What is the plan with Aho?

[Tryamw]

Why ask for 110%, when you can ask for 120%?

It's only numbers...

 

[My Special Purpose]

Yeah, I hated when Peters would tell the guys to take it easy on the other team.

So, we'll put you down as being in favor of the one-handed, sweeping chip to try to exit the zone.

Some of us would rather our guys go into a board battle prepared to do whatever it takes to get the puck out past the blue line. Even if it means colliding with an opponent.

And I'd rather have a coach who's going to sit a guy who tries option A for at least the rest of the period so it doesn't happen six times a night for four years.

 

[MinJaBen]

So, we'll put you down as being in favor of the one-handed, sweeping chip to try to exit the zone.

Ha ha ha ha! Someone must of pissed in your cornflakes. I have no idea what you are talking about, so I won't comment on if that was the only play available to the guy or if he was soft, but you can put me down with being of in favor of clearing the zone by any means necessary. Even a one-handed, sweeping chip if it works.

Some of us would rather our guys go into a board battle prepared to do whatever it takes to get the puck out past the blue line. Even if it means colliding with an opponent.

And I'd rather have a coach who's going to sit a guy who tries option A for at least the rest of the period so it doesn't happen six times a night for four years.

Yeah, no, I'd definitely not be in favor of sitting Slavin for the rest of a period if he tried that and it didn't work. But if your coaching style is to cut off your nose to spite your face, I hope your name is not Rod.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Yeah, no, I'd definitely not be in favor of sitting Slavin for the rest of a period if he tried that and it didn't work. But if your coaching style is to cut off your nose to spite your face, I hope your name is not Rod.

I think you are (purposefully?) taking an extreme view here to what Kev was saying. Guys like Aho, Slavin, etc.. are guys play the game the right way already, and won't need much, if any, "re-enforcement" from the coach in order to do so. Sure, everybody makes a mistake here or there, but I'm fairly certain Rod has no concern over those guys and should they happen to make the wrong play at times (which they will, everybody does), they'll just move on. It's the players that do things repeatedly that will likely be the focus here. A coach looks at the overall body of work, not just 1 single play and I'm guessing Rod will be that way. Something like: Do something once, he'll probably tell them not to do it again. Do it a 2nd time, and he might say the same, with a louder voice. Do it a 3rd time and you sit.

 

[MinJaBen]

I think you are (purposefully?) taking an extreme view here to what Kev was saying. Guys like Aho, Slavin, etc.. are guys play the game the right way already, and won't need much, if any, "re-enforcement" from the coach in order to do so.

Yes, I am purposefully taking an extreme view to make a point. Kev stated he'd want to see the coach sit a guy for a period who tried the one handed sweeping shot to clear the puck. He gave no specifics, so I take him at his word that there are no situational, or personnel, exceptions. What if one of our stars tried it and failed? And it led to a goal? Do they not sit because they are stars? That is what Peters used to do, and people in this thread have criticized because he said he would use the ice time hammer, but then only sat the 4th liners.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Yes, I am purposefully taking an extreme view to make a point. Kev stated he'd want to see the coach sit a guy for a period who tried the one handed sweeping shot to clear the puck. He gave no specifics, so I take him at his word that there are no situational, or personnel, exceptions. What if one of our stars tried it and failed? And it led to a goal? Do they not sit because they are stars? That is what Peters used to do, and people in this thread have criticized because he said he would use the ice time hammer, but then only sat the 4th liners.

There's a wide chasm between sitting a guy like Aho/Slavin for making an occassional mistake and sitting a guy like Hanifin, Skinner, Faulk, etc.. for repeatedly making mistakes. If you want to purposefully take an extreme view for the sake of making an extreme point, then have at it. If Kev meant it to be as extreme as you are suggesting, then I misinterpreted his post.

 

[MinJaBen]

When a coach says in a very pointed interview that the team's effort was unacceptable and that their would be changes, then proceeds to move out the #6 defenseman and insert a rookie as the 4C (and then proceed to play him 5 min.), it can have an effect.

There's a wide chasm between sitting a guy like Aho/Slavin for making an occassional mistake and sitting a guy like Hanifin, Skinner, Faulk, etc.. for repeatedly making mistakes.

So I guess we need to set the frequency of mistakes that defines occasional and repeatedly so we know if Aho/Slavin should be sat like the #6 defenseman or 4C should be?

I think it is ridiculous to even consider sitting a guy for any part of the period more than they already do due to a mistake. That should be what the GM is for, get the guys who won't learn a bus ticket to Charlotte and bring up the guys that can learn.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

So I guess we need to set the frequency of mistakes that defines occasional and repeatedly so we know if Aho/Slavin should be sat like the #6 defenseman or 4C should be?

