team toughness going into the stretch

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

oh for sure on the Lucic part, lets avoid that tire fire.

 

I'm curious to see if Bailey gets a look this road trip, maybe we've got something there too that fits the bill of tough to play against. I don't recall anything about his playing time against us tho so not sure what we've got there.

 

 

Virtanen's importance becomes that much more evident imo.

 

The great thing about him at this point - he can be used by Green in a versatile way - so if they kept him on the EP/Miller line, they could still situationally use him to wing it on a Sutter/Roussel shutdown line, when needed - or if they go for greater balance throughout the lineup, perhaps they move Gaudette to wing, no longer need to shelter him or that line, and Boeser could potentially move up to Horvat or Miller/EP's line.... they have the flexibility to deal with another loss imo (but not a rash of them).  Moving LE would probably increase the risk of their performance falling off down the stretch if they took any further key losses to their shutdown group.  Difficult short-term calculation, but I think over the following season and certainly after Backes expired, that would be very tempting future flexibility to buy.

 

I think the key - if they were to move LE - would be the ability to utilizie either a pair of Sutter/Beagle shutdown lines - or, spitballing here - if they're leaving Sutter on the wing, when healthy he's certainly capable of eating more than depth minutes, so they could move him up to Horvat's wing for shutdown circumstances and arguably lose nothing (actually gain imo) relative to LE.

 

I'd love to know what Green et al would truly think of a deal like this.

[PhillipBlunt]

8 minutes ago, Silent Man said:

I got sick and staying home for the last couple of days and I was amazed by the fact that radio guys discussed topics that were discussed here the night before.

I've heard that too. They're very lazy there.

8 minutes ago, Silent Man said:

For example, that Brock might be traded to Mini.

I've also noticed that lots of posters here have much deeper hockey knowledge and express their thoughts better then radio guys. It is actually amazing.

For sure. A lot more well rounded and thorough here. Looks of people look at both sides of a situation and aren't nearly as sensationalistic as those clowns

8 minutes ago, Silent Man said:

I am not listening radio that  much, maybe once in a full moon, so I might be off the mark here, it is what I noticed from a very small sample.

I'm thinking that you're right on the mark, personally. I hope you're feeling better, Silent.

[oldnews]

13 minutes ago, tas said:

furthermore, I feel like the demeanor and snarl backes brings to the dressing room would be a more significant and impactful influence than what loui brings off the ice.

 

I feel like backes on the 4th line in playoffs could be a difference maker. 

yeah - if 'we' have a healthy Beagle and Motte - Backes could be a good winger complement to them - they'd probably still be effective - and you also gain the fact that Backes is/was a natural center - an experienced faceoff guy that gives the line a secondary option if/when Beagle is waved from the circle.  They have that presently with Sutter, but I suspect the current formation might be designed in part to minimize the impact on Sutter / 'save' him for the harder times ahead, or buy him some more time to get healthier.  I don't know how healthy his shoulder is, but another potential faceoff guy in Backes - who you'd only need to use for 10 minutes a game and could platoon his minutes, might be a benefit if he's in the lineup - an already potent group in the faceoff circle becomes that much better if Gaudette goes to wing, Sutter moves back to C (assuming his health) and Backes steps in in a secondary depth role.

Edited January 31, 2020 by oldnews

[bree2]

38 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Absolutely. He needs to set the tone more so in that regard. I think during the last SJ game, he was chumming it up with a Shark after a scrum. I'd prefer that he keeps that stuff to after the game, in the hallways type of interaction.

it was with Karlson right after he injured Motte, and I agree , Horvat needed to step up then, especially when not even a penalty was called.  if not him somebody should have stepped up for Motte who gives his heart and soul to this team.  the team could have legally hit Karlson to show him you don't take liberties with our players 

[riffraff]

I haven’t seen lui in the playoffs before.

 

ive watched backes in the playoffs for both the blues and the bruins.  
 

backes proved to be quite useful for the bruins in the post season and he provides more “playoff” style game than what I have seen from lui during the 82’  over his tenure here.

 

just for discussion sake, considering contracts, I do the swap straight up.

[GB5]

2 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I gotta write some of this stuff down......

That was just my reaction to a post that I didn't really understand

[Rob_Zepp]

1 minute ago, GarthButcher5 said:

That was just my reaction to a post that I didn't really understand

You and me both....

