Pick 'Em: Do the Caps Need an Enforcer?
by Stephen Pepper on Sep 4, 2009 1:45 PM EDT
in Pick 'Ems
Email
Print
Last season, fighting in hockey was the subject of national debate in Canada, from one of the Great White North's premier sports talk programs to the CBC's fifth estate production, "The Code." And more particularly, the role of the "enforcer" and the modern trend of the "staged fight," one that does not arise "out of the emotion, the spontaneity of the game, [or] a guy responding to a questionable hit on himself or on a teammate," but those "pre-arranged fights that don’t arise out of the play, [where] two heavyweights squar[e] off before a face-off, or text[ ] each other leading up to a game," as the former, recently-ousted NHLPA Director Paul Kelly once described.
Whether you, the fan, find those marquee bouts richly entertaining, or awkward and uncomfortable to watch, staged fights will undoubtedly remain in the game (with perhaps some tweaks to the rules, notwithstanding, down the road). But what of the "responding to a questionable hit" variety of fisticuffs? And whither your 2009-10 Washington Capitals' lack of a classic (well, in this current era, anyway) enforcer? Is one necessary to protect our elite, young and still-evolving corps of offensive talent from dirty hits and cheap shots? If so, at what price? Donald Brashear's $1.4 million per, or Colton Orr's $1 million per, for four years? Lappy's three year, $3.5 million pact?
John Erskine believes that each Cap, to a man, can and will stick up for each other, without a designated pile driver. Everyone's favorite cycler and re-cycler, Matt Bradley, added:
It doesn't matter to me if we have a tough guy or not; I play the same way no matter what. A lot of teams nowadays don't have a tough guy and it works to their advantage. Look at Detroit. They don't have any tough guys and they always seem to take advantage on the power play.
So I'm not really worried about that. For me personally, I'm more worried about contributing more offensively. In the playoffs there, I began to put some numbers on the board.
Yes, Brads, we fondly remember Game 5 of the Rangers series last April. Oh, baby. Having a player with some offensive and smooth-skating abilities, however modest, packaged in layers of heavy sandpaper, over a skater far more one-dimensional, provides a critical post-season advantage. And in our now legendary Pick 'Em file of "Brads or Brash?," Rink readers chose Matt.
So putting aside the issue of whether your entertainment value is diminished by the curtailment of the aforementioned pre-destined bouts between the "elite" pugilists, a debate over whether or not an enforcer is necessary for this incoming Caps team can, I think, be distilled to: is this squad, to a man, tough enough?
To say no is to suggest the need for an enforcer to pick up where those other individuals leave off (or never reach). But that's an imperfect solution. Better to have a whole line of gritty guys that have other useful tools in the box and that are, hopefully, less expensive. Don't we wish that just a few more of our forwards played with more Alex Ovechkin-like abandon?
To put it more poetically, how many on this team are certified bad-asses and how many are floaters? Can those in the former category keep the chippy play in check? Or, is having this self-described game-changing ability the critical post-season advantage?
We could compare post-lockout win-loss records and championships won to number of fighting majors earned by team, to assess whether having a top-end tough guy equates to more victories. But we've already seen in that time both the openly thuggish (Anaheim, 2006-07) and the no-nonsense, but breathtakingly crafty (Detroit, 2007-08) hoist la Coupe Stanley. We could also compare the number of majors earned by team to the number of instances in which an elite scorer on that team was dealt an injurious blow that forced him out of the lineup for a significant number of games. But we know quite well 'round here that correlation does not equal causation.
Let's look at the Caps' record from last year with and without Brashear in the lineup. In the regular season, the team went 37-21-5 with him dressed, and 13-3-3 without. In the playoffs? 3-1 with him and 4-6 without him. Significant?
It's impossible to predict whether or not having a goon in the lineup is going to deter a certain nasty hit or prevent an injury to a teammate. Or, more generally, quietly intimidate an opponent into defeat. It's got to be the whole machine, every cog, working together. (Not to mention staying in supreme physical condition to withstand some awkward crashes.)
But as Caps fans who have seen many a key stars-and-stripes contributor go down on account of an unsavory collision over the years, we wonder of today's collective D.C. toughness: Is it ever gonna be enough?
Happy Labor Day weekend, Caps fan brothers and sisters.
159 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’m afraid so. More for the playoffs, and more from a respect factor versus actually needing to use the player to beat people. Sorry GMGM.
