Confirmed with Link: Jamie McBain and #35 for D Andrej Sekera

[Carolinas Identity*]

He's never going to 100% recover from it.

I believe he said it would and was well on its way to, recovering to 95%, which is essentially the same thing as fine.

It would be hard to lose Skinner (Especially to a new in conference team) but I think I'd still do that trade.

 

[StormCast]

If Faulk is now considered a puck-mover, at least half the defensemen in the league also qualify. The point isn't to have a guy who can pass a puck from point A to point B, it's to have someone who is actually in the upper echelon at doing it. Faulk is most definitely not in that category, and neither is anyone else in our lineup unless Murphy is indeed the next big thing.

The logic is simple. Presumably you want Faulk on the first pair. You've assigned Boychuk to the second pair. Clearly Harrison and Murphy would constitute the third pair in this scheme (at least I hope so, because god help us...).

So you are putting one of Gleason or Sekera on the first pair, correct? Which of these players has shown any indication that he can handle first-pair responsibility?

There's a reason that Pitkanen has eaten 23-24 minutes a game over the long term and in three different cities. He is capable of doing it, even if it's not ideal. We only have ONE other defenseman (Faulk) who is capable of it, and he is also not ideal. Trading Pitkanen for Boychuk might strengthen our depth but it would come at a severe cost to the top of the lineup.

But again, you are trading him for a player who can't QB a power play... period. So now it's down to Faulk (who can't QB effectively), Murphy (a rookie) and Sekera (never been on a top PP pair) to handle that responsibility. How does that improve the PP?

It's fine to want to address a need, and I agree that Boychuk would be a huge acquisition for this team, but what you're proposing here really doesn't add up as an improvement to the lineup. It's just a slight stylistic change in our middle pair, at the expense of a top-pair guy.

There is a difference, of course, between an upper echelon or elite puck-mover and a good puck mover. Faulk is a good puck-mover though he's shown limitations on as a PP point. You need good decisions, quick accurate passes and the ability to calmly skate out of trouble. He can do all those things well and thus, in my view anyway, is good enough to be considered a puck-mover.

Sekera routinely played against the toughest competition while with Buffalo. In a perfect world, he'd be on your second pair but his skating and positional D are a nice complement to Faulk.

At the expense of a top-pair guy? Again, Pitkanen does not and has not played with a top pairing assignment. You're letting TTOI blind to this reality. He virtually never went out against the top line, at least not intentionally. It's more about effectiveness than it is about style.

We can agree to disagree but the biggest weakness to me is having a D corps that is harder to play against. I'm not worried about puck moving and Pitkanen on the PP is hardly a thing of beauty. Adding Sekera + a solid top 4 Dman who can play a physical game (a la a Boychuk) better addresses this need than having Pitkanen and McBain the lineup.

 

[tarheelhockey]

At the expense of a top-pair guy? Again, Pitkanen does not and has not played with a top pairing assignment. You're letting TTOI blind to this reality. He virtually never went out against the top line, at least not intentionally. It's more about effectiveness than it is about style.

I'm not sure how you're defining a "top pairing assignment" here.

Last seasons even strength TOI averages looked like this:

Faulk - 18:22
Pitkanen - 17:54 *this becomes a team-leading 19:00 if you subtract the games where he was injured early
Harrison - 17:16
Gleason - 16:39
McBain - 16:18
Corvo - 15:46
Sanguinetti - 13:00

Clearly he was skating first-pair minutes, regardless of his matchups.


Then you look at QualComp:

Faulk - .897
Gleason - .850
Pitkanen - .813
Harrison - .646
McBain - .271
Corvo - .149
Sanguinetti - -.362

And most-common pairings:
Pitkanen - McBain/Sangs
Faulk/Corvo - Gleason
Harrison - Rookie/Corvo


Taken together, while it's clear that the shut-down pair of Faulk and Gleason absorbed the toughest assignments (which is what you would expect given their role), that doesn't translate into sheltered minutes for Pitkanen. It simply means he was being used in a more offensive role, babysitting a one-way partner, and given large minutes at ES with a higher percentage of his time spent in the offensive zone.

Strictly speaking, I guess you could say Pitkanen wasn't on the "top pairing" in the sense that we didn't exactly have a top pairing. We had one guy (Pitkanen) who skated a ton of minutes at ES at both ends of the ice, a shutdown pairing, and a rotating cast of infill characters who had to be sheltered in one way or another. But generally speaking, a guy who skates the most minutes at ES and PP, and also takes a regular PK shift and isn't sheltered in any significant way, would be considered your #1 defenseman.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

In absolutely no scenario am I comfortable giving someone like Boychuk 20 minutes a night, unless the NHL plans to significantly crack down on diving.

We're mistaking a good player on an elite team for actual competence.

 

[Joe McGrath]

In absolutely no scenario am I comfortable giving someone like Boychuk 20 minutes a night, unless the NHL plans to significantly crack down on diving.

We're mistaking a good player on an elite team for actual competence.

Crack down on diving? The hell?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Crack down on diving? The hell?

Because then we'll be on the PK a ton, because our team is a bunch of divers.

