Penalty Kill: Dan Sexton

10/31/09 Update available here.

ARTHUR:
Anaheim calling to the hockey world...

You may have missed this acquisition, but the Ducks signed Bowling Green RW Dan Sexton to a two-year entry-level contract at $500K (NHL salary) per season with a $150K signing bonus. His fee at the AHL level will be $50K and $55K for the two years, respectively.* I've been following this kid since November, and I must say that I'm EXTREMELY surprised he's ended up with the Ducks. Let's take a look at Dan Sexton.

Every blogger and their mother (sorry, Adam Brady) will give you the stat line - 38 games with 17G 22A, and there's no doubt that Sexton had a breakout season this year-- he's a gifted attacker, but that's not the line that worries me. It's this one - 5'9" 166lbs. The Ducks have been down this road before with Ryan Shannon. Out of Boston College, Shannon was a smooth passer with 20/20 hockey vision. He was brought along slowly, allowed to play out his time in Hockey East then dominate the AHL. He was even welcomed onto the Stanley Cup team. But his size sealed his fate. Frequently separated from the puck and taken out of plays, Shannon could not use his diminutive height to draw sympathy from the refs, as he was playing for the most physical team in hockey. He couldn't find his game while being bounced around the ice, and he was bounced around the league until Bryan Murray could maneuver a second chance for him in Ottawa. McNab has yet to convince me that Sexton's future in Anaheim is much brighter.

In 2007, the trio of Dan Sexton, Patrick Tiesling and David Soloway led the Sioux Falls Stampede to the USHL's Tier I Championship, the Clark Cup. Tiesling and Soloway committed to Bowling Green, while Sexton continued to weigh his options, which included Denver, St. Cloud State and Alaska. He eventually committed to an East Coast school, but Tiesling convinced him to de-commit and join his old teammates with the Falcons.

That 07-08 team finished 18-21, but the rookie lines were impressive. And with players like 5'7" Jacob Cepis, Bowling Green seemed to be the right fit for Sexton, as the team was committed to growing small forwards with skill, speed and courage to match up against the CCHA's physically dominant teams. Sexton showed great two-way sense in his freshman season as a mainstay on both the power play and penalty kill, potting 3 shorthanded goals.

In their sophomore season, Sexton and Soloway were joined by senior Brandon Svendson to form the Falcons' "Axe Line." Soloway and Svendson already played on the same PK unit, but Coach Paluch was reluctant to put Sexton and Svendson on the same even strength line as neither had ever played Left Wing. However, in practice, Svendson found he enjoyed the left side, and the trio went on to post 93 points. The line was known for its passing, creativity and the talent level requisite of three players who were dangerous on the penalty kill. Sexton improved his speed and offensive vision during the course of the season, finishing as the seventh best forward in the conference, just one spot out of the First and Second All-CCHA teams.

The Axe Line made noise amongst the NHL scouts, though they were unable to save Bowling Green's win/loss record. The Falcons would play another losing season, intensifying the rumors of the impending demise of the BG hockey program and making it likely that Sexton would be poached at the end of the year.

In January, David McNab made the trip to see Bowling Green play Ohio State, and was immediately impressed by Sexton, who had 2G and 2A in the series. The Ducks' Senior VP maintained regular phone contact with the prospect, attended another Falcons series and followed four televised games before making the decision to sign him. McNab noted Sexton's tremendous offensive talent, but was quick to point out how hard he battled, something vital to succeeding as a small forward at the professional level. He placed the right wing's NHL transition as still a couple of years away, and the kid agrees that he needs to improve his size and strength, starting this summer.

It's not that I'm fond of the Ducks' unofficial rookie height/weight restriction. I don't think every kid should have to be a Ryan Getzlaf Sasquatchewan of a human being to survive in Anaheim, but Sexton has an uphill climb ahead of him. Even if he comes in at the right size and speed, we will still expect him to protect himself and stay cool headed if he gets targeted by another team, which troubled McDonald (and now Ebbett). Of course, unlike Shannon, Sexton has undeniable defensive value, and may be capable of replicating Todd Marchant's recent game-- sound defensive small forward hockey with the ability to cash-in on transition and turnovers on the forecheck. But whatever avenue he finds into Anaheim, it will be tough to stay there. I sincerely hope, both that he proves me wrong and that his talent is not wasted by trying to run with the Pampalona bulls that are the Ducks.

*UPDATED citation: figures taken from an article in Bowling Green Sentinel-Tribune by Andrew Weber, dated April 7th, 2009.

