Value of: Justin Braun to the Rangers

[Pinkfloyd]

To me at least, hockey IQ relates to being able to play a multidimensional game. It's about complexity - not consistency. Braun is a skilled and consistent player, don't mistake my meaning hede. He however, does not think the game like Vlasic, Burns, Thornton, Pavelski, etc. His game, as good as it is, doesn't have a ton of depth. It's one dimensional. He does what he does.

As for DeMelo vs Braun - this is an actual situation. And to me at least, DeMelo played admirably in his time with MEV. Give him a full 82 game season and I suspect the few flaws he did exhibit would be polished away. Admittedly a small sample size, but we know he can play that role.

Schlemko on the other hand, is a far more exciting prospect. He brings the requisite experience need for a true MEV pairing, while also providing a nice mix of something new. He would, I believe, if given the chance, support MEV is ways Braun simply can not. His ambidexterity, superior transition and offensive game, combined with a more adaptable style, I think would allow that first pairing to become an even greater threat. Vlasic could build off his career season, with a partner capable of supporting him in all the right ways. This would ideally untether MEV more, let him play a less structured game, and provide him another option to run the offense through. As it stands, every team knows to tunnel MEV on the rush - simply because Braun isnt a threat. This is precisely why after a career offensive season, Vlasic was unable to keep pace in the play-offs. Did he contribute via positive Corsi generation and play-making? Absolutely. But the reason for Braun's sudden offensive prowess was that everyone was focused on MEV. Fix that, and you create a much more dynamic and competitive first pairing.

Braun isn't a bad player - and I absolutely think we can turn him for significant value - but given PDBs more fluid and aggressive system, I do believe we need a suitably fluid and capable partner to pair with him. We gotta adapt. Vlasic is our guy, Braun is the support - new systems mean new support.

Why would you need new support when the support Braun gave allowed the pairing to be one of, if not the best, shutdown pairings in the league last year? That's ignoring the reality that your definition of him as a player is flawed while pretending Burns isn't almost exactly one-dimensional the other way by the same standard AND ignoring the DeMelo having few flaws statement which isn't close to accurate.

This idea that Vlasic wasn't able to sustain a career offensive season that had 39 points in 67 games in the playoffs when he had 12 points in 24 games is based on what exactly? How exactly is dropping from 0.58 points-per-game to 0.5 points-per-game a legitimate piece of evidence for saying he didn't sustain it and it's somehow Braun's fault all the while not crediting him at all for any of the production Vlasic did have?

 

[Sysreq]

Why would you need new support when the support Braun gave allowed the pairing to be one of, if not the best, shutdown pairings in the league last year? That's ignoring the reality that your definition of him as a player is flawed while pretending Burns isn't almost exactly one-dimensional the other way by the same standard AND ignoring the DeMelo having few flaws statement which isn't close to accurate.

This idea that Vlasic wasn't able to sustain a career offensive season that had 39 points in 67 games in the playoffs when he had 12 points in 24 games is based on what exactly? How exactly is dropping from 0.58 points-per-game to 0.5 points-per-game a legitimate piece of evidence for saying he didn't sustain it and it's somehow Braun's fault all the while not crediting him at all for any of the production Vlasic did have?

How many goals, how many A1s and how many A2s? Now compare that to the regular season. Divide by games plays or even TOI. Hell, even break it down by series, you'll notice some trends. Beyond that, we are talking about actual play here - not stats. Pairing 1, target Vlasic. Pairing 2, target Burns. Pairing 3, ROFL to the net.

Again, I am not against Braun - you just don't want to acknowledge his lack of creativity and one-dimensional talents. Like Marleau, like Wingels, he isn't the most optimal choice under PDBs system. He performed fine - but we need someone else in that spot to take MEV to the next level. He has the exact same issues as Mirco, except with the polish several hundred games provides. He plays a tight, systemic, structured game - and that's exactly what TMac utilized. Not PDB. He doesn't improvise, doesn't deviate, doesn't surprise. MEV can play that way. So let's get him someone who'll keep up.