[theo5789]

28 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I don't know if that is realistic - the value of shedding that extra year imo is compensated from our end in LE's contributions - but are they enough to value escaping that $6 million in the final year.  I'm not sure LE's performance is that significant - although you have to factor it over this and next year...

 

Personally, I think I would prefer the two years of dead cap vs 3 of active LE (sorry Loui).

 

Part of the reason for that - not only how well the depth of the team at forward has sustained in spite of injuries to Sutter, Beagle, Motte, Roussel, Ferland, Motte again, Leivo, (Graovac) - but also because they have some emerging guys like Lind, Bailey, MacEwen - and might gain a player back from injury (fingers-crossed - obviously the organization would have a far better idea/projections than I can merely speculate about).  I like the depth the team has - I'd probably roll the dice on it - and I'd really value that extra cap flexibility the moment that Backes expires (or, if he proves unable to perform, the possibility of LTIR that has not yet panned out for Boston).

 

What if Loui has enough value in a retained trade and thus we only carry say half his cap? That gives more flexibility in a time that we need it as opposed to the final year where our cap constraints won't be as high with expiring contracts and replacing them with youth and cap increases. Backes' cap is of negative value to Boston while LE is not quite there. We'd be taking on real dead weight if he can't perform which he is clearly showing he isn't capable of on a top level team and hoping he gets hurt to put on LTIR (because he's deemed as healthy now)?

[PhillipBlunt]

30 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I think we've got the personnel to play a gritty game. Most of our forwards are big and can play with physicality, the only ones who don't are really Petey and Boeser.

 

I really expect a lot from Pearson, Virtanen and Roussel in particular and of course the 4th line to come out throwing their bodies around. I think Bo and Miller can, but will be focussed on defending when they're without the puck and possession when they've got it, but most of the guys on our team can play a heavy game.

 

Of course on defence, I'd want Benn in there, and I'm hoping Myers uses his body a bit more. They may not throw big hits but Edler, Myers, Tanev and Benn can play a grinding defence against the boards and can hold their own against big forwards.

 

I think Benning did a fantastic job this offseason of crafting a playoff-first team, we're just lucky we're having regular season success too.

Boeser has been a lot more physical this season. as has Pettersson.

 

Edler has thrown some huge hits this season too.

[aGENT]

33 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

oh for sure on the Lucic part, lets avoid that tire fire.

 

I'm curious to see if Bailey gets a look this road trip, maybe we've got something there too that fits the bill of tough to play against. I don't recall anything about his playing time against us tho so not sure what we've got there.

 

 

I'm interested to see how he does too (assuming he gets a couple practices in and then hopefully a game or two). Though fair warning, he doesn't play a particularly 'heavy' game'. He has elite speed and a pretty good shot and is half decent defensively but he uses his size more to protect the puck/make space than necessarily lay hits etc. Think more 'David Booth'. 

 

Though it's certainly something that wouldn't hurt to add to his game if he wants to play at this level!

 

Kid has all the tools...now we just need to find out if he's a late bloomer or if he just can't translate them to the NHL.

[alt kilgore]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

While I agree with your stance, that simply isn't the style we have been playing and as Roussel has reiterated that we shouldn't be changing what has been successful for us of late. We shouldn't be playing to the opponents strengths and continue playing to ours. Of course the intensity will go up and I expect the after whistle scrums and such, but I'm not concerned about that.

 

If we continue to play a game where we keep skating and using our speed to get behind the defense (there's a reason why we have one of the most penalties drawn this season), then we will be in a better position. Once we start breaking our system because we are chasing the opponents for retaliation, then we will be playing into their hands. This isn't playing "soft" as I've pointed out earlier that we have built a team that should hopefully withstand the physical intensity uptick, but it's playing with control and knowing what the end game is.

 

There was a game earlier in the season when we were popping in crucial goals and the team wasn't too caught up in celebrations (not to say they're a bad thing), and to me it showed focus on the task at hand and getting the job done rather than being caught up in emotions. It's a natural instinct to want to go tit for tat, but you have to know when to engage or not or sometimes just give them a smile back which could irk them more (something noted from one of the Jake mic'ed up sessions).

