Tuesday Caps Clips
by J.P. on Jun 14, 2011 6:41 AM EDT
in Caps Clips
Email
Print
Your savory breakfast links:
- Alex Ovechkin donates one million rubles to youth hockey in Moscow. [Japers' Rink]
- On AO and the world's most-disliked athlete. [Peerless]
- Videos of Brooks Laich's summer training (a.k.a. Free Agent Infomercials). [BrooksLaich.com]
- Bruce Boudreau preaches patience... but how much do Caps fans have? [SB Nation DC, with more on Boudreau returning to his "home away from home" in The St. Catherines Standard]
- Looking back at Boyd Gordon 's 2010-11. [Peerless]
- GM George McPhee was on NHL Live! late last week. [NHL Live! (audio)]
- Smokin' Al Koken (yes, all three names bolded) blasts the Post for its lack of Stanley Cup coverage. [D.C. Sports Bog]
- Rick Santorum froths, David Gregory defends himself. [D.C. Sports Bog]
- Americans love baseball. John Carlson is American. Thus, John Carlson loves baseball. Q.E.D. [Capitals Overtime]
- Congrats to the Caps on being named finalists for the Greater DC Cares Nonprofit Impact Award. [Capitals News Network]
- Thirteen professional teams later, former Cap Jeff Nelson hangs up his skates. [HockeyTime.net]
- Goaltender Jacob Gervais-Chouinard (who was 19th in the Q in save percentage last season) has been invited to Caps' Development Camp. [L'Echo Abitibien]
460 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Whoa, JP—did you just rock us with a Q.E.D.? What’s next, busting out a Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle? (Bad coaches have losing playoff records. Bruce Boudreau has a losing playoff record. Therefore, Bruce Boudreau is a bad coach.)
We're Hüsker Dü and we're on MTV. Who are you, and what are you on?
by bilspacecadet on Jun 14, 2011 7:19 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
I think Bruce’s middle is pretty widely distributed…
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 14, 2011 7:52 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Ovi got the big publicity for giving away Gillette’s money, but in the same weekend he also donated 22 full sets of hockey gear to HC Saransk (Mordovia), with a video message, on the occasion of the 370th anniversary of the city. As best I can tell, he paid for that gift himself.
http://info-rm.com/2011/06/14/khokkeisty-mordovii-pozdravili-saransk.html
If I remember correctly, his mother is Mordovian.
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
Peerless, great work – and insight – as always.
As that window closes, the titles [LeBron and Ovechkin] win, if any, would likely be a product of the teams around them, not a product of those considerable abilities they now possess.
"Shots aren't the important thing. Scoring chances are way more important than shots." - Bruce Boudreau
See my work on WaPo's Capitals Insider, ESPN Insider and Russian Machine Never Breaks (RMNB) Insider. I also log the Caps scoring chances. The 2010-11 summary spreadsheet is posted on Google Docs.
Follow me on Twitter @ngreenberg
I’ve beat on that theme to death. Picking an Ovechkin or a Crosby or a James isn’t the trick. A chimpanzee with learning issues could make those picks. It’s what you put around them. It’s probably more important for an Ovechkin or a Crosby because of the nature of the sport. They play only 22-24 minutes a night and, even with their considerable talents, only influence outcomes so much. There is also the matter of the goaltender being more often than not (give the margins of games) an outsized influence on outcomes (there is no basketball countepart). In basketball, an individual can influence outcomes to a greater degree, but even here it might be overstated. A Russell had a Havlicek. A Johnson had a Jabbar. A Bird had a Parrish. Even Michael Jordan never won a title without a Scottie Pippen.
It’s what you build around that cornerstone. And that’s why, even with a generational talent that falls into your lap because of a lottery result, GM’s matter. There is still so much work to be done, and it might be harder for a GM, because of the expectations that the star generates.
If you've read this far...seek help.
I just finished your piece. Great comparative analysis. And well written as usual. I had forgotten just how much I despised Wilbon’s piece(s) on Ovi back then. That same season he also counseled patience and understanding with Arneas and his locker room gun incident. Then he held Ovi up to the harshest standards. Wilbon lost me as a reader. I expect a certain objectivity and sense of fairness, even in an opinion piece.
Your final point, that with a superstar lottery pick as Ovi it is even harder for a GM to put together a successful team, hit home with me. I had long felt that part of the problem with this team is that only now is the surrounding team strong enough to best take advantage of Ovi’s skills, that he was the first major core piece put into place and not one of the last.
"Hockey won’t hold still for a portrait. To gain a glimpse inside you join it in progress—just as the players do." Epilogue of 24/7
by capsyoungguns on Jun 14, 2011 7:59 AM EDT up reply actions
___
It’s probably more important for an Ovechkin or a Crosby because of the nature of the sport. They play only 22-24 minutes a night and, even with their considerable talents, only influence outcomes so much.
Conceptually, that makes sense in that in a (regulation) NBA game, there are 48*5=240 “man-minutes” played. Over his career, James has averaged ~40 minutes per game, or 16.7% of the total time played.
In a regulation NHL game, there are 60*5= 300 “man-minutes” played by skaters. Over his career, Ovechkin has averaged ~22 minutes per game, or 7.3% of the total time played.
But James has scored 17,362 points in his career and his teams have scored 64,341 over that same span, so he’s at around 27% of total scoring (he’s also missed games, too, so his number’s a little higher in games he’s played).
Ovechkin has scored 301 of the Caps’ 1528 goals since he came into the League, or roughly 20% (he’s missed a few games in there, too).
So BronBron (and his ilk) are responsible for a larger percentage of playing time, but their impact on offense isn’t nearly as disparate as one might think (and this is a very simplistic back-of-the-napkin point – add in assists and other players and it changes things a bit I’d imagine).
All of this isn’t to say I disagree with your point – I absolutely agree with it. But rather maybe that dominant skaters can have nearly the impact of dominant NBAers when it comes to providing offense (which is to say I agree with “In basketball, an individual can influence outcomes to a greater degree, but even here it might be overstated.”)
Alright, back to work…
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Do you have the numbers on Crosby since he is who Ovie is compared against. Of course, there remains the neverending problem of comparing the impact and contributions of a wing vs a center.
(Yes, I know about the avatar hounding - just pretend mine is invisible.)
I didn’t run them, no. But with Crosby I’d think you’d want to factor in assists (really, for Ovi too, and then for LeBron) to get a real feel for his offensive contributions.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
The real issue, from my perspective, is that...
star players in hockey are frequently stymied by the defensive nature of the game, which becomes even more pronounced in the playoffs. In pro football, baseball and basketball, the stars can usually do their thing and usually have a signficant impact on a game. Kobe gets his points, Jeter gets his hits, Manning throws his TD passes. In hockey and soccer, stars often have trouble scoring—which is what makes them peculiar sports. Look at Heatley with San Jose—big talent, not much of a factor this year, that I saw. Crosby might be an exception. So depth of talent is imperative—look at black hawks last year. A ton of depth. The Caps? Not so much.
Scoring stays pretty stable into the playoffs.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
To help with basic Timeonice functions.
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Jun 15, 2011 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions
But is it distributed differently across types of players? Everyone hears about the 3rd/4th line playoff heroes who go on a great run in the playoffs, and how important scoring depth and gritty goals (as opposed to pretty goals) are in the Spring. If these are more than just cliches and actually reflect a trend of more balanced scoring in the playoffs then the claim that stars have more trouble scoring in the playoffs can still be accurate even if scoring itself remains stable.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Jun 15, 2011 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m too lazy to do the research this morning, but has there ever been an NHL final with this kind of home-road disparity in performance by one goaltender/one team? It recalls the 1960 World Series between the Yankees and Pirates. The Yankees outscored the Pirates, 55-27, yet lost in seven games (all three Yankee wins were by ten or more runs). They didn’t hold serve on home field in all their games, though.
If you've read this far...seek help.
I’m too lazy to do the research this morning, but has there ever been an NHL final with this kind of home-road disparity in performance by one goaltender/one team?
Since ‘83 only Jon Casey (.884, ’91 Minnesota) & Glen Healy (.881, ’93 Islanders) have worse road sv% split than Roberto Luongo’s .885
(10 or more road games, via Mike Hume)
"Shots aren't the important thing. Scoring chances are way more important than shots." - Bruce Boudreau
See my work on WaPo's Capitals Insider, ESPN Insider and Russian Machine Never Breaks (RMNB) Insider. I also log the Caps scoring chances. The 2010-11 summary spreadsheet is posted on Google Docs.
Follow me on Twitter @ngreenberg
(I know that’s not the answer to the Q you asked, but it was all I had)
"Shots aren't the important thing. Scoring chances are way more important than shots." - Bruce Boudreau
See my work on WaPo's Capitals Insider, ESPN Insider and Russian Machine Never Breaks (RMNB) Insider. I also log the Caps scoring chances. The 2010-11 summary spreadsheet is posted on Google Docs.
Follow me on Twitter @ngreenberg
Is there a trophy for best goal differential by a SCF loser?
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
I imagine Boston wishes they could take Horton to Vancouver with them. They’re playing inspired hockey with him in the building. I’m amazed that he’s healthy enough that the lights aren’t bothering him, but I’m assuming he’s not cleared to travel yet.
Don’t try to figure Sasha out. Just ride the wave.
I thought he was going to Vancouver to cheer on his teammates, but maybe I misheard whoever was chattering on NBC.
(Yes, I know about the avatar hounding - just pretend mine is invisible.)
Luongo is truly like the little girl with the curl in the old nursery rhyme this series. When good, he’s very very good. When bad, he’s horrid.
Rocking the Red for teams on the banks of the Potomac and at the Gateway Arch and Singing the Blues about Hockey.
And now, Raymond is out for perhaps 4-6 months (tweet from Nick Kypreos) with back/hip injury after Boychuk hit.
If you've read this far...seek help.
Ouch. It looked bad, but I didn’t think it was going to be that bad.
That'll make your weagle wink!
The pants that bind us should be left behind us.
I came back to the game right after he was helped to the locker room. Anyone have video to the hit? Was it dirty or just unfortunate?
Video here.
Didn’t look dirty to me.
That'll make your weagle wink!
The pants that bind us should be left behind us.
Was that the Edler penalty? I went to mute for awhile after that penalty. I can’t remember which announcer said it but someone made the comment that Edler didn’t even try to play the puck.
Vancouver has done a great job of making fans of other teams hate their guts this postseason. Maybe I am not remembering correctly, but this is the dirtiest finals I have ever seen.
I couldn’t agree more. I’d be ashamed to call this team mine. With all the diving clutching and late hits the Canucks remind me of the very worst of soccer. I already disliked Loungo now I despise most of this team.
A danger to myself and others on the ice
by can't skate on Jun 14, 2011 9:30 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The only one that compares is 1974’s Big Bad Bruins vs. Broad Street Bullies. The Bruins and Flyers engaged in some full out line brawls…
Winnipeg? Winnipeg??? Oy...
by MikeL-Pivonka on Jun 14, 2011 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions
So here’s the question. What’s better? Be a Vancouver fan and have your team win the Cup but know that your franchise and players are universally reviled for being whiny, diving cheaters and realize that the moment you step foot out of Vancouver, every other fan will accuse your team of being a black stain on the game of hockey. Basically, the only place you can revel in winning the Cup is in Vancouver. Or be a Bruin fan (assuming they lose) and walk away with your head high, proud of your team and the way they played and know they’ve earned the respect of hockey fans around the league. But no Cup. Without question, I’d take the Cup, but it’s going to be a tainted victory for a lot of years because of the way those players conducted themselves.
Take the Cup. I don’t give a shit how much people crap on our team if/when it wins the Cup.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Universally reviled? Let’s not go overboard. I don’t hate the team, personally. They’re fun to watch.
"Now wait a minute. This is just purely a social call. You know, just two adults getting a stew on, man."
by The Ghost of Bebop on Jun 14, 2011 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
it’s a very widespread sentiment at least, if not universal. See this article from Puck Daddy, Canucks Hatred: 6-step guide to supporting your loathed team
I just can’t get behind VAN any longer. A Cup wouldn’t absolve their play.
(Yes, I know about the avatar hounding - just pretend mine is invisible.)
Nor does it redact your name from being on said Cup.
"My favorite fan base in D.C. Is United's. Period. The end." - Steinberg
by Bald Pollack on Jun 14, 2011 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s a little bit overboard no? Taking steroids (allegedly) and trying to get a call are two sparate things. Maybe the Caps are less obvious (better?) at it…but let’s be real Ovechkin, Semin, et al have had their share. Hockey games are filled with cheating…both in terms of hooking, slashing, holding, etc AND by trying to make hits and stick infractions look worse.
“you ain’t tryin’, if you ain’t cheatin’!”
Yes. The Bruins have been the epitome of class these playoffs. No cheap shots or bullshit from them. No sir, not a bit.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Jun 14, 2011 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Does anyone know where this series stands in terms of most penalties (major and minor)? There seems to be a parade to the penalty box every game.
(Yes, I know about the avatar hounding - just pretend mine is invisible.)
Last night they mentioned it, but I can’t remember the year. said it was the most penalized SCF series since…93 maybe? it had certainly been a long time, but I can’t remember the exact date they were using. And that was early in the 2nd I think, before a number of additional penalties and a 7th game yet to come.
Thanks…and agreed. If anything it almost looks like he lost an edge and Boychuck held him up on the way to the boards…which in theory is better than the alternative.
I read somewhere last night that the refs said he blew a tire.
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
Or had Brooks Laich change them…
Winnipeg? Winnipeg??? Oy...
by MikeL-Pivonka on Jun 14, 2011 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Wow, The crash into the wall looked painful but innocent when it happened, but he looked awful getting off the ice. Just awful.
Don’t try to figure Sasha out. Just ride the wave.
There is no excuse for letting him skate off the ice; it was clear the way he went into the boards, the way he was lying on the ice, and once he got up that he needed to be stabilized. Yes, pro athletes (and in particular, hockey players) take pride in leaving on their own terms, but just ridiculous in this time with the protocols that this was allowed.
