The Hockey PDOcast - Mailbag Questions

Episode Date: June 23, 2023

Dom Luszczyszyn joins the show to help answer mailbag questions about what the Avalanche should do, Elias Lindholm's next contract, trading for vs. extending Connor Hellebuyck, and fixing the Coyotes.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.

dressing to the mean since 2015. It's the Hockey PEDEOCast with your host, Dmitri Filippovich. Welcome to the Hockey-PedioCast. My name is Dimitri Philpovich, and joining me is my good buddy, Dom, what's going on, man? Not too much, just basking in the break that is the no hockey life before the draft and free agency kicks off. Yeah, I already miss it, man.

It's been a week on like on YouTube, just watching random old highlights. I need to fill the time somehow. So hopefully the draft and free agency and trades and everything is going to eventually fill that hole. But for right now, this past week has been a bit of a grind. Okay, I thought it would be a fun way to end a week here to close out the week on the PDOCast for us to take some listener questions and do a little bit of a mailback. We got a bunch of them on Twitter. And so we're going to get into as many of them as we can. We got like 30 or 40 ones that I think would in any scenario be good questions.

but unfortunately we're going to have to pick the 10 most interesting ones and go from there. All right, Alex Higley asks, who could the avalanche add that you think would put them in the best position to compete next season? I like the idea of swinging big and going for Pierre-Luc Dubois. I don't know how feasible it is. I don't know how possible it is, but the thing with the avalanche is we know there's a big hole, behind McKinnon since Cadre left.

And I think Dubois fills that whole arguably better than Cadry did at the time. I think Cadre had that one career year, obviously where he was an animal. But Dubois, I think, fits the profile of being someone who's hard to play against while being a strong center in that fit in the lineup. And I think on the ablanch can sort of maybe even replicate that,

especially on that monstrous top power play if everyone's healthy. Yeah. I mean, imagine if they're able to throw like Luke Dubois, Val, Natuchuskin, Miko, and then Nathan McKinnon at you, like, good luck dealing with that level of physicality and also skill from those guys. I guess, I mean, it would be remained to be seen whether they would be on his list of teams that he actually would be interested in signing with long term and whether they would even be interested in accommodating that because of how many future commitments they have themselves. would you view that as purely kind of like a one year thing because they're so well positioned to once again try to compete for a Stanley Cup next season and then kind of worry about the future

later or would you do that as more of a long-term solution? I think it's a little bit of column A and column B. I would start approaching it with this. This is a one-year solution and go from there. But I think they might have the ability to maybe make it more long-term, especially showing Dubois what it's like to be in avalanche, what it's like to play in that system, and how well the organization seems to be run.

I think that could help him maybe see Colorado as a long-term spot. I feel like I don't know his list. I don't know where he wants to play other than he's always rumored to be with Montreal or whatever, but it feels like Colorado would be a spot up at the top of a lot of players' lists just based on the situation. their proximity to a Stanley Cup every year. Yeah, I've seen people speculating whether it would be in their best interest to trade Devon Taves for a longer term fit, whether it was up front or another defenseman eventually.

And I just don't understand. If your agenda is to try to compete for a Stanley Cup next season, there's no scenario where you trade Devon Taves and you're better off for it next year. So that would be kind of a bit of a non-starter for me. I think if you want to go the Sam-Jurard route, that would probably be a player that would be appealing to Winnipeg because he signed a $5 million for four more years, right? And so that would make sense. I actually had Mark Shifley as a target for them here,

another Winnipeg Jets center, just because I think the wingers that Colorado Avalanche have can kind of account for some of the defensive deficiencies he has. And then him as being kind of that cadre trigger man in the slot on the power play and then playing with some of those wingers of 5-15, I think he would have a heck of a year and he'd presumably be available for cheaper than a purely Dubois. And you don't even necessarily need to worry about a long-term extension with him.

Yeah, yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. I think between the two of them, you're kind of splitting hairs in terms of where they fit on a depth chart, and it's just about what kind of thing you want. I think Shepley probably brings more offensive oomph with a bit more defensive efficiency, but DuBow, I think, plays with a bit more edge, and I can see him, I think, thriving with the avalanche bit more. but I mean I we know what their problem is we know where their hole is and when it peg has two strong options just a matter of what color wants to pay and how much they want to pay because I think sheckley I agree is probably going to be the the cheaper bet giving his given his age yeah and I would also I would argue that offensive efficiency is sort of their biggest need at this point right like at the end of last year the last time we saw them play they had like jt com for and evan

Rodriguez on the ice with their season on the line, needing to score a goal against Seattle. In that series in seven games, they had three five-on-five goals without McKinnon's line on the ice. So someone who can actually put the puck into the net would be a priority for me. I think they honestly need to go all in to add potentially a second-line center and another scoring winger and kind of creatively figure out the mathematics behind making those numbers work. But I mean, I would view this is a Stanley Cup year for them, right? Yeah. Yeah, for sure.

