Speculation: 2018-19 Roster Discussion Part I

[OrrNumber4]

Guys, I was not complaining about the Burns contract. I was saying that it is ugly and will probably look real bad in the future, but that it was a necessary evil because unlike Couture/Kane/Jones/Vlasic, Brent Burns is an elite superstar.

In that case, pretty much every UFA contract is a necessary evil. The Martin contract, the Ward contract, etc....so will be the potential Karlsson contract.

As fans, it is easy for us to bemoan contracts because we imagine all the other great things we would do with all that cap space. Sign all the top players, make all the great trades...except those are not at all guaranteed.

I've seen people talk about how DW should have not signed Kane, Couture, Jones, and Vlasic and instead saved up money for the 2019 and 2020 UFA classes...where the Sharks should go and target the likes of Duchene, Panarin, Skinner, Karlsson, etc. Yet what are the chances the Sharks could nab those players? How happy would you be with a 7 year, 77 million USD deal for Panarin or Duchene, players just as susceptible to decline and with numerous question marks? Heck, the chances of Karlsson signing sight-unseen in San Jose were practically zero!

In short, surely there were ways the Sharks could have more optimally used their cap dollars. But, one must weigh both sides of the opportunity costs of that 20+ million in unused cap space.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

He certainly seems snake-bitten. He's right there on so many chances and is definitely creating offense. As someone pointed out in this thread or earlier, he seems to go as the team does, which kinda sucks. I think the offense will come as the team turns it around (fingers crossed that happens soon!)

Having said all of that, his defensive play could use a little more energy. Actually, i found myself agreeing with most, if not all, of what Kurz wrote about him in that article

He's never winning the Selke but I've seen him break up a number of plays. Frankly it's just not as big a concern IMO since he's a winger. I'd rather him create transition opportunities 5x5 since it's typically been a weakness of this team over the last few years.

If jones has truly found himself, I think this teams best games are still to come this season and all our panic will be for nought. It sounds like maybe the D-men weren't "feeling" Zettler though.

 

[tiburon12]

In that case, pretty much every UFA contract is a necessary evil. So was the Martin contract, the Ward contract, etc....so will the potential Karlsson contract.

As fans, it is easy for us to bemoan contracts because we imagine all the other great things we would do with all that cap space. Sign all the top players, make all the great trades...except those are not at all guaranteed.

I've seen people talk about how DW should have not signed Kane, Couture, Jones, and Vlasic and instead saved up money for the 2019 and 2020 UFA classes...where the Sharks should go and target the likes of Duchene, Panarin, Skinner, Karlsson, etc. Yet what are the chances the Sharks could nab those players? How happy would you be with a 7 year, 77 million USD deal for Panarin or Duchene, players just as susceptible to decline and numerous question marks? Heck, the chances of Karlsson signing sight-unseen in San Jose were practically zero!

In short, surely there were ways the Sharks could have more optimally used their cap dollars. But, one must weigh both sides of the opportunity costs of that 20+ million in unused cap space.

This is a very well written approach to a point a few of us (unsuccessfully) have been trying to make for a while now.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

In that case, pretty much every UFA contract is a necessary evil. So was the Martin contract, the Ward contract, etc....so will the potential Karlsson contract.

As fans, it is easy for us to bemoan contracts because we imagine all the other great things we would do with all that cap space. Sign all the top players, make all the great trades...except those are not at all guaranteed.

I've seen people talk about how DW should have not signed Kane, Couture, Jones, and Vlasic and instead saved up money for the 2019 and 2020 UFA classes...where the Sharks should go and target the likes of Duchene, Panarin, Skinner, Karlsson, etc. Yet what are the chances the Sharks could nab those players? How happy would you be with a 7 year, 77 million USD deal for Panarin or Duchene, players just as susceptible to decline and numerous question marks? Heck, the chances of Karlsson signing sight-unseen in San Jose were practically zero!

In short, surely there were ways the Sharks could have more optimally used their cap dollars. But, one must weigh both sides of the opportunity costs of that 20+ million in unused cap space.

Now you've done it... Get ready for 3 page response in 3... 2... 1...

 

[tiburon12]

He's never sinning the Selke but I've seen him break up a number of plays. Frankly it's just not as big a concern IMO since he's a winger. I'd rather him create transition opportunities 5x5 since it's typically been a weakness of this team over the last few years.

