TSN: COL/FLA: Brassard + Conditional 2020 6th for 2020 3rd

[Bubba Thudd]

I couldn't care less how we get in as long as we're in.

I care.
Just like I care when we don't make it, after being edged by a team with fewer wins but more loser-points.

 

[Foppberg]

I care.
Just like I care when we don't make it, after being edged by a team with fewer wins but more loser-points.

I get that. But if having a few more loser points means we're in the playoffs that's fine by me.

 

[Selzoons]

Loser points have never been the gimmick, winner points are. This is even truer now with 3vs3.

The Avalanche would probably be higher in the standings with a W-L-T system, which is a better indication of team strength.

 

[CobraAcesS]

Great trade. Did not give up much and he is amazing in big games. That's why he is called big game Brass.

Lmao, nice comment on Clark's TA article.

 

[cgf]

I care.
Just like I care when we don't make it, after being edged by a team with fewer wins but more loser-points.

See if a team passes us because they drew enough matches which we lost, to surpass our advantage in wins, then I think that's on us for losing too often...and it would annoy me less than being passed by a team who has less regulation wins than us & fewer draws, but who passed us because of a dominant record in 3-on-3 & the shootout. It's easier for me to deal with a team that just did better at the 4920 minutes of hockey they played this season than we did; than to deal with a team that only passed us because they're better at post-match hockey-like gimmicks

That all said, I care more about making the postseason than the morality on this one...so if we had gotten in by winning all of our OT games, I wouldn't be complaining


EDIT:
Granted, I have no qualms with games ending in draws. I think that the full points should be earned, not just handed out by default at the end of a match. So if neither team does enough to win, then neither one deserves full points & they should be forced to split the prize. Which is also why I think regulation wins should be worth 3 points instead of 2; since they are the greatest accomplishment & should be the result teams are most incentivized to pursue. Though I realize that many NAs disagree with me on this and want every contest to have a winner & a loser.

...whereas I come from a sports culture in which the irish famously said of their 1990 World Cup campaign that they "beat the english 1-1, lost to egypt nil-nil, & drew with Holland 1-1".

 

[cgf]

Loser points have never been the gimmick, winner points are. This is even truer now with 3vs3.

The Avalanche would probably be higher in the standings with a W-L-T system, which is a better indication of team strength.

This is how I see it to. The league gives out 2 points for a win, 1 point for drawing, 0 points for losing, and then, in the case of draws, the NHL hands out a 3rd gimmick-point to the winner of their hockey-like contests de jure...after each team has already received their 1 point for drawing at the end of the match of proper hockey (regulation).

I felt this way even before 3-on-3...which I do enjoy & is an upgrade over 4-on-4...but that feeling is even more strong now. Removing 40% of the skaters just makes it a completely different game than Hockey; just like doubling the skaters & replacing the puck with a ball makes it a different game.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Yeah to me the 3 on 3 OT is the true gimmick. If they played 3 on 3 OT in the playoffs it would make the 3 on 3 stuff way more legitimate but as things are now it's a joke. I enjoy watching it but it's so completely different compared to the rest of hockey.

 

[Foppberg]

It is a gimmick but I'd rather the 3v3 gimmick than the shootout gimmick.

I'm more open to ties than I used to be, but those aren't coming back anyways.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

Yeah to me the 3 on 3 OT is the true gimmick. If they played 3 on 3 OT in the playoffs it would make the 3 on 3 stuff way more legitimate but as things are now it's a joke. I enjoy watching it but it's so completely different compared to the rest of hockey.

3vs3 in playoffs would be a joke. 3vs3 is not a hockey game. It's street hockey or something like that.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

It is a gimmick but I'd rather the 3v3 gimmick than the shootout gimmick.

I'm more open to ties than I used to be, but those aren't coming back anyways.

True, still better than a shootout. It's the ultimate bull****.

 

[cgf]

It is a gimmick but I'd rather the 3v3 gimmick than the shootout gimmick.

I'm more open to ties than I used to be, but those aren't coming back anyways.

Agreed. I feel it's a gimmick, but at least it's a fun one to watch. So I don't mind it being the gimmick the NHL uses if that's the cost of operating in NA...as I too don't expect to ever see ties brought back.

The only change I want to see to how points are allocated is for regulation wins to be worth 3 points...that & eliminating offsides (or at least letting guys carry the puck in offsides) are the two main changes I'd make if I was the commish...but 3-pt regulation wins won't happen either, since that would hurt the appearance of parity.

...even if incentivizing teams to be more aggressive about finishing games in regulation by not sitting back as much & focusing more on expanding leads than protecting them, could help bring more fans in than would be lost because of the lesser artificial parity.

 

[Balthazar]

Brassard is over the hill, but I don't mind this move.

He still has good speed and a good shot, I'm not ready to buy the over the hill theory yet. He's also 3 years younger than Soda, he's far from Iggy or Beauchemin old.

We need to give him some decent linemates and see what happens. The fact that we were able to acquire him for a 3rd rounder means that his value is low at the moment. If it works here I won't mind re-upping him for a couple of years...it won't cost much and it could be a steal down the line.

Brassard is actually a player with a real upside, unlike all our waiver pickups.

 

[Hasbro]

Brass is a decent stopgap for the 2nd line for this year and could help out in case the Pick of Damocles needs a year before joining the team.

 

[Barklez]

You don’t like my joke, fine. No need to be an ass about it.

Seemed like a like-for-like response. No need to get all sensitive about it.

 

[Balthazar]

Seemed like a like-for-like response. No need to get all sensitive about it.

Hey, this is a thread to discuss the acquisition of Derick Brassard in case you guys havent noticed.

 

[Barklez]

Hey, this is a thread to discuss the acquisition of Derick Brassard in case you guys havent noticed.

Derrick Brassard and OTL/SOL points right? Or did you just locate your soapbox too late to comment on those.

It was two comments, just leave it be.

 

[henchman21]

He still has good speed and a good shot, I'm not ready to buy the over the hill theory yet. He's also 3 years younger than Soda, he's far from Iggy or Beauchemin old.

We need to give him some decent linemates and see what happens. The fact that we were able to acquire him for a 3rd rounder means that his value is low at the moment. If it works here I won't mind re-upping him for a couple of years...it won't cost much and it could be a steal down the line.

Brassard is actually a player with a real upside, unlike all our waiver pickups.

Brassard will never return to being a 50-60 point sort of guy. You hope for him to push into the 40s again and there is probably enough gas in the tank to do that for a few seasons. No longer a #2C, but he can be a #3C (if he is willing to accept that role).

 

[cgf]

Brassard will never return to being a 50-60 point sort of guy. You hope for him to push into the 40s again and there is probably enough gas in the tank to do that for a few seasons. No longer a #2C, but he can be a #3C (if he is willing to accept that role).

But given the struggles he's had in that role the past two seasons, does his game work if he's not given some talent to work with & offensive opportunities? I feel like he needs the college-line treatment from earlier in the year when the big- & Soda lines were taking the toughest duties, leaving the smurfs with softer offensive minutes...and would struggle massively if we Soda'd him.

 

[henchman21]

But given the struggles he's had in that role the past two seasons, does his game work if he's not given some talent to work with & offensive opportunities? I feel like he needs the college-line treatment from earlier in the year when the big- & Soda lines were taking the toughest duties, leaving the smurfs with softer offensive minutes...and would struggle massively if we Soda'd him.

Struggling with the Pens and fitting a role there isn't something I'd hold against a player. They have probably the most notoriously difficult coach to get along with. Brassard isn't a top defensive duty matchup sort of guy (long gone are the days that the 3rd line is supposed to be), so he will always struggle if put into that sort of role. Give him a reasonable role and I think he can rebound a bit.

 

[Foppberg]

Can Brassard play wing very well? If we end up getting a top 6C in free agency or via trade I don't really see room for him with MacKinnon/UFA or trade/Soda

 

[Foppa2118]

It is a gimmick but I'd rather the 3v3 gimmick than the shootout gimmick.

I'm more open to ties than I used to be, but those aren't coming back anyways.

Yeah that's the issue. We can hate on 3 on 3 but what are the alternatives? The alternatives are either go back to ties, or have more games decided in the SO. Which if you don't like games decided by 3 on 3, you should like them decided by SO even less.

The solution is to get over nostalgia and come up with a new point structure that makes sense for this new era.

 

[RoyIsALegend]

Don't worry about him adapting to 3C or LW. The totally Sakic and Avs-like thing to do after acquiring their long time target is to extend him, give him every chance of succeeding at 2C, and doing little else.

Our 2019/20 Avs opening line-up after missing out on Hughes/Kakko:

Landeskog - MacKinnon - Rantanen*
Jost - Brassard* - Compher*
Nieto - Soderberg - Calvert
Kerfoot* - Kamenev** - Andrighetto*

Girard - Johnson
Zadorov* - Barrie
Cole - Makar

Grubauer

* - Their new contracts are heralded as big wins for Sakic.
** - Breaks every bone in his body stepping onto the ice for warm-up on opening night.

 

[Foppberg]

Yeah that's the issue. We can hate on 3 on 3 but what are the alternatives? The alternatives are either go back to ties, or have more games decided in the SO. Which if you don't like games decided by 3 on 3, you should like them decided by SO even less.

The solution is to get over nostalgia and come up with a new point structure that makes sense for this new era.

A 3 point system would be a lot better.

3 = regulation win
2 = OT/SO win
1 = OT/SO loss
0 = regulation loss

 

[cgf]

Struggling with the Pens and fitting a role there isn't something I'd hold against a player. They have probably the most notoriously difficult coach to get along with. Brassard isn't a top defensive duty matchup sort of guy (long gone are the days that the 3rd line is supposed to be), so he will always struggle if put into that sort of role. Give him a reasonable role and I think he can rebound a bit.

Fair enough about his pittsburgh stint, but what about this season in Florida? I guess it doesn't really matter if we are going to use him as the offensive-2C and Soda the defensive-2C, so to speak...aka as middle 6 lines that are interchangeable based on the situation...but I'm never really comfortable penciling guys who need to be put in a position to produce to be effective, into lesser roles like we'd be doing if we brought back Brassard and got a quality 2C/1bC. And I feel like Brass is in that category at this point in his career.

Which I guess doesn't matter with this team this year, but is moreso a concern I have if they re-sign him.

 

[McMetal]

Brassard can play up and down the lineup, C or W, I wouldn't worry about where he fits in our top nine. And if he does re-sign, he can play a Wilson type role next year as a versatile vet type.