Confirmed with Link: Kevin Westgarth Added To TC Roster

[Alex87]

Again when the players ask for it you bring it in, especially such a minor piece to the puzzle. The 4th line goon is hardly ever the reason you lose a game.

Not trying to be argumentative with this question (I sincerely am interested in knowing), but do we have evidence that the players are in fact asking for it? We know what they say in interviews, but they're not going to publicly disparage a teammate so it isn't really meaningful. Even if they are, that doesn't mean Westgarth is an adequate response. Find guys who can play the game and bring a physical element.

With a few minutes of ice-time, I agree that the goon probably won't directly cost the team a game. But that's not really the point here - we're saying they don't help you win, which is why you'll hear people call them a waste of a roster spot.

 

[joestevens29]

Not trying to be argumentative with this question (I sincerely am interested in knowing), but do we have evidence that the players are in fact asking for it? We know what they say in interviews, but they're not going to publicly disparage a teammate so it isn't really meaningful. Even if they are, that doesn't mean Westgarth is an adequate response. Find guys who can play the game and bring a physical element.

With a few minutes of ice-time, I agree that the goon probably won't directly cost the team a game. But that's not really the point here - we're saying they don't help you win, which is why you'll hear people call them a waste of a roster spot.

Struds sure seems pretty adamant that the players want it. Hasn't talked about it lately, but when it becomes a discussion he always starts talking about how the players want it. Judging by his latest comments on coaching and captains I get the impression he has insight from players on the current roster still.

Now who exactly they want I don't know. They seem to want someone that will help them not look over their shoulders constantly.

 

[Musashi]

Perhaps we see Gordon as the 3C and Hendricks as the 4C? Maybe I'm reading too much into this and this is only a temporary thing, but if we sign Westgarth I could see us playing a two headed monster on the 4th line similar to what Calgary has done in the recent past.

Hall-RNH-Eberle
Perron-Draisaitl-Yakupov (soft minutes)
Pouliot-Gordon-Purcell (checking line)
Gazdic-Hendricks-Westgarth

IMO that is probably the worst line up I've seen this summer. Not sure what top 6 line can expect soft minutes and playing LD and Yak in a top 6 together scares me.

Even if you switched that line with Gordons, saddling Pouliot and Purcell with gordons limited offensive game down the middle should dry up any offense that line can produce. And then we have a 4th line whose best case scenario is to dump and chase the puck and hopefully get there quick enough to land a hit before having to turn back while having 2 players who have no business playing over 5 mins per game

 

[Moose Coleman]

Again when the players ask for it you bring it in, especially such a minor piece to the puzzle.

What if the players asked for the ritual sacrifice of a chicken in the dressing room before every game? Actually, that would make more sense than having a goon.

The 4th line goon is hardly ever the reason you lose a game.

But why would a team that is already not very good choose to handicap themselves further?

 

[joestevens29]

What if the players asked for the ritual sacrifice of a chicken in the dressing room before every game? Actually, that would make more sense than having a goon.



But why would a team that is already not very good choose to handicap themselves further?

Always taking it to a level that you know isn't going to happen. It's a 700k 13th or 14th forward. Your stars want it you add it. Plus I love how it pisses all you guys off so that always nice.

 

[Pros and Cons]

I still cannot believe the comments of the Oilers being a "smallish team", a "meek" team. I really do not agree with that, and have never bought into teams not being successful if they don't have the size.
I look at the average size of some "successful teams", Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, Anaheim, NYR, San Jose....not very big teams and do not play that big.....and then on the other side some of the "bigger teams", like Phoenix/Arizona, Ottawa, Tampa, and Toronto..who have no real success to speak of recent....but yet are considered as "big teams".
Playing big is a different story, some teams and players play big and are successful....

 

[joestevens29]

I still cannot believe the comments of the Oilers being a "smallish team", a "meek" team. I really do not agree with that, and have never bought into teams not being successful if they don't have the size.
I look at the average size of some "successful teams", Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, Anaheim, NYR, San Jose....not very big teams and do not play that big.....and then on the other side some of the "bigger teams", like Phoenix/Arizona, Ottawa, Tampa, and Toronto..who have no real success to speak of recent....but yet are considered as "big teams".

There's a difference between being big and playing big. And no you don't need it, but when you don't have two-way ability or play with any grit how exactly are you going to win? We don't need to play grittier, but then we better get better at two way hockey.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

So I'm a bit surprised how excited some are getting. There are two things that come out of this for the Oilers.