Even about Landis Gog. Yeah, yeah, when you have McCarie McKinnon playing as well as they are, like you kind of got to go for it. Well, I also had Elias Linholm as a potential second line center fit for them. And that takes us to a next question here, which is Boston Evan 11 asks, is Elizaun worth the major extension he's eventually going to sign? So I was on the athletic hockey show podcast with Haley and Sean yesterday. And right off the top, we went into all the Calgary stuff. Hale used to cover the flames.

Sean loves the flames. Sean has flames takes. And they're just such an interesting team right now for what their direction could be. So while this podcast was happening, I'm in the old spreadsheet, seeing what Elizland home is worth and seeing his rumored contract asked 8.5 million, eight years. and for me it's an absolutely not. It's a no for me, dog. It's a no for me, dog.

I think you can argue Elias Lindholm is maybe an $8 million center right now at the age of 28. Eight years later, I don't think he'd make that argument. I know the cap is going up, but even if you account for that, it doesn't go up enough to accommodate him

still being an $8 million player. And for me, if it's a max term, six and a half, seven is probably as high as I would go for him. And that's with the idea that I think he, it's possible he regressed a little too far last year. He's maybe somewhere in between what we saw last year and what we saw in his career year. I know there's worries about how he played without Godrow and Cichuk, but he still played well enough in that year that I think he can be a very strong. to see a contender rather than be the guy that he had to be last year. What is your model? So your model has him at around an $8 million player right now?

7.7. So that sounds right. I think that's reasonable for him. And I think some of the contracts that got signed recently are a bit out of whack for those guys who are low end one Cs, where they can be your first line center. if you're a contender, do you want them to be your first line center? Yeah. Well, I mean, the other thing to consider is he's 28 right now, but two months into

whatever new contract he signs, he will be 30 years old. He's like going to be 30 in December of 2024. And so presumably it will be a seven or eight year deal in that eight to eight point five million dollar range because, right, we've seen like some comps recently. Heardle was 8.175 or about 8.5. So Bid Edge at 8.5. Like, Codry, certainly in the low end, 7 by 7 from the flame. So, yeah, I would be very wary of that, right?

I don't, I don't know how to very, I don't know how to evaluate him as a player properly. I feel like both extremes are a bit off because I've seen a lot of models that attributed a lot of his defensive impact when he was like up for the Selke two years ago to Matthew Kachuk. And I thought that was a bit off. Like obviously Kach's, we saw his 5-1-5 impact this year. he's obviously a phenomenal two-way player if I won five. But a lot of that was offense, though, I think that is the one thing that struck me this year is that you could check out a marvelous offense season one that was by on-ice

impact better than anything we've seen in the analytics era. But defensively, it was only average. And I think that speaks to what you're saying right now about Lindholm, is that I think some models underrated what he did last year. Yeah. No, I mean, he's obviously a phenomenal player. I just think you're, it's, he's not a 40 goal player, right?

Like the 42 goals, he scored two years ago is obviously an aberration when you look at all of his career norms. I mean, he had 25, 5-on-5 goals that season in 2021, 2021, he has 89 in his nine other seasons in the NHL combined. And, you know, he was just basically posting up in the slot getting one-timers from two of the best passages in the league. So I guess if you can put him in a spot where he's playing with another guy of that caliber.

And I think they were probably thinking that Hubert O would be that. Yeah. And that's why they were just so disappointed. then maybe you can replicate something like that. But I guess it depends on what you're signing up for. I still think he's obviously an excellent player, but definitely more of a high-end 2C than someone who's going to anchor their own top line.

And so if you're paying 8 by 8.5, maybe that's not what you're signing up for. Yeah. I do think you'll underrate how much that does cost because I think it is around $7, $8 million. It's just that two years from now, three years from now, he's almost definitely not going to be that kind of player. And that is, I think, the biggest issue here is even if you believe in him as a player,

even if you believe last year was in aberration, being 30, two months into his new deal is not something you want to invest eight years into at that price. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And I wonder if we're going to see a lot of justifications from teams over the next year. So in giving out a bunch of money with it being like, well, two years from now, what 8.5 that's going to be a fraction of what it is now as a percentage of the cap and that's obviously a very dangerous game to be playing. All right. Any other Elizland home thoughts or do you want to go on to next question? No, but I do. I hate that that you're absolutely right that people will think that way,

but if it comes to a superstar signing, it's like the complete opposite. Like I, I feel like there's like the graph of what a player should be paid is just like makes no sense. It's just like a flat line at like 1 million, whether you deserve it or not, then like a slow or like a pretty steep incline for like regular players. And then another very slow flat line for the top end players like, oh, 12 and a half million. McDavid makes that. You can't make that much.

