2024-25 NHL discussion thread

[DON]

Minni rejected.

Snapshots: Laine, Lankinen, CBA Talks (prohockeyrumors.com)

[hab29RETIRED]

On 9/5/2024 at 6:51 PM, DON said:

The team rankings has always been available; for tallest, lightest, oldest.., etc

 

Hughes is drafting favouring size, it seems, but i guess larger size is statistically helpful to win cups.

So cant (or shouldnt) complain much.

There's a difference of favoring size when you are trading for Dach and drafting Slafvkosky and picking up Florian xhejac in the third line than drafting Mccrarron, or signing and trading for washouts like alzner and king, or zero hockey sense guys like Anderson. 

we are getting bigger, but we aren't doing it the cost of skill or hockey IQ, or over-reaching in our picks.
 

the only big contract we acquired for a big (but highly skilled player) is Laine. But it's a short term commitment, with low risk and potential for high return.  

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

14 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

There's a difference of favoring size when you are trading for Dach and drafting Slafvkosky and picking up Florian xhejac in the third line than drafting Mccrarron, or signing and trading for washouts like alzner and king, or zero hockey sense guys like Anderson. 

we are getting bigger, but we aren't doing it the cost of skill or hockey IQ, or over-reaching in our picks.
 

the only big contract we acquired for a big (but highly skilled player) is Laine. But it's a short term commitment, with low risk and potential for high return.  

 

Agree. Size is a valuable attribute - but no more valuable, IMHO, than other hockey attributes such as the ones you mention. I’d rather have a small-ish and very talented team than a hulking bunch of plumbers. If you have two players of equal skill, pick the bigger one - but don’t pick a less talented dude just because he’s big. 

 

In MB’s defence - and I don’t know why I bother, since I consider him a mediocre hockey mind - he DID assemble a big, strong team in 2021 that was able to grind opponents into dust on its way to the Finals. His size fetish served him well to that extent (remember The Trident?); he wasn’t completely wrong, but he seemed never to understand that it wasn’t 1998 any longer, that you need skating, puck-moving, etc., as well as bulk.

[hab29RETIRED]

12 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Agree. Size is a valuable attribute - but no more valuable, IMHO, than other hockey attributes such as the ones you mention. I’d rather have a small-ish and very talented team than a hulking bunch of plumbers. If you have two players of equal skill, pick the bigger one - but don’t pick a less talented dude just because he’s big. 

 

In MB’s defence - and I don’t know why I bother, since I consider him a mediocre hockey mind - he DID assemble a big, strong team in 2021 that was able to grind opponents into dust on its way to the Finals. His size fetish served him well to that extent (remember The Trident?); he wasn’t completely wrong, but he seemed never to understand that it wasn’t 1998 any longer, that you need skating, puck-moving, etc., as well as bulk.

2021 was an anomaly year, even more so than extra the play-in playoff format on 2020.

 

At the start of that season. I had said that this would be the best chance a Canadian team had to make it to the finals, because of a very weak Canadian division that guaranteed a Canadian team to make it to the semis, while the other teams would be battling through the regular level of competitiveness.

 

on top of that, You had Weber and Price knowing that they were probably done, and an amazing performance by  Price - in the playoffs he played like he did in his MVP and Olympic years - and hasn't come close to that level of play in the preceding 5years. Without Price picking up his game, we were not even going to get past a very fragile - but on paper superior Leafs team. Hell, if we had a Sergechev or Markov (in his prime), type of dmen, rather than Chiarot or Edmundson, I think with the way Price was playing we may have fared even better. 

[Commandant]

we keep talking about a weak canadian division, but then we look at divisions that had the three awful California teams, or others that had that awful Buffalo and Devils team, all of whom were worse than the worst Canadian team. 

 

Also the next year, 5 of 7 Canadian Teams made the playoffs with the normal structure.

 

The Habs also beat Vegas, who won the cup soon after.

 

So that was a narrative at the time with the Canadian division was weak.  But I'm not sure if it was true. 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

3 hours ago, Commandant said:

we keep talking about a weak canadian division, but then we look at divisions that had the three awful California teams, or others that had that awful Buffalo and Devils team, all of whom were worse than the worst Canadian team. 

