New York Islanders: Lamoriello Contract Not Renewed; John Collins Searching for Next GM

[doublechili]

Hasn’t he been helping LA with their resurgence?

If you go with the wide net theory, then he’s a former NHL GM, so he should be interviewed.

Yeah, I think to some extent it could be courtesy to interview a former GM, and even more so it's the wide net thing. Even if he's not a serious candidate, the whole thing is a due diligence/learning process. The more info they collect, the better.

We lived with the alternative. "Who needs to engage in an expensive, time-consuming process when you can just hire the backup goalie who's apparently a whiz at fantasy hockey!!".

 

[GM4Hire]

Legit don't understand how anyone could want Marc Bergevin as next GM. He's legit Mike Milbury 2.0 - Making incredibly wild moves that don't allow a team to grow together and ultimately lead to minimal on-ice success...And thanks to Bergevin's work when he was fired as GM the Habs had no choice but to rebuild.

I certainly thought he was horrible but had to conceded he was better near the end of his time with Montreal getting a good package for Pacioretty but I still think it would be a huge mistake based on a few things in his later years.

1. Drafting Jesperi Kotkaniemi because he needed a center instead of best player available

2. Lots of Cap space as Covid started and he was in the driver's seat being able to get the best players at a bargain since most teams were capped out but he instead pent the max right away.

 

[periferal]

Hasn’t he been helping LA with their resurgence?

Well who can say how much influence he's had, but before he arrived in 2022 the Kings had missed the playoffs in 3 of 5 years, and now they've made them 3 years in a row. That said not one player drafted since he arrived has played for the team and the most notable player trade was both acquiring Dubois...And then shipping him out a year later for Keumper.

What we can say for certain is this...When Bergevin took over the Canadiens they were a playoff team, and when he left they needed a rebuild.

That is the bottom line.

If you go with the wide net theory, then he’s a former NHL GM, so he should be interviewed.

To a certain degree, fine - Interview whomever, but at some point you need to save time by not interviewing everyone. And since Bergevin should not be anywhere near the GM position that means he should be kept as far away as Chris Lamoriello (who I'm sure is not being considered at all).

 

[periferal]

I certainly thought he was horrible but had to conceded he was better near the end of his time with Montreal getting a good package for Pacioretty but I still think it would be a huge mistake based on a few things in his later years.

How can a GM be judged as "better at the end of his time" with any team...If the team needs to rebuild because of his moves?

Every GM makes mistakes (some more than others), but we should be judging them on one thing and one thing only...How the team does ON THE ICE.

In that regard Bergevin totally failed the way Milbury failed (and Bergevin had unlimited resources to work with to make his team a success).

 

[doublechili]

Has anyone mentioned Rich Peverley yet? Of the Dallas guys I've heard Scott White's name, but Peverley has been their Director of Player Personnel for 4 years now. Younger guy, and you can't argue with what Dallas does.

 

[GM4Hire]

How can a GM be judged as "better at the end of his time" with any team...If the team needs to rebuild because of his moves?

Every GM makes mistakes (some more than others), but we should be judging them on one thing and one thing only...How the team does ON THE ICE.

In that regard Bergevin totally failed the way Milbury failed (and Bergevin had unlimited resources to work with to make his team a success).

You do realize under him they
Lost in Stanley Cup Finals (2021) 3 division titles and 6 playoff appearances.

Generally experienced gained over the years makes one usually better, and as much as I dislike him, he was better near the end of his stay. Montreal ownership realized even with all his better moves , the team needed to be rebuilt and they felt it would be better without him.

 

[MarsTBOW]

The time to be lucky and win the lottery is next year....

I cannot argue with that....

 

[LeapOnOver]

Another post where the user focuses on an extreme outlier to try and make their point, as opposed to the real issue at hand. Very cool.

Yup - In 2019 the Blues won the Cup. To leave it at that and use that solely as your basis for any argument is as disingenuous as it comes. If you really want to have a real conversation about how to help the Islanders going forward then we need to get into the weeds on it...

