Baggins

It certainly blows the empty net excuse out of the water.

So you're saying when a player doesn't produce, puts in an inconsistant effort, and isn't very good defensively, that the coach should ignore it and pat him on the head. It's the NHL and you get what you earn. Bouda didn't seem to have a problem with the other Swedes on the team. So I don't see that as an issue. Do you know when and why a coach goes with public criticism. When it gets to benching or making a player a healthy scratch because of his play. When it gets to that point the player hasn't responded and you need to light a fire somehow. The same happened with Kassian and Virtanen over inconsistant effort and poor defensive effort. Both are gone because even public criticism failed to light a fire under them. It's up to the player to respond with improved play if they want to stay in the lineup. It has nothing to do with "whipping boy" and everything to do with motivating the player to improve. You don't get extra ice time by playing poorly and an inconsistant effort. If you think that's unfair....

It's not a perfect stat on it own to look at one player. But you do have to question his play when he's the ONLY top 6 forward on the minus side. To me that's a clear indicator he's a weak link defensively. Here's the top six forwards in ES ice time per game. In order from highest to lowest ES time with their +/-... Miller +15 Horvat +3 Boeser -5 Pettersson +1 Garland +18 Pearson +9 How do you explain Boeser being the only minus with the third most ES time per game? To me it shows he was a defensive handicap to whoever he played with.

Here's the flipside. When Rathbone was sent down there were only three D-men with no points and they were the only three sitting on the wrong side of plus/minus. Burroughs actually had the worst at -8, Rathbone at -5 and Hunt at -3. Everybody else was on the plus side of life. But what I "saw" was Rathbone get beat to the outside often. It was like a rerun of Hughes the year before. Plus he had a tendancy to leave his man to pursue the puck carrier who already had a Canuck in pursuit. Not a good idea to leave a man all by himself around the net. You didn't need stats at all to see Hughes playing poorly defensively in 20/21, and you didn't need to see the same with Rathbone last fall. He just wasn't very good and it was plain to see..Burroughs isn't great defensively either imo, although a coaching change certainly helped. The big difference between Burroughs and Rathbone is Rathbone could be sent down without clearing waivers. Rathbone certainly has some offensive talent. It will be up to him to show he's improved the defensive side and make the team this fall.

Strawman. Others would still be on the ice with him. Why are they plus palyers and he's not?

+/- like any stat, isn't a be all, end all. But it does tell you something. For example Boeser was -5 last year yet everybody else consistently in top 9 was a plus except Hoglander (-6). That has to tell you something. Lammiko was -6 and Dickinson -1. Only 4 forwards with 30+ games ended a minus player. They were 9th and 10th in ES points per 60 minutes among forwards with 30+ games. There was a lot of line juggling throughout the season. So I'd say it's an indicator those two were the weakest links on their lines at even strength among the top 9.

First, there was no head contact rule back then. So that's irrelevant. I don't even believe it would have been a suspension by todays standard of legal/illegal head contact. Part of the rule today is "did the players head or body position significantly change just prior to contact". If the answer is yes, there is no suspension. Moore and Naslund were pursuing the puck from different directions. If that race is close there will be a collision. It was close but Naslund realized he was losing the race and streched out low to reach out for the puck..That was a mistake as he put himself in an awkward position with pending contact. Moore actually did everything right. He swept the puck away and leaned towards the pending contact. Because Naslunds head and body significantly changed position just prior to contact I don't think there would even be a suspension with the rules as they stand today. That's what it really comes down to - the rules as written. That said, it doesn't mean a little vigilanty justice wasn't in order. It still goes on today with clean hard hits. I agree completely that Moore dropping the gloves on Cooke didn't cut it. In that situation you don't get to pick who you fight, particularly a guy that isn't a fighter, and say "there it's over". It has never worked that way and really just angered the guys on the bench even more. That was utterly stupid of Moore. What Bert did was also utterly stupid. At that point in the game, with the Avs lead, the game was over. So why give Moore a choice at that point? They were still trying to get Moore to drop the gloves to avoid the instigator penalty. Bert was face to face with Moore trying to get him to drop the gloves. He should just dropped his glove, taken the choice away, give Moore his beat down. Take your instigator and it's over honorably. Instead Bert sucker punches him. Something that was suspendable then or now. Even ignoring the result that was just utterly stupid. Why try to avoid an instigator and then do something that's suspendable instead? That's just plain stupid. Btw, Bert and Naslund were my favorite players at the time along with Ohlund. Not liking the hit on Naslund, and I didn't, doesn't make it illegal. Liking Bert doesn't make doing something utterly illegal right. Would you say "he had it coming" if that was done to one of our players? I mean Cooke and Torres certainly "had it coming" numerous times. Would you have been ok with a sucker punch ending their careers while Canucks? I wouldn't because to me wrong is wrong. As much as I liked Bert I will never praise him for what he did. Because I'd be a hypocrite if I praised him for doing something I'd wholeheartedly condem an opposing player doing to one of our players.

