Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I think you may be kidding yourself about Marner.  He played with Kadri and Marleau.  JH has played with a plethora of wingers that don't measure up to Marleau.

Played with an injured Monahan and an anemic PP and still managed 84 points.  I would give Marner the edge in goal scoring ability, but only because JH has a lousy breakaway move.

 

 

 

Gaudreau is also 3 years older. Not much, but still 3 years is a lot at age 20 / 21.

 

Marleau is good, but he is also 80. 

 

monahan is a scorer, I don’t know when his injuries occurred. All season? I don’t think so.

 I feel like a poor pp goes against Gaudreau because he is the catalyst, plus we have the players that should make it one of the best in the league, at least one would think.

 

i don’t get it, people like to play the, who he played with to help their arguments, but when it doesn’t fit it is, it doesn’t matter who they’ve played with they still have to put up points. 

 

Which is it? 

 

Every good player Gets to play with other good players and rack up points. If we had a Marleau, would we not have played them together? 

Next year Gaudreau gets Lindholm or Neal. Can we then say, we’ll he got the best players so that’s why he put up points?

 

Like with Bennett, he’s not putting up points because he has no help. Jankowski was a rookie. 

[conundrumed]

9 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Gaudreau is also 3 years older. Not much, but still 3 years is a lot at age 20 / 21.

 

Marleau is good, but he is also 80. 

 

monahan is a scorer, I don’t know when his injuries occurred. All season? I don’t think so.

 I feel like a poor pp goes against Gaudreau because he is the catalyst, plus we have the players that should make it one of the best in the league, at least one would think.

 

i don’t get it, people like to play the, who he played with to help their arguments, but when it doesn’t fit it is, it doesn’t matter who they’ve played with they still have to put up points. 

 

Which is it? 

 

Every good player Gets to play with other good players and rack up points. If we had a Marleau, would we not have played them together? 

Next year Gaudreau gets Lindholm or Neal. Can we then say, we’ll he got the best players so that’s why he put up points?

 

Like with Bennett, he’s not putting up points because he has no help. Jankowski was a rookie. 

Deaf ears for me on pulling out the linemates card when you can just watch them play.

Marner can be just as annoying to watch as Gaudreau. The talent is unquestionable, so it likely elevates the frustration level as I expect mistake-free hockey.

As for Bennett, he's a 2 way guy. His finish is questionable and his IQ is questionable. The linemates thing is so played out. He can set the pace, or should be able to, but he's always in a race. He forces it way too much. When he learns to let the game come to him, rather than over-trying to force himself on the game, he'll improve a lot, imho.

He's frustrating himself, it's not his linemates, at this point.

[travel_dude]

13 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Gaudreau is also 3 years older. Not much, but still 3 years is a lot at age 20 / 21.

 

Marleau is good, but he is also 80. 

 

monahan is a scorer, I don’t know when his injuries occurred. All season? I don’t think so.

 I feel like a poor pp goes against Gaudreau because he is the catalyst, plus we have the players that should make it one of the best in the league, at least one would think.

 

i don’t get it, people like to play the, who he played with to help their arguments, but when it doesn’t fit it is, it doesn’t matter who they’ve played with they still have to put up points. 

 

Which is it? 

 

Every good player Gets to play with other good players and rack up points. If we had a Marleau, would we not have played them together? 

Next year Gaudreau gets Lindholm or Neal. Can we then say, we’ll he got the best players so that’s why he put up points?

 

Like with Bennett, he’s not putting up points because he has no help. Jankowski was a rookie. 

 

Maybe the age thing is a thing, but JH played in college, not in a stepping stone league like the CHL.  He played against "men", so he has that experience, but college is 40 games played mostly on the weekend.  The first year in the NHL is all that really matters.

 

The who you play with is only important when you are comparing higher point totals.  With Brouwer it could have meant a drop of 20 points.  With Neal and a healthy Monahan, it could mean an increase of 15-20.  Playing with Matt Martin over Marleau could have meant a decrease of 15 points.  That's the point.  If you throw out the linemate factor, then you have a 84 versus 69 point season to compare.  Yes, I like Marner, but I can;t say he is better or as good yet.  I would trade for him, but maybe not to play the top line.  

