GDT: Game 34: Edmonton Oilers(19-15-2) @ Seattle Kraken(18-11-4) - 7:00 p.m. PT / 10:00 p.m. ET

[RainyCityHockey]

I really don't think that the difference is adjustments done by the other teams. During most of that winning streak for Seattle, the defensive spacing was good. The puck chasing was minimal, and the defensive communication was actually a thing.

Then toward the tail end of it, they reverted back to the triple teaming the puck, puck chasing, and losing opponents in prime scoring locations all over the defensive zone. (Those were the wild high scoring wins).

This team is too talented to be playing so badly. There are a lot of very good defensive players in this roster. The fact that they can't work together to play even average defense is on the coaching staff and has to be addressed. Like you said, goaltending is not really the issue here, but we will see a lot of posters imply it is I am thinking.

I think it might be both.

The defenders/team not playing as well as before is not just on them or communicating but also on other teams figuring out what you do, having film on it and finding the right solutions to put our guys in worse positions.

We're also now in a stretch where teams know that it's important to get/stay in the race for playoff spots, had enough time to gel(like Calgary with their roster changes) and aren't taking anyone lightly cause they know they need points.

So it's basically the time of the year where contenders(for playoff spots at least) and pretenders get seperated and so far(looking at the last eleven games) we seem to be in that second tier.

Overall it seems a bit like we're somewhat similar to last years Anaheim Ducks who started incredibly well just to fade off around this time of the year as well.

Though; I don't think it's all that bad cause my hope for this season was to be around NHL .500 and see improvements, which looks very possible and has been outperformed so far this season.

BTW: I honestly still don't think we have that much talent on defense.
To me it's still a bunch of good players with nothing special(like real first pairing defenseman) and something that will change before we get actually good.

 

[Irie]

BTW: I honestly still don't think we have that much talent on defense.
To me it's still a bunch of good players with nothing special(like real first pairing defenseman) and something that will change before we get actually good.

In terms of top end talent, I totally agree.

But depth wise, this team has plenty of capable NHL defenders. Borgen and Soucy are one of the top third pairing D pairs in the league metrics wise.

Individually, the top four have all shown they are solid defensively. Oleksiak is having a rough year when compared to last season, and Schultz started the season as possibly the team's best all around D, but the wheels have come off there as of late, and he has not been very good. Schultz and Oleksiak are playing poorly together, but due to side restrictions, i am not sure there is a great remedy on paper. I think I might try Oleksiak/Borgen and Soucy/Schultz and see if that doesn't help Schultz and Oleksiak simplify things while bringing them back to the game they are both comfortable playing.

Ultimately I think if the forwards were more disciplined and helped out, the woes on the blueline would likely sort themselves out. The group is deep, but not talented enough to overcome a poor defensive play of the forwards in my opinion. That said, I don't believe a marginal upgrade on any of the blueliners fixes the current woes. That will start and end with the defensive discipline of the forward lines.

 

[Sad People]

In reality we should be sellers at the deadline but i doubt we will be. I feel like we still could of used another draft with a premium pick but instead we pushed for a winner and I just cant help but feel like were headed for mediocrity. Time will tell.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

Missed this game. Kind of glad I did, I guess.

In reality we should be sellers at the deadline but i doubt we will be. I feel like we still could of used another draft with a premium pick but instead we pushed for a winner and I just cant help but feel like were headed for mediocrity. Time will tell.

I have always thought we need to be sellers at this deadline. We need to seriously consider moving Soucy as it is unlikely he comes back next year.

Like others have said, there is lack of talent in our D. Outside of Dunn nobody is even close to being a top-pairing D-man. And I feel that Dunn is just a borderline top-pairing D when at his best.

Evans should be bought up to see what he can do if any of our D goes down. For some reason management is bringing up the likes of Olofsson instead of Evans despite the latter doing really good in his first pro year. Fleury is what he is, I think he is acceptable as 7D but not much better (1 point in 56 career NHL games is enough proof of that to me).

