Speculation: 2019-20 Roster, Cap, Trade Discussion (MOD WARNING POST #542)

[Masch78]

I could be incorrect but can they afford to wait three years to turn it around? Season ticket sales, advertising it all factors into the bottom line. Just wondering if they plan to clean house at the trade deadline or just hold the course.

Why 3 years? Look at the roster and the system. There is plenty of youth and they added Z last year and a good one will be added this year.

 

[Masch78]

I don’t know if “being bad for several years” is even a choice at this point. It might just happen regardless

Then you have to question Martin Madden big way as well.

 

[MilesNewton]

Why 3 years? Look at the roster and the system. There is plenty of youth and they added Z last year and a good one will be added this year.

I was throwing a realistic number in there. Ottawa will be 3 years into their rebuild using it as an example

 

[dracom]

Why 3 years? Look at the roster and the system. There is plenty of youth and they added Z last year and a good one will be added this year.

Because the youth we have haven’t shown they can carry the offense, the young defenseman haven’t shown they belong; and we dont know if Zegras or whoever we draft this year will be impact players out of the gate.

Unless the current young guys and the most recent high draft picks start becoming strong impact players, we’re in for a rough time for quite awhile.

 

[Masch78]

Said it once and I'll say it again - Bob is lucky he's the GM of the Ducks and not the Rangers/Leafs/Oilers. This sort of patience would NOT be tolerated.

And all 3 had tremendous success by doing so, especially the two Canadien ones.

 

[dracom]

Then you have to question Martin Madden big way as well.

Ok. He isnt some drafting god. He’s find some great players in the later rounds, but he’s also found busts in early rounds.

 

[Masch78]

Because the youth we have haven’t shown they can carry the offense, the young defenseman haven’t shown they belong; and we dont know if Zegras or whoever we draft this year will be impact players out of the gate.

Unless the current young guys and the most recent high draft picks start becoming strong impact players, we’re in for a rough time for quite awhile.

That is the first full season for them in the NHL. We will see, imho way too early to tell.

 

[MilesNewton]

They can't really "clean house" on the TDL, regardless of whether or not they want to. We just don't have the merchandise -- Getzlaf has a full NMC, couple of guys are locked into long term deals with NTCs, doesn't make sense to start selling the younger guys when the plan is to get younger. We don't have any high profile upcoming UFAs either (Miller doesn't count, he won't go anywhere for family reasons).

There's still almost 50 games left in the calendar, let's at least wait until the end of the season before we start painting doomsday scenarios. It isn't impossible that the team starts clicking and turns things around. I believe the Blues were dead last in the west (or at least close to that) sometime last year, weren't they..?

So here's hoping that the goalie magic begins.
The Blues system of younger guys I think is stronger than the Ducks
They might have to shed one big name- of course depending what they get in return.

 

[MilesNewton]

Yeah, the hype on HF for anybody without NHL experience can be overbearing at times. Every team has guys who look good at lower levels. Until they do it here it's nothing more than wishful thinking.

I'm as as disappointed as anybody that Steel and Terry haven't looked better this year. But it doesn't mean they are the next Etem (yet) and it certainly doesn't mean that guys like Tracey are the new holy grail. I really don't know what people were expecting this year. It was always going to be a transition where the best to be expected was to squeak into the playoffs while gaining valuable experience. Less than the best is hardly a huge surprise.

So Steel and Terry not being rookies could be the reason for the higher expectations. Also, they have played under Eakins so that gives them a jump on other players so that could explain why people expect more.

 

[Goose of Reason]

And all 3 had tremendous success by doing so, especially the two Canadien ones.

Toronto handcuffed themselves with those big contracts but up to that point their model of rebuild was the best imo. They kept guys like Kadri, JVR, Bozak, and Gardiner so there were veterans to insulate their young players and for them to learn from. That's way better than going full scorched Earth like Buffalo, who still sucks unless Eichel is carrying the entire team. What's the point of getting Lafreniere or Byfield if there is nobody for them to play with?

 

[Goose of Reason]

So Steel and Terry not being rookies could be the reason for the higher expectations. Also, they have played under Eakins so that gives them a jump on other players so that could explain why people expect more.

