Offseason 2023 II - The Trotz Era Begins

[triggrman]

He was early on when he sat in the press box more than played. He and Parssinen are basically 50/50, which is neither good nor bad.

The centers from last year who were bad were Novak and Granlund.

Sissons (especially considering the volume), Jankowski, and Johansen were our best FO centers. Johansen is one of the best in the league, in fact. 6th best FO% in the NHL for players with 500+ appearances on the dot last year.

IMHO, if you're over 48% you're fine.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

He was early on when he sat in the press box more than played. He and Parssinen are basically 50/50, which is neither good nor bad.

The centers from last year who were bad were Novak and Granlund.

Sissons (especially considering the volume), Jankowski, and Johansen were our best FO centers. Johansen is one of the best in the league, in fact. 6th best FO% in the NHL for players with 500+ appearances on the dot last year.

I also wouldn't care if they rode a young center through any droughts on faceoffs. To me, faceoffs (aside from a very few crucial game situations) are largely overrated. Winning those critical moments, yes, faceoff stats mean something. Most of the rest of the time, like 90% of the time, they don't matter much at all. And when the players who are "good" are at 55% and the ones who are "bad" are at 45%... I mean, you get the idea. It's a bit of a coin toss most of the time anyway. So to me, if any of our young kids are trending in the 45% realm... I would not let that be the deciding factor, for sure.

 

[Kat Predator]

IMHO, if you're over 48% you're fine.

Yep. A center hoovering around 50/50 is simply average. Average is fine by me too.

I also wouldn't care if they rode a young center through any droughts on faceoffs. To me, faceoffs (aside from a very few crucial game situations) are largely overrated. Winning those critical moments, yes, faceoff stats mean something. Most of the rest of the time, like 90% of the time, they don't matter much at all. And when the players who are "good" are at 55% and the ones who are "bad" are at 45%... I mean, you get the idea. It's a bit of a coin toss most of the time anyway. So to me, if any of our young kids are trending in the 45% realm... I would not let that be the deciding factor, for sure.

It's something, but it's not everything. (I mean we're paying one of the best FO guys in the entire league to play for our biggest intra-divisional rival, so it can't be the be-all-end-all stat. ) It really is a coin flip (or a puck flip if you prefer), and the better guys give you a 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 advantage in handling the puck first. And with all the other factors involved in the game, that 1 in 20 head start out of the blocks doesn't really seem like the deciding factor in winning the marathon.

 

[Predsanddead24]

Yeah most players take around ten faceoffs a game so the difference between winning 45% and 55% then works out to one faceoff a game. I just don't see that really mattering that much compared to the many other aspects of the game.

It's also worth noting that the way you win/lose a faceoff is important too. If you're losing faceoffs clean that's more of a problem then having a tie up you ultimately lose. My old coach also used to say that faceoffs are really a team stat with the result often depending on what the other guys do. So in a lot of ways I feel like a binary win/loss being assigned to the center can be a bit misleading.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Yeah most players take around ten faceoffs a game so the difference between winning 45% and 55% then works out to one faceoff a game. I just don't see that really mattering that much compared to the many other aspects of the game.

It's also worth noting that the way you win/lose a faceoff is important too. If you're losing faceoffs clean that's more of a problem then having a tie up you ultimately lose. My old coach also used to say that faceoffs are really a team stat with the result often depending on what the other guys do. So in a lot of ways I feel like a binary win/loss being assigned to the center can be a bit misleading.

Bang on. My 2nd kid was a center, and he had guys he could win clean against most of the time, and other guys he couldn't, but end of the day was more just how the whole team reacted to what happened, as opposed to which direction the puck happened to bounce after the drop. The center taking his guy was most important, but also how the wingers moved on their guys and pressed things. I was too slow to ever play center myself, but I am definitely onboard with not overrating that stat on an individual basis.

Still, in a crucial defensive zone situation in the last minute when you are protecting a lead (or the vice versa at the other end), you are going to put out your best hope. But it's still more a matter of what they do outside of the "clean win" scenario that matters most.

 

[herzausstein]

Yeah most players take around ten faceoffs a game so the difference between winning 45% and 55% then works out to one faceoff a game. I just don't see that really mattering that much compared to the many other aspects of the game.

It's also worth noting that the way you win/lose a faceoff is important too. If you're losing faceoffs clean that's more of a problem then having a tie up you ultimately lose. My old coach also used to say that faceoffs are really a team stat with the result often depending on what the other guys do. So in a lot of ways I feel like a binary win/loss being assigned to the center can be a bit misleading.

