Fault: Trotz or Poile

[glenngineer]

Can't really reasonably respond point-by-point, since most of it is leaning on "101 made a bad assertion; all I did was refute it". I'm not disputing that, but there is a wider narrative going on here that I'm attempting to address.

I guess what it ultimately comes down to is that you seem to have two beliefs here:
1) this downslide is going to continue regardless, and
2) a changing of the guard will help with offense drafting and development.

I am not at all convinced of #1; I think it's appeared that way because Poile did badly this offseason, but that doesn't make it a perpetual thing. As for #2, I think that's potentially too extreme of a move, that Poile has managed to do that sort of thing before (it hasn't worked out in Nashville yet, though, admittedly), and that unless he's significantly regressing in performance (which he might be - this past offseason was a big fat warning bell) tossing him out in the hopes that we get someone much like him but better with forwards and smart enough to recognize the situation (a HUGE "if") is doing too much for too little potential return.

Not sure where I had put my beliefs in there and how you came to the two you did but I'll explain my point very simply.

1. You can't compete for the Cup in today's NHL without top talent up front. See past Cup winners.

2. In 15 years of drafting and developing forwards, the best the Preds have done has been Legwand, Erat and Hornqvist.

3. If you take what I said in points 1 and 2, do either of those match up? No.

4. Every person in charge of drafting, developing and coaching has been given more than enough time to prove their worth. We are great at G and D, we suck at F, in the drafting and development aspect of upper end talent. This has to change in order for us to get better.

I look at our team as a roller coaster, never gets too fast because we don't get high enough and the curves aren't really scary at the bottom because we never get too low. If you look at a scale of 1-10 we are right in the point of being a 3-7. We never suck enough to get high picks and we never are good enough to make a push in the playoffs. We never find that gem of a forward later in the first round or later in the draft.

So all that said, the current regime has been unable to get us there for whatever reason. Time to move on.

 

[Viqsi]

Oh goody do tell how the Preds are going to be challenging the Blues, Hawks and hell Minnesota and Colorado in two years under current coach, management, and philosophy?

We won't. We will get into the playoffs and get bounced in the first round or possibly in the second if we get lucky. And that will be considered success around here.

I think what amuses me the most about these lines of thought is the strident certainty that the current group Will Never Ever Ever get it done, that the current situation is strictly and exclusively due to incompetence and/or evil, and the equal amount of certainty that a replacement group is undoubtedly guaranteed to be just as good as an absolute minimum and most likely even better, because... um... reasons.

 

[PFL615]

I think what amuses me the most about these lines of thought is the strident certainty that the current group Will Never Ever Ever get it done, that the current situation is strictly and exclusively due to incompetence and/or evil, and the equal amount of certainty that a replacement group is undoubtedly guaranteed to be just as good as an absolute minimum and most likely even better, because... um... reasons.

A lot of cute words but nothing of substance or an actual attempt at answering the question.

 

[Viqsi]

Not sure where I had put my beliefs in there and how you came to the two you did but I'll explain my point very simply.

1. You can't compete for the Cup in today's NHL without top talent up front. See past Cup winners.

2. In 15 years of drafting and developing forwards, the best the Preds have done has been Legwand, Erat and Hornqvist.

3. If you take what I said in points 1 and 2, do either of those match up? No.

My #2 does. You're implying that because the Preds haven't done better, they can't do better. I honestly think the current crop of kids is a lot better than before.

4. Every person in charge of drafting, developing and coaching has been given more than enough time to prove their worth. We are great at G and D, we suck at F, in the drafting and development aspect of upper end talent. This has to change in order for us to get better.

My counterpoint to this is that it's infinitely easier for such a change to be for the worse, considering the position the Preds are in.

Or, put differently - I hope you're not envisioning a rapid turnaround such that the Preds are world-beaters in every area of the ice within 2-3 years. As I said before, for that to happen you have to not only be very capable, but also be very lucky. The former is fairly assured so long as Poile is here (and assuming he's not regressing - which I'm watching for, personally, because this offseason worried me), and becomes a big gamble as soon as you start looking elsewhere for a replacement. The latter is always a gamble. How much uncertainty and randomness do you prefer? I generally like to minimize it when making plans.

 

[Viqsi]

A lot of cute words but nothing of substance or an actual attempt at answering the question.

Good fortune and improved development. The latter, I think, is already happening. The former... G-d only knows. But there's no guarantees either way.

 

[PFL615]

Good fortune and improved development. The latter, I think, is already happening. The former... G-d only knows. But there's no guarantees either way.

