2014 - 2015 Coyotes Roster Part 7

[IPreferPi]

For me. I love hard working teams but it would be nice to win a game on skill where we don't have to pitch a perfect defensive game and hope we score a goal on a bad bounce for the other team.

Yeah, I don't mind playing rope-a-dope and can enjoy defensive battles of attrition. But it'd be nice to win a game based on actual skilled play.

 

[hbk]

It's quite a reversal considering a month ago they needed more time to cook. How much better did they get in the last few weeks? Like I said in another post, it's at the least an admission of failure. There's nothing wrong with that. It's the right thing to do.

It's still extremely questionable to have held the position in the first place that we were a better team as constructed than we would have been with Rieder/Hodgman/Gormley after watching the training camp (that's solely my opinion based on the eye test and a few decades of watching hockey, before someone lambasts me for having an opinion presented as fact).

You could go veteran with a backup plan of kids. I think doing the reverse with the one way contracts involved is more problematic. Maloney went conservative when many of us expected some degree of risk. I wasn't expecting 4-5 rookies but I thought there should have been 2-3.

 

[_Del_]

For me. I love hard working teams but it would be nice to win a game on skill where we don't have to pitch a perfect defensive game and hope we score a goal on a bad bounce for the other team.

Like you, I have no problem watching a well-played 0-0 tie. I'm not against defensively responsible players -- I think they're essential, top to bottom. But we also need the skill to be able to control the play abit too. Like you said, we shouldn't have to be perfect defensively and get lucky to win 1-0. If that is the blueprint, we're going to be a bad team. This team couldn't score 5-on-5 as constructed. We'll see how they do with the kids.

I don't think terrorizing skilled young talent to the point they are afraid to make a mistake is healthy for the club long-term.

 

[Grimes]

Teams are asking for top draft picks and prospects for #8 D men. Gormely was sent down because he was only one on a two way. There is little or no chance that a Summers or Sclemko wil not get claimed if we tried to move them down to the AHL.

Some of this is budget. Some of this is trying to flip a player for top market value. We'll see how long Maloney and Regeir can allow this strategy to play out.

Which teams are in need desperate need for a defenseman right now?

L.A, NYR, Columbus? Are there more?

 

[hbk]

Which teams are in need desperate need for a defenseman right now?

L.A, NYR, Columbus? Are there more?

Philli, Edmonton is about 4 D from having a NHL top 6. I'm sure there are more.

 

[SniperHF]

Which teams are in need desperate need for a defenseman right now?

L.A, NYR, Columbus? Are there more?

28 COLUMBUS 3.42 GA/G
29 ARIZONA 3.58 GA/G
30 EDMONTON 3.62 GA/G

What is Arizona

 

[Grimes]

What is Arizona

Hahaha. Good call, I guess I meant more because of injuries, or having to roster AHL journeymen.

 

[Matias Maccete]

So maloney is just how realizing putting in guys like reider and hodgeman over the scrubs tip has a crush is a good idea? Awesome.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Ugh....

Dig in to your stance everyone and let's take this discussion nowhere.

I'm not digging into anything. I would actually appreciate it if a valid argument for destroying this team in the near term to get Connor McDavid could be made. One that accounts for the following:

• The extremely low probability of actually getting the McDavid pick
• The progressive deterioration of our ticket sales and attendance
• The increase in financial losses thus incurred by the franchise
• The erosion of the team's ability to attract free agents of any caliber above "plug" to work within the tank context
• The ability of the team's management to build a team that can capitalize on a player of McDavid's ability (assuming we got him)
• The necessity for a "Plan B" if we don't get McDavid, and what that "Plan B" actually is
• Acceptable candidates to replace Tippett and Maloney should they become casualties of the tank, taking into account that the rest of the existing coaching staff probably would not buy into the tank

If I can get answers to all of those issues, then I might be convinced that the tank is a valid road map for the team.

But saying that the tank is by default the best option and that to believe otherwise requires a significant body of evidence and proof is pretty ludicrous.

 

[XX]

If I can get answers to all of those issues, then I might be convinced that the tank is a valid road map for the team.

This team is already at the bottom of the league with the current lineup. All most of us are advocating for is throwing away players Maloney doesn't intend to keep around sooner rather than later. This is to give young players a chance to play (something Maloney alluded to in his recent comments) and to get assets for things that don't factor into the future of the team.

The byproduct of this will, presumably, be more losses than usual. There's no actual guarantee of that. It's damn well possible the kids come in and the team starts winning more. That's fine. That's where Calgary is at. Calgary has a future. This **** roster doesn't.