The Blues were literally the worst team in the entire league in January of 2019...Until Binnington came along and had perhaps the best single half-season performance any athlete has given us in the past decade in terms of their performance leading to team success. Down the stretch of that season Binnington went 24-5-1 with a .927 save % and 1.89 GAA and had 5 shutouts...As a rookie.

Do you fully comprehend those numbers given the circumstance he was thrust into? I encourage you to watch game 7 of the Cup that year vs the Bruins and watch what Binnington did. It was jaw-dropping and if not for him they not only still don't have a Cup in their franchise's history, but they are a lottery team that year.

So did you fully understand what Binnington did when you tried to avoid the point of my previous post by flippantly saying the "Blues weren't stacked"? Now that we're discussing...Is that seriously the way you want to build a team - Needing your goaltender to have a historic NHL season to be relevant? I guess since Sorokin is easily a top 5 goalie in the league when he's on, you'd be ok if we just keep putting "non-stacked" talent around him, because perhaps one year he'll have a "Binnington-esque" performance and we can plan a parade?

Seriously? That's what you're hanging your hat on?

That plan is like giving up your job and counting on winning the lotto for your income. Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely to happen or is it even smart to do...Not at all. And to further how rare what Binnington did was in 2019, you'll also notice that Blues weren't near a Cup before or after that one historic season.

This isn't about what I, or anyone else, want to do - This is about facts. If you'd stop cherry-picking because you just and try to look at the data objectively it shows that to build a strong Cup contender there is no guaranteed way, but the most successful way is to have a readily producing core of top-end players, mostly acquired through the draft, being paid what their worth (not overpaid), so that we not only increase our odds of winning a Cup, but have a window of years where we can be a contender.

If you want to keep arguing outliers, feel free, but regardless of how you, I, or anyone else feels, in terms of building a true Cup contender there is something called reality at work here.

If you didn't speak in absolutism so often, it wouldn't be so easy to disprove you. That's your fault, not mine.

 

[LeapOnOver]

Yes with some additions. The decision to be made by the powers to be is how many players away along with a coaching staff is right for this team to contend now?

Are they 2-3 players away OR is the whole group including the core flawed?

Also, if you think core players like Barzal, Horvat, etc are going to want to be here during a complete teardown, you may be surprised if they say they want out now which in effect is starting over and a long term losing proposition.

It potentially snowballs into a decade of losing.

The Islanders need a shrewd leader who tears down its minor league affiliates, scouting, coaching staff but keeps and adds a few pieces to the core to contend now. .

Not an easy task.

With the contracts they signed they don't have much of a choice in the matter, lol.

 

[Chockey22]

Another post where the user focuses on an extreme outlier to try and make their point, as opposed to the real issue at hand. Very cool.

Yup - In 2019 the Blues won the Cup. To leave it at that and use that solely as your basis for any argument is as disingenuous as it comes. If you really want to have a real conversation about how to help the Islanders going forward then we need to get into the weeds on it...

The Blues were literally the worst team in the entire league in January of 2019...Until Binnington came along and had perhaps the best single half-season performance any athlete has given us in the past decade in terms of their performance leading to team success. Down the stretch of that season Binnington went 24-5-1 with a .927 save % and 1.89 GAA and had 5 shutouts...As a rookie.

Do you fully comprehend those numbers given the circumstance he was thrust into? I encourage you to watch game 7 of the Cup that year vs the Bruins and watch what Binnington did. It was jaw-dropping and if not for him they not only still don't have a Cup in their franchise's history, but they are a lottery team that year.

So did you fully understand what Binnington did when you tried to avoid the point of my previous post by flippantly saying the "Blues weren't stacked"? Now that we're discussing...Is that seriously the way you want to build a team - Needing your goaltender to have a historic NHL season to be relevant? I guess since Sorokin is easily a top 5 goalie in the league when he's on, you'd be ok if we just keep putting "non-stacked" talent around him, because perhaps one year he'll have a "Binnington-esque" performance and we can plan a parade?

Seriously? That's what you're hanging your hat on?

