Kukla's Korner

The Puck Stops Here

Yzerman Case Study Undermines GM Of The Year Award

The GM of the Year award is a new NHL award.  It first came into existence in 2010.  This award is problem for the same reasons the coach of the year award is a problem but those reasons are much stronger for GMs.  It is very hard to determine the impact of a coach or a GM in a short period of time.  There is a tendency to give the awards to teams that improve by a significant margin and it is often hard to link that improvement to the coach of GM getting an award.

Last season Mike Gillis of Vancouver won the GM of the Year Award by barely beating out Steve Yzerman of the Tampa Bay Lightning.  The case for Yzerman was that Tampa Bay improved significantly from 80 to 103 points.  Yzerman is a likeable guy who earned a lot of good will in his Hall of Fame playing career and by GMing the 2010 gold medal winning Canadian Olympic Team.

Tampa’s improvement was largely predictable.  There was a dysfunctionally run team as the Oren Koules and Len Barrie ownership regime ended and Jeff Vinik took over and brought in some stability.  The team had significant talent in Steve Stamkos, Martin St Louis, Vincent LeCavalier and others.  It was clear that this team was on the rise as long as it was competently run.  That isn’t an endorsement of Steve Yzerman as a GM except to say that he is competent and that is a significant improvement over Brian Lawton who wasn’t.

The problem is Yzerman inadvertently took it all apart with a bad move the next summer.  He chose 42 year old Dwayne Roloson as his number one goalie.  Roloson had been a good goalie in the past and backstopped Tampa during their 2011 run to the semifinals.  The problem was he had little left for the future.

Another candidate to be Tampa’s starting goalie was Mike Smith.  Smith was developing into a top goalie who some considered for the 2010 Canadian Olympic Team before running into concussion problems.  He spent several years trying to return to form but he had not been the same goalie.  Tampa Bay chose to let him go as a free agent.

Smith wound up in Phoenix and returned to his earlier form there.  He has been one of the biggest stories of the playoffs so far and likely narrowly missed out in a Vezina Trophy nomination. 

Tampa Bay struggled under poor goaltending and missed the playoffs this season.  That poor goaltending is a direct result of Steve Yzerman’s decisions.  Yzerman screwed up Tampa’s goaltending this season and likely will attempt to fix it this summer.

There is no costlier mistake for a GM than giving up a top player for nothing or next to nothing.  There is no better move than adding such a player.  Don Maloney schooled Steve Yzerman, who looked like an inexperienced GM.  The 2010 GM of the Year schooled the almost winner in 2011. 

In that one move Yzerman undid all the good he did in the 2010/11 season and then some.  It will take some work for him to try to fix the problem.  This case clearly shows that GM of the Year is hard to judge.  A GM who looks like he is doing a good job can and has undone it all in one mistake.  As a result it is hard to take this award seriously.  One year is too short a time frame to judge a good GM.  A GM takes several years to build a franchise.  I expect that in a few years we will see several cases of GMs who built top teams and were never seriously considered as GM of the Year in any single year.  Steve Yzerman is an example of a player who almost won this award and in one mistake has reduced his team to a non-playoff squad.

Filed in: | The Puck Stops Here | Permalink
 

Comments

 1 2 >       Next »

DetCapC19's avatar

“Smith was developing into a top goalie who some considered for the 2010 Canadian Olympic Team before running into concussion problems”

That’s not even remotely true.

Posted by DetCapC19 from Vancouver, BC on 05/04/12 at 03:17 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

In 2008 James Mirtle of the Globe and Mail published a prediction for who would be on the 2010 Canadian Olympic Team.  It was on his from the rink blog which no longer exists.  He picked Mike Smith as one of the goalies and that pick was well received.  Almost immediately Smith suffered his concussion and his playing level fell and he was quickly removed from any serious contention

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/04/12 at 03:26 PM ET

DetCapC19's avatar

1. That was 2008 - TWO YEARS before the Olympics. 

2. Smith had a 0.893 save percentage in 2008 - the year before his concussion

3. He had a 3.09 GAA in 09-10 - The year of the Olympics

4. Bryzgalov was nominated for the Vezina 2 years ago (first full year in Phx) and was 6th last year.  He goes to Philly and his game falls apart/he gets exposed for what he really is.  Enter Mike Smith who comes to Phx and gets nominated for the Vezina.  See a pattern developing here?