I thought the same when Kevin Colley got caught up with Jamie Heward the first season after the lockout and even more so when they announced his actual injury, which forced him to retire.
end soapbox
The injury reminded me of the injury that ended Bo Jackson’s football career. A full on jamming of the hip like that can cause all sorts of problems and as often as not requires a complete replacement of the hip (which if it happens, likely means Raymond’s career might be over…)
Winnipeg? Winnipeg??? Oy...
by MikeL-Pivonka on Jun 14, 2011 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Anyone know who Stefan Noesen is? ’Cos “Hockey Sense” has us picking him in the first round.
http://hockeysense.ca/news/?p=2993
Explanation: Having picked skilled players the past few drafts, Washington decides to go with a rugged power forward type they hope will replace Mike Knuble in a few years. Noesen had a very good second OHL year, raising his points totals from 8 to 77. A very good skater which helps him on the forecheck and backcheck, but Stefan will need to improve his decision making as his game matures. His versatility of playing any forward position is a great bonus for any team drafting him. Washington adds some muscle and grit which has the potential to be a prototypical power forward in the NHL.
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
Plymouth’s Noesen establishing himself as rising star
I’m a big power-forward and I love to bang bodies down low. I can make the nice play and use my vision to create plays, but I’m usually scoring goals and creating opportunities because of hard work. I think my vision is an underrated asset and I hope NHL teams see that.
"Shots aren't the important thing. Scoring chances are way more important than shots." - Bruce Boudreau
See my work on WaPo's Capitals Insider, ESPN Insider and Russian Machine Never Breaks (RMNB) Insider. I also log the Caps scoring chances. The 2010-11 summary spreadsheet is posted on Google Docs.
Follow me on Twitter @ngreenberg
Woops, wrong link: Plymouth Whalers winger ranks 35th among North American skaters by CSS
"Shots aren't the important thing. Scoring chances are way more important than shots." - Bruce Boudreau
See my work on WaPo's Capitals Insider, ESPN Insider and Russian Machine Never Breaks (RMNB) Insider. I also log the Caps scoring chances. The 2010-11 summary spreadsheet is posted on Google Docs.
Follow me on Twitter @ngreenberg
Seeing as how the Caps do not have a 2nd or 3rd round pick, I wonder if they will stay at 26. Will they sell the pick to accumulate more picks later, or will they package the pick and another asset to move up?
If you've read this far...seek help.
I would imagine there will be some moves made to acquire 2nd and 3rd round picks. Rumors seemed to be swirling last night around Mr. Alex Semin…. but what do I know?
/Not a GM
/Nor do I play one on TV
#NeedsMoreBradley
I saw that too: Interest in Semin by the Sens and Islanders. Came from a twitter account called HockeyBreak. Anyone ever heard of them? Is this an Exlund wannabe, or something more legit?
"I remembered when he said that and I kind of looked at him during the warm up and told myself that I got to shut these guys out tonight." - Michal Neuvirth, 02.06.11.
Ranked #47 by HP. He sounds like a solid second or third round pick to me, not a player I would draft with my first round pick. With the #26 pick, the Caps will have more talented skaters to choose from.
47. Stefan Noesen, Left Wing, Plymouth-OHL
Stefan Noesen had a notable year for the Whalers as the hard-nosed winger put up good counting numbers and was the team’s leading goal and points scorer. He is listed as a winger, although I have on occasion seen him line up at center, but I don’t think that’s where he’ll fit at the next level. His skating is fringe and it’s definitely worrisome, but there isn’t anything mechanically wrong. Noesen isn’t a very flashy player, but I have noticed solid passing skills where he receives the puck, quickly scans the ice and one-touch pucks on target crisply. The hands are decent too, and can make the odd move when needed. Noesen gets his offense through sheer determination and by doing well in the physical areas. He works very hard along the walls and is a nuisance in front of the net with good positioning, hand-eye on pucks put into the crease area and an edge that gets defenders and goalies off their game. When the puck is out in the open, his game is very quiet and he will hover around the top of the slot waiting for a chance and his shot is decent enough to have moderate success doing that. His work ethic translates to the defensive zone too, as he will regularly hustle on the backcheck and covers his assignments well.
Lobbies: Green, Carlson, Orlov
“Very good skater” versus “skating is fringe level.” Not even sure if these people are all watching the same player.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
If he’s a fringe skater like Skinner, I’m happy to have that. If he’s really a fringe skater, much less so.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Jun 14, 2011 9:20 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I remember one of the knocks on Skinner in last year’s draft discussions was that be wasn’t an NHL level skater yet. Clearly false now that we’ve seen him, but going solely by scouting reports you sometimes get gems like that.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Jun 14, 2011 9:35 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Sounds like Fehr to me.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
To help with basic Timeonice functions.
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Jun 15, 2011 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Seems like a guy you’d trade down for and be perfectly happy with as a result since he at least has the characteristics of a safe third-liner type. He might make for a good winger alongside Eakin in the future but at 26 I think there’s likely to be higher upside picks if they stay pat.
In that mock I’d be looking at Zack Phillips, Oskar Klefbom and Vladislav Namestnikov at that pick.
___
Btw, “Alex Ovechkin donates one million rubles to youth hockey in Moscow” must be read in character…
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
This man agrees
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
by Rob Parker on Jun 14, 2011 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So that’s what. . . like $15?
Armareddon.
by D'ohboy on Jun 14, 2011 8:35 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ovechkin’s total contract is 5,548,070,000 Indian Rupees. It’s a mere 3,457,268,800 Rubles.
Dude’s going to be a Trillionaire.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Forget about this Finals series alone
chew on this:
Entering Game 7, the Canucks goal differential for this entire postseason sits at a robust -7.
vs. Chicago: -7
vs. Nashville: +3
vs. San Jose: +8
and, as we know very well here, -11 against Boston.
Basically, despite being a rare President’s Trophy team to reach the Finals, they would be one of the worst Cup winners of all time with those numbers considered. I would be really interested in how many Cup winners since the 1968 have had a playoff goal differential in the red.
Now on Twitter @Carcillo_
http://twitter.com/#!/Carcillo_
I would be really interested in how many Cup winners since the 1968 have had a playoff goal differential in the red.
None. Worst has been +13:
2006 Carolina Hurricanes
2007 Anaheim Ducks
"Shots aren't the important thing. Scoring chances are way more important than shots." - Bruce Boudreau
See my work on WaPo's Capitals Insider, ESPN Insider and Russian Machine Never Breaks (RMNB) Insider. I also log the Caps scoring chances. The 2010-11 summary spreadsheet is posted on Google Docs.
Follow me on Twitter @ngreenberg
Seriously? +13 is the worst? So even when Vancouver wins game 7 we can still rag on them?
Also, if a team as mentally weak as VAN can win a Cup, there’s hope yet for the Caps!
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
by Rob Parker on Jun 14, 2011 8:53 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
The Caps will most likely finish the playoffs with a better goal differential, GAA and G/G than the Canucks, so they’re clearly better.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Woo hoo! Silver lining!
But, on the other hand, imagine how Vancouver’s numbers would look if they started their good goalie for most of the games.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Imagine how the Caps’ numbers would look if they’d started theirs…
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 14, 2011 9:00 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Reasonable minds might differ on that (Varly Wrap coming up at 11!), but I was really just going for the zinger.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
"Wait, what does Varly have to do with all of this?"
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions 8 recs
So, based on playoff performance, the Canucks would the run-away winners for worst Cup winner of all-time?
Wow. That’s wretched.
Now on Twitter @Carcillo_
http://twitter.com/#!/Carcillo_
by FloridaownsFSU on Jun 14, 2011 8:55 AM EDT up reply actions
So, based on playoff performance, the Canucks would the run-away winners for worst Cup winner of all-time?
I think that’s a bit of a stretch. They’ll clearly have the worst goal differential, but does getting blown out a few times en route to winning the Cup mean a team’s clearly relatively terrible?
For “worst Cup winner,” I’d be more interested in seeing the quality of teams a team beat to win the trophy, and VAN will have beaten some damn good squads.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
As well as their dominating regular season. Underwhelming playoffs for sure, but not a bad team.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
I was basing the comment purely on playoff performance.
Now on Twitter @Carcillo_
http://twitter.com/#!/Carcillo_
by FloridaownsFSU on Jun 14, 2011 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions
I do think losing by 4+ goals five times over the course of the postseason is a pretty damning mark against them.
Hell, none of the games in Boston have even been competitive. For a team with a chance to win the Cup last night, it’s unfathomable how bad they were. Boston is a damn good team, and a better one than Vancouver, but not by this much of a margin.
Now on Twitter @Carcillo_
http://twitter.com/#!/Carcillo_
by FloridaownsFSU on Jun 14, 2011 9:05 AM EDT up reply actions
No, you’re right – it’s pretty unbelievable that a team can get blown out in each and every road game of the Finals, play three one-goal games at home, and still have a chance to skate the Cup.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I wanted a game 7 and was watching at a bar so an early big lead wasn’t a bad thing last night, but no question from my perspective the games in Vancouver have been more entertaining due to the score. Hopefully game 7 follows suit and it’s a close game, maybe a game 7 OT since it’s not the Caps playing.
I remember my frequent lamenting in recent years when teams with losing records reached the playoffs with relative ease, but nothing can compare to when 80% of the league reached the playoffs every year.
The North Stars were God-awful, and they were in the Finals.
Now on Twitter @Carcillo_
http://twitter.com/#!/Carcillo_
by FloridaownsFSU on Jun 14, 2011 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Attach whatever adjective you like to “Cup Winner” and this Caps fan could live with it.
by mechanicsville on Jun 14, 2011 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
The thing is… it doesn’t matter who the worst Cup winner is….
Q. What do they call the guy who graduates last in his class at Medical School?
A. Doctor.
They still get their names on the Cup, and it will still say Stanley Cup Champions.
Kinda like 1987 in baseball. The Minnesota Twins won only 87 games in the regular season, going 87-75. But in the playoffs they beat Tigers and Cardinals and were the world champions. They won fewer games including the postseason than either of their opponents did in the regular season. But all that matters is that they won.
Winnipeg? Winnipeg??? Oy...
by MikeL-Pivonka on Jun 14, 2011 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh, I agree and no Canucks fan or player will ever care what the path was to the Cup as long as they win it.
This was really just my amazement that the Canucks are in this situation given what has led up to it. I picked them to beat Boston in the Final back in April (in five games), but I didn’t expect them to look so flawed in the process.
And in regards to baseball, the ‘73 Mets were 82-79 in the regular season, and they had two cracks to beat Oakland to win the World Series. It’s kind of amazing to think, given the two division format and no interleague play, that such a record was good enough to win a division title, and then beat the juggernaut Reds in the NLCS. Meanwhile, 20 years later, the Giants win 103 games and miss the playoffs altogether.
Now on Twitter @Carcillo_
http://twitter.com/#!/Carcillo_
by FloridaownsFSU on Jun 14, 2011 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m really impressed by David Gregory’s rebuttal of Rick Santorum. We all know how difficult it can be to rebutt a frothy Santorum.
I wonder if this means that Gregory won’t get his invite to the Saddleback Social?
Armareddon.
by D'ohboy on Jun 14, 2011 8:41 AM EDT reply actions 5 recs
I’d leave the politics for the OT thread, but how stupid was that? Would be funny to see the reaction (among hockey folk, of course, no one else would care) if he’d let it run on TV.
Don’t try to figure Sasha out. Just ride the wave.
I’m not really sure there’s anything political about it, at least in the sense that it’s an equally lame thing for an® or (D) to do. It’s not a figurine of AO holding the Cup, so get over it. I can think of a lot of things that are aspirational rather than reflections of reality, including things that are much more relevant to Santorum’s line of “work.” Like, say, the Declaration of Independence. Focusing on the AO figurine is just weak, even for a politician.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
In the NBA, the all-time talents – Russell, Jordan, Johnson, Bird, Abdul-Jabbar among contemporary elites – win their first titles early. Only Jordan among that group won his first when he was older than James is now (he was 27). The same with hockey. We have made the point that Steve Yzerman is the exception to the rule, that the elites in the game’s history win their first titles early in their careers.
1) How are we defining “early?” I’d say Jordan wasn’t “early.”
2) Yzerman isn’t the exception to the rule. There are numerous examples of elite (or very high-level players) winning championships “late” in their careers: Joe Sakic was almost 27 when he won his first. Ray Bourque and Dave Andreychuk were past 40. Rob Blake was 32. Ed Belfour was in his 30s. Teemu Selanne was almost 37. Mario Lemieux was 26 (and in his 7th year in the league). Marian Hossa was 31. Brendan Shanahan (who I think will ultimately be the best comparable for Ovie) was 27. Brett Hull was 37. Chris Pronger was 32. Mike Modano was 29. Scott Stevens was 30.
3) The major worry with Ovie is that he’ll end up like Cam Neely or Pavel Bure and injuries will rob him of his explosiveness, thereby derailling his career.
Finally, if we’re talking about “comparables” in terms of championships, the obvious one as far as I’m concerned is the post-Mario Lemieux incarnation of Jaromir Jagr. He was clearly the most talented player in the league, if not outright the best. He also gave some heroic performances in the playoffs. Ultimately, however, he was unable to win a championship for a variety of reasons – typically it was because the Pens simply couldn’t assemble a deep enough supporting cast and Jagr, being a wing, was unsuited to putting a team on his back and carrying it.
Armareddon.
by D'ohboy on Jun 14, 2011 9:08 AM EDT reply actions 5 recs
Among all players and all Cup winners, you will find quite a few who won later in their careers (the product of a larger population), but for players who either aspire to or are pronounced by the sports intelligentsia to be among or having hte potential to be among the all-time greatest in their sport, those players win early. It isn’t a law of nature, but it would be the way to bet. Sakic was 26, as was Lemieux, when they won their first. Sakic might be a bit of a stretch when calling the roll of the NHL’s all time elite if that’s a group you would associate with the likes of Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Rcihard, Lenieux, or Howe…and that’s the group Ovechkin is looking to join.
If you've read this far...seek help.
So as long as he keeps declining like this year and doesn’t get into the Pantheon, he has a chance?
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Only if the rest of the team catches up to even his diminished status
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Sakic might be a bit of a stretch when calling the roll of the NHL’s all time elite if that’s a group you would associate with the likes of Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Rcihard, Lenieux, or Howe…and that’s the group Ovechkin is looking to join.
