Speculation: Roster Speculation 2014-2015, Part III

[Paxon]

Nyquist played college hockey at Maine, I'd assume that's what's being referred to.

Read the sentence as "He spent a lot of time at Maine, and [then] they broke him [in] over the course of three seasons."

Got it. I read that as him saying he was in Maine parts of the past three seasons.

 

[Jame]

Point was that the sample size is far from ideal. His hot streak ended just before the playoffs, and against Boston he was totally a non-factor. He isn't your typical ultra one-dimensional winger, but if he lacks his production, he isn't able to offer too much when the game becomes more physichal. You can say that the sample size is/was only five game, but the games we're talking about are playoff games. His small frame just brings problems.

the bolded is utter nonsense... he's a puck dominant possession player, who has a complete game... he didn't produce in that 5 game series, but dominated the crap out of the Corsi when his line was on the ice.

size? I'm not worried about the size of a guy whose game mirrors Zetterbergs with a dash of Kane.

And there's also the issue with his contract status. He's only a couple years away from being an UFA and isn't locked with lengthy contract.

not really an issue...

Let him play his first full season and evaluate him then. But please don't use a premium asset bringing him over before that.

 

[Heraldic]

the bolded is utter nonsense... he's a puck dominant possession player, who has a complete game... he didn't produce in that 5 game series, but dominated the crap out of the Corsi when his line was on the ice.

So, a player playing behind Detroit's first line in a puck possession team against non-puck possession team has good puck possession stats? Color me surprised.

It would have been a lot easier to say that you didn't watch the series. At least you missed utterly what I meant.

size? I'm not worried about the size of a guy whose game mirrors Zetterbergs with a dash of Kane.

So you're seriously comparing him to Zeta and Kane?

not really an issue...

I'm shocked how convincing your reasoning is.

 

[TehDoak]

the bolded is utter nonsense... he's a puck dominant possession player, who has a complete game... he didn't produce in that 5 game series, but dominated the crap out of the Corsi when his line was on the ice.

size? I'm not worried about the size of a guy whose game mirrors Zetterbergs with a dash of Kane.



not really an issue...

To be fair, Leino looked pretty damn good for Detroit in the playoffs a few years back.

 

[Jame]

So, a player playing behind Detroit's first line in a puck possession team against non-puck possession team has good puck possession stats? Color me surprised.

It would have been a lot easier to say that you didn't watch the series. At least you missed utterly what I meant.

you meant to insinuate that you had an informed opinion after glancing at his post season stats. i got it.

...moving on now

 

[Sabre the Win]

He has one in his contract, but it can't kick in until 2016-2017. Players under 26 can't have them.

I like Myers but Darcy really (expletive) the bed on his contract. Not that it matters now because we needed to hit the cap floor but hes a #3 or #4 defensemen in my eyes playing/filling in a #1 or #2 role and getting paid for it. I'd be happy if we was making 1.5 to 2 million less.

 

[Heraldic]

you meant to insinuate that you had an informed opinion after glancing at his post season stats. i got it.

...moving on now

For some reason I think it's someone else who's the "stat guy" here...

You referring to corsi-stat in his favor during the playoffs means either:

A) you didn't watch the series at all

or

B) You have no idea that Boston and Detroit are playing totally different kind of game regarding to puck possession.

My question is, which team's playing style supports puck posession stats? It's hard to find a better team for Nyquist regarding the playing style than Detroit. It's a really alarming sign that Nyquist was a non-factor during that series taking into account that 1) he played in a puck possession team 2) he played against a non-puck possession team and 3) he played against lower quality of competition.

The real question is, how his game would be in a team that is not so keen to puck possession during the playoffs? And, like mentioned before, eventhough his game isn't totally about scoring, he becomes quite redundant without the scoring aspect.

But I know you do your usual stuff and respond maybe with a couple of empty one-liners.

Moving on....

 

[Pataatti]

How do you see Joel Armia?. Do you see him starting in Buffalo next year if he succeeds in pre season well. I know he didn't have a great season last year but he was better in post season.
I was a big fan when he played in Finland and was just wondering what his situation is at the moment.

 

[Heraldic]

How do you see Joel Armia?. Do you see him starting in Buffalo next year if he succeeds in pre season well. I know he didn't have a great season last year but he was better in post season.
I was a big fan when he played in Finland and was just wondering what his situation is at the moment.

Don't think he starts in Buffalo unless he has superb training camp. First he has to establish himself in Rochester. If he plays well, I'm sure he will get couple of calls during the season.