Play better and you're not in the doghouse. Podz was also benched and scratched. He played great afterwards and Bouda moved him up the lineup. He had a very good second half. Hopefully Hogs paid attention. The problem with both in the first half was inconsistant effort. Particularly defensively. Podz turned it around and could find himself in the top 6 next season. You get what you earn. Hogs really needs to pick it up with several more forward options this fall. It's up to him to make himself the best option. Burroughs is fun to watch without a doubt because he's a hitter. But he sometimes chases hits and he's just ok defensively. Not an awful #6 but he's a 7/8 on a good team.

Unlikely we'll get a high pick for Miller. How is it better for a rebuilding team to have "old Miller" than it is for us coming out of a rebuild? The reality is if you want good players you'll have to pay for them. As much as I like Bo, Miller is the better player. I like Boeser as well, but Miller is the better player. Trading him for prospects & picks could be a big step backwards with no step forward. Picks and prospects don't come with guarantees. If he's traded there better be a legitimate top 4 d-man in the return imo. Otherwise you're just rolling the dice. I'm not opposed to trading anybody. And I do mean anybody. If there is a good return. Trading for prospects and picks is a rebuilding move. This team needs to be building. Otherwise we're just wasting years of our good players. How many more years do you think Bo wants to wait just to make the playoffs?

It's always one step at a time. You have to make the playofs, no matter how, before you can contend. Sustainable is the moves you make when you get there. The two biggest parts to sustaining is: 1 - drafting well to keep low cost quality players being added to replace high cost players you can't keep 2 - making smart trades and ufa signings to address needs. Every contender loses players to free agency. As near as I can tell the best formula for sustained contention is get there really fast while your best players are really young. It's the reason I said Benning just tanking the team from the beggining would be pointless. Sure we'd draft a few impact players those first few years but we'd also waste years of their careers while replacing the rest of the team. We got a short window with the Sedins because it took so long to build a team around them. Chicago and Pittsburgh had long windows because a lot was already in place before drafting their best players. Then they rode those high end players and maintained really replacing those they couldn't keep. That's the recipe for sustained contention. Look at the Leafs. They're still not really viewed as a true contender and Matthews, Marner, and Nylander are 24,25 and 26. And Shanny had a better starting point than Benning did. If they want a couple of stretches contending they really need to get there soon now. Both Chicago and Pittsburgh became contenders when their very best players were 24 and younger. This is why I've maintained it's better to get your best players at the end of a rebuild rather than the beggining. You get a much longer window to contend. Really, there is no such thing as a fast rebuild and there's no magic formula to becoming a contender. It's a combination of start moves with some luck added in. One thing there certainly is though is teams tanking for top talent and then failing to build around them and having to start over. With 32 teams teams it's not easy to get there or stay there.

