The Hockey PDOcast - Trade Deadline Philosophy

Episode Date: February 10, 2023

Thomas Drance joins Dimitri to talk about trade deadline philosophy, player contracts tied to changes in the salary cap, and how risk tolerance impacts decision-making and outcomes. 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.

It's the Hockey PEDEOCast with your host, Dmitri Filipovich. Welcome to the HockeyPediocast. My name is Amitra Filipovich. And joining me in studio, my buddy Thomas Trance. Thomas, what's going on, Bella? Oh, I'm doing well. I'm doing well. Just still stunned about this Calgary Detroit.

Yeah, we've got Flames Red Wings here on in the studio, of course, a replay from what? From last night's game. The vibes around the flames are so bad. The vibes around a lot. of Western Conference teams that are in the playoff mix are bad. Like, it's certainly not ideal what's going on, but I don't know if you've been following what's happening in the Minnesota Wild.

Yeah, but they've given up over their past three games. They've given up 12 straight, even-strength goals without scoring one themselves in the meantime. Like, it's bleak. They're like 29th or 30th in the league now at 5-on-5 goal scoring. Here's the kicker. The team they're tied with is the Colorado Havillian. So it's going to be a heck of a race.

I think we all expect Colorado, Calgary, Minnesota to turn it on based on our priors. Yeah. But once you get into like the 60th game of the season, I think at some point. Now, Colorado's a bit different because they've had so many injuries, right? So if they get healthier and they get these guys back into the lineup, it's a bit of a different thing. But for the most part, Minnesota and Calgary have had the regular cast of characters. Calgary, though, like there's just something a little different with those vibes. By the way, play now sports, so one of our sponsors,

currently has the Cracken as the favorite in the Pacific Division, and you know what that means? That means there's value on the board, right? Like, there's value on the board, in my opinion. Let me, let me read you the rest of the odds before, and I'll cut it off at the Vancouver Connect or 301 to win the division and don't waste your money. The Edmonton Oilers are 2.8, 2.80. The Vegas Golden Knights 3.75.

That's pretty tasty. It is. If I bet on hockey, that would appeal to me. L.A. Kings, 9-1. Okay. Calgary Flames 12 to 1. There is no way if I bet on hockey that I'd have the self-discipline to avoid a sprinkle on Calgary and a big hit on Vegas. The thing with Vegas is, after that struggle they went through, they just went and on the road just absolutely demolished both Nashville and Minnesota.

Yeah. And it was defensively, too. Like, there was like, I think there was like 10 minutes left in the third period of the game. game the other day against the Predators, and the Predators had six shots on goal. Right. For the game. And so, did you hear Cassidy yesterday where he was like, we're pretty good when we manage the puck?

Yeah. Which is like, just such a damning thing. Yeah. There's no way as players appreciated that. No. Well, it's a very, a hockey coach thing. I don't think they're surprised. But it's a very Bruce Cassidy thing.

I'm concerned because, like, they need Mark Stone. But they've got to replace. If he's going to be out, yeah. Like, we actually, it's interesting that we've heard them come. up in the team of Meyer sweepstakes, like as of this week. That would be so sick. So I'm going to consider, yeah, I think the West is really interesting. Maybe with the flames, I can't get them off my mind now that we're watching this game while

we're recording. Well, the flame, they're just so incredible. Like, maybe we shouldn't have the priors, right? Because with a team like Colorado, we're like, all right, we're waiting for them to get healthy. With Minnesota, they obviously lost Kevin Fiala, but they still have largely the team that they had last year and the year before. Calgary fundamentally is a different team.

So we keep expecting them to revert to what they were last year, and they just don't have those same players. Well, they don't have that line, but they still... Which was the best line in hockey. Which was the best line in maybe several years. But they still control play. Yeah. They still have one of the best blue line groups, in my opinion, on true talent.

Yes. And they still have Daryl Sutter who figures out how to win. Like, and you watch them play. You watch their de-activate. You watch the way they play. Like, they look sound and then they find these ways to lose these one-goal games. And I can't, for the life of me, explain it aside from like,

okay, they don't quite have the dynamic top end that they did last year. Well, Markstrom also really struggling. Yeah. And Markstrom struck. Well, but like, I believe in Markstrom. Yes. You know, like if you're struggling with a low,

safe percentage and a bad record in one goal games, I expect you to turn it around. But there's something about the vibes around this flames team where I'm not. Something I think, I'm not feeling that good about. Well, something maybe that we undervalue, this came up in a conversation I had a couple weeks ago,

um, with, with Domest Chishin about like, quantifying the impact that injuries to your lineup have in terms of asking players to play different roles and moving them up. Maybe some, like, not having that top line from last year, I think there's like a cumulative effect beyond just we don't have the best line in hockey that trickles down to like the other lines as well.

Absolutely. You know what I mean? Like whenever Goodgerow and Kuchuk would come out with Linholm, they would just have the puck in the offensive zone and either score or draw a penalty or have great scoring chances. That's like a very advantageous playing environment. to be the next slide over the boards to come up for the shift. For sure. And if you don't have that now, all of a sudden, it's not just that you don't have those players,

it's that everyone else looks kind of slightly worse. Yep. I think that's part of it. But I would suggest, like, what feels clearer to me is the lack of alignment can be felt on the ice within an organization. Like, that's why the vibes are off to me. You know, we know that Trill Living doesn't have a contract extent. We know that there's some odd power dynamics between Sutter and ownership and the general manager who's out of contract.