Every player I listed is either a sure-fire hall-of-famer (Sakic, Bourque, Selanne, Lemieux, Shanahan, Hull, Pronger, Modano, Stevens), on the cusp (Andreychuk, Belfour), or likely to be considered (Hossa).
It’s a bit premature to say Ovie’s looking to join the pantheon of Orr, Howe, Gretzky, Richard and Lemieux (or even Jagr for that matter). Let’s not forget the career progression of Alexander Mogilny or Pavel Bure.
Armareddon.
Damn, Belfour on the cusp? Tough crowd.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Without doing any research or look at stats, Belfour’s not a HOFer. I could probably be convinced, though.
He was (briefly) second in all time wins. How is he not a lock?
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Because you implied that he is and RCheli defaults to the opposite position that you take.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 14, 2011 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
HA! Actually, I didn’t realize he had won that many games. I guess he is, but he just seems like a Curtis Joseph/Chris Osgood-type of player. A guy who accumulated wins because of his longevity, and not because he was the end-all-be-all.
Curtis Joseph with a Cup, I can buy. Osgood isn’t in that discussion.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Is a Cup the determining factor?
Hasek didn’t win a cup until he was 37. To me, he’s still a HOFer with or without that.
The Cup matters to lots of people. I think it’ll keep CuJo out. I don’t think it’s the end all be all, but when a guy is top 5 in so many regular season stats and can negate the “well what about a Cup?” argument, how do you keep him out of the HoF?
You don’t.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Because he’s having trouble scraping together the billion dollars he promised the HOF committee.
Tortorella: Can I get another question? I went in here in a pretty good mood today, too.
Larry Brooks: So did I.
Tortorella: Well, you obviously f***ed that up, didn't you?
by Wheeler on Jun 14, 2011 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I don’t put much stock in this. I don’t see the mechanism for it to translate to this day and age, or more specifically to the Caps.
All of those players are singular. They are, by definition, outliers. I really question our ability to judge any one of them based on another. What does Howe’s career really tell us about what was to come for Gretzky or Lemieux? I think it says just as little for Ovechkin (if he really does turn out to be that good in the end)
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Comparisons from the original-6 or early expansion eras are pretty much useless as far as I’m concerned.
Armareddon.
Agreed. I’d also note that Peerless has done a ton of work regarding the necessary D experience to win a Cup. Lots of correlation with the guys he’s mentioned as stars to win it at a young age. If you have a young star, with no veteran D, something has to give between the two theories, right? Are many of these superstar Cup examples guys without veteran D, or strong, experienced supporting casts? Of course not. It’s not as if Lemieux or Gretzky came in and won Cups without a ton of help on the roster. When they had less support, the had earlier Tee times. When they had more support, they won Cups. It’s not about the one guy on the team.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Joe Sakic was almost 27 when he won his first. Ray Bourque and Dave Andreychuk were past 40. Rob Blake was 32. Ed Belfour was in his 30s. Teemu Selanne was almost 37. Mario Lemieux was 26 (and in his 7th year in the league). Marian Hossa was 31. Brendan Shanahan (who I think will ultimately be the best comparable for Ovie) was 27. Brett Hull was 37. Chris Pronger was 32. Mike Modano was 29. Scott Stevens was 30.
And how many of those guys did it with their original team? How many of them did it when they were the focal point of their team (rather than a nice complimentary part)? And how many of them did it in the salary cap era?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Salary cap era makes it a pretty meaningless sample size, no? Unless you think EC,L Captain champions will become the norm.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
No doubt. But my point is that the cap era is something that weighs against Ovechkin in that he’s locked up at a big number for a long time and that limits the team that can be built around him in a way that some of those other players/teams weren’t inhibited.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
And on the other hand it prevents AO and his supporting cast from being poached like in the past, or teams in richer markets from out-spending the Caps.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Hmm… not sure I agree that that helps Ovi – his teammates will get picked off as they become too expensive (see Laich, Brooks). More to the point, the guys D’oh listed almost all played on teams that were among the League’s bigger spenders – teams shelled out bucks to surround their superstars (and/or shelled out for the superstars who were or weren’t still in their primes) and had a competitive advantage because they could do so.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
And the big spending teams lost that competitive advantage, to a degree, because of the cap. And I’m not talking about Laich getting overpaid that happens, I’m talking about Green and the core guys.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Right, there’s more parity, level playing field, etc.
But let me ask you this – if the League was uncapped, do you think Ted Leonsis’s squad would be somewhere in the middle of the pack right now or spending among the top teams? The cap brings the Caps back to the pack. When you talk about the big spending teams losing that competitive advantage, you’re talking about the Caps.
And whether you’re talking about Laich or Green the point is that over-payment in a capped league matters much more than in an uncapped league. If someone wants to pay Green $6m next year, the team has a tougher decision than if there was no cap, and that decision has bigger repercussions.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I don’t think the Caps would be spending with DET, NYR, PHI, MON, TOR, etc. They’d probably be higher than average, but I think the cap allows them to spend a lot knowing that other teams can’t outspend them. If Ted could spend to 65 million but still see teams up around 75+, would he bother going to 65? It’s a lot easier to go to the cap when it’s an absolute number and you know that others won’t be able to out-spend it (basically).
And yeah, the over-payment matters, which is why Green didn’t get a 7 million dollar offer from the Rangers when he was RFA. That helps the Caps. Aside from the RFA compensation, it doesn’t make sense to poach an RFA in most cases because you are vastly overpaying them and you can’t just spend through those mistakes now.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Maybe. I tend to think he’d see a team that’s a contender with elite players in or nearing their respective primes and open up his wallet to get them what they think they need to get over the hump.
And yeah, the over-payment matters, which is why Green didn’t get a 7 million dollar offer from the Rangers when he was RFA.
He never got to be an RFA. If he had, he might very well have gotten a $7m offer sheet.
Your other RFA points are spot on, but aren’t specific to a capped-League (other than inability to spend to erase your mistakes) – there’s always been a strong disincentive against poaching.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Which is why that window might be closing faster than folks might think. And another factor starts to enter into this. The Caps have spent draft picks to acquire assets via trade (a 2nd from 2007 — Ted Ruth — for Sergei Fedorov, a 2009 second for Cristobal Huet, a 2010 second for Eric Belanger, a 2011 second for Joe Corvo, a third in 2011 to get Dennis Wideman). The Caps haven’t done especially well in picks after the first round, so one might conclude that it didn’t matter. But those are picks the Caps don’t have, and all but Wideman are gone. Having not had any playoff success to speak of, the Caps didn’t realize much of a return on those picks.
With the assets gone, it becomes more difficult for a team that centers its focus on the draft to build from that mechanism. The Caps are largely living off their 2002 (Semin, Gordon, Eminger, who was parlayed into Carlson), 2004 (Ovechkin, Green, Schultz) and 2006 (Backstrom, Varlamov, Neuvirth) drafts. Those were the joackpot drafts in which the Caps had a total of eight first round picks. Can the Caps replenish themselves out of recent drafts and what is to come (when they might have some gaps in their round selections)?
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Can the Caps replenish themselves out of recent drafts and what is to come (when they might have some gaps in their round selections)?
Peerless, you keep re-posting this same thought over and over again, and I keep rebutting it with the same point:
2006: Backstrom, Neuvirth, Varlamov, (Perreault – depth)
2007: Alzner, (Ruth – Fedorov)
2008: Carlson, Holtby
2009: Johansson, Orlov, Eakin
2010: Kuznetsov (Galiev)
The Caps are already replenishing through the draft. Their top-2 defensemen are picks since 2007. Their top-2 centers are picks since 2006. Their top-3 goalies are picks since 2006.
By any standard for the ratio of young players/prospects to performance, the Caps are doing a phenomenal job unless your standard is Pittsburgh in 2009 and Chicago in 2010, and that’s just a ludicrous standard. Moreover, the Caps’ recent draft history looks thinner in large part because the “elite” players from that group (Alzner, Carlson, Varly, Neuvy, Holtby, Johansson, possibly Orlov and Kuznetsov) primarily play positions that take longer to develop (D, G).
Armareddon.
by D'ohboy on Jun 14, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 6 recs
We’re also a little bit in the donut hole left by the failed draft class of 2005. Sigh. There will always be some part that we have to pay to fill since nobody from that draft worked out.
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
Our standards are way too high. Most teams would be thrilled with this kind of draft record — especially if you throw in the outstanding 2004.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
They’re hitting on more first rounders because by and large they’ve had (on average) one more first rounder a year for the last decade then the likes of Boston, Philly, etc..
I’d hope they hit the lotto more times with more tickets, you know?
"My favorite fan base in D.C. Is United's. Period. The end." - Steinberg
by Bald Pollack on Jun 14, 2011 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Isn’t that part of drafting strategy? I don’t understand using this argument to suggest that they’re not actually doing as good a job.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Strategy, sure. But on average other teams are getting solid contributors as well, which would seem to me mean you’re supposed to do well with those picks. Which brings us back to the whole subsequent round discussion.
"My favorite fan base in D.C. Is United's. Period. The end." - Steinberg
by Bald Pollack on Jun 14, 2011 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Which causes me to say “but look at the undrafted free agents.” Jay Beagle’s worth at least one “hit” in the 5th round. Isn’t he what 5th rounders are supposed to suprisingly become every once in a while? And the Caps already turned Hauswirth into some pretty good value.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Hauswirth wasn’t turned into anything that trade was about the draft pick and the likely need to move a contract off the contract count.
He was the difference between a 2nd and a 3rd. How many guys of Wideman’s caliber go for less than a 2? Or is this just a Dale TaLOLn moment.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
He was the difference between a 2nd and a 3rd.
On what do you base that?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
The normal market value for a guy of Wideman’s level (or even worse players) is a 2nd at the deadline. Either Tallon underestimated the market, or Hauswirth was the difference between the 2 and the 3.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Actually, that makes Tallon even more of an idiot.
Armareddon.
by D'ohboy on Jun 14, 2011 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Why? Having a year left at that salary is not viewed necessarily as a positive in that type of deal.
I also believe the Caps needed to trade a contract for 50 contract limit purposes at that time. I imagine Tallon had a choice of a few players including Godfrey and Hausiwrth, and maybe someone else.
But if Tallon had a choice, and took Hauswirth, then Hauswirth is worth something, even if it’s not a lot.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
A top 4 D on a very cap friendly deal should increase the trade return, not decrease. It wasn’t a typical salary dump in the sense that Wideman isn’t on a bad contract. FLA may have wanted to cut costs, but that doesn’t mean you give talent away.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
I don’t think Wideman’s value was viewed the way you are viewing it, but we can agree to disagree on this point.
How many teams had room for Wideman’s cap hit for the rest of the season and were interested in Wideman at the deadline? Maybe there were a few, but I don’t recall much chatter indicating that was the case. I haven’t searched for confirmation just my memory.
I don’t think Florida viewed Wideman the way you view him.
Which is why I float the “Tallon is an idiot” alternate theory.
And chatter means nothing. We don’t know what discussions actually happened. I look at the market for the rest of the deadline deals and I don’t see guys of Wideman’s talent going for less than a 2; frequently guys worse than Wideman go for a 2 or more (including our puck-moving D acquisition the year before).
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
A UFA to be is not a comparable, IMO. The market is different for a player with a year or more left on his contract.
I am not a fan of many of Tallon’s moves; not all deals are about value for value both at the NHL and minor league levels. OT: Look at the Mink trade the previous summer that was about money.
What does an AHL trade have to do with anything?
And no, a UFA trade and a signed-for-another-year trade are different. A player with more time on his deal is worth more! Unless you think, as D’oh said, that he won’t live up to the deal, in which case it’s a salary dump, the player with more time left is more valuable. I highly doubt Wideman isn’t worth 3.1 this next year. In a month the UFA signings will demonstrate that.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
I disagree with you that in the current cap environment that simply being signed beyond the current season means a player is worth more in a trade.
That’s an illogical position, and not borne out by experience. Pronger cost PHI a lot, and would have cost more at the deadline before he was traded. Having a guy for 2 playoff runs is better than having him for 1.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
So experience is limited to Pronger?
There are different categories of players and their value varies. In some cases an extra year is value in others it is not. In Wideman’s case I think his cap hit and extra year, as well as the salary due, limited the bidding on the player.
Pronger seems to be the most recent example. Feel free to provide even one example for your counter position. It defies logic and you haven’t even given an anecdote, so your “say so” doesn’t mean a ton. Why on earth would a GM pay less for a guy they get more value from? Why on earth would a GM require less for a guy the recipient will get more value from?
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Think Dustin Penner brings back more for EDM this spring if he were a UFA in 2011 instead of 2012?
I think there is a smaller sample size of non-rental guys traded on the deadline because those guys are more valuable so teams are a) less likely to give them up and b) less willing to give up what is needed to get them right before a playoff run.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Jun 14, 2011 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t think you can use Pronger as a comparable for Wideman based on their history in the League.
It’s illogical to state that the cap environment changes the value of players depending on their contracts and that having a year or more remaining on a contract does not always correlate to increased value returning in a trade?
Trades do take into account the player’s value in terms of on-ice performance but also their cap hit and salary remaining, as well as years remaining and having years left on a contract is not always viewed as a positive. Not all teams have room to take on a 4M cap hit or would view Wideman as a 4M cap hit player. A salary outlay higher than the cap hit is not appealing in all cases either.
Wolski and Rozsival were traded for
each other and both had a year left on their contract. From what I recall, Rozsival would have been easier to move without an extra year on his deal (and yes, a lower cap hit would have helped, too.)
There have been other cases, but I don’t have time to go through trade trackers right now. Not many players with years left on their contract were trade at the deadline.
Tallon has done some peculiar things as a GM, but FWIW, is there evidence that there was a bidding war for him or that there were many teams interested in acquiring him? Honest question, I don’t recall hearing much about a big market interested in Wideman.
by sk84fun_dc on Jun 14, 2011 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Roszival was on a bad deal, everyone pretty much acknowledged that.
Wideman wasn’t mentioned much because, as a player that wasn’t an impending UFA, the media didn’t think of him as a probable trade target. The people you always hear about are the guys in contract years. That has more to do with the media than anything else.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Think “albatross.” Wideman’s deal isn’t an albatross, but it’s expensive and maybe Tallon didn’t think he was living up his deal. That’s wasting money.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
To help with basic Timeonice functions.