 

With Bennett, I don't think it had as much impact.  He hasn't shown us he is a 44 point guy capable of 60.  Not yet.  He needs to figure out the game.  He needs to stop thinking he's a one man line.  I hope that they break the player down and rebuild him with the right guys.  Maybe that's Janko and Ryan or maybe Ryan and Frolik.  

[robrob74]

40 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Maybe the age thing is a thing, but JH played in college, not in a stepping stone league like the CHL.  He played against "men", so he has that experience, but college is 40 games played mostly on the weekend.  The first year in the NHL is all that really matters.

 

The who you play with is only important when you are comparing higher point totals.  With Brouwer it could have meant a drop of 20 points.  With Neal and a healthy Monahan, it could mean an increase of 15-20.  Playing with Matt Martin over Marleau could have meant a decrease of 15 points.  That's the point.  If you throw out the linemate factor, then you have a 84 versus 69 point season to compare.  Yes, I like Marner, but I can;t say he is better or as good yet.  I would trade for him, but maybe not to play the top line.  

 

With Bennett, I don't think it had as much impact.  He hasn't shown us he is a 44 point guy capable of 60.  Not yet.  He needs to figure out the game.  He needs to stop thinking he's a one man line.  I hope that they break the player down and rebuild him with the right guys.  Maybe that's Janko and Ryan or maybe Ryan and Frolik.  

 

You and everyone else probably see it as a waste but I’d like to see them try him with Lindholm because I see their skills matching, and if Lindholm is a Backlund the 2nd, then it could help Bennett. 

 

I know the organization doesn’t really see it that way and see the new toys in the Top6. I just think we need to get Bennett someone who passes so that he can realize he doesn’t need to do it himself. It could develop his game. 

 

Understand many won’t agree. I just think developing Bennett’s game could be a key to the success (depth scoring).

[MAC331]

9 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

You and everyone else probably see it as a waste but I’d like to see them try him with Lindholm because I see their skills matching, and if Lindholm is a Backlund the 2nd, then it could help Bennett. 

 

I know the organization doesn’t really see it that way and see the new toys in the Top6. I just think we need to get Bennett someone who passes so that he can realize he doesn’t need to do it himself. It could develop his game. 

 

Understand many won’t agree. I just think developing Bennett’s game could be a key to the success (depth scoring).

Would Ryan not fill that need with Bennett ? I agree everyone will be looking for Bennett to put up some offense including himself but let's not forget that his D is advanced.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

Would Ryan not fill that need with Bennett ? I agree everyone will be looking for Bennett to put up some offense including himself but let's not forget that his D is advanced.

 

I don’t know Ryan enough. It just sounds like Lindholm has more higher end potential than Ryan, therefore the skill sets match better. 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

You and everyone else probably see it as a waste but I’d like to see them try him with Lindholm because I see their skills matching, and if Lindholm is a Backlund the 2nd, then it could help Bennett. 

 

I know the organization doesn’t really see it that way and see the new toys in the Top6. I just think we need to get Bennett someone who passes so that he can realize he doesn’t need to do it himself. It could develop his game. 

 

Understand many won’t agree. I just think developing Bennett’s game could be a key to the success (depth scoring).

 

I'm not sold on any combo.

I do think Ryan's game matches Bennett.  Both are N/S players.  Ryan played on a sheltered line, as did Bennett.

Maybe Lindholm does fit with Bennett's skill set.  It's really hard to tell with the way Bennett has progressed.

You could then have two options at center, Ryan or Lindholm.  

 

Saying that, the logical assumption is that you play your prized players in top positions.

While they value Bennett highly, he's yet to take any real steps forward, stats wise.

He hasn't become a go-to C for winning draws.

He hasn't been scoring in bunches in a sheltered role.

He isn't drawing penalties more than taking them.

 

Give him Frolik or Backlund.  If it's Backlund, then Lindholm is the RW.  Not sure he's done enough to justify that.

If it's Frolik, then Ryan is most likely his C.  I see that as a good fit.  Frolik has looked good with Frolik in the past.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm not sold on any combo.

I do think Ryan's game matches Bennett.  Both are N/S players.  Ryan played on a sheltered line, as did Bennett.

Maybe Lindholm does fit with Bennett's skill set.  It's really hard to tell with the way Bennett has progressed.

