Devils team discussion (news, notes and speculation) - offseason edition

[bossram]

Why? Why do teams do this? Why do teams have certain guys take draws at certain times and then get off the ice almost right after? Seems kinda pointless if what you are saying is true, put all your best players out there and who cares about the faceoff?

Or it does meaning something? Not the "get this guy over this guy solely based on faceoffs" that you (and others) are pretending people are saying.

But it still helps, and is ok to say, "yea, it's nice this person is good with faceoffs." Without being met with the "faceoffs are meaningless" absolute speak we get every time faceoffs are brought up.

My claim is not "faceoffs are meaningless". My claim is that "faceoffs are almost meaningless". I think I've made this fairly clear with my arguments.

Use your best faceoff guys where appropriate. Beyond that, it's not worth considering in terms of team systems, roster construction, etc. Yes, IMO I think the FOGO usage of some guys is inefficient. I'd rather just have a better player out there, if you don't trust them to play after the actual faceoff.

I'm not setting up a strawman at all. Others here are trying to claim that faceoffs are more important than they are. I disagree.

 

[Triumph]

Why? Why do teams do this? Why do teams have certain guys take draws at certain times and then get off the ice almost right after? Seems kinda pointless if what you are saying is true, put all your best players out there and who cares about the faceoff?

At the absolute extremes, it could make sense to do this, but I'm skeptical, and certainly teams do this far less than they used to. McLeod was a huge outlier, FOGOs don't exist anymore. The days of Jerred Smithson are over. What I'd say more generally is that hockey is a game of chaos and coaches like having control more than they necessarily optimize winning, and putting out a bad 55% guy for a faceoff instead of a good 35% guy is one way they can try to pretend to have control over the game - the outcome really isn't that different either way but one feels better, and might feel better for the player who doesn't have to lose 7 draws out of 11.

Or it does meaning something? Not the "get this guy over this guy solely based on faceoffs" that you (and others) are pretending people are saying.

But it still helps, and is ok to say, "yea, it's nice this person is good with faceoffs." Without being met with the "faceoffs are meaningless" absolute speak we get every time faceoffs are brought up.

If you read the argument, you would see someone making the case for the ludicrous notion of people who can win clutch faceoffs every time and ridiculous exaggerations about the importance of faceoffs. Faceoffs are meaningful, they are just barely so, and while I think the Devils centers should be working hard on them, it's given far too much weight because it can be quantified in a way other things cannot.

 

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

At the absolute extremes, it could make sense to do this, but I'm skeptical, and certainly teams do this far less than they used to. McLeod was a huge outlier, FOGOs don't exist anymore. The days of Jerred Smithson are over. What I'd say more generally is that hockey is a game of chaos and coaches like having control more than they necessarily optimize winning, and putting out a bad 55% guy for a faceoff instead of a good 35% guy is one way they can try to pretend to have control over the game - the outcome really isn't that different either way but one feels better, and might feel better for the player who doesn't have to lose 7 draws out of 11.



If you read the argument, you would see someone making the case for the ludicrous notion of people who can win clutch faceoffs every time and ridiculous exaggerations about the importance of faceoffs. Faceoffs are meaningful, they are just barely so, and while I think the Devils centers should be working hard on them, it's given far too much weight because it can be quantified in a way other things cannot.

Only time that I honestly think they matter are special teams or in a late game situation since possession is so meaningful and usually your best face-off taker is taking those draws anyway. During other game situations, they're overrated with how fast the game is today.

 

[Owenay]

It seems like centers get tossed from the dot around half the time anyway.

 

[TrufleShufle]

At the absolute extremes, it could make sense to do this, but I'm skeptical, and certainly teams do this far less than they used to. McLeod was a huge outlier, FOGOs don't exist anymore. The days of Jerred Smithson are over. What I'd say more generally is that hockey is a game of chaos and coaches like having control more than they necessarily optimize winning, and putting out a bad 55% guy for a faceoff instead of a good 35% guy is one way they can try to pretend to have control over the game - the outcome really isn't that different either way but one feels better, and might feel better for the player who doesn't have to lose 7 draws out of 11.



If you read the argument, you would see someone making the case for the ludicrous notion of people who can win clutch faceoffs every time and ridiculous exaggerations about the importance of faceoffs. Faceoffs are meaningful, they are just barely so, and while I think the Devils centers should be working hard on them, it's given far too much weight because it can be quantified in a way other things cannot.

I saw that, and see it as (definite) hyperbolic example to make a point, that they mean something. I don't see anyone advocating for making roster swaps because of it. I see a reaction to an absolute statement that was made the other way, admittedly over the top though.

 

[ChicksDigTheTrap]

5.6 seems light even at 4 years. That's still buying out 2 ufa years, right?

