Player Discussion: Alexander Romanov

[Lights911]

Yeah, the biggest problem with Marleau wasn't Lou signing him, it was Dubas forcing himself into a position where he had to trade him.

Dubas should’ve kept the aging winger instead of acquiring the superstar 1C? Should Ottawa have kept Zaitsev (Lou contract) instead of acquiring Debrincat?

 

[CupHolders]

Dubas should’ve kept the aging winger instead of acquiring the superstar 1C? Should Ottawa have kept Zaitsev (Lou contract) instead of acquiring Debrincat?

There's plenty of possibilities to build that roster in a way that would've improved them. But Dubas decided that copying the Penguins cup team with two number one centers was the way to go.

Dubas used a first to get rid of one year of Marleau and traded Kadri to get Kerfoot and Tyson Barrie.

He could've NOT sign the "superstar" and likely could've traded a first pick and Zaitsev to Buffalo for Ryan O'Riley. Marleau would've walked at the end of his deal.

Not Signing Tavares means they could've justified bridging Matthews AND Marner for less then they did.

Matthews - ROR - Kadri down the middle. Or trade Kadri or Nylander for a legitimate defender.

Sure we can say it's hindsight. But at the time of signing Tavares everyone said that it would be difficult to keep that team together and add final pieces. That's where we get the... "We can, and we will quote." Well he did, and they haven't won yet.

No one is advocating NOT getting elite talent. Rather the Leafs needed more secondary depth support than Tavares. Leaving that roster alone and making smaller adjustments likely would've yielded better results.

 

[doublechili]

Dubas should’ve kept the aging winger instead of acquiring the superstar 1C? Should Ottawa have kept Zaitsev (Lou contract) instead of acquiring Debrincat?

In the first season of Marleau's contract, Marleau had 27 regular season goals and 4 more in 7 playoff games. Dubas then signed Tavares and kept Marleau another season, so it wasn't an either/or situation with Marleau and Tavares. But it should have been. Dubas should have seen the situation he created by signing Tavares and traded Marleau after he signed Tavares. Coming off a 27 goal season it likely would not have cost a 1st round pick. Instead he kept him another season, his value went down, then he traded him.

 

[Richie Daggers Crime]

To me, process and context is more important than results.

And there you have it.

 

[Its not your fault]

And there you have it.

Yah kids these days. Lol

 

[JPIsles18]

It is not a coincidence that Toronto has lost in the first round every one of the last five years. When the playoffs are the only thing that truly counts that is the true gauge of a good team.

Toronto should have made the Conference Finals easily but lost to Montreal after choking a 3-1 series lead (again).

Islanders are also currently in a playoff position, how are they not currently relevant?

I haven't had a chance to respond in a timely fashion. However, it's simply not true that the playoffs is the true gauge of a good team. The way you should make any decisions and have enough data to make a proper assessment is sample size. An 82 game season is far more indicative of how good a team is than a 7 game series. Anything can happen. A goalie can get hot, injuries, bad bounce in a close game, etc. Let's say the Isles get in and beat the Bruins this season. It doesn't mean they're better than the Bruins. Far from it. It also doesn't necessarily mean the Bruins choked. It can mean Sorokin stood on his head, Bruins had injuries, etc.

Now I agree, it's not a coincidence Toronto has lost in first round the last few years. That's a longer sample size (5 years). They have made adjustments, and last year they went toe to toe with the Lightning and almost beat them. It came down to game 7. Last season was the best Leafs team yet.

I was never making excuses for the Leafs. My point is simple. Take sports narrative aside, because the easy narrative is that they choke year after year. That was true of the previous seasons but not last year. My point is simply is that sample size matters when judging results. In a 7 game series, any team can beat anyone. That does not necessarily mean the losing team stinks.

 

[JPIsles18]

And there you have it.

Have what? Taking something out of context to prove what point exactly? Sure, anyone can have the easy discussion of winning good, losing bad. But I suppose how one gets there is not a discussion you're willing to have. Fine by me.

