Why the Flyers need to trade Nikolay Zherdev at the deadline
by Travis Hughes on Feb 17, 2011 10:56 AM EST
in Philadelphia Flyers Commentary
Email
Print
I like Nikolay Zherdev. Okay well, I like Nikolai Zherdev. He might be sphinxlike, cryptic and Delphian, but he brings another needed layer to the offense. It's hard not to win the "he's more valuable than his replacements" argument when those replacements are Dan Carcillo and Jody Shelley, too.
We knew that Peter Laviolette didn't like Zherdev, and I was actually planning on writing this story today before he decided to start both Carcillo and Shelley over him last night. Now it's only blatantly obvious instead of just slightly obvious, and this story is only more relevant.
I'm not sure we'll ever find out why Peter Laviolette has such a dislike for Zherdev. No. 93 has shown at least a cursory commitment to playing defense and he's one of 10 players on the team with a double-digit goal count this season. He's behind only Danny Briere on the team when it comes to goals per 60 minutes of ice time.
The picture has been painted that he's some kind of horrible teammate that's anti-defense and worthless to the team. It's not really a fair picture at all. We're not saying that Peter Laviolette is the one that painted that picture in our heads, but every time Zherdev sits as a healthy scratch it reinforces the image.
Why else would he be held out of the lineup?
It also doesn't help when Laviolette dismisses the questions on the subject. Like, for example, this past Sunday, when Chuck Gormley of the Courier Post asked if there's anything in particular that Zherdev needs to do to get back in the lineup?
"You know, this was an opportunity to get Jody back in there, and he was ready" Lavi said. "He came out because of illness and this was just a chance to get him back in there. Like I said before, it's just a numbers game."
Yes, a numbers game that's kept a 15 goal scorer out for a goon or a grinder at least eight times (by my quick count). If Laviolette's not willing to play Zherdev, fine. I've learned to trust the coach in the last year and I can go along with that decision. If Zherdev's not going to play, though, he needs to be traded.
The trade deadline is a week and a half away and there are about 18 NHL teams (rough count, but that's about right) on the playoff bubble. I'm not going to speculate on which teams the Flyers could trade Zherdev to, but we can talk about what kind of return he could fetch. I think he could get the Flyers a nice little return.
Think about it. The Senators traded Mike Fisher last week to the Nashville Predators, and in return for the 30-year-old two-way center, they received a first round pick and a conditional third round pick. The Senators also sent Chris Kelly to Boston the other night for a second round pick. The Flyers gave up a first and a third for Kris Versteeg.
Let's compare these players to Zherdev.
The other players are all much more solid defensively than Zherdev, sure, but I think it's safe to say that Zherdev's offensive talents, when given room to work, are better than all three of those players. He has more goals than all of them in less games. Obviously, that's a pretty simple analysis, but it still rings true.
Is there any doubt that Zherdev could help any number of teams with their goal scoring issues? When compared side-by-side with the return for each of Versteeg, Fisher and Kelly, is there any doubt that Zherdev could get the Flyers a second round pick in the upcoming draft, at the absolute least, via trade?
Then again, as Dan Liberg pointed out in the comments, Zherdev is a UFA at the end of the current season, which could bring his price tag down a bit. A third might be more realistic. Or, since Craig Custance of The Sporting News reported that the Flyers are interested in bolstering the depth on defense (yeah, I know... it's deep already), they could perhaps acquire somebody there. All depends on the cap, of course, which we won't get into the details of here.
The only problem I can see is that his reputation is tarnished yet again. If that's the case, you have to be disappointed with the organization for how they've handled this project this season. Teams should be interested in Zherdev given his talents. If he's not, it's hard not for me to place at least some of that blame on the team.
The bottom line here is simple. The Flyers need to get some kind of value in return for Zherdev before he walks away for nothing in July, because despite how he's been treated during his time in Philadelphia, he has actual value. Time to sell.
455 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The difference
The difference between the returns on the 3 players you chose to compare him to is that every single one of them is signed past this season. Zherdev is not.
A 2nd might be possible, but its far from definite.
It would be better to keep him, and have the offensive depth in the playoffs.
I normally never speculate about something like this, since this kind of stuff is usually overblown, but the posters who have suggested “locker room cancer” might have a point. It’s the only thing that makes sense of this strangeness.
Lavvy has shown he can adjust in other areas (recall our sturm und drang here on BSH about Lavvy riding goalies too long….he doesn’t do that anymore). Lavvy could give him a specific role to play, for example, always “checking” one night and just on PP another, to motivate him. But if Z really just refuses to participate with the other players or gets in the way of other players or just generally ticks off Richards/Pronger/Timonen or other key Flyers players, then every time he misses a defensive assignment would be exacerbated in Lavvy’s mind.
And by the way, it’s not “Russian” per se. If you doubt that, I only have one word to say.
Bob.
Set your JVR in 2011.
I agree — ask close followers of the Jackets and Rangers about Zherdev’s on-again, off-again performance. Some say it’s a work ethic — I disagree. I think Z’s incredibly-gifted with the puck on his stick and incredibly-average without it. In a pre-cap world, he would be a great PP specialist. Since teams no longer have the luxury of employing specialists, you need all-around players as much as possible. Zherdev does one thing well and that’s score; in all other things, he seems average.
Lifelong Tennessean, Flyers' fan for life
He is to the Flyers what Cris Carter was to the Eagles… “All he does is score touchdowns.”
In this case, “touchdowns” = “goals.”
Players need to be able to do more than just score. And that’s not just in Lavy’s system; that’s in everyone’s system.
He’ll be a good rental for someone. But I really think this is it for him, as far as the NHL.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
I just can’t see him not catching on with a team if his price doesn’t go up and he gets a chance. I’m actually kind of shocked you feel this way.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I’ll admit that this is an overstatement.
But all he does “consistently well” is score goals. He’s okay at hitting people if he keeps his temper in check, but sometimes he gets pissed off and does something stupid.
I’ll agree that he has tried to adjust to the Flyers’ system and backcheck, but he doesn’t do it well.
One Z play which I’ve seen often enough just happened again during the Carolina game last week. He was in his own end of the ice, and the puck went along the boards. Zherdev started skating towards it, but pulled back when he saw a teammate going to it. The teammate then got involved in a puck battle with one of Carolina’s players. Instead of joining the scrum along the boards, Zherdev stood there with his stick on the ice and waited for the teammate to win the puck battle and get the puck to him. And the Carolina player came away with the puck.
It’s probably plays like that which drive Lavy crazy. I know I’m not fond of them.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
but sometimes he gets pissed off and does something stupid.
See Briere.
I’ll agree that he has tried to adjust to the Flyers’ system and backcheck, but he doesn’t do it well.See Briere and Leino.
One Z play which I’ve seen often enough just happened again during the Carolina game last week. He was in his own end of the ice, and the puck went along the boards. Zherdev started skating towards it, but pulled back when he saw a teammate going to it. The teammate then got involved in a puck battle with one of Carolina’s players. Instead of joining the scrum along the boards, Zherdev stood there with his stick on the ice and waited for the teammate to win the puck battle and get the puck to him. And the Carolina player came away with the puck.See half of the puck battles in the corner. Also, See Leino.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
And this is my issue…for all the thinks Z is supposedly slammed for, Briere and Leino don’t do them any better. In fact, I think Briere might be worse when it comes to playing defense.
BOILER UP!! 2010-2011
"You can commit no mistake and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." - Jean-Luc Picard
I also have a big problem with the last paragraph. Depending on the situation I make the same play Z does there. That isn’t a bad play depending on who has position, and your assignment.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Zherdev wasn’t standing near anyone when he stood there. So his assignment was floating around the Flyers’ zone somewhere.
And I agree that doing what Z did is acceptable in certain situations, but in this case it wasn’t like Pronger was the guy battling for the puck. It was Nodl or someone like that. And, as I already said, Z wasn’t guarding anyone. He was just standing there.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
You are misinterpreting assignment for having to be on someone. Honestly, it’s not a bad play, and it doesn’t have to be Pronger. You’ll have to give me a better example next time you’re at a game.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I said this:
And I agree that doing what Z did is acceptable in certain situations
And I agree with this:
You are misinterpreting assignment for having to be on someone.
My question is, if you have a chance to out-man a member of the opposition along the boards, why don’t you do that? Again, I’m not saying that waiting for your teammate to win the battle and get the puck to you is a bad play. But it seems like Lavy wants everyone battling for the puck along the boards. I’m assuming that because everyone else seems to do it.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
because it depends on the situation, where the puck is, where your other players are, and positioning. I’ve been the extra guy in, we still lost the battle, and then I was in a horrible position to make a play defensively. You honestly would have to give me tape to be like okay, yeah he definitely should have there. The only time you definitely make that play is when you are on the power play…otherwise I’m okay with either making it, or not.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
And regardless, I view it as a weak example at best as to how his D is demonstratively worse than Briere’s or Leino’s.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
My point is not that his D is demonstrably worse than Briere’s or Leino’s.
My point is that Briere and Leino play the system the way that Lavy wants them to play it. Zherdev sometimes does and sometimes does not.
I would imagine that the neutral-zone turnovers are a bigger sticking point for Lavy. As Chris said, they are the more consistent issue with Z’s play.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
My point is that Briere and Leino play the system the way that Lavy wants them to play it.
Meaning what? Point out the stuff I will notice when you say this. And I’m being completely genuine here. I want to know what you are referring to with this. A lot of people say Coach X’s system, but don’t understand what it is, and I don’t think you are one of those people. So I want to know what you notice between the two that is part of Lavy’s system and what is not. The only thing I notice in particular is Z in the neutral zone
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
To interject:
I don’t really agree with Mike, but his last statement made me realize something.
Briere and Leino fit Lavy’s system, as evidenced by their competition and zone starts. Zherdev isn’t on that line, so his style of play falls into a different role in Lavy’s system than he is suited for.
In other words, if Zherdev was on Briere’s wing (which, I think we can agree, wouldn’t work), he’d fit Lavy’s system just fine. But because Z has to play on one of the two-way lines (Carter/Richie), his one-way style of play doesn’t fit.
Does this explain why he didn’t play last night? No. But it’s something I thought of.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think that’s what Mike is referring to by system. That’s not system to me, that’s lines and their role. Each line has their role, but the system is suppose to be an over arching theme. I don’t think they a necessarily exclusive from one another, but I still think Mike is referring to something different.
If that is what Mike is referring to, then this goes back to, how can you be mad at Z for it and think he won’t catch on, on someone else’s team. And also, this then goes to a mistake made somewhere with Homer and Lavy.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Good point. Like I said, I’m jumping in and I’m not thinking clearly.
But something came to me and I blurted it out. May not be related to what you’re saying, but whatever.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
No need to make excuses, it’s good discussion.
If that’s the case though, Z never fit in this lineup, and something needed to be discusses upfront with Lavy and Homer. That’s a $2mil mistake if Z never fit in with the lines and their roles that Lavy wanted them to play.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
This is true.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions
Which is what I have been saying since day 1.
BOILER UP!! 2010-2011
"You can commit no mistake and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." - Jean-Luc Picard
Meaning what?
I mean a combination of Z’s style of play + what Geoff said below.
One potentially interesting stat: His OZone Finish is 11th on the team, below everyone except Powe, Betts, and Shelley. That may be due in part to the fact that he played with those guys for a stretch. He is also the only player on the team (aside from those three) who have more defensive zone finishes than offensive zone finishes.
The more I think about it, the more I’m leaning towards what Geoff has to say. There’s already a “purely offensive” line on the team, and there’s nowhere else to put Z.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
Sorry I corrupted your point.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
His Ozone start is 48.1% his Ozone finish is 48.6%. So he is actually finishing better than his start. So I think you are off there. That literally does nothing but show what a horrible position Lavy has put him in given his skill set considering Leino starts in the Ozone 60% of the time, yet finishes there 50% of the time.
And if your point is what Geoff brought up, then this is all on Homer and Lavy. And you shouldn’t see a problem with him fitting on another NHL team in a similar role as Leino or Briere.
So basically this doesn’t fall on Z, it’s falls on Lavy and Homer not properly evaluating a player together and how he will fit in on this team before the season.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
So basically this doesn’t fall on Z, it’s falls on Lavy and Homer not properly evaluating a player together and how he will fit in on this team before the season.
This makes more sense, but again, at the time he was brought in here they were looking at someone to replace Gagne’s offense, correct? They must have been impressed enough when interviewing him to say, “Okay, we can make this guy fit into the operation somewhere.”
I almost see it as a similar situation to when they went out and really shored up their offense before 2007-08. They did so because they wanted to get better, but they also didn’t expect that Richards and Carter were going to come into their own that season.
When they signed Zherdev this season, they did so with the expectation that he would replace Gagne’s production. They did not know that Claude would do what he’s done this year. They reasonably hoped that JVR would improve. They did not know that Nodl and others would chip in as they have (hence, Guerin in the pre-season).
I’d write more but I actually have some work to do now. I’ll close by saying that it wasn’t so much an initial evaluation fail as it was Z becoming “obsolete” (at least in their eyes) as the season has gone on.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
I don’t like the “Zherdev replaced Gagne” idea, because nobody should have expected that. Giroux replaced Gagne, which should have been fairly obvious. (PP, PK, two-way, everything).
Zherdev was brought in as a third-line guy. Playing alongside Giroux. The lines to start the year were:
Carcillo – Richards – Carter
LBH
JVR – Giroux – Zherdev
Shelley – Betts – Powe
Nodl
The problem is, you have to shelter two lines in that lineup because of Zherdev. Hence, the splitting of Richards and Carter (which, really, most people expected anyway) and no place for Zherdev other than Carter/Giroux’s line.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 6:26 PM EST up reply actions
Another problem is Lavy’s decision to alternate shutdown lines. If he was willing to have one shutdown line, Giroux-Richards-Nodl would put the two best two-way players and one of the better defenders on the same line, while JvR-Carter-Zherdev would put a highly offensive line on the ice, with weaker defense. However, Lavy seems to want two strong defensive lines, and Z is inconsistent on the defensive side with a relatively low ceiling.
Bob.
What’s funny is that Lavy used that line against the Penguins when Crosby and Malkin were ont he same line.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 6:34 PM EST up reply actions
The G-Richie-Nodl/JvR-Carter-Z combo would work at home, when it’s someone like the Pens who are incredibly top-heavy. I prefer the two strong lines when you’re on the road (and thus giving up last change) or against deeper teams (where you’ve got two tough lines to worry about). I still prefer Z to Shelley or Carbomb (sorry, stache), but I don’t really see where he would fit in on any of the lines, since you don’t want to break up HBL, and I don’t want any two of JvR, Carter, and Z on a defensive line. JvR’s too inexperienced, even I won’t say Z is a good defender, and Carter’s a bit more inconsistent than I want with either of those two winging him. It’s not really Z’s fault, he just doesn’t have a good place in the lineup.
Bob.
I agree with this.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 6:40 PM EST up reply actions
Zherdev sitting instead of Carcillo or Shelley is just stupid, even if Lavy doesn’t like him, thats just a pathetic reason to sit a superior player for nothing but a ugly mustache and a guy who really can only fight, if they were going to sign Shelley for that cost, they should of just re-signe Arron Asham.
I didn’t say “Zherdev replaced Gagne, straight up!” I said:
at the time he was brought in here they were looking at someone to replace Gagne’s offense
Yes, as far as two-way play, they had every reason to expect that Giroux could be used to kill penalties, be a set-up guy on the power play, etc. But I was under the assumption that they were looking at Zherdev to replace Gagne’s GOAL PRODUCTION. Certainly they weren’t looking for the guy to kill penalties.
As far as goal production, Giroux maintained a consistent Goals/Game average during his first two seasons (0.21 in 2008-09, 0.20 last year). Likewise, his goals created/game were similar in 2008-09 and 2009-10 – 0.24 and 0.21, respectively. Did the organ-eye-zation expect he’d jump to 0.33 goals/game and 0.34 goals created/game this year and be an all star?
They were certainly expecting Giroux to improve, but they learned their lesson from the year before when they went into the season saying, “Okay, we lost 52 goals because Lupul and Knuble aren’t here anymore. Giroux and Briere will pick up the slack! Right?”
Briere had an off year and Giroux wasn’t yet the player he is today. Couple that with other off-years (Hartnell, Gagne) and the Flyers were missing some goal production, even though they finished 10th in the league in goals.
The Flyers wanted to be sure they had enough offense to go around this year. They didn’t want to say, “Well, Simon is gone so JVR will get all of the goals Simon got last year!” No, they wanted to have someone they could count on for 20 goals, and that guy was Zherdev.
Because of Giroux’s emergence (and a lot of other things), this is no longer the case.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
Even so, the lines were set up in the beginning for Z to work in this team, but as Geoff pointed out, you had to shelter 2 lines. So at some point there is an organizational failure there. Wheter, it be Lavy, Homer, Scouting, whoever…at some point, there initial evaluation was incorrect. That then turned Z into the whole square peg round hole everyone refers to. Z is who he was, they should know that…he was almost exactly as advertise, but better on his own end than I anticipated (still not great, just not horrible like I assumed). This is a failure at some level, or multiple levels of the Flyers organization.
Which brings me back to the whole, I don’t know how you can say he won’t be back in the NHL, unless the way the Flyers handled him has made him hate the NHL…which I wouldn’t blame him for. I wouldn’t be happy if they were dressing Shelley in front of me either.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I think this is spot on.
It’s gotta be weird for Shelley who seems like a pretty self -aware guy. Esp. in games with teams that don’t have a real enforcer. I wonder if he thinks “Weird, but if I was Lavy, I’d put Z in over me against this team….they don’t have a heavy weight so like whadda am I suppose to do?”
I think Shelley is the kind of guy that would talk to Z sincerely abut the situation, I hope Z is the kind of that would respect that…but everyone speculates that he isn’t.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. It makes no sense not too. Just like I assume pro athletes for the most part all “want it bad enough.” Aside from god given talent, usually you’ve got to want it bad enough to play at this level.
I agree.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Learned so much.....
from this never ending story. No pun intended
"There's cool, and then there's Claude Giroux"
by sophiejo on Feb 17, 2011 10:20 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I speculated that he won’t be back in the NHL because I’d heard he wasn’t happy living / playing in North America. That’s assuming an awful lot, I know.
It also doesn’t look good that he keeps getting shipped around and has a poor reputation re: his attitude.
I shouldn’t have said outright, “He’s done in the NHL.” What I should have said was, “If he is done in the NHL, I wouldn’t be surprised.”
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
Shipped around…I hope you aren’t including the Rangers willing to pay him $#mil and change, but Z and the arbitrator wanted $4 and change, so he left for money in the KHL. That’s hardly shipped around. Carle, Carcillo. Meszaros, and Versteeg have been “shipped around” just as much if not more than Z to start their careers.
Sorry that’s just a huge peeve of mine, I hate when people use that.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I mean Columbus and Philadelphia, as far as “shipped around.” I wasn’t including the Rangers.
Rangers fans that I know did not like Zherdev’s attitude at all. As one of them put it to me back in November, “Enjoy first-half-of-the-season Zherdev.”
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
I guess I don’t take speculation seriously, especially when the numbers show that his teammates aren’t tanking just because Zherdev is playing with them. They are professionals who want to win, Zherdev has a unique skill set. If that skill set didn’t fit the club, then the blame is on Homer and Lavy. And if there was other issues off the ice, The Flyers should have done the research to find that out.
This all goes back to an organizational mistake.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I have referenced the numbers I pulled before, and linked them on this thread, he is worse than Z in the defensive zone in Fenwick. Plus he has a 60% Ozone start versus Z’ 48%, and his situational score is far less difficult than Z’s. Honestly, watching Leino, than researching his numbers has led me to the conclusion that he is far worse defensively than I ever though.
I don’t say he is bad without doing the statistical leg work to verify what my eyes are trying to tell me.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Yes, but Briere and Leino consistently go along the boards and battle for the puck. They aren’t good at it, but they try. And they can hinder people long enough for a teammate to come help them out, if need be.
It has to do with playing the system and doing what’s asked of you. No, not everyone is good at winning puck battles along the boards. But Z is the only player on the team who doesn’t engage in them consistently. I think if he did, AND if he didn’t turn the puck over in the neutral zone due to poor decision-making, Lavy would be more than happy to overlook his other deficiencies.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
They aren’t good at it, but they try.
I guess I see Z try as well. So we see different things.
But Z is the only player on the team who doesn’t engage in them consistently.I still think you are suffering a little perception bias here.
I honestly think Chris Lanci has pointed the worst part of his game out. How out of sink he is with his team mates entering the offensive zone, and the careless plays he makes at that blue line leading to the other teams transition game. These are the only plays I had noticed on a consistent basis. Other than that I think you are noticing what you want to notice a little too much here. Just my opinion of course.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I guess I see Z try as well
Well there’s your problem, you only SEE what you want to SEE with Zherdev and his defense.
/Detweiler’d
Samesis
And yet I came in with the impression he wouldn’t play any D.
Fortunately for me, I’ve also done the stats digging, and the numbers back up what I see.
/Detweiler’d right back at you
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
How out of sink he is with his team mates
See??? Zherdev doesn’t do the dishes either!!!
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
I still think you are suffering a little perception bias here
It could be, because he’s started to annoy me more as the year has progressed. But when I watch him play, I try to focus on the good things he does. I really do. But he invariably does something every game which pisses me off. I don’t sit there and wait for it to happen. It just happens.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
I agree, I guess ever since I looked at what he does versus the Briere line, I noticed how much more Leino pisses me off defensively than Z does. Which is why you haven’t heard me screaming that we have to resign Leino next year.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
But Z is not as effective an offensive player as Briere or Leino. Leino has almost as many goals as Z plus many more assists. Briere has nearly twice as many goalsas Z.
If Z was cashing a point or two per game, you could forgive his average play in other areas of his game. Z’s a streaky scorer and he goes through stretches when he can’t do anything positive on the ice. That’s why he sometimes watches games that Leino and Briere play in.
Lifelong Tennessean, Flyers' fan for life
Yes because that comparison is completely fair.
Please look at their linemates and situations they were put in. Also look at PP time, and ES time. That comparison is ridiculous because the situations they are put in are completely different, and so are their linemates. Leino and Briere have been put in situations to succeed offensively all year, which they have. Zherdev had not been given that same luxury, at least not at any kind of consistent basis.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Z just spent time on a line with two of the team’s most talented players — Carter and Giroux — and if memory serves me right, he wasn’t filling up the scoresheet. Can Z succeed? Sure — but he’s a streaky scorer that has to be fed the puck a lot. I’m not sure that fits in well with the kind of system that Lavy’s using.
Lifelong Tennessean, Flyers' fan for life
1) I don’t like the concept of streaky, because every player is streaky, and it’s a horrible reason to say one player is better than the other unless you want to chart Briere, Leino, and Z, and show me one is streakier than the other. Please reference this article as to why streaky shouldn’t factor in to this unless you can demonstrate one is streakier that the other.
2) Z’s situational score demonstrates that he is put in tougher situations than Briere and Leino. Z’s is -0.7, Briere’s is -2.3, and Leino is -3.6. Leino is the most sheltered forward on the team. So when I say situations I mean that Z isn’t put in the same situation where he gets to face bad competition in the offensive zone in the way that Leino and Briere do, it’s not even close. Hell, Leino gets to start in the Ozone 60% of the time, versus 48% for Zherdev. That’s not the same situation.
3) Z has spent the majority of his time with carter and Giroux, but then has been bounced around the rest of the time. Not to mention he gets sat in 3rd periods. I have to think that effects him. He definitely doesn’t have the benefit that Leino and Briere do of consistency with linemates….or playing…or ice time. 20% of his time was spent with Carter and G, 18% with Richards and Nodl. Richards and Nodl aren’t the same caliber of ES scorers that Carter and G are.
4) Last time I checked, Z was second on the team in goals per 60, so I think he was fine filling the net. Oh, and did I mention he is suffering from the worst luck on the team for forwards on ice as far as team shooting % goes outside of Betts and Carcillo.
5) As Huck says below:
His Corsi numbers are great. He’s playing the 9th best competition with the 6th best teammates, so you expect him to be a little above average, but not to lead the team by a wide margin. And the reason we pay attention to Corsi is that it has a larger sample size than goals so it reaches a talent-level luck-free value much faster, which is important when we’re evaluating him on just a half-season of work. And these numbers do indeed look like his real talent — he put up an even better number for the Rangers in his last NHL season (2nd on the team), and was the best on the Blue Jackets by a mile the year before that.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
And yet Lavy doesn’t have enough faith in him to start him over Shelley OR Carcillo. And the Flyers are winning games without him … a LOT of games.
Lifelong Tennessean, Flyers' fan for life
Just because the Flyers are winning games without him doesn’t show causation-correlation necessarily. Winning in spite of putting the best roster on the ice, perhaps.
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
Are you suggesting Lavy doesn’t know how to put the best roster on the ice?
Lifelong Tennessean, Flyers' fan for life
Are you really suggesting that playing Shelley over Zherdev is the best roster to ice?
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
How convenient.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
I enjoy how much you are reading in to his decision.
This team is clearly built to win, and it doesn’t matter if Shelley, Carcillo, or Zherdev plays, they are still built to win games.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Wouldn’t role come into play here though? Putting Z on a 4th line as a checker isn’t playing to his strengths. Neither is putting him on a defensive line. Sure, Carcillo may be as good a scorer (ok, he’s definitely not as good as scorer), but he is more suited for a physical role.
"In fact, it is probably safe to say, the statement "I am a hockey fan" is the same as "I hate gary bettman."- bfrank27
Betts and Shelley are playing the worst competition on the team, I’m fairly sure you can trust Z enough to not screw up defensively against 4th lines as you can Shelley. With the added upside that Z should be able to dominate 4th liners. Again, in the regular season, this probably doesn’t even amount to a win as a whole, but in a small sample such as the playoff, these tiny things matter.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
So it doesn’t matter if Shelley, Carcillo, or Zherdev plays, why are yo so upset?
Lifelong Tennessean, Flyers' fan for life
I’m not. I was having a conversation with Mike. Then you responded to EREX about how Leino and Briere produce more than Z when he said Z’s D is at least as good as Briere’s and Leino’s. And then I pointed out how that comparison is flawed based on the opportunities Leinoe and Briere have compared to Z.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I think Lavy ice’s the roster he wants to ice based on the types of players he prefers. Sometimes the best players don’t make it on the ice for reasons we won’t ever understand. This team is good enough to win without Z, it’s good enough to win with out Carcillo and Shelley too.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
And yet Lavy doesn’t play himhave enough faith in him to starthim over Shelley OR Carcillo
Frankly we have no idea what the reason is.
But I think I’ve given you enough reasons as to why your comparison to Briere and Leino’s offensive numbers was poor.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I believe the Leino/Briere comparison was brought up by someone else. The Coach could put Z in the lineup if he wanted to, and he hasn’t. And the team’s winning. So what’s the problem again?
Lifelong Tennessean, Flyers' fan for life
This was from you:
But Z is not as effective an offensive player as Briere or Leino. Leino has almost as many goals as Z plus many more assists. Briere has nearly twice as many goalsas Z.I said offensive comparison, please keep up.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Wow — touched a nerve! If Z is as valuable as you say, wouldn’t some team be begging the Flyers’ door to trade for him?
Lifelong Tennessean, Flyers' fan for life
The problem is that he is sitting a much better player in favor of playing a guy with very little offensive or defensive upside. The reasons are unknown to us, of course, but just because the team wins without him doesn’t make it a good business decision.
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
But Lavy says so?
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Nothing is the problem we are having a discussion about Z and how he compares to some players on the team.
If you can’t handle a conversation where someone presents facts to counter what you bring up, don’t enter that conversation.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Facts? The team is WINNING without Z in the lineup. You can’t go higher than first place. The only stat I care about is this — 38 wins. 38 WINS. I think the coach is really onto something here. Care to argue that point?
Lifelong Tennessean, Flyers' fan for life
Wow, what a great point.
I never looked at it that way. Clearly, Paul Holmgren is GM of the year, and has made 0 mistakes. Clearly, Peter Laviolette is Coach of the year, and has made 0 mistakes.
Wins! Wins! Everything is PERFECT. No room for improvement.
Try and argue that. I have wins on my side. (P.S. transfer this to the Nodl argument, the Leighton argument, the Walker argument, the Tampa Bay argument, or any other argument you wish.)
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
This is like the “if you think something is wrong with America, you can leave” argument that I love so dearly.
But the REAL America gets to take their country back. Don’t retreat.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
haha, It’s supposed to be a huge “You got nothin’!” argument ender, but it really just comes off as ridiculous.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 1:28 PM EST up reply actions
Holy crap, way to move the goal posts.
Here is where you started:
But Z is not as effective an offensive player as Briere or Leino. Leino has almost as many goals as Z plus many more assists. Briere has nearly twice as many goalsas Z.
If Z was cashing a point or two per game, you could forgive his average play in other areas of his game. Z’s a streaky scorer and he goes through stretches when he can’t do anything positive on the ice. That’s why he sometimes watches games that Leino and Briere play in.
And this is where you ended up:
Facts? The team is WINNING without Z in the lineup. You can’t go higher than first place. The only stat I care about is this — 38 wins. 38 WINS. I think the coach is really onto something here. Care to argue that point?
Well done. Way to stay both on topic and not make a fool of yourself.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
But if you want a counter point, when you are arguing over the 9th forward on the team, that will see no time on the special teams, the chances are, you won’t have a huge impact on wins.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Duh, so what’s it matter? Lavy knows what he’s doing. Therefore, all hail Lavy. Therefore, Zherdev sucks. Therefore, you’re wrong. Therefore, wins.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
This is worse than a Lanci argument. At least I usually know Lanci’s next tangent.
I like having discussion, even when I’m wrong, but it isn’t a rewarding topic if you just completely change what we were talking about.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
And this is where I’m willing to cut the argument (or, at least, Lavy) a little slack. I think it’s very possible he knows he’s hurting the team by big-leaguing a skilled player, but thinks the value Zherdev has over his replacement is not enough in terms of wins to be worth the trouble.
Which is stubborn, but I don’t care if that’s the decision he’s making, until the playoffs, when these fractional difference in talent matter. It’s the same reason I gave up the Shelley argument: the regular season is long and we’re good enough that I don’t quibble day-to-day personnel changes yet.
I completely agree with you 100%
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Facts? The team is WINNING without Z in the lineup. You can’t go higher than first place. The only stat I care about is this — 38 wins. 38 WINS. I think the coach is really onto something here. Care to argue that point?
Sure – we’ve played a weaker-than-average set of games so far (-0.03 SOS, 22nd in the league), have a below-average PP, and have an inferior offense and defense to Vancouver statistically. Zherdev can improve the PP and the offense, without significantly weakening the defense (Shelley? Really?). Thus, although we are winning, it is with a suboptimal team that is benching a player than can help in two of the three areas where the Flyers are weaker than the Canucks (PP and general offense).
Bob.
And I’m not trying to bash Leino or Briere, I don’t need those players to be good defensively, they are their to score…but I thought that’s why Z was brought in to.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
THat IS why Z was brought here. No one would disagree with that. I think the Flyers hoped that, in addition to his scoring, Zherdev would show a renewed commitment to playing NHL hockey (much like Ray Emery). It has not worked out to their liking.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
See my comment above.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
Yeah, I think it’s off base. I have almost the exact opposite opinion from watching him play. And from watching the others play.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I just can’t see him not catching on with a team if his price doesn’t go up and he gets a chance.
Well, if what BobRossky said is correct, and he’s not overly fond of our culture and isn’t happy playing over here, then why would he stick around? That’s why I said this is “it” for him in the NHL. Not because of his talent, but because of his happiness playing over here.
Plus, it can’t look good for him already being on his third team, being benched more than less talented players, and being shopped around AGAIN.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
I’m going to have to disagree. That Buddy Ryan quote was ludicrous.
“All he does is score touchdowns.” Well, shit. I think that’s a pretty damn good skill to have. If you can’t find a way to get a guy who “only scores goals” into your lineup somewhere, you aren’t trying hard enough. Look at Randy Jones. Or Ilya Kovalchuk.
And oh, Carter will likely be in the HOF.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
Carter evolved into a much better, complete player after he left the Eagles. I’m not dissing Cris Carter. He wasn’t playing the way Buddy wanted him to play when he was here, and he became the odd man out.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
Right. I’m just pointing out the ridiculousness of that comment.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
What was meant by that comment was that the ONLY thing he’s doing right is catching touchdowns. He was having drug issues, which led to personal issues on and off the field. But on the field he wasn’t contributing to the team all around (every way that he could and should). Sure it’s a ridiculous comment, until you know that THAT is the context it was said in and how it was meant.
For the record, Chris Carter has thanked Buddy for saying that and trading him. He said it saved his life.
"In fact, it is probably safe to say, the statement "I am a hockey fan" is the same as "I hate gary bettman."- bfrank27
Right. But “I voted for it before I voted against it.” makes sense in context too. Doesn’t mean that’s not a dumb thing to say.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
It’s a turn of phrase that’s odd to the American ear, sure. But it’s like the IRA members who would openly tell you they hate the IRA and “f the fighting”. They don’t say it to be hypocrites. But they hate the fact that they feel that they have to do what they’re doing.
In Buddy’s defense, he wanted Carter to clean up and did not want to sully his name before he had a chance to turn his life around.
"In fact, it is probably safe to say, the statement "I am a hockey fan" is the same as "I hate gary bettman."- bfrank27
So, you’re saying Z has a raging coke habit? ‘Cuz that’s why Buddy let Carter go.
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
To expound
Link here.
Carter often credits being waved by Buddy/Eagles as what helped him get his shit together: he found God, kicked the habits, yada, yada, HoF career. Too bad he couldn’t do it in Philly, but c’est la vie.
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
I doubt it. I hope not, for his sake.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
I would think with the way things are now in sports with testing, it would be difficult. But you hear stories about some of the other guys who’s partying includes blow. I don’t understand why people still do cocaine in this day and age.
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
I don’t understand why people still do cocaine in this day and age
People fail to realize that until it destroys you, drugs can be a shitload of fun.
by j reed on Feb 17, 2011 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’m sure they can be, but a drug that makes your heart explode, your nose collapse (ask Stevie Nicks) and (from what I hear) affects the male member…doesn’t sound like fun to me. Why not just plain old pot and whiskey?
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
Just watch Bill Cosby’s Himself. All you need to know about coke.
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
You speak from experience then, I take it? /sarcasm
I am an admitted ignoramus about drugs. Never done one in my life other than alcohol, not even pot. My stepmother still smokes it, and my mother had an extensive OTC drug addiction which helped add to her demise.
I stay away from all the stuff.
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
He asked people why they did it and their answer was always “It accentuates your personality”.
His response was “But what if you’re an asshole”. Enough said.
My thought on it is that its not fun. I don’t like myself when I have tried it. Therefore no need to do it again.
Pills are trouble. I’ve seen it take people down that had partied very hard on “hard drugs”.
Not much better than a tasty cold Belgian beer and a pinner before a Flyers game in my opinion.
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
I said until it destroys your life….and if your nasal passages have collapsed your been doing it long enough to where it’s destroying your life. Pot and whiskey. Pot is twice as carcinogenic as tobacco because if burns hotter and the tar penetrates deeper into the lung tissue. The trail of tears caused by alcohol is much longer and just as tragic as those caused by drugs.
Well, I know that, but I just think they are better choices than blow if you’re going to do anything.
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
Pot is twice as carcinogenic as tobacco because if burns hotter and the tar penetrates deeper into the lung tissue
Try a vaporizer.
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
Google it.
VERSTEEG never got "called up" to play in the NHL, he called up the NHL and the league jumped at the chance to play hockey with him.
by hartmanzord on Feb 17, 2011 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
It burns the plant at a temperature where only the THC is burned and not the leaves.
You seem like a well educated person from your posts so I would say read a couple articles on it, pretty cool stuff. If I could link anything at work I would.
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
Seriously. I solely relied on a vaporizor in college. Mary J really helped with studying for finals, which I aced more than likely.
VERSTEEG never got "called up" to play in the NHL, he called up the NHL and the league jumped at the chance to play hockey with him.
by hartmanzord on Feb 17, 2011 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
I see. I don’t smoke anymore or do anything anymore but It’s still a drug. Point is drugs are fun but they all come with costs which is what I was originally trying to convey. People try to baragin their way out of this buy weighing the destructive potenial of each. They are all destructive, just some are quicker than others.
Well, anything fun comes with a cost, even fatty, delicious foods.
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
The pot community in particular really is adept a coming up with spectacular bullshit about how it’s different.
An addict is an addict is an addict. The criteria phsychriatrists use to evaluate drug addiction applies equally to potheads and junkies Alot of potheads like to think their above the fray because it’s a more managable addiction and that because the withdrawal isn’t as intense it less addictive. All that means is that it kills you slower and you can fool yourself a little bit longer.
I don’t really smoke, but addiction has a definition. We aren’t going to have another argument about the value of defining a word correctly. Chemical dependence is real, and variable amongst difference kind of drugs.
a] you are taking this out of the context of the entire thread.
b] I have travelled down every dark path (the one’s that make your mother cry) in this story and I’ve lived to tell the tale so I know what the fuck I’m talking about.
c] most people I know who have walked a mile in my boots would agree with me.
d] You seem to be inferring that I’m passing judgement. I am not. I’m sure many people can be pot heads and live managable lives but their still addicts. This doesn’t make them any better or worse that a junky and it’s been my experience that alot potheads believe they are exceptions to rule. They are not.
Sure, but the only argument I was making was that different drugs have different levels of chemical dependence. Not all potheads are addicts, unless you are defining “pothead” as “a person addicted to pot.” That sub-group of people is smaller than the group includes casual users (which I’m taking to be the typical definition of “pothead”), just as coke addicts are different than those who casually use coke.
I’m only arguing the use of the word addict. It doesn’t require the context of the entire thread.
A pothead is someone who is addicted to pot. Now when you say cokehead is there any ambiguity. No. Why? Because there isn’t this bullshit coke culture that romanticizes the use of the drug.It’s like Rastafarism in the sense that pot smoking is a life choice and you see this with people publicly acknowledging their habitual use of pot like it’s a badge of honor. You don’t see people roping off and shooting up like it’s cool. And here-in lies the issue. This disconnect comes in part from an attempt to class drugs by differences in terms off their addiction potenial. The only real difference aside from how it influences behavior is that it just takes longer to damage you health or kill you. And no one in the invovled with the treatment of substance abuse differentiates it either except in terms of handling withdraw symptoms or administering medication to treat psychological conditions that the addict may have been using in attempt to self-medicate.
A pothead is someone who is addicted to pot. Now when you say cokehead is there any ambiguity. No.
Isn’t that exactly what Snevik said?
Why? Because there isn’t this bullshit coke culture that romanticizes the use of the drug.It’s like Rastafarism in the sense that pot smoking is a life choice and you see this with people publicly acknowledging their habitual use of pot like it’s a badge of honor.
This whole part seems really, really angry. But Rastafarianism is a culture. Does it include marijuana use? Sure, but it isn’t defined by it. So maybe your interactions with “Rastafarians” isn’t what “Rastafarianism” is?
Further, who is publicly acknowledging their habitual use of pot like it’s a badge of honor? Is this an epidemic where people are routinely showing off their habits? This sounds no different than frat boys who show off their affinity for alcohol, or cult members who protest military funerals.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
I assume he was clarifying for me. I use the term pothead differently, including regular smokers with no dependence (or dependence without major psychological issues).
Ah.
I don’t really want to go down the path of “addictive v. nonaddictive”, but as someone who smokes cigarettes, I think there’s a large difference between the two inhalants’ addictive qualities.
And that’s my nice way of putting it.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
Here’s how I see it: coming from a family riddled with addicts, there are different degrees of addiction. Some who have had issues with it see every addiction through the same lenses—i.e., if you do something a few times a week or even every day, you are addicted. I don’t necessarily agree.
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
Right. And I have a more black/white definition of addiction.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 5:04 PM EST up reply actions
Drugs are drugs.
Marijuana is not PHYSICALLY addictive. That’s a proven fact. And I think that’s where the “high horse” attitude J Reed is talking about comes from. Alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drugs are all physically addictive. And since marijuana users do not get physically ill when they stop smoking marijuana, they feel it is different from these other drugs.
However, in my experience, marijuana can be PSYCHOLOGICALLY addictive. Any habitual pot smokers I knew would always get depressed if they went a few days without smoking. I was the same way, but after a while this would pass. Still though, it took me to a place where I wanted to be. And that feeling, that ability to step outside of oneself and return to that childlike feeling, can be addictive.
Marijuana is addictive just like other things are; the symptoms are different, the signs/feelings of withdrawal are different, etc., but the result is the same.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
Right. I’m not arguing you can’t get addicted to pot; you can get addicted to anything. But it doesn’t have a very high likelihood of you becoming chemically dependent, and that reduces the proportion of users who do get addicted.
There is no Physical chemical addiction to Pot. Only psychological.
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
Cool. I don’t believe studies that say there’s positively zero physical dependence. But I believe it’s low, and the lower it is, the more my argument is enhanced.
You don’t believe years of strict medical testing done under rigid scientific processes? That’s like looking at stats and seeing cold hard numbers and disagreeing with them.
"In fact, it is probably safe to say, the statement "I am a hockey fan" is the same as "I hate gary bettman."- bfrank27
Fine, I change that to “I don’t care about the results of the years of strict medical testing done under rigid scientific processes,” because I really don’t. I’ve seen some argue one way and some argue another and since I don’t know enough to know the hard science behind either, I’m not completely precluding it from the realm of possibility. Partly because that seems like a stupid thing to do regardless of what we’re talking about, but mostly because, in this case, it doesn’t effect my core argument at all.
who is publicly acknowledging their habitual use of pot like it’s a badge of honor?
watch MTV for any hour.
“It’s like Rastafarianism in the sense that it’s a life….” meaning that’s it’s not a life choice for the people who didn’t grow up in some Kingston shithole but they act like it is, often imbuing it with all this spiritual significance. Hence the nickname Buddah. And to some extent there is something spiritual about altered states of mind. I certainly thought so. Futhermore I already said that I’m sure that their are people who can use pot everyday and live productive, well managed lifes. Louis Armstrong for one which is amazing cuz I was out breath just trying to make a noise out of a clairinet. But he’s still was a pothead. Some people can live managable lives and use drugs but that doesn’t make them any less of a addict and as I said before people invovled with the treatment of substance abuse don’t see any difference except as it pertains to withdrawal symptoms or the use of medication for psychological conditions related to the substance abuse.
watch MTV for any hour.
So your problem is with tools and douchebags?
as I said before people invovled with the treatment of substance abuse don’t see any difference except as it pertains to withdrawal symptoms or the use of medication for psychological conditions related to the substance abuse.
But don’t those same people see gambling as the same way? I may very well be taking this discussion in an entirely different diretion than initially intended, and if that’s the case, just say so and I’ll stop. This isn’t really a discussion to have on this thread (OT would be better) anyway, so if that’s the case speak up.
My point though, is that while addiction is addiction, anyone who doesn’t differentiate between Phase 1 Narcotics, marijuana, and legalized vices is taking too broad of a look at things. If that makes me a marijuana apologist, so be it, but there’s a huge difference between a crackhead and a pothead. Maybe not from a substance abuse perspective, but then again there’s no difference between a crackhead and an alcoholic from that perspective.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 5:09 PM EST up reply actions
No dude it’s the culture. Who cares if its tools and douchebags – besides you could say the same thing of every sport fanbase. Tons of tools and douchebags.
And I am not talking about behaviors under the influence or behaviors stemming for withdrawal but the behaviors of the abuse which is where people have the disconnect. Like gambling which is considered the purest form of addiction is seen by addiction specialists as the same as drug abuse, the only difference is your body produces the chemical. The only reason there’s GA, NA and AA is for familiarity with the social context – NA bcause of the criminal element in the world of narcotics, AA for the social acceptance of drinking, you get alot of professionals in meetings, GA cause I imagine just watching a sporting event can remind them of gambling. I mean there’s no addict hiearchy – like junkies are the he BAMFs cause the withdrawal’s the worse and the OD rate the highest. Coke isn’t as bad because the comedown only hurts for alittle while….kinda stupid right? And societally speaking, it used to be people were rarely shot over pot, not so anymore esp. not when neighborhoods that push “hard” drugs started moving pot. That’s a different world. That’s real coin, and that means high demand. That means alot of people are smoking.
But let me ask you this if someone was a junky for a year and then gets clean is he less of an addict than the a guy who smoked pot everday for 5 years. I say no. I guarentee you that it’s harder to for a junky, cokehead or a meth head to cast off the stigma of their past than it is for a pothead. Should it matter if either one is clean? No, but I bet it does, in fact I know it does.
I don’t really follow this as a response to my comment.
We got away from the “wear as a badge of honor, i.e. MTV tools and douchebags” into inner-city socio-economic decay.
Further, we’re now shifting from “addictive” to “addiction” to “addict”.
And since I have no desire to discuss the social perception of addicts or the crumbling inner-city, I’ll just stop there.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 6:30 PM EST up reply actions
I'll fill in for Geoff
I’m really not a proponent either way, but I feel the need to nitpick at some of what you’re saying. My societal urban behavior class would disagree with the neighborhoods dealing part. It’s the exact opposite of what you said. Push pot, then push hard drugs, eventually stop pushing pot….crime increases accordingly.
And this would speak to public policy being in the wrong.
your inferring what’s not there. It’s about how people perceive addiction. That is what I am talking about.
Your (e) is one of the problems. There are two radicals but nobody is open-minded enough to stand in the middle.
Agreed.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 6:30 PM EST up reply actions
And that’s one of the reasons there is such a large debate on here right now. Someone takes a radical position(or portrays it as such) and there is a huge disconnect.
I’m not sure what the argument here is, but there’s a lot to be said about the hypocrisy surround marijuana laws and the classification of it as a Class 1 substance.
Do proponents take it too far? Certainly. But it’s an equal swing of the pendulum from where society took prohibition. The truth is in the middle, which is why sensible policies like medicinal marijuana should be accepted.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
Aside from it being used in the culture wars, the hang up with medical marajuana is 1] the delivery system – inhaling smoke aint kosher with the Hippocratic oath 2] the length of time it takes the liver metabolize it – THC is a really complex. That it hangs out in your liver so long is probably not so good.
Right, but none of that really sounds like the same concerns associated with Heroin, GHB, Acid, or Ecstasy.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 3:44 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, but if someone in my family was dying from cancer and pot helped them deal with it or helped with the nausea suffered from chemo—I say, smoke up. I’ll friggin buy it for them. And I am not a proponent of even OTC drugs.
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
But moral decay! Think of the children!
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
Be fair to j reed here Geoff. He clearly isn’t of that group you are poking fun at, and using to belittle his view point.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
No, I know. That wasn’t directed at j reed. I assumed the reply to doubleh would make that clear.
If not, I apologize. That wasn’t directed at him at all.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 5:09 PM EST up reply actions
I know it wasn’t I was just wanting you to clarify so it wouldn’t be taken as such. Sorry for calling it out, it was just a very serious and sensivtive subject that I wanted to flush it out.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
No problem. I tried to be very respectful in the whole conversation, because j reed wasn’t actually taking a position so much as stating prevailing opinions.
I think we were talking about Michelle Bachman at work when I wrote that, so… I had a rare moment of sarcastic dick-ery.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 5:22 PM EST up reply actions
I am making no argument here. These are facts stated by the medical community and they are often cited in arguments made by other people against the use medical marajuana.
I know you weren’t making an argument; I was get so infuriated by the medical community and the hypocrisy of those who dole out OTC drugs for every little leg twitch and then turn around and say pot is more evil that some of these drugs that have side effects lists longer than the Magna Carta.
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
I don’t know where you procured your response from but that’s not what I was implying. I was simply picking semantically at what you said.
Speaking to addiction
There were 220,000 marijuana admissions in 1999. This would seem to show that it is an addictive, abused, and harmful substance. Digging deeper we can find that only 2 percent of these admissions were voluntary and the rest were court ordered and taken to avoid jail-time.
Source? That’s fascinating.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 6:33 PM EST up reply actions
Scorgie, Adam. “The Business Behind Getting High.” The Union Web. Available from http://www.documentarytube.com/the-union-the-business-behind-getting-high. Internet; accessed 10 December 2010.
I think I actually saw this…
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 6:39 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, it’s actually well done. My citation is in that format because I wrote a whole public policy paper on this. That’s why I’m chiming in haha.
Towards the end, it got a little over the top.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 6:43 PM EST up reply actions
seemingly the French get away with it more easily than we do, that an those nasty ass filterless cigarettes the smoke.
Luck and genetics, I guess. I rationalize that red wine helps in moderation.
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
South Park quote
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
He’s the guidance counselor and he just talks weird: “Drugs are bad…m’kay?”
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
There’s also this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksrI6fu232w
The Daily Forehand -- SB Nation's Tennis Destination.
Broad Street Hockey.
by Ben Rothenberg on Feb 17, 2011 4:03 PM EST up reply actions
Not that I was originally trying to be in this debate, but has anyone in the history of man ever gotten cancer from smoking marijuana? No. Does it have carcinogens when smoked, yes. The same as tobacco? Yes. But no one has ever gotten cancer from it or of course it would be paraded around the whole nation.
The Le Guardia Committee Report in New York, 1944; The Wootton Report in England, 1968; The Le Dain Report in Canada, 1970; The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs in the United States, 1972; The Shafer Report in the United States, 1972; Ganga in Jamaica Study, 1975; Cannabis in Costa Rica, 1980; and Cannabis Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy in the Canadian Senate, 2002
Sort of unrelated but:
"Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality…Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man"—DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young
Check out this study
Chen, Amanda. “Hypothesizing that Marijuana Smokers are at a Significantly Lower Risk of Carcinogenicity Relative to Tobacco-Non-Marijuana Smokers: Evidenced Based on Statistical Réévaluation of Current Literature.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 3, no. 40 (2008): 263-264. EBSCOhost. [Database online.]
In a study called Hypothesizing that Marijuana Smokers are at a Significantly Lower Risk of Carcinogenicity Relative to Tobacco-Non-Marijuana Smokers: Evidenced Based on Statistical Réévaluation of Current Literature, the carcinogenic claims by the United States government were examined. This study was conducted by a group of eleven scholars, five of which are doctors. They found it imperative to actualize the marginal costs and benefits associated with marijuana use.