Smith had almost 4 years to make an impact on somebody in TB and couldn’t do it.  Couldn’t do it in Dallas.  Could barely do it in the AHL. 

If Mike Smith was as good as you make him out to be, a lot more teams would have gone after last summer.

Good on Phx for seeing something in him that nobody else could and working with him but his success has mroe to do with the Phx system and Sean Burke.

Posted by DetCapC19 from Vancouver, BC on 05/04/12 at 03:41 PM ET

dougie's avatar

I told myself not to read this article. But I did it anyway. Now, I can’t unread it.

Let me make sure I have this straight. In order to win the award, the GM in question must have his every move examined with an electron microscope for the previous several years.
Then, if any player of his went to another team and improved his performance, the GM loses credibility.

Anyone who could satisfy this criteria would not be managing a hockey team, they would be starting a religion, because they are GOD.

Facepalm.

Posted by dougie on 05/04/12 at 04:03 PM ET

YYZerman's avatar

You should really do some more research because Sean Burke was the one that “found” Smith and begged the Coyotes to sign him. Signing someone in free agency has nothing to do with being a better GM. I would rate GM’s on drafting, hiring coach’s and developing their players. Which I think Yzerman has done a better job than Maloney. Not that Maloney hasn’t done a good job. He has.

Posted by YYZerman from Detroit, Michigan on 05/04/12 at 04:48 PM ET

Avatar

I can’t wait for the rest of the articles in this series, about who shouldnt have been nominated for the Norris, Hart, Selke, Vezina etc. trophy’s because they had worse years after the year in which they were nominated.

Posted by jwad on 05/04/12 at 04:49 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Why are people so quick to forgive Steve Yzerman for giving up on the player who turned out ot be the best free agent signing last summer?  Is it because he was a legendary player in Detroit? 

Yzerman wrecked the Tampa goaltending situation with that move and it cost them a playoff berth.  Anybody intelligent would see that as a big mistake.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/04/12 at 04:58 PM ET

DetCapC19's avatar

He was a 29 year old goaltender who had shown no signs of improvement.

And its not like there was a huge bidding war for the guy either.

And who would fault the guy for sticking with the goaltender who a) not only turned TBs season around the previous year after Smith was pissing it away and b) got them to the CONFERENCE FINALS?

If everybody knew Smith would have this kind of season, I’m willing to be he could have gotten more than $2M.  And as I mentioned earlier, even shitty goaltenders have good years in Phx.  See: Bryzgalov.

Posted by DetCapC19 from Vancouver, BC on 05/04/12 at 05:01 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Jwad

You miss a big part of my point.  The point is that the time period of one year is too short to make any meaningful analysis of how good a GM is.  It takes several years to have any meaningful analysis of how good a GM is.  Yzerman is a case study that shows that.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/04/12 at 05:09 PM ET

YzermanZetterberg's avatar

Posted by YYZerman from Detroit, Michigan on 05/04/12 at 02:48 PM ET

IIRC, Burke specifically targeted Smith because of their similarities and because he thought he would fit well in Phoenix’s system.

I guess Yzerman should have:

1.) Kept Smith
2.) Hired Dave Tippet away from Phoenix to implement his system in Tampa
3.) Hired Burke away from Phoenix to coach Smith

If Yzerman had only followed these three simple steps, he would have been worthy of being GM of the Year for the previous year.

To quote dougie…

Facepalm

Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 05/04/12 at 05:15 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

YzermanZetterberg

It isn’t necessary for Yzerman do do all the steps in your strawman approach.  All he had to do was recognize the talent Mike Smith had (and the age of Dwayne Roloson) and keep Smith around.  The talent was there and Smith was willing to re-sign if Tampa showed any interest.