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Jun 15, 2011 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Wideman’s cap hit is much closer to 4M than 3M and it’s an escalating salary contract with the highest salary next season from what I recall.
It is if the player’s production is seen as likely to merit the aforementioned salary. If you’re trading for Scott Gomez, then it’s not a good thing. If you’re trading for Loui Eriksson, then it is.
Personally, I think Wideman is a good bet to at least perform up to his salary level, if not significantly better than it.
Armareddon.
Agree. I wasn’t saying it always goes one way or the other, but that factors impact the return and those factors include the cap hit, salary remaining and performance.
As to Wideman, I liked what I saw in his short stint in a Caps uniform, but from what I recall from watching him with St. Louis, Boston and Florida, I will be pleasantly surprised if he plays to the level of ‘significantly better than’ his salary and cap hit next season.
As to Wideman, I liked what I saw in his short stint in a Caps uniform, but from what I recall from watching him with St. Louis, Boston and Florida, I will be pleasantly surprised if he plays to the level of ‘significantly better than’ his salary and cap hit next season.
Why? The disappointment with Wideman has largely stemmed from the fact that he’s not really the #1 defenseman that people thought he might become. He’s a great #3 though, and that’s pretty much what he gets paid like.
Armareddon.
I’m in wait and see mode with Wideman based on watching him for several seasons. In a short stint, like many, I like what I saw of his time in a Caps uniform, but I do believe his contract is on the high side for his contributions to date on that contract in terms of cap hit and salary.
With a cap hit of almost 4M and a salary next season of 4.5M that’s more like number 2 money, IIRC. What will it be for next season with an increased cap max, but no performance bonus, I assume about the same.
With a cap hit of almost 4M and a salary next season of 4.5M that’s more like number 2 money, IIRC.
Not on the open market it’s not.
Armareddon.
Really? Wideman is paid above average for a #3 on the open market or not open market, IMO. At this time he’s in the top 40 in cap hit and salary, IIRC.
As to this off-season, I’m curious to see what the July 1 market looks with 1 yr remaining on the CBA, no bonus cushion for next season, but an increase in the cap.
How do you relate Wideman to Volchenkov?
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
They’re both well in the bottom quarter of NHL defensemen.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I view Volchenckov as one player. FWIW, they bring different assets to a team.
Thinking about last summer’s early July UFA dmen signings and it included Michalek, Hamhuis, Martin, Leopold, Volchenkov, Tallinder, Lydman, Gonchar,…, I am sure there are others…Kubina …
I know they bring different assets, I was just pointing out that Volchenkov and the other guys you noted got pretty nice pay checks last summer. And puck movers also tend to get a bump.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Pretty nice paycheck does not mean bigger paycheck than Wideman’s this season or next season in a number of cases, which is my point.
Plenty of caveats…Different ages, different terms, different on ice contributions, etc
I have to go through the list later, but my point is a number of the guys on my list of dmen UFS signings from last summer signed for a lower cap hit and salary than Wideman will have next season.
Hamhuis just above, but I wouldn’t put Wideman and Hamhuis in the same class of player on the open market.
We’re really handing out gold stars for finding a serviceable fourth-liner via free agency?
And Hauswirth was just a throw in – the pick and the slaary relief was what FLA got that had value.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Isn’t that what people expect out of their 5th, 6th, or 7th rounders?
All we hear about McPhee is that he can’t draft past the 1st round. What are you supposed to get after the first round? (and if your answer is Datsyuk or Zetterberg, you’re crazy. You think Detroit would have let them slip past the 4th round if Detroit had any idea what they were getting?)
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
The point being, McPhee is bringing in young talent through both draft and free agency. Who cares how it’s done?
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
I do.
There’s a difference between scouting/drafting talent and being able to sift through the leftovers and find a guy (btw, other than Beagle, are you claiming victory on Collins, Miskovic, etc.? Who else have you got here?).
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
There’s a difference between scouting/drafting talent and being able to sift through the leftovers and find a guy
Actually, since the draft shortened to 7 rounds, I totally disagree with this statement.
Armareddon.
How so? I’m not saying the latter isn’t a valuable set of skills to have, but simply based on the timing of these deals, potential for multiple suitors, etc. they’re different skills.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Since the draft shortened to 7 rounds, many players who would have been drafted are slipping through the cracks. Devoting scouting resources and contracts to finding some diamonds in that rough is seemingly a wise decision and, to me, a better investment to devoting the same resources to scouting 17 and 18 year olds.
Armareddon.
Agreed. But there’s a difference between finding and signing 20+-year-olds and drafting off of Central Scoutings lists of 18-year-olds, no?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Exactly my point. People rip on GMGM’s record because he’s not getting “value” in late rounds. Instead, he’s taking flyers on guys (Perreault), and getting his organizational depth from somewhat less volatile sources.
Essentially, he’s like an investor who goes aggressive on some long-shot stocks and backs that up buy investing in some safe mutual funds.
Armareddon.
by D'ohboy on Jun 14, 2011 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Damn, I wish I could have put what I meant this well.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
If you had, you and I likely wouldn’t have had an argument.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Does McNeil get anything?
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
I mean in terms of finding late round value.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
F&B — you have to follow the rules here. “Prospects” are “futures” and therefore irrelevant. You must count only guys who have actually played in the NHL for the Caps and contributed significantly.
Never mind that McNeil’s path was blocked by a couple of first round picks, or he would have played by now.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m not as high on McNeil as I was. Sure, he was behind Alzner and Carlson, but he couldn’t catch Sloan or Collins, either. I wonder if Flemming passes McNeil in the next year or two, or if Flemming is just the next McNeil.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Outcome matters here. In the universe of Caps Nation, there might be a perception of “bringing in young talent” via free agency. But that’s a self reinforcing argument. They are successful because their selections have played. Well, to what end? This team has arguable underachieved for the past three years and seriously underacheived in the past two. More to the point, they haven’t improved much — if at all — on their 2008 results. They might get players into the lineup, but they are not moving the puck down the ice closer to a Stanley Cup in doing it.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions
If you don’t think exchanging Shaone Morrisonn and Milan Jurcina for Karl Alzner and John Carlson is “moving the puck down the ice closer to a Stanley Cup,” then I don’t know what to tell you.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Two playoff series wins in the last six series over four years isn’t exactly speeding down the interstate.
If you've read this far...seek help.
This team has arguable underachieved for the past three years and seriously underacheived in the past two. More to the point, they haven’t improved much — if at all — on their 2008 results. They might get players into the lineup, but they are not moving the puck down the ice closer to a Stanley Cup in doing it.
And I’d argue this has very little to do with their draft history (although if you want to make an argument about 2005, I’ll listen), and more to do with execution by the coach and the players on hand.
Armareddon.
by D'ohboy on Jun 14, 2011 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
That’s a scary statement in this respect. Let’s concede for the moment the crux of that argument, that the failures are a produce of execution and coaching. Fine, but this might be the best collection of players that the Caps will ever have at their respective levels of talent for the next decade. Three or four years from now, when the cavalry arrives (Orlov, Kuznetsov, etc.) as productive players (not just rookies or green recruits), will we be long, or at least sufficiently past the best years of the current core so that not even Scotty Bowman could get the Caps to a Cup? The players coming in over the next 3-5 years aren’t going to be as good as that core that was obtained largely via high draft picks.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions
this might be the best collection of players that the Caps will ever have at their respective levels of talent for the next decade.
If your goal is winning regular season games, you may be right. I cannot believe this is true for the postseason.
The playoffs are another country. And it’s not a country where boys do well.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
It is if your name is Gretzky (first Cup at age 23), Orr (21), Lemieux (26), Howe (21), Richard (22), or — dare I say it — Crsoby (21).
But now we’ve come full circle from where we started. For the all time greats, by and large they win their first Cups early. If Ovechkin is going to be mentioned in that same breath, history suggests time’s a’wastin’.
If you've read this far...seek help.
You keep repeating this point. I don’t get its relevance. So those guys were all on better, more mature teams early in their careers. What does that prove?
The game has changed. There’s 30 teams and a salary cap now. I just don’t think this example is relevant to Ovechkin.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Kyle Wilson.
Rank all of the NHL GMs in their skill at rounds 5, 6, and 7. Take the 10th best crop. Stack it up against Beagle, Wilson and Hauswirth. I bet Beagle, Wilson and Hauswirth is better.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Where is this perception that Jake Hauswirth is worth a shit coming from?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
He was worth something to Tallon, no?
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
I suppose… but that doesn’t mean he’s worth a shit. Could still be worth less than a shit.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Right, which is why I keep tempting someone to just say “yeah, Tallon is just an idiot.” It seems to me that either Hauswirth has the same value as the difference of a 2 and a 3 (or thereabouts), or Tallon is an idiot. If there’s a third way, I don’t see it.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
I think a third way to see it is a “why the fuck not?” hail mary.
Would the Caps have done that deal with a prospect on whom they were higher? Dunno. Would the Cats have done the deal without the inclusion of Hauswirth? Dunno. But I’d suspect there was a better chance of the latter than the former. Pure speculation on my part, though.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
If you don’t think that every GM in the NHL could pick up his phone today and find a Kyle Wilson, I think you’re mistaken.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
If you think a 6th round pick is worth more than Kyle Wilson (if he had a contract), I think you’re mistaken.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
You’re moving the goal posts. Kyle Wilsons are a dime a dozen. That’s my point.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
You guys have lost me. Not sure where I argued that a 6th > Kyle Wilson.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
low round draft picks ain’t worth even that much, that’s my point. And that they’re a stupid way to assess a GM
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I love how people fawn over Ken Holland because of the Zetterberg and Datsyuk drafts. If Holland was such a genius, why on earth did he leave them on the board so long?
Just acknowledge them for what they are: balls-ass lucky.
Armareddon.
looking at the guys Detroit drafted before Zetterberg and Datsyuk is somewhat amusing. Jiri Fischer is the only one I recognize, and his career was cut short by heart problems. That leaves 9 guys I’m seeing and going “Who?”
Caps fans aren’t on the ledge; they’ve already jumped, and are merely trying to drag others into a mournful descent with them..--Stienz
Pledge Drive 2010-2011: SO KIDS CAN!! Help build a playground
If I had a nickel for every time I made this point…
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
If I was an owner, I would instantly fire any GM so reckless as to draft Datsyuk and Zetteberg as late as they were taken if he knew what he was getting.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s obviously not that simple. I don’t imagine there’s an actual formula that teams use (or maybe there is), but one could imagine a calculus the included a player’s upside and the likelihood of them reaching that upside (much like Hockey’s Future rates players), and then map that against a version of “risk tolerance” associated with each round/pick.
Maybe Dats and Hank were huge upside guys with low likelihood of reaching it (based on any number of factors, no doubt including likelihood of coming to and succeeding in North America) and it didn’t make sense for the Wings to pick them before they did.
There’s no chance the Wings were “hiding” MVP-calibre players because they were confident no one else would draft them.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Not gonna find a guy with the kind of smarts Wilson has.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
by Rob Parker on Jun 14, 2011 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You’ll want to be careful how you make that comparison. Hauswirth was signed in 2009 at the age of 21. Wilson was signed in 2008 at the age of 22. Beagle was signed in 2010 at the age of 22. You would be going back to 2006 or so for draft-age comparables. And, you would have had extra years to evaluate the players later signed as free agents after their draft-eligible years.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
(This goes to my point above in response to D’oh.)
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
It’s take that bet. Beagle & Wilson are what I’d consider fringe NHLers or semi-regular players. That’s not a very high hurdle.
And I think sometimes unsigned free agents often get a shot at the NHL before draftees because the club doesn’t mind starting their arbitration clock.
It has more to do with age and development, IMO, as Peerless noted above in terms of the typical age of players when signed as FA.
Also, way OT, and have only been able to skim this thread, but technically Wilson was drafted by Minnesota (in a round which no longer exists,) but they didn’t give him a contract.
Hey, if he was one of the fruits of giving Mahoney a little more say in picking the groceries in the post ‘08ish(?) shift in strategery, then I’ll continue my cautious optimism on drafts since then.
"My favorite fan base in D.C. Is United's. Period. The end." - Steinberg
by Bald Pollack on Jun 14, 2011 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions
My point isn’t that the Caps did poorly, or even average with those 2002, 2004, and 2006 drafts. They really did hit the jackpot, but when you have fewer picks going forward, and the players you sent them off for did not have the intended or hoped for results, now you have to get value pretty much every year out of the picks you do have if you are a “draft-centric” team (and by value, I’m meaning a contributing NHL player, on average, every year). It’s a smaller population – fewer picks – to achieve that result. It’s the going forward I worry about. If it doesn’t produce well, that 02/04/06 draft group will just be getting older.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Or be draft-centric to build a core, and use free agency to round it out.
Like everyone else does.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I would agree (although I’d prefer trades to free agncy on economic grounds for comparable players), but if outcomes matter, have the Caps been particularly successful at this?
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Hell, they’ve failed to even try so far.
Perhaps when they have a mature core, that’ll be the right time to try. We’ll see then if they succeed or fail.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
That is a consideration — syncing the “prime” or core players with the contract lengths of FA’s you sign. But there is a counterforce there. When you get to the point to where the core players are in their “prime,” they are off their ELC’s, and it is harder to afford FA’s. I still think, though, that high end UFAs are the worst deal in sports. Overpaying for what (except for one team a year) will be disappointment.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
And when the argument is made that the Caps are going to run out of prospects because of lost picks, it assumes that McPhee isn’t going to turn some of his current players into second and third round picks. If he moves guys like Semin, Varlamov, Fehr, Chimera, etc., they could easily bring prospects and/or high picks in return. A good GM, which I feel McPhee is, doesn’t get caught short and say “Christ, we don’t have any picks this year. How did that happen?” They’re always thinking two-three years down the road.
I hope so, because the 2011 draft is pretty much the 1st round pick. They don’t get another until the fourth round. If that kind of thing gets repeated too often, you have to hit home runs.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
And I will keep coming back wityh this….Until Orlov, Eakin, Kuznetsov, Galiev, and even Holtby (with all of 14 games of NHL experience) play any subsantial numbers of games at this level, those drafts have not produced anything. It’s all “futures.”