Why for the playoffs? Teams generally don’t dress enforcers (the ones who don’t have value as hockey players I mean) in the playoffs for that very reason: they don’t have much value as hockey players when the games count the most.
As for respect, that comes with wins. Does anyone look at the Red Wings and go ‘Well those wins and Cups are nice, but I’d respect them a hell of a lot more if they had a guy with ECHL talent who occasionally fought another guy with ECHL talent so each could justify their NHL existence’?
by David Getz on Sep 4, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m afraid so. More for the playoffs
This gives me a chance to run the numbers on fights in last year’s playoffs to update my list:
Fighting majors, 2008-09 Playoffs: 21
Fighting majors, 2007-08 Playoffs: 7
Fighting majors, 2006-07 Playoffs: 13
Fighting majors, 2005-06 Playoffs: 14
Given that there are 15 series in a playoff year, that’s an average of less than one fight per series over the past four years.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
It’s not about actually fighting. It’s about respect. Raw fighting numbers don’t tell any story that necessarily correlates to why you should or should not have an enforcer. It’s like the old saying “peace through overwhelming firepower”. It’s not about using the weapons, it’s simply having them.
I can buy that logic (though I don’t really see it in practice) but in the playoffs it become a moot point because the stakes are so much higher. It’s all about winning that one game for both sides. You want your best players and you don’t want anyone taking dumb penalties.
And this last point is exactly what the Caps got away with in Game 6 against the Rags. If the call had been made, the Caps could’ve been out that night, and then where are we?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
What threw me off is that I thought that happened much earlier in the series than game 6.
Thanks.
PS – I don’t think being an enforcer means you do stupid crap like Brash did either.
But it’s a risk you take, and it’s a much greater risk with a guy whose job is to physically punish people. A Brashear knows he can’t change the game with a goal, so he does it with his brutishness, which becomes high-risk.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I just see the playoffs as a war, and those nuances seem to come out more in a long series.
For instance, would you want to head into a 7-game series against the current Flyers lineup, without an enforcer?
I see war as a war. I see the playoffs as a series of games. And thugs don’t dress for them.
Bring on the Flyers – if guys are intimidated by them but wouldn’t be if, say, Matt Bradley was Derek Boogaard, they shouldn’t be on the roster.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
For instance, would you want to head into a 7-game series against the current Flyers lineup, without an enforcer?
Yes I would. The Flyers are a good team and I’d want the Capitals to win that game so I want their best players out, not someone who serves not purpose. Plus the much stronger incentive to prevent the Flyers from pulling anything is their own desire to win the game. In those circumstances the odds of someone pulling something cheap are pretty low and no enforcer is going to stop a team from hitting or forechecking. Plus if the team needs a goon on the team to feel confident, they’re probably not making it very far anyway.
In short, I don’t see how having an enforcer on the team increases their odds of winning.
I agree that having an enforcer doesn’t help the Caps win a series against the Flyers, but the odds of someone dishing out a cheap shot are never low with the Flyers. Especially with Pronger now on the team.
by Killer_Carlson on Sep 6, 2009 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions
correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe 2 of the 21 from this past season came from that little Malkin-Zetterberg scuffle at the end of Game 2 (?), where Malkin threw a hissy fit and attempted up jump Zetterberg. There are probably other examples as well where the majors handed out went to players other than the “enforcers.”
Yeah, those are just raw numbers (and my bad, but those are fights, not fighting majors).
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Here are your 2008-09 Playoff “fights,” in reverse chronological order:
1. Malkin/Zetterberg
2. Eaves/Satan
3. Gleason/Letang
4. Datsyuk/S. Niedermayer
5. Rafalski/Perry
6. Walker/Ward
7. Conboy/Stuart
8. Kopecky/Beauchemin
9. Perry/Ericsson
10. Pavelski/Whitney
11. Thornton/Getzlaf
12. Clarkson/Gleason
13. Pardy/Eager
14. Talbot/Carcillo
15. Lucic/Komisarek
16. Murray/Parros
17. Letang/Powe
18. Kunitz/Hartnell
19. Gorges/Bergeron
20. Jackman/Bernier
21. Coburn/Guerin
Not a whole lot of enforcers on that list, are there?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Bottom line here being that if I believed the Caps needed an enforcer – and I don’t – it’d be for the regular season (where sometimes you take the five, the ten and the game(s) to send a message that you’ve got a lunatic in the lineup), not the playoffs. At all.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
How would consistent physical play from a trio of forwards garner less respect than having a once-in-a-while shift guy with a certain reputation skate out, one who would play less than 5 minutes in a playoff game, and whose skating abilities drag down the play while he’s out there?
by Stephen Pepper on Sep 4, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Well if Brads is the only guy to step up in any aggressive capacity, fighting or otherwise, it’s a much greater team-toughness problem than having a one-dimensional pugilist in the lineup would fix.
by Stephen Pepper on Sep 4, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
(1) Was anyone afraid of anyone on the Penguins or Red Wings this postseason?
