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

[PK Cronin]

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.

Precisely.

To simplify it further: Every cup winner has a goaltender is a true statement, but that fact is meaningless since every team has one. We need to find the differences between the teams with similar construction.

 

[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.
....
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.

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.

Oh goodness...

You do realize that me posting "The exceptions verify the rule" was to 100% back up what you wrote above, right?

The outliers = exceptions.

The exceptions verify the rule; they never become it, much less replace it.

And yet one who'd argue based on the outlier is ignoring this form of truth that immediately makes his/her argument illegimate right from the start.

 

[periferal]

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.

Actually the specific issue in this case was that the poster replying to me had no interest in having the conversation that you calmly/objectively/intellectually mapped out below.

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.

All your points are well taken. They're points and topics that should be discussed. To clarify, here's the way I see it...

• You're almost certainly not going to win a Cup without a core of top-end/elite talent...
• ...That has played together for a few years.
• That talent is usually found at the top end of NHL drafts...
• ...But it's usually found in drafts...
• ...Which is why any team that wins usually has a great, if not exceptional, scouting department.
• Of course there are exceptions to these points that can get you a Cup (or close to one), but usually the exception requires something "elite" - Elite expansion draft rules (Vegas). Elite goaltending (Binnington). Elite coaching (Trotz). Elite playoff performances (McDavid/Draisaitl).
• And at the end of the day...There are zero guarantees, but there are trends and they shouldn't be ignored.

However all of this is just the foundation. Even if you have a great core of players, you still need a franchise that's run well and can develop those players. You need great training facilities and staff. Good coaching, etc.

Look at the Sabres. They have a bunch of young talent that should be better than their continued bottom 7 finishes every year. I think everyone would agree they're the worst run franchise. I mean how in the world do you hire Lindy Ruff AGAIN!?!? Pathetic (and the players know it).

I also believe that if new (competent) ownership took over there, they got a new front office, coaching staff, etc, that same group of players could/would play much better than they are playing.

To that point I also think that partly explains why the Blue Jackets never win (also considering they've had some excellent talent over there through the years). To me they're also one of the worst run organizations and so their staff is not doing everything possible to maximize whatever roster they have on a year to year basis. It's why in 25 years they have 6 playoff appearances and only 1 series win (thanks to an elite performance by Bobrovksy).

What helps crystalize the issue for me is when I look at a comparison between two coaches like Dan Bylsma and Barry Trotz. Trotz to me was the best coach in the league (one of the best of all time) and took a very average Islander lineup to the semi-finals, but eventually lack of scoring (talent) stopped them from going further.

Conversely I think Dan Bylsma is one of the worst coaches in the past 25 years and yet...He has a Cup. Why? Because he "coached" (better yet - Sat behind the bench" of) a team with multiple hall of fame/generational players on it. The Penguins won the Cup in spite of Bylsma - Not because of him. Bylsma cannot do what Trotz did with the Islanders and that beared itself out with not only the fact that only Buffalo and Seattle wanted a "Cup winning coach," but how he performed there (and the fact that between those 2 teams he only lasted 3 years total).

Anyway when I look at those 2 coaches and their situations makes it pretty clear to me that elite coaching can only take you so far....But elite talent can carry average/poor coaching all the way to a championship.

Add it all up and while there are several factors that go into winning a Cup, the most important factor is talent. And again that elite talent is almost always acquired through the draft, which means that the scouting department for any NHL team is probably the most important staff in the franchise (as long as the GM listens to them).

So I legit don't care if my team finds the next Kucherov in the 2nd round or Nick Lidstrom in the 3rd, but we've got to improve the drafting because we're not winning without that. Even the Isles teams that Trotz went on a run with were mostly home-grown...They just weren't talented enough. Had Snow/scouts drafted better with those Dal Colle/Strome picks in the top 5 we just might've had a Cup (or two) in the past 5 years.

 

[periferal]

Oh goodness...

You do realize that me posting "The exceptions verify the rule" was to 100% back up what you wrote above, right?

The outliers = exceptions.

The exceptions verify the rule; they never become it, much less replace it.

And yet one who'd argue based on the outlier is ignoring this form of truth that immediately makes his/her argument illegimate right from the start.

Apologies Chap. You're such a wordsmith that your post confused me a bit, and I took it the wrong way obviously. Glad to see we're on the same page as usual.

 

[PhysicalGraffiti]

So it seems that there have been some revelations that Snow's picks have been a little better than initially thought. Now that doesn't mean he was a great GM and most of his critiques were extremely valid.

But, follow my logic here, our last goalie turned GM did okay, so it's time to have another former goalie turn into a GM. DiPietro come on down.

 

[impaaaaaact]

You guys think we could get something like Cirelli and Howard for Dobson and something? They have Geekie coming for the 2C role and they have to trade Howard anyway. Cirelli's NTC doesn't kick in until next year. I think there might be some cap stuff to work out as Dobson will likely make more than Cirelli is, but maybe something like that could work out for both teams.

