Miscellaneous NHL Talk, 2018 edition

[Magua]

The problem is there will be more dramatic hyperbole and meltdowns if Vegas wins.

If they win then that means that every team that tried to build through the draft was wrong. On top of that it means that every team needs to try to replicate that style of team building (collecting extra players and banking on them all having unsustainable years at the same time). After all, we’ve been rebuilding for years and are still 15 years away, meanwhile Vegas did a complete rebuild in one offseason!

Apparently people are incredibly gullible when it comes to unsustainable things and always get fooled into thinking it will continue. We’ve seen plenty of examples on here, like Giroux’s bad play last year or Weals good play last year or CBJ last year or Vegas this year and so on.

I’ve not seen a single person here who thinks an expansion team is a model for all for how to build a team, thus making the draft less essential. They’re an expansion team who had a unique expansion building model — and yes, exceeded expectations, and yes, won’t be repeated even for another expansion team. It was a perfect storm. How on earth would the Flyers (and everyone talks about hockey with them in mind) mimic a new expansion team for how to construct a team? I’m at a loss.

Now, I see a lot of people who think how they play hockey is a good model; and frankly, it’s more the Pens model anyway. I don’t see the issue with that. They play a great brand of winning hockey.

There are degrees of unsustainable. This isn’t sustainable, without adding pieces through the draft or free agency. And they very likely will! Turning unsustainability into sustainability is a thing. Their stats as a team are rock solid, so it’s not Ottawa all over again. Their talent level, while likely to regress, may need to be re-evaluated compared to past assumptions as well. You say they’ll be closer to the lottery; I don’t see why they can’t make the playoffs again or be in the race. If they go out first round next year, it doesn’t change things. Hey, maybe they miss with good numbers, and that’s unsustainable too.

 

[Striiker]

I’ve not seen a single person here who thinks an expansion team is a model for all for how to build a team, thus making the draft less essential. They’re an expansion team who had a unique expansion building model — and yes, exceeded expectations, and yes, won’t be repeated even for another expansion team. It was a perfect storm. How on earth would the Flyers (and everyone talks about hockey with them in mind) mimic a new expansion team for how to construct a team? I’m at a loss.

Now, I see a lot of people who think how they play hockey is a good model; and frankly, it’s more the Pens model anyway. I don’t see the issue with that. They play a great brand of winning hockey.

There are degrees of unsustainable. This isn’t sustainable, without adding pieces through the draft or free agency. And they very likely will! Turning unsustainability into sustainability is a thing. Their stats as a team are rock solid, so it’s not Ottawa all over again. Their talent level, while likely to regress, may need to be re-evaluated compared to past assumptions as well. You say they’ll be closer to the lottery; I don’t see why they can’t make the playoffs again or be in the race. If they go out first round next year, it doesn’t change things. Hey, maybe they miss with good numbers, and that’s unsustainable too.

There’s been plenty of posts suggesting some equivalent of “well they didn’t need to be patient and build through the draft, so that doesn’t mean it’s the right way”, which is obviously nonsense. Or saying other stupid things like suggesting that Vegas’ success reflects negatively on Hextall., since his strategy has taken time and Vegas didn’t need to.

And when I say they’ll be closer to the lottery, I mean closer to a being a lottery team, not winning the lottery. As in, closer to being just outside the playoffs than the top of the league. For example, the Flyers were closer to a lottery team this year than a top team.

 

[Flyerfan4life]

The problem is there will be more dramatic hyperbole and meltdowns if Vegas wins.

If they win then that means that every team that tried to build through the draft was wrong. On top of that it means that every team needs to try to replicate that style of team building (collecting extra players and banking on them all having unsustainable years at the same time). After all, we’ve been rebuilding for years and are still 15 years away, meanwhile Vegas did a complete rebuild in one offseason!

Apparently people are incredibly gullible when it comes to unsustainable things and always get fooled into thinking it will continue. We’ve seen plenty of examples on here, like Giroux’s bad play last year or Weals good play last year or CBJ last year or Vegas this year and so on.

it must really kill you to see Vegas going to the SC, building the team the way they did...

