elvis15

Belleville played Sudbury tonight in a battle of the prospects. No points for either Corrado or Gaunce, Corrado was a +1 and had 2PIMs though. Gaunce was a -2. Sudbury won 3-2 although Belleville outshot Sudbury 35-24.

Kitchener played Oshawa tonight, won 6-2. McEneny had no points, but was a +4 with 2PIMs in the game.

Well, if you listen to everything you hear on CDC as the opinion of someone knowledgeable, then I have some stock I'd like to advise you on buying. Money goes through me and I'll invest it for you. He's NHL ready physically, but likely has to develop his game a little more mentally and be ready for the faster pace of the NHL.

Speaking of which, anyone know of a good place to get cheap Hulkamania stuff for a costume in Vancouver (preferably Coquitlam)? Otherwise haven't followed wrestling in years.

Minor injury it sounds like:

Kitchener lost 2-4 to Windsor last night, McEneny had an assist on a PP goal, but was a -1.

link Didn't mention anything about the defensive side in the recap, just that the 3rd and 4th line saw more icetime as the Bulls shutdown the game, but Gaunce playing point on the PP in this game and was an impact player for them tonight.

Both assists were 1st assist on PP goals, but Galchenyuk did assist on Sarnia's one goal so hard to say about how much he was shut down. Gaunce certainly has the capability as a two-way forward so I'm sure he held his own at least.

If they can shore their defence up and manage to put the puck in the net, I think they'll be a competitive team this season.

Bulls announce captains

That's pretty much it. Not having to use a draft pick to get him could be a huge steal rather than waiting until the 2013 draft and he has a great year in junior making us use a higher draft pick on him. I think with a number of the overagers Gillis took this year he is looking to explore ways around getting them without using the draft picks more.

This was posted in the "signing" thread: I'd been confused as well thinking he'd have to go through at least one more draft, but this seems plausible.

LaBate is a center. Did you mean McNally?

I'm not sure there's too much to discuss that hasn't already been said in the signing thread. There are no youtube videos of him or anything since he barely played last year, and the local bloggers have picked up any reviews of his abilities already.

That's like the latest episode of 'Louie' with Louie CK. It starts with his kids telling him knock knock jokes and his youngest daughter says she has one, but its more like a regular joke. Daughter: "Who told the Gorilla he couldn't go to the ballet?" Louie:"Uh, ok. I don't know, who?" Daughter: "Well... ...the people who are in charge of those decisions. I mean, the people who decide those kinds of things." I paraphrased, but it made me laugh.

From day one of Prospect Camp, for a live chat. He also gave away a signed puck:

Here's another write up from the Dallas hockey blog, Defending Big D: I hadn't looked at him in too much depth prior to the draft, so wasn't sure about how good a pick he'd be for us. What I think after having had a look at some of the scouting reports is he's a more complete/all-around version of Joseph Labate, or Kesler without as much skating ability/speed. Labate's taller, and may be more dependent on his skill to become a success at the NHL level, while Gaunce could fall back on his defensive play and intangibles to be successful at a lesser role. Both are in competition for a 2nd/3rd line center role based on their potential, and Shroeder will have to fit in there somewhere too unless his offensive game improves. Gaunce has already filled out his frame pretty well considering he's a year younger than Labate and they might just be challenging for the same spot at the same time in the next couple of years. Gaunce seems like he'll end up have a similar development path to Kesler, but plays a less chirpy game so he'll be more focused on playing responsibly rather than trying to get others off their game. He doesn't have Kesler's skating, but seems to be in the right areas for turnovers due to his hockey sense, and could match Kesler's ability as a responsible, two-way forward initially for us. It'll be interesting to watch him more closely now that he's in our system.

I guess you wouldn't think of it while being drunk enough to start this type of thread, but drunk people are notorious for not being able to find an existing thread to post in. So yeah, this won't work.

I'm surprised there hasn't been any proposals for Luongo and Ballard to get shipped out in return for enough pucks for both Kesler and Kassian to shoot in the offseason.

Ironically, those two statements are in direct contradiction to each other. Raymond = OUR young player I can see you wanting prospects to be given an greater opening to try and make the team, but don't confuse bringing in depth with excluding chances for our prospects. If they're good enough, they'll make the team over those depth players brought in, Gillis even specifically stated it talking about not feeling forced to keep players with one way contracts up over younger players with two way contracts if they don't play as well.

I'm not sure Freisen will do much more than fringe NHL'er, but Labate has a decent chance to be a Brian Boyle-type player. Schroeder has potential to play anywhere in the top 9, but not necessarily a regular 1st liner at the NHL level. Jensen will be quite nice to feed off him when he starts playing with the Wolves, but may outpace him at the NHL level.

Ah, just realized you posted this here, just made a thread on it in Canucks Talk. Oh well.

Made it on the letters to the editor page!