 

[seafoam]

You guys think we could get something like Cirelli and Howard for Dobson and something? They have Geekie coming for the 2C role and they have to trade Howard anyway. Cirelli's NTC doesn't kick in until next year. I think there might be some cap stuff to work out as Dobson will likely make more than Cirelli is, but maybe something like that could work out for both teams.

I'd want more.

Cirelli is a "cap dump" for them and Howard won't sign.

 

[impaaaaaact]

I'd want more.

Cirelli is a "cap dump" for them and Howard won't sign.

I think Cirelli is a little more than a cap dump. Obviously he benefitted from Hagel's year this season but he's a 50ish point center that's up for the Selke.

Howard won't sign, but neither would Cutter Gauthier or Rutger McGroarty. Mcgroarty was traded for the guy who was picked n the same spot as him the next year and Gauthier was traded for a guy picked #6 + an additional pick. Just because he's available doesn't mean his value has diminished much.

 

[LeapOnOver]

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.

Passion often leads to being irrational. If I were you I wouldn't hide behind the passion facade. If you are truly in the mood for conversation you'd acknowledge that your passion also causes you to say things that are not factually accurate, rather than double down on them by explaining some nuances that still result in you being wrong. So i don't really think I'm the one holding up 'conversation' here.

 

[LeapOnOver]

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.

In this analogy you'd be the one saying, "A plane has never crashed in the history of air travel" because you are passionate about aviation.

 

[periferal]

Passion often leads to being irrational. If I were you I wouldn't hide behind the passion facade. If you are truly in the mood for conversation you'd acknowledge that your passion also causes you to say things that are not factually accurate, rather than double down on them by explaining some nuances that still result in you being wrong. So i don't really think I'm the one holding up 'conversation' here.

Well I'm not the only one who's recognized your "outlier" comment was not relevant without context nor in the spirit of having a conversation. Plus I went on to objectively clarify my position multiple times in other posts with more data/information.

Alas once againyou continue to come after me...While literally not adding anything else to the conversation. You have an informed/detailed opinion on team building based on data, facts, and/or reality....We'd all love to hear it. If you really don't want to hold up the conversation, then come join it like most of us here.

 

[SI90]

 

[Chockey22]

Precisely.

To simplify it further: Every cup winner has a goaltender is a true statement, but that fact is meaningless since every team has one. We need to find the differences between the teams with similar construction.

Interestingly, goaltending is one of the unknown factors; lots of competitors find good enough goaltending in various ways - though very rarely at the top of the draft. Of the x, y, and z factors needed to contend, I don’t think an elite goalie is one of them, and thus somewhat external to the rebuild/retool discussion.

 

[doublechili]

Of the x, y, and z factors needed to contend, I don’t think an elite goalie is one of them, and thus somewhat external to the rebuild/retool discussion.

I think Cup winners get elite goaltending. Sometimes it's just not from a goaltender who is considered elite.

As for the x, y and z factors, hockey is basically a battle for time and space to get (or prevent) scoring chances. The 2 variables are goaltending and sniping. Cup winners win the battle for time and space, and have shooters to convert chances and goaltending to stop the other team's chances. That's pretty much it, right?

 

[LeapOnOver]

Well I'm not the only one who's recognized your "outlier" comment was not relevant without context nor in the spirit of having a conversation. Plus I went on to objectively clarify my position multiple times in other posts with more data/information.

Alas once againyou continue to come after me...While literally not adding anything else to the conversation. You have an informed/detailed opinion on team building based on data, facts, and/or reality....We'd all love to hear it. If you really don't want to hold up the conversation, then come join it like most of us here.

Oh I've stated my reality, which is no one can be certain of what team wins the Stanley Cup every year, nor predict with excellent accuracy. Nor is there a dedicated formula to guarantee a Cup win. Go back and read your last ten posts and count how many times you use words like 'certainly, never, impossible' and the like. Also since you are talking about another poster somehow agreeing with you, I'm not the only one 'coming after you' either, lol,

 

[periferal]

"Like every executive, Bergevin has made great moves and also had his fair share of moves that did not pan out..."


Feels like the wind is starting to pick up in this direction....And people are trying to twist their arguments into a pretzel trying to justify why Bergevin is anything better than Mike Milbury.

 

[SI90]

"Like every executive, Bergevin has made great moves and also had his fair share of moves that did not pan out..."


Feels like the wind is starting to pick up in this direction....And people are trying to twist their arguments into a pretzel trying to justify why Bergevin is anything better than Mike Milbury.

To be fair, I don’t think anyone is as bad as Milbury. The man set the franchise back almost 2 decades.

 

[MJF]

To be fair, I don’t think anyone is as bad as Milbury. The man set the franchise back almost 2 decades.

Don Maloney was worse. He was the first GM to destroy the franchise. Milbury poured gasoline on top of the already smoldering pile.

 

[periferal]

To be fair, I don’t think anyone is as bad as Milbury. The man set the franchise back almost 2 decades.

Well I did call Bergevin "Milbury 2.0" so there are some differences...And they're actually scary to think about.

• Milbury dealt with a fake owner and basically zero resources...And failed.
• While Bergevin was in Montreal with all the resources an NHL GM could be offered...And failed.

