Roster/Rumors/Speculation/Trade Talk - 2023-24: Hotel California

[xECK29x]

I can’t help but also comment on Wotherspoon’s debut. He played rather well last night and his joy and appreciation of the moment in his post game interview was inspirational. I’m not sure he has a place here but I’m glad he had a moment to remember.

FWIW those nice gestures sometimes go a long way with agents, really happy Parker got that, he's rode a lot of buses for the Islanders org.

 

[danteipp]

I don't disagree that Romanov was rushed. I also agree he has the tools to become a very good defensive dman. I don't see the offensive potential, but he's 22. My issue with Romanov is the hockey sense. That's much more difficult to round out. I haven't seen many defensemen with poor hockey sense figure it out. Maybe the poor hockey sense I'm seeing is him trying to figure out the system as everyone has looked incompetent defensively.

My greater point isn't about JG. It's about weaponizing cap space. Moving the pick to create more cap space allows you to acquire a need (most notably in the top 6). However, as we've seen in the past, a first round pick can be weaponized to acquire undervalued players like Goodrow/Coleman. Those guys however, provided tremendous value for two seasons playing high end middle 9 minutes at a cheap price. I assume the Romanov acquisition was aiming at that. At 2.5 mil he'd be a steal if he were a top 4 dman. But he's not. Hopefully he will become that. But for a team with so many glaring holes, they had to hit on that trade. They haven't thus far.

The trade has been serviceable so far, with upside for more. I think you are underselling the impact on the Isles.

Here is my question to you, if the Isles did not use the pick to add a defenseman capable of holding his own physically and logging big minutes, how would YOU have filled out the defense? What would be the plan to bring in talent AND make it all work with the cap?

Because after Pelech, Pulock, Dobson and Mayfield, who are the Isles using in those last two spots AND who would be the third defenseman with Pelech injured now?

I also don't understand the pivot in your argument either.

Trade a first for a (two-year rental) player like Goodrow or Coleman? That is a redundant move when the Isles are getting similar contributions from Parise at $1 million, have been getting cheap production from Fasching, Holmstrom, etc.

In the past you have been critical of JGP. However, paying JGP $5 million and flanking him with say Parise at $1 million and then maybe Holmstrom on an ELC or Fasching at $750,000, seems like a good use of cap space to me, right? A solid third line for under $7 million feels like a bargain in the NHL right now.

The LAST thing the Isles need is a middling Goodrow, Coleman, etc. at forward. Let alone one that would walk in a year or so. The Isles needed a young defenseman (check) and now they need a topline player.

 

[danteipp]

My timeline and recollection might be off but I'm pretty sure Pelech's hockey sense looked more than a bit off in the first 30-40 games in Trotz's system. Wasn't that the year he was healthy scratched a few games? He certainly rebounded once he picked up the system.

Pelech definitely struggled at times, especially under the prior regime and their overzealous use of defensemen to push the puck up ice and pinch in on plays.

Pelech was the most glaring offender, but it also hampered Pulock and Mayfield for a time.

They were definitely taught that in Bridgeport at the time.

Yet they all got over it in the end with some time, patience and better coaching.

 

[PK Cronin]

What useful data do you like? I'm curious. You seem to only like data that paints Lou and the Isles in a positive light. Educate me.

Also, The Isles crushed it last night against a pretty good team. That's what good hockey looks like. The Isles have had a handful of these this season. If they can only play like that consistently.

I do not like data that indicates what I want, because that's not useful. Again, that's what you're doing and you've moved goal posts a few times now and have ignored a huge portion of what I said (and what you said originally).

Either the fancy stats are the best at predicting winners and losers, and do so regularly, or they're just another stat like everything else. What is the success rate? How are you measuring predictability?

Cup winners of the past decade have all been above the 50% xGF entering the postseason

You know what's crazy about that? Half the league is above 50%. So strange that the teams that make the playoffs would be above 50% xGF. Let's take a look at the teams last year and see how they did:

1) Boston lead the league in xGF% during the regular season. It's odd that they were just a Wild Card team and were bounced in the first round by Carolina (who is #5 in xGF%).

