Trade Ideas: Summer 2014

[Hoss]

 

Cool. GMTM can just pluck a couple off the high faceoff percentage high scoring center tree.

 

Yea, two should ripen up at this secret spot I know in 2015. It's a secret spot so it doesn't cost cap space, just draft picks.

[Huckleberry]

I should have used the sarcasm emoticon ;)

 

 

 

This!

Completely agree, having a center who can net 60% or better on face offs would be nice along with scoring.

 

We drafted him in 2012, his name is grigorenko

[deluca67]

Cool. GMTM can just pluck a couple off the high faceoff percentage high scoring center tree.

Why is it other teams like the Kings, Stars and Blues decide they need centers and boom they acquire centers. Bring up the idea for the Sabres and it becomes some mystical quest. I understand it's difficult, lets not pretend it's impossible.

[mjd1001]

I can't give specifics, but in all seriousness, the Sabres have to start to look at trading very good quantity (which they have a lot of) for excellent quality. I things hold true, it looks like the Sabres are going to have a lot of guys who can be very good #3 or #4 D-men, and maybe a bunch of guys who are going to be good 2nd liners or great 3rd liners. I don't mean to dismiss that, I'm talking about good players here....we aren't talking guys who can be great 4th liners and good 3rd liners.) So, even though it may not be popular, the Sabres have to start really identifying guys on other teams that have a CHANCE at being that first line guy, and if it takes trading a veteran and 2 very good prospects to get him, those are the moves that have to be made.

 

You can only stockpile so many young guys where are first and 2nd round picks for so long, and some point you can't keep them all.

[LastPommerFan]

Why is it other teams like the Kings, Stars and Blues decide they need centers and boom they acquire centers. Bring up the idea for the Sabres and it becomes some mystical quest. I understand it's difficult, lets not pretend it's impossible.

 

The Kings have one high scoring center that they drafted.

 

Blues have zero centers in the top 20. They MIGHT have one next year in Stastny, if he improves.

 

Dallas has the best example in Seguin, but he was never a top 20 center before they traded him. If Spezza can stay healthy, he might get in the top 20 again, but he is definitely not going to be a Star after June 30th, 2015.

 

The Centers the Sabres want to acquire right now are only available the last friday in June.

 

3 years from now, if we still need a center, we can try and grab one as a rental, like Spezza, or a borderline top-20 scorer like Stastny looking for a shot with a contender.

[HopefulFuture]

The Kings have one high scoring center that they drafted.

 

Blues have zero centers in the top 20. They MIGHT have one next year in Stastny, if he improves.

 

Dallas has the best example in Seguin, but he was never a top 20 center before they traded him. If Spezza can stay healthy, he might get in the top 20 again, but he is definitely not going to be a Star after June 30th, 2015.

 

The Centers the Sabres want to acquire right now are only available the last friday in June.

 

3 years from now, if we still need a center, we can try and grab one as a rental, like Spezza, or a borderline top-20 scorer like Stastny looking for a shot with a contender.

 

So, in affect, DeLuca is correct. It's always some mythical quest while other teams are acquiring centers that may, or, may not be top 20 in the next few years.

Hodgson, while a nice player, doesn't project to be in that category either. What Reinhart is forced to wing? What if our other centers (someone mentioned Grigo, I laughed by the way) in our system don't pan out for various reasons? We should what? Keep on waiting? Serious question by the way, I'm not saying we should run right out and get one, but surely there are centers that can be had that serve specific purposes, say, such as, face off wins? Our team sucks at face offs, and especially in the offensive zone, they are, well, offensive................

[Warriorspikes51]

http://www.freep.com...troit-red-wings

 

 

Detroit Free Press mentions Myers trade talks

 

 

... Myers is Buffalo’s top defenseman and the asking price is going to start with one of Gustav Nyquist, Tomas Tatar or Tomas Jurco. Buffalo might well ask for Anthony Mantha, but the Wings aren’t relinquishing him. One player alone wouldn’t do it, though — there would likely be a high draft pick involved, too, maybe even a second player, someone in his mid-20s.

 

That’s a considerable cost, but the Wings have to consider that as they stand right now, they don’t match well against division mates like Boston, Tampa bay and Montreal, much less the teams that stalk the Western Conference. A trade for an impact defenseman would make things look a whole lot rosier.

 

 

 

Proposal:

 

Nyquist + Smith + 1st in exchange for Myers

 

or

 

Nyquist + Tatar + 1st in exchange for Myers + Armia

Edited July 6, 2014 by Warriorspikes51

[LastPommerFan]

 

 

So, in affect, DeLuca is correct. It's always some mythical quest while other teams are acquiring centers that may, or, may not be top 20 in the next few years.

Hodgson, while a nice player, doesn't project to be in that category either. What Reinhart is forced to wing? What if our other centers (someone mentioned Grigo, I laughed by the way) in our system don't pan out for various reasons? We should what? Keep on waiting? Serious question by the way, I'm not saying we should run right out and get one, but surely there are centers that can be had that serve specific purposes, say, such as, face off wins? Our team sucks at face offs, and especially in the offensive zone, they are, well, offensive................

 

Face offs are overrated as long as the team is within the 45-55% range. A 8% faceoff disadvantage translates to 4 draws per game. Hardly worth a roster spot.

 

But yes, centers can be had, just not right now by the Sabres. We don't need a rental (Spezza) and Stastny isn't going to come to the tank.

 

We don't have an established star young wing entering his prime like Erickson to offer in a trade for a risk on a good center with off ice issues.

 

like I said, three years from now, I hope we are in the position to make a move like that should none of our 4-5 top half of the first round centers pan out.

[HopefulFuture]

Face offs are overrated as long as the team is within the 45-55% range. A 8% faceoff disadvantage translates to 4 draws per game. Hardly worth a roster spot.

 

But yes, centers can be had, just not right now by the Sabres. We don't need a rental (Spezza) and Stastny isn't going to come to the tank.

 

We don't have an established star young wing entering his prime like Erickson to offer in a trade for a risk on a good center with off ice issues.

 

like I said, three years from now, I hope we are in the position to make a move like that should none of our 4-5 top half of the first round centers pan out.

 

Well, I do as well. I'm merely saying, DeLuca is correct. It's a myth that has been going on for far to long here in Buffalo. And although I concur it's only a few face offs, it's the ability to control the flow of the game from those face offs that to me would make some difference. If for example 4 or those 8 face offs are offensive zone, if we win 3 instead of 1 out of the 4 of those face offs per game, does that not increase the odds of us controlling the flow of the game from those face offs? I would be inclined to say yes to an extent, that would help. And what of those face off wins that convert to puck control, especially in the offensive zone? Would they not be able to increase scoring opportunities on say, 33% of those situations, conservatively? I would say that's a reasonable expectation, no? And of those 33% chances, what if 33% of that 33% is a quality scoring chance that leads to a goal, would that not alter some game outcomes given how close Buffalo plays in it's games, even during the tank? I'd be inclined to say it will have some affect, no?

[TrueBlueGED]

Well, I do as well. I'm merely saying, DeLuca is correct. It's a myth that has been going on for far to long here in Buffalo. And although I concur it's only a few face offs, it's the ability to control the flow of the game from those face offs that to me would make some difference. If for example 4 or those 8 face offs are offensive zone, if we win 3 instead of 1 out of the 4 of those face offs per game, does that not increase the odds of us controlling the flow of the game from those face offs? I would be inclined to say yes to an extent, that would help. And what of those face off wins that convert to puck control, especially in the offensive zone? Would they not be able to increase scoring opportunities on say, 33% of those situations, conservatively? I would say that's a reasonable expectation, no? And of those 33% chances, what if 33% of that 33% is a quality scoring chance that leads to a goal, would that not alter some game outcomes given how close Buffalo plays in it's games, even during the tank? I'd be inclined to say it will have some affect, no?

 

Winning and moving faceoffs isn't only about the person taking them, it's about the team. Teams can change tactics to win more in a way that ends up costing possession time. Read an article not too long ago on the Oilers doing exactly that. Even when looking at individual players, there doesn't appear to be any real link between winning faceoffs and possession. Ott was great at draws, but not a good possession player. Crosby and Malkin are nothing special at the dot, but are terrific possession players.

 

I can dig up the article about the Oilers if you're interested in it.

 

Edit: I hate posting from my phone oh so much.

Edited July 6, 2014 by TrueBluePhD

[TrueBlueGED]

http://www.mc79hockey.com/2014/04/pyrrhic-faceoff-wins-in-edmonton/

 

The article on faceoffs I referenced above.

