oldnews

Members
  • Content Count

    46,683
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    174

oldnews last won the day on January 19

oldnews had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

44,425 Gaming the system

About oldnews

  • Rank
    Declining Grinder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

21,223 profile views
  1. As much as I hate the expansion dynamic, the 'problems' people anticipate are good problems to have. For example, if they manage to re-sign Markstrom and have to expose a very good goaltender, that creates less relative exposure of losing a forward or defenseman. If they lose a decent forward of defenseman instead, their depth buffered them from losing a goaltender. And additionally, they have a pretty damn good goaltending prospect in Utica - or to offer as an althernative to Seattle.if they must have one of ours. In the end it doesn't necessarily 'help' to waste undue effort seeking to limit expansion exposure for teams - and likewise as fans - the undue premature anxiety also isn't necessarily worth it. And the last expansion draft - the team wound up losing a player - Sbisa - that many people around here considered unmoveable lol = so you can't win them all / one of the consequences of being a better, deeper team is going to be some asset losses - via expansion, or not being able to afford to sign everyone they may otherwise want (reality in the cap era). A relative continuum of prospects/drafting and developing - is the antidote.
  2. ? Not sure what you're talking about? Rangers have no goaltender expansion exposure https://nypost.com/2019/06/12/rangers-already-keeping-eye-on-2021-seattle-expansion-draft/ Leivo expires this summer = no contract at expansion at this point. And your assessment of how highly unlikely losing a Markstrom or Demko is = aint exactly convincing either. Thread doesn't seem very well thought out.
  3. A little irony in the fact that there are few people on these boards that admire/want Tkachuk / complain about that Juolevi pick more than 189....and few here could compete with how much 189 loathes Burrows. and yet, when you get down to it, it's repeat turtle performances, after instigating/inciting/begging for a response. carry on with the Lucic gifs though, and the selective 'honour'.
  4. You're weak on the facts once again. Gaudette hasn't played a whiff with Motte. Zero. He hasn't played a whiff with Schaller over the period you claim. Zero. Who has Gaudette actually played with as Virtanen stepped off that line and up in the lineup? Boeser. The Gaudtte, Roussel, Virtanen line is 4 x as frequent a combination as any other Gaudette has seen this season. Look at the actual context of Gaudette's play recently: 100% ozone starts in the SJ game, with Boeser, not Schaller or Motte on his wing. 2 pts. 71% ozons starts vs Arizona, with Boeser. Played with Virtanen vs Buffalo. 1 pt. Again start from a basis of facts or there's not much to see here.
  5. It's ironic that you choose that incident. Lucic got an instigator penalty and Colorado scored on the ensuing powerplay - the game wining goal. Calgary loses in regulation. Welcome to Calgary Milan - a lack of discipline costs your team a loss on opening night. Vancouver thereby lead them in the playoff race heading into the asb. Eriksson's 'intangibles' game = a penalty killer with the 2nd lowest on ice goals against among the forward group (on Motte has a lower penatly killing goals against per 60). And when it comes to 5 on 5 - Eriksson's 3.4 goals for and 2.4 against, per 60 - is an outstanding goal differential under average circumstances, let alone while getting 39.5% ozone starts on a matchup unit. Goals though, aren't 'intangible' - they're tangible -and what determine actual wins and losses. If you're going to fluff Lucic's 'intangibles' try being fair to Eriksson - there's more to the game than pushback. If the team hadn't addressed that in the offseason, you may have a stronger point, but in spite of moving Gudbranson, they turned around and added size and grit in a number of other acquisitions, so I'm not sure the 'necessity' of a face-puncher' really stands up that well. I'd prefer to have neither of them at their terms, but oterwise, as I pointed out above, which obviously inspired your ironic gif post, LE aint as relatively bad (relative actual performance) as most of you are trying to sell. Btw, again, ironically, I just defended Lucic's value relative to Neal, something that appears to have wooshed.