1. Westgarth adds toughness for the preseason to Pinozotto doesn't have to fight everybody all preseason and a deterrent, however people think that works.

2. If players like Lander, Pitlick, Joensuu can't beat Westgarth out for an NHL job, they don't deserve to be there.

 

[joestevens29]

So I'm a bit surprised how excited some are getting. There are two things that come out of this for the Oilers.

1. Westgarth adds toughness for the preseason to Pinozotto doesn't have to fight everybody all preseason and a deterrent, however people think that works.

2. If players like Lander, Pitlick, Joensuu can't beat Westgarth out for an NHL job, they don't deserve to be there.

#2 really is a good point

 

[Moose Coleman]

Always taking it to a level that you know isn't going to happen. It's a 700k 13th or 14th forward. Your stars want it you add it.

It's just a chicken. Your stars want it dead and it's blood consumed as a tribute to Baʿal, you just do it.

Plus I love how it pisses all you guys off so that always nice.

Well, I guess some of us are more interested in team success than lulz than others.

 

[McTedi]

What if the players asked for the ritual sacrifice of a chicken in the dressing room before every game? Actually, that would make more sense than having a goon.



But why would a team that is already not very good choose to handicap themselves further?

Adding toughness to team is a necessity. It is a handicap to play without it.

 

[Alex87]

Adding toughness to team is a necessity. It is a handicap to play without it.

He's not disputing that point. If we need toughness, let's go out and get it. But find guys who can actually take and make a pass, and who aren't a liability when they step on the ice.

 

[Burnt Biscuits]

So why even bother wasting the spot instead of having someone who can, you know, play?

I prefer playing players who can play, but some situations just call for this kind of player. If anyone remembers Boogard running rough shod over our team and I think he injured atleast 3 of our players over a roughly 2 year span, those are the kind of players you need to be addressing. I remember Steve Staios and one other player I can't recall basically trying to fight him together without much success it was kind of embarrassing. I see Bordeleau as a player who is similair to Boogard in style of play and could need addressing. Also a good fight can swing momentum and there are certain players where a good scrap really gets them fired up, they shouldn't need a fight to get fired up, but it's the reality of the situation.

This goes against the idea of rolling three scoring lines and feeding tough zone starts to a fourth line. If you're sticking, say, Hall on the fourth line to start in the d-zone, that's a waste of his talents. A fourth line (a complete fourth line) should be able to handle 10 minutes a night minimum IMO.

Even lines that are given heavy D zone starts get to see the light of day on occassion, although they will specialize in tough d-zone match-ups everyone needs to be reminded from time to time what fresh air smells like.

I see our minute splits as Hall= 20 mins, Perron= 19 mins, Pouliot= 16 mins, and then either Gazdic or whomever we called up from the farm 5 mins. I assume you agree with Hall and Perron each getting very close to if not exactly 20 mins, now do you thing we signed Pouliot to a 4 million contract to split the remaining 20 mins evenly with a random 4th liner, he needs to get leaned on more heavily then that, we have a strong left side we can and should utilize that.

Hall should get a lot of offensive zone starts, but I still see him playing roughly a minute more then Nuge and Eberle, you got to sneak him out when you can for an extra shift, and get him away from tight checking when possible. Teams also aren't just going to give us the match-ups we want all the time, being that we only have the luxury of last change for half the games, a little mixing and matching will have to be done. Hall is our franchise player and regardless of where the puck is starting I am going to want him on the ice as often as possible for the critical moments he is not our best defensive player, but he is either the best or 2nd best player on the team at generating turnovers or stealing the puck to go the other way and he is also our most successful offensive zone entry player, you have to take advantage of that fact from time to time to tilt the game back into your favour.

Gazdic is a liability whenever he's on the ice. If he starts in the o-zone, the puck is coming the other way in a hurry. If he starts in the d-zone, the team is gonna bleed out. Waste of a roster spot.

His goals against per 60 minutes played relative to his goals for per 60 minutes played, will look bad just as it does for nearly all fighters for every 60 minutes he plays the other team will be scoring roughly 1 more goal per 60 minutes played then what he would generate. The good thing is if you are playing 5 mins a night, that should only be a -1 goal differential every 12 or so games, if you restrict him to only 48 games or so that's only a -4 goal differential generated by him; not a good thing by any means, but for the sake of toughness it might be a reasonable cost and if him playing 5 mins a night is the difference between the team sinking or swimming we've got bigger issues.

