HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Dallas Stars
Notices

2012-2013 Offseason Thread III (Now with Bonus Offseason!)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-03-2013, 02:41 PM
  #726
piqued
Global Moderator
victory green?
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 30,647
vCash: 27750
I think Nemeth may actually be a better fit for Goligoski. Goligoski is going to need a no-frills type of partner that doesn't make mistakes or take many risks and who can deal with bigger forwards. On a good team Goligoski is a bottom-pairing offensive specialist, much like he was on the Penguins. Oleksiak is going to take risks and jump into the play offensively, that's just who he is, and what makes him potentially special.

Nemeth is nowhere near as physical as Fistric. Sometimes I feel like people are just repeating Nemeth's scouting report from when he was drafted. Being physical in the SEL and being physical in NA are two different things. Until he actually shows any of that here I wouldn't call him a physical defenseman. As we've seen before, sometimes that side of a player's game simply does not materialize.

Oleksiak-Larsen
Dillon-Daley
Nemeth-Goligoski
Fistric

is how I see things shaking out in an ideal world where everything goes according to reasonably hopeful expectations.

piqued is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 02:53 PM
  #727
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
I think Nemeth may actually be a better fit for Goligoski. Goligoski is going to need a no-frills type of partner that doesn't make mistakes or take many risks and who can deal with bigger forwards. On a good team Goligoski is a bottom-pairing offensive specialist, much like he was on the Penguins. Oleksiak is going to take risks and jump into the play offensively, that's just who he is, and what makes him potentially special.

Nemeth is nowhere near as physical as Fistric. Sometimes I feel like people are just repeating Nemeth's scouting report from when he was drafted. Being physical in the SEL and being physical in NA are two different things. Until he actually shows any of that here I wouldn't call him a physical defenseman. As we've seen before, sometimes that side of a player's game simply does not materialize.

Oleksiak-Larsen
Dillon-Daley
Nemeth-Goligoski
Fistric

is how I see things shaking out in an ideal world where everything goes according to reasonably hopeful expectations.
So Goligoski is a bottom pairing dman on a good team but Trevor Daley is a borderline number 2 dman? I know Goligoski didnt have the greatest season but I think you are vastly underrating him.

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 02:56 PM
  #728
piqued
Global Moderator
victory green?
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 30,647
vCash: 27750
It's no secret that I don't like Goligoski's game. He's too prone to mistakes and gaffes and too easily over-exposed to be much more. You play him heavily on the PP, against weaker competition at ES, and put him with a responsible partner and you'll be OK. There's a spot on the team for that kind of player. He'll end up getting his minutes, but 5 on 5, yes, he should be on your bottom pairing.

piqued is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:26 PM
  #729
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,899
vCash: 157
No way Goligoski is a bottom-pairing guy. He's more of a legit #2 than Daley is. I still think he'll end up being a 40+ point defenseman (he did put up 46 one year, and has been on pace every year except last), and be a top-pairing offensive defender for a long while.

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:39 PM
  #730
piqued
Global Moderator
victory green?
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 30,647
vCash: 27750
Hey, if you want your top pairing defender with a negative 5v5 GF/60 - GA/60 differential, go for it. If you want a top pairing defender who barely ends up in the offensive zone more than he starts (2nd worst ratio on the team after Robidas), go for it. If you want a top pairing defender that can't be trusted to hold a lead or play in his own zone, then yeah, he's your guy.

Or, you could utilize him correctly, reap the benefits of his offensive game, and minimize the impact of his defense.

I don't know how you talk about a top pairing player needing to play a complete game and then turn around and call Goligoski a top pairing player.

piqued is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:50 PM
  #731
Cin
Eurosnob.
 
Cin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Country: Thailand
Posts: 6,936
vCash: 558
I'm not sure how you can not like Goligoski's game and like Daley's. They both make the exact same type of errors.

I will however, agree with you that Daley is the better all around player.

At the end of the day though, we're still talking about two defenseman who are really only #3-5 guys on a contending team.

Nemeth :

His physicality will come through just like Larsen's did. Remember me harping on him constantly? Saying he didn't hit, and would shy away from play a lot? He changed tremendously, and he's smaller, and definitely not as strong as Nemeth.

Also realize that the style game Texas plays doesn't really cater towards Nemeth showing off his physicality with good hits in the neutral zone, or the defensive zone for that matter.