If jones has truly found himself, I think this teams best games are still to come this season and all our panic will be for nought. It sounds like maybe the D-men weren't "feeling" Zettler though.

i should have said "play in the defensive zone" rather than "defensive play". I'm a big believe in getting pucks out of the zone even if it means just chipping it out and having the other team regroup. More than a few times Kane has made attempts at clearing the puck out with less that 100% effort, and a lot of those have resulted in scoring chances against. Kane is big, fast, and strong. I want him to play in the D zone, especially along the walls, with the intensity Hertl plays on the forecheck. But i get his game, he is an opportunist.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Kane has never been a very good finisher. He’s put up goals by putting an ungodly number of shots on net. That’s a perfectly valid way to be a scorer, but it also means that I don’t think his shooting percentage is as likely to regress to a mean as an elite finisher like Pavelski. I don’t think he’ll shoot 6-7% forever, but I don’t think 9% is an unreasonable expectation. If he had two more goals right now, I’d still be pretty disappointed.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Now you've done it... Get ready for 3 page response in 3... 2... 1...

I assume you are talking about JTR, who, at least lately, generally makes detailed, readable, and thorough posts regardless of their lengths. Better than those who resort to jokes or posts with galimatias and of page-long run-on sentences (just in case, not at all directed at you).

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Kane has never been a very good finisher. He’s put up goals by putting an ungodly number of shots on net. That’s a perfectly valid way to be a scorer, but it also means that I don’t think his shooting percentage is as likely to regress to a mean as an elite finisher like Pavelski. I don’t think he’ll shoot 6-7% forever, but I don’t think 9% is an unreasonable expectation. If he had two more goals right now, I’d still be pretty disappointed.

That's fair. But lets be honest, your default setting when it comes to Kane is "disappointment".

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Hi several shooting percentage last season is 10.05%. So over 10% last 2 years. Lets say you're right and he ends with 8.9%, basically 9%. He's on pace for 300+ shots so that puts him at 27 goals minimum and 54 points. I don't think he finishes that low but I can live with that considering his overall game. Also for him to finish at 9% he will need to go thru a stretch where he's finishing at least 12% or better. So like I said...

We’ll just have to wait and see. At this point, we’re all in agreement that his play and production so far has been unsatisfactory. We’re also pretty much all in agreement that his play will improve from here on out but the big question here is how much he will improve and how much it needs to improve in order for him to be worth his contract.

The other issue for me is with “his overall game”. I don’t think that it is...positive. He has taken 17 penalties, and most of those are of the undisciplined, unnecessary variety. Some people bring up penalties where he took another guy in off but my final retort to that argument is that 1) His penalty differential is -5, which is unacceptable through 29 games and 2) A few of those are cases in which somebody else took a penalty and then he retaliated. He’s got a strong CF%, HDCF%, and he has historically done well in those metrics but his GF% and RelGF% are both near the bottom of the and haven’t always looked great. His 5V5 GF% in contract years has been above 50% both times and has been equal to or less than 50% in every other season.

I know that there is a hell of a lot that goes behind GF% and it’s not the be all end all but if a player like Kane gets 64.57% OZ starts against butter soft competition and still can’t go above 50% in GF% or 0% in RelGF%, I’m not sure how great that player’s overall game is. He’s still got time to turn it around in terms of those metrics but I don’t have a ton of hope.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

In that case, pretty much every UFA contract is a necessary evil. The Martin contract, the Ward contract, etc....so will be the potential Karlsson contract.

As fans, it is easy for us to bemoan contracts because we imagine all the other great things we would do with all that cap space. Sign all the top players, make all the great trades...except those are not at all guaranteed.

I've seen people talk about how DW should have not signed Kane, Couture, Jones, and Vlasic and instead saved up money for the 2019 and 2020 UFA classes...where the Sharks should go and target the likes of Duchene, Panarin, Skinner, Karlsson, etc. Yet what are the chances the Sharks could nab those players? How happy would you be with a 7 year, 77 million USD deal for Panarin or Duchene, players just as susceptible to decline and with numerous question marks? Heck, the chances of Karlsson signing sight-unseen in San Jose were practically zero!

In short, surely there were ways the Sharks could have more optimally used their cap dollars. But, one must weigh both sides of the opportunity costs of that 20+ million in unused cap space.