Yeah. And like that sort of stuff at the end of the day, I think that sort of stuff seeps into performance on the ice too. It seeps into how everyone feels about their day to day. That's my genuine belief. Like I truly think that that's one of the reasons that the Tampa Bay Lightning, for example, have had such a durable edge over everybody. Yeah. Is that everyone knows this is Tampa Bay. This is how it's stuff.

Well, at least they've got eight years to figure out Jonathan Hubbard. So there's time. There's time. Well, with that is that I can't even, can you think of a worse stylistic fit between coach and player in the last 10 years? Well, I think that would make a Jacques Lamar and Marion Gabra. Shock Lamar had any skilled play. The Cedine twins and John Tortoralev? Yes.

Although at this stage of their career they were at, I feel like if they were in their prime, they probably would have made it work more short than they did. It was 2013. Yeah, that's true. Oh, was it? Was it? Oh, yeah, it was it? You're right. 2014, 15 was the Willie Dizreda.

Yeah, 2013, 2014. Okay. Yes, you're right. I think it'll be a fascinating re-listen to go back and listen to the podcast we did in the summer, breaking that tray down. My favorite shows I ever done. It was awesome. That's what I expected big things of.

You were much higher on the flames. I mean, I was pretty high on them, too. Yeah. I think we were dead on with, like, our Panthers takes. Not that we expected them to be struggling to make the playoffs. But it was a big time. Good chucker. We know our banthers.

Yeah, you had your finger on the Panthers Falls there for sure. Yeah, no, that's a really. That's a really interesting point. All right. Let's get into today's show finally. This is great. So I'm excited because I actually haven't. You know, usually you and I hang out quite a bit, but you were away last week.

You were off during the Beauvoir Retreat as well and your show wasn't on. And so I didn't get to see you. You're out of town. Yeah. So it's nice to catch up with you. Yeah. You know what? Headspace I'm in right now.

I feel like I've dialed up my like, I'm waking up in cold sweats, checking my phone to see if I missed a trade. Like this next month is both. exciting and great for content, but also, like, literally ruins my life. So I finally published a piece, like I've been sitting on this and looking at it as just a way of quantifying how little trade activity there is. And I finally published the piece pointing out that no team, aside from the Vancouver Canucks, had made more than a single trade. Well, there'd only been four trades all season prior to the Teresanko deal. Yeah. With more than two million, more than two million, which is like an extraordinarily low bar in cumulative.

NHL level cap commitments changing hands since September 1st. I know. It's just like... Everyone's stuck. It's like a gridlock. There's absolute flat cap paralysis impact in the league. And so I've been sitting on this article waiting to, or sort of sitting on that fact waiting to push it out. And I finally do it and Teresanko deal happens like an hour and a half later.

So, you know, honestly, I find myself this week especially kind of like looking at the Super Bowl. Yes. focused on the Raptors and the NBA trade deadline. Yeah. And the Tarasenko deal kind of caught me by surprise because I'm expecting a far quieter trade deadline in line with a far quieter trade season to this point than what we've seen in the past. I think we're really going to, we're going to see moves. Don't get me wrong. Yeah. But I mean, it's going to be Noel Achari for a third.

Well, I just don't think we're going to get to the like 35 trades over the course of. 48 hours leading up to noon on March 3rd, or noon Eastern time anyway. Or noon, no, noon Pacific time March 3rd. I mean, quite frankly, there's very few players that are realistically available right now where they are likely to be moved that are anywhere near as meaningful in present-day hockey as their names probably indicate. If you look at the list of guys who are probably, it's like, that's a mean thing to say about Chris Durry.

No, actually, let's see the Teresanko thing because I'm having Shane on next week and I'll do like a full deep dive with that. I actually think Teresanko is going to be fine, especially playing with Panarin. But it's like Patrick, Patrick King, Jonathan Deves, Ryan O'Reilly. It's like, all right, great. What year is this? Their power play better function. Sorry, I just want to do my...

The Rangers? Their power play better function in the playoffs because I don't... I think that... I think Panarin, Zabinajad, and Teresenko, if that's your top line, is there enough two-way heft to stand up against the Ahos and Bergeron's and Matthews of the world? Well, I think you split them up and you go Zabinajad and Crider as kind of like a matchup line at 5-15. Yeah.

And then you just shelter the living daylights out of Panarin, Teresanko, and Trochec. And kind of have that be your scoreline. And then also you have the kid line as well. And then fourth line, whatever. Which is a good X-factor line. I think, I think it's fine. Like, I actually think they're much better at 5-15 than they've been in the past. Certainly.

The power play, they're like middle of the packing goals and first and expected goals and, like, last and shooting percentage. I think they'll be okay. But what I was going to say was the whole of that trade was that sort of realization for me that you're saying because I legitimately thought we wouldn't see a single trade until like March 2nd. Right. And then we'd see all of them and then we'd see nothing on March 3rd and James Duthy would be freaking out. But we saw, we've seen at least a couple trades. So there's something to sink our teeth into. But to give you like a peek into my psyche right now, I woke up

the other night and I'd never remember what I dreamt the night before. I woke up and I had this vivid memory of my dream where I was just yelling at someone. about how Dawson Mercer has that dog in him. And I don't, I, I've talked about Mercer on the podcast a couple of times in recent weeks, but there's no real reason for me to have that internal monologue. But that's when I woke up and then I was like, wow, that was very intense. Any regular ConnectS talk listener will tell you one of my worst recurring dreams is I'm, I spend the whole dream just closing tabs on my browser.

Yeah. And I've told that story before. But what I haven't told people is that it's natural step. Dawson Mercer has that dog and I'm so good. It's so good. Do you think he moves? Mercer? No.

