HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Worst and most improved team in 08/09?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-03-2008, 04:32 PM
  #26
DungeonK
Love Thy Neighbor
 
DungeonK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 5,617
vCash: 500
I really don't see any scenario where Toronto doesn't finish last next season unless they make some serious moves. Right now, look at their roster, Jason Blake IS their offense.

DungeonK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 06:10 PM
  #27
shaolinson
Bim Jenning
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rain City
Country: Canada
Posts: 862
vCash: 500
worst: Vancouver

shaolinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 07:07 PM
  #28
Safir*
 
Safir*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: Turkmenistan
Posts: 13,959
vCash: 500
Tampa improved on paper, but it's gonna be challange for Melrose to develop chemistry. When you consider that he hasn't coached in "ages", than it's an even bigger challange. (The Rangers are in a similar spot, btw.)

Overall, it's too early for these types of lists. You still have some decent UFA's out there and a bunch of RFA's aren't resigned, yet. Give it some time, before compiling your lists.

Safir* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 08:16 PM
  #29
RocheBag
Registered User
 
RocheBag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: CBS, Newfoundland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,101
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RocheBag Send a message via MSN to RocheBag
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayne View Post
Improved: Chicago, Edmonton
Worst: Boston (LOL Ryder), Toronto
What? How does signing a scorer, overpayment or not, make you a worse team?

RocheBag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 10:51 PM
  #30
1UP
Registered User
 
1UP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocheBag View Post
What? How does signing a scorer, overpayment or not, make you a worse team?
I agree there. Moreover, Ryder + Julien = Badass. I wouldn't be surprised a second to see Ryder go back to the 60 pts, 30 goals +10 season he had under Julien in MTL.

1UP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 11:00 PM
  #31
lemieux32*
 
lemieux32*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAX attack View Post

St. Louis was not very competitive this season and has not made any major advancements in terms of their team. I doubt that this team is any more competitive than it was last year, but it is going in the right direction nonetheless (12-15)
Not very competitive? They were in the playoff hunt for the first two thirds of the season and where in the top five in the West for a decent amount of time.

No major advancements in terms of their team? They added a solid goalie to be a backup, a HUGE problem last season that was a major factor in the tailspin in the last third of the season.

I am going to give you a failing grade for this one.

lemieux32* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 11:35 PM
  #32
futurcorerock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 6,489
vCash: 500
Columbus most certainly made improvements. I'm not sure if you saw the Jackets blueline last year but it was a pathetic squad. They replaced half of their top 6, improved their depth, and have consistency with the direction of their roster for the first time ever.

I'd call them one of 3 of the most improved teams in the NHL next to New York and Tampa Bay.

It sounds more like you are bashing the deals that were made rather than how the deals improved the team.

futurcorerock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 11:40 PM
  #33
LAX attack*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Danger Zone
Country: United States
Posts: 14,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LAX attack*
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemieux32 View Post
Not very competitive? They were in the playoff hunt for the first two thirds of the season and where in the top five in the West for a decent amount of time.

No major advancements in terms of their team? They added a solid goalie to be a backup, a HUGE problem last season that was a major factor in the tailspin in the last third of the season.

I am going to give you a failing grade for this one.
It depends on your definition of competing for the playoffs, but ending with a top 5 pick to me doesnt suggest competitiveness

Chris Mason is still a question mark, coming off the brutal season that he had

Top-5 in the west for like the first 5 games isnt a "decent" amount of time

LAX attack* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2008, 12:00 AM
  #34
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 24,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyscene View Post
I don't think the Islanders will be bottom five in the league. The team was doing relatively well until DiPietro, and subsequently everyone else, went down with injury.

They were 24-20-6 before the ASG.
Hard to say how the Islanders will do. On one hand the team was doing well before Dipietro and 4 of there starting 6 defensemen got injured(on a weak defense to begin with) as well as a few forwards. The team was a borderline playoff team who took a quick noise dive when injuries caught up to them. On the other hand alot of the players are 1 year older(not a good thing for Guerin, Sutton, Witt, Weight, Sillinger) and the team looks weaker on paper then they did this time(-Satan, Fedotanko, Vasicek(basically what ammounted to our "2nd line"), + a bunch of Young unproven guys, and Old weight and questionable defensmen Streit) last year.

Assuming we don't have injury issues as bad as last season, i don't see them doing as bad as last year, that being said we will be hard pressed to make the playoffs(probably the worst of both worlds, do better but get something like 10th pick in the draft)


Last edited by boredmale: 07-04-2008 at 12:08 AM.
boredmale is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2008, 12:06 AM
  #35
Koivu84*
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,917
vCash: 500
Improved:
New Jersey

Worst:
Vancouver
Minnesota

Koivu84* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2008, 12:44 AM
  #36
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,756
vCash: 500
It's scary to think that the Wings with a healthy Stuart all season plus Marian Hossa and Ty Conklin, plus the seeming breakout of Franzen, could arguably be the most improved team.