(2) Heavyweights might not be afraid to fight Bradley, but are people going to be more intimidated by one guy who skates four minutes a night and hurts his team while he’s out or by four lines of physicality that constantly make life miserable in the corners and the front of the net? For me, it’d be the latter.
and there it is in a nutshell. we’re flush with forward who can play a physical brand of game on a nightly basis. this has to be considerably more effective than on 5 min/gm player with one dimension. it was probably 07-08, but i recall seeing something (probably here) noting that the caps are one of the biggest, if not the biggest team in the league. quite well suited for physical play.
by mechanicsville on Sep 4, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah we were one of the biggest teams each of the last two years (so was SJS) but size <> toughness. We were bigger than PIT but consistently lost puck battles. Kozlov was one of the biggest guys on the team but he is an absolute waste of size because he doesn’t want to battle for the puck (and just to head off the inevitable, Kozlov doesn’t use his stick to take away angles and passing lanes, or to force opposing forwards to the outside, etc.).
A man must have a code.
you know, i was thinking about 25 as i wrote that. i’m hopeful that knuble is a click up from kozzy. i don’t recall our boys getting pushed around too often last season, apart from semin’s mugging against the blues. so, back to the topic, let’s gather all the talent (along with a generous helping of grit) and we can and leave the fisticuffs to others.
by mechanicsville on Sep 4, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Maxime Talbot proves you don’t need to be a bad-ass to have the team rally around you.
"You know you're an alcoholic when the bartender knows your name - and you've never been to that bar before."
The question is do the Capitals NEED an enforcer. Simply put they don’t.
This enforcer talk has been about driven into the ground quite a few times already so I’ll continue so sound like a broken record and reiterate that the Caps do not need an enforcer but having one is better than not having one.
I think one of the most important facts that has not been brought up for this situation is that if the players on the team don’t think they need an enforcer then they don’t. Clearly, in this instance, that is true.
Comment first, think second, read third.
I don’t think you need heavyweight enforcers, supposedly, part of the code is that heavyweights fight other heavyweights. Does Brash fighting mean an Avery doesn’t chip at a skill guy? No, because Avery isn’t going to care that his enforcer fights another enforcer. I’ll go with Erskine’s thinking and if teammates are willing to stick up for each other, a designated heavyweight isn’t needed.
This really gets at the heart of my feelings about enforcers. I simply don’t see how one guy dancing with the other team’s designated pugilist does much to deter anything if there’s no threat that the first guy is occasionally gonna snap and just pummel an opponent for running his goalie/teammate.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Sep 4, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly, you and I (and others) have echoed this pretty consistently.
Brashear punching and getting punched by Carcillo doesn’t deter Briere from spearing Ovie or Laich from running over Biron.
Would it still work in baseball if Pujols gets beaned, and the mascot got plunked in response?
Hah, Carcillo’s hardly an enforcer, but I agree.
And the hit batters/retaliation thing in baseball is idiot (as an aside)
Must mean Cote. Point stands, obviously.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yeah, much more in the Avery mold, though. Li’l bastard, that one.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Right.
As a rookie, Carcillo had 13 goals and 324 PIMs in 57 games. Very entertaining dude. Then again, he was on a team that wasn’t playing for much (and became unplayable at one point in the season), so I’m not sure how great that extreme a nutjob would be for this team. Delly’s demeanor is a bit more mellow, from what I gather.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
For someone who isn’t an enforcer, he sure does rack up a lot of 5 minute fighting penalties.
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 4, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Not a whole lot of enforcers on that list, are there?
I laughed. I can just picture Clemens trying to pick the Oriole off the top of the dugout.
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 4, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
To me the only value of an enforcer is deterring chippy play against your stars. I don’t think Brash (or any other enforcer) did that so there’s no point overpaying a 4th line guy. IMO the VC ice is a bigger threat to the health of our stars than a lack of enforcer is.