I have been thinking 4-5 years for a while with Bratt. Buchnevich was a close comp he got 4 by $5.8. IMO the problem with a long term deal with Bratt is his breakout came in a year where scoring is way up and from Bratts perspective if he keeps the term to around 4 years he should be UFA when the cap goes up. I was guessing something in the low-mid $6's for 4-5 years.

 

[Capt Nico Poo]

I have been thinking 4-5 years for a while with Bratt. Buchnevich was a close comp he got 4 by $5.8. IMO the problem with a long term deal with Bratt is his breakout came in a year where scoring is way up and from Bratts perspective if he keeps the term to around 4 years he should be UFA when the cap goes up. I was guessing something in the low-mid $6's for 4-5 years.

Im going with 5 years at 5.5m. Just a gut feeling but i liked your range. Agree with that.

 

[EXTRAS]

You guys think Wood will be healed for next year?

 

[hidek91]

Who legit said this? You're acting like I'm advocating for someone like J.T Miller with the second overall pick, it's a 24 year old elite sniper who literally fits our core with his age range. People have to stop prospect coddling here for the love of god. Also the bottom 6 being a priority over acquiring top 6 forward is hilarious.

I'd argue that the age of #2 pick fits our timeline way more than DeBrincat does. 24 years of age is young, yes, however not young enough to allow you to wait for contending. If you trade #2 OA for a 24 y. o. player, it makes sense only when you're making a jump into being a contender and I haven't got a feeling that's what happens with the current Devils roster if you add DBC.

To put this into perspective, Taylor Hall was 24 when we acquired him. Few years and few injuries later, it was way too risky to sign him long-term and we were forced to trade him away as a rental. I'm not saying the same will happen to DeBrincat (who btw. will look for UFA money after his contract is up).

Regarding the point about bottom 6 vs. top 6, what you don't seem to understand is that improving top six forwards group requires risk by either trading prime assets (discussion we are having now being the best example) and/or commitment of salary/term. Bottom six, on the other hand, can be improved by non-flashy, under the radar moves with very little risk, e. g. you can sign underrated veteran for 1-2 years (e. g. Brian Boyle in 2017) and even if he doesn't work out, there's not much risk. Trading away top assets, while our bottom six (and goaltending plus bottom pair defence) are not fixed is, using your own word, hilarious.

Tell me, do you want to upgrade Tatar to DeBrincat while being OK with Ty Smith being a regular on your roster, Jesper Boqvist being a regular #3C and Blackwood/Bernier being our goaltending duo?

This is not a year for such a move. There are no shortcuts that will not backfire, we really need to focus on building fundamentals rather than trying to pull the most sexy move of the off-season.

 

[ChicksDigTheTrap]

You guys think Wood will be healed for next year?

If the Devils do not qualify him we may get an idea.

 

[TheUnseenHand]

You guys think Wood will be healed for next year?

He was healed enough to get in a few games at the end of the season, so I would hope so.

 

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

I'd argue that the age of #2 pick fits our timeline way more than DeBrincat does. 24 years of age is young, yes, however not young enough to allow you to wait for contending. If you trade #2 OA for a 24 y. o. player, it makes sense only when you're making a jump into being a contender and I haven't got a feeling that's what happens with the current Devils roster if you add DBC.

To put this into perspective, Taylor Hall was 24 when we acquired him. Few years and few injuries later, it was way too risky to sign him long-term and we were forced to trade him as a rental. I'm not saying the same will happen to DeBrincat (who btw. will look for UFA money after his contract is up).

Regarding the point about bottom 6 vs. top 6, what you don't seem to understand is that improving top six forwards group requires risk by either trading prime assets (discussion we are having now being the best example) and/or commitment of salary/term. Bottom six, on the other hand, can be improved by non-flashy, under the radar moves with very little risk, e. g. you can sign underrated veteran for 1-2 years (e. g. Brian Boyle in 2017) and even if he doesn't work out, there's not much risk. Trading away top assets, while our bottom six (and goaltending plus bottom pair defence) are not fixed is, using your own word, hilarious.

Tell me, do you want to upgrade Tatar to DeBrincat while being OK with Ty Smith being a regular on your roster, Jesper Boqvist being a regular #3C and Blackwood/Bernier being our goaltending duo?

This is not a year for such a move. There are no shortcuts that will not backfire, we really need to focus on building fundamentals rather than trying to pull the most sexy move of the off-season.