[LastPommerFan]

 

 

Well, I do as well. I'm merely saying, DeLuca is correct. It's a myth that has been going on for far to long here in Buffalo. And although I concur it's only a few face offs, it's the ability to control the flow of the game from those face offs that to me would make some difference. If for example 4 or those 8 face offs are offensive zone, if we win 3 instead of 1 out of the 4 of those face offs per game, does that not increase the odds of us controlling the flow of the game from those face offs? I would be inclined to say yes to an extent, that would help. And what of those face off wins that convert to puck control, especially in the offensive zone? Would they not be able to increase scoring opportunities on say, 33% of those situations, conservatively? I would say that's a reasonable expectation, no? And of those 33% chances, what if 33% of that 33% is a quality scoring chance that leads to a goal, would that not alter some game outcomes given how close Buffalo plays in it's games, even during the tank? I'd be inclined to say it will have some affect, no?

 

It is correct that centers can be found through UFA and Trade. It is correct that Darcy could have done that 5 years ago to prevent the current issue. It is incorrect that they Sabres could or should do those things right now. We have spent 3 of the last 5 first round picks on centers. We will likely spend 2 of the next 3 first round picks on centers. Odds our we will get our guy(s) there.

 

If 5 of 8 first round picks are busts, we'll have bigger problems than looking for one more scoring center.

[ubkev]

 

 

It is correct that centers can be found through UFA and Trade. It is correct that Darcy could have done that 5 years ago to prevent the current issue. It is incorrect that they Sabres could or should do those things right now. We have spent 3 of the last 5 first round picks on centers. We will likely spend 2 of the next 3 first round picks on centers. Odds our we will get our guy(s) there.

 

If 5 of 8 first round picks are busts, we'll have bigger problems than looking for one more scoring center.

 

This about sums up my thoughts on the matter.

[HopefulFuture]

Winning and moving faceoffs isn't only about the person taking them, it's about the team. Teams can change tactics to win more in a way that ends up costing possession time. Read an article not too long ago on the Oilers doing exactly that. Even when looking at individual players, there doesn't appear to be any real link between winning faceoffs and possession. Ott was great at draws, but not a good possession player. Crosby and Malkin are nothing special at the dot, but are terrific possession players.

 

I can dig up the article about the Oilers if you're interested in it.

 

Edit: I hate posting from my phone oh so much.

http://www.mc79hocke...ns-in-edmonton/

 

The article on faceoffs I referenced above.

 

Interesting article, and I do agree with the post face off tactics bit, it is common sense. I'd like to see a league wide study like this one. Then I'd be able to tell if the Oilers are an anomaly or the norm in this matter, until then it's a singular study on the Oilers failures. Surely your not suggesting that those findings are the case league wide based on 1 teams data, are you?

 

It is correct that centers can be found through UFA and Trade. It is correct that Darcy could have done that 5 years ago to prevent the current issue. It is incorrect that they Sabres could or should do those things right now. We have spent 3 of the last 5 first round picks on centers. We will likely spend 2 of the next 3 first round picks on centers. Odds our we will get our guy(s) there.

 

If 5 of 8 first round picks are busts, we'll have bigger problems than looking for one more scoring center.

 

I fail to see how anything is incorrect here. DeLuca's statement was pretty clear, and subsequently my comment referencing his statement was pretty clear.

DeLuca denoted having a center that can actually play center, I followed up commenting on the face off situation and threw in scoring to boot. I don't see how your response answers my questions on the intangibles of the prospects in this regards. Since they are currently unknown commodities at the NHL level simply because they have no real time in the league as of yet, I'd argue they are a larger risk than going out and getting a center that already performs these functions. Of course, that's not feasible, but, it is reasonable. And I understand why it's not reasonable, were in the middle the beginning of the rebuild and hence need to wait to see what we actually have in these players. In the end, it doesn't address the fact that DeLuca is correct and I agreed with him.

[LastPommerFan]

He is correct. I never said he was wrong. I extrapolated his comment saying that was not the course to take right now, but is something Darcy should have done years ago or GMTM can do a couple years from now if needed.

 

Your points on faceoffs and timing, however, are inaccurate. Faceoffs are not as critical as common sense may indicate, and getting a center in the short term would cost us more than we need to spend with 3 (+2 more likely coming) first round center prospects in the system.

[X. Benedict]

He is correct. I never said he was wrong. I extrapolated his comment saying that was not the course to take right now, but is something Darcy should have done years ago or GMTM can do a couple years from now if needed.

 

Your points on faceoffs and timing, however, are inaccurate. Faceoffs are not as critical as common sense may indicate, and getting a center in the short term would cost us more than we need to spend with 3 (+2 more likely coming) first round center prospects in the system.

 

I'd just like to suggest that the flattening of face-off stats in the aggregate is a really unhelpful way of coming to your conclusion. Every face-off has context. Some matter more than others.

 

For example. It is a Buffalo home game and the draw is in the Buffalo defensive zone. Boston puts out Bergeron for the draw. If Nolan puts out Ennis for the draw there is probably a 70% chance that Boston wins possession of that draw. For Buffalo just to get to a 50% chance, Buffalo has to put out somebody like Konopka.

 

So Ted Nolan can be calling a hell of game with line-changes against Boston just to stay at 45% FO. But if they don't really matter, and he throws out just anybody, chances are Buffalo gets their ass kicked and runs around all-game.

 

Just an example off of the top of my head, but Face-offs matter IMO much more than you are suggesting.

 

That's why Toews, Crosby, Bergeron, and Kopitar are worth their weight in gold, because they are constantly forcing coaches into poor match-ups because of their face-off ability married to their talent.

 

FWIW I think what probably pushed Samson to the top of the draft class was his face-off ability. We'll see how he does against NHL talent however.

Edited July 7, 2014 by X. Benedict

[LastPommerFan]

 

 

I'd just like to suggest that the flattening of face-off stats in the aggregate is a really unhelpful way of coming to your conclusion. Every face-off has context. Some matter more than others.

 

For example. It is a Buffalo home game and the draw is in the Buffalo defensive zone. Boston puts out Bergeron for the draw. If Nolan puts out Ennis for the draw there is probably a 70% chance that Boston wins possession of that draw. For Buffalo just to get to a 50% chance, Buffalo has to put out somebody like Konopka.

 

So Ted Nolan can be calling a hell of game with line-changes against Boston just to stay at 45% FO. But if they don't really matter, and he throws out just anybody, chances are Buffalo gets their ass kicked and runs around all-game.

 

Just an example off of the top of my head, but Face-offs matter IMO much more than you are suggesting.

 

That's why Toews, Crosby, Bergeron, and Kopitar are worth their weight in gold, because they are constantly forcing coaches into poor match-ups because of their face-off ability married to their talent.

 

FWIW I think what probably pushed Samson to the top of the draft class was his face-off ability. We'll see how he does against NHL talent however.

 

Faceoffs matter.

 

Malkin and Seguin and Tavares are still great centers anyone would love on their team. If my argument came across as faceoffs are irrelevant, I apologize. They matter. But I don't think they crack the top half dozen bullet points to look at to compare centers.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Glass Case Of Emotion

[LGR4GM]

So, in affect, DeLuca is correct. It's always some mythical quest while other teams are acquiring centers that may, or, may not be top 20 in the next few years.

Hodgson, while a nice player, doesn't project to be in that category either. What Reinhart is forced to wing? What if our other centers (someone mentioned Grigo, I laughed by the way) in our system don't pan out for various reasons? We should what? Keep on waiting? Serious question by the way, I'm not saying we should run right out and get one, but surely there are centers that can be had that serve specific purposes, say, such as, face off wins? Our team sucks at face offs, and especially in the offensive zone, they are, well, offensive................

Well, I do as well. I'm merely saying, DeLuca is correct. It's a myth that has been going on for far to long here in Buffalo. And although I concur it's only a few face offs, it's the ability to control the flow of the game from those face offs that to me would make some difference. If for example 4 or those 8 face offs are offensive zone, if we win 3 instead of 1 out of the 4 of those face offs per game, does that not increase the odds of us controlling the flow of the game from those face offs? I would be inclined to say yes to an extent, that would help. And what of those face off wins that convert to puck control, especially in the offensive zone? Would they not be able to increase scoring opportunities on say, 33% of those situations, conservatively? I would say that's a reasonable expectation, no? And of those 33% chances, what if 33% of that 33% is a quality scoring chance that leads to a goal, would that not alter some game outcomes given how close Buffalo plays in it's games, even during the tank? I'd be inclined to say it will have some affect, no?

I am taking things a little out of context but Reinhart will not be a winger because he can do the second thing I bolded.

 

I will repeat that. Samson Reinhart is not and will not be a Winger. If Samson becomes a winger we better have Eichel and McDavid at center otherwise Tim Murray screwed up. Now I don't think Murray screwed up because Reinhart is a guy who is at his best with the puck on his stick. He is a playmaker.

Edited July 7, 2014 by LGR4GM

[HopefulFuture]

I am taking things a little out of context but Reinhart will not be a winger because he can do the second thing I bolded.

 

I will repeat that. Samson Reinhart is not and will not be a Winger. If Samson becomes a winger we better have Eichel and McDavid at center otherwise Tim Murray screwed up. Now I don't think Murray screwed up because Reinhart is a guy who is at his best with the puck on his stick. He is a playmaker.

 

And I'm hoping your correct on Reinhart and the larger picture for Buffalo's future does look much more sound at the center position given this and the next draft (fingers crossed, I hope).

But I'm always intrigued by the Sabres play these past few years particularly what DeLuca stated. The team spent a great deal of time running around, chasing the puck due to some face off losses, more so than they should have. And since the thread is about trades, I was wondering if DeLuca's comment struck a cord and put some names out there from others that can see Buffalo making a trade for such a player, of course, given the parameters set by TM, young, NHL ready talent.

 

He is correct. I never said he was wrong. I extrapolated his comment saying that was not the course to take right now, but is something Darcy should have done years ago or GMTM can do a couple years from now if needed.

 

Your points on faceoffs and timing, however, are inaccurate. Faceoffs are not as critical as common sense may indicate, and getting a center in the short term would cost us more than we need to spend with 3 (+2 more likely coming) first round center prospects in the system.

 

Well, I would have to believe that face off wins equals puck possession more often than not. That has to have some bearing on the game I would imagine. As I stated above, Buffalo spent a great deal of time chasing the puck due to face off losses. But the thread itself is on trades, so I was wondering as I pointed above as well, if DeLuca's comment struck a cord with the members and some individual players came to mind that could be had to help mitigate the situation. The reason I ask is due to TM's time line on a rebuild. I can't see his time line being achieved without puck possession as a consideration and I'm sure the organization takes many things in to consideration but judging from past seasons I would have to believe this is one of them is all.

[LastPommerFan]

Well, I would have to believe that face off wins equals puck possession more often than not. That has to have some bearing on the game I would imagine. As I stated above, Buffalo spent a great deal of time chasing the puck due to face off losses. But the thread itself is on trades, so I was wondering as I pointed above as well, if DeLuca's comment struck a cord with the members and some individual players came to mind that could be had to help mitigate the situation. The reason I ask is due to TM's time line on a rebuild. I can't see his time line being achieved without puck possession as a consideration and I'm sure the organization takes many things in to consideration but judging from past seasons I would have to believe this is one of them is all.

 

Yes. face-offs affect possession in some way. But not as much as you'd think. I used to very much think it was a hugely important variable, but reading through the analysis TBPhD has provided previously, and here again, I have become a convert. Face-offs have a measurable affect, but passing and skating and stick handling and board play and shooting accuracy etc have a far more significant effect on possession. Faceoff ability might be the difference between Kopitar and Malkin, but they don't put Gaustad in the discussion with Kadri.

[carpandean]

My two thoughts on FO%:

 

1) I have never seen a strength-of-competition FO rating. Until I do, I'm not convinced by the "it's only 3 more faceoffs" argument. I've said it before, but if you're a 60% faceoff guy against primarily the top faceoff guys on other teams, then swapping in a 50% faceoff player who normally faces other 50%-ers, wouldn't just cost the team 10%. More than likely, it would cost 20-30%.

 

2) One would logically expect a strong interaction effect between a player's FO% and his (plus his linemates') skill level. Sydney Crosby spending time after practice to get 5% better at faceoffs does a lot more for his team than replacing a 55% 4th-liner with a 60% 4th-liner. The problem is that it easy to find several options for the 4th line, so it's also easier to choose one who has a higher %. When talking about top-line centers, a GM will rarely have multiple options. Even in those rare cases, there will likely be more critical differentiators.

