Hot Ice: NHL Thread

[ursus arctos]

Tampa Bay have completely dominated play in this period and gotten the benefit of an appalling non-call on textbook boarding.

And yet they finish the period two goals further down than when they started.

[Moonlight Shadow]

Equal opportunities news...HC Chur, playing in the Swiss third division has recruted a new goalies for next season, one Vanessa Bolinger. From small acorns....

[ursus arctos]

The Swiss Manon Rhéaume

[jason voorhees]

Even if it's a Canadian sport, one could do a lot less better at an apt sporting metaphor of America's situation than a Russian-dominated nation's capitol against a team from the fakest sun-baked forgery of a showbiz city for the Cup.

I have to think this is when the Craps finally do it. They've been Penguinesque in their grit and losedness inability.

So one last game against a auld enemy in black and gold in the net.

I also simply cannot fathom Vegas winning the Cup in Year One. At least a team losing in the final in their first year has happened a few times before.

Craps in 6.

[Hot Pepsi]

I feel bad for the fans of all those teams in proper hockey places, especially in Canada, who've waited decades or, in the case of Winnipeg, Vancouver, and Minnesota - eternity - to see their NHL team win a cup, and now a team that shouldn't exist in a city that shouldn't exist supported by a bunch of fans who've never suffered could walk away with it.

I was recently reminded of what Bob Costas said right before the Marlins beat the Indians in the World Series in 1997. To paraphrase "On one side, fans who've been waiting for this for 50 years, on the other, fans who've been waiting for this since last Thursday."


But that Marlins team wasn't really a fluke or even especially unlikely to win. It was a high budget mercenary team that was promptly dismantled afterward. That baseball works like that is really more of an embarrassment than what's happening with Vegas. They did take advantage of some fairly favorable expansion rules, but there was no reason to think they'd be very good, let alone this good. Nobody, including the team's ownership, predicted this. And they've been good all year, so it's not like they just backed into the playoffs and got hot.

I supposed it's appropriate that much of their success is down to luck. Not so much in-game luck, but luck in that so many of the players they got turned out to be better than anyone could have reasonably expected.

Any player personnel decision - and certainly decisions about players to expose in the expansion draft - is a gamble and the teams can only play the odds and expose the guys *least likely* to be valuable over the next few years, given who else they have and the salary-cap situation. But unlikely things happen every day. Just because a guy does really well with the expansion team doesn't mean his old team was stupid to get rid of him. And every season, as well with most every expansion team, there are a few players that show they have a lot more to offer than their old team, or maybe even they, thought they did. So, I suppose that in the fullness of time, it's inevitable that there could be a whole team of players like that.

It's not as if George McPhee* is some kind of Theo Epstein-esque wunderkind with revolutionary ideas. He was fairly successful in Washington, but unable to get the Caps this far, after his first season with a team he largely didn't create, and toward the end of his time with the Caps was widely blamed, along with Leonsis, for constructing teams that were not built for the playoffs and too reliant on one big star.

Maybe this will be a wake-up call to the ownership of all those teams to rethink who they hire as GM, scouts, hockey operations, etc. and that would be good, but aside from being open to new ideas about metrics and what not and not just hiring guys who played for the team in the glory days, I'm not sure what else teams can really do to ensure success. Hockey just isn't that easy to predict. GMs that seem brilliant one year can look like idiots the next or vice-versa. For example, Peter Chiarelli brought Boston a Stanley Cup, then got fired and is now vilified in Edmonton for pissing away at least part of the Connor McDavid era. Toronto, after years of ineptitude, hired one of the greatest GMs of all time, but it hasn't paid off yet (and may not, especially now that Lamirello has quit).


*All the attention will be on the miraculousness of an expansion team getting this far but the George McPhee-subplot is intriguing, I suppose.

[Janik]

Equal opportunities news...HC Chur, playing in the Swiss third division has recruted a new goalies for next season, one Vanessa Bolinger. From small acorns....

The butterfly style seems to put a lot of emphasis on gymnastic ability, with key attributes being flexibility and strength (as far as I can tell!). As such, it's one of the team sport positions where Women competing directly with Men are at a much less marked disadvantage.