2) Florida was number two. They won the President's Trophy, so that's cool. They beat the Capitals (#15), the second Wild Card team and then were swept by Tampa Bay (#9). That's kind of weird, no?

3) Toronto sat at number three. How'd that go for them again? They also lost to Tampa Bay (#9), but in the first round.

4) Calgary was number four. They had a nice run to the second round. They beat Dallas (#14) in the first round but lost to Edmonton (#12) in round two, in five games.

5) Carolina was five. They beat that top team in the first round like I mentioned earlier. Then they lost to the Rags (#24).

6) Minnesota will buck the trend for sure here. Nope, they lost to St. Louis (#23) in the opening round.

7) We're not doing so well, but maybe Los Angeles will change things up a bit. Checking my notes it looks like they lost in the first round too...against Edmonton (#12). Huh, that's odd.

8) Pittsburgh, here we go. They're the real deal. They beat the Rags...oh no, wait, they lost in the opening round to the Rags (#24).

9) This is it. Tampa Bay to the rescue. They beat Toronto (#3), then beat Florida (#2), then they win once more against the Rags (#24). Unfortunately, they lose to Colorado (#11) in the finals.

10) Vegas must've been pretty good for these stats. They won...nothing, they didn't even make the playoffs.

I'll stop there. Of the thirteen match ups mentioned above if you were to expect teams with the better xGF% to win the series you would be really sad. They were 3-10.

Now let me do xGA since you say it's the best.

1) Boston. Still a first round exit.

2) Minnesota. Still a first round exit.

3) Nashville. First round exit.

4) Calgary, second round exit to Edmonton (#15).

5) Tampa Bay, cup final loss to Colorado (#8).

6) Seattle. Didn't qualify.

7) Toronto. First round exit to Tampa Bay (#5).

8) Colorado. Cup winners.

9) Pittsburgh. Still a first round exit.

10) Washington, still a first round exit.

So of the top 10 teams in xGA, six of them didn't win a round (and Seattle didn't even qualify).

If that's the level of predictability we're talking about with fancy stats, they can f*** right off.

I mean, you can just look at goal differential and say that teams who have a higher differential are usually better. So insightful. Every team that made the playoffs last year had a positive goal differential, except one. Thirteen of the top 16 teams in goal differential made the playoffs, amazing coincidence. Did you know that teams that give up fewer goals than other teams are also more likely to make the playoffs than their counterpart? Who would've guessed?! Oddly enough, teams that score more than the rest of the league also make the playoffs more frequently than those that don't. What do you think about that? This next one is pretty crazy, teams that win more are more likely to do better in the standings than teams that win less. f***ing nutty.

If all you're doing is predicting who will make the playoffs with the fancy stats, what's the point? There are enough stats that do it just as well, and are way less complicated.

-----

As for your obsession with me wanting Lamoriello and the Islanders painted in a positive light, I'm not sure where you get that from. I mentioned at the beginning of last year and this year that they're a bubble playoff team. That is sure some rose colored glasses I'm looking through. It's so strange that they finished in the 9th spot in the Eastern Conference last year. Also strange that I made that prediction before any of the fancy stats for the season existed. Where are they right now? Oh, in that same position. Wild how I was able to guess that.

Just because I disagree with your assessment of trades, because you want to view Lamoriello negatively to push your narrative, doesn't mean I want him to look good. I'm as objective as I can be with the organization, with the exception of Bailey, and I call'em how I see'em. Crying about overpaying for Pageau or the first to acquire Romanov is some of the most nonsensical shit that really uneducated fans complain about. We've seen so many first round busts over the past ten years and still people believe that they'll win that lottery. I'd go back and do either trade again in a nano-second. Pageau helped the team get to back to back Eastern Conference Finals, and is a solid third line center you never have to worry about. Romanov, I'd even add to that trade after seeing him play. Mobile, physical, shot blocking young defensemen don't grow on trees and he's so far ahead of the learning curve for defensemen already.

