AD pointed out that this is not a year to finish in the middle of the pack when the top of the 2012 draft is going to be great. In the same post, AD said that there is no downside to sticking with Mo for the rest of the season. I agree with the first point but not the second.

There is more than one downside to sticking with Mo if he doesn't turn things around resoundingly and fast. My list of downsides includes:
* Having to watch the team play the way it's playing for another 60+ games, with frequent noncompetitive efforts
* Canes' management turning off fans by sitting idly by while the Canes are often appalling to watch or even talking about having the best coaches in the league while the team's play on home ice often says otherwise
* Inculcating a culture of mediocrity, nonaccountability and helplessness in the face of adversity
* Still not knowing before the 2012-2013 draft whether the Canes' current prospects can hack it in the NHL
* Not knowing whether another coach can get more out of Eric Staal
* Likelihood of not falling to the cellar but finishing 9th - 11th in the East and missing out on a top 10 draft pick as well as the playoffs

We are at the point of needing a big winning streak either under Mo or anybody assigned the role of cleaning up Mo's mess. Whoever the coach is, the rational course is to demand winning big immediately. Otherwise, the Canes should start the fire sale to accumulate future assets, including higher picks in next season's draft.

It's easy to envision a replay of what we saw late last season, with a rally that does nothing but make the Canes' draft position worse. However, last season the Canes had a slightly better record on November 7, with 14 points in 14 games instead of 13 points. The year before that, the Canes had a measly 7 points on November 7.

You have to go back to 2008 to find the Canes in much better shape on November 7.

That gives us an interesting, objective reference point for judging Mo. More after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

This challenge is silly and would be premature if we were talking about a run-of-the-mill word puzzle. Jiri Tlusty is just beginning to shine. He's not on a scoring line. He's been injury prone. But he's looking good, with a combination of speed, skill and new-found physicality that opens bright possibilities. If he does become a star, Canes Country could use a phrase for Tlusty that serves the same purpose as "Skinner Winner, Chicken Dinner."

I'm not suggesting this problem needs immediate action but it's best to be prepared. What if Tlusty had a hat trick and we had no handy phrase for celebration? A hat trick to celebrate may not be out of the question. Tlusty had a 5-goal game in the AHL and another 6-point game (2 goals, 4 assists). In the NHL, he had 2 goals in two different games for the Leafs, and 3 assists in a game for the Leafs against the Canes. The best he's done for the Canes so far is a 2-point game, with a goal and an assist, but he also scored a goal in his very first shift for the Canes. There are enough signs of offensive talent to start thoughts percolating.

We may need some time. Tlusty is a one-word tongue-twister for English speakers with no obvious rhymes. Jiri offers more possibilities, but cheery seems weak and wrong, and leery, dreary, beery, bleary, teary, weary and hara-kiri don't seem promising. Query and theory seem too theoretical. Eerie might have possibilities but I'm not sure Eerie Jiri would work. Eerie can mean mean something so strange or unexpected that it sends chills up your spine. It would be nice to expect Jiri to score goals.

Anybody got a phrase for Jiri Tlusty that would work like Skinner Winner Chicken Dinner? While pondering, take the poll.

Once you're in the playoffs, anything can happen. That's what we like to say as Canes fans. But we also wonder if the Canes could survive the first round of the playoffs if they did squeak in. The problem is that the Canes usually don't score many more goals than they allow. Some of us thought the Canes needed to score more goals last year to be competitive, but others thought the key was to clamp down on the opposition.

The Canes have lots of room for improvement at both ends of the ice. Last year's Canes scored 231 goals and allowed 234, with Cam Ward playing spectacularly in net to keep many games close. In 2009-2010, the Canes scored 221 goals and allowed 256. In 2008-2009, the Canes scored 236 goals and allowed 221, which is definitely much better but not great. In 2007-2008, the Canes scored 250 goals and allowed 246. In 2006-2007, the Canes scored 241 and allowed 248. The year of the Stanley Cup, 2005-2006, was different. The Canes scored 286 and allowed 258, for a goal differential of +32.

Summing up, except for the Cup year, the Canes have had a goal differential of - 3, - 34, +15, +4, and - 7. Note that recent goal totals have been pretty low and even in 2008-2009, the total was anemic. The Canes have been on the + side of the ledger three times. Twice they did it mostly by scoring well, once mostly by keeping the opposition off the scoreboard. In the 2008-2009 playoffs, the Canes edged the Devils 4-3, edged the Bruins 4-3, and were swept in the conference finals. That seems pretty consistent with a team that had a goal differential on the year of +15 - their opponents probably had differentials at least as good. Losing either of the first two series 3-4 seems as likely as winning 4-3.

That +15 goal differential from the conference finals year is 10-58 goals short of the season goal differential for any Stanley Cup team in the last six years:

Bruins + 55

Blackhawks + 59

Penguins + 25

Redwings + 73

Ducks + 56

Canes + 28.

Note that even in that glorious Canes' Cup season, the Canes were at the bottom end of scoring differential for a Cup team, a whisker better than the Penguins were in the year when they swept the Canes 4-0 in the conference finals.

The point of this exercise is to lay the groundwork for asking how the Canes are going to get from last year's  - 3 differential to something on the order of + 25. One way would be to allow 28 goals less. That would have been 8th best in the NHL last season. I personally find it hard to envision the Canes becoming that kind of defensive team this year, particularly with the heavy tilt toward offensive defensemen. So I'm assuming the Canes might get goals against on the season down to something like 220 - 225. But to look like a Cup contender, the Canes are going to have to increase their goal scoring by 15 goals or so, too. If they can't push goals against farther down than 225, the Canes will have to score 20 goals more than last season.

This means the Canes have to do considerably more than replace Erik Cole if they're really going to become a contender. What would it take for the Canes to increase their scoring to, say, 250 goals this season? My guesses after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

We all know the Canes are going to be bigger going into 2011-2012 than they were early in 2010-2011, but by how much? There are several ways to answer this question, including: by average weight, by a count of players greater than stated weights, by looking at how many players are well above average size, and by imagining new line combinations and defensive pairings. I'm not commenting on lines and pairings but do try to answer the question in the other ways.

Admittedly, bigger players don't necessarily play a more physical style, but the laws of physics still apply. If Tomas Kaberle at 214 is no more physical than Joe Corvo at 204 or even if Kaberle plays a less physical style, there will probably be times when greater mass allows Kaberle to hold his position better.

There is no great insight in this post. I'm just sharing some numbers I compiled to satisfy my own curiosity on the chance that others may be interested in this particular way of comparing rosters while we're waiting for the 2011-2012 season. The truth is, I don't know how this will all work out on the ice and want the season to start today. I hoped this simple-minded exercise would give me a better feel for the coming season.

A few notes on the players used in the comparisons: I couldn't think of an ideal way to identify the early roster for last season. O'Sullivan was on the opening day roster but played so little that I plugged in Samsonov. Samsonov's official weight was 188 to O'Sullivan's 190 so this substitution hardly made a difference. The forwards I used to figure the 2010-2011 numbers were, starting with former Canes: Cole, Kostopoulos, Samsonov, Jokinen, Staal, Ruutu, Skinner, Sutter, LaRose, Dwyer, Bowman, Dalpe. (Both Bowman and Dalpe were on the opening day roster.) The list for this season scratches Cole, Kostopoulos, Samsonov and Bowman and adds Stewart, Brent, Ponikarovsky and Tlusty, who was injured early last year.

On defense, the Canes started last season with Corvo, Babchuk, Gleason, Pitkanen, McBain and Harrison and I averaged their weights for this comparison. I ignored 200-lb Ian's White's time in Carolina. Besides replacing two defensemen, the Canes are carrying 7 defensemen this season instead of 6. Since both Harrison and Joslin seem likely to play, I averaged the weights of all seven. There are four holdovers and three new guys: Allen, Joslin and Kaberle, close to a 50% makeover.

After the jump, the numbers and a couple of comments.

