Ranking the Capitals: #7
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 1:32 PM EDT
166 comments
In an effort to beat the summer doldrums, we're undertaking to rank - with your help - the Washington Capitals, from Ovechkin to, well, we'll see. The criteria is simple: who is the most valuable player in the organization who hasn't already been ranked? Put another way, if you could only keep one of the remaining players, who would it be (or who would have the most value in trade as of right now)? Consider age, potential, contract status, organizational depth, etc. - it's your call. And after you vote and defend your selection in the comments, help us out and suggest a name to add to the next poll. [Note: previous "Ranking the Capitals" posts can be found here."]
Welcome Brooks Laich to the list, and Shaone Morrisonn to the poll...
If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's authors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.
0 recs |
166 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Stubby fingers clicked on Karlzner.
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
by Bald Pollack on Aug 5, 2009 1:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I voted Alzner, just because I can.
from the house that Red Jesus built
by bigonetimer on Aug 5, 2009 1:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I was going to vote for Bradley but he wasn’t available. Alzner it is. =]
by zephyr on Aug 5, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ballzner to the Walzner for Alzner.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 1:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
King Karl once again. And since most of the applicable arguments have already been made in previous posts I’ll just add that the Caps have Alzner signed for the next two seasons, after which he is a Restricted FA. Other potential recipients of this vote will be Unrestricted FA after the upcoming season (Steckel, Fleischmann, Fehr) or after the following season (Poti, Knuble). The team having his rights adds significantly to his “value” IMHO.
by MB_10 on Aug 5, 2009 1:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Jeff Schultz: Half the price, more experience, much-discussed-by-DMG-and-others excellence and won’t make Alznerian money for probably two more years.
by TylerG on Aug 5, 2009 1:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Alzner has the higher upside long-term (and not-that-long-term), has a much, much higher trade value for the foreseeable future, and has longer cost-certainty than Schultz (though even if Schultz goes to arb and hits a homerun next year, he’ll still be in Alzner’s ballpark). I like Karlito’s value here.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Put another way, if one of them decided tomorrow that he never wanted to play hockey again, you’d rather it be Alzner?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, right now I’d take Schultz over Alzner, and his cap hit is less, which made me go with him over Alzner.
by red army line on Aug 5, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure that’s the definition of ‘valuable’ I have in mind. I mean, value is about more than trade value right? 55 has still demonstrated more at the NHL level than 27 and at a better price. I think known-quantity matters. (Obviously the commentariat values upside more than proven, so we 55 voters are alone on this one.)
by TylerG on Aug 5, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So if you could only protect one of the two guys in an expansion draft you’d still take Schultz? You feel more comfortable with letting Alzner walk than Schultz?
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a different question than the one on which we were asked to vote.
by TylerG on Aug 5, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really:
The criteria is simple … if you could only keep one of the remaining players, who would it be (or who would have the most value in trade as of right now)?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno, I see the three suggested criteria, "most valuable", who you’d most like to pick if you already had the listed roster, and who has the most trade value as questions that can have three separate answers.
by David M. Getz on Aug 5, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where is “if you already had the listed roster” as a criteria? And “most trade value” defines “most valuable.”
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lots of people have been voting based on that standard. :|
by Laich on Aug 5, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why F&B and I are so frustrated with the way this little exercise is playing out. Reading comprehension, people!
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would the meaning you are trying to get be a little clearer if worded like: “If the Caps protected the players already voted onto the most valuable list, who would you be most likely to take from the remaining list if you were an opposing GM in an expansion draft”?
The “if you could only keep one of the remaining players” suggests that you’re adding to a team you’ve already built and I’m not sure that was intended (although maybe it was & I’m the one who’s been reading incorrectly!)
by MB_10 on Aug 5, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It sounds like you’re sort of taking the fantasy hockey approach of building a team based on position requirements and how the next choice will complement who you’ve already chosen, or in this case, ranked.
I’m not using that mindset. Once somebody makes the list, I forget about them and simply look at the ten names on the new poll and weigh age, potential, trade value, etc.
by Cluster on Aug 5, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cluster gets it.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes – that’s the way I’ve been picking as well (as if everyone already voted in is “off the board” so to speak and choosing who I think is most valuable from the remaining names). The second part of my comment was a feeling I’ve gotten from some of the comments & I don’t think that approach is what was intended. That’s why I asked about looking at it from an opposing GM’s viewpoint, but then you lose the “organizational depth” part of the instructions…
by MB_10 on Aug 5, 2009 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the list looks pretty good so far. It it really that big of a deal if Alzner is listed one spot below where you guys wanted him?
by zephyr on Aug 5, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The result isn’t problematic at all – this is America, and in America we have… totalitarian blogs that occasionally let people vote on things.
The concern is in the methodology being applied going forward. It’d be nice if everyone were evaluating things the same way so that we could be having apples-to-apples discussions.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see the concern. Maybe reword the intro text going forward from here (anyway to put a “Yes I have read the above and to the best of my knowledge my vote is true and correct” checkbox?)
I think probably half the people voting don’t get what the poll is really asking. That even includes a lot of people that are commenting.
I don’t think it helps that the paragraph is in all italics and that the point of the vote is redefined in 3 different ways. Web user immediately
by zephyr on Aug 5, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
weird got cut off.
*Web users immediately glance over stuff like that.
by zephyr on Aug 5, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, at least you’re still getting a debate right.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
JP’s frustation equals SB Nation execs’ August delight
by Cluster on Aug 5, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but I am perplexed. Laich is not just one, but a few spots higher than where I would put him. (And, if you recall, this is the 3rd time I’ve voted for Alzner so he’s actually 2 spots too low.)
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
rec’d only because I echo everything you wrote.
by Yoshietree on Aug 5, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if one of them decided tomorrow that he never wanted to play hockey again, you’d rather it be Alzner?
JP’s translation above will be my criteria from here on out. It clarifies “most valuable” pretty well for me. #7 is Alzner.
by mechanicsville on Aug 5, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where is "if you already had the listed roster" as a criteria?
I read the “Put another way, if you could only keep one of the remaining players, who would it be?” part as suggesting that the listed players (here Ovechkin, Backstrom, Semin, Varlamov, Laich, and Green) were already “on the team” and that you were being asked to choose who to add to that list.
And "most trade value" defines "most valuable."
Not necessarily because a player’s value to the Capitals team right now (or in the future, depending on what criteria the person chooses to use) might differ from their value to other teams around the league.
by David M. Getz on Aug 5, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not necessarily because a player’s value to the Capitals team right now (or in the future, depending on what criteria the person chooses to use) might differ from their value to other teams around the league.
Right, but all of it informs a guy’s overall value to the Caps.
Tom Poti’s of great on-ice value to the current Caps. He has little value around the rest of the League, however, so his “value” is pretty similar to his value to the Caps.
John Carlson’s on-ice value to the current Caps is relatively small. However, he’d likely have a lot of value around the rest of the League. Therefore, his “value” is greatly enhanced over what he is likely to contribute on the ice for the current Caps.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that – I think it’d certainly be a stretch for someone to argue that Carlson and Viktor Dovgan are of the same value to the Capitals organization because they both contribute the same to the on-ice product at the NHL level (assuming Carlson spends the year in Hershey).
Personally I’ve been voting for Poti because I’m (very) heavily weighting expected on-ice performance in 09-10 even though I’d much, much rather have Carlson if I had to choose one or the other for the long term.