You could then have two options at center, Ryan or Lindholm.  

 

Saying that, the logical assumption is that you play your prized players in top positions.

While they value Bennett highly, he's yet to take any real steps forward, stats wise.

He hasn't become a go-to C for winning draws.

He hasn't been scoring in bunches in a sheltered role.

He isn't drawing penalties more than taking them.

 

Give him Frolik or Backlund.  If it's Backlund, then Lindholm is the RW.  Not sure he's done enough to justify that.

If it's Frolik, then Ryan is most likely his C.  I see that as a good fit.  Frolik has looked good with Frolik in the past.

 

Youre right. I just can’t give up the hope that Bennett will get it and become what we’ve hoped. 

 

Although, I’d love it to be a Stanley Cup year where he dominates. I just don’t see it happening that way though. 

 

He shows glimpses. 

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

I don’t know Ryan enough. It just sounds like Lindholm has more higher end potential than Ryan, therefore the skill sets match better. 

Not sure why you would think that. From what I know of Ryan he is a better than good faceoff guy, get his points but isn't a selfish player. Kind of sounds like Backlund to me. Lindholm as I understand is a sniper mostly but sound overall which IMO makes him a step better than say Frolik for Tkachuk and Backlund. My stand on Bennett is have him play LW take away the excuse by giving him two good experienced linemates and if he still can't produce write him off.

[Flyerfan52]

4 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

You and everyone else probably see it as a waste but I’d like to see them try him with Lindholm because I see their skills matching, and if Lindholm is a Backlund the 2nd, then it could help Bennett. 

 

I know the organization doesn’t really see it that way and see the new toys in the Top6. I just think we need to get Bennett someone who passes so that he can realize he doesn’t need to do it himself. It could develop his game. 

 

Understand many won’t agree. I just think developing Bennett’s game could be a key to the success (depth scoring).

Why keep altering things to keep trying to salvage something from Bennett?

If the team is better using players in different combos do it.

I was as pleased to get him in the draft as anyone but he's on his 2nd contract & entering his 4th full season (I won't count burning 1 contract year for 1 game & playoffs) but hasn't done anything to merit going all out to improve him especially if it costs overall. Unless he suddenly breaks out on his own we might as well admit he hasn't lived up to being what we thought we'd drafted. Without putting much thought into it there are easily 6 players taken after him I'd sooner have.

I'd give it to the TDL (or less) & then probably try to get something for him in trade.

 

It could be the Flames were too gung-ho expecting immediate impact but IMO he would have been better served with more time to mature in junior. There wasn't the Monahan reason of nothing gained by playing on a poor team as Kingston was a good team. But that's hindsight so regardless of where blame lies whats done is done & we have a lesser player than expected.From expected top 6 to hoped for bottom 6 depth is 1 heck of a drop.Save the TLC for players that still have a higher ceiling within reach.

[CheersMan]

I’m not seeing the Flames altering  anything for Bennet.  He’s been bumped to the third line and paid as such.  I’m not writing him off yet but he’ll be given another year to show.  The alternative is 40 cents on the dollar, no thanks.  It’s make it or break it time for Bennett.  

[kehatch]

Bennett won't have any excuses after this season. He has a new coach. He will have the opportunity to play with good line mates. He is at the make it or break it point. 

 

Personally I think he is going to do well. I think it has been a mental thing with him. If he gets on a roll I think he will keep it going. 

 

I still want to see him with Tkachuk. I think the two of them could be an amazing pair giving us Monahan/Gaudreau, Backlund/Frolik, Bennett/Tkachuk. 

[robrob74]

We are probably going to trade Bennett and then he’s going to bite us in the Hash Rate in the Cup finals. 

[cccsberg]

On 2018-08-10 at 5:53 PM, robrob74 said:

 

I dunno, Tavares is pretty dammed good, and Matthews is as well. Then Marner is just as good or better than Gaudreau, so they have a pretty good punch. Tavares will only make a ton more room for both whether he plays with them or not.

 

Andersson is no slouch in net. Babcock won the cup with Osgood.