[Snake Plissken]

I can't dislike or moan about Vegas's success. They've been this good right from the start with a team that is assembled, basically, from the tenth best player on all the other clubs. It isn't their fault that the other clubs didn't realise what they had. It isn't their fault that Pittsburgh paid them to take Fleury off their hands.

Down Goes Brown had a decent point in his latest article - https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...oster-lessons/

What we thought we knew: A few bad contracts are just the cost of doing business

Just about every team has them. Scroll through the rosters on a site like Cap Friendly, and you’ll find almost all of them cluttered with bad contracts, buyouts, retained salary and long-forgotten veterans stashed away on the LTIR. Add it all up, and virtually every team is starting the season with a big chunk of their payroll and their cap space dedicated to dead money.

Some of those contracts were just mistakes, where a team gambled and lost. That’s unavoidable in a cap league. But plenty of them were predictable cases of a team taking on a deal that they knew would almost certainly go bad. At some point, every NHL team apparently decided that short-term gain meant long-term pain, and every well-built roster could afford to kick the can down the road on at least a few mistakes.

If you think a player has three good years left, you have to give him five. If he has five good years left, you give him eight. The approach kept the cap hit down, and you could always consider buyouts or LTIR shenanigans down the line. And hey, if things went really bad, the player would end up being the next GM’s problem.

What the Golden Knights taught us: When people write the “How did we get here?” stories about the Golden Knights, most of the focus lands on the expansion-draft picks and the trades that surrounded them. And rightly so — that’s where most of the big mistakes happened. But we’re overlooking one of the greatest assets the Knights started with: A crystal-clear cap situation.

No long-term commitments. No mistakes. No dead money. And no guys on the wrong side of 30 who still had five years left on a contract that was paying them based on what they did at 25.

If you don’t think that’s important, look at how many of the expansion-draft trades the Knights pulled off were based around another team desperately trying to get out of a bad deal. Without David Clarkson, the Blue Jackets may not lose William Karlsson. Without Reilly Smith, the Panthers don’t have to part with Jonathan Audy-Marchessault. The Islanders coughed up a first and more to get rid of Mikhail Grabovski.

On the day they were born, the Knights were the only team in the league without any cap mistakes. They have some now, but it’s by choice, and they were paid a premium to take them on. And once they’re done winning the Stanley Cup, they’ll still head into the off-season with a ton of cap space to work with.

What the other 30 teams can learn: A contract that seems good for the first few years but is likely to go bad down the road is not a good contract. Sure, keeping the term reasonable might jack up the cap hit, or even cost you a chance at certain players. But maybe it’s not enough to sign a deal you know will turn into an albatross, then shrug and say “Everyone does it.” We’ve just seen what a smart team can do when a cap sheet that isn’t cluttered up with foreseeable mistakes.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Quite, the whinging about Vegas getting a break is just camouflage. I've never been someone to support the NHL's decision making, but they got this right. Every previous expansion team has had to struggle for at least three seasons before they even made the play-offs (and that was the miserable trap-playing Minnesota Wild.) Why should that be necessary? Is it enforced "dues-paying" or something? Due to Vegas's success GMs will maybe think twice about who they toss out the door, which IMHO can only be a good thing. For example Dale Tallon is arguably the key reason for Vegas are where they are. Reilly Smith was a top six forward for Florida coming off one bad year. Jonathan Marchessault was a 30 goal scorer for the Panthers with a $750,000 per year contract. Along with William Karlsson (for $1 million per year plus a 2019 second round draft from Columbus) They're the Knights' 92 goal scoring top line. These players didn't need to be dumped, neither Florida nor Columbus have cap issues. It's just plain bad management. So conversely massive props are due to George McPhee and Gerard Gallant who saw what others, who should have known better, failed to see.

[Hot Pepsi]

Well, that's what makes it embarrassing - that there are so many established teams that are being poorly managed and that so many teams can't figure out how to deal with the salary cap/floor. I agree that it doesn't make sense to force expansion teams to suck, but you can see why fans of expansion teams that faced less favorable circumstances - like the ones formed in the pre-cap era (Florida, Tampa, San Jose, Ottawa, etc) - are a bit salty about this. But, you know, the prodigal son and all that - it doesn't make sense to continue a dumb system just to appear fair to all those who suffered under it before.

