The Hockey PDOcast - Friday Mailbag

Episode Date: February 3, 2023

The Score's John Matisz joins Dimitri to help answer listener questions. They discuss the proper length for player contracts, the 2023 version of Team North America and how it would match up with the one from the 2016 World Cup, and the trade market. This podcast is produced by Dominic Sramaty.  The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate. If you'd like to gain access to the two extra shows we're doing each week this season, you can subscribe to our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/thehockeypdocast/membership If you'd like to participate in the conversation and join the community we're building over on Discord, you can do so by signing up for the Hockey PDOcast's server here: https://discord.gg/a2QGRpJc84 The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate.

mean since 2015. It's the Hockey PEDEOCast with your host, Dmitri Filipo. Welcome to the Hockey PEDEOCast. My name is Dimitra Villapovich and joining me for a Friday mailbag to hopefully end a busy week with some fun. It's my good buddy John Mattis. John, what's going on in? Not a whole lot, Dimitri. Down in Florida for the All-Star weekend and you're like this, hung out with some frequent guests of the PDO cast last night. Matt Porter, Sean Shapiro, Shapiro Shapiro. Yeah. And Lance from the Buffalo News.

Oh, wow. Yeah, the whole crew. A real who's who, a PDO cast. A real who's who. That's awesome. Well, hopefully you guys got to bond over your fun experiences coming on the show. I like how you slow play that when I asked you where you're up to. I got not much. I'm just hanging out from sunny Florida,

rubbing it in my face while I'm sitting here and pretty pretty brisk Vancouver for Vancouver standards in particular it's pretty cool we had some snow this week actually so I'm jealous I'm jealous that you got a you got a you got a good setup there but it's good because we've got you on when you were going to have your own we've been planning this and you're kind of doing some some boots on the ground reporting for the PDO cast here you're mixing it up you're talking to people what are what's the scuttle button around there what are people talking about in Florida as they assemble for the all-star break the PDRIC the PEDA correspondent.

PVOCast. I mean, yesterday was the main media day, and it's just such a zoo or a circus, if you will, in terms of they have like 20 guys lined up over, and you've got a half hour to talk to them. So it's sort of you're going from X to Y to Z, and it was pretty good. I found that, you know,

it's like this with All-Star, it's like this with the player media two at the beginning of the year. the guy's hair is down. They're a little kind of out of their bubble of pucks in deep and whatnot. So it's nice to pop around and ask some of the weirder questions that I have. In my role of the score, I write long form features. So this is kind of right up my alley in terms of the guys actually, you know, talking about big picture stuff.

And obviously, you know, there was some focus on Dylan Larkin and his contract. And then also obviously Bo Horvah arriving as a New York Islander for the first time he's, I guess, officially represented them. And so that was that was a big part of it. And, you know, obviously that leads to Patterson being asked about the captaincy and whatnot. So I don't know. We're not talking about the Canucks today, but it kind of always circles back to them in some way, shape, or form, doesn't it? Yeah, it certainly feels that way the past couple weeks. Yeah, I remember.

So last year, like the big story was, was clogged. Drew being on the way out, right? Yes. And so I'm really curious, is there any sort of similar vibes in that regard with anyone there? It's interesting that you bring up Larkin, not that I think that he will follow suit, but it is a bit strange, kind of how a lot of this is playing out publicly now saying that with a caveat that knowing Stevie Y, it could be completely different behind the scenes.

And as far as I know, by the time we publish this podcast, an extension could be put out, or he could be traded. I feel like both are equally in play. But what are kind of people saying about that? Because it's a bit strange for such a good young player. I guess he's like in the meat of his prime right now. He's not, we shouldn't necessarily keep calling him young.

Like he's at the stage of his career where like this is who he is and this is like a good spot for him. But he's a captain of the team. He clearly wants to stay there. But the, the red wings seem to be in this, in this strange spot where they're like acknowledging that if he is going to be the upper threshold from a salary perspective,

that might limit their ceiling because he might not necessarily be that echelon of player. So seeing all of it play out in kind of slow motion this way is a bit strange. Yeah, I would peg it as far more likely that he resigns than leaves. I just I feel like this is all circling back to Steve Eiserman and how he operates. I think that he's trying to use all the leverage you can right now. and the fact that Larkin has not only said it publicly, but I imagine privately that he wants to be a red wing for life. I mean, that puts a lot into the conversation

as far as I as being going, okay, well, if you want to be a red wing for life, I mean, here's our offer, take it or leave it kind of thing. And I assume though those sort of the red wings will have to give a little bit here to please Larkin because he is, he's a captain, he's a very important part of their president in the future. I think that

if they're low-balling him right now, it's probably just posturing. I don't think they want to lose him. But it's one of those situations where it just seems like, like this happens like once or twice a year, right? The big name goes head to head with the

GM, so to speak, with negotiations and then afterwards everything's totally fine. It seems like Eisenman is the type to really dig his heels in. and not budge for a long time and then, you know, maybe it gets crossed the finish line. I don't know. I guess that's a long way of saying.

