted. Very simple... Nothing you have said counters that point.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

I'm not surprised you're going the ad hominem route when you're not able to push a faulty narrative (blanket Gillis overvalued all 2011 players). I've seen that one before too...

 

[Proto]

The argument you posed was: Gillis overvalued all 2011 players, example Edler at 2013 draft. I counter by saying he didn't get the 1st he wanted. Very simple... Nothing you have said counters that point.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

I'm not surprised you're going the ad hominem route when you're not able to push a faulty narrative (blanket Gillis overvalued all 2011 players). I've seen that one before too...

Uh, he didn't get the 1st he wanted because he was over-valuing his player and asking for too much. He was offered three good young players, turned the trade down, and now it looks like a brutal miscalculation.

Gillis definitely over-valued his players after 2011. He struggled to trade Luongo, seemed hesitant to cut bait on underperforming roster players like Ballard, made few if any roster changes despite declining performance, built a redundant bottom 9 with similar two-way players and nobody that excelled on the power play, and expected to get three young players and a 1st round pick (?!?!) for a second-pairing defenseman.

The idea that the trade for Horvat somehow made Edler more indispensible is further proof that Gillis (and some of us, myself included) were way off track concerning how much this roster needed to be turned over. But if you think Gillis made the correct calculation in holding on to Edler, that's your deal.

And it wasn't ad hominem. I was attacking the needless over-complicating of your argument with all of these various scenarios -- in this instance, involving the Horvat trade and speculations about why Gillis's motivations shifted, etc. Who cares? My claim about the Edler trade was straight-foward: Gillis miscalculated in turning down that deal. I don't care what his reasons were, because Gillis is a smart dude and I'm sure it made sense to him at the time, but it ultimately doesn't matter because he was wrong. I'd even wager to guess he might have handle last summer a bit differently if he had a chance to do it over again

 

[Bleach Clean]

Uh, he didn't get the 1st he wanted because he was over-valuing his player and asking for too much. He was offered three good young players, turned the trade down, and now it looks like a brutal miscalculation.

Now it does, sure. At the time, it was fine. Tatar and Sheahan have quelled a lot doubts this past year. That information wasn't available then.

He didn't get the 1st he wanted because DET refused to put it on the table. Both initially (3 piece deal) and later (4 piece deal).

And it wasn't ad hominem. I was attacking the needless over-complicating of your argument with all of these various scenarios

Yes it was, as you were attacking my 'supposed tendency' to do so. Something that follows me and not this particular thread of conversation. But whatever you need to do I guess... I'll just continue questioning things I feel should be questioned. All I can do.

 

[mossey3535]

in a more general sense (ignoring how it specifically pertains to edler) i think the chances of the canucks repeatably being the team you're describing are lower than the chances of them simply being an outlier

Yeah in retrospect it was probably unsustainable.

 

[Proto]

Now it does, sure. At the time, it was fine. Tatar and Sheahan have quelled a lot doubts this past year. That information wasn't available then.

He didn't get the 1st he wanted because DET refused to put it on the table. Both initially (3 piece deal) and later (4 piece deal).

Gillis was paid 2 million a year to make these calls. He made the wrong one. It's not like these guys had great years out of nowhere: they were well regarded young players, and Gillis bet on them not being more valuable than Edler. A year later he's wrong. Miscalculation.

Is it defensible that he made that conclusion? Sure. But he still miscalculated. It's hard to argue otherwise.

Yes it was, as you were attacking my 'supposed tendency' to do so. Something that follows me and not this particular thread of conversation. But whatever you need to do I guess... I'll just continue questioning things I feel should be questioned. All I can do.

I was attacking your 'intellect' / style of argument. That's the opposite of an ad hominem argument.

 

[biturbo19]

Edler's game is, maybe more than most players, predicated on confidence. We saw glimpses of him slowly working his way back to his old self even last year. But then one or two things don't go his way and all of that momentum is lost.

What Alex needs if he's ever to take his game to the next level - I'm not holding my breath on this one - is to have a bigger ego, some extra swagger, something to insulate him from the mistakes and bad luck that inevitably happens to everyone.

This.