 

[Moose Coleman]

I prefer playing players who can play, but some situations just call for this kind of player. If anyone remembers Boogard running rough shod over our team and I think he injured atleast 3 of our players over a roughly 2 year span, those are the kind of players you need to be addressing.

What makes that Boogaard example so notable is how uncommon that is. Matt Cooke has done more damage over the course of his career than Boogaard ever did.

Besides, Gazdic isn't going to play with Hall or RNH or other stars. How is he going to protect them from the end of the bench?

I remember Steve Staios and one other player I can't recall basically trying to fight him together without much success it was kind of embarrassing. I see Bordeleau as a player who is similair to Boogard in style of play and could need addressing. Also a good fight can swing momentum and there are certain players where a good scrap really gets them fired up, they shouldn't need a fight to get fired up, but it's the reality of the situation.

Yeah? For who?

His goals against per 60 minutes played relative to his goals for per 60 minutes played, will look bad just as it does for nearly all fighters for every 60 minutes he plays the other team will be scoring roughly 1 more goal per 60 minutes played then what he would generate. The good thing is if you are playing 5 mins a night, that should only be a -1 goal differential every 12 or so games, if you restrict him to only 48 games or so that's only a -4 goal differential generated by him; not a good thing by any means, but for the sake of toughness it might be a reasonable cost and if him playing 5 mins a night is the difference between the team sinking or swimming we've got bigger issues.

Sigh. It's not about sinking or swimming. It's about finding every edge you can, which is especially important for a team struggling for respectability. Why a team like Edmonton, which needs every advantage it can get, would willingly employ a guy whose own defenders admit is an on-ice liability for the sake of abstract concepts like "toughness" I don't understand.

 

[McDNicks17]

Meh, it's never a bad thing to add a little meat for the preseason.

I think Westgarth would actually be a pretty valuable piece in OKC too. He can play enough to be a 3rd liner in the AHL, I'd say.

 

[harpoon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQWNdXdGbZ4

Gazdic demolishes Westgarth. No thanks to wasting a roster spot on Kevin Westgarth. The guy just isn't very good at hockey or fighting.

 

[Burnt Biscuits]

What makes that Boogaard example so notable is how uncommon that is. Matt Cooke has done more damage over the course of his career than Boogaard ever did.

Besides, Gazdic isn't going to play with Hall or RNH or other stars. How is he going to protect them from the end of the bench?

He won't protect them from the bench in a physical sense, but there is the capacity to get retribution after the fact and then there is also the factor of intimidation, there are brave players in the league who will run anyone regardless of what may happen after the fact, but there are players who aren't so brave that will think twice about taking runs if it means they might have to answer to a tough guy later on. Also with a tough guy on the team to hide behind some players just act tougher then they really are as opposed to if they had to face the consequences themselves.

For a feared and respected tough guy sometimes a crooked glance or some words barked from the bench can be enough to settle certain opposition players down.

A tough guy is much of a psychological edge as it is anything else.

Yeah? For who?

It runs both ways, momentum typically goes with the winner of the fight and I don't think anyone will argue that Gazdic isn't a great fighter. The main thing about fighting is it can add emotion to a listless game, it can give the boys a little jolt of energy when they just aren't competing to the same level of the other team. The trick is getting the other team to be willing to engage in a fight when our guys aren't playing with the right level of emotion and denying fights when we have the edge.

Sigh. It's not about sinking or swimming. It's about finding every edge you can, which is especially important for a team struggling for respectability. Why a team like Edmonton, which needs every advantage it can get, would willingly employ a guy whose own defenders admit is an on-ice liability for the sake of abstract concepts like "toughness" I don't understand.

Getting every edge you can is important, but toughness while hard to quantify I believe has a real and positive effect on a team, but it's fair to debate whether or not the pro's outway the con's, I think it has to be done on a player by player basis. The fact of the matter is I don't like our options for the 4th line, if they are icing Gazdic instead of a far better hockey player in Arcobello I'd be miffed about it, but icing him over Lander and Pitlick, who while I like both they haven't really delivered fantastic results in their NHL stints isn't a big deal to me. Usually there are better options then icing a tough guy on the 4th line, but IMO we don't really have one that I think brings enough where the edge in playing ability clearly outpaces the added benefit of "toughness" particularly when playing teams which have a lot of toughness themselves.

