Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

Gorbachav55

Members
  • Content Count

    227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Everything posted by Gorbachav55

  1. Interesting that the one with no statistical evidence (or evidence of any kind) is accusing me of living in fantasy land. The Ducks have been one of the worst teams in the league because they can't generate offense and can't defend. Grant, as displayed above, is Exhibit A. If I'm wrong, if the stats are wrong, explain how and why. And where the heck did you come up with the trade Grant for McDavid thing? Certainly not from anything I said. I'd be happy to trade Grant for a large curly fries from Jack-in-the-box.
  2. He's at 40% with Grant, 43% away from him. It's an improvement, but not much. Deslauriers isn't as annoying to me as traditional enforcers now are, but I'd still rather see Jones and Volkov in there, provided they're healthy. Your last point (bolded) is the only thing remotely compelling to me about a guy like Deslauriers. Mostly I wish guys like Reaves and Lucic would just go away.
  3. Andrew Cogliano generates more offense than Grant while also being very good defensively (Cogliano is top 30 in limiting shot attempts and top 50 in limiting scoring chances). If you want someone who is good at the role Eakins has Grant playing, Cogliano is the guy you want. I would be ecstatic to see Cogliano playing alongside Groulx right now.
  4. I agree with you that the coaches have completely misused him. He wins faceoffs, but that does not mean he's a shutdown center. His numbers wouldn't be quite as bad if he played five minutes a night against other relatively poor players, and then you gave him three minutes a night on the PK. Every time Brian Hayward makes a comment about other teams trying to get their top line away from the Grant line, I feel a strange mixture of hysteria and rage. They absolutely do not do that, nor should they. That said, how is this a winning strategy? Instead of matching bad with bad, the Ducks should try to have a 4th line that can dominate possession against the other team's 4th line. Time will tell with Groulx, but he looks promising. And I think Max Jones, even though he's a disappointment as a first round pick, could succeed in that role. Put Volkov on the other side of those two guys and you've got an energy/checking line that has value on both sides of the ice. You're still not going to play them more than 10 or 11 minutes a night, but instead of just holding their own, they're actually generating offense.
  5. I can tell you this - your line's primary purpose, regardless of which line you're playing on, is not to get caved in with shots. And yet his line does, almost every shift. Among all forwards who have skated 800 or more minutes at 5-on-5 since the beginning of 2019 (355 forwards), Derek Grant has given up the most shot attempts per 60 minutes and has the worst expected goal percentage (meaning the quality of shots his line gives up versus the quality of shots his line takes). Out of 355, he's 355th. He's in the bottom 20 forwards in both scoring chances against and high danger scoring chances against while also being in the bottom 10 in scoring chances for (these are all prorated for his time on ice). When looking at the opposition Grant faced - if you average Grant's CF% against every individual skater he took the ice against since 2019 and then you average the rest of the team's CF% against those same skaters over that time, the rest of the team is 25% better than Grant. It's the same for expected goals for percentage. With Grant on the ice, the team is expected to score 40% of the goals, with him off the ice, they should score 50% against the exact same opponents. If you want to look at teammates, of the 28 skaters who have spent more than 40 minutes on the ice with Grant over the last two plus seasons, only one played worse away from Grant than they did with him. That one is Carter Rowney, who was just slightly worse. Every other player who spent significant time on the ice with Grant was worse with him out there. It felt really good several seasons ago when this late 20's guy who had never scored a goal got some time in the top 6 due to injuries and made the most of it. It was a fun story, and even though luck played a part, he was a contributor to the team in his role. I enjoyed Elite#1C Grantzlaf just like everyone else did. But the luck has dried up and Grant has gotten older. If you want to say that his linemates have been bad, I won't disagree with you. Looking into these numbers, it's pretty clear to me that Rowney-Grant-Deslauriers has been the worst line in hockey since 2019. That's not hyperbole - they were BAD. But if your claim is that Grant apart from those two guys is a useful player, I'm going to need some sort of evidence. If it's there, I can't find it in the statistical record. When I looked at PK numbers last year, the team was a bit better with Grant out there than with other forwards. They weren't good, but they were a bit better. However, unless he's the second coming of Steve Yzerman on the penalty kill (he's not), there's no amount of PK skill he can bring to the table that will compensate for his poor play at even strength. All stats courtesy of naturalstattrick.com.
