Young Guys: Age and Development

[mll]

18 hours ago, Baggins said:

I look at it in terms of ice time. Line numbers don't mean a great deal really. For example, most see the third line as the shutdown line. Yet most of Keslers time here he was second line and the primary shutdown line. Back when the Sedins arrived they were called second line. They were second pp unit but Lindens third line had more ice time per game. Was the second line the Sedins because they were offensive or Linden because his line got more ice time?

 

The way I see it Sutter will be 2C with tougher assignments. I think Baertschi will be on his left wing. As Baertschi is our second most productive LW I see Sutters line as the second line in the way Keslers was. Providing offense and taking the tough assignments. Horvat will be more like the early Sedins, secondary scoring with easier assignments. Line numbers don't really mean much to me any more. It's the roles lines are utilized in.

Baertschi is someone that likes to make plays with the puck - but both Horvat and Virtanen are somewhat puck-hogs and they don't seem to really generate anything other than off the rush.  Ferraro described Sutter as not a passer and as not really using his linemates but more as someone scoring off the rush - sounds a bit like Horvat.

 

Ferraro the other day was saying that Baertschi is a really highly skilled player with really great hands and was speaking of how it was pretty much the best of both worlds because he can deke but now has also adjusted his game to get to scoring areas and he can get there with the puck on his stick.  So I'd like to see what he can do generating more off the cycle like he did playing with Vey or Granlund who were giving him back the puck - I thought that the recent Avalanche game was promising (that was with Vey). 

 

So I'm kind of wondering if WillieDs comment “I’m way better if he (Baertschi) is my fourth-line winger because it means we’re loaded above" is not paving the route to putting him there with Granlund as his C to see if he can play more his style of hockey.  WillieD did say he wanted to see Virtanen with Granlund so it could be a line for next season - they need a goal scorer on the line and Virtanen can create space.

[Hortankin]

21 hours ago, Baggins said:

Patrick Kane - 5'11" 177lbs - 5 time all-star, 3 Stanley cups, 1 Stanley cup winning goal, 1 Conne Smythe.

 

Enough said.

Are you saying Nylander=Kane? Lol

 

I bet you a team filled with Horvats and Virtanens beats a team full of Kanes and Nylanders in a playoff series. That skill may get you game 1 but the rest of the series will be hard when they are so banged up from game 1. You need toughness to win a 7 game playoff series. The Bruins taught us that

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, desiboynux4lifee******* said:

I feel we need some elite skilled player in our prospect pool, this is the year to get one, and I feel they can get defence in later rounds. Defence will take 2 -3 years to step into the line up, there is no defence in this years pool that can step in right away. I don't know what Benning will do, he scares me as a fan. 

It's something that is missing for sure.  They have prospects who project to be top 6 but not elite.  Eventually they're going to have to replace the Sedins.  Boeser may develop into a top line player but that leaves 2 spots open.  My crystal ball says that Benning picks one of the Finns.

The thing is the way the lottery works, it's hard to tell where the Canucks will pick.  They're 3rd now but according to the lottery, they could end up any where from 1-6.

 

Poiles comments were interesting when they traded Jones for Johansen.  He said that he's been trying to get a stud center for 20 years.  The Preds have always drafted D first and have had several stud D's over the years but never the center.  Matthews is the real prize this year but the question is, is there a stud D available? (there's some good ones).  My feeling is that their are top pairing D available but maybe not a true #1.  Chychrun may be ready to play right away but I wouldn't count on it.

[davydgoliath]

On 26/03/2016 at 10:07 PM, Dank dat hank said:

A bit critical of our young core...

Yeah a little redundant as well, I feel that most people already know that our 19 year olds have development time ahead of them.  

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Benning comes across as a moron, and that is scary.  Clearly, he's not a moron, but listening to the guy talk one can't help but think that way.  Plus he did this foolish retool, giving away second and third round picks for other teams' cast offs.  I'm fearful of what he will do if we win first overall! 

You're talking about what he did in his first summer?

 

My feeling is that the retool was ownerships contribution to the 5 year plan.  However, I don't think that as executed, it was as disastrous as many make it out to be.

 

The Kesler trade was happening regardless so I won't pick that apart.