It's when we add someone like MacIntyre to our roster while allowing someone like Colton Sceviour to pass through waivers, is what gets under my skin. There are always some quality player who passes through waivers each year that we pass on for the sake of keeping our tough guy that irritates me, but until that option is staring me in the face I'm not going to knock having Gazdic in the line-up. When a player like Joakim Andersson goes through waivers only to be picked up by Calgary and we say we couldn't pick him up cause we didn't want to expose our tough guy to waivers is when I'll jump on the bandwagon with you.

 

[Joey Moss]

Better actual player than Gazdic, but much worse fighter.

I don't mind it, it doesn't cost anything.

He is not a better player than Gazdic.. Come on. I don't mind Westgarth in the lineup when Gazdic is out.

 

[Moose Coleman]

He won't protect them from the bench in a physical sense, but there is the capacity to get retribution after the fact and then there is also the factor of intimidation, there are brave players in the league who will run anyone regardless of what may happen after the fact, but there are players who aren't so brave that will think twice about taking runs if it means they might have to answer to a tough guy later on.

The guys mostly likely to run guys are the guys least likely to be intimidated. To use your example from earlier, you think Boogaard would have been worried about retaliation? Was Matt Cooke worried about retaliation when he destroyed Savard's career?

For a feared and respected tough guy sometimes a crooked glance or some words barked from the bench can be enough to settle certain opposition players down.

A tough guy is much of a psychological edge as it is anything else.

Makes me think of this.

It runs both ways, momentum typically goes with the winner of the fight and I don't think anyone will argue that Gazdic isn't a great fighter.

Yeah, that sounds like a crock. There's tons of examples of teams winning the fight and then getting scored on.

The main thing about fighting is it can add emotion to a listless game, it can give the boys a little jolt of energy when they just aren't competing to the same level of the other team. The trick is getting the other team to be willing to engage in a fight when our guys aren't playing with the right level of emotion and denying fights when we have the edge.

So what if you decide, hey, the team's flat, I'll inject some life by dropping the mitts....and then get destroyed?

Like the above, this is one of those things where people will look at the times something positive happens after they win a fight and ignore all the times something negative happens or nothing happens at all.

And even if there is something to what you're saying (and I don't for a minute think there is), the role you're describing is that of a cheerleader, not a hockey player.

Getting every edge you can is important, but toughness while hard to quantify I believe has a real and positive effect on a team, but it's fair to debate whether or not the pro's outway the con's, I think it has to be done on a player by player basis.

Toughness in a functional sense is not that hard to quantify. Its taking a hit to make a play. It's winning puck battles or body position. These are physical aspects that will positively impact a team's performance. Not punching dudes.

The fact of the matter is I don't like our options for the 4th line, if they are icing Gazdic instead of a far better hockey player in Arcobello I'd be miffed about it, but icing him over Lander and Pitlick, who while I like both they haven't really delivered fantastic results in their NHL stints isn't a big deal to me. Usually there are better options then icing a tough guy on the 4th line, but IMO we don't really have one that I think brings enough where the edge in playing ability clearly outpaces the added benefit of "toughness" particularly when playing teams which have a lot of toughness themselves.

IMO, you're really underestimating how big a sinkhole Gazdic is. He just bleeds out when he's on the ice.

 

[Burnt Biscuits]

The guys mostly likely to run guys are the guys least likely to be intimidated. To use your example from earlier, you think Boogaard would have been worried about retaliation? Was Matt Cooke worried about retaliation when he destroyed Savard's career?

I can't recall Cooke running any of Winnipeg's players after Evander Kane cleaned his clock, so maybe it does work if you leave a big enough impression.

Makes me think of this.

That was some weak trash talk and I don't expect it to have any kind of effect on a player like Brad Richards he's been around for a long time and he knows how to handle himself out there, but not every player is Brad Richards or has that same commitment to winning, if Pitlick for example was on another team and was running around hitting people and someone like Gazdic came up and grabbed a hold of him and said if I see you take another run at one of our star players I'm going to break your jaw in 8 places and you'll spend the next 10 weeks eating through a straw, it might give him reason to pause. It doesn't even really have to make him stop hitting just having a player 2nd guess themselves or having it in the back of their mind as oppossed to being purely focused on the game can have positive benefits.

Yeah, that sounds like a crock. There's tons of examples of teams winning the fight and then getting scored on.

The winning of fights has a very small effect on the game, I recall reading an article talking about won fights and their impact on winning a game, it was something marginal like a tenth of one percent increased chance in winning a game. Fights in general are more about emotional engagement to the game, I have to say from being someone has watched hockey for years I have seen games turn on a dime when the fight result has been a devastating knockout where it's pretty clear the loser of the fight is badly hurt and won't be around for quite a while.