  6. Please elucidate. Let me expand - Grant has had the worst possession (CF%), by a lot, among Ducks forwards each of the last three seasons (Deslauriers has him beat by a little this season). He's slow. Whatever goal-scoring touch he had a few seasons ago is gone. He doesn't pass well, he doesn't forecheck well, he doesn't defend well. The Ducks' terrible penalty kill is a little less terrible, relatively speaking, when he's out there, but it's not by much. If there's a worse forward on the team, show me pictures of Max Jones kicking puppies or something and I'll believe you. But from a hockey standpoint, there is no worse forward on the team, and it's not close.
  7. I can see sheltering him a little bit, but in a tie game you need offense, and he's clearly the team's most talented player. And if you're worried about Zegras, than play Getzlaf and or Lundestrom's line. There is no reason for Grant to be getting more ice time than anyone else. He's a decent penalty killer, but is otherwise the worst forward on the team. It's maddening. If Zegras and Grant were both at 14 minutes and Getzlaf was at 17, it would still be a crime against hockey, but not quite as egregious.
  8. Watching Andrew Cogliano score a shorthanded goal for the Sharks made a piece of my soul wither and die. I hated Cogliano on the Stars, but at least I could mostly ignore it. Seeing him in that teal? Ugh.
  9. The Kings were free to trade their own picks for those guys (Lemieux and Fagemo) because they had acquired so many other picks in their trades. I alluded to that. Either way, we just disagree. I'm not saying Murray should have traded Silf and Henrique and Manson for draft picks and then used every single one. But he certainly could have used them to acquire other (younger) players or to move up in the draft, in which case, we'd have more long-term talent on the roster or in the pipeline. As it is, I think we can get there, but it's going to take significantly more than just Eichel. I think Eichel speeds up the move from rebuild -> playoff team, but without more talent in the system, there's a very real chance things stall out there because now you're in that mushy area where you're not competing for the division but you're also not backfilling the pipeline with high level talent, unless you get lucky in the draft. I think the Kings move is more likely to be sustainable, but it does remain to be seen.
  10. I disagree there. The Kings' pipeline looks a lot better than the Ducks' at this point, and a trade for Eichel would make that difference even starker. I'm okay trading for Eichel, because I think you always add elite talent if you can. But that's also why I don't want to include a 2022 1st round pick in the deal. We're going to need more talent after Eichel. The Ducks still have a long way to go to get there. We've argued about this ad nauseum, though, so we're not going to get anywhere. You think the team is a lot closer than I think it is, and the difference lies in how much we think we're going to get out of the veterans going forward. The Kings traded a lot of their veterans; the Ducks mostly re-signed theirs or cut them. The Kings got Bjornfot, Moore from those trades (or iterations thereof) - the former is the only real important piece, but it's not nothing. Mostly, though, they also got extra picks, some of which they used and some of which they packaged in other deals. Brendan Lemieux, Tyler Madden, Lias Andersson, Samuel Fagemo - all guys they could draft or acquire because of those previous trades. You could say the same about Arvidsson. They could trade for him because they had so much depth in their system that they could afford to throw away a couple of extra picks to take a flyer on him.