Edler seems very much like a player who is prone to major ebb and flow in his confidence, and resulting from that, his game in general. When he's up, he can be really "up", but when he gets "down" on himself things sometimes spiral out of control pretty quickly and it can get real ugly.

Which is why Tortorella seemed like such a horrendous fit to "get the most out of Edler" from the very start. Edler doesn't need someone to scream at him and call him names and make him do pushups every time he makes a mistake, he needs someone to provide some "positive reinforcement". A coach who can teach and guide him, while still massaging his ego a bit. A coach who knows how to use the Carrot not just the Stick.

Edler isn't the first player to come along with that type of personality that doesn't respond well to shouting and negativity on the bench, and there are coaches who can get the most out of these type of players. Hopefully Willie D and/or Lidster can get the job done.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Gillis was paid 2 million a year to make these calls. He made the wrong one. It's not like these guys had great years out of nowhere: they were well regarded young players, and Gillis bet on them not being more valuable than Edler. A year later he's wrong. Miscalculation.

Is it defensible that he made that conclusion? Sure. But he still miscalculated. It's hard to argue otherwise.

I'm not arguing otherwise. It seems like a miscalculation _now_. Edler's play this year, followed by strong seasons from Tatar and Sheahan made sure of that. Everything that was needed to swing value happened. Still, miscalculation at the time? No. Overvaluing Edler at the time? No. I feel Gillis is/was perfectly justified in asking for a 1st round pick as part of the package (3 pieces). It's pretty standard fare for deals like this. Why DET refused is anyone's guess...

Tatar was 'fringe' (Edit: correction, 4th year post draft, 18 NHL games, good AHL production) and Smith still hadn't established a spot on the Wings despite being a 2007 draft. Bigger question marks surrounded Sheahan due to his Notre Dame production rates. He was the most surprising in translating his offense from AHL to NHL. These guys all contributed regularly in 2014... 1 year can make a big difference in the perception of 'value'.

I was attacking your 'intellect' / style of argument. That's the opposite of an ad hominem argument.

My style of argument is the only representation of my person on this forum. And my intellect persists beyond this particular argument. You are attacking the traits of my argument style (general) in order to invalidate my opinion in this argument (specific). We can continue to go back and forth on this point, but that's how it's taken. Normally, your response would invite further reprisal outside the bounds of the facts, which is telling enough.

I don't believe your blanket statement that Gillis overvalued all 2011 players holds true, and so I contested it. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[PRNuck]

This.

Edler seems very much like a player who is prone to major ebb and flow in his confidence, and resulting from that, his game in general. When he's up, he can be really "up", but when he gets "down" on himself things sometimes spiral out of control pretty quickly and it can get real ugly.

Which is why Tortorella seemed like such a horrendous fit to "get the most out of Edler" from the very start. Edler doesn't need someone to scream at him and call him names and make him do pushups every time he makes a mistake, he needs someone to provide some "positive reinforcement". A coach who can teach and guide him, while still massaging his ego a bit. A coach who knows how to use the Carrot not just the Stick.

Edler isn't the first player to come along with that type of personality that doesn't respond well to shouting and negativity on the bench, and there are coaches who can get the most out of these type of players. Hopefully Willie D and/or Lidster can get the job done.

Yeah if anyone can get something out of Edler, it should be Willie D. ****, I've watched like 60 seconds of Willie D footage on youtube and I want to be a better person.

 

[alternate]

Wow, Detroit must have a crappy GM to make that offer for a liability like Edler.

Edler had a very good Olympics. Reinforces the argument that Torts had a negative impact on Edler (more than most players imo).

Also reinforces the position that Edler is very reliant on fit with his partner.

Partners that worked: Ehrhoff, Salo, Tanev, (Karlsson).
Partners that didn't: Bieksa, Garrison

What does the first group all have in common exclusive of the latter group? High hockey IQ. Edler, like Bieksa and Garrison, are in the "instinct" side of the spectrum. Edler needs a partner that can read of Edler and be where Edler needs him to be.

Play him with Tanev if you're looking for a 2 way pairing. Maybe Weber works if you want an offensive pairing you shelter a bit. Keep him away from Bieksa (for both their sakes) and have Willie tickle Eddies neck with his mustache a couple times per game, and Edler will bounce back big time.