And if you, no, I was going to say it brings up an interesting roster construction to kind of thought exercise, right? Like, are you better off? Obviously, you have to actually have the players who justify those like Austin Matthews, Nathan McKinnon, Connor McDavid, salaries. but if you have one of those guys or someone in that ballpark, are you better off kind of going with that, like, for a lack of a better term,

Stars and Scrubs approach where you're paying your top guys, significant dollars they're actually worth, and then filling it out with young players and veterans for cheap, as opposed to having a more balanced approach where you have guys making in that like $6 to $8 million range on your second or third line. I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all thing here. I think both approaches can work,

but I think a lot of the best teams are sort of veering towards the stars and scrubs approach. I know Vegas won with a lot of depth on their team, but their whole thing was moving to the stars and scrubs approach of Eichael, Stone, Petro Angelo, Patchretti before he was dealt. Like they made that dichotomy. You still need those mid-level guys, especially if your stars aren't in that McDavid stratosphere where they need to make more. Like they had the stars that were sort of capped at $10 million.

And I think Eichl Stone, Petrangelo, like they're paid what they're worth. And someone like McKinnon Matthews, McDavid, for $2 million more, they're a lot more underpaid for what they bring to the table. Yeah. I mean, it just happens that their quote unquote scrubs are like Chandler-Stevens and making 2.75 and, you know, like, whatever. They, the brand barbershev at similar two-ish range. And they have players like Hague and White Cloud who are in that ballpark

who are necessarily in that middle tier, right? So it is still kind of a stars and scrub, maybe just a bit of a more balanced version of that. But it still is that, in my opinion. Okay. I mean, you got Shia Theodore making 5.2. Yes. Yes.

Yes, that does, certainly. Okay. Iron Caniak here asks, does it strike you as awe? that there isn't a single NHL award finalist from the second best team in the league this past season. And if the theory is that their success is more due to the team system than their individual players,

then why isn't their coach or GM nominated for anything? Either obviously Iron Caniac is talking about their Carolina Hurricanes. I'm kind of curious for your take on this. Yeah. It is an interesting question. I think the obvious candidate is Rod Brinj for. Yes. And I think the way the Jack Adams is normally voted on is,

did we expect your team to be this good? No, probably the coach. And it rarely goes to, well, this team seems good. I didn't think they'd be the second best team in the league. And we know Rod Brinne Moore is a good coach, but because we know we're not going to give them due for best coach or whatever, something along those lines. And I think Brindamore has proved year after a year that he,

He is one of the league's best coaches and has a significant coaching impact in terms of this system Carolina plays that is extremely different from, they play a different brand of hockey that gives them a lot of success. And I mean, they made it all the way to the third round, whether they got swept there or not. They're a very good team and they don't have MVP caliber players. I do think Brent Burns should have got a bit Norris Love than I think he was getting. I think the hype train for that maybe started too late. and it was obviously a crowded field. But other than that, like they don't have someone up for the heart

because they don't have heartworthy players. They don't have anyone up for the Besna because they are a strong defensive team. If there was a defensive defenseant award, Slavin's there. We just don't have the awards that I think would benefit Caroline's roster necessarily other than the Jack Adams, which Rod Benmore should be up for most years.

Yeah, yeah, it was just a matter of inflate, Like, well, not inflated expectations, but I think them being somewhere around the ballpark of what we expected, which is a very good team. And so you're right. That's kind of the way we do that award. I would have had Jordan's doll somewhere around third or fourth for the Selke this season. And so you could have made that argument. I should because I was pumping his tires all year. And I completely forgot Jordan's doll existed for a second.

But obviously he didn't score a lot, right? And that generally, like, you need to at least reach a certain baseline for that award to get considered ratio for it, regardless of how good your defense metrics are. which is like I think a huge shame for Stahl specifically because he just doesn't have that gear anymore, but it's a defensive forward award. And regardless of how many points he had, there was probably not many shut down defensemen better than him last year. He took on tough minutes. His defensive results were extremely good. I think I had him in my top three.

I don't remember what my ballot was exactly. But I was big on Jordan Stahl this year for the Selke. So I can't believe I forgot that. Yeah, and you could see his impact based on how much their playoff opponents, like how much respect they were giving them in terms of like steering away from that matchup whenever they could and like allowing his presence to basically dictate how things are going to play out. So yeah, I mean, he obviously would have warranted recognition for that. I think the GM of the year thing is interesting because I think obviously them adding, they got nothing from patch ready because it was unfortunate injuries, but getting bread burns for as a cap dump essentially, right? and it is a huge testament to how they've managed their salary gap sheet. That happened in the offseason, though.

Yeah. And it's like a very recency bias thing. And they had a very quiet trade deadline, especially relative to their peers, where they only added Jesse Pulley-R-V and Shane Goss's bear. And people were actually sort of using that as a negative against them at the time because it's like, oh, you're one of the best teams in the league. You should be making a big splash. And they were in on Timelmeyer and they were in on some of these other trades,

but they didn't pull the trigger. And so I think that's why you see it for the gym of the year. that's why they didn't get recognition for that. So yeah, it's, I mean, listen, their whole thing is kind of depth and underrated, under the radar players. And that's kind of when that's the case for individual awards, you're not going to get a lot of recognition for it. Samuel Fleming asks, do you think we'll see another increase in scoring soon? It would be nice. I'm always here for more goals.

