Speculation: Caps Roster General Discussion (Coaching/FAs/Cap/Lines etc) - 2022-23 Season Part 1: Free Agent Edition

[Silky mitts]

If I disagree with something GMBM does, I modify my opinion because he's been right so often plus he has access to information, like whether someone would trade a pick for Bura exposed to arbitration, or where the market was going with regard to Wilson.

 

[usiel]

Is Scott Allen from Boston? I recall he had a pretty thick regional accent in one of the videos on the caps site.

 

[SherVaughn30]

I hope the Caps/Hershey collaborate in hiring a new head coach and goalie coach to help develop the Caps prospects in Hershey, and at the same time having a successful team to make the AHL playoffs.

 

[Jags]

If your reaction to a statement 'some fans always side with the management' is to immediately become very defensive, you can stop wondering who they are talking about. It's you.

Another good indicator is if you conclude most discussions by saying that the people running the team know better just because they are running the team. You know who you are. Ever start a sentence with 'I don't mean to appeal to authority but....'?

Pfft. It isn't an appeal to authority to point out, among other arguments, that there are people who know more than we do, or that insider knowledge is specifically kept from the public. To illustrate...

Example 1: McPhee trades Forsberg for all the wrong stuff. If in the wake of that trade someone here posted that there must be some wisdom to it because McPhee knows things we don't, that would be an appeal to authority because there's no other information or argument supporting the trade.​

​

Example 2: MacLellan lets Samsonov walk. Some folks' knee-jerk reactions were that it seemed crazy to just lose him for nothing. He must be worth SOMETHING! Our GM must not have even tried! What a mucking foron! Other people pointed to the many plausible reasons that there'd be no market for him and, yes, conceding that OF COURSE Mac tried to trade him because why wouldn't he? Anyone would. In this case there are many things you can point to and argue, with or without an appeal to authority, and the only argument that comes close to it is simple logic.​

​

So I agree with g00n and CCF. Yes, on occasion you'll hear an argument defending management, but it's rarely ever just a claim that you should believe them because they know more and have access. There's almost always lots of other info and opinions that make the argument justifiable, whether you agree with it or not. (And I only say "almost always" because I don't remember it ever happening but have been hit in the head a lot in my life, so...)

On the internet, 90% of the time you hear things like "appeal to authority" and "straw man" it's just someone taking some buzzwords they got from a freshman Debate class for a spin. There's usually a little merit to the insight, but it's mostly just them saying "Your're doing it wrong!" instead of making an actual argument of their own.

 

[g00n]

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

It's right there in the explanation/definition.

"GMBM is always right because he's the GM" is an appeal to authority.

"GMBM knows more than we do about this player so maybe there's something else involved here" is not.

 

[hb13xchamps]

I hope the Caps/Hershey collaborate in hiring a new head coach and goalie coach to help develop the Caps prospects in Hershey, and at the same time having a successful team to make the AHL playoffs.

AFAIK Washington has a big say in Hershey hires. Gone are the days when Doug Yingst was in charge of the Bears and had a lot more say

 

[Todos a la Calle]

I've been lurking since the Hanlon days, but I don't write often. I just don't have time to do it, and often, don't have that much to say. I enjoy reading folks' opinions, though.

RE: being a management apologist .... After 2017, the second straight loss to the Pens, I was like "we gotta make a change, this isn't working." I advocated trading Ovechkin. (not on this board, just with friends)

Then, after largely standing pat, we win the cup.

I'm certainly critical of some moves (signing Hagelin, for example) ... but by and large, I've come to terms that I really don't know what the fck I'm talking about. Following a sport should be fun, no point in getting overly worked up about things I have no control of.

 

[SecretaryofDefense5]

I've been lurking since the Hanlon days, but I don't write often. I just don't have time to do it, and often, don't have that much to say. I enjoy reading folks' opinions, though.

RE: being a management apologist .... After 2017, the second straight loss to the Pens, I was like "we gotta make a change, this isn't working." I advocated trading Ovechkin. (not on this board, just with friends)

Then, after largely standing pat, we win the cup.

I'm certainly critical of some moves (signing Hagelin, for example) ... but by and large, I've come to terms that I really don't know what the fck I'm talking about. Following a sport should be fun, no point in getting overly worked up about things I have no control of.

If there is one thing I’ve learned with age is that it makes no sense to argue with someone about a decision that neither of you get to make. Well, at least don’t get worked up about it.

Oh and interesting…

 

[traparatus]

Pfft. It isn't an appeal to authority to point out, among other arguments, that there are people who know more than we do, or that insider knowledge is specifically kept from the public. To illustrate...

Example 1: McPhee trades Forsberg for all the wrong stuff. If in the wake of that trade someone here posted that there must be some wisdom to it because McPhee knows things we don't, that would be an appeal to authority because there's no other information or argument supporting the trade.​

​

Example 2: MacLellan lets Samsonov walk. Some folks' knee-jerk reactions were that it seemed crazy to just lose him for nothing. He must be worth SOMETHING! Our GM must not have even tried! What a mucking foron! Other people pointed to the many plausible reasons that there'd be no market for him and, yes, conceding that OF COURSE Mac tried to trade him because why wouldn't he? Anyone would. In this case there are many things you can point to and argue, with or without an appeal to authority, and the only argument that comes close to it is simple logic.​

​

So I agree with g00n and CCF. Yes, on occasion you'll hear an argument defending management, but it's rarely ever just a claim that you should believe them because they know more and have access. There's almost always lots of other info and opinions that make the argument justifiable, whether you agree with it or not. (And I only say "almost always" because I don't remember it ever happening but have been hit in the head a lot in my life, so...)

On the internet, 90% of the time you hear things like "appeal to authority" and "straw man" it's just someone taking some buzzwords they got from a freshman Debate class for a spin. There's usually a little merit to the insight, but it's mostly just them saying "Your're doing it wrong!" instead of making an actual argument of their own.

That first paragraph is exactly what appeal to authority is.

Also, there is no difference between your two examples. You don't have any knowledge of existence or absence of some insider data in either of those transactions. You like one, you dislike the other. That's the whole basis for your evaluation.

At the end of the day, I watch hockey, track stats, follow transactions and contracts and I see what I see. I'm wrong plenty and so are NHL GMs and coaches.

As an example, when our GM signed Schultz to that ludicrous contract, I didn't need to 'wait and see how it plays out'. It was crap the day it happened. I had copious amounts of information that allowed me to form this opinion. A GM doesn't always know something you don't.

Finally, whoever appeals to authority in this business better do it quickly because likely as not the guy whose authority you are appealing to will be fired for making a complete ass out of the situation before too long.

 

[twabby]

Oh and interesting…

They need to extend Jensen now. He’s not the type that will cost much because he doesn’t put up points, yet his overall impact is incredibly strong. 12th in overall GAR over the past 5 years, 15th over the past 3 years. He’s a bonafide top pairing defenseman.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

They need to extend Jensen now. He’s not the type that will cost much because he doesn’t put up points, yet his overall impact is incredibly strong. 12th in overall GAR over the past 5 years, 15th over the past 3 years. He’s a bonafide top pairing defenseman.

they definitely should extend him, but he’s in no way a “bonafide top pairing D”….at least not by my definition. He’s developed into a great #4. Would love to keep him at a reasonable price.

 

[twabby]

I’m just glad that Chara was able to carry Jensen around in 20-21, otherwise was he even a viable #6? Probably not!

Still thinking back on Schultz getting like 6 minutes more a night than Jensen in the Boston series. Guess Laviolette just had some really killer data to justify that decision!

 

[Jags]

That first paragraph is exactly what appeal to authority is.

No, it really isn't. So here's the quote again: "It isn't an appeal to authority to point out, among other arguments, that there are people who know more than we do, or that insider knowledge is specifically kept from the public."

The bold part is the crux of the issue. It's only an appeal to authority if that's the only argument you're making. "What he did is the right thing because he knows better than us, period." The entirety of that argument relies on the supposed authority you're referencing. Pointing out a half dozen things and including the simple fact that there are factors we aren't privy to is just an additional true thing to further underscore a multifaceted argument.

Also, there is no difference between your two examples.

Ah, so we're choosing to live in Fantasyland or Obtuseville right now. Awesome...

