Speculation: The all-purpose Claude Noel job security discussion thread

[Jets4Life]

IF the Stars go out and get a vet at a cheaper price and keep Iginla, do they win MORE cups?

Absolutely.

The Calgary Flames from 2000-2010 were largely built around Iginla. In fact, after Fleury left in 1999, Iginla had to carry a horrible Flames team on his back every night, until 2003-04, when the Flames started to add talent, and made some wise trades. Imagine if Iginla was part of a roster that was loaded with talent like Hull, Modano, Belfour, Keane, Hatcher, Guerin and Zubov? The Stars could have arguably been a dynasty.

It speaks volumes when your peers (NHL players) vote Iginla as the greatest team leader in the NHL for several years last decade.

 

[Analyst365]

Some here are OT today. It's Pavelec we're firing now, apparently.

 

[Huffer]

The trade work out well for both teams.
No doubt about it.
But isnt the purpose of owning and running a NHL is to win the Stanley Cup?
No one knows how anything would have played out, without that trade happening.
Therefore I pass judgement and base my opinion on what has happened.
To me IMO Dallas won this trade simply because their deal won them a Stanley Cup.

I hear what you're saying, and agree that it's the point in all sports to win championships. But I don't think that winning means that EVERY move that you made along the way is correct.

If someone sells their home, cashes in everything they own, take out every loan they can, etc, and buys nothing but 6/49 tickets, was that a good move? Now say they actually win. Does that mean that their actions were justified?

I guess it's just a Pet Peeve of mine in regards to sports writers and talking heads when they sit around and analyse players. I just think it's the "lazy" way out when say talking about two guys to jump to cups, or superbowls or whatever as the be all and end all, without taking into account that players role and team.

Is Trent Dilfer a better QB than Dan Marino? If Ray Bourque doesn't get traded to the Avs and get a cup on a stacked team and retires as a cupless Bruin, would Charlie Huddy and his 5 cups be a much better defenseman?

So that's my thinking in regards to this Niewendyk example. Was getting Joe THE REASON the stars won the cup? Would they have won it without him? Could they have gotten the leadership another cheaper way?

I see the merit of declaring the team that goes on to win the championship the "winner", I just think that's too easy, and lacks context.

 

[Positive]

The trade work out well for both teams.
No doubt about it.
But isnt the purpose of owning and running a NHL is to win the Stanley Cup?
No one knows how anything would have played out, without that trade happening.
Therefore I pass judgement and base my opinion on what has happened.
To me IMO Dallas won this trade simply because their deal won them a Stanley Cup.

The aim of any trade or transaction in the NHL is not just to 'get the best player'. It's to provide a piece to your organization that meets with your goals, whether it be short-term or long-term.

Dallas got exactly what they wanted: not only to be an immediate contender (for a span of years, not just one) but to win the championship.

I never actually said Calgary lost this trade, I know better than to say things like that here. But when the other side gets exactly what they want (and what every team and fan ultimately wants), it's very, very hard to call them losers. Unless you ignore the actual goals and reasons why trades are made in the first place, and substitute your own - 'who I think is better'.

On that note, it's not like we're comparing 432pt Kevin Lowe to a 1028pt Brian Leetch..that's a strawman.

Joe: 1257gp, 564g, 562a, 1126p
Jarome: 1232gp, 530g, 576a, 1106p

We're comparing a HOF'er to a future HOF'er.

Back to why I originally asked this question before the 'lols' started. Would you trade Trouba as part of a reconstruction that could turn this team 180 degrees around? A future HOF'er who could provide additional leadership while putting up numbers like those above? I'd at least consider it and not laugh at the idea.

 

[King Woodballs]

The aim of any trade or transaction in the NHL is not just to 'get the best player'. It's to provide a piece to your organization that meets with your goals, whether it be short-term or long-term.

Dallas got exactly what they wanted: not only to be an immediate contender (for a span of years, not just one) but to win the championship.

I never actually said Calgary lost this trade, I know better than to say things like that here. But when the other side gets exactly what they want (and what every team and fan ultimately wants), it's very, very hard to call them losers. Unless you ignore the actual goals and reasons why trades are made in the first place, and substitute your own - 'who I think is better'.

On that note, it's not like we're comparing 432pt Kevin Lowe to a 1028pt Brian Leetch..that's a strawman.

Joe: 1257gp, 564g, 562a, 1126p
Jarome: 1232gp, 530g, 576a, 1106p

We're comparing a HOF'er to a future HOF'er.

