oldnews
Members-
Posts
53,830 -
Joined
-
Days Won
186
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by oldnews
-
What Guaranteed Draft Position? With Simulators, Current #8
oldnews replied to TheGuardian_'s topic in Canucks Talk
For folks interested in the various draft rankings (thus far) of about 20 sources.... http://www.mynhldraft.com/2019-nhl-draft/2019-nhl-draft-rankings/ -
What Guaranteed Draft Position? With Simulators, Current #8
oldnews replied to TheGuardian_'s topic in Canucks Talk
We will know when we know. -
[Trade] MIN Granlund - NSH Fiala
oldnews replied to Mathew Barzal's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Nice to see Minnesota blowing assets imo - don't like the owner or the team - and think they've been a pretender for years running. I wouldn't argue with them retooling - but this looks like a bad deal for them imo. Granlund - if he were expiring / a rental - might only be worth a Fiala imo - but with another year of term remaining - I would not be thrilled with this deal if I were a Wild fan. Fiala has talent - sure - but he's still a pretty vacant player without the puck...had some meh goal and possession metrics for a relatively sheltered player on a helluva good, deep team... The Wild imo took the larger risk in this deal imo - I think they 'should' have been able to extract a second asset out of Nashville. Granlund is a guy you can win with now - Fiala might be in the future - not a great hockey trade imo. -
Actually - that would make Tallon look bad for dealing McCann - a player some of you appear to believe played well in Florida - along with Bjugstad (who is also producing, and has 44 hits in 17g for Pitt) - for cap dumps and longshot picks. Does Benning look really good also, for drafting McCann with a longshot late 1st and converting that into an NHL RHD? Likewise, does Benning look good for realizing what Gud could be on a good team, or does he look 'bad' for moving that D for Pearson? McCann is two trades removed from Vancouver. It's the kind of logic that complains about the Grabner move, when Grabner went on to get waived by Florida, claimed by the Isles and went on to produce on a team with Tavares et al. If you want to hindsight deals on small samples, then you really should be 'comparing' McCann to Pearson at this point (who was on a 17g pace in Pitt). And then we can cancel out this hindsight with counter-cherry-picks - ie the 9 goals Leivo has provided thus far for an AHLer - or the 9 goals we've gotten out of Granlund in a principally shutdown role as Shinkaruk scores 5 goals in 42 games in the AHL. Does the Goldobin deal (who's on a comparable pace to McCann's small sample) make San Jose look bad - because they moved him for Hansen - who didn't work out there? I doubt San Jose cares much about that year-ago, and only once-removed deal tbh.
-
(Signing)Mark Stone ext. 8 years AVV 9.5 mil
oldnews replied to Wayne Glensky's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Good points theo. People get carried away with plus/minus nonsense thinking it has any relation at all to defensive prowess, when out of context there is next to no correlation, period. For example - let's take a counterpoint - offensive specialist players like the Sedins, who were clearly deployed as exclusively as possible to feed on ozone starts, matchups (particularly when opponents had weaker lines trapped on the ice after icing calls, etc). The Sedins were +30 and +26 respectively in 2010/11. Is that an indication that they were outstanding two-way players with the defensive game to complement their scoring? No, not necessarily. They were at 68 and 70.9% ozone starts - their corsis were about 10 pts lower - and they were surrounded by a contending supporting cast - with a bottom six that did precisely what the present group is intended to do - that is handle all the hard minutes and provide the skilled forwards with the opportunites and context in which to be successful. So - Manny Malhotra deserves a whole lot of credit - those plusses belong to a significant extent to the players that ate the hard minutes for them - imo it would be fairer to 'share' those plusses (if it mattered) with the shutdown units, who eat misleading levels of minuses. Malhotra's role was similar to the Sutters and Beagles - he had routinely very low ozone starts (18.6% in his years in Vancouver and