Confirmed with Link: Duchene to OTT in three-team trade

[Sensinitis]

No, cherry picking is looking at one game or a small selection of games and making a determination based largely on that. What I did was show that he's clearly still doing just fine at ES through the ENTIRE reg season. Heck, you can look at his lines numbers without Kucherov if you want, 64% GF%, 58% SCF%, 61% HDCF%, doesn't scream PP specialist there either. There really isn't much basis in the claim that he's a PP specialist. He may not be the force he once was, but he's still very much and effective player in all situations that other teams need to key in on.

You’re right about the cherry picking, but you’re definitely stat-watching though. I ask you again for the 3rd time, did you watch the majority of his games in the playoffs?

How is he not a PP specialist with so many points and especially goals on the PP? That’s not a bad thing...

And again, why are you using regular season stats? Most important time of the year is the PLAYOFFS, and my chiming in is has to do with that, his play these playoffs doesn’t scream game breaker. Definitely still 1st liner obviously, but far from good enough to carry his team. He was disappointing, there’s no way around that. Saying “yeah but he had 16 pts in 17 gms” to try and prive that he was as good as he should have been is just foolish if you didn’t actually watch the games.

 

[pzeeman]

Hehe, no it's all good, I'm not irritated at all, though I do get fired up in discussions. It's all a lot more fun for me in person really, this stuff is too flaky to be honest.

You're hiding behind the minutia that suits you and are building a wall around it. All you're doing is repeating a misrepresentation of my point over and over again, avoiding facing what I'm actually saying head on. I'm not really a fan of the approach but what can you do on the internet? No point wasting any more time on it though.

It feels like you understand what I'm saying and likely agree, but are being disagreeable on principle. In person I'm sure we'd have a better discussion, but this is just silly at this point.

I guess in spite of our history of signing our stars/core/best players, you disagree that we are more than likely to sign Duchene because we didn't sign Stalberg, Hemsky, and others. We can leave it at that, agree to disagree.

Sorry I-T, I'm normally in your corner - and honestly agree with you about keeping the players the Senators want to keep - but you are arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc. They weren't re-signed therefore the team didn't want to re-sign them.

But it's a tough one to prove. After a player leaves or is traded, how do you prove it's because the team wouldn't pay him fair value? In every case you brought up, there were other logical, reasonable - uhm - reasons for cutting ties. It comes down to giving the organization the benefit of the doubt. If you don't think they deserve any, you start by looking at money being a problem. If you think there is some level of competence and good will, then you start buying the other excuses, and look for a pattern.

So who, unjustifiably, got away because of money? Alfie? Who else? Turris? That one can be explained before the trade and made to look like a pretty savvy move. Anyone else?

 

[Silencio]

I'm generally wary of using playoff performance to prove anything. The samples are always small, and how often have we seen someone be given a "choker" label then he turns around and wins the Cup? After all it is a team game.

Stamkos' boss being the perfect example of this.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

I'm not down on Duchene, I really quite like him, but there's no reason to put down Stamkos to prop up Duchene. Duchene can still be an awesome player while not being as good as Stamkos.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I did point out in an earlier post, that since Stamkos returned from his injury, he has not been the same player he was before.

With that in mind, and watching the Duchene play since he became a Senator, I see him having the better overall game of the two.

In Stamkos's last 4 full 82 game seasons, he averaged 49.75 goals
.
In 2015-16, he played 77 games and scored 36 goals, and missed most of the next season (2016-17) because of his injury.

In this past season, he only scored 27 goals ( 15 were PPGs) in the 78 games he played.......so, as pointed out in a previous post, he's benefited by playing with Kucherov having recording 59 assists.

I just don't see him as being the same player as he was pre-injury, and when I compare him now, to Duchene now, I see Duchene as the better player.








I know you have to be right on everything, but this is my opinion, and you can have yours.

 

[Micklebot]

You’re right about the cherry picking, but you’re definitely stat-watching though. I ask you again for the 3rd time, did you watch the majority of his games in the playoffs?