Fighters go out there and risk injury everytime they drop the gloves, it is an exercise of sacrifice for the team. Much like teams that block shots regularly it becomes part of the culture, self sacrifice for the good of the team. Having teams with a lot of goons isn't likely to make the Hemsky's or the Crosby's of the world drop their gloves, but when people are willing to go out there and risk injury and put their proverbial butts on the line for the team, it can rub off on those around them.

So what if you decide, hey, the team's flat, I'll inject some life by dropping the mitts....and then get destroyed?

I've seen that happen as well, I think it was Kennedy for Pittsburgh who got demolished in a fight and they rallied around that to come back.

I know you look at stuff like that and say there is 0 causative relation between winning fights and winning games, but things are random much like life. It's all about the general tendencies.

Like the above, this is one of those things where people will look at the times something positive happens after they win a fight and ignore all the times something negative happens or nothing happens at all.

And even if there is something to what you're saying (and I don't for a minute think there is), the role you're describing is that of a cheerleader, not a hockey player.

Toughness in a functional sense is not that hard to quantify. Its taking a hit to make a play. It's winning puck battles or body position. These are physical aspects that will positively impact a team's performance. Not punching dudes.



IMO, you're really underestimating how big a sinkhole Gazdic is. He just bleeds out when he's on the ice.

I think you're overestimating how much of a sinkhole he is, just taking last year into account and removing any players who played less then 20 games.

Gazdic's goal on ice for per 60 minutes played minus his goals against per 60 minutes played (5 on 5) was: -1.24

for comparison:
Mark Fraser= -1.52
Sam Gagner= -1.59
Nail Yakupov= -2.07
Anton Lander= -2.10
Jesse Joensuu= -2.61

I expect this number to get a bit worse for Gazdic though as he had a very bad corsi, but again as a 5 minute a night guy it's controlled bleeding.

 

[Aceboogie]

Yost did a study that found teams that won a fight were scored on 55% of the time after. So worse off

 

[Big Mess]

To all the people B****ing about Westgarth. Just a reminder Vancouver has Sestito, Kassian, Bieksa and newly added Dorsett. Do we really want Hall fighting Dorsett again and getting hurt?

It seems like Calgary has invited Trevor Gillies and Nolan Yonkman to training camp along with people they already have such as McGrattan, Engelland, Brookbank, Ferland, Kanzig and Bollig.

 

[McGoMcD]

Yeah! 2nd line centre solved!

very nice

 

[McGoMcD]

Perhaps we see Gordon as the 3C and Hendricks as the 4C? Maybe I'm reading too much into this and this is only a temporary thing, but if we sign Westgarth I could see us playing a two headed monster on the 4th line similar to what Calgary has done in the recent past.

Hall-RNH-Eberle
Perron-Draisaitl-Yakupov (soft minutes)
Pouliot-Gordon-Purcell (checking line)
Gazdic-Hendricks-Westgarth

love this line up BBO, this is mine as well. That 3rd and 4th line would not be fun to play against, and the first 2 lines are stacked with fire power.

 

[Burnt Biscuits]

Yost did a study that found teams that won a fight were scored on 55% of the time after. So worse off

I'm assuming this is the article you were referring to: http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/8/4/winning-a-fight-has-impact-on-future-outcomes

that one shows a 54% chance of the the player winning the fights team being scored on after, but that data set is very small being based off of just one year.

This article by Jonathan Willis isn't anything really special but it has links to articles that do have quality information in them, the general consensus is that fighting has near negligible effect on results be that positively or negatively. The thing is as I was discussing before it's all a matter of how much you are leaving on the table by dressing said fighter as opposed to the next best available forward/defender.

I think the argument for not having fighters is based somewhat on the Detroit model which is discussed in this article and that certainly has merit; but the thing is Detroit has consistently produced high end talent, have high possession numbers, and have generally been a strong team on the powerplay punishing teams who try and take liberties with them. Detroit has had success more because of those 3 other factors then their lack of employing a fighter IMO, I'm fine with being as soft as a baby's *** if we use our high end talent to post crooked possession numbers and have a high conversion rate on our powerplay.

Back on the topic of Westgarth I peeked at his numbers for the last two seasons, he has a pretty decent corsi especially for a fighter, but had a highly beneficial zone start and his penalties taken versus drawn paints the picture of a highly undisciplined player.