Speculation: 2014 - 2015 Coyotes Roster

[Bonsai Tree]

There's only 3 ways to significantly upgrade our team. First, through the draft. We haven't always been so good at that and so we have no rising star forwards ready to become full time NHL players. Second - through free agency. Do we have the budget for a Vanick? Third, through trades. In order to trade we have to offer an asset. What better asset do we have than Yandle? To get something we have to give something, and if we want to both increase the scoring and shift the scoring from Yandle to the forwards, well, good bye Yandle.

 

[rt]

There's only 3 ways to significantly upgrade our team. First, through the draft. We haven't always been so good at that and so we have no rising star forwards ready to become full time NHL players. Second - through free agency. Do we have the budget for a Vanick? Third, through trades. In order to trade we have to offer an asset. What better asset do we have than Yandle? To get something we have to give something, and if we want to both increase the scoring and shift the scoring from Yandle to the forwards, well, good bye Yandle.

I don't know, I think we've had a couple of pretty good forward picks. Turris and Wheeler, anyway. haha.

 

[DesertDawg]

we want to both increase the scoring and shift the scoring from Yandle to the forwards, well, good bye Yandle.

How does trading Yandle increase scoring? And why the shift? It would make more sense to keep one of the better offensive player on the team than hope that the return provides more offense than the offensive player would generate. And we are talking about one of the best offensive players at that position...

 

[cobra427]

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. There would be at least one good forward coming back if not two. That's the sort of payment it would take, and the sort that makes moving Yandle worth it. Those points don't evaporate, they just shift to other D that will have the puck more.

It's not a slam dunk which is why a trade like that is essentially a make or break move for the team and Maloney.

There's very little else in the way of trade ammo that is expendable and that would net something clearly useful. Next season is probably going to pin a lot of hope on a revamped bottom 6 and Ribeiro getting back into form. Is anyone really thrilled about that?

What other pmd do we have that could pick up scoring? Nobody other than OEL. I think we would have way tigger scoring problems withou Yandle even if we landed beetle for him. A pmd and points from the d are more important in today's nhl. 50 point d men are as hard to come by as 70 point forwards. Yandle is a keeper.

 

[CC96]

What other pmd do we have that could pick up scoring? Nobody other than OEL. I think we would have way tigger scoring problems withou Yandle even if we landed beetle for him. A pmd and points from the d are more important in today's nhl. 50 point d men are as hard to come by as 70 point forwards. Yandle is a keeper.

If Gormley can end up quarterbacking a powerplay in the big leagues as well as he did in juniors and the AHL, I'd have no problem playing him on the 2nd. pairing long-term and trading Yandle.

 

[RemoAZ]

I don't know, I think we've had a couple of pretty good forward picks. Turris and Wheeler, anyway. haha.

Isn't that a kick in the nuts.

 

[cobra427]

If Gormley can end up quarterbacking a powerplay in the big leagues as well as he did in juniors and the AHL, I'd have no problem playing him on the 2nd. pairing long-term and trading Yandle.

Agreed...if gormley gets 35 or more points next year then Yandle becomes expandable, but not until then...

 

[IPreferPi]

If Gormley can end up quarterbacking a powerplay in the big leagues as well as he did in juniors and the AHL, I'd have no problem playing him on the 2nd. pairing long-term and trading Yandle.

Nah, I'm all for having a relentless 3-headed monster on our blueline and juggling each head for 20 minutes a piece per game.

 

[lanky]

Nah, I'm all for having a relentless 3-headed monster on our blueline and juggling each head for 20 minutes a piece per game.

OEL is already averaging 26 min/game. One of the three is either going to have to shift to the right side or get their ass traded. Maybe not this year but not long after that.

 

[Sinurgy]

Stage?

You'll understand once you're out of it.

Most teams laugh at what it would take whenever the issue comes up. It will be interesting to see if a deal ever does go down how much we as fans overvalue or undervalue his talents.

I have heard rumblings in the past from seemingly legit media sources about the price being high but that's pretty much it. I've never heard about another GM laughing at what DM would want in order to trade Yandle. By most teams are you perhaps meaning most fans of teams? If not then I'd be interested in hearing what they had to say.

 

[PhoPhan]

Hey guys, stats lie, don't you know? So let's throw out stat A and totally go all in on stat B to try and explain away something we should all be capable of admitting by now - that Yandle is the weakest in his own zone on the team and is handled that way by Tippett.

Who said "stats lie"? That's like saying words lie. Stats will never tell you the whole picture, but they can add a lot of context that you'll never get with just an "eye test." It's about knowing which statistics tell you what, and using that to paint a clearer picture. I have no idea why you would write off "statistical analysis" entirely here.

