View Single Post
01-23-2012, 06:59 PM
Registered User
OrrNumber4's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,644
vCash: 500
His goaltenders have posted a ridiculously awful 0.911 SV% at even-strength when he's been on the ice so his +/- (while still positive) is a lot lower than it deserves to be.
Maybe he is prone to giving up high-risk chances?

Wellwood has averaged just 40 more seconds of even strength ice time per game than Handzus. He wouldn't get anywhere near the PP opportunity or quality of linemates in San Jose that he's received in Winnipeg but he'd undoubtedly still be productive; he's averaged 2.04 points per 60 minutes of even strength time this season while Handzus has averaged just 1.4.
That is very tough to say with any certainty, because of the above statement. Especially since this isn't a star talent; it is a marginal NHL talent who can swing based on the situation.

He was also one of the best possession players in the NHL last year playing in the Sharks' bottom six and has once again been excellent in that category this season while Handzus has been beyond terrible.
What metric are you using for possession?

Team possession is often a very important thing. But individual posession can get overblown a lot. You have some players who get the puck on and off really quickly; others stick to the perimeter, holding the puck, and doing nothing.

Replacing Handzus with Wellwood in the bottom six would have made the Sharks a much more territorially dominant team.
Doug Wilson, I think, was concerned at how Wellwood's size and grit became on issue against Vancouver. Handzus was the big, strong, defensively-skilled center who could chip in the odd goal or two; the exact thing we were looking for.

Mcginn-Wellwood-Mitchell looks great on the surface, but that leaves Mitchell as the defensive expert on the line. Wellwood brought more scoring touch, but no question he isn't as good defensively as Handzus is.

Overall, I like the fact that Handzus came for free; no assets. For sure, he's played on a bad-to-so-so LA for years, thrust into a position where he's been given the #1-PK slot, the #2-PP slot, and the #2C spot and had poor teamates. But I think DW thought he was getting the guy who was a stud on Philly for years; a guy who would bounce back given a more proper role (#3 center with no PP time).

OrrNumber4 is offline