Salary Cap: Salary Cap & Roster Building Thread: Your proposal is bad and you should feel bad

[StutzlesTapeJob]

I’m in the boat that our defensive problems are 60% team defense and effort problems, 40% skill/personnel on D. In that regard I don’t think trading away nor upgrading bottom d men will make a huge impact.

I wish I could find words that aren’t as lightning rod, but overall I think our team needs more energy/motivated/combative/high compete players. Too many games this season we don’t look engaged and don’t look willing to play the kind of high effort high battle hockey it takes to win consistently. We look like a club team.

I’m not talking about fights, fear, unskilled hockey. It’s more about better back checks, cycling for possession, man marking, emotional response when sleep walking.

Best profile would be more attitudes like we see from hornquist at times. Not every game is great, but he competes hard and gets his nose dirty almost every night. I’ll take bottom half roster turnover in that direction, d or forward, if it doesn’t involve major assets.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I agree with you Sheary. I wasn't his biggest fan for sure, but he could finish. Well, so who's the RW who has speed and can finish we can get I wonder? It felt like we thought we had that in some point, but maybe not...

I'm not saying I wish we still had either of them, but Hagelin-Brassard-Sprong would be an amazing 3rd line on paper. That's the exact kind winger group I think Brassard would thrive with. If Brassard was still struggling with that kind of wing group, then I'd be super concerned with him.

I just think there are a lot of reasons for why Brassard hasn't worked here. We don't have a good wing duo for him, he's ill-suited to be getting heavy defensive deployment, the Penguins are really hurting for PMD, Brassard is pissed about playing as a defensive 3C in a contract year...there is just a lot of stuff you can point to.

 

[Tom Hanks]

Claiming that Cole's 17:37 in 17-18 doesn't count as 18 minutes or so is taking pedantry too far. We routinely hand out serious ice time to bottom pairing dmen and this season is an oddity due to the concentrated special teams ice time in the top 4 that obviously wouldn't apply if Schultz was on the bottom pairing. I'm pretty sure Schultz has been officially on the third pairing sometimes when getting 19 minute nights.

Now, as I said, maybe Schultz on the bottom pairing with Petry on the second would be a step too far. But as a general point, our third pairing dmen are important and more heavily used than the majority of our wings. And given how much we've struggled when injury reduces us to only one PMD, I'm not too keen on staying at two in the future. If Schultz is too expensive, there needs to be a replacement.



Nothing nuts about identifying the lack of a good support wing for Geno... but there may be something nuts about not wishing for a more effective solution

I think we should try to get a better top 4 D so we don’t need to play the bottom pair as much. Keep them to 15-17 minutes and play the top 4 20+ minutes. Then keep bottom pair contracts to 2 years (3 max for certain circumstances)

 

[Peat]

But what's the reason for that? Is it just Brassard sucks? Or is it that his linemates aren't helping him generate chances (all of ZAR, Pearson, Sheahan, Kessel and Rust have negative Rel HDCF/60, with ZAR being worse and Pearson being nearly as bad as Brassard)? Or are the Penguins just missing Schultz that much, which is exposing their defense to be lacking in terms of puck movers?

I think it's a lot more complicated than "Brassard can't generate chances when he's on the ice". To me, Brassard having a bad year is the 3rd biggest reason why the 3rd line has been as bad as it has been so far this year. The 2 bigger ones are that the Penguins really miss Schultz and they haven't had a good wing duo for the 3rd line.

It's a variety of reasons, but when pretty much every wing performs better away from Brassard (even when not including their time with Sid), he has to be considered one of the major ones. You can see it while he's out there too - see it when he's failing to win the battle to get cycles going, when he's failing to get to the blue paint, when he's not making incisive passes to open up the ice, and so on and so on.

And when Letang has better quality shot generating stats with Matt Cullen on 12% zone starts than when with Brassard, its probably predominantly not on missing Schultz either. He'd only be getting a third of his time with Schultz anyway.

