Around the League - 2022-23 season thread part I

[Brodeur]

Not too surprising, Grubauer's out a few more weeks and they would have wanted Hellberg over Daccord before the season.

 

[Bleedred]

Not too surprising, Grubauer's out a few more weeks and they would have wanted Hellberg over Daccord before the season.

I actually forgot that's where he came from this year. That's why I didn't even think of them picking him up.

 

[beekay414]

 

[Brodeur]

I think Broissoit will clear, 2.325 mil cap hit but has a 3 mil salary for this season.

 

[Bleedred]

I really hope we stay away from Daccord if Seattle waives him next. If no other team put in a claim for Hellberg then Seattle can throw him in the minors and they don't even have to waive Daccord.

Daccord is just more of the same Gillies, Hammond, AHL lifer TRASH at the NHL level. He's never been able to crack the NHL to this point other than as an injury callup/third string guy, and he's been really bad while doing it.

I'd rather just see what Schmid can do if we're only gonna be giving him a few starts, rather than bring in more of the same flotsam and jetsam goalies from last year or the year before.

I think Tom has also probably seen enough of those types of goalies over the last two years.

 

[Satans Hockey]

I really don't wanna see Mitchell Miller actually get paid for the contract he signed, I'd rather he walked away with not a damn thing, but I also would love to see the Bruins penalized with his cap hit/buyout, as they certainly deserve the additional cap weight for choosing to sign him and to be so stupid to sign him. So I'm not sure how that works.

Same here but if he was smart he would donate his entire salary to some sort of bullying campaign thing, do that for a few years with examples of him showing that he's really doing the work and has changed and that would most likely open a door to redeeming himself.

That being said I don't think his parents or him are smart enough to see it that way. They will take their payday and still try to get back into the league somehow.

 

[Eggtimer]

@Bleedred , Is Broissoit any good ? Does he have any room to improve / develop imto somethimg decent ?
Im just curious , I don’t see how his cap makes any sense for us to consider picking him up. Was just wondering if he has any potential to be better than Blackwood .

 

[Bleedred]

@Bleedred , Is Broissoit any good ? Does he have any room to improve / develop imto somethimg decent ?
Im just curious , I don’t see how his cap makes any sense for us to consider picking him up. Was just wondering if he has any potential to be better than Blackwood .

No

I don't think he has any potential to be better than Blackwood

He's merely a Keith Kinkaid type of goalie and he's about to turn 30 years old in March, which is usually when the clock strikes about midnight for this type of limited shelf life netmind. That's right around their expiration date, sometimes give or take a year or two. Every so often they'll do it in reverse and not break into the league until their late 20's or around 30, but they still only last so long in the league.

2 of his last 3 seasons were .895%. One year with Winnipeg, one year with Vegas.

His 20-21 in Winnipeg wasn't bad, but he's had like 2 pretty solid seasons in his career and the rest have been meh.

He's probably already a third string goalie at best.

I mean, do I think he has the potential to be better than Blackwood? Yeah, I do, but that's only because I think Blackwood f***ing sucks. I'm just not sure that Brossoit doesn't suck too much less, if not just as much at this point.

He's also been injured for like 8 months now? I'd stay away and give the kids a start if we have to.

 

[Eggtimer]

I was just thinking about what we do in net for next year, just possibilities.
I thought Hellebuyck was a UFA after this year but it’s the year after.
Only “good” UFA goalies are Andersen and Jarry.
Who knows what we do with Blackwood. I’d hope we let him walk , unless he has a miraculous run after he comes back from injury , and even then no way would I want to commit long term or anything longer than 1 year really .
Maybe we use some of our asstets we are swimming in to look at getting a bonified #1?
Someone proven that can play 50 games and has done that in the past.
Expecting VV to play that much , for now, is a lot to ask.

