Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    Lots of exciting discussion going on here. My thoughts: Tyler is better than Taylor. They are both excellent, but Tyler is better. If Edmonton could do it over, they should take Tyler. It doesn't matter what team is picking, Tyler simply has more talent and is emerging as an elite player. The sky is the limit. The Kessel trade was and is absolutely awful for the Leafs. Even if Kessel scored 60 and was +60 it would have been awful. It was awful because the Leafs didn't have the supporting cast to win, and didn't have the prospects, draft picks or cap space to get it. This year Phil was leading the league is scoring for the first quarter of the season. That is the best-case scenario, but even then the Leafs were hardly unbeatable because the rest of the team isn't that good. He is now 2 years from UFA, the team is bad and they have not had any 1st rounders to build a supporting cast. Even if Phil was twice the player Seguin is, the trade was bad for the Leafs because Tyler is much younger and cheaper. You could build around him. You can't build around a pending UFA, so now there is talk in TO of trading Phil before he walks. In the end, Toronto will have effectively given away two high 1st rounders, setting them back at least 5 years, getting back only table scraps in return. From Boston's perspective, trading Kessel did make them worse for one year. They tried for a year to get Horton but couldn't land him until just before his no-trade kicked in. Luckily, it was a good year to lose a top scorer because injuries to Thomas, Lucic, Krejci, Savard and Seidenberg would have effectively ruined any cup chances anyway. The trade wouldn't have been quite as good for Boston if Toronto had finished higher, but it was reasonable to think they were going to have a bad year. They had finished 7th the year before and had gutted a bunch of NHL players from the roster, replacing them with questionable new ones. Kessel was going to be out for a month with shoulder surgery. Pretty reasonable to think the Leafs would be around or worse than the year before. I have no idea why Burke thought they would be better. And even if Boston didn't get Seguin, they could have landed a guy like Skinner or Fowler with a later pick, or traded it for an impact forward.
    Posted by OatesCam


    "From Boston's perspective, trading Kessel did make them worse for one year'

    That's exactly my point.  


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : Having Savard injured by Cooke halfway through the year had a negative trickle down effect on the whole offense. More than losing Phil I think.
    Posted by dezaruchi

    yeee haw! is that my boy janney dez? good stuff... he was #23 if my memory doesn't fail me. pictures kinda small, but that looks like him.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    and to the argument preceding... it's 1/2 steve gm (no replacement for kessel yet), 1/2 dez (loss of savard). there - thread closed. just kidding (but it's true)
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : Having Savard injured by Cooke halfway through the year had a negative trickle down effect on the whole offense. More than losing Phil I think.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    Just did a quick check Dez.  Only 18 games left when Savard went down(March 7).  Up to that point the B's were 29W-34L.  They actually improved without Savard to 10W-8L
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from scooter244. Show scooter244's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : Having Savard injured by Cooke halfway through the year had a negative trickle down effect on the whole offense. More than losing Phil I think.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    Ya, I agree with that.  They still managed to fight to a 3-0 lead in round 2, but loosing Sturm and the death blow to Krejci finished them.  Kessel wouldn't have stopped that bleeding, but that's just my opinion.   
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from scooter244. Show scooter244's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : Just did a quick check Dez.  Only 18 games left when Savard went down(March 7).  Up to that point the B's were 29W-34L.  They actually improved without Savard to 10W-8L
    Posted by stevegm


    Or they could have been gearing up for the playoffs at that time.  There have been some poor stretches of hockey from January to mid March in recent years.  This also needs to be added to the debate.  The Bruins were being built for the Playoffs, not to lead the regular season in scoring.  Kessel's subtraction was a major part of the re-build.  
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : Lets look at injuries in the goal scoring department.  Savard and Lucic, were the only main cogs to miss an unusually high number of games in 09/10.  Combined, their production was off 23 goals, year to year.  That isn't catastrophic.   That fact alone almost nullifies the shortfall of Savard/Lucic.   No one is suggesting otherwise. Posted by stevegm


    Savard also injured his knee earlier in 10' against Chicago before the concussion which is tough to come back from. Lucic had a high ankle sprain to come back from that is not easy when trying to get back in sync with your linemates.

