Post-Game Talk: 2-1 Hawks (Shootout) - Leadership Edition.

[Dipsy Doodle]

I think its partially both. I don't necessarily agree with the decision to scratch him for 4 games but I do understand the rationale if they believed he wasn't playing the way they wanted him too.

I'm sure it was. The problem is that Bennett seems to have an exceptionally short leash relative to other players who may not benefit developmentally from a benching/demotion, but whose benching/demotion would benefit the team in a direct, addition-by-subtraction way.

Obviously but that really doesn't fit anyone in the lineup right now. Even if you bench Adams your replacing him with someone just as bad (Sill, Ebbetts etc), even if you bench Scuds/Bortuzzo your replacing them with someone who isn't quite ready (Harington, Dumo etc). If we had another forward and Adams was CONSISTANTLY playing over someone better day in and day out its a problem. Just as Despres being benched for the like of Engellend was.

I think it does. There's a better fit than a drag-ass Kunitz on the 1st line (Hornqvist). There's a better fit than a straight-line Hornqvist for Malkin (Bennett). And both Sill and Farnham are better fits for the 4th line than Adams.

But all are entrenched regardless.

Accountability is great so long as it's applied universally. Selective, excessive discipline for a handful of easy targets benefits nobody.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

I'm sure it was. The problem is that Bennett seems to have an exceptionally short leash relative to other players who may not benefit developmentally from a benching/demotion, but whose benching/demotion would benefit the team in a direct, addition-by-subtraction way.



I think it does. There's a better fit than a drag-ass Kunitz on the 1st line (Hornqvist). There's a better fit than a straight-line Hornqvist for Malkin (Bennett). And both Sill and Farnham are better fits for the 4th line than Adams.

But all are entrenched regardless.

Accountability is great so long as it's applied universally. Selective, excessive discipline for a handful of easy targets benefits nobody.

As far as the top two line sure I can see that but I think you can at least argue the other way too. As Horny might not be the best fit with Malkin and Kunitz doesn't really look good at all those two line have been on fire possession wise recently.

As for Farnham/Sill/Adams I don't think either is unquestionably better than Adams so I just see it as moving deck chairs on the Titanic

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

It says the TOTAL replacement player salary and bonuses. So it's pretty clear cut to me. If your interpretation was correct, then teams would actually benefit (from a cap perspective) from players being injured. Why would it make sense for a player with a 4MM cap hit to play half a season (2MM of his cap hit is already spent), get injured and go on LTIR, and then the team can replace him with a pro-rate 8MM in player cap hit?

1. Im reading it as total amount the team paid that player as would be in any other situation. For example if you replace a guy with 2 1 million dollar players for half a season their total would be 1 million. Just like it would otherwise.

2. Its no different than having a 4 million dollar player and trading him as a cap dump half way through the season. In both situations the 2 million unused would prorate to 8 with 25% of the season remaining. And the player is no longer available to you.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

As far as the top two line sure I can see that but I think you can at least argue the other way too. As Horny might not be the best fit with Malkin and Kunitz doesn't really look good at all those two line have been on fire possession wise recently.

I don't agree with this mentality. It's the same mentality that led Johnston to keep benching Bennett after the wins versus Edmonton and Calgary. The wins were nice and all, but there were no shortage of passengers who contributed nothing to those wins who could have been removed, and we'd have been better for it.

Those lines have great possession numbers, but they sure as hell aren't because of Kunitz' contributions on the 1st line or any kind of chemistry between Hornqvist and Malkin. Those lines have the best centers in the world finding chemistry with one winger. And they could be better...as in, translating possession into actual production.

As for Farnham/Sill/Adams I don't think either is unquestionably better than Adams so I just see it as moving deck chairs on the Titanic

We're definitely on different wavelengths here. Farnham was impacting games at a level Adams hadn't shown in years when he was up, and Sill had been clearly outplaying him for weeks.

If the standard for a Bennett benching is 3 games of subpar play, why isn't 3 weeks enough for Sill to usurp a slug like Adams?