 

[My3Sons]

I was just thinking about what we do in net for next year, just possibilities.
I thought Hellebuyck was a UFA after this year but it’s the year after.
Only “good” UFA goalies are Andersen and Jarry.
Who knows what we do with Blackwood. I’d hope we let him walk , unless he has a miraculous run after he comes back from injury , and even then no way would I want to commit long term or anything longer than 1 year really .
Maybe we use some of our asstets we are swimming in to look at getting a bonified #1?
Someone proven that can play 50 games and has done that in the past.
Expecting VV to play that much , for now, is a lot to ask.

It's early so both Blackwood and Vtec can write their stories to finish the year. I am skeptical the team brings in a big UFA goalie if Vanacek plays reasonably well. I could see them bring MBW back for his last RFA season if he finishes the year decently. If Daws and Schmid continue to progress one of them might be ready to be a backup the year after next and MBW for one more season as a stop gap is probably just as good as any other goalie they could get on a one year deal. Yes, I know @Bleedred will drive all the way to my house and hold my dogs hostage until I admit that Blackwood is terrible. He might be. He's terribly inconsistent if nothing else and the injuries are also piling up. That said, it's extremely unlikely the team will get anything more than a Gillies or Hammond for a one year cheap contract. If Blackwood can come back from injury and finish the season above .900 that's probably enough for one more year. The Devil you know.....no pun intended.

 

[Bleedred]

It's early so both Blackwood and Vtec can write their stories to finish the year. I am skeptical the team brings in a big UFA goalie if Vanacek plays reasonably well. I could see them bring MBW back for his last RFA season if he finishes the year decently. If Daws and Schmid continue to progress one of them might be ready to be a backup the year after next and MBW for one more season as a stop gap is probably just as good as any other goalie they could get on a one year deal. Yes, I know @Bleedred will drive all the way to my house and hold my dogs hostage until I admit that Blackwood is terrible. He might be. He's terribly inconsistent if nothing else and the injuries are also piling up. That said, it's extremely unlikely the team will get anything more than a Gillies or Hammond for a one year cheap contract. If Blackwood can come back from injury and finish the season above .900 that's probably enough for one more year. The Devil you know.....no pun intended.

I'm not interested in keeping him another year if all he can do is finish the season above .900%. Unless he wants to take a discount and take what his goaltending over the last 3 years (including this one, assuming he's just barely over .900%) is actually really worth, which would be about $1 million a year. Let him go to UFA and see if another team will give him a shot at $1.5 million on a one year deal.

His qualifying offer is $3 million next year. That's WAAYYYYYY TOO MUCH for the goaltending he's provided the last two years if all he's gonna do this year is just finish the season above .900%. A cap team can't afford to be paying a goalie like him $3 million when we've already got Vanecek for $3.4 million signed for next year. It would be one thing if next year were the last year of his deal that he signed 2 years ago and he was given a 4 year deal instead of a 3 year deal, but that would be insane for us to sign him to a deal worth $3 million next year if it's not a significant improvement over the last 2 years. I don't care if it's only one year. Then we're just signing him to sign him and because he has one more year of team control. So when people are complaining about us being over the cap next year, look no further than the WASTE of $2 million on Blackwood for playing him $3 million.

I really don't want Daws in the NHL next year, at least not full time, but I'll roll the dice on him at $1 million a year over Blackwood at $3 million a year. Daws is quite possibly already better than Blackwood. He can almost definitely outplay him next year. He outplayed him last year.

And I really don't think Daws is a very good NHL caliber goalie yet and he probably won't be much better next year, but if we're only looking for .900% goaltending next year, I'm fairly confident we can get it from just ONE of Schmid or Daws, even if we have to rotate them both back and forth from Utica until we find one that works or is currently working for us at the time. That will save us $2 million or so on Blackwood's qualifying offer.

What's signed is signed. There's nothing you can do about guys that are already signed for next year or a contract that was handed out 4 or 5 years ago *Cough* John Gibson *Cough* but a new $3 million dollar deal even for one year is too much for a guy that's been either unable to stay on the ice or arguably the worst regular player on the entire team for the last 2 years and counting. He really has to show A LOT more to be brought back next year.