 

[TimmyD]

I'm not saying I wish we still had either of them, but Hagelin-Brassard-Sprong would be an amazing 3rd line on paper. That's the exact kind winger group I think Brassard would thrive with. If Brassard was still struggling with that kind of wing group, then I'd be super concerned with him.

I just think there are a lot of reasons for why Brassard hasn't worked here. We don't have a good wing duo for him, he's ill-suited to be getting heavy defensive deployment, the Penguins are really hurting for PMD, Brassard is pissed about playing as a defensive 3C in a contract year...there is just a lot of stuff you can point to.

I think Brassard has looked his best here playing with Hornqvist. He played with Stone a ton in Ottawa so he seems to mesh better with guys who have some sandpaper to their game and can do some grunt work

 

[Peat]

I think we should try to get a better top 4 D so we don’t need to play the bottom pair as much. Keep them to 15-17 minutes and play the top 4 20+ minutes. Then keep bottom pair contracts to 2 years (3 max for certain circumstances)

Why look to restrict the bottom pairing to begin with though? If they're good enough, why not give them the minutes - and if they're not good enough, why have them to begin with? Every bottom pairing dman is a top 4 dman after a few injuries and victimising the bottom pairing has been a regular feature of our Stanley Cup wins.

And as long as the bottom pairing guy is movable, who cares how long the contract is?

 

[Malkinstheman]

He did?

That person who mentioned Lehkonen was roundly mocked on the Habs forum as a pretend wanna be insider.

The person who mention Maatta generically without saying who the Habs might have in play was, I thought, the one who actually called the trade over the summer.

Yeah the source who just said Maatta called the trade. Don't know about the other guy.

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

Andersen is pretty good. If he is off they are pretty much screwed though.

Trades for contenders during the season are to round things out more but whoever plays the best in the playoffs usually wins.

It’s a good move for Toronto because he’s a really good D man and signed at a good rate next season as they will be in cap trouble but doesn’t mean they’re favourites now because of one move.

Tampa last year and Caps year before got a great D man in and it didn’t put them over the top.

And we know what happened with Brass....

 

[Tom Hanks]

Why look to restrict the bottom pairing to begin with though? If they're good enough, why not give them the minutes - and if they're not good enough, why have them to begin with? Every bottom pairing dman is a top 4 dman after a few injuries and victimising the bottom pairing has been a regular feature of our Stanley Cup wins.

And as long as the bottom pairing guy is movable, who cares how long the contract is?

My point is getting a better top 4 so it’s less about restricting the bottom pair and more about playing the better players more. The bottom pair players can step up when injuries hit but I don’t want to spend 5.5 mil on one for that. I’d rather use that money for an LD to play in the top 4.

I’m not saying have bad players on the bottom pair. Guys like Pettersson and Riikola are great there and maybe have a guy who has done what Lovejoy has done in the past with young players. Or Cole and when they get expensive like he did find the next guy.

Bottom pair just like bottom 6 forwards have consistency issues so it’s a good idea to keep the term lower so they could be moved easier and to curb complacency.

 

[Peat]

My point is getting a better top 4 so it’s less about restricting the bottom pair and more about playing the better players more. The bottom pair players can step up when injuries hit but I don’t want to spend 5.5 mil on one for that. I’d rather use that money for an LD to play in the top 4.

I’m not saying have bad players on the bottom pair. Guys like Pettersson and Riikola are great there and maybe have a guy who has done what Lovejoy has done in the past with young players. Or Cole and when they get expensive like he did find the next guy.

Bottom pair just like bottom 6 forwards have consistency issues so it’s a good idea to keep the term lower so they could be moved easier and to curb complacency.

I'd rather keep spreading out the best dmen - as we've been doing during our wins - so we can continue to have strong pairings all the way down instead of creating a victim pairing. And as long as they get their minutes from special teams, I don't see an issue in spending 5.5m on a dman playing on the bottom pairing in that situation.