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Futures matter and have value. Especially if you can get another GM to buy into them (which we haven’t yet).
But when you say this, I think back to the earlier Most Valuable Caps discussions, and how many people fought against me because Alzner and Carlson “hadn’t proven anything yet.” Well, now how many people want to go back to those discussions and tell me I was wrong? Laich was proven, Alzner was more valuable. In retrospect, is there any debate over that point?
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
But you can’t argue the window is closing and ignore the “futures.”
I just can’t accept that the team with basically the youngest core in hockey has a “closing” window. Screw Ovechkin — Alzner, Carlson, Johansson and the goalies alone are something to build on 4 years from now (when they will all still be Caps).
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
The history of team sports is littered with the assumptions buried in that comment. That things will work out because of their potential. They might all be Caps four years from now. But if they are, I’m guessing guys like Semin or Green will not be.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions
OK, so Semin and Green will be gone. Hopefully some value will have come back for them.
We’ve been round and round on this. I just don’t see any mechanism for the window to just up and close, barring a few terrible injuries. It took folks posting their worst possible scenarios for the Caps to be in salary cap prison in even 3 years, and even there the result was that they lost a season or two.
They have the following NHL talents locked down for the long term: Ovechkin, Backstrom, Alzner, Carlson, Johansson, and the goalies. Who projects to have a better, younger core in 3 years? In 5 years? Can you name even 5 teams in a league of 30 who have a better core locked down that long?
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Who projects to have a better, younger core in 3 years? In 5 years? Can you name even 5 teams in a league of 30 who have a better core locked down that long?
I think this is a bit of a straw man in that the most important factor in having a good team in five years isn’t necessarily in the players you have signed now but as much in the flexibility to adapt.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
But that’s exactly the point I’m making. “The window is closing” — what the hell does that really mean? What is the mechanism by which the Caps will suddenly stop being a good team within this decade?
The window is only closing if you assume everything from here on out will go badly. This isn’t a team of oldsters with no young players in the pipeline.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions
You made the point above about flexibility being only a problem if you don’t like where you are. The Caps had better love where they are in five years, because they’re unlikely to have tons of flexibility. That’s all.
And “the window” means different things to different people, and it’s possible to win without the window even really being open, but as far as the combination of players being in or near their respective primes while carrying relatively manageable contracts, it’s hard to see how it isn’t currently open, and hard to see how it isn’t going to close.
How long will the team have Mike Green and John Carlson at their peaks? Probably never.
How long will they have Ovechkin, Backstrom and Semin at theirs? Perhaps that’s passed.
And so on.
The Caps will be “good” for the foreseeable future. But “good” isn’t and hasn’t been good enough.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
It’s a nice speech. I’ve seen it before.
The Sedins were drafted in 1999. It took getting Kesler to his prime to get them to the finals.
Alzner, Carlson, and Johansson will be just about reaching their primes in 2016. You willing to count Ovechkin out when he’s an “ancient” 30? You willing to count Backstrom out when he’s in his late 20s?
I’ll take my chances with that team over any team before it.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
And I still haven’t seen any mechanism by which the window closes. Spell it out. How does that happen?
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
1) Draft/acquire young core players – said players are good and cheap.
2) As these players develop, fill in around them with veteran acquisitions.
3) Young core players improve, as does the team’s record.
4) As the young core players improve, they demand higher salaries.
5) As the team improves, its draft position deteriorates.
6) As the young core players age, they become free agents and demand even higher salaries. Meanwhile, the lower draft position inhibits the team’s ability to build around them with other talented young players (barring luck).
7) As the now-not-so-young core players approach 30, their play declines and they go from being net assets to net weaknesses.
8) Without young players to replace this declining production at lower cost, the team goes from “Stanley Cup contender” to “fringe playoff team” fairly rapidly (see Calgary Flames). If the aging happens quickly enough, the team can simply disintegrate (see Colorado Avalanche and Ottawa Senators).
As players have a development curve, so too do teams. At some point soon (if it hasn’t already happened), Ovechkin will not be worth what the team is paying him in terms of salary cap room. Semin is already there. Backstrom, if he doesn’t bounce back, will be there too. Green likely will be there after his next contract.
If the Caps didn’t have players like Alzner, Carlson, Johansson, Kuznetsov, Neuvirth and Varlamov out-playing their contracts, they’d find it very hard to compete in a salary cap-restricted league.
Armareddon.
by D'ohboy on Jun 14, 2011 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
6 is where you lose me. It doesn’t take luck to get a solid player in the late first. After the first, and potentially the second, draft position is irrelevant. The Caps have gotten high quality players late in the first. I don’t consider that luck, or at least not in the way I think you use it.
When was CGY a “Cup contender?” Oh, that year that Kipper played out of his mind. They didn’t have a 5 year run or perennial favorites.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
6 is where you lose me. It doesn’t take luck to get a solid player in the late first. After the first, and potentially the second, draft position is irrelevant.
I said, “inhibits,” not prevents. There is no doubting that drafting lower inhibits a team’s ability to draft impact players.
Armareddon.
(Barring luck) is where you mislead. Sure, in some sort of technical sense “it inhibits” your ability to get impact players. But maybe you just need to define your terms. No, you won’t get Doughty or Stamkos in the 20s. But Green and Carlson are undoubtedly “impact players.” Mackan and Schultz are arguably so. And Mackan jumped into the NHL one year after being drafted, he should be more of an “impact player” next season and the season after that. So far Kuz clearly has “impact player” potential. If he comes to the NHL, I think we’ll see that. The only real risk with him is that he might not come over, not that he doesn’t have the talent to be an impact player.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
I’ll just say it again – there is no doubting that drafting lower inhibits a team’s ability to draft impact players. In 2008, the Caps got Bustafsson and Carlson. What if the Flyers don’t pull the trigger on the Eminger deal? How does that draft look then? What if the Wings traded up to take Johansson in 2009?
Look, I’m not saying it’s impossible to draft impact players at the bottom of the first, just that it’s less likely. And, over time, that decline in probability catches up with you (cough, DETROIT, cough).
Armareddon.
Detroit just missed on picks. There was quality there when they picked. They also traded away a bunch of their First round picks.
So you pick on Bustafsson as the one 20-something that GMGM has burned lately. Ridiculous. You have Green/Schultz/Carlson/Mackan/Kuz and you point to the guy that busted. I wish the pick came out differently, but in terms of GMGM, Angus is the outlier.
You want me to go back and find you all the top ten busts? They are all over the place.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
So you pick on Bustafsson as the one 20-something that GMGM has burned lately. Ridiculous. You have Green/Schultz/Carlson/Mackan/Kuz and you point to the guy that busted. I wish the pick came out differently, but in terms of GMGM, Angus is the outlier.
Did you miss the 30 comments between me and Peerless where I lauded GMGM’s recent draft history?
The Bustafsson example was simply meant to highlight the fact that teams can end up with crappy picks later in the first round. If you’re arguing that teams drafting from 20-30 are as likely to draft impact players as teams drafting from 1-10, then we can just quit this line of discussion right now because you’re simply being obtuse.
I’m not saying you can’t draft impact guys at the end of the first, I’m saying it becomes less likely. It goes from being a 70/30 weighted coin to a 50/50 weighted coin. If you’re really clever (which GMGM might be), maybe you can shift that in your favor back to 60/40. Eventually, however, the law of probability catches up to you and the overall talent level of your organization declines.
Armareddon.
by D'ohboy on Jun 14, 2011 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If you think that you need “luck” to get an impact player in the 20s, we can end this discussion now because you’ve lost your grasp on recent draft history (the only history that matters, in this context).
Obviously I already said there are more, better players early in the draft. But there are busts there too. Is it about “luck” getting a non-bust in the lotto? No, you’re expected to. I’ve argued plenty of times that the NHL has reached the day where you should expect your team to get a quality NHL player with any pick in the first round. I stand by that. It’s not “luck” to hit a guy in the 20s. Maybe it’s a skill (I’m sure it is), but it’s not like finding a 4 leaf clover.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
2004:
1-10: Ovechkin, Malkin, Barker, Ladd, Wheeler, Montoya, Olesz, Picard, Smid, Valabik
21-30: Wolski, Kaspar, Meszaros, Chucko, Schremp, Schneider, Schultz, Fistric, Green, Rogers
2005:
1-10: Crosby, Ryan, J. Johnson, Pouliot, Price, Brule, Skille, Setoguchi, Lee, Bourdon
21-30: Rask, Lashoff, Bergfors, Oshie, Cogliano, Pelech, Finley, Niskanen, Downie, Michalek
2006:
1-10: E. Johnson, J. Staal, Toews, Backstrom, Kessel, Brassard, Okposo, Mueller, Sheppard, Frolik
21-30: Sanguinetti, Giroux, Varlamov, Persson, Berglund, Irving, Vishnevskiy, Foligno, Summers, Corrente
2007:
1-10: Kane, van Riemsdyk, Turris, Hickey, Alzner, Gagner, Voracek, Hamill, Couture, Ellerby
21-30: Nash, Pacioretty, Blum, Backlund, White, Perron, Smith, Petrecki, O’Brien, Ross
2008:
1-10: Stamkos, Doughty, Bogosian, Pietrangelo, Schenn, Filatov, Wilson, Boedker, Bailey, Hodgson
21-30: Gustafsson, Eberle, Cuma, Tedenby, Nemisz, Ennis, Carlson, Tikhonov, Leveille, McCollum
2009:
1-10: Tavares, Hedman, Duchene, Kane, Schenn, Ekman-Larsson, Kadri, Glennie, Cowen, Paajarvi
21-30: Moore, Schroeder, Erixon, Johansson, Caron, Palmieri, Paradis, Olsen, Ashton, Depres
2010:
1-10: Hall, Seguin, Gudbranson, Johansen, Niederreiter, Connolly, Skinner, Burmistrov, Granlund, McIlrath
21-30: Sheahan, Tinordi, Pysyk, Hayes, Howden, Kuznetsov, Visentin, Coyle, Etem, Nelson
I don’t see how you could look at this list and not come to the conclusion that your probability of drafting an impact player declines precipitously if you make the playoffs versus entering the draft lottery.
Armareddon.
I look at this list and see my position vindicated, especially when you skim the cream of the crop. If you don’t have a lotto pick, and even then there are plenty of mistakes in the above list, you’ve still got a great shot at getting a quality player anywhere in the first round.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
That, or you picked a crappy example. Shift your analysis from 5-15 and it’s even more stark in my favor. There are a small handful of elite players in every draft. No denying that. But unless you want to be a lotto team every year, that’s not going to be any team’s reality. So, does picking 6 materially hurt your chances of getting an “impact player” compared to the 20s? I say no. Let’s try your list again:
2004: 6-15: Montoya, Olesz, Picard, Smid, Valabik, Tukonen, Thelen, Stafford, Dubnyk, Radulov.
21-30: Wolski, Kaspar, Meszaros, Chucko, Schremp, Schneider, Schultz, Fistric, Green, Rogers
2005: 6-15: Brule, Skille, Setoguchi, Lee, Bourdon, Kopitar, Staal, Zagrapan, Pokulok, O’Marra.
21-30: Rask, Lashoff, Bergfors, Oshie, Cogliano, Pelech, Finley, Niskanen, Downie, Michalek (Hooraaaay GMGM).
2006: 6-15: Brassard, Okposo, Mueller, Sheppard, Frolik, Bernier (G), Little, Tlusty, Grabner, Helenius
21-30: Sanguinetti, Giroux, Varlamov, Persson, Berglund, Irving, Vishnevskiy, Foligno, Summers, Corrente
2007: 6-15: Gagner, Voracek, Hamill, Couture, Ellerby, Sutter, McDonagh, Eller, Shattenkirk, Plante
21-30: Nash, Pacioretty, Blum, Backlund, White, Perron, Smith, Petrecki, O’Brien, Ross
2008: 6-15: Filatov, Wilson, Boedker, Bailey, Hodgson, Beach, Myers, Teubert, Boychuk, Karlsson
21-30: Gustafsson, Eberle, Cuma, Tedenby, Nemisz, Ennis, Carlson, Tikhonov, Leveille, McCollum
2009: 6-15: Ekman-Larsson, Kadri, Glennie, Cowen, Paajarvi, Ellis, de Haan, Kassian, Kulikov, Holland
21-30: Moore, Schroeder, Erixon, Johansson, Caron, Palmieri, Paradis, Olsen, Ashton, Depres
2010: 6-15: Connolly, Skinner, Burmistrov, Granlund, McIlrath, Campbell, Fowler, Gormley, Schwartz, Forbort
21-30: Sheahan, Tinordi, Pysyk, Hayes, Howden, Kuznetsov, Visentin, Coyle, Etem, Nelson
So, if you want to live in the lottery, be my guest. But teams don’t live in the lottery for more than a few years, unless they botch their lotto picks. We already had our lotto days, we hit on our lotto picks, now we have to make our hay in the non-elite portion of the draft. There’s no real qualitative difference in my mind in the ability to get a quality player after the elite players are gone. Half of the 21-30 cohort is superior to the 6-15 cohort, and that’s without even allowing some of the more recent drafts to pan out.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Shift your analysis from 5-15 and it’s even more stark in my favor.
My original argument was top versus bottom. Not “middle” versus bottom.
Also, it wasn’t in your favor to begin with, and it still isn’t.
I’d love to go through each draft from 2004-2010 and individually break down how many players from each cohort end up as NHL regulars, but I’ve got to do real work. Unless you can show me some mathematical proof (# of all-stars, NHL regulars, # NHL games played/pick, anything) to support your assertion, I’m not buying it.
Armareddon.
Likewise.
There’s two groups of draft teams: Lotto pickers and everyone else. If you’re not a lotto pick team, it doesn’t matter where you are.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Likewise.
You’re the one with the position that defies logic and common sense. The burden of proof is on you.
There’s two groups of draft teams: Lotto pickers and everyone else. If you’re not a lotto pick team, it doesn’t matter where you are.
So you admit that you’d rather pick at the top of the draft than at the bottom?