You are correct to facepalm a comment that misses the point like yours.  I know I did.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/04/12 at 05:19 PM ET

Avatar

I find it interesting that you think that one YEAR is too short a period in which to just the best GM of the YEAR.

Steve Yzerman is being defended because he held onto the goalie that was instrumental in the team’s surprise playoff run and who had the better GAA and Save % of the two goalies in question.

Yzerman had a very difficult decision to make.  Maloney had a comparatively easy decision.  He couldn’t afford to pay Bryzgalov what he was looking for and needed to find an inexpensive goalie to plug into his defensive-minded team.

And Yzerman didn’t wreck anything.  He re-signed the best player on their team last year to a one-year deal.  That means he can sign someone else this off-seaon.

You can pretend that you would’ve kept Smith over Roloson if you were the GM, but you would simply be lying.

Posted by Garth on 05/04/12 at 05:21 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

And Yzerman didn’t wreck anything

Yzerman took a semi-finalist and turned them into a non-playoff team. 

You can pretend that you would’ve kept Smith over Roloson if you were the GM

I am not pretending anything.  Smith is an inexpensive goalie by your own analysis.  I would have seen that he was worth re-signing.  I probably would have gone into 2011/12 with Smith AND Roloson as my goalie pair.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/04/12 at 05:25 PM ET

Avatar

Yzerman took a semi-finalist and turned them into a non-playoff team.

No he didn’t.  He basically kept a semi-finalist team intact.  Are you so simple that you think one move changed everything?

I probably would have gone into 2011/12 with Smith AND Roloson as my goalie pair.

Now you’re just full of shit.  Yzerman signed a goalie who had numbers that were comparable to Smith’s and signed him for less money than Smith ended up signing for.

Smith’s play last year is part of what led Yzerman to get a new goalie, there’s no way anyone would, on the surface, predict that Smith would play so much better this year, and there’s no way that you can pretend to know that he would’ve played as well had he stayed with the Lightning.

Just because you know what you know now and are writing an article after the fact doesn’t mean Yzerman or anyone should’ve been able to predict this.

Posted by Garth on 05/04/12 at 05:38 PM ET

Avatar

Smith’s play led to him being sent down to the AHL.  He had to pass through waivers and nobody wanted him.  Then, when he was recalled from the AHL he had to pass through re-entry waivers.

Nobody in the NHL wanted him at half-price.

Why on earth would Yzerman look at Smith and say “You played poorly enough that I had to acquire a capable goalie in exchange for a prospect, so I’m going to re-sign you”?

It didn’t make sense for him to keep Smith.  It’s all well and good to be able to make bold statements like you’ve made a year after the fact, how about you try thinking a little bit about context before you say something stupid?

Posted by Garth on 05/04/12 at 05:45 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

PSH: Yzerman took a semi-finalist and turned them into a non-playoff team.

Garth: No he didn’t.  He basically kept a semi-finalist team intact.  Are you so simple that you think one move changed everything?

PSH: It is easy enough to calculate how many goals Mike Smith would have prevented if he played in place of Dwayne Roloson.  That gives us 49 goals.  Tampa allowed 46 more goals than they allowed last year.  That would make them +3.  That gives them a +/- similar to Ottawa and Washington who made the playoffs.  Now if Smith played as many games in Tampa as he did in Phoenix that difference becomes much bigger. 

It is very reasonable to think that one bad decision is the vast majoirty of the problem.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/04/12 at 05:49 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Garth

You are wrong.  Smith was in the AHL for a rehab assignment and thus never had to clear waivers.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/04/12 at 05:50 PM ET

Avatar

Smith was in the AHL for a rehab assignment and thus never had to clear waivers.

No, I’m not wrong.  On January 20th he was sent down to Norfolk on a conditioning stint, but that’s not what I’m talking about.  I’m talking about this:

2011/02/25 Recalled from Norfolk (AHL).
2011/02/24 Placed on re-entry waivers by the Tampa Bay Lightning.
2011/02/05 Assigned to Norfolk (AHL).
2011/02/02 Placed on waivers by the Tampa Bay Lightning.