I really don't think he's going to be traded. Yeah. Yeah, me too. That's not the vibe I get, but you never know. Okay. Well, that kind of ties into, we're going to do a mailbag today, take listener questions. We've got some good stuff on Twitter from the PDO guest listeners. And the first question we have from Sam sort of ties into this from a contract respective, right?

And Sam asks, what are your thoughts on limiting? contracts to four-year limits like the NBA. So I had Ryan Lambert on yesterday and we kind of talked about this a bit at the end. I wanted to talk about it more just because it felt like it was a very nuanced, deep conversation with a lot of layers to it and we just jammed it in at the end because we were running out of time. But I'm very curious for your take on this as well in terms of the current contract landscape and sort of the reckoning that I think is coming in 2026 or whatever when the next CBA is up. What are your things? thoughts on the current situation, the current setup we have, and whether we will see fundamental

changes. And even if the answer is depressing and you think it won't, let me at least hear what you think, like would ideally happen in a perfect world. Sure. Well, I guess just to lay it out there for people that don't know, I'm sure most people do. But right now, the NHL landscape is, you can sign for eight years with your current team or seven years with any of the other teams, if you hit free agency. So that would be almost cutting it in half by going down to four years. The thing is, part of me loves the current setup in a sense where it encourages players to stay with one team for an entire career, which I like from sort of a legacy perspective.

You know, you look at that guy like Patrice Bergeron, Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin. I think we look at these players differently if they were bouncing around the league. And also it helps create dynasties in a way, right? If you have that longer term, it's more likely that, you know, you do one long contract and then a second long contract with your core. And you're able to, like Tampa Bay has done, keep the band together. So like it's kind of an odd way to attack it. And from my perspective, where I don't see a huge issue with the current landscape. it offers a ton of security to these players,

especially if we're talking about non-stars. I mean, I don't know, someone like Matthias Samuelson gets this big deal from Buffalo. I believe it was five years, six years. I can't remember the exact length, but it was over four. It might have been even more than that. Yeah, anyways. So it was a big long-term deal,

and he's able to get that security as this defensive defenseman. And I think it works for the team as well, because they see a ton of value there. So I do like it from that perspective, too. My major quibble with the current system of contracts and length and all that kind of stuff is the RFA system where you draft a guy and he can't be free until it's 26, 27. It's super prohibitive and, you know, it's way more team friendly than is player friendly. That's kind of the part that I would love to change.

the limit, the four-year proposition here. I don't hate it, but I think I'm fine with the current way it's drawn up. Because even though it's awesome to think, oh, there'd be so much player movement with this four-year limit, there's been some drawbacks to player empowerment in the NBA sphere. I mean, it's in a way become, not toxic, that's the wrong way to put it, but you've got players teaming up behind closed doors to create super teams, which sounds great, sounds fun, but I feel like it's almost taken away from the GM's job in terms of that dynamic

and just given the players almost too much power. And that's not to say that I'm, you know, I'm pro-billionaire over a millionaire. I'm quite the opposite, but I think we've seen it go to such an extreme degree in the NBA that maybe it could go back in the other direction now. So that's something that also comes to mind is sort of, is this a slippery slope in terms of empowering players?

Yeah. Well, just for some housekeeping, Kia Samuels would sign a seven-year, $30 million deal, which kicks in next year. Right. I think the players deserve more power and say over their careers, and I'd like to see some sort of structure in place that allows them to do. So you hit the nail in the head with,

the current RFA setup is the biggest issue. And it's just, it's, it's beyond ridiculous how little leverage most young players have in the league, even though these are, their most productive seasons, right? Like it, like seeing,

you know, for example, take this past summer, right? So Martin H. is unhappy. He would like a fresh start. He's kind of budding heads with Roderndamor.

Ultimately, winds up taking a two year, what, three million dollar per deal to, as a bridge, basically kind of like a prove a deal. And in the meantime, we'll figure it out, playing amazingly this season, right, producing, doing everything, totally turned it around. After these two years are done, he'll still be an RFA. And still will probably not, now he'll, I think he'll only have like the one RFA year after that. So he'll have a bit of leverage. We're seeing that now, right? Like, I think last time you and I were talked, we're seeing that sort of pre-agency now trickle into the NHO, where, I think you'll RFAs who are a year out or have that big qualifying offer coming up do have leverage because

they can kind of hold that over the team and no team wants to be in that position so they wind up getting what they want. But I just think like after the ELC I would definitely move the RFA format to like five years or something or like at least 24, 25 years old. So that we're seeing players come into the UFA pool actually in their primes and be able to sign. deals if you are going to insist on keeping terms at seven or eight years, it makes a lot more sense that they're eligible for that big UFA deal when they're like 25 years old. So at least it takes them into their early 30s as opposed to some of the ridiculous shenanigans we see where you have a 29 year old signing an eight year deal and it's like

it's it's just doomed to fail. Right. Like is there anything more sort of just like helpless feeling right now than looking at the fact that J.T. Miller has a seven-year extension kicking in next season when he turns 30 with a pay raise based off what he was making previously or Jonathan Hubert-oh, who has an extra year on top of that kicking in for like getting paid 10 plus million for his age 30 to 37 seasons. It just, that seems like such a backwards way to run the league as a whole and especially in terms of dynamics of like who's getting paid what and who actually deserves it. So that's something that needs to change.

