Speculation: Acq./Rost. Bldg./Cap/Lines etc. Part LXXV (Dog Days - Woof!) Galiev waived

[CapitalsCupReality]

I didn't need a stats printout to know that Holtby could have played better in some games, but it appears some do. People want to bash the lack of scoring depth, but stellar goaltending the entire series could have just as easily advanced us over the Pens.

Most of the time, "Well enough" doesn't win you championships.

 

[twabby]

I didn't need a stats printout to know that Holtby could have played better in some games, but it appears some do. People want to bash the lack of scoring depth, but stellar goaltending the entire series could have just as easily advanced us over the Pens.

Most of the time, "Well enough" doesn't win you championships.

It's about addressing problems with the roster and coaching, not about assigning blame. The roster and the tactics/philosophy should be optimized to produce the best chance of winning next season.

Braden Holtby is not a problem. If you're picking a goalie to help you win come next postseason, Holtby is probably in the top 3. Despite their lack of scoring, I don't think Kuznetsov and Burakovsky will be a problem in future postseasons for reasons I have mentioned before. I think Orlov and Schmidt will improve enough to be effective bottom 3 defensemen, though this is far from certain and I would have liked to have seen an upgrade on defense.

The depth forwards ARE a problem. Lars Eller should certainly be an upgrade over Mike Richards, but after that why should anyone be confident that the rest of the bottom 6 will improve? Even if you ignore his time under Adam Oates, Tom Wilson has shown basically 0 improvement offensively from age 20 to 21 despite a full healthy offseason. Why should this season be much different? Why will Daniel Winnik at $2.25M finally show some scoring touch come playoff time despite 0 goals in his playoff career? Why are Brett Connolly and Stan Galiev, both with 0 playoff experience and very mediocre to poor offensive ability during the regular season, going to turn into productive depth scoring options?

Brooks Orpik is a problem. Why should anyone believe that the 2014-15 postseason is the norm and not the outlier, despite several recent years of poor play? Yes, some of it is probably due to injuries. But do you suddenly expect a 35 year old physical defenseman to stay healthy just because he is a workout freak? Workouts help, but aging is a ***** and I'd be shocked if he has a healthy season especially considering his style of play and his concussion history.

The team's overall offensive philosophy at even strength under Trotz seems to be a problem. For me it's difficult to decouple talent from coaching, but at some point when every goalie you face seems to be a worldbeater (aside from Steve Mason) then I think you have to look and see if you can try something different. Perhaps reconsidering the low-to-high offensive approach would be wise because anecdotally it seems to rely more on luck and good bounces from point shots and during the postseason I would guess players are more likely to clog up the shooting lanes and block shots. Their transition game needs help as well, and again from my observations it seems like Orlov and Schmidt were asked to dial it back rather than help contribute to transitioning from offense to defense late in the season and the postseason.

 

[Hivemind]

You are missing the point. You were one of the first to claim Holtby's injury had nothing to do with the team's loss to the Pens. You dismissed it, while citing your own reasons (whatever they may be). It doesn't much matter who is tied to which reason.

Uhhhhh.... no? I was on travel until yesterday and completely away from the forum. I was literally one of the last posts in the previous thread. There were something like 20 posts on the topic before I commented

The entire premise is: there is no one reason. There are many. None of which should mean wholesale changes to the team, it's coaching structure, or its management.

If you disagree with that, then have at it.

There are reasons and then there are excuses. You're attempting to use Holtby's injury to excuse the poor play/poor coaching of others. In other words, you're using the injury excuse. Several of us have pointed out that's not a valid excuse. Heck, your first post on the topic you called the issue "pretty simple" and directly cited Holtby's injury as the reason the Capitals lost the series, brushing aside every other issue.

If anyone here is attempting to lump it into one issue, it's you. Most of us here are discussing the multiple failures of the team, and discussing the best ways to approach fixing them going into next season. Aside of a couple select posters, Holtby is pretty low on our totem pole in terms of what needs to be corrected, injury or not.

 

[Hivemind]

I didn't need a stats printout to know that Holtby could have played better in some games, but it appears some do. People want to bash the lack of scoring depth, but stellar goaltending the entire series could have just as easily advanced us over the Pens.

Most of the time, "Well enough" doesn't win you championships.

You know what else could have won us the series? Braden Holtby scoring a hat trick every game. Instead he scored ZERO GOALS!

