So Where do we go from here? Analysis & Predictions

[The_People1]

5 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Why do you have such a problem with picking up a top 4 defenseman when one is available ? 

 

As I have said, we have unknowns.  If Hamonic is available this year for a 1st and two 2nds, then he surely would be available next year as well.  If he's not, then someone equivalent would be.

 

Once we are sure what we have in Bennett and Janko, for that matter Andersson and our two young goalie prospects, okay, mortgage the future to get the finishing pieces at that time.

 

The big risk right now is, we have nothing in Bennett and Janko.  Real possibilities.  

[YounGuns]

Just reading the last couple pages and I have a few thoughts on the discussion points.

 

First off, the talk about "if we could find the right winger for Johnny he could perform to his true ceiling of 100+ points".   That's crazy.  Look at the points last year league wide.  One player just made it to 100, and it was Connor McDavid, who is basically part human part hockey God.  The player under him in points total just happened to be awarded this year as "the best player in the NHL"; Sidney Crosby, coming in at 89 points.  I doubt Johnny Hockey ever reaches 100 points, and I'm completely OK with that.  We don't have a "generational talent" on our team....but we also don't have one player taking up $12+ million per season.  We have numerous quality players, and we're just hoping that the sum of those really good players can outplay teams like Edmonton who have that legitimate 100 point superstar generational talent.  That's not Johnny, and I doubt it ever will be, regardless of who we have playing for him.  You could argue that even if he had Connor McDavid playing alongside him he might not ever get to 100 points...if you look at the Oilers the points totals falls off a cliff after Connor McDavid, and they have some decent players around him.

 

But, yes we could have gone out and got the top line a Panarin type player to play with him, Chicago probably would have parted with him for a 1st and two 2nd rounders, but Brad Treliving decided to build from the blue line out, not from the top line down.  And I actually agree with him.  Look at Nashville last year, they made it all the way to Cup Final, and I bet you'd be surprised to know the top scorer on their team: Viktor Arvidsson coming in at a whopping 61 points.  They won with an elite - but aged - goalie, and an incredible D corps, and a bunch of "pretty darn good" forwards, but no real superstars.  I guess an easy argument to be made against that is that they actually lost to Sidney Crosby and Company who had really poor defense, but those darn Penguins are a crazy team with how much talent they have up front, and two Vezina goalies in net.  Not to mention numerous questionable calls, but that's a topic for another day.  Plus, when you look at our team, I think this year our Defense is better than Nashvilles, our forwards are arguably better, and our goalie...well...that's the million dollar question.

 

The point is that we wouldn't have arguably the best D group in the entire league if we decided to put more emphasis on getting the top line a elite winger to play with them.  I guess Treliving decided that preventing goals was more important that creating them.  He believes in the forwards we have, and went out and upgraded our D corps to possibly "best in the league".  Getting Hamonic to play with Brodie will open up Brodie to the player that he can be, it will catapult him further towards HIS ceiling, which will generate goals and scoring chances.  It will also decrease goals against.  We couldn't land both a top 4 Dman and a top line winger....and at this point we might not need that legit elite winger on the top line.  Johnny and Mony will do their thing, our Defense should be rock solid, the 3M line should remain a force at both ends, and we have several forwards (Brouwer, Bennett, Lazar, etc) who could very well have rebound years.  Our goaltending is still a question mark in my eyes, but it should be significantly improved.  Overall, I think we're reaching legitimate "contending" status, and I think we can do that without another elite player on the top line.

[Flyerfan52]

Well put YounGuns.

[MAC331]

10 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

As I have said, we have unknowns.  If Hamonic is available this year for a 1st and two 2nds, then he surely would be available next year as well.  If he's not, then someone equivalent would be.

 

Once we are sure what we have in Bennett and Janko, for that matter Andersson and our two young goalie prospects, okay, mortgage the future to get the finishing pieces at that time.

 

The big risk right now is, we have nothing in Bennett and Janko.  Real possibilities.  

This to me this is like planning for some magical time that may or may not ever happen somewhere in the future. Trades and timing of trades for good players don't usually happen when you want them to idealistically. The GM's job is to make the team better heading into each and every season and BT has done just that for us. The fact that we may have a few maybes should never curtail you from improving the rest of the team, which Hamonic does in a number of ways.

Most of the comments I have seen from you derive from your serious doubts surrounding Bennett (nobody can help you there) I think they will prove unfounded given GG lines him up with good line mates this season. Jankowski with Stajan around likely starts in Stockton along with Andersson which IMO provides solid depth the organization has lacked for years. There will be injuries and having quality replacements in Stockton playing well themselves can help the team through these times.