And while I totally understand the opinion of a lot of folks here about preserving draft picks and not trading for the likes of Chychrun, that is exactly what I think needs to be done to take the next step. A good top-pairing D-man can make a big difference on how this team shakes out. We can make such a move in the off-season if need be but I do not want to rely on luck to land a top pairing D-man in the draft. And even if we did, it would likely take a good 2-3 seasons more before they are likely to play like a top pairing NHL D-man after being drafted. This team now has enough talent to be a bubble playoff team and we are not going to draft high enough to luck into a Nemec, Power, Makar, etc.

 

[Irie]

Like others have said, there is lack of talent in our D. Outside of Dunn nobody is even close to being a top-pairing D-man. And I feel that Dunn is just a borderline top-pairing D when at his best.

Evans should be bought up to see what he can do if any of our D goes down. For some reason management is bringing up the likes of Olofsson instead of Evans despite the latter doing really good in his first pro year. Fleury is what he is, I think he is acceptable as 7D but not much better (1 point in 56 career NHL games is enough proof of that to me).

As far as Olofsson vs Evans, I think it is all about not rushing Evans. Evans just turned 21. Olofsson is 28 and has pro experience. I think that is the reason he was recalled.

As for Fleury, I see a solid #6 guy in him currently that still has some upside to maybe be a physical #4 defensive player down the road.

If you are measuring Fleury's NHL worth by the points he puts up, I think you are looking for a different type of player, which may be an issue if Soucy moves on. A Borgen/Fleury pairing doesn't look great on paper.

And while I totally understand the opinion of a lot of folks here about preserving draft picks and not trading for the likes of Chychrun, that is exactly what I think needs to be done to take the next step. A good top-pairing D-man can make a big difference on how this team shakes out. We can make such a move in the off-season if need be but I do not want to rely on luck to land a top pairing D-man in the draft. And even if we did, it would likely take a good 2-3 seasons more before they are likely to play like a top pairing NHL D-man after being drafted. This team now has enough talent to be a bubble playoff team and we are not going to draft high enough to luck into a Nemec, Power, Makar, etc.

I think it would be very unwise for a team in Seattle's position to give up the draft capital for a guy like Chychrun that is a UFA in a couple of years.

A lot of people (myself included), do not like the idea of moving out picks early in rebuilds. It usually hurts more than helps, but if they do go that route, it is pretty important that the player you are trading for has more than a couple of years of team control.

 

[RayMartyniukTotems]

Missed this game. Kind of glad I did, I guess.

I have always thought we need to be sellers at this deadline. We need to seriously consider moving Soucy as it is unlikely he comes back next year.

Like others have said, there is lack of talent in our D. Outside of Dunn nobody is even close to being a top-pairing D-man. And I feel that Dunn is just a borderline top-pairing D when at his best.

Evans should be bought up to see what he can do if any of our D goes down. For some reason management is bringing up the likes of Olofsson instead of Evans despite the latter doing really good in his first pro year. Fleury is what he is, I think he is acceptable as 7D but not much better (1 point in 56 career NHL games is enough proof of that to me).

And while I totally understand the opinion of a lot of folks here about preserving draft picks and not trading for the likes of Chychrun, that is exactly what I think needs to be done to take the next step. A good top-pairing D-man can make a big difference on how this team shakes out. We can make such a move in the off-season if need be but I do not want to rely on luck to land a top pairing D-man in the draft. And even if we did, it would likely take a good 2-3 seasons more before they are likely to play like a top pairing NHL D-man after being drafted. This team now has enough talent to be a bubble playoff team and we are not going to draft high enough to luck into a Nemec, Power, Makar, etc.