Not banking on it. The Preds have never sniffed a division title in 15 years that's what the Preds would be in for in a dogfight with the Hawks and Blues.

 

[glenngineer]

My #2 does. You're implying that because the Preds haven't done better, they can't do better. I honestly think the current crop of kids is a lot better than before.



My counterpoint to this is that it's infinitely easier for such a change to be for the worse, considering the position the Preds are in.

Or, put differently - I hope you're not envisioning a rapid turnaround such that the Preds are world-beaters in every area of the ice within 2-3 years. As I said before, for that to happen you have to not only be very capable, but also be very lucky. The former is fairly assured so long as Poile is here (and assuming he's not regressing - which I'm watching for, personally, because this offseason worried me), and becomes a big gamble as soon as you start looking elsewhere for a replacement. The latter is always a gamble. How much uncertainty and randomness do you prefer? I generally like to minimize it when making plans.

Can they do better? I'm sure they can but have they in the past? No. I'm going back 15 years of a track record as opposed to what might happen. It hasn't happened with the current group of people. Could it be worse, sure. Could it get better, yup. Could it stay the same middle of the road franchise if we don't change, more than likely.

Never said we'd have a quick turnaround but in order to win big, there are certain gambles one takes along the way. Some are good moves, some don't work out so well. Once again, we play it close to the vest and make mid level moves. Not saying we should go out and do what the Blues did but they made a major shift in goal to try to get them to the next level. They were missing a piece and went out after it. How many times have the great teams made moves to get that right person to win today and continue to do so? Remember the Hossa sweepstakes every year for about 3 years in a row?

Do you really think any of the talent we have in Milwaukee are going to turn in to top 3 talents? I'd love to believe that Forsberg and Iron Hook will turn in to something along with some others but I've never seen it happen here so until I do, call me a realist or even a pessimist.

And if you're going to bring up this past offseason as a reference point, the 4 guys we signed along with Goose were making in the range of $14 million per season. At the time I did some research, about 2 months ago, they had scored something like 51 or 55 points. There were players by themselves that had those totals or close to it. 5 guys making that much money was an atrocity to spend and then we put faith in the GM, who had input from his coach about those moves, to evaluate talent and then wonder why I write the things I do?

 

[Viqsi]

Not banking on it. The Preds have never sniffed a division title in 15 years that's what the Preds would be in for in a dogfight with the Hawks and Blues.

So you don't want to bank on possible gradual improvement, but you are willing to bet everything on a dozen (not even red-or-black or odds-or-evens). Maeks ferpect cents.

* * *​

Can they do better? I'm sure they can but have they in the past? No. I'm going back 15 years of a track record as opposed to what might happen. It hasn't happened with the current group of people. Could it be worse, sure. Could it get better, yup. Could it stay the same middle of the road franchise if we don't change, more than likely.

And yet you don't seem to see that you're going with a different "what might happen" by replacing the front office and hoping that it somehow brings improvement.

Never said we'd have a quick turnaround but in order to win big, there are certain gambles one takes along the way. Some are good moves, some don't work out so well. Once again, we play it close to the vest and make mid level moves. Not saying we should go out and do what the Blues did but they made a major shift in goal to try to get them to the next level. They were missing a piece and went out after it. How many times have the great teams made moves to get that right person to win today and continue to do so? Remember the Hossa sweepstakes every year for about 3 years in a row?

This is an interesting argument to make, given that one of the justifications that several folks here have been using to get rid of Poile has been the Forsberg trade.

Do you really think any of the talent we have in Milwaukee are going to turn in to top 3 talents? I'd love to believe that Forsberg and Iron Hook will turn in to something along with some others but I've never seen it happen here so until I do, call me a realist or even a pessimist.

I don't think they need to. How many superstar forwards did Boston have when they won the Cup?

And if you're going to bring up this past offseason as a reference point, the 4 guys we signed along with Goose were making in the range of $14 million per season. At the time I did some research, about 2 months ago, they had scored something like 51 or 55 points. There were players by themselves that had those totals or close to it. 5 guys making that much money was an atrocity to spend and then we put faith in the GM, who had input from his coach about those moves, to evaluate talent and then wonder why I write the things I do?

And this would be why I think the discussion is actually worth having at all. It's entirely possible that Poile is losing what edge he possesses, and if that's the case, then he's a gamble, and the incentive to keep him vanishes. But I don't see the need to move immediately on that worry.

