Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Missouri Survives Scare, Louisville And Marquette Roll

Olympic Super Sunday Open Thread

 

Russia vs. Czech Republic 1 PM MT

Canada vs. United States 5:40 PM MT

Sweden vs. Finland 10 PM MT

Today is where the Olympic hockey tournament begins, at least for me. The six hockey powers line up in what has the potential to be as good a day as we're likely see this week. After the jump, brief previews and a look at how the standings might shake out.

Star-divide

 

Russia vs. Czech Republic 1 MT TSN:

 

The Russians have looked a bit off through their first two games, and their slightly indifferent play allowed a decent Slovak team to hang around long enough to edge them in the skills competition. All three of today's games have major implications, of course, but an outright loss will send the Russians to the 7th qualification spot. Whether that's really an issue may depend on how the seeds line after today, but at the very least it means a B2B in the quarters against a top team. I wonder if there are some NHL/KHL issues at work here, especially in terms of ice time. As Dmitry Chesnokov pointed out yesterday, the Russians aren't exactly overworking Anton Volchenkov on the back line. The other item of note for the Russians is the switch of centers for Ovechkin and Semin, with Evgeni Malkin moving up between the Capitals' duo, replacing Pavel Datsyuk. Evgeni Nabokov will start in net.

The Czechs have rolled through the first two games, dispatching the Slovaks and Latvians, and are the only team in the big six that can lose today and win their group, provided the loss is after regulation. They've ridden decent forward depth and the excellent goaltending of Tomas Vokoun in the opening matches. Vokoun has and will play every game until his team is out, so we'll see if fatigue plays any role in his play from here on. The player attracting the most attention, for a number of reasons, is Jaromir Jagr. He's looked dangerous thus far, and the talk of a return to North America next year doesn't seem like it's based on folly. Gabe Desjardins' NHLe shows him to be operating at the 30-30 mark in the KHL, and I know a few teams that could use that sort of production, even in sheltered minutes. The Czechs are pretty deep up front, so they haven't had to overplay any of their forwards to this point.

 

Canada vs. United States 5:40 MT CTV:

 

Lots of handwringing going on after Thursday's performance, but as a few saner heads have pointed out, Canada likely out-chanced the Swiss 3-1. The coaches are still hunting for a permanent member for the Crosby line, as Mike Richards filled that spot in yesterday's practice. There are some roles that have begun to fill in even after two games, however. Patrice Bergeron is going to be the 13th forward, with own-zone FO duties his major contribution. Jarome Iginla is off the Crosby line for now, working with Toews and Morrow on the "energy" line. As an aside, do you really need a line to provide "energy" in this sort of short tournament? As deep as this country's squad is, shouldn't every line be in that mode? It just seems like one of those canards, IMO.

The defence had a slightly shaky go-round against the Swiss, albeit utterly unaided by their forwards' slack-ass play without the puck. It appears that Brent Seabrook got the short straw, although I wouldn't be surprised if he and Duncan Keith got a few chances head to head vs. Patrick Kane. I still think the pairings are pretty fluid as far as the coaching staff is concerned. Martin Brodeur will get the start in net.

 

The U.S. has won its openers in somewhat more relaxed fashion that the Canadians, but they've been much looser in terms of trading chances. The Swiss game in particular was a series of 2 on 1s and 3 on 2s as it progressed, with Ryan Miller keeping things in order. The Americans do have a fast set up front, and their young forward group has been pressuring all over the ice, so the Canadian D will need a better effort from the forwards to get transition started. The weak spot, at least to me, for the U.S. is on the back end. They have some potentially nice players, like the Johnsons and Ryan Suter, but those guys can be pressured into errors. They do, of course, have a top-of-his-game Ryan Miller cleaning up behind them, and if the U.S. wants to trade chances, it may come down to which goalie is the sharpest.   