I think maybe that’s part of the reason we’re getting such varied results – some people are approaching this from a coach’s viewpoint with a one year window; other from a GM’s viewpoint with a longer time horizon.
by David M. Getz on Aug 5, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
We should go with that Bill Simmons (sorry, F&B) criteria from the last poll – vote for the guy that you wouldn’t trade right now for any of the other nine on the list. Is that clear?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s very clear and easy to understand.
by zephyr on Aug 5, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I assume giving consideration for a longer time horizon rather than just the 09-10 season?
by David M. Getz on Aug 5, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A quick recap of the rules:
1. Salaries matter. Over this season and the next two, would you rather pay David West $27 million or Amare Stoudemire $43 million?
2. Age matters. Would you rather have Chauncey Billups for the next five seasons or Rajon Rondo for the next 12?
3. Pretend the league passed the following rule: For 24 hours, any player can be traded without cap ramifications but with luxury-tax ramifications. So if Team A tells Team B, “We’ll trade you Player X for Player Y,” would Team B make the deal?
4. Concentrate on degrees. Neither San Antonio nor Orlando would make a Howard-Duncan trade, but the Spurs would at least say, “Wow, Dwight Howard’s available?” and have a meeting about it while the Magic would say, “There’s no frickin’ way we’re trading Dwight Howard.” That counts in the big scheme of things.
5. The list runs in reverse order (Nos. 40 to 1). So if Carmelo comes in at No. 16, players 1 through 15 are all players about whom the Nuggets would probably say, “We hate giving up ’Melo, but we definitely have to consider this deal.” And they wouldn’t trade him straight-up for any player listed between Nos. 17 and 50.
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 5, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oy, should have gone back and looked before I asked. Thanks, Natty.
by David M. Getz on Aug 5, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait a minute...
Not to throw a giant wrench in the works or to defend myself or DMG, but the Simmons paradigm won’t work here, because he’s doing it league-wide, while we’re doing it internally to one team. It’s one thing to say, “you can trade any guy for another guy, would you trade them straight-up?” and another thing entirely to say, “within the context of a given team, which would you give up.”
It comes back to the point several of us have made regarding defensemen and goalies vs. forwards on this list: while Alzner, Carlson and Varly might all be more talented and more valuable in trade than another player such as Laich, they’re more easily replaced within the context of the Caps given our relative depth at those positions.
If we’re really playing this Simmons-style, the return on the trade is part of the trade. Hence, it’s not just: would you trade Alzner before Laich, but rather would you trade Alzner for Laich (or another player on a different team).
by D'ohboy on Aug 5, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d had a similar trade of thought and decided to resolve it this way. Imagine the GM of another team calls you up (you’re the Caps GM, I guess) drunk as a poet on payday and says ’I’ll give you my next ten first round draft picks for a halfway decent player!’ – which of the guys remaining on the list do you offer him last?
by David M. Getz on Aug 5, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we’re really playing this Simmons-style, the return on the trade is part of the trade. Hence, it’s not just: would you trade Alzner before Laich, but rather would you trade Alzner for Laich (or another player on a different team).
exactly. maybe i’m doing this differently than others, but basically i’ve been looking at the players still available and asking myself just that question: “would i trade laich for alzner? yes.”
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 5, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right – would you trade Alzner for Laich? If yes, Laich’s your guy. If no, Alzner is.
“vote for the guy that you wouldn’t trade right now for any of the other nine on the list”
Right?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but this leads to some of my confusion – in some cases I can think of situations wherein I might . . . MIGHT trade Alzner for Laich or Knuble.
Before you say “dude, you’re F-ing nuts,” what if Carlson and Schultz both step up their play, Poti and Green stay healthy and Orlov shows promise down on the farm. Essentially, our defense looks solid now and has possible players for the future. Now, let’s posit that the Caps didn’t have either Laich or Knuble on the roster and we were going into the playoffs – if some GM called me toward the trade deadline and said: “Hey D’ohboy, looks like you’ve got more D-men than you need, how about I give you Laich/Knuble (with their current contracts) for that Alzner kid who’s languishing as your #6 defenseman?”
I’d sit down and look at my roster and see basically what we saw last spring (minus Brooks): a roster with bunch of talented players who tend to play toward the periphery in serious need of a guy to crash the net, go to the corners, block shots, kill penalties and fill in on the top lines in case of injury. In that scenario, I’d be foolish NOT to listen to that GM’s offer.
That’s what makes these kind of exercises difficult/interesting and worth discussion (btw, bravo for the idea J.P., even if the execution on our part hasn’t been flawless thus far). A reasonable person (if I can be surmised as such), could reasonably conjure up a realistic scenario in which our GM might trade Alzner, or God forbid Carlson, for Laich or Knuble.
by D'ohboy on Aug 5, 2009 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Either your scenario surmises that Alzner hasn’t developed the way he is projected, or your hypothetical GM had poor asset management. I can see where you may want to move Alzner, and you would want a guy like Laich or Knuble, but you would get more than just one of those guys for Alzner if your GM is any good. I’m not disagreeing with your premise, just noting that even under a trade analysis Alzner is worth more. You can trade Alzner for Laich+ but you can’t trade Laich for Alzner straight up, much less Alzner and parts.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Value is all relative though – it’s about supply and demand. If the Caps have a ready supply of defensemen and goalies, and a high demand for gritty forwards they could easily reach a market equilibrium where a “more talented” defensive prospect is worth trading for a proven “gritty forward.”
by D'ohboy on Aug 5, 2009 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re using supply and demand wrong but I’ll let DMG explain it because it’s late and I’m tired.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s about market supply and demand, not the Caps’ own individual supply and demand. There are always more checkers available than elite D. Elite D will always be more valuable than checkers. If the Caps had 6 elite D and any other team had 0 elite D and a whole bunch of checkers would the Caps trade 1 elite D for 1 checker straight up? Obviously not. You get more out of an elite D than one checker, even if all you need is 1 checker.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Get past ECON 101
Market supply and demand is ultimately an aggregate function of individual supply and demand. The market equilibrium of Econ 101 is a stasis point in a perfectly competitive and stable market, but since there isn’t a perfectly competitive and stable market for NHL players, and you can’t buy NHL players for cash, every supply/demand analysis will ultimately be entirely relative for the team based on their own utility curves.
Given the constraints of rosters (which place artificial limits on supply/demand of certain assets), each team’s utility curve for certain assets will be highly dependent on their own assets/needs.
In other words, if you only have one goalie and you need another one ASAP, you might be willing to part with more to acquire said goalie, whereas if you have 3 NHL-caliber goalies, you might be willing to trade one (regardless of his talent level) for a reasonable return knowing that the third goalie’s value to you is virtually nil. Can anyone recall off-hand what San Jose got back in the Kiprusoff trade? Yeah, me neither.
by D'ohboy on Aug 5, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can anyone recall off-hand what San Jose got back in the Kiprusoff trade? Yeah, me neither.
Second round pick → Marc-Edouard Vlasic
by David M. Getz on Aug 6, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but you Googled that.
Or maybe you Googled it with Bing.
Either way, it wasn’t some iconic trade that everyone remembers because of what came back the other way. At the time, Sharks fans were a little perturbed that they only got a 2nd rounder back.
by D'ohboy on Aug 6, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
PS
Don’t make me bust out some graphs on your ass. :)
by D'ohboy on Aug 5, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re just being silly now. You can torture the economics to support your point, but in your heart and mind you know you’re wrong. In a big picture view elite D NEVER get traded straight up for checkers because they are way too valuable.
