Episode 56 – Something Is Better Than Nothing
July 18th, 2009, 10:26 am
Perhaps the most exciting and groundbreaking things didn’t happen to the Sharks this week, but there was a little movement. Mike and Doug talk about the little news there is, and engage in what the offseason is all about- conjecture and wild speculation.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Loading ...
DUUUUDE,
All you guys are considering are faceoffs, and pest qualities, fighting Joe Thornton… You have to look at EVERYTHING. How can you say Nichol is an upgrade just based on those few things? If Nichol is actually better in your opinion, fine, but at least prove it by comparing Goc to Nichol in all relevant categories. Like so. Please respond to this and tell me whether I’ve made a good point, and enlightened you guys, or why you didn’t do this from the beginning and why skating, skill, stickhandling, and actual skill is irrelevant.
Goc vs Nichol @ faceoffs = wash.
Goc vs Nichol @ pestiness, fighting Joe Thornton = Nichol is better
Goc vs Nichol @ skating = Goc is better
Goc vs Nichol @ stickhandling = Goc is better
Goc vs Nichol @ penalty killing = about a wash
Goc vs Nichol @ controlling the puck behind the net = Goc is better
Goc vs Nichol @ speed = Goc is better
Goc vs Nichol @ passing = Goc is better
Goc vs Nichol at offensive hockey sense, poke checking, defensive positioning = who’s really the say, those are probably a wash too.
Goc vs Nichol @ passion, heart, at least visible passion and heart = Nichol has shown he’s better
So does heart, pestiness, and fighting Joe Thornton count more than actual hockey skill, ability, skating, puck handling, keeping the puck behind the net, and all that? As you can see Goc is better at most aspects of hockey than Nichol. The only question is whether Nichol’s pestiness and all trumps everything else.
Does it?
Tom,
You’re certainly correct in that Goc is better than Nichol in certain aspects of the game. The question is, is Goc better in the aspects of the game that the Sharks need? The facets where Goc is superior are 1st and 2nd line skills. But neither Goc nor Nichol is going to fill that role. For the slot the Sharks are looking to fill, I’d rather have a guy that finishes his check every single time than a guy that can skate faster. For the 3rd and 4th line guys, you need faceoffs, PK, grit, heart, and passion. Three out of five of those Nichol is better (IMHO) and in the other two, it’s a dead heat.
ROFL you guys. Pavelski did not have similar numbers in his rookie season to Versteeg. Versteeg is comparable to Ryan Clowe. In fact he’s better. Barker you can compare to Vlasic, Ehrhoff. And they’re all getting paid in the 3mil range. So are they overpaid? Yes, Ehrhoff, Vlasic, Clowe, and maybe Barker are overpaid. Versteeg isn’t. I mean raelly you guys. Pavelski’s rookie year compares to Versteeg’s? Please
Tom: You’re telling me that while Versteeg had 11 more points than Pavs in his first full season in the NHL that means he is worth twice as much in his first RFA deal? You’re making an even stronger case for why Tallon was canned. He blew it. No need to give Versteeg 3M right off the bat – I’m not saying he’s not a good player, but he’s had one good season in the NHL. He could be great…or he could be Pat Falloon. So you can call us out and spell really “raelly” all you want, I stick by my point.
And in the current market, Ryane Clowe is a steal at 3.5M. When you consider he outperforms other power forwards like Dustin Penner (4.3M) and Ryan Malone (6M), it’s a solid signing for a 2nd line guy who gives you 60 points and toughness.
And I challenge you to name three highlights from Marcel Goc’s Sharks career. You’ll have more memories of Scott Nichol in his first month. Go on…I’m waiting…and Goc’s blog doesn’t count.
Is one of those Nichol memories going to be Nichol losing memories as he gets another concussion?
Dudes,
While I am somewhat intimidated as I compose this message to the gods of hockey-podcasting, I must admit, dudes, that I feel a little Erin Andrews’ed at the moment. Her beauty was wrongfully exposed to the world similar to how my audio-miracle, “Bring Home the Cup” featuring genius lyrics such as “We bout spent to the cap, ronnie what you think about that, got a long summ’a’ for your handicap!” has been distributed to the millions of listeners (if not billions, but in this instance it is best to be conservative) through your podcast. Where are the royalties? oh REAL funny, dudes, confusing my song for a LAUGH TRACK for hockey gods’ sake!
ha. ha… I love hearing it. Longer off-season than expected so I should have some time to muster up another song. It will be specifically for you guys because I am truly grateful for your podcast.
My favorite moment, by far, was the insta-classic delayed live news reporting of the huskins signing, and listening to Doug get all riled up for it.
Looking forward to the next podcast!!
Jeremy
Dudes,
Gotta say – I am probably in the minority here but I was reminded this week of how I often prefer the Mike and Doug podcasts to the interview-heavy ones. Not that I don’t enjoy some EJ but just saying, I prize your analysis.
Jeremy – Thank you for writing the greatest song of all time.
DUDES,
I MET TODD MCLELLAN TODAY!
I was with some of my Boys & Girls Club kids and ran into him at Pier 39. He was with his two sons. I had to sit down for 5 minutes afterward. I said “Todd Mclellan. Hi, I’m Jeremy. I’m an absolutely huge fan,” and told him he’d be seeing me and more BGC kids at training camp.
He looked bored and unhappy to be at Pier 39. haha
Doug…
Where are you getting your information man? I’m starting to wonder if you’re getting your opinions from the same place you’re getting your facts, because both are incorrect.
Joe Pavelski in 2006-2007: 28 points in 46 games.
Joe Pavelski in 2007-2008 (first full season), 40 points in 82 games, and a +1. And only 19 goals.
Kris Versteeg, 2008 – 2009 (first full season), 53 points, that’s 13 more than 40, not 11. 22 goals, and a +15!!! And in 4 less games.
Statistically Versteeg has done better than Pavelski. And even this season comparing Pavelski to Versteeg, Pavelski barely eclipsed Versteeg in points, despite playing under the stat padding Mclellan system, and despite having an extra year of experience.
But none of that really matters. Stats are for people who don’t watch every NHL team, and who don’t scout every player. Have you seen Versteeg play? Pavelski’s upside is limited. He does not have any physical gifts. What makes him good is his hockey sense and online vision, which has already developed. It might get a bit better, but it won’t get that much better, and his skating, speed, and puckhandling are about as good as they will get.
Versteeg, on the other hand, has so much more upside. What makes Versteeg good is his speed, skating, balance, puckhandling, and just overall physical skill. Those things already make him a better player than Pavelski. And imagine what will happen once he develops better hockey sense and vision. He will be an impact player the likes of which Pavelski can never become.
But even when we don’t talk about development, Versteeg is better than Pavelski right now. He’s just more skilled all around at the offensive end of the ice. And defensively he’s not a liability either. +/- is another shit statistic but he still wouldn’t be a +15 if he was worse off than Pavelski defensively.
When all is said and done though, the Pavelski and Versteeg comparison is useless. You’re bringing Pavelski’s contract into a discussion about “fair value,” but Pavelski is not fair value. He is underpaid. Everyone knows that. He is basically the one Sharks player who Doug Wilson underpayed. Why don’t you compare Versteeg to Michalek, Clowe. Michalek only had 35 points after his first season, and 66 after his second, but statistics aside he does not have the hands that Versteeg does. He is not as offensively talented, yet he got a huge contract. After Clowe’s first full season he 52 points, 1 less than Versteeg, yet he got more money.
Face it. You picked the one underpaid Sharks player to compare Versteeg to because you’re biased towards the Sharks, and you already had your mind made up about Tallon. Instead of looking over other contracts with an open mind, and then deciding whether Versteeg was overpaid, you simply already had your mind made up, and went looking for the one contract that you could use in your argument, and not looking for the contracts that would have told you the truth.
What makes Tallon a good GM is the players he brought in. Even without messing up qualifying offers, Doug Wilson manages to overpay almost every single one of his players. The difference will Tallon is even if he overpays a few players, he actually does other things that are good. Bringing in Toews, Kane, Sharp, Versteeg, Barker… the list goes on.
on ice vision. lol online vision
Joshhatrick: Thank you for listening to the podcast. I’m glad you agree with all my insights and concur that everything I say is correct, no matter what.
LOL.
Listen, we can agree to disagree – to quote the great Ron Burgundy, “When in Rome.” I think either I didn’t make myself clear or you’re missing my point. I’m not knocking Versteeg, I think he’s a good player and I had him on my fantasy team (which is even more embarrassing that I F’d up his stats, gotta do a better job of being on the money with the numbers, you are correct there). BUT – it doesn’t mean he should get this big of a raise after his NHL entry deal, and not for a team that is staring Salary Cap Hell right in the face like Chicago is.