Cin is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:10 PM
  #732
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,899
vCash: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
Hey, if you want your top pairing defender with a negative 5v5 GF/60 - GA/60 differential, go for it. If you want a top pairing defender who barely ends up in the offensive zone more than he starts (2nd worst ratio on the team after Robidas), go for it. If you want a top pairing defender that can't be trusted to hold a lead or play in his own zone, then yeah, he's your guy.

Or, you could utilize him correctly, reap the benefits of his offensive game, and minimize the impact of his defense.

I don't know how you talk about a top pairing player needing to play a complete game and then turn around and call Goligoski a top pairing player.
I don't see how you can argue against a 40 point defenseman not being a top pairing guy. It's not like he's a huge liability in his own zone (he's not good, but he's not god awful), and his offense more than makes up for it.

By complete, I don't mean that every top-pairing guy has to be complete. Daley doesn't have one big specialty though, and his game isn't complete enough to warrant top-pairing praise. Goligoski is strong enough offensively for me to give him that.

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:16 PM
  #733
piqued
Global Moderator
victory green?
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 30,647
vCash: 27750
Well first of all let's wait until Goligoski actually scores 40 points regularly before we call him a 40 point defenseman.

Fowler scored 40 his rookie year... did that make him a top pairing D?

piqued is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:22 PM
  #734
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,899
vCash: 157
Last year was the only year he wasn't on pace. He scored 46 the year he was traded to us, and has been very close several times. I think its safe to say he's a 40 point defenseman.

I'd consider Fowler a top-pairing guy still, actually. He's starting to get underrated.

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 05:19 PM
  #735
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,613
vCash: 475
IMO ... what piqued is saying about Goligoski isn't a negative. I know I like Goli much more than piqued does, but I think you guys are getting caught up in labels at this point.

At ES, no one should be arguing that Goli is Dallas' best option. That's all piqued is saying. Essentially, Goli is not Sergei Zubov (an all around true number 1 D for all situations).

What Goli can be is a dynamic offensive player that at ES isn't shutting down the other teams top players. He will though be one of your key PP players.

There's nothing wrong with protecting a guy at ES if you have the players to accommodate that situation, and I believe that is all piqued is saying.

If we're going to argue semantics though, just scoring 40 points doesn't make you a top pair D. That makes you a very good offensive player. Top pair D do it all, and Goligoski is weaker in some areas of defending. Dallas should easily have better options for playing the other team's best players.

I wouldn't characterize Goli as a liability, but I think like Robidas he tends to be used incorrectly. If this guy was playing the role piqued described, you'd be maximizing an asset rather than trying to force a square peg in a round hole.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 05:33 PM
  #736
Alistar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Azores
Posts: 8,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
Hey, if you want your top pairing defender with a negative 5v5 GF/60 - GA/60 differential, go for it. If you want a top pairing defender who barely ends up in the offensive zone more than he starts (2nd worst ratio on the team after Robidas), go for it. If you want a top pairing defender that can't be trusted to hold a lead or play in his own zone, then yeah, he's your guy.

Or, you could utilize him correctly, reap the benefits of his offensive game, and minimize the impact of his defense.

I don't know how you talk about a top pairing player needing to play a complete game and then turn around and call Goligoski a top pairing player.
Well as a point in Goligoski's favour he had one of the best even strength 5 on 5 corsi ratings in the entire league for players that had played at least 50 games last year, and Josh Lile had him with one of the best ratios of scoring chances generated / allowed while on the ice. It's interesting how over 60 minutes of even strength Goligoski ice time last season the team generated 9 more shots / attempts on net than the opposition but was somehow outscored ***Had to correct his, I accidently used Goligoski's relative corsi +16 as opposed to his raw corsi +9**. It just reeks of bad luck to me. Let me remind you that in 2010-11 in 83 games Goligoski had an excellent ratio of goals forward vs. goals against despite worse (but still solid) possession numbers. And that generally the players in the NHL with the best corsi / fenwick numbers tend to have the best ratios of goals forward vs. goal against.

Also I don't think that comparison of zone starts / zone finishes is a very accurate potrayal of Goligoski's talent, or a correct use of the statistic. Zone finishes regress heavily towads 50% - just look at the Sedin brothers on Vancouver who started in the offensive zone 80% of the time but finished there just 58% of the time. Nobody would say the Sedins are horrible possession players, although by the ratio that you are using to judge Goligoski they would rank as the worst players in the entire league. Goligoski started in the offensive zone roughly 50% of the time and ended there roughly 50% of the time. That's exactly what would should be expected of a typical defenceman. The part that you're missing out on relying on that stat is that in between those whistles the team was generating a much higher number of shots and scoring chances than it was allowing based on the statistical measurements we have for those qualities.