There has never, ever, in the history of the NHL, been a team that needed a checker so bad that they would give up an elite D for one. You know that even if you needed that checker, you’d get a draft pick back in return for your elite D. You can continue to narrow and twist your hypo to support a “Laich straight up for Alzner” trade but it would never happen because it makes no sense.
IIRC SJS got a mid round pick back from CGY (3rd or 4th). It’s irrelevant though because the situation isn’t even analogous. When Kipper got traded he was a mid-round goalie (116 overall) with 47 NHL games and average numbers (~.900 sv%, ~2.6 GAA). He wasn’t a lottery picked blue chip.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
PS
SJS got a second round pick from CGY. They selected him with a 5th. …
This gets so much better…
With that pick SJS selected Marc-Edouard Vlasic. The French Karl Alzner.
Go get your graphs.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is my point. . .
The Sharks turned an excess asset into something less valuable – a second round pick. Yes, Vlasic is very good, but over the course of his career, he’s going to have to be even better in order to be as valuable as Kiprusoff has been. Ok, if you take the tiny sample size of Kipper’s NHL stats prior to his trade to Calgary, it looks like the Sharks got a good deal. However, I’ll point out the tiny sample size of Alzner’s NHL stats: 30 games 1 G, 4 A and -1. Not exactly earth-shattering. Ultimately, we’re assessing Alzner based on what he’s done before the NHL, and looking at that for Kipper, he looks pretty goddamn good, and if you subtract the one bad stretch he had in SJ in the year before the trade, his NHL stats also look very impressive.
So essentially, the Sharks turned a good/potentially great goalie (check out his stats in the minors/Finland) into a second-round draft pick that they were fortunate turned into a great player when it just as easily could have ended up turning into Josh Godfrey or Chris Bourque. They did this because they had Nabokov and Toskala and they and everyone else in the league knew they had to unload one of them…
by D'ohboy on Aug 6, 2009 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody expected Kipper to be great (see the 5th round selection). Everyone expects Alzner to be great (see the 5th overall choice and attendant fanfare). That’s where your analogy breaks down. There was no reason for SJS to think they’d get a better deal than a 2nd round pick for an unproven goalie with glimpses of promise; SJS did well in that trade and then with the draft pick. Everyone expects Alzner to be a top pair D for a long time, including every GM in the league. If GMGM moves Alzner for a 2nd or a Kunitz it will be historically bad asset management. That’s what it comes down to, asset management. Did SJS get the most they could for Kipper? Yes. Is Kunitz/Laich/Knuble the most you could get for Alzner? No.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 6, 2009 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
???
I think you need to click here and then reevaluate your opinion of Kipper prior to the trade.
The guy put up a GAA in the World Championships under 2. He put up a save % over .925 in the AHL. He won the Finnish equivalent of the Vezina and the Smythe trophies.
His draft position was more a result of the NHL’s relative lack of knowledge about the quality of Finnish goalies (if you’re a decent goalie in Finland, go to Sweden and you’ll be great) prior to the emergence of guys like. . . Kiprusoff.
Yes, it might not be “optimal” asset management, but sometimes teams have to deal with the hand they’ve dealt themselves. The Caps have spent much of the last 5 years focusing their drafting efforts on defensemen and, to a lesser extent, goalies. GMGM’s strategy has always been to draft the best/most valuable players available and then trade them for the pieces the Caps needed: hence the Carlson/Orlov picks. At some point, the Caps will have to offload some of those defensemen, and they’ll likely have to do it for an asset they currently lack.
I never said that I’d like to see GMGM trade Alzner for Laich/Knuble, I merely said that there might be scenarios wherein such a move wouldn’t be insane.
Regardless, it’s time for bed.
by D'ohboy on Aug 6, 2009 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
First, I clarified (tortured in your words) the economics because it seemed to me that you misunderstood what I was talking about when you claimed that I was “using supply and demand wrong.”
With regard to Kipper’s draft position, ignore it – after a player has demonstrated his value (either in the NHL or the minors), it’s irrelevant, unless you would rather have Schultz than Green, or Rick DiPietro than, well . . . basically anyone, because of draft position. The Sharks knew they had 3 NHL-caliber goalies on their hands and they traded one because the third was superfluous.
There are two problems with your “hypo” (or as I’d call it, a straw man) – one you’re assuming that Laich or Knuble is just some grinder, but they’re not: both have scored 20+ goals on multiple occasions. Knuble has more of a scoring pedigree, but Laich can play multiple positions and he’s younger.
Two, you’re supposing that Alzner is an “elite defenseman.” The kid’s got a lot of potential, but as of right now, he looks like a good prospect with some upside. He’s not Niedermayer/Pronger/Bouwmeester/Green/Chara/Lidstrom/Weber/etc. . . Yet. He’s not even . . . Ryan Whitney.
Which brings me to my next point: a good comparison is the Ryan Whitney-Chris Kunitz trade. I think we can all agree that one turned out pretty well for the Pens, in the short-run anyhow (and as Keynes said, in the long-run, we’re all dead).
The Pens traded Whitney for Kunitz and Eric Tangradi. Kunitz, coincidentally, had the . . . exact same stats as our beloved Brooksie. Now, of course you’ll point out that the Pens also got a pretty damn good prospect back in Eric Tangradi. And you’d be right. The problem is, as much as we love Karl, Whitney was more valuable – he was a developed defenseman who had put up three very impressive years statistically and was locked down for four more years at a very cap-friendly $4m/year.
There are plenty of situations where teams have successfully traded promising young players (some even more promising than Alzner) for players the caliber of Laich/Knuble to fill a short-term hole or achieve a short term goal, or to rid themselves of an excess of assets at a certain position.
If these sorts of trades bother you, I suggest you avert your eyes over the next couple years, because, from the way he’s been drafting and talking, it seems as though McPhee plans on trading assets where the Caps have an excess (read: young defensemen and goaltenders) to acquire assets that they lack (read: centers – BMo is temporary – and experienced defensemen).
by D'ohboy on Aug 6, 2009 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no problem with trades. I have a problem with bad trades. I would be upset if Alzner, Carlson, Varlamov, or Neuvirth were traded right now. Ultimately one of the goalies has to go.
Draft position doesn’t matter in the sense that you can be successful or fail regardless, but it’s a good indicator of how teams value you. A guy that is picked 5 is going to be seen as an elite prospect until he fails. A guy picked in the 5th round has a bigger obstacle to overcome. Kipper was not proven when he was traded (see the average numbers in limited sample size), and he certainly wasn’t on the Vezina radar. Everyone knows Alzner has the potential to be an elite D.
I don’t think Whitney had more long term value than Alzner. Yeah for the Ducks he had value because they needed D signed to reasonable deals, but I doubt they think they picked up the solution to their top D pair when Niedermayer leaves. Whitney used to have the hype/potential but by the time he was traded it was clear he wasn’t going to be that kind of D. “Proven” is only good if you’ve proven you are valuable. It’s no good to prove you can’t live up to your expectations. If Alzner takes that career trajectory his value will drop from where it is currently.