There are lots of stats you can trot out to make an argument of one versus the other, or that this obviously shows AV is playing favourites versus this stat shows he's playing the guys who provide the best chance to win. Many have tried to use subjective statements to show how obvious it must be, or even the basic stats used by the NHL every day. Well, I wanted to try and show the reality of how our defencemen our performing beyond our top 4. Settle in for a (hopefully) good read if you're willing. NAME GP TOI/60 Corsi Rel QoC Corsi Rel Corsi On Off Zone St % Off Zone Fin % AARON ROME 17 12.44 -0.142 -13.2 -0.57 42.3 43.3 KEITH BALLARD 40 13.79 -0.452 -15.8 -1.96 46.3 48.9 ALEX SULZER 12 14.91 -0.084 -2.1 -2.35 41.5 51.1 ANDREW ALBERTS 31 13.15 -0.604 -13.4 -4.42 39.3 50 Lets start with the easy stuff: Bieksa, Hamhuis, Edler and Salo are our best 4 d-men, so I've dropped them from the comparisons for now. Of the remaining 4, Ballard has the most games followed by Alberts (31) then Rome (17) and Sulzer (12). Rome's been held back by injuries so likely would have played more. For the rest of the stats, they are strictly 5 on 5 (no PK or PP), since that's the best indicator of their overall play versus any specialized minutes. Of the bottom 4, TOI per game is led by Sulzer (14.91), then Ballard, then Alberts, then Rome. Rome has had less time 5 on 5, two and a half less than Sulzer and over a minute less than Ballard, but there is the time for PP and PK that would factor in if you're worried about that alone. The other stats are meant to augment the 5 on 5 play so let's look at them. Ballard and Alberts are given the easiest quality of competition (Corsi Rel* QoC) out of anyone on our team, and Sulzer and Rome are closer to average opponents (with Rome being almost exactly neutral). Rome, and then Sulzer should have a harder time while Ballard and Alberts aren't challenged as much. *The relative Corsi is a better version of +/- to measure shot differential (goals, saves, missed shots and blocks) for the difference between when a player is on the ice or off it and the QoC version in the table measures the opposition players relative Corsi. For example if a player has more chances for in a game than he does against, he'll have a positive Corsi on ice. If the Corsi when that player is off the ice isn't as good, that player's relative Corsi would be higher still, meaning he contributes more to the team's chances to score. Each of the bottom 4 D's relative Corsi is included (as well as just their Corsi on ice) to show how the chances rate. The bottom 4 typically have more goals, saves, missed shots or blocks against them than they do for them (which you might expect given they don't start as much in the offensive zone), and that's amplified in the relative Corsi since most of our chances 5 on 5 occur when the top 4 are on the ice. Ballard gets the most offensive zone starts of the bottom 4 and Alberts gets the least, but it's interesting to note both Alberts and Sulzer have significant increases from their starts to their finish % in the offensive zone. That means they're doing a decent job of getting the puck back from the opposition (in Alberts case, most likely after a chance where Sulzer may be preventing chances generally to gain possession). Rome trends more towards a defensive zone player and Ballard is slightly more balanced. For comparison, here's the same results for the top 4. NAME GP TOI/60 Corsi Rel QoC Corsi Rel Corsi On Off Zone St % Off Zone Fin % KEVIN BIEKSA 46 17.66 0.791 7 11.3 47.7 50.7 ALEXANDER EDLER 46 16.25 0.588 6.6 11.24 58.4 54.2 DAN HAMHUIS 46 17.05 0.715 6.1 10.78 48.7 49.6 SAMI SALO 38 13.99 0.599 1.2 9.14 55.4 53.3 You can see their games played and TOI per game is much higher (although Salo is being rested more at even strength). The top 4 D are all 0.6-0.8 roughly for Corsi Rel QoC rather than negative like the bottom 4, so they face the toughest players and the third pairing gets sent out when the bottom lines are on the ice. Salo's a little more neutral in his personal relative Corsi 5 on 5, so that's also worth noting. The top 4 also have higher offensive zone start and finish percentages (where Ballard leads the bottom 4), and you can see Edler and Salo get a lot of shifts in that zone, as they play with the Sedins most often. The end result for the bottom 4? In my opinion Rome and Sulzer have been the most reasonable depth guys. Alberts contributes more because of his size and physicality than actual ability, and Ballard isn't obscenely bad but still can't contribute more than the others despite lesser opposition and more offensive zone time 5 on 5. For the obvious Rome vs Ballard comparisons, Rome plays a simpler, physical game and does well enough, while Ballard has done not quite as well. For his price, he should be better even if his style is limited to less of a risk/reward role than he's used to and it hasn't justified a larger role over anyone, much less Rome. Data source: BehindTheNet.ca, table sorted by Corsi On Ice.

I of course am not offering a prize everywhere I post this, so tough luck for anyone feeling jilted at not getting a free pack of cards.