He's such a valuable player because I think he's got legitimate center utility, but also on that team with Hughes and he's sure ahead of him, like he's a perfect like middle six winger who can play on the top line as well. Okay, so we're not going to do Taurusanko trade today, but thinking about that trade yesterday, something that I was kind of kicking around in my head, was a topic you and I can discuss right here, which is sort of trade-edline philosophy.

So if you're a team going into a trade where you're like, all right, we have one shot to meaningfully upgrade our roster right here, would you prefer to see that team strengthen a strength? Which is like, we do something really well and a player is available, and we just get them and we get even better at it.

So whether it's scoring, whether it's defense, like it's your specific thing. Or you're a flaw team, which most teams are, realistically, and you're like, all right, we do something really well where we have kind of niche players that can do this. We really struggle at one area.

Let's identify whether it's a power play specialist or whether it's a puck transporter or whatever. Let's kind of target that and try to address sort of the weak link team building theory, which is let's improve slightly at something we're really bad at versus kind of really pressing our thumb down on something we're great at. So I'm torn on this because I think there's...

Obviously context, depending on the acquisition cause. Well, when you're talking about strengthening a weakness, the deal that I always think about is Marion Gabbrick to the Los Angeles Kings in what 2014, 2013, before they went. They won 20, 12. It was 12. So, but that team was this like persistent coursey four juggernaut that had incredibly low shooting percentage year after year.

And they went and got like one of the 10 great shooting percentage drivers and just get that into their team. And they were really conscious about it. Like if you go and read Dean Lombardi's commentary after. afterwards, like he was really conscious about, like they identify that as something they specifically wanted. We need, we need a higher level of efficiency in big moments. And then Gavrick, of course, scores the key goal in Chicago in that game seven. So, you know, that to me is sort of the best example of the latter. In terms of doubling down on a team's strengths,

I'm just trying to think of it. I guess it would be like adding Kessel to Crosby and Malkin. Yeah. That would sort of be or, or adding Doug Waite. to a team that had Rod Brindamore and Eric Stahl. Yeah. That those would sort of be like the over the top moves that bolstered a strength. And, you know, I think for me, it's all context. I don't think there's a right or a wrong way to do it dogmatically. I think it's about what matters for your team.

Like, let me give you an example. A lot of people are talking about defense or a second line left winger for the Maple Leafs, right? Yeah. my view of it is the Maple Leaf should go get the best player they can get. I don't care if they're a left-handed defenseman or right-handed defenseman, right-handed winger or a left-handed winger. If you're going to get past Tampa Bay and Boston, no mean feat, I just think you need to add a star.

Like that's, to me, the lesson of the top line or like the strengthening of strength is like bring in and this sort of goes back to our conversation with the flames too. like bring in someone at the top that makes things easier for everybody and like dramatically increases your ceiling like the Leafs to me are the perfect example of a team that's in need of like if they can one more like real difference maker. Well, they need more scoring. They do need more scoring. Yeah.

For sure. I mean, there's many ways you can win, of course, especially in a playoff series depending on your opponent, like there's going to be different types of games. I just don't understand what the Leafs. Like if you look at what they've been this year, but if you look at past playoff defeats and come away from it, like, we need to be better defensively.

That's just as Tom spits out his coffee here. I apologize by it. But what I'm, like, every single elimination game, it's an inability to break through, right? It's like you watch the game against the lightning last year and the lightning go up 2-1 and then the entire third period

is just a brick wall alongs the blue line. And Austin Matthews is like, having to dump the puck in every time and they don't have any meaningful way to break through. And I don't know how you watch that and go, you know what? If we get a second pairing defenseman here, I think this could really move. Well, this is what I'm saying. Like, it's not that you want a second pairing defenseman. It's that if you could get the best defenseman on that team.

Right. I don't think that guy's available, particularly because I'm not as high on Jacob Chicker as your average bear. Yeah. You know, I think the, I think the fact is, is that whether it was a difference making first per caliber defender or. or an X-factor high-end forward, I just think if they can add one more star-level player, that puts them in the best position.

And let me give you the opposite example. I think the devils are light on the wings. Yeah. Like, other than Sharon Govich, who's not a heavy player, even though he's a big guy. Yeah. I just think they need more bulk on the wings. Like I was watching their game against the Canucks,

and they dominated it. But at the end of the day, like Dakota Joshua was way too noticeable. along the wall in that game for me, you know? Vasily Pod Colson was eating too many Devils, Winger's lunch. Yeah. Along the wall. So that to me is like,

if I could design a landing spot for Timomeyer, that's it, particularly because I think Timo Meyer is going to give whoever requires him, not just elite performance this season, but probably six really good years thereafter on his next deal. Well, isn't the player that kind of checks a lot of the boxes for this? Eric Arleser.

I understand there's like considerations in the sense of the contract and the future future liability. Go get Eric Carlson if you're Toronto. I wonder if you're Toronto, but I was thinking about this. No, I like that. The Leafs, for the Oilers, for example. Yeah. Right?

Where it's like, all right, do we need secondary scoring? Do we need another playmaker? How do we feel about our blue line? It's like, hmm, if only there was a player that could address a lot of these things at once and also like has the skill level or game breaking ability to match your star players already and actually rip. Could you imagine that power play with Carlson subbing in for Tyson Barry? Could you imagine the takes of a trade of Carlson to either the Oilers or the Leaves happen?

It would be hilarious. Carlson to the Oilers is now my dream scenario. Like I hadn't even... Well, it's significantly better than your Seth Jones did Oilers take. I like Seth Jones for the Oilers. It makes sense for both sides. It certainly makes sense for Chicago to get rid of that contract by any means necessary. I'll agree with you on that.

