Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Leo Carlsson

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
The Midnight Burrito said:
It has to for it to make sense as anything other than a win-later strategy.

I'm also not seeing an obvious standings benefit of a second-half horse over a first-half one, since the mystical rookie wall apparently comes around halfway through. And I'm ALSO not convinced that PV is doing this for Leo to be a second-half horse this year, or if we're just reading that in to PV not wanting Leo to fade down the stretch. I admit I might have missed or forgotten something PV has said.
Click to expand...
I'm just confused about why we're trying to teach a horse to play hockey, and how that is going to be an advantage for us
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Arthuros and 190Octane
CrazyDuck4u said:
Hes going to be the Swedish Malkin.. Very similar playing styles. Im all for it.. But I just cant agree with this load management thing.. I say let the player play.
Click to expand...
I actually think he is a bit more akin to Sundin, not only due to both being Swedish. If Carlsson develops a bit of a mean streak and puts up 20 pounds of muscle over the next year or three, he might very well turn out to be an exact copy of Sundin.
 
Gliff said:
Assets are assets. 1st rounder are assets that can be used to win right now in a trade. How is not trading them any different than letting a prospect cook in the AHL longer, or sitting Carlsson?

It’s still making the future a priority at the expense of “winning now”.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the point? That PV is sacrificing another season for the "future?" He's artificially making the team worse then it can be. You're comparing Leo to giving up a future asset except there is very little evidence that we are in danger of ruining Leo's future value by playing him now.
JAHV said:
I'm an accountant so I'm going to do the math in a way that makes sense to me. Verbeek wants him to be a horse in the second half. Let's say that Carlsson is worth 1 point of value every game right now, whatever 1 point means to you - scoring, standings, or just an arbitrary hockey value indicator. If Carlsson plays 80 games at 1 point of value every game, he'd be worth 80 points for the whole season.

However, based on the analysis they've done, both of Carlsson as a player and rookie performance in general, they think playing him everyday will cause his value to decrease throughout the season. So in January, he'll be worth .9 points per game. February .8 points, March .7, April .6. So if Carlsson played 80 games, he wouldn't be worth 80 points. He'd be worth roughly 70 points.

But the Ducks think sitting him out will allow him to maintain his value better throughout the season, and maybe even increase it. If we're conservative and assume that this rest plan allows for even just a maintenance of his 1-point per game value, sitting him for 10 games doesn't decrease his value to the team. It keeps it at 70 points, the same as if they played him every night.

I'm not trying to prove that this is how they've calculated it or even that this is their exact thinking, so don't get caught up in the exact numbers. I'm just trying to posit a theory. But Verbeek has specifically mentioned the second half of THIS season. They've also talked about this being the plan for two months, not necessarily the whole year. Clearly they're not punting on the season entirely. They want Carlsson to provide as much value as possible for later games this season, and it's possible he can provide as much total value to the team under this plan as he would have by playing every game.
Click to expand...
I get the logic. I'm just not a fan of being the guinea pig for the league. We dont actually know if this will work. Pv talked about hitting the wall at 40-42 games. What if all we're doing to pushing that wall to game 60 on the season and we've already lost 20 games of Leo's development? He has 20 games less to figure out how to get passed it. What if we are just pushing it to his second year?
 
DavidBL said:
Isn't that the point? That PV is sacrificing another season for the "future?" He's artificially making the team worse then it can be. You're comparing Leo to giving up a future asset except there is very little evidence that we are in danger of ruining Leo's future value by playing him now.

I get the logic. I'm just not a fan of being the guinea pig for the league. We dont actually know if this will work. Pv talked about hitting the wall at 40-42 games. What if all we're doing to pushing that wall to game 60 on the season and we've already lost 20 games of Leo's development? He has 20 games less to figure out how to get passed it. What if we are just pushing it to his second year?
Click to expand...
And this is where this conversation has no end. The Ducks and Leo both see the value in him sitting. They think the upside is worth the downside. If you don't buy into their belief that sitting is good for him, and by extension the Ducks, then obviously you can't see this as anything but bad.

And I don't see how him missing 15 games is throwing the season away anyways lol. If missing 1 player for 15 games is the difference between a wasted season and a good season then what does it matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ducks DVM and robbieboy3686
Gliff said:
And this is where this conversation has no end. The Ducks and Leo both see the value in him sitting. They think the upside is worth the downside. If you don't buy into their belief that sitting is good for him, and by extension the Ducks, then obviously you can't see this as anything but bad.