 

[YearlyLottery]

I haven't had a chance to respond in a timely fashion. However, it's simply not true that the playoffs is the true gauge of a good team. The way you should make any decisions and have enough data to make a proper assessment is sample size. An 82 game season is far more indicative of how good a team is than a 7 game series. Anything can happen. A goalie can get hot, injuries, bad bounce in a close game, etc. Let's say the Isles get in and beat the Bruins this season. It doesn't mean they're better than the Bruins. Far from it. It also doesn't necessarily mean the Bruins choked. It can mean Sorokin stood on his head, Bruins had injuries, etc.

Now I agree, it's not a coincidence Toronto has lost in first round the last few years. That's a longer sample size (5 years). They have made adjustments, and last year they went toe to toe with the Lightning and almost beat them. It came down to game 7. Last season was the best Leafs team yet.

I was never making excuses for the Leafs. My point is simple. Take sports narrative aside, because the easy narrative is that they choke year after year. That was true of the previous seasons but not last year. My point is simply is that sample size matters when judging results. In a 7 game series, any team can beat anyone. That does not necessarily mean the losing team stinks.

I think this is a fundamental disagreement between you and I. If a team beats another in a best of 7 series for the largest prize in their sport I believe it means they are truly the better team. Goaltending, defense, injuries all have to do with that.

I do understand your viewpoint on Toronto and get it. I think our opinions on what makes a team good differs though. Pleasure to have this convo.

 

[JPIsles18]

I think this is a fundamental disagreement between you and I. If a team beats another in a best of 7 series for the largest prize in their sport I believe it means they are truly the better team. Goaltending, defense, injuries all have to do with that.

I do understand your viewpoint on Toronto and get it. I think our opinions on what makes a team good differs though. Pleasure to have this convo.

It's what makes sports great. The added pressure of performing at the top level in a short timespan. The best regular season team doesn't always (in fact, rarely) wins it all, and that's great for any sport. There's a human element that can't be quantified. There are market pressures that can't be quantified. I certainly get all of that. It's why we watch the games.

As fans, only thing you can hope for is having the ownership and front office that tries to capitalize on as many market inefficiencies as possible to maximize the controllable aspect of winning championships. My point in previous posts is that on paper, Toronto has done a better job of this than the Islanders have leading to more regular season success. I still believe context matters. The Canadiens made a run in the bubble. They made the Finals. There isn't a person on this planet that thinks they've had more success than the leafs. They rode their goaltending and stars aligned in other ways.

My original point however, is that, the Leafs, have acknowledged there was an issue and every year made some moves to adjust even though they are to the cap. Every year, they have gotten better and made adjustments. The Isles and Lou on the other hand, walked away from their last playoff run thinking there wasn't anything to change. Anybody who watched the playoffs that season, cannot and should not have agreed. Long road trip and COVID aside, that team was not making noise in the playoffs. We know this because that was the same exact team they iced this season, where there have been no long road trips and COVID. Lou's process has been defective because he got fooled by the playoff runs thinking they were close as constructed without tangibly improving (No, Romanov doesn't count, not yet anyway).

 

[Mike C]

It's what makes sports great. The added pressure of performing at the top level in a short timespan. The best regular season team doesn't always (in fact, rarely) wins it all, and that's great for any sport. There's a human element that can't be quantified. There are market pressures that can't be quantified. I certainly get all of that. It's why we watch the games.

As fans, only thing you can hope for is having the ownership and front office that tries to capitalize on as many market inefficiencies as possible to maximize the controllable aspect of winning championships. My point in previous posts is that on paper, Toronto has done a better job of this than the Islanders have leading to more regular season success. I still believe context matters. The Canadiens made a run in the bubble. They made the Finals. There isn't a person on this planet that thinks they've had more success than the leafs. They rode their goaltending and stars aligned in other ways.

My original point however, is that, the Leafs, have acknowledged there was an issue and every year made some moves to adjust even though they are to the cap. Every year, they have gotten better and made adjustments. The Isles and Lou on the other hand, walked away from their last playoff run thinking there wasn't anything to change. Anybody who watched the playoffs that season, cannot and should not have agreed. Long road trip and COVID aside, that team was not making noise in the playoffs. We know this because that was the same exact team they iced this season, where there have been no long road trips and COVID. Lou's process has been defective because he got fooled by the playoff runs thinking they were close as constructed without tangibly improving (No, Romanov doesn't count, not yet anyway).