well i totally agree and i think maybe a way for it to be framed in negotiations for this hypothetical cb a that we're talking about here this uh this issue is hey we've learned a lot about aging curves it turns out that when you're 30 you're probably not a good player whereas 20 years ago it was like 30 still in his prime you still um you know this huge contributor and there's there's there's always exceptions to the rule i mean you look at what sidney crosbie's doing at 35 and uh it's plane to see that he hasn't slowed down. If he has, it's been minuscule. So maybe that's, that's a part of it too, where it's like the hockey world acknowledging that like these young players are not only getting paid in, like you said, sort of a pre-agency situation,

but they're deserving of it. And the way the sport has trended towards younger players, it almost makes sense to to bring that that age down for when you're eligible for UFA yeah and we and we've seen I think like it's almost impossible to mess up signing a good young player off their ELC to a seven year deal right like it's like it'll probably wind up aging quite well now I think like an example where it goes wrong is is there was a time where the coyote's under Chaco where we're kind of going in the extreme of just giving like every young player that deal basically. And it's like, all right, well, maybe that commitment actually wasn't necessary based on their talent level or the situation we're in.

But for the most part, it's when you have a player under contract that prevents them from getting more as the cap goes up, especially it's a no-brainer. So yeah, it's an interesting dynamic between sort of what the agent and the player should be looking for versus what the team knows is lying ahead. you have any other thoughts on this or do you want to move on to next question? No, I think I'm ready to move on. All right. Okay, we've got a funny one here. So the question goes, I guess it's more of a statement. Josh Anderson is tall, but he's also big.

How do you see him fitting in with the New Jersey Devils who clearly need to add a big tallness? Now, this is obviously tongue and cheek. But I bring this up because there was an interesting tweet I saw yesterday that was based off of a Darren Drager report, and I said it to you. And it was him saying that Josh Anderson is not in play on the trade market unless a team makes an offer that Ken Hughes simply can't refuse because they prefer to keep him since he's got a good long-term contract,

which was a hilarious tweet to see. It feels like Ken Hughes wrote that tweet himself. If I ever get, that's exactly what I would want out there. So just speaking of like posturing stuff, it's very clear that that's what's going on here. But it is fascinating. I'm very curious to see whether someone actually trades for Josh Anderson. It feels like it would probably happen more so with the draft than in season, just because he makes what, $5.5.5 million.

And with the term on, I doubt the Canadians would be retaining any salary for those next four years. So it feels like that would be more of an offseason move if it happens. But man, I haven't seen very many situations where there's like a bigger gap between. between what I think a player is actually worth and the way he's talked about by some people. Well, that's actually exactly what I was going to bring up. I find Josh Anderson is sort of like the old school broadcaster's favorite player.

Like the physical traits are very noticeable. He's like he's a very visceral player, right? Like you see him streaming down the wing, taking a shot, getting in a fight the next shift, throwing the body. And broadcasters just salivated over it. because it is visually pleasing. But I tend to always, I'd say, I don't know, eight out of ten times I watch him,

I tend to want more in terms of his full package. I mean, he's capped out at 47 points, and that was five years ago. But you would think, based on not only the contract, but the buzz around him sometimes, that he's putting up, you know, 60 to 70 points a year. That said, I feel. like he's kind of a guy that would go for more than he should, either at the deadline or at the draft, more so at the deadline, I guess because of the sort of the grid factor, this guy is a

playoff player factor. So that's what came to mind when I saw this question is I understand the appeal of Josh Anderson, but I feel like it doesn't necessarily add up as far as the impact he's having on the game and the value on wins and losses. And I mean, he's had a bunch of injuries. And he has this 18-no-trade clause. Like, it's a very complicated situation when you factor in the $5.5 million through 2026-27. And his base salary next year is $8 million.

And then the year after that, it's $7 million. So, like, there's just layer upon layer of complications here. And that's not even talking about the player. and if savvy organizations, which are usually the teams adding at the deadline because savvy organizations win, I wonder if they're even interested. Yeah, not to mention the fact that he turns, what, 29 in May, and you alluded to the injuries, he's already accumulated the combination of that. And the way he needs to play to be effective seems like a horrible recipe for what the 30s are going to look like for him. I mean, he's clearly got certain things to add to you. I will say, for your team, I will say one of the worst passers I've ever watched

the NFL level from like a non, a non like pure fighter, right? Like he's in the past four seasons. He's coming up on 200 games played in that time. He's got 17 primary assists. And even that feels like high. I was like, oh man, I was expecting like somewhere around 10. Like it's really not, not. And it just does not have that in his bag.

