Since +/- is the NHL's worst stat, I thought it would make sense to appropriate it and make it useful as we review the best and worst of the past week in the NHL.
PLUS: While it may be a long shot to see them in the NHL this year, a friend of mine who attended the Coyotes development camp raved about the speed and poise of both Chychrun and Keller.
Here's what I'm thinking: there is a lot of data that suggests that in the NHL teams waste potentially great years from young players because of outdated ideas about how old you have to be and how much experience you have to have to play in the NHL.
Since the Coyotes are a team that must take bigger risks than other teams, with the intention of getting a larger reward, an idea I have is that they go super young. With one of the deepest prospect pools in the NHL, the Coyotes could potentially dress a rookie-heavy lineup that is among the NHL's most interesting teams next year.
Teams tend to be overly conservative with their prospects because retroactively, "rushing a prospect" gets blamed for 100% draft busts. Clearly this is stupid and the Coyotes are in a position to challenge one of the NHL's stupidest assumptive conventions. If they want to.
PLUS: An update to an old post I made about choosing an RPG to play: I chose Earthbound and am happy to report my quest is going great, if slowly.
MINUS: I don't like that we live in a society where it seems pretentious to even talk about novels.
PLUS: My recent book recommendations (because if we all read more novels, guys like Ronald Blump (I'm not supposed to be political) would't exist:
Omensetter's Luck by William H. Glass is a criminally ignored masterpiece from the 60s. It's about a guy who basically offends everyone in town with his laissez faire attitude to everything and his subsequent good luck. Or maybe it's about figuring out what the hell the book is supposed to be about. I like it anyways.
Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson seems like something that will one day be a popular HBO series. Google what its about if you want, but the reason I bring it up is if you go to Chapters, they for some reason relegate Stephenson to the "Science Fiction" section, even though he's one of the most important authors of the last 20 years. Nicholas Sparks though gets stored in "Literature," so go figure.
Also this week, I ordered a novel by Flannery O'Connor, one of my favorite authors of all-time. Wise Blood should arrive in the mail this week (barring a strike by Canada Post). Good Times.
MINUS: I have a very low opinion of a music reviewer who tries to tell me that the new Chilli Peppers is good, let alone that they have one of the best albums of the year.
Here's what I don't get about the Chilli Peppers: By 1997, they had already re-written "Under the Bridge" eleven times and "Give it Away" eight times. That was 18 years ago, so what appeal do they possess today? Like, what is interesting about a band that doesn't evolve still releasing the same crappy over-produced tunes twenty years later?
Bipity-Bop-California and some funky bass. There, I just wrote a Chilli Pepper's song.
Like, I don't care if you like the RHCP, that is your prerogative, but I guess I just don't get why people my age are stuck so deeply in the past where the only thing they listen to is old 90s music and crappy new music from pandering 90s acts? Like, I don't even care if the new RHCP album is good or not, just the idea of hearing it bores the crap out of me. They weren't that interesting of a band in their prime, what is their current appeal? I don't get it, and the music snob in me is somewhat offended.
Here are some 90's/00 artists I don't want to hear for at least the next decade: Pearl Jam, Rage Against the Machine, Foo Fighters, Soundgarden, Eminem, Green Day or Offspring.
Acceptable Alternative: Deep Cuts from Marcy's Playground, one of the least deserving one-hit-wonders of all time.
MINUS: Pavel Datsyuk and David Ortiz: Retiring while still in your freakishly long prime is just not cool. It insults those of us who live our lives vicariously through professional athletes while barely able to afford the rent.
PLUS: I played three games of softball yesterday, making only one error in 20 something innings of second base. It was very fun.
MINUS: I now feel like I spent the day on that rack thing Humperdink puts Wesley on in the Princess Bride.
MINUS: People who make everything an all or nothing, either/or proposition. Would it kill anyone to attempt to have nuanced ideas about anything?
MINUS: I will never criticize the idea of a trade rumour - not anymore. If Taylor Hall can be traded for a Adam Larsson, then any trades are possible. However, Codi Ceci for Ryan Nugent Hopkins is a whole new level of nuts.
PLUS: Bo Burnham, Make Happy a new special on Netflix is brilliant. It's one of the best comedy specials I've seen and I give it my highest possible recommendation. But of course, I would.
MINUS: Colorado missing out on that eighth year of MacKinnon - that's gonna cost ya.
PLUS:That's an overall sweet cap-hit though for the primes of both him and Scheifle. Good moves by their respective teams.
MINUS: On my Twitter, there are way too many people concerning themselves with contract negotiations between the Leafs and Auston Matthews. Who cares?
MINUS: The most underrated player in NHL history is Marrian Hossa, who has been to five Stanley Cup finals, won three, is the best (or close enough) defensive player of his generation and even at 37 continues to play at a nearly elite level.
If he isn't a first-ballot Hall of Famer, the Hall of Fame should just close.
MINUS: I think maybe we're all too quick to consider our opinions the correct one. Take for example the Leafs and their moves this summer. Until the Leafs (supposedly) overpaid for Andersen (in trade and in contract) and (supposedly) didn't just draft for skill and then ("crazily") overpaid for a (supposed) fourth liner - they were the belle of the analytics ball - everyone loved them.
But what if, instead of abandoning their plan, they have a different plan than you think they did/do? What if their plan is more nuanced and what if the money they have thrown at non-traditional scouting has given them information they have and we don't? (Also, don't discount the possibility that they are panicky idiots who's plan has been hijacked by the most old-school guy in the NHL).
As a go who is always mouthing off his opinions about this and that (i.e this very column) this might sound rich for me to say, but what if we were less confident in our assessments? I get that in a certain light Andersen and Martin and the draft strategy are questionable, and I fully support questioning it. But I see way too much of "This is indefensible and anyone who doesn't agree just wants to bring back staged fights" type of crap.
What if:
Even though the stats say that Bernier and Andersen are about equal, the Leafs see something in him or in their analytics that suggests he's the ideal goalie for Babcock's team/system? What if there is something about his make-up, psychically or mentally that they feel will allow him to improve on his career statistics to date?
What if they're using their inside information to make a smart bet on a player? What if, instead of paying for past performance, they want to over-pay today to make sure he's cheaper when they really care about his cap hit?
For instance, Andersen -based on our current stats- probably doesn't deserve a four year commitment or a $5 million cap-hit. However, what if by paying him $5 million now they've avoided a bigger cap hit in years when they plan to compete? If they gave him a shorter-term deal, and he actually performs how they think he will, then he's going to cost a lot more to lock up. I think it's a reasonable bet for a team that, given the age of it's best talent, probably isn't looking to win the Cup in the next two years anyway.
Worst Case Scenario: Andersen buys you time to develop and/or acquire your very own Henrik Lundqvist.
And what if they see something that suggest Matt Martin could be more than a fourth liner? As a fourth liner he's overpaid, but the Leafs have Matthews, Kadri and Nylander down the middle and Babcock seems to like to play two scorers and a grinder as a line. With that philosophy, Martin could fit with any two skill players and, if effective, possibly be a bargain.
MINUS: If the CHL won't pay it's players voluntarily, someone ought to make them.
Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»