Well, look, now that you're mentioning Eric Carlson, that's the same idea. Yeah, just a better player. So yeah, I mean, obviously, I'm more into that. But I just think, if you're the Oilers, there is no, like, I truly believe this. I think it would be nonsense for the Oilers to get onto the other side of the deadline with Xavier Borgo still in their system. Like that man. No one will ever be able to explain to me how you should be holding on to Broberg, Borgo Schaefer on the other side of the deadline. See, I think trading away picks in that situation makes a lot more.

Like, I understand keeping young players who, especially if you think their timelines closer to contributing, right? Like, let's say like Dylan Holloway, for example, we've already seen him place in a show game. All the way I wouldn't be losing. A player who can contribute for your own ELC when you're paying Dreis Eidel and McDavid. But that is very valuable. That's still four years away.

No, but a guy who could conceivably step in next year or the year after, right? I think that's much more valuable. A draft pick, anyone you take, especially outside of the top. And they're not helping you for four years. Roberg's a cell high anyway before the leaf course out. He's a third pair guy. But, but, like, Schaefer is, Schaefer was a project late first rounder and not a particularly good first rounder, right?

Like, he shouldn't, he, he went too high. I don't have a lot of read Shafer takes. Yeah, I got, I got Reed Shafer takes. And I got Xavier Borgo takes. But, like, the fact is, is that, you know, if they were, if they were Dylan Holloway types, it would be different for me. but I just think those guys, they should be all in on the next two years.

Like, this is all that matters. You can't, you can't get to the point where McDavid's 28 and you haven't won in the conference final game. Of course, of course. Who cares? What was, we talked about this, what was the summer?

In the summer, we were going through a list of players to figure out where you drew the line on who you guys takes on. Yeah. Was it Carson Coleman? Was that how far we went? I think we got pretty far. It was funny because then Luke Cunning came up, And I think you were actually like, I don't know that many takes on the room.

Like, I got a lot of content. I think, no, I think I was like, my only take is that I like him better on the wing. And then you were like, I have lots of. He is a very undisciplined sloppy player. The reason why I brought this out, why I was thinking about this was the Rangers were linked heavily to, as like a Patrick K. Landing spot, right? And then this trade of getting Teresanko most likely eliminates them from any real, uh, meaningful the financial commitment to anyone

because they just don't have really space to... Can I pose a big question for you? Yeah. Does the team acquiring Patrick Kane get all of Patrick Kane in terms of commitment and buy-in this playoffs? Okay.

Well, I know I'm old man hockey guy taking this, but it's like, if the guy's not sure he wants to leave or not, that to me, like, I know there's also concern about the hip, there's concern about the fact that his... The fact that he's sunk this year? Might be the worst defense of forward in hockey. Might.

Definitely is. I don't know. Teresenko. No, no. Kane is, yeah, really bad. So is Teresenko? No, he is. But at least Teresanko, like, occupy space sometimes.

Kane's not even in the picture. Like, it's like, where is he? My point is, my point is, for me, the hip, the declining performance are actually secondary concerns. versus... Wow, this is such an old guy, hockey take. No, if he's not sure he wants to leave or not, yeah.

Does he really have, like, are you getting... Because Patrick Kane, the idea behind acquiring Patrick Kane is fundamentally, like, been there, done that, not scared of the moment, makes everyone feel like they have a chance to win in every game, and in every big moment, you're like, I've got one of the great crunch time goals scores

of the last 15 years. Like, the whole logic of Patrick Kane is the like the X-factor part of having Patrick Kane on your roster, but are you getting that if he's this conflicted about leaving Chicago? I think this is a totally valid PDO cast take because... No, I think it's fair. I just think his personality. I just think the fact that he has been so bad and effective this year

acknowledging that the team around him sucks and I understand why the motivation wouldn't necessarily be there fully. I think for a 34-year-old with a bad hip right now, like I think that's fair to be like also a concern beyond motivation. You know what I mean? Like it's like, we just haven't seen him. Like his scoring efficiency is way down. His shot generation's way down,

even though he's more of a playmaker historically. As you mentioned, the worst defensive player in NHL. And the reason why I brought up is because like now the Rangers are out, the teams that I've seen most linked to them are like the stars or like the Golden Knights, I guess. And it's like, all right, if you're one of those teams, are you like for the Golden Knights? Game-breaking ability in terms of turning shots into goals has been a massive problem for them in past both seasons.

Are you playing with Phil Kessel? Well, that's what I'm saying. It's like, it doesn't make sense for your team, though, based on the way you're constructed. It's like Bruce Cassidy is going to hate having him. Phil Kessel, Paul Codder, Patrick Kane, fourth line. Let's go. Oh, man. I can't sell you on this?

I don't know. I don't see it. I mean either. The Rangers actually did make sense, although I much prefer a terrorist. I think the kings are the team that makes sense. Yeah, you've talked about this. They just need East West scoring. Yeah.

Wow. But realistically, I think I'd be, like, if I'm any of those teams and if I'm Drury, like, I think, I think the Rangers were wise to jump the market and get out of Patrick Kane sweep stakes proactively because I think you're going to be waiting around for a guy, and I think there's way too much uncertainty around him for a variety of reasons among them is, how invested is he going to be emotionally? Yeah. I think that's totally reasonable.

I think when your goalies are Phoenix Copley and Jonathan Quick and you've already struggled big time to suppress opposing offense. Yeah. I think that's a concern. Me too. Yeah. And I don't think you can really add goalies in season. Not effectively.