Keep in mind: the entire team was good enough for second place. The era of obvious weak-links is largely behind us. The question at that point isn't what wasn't good - but rather not good enough. And frankly, our first pairing needed better offense and better shot generation. You aren't replacing Vlasic - so Braun is the only choice. Don't take it as a fault of Braun & simply the realities of a second place finish.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

How many goals, how many A1s and how many A2s? Now compare that to the regular season. Divide by games plays or even TOI. Hell, even break it down by series, you'll notice some trends. Beyond that, we are talking about actual play here - not stats. Pairing 1, target Vlasic. Pairing 2, target Burns. Pairing 3, ROFL to the net.

Again, I am not against Braun - you just don't want to acknowledge his lack of creativity and one-dimensional talents. Like Marleau, like Wingels, he isn't the most optimal choice under PDBs system. He performed fine - but we need someone else in that spot to take MEV to the next level. He has the exact same issues as Mirco, except with the polish several hundred games provides. He plays a tight, systemic, structured game - and that's exactly what TMac utilized. Not PDB. He doesn't improvise, doesn't deviate, doesn't surprise. MEV can play that way. So let's get him someone who'll keep up.

You might want to actually watch them play because that pairing was one of the best throughout the year including the playoffs. Implying that PDB's system isn't structured or isn't as structured doesn't actually reflect reality. Braun's play and his style actually compliments Vlasic's in a manner that allows him to venture out a little bit more as a player. I don't think you quite grasp what it actually means in hockey to be a one-dimensional talent. You don't want guys to keep up and play the same way. You want someone that will play off of him appropriately which isn't always going to be playing the same way. Sometimes you need a guy as your partner that takes care of other responsibilities.

 

[Sysreq]

You might want to actually watch them play because that pairing was one of the best throughout the year including the playoffs. Implying that PDB's system isn't structured or isn't as structured doesn't actually reflect reality. Braun's play and his style actually compliments Vlasic's in a manner that allows him to venture out a little bit more as a player. I don't think you quite grasp what it actually means in hockey to be a one-dimensional talent. You don't want guys to keep up and play the same way. You want someone that will play off of him appropriately which isn't always going to be playing the same way. Sometimes you need a guy as your partner that takes care of other responsibilities.

Dude, its not even up for debate. To say PDB runs as structured defense as TMac is straight silly. The whole notion of joining the rush, chosing when to pinch, drifting into the Ovi-spot. All of that is the exact lack of structure. Both partners should read and react to the others chaos to keep the opposition guessing. Thats the point. If Vlasic pinches and Braun defends, you always know where to look. Read and react. Both sides should be generating choas based on the evolution of play. The fact that you admit it as being one-sided is the exact reason MEV needs a new partner, and the exact point I've been trying to make. Left side pinch is not choas. Both sides need to be fluid and capable for maximum effect. Hell if you watched the Pens, they would even switch sides to break up coverage. That is precisely what Braun fails at. You want a stay-at-home, then pair him with a rover like Burns. Vlasic is a go everywhere, do everything, swiss-army knife. For maximum effect, he should be paired with another - like that guy we just signed, Schlemko. Allowing both parts to reap havok, generate choas, and utilize their unpredictabity to exploit flaws in the opposition.

But you can't do that when only one part is chaotic.

Again, we came in second place. Obviously we need to improve. Your bottom-6 and bottom pair can only be triaged. Vlasic and Burns are the core assets in question. We build around them. What can be done to improve MEV's game? Ohh ya, a new partner better suited for his place style under the new coaches system. That seems like a good choice. Unless you want to keep it the same and hope last season was a fluke. Cause thats a strategy too. Not a good one, but certainly one to conaider. Second place is second place. It's a game of inches from here to the top.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Dude, its not even up for debate. To say PDB runs as structured defense as TMac is straight silly. The whole notion of joining the rush, chosing when to pinch, drifting into the Ovi-spot. All of that is the exact lack of structure. Both partners should read and react to the others chaos to keep the opposition guessing. Thats the point. If Vlasic pinches and Braun defends, you always know where to look. Read and react. Both sides should be generating choas based on the evolution of play. The fact that you admit it as being one-sided is the exact reason MEV needs a new partner, and the exact point I've been trying to make. Left side pinch is not choas. Both sides need to be fluid and capable for maximum effect. Hell if you watched the Pens, they would even switch sides to break up coverage. That is precisely what Braun fails at. You want a stay-at-home, then pair him with a rover like Burns. Vlasic is a go everywhere, do everything, swiss-army knife. For maximum effect, he should be paired with another - like that guy we just signed, Schlemko. Allowing both parts to reap havok, generate choas, and utilize their unpredictabity to exploit flaws in the opposition.

