Fault: Trotz or Poile

[Ranskyre]

a winning record with an expansion team no less

But as of the 2012-2013 season, only three coaches had career percentages below .500.


After 15 years, the Ducks had their first Cup. The Oilers had won three. And St. Louis is still waiting 47 years on. (Albeit with a long string of playoff appearances). Whom do we want to emulate?

I'm not saying that Head Coach "Not-Barry Trotz" will get the Cup to Nashville next year. And nothing aside from divine intervention (or Weber-bombs taking out key players) will change the outcome of this season. But I think we could roll over the head coach every couple of years and get these results.

And Trotz is a good coach, and as said he would be rehired before he could get home from the Bridge if he is fired.. but the question does remain if he is the right coach for this team anymore...

This is basically where my thoughts are.

 

[glenngineer]

the problem with your line of thinking is, Trotz isn't a "losing" coach. He has a lifetime winning record, and is exactly .500 this year with a team missing its all star goaltender

When it comes to the playoffs he is.

 

[glenngineer]

The ultimate in subjectivity! Awesome.

I hate "intangibles". Always have. Some people say "leadership", I say "no personality and no engagement". Some say "turns it on in the playoffs", I say "dogs it in the regular season." If you want to talk hockey IQ and the ability to use teammates well, that's one thing - that's part of what makes Toews legitimately good. But "intangibles" is pseudomystical hogwash.

So let me ask you a question, would you rather have a guy like A-Rod on your team or Jeter? Not sure how much of a baseball fan you are but that's as good an example as I can come up with right now.

 

[Viqsi]

So let me ask you a question, would you rather have a guy like A-Rod on your team or Jeter? Not sure how much of a baseball fan you are but that's as good an example as I can come up with right now.

I loathe baseball. All I know about those two is that Jeter was popular and A-Rod wasn't.

 

[ozpensfan]

Im going to say team ownership. Poile works with the funds allocated to him and Trotz does the best he can with the team that Poile can work within his budget.

Until management decides to go closer to the cap then nothing will change regardless of coach and GM

 

[I Will Son]

Until management decides to go closer to the cap then nothing will change regardless of coach and GM

They did last summer... And the gm and coaches decided to get overpriced grinders.

 

[PredsV82]

They did last summer... And the gm and coaches decided to get overpriced grinders.

Stalberg and Cullen were not signed as "grinders". If those two had played up to expectations nobody would have cared about Nystrom and Hendricks

I think it was a matter of Poile using the money he was given to what was available to him. Last summers UFA class appears to be a huge bust as far as forwards go, for everyone who dumped big money on players, but you can't fault him for getting proven NHL players rather than gambling that Beck and Watson would be able to step in from day 1.

 

[101st_fan]

So let me ask you a question, would you rather have a guy like A-Rod on your team or Jeter? Not sure how much of a baseball fan you are but that's as good an example as I can come up with right now.

That tangible suspension for violation of PED policy factors into my decision making process when comparing the choices provided.

 

[RaiderDoug]

Stalberg and Cullen were not signed as "grinders". If those two had played up to expectations nobody would have cared about Nystrom and Hendricks

I think it was a matter of Poile using the money he was given to what was available to him. Last summers UFA class appears to be a huge bust as far as forwards go, for everyone who dumped big money on players, but you can't fault him for getting proven NHL players rather than gambling that Beck and Watson would be able to step in from day 1.

It's always someone else's fault:

1998-2002 - We're an expansion team, we can't be expected to compete.

2003-2004 - if only that darn lockout hadn't sapped our momentum.

2005-2006 - if only Vokoun hadn't had his blood clot

2007-2008 - That darn Radulov

2008-2009 - That darn Liarpold

2009-2010 - That darn Erat and his blind pass.

2010-2011 - those darn Canucks and the 5 1-goal loss games

2011-2012 - Radu-sabotaged again!

2012-2013 - well, the lockout robbed us of a training camp, so we werent ready

2013-2014 - Those darn UFA players just won't score goals like we want them to.


We've changed uniforms. We've changed owners. We've changed out the roster numerous times. We've changed concession companies. We re-did the lease.