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

1. I know it can be applied next season, but im sure they would rather not have to do that. And it sure as h*ll doesn't mean that they were not accounting for it when that statement was said. Also nothing has been explained at all, you just keep saying "you cant prorate LTIR" over and over. If I missed something else you said pertaining to the actual CBA, then fine show me again. But looking at the actual CBA text I don't see anywhere where your explanation is confirmed.

2. Benching anyone for 4 games isn't a problem period. And again there are justifications to do so whether you agree with them or not. Which is my entire point.

3. I don't believe that for a second, if so he should have been fired on the spot. I really doubt MJ is going to get fired over Chris Kunitz regardless of the decidion or you gets mad at it. If it really came down to a power struggle between My or SC we all know whos going. Not only do highly doubt theres an issue, but I doubt any coach would willingly be neutered to keep their job.

4. Sill has played better than usual recently but overall Adams has been better. His possession numbers are far and away better. Neither are good but a case can be made for Adams easily.

Ya, you did miss something else, a lot actually. Go back and read those conversations again. And why would they apply an ELC performance bonus when a. he hasn't met that bonus yet and b. they have so little space. You aren't even making any sense.

Benching a young guy that was playing well, hit a three game slump, and needs as much playing time for his development as possible, is a bad coaching decision. Meanwhile certain tenured vets coast on by without discipline or the threat of losing their spot in the lineup. If you don't see a problem there, that's on you.

I couldn't care less if you believe it or not. DB was already fired when his brother said that, so was he going to be fired again? And MJ knows, just like DB, that if their two stars become disgruntled, it's going to be a problem for them.

Adams is a fourth line plug and Sill out played him for the last month. There isn't any justification why he can't sit out a game or two and let Sill build off of what he has been doing. When a guy like Adams hasn't sat in 5 years, it's a big problem. Good luck making a case for how no one has deserved to play over him in that time frame.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

I don't agree with this mentality. It's the same mentality that led Johnston to keep benching Bennett after the wins versus Edmonton and Calgary. The wins were nice and all, but there were no shortage of passengers who contributed nothing to those wins who could have been removed, and we'd have been better for it.

Those lines have great possession numbers, but they sure as hell aren't because of Kunitz' contributions on the 1st line or any kind of chemistry between Hornqvist and Malkin. Those lines have the best centers in the world finding chemistry with one winger. And they could be better...as in, translating possession into actual production.



We're definitely on different wavelengths here. Farnham was impacting games at a level Adams hadn't shown in years when he was up, and Sill had been clearly outplaying him for weeks.

If the standard for a Bennett benching is 3 games of subpar play, why isn't 3 weeks enough for Sill to usurp a slug like Adams?

Oh I see your point about the top two line and if it were me, Hornqvist would have never spent a shift with Malkin after returning. But I can see the reasoning otherwise.

The only thing that Farnham did was cause chaos and while that has its place I don't think the refs are going to continually let him earn penalties. Either they will look the other way more or take him off more as well. Other than that there really wasn't anything for me. Sill has played better than usual but overall Adams possession numbers are Much better. Again its something I can see either way. If Adams was benched for either I wouldn't be upset in the least.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

Ya, you did miss something else, a lot actually. Go back and read those conversations again. And why would they apply an ELC performance bonus when a. he hasn't met that bonus yet and b. they have so little space. You aren't even making any sense.

Benching a young guy that was playing well, hit a three game slump, and needs as much playing time for his development as possible, is a bad coaching decision.

I couldn't care less if you believe it or not. DB was already fired when his brother said that, so was he going to be fired again? And MJ knows, just like DB, that if their two stars become disgruntled, it's going to be a problem for them.

Adams is a fourth line plug and Sill out played him for the last month. There isn't any justification why he can't sit out a game or two and let Sill build off of what he has been doing. When a guy like Adams hasn't sat in 5 years, it's a big problem. Good luck making a case for how no one has deserved to play over him in that time frame.