Anything can happen in a short series. I agree that a full 82 or 162 in BB is a better indicator of the best team. There are many examples throughout sports history. My favorite one is the 1960 World Series. Yanks won 3 games by 13,10,12 runs. Pirates won 4 games by 2,1,3,1 runs.

It is why they play the games and I'd much rather be a Champ then the regular season winner

 

[PK Cronin]

I haven't had a chance to respond in a timely fashion. However, it's simply not true that the playoffs is the true gauge of a good team. The way you should make any decisions and have enough data to make a proper assessment is sample size. An 82 game season is far more indicative of how good a team is than a 7 game series. Anything can happen. A goalie can get hot, injuries, bad bounce in a close game, etc. Let's say the Isles get in and beat the Bruins this season. It doesn't mean they're better than the Bruins. Far from it. It also doesn't necessarily mean the Bruins choked. It can mean Sorokin stood on his head, Bruins had injuries, etc.

Now I agree, it's not a coincidence Toronto has lost in first round the last few years. That's a longer sample size (5 years). They have made adjustments, and last year they went toe to toe with the Lightning and almost beat them. It came down to game 7. Last season was the best Leafs team yet.

I was never making excuses for the Leafs. My point is simple. Take sports narrative aside, because the easy narrative is that they choke year after year. That was true of the previous seasons but not last year. My point is simply is that sample size matters when judging results. In a 7 game series, any team can beat anyone. That does not necessarily mean the losing team stinks.

Do you care more about the Islanders winning the Stanley Cup or would you prefer them win the Presidents' Trophy?

I've mentioned this to you previously and you haven't replied to it (I don't think), if the teams are building to win the Stanley Cup and not necessarily the Presidents' Trophy, why are you evaluating the "best" off of something they aren't trying to achieve?

Toronto just revamped their roster to have more success in the playoffs because they've learned that the playoffs are very different from the regular season. Their goal isn't to end up with the most points during the 82 games, it's to win 16 games in the playoffs. Anything else just doesn't matter.

Extrapolating out the idea that the 82 game season is more conclusive for who the best is I'll ask you this, if for ten straight years Team A won the Presidents' Trophy but lost in the playoffs every year, while Team B snuck in as the 8th seed every year and won the Stanley Cup for a decade straight, which team was better, given that the goal is to win the Stanley Cup?

 

[PK Cronin]

Anything can happen in a short series. I agree that a full 82 or 162 in BB is a better indicator of the best team. There are many examples throughout sports history. My favorite one is the 1960 World Series. Yanks won 3 games by 13,10,12 runs. Pirates won 4 games by 2,1,3,1 runs.

It is why they play the games and I'd much rather be a Champ then the regular season winner

The goal is to win the championship, if you cannot win when it matters most then you're not the best.

Sports, specifically hockey and basketball, change when the playoffs come around. There are 80+ games during the regular season, teams don't spend a ton of time watching footage of their opponent and adapting to what they're doing simply because they don't have enough time. When the playoffs come around you start to see those adjustments. Can you beat a team that knows what you're going to do? Can you adapt? Can you change some of your tendencies? Can you out think or outwork your opponent? Can you perform when there might not be another chance to score or make a save? All of that put together is what makes the playoffs different and that's why it's valued higher than a random game on Tuesday night in January. The attention to detail is there, everyone's working as hard as they possibly can.

There's a balance that happens during the regular season between playing a style that will work in the playoffs and one that will work in the regular season. It's why we see so many run and gun, high octane offense teams flounder in the playoffs. It works great when someone isn't coming up with a plan to stop you, but once they have the time to make adjustments it falls over. I don't think that makes them a "better" team because other teams simply aren't trying to stop them yet.

 

[Mike C]

The goal is to win the championship, if you cannot win when it matters most then you're not the best.

