General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league

wprager wrote:On that Duschene thing, was listening the Insider Trading TSN segment, apparently Murray is saying anyone on D not named Karlsson is available (although it would take a lot of convincing to get Methot, who also has a full no-trade clause).  Also, whoever takes one (or two) of the Sens' D would also have to take Greening.  So I guess we're stuck with what we have?

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:On that Duschene thing, was listening the Insider Trading TSN segment, apparently Murray is saying anyone on D not named Karlsson is available (although it would take a lot of convincing to get Methot, who also has a full no-trade clause).  Also, whoever takes one (or two) of the Sens' D would also have to take Greening.  So I guess we're stuck with what we have?

The whole thing with Duchene's name coming out so suddenly is weird.  Originally, on the pre-game show on TSN 1200 last night, they had Bobby Mac on, and Mendes asked him specifically if there were any quality defencemen on the market that the Sens might be able to get, since the Sens are obviously struggling on D.  Bobby Mac totally ignored that question and immediately launched into Matt Duchene being available, and Ottawa trying to trade AWAY a defenceman, and linking Greening's contract to it.  So Bobby Mac didn't answer the question at all.  It was strange.

Anyway, so assuming Ottawa is trying to trade away one of our weaker d-men (specifically, Wiercioch, Cowen, or Boro), and then also trying to attach Greening to it...what's the value in that?  Negative?  Like, maybe we get a 7th round pick or a bad contract in return?  It's not like we're trading Wiercioch and Greening for Duchene.

So none of that is encouraging, and it seems like the search for a quality defenceman is non-existent.  But hey, let's focus on Duchene?

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:On that Duschene thing, was listening the Insider Trading TSN segment, apparently Murray is saying anyone on D not named Karlsson is available (although it would take a lot of convincing to get Methot, who also has a full no-trade clause).  Also, whoever takes one (or two) of the Sens' D would also have to take Greening.  So I guess we're stuck with what we have?

The whole thing with Duchene's name coming out so suddenly is weird.  Originally, on the pre-game show on TSN 1200 last night, they had Bobby Mac on, and Mendes asked him specifically if there were any quality defencemen on the market that the Sens might be able to get, since the Sens are obviously struggling on D.  Bobby Mac totally ignored that question and immediately launched into Matt Duchene being available, and Ottawa trying to trade AWAY a defenceman, and linking Greening's contract to it.  So Bobby Mac didn't answer the question at all.  It was strange.

Anyway, so assuming Ottawa is trying to trade away one of our weaker d-men (specifically, Wiercioch, Cowen, or Boro), and then also trying to attach Greening to it...what's the value in that?  Negative?  Like, maybe we get a 7th round pick or a bad contract in return?  It's not like we're trading Wiercioch and Greening for Duchene.

So none of that is encouraging, and it seems like the search for a quality defenceman is non-existent.  But hey, let's focus on Duchene?

wprager wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:On that Duschene thing, was listening the Insider Trading TSN segment, apparently Murray is saying anyone on D not named Karlsson is available (although it would take a lot of convincing to get Methot, who also has a full no-trade clause).  Also, whoever takes one (or two) of the Sens' D would also have to take Greening.  So I guess we're stuck with what we have?

The whole thing with Duchene's name coming out so suddenly is weird.  Originally, on the pre-game show on TSN 1200 last night, they had Bobby Mac on, and Mendes asked him specifically if there were any quality defencemen on the market that the Sens might be able to get, since the Sens are obviously struggling on D.  Bobby Mac totally ignored that question and immediately launched into Matt Duchene being available, and Ottawa trying to trade AWAY a defenceman, and linking Greening's contract to it.  So Bobby Mac didn't answer the question at all.  It was strange.

Anyway, so assuming Ottawa is trying to trade away one of our weaker d-men (specifically, Wiercioch, Cowen, or Boro), and then also trying to attach Greening to it...what's the value in that?  Negative?  Like, maybe we get a 7th round pick or a bad contract in return?  It's not like we're trading Wiercioch and Greening for Duchene.

So none of that is encouraging, and it seems like the search for a quality defenceman is non-existent.  But hey, let's focus on Duchene?

If Karlsson and Methot are untouchables, the next one is Ceci, not Weircioch or Cowen.  Cowen has size and used to have pedigree (high draft pick).  Weircioch had half a good season that got him noticed last year, not much since then.  But he could go on a bit of a streak, never know.  But to get Duchene you give up Ceci to start the discussion.

wprager wrote:Did McGuire throw both Cameron and Hammond under the bus on TGOR?  When asked how the Preds end up scoring 7 goals one game, then lose 2-1 to the Leafs in a shootout the next game, he immediately answers: The Babcock Factor.  And here we were thinking it was our D.

Then when they asked if Cameron should go with the hot hand and continue playing Hammond he said Hammond has not been very good, giving up a couple stinkers again last night, and Vancouver could have scored a lot more.