And I don't think anyone is debating that Yandle gets sheltered minutes (the advanced metrics on this, you'll be pleased to hear, support this). If that's the debate you're looking to have, no wonder you're so confused.

The gap in your logic - the one wide enough to drive an 18 wheeler through - is that Corsi tells us nothing about the defensive abilities of the players on the ice. It's a good measure of how much general offensive push a player may bring but it does not magically dispel or dampen things like poor judgment or a lack of effort. It is quite possible to be a positive Corsi player and be a total liability on the ice. This gets even more questionable when you consider the breakout usually runs through Yandle on the ice, so he should be voted "most likely player on the Phoenix roster to have padded Corsi numbers." Of course you don't really mention that David Schlemko has a higher Corsi than Yandle. Wonder why?

Before you condemn a tool like Corsi, I think you'd be better served to understand it a little better.

Corsi doesn't measure offense or defense. It's a ratio. A guy who is on the ice for three shots against and two shots for will have the same Corsi as the guy who is on the ice for 30 shots against and 20 shots for. This is derived from a mountain of evidence that shows shot differentials are about the best predictor for future success we have right now. It's about as useful for defensive and offensive players, and having the puck on one's stick would have roughly zero impact on Corsi.

The point is that "poor judgment" and "lack of effort" are often highly subjective, and focusing on individual plays is problematic if only for sample size issues. It's the difference between anecdotal and empirical evidence. Ideally, you'd use both, and both improve with experience. Even in the "fancy stats" community (which is typically more sympathetic to offense-first players), Yandle is a bit of a lightning rod. I'm certainly not saying "The stats say Yandle is a stud, case closed." It's a conversation worth having, though.

You'd also use more than one statistic. In this case, while Yandle has a strong Corsi, he also faced relatively easy quality of competition and cushy zone starts, both of which would pad his Corsi a bit. It's all about looking for context.

I didn't mention Schlemko because we're not talking about Schlemko.

Just to further put dirt on this: OEL and Z are both negative Corsi players. Not only that, but this "magical offense" that Yandle brings? He actually scores at a rate lower than Morris, OEL, and Connor effin Murphy.

Here's where more context would help. OEL and Z have negative Corsi, yes, but they also play much tougher minutes than Yandle (the toughest on the team, by far). If Yandle played those minutes, his Corsi would be even lower.

As for "scoring rate," I think you're cherry-picking here. Yandle had .77 points/60 minutes of even strength this year, which was lower than four players (guessing you left off Summers due to limited playing time). But he also had 4.98 points/60 minutes of powerplay time, highest on the team among defensemen. (OEL was at 4.05 and Stone was at 4.75, but in only a quarter of the minutes).

And that's just this past season. Over the past four seasons, Yandle has 3.82 powerplay points per 60 minutes. Aside from Stone (who has 4.01 but has played only a fraction of the minutes Yandle has), the closest is OEL, with 2.88.

So here we see that Yandle is a unique powerplay scorer on this team. If he goes for someone more "predictable," the powerplay gets a lot worse.

What's the phrase of the day here? Cognitive dissonance?

You don't need to read advanced stats to know that Yandle is a gambler, and that the payoff isn't always worth the risk. For a team desperate to reestablish a defensive identity, he looks like an awfully juicy trade target.

This right here is the issue. Of course the payoff isn't always worth the risk, but by zeroing in on individual plays, you're missing the big picture. Advanced stats help paint that picture, which show pretty clearly that the good greatly outweighs the bad.

 

[cobra427]

Who said "stats lie"? That's like saying words lie. Stats will never tell you the whole picture, but they can add a lot of context that you'll never get with just an "eye test." It's about knowing which statistics tell you what, and using that to paint a clearer picture. I have no idea why you would write off "statistical analysis" entirely here.

And I don't think anyone is debating that Yandle gets sheltered minutes (the advanced metrics on this, you'll be pleased to hear, support this). If that's the debate you're looking to have, no wonder you're so confused.



Before you condemn a tool like Corsi, I think you'd be better served to understand it a little better.

Corsi doesn't measure offense or defense. It's a ratio. A guy who is on the ice for three shots against and two shots for will have the same Corsi as the guy who is on the ice for 30 shots against and 20 shots for. This is derived from a mountain of evidence that shows shot differentials are about the best predictor for future success we have right now. It's about as useful for defensive and offensive players, and having the puck on one's stick would have roughly zero impact on Corsi.