  6. I think as much the case that some of the 'young dogs' in the market are beginning to see/understand what the old dog has been doing all along now that the results are more evident to them. It's not really the case that the process or approach has changed as much as the results are starting to show and a market that prejudged most of it are having to walk back and realize that many of the moves they may not have understood - the benefits are becoming more evident. And in case anyone doesn't understand this point, I'm not talking about an Eriksson signing - because Benning did not abandon signing veterans because of what he 'learned' after the LE deal. I'm talking about the prevailing opinions at the time, that: 1) Edler wasn't really very important to this franchise / don't re-sign an aging Edler. 2) We 'should' have traded Tanev long ago. His partnership with Edler - and now with Hughes - should probably speak for itself (the latter showing the wisdom of retaining him as opposed to letting an "asset management" mentailty over-determine decision-making. 3) Sutter was an awful deal and an overpayment. He's now 'dead-cap' that can't be moved - an overpaid 4th liner = highly uniformed. 4) Likewise where the Beagle signing was concerned. Benning hasn't 'changed' his process - he continues to add important veteran elements/signings - and whether or not peope can see the (high) value of a Beagle in the lineup, that is the 'underlying' truth of the matter. 5) We 'should' have gotten a late pick for Vanek instead. Ermagerd, who is Tyler Motte? We don't 'need' any more 'two way' players. 6) Spending a 1st on JT MIller was insane - who spends an asset like that on a cap dump? 7) Markstrom will never be an NHL starter - he's a backup in a starting role. 8) Why do we keep giving bottom six plugs like Roussel $3 million deals? 9) How did we get stuck with an overpriced, underperforming castoff like Tanner Pearson that neither LA or Pittsburgh wanted? Those are SC franchises, we are suckers. 10) Myers is (another) 3rd pairing D that 'we' overpaid for. 11) Dead cap like Baertschi (who earned his market value imo) - is another example of the kind of mistakes Benning makes (trading futures for assets that become unmoveable cap). This is cherry-picked weak logic and an argument of convenience - regarding (yet another) player that has been set back by injuries.concussions, not by disappointing on-ice performance. And on that note, give prospects like Juolevi, or Lind some time before writing them off as busts or bad picks. The process hasn't really changed - it's more the case that the stage of that process has. I'm not sure many people see the difference. Where there was a deficit of moveable rething assets, of a viable rething prospect pool, there is now both depth at the NHL level, and in the continuum of prospect depth and push from within. It takes time to produce those conditions - and neither of them come by virtue of making - on balance - a surplus of 'mistakes' in the process. The reason Benning will likely refrain from dealing picks moving forward - is because he has a critical mass of talent and depth at the NHL level - and enough push from within - that it is not really necessary any longer - at this stage they can refocus on using emerging youth depth from within to balance their cap flexibility moving forward = that hasn't been the case at previous stages - it takes time to rething the asset depth of a franchise, and particularly to create a level stream of incoming youth talent.
  7. Not really / I don't think so. First, your facts aren't correct Gaudette is scoring .54 ppg. Virtanen is scoring .57 ppg Second, Virtanen's production becomes better in context. Gaudette 4 of his 8 goals and 8 of his 13 assists are at even strength = his scoring is far more weighted to powerplay production. Virtanen 11 of his 14 goals and 11 of his 14 assists are at even strength. Gaudette generally plays/needs sheltered minutes and has scored disproportionately on the man advantage, whereas Virtanen's zone starts are somewhat misleading by virtue of playing with Gaudette - otherwise he's capable of and has played on matchup lines to the point where he now forms a viable two-way complement for a young forward like Gaudette (albeit the same age) They may both be 23 years old, but Virtanen has 259 games of NHL experience, Gaudette 100 - which matters, because Virtanen has spent that additional time developing as a two-way forward, for the most part playing in matchup line contexts - his game is further developed than Gaudette's at this point - and most of his experience and production have come while playing harder minutes than Gaudette (and a more physical presence in the process).