 

[Bps21*]

Even if he had a superb camp...he has to find consistency down there. He and grigorenko in roch is a good thing. Play well and he is getting to the call up stage. Play well then and never look back.

 

[Paxon]

How do you see Joel Armia?. Do you see him starting in Buffalo next year if he succeeds in pre season well. I know he didn't have a great season last year but he was better in post season.
I was a big fan when he played in Finland and was just wondering what his situation is at the moment.

We're a crappy team but with the signings of Moulson, Gionta, and McCormick, we don't have much obvious room at forward. Any youngster who wants a spot will really have to earn it. Reinhart is going to make the team in my opinion. Deslauriers and Larsson are more NHL-ready and can better fit anywhere in the bottom 9 than Armia.

Armia and Grigorenko are in a similar boat. They both need to show consistency in engaging, puck battles, physical play, etc. Either guy would have to have a great camp to make the team to start the season, but I also think if either guy shows well they'll be high on the call-up list as they're two of the most gifted offensive players in the entire organization.

Armia battled a tough hand injury all season and really turned it on in the playoffs, but slow starts have been the norm with him going back to the SM-Liiga if I recall correctly. His chances of making the team out of camp are not good in my opinion, but I remain optimistic about him overall. There's no shame in him needing another year in the AHL, especially since he was a very raw player when drafted, despite already having a year in the SM-Liiga. I hope he can really start to put it together, because when he's on, he doesn't just provide production, but effective and somewhat nasty physical play as well.

 

[Jame]

For some reason I think it's someone else who's the "stat guy" here...

You referring to corsi-stat in his favor during the playoffs means either:

A) you didn't watch the series at all

or

B) You have no idea that Boston and Detroit are playing totally different kind of game regarding to puck possession.

A. no
B. i don't even know what you're thinking here...


or maybe it's C... I'm referring to Corsi because it's a relevant measure.

My question is, which team's playing style supports puck posession stats?

my question is, why are you so desperate to prove Nyquist's possession numbers to be the product of something other than his ability?

It's hard to find a better team for Nyquist regarding the playing style than Detroit.

Maybe Boston, with one of the games best possession lines, and a transition game the forces the defense to get the puck to the forwards quickly, rather than skating it or looking for stretch passes.

i think you've read too far into labels and terms you don't fully understand.

It's a really alarming sign that Nyquist was a non-factor during that series taking into account that 1) he played in a puck possession team

just because they puck doesn't go in the net... doesn't mean you were a non factor... he was on the ice for 1 goal against in the entire series. His line produced opportunities galore... you called him a non factor because he had zero points and you can't quantify hockey that doesn't appear on the basic stat sheet.

2) he played against a non-puck possession team and

the fact that you can claim Boston being a non puck possession team is really difficult to comprehend... unless i accept that you have no idea what you are talking about.

the Bruins give up some possession once they establish their box+1 dzone coverages, but that doesnt mean they aren't a possession team with the puck. with the puck on their stick, they are the very definition of a possession team (quick puck movement, established zone time, ability to work high to low)

3) he played against lower quality of competition.

yea, he was playing that lower level of competition.... against Lucic-Krejci-Iginla, Boychuk-Krug


that's who he was dominating against... that's who he was keeping the puck from... those forwards were all negative corse players in the series... you see a "non factor", because you're blind.

The real question is, how his game would be in a team that is not so keen to puck possession during the playoffs?

you dont think we want to be keen to puck possession?

And, like mentioned before, eventhough his game isn't totally about scoring, he becomes quite redundant without the scoring aspect.

no....

But I know you do your usual stuff and respond maybe with a couple of empty one-liners.

empty one liners is really all your empty rhetoric deserves

Moving on....

we'll see

 

[Heraldic]

A. no
B. i don't even know what you're thinking here...


or maybe it's C... I'm referring to Corsi because it's a relevant measure.

Maybe you should take a basic class about interpreting statistics?

my question is, why are you so desperate to prove Nyquist's possession numbers to be the product of something other than his ability?

Does it ever bore you to jump so quicly to the ad hominem game? In reality it doesn't make you look funny or clever - it simply makes you look that you're out of arguments.

Maybe Boston, with one of the games best possession lines, and a transition game the forces the defense to get the puck to the forwards quickly, rather than skating it or looking for stretch passes.