 

Finland vs. Sweden 10 MT Sportsnet:

 

The Finns are my second choice team in this tournament, with Kipper, Hagman, and my second favourite hockey player ever on their squad. They've actually looked very sound thus far, out-shooting the opposition by an average of 40-18 in their opening two encounters. The offence is rooted in their deadly PP, with the Finns scoring six goals when up a man, batting a smooth 50%. The fact that the offence has been PP based might be a cause for concern as the tournament gets to the serious stage, since I'd guess that the PKs that the Finns face from now on might be a bit better that what Germany or Belarus could muster.

The other thing that I'd watch for is the potential for a drop-off by their main defencemen. Sami Salo and Kimmo Timonen are playing about 23-24 minutes each, and Joni Pitkanen has played about 20 minutes per game, and that's been against lesser foes. I could see a situation where they and Toni Lydman have to play significant minutes against the big boys, and suffer for it when they have to face high-end players on every single shift. Miikka Kiprusoff, with a rare night off under his belt, will go this evening. I suppose if he had Backstrom and/or Niittymaki as his back-ups in Cowtown, he might get the odd one off for the Flames as well. Sigh.

 

The Swedes have also seemed fairly sound through two, although we may see by the end of the games that they were in the group that only sends two teams to the QFs, so maybe they and the Finns haven't been pushed as much as the other powers, and they certainly didn't face the sort of challenge the Czechs and Russians faced in Slovakia. No matter, the Swedes are in a good spot, and a win over their Nordic neighbours will send them straight through to Wednesday. They have a deep forward group, and have spread the minutes nicely around the entire roster thus far, with no one having played less than 12 minutes a night, and Nicklas Lidstrom averaging just over 18 at the high end. They haven't had the sort of lethal special teams that the Finns are sporting, so their shot and goal totals aren't quite as impressive, but they might have the edge head to head. Henrik Lunqvist will get the start in the nets.

 

Today is, of course, as much about tone-setting and positioning as anything. The teams that have the most control over their fates at the moment are the Czechs, Finns, Americans and Swedes. If any of them win outright, they'll be guaranteed QF games, and since I have a feeling that at least one of these games will need extra time, a likely top-two spot. The Canadians need a bit of help to get into the top two, but if the Russians lose and end up seventh, finishing second and facing them on Wednesday might not seem like a prize. No matter the actual results, I'd expect nothing less than a display of serious quality all around. This will be the open thread for the entire day, unless things go nuts during the Canada-US game. Enjoy.

Comment 104 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Jagr should definitely be a Flame. Jarome and Jaromir playing together for great justice

by SmellOfVictory on Feb 21, 2010 11:39 AM PST reply actions  

YES! 1-1

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 5:00 PM PST reply actions  

well, fuck.

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 5:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, I think Brodeur’s in love with his puck playing ability.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 5:02 PM PST up reply actions  

If you think Mike Milbury is annoying on HNIC, he’s much worse on US television, trying to create a hate between the two countries (by saying Canada thinks the US is not worth anything, etc). Olczyk playing the same ‘no respect’ card.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 5:01 PM PST reply actions  

Is Milbury american?

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 5:02 PM PST up reply actions  

A little over ambitious on that one. Marty looks like hell.

by Robert Cleave on Feb 21, 2010 5:02 PM PST reply actions  

So does Niedermeyer – he’s all over the place, just about made a bad pinch there…

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 5:03 PM PST reply actions  

I really like Keith, though.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 5:05 PM PST reply actions  

He’s a little more then decent, yes. :)

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 5:06 PM PST up reply actions  

I watch a team differently when I’m cheering for them. I don’t notice Keith as much when he’s playing the Flames, but now that he’s with Canada I’m paying closer attention. He is very positionally sound, very steady.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 5:22 PM PST up reply actions  

I notice Duncan Keith entirely too much against Calgary, maimster. He’s eaten Iginla’s lunch for a couple of years now.

by Robert Cleave on Feb 21, 2010 5:27 PM PST up reply actions  

Don’t notice is not the right way to put it. Perhaps “don’t appreciate how good he is at all facets of the game”.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 5:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Shots 17-6, what do you think scoring chances are? Seems like Canada is all over them, but US has had some decent chances.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 5:16 PM PST reply actions  

10-4?