Oh I agree they are all good, very good, just not as good as the Pittsburg three.  And the Osgood point backs up my original thought, that overall, TML still have some big holes as a team and there remains a valid question as to whether they have improved the team overall this off-season, or just super-highgraded an element of the team while leaving big holes elsewhere?

[cccsberg]

On 2018-08-10 at 8:37 PM, stubblejumper1 said:

 

Detroit was a powerhouse because along with drafting well, they were able to outspend every other team in the NHL.  They are a big reason why the cap was implemented.

Many other teams had that same ability and didn't dominate for a generation.

[cccsberg]

On 2018-08-11 at 0:09 AM, robrob74 said:

 

Gaudreau is also 3 years older. Not much, but still 3 years is a lot at age 20 / 21.

 

Marleau is good, but he is also 80. 

 

monahan is a scorer, I don’t know when his injuries occurred. All season? I don’t think so.

 I feel like a poor pp goes against Gaudreau because he is the catalyst, plus we have the players that should make it one of the best in the league, at least one would think.

 

i don’t get it, people like to play the, who he played with to help their arguments, but when it doesn’t fit it is, it doesn’t matter who they’ve played with they still have to put up points. 

 

Which is it? 

 

Every good player Gets to play with other good players and rack up points. If we had a Marleau, would we not have played them together? 

Next year Gaudreau gets Lindholm or Neal. Can we then say, we’ll he got the best players so that’s why he put up points?

 

Like with Bennett, he’s not putting up points because he has no help. Jankowski was a rookie. 

I think you are correct about the partners thing.  Hey, if you are truly good enough you elevate whoever is with you to star status, a la Crosby, who is still the best player in the world by a mile.  As for the Monahan 4 injuries, the first was in mid-November if I recall correctly.... so basically the vast majority of the season.  Finally, I'm not so sure about Marner either.  When in Junior everyone thought he drove his line, but now that we have Tkachuk and see what he can do, its obvious they were just three very good players, and not one superstar.  Gaudreau clearly carries his teams, both in college and here too, especially his first year.  Marner, not so much.  

[cccsberg]

15 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Youre right. I just can’t give up the hope that Bennett will get it and become what we’ve hoped. 

 

Although, I’d love it to be a Stanley Cup year where he dominates. I just don’t see it happening that way though. 

 

He shows glimpses. 

Bennett's biggest problem isn't his lack of suitable line mates, but the 6" between his ears.  If he's able to fix that, watch out.

[travel_dude]

11 hours ago, robrob74 said:

We are probably going to trade Bennett and then he’s going to bite us in the Hash Rate in the Cup finals. 

 

Sometimes you have a player that just doesn't fit or live up to the hype.

If he's not able to make it here, I somehow doubt he will elsewhere.

Think Yakapov.  Looked like first line material until he was forced to adapt his game to the NHL.

 

I'm not saying Bennett is a bust.  I'm expecting him to change his game.  It hasn't been solid. 

If he does that.  If he admits to himself that he's he not applying the effort in the right way.  If he can take constructive criticism from the coaches.

If he can play as part of a line and not try to be the guy.

 

He needs to look at guys that weren't naturally talented as a junior, like Ryan.  See what it is that they do.  Watch guys like Tkachuk who aren't fast. 

See how they use their body.  Watch small guys like JH.  See how they pass when they are being lined up for a hit.  Watch guys like Monahan. 

Guys that release quickly.   

[MAC331]

6 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Bennett's biggest problem isn't his lack of suitable line mates, but the 6" between his ears.  If he's able to fix that, watch out.

Some of both I would say.

[conundrumed]

5 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Bennett's biggest problem isn't his lack of suitable line mates, but the 6" between his ears.  If he's able to fix that, watch out.

That would sure change the team. We need him to be able to make plays for important goals when the opposition is carrying the momentum.

That's a big part of the mental weakness imho, just don't have enough guys that can do that.

I really want to see Bennett be one of those guys. Not getting frustrated, taking a bad penalty and compounding the problem.

Last year the team was frustrating to watch, simply because they were constantly frustrated imo.

From Smith being a drama queen every time the puck goes passed him to a bunch of guys looking at their laces.

GG's whole, "emotional investment". All you deposited was frustration and withdrew the whole works too.

So to come full circle back to topic, that was what our GM bought.

He didn't like Hartley's pond hockey, but let's face it, for the group he had that's not a bad call in retrospect.

