-
Posts
11,793 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Baggins
-
How is it a silver lining a player isn't where he should after five seasons? His low cost would only be a true asset if he had actually broken out. Which would have negated the need of trading assets to obtain Toffoli due to Boeser being out. What if Jake never has that breakout? I honestly think he may need to be traded as a wakeup call. His drive and commitment is below all six. Which is why he's bottom six. Btw, Eriksson isn't top six when the team is healthy. Toffoli replaced Eriksson there. Again, if Jake had the drive and commitment we wouldn't have needed to trade for Toffoli. He would have replaced Eriksson himself during the season and we could have weathered Boeser being out. When did I say he doesn't backcheck? As a matter of fact I've said his defensive play has improved. But when you start off sucking there's nowhere to go but up. I've said he's not where he needs to be and I wouldn't put my trust in him in the finals minutes with a one goal lead. His effort at both ends is inconsistent. His lack of commitment is evident by showing up to three camps in poor shape. How long do you wait before giving the wakeup call of being traded? Five years is a lot of patience. Particularly when he shows up to camp below their fitness standard twice in that 5th year. Motte is a defensive specialist. In the playoffs he had 17 takeaways to Jakes 6, and outhit him 61-36. They say good defense leads to offense. Well Motte also outshot Jake 29-16 without the luxury of PP time. Wait what? I wonder why the coaches have been after Jake to play the way Motte does for five years. What's being asked is well within his toolbox of size and speed. They're asking him to use tools he already has effectively and consistently both directions. Not much of a reinvention. Ask Yzerman about putting in the same effort defensively as you do offensively. He was cut from Team Canada twice despite being a 100+ point offensive threat because of his lack of defensive effort. In Detroit Bowman even told him if he didn't start putting in the same effort defensively he'd trade him. Bowman insisted on the two way game from everybody. Could that be part of the reason he's the winningest coach in NHL history? Yzerman wanted to stay in Detroit bad enough he committed to the two way game. The result was instead of being cut from Team Canada he became one of Team Canada's most respected captains. You'll never convince me that buy in and commitment to the defensive side should be dismissed and players allowed to just do what they like best. Even for the most offensively talented. The majority of coaches push the two way game now. That goes back to Bowman's success. Miller played under AV and (much like Jake) saw himself as an offensive player and was criticized for his inconsistent play. That does sound rather familiar. AV also insists on good two way play. Not buying in was the reason Miller was traded at 25. He said himself in an interview being traded by NY was a shock and his attitude changed in Tampa. Sometimes a player just needs to be traded to "get it" and realize it's a job he actually needs to work at. Some don't get it even after being moved. On one hand you're saying Jake shouldn't need to reinvent himself then you hold up a player that reinvented himself after being traded as an example of what Jake can be. Ironic. After 5 seasons Jake may need that kind of wakeup call himself to buy into what's being asked of him. It's the difference between wanting to play and wanting to excel. After being traded Miller decided he wanted to excel. Believe me, I'd love to see Jake succeed. I just doubt it's going to happen without a major wakeup call. Meaning it's not likely to happen here.
-
Some players just need to be moved to wake up. In Kassian's case he needed to clear waivers twice and be traded afterwards both times to realize if he didn't wake up his career was over. Knowing you have talent and nobody wanting you for free, twice in less than a year, is an extreme wakeup call. And Benning doing it wasn't enough of a wakeup call. He screwed up in Montreal before even playing a game for them. He said on a Bieksa/Kesler podcast he thought his career was over at that point. Kassian said he realizes he left Bergevin with no choice but to do what he did. "When a GM sits you down and says, 'You're going to get one chance with me,' he's going to stick to his word," he said. "He's a man of his word. I respect Marc. That's the way it was. "Sadly, that was the situation I had to be put in to learn from. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to get back to the NHL. I just want to kind of put my past behind me and show the new me." https://www.nhl.com/news/zack-kassian/c-278325564 I don't dwell on the what if as I don't believe he would have turned it around staying here. I just say good on him for turning it around and saving his career.
-
Um, I was being sarcastic as indicated by the list of players they drafted in their 3 year "proper" rebuild included in the post. Which shows NHL games played and points of said drafted players. Their "good picks" were Nylander, Marner, and Matthews. Take a closer look at the rest of their picks in those three years and convince me adding picks was the reason for the quick turnaround under Shanny.