Right now Alzner is worth more than Chris Kunitz, or Mike Knuble, or Brooks Laich, or any other similarly situated, labeled as you will, forward. I know it, you know it, everyone reading this knows it, and GMGM knows it. If GMGM traded Karl Alzner for Chris Kunitz right now I think Caps fans would go into meltdown mode and basically everyone would consider it a steal for the Pens.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 6, 2009 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m guessing you weren’t watching the Western Conference as much back then (I was living out there and watching the Sharks fairly frequently on NHL Center Ice). Back then Drew Remenda commented constantly on the Sharks’ goaltending logjam – and we’ll have a similar situation shortly.
If you’d take a moment to actually respond to my comment, rather than what you think I said, you’d notice that earlier I said that I think Alzner and Carlson are both more valuable. HOWEVER, I think that the Caps’ surfeit of young talented defensemen (Green, Alzner, Carlson, Schultz, possibly Orlov) could mean that, under the right circumstance, I’d trade Alzner for a guy like Knuble or Laich even though, ceteris paribus, Alzner is more valuable.
Ultimately, I agree with you: blue chip defensemen are more valuable than 20-goal scoring gritty forwards. But if a team has 4 blue-chip defensemen and suddenly needs a 20-goal scoring gritty forward at the trade deadline, it might NOT be a bad idea to make that trade. It’s all relative.
To bring it back to one of the historical trades I discussed earlier: in 1980, the Isles traded a blue chip young defenseman and a talented young forward for a gritty winger with decent scoring ability – and then went on to win four straight cups with many observers commenting that the trade – Dave Lewis and Billy Harris for Butch Goring – ultimately put the Isles over the top.
by D'ohboy on Aug 6, 2009 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I maintain that Kipper was not a bluechip prospect when he was traded. You can look at his numbers (small sample size) and say that people should have known he was going to be good, but at the time they didn’t.
Yes, the Caps will have to move their D and G logjams, but that doesn’t mean you give them away, even if we really need a checker instead of an elite D/G.
Again, the NYI had several elite players before Butch Goring came along.
I know you’re arguing just to argue because down below you finally accept that:
1. Ovie
2. Green
3. Backis
4. Semin
5. Carlson
6. Alzner
7. Laich
Is the order you’d vote. I can quibble with Carlson/Alzner and why you don’t have any goalies on there. But you clearly recognize that an elite D > a 2nd/3rd line guy. You staked yourself to your position and you’re not coming down so you allow yourself to envision scenarios where Alzner would be traded for less than his value and you wouldn’t crap your pants.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 6, 2009 8:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was a Sharks fan at the time. Kipper was very highly prized among the fanbase. The fans at least recognized his value. Of course, Nabokov was already established as a star and Toskala was in the system, so people realized the need to make a move. Still, there was some disappointment when he left.
by Gould Old Days on Aug 6, 2009 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember on several broadcasts and HNIC “Satellite Hotstoves” that they actually debated whether or not the Sharks would trade Kipper or Nabokov, but then Kipper had a crappy year and they knew that had Toskala so…
by D'ohboy on Aug 6, 2009 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, Strawman
Again, the NYI had several elite players before Butch Goring came along.
This is what gets me. I never said the Isles didn’t have elite players, because that would be a foolish point to make about a team with Trottier, Bossy and Potvin. Instead, I pointed out that in 79-80 they looked at their roster and thought, “We lose every year in the playoffs – we’re missing something. Also, we’ve got a bunch of good/great defensemen, maybe we can parlay one of those into our missing piece?”
. . . And that’s how a team trades BOTH a good/promising defenseman AND a good/promising forward for a gritty scoring center and then rides him to four Stanley Cups in a row.
This is my point, not “The Isles didn’t have elite players and needed Goring.”
by D'ohboy on Aug 6, 2009 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, enough with the strawmen
I’m not really desiring to continue this debate with you (because it’s starting to prove the old adage about how arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics), but I would like to point out how/why your continual use of strawmen gets on my nerves:
Elite D will always be more valuable than checkers.
I never said otherwise. You crafted an entirely different scenario from the one I proposed. Brooks Laich and Mike Knuble are not just “checkers.” We’re not talking about Matt Pettinger/Brian Sutherby/Matt Bradley/Chris Clark. We’re talking about guys who have consistently scored around 25 goals (Knuble), or who have clearly demonstrated the potential to score around 20 while playing well at all three forward positions (Laich).
Next, while I think Alzner has a lot of potential, he’s not yet an “elite defenseman.” In fact, he’s not even close to being elite, and he’s not even the best defenseman within the Caps organization. We’re talking about a kid whose ceiling is high, but who will probably end up being fairly comparable to Keith Ballard – excellent player, but not in the same group as guys like Lidstrom, Pronger, etc.
So, in your scenario, we’re trading a “checker” for an “elite defenseman,” while in my scenario, we’re trading a “20-goal-scoring gritty winger” for a talented defensive prospect.
Next, you ignore the part where I put the scenario toward the trade deadline, just to make it clear that we’re not doing this during the offseason – there’s legitimate pressure to acquire a piece for a Stanley Cup run.
Next, you ignore the part where I say:
In that scenario, I’d be foolish NOT to listen to that GM’s offer.
I didn’t say that I’d make the trade, or even that I’d be the one to propose it – I just said that under that scenario, I’d be foolish not to at least consider it. That’s all. But in your mind, this somehow gets translated into me advocating the trade of Quintin Laing for the second coming of Bobby Orr.
I don’t care if you disagree with me and debate my points (I actually enjoy it, otherwise I wouldn’t bother responding), but in future, please debate what I actually say, rather than some imaginary position that’s easy to argue against.
Also, apropos of Keith Ballard, the kid has been traded several times in his career. The first time he was traded, when he was a very good defensive prospect, the Sabres traded him straight-up to the Avalanche for Steven Reinprecht. Then the Avalanche turned around and sent him and Derek Morris to the Coyotes for Chris Gratton, Ossi Vaananen and a 2nd rounder (who luckily turned into Paul Stastny). If you divide the return on that trade in half like so: Gratton/Vaananen+pick (which is actually a pretty accurate representation given the Avs’ needs at the time), you can surmise that Ballard (or Morris, it really doesn’t matter since they were both talented young defensemen) was traded straight-up for Chris Gratton.
Now, in hindsight, both of those trades were unwise, but in both situations, the teams involved had relatively high demands for a center and a low demand for a great defensive prospect for a whole host of reasons. I’m not advocating this behavior, I’m just pointing out that a reasonable person can reach that point.
by D'ohboy on Aug 6, 2009 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Dig in D’ohboy. Dig in. You have Alzner ahead of Laich on your list. I’m not sure what else is needed to demonstrate the point.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 6, 2009 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
See, this is what I'm talking about
If you read what I said, I clearly stated that I felt that this is why the list isn’t so clear. While I would value Alzner higher than Laich/Knuble in trade (and I’ve clearly said as much, repeatedly), I can also envision scenarios wherein trading Alzner for the other isn’t completely insane. That’s all.
You’re arguing against a non-existent position, which is why this can go around in circles forever. I’m not digging in, I’m just re-stating what I said in a different way in hopes that you’ll actually respond to what I’m saying and not what you imagine/hope that I’m saying.
by D'ohboy on Aug 6, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keynes and Friedman are smiling down upon you from heaven. Good debate, both of you.
by Cluster on Aug 6, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As long as I’m Friedman (without the whole withholding thing).