I've done a ton of mock drafts for 2023. Seattle has 5 picks in the first 3 rounds. There is a bevy of Forwards at the top with D-men being undervalued for some reason. Everytime I mock Seattle I have them taking a Forward with scoring prowess in the first round and then Defense defense defense and a goaltender in the next couple of rounds. Forwards Stramel, Wood or Perreault. Defensively I'd zero in on Russian, M Gulyayev(RD/LD)(the next Provorov), Slovakian Strbak(RD),Canadian Dragicevic(RD),Czechia Dvorak(LD) and Russian Simashev(LD),with Russian goaltender Zavragin thrown into the mix. With the Kraken maybe faltering even more I'd be packaging some players(Soucy) soon to be a UFA for high draft choices,Geekie(who will be obselete) once Wright arrives at full steam and others. The goaltending situation also needs to be addressed with 1 of Jones,Grubauer and Driedger needing to be offloaded. Perhaps Seattle can get themselves another draft pick or two here also

 

[GrungeHockey]

That was terrible.

Sell sell sell.

 

[majormajor]

A lot of people (myself included), do not like the idea of moving out picks early in rebuilds. It usually hurts more than helps, but if they do go that route, it is pretty important that the player you are trading for has more than a couple of years of team control.

This is a rebuild?

I don't know if they're good enough to be buyers but they're not rebuilding. They have the age profile of a win now club.

 

[RainyCityHockey]

Missed this game. Kind of glad I did, I guess.

I have always thought we need to be sellers at this deadline. We need to seriously consider moving Soucy as it is unlikely he comes back next year.

Like others have said, there is lack of talent in our D. Outside of Dunn nobody is even close to being a top-pairing D-man. And I feel that Dunn is just a borderline top-pairing D when at his best.

Evans should be bought up to see what he can do if any of our D goes down. For some reason management is bringing up the likes of Olofsson instead of Evans despite the latter doing really good in his first pro year. Fleury is what he is, I think he is acceptable as 7D but not much better (1 point in 56 career NHL games is enough proof of that to me).

According to people who have seen him play and the way he presented himself and rookie + training camp it seems like Evans is still at least this one season away from actually being a guy that can challenge for an NHL spot.

I mean, he was beaten all the time by other rookies during rookie camp which had the coaching staff working exclusively with him regarding his backwards skating and positioning in the summer.
He looked better in training camp, but is just still a bit away and therefore it's better for him to play a full season with the Firebirds instead of being thrown into an NHL game.


BTW: Unless this team actually turns it around and stays close to the playoff spots we're going to be sellers again at the TDL and that, to me, isn't a problem.
Furthermore, I do think you've got to look at what other teams are willing to give you for a guy like Soucy, unless you can come to an agreement on a contract extension.

And while I totally understand the opinion of a lot of folks here about preserving draft picks and not trading for the likes of Chychrun, that is exactly what I think needs to be done to take the next step. A good top-pairing D-man can make a big difference on how this team shakes out. We can make such a move in the off-season if need be but I do not want to rely on luck to land a top pairing D-man in the draft. And even if we did, it would likely take a good 2-3 seasons more before they are likely to play like a top pairing NHL D-man after being drafted. This team now has enough talent to be a bubble playoff team and we are not going to draft high enough to luck into a Nemec, Power, Makar, etc.

I know it would take some time but we'll probably have to get by with those Larsson's, Oleksiak's etc. for the first couple of years of our existence cause I don't see any great UFA defenseman available(and would stay away from those guys in their late 20's anyways) and I also think we'll have to draft one.

Though, so far it doesn't look great in this draft for defenseman(in the top ten or even top half, though that probably will change until draft day) and a forward seems more likely if you're in that 9 - 15 range.
I still don't mind that and maybe we could actually trade up/aquire another first rounder in order to take one of those defenseman currently listed anywhere between 20 - 35.

Chychrun, of course, would be an ideal guy with his age, talent and contract but all those things combined(and the fact that he's helping Arizona win while being about a ppg player) will make that incredibly difficult to achieve, unless you're willing to give up a lot of your talent(picks + prospects) which we still don't have much of.

This is a rebuild?

I don't know if they're good enough to be buyers but they're not rebuilding. They have the age profile of a win now club.

I think it's a "build" given that we're starting from scratch and if you look around the league, during the salary cap era, in order to have sustainable success you need to build through the draft which takes longer than just two years.