GMs put alot of importance on faceoffs. We did pay a 1st afterall for Paul Gaustad and a 4th. While that seems like alot, Buffalo picked Mark Jankowski with that 1st and we picked Juuse Saros with that 4th so we definitely ended up winning that in the long run.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

GMs put alot of importance on faceoffs. We did pay a 1st afterall for Paul Gaustad and a 4th. While that seems like alot, Buffalo picked Mark Jankowski with that 1st and we picked Juuse Saros with that 4th so we definitely ended up winning that in the long run.

I do see how it matters more crucially in the playoffs. When you aren't in the "marathon" of the regular season anymore. A whole playoff series can hinge on that crucial draw in the elimination game in the dying minutes. That's when you want to have a "faceoff guy" to roll out.

But when you're a building/exploring team like ours right now... I just don't think it should be a big factor. Maybe if everything goes aces for us this season, it will matter later on. That would be great. But I sure hope the braintrust doesn't over-emphasize it during the earlier parts of the regular season.

 

[Predsanddead24]

GMs put alot of importance on faceoffs. We did pay a 1st afterall for Paul Gaustad and a 4th. While that seems like alot, Buffalo picked Mark Jankowski with that 1st and we picked Juuse Saros with that 4th so we definitely ended up winning that in the long run.

Yeah I guess I should clarify that I do thinking having at least two guys who are good at faceoffs for critical faceoffs is important, but I don't think every center necessarily needs to be strong at faceoff.

Also, thats amazing about the Gaustad trade. Double bonus that we eventually got Jankowski too!

 

[glenngineer]

GMs put alot of importance on faceoffs. We did pay a 1st afterall for Paul Gaustad and a 4th. While that seems like alot, Buffalo picked Mark Jankowski with that 1st and we picked Juuse Saros with that 4th so we definitely ended up winning that in the long run.

Calgary picked Jankowski.

 

[herzausstein]

Calgary picked Jankowski.

Buffalo traded our 1st and a 2nd to move up from 21st (ours) to 14th. So i guess Calgary chose Jankowski with our pick and Buffalo chose Girgensons who i guess is slightly better than what Jankowski is but only Marginally

 

[Armourboy]

Interesting statement by the Florida announcers, basically stating that Kemell is the most dangerous goal scorer they have seen on any of the teams.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Interesting statement by the Florida announcers, basically stating that Kemell is the most dangerous goal scorer they have seen on any of the teams.

In this particular tournament it may not be THAT high praise, given all 3 other teams have been "contending"/trading their high picks for awhile, and I'm not sure there is even a prospect on any of the 3 other teams with the draft pedigree of Kemell? It's kind of an unusual alignment of prospects that way for 4 NHL teams. But we'll take it! There are not very many players in this whole tournament who could even arguably be in the mix for an NHL spot, and we have a few of them (incl. Evangelista, Afanaseyev, Stastney)... whereas I'm not sure there is any prospect on any of the other teams who is that close. Possibly Ponomarev on Carolina, Sourdif/Samoskevich at some distance for Florida, and really nobody on Tampa. But nobody in the Kemell/Evangelista class.

 

[Armourboy]

In this particular tournament it may not be THAT high praise, given all 3 other teams have been "contending"/trading their high picks for awhile, and I'm not sure there is even a prospect on any of the 3 other teams with the draft pedigree of Kemell? It's kind of an unusual alignment of prospects that way for 4 NHL teams. But we'll take it! There are not very many players in this whole tournament who could even arguably be in the mix for an NHL spot, and we have a few of them (incl. Evangelista, Afanaseyev, Stastney)... whereas I'm not sure there is any prospect on any of the other teams who is that close. Possibly Ponomarev on Carolina, Sourdif/Samoskevich at some distance for Florida, and really nobody on Tampa. But nobody in the Kemell/Evangelista class.

Yeah you can defintely see it when they put Svechkov, Kemell, and Evangelista on the ice, its kind of men vs boys look.

 

[Flgatorguy87]

Kemell would have arguably the best shot on the team if he stepped on the ice next week for camp.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I suspect it's going to become a growing concern for us on the Saros/Askarov front what happens with NHL Expansion. If it wasn't for that, we'd be All Set In Goal, and could take the longview, extending Saros and breaking Askarov in somewhat slowly. But league sources are really talking up Atlanta, and that $2B Expansion fee idea is going to be flashing major $ signs in owners' eyes. It could mess with our goaltending plans. The old rules where you could go 9/5/1 or 7/3/2 might have let us dodge this bullet. But now that it has become 7/3/1 or 8/1... there is no dodge available.