Also, bottom pairing dmen have less consistency issues than bottom 6 forwards, and are easily movable even with term as long as you don't do anything grossly stupid (see also: Johnson, Jack).

 

[Tom Hanks]

I'd rather keep spreading out the best dmen - as we've been doing during our wins - so we can continue to have strong pairings all the way down instead of creating a victim pairing. And as long as they get their minutes from special teams, I don't see an issue in spending 5.5m on a dman playing on the bottom pairing in that situation.

Also, bottom pairing dmen have less consistency issues than bottom 6 forwards, and are easily movable even with term as long as you don't do anything grossly stupid (see also: Johnson, Jack).

Do you think having a bottom pair combo of Pettersson/Riikola with someone like Cole/Lovejoy was for us is creating a victim pairing?

I’d rather have that and have a better 2nd pair than what we have now (when healthy).

 

[Empoleon8771]

I think Brassard has looked his best here playing with Hornqvist. He played with Stone a ton in Ottawa so he seems to mesh better with guys who have some sandpaper to their game and can do some grunt work

Speaking of that, I don't know why Sullivan was so trigger happy to play Guentzel with Sheahan last year, but he has refused to play Guentzel with Brassard this year. Guentzel-Brassard-Hornqvist looked legitimately great this year and it's definitely a combination you think would work with Brassard, but we only saw it when Crosby was out.

It's a variety of reasons, but when pretty much every wing performs better away from Brassard (even when not including their time with Sid), he has to be considered one of the major ones. You can see it while he's out there too - see it when he's failing to win the battle to get cycles going, when he's failing to get to the blue paint, when he's not making incisive passes to open up the ice, and so on and so on.

You're comparing how players look with a struggling Brassard vs Malkin for the most part, though. That's not a fair comparison, even if Brassard would be playing well, that comparison wouldn't put him in a good light.

And when Letang has better quality shot generating stats with Matt Cullen on 12% zone starts than when with Brassard, its probably predominantly not on missing Schultz either. He'd only be getting a third of his time with Schultz anyway.

This isn't true.

Brassard with Letang
Cullen with Letang

 

[Tom Hanks]

Speaking of that, I don't know why Sullivan was so trigger happy to play Guentzel with Sheahan last year, but he has refused to play Guentzel with Brassard this year. Guentzel-Brassard-Hornqvist looked legitimately great this year and it's definitely a combination you think would work with Brassard, but we only saw it when Crosby was out.



You're comparing how players look with a struggling Brassard vs Malkin for the most part, though. That's not a fair comparison, even if Brassard would be playing well, that comparison wouldn't put him in a good light.

Guentzel was having some consistency issues last season. That’s not the case this year. Sid and Jake are also scoring 27% of our ES goals this season so I can see why they are kept together.

 

[Peat]

Do you think having a bottom pair combo of Pettersson/Riikola with someone like Cole/Lovejoy was for us is creating a victim pairing?

I’d rather have that and have a better 2nd pair than what we have now (when healthy).

Compared to having Schultz or a guy like good Daley there? Potentially yes.

S
You're comparing how players look with a struggling Brassard vs Malkin for the most part, though. That's not a fair comparison, even if Brassard would be playing well, that comparison wouldn't put him in a good light.

Only comparison I can run though, unless you want me to compare them to those players with Cullen, which isn't fair either... although I did with Letang. And I did remove Sid, who's had a far better year than Geno, from a bunch of the comparisons. And we've seen wingers perform better away from the be top 6 than with them in the past. So... did what I could, think its wiser to look the evidence in the eyes rather than keep making excuses for Brassard.

Although just the lulz -

Cullen-ZAR has better SCF and HDCF stats than Brassard-ZAR. Ditto with Rust. Ditto with Kessel. Ditto with Pearson, although that one is a super small sample for Cullen-Pearson. Brassard does better than Cullen with Simon and Hornqvist though, give him that.

This isn't true.

What about it isn't true?