No, because, I mean, I think the Demko is different because he's signed. He's signed at a reasonable price and he's got the track record. But I think adding any goal in being like, we're going to bet on him being better than what we have for the next 20 games is just, you're chasing in the tail. Has it worked since Dwayne Rollison? No, I remember Ryan Miller and St. Louis. And last year, Mark Andre Fleury and Minnesota. I mean, I just don't think, I think it's too, the position's too nuanced to just like play 10, 15 games behind a new team and be like, and be like, and we're off.

This is, I'm having Kevin Woodley on next week. This is a good topic for him. Talking about the dynamics of like the offensive tendencies in front of you and how that impacts. Just ask him why it doesn't work. Because it doesn't work. I bet you he has takes. I want to ask him. why it doesn't work and then sit back for the next 45 minutes and relax.

Put your feet up. I love Kevin Woodley. All right. Tom, let's take a quick break here. And then when we come back, we're going to hit a variety of other topics. You're listening to the Hockey PDO cast streaming on the Sportsnet Radio Network. Your number one spot for Flames coverage can be found on Flames Talk with me, Pat Steinberg. Exclusive interviews, trusted insiders, and the latest news. Listen live weekday afternoons at four or stream the Flames Talk podcast on demand.

All right. we're back here in the Hockey Pee-Ocast with Thomas Drance. So Tom, I have a question for you here from a listener of the show named Alexi, which is an interesting one. It goes, I've been wondering how the league would change if a player's salary would be fixed to a percentage of the cap rather than being a certain dollar amount. For example, Connor McDavid signed for $12.5 million when the cap was 79.5.

If you apply that as a percentage to, say, an $85 million cap in 2025 as is projected, goes up about a million dollars. How would the economics of contracts change? What about trades when teams would have entirely different things they consider? First of all, I think the players would love this. Well, sorry, I think the players would struggle to understand it. But conceptually, we were told there was no math. No, well, very seriously, I'm not sort of casting aspersions.

One of the big issues for the PA in multiple sequential negotiations with the owners, you know, since 2013 has been the idea of guaranteed money. And of course, that's a misnomer, right? Because if in a league where the share is tied to hockey related revenue and is capped at 50%, every contract signed is, in fact, not a number, but is a percentage. It's just that it's expressed as a number in a way that I think is confusing for fans and players. But at the end of the day, the whole escrow system is designed because players, players are fixed to a percentage of revenue that their number represents based on what they take up against one team's cap.

Yeah. It's just that that number doesn't adjust when the cap goes up. Well, yes. So in some ways, this would be a system that benefits the players. And yet, because you'd be signing a contract that doesn't have money on it, I think it would be something that would be seen to potentially infringe on the concept of guaranteed money that's so core to what the PA wants to protect. attacked in the course of CBA negotiations. How would the league change in terms of economics, though? I mean, you'd really, I think, be incentivizing teams to go along earlier? Oh, I think the opposite. Really? So what I was thinking at first blush on this was, okay,

so take the Dylan, Dylan Cousins contract that he recently signed as an example, right? So it kicks it next year. It's seven years, 7.1 million per. It's for his age 23 through 29 seasons. the exact type of contract that if you're a team like the Sabres you want to be signing, right? It's a no-brainer. Even if you think, all right, next year he'll be a $6 million player. He might honestly already be a $7 million player based on the way he's played this year. But let's say he's six, right? For the next year or two.

It's such a good bet that for the meat of that contract, he will significantly outperform that salary. Especially the cap goes up the way we expected to do. So for the Sabers, it's a very, very calculated, very small risk, very high, very high high reward to sign a player like that because they're just so likely to outperform that deal. If it's attached to a percentage of the cap, it can still be valuable, but it removes some of that element for growth in the sense that if we're all projecting every year, it's going to go up $1.5.2 million. Each year, Dylan's Cousins becomes significantly more valuable. I think the problem, though, that you run into or you would run into is when you're telling a player they're worth like

3%. Mm-hmm. Which, by the way, is a massive amount. Yeah, but optically, it sounds it sounds terrible it's like i'm worth three percent get out of here i want to see i want to see press releases on twitter we have me assigned dylan cousins the three percent of our gap right yeah so i think i think that would create uh an environment where you'd have to go longer to to juice the number because who wants to sign for 0.5 percent yeah yeah that's that's i'm i'm more thinking of it just from a like i'm putting my autograph on a piece of paper and what number offends me least yeah i just I think you'd have to end up. And also I'd add this, I think you could get players at,

in a world where you were doing percentage type deals, I think you could get players for less because of the fact that the risk is shared. Well, the risk isn't shared. Sorry, the upside is shared. Well, the only think there, yeah, I think you could, there'd be a lot of shenanigans with, like, round numbers. For sure. I'd also love to see which player demanded the sign for 6.9% of the cap.

Crosby Crosby would definitely be A.7 just demanding 8.7 Yeah I think it'll be a really fascinating wrinkle to consider I do think there would be changes in terms of

what you're willing to concede versus what you're looking for right? Like I think I think for young players it would be great because the problem

like that's why you're never going to see it. The dumb thing with this it's like all right security it's tough to pass up however many million dollars Dylan Cousins just guaranteed himself for the rest of his career

but it's just, if you're advising him, it's like, dude, just sign three years and just keep playing, keep kicking the ball down until you have more leverage, right? Like, that's the whole point of the RFA system. It really just screws every single young player. Well, you are about to see, I think, more short-term, like, I think you're going to see short-term deals in free agency, particularly if the NHL and the NHLPA end up negotiating something like modest, like a two and a half million dollar left to the cap. And we're living in like a, what, 86, million dollar cap or an $85 million cap next year. But yeah, like one thing I could see happening because it was on the docket before the

