The Hockey PDOcast - The Karel "The Thrill" Vejmelka trade market

Episode Date: February 15, 2023

Kevin Woodley of InGoal Magazine joins Dimitri in studio to discuss, in-depth, the trade market for Arizona goaltender Karel Vejmelka.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.

Progressing to the mean since 2015. It's the Hockey PEDEOCast with your host, Dmitri Filippovich. Welcome to the HockeyPedio cast. My name is Demetra Filippovich, and joining me in here in studio is my good pal, Kevin Woodley. Kevin, what's going on in? Everything. Yeah. Like quite literally everything in this market.

It's been, even with them out of town, it's been a, it's been an adventure. Well, hopefully we're going to be able to give you a little bit of a mental reprieve from talking about Canucks goalies. I know it's been a grind for you this season. It has. It's been a grind for the goalies for the Vancouver Canucks as well this season. It has. Okay.

Here's what we're going to start with. You're our director of the goaltending excellence department that we have here, the PDOCast. And I want to bounce around some ideas that I've been thinking about in terms of goalies that I want to get your takes on. So I think this is the last time I'm going to be able to have you on the show before this year's trade deadline. And so with that in mind, I was curious for your take in terms of, for teams looking to upgrade a net, and now there's very few of them,

especially in terms of contenders, that are in the market for a goalie improvement in season. But let's say you were a team like the Kings, for example, who could use an upgrade. Do you have confidence that there's enough runway, especially by the time you get to March 3rd, there's about like 20 games left in the regular season or so, and realistically, whatever goal you bring in

will probably only be playing around 12 to 15 of them? Do you think there's enough runway between when you acquire a goalie and the actual start of the postseason to get fully acclimated in terms of establishing an idea of like expectation for where shots are going to be coming from, how your defense in front of you is going to play certain things, you know, your usage, your deployment, everything. It's not something we typically think about for goalies. You think of them much more for skaters in terms of integrating into the system, but I know you and I have talked in the past about how valuable this can be for finding the right goalie

in terms of strength and weaknesses for the team in front of them. What's your confidence level for in-season acquisitions? There is enough runway. Yeah. But just. And not necessarily for every guy behind every team. And so I've kind of put together and actually I probably should have revisited the stories I've written this on the about this in the past before we started. I kind of like built a checklist over the years of the factors that seem to affect whether a guy is going to be able to do this or not.

And a lot of them go back to what has sort of become the. focal point for why it can't work, and that's Ryan Miller to the St. Louis Blues from the Buffalo Sabres. So one of the first things on that checklist is have they done it before? You know, Ryan had never been traded. He'd always play behind one team. Like it was a big adjustment. The other part of that checklist that, again, Ryan checked that box. And interestingly enough, maybe part of this is because that was such a big one for this, right? Because like Miller had been so good for Buffalo and the expectations were very high that he'd be able to just fit right in and be that guy. But also because there were unique elements to how he played and also because he came hereafter.

And so I got to know him a little bit and we've had this conversation. And there were things in his game at the time that absolutely did not translate to a quick adjustment to a new team. Three years, two years later with the Vancouver Canucks, I remember him saying, you know what, I could do this now. Like I've changed my game and the way I read the game and there are elements of my game that would adjust more quickly to a new team. So understanding how much a goalie relies, every goalie relies on rhythm and timing. The ability to sort of read the game and align that with what you're seeing and where you want to be on the ice and what save selection you're going to make.

Every goalie relies on that to an extent. But the style you play outside in, do you come out off the rush and retreat with it or do you sort of stay home in the blue eye? and wait for it to hit a certain point and then start your movement. How much flow and timing and rhythm do you rely on? The more you move, the more extra moving parts, you have to sort of make match everything going on in front of you. The harder that changes. And so, you know, there are some guys that I think can do it.

If there is enough runway, again, it's barely. And so if I'm a team that's seriously considering it, I'd be doing the Bo Horvatt move for the New York Islanders. I'd be getting out ahead of it early. And so the other case in point is Flurry last year. Right. I thought there was enough runway there. The curious part of that decision and the one I still did this day don't understand is they didn't use it.

They didn't use the runway. They left them on the bench every second game behind Camp Talbot. And I thought, okay, well, that's okay. Because maybe they're finally going to be my dream team that actually runs two goalies. Every second night just does a rotation in the playoffs. I keep waiting for that to happen. And then they didn't. And so now Flurry's still trying to adjust to a new team.

You didn't give him all the games to adjust, but then he's the guy in the playoffs. So, man, like, it's, I guess at the end of the day, there's a lot of uncertainty that goes into it. I don't want to say goalies or voodoo because I'm the guy that says that's not true. But there is that element, right? Like, you got to know. Like, is the guy here getting a goalie who feels like he needs two months before he's comfortable reading off his defenseman? Yeah. Or is he a guy who, you know,

It doesn't matter what those reeds are. He's playing so neutral in his position or so passive in his position that whatever that guy does and wherever the next pass goes, he's just going to beat it because he's a pure tracking, technical, or has he got a little more flow to his game? So I think you have to know all those factors before you make that decision. And even if they all line up, there's still an element to hit and miss here. And we've seen that over the years with some of these decisions too. because just because, you know, some guys will say 15 to 20 games, and there's just not that much runway, even if you do play them the whole time.