Read more...

Trimming The Playoff Tree

DANIEL:
The playoff seeds are finally set and we have the Presidents' trophy winning Sharks, whom I hate. But the first round also features some intriguing matchups including the return of the Blues, who square off against the Canucks, as well as the Blackhawks, who drew the Flames. In the East, the battle of Pennsylvania continues, and there's a clash of two original 6 teams with a long history of hate, in the form of a Boston-Montreal series. So the question this time is easy and in two parts: First, what do the Ducks need to do to ruin another postseason for the Sharks, and how do you see the other playoff matches going?

ARTHUR:
The Sharks haven't lost in the Conference Quarterfinals since 2001. In fact, they've qualified for the playoffs in five of the six seasons since then, and have skated into the second round every time. Now, you can blame their recent second round exits on Ron Wilson, an exceptionally young core of talent or just bad magumbo. But Sharks management fixed two of those three things by bringing in McLellan and making the best offseason moves by a team not named the Tampa Bay Lightning. On paper, they've done what it takes. However, from playing Detroit, Anaheim is very familiar with watching the right coach and the right players not getting it done.

There is no statistical key to the first round upset. It happens because the top seed can't survive the series, the lower seed rides a dominant goaltender or because the lower seed just happens to be better on four of those seven nights. And it would be foolish of me to bring in statistics when this Ducks team has spent so much of the season trying to find itself.

I think the Sharks were exposed in last year's matchup with the Flames for their inability to stay consistent in a seven game series. If they are the same team, and on paper they're not, Anaheim will have to press them 60 minutes a game for 7 games. Anaheim has the advantage of having played well with its new lineup, both against the Sharks and the rest of the league. If this Ducks team is still improving, and I believe it is, then it has the potential to surprise the Sharks when the teams are still feeling each other out.

West
Detroit - Columbus: When you factor in playoff experience, it's foolish to accuse Detroit of dropping a game here. But I think the Wings have struggled of late, and will learn to perform or perish in this series. Detroit in 6.

Vancouver - St. Louis: I don't think anyone in the NHL wants to face this Blues team. They've proved me wrong down the stretch, and while these aren't the Blues of old, they have unstoppable young talent in Oshie and Berglund. I think Blues in 7.

Chicago - Calgary: Despite making moves designed to improve their playoff performance, Calgary has been on the slide. I think a consistent Hawks team will jump on them early, and crush their already failing confidence. Chicago in 4.

East
Boston - Montreal: The Habs are reeling from the loss of Markov and a 100% Schneider. There's no reason for them not to continue their losing ways against a stacked Boston team, even when you factor in the Tanguay-Koivu-Kovalev line. Bruins in 4.

Washington - NY Rangers: By picking up Avery, the Rangers declared war on the entire playoff tree, not just the first round. And in their defense, he's looked good in the nationally televised games. I think Ovechkin will need to take this series over, and he will. I say Caps in 6.

New Jersey - Carolina: I really like the number of old school Devils on this team and their ability to win WITHOUT Brodeur. Having Marty back, I just don't see how Carolina can bang, despite an improved Cam Ward. NJ in 6.

Philadelphia - Pittsburgh: Even with a healthy Philadelphia, I just like this Pittsburgh squad too much. Philly's defense and Biron will need to stand tall against the Pens centers, and I think they might be able to for 3 games, just not 4. Pitt in 7.

DANIEL:
I agree that it's almost impossible to predict what it will take for the Ducks to upset the Sharks. There's no single statistic that will indicate how well the Ducks will play. Things that I like going into the series are that Hiller looked good in the last stretch and that Jiggy was solid in that last period. Jiggy has been clutch in the playoffs, and I think he won't be a liability. We've also been good on the power play and consistently finding the back of the net. The only thing that really worries me going in is the PK unit. We've given up at least one power play goal for something like 10-12 games in a row. If we give up one a game this series, it might be an early exit for us. I think if we split in San Jose our chances of winning get really high.

Western Conference

Detroit-Columbus: Detroit is just too stacked. Columbus has been hurting and Huselius may be back, but he was hurt just a week ago. Detroit has the experience and the weaponry to put Columbus away. The Jackets' only chance is for Mason to steal this one, and I just don't think the rookie has that kind of series in him.
Detroit in 5.

Vancouver-St. Louis: I love this matchup. Because you are 120% right in saying no one wants to play this Blues team. They've been on fire and I read a rumor a week ago that Kariya might come back in the middle of the series. Not to mention the Blues have their own Mason between the pipes who has been doing an outstanding job.
St. Louis in 6.