As they state forthright, "without advocating or opposing the use of marijuana for any purpose, this study reconsiders the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke". “Their studies to the surprise of many suggest that if there exists any causal link between marijuana and cancer, the relationship is inverse”. In order to test whether or not marijuana did contain links to carcinogens positively or negatively, they did as follows:
"[They] analyzed published data from a prospective cohort study on cancer incidence among nonsmokers (NS), marijuana-only smokers (MS), tobacco-only smokers (TS), and marijuana and tobacco smokers (MTS). Using the log linear model to calculate the probability of developing each cancer form as a function of the interaction between marijuana and tobacco smoking, as well as functions of marijuana and tobacco smoking main effects whereby chi square statistics were calculated for the interaction and main effect estimates, we found that in all cases tested there was a significantly lower risk for MS compared to TS. Male and female TS had a greater probability of developing lung cancer than did MS. Males and females TS had a greater probability of developing lung cancer compared with NS. Males and female MTS had a slightly higher probability of developing lung cancer than did MS. This difference was statistically significant: "¿}- = 30.51, p < .00001, with a correlation coefficient of -0.75, Z = -7.84,/? < .05. Male and female MTS had a lower probability of developing lung cancer than did TS. This difference was statistically significant: X^ = 71.61,p = .00003, with a correlation coefficient ofO .61, Z = 5.06,;>< .05"
I don’t know. I haven’t seen anything negating it, but it’s out there for scientists to replicate. If it could be dismantled easily, I’m sure someone would do so.
Also, so you know, I’m not aiming all of this at you. Just throwing it out there in regards to the whole discussion.
Check out the list of known carcinogens in found in weed in this report. It seems like a good study, I haven’t had time to go thru it all
Yes, I can’t go through it all now bc I really need to go to the lib but I know you’re right. There are definitely carcinogens in it, I’ve just never heard of cancer stemming from it. Why, i have no clue?
I had my love affair with The White Lady a couple of years ago. It was fun. But it got out of control.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
Same boat. It was one day that I realized I never, ever bought a bag while I wasn’t drunk. I realized I never had the desire to do it when I was sober. And I think I blew a fetus out of my nose one morning after a binge.
I'm kind of a dick.
Yup, the White Lady came knocking after I had a few drinks in me.
There is still a picture floating around on the internet somewhere of me and my ex-fiancee during a binge. I look it up any time I’m tempted to do something stupid.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
Ha, don’t run for office! That picture will come out!
Although, I’ve gone through lots of drug phases, and the pills were the worst. I would go days or weeks between binges of coke, but with the pills, it was every day, all day. They came very close to destroying my life, it was just too easy, and too cheap to get them. Thankfully I met a girl that gave me an ultimatum, drugs or her, and I haven’t touched them in almost 3 years……
I'm kind of a dick.
How bout we trade Shelley + Zherdev to the Pens for their 7th round pick this year.
I know it sounds stupid to give our biggest rival a scoring threat that they need pretty badly, but if we manage to get rid of Shelley with Zherdev, we might be able to afford signing Leino next year.
by philiafan14364 on Feb 17, 2011 11:09 AM EST reply actions
if/when the flyers get injured (e.g. last year in the playoffs), zherdev might be good to have around.
just a thought.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
Thats a good point. Plus, hes an expiring contract, so its not a bad insurance policy to have.
by philiafan14364 on Feb 17, 2011 11:12 AM EST up reply actions
Ive seen quite a few instances when the Flyers give up a goal as a direct result of a Zherdev blown coverage this year.
Admittedly, I havent seen him on every single shift all year, but I dont really know where the idea that hes not complete shit on D this year came from…
by philiafan14364 on Feb 17, 2011 11:11 AM EST reply actions
but I dont really know where the idea that hes not complete shit on D this year came from…
Please look here for some stats that show he isn’t shit. He is no worse than Leino as far as defensive wingers go. In fact, at the point in time I pulled the numbers, he was better than Leino.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Let me rephrase, I’m not trying to say he is a good defender, but that he is no worse than some of his teammates, and they don’t have people shitting on them constantly about it. That’s really where people are coming from.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Get something...
for Zherdev while we can.
I like the offensive positives that Zherdev brings, but I’m not setting the lineup. As is the guy’s not helping us from the press box, and we can’t get anything for him if we choose not to bring him back after the season.
We’re pretty deep without Zherdev and if we run into enough injuries that we miss him that bad, we’ll be in pretty bad shape anyway. Might as well get something - draft picks, depth players, very young prospects — while we can.
i like zherdev but
he just isn’t capabale of team play… too bad but his talent is wasted… keep him through the year for insurance then let him walk… trade shelly and carcillo at the end of the season (they’ll bring a seventh round pick, maybe) and resign leino!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Elmo the faithful fan on Feb 17, 2011 11:15 AM EST reply actions
Carcillos a FA at years end, and I dont think anyone wants Shelley and his 1.1mil cap hit over the next two years since a comparable player is likely available for half that on the streets.
Does anyone know if we can give Shelley the Leighton/Redden/Huet treatment? Because when I was fiddling around with the capgeek calculator, Shelley really was the only thing standing in our way of resigning Leino.
by philiafan14364 on Feb 17, 2011 11:22 AM EST up reply actions
Shelley has no effect on re-signing Leino. If Michael Leighton or Matt Walker could be moved the money would be there.
But yes; we could waive Shelley and be free of the full cap hit.
Fact is: The Cap is going to go up to around 61M next season; the money will be there for Leino even without making another move. Shelley can stay and this team is fine.
Ever wondered how a Flyers fan relaxes and tells jokes... www.DownGoesSpezza.com shows you the funny side of Flyerdom
by Down Goes Spezza on Feb 17, 2011 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
Use capgeeks calculator and youll realize that the money really isnt there for Leino next year. Walker and Leighton dont even factor into next years cap because Leighton will be in the minors and Walker is a FA.
The only way I could manage to get Leino on this team next year without removing another piece of the team was to dump Shelley.
by philiafan14364 on Feb 17, 2011 10:47 PM EST up reply actions
Walker is not a FA. He’ll have to clear waivers again.
But you’re right: With a $61 million cap, good luck fitting Leino in around $3 million without trading someone.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 18, 2011 9:19 AM EST up reply actions
¡Cenemos en tortugas esta noche! ¡Se ven buenos, elos, Z!
¡Z! ¡Soy féliz!
¡El GM sin draft picks va a trade you to the Western Conference, Z!
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
Ever watch "That 70's Show" ?
When Red says "Honey ! The foreign kid is talking again !’
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
Zherdev won’t get a second round pick unless they have a few teams that really, really want him. The Flyers are hurting themselves by not having him playing. They’re basically either telling teams A) He’s too much of a liability on the ice defensively that Jody Shelly and Dan Carcillo are better options, B) He’s a locker room cancer that is sure to cause problems with the team/coach, or C) Both. I think the Flyers can trade him away, but they’re only hurting themselves by having him up in the press box.
Zherdev + Walker to a Western Conference Team for a 2nd rounder and a depth defenseman.
Replace your existing, overpriced depth defenseman for one of equal skill and a lower cap hit. Replace your disgruntled player who will likely never play in the NHL again for a 2nd-round pick.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
Zherdev will definately play in the NHL
I suspect that there is a deal in the works and he’ll be going somewhere else. There are plenty of teams that know how to deal with a player like him and maximize his value and effectiveness.
It also doesn’t help when Laviolette dismisses the questions on the subject.
This^
If you think about it, this is a really strange situation. Most of the time when there is an issue with a player in this town, the real reason seems to invariably filter out. But with Zherdev, all that we read is he’s in Lavy’s “doghouse,” and are left to speculate whether its due to on-ice issues like his defense, or debate whether he’s not a good locker room guy or the absurd (like the team’s alleged dislike of Russians).
At the end of the day, it’s frustrating to see Shelly lace up over Zherdev or now hear that we may need more depth on defense after waiving Walker just a few weeks ago.
As soon as he went over Lavvy’s head to Homer to plead for more playing time/PP time, his season was done it seems. he’s played great offensively and to me well enough on D to earn TOI but it just ain’t gonna happen. what a shame
As soon as he went over Lavvy’s head to Homer to plead for more playing time/PP time
I missed that, link, source?
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I saw it, but I think it’s in dispute.
One link probably doesn’t cover the whole story.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
I’d take anything.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
That’s what she said. Bazinga.
VERSTEEG never got "called up" to play in the NHL, he called up the NHL and the league jumped at the chance to play hockey with him.
by hartmanzord on Feb 17, 2011 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
Right.
I remember it was said when Z picked up his first healthy scratch of the season. I think one of the beat guys tweeted it was because he went to Homer about playing time. Doesn’t mean he went over Lavy, he could have easily worked his way up the food chain.
Another example of people taking a small nugget of speculation and running with it. Much like last years numerous “Carter doesn’t want to play the wing” posts.
I think it was Panotch.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
This story came out back in October based on an interview with Holmgren. From the attached story (see 2nd half of story), it’s not clear to whom Z complained about ice time (Lavy or Homer), but he certainly did make the complaint.
Sarauj, Latvija!
I can’t imagine Lavvy was cool with Z going to Homer
In case of link fail:
http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2010/10/29/1782389/zherdev-demotion
What I would do with Zherdev
What I would do with zherdev is play him with Carter n Giroux that line was dangerous. I also would give him PP time so it can hide his so-so D. Also I would put Nodl on the fourth line scratch carbomb and shelly. Zherdev if he gets PP time and plays a few 5-5 shifts he can help the team and when he acts up swing Nodl up into the top 9. Look at Nodl’s numbers nothing special he does work hard but his O stinks and has been getting pushed off a lot of pucks recently. Carbomb takes dumb penalties and can take himself outa plays chacing people down so whats the difference? Shelly takes some bad penalties has been a little better but he can’t get ice time which will be worse in the playoffs so what does he add in say 4-6min. If zherdev isn’t going to play they are going to have to get creative and make another trade and hopefully someone will take shelly zherdev carcillo and maybe give up Nodl. Stillman would be perfect but can’t see them wanting any of them just maybe picks.
The bottom line is this guy was hired for his particular talents like a sub contractor/ general contractor relationship. The difference is he’s getting paid huge amounts of money utterly disproportionate to the tasks at hand like every professional athlete. I wouldn’t hire an electrician and get the carpenter to do his work. That’s fucking stupid. How can some whose command of the English language is rather suspect be a locker room cancer – does he mime his discontent? Is he the TO mime of hockey? Doubt it. Is he a danger to other players on the ice – nope. And let’s not forget what this team went through last season: radical personnel change, a new coach with an entirely new system, injuries that made the team a veritable MASH unit, crawling into the post season on a shoot out win, and doing one of the hardest things there is to do in pro sports – come back from a 3-0 defecit in a best of 7 series but with a twist, we had to use our 3rd string goalie, Kyle Kendrick. No, unless Z is Rasputin re-incarnated, I think our boys can handle an odd duck Russian. It’s has been on Laviolette to find a role for him period. That said if we can get some some decent pieces for him, by all means pull the trigger as I doubt well find takers for Carbomb, or Human Target, the 2 guys who we’ve never really needed.
Sounds like Semin. Big contract, streaky player, never know what you’ll get when he plays (maybe a hat trick like last night, maybe nothing).
Sarauj, Latvija!
The concept of a streaky player is a bit of a myth.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Really? Look at JVR? He is the definition of streaky.
BOILER UP!! 2010-2011
"You can commit no mistake and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." - Jean-Luc Picard
In that all players are streaky. The nature of the game and luck shows that all players have sustained periods of variance.
I’ve also read analysis that “streaks” are nothing but human perception and a given player is as likely to score in any game vs any other game. I’ll see if I can find it, it was interesting. Because they sure do seem real sometimes!
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
I think this is more a perception of effort than scoring after reading the responses I got. Which is not quantifiable, and highly susceptible to perception bias…but it also can be true I guess.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Scratch much of what I said. The paper in question was written by my coworker’s brother (who is now a statistician for the Reds), in relation to hitting in baseball. The finding was that streaks do happen, but there is no indicator of when streaks will start and end. I just have a very poor memory.
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
http://www.russianmachineneverbreaks.com/2011/02/02/why-future-performance-not-consistency-matters/
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
You didn’t read the article on Semin as a streaky player did you?
As Snevik says, all players are streaky. He graphed a hypothetical captain consistency versus Semin, and their goals, and Semin actually was more consistent than the hypothetical consistent player. More over, it demonstrated that the consistent player would be considered streaky by everyone…which is what Snevik is saying.
And there, Geoff just linked it.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I did in fact read the article…
But that article is essentially about one player. And comparing him to a hypothetical. It’s not comparing one player to another player. Or comparing multiple players.
Look at JVR’s game logs from the last two years. Scores a few points in a few successive games then goes weeks without registering a point. That’s streaky.
BOILER UP!! 2010-2011
"You can commit no mistake and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." - Jean-Luc Picard
The whole point is, that we as fans would consider a consistent player streaky. So I don’t by in to the concept of streaky as much as I did before. JVR may be more streaky than Mr Consistency, but the fact is, every player is streaky.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I think it’s actually trying to show the opposite: the players we consider consistent are secretly streaky. Crosby and Stamkos score every game* because they are better than everyone else, not because they play more consistently.
*Obviously, not true. Their streaks without goals are just smaller, because they score so many.
Wait you said
the players we consider consistent are secretly streaky.
And I said:
that we as fans would consider a consistent player streakyMeaning, if we saw a player we considered consistent graphed out on this chart, we would consider them streaky.
I was trying to say what you said, I just worded it like an idiot. Low Five?