1. Because it his job to take everything into account including the risk/reward of paying the bnus next year. Not to mention the cap is calculated as if the player is going to be rostered the rest of the year. In that situation DP's bonus would kick in (I believe) and this decision would the be very relevant.

2. If that your opinion then that is fine, BTW I wouldn't have benched him either. Saying he was benched as a scapegoat because the coach is scared is the only thing im contending.

3. So, maybe that's his opinion but I highly doubt DB went to him and said that. There is no reason to believe they would be disgruntled. Crosby might very well want to play with Kunitz but its not like they haven't been separated at time this year. Unless you believe Sid went arching in and demanded Kunitz be reunited with him.

4. In your opinion, my opinion is that they are both 4th line plugs and neither deserve to be in an NHL lineup. Sill playing better than normal Sill isn't very impressive to me. Adams has outplayed him on the whole this year so it is easily justified. Could be wrong but easily justified. Like I said, they could cut Adasm right now and replace him with Sill and I wouldn't think twice. Or they could play Adams every agme and make Sill watch in the pressbox. Neither is an issue with me.

4

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Oh I see your point about the top two line and if it were me, Hornqvist would have never spent a shift with Malkin after returning. But I can see the reasoning otherwise.

The only thing that Farnham did was cause chaos and while that has its place I don't think the refs are going to continually let him earn penalties. Either they will look the other way more or take him off more as well. Other than that there really wasn't anything for me. Sill has played better than usual but overall Adams possession numbers are Much better. Again its something I can see either way. If Adams was benched for either I wouldn't be upset in the least.

We can all see the reasoning otherwise, though. But it is still the inferior option, and it always (not so) mysteriously results in the veteran keeping his spot over less tenured players who are outperforming him.

We could ice a better, more cohesive line-up if not for the coach's insistence on putting square pegs in round holes in deference to struggling vets. That's what irks.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

1. Because it his job to take everything into account including the risk/reward of paying the bnus next year. Not to mention the cap is calculated as if the player is going to be rostered the rest of the year. In that situation DP's bonus would kick in (I believe) and this decision would the be very relevant.

2. If that your opinion then that is fine, BTW I wouldn't have benched him either. Saying he was benched as a scapegoat because the coach is scared is the only thing im contending.

3. So, maybe that's his opinion but I highly doubt DB went to him and said that. There is no reason to believe they would be disgruntled. Crosby might very well want to play with Kunitz but its not like they haven't been separated at time this year. Unless you believe Sid went arching in and demanded Kunitz be reunited with him.

4. In your opinion, my opinion is that they are both 4th line plugs and neither deserve to be in an NHL lineup. Sill playing better than normal Sill isn't very impressive to me. Adams has outplayed him on the whole this year so it is easily justified. Could be wrong but easily justified. Like I said, they could cut Adasm right now and replace him with Sill and I wouldn't think twice. Or they could play Adams every agme and make Sill watch in the pressbox. Neither is an issue with me.

4

For the last time, they have a 7.5% allocation and if he does in fact get the bonus, which they won't know by the deadline, it will be applied to next years cap. I honestly have no idea why you would think otherwise.

The coach is scared and he did scapegoat him. As I said, he was in the middle of a losing streak and picked an easy target. Please let me know when a tenured vet gets sat for poor play.

That's his brother, why would he not tell him that? My brother knows pretty much everything about me and I would certainly divulge info like that to him.

It's an issue because he hasn't sat in five ****ing years. There is no comparable to what is going on with Adams that I have ever seen in this league. Again, if you want to make a case for how he hasn't deserved to sit in five years and was always the most deserving choice in that time frame, I'm all ears.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

We can all see the reasoning otherwise, though. But it is still the inferior option, and it always (not so) mysteriously results in the veteran keeping his spot over less tenured players who are outperforming him.

We could ice a better, more cohesive line-up if not for the coach's insistence on putting square pegs in round holes in deference to struggling vets. That's what irks.

Oh I understand frustration especially if you strongly believe that they could be doing something better, but I will always argue with the people who come in and say "YOU DIDNT DO WHAT I WANT, MJ IS AN IDIOT' etc. As if he throwing dart at names to configure lines.