BTW: While I do agree with the age profile of the team being more win now,
I just don't think this core is a win now core but rather a core that's supposed to be competitive and, most importantly, here to show the young guys(that should become the core) how to be a pro, how to have a long career and what to do to be prepared for those 82 game seasons while keeping the locker room a tight knit one as well.

 

[Irie]

This is a rebuild?

I don't know if they're good enough to be buyers but they're not rebuilding. They have the age profile of a win now club.

I usually write rebuild(build).

There really is not a generally accepted term for it, and "new expansion build" is a lot to type all the time

For all intent and purposes, this team is not too far from a team that has recently purged their farm and would be starting over.

The age profile may fit a win now team, but a team without legitimate top line forwards, top pairing D, average to below average goaltending, and poorly disciplined coaching is not a contender in my opinion, and should not be throwing away futures for the short term delusion that they can legitimately compete with the powerhouse teams in a playoff series.

The organizations goal seems to be to push for the playoffs and keep the seats full as priority one. I think Francis is attempting to do that while collecting assets and trying to build a core through the draft while keeping character in the locker room to develop a solid attitude and work ethic to rub off on the young kids coming in.

I don't think he believes this team can win now, but he is juggling a rebuild while trying to stay competitive. It is an unenviable position, for certain.

 

[GrungeHockey]

This is a rebuild?

I don't know if they're good enough to be buyers but they're not rebuilding. They have the age profile of a win now club.

Well obviously they can't be a rebuild as they are an expansion team. There's different ways to build, but the first thing was simply having a lack of players. If you want to build a team you need to create a large prospect pool and the best way to do that is to have enough veterans on your roster so that the kids can play as kids at the low (learning) level.
Playoffs is only a possibility if things go extremely well (with luck) and the division is relatively weak. It's an after thought to the building process.
If you look at the salary structure, they've staggered contracts so there's roughly 3 main UFAs every season. So each year come deadline time they will have to weigh their spot in the standings against the trade deadline. In most cases, if they want real long term success, they will move players out for picks and prospects or they will stand pat and re-sign people.
If they try and rush the process and trade away prospects for deadline additions they MIGHT make the playoffs occasionally but they will never get really good. It's folly and in general, most deadline deals fail for the buyers.

 

[majormajor]

If they try and rush the process and trade away prospects for deadline additions they MIGHT make the playoffs occasionally but they will never get really good. It's folly and in general, most deadline deals fail for the buyers.

I don't think we should be in the rental market. We're not good enough to be that kind of buyer.

But there's a very good chance if you add a young guy like Chychrun that you'll have someone not just for the length of their deal but the next deal after. Seattle is a very desirable place to live and I think a lot of players would prefer to sign in Seattle, if the team is committed to trying to win. I want us to take advantage of that.

I'll also speculate a bit, and this is more in response to @RainyCityHockey and @Irie , that a hardworking group of middle six forwards that can outskate their opponents is actually an underrated "core" that can be built off of. I do understand that that's not the conventional way of describing a core.

I hate to use Vegas as an example because it's hard to know what's transferable, but they started off with similar guys like Karlsson, Marchessault, and Smith, and then later added Stone and Eichel. They did a lot of things that didn't work and some dumb things too, but it nonetheless built a sustained winner.

 

[Irie]

I don't think we should be in the rental market. We're not good enough to be that kind of buyer.

But there's a very good chance if you add a young guy like Chychrun that you'll have someone not just for the length of their deal but the next deal after. Seattle is a very desirable place to live and I think a lot of players would prefer to sign in Seattle, if the team is committed to trying to win. I want us to take advantage of that.

I'll also speculate a bit, and this is more in response to @RainyCityHockey and @Irie , that a hardworking group of middle six forwards that can outskate their opponents is actually an underrated "core" that can be built off of. I do understand that that's not the conventional way of describing a core.

I hate to use Vegas as an example because it's hard to know what's transferable, but they started off with similar guys like Karlsson, Marchessault, and Smith, and then later added Stone and Eichel. They did a lot of things that didn't work and some dumb things too, but it nonetheless built a sustained winner.