But you can't do that when only one part is chaotic.

Actually, I didn't admit it is one-sided because in reality Braun will pinch and make offensive moves as well. It's not difficult to see that when you watch them play. It is a huge reach to think that they need to get max effect out of Vlasic when the effect of what Vlasic-Braun has right now is literally one of the best the league has to offer right now. The team has other concerns to worry about over Vlasic-Braun. They're a lot closer to the bottom of that list...or in reality...not even on that list. You're more or less making up a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Sysreq]

Actually, I didn't admit it is one-sided because in reality Braun will pinch and make offensive moves as well. It's not difficult to see that when you watch them play. It is a huge reach to think that they need to get max effect out of Vlasic when the effect of what Vlasic-Braun has right now is literally one of the best the league has to offer right now. The team has other concerns to worry about over Vlasic-Braun. They're a lot closer to the bottom of that list...or in reality...not even on that list. You're more or less making up a problem that doesn't exist.

Of course they are one of the best. We came in second place. It would make sense that our first pairing is better than most of the league. Wasn't good enough though, was it?

As for those other concerns, you're right. What value do we use to correct those? Our bottom-6 cast-off? Where do you think these magical solutions come from? Marcus Sorenson? If Braun gets us a solid bottom pairing defender and a proven 40+ goal scorer in Nash, then by all means lets do it.

Schlemko is gonna be a better or equal partner, with a lesser cap hit. Nash plays a great compliment to that top line, giving Jumbo an additional threat, and giving Pavs some much needed space. That allows Hertl to actually be a possession player on another line - getting Corsi and zone time up across the team. It's win, win, win.

Second place is second place. Attack the problem, don't rest on your successes, because I tell ya, what got you here isnt gonna get you over that hump. Something has to change.

 

[Gecklund]

Of course they are one of the best. We came in second place. It would make sense that our first pairing is better than most of the league. Wasn't good enough though, was it?

It's one of the best in the league. You admitted it. Do you honestly think that Braun is the reason we lost the cup? Cause he wasn't. He was a major reason why we made it. You don't think that it was a lack of a 4th line or two pilons on our 3rd pairing?

 

[Sysreq]

It's one of the best in the league. You admitted it. Do you honestly think that Braun is the reason we lost the cup? Cause he wasn't. He was a major reason why we made it. You don't think that it was a lack of a 4th line or two pilons on our 3rd pairing?

Not in the slightest actually. And one of the best is not the same as THE BEST. We want the best. Not simply a pretty good pairing.

As for why I don't blame Dillion or Polak - simple, your bottom half only needs to be good enough to get you into the SCF. Past that point, it's up to the core. Thornton, Pavelski, MEV, Couture, Burns. Literally everyone else is support. Look at Chicago. They trade almost their entire non-core assets yearly. That's the point. You build around your core. Our bottom-half was good enough to get us to the dance, but our core didn't get the job done. Chris Tierney, Brenden Dillion, Roman Polak, Melker Karlsson, Joonas Donskoi, Nick Spaling - none of them should ever be held to the same standard as the Core. They are simply there for support. Braun isn't good enough support for Vlasic to break throught the SCF. So you move onto someone who is. Learn from your mistakes. But if you want to be the best you gotta move past pretty good first.

 

[KreiderHouseRules*]

Not in the slightest actually. And one of the best is not the same as THE BEST. We want the best. Not simply a pretty good pairing.