If you don't like the trades, fine, but the five dollar scratcher draft picks trying to win a million dollars rarely works.

You want some issues I have with Lamoriello? I didn't like Trotz being let go. I still think there's more to it than the need for a new voice, but it doesn't really matter. I prefer defense first teams and this team doesn't do that anymore. I wasn't happy with Chara being a regular last year. I'm not happy with Aho being a regular this year. I wanted him to make a move for a forward in the summer. I'm not thrilled with the fourth line all getting new contracts and would've dismantled that line a few seasons ago. What you perceive as liking or viewing things positively is simply the fact that I understand some of the decisions he's made, even if I disagree with it. He's old as dirt, he's not going to be doing a rebuild, even if I think he should. I understand that, it doesn't mean it's something I'm thrilled about. There's a spectrum of good and bad, it isn't columns of good and bad for me when judging a GM.

 

[Zeeker]

I do not like data that indicates what I want, because that's not useful. Again, that's what you're doing and you've moved goal posts a few times now and have ignored a huge portion of what I said (and what you said originally).

Either the fancy stats are the best at predicting winners and losers, and do so regularly, or they're just another stat like everything else. What is the success rate? How are you measuring predictability?



You know what's crazy about that? Half the league is above 50%. So strange that the teams that make the playoffs would be above 50% xGF. Let's take a look at the teams last year and see how they did:

1) Boston lead the league in xGF% during the regular season. It's odd that they were just a Wild Card team and were bounced in the first round by Carolina (who is #5 in xGF%).

2) Florida was number two. They won the President's Trophy, so that's cool. They beat the Capitals (#15), the second Wild Card team and then were swept by Tampa Bay (#9). That's kind of weird, no?

3) Toronto sat at number three. How'd that go for them again? They also lost to Tampa Bay (#9), but in the first round.

4) Calgary was number four. They had a nice run to the second round. They beat Dallas (#14) in the first round but lost to Edmonton (#12) in round two, in five games.

5) Carolina was five. They beat that top team in the first round like I mentioned earlier. Then they lost to the Rags (#24).

6) Minnesota will buck the trend for sure here. Nope, they lost to St. Louis (#23) in the opening round.

7) We're not doing so well, but maybe Los Angeles will change things up a bit. Checking my notes it looks like they lost in the first round too...against Edmonton (#12). Huh, that's odd.

8) Pittsburgh, here we go. They're the real deal. They beat the Rags...oh no, wait, they lost in the opening round to the Rags (#24).

9) This is it. Tampa Bay to the rescue. They beat Toronto (#3), then beat Florida (#2), then they win once more against the Rags (#24). Unfortunately, they lose to Colorado (#11) in the finals.

10) Vegas must've been pretty good for these stats. They won...nothing, they didn't even make the playoffs.

I'll stop there. Of the thirteen match ups mentioned above if you were to expect teams with the better xGF% to win the series you would be really sad. They were 3-10.

Now let me do xGA since you say it's the best.

1) Boston. Still a first round exit.

2) Minnesota. Still a first round exit.

3) Nashville. First round exit.

4) Calgary, second round exit to Edmonton (#15).

5) Tampa Bay, cup final loss to Colorado (#8).

6) Seattle. Didn't qualify.

7) Toronto. First round exit to Tampa Bay (#5).

8) Colorado. Cup winners.

9) Pittsburgh. Still a first round exit.

10) Washington, still a first round exit.

So of the top 10 teams in xGA, six of them didn't win a round (and Seattle didn't even qualify).

If that's the level of predictability we're talking about with fancy stats, they can f*** right off.

I mean, you can just look at goal differential and say that teams who have a higher differential are usually better. So insightful. Every team that made the playoffs last year had a positive goal differential, except one. Thirteen of the top 16 teams in goal differential made the playoffs, amazing coincidence. Did you know that teams that give up fewer goals than other teams are also more likely to make the playoffs than their counterpart? Who would've guessed?! Oddly enough, teams that score more than the rest of the league also make the playoffs more frequently than those that don't. What do you think about that? This next one is pretty crazy, teams that win more are more likely to do better in the standings than teams that win less. f***ing nutty.