First off, Taylor Hall plays a completely different game than Alex DeBrincat and one that's much more prone to injuries. Second off, you can improve the bottom 6 by cheap signings like you said. Not sure how trading DeBrincat would bother the plan for 2022-2023 when he's signed to a 6.3 next year, you can still get your bottom 6 players as you want. DeBrincat wouldn't be the reason we couldn't afford those players you desire so much, it'd be a different contract that was given out because chances are DeBrincat would be a 40-45 goal scorer next to Hughes. Third off, I'd be completely fine with Jesper Boqvist as our 3C. That's your own issue of not liking the youth. What's wrong with a Tatar-Boqvist-Zetterlund third line, for example? Ty Smith also deserves another year to show something, he was good in his rookie year and fell of the map last year. Again, not sure how you're so willing to throw away a player like Smith who's gonna be in his third year but then in the same breath scoff at the addition Alex DeBrincat because "he'll cost too much". The goaltending will be corrected, not sure why that's also being harped on. DeBrincat + Campbell combo would probably cost a 2nd overall + 11. 5M for 2022-2023 while also fitting this core's plan. I want Gaudreau the most out of any winger available but not wanting DeBrincat is crazy imo.

We're also ignoring the fact how lethal this guy is on the powerplay as a right handed shot, he'd be an incredible add for this team.

 

[OlfactoryHughes]

you do realize teams are allowed to make more than 1 move per offseason, yes? Especially considering the coaching has literally no bearing on anything (cap, contracts, etc)

I must have missed the part where I said we should only make one move.

My opinion is we have the luxury, of letting our blue chip prospects turn into blue chip players, instead of shipping them out for guys that cost assets and need new big money contracts.

Why? Because the best outcome for us, would be our cost controlled players panning out. And we are unlikely to contend with our goaltending and team defense as is, or even what’s it’s projected as.

Not seeing a reason to mortgage that future for DeBrincat or Fiala types now, when there’s more potential to ice a top 5 lineup in the league WITH our cost controlled blue chip players, playing WITH our home grown blue chip players on favorable contracts.

Adding now, by subtracting some of that potential, feels short sighted to me. Would rather draft slaf, play Holtz, add a goalie, beef up third line with more interior players, find solid third pair replacement. And focus on becoming a better team, that’s harder to pay against this season and see a little more of what we’ve got, before we commit to bringing in higher priced players.

Our ceiling is higher and our contention window is longer if we resist some temptation now, IMO

 

[Eggtimer]

You guys think Wood will be healed for next year?

He looked decent in his coupe games bsvk but who knows ? I really hope so as he adds s much needed element to the team.

 

[Eggtimer]

Holy face off talk …
Can we switch it up for abit ?
How about us maybe not having enough right handed shots on the roster?
I think it has a minute effect . Dine times wingers getting the puck on their backhand in the defensive zone , it’s harder to clear the puck or receive a pass in stride ,

In the O zone , there were a few times I wish we had a right handed shot on the PP and have someone on Hughes wing thsy is a right handed shot would be nice to go along with Shara . That’s why it was nice to have Mercer on his wing and maybe Holtz can be another top 6 right handed shooting option

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Holy face off talk …
Can we switch it up for abit ?
How about us maybe not having enough right handed shots on the roster?
I think it has a minute effect . Dine times wingers getting the puck on their backhand in the defensive zone , it’s harder to clear the puck or receive a pass in stride ,

In the O zone , there were a few times I wish we had a right handed shot on the PP and have someone on Hughes wing thsy is a right handed shot would be nice to go along with Shara . That’s why it was nice to have Mercer on his wing and maybe Holtz can be another top 6 right handed shooting option

Nah, would rather talk about faceoffs for a few more days.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Our ceiling is higher and our contention window is longer if we resist some temptation now, IMO

This last line is it. So true.

There is a bit of a middle ground though and I can understand wanting to speed it up and add some certainty and finished products.
But I want us to be Colorado (with an even longer window before a big Hughes extension) To get there we have to be patient, make smart lower cost acquisitions and most importantly have our young guys pan out.
I’m hoping Slafkovsky and even L.Hughes turn out like Makar type picks and we’re looking like Colorado in a few years.

 

[RSeen]

This last line is it. So true.

There is a bit of a middle ground though and I can understand wanting to speed it up and add some certainty and finished products.
But I want us to be Colorado (with an even longer window before a big Hughes extension) To get there we have to be patient, make smart lower cost acquisitions and most importantly have our young guys pan out.
I’m hoping Slafkovsky and even L.Hughes turn out like Makar type picks and we’re looking like Colorado in a few years.

IMO we were too early to make a big move with Dougie...we cannot make the same mistake with Gaudreau. You cannot afford to have two big contracts in a few years with these players who will be declining and overpaid. It will greatly impact our ability to resign our talent and have depth.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

IMO we were too early to make a big move with Dougie...we cannot make the same mistake with Gaudreau. You cannot afford to have two big contracts in a few years with these players who will be declining and overpaid. It will greatly impact our ability to resign our talent and have depth.