-
This seems like a smoke and mirrors response. I said I don't know much about advanced stats and ask questions. Like would sheltered minutes, who you play with and who you play against, you know - variables - have an affect. You give a condescending answer starting with "You're misusing the concept of "sheltered" to start with" and didn't answer the question at all. I give you full credit for your master debater skill though. Then there's gem of an answer: "..and then you do an 'eye-test' comparison to Petey's drive.... How would, for example, Pearson 'matchup' against Petey's eye-test drive read?" When I actually said: "What I see from our core top six is 100% effort and drive at both ends of the ice. Petey is pretty much the pinnacle of commitment and drive on the entire rink - consistently. Can you say that watching Jake's effort?" Hmmm. It seems I was actually comparing Jakes drive and commitment to the entire top six while saying Petey is the Pinnacle of that group. Plus another backhand dig: "of course they have significant limits - as do the eye-tests of CDC armchairs." Ok, so no opinions of what we mere mortals see. That should be left to the gods.... such as you. Then these... "yes - and beyond the eye test - looking at his 'personality' - he is a young-minded type person - not a criticism - everyone develops - and grows up - at their own rate. " I hate to break it to you but Jake is a 24 year old (one year younger than Horvat) 5 season pro, who can't even show up to camp in shape and ready to work. Heaven forbid we be critical of this poor child making over $2m a year for his lack of drive and commitment. "First - he remains coachable." I wonder if Travis has the same opinion. Five years of him being asked to forecheck and backcheck hard and we're still waiting for him to even treat it as a job. "But just as importantly, he hasn't broken out - meaning he's still a young, affordable RFA asset. " On the flipside we wouldn't have needed to trade assets for Toffoli, or see a need to re-sign him, if Jake had worked hard and broken out while on this contract. You certainly got your last piece of condescension right though.... "Anyhow - I'm not sure I see any real point here."
-
But TO rebuilt the right way in three years (ignore how long they were out the playoffs prior to Shanny) by adding picks.
-
I don't see it as speculation at all when both Willie and Travis have publicly said how they want Jake to play. Hard on the forecheck, hard on the backcheck and finishing checks. The fact, and it is a fact, that's he hasn't shown up in good shape ready to compete more than once (three times) is not a sign of commitment or strong work ethic. You're playing poor baby with him when he's a man, a five year veteran. Do what's asked and there won't be a leash. Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say he's "he's learned the defensive game" I said "he has improved but I still wouldn't put my trust in him". Nor did I say "he's never back in his own zone" in any post. I'm basing my opinion on what is actually seen and real events. I don't see him putting in the same effort or having the commitment others on the team do game in and game out. On or off the ice. That's what I see. What do you "see"? Showing up in poor shape and partying during a pandemic are real events. They don't scream "solid work ethic" no matter how you spin it. Quite the opposite. Stats are a useful tool but rarely tell the whole story. But if you want to go down that road he was actually 8th on the team in takeaways in the playoffs with 6, along with 5 giveaways. Motte was first in takeaways with 17 and 7 giveaways. As I said, they want him to play like Motte. Toffoli had 3 takeaways in less than half the games playing on a bad ankle. Here's another playoff stat - Motte outshot Jake 29-16 and didn't have the luxury of PP time. Motte also outhit him 61-36. The way Motte plays leads to takeaways and scoring chances. He's always hard on the forecheck, hard on the backcheck. Game in, game out. Exactly what has been asked of Jake for five seasons. Jake doesn't have shifty moves, fancy stickhandling or great playmaking skills. He does have the size, speed, and shot to be a superior version of Motte though. Simply by using skills he already has to maximum effect. The only real speculation I made was why he seems to lack a strong work ethic and has a limited toolbox. My speculation being - with his size and speed he had an easy time in junior and didn't see any need to really work at anything else. Why mess with success right? It's not much of a reach considering his limited tools.
-
Would Markstrom sign a contract without a NTC?
Baggins replied to Makaramel MacKhiato's topic in Canucks Talk
This is something I've suggested by for picks rather than the d-man. Benning said he'd be looking at the possibility of moving young players and adding picks for this draft. Ottawa has a boatload of picks this year and a ton of cap space. If Demko's value is comparable to Schneider's he worth a top ten pick on his own. We've seen previously a top ten pick traded for a pair of mid first picks. What if we traded Demko to Ottawa for the 28th, 33rd and 58th picks. That's considerably less than a top 10 or two mid firsts so they take Louie in the deal. They'd still have 3, 5, 51,59, 63 & 70 in the first three rounds and a the young goalie goalie they need to build around. Re-signing Markstrom for four or five years allows ample time for our goalie prospects to develop plus it unloads a contract, with only 5m over two years left, giving us an additional 6m cap space. The question is would they be willing to part with 3 picks in one draft (they'd still have 10 picks) to get a young quality goalie. -
But what about matchups? Can a sheltered player show good advanced stats with the variables of who you play with and against regardless of the zone they start in? If so it's not fair comparison to those with higher ice time in more difficult match ups. Even d-zone starts can mean less when you're #2 in the league at faceoffs. The d-zone becomes rather easier when you start with possession. There just seems a lot of variables that can have an effect. I don't think any stats, even points, tell the whole story. Many pundits of advanced stats actually say they are more accurate judging a team as a whole rather than individuals. For me it's more about watching the games than the stats. Stats are a tool but don't tell the whole story, and I'm not entirely sold on advanced stats tbh. Can you just look at stats without watching games and accurately assess a players value and performance? What I see from our core top six is 100% effort and drive at both ends of the ice. Petey is pretty much the pinnacle of commitment and drive on the entire rink - consistently. Can you say that watching Jake's effort? Even if he has decent underlying numbers how good could he be if he had the same drive and commitment the five firmly planted in our top six show game in and game out? That's where Jake falls flat for me.
