News and Notes Thread VIII: The more things change, the more they stay the same.
- Thread starter Unsustainable
- Start date
- Status
the halleJOKEL
strong as brickwall
Carolinas Identity*
I'm a bad troll...
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
Unpopular opinion alert: Larose coming back on a league minimum contract to be slotted appropriately in our lineup would be a fantastic addition to this team. He drew our ire for being a guy who was consistently shuffled to the top for his mix of inconsistent displays of skill and straight line hockey. I don't think what became of Chad was entirely his fault. I don't even believe it was mostly his fault. He was given the money he was given to be a player he was not and we turned on him when he basically couldn't be a hockey player he had no business being which was a guy who could jump into your Top 6.
Taking chances on guys like this to come in and be productive when they've historically been productive on low impact salaries is the new way to compete in this league. Bring them in to have a good season or two and let them move on before we have to pay them market value. That's the mistake I think we made with Gerbe was allowing his one year on the uptick to buy him for two more years at market value if not slightly above. If you bring in a few hungry players a year on league minimum type deals and only allow them to stay if they take a modest bump in salary then you're winning the battle against the salary cap. But getting scared that you've found a player that can't be replaced and offering them triple their salary to stay is just foolish in my opinion. This year Dany Heatley and Steve Downie signed for a combined $2 million. Now would they have taken those contracts here? Who knows. I don't know what they were offered. But when you consider the fact that we put $1.5 million salary and a $1.75 cap hit into Gerbe for 2 years.... who's to say that we couldn't have been a better hockey team by rolling the dice on one of those two guys if not both and adding Larose at league minimum or Mueller at league minimum? It just puts you in a tough position when you pay for guys that are somewhat available on a yearly basis if you check the right spots. We did a good thing rolling the dice on Jay McClement, but if he has even a moderate amount of success he'll probably seek a raise and we'll probably give it to him.
And back to Larose, if you look at the situation honestly.... he still has a lot of fans among casual observers. He'd be a good story for that reason. I don't advocate a hockey team built on the grounds of what players fans cling to for nostalgia purposes, but seriously it's just one player and one that if he came from another organization we'd probably be somewhat interested to see what he could do here under new management. While I don't think that a history of producing here should be a factor, I do think that producing in the NHL period should be a consideration. Larose has been a productive NHL player and there's no real way to disqualify him by name from being able to do it again. I'm aware that Chad became the lightning rod for everything we hated about the nepotism thing but it's not a wholly fair sacred cow.
What I will be pissed about, however, is if this opportunity for Chad denies us our interest in Mueller or if said competition takes place and Chad wins it for no other reason than his history here. That would be tragic. But until such time as there is reason to be upset about revisiting this issue, I'm going to remain neutral to it until we see the plan. Larose has zero leverage here and all the reason in the world to try to come in and play balls out hockey. Hopefully he has been talking to Bates Battaglia about how quickly things can change in hockey and how much Bates would give for another year in the show when his work ethic waned and his natural talent only carried him so far.
Taking chances on guys like this to come in and be productive when they've historically been productive on low impact salaries is the new way to compete in this league. Bring them in to have a good season or two and let them move on before we have to pay them market value. That's the mistake I think we made with Gerbe was allowing his one year on the uptick to buy him for two more years at market value if not slightly above. If you bring in a few hungry players a year on league minimum type deals and only allow them to stay if they take a modest bump in salary then you're winning the battle against the salary cap. But getting scared that you've found a player that can't be replaced and offering them triple their salary to stay is just foolish in my opinion. This year Dany Heatley and Steve Downie signed for a combined $2 million. Now would they have taken those contracts here? Who knows. I don't know what they were offered. But when you consider the fact that we put $1.5 million salary and a $1.75 cap hit into Gerbe for 2 years.... who's to say that we couldn't have been a better hockey team by rolling the dice on one of those two guys if not both and adding Larose at league minimum or Mueller at league minimum? It just puts you in a tough position when you pay for guys that are somewhat available on a yearly basis if you check the right spots. We did a good thing rolling the dice on Jay McClement, but if he has even a moderate amount of success he'll probably seek a raise and we'll probably give it to him.