Continue reading this post »

While impatiently waiting for Cory to update his rankings of Canes' prospects at Hockey's Future, I've looked over the Canes' roster, the list of players in the system, the excellent Canes' Country Guide to the 2011 Hurricanes Conditioning Camp compiled by Carolyn Christians, and the outstanding pictures by Jamie Kellner. Several things struck me while I was going through this process, trying to get a sense of the Canes' future:

1. The Canes have added young veterans to the roster - players beyond the prospect stage but still relatively inexperienced, likely to improve and possibly to become significant long-term assets: Anthony Stewart, Tim Brent and earlier Derek Joslin (though it's debatable whether he's beyond the prospect stage, Joslin looked like an NHL defenseman to me).

2. The Canes' system is now so loaded with prospects that it's gotten much harder even to think about ranking them. I won't recite the list, but I counted 39 prospects at a first pass excluding those already listed on the Canes' roster.  Depth is the watchword, even at goalie--so much so that pretty soon it's going to be tough to decide who makes the Checkers' roster, let alone the Canes'.

3. The imbalance in the system between talent at forward and on defense is history.

4. It's still overwhelming but somewhat helpful to group the prospects by position, and, to my mind, still more helpful to include the youngest vets.  In looking to the future, it doesn't make sense to separate the Canes' prospects from some very young players already on the roster like Jeff Skinner, Brandon Sutter, Jamie McBain, Jiri Tlusty, Jerome Samson and Joslin. I made an arbitrary cut-off excluding prospects older than 24. Most are a good deal younger but I had to draw the line somewhere.

After the jump, a list of young Canes and prospects by position with age and round drafted. As usual with my posts, there's no new information or insight here. I'm sharing what I've compiled because I found organizing the information this way made it more enjoyable to speculate about the Canes' future and I thought seeing the information in this structure might bring some insightful comments from other posters on Canes Country. I've stopped well short of talking about future lines and pairings.

After the jump, three snapshots of the Canes' young talent: the forwards, defensemen and goalies.

Continue reading this post »

We often complain about the Canes' lack of big forwards but recent developments may be changing the picture. Mattias Lindstrom, Victor Rask and Brody Sutter are on the roster for conditioning camp. HMo2 reminded us that  Jared Staal is training under Gary Roberts. Lots of people have been speculating about possible 4th liners this coming season and a couple of pretty big forwards from the Canes' system have been mentioned as possibilities. There's also been talk of signing an untendered free agent from another team, like Stewart from Winnipeg. Finally, there are a few relatively big forwards on the NHL roster. Regardless of the size of these players, in many cases it isn't yet clear if they'll play big. That's probably the most interesting area for speculation. I haven't tried to answer that question and am hoping more knowledgeable people will.

I thought it might be interesting to take a guess at the probability of each of the big forwards whose rights the Canes' already own making the NHL roster at some point (not necessarily this season). I've included odds on sure things to make the table look decent. I considered computing a sort of future roster mass index by multiplying weight times probability of making it in the NHL but thought better of it.

Below are three views of the Canes' big forwards and forward prospects: by weight, height and probability of making it in the NHL (except for current roster players, my guess). I hope some of you will take more informed guesses about the chances of these players making it in the NHL. FYI, I give Osala such a low percentage because he may not come back to North America.

Everybody here already knows all this information. The value in this post, if any, is providing a quick summary view that may add perspective on whether the Canes have and will continue to have a problem with size on the forward lines.

Continue reading this post »

How much of a shot does Ryan Murphy have to play successfully in the NHL at age 18? How successful a career will he have? I went looking for points of comparison to make it easier to speculate. But first let me mention Sittler's key point about Murphy's ability to dodge hits. That may be as important as scoring ability in allowing Murphy to play immediately in the NHL. Murphy will have to fit into a pairing and a system too.

That said, for this comparison, I looked for small defensemen who have succeeded in the NHL and who left behind statistics from major junior hockey when they were around Murphy's age in the OHL this year. Some of the comparables I was most curious about played in college or in other countries so there's no basis for comparison (for example, Enstrom). I went back to 1996 for data on Brian Campbell. I don't know if the comparisons over that much time are valid, but you've got to be impressed with where Murphy ranks against similar players over a 15-year span. Maybe the people who call Murphy a generational player weren't just wowed by watching him - maybe they checked the numbers too.

I included one player who isn't really small and three besides Murphy who haven't yet made it in the NHL: Ryan Ellis, Calvin de Haan and Bobby Sanguinetti. Drew Doughty is listed because I wanted his scoring numbers as a point of reference. I included Bobby Sanguinetti mostly because he's offensively talented and plays in the Canes' system. Frankly, I was surprised how well he fares in the comparisons. Sanguinetti is 6'3" so he's fairly tall, but more than a few guys on the list of "small" players below outweigh him. He probably should be compared with defensemen on this list, not with 6'3" 220 pounders.

Summarizing the performance numbers: Ryan Murphy topped everybody at age 17 except Ryan Ellis in overall scoring and Murphy topped everybody in goal scoring.

Is anybody else as surprised as I am that Sanguinetti in junior was one of the better goal scorers among the high-powered defensemen listed? When you recall that he also won the AHL's fastest skater award, he's got some gifts that are elite. Sanguinetti scored almost twice as many goals as Cam Fowler in same-age years in junior and Sanguinetti's per-game point production was just about identical to Fowler's. Very impressive. But then, Murphy scored more than three times as many goals as Fowler and a quarter of a point more per game! 

Expecting Murphy to beat or tie Ellis in the race for an NHL roster spot seems unreasonable when Ellis was drafted two years earlier and hasn't made it yet and neither has Sanguinetti or de Haan. Then again, Fowler did make it right away. Based on the table below, you would have to say chances are very high that both Murphy and Sanguinetti will succeed as offensive defensemen in the NHL someday.

If the table gives anybody reading this an opinion about Murphy's making the Canes' roster this year, please let the rest of us in on the secret.

Ages are calculated for September 23 going into the season listed.

OK, maybe this is one of those wild flights of optimism that happens in the offseason. This optimism isn't based on the new guys who are closest to playing in the NHL, Sanguinetti, Faulk and Murphy. I'm seriously wondering if, should the Canes re-sign Pitkanen, the Canes' situation on D is as dire as we've been thinking. Last year's statistics say it is, but was last year an accurate barometer of Canes' defensive talent?

Draft position isn't always a reliable barometer of talent either, but talent and draft position are not unrelated. When players perform below the expectations that got them drafted high, it's always interesting to speculate about whether the players were draft mistakes, whether injuries figured in, whether players lack drive, or whether coaches can't bring out talent that's still there. It's not that such questions can be answered with any certainty, but going into a new season, it's interesting to consider the possibilities player by player.

Draft Position of Canes' D

Murphy is really the only thing that's new, and yet it came as a shock to me that the Canes may go into next season with two defensemen taken 4th overall (Pitkanen and Allen), one taken 12th overall (Murphy) and one taken 23rd overall (Gleason). That's to say nothing of Sanguinetti, taken 21st overall, or Faulk, taken 37th overall. McBain is a 2nd rounder taken 63rd overall. Harrison is a 3rd rounder taken 82nd overall, one slot higher than Corvo in his draft year. The Canes won't but actually could go into next season with a defense with 5 1st rounders and a high 2nd rounder. There's a wealth of other young 2nd rounders coming along, but not this year. How many defenses in the NHL could play five 1st rounders, including two taken 4th overall and one taken 12th overall? I'm not saying the Canes' talent on D is at the top of the league, but I think it's a good deal better than 21st in the league, which is where the Canes' ranked in goals against per game. I've thought of the Canes as always trying to get by on 2nd round talent on D at best, but that may not be accurate.

After the jump, a few facts and questions about the Canes' poor performance on D last season.

Continue reading this post »

What shape would the Canes be in if JR can't make any good trades or sign any UFAs? I began to wonder after discussions on Canes Country about how the Canes' talk about being a budget team and suspected unwillingness to pay market value for its own best UFAs might discourage players from coming to Carolina. With these assumptions, what would the forward lines look like for 2011-2012? While far short on experience, how would the talent level stack up against other teams?