  8. I think when people see what that cost is, it will be a good time to revisit the Miller trade assessments - the demand for and cost of a player like Kreider ought to make it a bit clearer what it takes to enter the premier powerforward market. At that point I think it mght be a bit clearer how generallly poor the estimations of the cost of Miller were. Kreider / career - (both of these players entered the NHL in 2012). 303 points / 75 of them on the powerplay 508 games 37 pts/77 playoff games 53.6% ozone starts 51.2% corsi 1.98 hits / game 277 giveaways, 154 takeaway 209 blocked shots 441 pm 16:08 ice time/game Miller career 283 points / 73 of them on the powerplay 484 games 26pts/61 playoff games 52.8% Ozone starts 50.2% corsi 1.6 hits/game 284 giveaways 252 takeaways 237 blocked shots 220 pm 15:27 ice time/game Kreider at a 4.65 million cap hit and expiring - will be a blockbuster acquisition for whomever, if anyone, manages to acquire him. Miller at 5.25 million with 4 years remaining - was an alleged 'cap dump' It will be a good "learning window"/moment for the Vancouver media and market regarding real market value for forwards like this - and keep in mind that while Kreider might have slight edges in 'grit', and heaviness to his game, MIller has a versatility edge - as a center winger, and moreover in that versatility is an elite faceoff center (who at 59.3% is 2nd in the NHL just edging Beagle as 59.2% - but on that side note I would credit Beagle, who takes the vast majority of draws in the D zone, as being slightly better if we adjust for that fact - not that it matters much for the purposes here). Bottom line - yes, it will cost a significant amount to acquire Kreider. Not only are the Rangers not in a position where they need to move cap, but the market for Kreider, in spite of expiring, will come at a time when teams are both competing to enhance their lineups for a playoff run, but also at a time when his cap hit is pro-rated/more manageable down the stretch run of a season (with injury relief, etc). Benning's acquisition of MIller came not only with years of term to advantage (at a great cap hit), but with great. opportune timing and circumstances/context. See what the Kreider market is should help this market form a better understanding of what Benning pulled off in the Miller deal. I'll have to listen to that interview you refer to - I always enjoy listening to Benning - he's pretty forthcoming in general (with maybe an exception when it comes to pre-draft times, where he seems to offer some misdirection about his interests/intentions/targets - and understandably so, this is the type of strategic wisdom you hope your GM displays - in those cases he seems like a deceptively cagey poker player).
  9. Obviously - a whole lot more - but if you're renting players the point is to compete/contend (otherwise you're not sacrificing futures).- and half-measures like Granlund are probably not who you have in mind. With a trade partner like the rethinging Rags, you may have the possibility of sending cap back as part of a larger deal - even there, they have RFAs like DeAngelo and Strome expiriing - probably some flexibility moving forward - but whether they're in 'asset management' mode where they're looking for assets to eat cap is doubtful = I think that's less on the priority list of competent rethingers than it is in the minds of fans thinking they're maximizing asset management with every mid pick they can get by eating dead weight. If I'm the Rags, I probably try to sell high on Strome as opposed to let go of Kreider - they may be looking to retain both - simply falling out of a playoff race doesn't necessarily make a team a seller where their best assets are concerned - but from a Canucks perspective, I'm not really that hard into the market at this point - and if I am it's because I'm serious about this year's possibilities. One thing that factors in = if you spend on a worthwhile asset like Kreider and enhance your possibility of a run, you can reduce the potential cost of MIller in the process - ie if you finish fairly respectably high in the standings....the pick you're sending the Bolts could be a relatively low % mid to late 1st. I'm not sure how many contending teams would be in a position to rent and re-sign Kreider, but the likelihood that he's dealt probably depends on the kind of return the Rags would get in that kind of circumstance, otherwise acquiring him is probably a pipe-dream. If things work out and this team makes the playoffs - I think we may have already got one of those when we landed Miller for a non-lottery late rounder.
  10. Overall, I see the Canucks' position this way: 1) they are showing that they can compete with the players they presently have - the pressure or need to add is tapering off somewhat. They also have some good, improving options from within. 2) they have done their spending when the market was low - via last summer's cap crunch for a lot of other teams = Miller, Myers, Ferland, Benn....there isn't a lot of flexibility left - there may be shorter term flexibility via Leivo and Ferland IR cap relief, but any deal is either a rental, sending cap back, or bloody well worth it. 3) the relative benefit of a rental has to be weighed against the asset costs - and imo it's better to retain their youth, prospect, picks at this point, and the flexibilty they afford moving forward, unless that rental is a game-changing, low risk addition that could put them 'over the top'. For me that boils down to a limited field, which I wouldn't put Granlund in. Ie A guy already mentioned in this thread = Kreider. Always wanted him - would pay a reasonable price to 'rent' and dream of re-signing him (that would cost additional assets to clear the space for him) - but if you are looking to enhance your competitiveness short term for a run, that is the player - that when added to a mix with Miller, Pearson, Horvat, Virtanen, etc - becomes intimidatingly heavier - and a 'run' might become a realistic possibility if you add a player like that. I'd probably kick that tire, but my expectations would be very low - and my underlying disposition a bit conservative at this point. With the Rags falling off the pace though, he's possibly going to be hitting the market, so I can see why Nashville would want to get out ahead of that and shop a Granlund early. haha.