Chicago-Calgary: After the deadline the Flames looked like they might be in the same league as San Jose and Detroit; now they've tumbled all the way to fifth and are facing a really solid Chicago team. Kane and Toews are going to be an excited and tough pair to deal with and let's not forget Khabibulin looks like he can still dominate. I think Kiprusoff only steals one game
Chicago in 5.

Eastern Conference

Boston-Montreal: I'm glad there's an original 6 matchup happening, I just wish it looked like a tighter series. The Bruins are too good. They have plenty of scoring, a solid D and Thomas flirts with being great. I just can't see any scenario where Montreal even puts up a fight.
Boston in 4.

Washington-New York Rangers: This one is tough for me. This Washington group was a disappointment last playoffs and they've gotten better. Ovechkin can and will dominate, Avery will piss off everyone. My real concern is whether or not he can get into Theodore's head. Lundqvist is a Vezina finalist. If Theodore gets rattled, I don't know if Washington can overcome. Still, I don't like the Rangers and I think they're getting it done with smoke and mirrors.
Washington in 7.

New Jersey-Carolina: Props to Carolina for coming this far. They recognized a mistake and got Cole back and he's been great for them. My favorite thing about New Jersey has always been my inability to name more than 4 players on their team. I don't know how they do it, but this team is always so well put together and focused. It's truly a team in every meaning of the word. Brodeur is still great, Parise is amazing, and that D is still hard to get through.
Devils in 5.

Pittsburgh-Philadelphia: Picking up Kunitz has been great for Pittsburgh and he's going to do wonders for this team's confidence going down the stretch. Philadelphia's goaltending is suspect at best and Pittsburgh has been tearing up the league since Bylsma took over. Let's see if they've got the grit to keep the league in fear and put everyone on watch for the Crosby-Ovechkin Conference Final the press is praying for.
Pittsburgh in 6.

Read more...

Mailbag: Ghost of Rumors Past

ARTHUR:
As we're likely experiencing a bump in readership, I thought I'd revisit a question on the "9: A Problem Like Kariya" post. One of our readers asked me why I was so quick to believe the rumor that Kariya wanted to leave because he wasn't being protected, but so quick to dismiss the rumor that Kariya reneged on a verbal agreement.

First, let me say that I'm sure Don Baizley, Kariya's agent, put the 'protection' rumor out there. As a negotiation tactic, leaking that kind of information works very well, whether it's true or not. After the Suter crosscheck, it took on a life of its own. At the time, I agreed with it, and I still do, but I'm fully aware that it's the sort of rumor born on the bargaining table and not in the locker room.

Now, on to the 'verbal agreement.' I'm going to accuse the Kariya-haters of a little linguistic gymnastics here. I did not read EVERY piece covering Bryan Murray's comments on Kariya in 2003, but I believe I read the piece in question and I don't recall Murray attempting to depict the telephone conversations as a 'verbal agreement.' The verbal agreement that burned Murray came 6 months later when he traded Corey Perry for Mike Comrie, and Kevin Lowe tried a little Saskatchewan Shakedown. Murray had never claimed his talks with Kariya amounted to a verbal agreement, only that Kariya had no reason to be surprised that the qualifying offer was not tendered.

I declined to delve into the He-Said/He-Said between Kariya and Murray before because I don't consider any of that factual, but this is the gist of it: On June 30, 2003, Murray claimed Paul was "obviously disappointed" that the Ducks did not make a qualifying offer.  After signing with the Avs, Kariya told (I believe it was) The OC Register (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that he was surprised not to receive a qualifying offer, or something to that effect. Bryan Murray took offense to that characterization, and he recounted, to The Register, the details of the offseason telephone conversations between him and the star forward. Murray claimed he'd informed Kariya of his plans not to make the qualifying offer and his plans to pursue Teemu or another free agent, and that Paul was receptive to everything, saying he understood and that he didn't need another $10 million. Murray further explained that none of this could be disclosed to the press until Teemu entered free agency because of tampering issues. Murray's tone in the article was very gracious, and never implied that Kariya was bound to an agreement in any way, only that the parties had discussed things and seemed to arrive at a meeting of the minds. If someone can find this article, please send it to us, but from memory, that's all I think it said.