And while I too agree with you,  I can't help but read this like it could have been written in 2011.  Which raises some red flags. Yes we went to the 7th game, but the SCP is a war of attrition.  And the reffing is progressively lax each round, as far as "roughing" and other penalties go. When we ran into the Bruins, the refs had put away their whistles by then, and the Bruins were built for reffless hockey.  Us, not so much. One of our main identities was to take a punch and get back on the PP.  But when refs stop calling the punches, what do you do?

 

I think though we all are in agreement,  just saying it different.  We don't need goons. We need durable players, majority with good size, so that its we who knock. We actually need a surplus of those players, as depth is also important. Add to that high end scoring ability from your snipers, and of course great goaltending. But there is a swagger, and attitude you have to go into the playoffs with. And not just in the goal scoring department. I know "its not Bo's game" but he will have to show a little more aggression, in your face, selectively of course, as has been mentioned. Even if he has to fake it sometimes. Even Linden picked his spots when he needed to.

.

.

.

Edited January 31, 2020 by kilgore

[Silent Man]

36 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

That's the radio station that is clueless.  Right?

Correct, TSN 1040

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, theo5789 said:

What if Loui has enough value in a retained trade and thus we only carry say half his cap? That gives more flexibility in a time that we need it as opposed to the final year where our cap constraints won't be as high with expiring contracts and replacing them with youth and cap increases. Backes' cap is of negative value to Boston while LE is not quite there. We'd be taking on real dead weight if he can't perform which he is clearly showing he isn't capable of on a top level team and hoping he gets hurt to put on LTIR (because he's deemed as healthy now)?

I think it might boil down to how "all in" the team feels about this present playoff race.  If they determine that this is a window (already) to be "all in", they might not make a move like this, jeopardizing their current depth.  But if they weight the future as heavily as the present - maybe they'd go for it.  I don't know - it's a tough calculation, but I'd probably take the risk in favour of the cap benefit.  It's really quite a remarkable rise, though, that 'we'd' find ourselves hesitant to shed a year of LE's deal because of the possibly detrimental impact on the lineup - nice problem to have really - that he's both made himself more viable/valuable in the lineup, and that the team is in a position where it's leading a playoff race and doesn't want to meddle with a good thing.  Borderline remarkable, really. 

Great job, JB, Green et al - and LE (you might 'owe' us this, LE lol).

 

I think they will 'need' the cap flexibility in his final year - it is always valuable - yes, they have expiring contracts, but the ability to utilize that cap will be handy then as well - and you'll have a core that is a few years more developed, so hopefully they are continuing to perform and we are still referring to a 'window'.

 

If - as you propose - they trade him in a half-retained circumstance -  it would counterbalance shedding the final year - and it would be interesting to see what they might return in that kind of a deal?   What teams, realistically, might entertain that, and for whom?  It would be an interesting spitball.  Would LE go to Ottawa (who might benefit from his cap hit with contracts expiring and a 'thrifty' ownership?)   Would any 'competitive' teams be interested in a retained deal where they don't send bad cap back?   The nice thing is that the team isn't dealing from a position of weakness, and LE is increasing his moveability.

Kudos again to Benning/Green et al for having the patience/tolerance to let this play out - as opposed to the reactionary position some people maintained (that would have burnt the current bridge) - dumbfounded that Green would insert LE into the lineup.

[oldnews]

10 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Think more 'David Booth'.

No, you didn't.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

No, you didn't.

 

*Play style comparison only.

 

Similar skill set, with less 'weird dude' 

[oldnews]

It would be fun to face Boston in the Finals again and have a raging, angry David Backes with a chip on his shoulder to take out on his former management group lol.

 

(until 'litte things' breaks out against us lol)

[theo5789]

6 minutes ago, kilgore said:

And while I too agree with you,  I can't help but read this like it could have been written in 2011.  Which raises some red flags. Yes we went to the 7th game, but the SCP is a war of attrition.  And the reffing is progressively lax each round, as far as "roughing" and other penalties go. When we ran into the Bruins, the refs had put away their whistles by then, and the Bruins were built for reffless hockey.  Us, not so much. One of our main identities was to take a punch and get back on the PP.  But when refs stop calling the punches, what do you do?