I don’t...disagree with any of this. The Martin contract and Ward contracts were necessary evils. Both of them were great in 2015-2016 and contributed to our Stanley Cup Finals run. Both of them were pretty bad by the final years of their contracts and we had to buy out Paul Martin. And yet, they were still good contracts. I would do them all over again without blinking.

The difference between contracts like those and that of Burns, when compared to Kane/Vlasic/Jones and possibly Couture, is that year 1 is getting ugly on those deals. That’s the point I was trying to make. Sure, you can sign a big contract and take the good at the first few years along with the bad at the final few years. It is a necessary evil. Ideally, you wouldn’t have to buy out Paul Martin, you wouldn’t have to handle Burns making $8M in the playoffs at the age of 40, etc...but that is not reality.

You know a guy I like from the UFA class of 2019? Joe Pavelski. Yeah, he’s not perfect, but he’s got 18 goals in 29 games this season, and we’ve got the inside track on signing him; he said he wanted to sign an extension here and hadn’t been contacted about it, so we know he would be willing. He is probably going to be the opportunity cost of the Kane contract. If you sign him to a $7M/4Y contract, it probably ends up looking hideous in years 3-4, but at least he’s absolutely worth that money right now and will probably be worth that in year 1 at worst. That’s a whole lot more than I can say for Kane, Vlasic, and Jones.

Even if you don’t want to retain Pavelski, the point is that the opportunity cost of the $19.75M spent on those 3 is not just Duchene/Panarin. It is comfortably retaining our own core players, it is having the space to pounce when a desperate team puts a player on the trade market and we have the assets. What if, in 10 months, Evgeni Malkin and Pittsburgh have a falling out, Pittsburgh’s ownership burns a bridge, and Jim Rutherford offers us Evgeni Malkin for Suomela, Ryan, Chmelevski, and a 2021 1st? Zany hypothetical, I know, but that is also exactly what just happened with Erik Karlsson. We had the space to make it happen, but we won’t if that type of situation arises again and we might not have the flexibility to make that space in time because of those contracts and the NTCs attached to them.

On top of that, Panarin and Duchene are both currently playing much better than any one of Couture/Jones/Kane/Vlasic have in their regular season career. In 2018, Duchene has 77 points and Panarin has 79. Couture has 62 and Kane has 36. Jones has a .909 SV%.

I can pull up point shares per year of age, Point shares per 82 per year of age, points per age, points/game per age, and make charts to compare them to the guys we signed. They’re all going to say that Duchene/Panarin are currently showing a better aging trend than the guys we signed.

 

[tiburon12]

I don’t...disagree with any of this. The Martin contract and Ward contracts were necessary evils. Both of them were great in 2015-2016 and contributed to our Stanley Cup Finals run. Both of them were pretty bad by the final years of their contracts and we had to buy out Paul Martin. And yet, they were still good contracts. I would do them all over again without blinking.

The difference between contracts like those and that of Burns, when compared to Kane/Vlasic/Jones and possibly Couture, is that year 1 is getting ugly on those deals. That’s the point I was trying to make. Sure, you can sign a big contract and take the good at the first few years along with the bad at the final few years. It is a necessary evil. Ideally, you wouldn’t have to buy out Paul Martin, you wouldn’t have to handle Burns making $8M in the playoffs at the age of 40, etc...but that is not reality.

You know a guy I like from the UFA class of 2019? Joe Pavelski. Yeah, he’s not perfect, but he’s got 18 goals in 29 games this season, and we’ve got the inside track on signing him; he said he wanted to sign an extension here and hadn’t been contacted about it, so we know he would be willing. He is probably going to be the opportunity cost of the Kane contract. If you sign him to a $7M/4Y contract, it probably ends up looking hideous in years 3-4, but at least he’s absolutely worth that money right now and will probably be worth that in year 1 at worst. That’s a whole lot more than I can say for Kane, Vlasic, and Jones.

Even if you don’t want to retain Pavelski, the point is that the opportunity cost of the $19.75M spent on those 3 is not just Duchene/Panarin. It is comfortably retaining our own core players, it is having the space to pounce when a desperate team puts a player on the trade market and we have the assets. What if, in 10 months, Evgeni Malkin and Pittsburgh have a falling out, Pittsburgh’s ownership burns a bridge, and Jim Rutherford offers us Evgeni Malkin for Suomela, Ryan, Chmelevski, and a 2021 1st? Zany hypothetical, I know, but that is also exactly what just happened with Erik Karlsson. We had the space to make it happen, but we won’t if that type of situation arises again and we might not have the flexibility to make that space in time because of those contracts and the NTCs attached to them.