Now, let me start by saying that I love Bryan Murray. Even after he left the Ducks, he and I tend to agree on Draft day and when we look at the free agency market. But I don't automatically believe anyone just because they continued to cash checks that said "Disney" and the other guy didn't. Here are my three reasons for dismissing Murray's claims outright:

1) If Kariya had really burned him, Murray would have publicly shamed him the way he did Kevin Lowe. Six months after Kariya left, the Ducks finalized a trade for Mike Comrie off-paper, but Oilers GM Kevin Lowe attempted to insert an unprecedented clause that obligated Comrie to make a one-time cash payment to the Edmonton organization. Murray immediately went public with Lowe's actions. When Bryan was on the right side of a raw deal, he stood up for his position and tried to turn the other guy into an untouchable in the hockey community. I remember being struck by the fact that his comments on Kariya were so careful and gracious and only attempting to refute the alleged 'surprise.' To me, those were the words of a guy who wanted to keep his job and let his bosses know that he didn't make their franchise player a UFA without some kind of plan. If Murray had really justifiably relied on Kariya resigning with Anaheim, he'd have publicly shamed him without fear of backlash from the NHLPA.

2) Murray's story changed. Somewhere between "disappointed" and "surprised" the Ducks GM became uncomfortable. On June 30th, Kariya was allowed to be disappointed. After he signed with the Avs, he wasn't allowed to say he was surprised. I'm not really clear on the difference if Kariya, as Murray insists, knew ahead of time that the qualifying offer would not be made. One could blame the confusion on the verbal black-ops that Murray alleged were necessary to reunite Paul and Teemu, but I can't keep up with that. Any time I'm asked to keep track of when someone is supposed to be lying to me and when they're supposed to be telling me the 100% truth, I get confused. I'm weird that way.

3) Paul Kariya likes money. It may surprise you that that's my reason, but I never said that it was a misconception that he wanted to get paid, just that that wasn't why he held out in '97. Of course he wants to get paid. Add to that the fact that he took another major concussion in 2003, and may have been staring at a shortened career, and I can't imagine Paul Kariya the way Murray described him, just nodding along and talking about how he didn't need the money. That's not the Paul I knew. Maybe Stevens hit him harder than we thought. Or maybe the Ducks GM wanted us to believe that Paul grifted him, but I can't imagine that Murray is the kind of fool to be taken in by those cartoony sentiments when the clash between Kariya and Ferreira was so well-publicized. If the conversations were not completely fabricated, I have to assume they were exaggerated or that some deep miscommunication happened.

Read more...

Sharks and Stripes

ARTHUR:
I know I promised you guys would be stuck with me, the verbose one, for this month, but after a glowing recommendation from Earl Sleek at the Battle of California (Thanks Sleek!), we've convinced Daniel to shirk his responsibilities and come back for a couple of posts this week.

Daniel, good to see you amongst the living again. Here's your question:

It was raining garbage when time expired at the Ponda Center on Sunday, with the rabid faithful of Anaheim hoping to hit an official. No one, including Sharks forward Jeremy Roenick, could deny that the officiating decided the game in the closing minutes. The Ducks DID lose their legs and DID take sloppy back-to-back penalties when the game was close, but they were also denied obvious calls to even things up on the other side of the ice. And as time expired, as Getzlaf put it, "[there were] guys kicking legs out, [and] guys getting jumped from behind."

The penalties for the home and home series with the Sharks tallied at 10-3 in favor of the Sharks, before you count the Misconducts and Roughings handed out at 20:00 of the 3rd on Sunday.

Daniel, the Ducks have done very little to discourage their reputation as a dirty team. One could even argue they CHOSE to be dirty this season when playing a cleaner brand of hockey didn't result in wins. As such, should the Ducks just accept losses like Sunday night's as the operating costs for a gritty hockey team? And does the NHL have a responsibility to take a second look at the way they treat the Ducks when even the teams that rarely see Anaheim (Philadelphia for example) are routinely, and sometimes rightly, complaining about the Ducks' play?

DANIEL:
I can admit that our tough style of play is going to result in more penalties than other teams. Which is why we are last, or next to last in every penalty statistic the league keeps. My problem isn't the penalties, it is the blatant double standard that has been levied against the Ducks. Right before the high sticking call that got converted for the Sharks game winning goal, there was another high stick that didn't get called in the Sharks zone, and another one not too long after the goal was scored. Not to mention the three or so that occurred during the last two minutes when we were trying to tie the game, including Roenick hooking Getzlaf some 4 feet away from the crease with the puck on his stick, Vlasic cross checking Selanne when he was placing a high screen and the puck was at the point and Getzlaf being tackled in the crease about 2 seconds before the horn. I'd like to provide more empirical evidence, but I'm afraid I just stopped counting. It's one thing to take a lot of penalties, it's entirely different to have one thing called on you and then have it be a no-call on the other end of the ice. Someone needs to start paying attention to this.