A man must have a code.
This is what fascinates me about the ‘enforcer’ issue: If Orpik slewing Ovechkin meant Brashear would coldcock Cindy, then Brashear would have deterrent value. But today’s ‘enforcers’ are mere proxies, a sideshow to the negotiation about How the Game is Played.
If only there were a Bada Byng trophy, for the low-PIM bonecrusher…
Nice calls, all.
Btw, if your name is based on this song, you win. If not, still not bad.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Love the Bada Byng trophy idea. Anyone got ideas for early candidates? I’m gonna say Dustin Brown (only 64 PIM).
A man must have a code.
I wish I could see a game in Minnesota, just to see “CLUTTERBUCK” on the back of their new 3rd jersey. Claasic.
As long as he doesn’t rack up half his goals against the Caps again
by red army line on Sep 4, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Last year’s adjusted hits leaders… even more impressive for Buttercup.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Very impressive. I guess I gotta go with DMG and give Buttercup the Bada Byng. I do think D-Brown is a finalist though. I think Brent Seabrook is the 3rd finalist (only 62 PIM and probably got the most ice out of any of those guys).
A man must have a code.
Is it about intimidation or hitting?
If that is the case then a guy with a few more PIMS might be a strong candidate. Pronger for instance? I’m sure that Green will think twice about that drive to the net with his eyes on the puck…
Ryan Callahan’s no slouch either: ninth in hits and only 45 PIMs.
Still, Clutterbuck has such a huge lead in hits, I gotta give it to him.
B…b…b…but… doesn’t he wear a visor? He can’t be tough…
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Ha, I didn’t consider Brownie and Callahan – I was ref’g to Buttercup.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Love me some DBrown, but I think the first Bada Byng goes to Clutterbuck. He skates hard to where he can put a body on you and then does so, apparently all night. Do you want to have that tiresome loose-puck argument with him, uh-gain, at the 52-minute mark?
The enforcer role has been greatly diminished by the League’s actions (instigator rule) as much as any prevailing attitudes about a tough guy’s effectiveness.
Terri Frei wrote this a few years ago and I think his take is spot on:
" The true enforcer wasn’t so much part of the slug-vs.-slug sideshows that make it onto the unofficial Ring Record books of the sport, as he was the guy who … always … was … there.
‘I didn’t fight a lot,’ Semenko (Gretzky’s bodyguard in the 80’s) said. ‘I don’t know how much trouble I actually stopped by being there. A lot of times it was just talking to a guy. You’d say, ‘I don’t know what you’re doing, but if you plan on continuing it …,’ and that usually would stop it. We had a lot of tough players on our team, so it wasn’t just my sole role, but I got the most attention for it.’
Frei notes that the instigator rule changed the role of the “momentum changing” fight (aka “the end of hockey as we know it”):
“Some of us believe the game not only can get along but also would be better off with further legislation that all but eliminated fighting, enabling the sport to jettison its (unfair, but real) sideshow image in some corners of discerning general sports fandom.”
The competiton committee per Bettman mandate wanted fighting to all but disappear so that hockey would appeal to more casual fans.
Whether I think Ovie needs a bodyguard or not, the current rules greatly limit the enforcer’s effectiveness.
So – no, we dont need an enforcer in the traditional sense.
The competiton committee per Bettman mandate wanted fighting to all but disappear so that hockey would appeal to more casual fans.
If you’re trying to pin the instigator rule on Bettman that’s a hard sell given that it was adopted before he became commissioner.
Didn’t the increased enforcement and late-game-fight-suspensions/fines come under his watch?
A man must have a code.
I can’t really comment on the increased enforcement because it wasn’t around long before he assumed his current position.
But the suspensions and fines for instigating under five minutes have only been around a few years.
That’s what I thought as well. There was always an instigator rule but prior to the fines ‘n’ suspensions era you had to be more ridiculous to get called so it did allow for more “self policing.”
A man must have a code.
And to clarify I did not put self policing in quotes because I don’t believe it’s a legitimate function; I put it in quotes because some players in the league use legitimate self policing as an excuse to vent on other players or to look for retribution when a teammate gets lit up legally. I don’t think the NHL has done a very good job at punishing “self policing” while allowing legitimate self policing (following examples notwithstanding). Clearly the hockey people at the top of the league can tell the difference (…I hope) so it only stands to reason that they just don’t know how to handle it. My suggestion is that any fights that result from a clearly legal hit be slapped with an instigator; if it is a borderline hit (even if no PIM) or an illegal hit then the resulting fight is legitimate self policing.