Well, we've used the analogy of kind of comparing it to the way baseball teams approach using their pitchers. Obviously, there's significant differences in terms of, especially in-game setting from like a rhythm perspective. But you bring up the sort of the timeshare we've certainly seen across the league that more teams are toning down the usage for their starters and at least kind of trying to get into that 50 years.

game range, at least certainly under 60, do you think we'll ever reach a point where we're going to see a team wild enough to experiment with like situational deployment in game in terms of alternating goalies, depending on what's going on or rather than, you know, the traditional like, all right, we just gave up three early goals, even if we're not blaming our goalie for it, we're going to pull them and make a switch because we want to fire up the team or send a message. Or just like you have to have a number one goal in the playoffs. Right. So if that guy won, he's playing the next game.

Right. Because it's, I don't know that we ever see that because I just think there's too much risk aversion. Like, imagine being the team that your guy just won or say you got some really weird home and road splits. And maybe Toronto's an example. Like we've seen Samsona up at home just, you know, have unreal numbers. Yeah. Maybe you've got a team where the roads, like there's enough of a sample that there's something in the water here. And we know this guy so much better.

But if he wins his first two at home, you show me a coach in the NHL. It's going to be brave enough to leave him on the bench for the first road game. Yeah. Right. It's it's Lwango in Boston in game six. Right. You saw what happened there in games three and four. And yet he just came off a shoutout in game five.

There's no way you're not starting him. Yeah. And yet in hindsight, with the benefit of it, sure is easy. Would you, would Elaine Vinio have made a different decision in games? Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's even too tame for what I'm talking about. I'm talking about going even more extreme. And if I was, I understand there's a lot involved in terms of a whole can of worms about whether the AHL is actually a developmental league or whether everyone's just trying to kind of, you know, everyone has their own agendas. It's rarely ever actually purely seen as you're using your AHL club as the NHL team to purely try stuff out, right? And I would love to see a scenario where, I have two, two goalies and even, let's say, two young ones, one of them starts a game, stops 18 shots or something in the first period. Let's send the second one in for the start of the second and see what happens and then maybe

potentially bring them back. Like, I want to see some experimentation in terms of managing workloads in terms of trying to get the most out of them. It's always, do we think like in hockey, everything's always a step behind in terms of like you're saying, all right, well, things are going well, we just won the most previous game. Let's not change our lineup. Let's not mess with a good thing.

And then when things go south, it's like, oh, now we've got to make it. a change and by then it's probably too late. Like you rarely ever see proactive changes in terms of teams experimenting with trying to kind of optimize efficiency from a usage perspective even when things are going well. In game change, that's, see, like that's even more extreme than, like I'm talking like, I'd like to see a rotation on some of these teams that where it's split down the middle, you split it all season, talked about it with Vegas a few years ago with Flurry and Lainer.

They literally alternate to starts for three months and both guys had the best success they'd ever had. Yeah. Like the best numbers they've ever posted were well splitting games. And as soon as the playoffs start, we got to start one. Like that. So to the extreme you're talking, you know where I see it now or where we start to see it with, I will say, smart people?

We don't see enough of it. Minor hockey. Like, absurd to me. I will have friends or people I know with kids that are goalies. And they're like, you know, they'd be like, I mean, like, sometimes 9, 10. Like, I'm like, oh, my kids, the backup on, like, A3, but he's not playing every second, like, he's playing every second game,

or do I send him to house? Like, he, but I want him on A3. I'm like, to sit on the bench for every second game is that nine-year-old? What the hell are you talking about? Dude, they do that. Yeah. I'm like, send him to house. So then when, even if he doesn't get to be goalie every game,

just let him go play the game. How many goals I talked to in the NHL? They will tell you they got there because they weren't goalies at seven or eight or nine. They were actually playing out. And yet, we didn't. do this all the time. And so Alex Al, like shout out to Alex

Alde. I don't even know if he's still coaching, um, actively, but his team, he was on the bench. I don't think he was a goalie coach, but because he's a goalie,

he's helping with his goalies. They were actually alternating. I don't know if it was periods or, I can't remember what the segments were. Right. And they were actually swapping the goalies in game. They both maintain some type of, they're not getting,

you're not going to get hurt because you've been sitting too long. And so then you're coming off the ice. to a bench where you've got a former NHL goalie saying, hey, like, I like how you played that or, hey, have you ever thought about this on that? Maybe you could have tried that or what were you seeing here, like actual coaching. Right.

And at the minor hockey league level, like, so often we leave these kids. Can you imagine signing your kid up to watch every second game from the bench as like a nine or 10 year old? That's freaking absurd. And in some cases, that not much older than that, they'll actually become designated backups and sit for longer period. So, man, if we can't even figure that out at minor hockey level,

what makes you think an NHL coach is going to try and, you know, get any more risk averse than we've seen? I can't see it. I applaud you for, for thinking of it, but it ain't happening. Well, that's the thing. I think in most of these instances, you have an HL coach who is trying to win games often because they, they're not viewing it as this is my last stop, right? It's like, I want to prove to my, prove to everyone that I can go up for a promotion

to the next level, so you're trying to win every game, and you're not actually using it as a long-term experimentation or a development team. And so win. Like, to me, the worst one, the worst way to solve when you have two goalers and you've got some uncertainty, I know who's playing. Win and you're in. It has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I understand it. I get it. Because as a coach, hey, if a guy won, you get to keep playing. See, he makes my decision easy. Sometimes you play really well and you don't win. Because that's the nature of the position. Yeah. imagine in a position with enough sort of extra mental baggage that comes with being a goaltender

adding the pressure of if I don't win tonight I might not get to play again if the other guy goes on the street I won't get to play if you got two guys who are playing well just keep playing them back and forth like winning you're in like it just adds another layer and hey it's it's big boys it's sports it's pro they can handle the mental pressure why at it like it's never made any sense to me and we've seen teams and coaches make decisions on next starter based on winning and you're in, it's, it's borderline absurd, frankly. Well, I was talking, I did a show a couple weeks ago with Joe Smith, who now covers the Minnesota Wild for the athletic.