Same type of thing applies with Despres. Everyone was up in arms because they thought that Scuds was babysitting Despres in the coachs eyes. Except in reality they are paired together because the want each pairing to have a puck mover. But it was just easier for people to complain even though they only had limited information.

 

[billybudd]

Rather than attempting a dilettant psych evaluation, we could look at what he does on the ice relative to other options. Jiggy is, you are not.

You aren't looking at facts, you are simply believing what you are being fed by MJ, who was looking for a scapegoat because his team was playing ******. He didn't have the balls to bench a vet, so he targeted BB.

You sure about that?

 

[Fordy]

Oh I understand frustration especially if you strongly believe that they could be doing something better, but I will always argue with the people who come in and say "YOU DIDNT DO WHAT I WANT, MJ IS AN IDIOT' etc. As if he throwing dart at names to configure lines.

Same type of thing applies with Despres. Everyone was up in arms because they thought that Scuds was babysitting Despres in the coachs eyes. Except in reality they are paired together because the want each pairing to have a puck mover. But it was just easier for people to complain even though they only had limited information.

you're kidding right? that's literally the story being fed by every reporter and the coach himself

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

For the last time, they have a 7.5% allocation and if he does in fact get the bonus, which they won't know by the deadline, it will be applied to next years cap. I honestly have no idea why you would think otherwise.

The coach is scared and he did scapegoat him. As I said, he was in the middle of a losing streak and picked an easy target. Please let me know when a tenured vet gets sat for poor play.

That's his brother, why would he not tell him that? My brother knows pretty much everything about me and I would certainly divulge info like that to him.

It's an issue because he hasn't sat in five ****ing years. There is no comparable to what is going on with Adams that I have ever seen in this league. Again, if you want to make a case for how he hasn't deserved to sit in five years and was always the most deserving choice in that time frame, I'm all ears.

1. I don't think otherwise, your not listening to what im saying. Im saying they are probably taking all things into consideration including that. If worse come to worse they will pay it next year but don't think for a second its not something they are taking into consideration.

2. Yeah ok sure. Im sure you're well aware of how scared MJ is on a nightly basis. And why is losing 6 of 7 something you need to scapegoat? Was Desjardins scared into benching Kassian? Was babcock scared into scratching his young wingers last year? Or are only Pens coaches automatically cowards if the scratch a young player?

3. Because he has some pride. I highly doubt he went , he bro I would really love to demote Dupuis but im totes scared of Sid. Im sure any coach with a star has to be cognizant of their feeling on subjects and im sure will defer if a situation could go either way. But a coach will get fired a LOT faster by doing things not in the best interest of his team than they will but not pandering to a star. Unless you think Crosby is the type to not play hard if he doesn't get his way?

4. An MJ has been there for five f***ing months. What happened the last 4 years is irrelevant to this conversation. Im not saying Adams is good but I will say that he isn't undoubtedly worse than Zack Sill. So in that scenario it doesn't matter to me at all. If they bring in another better forward and he is still playing then it will be an issue.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

you're kidding right? that's literally the story being fed by every reporter and the coach himself

Do you really believe they think Scuds is better than Despres?
Do you think they are lying when they say they want a puck mover on each pairing?

The only reason to lie is that they care what you think. And I HIGHLY doubt that. So...

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Oh I understand frustration especially if you strongly believe that they could be doing something better, but I will always argue with the people who come in and say "YOU DIDNT DO WHAT I WANT, MJ IS AN IDIOT' etc. As if he throwing dart at names to configure lines.

Same type of thing applies with Despres. Everyone was up in arms because they thought that Scuds was babysitting Despres in the coachs eyes. Except in reality they are paired together because the want each pairing to have a puck mover. But it was just easier for people to complain even though they only had limited information.

I'm fine with the Scuds/Despres pairing, even if I think there were better options than Scuds to start the year and he benefited from the same backwards mindset that keeps Adams in the line-up night after night.

This really isn't about problems with individual line-up decisions MJ makes. He's not throwing darts...virtually all his choices reflect a vet-on-a-pedestal philosophy that holds the team back.