I decided to try answering this question by constructing lines based on both likely NHL position and draft position. The highest drafted center is assigned first line center, the highest drafted right wing is assigned first line right wing, etc. There's no thought to putting together the best player combinations - just the lines that are nominally (based on draft position) the most talented that the Canes could put on the ice.

Here's what I came up with, with draft position in parentheses after each player:

After the jump, how good or bad would this group be by NHL standards for talent?

Continue reading this post »

It's easy to read about this year's draft and feel disappointed that the Canes' draft position seems to fall a few picks below the prospects that most experts consider elite or near-elite. Barring a trade, the Canes have no shot at Nugent-Hopkins, Landeskog, Larsson or Huberdeau or the apparent next tier of Couturier, Murphy, Hamilton and Strome or some similar grouping.

But what looks great about this draft to me is the availability of players that match the Canes' needs. I think there's a consensus on this site that the Canes need size at forward, a second-line center, and good shutdown defensemen with size. Comments below are based on looking at ratings and mock drafts in Red Line Report, Puck Prospectus, NHL.com and other places. They represent possibilities for which players might be available. I can't judge which player the Canes should take - just don't have enough knowledge - so please speak up if you have opinions.

Big Forwards

The Canes will probably have their pick at 12th overall of Marc McNeil, Mark Scheifele, JT Miller, Joel Armia, Brandon Saad, Nicklas Jensen and Tyler Biggs. It's possible that Zibanejad will be there. There seems to be no doubt that the Canes will be able to get a pretty talented forward with size if that's their preference, and the freedom to go for a more skilled scoring type, an accomplished two-way forward, or a big bruiser to win puck battles and protect guys like Skinner and Boychuk. It's intriguing that Red Line Report (draft guide is well worth the money) compared JT Miller's style to Erik Cole and ranked him in the top 10. They don't say one word against him and he sounds like exactly what the Canes are missing up front. On the other hand, they don't call him a top-line forward and he's not in the top 30 at Puck Prospectus.

Second Line Center

The Canes will probably get to choose from two of the following three centers: McNeil, Scheifele and Zibanejad (not counting the two highly rated Russians that I doubt they'll consider). There is a remote chance that Couturier could fall if, say, there's a run on defensemen, with Larsson, Murphy, Hamilton, Klefbom, Oleksiak, Beaulieu, Jonas Brodin, Siemens, Morrow and Musil representing 10 at least plausible picks ahead of the Canes at 12th. There's also the possibility of other developments that push one of the better centers down, such as all the write-ups of Grimaldi as the second coming of Martin St. Louis or Matt Puempel as this year's Jeff Skinner, or if some team has a very high opinion of Joel Armia or JT Miller or Alexander Khokhlachev. McNeil, Zibanejad and Miller have all been showing up in mock drafts in the top 10 in various places. So have Oleksiak and Sven Bartschi. Hence a remote chance that Couturier could fall.

Shutdown Defensemen

Assuming Larsson and Hamilton are gone, the Canes will still have a shot at a couple of the shutdown defensemen among the defensemen just listed: Klefbom, Oleksiak, Siemens, Musil.

Surprise Scenarios

There are at least three players that various experts consider very talented who could drop and, if the Canes are among those who rate them very highly, could end up in Carolina. This is where the Canes decide sheer talent outweighs apparent team needs, a Jeff-Skinner-style pick. The three: Murphy, Bartschi, Grimaldi. Smaller players seem to drop on draft day. Writeups of Grimaldi as a 1st-line scoring forward (Red Line Report) and a top-ten talent and other comments that he would be the best player in this draft if he stood two inches taller indicate there's a possibility that Grimaldi isn't just an extra little guy that the Canes shouldn't even consider. Grimaldi is a center to this point in his career so perhaps he could even help there, unlikely as it seems. Every team has to think twice about a defenseman as small as Murphy, but there are people who think Murphy is the best player in this draft. If that's what the Canes think, they won't pass him up. They'll meet other needs with something other than their 12th overall pick. The same applies if the Canes think a puck-moving defenseman like Brodin or Beaulieu is too good to pass up. If the Canes go for one of these guys who doesn't seem to match a pressing need, it may mean they think they're getting an extraordinary talent so we should probably hold our criticism and hope they're right.

The Second Round

It looks as though there will be big forwards of interest in the second round when the Canes pick, such as perhaps Kale Kessy, Mario Lucia or Adam Lowry. There will also be some intriguing defensemen, perhaps including 6'5" 230 lb Mike McKee, a recent convert from forward, or Scott Mayfield or Connor Murphy.

Six Scenarios Representative of the Canes' Choices in the 2011-12 Draft

Size and toughness at center and a future shutdown defenseman

Round 1: Mark McNeil; Round 2: Connor Murphy

Size, skill and scoring at forward and a chance on big raw talent on D

Round 1: Joel Armia; Round 2: Mike McKee

Great size and emerging talent on D and size and scoring at forward

Round 1: Jamieson Oleksiak; Round 2: Mario Lucia

Size and skill on D and size and toughness at forward

Round 1: Oskar Klefbom; Round 2: Kale Kessy

Bigger and tougher at forward

Round 1: Mark McNeil; Round 2: Kale Kessy

Bigger at forward with an infusion of scoring talent

Round 1: Joel Armia; Round 2: Mario Lucia

Conclusion FWIW

There are multiple scenarios on which the Canes could come away from this draft with players that seem to address long-standing team needs. It seems unlikely they'll get a player who will help next year. McNeil might be the best hope along those lines to step in at 2nd-line center if everything breaks perfectly. Klefbom might be the second best choice to help next year. Some attractive choices appear to need years to refine skills or put on weight and muscle. Grimaldi, Murphy, Bartschi and Brodin may be wild cards whose talent blows all scenarios away.

This post shares information but my main purpose is to get a better sense of this draft from comments of the many people on this site who know a lot more than I do. I'd be grateful for opinions on how the Canes will likely fare in this draft, what you think they should do, etc. There's already been informed discussion in previous threads, but new information seems to emerge every day as the draft approaches.

Pittsburgh Caniac's provocative posts on a correlation between salary budget and won-lost record got me thinking about the Canes' low-budget strategy. Is it really smart in purely financial terms?

If there's a correlation between spending and wins and between wins and ticket sales, then spending can lead to revenue generation. There could never be a guarantee that spending will pay off, but a low-salary budget looks like a pretty good way to guarantee low revenues. It also runs a high risk of compromising the product on the ice, poisoning the atmosphere in the local market and (in my opinion) shrinking the value of the franchise if not jeopardizing its viability altogether. That can't be good when you're looking for investors.

PK's current strategy for the franchise seems to be to attract investors by showing that the Canes can break even or do slightly better if they spend the minimum and squeak into the playoffs. Unless sports franchises appreciate regardless of fan support and revenues, that doesn't seem like a smart strategy to somebody like me who is not a business person. If I had $ billions, there would be a thousand places that I would rather invest than in a franchise run like the Canes--and I say that as a Canes fan who would be predisposed to invest if I had the money. I'd want to support the Canes, but not to be played for a fool.

Shrewd business people must have algorithms that help swing the decision between a strategy based on cutting costs and one based on investing for return. Can someone enlighten me on:

• Whether the Canes' current business strategy makes sense
• Whether the current business strategy is the only choice in a small market
  
• Why the strategy makes sense if it does
• What it might take to swing the pendulum toward a strategy based on spending to win and increase revenues rather than cutting costs to minimize losses

I would like to think that the current Canes' business and personnel strategy will not last forever, but if it's going to, I'd at least like to understand why. Thanks to anyone who's willing to provide remedial instruction.

I got to wondering why Pitkanen's shooting percentage has sunk to an amazingly low level this season: 1.7%. I figured there must be a wrist or shoulder injury. I noticed some interesting things in PItkanen's career statistics:

• Pitkanen's shooting percentage has declined every season with the Canes.
• Except for 2006-2007 with the Flyers, Pitkanen has had no other season as bad as his best shooting year with the Canes.
  