What a scrub.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

The guy who has been bashing Orpik since the dawn of time saying it's not about assigning blame?

I get that your stat-based philosophy says accumulate only really good players, chemistry and intagibles be damned, but just assembling a good collection of players on paper usually fails in bringing home championships too.

Every team has roster issues. The Pens bottom 6 caught fire and that was a difference maker. Holtby not playing his best all series, due to injury or whatever, difference maker. Caps bottom 6 providing next to nothing offensively, difference maker.

Those Pens could just as easily go cold the next 5 years like they were in recent playoff history, but it's like people see them as some model franchise that we should copy, let's also forget the coach firing bump that typically happens with decent teams. I'm sick of hearing how genius they were. They fired their coach, some players got their heads out of their ***** and some players got hot, they got on a roll and they got a goaltending bump seemingly out of nowhere. There is no magical formula to pilfer.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

You know what else could have won us the series? Braden Holtby scoring a hat trick every game. Instead he scored ZERO GOALS!

What a scrub.

When logic fails, resort to absurdity to sell your point....always works.

 

[Hivemind]

When logic fails, resort to absurdity to sell your point....always works.

Reductio ad absurdum is a technique to demonstrate flawed logic. Your argument is by its definition pretty ridiculous. If ANY player played sufficiently better, the Capitals could have won the series. If Ovechkin scored 5 more goals, the Capitals win the series. If John Carlson blocked 75 more shots, the Capitals win the series. If Mike Richards scores a hat trick in game 7, the Capitals win the series. If Draymond Green scored 37 points instead of 32 in game 7, the Warriors are NBA champions. Your argument of "if [player X] played at a stellar level, the Capitals win" is a meaningless argument because it can be applied anywhere.

In reality you have to identify the flaws in the teams' composition and/or the systemic issues holding back the team. Virtually any assessment will not lead towards the play of Braden Holtby being one of those flaws. Holtby performed at a sufficiently high level. Could he have been better? Sure, but literally every player and coach and manager and trainer could have been better at some point in the series. You have to identify the areas that will lead to the best return if corrected. The very marginal improvements Holtby could have made are not one of those areas.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Uhhhhh.... no? I was on travel until yesterday and completely away from the forum. I was literally one of the last posts in the previous thread. There were something like 20 posts on the topic before I commented



There are reasons and then there are excuses. You're attempting to use Holtby's injury to excuse the poor play/poor coaching of others. In other words, you're using the injury excuse. Several of us have pointed out that's not a valid excuse. Heck, your first post on the topic you called the issue "pretty simple" and directly cited Holtby's injury as the reason the Capitals lost the series, brushing aside every other issue.

If anyone here is attempting to lump it into one issue, it's you. Most of us here are discussing the multiple failures of the team, and discussing the best ways to approach fixing them going into next season. Aside of a couple select posters, Holtby is pretty low on our totem pole in terms of what needs to be corrected, injury or not.

There are reasons and excuses? What a bunch of kindergarten logic. Who gets to decide what's a reason and what's an excuse? Lemme guess, you and Twabby?

Many of us have said since the series ended that the list of reasons why they didn't advance is not just 1 player, 2 players, the coach, etc....it's many reasons including many important ones that the Caps and coaches/management had zero control over.

The series was close enough that one more great game could have swung it in our favor. You two want to bash a few select individuals while either simply choosing to ignore that a save here or a goal or two there could have swung the series just as easily as a goal not scored or a save not made by the Pens could have. Holtby gets a pass for not being at his best a few games why exactLy? Not harping on Holtby, he had a fantastic season overall, but logical unbiased analysis shows he didn't play up to his standards all series, just trying to figure out why a stats guy is picking and choosing what's important and what's not instead of analyzing everything. Big Holtby fan, or just fits in with your narrative?

 

[RandyHolt]

....

An odd goal here and there is needed for success. ....

I am saying that we don't know what Trotz wants. Even Steven is what I theorize all Trotz cares about from his plodders. Sure, Beagle had .01 more points per game over Wilson in the RS (likely in more TOI), and has a knack for chipping in offensively when we all least expect it come playoff time.

But the system Trotz runs, the way he constructs his lines, 4 is not expected to score and I contend Trotz is happy if they are not on for an against or take bad penalties.

Does he want a hat from Holts Wilson, sure. It ain't happening.