pandemic was creating an environment where you like schedule like three years worth of cap lifts. Right. That there's certainty for all sides. I could see that sort of happening this year. And I could see players, even maybe some high profile players for once actually doing short term deals, preferring short term deals to just like get past this flat cap era, get pass these negotiations and try and aim to sign their next contract in a $95 million

upper limit environment in 2026, 27. I really think. Well, how does the idea of a potential work stoppage in 2026, though, influence that calculus? Yeah, I mean, it would for sure. Yeah. But also, you know, the players with new NHLP executive director coming in, Marty Walsh, you know, it doesn't feel like the players have picked like a wartime consular. Right. Right. I suspect that the, I suspect that the, the, the labor piece is going to be

prioritized on all sides, particularly given where the TV deal is going and, um, and the fact that there's going to be a new Canadian TV deal up too soon. So there's a lot to take care of. I suspect labor piece is going to be the, the watchword of the day. Yeah. But yeah, obviously a fact. Well, who knows what we're going to be doing 2026, but the idea of doing a daily, daily radio show about hockey during, no actual hockey being played. It sounds miserable. I mean, back to, back to, just doing rewatchables every day, just rewatching a game from 2015.

Back to spring 2020. Yeah, there we go. You dig deep. Yeah. Lots of alumni content. Yeah, maybe, I got to get another dog or something in that point. Yeah, exactly. That's what I did last time.

Okay, here, we got a question here from JD. It's a really long one. I appreciate how much thought he put into it. So I don't, I'm not going to read it out fully, but I'm going to try to summarize it here, okay? So he basically asks, is there a way to quantify whether shift in a team's tolerance for turnovers would net a positive impact on their outcomes overall? And the way JD frames it here is like in the NBA, we've seen teams acknowledge that

going for more three-pointers, even if you miss them in the short term, is a net positive because it just increases your like scoring expectancy, right? In baseball, we've seen teams sacrifice taking more strikeouts. to increase the likelihood they hit home runs, right? In football, we've seen teams turn it over on fourth down because why would you not go far on fourth and inches or fourth and one, right? It's just silly not to, even though we keep having this debate in NFL. But all these other sports have kind of acknowledged this.

With hockey, it feels like a point shot or a shot that has like a 5% chance of going in or even less is deemed as preferable to, a player going for like what's deemed to be a risky pass even if it could lead to a great scoring chance because of the risk of a turnover and then their coach being upset. Have you watched much Canucks lately? I've watched too much Canucks this season. Yes, definitely. Yeah. The Elias Pedersen rotating to the point. Yeah. And just firing away and I know they end up scoring a goal on it last night. But I need so much less of that in my life. Yeah. Like I do not need

Elias Pedersen taking point shots. It's an interesting, it's an interesting. Well, here's the final line from J.D. Yeah. And then I'll let you go. He ends it with, we don't seem to view a failed pass or a deke the way we do a miss three point or a strikeout. Obviously, you'd rather make it. But isn't it possible that over time those plays are probabilistically going to lead to more favorable results?

Yeah. I mean, I think efficiency is sort of something that the league is prioritizing more. I just don't know that we have the stats or the way of like calculating the value of each shot, you know, to a level where we really understand. Yeah. But players do, right? I think players do like intuitively. Intuitive. Yeah.

Especially, you know, you're our Temi Panarans or your, you know, your high-end playmakers. The guy's most likely to pass on what looks like an open net. because the puck's rolling in a way that you can't see, but that they understand, oh, this is a good chance. But if I settle it and put it on a platter, it's a better one. I think those types of players, like watching the twins, for example, and I come back to them often because they were so unique. But that's what they were doing at all moments of the game.

They were assessing the value of shots current constantly and intuitively. And I think you can kind of trust the best offensive players in this league. to do it reliably on a regular basis, which is sort of why the shoot yellers. Yeah. The crowds are so funny. Yeah. So, you know, I think there's absolutely truth to it,

especially on in-zone play in the offensive end. Yeah. Where I think, you know, where I do think it still matters. And I think one thing that's too bad about the giveaway is stat in the NHL is it doesn't differentiate. Like, there are costly. giveaways. And there are giveaways where, in fact, it's still

the right play even if it doesn't work because you need to be trying to generate offense and generate these most efficient opportunities. It would be nice to differentiate between a defenseman making a bad puck management error. Yep. Which is truly dangerous, right? Like a really bad play. And Joe Thornton

trying to squeeze a puck between, you know, two defenders in a soft zone of coverage. You know, because what? Joe Thornton and Patrick Kane, like, led the league constantly. And Eric Carlson with league constantly in turnovers. And it's like, but I want them doing it. Yeah. Like there's no problem.

Yeah, exactly. There's no problem with that. So I think there's, I would love to see, I know this is a ridiculous thing, but I'd love to see them improve the giveaway stat to make it more telling. Mm. Because I do think that there's, I do think that there's, you know, win probability that you're adding in allowing your most skilled players to try things, no question. I think almost everybody knows that. Yeah.

Oh, man. Yeah, I think, well, every decision should have a win probability added. It'd be... It'd be amazing. And then we'd actually know who's valuable. But here's a stat for you. This season, defensemen have attempted 26,000 five-on-five shot attempts. Okay.

What percentage of those do you think resulted in goals? Gold save percentage is down overall. Okay. I'm going to guess 3.9. 2%. On the dot. Yikes. So I actually guessed, I tried to...