 

[My3Sons]

I'm not interested in keeping him another year if all he can do is finish the season above .900%. Unless he wants to take a discount and take what his goaltending over the last 3 years (including this one, assuming he's just barely over .900%) is actually really worth, which would be about $1 million a year. Let him go to UFA and see if another team will give him a shot at $1.5 million on a one year deal.

His qualifying offer is $3 million next year. That's WAAYYYYYY TOO MUCH for the goaltending he's provided the last two years if all he's gonna do this year is just finish the season above .900%. A cap team can't afford to be paying a goalie like him $3 million when we've already got Vanecek for $3.4 million signed for next year. It would be one thing if next year were the last year of his deal that he signed 2 years ago and he was given a 4 year deal instead of a 3 year deal, but that would be insane for us to sign him to a deal worth $3 million next year if it's not a significant improvement over the last 2 years. I don't care if it's only one year. Then we're just signing him to sign him and because he has one more year of team control. So when people are complaining about us being over the cap next year, look no further than the WASTE of $2 million on Blackwood for playing him $3 million.

I really don't want Daws in the NHL next year, at least not full time, but I'll roll the dice on him at $1 million a year over Blackwood at $3 million a year. Daws is quite possibly already better than Blackwood. He can almost definitely outplay him next year. He outplayed him last year.

And I really don't think Daws is a very good NHL caliber goalie yet and he probably won't be much better next year, but if we're only looking for .900% goaltending next year, I'm fairly confident we can get it from just ONE of Schmid or Daws, even if we have to rotate them both back and forth from Utica until we find one that works or is currently working for us at the time. That will save us $2 million or so on Blackwood's qualifying offer.

What's signed is signed. There's nothing you can do about guys that are already signed for next year or a contract that was handed out 4 or 5 years ago *Cough* John Gibson *Cough* but a new $3 million dollar deal even for one year is too much for a guy that's been either unable to stay on the ice or arguably the worst regular player on the entire team for the last 2 years and counting. He really has to show A LOT more to be brought back next year.

I hear you but what is available for one year at $1.5 mil that is any better than Blackwood? that's the rub. He might be ok for one more year after this one. My thinking is one of Daws or Schmid is ready to back up in the 2024-2025 season but they need a decent bridge to get there.

 

[Bleedred]

I hear you but what is available for one year at $1.5 mil that is any better than Blackwood? that's the rub. He might be ok for one more year after this one. My thinking is one of Daws or Schmid is ready to back up in the 2024-2025 season but they need a decent bridge to get there.

I find it highly unlikely that Blackwood will agree to play here for $1.5 million when his qualifying offer is $3 million. Especially if the relationship really is or was strained. I don't think he's gonna agree to play here for $1.5 million.

He can go to another team and get $1,5 million (like Samsonov got from the Leafs when the Caps didn't wanna pay him his qualifying offer) if we let him walk. He won't take $1.5 million to stay here because he knows he doesn't have to.

 

[My3Sons]

I find it highly unlikely that Blackwood will agree to play here for $1.5 million when his qualifying offer is $3 million. Especially if the relationship really is or was strained. I don't think he's gonna agree to play here for $1.5 million.

He can go to another team and get $1,5 million (like Samsonov got from the Leafs when the Caps didn't wanna pay him his qualifying offer) if we let him walk. He won't take $1.5 million to stay here because he knows he doesn't have to.

Hopefully they can find another bargain goalie that can actually play halfway decent.

 

[Blender]

 

[Classic Devil]

I'm not sure how to interpret this. "Negative intangibles" are usually things tacked on to talented players, a downside. "Positive intangibles" are usually something cited as a reason to draft a less-skilled but hardworking (or big) player. I'd want to see positive intangibles and their effect among, say, first round picks, vs. negative intangibles among that comparable peer group.

 

[Classic Devil]

I'm not interested in keeping him another year if all he can do is finish the season above .900%. Unless he wants to take a discount and take what his goaltending over the last 3 years (including this one, assuming he's just barely over .900%) is actually really worth, which would be about $1 million a year. Let him go to UFA and see if another team will give him a shot at $1.5 million on a one year deal.