If all your doing is predicting who will make the playoffs with the fancy stats, what's the point? There are enough stats that do it just as well, and are way less complicated.

-----

As for your obsession with me wanting Lamoriello and the Islanders painted in a positive light, I'm not sure where you get that from. I mentioned at the beginning of last year and this year that they're a bubble playoff team. That is sure some rose colored glasses I'm looking through. It's so strange that they finished in the 9th spot in the Eastern Conference last year. Also strange that I made that prediction before any of the fancy stats for the season existed. Where are they right now? Oh, in that same position. Wild how I was able to guess that.

Just because I disagree with your assessment of trades, because you want to view Lamoriello negatively to push your narrative, doesn't mean I want him to look good. I'm as objective as I can be with the organization, with the exception of Bailey, and I call'em how I see'em. Crying about overpaying for Pageau or the first to acquire Romanov is some of the most nonsensical shit that really uneducated fans complain about. We've seen so many first round busts over the past ten years and still people believe that they'll win that lottery. I'd go back and do either trade again in a nano-second. Pageau helped the team get to back to back Eastern Conference Finals, and is a solid third line center you never have to worry about. Romanov, I'd even add to that trade after seeing him play. Mobile, physical, shot blocking young defensemen don't grow on trees and he's so far ahead of the learning curve for defensemen already.

If you don't like the trades, fine, but the five dollar scratcher draft picks trying to win a million dollars rarely works.

You want some issues I have with Lamoriello? I didn't like Trotz being let go. I still think there's more to it than the need for a new voice, but it doesn't really matter. I prefer defense first teams and this team doesn't do that anymore. I wasn't happy with Chara being a regular last year. I'm not happy with Aho being a regular this year. I wanted him to make a move for a forward in the summer. I'm not thrilled with the fourth line all getting new contracts and would've dismantled that line a few seasons ago. What you perceive as liking or viewing things positively is simply the fact that I understand some of the decisions he's made, even if I disagree with it. He's old as dirt, he's not going to be doing a rebuild, even if I think he should. I understand that, it doesn't mean it's something I'm thrilled about. There's a spectrum of good and bad, it isn't columns for me when judging a GM.

PK’s mom: “Sweetie come back to dinner, it’s Christmas Eve and all the family is here.”

PK: “Mom shut up I’m about to end this man’s career on HFBoards”

 

[PK Cronin]

PK’s mom: “Sweetie come back to dinner, it’s Christmas Eve and all the family is here.”

PK: “Mom shut up I’m about to end this man’s career on HFBoards”

Wife is in bed, kid is asleep, everything is all set for tomorrow so I had a lot of time this evening.

 

[BelovedIsles]

The issue with Romanov is not Romanov. The issue was the cost to acquire him by a team with very little assets. At present time, Romanov is replacement level, and likely worse. He constantly misses assignments in his own end, and is a negative in the offensive zone. He hits, and from time to time can competently get out of the zone. This Islander team has a very small window in my opinion. They have an aging core. A first round pick could have been used to add a forward. A first round pick could've been used to move out salary and make a run at JG. A first round pick is a legitimate asset. I, personally don't see what you see in Romanov. I don't think his hockey sense is up to snuff. He is extremely raw and is learning a new system. However, I see a defenseman who is slow to react to passes, takes bad angles on 2 on 1s, turns the puck over often, and does not provide offense. Obviously, he can improve and I'm counting on it. But he's a negative asset out there right now on a team starving for some element of NHL talent. At the moment, he's a fringe NHLer. He'd be a 7th defensemen on a true Stanley cup contender. He's been that bad.