Philadelphia is the only team penalized as much as us, so they shouldn't be hating on anyone. I also don't know what everyone's problem is. Yes, we play tough. We work in the corners and some of our guys, Perry, can really get under your skin. But we don't play dirty. We don't take cheap shots, and I challenge anyone in the league to think of a time when we weren't willing to drop the gloves and stick up for ourselves. We are not dirtier than any other team. If we take penalties that's entirely different. So I just want to take this moment to say that there is a different between taking a lot of penalties and being a "dirty" team. That is why the moniker is undeserved. Forgive me for being a rhetorical scholar for a minute, but the more we say things, the more real they become. Because everyone keeps saying we are dirty, the refs are looking for, and ultimately finding more penalties. Frequently, they find non-penalties. Moreover, If the refs think we are dirty, they might be calling soft penalties because they think they have probably missed a million cheap shots. This is the worst part of being on the West Coast. No one really watches our games, but they'll make generalizations from a box score. So what if we play tough, This is Hockey, not baseball. If you want to avoid being hit, go play a different sport. I know there isn't an argument that will move people in the other parts of the Hockey world, but it just bothers me that we get called dirty. I know Pronger loses his mind sometimes, but no one thought the Islanders were a bad team when Richard Zednik went stupid. No one blamed the Canucks for Bertuzzi losing his cool. And when Marty McSorley decided to slash Brashear upside the head, did they blame the team? No! So give it up. Call the games fair, and let's get back to honest tough Hockey, instead of the biased sideshows that Anaheim fans have been subjected to.

ARTHUR:
First, I'm going to remind you that you and I were at the Flyers game when Corey Perry elbowed Claude Giroux in the head. I believe your sentiments at the time were something to the effect of: 'Jesus! He deserves the penalty. He just came across and elbowed the guy, didn't even try to hide it.' Now, there are Ducks fans who'll argue that Perry's 6'3", Giroux's 5'11" and you have to put a body on a guy if he's going to bring the puck into the zone then skate into the middle of the ice. They might even argue, rightly, that Perry was getting it from the Flyers enforcers in that game, and Perry's the kind of guy that'll go after your small forwards when you go after him. But you have to remember that these are the videos that teams are sending to the NHL. And we don't look good in these videos of Pronger stomping on a guy's leg or Perry taking two strides into an elbow aimed at a guy's head.

Are they cheapshots? I think here, you and I date ourselves. We still think of the OLD NHL where cheapshots were spears, crosschecks to the head, intentional high sticks, two-handed slashes to the hands, Derian Hatcher's Macho Man Randy Savage flying elbow on Jeremy Roenick's jaw-- the sort of things that result in the stick dueling scene in Youngblood. I'd have to say the new NHL is stricter than that. It's not just that the days of Ted Green vs Wayne Maki are over; I think the league is genuinely afraid of anything that will remind people that hockey is, historically, a very violent game. But even there, the double standard rears its ugly head. Rob Blake wasn't suspended for spearing Corey Perry in the giblets, though the officials left the door open for the league to make that call.


[Perry and the attack on his aforementioned giblets]

I believe the officials go out there with special instructions for the Ducks, just as they received special instructions for new Hooking and Holding standards at the beginning of this season. And in many ways, that's okay. The league DOES have a responsibility to the other 29 teams. But the instructions should end at, "Get Corey Perry to stop elbowing people in the face," or "Get Corey Perry to stop making contact with goaltenders in the crease." Anything more than that, and they lose credibility in Anaheim.

It's infuriating how many objective calls the officials miss in our games. Not just the highsticks. I've counted 10 instances of bench minor Too Many Men On The Ice that went uncalled this season; it should be part of our scouting report by now-- "Don't forget to put out six skaters in Anaheim. The officials will let you do it." I really blame a lot of this on the two referee system. I haven't seen two referees agree at Honda Center since December (and that's when they both agreed we should be called for EVERYTHING). Since then, a lot of calls in our favor have to be made by the referee on the opposite side of the ice to prevent some epic whistle swallowing by the guy who's ten feet from the infraction. The NHL needs to stop worrying about the integrity of its controlled violence and start worrying about the integrity of its officiating.