As for why I don't blame Dillion or Polak - simple, your bottom half only needs to be good enough to get you into the SCF. Past that point, it's up to the core. Thornton, Pavelski, MEV, Couture, Burns. Literally everyone else is support. Look at Chicago. They trade almost their entire non-core assets yearly. That's the point. You build around your core. Our bottom-half was good enough to get us to the dance, but our core didn't get the job done. Chris Tierney, Brenden Dillion, Roman Polak, Melker Karlsson, Joonas Donskoi, Nick Spaling - none of them should ever be held to the same standard as the Core. They are simply there for support. Braun isn't good enough support for Vlasic to break throught the SCF. So you move onto someone who is. Learn from your mistakes. But if you want to be the best you gotta move past pretty good first.

I'm not sure I agree on philosophy of how to build a championship team, but I appreciate the well-thought-out ideas. I wish more posters supported their ideas with this kind of thought process.

I do agree on CHI, but I believe it's more important that they hit the tank lottery jackpot to get Toews and Kane as the heart of that core. Good drafting beyond that, but they're in a very fortunate position that most teams aren't in; especially teams like SJS or NYR who have come close but have no cup to show for it.

(I would've included TBL but they built the same way CHI did and still have Stamkos, Drouin, and Hedman as the heart of the core. They could be the best team of the next decade. We shall see.)

 

[Gecklund]

Not in the slightest actually. And one of the best is not the same as THE BEST. We want the best. Not simply a pretty good pairing.

As for why I don't blame Dillion or Polak - simple, your bottom half only needs to be good enough to get you into the SCF. Past that point, it's up to the core. Thornton, Pavelski, MEV, Couture, Burns. Literally everyone else is support. Look at Chicago. They trade almost their entire non-core assets yearly. That's the point. You build around your core. Our bottom-half was good enough to get us to the dance, but our core didn't get the job done. Chris Tierney, Brenden Dillion, Roman Polak, Melker Karlsson, Joonas Donskoi, Nick Spaling - none of them should ever be held to the same standard as the Core. They are simply there for support. Braun isn't good enough support for Vlasic to break throught the SCF. So you move onto someone who is. Learn from your mistakes. But if you want to be the best you gotta move past pretty good first.

We don't have anyone near as good as Toews but especially Kane and Keith. Thornton is good but can't do everything on his own. Pavelski was shut down but still the top line was able to shut down Malkins for the most part. Couture was able to shut down Crosby. Our 3rd and 4th lines got wrecked. Simple as that.

 

[Sysreq]

We don't have anyone near as good as Toews but especially Kane and Keith. Thornton is good but can't do everything on his own. Pavelski was shut down but still the top line was able to shut down Malkins for the most part. Couture was able to shut down Crosby. Our 3rd and 4th lines got wrecked. Simple as that.

I feel like you were the kinda guy who would just mass the strongest unit in StarCraft and wonder why it didn't work? You have limited resources - the goal is to maximize your strong units while minimizing your liabilities. Polak, Zubrus, literally none of them needed to play. They exist ostensibly to draw out the game while Thornton and Couture rest. They are going to get picked off. We simply have to be better at exploiting the inverse situation. Our top line was Corsi neutral, and it goes down hill from there. Had we controlled play for even a moment, it might be a different story. But we were on our heels from the first face-off. We hit a failure cascade due to our top-6 not being able to properly pressure their bottom-6. Your read of the situation is entirely predicated on an ideal of our bottom-6 being comprible to our top-6 in terms of performance. There simply aren't enough tier-1 players to go around. The idea that Polak has the same role or expectations as MEV is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Gecklund]

I feel like you were the kinda guy who would just mass the strongest unit in StarCraft and wonder why it didn't work? You have limited resources - the goal is to maximize your strong units while minimizing your liabilities. Polak, Zubrus, literally none of them needed to play. They exist ostensibly to draw out the game while Thornton and Couture rest. They are going to get picked off. We simply have to be better at exploiting the inverse situation. Our top line was Corsi neutral, and it goes down hill from there. Had we controlled play for even a moment, it might be a different story. But we were on our heels from the first face-off. We hit a failure cascade due to our top-6 not being able to properly pressure their bottom-6. Your read of the situation is entirely predicated on an ideal of our bottom-6 being comprible to our top-6 in terms of performance. There simply aren't enough tier-1 players to go around.

We were on our heels because of the Kessel-Bonino-Hagelin line. Tierney couldn't handle them by himself. We weren't on our heels because of our top units.