I think more goals does lead to. unfortunately more blowouts, but it also leads to more comebacks because of the danger of a goal being higher. I'm not sure where another increase in scoring comes from. I think the last few changes worked a lot better than I could have imagined. I think that skaters are more creative than ever, but aside from like a serious rule change, like no more offsides on zone entries type of deal. You can say that louder, Dom. No more off sides on zone entries.

What an interesting concept, I think, would increase the threat off the rush and have more back and forth games rather than have games clogged in neutral zone and would still keep the offensive zone cycle presence in the sense that you have to hold the blue line still or else you have to tag up. But once you do, you have the whole ice to your thing. and maybe there are some unwanted consequences from that, but I would like to actually see it play out before saying absolutely not. And I think the NHL, I don't remember when it was, but when they had the competition committee trying out new things, this would have been a cool thing to see because it is something that would so obviously help offensive teams.

And maybe it gets us back to the glory days of seven goals per game. I feel like seven goals per game is the sweet spot. for me. Yeah. Well, I'll take you one step further. How about a player who's not even involved in the scoring play? If they were offside, that's not. We don't need to review that.

Yeah. It drives me absolutely crazy when we see that. It's like, oh, was this player a half-stop-offside? Yeah, exactly. You know, the league doesn't always, as we see time and time again, act in its best interest, of course, in many different ways, but it is in their best interest to enforce rules and style that leads to more goals. Yeah.

So that is some of a consider movement. forward because there's more goals, more highlights, better, more kind of viewer-friendly environment. I will say, though, you know, you're talking about, like, players being more creative and kind of advancements in that way. I think we will see another increase in scoring over the next handful of years because skaters are so much more advanced in their skills development training at young ages right now in terms of, like, the stuff they're practicing and, like, watching what all the new young players are doing and then trying to replicate that by themselves with their friends and

just starting at a younger age, working on this stuff. Even like, even big players now are still working like finesse games, right? It's not just limited to undersized players anymore.

Whereas for goalies, I talk about this with Kevin Woodley all the time, but it's so like cookie cutter right now. It's like essentially it's like you need to be like six four and you just need to play an exact certain way. And it's almost robotic and its approach. And so you get all these guys who come into the league and they have like way fewer problem solving skills.

They're way less diversity. in the way they play and so i think eventually i think goalie training will catch up in that regard but it's going to take like a full generation for those like changes to be implemented yeah whereas for it's already in motion for skaters so i think over the next five to 10 years we're going to see just skaters just blowing goalies out of the water in terms of like them coming into the league and being so much better and more advanced at their craft than goalies are i think that is incredibly interesting point and it's interesting how the pendulum has swung. I know you remember the lean years in the mid mid 2010s where it felt like goalies

were at the pinnacle of training. Skaters had no ideas on how to solve it. And we kept being lower and lower scoring. And it's gone back the other way. And I think the other thing with that is it feels like they're a lot more inspiring players that skaters of a young age would want to, I guess, copy and practice and try to learn their skills and whatnot. And in terms of goalies being more cookie cutter, it's less like you want to be the next Dominic Hasek or Patrick Wah or whatever. There are obviously still goalies at the top that have a more distinct style like Basilevsky, but it's not as much as for the skaters.

And I think the other point about players with size having more. skill. I think that's akin to the NBA where you have these big guys who can nail threes now. And I think that helped make the game higher scoring and more exciting because anyone could score from anywhere and to a certain extent. And we're seeing that in hockey where even the big guys now have the tool set to do that. And it's not as much, you're not seeing as many wasted minutes of guys just plugging along. Like there are more threats throughout the lineup of guys who can score. guys like our podcast fave tage thompson who a few years ago looked like one of those guys who i know amazing should i get my jersey i should put it on now for this audio audio only podcast um

yeah no i mean that that that is a really good point because like young i would hope the young players like aren't i remember in basketball camps when i when i was younger you'd like basically separate players at like youth camps by size right and it'll be like all right the big guys go over here and you work on like your post moves and young players and then like younger or undersized players you go here and you're like doing like you're dribbling and your three point shooting and then now I think everyone is just kind of practicing all the same stuff and I presume and I would hope that would be the case for for youth hockey as well. Yeah because I think back in the day if you were big, you played defense and you're a stay at home defenseman. That's just how it was and I think

that's not I don't know. I hope that's not the case as much anymore. I think that would be very beneficial for the future of hockey if it isn't. It does seem like it is at least the highest level. Okay, let's, let's end part one here before we go to break with a more kind of lighthearted question. Koharski's Donuts ask analytically, who is the most mid player in the NHL? Like, that used to be Cal Yaron Crow, right? Everyone agreed that he was just Mr. Average. He was underrated for a while, right? Like, he was like a good, I thought he was a pretty good sort of obviously kind of like third line players. So I wouldn't necessarily say he was mid.

I don't know. Maybe this depends on like your subjective definition of like expectations. For me, mid is average. So like I'm thinking the perfect middle six player. Okay. On forward. And to me that was Calli Yonko for a while. I have a new answer and it's based on someone who's been a lot of trade rumors right now.

And apparently is not being traded for a first round pick because the flyers just absolutely need Scott Lawton. Scott Lawton. They just need Scott Lawton. And like, I think what makes him extra perfectly mid is that he's also perfectly paid. That is a $3 million player. That is a middle six guy. He is, I think, even his name feels kind of mid.

Like it's just such a Canadian. Yes. Classic name, Scott Lawton. Yeah. That is my choice. Well, I mean, clearly he's not mid if the flyers are turning down those caliber of offers. And, you know, during one of the Stanley Cup final game, during the intermission,

Elliot Friedman was talking about the market for him. And there was a graphic that ran and it was like, Scott Lawton is quote unquote popular. And I tweeted that and Flyers fans were just coming out of the woodworks being like, he actually is popular. We love Scott Law. So I think they're going to love him even more after they find out

what kind of return they get for him this summer. So yeah, that's a really good answer. Mine was once you brought in the financial component of it, maybe this threw it off. But for me, the answer of this might be Pavel Zakum. I know he had a very productive year this year, but just like,

analytically speaking, if you look at his actual play, he just got to play with David Pasternak and like got a bunch of assists that he probably didn't do that much on, relatively speaking, and like still is kind of the player he was otherwise and got compensated for it with a big extension. But to be I just like, there's all these debates, right? And as a recording, Eric Hala got a three-year extension from the Devils. And so obviously there's a lot of like back and forth between Holla or Zaka because they were traded for each other. And I have so few Babel Zaka takes just because I just find him to be such a average player in so many ways.

Yeah, I'm looking at the charts here. This is a mid looking chart. I think he's better than Lawton. So maybe we have like an upper mid and a lower mid. That's the mid range. You're either a Zaka or Loughton. Yeah. Okay.

like it. All right, Dom, let's go to break here. And then when we come back, we've got another handful of listener questions that we're going to get to. You're listening to the Hockey Piedo guest streaming on the Sports Night Radio Network. Breaking down the top stories in the NHL every day. The Jazz Marrick Show. Subscribe and download the show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, we're back here in the HockeypedoCats with Don electrician. We're doing listener mailback questions. Dom, here's a fun one for us. Meeks asks. Each is the new owner of one of the following

Arizona, Winnipeg or Calgary which are the three do you pick where are you moving them to what's the team's name and what are some of the moves you're making to put them on the path to success okay

I think based on trajectory current draft capital and sort of assets I'm leaning towards the Arizona Coyotes. Yeah.

That has to be the answer. Yeah. I feel like, I feel like Calgary has a lot of attractive assets that you can flip and maybe rebuild quickly. Well, so does Winnipeg. Yeah.

If you're moving Eilers, Shifley, Dubois, uh, needer rider, Hellebuck, like pretty much their entire team. I think I feel like you could get back some, some good returns on this summer. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, I think so. Yeah, it's probably a slip. This is a great question. Um, Because they're different teams in different places, but Calgary and Winnipeg have these packages that can set them on the right course. But I think Arizona might be maybe a little closer.

And they have a high pick in this year's draft, which is a staff draft. And I think that is helpful to getting to that next level for sure. Where are we moving them to? I mean, just go with the obvious choice of Houston. Yeah. Well, okay, here's the thing. Arizona has to be the pick because you're right, like Winnipeg and Calgary, you can make a series of move this soft season to potentially get there. But Arizona's already there

in terms of assets. They've got such a clean slate financially. They have like $32.5 million right now in salary being paid out for next season of players. Like they just have like no contracts on the books. One of the only contracts they do have is a great one in Clayton Keller, his age 25 the 29 seasons for just 7.15 million. And he's like, in my opinion, one of the more like marketable and fun players to actually watch if you were building a team around. You've got Logan Cooley coming up, Dylan Gunther, a bunch of other picks they've taken over the past few years.

But as you mentioned, sixth overall this year and 12th overall. And sixth overall might be Matt Bay Mitchcove potentially as well, who could be a generational score four seconds in each of 24, 25. And so it's definitely them from an asset perspective. my answer here was I would pick the coyotes and then just had them actually play in a good place in Arizona. That's where I would move them to. That's kind. Yes.