I'm not sure poor management of the other teams is to blame for all of Vegas' good fortune in the expansion draft. In a lot of cases it was luck and/or, as DGB points out, a peculiarity of the salary cap system. For example, the Penguins couldn't afford to keep two #1 goalies and its not hard to see why they stuck with the 24-year-old rather than the 33-year-old, even though the numbers this year suggest they chose the wrong one to keep. And

But it's not a coincidence that the two teams you mention, Columbus and Florida, haven't accomplished much in the last 20 years and are toward the bottom of the league in attendance (though Columbus is coming around) and are among the teams with their hands out to the public despite showing very little reason to deserve their support.

The North American system of franchises with guaranteed territories, and no promotion or relegation, allows the opportunity, at least, for smaller market teams to compete (well, at least in the leagues with a salary cap) and makes business-sense for the owners, but it also makes it possible for franchises to be poorly managed for decades without any of the consequences that usually befall poorly managed businesses.

In my mind, the solution to this, is not getting rid of the salary cap/floor system or moving to a free-for-all with pro-rel. The best solution, albeit one that will not happen in my lifetime, is for all the teams to be owned by their communities, employees (including players), and their fans, rather than individual rich guys (or small groups of rich guys - and they're almost all guys) and the support of no-strings public subsidies.

If the teams were run by boards elected by the the community and their employees, then it would be far more likely that shitty management would be appropriately punished and good management would be rewarded. It would compel teams to focus primarily on winning and community spirit while hopefully breaking even. And if it wasn't, well then the fans would only have themselves to blame, rather than having their beloved team held hostage by some rich dude who may or may not really care, along with the corporate box owners who mostly don't care. Not to mention the other 30 owners, who certainly don't care.

[Snake Plissken]

Pretty impressive that the expansion draft was set up in a way that Vegas could win the opening game of the Stanley Cup Final with three goals from their fourth line.

[Gerontophile]

We were in a (gay) bar last night, and this was on. I have never seen anything like that, and I am a Celtic fan. The whole place was going ballistic, even though I am sure that 75% of the crowd didn't realise that hockey was played on ice.

Vegas, baby. They sure love a winner.

[Snake Plissken]

Clock struck midnight a little early for Vegas.

[ursus arctos]

Ovechkin playing like a man possessed can do that to an opponent.

[Anton Gramscescu]

Historical note: when the WHA teams entered the league, the first phase of the "expansion draft" involved the NHL teams plundering the WHA teams before the WHA teams were allowed to select dregs in return.

So, fuck Vegas, frankly.

(I should probably be a little more chill 39 years after the fact, but I'm not).

[Exiled off Main Street]

Maybe supporters of mediocre to crap teams will be less obsessive about getting the #1 or #2 draft pick as the salve to their ills. I mean it's worked so well for Edmonton/Buffalo et al , these dozen past or so years.

I'm not sure poor management of the other teams is to blame for all of Vegas' good fortune in the expansion draft.

[Hot Pepsi]

Maybe supporters of mediocre to crap teams will be less obsessive about getting the #1 or #2 draft pick as the salve to their ills. I mean it's worked so well for Edmonton/Buffalo et al , these dozen past or so years.

Yeah, well, I think that comes from people inadvertently assuming that hockey works the same as basketball and, of course, because they're desperate for any straw of hope to grasp at.

On the other hand, number one overall picks have made huge impacts on some teams, including the Caps. There's no particular reason to think that Ovechkin* would be playing for the Caps now or ever if they hadn't been able to draft him in 2004. Yeah, they've subsequently been able to keep him by giving him lots of money, but if he'd been drafted somewhere else to start, it's unlikely he would have picked Washington from the list of options.

Likewise with Crosby and the Pens and, more importantly, Lemieux and the Pens. Indeed, without Mario Lemeiux, the Pittsburgh Penguins probably wouldn't exist. Not in Pittsburgh, anyway. So draft luck matters.