 

Also the next year, 5 of 7 Canadian Teams made the playoffs with the normal structure.

 

The Habs also beat Vegas, who won the cup soon after.

 

So that was a narrative at the time with the Canadian division was weak.  But I'm not sure if it was true. 

 

Good post, agree 100%. We beat a strong Toronto team, Winnipeg was a really strong team but they fizzled after beating Edmonton 4 in a row. I think they went downhill after the Scheiffle suspension (well deserved) and never recovered. And of course Vegas was really good, Tampa just too strong for everybody.  The Canadian Division wasn't nearly as bad as some suggest. The Division itself was 35 games over 500 so far from the worst division. 

[tomh009]

The "games above .500" would really be zero if you include the OT/SO losses ... and that applies to ALL divisions since no games were played between divisions.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

25 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

The "games above .500" would really be zero if you include the OT/SO losses ... and that applies to ALL divisions since no games were played between divisions.

Good point, I realized that later upon further analysis. My post was misleading. My bad.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

44 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

Good point, I realized that later upon further analysis. My post was misleading. My bad.

 

But we should also remember that the Habs had a horrible OT record that season (I forget the stats, but they were bad). My view is that that's because we were a team well-suited to grind out playoff wins, but not fleet of foot to be effective in 4-on-4. In other words, our regular season record was deceptive because of the OT/SO format.

 

As for the "Canadian division sucked" argument, I'm not buying it, nor am I buying that that team was not fully deserving of its Finals berth. For reasons others have shared.

[tomh009]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

But we should also remember that the Habs had a horrible OT record that season (I forget the stats, but they were bad). My view is that that's because we were a team well-suited to grind out playoff wins, but not fleet of foot to be effective in 4-on-4. In other words, our regular season record was deceptive because of the OT/SO format.

Yup. 4-11 in OT/SO.

[Dalhabs]

Stephen Peat also passed away in accident.

 

https://nypost.com/2024/09/12/sports/stephen-peat-former-nhl-enforcer-dead-at-44-after-being-hit-by-car/

[Prime Minister Koivu]

I don’t know how seriously this was discussed but I am not a fan of the idea. 

[GHT120]

4 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

I don’t know how seriously this was discussed but I am not a fan of the idea. 

Beyond the obvious hurdle of the NHLPA having to agree, there would be a tremendous impact on the 2nd and later rounds of the draft the year the (possible) change is implemented (although the next draft will have the benefit of knowing the players better in rounds 2+) ... but how do you compensate teams that traded for 2/3/4 round picks in the implementation year and now see those picks de-valued?

[tomh009]

15 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Beyond the obvious hurdle of the NHLPA having to agree, there would be a tremendous impact on the 2nd and later rounds of the draft the year the (possible) change is implemented (although the next draft will have the benefit of knowing the players better in rounds 2+) ... but how do you compensate teams that traded for 2/3/4 round picks in the implementation year and now see those picks de-valued?

You could do it in stages: 19yo only in rounds 5/6, then 4/5/6, then 3/4/5/6 and finally 18yo only in round one.

[GHT120]

Just now, tomh009 said:

You could do it in stages: 19yo only in rounds 5/6, then 4/5/6, then 3/4/5/6 and finally 18yo only in round one.

The impact would be less "concentrated", but it still devalues picks traded for before the decision to chnage is made ... it could also impact trades after the chnage is adopted as the impacted picks would have somewhat less value.

 

THAT said, personally I like the idea as, once fully implemented, it somewhat improves the likelihood that the 19-yr-old draft picks should pan out as there is more data on the players.

[DON]

5 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

...but I am not a fan of the idea. 

Why not, makes sense and good for junior leagues i think.

 

How many 18 yr old play in the NHL anyways?

[Prime Minister Koivu]

7 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

The impact would be less "concentrated", but it still devalues picks traded for before the decision to chnage is made ... it could also impact trades after the chnage is adopted as the impacted picks would have somewhat less value.