I think there is some merit to the concept that this "unconventional core" team could have a roster that, if everything fell into place, make some waves in the playoffs.

The issues I see with this, especially when compared to the Vegas situation, are:

1). Coaching. Hakstol has these guys playing hard, but they play stupid. Their defensive discipline is non-existent. They are all work effort and no awareness

Gallant had the knights working hard, not unlike Seattle, but they executed much better as a team defensively. Guys had a job, and they did it. No puck chasing. They relied on each other and knew if they did their job, their teammates would do theirs, and they had faith in one other.

2). Goaltending. The knights got Vezina quality netminding from Fleury, so when things went south, and other teams skilled guys made plays that beat the knights, Fleury was there to make the stop. Now maybe if Seattle played a responsible team D and didn't completely hang their goalies out to dry as often as they do, Jones and Grubauer could fill the role Fleury did, but I do not know if it is realistic to place Vezina expectations on either guy.

If Vegas had average goaltending, it is pretty likely they would not have been the Cinderella story they turned out to be.

With those two points in mind, I do not believe this team is as close as some others maybe feel they are. We have already started to see the fatigue set in of a team trying to play playoff hockey intensity through an 82 game season. If they keep it up and do make the postseason, I am just not sure there will be much left in the tank when everyone else also elevates their games.

 

[majormajor]

I think there is some merit to the concept that this "unconventional core" team could have a roster that, if everything fell into place, make some waves in the playoffs.

The issues I see with this, especially when compared to the Vegas situation, are:

1). Coaching. Hakstol has these guys playing hard, but they play stupid. Their defensive discipline is non-existent. They are all work effort and no awareness

Gallant had the knights working hard, not unlike Seattle, but they executed much better as a team defensively. Guys had a job, and they did it. No puck chasing. They relied on each other and knew if they did their job, their teammates would do theirs, and they had faith in one other.

2). Goaltending. The knights got Vezina quality netminding from Fleury, so when things went south, and other teams skilled guys made plays that beat the knights, Fleury was there to make the stop. Now maybe if Seattle played a responsible team D and didn't completely hang their goalies out to dry as often as they do, Jones and Grubauer could fill the role Fleury did, but I do not know if it is realistic to place Vezina expectations on either guy.

If Vegas had average goaltending, it is pretty likely they would not have been the Cinderella story they turned out to be.

The two most random factors from year to year might be coaching and goaltending. They're the easiest things to fix and the easiest things to fall apart.

The big picture decisions about long term build have to tune that stuff out. I'd rather ask how good this team would be with good coaching and average netminding??

With those two points in mind, I do not believe this team is as close as some others maybe feel they are. We have already started to see the fatigue set in of a team trying to play playoff hockey intensity through an 82 game season. If they keep it up and do make the postseason, I am just not sure there will be much left in the tank when everyone else also elevates their games.

They play very fast but I think part of that comes from 4 lines of very good skaters. Most teams have some slow players to accommodate, and a 4th line that needs special treatment.

 

[Irie]

The two most random factors from year to year might be coaching and goaltending. They're the easiest things to fix and the easiest things to fall apart.

The big picture decisions about long term build have to tune that stuff out.

If you believe that finding a coach that can take a random team to the next level is an easy fix, then I think we probably have a chasm between our philosophies on the importance of the right coach that fits different team rosters and personnel, and so we may not be able to see eye to eye on this issue, but I am happy to share my thoughts.

I do not believe Hakstol will be replaced anytime soon, so I believe this current core is locked in with his "Outwork your opponent" primary coaching strategy.

I do not believe it is enough to see success. I think it is just enough to make the team competitive with what they have, but will always lead to inconsistent results.

If you look at most teams, the turnover of players, even on competitive teams, is fairly high. There is a very great chance that of the 18 skaters on the ice tonight, half or more of them will be gone in just three years.

The long term build picture will likely revolve around a few players that are deemed core guys, and I am a firm believer that a great coach develops their coaching systems and strategies around the strengths of their roster. Not the other way around where the roster is randomly plugged into their generic system roles without a thought for fit.