The point is that "poor judgment" and "lack of effort" are often highly subjective, and focusing on individual plays is problematic if only for sample size issues. It's the difference between anecdotal and empirical evidence. Ideally, you'd use both, and both improve with experience. Even in the "fancy stats" community (which is typically more sympathetic to offense-first players), Yandle is a bit of a lightning rod. I'm certainly not saying "The stats say Yandle is a stud, case closed." It's a conversation worth having, though.

You'd also use more than one statistic. In this case, while Yandle has a strong Corsi, he also faced relatively easy quality of competition and cushy zone starts, both of which would pad his Corsi a bit. It's all about looking for context.

I didn't mention Schlemko because we're not talking about Schlemko.



Here's where more context would help. OEL and Z have negative Corsi, yes, but they also play much tougher minutes than Yandle (the toughest on the team, by far). If Yandle played those minutes, his Corsi would be even lower.

As for "scoring rate," I think you're cherry-picking here. Yandle had .77 points/60 minutes of even strength this year, which was lower than four players (guessing you left off Summers due to limited playing time). But he also had 4.98 points/60 minutes of powerplay time, highest on the team among defensemen. (OEL was at 4.05 and Stone was at 4.75, but in only a quarter of the minutes).

And that's just this past season. Over the past four seasons, Yandle has 3.82 powerplay points per 60 minutes. Aside from Stone (who has 4.01 but has played only a fraction of the minutes Yandle has), the closest is OEL, with 2.88.

So here we see that Yandle is a unique powerplay scorer on this team. If he goes for someone more "predictable," the powerplay gets a lot worse.



This right here is the issue. Of course the payoff isn't always worth the risk, but by zeroing in on individual plays, you're missing the big picture. Advanced stats help paint that picture, which show pretty clearly that the good greatly outweighs the bad.

Great post. I also think Yandle gets more offensive zone starts because he is so good offensively and Z/OEL are so good defensively, they get the tougher D zone starts. I think this is good use of your players versus the sheltered minutes argument.

Yandle is the one guy on our team that consistently makes big plays. Honestly, he reminds me of Bobby Orr sometimes, I am older then most of you, saw him play as a kid. The +/- stat is a little misleading, although we all know Yandle can improve on D. I see his deficiencies as more poorly timed turnovers trying to get the puck out of his own zone versus him gambling and being caught up ice. When he is actually back on D, his play is fine. I think a different partner then DMO as he was below average for sure, and some better support from our forwards would help Yandle. Again, our forwards did not support the D on break outs, lack of depth was obvious, so Yandle gambled more then he should on the first pass out.

Another year under his belt, and I think the lapses in his game are small and correctable by a combination of factors. I could see Yandle at 60+ points next year with a =/- near zero with just a few changes. PMD's are at a premium, and we have one of the best, we should keep him.

 

[IPreferPi]

OEL is already averaging 26 min/game. One of the three is either going to have to shift to the right side or get their ass traded. Maybe not this year but not long after that.

If Gormley does eventually hit his OEL-lite upside, not exactly the easiest choice to pick whom to move among Lidstrom-lite (OEL), Coffey-lite (Yandle), or Lidstrom-lite-lite, haha.

 

[XX]

Even in the "fancy stats" community (which is typically more sympathetic to offense-first players), Yandle is a bit of a lightning rod. I'm certainly not saying "The stats say Yandle is a stud, case closed." It's a conversation worth having, though.

This right here is the issue. Of course the payoff isn't always worth the risk, but by zeroing in on individual plays, you're missing the big picture. Advanced stats help paint that picture, which show pretty clearly that the good greatly outweighs the bad.

The case for Yandle with regards to five on five play is the furthest thing possible from a slam dunk "his benefits outweigh the bad". When you consider that the PP has been both good and awful with him here it muddies the best thing he has going for him. As much as you don't want it to, his lackadaisical approach to the defense part of his job and his often appalling timing on bad plays do factor into how he is evaluated. Goalies get traded all the time because they can only turn out above average production in the regular season yet fold like a cheap lawn chair in the playoffs. Why is that off limits when discussing Yandle?

As for "scoring rate," I think you're cherry-picking here.

So here we see that Yandle is a unique powerplay scorer on this team. If he goes for someone more "predictable," the powerplay gets a lot worse.

Which is greater, the TOI a team spends at even strength or on the powerplay? I also don't buy the argument that the PP will drop off to the bottom of the league without him. It was there with him, so he's just one factor. He's good at it, but an equally calm shot from the point would probably have adequate success. You'd also have to figure in the upgraded firepower up front. In the end, it would likely be a wash. When you consider the WCF team had the 2nd worst PP in the league with arguably better personnel, you can see that a lot of it is coaching. Yandle would be missed but he is not irreplaceable.

The point of trading Yandle in that situation would be to gain five on five solidarity and forward depth, while sacrificing some "mobility" on the back end. He's a specialist on a team that doesn't need one and can't afford one right now. That he is on the trade block and has been seasons past is the best case against Yandle. Clearly the hockey minds in the front office can envision life without him and what a return would do for this franchise. A lightning rod for sure, but one the franchise can do without.

How do you improve without trading him? There's not much money to go around. Drafting takes time this franchise doesn't have. Nobody else on the roster is really worth enough in trade to make it worthwhile. So you're asking the fans to pin their hopes on Ribeiro and a few bottom six signings. That's not exciting, it doesn't sell tickets, and doesn't look like a smart way to improve the team. The shortened season was the mulligan. This last year was the test, and they failed.

 

[PhoPhan]

The case for Yandle with regards to five on five play is the furthest thing possible from a slam dunk "his benefits outweigh the bad". When you consider that the PP has been both good and awful with him here it muddies the best thing he has going for him. As much as you don't want it to, his lackadaisical approach to the defense part of his job and his often appalling timing on bad plays do factor into how he is evaluated. Goalies get traded all the time because they can only turn out above average production in the regular season yet fold like a cheap lawn chair in the playoffs. Why is that off limits when discussing Yandle?

This is borderline incoherent, so I'm going to take it sentence by sentence.

Regarding the PP, the performance of the players around him is only so important. Even when the powerplay was bad, he was better than everyone else. Had he not been there, it would have been even worse. That matters.

I didn't say his defense didn't factor into his evaluation. That's asinine. Please stick to the points I actually made, not the ones you want me to make. I'm not really interested in defending arguments you're fabricating.

Goalies don't get traded "all the time," much less for bad playoff performances. I'm sure it's a factor in their valuation, though, as it is for defensemen. That's my point: everything is a factor. All anyone wants to talk about are some misplays, though. Let's talk about his special teams play, his transition game, his offensive contributions, even at even strength. It all matters.

Which is greater, the TOI a team spends at even strength or on the powerplay? I also don't buy the argument that the PP will drop off to the bottom of the league without him. It was there with him, so he's just one factor. He's good at it, but an equally calm shot from the point would probably have adequate success. You'd also have to figure in the upgraded firepower up front. In the end, it would likely be a wash. When you consider the WCF team had the 2nd worst PP in the league with arguably better personnel, you can see that a lot of it is coaching. Yandle would be missed but he is not irreplaceable.

Obviously the team spends more time at even strength, but powerplay time is more important. The Coyotes scored 56 goals on the powerplay in about 451 minutes. That's why Yandle matters.

Again, you're arguing against something I never said. Will the powerplay finish dead last without Yandle? No, probably not. Could it be better if he were replaced? Maybe, but it's not really worth arguing in the abstract since we have no idea who those players even are, much less how they'd fit here.

A lot of it is coaching, but you're not going to convince anybody that personnel isn't important, too.

The point of trading Yandle in that situation would be to gain five on five solidarity and forward depth, while sacrificing some "mobility" on the back end. He's a specialist on a team that doesn't need one and can't afford one right now. That he is on the trade block and has been seasons past is the best case against Yandle. Clearly the hockey minds in the front office can envision life without him and what a return would do for this franchise. A lightning rod for sure, but one the franchise can do without.

The Coyotes were fine at 5 on 5 this year, and they were better at it when Yandle was on the ice. Penalty killing was a much larger issue, but Yandle played all of 12 seconds a game on the PK (and his presence on the powerplay freed up other, better defenders to play the PK more). Could you find another defenseman to improve the PK? Sure, but you can do that without moving Yandle.

There's also zero evidence that he's "on the trade block," and you could argue that the "rumors" indicate how highly other teams value him as much as how the Coyotes may be looking to move him. It's not really a valuable point either way.

How do you improve without trading him? There's not much money to go around. Drafting takes time this franchise doesn't have. Nobody else on the roster is really worth enough in trade to make it worthwhile. So you're asking the fans to pin their hopes on Ribeiro and a few bottom six signings. That's not exciting, it doesn't sell tickets, and doesn't look like a smart way to improve the team. The shortened season was the mulligan. This last year was the test, and they failed.

"There's not much money to go around." Yandle isn't paid all that much for an elite offensive player. If you're bringing in forwards who would offset his impact, they're likely going to get paid a lot more.

"Drafting takes time this franchise doesn't have." Why do they have less time than anybody else? There's no need to make a knee jerk move here. There's possibly (maybe) a chance they'll have to move if they can't turn a profit in the next few years, but the franchise would continue to exist past that point either way, so there's no real incentive for anybody to be making rash decisions in the short term.