I think it is ridiculous to even consider sitting a guy for any part of the period more than they already do due to a mistake. That should be what the GM is for, get the guys who won't learn a bus ticket to Charlotte and bring up the guys that can learn.

Oh come on MinJaBen. I think you are being ridiculous.

That's no different than all walks of life. One of my kids is a neat freak and almost never leaves anything laying around. Another one leaves stuff laying around all the time and my wife and I constantly have to be on him for picking up after himself. The off times that my first kid leaves something laying around, I know it's a clear mis-step and I overlook it. The other one gets no leeway when he leaves stuff because he always does it. Employees that are responsible and never late for work get a lot more leeway the one time they are late than guys who are late often.

Good coaches know how to use this "power" wisely, because if you mis-use it, you either lose the team or it loses it's effectiveness. I have no idea how good Brindy will be in this regards, but given his background as a player, captain, assistant coach, etc...there's some reason to think he will have a pretty good grasp on it.

And it's ridiculous to say it's a GM's job to get players to play the right way. That's precisely what the coaches job is. Many coaches have used playing time as a carrot and stick for players to play the right way, this is not new. Babcock has done it many times over his career.

I don't think Brindy is going to sit a player for a single mistake (and that's not what I think Kev meant, but only he can say), but I DO think if a player shows a repeated habit of not doing what the coach wants him to do, his playing time will be affected. It's common sense actually.

 

[MinJaBen]

Oh come on MinJaBen. I think you are being ridiculous.

Clearly.

That's no different than all walks of life. One of my kids is a neat freak and almost never leaves anything laying around. Another one leaves stuff laying around all the time and my wife and I constantly have to be on him for picking up after himself. The off times that my first kid leaves something laying around, I know it's a clear mis-step and I overlook it. The other one gets no leeway when he leaves stuff because he always does it. Employees that are responsible and never late for work get a lot more leeway the one time they are late than guys who are late often.

It is different in team sports than with kids. Your son's leaving things lying around and then getting punished affects only him. You sit any guy on the team, the whole team has to adjust and is affected. More shifts, more fatigue, players playing out of position...it is not the same.

Good coaches know how to use this "power" wisely, because if you mis-use it, you either lose the team or it loses it's effectiveness. I have no idea how good Brindy will be in this regards, but given his background as a player, captain, assistant coach, etc...there's some reason to think he will have a pretty good grasp on it.

I don't think we are in disagreement here.

And it's ridiculous to say it's a GM's job to get players to play the right way. That's precisely what the coaches job is. Many coaches have used playing time as a carrot and stick for players to play the right way, this is not new. Babcock has done it many times over his career.

I didn't say it was the GM's job to get players to play the right way. I said it was their job to take care of the problem. You take care of the problem by moving him. The coach can move him from a higher responsibility to a lower responsibility or to the press box. This is best done after evaluation and with preparation, not on the fly in the game. If this doesn't work, you move the player to the AHL (if possible) or off the team. I think this is taking place this off-season. Francis didn't do this enough and tied Peter's hands. Again, what I specifically objected to with Kev's post was the idea of massive ice time reductions in game. That is just stupid and hurts everybody.

I don't think Brindy is going to sit a player for a single mistake (and that's not what I think Kev meant, but only he can say), but I DO think if a player shows a repeated habit of not doing what the coach wants him to do, his playing time will be affected. It's common sense actually.

I agree with this, just not in-game. If the coach and the GM do what they each need to do, this is done between games by reducing the players on ice responsibilities (lines, PP or PK), sitting them in the press box, or moving them. To pull a healthy guy off the ice mid game is more hurtful to the team than any mistake that they might make on it. And if those mistakes are more hurtful than leaving them on the ice, and of a frequency that this is not your "occasional" mistakes, than the coach is the problem for failing to identify and correct it before the player stepped on the ice.

 

[geehaad]

I guess I could believe you, MinJaBen, if nearly all hockey coaches didn't employ that tactic. But since it's entirely common, I'm going to stick with the notion that it's not as detrimental to the team as you're letting yourself believe. Hell, I'm guessing some of the player's teammates actually *enjoy* it, because they get more PT.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I'll just second what geehaad said as I'm sure if I did another response to Minjaben, it would be long winded only to say the same thing geehaad said. I've seen countless coaches do exactly that, make in game decisions of demoting a guy to the 4th line, sitting a guy for a period, etc... It's not a new or foreign concept here.

 

[Negan4Coach]

OK, how about this: "coach was captain of a team who won the Stanley Cup, maybe we should pay attention." There are many ways of motivating. RBA has a pretty decent chance of being good at a lot of them. That's not an unreasonable thing to hope for, given his reputation as a player.