"Not being rookies" if a player plays 25 games in a season they're not a rookie. None of our young guys have played a single season worth of games yet, saying their not rookies is kind of arbitrary. Unless you honestly think players are what they are after 25 games played.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

So Steel and Terry not being rookies could be the reason for the higher expectations. Also, they have played under Eakins so that gives them a jump on other players so that could explain why people expect more.

I'm really not sure what your point is. I WAS one of those people expecting more from Steel and Terry. But it hasn't gone that way so far. Even though I was expecting more I was hardly counting it as a sure thing. It's sports. It's human endeavor. You play the cards you are dealt and you do your best to make the most of what you have. That's why I said it's imperative that Bob learn from this year and make some positive moves this summer.

 

[KyleJRM]

I don't think players are what they are after 25 games. But I do think performance over 50 games can give you an idea of who they *probably* project to be. If a guy comes in and puts up 40 points in 50 games at 20, he's probably going to be good. If he comes in and puts up 15 points in 50 at 22, he's probably going to be mediocre at best.

 

[Masch78]

So Kase, Rakell, Silfverberg are mediocre players at best?

 

[Goose of Reason]

Steel and Comtois have scored at a higher pace in their careers than Rakell did through his first 95 games. But no, players are done developing at 50.

 

[Dryish]

Imagine a world where we utterly suck this year, think our prospects are utter garbage, end up getting a top 3 pick and pick up a stellar future 1C. Then, contrary to everything we deemed possible in our angst, sometime within the next two years our kids get it together and start netting points, Zegras, Tracey and the new boytoy come in like a natural disaster upon the league, and Gibson maintains his godhood.

Yeah, that doesn't sound too bad, I don't think.

 

[robbieboy3686]

Bob: “These guys talk me off the ledge all the time. It’s just not in my nature. You want to do things immediately.”

He talked about the recent injuries to Ritchie and Terry and how he felt both hits were unnecessary. That the league has been so focused on protecting against head shots that other dangerous plays are creeping into the game and they might not be getting the attention they should. This lead to the discussion on Terry specifically and how the staff felt that it was a massive blow as they felt he was on the verge. Taking more shots, controlling pucks better and making plays.
This lead to a section regarding keeping the veterans invested. They want to continually show growth to keep building.
Stephens says Murray doesn't want to deviate from the plan by going after big names for the sake of "optics" and hates the idea of tanking on purpose. He's willing to address organizational weakness if he can like he did with Gudbranson or the attempt to get Faulk/Shattenkirk.
Lastly Stephens talks about how Murray sold the owners on the plan during his extension talks and how they have to stay the course and how ownership has been supportive.

Tyty! Agree with him for sure

 

[KyleJRM]

Steel and Comtois have scored at a higher pace in their careers than Rakell did through his first 95 games. But no, players are done developing at 50.

It's amazing to me how carefully, clearly and explicitly I can say "probably," and some person will *immediately* pretend that I said "certainly."

This is called survivorship bias. Rakell is notable because he was an exceptionally strong late bloomer. If you *all* the players who got off to a similar start to Rakell, the average result is much much worse. And even he's not *that* good of a player. He's a guy who seems great because we don't have anything better. He's never received a vote for a major award (besides the Byng), made exactly one All-Star game, never appeared on the points leaderboards. He's a second-line forward.

And you very carefully said "games" instead of "age" because you know that Rakell got a ton of games in at a very young age, so you get to shift the curve to make it seem like Terry and Steel are way younger than they are. The proper comparison is age, not games played. You'll notice that I listed both games and age in my hypothetical, but you only listed games because you have to distort what I said in order to get the result you want.

So Kase, Rakell, Silfverberg are mediocre players at best?

Age-22 PPG
Rakell: 0.60
Kase: 0.58
Silfverberg 0.39
Terry: 0.24

Rakell, as we described above, is good but nothing special. Silfverberg is a little above-average but not much. Kase is extremely average.

Terry is on career arc that leaves him well behind all of them. Right now, Terry's career arc is very mediocre. Maybe he'll shoot way up beyond that arc, maybe he'll come in way below it, but the *probable* course from here is mediocrity. If you take where he is now, and add on the amount the average player gets better between 22 and peak, you still get a pretty mediocre player.