Do you use Goligoski in the offensive zone as much as possible against weak competition? Absolutely in my opinion, just so long as you have a couple of guys on your blueline that can handle the other team's best. Goligoski has been an excellent scorer from the blue line in the past and generally makes a positive impact on the game when he's on the ice. Looking at the blueline the way it is now however - without Grossmann and especially Souray who took many of those tough matchups last year, I think the Stars have worse options in their own end than Goligoski. Looking at his stats and having watched him over the last two years he doesn't strike me as a guy that really needs to be sheltered. As for whether he's a top pairing defender or not, Goligoski is a guy you want playing top minutes because he can do so much out there which makes him a top pairing guy in my book, even if he isn't playing all of those minutes against the other team's top line.


Last edited by Alistar: 01-03-2013 at 05:41 PM.
Alistar is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:29 PM
  #737
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,613
vCash: 475
Mirtle explains variance in detail here, and it does look like they're leaning toward the definition we talked about first. Basically, the only thing that matters is the first year of the contract. If it's $10 million for Year 1, the contract can't go up or down more than $2 million from one year to the next.

Since most people don't have a big problem with back loaded contracts, he spoke about front loaded mostly. Here's a table he created to show the difference between 10% and 20%.


BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:39 PM
  #738
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,613
vCash: 475
Mirtle added this via Twitter:

Quote:
James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

Those escrow charts highlight why NHL will want more than just the 20% variance limit. They'll push for a type of minimum limit, too.
That is interesting. A 20% variance seems counterproductive to what the league is trying to do. It doesn't help the players much either.

It would be interesting to see say a 75% limit also applied. For example, a contract paying $10 million in Year 1 could never pay less than $2.5 million. IMO, I don't think they should set any limit on back loaded contracts other than variance.

Example: 7 year Front loaded contract paying $35.5 million or $5.071 million/year ($10, $8, $6, $4, $2.5, $2.5, $2.5)

EDIT: That's what I get for not reading the whole article. I was just skimming the end, and I noticed he already used this exact example at the bottom of the article I linked.

Also, the league may want to be more severe than that:

Quote:
Elliotte Friedman has reported the league wants it as high as 60 per cent, which would obviously wipe out all of the charts above and most possibilities for circumvention.
That would mean no yearly salary could be below $6 million in any year of the contract.

Therefore, the lowest possible cap hit on a 7 year deal that pays $10 million in Year 1 with 20% variance would be about $6.85 million/year.


Last edited by BigG44: 01-03-2013 at 06:46 PM. Reason: EDIT: Didn't read the whole article
BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 07:01 PM
  #739
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,613
vCash: 475
Here's a really good rundown of where the two sides have not come to an agreement from Elliotte Friedman.

Highlights:
  • Cap for the 2013-14 season: NHL wants $60 million US; the players $65 million
  • Contract Length: NHL at six years for someone else's free agent, seven years for your own; NHLPA wants eight years overall
  • Both sides accept a 10-year term on CBA: league wants the mutual out after 8 seasons; players want it to be 7
  • League wants the expiration date to be June 30, instead of Sept. 15 (The NHLPA would like it to stay the same). That would prevent another spending orgy right before pleading poverty.
  • 1 source outlined the league has proposed 30% variance, but that no year in any multi-season contract can be lower than 60% of the highest-paid year

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 07:24 PM
  #740
Cin
Eurosnob.
 
Cin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Country: Thailand
Posts: 6,936
vCash: 558
Players are asking for too much in 8 year contracts.

Cin is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 07:26 PM
  #741
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
Here's a really good rundown of where the two sides have not come to an agreement from Elliotte Friedman.

Highlights:
  • Cap for the 2013-14 season: NHL wants $60 million US; the players $65 million
  • Contract Length: NHL at six years for someone else's free agent, seven years for your own; NHLPA wants eight years overall
  • Both sides accept a 10-year term on CBA: league wants the mutual out after 8 seasons; players want it to be 7
  • League wants the expiration date to be June 30, instead of Sept. 15 (The NHLPA would like it to stay the same). That would prevent another spending orgy right before pleading poverty.
  • 1 source outlined the league has proposed 30% variance, but that no year in any multi-season contract can be lower than 60% of the highest-paid year
7 years vs 8 years for the opt out seems like fighting just to fight. lame.
I like the potential 60% thing. It seems pretty reasonable to me
They should just split the difference for a 62.5 m cap
the expiration date ending sooner makes perfect sense to me

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 07:56 PM
  #742
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,613
vCash: 475
Hopefully they don't have to split the difference anymore.