D’ohboy, I’m not trying to argue strawmen but I think you are needlessly muddying the waters. Let’s try a couple simple questions within the parameters of the poll (Laich v. Alzner):
Scenario 1: The Las Vegas Berserkers and Hamilton Blackberrys are having an expansion draft, GMGM can protect either Alzner or Laich, which guy should he protect?
Scenario 2: You are the GM of the expansion Seattle Needles, Laich and Alzner are available, which do you choose?
Scenario 3: Team A trades Alzner to Team B for Laich, straight up. Are you happier as a fan of Team A or B?
Scenario 4: Alzner and Laich meet up with Dany Heatley at an off-season party. Predictably, both are injured in a serious accident and their NHL careers are over. Who is harder for the Caps to replace?
I don’t think the answer to any of those is Laich, unless you go through extensive hypothetical roster building, which J.P. has instructed us not to do. In a normal, simple scenario Alzner has more value than Laich. I like arguing with you D’ohboy, so keep it up (but not necessarily on this topic).
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 6, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Hamilton Blackberrys… BRILLIANT!
sorry, resume the feud… : ]
by war_capitals on Aug 6, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As long as I’m Friedman (without the whole withholding thing).
Wow. 5 minute subreference break.
I’m halfway considering starting a new post so this discussion gets the awesomeness it deserves. And I’m not saying any of that derisively.
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
by Bald Pollack on Aug 6, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m glad you are enjoying it. I kinda thought everyone was ignoring us or saying “why are they even discussing this still.” It is pretty obnoxious to have this whole thread pinned to the right side of the screen.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 6, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
rec’d for the “right side of the screen” statement.
by gfcaps fan on Aug 6, 2009 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec’d for “as long as I’m with Friedman”
by David M. Getz on Aug 6, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I'm Keynes in this little scenario. . .
Then I can go both ways on this.
Yes, I agree with you that in all of your scenarios, I would keep Alzner. I’m positing an entirely different scenario however, and one that I think is a hell of a lot more likely. Digress with me for a moment into a “possible” 2009-10 Caps season . . .
This year, the Caps storm out of the gate, pretty much seizing the SE Division by New Year’s Day. After several other teams (Detroit, SJ and Pitt) take a step back in 2010, the Caps are the CLEAR Stanley Cup favorite. Then, in January, Laich goes down with a serious should injury that requires surgery – thereby ending his season. The Caps (rightly) don’t overreact though, because they’ve got Knuble who can fill his role.
Unfortunately, in late February, Knuble blows out his knee, finishing his season as well. Now, GMGM is in a quandary. His internal options for replacing these two are limited and probably inadequate: Bourque is speedy and feisty, but he’s also little and on the young/inexperienced side. Fehr has been underwhelming after his recovery from yet another major injury. Flash is, well, Flash.
In the meantime, the Caps’ defensive corps has developed thusly: they trade away ShaMo in training camp for a decent mid-round pick, keeping Juice instead for the marginally smaller cap-hit. This leaves them with: Green, Poti, Juice, Schultz, Pothier, Erskine, Carlson and Alzner. Because both Carlson and Alzner need big minutes for their development and can be sent down to Hershey without clearing waivers, they don’t make the squad out of training camp. However, as Pothier demonstrates to GMs around the league that he’s past his post-concussion problems, he gets flipped for a mid-round pick early on during the season, clearing up both cap room and roster space.
Now, the Caps have to call up either Alzner or Carlson, and they choose Carlson. He’s been outplaying Alzner in this “alternate future,” and he’s physically much more ready for the strength of NHL players (neither of these assumptions are implausible based on recent history). It’s not that Alzner has been playing poorly at all, rather Carlson has just been THAT good. Moreover, the coaching staff wants another “offensive/puck-moving” defenseman to replace Pothier. At the same time, Orlov (who decided to come to Hershey, rather than stay in Russia), shows serious promise in his game.
In other words: the Caps have a clear and pressing need for a gritty scoring forward, an overabundance of defensemen, and they’re under serious pressure because their “Stanley Cup Window” is clearly wide open. Approaching the trade deadline, GMGM feels some pressure to make a deal because he knows the Caps may just be one gritty scoring forward away from the Cup.
Meanwhile, down in Dallas, the Stars are struggling through a down season. Turco is done and feuding with Marc Crawford, Modano is washed up and the whole team looks lost without Sergei Zubov. They desperately need to rebuild and get some new blood on defense to complement Trevor Daley, but they can’t offload Brad Richards and his ludicrous contract. In the meantime, Brenden Morrow has shown himself to be healthy, putting up 20 goals and 20 assists prior to the deadline. The Stars are taking offers for him, but they let it be known that they want a blue-chip defenseman back in any deal.
The day before the deadline, GMGM gets a call from Joe Nieuwendyk saying: “George, we’ve got some offers in on Brenden, but I’m really interested in that Alzner kid. He’s playing well down in Hershey, but he can’t crack your lineup right now. This could be your year, and Brenden could put you over the top. Plus, you’d have him for another couple years at a decent cap hit.”
Under these (wholly plausible) circumstances, would you really turn that offer down, knowing full-well that a chance like this may not come around again? Even if you didn’t take the offer, wouldn’t you at least mull it over for a while and discuss it with Bruce and the coaching staff?
Personally, I think chances to win the Cup are few and far between. If Nieuwendyk makes me that offer under these circumstances, I probably, probably take it.
(And before you say that Morrow’s not a comparable player to Laich or Knuble, I’d direct you to their stats pages. Morrow has had one year where he really stepped up and had 74 points – otherwise his career stats look remarkably similar to Knuble’s and Laich’s at the same ages. Plus, he’s about 5 years older than Brooks and he can’t play center. Moreover, he’s smaller than both guys and he’s coming off of some bad injuries. However, he’s the prototypical “gritty scoring winger” except he’s a little on the small side, but I give him extra points for A) playoff experience, B) demonstrated leadership, and C) demonstrated feistiness/WHL background. Plus, he’s a former WinterHawk. At the end of the day, if Morrow doesn’t suit your fancy, pick from amongst any number of gritty scoring forwards – the point remains the same.)
by D'ohboy on Aug 6, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So if:
- Laich gets hurt
- Knuble gets hurt
- Orlov play in North America and plays well
- Carlson significant outplays expectations and significantly outplays Alzer
- Morrisonn is traded
- Pothier is traded
it might be in the Capitals’ advantage to trade Alzner for a Brooks Laich-esque player. But as F & B notes that only happens with some really significant roster changes made, which suggests that only under some very specific and very unlikely circumstances Alzner has less value than Laich.
by David M. Getz on Aug 6, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think I’m positing anything out of the ordinary for Carlson. At last year’s camp, the entire coaching staff along with most observers concluded that he was much more NHL-ready than Alzner. His performance in this year’s Calder Cup Playoffs only reinforced that view.
Also, I specifically said that he didn’t need to “significantly outperform” Alzner, he just needed to be better/more NHL-ready, which isn’t at all out of the realm of possibility.
As for the defensemen that get traded, we can change the names to suit your fancy, the point remains that we’ll be trading some NHL defensemen between now and this year’s trade deadline.
by D'ohboy on Aug 6, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly!!!!