This is self policing.
This is “self policing.”
/clarification was 5x the original post
A man must have a code.
Ya have to pick a better example of “self policing”. One that doesn’t involve the Caps squandering 9 minutes of PP time…
How about this?
More of my thoughts on the subject here, fwiw.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I could use another angle on that one – looked like Bieksa’s elbow was up, though maybe it was just follow-through (and in either case, probably fast enough in real-time to warrant the extra attention).
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yeah I’d like another angle to make sure as well. It looks like the Bieksa could have been there early as well but I think it was timed right. The thing that really makes me laugh is that it was Picard that thought he should do something and he went into it like he expected Bieksa to just tie him up (like an old timey duel where they just shoot into the air or something). He had to know he was going to get fed in that situation.
A man must have a code.
Ha. We all know that only D’ohboy gets plagiarized around here.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Sep 4, 2009 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
where is d’ohboy these days? on sabbatical?
by mechanicsville on Sep 5, 2009 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions
My two theories are a) he was scared off in the epic Friedman-Keynes debates; or b) he’s swamped with work.
A man must have a code.
As a student with a fairly heavy econ concentration, I’m sorry I missed that particular debate.
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 5, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Stick to your guns Pepper.
You can’t say:
I don’t know, J.P. I get the honor of the sport part. But the game is so much about intimidation.
and this:
Well if Brads is the only guy to step up in any aggressive capacity, fighting or otherwise, it’s a much greater team-toughness problem than having a one-dimensional pugilist in the lineup would fix.
I blame J.P. for bringing up ancient history :)
I don’t see the conflict there.
I’m saying that we can’t have just one guy designated to do the dirty work. We need a whole team of guys, shift after shift, to play an intimidating brand of hockey.
We may or may not have enough of that quality of team this year (I sure hope so), but having one or two guys to be designated to play policemen isn’t going to do the job in today’s game. Especially when that guy plays five minutes tops a night and doesn’t have a whole lot of other tools in the box.
The issue of retaliating after a clean vs. dirty hit is a very different debate than whether this Caps team needs a designated pugilist.
by Stephen Pepper on Sep 6, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions
I think a designated fighter detracts from the value of each time that guy fights. Think of when Max Talbot fought Carcillo in Game 6, ECQF, Pens down 3-0. The team was like “Hey, Max doesn’t fight all that often, and he took a beating for us” and they went out and won. Same thing with Brads and Erskine tends to happen, but no need for a designated fighter, just a few people who’ll fight when it’s needed.
by red army line on Sep 6, 2009 2:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Detroit logic
We don’t need an enforcer. As GMGM has suggested, we already had one of the top power plays last year and I expect it to be be better this year with Knuble and improvement from our young guys. I think fear of our power play will intimidate far more than fear of an enforcer.
Prediction: The play of Boyd Gordon, Brooks Laich, Chris Clark, John Erskine, and Matt Bradley will improve because those gentlemen take it on themselves to police the play, rather than sit around and wait for Brashear to take care of things.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
I’m not sure how that elevates their game though, even if they know they have to fight more often. Is this akin to the “Semin plays better when he gets more PK time because he’s more focused” argument?
A man must have a code.
I agree with GOD here. Clark, Erskine and Brads seem to thrive in choppy conditions and I see how that medium gets certain guys going.
from the house that Red Jesus built
They’ll be more in the game. Taking responsibility. Doing the opposite of watching and waiting for someone else to take care of something.
It’s the Patrick Ewing theory applied to a goon.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Sep 5, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Come on now, F&B. Admit that at least Simmons is fun to read once in awhile. Though it takes about 30 minutes to read one of his articles. His latest one on hitting Vegas for his FFL draft was pretty good.
I used to read him, and there were some enjoyable moments. Every once in a while my friends will send me clips of something he wrote and I’ll find it funny. But I don’t regularly read his stuff anymore because it’s so NBA/Boston-centric; two things I really have no interest in (more like active disdain).
A man must have a code.
I hear ya, he can get somewhat predictable as far as his topics go (Boston-centric). But he’s got an random, observational slant that is quite hilarious at times.
I did live in Vegas for awhile, so I got a big chuckle out of a lot of what this article was about. True stuff.