All anyone wants is consistency, universally applied. Bennett was underperforming for a few games? Sure, bench him to teach him the value of bringing it every single night. But don't gift-wrap a 1st line spot to the most consistently lazy ******* on the team at the same time. That doesn't teach the value of effort, it only teaches the value of making friends with the right people.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

I'm fine with the Scuds/Despres pairing, even if I think there were better options than Scuds to start the year and he benefited from the same backwards mindset that keeps Adams in the line-up night after night.

This really isn't about problems with individual line-up decisions MJ makes. He's not throwing darts...virtually all his choices reflect a vet-on-a-pedestal philosophy that holds the team back.

All anyone wants is consistency, universally applied.

yeah that's not an issue with me save the "this guys an idiot" or "this guys a coward" stuff. To me its obvious that guys like Scuds and Adams do something (god knows what) that MJ is appreciate of other than their date of birth. You, me etc don't have to agree with it and can debate it all day long.

But im not going to sit here and act like im at practice every day or that I know 100% of his system and how he wants each player to react within it.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

yeah that's not an issue with me save the "this guys an idiot" or "this guys a coward" stuff. To me its obvious that guys like Scuds and Adams do something (god knows what) that MJ is appreciate of other than their date of birth. You, me etc don't have to agree with it and can debate it all day long.

But im not going to sit here and act like im at practice every day or that I know 100% of his system and how he wants each player to react within it.

I don't think critics are acting like they're at practice every day. Most are informed hockey fans who are simply trusting what they see on the ice, and can't reconcile MJ's decisions with what they're seeing any other way.

When MJ rebukes Bennett for his battle level and benches him, there's no way he can keep playing Kunitz in his regular role without looking like a hypocrite. It's not possible.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

I don't think critics are acting like they're at practice every day. Most are informed hockey fans who are simply trusting what they see on the ice, and can't reconcile MJ's decisions with what they're seeing any other way.

The coach isn't always right simply by virtue of being the coach, as we've seen.

Oh I agree with that, but making a wrong decision for a justifiable reason is a LOT different that being an idiot or coward or both. That's my only issue with any complaining. Some people tend to not look at both side of the coin.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

1. I don't think otherwise, your not listening to what im saying. Im saying they are probably taking all things into consideration including that. If worse come to worse they will pay it next year but don't think for a second its not something they are taking into consideration.

2. Yeah ok sure. Im sure you're well aware of how scared MJ is on a nightly basis. And why is losing 6 of 7 something you need to scapegoat? Was Desjardins scared into benching Kassian? Was babcock scared into scratching his young wingers last year? Or are only Pens coaches automatically cowards if the scratch a young player?

3. Because he has some pride. I highly doubt he went , he bro I would really love to demote Dupuis but im totes scared of Sid. Im sure any coach with a star has to be cognizant of their feeling on subjects and im sure will defer if a situation could go either way. But a coach will get fired a LOT faster by doing things not in the best interest of his team than they will but not pandering to a star. Unless you think Crosby is the type to not play hard if he doesn't get his way?

4. An MJ has been there for five f***ing months. What happened the last 4 years is irrelevant to this conversation. Im not saying Adams is good but I will say that he isn't undoubtedly worse than Zack Sill. So in that scenario it doesn't matter to me at all. If they bring in another better forward and he is still playing then it will be an issue.

His bonus isn't an issue at all. It has zero relevance to how much space they will have at the deadline. Not sure why you even brought it up.

How many tenured vets has MJ scratched? Why is Kunitz still with Crosby if the coaching staff has been unhappy with his play most of the season and he hasn't responded to their "prodding"? I wonder what two mystery men went to MJ to keep that first line together. Let's eliminate Perron... Hmmm... any guesses? I'm stumped.

Yet he played a HOF like Iggy on his off wing, even though the guy never played there in his entire career, and that includes juniors. I'll go with what someone close to DB said, like his bro, over your speculation. Funny how even now, Kunitz remains there, even to the detriment of the team.