    The amount games to get your timing and cardio conditioning back has to come into play as well. You won't see that as games missed on a players game log.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : Or they could have been gearing up for the playoffs at that time.  There have been some poor stretches of hockey from January to mid March in recent years.  This also needs to be added to the debate.  The Bruins were being built for the Playoffs, not to lead the regular season in scoring.  Kessel's subtraction was a major part of the re-build.  
    Posted by scooter244



    There you go again.  Obviously statistics don't shape your opinions much.  What does the above have to do with whether the loss of Savard hurt more than 81?  Nothing.  Whether the team is gearing up for the playoffs has nothing to do with the context of this particular question.  Zero.  Poor stretches from Jan-March, has nothing to do with anything in this case.  Zippo.  The Bruins weren't being built for the playoffs in 09/10, in fact they had no real identity then.  If they did, it has nothing to do with #81 vs Savard.  In fact whatever they were built for that year was compromised in that a key component was deleted at the last minute, without a plan, or the means to replace it.
    Finally, there was no rebuild going on the year we're talking about. 09/10 was supposed to yield the results of an earlier rebuild.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : Just did a quick check Dez.  Only 18 games left when Savard went down(March 7).  Up to that point the B's were 29W-34L.  They actually improved without Savard to 10W-8L
    Posted by stevegm

    Bottom line is Savard only appeared in 41 games in 2010 after having played the full 82 in '09 (88 points).The Cooke hit just ruined an already tough year for Savard.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from scooter244. Show scooter244's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : There you go again.  Obviously statistics don't shape your opinions much.  What does the above have to do with whether the loss of Savard hurt more than 81?  Nothing.  Whether the team is gearing up for the playoffs has nothing to do with the context of this particular question.  Zero.  Poor stretches from Jan-March, has nothing to do with anything in this case.  Zippo.  The Bruins weren't being built for the playoffs in 09/10, in fact they had no real identity then.  If they did, it has nothing to do with #81 vs Savard.  In fact whatever they were built for that year was compromised in that a key component was deleted at the last minute, without a plan, or the means to replace it. Finally, there was no rebuild going on the year we're talking about. 09/10 was supposed to yield the results of an earlier rebuild.
    Posted by stevegm


    You know who statistics are for don't you?  As always, statistics need context to be valid.  What part of the season you are in, ie January or May is important to the numbers.  
    I'll try to be clearer.  The improvement of the team after Savard's injury may be attributed to other factors, other than simply the absence of Savard.  For example, as they have done the last couple of years, they may have had a lull after Christmas (resulting in their sub 500 record with Savard) that lasted until the last dozen games or so when they started to gear up for the playoffs (resulting in the 10W-8L record you quoted).  You posted the team had a better record after Savard got hurt so I was trying to give other reasons for the improvement. 
    And yes, they were being built.  Chiarelli has a 5 year plan and the Kesel trade was a tweak in that plan.  They won the cup the next year.  The shift that took place with the subtraction of Kessel was a more balanced approach to scoring.  This is what wins in playoffs.  Also, and I'm going by memory here, but Chiarelli didn't have much cap room do play with that season, if fact I do remember that they signed Krecji to a contract that off-season with the money they could have spent on Kessel (it was never presented that way but to me it always was Krejci or Kessel).  So not immediately replacing Kessel was more a money issue than a fumble by management.  Maybe somebody can confirm or refute the cap thing.  If they didn't trade Kessel would they have had Krejci?  He proved pretty valuable.  
    Going back to the original question, losing Kessel did reduce the regular season goals for stat, but wasn't the be all and end all of the teams success (or failure) that year. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor

    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor:
    In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : You know who statistics are for don't you?  As always, statistics need context to be valid.  What part of the season you are in, ie January or May is important to the numbers.   I'll try to be clearer.  The improvement of the team after Savard's injury may be attributed to other factors, other than simply the absence of Savard.  For example, as they have done the last couple of years, they may have had a lull after Christmas (resulting in their sub 500 record with Savard) that lasted until the last dozen games or so when they started to gear up for the playoffs (resulting in the 10W-8L record you quoted).  You posted the team had a better record after Savard got hurt so I was trying to give other reasons for the improvement.  And yes, they were being built.  Chiarelli has a 5 year plan and the Kesel trade was a tweak in that plan.  They won the cup the next year.  The shift that took place with the subtraction of Kessel was a more balanced approach to scoring.  This is what wins in playoffs.  Also, and I'm going by memory here, but Chiarelli didn't have much cap room do play with that season, if fact I do remember that they signed Krecji to a contract that off-season with the money they could have spent on Kessel (it was never presented that way but to me it always was Krejci or Kessel).  So not immediately replacing Kessel was more a money issue than a fumble by management.  Maybe somebody can confirm or refute the cap thing.  If they didn't trade Kessel would they have had Krejci?  He proved pretty valuable.   Going back to the original question, losing Kessel did reduce the regular season goals for stat, but wasn't the be all and end all of the teams success (or failure) that year. 
    Posted by scooter244



    Yeah !!  You were originally stating that the loss of Savard was the bigger issue, and now you decide maybe it was "other reasons"?
        Nice. 
      That's like saying Toronto has improved under Randy Carlisle, then attempting to justify it.

    And your final thoughts reveal "losing Kessel did reduce the regular season goals..."  That's all I ever infered !  I never said it was the "be all end all", just that it was a huge factor(screwed things).
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share