The more you keep the puck, the less the opponent keeps it. Being really familiar about European hockey, I think I have a bit wider understanding about "puck possession". Just watch the game that Finland's national team played under Jukka Jalonen, and you really understand what is puck possession game. If you think it's skating and long stretch passes, you have no idea. It's about keeping the puck and entering the zone with the puck even when the opponent has organized it's formation. And it's about short passes, returning the puck back to d-men and cycling the puck, not dumping it. If you state that a team having quick transition game and the ability to keep the puck in o-zone, is a puck possession team, well, good luck to you. Babcock is really, really puck possesion orientated, Julien not even close in that regard.

i think you've read too far into labels and terms you don't fully understand.

*yawn*

just because they puck doesn't go in the net... doesn't mean you were a non factor... he was on the ice for 1 goal against in the entire series. His line produced opportunities galore... you called him a non factor because he had zero points and you can't quantify hockey that doesn't appear on the basic stat sheet.

Then we just simply disagree about what we saw happening on the ice. And would you please stop putting words to other's mouth? That's just annoying and to be honest, it's childish.

the fact that you can claim Boston being a non puck possession team is really difficult to comprehend... unless i accept that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Sure, everyhing is relative, but compared to Detroit, no, Boston is not.

the Bruins give up some possession once they establish their box+1 dzone coverages, but that doesnt mean they aren't a possession team with the puck. with the puck on their stick, they are the very definition of a possession team (quick puck movement, established zone time, ability to work high to low)

Boston gives time and space... That's just ideal for a puck possession team like Detroit. Detroit (excluding Datsyuk) still wasn't able to create scoring chances etc, because the small forwards just couldn't do that. Boston dominated the crease, were positioned with discipline etc. That playoff pairing was just perfect "decoy" for you "stat guys" (and by this I mean people who practice the argumenting based solely on stats), because the stats implied that Detroit was even dominating, while everyone who watched the series, understood that the game was absolutely under Boston's control - all the time.

yea, he was playing that lower level of competition.... against Lucic-Krejci-Iginla, Boychuk-Krug

Oh god... Lower doesn't mean low...

that's who he was dominating against... that's who he was keeping the puck from... those forwards were all negative corse players in the series... you see a "non factor", because you're blind.

*yawn* You start to repeat yourself pretty quickly.

you dont think we want to be keen to puck possession?

Of course.

no....



empty one liners is really all your empty rhetoric deserves



we'll see

 

[Bps21*]

What in the world...

There is a lot of not understanding the stats they're trying to use going on in here.

Hint: if you are throwing around fancy advanced stat terms but are basing conclusions on what you saw on tv anyway...it's you.

 

[NEcoli]

Point was that the sample size is far from ideal. His hot streak ended just before the playoffs, and against Boston he was totally a non-factor. He isn't your typical ultra one-dimensional winger, but if he lacks his production, he isn't able to offer too much when the game becomes more physichal. You can say that the sample size is/was only five game, but the games we're talking about are playoff games. His small frame just brings problems.

And there's also the issue with his contract status. He's only a couple years away from being an UFA and isn't locked with lengthy contract.

Let him play his first full season and evaluate him then. But please don't use a premium asset bringing him over before that.

So we're calling Myers a "premium asset" again after he strung together 30 good games following 2 1/2 seasons of sub-par play.

But we can't be sure about Nyquist, because his "sample size is far from ideal."

 

[Heraldic]

So we're calling Myers a "premium asset" again after he strung together 30 good games following 2 1/2 seasons of sub-par play.

But we can't be sure about Nyquist, because his "sample size is far from ideal."

Being "sure" about Myers and valuing him as an asset are two totally different things. If Myers didn't have any question marks, he would be on a list of untouchables and even hinting about trading him in exchange of Nyquist would create a helluva burst of laugh.

There's a reason why Myers generates a lot of interest and is valued highly, eventhough he has his question marks.

 

[Pataatti]

Armia battled a tough hand injury all season and really turned it on in the playoffs, but slow starts have been the norm with him going back to the SM-Liiga if I recall correctly. His chances of making the team out of camp are not good in my opinion, but I remain optimistic about him overall. There's no shame in him needing another year in the AHL, especially since he was a very raw player when drafted, despite already having a year in the SM-Liiga. I hope he can really start to put it together, because when he's on, he doesn't just provide production, but effective and somewhat nasty physical play as well.

To be honest i actually thought he would be more NHL ready than he ended up being, but it's good to hear you still have hope for him. And yes inconsistency was his biggest "flaw" when he played in Finland also. I hope he can find a way to play his A-game every night cus i see star potential in him, if he can do that.