Now, if you recognize how low and crappy the current product on the ice is, you'll also recognize that the Coyotes don't have much to lose by bringing in hungry, energetic kids into the lineup. I'm sure most would rather watch Hodgman than Chipchura, Rieder over Moss. It's really hard to say that a handful more losses than what is currently projected would devestate the franchise financially or emotionally. That's chicken little stuff.

Questioning the ability of the team to build around McDavid is equally dumb. If you can't built around the best prospect since Crosby, what the **** are you doing with the 7th or 10th pick in the draft? And advocates of "letting the kids play to see what we've got" have named plenty of alternate candidates should Tippett and Maloney become casualties.

This insistence on "oh gosh we sure won't get McDavid/lottery odds!" ignores the fact that every spot you finish lower - if you aren't making the playoffs - has real value. There is a significant difference between drafting at the four spot versus fourteenth. This doesn't need to be explained. Every spot you sink gets you a better chance in the lottery. Sure, it's not a mathematically great one. But it still keeps you in the cut-above-the-rest tier, out of N+1, while improving your chances.

Half of what you're asking is equally relevant to those advocating Maloney do nothing. I'd love to hear justification for that.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

This team is already at the bottom of the league with the current lineup. All most of us are advocating for is throwing away players Maloney doesn't intend to keep around sooner rather than later. This is to give young players a chance to play (something Maloney alluded to in his recent comments) and to get assets for things that don't factor into the future of the team.

If you are advocating for prospects to take the place of established players, you are not advocating for a tank. Thus, you are not the target of my post above.

A "tank" is deliberately losing games in order to achieve a first overall pick. What you're describing is what I am a proponent of - shedding mediocre "veteran" players and their salaries and replacing them with prospect players. I am on record as wanting that since before training camp started if you care to do a search.

Perhaps where we diverge is that I want the prospects here to develop through experience in the hopes that we can achieve a respectable record with a younger, cheaper, but ultimately more talented roster. Others seem to be asking for that to happen in order that we lose games. That's not something I can cheer for because of how much money I have personally invested in supporting the team.

 

[XX]

A "tank" is deliberately losing games in order to achieve a first overall pick.

No one is seriously advocating for this. It's just a buzzword used to describe how ****** the roster will be after you strip it of its veteran talent.

Others seem to be asking for that to happen in order that we lose games.

I don't see it that way. I think we'd see a team that tries quite hard to compete with others but just comes up with the short end of the stick most nights. I don't want to watch a tragedy-in-motion like Buffalo. Dump Korpi, Z, Erat, Vermette, they'll get there. It might just end up more entertaining to boot.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

No one is seriously advocating for this. It's just a buzzword used to describe how ****** the roster will be after you strip it of its veteran talent.

Well, I'm not convinced that it would be ******; that said, I don't advocate dumping all of the veteran talent - just enough of it to get the prospects in.

I don't see it that way. I think we'd see a team that tries quite hard to compete with others but just comes up with the short end of the stick most nights. I don't want to watch a tragedy-in-motion like Buffalo. Dump Korpi, Z, Erat, Vermette, they'll get there. It might just end up more entertaining to boot.

I'd agree with that list - and include Chip, Klink, and McMillan to boot - except for Vermette. I think Vermette is the kind of guy you probably could trade for good assets, but he's also the kind of guy who you want around your kids to give them the right attitude.

And I personally think that that team would be more successful than our current one, if for no other reason than the preseason evidence.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

No, many here are advocating for a true tank. I agree with xyllyx that it is a mistake. A rebuild is one thing, choosing not to compete in order to improve draft position is a tank.

 

[Desert Ice 11]

I'm not digging into anything. I would actually appreciate it if a valid argument for destroying this team in the near term to get Connor McDavid could be made. One that accounts for the following:

• The extremely low probability of actually getting the McDavid pick
• The progressive deterioration of our ticket sales and attendance
• The increase in financial losses thus incurred by the franchise
• The erosion of the team's ability to attract free agents of any caliber above "plug" to work within the tank context
• The ability of the team's management to build a team that can capitalize on a player of McDavid's ability (assuming we got him)
• The necessity for a "Plan B" if we don't get McDavid, and what that "Plan B" actually is
• Acceptable candidates to replace Tippett and Maloney should they become casualties of the tank, taking into account that the rest of the existing coaching staff probably would not buy into the tank

If I can get answers to all of those issues, then I might be convinced that the tank is a valid road map for the team.

But saying that the tank is by default the best option and that to believe otherwise requires a significant body of evidence and proof is pretty ludicrous.