Back to why I originally asked this question before the 'lols' started. Would you trade Trouba as part of a reconstruction that could turn this team 180 degrees around? A future HOF'er who could provide additional leadership while putting up numbers like those above? I'd at least consider it and not laugh at the idea.

There is not one thing here I would disagree with.
I have said from day one, no one is untouchable to me.
That includes Evander Kane, and Zach Bogosian.

I don't care who gets traded, as long as the trade makes sense and improves this teams chance and having success now and in the future.

 

[Positive]

I hear what you're saying, and agree that it's the point in all sports to win championships. But I don't think that winning means that EVERY move that you made along the way is correct.

If someone sells their home, cashes in everything they own, take out every loan they can, etc, and buys nothing but 6/49 tickets, was that a good move? Now say they actually win. Does that mean that their actions were justified?

I guess it's just a Pet Peeve of mine in regards to sports writers and talking heads when they sit around and analyse players. I just think it's the "lazy" way out when say talking about two guys to jump to cups, or superbowls or whatever as the be all and end all, without taking into account that players role and team.

Is Trent Dilfer a better QB than Dan Marino? If Ray Bourque doesn't get traded to the Avs and get a cup on a stacked team and retires as a cupless Bruin, would Charlie Huddy and his 5 cups be a much better defenseman?

So that's my thinking in regards to this Niewendyk example. Was getting Joe THE REASON the stars won the cup? Would they have won it without him? Could they have gotten the leadership another cheaper way?

I see the merit of declaring the team that goes on to win the championship the "winner", I just think that's too easy, and lacks context.

I wouldn't say Nieuwendyk is a Dilfer to Iginla's Marino, anymore than I would say he is a Lowe to Iginla's Leetch. (btw I destroyed you in our fantasy matchup this week, how's it look down there at #2? )

Was getting Joe the reason they won the cup? I'd prefer to say adding 'a guy' to team was the reason they won that cup. It could have been a different guy with similar ability and pedigree. He was awarded the Conn Smythe as MVP that year though.

We can argue 'what ifs' forever without coming to an answer - because no one really knows. But history would indicate that Dallas' course of action was successful, their timing was right, and the captured the lightning in a bottle. You can argue that they might have been successful another way, sure. But you can't really argue that they failed.

So again, if you think you could capture that lightning in a bottle, as part of the puzzle of turning a 26-win-per-season team to a 48-win-per-season team...would you? Sacrifice Trouba, Scheifele or Morrissey?

By the way, I own an Iginla jersey...and no Nieuwendyk jersey.

 

[Huffer]

I wouldn't say Nieuwendyk is a Dilfer to Iginla's Marino, anymore than I would say he is a Lowe to Iginla's Leetch. (btw I destroyed you in our fantasy matchup this week, how's it look down there at #2? )

Was getting Joe the reason they won the cup? I'd prefer to say adding 'a guy' to team was the reason they won that cup. It could have been a different guy with similar ability and pedigree. He was awarded the Conn Smythe as MVP that year though.

We can argue 'what ifs' forever without coming to an answer - because no one really knows. But history would indicate that Dallas' course of action was successful, their timing was right, and the captured the lightning in a bottle. You can argue that they might have been successful another way, sure. But you can't really argue that they failed.

So again, if you think you could capture that lightning in a bottle, as part of the puzzle of turning a 26-win-per-season team to a 48-win-per-season team...would you? Sacrifice Trouba, Scheifele or Morrissey?

By the way, I own an Iginla jersey...and no Nieuwendyk jersey.

I lost in both my leagues last week!

I think that's why this question is so tough. Because you just don't know which is the right way to go, and if you make a mistake, it can be VERY costly.

So if we traded Trouba, Scheifele, or Morrissey and the guy we got back was the REASON we win a cup? Well I would have to think we make that trade.

But we don't know the outcome of the trade when the trade is made.

I would prefer that the team add the pieces that they feel help them win the cup without spending that kind of price though.

The Bruins got Recchi in 2008 along WITH a 2010 second round pick for MārtiņÅ¡ Karsums and Matt Lashoff. ???? Yikes!

After going to Boston he got 16 points in 18 games in 2008 (6 points in 11 Playoff), 43 in 81 in 2009 (10 in 13), and 48 in 81 in 2010 (14 in 25 and a cup).