You don't have any knowledge of existence or absence of some insider data in either of those transactions. You like one, you dislike the other. That's the whole basis for your evaluation.

And let's add reductive to the mix, too. McPhee made a shit trade and offered no context other than he thought it made us better. It was a trade. Whatever happened behind the scenes resulted in that trade. There were no lines to read between. Anyone arguing it was a good trade would be oozing authority bias. Anyone leaning that way would be relying solely on McPhee's word, because the entirety of the hockey world shit on that trade immediately and forever after.

In the Samsonov example, 100% of the situation happened behind the scenes. Plenty of coverage pointed to several factors that reasonably suggested there'd be no trade interest in him with free agency imminent. So you had plenty of arguments that had 0% to do with anyone's authority, just pragmatic analysis of the situation. MacLellan said zilch about it, so the only appeal to authority anyone could make was simple logic -- that he most likely shopped him because he'd be a f***ing moron not to.

It doesn't take an appeal to authority to think someone isn't a dipshit, especially when all evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[traparatus]

No, it really isn't. So here's the quote again: "It isn't an appeal to authority to point out, among other arguments, that there are people who know more than we do, or that insider knowledge is specifically kept from the public."

The bold part is the crux of the issue. It's only an appeal to authority if that's the only argument you're making. "What he did is the right thing because he knows better than us, period." The entirety of that argument relies on the supposed authority you're referencing. Pointing out a half dozen things and including the simple fact that there are factors we aren't privy to is just an additional true thing to further underscore a multifaceted argument.



Ah, so we're choosing to live in Fantasyland or Obtuseville right now. Awesome...



And let's add reductive to the mix, too. McPhee made a shit trade and offered no context other than he thought it made us better. It was a trade. Whatever happened behind the scenes resulted in that trade. There were no lines to read between. Anyone arguing it was a good trade would be oozing authority bias. Anyone leaning that way would be relying solely on McPhee's word, because the entirety of the hockey world shit on that trade immediately and forever after.

In the Samsonov example, 100% of the situation happened behind the scenes. Plenty of coverage pointed to several factors that reasonably suggested there'd be no trade interest in him with free agency imminent. So you had plenty of arguments that had 0% to do with anyone's authority, just pragmatic analysis of the situation. MacLellan said zilch about it, so the only appeal to authority anyone could make was simple logic -- that he most likely shopped him because he'd be a f***ing moron not to.

It doesn't take an appeal to authority to think someone isn't a dipshit, especially when all evidence suggests otherwise.

Whatever. Everyone knows that there is information that fans are not aware of. Pointing that out is useless and contributes nothing to the discussion.

The same GM who makes good decisions, makes plenty of bad ones. McPhee didn't walk into his office after a two day bender and randomly decide to trade Forsberg. Or maybe he did, what do I know.

I don't know why you keep harping on about Samsonov. It's a minor asset that was lost. We could have kept him, wouldn't be the worst thing. A GM can create or help facilitate a market. An asset can be packaged with other assets. Losing an RFA player for nothing is not great but the situation is so minor, it doesn't really warrant this amount of discussion.

I'm more interested in, for example, Eller's situation last year. His play was poor and detrimental to team's success for most of the season and he got absolutely caved in during the playoffs. I watched it happen and confirmed what I saw statistically. So when I read the 'you are not in the room' arguments, they sound hollow.

It's also not random hindsight but a proactive concern. The situation around Eller's deployment could very easily repeat itself next season. I think it likely and I don't need to watch Lavi coach another 200 games to reach this conclusion.

 

[Ridley Simon]

If your reaction to a statement 'some fans always side with the management' is to immediately become very defensive, you can stop wondering who they are talking about. It's you.

Another good indicator is if you conclude most discussions by saying that the people running the team know better just because they are running the team. You know who you are. Ever start a sentence with 'I don't mean to appeal to authority but....'?

I honestly wanted to know.

Im very pro BMac. The man won us our Cup. Period end.

I was very anti George. I used to call for his firing all the time (when you could easily have sigs back in the day, mine was “Fire George”, always).

So yeah. It’s always interesting to me to see who people are talking about when claims are made. I’ve been on this board since the beginning (well before the Feb ‘02 migration), so I’ve said a lot of things about the team. Been very Anti AND Pro management. But that’s 20+ years, so…..

