oldnews
Members-
Posts
53,830 -
Joined
-
Days Won
186
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by oldnews
-
I think that's probably his 'target'. Things don't look good for the Leafs if the Bruins show up. If Boston goes limp, like in game 1, whichi is unlikely, Toronto may have an edge, otherwise, they don't seem to be able to elevate to match Boston when it's true playoff hockey being played. It also doesn't bode well for the Leafs if Matthews plays a few minutes here or there - he and the Leafs aren't good - or deep - enough for intermittent efforts.
-
Not an 'excuse' (I was pulling for Columbus, so have no use for excuses for Tampa)....but with Hedman only playing two games in the series, Stralman none = that blows a massive hole in the Lightning blueline - two of their top 3 D.... With the parity in the NHL game, it's pretty hard to handle a team like Columbus, who coming in onto the playoffs on a roll - pretty much neutralizes the slight advantage Tampa may otherwise have had. Bobrovsky seemed to give them another edge (and Vasilievskiy is still pretty young....) As good as Tampa is, their chances moving forward didn't look too good without Hedman and Stralman in the lineup.
-
Well... the teams with the "heart and balls" tend to win the possession battles - so not sure the corsiz go out the window in the process. At the same time, save percentage probably can't be thrown out either, if one team's goaltender is outperforming the other. But I really agree with the following point that hard work beats talent that doesn't work hard. Watching the Pitts series for example though, I don't think their loss was necessariy a result of not working hard - I think it's also the case that "defense wins championships" is as important as highlight reel scorers. Maybe the talent of the opposition gets underestimated when people focus too much on Crosby, Malkins instead of the relative depth and completeness of a team overall. The Isles combined their own talent with hard work, tight defensive systems, physicality and just did not allow Pittsburgh any momentum. The Isles kept taking the game back - and I think their defense, and their talent/offense struck a better balance, consistency and dictated the games. In other words, I think the Isles were full value and deserve credit as much or moreso than seeing fault in the losing team. On the other hand, I think Fleury might be looking at particular players - ie Matthews, who has been spotty at best - and not engaged consistently enough. But again, I think looking at the Tavares/Marner/Matthews can lead to not looking realistically at how the rest of the lineups match up....
-
Well the Leafs were 41% in the faceoff circle.....Gauthier 14%....Tavares 33%... A fourth line that Babcock can't or won't play in key moments / 3rd periods of games. Kadri taking himself out of the series is a big factor - maybe an area where the Leafs don't really have viable contender depth. The right side of their D gets exposed/focused on a lot - but also when you take a center out of that mix...
-
Alexander Edler nominated for King Clancy Memorial Trophy
oldnews replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
I'd say O'Reilly, personally. -
Can you really have an entire line of 6 or 7 minute players (Gauthier, Ennis, Moore) at this stage of the season - and hope to make a Cup run in today's NHL? I don't think it's a great 'Shanaplan' wadr to the Leafs - you need a 4th line that you can play, at least enough in some harder minutes to give your key players a rest. Boston's low minutes forwards, by comparison are all in the 10-11 minute range at this point.... Otherwise, the grind of the playoffs.....can catch up with you. They're also fortunate their blueline is relatively healthy.
-
I agree with you - I'd prefer they do very little in free agency as opposed to too much - ie run out and blow their whole load asap, hoping to 'speed up' the transition. They're still transitioning - their key young players are still very young. Instead of chasing guys that are albatross terms and take the principal roles = ie a Karlsson - I think it makes more sense to continue to add the kind of support players that can help the young players succeed and devlop - while playing those key, leading roles. For me it's ironic to listen to people whine about acquisitions like Sutter, Beagle etc - who do precisely what the young players need - handle the hard minutes and provide enabling conditions to play and succeed in - and then turn around and propose, prematurely, to blow the team's load at this point, principally concerned with how competitive they are next year. The team was depleted this year and still performed overall at a .500 pace - and has plenty of potential to continue upticking from within - remaining relatively competitive. The young blueliners - to get all dramatic about how bad a group with Hughes, Juolevi, Stecher, Hutton - with Edler, Tanev, and likely a comparable UFA added - is pointless imo. There's no need to chase every shiny object in free agency, or get all hung up on short term results next year. Of course the team wants to continue to improve, but I'd like to see them do so in staying the course. I've been proposing Stralman/Nelson as key targets and moving down from there - and think that's where the team should focus. Look to add another young RHD if they're seeking to move Tanev - keep enough veteran support D to stabilize the young blueliners - and see if they can add a LW to play with Pettersson. None of the longer term goals however need to be rushed for this coming season.
-
Sort of - but he's 32 this week - has a lot of hard miles and half seasons behind him - and I'm not convinced this is the type of move the team should be making. His three years of term remaining are better than having to dish out maximum term in free agency for Karlsson, but the thing it - the team's trajectory isn't necessarily short-term. Also - having watched the bulk of that Pens/Isles series....Letang had 61.5% ozone starts, 27 minutes a game, focal point of their top pp unit, with those world class forwards....had 1 pt in 4 games, was -3 and pretty much suffocated by the young Isles defensive efforts. Pitts will no doubt recover, but not sure why our team would be shopping for their aging assets at this stage. So, personally I'd do the following = keep Virtanen, keep that 2nd round pick - and if we're dealing Tanev, try to move him to a team like Tampa, that will be looking to upgrade/win now after being swept - target a young RHD in a deal - Cernak/Foote - and stay the course. A lot of key 20, 21, 22, 23 year old players - that are the future of the team. Is that group ready to win in the next few years? I'm personally not spending premium assets up front for a Letang - instead, keep your youth, keep your picks, and if you're dealing Tanev, target a young NHL ready or near RHD that could coincide with the rest of the group's prime. Another question is whether you really want Hughes playing behind a pmd like Letang? Imo that's a no - I'd rather focus on 'foundational' support pieces for the time being. If/when the team enters a contending phase, their needs at the time will emerge/become evident - if they retain their assets for the right time to spend them, imo that's a better 'plan'. With a Letang, you're looking at a window that is short, and alternatively the need to deal him within his own value-window in order not to lose that kind of asset value in the longer run = this is not the time imo for that risk. This type of deal highly likely results in asset loss, while ironicaly, the Sutter deal cost a marginal trade up - is often misrepresented as if Benning 'gave up a 2nd' - but what he gave up was a late 2nd and got a high 3rd. Sutter still has trade value - more significant than a pick trade up - so the issue there was for the most part merely a roster player swap, which can still be converted into a future/futures - while playing an enabling role to the young players in the interim.
-
Why would Rutherford hit the panic button at this point? That team has done this in intervals for yeare - underachieve, win a Cup, underachieve, win a Cup. Not every year is your year. It doesn't mean you need to dissemble your team. Ruitherford inherited a contending core - overall performance not particularly impressive, but some good moves amongst a lot of bad ones. Sullivan turned a train-wreck into a Cup - but that was a perfect storm, somewhat like the rolls that teams like Columbus or St Louis were on entering the playoffs. I thought Rutherford had one of his better years as a GM - his deadline deals for Bjugstad, Gud, McCann were pretty good - but his core underperformed / were shutdown by a good defensive team with great coaching.... But we've seen this cycle with this Pens team before. I'd make a few moves - try to get rid of Kessel's terms, etc - but the embellishments - ie everyone but Crosby/Malkin are on the block - is a bit much imo.