In retrospect again, I'd have preferred BT had have given Hartley another year to just let your young dogs run.

See what you've got. We weren't competing anyway.

But no, Ronco sold you GG on 4am television, apparently.

Are you sure? You know how players respond to coaching?

You won't find it in analytics.

You hired GG on what, resume? Because if you bought that line, maybe you should stick to being frustrating in contract negotiations.

BT should have said with that hiring:

"We're glitching out seeing GG as our coach on NHL 15".

If that's back on topic enough...

[stubblejumper1]

6 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Many other teams had that same ability and didn't dominate for a generation.

 

In 03-04 (the season before the cap was put in place) Detroit spent $77.85 MM.  The Rangers ($76.5 MM) were the only other team that spent more than $70MM.  Only 5 other teams spent over $60MM.  The average salary was $44.4MM.  I don't think this is a cherry picked view of how salaries were in the 90s and early 2000s. 

 

Detroit was spending 1.75x the average salary, with only one team spending more than 90% of Detroit's payroll.  That is a big advantage.  Off the top of my head, it allowed them to bring in (and keep) the following hall of famers: Shanahan, Larry Murphy, Chelios, Hull, Robitaille, and Hasek.  

 

They also drafted well, as I mentioned earlier.  Off the top of my head, Yzerman, Lidstrom, Draper, Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Holmstrom.  

 

And note, Detroit was garbage for a long time before they finally built a powerhouse.  They missed the playoffs 12 out of 13 years prior to drafting Yzerman.  That is some major tanking.  

[conundrumed]

6 minutes ago, stubblejumper1 said:

 

In 03-04 (the season before the cap was put in place) Detroit spent $77.85 MM.  The Rangers ($76.5 MM) were the only other team that spent more than $70MM.  Only 5 other teams spent over $60MM.  The average salary was $44.4MM.  I don't think this is a cherry picked view of how salaries were in the 90s and early 2000s. 

 

Detroit was spending 1.75x the average salary, with only one team spending more than 90% of Detroit's payroll.  That is a big advantage.  Off the top of my head, it allowed them to bring in (and keep) the following hall of famers: Shanahan, Larry Murphy, Chelios, Hull, Robitaille, and Hasek.  

 

They also drafted well, as I mentioned earlier.  Off the top of my head, Yzerman, Lidstrom, Draper, Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Holmstrom.  

 

And note, Detroit was garbage for a long time before they finally built a powerhouse.  They missed the playoffs 12 out of 13 years prior to drafting Yzerman.  That is some major tanking.  

You forgot to mention, and it was awesome.

The Ilitch's sure pour a lot back to Detroit.

It's not like they take the money and run.

Real owners, that's why it's hockeytown.

Trust me on that one, it is Hockeytown.

Who else has amazing life size bronze sculptures of Howe, Lindsay, Lidstrom, Yzerman?

Storied franchise, they definitely celebrate it.

Big respect to Detroit for being a huge hockey town.

[stubblejumper1]

21 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

You forgot to mention, and it was awesome.

The Ilitch's sure pour a lot back to Detroit.

It's not like they take the money and run.

Real owners, that's why it's hockeytown.

Trust me on that one, it is Hockeytown.

Who else has amazing life size bronze sculptures of Howe, Lindsay, Lidstrom, Yzerman?

Storied franchise, they definitely celebrate it.

Big respect to Detroit for being a huge hockey town.

 

Right.  I wasn't trashing the Red Wings - I am jealous of the success they had.

[conundrumed]

3 hours ago, stubblejumper1 said:

 

Right.  I wasn't trashing the Red Wings - I am jealous of the success they had.

The additions of 2 late rounders in Datsyuk and Zetterberg don't hurt, coming off the 1st team to really get Russians.

They had some teams under Lidstrom and Stevie no doubt.

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, conundrumed said:

The additions of 2 late rounders in Datsyuk and Zetterberg don't hurt, coming off the 1st team to really get Russians.

They had some teams under Lidstrom and Stevie no doubt.

 

Bowman said that he basically threw the Russians out as a five man unit and said do your thing, I am not changing anything. I saw it in a documentary on Russians. The fallout from the Cold War sure made us fans ugly people.