Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Potvin29

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 838
1
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: 2015 NHL Entry Draft
« on: Yesterday at 02:12:09 PM »

Not even having Kylington in their top 30 has got to be unusual, right?

Yes, although Button has him 47th.

2
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: 2015 NHL Entry Draft
« on: Yesterday at 01:43:00 PM »
Not sure if this has been posted, but McKeen's just released their final Top 30 for the 2015 draft and they have Strome at #7: http://www.mckeenshockey.com/prospects-blog/mckeens-final-top-30-2015-nhl-draft-rankings/

3
General NHL News & Views / Re: Coaching Carousel
« on: Yesterday at 12:09:23 PM »
I still find issue with it.  If it is just a standard "non-compete clause" - aren't these types of things negotiated as part of an employment contract?  How can they be retroactively applied to people already in a job?  Do all the GMs/coaches in the league sign one whenever they are hired?  If so, why has it never been brought up before?

Just on a quick search this comes up from the Globe and Mail regarding non-compete/restrictive covenants in Canada:

Quote
The Mason case demonstrates the customary approach courts take to deciding whether a restrictive covenant should be upheld:

First, does the contract form part of the employment relationship? This is critically important but often overlooked by employees and employers – and sometimes by inexperienced lawyers. As with an employment contract, a restrictive covenant must be agreed to by the person before he or she accepts employment.

If the clause is provided to the employee after work begins, even if on the first day, it will not be enforceable unless it is provided along with something of value in exchange for signing it, such as a bonus, raise or promotion. If an employee is required to sign the clause mid-tenure, it is sometimes wise to not even protest it, since it will never be enforced.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/career-advice/can-my-employer-force-me-to-sign-a-non-compete-clause/article533688/

4
General NHL News & Views / Re: Coaching Carousel
« on: Yesterday at 10:18:42 AM »
Here's a good write up from Pierre Lebrun on it:

Quote
There has been confusion in NHL circles about where exactly fired coaches/executives fit into all this if they remain under contract.

The initial explanation I was given from someone in the know was that if a coach/executive was fired, even if still under contract, the team in question did not qualify for draft pick compensation from the team hiring the fired person. That was also what most team executives I had spoken with thought.

However, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, who authored the memo on this, told ESPN.com Monday that for coaches, general managers or presidents of hockey operations who are fired but remain under contract, their teams are privy to draft pick compensation if they choose to pursue it.

But the team can also waive the draft pick compensation if it wants, Daly said.

The reason many teams would waive in most cases is they're more interested in getting the person who is under contract but no longer working for the team off the books. So why discourage a hire elsewhere.

Still, it certainly adds a new wrinkle to it all.

Let's take fired Boston Bruins general manager Peter Chiarelli as an example. He has three years left on his deal. As per Daly's interpretation of the rule, the Bruins do in fact have the right to draft pick compensation if they want it.

Now, you would think the Bruins wouldn't want to block any attempt by another team to hire Chiarelli since they owe him a salary for three more years. But the point is, they apparently could demand a pick if they wanted.

What's interesting about all this is that it runs counter to what many team executives believed was the original point of wanting to bring back compensation. One executive told ESPN.com Monday he had always thought the rule was just to protect, for example, a team like the Detroit Red Wings when they allow Steve Yzerman or Jim Nill to go elsewhere for better opportunities, not to try to squeeze a pick out of someone you fired.

Which is why this has the potential now to be very intriguing -- and potentially contentious -- moving forward. We shall see.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/35839/teams-can-seek-draft-pick-compensation-for-fired-coaches-gms-executives

5
General NHL News & Views / Re: Coaching Carousel
« on: Yesterday at 09:12:44 AM »
How is it a non-compete clause?  As I understand it, a non-compete clause is an agreement not to work for/start a business in a similar field (and as I also understand it, the enforceability of these in Canada and the US can be difficult and vary widely between states).  How is compensation for a fired coach being hired a standard non-compete agreement?

Because these teams are saying that, if they want, they can hold up someone who they have under contract from working for another team(or a business in a similar field) unless they're compensated.

I mean if what you guys are saying is that this doesn't make sense because having a uniform compensation makes for a possibly inaccurate reflection of how valuable a team might say their coach is I would get that I suppose.

Ah, I didn't realize they could hold up a move.  I thought they were allowed to ask for compensation if they so choose.  But I guess who wouldn't if that were the case.

6
General NHL News & Views / Re: Coaching Carousel
« on: May 28, 2015, 09:38:14 PM »
How is it a non-compete clause?  As I understand it, a non-compete clause is an agreement not to work for/start a business in a similar field (and as I also understand it, the enforceability of these in Canada and the US can be difficult and vary widely between states).  How is compensation for a fired coach being hired a standard non-compete agreement?

7
General NHL News & Views / Re: Coaching Carousel
« on: May 28, 2015, 03:22:18 PM »
Still so stupid that fired coaches earn a team compensation.  NHL better change that.

8
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: 2015 NHL Entry Draft
« on: May 26, 2015, 08:19:18 AM »
If you think Marner is going to be the better player, should probably take him.

Agreed, but, if there you don't think there's going to be any real difference in terms of what the two players will contribute towards a winning team, you take Strome because he's much more likely to end up playing the more valuable position.

I disagree. I think the whole concept that centre is a more valuable position is a bit overblown. Perhaps still valid, but not an overly important decision. If their potential is basically equal, I take the better skater every time.