That plan is like giving up your job and counting on winning the lotto for your income. Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely to happen or is it even smart to do...Not at all. And to further how rare what Binnington did was in 2019, you'll also notice that Blues weren't near a Cup before or after that one historic season.

This isn't about what I, or anyone else, want to do - This is about facts. If you'd stop cherry-picking because you just and try to look at the data objectively it shows that to build a strong Cup contender there is no guaranteed way, but the most successful way is to have a readily producing core of top-end players, mostly acquired through the draft, being paid what their worth (not overpaid), so that we not only increase our odds of winning a Cup, but have a window of years where we can be a contender.

If you want to keep arguing outliers, feel free, but regardless of how you, I, or anyone else feels, in terms of building a true Cup contender there is something called reality at work here.

Agreed - and the Blues still had a #3, #4, and a #5 overall pick on that roster - Bouwmeester, Pietrangelo and Schenn were all high draft picks. While there are outliers, that is where you find the elite in the draft

 

[PK Cronin]

Agreed - and the Blues still had a #3, #4, and a #5 overall pick on that roster - Bouwmeester, Pietrangelo and Schenn were all high draft picks. While there are outliers, that is where you find the elite in the draft

That's a little generous though, Bouwmeester was at the end of his career and was a role player. Understood that doesn't change where he was drafted but the point periferal is making is to highlight top end talent/skill that is used to lead teams to the cup. Bouwmeester wasn't that by the time he won.

 

[Chockey22]

That's a little generous though, Bouwmeester was at the end of his career and was a role player. Understood that doesn't change where he was drafted but the point periferal is making is to highlight top end talent/skill that is used to lead teams to the cup. Bouwmeester wasn't that by the time he won.

Fair enough, but the point stands that there has not been a single Cup winning team that did not have multiple top 5 picks on the roster; whether acquired by trade or draft. Winnipeg is the only contender this year that doesn’t, so it is possible to be a contender without top 5 talent but history suggests otherwise. In short, it will take a very good GM to acquire that talent without finishing at the bottom of the league for a couple of seasons

 

[Chapin Landvogt]

Another post where the user focuses on an extreme outlier to try and make their point, as opposed to the real issue at hand. Very cool.

"The exception verifies the rule."

If no-one were permitted to ignore this oh so important nugget of wisdom in making their statements, half of the discussions/arguments in society would long since be off the table.

 

[Chapin Landvogt]

I gotta feeling it's our turn in the Lottery....
Maybe picking 2nd

As I understand it, the results of the draft lottery can lead to us picking 1st, 10th, 11th, or 12th.

Only a trade of some sort could see the Islanders making use of the 2nd overall pick.

 

[Metnut]

Would love to steal someone from the Canes front office. Those guys are good every year and seems like they always win at least one playoff round.

 

[JRD76]

As I understand it, the results of the draft lottery can lead to us picking 1st, 10th, 11th, or 12th.

Only a trade of some sort could see the Islanders making use of the 2nd overall pick.

What I understand is there are two lottery picks. #1 and #2. So if the Isles win the second lottery pick they move up to 2nd overall. Am I wrong on that?

 

[impaaaaaact]

Fair enough, but the point stands that there has not been a single Cup winning team that did not have multiple top 5 picks on the roster; whether acquired by trade or draft. Winnipeg is the only contender this year that doesn’t, so it is possible to be a contender without top 5 talent but history suggests otherwise. In short, it will take a very good GM to acquire that talent without finishing at the bottom of the league for a couple of seasons

Amazing we didn’t win one with Tavares, Bailey, Dal Cole, Neidereitter and Reinhart all in the system together

 

[Chapin Landvogt]

What I understand is there are two lottery picks. #1 and #2. So if the Isles win the second lottery pick they move up to 2nd overall. Am I wrong on that?

Looks like you're correct!

Who kept saying we could only move up the ten spots or not at all?

 

[Throttle]

Well who can say how much influence he's had, but before he arrived in 2022 the Kings had missed the playoffs in 3 of 5 years, and now they've made them 3 years in a row. That said not one player drafted since he arrived has played for the team and the most notable player trade was both acquiring Dubois...And then shipping him out a year later for Keumper.

