BigTed3

Moderators/Modérateurs
  • Content count

    31,939
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About BigTed3

  • Rank
    Moderator/Modérateur

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

21,952 profile views
  1. Dreger says talks between Stl and Pietrangelo have broken off and the team has told him to test free agency. You know the Leafs will be going had after him, but he's also a guy whose got Bergevin's name written all over him. Canadian guy, good pedigree even though he's hitting past prime now. Would he sign him and then be open to trading Weber or Petry?
  2. But clearly MB hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt when constructing his D corps. We've been through this before. We all said to ourselves, Montreal can't really believe Karl Alzner was going to be their prize signing as a UFA, and yet he was the first guy they lined up to grab when free agency opened. Most analytics pundits predicted correctly that Alzner was washed up and not going to be successful, despite the fact Alzner did his first interviews and told the media MB had promised him he would play in the top 4. We all wondered last year if Chiarot was really going to be Bergevin's key addition on D or if he was just a depth signing as a prelude to another move for a real top 4 defenceman. In the end, Bergevin just sat on Chiarot. We wondered what Bergevin saw in Schlemko and Murray and Drewiske. We wondered how he thought Streit was really going to replace Andrei Markov or how he could let Beaulieu and Markov walk in the same off-season without a plan to replace them. We wondered what alternative MB was so confident in that he felt he could trade his one strong LHD prospect in Sergachev. I talked last year about how MB's focus for an offer sheet would have, in my opinion, been better had it been Zach Werenski. I wrote countless posts about how our biggest weakness was LHD and how Werenski fit the criteria for everything the Habs were missing, moreso than Aho. A young but established top-pairing LHD who brings offensive upside and can play big minutes and both special teams. It's not to say we would have gotten him, but he signed a contract for value well under what we could have afforded to pay him, so if you're going to offersheet Aho, consideration for Werenski would have made more sense. It is still clear as day that we need a top pairing LHD. Edmundson doesn't address that need, just as Chiarot did not, just as Alzner was not. Maybe Romanov is part of that solution, but that's a big gamble to take on a guy who's never played a season on a North American rink and if Romanov is your supposed answer to your top-pairing LHD problem, then who are your 2nd and 3rd pairing guys? I'd still have Kulak as the next-best guy and the best partner for Petry, and he's slightly younger and being paid less (and on a shorter deal) than Chiarot or Edmundson. So why have both of those latter two guys if you have a younger, better, cheaper option? Your 3rd pairing guy would then be one of Chiarot, Edmundson, or Mete. Is Edmundson an upgrade on the other two? Not to me. Maybe he's comparable, but he's not an upgrade and he's not worth giving a 4-year deal to. So I'll come back to how do we actually fix the top LHD spot? Maybe Romanov or Norlinder comes through in the medium-to-long term. I really think the best guy we can hope to extract from somewhere else would be Bowen Byram though. Top 5 pick, with great skating and offensive ability, and he's in an organization full of good young players where they can clearly win now. It's the perfect setting for being able to offer Colorado a player or two that can help them win now in exchange for a top prospect they don't actually need right away to win the Cup. He's the guy Bergevin should be targeting. If he does that and he trades away Chiarot, then maybe adding Edmundson make some sense. I don't see a need for both Chiarot AND Edmundson.
  3. Jeff Petry was 27 when he was traded here, same age as Edmundson now. The difference though was staggering. Petry was a player that had great advanced stats numbers relative to his teammates. He was a good player playing in a bad system. Edmundson is the exact opposite. He has decent advanced stats in absolute terms but they're bad relative to his teammates. He's a mediocre player who's numbers have been propped up by playing in two strong systems. The prediction from most analysts based on advanced stats was that Petry would flourish in Montreal (which he did) and that Edmundson will be no better than a 3rd pairing guy potentially being asked to play above his head in the top 4. One analyst used advanced metrics to apply how players contribute to wins above a replacement level player and concluded that Edmundson would actually cost us wins rather than contributing to them. In other words, an NHL-average replacement player would be better. As I've said, I'm fine with Edmundson, I'm fine with Chiarot, I'm fine with Mete... but they're all 3rd-pairing LHD. We don't need all of them and we don't want them playing in our top 4.