And he had written this really interesting piece. And other teams are doing this as well, but this was just kind of like a most recent example of how the Wild are using these sort of like these bracelets, I guess, to track like biomarkers for their players in terms of monitoring, their fatigue and kind of like, you know, and they're using it to cancel practices, for example, or really try to like lighten their workload throughout the course of a season to keep them as healthy as possible. I'd be really fascinated to see if you took that to the level with goalies where you're monitoring and you're like, all right, I'm seeing some concerning signs here in terms of usage,

in terms of wear and terror, in terms of being more prone potentially to getting injured here, especially with like the prevalence of like, you know, soft tissue injuries, like pulling something. And even if it's going well for the greater good for like for protecting them long term, pulling them from a game where they're doing well, obviously this is like not. a consideration for the playoffs where every single game matters so much. But think about we're at 82 game regular season. One of those 82 games is so insignificant in the grand scheme of things, especially if it winds up hurting you for weeks to come, right?

Like if you could prevent an injury that's going to chop off half your season, that's very meaningful, much more meaningful than playing an extra period of hockey in the present. Well, and especially depending on the situation in that game. And like, I don't know what those markers are. I don't know how how directly you could correlate the fatigue you see in those devices to the likelihood of an injury. But if you can, yeah, absolutely. Okay, well, I brought up the trade deadline and teams trying to acquire in season. You know how I got away from it really quickly?

I brought up the Kings. I want to talk about them with you because there's some really interesting stuff going on under the hood with their goalies and their numbers. And I told you to do a bit of prep for this as well because I know Phoenix Copley had a nice couple games here, right? He had a shout out against the penguins when they just steamrolled him 6-0. It played well against the Sabres the other day as well. But the public numbers don't like the Kings goalies so far this season. They're blaming them quite a bit. You look at some of the private numbers, and I'm not sure what ClearSight has them at.

I did have a chance to see the sport logic numbers. And they currently have Phoenix Copley at minus 7 goals able to expected, Jonathan Quicken minus 23 goals above expected, and Calvin Peterson at minus 10, who's now in the HL, that's over minus 40 goal stable Bob expected that they've given up. And, you know, their say percentage is hovering around 900 as well. You'd think that based on how they played last year and then kind of carrying it over to this year, you'd be like, oh, well, there's a clear change in environment. They're playing worse defensively, something's up because they were perfectly fine last year.

And I really can't find any evidence to suggest that that's the case, especially over the full season. Like there might be instances here or there where they're a bit sloppy or a bit loose and giving up some rush opportunities. But for the most part, it seems like a pretty good environment to be playing in, and their goal is just for whatever reason have not been stopping the puck. Well, so the only one of the three that has an expected, say, percentage that's below league average is coply.

And it's not much. So the other guys are way it. Like it's not the surface low, like the, the analytics from ClearSight paint a picture of a pretty favorable environment. Yeah. And you're right. They have, they've been underperforming it, um, in quick scale. case and obviously in Cal Peterson's place by significant margin.

I got a 90 goalie's on my list here. Cal Peterson's 90th. That's not good. John, and then Quicks 87th, right? Like it hasn't been pretty. Now, I don't have Copley that bad. He's slightly below expected.

Um, in terms of goals saved, um, you know, like two, two and a half. So not, not to the point of seven. Uh, but he's, that's still better than what you're getting from the other two guys. No, it is. Listen, I heard all about Jonathan Quicks' Renaissance. last year is his bounce back but to be honest a lot of these numbers maybe not to this extreme but they look similar like he was below expected last year too and so when you see but when you see all three guys like that you wonder if there's something in the water in terms of the environment and

there's nothing here that sort of bears that out like it's it's really it's tough to find anything where you're like this is not about the goaltending yeah and so which leads you to believe that yeah when we're talking about teams that could afford an upgrade as much as Phoenix Copley has been a great story and has outperformed the other two. Like, again, by a significant margin, you know, quick, quick by these numbers is minus 24, 23 and a half in goals saved below expected. It's kind of hard to find a team that's a better example of, yeah, like something's up here and we need to fix it.

Well, it's really interesting because you rarely see a statistical profile like this for a team that is not only well in the playoff race, but like legitimately competing for potentially even winning their division, they're giving up the fourth fewest shots against, seventh fewest high danger chances and expected goals against according to natural statric, which of course I just said is probably actually not properly quantifying how good defensively they've been.