There's only one (or two) common denominator in the last 15 years of blah.

 

[MrJoshua]

I hate reading these boards these days. There's no discussing anything. It all just devolves into accusations toward staff members or players.

Hockey is cyclical. The team is in a down cycle. In a year or two as the youth starts to contribute more they'll go back into an up cycle. Chill out.

 

[glenngineer]

It's always someone else's fault:

1998-2002 - We're an expansion team, we can't be expected to compete.

2003-2004 - if only that darn lockout hadn't sapped our momentum.

2005-2006 - if only Vokoun hadn't had his blood clot

2007-2008 - That darn Radulov

2008-2009 - That darn Liarpold

2009-2010 - That darn Erat and his blind pass.

2010-2011 - those darn Canucks and the 5 1-goal loss games

2011-2012 - Radu-sabotaged again!

2012-2013 - well, the lockout robbed us of a training camp, so we werent ready

2013-2014 - Those darn UFA players just won't score goals like we want them to.


We've changed uniforms. We've changed owners. We've changed out the roster numerous times. We've changed concession companies. We re-did the lease.

There's only one (or two) common denominator in the last 15 years of blah.

You forgot 2013-2014 - We lost Rinne for over half the season but we were still within reach until we went 1-4 coming out of the Olympic break, at home nonetheless.

And this one:

We were the lower seed so we weren't expected to win anyway.

 

[glenngineer]

I hate reading these boards these days. There's no discussing anything. It all just devolves into accusations toward staff members or players.

Hockey is cyclical. The team is in a down cycle. In a year or two as the youth starts to contribute more they'll go back into an up cycle. Chill out.

What youth? Have you looked at the age of our forwards? They're all older than our d-corps except for Weber and Bartley. The guys we have now are not producing and unless you see some guys in the minors or college that are going to produce for us in the next year or two, where are we going to improve at offensively?

 

[Dave is a killer]

They did last summer... And the gm and coaches decided to get overpriced grinders.

Yeah, that worked out so well, Stalledberg, Cullen, Hendricks & Nystrom certainly haven't lived up to the expectations heaped upon them by tRotz and pOile, waste of money, imo

 

[glenngineer]

That tangible suspension for violation of PED policy factors into my decision making process when comparing the choices provided.

OK, before we knew any of the PED info, who would you have taken based on the first 10 years of their career, even 15 years for that matter?

You know what, I'm not even going to bother anymore. I'll just leave at it this.

Poile and Trotz have never drafted and developed a top 3 forward in 15 years of running the Nashville Predators. There is no fact or use of stats that you can give to me or anyone else around here that says otherwise.

 

[PredsV82]

It's always someone else's fault:

1998-2002 - We're an expansion team, we can't be expected to compete.

2003-2004 - if only that darn lockout hadn't sapped our momentum.

2005-2006 - if only Vokoun hadn't had his blood clot

2007-2008 - That darn Radulov

2008-2009 - That darn Liarpold

2009-2010 - That darn Erat and his blind pass.

2010-2011 - those darn Canucks and the 5 1-goal loss games

2011-2012 - Radu-sabotaged again!

2012-2013 - well, the lockout robbed us of a training camp, so we werent ready

2013-2014 - Those darn UFA players just won't score goals like we want them to.


We've changed uniforms. We've changed owners. We've changed out the roster numerous times. We've changed concession companies. We re-did the lease.

There's only one (or two) common denominator in the last 15 years of blah.

this is just a fundamental difference between those of us who believe the team has actually overachieved compared to our expansion bretheren vs those who want change for changes sake.

There is no way to argue this out with logic or reason because both points of view are valid.

 

[Nothing Is New]

These questions always seem to devolve in to which individual can we scapegoat for our problems. And there is truth to some of it. But most of the time its a whole bunch of related factors - a few of which might involve certain individuals.

The greatest single factor influencing the Preds IMHO: we are a smaller southern city playing a northern city/Canadian sport. Free agents will never prioritize us high. TV networks will never love us. What we do, will have to be done within.

