[Trade] Calgary trades Greg Nemisz to Carolina for Kevin Westgarth

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Does this remind anyone else of the Ramholt/Greentree/Gratton trade?

the "experts" were all abuzz with the trade seeing a big forward prospect, a puck moving reliable defence prospect, and a pure goon. Philly got "fleeced" by picking up the goon. In the end, they got 20 games out of Gratton and moved a player who had cracked their lineup for a grand total of 2 games previously.

In the end, none of them played 100 games in the NHL, with the "goon" playing 86, to Greentree's 4 and Ramholt's 1.

There are times where you measure the impact of a bottom of the roster trade by how many NHL games did you get in the end. Nemisz was going to get us zero. Westgarth may get us 40, playing 5 minutes a game, resulting in double shifts for our skill players to (hopefully) develop. It's asset management at the micro end of the spectrum.

If Westgarth was a free agent and we signed him to a one year contract I still wouldn't agree with the trade. This whole something for nothing argument does not hold water to those of us that don't like the something.

[Dion]

Another reason this type of team building bothers me is it limits options. I mentioned in a previous iteration of this column that having a sub-NHL enforcer on the 4th line every night effectively neuters that combination as useful unit. A coach can't realistically give non-tough guys trying to find their NHL legs time on the 4th line because they can can't meaningfully compete or work on their skills at 5 mins/game while dragging a goon around the ice.


From what Burke has said so far, it sounds like he plans to stock the bottom-6 with big guys, which makes the path up the roster suddenly a lot more difficult for guys like Max Reinhart, Sven Baertschi and Markus Granlund. There's no question that Burke has time for smaller dudes who can score at high rates (he traded the farm for Phil Kessel), but then not everyone leaps fully formed into the league as a guy who can obviously score at above average rates.

Furthermore, there's also the interesting long-shot, high-reward gambles who are often blocked (or at least slowed considerably) by the "big body, bottom-6" convention. The Calgary Flames organization bought out Martin St. Louis' contract in the summer of 2000 because the new regime judged him as "too small to be a checker" (he wasn't obviously a scorer in the NHL yet). Imagine how completely keeping St. Louis could have changed this organization's fortunes...

On the other hand, there's almost no real upside to player who are in the league simply because they're big. With Brian McGrattan you get...well, Brian McGrattan. With the Linus Omark's of the world (to pick a name), maybe you don't get anything more than a Waterbug who can only score in the AHL. Then again, maybe you get Brian Gionta, Theoren Fleury or St.Louis.

http://flamesnation.ca/2013/12/17/th...ess-in-the-nhl

[killer_carlson]

That above article is garbage.

The thing it ignores is that someone has to make up the ice time that the 4th liners are not playing. When westgarth isn't playing those extra 7 to 10 minutes of ice per game, then Monahan, Backlund, Colbourne, or other prospect has a better chance of earning a bonus shift or shifts. I like this carrot being dangled in front of the roster much more than I would a 4th line of veterans who demand 10 minutes of icetime on a bottom of the league club.

We don't have enough top end prospects to dress four lines of them. you want to develop prospects? then play them. Reward the positive effort and output with substantially more ice. Keep some muscle around in case someone (Backes cough cough) gets out of control. Bump Colbourne out on a shift with Camalerri or Hudler now and then. Bump backlund up if he earns it in a game. Show Monahan some extra ice in different situations.

If we were in year three of he rebuild, or had a roster of top shelf prospects this would be different. But we are part way through year one and need to be honest about he con sequences to prospect development for those who can crack an NHL roster.

[killer_carlson]

Further thoughts on the above article:

For every Linus Omark who turns into a Fleury, I give you a mcGratton who turns into Gary Roberts

In reality, for every Linus Omark you may get the occasional Matt Stajan. AT the same time, for every MacIntyre you get the occasional Chris Neil, John Erskine, David Clarkson, or Carcillo.

It works both ways.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I will start off by saying that I believe advanced stats and metrics are very useful. It helps remove bias, and helps managers and scouting staff more accurately analyze players.

What it DOES NOT do, however, is analyze anything 'subjective' that Kent looks to have just brushed aside in this article.

Why were the '04 Flames so dominant in the playoffs? How did that team manage to topple 3 divisional champs on their road, and come within one phantom goal of the 4th divisional champ, and the cup (a feat that I believe would have been a first in the NHL)?

They had chemistry and swagger. Advanced metrics will never tell you how a player is feeling. What a team needs to 'get over the hump'. Never shows who is a good leader.

If the players on the team feel like they are 2 inches taller and more confident out there knowing a guy like McGrattan is sitting on the bench watching their backs - even if he has ZERO impact on that game - then I saw let's acquire another guy and see if they will play like they are 4 inches taller. (ok, I am not really saying this - exaggeration for effect here).

Where advanced stats fails is the same reason that pre-cap era, Rangers would fail when they go out and sign all the big name free agents and put together a superstar roster. Why didn't they win cup after cup there?

Darryl Sutter was a FANTASTIC GM. He took over as GM while he was the head coach. He had a thorough understanding and made the moves necessary to get confidence and swagger into that team. He didn't (and couldn't due to the cost structure of the team) go out and sign players that lit up stat sheets. He went out and acquired pieces like Oliwa and Simon. There was no team in the NHL that could intimidate the Flames in any way. You just can't measure that in any way.

The game has changed since then, but it is also coming back to that again. Teams are getting bigger and tougher again. Orr and McLaren actually seemed to give that team a bit of swagger.

