The MAJOR issue with this team right now is that we to a big extent have the team we have. This is a roster that is quite smaller than the team we had last year, especially up front. Last years team lost the battles infront of the net.
Boston is a good hockey team still, mainly struggling due to Chara not being the work horse he has been and injuries and lost players on the blue line. We could play them in the first round, what if they beat us by playing really physical hockey? If we loose this year because we are too small and not physical enough -- what do we do then?
We are "ok+" IMO on this score.
We are undersized in 2 Ws of our top 6.
This is partly why I pushed to move Zuc (since it is a given Marty can't be moved, only discounted/phased out).
We should be pleased where we are at for now.
No team, IMO is 100%+ on all cylinders, size, speed, talent, etc. at every position, but while we are nominal favorite to win, IMO, we still have to be wary on any given nite, an opposing G could get crazy hot, s*** could happen, sometimes it does.
Still, percentage wise IMO we are looking good.
I would not be worried about the Bs.
I would hope that, as we improve in increments, that win or lose, we do not rest on our laurels, and continue to try to build a team that is DOMINANT. That is still not 1 million percent infallible -- remember the 69 Mets- Orioles -- but THAT would be doing the best job of fielding the ultimately best team possible, IMO.
How is this team quite smaller than last year's? Hayes and Miller are both big, and Miller is one of the few players on this team that hits with some fire. Lost Pouliot and Richards, gained Hayes and Miller. Am I forgetting some other way we lost a significant amount of size? Stralman didn't play particularly big. Also, Sheppard is a pretty big boy.
As for the Boston idea, two things. 1. Worry about what-ifs when they materialize IMO, 2. This team could lose to Boston and not necessarily lose to them because they're too small.
If they do happen to lose to Boston and it does happen to be obvious that they lost because of lack of size, letting MSL walk and moving up Miller or moving in Buch somewhere would be a pretty obvious response. The only other guy who is really small in the big scheme of things is Zucc, and he's very, very feisty.
The net front battles that they lost routine were mostly to LA if I remember right, and it was mostly NYR defense letting LA's forwards have free run of the crease. In that case, where would they possible add size on D next year? Maybe in Boyle's spot if they could move him somehow? But McD, G, Staal, Klein and Yandle aren't exactly small guys. Yandle doesn't bring much physicality but the rest of them do.
This is where people are forgetting my reminder of the sports adage "the good big man usually beats the good little man", a truism that applies mostly in boxing. However, it arguably can be seen here in hockey as well.
Hayes is huge, even if he does not overly play extreme gnashing of your teeth into the boards type of game. While he uses a lot of finesse, he still makes his ample size -- particularly his reach -- work for him.
No, what I have meant and would apply here are deals that would try to get us one more dominant C, a guy like Ryjo for Stepan +.
We need to get a little bigger here, a little faster there on the backline, but we are very improved esp. since our drafting has been so well for recent years.
This is a good point. Having msl and zucc in the top 6 is a factor to consider. I would argue zucc plays bigger than his size but msl is a perimeter player. If msl isn't producing he is a net - player IMO. I always enjoyed the physical hockey but this current team has won me over. We have to stick to our game which is speed. We are no doubt going to have to deal with the crease issues but if we get teams playing from behind and our pp is clicking that's our best approach. If talbot could bring back prospect that fits our system I do it in heartbeat.
Teams like the blue jackets are so superior for the physical brand we would be nuts to even engage in that style. Besides they are their own worst enemy, injuries galore. If the refs pull the let em play bs it means we are in trouble. My biggest pet peeve is if it's a penalty reg season it's penalty playoffs. The slower physical teams always push this mantra. La got away with a lot.
Again, with a mind as to Brass getting a NMNTC this July, avoid that, and see if we can package Zuc with him. Zuc is comfy with Brass + might consider it if:
it is to a good team + location and
we give him a bonus for being traded, which offsets he would have gotten upwards of 1m more on the open market.
But again, not saying move this guys just to shuffle the deck.
Target a need, and can we get a premium piece or assets for what we would be surrendering.
I'm officially in the "let's start to think about how to unload Girardi" camp. Fact is, NYR have 3 shutdown guys who aren't great with the puck with any consistency. Staal IMO is very, very clearly the best both at shutting down the opposition and at playing with the puck when he's on. Klein is good at d and decent moving the puck from time to time. G is good at staying at home and just not good with the puck.
Klein would be easiest to move, but he's outperforming his contract, so that's not an ideal situation. Staal is too good on both sides to move IMO.
Really gotta wonder where G would go and how. With that salary, you'd assume a building team would be most willing to take the gamble, but I'm 100% sure he wouldn't take a trade to a bad team. When is his NMC/NTC whatever up?
Welcome.
There is at present ONLY 1 way that MAYBE = he would move.
He has 2 years after this which he controls. HE TOTALLY CONTROLS.
we have no say. Then, the shoe is on the other foot. The threat of going to ____ fill in the blank AT THAT TIME with no input from him whatsoever, ie hardball across the board, might be enough to induce him to consider a move to 3-4 teams that are a comfy fit. This is even the more so if we win the Cup, and feeling deprived as to that is not under his belt.
-----------------
Mods:
We should have a strategic planning thread.
It would examine/keep track of NMNTC clauses, and to what extent, if any, can we hope to break them?
Also, dealing with the cap + making cap space.
LIMITED trade discussion should be permitted there IF the deals focus on player movements relative to cap.
So for example, no longer applies, but if
Girardi (5.5) was traded for Lupul (5.25), then subsequent deal with Detroit for D prospects Sproul, etc. is pertinent to topic.
?s like what should we do with Buch would go on the main board, UNLESS it was like the scenario I described
Pls feel free to at least try it
I think by targeting attention to it, you may end up with less redundant posts overall (small period of adjustment), the undisciplined notwithstanding.