  4. I agree with you. It's not baffling for Bergevin, it's just baffling in terms of how you should be building a team in today's NHL. Locking in 3rd-pairing D men long-term is a bad move in a cap world and believing big guys who can't move the puck well are a solution for your top 4 is an antiquated notion.
  5. Your answers speak mostly to the point I was looking to make... Edmundson really isn't an upgrade on what we already have or have recently had. He, like the rest of the list I posted, are ideally 3rd pairing LHD and they don't improve your top 4 to any degree. Personally, if I was going to rank the 5 guys I listed, I would put down 1. Kulak 2. Chiarot 3. Emelin 4. Edmundson 5. Benn And with our current line-up of D-men, my own personal choice for how to line them up would be Romanov-Weber Kulak-Petry Chiarot-Juulsen Mete Romanov hits my top pairing because even if he proves not to be ready, he's the only guy we have as a LHD who even remotely has the potential to end up being a tp pairing defenceman. Kulak has proven he plays well with Petry and his value there is higher than anywhere else. He's also the best skater and puck mover if you look at him, Edmundson and Chiarot. I'll keep a RHD on the right and I think Juulsen is more ready than Fleury, in addition to being at risk of being lost if sent down through waivers, whereas Fleury isn't. And I kept Mete as #7 over Edmundson since Mete has been able to play both sides and is more mobile, hence a better fill-in D man. At the end of the day, Edmundson doesn't even fit into my top 7. On top of that, he's now being paid more money than Kulak and likely Mete and over a longer-term than Chiarot. So it's not even like we could say we signed one guy, traded another, and saved money. It's a baffling acquisition that doesn't address our real need. We desperately need a player like a Werenski, McAvoy, Sergachev, Byram or so on and we instead ended up with more filler for the bottom of the line-up when we're overflowing with filler to begin with.
  6. So Edmundson signs for 4 years, 3.5M AAV. Better than it could have been but still largely a waste of a roster spot unless you're unloading both Chiarot and Mete. A question: rank these defencemen in order of who you would want on your team at age 27 on a 4-year deal for 3.5M AAV: - Edmundson - Chiarot - Emelin - Benn - Kulak I'm curious as to how people view him relative to other LHD we've had in recent years.
  7. except we do... MB said himself that Juulsen is a huge health question and that Fleury may not be ready quite yet. That leaves you Weber and Petry on the right side. The former is getting up there in age, the latter is a UFA and also no spring chicken. It would be smart to acquire Dumba, especially knowing the Wild are high on Domi, a player you seem to not be very high on and don't have a need for. This permits you to have an asset you can keep for 5 years in your top 4 and trade one of Weber or Petry to fill another hole while they still have value.
  8. I've said this before, and maybe you weren't around as a poster then, but I think a team needs to pick a Cup window and build around that. There are soon to be 32 teams in the league and it's not sufficient to just be a fringe playoff team year in year out. You need to aim to be a top 5 team in the league to give yourself a realistic shot at a Cup for a 3-5 year window. In Bergevin's case, what I mean by not building for the future, is that he insists on leaving himself in no man's land. He sticks it out with older players like Weber, Price, and Petry but has repeatedly said he won't sacrifice key prospects or high picks to add to that core. And at the same time, he's also made it clear he won't trade those older stars in order to add pieces that will be core players to go along with the likes of Suzuki and so on. He's basically come out as saying he's fine with building to try to get into the playoffs. I think it's fair to say a GM should be given 4-5 years to turn a team into a true contender, but MB is going into his ninth and I don't feel like we're further ahead. Sure, we have young prospects like Suzuki, Norlinder, Romanov, and Primeau now, but when he started we had a young stud trio of Price, Subban, and Pacioretty, a premier two-way center in Plekanec, a vet quarterbacking D man in Markov, and two highly-touted prospects in Gallagher and Galchenyuk, and we completely blew the window to win with that team. So I'll come back to what I've said the past few years... if you think you can win with Weber and Price, you can't do nothing. You can't be content to play Chiarot on your top pairing or simply add Dwight King or Steve Ott or Nesterov or Schlemko and believe that adding quantity of depth is going to put you over the top. And if you're not willing to make an actual push to be a top 5 team, then what are you doing sitting on assets like Weber or Petry when you can still trade them for valuable pieces going forward? MB simply doesn't want to commit and so he's neither building to win now nor putting his best foot forward to winning in 2 years or 5 years. Every team has got prospects. What he doesn't have is a plan.