I for one am hopeful he will be Negan-like in the locker room

 

[NotOpie]

If you're going to send a message send a message. If the team needs to see you mean business you have to back up your words with actions. I hope Roddy does it, because Peters (and Muller before him) rarely did.

 

[sheriff bart]

The plan for Aho...

 

[My Special Purpose]

I don't think Brindy is going to sit a player for a single mistake (and that's not what I think Kev meant, but only he can say), but I DO think if a player shows a repeated habit of not doing what the coach wants him to do, his playing time will be affected. It's common sense actually.

Thanks for picking this up for me. You got my point.

I agree with this, just not in-game. If the coach and the GM do what they each need to do, this is done between games by reducing the players on ice responsibilities (lines, PP or PK), sitting them in the press box, or moving them. To pull a healthy guy off the ice mid game is more hurtful to the team than any mistake that they might make on it. And if those mistakes are more hurtful than leaving them on the ice, and of a frequency that this is not your "occasional" mistakes, than the coach is the problem for failing to identify and correct it before the player stepped on the ice.

I think the problem here is the use of the word "mistake." Mistakes happen to everyone. When you shy away from contact and try to chip a puck through a d-man at the defensive blue line, that's not a mistake. That's bad hockey. This is what I'm talking about. I think we've been programmed to think what we've been seeing the past few years is hockey. But it's just not. Brindy knows this, and I trust him to fix it.

And on the topic of mistakes, they tend to happen less when you're playing the right way, taking a hit to make a play and fighting for every inch of ice all over the rink.

Guys are still going to make mistakes, and I don't expect *anyone* to sit when they make one. It's the bad hockey that should earn a spot on the bench.

 

[emptyNedder]

Thanks for picking this up for me. You got my point

Guys are still going to make mistakes, and I don't expect *anyone* to sit when they make one. It's the bad hockey that should earn a spot on the bench.

I think bad hockey is likely to produce bad results. Even that is hard to "see." The penalty kill was poor last season. The worst penalty killer for the Canes got the most ice time. Now I know it will be controversial to even suggest this, but that is my point. It is not always effort or "playing the right way" that matters. The statistics are really clear.

Jaccob Slavin was on the ice for 41 goals on the penalty kill in 206 minutes. Basically one goal every 5 minutes. Pesce was on for 23 goals in 152 minutes = 1g/6.5m. TVR 9 goals in 103 minutes = 1g/11.5m.
Faulk 5 goals in 40 minutes = 1g/8m. Fleury 4 goals in 60 minutes = 1g/15m.

Even given playing against the top opposition players, it is obvious that Slavin performed the worst. So two questions for everyone: 1) Did you see things that made you hope BP would remove him from the PK? 2) Even if you didn't see anything, would describe these results as "bad hockey?"

My answer to both is no. Which makes me a little less willing to say I can see when players are underperforming.

Goal statistics from morehockeystats.com and PK time on ice from hockey-reference.com.

 

[Mose]

Even given playing against the top opposition players, it is obvious that Slavin performed the worst.

That seems harsh. By other metrics (for example the tweet embedded in another thread) Slavin is a true #1. Would be interested to hear what others think about Slavin on the PK given the stats.

 

[GoldiFox]

I think bad hockey is likely to produce bad results. Even that is hard to "see." The penalty kill was poor last season. The worst penalty killer for the Canes got the most ice time. Now I know it will be controversial to even suggest this, but that is my point. It is not always effort or "playing the right way" that matters. The statistics are really clear.

Jaccob Slavin was on the ice for 41 goals on the penalty kill in 206 minutes. Basically one goal every 5 minutes. Pesce was on for 23 goals in 152 minutes = 1g/6.5m. TVR 9 goals in 103 minutes = 1g/11.5m.
Faulk 5 goals in 40 minutes = 1g/8m. Fleury 4 goals in 60 minutes = 1g/15m.

Even given playing against the top opposition players, it is obvious that Slavin performed the worst. So two questions for everyone: 1) Did you see things that made you hope BP would remove him from the PK? 2) Even if you didn't see anything, would describe these results as "bad hockey?"

My answer to both is no. Which makes me a little less willing to say I can see when players are underperforming.

Goal statistics from morehockeystats.com and PK time on ice from hockey-reference.com.

You assume that Faulk's 40 minutes or Fleury's 60 minutes are directly translatable to Slavin's 200 minutes to attempt to compare. They aren't. Beyond the quality of competition (#1PP vs #2PP), you should also consider that Zone Starts aren't equal. Slavin's PK ZSR was 3.76% last year. Faulk's was 9.09% and TVR's was 7.69%. Those double or triple offensive zone starts on the PK can eat time and allow Slavin to rest and get back on the ice for the DZ assignment. Softer minutes lead to better Goals Against results. Slavin/Staal's minutes are about as hard as they come in the NHL.