His qualifying offer is $3 million next year. That's WAAYYYYYY TOO MUCH for the goaltending he's provided the last two years if all he's gonna do this year is just finish the season above .900%. A cap team can't afford to be paying a goalie like him $3 million when we've already got Vanecek for $3.4 million signed for next year. It would be one thing if next year were the last year of his deal that he signed 2 years ago and he was given a 4 year deal instead of a 3 year deal, but that would be insane for us to sign him to a deal worth $3 million next year if it's not a significant improvement over the last 2 years. I don't care if it's only one year. Then we're just signing him to sign him and because he has one more year of team control. So when people are complaining about us being over the cap next year, look no further than the WASTE of $2 million on Blackwood for playing him $3 million.

I really don't want Daws in the NHL next year, at least not full time, but I'll roll the dice on him at $1 million a year over Blackwood at $3 million a year. Daws is quite possibly already better than Blackwood. He can almost definitely outplay him next year. He outplayed him last year.

And I really don't think Daws is a very good NHL caliber goalie yet and he probably won't be much better next year, but if we're only looking for .900% goaltending next year, I'm fairly confident we can get it from just ONE of Schmid or Daws, even if we have to rotate them both back and forth from Utica until we find one that works or is currently working for us at the time. That will save us $2 million or so on Blackwood's qualifying offer.

What's signed is signed. There's nothing you can do about guys that are already signed for next year or a contract that was handed out 4 or 5 years ago *Cough* John Gibson *Cough* but a new $3 million dollar deal even for one year is too much for a guy that's been either unable to stay on the ice or arguably the worst regular player on the entire team for the last 2 years and counting. He really has to show A LOT more to be brought back next year.

Blackwood is too inconsistent and injury prone to be signed to a $3M/year contract. That's Zacha all over again. If we're comfortable with Vanecek, we'll need to find a second Vanecek for him to tandem with.

 

[Saugus]

I'm not sure how to interpret this. "Negative intangibles" are usually things tacked on to talented players, a downside. "Positive intangibles" are usually something cited as a reason to draft a less-skilled but hardworking (or big) player. I'd want to see positive intangibles and their effect among, say, first round picks, vs. negative intangibles among that comparable peer group.

Yes, agreed. If it isn't already, this needs to be controlled for draft position and quality of team and linemates. Even then I'm not convinced that this is something real, with causation.

Also, what's the recommendation? His analysis seems to imply that you want to go out of your way to pick dudes who are reputed to be total selfish assholes. Which is clearly insane, that's no way to build a successful team.

This might be like the guy on the main board who was trying to claim that having more hits correlated with losses, so teams should try to hit less. Not, say, possess and shoot the puck more.

 

[Blender]

Yes, agreed. If it isn't already, this needs to be controlled for draft position and quality of team and linemates. Even then I'm not convinced that this is something real, with causation.

Also, what's the recommendation? His analysis seems to imply that you want to go out of your way to pick dudes who are reputed to be total selfish assholes. Which is clearly insane, that's no way to build a successful team.

This might be like the guy on the main board who was trying to claim that having more hits correlated with losses, so teams should try to hit less. Not, say, possess and shoot the puck more.

It accounts for draft position but not team.

In conclusion, I must again preach caution. Especially this time because intangibles are subjective. Plus, we will never be working with a massive sample here. Although it is worth noting the sample of players with intangible references in their scouting reports is relatively large.

So has the NHL overvalued intangibles in the scouting process? What I have collected suggests yes, they probably have. We can see this because players whose scouting reports referenced various intangible qualities like leadership and work ethic have been worse NHL players than you should have expected based on where they are drafted, on average. (Additionally, those identified to have poor intangibles performed far better than their draft position, on average).

This holds using binary and continuous measures of NHL success and suggests the players have historically been drafted higher than they should have, on average. So, we can't be 100% confident, but the best guess based on available information is that the NHL has probably overvalued these intangible qualities.

Their conclusion is more like "teams should stop using outdated buzzwords as a metric for talent evaluation" than anything.

 

[My3Sons]

Blackwood is too inconsistent and injury prone to be signed to a $3M/year contract. That's Zacha all over again. If we're comfortable with Vanecek, we'll need to find a second Vanecek for him to tandem with.