And what do we do? My $0.02. Make lemonade. How? Get creative and force innovation. It can be done. See Herb Brooks (from Rangers web site: Brooks brought a hybrid North American and European system to New York, which was something the NHL had never really seen in those days. He also stressed opportunities for Americans – using his influence to bring roughly a dozen U.S.-born players into the Rangers organization under his watch.) Not necessarily what he did but ---really change it up. Make the Preds a fun team to watch and play for. Change the culture to balls-to-the-wall offense (yes - we will suck a year or two). If Trotz could impart the same ethic to an offensive scheme that he has now for defense - he would be great. Along with the new offense, reintroduce the physical, 'hard to play against' ethic. Of course, we would probably need an agitator and a true enforcer - and that is against the prevalent trend. But even when the team was bad, it would still be very entertaining hockey and it would be on the long term upswing. Nashville fans know the sport and if they believe we are on the way up - they will tolerate the learning curve.

 

[PredsV82]

These questions always seem to devolve in to which individual can we scapegoat for our problems. And there is truth to some of it. But most of the time its a whole bunch of related factors - a few of which might involve certain individuals.

The greatest single factor influencing the Preds IMHO: we are a smaller southern city playing a northern city/Canadian sport. Free agents will never prioritize us high. TV networks will never love us. What we do, will have to be done within.

And what do we do? My $0.02. Make lemonade. How? Get creative and force innovation. It can be done. See Herb Brooks (from Rangers web site: Brooks brought a hybrid North American and European system to New York, which was something the NHL had never really seen in those days. He also stressed opportunities for Americans – using his influence to bring roughly a dozen U.S.-born players into the Rangers organization under his watch.) Not necessarily what he did but ---really change it up. Make the Preds a fun team to watch and play for. Change the culture to balls-to-the-wall offense (yes - we will suck a year or two). If Trotz could impart the same ethic to an offensive scheme that he has now for defense - he would be great. Along with the new offense, reintroduce the physical, 'hard to play against' ethic. Of course, we would probably need an agitator and a true enforcer - and that is against the prevalent trend. But even when the team was bad, it would still be very entertaining hockey and it would be on the long term upswing. Nashville fans know the sport and if they believe we are on the way up - they will tolerate the learning curve.

I think it is an absolute fallacy that having an all out offensive game will please fans even if you lose more than you win..


I think the Preds fanbase is a more mature hockey market than you give them credit for, and they will not tolerate losing 6-4 any more than it will tolerate losing 2-1. We simply have to start winning, whether by a 2-1 score or 4-3 makes no difference.

 

[101st_fan]

OK, before we knew any of the PED info, who would you have taken based on the first 10 years of their career, even 15 years for that matter?

You know what, I'm not even going to bother anymore. I'll just leave at it this.

Poile and Trotz have never drafted and developed a top 3 forward in 15 years of running the Nashville Predators. There is no fact or use of stats that you can give to me or anyone else around here that says otherwise.

"Top 3 forward" has no actual meaning here. Define it as the top 90 scoring forwards across the league, that gets shot down routinely. That approach that these boards so frequently resort to turns the objective into subjective. Using nothing but "intangibles" and subjective assessment one could make a claim that Adam Hall is the most prolific game changer in the history of hockey and since it isn't based upon logic, it becomes very hard (ok ... impossible) to logically refute.

The Yankees illustrated that the "or" concept is flawed by going the "and" route.

 

[NSH615]

I think it is an absolute fallacy that having an all out offensive game will please fans even if you lose more than you win..


I think the Preds fanbase is a more mature hockey market than you give them credit for, and they will not tolerate losing 6-4 any more than it will tolerate losing 2-1. We simply have to start winning, whether by a 2-1 score or 4-3 makes no difference.

I'd actually prefer losing 5-4 or 6-4 over 2-1. Yes the end result is still 0 points and a loss, but it means the team can actually score, something they don't know how to do right now, unless it's by way of a tip in.

 

[RaiderDoug]

this is just a fundamental difference between those of us who believe the team has actually overachieved compared to our expansion bretheren vs those who want change for changes sake.

There is no way to argue this out with logic or reason because both points of view are valid.

Have we really overachieved? Especially compared to our expansion brethren?