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I feel like Low Five has to be a meme for a discussion that ends up with two people basically saying the same thing.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Unfortunately, stats cannot adequately capture effort, and streakiness can be equated with on ice effort. Players like Zherdev and Semin seem to “show up” for certain games and exude a high level of effort, and other times they can appear lazy. While JVR can go many games without scoring, in my view, it’s not for lack of effort.
Sarauj, Latvija!
I’ve seen plenty of games where JVR lacked effort. Its what makes game like the Tampa game stand out.
What can't Giroux do?
Definitely. But I don’t know if you can immediately relate that to production.
How many great games did Nodl have in his scoreless streak? A ton. How many sure assists did he lose because the shooter was unlucky? A lot.
And on the flip side, how many piss poor games has Jeff Carter had, but he still gets a goal and an assist?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 1:51 PM EST up reply actions
Agree 100%
It’s beyond comprehension. These guys are pros. They are paid to get along with each other, at least on the ice. Asham calls out Matt Cooke for being a punk, gets traded to the Pens, and you can bet that if someone ran Cooke’s ass, Asham would drop the gloves in his defense. That’s what you do.
I’ve seen Z show genuine emotion during the season when other players scored. I’ve seen him jump into frays when other players were taking liberties with his linemates. I refuse to believe it’s an issue with his teammates.
Meanwhile we know for a fact that the coach has pulled him in favor of Jody “Herman Munster on skates” Shelley, who as “out sick”. Are you frigging kidding me?
YES !
Finally ! someone sees that we need to end the Z Experiment. My question is, with the obvious not living up to the expectations and 3 teams in 5 years giving up on this guy, Why the Z Love still exists out there ?
Trade him and get something in return before his stock gets worse. Cut your losses.
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
My question is, with the obvious not living up to the expectations
Here is my issues with this…and this isn’t meant for you so much as a global question, but why would Z’s expectations being anything other than what he has shown to be able to do in his career?
I said it the day he signed and last night was further proof of it, Z should have never been signed here to begin with. He doesn’t fit Lavy’s system, he probably never will and worse yet, we will never get a fair chance to see because Lavy doesn’t play him.
BOILER UP!! 2010-2011
"You can commit no mistake and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." - Jean-Luc Picard
Your right, he doesnt fit. So trade him to Washington where he can try to fit in his 4th NHL team in 5 years for some draft picks (to make up for the Versteeg draft picks)
Heck I would agree with you and say that water is dry and the sky is red if it means trading him and getting something in return.
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
Why the Z Love still exists out there ?
Read any other comment thread/argument related to this post. :-p
But in the end, I agree. There doesn’t seem to be room for him on the roster anymore (regardless of whether that is deserved or not), so we might as well get what we can for him.
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
Trade ME Right F@$KING NOW !
Maybe we have different intentions as to why we want him traded – Yours is because he doesnt seem to have any roster spot and mine is because he doesnt fit in with Laviolette’s style.
The point remains the same.
Trade him to get something.
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
Trade ME Right F@$KING NOW !
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
But this:
he doesnt fit in with Laviolette’s style.
is what the argument is over. Why does Zherdev not fit Laviolette’s style, but Leino and Briere do? As I just said up top, I think the problem is: Lavy only has one spot to play someone like Zherdev, and Leino is occupying it.
Does this explanation fail because of last night? Yeah, probably. But Zherdev’s style is not much different from Leino or Briere’s. Which I guess means you can in fact have too much offense, because Lavy doesn’t want/won’t use 3 scoring lines.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
you just answered your question right here as to why does Zherdev not fit in Laviolettes style. with the below comment.
But Zherdev’s style is not much different from Leino or Briere’s.
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
Yeah, I’m with Don. I’m confused.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
Which makes it all the more frustrating that he doesn’t give Z a shot with Briere and Hartnell when Leino is scratched.
Exactly.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
Could be as simple as the other guys are well liked, listen, dont complain and try whereas Zherdev is not well liked, people dont like playing with him, doesnt listen to the couch, complains, mopes when he doesnt get what he wants? And the only reason we dont hear about this is because of the leadership of the coach and players.
So, hypothetically, it’s because Zherdev is the antichrist, and we have no idea the hellish extent of his presence because Richards is so good at handling the press?
Even if that’s true (and obviously I’m taking it the hyperbolic extents—he probably isn’t well loved in the locker room), it doesn’t excuse the mismanaging of talent. Z’s producing, regardless of whether he’s liked. Sean Avery isn’t liked by his teammates, but that doesn’t matter if he makes his team better.
Antichrist? lol. no. Bad attitude. possibly. putting too much on his linemates, not picking up his guy in the defensive zone? possibly. Pissing off his linemates cuz hes pretty selfish? possibly. Gets easily irritated at teamates cuz he doesnt get the puck from them? maybe. On a team that has some pretty professional players maybe it upsets people. And that doesnt mean hes a P-nice. Ive played with some pretty good guys that I did not like to play with because of there attitude.
So we have Columbus, Rangers (dont know what happened with his KHL team) now the Flyers give up on a guy this offensively talented. It has to be something and it has to be something worth giving up on him cuz damn if he isnt talented with the puck, An absolute joy to watch when its on his stick.
I can completely agree with you, but I don’t think it’s the crux of the argument. He’s a value talent, and the team is better with him because he produces. If the personality was unmanageable, it would be reflected in the numbers of his teammates. Unless their Sh% is so low because they are purposefully flubbing shots when this dick passes to them, he should be dressing still.
Professional athletes have egos, and often don’t like each other. They still get paid to do a job.
Rangers didn’t give up on him, he wanted too much money, Rangers wouldn’t pay, he left for the KHL.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Rangers would have jumped all over $2mil per year.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
To be fair to Nik, the arbitrator felt he was worth more than the Rangers did. They offered $3.25, he wanted $4.5, the arbitrator determined he was worth $3.9, and the Rags walked away.
Bob.
Oh I know. I’m not saying it was Z’s fault, I’m just saying the only thing that went wrong in NY was the $ figure.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I think we’re violently agreeing here. I just wanted to make sure to clarify that it wasn’t just that Z was greedy, but that the (theoretically, at least) impartial arbitrator also valued him more than the Rangers did. It wasn’t as high as what Z wanted, but I can’t remember any player getting what they want in arbitration – it’s always a starting point to work down from, using the most complimentary comparisons possible to inflate the player’s value.
Bob.
I don’t buy in to that he isn’t well liked. He seemed well liked at the skills competition. I’ve seen him goofing around with G in warmups at almost every home game. I just don’t buy in to the well liked thing personally. But maybe he isn’t well liked by the majority of the locker room, who knows.
I will say it’s clearly something we don’t know about, and will never know about. I think we all accept that, but we are all frustrated by it as well, and have every right to be a little pissed if this continues come playoff time. As Snevik said, over the course of a season your 9th forward, who doesn’t play special teams, isn’t going to make a difference on wins and losses. But in a small sample, like the playoffs, it definitely matters.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
I’m of the “keep around, me might need him” mentality, predicated on the hope that lavy changes his mind
by mantis toboggan on Feb 17, 2011 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
Samsies.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
Haha, that is without a doubt the most biased, one-sided not to mention inaccurate statement I’ve seen about this situation.
Here’s what actually happened:
Zherdev was playing in Russia, got drafted #4 overall and came to the Blue jackets half way through the season.
The next season was the lockout so he went back to his russian club.
2006 season, he leads the CBJ’s in points. Nash was hurt. Zherdev wanted a better contract, and this started some acrimony although they finally settled.
2007 was a bad year and he started to have issues with Ken Hitchcock, which is probably where a lot of the talk about his attitude came into play, but the next year he put up 61 points in Columbus.
They trade him to the Rangers, where he just — oh well, tied for 1st in points. He’s an RFA and takes his contract to arbitration where he is awarded nearly 4m. The rangers, to their credit were realizing that in the salary cap era, it was not a good deal, so they walked away and Zherdev went back to Russia.
So where exactly is the 3 teams in 5 years “giving up” on a guy who lead 2 of those 3 teams in scoring?
Z must have slept with Lavy’s wife or something.
There is no logical explanation for him being scratched last night.
None.
Z is a goal scorer. That’s all he is and ever was. Everyone knew this going into the contract, so again, why was he even signed? Offense was not an issue when we signed him and if anyone thought they could suddenly get Z to play defense the way Lavy wants then they are ignorant of Z’s skill set.
Hopefully we can unload him for something, anything and use the cap space to resign Leino. Honestly, if Z is going to continue to be a healthy scratch than the team must not think much of him so how much could they possibly want for him? Trading him should be pretty simple.
BOILER UP!! 2010-2011
"You can commit no mistake and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." - Jean-Luc Picard
Did they win without him ? Yes, Does he look like he takes Shifts off and doesnt back check ? Yes.
Hence why they scratched him.
I am glad people like you think that he has some use for a team because that means that one of the 29 GM’s in the league may agree with you and we can part ways with him and get something back for him.
Mark My Words – write it down right now – 02/17/2011 not that I said this – In 3 Years, Zherdev will not be in the NHL.
Just like allot of other players that were highly touted that did not pan out.
I.E. Alexandre Daigle, Pat Falloon, and allot of other snipers that were liked allot but had the same problems that Zherdev has.
and notice I did not just do russian Players (Yashin) so that no one would say that I was picking on the Russians
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
Falloon was a sniper?
"In fact, it is probably safe to say, the statement "I am a hockey fan" is the same as "I hate gary bettman."- bfrank27
He was supposed to be.
Look at his numbers in juniors.
What everyone failed to realize at the time was that those goals were likely a result of being centered Ray Whitney.
To be fair to the Sharks, they drafted Falloon AND Whitney.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
My theory is that Zherdev kept stealing Lavy’s lunch from the fridge at Skate Zone, but since Z doesn’t read English he never got the message.
Sarauj, Latvija!
Couple problems I have here. First, as people have pointed out, all the other players you offered as comparisons are signed past this year. I think Zherdev could draw a second, but his value is hit by UFA status and the fact that healthy scratching hurts your totals. The second round pick would be a fortunate return.
That said, where is the value in getting a second round pick in a year when you’ve loaded your roster deep for a title push? I can’t access Iain Fyffe’s article on the value of draft picks, but undoubtedly Zherdev is valued higher. He’s a top 9 injury replacement in a way that Carcillo truly isn’t, and he keeps Shelley off the playoff bench except in emergency situations. You keep him, because there will be injuries, and it’s better to have him coming out of the press box than Jody.
As I’ve said, this is assuming we aren’t in cap penalty trouble because of bonuses. Homer knows the situation there and we do not. If there’s problems, we ship him for whatever we can get and don’t care too much about what the return is. Otherwise, it hurts your team to move him.
And my thoughts on his effort/defense/system play/locker room presence have already been stated elsewhere, but to sum them up:
Effort isn’t a problem-this locker room is clearly operating pretty well, regardless of whether he’s there—so I believe he’s just an invisible presence. “All he does is score goals” indeed; he literally does nothing else, and I think it draws apathy from his teammates, not antipathy.
-Defensive problems are other states
-I don’t think he’s a locker room cancer
-His hockey IQ seems a little low. He doesn’t always hold his assignment in the defensive zone (neutralizing his efforts) and rapidly switches his lane going forward. The effort means less if your linemates and coaches expect that effort somewhere else on the ice.
Stupid formatting. For those having trouble reading:
~Effort isn’t a problem
~Defensive problems are other states
~I don’t think he’s a locker room cancer-this locker room is clearly operating pretty well, regardless of whether he’s there—so I believe he’s just an invisible presence. "All he does is score goals" indeed; he literally does nothing else, and I think it draws apathy from his teammates, not antipathy.
~His hockey IQ seems a little low. He doesn’t always hold his assignment in the defensive zone (neutralizing his efforts) and rapidly switches his lane going forward. The effort means less if your linemates and coaches expect that effort somewhere else on the ice.
Z Goes In Z Goes Out
You can’t explain that. Hartnell falls, now he’s up again, down, up, down again. Where does the grilled cheese come from?
by BobRossky on Feb 17, 2011 12:30 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
I’ve been a critic, for the following reasons:
a) I think his goal-scoring has been overhyped. He’s been shooting well above his career percentage (and impressions were formed early on when he was WAY above it), and he’ll regress to something less impressive.
b) His low assist totals (0.33 A/60 is lower than any other forward on the team, including Carcillo and Shelley) and low GFON/60 (2.68 GF/60 is 9th on the team, ahead of only the 4th liners and less than they score when he’s off the ice) made me fear that his reluctance to pass was hurting the offense more than his goal-scoring was helping it. And if he’s hurting the offense, the debate about whether his defense is terrible or merely sub-par becomes irrelevant.
But I’ve lightened up more recently, for two reasons.
1) His teammates have a terrible shooting percentage when he’s on the ice — the Flyers have shot worse with him out there than for anyone else except Betts and Carcillo. So his low assist numbers and low GFON/60 may be more about his linemates having bad luck than about him holding the puck. In his last NHL season, he averaged 1.55 A/60, so I can’t really blame him for the 0.33 A/60 this year.
2) His Corsi numbers are great. He’s playing the 9th best competition with the 6th best teammates, so you expect him to be a little above average, but not to lead the team by a wide margin. And the reason we pay attention to Corsi is that it has a larger sample size than goals so it reaches a talent-level luck-free value much faster, which is important when we’re evaluating him on just a half-season of work. And these numbers do indeed look like his real talent — he put up an even better number for the Rangers in his last NHL season (2nd on the team), and was the best on the Blue Jackets by a mile the year before that.
I have to agree that if he’s 14th on the list of forwards Lavvy will put into a game, then we should get something in trade for him. But that clear trend of directing play towards the other net to a huge extent (the Corsi numbers) tells me a better option would be to play him.
Here's an idea
Since Homer already has had Burke on the phone to get Versteeg, and now the Leafs basically don’t have a goalie …(http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/38451-Feast-or-famine-Leafs-go-from-carrying-three-goalies-to-needing-help.html) … maybe we can package Zherdev and Leighton and get our damn draft picks back??
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
Here’s a CBA question, which I was actually wondering during talk that The Bruins might move the Leafs 1st back to them in a Kaberle trade (unlikely): if you trade a draft pick and then receive it back, it still counts as yours, right? I’m thinking offer sheets here, and whether movement effects that.
Snice we are all in agreement, I figured I’d find the language. The CBA was surprisingly clear on this matter.
From 10.4, on draft compensation for offer sheets on RFAs:
Clubs cannot acquire picks to use as compensation (with the exception
being a Club’s own draft selections that are traded and then re-acquired).
I’m glad that’s clear to you. I have no idea what it means. :-p
/Engineer’d
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
It’s for draft pick compensation for RFA’s. If you owe picks for signing someone to an offer sheet, you can’t use draft picks that originally belonged to another team, only your own picks. However, it doesn’t matter if you originally traded that pick and then got it back, it’s still “your” pick.
Bob.
Idea
You could change the title of this post to “NHL Rumors: Flyers interested in trading Zherdev?” and that would make it true!
/B/R’d
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
ZZZZZZ My 2 cents
Clearly Z is one gifted mofo with the puck. I mean really! I watch him sometimes and its amazing how smooth he is. Seems effortless. So all the Z backers I do understand your points here. But there is clearly an issue with the guy off-ice, on-ice, locker room, something is there. If the Flyers were the first to give up on him I would def. agree with you but some pretty smart hockey people keep giving up on the guy and I will give the coach the benefit of the doubt here.
BUT
Lavi’s not going to play an enforcer in the playoffs though (…. is he?). Maybe that’s why Zherdev is still here
Power-less Play help
I brought this up a few days ago, with my usual qualifications (I love hockey but am somewhat ignorant of the nuances of scheme and individual player responsibility within the scheme), but now seems like a perfect opportunity to resurrect my question: Why can’t we see if Z can help the power(less) play? We obviously need it. Z is obviously gifted offensively. Seems like a match made in heavan. The PP would (seemingly) play to his strength of offensive ability while minimizing his perceived deficiencies in other aspects of the game. I know we have a glut of guys who should theoretically succeed on the PP, but for whatever reason, the current group of guys haven’t clicked and we are not experiencing the success we should. Would it really hurt to put Z on the Betts/Powe line over Carbomb or Shelley for an occassional 5v5 shift and concentrate most of his time on the PP? Please enlighten me fellow Flyer-holics.
I’ve been pretty much thinking this to myself for a while now because I think one of the main problems with the power play is that too many of the guys get too cute going for that extra pass rather than just get the damn puck on net.
So what if it’s not the greatest shot. The goalie can’t catch them all and there’s bound to be rebounds if it gets on net.
What ever happened to the two guys at the net they were using in the beginning of the year that was working so well. I saw it used not too long ago, but the guys stand there for a couple seconds then move out.
Here all of the Z Lovers out there - Here you go.
Sorry I dont know how to Make the picture smaller like some people suggested but I guess this would make some Zherdev Lovers feel better if I put this up below.
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
Again, I don’t think it’s Zherdev lovers, I think it’s marginal utility lovers.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
IMHO – I dont think he is a right fit with his style for the Laviolette FLYERS style.
I will personally carry his bags to the Airport if we get something 2nd round or higher for him since allot of people are praising him.
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
Again, this has nothing to do with praising him, it’s a marginal utility thing. It’s irregardless of style. Shelley doesn’t really fit anyone’s style. He is out there to eat up 5 minutes and not screw up. That doesn’t fit any system in hockey, nor does it exclude him from any system. But 5 minutes of lining up Z instea dof Shelley against the other teams worst compeition gives you a higher utility.
And I’m still confused about how you previously implied that Z’s style isn’t much different than Briere and Leino’s, but yet Z is the one that doesn’t fit. I’m still very confused.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
oh no you mistunderstood, I never said that his style isnt much different. Thats what Geoff said, I repeated Geoff’s statement basically as a way of saying – You answered your own question that his style IS DIFFERENT than Leino and Briere.
and as far as Shelley – Dude, you dont have to convince me otherwise, I dont understand why he is here either.
I would like to see Zherdev, Shelley, Bartulis, Walker and Leighton no longer on the FLYERS payroll.
If it is Logical that an Offensive talented player is benched in favor of 2 GOONS, then obviously Z has done something to upset the Organization in some way.
We are on the outside looking in. We do not understand what goes on behind close doors. Maybe Z is a total Jerk crying for Ice Time like T.O. crying for the Football from Donovan McNabb. Maybe he is a real Arsehole and the Organization cant wait to get rid of him. After all, he has a rep of not fitting in with 2 other NHL Teams in less than 5 years.
Notice we dont have any media interviews with Z. For all we know he could be a Jerk. Emery had a bad rap but he had several Media Interviews to come out and say he regretted his actions in the past but truely has changed his ways.
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
I completely agree that something is amiss, but who knows what.
However, I don’t agree that his game is all too different from the offensive styled games of Leino and Briere. Those are all offense first players with defensive deficiencies. Leino has the benefit of having 60% Ozone starts, Z is under 50%, and yet his Corsi numbers are still really good. He is capable of controlling the play offensively just like Briere and Leino, so I just don’t see the big gap in what they bring to the table other than all that stuff we don’t know.
I’m fine accepting that he isn’t going to play because of the unknown stuff, it’s just frustrating when you have an offensive asset that can be sheltered in games come playoff time, that you don’t want to use.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
in response to …
it’s just frustrating when you have an offensive asset that can be sheltered in games come playoff time, that you don’t want to use.
again, we dont know everything, Maybe the Negative factors outway the positive and it would be More of a Detriment to the team to insert him in the lineup even if he is a super scoring guy.
You know, — Terrel Owens, Manny Ramirez, Alexander Daigle, Tony Hornacek.
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
The numbers from the season say otherwise however.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Again DLJr – your only seeing the picture from the outside and you are enticed by the sexy numbers. We all do not know what goes on inside the Locker Room, On the Team Plane or Bus, During practice and team meetings, or at any Luncheon or Team Dinners.
Obviously there is something askew that the Management does not like in the guy.
Obviously this is his 3rd NHL team in 5 years and there has to be a reason for that.
Obviously they way that the points and goals are not worth the “Whatever we dont know” to insert him in the lineup.
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
What I am saying is that any effects he may have off the ice, and being transferred demonstratively on the ice. I’m not being enticed by sexy numbers, I’m watching the games and stating facts.
Unless players are purposely missing the net when Z passes to them, or passing the puck to the other team as opposed to Zherdev, there is no demonstrated effect he is having on the on ice product.
That is the point I’m making that you are missing.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
Please recognize that the Rangers didn’t want to pay him what the arbitrator rules in his favor, so he left for the KHL. If the Rangers got him for $2mil they would have wept with Joy since they were willing to pay him north of $3mil.
So that example you gave isn’t completely accurate.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
many players have played for at least 3 teams in 5 years.
by Gonzotatcics on Feb 17, 2011 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
Including Chris Pronger, Brian Boucher, Sean O’Donnell, Andrej Meszaros, Matt Carle, Jody Shelley, Matt Walker, and Kris Versteeg.
Bob.
To start their career though it was:
-Carcillo, 3 teams (Penguins in AHL, Coyotes, and Flyers) in 5 years once he turned pro
-Meszaros, 3 teams (Sens, Lightning, Flyers) in 6 years once turned pro
-Carle 3 teams (Sharks, Lightning, Flyers) in 5 years once turned pro
-Vertseeg 4 teams (Bruins, Blackhawks, Leafs, Flyers) in 6 years once turned pro
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Is this the right room for an argument?
No no no, what I meant was that there aren’t any players who started their careers with one team, got traded to another in either year two or three, and signed with a third team as a free agent in year five, despite having at least 20 goals in at least two different seasons, and their last name has to have at least one of ‘J, X, Z, or Q’. Or at least it hasn’t happened recently.
/Detwheeler’d
I’m afraid to look at Dominic Moore.
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
again, we all do not know the entire story. I respect Laviolette’s decision to not include him. He is a good coach. we are the Best in the East and the trading punch after punch with Vancouver for best in the League after he came here in December 2009 and we were Full of talent but not producing. So obviously the Coach knows what he is doing. I do not know why people are questioning his decision to either start or not start him. He of all people should know his team the most.
Obviously there is more to the story behind the scene that we do not know whats going on.
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
I honestly cannot stand this argument. Coaches are not infallible. Even Charlie Manuel makes bad decisions. Even Bill Belichik makes bad decisions.
There’s no reason to trust a coach on every decision he makes. Maybe Lavy just doesn’t like Zherdev. That doesn’t mean Lavy is right to not play him. Was Lavy right to play Bob for 12 straight starts? Was he right to never use his backup goalie last year? Was he right to continue playing Ryan Parent in the Finals?
The answer to all those questions should be a resounding “no”.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
Was he right to continue playing Ryan Parent in the Finals?
What, all 44 seconds?
"Darroll can't see it, blind to the eyes;
He came up in your face OOPS POWE SURPRISE!"
Man-crushin' on #36 since he hit his "absolute ceiling" as a rookie in 2008.
Shit. Yes, all 44 seconds.
I should have said ECF. My bad.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 5:18 PM EST up reply actions
I respect your opinion Geoff. And I am aware that a coach is human and able to make mistakes, Just ask Curt Schilling if Fregosi should have put Mitch Williams in the World series after Curt’s great start to the game.
And you may be right, Maybe the Coach doesn’t like Z for no apparent reason. We all do not know we are not privy to that locker room.
If we were in 9th or 10th spot I would question it. But we are DEEP in talent, Tops in the league, so I give the Coach some credit stating that he knows his team that we all need to respect that.
I mean for Crying out loud, were tops in the NHL and were crying why we dont have a single shutout or why Zherdev isnt playing.
Can we focus on the positive ?
FLYERROB ! YOU STAY AWESOME FLYERS FANS ! www.naawayland.com Robert Wilson
Can we focus on the positive? I wish we would. That’s not my style though :)
But I don’t see what it matters if the team is in 9th or 1st. A coach can make bad decisions, but his team can still overcome that. Coaches get too much credit when their teams win and too much blame when their teams lose.
Here is where the coach is getting far too much credit – and even more than that, he’s getting a “don’t even debate, he’s right because of something entirely unrelated.”
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 5:21 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t say Lavy’s always right, but he’s clearly dead-set on sitting Zherdev. Don’t know why. It just seems to be working for him, that’s all.
Lifelong Tennessean, Flyers' fan for life
It also doesn’t mean Z won’t play again … even if everyone’s healthy. Lavy has had success leaving Z out of the lineup for a few games, then reinserting him into the lineup. I think Z will play again for the Flyers this year, but I doubt he plays every remaining game.
Lifelong Tennessean, Flyers' fan for life
good article-horrific picture.
Pretty much everything has been covered well already here-as usual.
I just wanted to say I like Z and I like what he brings. We knew his short comings before arriving-its not a shocker.
The dispute or problem then has to lie somewhere else-a raging coke problem as mentioned or addiction to prostitutes-we won’t know till he’s gone.
It really is too bad that it has come to this. Having Shelly and Carcillio play before Z is insane and unfortunate.
from a fan of Z
i get that he most likely has a bad attitude, but the guy is a potential 30 goal scorer and lavi’s leash on him was extremely short from the jump
Why did they bother getting him in the first place? He’s playing exactly as advertised – strong on the puck, weak off the puck, and kind of the opposite of a Laperriere in terms of inspiring teammate loyalty, etc.
Did they think they would change him, like the woman who thinks she can make an honest man out of a cad? “Pauline, he’s lazy, he’s selfish, and he doesn’t backcheck.” “Yes, Petra, I know, but he’s so…….talented!” Certainly Holmgren and Lavy had this conversation.