 

[Hivemind]

There are reasons and excuses? What a bunch of kindergarten logic. Who gets to decide what's a reason and what's an excuse? Lemme guess, you and Twabby?

Is a reason being used to excuse the play of someone else? If so, then it's an excuse.

Many of us have said since the series ended that the list of reasons why they didn't advance is not just 1 player, 2 players, the coach, etc....it's many reasons including many important ones that the Caps and coaches/management had zero control over.

The series was close enough that one more great game could have swung it in our favor. You two want to bash a few select individuals while either simply choosing to ignore that a save here or a goal or two there could have swung the series just as easily as a goal not scored or a save not made by the Pens could have. Holtby gets a pass for not being at his best a few games why exactLy? Not harping on Holtby, he had a fantastic season overall, but logical unbiased analysis shows he didn't play up to his standards all series, just trying to figure out why a stats guy is picking and choosing what's important and what's not instead of analyzing everything. Big Holtby fan, or just fits in with your narrative?

Holtby had a .923 sv% against the Penguins. Holtby had a .922 sv% during the regular season and has a .921 sv% in his career. Nothing in Holtby's play was outside the normal expectations for Holtby or a #1 goaltender. The eye test applies just the same. The "close enough that one more great game could have swung it" argument applies to literally every player on the roster, making it utterly meaningless when discussing the best ways of improving the roster going forwards. Holtby "gets a pass" because there's only very marginal gains to be had from the netminding position compared to what Holtby provided. There are much more meaningful gains to be had from other roster or tactical changes.

 

[g00n]

Can't wait for hockey to start.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Reductio ad absurdum is a technique to demonstrate flawed logic. Your argument is by its definition pretty ridiculous. If ANY player played sufficiently better, the Capitals could have won the series. If Ovechkin scored 5 more goals, the Capitals win the series. If John Carlson blocked 75 more shots, the Capitals win the series. If Mike Richards scores a hat trick in game 7, the Capitals win the series. Your argument of "if [player X] played at a stellar level, the Capitals win" is a meaningless argument because it can be applied anywhere.

In reality you have to identify the flaws in the teams' composition and/or the systemic issues holding back the team. Virtually any assessment will not lead towards the play of Braden Holtby being one of those flaws. Holtby performed at a sufficiently high level. Could he have been better? Sure, but literally every player and coach and manager and trainer could have been better at some point in the series. You have to identify the areas that will lead to the best return if corrected. The very marginal improvements Holtby could have made are not one of those areas.

I'm sorry but yes, if any number of Caps players produced more, saved more the series could have easily swung. If then Pens don't fire their coach and Murphy and Bonino don't play out of their minds, are we even having this discussion?

There no such thing as "good enough to win" because all contests don't play out the same. The logic of good enough to win is malarkey. Any logic that ignores a few average games from your last line of defense when assessing the series is selective at best, tragically inept and flawed at worst.

Sam Allardyce thinks England was good enough to win Euro 2016....what's that tell you about the garbage line of "good enough to win"?

 

[Ridley Simon]

The best offensive team in the league (Dallas) just signed Jiri Hudler to a 1 year, $2M contract and their GM said he sees him in the top 6.

That's certainly a contract that the Capitals could have afforded but I guess they're happy with their forwards. I kind of prefer Dallas's approach of just loading up on talent and letting it sort itself out.

That's a lot cheaper than I thought he'd go for. I expected min 2.5m, closer to 3m.

That's too bad, I agree with you....would have liked him at that price. Send away Winnik and recall a d minded C/F from Hershey to fill the PK slot (or sign a vet for 800k or so). Would mean bye bye to Galiev, but whatever. They could have made it work.

 

[Hivemind]

I am saying that we don't know what Trotz wants. Even Steven is what I theorize all Trotz cares about from his plodders. Sure, Beagle had .01 more points per game over Wilson in the RS (likely in more TOI), and has a knack for chipping in offensively when we all least expect it come playoff time.

But the system Trotz runs, the way he constructs his lines, 4 is not expected to score and I contend Trotz is happy if they are not on for an against or take bad penalties.

Does he want a hat from Holts Wilson, sure. It ain't happening.

I'd like to point out that Braden Holtby outscored Daniel Winnik in the playoffs. Even if the plodders aren't "expected to score," the plodders need to be contributing something at some point.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Is a reason being used to excuse the play of someone else? If so, then it's an excuse.