Guentzel was having some consistency issues last season. That’s not the case this year. Sid and Jake are also scoring 27% of our ES goals this season so I can see why they are kept together.

I prefer to express it as having been on ice for 38.33% of our 5v5 goals.

 

[PensandCaps]

Maatta for Lehkonen would suuuuck.

We can't lose Maatta and not replace him.

 

[Andy99]

I’m in the boat that our defensive problems are 60% team defense and effort problems, 40% skill/personnel on D. In that regard I don’t think trading away nor upgrading bottom d men will make a huge impact.

I wish I could find words that aren’t as lightning rod, but overall I think our team needs more energy/motivated/combative/high compete players. Too many games this season we don’t look engaged and don’t look willing to play the kind of high effort high battle hockey it takes to win consistently. We look like a club team.

I’m not talking about fights, fear, unskilled hockey. It’s more about better back checks, cycling for possession, man marking, emotional response when sleep walking.

Best profile would be more attitudes like we see from hornquist at times. Not every game is great, but he competes hard and gets his nose dirty almost every night. I’ll take bottom half roster turnover in that direction, d or forward, if it doesn’t involve major assets.

I agree with this in large part....I don’t think it’s an effort issue in the sense that the players claim it is...I don’t see this team that is not trying on 90% of the plays out there...their problem is that they can’t sustain the high energy playing style that’s needed consistently to play winning hockey for 60 minutes...I do believe it is a personnel problem in that we have a lot of players who have played a lot of hockey and are over age 30 and we’ve lost speed from this team and don’t have a sufficient infusion of young talent to make up for the energy lacking from the older, established players...players like you’re suggesting would help a lot...I don’t think the players we’ve obtained at forward over the last year, like Brass, Pearson, Sheahan, are enough Or the right players to stop the drain...I think we need more of the players you’re suggesting in the top 6

 

[Tom Hanks]

 

[Empoleon8771]

Only comparison I can run though, unless you want me to compare them to those players with Cullen, which isn't fair either... although I did with Letang. And I did remove Sid, who's had a far better year than Geno, from a bunch of the comparisons. And we've seen wingers perform better away from the be top 6 than with them in the past. So... did what I could, think its wiser to look the evidence in the eyes rather than keep making excuses for Brassard.

Looking for reasons for why he's struggling isn't "making excuses for Brassard". Realizing that the team is desperately hurting for puck moving talent, which is a huge reason for why both Malkin's line and Brassard's line have struggled this year, isn't "making excuses for Brassard". If anything, the Brassard sucks group should be looking at this context more, instead of just looking at the numbers and screaming "Riley Sheahan would be better as the 3C!".

Although just the lulz -

Cullen-ZAR has better SCF and HDCF stats than Brassard-ZAR. Ditto with Rust. Ditto with Kessel. Ditto with Pearson, although that one is a super small sample for Cullen-Pearson. Brassard does better than Cullen with Simon and Hornqvist though, give him that.

Rust-Cullen: 38 minutes together
Kessel-Cullen: 13 minutes together
Pearson-Cullen: 9 minutes

Those aren't sample sizes. Those are so small that you can basically throw them out. Compare them to the sample sizes for Brassard:

Rust-Brassard: 99 minutes
Kessel-Brassard: 169 minutes
Pearson-Brassard: 183 minutes

Comparing how Kessel and Pearson have done with Brassard vs with Cullen pointless because of how small of a sample size it is with Cullen. The only players that have both played at least 50 minutes with Brassard and Cullen are Hornqvist and ZAR, but you really can't compare those guys either because their usages were way different with those two guys.

What about it isn't true?

I posted the NST pages that showed those stats weren't true. Cullen-Letang was better at generating high danger chances, but Brassard-Letang was better at generating shots. I think I originally missed the "quality" part though, I was just looking at their overall shot generation.

 

[BHD]

Ie. He's going to blow all available assets on a forward he falls in love with.

Not to get off-topic, but Winnik was the first player who came to mind.