There is one way in which I agree with you – I think the “worst” place to be is in the 8-14 range consistently – out of the lottery but out of the playoffs. It means your team is neither good enough to compete, nor bad enough to rebuild. It’s the limbo that Florida, Calgary, Toronto (barring the year they traded their pick, d’oh), St Louis and Minnesota have found themselves in over the last few years.
Armareddon.
It doesn’t defy logic or common sense, you just aren’t grasping it. There are 3-5 gold bars, 20-25 silver bars, and then a bunch of lead bars. If you pick top 5, you should get a gold bar. If you pick 6-30, you should get a silver bar. That’s how I see the NHL draft these days.
I would rather have a lotto pick, but that’s not the argument you made. It doesn’t take “luck” to get a talented player at 21-30. I’d rather not have more than 3 lotto picks in a row, because if you do that your team sucks. The Caps don’t suck, so the lotto isn’t really in the discussion anymore. I don’t think our drafting would be materially better if we were at 11 rather than 21.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Tough to make generalizations like this, IMO. Drafts vary in the number of gold and silver bars that are available. And, like I’ve said before, the “first round” cutoff is convenient and meaningful in that each team has had one chance to make a pick (or have relinquished that chance), but is there a meaningful difference between the players likely to go 25-30 and those going 31-35? Probably not, usually.
The difference between 11 and 21 is big – give me five-straight 11’s and I bet I do better than your five-straight 21’s. I don’t think the prospect pool is nearly as neatly tiered/compartmentalized as you have made it out to be.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I do think that the first 10 picks of the second round are pretty similar to the last half of the first round. Mackan was in the 40-45 ranked prospect. In recent years you’ve have the elite, then sometimes that second tier, then a huge group of prospects.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
I guess I see it slightly differently. In general, I see a group of elites, then a group of second-tier guys that most everyone can mostly agree upon, then it’s a total free for all based on how individual teams rank players (obviously the Caps and, from accounts, Wings had MoJo a lot higher than 40-45).
Actually, maybe that’s not all that differently than what you’re saying, just that I do think there’s a group behind the elites that tends to stand out from the rest.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I think the group behind the elites tends to stand out because of physical maturity/early blooming rather than actual quality of player. Time is going to have to test that theory.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Likely. Also, hype plays a role.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yeah, looking at the role of hype, if there was a good way to do it, would be very interesting, IMO.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Yeah, not sure how. One part of it, though, would be to compare CSS’s mid-term and final rankings. Do guys really get that much better or worse in that short time span? Some might, but I tend to think a lot of that is that they were either wrong in the first place or public opinion is weighing in. Then suddenly a guy’s a “riser” or a “faller,” etc.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yeah, and the luck of just getting hot or cold in the right small sample.
I’d like to know more about Angelo Esposito’s meteoric collapse. Seems to me basically every team saw something in him that they wanted no part of, and that the “something” came about relatively late (judging by his rankings leading up to the draft day).
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
It doesn’t take "luck" to get a talented player at 21-30.
What part of “less probable” was unclear?
I don’t think our drafting would be materially better if we were at 11 rather than 21.
Then you’re wrong.
Armareddon.
You used the word luck. I dispute it. Either back off the use of luck or don’t, but don’t shift the end Zonas.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Look, it’s just less probable. I said some teams might be able to shift the probability in their favor, but at the end of the day, you’re more likely to get a good player at 11 than 21. Drafting repeatedly at 21-30 eventually catches up with you, barring luck or the aforementioned ability to shift the probability in your favor.
Armareddon.
I guess we’ll find out. Caps aren’t falling from the 20s anytime soon. You can let GMGM off the hook because “that’s life in the 20s.” I’m going to continue to expect him to nail impact players with his picks in the 20s.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Just eye balling, the NHL regulars is almost exactly even. All Stars is close but it’s a worthless title. Games played isn’t valuable yet because so many of these guys are still developing and whims of position and team depth chart are going to have disproportionate impact.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
I used 20 NHL games as a cut-off because it’s more than just a random late season call-up or two. The numbers and players listed below are those from a given draft year that have not, over the course of their career thus far, played in 20 NHL games.
2004:
6-15: 2 players (Thelen, Tukonen)
21-30: 3 players (Rogers, Kaspar, Chucko)
2005:
6-15: 2 players (Pokulok, Zagrapan)
21-30: 3 players (Finley, Pelech, Mihalik)
2006:
6-15: 1 player (Helenius – goalie)
21-30: 5 players (Sanguinetti, Persson, Irving – goalie, Vishnevskiy, Summers)
2007:
6-15: 2 players (Hamill, Plante)
21-30: 6 players (Nash, Smith, White, Petrecki, O’Brien, Ross)
2008:
6-15: 3 players (Hodgson, Beach, Teubert)
21-30: 5 players (Cuma, Nemisz, Gustafsson, Leveille, McCollum – goalie)
2009:
6-15: 6 players (Glennie, Cowen, Ellis, de Haan, Kassian, Holland)
21-30: 8 players (Schroeder, Moore, Depres, Ashton, Olsen, Paradis, Palmieri, Erixon)
2010:
6-15: 7 players (Connolly, Granlund, Forbort, Schwartz, Gormley, Campbell, McIlrath)
21-30: 10 players (Sheahan, Tinordi, Pysyk, Hayes, Howden, Kuznetsov, Visentin, Coyle, Etem, Nelson)
2004-2010 total 6-15 or 21-30 picks = 60
6-15 had 23 players out of 60 not play in 20 NHL games
21-30 had 40 players out of 60 not play in 20 NHL games. It’s not as though all of that difference is just from 2009 and 2010, either (which is likely more volatile given the short time horizon).
In other words, drafting 21-30, you’re almost twice as likely to draft a player who does not pan out in the short term as even a fringe NHL player.
Armareddon.
A) I dispute the use of 20 games, that’s not a regular in the NHL, IMO.
B) I dispute the focus on the short term, and use of “fringe” NHLer. Lots of these guys could be fringe NHLers, but teams don’t bring up elite prospects to be “fringe” guys in most cases. Palmieri is a good example, he got his cup of coffee in the NHL, and they sent him back to the WJC and AHL where he could dominate more.
C) I don’t think the 09 or 10 drafts are instructive as of yet.
D) There are a lot of other factors (which you acknowledge by noting the goalies) in terms of making the NHL. The earlier picks frequently have fewer depth chart competitions; and Fs make it faster than Ds. I also noted the “physical maturity/ early bloomer” stuff in my comment to J.P.
I looked at “regular NHL players” and came up with a similar, but less dramatic advantage for the 6-15 group (only about 50% advantage before addressing positional issues).
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
A) I dispute the use of 20 games, that’s not a regular in the NHL, IMO.
I didn’t say they were regulars. I used 20 NHL games because, if a pick hasn’t played in that many games, it’s a good chance you whiffed entirely. Since “success” can be hard to define, I went with a pretty inarguable baseline of failure.
B)I dispute the focus on the short term, and use of "fringe" NHLer. Lots of these guys could be fringe NHLers, but teams don’t bring up elite prospects to be "fringe" guys in most cases.
I didn’t pick the short time horizon – it’s a limitation of analyzing drafts since the lockout. Give me a time machine and I’ll get you a longer time horizon. Second, the “fringe” aspect you note should apply equally across all draft picks. Yes, there is some variability based on the fact that teams drafting lower will tend to be deeper, but I don’t think that’s enough to explain the entire difference.
I just used “Fringe NHL-er” because, like I said above, if you didn’t even get a fringe NHL-er with one of these picks, you failed horribly.
I don’t think the 09 or 10 drafts are instructive as of yet.
Which is why I specifically pointed out that the numbers don’t change much if you exclude them. Again, I’ll point out that the 21-30 picks face essentially the same obstacles making the NHL as the 6-15 picks. What this data is telling us is that those 6-15 kids are, on the whole, just better or more NHL ready than the 21-30 kids.
Armareddon.
I used 20 NHL games because, if a pick hasn’t played in that many games, it’s a good chance you whiffed entirely.
That’s patently false for the more recent drafts, but I’ll buy it for ’04 and ’05, and mostly ’06, though I think Vishnievsky still is going to play 20 games.
Fringe NHLer is misleading because these guys aren’t at their peak yet. If a guy is 20 and not a fringe NHLer, that’s not a whiff, that’s just normal.
Nobody drafts in the first round for a fringe NHLer 2-3 years out. Remember your whole “let Mackan develop in the AHL because he’s a fringe NHLer” argument? Now you’re punishing teams/prospects that followed your own advice. (Aside: Mackan is the only regular NHLer from his cohort, nice job GMGM.)
The “regular NHL numbers” really tilt the scale when you consider the two most recent drafts. The ‘04 and ’05 drafts look more uniform, and conform to my position. The ’06 and ’07 support yours. I think ’08-’10 will end up supporting mine, but until you get that time machine you’ll just have to trust me.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
The "regular NHL numbers" really tilt the scale when you consider the two most recent drafts.
2004-2008: 50 draft slots
6-15: 10 haven’t hit 20 games
21-30: 23 haven’t hit 20 games
By excluding the 2 most recent years, the numbers actually get worse for you. Keep digging though – eventually you’ll get out of this hole. (Be sure to try the dim sum when you get there.)
Armareddon.
I said 20 games isn’t a regular NHLer. I’m not using your list above. If you’re happy with 20 games from a draft pick, then cool. I’m looking at guys that are regulars on their team. The only real differences are the last two years (combined 6-1 in favor of the 6-15) and ’06 (9-5 in favor of 6-15). The 21-30 leads or ties in ’04, ’05, ’08.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
The problem is, as we’ve both pointed out, that using a larger number of NHL games leads to a selection bias given the age of the players involved. I suppose if I had the time, I could take the number of NHL games that have occurred since the player was drafted, the figure out which players had played in a greater percentage of games – which would eliminate that bias.
Still, I don’t think it changes anything – picks 6-15 create more NHL players than picks 21-30.
Armareddon.
I think we’re analyzing unripe fruit. Who cares what most of these numbers say today in terms of games played? Aside from ‘04 and ’05 (and maybe ’06) teams are still developing these guys and you don’t know what you have. I look at these lists and I’m predicting that in the long run they’ll look pretty close, and that such trend will continue going forward. Without luck.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
And I think that if this really were the case no GM in his right mind would ever trade a late first round pick.
Armareddon.
Not true, sometimes you’re that close to winning that it makes sense to go for it now. I don’t think DET was crazy for trading us the pick; they got the league’s leading scorer for a potential Cup run. It just didn’t work out for them.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
I’m looking at guys that are regulars on their team.
Care to define this? Or show your work? Or. . . anything?
Armareddon.
How’s my special sauce taste?
I’m looking at the guys and determining whether they’ve full time made their team’s roster in the absence of injury. No games played cut off, just asking whether they are on the 18 man roster if everyone is healthy. A guy like Jon Blum is hurt by a games played analysis, but he was in all of NSH’s playoff games so I have him as a full time NHLer, as an example. A guy like Matt Lashoff has almost a full NHL season’s worth of games, but hasn’t once spent a majority of the year in the NHL, so he’s not a regular NHLer.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
by Rob Parker on Jun 14, 2011 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
(The guys I had the most trouble with were guys on FLA. They got NHL games, but in all likelihood would not have gotten those games on a credible team. Does that make you an NHL regular? On the contrary, Ryan Ellis is almost certainly an NHLer on FLA, but can’t crack that NSH depth chart.
Another problem is how to deal with D v. F, and dealing with NCAA guys that stay in school.)
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
At some point soon (if it hasn’t already happened), Ovechkin will not be worth what the team is paying him in terms of salary cap room
If dollars never changed in value and/or the salary cap never changed, this would be true. The better comparison here might be whether Ovechkin is worth the burden (expressed as a percentage) he places on the cap. Five years from now, assuming the cap rises, his burden on it will be lower. Will it still be “worth it,” given his production?
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Ovechkin will not be worth what the team is paying him in terms of salary cap room
What part of “in terms of salary cap room” was unclear?
Armareddon.
It’s the other side of the point. If the cap goes up, there is more “room,” since Ovechkin’s hit is a fixed value. He takes up less and less a share of it.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
The question is, then, is the rate of decline in Ovie’s performance/cap room ratio higher or lower than the the rate of decline of his cap hit as a percentage of the total?
Armareddon.
It’s arbirtrary but if one perceives he is declining in production faster than his share of the cap, then he would be decreasing in value.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Draft/acquire young core players – said players are good and cheap.
But not all drafted players are created equally. Even in the first round. The Caps have three top-five picks on their roster (Ovechkin, Backstrom, Alzner). If the Caps perform in the regular season as they have lately, they will be picking in the mid-low 20’s. You can get a Green there. You can also get a Joe Finley.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
And you can get a Kevin Hickey in the lottery. You can hit on picks or miss on picks. Is that new to the game? It has been and will continue to be about hitting on the picks you have. GMGM has shown a pretty good ability to find (at least future) value in the 20s.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
OT: I was reading an article about Hickey earlier. I’ll see if I can recall where I saw it and post it.
From 1971 through 2009, Hickey is the only top-five pick not to have played in at least one NHL game. The last top-five pick to do it was the 5th overall pick in the 1970 amateur draft (Ray Martyniuk).
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
So the Volchinator wasn’t a bust because he played “at least one NHL game?” And with Hickey’s age, I’ll bet he plays at least one NHL game someday.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Hickey’s been derailed by injuries. I don’t think those injuries were foreseeable (like Gus’s was)
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Fair point, I also don’t think he was ever going to be better than Alzner.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Oh, I won’t defend him as #4. But I will defend him as a 1st rounder. That was bad luck.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Alzner was universally viewed as being the “most NHL ready” of the highly ranked D-men in that draft, which made it such a surprise when the Kings took Hickey.
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 Jun 14, 2011 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re not going to find many top-five picks going back that far who didn’t play in fewer than several hundred games in their NHL careers. Not all become stars, but the vast majority of them are contributors at the very least. Same can’t be said for picks in the mid-low 20’s.
If you've read this far...seek help.
Irrelevant. The NHL draft pool is qualitatively so different than it was in any other era that it’s worthless to compare historical numbers.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Pick a smaller slice, then — ten years. It isn’t qualititatively different.
If you've read this far...seek help.