a mere -5 overall)......Malhotra's plus/minus should also be kept in the context of a very deep and highly effective bottom 6 forwards (guys like Higgins, Hansen, Lappy - on top of a top 6 that had a Selke candidate like Kesler - and a deep, solid blueline) - so people should not quite expect those all-around outstanding shutdown possession and goal metrics like Malhotra had out of the Beagles and Sutters of present day (although I'd argue they nevertheless produce very good shot and goal metrics in context) - and as you've pointed out, players like Motte have very clearly stronger defensive numbers than our skilled top 6 forwards. Gillis was no fool where "analytics" were concerned - and knew the value of bottom six shutdown players (there was outrage from some at the 3 million/year deal Malhotra got, from folks who production gaze and don't understand team-building) - and Benning likewise is no fool when it comes to the utility and importance of these kind of players - or the ways in which they complement particularly young forwards like Boeser, EP, etc - who owe their early successes to some extent to their bottom six team-mates who have been highly effective in providing them with opportunities to succeed and play the game - get deployed - to their strengths. -
(Signing)Mark Stone ext. 8 years AVV 9.5 mil
oldnews replied to Wayne Glensky's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
getting a little carried away I think The poster pointed out a truth imo - just because the GDTs around here are full of people whinging about Boeser (yes, that's annoying) doesn't mean this particular poster doesn't make a valid point - and said nothing about "all of a sudden terrible everywhere". Here are some things to consider: Stone has over 300 pts over the past 5 years, including 126 pts in his last 122 games. Stone's possession numbers are 53% corsi with 50.4% ozone starts. Stone has 5X the hits and 4X the blocked shots that Boeser does. Stone has 99 takeaways this year. He's been a Selke candidate for 4 consecutive seasons, and a 2x Byng candidate. Stone has averaged over a minute (1:19) of pk time/g and is a secondary pk option. Boeser is awesome - but let's look objectively at the comparables: Boeser has 106 pts in 126 career games. His ozone starts are 68.9%, his corsi is 51.6%. His defensive/grit numbers aren't close to comparable to Stone's. He's a sophomore NHLer who hasn't really earned that kind of cap and term. I don't doubt that Boeser could/will become a player who could command a contract like that - but there's something to be said for earning it. I think if he wante to sign longer term, he'd have to accept the objective outcomes - and context of play - and experience/production over time/ "proven factor" - that would limit him relative to a player like Stone. Too often imo the very fair and effective solution - known as a "bridge contract" is something that young players expect to bypass. I don't like that personally and I doubt that Boeser will expect to command Stone money already - just my opinion, but I'm attempting to base it in relatively objective outcomes - which I think also comes far more into play in real world negotiations than in perception-based opinions on these boards. -
(Signing)Mark Stone ext. 8 years AVV 9.5 mil
oldnews replied to Wayne Glensky's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
You think the Canucks might pay Skinner in the 9-9.5 range? I don't think so SF -and I don't think anyone else will either. 8 million is also above the tap out mark imo. -
That's somewhat of a misleading point on your part though. First, you're talking about the Allsvenskan - a tier below the SweHL, and a year older than Pettersson. Playing with a Sutter or Beagle is a good way for a player like Jake Virtanen to become a complete, force of a player in the NHL. There's Dahlen's own responsibility in where he played - did he earn a top 6 spot over the players you think he should have played with? Which was was less deserving of their opportunity than Dahlen? Just saying - if you're an undeniable NHL talent, you earn those roles and produce in them. If you find yourself making excuses that learning the defensive side of the game is hampering your development....that's a player that needs to grow up. Like I said, you'd never hear that kind of poor-me crapola out of an Elias Pettersson.