Yeah i would have to say so
Every NHL team needs a hired gun, it’s just the way it works in the NHL. You have to have a guy who can kill someone if need be.
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
personally
if he stays clean (which is a stretch) then i am happy about it. He is the best enforcer in the game. But hits (similar to the one he used on Betts) is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Aside from that he is a tad expensive.
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
by Joe Fortunato on Sep 5, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m in the minority among these rogues, but I think Donny has good hands. And gets air.
from the house that Red Jesus built
Every NHL team needs a hired gun, it’s just the way it works in the NHL.
How do you explain DET? CHI doesn’t really have a true goon, just a few guys that are willing to step up and fight. PIT had Godard but never played him when it mattered. It seems to me like plenty of talented teams get by without one.
A man must have a code.
Hey Fehr
Well I suppose when it comes to Detroit and Chicago they have enough bangers on their roster that they can make you pay without a hired gun. I mean if someone is taking liberties with the Rangers then they need a guy who can step in and crush someone, for the Rangers that someone is a hired gun (Brashear).
I agree with RedBirdie that teams that take liberties on Detroit will be punished by players who can bang with the big boys but preform other tasks too. The Rangers dont have many of those guys and let’s be honest with Sean Avery on the roster the Rangers are going to draw quite a few cheap shots. Cheap shots that Brashear will answer.
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
by Joe Fortunato on Sep 5, 2009 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Joe, were you onboard with the Brash signing from the get-go? The dollars are probably double what they should be, and he’s getting a shit-storm from Ranger fans, it sounds like. Personally, I think the MSG crowds will love him by Thanksgiving.
Hey Cluster
Well I have to be honest with you when he came down the pike as the first signing I was quite upset. It didn’t make any sense to me as to why the Rangers would spend so much money on a banger when they could keep Colton Orr. But when the Rangers announced the Gaborik signing it made alot more sense.
While I understand the Ranger Fans hatred of Sather letting Orr go the move does kind of make sense. Orr was a good fighter but not intimidating. Even with him in the line-up teams still took their cheap shots and liberties on the Rangers. In a line up I would take Brashear as a much more intimidating force that Orr. And now that Gaborik is around the Rangers have precious cargo to protect. Plus Lundqvist cannot be bumped around like he was all year. Especially in the Caps series in the playoffs, he needs to be protected. Brashear will help with that.
As for you’re other statment. I like Brashear now (so long as he keeps the cheap shots out of his game) and while Rangers fans are still sore over his hit on Betts they will love him when he knocks some players teeth down their throats.
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
by Joe Fortunato on Sep 5, 2009 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Brash is well past his fighting prime, unfortunately, and has lost about 5 steps off his already poor skating. The Rangers severely overpaid for a guy well past his prime, who doesn’t “protect” his teammates in the traditional sense. I think you’re going to be very disappointed.
Although his skating from time to time gives me a nice chuckle.
by red army line on Sep 6, 2009 2:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Don’t get your hopes up, Joe – Brash doesn’t hold opponents accountable. He’s a sideshow who will dance with the other team’s designated thug from time to time.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Good point but
I don’t expect him to be the only force of “power” behind the Rangers, but he filled a role the Rangers needed filled. I’m not too worried about him as a fighter but he is a big upgrade over Colton Orr.
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
by Joe Fortunato on Sep 5, 2009 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not too worried about him as a fighter but he is a big upgrade over Colton Orr.
Is he? Among the league’s heavyweights I agree, but the league’s heavyweights have to fight Brashear to stay in the lineup so he’s not necessarily a deterrent. If you’re talking your run of the mill NHL’er I think the prospect of fighting Orr is pretty undesirable as well.
I guess I just mean that I imagine the number of guys who would be intimidated by Brashear but not by Orr to very small.
Well I suppose when it comes to Detroit and Chicago they have enough bangers on their roster that they can make you pay without a hired gun.
And that’s exactly what the Caps should be. Hopefully will be.
by Stephen Pepper on Sep 6, 2009 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions
The Hawks have thugs – Ben Eager leading the way.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
But they also have Brouwer, Burish, and Buff who will all drop the gloves. By no means do they rely on Eager to do the dirty work. Eager also gets 8+ minutes of ice per night (per Behind the Net) so he’s not quite as useless as most enforcers.
A man must have a code.
Agreed. My point was in response to “Well I suppose when it comes to Detroit and Chicago they have enough bangers on their roster that they can make you pay without a hired gun,” and I guess I was taken back a bit by lumping the two teams together, as one of the teams doesn’t fight while the other has several guys who do.
