Nashville Predators talk - The Offseason

[Armourboy]

I think a lot of what makes guys feel like they are just trying to survive is that we put them with guys who can't shelter them at all. Dallas's approach has been when they call a guy up they stick him with top line vets who can provide that protection and then ride it out through the ups and downs. Our approach is call them up and either place them in the bottom six and make them earn there way up the lineup (see Tomasino) or play them in the top six and once they hit some struggles throw them down the lineup (see Parsinnen).

I do think the difference between us and Dallas is two-fold and agree they have a great scouting department that did especially well with the limited information when guys missed out on whole seasons because of Covid cancellations that got them Johnston and Stankoven. However, I think Hintz and Robertson demonstrate how effective their developmental approach when guys get to the NHL is. Both those guys when they got called up were immediately paired with vets. Hintz was good not great his first two seasons but they kept him with vets instead of stacking a single line and in the end it paid off. Robertson had one good not great AHL season then made the team out of camp and was put with vets. He hit the ground running and never looked back. I think things would look a lot different for those two if they had spent the majority of their time being with the McCarrons and Cousins of the world rather than guys like Seguin, Pavelski, and Radulov.

What frustrates me the most about it is that we made the right moves in the offseason to be able to take an approach like Dallas with development of guys in the NHL. However, despite starting with the idea we could use O'Reilly and Nyquist to help provide some stability to our young guys through their struggles we pretty much immediately gave up on that and loaded up a top line with all the vet talent. That decision may have helped us win a few more games in the regular season but the downsides of it become abundantly clear when we reached the playoffs. I also think we did a disservice to a guy like Evangelista who was still successful but I think has a lot more potential we didn't unlock by not giving him opportunities with our top players.

Dead on. When we had an expectation of playing the younger guys it was that one would be strapped to ROR and Forsberg, one would be with Nyquist, another with Sissons/Trenin and so on. Instead what we got was them basically playing with one another while the Vets all played together. As you said it turned out to be a great story for the Vets and we may have had a better season than expected, but at what long term cost?

When we say play the young guys we are talking more like putting them in a situation like Dallas does, you strap a kid to a Vets hip and let it ride for a bit. No one is suggesting we do what Edmonton, Buffalo or several others did and just throw a bunch of kids on the ice with no mentors and say have at it. Problem is we were far closer to the later than the former and we had those Vets, which made no sense.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Dead on. When we had an expectation of playing the younger guys it was that one would be strapped to ROR and Forsberg, one would be with Nyquist, another with Sissons/Trenin and so on. Instead what we got was them basically playing with one another while the Vets all played together. As you said it turned out to be a great story for the Vets and we may have had a better season than expected, but at what long term cost?

When we say play the young guys we are talking more like putting them in a situation like Dallas does, you strap a kid to a Vets hip and let it ride for a bit. No one is suggesting we do what Edmonton, Buffalo or several others did and just throw a bunch of kids on the ice with no mentors and say have at it. Problem is we were far closer to the later than the former and we had those Vets, which made no sense.

Flip side, we got 99 pts, made the playoffs, and our coach got nominated for the Jack Adams by doing so.

 

[hockey diva]

And we got bounced in the first round again and the vets blew several opportunities to win the series.

 

[herzausstein]

Flip side, we got 99 pts, made the playoffs, and our coach got nominated for the Jack Adams by doing so.

Worked for the short term. Is it what is best for the long term though? We were really reliant on career years from Forsberg and Nyquist. Also a resurgence by ROR. Nyquist being near the end if his career as well.

Personally, I think we would've been better possibly taking a small step back but getting the young players valuable NHL experience while setting us up for next season. We will see what next season brings though

 

[Kat Predator]

It would have been entertaining to me either way. Having a great run right into the playoffs came sort of out of nowhere, so that was fun to see. If the season had gone in the other direction, with Nyquist+Glass, Forsberg+Parssinen, ROR+Tomasino for extended games and seeing whether those guys answered the bell or not would've been interesting and informed an opinion of where we're going. And I think much more so than the dream that we're "1 superstar centre" away.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Worked for the short term. Is it what is best for the long term though? We were really reliant on career years from Forsberg and Nyquist. Also a resurgence by ROR. Nyquist being near the end if his career as well.