-
(Signing)Mark Stone ext. 8 years AVV 9.5 mil
oldnews replied to Wayne Glensky's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I don't think so - there's more to Mark Stone than Skinner's relatively one-way game. Skinner's production is where the comparable ends imo. Skinner: 68.5% ozone starts, 51.6% corsi Stone: 50.4%, 53% mostly on a NHL worst Sens team. A fraction of Stone's grit. Stone's 99 takeaways, and the fact he's actually a guy Ottawa calls on to kill penalties (more than 1m/g on pk and 6th among Sen forwards) - a far more complete two way player than Skinner imo. I think those things certainly factor when it comes to a contract like this. Skinner getting anywhere near this deal would be a really bad deal for whatever team makes it....he was a borderline cap dump a year ago - and now he's riding fairly opportune/role player minutes. -
Dahlen's production in Sweden came while playing with Pettersson. That may be a factor in his difficulty replicating that production in the AHL? But if his 'creativity' disappears because he's expected to engage defensively, you have to wonder about that story? Do you ever hear players like Pettersson (a seriously engaged young player over 200ft) complain that it limits his 'creativity'? Not likely, Dahlen's production may be hard to replicate in a different, more challenging context where he's expecte to create and drive 'possession'......whereas Linus Karlsson, as noted above, has more modest production - but in a 3rd line center type role... I'll take the player that is committed to an adult game at a younger age, (almost) every time.
-
February 2019 – Karlsson has been traded from San Jose to Vancouver for Jonathan Dahlén. The 19-year-old has struggled to replicate the offensive dominance that was his calling card in the SuperElit during the 2017-18 campaign. His squad, Karlskrona, features several SHL veteran centres who vie for time ahead of the two-way Karlsson. He’s been finding his way from the middle-six for most of the year. Karlsson boasts high-end intelligence, a great work ethic and a strong release. He’s still growing and filling into his frame, but his maturity – especially on the defensive side of the puck, is impressive. His contract is up at the end of this season, so we may see the 87th overall selection from last June in the AHL to close out 2018-19 or begin 2019-20. Cam Robinson
-
there's the luxury of inheriting a core like Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Guentzel, etc. Reaves cost them Sundqvist and a 1st. They then added a 4th to get rid of him for AHLer Tobias Lindberg. Brassard cost them another 1st round pick, Ian Cole and Filip Gustavson - and then in dumping Brassard another 2nd and pair of 4ths into that deal... Riley Sheahan cost them Wilson and a 3rd and then was dumped into the Brassard deal. It's interesting how people perceive the level of acceptable bad deals in relatively different contexts. The wealth of players - and contending circumstances - and a GM like Rutherford is forgiven the bleeding of futures on blown value. 2x1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3x4ths... When your inherit a SC roster, it buys you a lot of time - the losses to their prospect pool probably won't fully be felt until the Crosby Malkin era fades out. On the other hand, a GM in a different context would never get that kind of leeway - and critical free pass - for blowing what are/could be important parts of their future - people relatively don't think about Pitts' future - it's a pretty plum job when you can make volumes of bad moves and your core picks you up.
-
I probably would. Goaltenders are....too unpredictable - while the market for them is softer. And the Canucks have also drafted DiPietro, who aint bad. But I'm also a pretty big Markstrom homer, so I think if you can get a RHD like Bouchard for a goaltending prospect, you probably do that 9 times out of 10? I'd also pay a fair price for Mitchell.
