[Waivers] James Neal

[The Lock]

Just now, King Heffy said:

They lost to teams that had this type of player.

But is it because of that kind of player? That's the problem with this argument. We don't know. There's some sort of correlation between this kind of player and the stanley cup, but there's a lot more to it than that that could either prove this to be a cause and effect situation or even just a mere coincidence.

[King Heffy]

Just now, The Lock said:

But is it because of that kind of player? That's the problem with this argument. We don't know. There's some sort of correlation between this kind of player and the stanley cup, but there's a lot more to it than that that could either prove this to be a cause and effect situation or even just a mere coincidence.

My personal opinion is that these guys are often the difference in a long playoff grind.

[spook007]

56 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:

Both can fight and there potential based on there age, is where fans tends to differ in there opinions when discussing this topic.  Both are still in pre prime years and Chaisson is 31, as of today.  

 

Anyways, they are gone and good chance, Chaisson will not be here next year.

Unless Lockwood slowdown his development, stops developing or get hindered by injuries, I think he will have a good shout for 4th RW...

[The Lock]

2 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

My personal opinion is that these guys are often the difference in a long playoff grind.

That's fair and you're entitled to your opinion. I just think it's also important to ask these questions.

 

Just to set home an example of a false correlation: did you know that every Stanley Cup team in the past 10 years had a Canadian coach? Does that mean that in order for your team to win the Stanley Cup you need a Canadian coach?

[King Heffy]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

That's fair and you're entitled to your opinion. I just think it's also important to ask these questions.

 

Just to set home an example of a false correlation: did you know that every Stanley Cup team in the past 10 years had a Canadian coach? Does that mean that in order for your team to win the Stanley Cup you need a Canadian coach?

I think roster construction is a lot easier to argue a valid correlation than nationality though.

[The Lock]

Just now, King Heffy said:

I think roster construction is a lot easier to argue a valid correlation than nationality though.

Of course, but I could literally give the same amount of evidence as you did and make a claim that you need a Canadian coach to win the stanley cup.

 

This means that more evidence is needed in the end to prove it. It doesn't seem like you disagree with this anyway as you mention roster construction being an easier argument. Just the evidence needs to be provided, which just saying that each stanley cup winner has that kind of player isn't that evidence.

 

I hope you understand what I'm saying here at least. There has to be more to it in the evidence than just mentioning stanley cup winners and the players on that team because each of those teams also had a Canadian coach. lol

[lmm]

28 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I don't know. I think it all depends really. We're playing well at the moment so I don't see a point in changing things until we come back down to Earth.

 

I guess my question would be does having a Reeves or a Maroon or whomever correlate to having a good team or do enough good teams get by without those kind of players anyway?  I have no opinion on this, it's just something I think that should be important to ask. Sure players like Reeves still get jobs, but how valuable are these jobs and do they make a huge impact or do they even create a negative impact through penalities? Just some things to ask really.

I agree that it depends

I will say that I think Maroon is a step above Reaves

Maroon is 8th in F scoring, so more likely a 3rd liner, whereas Reaves gets healthy scratched

 

I also think it depends on the make up of your team

Horvat and Miller are not tough guys, but if you had 4 of each on your team you probably do not need Ryan Reaves

The Canucks however have: Hoglander, Hughes, Garland, Petey, Hunt, Burroughs, and Dries, Dowling, Rempal , Bailey,(I know he is big, but he is soft) Lockwood, Rathbone waiting in the wings

We have Schenn, who was brought in as a #7 D, but is playing in the #4 spot

You'd like to have Schenn as your #7 but he plays bigger and better than Hunt, Burroughs and TuckyPoo

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

Of course, but I could literally give the same amount of evidence as you did and make a claim that you need a Canadian coach to win the stanley cup.

 

This means that more evidence is needed in the end to prove it. It doesn't seem like you disagree with this anyway as you mention roster construction being an easier argument. Just the evidence needs to be provided, which just saying that each stanley cup winner has that kind of player isn't that evidence.

 

I hope you understand what I'm saying here at least. There has to be more to it in the evidence than just mentioning stanley cup winners and the players on that team because each of those teams also had a Canadian coach. lol

I do understand, but a lot of times it's the players themselves who give credit to those guys and the benefit of obvious.  Look at Detroit with Draper and Maltby for an example.

 

Best practices seems to be having this type of player, and I've yet to see a decent argument for why they aren't helpful.

 

 

 

[The Lock]

Just now, King Heffy said:

I do understand, but a lot of times it's the players themselves who give credit to those guys and the benefit of obvious.  Look at Detroit with Draper and Maltby for an example.

 

Best practices seems to be having this type of player, and I've yet to see a decent argument for why they aren't helpful.