You say that Milbury "set the franchise back almost 2 decades." Well with all the resources in the world the Canadiens needed a total rebuild when he was fired.

People really confusing the "flash" that comes with Bergevin, but do not pay attention to the fact he doesn't know how to team build. Remember he inherited future hall of famer Carey Price in net and he was the #1 reason that team had the limited playoff success it did under Bergevin.

If Bergevin is hired you'll wind up seeing some really big trades (like Barzal, Dobson, or Lee being dealt), but it's almost as if he's addicted to trading as opposed to focusing on what leads you to a Cup - Team building.

Go look at the resumes between Bergevin and someone like Bill Zito and it'll be staring you right in the face.

 

[doublechili]

Well I did call Bergevin "Milbury 2.0" so there are some differences...And they're actually scary to think about.

• Milbury dealt with a fake owner and basically zero resources...And failed.
• While Bergevin was in Montreal with all the resources an NHL GM could be offered...And failed.

You say that Milbury "set the franchise back almost 2 decades." Well with all the resources in the world the Canadiens needed a total rebuild when he was fired.

People really confusing the "flash" that comes with Bergevin, but do not pay attention to the fact he doesn't know how to team build. Remember he inherited future hall of famer Carey Price in net and he was the #1 reason that team had the limited playoff success it did under Bergevin.

If Bergevin is hired you'll wind up seeing some really big trades (like Barzal, Dobson, or Lee being dealt), but it's almost as if he's addicted to trading as opposed to focusing on what leads you to a Cup - Team building.

Go look at the resumes between Bergevin and someone like Bill Zito and it'll be staring you right in the face.

I'm not trying to defend Bergevin, but you do have to wonder if the MTL ownership group gave him full control or if they were meddling. If they were putting pressure on him to "win now", that might add some context to his time as GM there. Just another in the long list of "we don't knows" in this process.

 

[IslesNorway]

Pretty sure they will interview every Ex-GM looking for a new job out there. I don’t want any of them but we’ll see lots of speculation around the usual suspects and mediocrities available.

 

[SI90]

This is the structure I’d prefer.

President of Hockey Ops
General Manager
Multiple assistant GMs.

A collective of hockey minds.


Lou we found out basically didn’t give a rats ass about amateur scouting department. We need to revamp that. Will make drafts stronger as well.

Then we need to dice player/prospect development. AHL is a mess.

I’m exciting of Botta is correct about isles plans here.

 

[periferal]

I'm not trying to defend Bergevin, but you do have to wonder if the MTL ownership group gave him full control or if they were meddling. If they were putting pressure on him to "win now", that might add some context to his time as GM there. Just another in the long list of "we don't knows" in this process.

Always fine to discuss antyhing, but just not sure where the suggestion that Geoff Molson would be forcing his GM's hand. I've seen nothing since he took over to suggest that with Bergevin, and you can see it now as he's letting Gorton/Hughes do their thing.

And even if Bergevin was ordered to "win now" his trades in that regard were all over the place. One minute he's trading Max Pacioretty for (prospect) Nick Suzuki (great trade)...And then he's trading (prospect) Sergachev (and a 2nd rounder) for (known malcontent) Jonathan Drouin (a totally embarrassing trade).

No matter what ownership did or did not order Bergevin to do...He didn't do it well. Keep him away.

 

[periferal]

This is the structure I’d prefer.

President of Hockey Ops
General Manager
Multiple assistant GMs.

A collective of hockey minds.


Lou we found out basically didn’t give a rats ass about amateur scouting department. We need to revamp that. Will make drafts stronger as well.

Then we need to dice player/prospect development. AHL is a mess.

I’m exciting of Botta is correct about isles plans here.

Maybe now Botta is a "source" again now that Lou's utter veil non-communication is gone and some of Botta's old Islander relationships are allowed to talk with him again.

That said, I so hope this Tweet above is true. To hire a president of hockey operations...Who then hires a GM...Who then hires a coach, is the right setup. It allows for a proper hockey structure, multiple voices to have input (not one hockey dictator), and, if true, suggests that Malkin does in fact get it.

And if you have multiple voices here I cannot that they wouldn't want to revamp the scouting department. And if Malkin is willing to spend money on a Director of Hockey Ops, GM, assistant GMs, and a coaching staff, I can't imagine he isn't willing to spend the necessary money to improve the scouting department.

It's still early, but if Botta's reporting is accurate I would be very encouraged.

 

[SI90]

Maybe now Botta is a "source" again now that Lou's utter veil non-communication is gone and some of Botta's old Islander relationships are allowed to talk with him again.

That said, I so hope this is true. To hire a president of hockey operations...Who then hires a GM...Who then hires a coach, is the right setup. It allows for a proper hockey structure, multiple voices to have input (not one hockey dictator), and, if true, sugggests that Malkin does get it.

And if you have multiple voices here I cannot that they wouldn't want to revamp the scouting department. And if Malkin is willing to spend money on a Director of Hockey Ops, GM, assistant GMs, and a coaching staff, I can't imagine he isn't willing to spend the necessary money to improve the scouting department.

It's still early, but if Botta's reporting is accurate I would be very encouraged.

Agreed.