Eklund Rumor: Leafs in on Cam Fowler

[Goose of Reason]

Seems strange to me that Vatanen would get lots of PK time but not much defensive 5 on 5 time. I think Vatanen could be a first pairing guy if he was sheltered defensively a bit by a good partner cough *Lindholm* cough

The idea was that each pairing would have a puckmover, plus Stoner and Vatanen actually worked pretty well together, each player's weaknesses are the other's strengths. After Manson got injured in the playoffs Lindholm-Vatanen was put together and played really well. I'd expect to see that pairing together this season. Vatanen is by no means a liability and is improving in his own zone but he's not as good at getting the puck from the other team and back up the ice as Lindholm or Fowler. He's the 3rd best at it on the team however, and Bruce rolled pairings so he liked having the ability to know his pairings could all move the puck up the ice. Killing penalties is a bit of a different beast from ES defending, but a lot of that came down from Bruce liking to use all 3 pairings to kill penalties.

 

[Ziggdiezan]

Seems strange to me that Vatanen would get lots of PK time but not much defensive 5 on 5 time. I think Vatanen could be a first pairing guy if he was sheltered defensively a bit by a good partner cough *Lindholm* cough

There is a big difference in how one plays defensively on a pk vs 5 on 5. Maybe he is a good shot blocker or has a very good stick to free up the puck down low (I haven't heard either of these things about him however).

I don't think Vatanen will ever be a true 1st pairing defender. His game isn't complete enough, very few top pairing Defenders are pretty much purely offensive I find, which by all accounts from Duck's fans he seems to be. Having a great offensive 2nd pairing defender who isn't getting matched up against top opposition is very valuable.

 

[Randy Randerson]

The idea was that each pairing would have a puckmover, plus Stoner and Vatanen actually worked pretty well together, each player's weaknesses are the other's strengths. After Manson got injured in the playoffs Lindholm-Vatanen was put together and played really well. I'd expect to see that pairing together this season. Vatanen is by no means a liability and is improving in his own zone but he's not as good at getting the puck from the other team and back up the ice as Lindholm or Fowler. He's the 3rd best at it on the team however, and Bruce rolled pairings so he liked having the ability to know his pairings could all move the puck up the ice. Killing penalties is a bit of a different beast from ES defending, but a lot of that came down from Bruce liking to use all 3 pairings to kill penalties.

I think every player/pairing is going to have some noticeable weaknesses, can't all be Hedman's and Doughty's. But I like Vatanen's game and I think he gets a little under-billed, if ANA was looking for a trade chip I think they would do well to pump his tires a bit and trying him with some bigger minutes with Lindholm then hope for a 45+ point performance with reasonable defensive results.

I'm not sure that ANA has a true #2 defenseman (most teams don't have 2 top pairing guys), but Lindholm I think is good enough to cover some blemishes

There is a big difference in how one plays defensively on a pk vs 5 on 5. Maybe he is a good shot blocker or has a very good stick to free up the puck down low (I haven't heard either of these things about him however).

I don't think Vatanen will ever be a true 1st pairing defender. His game isn't complete enough, very few top pairing Defenders are pretty much purely offensive I find, which by all accounts from Duck's fans he seems to be. Having a great offensive 2nd pairing defender who isn't getting matched up against top opposition is very valuable.

To me it would seem that Vatanen's skillset is more suited to 5 on 5 defensive zone play rather than pk - smaller body and smaller stick radius to clog up passing lanes, good at jumping on loose pucks and skating/passing them out of the zone rather than just trying to get possession and dump the puck.

I don't think Vatanen is or will be a true 1st pairing guy in isolation either, but to me the pairing of Vatanen/Lindholm looks to be worth trying, I think you get some synergy value defensively and a ton of offensive production - the sum of the pairing I think would be a good 1st pairing. I think ANA is in win-now mode before Getz&Perry get too old, so I'd be looking for the best scenario for next season's results

 

[Sojourn]

Seems strange to me that Vatanen would get lots of PK time but not much defensive 5 on 5 time. I think Vatanen could be a first pairing guy if he was sheltered defensively a bit by a good partner cough *Lindholm* cough

That isn't sheltering Vatanen defensively. It's simply hoping that Lindholm can cover for him. Sheltering him defensively would involve sheltering the entire pairing, which kind of defeats the purpose of a top pairing.