-
A coaches job is to get the most out of the players he's given. That's not politics. What's being asked of Jake is well within the toolbox he already has. He just doesn't seem to want to put in the effort. If he played like Motte, which is the way they've been trying to get him to play, he'd be a top six shoe in because he's bigger, faster, and has a better shot than Motte. Meaning the tools are already there, he just needs to use them. He just doesn't have the commitment and drive Motte has to be the best he can. The proof is in the pudding. He's come into camp in poor shape two of his five seasons. Then again after the lockdown. As the cherry on top he went out partying during a pandemic just prior to entering the bubble with his teammates. No commitment to his job. Should any coach or GM ignore this? I've preached patience with Jake for his first four seasons. But I've come to the conclusion he's not very bright and he's lazy to boot. He had a natural ability that required minimal effort in junior: He could simply overpower other kids with his size and speed to score. Have you noticed he doesn't try to deke defenders with skating or stickhandling? He's not a playmaker or great passer. Those skills require practice and effort. The defensive side of the game also requires work. It's just tougher to learn that side. He was succeeding in junior on one ability and saw no need to work on others. In other words he never really had to work hard and had no desire to do so. That lazy approach hasn't seemed to change much. He has improved his defensive play but I wouldn't put my trust in him in that department. And honestly that's the only minor improvement I've seen in five seasons. Watching games you can plainly see the effort and drive of players like Bo, Petey, Miller, Pearson, and Boeser at both ends of the ice. Do you see that consistent level of compete from Jake at either end? That's the reason they are top six and Jake isn't. It's also the reason he's verging on being expendable. What am I missing that your seeing?
-
Would Markstrom sign a contract without a NTC?
Baggins replied to Makaramel MacKhiato's topic in Canucks Talk
Sorry. Misread that completely. Should have my coffee first before posting. -
Would Markstrom sign a contract without a NTC?
Baggins replied to Makaramel MacKhiato's topic in Canucks Talk
Why? Who would sign that bargain deal knowing he could be exposed to the expansion draft? An NTC doesn't protect you from the expansion draft. If Marky is going to give a bargain deal the first year would have a NMC. I doubt he signs anywhere without it unless it's a really big payday. Pay me enough and I'll play anywhere, otherwise there's the NMC included to take less for a place I want to be. -
Would Markstrom sign a contract without a NTC?
Baggins replied to Makaramel MacKhiato's topic in Canucks Talk
What quality player wouldn't want security in the back half of his career? -
I don't get why people are confused either. Neither Willie or Travis has discouraged Virtanen from hitting, only "chasing" hits. There's a difference. Both coaches said repeatedly they wanted him hard on the forecheck and hard on the backcheck including finishing checks. That actually requires effort on the players part though. His inconsistent effort has nothing to with coaching. Showing up to camp in poor shape has nothing to do with coaching. His going out partying just before going into the bubble has nothing to do with coaching. Jake's issue seems to be his own lack of work ethic and intelligence. He just doesn't get it and lacks the drive to improve. He could easily be a top six player if he only had the drive and commitment to do so. After 5 years he still seems to be treating it as a game rather than a job. The coaches job is to get the most out of his players abilities. What's been asked of Jake is well within his abilities. If a player is simply unwilling to make the effort what is the coach to do? How many times do you have to scratch a player and how long do you wait for that penny to drop? Sometimes a player needs the wake up call of being traded. Even then some don't wake up. Some players are just happy playing rather than striving to be the best they can.
-
Here's the flipside. Markstrom has proven himself and is young enough that he's a valuable asset for years yet. Sign him and use Demko as a trade piece. We do have other young options coming up and can give them time having Markstrom for those years. I get that Demko is a fan fave but it may actually be the better option as there's no restriction at all on trade partner and his age and performance means a high value return. Re-signing Markstrom and trading Demko could actually get a high first rounder plus in the draft. Ottawa and Jersey both have three first round picks. Would either being willing to give up a top ten pick for Demko? Or perhaps even a lower first for Demko while taking Louie off our hands who will have $5m remaining remaining on his deal over two years? It is an option.
-
That's because Travis knows once he scores he's taking the rest of the night off.
-
Unfortunately coaches like to win.