You were optimistic. I tried, but I thought I was being optimistic. I get that that doesn't include like rebounds and follow-up chances, right? Yeah. Also, though, that includes like Rosmastali and Gilmokar who do not get shots the typical defensemen do. They're like chiving in the inner slot. Yeah.

I just don't understand if you know that number, how you could ever justify wasting an offensive zone possession with a shot from your defenseman. No, I know. Considering it's so unlikely to succeed, and then I was thinking about it, unless we just have different definitions

of what success looks like. I think for a lot of players and coaches and the way teams operate, we know it's a very conservative sport. no one wants to be a person to blame. So we see a lot of like kicking the can down the road, right? It's a lot, like, that's why players dump the puck off the glass and out. That's why we see point shots because no one wants to turn it over and then wind up on a highlight reel

where it's like the coach next day in film session is like, oh, just looking at their child. I can't wait to just break this guy down. And then you're showing it back and you're like, this is where you messed up here. No one's going to break it down and be like, oh, right, you see like, yeah, you just kind of fired it into the chest of the goalie and it resulted in a face-off. And the other team was tired and you let him off the hook. But see, I think that's changing though. It is, but so slowly.

Watch, watch, um, I know I keep bringing him back to the Canucks, but that's because that's who I think about all the time. Like, watch Luke Shen and how rarely he takes shots that aren't massively trafficked, right? Yeah. Almost always, it's just like, puck back down low, puck back down low. And I think five years ago, that player type would just be cranking them. You know, I think, I think, I think,

I think increasingly you're seeing those types of players. And in a league where seizing fourth man's ice and attacking as a five-man unit is so much more heavily prioritized. Like even, we brought up the flames, but it's like, watch how aggressively Darrell Sutter's defense now activates. Yeah, Nikita Zedorov is like playing like Paul Coffey. It's straight up Rover. Yeah. I mean, it's truly unbelievable how much the game has changed in terms of emphasizing those portions of the game. and I think as a result, you are seeing

even your most, like, conservative old school player types be, like, almost the most conscious. You know, gone are the days of your Eric Good Branson point shot being considered a really good play. Yeah, for the most part in the league. Like, truly.

And again, I think this comes back, too, to the best players being intuitive above shot value. Like, I really do think that there's, you know, I was thinking about this while watching Jack Hughes play the Canucks earlier this week, where, like, one thing I love about Jackie is, and I've noticed it before, but he just had so many opportunities to do it against the connects that it really

stood out, was on the power play, it feels like he's allowed to just approach whoever's got the puck and Beavertail, and they're supposed to, like, change spots with him so that he gets to make the shot or the pass or the play. And it's like, of course, that's how you should be operating. Just put the puck in your best player's hands, but it feels like they are really conscious of being like, let Jack cook. Yeah. And that to me is kind of an example of where we're going here, of a player assessing shot value of a team systematically changing how they're operating to permit that, because you get

to a point where like, what's going to cause ex-defensive defensemen to stop shooting from the point? It's going to be his star player going over to him afterwards and being like, dude, dude, you can't do that. Yeah. I need the puck. Yeah. Until you need to put it down low.

And I think we now exist in the league where that's happening, where players understand that. Well, look at our favorite team, the Buffalo Sabres. Like, their shot chart is perfection. Yeah. It's like nothing except for just the middle of the ice inner slot around the net. And part of that is talent, right? They have a lot of, like, young, extremely gifted players now. But I do think the philosophy is certainly changing.

Is that the funnest line in hockey? Um, I've always. Yes, but I'm willing to... You're talking about Cousins, Peturka, and Jack Wynn? No. No, I'm not. Yeah, it is until Timom Meyer gets to play with Jack Hughes, but...

Yeah, yeah, I mean, I think it's up there. Now, their defensive results are really bleak. Shouts to Heeshire and Brat. Yeah. That's super fun. Yeah. Well, no, in a different way, but my vote is still hints Pabelski. Ian Roberts.

Yeah. Like, because they just, they play like the Siddons. Like, yeah, it's cool. They just play as one person.

Isn't it? It's really cool. It is very awesome. Okay, well, no, that was a really interesting way. I do think it honestly ties,

I think we as, we struggle with. Sorry, we can't move on from my line thing without just like doffing our cap at Bergeron. Of course. Yeah.

I just want to say it before we move on because they deserve it. Yeah, but it's less cool when it's like Bergera on Marsha Craig Smith. Are we making, I know.

I know. But when it's when it's perfection, it's... Yeah, or even DeBrasconi this year. Are we making a... Let me, before... No, we got eight minutes here, yeah. Are we making enough of a deal about the Boston Bruins? Mm-hmm. In what way? Like, not acknowledging that they're on pace for 133 points? Not... I mean, they could lose out every game the rest of the season and still finish the year above 500?

Yeah. They are the best goal prevention team in the league. league by 20 goals. There's no one close. Well, still being like second in goals court, I think. I think this is, yeah. I mean, I just, I don't know. And we'll, I think this is sort of how a season moves.

It's like the Bruins were a story because they were on such a tear and it was like they're making history early in the year around the 30 game mark. Yep. And then now we just are kind of used to it. The Bruins are good. We know the Bruins are good. They're going to be hard to beat. They're going to be the president's trophy winner.

They're going to win the division. It's kind of settled. So we now pay attention to other stuff. And then in the last 10 games, we'll. round back to it and be like, what a historic regular season. And then they'll lose in the first round because that's how historic regular season. This ties into what I was going to say. Okay. We suck at understanding probabilities. Right. And probabilistic thinking. So the Bruins are having this historically great regular season, much like Tampa Bated in 2018, 19. Now them getting

swept by the Blue Jackets is obviously an extremely negative result. People also forget, didn't they, weren't they up three nothing in the first period? They were. Yeah. one and they choked it away and then everything unraveled. Yeah. And at that point, they were like outscoring the Blue Jackets like 25 to 4 in the season. I watched that game on a dock bar in South Florida and I was like, this is unbelievable. I couldn't believe it. It's very fond memory.