 

Benning felt there were 2 big needs that the team had besides:

1. Goaltending - add Miller.  Given the uncertainty at the time in such an important part of the team who can cry over this.  Lack and Markstrom were both not experienced enough.  In hindsight, it was the right move.
2. Scoring - Vrbata was the free agent acquisition of the year so I don't think we can argue with this move either.  The 2nd year, ugh.

2nd for Vey - He has actually played and has filled a short term need for a team in transition.  If Benning took the pick, they would have had a player in Utica.  I don't have a problem with it.  Vey is a temporary fill in. 

3rd for Pedan - Can we argue here as well.   He's a prospect and he'll probably end up as a bottom pairing guy but it looks like he'll be a player.  That's not bad for a 3rd imo.

3rd for Dorsett - You have a problem with this?  A 4th line energy guy and mentor for 2-3 years is value for me.

 

The dodgy part of the retool was only apparent in hindsight.  It was moving Garrison for cap space to pick up Vrbata.  It was a calculated risk and they were left with what should have been a decent top 4 (Edler, Tanev, Hamhuis, Bieksa).  Unfortunately, Bieksa didn't have what it took in the playoffs.  So in hindsight, Benning took the strength of the team and turned it into a liability.    I was happy with the Bieksa trade but replacing him with the combination of Bartkowski and Weber was clearly a mistake. 

 

That's the foolish retool that I think you're talking about.  Whether they are attempting to give the old core another kick at the cup or not, I would expect that most of the above would get done anyways.

 

Fixing the defense is clearly job 1 this off season.

 

Fwiw, Vrbata will be moving along and I fully expect that Benning will replace him with a free agent. 

 

Other picks for players:

2nd for Baertschi - looks like a steal

 

 

[Fred65]

16 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

You're talking about what he did in his first summer?

 

My feeling is that the retool was ownerships contribution to the 5 year plan.  However, I don't think that as executed, it was as disastrous as many make it out to be.

 

The Kesler trade was happening regardless so I won't pick that apart.

 

Benning felt there were 2 big needs that the team had besides:

1. Goaltending - add Miller.  Given the uncertainty at the time in such an important part of the team who can cry over this.  Lack and Markstrom were both not experienced enough.  In hindsight, it was the right move.
2. Scoring - Vrbata was the free agent acquisition of the year so I don't think we can argue with this move either.  The 2nd year, ugh.

2nd for Vey - He has actually played and has filled a short term need for a team in transition.  If Benning took the pick, they would have had a player in Utica.  I don't have a problem with it.  Vey is a temporary fill in. 

3rd for Pedan - Can we argue here as well.   He's a prospect and he'll probably end up as a bottom pairing guy but it looks like he'll be a player.  That's not bad for a 3rd imo.

3rd for Dorsett - You have a problem with this?  A 4th line energy guy and mentor for 2-3 years is value for me.

 

The dodgy part of the retool was only apparent in hindsight.  It was moving Garrison for cap space to pick up Vrbata.  It was a calculated risk and they were left with what should have been a decent top 4 (Edler, Tanev, Hamhuis, Bieksa).  Unfortunately, Bieksa didn't have what it took in the playoffs.  So in hindsight, Benning took the strength of the team and turned it into a liability.    I was happy with the Bieksa trade but replacing him with the combination of Bartkowski and Weber was clearly a mistake. 

 

That's the foolish retool that I think you're talking about.  Whether they are attempting to give the old core another kick at the cup or not, I would expect that most of the above would get done anyways.

 

Fixing the defense is clearly job 1 this off season.

 

Fwiw, Vrbata will be moving along and I fully expect that Benning will replace him with a free agent. 

 

Other picks for players:

2nd for Baertschi - looks like a steal

 

 

Yeah some truth there but where it falls apart are the size on the contracts limiting his abilities in other areas. He's blown a lot of money on bottom line/3rd pairing players IMO

[gameburn]

On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 10:31 PM, LaBamba said:

Great post. I totally agree. The numbers don't lie. This is going to be extremely painful for 95% of the people who read this but it's true. We have no 1st line prospects. Boeser, possibly but that's about it. 

 

The difference between high end talent and what we have is finish. That is blatantly obvious in our games.