Maybe one day I'll become some advanced stats dude, not to try and "be right" (I hope I never turn into one of those guys) but to get to the bottom of a few things such as this very question we're debating. I'm finding myself more and more just asking questions. I don't care if I'm right or wrong in the end. It's more about learning the actual truth behind things, if there even is a truth.

[King Heffy]

Just now, The Lock said:

Maybe one day I'll become some advanced stats dude, not to try and "be right" (I hope I never turn into one of those guys) but to get to the bottom of a few things such as this very question we're debating. I'm finding myself more and more just asking questions. I don't care if I'm right or wrong in the end. It's more about learning the actual truth behind things, if there even is a truth.

Yeah, I'm the opposite to be honest.  I don't think advanced stats are the answer and think the eye test is a superior method to measure the contributions of these guys.  It's the analytics dweebs like Dubas who are the main perpetrators of icing poorly constructed 4th lines.

[The Lock]

5 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Yeah, I'm the opposite to be honest.  I don't think advanced stats are the answer and think the eye test is a superior method to measure the contributions of these guys.  It's the analytics dweebs like Dubas who are the main perpetrators of icing poorly constructed 4th lines.

I'm not saying it's the answer. It would be more making sense of things alongside the eye test. Advanced stats gets a bad reputation because often times they're used poorly in arguments of confirmation bias rather than being used for learning purposes.

 

Here's another question: was it analytics that actually caused Dubas to ice a poor 4th line? What if it was the cap situation or some other factor(s)? Again, me asking questions rather than just assuming.

 

(Also, edited because I apparently English bad)

Edited January 4, 2022 by The Lock

[lmm]

21 minutes ago, The Lock said:

That's fair and you're entitled to your opinion. I just think it's also important to ask these questions.

 

Just to set home an example of a false correlation: did you know that every Stanley Cup team in the past 10 years had a Canadian coach? Does that mean that in order for your team to win the Stanley Cup you need a Canadian coach?

Mike Sullivan flashes a couple of rings

and from 2004-2009 3/5 were americns

but you could make a pretty good case that the coaches need to be North American men (waiting for the pot to boil, haha)

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

I'm not saying it's the answer. It would be more making sense of things alongside the eye test. Advanced stats gets a back reputation because often times they're used poorly in arguments of confirmation bias rather than being used for learning purposes.

 

Here's another question: was it analytics that actually caused Dubas to ice a poor 4th line? What if it was the cap situation or some other factor(s)? Again, me asking questions rather than just assuming.

There were grinders available for roughly similar deals to what Spezza and No Show Joe were getting.  The issue wasn't the quality of player so much as the style.

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, lmm said:

Mike Sullivan flashes a couple of rings

and from 2004-2009 3/5 were americns

but you could make a pretty good case that the coaches need to be North American men (waiting for the pot to boil, haha)

Yeah, it was more to try to show more information's needed than anything. A hypothesis is there on the correlation between the Maroons and stanley cups.... just the research actually needs ot be done. lol

Edited January 4, 2022 by The Lock

[lmm]

10 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Maybe one day I'll become some advanced stats dude, not to try and "be right" (I hope I never turn into one of those guys) but to get to the bottom of a few things such as this very question we're debating. I'm finding myself more and more just asking questions. I don't care if I'm right or wrong in the end. It's more about learning the actual truth behind things, if there even is a truth.

how come when you do it, people discuss your points, but when I ask questions I get called a troll and a Leafs fan?

 

 

but to your point, I think we all know that whistles get put away in the playoffs

you'd be hard pressed to find good data on that, but we know it is true

[Gawdzukes]

4 minutes ago, lmm said:

I don't think it is so much sky high expectations as fans want a real 4th line

not a bunch of smurf scorers who don't do anything well

when the Benning /Linden/Willie D era started Tom Sestito was still on the club

Willie D did all he could to embarrass Sestito, and I recall several fans who were on board with that treatment

also claiming that the classic 4th liner was dead

It is true that the classic 4th liner has changed since that time, 

but it has not changed to the point that it has been taken over by Justin Dowling and Nik Petan

Carrier/Reeves/Maroon are still earning jobs

 

 

unfortunately the players we might have replaced Chiasson with left on the waiver wire

replaced by guys like Dowling, Petan and Chiasson

 

Maybe BB has noticed, maybe JR has as well

but those guys are enjoying their Canuck Honeymoon and are not under pressure to make changes with every twitch of the waiver wire

There is no saying that BB has the same level of input into the ear of JR that Green had with Benning

Bruce dressed 7 D last game because that is what was available to him, playing Hunt more minutes than Burroughs caused a mild stir

Rutherford called up Rempal to the taxi squad, and from where I am sitting, Rempal is cut from the same cloth as Petan and Dowling, but those were the cards JR was dealt

JR is using the pieces the was left with and BB is using the pieces that JR is offering

Neal scored at the same rate as Chiasson last year, with fewer games and PMs 

I don't see him as the message JR wants to send his new team

This is a good post. What I am realizing as we discuss this further is that everyone wants a good fourth line but they are far from easy to acquire. When was the last time we had a good fourth line, 2011? Dorsett was good but alas. Too bad but yeah I agree our 4th line offers next to nothing. I hate to say it but Motte isn't really a difference maker on his own either.