Huh???!  I agree that 2nd goal was a stinker, but it came with 34 seconds to go and a 2-goal lead, after he stopped all 18 shots in the 1st and 2nd (the goal in the 1st was off a skate, so ot a shot, technically).  Sure, there was that puck behind him that Boro cleared away, and one of the twins hit a post dead on, but those are all part of the game.  I thought Hammond was great last night, except for that goal with 34 to go (and let's not forget it was a 6 on 4 so he had to worry about the shooter and the pass, maybe he was cheating a bit -- still a stinker, though).

Oglethorpe wrote:
I think I'll go with Hammond's assessment, when he said he was off and not good rather than your assessment of the box score.

wprager wrote:Hammond is very different from Andy in taking blame.  He stops 33 of 35 shots (including two zingers off the head) and says he was not good, whereas Anderson says a weak AHL-side goal in OT was a perfect shot, 12" off the ice, just inside the post.  Not saying Anderson is not a very good goalie, but he does come with a little more drama than Hammond.

wprager wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:
I think I'll go with Hammond's assessment, when he said he was off and not good rather than your assessment of the box score.

WTF?  I watched the game last night.  Looks like Pierre only watched the highlight package which likely showed the puck in the crease, shot off the post, stinker goal.  Also the first one, if you just watch it very quickly, doesn't look all that good, until you realize that the puck was redirected off a skate, not exactly easy to track for a goalie.

Anyhow, thought Hammond was very good, especially in the second period.  I thought McGuire was off in his comments and in his assessment of Hammond's season to date.  Sorry for using stats, again, since they offend you, but Hammond's SV% is .930 overall, which includes the 4 goals he gave up in his first game (after not having played since April).

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:Hammond is very different from Andy in taking blame.  He stops 33 of 35 shots (including two zingers off the head) and says he was not good, whereas Anderson says a weak AHL-side goal in OT was a perfect shot, 12" off the ice, just inside the post.  Not saying Anderson is not a very good goalie, but he does come with a little more drama than Hammond.

Jesus christ, will you ever stop with this?

We have two very good goalies at this point in time. There's no real point in discussing the goaltending position, as it's the one position we're 100% fine with.

Michallica wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:Hammond is very different from Andy in taking blame.  He stops 33 of 35 shots (including two zingers off the head) and says he was not good, whereas Anderson says a weak AHL-side goal in OT was a perfect shot, 12" off the ice, just inside the post.  Not saying Anderson is not a very good goalie, but he does come with a little more drama than Hammond.

Jesus christ, will you ever stop with this?

We have two very good goalies at this point in time. There's no real point in discussing the goaltending position, as it's the one position we're 100% fine with.

He's not wrong though.  There is some more drama with anderson.  Hamburglar is just very humble and that's a good thing, but each goalie handles adversity their own way.  Anderson doesn't like to be overly critical of himself and that works for him.

That said, the team just flat out plays better when hammond plays....I don't know what it is but results don't lie.

LeCaptain wrote:We let the Preds D shoot all over the ice and the Leafs were able to limit them big time.
You are a stats guy, look at this:
Against Ottawa: 23 SOG for the Preds defensemen
Against Toronto: 5 SOG

So Yes, it's the babcock factor, how can you disagree?

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:
I think I'll go with Hammond's assessment, when he said he was off and not good rather than your assessment of the box score.

WTF?  I watched the game last night.  Looks like Pierre only watched the highlight package which likely showed the puck in the crease, shot off the post, stinker goal.  Also the first one, if you just watch it very quickly, doesn't look all that good, until you realize that the puck was redirected off a skate, not exactly easy to track for a goalie.

Anyhow, thought Hammond was very good, especially in the second period.  I thought McGuire was off in his comments and in his assessment of Hammond's season to date.  Sorry for using stats, again, since they offend you, but Hammond's SV% is .930 overall, which includes the 4 goals he gave up in his first game (after not having played since April).

you said playing Hammond on Saturday was the WRONG call though

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:Hammond is very different from Andy in taking blame.  He stops 33 of 35 shots (including two zingers off the head) and says he was not good, whereas Anderson says a weak AHL-side goal in OT was a perfect shot, 12" off the ice, just inside the post.  Not saying Anderson is not a very good goalie, but he does come with a little more drama than Hammond.

Jesus christ, will you ever stop with this?

We have two very good goalies at this point in time. There's no real point in discussing the goaltending position, as it's the one position we're 100% fine with.

Michallica wrote:Pierre is just an Donkey kisser.  He loves babcock so I take it he's just crediting babcock more than he's throwing dave cameron under the bus.  As soon as he said that, I just rolled my eyes. Should have seen that coming a mile away.

That said, sens probably could look in the mirror and hopefully realize they're doing something fundamentally wrong if the lowly leafs can limit the preds.  Then again, it's a strange league.  Dallas has lost twice to toronto.  

tim1_2 wrote:Don't underestimate how much Bryan Murray loves ZBad and Ceci. He has said that he sees ZBad as a future #1 centre. I really don't see him trading both guys for Duchesne. I think, in addition to Karlsson and Methot, that Ceci is pretty much untouchable in his mind.