Except that the numbers in the recent years don’t necessarily bear that generalization out. We don’t really know what the 08-10 drafts will look like, but there are quite a bit more quality players than historically we’d expect.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
And if Sidney Crosby’s team had lost in the SC final in 2009, Penguin fans might be scared to death these days that their team might have had their chance pass them by, Crosby’s health and/or effectiveness in the future being the issue. You can’t predict injury, but you cannot asume it won’t happen, either. The Caps had two wonderful chances on their plate and spilled them on the floor. I would never assume they will get better ones.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
No need to condescend – it’s not a speech, it’s an assertion.
And no, I’m not willing to count anyone out. But are you saying that 2016 will begin the Caps’ best chance(s) to win a Cup with Ovechkin?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Sorry for the condescension — I’m getting tired of getting the same nonresponsive response to my question of how people see the window “closing,” no matter how it’s phrased (though there’s a lot of meat in this thread now).
If all goes well, I think the Caps might be ready to play real playoff hockey when Green, Ovechkin and Schultz are 27, Backstrom’s 25, Alzner’s 24, Carlson and the goalies are 24, and Johansson is 22. Maybe.
That’s two years from now, and they all strike me as likely still too young then. Yeah, I think 2015 (when all those guys are 2 years older than that) and 2016 will begin the Caps’ best chance to win a Cup.
My takeaway from the playoff hockey I’ve watched this year is that the #1 skill necessary, above all others, is the ability to play mistake-free hockey. Do you trust the players on the roster right now to play mistake-free hockey for any kind of long stretch of time? I think it’s at least 2 years, and probably longer, before they’re mentally ready to do what they need to do.
I suppose you could probably accelerate things by trading, say, a Mackan and a Kuznetzov for players who are mature now. But I don’t see the Caps doing it, and I think it’s a hell of a risk to take. I’d rather take my chances with this core in 3 years.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
My takeaway from the playoff hockey I’ve watched this year is that the #1 skill necessary, above all others, is the ability to play mistake-free hockey.
I’d disagree. Maybe it’s just a quibble, but I feel like the #1 skill is attention to detail/focus in executing a team’s system.
Armareddon.
Those are basically two ways of saying the same thing in my mind. Flubbed passes, missed shots, etc. will happen, so when I think of mistake free hockey I think of cutting down the mental errors and the team breakdowns. i.e. doing the little things and following the system.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Jun 14, 2011 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Yup. One word: Discipline
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
My takeaway from the playoff hockey I’ve watched this year is that the #1 skill necessary, above all others, is the ability to play mistake-free hockey.
Bingo. If I was going to build on that, I’d say “play mistake free hockey at ES and capitalize on special teams.”
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
by Rob Parker on Jun 14, 2011 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That’s two years from now, and they all strike me as likely still too young then. Yeah, I think 2015 (when all those guys are 2 years older than that) and 2016 will begin the Caps’ best chance to win a Cup.
Maybe those players will have matured enough, but what about the depth? Will it be good enough, considering that McPhee will have less money to spend (Johansson, Green, Carlson, Alzner, all three goalies on new contracts, and probably Kuz too)?
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
To help with basic Timeonice functions.
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Jun 15, 2011 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Then let’s define “window.” If by “window,” you mean (and I do) “on the short list of bona fide Stanley Cup contenders,” then that window might be closing. If by “window” you mean “reliable playoff team for the next decade,” then I suspect the Caps’ window is wider for a longer period.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
And if the last couple years have taught us anything, shouldn’t it be that a GM should just maximize his years of being a solid playoff team? Luck plays a huge role, and you never know when you’ll get it or won’t. If you look at Boston’s last 3 years, most people wouldn’t have said this year was their best to get the Cup.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
What team in the last two decades was “lucky” to win a Stanley Cup? Winning one round might be luck. Win four, and even if your goal differential is negative (as it will be for Vancouver if they win), you’re good. But even if you want to adhere to the argument, it isn’t necessarily true. Chicago mortgaged their future (for cap reasons) and had it pay off (I do not recommend this). They are still good, but not what they were in 2010.
However, the point isn’t whether or not I think a GM should maximize his years as a playoff team. That should be the acceptable level of performance. The point is that the Caps — largely because of circumstance (three top five picks in four years, eight first rounders in their three big drafts) — were able to assemble a core. Can they capitalize on it before that core ages or goes their separate ways?
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 14, 2011 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
You can be good and lucky at the same time.
VAN and Boston both had a lot of luck these playoffs. Pens got lucky as hell to have Lidstrom and Datsyuk hurt. You can’t find a team that won the Cup without a healthy dose of luck.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Last year’s Flyers got awfully close and yes, thanks to luck in large part, including getting otherworldly goaltending and having probably the two best teams in the East lose to Montreal. (And please, no “they weren’t the best teams if they lost” stuff.)
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Right, and the first year the Pens went they got lucky that they had OTT, let PHI and WAS beat up each other, then had relatively crappy PHI get handed the series by Carey Price, so PIT had a walk in the park through the east.
And CAR had Ward. ANA had a string of guys play career-hockey for stretches… right during the SCF playoffs (Pahlsson and McDonald, specifically). And EDM was lucky as hell to make it there against CAR.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
What team in the last two decades was "lucky" to win a Stanley Cup?
So have the Caps been “unlucky” or “unready?” My interpretation is that they’ve been the latter.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I think they’ve gotten both. But even without the horrible luck against MON, I don’t think that was a Cup team (unless they got tons of luck to help them out).
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
The Caps’ defense was Green, Schultz, Poti, Morrisonn, Corvo, and a 21-year-old Carlson in Game 6 — and that’s before Poti got hurt.
That was not a defensive corps capable of winning a Cup.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
No, but say the Caps win Game 7. Is Green-Schultz-Morrisonn-Corvo-Carlson-Alzner good enough to beat Philly? I think so, yes. Good enough to beat Pittsburgh afterwards? Maybe, maybe not.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
To help with basic Timeonice functions.
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Jun 15, 2011 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think that defensive corps could have beat Philly. Not with their forwards. Not the way they were playing last year.
Danny Briere would have had even more goals.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 15, 2011 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
And with Philly’s goaltending?
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
To help with basic Timeonice functions.
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Jun 15, 2011 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Then let’s define "window." If by "window," you mean (and I do) "on the short list of bona fide Stanley Cup contenders," then that window might be closing.
To me, history shows that the Washington Capitals didn’t belong on anyone’s short list. There’s more to winning in the playoffs than scoring goals or adopting a “new defensive scheme.” This team hasn’t been mentally ready to play in the playoffs. And I think it’s because they were too young.
Let me be very clear about one thing as well — if you think I’m saying McPhee can stand pat and someone is going to hand him the 2016 Cup, then let me disabuse you of that right now. 30 GMs are going to be trying as hard as they can to win that Cup, just like any other. It’s going to take excellent GMing between now and then and excellent coaching and excellent health and excellent luck to win any Cup. McPhee is going to have to upgrade this team between now and then if they have a hope of winning.
All I’m really saying is that I wouldn’t trust my car keys to a bunch of folks as immature as these Caps are right now. The team’s most important players have a lot of growing up to do. And I don’t think they’ll win it all until they do.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
All I’m really saying is that I wouldn’t trust my car keys to a bunch of folks as immature as these Caps are right now. The team’s most important players have a lot of growing up to do. And I don’t think they’ll win it all until they do.
On this, I think we can all agree.
Armareddon.
This line of thinking is actually why I am not as cynical about AO’s predicted production decline going forward. One could argue that his inability to score this year was largely due to mental stubborness, not a lack of pysical ability. I hold out hope that as he gets older he’ll mature and become a smarter player. Just imagine, Ovi’s skill combined with a bit more brains? That I’d love to see.
"Neuvy was eating pucks for breakfast, lunch, and dinner."
by SeattleCapsFan on Jun 14, 2011 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Salary cap?
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
To help with basic Timeonice functions.
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Jun 15, 2011 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Sakic, Selanne*, Lemieux, Modano (*came back).
I’m literally just going since the first lockout in 1994-95. I agree with your point about the salary cap era, but we just don’t have enough of a data sample yet. From preliminary results, however, we can see that the salary cap era places a tremendous burden on drafting “star” players and integrating them quickly into the core of a team.
2006: Carolina – Staal, Ward, Williams
2007: Anaheim – Perry, Getzlaf
2008: Detroit – Hudler?
2009: Pittsburgh – Crosby, Malkin, Letang, (Fleury)
2010: Chicago – Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson
All of these teams garnered significant contributions from players that were early in their careers (either ELC or RFA contracts and sub-25). The two outliers seem to be Detroit (fewer young players) and Chicago (more young players). Every team, however, got significant contributions from veteran players on their roster.
Carolina: Stillman, Brindamour, Cullen, Recchi, Weight
Anaheim: Pronger, Niedermayer, Selanne, McDonald
Detroit: Vets galore
Pittsburgh: Guerin, Fedotenko, Gonchar
Chicago: Hossa, Sharp
Armareddon.
Yep. And last year’s Caps fit the model:
Ovechkin, Backstrom, Green, Carlson, etc.
Knuble, Arnott, Wideman/Hannan.
It just didn’t work out as it perhaps should have…
(And this year’s winner would seem to be a bit more like the Wings outlier – fewer young impact players, no?)
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Do they have any young impact players, aside from Corey Schneider?
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Edler? Hanssen? So… no.
And I meant to include the B’s, too (though I suppose Lucic and Marchand fit the bill, somewhat).
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Right. I suppose we should define “young” – based on F&B noting Schneider, I went with “24 and under.”
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yeah, I was thinking “ELC” when I went through my list.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Where does this idea that a championship team can’t have any misplaced salary, and must have a few star players on ELCs come from anyway? I guess Chicago did it that way, but they’re hardly the norm (and you can see this year what effect that strategy had once they grew out of those contracts).
Both teams this year have players with large salaries that, for different reasons, aren’t contributing at all (Ballard and Savard). The Canucks have a very average goalie being paid like he’s Alex Ovechkin (granted, due to cheating his cap hit is much smaller). The Caps are in great shape, salary-wise, compared to those guys.
Teams that are actually hamstrung, like Philly and Chicago, are few and far between. And as Chicago and even Glen Sather have shown, it’s surprisingly easy to get un-hamstrung (which makes Philly’s flounderings that much more remarkable). I think the actual salaries matter a whole lot less than we credit them with. What matters far more is who makes up the team, and what attitude they bring.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree, with two exceptions. Pens did the ELC thing as well, so did CAR, so did ANA.
And how is PHI “hamstrung.” And if they are, how bad is it? They’re still a perennial Cup favorite and even “hamstrung” have been much more successful than the Caps.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
I meant only that they lack flexibility.
It’s not a problem to lack flexibility when you like where you are, and don’t really need to move.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Fair points. They definitely lack flexibility (Of course, if they wanted to move a valuable asset, they could have much more flexibility. They lack the flexibility because they have a bunch of guys they don’t want to move.).
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
yup. they actually have quite a lot of flexibility.
The New York Islanders lack flexibility. They suck and have nowhere to go. Assets=flexibility
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
The New York Islanders lack flexibility. They suck and have nowhere to go. Assets=flexibility
They have lots of flexibility, I’d say. Their young player core looks really good (except in goal).
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
To help with basic Timeonice functions.
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Jun 15, 2011 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Where does this idea that a championship team can’t have any misplaced salary, and must have a few star players on ELCs come from anyway?
That’s how you load up the roster as much as possible. You can win even as an 8 seed but getting a 2003 Giguere-like performance in the playoffs from your goalie, but to truly be the favorite, you need value deals, and the huge value comes from ELCs. Vancouver gets value in net and spread around their roster, not concentrated in, say, Keith+Toews+Kane+Seabrook+Hossa. I’m not sure GMGM can sign a roster-full of value contracts, so I think it’d be more helpful to have, say, a cheap 2C and goaltending.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
To help with basic Timeonice functions.
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Jun 15, 2011 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions
But how do you respond to the fact that both Vancouver and Boston have “misplaced” salary, and Vancouver at least isn’t relying much on ELC players? And there’s been more teams like that than the converse.
I see reliance on ELC players as far outside the norm for teams that make noise in the playoffs.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 15, 2011 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Vancouver gets value in net and spread around their roster, not concentrated…I’m not sure GMGM can sign a roster-full of value contracts
I don’t see a ton of misplaced salary on Boston. Seguin and Ryder are the ones that stick out, but they also have Marchand and, especially, Thomas, plus others like Recchi, Bergeron, and Chara who I think were underpaid (or, at least, their value to the team exceeded cap hit). On Vancouver, I see Keith Ballard and Sami Salo as being pretty overpaid, but I also think their entire forward corps is underpaid by (rough estimate) more than $1.5 million each. Luongo and Schneider also provided value.
Again, value is the way to go, I don’t think anyone disagrees. I’m not confident that GMGM (or most GMs, for that matter) can regularly sign UFAs to those types of deals or win trades for players on those types of deals. That leaves crossing your fingers for unexpected production, or drafting well and being stingy with your young players with regards to money.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
To help with basic Timeonice functions.
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Jun 15, 2011 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I think we’re strenuously not disagreeing with each other.
I’m not suggesting that bloated contracts is the way to go. I’m saying that (1) ELCs are of only marginal helpfulness, because it’s a very rare player who can contribute in the playoffs while on his first contract, (2) there are plenty of value contracts to be had outside of ELCs, and (3) it’s not the case that any bad contract will sink a team. There’s more margin for error than that.
I still think that money/contract issues are over-scrutinized by fans. It ultimately matters a whole lot more who those people are.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 15, 2011 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, B’s are a younger team in that regard…
Marchand, Seguin, Lucic are young.
McQuaid & Krejci are pretty young, too. Bergeron depending on age and years in League criteria.
Both teams have young players, and the B’s are younger, but if we’re talking impact players, there aren’t a whole lot (depending on your definition of “young,” of course) for either squad.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Agree, but Vancouver doesn’t even have many young players, but this definition. I’d say the ‘young’ players on Boston are bigger contributors and have made more of an impact in the playoffs overall.
If Lucic had contributed more consistently in the playoffs, it would be easier to say that the Bruins young players have had a big impact.
Lucic is in his 4th NHL season, but just turned 23yo a week ago.
Marchand turned 23yo in May and is playing his first full NHL season/his 3rd pro season.