at all. And it's interesting that I think the, you know, I think this is actually coming from a devil's fan and it's kind of tongue and cheek because the devils have been linked as like being interested or whatever based on the way everything I know about that front office. I do not think that would be the case. But it's like they already have Miles Wood who is like a discount version I guess of Josh Anderson, but very similar in terms of like that physicality, straight lines speed, but ultimately not enough skill. I think to keep up with this current way that the devils are trying to play, right? Like, especially from a processing speed perspective of like, all right,

what are Jasper Bratt and Jack Hughes going to do out there? Just cannot think the game at the speed that his speed can move. And so that's just not that appealing, not to mention the fact that you look around, like I keep talking about this, the winger market has just completely dried up. Like, teams are just not allocating resources to winger. So 5.5 million, it just seems for a non-star winger. is a very tough sell. So I really don't see what the market is, but it's the NHL.

So I'm sure there's, I'm sure there's GM salivating over the idea of adding a player with this sort of physique and skill set to their, to their roster. Well, he talked about John Chaka giving these depth players, or well, yeah, they were depth players like, you know, Devorak and some of the other players in Arizona that he threw a lot of money in term out.

This is a bit of an example of that for Mark Bergevin. A little present for Ken Hughes here where it's like, you know, do you really need to be giving a guy of his caliber, Josh Anderson, the term? The money like is, it's an overpayment right now, but I don't know if at the time, like, it was outrageous. Given I know the term was, though for sure. Yeah. So, I don't know. It's, it's another example of, you know, like, not to make this about

Matthias Samuelson again, but when I think of him and committing to him from a Sabre's perspective, the impetus there is like, we know this guy is so important to what we do. He plays in our top four.

He plays with a star player. He's part of our core, whatever, six or seven guys. I don't know if that the same can be said about a Josh Anderson, right? Like even at the time of the contract, was he really, like,

projected to be a top seven, eight, six player on the Montreal Canadiens long term. It doesn't seem to add up. So I just, if you're a GM, like you've got to really be picky. You've got to really be selective with long term contracts.

Especially for the age, right? Like, Samuelson's 22 years old. Like that contract will just cover his 20s, which is fine. Not to bring it, not to bring it around to a, Nuxigeta, as you said, but an example I keep using is, like, it's remarkable how much, like, if this reflects the change in the cap dynamics and the marketplace, like, they're, like,

legitimately considering buying out car and garland this off season, because they cannot move his contract without either attaching sweeteners to get someone to take on the money, which makes no sense for them based on the fact that they're rebuilding team, or taking on even worse money for a worse player, which is like, all right, why would you do that? And so Connor Garland is two years younger, has only three years left on his deal. So one year are less than Josh Anderson and makes 4.925 million, which is less. And is in my opinion a better player, not nearly as big, of course, but much more useful and versatile in terms of how I would deploy him in a scoring situation. And so, like, they cannot get rid of his contract.

And so the idea that you'd be paying premium assets for a worse, more expensive, older player is just amusing. but good on Ken Hughes for getting the message out there. And I'm sure that he'll eventually find someone to take the bait. So, okay, let's take our break here. And then when we come back, we've got a bunch of other questions that we're going to get to. We've got John Madison. We're doing the listener mailbag on the Friday edition of the PDO cast. You are listening to us on the Sportsnet Radio Network.

Breaking down the top stories in the NHL every day. The Jeff Merrick Show. Subscribe and download the show on Apple, Spot, or wherever you get your podcasts. We're back here on the Hockey Pediocas John Matt has taken your listener questions. So this is a really fun one, John. I think we can get some good mileage out of it.

So Jack Powers asks, how would your hypothetical 2023 Team North America roster fare against the 2016 World Cup version of the Team North America roster in a best of seven series? And of course, I'm sure Jack brings us up because he follows me on Twitter.

And yesterday I reposted that glorious three-on-three overtime session of Team North America versus Sweden, which is a two-minute clip that I go back and re-watch every couple weeks, I feel like, because there's just so many. It's such a beautiful, like, encapsulation of, like, that moment in NHL history, right? Like, just seeing all those players on Team North America playing against each other, but also seeing them in that particular setting going up against the Siddins, who are still in the league and still doing their like fancy passing.

Henrik Lundquist in that for team Sweden. Eric Carlson at some point has like a one-on-one play against Nathan McKinnon where he tracks him down, breaks up a play, and then spins around and fires a tape-to-ta-tap pass up the ice. And I'm like, oh my God, this is, this is like everything that I love about this sport and this league. And it's all in this one little clip. And it's so beautiful.

And so I'm sure Jack Power is here really enjoyed that. And that's why he wants us to talk about it. but I did some prep work for this actually. And once I saw this question, I was like, all right, I'm going to do a bit of research and try to like put together my,

uh, 20, 23 version of this team. So I'm really curious for your take on sort of how these two would match up. And I guess it would, it could serve as a reflection for maybe like how much the league has changed in these past seven years. Yeah.

And it's good timing, right, with the All-Star game. I mean, a bunch of these players both on the 2016 team and this hypothetical 2023 team are in Florida right now. I mean, well, so I did the same. I did some research and try to find the best 23 and under guys from North America.

