HFBoards

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

Stars Bench Goose Tonight

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-07-2013, 05:46 PM
  #76
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,900
vCash: 157
No one thought it was a bad trade for us at the end of that season.

LatvianTwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 05:48 PM
  #77
hairylikebear
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
 
hairylikebear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 1,956
vCash: 500
I suppose I was the only one then...

hairylikebear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 06:33 PM
  #78
Rune Forumwalker
Registered User
 
Rune Forumwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
No one thought it was a bad trade for us at the end of that season.
Exactly. He stepped into a team with a good PP and racked up points. Now he is struggling on a team with a record worst PP last year that doesn't look to have much better even with better offensive players added to the team.

I'm willing to bet that with a solid supporting cast and coaching Goligoski would be looking much better.

Rune Forumwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 07:47 PM
  #79
haf
Registered User
 
haf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune Forumwalker View Post
Exactly. He stepped into a team with a good PP and racked up points. Now he is struggling on a team with a record worst PP last year that doesn't look to have much better even with better offensive players added to the team.

I'm willing to bet that with a solid supporting cast and coaching Goligoski would be looking much better.
True. What player wouldn't? Not at all trying to be snarky.

But I imagine you could put any number of struggling players on established teams with good implemented systems and see them flourish. Simplify the game, don't do too much, etc. All the good clichés. Grossman seems to be doing well.

and thanks for correction on Malkin. sloppy on my part. was caught up in rest of argument. same point though.

haf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 09:16 PM
  #80
Rune Forumwalker
Registered User
 
Rune Forumwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,574
vCash: 500
Yep. There is a bunch of revisionist history over this trade after the past season when Neal finally put it all together. I'm happy the change of scenery helped him and Nisky as they both really needed it after how badly their play was regressing here.

Rune Forumwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 12:59 AM
  #81
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 14,686
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by haf View Post
Regarding the currrent James Neal discussion:

I think the thing missing from this discussion is that James Neal was NOT elite when he was here. He showed some flashes, but mostly looked like a streaky, physical 2nd line winger.

55 pt is not elite.

So regardless of what we thought his value and ceiling with the team was, noone had SEEN it yet. So it's not like Joe could have garnered Shea Webber or even Kris Letang. We were DESPERATE for defense and Joe took a risk.

This is made worse by the fact that Neal ended up having great chemistry with Sydney Crosby. But honestly, does anyone think Michael Ryder wouldn't have 40-45 goals playing with Crosby? Doesn't make Ryder worth a #1 defenseman.

So Joe found what he thought was a diamond in the rough that could blossom and used a 2nd line power play guy (with terrible defense, even still) to get him. A risk and he whiffed (we think).

TL;DR - We DID NOT trade a 40 goal scoring maniac to the penguins. We traded a 25 goal streak scorer to the penguins. We missed. No doubt. But if the trade would have been to Columbus, and he was playing with Umberger, and still scoring between 20 -30 goals, would we think of this trade the same way?

Does he score 40 without Crosby? maybe, but I doubt it.

Goligoski put up 40 pts from the 3rd pairing. Looked good. Sometimes, you miss.

let it go.
There is so much ridiculous about this post, starting with the fact that you're talking about a 22 year old player in a way that more than implies that he was a finished product; "we traded a 25 goal scorer who was streaky", etc.

What makes Neal then different from Ryder now is age, that should be obvious. It should also be obvious how that age difference effects the value of each.

And to your point about him going to play with Umberger in Columbus as opposed to Pittsburgh goes, it has little to no bearing on how I personally feel about the trade. I watched Neal here and I've seen Goligoski here, each for a decent amount of time. The reason everyone is upset is because the young, streaky version of Neal we all grew to know so well is miles more useful than the guy who is sucking up 25 minutes a night or whatever it is on our blueline. It has zero to do with his stats in Pittsburgh since the trade. Do people who think that honestly think Neal and Benn couldn't play some ****ing ace give and go hockey?

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 01:07 AM
  #82
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 14,686
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune Forumwalker View Post
Yep. There is a bunch of revisionist history over this trade after the past season when Neal finally put it all together.
As a person who was semi on board with the trade when it happened I'll take issue with you calling the present conversation revisionist history. There are a lot of people who are over-correcting by talking Neal's play as a Star down to the point of absurdity. The question of the trade has always circled around Goligoski's true potential, something nobody knew because he was so shielded by better defensemen in Pittsburgh. Neal wasn't being shielded in Dallas and still produced goals on one of the better lines in hockey. There was no question he was going to succeed in Pittsburgh.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 01:31 AM
  #83
Henderson33
Registered User
 
Henderson33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 480
vCash: 500
If Goligoski continued playing the way he did when he first got here I wouldn't care what Neal is doing in Pittsburgh. But he didn't, last season was awful and so far this season is even worse. Neal was better in Dallas than Goligoski has been so far. Maybe a different coach would help his play, he played great for the 23 games when Crawford was here but when Gully was hired, his play went down a few too many notches. Not saying it's the coach's fault, 23 games is a small sample size, but it is interesting how bad he became when Gully took over.

Henderson33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 03:10 AM
  #84
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 14,686
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henderson33 View Post
If Goligoski continued playing the way he did when he first got here I wouldn't care what Neal is doing in Pittsburgh. But he didn't, last season was awful and so far this season is even worse. Neal was better in Dallas than Goligoski has been so far. Maybe a different coach would help his play, he played great for the 23 games when Crawford was here but when Gully was hired, his play went down a few too many notches. Not saying it's the coach's fault, 23 games is a small sample size, but it is interesting how bad he became when Gully took over.
It's a sample size issue. The head coach didn't change in Pittsburgh yet Neal and Goligoski's stock went the opposite direction of each's 2010-11 contributions to their respective new teams the season after the trade.

Post-trade 2010-11:

Goligoski: 23GP-5-10-15pts
Neal: 20GP-1-5-6pts


2011-12:

Goligoski: 71GP-9-21-30pts
Neal: 80GP-40-41-81pts

If you want to leave Neal out of the equation and look only at Goligoski's situation, as mentioned before he came onto a team that had a competent PP with no doubt about who was running it (Richards). Fast forward a year when Goligoski, the shiny new offensive toy on the blueline had no Richards and was asked to QB the PP and he failed miserably. That team finished the year with three 70 point scorers, a 33 goal Morrow, and a 22 goal Jamie Benn.

Goligoski's play declined along with his production when he was asked to step into a starring role with added responsibility, something he was never asked to do before. He's a fine complimentary piece and plays better when in that role. The problem is that he was traded for a guy who should have netted a player who could take charge of at least the PP in the absence of Richards.

All of those things are on Nieuwendyk because he was trading the clearly more proven player. Neal played against other teams' top defensive units as a centerpiece of a legitimate scoring line. Goligoski was asked to chip in offensively and not kill his team defensively in Pittsburgh. No matter how you slice it it was a gamble on one of those GM's part and not the other.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 11:57 AM
  #85
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,617
vCash: 475
I appreciate his professionalism. No one should fault a guy for being initially upset, but the positive is that he recognizes the scratch was because of his play and not some injustice

Quote:
“Initially it was a slap, then you cool down a little bit and realize some things and take positives out of it,” said Goligoski. “There’s definitely another level of my game that I really haven’t gotten to yet. I’ve just got to keep working out there, find it and just go play.”


Last edited by BigG44: 02-08-2013 at 12:04 PM.
BigG44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 12:01 PM
  #86
StarsFan74
Registered User
 
StarsFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Country: India
Posts: 2,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
I appreciate his professionalism. No one should fault a guy for being initially upset, but the positive is that he recognizes the scratch was because of his play and not some injustice

“Initially it was a slap, then you cool down a little bit and realize some things and take positives out of it,” said Goligoski. “There’s definitely another level of my game that I really haven’t gotten to yet. I’ve just got to keep working out there, find it and just go play.”
And Larsen is scratched

StarsFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 02:30 PM
  #87
Verbal Kint
Registered User
 
Verbal Kint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarsFan74 View Post
And Larsen is scratched
I wish they could bench Gulutzan.

Verbal Kint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 02:34 PM
  #88
WhoahNow
Registered User
 
WhoahNow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 485
vCash: 500
Change thread title to Stars Bench Larsen Every Night

WhoahNow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 12:50 PM
  #89
haf
Registered User
 
haf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
There is so much ridiculous about this post, starting with the fact that you're talking about a 22 year old player in a way that more than implies that he was a finished product; "we traded a 25 goal scorer who was streaky", etc.

What makes Neal then different from Ryder now is age, that should be obvious. It should also be obvious how that age difference effects the value of each.

And to your point about him going to play with Umberger in Columbus as opposed to Pittsburgh goes, it has little to no bearing on how I personally feel about the trade. I watched Neal here and I've seen Goligoski here, each for a decent amount of time. The reason everyone is upset is because the young, streaky version of Neal we all grew to know so well is miles more useful than the guy who is sucking up 25 minutes a night or whatever it is on our blueline. It has zero to do with his stats in Pittsburgh since the trade. Do people who think that honestly think Neal and Benn couldn't play some ****ing ace give and go hockey?
You may disagree with the post, and that's fine, but it isn't ridiculous.

Neal was 22 and Goose was 24, both at emergent ages for their position. Goose had 40 pts FROM THE THIRD PAIRING. That's crazy talk. But stuck on the depth chart behind established defenseman who had proven themselves.

Neal had Brad Richards and was about to lose him. Did we have a center that looked like a suitable playmaker ready? Good enough to make Neal shine, who needs a playmaker to do his thing? Is Neal as complete a player or as good as Loui? I would still rather have Loui any day. and again, we were desperate for a power play quarterback (again with Richards leaving).

I was not implying that he was a finished product, only clarifying what we had seen to that point. Some guys continue to get better. Some guys don't. Speculation is a tough business.

Of course the age differences of Ryder and Neal affect their respective trade value. The reference was not to value, but the statistical impact of linemates. Ryder would score more with Malkin as his center, just as Neal did. Anybody would.

For the record, I didn't like the trade then, and I obviously don't like it now. As much as we needed a PMD, at the time I would have preferred a veteran presence to help settle our young defenseman down, calm the unit as a whole. Now Goose can't even make the little plays much less be a calming influence.

I am just trying to make the point that we didn't trade Brett Hull for Sami Salo or anything. Neal is playing with one of the top two or three playmakers of a generation (if not the best), which would make any sniper look good. He has made the most of it and I am super happy for him (though I still hate the pens).

As far as feelings about the trade go, on that, I am right there with you. I feel like James Neal is a quality scoring winger, of which we home grow very few it seems, and we could have done better.

But who knows? Goose has maybe been carrying the burden of Neal's success and the disarray of our defense on his shoulders and it is affecting his play. If some of these kids pan out (dillon, Oleksiak, Nemeth), and they look like they could/should, maybe that will take some of the burden off and he will start playing like himself again, a 2nd pairing, power play quarter back. Which we could still really use if we can get some stuff straight around him.

haf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 08:55 PM
  #90
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 14,686
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by haf View Post
You may disagree with the post, and that's fine, but it isn't ridiculous.

Neal was 22 and Goose was 24, both at emergent ages for their position. Goose had 40 pts FROM THE THIRD PAIRING. That's crazy talk. But stuck on the depth chart behind established defenseman who had proven themselves.

Neal had Brad Richards and was about to lose him. Did we have a center that looked like a suitable playmaker ready? Good enough to make Neal shine, who needs a playmaker to do his thing? Is Neal as complete a player or as good as Loui? I would still rather have Loui any day. and again, we were desperate for a power play quarterback (again with Richards leaving).

I was not implying that he was a finished product, only clarifying what we had seen to that point. Some guys continue to get better. Some guys don't. Speculation is a tough business.

Of course the age differences of Ryder and Neal affect their respective trade value. The reference was not to value, but the statistical impact of linemates. Ryder would score more with Malkin as his center, just as Neal did. Anybody would.

For the record, I didn't like the trade then, and I obviously don't like it now. As much as we needed a PMD, at the time I would have preferred a veteran presence to help settle our young defenseman down, calm the unit as a whole. Now Goose can't even make the little plays much less be a calming influence.

I am just trying to make the point that we didn't trade Brett Hull for Sami Salo or anything. Neal is playing with one of the top two or three playmakers of a generation (if not the best), which would make any sniper look good. He has made the most of it and I am super happy for him (though I still hate the pens).

As far as feelings about the trade go, on that, I am right there with you. I feel like James Neal is a quality scoring winger, of which we home grow very few it seems, and we could have done better.

But who knows? Goose has maybe been carrying the burden of Neal's success and the disarray of our defense on his shoulders and it is affecting his play. If some of these kids pan out (dillon, Oleksiak, Nemeth), and they look like they could/should, maybe that will take some of the burden off and he will start playing like himself again, a 2nd pairing, power play quarter back. Which we could still really use if we can get some stuff straight around him.
Just a couple things.

Just as Neal benefits from playing with Malkin, so too did Goligoski benefit from playing defense on a team with Malkin, Crosby, and Letang (though on this point I'm not sure if they played the PP together). Point being, the same guys who you credit with inflating Neal's stats were also helping pad Goligoski's.

The other point is just something I'll reiterate because we've seen it for over a season now - Goligoski is NOT a PPQB. He has some skills from the back end but he doesn't have the necessary hockey IQ to properly conduct a PP. If you or someone else disagrees with that I'd love to have that conversation in more depth.


Last edited by glovesave_35: 02-09-2013 at 09:53 PM. Reason: QB->PP
glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 09:08 PM
  #91
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,900
vCash: 157
Why have we not tried to use Benn as a PPQB?

Or better yet, Jagr?

LatvianTwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 09:30 PM
  #92
haf
Registered User
 
haf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
Just a couple things.

Just as Neal benefits from playing with Malkin, so too did Goligoski benefit from playing defense on a team with Malkin, Crosby, and Letang (though on this point I'm not sure if they played the PP together). Point being, the same guys who you credit with inflating Neal's stats were also helping pad Goligoski's.

The other point is just something I'll reiterate because we've seen it for over a season now - Goligoski is NOT a PPQB. He has some skills from the back end but he doesn't have the necessary hockey IQ to properly conduct a QB. If you or someone else disagrees with that I'd love to have that conversation in more depth.
Thanks for keeping it short. I get verbose sometimes and it's hard to make points quickly.
sorry.

1st point: true! no rebuttal. absolutely true.

2nd point: I think you may be roughly half right. i wonder if he just isn't a leader. like he can be a solid to really good facilitator, but can't have the pressure of it riding on his shoulders. i know i am not nit-picking but that is different than IQ. he has good vision. he generally makes crisp smart passes and he can be creative. he can get his shot through. but it's very different when it is YOUR power play and not Malkin's or Crosby's.

I read somewhere that he is more sydor than zubov. fair enough. Sydor was still a really valuable power play defenseman. skills and vision. I would take it and run if he could get that together consistently.

haf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 09:56 PM
  #93
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,900
vCash: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by haf View Post
Thanks for keeping it short. I get verbose sometimes and it's hard to make points quickly.
sorry.

1st point: true! no rebuttal. absolutely true.

2nd point: I think you may be roughly half right. i wonder if he just isn't a leader. like he can be a solid to really good facilitator, but can't have the pressure of it riding on his shoulders. i know i am not nit-picking but that is different than IQ. he has good vision. he generally makes crisp smart passes and he can be creative. he can get his shot through. but it's very different when it is YOUR power play and not Malkin's or Crosby's.

I read somewhere that he is more sydor than zubov. fair enough. Sydor was still a really valuable power play defenseman. skills and vision. I would take it and run if he could get that together consistently.
That's actually a pretty solid comparison. We thought we were getting Zubov, though.

LatvianTwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 10:01 PM
  #94
Cin
Eurosnob.
 
Cin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Country: Thailand
Posts: 6,936
vCash: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
That's actually a pretty solid comparison. We thought we were getting Zubov, though.
I don't recall anybody ever thinking Goligoski was remotely close to Zubov.

Cin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 10:02 PM
  #95
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 14,686
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by haf View Post
2nd point: I think you may be roughly half right. i wonder if he just isn't a leader. like he can be a solid to really good facilitator, but can't have the pressure of it riding on his shoulders. i know i am not nit-picking but that is different than IQ. he has good vision. he generally makes crisp smart passes and he can be creative. he can get his shot through. but it's very different when it is YOUR power play and not Malkin's or Crosby's.

I read somewhere that he is more sydor than zubov. fair enough. Sydor was still a really valuable power play defenseman. skills and vision. I would take it and run if he could get that together consistently.
He's absolutely more Sydor than Zubov.

It's hard to know in exactly what area of his brain the problem lies but it's clearly a mental issue and not so much a skill issue. The thing is, it's not like he's playing with scrubs out there, yet none of those players has shown a willingness to push him aside to take the reins of what (based on his utilization) should be his PP.

The really big annoying thing is that the one defenseman of recent years who seems to not question his own ability on the PP is Larsen. The kid just looks like he knows what he wants to have happen out there and the players around him react accordingly. They react the opposite way with Goligoski because he seems hesitant. He also doesn't move his feet nearly enough, something that again, Larsen does really well.

Goligoski could go be Sydor to Larsen's Zubov on the PP. It just appears we'll never see that for any extended period of time with this coaching staff.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 10:08 PM
  #96
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 14,686
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cin View Post
I don't recall anybody ever thinking Goligoski was remotely close to Zubov.
That's because nobody did. I was hoping for something like a Brian Rafalski. Goligoski is no Rafalski.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 10:59 PM
  #97
StarsFan74
Registered User
 
StarsFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Country: India
Posts: 2,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
That's because nobody did. I was hoping for something like a Brian Rafalski. Goligoski is no Rafalski.
I believe it was sometime around the start of 2011-12 that someone mentioned on the Stars official boards that "Goligoski was the only/best puck mover since we last had Zubov" and someone else there who hated the trade lost his mind since he thought it meant Goose = Zubov . It was "fun" trying to convince that individual that that was not what was implied in that statement.

StarsFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 11:00 PM
  #98
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,900
vCash: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cin View Post
I don't recall anybody ever thinking Goligoski was remotely close to Zubov.
I sure didn't. Meant management did, or at least someone who could take his spot (we'll probably have to wait quite a few years to get a player of his caliber back).

LatvianTwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 11:03 PM
  #99
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 14,686
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
I sure didn't. Meant management did, or at least someone who could take his spot (we'll probably have to wait quite a few years to get a player of his caliber back).
Chances are that wait will be a very long one. I sometimes wonder if Stars fans are aware of how lucky we were and just how good Zubov really was. The shoes to fill in that regard are larger than Modano's, strictly speaking on ice and locker room contributions.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 11:10 PM
  #100
Brand New Stars
Registered User
 
Brand New Stars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: McKinney/C-Stat, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 3,159
vCash: 500
I'd be shocked if Dallas got a dman as good as Zubov in the next 10-15 years. It'll take someone very special to unseat Zubov as the best dman in Stars history.

Brand New Stars is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:28 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.