  9. Don't see any way Seattle wouldn't want to claim Dumba, so he's almost certainly going to be traded.
  10. Other things we learned today from Bergevin's interview: - Says Suzuki, Kotkaniemi, and Romanov are pretty close to untouchable. - Says Price won't be traded and won't be exposed in the expansion draft and you can count on that. - Says team's priority as far as locking up free agents goes will be Gallagher and Petry (which doesn't say much for Tatar or Danault). - Says he doesn't think acquiring Edmundson means the Habs have to trade a D man. He says a team needs 7 D men on their roster and he counts them out as Weber, Petry, Chiarot as his top 3, followed by Edmundson and Romanov and then Kulak and Mete to fill out the line-up. He states that Juulsen can't be counted on to stay healthy and that Fleury can easily go back to Laval next year without waivers. He says with his current D corps, he doesn't feel he needs to add anyone else either. So it really sounds like he is okay, if nothing falls his way via trade, with going into next year with two RHD and five LHD on his roster and with all five lefties essentially being 3rd-pairing players in an ideal world. Also sounds like the younger guys (Juulsen, Fleury) aren't going to be given an equal shot at jobs despite the fact they're natural RHD. He didn't even mention Brook. So once again, it sounds like MB has a delusional opinion of his D corps, how much lifting Weber and Petry are able to do in their mid-30's, and how useful all these bigger, slower, non-offensive D men are. He didn't say it, but his implication was that Chiarot and Edmunson will both be in the top 4, and that would be yet another disaster from Bergevin. - Says he doesn't want young guys like Caufield, Struble, or Harris turning pro this year and then not playing any hockey until November or December. He says if there's no NCAA season, he'd like Caufield to go and play in Europe from September on so he doesn't miss ice time. Says Ylonen has already been loaned to a Finnish team but can be recalled once the NHL/AHL season starts. So overall, it sounds like MB still believes he can win now, won't look to build anything for the future, and likes his D comprised of mainly third-pairing journeymen. Not a good look.
  11. Edmundson is going to end up being a lot like Alzner or Douglass Murray or Schlemko or Benn or Chiarot or Bouillon or Gilbert or Drewiske or Folin or Allen or Nesterov or Redmond or Davidson. I bet people have even forgotten about some of these players, but there is a long line of defencemen that Bergevin has acquired that have limited to no offensive potential, who are washed up, or who just can't plain move the puck. And while one or two (Chiarot, Benn) have been passable had they been played in 3rd pairing roles consistently, they've all been valued well above what they actually bring and are 100% completely replaceable. You lose a Murray, you bring in a Drewiske for cheap. You lose Benn and Schlemko and you can find a Chiarot and Folin to take their spots. There is really no reason to go out and give up assets to acquire these players and zero reason to dish out big money or long-term deals to them.