I think it is overdone at times. You simply can't go out and acquire tough guys and expect success. You need to know what your room needs, and adjust the chemistry to it. Just pointing out here that though you want 'team toughness', having one or two of these guys can positively impact your team in ways you just can't measure. Just because it is subjective, doesn't mean it isn't important. That is what chemistry and confidence are - subjective things.

You can't just go add a bunch of goons and expect massive change (or any change, actually). You have to listen to your players, and get a feel for what that your players, your room, and your on-ice product really need. If they say they feel better with someone out there watching their back - even if it has zero measurable impact in the game - why would you just disregard that? Let your players on the ice with 'x' amount more confidence and composure, and hopefully they will end up having 'y' more success. Just because you can't measure 'x', doesn't mean it isn't important or that it can affect 'y'.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I will start off by saying that I believe advanced stats and metrics are very useful. It helps remove bias, and helps managers and scouting staff more accurately analyze players.

What it DOES NOT do, however, is analyze anything 'subjective' that Kent looks to have just brushed aside in this article.

Why were the '04 Flames so dominant in the playoffs? How did that team manage to topple 3 divisional champs on their road, and come within one phantom goal of the 4th divisional champ, and the cup (a feat that I believe would have been a first in the NHL)?

They had chemistry and swagger. Advanced metrics will never tell you how a player is feeling. What a team needs to 'get over the hump'. Never shows who is a good leader.

If the players on the team feel like they are 2 inches taller and more confident out there knowing a guy like McGrattan is sitting on the bench watching their backs - even if he has ZERO impact on that game - then I saw let's acquire another guy and see if they will play like they are 4 inches taller. (ok, I am not really saying this - exaggeration for effect here).

Where advanced stats fails is the same reason that pre-cap era, Rangers would fail when they go out and sign all the big name free agents and put together a superstar roster. Why didn't they win cup after cup there?

Darryl Sutter was a FANTASTIC GM. He took over as GM while he was the head coach. He had a thorough understanding and made the moves necessary to get confidence and swagger into that team. He didn't (and couldn't due to the cost structure of the team) go out and sign players that lit up stat sheets. He went out and acquired pieces like Oliwa and Simon. There was no team in the NHL that could intimidate the Flames in any way. You just can't measure that in any way.

The game has changed since then, but it is also coming back to that again. Teams are getting bigger and tougher again. Orr and McLaren actually seemed to give that team a bit of swagger.

I think it is overdone at times. You simply can't go out and acquire tough guys and expect success. You need to know what your room needs, and adjust the chemistry to it. Just pointing out here that though you want 'team toughness', having one or two of these guys can positively impact your team in ways you just can't measure. Just because it is subjective, doesn't mean it isn't important. That is what chemistry and confidence are - subjective things.

You can't just go add a bunch of goons and expect massive change (or any change, actually). You have to listen to your players, and get a feel for what that your players, your room, and your on-ice product really need. If they say they feel better with someone out there watching their back - even if it has zero measurable impact in the game - why would you just disregard that? Let your players on the ice with 'x' amount more confidence and composure, and hopefully they will end up having 'y' more success. Just because you can't measure 'x', doesn't mean it isn't important or that it can affect 'y'.

I'm a big fan of 'advanced stats' (which are not in any way advanced), and have been beating that drum for years and years.

But seriously, the obsession with shot counting at the nations network get really, REALLY old very quickly.

Yes. I get it. Shot differential. It's a thing.

Do you know what else is a thing? Just as an example, a goon who has a bad corsi for 4 minutes per night, but allows Jarome Iginla to play 82 games a season because he doesn't have to fight every week.

But, wait, you said that goon has a poor Corsi? ... (*Kent Wilson's head explodes from the notion that something other than a player's on-ice shot differential might matter*)

Do you know why Burke got this guy? I can sum it up in one sentance:
Big and skilled is ideal but expensive to get, however you can get a big player for free, so that's what Burke did.

Simple.

[Tarnished]

Just thought I'd say, I thought Westgarth played pretty well tonight. He seems very similar to bouma, not quite at the same level skating, but makes good decisions, and isn't afraid to hit.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Tarnished

Just thought I'd say, I thought Westgarth played pretty well tonight. He seems very similar to bouma, not quite at the same level skating, but makes good decisions, and isn't afraid to hit.

I agree, I like what I saw. Almost had a tip in goal as well

[PeteMoss]

Shocking point regarding Westgarth and his advanced stats.... the Flames are terrible. With or without Westgarth they are terrible. They are also small. If having Westgarth around means guys feel 'safer' or whatever else on the ice... then good. It is likely the placebo effect... but again who cares. Losing sucks... losing and getting physically pummeled sucks more. they are going to lose either way... so might as well not get physically dominated every night as well.

[doctajones428]

nm. My reading comprehension = bad

[UKflames]

Originally Posted by Tarnished

Just thought I'd say, I thought Westgarth played pretty well tonight. He seems very similar to bouma, not quite at the same level skating, but makes good decisions, and isn't afraid to hit.

Except he was only credited with 1 hit tonight

[cral12]

Originally Posted by Wronskian

Always felt bad for Nemisz, never could find his game in the pros. Maybe he always was a product of an awesome Windsor team...

Feel the same for Nemisz - hindsight 20/20 of course but I really cringed when his name was called by our draft table...(so tough to let go of those feelings...lol)

Onward and upward...

[MonsieurFish]

Quick bump - Nemisz has 8 pts in his 6 games with the Checkers. Big improvement compared to the 9 pts in 32 games he had with the Heat prior to the trade. Good for him, hope he turns it around.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p....php?pid=96583

[btimbit]

Yeah I'd like to see Nemisz succeed, just too bad it won't be here