  11. Pass on Granlund. Good enough player in the past - who knows why he's struggling so badly in Nashville -while playing with some pretty good linemates as well (Duchene, Forsberg, Jarnkrok, Turris....) But this team isn't in the kind of position of weakness where it needs to take risks on struggling players, even if they're expiring - unless they can dump cap in the process (is that likely?) I don't see the point. Essentially Granlund is a winger who is not outproducing LE at this point - and he's struggling this badly while getting 59.3% ozone starts, top 6 linemates and 17 minutes of ice time a night... I realize it's a relative blip of 57 games for a player that is far better than he seems in the present - but for that reason, I don't believe the price would be in line with what's worthwhile for this team for a rental, and if we're talkng players like Stecher, etc it's a no for me. Not sure what the one quote about the opposite of buy low, sell high means though. If a team bought him low at this point, got a resurgence out of him over the next month, and reflipped him at the trade deadline while eating some cap, they might gain from a buy low sell high. That might be an option for an Ottawa type if Nashville is realistic about what he's going to return in the present. But on the other hand - did Nashville buy that 'high' on Granlund? Not really, imo. They bought a 26 year old that was a consistent 60 pt player - for Fiala - who if he were a Canuck would be littered with threads in here about what a disappointing 'bust' he is. And if they are hand-wringing over 'letting go" of Fiala, they can remind themselves of the time the hockey gauds gave them Forsberg for Erat. Anyhow, I don't think Granlund is an option for the Canucks. Where RW is concerned, I'd prefer to keep moving Virtanen up in the lineup, they already have a 60+ pt Boeser, and beyond that options like Gaudette, LE, and perhaps even Bailey or Lind. Any offers I'd entertain for an expiring player like Granlund - a pure rental essentially - would be around guys like Schaller, perhaps Benn (although we probably need the D depth more than F), or our AHL tweeners like Goldy, Baer = in other words, highly unlikely/borderline laughable. Stecher for a rental would be a hard no for me - the need for RHDepth exceeds the need to take a rental risk on a Granlund imo.
  12. It is - but that's not really a '4th' line. I like your comment/question what's a SC worth though. All three of those guys play more minutes than Gaudette and Roussel - I think if it's defined in terms of 4 lines (which is a bit oversimplified) - the '3rd line' is the shutdown line and the '4th line' is a secondary scoring line - but I think that's about to get more fluid. I think we're likely to see Sutter centering another line once he's back to 100% - and game shape - and perhaps spot duty on Beagle's line when they're dealing with a particularly loaded up top line matchup. When it comes to facing teams with two high end top 6 lines and/or 3 scoring lines, it's a nice luxury to have both these guys centering matchup lines and Horvat as a 3rd option (particularly on the road, or when defending leads). They can move Gaudette to the wing in those circumstances, and back to center when they're looking for more secondary scoring (ie when they're dictating, or trailing in a game, or when they can get him optimal matchups ie at home). That's what Green appeared to be doing early in the season when all 6 of their centers were healthy - personally I prefer to see Miller, Horvat, Sutter and Beagle down the middle and EP and Gaudette on wings, but I also like getting Gaudette those high-ozone sheltered opportunities to put up some production at C and gain confidence, while also 'platooning' and learning the 'little things' while playing wing with Sutter or whomever (Gaudette is also a good candidate to move further up the lineup). But the basic point - I think you're going to see Sutter playing 15-17 minutes a night = not really a "4th line" winger. What a luxury when you have 2 of the league's best faceoff guys (and Horvat aint bad either), two of the league's premier matchup/shutdown centers, and a pair of young natural centers with a lot of upside that you can continue to develop on the wings and/or shelter when they're at center.