Your evaluation of Romanov is too harsh. He's been solid back there. He's tough to beat one-on-one, his gap control is strong, he blocks shots, his puck management is good enough, obviously he hits; he mostly does everything you ask for in a defensive D man. Yes, his D IQ concerns me as well; his reads aren't always accurate and he misplays 2-on-1's. Some of that is teachable. I don't think he'll ever be an elite shutdown defender (ala Pelech), but with the right coaching he can be as reliable as they come. He's not a number 7 on a contender; right now he's a 4/5. He is raw, he's 22, defenders need reps and guidance. With the proper coaching and time, I'm confident he'll round out to be a good number 4.

I would've preferred to use that first on someone like DeBrincat or Fiala, with that said, a need was filled.

 

[BelovedIsles]

A concern I have is that Lou uses the rash of injuries as rationale to bring back the same squad b/c he has 'faith' in them (he pretty much did that last year). Besides losing, that could be the worst outcome of these injuries; we then have the same roster, a year older, and just as prone to injury.

 

[PK Cronin]

A concern I have is that Lou uses the rash of injuries as rationale to bring back the same squad b/c he has 'faith' in them (he pretty much did that last year). Besides losing, that could be the worst outcome of these injuries; we then have the same roster, a year older, and just as prone to injury.

They weren't really injury prone last year, they got sick, no?

 

[BelovedIsles]

They weren't really injury prone last year, they got sick, no?

Similar; Palms and Pulock missed significant time. Point being, I could see him using this as justification to give this roster another go.

 

[PK Cronin]

Similar; Palms and Pulock missed significant time. Point being, I could see him using this as justification to give this roster another go.

I really hope not. I didn't agree with giving the roster another go, can't miss again and keep everything the same.

 

[SI]

Similar; Palms and Pulock missed significant time. Point being, I could see him using this as justification to give this roster another go.

If the cap only goes up 1m, then Lou will not have many options but to keep this roster together. He will have to be very shrewd and very creative to Make moves.

The cap restraints make it very difficult for teams to make moves.

 

[LeapOnOver]

The issue with Romanov is not Romanov. The issue was the cost to acquire him by a team with very little assets. At present time, Romanov is replacement level, and likely worse. He constantly misses assignments in his own end, and is a negative in the offensive zone. He hits, and from time to time can competently get out of the zone. This Islander team has a very small window in my opinion. They have an aging core. A first round pick could have been used to add a forward. A first round pick could've been used to move out salary and make a run at JG. A first round pick is a legitimate asset. I, personally don't see what you see in Romanov. I don't think his hockey sense is up to snuff. He is extremely raw and is learning a new system. However, I see a defenseman who is slow to react to passes, takes bad angles on 2 on 1s, turns the puck over often, and does not provide offense. Obviously, he can improve and I'm counting on it. But he's a negative asset out there right now on a team starving for some element of NHL talent. At the moment, he's a fringe NHLer. He'd be a 7th defensemen on a true Stanley cup contender. He's been that bad.

LOL, so you'd want to use that first for a forward? Your ideal defense is Pelech, Pulock, Dobson, Mayfield, Aho and Salo? Ouch...can't imagine what a disaster this season would be skating that.

 

[LeapOnOver]

I do not like data that indicates what I want, because that's not useful. Again, that's what you're doing and you've moved goal posts a few times now and have ignored a huge portion of what I said (and what you said originally).

Either the fancy stats are the best at predicting winners and losers, and do so regularly, or they're just another stat like everything else. What is the success rate? How are you measuring predictability?



You know what's crazy about that? Half the league is above 50%. So strange that the teams that make the playoffs would be above 50% xGF. Let's take a look at the teams last year and see how they did:

1) Boston lead the league in xGF% during the regular season. It's odd that they were just a Wild Card team and were bounced in the first round by Carolina (who is #5 in xGF%).

2) Florida was number two. They won the President's Trophy, so that's cool. They beat the Capitals (#15), the second Wild Card team and then were swept by Tampa Bay (#9). That's kind of weird, no?

3) Toronto sat at number three. How'd that go for them again? They also lost to Tampa Bay (#9), but in the first round.