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2008, 09:08 AM
  #37
lemieux32*
 
lemieux32*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=LAX attack;14726831]It depends on your definition of competing for the playoffs, but ending with a top 5 pick to me doesnt suggest competitiveness


Chris Mason is still a question mark, coming off the brutal season that he had

Quote:
Top-5 in the west for like the first 5 games isnt a "decent" amount of time
When you are within five points of a playoff spot with less then 30 games left in the season you are comepting for a spot in the playoffs and are competitive.

Mason had one mediocre season after three quality ones and you think he is a question mark.

Being in 4th on December 4 is not five games.

It's pretty clear that you base your analysis on reading stats and not on actually paying attention to what actually was going on.

You analysis was poor, deal with it and move on.

lemieux32* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2008, 10:20 AM
  #38
CrossbarSniper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 997
vCash: 500
Most improved. Meaning a team that was not good, mediocre or solid last year but will be good or great next year.

1. Tampa
2. Chicago
3. Edmonton
4. Hurricanes
5. Coyotes

Least improved, and teams likely to miss playoffs, or just completely tank from out of nowhere.

1. Buffalo
2. Vancouver
3. Nashville
4. Calgary
5. St. Louis

The actual Best teams

1. Detroit
2. Pittsburgh
3. Dallas
4. Philly
5. Washington/NYR/Mon

The actual worst teams

1. Florida
2. Atlanta
3. Toronto
4. L.A
5. NYI

CrossbarSniper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2008, 11:30 AM
  #39
Turboflex*
 
Turboflex*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Nice summary LAX attack

Turboflex* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2008, 01:55 PM
  #40
LAX attack*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Danger Zone
Country: United States
Posts: 14,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LAX attack*
[QUOTE=lemieux32;14731314]
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAX attack View Post
It depends on your definition of competing for the playoffs, but ending with a top 5 pick to me doesnt suggest competitiveness


Chris Mason is still a question mark, coming off the brutal season that he had



When you are within five points of a playoff spot with less then 30 games left in the season you are comepting for a spot in the playoffs and are competitive.

Mason had one mediocre season after three quality ones and you think he is a question mark.

Being in 4th on December 4 is not five games.

It's pretty clear that you base your analysis on reading stats and not on actually paying attention to what actually was going on.

You analysis was poor, deal with it and move on.
My analysis was based on a holistic summary

And if Chris Mason wasnt a question mark, why would he be traded for a 4th?

and 5 points is a long way away from the playoffs relatively, especially considering the new NHL, teams can be 3 points, even 1 point away pretty commonly

again, top-5 pick does not = competitive regular season

additionally, I edited my review to encompass what you said


Last edited by LAX attack*: 07-04-2008 at 02:05 PM.
LAX attack* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2008, 06:05 PM
  #41
TK 421
Donut Squad
 
TK 421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,515
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=LAX attack;14735847]
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemieux32 View Post

My analysis was based on a holistic summary

And if Chris Mason wasnt a question mark, why would he be traded for a 4th?

and 5 points is a long way away from the playoffs relatively, especially considering the new NHL, teams can be 3 points, even 1 point away pretty commonly

again, top-5 pick does not = competitive regular season

additionally, I edited my review to encompass what you said
Chris Mason was traded for a 4th because NSH wanted to sign Ellis as the starter and Mason is making 3 mil this year and next. Also Pekke Rinne in Milwaukee would have to clear waivers to be sent back down.
As for your summary of the Blues, the only thing you got right was Andy Murray and his suspect coaching. That being said, even Andy Murray can't screw things up now that we have a decent 2nd goalie. While everyone else had to go pay through the nose in free agency to add offense, the Blues are adding Oshie and Berglund on ELCs. The Blues didn't make a big splash in free agency because they didn't have to. They filled their biggest hole in goal and cleared out vets to make room for their best prospects. I don't think the Blues will be in the bottom 10 teams let alone the bottom 5.

TK 421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2008, 07:31 PM
  #42
LAX attack*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Danger Zone
Country: United States
Posts: 14,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LAX attack*
[QUOTE=TK 421;14741687]
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAX attack View Post

Chris Mason was traded for a 4th because NSH wanted to sign Ellis as the starter and Mason is making 3 mil this year and next. Also Pekke Rinne in Milwaukee would have to clear waivers to be sent back down.
As for your summary of the Blues, the only thing you got right was Andy Murray and his suspect coaching. That being said, even Andy Murray can't screw things up now that we have a decent 2nd goalie. While everyone else had to go pay through the nose in free agency to add offense, the Blues are adding Oshie and Berglund on ELCs. The Blues didn't make a big splash in free agency because they didn't have to. They filled their biggest hole in goal and cleared out vets to make room for their best prospects. I don't think the Blues will be in the bottom 10 teams let alone the bottom 5.