Holtby had a .923 sv% against the Penguins. Holtby had a .922 sv% during the regular season and has a .921 sv% in his career. Nothing in Holtby's play was outside the normal expectations for Holtby or a #1 goaltender. The eye test applies just the same. The "close enough that one more great game could have swung it" argument applies to literally every player on the roster, making it utterly meaningless when discussing the best ways of improving the roster going forwards. Holtby "gets a pass" because there's only very marginal gains to be had from the netminding position compared to what Holtby provided. There are much more meaningful gains to be had from other roster or tactical changes.

Give me a game by game analysis instead of poorly attempting to gloss over things with series encompassing stats. If a few games don't immediately stand out....your eyes are closed.

And you're seeing it as an excuse because that's what you want to see. Call them reasons, call them excuses, but if you believe only roster changes and tactical changes are needed, then you're wrong. Players need to play better to win Championships. Ovy, Holtby, Orpik, Orlov, all of them.

 

[twabby]

The guy who has been bashing Orpik since the dawn of time saying it's not about assigning blame?

I get that your stat-based philosophy says accumulate only really good players, chemistry and intagibles be damned, but just assembling a good collection of players on paper usually fails in bringing home championships too.

Every team has roster issues. The Pens bottom 6 caught fire and that was a difference maker. Holtby not playing his best all series, due to injury or whatever, difference maker. Caps bottom 6 providing next to nothing offensively, difference maker.

Those Pens could just as easily go cold the next 5 years like they were in recent playoff history, but it's like people see them as some model franchise that we should copy, let's also forget the coach firing bump that typically happens with decent teams. I'm sick of hearing how genius they were. They fired their coach, some players got their heads out of their ***** and some players got hot, they got on a roll and they got a goaltending bump seemingly out of nowhere. There is no magical formula to pilfer.

As I mentioned, I'm interested in doing whatever is necessary to give the team the best chance to win next season. Yes, that includes getting rid of Brooks Orpik and spending his insane cap hit on something better, including scoring depth that has been lacking for years.

And it's as if you ignore the fact that Pittsburgh was the best puck possession team in the league after Sullivan took over and that the best possession teams usually do the best come playoff time. They didn't fluke their way to a Cup. Yeah, some of their players got hot. But some were cold too. The Capitals did an admirable job against Crosby and Malkin but they also got pretty unlucky in the series, for example. They also got pretty unlucky to face a hot goalie in Andrei Vasilevsky in round 3 but they still won.

I'm curious what you would think the Capitals should have done this offseason.

 

[Hivemind]

Give me a game by game analysis instead of poorly attempting to gloss over things with series encompassing stats. If a few games don't immediately stand out....your eyes are closed.

If you expect a goaltender to post a .950 sv% in every single game, your expectations are not grounded in reality. Go look at a game by game breakdown of any goalie, even Stanley Cup champions. Matt Murray wasn't stellar in every single game for the Penguins, in fact he got benched in favor of Fleury at one point. Even Conn Smythe performances like Tim Thomas' with Boston were dotted with a handful of clunkers along the way.

And once again, the "but he could have been even better" argument can be applied to anyone. So what's the point of following through with it?

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I didn't ignore anything, they got the fairly typical bump in play that often happens when underachieving hockey teams fires a coach mid-season. Let's see how they are this season coming off that Cup high.....I suspect they come back to earth.

I would have found a way to acquire a top-4 defender, I would have acquired a 3C, and I would have added some sort of scoring depth in the bottom-6. Basically what the Caps did (cheaply on the scoring depth) minus the 4D I want to keep Orlov in the bottom pair or replace him, or even Orpik outright. Given the Orpik contract, it's more likely that would have meant shipping Orlov to trade for and accommodate the cap space for a 4D.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

If you expect a goaltender to post a .950 sv% in every single game, your expectations are not grounded in reality. Go look at a game by game breakdown of any goalie, even Stanley Cup champions. Matt Murray wasn't stellar in every single game for the Penguins, in fact he got benched in favor of Fleury at one point. Even Conn Smythe performances like Tim Thomas' with Boston were dotted with a handful of clunkers along the way.

And once again, the "but he could have been even better" argument can be applied to anyone. So what's the point of following through with it?

Are you purposely trying to obscure the facts or still figuring out how your blinders work?

What about .870 LOSS
.900 LOSS
.905 LOSS.....

is so hard to discuss with you? Those are are two average at best games, and one poor one from a Vezina trophy winner.