#trusttheprocess... hahaha....

 

[deadhead]

How Vegas plays hockey is partially a result of depth (they have a bottom six that can skate and forecheck) and of the type of players they obtained (the whole roster is 25-30 years old so easily coached).
I'm sure Hextall would like to pick up 3-4 bottom six guys without having to pay FA prices or give up a bundle of draft picks.
And throw in a couple experienced D-men who are upgrades over what they currently have.
And fast forward with a half dozen players aged 19-22 three years.
Vegas was able to get all these things in one fell swoop, some luck, some smart moves.

The problem is that with a normal rebuild, it's difficult to time all these things together, because you have limited draft picks, and outside of 1st rd picks, most take 4-6 years to arrive - so you have to try to plan six years ahead so all the pieces are in place down the road. Your first round picks (and a sleeper or two) will build a core of a team, but how many teams put together one great line, a really good pair of D-men, but never add enough talent or depth to make a SC run. Even Pittsburgh, with Crosby, Malkin, Letang, and MAF, had a long stretch of coming up short, six years losing in the 1st rd three times, 2nd rd twice, and CF once. Couldn't win another cup until they built up sufficient depth.

 

[Striiker]

it must really kill you to see Vegas going to the SC, building the team the way they did...

#trusttheprocess... hahaha....

I couldn't care less about Vegas, I just don't enjoy stupid things on here.

This website is like a human body and the dramatic exaggerations and complaining are like a cancer that's spreading and slowly killing the board. There's always been a handful of idiots who you could predict would say dumb things, but now more and more people are just becoming part of the problem. It's more pathetic than anything, really.

 

[pit]

The other factor that isn't discussed with Vegas is not just that they had new ED rules, but they're the first team to come into the league after the cap that had a completely clean slate to start with. They weren't saddled with any contract they didn't willingly take on (and for which they were adequately compensated). Until they traded for Tatar, their biggest cap hit was on permanent IR.

We always discuss how cap space is an asset in a cap league. VGK came into being with the biggest asset any team had. How that gets managed going forward is going to make their success much more difficult than in their first year.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

The last wave of expansion teams were pretty much in the hole for 5-10 years after their start. There were very little league infrastructure to promote the competitive balance we have today. It’s not just the salary cap but there wasn’t really any revenue sharing if at all.

Vegas rough outlook coming into the year according to their owner in the summer was just don’t get embarrassed these first two years & possibly by year three the playoffs would be realistic & so on. None of those late 1990’s/early 2000’s expansion teams could look that optimistic going into their first season.

 

[deadhead]

I think a lot of GMs were caught flatfooted, more worried about the 2016-17 season than preparing for the ED, so they were forced into desperation moves.
Seattle won't get that benefit, GMs now know they'd better prepare a year in advance, know who might get exposed and arrange to get value.
It's still going to be a tough balancing act for the top teams, but the second tier teams shouldn't expose major assets just to slightly improve their playoff position.

 

[MacDonald4MVP]

Vegas is playing well above their talent level. Add in the fact that they are pretty fortunate with their health and you end up with exact same scenario as most SC finalists in recent history.

 

[Lindberg]

There’s been plenty of posts suggesting some equivalent of “well they didn’t need to be patient and build through the draft, so that doesn’t mean it’s the right way”, which is obviously nonsense. Or saying other stupid things like suggesting that Vegas’ success reflects negatively on Hextall., since his strategy has taken time and Vegas didn’t need to.

And when I say they’ll be closer to the lottery, I mean closer to a being a lottery team, not winning the lottery. As in, closer to being just outside the playoffs than the top of the league. For example, the Flyers were closer to a lottery team this year than a top team.

This is your problem. You're just automatically assuming that's what they are implying.

Vegas success does reflect negatively on Hextall. The guy employed Dave Hakstol for a coach so I'm not sure how that doesn't reflect negatively. There clearly are better coaches out there and Hextall is keeping Lappy around as well.

