Around The League LXXXIV - All Non-Playoff Talk Here

[Free Edler]

Speaking of DeBoer, is New Jersey sticking with that gimmicky co-coach system for next year?

 

[Taelin]

The coaching carousel continues!

 

[Free Edler]

Good to see the NHL's old boys club is still serving its intended purpose. Other than Hakstol, all the new coaches are re-treads.

 

[vancityluongo]

I doubt it.

He's an older, more expensive lateral move (at best) from Niemi.

Replace "Niemi" for "Lack" and that's basically what you and others said last offseason. Here's to hoping Wilson goes full Ehrhoff again.

 

[Taelin]

 

[VC]

He coached Eichel at the World Championships so he has started that relationship. Interesting fit there.

Wonder where if if Boucher is going to land anywhere.

 

[Samzilla]

He coached Eichel at the World Championships so he has started that relationship. Interesting fit there.

Wonder where if if Boucher is going to land anywhere.

should've landed here instead of torts

 

[luongo321]

Apparently Ehrhoff is moving on from Pittsburgh. Someone on CDC posted that according to NEWS 1130 he would be interested in signing here according to his agent.

I'd be so happy to have him back. I know he's a bit of a sellout, but he came within one win of an SCF and then buffalo threw a gigantic signing bonus at him. He cashed in at the right time. I wonder what other teams he's interested in joining. He played so well with Edler and the Sedins.

 

[PM]

I think I'd pass on Ehrhoff at this point. Signing him last year instead of Sbisa would have been great but I wouldn't want to trade Hamhuis just to fit him in now with our cap problems. Plus, he's obviously going to be wanting some term and with the low availability of half-decent defensemen around the league he should get some decent offers. Essentially replacing Bieksa with Ehrhoff would be great but I don't see Bieksa waiving now matter how much Benning hurts his feelings.

 

[Bad News Benning]

Does anyone know if we would be compensated with a 3rd round pick in the event Mike Gillis gets a GM gig elsewhere while still under contract with the canucks?

 

[Wisp]

Does anyone know if we would be compensated with a 3rd round pick in the event Mike Gillis gets a GM gig elsewhere while still under contract with the canucks?

If they have the balls to demand it.

 

[VC]

It's weird that the Pens didn't want the pick for Shero but are going to want one for Bylsma.

 

[PM]

It's weird that the Pens didn't want the pick for Shero but are going to want one for Bylsma.

I don't think they understood the rule at first and would probably ask for one if they know what they do now. Apparently most of the BOG and GM's had no idea what this rule actually meant, they didn't think it would extend to already fired staff members, which makes total sense considering once someone is fired they are no longer with the org.

I propose we call it the Ken Holland rule going forward as he's apparently the only one who knows how it works and pursued it very aggressively.

 

[Bgav]

Does anyone know if we would be compensated with a 3rd round pick in the event Mike Gillis gets a GM gig elsewhere while still under contract with the canucks?

They re changing the rules again anyways, no more compensation for fired ppl

Edit : mckenzie tweeted it's getting out of hand so I'm guessing they change the rule soon

 

[VC]

Makes sense for dropping it for signing a staffer who was previously fired. The team that did the firing should be happy as they are getting that payroll off the books.

In the Babcock case, it worked that way it should have. He was never fired and the Leafs giving up a pick for early negotiation.

 

[Jay Cee]

Does anyone know if we would be compensated with a 3rd round pick in the event Mike Gillis gets a GM gig elsewhere while still under contract with the canucks?

I sure hope so! That would make me love Mike Gillis a lot more.

I am a principled guy though, I don't think any team should get compensation for fired people, especially guys who have been fired who mostly get paid right up until their contract runs out or someone different pays them. Contracts mostly have clauses today where teams are excused of their contractual obligations upon a new hire. Maybe sometimes where people don't have a flexible contract we have this attitude towards compensation? I guess we don't know.

That just shows the ridiculous state of the NHL. Teams can say "I value a guy so much I think I DESERVE a pick from him after I fire him for not being good enough." Coaches, GMs, Execs get fired too much in hockey. If you are lucky enough to find a good one demonstrably keep him. Instead, even with the best, we find any way to knock them down whatsoever and say the grass is greener on the other side. Like if the room has been lost, the coach is the one who deserves the consequences instead of the guys that play the hockey. I think this system favors teams too much for firing good coaches and GMs in favor of something that will likely be worse. Compensating stupid in other words.