And back to Larose, if you look at the situation honestly.... he still has a lot of fans among casual observers. He'd be a good story for that reason. I don't advocate a hockey team built on the grounds of what players fans cling to for nostalgia purposes, but seriously it's just one player and one that if he came from another organization we'd probably be somewhat interested to see what he could do here under new management. While I don't think that a history of producing here should be a factor, I do think that producing in the NHL period should be a consideration. Larose has been a productive NHL player and there's no real way to disqualify him by name from being able to do it again. I'm aware that Chad became the lightning rod for everything we hated about the nepotism thing but it's not a wholly fair sacred cow.
What I will be pissed about, however, is if this opportunity for Chad denies us our interest in Mueller or if said competition takes place and Chad wins it for no other reason than his history here. That would be tragic. But until such time as there is reason to be upset about revisiting this issue, I'm going to remain neutral to it until we see the plan. Larose has zero leverage here and all the reason in the world to try to come in and play balls out hockey. Hopefully he has been talking to Bates Battaglia about how quickly things can change in hockey and how much Bates would give for another year in the show when his work ethic waned and his natural talent only carried him so far.
AhoLottaLove
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 2,050
- 947
I think the team and new coach gets 40 games before a full blown house cleaning takes place. Will be interesting to see if the coaching changes lights a fire under eric. He is the key cog for sure!!!!
- Oct 31, 2007
- 39,272
- 41,340
I will say one thing: If we do sign LaRose, and he somehow makes his way slotted next to Eric Staal, I will bust a gut laughing.
That would be four coaches that felt his appropriate place in the lineup was on the top line. Which kind of throws the whole notion that he doesn't belong there right out the window
That would be four coaches that felt his appropriate place in the lineup was on the top line. Which kind of throws the whole notion that he doesn't belong there right out the window
What the Faulk
You'll know when you go
New ot rules for ahl
New OT rules being proposed by the AHL. Almost an exact copy of an idea Anton Dubinochuk and I collaborated on back in 2012:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1141069&highlight=
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1707127
We posted about our idea and faced a lot of criticism from people on the main board. The people in the AHL who have chosen to adopt these rules, however, make no mention of where they got the idea...
New OT rules being proposed by the AHL. Almost an exact copy of an idea Anton Dubinochuk and I collaborated on back in 2012:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1141069&highlight=
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1707127
We posted about our idea and faced a lot of criticism from people on the main board. The people in the AHL who have chosen to adopt these rules, however, make no mention of where they got the idea...
Boom Boom Apathy
I am the Professor. Deal with it!
- Sep 6, 2006
- 48,382
- 98,049
bleedgreen
Registered User
I never minded larose. I minded the coaches not having anyone else working hard enough and feeling like they had no choice but to play hm higher than his skill level. I also viewed him as the type of player who is easily replaced by internal growth when he becomes more expensive. When larose earned his first bigger paycheck, he was supposed to get it elsewhere and be replaced by Dwyer. They instead paid larose more and brought up Dwyer anyway.
Guys like this are what your minor league system is for. You should constantly be pumping out role players to replace the ones that get more expensive. We've been so desperate for players we keep them all, and generally don't develop many in the minors because they are needed up top ASAP.
If he fits in, fine. I think he's an ahl candidate at this point though. At best. He'll likely be a bit of a sideshow, which can be good and bad.
Ps The gms have discussed those rules for OT going back to the 05-06 lockout, I believe. They've discussed them in the gm meetings a couple of times over the years. I think it was Poile, but I'm not sure. Regardless, it's an old idea that's been around as long as they've had 4 on 4 OT.
Guys like this are what your minor league system is for. You should constantly be pumping out role players to replace the ones that get more expensive. We've been so desperate for players we keep them all, and generally don't develop many in the minors because they are needed up top ASAP.
If he fits in, fine. I think he's an ahl candidate at this point though. At best. He'll likely be a bit of a sideshow, which can be good and bad.
Ps The gms have discussed those rules for OT going back to the 05-06 lockout, I believe. They've discussed them in the gm meetings a couple of times over the years. I think it was Poile, but I'm not sure. Regardless, it's an old idea that's been around as long as they've had 4 on 4 OT.