Whether or not Briere and Leino play defense (they’re the two names everyone else throws out there for comparison) Zherdev is the one guy who always sticks out, who doesn’t seem to be where you expect. Everyone else seems to play Laviolette’s system, which is pretty impressive even if it can get monochromatic. He’s a free radical which should be turned to kill the other team.
What’s happened to this franchise? I mean, the Bullies were the most renegade team in sports history and we can’t stand to have one rebel? No! Banish him to the Island of Misfit Russian Forwards!
The Stanley Cup is silver, with polish and shine. Not gray and dull. Be a coach, Laviolette. Use the guy for his strengths. You’ll miss them if he’s not around.
Of course, all of this is null if there is something really weird going on (stalking coach’s daughter, flirting with teammates, etc.).
by flyersfaninchicago on Feb 17, 2011 6:15 PM EST reply actions
It is and continues to be a terrible signing. I’ve never seen so much enthusiasm for a 15 goal scorer. Christ he’s got 5 more goals than Nodl. The problem for this team in the Cup last year was D depth and getting the offensive players to commit to playing stronger D. What the hell did we put up in a game one loss? Over 5 goals? Terrible. We fixed the problem by signing a winger with a history of playing mediocre defense. As much as everyone loves to hate the Shelley signing, I thought 2 million for Z was just as irresponsible.
I’ve never seen so little enthusiasm for a 5-on-5 scorer. Christ he’s got 4 more even strength goals than Leino.
FTFY
Bob.
I didn’t realize the Flyers needed more 5 on 5 scoring right now. I hope we can find a player to help out our poor scoring.
How many Stanley Cups did we win today for being first place in the conference?
by SlasherMcGee on Feb 17, 2011 7:05 PM EST up reply actions
Oh I’m sorry.. I thought your comment regarding the 5-5 scoring was inferring that we were OK in the scoring department moving forward. All is well February 18th on a mostly healthy team.
by SlasherMcGee on Feb 17, 2011 7:10 PM EST up reply actions
You’re an idiot, huh? Why don’t you go back and read my original comment before you start shooting off at the hip. Dating back to the Cup Finals we have had fantastic scoring depth. We continue to have fantastic scoring depth. I think we need to focus on having our team play better team defense. Therefore, I fail to see how the addition of Z in the off season was the best thing for our team. Then somebody responded in kind that Z is good 5 on 5. To which I responded that we excel 5 on 5. What is the disconnect here? How does this conversation shift to your idiotic notion that we haven’t won anything yet? Why would you even say that?
I started this mini-thread so let me jump in on Slasher’s behalf. I think what he’s saying is that when the real season begins we’ll be in greater need of another stick that can score goals (Zherdev) than an increased commitment to team defense (insert forward here). It’s an honest disagreement about priorities and roster shortcomings.
by flyersfaninchicago on Feb 17, 2011 7:24 PM EST up reply actions
An honest disagreement would have been his suggesting that we will need more scoring to win the Cup. Instead, he threw out some random nonsense asking how many Cups we have won as of February 18th. That’s not honestly disagreeing. And I still defer to last season when offense wasn’t the reason we lost to the Blackhawks. We allowed way too many goals then. We scored enough to win.
I was curious so I checked, and yes, we scored 76 goals in the playoffs last year and the blackhawks scored 78.
Setting aside the hazards of interpreting online comments, I think the defensive problems were addressed by substantially improving the 5-6 pair on D and by stabilizing the goaltending situation (though that test doesn’t begin until April, either). Games 1 and 5 were defensive failures but I don’t remember the forwards being the most serious liability. Game 1 was just loose and I thought the goalie came up short and the Top 4 D started to wear down, especially when Quenneville figured out in the third period of Game 4 that he needed to spread his weapons across three lines.
I do remember wishing we had a couple more guns when some of our guys were firing blanks. That’s what Zherdev can bring that nobody else in the press box can. It’s particularly important, as Slasher also said, because we have been very healthy up front. Without Zherdev, if one of the Top 9 forwards goes down Laviolette is probably going to dress Carcillo and Shelley, which is truly a waste.
by flyersfaninchicago on Feb 17, 2011 7:47 PM EST up reply actions
Not necessarily true, which is why I doubt you’ll see Z moved. Lavy obviously isn’t a fan, but if you see a scorer go down in the playoffs, Z would certainly find his way into the lineup. This is especially true if we’re playing an offensive team, maybe somebody like the TBL. On the other hand, if we’re playing someone like the NJD and a scorer goes down, maybe you see somebody like Carcillo in there because Lavy doesn’t think he needs the extra fire power. I think the Z thing is overblown right now, anyway. If Z is on the bench and we really need some scoring help, especially in the playoffs, he’ll find his way onto the ice.
Yes. That’s why I hope they don’t deal him. He’s an uncommon weapon, even on a team with a considerable and balanced offense.
by flyersfaninchicago on Feb 17, 2011 8:01 PM EST up reply actions
I think it is and continues to be a terrible signing because of the way we use him. His stats suggest that given more ice time, with better linemates consistently, and better shifts(where he isn’t benched a whole period for one mistake) he would produce more. And he probably would. But the way he is being utilized makes it a bad signing.
I like Zherdev.. He’s one of the only guys on this team that when he has the puck, I’m thinking “Shit, this guy is probably going to score”. IMO he scored one of the most important goals of the season, the goal between the circles top shelf against the Penguins.
To win the Cup this year, we will need to be STACKED. Look at Chicago last year. Go back and look at their roster. They were the most talented team you will ever see in the Salary cap era, and they didn’t make it look “easy” on their run to the cup.
While I really like our current chances, we all know the playoffs are a different beast. Go back the last few years and look how the #1 rated teams did from each conference going on. It’s no guarantee of winning the cup. Not to mention we are 3-1 against the #2 team, the Penginus – Malkin could probably still beat us, and Vancouver ate us alive earlier this year…
We really need to strike while the iron is hot, and I really hope Zherdev is in the oven with us moving forward. If this is a character issue, I really hope he sucks it up and gets it straight. Hopefully a solid chance to a win a Cup is enough for him to “change”, if that’s what needs to happen…
Nik Zherdev on the 3rd or 4th line in the post season would eat up other teams 3rd pairing. Shelley will not be in the lineup come playoffs, and you can almost guarantee at the minimum 1-2 of our forwards will be hurt by then. I’d much rather have Zherdev in their than Wellwood.
now you guys are starting rumors
(gonna try to do the blockedquoted paragraph. never done it before so here goes….)
Broad Street Hockey says the Flyers should trade Nikolay Zherdev while he still has some value.
from
http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2011/2/17/1999469/nhl-trade-rumors-capitals-flyers-senators-red-wings
I only trust trade rumors from Bleacher Report
by flyersfaninchicago on Feb 17, 2011 7:54 PM EST up reply actions
Hmmm, I wouldn’t consider that rumour starting.
Starting a rumour would be “Flyers looking to trade Zherdev while he still has some value”.
Mourning Gagne forever.
haha, exactly.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2011 9:15 PM EST up reply actions
would it not have been better to have consecutive started Z for awhile regardless of the coaches possible dislike of em to increase his trade potential-if that’s wheat they were in fact thinking of doing? Now Z looks like a player that doesnt get along with the staff.
I don’t think he’s gonna be traded. The way it’s been handled doesn’t suggest such a thing would happen.
I would say the same thing, but right before the Caps traded Fleischmann they sat him for a couple games. I didn’t understand it and hope it’s not the case here but still an example to the contrary.
Off-topic
How the hell does Tampa Bay have a 34-17-6 record and a -1 goal differential? Never seen anything like those numbers.
by flyersfaninchicago on Feb 17, 2011 8:08 PM EST reply actions
Poor kaberle in trade talks again…Did he ever have a year without his name being thrown out there? With a NTC too?hahahaha
Thank god we didn’t give Carter for em-I would have personally gone to Clarkes home to deliver a drop kick. It was Clarke then right?
Anyhow how about a Russian trade off. Z for Kovalev. Throw in Shelly so he can carry Z bags.
The coach isn't always right
There have been any number of bad moves this season, just in terms of the team he’s playing, the rotating of players, and the matchups. The last game Z played, Lavvy matched the 4th line against a line that had embarassed them on a previous shift, at a critical juncture in the game, and we ended up with a nail biting ending.
In the Panthers game (where this amazing defensive lineup full of all our best 2 way players!!!) blew a 3 goal lead, and only escaped a complete metldown thanks to the fact that the camera couldn’t see the puck under Nodl’s skate which was 2 inches deep in the net. Again the 4th line got scored on for one of those key goals. Aren’t we supposed to have a 4th line that eats time up and isn’t a defensive liability?
I’ll also go back to last year and something that Lavvy does that annoys the everliving crap out of me. He pulls goalies between periods. It’s dumb, it rarely works, it undermines the confidence of the goalie, negates any opportunity to change momentum, and worst of all, most of the time seems to come after things have stabalized. Most teams use the goalie pull as a way of sending a message to the team: yeah he might not be having a great night, but what are YOU other people doing to support him?
I hated what he did to Leighton in the SCF. Leights let in some softies, but so did Niemi. It was one of those games — a complete defensive cluster on both sides of the ice. Lavvy pulls Leighton between periods, puts in Boosh on 2 barely healed knees, and Boosh makes some nice saves but ultimately gets scored on and we lose a winnable game. Chicago left Niemi in to work things out, rather than scapegoating him and undermining his confidence, and what did it accomplish?
In regards to the Z issues, there is no doubt that Z believes he is a top 6 nhl player. He expected to be playing more, and this lead to the falling out that first got him benched. Should Z have handled it better? Probably, however, both Z and JVR were hardly getting any ice time, because the Flyers were racking up ridiculous penatlies and at the same time getting a lot of PP’s the the games were heavily weighted towards special teams, and neither guy was included in those units. They would routinely miss out on a regular shift 2- 3 times a period.
To make matters worse, Lavvy was mixing lines like crazy, and nobody other than LBH seemed to know not only who they’d be playing with, but even what position they’d be playing on a shift by shfit basis. Lavvy didn’t seem to have figured out what he wanted to do, and the guys who bore the main brunt of that were JVR and Z.
Surprise — who were the Healthy scratches who needed a “kick in the pants?” The same 2 guys, and one of those guys was getting the same treatement last year.
As for those who think that this should be layed on Z’s doorstep, keep in mind that JVR had absolutely no idea why he was benched when it happened, even though Lavvy was
telling the press that JVR needed to work up a hunger to get back on the ice.
What a joke.
I like Lavvy’s system, and I think it fits this team, but people seem to give him far too much credit for the most minor things. “What an incredible timeout he called!” Meanwhile for going on 2 months now, the Flyers PP has been ineffective verging on abysmal, and he hasn’t done a single thing to improve it.
Meanwhile he’s playing Dan Carcillo ahead of Zherdev?
I am probably in the minority here but I think they should keep Z knowing full well he is going to be gone next year. I’d be willing to accept that we are getting nothing in return for two reasons-1) I don’t think ANYONE would part with a pick higher than 3rd (well maybe Sather but he already had Z) and more importantly 2) we have been very lucky in the injury dept so far this year and if Danny, Carter or Ville or another key goal scorer goes down he could help fill that gap. I really think we are this close to the Cup and I’d trade a third round pick next year for insurance this year.
"It never got wierd enough for me"
Hunter S. Thompson
I don't think you are in the minority at all
I think a lot of people think that’s what we should do, and a lot more think the guy should be playing. The question is … even with those issues would Lavvy play a guy who already should be playing but isn’t? Right now it looks like he wouldn’t, but I guess as Chris Pronger likes to say: “Nothing surprises me anymore.”
So Lavvy is not playing because Z asked Holmgren for more ice time …. Lavvy needs to grow up. His stubbornness is why Carolina canned him. Z is a sniper and should be on power play and be with Carter Giroux where top teams were beaten when he played.now we have scored 15 goals in 7 games. Wake up Lavvy and put you’re ego aside
I agree with the obvious-Z is an enigma- riddle wrapped inside blah blah blah but I swear Lavvy-he scares D men. If I were Lavvy I would pull Pronger & Kimmo and just ask them to be honest and say “Do you think he can make a D play differenrtly” the same way somebody like Pavel Bure used to scare the crap out of teams. He isn’t that good, but the scoring to time ratio speaks for itself. Christ, if he can help score then play him becuase even though we are winning we should be crushing some of the teams instaed of gutting them out.
"It never got wierd enough for me"
Hunter S. Thompson
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
Related FanShots on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Adam Henrique sends New Jersey Devils to Stanley Cup Final with OT goal vs. Rangers (VIDEO)
- Watch Ilya Kovalchuk’s Game 6 goal for Devils, a.k.a. power-play porn (VIDEO)
- Devils look to eliminate Rangers in Game 6; Hal Gill’s broken tibia (Playoff Puck Previews)
- Conan O’Brien joins long list of LA media that don’t really know what’s going on with the Kings
- For Los Angeles Kings, when does rest become rust for Stanley Cup Final?