Read more...

Penalty Kill: MacGregor Sharp

10/31/09 Update available here.

ARTHUR:
Anaheim calling to the hockey world...

Some of you may have guessed from my previous posts that I keep my Slingbox in the Midwest to stream FSN North goodness into my home during the college hockey season. As such, I never miss a televised WCHA game.

When I heard that the Ducks signed Minnesota-Duluth center Macgregor Sharp, my response was a growling, "YEEEEEEESSSS!" instead of the recent Ducks fan standard, courtesy of Brian Hayward: "...*shrug* must be another McNab signing..." So, what is it about watching Sharp play over the past few years that has me so excited? Let's take a look at the story of MacGregor Sharp.

In many ways, the story of MacGregor Sharp is the story of Mason Raymond. The Alberta natives played together for four years, two years on the same junior hockey team and two years at Minnesota-Duluth. At both programs, the same pattern played out: Sharp and Raymond would post similar numbers in their first year together, only to have Raymond pull away as the superstar in the second year. Though identical in size and age, their styles were different: Mason, the speedster with great hands and MacGregor, the relentless grinding puckhound.

In 2005, Raymond won the AJHL MVP, which got him drafted by Vancouver in the second round. Sharp went unselected. In 2007, Raymond would win the UMD team MVP, which got him called up to the AHL. Sharp remained in the WCHA for his Junior and Senior years.

On March 19, in Vancouver, Mason Raymond scored his 19th major league goal, the 10th in his second season with the Canucks. He was living his NHL dream. Two-thousand miles away, in St. Paul, MacGregor Sharp was finally realizing his.

The WCHA plays a Final Five format where two teams play a wild card game, called the "Play-In," in order to qualify for the semi-finals. This year's Play-In pitted the Minnesota Golden Gophers against the Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs. Sharp was red-hot going into the tournament, having points in 10 of his last 11 games. But, if the purpose of finishing your college career is to develop your game, play on the national stage and show the scouts you can win, then Sharp appeared out of luck. The Bulldogs were on the bubble in the Pairwise Rankings, making a selection to the NCAA tournament doubtful. And while four Play-In winners had reached the WCHA title game since the advent of the Final Five format, none had ever won the tournament. But then...

Sharp followed up a shot on Gophers goaltender Alex Kangas, potting the rebound and knocking the flu-ridden Kangas out of the game. MacGregor opened scoring again the next night when he chased down a misplay by Sioux goalie Brad Eidsness, depositing the shorthanded puck in the net before the tender could return to his crease. Then, in the championship game, Sharp made a sweet pass on a 2-on-2 break on the power play, only to slide the return feed under Pioneers backstop Marc Cheverie. It was the first of Sharp's three goals that night, and the Bulldogs became the first Play-In winner to ever take the WCHA championship.

I'm sure, or I hope, many of you saw the first rounds of the NCAA tournament. A pass by Sharp set up the Miracle at Mariucci. And the center would score the only goal (and a couple of near goals) in the Bulldogs bid for the Frozen Four. I'm here to tell you that those are good indicators of his talent level.

His performance in both the WCHA and NCAA tournaments shows he's developed poise. He has great two-way hockey sense: a grinding backcheck, but equally skilled at sniffing out rebounds and anticipating bad plays. He can create relentless first man pressure, but he's also played a lot of time as the second forechecker. He plays a solid penalty kill, but his impressive passing and his ability to dangle on the halfboards made him an indispensible center on the best power play in the WCHA. If I had to pinpoint the part of his game that caught McNab's attention, I'd say it was his play in the NHL sized rink. The Final Five was played at Xcel Energy in St. Paul, and the smaller but longer zones seemed to benefit Sharp on both sides of the puck.

He's played four games in Iowa (currently at -4), where they are likely working on his faceoff game. He's much better at tying up his man than winning a clean draw, but his game in the circle should drastically improve with the minor adjustments of the Chops coaching staff. Expect to see him in the preseason.

Read more...

Penalty Shot: Legion of Ducks?

ARTHUR:
Anaheim calling to the hockey world...



Welcome to the Penalty Shot, a new segment I'm creating for the month of April. It'll basically just be me taking a look at some piece of Ducks news. Hopefully it will ALL be objective reporting, but I'll warn you if I plan to get opinionated. Here we go.