And I don't see how him missing 15 games is throwing the season away anyways lol. If missing 1 player for 15 games is the difference between a wasted season and a good season then what does it matter.
Click to expand...
To make resting Leo and giving up future assets comparable you would have to assume that there is future value lost in playing Leo now vs managing his time because that is what trading futures for help now does. Give up future value for now value. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that it does. I just don't think it's a fair comparison. I do see how it COULD be good but seeing how it's is, at this stage, a theory I'm not a fan of it. We're playing him less now so he MIGHT be better later. Do we really think this would affect his long term development?
 
DavidBL said:
To make resting Leo and giving up future assets comparable you would have to assume that there is future value lost in playing Leo now vs managing his time because that is what trading futures for help now does. Give up future value for now value. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that it does. I just don't think it's a fair comparison. I do see how it COULD be good but seeing how it's is, at this stage, a theory I'm not a fan of it. We're playing him less now so he MIGHT be better later. Do we really think this would affect his long term development?
Click to expand...
I think it is more about not having a second half slump, and playing him more minutes when he does play rather than limiting his minutes now and playing in more games.

I don’t think it really impacts his long term development.

If I were to go this load mgmt route, I might be tempted to want Carlsson to play against the toughest opponents and sit him against weaker ones. This might ensure better overall team results in the first half.

John
 
DavidBL said:
Isn't that the point? That PV is sacrificing another season for the "future?" He's artificially making the team worse then it can be. You're comparing Leo to giving up a future asset except there is very little evidence that we are in danger of ruining Leo's future value by playing him now.

I get the logic. I'm just not a fan of being the guinea pig for the league. We dont actually know if this will work. Pv talked about hitting the wall at 40-42 games. What if all we're doing to pushing that wall to game 60 on the season and we've already lost 20 games of Leo's development? He has 20 games less to figure out how to get passed it. What if we are just pushing it to his second year?
Click to expand...
Someone has to be the first to do it. The people who are paid to do this for a living and the people who it affects (Carlsson, his agent, the Ducks) are all on board. True, those people aren't always right, but it's notable that ALL of them are on board.

And I see very little downside to this plan. The downsides you mention (what if he hits that wall next season since he didn't get a chance to push through it this season) seem like the very thing this program is designed to circumvent. We know, at least anecdotally, that young rookies tend to falter over the back half of the season (I'd love to see some of the data, but that assertion doesn't seem crazy to me). In other words, the potential upside of this seems decent. The potential downside seems remote.

Your argument is just one in favor of never doing anything different. That seems like a poor way to run an organization when you're trying to get ahead of your competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beckett
DuckDuckGetz said:
He never quacks under pressure
Click to expand...
C6T93lb.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bender66 and Arthuros
70sSanO said:
I think it is more about not having a second half slump, and playing him more minutes when he does play rather than limiting his minutes now and playing in more games.

I don’t think it really impacts his long term development.

If I were to go this load mgmt route, I might be tempted to want Carlsson to play against the toughest opponents and sit him against weaker ones. This might ensure better overall team results in the first half.

John
Click to expand...
I could get behind that. And based off the games he misses maybe that is the plan. He sat the second of B2B which is historically the less likely to win, and then against a lower ranked team in Columbus.
JAHV said:
Someone has to be the first to do it. The people who are paid to do this for a living and the people who it affects (Carlsson, his agent, the Ducks) are all on board. True, those people aren't always right, but it's notable that ALL of them are on board.

And I see very little downside to this plan. The downsides you mention (what if he hits that wall next season since he didn't get a chance to push through it this season) seem like the very thing this program is designed to circumvent. We know, at least anecdotally, that young rookies tend to falter over the back half of the season (I'd love to see some of the data, but that assertion doesn't seem crazy to me). In other words, the potential upside of this seems decent. The potential downside seems remote.

Your argument is just one in favor of never doing anything different. That seems like a poor way to run an organization when you're trying to get ahead of your competition.
Click to expand...
I can see the upside. I don't like being the pioneer. Generally there is risk in trying something new. That risk here is losing games because we sat a good player who may have been able to help you win those games. I get someone has to try it, if it works great, if it doesn't? Well it seems PV is okay if it doesn't as he doesn't seem to be worried about the standings points. That is what bothers me about the whole thing.
 
DavidBL said:
I could get behind that. And based off the games he misses maybe that is the plan. He sat the second of B2B which is historically the less likely to win, and then against a lower ranked team in Columbus.

I can see the upside. I don't like being the pioneer. Generally there is risk in trying something new. That risk here is losing games because we sat a good player who may have been able to help you win those games. I get someone has to try it, if it works great, if it doesn't? Well it seems PV is okay if it doesn't as he doesn't seem to be worried about the standings points. That is what bothers me about the whole thing.
Click to expand...
As a fan, I'm not worried about standings points, either. Of course I want to win every game. Every fan does. And I'd absolutely love a run to the playoffs, or at least playoff contention. But after the most abysmal season in franchise history, I have zero expectations that such a thing is possible. So if losing a couple standings points at the beginning of the season (maybe?) leads to a greater chance at getting a few more later in the season and the following seasons, I'm good with that. I have no realistic expectation that those standing points will be the difference between getting in the playoffs or not.