How is he not a PP specialist with so many points and especially goals on the PP? That’s not a bad thing...

And again, why are you using regular season stats? Most important time of the year is the PLAYOFFS, and my chiming in is has to do with that, his play these playoffs doesn’t scream game breaker. Definitely still 1st liner obviously, but far from good enough to carry his team. He was disappointing, there’s no way around that. Saying “yeah but he had 16 pts in 17 gms” to try and prive that he was as good as he should have been is just foolish if you didn’t actually watch the games.

I think the distinction is in PP specialist. You can be great on the PP while not a PP specialist. Specialist implies that's all you're good at, which is what I'm objecting to.

As to whether or not he had a great playoff run, well it's not really relevant given my concern is with a small sample being used to make a sweeping statement. Could he have had a better playoff run, sure, was he terrible, no. His success may have come primarily off the PP in those 17 games, but that doesn't define him as a player, which is my point.

I ask you this; if a disappointing playoffs for Stamkos is still having major contributions on the PP but being average at ES, is that enough in your opinion to prefer a player that was significantly less productive in the reg season?

edit: Forgot to answer your question about watching; I watched about half the TB games, so maybe? I didn't count which I watched and which I missed. 2nd edit: full disclosure i did miss the last two games in which his team got shut out and based on comments here he was not great in.

 

[JungleBeat]

And again, why are you using regular season stats? Most important time of the year is the PLAYOFFS, and my chiming in is has to do with that, his play these playoffs doesn’t scream game breaker. Definitely still 1st liner obviously, but far from good enough to carry his team. He was disappointing, there’s no way around that

Duchene was exactly lights out during the playoffs. He doesn’t even have a career playoff goal yet.

 

[Mr Hat]

Stamkos' boss being the perfect example of this.

Yzerman was an elite two way player. He was actually useful on the defensive side of the ice where Stamkos is not.

 

[BondraTime]

Yzerman was an elite two way player. He was actually useful on the defensive side of the ice where Stamkos is not.

He was the exact opposite of a 2 way player in the time frame these guys are alluding too.

 

[Sensinitis]

I think the distinction is in PP specialist. You can be great on the PP while not a PP specialist. Specialist implies that's all you're good at, which is what I'm objecting to.

I ask you this; if a disappointing playoffs for Stamkos is still having major contributions on the PP but being average at ES, is that enough in your opinion to prefer a player that was significantly less productive in the reg season?

edit: Forgot to answer your question about watching; I watched about half the TB games, so maybe? I didn't count which I watched and which I missed. 2nd edit: full disclosure i did miss the last two games in which his team got shut out and based on comments here he was not great in.

Fair enough for the specialist semantics, it’s just a matter of opinion whether it implies what you said or not however.

To answer your question, no. But if the hypothetical player is a proven playoff performer with higher PPG and/or 5-on-5 production maybe I think twice about it.

It’s too bad you missed half the games + some of the elimination games, but in the games you watched, did you think Stamkos was a difference maker?

Duchene was exactly lights out during the playoffs. He doesn’t even have a career playoff goal yet.

I never said anything about Duchene. Was just chiming wrt Stamkos and what was being said.

I’m definitely looking forward to seeing what Duch will look like when there’s actual pressure though.

 

[Micklebot]

It’s too bad you missed half the games + some of the elimination games, but in the games you watched, did you think Stamkos was a difference maker?

His goals on the pp made a difference. But i am assuming you want to pinpoint his ES play where i would say no not really . Overall though he was a big part of the success the team had because PP goals count just the same.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Sorry I-T, I'm normally in your corner - and honestly agree with you about keeping the players the Senators want to keep - but you are arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc. They weren't re-signed therefore the team didn't want to re-sign them.

But it's a tough one to prove. After a player leaves or is traded, how do you prove it's because the team wouldn't pay him fair value? In every case you brought up, there were other logical, reasonable - uhm - reasons for cutting ties. It comes down to giving the organization the benefit of the doubt. If you don't think they deserve any, you start by looking at money being a problem. If you think there is some level of competence and good will, then you start buying the other excuses, and look for a pattern.

So who, unjustifiably, got away because of money? Alfie? Who else? Turris? That one can be explained before the trade and made to look like a pretty savvy move. Anyone else?

Hey no worries man, and thank you for the supporting words I agree with you, however, the weight of my point isn't guys that we didn't sign because there really aren't many, and complimentary players come and go for a variety of reasons. MB has focused on the complementary players that we didn't sign as the crux of my point because it suits him, but it really isn't what I'm looking at at all, and he knows this.

We have signed our big guys, and that's my point. Turris was traded to get Duchene (and all around better player), Zib was traded for Brass, who was thought to be a better team player and playoff performer (and was in my opinion), all our other guys have been extended when we needed.

MB also tries to make it seem like we'll try and sign the guy to save from being embraced, like PD didn't consider what it would cost to sign him before trading for him.

My point is that there are many biases around here about money, cheapness, and EM, but we have retained and increased the team budget when we have need to, or when the GM has wanted to get a player. We've gone through this every year, and yet folks still want to take being slapped by the owner over attendance and apply their anger to player moves.

Duchene will be signed as has always been the plan.

 

[Ice-Tray]

My concern is less that we won't sign Duchene, more that by doing so (partially because it would be embarrassing to trade so much for him only to trade him off because of contract demands, and partially because he's a darn good player) we will sacrifice elsewhere; perhaps by trading Hoffman or Dzingel, or maybe Ceci. I won't count Karlsson in that group, because if we trade him it's not to make room for Duchene. So sure, don't worry, we'll keep Duchene, and Stone so long as their willing to sign here, but at what cost.

In the end, this team imo has on countless occasions shown it's going to put finances ahead of good hockey trades. Oh, they will try their best to balance the two competing interests, but at the end of the day, financial considerations is a hard line that can't be passed, at least that's my take on it.

Duchene won't be re-signed due to embarrassment, give me a break, you don't think PD wanted to re-sign him before trading for him? You think he didn't know what it would cost? No, things will go according to plan here, not to worry.

Hoffman has been in line to be traded for a while now because of him as a hockey player, it would be a mistake to appropriate him to your budget sacrifice squad.

Dzingle will be signed without much ado in my opinion.

This team has yet to trade a core player just to shed cash, and has looked to make small money moves as add ons to deals because you have a small market team that has a budget to reflect the small market it's in. What's your point? EM and PD actually want the team to get better and win, contrary to popular opinion. This in't Ballard happy to take Leaf fan cash in return for crap. Ottawa doesn't pay big dollars at the best of times, and pays even less when the team flags. We're not bleeding talent to stay under budget as you'd have us believe.

Sure, you can do all of the worrying, but maybe don't come back at me until one of your fearful situations actually unfolds, then we can talk about it.

 

[Micklebot]

Duchene won't be re-signed due to embarrassment, give me a break, you don't think PD wanted to re-sign him before trading for him? You think he didn't know what it would cost? No, things will go according to plan here, not to worry.

I love how quickly you misrepresented the point; I said it would be embarassing to trade him do to contract demands and that he is a good player. This means we want to sign him, and would likely pay a bit above what we think he's worth because we just traded for him.

Hoffman has been in line to be traded for a while now because of him as a hockey player, it would be a mistake to appropriate him to your budget sacrifice squad.

It would certainly be a shame if we kept one of the better goal scorering wingers in the league.

Dzingle will be signed without much ado in my opinion.

He'll need a new contract, and if he continues to play well, he'll be due for a raise. He's not a core guy, but it would be a shame to move on from him.

This team has yet to trade a core player just to shed cash, and has looked to make small money moves as add ons to deals because you have a small market team that has a budget to reflect the small market it's in. What's your point? EM and PD actually want the team to get better and win, contrary to popular opinion. This in't Ballard happy to take Leaf fan cash in return for crap. Ottawa doesn't pay big dollars at the best of times, and pays even less when the team flags. We're not bleeding talent to stay under budget as you'd have us believe.

Sure, you can do all of the worrying, but maybe don't come back at me until one of your fearful situations actually unfolds, then we can talk about it.

once again you're misrepresenting my position, I've never suggested Dorion doesn't want to improve the team, or that he trades core players just to shed cash, what I said was we consistantly make moves that sacrifice the return to for financial reasons and signing Duchene will almost certainly force more moves that do just that. Hoffman being traded wouldn't likely be just to shed his salary, obviously they'd trade him to try and address some area of the team at the same time, but instead of taking the best possible deal, we'll inevitably tack something on to save cash. You can ignore adding a 2nd round pick and waiting for NYR to pay Brassard's bonus, or taking on Hammond to the Duchene deal then keeping him in Belleville even though he wasn't our property anymore, getting vegas to retain instead of dealing direct with the Pens, or moving Phaneuf for a clearly worse player in Gaborik, but that doesn't mean these things aren't happening.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Stamkos is a finisher. It's hard to find guys who are pure goal scorers.

The one problem with that, is those guys are much more reliant on their teammates than an all-around player. If no one is getting Stammer the puck, then he can't score. It's not Stamkos' fault his teammates didn't elevate their game and push through the tighter checking in the playoffs.

This is also why so many scouts and teams are constantly on the hunt for those all-around, 200-foot guys. You have a better chance of success when you're not relying on specialist-type players. But that doesn't diminish how dominant specialists can be when things are going well (think Kessel).

 

[Ice-Tray]

I love how quickly you misrepresented the point; I said it would be embarassing to trade him do to contract demands and that he is a good player. This means we want to sign him, and would likely pay a bit above what we think he's worth because we just traded for him.


It would certainly be a shame if we kept one of the better goal scorering wingers in the league.



He'll need a new contract, and if he continues to play well, he'll be due for a raise. He's not a core guy, but it would be a shame to move on from him.



once again you're misrepresenting my position, I've never suggested Dorion doesn't want to improve the team, or that he trades core players just to shed cash, what I said was we consistantly make moves that sacrifice the return to for financial reasons and signing Duchene will almost certainly force more moves that do just that. Hoffman being traded wouldn't likely be just to shed his salary, obviously they'd trade him to try and address some area of the team at the same time, but instead of taking the best possible deal, we'll inevitably tack something on to save cash. You can ignore adding a 2nd round pick and waiting for NYR to pay Brassard's bonus, or taking on Hammond to the Duchene deal then keeping him in Belleville even though he wasn't our property anymore, getting vegas to retain instead of dealing direct with the Pens, or moving Phaneuf for a clearly worse player in Gaborik, but that doesn't mean these things aren't happening.

My apologies if I misunderstood some of what you're saying, I also made a grammatical error in my first bit that altered the meaning of the 'embarrassed' bit.

Hoffman is a 25 ish goal scorer who does little else, I'd be fine to move on from him for a young player or two who could be top six guys. Some people like him, some do not, I'm in the do not crowd so we'll agree to disagree.

Maybe we can worry about moving on from Dzingle when we're in danger of that happening? I mean, if he gets even better and we don't extend him I agree that it would be a shame.

Ok no, you really never actually said any of that, but thanks for finally clarifying a position. I haven't ignored any of it, you're going off on another tangent from what I was talking about, but sure, we can talk about that. It doesn't look like PD sacrificed anything in the return of the trade for finances, it looks like he ADDED picks for financial savings, theres a difference. We didn't get less in return, we ADDED a pick for cash. Saving money for a cash strapped team isn't exactly evil you know, though we'd all prefer to keep picks and not have a budget.

The idea that there were better deals on the table that we passed on for cash is silly, and furthermore there is zero evidence of that happening. To think you gave me a hard time given the lack of 'proof' backing my position on signing Duchene, and you come up with that? I mean if that's what you think is happening then your overall opinions on things makes a lot more sense anyways.