As for the comparison in PK vs. ES time, that's just part of the way the PK was run. Pairings were kept together, and rotated in. The forwards were different, but the D pairings were the same. As far as pairings go, the Stoner/Vatanen pairing would have been 3rd in results, behind the Lindholm and Fowler pairings respectively.

As for how his D game translates from one to the other, he's better on the PK because he can play more of a zone game. They hold the middle of the ice, and let the play come to them. At even strength, there's more emphasis on getting the puck back quickly, and that's when Sami starts to run around more. He's just not as good defensively as either Lindholm or Fowler, and they are also better at retrieving the puck and then transitioning the game the other way. Vatanen thrives on space with the puck. Fowler and Lindholm are better at taking a limited amount of space, and making the right, controlled, play.

Edit: As far as playing him with Lindholm goes, that really depends on what Carlyle wants out of the pairing. Carlyle has two realistic options: He can pair Lindholm with Manson, and lean on them against the top competition, or he can pair Lindholm with Vatanen, which would be more of a two-way role, but he'd need another D pairing to handle the heavy D lifting. If you put Lindholm with Vatanen, and then ask then to play against the top opposing players, in defensive situations, you're not only limiting Vatanen's opportunities in the offensive zone, but you're also putting him in a situation where his weaknesses defensively are even more likely to be a problem. That's really not a smart strategy, on multiple levels, because you aren't putting Vatanen into a position to succeed. You also aren't getting as much out of, say, Manson as you could, because he is certainly better defensively than Vatanen.

 

[Randy Randerson]

That isn't sheltering Vatanen defensively. It's simply hoping that Lindholm can cover for him. Sheltering him defensively would involve sheltering the entire pairing, which kind of defeats the purpose of a top pairing.

As for the comparison in PK vs. ES time, that's just part of the way the PK was run. Pairings were kept together, and rotated in. The forwards were different, but the D pairings were the same. As far as pairings go, the Stoner/Vatanen pairing would have been 3rd in results, behind the Lindholm and Fowler pairings respectively.

As for how his D game translates from one to the other, he's better on the PK because he can play more of a zone game. They hold the middle of the ice, and let the play come to them. At even strength, there's more emphasis on getting the puck back quickly, and that's when Sami starts to run around more. He's just not as good defensively as either Lindholm or Fowler, and they are also better at retrieving the puck and then transitioning the game the other way. Vatanen thrives on space with the puck. Fowler and Lindholm are better at taking a limited amount of space, and making the right, controlled, play.

Edit: As far as playing him with Lindholm goes, that really depends on what Carlyle wants out of the pairing. Carlyle has two realistic options: He can pair Lindholm with Manson, and lean on them against the top competition, or he can pair Lindholm with Vatanen, which would be more of a two-way role, but he'd need another D pairing to handle the heavy D lifting. If you put Lindholm with Vatanen, and then ask then to play against the top opposing players, in defensive situations, you're not only limiting Vatanen's opportunities in the offensive zone, but you're also putting him in a situation where his weaknesses defensively are even more likely to be a problem. That's really not a smart strategy, on multiple levels, because you aren't putting Vatanen into a position to succeed. You also aren't getting as much out of, say, Manson as you could, because he is certainly better defensively than Vatanen.

I think this is entirely a disagreement about the term "sheltering", I think that it can be used when describing one player's ability to use his strengths to make up for another's weakness, but if you don't want it to be used that way then I'll change it to the term "synergy". I think you get enough synergy out of pairing them together that the tandem is good enough defensively to be used competently against top pairing QoC and minutes, while at the same time producing big offensive numbers.

I think Vatanen is a little undervalued, and in the right situation could produce big numbers while facing the best that opposing teams have to offer, subsequently increasing his perceived value.

And I would cannibalize some of Vatanen's PK time for 5 on 5 time, plus I think there's some room for his minutes to increase.

Manson looks like a stellar shot suppressor but not elite offensively, and I think he+Fowler would be decent as a second pairing, Fowler's advanced stats make it look like he got a little exposed this season

 

[Sojourn]

I think this is entirely a disagreement about the term "sheltering", I think that it can be used when describing one player's ability to use his strengths to make up for another's weakness, but if you don't want it to be used that way then I'll change it to the term "synergy". I think you get enough synergy out of pairing them together that the tandem is good enough defensively to be used competently against top pairing QoC and minutes, while at the same time producing big offensive numbers.

I think Vatanen is a little undervalued, and in the right situation could produce big numbers while facing the best that opposing teams have to offer, subsequently increasing his perceived value.

And I would cannibalize some of Vatanen's PK time for 5 on 5 time, plus I think there's some room for his minutes to increase.