[travel_dude]

9 hours ago, YounGuns said:

The point is that we wouldn't have arguably the best D group in the entire league if we decided to put more emphasis on getting the top line a elite winger to play with them.  I guess Treliving decided that preventing goals was more important that creating them.  He believes in the forwards we have, and went out and upgraded our D corps to possibly "best in the league".  Getting Hamonic to play with Brodie will open up Brodie to the player that he can be, it will catapult him further towards HIS ceiling, which will generate goals and scoring chances.  It will also decrease goals against.  We couldn't land both a top 4 Dman and a top line winger....and at this point we might not need that legit elite winger on the top line.  Johnny and Mony will do their thing, our Defense should be rock solid, the 3M line should remain a force at both ends, and we have several forwards (Brouwer, Bennett, Lazar, etc) who could very well have rebound years.  Our goaltending is still a question mark in my eyes, but it should be significantly improved.  Overall, I think we're reaching legitimate "contending" status, and I think we can do that without another elite player on the top line.

 

The bolded part is interesting.  Goaltending IS still a question mark.  As long as we don't live or die solely using those two, we shjould be fine.  In other words, if Lack can't win a game as a backup, bring up Rittich or Gillies as a backup.

 

As far as the top line RW, we have some internal options.  Ferland was good in stretches, but needs to be consistent to stay there.  Tkachuk could work there and that would swap spots with Ferland.  Versteeg could be an option too.  If BT wants to minimize risk, he could add a FA player like Jagr.  I wouldn't bother with PA Paranteau; he's more of a 3rd liner.  Adding Jagr would give the top line a guy that can put the puck in the net.  

[The_People1]

8 hours ago, YounGuns said:

Just reading the last couple pages and I have a few thoughts on the discussion points.

 

First off, the talk about "if we could find the right winger for Johnny he could perform to his true ceiling of 100+ points".   That's crazy.  

 

What if this winger to take Johnny to his 100-point ceiling is Ovechkin?  The Caps were rumored to want to move him.  Not too crazy to think OV will create all the time, space, and chances for both himself and Johnny to do just that.

 

Another player I've suggested is Kessel.  Kessel would give Johnny a 35-goal scorer to help with his assist totals.

 

But this winger doesn't have to be a big name.  If you find the right fit like Kane and Panarin, thus the example, Kane went from a 70 to 85-point player to 108.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

The GM's job is to make the team better heading into each and every season 

 

This is where we will never agree.

 

A GM needs to see where his team is and what pieces he has.  Then project out from there the most realistic window to win the Cup.  The years leading up to the window may not have to be making the team better every year but it has to be setting up for the window.

[AlbertaBoy12]

4 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

What if this winger to take Johnny to his 100-point ceiling is Ovechkin?  The Caps were rumored to want to move him.  Not too crazy to think OV will create all the time, space, and chances for both himself and Johnny to do just that.

 

Another player I've suggested is Kessel.  Kessel would give Johnny a 35-goal scorer to help with his assist totals.

 

But this winger doesn't have to be a big name.  If you find the right fit like Kane and Panarin, thus the example, Kane went from a 70 to 85-point player to 108.

I think the real question people need to answer for themselves is would they rather see sam bennett going with a good third line, or have a really dominant first line. I really dont see us being in the market for either player you listed, but if we were sam bennett would for sure be going the other way, im almost sure.

 

I dont think gaudreau gets above 90 points in his career, which is fine because he get 78 with hudler, and I think thats good production in this day/age for a player. I dont think we need gaudreau to produce 100 points, and a good complimentary player will get him 70-80 points. With our D corp and 3 lines rolling up front, it would be really hard to beat us most nights, even with out a top line RW.

[jaybooitt19]

26 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

What if this winger to take Johnny to his 100-point ceiling is Ovechkin?  The Caps were rumored to want to move him.  Not too crazy to think OV will create all the time, space, and chances for both himself and Johnny to do just that.

 

Another player I've suggested is Kessel.  Kessel would give Johnny a 35-goal scorer to help with his assist totals.

 

But this winger doesn't have to be a big name.  If you find the right fit like Kane and Panarin, thus the example, Kane went from a 70 to 85-point player to 108.

Let me get this straight, you're ok giving up what it would take to get Kessel or Ovechkin, but not what it took to get Hamonic? It would take a lot more than a late first rounder and two seconds to get either of them. 

[The_People1]

7 minutes ago, jaybooitt19 said:

Let me get this straight, you're ok giving up what it would take to get Kessel or Ovechkin, but not what it took to get Hamonic? It would take a lot more than a late first rounder and two seconds to get either of them. 

 

I think you answered it right there.  It would take more than a late first and two seconds to get Ovechkin or Kessel so therefore, hell ya, i would be willing to trade a late first and two seconds for either of them.

 

But then you changed the parameters in the second half of your post, so 'no'... Well 'depends' what's the cost.

 

For the record, I loved the value we gave up for Hamonic.  I'm questioning the timing (this year vs next).

[redfire11]

I would bring in Jagr, Doan, or Iginla before I would consider Kessel

[MAC331]

26 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

This is where we will never agree.

 

A GM needs to see where his team is and what pieces he has.  Then project out from there the most realistic window to win the Cup.  The years leading up to the window may not have to be making the team better every year but it has to be setting up for the window.

Do you know how many things can go wrong with that kind of thinking and approach, PLENTY. You will be waiting a long time to jump through that window.

[The_People1]

39 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I think the real question people need to answer for themselves is would they rather see sam bennett going with a good third line, or have a really dominant first line. I really dont see us being in the market for either player you listed, but if we were sam bennett would for sure be going the other way, im almost sure.

 

One thing to add to this is the flexibility I highlighted of having elite LW, C, C, RW.  This allows scoring balance on two lines or top loading one line situationally.

 

Right now, Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, and Tkachuk doesn't allow us the flexibility.  I'm assuming this will be our top 4 elite moving forward.  I'm not putting Backlund and Frolik into the conversation because they are not elite.  They are very good middle order depth guys.

 

But I would look at flexibility as a huge weapon to have against the competition.  Not many teams have it.  If we have it, then we have an advantage over others.

[AlbertaBoy12]

Just now, The_People1 said:

 

One thing to add to this is the flexibility I highlighted of having elite LW, C, C, RW.  This allows scoring balance on two lines or top loading one line situationally.

 

Right now, Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, and Tkachuk doesn't allow us the flexibility.  I'm assuming this will be our top 4 elite moving forward.  I'm not putting Backlund and Frolik into the conversation because they are not elite.  They are very good middle order depth guys.

 

But I would look at flexibility as a huge weapon to have against the competition.  Not many teams have it.  If we have it, then we have an advantage over others.

I agree with you..but at the end of the day having two elite centers and two elite LWs is still very good, its just lacking that right shot. But the bonus is we have hammy on the back end with a great shot, and pp is the only time I think right shots end up being utilized fully.

[The_People1]

5 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Do you know how many things can go wrong with that kind of thinking and approach, PLENTY. You will be waiting a long time to jump through that window.

 

What about the Canucks for example?  Should they be getting better every year right now?  No.  They should tear it down and rebuild, aka, get worse before getting better.  "Get worse".

 

It's okay. I get there are some trigger words there but it's true.   Not everyone GM is trying to get better every year.  Some plan a bit farther ahead into the future.

[MAC331]

29 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I think the real question people need to answer for themselves is would they rather see sam bennett going with a good third line, or have a really dominant first line. I really dont see us being in the market for either player you listed, but if we were sam bennett would for sure be going the other way, im almost sure.

 

I dont think gaudreau gets above 90 points in his career, which is fine because he get 78 with hudler, and I think thats good production in this day/age for a player. I dont think we need gaudreau to produce 100 points, and a good complimentary player will get him 70-80 points. With our D corp and 3 lines rolling up front, it would be really hard to beat us most nights, even with out a top line RW.

I believe improvement in certain areas is all part of the building process (which we are still in) so of course getting our top 9 right is important. This will be Gaudreau and Monahan's 4th season together so I think they have their part figured out so the RW should do well with them. I think everyone wants and knows in order for us to get better the two players that have to improve the most are Bennett and Tkachuk. I also think everyone wants to see them excel into being our 2nd most dominant scoring line this season. GG can afford the time to try this combination should he form a line of Versteeg, Backlund and Frolik. These 3 will look after business with the opposition's best and still produce for us. I would like to see the season start this way and see how it goes.

[MAC331]

9 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

What about the Canucks for example?  Should they be getting better every year right now?  No.  They should tear it down and rebuild, aka, get worse before getting better.  "Get worse".

 

It's okay. I get there are some trigger words there but it's true.   Not everyone GM is trying to get better every year.  Some plan a bit farther ahead into the future.

Again I disagree, some GMs can't get better from their own circumstances but they should be trying at all times, it is their job. If tearing it down to rebuild is what's best to make them better somewhere into the future then they pick their own starting point. VAN right now is waiting out the Sedins contracts but in the mean time other pieces are being put into place to make the team better.

[The_People1]

6 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Again I disagree, some GMs can't get better from their own circumstances but they should be trying at all times, it is their job. If tearing it down to rebuild is what's best to make them better somewhere into the future then they pick their own starting point. VAN right now is waiting out the Sedins contracts but in the mean time other pieces are being put into place to make the team better.

 

Agree to disagree then.  There are instances where teams should stand pat or take a step back for a year or two before moving forward again.

[MAC331]

17 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I agree with you..but at the end of the day having two elite centers and two elite LWs is still very good, its just lacking that right shot. But the bonus is we have hammy on the back end with a great shot, and pp is the only time I think right shots end up being utilized fully.

Cross provided that article explaining the dilemma GG had with putting Giordano and Hamilton to much because he had no confidence with the other pairings. It was a combination of weak defensive pairings and the forward groups not doing their part that lead to a lot of our problems. Obviously BT chose to shore up the defensive group so they can better support the forward lines. The biggest improvement we need this season is the maturity of our forward group, specifically the younger core players being able to contribute more productively.

[MAC331]

Just now, The_People1 said:

 

Agree to disagree then.  There are instances where teams should stand pat or take a step back for a year or two before moving forward again.

That is fine but I don't get your reasoning of standing pat not doing the Hamonic deal but you want to bring in Kessell or Oveshkin ?????? Sorry but don't see the logic in that one.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

What if this winger to take Johnny to his 100-point ceiling is Ovechkin?  The Caps were rumored to want to move him.  Not too crazy to think OV will create all the time, space, and chances for both himself and Johnny to do just that.

 

Another player I've suggested is Kessel.  Kessel would give Johnny a 35-goal scorer to help with his assist totals.

 

But this winger doesn't have to be a big name.  If you find the right fit like Kane and Panarin, thus the example, Kane went from a 70 to 85-point player to 108.

 

I'll never say never when it comes to points totals.  Would McDavid have made it to 100 if he didn't have Draisaitl for part of the year?  When 70 of your points are assists, then you have to wonder about that.

 

I tend to view Johnny as a p/gp player; he makes up for games he is held off the scoresheet by getting 2 or 3 in another game.  But he is not going to score every game unless they improve the top PP unit.  It was good, but not great last year.  Many PP shifts were spent trying to get back into the O-zone.  A lot of PP time was spent passing around the horn.  There was not as much scoring from the backend when the top PP unit was on, since they mostly used 4f and Brodie.  If the top PP unit featured 3F/2D, then you would likely see Johnny generating more PP points.  So, yes, there is a greater chance of him getting closer to 100.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

What if this winger to take Johnny to his 100-point ceiling is Ovechkin?  The Caps were rumored to want to move him.  Not too crazy to think OV will create all the time, space, and chances for both himself and Johnny to do just that.

 

Another player I've suggested is Kessel.  Kessel would give Johnny a 35-goal scorer to help with his assist totals.

 

But this winger doesn't have to be a big name.  If you find the right fit like Kane and Panarin, thus the example, Kane went from a 70 to 85-point player to 108.

 

Kane was a 1.06 PPG player prior to Pananrin's arrival, had his 1 100pt season and then last year was a 1.08 PPG player again. Panarins point totals also didn't change from Kane's 100pt season to last year. Pannarin did not have the impact on Kane's game you think, Kane just had an unreal year in his 100pt season and is also a much superior player to Gaudrea. 

[The_People1]

23 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

That is fine but I don't get your reasoning of standing pat not doing the Hamonic deal but you want to bring in Kessell or Oveshkin ?????? Sorry but don't see the logic in that one.

 

We can stand pat for Rasmus Andersson and a full year of Stone. Who is there to stand pat for as 1st line RW?  

 

Ferland?

Lazar?

Foo?

Versteeg?

Brouwer?

Poirier?

 

Most importantly, I never advocated trading picks for OV and Kessel.  That's going "all in" and I never advocated going all in for those guys.

 

Maybe it's a debate on what constitutes "all in".  What's the definition?

[The_People1]

21 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Kane was a 1.06 PPG player prior to Pananrin's arrival, had his 1 100pt season and then last year was a 1.08 PPG player again. Panarins point totals also didn't change from Kane's 100pt season to last year. Pannarin did not have the impact on Kane's game you think, Kane just had an unreal year in his 100pt season and is also a much superior player to Gaudrea. 

 

Essentially what you are saying is, "100-point players" are determined by the individual alone and no complementary player can impact another player into a 100-point player.

 

Right?

[cross16]

4 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Essentially what you are saying is, "100-point players" are determined by the individual alone and no complementary player can impact another player into a 100-point player.

 

Right?

 

pretty much. I don't think elite players need complimentary players to be elite. They raise the game of others not the other way around. It's why they tend to be consistent irregardless of who they play with. 

 

Theres some impact I'm sure, but it's minimal