 

[KyleJRM]

*deleting some unnecessary frustration venting*

Actually, let's go with this even further.

Take each of those three players at 22, then look at their best season to date, in PPG.

Rakell: 0.60, 0.92
Silfverberg: 0.40, 0.69
Kase: 0.58, 0.67

Average improvement: +0.23

So even when we use survivorship bias and *only* compare him to a pre-selected group of players that we know had successful early-mid-20s transitions to the NHL, Terry would still only end up as a (0.24+0.23) 0.47 PPG player if he got their improvement from where he is at the same age. A 39-point player if he plays all 82 games. Thoroughly mediocre.

DISCLAIMER: I shouldn't have to say this, but saying that outcome A is the most probable path is not the same as saying that other outcomes are impossible, just less likely. It is possible that Terry exceeds all of them. It is possible that Terry has the greatest early-20s surge in recorded hockey history and becomes a HOFer. It is possible that he develops the powers of Dr. Manhattan and becomes a God.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Toronto handcuffed themselves with those big contracts but up to that point their model of rebuild was the best imo. They kept guys like Kadri, JVR, Bozak, and Gardiner so there were veterans to insulate their young players and for them to learn from. That's way better than going full scorched Earth like Buffalo, who still sucks unless Eichel is carrying the entire team. What's the point of getting Lafreniere or Byfield if there is nobody for them to play with?

The Shanahan era isn't a good example as that's the time the Leafs finally realized they had to be patient. When they hired Burke, on the other hand, is, and the clear lesson there is being impatient is bad. Edmonton is probably a better example. Using the Rangers as an example is just laughably bad given Slats called the shots there for 20 years AND pretty much every bad move he made was related to the pressure to do something.

I have no idea how anyone could look at the Canadian teams and wish this one had a similar atmosphere. Its bananas.

 

[Ducks DVM]

*deleting some unnecessary frustration venting*

Actually, let's go with this even further.

Take each of those three players at 22, then look at their best season to date, in PPG.

Rakell: 0.60, 0.92
Silfverberg: 0.40, 0.69
Kase: 0.58, 0.67

Average improvement: +0.23

So even when we use survivorship bias and *only* compare him to a pre-selected group of players that we know had successful early-mid-20s transitions to the NHL, Terry would still only end up as a (0.24+0.23) 0.47 PPG player if he got their improvement from where he is at the same age. A 39-point player if he plays all 82 games. Thoroughly mediocre.

DISCLAIMER: I shouldn't have to say this, but saying that outcome A is the most probable path is not the same as saying that other outcomes are impossible, just less likely. It is possible that Terry exceeds all of them. It is possible that Terry has the greatest early-20s surge in recorded hockey history and becomes a HOFer. It is possible that he develops the powers of Dr. Manhattan and becomes a God.

You can’t take a variance of 0.09 to 0.32 and say that the expected outcome with n=3 is the mean. Interesting post, but absolute rubbish statistical analysis.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

Then you have to question Martin Madden big way as well.

The bigger issue is development. Madden finds guys who excel in their leagues, excel in the AHL, then they come here and get turned to grinders

 

[Masch78]

Little bit off topic but Terrys linemate from Denver, Henrik Borgström is doing worse than him. Surprises me a lot, since he did some marvelous plays at Denver and has the better size.

 

[nbducksfan19]

Little bit off topic but Terrys linemate from Denver, Henrik Borgström is doing worse than him. Surprises me a lot, since he did some marvelous plays at Denver and has the better size.

this is very very surprising. Bergstrom was one of my favorite prospects to watch, he was dominant. Not just dominant in the ways some guys are due to a single unique characteristic (Etem/speed; Ritchie/size), but an all around dominant hockey player with a seemingly perfectly projectable skill set).

 

[KyleJRM]

You can’t take a variance of 0.09 to 0.32 and say that the expected outcome with n=3 is the mean. Interesting post, but absolute rubbish statistical analysis.

correct. An actual analysis would include a large, neutral pool of players and not three cherry picked to be known successes. It would be even worse for Terry