Seems to me that he was placed on waivers on Feb 2 (see: 2011/02/02), then sent down on the 5th (see: 2011/02/05) and was placed on re-entry waivers on the 24th (see: 2011/02024) and recalled on the 25th (see: 2011/02/25).

As I said:

“He had to pass through waivers and nobody wanted him.  Then, when he was recalled from the AHL he had to pass through re-entry waivers.  Nobody in the NHL wanted him at half-price.”

It is easy enough to calculate how many goals Mike Smith would have prevented if he played in place of Dwayne Roloson.

No it isn’t, because Mike Smith played for the Phoenix Coyotes this year and Dwayne Roloson played for the Tampa Bay Lightning this year.  Those are two completely different teams with completely different rosters and different philosophies.  You can’t just superimpose one players stats onto another team and pretend they’re just interchangeable.  You really, REALLY can’t be so dumb to think that, can you?

Posted by Garth on 05/04/12 at 06:08 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

I stand corrected.  Thank you.

But that still doesn’t address anything we are talking about.  Smith was only under contract for the remainder of the season and would have been a short term rental.  He would have had to displace an existing NHL goaltender for the remaining month or so of regular season.  That could be disruptive to a team.

It shows that Steve Yzerman had no respect for one of the best goalies in the NHL this year and that is poor talent evaluation.  I wouldn’t hold it against other teams the same way as they would have had to dump an existing goalie to the minors to rent Smith for a month of games.  It wasn’t the same opportunity that Yzerman had to keep Smith in Tampa longterm.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/04/12 at 06:14 PM ET

Avatar

It shows that Steve Yzerman had no respect for one of the best goalies in the NHL this year and that is poor talent evaluation.

No, it shows that he has a lot of respect for the guy who was instumental in getting his team to the conference finals.

It wasn’t the same opportunity that Yzerman had to keep Smith in Tampa longterm.

WHY WOULD HE KEEP SMITH LONGTERM WHEN SMITH WAS PLAYING POORLY FOR HIS TEAM?!?!?!!!?!?!?

Why is it so hard for you to understand simple thoughts?

Posted by Garth on 05/04/12 at 06:24 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

PSH: It shows that Steve Yzerman had no respect for one of the best goalies in the NHL this year and that is poor talent evaluation.

Garth: No, it shows that he has a lot of respect for the guy who was instumental in getting his team to the conference finals.

PSH:  The fact Roloson helped Tampa get to the semifinals after Smith was waived cannot possibly weigh in any decision.  Tampa needed two goalies for the playoffs and Smith was definitely one of their two best when he was waived.  That is poor talent evaluation.

Garth (suffering from a problem with his capslock key) : WHY WOULD HE KEEP SMITH LONGTERM WHEN SMITH WAS PLAYING POORLY FOR HIS TEAM?!?!?!!!?!?!?

PSH:  It is called talent evaluation.  I want to have players who are going to play well in the games to come.  What happened in the past can be a nice guide to things but you must look at a much bigger picture than Yzerman did or than you do in your apologetics.

Mike Smith had been a very good goalie before concussions slowed him.  Taking a chance on him is a smart move.  You have to be smart enough to look past the last season and see the big picture.  You also have to be smart enough to notice Dwayne Roloson is turning 42 and that could be problematic in terms of injury and dropoff in play.  It is great that he had a good playoff run but we cannot count on it being repeatable.  Thus Tampa needs another goalie capable of being a number one mane should Roloson fail.  They had such a man in Mike Smith.  It was a significant error to not notice that.  That error knocked Tampa from the playoffs.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/04/12 at 06:33 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Mike Gillis failed to foresee Ryan Kesler’s 24-point drop in production from last year to this year, missed a potential opportunity to trade him for any of the 100 NHL players who had more points than he did this season, and as a result turned the Vancouver Canucks from a Stanley Cup contender to a first-round exit.