-
They're valid questions, but at the same time it doesn't necessarily boil down to just 'systems'. Pittsburgh is a considerably more veteran group. Multiple Stanley Cup rings on most of those player's fingers.... They have a pair of elite top 6 centers. Letang, DuMoulin, Schultz, Maata, Johnson...and the 22 yr old Gud is playing with (Pettersson) aint chopped liver either. 4 x 20-30 goal scorers and another 3x 15-20.... It's a deep team that is a serious transition threat - lots of speed up front.....when Pitts retrieves a puck, I suspect teams are slightly less 'comfortable' themselves and more prone to counter that transition as opposed to the kind of pressure teams can apply to a young, relatively inexperienced, depleted Canucks team that is also much less of a transition threat in general (aside from Virtuzzi and Horvat, not a great deal of breakout threat yet, imo). They are well coached as well - Sully made an impressive difference there imo in altering their systems to suit their personnel (and speed up front) - demanding that their forward group pressure the puck over 200ft, attempting to counter what was a perceived weakness when he took over (a blueline that wasn't necessarily convincing as a contender).... Rutherford acknowledged that he hadn't really given Johnston the D pieces to suit his coaching systems....whereas Sullivan used his experience, particularly in Detroit, to alter those systems to what he had to work with (something his buddy Torts didn't necessarily have in his own toolbox). Anyhow, Gud's early numbers (40% ozone starts, 54% corsi), 5.0 on ice goals for per 60, 1.7 against, 3 hits, +2, an assist in a few games there = would suggest he's more comfortable, but he's also surrounded by Stanley Cup quality team-mates, with tons of experience - and he has a partner that complements his own style of game....In Van...he was surrounded by a M.A.S.H. unit of fellow shutdown guys (not only himself, but Tanev, Edler, Sutter, Beagle with frequent trips to the hospital - and otherwise a pretty young, inexperienced group) and paired with a couple struggling young guys (Hutton was horrible last year, Pouliot struggling this year...). I respect that he owned his own part in not quite being the player he or others hoped, but at the same time, failing to look at how the larger context impacts not just himself but the lineup as a whole can lead to undervaluing a player. I would have liked to see what he'd look like once this team hits it's stride - and/or with Edler as a partner - but whatever - you can't necessarily get too attached to most players in a transition. I get the impression that this was a plan B, 11th hour move/decision though - I think I would have preferred to see the Gud that wasn't 'chasing' his game before making a move like this, because for the most part, there are a fair number of players on this team still 'chasing' or pursuing their game and players like Gud, when they gain theirs, are not easy to acquire.
-
Even if Dahlen were to prove he could score at the AHL and then the NHL level, that still wouldn't necessarily make him a viable winger for EP imo. The additional issue imo is if Boeser remains on EP's wing, that creates the need for a winger who brings more weight - and speed - to that line. Boeser is probably never going to be a hard areas, hard in on the forecheck winger - and his job is not to go to the net or park in the crease, it's to find openings that enable him to release that shot. I don't think Dahlen is a very good organizational fit - unless he were to pair with Horvat - but even there I'm not sure he's suited to Horvat's style of game either. He may be a better fit in San Jose's mix, but he doesn't appear NHL ready by any standard in any event. No problem with them moving him for a lateral prospect that probably has a more versatile game....not sure Dahlen stood out as a particular need.
-
First thing I can't agree with is suggesting that it might indicate that Baumgartner is a bum if Gud succeeds in Pittsburgh. There are lots of reasons a guy may not live up to his own, or other's expectations, including health, context of play, partners, systems etc. I also disagree with the suggestion that Gudbranson is "too slow". Speed is not really the limiting factor in Gudbranson's skating imo - he's actually pretty fast, particularly A to B - the challenge for him is to improve his lateral movement (not that unlike Pedan, who also had quite respectable speed, but being a big guy - and in his case a pretty upright skating posture, was more limited imo in his 'quickness' - as distinct from speed - his pivoting, lateral movement etc. I think Gudbranson is naturally not as 'quick' as smaller guys, but that cost also comes with counterpoint benefits. In any event, I doubt many Pittsburgh fans have seen much of Gudbranson in recent years or delve much deeper than plus/minus 'analytics'. The underlined part doesn't make a lot of sense to me - don't know what "slow in forechecking" means when you're a shutdown D that literally never forechecks - unless you mean was slow to pinch in the Ozone to maintain possession - but none of that I find particularly 'analytical' or grounded in actual metrics - which was the claim of the other poster - that there was nothing measurable that wasn't poor about Gudbranson's play. It's not actually very difficult to find counterpoints to cherry-picks that suggest he had poor statistics or 'underlying numbers' - ie a person can suggest that his goal-metrics / plus minus this year tell us how bad he is, but ironically last year he had the lowest 5 on 5 on-ice goals against per 60 (2.0) of any regular Canuck defenseman. The corsi-gazers don't really have a case to make either. In the end it boils down to what people choose to focus on as there are postives and negatives with any player.