  12. The idea behind Corsi relative is correcting for the system and roster... in other words, if John Scott went to play for the Penguins on a line with Crosby, he'd probably put up some points and get some +'s for being on the ice for some goals for and get some positive possession metrics if Crosby dominates play by himself. But if Crosby is playing with Ovechkin or Benn or so on, he'd almost certainly put up even better numbers. So while Scott might finish with positive possession metrics (i.e. more shot attempts for the Pens than against the Pens when he's on), he's not as good as other guys if they were put in that same spot. In Edmundson's case, he's benefited from playing on two good possession teams in St. Louis and Carolina. Every single D man on the Canes was a positive possession player last year, meaning that no matter who was on the ice, the Canes dominated play. But when Edmundson was on, the metrics were less favorable than with everyone else. This might suggest that Edmundson benefited from his team's system and other guys he played with driving the play as opposed to his doing this himself. Likewise, he was a negative relative Corsi player the few years before this in St. Louis too. So in short, he's a player who is carried by his team. A lot of the analysts who know more about advanced stats than I do are very down on Edmundson as a player. They suggest he's not only not very good as a puck mover and attack re-launcher but that he's also not very good defensively. Yes, he's a big guy and hits, but there are concerns he'd be a bit like a Douglass Murray. Micah McCurdy flat out states that he's a player old-school hockey minds get over-sold on because of his size and shot but that he's bad at everything else. In the end, the question I have is really how this helps us? We still have a giant hole at LHD on the top pairing. So either we're not addressing that in any way and going in to the season using 3 of Chiarot, Kulak, Edmundson, Mete, and Romanov OR we're adding a true top-pairing guy, in which case we're now using 2 of those 5 guys on our bottom two pairs. And in that scenario, the next question I'll ask is "who are those two guys?"... Bergevin has almost assured us that Romanov will be one of them. He's pretty much flat out said that Romanov would be with the NHL club and that he wasn't brought over here to sit in the pres box or on the bench. So that's one. Now who's taking that 3rd spot? Kulak would be my choice, easily. And after that, it's not clear to me Edmundson is better than any of the guys we already had. So I'm a bit confused by what this means. We all think this is setting up another trade, but by my count, we'd now have to trade two guys to make Edmundson an upgrade on whatever else we have. If we go into the season with some combo of Chiarot-Edmundson-Romanov-Mete as the left side of our D, we're screwed. So this trade isn't an upgrade in any way and I don't know what it represents.
  13. ^^ I'll put a few rumors together. Friedman reported that the Jets prefer to trade Laine than Ehlers. JC Lajoie of TVA says the only way the Edmundson trade makes sense is if there's another blockbuster in the works and that trading Chiarot makes the most sense. He speculates Chiarot back to Winnipeg could be of interest to them in a blockbuster deal for Laine. We also know Minnesota has shown interest in Domi and is willing to trade Dumba or Brodin, and we know Poehling has a reputation from playing college in Minnesota. I've outlined a possible 3-way deal between us, Minnesota, and Winnipeg, but I really think that's the best way to go after Laine if he's the target (albeit I also have a lot of interest in Dumba coming here too). Putting aside the extras that would be needed, the key players moving could include Laine coming here, Domi and Poehling going to Minny, Dumba and Chiarot going to Winnipeg... that could largely address a lot of needs for everyone: we need a scoring winger for our top line and have a center to spare, Minny has an extra D man to trade but needs a top 6 center, and Winnipeg wants to dump extra scoring wingers for any type of help for their miserable defence.
  14. With a leadership group of Price, Markov, Plekanec, Pacioretty, Gallagher, etc., this team couldn't figure out a way to deal with PK Subban loving the camera. How would they deal with a player and especially his wife creating trouble with others' families? Not sure the leadership group will do much to curtail any poor behavior on the part of Hoffman's wife... Bergevin also couldn't deal with the likes of Pateryn's wife tweeting or Kristo's immaturity or Galchenyuk's partying or so on. I just can't see him reaching out to Hoffman. The only guy with a bad reputation he's made an exception for was Drouin, and that was largely on account of the fact Drouin's francophone.
  15. I don't see him as an upgrade on Kulak. That said, I know a lot of people like Chiarot and I don't see him as being better than Kulak either. Kulak has strong possession numbers, he's a great skater, and he re-launches the attack. I'm not sure Edmundson does all those things as well. He's been an average possession player on great possession teams and has had poor numbers relative to his teammates for the past 4 years. Last year, he was statistically the worst defenceman on the Canes. Like Chiarot and Mete and Kulak, he's a decent 3rd pairing D man but he's not a solution to the top 4. How much is MB going to try and pay him? Because if you're already allocating money to Alzner and Chiarot and Kulak and Mete and now Edmundson, that's a lot of cash to be spending on a multitude of LHD who don't address an actual hole in the line-up.