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 5:16 PM PST up reply actions  

Is behindthenet or timeonice posting advanced stats for the olympic games??

by Ken Williams on Feb 21, 2010 5:17 PM PST via mobile reply actions  

If Luongo was in net the US would have zero goals right now.

by SmellOfVictory on Feb 21, 2010 5:21 PM PST reply actions  

Lots of shots, but I’m trying to remember a really difficult save Miller had to make, and I can’t. If Canada wants to get more point shots, they’ll need more traffic.

Oh, and someone needs to tell Brodeur to stop with trying to do so much. That play on the second goal was just mental.

by Robert Cleave on Feb 21, 2010 5:22 PM PST reply actions  

That’s why I was asking about the chances. I thought Canada had 85% of the play, but the real scary chances seemed almost even. US had two or three bouncing around the crease that were causing trouble, and Canada didn’t have that kind of great chance.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 5:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Has Pronger looked good in any of the games thus far?

by Kent Wilson on Feb 21, 2010 5:25 PM PST reply actions  

In the 4 periods not against Norway? No.

by Robert Cleave on Feb 21, 2010 5:28 PM PST up reply actions  

Other than him and Brodeur, I thought everyone else was pretty good.

by Kent Wilson on Feb 21, 2010 5:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Miller was better. Which is really shitty.

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 5:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Niedermayer doesn’t quite look like he has his normal legs. If he isn’t jumping into the play, his value really drops, because he isn’t exactly air-tight behind his own blue line.

by Robert Cleave on Feb 21, 2010 5:33 PM PST up reply actions  

I think Niedermeyer was shaky, but I’m expecting the worst from him. I thought Iggy looked harder to knock off the puck than he usually does with the Flames (this year, I mean).

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 5:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Ryan Kesler is still an asshole.

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 5:43 PM PST reply actions  

He had some interesting words about hating Canadians that NBC was showing before the game. I hope the Canuck fans remember that after the games are over.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 5:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Big Body Presence

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 5:48 PM PST reply actions  

That little play by Keith there at the blue, right before the whistle, was top notch. Pinch, then turn with position, creating space…just amazing stuff.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 5:50 PM PST reply actions  

Really smart player. Toews has looked amazing in this period too.

No wonder the Hawks are so damn good.

by Kent Wilson on Feb 21, 2010 6:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Is it wrong to enjoy Perry going down even just a little?

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 5:59 PM PST reply actions  

FUUCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKK

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 6:01 PM PST reply actions  

Building off that: Pronger sucks.

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 6:03 PM PST up reply actions  

Boyle and Pronger are both trouble in their own end.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 6:02 PM PST reply actions  

Brodeur, Pronger, Boyle.

Those guys look overmatched tonight. Everyone else seems pretty good.

by Robert Cleave on Feb 21, 2010 6:03 PM PST reply actions  

I have to disagree with RO on Doughty. He and Keith should be out there every shift.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 6:04 PM PST up reply actions  

And if Seabrook isn’t playing with Keith, I’m not too comfortable with him even being on this team.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 6:05 PM PST up reply actions  

If Canada loses, it is 99% Brodeur’s fault.

by SmellOfVictory on Feb 21, 2010 6:09 PM PST reply actions  

Yeah he’s been at fault on 2 goals.

-Colin

by Colin S on Feb 21, 2010 6:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Since this is a Super Sunday thread...

Did anyone see the Russia-Czech game? I was on the road, saw the highlights on NBC (which were 98% focused on Ovechkin).

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 6:14 PM PST reply actions  

I watched, maimster. It was a pretty decent game, but the Czechs just never looked like they could create quite enough. Vokoun wasn’t his normal self either. Not bad, exactly, but not great. I didn’t think much of either teams’ D, but after watching Canada’s, I’m not sure I think much of theirs either. The Russians certainly are dangerous off of the rush, as you’d expect, and there were points where the speed differential was fairly marked.

by Robert Cleave on Feb 21, 2010 6:21 PM PST up reply actions  

Did Iggy lose his A? or am I just not looking close enough?