Sports, specifically hockey and basketball, change when the playoffs come around. There are 80+ games during the regular season, teams don't spend a ton of time watching footage of their opponent and adapting to what they're doing simply because they don't have enough time. When the playoffs come around you start to see those adjustments. Can you beat a team that knows what you're going to do? Can you adapt? Can you change some of your tendencies? Can you out think or outwork your opponent? Can you perform when there might not be another chance to score or make a save? All of that put together is what makes the playoffs different and that's why it's valued higher than a random game on Tuesday night in January. The attention to detail is there, everyone's working as hard as they possibly can.

There's a balance that happens during the regular season between playing a style that will work in the playoffs and one that will work in the regular season. It's why we see so many run and gun, high octane offense teams flounder in the playoffs. It works great when someone isn't coming up with a plan to stop you, but once they have the time to make adjustments it falls over. I don't think that makes them a "better" team because other teams simply aren't trying to stop them yet.

No argument here

It doesn't matter if your the "best". Winning is indeed all that matters.

I got a review one time in the restaurant business that said I was not working 100 percent of the time, had too much down time, joked around too much (hard to believe I know). 95 percent of the review was nit picking BS

At the end it said "Mike is very efficient, is there when I need him and when the pressure is on, there is no one I'd rather have"

I wasn't the best until I had to be

as you have said many times, sports is not binary and that is truly one of the charms.

 

[doublechili]

the Leafs, have acknowledged there was an issue and every year made some moves to adjust even though they are to the cap. Every year, they have gotten better and made adjustments.

Well, except for the part about the huge question mark at the most important position.

 

[Richie Daggers Crime]

Have what? Taking something out of context to prove what point exactly? Sure, anyone can have the easy discussion of winning good, losing bad. But I suppose how one gets there is not a discussion you're willing to have. Fine by me.

Nope, I'm not.

 

[JPIsles18]

Do you care more about the Islanders winning the Stanley Cup or would you prefer them win the Presidents' Trophy?

Sorry for delayed response. Have been away. Just seeing this. I prefer to win the Cup obviously. However, IMO, the team closer to the top of the standings has a better chance than the team at the bottom. In a mostly random league, in a salary capped league, you can only give your team the best chance. Randomness will happen. Bad play will happen. Bad/Good goaltending will happen.

I've mentioned this to you previously and you haven't replied to it (I don't think), if the teams are building to win the Stanley Cup and not necessarily the Presidents' Trophy, why are you evaluating the "best" off of something they aren't trying to achieve?

Because our main disagreement is about the randomness of the playoffs. A 7 game series is a small sample size. A hard fought series between two elite teams (Lightning/Leafs Leafs last season) could have gone either way. Leafs lost by 1 goal in a 7 game series. They are deemed a failure. I just think it's a flawed way of looking at it.

For instance, even if the Bruins lost in the playoffs, it won't change my mind that they were the best team in the league this season. They far and away are. Some other team can get hot over 7 games. Or a Sorokin can make 50+ saves in 4 games to steal a series. Doesn't make the Bruins any less of a team. Hockey is random, especially over a 7 game series. And that's also what makes it great.

Toronto just revamped their roster to have more success in the playoffs because they've learned that the playoffs are very different from the regular season. Their goal isn't to end up with the most points during the 82 games, it's to win 16 games in the playoffs. Anything else just doesn't matter.

Extrapolating out the idea that the 82 game season is more conclusive for who the best is I'll ask you this, if for ten straight years Team A won the Presidents' Trophy but lost in the playoffs every year, while Team B snuck in as the 8th seed every year and won the Stanley Cup for a decade straight, which team was better, given that the goal is to win the Stanley Cup?

The goal is to win the Cup. What I'm saying is that the best team doesn't always win the Cup. Last year the best regular season team was the Panthers. Unfortunately for them, once the games got tighter in the playoffs and they were unable to adjust. They got past the Caps on sheer talent. Then they ran into the Lightning. Panthers were no longer able to score at will and there was a goaltending disparity. But the Lightning are not an 8 seed. They were the 7th best team in the league last year.