4) Calgary was number four. They had a nice run to the second round. They beat Dallas (#14) in the first round but lost to Edmonton (#12) in round two, in five games.

5) Carolina was five. They beat that top team in the first round like I mentioned earlier. Then they lost to the Rags (#24).

6) Minnesota will buck the trend for sure here. Nope, they lost to St. Louis (#23) in the opening round.

7) We're not doing so well, but maybe Los Angeles will change things up a bit. Checking my notes it looks like they lost in the first round too...against Edmonton (#12). Huh, that's odd.

8) Pittsburgh, here we go. They're the real deal. They beat the Rags...oh no, wait, they lost in the opening round to the Rags (#24).

9) This is it. Tampa Bay to the rescue. They beat Toronto (#3), then beat Florida (#2), then they win once more against the Rags (#24). Unfortunately, they lose to Colorado (#11) in the finals.

10) Vegas must've been pretty good for these stats. They won...nothing, they didn't even make the playoffs.

I'll stop there. Of the thirteen match ups mentioned above if you were to expect teams with the better xGF% to win the series you would be really sad. They were 3-10.

Now let me do xGA since you say it's the best.

1) Boston. Still a first round exit.

2) Minnesota. Still a first round exit.

3) Nashville. First round exit.

4) Calgary, second round exit to Edmonton (#15).

5) Tampa Bay, cup final loss to Colorado (#8).

6) Seattle. Didn't qualify.

7) Toronto. First round exit to Tampa Bay (#5).

8) Colorado. Cup winners.

9) Pittsburgh. Still a first round exit.

10) Washington, still a first round exit.

So of the top 10 teams in xGA, six of them didn't win a round (and Seattle didn't even qualify).

If that's the level of predictability we're talking about with fancy stats, they can f*** right off.

I mean, you can just look at goal differential and say that teams who have a higher differential are usually better. So insightful. Every team that made the playoffs last year had a positive goal differential, except one. Thirteen of the top 16 teams in goal differential made the playoffs, amazing coincidence. Did you know that teams that give up fewer goals than other teams are also more likely to make the playoffs than their counterpart? Who would've guessed?! Oddly enough, teams that score more than the rest of the league also make the playoffs more frequently than those that don't. What do you think about that? This next one is pretty crazy, teams that win more are more likely to do better in the standings than teams that win less. f***ing nutty.

If all you're doing is predicting who will make the playoffs with the fancy stats, what's the point? There are enough stats that do it just as well, and are way less complicated.

-----

As for your obsession with me wanting Lamoriello and the Islanders painted in a positive light, I'm not sure where you get that from. I mentioned at the beginning of last year and this year that they're a bubble playoff team. That is sure some rose colored glasses I'm looking through. It's so strange that they finished in the 9th spot in the Eastern Conference last year. Also strange that I made that prediction before any of the fancy stats for the season existed. Where are they right now? Oh, in that same position. Wild how I was able to guess that.

Just because I disagree with your assessment of trades, because you want to view Lamoriello negatively to push your narrative, doesn't mean I want him to look good. I'm as objective as I can be with the organization, with the exception of Bailey, and I call'em how I see'em. Crying about overpaying for Pageau or the first to acquire Romanov is some of the most nonsensical shit that really uneducated fans complain about. We've seen so many first round busts over the past ten years and still people believe that they'll win that lottery. I'd go back and do either trade again in a nano-second. Pageau helped the team get to back to back Eastern Conference Finals, and is a solid third line center you never have to worry about. Romanov, I'd even add to that trade after seeing him play. Mobile, physical, shot blocking young defensemen don't grow on trees and he's so far ahead of the learning curve for defensemen already.

If you don't like the trades, fine, but the five dollar scratcher draft picks trying to win a million dollars rarely works.