I think even like the private ones, like I said, I think even paint a more favorable light in terms of this is a pretty good environment to be playing in and the goalies might. should even be more responsible than they have been. And they're giving up the 11th most goals against. Only the Canucks and the sharks have a worst team save percentage. And I think both those teams are pretty bad defensively. So it's very rare that you get into this situation where the team is playing well enough

and the goalies are so bad that I think there is a logical upgrade here. I'm kind of curious for your take on whether a guy like Corralvinelka, for example, would be a good fit here. because if you're looking around, like, it's not like the market's flush with goalies who would potentially be available, who would also make sense. I think the appealing thing about a guy like Vamalko for the Kings is it's not just for the next 20 games, right? Like you have them at a very favorable cap figure for the next two seasons as well. And I think that would be very intriguing for them, especially at his age, where you're getting a kind of prime seasons. What do you think

about that fit between goalie and team? Well, I'll be honest, like the first caveat here is did not have a chance to, and thanks to my internet connection here, things are moving a little slower than I would like in terms of being able to match the exact, what makes, where Bamalca has his success and whether that matches what the Kings give up. Yeah. The question marks, though, about that fit are probably more, like you can do that math, but they're probably bigger picture. They're a little harder to quantify. Carl Vermelka has been a really good goaltender for the Arizona coyotes. But they're not a lot of, like, it's a tire fire defensively at times, but they're not a lot

of pressure there. That's a whole different, you know, so what do I look for then in that case? Like, how do I look at how a goaltender, again, statistically, how would he handle that? I look, you know, first thing I might look for is when the score is close, like, because let's be honest, for Arizona, there's a lot of nights where it's not. Like is, are Vamelka's numbers built off of, man, this guy is piling up saves when they're already down three? Right? Oh, I look.

When they're down three, Carl Vemalka is plus two goals saved above expected. When they're down two, he's plus four and a half. When they're down one, he's minus five. Even he's just a little bit below. Up one, though, like so holding onto a lead just up a goal, he's plus a. almost seven. So there's a little bit there in terms of like, I don't know that you can,

I think you'd have to then go look at the shots and the types of you'd have to dig in a little deeper than just, but on the surface, like up a goal, this guy's having some of his best success. But his overall numbers are crafted a lot about when they're down by a bunch. It's not his fault they're down,

but I guess if he's the goalie, probably partially is his fault, they're down by a bunch, but let's be honest about that environment. But, you know, like, how do you measure how a goalie is under pressure? I think you look at score close. and score close, like, man, his number is down a goal versus up a goal.

And so then you look down a goal, how much does Arizona chase and open up? Right. But the fact that he's almost plus seven when they're up a goal and protecting a lead, and I'm assuming other teams are pouring it on, like, that's encouraging. But is that situation going to be anything what, like, are the king's going to be, are the king's going to play it the same way when they're up a goal? Well, there you go. There's my baseball analogy right there.

Use him as a relief pitcher. Just bring him in up a goal. Get an early lead. Go up one, bring in Crowell of Emelka, shut the door. Or just give up all those assets and only bring him in when he's down two or three because that's when he's at his best. Yeah, keep it close. No, I mean, it is also a wildly different environment in the sense that

he's faced the second most inner slot and slot shots this season. And I think like fourth most total shots. And what I just said is the Kings do not really give up many, if any, of those over the course of a game. right it's an entirely different sort of situation in terms of what you'd expect to face. I think you that would probably factor into your decision making as well in terms of what he's used to spacing so so I look at so then you'd look at like you know like and we can go to the Seattle example like everyone's like Martin Jones got like a

what is he like he sub 900 on his raw say percentage and his adjusted numbers are actually below expected too we've got what 23 wins what does he do he doesn't give up bad goals he's really good on low percentage and really actually really good on pretty like Really good on low, pretty good on mid. Gives up a lot of high. But Seattle doesn't give up a lot of high. And what they weren't getting last year was the low percentage. Those were the ones that bury you statistically,

but also bury your confidence as a team. Martin Jones hasn't given them up. And that's what Seattle needs. That's what they need someone where they're like, just make the saves you need and we'll take care of the rest. Like to an extent, if you were to put him in an environment where he's facing a ton of high danger, that's a problem.

So I look at Phil Malca and I look at his low say percentage, He's low dangerous A percentage. And does he give up goals he's not supposed to? Ah, 12 so far this year, he's just barely above expected. I look at, I look at mid. Oh, and that was going so well. And then the internet. Well, I look at mid, and he's slightly below.

I look at high. And more internet lag. We're going to blame my highest. Well, let me stick with the Martin Jones. High danger save percentage. Carl Belmalka is like one of the best in the league right now. Yeah. So where he has his most success,

are those chances he's going to see as much of with the Kings? Well, yeah, because I was going to say, don't you think for a team that doesn't give up volume, that's the type of goalie that you would theoretically want to have, right? Where if you're not, like, there's going to be periods where you're just not seeing anything, and then all of a sudden we hear this all the time on broadcast, and I'm not sure how much stock you put into it,

but it's like, oh, this goalie hasn't, the puck has been in the other end of the ice for the past 15 minutes, and then all of a sudden the next shot they face is either a breakaway or a, high danger opportunity. It's like being behind the Carolina hurricanes when Bill Peters was a coach. Right. Nightmare feel for a goal tender.

Yeah. So I'm curious about that fit. Obviously, it'll be wildly different from what he's faced so far. But it seems interesting. You know, to your Jones example, similar to what I hate on most broadcast when you hear, it's not, it's not how many saves you make, but it's when you make the saves. In this case, I actually think it kind of does apply because last year, it was just such a demoralizing, backbreaking environment for them where it seemed like every,

other night in the first minute of the game, whoever was in net for them would just give up a goal from like someone will just walk in from the blue line and score a cheapie and you're just down one-nothing right away. And that must be the worst environment to be playing in. And so doing the bare minimum doesn't seem like anything all that impressive. But eliminating that just by itself is such a massive improvement from what they faced last year. Yeah, Martin Jones, Martin Jones's numbers on high danger is like 74th out of 90 goal. Like 74th. Right. But on low, on low danger. Like, he's just giving them what they need.