Manson looks like a stellar shot suppressor but not elite offensively, and I think he+Fowler would be decent as a second pairing, Fowler's advanced stats make it look like he got a little exposed this season

Then we'll agree to disagree, because a great deal of Vatanen's value comes from his ability to produce offensively, and if you take away the opportunities for him to produce offensively(you'd have to, if you expect him to see top competition) you're going to see his numbers drop.

Not only will you probably see his numbers drop, but you're putting him into a situation where his weaknesses become more pronounced. And you can't exactly pretend the weaknesses aren't there, so some of that burden gets passed on to Lindholm.

None of this really points to his value improving as a result. You'd just further reinforce his limitations, which is likely a top 4 guy in a primarily offensive role. And while you're doing this, you're making life tougher on Lindholm, and also limiting Vatanen's ability to contribute offensively. That's kind of a loss across the board. You're weaker defensively, and weaker offensively.

Edit: If this were just a top 4 pairing, I can see where the balance would come in handy, but in a top pairing role there are certain responsibilities you can expect, and only so many minutes that they can realistically play without wearing down(given what we've seen from both players so far, that number is probably about 23-24 minutes). You can't put Vatanen into a good environment offensively, and still use the top pairing in a heavy defensive role. And you can't use that pairing in a heavy defensive situation, without it hurting Vatanen's ability to contribute offensively and without Vatanen's defensively game possibly being an issue.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Then we'll agree to disagree, because a great deal of Vatanen's value comes from his ability to produce offensively, and if you take away the opportunities for him to produce offensively(you'd have to, if you expect him to see top competition) you're going to see his numbers drop.

Not only will you probably see his numbers drop, but you're putting him into a situation where his weaknesses become more pronounced. And you can't exactly pretend the weaknesses aren't there, so some of that burden gets passed on to Lindholm.

None of this really points to his value improving as a result. You'd just further reinforce his limitations, which is likely a top 4 guy in a primarily offensive role. And while you're doing this, you're making life tougher on Lindholm, and also limiting Vatanen's ability to contribute offensively. That's kind of a loss across the board. You're weaker defensively, and weaker offensively.

Edit: If this were just a top 4 pairing, I can see where the balance would come in handy, but in a top pairing role there are certain responsibilities you can expect, and only so many minutes that they can realistically play without wearing down(given what we've seen from both players so far, that number is probably about 23-24 minutes). You can't put Vatanen into a good environment offensively, and still use the top pairing in a heavy defensive role. And you can't use that pairing in a heavy defensive situation, without it hurting Vatanen's ability to contribute offensively and without Vatanen's defensively game possibly being an issue.

As I mentioned, I would take away some of his PK time in favour of 5 on 5 time. While I think you'll get a drop in his ES Pts/60, I think there's enough to compensate for that in having less time on ice where you're virtually assured not to get any points....and what's he at, like 2.5 minutes/game of PK?

I think we're getting awfully speculative here in terms of how he would produce, I'd like to see him get the opportunity to see what he would do. Or, as a leaf fan, I would like to acquire him over Fowler at a reasonable value and try it here instead...

 

[Sojourn]

As I mentioned, I would take away some of his PK time in favour of 5 on 5 time. While I think you'll get a drop in his ES Pts/60, I think there's enough to compensate for that in having less time on ice where you're virtually assured not to get any points....and what's he at, like 2.5 minutes/game of PK?

I think we're getting awfully speculative here in terms of how he would produce, I'd like to see him get the opportunity to see what he would do. Or, as a leaf fan, I would like to acquire him over Fowler at a reasonable value and try it here instead...

I feel like you're putting your analysis together relying solely on statistics, and less on what you've actually seen on the ice.

Vatanen is used heavily in offensive situations right now, while being used more sparingly defensively at even strength. The reason for this is that he's dynamic offensively, but he's not as good defensively. You could call it speculative, but I'd call it common sense, based on my observations of how he's used, and how he plays in that role.

Common sense suggests that an offensive defenseman, used in less favorable offensive roles, is probably going to produce less. You're taking away opportunities for him to contribute offensively. At the same time, you're putting him in even more situations where he is clearly not as strong as other defensemen on the team.

Is it speculative? Sure. Is it less speculative than assuming he'd be able to hack it in a top pairing role? Yes, it absolutely is less speculative than that. We've already seen him in a more offensively inclined role, and we've seen the results of that. Both good and bad.

