So players aren't widgets right? Connor McDavid is having a worse season by the standard he set last year and in a year where scoring is up in general. His coach is the same, the cast is largely the same. Players sometimes play worse independent of other things.
Coaching can be a problem too, but it's one of many factors to consider. Roster composition, player availability (IE Transforming a whole roster in a month is hard), individual motivations and leadership, and performance variance year to year are I think bigger problems than coaching or talent at explaining why the team has dropped points pace and can't win a regulation game.
So if we're comparing Hanzal to Stepan in the context of the team getting worse, the comparison is not a partial year of Hanzal in 2018, it's what he gave us last year. He was basically healthy last season too. When Hanzal was traded he had 26 points for us in 51GP. Right now Stepan has 51GP and has 30 points. Hardly a huge difference, especially in a year where scoring is up. I even made a whole post after the Stepan trade suggesting the offensive difference between the two isn't as great as you might think at a quick glance. But I basically agree that Stepan is better than Hanzal. But I think it's the difference between a B+ and a B-.
Smith is a good goalie sometimes and was last season, I don't think that was ever really in dispute. But at his age he's hardly the goalie of the future for a team with a young core around 21 years old. So there is a legitimate argument that the Coyotes needed to find a goalie for the future even if it's at the cost of winning games right now. I don't even think that's really the case though. Raanta's save percentage is .919 and the league average is .913. He's giving us above average tending for less money, possibly even greatly above average tending given that the .919 number is on the worst team in the league. Domingue having to play a month of games and lately Wedgewood too are problems. But in a straight swap Raanta for Smith? I think it's a push or just slight advantage for Smith but only slight. Raanta had never had health problems before either so it wouldn't be fair to say they took a risk on that.
Vrbata? I'd have kept him in the offseason and said so then, however he hasn't had a good year this season so that might not have worked out. But just comparing what he did last year to who's taking his minutes right now, Fischer has pretty solid numbers so far. The emergence of Keller, not a straight swap for Vrbata since Keller sometimes plays LW, is also helpful. Although his slowdown lately is hurting. But the team brought in some serious money players in Hjalmarsson and Demers, pretty clear upgrades on their counterparts last year to try and improve things. So the team went into the season relying on rookies to replace Vrby's production and to give them a chance to play. But the team still spent that money in the form of upgrades on the defense.
In terms of the record, it's obvious this stuff didn't work immediately. That's not really the point though. Chayka explicitly confirmed in an interview a couple months ago that the point of the Stepan and Hjalmarsson deals was to add some veteran presence to a lineup of young players to help them develop. Not jump from 70 something points to 80 something points. You can disagree with the reasoning behind the moves and the plan, but that was absolutely the plan. The idea is, there's an upper limit to the things you can do spending 8-10 million dollars on Age 35 Mike Smith and Radim Vrbata.
Changing up the roster, adding affordable long-term pieces for those same Dollars in Stepan and Demers, and allowing young players minutes is the goal.
Last season was that nice repro landscape painting you might buy at target for $60. Looks alright but ain't gonna win any awards.
This season is a mosaic with all the tiles being rearranged. Right now it looks funny and doesn't make much sense. The particular artist might be the wrong guy to assemble the pieces but at least he's aiming for something here. Could also be sold at a flea market for $5 in a couple years.
But when you're poor you can't just go out and buy a Rembrandt.
Last edited:
