If he had value as a top 6 forward on a good team, Detroit would've moved him at the deadline while they were selling everybody else off.
Confirmed Trade: [DET/OTT] Alex DeBrincat (signs 4 years, $7.875M AAV) for Dominik Kubalik, Donovan Sebrango, cond. 2024 or 2025 1st (DET or BOS), 2024 4th
- Thread starter MMC
- Start date
If he had value as a top 6 forward on a good team, Detroit would've moved him at the deadline while they were selling everybody else off.
frightenedinmatenum2
Registered User
If he was a capable top 6 forward, he would have never been in the trade. Detroit would have gotten a return for him prior to this.
He's scored goals on bad teams. He's a third line scorer who can be used on the PP, or a complimentary guy on one of the top 2 lines. He's not a legit top 6 forward.
He is playing a similar role to what he played last year in Detroit, but he is getting even softer deployment. If anything, Ottawa is giving him a better chance to pad his stats than he got in Detroit.
On a good team, he is someone you can play in soft minutes and on the second PP unit and he will get you 15-20 goals. He is not a top 6 forward on anything but a team who is very early in their rebuild.
Detroit Knights
Registered User
- Feb 29, 2012
- 3,531
- 2,038
Look, this is at 68 pages. I will not go through all pages to show proof of who said it. But it was stated multiple times during the grieving process or in the denial phase that since dbc only had 27 goals and kubalik had 20, that it was entirely possible kubalik would stay consistent at score 20+. There were MULTIPLE people saying it from the ottawa fanbase.
The wings fans kept saying that as long as you get kubalik in the top 6 and plays PP1/2, he will definitely get points up, but from what I remember, most of the ottawa fans kept saying that he most likely would get limited pp2 time and line 3, which is the exact opposite of what he would need to replicate. For instance, Sprong doesn't need line 1 or 2 to get 20 goals that he got in seattle last year, he was doing it all on line 3/4. Some players are able to do that and some aren't.
Regardless, Kubalik at -11 on the last place team in the conference might be a positive because from what I remember, his defense was not the greatest at all, so -11 is pretty good for the team's current circumstances. I am assuming he is still like 3 or 4 for ottawa.
I don't think the fact that Kubalik was good on bad teams has to be related to the problem of his usage by the Sens (who are a bad team themselves). If anything, it shows he can score even on bad teams - I mean, he was the best goalscorer of the whole WC this year on a terrible Czech team, having played two games less than the other guys (the Czechs didn't make it past QF).
If you have a guy who can score like Kubalik, you try to use him either in your top6, or on a PP. And no, this is not about "soft minutes" - this is about using the player's talent accordingly: nobody ever complained about Brett Hull getting "soft minutes". If you have a Hull, you use him according to his talents (I am not comparing Hull and Kubalik here, just using an example).
Last thing, I haven't followed him much in Detroit, but on the Hawks, Kubalik was not a bad defensive player, as another poster suggests here. I think it's more of a stereotype "streaky goalscorer = bad defensive player". Not necessarily so.
If you have a guy who can score like Kubalik, you try to use him either in your top6, or on a PP. And no, this is not about "soft minutes" - this is about using the player's talent accordingly: nobody ever complained about Brett Hull getting "soft minutes". If you have a Hull, you use him according to his talents (I am not comparing Hull and Kubalik here, just using an example).
Last thing, I haven't followed him much in Detroit, but on the Hawks, Kubalik was not a bad defensive player, as another poster suggests here. I think it's more of a stereotype "streaky goalscorer = bad defensive player". Not necessarily so.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 22,750
- 11,099
Who’s he going to play ahead of, from
Stutzle, Batherson, Tarasenko, Norris, Giroux and Tkachuk?
Detroit Knights
Registered User
- Feb 29, 2012
- 3,531
- 2,038
The problem is is that he is just not a player that is good in the bottom 6. He is a top 6 player.
It's like Berggren with the wings. He shouldnt and cannot play in the bottom 6. His skillset is just no there for that. But when he get's top 6 opportunity, he usually does pretty well. Any team that does not have a good top 6 should try to trade for berggren and kubalik because that's the best place for them. Not in the bottom 6 at all.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 22,750
- 11,099
Doesn’t really answer the question, but I get your point.
He may get the chance if he gets moved , if they need room for pinto.
Detroit Knights
Registered User
- Feb 29, 2012
- 3,531
- 2,038
to be honest, I think i quoted the wrong comment. But to interject into your conversation with the other guy, kubalik is obviously not taking over one of the others spots. Which, if you are not trading him, changes to a usage issue.
Gallant always did well with running 4 lines and really the only line that got significantly more minutes was line 1, then the rest would be usually pretty equal. That is how you use kubalik. Put him on the 3/4th line, that's fine, but give him the same minutes as the second line gets and he should do something more out there than what he is currently giving. His shot from the right circle on the powerplay needs to be utilized and I get it, that's giroux's(?) spot on pp1 but a little change may help. probably not enough though.