This is what I wanted to hear. It just makes to much damn sense.

Quote:
Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris

Correct. $44 million RT @andystrickland: Hearing the #NHLPA is suggesting the floor stays the same at $65 million as it would be at $60 mill
No reason to fight at this point. Bettman gets to protect the floor teams, and the players and cap teams get some protection.

This is definitely what I was talking about the other day. Hopefully logic prevails.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 08:00 PM
  #743
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,613
vCash: 475
Should probably go check Michael Grange's twitter feed right now if you want an explanation of the legal proceedings coming Monday.

@michaelgrange

Here's the quickie, the judge seems to understand how time sensitive this situation is, and he's willing to bend over backwards to get this situation resolved.

Quote:
#NHL For hockey fans, looks like NHL-NHLPA lucked into right judge.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 08:02 PM
  #744
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
Hopefully they don't have to split the difference anymore.

This is what I wanted to hear. It just makes to much damn sense.



No reason to fight at this point. Bettman gets to protect the floor teams, and the players and cap teams get some protection.

This is definitely what I was talking about the other day. Hopefully logic prevails.
that seems to be the best solution. the league probably doesnt want that big of a gap long term but they should accept it transitionally.

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 08:16 PM
  #745
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,899
vCash: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
7 years vs 8 years for the opt out seems like fighting just to fight. lame.
I like the potential 60% thing. It seems pretty reasonable to me
They should just split the difference for a 62.5 m cap
the expiration date ending sooner makes perfect sense to me
Agree on all points, was thinking the exact same things. There's literally next to no reason to want the CBA to expire right before the season begins.

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 08:32 PM
  #746
________
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to ________ Send a message via MSN to ________
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
Should probably go check Michael Grange's twitter feed right now if you want an explanation of the legal proceedings coming Monday.
Hopefully it doesn't even get to that point, and it's resolved before Monday.

________ is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 08:44 PM
  #747
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,613
vCash: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
Agree on all points, was thinking the exact same things. There's literally next to no reason to want the CBA to expire right before the season begins.
I agree with you both that June 30th makes the most since. However, there is a great reason the PA would want to wait until September. That would be the chaotic cash grab in free agency and just before the deadline that occurred.

That was a ridiculous situation, but it was great for several players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ________ View Post
Hopefully it doesn't even get to that point, and it's resolved before Monday.
Honestly, yeah it would be nice to get it done sooner, but this judge sounds perfect for the job to bridge the last small gaps. If it gets to this point, this does not seem to be a bad thing at all. According to Grange, the judge wants to get everything done by next week too.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 11:04 PM
  #748
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,613
vCash: 475
Interesting words from LeBrun. The headline is, "Talks going from embarrassing to worse":

Quote:
Seven or eight unresolved issues remain, sources say, the three most meaningful ones being the second-year cap, the length of player contacts and the players’ pension.

Are we really going to see a season canceled over those remaining issues? Or if a season is canceled, is it more because of the dysfunctional dynamic that exists between both sides in negotiation?

Did I mention this was the most embarrassing and irrational sports labor negotiation in history?

Logic dictates a deal will get done, given what little separates both sides. But logic has been benched for long periods of this sordid game.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 11:08 PM
  #749
Elysian
@AdamBath
 
Elysian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 6,839
vCash: 5355
There is no such thing as "lucking out" on a judge... This judge/court was specifically chosen, guaranteed.

Elysian is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 11:09 PM
  #750
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,613
vCash: 475
This is from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press re-tweeted by Michael Grange:

Quote:
A veteran member of the NHL’s board of governors says commissioner Gary Bettman is prepared to cancel the season on Thursday if a deal has not been reached or appears to be imminent.
Quote:
The governor said owners and league personnel believe Fehr is trying to blow up the process and is no longer interested in making a deal.

They say Bettman is prepared for such an eventuality and will be supported should he elect to cancel the season on Thursday if no deal is done. Bettman will then take off what is currently on the table.

Bettman will be willing to listen and talk with Fehr after he cancels the season but it will be on the basis of doing a deal for the 2013-14 season. Once the commissioner cancels this season, a 50-50 share will no longer be offered and the league will pursue a much revamped package because the owners will have no incentive to make the deal that was on the table.

A lost season will clearly do great damage to the game and the league will find itself in a new economic reality.

BigG44 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:06 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.