As for Eager, he’s a hired gun in my book, as much as Brash is, in that he’s the guy who’ll fight the other team’s heavyweight (though Matt Walker did it when he got a sweater). Those other guys are good muscle too – and probably more effective deterrents for the very reason that they don’t just square off in the sideshow heavyweight fights, but Eager’s leads the way, as far as pugilism goes (even if he did have a ridiculously high 11 goals last year).
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I got you. I definitely agree there is a major difference between DET and CHI in their approaches to fighting. I also can buy Eager as a hired gun, but the 11 goals and higher minutes at least demonstrates that he can play a little bit of hockey. Tying it to my other comment about the Caps possibly needing an enforcer even if it’s not Brash, maybe Eager is the kind of enforcer most teams really need. Would the Caps be better off with Eager on the squad?
A man must have a code.
Sure. I mean, they only got 11 goals out of nine guys last year, so they might be better off with Eager if for nothing other than the offensive depth he’d provide.
Kidding.
Sorta.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
sorry for the confusion JP
they were just the two examples thrown my way, i forgot about Eager.
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
by Joe Fortunato on Sep 6, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
No worries – the point is still valid.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
as for you fehr this point you made was what i was trying to make
I also can buy Eager as a hired gun, but the 11 goals and higher minutes at least demonstrates that he can play a little bit of hockey
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
by Joe Fortunato on Sep 6, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
The first 3-4 games are going to be interesting. Teams aren’t going to want us on the PP but I have no doubt that limits are going to be pushed and pushed early, to see what emerges. But even with Brash last year, our goalies seemed to get run over at times (our crease clearing in general stinks) and liberties will be liberties….we’ll see after PHI-NYR in October.
I’d say there are going to be 5-8 games per year where an enforcer comes in handy (4 games with Philly and a couple others : )…snark aside, it’s not really a full time role and as hotdog88gt says, we can spend the money more wisely.
/wonders if Osala drops ’em
from the house that Red Jesus built
Just to remind you, the game after Belak knocked out Brash was against PHI. We had no enforcer and PHI didn’t really take any liberties and we ended up winning a pretty exciting hockey game.
I also doubt Osala plays on the Caps much in 2009-10 and when/if he does finally come up the Caps probably won’t want him fighting much if he’s in a top 6 role.
A man must have a code.
double o
I got a six pack of Old Speckled that says he’s on the 4th line by the end of October.
from the house that Red Jesus built
I’m taking that bet. Borque gets the first crack at the NHL lineup and he’ll be playing 4th line; and I think GMGM wants to see OO play a full year in the AHL and be a consistent scorer that the team can rely on. His game won’t develop playing 4th line for the Caps.
A man must have a code.
you got it. I see the method to your chronology; Bourque has a good shot to make the team out of camp….the question in my mind is, can he stick? Dunno, and Osala is the next guy after CBo who’d get the call (I did say end of October). I think our depth at the LW (and relative versatility of Laich and Semin to play other spots) makes that 4LW spot up for grabs.
and here’s a little somethin’ somethin’ that answers a previous question
from the house that Red Jesus built
I think who gets called up depends on who gets hurt, or what role needs to be filled. GMGM likes to bring up guys that play similarly to the guys they are replacing. So if Borque fails at a 3/4th line role I could see Laing, Wilson, A. Gordon, Beagle all getting called up first. I don’t think Osala is ready to play top 6 minutes yet so if he comes up I think it’ll just be for a game or two to evaluate his skill set and progression at the NHL level.
A man must have a code.
Thinking back on last year:
1. In games where someone took “liberties” with one of the Caps’ star players, I don’t think Brashear was any more or less likely to hit anyone hard or get in a fight with anyone.
2. If Brashear did hit or fight someone, it wasn’t any more likely to be the person who took liberties with one of the Caps’ stars. In fact, I can’t remember Brashear ever going after someone who took liberties with a Caps star player last year.
3. I can’t remember Brashear ever hitting or fighting another team’s star player. He always hit or fought other 3rd or 4th line types.
4. A high percentage of the times that Brashear hit someone in a memorable way, it was memorable because it was totally illegal and uncalled for. He often took a very bad penalty on a play like that.
5. A high percentage of the times that Brashear fought someone, that player’s team got an emotional lift (regardless of the outcome of the fight).
