GDT: Game 35: Blackhawks @ Coyotes - 7PM

[Vinny Boombatz]

Dahlbeck wouldn't be starting on any team except for maybe Edmonton in the NHL. He can skate, but he's always out of position and countless times missing back-door assignments. He gets caught watching the puck way too much.

Z - he was an excellent defender (4yrs ago), he is no longer NHL quality...he's just not.

Grossman is waiver material. I don't like Playfair and think he should be relieved of his duty, but he doesn't have a lot to work with

We're playing with 3 players on the back-end that aren't NHL quality. Our Corsi numbers support this argument. The "eye test" supports this argument.

Maloney has to go get at least 3 upgrades. I'd like to see an upgrade on either Murphy or Stone as well. I think Rozy was terrible and he'd be our 2nd best Dman on our current team.

 

[cobra427]

^^

Agree on some change with Playfair, although the players are making mistakes that other teams are capitalizing on.

Yandle was neither problem nor solution. We actually are getting some good shots and passing on the PP. Boedker is definitely shooting far more now. Our issue is that we take too much time and let the opposition clog the lanes (both shooting and passing) and that affects our abilities. Teams are going to be more active against OEL to take him out of the PP. We do expose ourselves a lot when we try to get too cute on PP.

Right now, still not 100% sure on Grossmann, but let's say we do not resign him and all RFAs will sign their tender offers:

OEL-Murphy
XXXXXX-Stone
Dahlbeck-Michalek
Samuelsson-Elliot

Stone could legitimately go, but we have to bring back either a top right pairing or a 3/4 left in the trade or in free agency. While I don't think Stone has hit his true peak, it is clear that this is about what the limitations of his body are - he is not going to get much faster, quicker, or bulkier. He doesn't look great right now, but still could net a decent return.

Short list of unrestricted free agents that could make Stone expendable:
Byfuglien
Polak
Schenn

I don't see how we could afford both Yandle and a #1 RHD without shedding some salary in the form of selling Boedker, Doan, or Hanzal.

I think Yandle would help us on the PP a lot. I also think he would help us on D because of his quick puck moving decisions. We seem to get the puck on a dump but can't make the good first pass or decision. I think Yandle would help there.

I hope we sign Yandle as a UFA. I agree, that we can't sign Yandle and an RHD to pair with OEL. I think DM has to be creative and trade Stone or Murphy, plus a draft pick, plus a forward maybe for an RHD to play with OEL. We might not be able to get the perfect RHD because he simply will not be available. Maybe there is somebody out there like Klesla that can play that roll, a 30+ year old vet that is a good fit. We picked up Grossman as an example who has been fine as a 4D/PK guy.

I would be worried about paying up for somebody like Buf, even though he is a great fit, the cost could kill us, and he probably would not sign here anyway. Thinking about that for a minute, who would sign here as a UFA? High level guys are not going to sign here because they don't know where the franchise will be playing in 20 months. Yandle maybe, because he has been here before or other lesser UFA guys will come for the money, but other bigger names I doubt it. Gets us back to the trade route for an RHD.

 

[cobra427]

Dahlbeck wouldn't be starting on any team except for maybe Edmonton in the NHL. He can skate, but he's always out of position and countless times missing back-door assignments. He gets caught watching the puck way too much.

Z - he was an excellent defender (4yrs ago), he is no longer NHL quality...he's just not.

Grossman is waiver material. I don't like Playfair and think he should be relieved of his duty, but he doesn't have a lot to work with

We're playing with 3 players on the back-end that aren't NHL quality. Our Corsi numbers support this argument. The "eye test" supports this argument.

Maloney has to go get at least 3 upgrades. I'd like to see an upgrade on either Murphy or Stone as well. I think Rozy was terrible and he'd be our 2nd best Dman on our current team.

I disagree. Dahlback would be playing on a number of teams, including the Hawks if they had him. Tip would have scratched Dahlback like he has Murphy if his play was as bad as you say it is. Grossman has been fine and is NHL caliber. He is good in front of the net and on the PK. Z is slowing down but still NHL caliber. Grossman/Z/Dalhback as a 4, 5,6 D is fine. Our problem is that Stone and Murphy are 4D's at the moment and are being asked to be a 2D and 3D. Not their fault, they just are not there yet. We are missing a solid 2d/3D.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Murphy is going to take some time to figure out - he still looks so young out there. His frame could probably add another 10 pounds, so give him 2-4 years and he may be a low-level top pairing defender. Would be more suited to the 3/4 pairing though. My hope is that we can get that right hand for our top pairing for a minimum of 2-3 years and see if Murphy's play pushes him into the top spot. If not, we have a solid 1-2 punch for a number of seasons.

Stone is a little tougher. He is probably slightly lower than Murphy talent-wise, and what hurts more is that his upside is now level. Good player - good 3/4 guy, but probably best limited to between 18 and 20 mins a game.