Before the Oilers game that opened the Ducks recent road trip, Coach Craig MacTavish compared the Ducks top line of Perry, Getzlaf and Ryan to the Legion of Doom. As MacTavish played with the famed Flyers line for both the shortened 94-95 season and the 95-96 season, the press core took note of his comments. But what, other than scoring and physical size, do the lines really have in common? Let's look at the story of the Legion of Doom.

It was 1994, the last year of the NHL's then still functioning CBA, and despite a productive season from Flyers rookie Mikael Renberg (38G 44A), superstar Eric Lindros (44G 53A) and the always reliable Mark Recchi (40G 67A), Philadelphia missed the playoffs for the fifth consecutive year.

Opening day for the 94-95 season came and went, and Bettman and Goodenow descended into three months of deadlock. When they returned, the Players Association gave ground on the free agency issue, the NHL inked a TV deal with FOX and the WHA ex-patriots (excluding Edmonton) began to maneuver their way out of their respective cities. With the theme of change dominating the "new" NHL, Flyers GM Bobby Clarke made a blockbuster trade about a dozen games into the shortened season, sending Mark Recchi to Montreal in a six player deal that brought John LeClair to the Flyers. LeClair played well for the Habs. He was consistent and poised in the playoffs, but he only flashed the scoring brilliance that would define his time with Philadelphia.

In 37 games, the trio of Renberg, Lindros and LeClair chalked up 176 points, and the Flyers laid claim to the Atlantic Division. Their skill was rooted in their ability to own the puck in the offensive zone. They cycled and pressured until they ground down the opposing team, and they were the only line to seriously challenge the budding neutral zone trap that won New Jersey a Stanley Cup that season. Philadelphia announcer Gene Hart jumped on the nickname "Legion of Doom," and with national broadcasts courtesy of FOX, the name stuck, pasted to every highlight, replay and roundtable discussion. Unfortunately, the Legion of Doom never played an entire 82 game season together.

Mikael Renberg missed 30 games of the 1995-96 season, though the members of the line still managed to record 121 goals and 134 assists. Their time together was again shortened in 96-97 by a 30 game injury to the Flyers' captain, but that year, the line would put together one of the most impressive playoff runs in recent memory, shutting down Lemieux's Penguins and the Gretzky/Messier Rangers en route to the Stanley Cup Finals. However, despite looking unstoppable going into the series, Detroit swept the Flyers, and managed to hold Lindros to a single meaningless goal. The Red Wings, who were defeated by the Devils' Neutral Zone Trap two years prior, dismantled Philadelphia by utilizing the Left Wing Lock. Against the Lock, the Legion of Doom appeared to lack creativity and skating ability. They were exposed for their tendency to abandon defensive assignments. They watched from the boards as every game was won in the middle of the ice. Many viewed that Finals as a seachange in hockey.

Conventional hockey wisdom dictates that any single line should be composed of one speedster, one hitter and one finesse player. For fans of Nintendo's Ice Hockey, that's the skinny guy, the fat guy and the medium sized guy, respectively. The Flyers had been exposed for taking the ice with three fat guys in a game where the Western half of the league was increasingly dominated by puck movement and playmaking. Many Eastern Conference teams would de-emphasize physical domination in the following years. The Doom was dismantled when the Flyers swapped free agent Renberg for then "future of hockey" free agent Chris Gratton, only to trade the players back when Gratton was busted by pressure and Renberg by injury. Lindros continued to play the power forward until he was concussed out of the NHL with failed campaigns in Toronto and Dallas. LeClair had another 50G season followed by two 40G seasons, and kept plugging away until he hung them up in Pittsburgh.

When I first saw Penner, Perry and Getzlaf play together, I remarked on the spitting image of 90's Eastern Conference hockey-- the ability to own the boards, skate full speed into the net and stand tall in the crease, facing the goaltender. I would describe THAT line as the Legion of Doom. Bobby Ryan, tough though he may be, reminds the fans of how good all three players can be when away from the boards. There are fewer garbage goals with this line than there were with Penner. There are fewer power moves out of the corners. Ryan is more timid on the cycle, more likely to send the puck back to the point. And every time they take the ice, they remind you that each of them has a speed, finesse and hitting element to his game.

I will give MacTavish this, though. Just the image of three 6ft+ 215lbs+ guys swatting defenders off of them with some of the sweetest hands on God's green earth should be enough to draw the comparison. It's a rare treat in hockey.

Read more...

Beauch Back in Black?