Personally, I think we would've been better possibly taking a small step back but getting the young players valuable NHL experience while setting us up for next season. We will see what next season brings though

Exactly. I feel the same way. But our standards don't seem to be the ones that either our organization, nor even the NHL at large, seem to value. So who is in the wrong here?

 

[herzausstein]

Exactly. I feel the same way. But our standards don't seem to be the ones that either our organization, nor even the NHL at large, seem to value. So who is in the wrong here?

Probably us. This is a business after all and they get more money if the team is better and can make the playoffs.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Probably us. This is a business after all and they get more money if the team is better and can make the playoffs.

I imagine there is some element of the same situation going on though, even from a financial standpoint... I mean, they get a certain level of money if they keep fans interested all season and selling out the building, and then get at least a couple extra playoff home gates. So that helps establish a certain baseline revenue stream at what is probably a "successful" level. However... if they had a championship team, could they get A LOT more money? "A LOT"?

Maybe there isn't even all that much more regular season revenue they could get with that higher level of achievement... as long as the building is mostly sold out, they probably don't get much more from winning the President's Trophy vs. competing for a wildcard spot? So it is just down to extra playoff gates? And it's better to be "safe" in the black with a couple home playoff games than to risk missing the playoffs entirely or have a bad enough team that they stop filling the building during the regular season too.

 

[weeze]

Probably us. This is a business after all and they get more money if the team is better and can make the playoffs.

Exactly. Every teams wants to win the SC. They all say that is their goal at the start of the season. Of course not every team is capable of doing so. Some teams want to make positive strides with one of them being to make the PO's. That brings in more $$ and means they had a good year. Its the diehard fan that spends hours on a forum that knows (we think) if the team is really capable of getting to and winning the SC. The general fan not so much. Boosters and Companies that buy suites and pay large sums of $$ just want more games. Org wants the TV exposure and more $$. Plus it give the younger players the taste of the PO's. I mean who wants to be Arizona, Buffalo, Columbus every year? How depressing would that be?

 

[Softball99]

I imagine there is some element of the same situation going on though, even from a financial standpoint... I mean, they get a certain level of money if they keep fans interested all season and selling out the building, and then get at least a couple extra playoff home gates. So that helps establish a certain baseline revenue stream at what is probably a "successful" level. However... if they had a championship team, could they get A LOT more money? "A LOT"?

Maybe there isn't even all that much more regular season revenue they could get with that higher level of achievement... as long as the building is mostly sold out, they probably don't get much more from winning the President's Trophy vs. competing for a wildcard spot? So it is just down to extra playoff gates? And it's better to be "safe" in the black with a couple home playoff games than to risk missing the playoffs entirely or have a bad enough team that they stop filling the building during the regular season too.

Happened in 2018....Greed priced out the Loyalest Fans...If they had done a reasonable increase no big deal but it was kinda insane how they handled it...

 

[Armourboy]

Exactly. Every teams wants to win the SC. They all say that is their goal at the start of the season. Of course not every team is capable of doing so. Some teams want to make positive strides with one of them being to make the PO's. That brings in more $$ and means they had a good year. Its the diehard fan that spends hours on a forum that knows (we think) if the team is really capable of getting to and winning the SC. The general fan not so much. Boosters and Companies that buy suites and pay large sums of $$ just want more games. Org wants the TV exposure and more $$. Plus it give the younger players the taste of the PO's. I mean who wants to be Arizona, Buffalo, Columbus every year? How depressing would that be?