If you re-read my original post, that’s pretty much exactly what I said: Alzner is more valuable than Laich/Knuble ceteris paribus, but I can envision certain scenarios in which I would trade him straight-up for a player like them.
by D'ohboy on Aug 6, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
awesome. so you and F&B agreed all along! (fyi, even in your scenario as outlined by DMG, i think i conserve for the future and take my chances with king karl’s own intangibles and growth potential.)
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 6, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus
I’m mildly disappointed that nobody got the Keynes bisexuality innuendo.
“In her (or his) endo.”
by D'ohboy on Aug 6, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did, though I had to give F&B props for firsties.
I’m with Natty on this; I’m sad to see this end (assuming this is the end). It’s kinda like finding out Bruce Willis was dead in The Sixth Sense.
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
by Bald Pollack on Aug 6, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m glad you (or anyone besides me and D’oh) enjoyed it. As Natty said we pretty much agreed and we’ve just been talking past each other. I’d like to think we went out like The Wire with nothing left to say but I fear we went out like Entourage 2-3 seasons too late.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 6, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I couldn’t tell what the “Yay” was for because the replies are all clumped. I wasn’t sure if you were happy I got your joke or happy this conversation is taking a dirt nap.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 6, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s what I ended up doing but the indent usually tells you what you need to know. I know this argument fractured with the “PS” posts above.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 6, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My problem with BS is that he’s clearly not a hockey fan and doesn’t have a clue about the sport, but won’t just ignore it. He feels the need to run his mouth and pile on whenever there is a reason to trash the NHL or one of it’s players. If you don’t like the sport ,fine, leave it alone. If you’re just gonna come over to crap on my yard stay in your own fucking house.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This has been pretty much my objection to Kornheiser locally. I don’t care if you take the Wilbon route and ignore hockey, but to quote Soundgarden:
“Don’t come over here and piss on my gate – save it, just keep it off my wave”
by D'ohboy on Aug 5, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I agree that he doesn’t know a ton about hockey, he’s actually been mentioning it more and more over the past year or so. It’s clear that he used to be a big Bruins fan and that he thinks the NHL is on the rise (although his ideas for realignment and view that Ovie is the NHL’s #1 villain are both stupid, IMO). I wouldn’t mind it if he wrote about hockey more – like it or not, he carries a lot of influence and could help influence a lot of people to give the sport a chance.
I think his criteria are still pretty pertinent for the purposes of this exercise, though.
by grapejoos on Aug 5, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i’d be very interested to hear what the hockey enthusiasts at this blog think about BS’s “idiots guide to the lockout” from a few years ago. any horrible mistakes? (i know he made quite a few when he tried to write about EPL soccer.) we can at least appreciate the shots he took at the pens.
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 5, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
btw, i really wan’t trying to start a flame war re: shootouts or contraction. i guess the question: this is what it looks like when BS actually tries to get hockey correct, does he add anything to the discussion? is the NHL better off with him on the sidelines?
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 5, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess my take is that he doesn’t add a lot to the discussion substantively, but the NHL is better off with him involved and writing about hockey simply because he has a huge audience, and perhaps a lot of readers that don’t pay much attention to the NHL. I think he can turn some people on to hockey, even if he has some radical notions of how many teams there should be and where they should be geographically.
by grapejoos on Aug 5, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see how stupid and uninformed opinions help the NHL. So he has a large fan base, that just means he gets to poison a bigger well. No thanks. There are about a billion better ways to grow the game than to sanction is douche baggery.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s crap, mostly because it’s all written under the ‘hey I’m gonna talk about hockey to non-hockey fans, which means I’m gonna insult it to try and be funny’. And it’s not funny.
Plus anyone who thinks the NHL should drop franchises in Atlanta, San Jose, Minnesota (huh?), and Anaheim and put ones in Winnipeg and Quebec City doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
The most glaring error to me is when he says that the NHL skipped a draft because of the lockout year.
by David M. Getz on Aug 5, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. Crap. He should stick to things he’s good at: being a Boston Homer, the NBA, and stupid pop culture references. No, he doesn’t get credit for the NFL either, he’s pretty clueless on that topic as well… but he knows how to gamble! Yuck. I’m gonna go shower now…
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
as a peace offering, i present this sweet shower curtain:
i don’t have a strong opinion about it either way. i can certainly understand feeling like BS is ridiculing hockey…i don’t read it that way, but i’m also not protective re: hockey the way i would be if i’d been a fan since diapers. it comes across as someone trying to fit the NHL into his niche worldview (before AO i guess roenick was the villain?), complete with gambling and movie references, but it doesn’t strike a nerve. the internet is a big sandbox, and people are smart enough to go elsewhere if they are looking for a more enlightened take. BS makes decent enough bathroom reading, and i’m willing to digest his non-basketball stuff with a grain of salt. he was one of the first to really capture the fan’s voice from a major outlet, albeit the often obnoxious boston fan voice. what bothers me about BS is the way he manages to represent himself as a populist writer while remaining one of the more insulated, defensive and self-aggrandizing personalities in sports media. at the very least, i give him credit for directing me towards “the wire” and convincing me to give fantasy football a chance 5 or 6 years ago.
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 5, 2009 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Wire is awesome. Always. But I found that on my own. I don’t really get that mad about him because I just ignore him. When my non-hockey-fan friends send me a link to some crap about hockey and I read it I get a little hot but he doesn’t consume much of my time.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve read his articles for a long time at this point (8+ years? yikes) and I agree re: the bathroom reading point. I just think when you have a guy writing about how exciting and intense hockey is and what a great sport it is, it’s good for the league even if he gets things wrong or has stupid ideas about how to make it better.
In the times when he’s explained why he stopped watching hockey for so long, it was basically because the Bruins’ owner was a tightwad (irrefutable fact) and because his heart got crushed by the Habs one too many times in the playoffs. He also makes the tired arguments about overexpansion, trapping, etc. that took the fun out of the game (which I hear serious hockey fans make at times). I can understand that. It’s clear (from his more recent articles, since the Bruins got good again) that he really enjoys watching hockey. He even live-blogged Game 7 of the B’s-Canes series.
I’m not trying to convince people he’s not a d-bag, sports homer, narrow-minded, or full of the same tired pop culture references. I’m just saying he’s writing about hockey (more and more in recent years), he has a ton of readers, and I think anything that will turn people onto the NHL is a good thing. And I bet he’s going to go gaga for Olympic hockey in a watchable time slot.
by grapejoos on Aug 5, 2009 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, sorry if I've messed this up
I’ve taken this more from the current roster/coach’s perspective and I’ve been basing my comments thereupon. I took potential into account, but less so than current on-ice contributions. In part I guess my thoughts were this: if I were coaching and I lost this guy, how screwed would I be, or how easily could I replace him? Maybe that’s a ridiculous conceit, but that’s how I approached it – hence my “Laich” love. If I were in Boudreau’s shoes and I lost Poti, I’d think “well, Alzner or someone can fill in.” If I lost Laich, I’d be more upset because I can use him for so many different things during a game, most of which I can’t use say Flash or Fehr for. Clearly, Alzner and Carlson have more value in the “Bill Simmons” scenario than they do in the way I was going with this. In hindsight, my list would go like this:
1. Ovie
2. Green
3. Backis
4. Semin
5. Carlson
6. Alzner
7. Laich
Still, I can see a problem applying the “Simmons Method” to weighing Alzner/Carlson and Varly/Neuvy. Individually in trade, each of those guys is worth more to the receiving team than he is to the Caps, primarily because of the presence of the other guy. It’s less salient of an issue with the defensemen (because there are 6 D slots), but it’s more of a problem with the goalies (sort of a San Jose circa 2003 problem with Nabokov, Toskala and Kiprusoff all on the same team). From another perspective, I think this is why some people advocate trades for guys like Semin and Jordan Staal, despite their values to their respective clubs, while other people think such moves would be the height of insanity.