This time next year, we'll be debating who is our most valuable dman, Edler or Hamhuis. In a good way, too.

 

[banme*]

Wow, Detroit must have a crappy GM to make that offer for a liability like Edler.

Edler had a very good Olympics. Reinforces the argument that Torts had a negative impact on Edler (more than most players imo).

Also reinforces the position that Edler is very reliant on fit with his partner.

Partners that worked: Ehrhoff, Salo, Tanev, (Karlsson).
Partners that didn't: Bieksa, Garrison

What does the first group all have in common exclusive of the latter group? High hockey IQ. Edler, like Bieksa and Garrison, are in the "instinct" side of the spectrum. Edler needs a partner that can read of Edler and be where Edler needs him to be.

Play him with Tanev if you're looking for a 2 way pairing. Maybe Weber works if you want an offensive pairing you shelter a bit. Keep him away from Bieksa (for both their sakes) and have Willie tickle Eddies neck with his mustache a couple times per game, and Edler will bounce back big time.

This time next year, we'll be debating who is our most valuable dman, Edler or Hamhuis. In a good way, too.

 

[Barney Gumble]

Wow, Detroit must have a crappy GM to make that offer for a liability like Edler.

Edler had a very good Olympics. Reinforces the argument that Torts had a negative impact on Edler (more than most players imo).

Also reinforces the position that Edler is very reliant on fit with his partner.

Partners that worked: Ehrhoff, Salo, Tanev, (Karlsson).
Partners that didn't: Bieksa, Garrison

What does the first group all have in common exclusive of the latter group? High hockey IQ. Edler, like Bieksa and Garrison, are in the "instinct" side of the spectrum. Edler needs a partner that can read of Edler and be where Edler needs him to be.

Play him with Tanev if you're looking for a 2 way pairing. Maybe Weber works if you want an offensive pairing you shelter a bit. Keep him away from Bieksa (for both their sakes) and have Willie tickle Eddies neck with his mustache a couple times per game, and Edler will bounce back big time.

This time next year, we'll be debating who is our most valuable dman, Edler or Hamhuis. In a good way, too.

Maybe...maybe not:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=84700641&postcount=976

 

[Scurr]

Maybe...maybe not:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=84700641&postcount=976

Anyone counting GF/GA over a 200 minute sample doesn't really understand why corsi works in the first place.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Anyone counting GF/GA over a 200 minute sample doesn't really understand why corsi works in the first place.

Please clarify. How does Corsi "work"? And why are GF/GA over 200 minute samples irrelevant?

 

[Scurr]

Please clarify. How does Corsi "work"? And why do GF/GA over 200 minute samples run counter to Corsi?

Corsi works because it takes out the biggest variable (shooting percentage) in tracking performance with "regular" stats. Otherwise... why didn't we just stick with +/-?

Tracking gf/ga brings shooting percentage back in as a variable.

That might make sense over a larger sample... but not 200 minutes. We track PDO because full seasons often aren't enough of a sample for on ice shooting and save percentage.

 

[arsmaster*]

Corsi works because it takes out the biggest variable (shooting percentage) in tracking performance with "regular" stats. Otherwise... why didn't we just stick with +/-?

Tracking gf/ga brings shooting percentage back in as a variable.

That might make sense over a larger sample... but not 200 minutes. We track PDO because full seasons often aren't enough of a sample for on ice shooting and save percentage.

Not all shots are created equal.

 

[Scurr]

Not all shots are created equal.

With enough of a sample they end up close enough. Much less volatile then shooting percentage.

 

[Proto]

Corsi works because it takes out the biggest variable (shooting percentage) in tracking performance with "regular" stats. Otherwise... why didn't we just stick with +/-?

Tracking gf/ga brings shooting percentage back in as a variable.

That might make sense over a larger sample... but not 200 minutes. We track PDO because full seasons often aren't enough of a sample for on ice shooting and save percentage.

Exactly. Those GF/GA numbers are meaningless noise. Heck, even the CF% over 200 minutes isn't that meaningful. That's only about 12-14 games together.