Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LGR4GM

Reports: Max Domi wants out of Montreal

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Thorny said:

So, in general, with D prioritizing D over O, I see why proper handedness for D would be preferred. The first thing a capable coach will do with players who play defense is maximize their ability to play proper defense, as a unit. 

To me it comes down to whether or not I'm most often facing forward or backwards in the D zone, and it's forward.

I’m not trying to be a dick here. But how many times, when you are facing forward, Is your play the backhand? I think you are way more likely to send the puck behind the net to your partner than you are to start a breakout from the wall. And even then, I’d rather be on my off hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

So, in general, with D prioritizing D over O, I see why proper handedness for D would be preferred. The first thing a capable coach will do with players who play defense is maximize their ability to play proper defense, as a unit.

But the skill set of a particular player also comes in to play.

Justin Falk is big and slow. One would think the preferred move against him would be a speed move to the outside as opposed to a power move to the inside. Playing his proper hand extends his range against the outside move and provides insurance against his limitations.

Quinn Hughes is the opposite. You aren't going to fly by him to the outside, but you might be able to overpower him to the middle. Having his stick to middle might be to his advantage when defending.

There have to be as many variations as there are players.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

But the skill set of a particular player also comes in to play.

Justin Falk is big and slow. One would think the preferred move against him would be a speed move to the outside as opposed to a power move to the inside. Playing his proper hand extends his range against the outside move and provides insurance against his limitations.

Quinn Hughes is the opposite. You aren't going to fly by him to the outside, but you might be able to overpower him to the middle. Having his stick to middle might be to his advantage when defending.

There have to be as many variations as there are players.

So is your argument that the league is incorrect to be heavily weighted to handedness on the defensive side?

I think if we ignore the outliers, we'd see that most D-men are there to play D, and get the puck out. Most D are going to benefit from their defensive strengths maximized, as you've said playing on your proper hand does, no? Doesn't this explain why handedness is so sought after among NHL teams, on D?

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I’m not trying to be a dick here. But how many times, when you are facing forward, Is your play the backhand? I think you are way more likely to send the puck behind the net to your partner than you are to start a breakout from the wall. And even then, I’d rather be on my off hand.

Way more often I'm breaking out, than sending it back. 

Unless I'm on my offhand, then I'm often rimming it back around a little more.

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

So is your argument that the league is incorrect to be heavily weighted to handedness on the defensive side?

I think if we ignore the outliers, we'd see that most D-men are there to play D, and get the puck out. Most D are going to benefit from their defensive strengths maximized, as you've said playing on your proper hand does, no? Doesn't this explain why handedness is so sought after among NHL teams, on D?

Again, my point is that just because these players have learned to play this way since the time they were ten yo doesn’t mean that their handedness is the reason they are better at it. It just means they’ve practiced longer at in.

Start an off handed D from ten years old and maybe he is just as good at it and maybe brings something else that we don’t know about.

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Way more often I'm breaking out, than sending it back. 

Unless I'm on my offhand, then I'm often rimming it back around a little more.

Me, too. Not sure that is true in the NHL

 

i love these discussions. I always learn something.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Again, my point is that just because these players have learned to play this way since the time they were ten yo doesn’t mean that their handedness is the reason they are better at it. It just means they’ve practiced longer at in.

Start an off handed D from ten years old and maybe he is just as good at it and maybe brings something else that we don’t know about.

Me, too. Not sure that is true in the NHL

 

i love these discussions. I always learn something.

Well, I know, I was phrasing that to dudacek specifically - in this one case-  cause he conceded to me my argument that proper hand in the D zone = better defensive results. 

Your point about players maybe being better on their proper hand merely because they have always learned that way is logistically sound and I can't really argue against it - like proving a negative. Maybe it's true - I don't know. 

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Well, I know, I was phrasing that to dudacek specifically - in this one case-  cause he conceded to me my argument that proper hand in the D zone = better defensive results. 

Your point about it players maybe being better on their proper hand merely because they have always learned that way is logistically sound and I can't really argue against it - like proving a negative. Maybe it's true - I don't know. 

So, just some more food for thought. I’ve seen those handedness/effectiveness charts, but you even said that if they are playing their off hand, it’s usually the lower pairings. Wouldn’t that mean that teams don’t have a guy good enough so they stick someone in to that position who is already not that good? Doesn’t seem like those numbers are all that scientifically reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Thorny said:

So is your argument that the league is incorrect to be heavily weighted to handedness on the defensive side?

Nope. Just that we shouldn't adhere to handedness when looking at a defenceman, we should look at his track record of being able to play that side. TJ Brodie is one the comes to mind as leftie who has always played right. Montour as a rightie who looked less than stellar on the left.