And because they weren't getting them that last year, but he's not tops in the league, but he's a top 25 goalie on low danger, say percentage stuff. And that's, you don't see a lot of spread in those, but he's only given up eight all year. And he's played a fair bit.

So like those groaners, the ones that, whether the timing or not, the reality is, and Valacette has a number on this from clear side. I think it's like, if your goalie gives up a low percentage goal,

you lose 87% of those games, unless the other team's goalie reciprocates with one of his own. Like unless, like if only one goal that gives up a low percentage, you lose 87% of those games. Like, it's a, it's a real thing what the stinkers do to the bench, right? Yeah. And there were just too many of those last year. Regardless of whether they were early in a game, there was just too many of them.

They tend to be backbreakers. And there's a statistical tie-in to it, right? And Jones has done a better job and not giving those up. And that's what that team needed. Yeah. Okay, Kevin, we're going to take a quick break here. And then when we come back, we're going to keep chatting about goalies with you. you're listening to the Hockey P.D.O.cast streaming on the Sports Night Radio Network.

Discussing the biggest stories that matter to Vancouver sports fans, Halford and Bruff in the morning. Subscribe and download the show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, we are back here on the Hockeyedio cast with Kevin Woodley. Kevin, before the break, we were talking about the Kings and whether Karel Vamelka would make sense for them. You were able to pull up some more numbers to kind of close the loop on this conversation before we move on during that break.

when I love the listeners know. Well, and I think the thing here is not to pretend like we've got the answers to all the questions, but more to point out the types of questions you need to ask before you make a decision on this. So one of the things that, you know, I kicked the two hamsters that were running around the wheel on my internet connection here, and we got a few things actually going. Like we're talking about the defensive environment. So the kings have one of the best defensive environments in the NHL overall five on five expected goals. They're second best in the league.

Against the rush, their first best in the league. end zone play eight. So what do you do? You're then going to splice into Vemalka's numbers and see where his success is. Well, against the rush, he's like plus 4% expect his 8%. It's one of his biggest sort of positives

is how well he plays the rush, which might be a little surprising, giving his size, but it shows you how athletic he is and how well he moves in the crease. So his sort of settled in zone, off face-off, defensive zone, you know, five-on-five moving around,

four-check type place. His numbers are also good. Like they're plus between those two different factors, he's around plus 2%. But the majority of sort of his overall, you know, success is his success against the rush. So are you getting the most, like he's good in both, but are you getting the most out of him if the thing he's best at is the rush and the thing you're best at not given up is the rush? And again, good goalies and good teams are going to go together for the most part. Right. But it's just that other.

layers that you have to start to dig into before you make a decision. It might be sort of like, hey, he's going to be really good here because he does everything pretty well. And we do everything pretty well defensively. But could we go find a guy for a lot less

who isn't nearly as good off the rush but just kills it in zone? And we don't care about the rush because we're not going to give those up, especially when it comes time. Let's be honest, the one thing that happens in the post season, especially for a team that knows how to defend the rush and prevent those types of chances or doesn't trade chances or turn pucks over that lead to those types of chances,

is you get even less rush chances. So it's probably not so much Carl Vamelka, is he good and would he fit here, so much as could we find someone with a much lower price tag and lower acquisition cost and get almost as much success out of them because how we defend fits their game, maybe even more so than Vamelka's fits our team. Yeah. Well, okay, so you look at those. numbers and then let's say you take it next step all right you've got some patterns there you're

going to the video you're looking for actual sort of concrete proof on the tape of why this is happening what kind of like physical traits or or technical components of the malacca's game or let's let's stretch it out let's get away from about about corral the thrall talk we have done a lot of this is the most I've talked about well he's one of like the only like relatively meaningful goalies who's conceivably available right like I think it's reasonable to talk about you listen to do in regards to the goalie in this market. Right, right. Well, that's why I said theoretically available.

What are you looking for on the tape then in terms of stuff a goalie does that distinguishes them as good off the rush in terms of being above average and facing those shots versus in zone play? Is it a matter of athleticism for one or the other? Is it like discipline in terms of technique for being able to make multiple, multiple efforts? It's like, what are we looking at here? There's probably a checklist. There's a really deep one.

I always like to, in Clark calls him the, I think it's got seven different keys to elite goaltending. You don't necessarily need to be good at all seven, but you have to have the right mix. So for rush chances, like we talked earlier about, like rhythm and timing and are you an outside in guy? Like a lot of goalies will start a rush chance just above the edge of the crease.

And we're gone from the days where guys will be out at the hash marks and retreat with a rush, but there are guys who will be, like the difference between starting with your heels on the edge of the crease and making short movements backwards as the rush approaches versus a guy who starts two or three feet outside of his crease and flows backwards. Like I know that guy with more flow is more reliant on reeds and rhythm and timing because the natural act of moving backwards as a skater requires me to put weight on one skate and then the other like that back and forth little mini see cuts. And when I have my weight, for example, on my right skate, I can't push to my left. I need to transfer my weight back to my left in order to push to my right. And so if I'm caught, if I make a wrong read, if I'm moving too much, if I mismatch my read on that timing,

like there's a delay in my movement. Like that's what I mean when I talk about flow, backwards flow, and your reliance on rhythm and timing and reads because you are more likely to get caught on the wrong foot as a simple example as that. Do they flow straight back into the net off the rush? So in other words, are they, even if the guys that come out, maybe they build a little momentum with a couple quick pushes

and they glide backwards. If you're gliding backwards against the rush, you're kind of gliding backwards almost parallel to the goal line, right? You're kind of coming straight back. As that play comes further down the wall or down the wing, if you're moving in a straight line parallel to the goal line, you're losing angle on the shooter.