I would prefer to make that kind of move for veteran help myself. Because I don't know the future, and I don't know if trading a Trouba, or Scheifele, or Morrissey guarantees us anything. But I don't mind sending a bunch of nothings for a guy like Recchi who can provide close to the same thing. And if it doesn't work out, the team isn't out a potential franchise player.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

You clearly don't get it. Lack of compete and effort by the players is entirely Noels fault. When they do compete and play well its entirely despite Noel.

Can you imagine if actual Jets management behaved in knee jerk manner some of the posters on this board want them to? We would be longing for solid leadership like the Flyers have

Its times like these, when it would be handy if we had another professional sports team in town that we can point to and determine whether changing coaches every 2 years largely based on fan sentiment is a good strategy or a bad strategy.

Sadly, we'll never know.....and we just gotta go with our guts: FIRE CAL MURPHY MIKE RILEY DARRYL ROGERS URBAN BOWMAN JEFF REINEBOLD DAVE RITCHIE JIM DALEY GARY HOFFMAN DOUG BERRY MIKE KELLY PAUL LAPOLICE TIME BURKE CLAUDE NOEL!!!!!!!

 

[Prot]

Lumping the Bombers in this discussion is so irrelevant we might as well start talking about the new Captain Kirk vs. the old Captain Kirk.

 

[Positive]

I lost in both my leagues last week!

I think that's why this question is so tough. Because you just don't know which is the right way to go, and if you make a mistake, it can be VERY costly.

So if we traded Trouba, Scheifele, or Morrissey and the guy we got back was the REASON we win a cup? Well I would have to think we make that trade.

But we don't know the outcome of the trade when the trade is made.

I would prefer that the team add the pieces that they feel help them win the cup without spending that kind of price though.

The Bruins got Recchi in 2008 along WITH a 2010 second round pick for Mārtiņš Karsums and Matt Lashoff. ???? Yikes!

After going to Boston he got 16 points in 18 games in 2008 (6 points in 11 Playoff), 43 in 81 in 2009 (10 in 13), and 48 in 81 in 2010 (14 in 25 and a cup).

I would prefer to make that kind of move for veteran help myself. Because I don't know the future, and I don't know if trading a Trouba, or Scheifele, or Morrissey guarantees us anything. But I don't mind sending a bunch of nothings for a guy like Recchi who can provide close to the same thing. And if it doesn't work out, the team isn't out a potential franchise player.

It comes back to theorizing about what the biggest deficiency of this team is. If one was to agree with Craig Button - that it is not the coach, but the lack of skilled, motivating leaders on the roster, then you would likely consider making a sacrifice: dealing away a valuable asset to address your biggest deficiency. It's not about who, objectively, is the better player.

Back to the fantasy football analogy, would you trade an WR1 for an RB2? Yes, if you think the RB2 was all you needed to compete for a championship. If you were in a 'keeper' league would trade away a star for a few good rookies? Yes, if you felt you had no chance of winning and were 'rebuilding' for next year.

If you don't agree with Button's opinion of what is keeping the team from breaking out, then you don't make the moves.

Me, I don't put as much value on 'potential franchise players' as some others do. Every team has a couple of potential franchise players. Every guy that gets drafted from 1-15 in the first round, every year, is a potential franchise player. If we didn't pick Trouba, we'd be high on someone else, and call them a PFP. Proven winners are more rare IMHO.

(BTW, I believe it will be you and me in the finals.)

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Lumping the Bombers in this discussion is so irrelevant we might as well start talking about the new Captain Kirk vs. the old Captain Kirk.

Are Bombers fans just pure football fans, or is it possible that a few of them take up the odd hockey game when they aren't thinking about the Bombers 24/7/365? Cause my post was about hysterical reactionary sports fans from Winnipeg who want their coaches fired, not whether or not the Jets should be going for a rouge on the forecheck. Mmmm-k?

 

[Gm0ney]

Its times like these, when it would be handy if we had another professional sports team in town that we can point to and determine whether changing coaches every 2 years largely based on fan sentiment is a good strategy or a bad strategy.

Sadly, we'll never know.....and we just gotta go with our guts: FIRE CAL MURPHY MIKE RILEY DARRYL ROGERS URBAN BOWMAN JEFF REINEBOLD DAVE RITCHIE JIM DALEY GARY HOFFMAN DOUG BERRY MIKE KELLY PAUL LAPOLICE TIME BURKE CLAUDE NOEL!!!!!!!

I believe Mike Riley quit...