Poorly written joke, I know.

 

[Joe McGrath]

Because then we'll be on the PK a ton, because our team is a bunch of divers.

Poorly written joke, I know.

Gotcha. Makes sense.

My main contention with this is that I can't trust Pitkanen to play 20 minutes a night either because I can't trust him to play at all.

 

[Mr Whipple]

Watch us just re-sign MAB to play as a 7th D, PP specialist on Friday.

We like our group.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

Gerbe and Skinner would be sick on the same line

 

[the halleJOKEL]

Pitkanen is criminally underrated on this board. I don't know what that makes him on the Facebook page.

 

[Jussijuice]

Gerbe and Skinner would be sick on the same line

You'd have to add Dwyer, brings the defense

 

[geehaad]

Pitkanen is criminally underrated on this board.

Well, if someone has to explain a joke about diving...

 

[Unsustainable]

You'd have to add Dwyer, brings the defense

Offensive shut down line.

 

[Discipline Daddy]

Last seasons even strength TOI averages looked like this:

Faulk - 18:22
Pitkanen - 17:54 *this becomes a team-leading 19:00 if you subtract the games where he was injured early
Harrison - 17:16
Gleason - 16:39
McBain - 16:18
Corvo - 15:46
Sanguinetti - 13:00

Clearly he was skating first-pair minutes, regardless of his matchups.


Then you look at QualComp:

Faulk - .897
Gleason - .850
Pitkanen - .813
Harrison - .646
McBain - .271
Corvo - .149
Sanguinetti - -.362

Thank you for posting this. Just look at what we rolled on our 2nd/3rd pairings last year, particularly when Faulk and Pitts went down. We had to shelter McBain's, Corvo's, and good God we had to shelter Sanguinetti's minutes, and even to a lesser extent Harrison. Faulk, Gleason, Pitkanen, and a bit of Harrison took almost the entire share of the tough assignments. MA Bergeron, Jordan, Bellemore, and Murphy also got very sheltered minutes. Next year I'll be really happy to see a player like McBain replaced with someone who can handle top lines. It'll bump Harrison down a tier and everyone else will benefit from sharing the load.

That said, I think we're all worried about the role of the #6. Can Murphy or Bellemore or Jordan handle a full time NHL gig? Many of you are advocating for a FA signing and I very much agree. I like the idea of finding a bargain bin veteran to sign for $1 mil or less, ditching salary otherwise via a small trade (Welsh, maybe)? There are so many potential #6 guys out there that are probably better options than what we have now. Even if that guy doesn't make the team, the competition for the role is just a good thing.


Anyhow, my basic point is that replacing McBain with Sekera will make our defense much better already. Sekera's relative qualcomp, BTW, was 0.95 last year. The tough thing is we probably don't have enough budget to get all of a competent #2, a competent #6, AND a 3rd line plug with our available capspace. Nonetheless, I think our team right now is better than at the start of last year, even with the potential injury concerns.

 

[Joe McGrath]

Well, if someone has to explain a joke about diving...

In fairness to me, I was thinking about what Boychuk brought not the teams reputation as floppers.

 

[StormCast]

I'm not sure how you're defining a "top pairing assignment" here.

Last seasons even strength TOI averages looked like this:

Faulk - 18:22
Pitkanen - 17:54 *this becomes a team-leading 19:00 if you subtract the games where he was injured early
Harrison - 17:16
Gleason - 16:39
McBain - 16:18
Corvo - 15:46
Sanguinetti - 13:00

Clearly he was skating first-pair minutes, regardless of his matchups.


Then you look at QualComp:

Faulk - .897
Gleason - .850
Pitkanen - .813
Harrison - .646
McBain - .271
Corvo - .149
Sanguinetti - -.362

And most-common pairings:
Pitkanen - McBain/Sangs
Faulk/Corvo - Gleason
Harrison - Rookie/Corvo


Taken together, while it's clear that the shut-down pair of Faulk and Gleason absorbed the toughest assignments (which is what you would expect given their role), that doesn't translate into sheltered minutes for Pitkanen. It simply means he was being used in a more offensive role, babysitting a one-way partner, and given large minutes at ES with a higher percentage of his time spent in the offensive zone.

Strictly speaking, I guess you could say Pitkanen wasn't on the "top pairing" in the sense that we didn't exactly have a top pairing. We had one guy (Pitkanen) who skated a ton of minutes at ES at both ends of the ice, a shutdown pairing, and a rotating cast of infill characters who had to be sheltered in one way or another. But generally speaking, a guy who skates the most minutes at ES and PP, and also takes a regular PK shift and isn't sheltered in any significant way, would be considered your #1 defenseman.

Top pairing as in the guys who you want on the ice to match against the opponent's top forward line and who you want on the ice to take defensive draws, etc. I'll grant you that ESTOI is usually a decent indicator but it simply isn't the case with Pitkanen. Over the last couple of years, it either been Gleason-Allen or Gleason-Faulk who have played that role.

Yes, Pitkanen is used at ES at both ends of the ice but he does not and has not consistently been assigned the so-called "tough minutes." That's not his game and that's why I wrote he is a second pair guy. Not based on TOI but based on his usage.