On top of that, Panarin and Duchene are both currently playing much better than any one of Couture/Jones/Kane/Vlasic have in their regular season career. In 2018, Duchene has 77 points and Panarin has 79. Couture has 62 and Kane has 36. Jones has a .909 SV%.

I can pull up point shares per year of age, Point shares per 82 per year of age, points per age, points/game per age, and make charts to compare them to the guys we signed. They’re all going to say that Duchene/Panarin are currently showing a better aging trend than the guys we signed.

I don;t think anyone is disagreeing with those points, or that those players (Duchene/Panarin) are playing better than the current guys we have signed. However, that is very idealistic view on reality. No one could have predicted that Vlasic would fall off a cliff in 2018 when his contract was signed after the 16-17 season. Kane, i think we all agree the contract was a little high both on term and value, but we needed some scoring; it was an apparent need all last season. I like how wilson signs guys as early as he can, that way he has more control of the market (I know the timing doesnt match, but imagine if Burns was due after doughty signed for 11? We'd be 11 in the hole at least for Burns!). Looks pretty good for Couture right now, though obviously it's way too early to tell.

The Karlsson situation isn't as black and white as you are making it either (we could pull this off because of the previous trade to Ottawa made with the intent of getting JT), though i get your overall point. Flexibility is just that and is valuable, and no we don't have that. But from a business perspective, and a hockey perspective, you have to manage your risk. For all we know, Duchene could resign with Ottawa, Panarin could be only set on teams not named San Jose, and other potential UFA's could easily be not available. Then, what would we have long term, especially without Kane and Couture and Jones?

I get your point, fully. My point is that when looking at things in hindsight, it's very important to remember the position the team was in when these business decisions were made and to consider the business risks involved - risks being the key word. As we've seen some of those risks have paid off, others.....not so much. No one is going to hit on every risk. Kinda sucks that the balance has shifted negatively. We arent used to that as sharks fans

 

[tiburon12]

Fighters don’t actually protect players either. Matt Pelech was on the ice when Lapierre wrecked Dan Boyle. Milan Lucic was on the ice when Cooke wrecked Savard. Jamal Mayers and Brandon Bollig were on the ice when Torres wrecked Hosea. Not that Kane is even an imposing heavyweight fighter like those guys.

Totally off topic, but i watched that cooke/savard clip recently. Lucic is wearing a visor in that game, never knew he ever wore one (or could fit under one )

 

[Juxtaposer]

That's fair. But lets be honest, your default setting when it comes to Kane is "disappointment".

Except that’s not true. I was very impressed with Kane’s first several games this season. He was legitimately playing excellent hockey, he was a difference maker every shift. It wasn’t just that he was getting the bounces, he was legitimately playing excellent. The difference between those first half dozen or so games and the last dozen games is more than just getting bounces or shooting luck.

 

[Lebanezer]

Except that’s not true. I was very impressed with Kane’s first several games this season. He was legitimately playing excellent hockey, he was a difference maker every shift. It wasn’t just that he was getting the bounces, he was legitimately playing excellent. The difference between those first half dozen or so games and the last dozen games is more than just getting bounces or shooting luck.

Yeah, he’s been bad lately. He was especially bad against Carolina. He was pressing so hard he turned the puck over every time he touched it. I’m sure his confidence is super low.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Problem with that is you can't apply his 20-21 cap hit to 15-16.

Maybe not but it's more a matter of keeping things in perspective and not forgetting the incredible value they once had. If it happens to go the other way for a certain amount of time then that's a risk I'm willing to accept to continue to get good years out of players. That's all. I'm still for trying to move players when they no longer are as valuable as needed but if it's not feasible and it's not too too bad then I'm okay with it because of what they've done before. Luckily, with the exception of Vlasic's first five years, all these players have at least three teams to work with if needed. I think that's enough for DW to utilize as needed.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Except that’s not true. I was very impressed with Kane’s first several games this season. He was legitimately playing excellent hockey, he was a difference maker every shift. It wasn’t just that he was getting the bounces, he was legitimately playing excellent. The difference between those first half dozen or so games and the last dozen games is more than just getting bounces or shooting luck.