We'll see what happens

LAX attack* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2008, 08:59 PM
  #43
rumrokh
Jake the Snake Man
 
rumrokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,025
vCash: 500
Regarding the whole Blues argument, I think they'll be better than last year, but not by a lot. They'll challenge for a playoff spot for most of the year, but it will come down to the last handful of games. It's not just because I'm a hopeful fan. In fact, as much as I want to see them win, I'm also pretty pleased with better draft picks, so it's kind of frustrating to see them struggle right at the border of the playoffs and not make it, but not get an outstanding pick.

Anyway, here's my reasoning...

They were seven wins from making the playoffs. In theory, that's just seven one-goal games, so that could just be fourteen more goals. But that's incredibly unlikely. The average number of goals scored by playoff teams in the West in 07-08 was 230. Even if Mason is questionable, he's going to be better than Toivonen was. Still, I'm not going to base my analysis on that. I'm confident in saying that their goaltending and defense will be about the same or better (especially with how awesome EJ was down the stretch). So the difference will most likely be made in goals for.

They'll need about 30 more goals to make it into the playoffs. If we assume it was a career year for Boyes and he slips down a bit, that's fair. It's also fair to assume that Stempniak, Perron, and EJ will all improve on the scoresheet, even if by a little. Let's say that it's so little that all it does is make up for the loss of Boyes' goals. I think they'll all do much better than that, but I'm going conservative here. Then you add McDonald for a full season. He had 36 points in 49 games for St. Louis. If he scores at that rate in 08-09, that's another 24 points and another 9 or 10 goals.

Let's pretend that Brewer doesn't return to form in the goal department and let's even pretend that the Blues don't get any additional production from the backline from guys like Wagner or Woywitka. That leaves about 20 of those 30 goals for Oshie and Berglund to pick up, assuming Berglund makes the team (very good bet; Oshie is a lock). Ten goals apiece would be a rather modest guess for a couple of very good youngsters.

They lose some production from Mayers, but that was a career year for him. And most people would project an improvement from Backes as well. So it's not set in stone. I'm willing to allow that Berglund doesn't make the team, that a big player gets injured, that Oshie doesn't do that well...there are lots of possible problems. But a fairly conservative to moderate assessment still brings the Blues very close to those extra 30 goals that will likely win them another seven games. That is by no means a lock for the playoffs, but it does put them in the mix.

Their main obstacle is actually the toughness of their own division.

rumrokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2008, 11:17 PM
  #44
LAX attack*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Danger Zone
Country: United States
Posts: 14,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LAX attack*
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrokh View Post
Regarding the whole Blues argument, I think they'll be better than last year, but not by a lot. They'll challenge for a playoff spot for most of the year, but it will come down to the last handful of games. It's not just because I'm a hopeful fan. In fact, as much as I want to see them win, I'm also pretty pleased with better draft picks, so it's kind of frustrating to see them struggle right at the border of the playoffs and not make it, but not get an outstanding pick.

Anyway, here's my reasoning...

They were seven wins from making the playoffs. In theory, that's just seven one-goal games, so that could just be fourteen more goals. But that's incredibly unlikely. The average number of goals scored by playoff teams in the West in 07-08 was 230. Even if Mason is questionable, he's going to be better than Toivonen was. Still, I'm not going to base my analysis on that. I'm confident in saying that their goaltending and defense will be about the same or better (especially with how awesome EJ was down the stretch). So the difference will most likely be made in goals for.

They'll need about 30 more goals to make it into the playoffs. If we assume it was a career year for Boyes and he slips down a bit, that's fair. It's also fair to assume that Stempniak, Perron, and EJ will all improve on the scoresheet, even if by a little. Let's say that it's so little that all it does is make up for the loss of Boyes' goals. I think they'll all do much better than that, but I'm going conservative here. Then you add McDonald for a full season. He had 36 points in 49 games for St. Louis. If he scores at that rate in 08-09, that's another 24 points and another 9 or 10 goals.

Let's pretend that Brewer doesn't return to form in the goal department and let's even pretend that the Blues don't get any additional production from the backline from guys like Wagner or Woywitka. That leaves about 20 of those 30 goals for Oshie and Berglund to pick up, assuming Berglund makes the team (very good bet; Oshie is a lock). Ten goals apiece would be a rather modest guess for a couple of very good youngsters.