"Nobody else on the roster is really worth enough in trade to make it worthwhile." No one I'd be comfortable trading, but I'm not comfortable trading Yandle, either, and for the same reason.

"So you're asking the fans to pin their hopes on Ribeiro and a few bottom six signings." I'm not asking the fans to do ****. There are lots of ways to improve the forward corps without trading Yandle. Let's also not forget that he and Michalek are really the only legitimate veterans this team has going into next season as of now.

"That's not exciting,"
Who cares?

"it doesn't sell tickets,"
Winning does. Trading fan favorites does not.

"and doesn't look like a smart way to improve the team."
[places hands over mouth to make farting sound]

"This last year was the test, and they failed."
The "they" there seems to be the entire team. So why is only Yandle on the coals here?

 

[XX]

Regarding the PP, the performance of the players around him is only so important. Even when the powerplay was bad, he was better than everyone else. Had he not been there, it would have been even worse. That matters.

No one is denying he is good on the PP. I am merely saying that he can be replaced, and that drop off in production won't be as sudden as people think. You pickup five on five play and better forwards. It's a trade in strengths worth considering given the needs of the team.

The Coyotes were fine at 5 on 5 this year, and they were better at it when Yandle was on the ice.

If your definition of "fine" and "better" consists of Corsi numbers, sure. It's interesting that you tend to totally devalue Goals for/Goals against, because Yandle is easily the worst on the team at even strength in that regard. He contributed less than he gave up. Yes, Corsi has a much larger sample size and is more 'accurate' in assigning value. The value it measures is somewhat suspect. A bucket of shots directed the other way does not beat a goal given up the other in a game. Statistically, a breakaway is measured the same as an unscreened shot from the point in terms of Corsi. It's correlated with performance in the same way higher speeds are with speeding tickets. It's a useful measure, but it does not make Yandle a player you want on the ice at five-on-five, especially in his own zone. Tippett coaches him this exact way.

I say remove the variance. Remove the requirement that a player be coached around. Remove a roster spot that is not contributing to the team's biggest need (PK) and is padding the teams strongest aspect (PP). Yandle is a strong PP player, but the PP is not strong solely because of Yandle. The improvement under Brown should demonstrate that more of it has to do with coaching than anything else. So long as you have a baseline level of personnel, it can still function at the level it needs to. Maloney would not replace him with a total plodder.

There's plenty of reason to think that Yandle has been a part of trade discussions. No need to be so disingenuous about it.

"There's not much money to go around." Yandle isn't paid all that much for an elite offensive player. If you're bringing in forwards who would offset his impact, they're likely going to get paid a lot more.

Not if it's an ELC player, or a cheaper player like Perron. The money freed up can be used to sign another player. There are options out there. You know that.

There's possibly (maybe) a chance they'll have to move if they can't turn a profit in the next few years, but the franchise would continue to exist past that point either way, so there's no real incentive for anybody to be making rash decisions in the short term.

Some of us want to see the team stay in Phoenix. Forgive me for not caring about Seattle or Quebec when considering roster moves.

"That's not exciting,"
Who cares?

"it doesn't sell tickets,"
Winning does. Trading fan favorites does not.

"and doesn't look like a smart way to improve the team."
[places hands over mouth to make farting sound]

Childishness aside, the owners care deeply about icing a product that people want to come watch. Standing pat isn't going to win the teams any favors on the balance sheet and isn't something Maloney seems interested in doing.

"This last year was the test, and they failed."
The "they" there seems to be the entire team. So why is only Yandle on the coals here?

Never said he was. To borrow your words: "We're talking about Keith Yandle here"

There are lots of ways to improve the forward corps without trading Yandle.

Let's hear it.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Who said "stats lie"? That's like saying words lie. Stats will never tell you the whole picture, but they can add a lot of context that you'll never get with just an "eye test." It's about knowing which statistics tell you what, and using that to paint a clearer picture. I have no idea why you would write off "statistical analysis" entirely here.

And I don't think anyone is debating that Yandle gets sheltered minutes (the advanced metrics on this, you'll be pleased to hear, support this). If that's the debate you're looking to have, no wonder you're so confused.



Before you condemn a tool like Corsi, I think you'd be better served to understand it a little better.

Corsi doesn't measure offense or defense. It's a ratio. A guy who is on the ice for three shots against and two shots for will have the same Corsi as the guy who is on the ice for 30 shots against and 20 shots for. This is derived from a mountain of evidence that shows shot differentials are about the best predictor for future success we have right now. It's about as useful for defensive and offensive players, and having the puck on one's stick would have roughly zero impact on Corsi.