He was responding to me. I was suggesting that if NJ believes Schmid and/or Daws might be ready in 2024 the team will need a one year stop gap and won’t want a bottom of thr barrel guy. @Bleedred agrees with you. My thought was that the team won’t be capped out next season (most likely) and one year of MBW as a 30 game goalie might be better than a lame single season bottom feeder alternative. Just a thought. Let’s we how this season even plays out. Who knows if Vanacek’s DNR will kick in after tonight.

 

[Bleedred]

Blackwood is too inconsistent and injury prone to be signed to a $3M/year contract. That's Zacha all over again. If we're comfortable with Vanecek, we'll need to find a second Vanecek for him to tandem with.

I’m already expecting us to experiment with throwing Blackwood in there (like we were doing by randomly giving him Vancouver and then Edmonton) when he gets back. The org doesn’t seem to want to move on and are still hoping based off a hot streak almost 3 years ago.

I highly doubt we’re on an 8 game winning streak right now if he were playing. It actually looked like it might end that night in Edmonton when he last played.

You know he would have been playing games too. If he would have won the Edmonton game then he probably gets the Calgary road game and loses that.

They just don’t wanna let go with Blackwood.

Even if he had a good season (and I don’t think he will), I wonder if we could trade him to another team like we did with Zacha?

That said, this was Vanecek’s worst game since his season debut.

 

[My3Sons]

I’m already expecting us to experiment with throwing Blackwood in there (like we were doing by randomly giving him Vancouver and then Edmonton) when he gets back. The org doesn’t seem to want to move on and are still hoping based off a hot streak almost 3 years ago.

I highly doubt we’re on an 8 game winning streak right now if he were playing. It actually looked like it might end that night in Edmonton when he last played.

You know he would have been playing games too. If he would have won the Edmonton game then he probably gets the Calgary road game and loses that.

They just don’t wanna let go with Blackwood.

Even if he had a good season (and I don’t think he will), I wonder if we could trade him to another team like we did with Zacha?

That said, this was Vanecek’s worst game since his season debut.

Vana who? I thought Schmid was great tonight. I don’t know what gane you were watching. Schmid is the franchise record holder in single season save percentage and winning percentage. And that’s for a franchise that had Brodeur.

 

[Lou Bloom]

I’m already expecting us to experiment with throwing Blackwood in there (like we were doing by randomly giving him Vancouver and then Edmonton) when he gets back. The org doesn’t seem to want to move on and are still hoping based off a hot streak almost 3 years ago.

I highly doubt we’re on an 8 game winning streak right now if he were playing. It actually looked like it might end that night in Edmonton when he last played.

You know he would have been playing games too. If he would have won the Edmonton game then he probably gets the Calgary road game and loses that.

They just don’t wanna let go with Blackwood.

Even if he had a good season (and I don’t think he will), I wonder if we could trade him to another team like we did with Zacha?

That said, this was Vanecek’s worst game since his season debut.

Tough to say considering how odd the goalie market can be. I wouldn't have guessed Georgiev would get two third round picks back in a trade, while Samsonov would have his QO declined and let walk for nothing. Blackwood's still very young in goalie years and will be an RFA so it's possible some team desperate for goalie help will give him a shot for a mid to late round pick.

 

[Bleedred]

Tough to say considering how odd the goalie market can be. I wouldn't have guessed Georgiev would get two third round picks back in a trade, while Samsonov would have his QO declined and let walk for nothing. Blackwood's still very young in goalie years and will be an RFA so it's possible some team desperate for goalie help will give him a shot for a mid to late round pick.

I think a few teams would sign him for $1.5 million like Samsonov if we didn’t qualify him, but $3 million is too much for him if he has another poor year and/or can’t stay healthy for much of the year. I can’t see any team wanting to give him that. That’s too much for a goalie that hasn’t performed.

 

[Goptor]

Its a flawed study because players with limited talent and these 'negative intangibles' wont have people bothering to write a prospect report on them.