-
As a prospect he was described as a physical north-south player with good size, speed and scoring touch. The knocks on him was his defensive play and a lack of creativity. I equate that lack of creativity to hockey IQ. From the scouting report it came across me that he used his size and speed to dominate rather than smarts. That certainly doesn't mean he couldn't be successful in the NHL. Speed, size and scoring touch can carry you a long ways in the NHL, even without playmaking talent and creativity, if you have the desire and play smart. It's that last part where Jake seems to fall flat.
-
The panel actually talked about that while Tofolli was out as Green had tried a few options on Bo's wing. They said the reason Eriksson was there was because Bo's line had higher scoring chances for and fewer against with Eriksson on wing than the other options provided. Meaning he was better for the line despite not producing himself. There's really only two things Eriksson is good at these days - his defensive play and going to the net to screen. Sometimes you have the puck go off you and in but often it goes in purely because the goalie can't see it coming. A goal can be the direct result of the screen, but you don't get a point for it. Two goals were scored that way with Petey in front of the net with him not getting a point. Sometimes points don't tell the whole story.
-
A misdirection response? The thread isn't about being outplayed by a better team, it's about whether Jake's development was mishandled or if it's just Jake himself that's the problem. Jake's commitment and consistency was in question long before the Vegas series.
-
There's a big difference between finishing checks and chasing hits. Back when Bieksa was called up everybody loved him because he hit everything that moved and fought pretty regularly. By his second full season the complaints started that he wasn't hitting and fighting as much. It turned out AV sat him down with game film and told him to stop chasing hits. He showed him plays where he chased hits and plays where he finished checks. If the target has already made the play, without being rushed, by chasing that hit you're just taking yourself out of the play. Finish checks where you're rushing the targets play and limiting his option while trying forcing mistakes. You need to recognize the difference. He also told him he was more valuable on the ice than in the box. You don't have to fight everybody that looks at you wrong, pick your fights better. Bieksa listened and started making better decisions. He started playing smarter. But Bieksa is a smart guy. Jake hasn't been mishandled he just doesn't get it. The message has been the same for five years - be hard on the forecheck, hard on the backcheck and finish your checks (different from chasing hits). Do it consistently and scoring chances will result. He doesn't seem to get the difference between finishing a check and chasing a hit. He'll veer away when he's so close he should finish check and at times still chases hits. If that was his only problem you could argue it will come. Which brings it to this: It's been plain to see his effort is inconsistent and that's on him. He's shown up to camp twice in five years in poor shape showing a lack of commitment and drive. That's on him. When he keeps getting the same message and doesn't follow through - it's on him. The coaches job is to get the most out of players. It's up to the player to listen and learn. Jake is either too lazy or too stupid. Possibly both. He has the tool box to do what's being asked, but seems to lack the drive, intelligence, and commitment to use it. Worse, there's been shining examples on the team of hard workers that should inspire him to be better and work harder since he arrived. It doesn't seem to. He's a coaches nightmare. The coach can see the tools there, but the player doesn't use them.
-
QUALIFYING OFFER CALCULATOR Teams must extend a qualifying offer to a restricted free agent to retain negotiation rights. A qualifying offer is an official Standard Player Contract (SPC) offer which shall be 1 year in length, and which can be subject to salary arbitration should the player be eligible. Clubs have until the later of June 25th or the first Monday after the Entry Draft to submit Qualifying Offers. Qualifying Offers apply to Group 2 and Group 4 free agents. Submitting a Qualifying Offers gives the prior club the right of first refusal to match any offer sheet submitted, or receive draft pick compensation. If the player rejects the qualifying offer, they remain an RFA and their rights are retained by the team. If a player does not receive a qualifying offer, the player becomes a UFA. The qualifying offer is calculated from the players base salary (NHL salary minus signing bonus), and at minimum must meet the seasons minimum salary requirements: 110% of the base salary if the base salary is less than or equal to $660,000 105% of the base salary if the base salary is greater than $660,000 or less than $1,000,000. However, this qualifying offer cannot exceed $1,000,000. 100% of the base salary if the base salary is equal to or greater than $1,000,000. CBA Reference 10.2 (a) (ii)
-
I don't see how resting the players listed makes all four lines "fresh as daisies". With the exception of swapping Gauds and Louie I don't see where the actual improvement, or even status quo, is as the ones you suggest out would be as good or better at 80% than the ones replacing them at 100%. Plus the ones you named weren't exactly the ones carrying the team offensively. I honestly don't think it would have made a difference when most of our wins were largely due to goaltending while being outplayed and outshot. If anything, with the exception of a Louie/Gauds swap, we would be weakened both defensively and offensively. Thus making a loss more likely. The real downfall in the series was that 5 minute PP where our top players, ones you're not even suggesting resting, just seemed out of gas and were looking for the perfect play rather than just setting up a screen and shooting.
-
That's pretty easy. Those playing at 80% are still 50% better than the other options.