tl;dr version: yay. 7 or 8 depending on how optimistic the coaching picks make me.
I loved the trades. Trades are fun & the current NHL seems like a dark age for them. I wrongly used to be optimistic that would change, but the expansion draft was just ridiculous in the extent to which teams paid up to stand pat as opposed to using it as a catalyst to change things up.
Picks/potential were the only trade chips the Coyotes had left, & while it's a risk to part with what they did, on a team that completely relies on the development of its prospects to become any good, I think you can only have so many question marks throughout the lineup before it hurts everyone's chance of reaching their potential. It should be beneficial to turn a few of those into sure things. It seemed to be a board consensus that the team had to transition from the 'acquire as many high-upside assets as possible' stage of the rebuild into the phase where development of what we had was more important. The coaching change & trades seem really positive in that regard.
I love the Stepan deal full stop, but agree that in terms of value the Hjalmarsson deal is pretty weird. He's an incredible player whose value largely lies in his cost effectiveness for the next 2 years. Years within the Hawks' window, but ones we'll be lucky to make the playoffs in. I agree with SniperHF's concern about how quickly that type of puck eating player falls off a cliff. Hjalmarsson's next contract is likely to be ugly. Does eventually jettisoning him for a draft pick hurt Operation make OEL sign a new contract? That probably misses the whole point that when you can add a player that good for what we gave up, you do it.
What I love most about the two big additions is that they are players used to tough matchups. Hjalmarsson's excelled eating tough defensive minutes & Stepan's held his own in the playoffs against the East's top centres. I think that lessens the worry when players move from good teams to bad ones.
I'll miss DeAngelo & Murphy. While the board seems split on whether Murphy will ever take the next step - giving up a 6'4" RHD with as few miles as he had on his body makes me nervous. But as said I think waiting on a 24 year old to put it all together doesn't make sense for this team. Improve the team now so the young core has a better environment to develop.
As well as Smith rebounded, assigning that proportion of the meagre budget to a goalie with age/injury concerns when there are always better value short-term (Elliott/Mason) or long-term options available, no longer made no sense. Raanta appears as good a gamble as any. Great move.
Similar goes for Tippett. Judging coaches seems incredibly hard, especially given the crap tools Tippett was given. The Colorado comparison is interesting to me. Colorado under Roy had terrible underlying numbers which they largely outperformed in the standings. I think numbers point to the Coyotes playing even worse hockey last year than the points total suggested. Is that good coaching? I don't think a new coach coming in & the team playing down to those underlying numbers or even below it, says all that much about the previous coach. Teams like Toronto and Carolina recently have played good hockey with lesser talent. The lack of skill showed in scoring and save percentages which sunk them in the standings. I'd rather that template if they could find it. I was happier with Tippett's use of young players last year, but getting in a coach who is happier about development over the record, & someone who emphasises scoring over not conceding should hopefully be more fun to watch.
Lastly, while it makes sense for a cup contender, I feel judging the offseason by whether the team's positioned to have a better record this year is a strange way to look at it. The team still relying on youngsters taking the next step to move forward is surely what rebuilding is? To get significantly better would have cost core prospects. Re: what we did vs. standing pat - I like the new voices in the room & surrounding veterans more. I love Hanzal, but will take Stepan's age & injury record and more consistent offensive output over Hanzal's defensive qualities. I think a pick that will take more time to develop & a high potential player that likely needed more sheltering than we could provide is a fine trade off. The defence could be scary in a couple of years, but it should dramatically improve for now. An elite pairing or couple of players seems more important than depth. The team may be worse next year without Smith, but moving on makes sense long term. Doan did look done. The time feels right for a change in leadership.
RW is the only move I don't agree with. I seemed to be alone in wanting Jooris back, though I will jump for joy if Martinook / Richardson / Rieder is our actual skilled 4th line (situationally) next year as opposed to part of a bad top 6. There likely aren't the pieces to acquire a good RW this year; hopefully players build some trade value through the season. So a veteran UFA on a 1 year deal that could play in a variety of roles & be easily flipped for an asset if a younger player demands more playing time, like Vrbata or Hemsky, seemed a no brainer. I liked the trades, it just feels they missed out on some smart, short, UFA deals
Apologies for the boring long-ass post, just never commented on the individual moves.