I guess you're happy with average, but I know more is required to win championships. I wait patiently for the bad luck/bounces excuses...

 

[Hivemind]

Are you purposely trying to obscure the facts or still figuring out how your blinders work?

What about .870 LOSS
.900 LOSS
.905 LOSS.....

is so hard to discuss with you? Those are are two average at best games, and one poor one from a Vezina trophy winner.

I guess you're happy with average, but I know more is required to win championships.

Matt Murray
.886 LOSS
.842 LOSS
.867 LOSS
.885 LOSS
.857 LOSS
And three more games spent on the bench as a back-up to both Jeff Zatkoff and Marc-Andre Fleury



Variance is a fact of life when you consider goaltending. No goalie is going to post stellar stats every single night. Not even Conn Smythe or Vezina winners. For reference, starting goaltenders that can provide quality starts 60% of the time in the regular season are usually top 10 in that category. Braden Holtby posted a .750 QS% in the playoffs. Of the goalies that escaped the first round (ie played more than 5 games), only Ben Bishop posted a higher QS%. Matt Murray was at .667 and Martin Jones was at .625

 

[g00n]

Just going to leave this here

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=117971023&postcount=77

 

[Ridley Simon]

Uhhhhh.... no? I was on travel until yesterday and completely away from the forum. I was literally one of the last posts in the previous thread. There were something like 20 posts on the topic before I commented



There are reasons and then there are excuses. You're attempting to use Holtby's injury to excuse the poor play/poor coaching of others. In other words, you're using the injury excuse. Several of us have pointed out that's not a valid excuse. Heck, your first post on the topic you called the issue "pretty simple" and directly cited Holtby's injury as the reason the Capitals lost the series, brushing aside every other issue.

If anyone here is attempting to lump it into one issue, it's you. Most of us here are discussing the multiple failures of the team, and discussing the best ways to approach fixing them going into next season. Aside of a couple select posters, Holtby is pretty low on our totem pole in terms of what needs to be corrected, injury or not.

See post 33 in this thread.

Thanks

 

[John Price]

This video of TJ Oshie doing the pushup challenge with his daughter is the best thing I've ever seen in my life.

 

[Ridley Simon]

The guy who has been bashing Orpik since the dawn of time saying it's not about assigning blame?

I get that your stat-based philosophy says accumulate only really good players, chemistry and intagibles be damned, but just assembling a good collection of players on paper usually fails in bringing home championships too.

Every team has roster issues. The Pens bottom 6 caught fire and that was a difference maker. Holtby not playing his best all series, due to injury or whatever, difference maker. Caps bottom 6 providing next to nothing offensively, difference maker.

Those Pens could just as easily go cold the next 5 years like they were in recent playoff history, but it's like people see them as some model franchise that we should copy, let's also forget the coach firing bump that typically happens with decent teams. I'm sick of hearing how genius they were. They fired their coach, some players got their heads out of their ***** and some players got hot, they got on a roll and they got a goaltending bump seemingly out of nowhere. There is no magical formula to pilfer.

 

[Ridley Simon]

Is a reason being used to excuse the play of someone else? If so, then it's an excuse.



Holtby had a .923 sv% against the Penguins. Holtby had a .922 sv% during the regular season and has a .921 sv% in his career. Nothing in Holtby's play was outside the normal expectations for Holtby or a #1 goaltender. The eye test applies just the same. The "close enough that one more great game could have swung it" argument applies to literally every player on the roster, making it utterly meaningless when discussing the best ways of improving the roster going forwards. Holtby "gets a pass" because there's only very marginal gains to be had from the netminding position compared to what Holtby provided. There are much more meaningful gains to be had from other roster or tactical changes.

Right. It's Trotz fault. And GMBM's for building a flawed roster.

Your play is that the team failed due to that. My play is that is part of it, but no bigger part than some of the players needing to step up, Holtby inclusive. If Holtby couldn't stand up due to injury, then that's a good REASON for it.

Again....our 6m goalie, for all your stat comparisons, got out played by the Pens 600k goalie. That was as big a REASON for the Caps losing as any, not withstanding their salary cap levels for performance.

Everyone knows that if Price or King Hank or Quick get out played, those teams generally lose. Same with Holtby. You have that much invested in a G, they can't get out played by a 600k goalie/backup.

I love Holtby, but his play helped to cost the team the series. Especially when compared to Murray's.