 

[Huffer]

It comes back to theorizing about what the biggest deficiency of this team is. If one was to agree with Craig Button - that it is not the coach, but the lack of skilled, motivating leaders on the roster, then you would likely consider making a sacrifice: dealing away a valuable asset to address your biggest deficiency. It's not about who, objectively, is the better player.

Back to the fantasy football analogy, would you trade an WR1 for an RB2? Yes, if you think the RB2 was all you needed to compete for a championship. If you were in a 'keeper' league would trade away a star for a few good rookies? Yes, if you felt you had no chance of winning and were 'rebuilding' for next year.

If you don't agree with Button's opinion of what is keeping the team from breaking out, then you don't make the moves.

Me, I don't put as much value on 'potential franchise players' as some others do. Every team has a couple of potential franchise players. Every guy that gets drafted from 1-15 in the first round, every year, is a potential franchise player. If we didn't pick Trouba, we'd be high on someone else, and call them a PFP. Proven winners are more rare IMHO.

(BTW, I believe it will be you and me in the finals.)

Can't disagree with what you're saying here. I guess I'm just thinking also from a risk mitigation standpoint.

If the team decides it needs a "vet", would I trade away one of our best young pieces for one, or do I try to trade away some middle of the road prospects and maybe a mid round pick for one?

Maybe the second option only gets 60% or 70% of the production of the 1st option. But is that extra production from trading away the much bigger piece (and hence the extra risk), worth it?

Tough to say. Mainly because we don't know how the future will unfold.

 

[surixon]

It comes back to theorizing about what the biggest deficiency of this team is. If one was to agree with Craig Button - that it is not the coach, but the lack of skilled, motivating leaders on the roster, then you would likely consider making a sacrifice: dealing away a valuable asset to address your biggest deficiency. It's not about who, objectively, is the better player.

Back to the fantasy football analogy, would you trade an WR1 for an RB2? Yes, if you think the RB2 was all you needed to compete for a championship. If you were in a 'keeper' league would trade away a star for a few good rookies? Yes, if you felt you had no chance of winning and were 'rebuilding' for next year.

If you don't agree with Button's opinion of what is keeping the team from breaking out, then you don't make the moves.

Me, I don't put as much value on 'potential franchise players' as some others do. Every team has a couple of potential franchise players. Every guy that gets drafted from 1-15 in the first round, every year, is a potential franchise player. If we didn't pick Trouba, we'd be high on someone else, and call them a PFP. Proven winners are more rare IMHO.

(BTW, I believe it will be you and me in the finals.)

I get what your saying but I'm not a fan of the give up major assets for a vet that has won. Take a look around our division and you'll notice that most don't have these players or if they do they were acquired for cheap.

St. Louis only has Morrow and he was had for cheap this sumner. There success is based on the maturation of their core who were able to find their own way. If winning experience is the be all end all we should be a better team as we have more cup winners on our roster.

Colorado has Giguare and Tanguay, both had for next to nothing. They also will be reliing on their young core to carry the mail.

Nashville: I can't recall if Cullen has won a cup or not but either way he was had for free this summer.

My point is that having the grizzled vet that wins isn't necessary and IMO more of a coupout. I've said it before but this team has more than enough big game experience on it especially when you compare it to every team in the division except Chicago. If I have time later I'll track cup wins and playoff experience per team!

This team will win more when our young core does what the young cores in St. Louis, LA etc did.

 

[Positive]

My point is that having the grizzled vet that wins isn't necessary and IMO more of a coupout. I've said it before but this team has more than enough big game experience on it especially when you compare it to every team in the division except Chicago. If I have time later I'll track cup wins and playoff experience per team!

This team will win more when our young core does what the young cores in St. Louis, LA etc did.

My take on Button's theory is that the grizzled vet can elevate the young guys to the next level, as well as putting up a good stat line. We're still leaning on the youngsters but they need a Yoda to help with that maturation process you're talking about. By 'grizzled vet', we mean about 28-30 years old, as Nieuwendyk was. Is there someone out there that fits that profile? Cup winner, about a point-per-game roughly, known leader? Hmm...

 

[Jet]

Lumping the Bombers in this discussion is so irrelevant we might as well start talking about the new Captain Kirk vs. the old Captain Kirk.

Old Captain Kirk, duh!