I mean, I think if you have a good product and a place that's accessible, people will come watch. I don't buy that as an excuse of like why it doesn't work there. Go back and watch the crowds from when they actually played in the playoffs, whether it was like that duck series all the way back or whether it was 2012 when they made that run to the West Final. those crowds were popping man like people were excited to watch those games they were coming out supporting the team and so I think also like just keeping them there you get to keep like the

kachina outfits and you also like that that that uh that desert night alternate they wore this year which I really like like I don't know I think from a branding perspective you might be a bit too far gone because of all the baggage but I'd be like if you could actually get them in a good place and in this scenario if we were the owners of the team we would presumably hopefully be very rich and have deep pockets and be willing to spend on the team. Yeah. And so in that case, it's like almost a no braider in my opinion. Yeah, you make a compelling argument to keep them in Arizona and now just the idea of

making sure the Kachina stays, we got to keep them there. We got to make it work. I think it can work. It's obviously a massive market. It's just been fumbled way too much for the last decade. And a lot of situations are when and they'll come. and Arizona has proven that when they've been a good team. It's just they've been so bad for so long that obviously it's a little easier to lose hope,

given the ownership situation. But a dim-dom team will do better. Yeah. Well, I mean, Houston isn't a bad alternative. I think just market size, no state to income tax. And also having, I think the importance of having, if you're going to be a good team, having a built-in, like, geographical arrival of like marketing that against the Dallas Star. and like pushing that as a thing, I think would be appealing.

So yeah, I think there's the opposite of a star. What's our, what's our backup Houston team name? Yeah. Well, I think everyone just wants him to bring back the arrows. But yeah, I mean, yeah, we could we could do whatever. I don't know. I don't know what the, I'll leave you. I'll leave.

No, we can actually, we can do like a crowdsourcing. We'll let the jersey design and the team name will crowdsource it. We'll get a poll going on Twitter. Yeah. We'll let the majority, majority rule because that's the type of organization we're going run. You know, Holden McCob asks, do you guys ever get confused for each other or is it a dim, dom, yin gang type of situation? Do you worry that if you touch, you're going to combine into the hockey nerd with the hardest name to spell? I get a lot of people very angry at me for my projection

models, which I don't run. So I can only assume that they, that they are directing my hatred, or hatred of you towards me for not liking their team. So to answer Holden's question, yes, it does happen to me a fair amount. But it's okay because I'm more than happy to be to be associated with the Don brand. Thanks for taking some of the heat off for sure. I'm getting, you're like, oh, I don't get any hate. And it's like all being directed towards me under your name. I don't get it.

But that's probably because I have done a great thing from my mental health, and that is my notification is only people that follow me. So there's still some bad ones sometimes, but the likelihood of us getting confused is by someone who doesn't follow one of us. And so if it happens, I don't see it. Yeah, most people just call me Demetri as well. And so I think it's tough for to mistake, Dimitri for Dom. But yeah, yeah, okay, that was a great question from Meeks. Matt asks, what does a good season look like for you for this Detroit Red Wings team from your perspective? Here's the thing.

I don't have the most faith in the Eiser plan. I think they got really unlucky with lotteries. I don't know. I just, I don't think they have the franchise level talents to be a bona fide. tender year after year. I think they're certainly getting to a place where they can be a playoff team. And I think that would be a good season

for them. But with how difficult it is in the East still, the fact that it's been this long and that's still a huge question mark this team is worrying. And I think that's because Larkin's good. He's not

that, I don't think. And cider is also good and he'll be even better. It just lasts year maybe slowed down the hype and showed us that he's not he's possibly he's not going to be on that macar fox maca boy high skinned trajectory after all if he is that would be a huge step and i am not doubting he can get there i i really think he can he's obviously very good and i'm just a little a tiny bit concerned after a sophomore sub yeah i mean he is 22 year old who played with Ben Chirot.

I'm not going to entirely hold that against him. I think what he showed in the second half was encouraging that it wasn't necessarily all his fault. Yeah, I mean, I'm with you. It's been a long road here. I would say that what he inherited, like Kenny Holland left them such a dumpster fire that it took a while just to dig out of that

and essentially get back to square one. Yeah. If you look, like obviously I was not a fan of what they did last off season. I thought they kind of put the cart before the horse of like just spending a bunch of money on veteran players because I didn't think they were good enough to justify that. They did a good job of pivoting at the deadline and selling. And so you look now and it's like, all right,

they once again have over $30 million in cap space. They have the 9th, 17th, 41st, 42nd, and 43rd picks in this year's draft. And the Bruins 2024 next year. Like from an asset perspective, there's things to work with. There's a lot of work to be done. I view this question not even through the lens of making the playoffs because I mean, that would be good, but it's going to be an uphill climb for next year. I want to see them be more fun.

That from my perspective, I think that would be a good season for them. Like, I want them to look like last year's Buffalo Sabres did. Because the Sabres finished 20th, right? They missed the playoffs by a few points. But they ruled. They ruled. They were so fun to watch. They were competitive.

They inspired a lot of, like, they brought back a lot of fans. They inspired a lot of passion for people to, like, be interested in them moving forward. And they played really fun games. They were third in the league and goals. They gave up. They were 26th in goals again. So they were one of the worst defensive teams. And if you're going to miss the playoffs, that's like an ideal profile for me.