  13. I agree though - I like the idea of Virtanen on the Pearson Horvat line - that's what I 'projected' to start the season,
  14. same difference. take Virtanen off a Petey or Gaudette line, and you create an opening there. three options of scoring and secondary scoring lines, two RW - Boeser and Virtanen - to fill them. the point was an alternative to Eriksson.
  15. In my mind it's a system more suited to the heavier teams in the league - ie the LAKIngs of their contending years - heavier D group and heavier forward group, all willing to block shots, fairly hard to dictate in the 'hard areas' - but even with teams somewhat designed for it, opponents built otherwise - ie the Hawks - could activate their defense, could stretch the collapse out, could win the races to loose pucks via a speed/skill lineup, could take advantage of soft spot like higher in the slot or behind the net - could move the puck rapidly around the perimeter and wear on a team's ability to last out shifts..... I think it had become a more common D system around the league but I think the limits of it were also getting more exposed - particularly with the trend towards more speed throughout lineups, more puck moving defensmen and perhaps even more players entering the league that are able to score from outside the harder areas? I imagine it's still something employed in a more fluid way - but at the same time I think if a team is too static and predictable, it gets too easy to gameplan. Tortorella was as clear an example of that as I've ever seen. He seemed literally 'figured out' by the entire conference by Christmas. Teams employed precisely those tactics above against us - and not only was this team not really designed for it - but the less effective it was, the more exposed your key defensive players are - to getting peppered by shooting galleries. I'm not suggesting their injury problems simply boiled down to this - it's way more complicated than that overall - but the wear and tear on rented mules like Edler - or Tanev was evident. And Tortorella seemed to have a hard-headed refusal to system his team to it's strengths. I personally was relieved when the franchise reverted back to its roots - towards the kind of up tempo, puck pressure, transition hockey of the AV era. From WD forward (whether people like him or not and whether his personnel were able to pull it off or not) - the team seemed to 'transition' back to its roots, furthered by the style that Green employs. Beyond that I find it pretty difficult to watch a game, particularly on tv at game speed - and attempt to decipher all the systems they are employing - half the time you have a half-view or partial field of play, and moreover, systems change so much on the fly, depending on what unit is out there, in what situation, against whom. I won't begin to pretend to chart their systems but I think it would and probably should be a greater topic of discussion / addressed in more depth - particularly if people pretend to dismiss/critique Green's 'system'. Often it's defined as simply as "dump and chase" - which is borderline comical. I mean if you take a player approaching a zone entry (which itself is only a fraction of the game, perhaps 1/2 of 5%ish lol - and look at the context, it becomes evident that 'dump and chase' has literally nothing to do with a team's overall systems - ie a team spends 45 seconds defending in it's own zone, gains possession, moves the puck through the neutral zone - is very likely to 'dump and change' (or possibly cycle the puck back to a D if the opposition also tips that they are changing = not really a 'system' but a situational option that a player options. Likewise, a team forces a turnover outside the opposing blueline, gains possession in the neutral zone, but is confronted with a concentration of opponents, who are 'standing up' the entry at the blueline - likely a dump and chase circumstance. Hughes, Virtanen or whomever winds up behind their net as an opponent changes - carry the puck through the neutral zone and the opponent respects their speed or ability to break down or beat pressure - perhaps they back off at the blueline not wanting to get beaten - probably a controlled entry situation, etc, etc. But to nit-pick a singular micro-aspect of the game and characterize Green's "system" as 'dump and chase" is exceedingly absurd and relatively disinterested in actually learning anything about the game, about what actual systems a team employs. Ir's right up there with the common complaints about AV's "defend the 0-0" tie 'system - when AV actually ran moderately aggressive forechecking systems, fairly aggressive puck pressuring d zone overloads, had one of the highest scoring teams in the NHL - a great 'possession' era for the franchise actually - and yet, 'defend the 0-0 tie!' lol Not exactly 'discussion' worth repeatedly engaging in. Ok - that's enough for me on this matter lol. It's really the type of topic - NHL systems - that it would take chapters, books, to really get at the extent of.