What we can say for certain is this...When Bergevin took over the Canadiens they were a playoff team, and when he left they needed a rebuild.

That is the bottom line.




To a certain degree, fine - Interview whomever, but at some point you need to save time by not interviewing everyone. And since Bergevin should not be anywhere near the GM position that means he should be kept as far away as Chris Lamoriello (who I'm sure is not being considered at all).

The Isles have a very important decision coming up: Dobson.

During the interview process, a diligent process would be asking about that. So do we sign, what would do you $/term?, or should we trade? Why? And what players would be your top 3 targets?

That’s free intel on strategy, player assessments, and how a new GM would handle one of the biggest decisions in their new tenure and of the summer.

The easy path is just pay him, if he underperforms, you can deal with that later. The bold path is to trade him, to reallocate and adjust the roster.

 

[periferal]

If you didn't speak in absolutism so often, it wouldn't be so easy to disprove you. That's your fault, not mine.

You're confusing, or have a total blind spot, to the difference between "absolutism" and passion. I am very intense and know I come across that way, but that's what you're responding to - Not actually facts or reality. On top of that you're more interested in disproving things that you are actually having a conversation.

Add it all up and that's why you brought up the complete outlier of the Blues situation while conveniently ignoring the full context of their 2019 season. Because I think deep down beneath the "Must. Prove. Periferal. Wrong." facade of frustration you have about me, I think you know it's so much wiser to build a Cup contending team through the draft than counting on your goalie to have an all time historic season.

If I never posted on these boards that's still the reality of the NHL (especially recently). If you'd like to have an actual conversation about it sometime like most posters here do, I welcome it.

 

[periferal]

Agreed - and the Blues still had a #3, #4, and a #5 overall pick on that roster - Bouwmeester, Pietrangelo and Schenn were all high draft picks. While there are outliers, that is where you find the elite in the draft

Very nice catch there and excellent point.

 

[periferal]

"The exception verifies the rule."

If no-one were permitted to ignore this oh so important nugget of wisdom in making their statements, half of the discussions/arguments in society would long since be off the table.

Come on Chap. Of course all data, including outliers, should be brought to the table when discussing any topic. We've had many healthy debates over the years and it's a pleasure to chat with you because you are the beacon (some would say, lighthouse) of objectivity on these boards.

That said I'm sure you'd vehemently agree that the conversation being had is only as productive as the people involved in it. So if the person bringing the outlier to the table has no interest in actually having a conversation, then none of the actual data matters to them - They just have an ax to grind...


"Airplanes are statistically the safest way to travel."

"Wrong - Flight xxx crashed."

"Very true. Flight xxx did crash. Do you want to discuss the context of why it crashed, as well as focus on the 99.9% of flights that make it to their destination safely on a daily basis...And also compare that to all other modes of transportation?"

"See? If you'd stop making wild/absolutest claims about airlines it wouldn't be so easy to disprove you."


This isn't a conversation. So no matter what information, data, outliers, or facts are presented, person #2 above is just interested in their own agenda.

 

[doublechili]

I see that Bill Zito of FLA (maybe the best GM in the NHL?) was hired as AGM to Jarmo with CBJ in 2013. That was his first NHL job after working as a lawyer and then player agent. He stayed with CBJ until 2020 when he became FLA GM. He was passed over for the SEA GM job (they took Francis instead). THAT was a mistake!

Anyway, the point is that I guess if you want a great GM you don't look only at AGMs of great teams.

 

[PK Cronin]

You're confusing, or have a total blind spot, to the difference between "absolutism" and passion. I am very intense and know I come across that way, but that's what you're responding to - Not actually facts or reality. On top of that you're more interested in disproving things that you are actually having a conversation.

Jumping into this discussion, it seems the core tension is between your passionate takes and a consistent application of facts or criteria when analyzing teams. A productive conversation really hinges on that consistency.

The argument you often make links contender status to specific benchmarks from past winners, frequently focusing on draft pedigree (like having [x] number of top picks). The general idea that elite talent is needed is obviously true. However, applying that specific draft-pick benchmark consistently seems problematic.