And if we start with the goalies, I mean, Ottinger would be your starter. And then there's Swamen and Skinner, I believe it would probably be the other two. Well, I see. I hate to do this to you right out of the gate. But none of those players are eligible. What? I thought it was 23 and under. They're all 24 already.

My hockey reference search must have been. Yeah, see, the problem is, is that it, the qualification of the cutoff for this includes players from the 2017 draft class, right? But some of those players based on their birth date have already turned 24. And so it's tricky because it's like, okay, are they playing this game right now? Are they playing this game in July? Are they playing this game in September or whatever before the season like they did in 2016? Depending on your criteria for that, it would like eliminate certain players. I chose to do it as like they're going to play this summer.

so I included some July July birthdays from there but all of those goalies you mentioned have actually already turned 24 so we would have to go back in time and play it like before the season started which I think it's not as final of an exercise no no no and I think

my filter on hockey reference must have been going off their birthdays as of the start of the season or something because it was saying you know Andrews 23 you swateman's 23 etc but anyways so who are

who are your goalies well there's like literally only one NHL goalie that qualifies and it's Spencer Knight. I literally think if you go on the list and this this is why this is an interesting exercise

because I think it really highlights the dynamics in the league right now. It's wild that I literally think the only goalies that have played in the NHL at this point that are 23 or under from North America are like Spencer Knight and EcoD

Oz. Wow. Like it like and and you know this this is the recurring topic here in Canada of like every world juniors like why can't we develop goalies and um it's it's yeah there's like the the talent pool that we're picking from is incredibly small now we have Spencer night I think that's fine but when you compare it to 2016 when John Gibson was in that for that game they also had Connor Hellebuck backing him up and Matt Murray um it's a bit of a change for sure like I think that is uh when you're comparing the two teams that's a potential flaw where unless Spencer Knight really plays remarkably well, you don't have much to turn to, whereas that previous incarnation was picking between John Gibson

and Connor Hellebuck. And that version of John Gibson was one of the best goalies in the league at the time. Well, and poor Spencer Knight, right, going up against Matthews, McDavid, McKinnon. And there's no, in this hypothetical scenario, there's no backup that can step in, at least a good backup. So you certainly give the nod to the 2016 team for goldening, especially because this is when John Gibson was very good. He was so good. I don't remember how good Hellebuck was back then,

but he was certainly on the rise. And Matt Maria just won two cups. So like that's a really, really strong trio there. Yeah, I'm looking at it now, 2016. Yeah, I mean, that was, Connor Hellbuck had played one in HLCs and at that point. But of course, with it with the weight. he'd played in the NCAA and even at the HL.

In the meantime, he was certainly illegitimate, like, top goalie. That 2016 version, so looking at the roster, they were strong in that the forward group was remarkable, right? You've got McDavid, Matthews, McKinnon, and then continuing down the middle, you've got Eichael, Sheifley, Couturier, R&H, and Vincent Trochick, who took Sean Monaghan spot at the time because he was heard and couldn't play.

and then on the wing and I guess you've also got Dylan Larkin and then on the wing you've got Goodrow and J.T. Miller, Brennan, Jonathan Druin

and a lot of those centers obviously bumped over to the wing because in that format that's just the way it works but the blue line has not aged well. No. And like if you look at the blue line

it's Aaron Neckblad, Seth Jones, Morgan Riley, Jacob Truba, Colton Prakow, Shane Gosses Bear and Ryan Murray. I would

say that the 2023 version has a significant advantage on the blue line, and particularly with, interestingly enough, with, like, we always complain about how the league is, you know, there's no true defenders anymore, right? It's like everyone's just trying to play offense and score points. If you look at the, the list of defensemen 23 or under that this new version of Team North America could bring, it's a very fascinating group that could legitimately, not necessarily like stop them, but at least compete with a lot of these, these forwards, right?

Like you've got Gondry Miller, you've got Mikey Anderson, you've got Owen Power, you've got Matia Samuelson, like you've got a lot of like skating ability, size, and reach that could at least challenge them. And so that would actually make for a really fascinating matchup seeing those guys go up against all those forwards

that I mentioned from 2016. Yeah. And you've got Noah Dobson. Well, yeah, I didn't include Quinn Hughes, Noah Dobson. Evan Bouchard, Jake Sanderson, born byram. I mean, the defense is really good. Now, maybe in seven years when we're revisiting this, not a lot of those players will age well. Maybe that said something about how tricky the defense position is.