 

[pman25]

Jensen at 4 years for $10 mil was probably GMBMs best move. Niskanen replacement for 1/3 the cost

 

[twabby]

Jensen and Niskanen really are similar players at even strength. Jensen is certainly the better skater and Niskanen was definitely the more physical of the two but both are very good at defending by nullifying attacks before they begin, and both make smart decisions on breakouts in general.

I think Jensen is a bit underappreciated because he’s smaller and because he has a bad shot from the point. But it’s a good thing these attributes really don’t matter!

 

[g00n]

What I really want to know is who's going to be next year's whipping boy?

 

[AlexModvechkin8]

What I really want to know is who's going to be next year's whipping boy?

Returning players: MoJo, Eller, Carlson for obvious reasons.
New players: people will complain about Strome’s lack of speed and people will complain that Brown isn’t Wilson.

 

[Ridley Simon]

Returning players: MoJo, Eller, Carlson for obvious reasons.
New players: people will complain about Strome’s lack of speed and people will complain that Brown isn’t Wilson.

Don’t forget the new 26m dollar goalie. Few softies and we will be hearing “Sammy and VV could’ve been THIS CRAPPY for far less!!!”

 

[trick9]

What I really want to know is who's going to be next year's whipping boy?

MoJo and Eller because they are going downhill.

Carlson because he is lazy.

Mantha because he isn't fulfilling all of his potential.

Oshie and Backstrom because of injuries.

Goalies because they are goalies.

Orlov and Jensen either because they are good and should be bad so we could re-sign them for cheaper or they are bad but have the potential to be better.

 

[twabby]

I'm feeling a Kuznetsov whipping-boy revival. He's going to get monkeypox after going putt-putt with his family and the pitchforks will be out.

 

[g00n]

MoJo and Eller because they are going downhill.

Carlson because he is lazy.

Mantha because he isn't fulfilling all of his potential.

Oshie and Backstrom because of injuries.

Goalies because they are goalies.

Orlov and Jensen either because they are good and should be bad so we could re-sign them for cheaper or they are bad but have the potential to be better.

LOL so basically half the team.

Over the course of a season probably accurate.

Though I'm thinking about who's the one F and one D that gets the most shit.

Last year imo it was Hagelin and Schultz, with Backstrom and 2nd-half-Fever right behind.

This season I think traditional targets Mantha, Eller, and Mojo battle for the yoke among forwards. Strome probably gets an automatic pass among those who wanted Backstrom gone.

On the back end it has to be Fever/Carlson depending on who's closest to the puck when it goes in.

Maybe this merits a poll. askldf

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Whatever. Everyone knows that there is information that fans are not aware of. Pointing that out is useless and contributes nothing to the discussion.

The same GM who makes good decisions, makes plenty of bad ones. McPhee didn't walk into his office after a two day bender and randomly decide to trade Forsberg. Or maybe he did, what do I know.

I don't know why you keep harping on about Samsonov. It's a minor asset that was lost. We could have kept him, wouldn't be the worst thing. A GM can create or help facilitate a market. An asset can be packaged with other assets. Losing an RFA player for nothing is not great but the situation is so minor, it doesn't really warrant this amount of discussion.

I'm more interested in, for example, Eller's situation last year. His play was poor and detrimental to team's success for most of the season and he got absolutely caved in during the playoffs. I watched it happen and confirmed what I saw statistically. So when I read the 'you are not in the room' arguments, they sound hollow.

It's also not random hindsight but a proactive concern. The situation around Eller's deployment could very easily repeat itself next season. I think it likely and I don't need to watch Lavi coach another 200 games to reach this conclusion.

”you‘re not in the room” doesn’t really apply to the Eller part of the decision….it’s applied to the CMM side of things. His apparent “un-readiness“ in the eyes of the coaching staff is where that applies. He was deemed “not ready”, so Eller played by default As a known quantity even struggling as he was last season.

If CMM was dominating, his ice time would have taken care of itself.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I'm feeling a Kuznetsov whipping-boy revival. He's going to get monkeypox after going putt-putt with his family and the pitchforks will be out.

Please no…..I really like Actual Production Kuzy….