The point is that "poor judgment" and "lack of effort" are often highly subjective, and focusing on individual plays is problematic if only for sample size issues. It's the difference between anecdotal and empirical evidence. Ideally, you'd use both, and both improve with experience. Even in the "fancy stats" community (which is typically more sympathetic to offense-first players), Yandle is a bit of a lightning rod. I'm certainly not saying "The stats say Yandle is a stud, case closed." It's a conversation worth having, though.

You'd also use more than one statistic. In this case, while Yandle has a strong Corsi, he also faced relatively easy quality of competition and cushy zone starts, both of which would pad his Corsi a bit. It's all about looking for context.

I didn't mention Schlemko because we're not talking about Schlemko.



Here's where more context would help. OEL and Z have negative Corsi, yes, but they also play much tougher minutes than Yandle (the toughest on the team, by far). If Yandle played those minutes, his Corsi would be even lower.

As for "scoring rate," I think you're cherry-picking here. Yandle had .77 points/60 minutes of even strength this year, which was lower than four players (guessing you left off Summers due to limited playing time). But he also had 4.98 points/60 minutes of powerplay time, highest on the team among defensemen. (OEL was at 4.05 and Stone was at 4.75, but in only a quarter of the minutes).

And that's just this past season. Over the past four seasons, Yandle has 3.82 powerplay points per 60 minutes. Aside from Stone (who has 4.01 but has played only a fraction of the minutes Yandle has), the closest is OEL, with 2.88.

So here we see that Yandle is a unique powerplay scorer on this team. If he goes for someone more "predictable," the powerplay gets a lot worse.



This right here is the issue. Of course the payoff isn't always worth the risk, but by zeroing in on individual plays, you're missing the big picture. Advanced stats help paint that picture, which show pretty clearly that the good greatly outweighs the bad.

The first two bolded statements actually create the context that you are looking for.

Basically, he played strongly this past year against two types of competition - the weaker 5-on-5 competition and competition in which we have one additional player on the ice. I would hope that in that context, a good player would show success in those situations, as he is being placed in the best possible situations to enhance offensive prowess. You do bring up several good points, but I'd say that the good outweighs the bad moreso b/c of the types of situations that he was in last year that helped to create those chances.

As for the last bolded point, to say that he is a unique power play scorer would mean that for the past 5 seasons with Yandle at the helm of the power play, we should be increasing our efficiency each year. This was the first year that we established a strong PP percentage. So was it Yandle that made it that much better or Newell Brown? What if 50% of the secondary assists that Yandle had were based on simply moving the puck from one point to the other? That doesn't require a "unique offensive talent."

It's almost like it is assumed that if Gormley were out there instead of Yandle, somehow, the puck would be sent 10 feet away from it's intended target with every pass simply from replacing Yandle with Gormley. The funny thing is that there are quite a few times when Yandle does miss someone by 10 feet, yet I guess it is okay b/c he is "uniquely talented."

 

[IPreferPi]

There's plenty of reason to think that Yandle has been a part of trade discussions. No need to be so disingenuous about it.

There's a difference between being part of trade rumors and being part of *serious* trade discussions. There's always been interest for Yandle as he's an elite PMD on a pretty deep blueline (hence possibly gettable), but never a legit fire. As Elliote Friedman pointed outed last TDL:

I don't believe Phoenix got any offers that really made the Coyotes consider trading Keith Yandle. They want two forwards, including a centre who can go face-to-face with the Kopitars, Sedins, Thorntons and Getzlafs of the Pacific Division. They also understand that Yandle is a great skater and passer who can play a long time because he never gets hit. You don't give that away without a reason.

Standing pat isn't going to win the teams any favors on the balance sheet and isn't something Maloney seems interested in doing.

And given Maloney's and Tippett's explicit praise of Yandle in their post-season pressers (esp. with regards to his defense and leadership), it seems pretty clear that they aren't as fixated on "eliminating variance" as you are.

 

[PhoPhan]

No one is denying he is good on the PP. I am merely saying that he can be replaced, and that drop off in production won't be as sudden as people think. You pickup five on five play and better forwards. It's a trade in strengths worth considering given the needs of the team.