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 6:18 PM PST reply actions  

Canada has to have more control over their sticks, although Orpik should have received a holding penalty on that rush.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 6:25 PM PST reply actions  

I take back anything I said about Doughty. Kid is stellar today.

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 6:28 PM PST reply actions  

I don’t like the reffing – after no whistles for 35 straight minutes, weird to have three straight called. But, they were all penalties.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 6:30 PM PST reply actions  

Time to put Luongo in net.

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 6:32 PM PST reply actions  

I think Luongo will get to play against whomever finishes 10th or 11th, and then against whomever finishes 2nd or 3rd…and then we’ll see from there.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 6:46 PM PST up reply actions  

I can’t see Canada scoring two more goals, to be honest.

by Robert Cleave on Feb 21, 2010 6:33 PM PST reply actions  

That was sort of lazy by Perry, and it’s game over. Oh, well. Marty didn’t do them any favours tonight.

by Robert Cleave on Feb 21, 2010 6:54 PM PST reply actions  

I was disappointed to see Thornton out there instead of Toews.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 6:55 PM PST reply actions  

I’m not a Thornton fan, mostly because he slows the game down. He kills bad teams, but in this sort of environment, He just looks average.

by Robert Cleave on Feb 21, 2010 6:58 PM PST up reply actions  

That’s a good description. He gets slammed and labelled soft in the playoffs, and I think he has been weak in the postseason for years. But it’s not because he’s soft – he goes to the boards and hits/takes hits. But he wants to play like Martin St. Louis, not someone of his size, and it makes him much less effective then he should be.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 7:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Thornton is like the fat kid in Atom hockey. All he does is get in the way while hindering his teammates.

by Resolute on Feb 22, 2010 7:59 AM PST up reply actions  

This team is really no better then the one in Turin.

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 6:58 PM PST reply actions  

Disagree completely. Channelling RO here…don’t confuse results with the process. Canada was the much better team tonight, lost because of goaltending. In Turin, they created about 5 chances per game total. They will score here, and in bunches.

I know it was fashionable to say that Canada might be better off with the extra game, and I disagree with that – but now that they have the extra game, I think they’ll make good use of it.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 7:04 PM PST up reply actions  

I try not to confuse results with the process. But when process leads to that and the game vs. the Swiss, the results go missing.

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 7:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, fair enough. They remind me too much of the Flames, to be honest. But, I don’t think they’re comparable to Turin, that’s all.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 7:08 PM PST up reply actions  

The game vs. the Swiss was pure domination by Canada. I don’t know what we have to complain about in the macro. The details were lacking but the chances were all there, and Hiller was amazing.

Tonight was much of the same. Domination.

by R O on Feb 21, 2010 10:44 PM PST up reply actions  

The Canadians dominated this game up and down. Goaltending and bounces handed it to the Americans.

I thinkn Luongo should be the guy going forward.

by Kent Wilson on Feb 21, 2010 6:59 PM PST reply actions   1 recs

rec’d for truth

Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.

by Justin Azevedo on Feb 21, 2010 7:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Agreed on Luongo, as much as I hate to see him get constantly verbally jerked off by the Vancouver fans. Excuse my bluntness.