It always baffles me that some seem to think you can go from rebuilding to contender and completely skip the make the playoffs phase. Has any team done that? We're not a contender so move good players out for prospects and picks.... seems more like a never ending rebuild. Every team that wins the cup has some older veterans on the team. If you keep moving them all out for prospects and picks, which don't come with guarantees, will you ever actually become a contender? Edit: The first step coming out of a rebuild is making the playoffs. Then you address needs moving forward to contend. We are coming out of rebuilding.

AV preached discipline going into the playoffs. The Sedins were always disciplined, but as leaders they were also the ones to set the example. What value would there be in Daniel taking a 5 minute major with how beat up and injured the team was? Would it help the team? It's more about those fans personal marshmellow ego than anything else. What they should really be complaining about is the tough scrappers on the team not doing anything to defend their star players. It goes back to AV saying to Bieksa that he didn't have to fight everybody that looked at him wrong. He said, you're more valuable to us on the ice than in the penalty box so pick your fights better.

Strawman is comparing win/loss records between two GM's while completely ignoring what they started with. Gillis had to do very little, and that what he did - very little, to turn it into a contender. Benning had to replace an entire team without any prospects to start with. Gee, I wonder who will have a better win/loss record. Duh!

Hahahahahahaha.... Gillis inherited his best players, utterly failed at drafting, and left Benning nothing.

If you watched the Sedins and saw the punishment the took without missing a beat you would know they were anything but "soft". No, they were not punishing hitters or drop the glove guys. But that doesn't make them soft at all. Soft are the guys that do their utmost to avoid contact and are intimidated by physical play. Considering how strong the Sedins were along the boards and their willingness to take a hit to make a play they were anything but soft. Shane Doan called the Sedins after they retired. He was asked on a radio show why he called them and he talked about their toughness. He said every coach he had, and there's been quite a few over his career, said the same thing - play the Sedins physical and throw them off their game. There are a lot of high end players you can throw off their game by hitting them and being physical, but it wasn't the Sedins. He said it was tough to get any reaction from them. They would just bounce off and go and score. Doan, said they were anything but soft because they just didn't care what you did to them. He said, I played against them their entire career and nothing I did worked to stop them, and they were awful to play against along the boards. Playing physical was my game, but I was completely frustrated that it didn't work against them. It's a different level of toughness and I just really respect them. Doan said he called the Sedins after they retired to congratulate them on their careers and retirement out of respect.

Did the two GM's come in to the same situation? Gillis had a whack of qulity players in their prime or coming into their prime, while Benning got a team with one player under 27 worth keeping and players on the decline aging out. Not to mention no prospects. Insert any two names you want into those scenarios and the one that inherited what Gillis did will have the better W/L record over a six year period. Ask any GM out there which he'd rather inherit - a team with good young players along with high quality veterans in their prime, or an declining aging team with no prospects - I wonder which he'd choose for his starting point. It's just a dumb statement Alf.

Seriously, who has "given up" on him? He didn't have a good season and the defensive side of his game definitely isn't good enough. But he's still young and one could say "he has time". But, and it's a big but, there are others coming in that will definitely put some pressure on him to improve his game. If too many surpass him he will become expendable. Just drafting a player doesn't mean he will be the best option and he must be kept. That's up to him to achieve. Would you rather keep a player because we drafted him and like him, or keep the best player that helps the team win? I don't care if we draft a player, sign a ufa, or trade for a player. I want the players that do the most to help the team win. I like Hogs and he's fun to watch. But as I said in another post - the Keystone Cops are fun to watch but I wouldn't want then protecting my neighborhood. Liked or not, always go for the best option. I can absolutely accept a player I like being traded if he is surpassed by pthers and it improves the team.

A teams identity really doesn't show until they become contenders. Contenders have their identity formed by the whole team as compared to the other contenders. All other teams are working towards an identity. Personally I don't care at all about identity. I care about the team winning and being enjoyable to watch. The two kind of go hand in hand. After Green was fired the team was winning and actually fun to watch. That's the identity I care about.