-
but there is no such thing as "Pens fans" - as there is no such thing as "Canucks fans". It's the myth of some mass consensus of opinion (which could be a worthless and uninformed one regardless of how shared it is). To that point - it wasn't long ago around here that an in vogue opinion that Markstrom was useless and a backup at best, that would never make an NHL starter was a fairly popular one. But there are literally tens of thousands of people with different opinions = nothing that ever resembles a consensus.
-
Ironically you haven't shown a single 'measurable' way in which he performed so poorly. And then you blew your load completely suggesting he can be "sheltered" on a good team in Pittsburgh. Here's a "measurable" thing - 29% ozone starts and 20 minutes of shutdown isn't "sheltered" - not even close - and makes it patently obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
-
I think ideally Gudbranson is paired with another shutdown defenseman and able to play the role he's suited for. Here, that would be an Edler/Gud hard minutes pairing - with Edler eating some other two-way and pp minutes - otherwise, not really the right LHD partner imo. But the problems were that you rarely, if ever, had Edler, Tanev and Gudbranson healthy at the same time. A struggling Pouliot, and a struggling Hutton last year certainly did not make for the kind of context/pairings you want to utilize Gudbranson in imo - as good as it may have been in theory to project Hutton as a partner Gudbranson could stabilize, unfortunately Hutton was nowhere near up to task last year - and likewise, Pouliot has struggled considerably this season - and both of those young guys ideally would not have been handling the kind of workload they had to under the circumstances (not just Edler/Tanev injuries, but also injuries to their key shutdown centers). That just did not work out well. I think it's been patently obvious how signficant the differences are when you're missing Sutter, Beagle, Edler, Tanev types = the team goes from relatively competitive to a lottery pick team - regardless of how much this fanboard whiffs on the value of veteran players like this. I think Green has had to patch work lineups together on a consistent basis - with a lot of youth in challenging situations - so I'm not really prepared to question the systems either - I think, like WD, at times coaches are forced into harm reduction game-planning and this team simply is in no position to apply the kind of 200ft puck pressure - or even start with the puck anywhere near as consistently as they are with guys like Sutter, Beagle etc providing the opportunity the young forwards need to flourish. Is it really that hard to understand why a young guy like EP is producing 2 pts in his last 6 games - as opposed to what a relative force he can be when the team is healthy and able to balance or even dictate play and possession when it's on all cylinders? I think the team was pretty intent on dealing one of their veteran defensemen at the deadline - and in the end, Edler wasn't interested and Tanev was not a moveable deadline piece (no one shops for injured D at the deadline).... I'm not really a fan of this move - which is not to say I don't like Pearson or don't see the potential fit - but at the same time there is an approaching bottleneck of young defensemen to audition - Hughes, Juolevi, Sautner, Brisebois - and a couple guys like Woo and Chatfield (both RHD) that many of us really like. Meanwhile Stecher is killing it - making the right side look considerably healthier, particularly if Tanev is part of the future (hard to tell what the intent was where he's concerned when he'd unshoppable at the deadline). I don't see the problem with taking a step backwards in competitiveness in circumstances like this - when the team is legitimately decimated, and has no real chance of competing in the shorter term - but I also have to wonder what an Edler Gudbranson pairing looks like (they were damn good together in the limited time we did see them) - and additionally, that pairing enables Tanev to avoid the heavy load he tends to deal with (I think he'd make a great partner to ease Juolevi in in secondary minutes). However - again, the landscape changes as the team looks for the right partner for Hughes - so as much as I like what Gudbranson potentially brings, there remains the challenge of finding the room and the right fits with those incoming young pieces.... I do think that from Pitts' end, this is a really good move and fit for them in a group that Gud rounds out nicely. I don't really care for that team and don't really want to see them succeed any more than they already have, but I'd love to see Gudbranson himself succeed.