 

THAT said, personally I like the idea as, once fully implemented, it somewhat improves the likelihood that the 19-yr-old draft picks should pan out as there is more data on the players.

From the team’s perspective, drafting 19 year olds should help because of extra data as you have said. From the player’s perspective I don’t see how this is positive because it pushes their careers back a year. I suppose it would help late bloomers. 
 

32 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Beyond the obvious hurdle of the NHLPA having to agree, there would be a tremendous impact on the 2nd and later rounds of the draft the year the (possible) change is implemented (although the next draft will have the benefit of knowing the players better in rounds 2+) ... but how do you compensate teams that traded for 2/3/4 round picks in the implementation year and now see those picks de-valued?

Then there is this whole issue. Tom and yourself have offered some possible solutions that might work. 
 

3 minutes ago, DON said:

Why not, makes sense and good for junior leagues i think.

 

Yeah maybe I need to think it through more. My initial response was that it’s not great for players but perhaps I just don’t like change. 

[DON]

1 minute ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

Yeah maybe I need to think it through more. My initial response was that it’s not great for players but perhaps I just don’t like change. 

3-on-3 in OT some didnt favour at first, but think most like now... just get rid of shootout.

 

Kids would be jumping more to NHL in their draft year, so drafting would be different. More like NFL and draft for roster need.

[Commandant]

19 year old second round picks and later are still not going to be NHL ready in their draft year, especially since the best 18 year olds were taken in round 1. 

 

This seems like unnecessarily complicating the draft, and creating weaker drafts for several years, and devaluing draft picks that were traded previously, all for little to no benefit

[GHT120]

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

19 year old second round picks and later are still not going to be NHL ready in their draft year, especially since the best 18 year olds were taken in round 1. 

Agreed ... but the "best" 18-yr-olds aren't available in the 2nd(+) round now either ... and the "19-yr-old leftovers" will have an extra year to develop and thereby likely a better chance to play in the NHL in their draft year.

[Commandant]

14 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Agreed ... but the "best" 18-yr-olds aren't available in the 2nd(+) round now either ... and the "19-yr-old leftovers" will have an extra year to develop and thereby likely a better chance to play in the NHL in their draft year.

 

2 things.... How many players drafted in the 2nd round or later play in the NHL at 19?  The number is minuscule. 

 

Secondly that number may fall even farther if they aren't drafted.  Drafted players get the benefit of NHL coaching and development in the summer after they are drafted, this includes skating and development plans, nutrition and other resources that junior teams just can't afford at the time. So now for those second round picks and later we are delaying this year.  They also arent going to get visits during the year from the team's development staff, as they do when they are draft picks.  

 

We have to look at benefits for development that these players are going to lose if they are no longer draft picks. 

[GHT120]

12 minutes ago, Commandant said:

2 things.... How many players drafted in the 2nd round or later play in the NHL at 19?  The number is minuscule.

I ONLY said they had a better chance as a 2+ round 19-yr-old draftee than as a 2+ round 18 yr-old draftee ... not a GOOD chance.

 

 

[Commandant]

11 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

I ONLY said they had a better chance as a 2+ round 19-yr-old draftee than as a 2+ round 18 yr-old draftee ... not a GOOD chance.

 

 

 

 

Sure.... but we have to analyze the pro.... quantifying how much Better a chance it is, is important to consider as well as the losses.... development teams working with players later, and the issue of draft picks... and players getting signing bonuses and money a year later. 

To me, its not worth it. 

[dlbalr]

8 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

I don’t know how seriously this was discussed but I am not a fan of the idea. 

 

This has been bounced around for years now actually; I think I remember seeing it proposed one or two CBAs ago but it never gets past the proposal stage.  If it happens, it wouldn't surprise me to see the draft shortened as a concession to get the NHLPA to sign off on it.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

1 hour ago, dlbalr said:

 

This has been bounced around for years now actually; I think I remember seeing it proposed one or two CBAs ago but it never gets past the proposal stage.  If it happens, it wouldn't surprise me to see the draft shortened as a concession to get the NHLPA to sign off on it.

Shortened to 5 rounds?