Keith Yandle has been one of the most effective powerplay players in the league the past few seasons, and when you consider how awful the rest of the squad was in that regard, it makes his production even more impressive. As good as the powerplay was this past season, I'm not ready to call it a team-wide "strength," especially given how instrumental Yandle was to that success. That's not trading from strength. That's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

If your definition of "fine" and "better" consists of Corsi numbers, sure. It's interesting that you tend to totally devalue Goals for/Goals against, because Yandle is easily the worst on the team at even strength in that regard. He contributed less than he gave up. Yes, Corsi has a much larger sample size and is more 'accurate' in assigning value. The value it measures is somewhat suspect. A bucket of shots directed the other way does not beat a goal given up the other in a game. Statistically, a breakaway is measured the same as an unscreened shot from the point in terms of Corsi. It's correlated with performance in the same way higher speeds are with speeding tickets. It's a useful measure, but it does not make Yandle a player you want on the ice at five-on-five, especially in his own zone. Tippett coaches him this exact way.

Again, it's clear to me that you really don't know what you're talking about with regard to these statistics. The things you're mentioning to devalue Corsi are exactly why it's so much more "accurate" as a predictive measure. Using the eye test, we have a tendency to focus on the "big" plays, like gaffes that lead to breakaways. But they make up just a small percentage of the total, and they're not really indicative of anything.

Case in point: save percentage. Think about all the "lucky bounces" you see over the course of a season, good and bad. Shot quality matters, of course, but not all that much over time. But if you look at this chart, you'll see the team save percentage was lower when Yandle was on the ice than it was for any other defenseman on the team, by a lot. Part of that may be shot quality, but that part is likely small. The rest of it is mostly just random variance. That's why we look at shots, not goals. If you control for save percentage, the goals for/against argument goes out the window.

I say remove the variance. Remove the requirement that a player be coached around. Remove a roster spot that is not contributing to the team's biggest need (PK) and is padding the teams strongest aspect (PP). Yandle is a strong PP player, but the PP is not strong solely because of Yandle. The improvement under Brown should demonstrate that more of it has to do with coaching than anything else. So long as you have a baseline level of personnel, it can still function at the level it needs to. Maloney would not replace him with a total plodder.

You can't "remove the requirement that a player be coached around." That's what a coach is for, and having a diverse roster makes you a lot harder to play against. Trotting out a team of 12 identical forwards and 6 identical defensemen makes it easy to coach, but it also makes it pretty easy to gameplan against.

Few teams have all six defensemen playing the PK anyway, so it's fine to have a defenseman who doesn't kill penalties (especially when he typically plays the full length of your powerplay). And he's a big reason why the powerplay is a strength in the first place. Newell Brown and Mike Ribeiro both helped a lot, but you really can't discount Yandle's contributions.

There's plenty of reason to think that Yandle has been a part of trade discussions. No need to be so disingenuous about it.

Cool, a bunch of unsourced rumors, mostly suggesting the Flyers wanted Yandle. I'm not being disingenuous. That's meaningless. Even if there is validity to the rumors, it means another team WANTS to add him as much as the Coyotes want to get rid of him (more so, considering the Coyotes haven't made a deal yet).

Not if it's an ELC player, or a cheaper player like Perron. The money freed up can be used to sign another player. There are options out there. You know that.

This is getting out of hand. So this hypothetical Yandle trade is going to bring back at least one forward who will offset his powerplay production and at least one defenseman who can kill penalties reliably, and those two and whatever else comes in are going to cost less than $10.5 million over the next two seasons? Who the hell do you have in mind?

Some of us want to see the team stay in Phoenix. Forgive me for not caring about Seattle or Quebec when considering roster moves.

That's fine, but you can't expect management to care about that as much as you do.

Childishness aside, the owners care deeply about icing a product that people want to come watch. Standing pat isn't going to win the teams any favors on the balance sheet and isn't something Maloney seems interested in doing.

I don't think they're going to stand pat, and I honestly don't know whether they'll end up trading Yandle. I just don't think it makes sense to trade him at this point.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Let's make this simple.

When Keith Yandle plays at his best, he is an elite powerplay quarterback and puck-moving and -shooting defenseman.

He has focus issues which result in questionable on-ice judgement, especially in his own zone. That could apply to anyone, in fairness.

The way the Coyotes' roster currently stands, the team cannot adequately compensate for those issues to the point where he becomes indispensable to the offensive effort.

Why don't we leave it there until we see how the team shapes up for next season instead of banging our heads on the same walls?

 

[XX]

There's a difference between being part of trade rumors and being part of *serious* trade discussions. There's always been interest for Yandle as he's an elite PMD on a pretty deep blueline (hence possibly gettable), but never a legit fire. As Elliote Friedman pointed outed last TDL:

An agreed upon asking price and confirmation from various league sources is as good as it gets. Short of a team openly pining for him in the press, that's what constitutes being a part of discussions.