You want some issues I have with Lamoriello? I didn't like Trotz being let go. I still think there's more to it than the need for a new voice, but it doesn't really matter. I prefer defense first teams and this team doesn't do that anymore. I wasn't happy with Chara being a regular last year. I'm not happy with Aho being a regular this year. I wanted him to make a move for a forward in the summer. I'm not thrilled with the fourth line all getting new contracts and would've dismantled that line a few seasons ago. What you perceive as liking or viewing things positively is simply the fact that I understand some of the decisions he's made, even if I disagree with it. He's old as dirt, he's not going to be doing a rebuild, even if I think he should. I understand that, it doesn't mean it's something I'm thrilled about. There's a spectrum of good and bad, it isn't columns of good and bad for me when judging a GM.

I've got a chart explaining all the fancy stats stuck on my wall next to the shitter and I study it a lot there. I've learned one solid thing about fancy stats thanks to this handy chart, and it's not even debatable. The team that scores more than their opponent always wins the game. I'll live and die by that fancy stat. I've even named it "FS" short for "final score". I'll share the calculations with you some day, but I'm still fleshing them out.

 

[Big L]

I've got a chart explaining all the fancy stats stuck on my wall next to the shitter and I study it a lot there. I've learned one solid thing about fancy stats thanks to this handy chart, and it's not even debatable. The team that scores more than their opponent always wins the game. I'll live and die by that fancy stat. I've even named it "FS" short for "final score". I'll share the calculations with you some day, but I'm still fleshing them out.

xFS, expected final score. years of data says team with more goals at the end always wins.

 

[leeroggy]

xFS, expected final score. years of data says team with more goals at the end always wins.

But do you adjust for VAG? Video after game that shows goals that should have not counted? Then we could do those online petitions to replay the game, like with the World Cup, which, after all, is the ONLY true sport . . .

 

[MJF]

But do you adjust for VAG? Video after game that shows goals that should have not counted? Then we could do those online petitions to replay the game, like with the World Cup, which, after all, is the ONLY true sport . . .

No, I just shower afterwards.

 

[Islanders4Cups]

The Isles need to get over their rash of injuries and continue to compete for that playoff spot.

Merry Christmas

 

[TheWhiteWhale30]

Similar; Palms and Pulock missed significant time. Point being, I could see him using this as justification to give this roster another go.

If this team misses the playoffs he will be getting fired. He won’t get to make that decision

 

[CupHolders]

If this team misses the playoffs he will be getting fired. He won’t get to make that decision

Who will be getting fired, Lou?

I mean I think he should NOT be given another chance if the Isles do not make the playoffs. But why do you think it’s certain ownership agrees with that?

 

[NC 1972]

Wife is in bed, kid is asleep, everything is all set for tomorrow so I had a lot of time this evening.

Understatement!

 

[YearlyLottery]

As long as this team can stay a bit healthier I see them making the playoffs. How far they go will depend on how some of these younger guys step up come playoff time such as Dobson, Wahlstrom, Salo/Aho, Raty, Holmstrom, and Sorokin.

I don't see the sky is falling like many of you. I also do not view this as a time to fire Lou. I would be fine with allowing Lou to oversee the next GM hire when it is his time to step down.

 

[TheWhiteWhale30]

Who will be getting fired, Lou?

I mean I think he should NOT be given another chance if the Isles do not make the playoffs. But why do you think it’s certain ownership agrees with that?

Because Ledecky has made it clear he wants to win. It isn’t just a business to him. If they miss the playoffs two years in a row and Lou did nothing of significance… I can’t imagine Ledecky is happy with that

 

[Mike C]

Similar; Palms and Pulock missed significant time. Point being, I could see him using this as justification to give this roster another go.

Mayfield and Calvin too. Varly missed early games and wasn't 100 percent when he came back

 

[Mike C]

Because Ledecky has made it clear he wants to win. It isn’t just a business to him. If they miss the playoffs two years in a row and Lou did nothing of significance… I can’t imagine Ledecky is happy with that

Because Ledecky has made it clear he wants to win. It isn’t just a business to him. If they miss the playoffs two years in a row and Lou did nothing of significance… I can’t imagine Ledecky is happy with that

Ah, but Katie's uncle said "in Lou Lamoriello we trust "