I guess we'll see in April, if we miss the playoffs by three points and Carlsson struggled down the stretch, if I'm a massive hypocrite or not. I very well might be, in which case, I invite you to forget we ever had this little chat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwvs84
I’ve gotta be honest, I’d prefer to miss the playoffs by a few points and have a better chance at getting another impact pick than barely make the playoffs and be a 4 game sweep for a 1 seed. The team isn’t deep enough to do much in the playoffs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leonardo87, 70sSanO and MMC
DavidBL said:
I could get behind that. And based off the games he misses maybe that is the plan. He sat the second of B2B which is historically the less likely to win, and then against a lower ranked team in Columbus.

I can see the upside. I don't like being the pioneer. Generally there is risk in trying something new. That risk here is losing games because we sat a good player who may have been able to help you win those games. I get someone has to try it, if it works great, if it doesn't? Well it seems PV is okay if it doesn't as he doesn't seem to be worried about the standings points. That is what bothers me about the whole thing.
Click to expand...
We are a few months removed from finishing with the worst record in the league, if it’s a surprise or bothers you that development of our young core is a much greater priority this season than our place in the standings I really don’t know what to say. I get people are unhappy that this team is many years removed from its last playoff appearance but it means nothing to the current regime, nor should it
 
  • Like
Reactions: mightyquack, Deuce22, Hockey Duckie and 1 other person
shach1 said:
www.nhl.com

Carlsson, agent on board with Ducks' plan to have rookie sit out games | NHL.com

No. 2 pick in 2023 NHL Draft says he believes in Anaheim's progressive strength, development program
www.nhl.com www.nhl.com
Click to expand...
“"It's an organizational decision," coach Greg Cronin said. "I'm looking through a different lens as a coach than what management's looking at. He's a young kid. He's got a real bright future. I think that the plan is to try and strengthen him and build some power and some speed into his game. I think there's some data that Pat and our strength and conditioning staff believe in that's going to help reinforce that."

Carlsson's agent Matt Keator said he was happy with the communication from Verbeek and with the plan itself, a program that he said has been the subject of a lot of discussion since the draft. The two spoke about it when the Massachusetts-based Keator was in California about a month ago.

Asked if the program could spread to other players and other teams, Keator said, "I hope so, because it makes the most sense. … You're still growing, you're still developing. You don't have the man muscles. Leo still has a little-boy body in some ways, in terms of strength.”

Fans complain Anaheim franchise needs more advanced stats and sports science usage, complains heavily when franchise starts using it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mightyquack, Mortal Wombat, Bender66 and 7 others
Ducks DVM said:
I’ve gotta be honest, I’d prefer to miss the playoffs by a few points and have a better chance at getting another impact pick than barely make the playoffs and be a 4 game sweep for a 1 seed. The team isn’t deep enough to do much in the playoffs.
Click to expand...
I think getting to the playoffs would be an absolute win for this franchise and for the fanbase, regardless of what happens there. We'd be talking about the difference between picking 15th and picking 18th. It's not that big of a deal. And a sweep wouldn't be embarrassing for a team no one expected anything from in the first place. In fact, I think it would put a chip on these guys' shoulders.

That said, I don't want to make any moves for the present that sacrifices the future. And I'm fine with continuing to make decisions to secure future success, which is why I'm cool with the Carlsson plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwvs84 and Ducks DVM
JAHV said:
I think getting to the playoffs would be an absolute win for this franchise and for the fanbase, regardless of what happens there. We'd be talking about the difference between picking 15th and picking 18th. It's not that big of a deal. And a sweep wouldn't be embarrassing for a team no one expected anything from in the first place. In fact, I think it would put a chip on these guys' shoulders.

That said, I don't want to make any moves for the present that sacrifices the future. And I'm fine with continuing to make decisions to secure future success, which is why I'm cool with the Carlsson plan.
Click to expand...
I think it would as well, but I think the value would be significantly less than the value of another pick like Zegras or Mintyukov.
 
Ducks DVM said:
I’ve gotta be honest, I’d prefer to miss the playoffs by a few points and have a better chance at getting another impact pick than barely make the playoffs and be a 4 game sweep for a 1 seed. The team isn’t deep enough to do much in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

I just don’t want to be bottom 5 again. I was hoping to see .500 hockey all year long, and maybe finish 10-12th last. Will still draft a very good player. Who can make an impact sooner rather than later on the NHL level.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slippingsloth and Ducks DVM
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom