2017/2018 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

It may not be something anybody else talks about, but go look up the cup finalists and see for yourself. Three 30-point D are redundant. You can get to the finals and lose that way, but given that only one winner has done it since 2006, it seems like the wrong way to skin that particular cat.

Another statistical quirk - no team in the cap era has won a cup with a player who scored 50 goals in that season. Only one has even made it to the Finals - Ottawa, with Dany "50 in 07" Heatley.

It's not that I don't doubt your statistic, it's that I doubt the significance of it. You're drawing conclusions from very limited data.

And now, not sure if you think it's bad having a 50 goal scorer or not...

[Monahammer]

On principle Brouwer should definitely be bought out. In a cap world, it is way better for us if we stomach it one more season. My hope is that he has the easiest 4 mil season of all time from the pressbox. I'd rather not send him down either, don't want his attitude polluting the youngins

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

It may not be something anybody else talks about, but go look up the cup finalists and see for yourself. Three 30-point D are redundant. You can get to the finals and lose that way, but given that only one winner has done it since 2006, it seems like the wrong way to skin that particular cat.

Another statistical quirk - no team in the cap era has won a cup with a player who scored 50 goals in that season. Only one has even made it to the Finals - Ottawa, with Dany "50 in 07" Heatley.

That's not much of a statistical anomaly. The only consistent 50 goal scorer is Ovechkin and the Caps never made to the finals until this season. Although I suppose Ovechkin's 49 goals this season technically disqualify him LOL.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

It may not be something anybody else talks about, but go look up the cup finalists and see for yourself. Three 30-point D are redundant. You can get to the finals and lose that way, but given that only one winner has done it since 2006, it seems like the wrong way to skin that particular cat.

Another statistical quirk - no team in the cap era has won a cup with a player who scored 50 goals in that season. Only one has even made it to the Finals - Ottawa, with Dany "50 in 07" Heatley.

You know what else has only happened once since the lockout? A team with a lace-up collar on their main jerseys winning the Cup (Boston in 2011).

Boston, Tampa, San Jose, and the Rangers are the only teams with lace-up collars to make the Final since the lockout.


Obviously, the Flames need to get rid of the laces on their jerseys if they ever hope to win the Cup.

[dash_pinched]

Laces out.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by getbak

You know what else has only happened once since the lockout? A team with a lace-up collar on their main jerseys winning the Cup (Boston in 2011).

Boston, Tampa, San Jose, and the Rangers are the only teams with lace-up collars to make the Final since the lockout.


Obviously, the Flames need to get rid of the laces on their jerseys if they ever hope to win the Cup.

All of the statistics he is outlining directly correlate to what those players would be making in salary... which is why only the cap area is being analyzed.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by the2bears

It's not that I don't doubt your statistic, it's that I doubt the significance of it. You're drawing conclusions from very limited data.

And now, not sure if you think it's bad having a 50 goal scorer or not...

I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm saying unless you were the 2007 Ottawa Senators, you didn't have a 50 goal scorer on your team AND play in the finals.

Once since 2006 is not limited data. There are other factors at work, but based on how teams generally deploy players in the playoffs, the championship teams don't rely on their defence to generate offense. You would be better off with another 30 point forward. They spend more time near the net in the playoffs. Defensemen in the playoffs are meant to hold the fort until your Norris candidate is ready to go again.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm saying unless you were the 2007 Ottawa Senators, you didn't have a 50 goal scorer on your team AND play in the finals.



Once since 2006 is not limited data. There are other factors at work, but based on how teams generally deploy players in the playoffs, the championship teams don't rely on their defence to generate offense. You would be better off with another 30 point forward. They spend more time near the net in the playoffs. Defensemen in the playoffs are meant to hold the fort until your Norris candidate is ready to go again.

13 years is a very small sample size.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Enoch Root]

There has only been 1 team in the last 13 years that had 2 100-point players and won the cup. Only one.

Having 2 100-point players must be a terrible way to allocate resources.

/s

Your argument is silly. The reason there has only been one team with 3 30-point defensemen to win the cup is because it doesn't happen all that much. It has nothing to do with being a flawed way to build a team.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

13 years is a very small sample size.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's the entire modern era of hockey.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There has only been 1 team in the last 13 years that had 2 100-point players and won the cup. Only one.

Having 2 100-point players must be a terrible way to allocate resources.

/s

Your argument is silly. The reason there has only been one team with 3 30-point defensemen to win the cup is because it doesn't happen all that much. It has nothing to do with being a flawed way to build a team.

It's not silly it's an interesting FACT. He not saying you can't win with 3 x 30 pt defenders he's saying most teams have managed to do without it and obviously have balanced more of a defensive depth D and/or probably more emphasis on a scoring depth up front. Or some other explanation. Either way it's an interesting fact.

I fail to see how that's silly.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There has only been 1 team in the last 13 years that had 2 100-point players and won the cup. Only one.

Having 2 100-point players must be a terrible way to allocate resources.

/s

Your argument is silly. The reason there has only been one team with 3 30-point defensemen to win the cup is because it doesn't happen all that much. It has nothing to do with being a flawed way to build a team.

First of all, I would like to apologize - there is one other team that had three. The 2008 Red Wings had Lidstrom, Rafalski and Kronwall.

10/12 didn't generate that kind of offense from the blue line though. And I think that's notable.

Second of all - the 100 point scorer thing is accurate, and perhaps more than anything, it's telling of the depth of a team. If you have someone scoring 100 points, there's nobody else on that team doing much. And when you're that reliant on one or two players for scoring, it's easier to shut that down for 4/7 games.

Look at what happens to scoring in the playoffs. In the cap era, two teams have won Stanley Cups with three defensemen scoring 10+ points. Los Angeles in 2014 and Boston in 2011. Six teams have won with two defensemen scoring 10+ points and four have won with a single defender 10 or more. To me, that says you need two real good D. You need Dougie/Gio. Keith/Seabrook. Burns/Vlasic.

The priority for the bottom four is mistake free hockey. Move the puck, be tough to play against, defend the front of the net, don't let anyone touch the goalie. When those are the job descriptors, I want guys like Hamonic, like Stone, who can spell Gio/Dougie and cost around $3M. When you have to ask Brodie to play mistake free hockey, it takes him out of what makes his game effective, while also having the effect of neutering a portion of your offense. You don't want your D taking more chances than they have to in the playoffs, at least not if you want to win it all.

9/12 winners had seven or more forwards score 10+ in the post-season. 8/12 had seven or more forwards score 30+ in the regular season. The only defenseman to lead a Stanley Cup finalist in playoff scoring is Pronger with Edmonton.

The offense of Stanley Cup champions does not come from the blue line. It just doesn't. It comes from forwards at the net. So let's deal from a position of redundant luxury for the forward help we desperately need.

We also desperately need to solve the goaltending, but that's another post.

Originally Posted by The Cobra

13 years is a very small sample size.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's the every game in the careers of Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews, Drew Doughty, Anze Kopitar, Ryan Getzlaf, Corey Perry, Niklas Backstrom and and Alexander Ovechkin.

I can't make some inferences?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

It's the entire modern era of hockey.

That statement in itself is meaningless, if the "entire modern era of hockey" is limited to 13 years.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

That statement in itself is meaningless, if the "entire modern era of hockey" is limited to 13 years.

Except it means the cap era. Which never existed before and has completely changed how teams are structured.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

It's the entire modern era of hockey.



It's not silly it's an interesting FACT. He not saying you can't win with 3 x 30 pt defenders he's saying most teams have managed to do without it and obviously have balanced more of a defensive depth D and/or probably more emphasis on a scoring depth up front. Or some other explanation. Either way it's an interesting fact.

I fail to see how that's silly.

It's not the fact that is silly, it's the conclusion.

How many teams had 3 30-point defensemen? What is it about having 3 of them that is in any way detrimental?

There is nothing there. It's just a simple statistic. Drawing a conclusion that it means anything is what is silly.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It's not the fact that is silly, it's the conclusion.

How many teams had 3 30-point defensemen? What is it about having 3 of them that is in any way detrimental?

There is nothing there. It's just a simple statistic. Drawing a conclusion that it means anything is what is silly.

Offensive defensemen make a ton of bank. Less money for forwards. And I don’t think anyone is saying it’s conclusive. It’s appearing more likely that you don’t need a lot of scoring from the back end.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Except it means the cap era. Which never existed before and has completely changed how teams are structured.

Yes it has. But in what ways?

Ironically, there is more offense from the D now than there has ever been (relative to total offense)

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

First of all, I would like to apologize - there is one other team that had three. The 2008 Red Wings had Lidstrom, Rafalski and Kronwall.

10/12 didn't generate that kind of offense from the blue line though. And I think that's notable.

The 2012-2013 season was the strike year.

The Hawks had 3 d-men who had 30 points if you extrapolate to 82 games.

So that's 3 out of 12.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The 2012-2013 season was the strike year.

The Hawks had 3 d-men who had 30 points if you extrapolate to 82 games.

So that's 3 out of 12.

Really, then if you extrapolate there would be more teams with 100pt player and etc... etc... etc... it doesn't count

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Offensive defensemen make a ton of bank. Less money for forwards. And I don’t think anyone is saying it’s conclusive. It’s appearing more likely that you don’t need a lot of scoring from the back end.

There is zero evidence to conclude this.

He found a statistical item and drew a conclusion from it that doesn't follow. Well, we don't know for sure that it doesn't follow because there is no where near enough evidence to be sure.

But the conclusion has the responsibility of evidence.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There is zero evidence to conclude this.

He found a statistical item and drew a conclusion from it that doesn't follow. Well, we don't know for sure that it doesn't follow because there is no where near enough evidence to be sure.

But the conclusion has the responsibility of evidence.

... I’m not concluding anything. As specifically mentioned right before your bolded bit. It’s an interesting stat. Stats are used as guidance. 10 teams have successfully won the cup in the cap era without 3 x 30+ point defensemen. I thought it was an interesting statistic.