He should be stripped of his award.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/04/12 at 06:37 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

JJ

Do you think that is even similar?  I am discussing a player move that actually happened that cost a team a playoff spot.  You are discussing a hypotheitcal one you made up with no clear idea what Vancouver could get in return.  Without your imaginary move, Vancouver finished first overall.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/04/12 at 06:40 PM ET

Avatar

Smith was offered a contract after last season.  However, he wasn’t going to be the starter ahead of Roloson and he chose to pursue something else.  Had he stuck around (and played at his PHX level), he certainly would have assumed that role.

The guy had plenty of time in TB but he never put it together, especially with those concussion issues.  He played very solidly against Boston in a rest start for Roloson.  I wouldn’t have minded him returning on a one year deal, but there was no reason for Yzerman to pay him $2 million based on his past performances.

Posted by Jason on 05/04/12 at 06:41 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Well, we could also go with the trade of Cody Hodgson and the drop off of the Sedins’ performance, not to mention the inflammable goalie controversy he insisted on placing in his locker room as a distraction. Vancouver was the least-threatening Presidents’ Trophy-winning team in recent memory.

I don’t see what the problem here is, I’m agreeing with you. Mike Gillis took a team that should have won the cup and led them to a whimper of a first-round exit against a team that actually WAS very improved.  Mike Gillis failed to be a good GM this season and is further proof to your point that one year is far too short a time to show the talent of a GM.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/04/12 at 06:49 PM ET

Avatar

PSH: “Mike Smith had been a very good goalie before concussions slowed him.”

What are you talking about? Before this season his career numbers were 2.71 GAA, 0.906 SV% in 162 appearances. That is thoroughly below average. Unless those concussions you mention slowed him before he even entered the league, he had shown very little promise in his time with Dallas and Tampa. He was looking like he would be a career backup goaltender (almost identical numbers to Ty Conlkin and with similar ups and downs between seasons.)

Posted by Guy Incognitus on 05/04/12 at 06:49 PM ET

Avatar

“PSH: It shows that Steve Yzerman had no respect for one of the best goalies in the NHL this year and that is poor talent evaluation.”

So in the off season prior to this league year, Yzerman showed no respect for the guy who was ABOUT to become one of the best NHL goalies BECAUSE he moved to an organization with an outstanding goalie coach and a team that was a perfect fit for him.

So Yzerman should have KEPT said goalie, even though he wouldn’t have blossomed as he did in PHX but he could defend that choice by saying “Yeah he sucked as bad as Roloson again this year, but if I allowed Smith to leave for another team, like PHX, he would have been a Vezina worthy goalie”

My mind hurts trying to comprehend your logic.

Posted by herbie on 05/04/12 at 06:59 PM ET

Chet's avatar

Why are people so quick to forgive Steve Yzerman for giving up on the player who turned out ot be the best free agent signing last summer?  Is it because he was a legendary player in Detroit?

Yzerman wrecked the Tampa goaltending situation with that move and it cost them a playoff berth.  Anybody intelligent would see that as a big mistake.

i’ve always taken TPSH posts with a grain of salt, and i hate the writing, but this one is ridiculous. yzerman’s letting go of smith isn’t what wrecked the goaltending situation. that was just a decision based on past performance. if anything, it was his reliance that roloson would continue playing at a high level. the evidence was the smith wouldn’t be this good. his numbers were way below par for the past two seasons. but to rely on a guy in his 40s to carry a team through a whole season and the playoffs? maybe not so bright.

and of course GMs should not be measured on one or two seasons. thanks as always, capt. obvious.

Posted by Chet from twitter: thegansen on 05/04/12 at 07:00 PM ET

Avatar

But that still doesn’t address anything we are talking about.  Smith was only under contract for the remainder of the season and would have been a short term rental.  He would have had to displace an existing NHL goaltender for the remaining month or so of regular season.  That could be disruptive to a team.

Sure it could be disruptive, but that didn’t stop the Islanders from claiming Nabokov off waivers the previous month. And it didn’t stop the Wings from trying to sign Nabokov. Why didn’t the Wings claim Smith if they needed a goalie so desperately?