Although JT is good on wing his playmaking ability is more effective playing in the middle. Petey might prefer playing C but he really needs to improve his faceoff ability if he wants to be 1C. Last season he showed no improvement from the first half to the second half..

He has improved his defensive game. But I said the same of Virtanen. Improved is not the same as effective. At 25 the defensive side of his game should be further along. A knock I have on Horvat is, for his size, he's not as physical as he should be. Particularly for a Canadian kid. But Boeser makes Horvat look like a beast. Boeser has size and just doesn't seem to use it much. Garland on the other hand isn't a hit machine but plays a very aggressive game at both ends. He's good defensively and his aggressive play causes frustration and forces opponents to rush passes and make mistakes. it's part of the reason he draws so many penalties along with his agility and puck handling. He's just frustrating to play against at both ends and there's real value in that.

I absolutely agree it would have been easy for him to take one year at 7.5m and even do the same thing next year were he all about the money. It does show some character. But he still has a pretty high contract that needs to be lived up to. But it's not just points he needs to improve. I'm a real believer in the Scotty Bowman ideology of just scoring isn't good enough. Yzerman was a 140 point player when Bowman threatened to trade him. He was even cut from team Canada twice at that point. Yzerman changed his "I'm an offensive player" attitude and went on to be one of the most respected players in the NHL So respected players that wore his number declined to wear it for team Canada after he retired out of respect. They essentially retired his team Canada number themselves. I'm not saying Boeser needs to be Yzerman level to be valuable. But he does need to improve his overall game aside from scoring to be of real value to the team.

Garland is actually quite good defensively. He's relentless both directions. Pettersson isn't physical either, but he's also very good defensively. Boeser has size and isn't physical. He isn't as good as either defensively. I'll take an angry elf that is good at both ends, a decent goal scorer, good playmaker, and draws opposition into penalties (Garland led the team) over a passive goal scorer anyday. Last season Garland was +15 (best on the team and 12th in the league among all forwards). Boeser was -6 (only ahead of Lammiko and Hogs). That means even strength Boeser was on the ice for 21 more goals against than Garland was. The only other forward with 30+ games in the minus was Dickinson (-1). So who were the weakest links? Of top 9 forwards Hogs and Boeser were defensive handicaps to their lines. Sure Boeser is a goal scorer, but "in the bigger picture" I believe Garland is the better player to keep. He simply does more. Preventing goals is every bit as important as scoring them.

I've said many times Im giving him a mulligan on last season. But, what does he bring when not scoring? That's where Boeser really drops in my eye. Meaning, even scoring 40 goals, what does he add the other 42 games? He's not physical despite his size, he's only ok along the boards, he's ok at best defensively, he doesn't pk. What does he really add when not scoring? Even when not scoring Garland gives the opposition fits and draws penalties. Top on the team in penalties drawn. No, he's not particularly physical either. But he's surprisingly good along the boards and solid defensively. Not the pure goal scorer Boeser is, but he's also a much better playmaker. Playmakers make those around them better. I'm from the school of Scotty Bowman - you need to do more than just score to be of real value to team success.

I don't think you watched Garland. He's tenacious both offensively and defensively, and had the best +/- on the team last season. He also led the team in penalties drawn with 33 while Mikheyev drew 10. Btw, Garland also had 33 asists, 22 of them 1st assists, to Mikheyev's 11. People went on about his goal scoring drought but ignored he had 10 assists in those 12 games. I don't care if you score them or set them up. Playmakers help goal scorers score more often. His 22 1st assists tied him 62nd in the league while being 170th in ice time per game. There's 96 first line players in the league. Not bad for a guy that didn't even get PP1 time. I get you like your hitting. So do I. But look at the bigger picture once in a while. The truth is Horvat isn't a physical beast (despite his size) and yet he threw more hits per 60 miuntes than Mikheyev. Some beast.

I just posted Pearson and Mikheyev are very similar players; Pearson is a little more physical but Mikheyev is faster, younger, and more productive. Moving pearson means Mikheyev only adds 1.5m to the cap.