-Colin

by Colin S on Feb 21, 2010 7:00 PM PST up reply actions  

The only good thing is that of all the lesser teams that they could have gotten stuck with, the Germans are the least likely to beat them. They can’t score, so Luongo should have an easier night to get back going. The problem now is that if Luongo’s the guy, he’ll have to go back to back Tuesday and Wednesday.

by Robert Cleave on Feb 21, 2010 7:03 PM PST up reply actions  

It’s Germany, is it? I didn’t know that was set. What place is Canada in? Let’s see…behind Russia, Czech, US, Sweden, Finland…tied with Slovaks. So 6th or 7th? That would mean 2nd round play either 2nd or 3rd…2nd likely winner tonight (or US), 3rd would be likely Russia…

Tough road…

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 7:08 PM PST up reply actions  

Sixth, on GD, and the Russians are going to be third, after the US and whoever wins tonight between Finland-Sweden.

by Robert Cleave on Feb 21, 2010 7:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Any chance Russia is 4th, if Finland-Sweden goes to overtime? Loser of that would have 7 points, like Russia.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 7:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Nope. Group winners go ahead. If the Finns and Swedes go to OT, the loser would be the 4th seed, and get to skip playing Tuesday. If one of them loses outright, it’ll be GD with the Czechs for that 4th seed.

by Robert Cleave on Feb 21, 2010 7:14 PM PST up reply actions  

You answered my question below already. Thanks.

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 7:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Finland is +9, Russia is +7…so if Finland loses in OT tonight, would they slip ahead of Russia, or is group leader guaranteed a top 3 seed?

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 7:15 PM PST up reply actions  

And you have, apparently. Canada’s put themselves in a hole, no doubt about it.

by Robert Cleave on Feb 21, 2010 7:16 PM PST up reply actions  

If Finland wins outright, they’ll be #1, which is big because Slovakia is a tough #7 seed. If Sweden wins outright, they’ll likely be the #2 and US #1. Finland won’t likely fall below #4., Sweden would be the #5 if they lose. So, guessing that Finland will win tonight (because they’ve looked the best), and next round goes to form, we’re looking at QF of:

Finland vs. Belarus/Switzerland
US vs Slovakia
Canada vs Russia
Sweden vs Czech.

Wonder which of those games will get the most pre-game press? :-)

by maimster on Feb 21, 2010 7:26 PM PST up reply actions  

These Olympics are killing me, short track speed skaters blows, skiers have been off, this hockey team has not been good. Maybe too high expectations.

Put Luongo in net against the Germans and ride him to the end.

by Keith M on Feb 21, 2010 7:03 PM PST reply actions  

During tonight's game, Olli Jokinen had his helmet knocked off by Ohlund:

Cuthbert: I’m suprised you can knock anything off Jokinen’s head.
Ferarro: He’s got a big ‘cranius’ (He is a good commentator, but a medical expert he’s not)
Cuthbert: Yeah, the Pumpkin head.

by Rod Blogojevich on Feb 21, 2010 10:17 PM PST reply actions  

Pretty sure I hate Martin Brodeur now. Sometimes goalies get victimized by Lady Luck but Brodeur tried to pimp-slap her first on goal #2. She slapped back.

That means there is not a single goaltender on this team that I like.

Canada dominated up and down. The officiating was horrific, it’s a fucking crime that the Canadian forwards didn’t draw a holding penalty when they were dominating with US defenders wrapped around them like lovers on cold nights in the countryside. I hope the stripes won a ton of money betting tonight, and that it ruins their lives.

Iginla looks like he’s playing well but he’s got kickass linemates all the time so I don’t want to read too much into that. Crosby is the man though, it’s a crying shame he was -3 tonight.

Damn, Kipper’s given up three goals tonight. I still want to sell high on this guy.

by R O on Feb 21, 2010 10:43 PM PST reply actions  

You may not like Luongo, but I think everyone can at least admit that he’s one of the better goaltenders in the game.

by SmellOfVictory on Feb 22, 2010 12:14 AM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, his on-ice achievements (aside from the diving) are impressive. I just don’t like any of the goalies personally.

by R O on Feb 22, 2010 12:16 AM PST up reply actions  

“personally” meaning “as people”

by R O on Feb 22, 2010 12:16 AM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, I gotcha, and that’s fair. I actually screamed “garbage adulterer” or something of the sort when Brodeur threw himself out of position with that godawful poke-check attempt and got scored on. :D

by SmellOfVictory on Feb 22, 2010 12:35 AM PST up reply actions  

He’s going to give us a better shot than Brodeur right now, but Luongo has never gotten it done in the clutch, which is the concern.

by Resolute on Feb 22, 2010 7:57 AM PST up reply actions  

Damn, Kipper’s given up three goals tonight. I still want to sell high on this guy.