 

[Fortheloveofthegame]

Ottawa commentators mentioned that Nashville, by HAVING to sign Weber ( because Philly offer so high) were put in a tough situation. After that, they could not afford a BIG signing.
They had no choice but to match the offer and needed to keep Weber

 

[ThirdManIn]

Commentators in Ottawa know about as much about the Predators' and their finances as I know about brain surgery.

 

[PFL615]

Viqsi,

"Gradual improvement" to do what be just good enough to sneak into the playoffs and get bounced. Oh yay!!

 

[Enoch]

Boston had about 5 forwards better than any of ours viq:

Bergeron, krecji, seguin, lucic, Horton all better than any of our forwards.

 

[Viqsi]

Viqsi,

"Gradual improvement" to do what be just good enough to sneak into the playoffs and get bounced. Oh yay!!

Meanwhile, the most probable outcomes of your proposed alternative would be either more of the same, or (more likely) much like these past two years, only they go on for half a decade or more. That sounds SO MUCH BETTER, guys! We should get on that RIGHT AWAY.

* * *​

Boston had about 5 forwards better than any of ours viq:

Bergeron, krecji, seguin, lucic, Horton all better than any of our forwards.

Better than what's currently on the roster? Yes, easily. Better than what could be picked up or developed. Debatable, and I'd argue against.

And the point I was refuting was a need for "top-3" forwards. You know, top-of-the-line first-liners. How many of those qualify? Seguin does now that he's in Dallas, and Bergeron probably does, but otherwise...

 

[glenngineer]

Meanwhile, the most probable outcomes of your proposed alternative would be either more of the same, or (more likely) much like these past two years, only they go on for half a decade or more. That sounds SO MUCH BETTER, guys! We should get on that RIGHT AWAY.

* * *​

Better than what's currently on the roster? Yes, easily. Better than what could be picked up or developed. Debatable, and I'd argue against.

And the point I was refuting was a need for "top-3" forwards. You know, top-of-the-line first-liners. How many of those qualify? Seguin does now that he's in Dallas, and Bergeron probably does, but otherwise...

You say this as it's a guarantee? There are no guarantee's in sports. There is no crystal ball. You do the best with the info at hand, past, present and future and try to build for now and the future. You sitting here telling us a change won't work isn't going to fly because it may not work, it may work, you and I and everyone else have no clue until it happens. What we do know is the results from 15 years of Poile and Trotz. You can't debate that. It's in stone, it's happened. It is fact. Could they turn it around, sure but even IF they do, how far can they turn it. They've shown they can only get so far and for me, that's not enough.

 

[Viqsi]

You say this as it's a guarantee?

No, I described it as being more probable. Hiring a GM that is sufficiently skilled to improve the forward drafting immediately and simultaneously sufficiently humble or aware or whatnot to recognize that the blueline doesn't need to be touched is not what I would think of as a simple and straightforward process. Generally when you replace the GM, you get a Whole New Approach to the roster.

 

[glenngineer]

No, I described it as being more probable. Hiring a GM that is sufficiently skilled to improve the forward drafting immediately and simultaneously sufficiently humble or aware or whatnot to recognize that the blueline doesn't need to be touched is not what I would think of as a simple and straightforward process. Generally when you replace the GM, you get a Whole New Approach to the roster.

And if you've read what I've said about that, any smart GM that comes in to our situation would realize Mitch Korn is great with developing goalies, the blue line is set for years to come, work on the forward corps and move forward. While they may want to put their approach to the roster, if they're smart they'll keep the good pieces they have and build from there. If not, then it has a good chance of failure. It just depends on the person who would take over then doesn't it?

 

[RaiderDoug]

I think what amuses me the most about these lines of thought is the strident certainty that the current group Will Never Ever Ever get it done, that the current situation is strictly and exclusively due to incompetence and/or evil, and the equal amount of certainty that a replacement group is undoubtedly guaranteed to be just as good as an absolute minimum and most likely even better, because... um... reasons.

on the flip side:

I think what amuses me most about your line of thought is the strident certainty that the current group most certainly will get the job done, that the current situation is strictly and exclusively due to bad luck/factors beyond anyone's control, and the equal amount of certainty that a replacemenet group is undoubtedly guaranteed to be just as good as an absolute maximum, and most likely even worse, because...um...reasons



Honestly, what have you seen in the last 10 years (we'll discount the first 5) that gives you such confidence that not only is the current leadership group the ones to get us to the promised land (i'm not even talking Cup, how about even a WCF appearance), but that any potential replacement cannot possibly in any realm of reasonable thought, do any better?

 

[deanwormer]

Top 90 scorers - roughly the equivalent of "top 3", right? Fellow by the name of Craig Smith just outside that group at 103, and if you eliminate the Dmen ahead of him he's in mid-90s.