like you're not squaring up. You watch how the Canucks play it. Watch how their goalies with those short, quick shuffles, which allows them to give back depth and maintain angle. To me, that's like I like that way of doing it, and maybe that's just because I've been watching them do it here and see them have success. Again, going to be a little less reliant on the rhythm of time,

a little less moving. Even though it looks busier, there's actually less sort of reliance on some of those other elements. matching that to what you give up though, like you need to know, does our defensemen, where do they pressure on a two-on-one, where, you know, are we actually good at taking away the pass? Yeah. Are we giving up, are we just going to give up the shot all the time?

Because if I'm just giving up the shot, then I want the goalie retreating like they do here. The goalie retreating the other way is more, you know, like my pre-scud on him is going to be low far side. Because as you give up angle, pucks are going to go through you more likely on the far. side and you're not squaring that backside shoulder and that backside pad to the shooter. You're getting flat along the goal line as you retreat.

So I'm looking at ways we defend. If I was attacking him, I know how I'd attack him. And so the question I'd ask as an acquiring team is, do we defend in a way that will allow him to get away with that here? Or is it going to be something that's exposed? And again, that is one tiny little part, as you know, of how a game can go. End zone play? How well does he move in and out of the event?

post. And it's not just about sharp angles. Everybody thinks that post plays about not giving up short side high goals, and certainly that's a part of it. To me, it's about, are you able to move in and out of your posts and still have coverage in the middle of the net? So many plays go through the middle of the ice, off skates, off legs. Can you transition in and out?

Do you have coverage when you're on the post or you're just covering the post and nothing else? How you move in and out of those spots? Again, all those things will show up in the math and the analytics. and then you look for how they're succeeding. Or actually more to the point, I would look at a profile and see, okay, this guy's getting killed

on low high passes into the slot. One, do we give those up? Are we the Vancouver Canucks who gives up low high passes into the slot and then a back door on top of it? A couple of those the other night. Or are we a team that protects the house and we don't have to worry about that?

And then two, if I have that statistical profile and I click on it, it pulls up all the goals. Actually, all the shots on that type of play. And I look at it and I look for trends. A, is he just getting bad luck here? Pucks hitting bodies and go and ended up in? Or is there something in the way he moves in and off his post that's exposable?

And then the question becomes, again, is it exposed under us like it is under his current team? Can I fix it quickly as a goalie coach? Or is this just a problem I'm not willing to live with, especially because our team doesn't defend this very well? Well, do you think we're at a place where, for the most part, around the league, teams are doing a good enough job of actually matchmaking these elements in terms of what the prospective goalie that they'd be after, whether it's in season or in the off season, is good and bad at compared to what their team actually gives up? Or it feels like sometimes it's just more of a matter of either reputation or does this guy make saves? And if he does, all right, we like him. but it might not be as significant because he might not have to make those same saves on our team. I can't speak for every team, but I do know of some teams,

specifically even using ClearSight numbers, that are digging in, perhaps not to that degree. Sometimes it's as simple as can this guy still play. Look at the narrative around Quick last year about his bounce back. Again, the underlying profile that we had said it wasn't quite the bounce back everybody else thought it was. And so as there were talk about whether he might, be a solution for other teams or like sometimes it's just a matter of being able to cut through the noise about whether the guy can still play or not or at what level and then beyond that

how far you filter down I think depends on the team more teams I think are filtering down to deeper levels than have in the past to try and avoid big mistakes because that's what I think that's man I don't know that you're ever fine in a perfect fit but if you can plug goaltender a into team X and the numbers just start throwing up violently all over your spreadsheet, then you know this might be a problem. Like it helps you avoid the big problem. I don't know you ever find it in a perfect fit like, oh my God, this is magic, this is going to solve everything.

We don't even have to change a thing. Like, this guy's perfect. I don't know if you find every element. There's too many variables in goaltending. And there's too many different nuances in terms of how everybody plays. But avoiding the big mistakes, I think more teams are doing this. I can't speak to all of them. Some of them still make some decisions that leave me scratching my head.

But more and more, I think we're starting to see teams understand the importance of. But then here's the problem. Trade, trade deadline, stretch drive, that's one thing. Yeah. If you make it an investment in for agency, then you change a coach four months later. Yeah. Does everything you're doing match? So at the end of the day, you still need a good goal to, like,

you're not getting away with being in this league if you cannot play rush chances. but because chances are you're getting something's going to change in your environment even if you got a five-year car here in Vancouver we've been through how many the last three years like everything changes right yeah but I think at least at the beginning teams are starting to dig more into these types of numbers before making big decisions because it can help you avoid big mistakes well we got an interesting question here from a listener named chris a while back and you know to summarize it he essentially says goalies seem to be being deprioritized by smart teams in terms of how much they're sinking into the position financially, right?