I think Tallon wasted 6M on Versteeg and Barker and could have kept them for less, but they’ll never know because he screwed up the qualifying offers and had to offer more. I think they could have signed him to a similar deal that Pavelski got at 2 years/3-3.5M-ish and the same with Barker. I like both these players, trust me, (and I’ve watched them play smartie – don’t question my NHL Center Ice) but it doesn’t make a ton of sense to make them instant Trump’s after 78 games for Versteeg and Barker bouncing back and forth between Chicago and the AHL, even last year.
Can you explain how Jack Johnson got signed a 1.4M deal and Barker gets roughly 3.1M? Again, no knock on Barker’s ability – but really – he’s worth two times more than Jack Johnson?
“What makes Tallon a good GM is the players he brought in” ???? Come on Josh. This is the dude who signed the most overpaid starting goalie in the NHL in Huet, which the Hawks are stuck with for the next three years at $5.6M. He crippled their cap with Brian Campbell and this is also the dude who gave Tomas Kopecky, who couldn’t even get into a Stanley Cup final game, $1.2M per year? While the Hawks drafted well, their UFA signings mostly stink.
Thanks for listening and for the good debate. Can’t tell if you’re a Sharks fan, but we appreciate the support and banter.
Barker’s deal and stats look like Matt Carle. Or Ryan Suter ($3.5M). Plus, Barker had a pretty strong playoff for a young d-man — 3 Gs, 9pts in 17 gms. All ES goals, too.
If Jack Johnson didn’t get hurt, he probably gets a bigger deal. Plus, it’s only for 2 years, presumably because he’s betting on himself tearing it up and going UFA sooner.
Hossa out until December. Anyone still want to defend Dale Tallon? You don’t give 11 year deals to a guy who needs major shoulder surgery.
Doug,
Bringing in two goalies at around 6mil each was monumentally stupid. There’s no doubt about that. I’ve heard some talk that Tallon wasn’t responsible for bringing in Huet, that it was a marketing thing, like with Campbell. I don’t know. But the fact that Tallon was able to build such a great team under the salary cap even with 12mil tied up in goalies really does speak to how well he has drafted, and the other moves he has made. Sharp, Kane, Toews, Versteeg, Barker, not to mention the lower line gems on the Hawks… compare bringing in/drafting all those great players to what Doug Wilson has done. Doug Wilson may have not done anything as monumentally stupid as signing Huet to that contract, but Doug Wilson hasn’t done anything as good as drafting Kane, Toews, Versteeg, etc in the past few seasons. Doug Wilson was lucky to get Thornton, and lucky that Tampa got bought by idiots who wanted to trade away Boyle, on and on top of that lucky that Boyle picked SJ. Sure you can just focus on the Huet signing, aka the bad, or you can just focus on the good, which is the drafting by Tallon, filling out the roster with great players for the bottom lines… I think you’re focusing too much on the bad and maybe I’m overfocusing on the good. But I do think that when you take both into account, at the end of the day Tallon brought in 5-8 really good players, whether that be from the draft or whatever, and he made one or two stupid signings. If I could have Tallon or Doug Wilson I would take Tallon. I mean you seem to be forgetting the biggest factor here. Despite Huet, and whatever else, Tallon turned the Blackhawks from one of the worst teams in the NHL into one of the top 5 teams in the NHL in just a few seasons. You seem to think he didn’t do very much right and did a lot wrong, but if that were actually true the results would have been different. He took the Hawks from the bottom of the league to the conference finals in just a few seasons. Doug Wilson has had much longer to take the Sharks to the stanley cup, and he got to start out with a much better team, and he hasn’t managed it.
For the record,
I really like you guys. I’ve probably been mean so I’m sorry. It’s just so frustrating hearing people who seem like nice intelligent people on their podcasts be so mistaken when it comes to some of these issues about the Sharks. it really is frustrating to present facts about how bad the drafting has been and to read your post trying as hard as you can to dance around the FACTS. Like “we didnt have a chance to draft those specific players, oh, besides these ones.”
But, I listen to your podcasts, I like your personalities, you guys seem like good guys. You’re just blinded by your love for the Sharks. the truth is in front of you and you don’t want to see it because you don’t want to believe your beloved team are as bad at some things as I’m saying they are. I hope you guys can lift the veil and accept these things and then actually address them objectively on your podcast, which would be really interesting. Either way I will keep listening 🙂
Josh, thanks for the kind words. Of course I am biased towards the Sharks, and I want to believe they are good. I do have data to support my position. Your position is valid as well. We just happen to disagree. Not unlike GMs that debate taking Milan Michalek over Dion Phaeneuf, or Jack Skille over Anze Kopitar :-).