• Pitkanen has had extreme swings in performance with two teams, the Flyers and the Hurricanes. In 2005-2006 with the Flyers, he was +22 and hit 11% of his shots. In 2006-2007 with the Flyers, he was - 25 and hit 2.9% of his shots. In 2008-2009 with the Canes, Pitkanen was +11 and hit 4.8% of his shots. Last season, Pitkanen was - 11 and hit 3.7% of his shots.
  

No wisdom here to interpret anything, just the usual curiosity. It seems possible that Pitkanen is a player who, if used properly, is extremely valuable, but otherwise is a major liability. With the Canes, he's moving toward major-liability status. But you can see the amazing skating ability and brilliant passing at times and especially all the times that he gets back much faster than any other Canes' D-man can and prevents a breakaway. I can't help thinking there may be some key to allowing Pitkanen to be the valuable asset that he can be and that the Canes have lost it. Perhaps they could find it again - if they knew what it was.

Any theories about why Pitkanen should shoot a lower percentage with the Canes than with his other teams and why the percentage should be falling every year? Or why Pitkanen's plus minus can sink 47 points year to year in Philly and 22 points year-to-year in Carolina? Is the partner critical?  The coach?

It is true that Laviolette was coach for the first 25 games of the 2008-2009 season. So Pitkanen went through a change of coaches and systems and the outcome was not good. Didn't Pitkanen's partner change as well?  In Philadelphia, the Flyers went from Ken Hitchcock in the good year to John Stevens in the year that Pitkanen's numbers fell through the floor. Do Mo and Stevens coach similar non-Pitkanen-appropriate systems? There were a lot of personnel changes as well, but I don't know how Pitkanen's partners changed.

Is Pitkanen a player who is excellent in a particular type of system - a type that both the Flyers and Canes abandoned, transforming him from a major asset into a liability? Is it the partner who determines Pitkanen's value? Or is there something else that causes the wild swings?

Half of the teams in the NHL are jockeying for position in the 60-70 point range. At the top is Nashville, in the 8th place in the league. At the bottom is Atlanta, in 22nd place. Toward the upper end of the range, playoff spots are at issue. Toward the bottom, a swing of a few points could drastically change a team's position in the 2011 draft.

The Canes have 62 points in 58 games. They have games in hand against 6 teams of the 15 in this cluster. The Wild, Blackhawks, Blue Jackets and Buffalo have at least one game in hand against the Canes. Buffalo is two points behind the Canes with two games in hand. Looking a bit farther down the standings, St. Louis has 59 points with 3 games in hand on the Canes. Toronto is now only 6 points behind the Canes. New Jersey has only 50 points, but the 12 points between the Devils and the Canes doesn't seem like an insurmountable margin. The Devils have one game in hand.

Since the Canes are near the bottom of the arbitrary range spanning 60 to 70 points, they can end the season with a memorable run into the playoffs or a minor collapse that has them drafting very high in the first round. There are four teams below the Canes in the standings playing much better than the Canes are: Buffalo and Toronto are both 6-3-1 in their last 10 games; New Jersey is 8-1-1 and seems almost unbeatable; the Islanders have only 49 points and seem irrelevant, but they are 6-4-0 in their last 10 games.

Projecting the Finish Based on Points Earned per Game in the Last 10

It's interesting to project final points by looking at points earned per game in the last 10 by the teams in the 60 to 70 range plus the hot teams that are lower in the rankings. The Canes, for example, have a record of 4-4-2 in the last 10 games. That's 10 points earned, one per game. They have 24 games remaining. They currently have 62 points. If they earn one point per game from here on out, they'll finish with 86 points.

Below are the projections of how continued point production per game equal to the rate in the last 10 games would leave the teams I've referenced above at season's end. I've rounded when things don't come out even. Also, I'm aware that Western Conference teams are irrelevant to the Canes' playoff chances. I include them because they figure into draft position.

LAK 109

SJS 105

CGY 103

ANA 102

MIN 95

CBJ 95

NSH 94

BUF 94

NJD 93

MTL 92

CHI 89

WSH 88

TOR 87

NYR 87

CAR 86

DAL 80

NYI 78

ATL 76

Playoff, Draft and Trade Implications

If the last 10 games are a reliable indicator, the Canes will miss the playoffs and end up with a very high draft pick--probably around 7 to 9 depending on how the playoffs juggle positions. Barring a change of fortunes, the Oilers, Senators, Islanders, Thrashers, Avs, Panthers, and Stars would finish below the Canes in the standings.

You can look at the bad news about the playoffs two ways when it comes to moves before the trade deadline, prioritizing the urgency of making a trade to make the playoffs or thinking more about the potential value of that high first-round pick if you trade it and the trade doesn't work out on the ice. It seems likely that the Canes can kiss the playoffs goodbye unless they make a move. On the other hand, if you trade the top pick and it makes no difference in the standings, you've given up a pick in the Jeff Skinner range. The Canes might be able to package the 8th pick and a roster player or prospect and get a top 3 pick--a right wing like Landeskog or a defenseman like Larsson or Hamilton (who might be there at 7-9 anyway).

It looks to me as though JR would be wise to trade roster players if he's determined to go for the playoffs, but to hang on to the Canes' 2011 draft picks and every player that JR considers an important part of the Canes' future. Any shakeup of the roster is a gamble at this late date. Upgrading a position won't necessarily improve the team or the won-lost record.

I hope JR will also consider that the honor of squeezing into the 8th playoff spot to be swept by the Flyers is not worth giving up any asset of lasting value. Any UFA, yes. Any player about to be eclipsed by a prospect, yes. Any prospect who is going to lose the competition for an NHL roster spot, yes.

Elsker is convinced that the Canes are now determined to make the playoffs. If I understand Elsker correctly, this is for business reasons--to generate a spike in revenues and a wave of enthusiasm to promote the sale of equity in the team. Elsker believes that the Canes' first round pick is on the table. He may be right about all this. I hope he's wrong. In my view, there's more enthusiasm to be had by letting the Canes' top prospects start doing their stuff at RBC while acquiring more young talent and draft picks. This is not the Canes' year for an impressive and exciting playoff run. It's more likely to result in a first-round fizzle that generates more doubt that enthusiasm if the Canes have foolishly shipped out valuable assets to achieve such a modest immediate goal.

Posting unproofread because about to lose internet connection (just notified by Time Warner Cable)

Tlusty has good size, he's defensively responsible, he's an excellent passer and he's got a good, quick shot. Tlusty has been climbing up the ranks of Canes in goals and assists scored per 60 minutes. He's near the top in shooting percentage at 16%. Staal thrives on speed and at times has looked good with Boychuk for that reason. Tlusty doesn't look as fast as Boychuk but he is faster than Samsonov or Jokinen and bigger than Boychuk or LaRose. Tlusty has played well on other lines but maybe he's emerging as the best bird-in-the-hand way to upgrade the top line.

It's easy to visualize Tlusty hitting Cole and Staal with breakout passes to start the rush as well as setting up Staal both on the rush and in other situations. It's just as easy to see Tlusty in the slot taking a pass from Staal behind the net and putting a quick wrist shot in the back of the net. 

Chad LaRose is a fast, talented player who thrives in some roles, but he is not playing on the first line because of scoring prowess. He has a low shooting percentage and so he's not much of a threat himself, making it easier for the opposition to double-team Staal. LaRose is not a playmaker either - he can't be setting up Staal often because LaRose has only got 11 assists on the season, which ranks him 11th on the team. That's pretty shocking for a guy who's gotten to play a lot on scoring lines and specifically with Staal. LaRose is a superior defensive player at this stage to some potential Staal linemates. It's fair to say that most of LaRose's strengths would fit better on other lines.

There's certainly a case for playing Jokinen on the top line--he is a playmaker and has an excellent shooting percentage too--but he doesn't have the kind of speed ideal for keeping up with Staal and Cole. That may limit the line in some ways even though Jokinen helps the line in others.

Assuming Jokinen and Carter come back soon, these lines might look reasonable for now:

Staal - Tlusty - Cole

Ruutu - Skinner - Jokinen

Sutter - Samsonov - LaRose

Carter - Dwyer - Bodie

In a couple of weeks, things could look better (in my opinion):

Staal - Tlusty - Cole

Ruutu - Skinner - Jokinen

Sutter - Boychuk -Dalpe

Carter - LaRose/Dwyer - Bodie

The top line would have good size, speed and scoring talent across the board. The Sutter line would have tremendous speed, great offensive potential from players who have played together, and, with Dalpe, reasonable size. I realize Sutter's defensive role but hate to see his offensive potential go to waste and that's a risk with some of the other potential linemates. If the third line has to be composed of primarily defensive players, you could move LaRose or Dwyer up and Dalpe down. I do see that Tlusty's combination of size, defensive responsibility and offensive talent works as well for Sutter as it might for Staal. This post is motivated primarily by the feeling that Staal is getting shortchanged in current line assignments and the Canes are getting shortchanged as a result.

Barring a trade and assuming Mo's line lotto doesn't render talk of lines pointless, what is the Canes' best option now at left wing on the top line?

There have been a lot of interesting discussions about whether the Canes should be buyers or sellers at the trade deadline and related discussions about which players should go, which players should stay to further a playoff run, and which prospects should or should not be bundled for what kind of return. These discussions haven't come close to reaching a consensus and yet there are several opinions that I think just about everybody seems to share:

1) The Canes' current roster isn't good enough to get out of the first round if the Canes make the playoffs.

2) The Canes' defense has to get better through external moves--significant help is not coming soon from the system.

3) The Canes need a top pairing defensive defenseman.

4) The Canes probably couldn't afford an established top pairing defensive defenseman if they did manage to land one in a trade and couldn't afford to sign one as a free agent.

5) The Canes' offense will probably improve some next year through the growth of individual prospects such as Boychuk and Dalpe, but there's serious doubt than any current Canes' prospect is going to be a first-line scoring forward that scares other teams and helps the Canes get the most from their top player, Eric Staal.

6) The Canes couldn't afford an established first-line scoring wing (such as Mike Richards, again Elsker's idea) if they landed one in a trade and couldn't afford to sign one as a free agent.

7) The Canes need more size and grit to compete with top-tier teams and keep their young prospects in one piece.

The list above details some serious constraints on JR's options and implies some priorities. The biggest constraint is that you can't just get the proven guy you want and plug him in immediately. Another big constraint is that you should be biased against finesse players, both small or nonphysical forwards and small, mostly offensive or not very physical defensemen.

We've thought about the big issues facing the Canes as how to get a top-pairing defensive defenseman and how to get a better first-line forward than current options. On reflection, I think we're grappling for a solution that's probably unrealistic given all the constraints and priorities: directly transforming current Canes with expiring contracts into the missing ingredients so that the Canes quickly become much more competitive. I think we should back off and think more along the lines that Elsker often recommends--asset management. But in this case, I think it would be interesting to think more in terms of asset building for mid to late next season or even the season after rather than for this year's playoffs or the start of next season. I suspect the constraints above are forcing JR to think in terms of less-than-immediate asset building, not creating an instant powerhouse through a couple of quick personnel moves.

If the Canes are building assets toward becoming a top-flight team as soon as realistically possible, then just about all current assets are on the table. Expiring contracts or not, almost everybody could go if the price is right. It's all a matter of setting the right price. Could Boychuk or Dalpe be traded? Not for a short-term fix for a playoff run this year, but for a long-term talent upgrade, yes--if the price is right. But the same is true of Ruutu as well, and probably true of every Canes' player except Staal, Ward and Skinner.

So I thought it might be interesting to shift the discussion from specific trades to the kind of value that would make it worth giving up each of the current Canes' players. We could state value in two ways: player description by role and quality (such as first-line scoring right winger, top-pairing defensive defenseman) or draft pick, not just by round but by position within the round (very specifically for the first round: top 10 first-round pick, top 3 first-round pick; a little less specific for rounds 2-5: early, middle or late second round pick, early, middle or late third round pick,etc.)

(A note on the need to add a first-line scoring wing: Most of us seem to think that Skinner should not play on the same line with Staal. I'm in the minority in still wanting the Canes to give that a serious look over an extended period, but it's unclear to me that putting Staal and Skinner together on the first line would be the best course. There's a chance it would be, but only a chance. Staal and Skinner are both first-line quality players. That's why it might make sense to put them together. Boychuk, Dalpe and some current Canes are definitely good enough to be second line players but might not be good enough to be first-line players. If Skinner and Staal worked out as linemates, everything else might fall into place. If. But for this discussion, it's probably best to assume that Skinner should not play on Staal's line.)

After the jump, how I would price some current Canes' players and prospects in these terms and an invitation to some of you more knowledgeable Caniacs to say how you would price Canes' players.

Continue reading this post »

Gleason, White and Staal.

The Heavy Lifter's Index takes into account facing the other team's top players and playing in difficult situations.

For defensemen: Heavy Lifter Index in Front Office Focus on Puck Prospectus site. Gleason 11th, White 18th in cumulative rankings for past three seasons.

I'd be interested to know how other Canes' defensemen stack up on this index. With all the Pitkanen trade talk, I'd especially like to know his ranking.

Eric Staal is ranked 14th on this index in three year totals for forwards.

According to the author, Heavy Lifters do most of the dirty work so that "the stars can take offensive assignments." Sydney Crosby did not make the list of heavy lifters. This seems to confirm the view that Eric Staal performs difficult roles that many of the league's leading scorers do not. I think we'll be finding Brandon Sutter on the list of heavy lifters soon.

As a high-scoring heavy lifter, Eric Staal is truly a rarity, along with Zetterberg and Datsyuk. The Canes have an elite veteran forward to set the bar for their elite rookie.

If this information has been reported previously on Canes Country, I apologize. I stumbled onto the information today and did not find it in a search of Canes Country posts.

It's great that Boychuk and Dalpe are tearing up the AHL and Samson is still going strong. Would anybody care to give a status report on Oskar Osala?

Osala is looking pretty solid for the Checkers now, with 38 points in 45 games, good enough for 2nd on the Checkers and 12th in the AHL.

When you look at points per game, Boychuk leads the Checkers with 1.17, followed by Dalpe at 1.11 and Samson at 0.96. Osala isn't that far behind at 0.84. He's also leading the Checkers in assists. The Checkers list him at 6'4" and 226 lbs, which is up 7 lbs from his weight on the Canes' site. He's not as hefty as Dustin Penner or Byfuglein, but Osala is no lightweight.

Does Osala have a shot at playing for the Canes? Is he strictly a left wing or could he move to the right?

I was amazed watching Skinner tonight against the Rangers. Without him, that first goal doesn't happen. His goal on the feed from LaRose was a thing of beauty - no sooner on his stick than in the net. Skinner is not fading away. Naturally, I checked his stats to see how he stands in the race for rookie of the year. Those stats were fresh in my mind when I went to check out the Lightning-Thrashers score. I saw that Stamkos had scored still more goals.

That made me wonder how obvious it was that Stamkos was going to be such an incredible goal scorer. Well, it was obvious that he would be very good, but I couldn't help noticing that the numbers for his full rookie season aren't far ahead of Skinner's current rookie numbers after 47 games. For the heck of it, I decided to check out the other recent forwards who were taken first overall and see how Skinner compares to them.

Let me acknowledge that this comparison is crazy on its face- a 7th overall pick halfway through his rookie season with the last four 1st overall picks, three of them having completed a full season. Let me further acknowledge that's it's foolish to project any numbers for Skinner.

Nevertheless, here's how the comparison looks.

Top Picks Overall 2007 to Present, Plus Jeff Skinner

                            GP           G              A                 P                   +/-

Kane                82             21           51               72                  -5

Stamkos         79             23           23               46                 -13

Tavares           82              24          30              54                 -15

Hall                  45             14           13              27                   -9

Skinner           47             17           22              39                  +3

Five things about these numbers stand out. First, Hall and Skinner seem on pace to be the best two goal scorers as rookies among these five players at age 18. Second, Skinner after 47 games is close to where Stamkos was in total points after 79 games, trailing 46-39. Third, Skinner is the only player on the list with a positive +/-. Fourth, Skinner has a pretty good shot at finishing as the top goal scorer in this comparison of rookie seasons. Fifth, Skinner has a slim shot at tying Kane as the top point producer--it's within the realm of possibility for Skinner to finish with 30 goals and 42 assists. 