But not every draft has a player like that and even then, just getting that one guy is never enough.


*Coincidentally, the guy the Pens picked first overall the year before the Caps took Ovechkin first overall and two years before the Pens got Crosby was Marc-Andre Fleury.

[ursus arctos]

Quite.

In hockey, there truly are "generational" players who can have a major impact on a franchise's future. There are not, however, enough of them so that the Number 1 pick is always (or even most of the time) "generational".

Of all of the Oilers' Number Ones, the only one who consistently got that tag was McDavid, who clearly deserves it. Hall, Nugent-Hopkins and Yakupov were clear "Number 1s" (less so Yakupov), but no more than that (unless one was a very thirsty Oilers fan).

It's become more of a focus lately, because for the first time in a relatively long time, there were players deserving of the accolade in consecutive drafts (McDavid and Matthews). Though when I look at the list, there is a weird tendency for such players to cluster in pairs, with Ovechkin (2004) and Crosby (2005) being the last prime example .

Rasmus Dahlin is an interesting case this year because it is very rare for the "clear Number One" to be a defenceman (even rarer for him to be a goalie). That's largely due to the fact that defencemen and goaltenders take more time to develop. I think that Dahlin is going to be a great player, but he isn't going to get Buffalo over the hump on his own.

[Hot Pepsi]

Quite.

In hockey, there truly are "generational" players who can have a major impact on a franchise's future. There are not, however, enough of them so that the Number 1 pick is always (or even most of the time) "generational".

Of all of the Oilers' Number Ones, the only one who consistently got that tag was McDavid, who clearly deserves it. Hall, Nugent-Hopkins and Yakupov were clear "Number 1s" (less so Yakupov), but no more than that (unless one was a very thirsty Oilers fan).

It's become more of a focus lately, because for the first time in a relatively long time, there were players deserving of the accolade in consecutive drafts (McDavid and Matthews). Though when I look at the list, there is a weird tendency for such players to cluster in pairs, with Ovechkin (2004) and Crosby (2005) being the last prime example .

Rasmus Dahlin is an interesting case this year because it is very rare for the "clear Number One" to be a defenceman (even rarer for him to be a goalie). That's largely due to the fact that defencemen and goaltenders take more time to develop. I think that Dahlin is going to be a great player, but he isn't going to get Buffalo over the hump on his own.

They may come in pairs simply because a random distribution is rarely an even distribution.

Indeed, defensemen and goalies take more time to develop, which increases the odds that they won’t be able to do it within the timeframe of a rookie contract, if ever.

[ursus arctos]

That escalated quickly.

Caps lead 3-0 after one, with NBC interviewing Dale Earhart, Jr.

[Cal Alamein]

Blistering Game 5 so far. 3-2 Vegas after 2 periods.

[jefe]

God is dead. Everything for 50 miles around me is going to be insufferable for the next week.

[Gerontophile]

And, Vegas will be back to looking for the next winner, whilst utterly ignoring a runner-up.

[Snake Plissken]

Shame the fairytale didn't happen, but pleased for Ovechkin.

[jason voorhees]

Shame the fairytale didn't happen, but pleased for Ovechkin.

My best friend moved to Fairfax 10 years ago, so he jumped into the Caps thing, so happy for him. And quite frankly, winning in your first season would just not fly. (For the "we've never done it that way before-ers" like myself, at least the Blues already went to the final in their first year. Hope Vegas has less years to wait before their second.)

There was a moment in game 4 or 5 with the Pens, when the Pens had the Caps pinned down and trapped behind their net for about 2 minutes. Over the past few years, the Pens win the puck, fire it back to the point and Crosby scores.

This time, the Caps dug in, and you saw they had a fight and an extra gear in their fight that they didn't have in previous years. (Probably something to do with Trotz making Ovechkin check instead of waiting for the one-timer.)

They had plenty of chances and opportunities to choke. Then they didn't. Congrats.

[ursus arctos]

The Caps are enjoying themselves (this is after the 800+ beers ar the baseball game, but before they ran into Ivanka and Jared at dinner)

https://twitter.com/dcsportsbog/status/1005583170761297920?s=21