If you are going to take Yzerman to task for not evaluating Smith properly, then do the same for any other GM with goaltending problems, because they could have claimed Smith and had four months to exclusively negotiate a new contract. The Leafs, Blackhawks, Blue Jackets, Oilers, etc.

You are not going to find a GM with a flawless track record. Look at Poile’s big acquisitions this season: Gaustad for a first, Radulov, and A. Kostitsyn. Or Chris Stewart busting in St. Louis. Dave Tallon’s incompetence forced the dismantling of a championship team. Strip him of his nomination!

Posted by Blackjack on 05/04/12 at 07:08 PM ET

Avatar

Jwad

You miss a big part of my point.  The point is that the time period of one year is too short to make any meaningful analysis of how good a GM is.  It takes several years to have any meaningful analysis of how good a GM is.  Yzerman is a case study that shows that.

I think i missed that point, because you didnt actually make it.

The point you did make, was that Yzerman made one decision, which in hindsight turned out to be the wrong one.  That does little to demonstrate that the GM of the year award is meaningless.

I am sure we could find lots of cases where GMs made decisions which seemed perfectly reasonable at the time, but in hindsight didn’t work out.  That shouldn’t put every decision they made previously in question, or make prior seasons success any less significant.  It just means they shouldnt get nominated this year.

Posted by jwad on 05/04/12 at 07:17 PM ET

Avatar

You are correct in your analysis of why GM of the year is an odd award, but incorrect in your analysis of Yzerman.

Yzerman actually did want to go into this year with a tandem of Roloson/Smith. Smith declined because he wanted the chance at a starting position in Phoenix with a goalie coach he really liked.

You said: “Garth: No he didn’t.  He basically kept a semi-finalist team intact.  Are you so simple that you think one move changed everything?”
Wrong, here is a few players important to Tampa’s 2011 success acquired by Yzerman: Roloson, Brewer, Gagne, Bergenheim, Moore. Not to mention the hiring of the coach who got them there. All of them played important roles in Tampa’s playoff run.

Posted by Random Bolts Fan on 05/04/12 at 07:21 PM ET

Avatar

The point is that the time period of one year is too short to make any meaningful analysis of how good a GM is.

Also, just like every other NHL award, it is awarded based on what happens that season. 

It isnt attempting to name the greatest GM ever, or the best gm of the era.  It isnt making an analysis of the best GM overall, it is strictly trying to award the GM who was the best for that one season. 

Also, why are you focusing on the guy that didn’t win?

Posted by jwad on 05/04/12 at 07:26 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Evaluating a GM in one year is a pointless exercize and this award is a pointless award.  A GM award should recognize the best GMs in hockey history.  This award doesn’t do it.  It is far worse than coach of the year, which is quite problematic.  Often the coaches recognized are not close to the best coaches in the league.  If you could hire a coach for your team and all 30 NHL coaches are available would you put Paul MacLean at the top of your list?  He is a nominee for coach of the year.  Why?  Because he took over a team where Erik Karlsson was ready to bust out and be the top scoring defenceman in hockey?

GM of the year is even worse.  My example to show this is to look at one of last year’s nominees who has never shown himself to be an above average GM.  In one mistake last summer he undid all the good he has done since being hired.  People here cannot accept that because they are Detroit fans and the man in question is a legendary hockey player from his Detroit days.

Then we decend into stupidity like JJ’s what ifs and Random Bolts Fan areguing with me about something Garth said.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/04/12 at 08:24 PM ET

IwoCPO's avatar

Evaluating a GM in one year is a pointless exercize and this award is a pointless award.

And yet…you analyzed it?

Posted by IwoCPO from Sunny San Diego, bitches on 05/04/12 at 08:35 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

You can always tell when TPSH gets exasperated because the misspellings get hilarious.

What’s the difference between not knowing Mike Smith would come close to a Vezina nomination and not knowing Ryan Kesler’s production would drop off?