Shots were something like 16-4 in the first period and 10-8 in the second and 32-20 total. Sweden scored two powerplay goals, one was a 5-on-3. It’s still a 29-32 (.907) performance with Sweden dominating 40 minutes of the game. It could have been 3-0 after the first alone if not for Kipper. Did you watch the game?

As for Canada’s goalies. Brodeur had an off night, and I’d go with Luongo now, but can we stop with the sill comments that go “If Roberto Luongo were in net….blah, blah.” Cause my response to that is, “If I was born ten years ago, I’d be &^**ing Cindy Crawford right no instead of commenting on this blog”

If Luongo was in net it could have been 3-0 Canada, 8-2 USA, or 5-3 USA, we’ll never know. I think it’s reasonable and rational to start Luongo against Germany at this point. I just hope we get the “hot” Luongo vs the “not” Luongo.

by LawrenceS on Feb 22, 2010 10:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Did you watch the game?

Not yet, I have it DVR’d. Itdoesn’t really affect my point though – selling high requires a gap between perception and reality and perception of goaltending is overwhelmingly influenced by team stats (GAA, WINS!) from big game moments (ex: Marty Brodeur).

by R O on Feb 22, 2010 11:19 AM PST up reply actions  

If that’s your point, then you don’t have much of a point.

If selling high (which I don’t need explained to me) is the gap between perception and reality, then we wouldn’t be selling high with Kipper would we? His reality is not in conflict with his perception..and arguably his perception is lower. He is one of the leagues elite currently, better than both your ex: Brodeur, and Luongo. Do you think anyone would trade Kipper for either of them one for one? No. Not a chance. Therefore, we would be selling lower, wouldn’t we?

Just cause the guy let in three goals in a game that was dominated by the Swedes, doesn’t mean he’s suddenly a sieve that everyone thinks is an all-star.

If you want to talk about assets, then we need to agree that if we ‘sell high’ we’re looking for some promising return…or something to ‘buy low’ into. Kipper was a ‘low buy’ that we have turned into an asset, but that situation doesn’t come along everyday. How about we just wait until we see how little we got for Phaneuf, before we start crying about dismantling the whole team and ‘buying low’

As far as I concerned, we have enough “low buys with potential” on the roster right now thank you very much. And we suck.

by LawrenceS on Feb 22, 2010 2:45 PM PST up reply actions  

I know R O doesn’t say this in the comment you’re responding to, but in the past his argument for trading Kipper as a “sell high” situation was based on his belief that Kipper is probably playing at the tail end of his peak for the next season or so, and that offloading his contract for some good forward talent would be beneficial (a chronological sell high as opposed to perceptual).

I believe the comment he made regarding goaltending being highly influenced by team stats (and team play in general, if the contrarian goaltender is to be believed, and I think he is) is more an aside that having an elite goaltender is not as important as people make it out to be in the long run (and often a goaltender who is simply ‘good’ will do the job). Not to put words in your mouth or anything, R O. Haha.

by SmellOfVictory on Feb 22, 2010 2:53 PM PST up reply actions  

Lawrence, I know this is not going to be a popular statement with you but I don’t think Kipper is going to be very good for very much longer.

He’s getting old, he’s got two bad seasons before this good half season… basically next season will be a crapshoot as to his performance level. 50/50 if you want to put a guess-timate on the odds of him being above average. That’s a hell of a gamble in the nets given the money we’ve committed to the position. That’s what I think the reality is.

The perception is that he’s awesome. Not letting in goals in big games propagates that perception.