So we don't get McDavid then we probably get Eichel...

 

[Matias Maccete]

This team is already at the bottom of the league with the current lineup. All most of us are advocating for is throwing away players Maloney doesn't intend to keep around sooner rather than later. This is to give young players a chance to play (something Maloney alluded to in his recent comments) and to get assets for things that don't factor into the future of the team.

The byproduct of this will, presumably, be more losses than usual. There's no actual guarantee of that. It's damn well possible the kids come in and the team starts winning more. That's fine. That's where Calgary is at. Calgary has a future. This **** roster doesn't.

Now, if you recognize how low and crappy the current product on the ice is, you'll also recognize that the Coyotes don't have much to lose by bringing in hungry, energetic kids into the lineup. I'm sure most would rather watch Hodgman than Chipchura, Rieder over Moss. It's really hard to say that a handful more losses than what is currently projected would devestate the franchise financially or emotionally. That's chicken little stuff.

Questioning the ability of the team to build around McDavid is equally dumb. If you can't built around the best prospect since Crosby, what the **** are you doing with the 7th or 10th pick in the draft? And advocates of "letting the kids play to see what we've got" have named plenty of alternate candidates should Tippett and Maloney become casualties.

This insistence on "oh gosh we sure won't get McDavid/lottery odds!" ignores the fact that every spot you finish lower - if you aren't making the playoffs - has real value. There is a significant difference between drafting at the four spot versus fourteenth. This doesn't need to be explained. Every spot you sink gets you a better chance in the lottery. Sure, it's not a mathematically great one. But it still keeps you in the cut-above-the-rest tier, out of N+1, while improving your chances.

Half of what you're asking is equally relevant to those advocating Maloney do nothing. I'd love to hear justification for that.

That was a well thought out logical post that makes total sense. We don't need that kind of stuff interfering with our discussion.

 

[_Del_]

And I personally think that that team would be more successful than our current one, if for no other reason than the preseason evidence.

I think a team without the passengers might very well be better than the current team, despite the inexperience.
I wouldn't trade Yandle or Hanzal. I would trade Vermette if I couldn't get him resigned quickly. Pick and a prospect. I doubt you'd get much for Erat or the driftwood, but we could probably get a haul for Michalek with teams hurting right now or at the deadline. Just have to find the right circumstance.
But regardless of where we end up in the standings, maximizing UFA assets on a roster that is going nowhere this year just makes sense. That gives increased opportunity for other guys, as well. And if you're the coach or GM you get a better idea of what next year holds when you see what the young guys were able to do with their opportunity.

 

[BAdvocate]

I'm not digging into anything.

Call it what you want, but when I see one sentence responses telling the other side they bear the burden of proof, it only results in the other side tagging you back with essentially the same thing in reverse...

Now with your excellent detailed questions their is some open meaningful discussion going on. Yay.

 

[Sinurgy]

It seems to me there's a whole lot of gray area between advocating an actual tank and advocating Maloney do nothing. I think most are in the middle yet insist on using extremes to prove their point which just results in a **** ton of straw man attacks. Seems pointlessly argumentative to me.

So I have two straightforward questions...

1) Does anyone here advocate losing as many games as possible in order to secure the last spot in the rankings (i.e. tanking) and giving the team the best possible chance at drafting McDavid?

2) Does anyone here advocate Maloney doing nothing at all?

 

[KG]

I advocate #1 if we suck as badly as we did the first 8 games.

 

[BlazingBlueAnt]

I don't think we are a bottom 2-3 team even if we try really, really hard. Yandle and OEL by themselves on the PP would likely keep us from that spot.

 

[BAdvocate]

I advocate #1 if we suck as badly as we did the first 8 games.

That's not the question...

If you think we suck as badly as we did the first 8 games then you advocate #1, if you think they are better than that you don't.

You don't get to decide after the season is over, or after 40 games, or after another 10 games...right now, what's your answer?

 

[KG]

My answer currently to play youth and trade our UFA's/deadweight if at all possible.

 

[Sinurgy]

That's not the question...

If you think we suck as badly as we did the first 8 games then you advocate #1, if you think they are better than that you don't.

You don't get to decide after the season is over, or after 40 games, or after another 10 games...right now, what's your answer?

I intentionally worded them to be yes or no questions, partially to see if anyone actually did agree with either and partially to show that people just like to argue against fictional stances.

 

[BAdvocate]

My answer currently to play youth and trade our UFA's/deadweight if at all possible.

Great! You've given an answer to a question which was never asked.