As was mentioned, I echo the same thoughts - I am fine with a 3rd pair of Dahlbeck and Michalek/Elliot. It is when you ask any one of those three to play a line up and you run into issues. Kind of similar with Murphy and Stone being asked to play a line up.

 

[Vinny Boombatz]

To Cobra and Bux

We have the worst Defense in the league. Our problem isn't that just Stone/Murphy are playing above their pay grade.

Every one of our Dmen sans OEL are playing way above their pay grade.

OEL - 1
Stone - 5 (someone could argue he's a 4 and I'd be ok)
Murphy - 5
Grossman - 7
Dahlbeck - 7
Z - 7

This is why we're dead last in all defensive categories...if we continue to maintain that we're "FINE" on defense, we will continue to wallow, but the bad D do make the games exciting with lots of scoring.

 

[BUX7PHX]

To Cobra and Bux

We have the worst Defense in the league. Our problem isn't that just Stone/Murphy are playing above their pay grade.

Every one of our Dmen sans OEL are playing way above their pay grade.

OEL - 1
Stone - 5 (someone could argue he's a 4 and I'd be ok)
Murphy - 5
Grossman - 7
Dahlbeck - 7
Z - 7

This is why we're dead last in all defensive categories...if we continue to maintain that we're "FINE" on defense, we will continue to wallow, but the bad D do make the games exciting with lots of scoring.

I don't think that either of us said that we were fine on D. Just that there needs to be an effective change-up. Right now, we know that Michalek and Grossmann are on the downside of their careers. Stone, Murphy, and Dahlbeck have upside, but it will take some time to get comfortable with that. I think Murphy could be a poor man's top pairing defender, but is probably a true 3/4. Dahlbeck's upside is right around the 3/4 and 5/6 cusp. Stone is decent at 3/4, but doesn't have the upside of Murphy right now and probably will never get there. Even if he is maybe a hair ahead of Murphy in development at this stage.

My bigger concern is that our younger offensive core develops just fine in 2-4 years, but we are still going through one after another defenseman with those D being forced to play minutes that they probably can't fulfill. In that 2-4 year window, we need to add a big minute eater for a price. I'm leery on using the youth that we just obtained to do so, so why not look at including a player like Stone or Hanzal as a means to an upgrade? If we need to include a pick, I'm much more okay with using picks than prospects to round out a deal.

 

[ClassLessCoyote]

Not surprised by the loss but surprised by the score.

 

[Grimes]

OEL and Z are apparently fine. Glad they made it out of that game alive.

 

[Ebb]

One thing I've noticed is that Domingue does well when he starts, but not when he's called upon to replace a struggler. This does not bode well for his future prospects, but could work to our advantage if DT gives him a chance to consistently start.

 

[Jakey53]

To Cobra and Bux

We have the worst Defense in the league. Our problem isn't that just Stone/Murphy are playing above their pay grade.

Every one of our Dmen sans OEL are playing way above their pay grade.

OEL - 1
Stone - 5 (someone could argue he's a 4 and I'd be ok)
Murphy - 5
Grossman - 7
Dahlbeck - 7
Z - 7

This is why we're dead last in all defensive categories...if we continue to maintain that we're "FINE" on defense, we will continue to wallow, but the bad D do make the games exciting with lots of scoring.

I think we all know our D is a area of concern, but the forwards and goaltending also have to take some responsibility, like puck possession and making a save here and there. I think we address our D at the TDL and/or the off season, but it may take two years before we are satisfied with our D. We are rebuilding and I don't see DM making any trades for the short term.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

I think we all know our D is a area of concern, but the forwards and goaltending also have to take some responsibility, like puck possession and making a save here and there. I think we address our D at the TDL and/or the off season, but it may take two years before we are satisfied with our D. We are rebuilding and I don't see DM making any trades for the short term.

I agree. The long term goal of the team is to be competitive for a cup in about 2-3 years and IMO we are doing well in year 1 of a rebuild. While they want to be competitive on a nightly basis, they aren't going to crimp the rebuild for a temporary fix at goalie or D in a year where, if they are lucky enough to make the playoffs, they know they won't advance.

Remember, we are in the hunt not due to our team's great play but because of surprisingly poor play of other teams in the West.

 

[kihekah19*]

Our defensive group is pretty young with two exceptions. This is what can be expected and I contest that we're not nearly as bad as some would argue and certainly not bad enough to warrant all this talk of player movement, at this juncture.

Let's put this game into perspective.

The penalties were the first, biggest and most important issue, particularly considering how early in the game the came. The goals scored on those early penalties were not the fault of the defensive group and not even that of the PK unit as a whole, let's credit the Hawks for their skill level and put the rest on Lindback, who should have only allowed one, imo. Chicago returned the favor two fold and we don't have the PP to capitalize, plain and simple.

With the exception of the second period, we held the Hawks to a mere twelve shots in total, this despite rarely having possession of the puck and all the while somehow keeping the scoring chances nearly even.

We gave away the puck only once more than Chicago, but had it taken away more than twice the amount that we were able to take it away from them, I attribute that to their better skill set, as well as determination having come off of losses. The Hawks blocked twice as many shots as we did, which is also indicative of their skill, as they find open lanes more often.

