He sounds like a teenager tbh. Not meant in an insulting way, just seems somewhat immature and comical. Holding a personal grudge against a player because his friend had a high opinion of Goose? Jeez..
I actually thought there'd be a lot more teenagers here when I started posting regularly. Kind of surprised me to know I'm one of the younger posters here.
I can't decide if i think there is going to be a lot of roster turn over if we don't make the show, on one hand i feel it is the right thing to do, on the other i don't think it's going to happen unless Niuwendyk is gone which i do not think is likely... so i guess i have to guess that more things are going to be the same than different... anyone else care to weigh in
Honestly I think we'll see the most roster turnover under Niewy. If a new GM comes in he'll probably give it a year of analysis before making any huge roster overhaul. For that reason I want to give Niewy another year or two to see where his vision goes.
I really think Joe will jettison some of the core. He and Gaglardi were insistent about getting younger, and mentioned that most of that movement would happen in the offseason. Then the message changed to "getting younger while not hurting our playoff chances." Once we went on our streak, it finally it changed to "seeing what these guys can do, they've earned that."
I think Gaglardi will keep Niewy and they collectively will start getting younger by shipping out some vets. It was mentioned as the offseason plan, and it sounded like trade deadline the plan before the 10-0-1 streak convinced them to play the season out.
I'd bet we make a few minor trades and signings, I'd expect more of the same. I hope that Gaglardi puts his own stamp on this franchise. I think there will be a lot of roster turn over but not in the spots we need most or if there are they won't be upgrades.
I can't decide if i think there is going to be a lot of roster turn over if we don't make the show, on one hand i feel it is the right thing to do, on the other i don't think it's going to happen unless Niuwendyk is gone which i do not think is likely... so i guess i have to guess that more things are going to be the same than different... anyone else care to weigh in
I'm clinging to the notion that Nieuwendyk will be thinking like a man trying to save his job. The status quo was acceptable in recent years because of the ownership situation but that excuse (reason) is gone. If he fails to make hard decisions on veterans who have failed to get the job done that will now rest squarely on his shoulders.
A good bit of my respect for him as a leader off the ice rests on how he approaches this offseason.
I hope GMJN gets an earful once this team is officially out; this is his team, a team he thought was good enough to keep together through the trade deadline, and put on the ice every game down the stretch.
It hasn't worked.
I'm slow to the dance in this thread, but I can't read any further than this.
I haven't been very active in this forum the last couple years, and I've only watched the February games this season ... everything else I'm just reading online, so take this all with about a thousand grains of salt.
There have been some good runs and bad runs, but I see the story of the season right here:
Total Cap Hit: 49.780
Cap Space: 14.520
What do you want?
The team put together a nice run of form around / after the deadline and appear to have come up a bit short the last week of the season. GMJN hasn't had a 1 July with Tom Gagliardi's checkbook yet, so don't we have to judge him on a graduated scale?
Ryder signing looks great.
Grossman trade looks OK.
Richards left and now looks overpaid.
Segal was a nice waiver pickup.
Lehtonen trade looks genius ... where's Vishnevskiy playing now?
Neal and Niskanen for Goligoski has turned out OK ... I'd do it again knowing how it turned out.
Most of the rest of his transactions are $1m/year-type free agent signings and other moves that resemble treading water.
$14.5m is enough cash to add Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook and Patrick Sharp, which probably would have gotten us into the playoffs with a few points to spare.
I don't like tearing down the scaffolding while construction is in progress, so I'd like to see 2-3 years of this team with cash before I start calling for the head of GMJN or Gully. I'd entertain the idea of moving Morrow and handing the C to someone much younger, but tearing down everything would be terrible unless we're getting tremendous value.
I agree that Goligoski would play much better with a bigger stay at home type but his defense is far below the level of Keith's.
Fair enough. My view is simply that Keith isn't that great defensively. He's not horrible, but he needs a solid partner to cover for him. Overall, I think he's better than Goligoski but I think if you put him on the Stars and paired him with Larsen you would see very similar results defensively.
I want Goli to succeed in Dallas ..... but we need to stop making the excuse that Larsen is bringing down Goligoski defensively.
Piqued is better at the advanced stats, but I'll do my best and he can correct anything I get wrong.
Based on relative +/- (player on ice +/- in relation to team +/- with player on bench), Larsen is a +0.89 (Best) to Goligoski's -0.41 (2nd worst). They've only been partners on and off since December.
They also face close to the same level of competition based on the quality of competition stat.
That means against the same competition, Dallas was more likely to have a positive outcome (goal/not get scored on) with Larsen on the ice than Goligoski.
I want Goli to succeed in Dallas ..... but we need to stop making the excuse that Larsen is bringing down Goligoski defensively.
Piqued is better at the advanced stats, but I'll do my best and he can correct anything I get wrong.
Based on relative +/- (player on ice +/- in relation to team +/- with player on bench), Larsen is a +0.89 (Best) to Goligoski's -0.41 (2nd worst). They've only been partners on and off since December.
They also face close to the same level of competition based on the quality of competition stat.
That means against the same competition, Dallas was more likely to have a positive outcome (goal/not get scored on) with Larsen on the ice than Goligoski.
+/- is a terrible stat even in the advanced versions, Goligoski has been extremely unlucky this year and larsen has been extremely lucky at even strength in regards to sv%+s%(AKA PDO), goligoski is at .981 PDO while larsen is at a whopping 1.020 which will have a MAJOR effect on +/-
Also there are many different QoC stats and are based on all kinds of different stuff
I think the most important stats for defenseman in particular is corsi(which is shot attempt differential) and OZ finish% - OZ start%, these two really drive the chances that the team is getting while a certain player is on the ice and also how well they drive the transition game which are of utmost importance in todays game
I dont think anyone is blaming Larsen but rather pointing out that he just isn't the type of dman who Goligoski should be paired with. I think the reverse is true as well. Both of these guys are best suited playing with a bigger physical partner who can free them up a bit. In my estimation Goligoski is pretty darn good defensively in the neutral zone. He really starts to struggle when the team gets hemmed in and is prone to exiting the zone gaffs which really hurt his overall perception.
+/- is a terrible stat. Relative +/- is very effective stat comparing how the team performs with and without a certain player.
Compared to his teammates, Goligoski was more likely to negatively impact the team than any other defenseman.
That sucks, and he can only get better, but that is the reality of the season.
It is still heavily luck based relative plus minus doesn't take anything like PDO in to account which it would need to be a useful stat (Imo), the 2-4% difference between PDO when compared to his team mates is huge over the course of a year
just as a point of reference of the 172 defenseman that have played more than 50 games he is tied for 21st lowest PDO(luck)
Gogo needs a decent guy who can cover in front. That is not larsen and the coaches should know this. Look at the SJ goal after the Benn -gogo equalizer. Gogo loses a puck battle , it is throw out front larsen is too far out and goal. Assuming Suter is fantasy, I would explore a guy like Mitchell or even a guy like Kuba or Kubina on a short term deal. Fistric is too erractic and part of that was the way he was or was not developed. Souray can come back as a #6 at 1 million. Robidas should retire
I want Goli to succeed in Dallas ..... but we need to stop making the excuse that Larsen is bringing down Goligoski defensively.
Piqued is better at the advanced stats, but I'll do my best and he can correct anything I get wrong.
Based on relative +/- (player on ice +/- in relation to team +/- with player on bench), Larsen is a +0.89 (Best) to Goligoski's -0.41 (2nd worst). They've only been partners on and off since December.
They also face close to the same level of competition based on the quality of competition stat.
That means against the same competition, Dallas was more likely to have a positive outcome (goal/not get scored on) with Larsen on the ice than Goligoski.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc
I dont think anyone is blaming Larsen but rather pointing out that he just isn't the type of dman who Goligoski should be paired with. I think the reverse is true as well. Both of these guys are best suited playing with a bigger physical partner who can free them up a bit. In my estimation Goligoski is pretty darn good defensively in the neutral zone. He really starts to struggle when the team gets hemmed in and is prone to exiting the zone gaffs which really hurt his overall perception.
Exactly. It's not that Larsen makes Goligoski worse, it's that Goligoski doesn't play to his full potential with Larsen. Goligoski was brought in for his offensive talents not to clear the front of the net. You put two small, offensively gifted defensemen together and one of them is going to have to hold back and concentrate on defense at the expense of his offensive game.
You put two small, offensively gifted defensemen together and one of them is going to have to hold back and concentrate on defense at the expense of his offensive game.
It is still heavily luck based relative plus minus doesn't take anything like PDO in to account which it would need to be a useful stat (Imo), the 2-4% difference between PDO when compared to his team mates is huge over the course of a year
just as a point of reference of the 172 defenseman that have played more than 50 games he is tied for 21st lowest PDO(luck)
It's just team shooting% +, save% while the player is on the ice, just a simple way to express one of many forms of luck in hockey, it very quickly regresses to 1
I think it goes back and forth between the two of them. Neither of them has a lot of experience as a top pairing NHL defenseman and it seems neither has really figured out who the dominant player is in that pairing.