 

Corsi numbers can't tell you what players Finish their chances either. 

 

We need to suck for a few years so we can draft players that can fool goalies. 

 

 

Remember Torts on Higgins: "Love this guy, he can do everything for you except score."  Sorry Torts, you got most of the way there and missed the point: why have a guy that is that superficially useful but cannot score?

 

  I think the model for teams should be the best teams you've seen.  For me, the last two Team Canada teams were the model.  What's different about the new team Canada?  NO Role players.  Everyone on the team can set up plays and score.  The closest they got to role players were the likes of Carter and Bergeron and to some extent our Hamhuis.  But, both Bergeron and Carter can play puck possession, forecheck style or just protect a lead.  More important, both can score, and did.  As for Hamhuis, he didn't play much, his strength was as a 7th/8th D -- good on the big ice, reliable back up.  His more defensive-oriented game was not/is not enough. 

 

Keep your Dorsetts and Tanevs,  Build a team that can really play a full and flexible game -- every line able to score, every D able to skate and make a pass and hopefully get in on the tail end of the play.  Some lines will always be a touch better, and pp only needs really about 7 players spread over 2 pp units, so there is room for real talent differences, but not to the degree we accept today,  Pk can be taught, so again, get players who can skate and score to do that as well.  SH. goals never hurt.

 

How to do this with the cap is the problem: for this we should first try to get enough age range in place to get the benefit of Entry Level and early contracts.  Everyone's doing this now, so not a problem arguing for this, it's the new norm.  As a long-term plan we should help our mgt team by arguing for something other than the cap system.  If Toronto, Vancouver, Mtl, NY and a few other teams can spend more, then let us.  The cap system subsidizes the Nashvilles and Florida/Arizona teams while at the same time working against the building of excellent teams.

[Crabcakes]

2 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

Yeah some truth there but where it falls apart are the size on the contracts limiting his abilities in other areas. He's blown a lot of money on bottom line/3rd pairing players IMO

There's that too.  I think that is inexperience.  He knew what he wanted and he overpaid for it to make his plans work. 

 

I think we need some GM development in this respect. 

[ShakyWalton]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Benning comes across as a moron, and that is scary.  Clearly, he's not a moron, but listening to the guy talk one can't help but think that way.  Plus he did this foolish retool, giving away second and third round picks for other teams' cast offs.  I'm fearful of what he will do if we win first overall! 

If JB screws up our pick this year I guarantee he will be run out of town on a rail...although there doesnt seem like much he can screw up unless he trades it away.

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, gameburn said:

Remember Torts on Higgins: "Love this guy, he can do everything for you except score."  Sorry Torts, you got most of the way there and missed the point: why have a guy that is that superficially useful but cannot score?

 

  I think the model for teams should be the best teams you've seen.  For me, the last two Team Canada teams were the model.  What's different about the new team Canada?  NO Role players.  Everyone on the team can set up plays and score....

Oh that's good stuff (couldn't get through the rest of it though tbh) .   

 

The armchair GMing on these boards is reaching new levels of genius.

 

Hey, Jim - build us a Team Canada please and thanks.   18 playmakers, everyone scores! 

[gameburn]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

Oh that's good stuff (couldn't get through the rest of it though tbh) .   

 

The armchair GMing on these boards is reaching new levels of genius.

 

Hey, Jim - build us a Team Canada please and thanks.   18 playmakers, everyone scores! 

I get your point: not everyone is Crosby.  But in my defense what I would say is that we have begun to accept the idea that you ONLY need a few scorers or key players to win, and that the rest of the team can be fillers whose primary job is to fatigue or prevent the other team doing much.  This new model has limits: one line can be shut down, and injuries can kill your chances. 

 

There have been skilled teams.  Teams.  And puck possession teams -- hell we had one here lol.

[LaBamba]

1 hour ago, gameburn said:

Remember Torts on Higgins: "Love this guy, he can do everything for you except score."  Sorry Torts, you got most of the way there and missed the point: why have a guy that is that superficially useful but cannot score?