Not what the Red Wings were last year, where they were one of the worst offensive teams by any metric in the league. Like they couldn't score goals. They couldn't generate chances. If you look at their shot profile where they were getting shots from. it was utterly bleak. And so just being a bit more fun as a young upstar team would be a good successful season from my perspective. Yeah.

The Buffalo Sabres were so fun. I was rooting for myself to be colossally wrong because I was the one model that wasn't sold and was high on the Panthers making the playoffs instead. And I remember having to be the fun police on that and saying, I don't know. I think Florida is better. going to make it. I don't want to be right, but I just burning it out as it is, I would love to be wrong because Buffalo was, even the year before, the vibes were off the charts and they just carried that over. And I think that's just like a hard thing to, it might be a really hard thing

to replicate in Detroit because I don't think they have that level of vibes, but I mean, at the same time, Buffalo's vibes were catastrophically low before that. And there's always room for a massive shift in that department. And I would, I would love to see that for Detroit because the league is, is better off when the Red Wings are a competitive, relevant team.

Yeah, all it takes a couple of young players to sort of capture your imagination and a coach that allows them to do that. And the Sabres were so fun last year that I am currently wearing a Tage Thompson shirt. And I currently own a team Thompson jersey. There you go. That's, that's all you need to.

That's what you should aspire to if you're not going to be a contender. So Hoharski's Donuts So already asked a question about who are the most mid-analytical player last year Or before the break that we answered Has another question at what point From both a trade and contract perspective Might it actually make sense for the devils to go after Halibuck?

So I think those are almost like two separate questions, right? Because I would argue like I don't think the trade cost is going to be Really that prohibitive Or as prohibitive as people think based on on how highly regarded Hellebuck is, I think the contract probably will be. So if you're the Devils, you almost have to take those two things or any team acquiring them from like two separate, like answer them separately because they're not necessarily the same thing.

Mm-hmm. What do you, what do you think about that from like, especially from the devil's perspective for the sake of this question? It is, it is such a tough question because Helibuck is one of the few goalies that matters in this league. And he is someone you would feel a bit more comfortable paying big money to. At the same time, paying big money for any goalie is just so terrifying. And he's 30 years old.

I do think at the top level, goalies aren't as unpredictable as a lot of us make them out to be. I think there's a pretty solid group of fun. that have been consistently Helibuk, Vasseltsky, Soros, Shasturkin had two strong ears. Sorokin is getting there as well. There are obviously guys like Ulmark who just shoot up out of nowhere

and wouldn't bet on him, but Helbuck is the opposite, and I'm worried about how many games he's played how many miles he has on him. I think with the devils, they probably be, smarter about that because they won't need him to steal as many games because they have a good team in front of him. The biggest worry for me is age for sure and just how high that cost is

because if it's 10 million, that's a no. But I don't know what that limit would be for me. Well, the report was that he was, look, I don't know if it was coming from him or just sort of informed speculation, but it was kind of looking for that like Vasilevsky 9.5 range. I just, I don't buy that like if you look at salary instructors for goalies so bobrowski's at 10 for active goalies vasselowski 9.5 then you go down at gipson 6.4 matt murray 6.25 hellabuck 6.167 marks from 6 bittington 6 grubauer 5.9 i mean that's obviously a very harrowing list just to consider but also when vasilevsky who has i mean when he signed that deal he wasn't necessarily as as as as as as accomplished or heralded as he is now, but he was also 26 years old.

So it was a much more like logical investment. I just don't know who's going to be ponying up that level. I guess we just saw the Panthers do with Bobrowski a couple years ago, so it only takes one. But I find that hard to believe, especially considering he'll be in his 30s and at like a seven year deal or whatever, I would have to think it would have to be closer to the sevenish range, at which case,

you kind of hope you get a couple Stanley Cup runs out of it and then maybe pinch your nose or try to get out of it or just hope the cap goes up enough. But I don't know. I think it'll be at least eight. That's well. And that's where you get into the if you can.

I don't know. Like I feel like eight is a yes for me, depending on term. I don't think you want to walk in. Definitely not seven years. Definitely not seven years. Once you get into the nine range is, is terrifying.

But how old was Carrie Price when he signed. He was, he was, he was 30 as well. Okay. And the contract kicked in when he was 31. So that's the,

I think the comparable. And I think that's where you start getting a bit frightened because at the time, I'm pretty sure that it was the same arguments of right. No one's saying no to carry price. And if he's being paid, he was paid 14% of the cap at the time. That is 11.7 million this year. Well, here's a thing.

I, I, I, I mean, the money, the money is one thing. From the devil's perspective, like, if you're just thinking about the trade, though, let's like remove the extension out of the equation. Yeah. I'd be very interested in just viewing it as purely a one year rental because they're already so good as a team, right? And we saw them like, they took such a leap last year. And I think it was legit.