And asks, like, do you see this trend of spending less a net in order to ice the best possible group of skaters continuing? And, you know, you look at cap-friendly in terms of how much teams are allocating to goalies. And aside from Tampa Bay, who's paying Andre Basilevsky 9.5 million, and he's just, like, an anomaly in literally every sentence. it's most teams are between that like six to seven million range for both their starter and their backup and I think much more than clearly like financially especially with the cap moving up so slowly you can't really afford to be spending more than that on your goalies but I think that that that kind of idea of the term or how much you're committing down the road to is much more like at the crux of this conversation because we've seen teams like the Leafs, for example, who just had a

wholesale change in net this season. The hurricanes who seemingly every summer just basically have two goalies who put up good numbers and then bring in two new ones because they don't want to pay the previous guys. New Jersey brought in VTek VTv, Washington, who's kind of responsible for both of these where they had Vanichick and Samsonov, they let them go bring in two new goalies, their performance has been perfectly fine. I think we're seeing like, I don't know what the word is. It's like it's the rotating cast element in terms of like, everyone is almost much more replaceable.

It's musical chairs. Yeah. Like it's, we've seen the game of musical chairs every year. I think more teams are willing to take part in that even in the number one position. Like forever we would see musical chairs, but it wasn't always the number one, right? Like it's a little more interchangeable, right? And I think part of that is how many guys do we put in that game changer league category right now.

To me, that list is shorter. And so unless you have an Andre Vasselowski, and this is where it's really easy right now to say that teams aren't going to invest in goaltending like they used to outside of an Andre Vasselowski because the next generation, like, don't forget, we lost a lot of generational goaltenders in the last three years. Think of the Luongos and the Lundquist and the retirements that we've seen. Like, it gets a deep list. And I think the tier below them gets missed, like Corey Crawford, like, you know, I remember

Corey Schneider reaching out to me at one point this year when all the focus was on the decline and say percentage and he sent me a list of like all these guys that had left the league and and he wasn't wrong like that was a part of it. And the experience they took with them. So as this list shortens, I mean, it's really easy to just decide you're going to invest in less and have sort of two decent options. Then go all in on one option because the list of guys that satisfy that requirement is shorter than it's ever been. Like what? Six deep? Like seven deep? I'm trying to think of the names that I'd put on that list.

I would have had Thatcher Demko there, but then the injuries, now there's question marks because of the injuries. I still think he gets back to it. But like, so who are you investing in? What we have to wait and see now is, as the guys who appear to be the heir apparent hit free agency or get to their next contracts, that's where the rubber will meet the road in terms of our team's willing to see anyone else in the same class. of an Andra Baskolowski. So what? Shisterkin got one or two years left.

I know that's summer 2025. So after next season, or no, that, yeah, no, after next season, I believe, I think Hela Buk and Sorokin are both UFAs. And then you have Shisterica. Yeah. You, like, obviously, Ottinger's going to be in this conversation.

UCS. Like, those guys are all under sort of mid-tier contracts where they can, like, so I don't know. I don't have the answer. Like, is everyone going to come, you're either paying a goalie $5 million or $6 million at the highest end or you got two guys making three or are we going to see can will we see a shishderkin command like an eight or a nine or a sarokin or a saw like you see sorrows i know we promised

we wouldn't talk about the espn list but how the hell is he not higher on that well when you ask how many of these sort of building block goleys are there and then you're you're thinking of a number i could i can see how many for you at seven because on that list eight and nine were Gibson and Markstrom, who I would not classify it in that category. Yeah, like the list right now is... And we're not going to talk about John Gibson, I promise. Vasilevsky, Schistereken, Soros. Hoddinger.

Oh, come on, Kevin. Oh, I'm a huge Jake Ottinger guy, but are you putting him on the list already? I understand the sample size is small, but... So is Demko on your list that? Well, he's basically his... At the end of last season... See, I would have had him on my list. At the end of last season, his sample...

is what Ottinger's will be at the end of this season. One really good playoff and one good year. Right. And so I'm not questioning Jake Onger at all. Yeah. Like, huge fan and he's on my list, but I'm starting to second guess my, how quickly I put guys on lists because of the volatility we're seeing, which we saw it in demo. And also a wildly different environment, right?

Yeah, and that's a big part of it. How long does that environment stay the same? That's true. Right? Because they made a coaching change. How much of the coaching change environment for you, Hella, Buck on that list. Yes, of course. Look at the year he had last year.

Yeah. Right. And what changed? What changed his last year to this year? I mean, there are a couple things he recommitted himself to physically with an off-season coach, and I think I can see a little bit of that in his game. Yeah. But for the most part, the environment changed, of course.

Like Rick Bones came in. So how long is Jake Gautinger getting the benefit of the defensive IQ that still exists in Dallas because of the work that was done by Rick Bohn? It's a perfect situation to come into because you can open the reins on that team, but still know that they have that in their back pocket. they know how to do that, it's much harder. Like what Rick Tocke's doing right now is a lot harder. The guys that don't know how to defend have all the other skill.

Like I'd much rather be the guy going to Dallas than the guy coming into Vancouver. Well, you're right because I'm in terms of like goalie technique, I'm definitely a novice. But like, it's one of those things where when you see it, you know it. And when I watch Jake Odinger, it seems like every save he makes like squarely hits him in the logo. And it's like that makes me feel like he's doing. in something right in terms of positioning in terms of just being in the right spot at all times. But maybe I'm not giving enough credit to the fact that he knows where the shot is going to be coming from because of who's in front of him.

And so he's able to get there in time as opposed to if he was playing behind his Canucks defense where every two on one, he's basically having to move laterally and cheat and it's just a whole comedy of errors. Yeah, no listen, I'm a big Jake out in your fan. I'm just like I've had to pump my own breaks here. Like like the Demko thing and like I said, like I said, I think that once he's back to full health, even behind this train wreck of a team defensively, he'll be just fine. Like, I think this was a health thing.