Yeah I don't think it is. Especially after reading Kurz article and seeing those stats. Anyway, for the Sharks sake hopefully he starts getting his shooting percentage back up.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

We’ll just have to wait and see. At this point, we’re all in agreement that his play and production so far has been unsatisfactory. We’re also pretty much all in agreement that his play will improve from here on out but the big question here is how much he will improve and how much it needs to improve in order for him to be worth his contract.

The other issue for me is with “his overall game”. I don’t think that it is...positive. He has taken 17 penalties, and most of those are of the undisciplined, unnecessary variety. Some people bring up penalties where he took another guy in off but my final retort to that argument is that 1) His penalty differential is -5, which is unacceptable through 29 games and 2) A few of those are cases in which somebody else took a penalty and then he retaliated. He’s got a strong CF%, HDCF%, and he has historically done well in those metrics but his GF% and RelGF% are both near the bottom of the and haven’t always looked great. His 5V5 GF% in contract years has been above 50% both times and has been equal to or less than 50% in every other season.

I know that there is a hell of a lot that goes behind GF% and it’s not the be all end all but if a player like Kane gets 64.57% OZ starts against butter soft competition and still can’t go above 50% in GF% or 0% in RelGF%, I’m not sure how great that player’s overall game is. He’s still got time to turn it around in terms of those metrics but I don’t have a ton of hope.

Your penalty stuff is too much noise and not enough context. The penalty differential number is deliberately misleading. The penalty differential only means something if you can show that is impacting the team in any real way. What you're pointing to is 14 even strength penalties versus 9 even strength penalties drawn. Five of those 14 even strength penalties involved Kane taking someone to the box with him. Only one of his penalties drawn ended up the same way. His real penalty difference that actually means anything towards man advantage situations is -1. That's nothing to give a damn about. There's plenty to bag on Kane for that I'd agree with but his penalties outside of a game or two here and there isn't one of them. I tend to not give much of a crap about GF% when it's associated with an unsustainable on-ice shooting percentage on the low side especially for a volume shooter. I'm really only worried about his health and that's it. People need to accept the ups and downs of a regular season that are going to come with Kane but if he's healthy for the long haul and especially at the right time, he can be a very valuable asset that's worth dealing with the negatives that come with him and his contract.

I get wanting more out of a 7 million dollar player but this team should be able to win consistently during the regular season when one or two of their high-priced players slumps now and again. I want Kane for the playoffs more than anything else.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Except that’s not true. I was very impressed with Kane’s first several games this season. He was legitimately playing excellent hockey, he was a difference maker every shift. It wasn’t just that he was getting the bounces, he was legitimately playing excellent. The difference between those first half dozen or so games and the last dozen games is more than just getting bounces or shooting luck.

When Kane is on, he is worth $7M. The issue is that he isn’t on anywhere near frequently enough to make him worth paying that over a long period of time and his contributions in the aggregate really don’t add up to the value that they should given his contract.

Your penalty stuff is too much noise and not enough context. The penalty differential number is deliberately misleading. The penalty differential only means something if you can show that is impacting the team in any real way. What you're pointing to is 14 even strength penalties versus 9 even strength penalties drawn. Five of those 14 even strength penalties involved Kane taking someone to the box with him. Only one of his penalties drawn ended up the same way. His real penalty difference that actually means anything towards man advantage situations is -1. That's nothing to give a damn about. There's plenty to bag on Kane for that I'd agree with but his penalties outside of a game or two here and there isn't one of them. I tend to not give much of a crap about GF% when it's associated with an unsustainable on-ice shooting percentage on the low side especially for a volume shooter. I'm really only worried about his health and that's it. People need to accept the ups and downs of a regular season that are going to come with Kane but if he's healthy for the long haul and especially at the right time, he can be a very valuable asset that's worth dealing with the negatives that come with him and his contract.

I get wanting more out of a 7 million dollar player but this team should be able to win consistently during the regular season when one or two of their high-priced players slumps now and again. I want Kane for the playoffs more than anything else.

How on earth is it deliberately misleading? I’m copy and pasting penalties taken and penalties drawn from NHL.com.

I don’t know where you’re getting those numbers from, but they’re not matching what I’m seeing. By my count, a penalty where Kane and another guy goes to the box is a penalty taken and penalty drawn for Kane.