Post cap Cup winners and their regular season points rank:

2022 Avalanche: 2nd
2021 Lightning: 8th
2020 Lightning: 3rd
2019 Blues: 12th
2018 Capitals: 7th
2017 Penguins: 2nd
2016 Penguins: 4th
2015 Blackhawks: 7th
2014 Kings: 10th

The post lockout Cup winners were all within the top 10 in points for each year. The one outlier were the Blues, but they were playing at a 119 pt pace from January 1, 2019 to the playoffs, which was second best during that time frame. During this span the President's trophy winner has not won the cup. But neither has an 8 seed.

 

[Seph]

Sorry for delayed response. Have been away. Just seeing this. I prefer to win the Cup obviously. However, IMO, the team closer to the top of the standings has a better chance than the team at the bottom. In a mostly random league, in a salary capped league, you can only give your team the best chance. Randomness will happen. Bad play will happen. Bad/Good goaltending will happen.



Because our main disagreement is about the randomness of the playoffs. A 7 game series is a small sample size. A hard fought series between two elite teams (Lightning/Leafs Leafs last season) could have gone either way. Leafs lost by 1 goal in a 7 game series. They are deemed a failure. I just think it's a flawed way of looking at it.

For instance, even if the Bruins lost in the playoffs, it won't change my mind that they were the best team in the league this season. They far and away are. Some other team can get hot over 7 games. Or a Sorokin can make 50+ saves in 4 games to steal a series. Doesn't make the Bruins any less of a team. Hockey is random, especially over a 7 game series. And that's also what makes it great.



The goal is to win the Cup. What I'm saying is that the best team doesn't always win the Cup. Last year the best regular season team was the Panthers. Unfortunately for them, once the games got tighter in the playoffs and they were unable to adjust. They got past the Caps on sheer talent. Then they ran into the Lightning. Panthers were no longer able to score at will and there was a goaltending disparity. But the Lightning are not an 8 seed. They were the 7th best team in the league last year.

Post cap Cup winners and their regular season points rank:

2022 Avalanche: 2nd
2021 Lightning: 8th
2020 Lightning: 3rd
2019 Blues: 12th
2018 Capitals: 7th
2017 Penguins: 2nd
2016 Penguins: 4th
2015 Blackhawks: 7th
2014 Kings: 10th

The post lockout Cup winners were all within the top 10 in points for each year. The one outlier were the Blues, but they were playing at a 119 pt pace from January 1, 2019 to the playoffs, which was second best during that time frame. During this span the President's trophy winner has not won the cup. But neither has an 8 seed.

Was the 2012 LA Kings cup win not post cap? They were the 8th seed in the West that year, as I recall.

 

[13th Floor]

Was the 2012 LA Kings cup win not post cap? They were the 8th seed in the West that year, as I recall.

They were, and they went 16-4 in the playoffs behind Quick's insane play. He was like a .950 that playoffs or something.

 

[Top Corner]

Meh, he’s alright but if I’m a win now team and I’m trading a top 12 pick I’d like the guy I’m acquiring to be somewhat polished and not need much more seasoning.

Romanov , with limited offensive upside and our bare prospect pool, should have been acquired with no more than a late first, 2nd round pick. He plays a lot of minutes but can’t see much more than a well rounded defensive D . I know Montreal needed the 13th so I would have held out for getting a 2nd back instead of a 4th or at least a 3rd and 4th

 

[13th Floor]

Sometimes I think that with the increased scoring league-wide and the addition of two teams recently, people have an inaccurate view of the defensive talent and depth across the league. Most teams have bottom pairings that are more or less terrible, but most fans inflate what they expect their own team's bottom pairing to be. They're not comparing to other teams, but comparing to some ideal in their head.

To me, Romanov is fine. High floor, middling ceiling kind of player. And sometimes in your defensive mix, you need those rocks. IMO, Romanov will be a solid middle pairing guy in the NHL for the foreseeable future with a game that is built more for the playoffs than the regular season.

I also love that we have someone on the back-end that will take your head off, especially with the crackdown on stick work in front of the net, which was a giant pillar of Mayfield's game (and how he hurt Kucherov) and will be interesting to see how that evolves in this year's playoffs. It's nice to have a guy that will make the east-to-west Mitch Marner types think about coming into our zone with their head down lest they get it taken off. It's the same equivalent of people making mistakes when our identity line is forechecking. This is not a shot at Dobson because it's not his game, but there's a big difference coming across our blue line with the guarantee that you won't get touched by Dobson versus taking a shoulder through your sternum from Romanov.