Parenthetically, this is what happens when I try to comment and I A) haven’t been drinking, and B) am really busy at work.
by D'ohboy on Aug 5, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still, I can see a problem applying the "Simmons Method" to weighing Alzner/Carlson and Varly/Neuvy. Individually in trade, each of those guys is worth more to the receiving team than he is to the Caps, primarily because of the presence of the other guy.
i agree. i had issues slotting varlamov, and for that reason had alzner one above. but i wouldn’t remove him from my top 7 altogether, since at this moment in his development he’s the closest thing the caps have to a franchise goalie, and after his 2009 postseason the league will recognize him as such. if i had the keys, i would explore trading one of the two goalies sooner rather than later…but that doesn’t mean they don’t have immense value to the caps as commodities.
so my ranking looks this way:
1. AO
2. Green
3. Nicky
4. Semin
5. Alzner
6. Varlamov
with neuvirth not far outside the top 10. schultz and carlson still battling it out in my brain for #7.
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 5, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with all this. I said in the post for 5 that I was voting Alzner only because we had an insurance plan for Varlamov. Otherwise the goalie has to win. Carlson and Schultz will be my next two votes (haven’t decided the order) because …
Green/Alzner
Carlson/Schultz
Varlamov
…makes my giney tingle. I better get a purity ring, stat.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s this I hear about people not wanting to wear the purity ring, huh-huh?
by D'ohboy on Aug 5, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I understand it, the question is who is more valuable, not who would I let walk (right now).
by TylerG on Aug 5, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And after you vote and defend your selection in the comments, help us out and suggest a name to add to the next poll.
Candidates include Bradley, Neuvirth, BMo and so on.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 2:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well while we’re talking about potential, I’ll toss out Osala and/or MarJo for consideration’s sake.
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
by Bald Pollack on Aug 5, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep forgettting that part. I’d like #9 added next.
by mechanicsville on Aug 5, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alzner. As for who to add, I’m going to go off the wall and say Gordon. Just because.
by brs03 on Aug 5, 2009 2:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
have i mentioned what great taste you have in avatars? :)
by mechanicsville on Aug 5, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
avatar showdown!
(the loser should just use eastwood as his/her avatar.)
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 5, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean, the winner? The Sergio Leone movies were amazing.. I’ve been hoping they would go to Blu-Ray, but it looks like I’ll have to settle for widescreen DVD copies.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
by winterion on Aug 5, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
GB & U is already there.
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
by Bald Pollack on Aug 5, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alzner hasn’t quite proved himself to me. not to say that i’m not sure the young defenseman won’t, but I think a third to fourth line grinder of Steckle’s size, grit, and faceoff ability is very valuable to any team
by DC FURY on Aug 5, 2009 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I do love me some Alzner, but I couldn’t realistically justify voting for him until now. Because he hasn’t played out a full NHL season yet.
by CapitalCentre on Aug 5, 2009 2:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well according to JP the fact that he hasn’t played at all doesn’t matter. IF some other team would give up a lot for him, then thats what you should be voting on…
by DarkHorseCards on Aug 5, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Psst… Alzner has played, just not a full season.
by brs03 on Aug 5, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Captain Obvious
Thank you Captain Obvious. Could you please post a reminder that we are all on the “Internet” and we’re talking about “hockey”, otherwise we’d all be lost without you.
by DarkHorseCards on Aug 5, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You said “hasn’t played at all.” That wasn’t a fact.
-Captain Obvious to the rescue
by brs03 on Aug 5, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
by Sombrero Guy on Aug 5, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think anyone posting on here would realize that Alzner has played for the Washington Capitals who play in the Southeast Division of the Eastern Conference of the National Hockey League.
But you’re absolutely right that that wasn’t a fact. Thanks for the correction and for reporting me.
by DarkHorseCards on Aug 5, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one reported you. The blog moderators are capable of reading on their own.
You said Alzner hadn’t played, which isn’t true, and brs03 corrected the statement. There’s no reason to be upset at him.
by David M. Getz on Aug 5, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude – you got warned for being an antagonistic asshole. Come down off the cross and let’s move on.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could you at least help take the nails out?
Come on… I wasn’t trying to antagonize, I was trying to be funny which apparently missed the mark. And I wasn’t upset at brs03 I was trying to pave over the situation which again apparently missed the mark.
brs03 – If you thought I was having a go at you, i apologize, I was just joking around. I’ll be more accurate and less vague in future posts. Apologies to all.
by DarkHorseCards on Aug 5, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cool. We’re all good.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you thought I was having a go at you, i apologize
I stand by my comment from weeks ago…what this blog needs during the long offseason is a platform that includes bbq, peruvian chicken and a plethora of beer.
/nothing brings people together like chicken, the other white meat and alcohol.
by Yoshietree on Aug 5, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No problem here. The “psst” entailed snark, so snark in the reply is perfectly fine.
by brs03 on Aug 5, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gotta be Steckel. He’s got 31 total NHL points, Alzner has 5; Steckel is more proven. Steckel had the 2nd most important goal in the Caps’ post-season this year, Alzner had a concussion for the Bears. The playoffs showed that the Caps rely on their first and third lines to succeed. Keeping Steckel gives the Caps one of the most formidable One-Three punches in the league. Steckel is tall and at a position of need. Alzner doesn’t hit, score, or skate with blazing speed. Having Steckel on the ice is like playing with 3D (without having Jagr on the team) and 3Fs. Having Alzner on the ice is like playing with 2D and 3Fs. Steckel is basically an extra player on the ice. So what if Alzner was drafted in the first round, GMGM also drafted Pokie, Figleaf, and Eminger in the first round, how’d they work out? Until Alzner wins a Norris we can’t be sure he’ll ever pan out into a credible NHLer. Plus, my friend’s cousin’s roommate went to Calgary once and heard Alzner smokes weed.
/some of the above statements might not be entirely true.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 2:22 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
I think – and hope – that this one will give you some peace. Keep fighting the good fight, you convinced me to vote Alzner the past 2 rounds.
by grapejoos on Aug 5, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you know I’m gonna keep fighting. I’m just happy to have some good hockey talk in August.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I voted Alzner. Fehr and Balanced held a stick to my throat.
by Laich on Aug 5, 2009 2:34 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
No, you fell down the stairs.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We don’t know F&B like Laich does.
"The passion of our supporters cannot be contained by clothing."
by Bald Pollack on Aug 5, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently I’m going to be voting for Knuble again in the next 5-6 polls. LOL.
by CP2Devil on Aug 5, 2009 2:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I voted Knuble because of his experience and his dirty goal technique which is otherwise lacking from the team. We’re still betting on the future with Alzner, and that’s not good enough to get him #7 in my book.
"My face is my mask."
by jakeshapiro on Aug 5, 2009 2:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Just out of curiousity, where do you see yourself voting for Alzner (which current Caps are of relatively equal value in your book)?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Knuble were #7, Alzner would be #9 behind Steckel. The Caps had a better faceoff percentage in ‘08-’09 than any other team in the league, and that’s mostly due to Stecks. It’s an underrated quality—you can’t win games if you’re not winning faceoffs.