The situation would be different if Kipper was three years younger and didn’t have any bad seasons to begin with. I woudn’t even dream of trading Kipper then.

by R O on Feb 22, 2010 3:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Lawrence, I know this is not going to be a popular statement with you but I don’t think Kipper is going to be very good for very much longer.

This isn’t a statement I have any contention with at all. I don’t think Kipper is going to be very good for very much longer as well. However, it is important to assess/define what "very much longer is.

It’s currently 10/11 as far as trading and projecting is concerned. I don’t think the wheels could fall off of Kipper’s season so dramatically at this point that he finishes with a .902 sv% or something of the sort. So, we’re looking forward.

1. He is 33 years old. So, by track record with goalies, he should have at least 2 more years of productive goaltending, with little or no fall-off. Of, course that’s not guaranteed.

2. His contract essentially ‘expires’ at the end of the 12/13 season. The final year @ 1.5 will be a bargin, even if he’s an average keeper, and it could be likely that 5mil for a season will be average going dollars for an above average goalie in 12/13. It’s already 7th of 12 for goalies signed until then, with a slough of keepers retiring/getting raises in that period.

3. We don’t have another option less trading…and then it’s a keeper for a keeper (a situation in which you almost always lose by down-grading, unless it’s for a prospect)

4. We don’t have prospects ready. Irving hasn’t shown/been given the opportunity to show that he can even play in the league next year. McL stinks.

5. The earliest we should be having this conversation is trade deadline next year, more likely the following year.

6. Iggy should go first.

The only year I have a beef with on Kipper’s contract is the 11/12 season. We’re commited this year, it’s practically over and he was full value. Unless he was a ‘breakout’ prospect, we wouldn’t have a better situation next year either, because his value next year will be based on this, unless he was a UFA (which means we’re good) However, if he shits the bed next year, then the 11/12 season could be a financial bust. I don’t see any indication of that happening other than the Keenan days.

I’ve posted on numerous occasions that Keenan and Kipper for whatever reason didn’t jive. Keenan isn’t around anymore, so that’s not a big concern for me now:

With Keenan: 2899/3174 ev =.913%
W/O Keenan: 4022/4289 ev =.938%

Over four seasons without Keenan he was simply the best ev sv% goalie in the NHL, in fact he averaged better than either Luongo’s or Brodeur’s single season best. (Luo .937%, MB .933)

He’s still at .933 today (tied for 4th) behind only Vokoun .943, Rask .935, Luongo .934. He’s ahead of Super Miller @ .932 who will likely win the Vezina. AND this is all on a team that will most probably miss the playoffs.

Let’s talk about “selling” Kipper no earlier than next trade deadline.

by LawrenceS on Feb 23, 2010 12:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Interesting thought actually, to keep him another season. That 11/12 season is really the noose, if the deal was one year shorter then the Flames have the flexibility to roll the dice here and won’t be burned badly if Kipper does play poorly.

The thing here is dealing Kipper at the trade deadline next year for quality would only be tenable if he plays well next season. Which has a lot of risk associated with it based on his prior two seasons. You’re putting it on Keenan – myself, I’m not sure. Although I buy the age argument, on that merit alone he (probably) has two more seasons of performing at his current level. I just don’t know what that level is.

It’s risky all around. I’m not so worried about finding adequate goaltending (ex: look at how Dallas swung it, and how WSH did it two seasons ago with Huet) although finding an elite is a crapshoot – but it still remains a risk that we have a huge hole in net. But it’s also risky to keep Kipper.

by R O on Feb 23, 2010 2:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Normally I’m not the kind of person to wish injuries on anyone, but I wouldn’t be saddened if Miller pulled his groin and had to sit out the Olympics so the American team could die a Quick and painful playoff death.

by SmellOfVictory on Feb 22, 2010 12:13 AM PST reply actions  

Mike Babcock is an idiot, truly.

Nash and Crosby with Iginla: Four goals for, zero goals against.
Nash and Crosby without Iginla: zero goals for, three goals against.