Because in 2016, I think we, you know, I don't know, is it hindsight? Like, I think in 2016, we were pretty high on a lot of those defensemen that were on Team North America. Yeah, I mean, Ryan Murray, right? His career, some of it is injury related, some of it is just he didn't live up to his potential, I guess. but he was a second overall pick

Seth Jones at this point in time I mean he was a stud um Goss despair I don't remember exactly when he had that big season but I would imagine was either the season before the tournament 2016 yeah I think it was like 2015 yeah and I mean

McAvoy hadn't really come into his own yet but you could certainly see the high end potential there Pereca was obviously not aged super well Riley isn't having the best season but he's obviously had a great career same can be said about Truba to some extent yeah it's really a

because there's nothing glaring about their player types necessarily but maybe this is like you said maybe in whatever it is seven years from now we'll be looking at this hypothetical 2023 team and going oh what happened to this guy what happened to that guy maybe

the defense is just more difficult to predict as far as what you've got in the moment and seeing what you have down in the future. But at the same time, like, I don't know, power. I mean, he's not going to flop. Quinn Hughes, he's been in the league long enough that he's proven himself. I feel pretty good about this list of the defenseman from the 2023 version. Here's the question that I have for you. Let's say that we play this game in September, this coming September before the 20,

23, 24 season starts. Okay. Is Connor Bardard on the team? I think so because when I did the research and obviously I did flawed research, but the forwards, there were a lot of high end guys, but then it started to peter off towards like 10 or 11. So if you're putting together a team of 13, 14 forwards, I think he makes it.

Yeah, it's an interesting, it's an interesting group. Like you obviously got Jack Hughes. You know, if you keep going down the middle, we go Baneers, Nick Suzuki, Dylan Cousins, Trevor Zegrus, Rob Thomas, just makes the cut, although if you play in September, he doesn't, because he's a July birthday, I think. And then on the wing, you've got Jason Robertson, Brady Kachuk, Matt Boldy, you know, Jarvis, Dawson, Mercer, so on and so forth.

Like, it's a pretty good team now, of course. You know, other than Hughes, I'd say none of those players really have McDavid, Matthews, McKinnon potential, or, or ability to kind of impact the game in a single shift the way those guys did even back in 2016. But with the blue line, it would be a really fun, fast-paced series. Like I think they could definitely keep up with them from a playing style perspective, just might not have enough skill ultimately, especially with the goaltending discrepancy to win a series like that. Yeah, if I were gun into my head picking who would win this hypothetical best seven,

I'd probably pick the 2016 team just based on the goaltending. Like I just, poor Spencer Knight and just to circle back on Baderd, you know, Matthews hadn't played a game yet when he was on this 2016 team and he blended in perfectly fine. And like I said, I just think that the depth of this 23 team doesn't quite do it for me as far as excluding Bidar. I think, you know, he's just such a tantalizing town. It would be nearly impossible to leave him off.

Like a lot of scouts believe that he right now could be scoring 30 goals in the NHL. So yeah, I don't do with that. I think that especially, you know, going into next year in September when he's already been drafted, I think, again, being very hypothetical about this, I think he makes the team. Yeah, yeah, I think so too.

Okay, next question here, pulling it up. It asks, if you're Kevin Adams for the day, Kevin Adams, Buffalo Sabres GM, for those who don't know, what is the one trade that you would make for the Sabres? Now, I did a full Sabres deep dive with our pal, Lance Rosowski, earlier this week, but I'm curious for your take on this. Well, the first thing I'd say is that I wouldn't do anything major, unless something like came across his desk that he couldn't deny.

So I know that's not a sexy answer, but this isn't their year to be picking up rentals or even fishing for, you know, maybe long-term fits at the deadline. Because you can do that in the summer if you're looking for it. That said, if I were to target bigger names, you know, to play ball with the listener here, I mean, Jacob Chikrin on the back end to fill out that top four would be something I would consider. I would consider Vemalka in terms of picking up a goalie. I know that they've got Devon Levi coming through.

I know that they've got Ukape. Luka Lukanin, who is playing NHL games now. But I wonder if it's worth taking a shot with Femalka. So those are the two things that pop off the page for me. And I bring up those two under the context of them having these chips of Eric Portillo, a goalie in college who's not going to sign with the Sabres. And Ryan Johnson, a defenseman who's probably not going to sign with the Sabres. They become UFAs after their college season this year.

obviously you'll want to get something for that for both of those players. I guess it's possible you hope that they sign and have a change of heart or you're able to trade their rights in the summer. But between having that as a leverage point and also being able to take on cap space this year, I suppose there could be a creative way that Kevin Adams pulls a rabbit out of a hat. Also, not to add more of this discussion, but Victor Oliveson, you could sell high on him. If you don't see him as part of your future, he's having a career year, boom, there's another piece to make this hypothetical big deal. I assume he's not part of their long-term plan.

Obviously, things can change. But when you look at their depth chart and who they have to pay and all their prospects coming up, it seems like Olson's probably going to be the odd man out. So again, they have pieces. They have a really interesting dynamic here. But is it worth blowing your brains out this deadline for kind of the sake of doing it versus just letting things, I guess, simmer or letting things play out this year? And then in the summer, you start getting a little more aggressive as your team really starts to get closer to the playoffs.

Yeah. I would say whether it is at this deadline or the, this summer, I actually do think they need to be very aggressive and go all out. Not necessarily. Like, I'm not suggesting by any means that they trade a bunch of futures, premium ones at that for like a rental or something because, you know, clearly there's no player out there that all of a sudden is going to make them a Stanley Cup contender. But here's the thing.