The hardest ones to pin down for me are Theo and Flash, who seem to have talent which is always in flux.
"My face is my mask."
by jakeshapiro on Aug 5, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you can’t win games if you’re not winning faceoffs.
In before Hooks can say, “The Peguins do it”
by zephyr on Aug 5, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
*I meant to say the Caps were #1 in faceoff percentage during the playoffs. Still, Steckel was #5 in the league in FO% during the regular season, and you get my point.
"My face is my mask."
by jakeshapiro on Aug 5, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You wouldn’t trade Steckel for Alzner straight up right now?
by Scott in Shaw on Aug 5, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What Happened To #5
The post disappeared?
by Scott in Shaw on Aug 5, 2009 3:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The older ones are probably being removed to avoid clutter.
by Mobsky on Aug 5, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting. I take it you’ll be ranking Neurvith higher than Fehr and Flash?
by Yoshietree on Aug 5, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gonna try to be reaally safe here. :)
For me it keeps coming back to the “(or who would have the most value in trade as of right now)” requirement. And I would see more interest around the league in a skilled, up-and-coming goalie than in Fehr or Flash. Though, personally, I might rank Fehr or Flash higher simply because of Theodore and Varlamov.
by DarkHorseCards on Aug 5, 2009 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thing that helps Flash in my mind (less so Fehr, I don’t think he should have been on there before Flash TBH) is that 20+ goal guys (if that’s the general expectation for him, it is for me but YMMV) making under 1 mil and that are still impending RFA’s don’t grow on trees. Since contracts are still to be considered here, Flash’s “value” is probably a lot higher than his “impact” is. Not sure where I’d vote for him though.
by brs03 on Aug 5, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you, Flash doesn’t have to do much to be good value, and for now he still has some upside. He may infuriate the fans but at the end of the day 20 g for 750k is a good deal. I’ve definitely got Neuvirth ahead of Flash and Fehr. You could put “Flash and Fehr” as a single vote and I’d still vote Neuvirth.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven’t thought it through that far yet, but I might.
by Scott in Shaw on Aug 5, 2009 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m gonna keep voting for Schultz until he finally makes it off the board.
My guess is that after this season, if you asked me the Alzner/Schultz question, I’d pick Alzner. But until he proves it for a full season in Washington, Alzner can’t win this.
I think we all have a similar idea of the ceilings for Alzner and Schultz. Alzner has the potential to be a captain and first pairing guy. Schultz has the potential to be a first pairing guy too, but lacks the make-up to ever wear a C.
We also know what Schultz’s floor is. He’s already a 2nd pairing guy for a playoff team. We don’t know what Alzner’s floor is, and until we do he isn’t more valuable to the Caps.
by Tromni on Aug 5, 2009 4:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think there’s still such a huge difference in their games that you can justify the vote for Alzner. Schultz is never going to touch Alzner in hockey sense, at least not in “potential for hockey sense.” That’s why people use the franchise label (at least as a maybe) for Alzner’s upside, but not for Schultz’s.
by brs03 on Aug 5, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd disagree
We pretty much know what Alzner’s floor is: it’s what you saw when he played for us last year. I’d argue that we also pretty much know what Schultz’s ceiling is. He’s never going to be a great skater, and he’s probably never going to develop much offensively – it doesn’t mean he’s not valuable (especially for the money), but he’s not at the same level as Alzner.
What we don’t know is the ceiling for Alzner/Carlson and our collective guess it that it’s quite high. That’s why they get the nod from me if we follow the “Bill Simmons Rules.”
Also, I’m not sure that Schultz is a #2 pairing defenseman if and when this Caps squad wins a cup. I think as a #3/PK specialist he’s outstanding, but I’m guessing our cup-winning top-4 looks something like Green/Alzner/Poti/Carlson. It’s nitpicking, but that’s my opinion.
by D'ohboy on Aug 5, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My NHL 09 game randomly traded Schultz for Hamhuis yesterday. Make of that what you will, this is the same game that puts Clark on the first line’s right wing, and absolutely butchers half the players’ names in commentary.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
by winterion on Aug 5, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t wait for NHL 10! It’ll be fun to have the Caps play against Feds on Metallurg Magnitogorsk.
"My face is my mask."
by jakeshapiro on Aug 5, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
we also pretty much know what Schultz’s ceiling is.
No way. He’s only going to get more confident and better with the puck.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s only going to get more confident and better with the puck.
Point granted, but IMO Alzner’s ceiling is still higher than Schultz’s.
by Yoshietree on Aug 5, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No question.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 5, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To further this point, Schultz plays a position game. NHL hockey moves fast. He is going to learn to read plays better, he’s going to anticipate better, and he’s going to see players do more things with the puck. That’s going to allow him to be a split second quicker figuring out where to be and getting there. For a guy who plays a position game that can make a huge difference. Thinking is Jeff Schultz’s enemy, and with experience he will think less.
Alzner will be better.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Be that as it may. . .
We can reasonably suppose (I’ve been doing this a lot lately), that Schultz isn’t going to develop into a latter-day Scott Niedermayer. Ultimately, the most important skill in hockey is skating, and Schultz isn’t a great skater and probably won’t become one. Yes, he’s young, but it’s tough to develop that much even at his age. (And please don’t throw Chara out there – for every Chara there are 10 Steve Mckennas or Chris McAllisters or . . . Joe Finleys – the odds aren’t good.)
My feeling is this: Schultz may get better in his own end, and he may get a bit more comfortable in the transition game, but he’s not going to develop into an offensive threat from the back end, nor is he going to develop into the next Zdeno Chara. I’m not saying he’s not useful, I’m just saying that Schultz’s skillset has certain. . . limitations.
Alzner’s skating ability and hockey sense give him a much, much higher ceiling – in the NHL, you can go quite far if your head and feet can keep up with the game. At worst, we’ve seen Alzner’s floor (barring injury) this year – a solid, but sporadically porous defenseman who tends to get beaten physically who contributes little offensively. (Sound like anyone?).
by D'ohboy on Aug 5, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with J.P. that we don’t know what Schutlz’s ceiling is (I can’t even really think of a good comparable player for him) but you’re definitely right that the skating is why Schultz falls to 4th in the Green-Alzner-Carlson-Schultz pecking order.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 5, 2009 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
After goaltending, rating S@H defensemen has got to be the most difficult assessment job for a scout or GM. For a layperson, in the absence of shiny, sexy stats that can help clarify or define quality, it’s a significant challenge.
from the house that Red Jesus built
by bigonetimer on Aug 6, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. But skating is easy to see and is by far the most important skill.
by Fehr and Balanced on Aug 6, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Skating, positioning, vision, toughness and sense have to replace “GF/60” and “PPG”. Heck, most of the time their +/-‘s stinks worse than their partners’, because while the latter has gassed themselves on the up ice rush, and then heads to the bench for a change, sometimes there’s a wee mess to clean up…
from the house that Red Jesus built
by bigonetimer on Aug 6, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Washington
|
22 | 13 | 5 | 4 | 30 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
19 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 23 |
|
Atlanta
|
18 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 22 |
|
Florida
|
20 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 20 |
|
Carolina
|
21 | 4 | 12 | 5 | 13 |
(updated 11.21.2009 at 8:36 AM EST)
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