Your stance on being closer to a lotto team is a very black and white stance and shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Striiker]

This is your problem. You're just automatically assuming that's what they are implying.

Vegas success does reflect negatively on Hextall. The guy employed Dave Hakstol for a coach so I'm not sure how that doesn't reflect negatively. There clearly are better coaches out there and Hextall is keeping Lappy around as well.

Your stance on being closer to a lotto team is a very black and white stance and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Nope, that's what's been said and argued. What I wrote was just not the exact wording used.

And no, it doesn't reflect negatively. A team playing at a level that's far from sustainable, and finding far more success than the roster should, isn't something that reflects negatively on any other GM. GM's can't control the individual performances of players, so a bunch of players having far better than expected years isn't something that can be controlled. Since that's what's driving Vegas, it isn't something that you can hold against a GM with a team who didn't do the same. It's not as if this could have been predicted and other GM's just ignored the clear signs of these players having crazy years.
You're just desperately trying to tie something negative to the Flyers because 90% of your other complaints get shot down so easily. It's transparent and pathetic.

Lastly, what I said about them being closer to a lottery team than a top team next year isn't a "stance", it's a prediction.

 

[Lindberg]

Lastly, what I said about them being closer to a lottery team than a top team next year isn't a "stance", it's a prediction.

You're being totally pedantic about your stance vs prediction.

 

[Lindberg]

You're just desperately trying to tie something negative to the Flyers because 90% of your other complaints get shot down so easily. It's transparent and pathetic.

I'm still waiting on my other 90% of complaints that aren't legitimate. There clearly were some undervalued assets around the league that Hextall didn't have any interest in trying to obtain.

 

[Flyerfan4life]

I'm still waiting on my other 90% of complaints that aren't legitimate. There clearly were some undervalued assets around the league that Hextall didn't have any interest in trying to obtain.

you really are wasting your time ... just a headsup

 

[Striiker]

You're being totally pedantic about your stance vs prediction.

No, I'm correcting your mischaracterization.

A stance is position on a topic that you defend.

A prediction is a guess of what will happen in the future.

I'm still waiting on my other 90% of complaints that aren't legitimate. There clearly were some undervalued assets around the league that Hextall didn't have any interest in trying to obtain.

Or maybe nobody could have predicted that some of these players would end up playing like this?

But yeah, Hextall should just go out adding unwanted players and hope they suddenly have great years. That way when they have the type of year that they're expected to have, instead of a super unsustainable one, you can cry about the pro evaluations again! Solid plan.

you really are wasting your time ... just a headsup

True. I don't know the point of you guys arguing when you've already decided to be irrational.

 

[Rebels57]

No, I'm correcting your mischaracterization.

A stance is position on a topic that you defend.

A prediction is a guess of what will happen in the future.



Or maybe nobody could have predicted that some of these players would end up playing like this?

But yeah, Hextall should just go out adding unwanted players and hope they suddenly have great years. That way when they have the type of year that they're expected to have, instead of a super unsustainable one, you can cry about the pro evaluations again! Solid plan.



True. I don't know the point of you guys arguing when you've already decided to be irrational.

Most of the players on Vegas dont fit the "unwanted" description.

 

[Lindberg]

No, I'm correcting your mischaracterization.

A stance is position on a topic that you defend.

A prediction is a guess of what will happen in the future.



Or maybe nobody could have predicted that some of these players would end up playing like this?

But yeah, Hextall should just go out adding unwanted players and hope they suddenly have great years. That way when they have the type of year that they're expected to have, instead of a super unsustainable one, you can cry about the pro evaluations again! Solid plan.



True. I don't know the point of you guys arguing when you've already decided to be irrational.

So you're predicting that Vegas will be closer to a lotto and you're defending that, how's that any different than a stance? You picked a position on a topic and you're defending it. Like I said you're being pedantic about something that isn't relevant, while the relevant point of the topic is Vegas/pro scouting.