The Iggy we are seeing in this tournament is the Iggy of his prime. Whoever he’s with, he’s making his linemates better, yet the idiot coach won’t stick with it. The moment he put Iginla with Crosby and the anchor they flat out DOMINATED the Americans. It was like men against boys, and save for Miller’s heroics, probably would have led to another hat trick for somebody in the third period.

People around hockey are taking note that Babcock is getting outcoached badly in this tournament.

by Resolute on Feb 22, 2010 8:02 AM PST reply actions  

Nash and Crosby are outchancing regardless of the right winger but yeah, with Iginla there you can see a difference, they are really dominating.

Also Iginla with Toews and Morrow were flat out dominating the top US scoring line (Parise and Stastny) as well, I was really surprised that the matchup materialized but Iginla was a beast there too.

by R O on Feb 22, 2010 8:12 AM PST up reply actions  

Usual caveat of course: kickass linemates.

by R O on Feb 22, 2010 8:13 AM PST up reply actions  

Indeed, but you saw this Iggy coming in the last couple weeks of NHL play too. If not for the Olympics shutting down the NHL, he might well have ended up a star of the month for February. With luck, this play will continue for the rest of the season. With even more luck, Babcock won’t wait until we are down two or three against Russia before going back to the one line that he can count on in the third period.

by Resolute on Feb 22, 2010 8:17 AM PST up reply actions  

Agreed Mike Babcock needs to knock it off with the School of Mike Keenan line juggling and stick with 4 parings, C’mon we’re into the knockout stage now and if you don’t have your lines set by now you shouldn’t be coaching Team Canada in the Olympics.

Nash-Crosby-Iginla = Best line last night when given a chance and that pressure they put on in the final minutes was crazy.

Heatley-Thornton-Marleau = Shark paring and are the amongst the Tournament leader in points.

Perry-Getzlaf-Stall = Most disappointing line last night in my mind. Yes Stall got a goal but still we expect more from these three

Morrow-Richards-Toews = All three love to hit and all three have offensive upswing this line could be deadly when given a chance

Bergeron = Hello? Steve Stamkos, Martin St Louis???

Shit Happens.

by CofRed on Feb 22, 2010 10:05 AM PST up reply actions  

As the token American, I can’t understand why you’d go with Luongo here forward. He’s a great regular season tender, but he’s shown himself to be pretty vulnerable in high pressure situations (remember the Hawks/Nucks series?).

Like, did MAF run over everyone in Canada’s dog? If I remember correctly, Mirtle even tweeted that Brodeur was the backup tonight.

Don’t get me wrong, I really want Canada knocked out sooner rather than later because, well, repeating that last game is extremely unlikely. I just don’t get why you’d start Luongo over MAF, and keep Brodeur as backup over MAF.

by ArikJames on Feb 23, 2010 9:52 AM PST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Calgary Flames.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Funny-pictures-chippy-the-attack-gopher-1hv_small
20 wins required
Necks_small
Dave Shoalts says ridiculous stuff about goaltending
Needles_small
New Team, for me anyway...
Necks_small
Are the Flames the team where Shooting Percentage comes to die?
Lax-xl_small
Flames and Roughnecks
Funny-pictures-chippy-the-attack-gopher-1hv_small
Defensive imbalance

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Northwest Standings

GP W L OTL PT
Vancouver 52 32 15 5 69
Minnesota 52 25 19 8 58
Calgary 53 24 22 7 55
Colorado 54 26 25 3 55
Edmonton 53 21 27 5 47

(updated 2.7.2012 at 6:26 AM PST)

24 - 22 - 7

Lost 1


Certified Executives of the Office of Management

52987_1302804284_tb_small ArikJames

Photo_71_small Hayley

Officiants of the Bureau of Editing

Ryan_small SO_RyanP

Dsc03339_small Mitch Smith

Bureaucrats

E571c235251f6540d35494b73d613163_small Justin Azevedo

Luongo_small DownGoesLuongo

Redfordnewmanbutchcassidy19_small Scott Lepp

Mcinnismonday_small BookoflooB