[TrueBlueGED]

Interesting article, and I do agree with the post face off tactics bit, it is common sense. I'd like to see a league wide study like this one. Then I'd be able to tell if the Oilers are an anomaly or the norm in this matter, until then it's a singular study on the Oilers failures. Surely your not suggesting that those findings are the case league wide based on 1 teams data, are you?

 

Yea I certainly didn't mean to say the Oilers case proves that changing tactics to win more faceoffs will doom you offensive zone possession. Rather, that if making team-level changes to win more faceoffs results in less possession, then thats the functional definition of cutting your nose to spite your face. In other words, I think there's a danger in saying "we need to win more faceoffs" in a vacuum. It may be nice to win more, but depending on what it takes to do so, it may not be worth it. How useful is a faceoff win if you can't maintain possession because of the player alignment or selection you used to win it?

 

[TrueBlueGED]

My two thoughts on FO%:

 

1) I have never seen a strength-of-competition FO rating. Until I do, I'm not convinced by the "it's only 3 more faceoffs" argument. I've said it before, but if you're a 60% faceoff guy against primarily the top faceoff guys on other teams, then swapping in a 50% faceoff player who normally faces other 50%-ers, wouldn't just cost the team 10%. More than likely, it would cost 20-30%.

 

2) One would logically expect a strong interaction effect between a player's FO% and his (plus his linemates') skill level. Sydney Crosby spending time after practice to get 5% better at faceoffs does a lot more for his team than replacing a 55% 4th-liner with a 60% 4th-liner. The problem is that it easy to find several options for the 4th line, so it's also easier to choose one who has a higher %. When talking about top-line centers, a GM will rarely have multiple options. Even in those rare cases, there will likely be more critical differentiators.

 

If we're including quality of competition then I'm even more skeptical about the value added that FO% provides. Boston of course wants Bergeron matched up with Crosby if at all possible. If Crosby is always matched up with 55%+ guys, how much is he really getting from working to go from 50-55% himself? It still basically a coin flip. Sure, Hodgson vs. Bergeron is a slaughter, but if that's the matchup you're getting, you're probably screwed anyway.

 

On point #2, I don't think the interaction effect would be very strong at all. I'd expect Crosby to be a possession beast whether he wins 50% or 55% of his draws, since his ability to possess the puck is skill and sense based. This is actually something we can look at if somebody were ambitious enough.

 

Your last sentence is what really puts me in the position of "so what?" If faceoff percentage is almost never a critical differentiator between players, then why do we spend so much time talking about it? Players are selected and put into roles in the criteria Glass went through in his post.

[TrueBlueGED]

I've been thinking more (probably too much) about this and one thing I'd be curious about is how valuable a faceoff win is against worse players (as in worse at stuff after the faceoff, not the faceoff itself). Is Crosby winning a draw against somebody like Gaustad more or less beneficial than against Bergeron? My initial thought was the win would matter more against lesser players, but the more I thought about it, if the talent difference is very high then the faceoff may lose importance. I think a reasonable proxy for this would be looking at possession after faceoffs separated by home/away splits (the assumption being a talent mismatch is more likely at home with the last change).

 

Edit: Hi mods, my apologies for helping drive this topic off the rails :lol:

Edited July 7, 2014 by TrueBluePhD

[X. Benedict]

I've been thinking more (probably too much) about this and one thing I'd be curious about is how valuable a faceoff win is against worse players (as in worse at stuff after the faceoff, not the faceoff itself). Is Crosby winning a draw against somebody like Gaustad more or less beneficial than against Bergeron? My initial thought was the win would matter more against lesser players, but the more I thought about it, if the talent difference is very high then the faceoff may lose importance. I think a reasonable proxy for this would be looking at possession after faceoffs separated by home/away splits (the assumption being a talent mismatch is more likely at home with the last change).

 

Edit: Hi mods, my apologies for helping drive this topic off the rails :lol:

 

Generally, I think if you are winning or even, what you've done in that situation by playing Crosby and drawing say, Gaustad, is you've locked an inferior offensive player onto the ice, putting your opponent team into a defensive posture for a shift. Now even if Gaustad wins the shift, it is not likely he's going to score against you.

 

Now a Bergeron is light years more dangerous. He can take your lunch and eat it, by winning the draw and scoring. I don't think anyone would call Bergeron the most gifted or athletic athlete, but he's awfully smart with the puck. So it is far more important to win a draw against Bergeron for sure.