Oh, you weren't allowed to fire off takes. Absolutely no takes. Man. The world is so much better for you covering the Kanaxin firing off takes. Yeah, for sure. But yeah, so like, the fact that they might not win the Stanley Cup, in fact, are more likely not to than win, has absolutely nothing to do with their regular season. Right? And for whatever reason, like, you're already seeing a bit of, I don't know if they peaked too early or like, oh, I don't know, like the lack of adversity throughout this regular season is going to, it's like, it's such a bizarre take.

Well, especially because it's like that group of players. You know what they should do? Try to lose more in the regular season because then they're going to come more likely to actually win it on. Right. What they should try to do is be the blues in the 2019 blues. Oh, you want adversity? Be the worst team and then let's see you in a standoff. There we go.

Yeah. Man, I hate that. Oh, so bad. The, uh, yeah, no, the Stanley Cup playoffs does not efficiently reward the best teams. Yeah. The regular season does. We need to make a bigger deal of the president's. trophy. Way bigger.

It's what I matter. Way bigger. I think you need a sponsor in like a big cash bonus. Yeah. You get a little cash bonus, but you need like a, it should matter in a major way and there should be celebrations after it's secured. Yeah. You know, like I often think about this, again, to bring back to Vancouver and I'm sorry

for your listeners that I'm so Vancouver centric, but there was a goal at the, it was a buzzer beating goal at the end of the second period that Christian Earhoff scored. Yeah. And it was the game winning goal that secured the president's trophy for Vancouver in 2011. And I always think. think like that should be a historic goal for this franchise but no one knows it. Yeah, they should have had like a LeBron-esque ceremony right there on the spot. Or no, but after the game, like what, yeah, what, I mean, here's here's one thing that I do

think about a lot with the NHL. Only one team gets to win the cup and that's fine, but there's, there's obviously like more ways to have a successful season. there should be more occasions to celebrate as a fan base over the course of a year. You know, you think about football, for example, right? And you have, and I mean English football, you have multiple trophies, you have tournaments, you can win the Champions League, you can win the league, you can win one of the regional tournaments, what have you, like.

But at the end of the year, first of all, if you win all four, it's historic, no one's ever done it. If you win three of four, it's like that's one of the greatest teams of all time, which is cool. too because it's like you check them off the list and the pressure mounts on a team to make history. But also at the end of the year, if you have four different winners, it's like four teams have like something that they're proud of and four banner raising. Like it makes sense to have more accomplishments recognized. Yep. More degrees of success formally recognized. More reasons to celebrate players as opposed to it just being players and teams as opposed to it just being like one versus 31 at the end of the year. Yeah. But also. Obviously, the Stanley Cup should be the one that matters the most, and no one wants to change that tournament. I just think that if you celebrated the president's trophy. It's an accomplishment.

And I'm a firm believer. Like, I think the NBA midseason tournament, which players are super hesitant about, by the way, in the NBA. But I think that's going to be phenomenal. Yeah. It's going to revolutionize their All-Star weekend. You know, like, you want to make All-Star weekend matter. Make it the final four of a mid-season tournament. Like, what are we talking about?

Yeah. Put real money on the line and have teams playing hard. Tom. That's such a great note to end the week on. We need more reasons to celebrate and be happy. Yeah, and to recognize excellence. There we go. All right.

Let the listeners know where they can check you out, what you've been working on. You've been busy at work. Yeah. You've been cooking up a lot of potential trades and a lot of ways the Canucks can get extra assets. Yeah, which I appreciate that because I was going through the list of players that you highlighted. And I was like, wow. This is really scraping the bottom. in the barrel at some point, but you put into work.

Do you like the Mike Riley one? Mike Riley one was good. Yeah. Who was the guy from Vegas that you highlighted? Some, like Quarzac or something? Yeah. I was like, all right, let's pump the brakes. Vaggers, Campi Chusers.

Yeah. Cooking up a lot of content at Theathletic.com slash Canucks, but also just Theathletic.com slash NHL. And Canucks talk on Sportsnet 650, which airs right before this show. So check us out on wherever you find your podcasts. That's beautiful. Next time we have you on the PDO cast, it is going to be our third

annual fake trade extravaganza. Fake trade extravaganza trades we'd like to see. Now that it's a 50 minute daily show, I think we're going to have to like break it up into at least two or three parts because it goes that long. Last year, immense hilarity ensued. Also some fantastic trades.

We got the Brandon Hagel trade. Pretty much exactly. Dead on, yeah. And you. This year, this year I'm going to nail the Sam Lafferty trade. I can't wait. We're going to bring in our pal, Jack Brazer, for that as well. Let's go. It's really fun. Looking forward to that. I'm also really excited to cook up some absurd potential trades for Boerabat. Ah. We better rush this one. We better do it like next week. I know. It's true. We might run

out of guys. We can actually be feasibly moved. Tom. We will never run out of guys. Tom. As long as Carson Coolman is still in the league, we've got a chance. Tom, this was a blast. Thank you for coming on the show. Thank you to the listeners for listening to the HockeyPedocast. If you enjoyed what you heard, you can help us out by smashing that five-star button wherever you listen to the show. And that's going to be it for this week. We'll be back on Monday with plenty more. So until then, thank you for listening to the HockeyPedocast streaming on the Sportsnet Radio Network.