All of it matters, because we are seeing the same exact ****. Are you telling me Adams has been so good these last five months that there was never a point where he maybe should have sat? Please.

 

[Sam Spade]

Is anyone else really excited for the Pens game tomorrow? Basically full Pens squad against the Capitals, at home, should be a really good game. Not Flyers/Pens but I always love this matchup.

We need a pre-game talk thread.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Oh I agree with that, but making a wrong decision for a justifiable reason is a LOT different that being an idiot or coward or both. That's my only issue with any complaining. Some people tend to not look at both side of the coin.

Cowards have their rationalizations too.

 

[Shady Machine]

1. Im reading it as total amount the team paid that player as would be in any other situation. For example if you replace a guy with 2 1 million dollar players for half a season their total would be 1 million. Just like it would otherwise.

2. Its no different than having a 4 million dollar player and trading him as a cap dump half way through the season. In both situations the 2 million unused would prorate to 8 with 25% of the season remaining. And the player is no longer available to you.

You are reading it wrong and everyone credible I have heard from has the same interpretation Jiggy, I, and others here have said.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

His bonus isn't an issue at all. It has zero relevance to how much space they will have at the deadline. Not sure why you even brought it up.

How many tenured vets has MJ scratched? Why is Kunitz still with Crosby if the coaching staff has been unhappy with his play most of the season and he hasn't responded to their "prodding"?

Yet he played a HOF like Iggy on his off wing, even though the guy never played there in his entire career, and that includes juniors. I'll go with what someone close to DB said, like his bro, over your speculation. Funny how even now, Kunitz remains there, even to the detriment of the team.

All of it matters, because we are seeing the same exact ****. Are you telling me Adams has been so good these last five months that there was never a point where he maybe should have sat? Please.

1. Wow again actually read what I said. Or is that too difficult. I NEVER said it will effect their space, I said it is something they will keep under consideration when figuring out what they want to spend. Im sure everything being equal they would rather pay it this year than next. So if they are projecting out cap space and they have this bonus included with the ability to take it off if they either plan on sending him down or concede to pay it next year. So if Rutherford is talking about available space he could very well be using the numbers with it included. I mean if you don't think a major business would keep this into their numbers as a worst case scenario then I don't know what to tell you.

2. Well despite your opinion the only vet playing that poorly is Adams and it because of lack of talent. As soon as they have another winger I would expect Adams to sit consistently. As far as Kunitz, yes he isn't looking great but he is still producing and no coach is taking that out of the lineup on a team that's been struggling to score. Not to mention he has been demoted to the 2nd and 3rd line this year. Sutter is a center and they simply have no other viable options. I believe the view Spaling as an emergency center only.

3. Maybe it was because the KCD line was absolutely dominant that year and Neal was having a great (on that side) year as well. I see the argument of inserting Iggy there and I agree with it but there was plenty of justifiable reason not to. IMO the bigger issue is the communication breakdown between Shero/Bylsma.

4. Actually I have said quite the opposite, but then again either you cannot or will not read what I am actually writing and have some weird obsession with punishing players. I have no issue with Adams playing over Sill and I would have no issue with Sill playing over Adams. Quite simple. I have no issue scratching a player for an inferior player (Bennett instead of Adams/Sill) AS LONG AS it is short term only AND for a tangible purpose (to work on thing with that player for example).

Nothing that happened the last 5 years under COMPELTELY different management is in any way shape or form relevant. NOT AT ALL.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

Cowards have their rationalizations too.

now that's funny

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

You are reading it wrong and everyone credible I have heard from has the same interpretation Jiggy, I, and others here have said.

I don't understand why they would treat player contracts one way (proratable) throughout the CBA and then switch without detailed disclosure or explanation.

Because if you are correct the pens literally could not call up a guy like Dumo or Megna (cap hit in the .85 range) right now as their contracts would also have to go dollar for dollar atthe full amount since they have been recalled after the LTIR threshold and would thus be considered replacement players.

I don't know. I have a strong love/hate with the salary cap.