26 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I think if we ignore the outliers, we'd see that most D-men are there to play D, and get the puck out. Most D are going to benefit from their defensive strengths maximized, as you've said playing on your proper hand does, no? Doesn't this explain why handedness is so sought after among NHL teams, on D?

I think so, in terms of generalities.

Like Swamp, I'm trying to learn things.

7 minutes ago, SwampD said:

So, just some more food for thought. I’ve seen those handedness/effectiveness charts, but you even said that if they are playing their off hand, it’s usually the lower pairings. Wouldn’t that mean that teams don’t have a guy good enough so they stick someone in to that position who is already not that good? Doesn’t seem like those numbers are all that scientifically reliable.

I think there may be more lefties than righties in the player pool and there is decent chance your fourth-best leftie is better than your 3rd-best rightie, even on the offhand chance he is playing on his off-hand.

Edited by dudacek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SwampD said:

So, just some more food for thought. I’ve seen those handedness/effectiveness charts, but you even said that if they are playing their off hand, it’s usually the lower pairings. Wouldn’t that mean that teams don’t have a guy good enough so they stick someone in to that position who is already not that good? Doesn’t seem like those numbers are all that scientifically reliable.

I actually haven't see the charts, I was merely placing my faith (perhaps naively?) in the collective wisdom of the NHL establishment as a whole in demonstrating a clear bias towards handedness on the defensive side, basically across the board. 

They could be wrong. 

To your point I'd imagine there are outliers on the other end as well in the sense that, the guys you will get playing their off-hand are sometimes exceptions to the rule (dudacek mentioned Hughes?) and particularly and singularly efficient in the off-hand art, with skills amenable and perhaps best suited to, and maximized by playing on their off-hand (and thus inflating the numbers, to perhaps an equal degree to the journeymen or whatever off handers you smartly pointed out)

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Nope. Just that we shouldn't adhere to handedness when looking at a defenceman, we should look at his track record of being able to play that side. TJ Brodie is one the comes to mind as leftie who has always played right. Montour as a rightie who looked less than stellar on the left.

I think so, in terms of generalities.

Like Swamp, I'm trying to learn things.

That's good, cause I'm only here for Training Day. 

Saddle up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I actually haven't see the charts, I was merely placing my faith (perhaps naively?) in the collective wisdom of the NHL establishment as a whole is designating a clear bias towards handedness on the defensive side, basically across the board. 

They could be wrong. 

I’ll just say that playing D, I’d rather be on my proper hand. As a forward, I absolutely prefer my off hand. I wonder if NHLers are often put in position they might not prefer because, “well, that’s the way we do it.”

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I’ll just say that playing D, I’d rather be on my proper hand. As a forward, I absolutely prefer my off hand. I wonder if NHLers are often put in position they might not prefer because, “well, that’s the way we do it.”

This is pretty much where I am at, though on offense I would say I don't have a preference, actually. 

My shot sucks and I am a good playmaker so I find it easier from the right side in that regard. But I get no feeling of being out of place as a right shot on the left side on offense, like I do when lining up on the left D. 

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

This is pretty much where I am at, though on offense I would say I don't have a preference, actually. 

I should also point out that I don’t have an advanced stats team tracking my results. I really wish I did, cuz just because I prefer my proper hand on D, doesn’t mean I’m better at it. I might be way better offhand,... it’s just not as much fun so I don’t care.😀

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friedman was asked about this on a Calgary radio show yesterday and corroborated that Domi has not requested a trade.  He says he specifically asked, and was told no.

Additionally, he made it sound like Bergevin will be fielding offers on both Domi and Danault and will likely trade one or both of them depending on return.  The takeaway I got was that they really aren't leaning towards moving one over the other.

Link here, I think it's a good listen: https://www.sportsnet.ca/960/big-show/elliotte-friedman-vegas-goalie-situation-player-tracking-technology-ekman-larssons-future/

Edited by Shootica
  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shootica said:

Friedman was asked about this on a Calgary radio show yesterday and corroborated that Domi has not requested a trade.  He says he specifically asked, and was told no.

Additionally, he made it sound like Bergevin will be fielding offers on both Domi and Danault and will likely trade one or both of them depending on return.  The takeaway I got was that they really aren't leaning towards moving one over the other.

Link here, I think it's a good listen: https://www.sportsnet.ca/960/big-show/elliotte-friedman-vegas-goalie-situation-player-tracking-technology-ekman-larssons-future/

Personally I would go with Denault because he will be cheaper to acquire, is defensively sound, has decent production metrics, really good possession metrics, and the only real downside you have is he only has 1 year left until UFA but he's only making just over 3mil. 

Idk what it would take to get him but the Canadiens are short on defensive prospects so maybe a 2nd in 2021 and a defensive prospect would be enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Personally I would go with Denault because he will be cheaper to acquire, is defensively sound, has decent production metrics, really good possession metrics, and the only real downside you have is he only has 1 year left until UFA but he's only making just over 3mil. 

Idk what it would take to get him but the Canadiens are short on defensive prospects so maybe a 2nd in 2021 and a defensive prospect would be enough. 

Totally agree.  Danault as a 2C would provide a nice, different skill set that Buffalo needs.  Sort of ROR-lite.  I think he is exactly the type of player that GM Kevy should target.

Edited by Curt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Curt said:

Totally agree.  Danault as a 2C would provide a nice, different skill set that Buffalo needs.  Sort of ROR-lite.  I think he is exactly the type of player that GM Kevy should target.

I really like Danault, and I think he would be a fantastic addition.  I just fear that a trade and sign won't work with him.

In my opinion, if the Habs trade him over Domi it's either because they get blown away with an offer, or because Danault has expressed that he doesn't want to sign there to primarily be a defensive 3C.  I think the latter is more likely given his playoff usage, his comments, and the rise of Suzuki and Kotkaniemi.  That's how I see him being traded.

If we trade for him, wouldn't he see the exact same writing on the wall with Cozens?  Eichel is obviously number 1, and most people are penciling Cozens into that long-term 2C spot.  So that would leave him to shift into the same 3C role that he would be trying to get out of in Montreal.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Shootica said:

I really like Danault, and I think he would be a fantastic addition.  I just fear that a trade and sign won't work with him.

In my opinion, if the Habs trade him over Domi it's either because they get blown away with an offer, or because Danault has expressed that he doesn't want to sign there to primarily be a defensive 3C.  I think the latter is more likely given his playoff usage, his comments, and the rise of Suzuki and Kotkaniemi.  That's how I see him being traded.

If we trade for him, wouldn't he see the exact same writing on the wall with Cozens?  Eichel is obviously number 1, and most people are penciling Cozens into that long-term 2C spot.  So that would leave him to shift into the same 3C role that he would be trying to get out of in Montreal.

Yes, contract situation definitely would factor into the trade price.  I doubt Danault would sign an extension before next season plays out.

With Cozens, who knows.  He looks good, but has never played a minute of pro hockey.  Two years ago, we could have said the same about Mitts.  I think an NHL player would understand that you need to actually prove it in the league.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danault might look the opportunity to get 2C Minutes and production in a contract year and depending on their place in the standings  at the trade deadline he could be a valuable trade piece if he doesn’t want to remain in Buffalo.

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2020 at 8:59 PM, dudacek said:

But the skill set of a particular player also comes in to play.

Justin Falk is big and slow. One would think the preferred move against him would be a speed move to the outside as opposed to a power move to the inside. Playing his proper hand extends his range against the outside move and provides insurance against his limitations.

Quinn Hughes is the opposite. You aren't going to fly by him to the outside, but you might be able to overpower him to the middle. Having his stick to middle might be to his advantage when defending.

There have to be as many variations as there are players.

Very interesting thought.

Under this theory, Dahlin presumably playing against guys a few years older than him & therefore being bigger than him would explain his playing the RD once he started playing D.  Would be interested to hear from his youth coaches why they set him up over on that side, whatever the reason might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Danault might look the opportunity to get 2C Minutes and production in a contract year and depending on their place in the standings  at the trade deadline he could be a valuable trade piece if he doesn’t want to remain in Buffalo.

If we add Danault to be the 2C and we are dealing him at the deadline, it was a fail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Very interesting thought.

Under this theory, Dahlin presumably playing against guys a few years older than him & therefore being bigger than him would explain his playing the RD once he started playing D.  Would be interested to hear from his youth coaches why they set him up over on that side, whatever the reason might be.

Could be wrong, but I don’t think Dahlin always played RD pre-NHL.  He was playing RD for his SHL team, but LD for international play, I believe.  I don’t know about him at age 16 and under.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If we add Danault to be the 2C and we are dealing him at the deadline, it was a fail. 

 

True. As long as it doesn’t cost us much, I’m fine if he wants to give us a “contract year” effort at our expense, but I’d make him earn every penny - including into the post-season(!). Cozens should be ready to take his spot after next season. In fact, given the $70M cap rumor, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Cozens on his wing this coming season.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kas23 said:

 

True. As long as it doesn’t cost us much, I’m fine if he wants to give us a “contract year” effort at our expense, but I’d make him earn every penny - including into the post-season(!). Cozens should be ready to take his spot after next season. In fact, given the $70M cap rumor, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Cozens on his wing this coming season.

 

And if we are dealing him at the deadline we aren't in a playoff position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...