I think you're contradicting yourself - it's a bit overblown, but still valid, but not overly important? 

Centre has the normal offensive responsibilities but is also expected to go deep into their own zone (not patrol the half-wall and out as a winger roughly does) and help out the D.  A very good two-way C can be extremely important to a team, and the fact that their D responsibilities are so much more than wingers means their ability to impact the game at both ends is so much greater.  A winger is more or less confined to an area on D (in theory) while a C is expected to go all over the rink for his D responsibilities.

9
Wow

10
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: 2015 NHL Entry Draft
« on: May 25, 2015, 12:58:21 PM »

Something like "Second Assists are useless and not really indicative of talent at all" is where the analytics folks lose the plot a little. I understand what they mean, of course, that there isn't a repeatable pattern of scoring that shows up in second assists and would indicate a level of talent and that year to year variation in a player's scoring totals are reflected there heavily.

But we've all seen plays where second assists are important to what happens on the play, maybe even the most crucial play in the sequence. Sometimes they're displays of great skill, a great outlet pass or a tough win of a puck battle. I'm fine with minimizing their importance and recognizing the variables inherent in them but to reject them outright as being important to an offensive player's talent level is on it's face false and one of those few areas where "watch the game" is a legitimate retort.

Isn't this something where you'd actually have to see the research yourself before you outright call it on its face false?  How is rejecting it outright without reading it any more legitimate than the person who did the research rejecting the premise that secondary assists aren't indicative of talent level.

It's very likely that the person who did the research agrees with everything you stated.  You can agree that individuals can make talented plays but also agree that obtaining secondary assists is not indicative of anything over the greater term.

Maybe the person above just interpreted a particular article differently or more extremely.  Take this (I don't know if this is the article, but it's one I found):

Quote
Most people agree that the primary assist is, on the whole, more valuable than the secondary assist.  That is not to say that secondary assists are useless, and in several cases they took more skill and made a bigger contribution to the goal than the primary assist.  For the most part however, the correlation year-to-year for primary assists is greater than that of secondary assists, according to Eric T of Broad Street Hockey.

As an aside, Jonathan Willis at the Cult Of Hockey disputes the notion that there is almost no correlation between the rate of secondary assists from one year to the next, showing far greater correlation, though still noting that primary assists had a “stronger repeatability”, and hence likely require greater skill on the part of the player.

http://icenationuk.com/2014/03/17/interesting-numbers-primary-assists-in-the-nhl/

Nothing extremely crazy there or that requires much in the way of unique thought.

11
Didn't really know where to put this, but the article talks about development and Marlies players a fair bit so might as well post it here.  Very interesting IMO:

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2015/5/25/8653245/leafs-skills-development-coach-darryl-belfry-part-of-new-philosophy

12
I don't think he's not a playoff performer.  He averages about 3.8 shots per game in the regular season for his career, and 3.4 per game in the playoffs.  If he was really struggling I would imagine that number would be much lower, unless we're to assume he begins taking a lot of long, harmless shots.  I don't know how you explain his 12.5% career SH% in the regular season and his 4.5% career SH% in the playoffs.

If he's still getting the chances I would think he's still playing well, but it's hard to say why the shots just don't go in.

13
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mike Babcock is the Leafs new Coach!
« on: May 22, 2015, 04:39:51 PM »

Hiller was an assistant coach in Detroit this past season.  Previously won WHL Coach of the Year in 2012.

He apparently ran the Wings PP (which finished 2nd in the NHL this past season).

14
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Leafs hire Lindsay Hofford from London
« on: May 22, 2015, 12:56:02 PM »
Things are definitely pointing towards the Leafs taking Marner.

If we're looking strictly at numbers this past season, Strome beat him out in points (68-45-84-129), but Marner (63-44-82-126) played 5 less games.

So Marner's PPG was greater. 1.90 for Strome & 2.00 for Marner. Strome is 3" taller, Marner is the faster skater. Who plays the better two-way game? Thats going to be a factor for Babcock.

Its really a tough call. One that I trust Hunter, Dubas, Shanahan & now Babcock will have a pretty good handle on going into the draft. I certainly wouldn't base the decision on familiarity alone.

I'd probably lean Marner as well.

For those interested, there's a site that attempts to track CHL stats beyond the little that the official CHL sites provide here: http://chlstats.pythonanywhere.com/players/

TOI is estimated, as are some other stats, but it also provides projected NHL equivalencies, and adjustments for age, etc.  Pretty interesting to look at.

15
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mike Babcock is the Leafs new Coach!
« on: May 22, 2015, 11:02:43 AM »
It's not a matter of having two players too highly paid - look at Chicago.  Toews and Kane both have cap hits higher than Malkin/Crosby, but Chicago has drafted/dealt much, much better (but they're also now paying Crawford way too much).

Toews and Kane's big cap hits don't take into effect until next season though, so Chicago really hasn't felt the damage those might do. And with the cap not sky-rocketing like they probably thought it would it looks like it will do some pretty big damage. It's expected that Oduya won't be back and Sharp will have to be traded. They can probably take the Sharp hit, but losing Oduya from a defence corps that's already pretty top-heavy is going to be tough.

Ah they don't?  Well then.  I thought those were signed awhile back.

Ignore my ravings then.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 838