But it's making me question how quickly, like, until you've done it, you haven't done it, and he did it once. And right now, Jake O'Donters in the same boat. I love everything about his game. Well, almost everything. There is no perfect goalie. But I would say the same thing about Dempco, had a really good playoff. Grew into the number one role, had a great season.

The adjusted numbers last year, maybe the raw numbers were 915, but the adjusted were in the top seven. I would have had him in the category. That's the hesitation. I just want to make sure. The hesitation on Ardinger is not about his ability. It's about sort of how hard it is to do this year after year after year. Guess who's right ahead of Jake Ottinger right now this season in adjusted, say, a percentage?

Who? Carter Hart. Yeah. I mean, there's another guy that I thought I would have put him in that conversation probably prematurely because I love everything about his game and the way it was building. And then the bottom fell out for what? Two full seasons. And yeah, a lot of that's environment.

Fireman's not a... It's not a ton better this year. It's not a ton better this year. It's better, but it's not a ton better. And he's got a top 10 adjusted say percentage, right? Like, so I... Again, I'll go back to goalies or voodoo, but there's times where I'm like,

oh, man, maybe they are. Damn it. Like, this really pisses me out because there are so many things that I didn't... I didn't see Carter Hart having the down years. To be honest with you, right? Like, I'm glad to see that everything I saw early seems to be prevalent again,

and he looks really good. again. He looks like a, you know, he looks like a guy who could be a net for Canada the next time we have an international competition. Like, we can finally erase that. Wow. I mean, the baseline of clear for that is pretty low. You, you're in consideration for that as well. Well, no, it's not that low. It's not that low. You know what? I think this is going to be a silly thing to say because Vaselowski was first on that list. And it was like, I think players and hockey ops people were pulled by ESPN. And he's won a Vezna. He's one of Gons. Like, he's like, we talk enough about Basilevsky,

but at the same time, just what an anomaly he is at the position in terms of year over year, I feel like... Consistency and durability. Maybe I underappreciated a bit because think about it this way. He was a top 20 pick,

which is like something we never really see anymore. The Lightning give him a $9.5 million long-term contract, which is something we're not... I don't think we're going to see for a long time, although I guess we'll see when she sturkins up. He starts like 75% of their games

every single season without getting hurt. Every minute of the... the playoffs. Even in regular season, he never gets pulled. Performance doesn't really drop off. He started a bit slow this year, right?

First 10 games are kind of poor. If you look, he's got a 930, save percentage to past 30 games. Yeah, he's like he's right around two and a half plus two and a half percent right now.

Like it's, it's amongst, it's amongst the best. Every year, every single year. And it's just, it's remarkable. And you can't really compare it

to anything else. But I think, you know, we got to get out of here soon. Maybe this is like an off-season project for us. I think we need to do, like a 30 for 30 style on everything that happened with Capitals, goalies from last year to this

year and all the changes that were made because there's so many moving parts. And seemingly everyone I'm going to be careful on this one because I have everyone is off better. It's better off for it though. If you think about it, right? Like Vanichek's is having a fantastic season for the devils. Some Sonov's having a fantastic season. I think both those goalies, especially Samsonab are in awesome environments in terms of what they have to face and what they're giving up. And then, you know, Lingren's come back down earth a little bit, but he was fine at the start of the season and Kemper's been perfectly fine. And so like everyone is, I think, generally pretty happy with how it turned out, which is rare when so many players are being

interchanged that way. Usually there's someone who gets the short on the stick, but in this case, it kind of worked out for everyone. It did. And it's actually, and it, again, we see trends, right? So if teams are willing to make wholesale changes, like if they're willing to just, trust and I would suggest that the capitals are a team that I don't know the degree to which but I would suggest that history tells me they're a team that would have done some of the research we talked about in terms of fit and what a goalie does well and what we do well as a team if you trust your people that they can find a replacement part without having to overcomit to something it's it's it's Carolina with Nadelcovich yeah and I still think Ned's an

NHL goalie I know he's in the minors right now I talked to you know I talked to some people in Detroit about how that went. Like, it's just one of those things. I still think he's an NHL goalie. So I don't think it's like, Carolina was right. No, but Carolina just wasn't willing to pay him what it was going to cost. Like, they liked him too.

They helped build them. There were elements of his game puck handling that fit their team beautifully. We don't even talk about or think about. They liked him. He just priced himself out of what they thought they should pay for him and what they were willing to based on where they saw the ceiling. And so more teams. it seems are willing to trust their assessment in that regard and move forward.

I'm going to throw you one last name just to screw up everything right at the very end here on trade talk. Jonas Corpusalo, two new hips coming off surgery, started slow, predictably given the injury he was coming off of. Adjusted save percentage is as the years gone on, it's starting to climb behind a terrible team, like plus 1.6%. when you talk about everything you'd have to spend to go get Carl Wilmaelka out of Arizona,

I wish I'd done this earlier and actually dug into the minutia. There's a guy who there's some skills that I think would translate from an I-test perspective to the Los Angeles Kings for much less than you're paying for Carl Belmalka.

All right, Kevin, this is a blast as always. We're going to, can't wait to have you on next time. Thank you to the listeners for listening to the HockeyPEDO cast, as always, streaming on the SportsNed Radio Network. Thank you.