Once again you're missing my point. It isn't just about Vegas, its about improving your pro scouting to buy one of those undervalued assets around the league to improve your team. I'm hoping at this point you don't trust Ron Hextall and his pro scouts to be buyers because it hasn't been pretty in that department. A few people predicted (not me) that Vegas would be a lot better than most assumed (which was bottom of the league) and its possible they could have been even better if GMGM was more aggressive. I'd love to see this whole "Hextall should just add unwanted players and hope for the best" thing that you constantly rant about because I've never read anyone saying that.

You constantly do this hyberbolic nonsense. Someone says one thing and you just go way over the top.

 

[Magua]

Once again you're missing my point. It isn't just about Vegas, its about improving your pro scouting to buy one of those undervalued assets around the league to improve your team. I'm hoping at this point you don't trust Ron Hextall and his pro scouts to be buyers because it hasn't been pretty in that department. A few people predicted that Vegas would be a lot better than most assumed (which was bottom of the league) and its possible they could have been even better if GMGM was more aggressive. I'd love to see this whole "Hextall should just add unwanted players and hope for the best" thing that you constantly rant about because I've never read anyone saying that.

I think it's fair to not criticize a GM too too much for not getting a specific player who happened to blossom elsewhere (like Vegas, the topic of discussion). And yet there were people here who were curious about William Karlsson as our 3C, before we acquired Filppula. But that was under the assumption he was a 30-35 point version of William Karlsson.

And as easy as it is to say that these depth players blossoming was unexpected -- and to matter of degree, sure -- there are quite a lot of VGK players who were on the radar of more analytically inclined folks. Guys like Schmidt, C. Miller, McNabb all were pegged as undervalued, underrated performers on their respective teams. The signs were there; this didn't just "happen." Marchessault was left available, which shows you what Florida (stupidly, oh so stupidly) thought of him. He would've been a good target instead of Dale Weise in free agency, and perhaps he could've been the target of a trade pre-expansion. Reilly Smith has always been a good 50 point 2-way player, who just had a couple down shooting % years. He was given away for a 4th, though we still had Schenn at the time.

It's not end of times that we used an expansion protection spot on both Flip and Manning........but it never didn't seem wasteful on value and evaluative and circumstantial levels.

 

[Striiker]

Most of the players on Vegas dont fit the "unwanted" description.

Players who were either left exposed or who were actively traded to Vegas don’t fit the description of “unwanted”.

Ok then.

 

[Striiker]

So you're predicting that Vegas will be closer to a lotto and you're defending that, how's that any different than a stance? You picked a position on a topic and you're defending it. Like I said you're being pedantic about something that isn't relevant, while the relevant point of the topic is Vegas/pro scouting.

You can make a prediction based off a stance, but they aren’t the same thing.

To give an easy example:

My stance is that Vegas had an unsustainable performance this year.

My prediction is that next year they will be closer to missing the playoffs than the top team in the league.

I'm being specific because there's a difference. I have to do this now because otherwise people like to ignore what's actually said and misinterpret my posts, either intentionally or out of laziness/ignorance.

Once again you're missing my point. It isn't just about Vegas, its about improving your pro scouting to buy one of those undervalued assets around the league to improve your team. I'm hoping at this point you don't trust Ron Hextall and his pro scouts to be buyers because it hasn't been pretty in that department. A few people predicted (not me) that Vegas would be a lot better than most assumed (which was bottom of the league) and its possible they could have been even better if GMGM was more aggressive.

I'm not missing your point... although it seems like you don't even understand what's being discussed anymore...

I'm very specifically saying that Vegas' success doesn't reflect negatively on other GMs.... and then you come in here with "it isn't just about Vegas".

Uhhh... yeah... it kinda is... that was the entire point we were arguing until you just tried to change the argument...

I'd love to see this whole "Hextall should just add unwanted players and hope for the best" thing that you constantly rant about because I've never read anyone saying that.

That's literally what Vegas did, so implying what Vegas did makes Hextall look bad is the same as saying Hextall should be more like Vegas.

You constantly do this hyberbolic nonsense. Someone says one thing and you just go way over the top.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh?

You don't like when someone goes way over the top with dramatic exaggerations? Yeah, that must be annoying. I bet you wish people would stop with the hyperbole?