It seems to me, the theory behind an enforcer is “if one of you takes liberties with one of my stars, then my enforcer will mash the perpetrator into a pulp, or he’ll mash one of your stars into a pulp.” If Brashear wasn’t doing either of those things*, then what was his value as a deterrent?
*I’m not advocating headhunting stars as retaliation. Just saying that’s the theory, as I understand it.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Sep 5, 2009 6:46 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
You know I agree with all this, I just want to point out that just because Brashear didn’t do an effective job as an enforcer last year doesn’t necessarily mean that nobody could, or that the Caps wouldn’t benefit from an effective enforcer in the lineup.
A man must have a code.
Who are your top 3 heavyweight enforcers in the league right now, in terms of how you perceive their effectiveness in the role?
I think Brash is still one of them….maybe Parros, Orr?
Well I personally don’t think heavyweights do much in the league anymore so I don’t spend much time thinking about them or ranking them, but off the top of my head I’d probably go with Laraque, Parros, and Brash. I’m not married to any particular order. I’d take a guy that can play some hockey in between swinging his fists over any of those guys, though.
A man must have a code.
Exactly. To me, an “effective enforcer” is someone who can “play some hockey” and get 10 minutes a game and be a menace with the fists if a teammate is abused. Who would you see as that type of guy, that was available or could become available during the season?
by Stephen Pepper on Sep 6, 2009 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Among the leaders in fighting majors last year I think Carcillo, Laperriere, Chris Neil, Steve Montador, Jordan Tootoo are all decent players. Matt Bradley isn’t too far down the list, neither is Scott Hartnell. I don’t think any of those guys will become available, but once you start looking in the 5-10 fights per year area there are a bunch of guys that are able to play hockey so I think it shows there are plenty of guys that can skate that will still fight for their team.
A man must have a code.
Chris Clark fits that bill. Erskine somewhat less so. We all know Bradley’s strengths and limitations in this area.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Sep 6, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Great point. I think much of this thread has been discussed almost as “are the Caps better off with or without Brashear.” This re-focuses it a bit.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Conversely, the point that some posters may be trying to make is “we haven’t had an effective enforcer for a while now, so why should it make a difference now that his salary is off our books?”
by CapitalCentre on Sep 5, 2009 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Anyone else notice that Joe FInley is listed as a forward on the Caps rookie roster? Eeeeenteresting. I wonder what that does for the future of bad attitudes on the roster?
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
Didn’t we discuss this plenty at Dev’t Camp? Not that we won’t or shouldn’t going forward, but it was pretty clear to me then that the move to F was semi-permanent as a full-on salvage project.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yeah, the team confirmed this in a couple of interviews last week. Mark French said it, and he’s the guy whose opinion really counts since he’ll be Finley’s head coach.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Sep 6, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I like the fighting in hockey. It sets it apart from other sports and I don’t care if soccer moms et. al don’t like it. I agree that the game has changed and enforcers are going extinct. Fighting is not, however. Fine. That said, what the Caps need is someone that can actually win fights. Willingness is comendable, but I prefer victories. Bradley and Erskine aren’t formidable. I know people like to say “look at Det” but I remember Shanny and Darren kicking ass. They might not now, but that’s one team. It’s worked for the Ducks. just an opinion. (I liked watching Dale Hunter trading Blows too.)
by Hunky Dory on Sep 6, 2009 11:29 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
I disagree about Erskine’s “formidability”. I think he is an excellent fighter, and handles himself quite well against tough opponents. His problem is that he has concussion history, which limits his willingness to drop ‘em at times. He’s not afraid to fight anyone, but I don’t think he can be counted on in that role night after night.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Florida
|
53 | 25 | 17 | 11 | 61 |
|
Washington
|
54 | 28 | 21 | 5 | 61 |
|
Winnipeg
|
56 | 26 | 24 | 6 | 58 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
53 | 23 | 24 | 6 | 52 |
|
Carolina
|
56 | 20 | 25 | 11 | 51 |
(updated 2.11.2012 at 8:02 AM EST)
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- The Chicago Blackhawks’ losing streak is bad for everybody
- According to NHL, here’s why Dominic Moore escaped suspension for Fedotenko hit
- How Mats Sundin’s no-trade clause controversy made fans reconsider loyalty in NHL
- Nordiques Nation invades Hockey Day in Canada
- Youth hockey coach, parents clash over alleged tirade over 9-year old’s 200th goal puck
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