Really, I'd be against this attempt to boost Vatanen's value because it conflicts with trying to be the best team they can. We're putting Vatanen into a position where he will be less effective, and as a result the team will be worse. If Vatanen just plays great this season, and takes another step defensively, then you might be on to something, but he'd be increasing his value through his own play. Not because Carlyle is trying to force an opportunity.

 

[Randy Randerson]

I feel like you're putting your analysis together relying solely on statistics, and less on what you've actually seen on the ice.

Vatanen is used heavily in offensive situations right now, while being used more sparingly defensively at even strength. The reason for this is that he's dynamic offensively, but he's not as good defensively. You could call it speculative, but I'd call it common sense, based on my observations of how he's used, and how he plays in that role.

Common sense suggests that an offensive defenseman, used in less favorable offensive roles, is probably going to produce less. You're taking away opportunities for him to contribute offensively. At the same time, you're putting him in even more situations where he is clearly not as strong as other defensemen on the team.

Is it speculative? Sure. Is it less speculative than assuming he'd be able to hack it in a top pairing role? Yes, it absolutely is less speculative than that. We've already seen him in a more offensively inclined role, and we've seen the results of that. Both good and bad.

Really, I'd be against this attempt to boost Vatanen's value because it conflicts with trying to be the best team they can. We're putting Vatanen into a position where he will be less effective, and as a result the team will be worse. If Vatanen just plays great this season, and takes another step defensively, then you might be on to something, but he'd be increasing his value through his own play. Not because Carlyle is trying to force an opportunity.

I did not assume, I said I think it would be worth trying. Anyway, good luck with it

 

[robbieboy3686]

There is a big difference in how one plays defensively on a pk vs 5 on 5. Maybe he is a good shot blocker or has a very good stick to free up the puck down low (I haven't heard either of these things about him however).

I don't think Vatanen will ever be a true 1st pairing defender. His game isn't complete enough, very few top pairing Defenders are pretty much purely offensive I find, which by all accounts from Duck's fans he seems to be. Having a great offensive 2nd pairing defender who isn't getting matched up against top opposition is very valuable.

This is indeed correct, Vats is a defensive liability, I hope he improves with time, that said, Despres is the real worry right now, post concussion, the guy has been HORRIBLE

 

[Sojourn]

I don't think Vatanen is a defensive liability, but he isn't strong defensively.

If he can get caught running around a bit with the more sheltered role he's in now, I'd be wary to put him in a high responsibility D role that demands even more of him on the defensive side of things. He thrives on space, and has looked a bit exposed at times when he lacks that time and space.

 

[ps241]

I did not assume, I said I think it would be worth trying. Anyway, good luck with it

Randy Randerson I applaud your intervention......civility.....and level headed respectful posts. I found them insightful, thought provoking, and quite informative. The usage of the talented but tiny Sami was a refreshing story arc in this war torn summertime thread!

Thank you kind sir you are a gentleman!

 

[Randy Randerson]

Randy Randerson I applaud your intervention......civility.....and level headed respectful posts. I found them insightful, thought provoking, and quite informative. The usage of the talented but tiny Sami was a refreshing story arc in this war torn summertime thread!

Thank you kind sir you are a gentleman!

Haha thanks man...I've been looking for a reason to wear a top hat an monocle around town

I think these trade threads turn into fanbases warring too often, which makes little sense to me when we always want someone on the other roster.

There have been some Vatanen articles floating around leaf fansites if you have some time on your hands:
http://www.shanaplandebate.com/sami-vatanen-perfect-offseason-target-toronto/
http://theleafsnation.com/2016/2/23...e-defencemen-the-leafs-should-target-in-trade

 

[Machinehead]

I think there's way too much emphasis on players being used offensively vs defensively. This isn't football. The ice is only 200 feet long and possession is fluid.

 

[dracom]

I think there's way too much emphasis on players being used offensively vs defensively. This isn't football. The ice is only 200 feet long and possession is fluid.

Except when players are starting in the offensive or defensive zone, and player switching up when the puck goes to each different zone. There's a reason people use defensive/offensive zone starts when discussing players, because it's important.

 

[Sean Garrity]

As Soj mentioned, as of now, Carlyle has a lot of options this season. He could pair to choose Vatanen with another "puck mover" in Lindholm or Fowler, and still have the ability to slot a puck mover in Theodore on the third pairing. In any situation, I think Vatanen will be expected to take on a top 4 role this season and thus more defensive responsibility so we will have to see how he responds. Of course, with a trade looking likely, all of this could be changed and/or moot.