The rest of this season and next year, as I outlined on that, the Sabres podcast earlier, this week, is their buying window. Like, while Owen Power and Rasmus Dahlian are making less than seven. million dollars combined while their market value is $20 million, according to Domainstrian's player cards. This is the time where you can use that extra space afforded to you to add as much talent as you can when you have to pay those players and, you know, they have to pay Dylan Cousins on his next deal this summer.

But the following summer, once you pay those guys, all of a sudden, it becomes trickier to add meaningful roster players to your team, right? And this is the issue of how the NHL works. I know that the Sabres actually, ironically enough, did this with Taylor Hall and it didn't work out in his kind of like one year, a bunch of money and then go back to free agency. John Klingberg similarly did it with the ducks and it's not really working out for him. So maybe that's a kind of like a sign that this shouldn't happen. But I would love for them to be in a position where they're just like, you know what? We're going to give this $8 million player who's available $12 million for one season and just maximize our.

our window right now and go about it that way. Because you obviously, with all of those players making more down the road, you don't want to be committing three, four years down the road. You want to keep as much flexibility as you can. But I think if they could find a player for the rest of this season and next year in particular, that's the way I think they should go about it. And I do think they should be aggressive about it as opposed to, this is a feel good story. Let's revisit it later.

And then all of a sudden, it's like, oh, maybe we missed a chance to do something special here. So it's a little different from your answer. So I think it's an interesting thought exercise. No, for sure. And I get where you're coming from. I think my main hesitation is that they've been such a tire fire of an organization for a long time. And now they finally got their crap together.

And I feel like things are just moving in such a nice direction that rocking the boat, I'm not saying it would be a bad thing or it would go poorly. I think Kevin Adams knows what he's doing. but I just don't, I don't know if I see the urgency, you know, you bring up a good point, though, with the cap space and paying power, paying Dahlene, paying, you know, your stars. So there is a window here. It's almost like a window inside their bigger window. So I could be talked into it. I guess I guess they just, they just have to be smart.

Like, you know, whether there was Baudrill or previous GMs, part of the problem in Baflo, why they have a record long playoff. road is that they tried to speed things up when they shouldn't have. Now, you could argue that this is a time to speed things up as far as a rebuild and as far as pushing for something. But you could also argue that whether it's the summer or next deadline, next season, you could wait. Yeah, I just think that it's a different situation. I hear what you're saying, but the infrastructure is just so wildly different in terms

of the players. you're choosing to build around, right? That's fair. It's one thing to be like, Rasmus Stalin is the backbone of our team here. It's another to be like, we have Owen power making less than a million dollars. We should capitalize on that for the next two years.

You know, the game the other night, they played against the hurricanes just a bit disappointing because, you know, it was like a T&T national game and I was excited to watch and the hurricanes were playing, I believe, like their third game in four nights or something,

and they came in a Buffalo, and they sort of watched, wiped the floor with them, especially early on. They went up big and Buffalo, you know, gave a bit of a pushback in the second period, but ultimately it wasn't nearly as competitive as I was hoping it would be. That highlighted exactly why, like, they're scoring a lot of goals this season,

but I think they can still use playmakers, particularly that can create in like diverse ways. Like, it was really eye-opening to watch that game and you make that point about Victor Oliveson. Guys like him and Casey Middlestat are just like, ineffective in those settings. I understand the hurricanes are probably the best defensive team in the league, and they play such a unique sort of puck pressure style,

sticks in lanes, just constantly hounding you. But a lot of those little skill plays that they try just didn't work against them, right? Like it's just like all of a sudden there's no time and space. The hurricanes are all over you. And one of the few players they had, Cage Thompson was heard.

And so he went out halfway through that game. One of the few players that actually fit in in that setting was Alex Tuck. And you just like watch and it's like his ability to just put his head down and get to the net, but also like have the skill to make plays when he's there is such a unique quality and fit perfectly in that game setting. And so I was raising the point of why Tim O'Meier would be an interesting buy for them for that regard. And I don't think it's a, you know, reaching a point of diminishing returns where we have

so many good offensive players, does this really move the needle? I actually think it does because you watch a game like that. And it's like they need more creators along that of all that ilk. You know what I mean? No, totally. And I find Tuck is almost like a mini Tage Thompson in terms of his reach and his like silky hands in tight spaces. And, you know, they both have good speed. And he's a little overshadowed.

He is. And yeah, he, you know, he can turn it on in terms of driving to the net or working the perimeter. So that's a good point. And they, things, as you go down, their lineup, it's too one dimensional a lot of these lines. You brought up Oloffson and Middlestead. They have one way of playing, and then they're screwed otherwise. They can get silenced real quick. Yes.