Ya I’m on the fence about that. I think Dougie could maintain his game well enough and he fills such a big need that I’m not sure how we would’ve filled otherwise. I didn’t want to do that if it was 10 or 11 million but was fine with signing for 9 and still am although I do worry about him declining a decent bit. The cap should go up a decent bit in the next few years though. But ya I’m not sure Gaudreau is worth it unless we’re getting him cheaper than the talked about prices. Not interested in 10+ million really.

It is kind of too early to be making these big signings but it isn’t often we’ll get an opportunity to sign a top pair RD.

If Dougie declines to the point where he’s not even a top pair defensemen any more that will be such a big drag. A second signing like that in Gaudreau could really screw us 3-5 years down the road.

 

[Brooklyndevil]

Zacha doesn’t have kakkos compete level

They’re both big, strong individuals who avoid contact.

 

[billingtons ghost]

Why? Why do teams do this? Why do teams have certain guys take draws at certain times and then get off the ice almost right after? Seems kinda pointless if what you are saying is true, put all your best players out there and who cares about the faceoff?

Or it does meaning something? Not the "get this guy over this guy solely based on faceoffs" that you (and others) are pretending people are saying.

But it still helps, and is ok to say, "yea, it's nice this person is good with faceoffs." Without being met with the "faceoffs are meaningless" absolute speak we get every time faceoffs are brought up.

^this exactly.

My season long, non situational stats say faceoffs are meaningless because 52% isn't that much bigger than 48%. This makes @bossram smarter than every coach in every playoff game ever played, who has attempted to get a good faceoff guy in the dot and every announcer who takes note of this fact and every player who practices the skill to get better. It must be that everyone in hockey has confirmation bias.

I didn't say they were the most critical part of the game, I just said they aren't meaningless.

Do the best free throw shooting teams always win the NBA title? No. Is free throw shooting meaningless too, then?

There are minor skills that can help teams win games.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

^this exactly.

My season long, non situational stats say faceoffs are meaningless because 52% isn't that much bigger than 48%. This makes @bossram smarter than every coach in every playoff game ever played, who has attempted to get a good faceoff guy in the dot and every announcer who takes note of this fact and every player who practices the skill to get better. It must be that everyone in hockey has confirmation bias.

I didn't say they were the most critical part of the game, I just said they aren't meaningless.

Do the best free throw shooting teams always win the NBA title? No. Is free throw shooting meaningless too, then?

There are minor skills that can help teams win games.

Stop making dumb comparison that aren’t remotely similar and don’t prove your point. Free throw shooting is more meaningful than faceoffs. You haven’t made one good argument in this debate.
All you’ve done is say well why do coaches put there best faceoff guys out like that proves anything and then made really stupid basketball comparisons.

 

[billingtons ghost]

Stop making dumb comparison that aren’t remotely similar and don’t prove your point. Free throw shooting is more meaningful than faceoffs. You haven’t made one good argument in this debate.
All you’ve done is say well why do coaches put there best faceoff guys out like that proves anything and then made really stupid basketball comparisons.

The one good argument is: faceoffs aren't meaningless. For all your bitching, not one person has been able to review that. Just lots of hands waving and name calling.

 

[billingtons ghost]

At the absolute extremes, it could make sense to do this, but I'm skeptical, and certainly teams do this far less than they used to. McLeod was a huge outlier, FOGOs don't exist anymore. The days of Jerred Smithson are over. What I'd say more generally is that hockey is a game of chaos and coaches like having control more than they necessarily optimize winning, and putting out a bad 55% guy for a faceoff instead of a good 35% guy is one way they can try to pretend to have control over the game - the outcome really isn't that different either way but one feels better, and might feel better for the player who doesn't have to lose 7 draws out of 11.



If you read the argument, you would see someone making the case for the ludicrous notion of people who can win clutch faceoffs every time and ridiculous exaggerations about the importance of faceoffs. Faceoffs are meaningful, they are just barely so, and while I think the Devils centers should be working hard on them, it's given far too much weight because it can be quantified in a way other things cannot.

I made the argument that faceoffs are a skill and not meaningless. To say they are meaningless or split some dumb hair with 'nearly meaningless' is a baseless argument. On the PP, the Lightning just had 40 s straight of attack time bc they won the faceoff. They lost a second one and chased for twenty seconds. Thanks for your brilliant analysis that FOGOs don't exist. No one claimed they did or should.
Winning a draw is a skill that can win a game in the right situation. You boys don't have a counter for that argument so keep throwing up strawmen and arguing something else instead.

 

[Bad Goalie]

Speculation

Vancouver wowser.

Demko for the 2OA.

I have been against every 2OA trade, but this one would put the Devils on the road to bigger and better things!

Can't believe JR even entertains that long enough to even think about it.