Other than the above, the game was amazingly even. I think we can attribute this loss to them being better/more experienced in general. That does not mean that our defensive group is the problem, they are young and learning.

This was the Chicago Blackhawks boys, they've been a pretty good team for some time now - yes?

 

[Bonsai Tree]

Who starts tonight against the Cropdusters?

 

[kihekah19*]

Who starts tonight against the Cropdusters?

No official word that I'm aware of, pick your poison, but I go with Domingue.

 

[cobra427]

Our defensive group is pretty young with two exceptions. This is what can be expected and I contest that we're not nearly as bad as some would argue and certainly not bad enough to warrant all this talk of player movement, at this juncture.

Let's put this game into perspective.

The penalties were the first, biggest and most important issue, particularly considering how early in the game the came. The goals scored on those early penalties were not the fault of the defensive group and not even that of the PK unit as a whole, let's credit the Hawks for their skill level and put the rest on Lindback, who should have only allowed one, imo. Chicago returned the favor two fold and we don't have the PP to capitalize, plain and simple.

With the exception of the second period, we held the Hawks to a mere twelve shots in total, this despite rarely having possession of the puck and all the while somehow keeping the scoring chances nearly even.

We gave away the puck only once more than Chicago, but had it taken away more than twice the amount that we were able to take it away from them, I attribute that to their better skill set, as well as determination having come off of losses. The Hawks blocked twice as many shots as we did, which is also indicative of their skill, as they find open lanes more often.

Other than the above, the game was amazingly even. I think we can attribute this loss to them being better/more experienced in general. That does not mean that our defensive group is the problem, they are young and learning.

This was the Chicago Blackhawks boys, they've been a pretty good team for some time now - yes?

I pretty much agree. We can't take penalties against a team like the hawks and their PP. We take them because a player gets behind the play and has to try and cheat a little like Duclair did on his penalty. We get out skilled and that is the result sometimes. We need to take less dumb penalties, like Duclair's in the offensive zone. If we stay out of the box and get a little better goal tending we would be fine because we are generating chances pretty consistently lately. If we had Yandle, we would have 10 more points this year because of his PP abilities, less short handed goals, and his puck moving ability out of our own end. Maybe next year

 

[AZviaNJ]

I think we all know our D is a area of concern, but the forwards and goaltending also have to take some responsibility, like puck possession and making a save here and there. I think we address our D at the TDL and/or the off season, but it may take two years before we are satisfied with our D. We are rebuilding and I don't see DM making any trades for the short term.

Exactly, and that starts by assessing where young players project to be. (eg: Murphy 4, Dahlbeck 5, Capabianco too early to tell, etc).

 

[kihekah19*]

I pretty much agree. We can't take penalties against a team like the hawks and their PP. We take them because a player gets behind the play and has to try and cheat a little like Duclair did on his penalty. We get out skilled and that is the result sometimes. We need to take less dumb penalties, like Duclair's in the offensive zone. If we stay out of the box and get a little better goal tending we would be fine because we are generating chances pretty consistently lately. If we had Yandle, we would have 10 more points this year because of his PP abilities, less short handed goals, and his puck moving ability out of our own end. Maybe next year

Keith's the Rangers fourth highest point producer with 19A and 1G, I want to stay optimistic, but reality tells me we don't have a shot at him.

As far as getting behind the play, it's normally a mental error (as opposed to physical), so that should bode well for the future. Duke makes a lot of mistakes, let's hope he can become a little more patient and clean them up.

 

[Jakey53]

Our defensive group is pretty young with two exceptions. This is what can be expected and I contest that we're not nearly as bad as some would argue and certainly not bad enough to warrant all this talk of player movement, at this juncture.

Let's put this game into perspective.

The penalties were the first, biggest and most important issue, particularly considering how early in the game the came. The goals scored on those early penalties were not the fault of the defensive group and not even that of the PK unit as a whole, let's credit the Hawks for their skill level and put the rest on Lindback, who should have only allowed one, imo. Chicago returned the favor two fold and we don't have the PP to capitalize, plain and simple.

With the exception of the second period, we held the Hawks to a mere twelve shots in total, this despite rarely having possession of the puck and all the while somehow keeping the scoring chances nearly even.

We gave away the puck only once more than Chicago, but had it taken away more than twice the amount that we were able to take it away from them, I attribute that to their better skill set, as well as determination having come off of losses. The Hawks blocked twice as many shots as we did, which is also indicative of their skill, as they find open lanes more often.

Other than the above, the game was amazingly even. I think we can attribute this loss to them being better/more experienced in general. That does not mean that our defensive group is the problem, they are young and learning.

This was the Chicago Blackhawks boys, they've been a pretty good team for some time now - yes?

I agree. Playing D is a tough tough position to play and takes time and experience.

No official word that I'm aware of, pick your poison, but I go with Domingue.

That is a good way of putting it.