Take the 2018-19 Blue Jackets example that was brought up. They appeared to meet that specific draft-pick criteria (PLD, Jones, Murray, Duchene top 5; Werenski top 10; plus elite talents Panarin & Bobrovsky). Yet, you said it obvious they wouldn't win. The articulation of why they were definitively not contenders at the time, is missing. What factual basis made their failure predictable if they met the stated requirements of a cup winner? And just to be clear, I don't disagree with your assessment but we should figure out how we came to that conclusion with a more concrete answer.

This points to a potential issue which is relying heavily on retrospective analysis versus predictive application.

Let's look at the Winnipeg Jets. They seem to fit the draft-pedigree benchmark being used (2 top 5 picks, several top 10s) and have an elite goalie heading for the Vezina. According to the framework emphasizing draft pedigree from past winners, should they be considered a legitimate Cup contender right now? If not, what specific, measurable factors disqualify them within that framework, despite fitting the pattern?

I'm sure if we look at the playoffs there are other teams that fit into the category of checking all the same boxes as previous winners but neither you or I would consider them legitimate cup contenders.

Bringing up these examples isn't about "disproving" things randomly because you're the one posting them, but about testing the consistency and predictive power of the criteria being presented. If draft position alone isn't a reliable predictor, then the argument needs to be refined. Maybe the winning formula is combining draft status with playoff experience, scoring metrics, or special teams percentages, or something else. We should aim to get closer to that answer.

 

[Chockey22]

Jumping into this discussion, it seems the core tension is between your passionate takes and a consistent application of facts or criteria when analyzing teams. A productive conversation really hinges on that consistency.

The argument you often make links contender status to specific benchmarks from past winners, frequently focusing on draft pedigree (like having [x] number of top picks). The general idea that elite talent is needed is obviously true. However, applying that specific draft-pick benchmark consistently seems problematic.

Take the 2018-19 Blue Jackets example that was brought up. They appeared to meet that specific draft-pick criteria (PLD, Jones, Murray, Duchene top 5; Werenski top 10; plus elite talents Panarin & Bobrovsky). Yet, you said it obvious they wouldn't win. The articulation of why they were definitively not contenders at the time, is missing. What factual basis made their failure predictable if they met the stated requirements of a cup winner? And just to be clear, I don't disagree with your assessment but we should figure out how we came to that conclusion with a more concrete answer.

This points to a potential issue which is relying heavily on retrospective analysis versus predictive application.

Let's look at the Winnipeg Jets. They seem to fit the draft-pedigree benchmark being used (2 top 5 picks, several top 10s) and have an elite goalie heading for the Vezina. According to the framework emphasizing draft pedigree from past winners, should they be considered a legitimate Cup contender right now? If not, what specific, measurable factors disqualify them within that framework, despite fitting the pattern?

I'm sure if we look at the playoffs there are other teams that fit into the category of checking all the same boxes as previous winners but neither you or I would consider them legitimate cup contenders.

Bringing up these examples isn't about "disproving" things randomly because you're the one posting them, but about testing the consistency and predictive power of the criteria being presented. If draft position alone isn't a reliable predictor, then the argument needs to be refined. Maybe the winning formula is combining draft status with playoff experience, scoring metrics, or special teams percentages, or something else. We should aim to get closer to that answer.

Excellent points, and to piggyback on this - if 95% of contenders have x, y, and z; but only 30% of teams with x, y, and z are contenders, then there are obviously factors beyond x, y, and z that make a contender. However, x, y, and z are still necessary (although not sufficient) factors to be a contender. I think this is the point being raised by many in favor of acquiring the elite talent found at the top of the draft . That talent does not need to be acquired by drafting it themselves, it can also be acquired via trade, or free agent signing.
Then, in addition to getting x, y, and z, you get the other pieces necessary to build a contender. Some of these will be obvious (good coaching, systems, development), others less so (intangibles, drive, heart, team dynamics, etc).
In my view, the Islanders already have some of these additional factors, and lack others - so they need to be addressed in addition to acquiring elite talent.