It takes time for a team to come together under a new coach/system. There is a reason why the bottom dwelling teams that change their coaches every other year never seem to claw their way to the top.

Once you have a system that fits your core, it takes time to find solid pieces to fill the complimentary roles. The perfect roster for one coach might be wholly inadequate to effectively execute the system of a different coach.

Once you find players to fill the roles, it takes time for the players to really develop chemistry - this goes beyond connecting on a pass here or there for scoring chances, and really influences the way the team moves and shifts defensively and how they anticipate one another without the puck.

It is really difficult to see instant success with full scale coach and system changes or huge roster turnover. I really do believe that finding success in the NHL requires commitment to a coaching staff, and it is my opinion that not all coaches are capable of taking an NHL team to true contender status.

 

[majormajor]

If you believe that finding a coach that can take a random team to the next level is an easy fix, then I think we probably have a chasm between our philosophies on the importance of the right coach that fits different team rosters and personnel, and so we may not be able to see eye to eye on this issue, but I am happy to share my thoughts.

I do not believe Hakstol will be replaced anytime soon, so I believe this current core is locked in with his "Outwork your opponent" primary coaching strategy.

I do not believe it is enough to see success. I think it is just enough to make the team competitive with what they have, but will always lead to inconsistent results.

If you look at most teams, the turnover of players, even on competitive teams, is fairly high. There is a very great chance that of the 18 skaters on the ice tonight, half or more of them will be gone in just three years.

The long term build picture will likely revolve around a few players that are deemed core guys, and I am a firm believer that a great coach develops their coaching systems and strategies around the strengths of their roster. Not the other way around where the roster is randomly plugged into their generic system roles without a thought for fit.

It takes time for a team to come together under a new coach/system. There is a reason why the bottom dwelling teams that change their coaches every other year never seem to claw their way to the top.

Once you have a system that fits your core, it takes time to find solid pieces to fill the complimentary roles. The perfect roster for one coach might be wholly inadequate to effectively execute the system of a different coach.

Once you find players to fill the roles, it takes time for the players to really develop chemistry - this goes beyond connecting on a pass here or there for scoring chances, and really influences the way the team moves and shifts defensively and how they anticipate one another without the puck.

It is really difficult to see instant success with full scale coach and system changes or huge roster turnover. I really do believe that finding success in the NHL requires commitment to a coaching staff, and it is my opinion that not all coaches are capable of taking an NHL team to true contender status.

Coaches keep their jobs for an average of 2.4 years. It's that way for a reason. Some coaches aren't a fit, but even good ones have a shelf life. And teams want the benefit of having a first year coach because their results actually tend to be better.

You can't make the big long term roster decisions based on whether you like the coach or not.

 

[GrungeHockey]

I don't think we should be in the rental market. We're not good enough to be that kind of buyer.

But there's a very good chance if you add a young guy like Chychrun that you'll have someone not just for the length of their deal but the next deal after. Seattle is a very desirable place to live and I think a lot of players would prefer to sign in Seattle, if the team is committed to trying to win. I want us to take advantage of that.

I'll also speculate a bit, and this is more in response to @RainyCityHockey and @Irie , that a hardworking group of middle six forwards that can outskate their opponents is actually an underrated "core" that can be built off of. I do understand that that's not the conventional way of describing a core.

I hate to use Vegas as an example because it's hard to know what's transferable, but they started off with similar guys like Karlsson, Marchessault, and Smith, and then later added Stone and Eichel. They did a lot of things that didn't work and some dumb things too, but it nonetheless built a sustained winner.

Well a guy like Chychrun is intriguing to any team but the price tag is way too high. I'm against trading away first rounders.
Vegas. F Vegas. This has been talked to death. Their expansion experience was unique and far different from the Seattle expansion draft. There was no way to replicate it. GMs around the league wised up. Be glad we managed to snag a few decent players and a few maybe unexpected contributors like Borgen.
imo the main thing was to create a culture that set a standard for winning and hard work and then you build off that. I think they are doing that fairly well.