Slavin's PK stats last year (which were bad among all #1 NHL D that PK) were largely a result of he and Staal being relied upon to buoy Scott Darling and Cam Ward against #1 NHL PP units. Scott Darling compiled a 79.34 SV% on the PK which was easily last in the league. In 2016-17 Slavin was one of the best PKers in the league using your metrics with Cam putting up a reasonable 87.58 SV% on the PK.

all data from Corsica

 

[My Special Purpose]

I think bad hockey is likely to produce bad results. Even that is hard to "see." The penalty kill was poor last season. The worst penalty killer for the Canes got the most ice time. Now I know it will be controversial to even suggest this, but that is my point. It is not always effort or "playing the right way" that matters. The statistics are really clear.

That seems harsh. By other metrics (for example the tweet embedded in another thread) Slavin is a true #1. Would be interested to hear what others think about Slavin on the PK given the stats.

all data from Corsica

I'm having a really hard time getting my point across, and it's usually not that hard for me.

Things I don't mean by "bad hockey":

• making mistakes,
• tough matchups,
• poor statistics -- counting or fancy,
• allowing goals when you're on the ice while shorthanded.

Things I mean by "bad hockey":

• not hustling on the backcheck,
• overstaying your shift/bad line changes,
• diving/embellishing,
• trying to do too much/not trusting teammates,
• shying away from contact,
• poor decisions at both blue lines.

Basically, a lot of the Canes have been playing like they're on a beer league team, taking a lot of short cuts. In that context, it's hard to put much faith in the stats. Was Slavin forced out of position by lazy play of other players? Was Staal a victim of having to choose between two open shooters because somebody else got beat? How much did players change their games to make up for horrible goaltending?

We're breaking this down into it's individual parts, but a team is six guys on the ice, working together as a unit. When one guy takes a short cut, it all breaks down and the entire team pays. I'm not sure that advanced stats can clearly point the finger at the guys playing "bad hockey." Brindy has spoken about this tirelessly since Day 1, and I'm certain that he gets it.

 

[Unsustainable]

Contract talks have started for a long term.

 

[Backcheckmonster3]

Aho should end up getting 7.8x8 yrs.

 

[emptyNedder]

I would think that organizations look at players individually, as part of the overall salary cap (whether the actual league cap or unofficial internal caps), and in combinations. For instance, it appeared last offseason the team wanted to sign both Pesce and Slavin for less than $10M.

My guess is the goal is to get both Aho and Teravainen on extended contracts for $13M or less. Something like Aho at $7.5M and TT at $5.4M.

 

[Lempo]

I doubt they are in particular hurry to get TT done, considering he's only starting the second year of a two-year show-me contract. Unless the expectation is now that he will be much more expensive after this season.

 

[NotOpie]

My guess is the goal is to get both Aho and Teravainen on extended contracts for $13M or less. Something like Aho at $7.5M and TT at $5.4M.

I think you're in the ballpark and I agree that's sort of how they look at these things. My guess for Aho and TT is something in the $13.5 million range.

I doubt they are in particular hurry to get TT done, considering he's only starting the second year of a two-year show-me contract. Unless the expectation is now that he will be much more expensive after this season.

Teuvo has had two consistent years, back to back, of significantly increased production. I think last year was the show me year and this year they're just trying to get a reasonable deal done before he takes another step forward....at least that's what I'd try to do.

 

[GoldiFox]

I think you're in the ballpark and I agree that's sort of how they look at these things. My guess for Aho and TT is something in the $13.5 million range.



Teuvo has had two consistent years, back to back, of significantly increased production. I think last year was the show me year and this year they're just trying to get a reasonable deal done before he takes another step forward....at least that's what I'd try to do.

TT went from 35 points in 78 games in his last year in Chicago to 42 points in 81 games in his first year in Carolina. Not really significantly increased production so much as an increase in TOI (1300 minute vs 1200) and opportunity (15 PP Points vs 9 in Chicago).

For me, whereas Aho looked like he was just “heating up” last year and has more room to grow, TT looked like he was overachieving. I’d be pleasantly surprised if TT had another “step forward” to take after just putting up 64 points. More likely I think he is a 50-60 point perimeter winger that has exceptional chemistry with Aho. If the Canes were to get cute after they are eliminated from the Playoffs they could probably separate Aho and TT (maybe play Aho-Svech for the last 2-3 months) and drive down TT’s production/value for RFA negotiations.