 

  I think the model for teams should be the best teams you've seen.  For me, the last two Team Canada teams were the model.  What's different about the new team Canada?  NO Role players.  Everyone on the team can set up plays and score.  The closest they got to role players were the likes of Carter and Bergeron and to some extent our Hamhuis.  But, both Bergeron and Carter can play puck possession, forecheck style or just protect a lead.  More important, both can score, and did.  As for Hamhuis, he didn't play much, his strength was as a 7th/8th D -- good on the big ice, reliable back up.  His more defensive-oriented game was not/is not enough. 

 

Keep your Dorsetts and Tanevs,  Build a team that can really play a full and flexible game -- every line able to score, every D able to skate and make a pass and hopefully get in on the tail end of the play.  Some lines will always be a touch better, and pp only needs really about 7 players spread over 2 pp units, so there is room for real talent differences, but not to the degree we accept today,  Pk can be taught, so again, get players who can skate and score to do that as well.  SH. goals never hurt.

 

How to do this with the cap is the problem: for this we should first try to get enough age range in place to get the benefit of Entry Level and early contracts.  Everyone's doing this now, so not a problem arguing for this, it's the new norm.  As a long-term plan we should help our mgt team by arguing for something other than the cap system.  If Toronto, Vancouver, Mtl, NY and a few other teams can spend more, then let us.  The cap system subsidizes the Nashvilles and Florida/Arizona teams while at the same time working against the building of excellent teams.

Ya man, I get that 2 way forwards are great but sometimes the best way to protect a one goal lead is to score a goal. 

 

These last few weeks looks like we are killing one giant penalty. 

 

I really liked Dorsett last season but this year he is the perfect example of how analytics mean absolutely nothing if you have hands of stone. 

 

He taxes the PK unit. With brain dead penalties. 

He gets speed bagged every time he tries to fight. 

He takes up too much cap for his useless intangibles.

You can easily replace his 4 goals by just giving a more skilled player the ice time he uses up for pissing everyone off with face washes and butt-ends after the whistle.

 

He has steadily regressed since his final season in NY.    

[oldnews]

Just now, gameburn said:

I get your point: not everyone is Crosby.  But in my defense what I would say is that we have begun to accept the idea that you ONLY need a few scorers or key players to win, and that the rest of the team can be fillers whose primary job is to fatigue or prevent the other team doing much.  This new model has limits: one line can be shut down, and injuries can kill your chances. 

 

There have been skilled teams.  Teams.  And puck possession teams -- hell we had one here lol.

Yeah - we had one here - and that Higgins guy you're devaluing played a huge role on it scoring 40+ pts on the third line, while playing hard minutes, killing penalties - doing it all, playing all the roles - and scoring.

That team had a fourth line as well that were pure role players - like Malhotra - who was an almost exclusively dzone start specialist, outstanding faceoff guy - had two primary jobs - start in his own end of the ice, play shutdown, generate territory for the top line to take advantage of.

The thing about those team Canada's you're talking about - so many of those guys are simply outstanding two way players that can do it all.

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, LaBamba said:

I really liked Dorsett last season but this year he is the perfect example of how analytics mean absolutely nothing if you have hands of stone. 

 

Not sure what you mean by this.  The 'analytics' geeks are the ones that pile on Dorsett as if a horrible deal because his value doesn't really translate in underlying numbers.

[LaBamba]

12 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Not sure what you mean by this.  The 'analytics' geeks are the ones that pile on Dorsett as if a horrible deal because his value doesn't really translate in underlying numbers.

I never actually pay attention. I rarely back up what I say with actual facts. 

 

I dont even understand underlying numberz. 

[gameburn]

8 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

Ya man, I get that 2 way forwards are great but sometimes the best way to protect a one goal lead is to score a goal. 

 

These last few weeks looks like we are killing one giant penalty. 

 

I really liked Dorsett last season but this year he is the perfect example of how analytics mean absolutely nothing if you have hands of stone. 

 

He taxes the PK unit. With brain dead penalties. 

He gets speed bagged every time he tries to fight. 

He takes up too much cap for his useless intangibles.

You can easily replace his 4 goals by just giving a more skilled player the ice time he uses up for pissing everyone off with face washes and butt-ends after the whistle.

 

He has steadily regressed since his final season in NY.    