 

I think though we all are in agreement,  just saying it different.  We don't need goons. We need durable players, majority with good size, so that its we who knock. We actually need a surplus of those players, as depth is also important. Add to that high end scoring ability from your snipers, and of course great goaltending. But there is a swagger, and attitude you have to go into the playoffs with. And not just in the goal scoring department. I know "its not Bo's game" but he will have to show a little more aggression, in your face, selectively of course, as has been mentioned. Even if he has to fake it sometimes. Even Linden picked his spots when he needed to.

.

.

.

As you pointed out, that team made it to game 7 of the finals. I'd argue that we have to be careful with our physical play because we were in control until Rome's hit that they rallied around. Arguable that this is where the turnaround happened for the Bruins. On top of that Hamhuis throws a hip check that takes himself out of the series.

 

On that note, our team had team toughness that year, just maybe not truculence (like breaking a guys back, although there were some massive hits and physical play from us in that run too). We have that team toughness this year as well, so we will see how it plays out if/when we make the playoffs.

[theo5789]

9 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I think it might boil down to how "all in" the team feels about this present playoff race.  If they determine that this is a window (already) to be "all in", they might not make a move like this, jeopardizing their current depth.  But if they weight the future as heavily as the present - maybe they'd go for it.  I don't know - it's a tough calculation, but I'd probably take the risk in favour of the cap benefit.  It's really quite a remarkable rise, though, that 'we'd' find ourselves hesitant to shed a year of LE's deal because of the possibly detrimental impact on the lineup - nice problem to have really - that he's both made himself more viable/valuable in the lineup, and that the team is in a position where it's leading a playoff race and doesn't want to meddle with a good thing.  Borderline remarkable, really. 

Great job, JB, Green et al - and LE (you might 'owe' us this, LE lol).

 

I think they will 'need' the cap flexibility in his final year - it is always valuable - yes, they have expiring contracts, but the ability to utilize that cap will be handy then as well - and you'll have a core that is a few years more developed, so hopefully they are continuing to perform and we are still referring to a 'window'.

 

If - as you propose - they trade him in a half-retained circumstance -  it would counterbalance shedding the final year - and it would be interesting to see what they might return in that kind of a deal?   What teams, realistically, might entertain that, and for whom?  It would be an interesting spitball.  Would LE go to Ottawa (who might benefit from his cap hit with contracts expiring and a 'thrifty' ownership?)   Would any 'competitive' teams be interested in a retained deal where they don't send bad cap back?   The nice thing is that the team isn't dealing from a position of weakness, and LE is increasing his moveability.

Kudos again to Benning/Green et al for having the patience/tolerance to let this play out - as opposed to the reactionary position some people maintained (that would have burnt the current bridge) - dumbfounded that Green would insert LE into the lineup.

I think worrying 3 years from now is looking too far ahead (in terms of the value of losing LE now or not) especially when considering there will be a bunch of expiring deals and the cap rising. Backes could be literal dead weight holding us down for the next 2 years for sure. That's a big risk on two years where our cap is in most question.

 

It might be something to explore in the offseason if it's being considered. Making this move now would affect chemistry while still taking on a big risk. Not worth it unless they make it worthwhile.

[stawns]

3 hours ago, Fanuck said:

Much more concerned about overall team durability (avoiding the insidious injury bug) rather than team toughness. 

 

Roussell, likely one of the grittiest players on the team, stated recently it would be a mistake for the club to pursue 'toughness' at the trade deadline - it's not their identity and you don't change the team identity at the TDL just to make the playoffs when you're already on your way there imo. 

while I like toughness, that's not really the game anymore, not in the context of "standing up for your teammates kind of thing.  Playoff hockey is tough, but it's not that kind of tough.........it's the kind of tough that they showed against the Blues. 

 

If they have guys jump in for Motte last game, they likely come out of it shorthanded and very well might have ended up with an L instead of the W and two incredibly important points.

Edited January 31, 2020 by stawns

[nowhereman]

Between Ferland, Rousell, Horvat, Sutter, Myers, Miller, Virtanen, Benn, etc., we have enough grit and sandpaper on the team. Team toughness doesn't need to be about fighting or physical intimidation but, rather, going to the tough areas, finishing your checks and sticking up for your teammates. And for the love of God, if some punk like Marchand starts feeding you shots to the head... punch the f**k back (sorry Sedins).