According to NHL.com, Kane drew 2 minor penalties and took 4 minor penalties on October 20 against the New York Islanders.

Looking at the box score, he took 4 minor penalties and drew 2. The one where he took a roughing after Scott Mayfield took a cross checking on Kevin LaBanc isn’t something good for Kane. He didn’t “take someone to the box with him” and suggesting that he did is what is actually intentionally misleading. Unless you can prove that the referee didn’t have his arm up for a penalty there until Kane committed the roughing, and then the referee called the cross check to even things out, I’m not buying it. That might not be a play that put us shorthanded but it’s a play that prevented us from being on a PP and it’s not really worth getting into semantics there because they’re both about equally bad.

It’s tough for me to “wait and see for the playoffs” with Kane when we’re on pace for only 93 points no thanks to Kane’s poor performance so far and when he was not healthy and pretty bad in the playoffs last year.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

How on earth is it deliberately misleading? I’m copy and pasting penalties taken and penalties drawn from NHL.com.

I don’t know where you’re getting those numbers from, but they’re not matching what I’m seeing. By my count, a penalty where Kane and another guy goes to the box is a penalty taken and penalty drawn for Kane.

According to NHL.com, Kane drew 2 minor penalties and took 4 minor penalties on October 20 against the New York Islanders.

Looking at the box score, he took 4 minor penalties and drew 2. The one where he took a roughing after Scott Mayfield took a cross checking on Kevin LaBanc isn’t something good for Kane. He didn’t “take someone to the box with him” and suggesting that he did is what is actually intentionally misleading. Unless you can prove that the referee didn’t have his arm up for a penalty there until Kane committed the roughing, and then the referee called the cross check to even things out, I’m not buying it. That might not be a play that put us shorthanded but it’s a play that prevented us from being on a PP and it’s not really worth getting into semantics there because they’re both about equally bad.

It’s tough for me to “wait and see for the playoffs” with Kane when we’re on pace for only 93 points no thanks to Kane’s poor performance so far and when he was not healthy and pretty bad in the playoffs last year.

The roughing on Kane on Mayfield was a phantom call to make it even. Even if Kane did it in a retaliatory measure, most coaches are going to be okay with taking the occasional even-up penalty to protect your teammates. That's what I'm talking about with the focus on the stat sheet and why it's just a bunch of noise when it comes to penalties. You can't even prove that Kane did anything to be called for roughing yet sometimes that happens and guys go into the box for things that never happen. It's just lazy on your part to just assume that it's bad when you don't even know how that went down. It doesn't really matter if it's tough for you to wait for anything. You don't have a choice here because he's under contract so learn to deal with it in a manner that isn't constantly ragging on the guy and now coming up with bullshit reasons to do so. There's plenty of legitimate reasons to do so. You want to be mad at him for only being on a 20 goal/45 point pace then fine but you're reaching when you yap about the penalties as if they mean anything here.

 

[Herschel]

The discussion of Kane's penalties seems to lack the required context to determine what impact they have.

How many of his penalties have happened in garbage time when the outcome of the game has been decided?
How many are because he was being lazy or caught out of position?
How many are the result of him standing up for a teammate?
How many of them are selfish or retaliatory in nature?
How many are what would be described as a hockey penalty?

Not all penalties are the same.

Not sure if the numbers back this up but I have been far more worried by Labanc' penalties this season than Kane's. To me, it seems like Labanc's are consistently the result of being on the wrong side positionally or him getting beat and trying to make a desperation play.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

The roughing on Kane on Mayfield was a phantom call to make it even. Even if Kane did it in a retaliatory measure, most coaches are going to be okay with taking the occasional even-up penalty to protect your teammates. That's what I'm talking about with the focus on the stat sheet and why it's just a bunch of noise when it comes to penalties. You can't even prove that Kane did anything to be called for roughing yet sometimes that happens and guys go into the box for things that never happen. It's just lazy on your part to just assume that it's bad when you don't even know how that went down. It doesn't really matter if it's tough for you to wait for anything. You don't have a choice here because he's under contract so learn to deal with it in a manner that isn't constantly ragging on the guy and now coming up with bull**** reasons to do so. There's plenty of legitimate reasons to do so. You want to be mad at him for only being on a 20 goal/45 point pace then fine but you're reaching when you yap about the penalties as if they mean anything here.