 

There are some good 4th lines in the league. There are some pretty blah ones too. We have one of the worst, if not the worst, but that's also a microcosm of spending heavy on forwards and D and the cap is tight. It appears we have some extra cap, close to $3m but I don't think it's available. Taken up next year or something if I recall but correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Some of my comments about Chiasson have just been in regards to Heffy calling him down. I was just pointing out that our new miracle coach BB is still choosing him over the 13th skater and anyone else on the farm. In addition JR could have picked up a waiver guy like Neal or made the simplest of moves to switch him out but he hasn't acted yet either. 

 

As for MacEwen he's a terrible hockey player imo, even if he can fight he can't play hockey well. Gadjovich is young and has potential but he's not good enough to play in the NHL this year. I can understand people wanting an upgrade on what we have but imo these guys are simply interchangeable tweeners like Dowling, Chiasson, and Petan. I hope to hell we get someone that's more capable than that if we are serious about an upgrade.

[The Lock]

Just now, lmm said:

how come when you do it, people discuss your points, but when I ask questions I get called a troll and a Leafs fan?

 

 

but to your point, I think we all know that whistles get put away in the playoffs

you'd be hard pressed to find good data on that, but we know it is true

Good question. I think perhaps tone of voice can make a difference. I try and use a lot of I statements rather than making "absolute" statements. No one can debate your opinion, but they can debate (and typically want to debate) an absolute statement.

 

That being said, I'm not always perfect in this. I will call people out and create rifts still at times. lol

[lmm]

12 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I'm not saying it's the answer. It would be more making sense of things alongside the eye test. Advanced stats gets a bad reputation because often times they're used poorly in arguments of confirmation bias rather than being used for learning purposes.

 

Here's another question: was it analytics that actually caused Dubas to ice a poor 4th line? What if it was the cap situation or some other factor(s)? Again, me asking questions rather than just assuming.

 

(Also, edited because I apparently English bad)

was it really the Leafs 4th line though?

I think I'd be pretty happy going into the playoffs with Spezza between Simmonds and Foligno

but Marner 0g, Mathews 1g Tavares 0g might have been a problem

and for all the Leaf haters out there "No Show Nylander" scored 5 g and 8p in 7 games

 

I actually think the Leaf and Canucks(during the Jimmer era) have been quite similar, more similar than most canuck fans like to admit

Flashy soft high scoring top six , augmented with Beagle/Roussell/ Simmonds that won't be on the ice when you need them

 

I like Pearson and Dicky, but would rather 24YO Corey Perry/ Shannahan/Iginla in their spots

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, lmm said:

was it really the Leafs 4th line though?

I think I'd be pretty happy going into the playoffs with Spezza between Simmonds and Foligno

but Marner 0g, Mathews 1g Tavares 0g might have been a problem

and for all the Leaf haters out there "No Show Nylander" scored 5 g and 8p in 7 games

 

I actually think the Leaf and Canucks(during the Jimmer era) have been quite similar, more similar than most canuck fans like to admit

Flashy soft high scoring top six , augmented with Beagle/Roussell/ Simmonds that won't be on the ice when you need them

 

I like Pearson and Dicky, but would rather 24YO Corey Perry/ Shannahan/Iginla in their spots

Loser Leafs and their stinky city suck old socks.  Matthews is a perv.  Nylander is a double flamingo.  Tavares is a pyjama boy.  Their only decent player is little Mitchell.  

 

[The Lock]

4 minutes ago, lmm said:

was it really the Leafs 4th line though?

I think I'd be pretty happy going into the playoffs with Spezza between Simmonds and Foligno

but Marner 0g, Mathews 1g Tavares 0g might have been a problem

and for all the Leaf haters out there "No Show Nylander" scored 5 g and 8p in 7 games

 

I actually think the Leaf and Canucks(during the Jimmer era) have been quite similar, more similar than most canuck fans like to admit

Flashy soft high scoring top six , augmented with Beagle/Roussell/ Simmonds that won't be on the ice when you need them

 

I like Pearson and Dicky, but would rather 24YO Corey Perry/ Shannahan/Iginla in their spots

True. There's always a ton a factors when it comes to winning and losing for any team. One could even make an argument that it's actually depth more than anything that wins cups. Injuries happen during playoffs and if your team is too injured by the finals, what happens?