You know that we didn't get Vegas to 'help' in that trade right? Vegas stepped in to avoid Brassard coming to Winnipeg, Hammond had no effect on the Duchene deal at all, he was a throw in to get rid of his contract which we paid for separately with a pick, and while we saved money on the Phaneuf deal we also, more importantly, got out from under his huge contract and can buy out Gabby and move on.

 

[Ray Kinsella]

My apologies if I misunderstood some of what you're saying, I also made a grammatical error in my first bit that altered the meaning of the 'embarrassed' bit.

Hoffman is a 25 ish goal scorer who does little else, I'd be fine to move on from him for a young player or two who could be top six guys. Some people like him, some do not, I'm in the do not crowd so we'll agree to disagree.

Maybe we can worry about moving on from Dzingle when we're in danger of that happening? I mean, if he gets even better and we don't extend him I agree that it would be a shame.

Ok no, you really never actually said any of that, but thanks for finally clarifying a position. I haven't ignored any of it, you're going off on another tangent from what I was talking about, but sure, we can talk about that. It doesn't look like PD sacrificed anything in the return of the trade for finances, it looks like he ADDED picks for financial savings, theres a difference. We didn't get less in return, we ADDED a pick for cash. Saving money for a cash strapped team isn't exactly evil you know, though we'd all prefer to keep picks and not have a budget.

The idea that there were better deals on the table that we passed on for cash is silly, and furthermore there is zero evidence of that happening. To think you gave me a hard time given the lack of 'proof' backing my position on signing Duchene, and you come up with that? I mean if that's what you think is happening then your overall opinions on things makes a lot more sense anyways.

You know that we didn't get Vegas to 'help' in that trade right? Vegas stepped in to avoid Brassard coming to Winnipeg, Hammond had no effect on the Duchene deal at all, he was a throw in to get rid of his contract which we paid for separately with a pick, and while we saved money on the Phaneuf deal we also, more importantly, got out from under his huge contract and can buy out Gabby and move on.

You write way too long at any given time.

 

[Ice-Tray]

You write way too long at any given time.

Yeah, I don't think I'm built for internet interactions, thanks for the heads up though

 

[Agent Zub]

Stamkos is a finisher. It's hard to find guys who are pure goal scorers.

The one problem with that, is those guys are much more reliant on their teammates than an all-around player. If no one is getting Stammer the puck, then he can't score. It's not Stamkos' fault his teammates didn't elevate their game and push through the tighter checking in the playoffs.

This is also why so many scouts and teams are constantly on the hunt for those all-around, 200-foot guys. You have a better chance of success when you're not relying on specialist-type players. But that doesn't diminish how dominant specialists can be when things are going well (think Kessel).

The best example of this is Heatley. He'd be a 50 or 40 goal scorer in the reg season but come playoffs...

I mean 16 goals in 77 career playoff games for Heatley. Stamkos has always given me a similar vibe.

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

My apologies if I misunderstood some of what you're saying, I also made a grammatical error in my first bit that altered the meaning of the 'embarrassed' bit.

Hoffman is a 25 ish goal scorer who does little else, I'd be fine to move on from him for a young player or two who could be top six guys. Some people like him, some do not, I'm in the do not crowd so we'll agree to disagree.

Maybe we can worry about moving on from Dzingle when we're in danger of that happening? I mean, if he gets even better and we don't extend him I agree that it would be a shame.

Ok no, you really never actually said any of that, but thanks for finally clarifying a position. I haven't ignored any of it, you're going off on another tangent from what I was talking about, but sure, we can talk about that. It doesn't look like PD sacrificed anything in the return of the trade for finances, it looks like he ADDED picks for financial savings, theres a difference. We didn't get less in return, we ADDED a pick for cash. Saving money for a cash strapped team isn't exactly evil you know, though we'd all prefer to keep picks and not have a budget.

The idea that there were better deals on the table that we passed on for cash is silly, and furthermore there is zero evidence of that happening. To think you gave me a hard time given the lack of 'proof' backing my position on signing Duchene, and you come up with that? I mean if that's what you think is happening then your overall opinions on things makes a lot more sense anyways.

You know that we didn't get Vegas to 'help' in that trade right? Vegas stepped in to avoid Brassard coming to Winnipeg, Hammond had no effect on the Duchene deal at all, he was a throw in to get rid of his contract which we paid for separately with a pick, and while we saved money on the Phaneuf deal we also, more importantly, got out from under his huge contract and can buy out Gabby and move on.

I heard Bryan Murray himself say in 2016 Eugene wouldn't approve adding salary to add a player we've since learned was Taylor Hall.

That's some crazy mental gymnastics regarding picks and cash. Holy moly.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

The best example of this is Heatley. He'd be a 50 or 40 goal scorer in the reg season but come playoffs...

I mean 16 goals in 77 career playoff games for Heatley. Stamkos has always given me a similar vibe.

It does work...if the team is structured properly. That's the trick, and it's a hard one to pull off. You pretty much have to be a very deep (scoring) team like Pittsburgh where you're not relying exclusively on someone like Kessel to win games for you, but as an additional weapon to use when shutdown guys are focused on the top line.

 

[Micklebot]

The best example of this is Heatley. He'd be a 50 or 40 goal scorer in the reg season but come playoffs...

I mean 16 goals in 77 career playoff games for Heatley. Stamkos has always given me a similar vibe.

I'm not so sure that's a great example when 29 of those games were after his play had already started to drastically fall off and he wasn't close to being a 50 or 40 goal scorer. In his first 48 playoff games (when he was still playing at that high end level) he had 12 goals and 48 pts. Sure his goal scoring droped off, partially because PP opertunities disapeared in the playoffs back then and partially because things in general tighten up, but he was still putting up offense (with the exception of against the Ducks I guess).

 

[Mr Hat]

I'm not so sure that's a great example when 29 of those games were after his play had already started to drastically fall off and he wasn't close to being a 50 or 40 goal scorer. In his first 48 playoff games (when he was still playing at that high end level) he had 12 goals and 48 pts. Sure his goal scoring droped off, partially because PP opertunities disapeared in the playoffs back then and partially because things in general tighten up, but he was still putting up offense (with the exception of against the Ducks I guess).

It's a good comparison that as for a superstar (or f***ing all star lol) they are both relatively slow (Stamkos isn't that slow, but still slow in today's NHL), relied on a heavy slapshot, powerplays, and amazing linemates to generate PPG pace.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I heard Bryan Murray himself say in 2016 Eugene wouldn't approve adding salary to add a player we've since learned was Taylor Hall.

That's some crazy mental gymnastics regarding picks and cash. Holy moly.

Funny, PD has said numerous times that he has been given the green light to add. Last year was a great example, but whatever.

Anyways, there's no real point in debating in here, everyone is entrenched in their positions and nothing ever changes.

 

[Boud]

Funny, PD has said numerous times that he has been given the green light to add. Last year was a great example, but whatever.

Anyways, there's no real point in debating in here, everyone is entrenched in their positions and nothing ever changes.

In retrospect I kinda wish he wasn't given the green light lmao

 

[SAK11]

I'm not so sure that's a great example when 29 of those games were after his play had already started to drastically fall off and he wasn't close to being a 50 or 40 goal scorer. In his first 48 playoff games (when he was still playing at that high end level) he had 12 goals and 48 pts. Sure his goal scoring droped off, partially because PP opertunities disapeared in the playoffs back then and partially because things in general tighten up, but he was still putting up offense (with the exception of against the Ducks I guess).

12 goals in 48 games is not good production at all for prime Heatley. That’s 20 goals over 82 games, when his regular season production over that time frame was around 45 goals per 82 games. A 25 goal drop is rather large.