 

[CupHolders]

Sometimes I think that with the increased scoring league-wide and the addition of two teams recently, people have an inaccurate view of the defensive talent and depth across the league. Most teams have bottom pairings that are more or less terrible, but most fans inflate what they expect their own team's bottom pairing to be. They're not comparing to other teams, but comparing to some ideal in their head.

To me, Romanov is fine. High floor, middling ceiling kind of player. And sometimes in your defensive mix, you need those rocks. IMO, Romanov will be a solid middle pairing guy in the NHL for the foreseeable future with a game that is built more for the playoffs than the regular season.

I also love that we have someone on the back-end that will take your head off, especially with the crackdown on stick work in front of the net, which was a giant pillar of Mayfield's game (and how he hurt Kucherov) and will be interesting to see how that evolves in this year's playoffs. It's nice to have a guy that will make the east-to-west Mitch Marner types think about coming into our zone with their head down lest they get it taken off. It's the same equivalent of people making mistakes when our identity line is forechecking. This is not a shot at Dobson because it's not his game, but there's a big difference coming across our blue line with the guarantee that you won't get touched by Dobson versus taking a shoulder through your sternum from Romanov.

Agree.

I’ve been saying that Colorado with Jack Johnson defeated Tampa with Zach Bogosian for the Stanley Cup.

Both played substantial minutes. So I honestly don’t get the whole… “So and so player is NOT a top six d-man on a contender” takes on this site.

 

[doublechili]

Romanov is 6'1", 210lbs and he's a day older than Dobson (who everyone expects to put on 20lbs once he fills out, and also improve a lot defensively). Romanov hits, and he can really skate. And, like Dobson, he'll improve over time. I expect he'll be more, but even if he maxes out as Rich Pilon with plus skating, that's pretty good.

 

[Chapin Landvogt]

Both Dobson and Romanov will be fine by 24/25.

In fact, more than that.

The bumpy roads we've seen both tread are a natural part of the process. Yes, disappointing that Dobson has been in the middle of some poor goals against this year. And it's hurting our shot at the playoffs.

Romanov has definitely improved and been quite a solid player the past 4-6 weeks. Enough so that Canadiens fans are already telling me how worried they are that they're going to rue that trade, no matter what Dach becomes for them.

Keep hearing "This is sooo gonna be Sergachev part two".

 

[crashthenet]

Both Dobson and Romanov will be more than fine by 24/25.

In fact, more than that.

The bumpy roads we've seen from both are a natural part of the process. Yes, disappointing that Dobson has been in the middle of some poor goals against this year. And it's hurting our shot at the playoffs.

Romanov has definitely improved and been quite a solid player the past 4-6 weeks. Enough so that Canadiens fans are already telling me how worried they are that they're going to rue that trade, no matter what Dach becomes for them.

Keep hearing "This is sooo gonna be Sergachev part two".

I also think cost was a factor in obtaining him. Would not be out of line to consider him a legit 4/5 with upside at a fair price this year and next. Not sure what the ask was on Miller but at the end of the day, we also grabbed the superior Canuck.

 

[Chapin Landvogt]

I also think cost was a factor in obtaining him. Would not be out of line to consider him a legit 4/5 with upside at a fair price this year and next.

Looks like a #4 right now, with #3 upside moving forward.

Not sure what the ask was on Miller but at the end of the day, we also grabbed the superior Canuck.

Ask Canucks fans. The whole Miller and Horvat discussion was one of many, many waves over there.

This said, Miller is a generator of offense. In light of their weapons and build, that team prolly needed to move Miller last year and use that money to keep Horvat now.

But absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that Miller - who BTW has been killing it for like 3 weeks now (granted, with the POs out of the picture) - is the better pure generator and creator of offense. He's pretty much one of the top 10 producing forwards in the league.

Never seemed like a Lamoriello player to me though.