kipwinger

The players love it, the owners love it, and Bettman will be dead or retired by that point. The only people that don't like it will be the fans and the "big business of sports" stopped caring about what fans think forever ago.

I'm basically fine with the way Kane has performed. I just don't understand what the point was? Like, how was SY planning to take advantage of the fact that Patrick Kane chose to sign here? What was he hoping to get out of it?

Can anyone tell me what the f*ck the point of signing Patrick Kane was? What were we trying to accomplish?

Gonna hit you dudes with another random hockey thought since I'm bored today. See what you think. Pretty much everyone thinks that in order to win the Stanley Cup you have to have "elite talent" right? But do you really? I was just thinking about Nick Lidstrom. Almost everyone agrees that he's one of the two or three best defensemen to ever play the game. The elite of the elite. And pretty much everyone agrees that defense is a really really important position right? So for 22 seasons we had the best player at an extremely important position. So why did he only win 4 Cups? The knee jerk reaction for most people might be "maybe he was on a bad team". But he wasn't. He never missed the playoffs and he played the majority of his career with other legendary players (Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, Konstantinov, Fetisov, Larionov, Hasek, Chelios, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Hossa). He was also rarely ever injured. So why only four? I have an answer, but I want to hear your thoughts first.

I was specifically talking about the analytics crowd and their fans. THOSE people seem to be okay with a plus/minus system centered on shot attempts, but openly mock the old school plus/minus system based on goals. I'm wondering why they'd embrace one and reject the other.

Alex Debrincat might never score again. I think there's a real possibility he's never score another goal again.

If they're that fragile it's their GMs job to know and sell at the deadline. The f*cking Flyers are in a divisional seed and traded a top four defenseman for a 1st at the deadline. Presumably their GM has a better handle on the team than ours does. I don't think we should bridge either of them. They're both studs. Seider's being worked like a mule and he's still scoring half a point per game. If he started in the defensive zone 10% less he'd be in line with all other 1D usage and he'd score 60 points. Same with Raymond. He's going to score 60-70 points and he's (inexplicably) on the 2nd powerplay unit and forced to play half the season with JT Compher as a center. They're both part of the solution, not the problem.

I mean, if you start with the premise that we were playing unsustainably well in January and February and then you take the best player (at the most important position) off the team it's easy to see how they'd fall apart. And I'll reiterate for the millionth time that by not doing ANYTHING at the deadline Yzerman might as well have waived the white flag. "I believe in your guys...just not enough to do anything at all to help".

I keep thinking about that super testy interview that SY gave on deadline day against Arizona when he was pissy about our "team defense". In other words, the guy responsible for assembling the defense was complaining about the defense, after he opted not to address the defense, on the very last day to do anything to improve the defense. That's almost as bad as watching Ville Husso play too many games last year and then decide to address that problem by signing two goalies who aren't any good. Lyon playing WAY above his head (unexpectedly) is the only thing that kept this from happening sooner. And THAT'S almost as bad as Derek Lalonde saying he can't play Sprong higher in the lineup because he's bad defensively and then starting the last two games with Kane, Debrincat, Berggren, and Raymond on the wings in the top six.

I do, and did. But you can look back at my old posts and see all the times I said something like "and we're in prime position to address our needs at the deadline". Never did I ever feel comfortable with James Reimer as a backup goalie, or zero power fowards, or Petry as our 2nd best RHD. I never ever thought SY would just let it ride and do nothing to address any of these issues.

Berggren draws a ton of penalties.

All of our "best" wingers are midgets that can't win puck battles. Our "best" center has scored less than half a point per game in his career. Our "best" goalie has played 53 games in his career prior to this season. Our "best" defensemen are forced to play 70% of the game in the defensive zone otherwise we get scored on even more than we already do. We had a flawed roster that was playing way above its head for most of the season and our GM decided that he "liked his team".

He had a goal and an assist last game and has scored more than Kane, Raymond, Compher or Debrincat during our 0-5 losing streak. You're reaching.

Rasmussen hasn't been scored on tonight. What are you talking about?

Who knew that having only one good defenseman, no good centers, and 25 tiny wingers wasn't a recipe for victory? I had no idea.

Question, in the era of analytics why hasn't plus/minus seen a rehabilitation as a useful stat? The possession argument is basically that if you're on the ice and your team gets a shot, or a shot attempt, or a blocked shot, or a missed shot then you get a "plus" because your team had possession in the offensive zone. Even if you did nothing to contribute to the shot attempt. And if you're on the ice and the opposition gets a shot attempt you get a minus, even if you did nothing to help give up the shot. So why not a goal for vs. a goal against? I never hear analytics bros going to bat for +/- as a stat and I don't understand why?

No idea, I'm just regurgitating what I saw.

I’m paraphrasing here but I read an interview with Alan Walsh, a big time player agent. He said this Canada vs. US debate is blown out of proportion because any agent worth a damn hooks his clients up with accountants than can more or less manage the money such that the tax burden ends up being negligible. Take it for what it’s worth. Here it is. https://x.com/walsha/status/1307480088800182272?s=20

Cooper moved him to the wings in 2015. Five years into his career. That was nine years ago. I'll grant you that he may have played center here and there along the way, but he has never played center consistently under Cooper. Also, he won Cups on the wing. He won Richard trophies at center. One of those things is demonstrably better than the other. https://www.nbcsports.com/nhl/news/coach-cooper-explains-why-stamkos-is-a-winger-now

He won two Cups at center (played in three) and certainly played more at that position than at wing. Neither of those things are true of Stamkos. Stamkos has played the majority of his career at wing and all of his Cup runs were played there. He's neither been a frequent center nor a successful one.

I actually don't. I remember Zetterberg on Datsyuk's wing. Datsyuk broke in at center and played there more or less without interruption for his whole career. If anything I'd argue that Zetterberg was more like Stamkos. He achieved all his best career seasons on the wing AND never won a Cup at center.

Look doofus, if you're dying to win an internet argument about whether Stamkos can play center (despite hardly ever doing so) then go nuts. However, if you sincerely want to make the point that we need an upgrade at center (like your original post tries to do) then Stamkos isn't your guy. You decide what you're trying to accomplish here. Okay, I'll caveat it. Stamkos has not CONSISTENTLY played center in years. You win. If either of you think signing him to play center on THIS team RIGHT NOW is a good idea you're on crack. That's my actual point here.

Lots of people CAN play center. I never said Stamkos CAN'T play there, I said he's not good at it. No surprise that Tampa stopped getting humiliated in the playoffs and started winning Cups once he was moved to the wing. Also, since when you do care about hockey journalists' points of view? I've noticed you doing this a lot lately. Rail against the hockey media and then talk about Selke voting as if guys like Corey Pronman and Scott Wheeler aren't doing the voting. Either they're fools who shouldn't be listened to or they're credible. Pick one.

Dude, for the zillionth time Steven Stamkos hasn't played center in years and wasn't good at it when he did. That's why they moved him to the wing. He didn't play center during any of their Cup runs and has no value there. I agree we need quality centers, but he's not one.

Who cares? I'd rather guys be effective when they DO arrive than guys who are mediocre but in the lineup immediately. Raymond isn't a better player than Seider just because he made it to the NHL as a draft +2 instead of a draft +3 player.