Oh come on. You think it’s lazy of me to look at Kane’s -5 penalty differential and be critical, but your defense of him is essentially that “guys go into the box for things that never happen”?

And believe me, I’m plenty unhappy with his 20 goal/45 point pace.

The discussion of Kane's penalties seems to lack the required context to determine what impact they have.

How many of his penalties have happened in garbage time when the outcome of the game has been decided?
How many are because he was being lazy or caught out of position?
How many are the result of him standing up for a teammate?
How many of them are selfish or retaliatory in nature?
How many are what would be described as a hockey penalty?

Not all penalties are the same.

Not sure if the numbers back this up but I have been far more worried by Labanc' penalties this season than Kane's. To me, it seems like Labanc's are consistently the result of being on the wrong side positionally or him getting beat and trying to make a desperation play.

To me, Kane’s penalties are more concerning than LaBanc’s because most of them are retaliatory and selfish in nature. If by “hockey penalty”, you mean the kind of penalty that you kind of have to take, I would say that very few of Kane’s penalties have been those, which is a big part of my complaints.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Oh come on. You think it’s lazy of me to look at Kane’s -5 penalty differential and be critical, but your defense of him is essentially that “guys go into the box for things that never happen”?

And believe me, I’m plenty unhappy with his 20 goal/45 point pace.

Yes, I do think it's lazy of you and now you're purposely misrepresenting my position by oversimplifying it. I said you're lazy on this front because you're removing context from his penalties this season and only focusing on the numbers of it rather than why those penalties occurred. He's taken a penalty in nine games this season. That on its own is quite simply not a big deal. One was for roughing Antoine Roussel where the refs easily could've evened it up when Tanev was a third man in the altercation in a game that Roussel was running around the whole night. I've already pointed out the one involving Mayfield. And yeah some of his penalties have cost the team and a lot haven't. Like I said, what matters about the penalties is the man advantage that comes out of it and in some cases like the Vegas game, what does it matter if he has three minor penalties in a 5-0 game? Nobody is nor should give a crap about a -5 penalty differential when three of them are attributed to three penalties given to him in a 5-0 game they weren't winning. Those three contextual items nullify whatever argument you think you're making with that number.

 

[Mattb124]

The discussion of Kane's penalties seems to lack the required context to determine what impact they have.

How many of his penalties have happened in garbage time when the outcome of the game has been decided?
How many are because he was being lazy or caught out of position?
How many are the result of him standing up for a teammate?
How many of them are selfish or retaliatory in nature?
How many are what would be described as a hockey penalty?

Not all penalties are the same.

Not sure if the numbers back this up but I have been far more worried by Labanc' penalties this season than Kane's. To me, it seems like Labanc's are consistently the result of being on the wrong side positionally or him getting beat and trying to make a desperation play.

I tend to agree with you. Kane has taken a number of lazy penalties (which he needs to clean up), but my recollection is virtually all of Labanc's that come to mind have come from being a step behind and reaching.

Likewise are the turnovers. Both commit too many, but Labanc seems to lose the puck entering the zone frequently as one of the last player back which has the potential to feed the counterattack, whereas Kane is usually leading the rush so he has support behind to defend the counter attack.

 

[Herschel]

To me, Kane’s penalties are more concerning than LaBanc’s because most of them are retaliatory and selfish in nature. If by “hockey penalty”, you mean the kind of penalty that you kind of have to take, I would say that very few of Kane’s penalties have been those, which is a big part of my complaints.

Retaliatory and selfish are not always the same things.

For me, a hockey penalty is one that is the result of normal play where the offending player doesn't commit the infraction out of intent or desperation.

Not sure I am willing to go back through the season history but both of Kane's penalties last game were hockey penalties.

 

[Herschel]

I tend to agree with you. Kane has taken a number of lazy penalties (which he needs to clean up), but my recollection is virtually all of Labanc's that come to mind have come from being a step behind and reaching.

Likewise are the turnovers. Both commit too many, but Labanc seems to lose the puck entering the zone frequently as one of the last player back which has the potential to feed the counterattack, whereas Kane is usually leading the rush so he has support behind to defend the counter attack.

These are both major reasons that Labanc is no longer in the top 9 and why he found himself stapled to the bench late in games last season.