Good point was made though. As interesting as the Nieuwendyk / Iginla trade is it's totally OT for this thread, as we are in the middle of firing Claude Noel

 

[surixon]

My take on Button's theory is that the grizzled vet can elevate the young guys to the next level, as well as putting up a good stat line. We're still leaning on the youngsters but they need a Yoda to help with that maturation process you're talking about. By 'grizzled vet', we mean about 28-30 years old, as Nieuwendyk was. Is there someone out there that fits that profile? Cup winner, about a point-per-game roughly, known leader? Hmm...

Isn't that Andrew Ladd? If your offered a good player locked up for a decent amount of time in their late 20's you obviously have to look at it. But how often are those players moved these days. I really can't think of any in the last while. I had interrpreted that you meant an older guy, my bad!

Still if additional experience is needed I'd sooner grab a Morrow type in FA then spend a lot of assets at this point. I'm also of the opinion that given that we already have Ladd, Buff and Frolik as winners in the room we should have enough guys to guide our youngsters. For instance LA only had two cup winners in Williams and Scudri to mentor their core.

 

[StronGeer]

For what it's worth. I don't think last night's offensive boom should count as a positive for Noel. I posted some on it in the PGT, but basically the skilled players we had played loose and smoked the Washington D. From what I saw, there wasn't much of a coach's system going on. Could've had a Slapshot style player-coach and it would've been similar results.

 

[koth]

Its times like these, when it would be handy if we had another professional sports team in town that we can point to and determine whether changing coaches every 2 years largely based on fan sentiment is a good strategy or a bad strategy.

Sadly, we'll never know.....and we just gotta go with our guts: FIRE CAL MURPHY MIKE RILEY DARRYL ROGERS URBAN BOWMAN JEFF REINEBOLD DAVE RITCHIE JIM DALEY GARY HOFFMAN DOUG BERRY MIKE KELLY PAUL LAPOLICE TIME BURKE CLAUDE NOEL!!!!!!!

This is good.

 

[Mathmew Purrrr Oh]

My take on Button's theory is that the grizzled vet can elevate the young guys to the next level, as well as putting up a good stat line. We're still leaning on the youngsters but they need a Yoda to help with that maturation process you're talking about. By 'grizzled vet', we mean about 28-30 years old, as Nieuwendyk was. Is there someone out there that fits that profile? Cup winner, about a point-per-game roughly, known leader? Hmm...

yes I would totally trade Trouba for Crosby or Malkin

 

[Positive]

yes I would totally trade Trouba for Crosby or Malkin

A bit high. Howabout say, someone statistically like Ryan Getzlaf? Centre, captain, 28 years old, cup winner, 521 pts in 556 games.

 

[cheswick]

A bit high. Howabout say, someone statistically like Ryan Getzlaf? Centre, captain, 28 years old, cup winner, 521 pts in 556 games.

I wouldn't. This team isn't a Getzlaf away from winning the cup. Not to mention his ridiculous cap hit when he's now approaching the downtrend in his career.

 

[Mathmew Purrrr Oh]

I was going to mention the cap as prospects hold much more value than they did back in the day

 

[Blue Shakehead]

For what it's worth. I don't think last night's offensive boom should count as a positive for Noel. I posted some on it in the PGT, but basically the skilled players we had played loose and smoked the Washington D. From what I saw, there wasn't much of a coach's system going on. Could've had a Slapshot style player-coach and it would've been similar results.

Well, then ...I'm sure you'd agree that our forecheck was better, no? Do you think it had anything to do with the switch from a 2-1-2 strongside attack to the 2-3 / weak side lock? How about that new flip play that they tried a few times, to use our speed and gain possession and/or hem the opposition in their end. The transition game in the NZ was much better, having the center swoop across to the weak side winger, and the puck support in the D zone was improved by approximately 100%.

BUT NOPE! No credit for your Claudey boy! Any player-coach / chimp would've made those adjustments. He's a weak leader and poor motivator and his team has obviously quit on him.

 

[koth]

Well, then ...I'm sure you'd agree that our forecheck was better, no? Do you think it had anything to do with the switch from a 2-1-2 strongside attack to the 2-3 / weak side lock? How about that new flip play that they tried a few times, to use our speed and gain possession and/or hem the opposition in their end. The transition game in the NZ was much better, having the center swoop across to the weak side winger, and the puck support in the D zone was improved by approximately 100%.

BUT NOPE! No credit for your Claudey boy! Any player-coach / chimp would've made those adjustments. He's a weak leader and poor motivator and his team has obviously quit on him.

The players clearly came up with that stuff on their own and did it despite Noel.