And Prust -- Dorsett with better fighting skills.  Neither have helped in the slightest.  

 

4 goals. Is it that few now. lol.  Yes.  It is surprisingly easy to forget that the point of the game is to score more goals than the other team and that therefore a player should be measured by their ability to score.  Goals have become harder to score, and so it has become easier to justify non-scorers on the team.  I would argue though that it is when goal-scoring is in decline throughout the league that is the time you cannot afford to carry players who provide little to no scoring.  This is my concern with Vey and Etem and probably Granlund, Grenier, Gaunce, and Tanev as well: they all look like real hockey players until you notice they have practically no even strength points.  I personally can get no points, and could even be counted on to draw penalties thanks to my unerring ability to fall like a house of cards when a 220 pound D leans on me -- and it wouldn't even be embellishment, I really would be crumbling against the boards through no will of my own. 

[gameburn]

24 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Yeah - we had one here - and that Higgins guy you're devaluing played a huge role on it scoring 40+ pts on the third line, while playing hard minutes, killing penalties - doing it all, playing all the roles - and scoring.

That team had a fourth line as well that were pure role players - like Malhotra - who was an almost exclusively dzone start specialist, outstanding faceoff guy - had two primary jobs - start in his own end of the ice, play shutdown, generate territory for the top line to take advantage of.

The thing about those team Canada's you're talking about - so many of those guys are simply outstanding two way players that can do it all.

I would love to have that Higgins back, and the third line that scored better than our 2nd and 3rd presently.  It is today's Higgins that can't do it anymore -- injury and age.  As for Malhotra, I would agree that a 4th line that can gain puck possession at any moment is hard to beat, even if they don't score a ton, but imagine if you can get a Malhotra who can also score a fair bit -- which is how I see Bergeron.  The thing that made the Soviet teams in their heyday so effective, is pretty much what team Canada has had recently: most players can contribute to scoring, which means that any given moment they can take a 1 goal lead and make it a 3 goal lead.  That, and skating.  Although the Olympic team was better defensively than the world championship team, I see that world team beating our Olympic team, because the offense was that much better.  I'd take Seguin and P.K. Subban over Carter and Hamhuis, maybe even Bergeron and Hamhuis or Pietrangelo.

[coastal1]

On 2016-03-26 at 10:07 PM, Dank dat hank said:

A bit critical of our young core...

Ii is hard to be positive given their performance but in reality you are right, they have been rushed to the NHL because of our lack of talent, so it is not their fault. All we can say about them is that they have potential (and that rigth now, they are not close to NHL-ready, boys against men!).

[oldnews]

Just now, gameburn said:

I would love to have that Higgins back, and the third line that scored better than our 2nd and 3rd presently.  It is today's Higgins that can't do it anymore -- injury and age.  As for Malhotra, I would agree that a 4th line that can gain puck possession at any moment is hard to beat, even if they don't score a ton, but imagine if you can get a Malhotra who can also score a fair bit -- which is how I see Bergeron.  The thing that made the Soviet teams in their heyday so effective, is pretty much what team Canada has had recently: most players can contribute to scoring, which means that any given moment they can take a 1 goal lead and make it a 3 goal lead.  That, and skating.  Although the Olympic team was better defensively than the world championship team, I see that world team beating our Olympic team, because the offense was that much better.  I'd take Seguin and P.K. Subban over Carter and Hamhuis, maybe even Bergeron and Hamhuis or Pietrangelo.

Yes, imagine if you could have Bergeron anywhere in your lineup let alone on your 4th line - problem being of course that he could be the premier all around player in the world.  I'd take a lineup full of (two-way) Bergeron's any day.

[gameburn]

17 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Yes, imagine if you could have Bergeron anywhere in your lineup let alone on your 4th line - problem being of course that he could be the premier all around player in the world.  I'd take a lineup full of (two-way) Bergeron's any day.

I had no idea how good Bergeron was until Sochi.  I don't recall him being anywhere near as dominant against our team in the SCF.  He never showed fatigue, never made mistakes, skated a mile.  And he scored -- Crosby mentioned how good he was after the series.  If Horvat ends up somewhere in between Bergeron and Kopitar in his play we will probably have our 1C. That's expecting a lot though.