Like, I don't think it was, oh, this was an unsustainable season. If anything, they should be better this year with their young players improving. Yeah. But it's strange how teams view this, right? Like at the deadline, teams are more than happy to give up a first and a second and another pick and a prospect for a player that they're going to have for like 20 games and a playoff run and then let them go in free agency. But in the offseason the year before, it's like, oh, I don't know.

It's so risky. This guy only has one year left on his deal and then he's an unrestricted free agent. And you can't talk yourself into that price even though you get them for a full season. Yeah. And so I, if I'm the devils, I'm more than happy to pay whatever price it is, bring him in for a year, and then figure it out later. And who knows, maybe he plays 50 games, does really well, likes it and takes even less. And that's great. But if not, you let someone else pick up the tab on it. Like I don't, it wouldn't be a deal breaker for me that you only get him for one season. It might actually be a positive. Yeah. If the price is just picks, who gives them if you're the devils? I'll with you on that, man. Who cares?

It's a late first. Frederick Anderson went for a late first. Hellbuck is better than Anderson was at the time. First, second, third, fourth. Who cares? You've got a strong pipeline still. You have a strong team already. Just go for it.

Yeah. And figure out later. I'm with you. I'm with you on that. I think they can more than justify it. Okay, let's close on this one because you wanted to you want to do this one. Stephen R. 77 asks, all season people were saying there was a massive gap between the East and the West. Did the playoffs move otherwise?

Now, I think when I had you on midseason, we actually talked about this specifically. And I was like citing all these stats where the East was just actually dominating all the head-to-head matchups against them. Obviously, the West proved to have the best team in the postseason in terms of the team that came out on top of it won the Stanley Cup. What do you think about this? Because this has been something that I've seen people kind of kicking around just because it was such a talk. talking point all season. Yeah, I think it's fair. There are so many ways to look at it.

And if you view the Stanley Cup as the absolute best team in the league, then you are absolutely right to think that all of that was overblown. I think the Stanley Cup is won by one of the best teams every year, one of the teams that found their gear. I really want to stray away from the luck narrative. Obviously, Vegas had a high PDO during the playoffs. And some of that is luck, obviously, but a lot of it is just being at the top of your game, everyone firing on all cylinders. And being lucky to have that all happen at once where everyone's playing their best hockey.

And staying healthy. And staying healthy. And I think that's sort of where the argument comes where teams create their own luck in the sense that you get on this hot streak where everyone's executing and making their shots and making their saves. And we say it's not sustainable. That doesn't mean that it's not talent when it's happening. And that happened to Vegas in these playoffs and they dominated opponents for that reason. At the same time, you look at the path of one team and the other and there's a huge difference between facing

Winnipeg, Edmonton, Dallas, and facing Carolina, Toronto, Boston. And I think it really showed in the Stanley Cup finals with just how dead Florida looked. They didn't look the way they did in the first three rounds. And I think with all the injury stuff happening and being announced after, it was telling in how they play. And I think part of that was because of how difficult the East was and how much of a grind it was and how cooling it was that after three rounds Florida just didn't have a lot left and I think part of that is just having that epic first round matchup against Boston where if you're the Florida Panthers you don't think there there is a lot of runway you're giving it all against that one team and I don't think Vegas had that same problem they had one extremely tough series against Edmonton the other two I don't have a lot of respect for Dallas but I think they laid down a bit in their series.

And Winnipeg is fine, but if Hala Bucks not on his game, then not a tough series. Yeah. I would say also like, yeah, I mean, for better or for worse,

the regular season in playoffs are, they're not separate entities, but also like kind of, you can get into trouble when you're trying to merge the two and try to take lessons from like what, like one versus the other, right? Like just, I don't think what happened in the playoffs.

necessarily means anything about what we thought in the regular season because it was almost like a different product and different length of time series of games, all that. Okay, Dom, we got to get out of here. We won't have time to answer all the Taylor Swift questions we got. Unfortunately, we'll save those for another time, I promise. I'll let you quickly plug some stuff. Just let the listeners know what you've got in the works here as we barrel towards peak off season and then vacation mode.

Yeah, so I've written some stuff. on the best free agents available. The short answer is that there aren't any good ones, but it's still an interesting list to go through and see the values that players should be paid and hope to whatever deity you pray to that your team doesn't pay significantly more than that with a lot of those types of deals,

because we saw it out of the Detroit White Wad Wings last summer and where they are now. That's the big thing, and then once Frayagery Jee kicks off, There'll be a lot of contract grades. There'll be a lot of trade grades around the draft. And on the subject of free agency, I did write a piece, I think, is very interesting for a lot of people of how much different roles should be played. So should be paid.

So how much a first line center or first line forward, second line forward, what the range to expect based on on past cap hit percentage and how good those players are. Awesome. Well, that definitely ties into the Elias Linholm conversation. earlier so recommend checking that out and uh thank you for taking time to the chat today thank you to the listeners for coming through with all the fun questions that's it for this week we'll be back on monday with some really fun stuff i've gotten the works uh with more of the hockey pdo cast as always streaming on the sports net radio network