McQuaid is also playing his first full NHL season (I believe he has one more pro season than Marchand.)
Tangent: I think Burrows and Peverley starting in the ECHL and working their way up and their contributions is a bigger storyline this year rather than youth. Most of Peverley’s ECHL games were during the lockout, but interesting in both cases as Peverley also took the college route and then started in the ECHL.
Seeing more chatter about Bob Woods and Winnipeg, BTW.
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
Related: if you’d have had me plunk down a fiver on which current Caps assistant would get a head coaching gig first, I’d probably have gone with Deano.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
“Who you know” rather than “what you know”, I guess.
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
Yeah, special circumstance there. We shall see – I still don’t see it.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I wonder if he’ll take any company with him from the Caps.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
*
Poti. Damn autocorrect.
A kitten on fire, a baby in a blender, both sound as sweet as a playoff surrender.
Also: source
Kirk Muller, Claude Noel and Bob Woods all possibles for Peg’s new NHL post according to Freep
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
Goes to show how much I must hate Canadians… read that comment and wondered, “what’s the Detroit Free Press writing about the Winnipeg Jets for?”
If you've read this far...seek help.
I’m with you – “The Freep” is definitely the DFP.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Finally, d-camp dates! Confirming what most of us knew anyway:
Monday, July 11 – Capitals Development Camp begins
Saturday, July 16 – Fan Fest; Capitals Development Camp scrimmage, camp concludes
Caps fans aren’t on the ledge; they’ve already jumped, and are merely trying to drag others into a mournful descent with them..--Stienz
Pledge Drive 2010-2011: SO KIDS CAN!! Help build a playground
Team’s planning to fly in some players for fan fest. That’ll make it even a bigger zoo.
Don’t try to figure Sasha out. Just ride the wave.
Some players live here during the summer, some fly in for medical check-ups and they’ve also brought in an UFA signing during that week at least once in the past. One year, Laich was around, Theodore was there one day the year he signed as am UFA, etc.
Hendy!
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
The others TBD was why I said some. It could also turn out that it’s only Hendricks. A little CYA going on there.
I remember the summer that Pothier’s wife was giving birth in July, I think, so they were here the whole summer and he did a lot of appearances. I have no idea if they lived here year round the whole time he was under contract.
Don’t try to figure Sasha out. Just ride the wave.
The Hendricks’ might live here year round. I think his wife landed a policy job.
Caps fans aren’t on the ledge; they’ve already jumped, and are merely trying to drag others into a mournful descent with them..--Stienz
Pledge Drive 2010-2011: SO KIDS CAN!! Help build a playground
The Hendricks just bought a house in Alexandria at the end of May.
by Ray of Sunshine on Jun 14, 2011 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
I said yesterday that Sjögren is planning to attend dev camp my source for that are a radio interview he did last Thursday. Today Whyno says that Sjögren wont be there. I don’t know if he got a more recent source or if he is using old info. I guess time will tell.
http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/40783-Rumor-Roundup-Who-will-be-Phoenixs-goalie.html
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
Varly Wrap are go! Let’s light this candle…
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Smokin’ Al Koken (yes, all three names bolded) blasts the Post for its lack of Stanley Cup coverage. [D.C. Sports Bog]
Rick Santorum froths, David Gregory defends himself. [D.C. Sports Bog]
So did the post give more coverage in today’s print edition to Game 6, or to Romney and Pawlenty mentioning Game 6?
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 11:12 AM EDT reply actions
On that note, I completely agree with Al. Open up the Post Sports section today, and you get a beautiful, giant color photo and article about US women’s soccer. As a female soccer player, I’m all for women’s soccer coverage, but really WP? The fucking SCFs were last night and are going to Game 7, and the showdown got a small column off to the side? Really?
"Neuvy was eating pucks for breakfast, lunch, and dinner."
by SeattleCapsFan on Jun 14, 2011 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Incidentally, that’s another great article from Goff.
/OT
"My favorite fan base in D.C. Is United's. Period. The end." - Steinberg
by Bald Pollack on Jun 14, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Whatever emotional capital I might once have had about this issue, it’s long ago spent. I don’t care if the Post/Times/Examiner spend three drops of ink or two pixels on Caps coverage anymore. It doesn’t affect my own enjoyment (or frustration) with hockey or the Caps. There are a lot of folks (many of them contributing to this fine product) who do a bang-up job of covering the Caps and opining on the state of hockey. I agree with Koken’s argument in the abstract. I just don’t much care.
If you've read this far...seek help.
I agree with Koken’s argument in the abstract.
Related (and I wondered aloud on the Twitter machine yesterday about it), but I’m curious to find out where he got the 4.3 number from, because LePore didn’t list the city or that number when talking G5 numbers the other day.
"My favorite fan base in D.C. Is United's. Period. The end." - Steinberg
by Bald Pollack on Jun 14, 2011 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Yup. I cared back when it was hard to learn anything about the team from sources other than the team, the team, the team’s broadcast partner, and the Washington Post. That ain’t true no more.
I’ve told the story before of my brother writing the Caps minor league affiliate in the 1980s (actually, the Hershey Bears, the first time around), and they sent him a press guide because they liked getting the letter from some kid who was interested. That was basically all we ever heard about their minor league team.
Times have changed. The newspaper has competition now, and it seems to have decided to cede the field. I can’t say I blame them. The competition is better than them.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, and before NG says “Awkward,” let me say, in conclusion, that ESPN also sucks. (Might as well save him an extra post)
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Jun 14, 2011 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Awkward^2
"Shots aren't the important thing. Scoring chances are way more important than shots." - Bruce Boudreau
See my work on WaPo's Capitals Insider, ESPN Insider and Russian Machine Never Breaks (RMNB) Insider. I also log the Caps scoring chances. The 2010-11 summary spreadsheet is posted on Google Docs.
Follow me on Twitter @ngreenberg
The newspaper has competition now, and it seems to have decided to cede the field. I can’t say I blame them. The competition is better than them.
My bias for WaPo aside, they send a gaggle of reporters to cover the team. That doesn’t indicate to me they have ceded the field.
We can debate other outlets provide more in depth/better coverage, but overall, I think WaPo does a good job reporting on the team.
"Shots aren't the important thing. Scoring chances are way more important than shots." - Bruce Boudreau
See my work on WaPo's Capitals Insider, ESPN Insider and Russian Machine Never Breaks (RMNB) Insider. I also log the Caps scoring chances. The 2010-11 summary spreadsheet is posted on Google Docs.
Follow me on Twitter @ngreenberg
I can see that argument for the team itself, not hockey in general. They send Michael Lee to the NBA Finals (or at least write about it) but not Katie to the Cup Finals?
This sig is brought to you by... Frungy, The Sport of Kings!
D.C. is a basketball town in its heart and soul. It is not a hockey town. Frankly – and I don’t mean this as disrespect to Ms. Carrera – but I’m not sure what she could provide, coverage-wise, if she was there that the paper couldn’t get by just running AP stories.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
And if it helps, Corey noted that there were very few reporters for any outlets not related to the two teams playing. This Cup final is insanely expensive, BTW – six transcontinental flights and hotels in BOS and VAN.
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
It’s in what the paper chooses to devote to coverage. Any newspaper has only so many assets, only so big a budget. The Post does other things better than it does sports (specifically hockey), and it does other things that more people are interested in (even the New York Times does not devote a special daily column for policy junkies called a “Wonkbook”). That’s not an indictment of Ms. Carrera or any other Post sports writer who covers the team. They are dealt a weak hand be circumstance. This isn’t Boston, and it’s not Detroit, let alone Toronto or Montreal. It is not a hockey town.
If you've read this far...seek help.
D.C. is a basketball town in its heart and soul. It is not a hockey town.
according to WaPo’s proprietary internal studies:
Among women and men, interest in the Redskins and football ranks first — way out front — followed by the Capitals, Nationals, Ravens, Wizards and Orioles. The Mystics, D.C.’s women’s pro basketball team, is next, with D.C. United close behind.
I would agree that drastically changes if the Wiz get better.
"Shots aren't the important thing. Scoring chances are way more important than shots." - Bruce Boudreau
See my work on WaPo's Capitals Insider, ESPN Insider and Russian Machine Never Breaks (RMNB) Insider. I also log the Caps scoring chances. The 2010-11 summary spreadsheet is posted on Google Docs.
Follow me on Twitter @ngreenberg
I’d guess there is a “winners” dynamic in that. The Skins are the Skins, but the Caps are winning, while the Nats and Wizards are losing these days. All things equal, it’d probably be Wizards, Nationals, and Capitals (maybe), in that order.
If you've read this far...seek help.
I’d guess there is a "winners" dynamic in that.
And I suspect seasonal. I don’t know when this poll was taken, but I wonder how the Nats would do in November vs. June.
"Shots aren't the important thing. Scoring chances are way more important than shots." - Bruce Boudreau
See my work on WaPo's Capitals Insider, ESPN Insider and Russian Machine Never Breaks (RMNB) Insider. I also log the Caps scoring chances. The 2010-11 summary spreadsheet is posted on Google Docs.
Follow me on Twitter @ngreenberg
Right. But it’s always been a huge hoops town – prep, college, NBA, etc.
To that end, just stumbled on this: http://dc.sbnation.com/washington-wizards/2010/12/2/1842267/washington-dc-sports-basketball-town-redskins
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I’m absolutely shocked to see the Nationals ranked above the Wizards.
Caps fans aren’t on the ledge; they’ve already jumped, and are merely trying to drag others into a mournful descent with them..--Stienz
Pledge Drive 2010-2011: SO KIDS CAN!! Help build a playground
DC being a basketball city at its core (despite the Skins being the #1 team)
plus the fact that the Mystics were one of the best teams in the WNBA last year along with the fact the United were one of the worst teams in the league may have helped them move above the Black and Red in popularity.
they do a fine enough job on the Caps, but on hockey in general? not so much.
Caps fans aren’t on the ledge; they’ve already jumped, and are merely trying to drag others into a mournful descent with them..--Stienz
Pledge Drive 2010-2011: SO KIDS CAN!! Help build a playground
They have limited resources, of course, and apply them in response to consumer demand. Is there any reason to think they should devote resources to League-wide coverage? It’s a bit chicken-or-egg, of course, but I don’t know what benefit they’d get from greatly ramping up their non-Caps hockey coverage.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
even just better use and placement of the AP articles would be nice.
This isn’t much of a baseball town, but Boswell and Sheinin both go to the world series. Granted, I think they both provide superior coverage to what Katie general produces…..
Caps fans aren’t on the ledge; they’ve already jumped, and are merely trying to drag others into a mournful descent with them..--Stienz
Pledge Drive 2010-2011: SO KIDS CAN!! Help build a playground
Yeah, can’t compare a young beat writer covering hockey to Thomas Boswell covering baseball.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
(And not just based on stature, but on role – Boz is a columnist who could conceivably have an original take on the series, whereas KC is a reporter whose job is to report facts and provides little in the way of opinion, etc.)
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Over 300 comments, and no jokes about the Brooks Laich training video with 80’s Metallica tribute bad soundtrack? I’m disappointed folks.
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
You didn’t miss much. It’s six and a half minutes of Brooks Laich skating to heavy metal music.
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 Jun 14, 2011 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
All the stats about the Canucks tell you is...
That we shouldn’t read so much into “over the last X amount of years Cup champs have done Y”. I already have touched on the theory that you have to close out series early to advance far in the playoffs (totally not true this year as both teams had to deal with a Game 7 that went to OT in Round 1…imagine that, one bounce the other way and either team is a 1st round bust instead of playing for the Cup tomorrow night). Boston will actually be playing it’s 3rd Game 7 tomorrow night…Luongo is pulling off the craziest feast or famine performance ever in the Finals at the moment…and yet none of it matters. 1 game will decide it all.
The moral of the story is…the name of the game is to simply win 4 out of 7 and do it four series in a row. Doesn’t matter how, doesn’t matter whether it’s pretty or not. Doesn’t matter if your goalie is great every night or just at home. Doesn’t matter if your stars are producing every series (Sedins anyone?), as long as someone is.
The simple fact that both Boston or Vancouver could have been one bad bounce away from losing their Game 7’s in the 1st round is just jarring to me. Have we underachieved over the last 4 years, of course. But how many little bounces or moments that could have gone the other way could totally have changed how successful we view this franchise and certain stars on it?
I hope Boston wins tomorrow night…Vancouver winning another 1 goal game and hoisting the Cup with a -6 goal differential is just unbelievable to me. I guess we can just hope we end up with the right pieces after the trade deadline next year and the pucks fall the right way for us…maybe that’s all it will take.
Everything ends badly...otherwise it wouldn't end.
Raymond Injury
Just rewatching the CBC feed on last night’s game and the above injury. Have to agree with above comment that I cannot believe he was not taken off on stretcher. Mind you, I realize this is after we know about the injury but wow…would prefer they woulda error’d on the side of safety on that one. Hope the dude gets better.
So who had Patrick McNeil in the “next RFA to be resigned” pool? Because apparently the Caps just signed him to a two-year deal.
Tortorella: Can I get another question? I went in here in a pretty good mood today, too.
Larry Brooks: So did I.
Tortorella: Well, you obviously f***ed that up, didn't you?
Not me. Still waiting for that Alzner contract.
btw
Restricted free-agent defenseman Patrick McNeill has been re-signed by the Washington Capitals for two years, CapGeek.com reported Tuesday night.
McNeill’s contract will pay $525,000 at the NHL level and $105,000 at the AHL level in 2011-12 and 2012-13, according to CapGeek.com.
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnewssports/2011/06/washington_capitals_re-sign_pa.html
Proud member of the Popsicle Division of the Cupcake Conference.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Japers' Rink
Related FanShots on Japers' Rink
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
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Who are the Non-Smythe candidates for the Devils, Kings?
- End is near for Rick Nash, Blue Jackets as trade discussions set to resume
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Throwing a curve: Marty McSorley hopes LA Kings straighten out the curse of his illegal stick
- Marty McSorley hopes LA Kings reverse his curse
- Driven DeBoer delivers Devils back to NHL's elite
- Driven DeBoer, fired by Panthers, delivers Devils back to the land of elite in just one year
- Bruins acquire son of Hall of Famer Ray Bourque