Okay. Let's end with this one. There's a question from Matthew Moore asks, Western Conference Roundup, which are the teams in playoff positions are real contenders for a cup and which are frauds? This is an interesting one, because I was looking at Dom's playoff probabilities at the athletic,

and there's five teams in the east that he has with 99% chance or greater, of making the playoffs, and it's the ones that you would expect up top. In the West, the Dallas Stars are the only team that you can say that about. And everyone else, right, the Cracken are 97%. Like, they're going to make it. They've banked so many points already that even if they're shooting percentage just falls off the map, I think they've built up enough room there.

The Oilers are up to 93%. But there's a lot of wiggle room there for a lot of these teams. And especially, it's not a matter of, all right, we're competing for only the two wildcard spots. It's like the spots in the central and Pacific are. still up for grabs as well for these teams, right? So I'm really curious for your take on how we should sort of be projecting this sprint to finish out west because it does feel like a team that probably entered the season

thinking they would make it is all of a sudden going to be on the outside looking in because the crack and I've stolen one of those spots. Yeah, I mean, just looking at the standings right now, honestly, the two wildcard teams are the teams that would scare me if I'm in the West. I think, you know, boilers, it almost doesn't need. need to be said, but when you have two of the whatever, top three or four or five players in the world, you're always going to be deadly, always going to be a contender, not a pretender, in my opinion.

And then the apps, I think they're going to turn this around. I think when guys get healthier, when the bounces start going their way a little bit more, I think, I mean, it's possible we miss the playoffs, but like they have games in hand right now. So I think those two jump to mind. I do like what Winnipeg's done this year I think under Rick Bonas they're just a more comprehensive team

a team that can win the playoffs and obviously Halibuck is their their X factor there if I'm just looking at the other team like Vegas I think is I don't want to say screwed after the Stone news but like it's not looking great

I mean they're in trouble Don I wasn't at 68% yeah to make the playoffs and you know they were they were running away with the Pacific for a while there. So, yeah, they're in trouble,

especially if the flames can turn it on or if the kings get any gold ending, right? Because then all of a sudden, with a crack and taking one of those specific spots, it's like you're suddenly getting into pretty, pretty dangerous waters in terms of going down the stretch and competing with,

like they're better than a team like Nashville, but Nashville has UC Sorrows. And so if he just gets hot for two weeks and just steals a bunch of games, that's not a position that you want to be in if you're Vegas, even if you feel like you have a better team where you're competing with someone who can just change the entire calculus that way all by themselves. So it's going to make for a fun race, I think.

It really feels like I'd expect the stars to finish first in the central, although the jets are close enough, I guess. But beyond that, there's going to be a lot of jockeying for a position, and that's going to be fun in terms of figuring out what the round one matchups are going to be. beyond just who's going to make the playoffs once we get there, who's going to be playing which team? So I'm looking for it.

Well, okay, so if you were to pick one team out of the West to win the Cup, or I should say make the Cup final, who would it be right now? Yeah, I'm still taking the avalanche because I'm still working

under the assumption that they will get healthy enough, right? I understand that it's kind of, it's kind of like naive to just be thinking about it as, oh, well, once they get healthy, they're just going to stay healthy, right? Guys get injured.

all of a sudden someone comes back, someone else gets hurt. So at this point, it might just be one of those years where we don't ever really get to see the full version of that team. But if they get enough players back, right? Like when a Chushkin's no lineup, they're just such a different team. If they get Byram or even Manson back, that'll help so much. Like, it's just getting a few of these players back, not even everyone.

And then we'll see on Landisg, I still think their upside is the highest, like the game that they can play and the way they can beat you both offensively and defensively in pretty much any structure is for me the highest upside of them. But then beyond that, like I really like the stars team. I really think that the Oilers are very dangerous as they were last year as well. So it would be between that combination. I'm very disappointed that the Golden Knights have fallen off as much as they had because the first couple weeks of the season, they look flawless almost.

And it's just kind of shocking to see how far they've fallen since then. Yeah, and I mean, I guess some of it is maybe predictable in terms of Robin Leonard goes out in the summer. I'm not saying, I'm not putting this on goaltending, but it's like they were already sort of on shaky ground to start the season. So it's like all these variables had to fall their way. And with a stone injury, I mean, that's one that certainly didn't. Okay, John, let's get out of here. I'll let you promote some stuff. What are you working on?

What are you hoping to get out of the trip to floor? I mentioned some of the features. Give us some previews of what we can expect from you. Yeah, sure. So I'm writing something on Crosby. He's kind of, the angle, I guess you could say, is that he's your favorite player's favorite player. And still at 35, like, it's astonishing.

So trying to dig into that because there's so many voices you can lean on at the All-Star game, working on a couple other things that aren't quite near the finish line. But follow me on Twitter. it's M-A-T-I-S-Z, J-O-H-N, all one word, Mattis-John. And yeah, as usual, Dimitri, love coming on. And thanks to the listeners for following those questions. Yeah, man, it was a blast.

Make sure while you're networking out there to keep promoting the P-D-O-Cast and talking about it for us as our correspondent, and we'll have you back on soon. Thank you to our listeners for listening to us for another week. We'll be back on Monday with more of the Hockey P-D-O-Cast. streaming on the Sportsnet Radio Network.