They lose some production from Mayers, but that was a career year for him. And most people would project an improvement from Backes as well. So it's not set in stone. I'm willing to allow that Berglund doesn't make the team, that a big player gets injured, that Oshie doesn't do that well...there are lots of possible problems. But a fairly conservative to moderate assessment still brings the Blues very close to those extra 30 goals that will likely win them another seven games. That is by no means a lock for the playoffs, but it does put them in the mix.

Their main obstacle is actually the toughness of their own division.
This analysis works for me, and I thought along these lines when I was thinking of the Blues. However, the reason that I rated the Blues rather lowly (bottom 5 in the west) is just because someone needs to occupy these areas, and considering that the Blues will not improve by leaps and bounds (so far) as other teams have (I.E. Chicago, Edmonton, Phoenix). Andy Murray, additionally, makes me skeptical, especially in terms of the season were it counts (the classic Andy Murray late season collapse)

LAX attack* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2008, 11:34 PM
  #45
Eagle Eye Cherry
guitar player
 
Eagle Eye Cherry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,107
vCash: 500
Isles, Leafs, Thrashers, & Canucks!
All mentioned teams did nothing to add to their top 6, especially the Nucks & Thrashers. Its a damn shame. All mentioned teams will be hurting BIG time come next season. If I were any Gm, I'd be making some phone calls.

Eagle Eye Cherry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2008, 06:21 AM
  #46
TK 421
Donut Squad
 
TK 421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAX attack View Post
This analysis works for me, and I thought along these lines when I was thinking of the Blues. However, the reason that I rated the Blues rather lowly (bottom 5 in the west) is just because someone needs to occupy these areas, and considering that the Blues will not improve by leaps and bounds (so far) as other teams have (I.E. Chicago, Edmonton, Phoenix). Andy Murray, additionally, makes me skeptical, especially in terms of the season were it counts (the classic Andy Murray late season collapse)
I dont think Murray will be as much of a factor this year. His mistake last year was taking Tkachuk off the top line with Kariya and Boyes in an attempt to boost secondary scoring. The Blues just didn't have the forwards to make that work and so went from a team with one consisent scoring line to no consistent scoring. Murray never corrected his own mistake and the Blues scoring woes continued the rest of the season. This year he has the pieces for 3 scoring lines which will make his system a lot more effective and of course will hide some of his coaching flaws
Keep in mind as well that the Blues were without Legace for a couple of stretches and were forced to play Toivonen who had completely lost confidence and imploded. He ended up costing them quite a few games last year. By adding Mason they improve their win total from last year easily and in fact have an edge in goal on most teams. I think you're underrating the effect Mason, Oshie and Berglund will have on this team but as you said, we'll see what happens.

TK 421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2008, 08:21 AM
  #47
lemieux32*
 
lemieux32*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=LAX attack;14735847]
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemieux32 View Post

My analysis was based on a holistic summary

And if Chris Mason wasnt a question mark, why would he be traded for a 4th?

and 5 points is a long way away from the playoffs relatively, especially considering the new NHL, teams can be 3 points, even 1 point away pretty commonly

again, top-5 pick does not = competitive regular season

additionally, I edited my review to encompass what you said
1) No, it was based on the final results written on paper. That is obvious no matter what you say.

2) As a previous poster said, they needed to get rid of Mason because of Ellis and Rinne, not because he had one mediocre year after three good ones.

3) Now this is interesting because you suddenly went away from the claims you made to a new argument. Being in the Top 4 in the Conference after a quarter of the season is competitive, being five points out of a playoff spot with less then 30 games left is being competitive. It's silly to claim a team was not competitive for the regular season based only on a poor run in the last quarter of the season.

4) Again top 5 pick does not mean the entire season was uncompetitive.

Argue all you want but those are facts.

lemieux32* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2008, 12:17 PM
  #48
kingsfan25
Registered User
 
kingsfan25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by House View Post
Isles, Leafs, Thrashers, & Canucks!
All mentioned teams did nothing to add to their top 6, especially the Nucks & Thrashers. Its a damn shame. All mentioned teams will be hurting BIG time come next season. If I were any Gm, I'd be making some phone calls.
If you're the Leafs, you want to be hurting.

kingsfan25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2008, 01:10 PM
  #49
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 24,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossbarSniper View Post
Least improved, and teams likely to miss playoffs, or just completely tank from out of nowhere.

1. Buffalo
2. Vancouver
3. Nashville
4. Calgary
5. St. Louis


The actual worst teams

1. Florida
2. Atlanta
3. Toronto
4. L.A
5. NYI
I would like to point out the Islanders, Florida and Toronto all finished better then St Louis, so if St Louis got worse then shouldn't they be bottom 5

boredmale is online now   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 10:41 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.