Mike Gillis is poor at talent evaluation based on this year.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/04/12 at 08:48 PM ET

Avatar

People here cannot accept that because they are Detroit fans and the man in question is a legendary hockey player from his Detroit days.

People cant except it because your point is silly, and you try to make it by using one example, which seems much more like a rant about Steve Yzerman, based on one decision that in hindsight want that great.

You would have plenty of points to make about Gillis if you wanted to.  Kessler, Luongo…

Awards like this will always be about single seasons, cause thats the most logical way to base these awards.  Save the lifetime achievement recognition for the hall of fame.

Posted by jwad on 05/04/12 at 08:54 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

JJ

The difference is Yzerman got rid of Smith for nothing in return.  Kesler was not moved.  You make a claim that hypothetically a trade may have been available.  We do not know if that claim is correct or not. 

In fact Ryan Kesler played hurt much of this season.  You are guilty of the same error Steve Yzerman made when you assess Kesler’s play.  It wasn’t as good as it had been when he was healthy.  One can expect an improvement when he gets healthy.  Getting rid of him now is probably a poor move.  That is true of Smith last year and Kesler right now. 

The difference between throwing out a player who had a very good season and it was forseeable if you looked past the time frame Yzerman did and not trading a guy who had a down year because he played hurt (and likely will look better when he is healthy again in the future).  We don’t know what trades were available for Kesler or if they were any good or if they would pay off on a longer time fram than one year when kesler played hurt.

JJ you are wrong on the example you are making and you should be smart enough to know why.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/04/12 at 08:56 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Awards like this will always be about single seasons

If we accept this premise then we can’t have a meaningful GM of the Year award and the NHL was wrong to create one.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/04/12 at 08:58 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

No worries, Chief. TPSH always likes to call me stupid when I point out his goofy inconsistencies, but chooses to ignore weird things.

... for instance, when TPSH says “Mike Smith had been a very good goalie before concussions slowed him” and then people point out the actual numbers (in this case, let’s say that Mike Smith’s concussion problems started in December of 2009) say that Mike Smith’s pre-concussion save percentage was .908, which is not the SV% that a “very good goalie” would have.

Or, when he says “Yzerman got rid of Smith” and ignores the facts pointed out by the other commenters (who he also enjoys calling stupid) that Yzerman did offer Smith a deal to stay in Tampa Bay and that Smith declined.  The difference is a little bit more than pedantic when you say “got rid of him for nothing” when the basis of that statement was that eliminating Smith from Tampa Bay’s roster was a proactive choice by Yzerman when in fact that’s in direct contrast to the fact that Smith was offered a deal which he chose to refuse.

...or when he says “You make a claim that hypothetically a trade may have been available.  We do not know if that claim is correct or not.”  - which is not the truth.  I made an implication, but not a claim.  The difference may be minor, but in one case, it’s also the difference between TPSH telling the truth and being a liar.

TPSH, you are guilty of missing the point and should have shown the intelligence to do otherwise at many points before this one.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/04/12 at 09:11 PM ET

Avatar

Awards like this will always be about single seasons

If we accept this premise then we can’t have a meaningful GM of the Year award and the NHL was wrong to create one.


Why cant it be meaningful? 

It is what it is.  “of the year”  Looking at a specific time period doesn’t make it less meaningful, only different.  It is not any less meaningful then any of the other awards handed out for players or coaches on a season by season basis.  They are all voted on, making them based at least partially on subjective evaluation, and not objective facts or statistics.  How is this any less meaningful than any of the other individual awards given out by the NHL
.
your need to evaulate GMs on a long term basis does not make the award less meaningful, or single season performance any less significant.

Posted by jwad on 05/04/12 at 09:54 PM ET

 1 2 >       Next »

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About The Puck Stops Here

imageThe Puck Stops Here was founded during the 2004/05 lockout as a place to rant about hockey. The original site contains over 1000 posts, some of which were also published on FoxSports.com.

Who am I? A diehard hockey fan.

Why am I blogging? I want to.

Why are you reading it? ???

Email: y2kfhl@hotmail.com