 

[TehDoak]

To be honest i actually thought he would be more NHL ready than he ended up being, but it's good to hear you still have hope for him. And yes inconsistency was his biggest "flaw" when he played in Finland also. I hope he can find a way to play his A-game every night cus i see star potential in him, if he can do that.

The good news is that Buffalo will likely have roster spots open after the trade deadline. Both Stewart and Stafford are pending UFAs, so barring a trade to bring in another RWer its very possible, assuming he plays well at the AHL level, that he finishes the season in Buffalo.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

Nyquist's shooting percentage was pretty crazy last season, coming in at 18.3 for the season. Its also about 4.5% higher then his average in Grand Rapids and far exceeds any previous numbers he set in the NHL. If you bring his percentage down to his AHL average it brings him down to 21 goals. If you throw 20 games on at his pace for the season, he ends up with around 213 shots (50th in the league) and makes him a 30 goal scorer. So I think its safe to say he's capable of a 30/25/55 point season, with the potential to reach 65 and low end of 45.

That's a very homer/trade board perspective

At this point I'll come straight out and say it, if there was a player putting up those point totals, with that potential, who was at least average in his own zone (which he is), people would be calling for Murray's head if he was thinking of trading him straight up for a "second pairing" defender. (HF hyperbole)

While I think it's a good basis for a deal, these arguments people are making ring a bit hollow, pumping Nyquist up based on his play as a 24 year old rookie, as if someone couldn't possibly have a great rookie season that they never live up to in the eyes of most people :cough:

I'm confused as to why we should be afraid that Nyquist will never repeat his stats this season, yet we should just be content that Myers has found his game. The comment is in regards to pumping up Nyquist but I think this is wash point. Every positive argument for Myers can be countered with the same "but he's never done it consistently" that can be used to counter Nyquist's season. On one hand there's a top 6 winger with very little NHL track record, who was a, if not the, key performer in a shoestring playoff chase. On the other hand you have a defender who in his rookie season was a key member of a playoff push and then fell into a black hole, and only recently has emerged as potentially a quality top 4 player. I think there's just as much chance that Myers busts/top 4/studs out as there is that Nyquist busts/top 6/top 3 out.

When people talk about trading a D for a F, I wonder if people think we are going to Darth Regier a team into trading us a stud, top 3, 70 point, 2 way future Selke, or future heart winner for Tyler Myers and a 1st. The reality of the situation is that if you want to make that deal happen then you are going to need to a) gamble on a player without a track record or b) trade a Norris caliber defender for him. I'd rather gamble that Myers will probably be a good 2/3 and trade him for a player that I'm gambling becomes a Moulson level producer but can do it in more ways than Moulson, a 13.5% shooter who can reliably get you 50-55 points a season, while being a better skater and a better passer. With Gorges and Pysyk as top 4 players, Risto and McCabe as near lock top 4 players, and Zadorov looking promising in juniors there's room right now, going into another losing season, to make a deal like this.

Myers and Nyquist's careers can go either way at this point. This is a hockey trade, not an asset grab, or rebuild dump. We are trading for a player we expect to be good, to fill a position of need, for a player Detroit expects to be good, to fill a position of need. Further I think this is the last, albeit slim, opportunity to get a player like Nyquist from Detroit. If they suck, they aren't moving any young players, if they're good they aren't moving anyone. There's an opening right now where you can take advantage of the UFA fallout and weak back end of Detroit to make a legitimate argument for why they would want to trade a good to very good offensive talent for a good to very good defensive talent.

I still try to get their 1st as well; Quincy, Nyquist, 1st for Myers, Isles 2nd.

 

[Jim Bob]

Given Murray's recent statements about how much he values Myers, I would love to know what Murray thinks of Nyquist.

 

[Heraldic]

The problem with trading Myers is also that he is our only offensively capable d-man, that can rush the puck and control the game with the puck - now that we bought out Ehrhoff. There's no one in the pipeline either to fill that void. We have no one even close to the dynamics with the puck that Myers possess.

It's a lot easier to acquire a first line/second line winger through trade by combining quantity than top or second pairing d-men - especially d-men with offensive abilities. And we have more potential two-way wingers in our pipeline than potential offensiveminded d-men (which we have none).

 

[TehDoak]

I'm going under the assumption that we are going to carry 14 forwards.