 

[mytduxfan*]

Lol so now you're at the point of the argument where you just straight make **** up! You're as predictable as a clock mytduxfan

QoC

Enstrom 1.275
Byfuglien 1.027
Myers 1.011
Trouba 0.703

"the numbers don't lie". Trouba didn't face "top competition". Get over it kid.

Ignoring the stats when they're flipped to slate your players the same way you slate others. You're about as predictable as they come JetsHomer.

 

[JetsHomer]

QoC

Enstrom 1.275
Byfuglien 1.027
Myers 1.011
Trouba 0.703

"the numbers don't lie". Trouba didn't face "top competition". Get over it kid.

Ignoring the stats when they're flipped to slate your players the same way you slate others. You're about as predictable as they come JetsHomer.

Hahaha you are aware that QoC has been proven to be useless for at least 3 years now? How about coming up with a useful stat please. Do some research in the future so you don't come off looking foolish.

If you really think a .4 difference in QoC means anything let alone that 'Trouba faced far easier minutes and was sheltered' then there is no point in continuing this discussion as you clearly don't understand the stats you are trying to use. How to Trouba's ToI, QOT and zone starts look? You know, actual competition stats that have been proven to effect performance?

 

[mytduxfan*]

Hahaha you are aware that QoC has been proven to be useless for at least 3 years now? How about coming up with a useful stat please. Do some research in the future so you don't come off looking foolish.

If you really think a .4 difference in QoC means anything let alone that 'Trouba faced far easier minutes and was sheltered' then there is no point in continuing this discussion as you clearly don't understand the stats you are trying to use. How to Trouba's ToI, QOT and zone starts look? You know, actual competition stats that have been proven to effect performance?

So predictable. This is literally the exact same argument we use for Fowler, but when you're slating our guys "the numbers don't lie". Gotta play by the rules you set.

With that said, I'll continue with the same logic used by yourself and the other stat-watching HFBoard users to slate Fowler and just say "Still waiting for some actual evidence to support what you've said. I've presented numbers and you haven't. QoC is a legit stat. If you choose to ignore it, that's up to you. Trouba's possession stats are terrible. His QoC stats are even worse. TOI, QOT and zone stats don't matter. Those are just excuses. He's still the worst D-man on a team that finished near the bottom of league. He sucks".

 

[Mr Hockey*]

QoC

Enstrom 1.275
Byfuglien 1.027
Myers 1.011
Trouba 0.703

"the numbers don't lie". Trouba didn't face "top competition". Get over it kid.

Ignoring the stats when they're flipped to slate your players the same way you slate others. You're about as predictable as they come JetsHomer.

Those are actually CRQoC numbers... Gardiner is not sheltered much at all lol

• HUNWICK 1.796
• RIELLY 1.556
• PHANEUF 0.510
• GARDINER 0.057

 

[Liferleafer]

Those are actually CRQoC numbers... Gardiner is not sheltered much at all lol

• HUNWICK 1.796
• RIELLY 1.556
• PHANEUF 0.510
• GARDINER 0.057

And after Dion was traded?

And who cares about Gardiner's stats in a Fowler thread? It isn't like you'd be trading one for the other...

 

[Sojourn]

I think there's way too much emphasis on players being used offensively vs defensively. This isn't football. The ice is only 200 feet long and possession is fluid.

And yet, the stats you love to use to judge players, rely heavily on where on that 200 foot sheet of ice you are.

You can't put as much emphasis into shot differential as you do, and then completely ignore all the factors that contribute to those shots. Such as starting a shift 180 feet away from the opposing team's net. If you're going to stand by those statistics so stubbornly, ignorance isn't going to help your argument.

 

[Mr Hockey*]

And after Dion was traded?

And who cares about Gardiner's stats in a Fowler thread? It isn't like you'd be trading one for the other...

That was Gardiners end of the season CRQoC numbers,

We have to give up Gardiner, levio + 2nd for Fowler

 

[Liferleafer]

That was Gardiners end of the season CRQoC numbers,

We have to give up Gardiner, levio + 2nd for Fowler

I'd pass. Why trade a D? We are trying to upgrade...not replace, and the last thing the Ducks need is more D (especially one they already had). And if it isn't obvious, i'm not a proponent of advanced stats.....

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Almost 900 post already for Eklund, And yet there's zero evidence of a Fowler to Toronto deal other then Eklund putting it out there and he has zero credibility nice.