And Leggy is 76th; and while I know it's "just a contract push", he's always in the top 180 (mostly low 100-20s) which is solidly Top 6. Marty was there regularly, too. Oh, and this fellow named Hartnell? He's tied for 86th on the list - that's also in the Top 3.

I was gonna' say that if this Smith fellow does this again next year that maybe those who insist that Poile and Trotz have PROVEN they absolutely can't draft and develop Fs might be wrong, but given the others above (and that russky fellow who shall not be named) it probably already shows that maybe, just maybe, those who so vehemently insist that they can do Gs and Ds but can't do Fs just might, maybe, be at least a tad wrong.

 

[RaiderDoug]

Top 90 scorers - roughly the equivalent of "top 3", right? Fellow by the name of Craig Smith just outside that group at 103, and if you eliminate the Dmen ahead of him he's in mid-90s.

And Leggy is 76th; and while I know it's "just a contract push", he's always in the top 180 (mostly low 100-20s) which is solidly Top 6. Marty was there regularly, too. Oh, and this fellow named Hartnell? He's tied for 86th on the list - that's also in the Top 3.

I was gonna' say that if this Smith fellow does this again next year that maybe those who insist that Poile and Trotz have PROVEN they absolutely can't draft and develop Fs might be wrong, but given the others above (and that russky fellow who shall not be named) it probably already shows that maybe, just maybe, those who so vehemently insist that they can do Gs and Ds but can't do Fs just might, maybe, be at least a tad wrong.

Why is having a player in the top 90 such an accomplishment?

They're NHL level forwards. Somebody, somewhere, will score enough to figure in the top 90 - just as a function of ice time. They're just not very good NHL level forwards.

And they're nowhere near good enough to get us deep in the playoffs.

It's fairly pathetic and rather telling that in order to get one of our forwards into the top 100 - you have to remove a large number of other teams defensemen.


And even if you give them credit for drafting and developing guys like Hartnell and Radulov, etc - then don't you have to knock them for letting them go (and not finding replacements)? After all we're not a farm team. At least not technically.

 

[dulzhok]

Top 90 scorers - roughly the equivalent of "top 3", right? Fellow by the name of Craig Smith just outside that group at 103, and if you eliminate the Dmen ahead of him he's in mid-90s.

And Leggy is 76th; and while I know it's "just a contract push", he's always in the top 180 (mostly low 100-20s) which is solidly Top 6. Marty was there regularly, too. Oh, and this fellow named Hartnell? He's tied for 86th on the list - that's also in the Top 3.

Stamkos doesn't even crack the top 250 in scoring-- he's definitely not Top 3. [Others fall into this cateogry as well]

Also, there are other teams who suck a scoring too. Buffalo, Calagary, etc. So theorizing that they are contributing 3 scorers to the top 90 in scoring is flawed. Taking everything into considering, top 40-50 is where the top 3 talent is going to be (not even taking into account the guys who aren't playing a full season like Stamkos).

But yes, I think Smith has shown he's capable of being a 2nd line forward.

 

[glenngineer]

Top 90 scorers - roughly the equivalent of "top 3", right? Fellow by the name of Craig Smith just outside that group at 103, and if you eliminate the Dmen ahead of him he's in mid-90s.

And Leggy is 76th; and while I know it's "just a contract push", he's always in the top 180 (mostly low 100-20s) which is solidly Top 6. Marty was there regularly, too. Oh, and this fellow named Hartnell? He's tied for 86th on the list - that's also in the Top 3.

I was gonna' say that if this Smith fellow does this again next year that maybe those who insist that Poile and Trotz have PROVEN they absolutely can't draft and develop Fs might be wrong, but given the others above (and that russky fellow who shall not be named) it probably already shows that maybe, just maybe, those who so vehemently insist that they can do Gs and Ds but can't do Fs just might, maybe, be at least a tad wrong.

No one has said they can't develop forwards, hence the use of Legwand, Erat and Hornqvist in discussions. What I have said is that they have the inability to draft and develop game changing forwards up front. That's the main difference.

Saying a guy is a top 3 because he's in the top 90 in scoring, barely, does not make him a top 3 in this league. We have had guys in the top 90 before, barely. What I've been saying is you need guys in the top part of the top 90 as opposed to the bottom 90. This is why teams do damage in the playoffs. They have players that can change the momentum of a game with things they do offensively on the ice. When was the last time, if ever, the Preds had anyone resembling a game changer up front? You know, when the game is tied, the guy comes on the ice and you say, he's going to get one for us and win this thing.