It's hard to appreciate just how good this kid looks so far. After the jump, some perspective: a quick look at the other players picked 7th in this time span.

Continue reading this post »

I thought this item at Puck Prospectus would be of interest because it questions whether Jack Johnson is worth his big new contract. The cap hit for Johnson is $4.4 M despite his having the worst goals against rate per 60 minutes of any Kings' defenseman this season or last.

Whether Johnson deserves his new contract seems relevant to pricing a new contract for Pitkanen or a Pitkanen replacement as well as valuing Tim Gleason. Also, Johnson and Gleason provide interesting reference points for figuring out the mystery of Pitkanen's value as a high-risk, high-reward player. As you'll see below, Johnson is the very definition of that type of player. I think the numbers below also say something about whether Gleason has really had a subpar season, as a lot of us have suggested.

If I'm interpreting this chart correctly at behindthenet.ca, Tim Gleason's GA per 60 at ES is 2.16. Jack Johnson's is 3.24 and Pitkanen's GA/60 is 3.02. Gleason looks like a bargain at $2.75 M. The + / - per 60 minutes when on the ice at ES numbers look better for both Gleason and Pitkanen than for Johnson. Gleason is +.17, Pitkanen -0.27 and Johnson -0.44.

The huge difference in Johnson's favor is of course in scoring on the power play, where he generates 6.03 points per 60 minutes. Gleason doesn't figure on the PP at all. Pitkanen generates 2.26 points per 60 minutes on the PP. (Corvo generates 5.45 points and McBain 3.25. For the curious, Babchuk generates 4.55.)

Even strength, Johnson has been on the ice for 38 goals for and 44 against. Drew Doughty's corresponding numbers are 42 and 28. Gleason's numbers are 28 goals for and 26 against, best on the Canes and two goals better than Doughty on goals against. Pitkanen's numbers are 30 GF on the ice ES and 33 against ES.

The numbers on Pitkanen in different situations make an interesting study. On the power play, he's been on for 13 goals for and 0 goals against. On the penalty kill, he's been on for 4 goals for and 10 against, besides the even strength numbers of 30 goals for and 33 against. On the power play, Johnson has been on the ice for 22 goals for and 3 goals against. Penalty kill, 1 goal for and 2 goals against. For the whole season so far, Johnson has averaged only 1:06 TOI shorthanded. Gleason has averaged 2:58 and Pitkanen 1:48. Pitkanen has had 3:59 TOI per game on the power play, Johnson 3;56, Gleason 0:32.

So at this stage, Johnson is the worst of the 3 defensemen at even strength. The Kings don't send him out that much on the PK. He generates a staggering 22 PP goals but also allows 3 shorthanded coming back. When you look just at goals against in all situations, Johnson brings up the rear with 46, Pitkanen has 43 and Gleason 37. When you add up the goals for and against in all situations, Johnson comes out best at -7, while Pitkanen and Gleason are both -9. But Gleason plays far more in shorthanded situations than Pitkanen, who plays more shorthanded than Johnson. Down a man, you're expected to operate at a deficit. (BTW, there is a chink in Drew Doughty's armor. On the PK, his +/- per 60 is -9.56. Pitkanen's is -6.02 and Gleason's -5.43.)

So who's a more valuable defenseman? Gleason, the guy who plays most in tough situations and has a 9 goal deficit on the season? Pitkanen, the guy who plays in all situations, though less shorthanded than Gleason, and has a 9 goal deficit? Or Johnson, who plays hardly at all in the toughest situations and has a 7 goal deficit for the season?

For people who can't stand the risks that come with Pitkanen, consider how you'd feel if he'd allowed 3 goals against when the Canes had the power play and 2 goals against when on the PK despite playing very little shorthanded, plus allowing 11 more goals at even strength than he has. That would be Jack Johnson, the $4.4 M defenseman whose team is +0.66 per 60 when he's OFF THE ICE and -0.44 when HE'S ON THE ICE. You've got to ask just how much of a risk Pitkanen really is when most of his deficit in goals against comes on the PK.

Johnson is a spectacular offensive player but still does considerably more harm than good even though he's shielded from the risks of PK time. By comparison, Pitkanen is a more versatile player and remarkably low in risk, if you consider that in all situations, he's been on the ice for 4 goals more for the Canes than against. Gleason is low risk/low reward, if by reward you mean goals scored while he's on the ice. But if you take your reward in the form of +/-, the rewards Gleason offers are the highest of the 3.

It would be great if the Canes had Drew Doughty, but they'd never be able to afford him. Can they afford a replacement for Pitkanen or win if they have to accept a downgrade?

I don't pretend to be able to read JR's mind, but some comments by HMo2 and Elsker about the Canes' options with Boychuk and Dalpe made me realize how interesting it would be to know what JR is thinking these days. Cory's comments about how the defense has played without Pitkanen made things even more interesting.

That crossroads that the Canes were going to reach later this season is here thanks to Boychuk's and Dalpe's surprisingly strong play. JR has more possibilities to weigh than I'd considered because the Canes' playoff chances remain up in the air. It isn't as though the Canes are out of it and decided to try the prospects with nothing to lose. On the other hand, the Canes aren't solidly in the 6th playoff spot and afraid to tinker with a productive veteran lineup.

Think about the questions JR must be asking himself:

1. Are the Canes likely to win more games by keeping and playing Boychuk and Dalpe? That is so very different from wondering how many games it would cost the Canes to let Boychuk and Dalpe learn to play at NHL speed.

2. Would it be worth paying healthy extras to get Boychuk and Dalpe into the lineup?

3. If paying healthy extras is out, would it be worth the risk to send down another forward with a two-way contract (Dwyer as far as I know)?

4. If Samsonov can't be traded, would it be better to waive him and eat the cost of all or half of his salary?

5. Would the smart move be just to send the prospects back to Charlotte because it probably won't cost the Canes any wins or potential playoff revenues and it's the best way to wait for the right trade to come along?

More after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

The Canes hold 22nd place in a 30-team league. They're dead center between the 8th playoff spot in the Eastern Conference and last place in the Southeast Division--it's 4 points in either direction. Some of us think you shouldn't be content with a squad that's won less than half of its games and seen multiple division rivals get massively better in the blink of an eye.  With three division teams 8 points ahead of the Canes in the standings and the fourth only 4 points behind, the Canes should seize every opportunity to see if a prospect can provide a talent upgrade.The division cellar looks about as likely as a playoff spot. What will a conservative approach conserve?

When recalling Boychuk, JR said Boychuk should be able to play in the top 6 in the NHL. JR didn't say immediately, but he didn't say "someday" either and Boychuk was the 2nd leading scorer in the AHL. Yet Mo doesn't seem the least bit curious about whether Boychuk can play in the top 6. Was JR just trying to get people to tune in or buy tickets thinking they could see part of the Canes' future in action, or was he serious? Was Boychuk's recall supposed to be his big break, or a cameo with marketing benefits? So far, it's a 4th line cameo. In the Canes' 5-1 blowout loss to the Lightning, Mo chose to keep Boychuk on the 4th line late in the game rather than see if he could make something happen in a more significant role.

Are the Canes' committed to a youth movement or is that empty talk? It's hard to tell now, but the trade deadline will show the Canes' real intentions and what they really think about their own prospects. If the Canes have an outside shot at the 8th spot in the playoffs, what do they do at forward? Trade for middling vets or familiar faces--perhaps Ray Whitney if Phoenix is out of it? Or unload Samsonov and LaRose or Dwyer, perhaps even Erik Cole if he isn't playing well, and give prospects a chance to play like demons and put them over the top?

The poll asks what you think the Canes will do. Please add comments about what you think the Canes should do. In particular, is there urgency about trying to get better because the Thrashers and Lightning did so instantly, the Caps are still strong, and the Panthers have loaded up on impressive draft picks like Gudbranson and Bjugstad?