Early view: I say just sign Saros to a huge huge huge contract extension, like 8x$10M, but leave him unprotected in Expansion. Protect Askarov. Let Atlanta decide if they want to take Saros on that insane contract. (Assuming all things going great with their continued play and progression, anyway.) We will probably have some other enticing players available, such that they won't take the big goalie contract?

 

[BigFatCat999]

I suspect it's going to become a growing concern for us on the Saros/Askarov front what happens with NHL Expansion. If it wasn't for that, we'd be All Set In Goal, and could take the longview, extending Saros and breaking Askarov in somewhat slowly. But league sources are really talking up Atlanta, and that $2B Expansion fee idea is going to be flashing major $ signs in owners' eyes. It could mess with our goaltending plans. The old rules where you could go 9/5/1 or 7/3/2 might have let us dodge this bullet. But now that it has become 7/3/1 or 8/1... there is no dodge available.

Early view: I say just sign Saros to a huge huge huge contract extension, like 8x$10M, but leave him unprotected in Expansion. Protect Askarov. Let Atlanta decide if they want to take Saros on that insane contract. (Assuming all things going great with their continued play and progression, anyway.) We will probably have some other enticing players available, such that they won't take the big goalie contract?

and Nashville is stuck with a backup goalie 8/$10 mil. They would trade Saros to a team who needs a goalie.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

and Nashville is stuck with a backup goalie 8/$10 mil. They would trade Saros to a team who needs a goalie.

Uh, he would be a premier #1 goalie, one of the best in the league, not a “backup”.

 

[BigFatCat999]

Uh, he would be a premier #1 goalie, one of the best in the league, not a “backup”.

and they are projecting an expansion in 5 years. By that time the goalie future might be settled

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

and they are projecting an expansion in 5 years. By that time the goalie future might be settled

If it’s 5 years it doesn’t make any difference at all. Then it’s not a strategy, it’s an inevitability. We’ll have Saros on that deal regardless in that scenario. My concern is if it’s a far shorter timeframe like 2 years.

 

[BigFatCat999]

If it’s 5 years it doesn’t make any difference at all. Then it’s not a strategy, it’s an inevitability. We’ll have Saros on that deal regardless in that scenario. My concern is if it’s a far shorter timeframe like 2 years.

It really depends on Askarov. He is tracking to be Pekka Rinne v. 2.0,

As for expansion, If it happens I want to see a 4 team expansion, draft within the division; 2 players picked within the division and then pick one AHL contracted player within the division.

back to topic. Offseason was meh and it's not the regular season. Patience.

 

[Armourboy]

If it’s 5 years it doesn’t make any difference at all. Then it’s not a strategy, it’s an inevitability. We’ll have Saros on that deal regardless in that scenario. My concern is if it’s a far shorter timeframe like 2 years.

He won't be here if he wants that kind of money, especially if Askarov looks like he is on track to be what they hope he is. By the time that point gets here things will start clearing up and something tells me Trotz is not going to tie up 80 million in a goalie that is going to be on the back half of his career for a chunk of that contract.

 

[AintLifeGrand]

I suspect it's going to become a growing concern for us on the Saros/Askarov front what happens with NHL Expansion. If it wasn't for that, we'd be All Set In Goal, and could take the longview, extending Saros and breaking Askarov in somewhat slowly. But league sources are really talking up Atlanta, and that $2B Expansion fee idea is going to be flashing major $ signs in owners' eyes. It could mess with our goaltending plans. The old rules where you could go 9/5/1 or 7/3/2 might have let us dodge this bullet. But now that it has become 7/3/1 or 8/1... there is no dodge available.

Early view: I say just sign Saros to a huge huge huge contract extension, like 8x$10M, but leave him unprotected in Expansion. Protect Askarov. Let Atlanta decide if they want to take Saros on that insane contract. (Assuming all things going great with their continued play and progression, anyway.) We will probably have some other enticing players available, such that they won't take the big goalie contract?

Atlanta would rather have Novak

 

[Scoresberg]

Askarov still has a looong way to go before becoming an NHL goalie. Wouldn’t worry about losing him in the ED in the slightest.

 

[triggrman]

Askarov still has a looong way to go before becoming an NHL goalie. Wouldn’t worry about losing him in the ED in the slightest.

He’s be taken on potential alone

 

[PredsV82]

Expansion has to be a minimum of 2 or 3 years away. We will have a much better idea of how things are going by then