You also asked about Sekera and I pointed out that he was used in Buffalo in the same way Gleason has over the last couple of years. He is elite? Hardly but the your whole premise that a Pit-Boychuk swap is essentially a first pair guy for a second pair guy is incorrect with respect to Pitkanen.

Forget the TOI and look at usage charts if you really want to see who is playing what role. Guarantee you'll see an upper left quadrant slotting for the guys I mentioned and Pitkanen will be upper right quadrant.

But at the end of the day, I still think it comes down to a lack of physical play on D and guys like Boychuk bring that far better than Pitkanen regardless of any minutes-based stat.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Top pairing as in the guys who you want on the ice to match against the opponent's top forward line and who you want on the ice to take defensive draws, etc.

So top pairing = shutdown pairing?

That's not a conventional definition from what I have seen around here. There are a ton of defensive specialists who are never labeled top-pairing guys.

Yes, Pitkanen is used at ES at both ends of the ice but he does not and has not consistently been assigned the so-called "tough minutes." That's not his game and that's why I wrote he is a second pair guy. Not based on TOI but based on his usage.

This illustrates why it's not a conventional definition. You're equating "tough minutes" with defensive zone draws, but a player who plays both ends of the ice is superior to one who plays a specialty role (like Gleason, for example).

Forget the TOI and look at usage charts if you really want to see who is playing what role. Guarantee you'll see an upper left quadrant slotting for the guys I mentioned and Pitkanen will be upper right quadrant.

The usage chart would show Pitkanen around the upper middle, as he takes 45% of his draws in his own end. The chart would also reflect his higher TOI, so I'm not sure why we should just throw that factor out the window.

TBH I really don't think there's as much of an argument here as the length of the posts would suggest. Pitkanen skates the most minutes at ES, on the PP and overall; he babysits the weakest defensive partners; and he is utilized more evenly than anyone else. He is, by a conventional definition, the team's #1 defenseman. I've long argued that he's playing a role that's way over his head (in fact I don't even think that's a controversy here anymore) but that doesn't mean we can swap him out for a guy who clearly can't play a top-pairing role and call it a day. Changing the team's style is fine, but not if it means giving away one of our two legit minute-munchers.

 

[StormCast]

So top pairing = shutdown pairing?

That's not a conventional definition from what I have seen around here. There are a ton of defensive specialists who are never labeled top-pairing guys.

This illustrates why it's not a conventional definition. You're equating "tough minutes" with defensive zone draws, but a player who plays both ends of the ice is superior to one who plays a specialty role (like Gleason, for example).

The usage chart would show Pitkanen around the upper middle, as he takes 45% of his draws in his own end. The chart would also reflect his higher TOI, so I'm not sure why we should just throw that factor out the window.

TBH I really don't think there's as much of an argument here as the length of the posts would suggest. Pitkanen skates the most minutes at ES, on the PP and overall; he babysits the weakest defensive partners; and he is utilized more evenly than anyone else. He is, by a conventional definition, the team's #1 defenseman. I've long argued that he's playing a role that's way over his head (in fact I don't even think that's a controversy here anymore) but that doesn't mean we can swap him out for a guy who clearly can't play a top-pairing role and call it a day. Changing the team's style is fine, but not if it means giving away one of our two legit minute-munchers.

I wouldn't use HF as a baseline of knowledge. Yes, your top pairing is typically equated, though there are exceptions to everything, with the guys you want out there against top forward lines. It typically equates to most ESTOI, as a result, but not always. Similar to your top forward line, which is typically your best offensive group. Now some coaches opt for balance with D or F's and sometimes the numbers get skewed.

No, I'm not equating tough minutes with defensive draws. You'll see that I used it as just one example. Obviously, you can't use just defensive draws because there are too many variables (e.g. last line change, etc.), just as you can't distill it down to quality of competition. That's why usage charts provide the best indicator of roles.

In any event though, none of this really matters. We don't and won't agree about Pitkanen's value but that ok. As I noted earlier, Sekera has played top pair minutes for Buffalo but, IMO, unless they get a physical top 4 to round out the D corps it's going to be tough sledding with all these games against new divisional rivals.

 

[rocky7]

just to add a bit in here regarding my concerns. i agree that it's important to have a "mix" of defenders. the 'in front of the net presence' was obviously missing last year (albeit at both ends of the rink). briefly, the issue that i have been trying to get accross is that hiring some big guy, some physical defenseman on the cheap, therefore likely past his prime and slow would be more detrimental to the team and a misuse of salary imo.

the fellow that writes the hurricane blog "the shutdown line" wrote an interesting piece discussing this very thing and most of the names he brought up were names mentioned here. his analysis of those players that had the physical attributes to their game and were within the cost parameters of what he felt the team could afford was an interesting and scary cast of characters.

i find it hard to believe that there aren't several options out there and it's up to jr to earn his salary by finding a way to fill the holes on this team from front to back with players that are an actual improvement.

if not, i hope that some of the young guys are able to step in this season and contribute. muller will be earning his keep this season as well but it may take another year or two to be able to be competitive at this rate. that's always frustrating for fans.