JR and Mo seem to be thinking of a slow and steady youth movement. The other teams in the division don't see things that way and a couple have already blown past the Canes. Should that affect the Canes' development strategy? Should they try to go all-in on a youth movement as soon as possible and hope that makes them competitive, or go all-in to eke out the 8th playoff spot and let the prospects wait?

While waiting for Canes Country's preview of tonight's game, I noticed some extreme contrasts between the Canes and the Lightning.

1. TB is first in shots against, allowing 27.0 per game. The Canes are 29th, allowing 34.5.

2. Despite this, TBL allows more goals than the Canes: 3.31 GPG vs. 2.90.

3. As the first two points suggest, there's a big disparity in save percentages. Both Ellis and Smith stop about 88% of shots against them. For the Canes, Cam Ward stops 92.6% and Justin Peters 88%.

4. There's a big difference in shooting percentage by the teams' leading scorers, but only small differences in shots taken by the two teams and the leading scorers. The Lightning put 32.7 shots on goal per game to the Canes' 30.8. Stamkos has taken 122 shots and scored on 20.5% of them (5th in the league) for 25 goals. Staal has taken 123 shots and scored on 13% of them (92nd in the league) for 16 goals. (The Canes' leaders in shooting % are Tlusty with 13.6 and Ruutu with 13.5, with Sutter at 13.0; this excludes Jon Matsumoto 18.2% on only 11 shots.)

5. Tampa Bay's scoring is more concentrated, with Stamkos accounting for 26% of their goals and Stamkos + St. Louis accounting for 38%. The top 3 scorers (Ryan Malone is the third with 9 goals) account for almost half of Lightning goals (47%). Staal scores 19% of the Canes' goals and, combined with Skinner, scores 28%. The top 3 scorers account for 36% of goals.

6. Nothing new here, but there's a big edge to Tampa Bay on the power play. They lead in home power play scoring percentage with 27.6% and are fourth overall with 23.7%. Carolina scores on 16.2% of its power plays, 22nd overall, thanks to recent improvement.

7. Big edge to the Canes on stopping and scoring shorthanded goals. Tampa Bay is worst in the NHL, allowing 7 shorthanded goals, while the Canes are among the best, allowing 2. That doesn't eliminate the goal differential on power plays, but narrows it from 12 to 7. Tampa Bay hasn't scored a SHG. The Canes have scored 2. That further whittles down Tampa Bay's advantage on power plays.

8. Tampa Bay has 4 EN goals to the Canes' 1, and 5 5 on 3 goals to the Canes 3. That seems like a big disproportion on goals in those unusual situations. The teams are virtually tied in 5 on 5 goals, with TBL having one more at 58, but having played an extra game.

Looks like a great night for Sutter's line to have a great night against Stamkos. It would be fatal to repeat the 5 on 3 and 6 on 3 mess that the Canes allowed the Ducks.

Rather than getting down about the Dallas loss, I decided to try to figure out how plausible it is for internal growth to turn the Canes into an excellent team fairly soon. Wilson does a great job of keeping us current on the Checkers, but I was wondering how the Canes' prospects in Charlotte are doing compared to other AHL prospects of the same age. I'm no expert at evaluating hockey talent, but I can make crude numerical comparisons between players competing at the same level. That's what I've done. I'm probably wrong about everything. On the other hand, the world's greatest experts on hockey talent said Jeff Skinner was a 2nd round pick. Numbers may be misleading, but apparently the expert observations of hockey scouts aren't much more reliable. So here goes.

Before adjusting for age, keep in mind that in absolute terms, Zach Boychuk is tied for third in AHL scoring with 25 points in 24 games. Jerome Samson is in 7th place with 24 points in 24 games, Chris Terry in 28th place, Oskar Osala in 47th, Zac Dalpe in 83rd, and Drayson Bowman in 139th. Dalpe and Bowman have of course played only 14 games in Charlotte because of the time they spent with the Canes. More on those two below.

The First Cut

My first pass at adjusting for age was to eliminate AHL scorers born before 1987. That cut leaves Boychuk ranked 2nd in the league (behind Canadiens' 1st rounder Max Pacioretty, a year older than Boychuk and a veteran of 86 NHL games compared to Boychuk's 33), Samson 3rd, Terry 11th, and Osala 19th. That's right--Terry moved up 17 places and Osala 28. It shows what a big influence age and experience have on AHL scoring and suggests it may be interesting to cut another age cohort.

The second cut after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

The Canes have played 17 games and will play 10 more between tomorrow and December 10. At that point, about a third of the season will be done. After 27 games, it will be interesting to see what the Canes do.

The 10 games starting tomorrow and ending December 10 should be a good test. I know this sounds familiar, but there are reasons for using the overworked phrase. The Canes are earning 0.94 points in the standings per game so far. That's a rate below the point production of every opponent in the next 10 games. The Caps are on the schedule twice and are earning 1.5 points per game. The Bruins are scheduled once and are earning 1.3 pts per game. The rest of the opponents in this 10-game stretch earn  points per game at a rate that rounds to 1.1, ranging from the Penguins and Senators at 1.05 to the Predators at 1.13. (The until now unnamed opponents in the 1.1 pts-earned-per-game cluster are the Stars and Avs.)

The Canes' current record is 8-9-0. Of late, the Canes have looked pretty hopeless against the Flyers and Canadiens, who have earned about 1.4 pts per game so far.  The Canes have looked good against the Panthers (0.9 points per game) and Oilers (0.7 pts per game). You never know, but suppose the Canes lose the coming games with the Caps and Bruins. They'll have lost at least twelve games at the 1/3 mark.

They'll have to go 6-1 in the other seven games to get to .500 (14-13). They'd probably be satisfied with that and not think about major changes.

If they go 4-3 against the other opponents though, they'll be at 12-15. If they go 2-5, they'll be in dire straits at 10-17. If the Canes are well below .500 at that point, line changes based on 4th liners grinding their hearts out in hopes of fleeting auditions with Staal or Sutter won't turn the season around. The Canes will probably be making some decisions.

After the jump, three questions about the Canes' status as of December 10.

Continue reading this post »

In this morning's N&O, Chip Alexander has an excellent article that passes along Paul Maurice's explanation for all the line shuffling.

I'm not a big believer in lines staying together a long time. You can get stale. If you play a lot of the same opponents in a stretch of games, you can set the lines and let them stay together, but I like to move guys around as long as their comfortable with it.

I appreciate the explanation but can't think of a recent occasion when a Canes' line was in danger of getting stale. I can think of a lot of occasions when lines seemed to get broken up before they'd had a decent chance to learn to play together. I give Maurice full credit for the success of the last round of line shuffling. It's the doctrine of perpetual, rapid change that worries me.

What I'm wondering is what this says about PM's system, if anything. Could it be that the Canes hope to rely so much on aggressive forechecking and net crashing that coordination among linemates hardly matters?

I'd love to see some Canes' lines play together long enough so that drop passes go to our team a higher percentage of the time rather than the opponent and somebody fighting for the puck along the boards doesn't have to look up and turn around to know where one of his linemates is going to be. I'd like to see fewer offsides and more bang-bang-bang passes with all three guys involved. I'd like to see fewer centering passes to nobody. Maybe if lines stayed together longer, when they're trying to break into the offensive zone, the player with the puck and the other linemates would have a better idea of second and third and fourth options when the defense has anticipated Plan A and shut it down. Too often, Plan B seems to be a turnover and Plan C is circling back and starting over.

If we're using a baking metaphor, before worrying about lines getting stale, I'd let the dough rise and maybe even preheat the oven.

Continue reading this post »

His career was moving along pretty well until the terrible bus crash that broke his neck. At the end of last season, was Borer back to full strength? Could he have a chance to play himself onto the Canes' active roster this season, or does he need a full season in Albany?

After all the misfortune, it would be nice to see Borer competing at the top of his game with the other young defensemen. But where do the Canes see him fitting in after the injury cost him more than a year and the Canes have added Sanguinetti, resigned Carson, Babchuk and Harrison, and drafted several promising defensemen? Borer, Rodney and Lawson seem to be the odd men out.