There in lies the fallacy though, nothing says you need to be Arizona, Buffalo, or Columbus just because you build through the draft. Dallas did it without gutting the team, Boston seems to be able to do it year in and year out.

There is a step between gutting a roster and throwing a bunch of old guys on the Ice every year just to make the playoffs with no expectation of actually winning a round.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

There in lies the fallacy though, nothing says you need to be Arizona, Buffalo, or Columbus just because you build through the draft. Dallas did it without gutting the team, Boston seems to be able to do it year in and year out.

There is a step between gutting a roster and throwing a bunch of old guys on the Ice every year just to make the playoffs with no expectation of actually winning a round.

And one might suggest we could still be a team in between those extremes, if for example we see 3 or 4 of the younger forwards promoted and utilized regularly next season (Parssinen, Tomasino, L'Heureux are candidates), along with potentially a couple D (Del Gaizo, Stastney) and Askarov. That would make this past season stand more as a temporary stepping stone towards getting just one more year of development time, as opposed to some definitive indicator of preferring the "just to make the playoffs with old guys" approach.

But of course, I doubt too many of us are holding our breath on that, right? Still, not impossible.

 

[herzausstein]

There in lies the fallacy though, nothing says you need to be Arizona, Buffalo, or Columbus just because you build through the draft. Dallas did it without gutting the team, Boston seems to be able to do it year in and year out.

There is a step between gutting a roster and throwing a bunch of old guys on the Ice every year just to make the playoffs with no expectation of actually winning a round.

If only we could recreate the 12-13 season that led us to seth jones.
2011-12 5th out of 30.
2012-13 27th out of 30.
2013-14 19th out of 30.
2014-15 6th out of 30.

1 bad year followed by a year that is pretty much in line with where we were last year. Just a quick dip into a great pick. Drafted seth jones then Kevin Fiala the following season.

 

[hido]

Hinote is out

 

[herzausstein]

Hinote is out

Was he in charge of either of the special teams?

 

[hido]

Was he in charge of either of the special teams?

PK

 

[BigFatCat999]

Anybody else waiting for something hilarious like Tampa Bay estimate another team to take Tanner Jeannot off their hands

 

[herzausstein]

Anybody else waiting for something hilarious like Tampa Bay estimate another team to take Tanner Jeannot off their hands

Take jeannot back for a couple later round Tampa picks. Gotta get em all

 

[BigFatCat999]

Take jeannot back for a couple later round Tampa picks. Gotta get em all

Well if they are offering Cirrelli…

 

[Predsanddead24]

Hinote was a Hynes carry over so not super surprising I guess. Always tough to judge what assistant coaches actually do but his interviews showed he loved grit over skill so might be a good thing from my perspective.

 

[BigFatCat999]

I'm looking over the TB roster and Nashville's and going, "Hmmmmm...One more trade? Destined to do this forever?"

 

[Bringer of Jollity]

Take jeannot back for a couple later round Tampa picks. Gotta get em all

Rather bring Yak back. Him and Cole Smith are both better overall players outside not dropping the gloves.

 

[PredsV82]

Vanderklok has history as a great goaltending coach in his own right so keeping him around and adding Korn into the mix is a huge win.

Unless it becomes a "too many cooks spoil the soup" situation

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Rather bring Yak back. Him and Cole Smith are both better overall players outside not dropping the gloves.

Obviously the “original Jeannot” was a much better player than Smith or Trenin, but I’m sure our management will be well aware of what all the factors are which have contributed to Jeannot’s precipitous decline. Absent such knowledge I would take a chance on Jeannot for something like a 4th round pick since we do have ample Cap room, because if he ever does bounce back even partially he can be an effective player. But I suspect there are health-related reasons why he won’t ever bounce back, unfortunately.

 

[wmupreds]

I don't believe Jeannot was ever a better player than Trenin, at least. He rode a wave of luck to a year that he was never likely to repeat. And he was always a liability in transition and defending.