 

[Sysreq]

We were on our heels because of the Kessel-Bonino-Hagelin line. Tierney couldn't handle them by himself. We weren't on our heels because of our top units.

A simple line mismatch can be managed. Thornton and Pavelski failed to properly generate zone time, even with last change. Couture and Marleau were even worse. This failure cascade put the 3rd in far more high danger spots than they should have seen otherwise, while basically making the 4th line unplayable. Watch the ebb and flow of a game. Tierney never should have been in half the situations he was and neither should Kessel. It starts with lines 1 and 2 failing to get zone time to allow for a controlled retreat while they rest. And once they were forced to shorten the bench further due to bad starts they exhaust further.

Your looking at a symptom not a cause. Each line has a separate role and the top did not execute theirs, which pushed the bottom into threatened positions.

Aka: your third pairing always sucks. If you can't shelter them, your not gonna win...

 

[hohosaregood]

Not in the slightest actually. And one of the best is not the same as THE BEST. We want the best. Not simply a pretty good pairing.

As for why I don't blame Dillion or Polak - simple, your bottom half only needs to be good enough to get you into the SCF. Past that point, it's up to the core. Thornton, Pavelski, MEV, Couture, Burns. Literally everyone else is support. Look at Chicago. They trade almost their entire non-core assets yearly. That's the point. You build around your core. Our bottom-half was good enough to get us to the dance, but our core didn't get the job done. Chris Tierney, Brenden Dillion, Roman Polak, Melker Karlsson, Joonas Donskoi, Nick Spaling - none of them should ever be held to the same standard as the Core. They are simply there for support. Braun isn't good enough support for Vlasic to break throught the SCF. So you move onto someone who is. Learn from your mistakes. But if you want to be the best you gotta move past pretty good first.

If you want the best, it'd be insane to drop Braun for McIlrath cuz that'd be a serious downgrade and you're seriously underestimating Braun's hockey intelligence and ability.

 

[Sysreq]

If you want the best, it'd be insane to drop Braun for McIlrath cuz that'd be a serious downgrade and you're seriously underestimating Braun's hockey intelligence and ability.

Under no circumstances should Braun be replaced with McIlrath. I think I even state that McIlrath wouldn't really be needed and is just a value add. The core deal here is Braun for Nash. Which I think is an absolute steal tbh.

As for the rest, read the thread and attack the analysis if you want to argue the conclusion. I've made my case, if you disagree without additional reason to support there is little to consider that would sway me.

 

[Gecklund]

A simple line mismatch can be managed. Thornton and Pavelski failed to properly generate zone time, even with last change. Couture and Marleau were even worse. This failure cascade put the 3rd in far more high danger spots than they should have seen otherwise, while basically making the 4th line unplayable. Watch the ebb and flow of a game. Tierney never should have been in half the situations he was and neither should Kessel. It starts with lines 1 and 2 failing to get zone time to allow for a controlled retreat while they rest. And once they were forced to shorten the bench further due to bad starts they exhaust further.

Your looking at a symptom not a cause. Each line has a separate role and the top did not execute theirs, which pushed the bottom into threatened positions.

Aka: your third pairing always sucks. If you can't shelter them, your not gonna win...

I'm pretty sure you watched a completely different series than I did. I give up.

 

[Sysreq]

I'm pretty sure you watched a completely different series than I did. I give up.

Did you notice how much Jumbo and Couture's lines were hemmed in our zone?

 

[Gecklund]

Did you notice how much Jumbo and Couture's lines were hemmed in our zone?

No I noticed how those were about even. I also noticed how the HBK line kept us in our zone AND scored.

Game 1 PIT scored 3 goals one from each of the top 3 lines. We scored 2, one on the PP and one from the second
Game 2 PIT scored 2 goals one in OT, one from the 3rd line. We scored 1, from the second line.
Game 3 PIT scored 2 goals one that crazy Lovejoy luck shot, the next from the first. We scored 3, one from the first (happened to come from Braun), One from a line change so half 3rd half 1st, next in OT
Game 4 PT scored 3 goals two from second, one from a line change so half 3rd, half 4th. We scored one from 3rd.
Game 5 PIT scored 2 one from PP one from 3rd. We scored 4, 2 from second, one during a line change so half 2nd, half 4th, one empty net from 1st
Game 6 PIT scored 3, one from PP, one from 1st, one EN from first. We scored 1 from second.

So if we do a line by line comparison.
Firsts (Thornton vs Crosby)- 3 vs 2.5 pretty even
Seconds (Couture vs Malkin)- 3 vs 4.5 again pretty even but we obviously have the advantage
Thirds (HBK vs Tierney)- 3.5 vs 1 Pretty uneven they obviously have the advantage
Fourths (Spaling vs Cullen)- 0.5 vs 0.5 Even in scoring but not in the eye test

This is without considering PP which was fairly even. Our main problem was our depth. There was only 2 lines that were outscored. First by only 0.5 goals which I would say is fairly even. Also Third by 2.5 goals. If we had better depth we would have at least been closer. Our defense wasn't the problem. It was our depth. There's no reason for us to get rid of Braun. Especially for an overpaid depth player for our third line which is what Nash would be for us. We added Boedker and Goldobin/Meier/Sorenson are a year older.

 

[Sysreq]

No I noticed how those were about even. I also noticed how the HBK line kept us in our zone AND scored.

Game 1 PIT scored 3 goals one from each of the top 3 lines. We scored 2, one on the PP and one from the second
Game 2 PIT scored 2 goals one in OT, one from the 3rd line. We scored 1, from the second line.
Game 3 PIT scored 2 goals one that crazy Lovejoy luck shot, the next from the first. We scored 3, one from the first (happened to come from Braun), One from a line change so half 3rd half 1st, next in OT
Game 4 PT scored 3 goals two from second, one from a line change so half 3rd, half 4th. We scored one from 3rd.
Game 5 PIT scored 2 one from PP one from 3rd. We scored 4, 2 from second, one during a line change so half 2nd, half 4th, one empty net from 1st
Game 6 PIT scored 3, one from PP, one from 1st, one EN from first. We scored 1 from second.

So if we do a line by line comparison.
Firsts (Thornton vs Crosby)- 3 vs 2.5 pretty even
Seconds (Couture vs Malkin)- 3 vs 4.5 again pretty even but we obviously have the advantage
Thirds (HBK vs Tierney)- 3.5 vs 1 Pretty uneven they obviously have the advantage
Fourths (Spaling vs Cullen)- 0.5 vs 0.5 Even in scoring but not in the eye test

This is without considering PP which was fairly even. Our main problem was our depth. There was only 2 lines that were outscored. First by only 0.5 goals which I would say is fairly even. Also Third by 2.5 goals. If we had better depth we would have at least been closer. Our defense wasn't the problem. It was our depth. There's no reason for us to get rid of Braun. Especially for an overpaid depth player for our third line which is what Nash would be for us. We added Boedker and Goldobin/Meier/Sorenson are a year older.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere.

These are all from Game 6, since I can't find a good aggregation for the series

What percentage of the time did Crosby start in our zone? 45%
What percentage of the time did Thornton start in our zone? 60%

What percentage of the time did Malkin start in our zone? 100%
What percentage of the time did Couture start in our zone? 35%

What percentage of the time did Kessel start in our zone? 90%.
What percentage of the time did Tierney start in their zone? 25%


Okay, so what's happening here?

In the general case, Thornton will end his shift in the offensive zone. His percentages are depressed, but you are correct to say he is playing Crosby to evens. Ideally

Couture would ideally end his shift in the offensive zone - but he isn't. In fact, in the general case he gets pushed back into the defensive zone.

Now, Tierney, would ideally be playing closer to 50/50 in offensive zone starts - yes he may lose the zone, but that is still okay - part of Couture's job is to buy him extra time by ending play in the appropriate end. But he isn't. Because Couture get's pushed back, the nominal case is Tierney starting on the defensive and Kessel starting on the offensive.

Starting to see where the HBK's lines dominance stems from? Because of Couture failing to set them up in the offensive zone, Tierney is now placed into a situation where OBVIOUSLY his GA/60 is going to increased. Since they are starting more frequently in the defensive zone than they should, their GA is going to go up. This compounds further with the forth line. If the 3rd line manages to end in the offensive zone, PDB can safely play his 4th, allowing 1 and 2 more rest. Since the 3rd line starts more frequently in the defensive zone, they are going to end more frequently in the defensive zone, and PDB is forced to play his 4th less - further exhausting 1 and 2. Mean while, the primary function of the 4th line is to grind down the opposition. They are most effective in this role while playing in the offensive zone. But since the 4th line isn't being deployed offensively, it is forced to resort largely to shot blocking and not grinding. This further reduces the level of fatigue experienced by the Pens - most specifically their defense-men. And this further adds to Jumbo, Couture and Tierney's difficulties in breaking into the oppositions zone. And reduces the number of special team's opportunities available to the Shark's due to the 4th lines penchant from drawing penalties.

So what do this failure cascade do? Basically, it cedes control of the game's flow to the Pens. If they need rest, they get rest. If they want to press the attack, they press the attack. And by and large, they are not being hit since they have managed to exclude that scenario from the game.

Again - Tierney should not have been forced to start in our zone nearly as much as he was. Kessel should not have been allowed to start in our zone nearly as much as he was.

How do we stop this failure cascade from occurring?

1) We need a second line capable of playing better possession hockey.
2) We need a defense more capable of holding the zone rather than simply stopping the rush.
3) When we do lose the zone, we need a quick transition out of our end and back on the rush the other way ending in a stoppage of play.

 

[Gecklund]

How do we stop this failure cascade from occurring?

1) We need a second line capable of playing better possession hockey.
2) We need a defense more capable of holding the zone rather than simply stopping the rush.
3) When we do lose the zone, we need a quick transition out of our end and back on the rush the other way ending in a stoppage of play.

Okay so
1) you want to trade for a player that isn't very good possession wise for our 3rd best defender.
2) you want to trade our 2nd best defensive defenseman without any replacement. Demelo isn't ready to play against top competition. Schlemko isn't either. Dillon isn't fast enough and would get destroyed by Kopitar, Perry, Sedins, McDavid, etc.
3) you want to trade the defender that normally makes the first pass out of the zone while Vlasic rushes.

You want to trade Braun for an overpaid middle sixer or for someone to block Meier's path to NHL without getting ANYONE back to help ease the blow of him leaving. I seriously do not understand how this could be considered fair value.

Before the trade our forwards look like:
Meier-Thornton-Pav
Boedker-Couture-Donskoi
Marleau-Hertl-Ward
Nieto-Tierney-Karlsson/Wingels

Vlasic-Braun
Martin-Burns
Dillon-Schlemko

After the trade:
Nash-Thornton-Pav
Boedker-Couture-Donskoi
Marleau-Hertl-Ward
Nieto-Tierney-Karlsson

Vlasic-???
Martin-Burns
Dillon-Schlemko

I would much prefer to have Meier given that he was one of the last cuts last year. Also PDB said that the plan was always to send Meier back but he almost made the team anyway. ALSO we would have to trade someone to fit Nash's salary in or it would lead to us losing one or both of Thornton or Marleau to FA next year. ALSO we would lose someone else to the expansion draft because we would have to protect Nash because not only does he have a NTC (this I'm not 100% sure of) but because of DW trading away a top pairing defender for him. So in the end our lineup could look like this

Nash-Thornton-Pav
Boedker-Couture-Donskoi
Sorensen-Hertl-Goldobin
Nieto-Tierney-Karlsson

I'm assuming that Ward is gone. While this lineup isn't bad our defense still has a huge question mark.

Vlasic-???
Martin-Burns
Dillon-Schlemko

 

[Juxtaposer]

This getting off-topic.

 

[Sysreq]

Okay so

...WORDS... (I cut it down for size)

Nash-Thornton-Pav
Boedker-Couture-Donskoi
Sorensen-Hertl-Goldobin
Nieto-Tierney-Karlsson

I'm assuming that Ward is gone. While this lineup isn't bad our defense still has a huge question mark.

Vlasic-???
Martin-Burns
Dillon-Schlemko

I disagree that Schlemko isn't ready to take that jump. Schlemko's biggest flaw at this point is simply experience and a lack of production - two things we can fix. Take a look at his HERO chart from last season:
http://public.tableau.com/shared/8H29CBW2D?:display_count=yes

Now look at Vlasic:
Under TMac: http://public.tableau.com/shared/TWHD2T2SG?:display_count=yes
Under PDB: http://public.tableau.com/shared/KNZXFSNSP?:display_count=yes

PDB does exactly what we did last season with Vlasic and the Vlasic-Schlemko pairing has it all. Double sided offense with amazing shot generation and possession numbers plus great shot suppression and GA/60 figures as well. Both Schlemko and Vlasic are known for making the players around them better - I think they can do some amazing things together.

So that said, what does it look like:

Nash - Jumbo - Pavs
Marleau - Couture - Boedker
Meier - Hertl - Ward
Karlsson - Tierney - Donskoi

Vlasic - Schlemko
Martin - Burns
Dillion - DeMelo

IMHO that's better than what we are planning at the moment.

Wingels and Braun are already 6.2 of Nash's 7.8 cap hit, so NYR wouldn't need to retain significantly. And frankly, I think that line up gives our 3 top lines some VERY dangerous weapons. That second line is gonna be heavy, fast and dangerous. Jumbo is gonna turn Nash into a 40+ goal BEAST - he has the shot, just needs the play-maker. Hertl will be able to center a line with enough skill to keep up rather than carrying Wingels and Nieto. Not to mention Donskoi, Tierney and Karlsson being able to keep pace with pretty much anyone in the league.

Anyways, I approve of this the OPs trade. I think Schlemko is a viable Braun replacement and adding Nash gives us some very powerful options in our forward core.

Fingers crossed, I hope this comes to fruition.

 

[AAKHS10]

I would imagine Kevin Klein ++. Value wise Jesper Fast or Oscar Lindberg as an add-on would make sense, but with the Sharks having Joonas Donskoi, Melker Karlsson, Matt Nieto, and Chris Tierney, they don't really need that type of player. I also don't think the Sharks are interested in trading him at all.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Of course they are one of the best. We came in second place. It would make sense that our first pairing is better than most of the league. Wasn't good enough though, was it?

As for those other concerns, you're right. What value do we use to correct those? Our bottom-6 cast-off? Where do you think these magical solutions come from? Marcus Sorenson? If Braun gets us a solid bottom pairing defender and a proven 40+ goal scorer in Nash, then by all means lets do it.

Schlemko is gonna be a better or equal partner, with a lesser cap hit. Nash plays a great compliment to that top line, giving Jumbo an additional threat, and giving Pavs some much needed space. That allows Hertl to actually be a possession player on another line - getting Corsi and zone time up across the team. It's win, win, win.

Second place is second place. Attack the problem, don't rest on your successes, because I tell ya, what got you here isnt gonna get you over that hump. Something has to change.

The first pairing absolutely was good enough. Do you think that Pittsburgh had the best top pairing in the league? That is a complete non-sequitur to what actually needs to be repaired to make the team better to win the Cup.

As for your question, they have already addressed them by signing Schlemko, signing Boedker, and likely bringing in one of Goldobin, Meier, and/or Sorensen. So your implication that there is some magical solution needed is just plain ridiculous.

Nash is as much of a proven 40+ goal scorer as Marleau is. Once in the past seven seasons. The other thing is that the team doesn't have the cap space to afford such a trade. The team's overall defense gets worse moving from Braun on the top pairing to Schlemko and putting either McIlrath or DeMelo into the lineup. They probably do get more goals with Rick Nash in the lineup provided they magically come up with the cap space to get him but they also get likely more goals against than what they get in goals with such a trade.

At the end of the day, it is faulty logic on your part to believe that the reason why the team didn't win the Cup is because of Braun. It is faulty logic on your part to believe that there aren't many other ways to improve the team to get them that Cup. It is faulty logic on your part to believe they even need to do any of that after the additions they've already made. Nash for Braun doesn't make the Sharks better and doesn't put them in a better position to win the Cup.

 

[AliBaba]

Braun is meat and taters defensive d man.

Cleans up messes in our zone and does it without flash. Doesn't take risks, has a gaffe once in a blue moon, and his wife is hot.