Pick 2 of:

Larsson
Kaleta
Mitchell
Ellis
Adam
Varone

for the 13th/14th forward spot. I'm assuming

And why.

Personally, I'm picking Ellis and Mitchell, based solely on the fact that they are very versitile and will likely be willing to be in and out of the lineup as the season goes on.

Larsson and Varone can still be sent to Rochester without clearing waivers. While I think we could plug Larsson in our 3rd line LW spot and Varone in our 4th line C spot and they'd both be effective, their ability to play in the AHL still makes it a rather simple decision.

Kaleta's reputation leads to borderline calls always going against him, which leads to more penalties against. I think Kaleta is an effective pest/4th liner, but I think his reputation has gotten to the point that it pretty much cancels out any effectiveness he used to have.

Adam, to me, is a tweener. Very good in the AHL, but lacks the skating to really be effective in the NHL. Great shot, but his skating really really holds him back.

 

[tmack224]

I'm going under the assumption that we are going to carry 14 forwards.

Pick 2 of:

Larsson
Kaleta
Mitchell
Ellis
Adam
Varone

for the 13th/14th forward spot. I'm assuming

And why.

Personally, I'm picking Ellis and Mitchell, based solely on the fact that they are very versitile and will likely be willing to be in and out of the lineup as the season goes on.

Larsson and Varone can still be sent to Rochester without clearing waivers. While I think we could plug Larsson in our 3rd line LW spot and Varone in our 4th line C spot and they'd both be effective, their ability to play in the AHL still makes it a rather simple decision.

Kaleta's reputation leads to borderline calls always going against him, which leads to more penalties against. I think Kaleta is an effective pest/4th liner, but I think his reputation has gotten to the point that it pretty much cancels out any effectiveness he used to have.

Adam, to me, is a tweener. Very good in the AHL, but lacks the skating to really be effective in the NHL. Great shot, but his skating really really holds him back.

I think a pretty good battle will happen between Kaleta and Larsson for a roster spot. If Larsson proves to be close to Kaleta on the PK I think Larsson sticks as a 3/4 line guy this year.

Top 9 Centers Hodgson/Ennis, Girgensons, and Reinhart.
Top 9 Wingers Ennis/Hodgson, Stafford, Stewart, Foligno, Gionta, and Moulson

4th Line:
Ellis (AHL Captain as far as I see it)
Mitchell (Plays on the 4th line all year.)
Flynn (Plays on the other wing.)
Larsson (Plays Center)
Kaleta (scratched each night. only plays when needed)
Deslouries (Could Fight Mitchell for a spot)

The way I see it is that we have to many Forwards ready to play. There has to be a deal coming.

My Prediction is that one of Stewart, Stafford, or Hodgson are moved before the season. Possibly 2. Kaleta doesnt make the team. Ellis plays in the AHL, the 4th line is Mitchell-Larsson-Flynn with Des as the Extra Forward.

 

[TehDoak]

I think a pretty good battle will happen between Kaleta and Larsson for a roster spot. If Larsson proves to be close to Kaleta on the PK I think Larsson sticks as a 3/4 line guy this year.

Top 9 Centers Hodgson/Ennis, Girgensons, and Reinhart.
Top 9 Wingers Ennis/Hodgson, Stafford, Stewart, Foligno, Gionta, and Moulson

4th Line:
Ellis (AHL Captain as far as I see it)
Mitchell (Plays on the 4th line all year.)
Flynn (Plays on the other wing.)
Larsson (Plays Center)
Kaleta (scratched each night. only plays when needed)
Deslouries (Could Fight Mitchell for a spot)

The way I see it is that we have to many Forwards ready to play. There has to be a deal coming.

My Prediction is that one of Stewart, Stafford, or Hodgson are moved before the season. Possibly 2. Kaleta doesnt make the team. Ellis plays in the AHL, the 4th line is Mitchell-Larsson-Flynn with Des as the Extra Forward.

Where is McCormick?

 

[B U F F A L O]

My early summer pre-camp roster prediction:

Moulson - Ennis - Stafford
Hodgson - Girgensons - Gionta
Foligno - Reinhart - Stewart
Mitchell - McCormick - Deslauriers
Kaleta
Flynn

Meszaros - Myers
Gorges - Ristolainen
Weber - Pysyk
Ruhwedel

Neuvirth/Enroth

And this leads me to believe Murray will still do something about that D. Another cheap veteran or something. I'd predict Reinhart to be playing with Hodgson and Gionta by the end of the season too.