  11. The Ducks just aren't in the same place, though. The Kings' elders with immovable contracts have aged much better (Kopitar and Brown and Doughty) while the Ducks pulled the cord too early on one of theirs (Perry), another had a career-ending injury (Kesler), and Getzlaf just faded. Meanwhile, the Kings avoided giving extensions to their aging middle-6 guys, giving them more flexibility to add this offseason and more roster spots for some of their young guys, not to mention the ability to weaponize cap space. And it gave them assets that they will be able to use going forward (trades of Martinez, Muzzin, Carter, Toffoli, Campbell, Clifford landed them a bunch of assets, some of which are now contributors, and will be for a while). The Kings have managed their rebuild well. They are moving into the next tier and making moves associated with that, while having incoming young players to supplement and replace anyone they get rid of. The Ducks have not, and I think doing the same things the Kings did this offseason would have been a feeble attempt to make the playoffs and would have been unsustainable. Acquiring a long-term, elite asset like Eichel is one thing. Acquiring middle-six guys for questionable money and contract length (like Danault and Arvidsson) would have been a huge mistake.
  12. I'm not crowning them kings of anything yet, and of course it's very early, but their play in the preseason and now against Vegas has really impressed me (blech). Kopitar is still playing at a high level, and drags everyone else upward. They have a decent second line, and that third line looks like it's going to be really good. You mentioned Byfield, but they've also got Fagemo and Turcotte in the system, not to mention some other depth guys who could get into the lineup over the next year. Their defense is also improving with Anderson and Bjornfot. Their goaltending is suspect, but you never know if a guy like Petersen can put it all together in his late 20s. Again, they're not "there" yet, and not particularly close, but they're on their way. They still need several prospects to pan out before they're back competing for the top of the division. But it looks like the moves they've made (acquiring Danault and Tkachev) and the growth of their youngsters (Vilardi, Kaliyev, Kempe finally coming into his own, plus whatever they get from Byfield) could put them firmly in the playoff hunt this season, especially in a weak Pacific. They're well positioned to let Brown walk and use his money to acquire a significant upgrade on offense or defense, and to allow Kopitar to age gracefully while his production is replaced by Vilardi or Byfield. I just think they're taking that next step. Bottom feeder -> Rebuilder -> Playoff Team -> Division Contender -> Cup Contender They look like they're moving from rebuilder to playoff team. Time will tell.
  13. Yeah, the Kings look like they might be taking that step this season.
  14. Wait, Detroit lost that game?!?!? I turned it off at 6-3 Detroit and Tampa looked like they didn't care.
  15. I feel the exact same way. I guess you hope that a stud center comes along who can bring even more out of Tkachuk, but that still seems like a misallocation of resources. I would have tried to get him on a $4 - $5 million deal for a couple years to see if he takes it to another gear. If he doesn't, that's not a great contract. That's life in Ottawa, I guess.
  16. Yeah, and this is where I get hung up. The top of the first round in the upcoming draft is very strong, even past Wright. The Ducks could really use one of those guys. Now, whether one of those guys turns out better than McTavish is up for grabs. I'm not a prospect hound by any means, but it looks like there are several guys in the upcoming draft who would have been rated ahead of McTavish. Essentially, if the Ducks get a top 8 pick in 2022, you've got a better than 50/50 shot that guy ends up a better player than McTavish. Of course, this is all fraught with variability. I am 99% sure the Ducks can't get Eichel without one of Zegras, Drysdale, McTavish or their 2022 first going the other way. You might be able to get away with top 2 protection on the first as you suggest, but I doubt much more than that. It's a tough call. I'm more inclined to include McTavish in such a deal than the 2022 first, even top 2 protected. But it depends on how well you think the team is going to do this year.
  17. I have no idea what other teams are offering, but Buffalo is asking for several 1st round talents in exchange for Eichel. Originally, the report was four assets. I'm sure that's come down now, but I imagine two first round assets are the minimum. Buffalo is going to want at least one actual player. I can imagine the Ducks escaping without Drysdale and Zegras included, but without McTavish as well? There has to be some team that can beat that offer. The Ducks don't have any other high level prospects. Kevyn Adams would be run out of town on a rail if he traded Eichel and didn't get one top-of-the-first-round talent.