 

[a Fool]

Does anyone know if we would be compensated with a 3rd round pick in the event Mike Gillis gets a GM gig elsewhere while still under contract with the canucks?

If they have the balls to demand it.

Knowing Canuck luck the NHL would retroactively find them "operating against the spirit of the CBA" and start taking picks away.

 

[me2]

Knowing Canuck luck the NHL would retroactively find them "operating against the spirit of the CBA" and start taking picks away.

Brian Burke will successfully lobby for Gillis' contract to count against the cap.

 

[arsmaster*]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-no-last-stand-for-blackhawks/

Some really interesting comments and points in Friedman's 30 thoughts this week.

These two were the most intriguing to me:

23. Last season, Bylsma did an interesting interview with NHL.com’s Dan Rosen where he admitted he was studying the benefits of carrying the puck in the offensive zone versus chipping it in. He believes, for example, making defenders turn and chase is more uncomfortable for them, especially if a powerful forechecker (like Kane) is breathing down their neck. His Pittsburgh teams were known for chipping and creating a footrace.

What did he learn? That carrying the puck in increased your percentages of getting a shot, but “what that means offensively, I’m still coming to grips with,” he said.

“I know what it means defensively, that if you don’t let them carry-in, you know where the shots come from… Playing offence, you want to create a ‘grind factor’ on a defenceman. What’s hard on them? Frankly, carrying the puck in does not make it hard on defencemen.”

He laughed about testing it out on his 16-year-old’s team. Back to the big boys this fall.

24. Finally on Bylsma: what else did he work on during his season off the bench?

“I wanted to take a look at different teams and coaches, the cadence of their line shifts, patterns, tell signs, implementation of personnel. Do they match forwards and defence, or just defence? Zone starts. It was kind of an out-of-body experience, not looking at anything the way I watched it before,” he said.

With more time to watch, he looked pretty deep. Will be interesting to see if it changes any of his own habits.

 

[Jay Cee]

The rules are being changed before we can cash in

 

[vanuck]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-no-last-stand-for-blackhawks/

Some really interesting comments and points in Friedman's 30 thoughts this week.

These two were the most intriguing to me:

I think he's forgetting the most important part though: scoring goals is what wins you games, not chipping it in and trying to make life difficult for D-men. The latter is only a means to what you eventually want to do anyway (getting shots and thus goals).

Interesting nonetheless.

 

[arsmaster*]

I think he's forgetting the most important part though: scoring goals is what wins you games, not chipping it in and trying to make life difficult for D-men. The latter is only a means to what you eventually want to do anyway (getting shots and thus goals).

Interesting nonetheless.

I thought this comment was the most interesting:

What did he learn? That carrying the puck in increased your percentages of getting a shot, but “what that means offensively, I’m still coming to grips with,†he said.

“I know what it means defensively, that if you don’t let them carry-in, you know where the shots come from…

Not all shots are equal. I always relate this back to the 2011 finals, IIRC we outshot Boston every game, yet we scored 8 goals in 7 games. Boston IIRC, didn't force us to dump it in either, but we very rarely made it to the slot.

 

[vanuck]

I thought this comment was the most interesting:



Not all shots are equal. I always relate this back to the 2011 finals, IIRC we outshot Boston every game, yet we scored 8 goals in 7 games. Boston IIRC, didn't force us to dump it in either, but we very rarely made it to the slot.

The way I see it is that if you have two methods - dump-ins vs. carry-ins - and they both create offense even at just the same rate (chances + conversion) i.e equally effectively, then the one that produces more shots will lead to more goals.

 

[arsmaster*]

The way I see it is that if you have two methods - dump-ins vs. carry-ins - and they both create offense even at just the same rate (chances + conversion), then the one that produces more shots will lead to more goals.

Meh, Chicago turned the tide vs the Ducks by going to more dump ins.

I think you're opinion is too simplistic. Which one creates more scoring chances, not all shots are chances to score.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

The most important thing to know about dump-ins is, what % of pucks dumped in do you recover? If your recovery rate isn't good, it's a strategy that will be tough to succeed with. You will be hurting your possession game. Some players are better suited to retrieve dump-ins, while some are excellent at keeping possession crossing the offensive blue line. You shouldn't have a 1 size fits all system, you should determine which lines dump the puck in based on the individual lines effectiveness in these 2 different areas.

The problem is, too many coaches try to make the personnel fit their system. A smart coach will make the system fit the personnel. Doesn't sound like that was at the forefront of Bylsma's thought process - which probably isn't good.