Last edited:
I will say one thing: If we do sign LaRose, and he somehow makes his way slotted next to Eric Staal, I will bust a gut laughing.
That would be four coaches that felt his appropriate place in the lineup was on the top line. Which kind of throws the whole notion that he doesn't belong there right out the window
No... it doesn't. Not in any conceivable way, does it mean that he deserves to be there.
TheOllieC
cajun filet
Carolinas Identity*
I'm a bad troll...
some high school kid out front of a convenience store asked me to buy him smokes today.
I told him I wasn't 18 trollollololololololololllo
- Oct 31, 2007
- 39,272
- 41,340
A coach being fired does not mean they don't know what they're talking about.
It means that clearly, LaRose is bringing something to the ice that the fans may not be privy to. One or two coaches may simply be a coincidence, three coaches is a stretch, but reasonable. Four coaches deciding that the guy that clearly is better suited for 3rd/4th line duties has earned a spot on the top line? That's an endorsement.
Finlandia WOAT
js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
- May 23, 2010
- 24,192
- 23,869
What it means is that LaRose has better chemistry with Eric Staal than the likes of Anthony Stewart, Sergei Samsonov and Tuomo Ruutu. The period of time when we went through 4 coaches coincides with a period of time where we very consistently shed talent to the point that a guy who was a healthy scratch in his absolute prime (22-24) makes our top line as a veteran.
We put him there because there was no one else. Not because he had special talents hidden to fans that only coaches could see.
Also, Tlusty>>>>>LaRose.
We put him there because there was no one else. Not because he had special talents hidden to fans that only coaches could see.
Also, Tlusty>>>>>LaRose.
- Oct 31, 2007
- 39,272
- 41,340
Partly because of that, but he also played on the top line when we had Whitney, Cole, Stillman, Jokinen...you know, players that were clearly suited for that spot ahead of him.
Well...yeah. No one has stated otherwise. He's also 5 years younger. Of course, if we do sign LaRose and Peters puts him over Tlusty, I can't wait to read the outrage.
DaveG
Noted Jerk
So much this.
We went from a forward group that had: Eric Staal, Cory Stillman, Eric Cole, Rod Brind'Amour, Ray Whitney, Justin Williams, Doug Weight, Mark Recchi, Matt Cullen, Josef Vasicek, Andrew Ladd (rookie), Chad LaRose, Kevyn Adams, and Craig Adams
To a forward group that had: Eric Staal, Sergei Samsonov, Erik Cole, Jussi Jokinen, Tuomo Ruutu, Chad LaRose, Brandon Sutter, Jeff Skinner (rookie), Jiri Tlusty (pre-prime), Patrick Dwyer, Ryan Carter, and Troy Bodie
In a stretch of 5 years. That was the last year the Canes even truly sniffed the playoffs (not sure how to count what was the immolation of the 12-13 season).
It's not to bash Chad for being Chad, he wasn't nearly as bad as what people here made him out to be (though I'm a noted Chad defender), but more a matter of what he came to represent. He went from being in that 12-14 mix among his forwards far more from attrition to free agency and retirements then he did through his own increase in production which went from .27PPG in a 4th line role (in an admittedly high scoring season) to .38PPG in a top 6 role. Chad being Chad in a 3rd or especially a 4th line role is not a problem, the problem is the outright lack of production and development of the names that were drafted or brought in that were expected to allow guys like Chad to play a more suitable role:
Patrick O'Sullivan, Zac Dalpe, Zach Boychuk, Drayson Bowman, Patrick Eaves, Jeff Hamilton, Trevor Letowski, Anson Carter
Those names are basically all well-mocked among Canes fans at this point and for good reason. Boychuk is basically the only one left that has ANY kind of hope of having something resembling an NHL career of some sort. The fact that Chad came to represent the organizations failures on this front more then anything is what drove people nuts IMO.
- Oct 31, 2007
- 39,272
- 41,340
cptjeff
Reprehensible User
After looking at the #fancystats and finding some surprising things, I've decided I'm not opposed to LaRose rejoining the team.
Don't want him touching the top nine though.
Don't want him touching the top nine though.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Kentucky Oaks (Gr. 1) - USA NetworkWagers: 6Staked: $1,140.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-