  18. Wow, Brady Tkachuk signs for seven years, $8.2 million per year. That's an awful lot for a guy who's scored at a .65 ppg pace over his three-year career, and hasn't gotten more productive since his rookie season. I know there's still potential there, and we have to take the COVID seasons with a grain of salt, but it seems like Ottawa really has to overpay to keep these guys around. I don't blame them - they had to do this as part of their rebuild (and they can afford to), but it's going to make negotiations with some of their other guys more difficult down the road, assuming they blossom into stars. For all the flak I give Murray, he's usually handled RFA negotiations really well. It will be interesting to see if it's any different now that Solomon is here.
  19. I think Lindholm could make that bet; from his interviews he seems like an extremely confident guy. He could also back it up with a 4 x $4.5 deal and come ahead. You're right he doesn't get many points, but GMs will love his defensive value, and I think he'll hold onto that well into his 30s. This is also assuming money is the only thing that matters. Hampus could see his path to a Cup running through a different place and take a little bit less money to chase it. And a shorter contract gives him flexibility to do so if his next place doesn't work out. I am higher on some of the Ducks' LHD prospects than you are, but there is significant risk there, and none project to be as good as Lindholm. That said, Lindholm isn't a true #1 d-man himself, so maybe the Ducks hope that they can make up for his absence with better depth. I'd rather keep him than not, but it's not looking great at this point.
  20. Two things: 1. If the Ducks were to let Hampus walk, they would have to replace him through trade. There is not much going on as far as LHD on the free agent market. A 38-year-old Giordano? Nick Leddy? Calvin De Haan? The only one who makes sense is Morgan Rielly and I don't see Toronto letting him go if they can help it. 2. Given the dearth of good defenseman hitting the market, I could see Hampus willing to walk, particularly if the Ducks trade/don't re-sign Rakell. They're very good buddies. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to the same place, but that if Rakell is gone, it's one fewer reason for Lindholm to be loyal. And it seems there are always a few teams willing to overpay someone they think is a top pairing d-man. Hampus certainly fits in that category. I could see a team going up to $8 million for five years, which means Hampus is only 33 when he gets his next contract and could make more money overall. We'll see what happens, but given that we know the Ducks could really use him on the roster, and we know they have plenty of cap space, the fact that he hasn't re-signed yet is worrisome. There could be a lot of turmoil within the Ducks' organization next summer with Murray and Eakins both on expiring contracts.
  21. And thank God we exposed Fleury, otherwise Seattle might have selected Volkov or Milano.
  22. True, but the Samuelis have bought some of the other property in the area and are developing it into a nice spot for people to spend an evening. So while the arena is old, it's not ancient and the surroundings are being upgraded significantly over the next few years.
  23. If anyone is watching the brand new ESPN NHL commentary show (which just ended with a shaving cream "pie" to the face of one of the hosts - man I forgot how much I dislike ESPN), they just predicted Eichel to Anaheim by the end of the season. Although the shaving cream pie gag makes me question the professional bona fides of these two. They then followed that prediction up with a prediction that John Gibson would also be traded by year end. So...take all this with the biggest grain of salt you can find.
  24. This could make sense, but I worry about the kid in a losing environment with Eakins at the helm. I just have no faith in Eakins to develop him properly or to keep the locker room from becoming a bad environment.
  25. Yeah, Terry's a conundrum for me. I like his hockey skill - good vision, decent shot, decent skating, and plays really well defensively in the neutral zone. But his lack of strength and forechecking makes him an odd fit on a Getzlaf line, not to mention he and Getzlaf are both pass-first guys (Getzlaf moreso, but Terry's passing skills would be valuable with a more trigger-happy centerman). If McTavish develops into the center we want him to be, Terry could fit there. I do think Terry and Comtois work well on a line together. Those guys would look great alongside a certain trade target. But for now, they'll make up a somewhat odd second line with Old Man Getzlaf.
×
×
  • Create New...