No offense but it's as if any time someone makes a point around here, people will stretch their discussion points to barely fit what the discussion is about and say people are wrong. Smith is a good player. He has dynamic speed but he is not a sniper. He's Kessel light.

I hope Forsberg and Iron Hook turn in to great players for us. I really do. I just don't have faith with the current regime that it will happen.

 

[Viqsi]

on the flip side:

I think what amuses me most about your line of thought is the strident certainty that the current group most certainly will get the job done, that the current situation is strictly and exclusively due to bad luck/factors beyond anyone's control, and the equal amount of certainty that a replacemenet group is undoubtedly guaranteed to be just as good as an absolute maximum, and most likely even worse, because...um...reasons

Witty! But flawed, because I've given a reason. If good fortune occurs, then what we'll likely get is someone who's a bit more all-around than Poile, in which case you might see a slight improvement on forward development. If that same guy also can restrain himself w/r/t the blueline AND get a coach that can continue the development of our still very, very young blueline core while not screwing up the forwards (assuming Trotz is given the heave-ho as well, which seems to go hand-in-hand with many people's suggestions here) WHILE still somehow remaining competitive and making the playoffs throughout... ****, you're already talking about a GM Of The Year. Transitions like that aren't easy. There's plenty of ways for them to fall apart. Therefore, simply because of the number of variables that have to go right, I think it's more probable that things either stay more or less the same in terms of overall results (maybe the team starts scoring more but starts giving up more goals and stays mediocre) or gets worse (if there's worse missteps along the way).

Honestly, what have you seen in the last 10 years (we'll discount the first 5) that gives you such confidence that not only is the current leadership group the ones to get us to the promised land (i'm not even talking Cup, how about even a WCF appearance), but that any potential replacement cannot possibly in any realm of reasonable thought, do any better?

Also flawed. I'm not saying that it's impossible for some newcomer to do better, I'm saying that I believe it to be very unlikely.

* * *​

No offense but it's as if any time someone makes a point around here, people will stretch their discussion points to barely fit what the discussion is about and say people are wrong.

That would be because of the excess of hyperbole used.

 

[RaiderDoug]

Witty! But flawed, because I've given a reason. If good fortune occurs, then what we'll likely get is someone who's a bit more all-around than Poile, in which case you might see a slight improvement on forward development. If that same guy also can restrain himself w/r/t the blueline AND get a coach that can continue the development of our still very, very young blueline core while not screwing up the forwards (assuming Trotz is given the heave-ho as well, which seems to go hand-in-hand with many people's suggestions here) WHILE still somehow remaining competitive and making the playoffs throughout... ****, you're already talking about a GM Of The Year. Transitions like that aren't easy. There's plenty of ways for them to fall apart. Therefore, simply because of the number of variables that have to go right, I think it's more probable that things either stay more or less the same in terms of overall results (maybe the team starts scoring more but starts giving up more goals and stays mediocre) or gets worse (if there's worse missteps along the way).



Also flawed. I'm not saying that it's impossible for some newcomer to do better, I'm saying that I believe it to be very unlikely.

I can't disagree with much of that.

I can see the validity in the line of thinking that we've got the defense and goaltender set, let's fix the forwards and we're good to go.


But I also can't shake the feeling that after a decade of trying and never being very successful other than a couple of nice regular seasons, it's time to allow someone else to take a shot at it.

There's very good reasons backing up the folks that want to keep Poile/Trotz, and I think there's also very good reasons for the folks who would like to move on from them.

I just don't think you can say with any certainty that firing Poile or Trotz or both will definately lead to crashing and burning as a franchise.

 

[Viqsi]

I can't disagree with much of that.

I can see the validity in the line of thinking that we've got the defense and goaltender set, let's fix the forwards and we're good to go.


But I also can't shake the feeling that after a decade of trying and never being very successful other than a couple of nice regular seasons, it's time to allow someone else to take a shot at it.

There's very good reasons backing up the folks that want to keep Poile/Trotz, and I think there's also very good reasons for the folks who would like to move on from them.

I just don't think you can say with any certainty that firing Poile or Trotz or both will definately lead to crashing and burning as a franchise.

That's why I don't say that it's certain and definite. But I do think it likely - too likely for it to be a wise move unless they're legitimately regressing.

 

[predfan98]

well, basically no one knows whether DP and Trotz will be better or worse than someone new. Pros and cons on either side and there is no right answer based on any statistics.........

We need a reliable magic 8 ball.