There were 9 teams added to the NHL since 1990:

SJ - .520 winning %, 6 division titles, 3 trips to conference finals, 1 president's Trophy, 16 playoff appearances

TB - .444 winning %, Stanley Cup, 2 div titles, 1 trip to conference finals, 6 playoff appearances

OTT - .511 winning %, 1 President's Trophy, 1 trip to Cup Finals, 4 div titles, 2 trips to conference finals, 14 playoff appearances

FLA - .486 winning %, 1div. title, 1 trip to cup finals, 1 trip to conference finals, 4 playoff appearances

ANA - .520 winning %, 1 Stanley Cup, 2 div titles, 2 SCF appearances, 3conference finals appearances, 9 playoff appearances

Nash - .543 winning %, 7 playoff appearances

Atlanta - .439 winning %, 1 div title, 1 playoff appearance

Minn - .531 winning %, 4 playoff appearances, 1 Conf. Finals appearance

CBJ - .444 winning %, 1 playoff appearance





Sure, we deserve a nice little pat on the head for having a decent winning % WRT our other expansion teams. Was this a function of getting to play in the central, which for a long time was one of the weaker divisions in the NHL?

Nonetheless, we've been ok. Not too bad. Not too good either.

I don't think we've overachieved vs our expansion brethren - we're probably the most middle of the road team there is.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

OK, before we knew any of the PED info, who would you have taken based on the first 10 years of their career, even 15 years for that matter?

A-Rod easily.

 

[Viqsi]

[/B]

I'd actually prefer losing 5-4 or 6-4 over 2-1. Yes the end result is still 0 points and a loss, but it means the team can actually score, something they don't know how to do right now, unless it's by way of a tip in.

And if that's how the last 15 years of Predators hockey had gone, this conversation would be about how Poile and Trotz have "never drafted and/or developed a top-pairing defenseman ever", and you'd be talking about how losing 2-1 would be preferable because "it means the team can actually defend, something they don't know how to do right now, unless it's by accidentally getting in the shooting lane."

* * *​

Have we really overachieved? Especially compared to our expansion brethren?

There were 9 teams added to the NHL since 1990:

Wait, what? 1990?

I like how your counterpoint involves redefining "expansion brethren" from what it's been commonly understood to be since forever. Sure, the actual teams that followed one and two years later make Nashville look good, so let's hop back 5-8 years so we can put the proper spin on things, eh?

* * *​

Poile and Trotz have never drafted and developed a top 3 forward in 15 years of running the Nashville Predators. There is no fact or use of stats that you can give to me or anyone else around here that says otherwise.

Counterpoint: That doesn't actually matter one bit w/r/t whether or not they should stay and/or whether or not they can produce a Cup-winning team.

 

[RaiderDoug]

Wait, what? 1990?

I like how your counterpoint involves redefining "expansion brethren" from what it's been commonly understood to be since forever. Sure, the actual teams that followed one and two years later make Nashville look good, so let's hop back 5-8 years so we can put the proper spin on things, eh?

FWIW, wikipedia defines the most recent era as "Southward expansion (1992-2000)" on thier article on the history of the NHL. But heck with them, right - they don't meet Viqsi's definition of expansion era.


Nice of you to lop off expansion teams like Tampa, Florida and San Jose. Obviously because they're a few years older, they shouldn't be in the discussion. Let's just pretend they don't exist!

 

[jwhouk]

Even I know the second major expansion era started with the Sharks in 1991-92.

That being said, just because we haven't made the conference finals doesn't mean we're better or worse than anyone else. It just means we've never made the conference finals.

That puts us in the same boat as the old Winnipeg Jets/Phoenix Coyotes.

 

[RaiderDoug]

Even I know the second major expansion era started with the Sharks in 1991-92.

That being said, just because we haven't made the conference finals doesn't mean we're better or worse than anyone else. It just means we've never made the conference finals.

That puts us in the same boat as the old Winnipeg Jets/Phoenix Coyotes.

Coyotes made it to the WCF the year of the Radu-splosion, where we got Mike-Smith-ed. They played the Kings.

There's only 3 teams in the NHL who have never made it to a conference finals - Atlantapeg, Columbus...and us.