I don't care what they said. If we can't afford Weiss, how can we afford Luo? It doesn't make sense. If we can afford Luo, we can afford Weiss. We don't need to trade Weiss. It's simply not happening. We have bigger problem's than goal tending. It make's more sense for us to address our scoring problem, rather than our goalie's.
Here's my thoughts on that. To score, you have to be able to play in the other end of the ice. For the other team to score, they have to play in your end more. I wondered from that how well Florida was doing at getting the puck out of their zone and creating chances in the offensive end.
You'd probably have good perspective on that having watched Florida's games, but I haven't really watched any of their games this year so I went to check their underlying stats. What I found was hardly compelling but did point to something as a consideration for the poor performance. It's all quick calculations from the player numbers so it may not be perfect but gives a good enough representation for my test.
Based on Corsi QoC (see the end of my post if you aren't familiar with what Corsi is), Florida is facing much harder quality of competition (4.05) versus Vancouver (-0.6). I wanted a third team who was doing well so far this year to compare to and Chicago has ties to both, and their quality of competition was surprisingly 3.77, so Chicago is winning in spite of that.
So why are the records the way they are? Chicago is losing out for on-ice Corsi overall (-1.45) but are still winning games while Vancouver is driving more Corsi events at 1.86 per 60 minutes yet not coming out further ahead. Florida has a whopping -13.08 Corsi, which is incredibly
high so it tells us Florida players are giving up way more chances to the opposition than they are creating. Even if I take out their two worst players who are outliers (Tyson Strachan and Michael Caruso at -79.79 and -45.63 respectively!) you still have them at -7.64 overall and they have 4 players in the -20's (Ellerby, Kuba , Upshall and Weiss) and George Parros at -38.26(!). That's horrible but it's early in the season as well.
I went to look next at their O-zone start/finish rates, and Florida (48.9%/51.7%) was actually better than Chicago (47.4%/49.2%). Vancouver actually does pretty well in this stat year over year, being at 55.4% start rate in the O-zone and 61.2% finish rate so far this season. We start more shifts in the O-zone than in the neutral or defensive zone, and manage to finish a decent number more shifts there too.
PDO is a different stat (again, explanation at bottom), one some people don't really like, but it might give us a bit of a luck quotient to add to the equation. Florida has a PDO of 896. 896! That's almost more surprising than the on-ice Corsi results, and I'd consider Chicago's high at 1040 (+40 over the 1000 mark, versus -104 below for Florida). That means Florida is having horrible luck with their shots while not getting much help with saves. Chicago has had probably a bit of luck with both shots and saves which is due to drop just like their 6-0-0 record is going to even out over the season. The Canucks have dead even (1000) PDO so we haven't had much luck either good or bad.
So Florida is underperforming, and by a large margin, but how much is bad luck and how much is bad play? They'll improve from 1-5-0 just like Chicago will come back to earth from their 6 wins to open the season - but will it be enough without help to get them into the playoffs? I'd suggest it won't, not with Tampa playing better and tougher competition from Carolina this year, and a Luongo trade would help them if they don't take too much from key roster spots and get more help from their top players.Corsi QoC (Quality of Competition): Average Corsi of opposing players, weighted by head-to-head ice time.On-Ice Corsi: On-Ice Shot Differential (goals + saves + missed shots + blocks). This is expressed as a rate stat per 60 minutes.PDO: the sum of "On-Ice Shooting Percentage" and "On-Ice Save Percentage" while a player was on the ice. It regresses very heavily to the mean in the long-run: a team or player well above 1000 has generally played in good luck and should expect to drop going forward and vice-versa.