Difference is, what I said is actually true. I mean... at one point you literally said that being physically closer to a sports team effects a persons ability to control their emotions.

Your posts are not rational.

 

[Striiker]

I think it's fair to not criticize a GM too too much for not getting a specific player who happened to blossom elsewhere (like Vegas, the topic of discussion). And yet there were people here who were curious about William Karlsson as our 3C, before we acquired Filppula. But that was under the assumption he was a 30-35 point version of William Karlsson.

And as easy as it is to say that these depth players blossoming was unexpected -- and to matter of degree, sure -- there are quite a lot of VGK players who were on the radar of more analytically inclined folks. Guys like Schmidt, C. Miller, McNabb all were pegged as undervalued, underrated performers on their respective teams. The signs were there; this didn't just "happen." Marchessault was left available, which shows you what Florida (stupidly, oh so stupidly) thought of him. He would've been a good target instead of Dale Weise in free agency, and perhaps he could've been the target of a trade pre-expansion. Reilly Smith has always been a good 50 point 2-way player, who just had a couple down shooting % years. He was given away for a 4th, though we still had Schenn at the time.

It's not end of times that we used an expansion protection spot on both Flip and Manning........but it never didn't seem wasteful on value and evaluative and circumstantial levels.

Who else were we going to protect?

Here's who we left exposed...

Forwards
Bellemare, Greg Carey, Chris Connor, Boyd Gordon, Taylor Leier, Colin McDonald, Andy Miele, Raffl, Matt Read, Chris VandeVelde, Jordan Weal, Dale Weise, and Eric Wellwood.

Defensemen
T.J. Brennan, Michael Del Zotto, Andrew MacDonald, Will O’Neill, Jesper Petterson, Nick Schultz.

 

[Rebels57]

Players who were either left exposed or who were actively traded to Vegas don’t fit the description of “unwanted”.

Ok then.

Every team HAD to lose a player. They didnt WANT TO lose most of these guys. Most were serviceable players on their previous teams. Very few were dead weight.

 

[Striiker]

Every team HAD to lose a player. They didnt WANT TO lose most of these guys. Most were serviceable players on their previous teams. Very few were dead weight.

... and they also didn't care enough about them to keep them. None of them had to be let go, but choices were made that left these guys exposed, so clearly they were less vital than their teammates.

So, ok, I'll change "unwanted" to "expendable"

Better?

 

[Rebels57]

... and they also didn't care enough about them to keep them. None of them had to be let go, but choices were made that left these guys exposed, so clearly they were less vital than their teammates.

So, ok, I'll change "unwanted" to "expendable"

Better?

Still not really appropriate. Some teams just had too many good players that were eligible, and had to make tough choices.

For example, im sure Minnesota would prefer to still have Haula and Tuch (who they just drafted top 20 in 2014), but they had 4 really good defensemen they needed to protect. Many of the players lost to Vegas were simply "casualities of expansion" if anything. Some were expendable though, like Bellemare.

 

[Striiker]

Still not really appropriate. Some teams just had too many good players that were eligible, and had to make tough choices.

For example, im sure Minnesota would prefer to still have Haula and Tuch (who they just drafted top 20 in 2014), but they had 4 really good defensemen they needed to protect. Many of the players lost to Vegas were simply "casualities of expansion" if anything. Some were expendable though, like Bellemare.

There isn’t a single player who was taken who couldn’t have been protected if they were vital to their team. Every player exposed was judged to be more expendable than his peers on that team by their GM. Clearly the teams didn’t think the player was indispensable, otherwise someone else would have been exposed.

In other words, every skater exposed was judged to not be one of the three best defensemen or 7 best forwards (unless there was a NMC complication).

You don’t have to be happy a player was picked to judge him advance expendable... it just means that the player wasn’t vital to the team.

For example, if for some odd reason we somehow had to lose one of Couturier, Patrick, or Laughton, I’d choose Laughton but I wouldn’t be happy about it. I just judge him to be expendable compared to the other options.