And given Maloney's and Tippett's explicit praise of Yandle in their post-season pressers (esp. with regards to his defense and leadership), it seems pretty clear that they aren't as fixated on "eliminating variance" as you are.

You could just as easily spin that same conference against Yandle. That he was still prone to terrible mistakes and that he is part of the complacent group. It's really not worth fretting about. Yandle will be traded if the return makes sense, the same as every other player not named Doan.

You also don't poo-poo a player publicly, ever, trade desires or not. Bad form.

 

[XX]

Again, it's clear to me that you really don't know what you're talking about with regard to these statistics.

I actually do. You're just going all-in on numbers which is never a good thing.

The things you're mentioning to devalue Corsi are exactly why it's so much more "accurate" as a predictive measure. Using the eye test, we have a tendency to focus on the "big" plays, like gaffes that lead to breakaways. But they make up just a small percentage of the total, and they're not really indicative of anything.

You didn't even address the point. This is a bunch of hand-waiving nonsense. Corsi measures a general trend. It is entirely possible for a player to be a Corsi stud and still be an awful detriment to his team. This is what happens when you start adding in measures beyond goals. You gain sample size and theoretical accuracy. It does not mean that Corsi suddenly accounts for shot quality or anything of the sort. Yandle could give up three crippling breakaways a game and still be a great Corsi player. This is why the eye test matters and you cannot go all-in on one stat in particular.

Klesla, Schlemko, and Biz all have a better On-Ice Corsi rating than Yandle, as an example.

...you'll see the team save percentage was lower when Yandle was on the ice than it was for any other defenseman on the team, by a lot. Part of that may be shot quality, but that part is likely small. The rest of it is mostly just random variance. That's why we look at shots, not goals. If you control for save percentage, the goals for/against argument goes out the window.

Literally what? Yandle's on ice save percentage is the lowest on the team because he's the ********* at actually defending. On ice SV is a way to measure up the quality of the chances given up by a player. You think that Yandle has poor defensive stats because the moment he stepped on the ice Mike Smith **** the bed? That's some grade A spin right there Pho. Is Z the goalie whisperer because when he was on the ice it was .937?

You can't "remove the requirement that a player be coached around." That's what a coach is for, and having a diverse roster makes you a lot harder to play against. Trotting out a team of 12 identical forwards and 6 identical defensemen makes it easy to coach, but it also makes it pretty easy to gameplan against.

Having a player you can't put out there five on five in contested games, defensive zone starts, and shorthanded situations is absolutely something that has to be coached around. And for every option Yandle puts on the table for the Coyotes, teams gain an advantage by having him dressed. He's a specialist. Admit it.

Few teams have all six defensemen playing the PK anyway, so it's fine to have a defenseman who doesn't kill penalties (especially when he typically plays the full length of your powerplay). And he's a big reason why the powerplay is a strength in the first place. Newell Brown and Mike Ribeiro both helped a lot, but you really can't discount Yandle's contributions.

Not discounting. I made that very clear. I said that he can be replaced partially or in aggregate. The production at that spot does not go to zero, as BUX pointed out.

This is getting out of hand. So this hypothetical Yandle trade is going to bring back at least one forward who will offset his powerplay production and at least one defenseman who can kill penalties reliably, and those two and whatever else comes in are going to cost less than $10.5 million over the next two seasons? Who the hell do you have in mind?

It's easier to find a lefty D, either in trade or on the market, than it is to find a specific partner for Yandle. It's also not that hard to envision a 50 or 60 point forward coming the other way in trade. Any money saved on a Yandle trade can also be rolled into signing a more expensive forward. Trading him gives you lots of options.

 

[PhoPhan]

XX, shoot me a PM when you actually want to have a conversation with me about this. If you're only going to attack arguments I'm not even making (and not even try to respond to the arguments I do make), I'm going to move on.

 

[IPreferPi]

You could just as easily spin that same conference against Yandle. That he was still prone to terrible mistakes and that he is part of the complacent group. It's really not worth fretting about. Yandle will be traded if the return makes sense, the same as every other player not named Doan.

You also don't poo-poo a player publicly, ever, trade desires or not. Bad form.

Maloney and Tippett weren't hesitant at all in expressing their disappointment in Ribeiro in the same presser, or Smith earlier in the season. If they were disappointed in Yandle's play, they aren't going to mince words. But instead they specifically used the words "best two-way year of his entire career." And given that he had a -23, that certainly means something.

 

[Kaizen]

I'm in XX's camp on this one - if you have any inclination to trade a player you simply don't devalue your currency going into the time frame when a trade might be consummated.

Neither Smith nor Ribeiro are likely trade candidates so some constructive criticism is well within reason.