DANIEL:
A recent report in the OC Register has Beauchemin coming back, IF the Ducks make the playoffs. So here's what we're looking at: is Beauchy's return a good thing or a bad thing given the amount of rookie defensemen we have and the problems we've had in our own zone? What will this do to Carlyle's D-pairings?

ARTHUR:
You know, they say Beauchemin's been skating for some time now, and I'm sure he's working on his conditioning. So, I'm thinking this is an 80-85% Francois coming back. ACL is unpredictable, but he's a UFA and I'm sure he'd come back and work hard to pad his stats or preen for the scouts going into the offseason.

If an 85% Beauch comes back, I see the pairings as Prongs/Whitney, Nieds/Beauch, and Brookbank/Wisniewski. That leaves every rookie in Des Moines, but Mikk is having trouble moving the puck and Fest can't seem to hit the net.

I'm splitting up Wisniewski and Niedermayer because I think that pairing just doesn't work. I've been critical of Wisniewski since he joined the team. Right here on this blog, in fact. I will admit that he's scoring, he's getting more shots on net than any of our other defensemen and his play has created a legitimate second unit on the man advantage, removing the need for the first unit to be out there for the entire two minutes. 

However, his defensive hockey sense is appalling.  In both the Oilers game on the 27th and the Avs game on the 29th, Wisniewski got caught playing a hunch into the corner.  In the Oilers game, Rob Niedermayer hesitated to cover the net when Jimmy abandoned it, and Penner was able to receive a centering pass in front.  In the Avs game, Wisniewski once again decided he could come out of the corner with the puck, and left the net open while Colorado was on a Power Play.  I'm not suggesting that no good defenseman has ever played a hunch into the corner. Pronger did that to Pahlsson all season, and Sammy almost racked up a -20 behind it.  But Pronger's a veteran whose decision making can be trusted, forcing other players to compensate.  Wisniewski hasn't earned that yet. 

And with this "great chemistry" between Wisniewski and Niedermayer, Jimmy can't get it through his head that he HAS to play defensive defense once in a while. He can't follow his instincts or double up pressure without reading the play first. On another play in the Oilers game last week, all three forwards were in the corners, Scotty was below the circles and Wisniewski was on the blue line. The puck came around slowly to the half boards on his side. He actually stuttered two strides toward the puck before stopping himself. He SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED putting all five Ducks below the circles. That's inexcusable.

I think Beauchemin can easily replace Wisniewski's production on the second pairing. Beauch was rediscovering his scoring touch this season, and his decision making has always been great when paired with Scotty. And maybe pairing Wisniewski with our only true defensive defenseman will help Jimmy shine offensively. He would certainly add a checking threat to that third pairing, something its sorely missed since we traded McIver.

At the end of the day, Carlyle will mix and match until he gets what he likes. BUT I can't imagine that a former Norris Trophy winner would be pleased with Wisniewski's defensive performance of late, not enough to put Beauchemin out of the top 4.

DANIEL:
I'm not sure where I stand on this. I'd love to have Francois back. There's no doubt that him being gone has been a problem, and I'm terrified that someone is going to throw 5.5-6 million at him instead of the 4-4.5 that we can honestly afford. Beauchy and Whitney on that second power play would make Wisniewski almost obsolete. I won't detail the many defensive lapses he has, because it would just be like rereading your post, but I will say that I'm equally afraid of us trying to make a playoff push with a third pairing that is a rookie, and a guy who looks like he'd rather be playing on the wing. I think Wisniewski gets away with a lot more because Scotty can back him up. If he was with Pronger, he'd probably already be dead. But, Scotty has the patience to put up with his mistakes and, a lot of times, cover them up.

Maybe if Scotty retires, and we trade Pronger, then maybe it's worth it keeping the kid around, but right now I think he just makes us too weak in tight games. I don't know how this guy has been a plus player while he's played for us. He has an awful habit of all his mistakes ending up in the back of the net. Overall, I say Beauchemin coming back is a bad thing. Our scoring is shaping up very nicely with the emergence of Miller on the second line. I think Hiller is just as capable as Guiguere and special teams has looked so much better over the past two weeks. But, if Beauchy comes back, maybe he impresses too many scouts, and maybe Wisniewski becomes too much of a liability playing with a rookie who can't recover from the mistakes that he makes. I know a stay at home partner would be best for him, but a rookie stay at home defenseman probably won't be enough. Maybe next year when we've had a chance to pursue a stay at home guy via free agency we can find a place for him. But, I'm starting to think that Sammy for this guy was a bad deal.

Read more...