I enjoyed Cory's new rankings of Canes' prospects at Hockey's Future. Cory knows far more about hockey and Canes' prospects than I do. I regretted that the HF system no longer counts Tlusty as a prospect and so Cory didn't comment on him or assign him a rank. I couldn't help trying, in my fashion, to compare Tlusty to the players that Cory did rank. This despite HMo2's not providing a fish to show where Tlusty really belongs, or even allowing a vote to name a fish after Tlusty. Admittedly, Tlustyfish is hard to say and doesn't lend itself to puns except for clumsy plays on Japanese names for certain dishes with raw fish. But is that any reason to deny Tlusty a place on the ballot?

I've decided to give Tlusty his due. Or, to be more precise, what I think his due might be based on various things I've read and selective video I've seen. I would put Tlusty and Skinner at the top along with McBain in a three-man first tier of Canes' prospects. I haven't viewed video systematically -- impressions stick in my mind from things like Tlusty's scoring immediately for the Canes on a pass from Sutter and Tlusty's five-goal AHL game, McBain's shots and his thread-the-needle pass to Staal on a power play, and numerous examples of Skinner's remarkable shot, balance, and spins.

I considered other factors in a similarly haphazard way. Because I lack the expertise to recognize a type and level of skill that can be extremely successful in the AHL and of no consequence in the NHL, I can't help attaching considerable weight to actual AHL performance. That moves Samson and Matsumoto farther up my list. I also can't help downgrading prospects who don't seem absolutely determined to do whatever it takes to succeed. Based on Max Giese's observations, that knocks Jared Staal well down my list and knocks Oskar Osala down one tier.

As I look back at the way I ranked players, it seems I do give weight to high draft position, indications of noteworthy skills, formal recognition for outstanding performance, and strong positive effects on a player's team or teams. 

High draft position lifts Nash, Sanguinetti, and Tlusty.

Examples of noteworthy skills and recognition for outstanding performance: Tlusty's five-goal and six-point games in the AHL; Dalpe's instant production in the AHL, including a hat trick; Faulk's booming shot, Sanguinetti's winning the AHL skating competition, Skinner's remarkable skating moves and huge goal production in the OHL, Dumoulin's making the Frozen Four All-Tournament team as a freshman and posting an astounding +/- as a freshman at BC, Riley Nash's earning such high praise from Ron Francis.

Examples of lifting a team or teams: Dumoulin's way of always being on teams that win championships at every level, Skinner's transforming Kitchener into a real threat against the highly favored Windsor Spitfires in the OHL playoffs, Frederik Andersen's taking Denmark's national team to new heights.

Sometimes scattered disappointing personal observations seem to cancel out a proven noteworthy skill. Drayson Bowman has a big shot, but has not, in my limited observations, seemed to be anywhere close to Zach Boychuk in his energy, determination, or effect on a Canes' game, or anywhere close in all-around ability to Jamie McBain or Jiri Tlusty.

Based on the above qualitative and observational mish-mash, and without attempting to provide a ranking from 1-20, I'd divide the Canes' prospects into tiers as follows (after the jump):

Continue reading this post »

Babchuk had spectacular moments in his last season with the Canes. His scoring ability is undeniable: 16 G, 19 A in 08-09. He scored in the clutch: 4 GW goals. In the KHL this year, Babchuk kept scoring. He made the All-Star team and had a goal and an assist in the All-Star game.

With all the talk of Babchuk as a defensive liability, he had the second highest +/- on the team in 08-09 at +13 (behind Staal's +15 and ahead of Pitkanen's +11). But that's just because he scores so much, right? Well, as it turns out, probably not. I'll get to that in a minute.

The playoffs in 08-09 seemed to be Babchuk's undoing. He scored only one assist and the +/- sank to -5. But on a closer look, Babchuk wasn't the only Canes' player who struggled. It's easy to forget that Brand'Amour, Cole and Siedenberg were also -5, Corvo was -7, and Ray Whitney -9. Gleason was -2, and Ruutu, Jokinen and Staal -3. That's an awful lot of players on the minus side and it looks as though Babchuk was around the mean for players on the minus side. He wasn't necessarily the oversized anchor that dragged the team under. Was he seen as such a disaster because his -5 was an 18 pt swing from +13? But then Staal's -3 was also an 18-pt swing in the wrong direction.

The collective numbers suggest the opposition figured out how to deal with the Canes--not that Babchuk's collapse wrecked the Canes' playoff chances.

Babchuk gets knocked for having no idea where his booming shot will end up. Oddly, in 08-09, when we mostly formed that opinion, Babchuk was third on the team in shooting percentage among regulars (12.6%), trailing only Cullen (15.8) and Ruutu (13.7). Among defensemen, Corvo hit 6.6% of his shots and Pitkanen 4.8%. If I hadn't read so many times that Babchuk has no idea where his shot might end up, I'd swear the data says that Babchuk should shoot much more, and Corvo and Pitkanen less.

Is the data some sort of weird statistical illusion? Or could Babchuk be better than everybody thinks?

Continue reading this post »

Bob Wage's analysis of Canes' scoring consistency in 2009-10 made me wonder if Staal scored more consistently when the Canes had more complementary scoring. I'd suggested that the Canes' lack of complementary offensive threats had depressed Staal's scoring, but I wasn't sure. I went back and checked Staal's 100-point season in 2005-06 to see.

Staal scored in 59 of 82 games in 2005-2006, or 72%. That compares with scoring in 61% of his games in 2009-10. Staal's 72 percent performance in 05-06 isn't up there with Ovechkin's 78% last year, but it's better than Heatley's 67%.

Last year, Ovechkin had the benefit of Backstrom's 33 goals and 101 points and Semin's 40 goals and 84 points. The Caps had seven players with more than 50 points. Heatley had the benefit of Thornton's 89 points and Marleau's 82. The Sharks had six players with more than 50 points.

On the Canes, Jokinen had 30 goals and 65 points. Whitney had 21 goals and 58 points. The Canes had a total of three players with more than 46 points, including Staal. Back in 2005-06, the Canes had eight players with more than 50 points and another player with 49. It seems the more threats the opposing defense faces, the easier it is to score. That doesn't seem surprising.

I doubt this proves that Staal would score better and more consistently if the Canes had more offensive firepower, but it strongly suggests it. The most likely explanation for Staal's offensive decline is the decline of Brind'Amour and Cole because of age and injury and the departure of Cory Stillman and Justin Williams. Ray Whitney and Matt Cullen were here last year, but they were also on the 2005-06 team. Back then, Whitney and Cullen were the 8th and 9th leading scorers on the Canes. Last year, that was LaRose and Kostopoulos with 28 and 21 points.

Staal will score more if and when he has a team around him that is closer in firepower to the 2005-05 Canes.

I'd like to watch a hockey game. That's not an option, so I'm anticipating the new season in a zillion silly ways.

We've seen lots of interesting looks at the Hurricanes for this coming season, the most recent abramsdoug's insightful review of team progress and HMo2's great spreadsheet for doing your own running analysis of the roster and the Canes' moves. Those two looks weren't silly at all. Wallace Stevens' famous poem isn't silly either, but it still popped into my head.  I figure we're getting close to looking at the Canes a dozen ways. I'm providing two more brief looks that put us over the top.

The first look simply lists players on the Canes' roster or in the system by overall draft position regardless of who drafted them. The list doesn't go beyond the first 100 draft slots. The initial idea was to get a raw assessment of how much talent the Canes have accumulated, using draft position as an imperfect but useful gauge of talent.

While checking players' draft positions, I couldn't help noticing how the Canes turned some of the players they drafted high into players drafted high by other teams. That only makes sense, but it's intriguing when you start to get a sense of the way the Canes have managed the process over time. For example, it's interesting that the Canes turned everybody's favorite defenseman Jack Johnson into Tim Gleason. The more of these exchanges you see, the more you appreciate what the Canes have done. At least, that's true for me.

But you be the judge.

Continue reading this post »