Jump to content
Play Pick'em Daily Read more... ×

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL


Supporting Member
  • Content Count

  • Posts on chatbox

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Country

    United States

aziz last won the day on July 20 2016

aziz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,167 Excellent

About aziz

  • Birthday 06/04/1974

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Specific Location
  • Favorite Team
  • 2nd Favorite Team

Recent Profile Visitors

4,975 profile views
  1. not for nothing, but if the fear is that teams will claim stolarz, now is better than in a few weeks. right now, a ton of goalies (and several tons of position players) are being exposed, and stolarz isn't going to be attracting any particular attention. everyone has had all summer to put themselves in "i'm good with this" situations vis a vis their opening night roster, especially their goalies. two weeks later, when 3 starting goalies and 2 backups are on the IR and stolarz is the only goalie on a waiver wire consisting of 4 total players, you maybe run into some complications. i'm entirely out of the loop, but it sounds like hart might be for real, hart is really young, everyone else is kinda crap, and the team is still running on at least one flat tire, my thoughts: 1. do not put a 20 year old goalie with zero professional experience in a position where he is maybe expected to be a difference maker in the NHL. goalies are headcases by definition, you are rolling a die with 5 sides marked "1" handling him that way. yes, a few teams have rolled 6 in that situation (price), but bad odds are bad odds. don't take them if you don't have to. 2. playing him, and maybe playing him a little bit hard early in the season and then sending him down once a vet comes back from the IR is not expecting him to be a difference maker. my opinion, giving him 4-6 NHL games right there at the start, and then sending him to the A with a, "so, hey, that's how things work up here, that's the speed and environment you need to be able to handle, get to work and we'll see you before too long," would probably be a really good thing. 3. if he does very very well over those 4-6 games, you still send him down when the goalies you care less about become available. steve mason was amazing his freshman season. he was also 20. there is a lesson there. 4. if stolarz is someone you care about holding on to (though, i wonder: why, if you have your goalie of the future waiting behind him. decent backups are easy to find, so...who cares?), you send him down with the masses over the next 5 or so days. no one knows who he is right now. give it a couple weeks, a few goalies get knocked around and bounced onto the IR, one guy with a "G" next to his name on the wire will draw attention. so, yeah. hey, it's fun to type again! hope everyone is doing well!
  2. i don't care either way. just saying goalies who have 7 NHL games under their belt 6 years out from their draft day, and mediocre numbers in the minors to boot, don't tend to be coveted by opposing GMs, especially when everyone is working really hard to trim their rosters down to regular season size.
  3. sure, and brian bouche had a 5-game shutout streak, one time. you would hope no GM would make goaltending decisions based on a 7 game career, because goaltending has nothing to do with tiny tiny tiny sample sizes, it is all about consistency over extended periods. you could be right, someone maybe could want stolarz and grab him off the wire. it won't be because of his NHL career numbers, though. and, at this point, it also probably won't be because of his draft position. it's more likely the GM thinks his name looks great on the back of a jersey as much as either of those things. there will be 60+ goalies on waivers over the next two weeks. i am so very out of the loop these days, but i don't get the impression stolarz stands out from that crowd at all. he is one of the many.
  4. everyone with an NHL contract is assigned to the NHL club at the end of the season. 12 days before the next season starts, teams can start assigning players to their AHL clubs, but waiver-eligibility applies. so, EVERY AHL player with an NHL contract that is not waiver-exempt has to go through waivers to get to their AHL team at the end of the preseason. even if just claimed, no one with an NHL contract can be assigned to an AHL roster without *clearing* waivers (waiver-exempt players aside). so, yes, same situation.
  5. there is generally little to no buzz about any goalie that has 7 NHL games under his belt. i don't know what the habs' or rangers' situations are in net at this point, but i would be pretty very shocked if any GM in the league is licking his lips at adding an entirely unproven (but still 6 years removed from his draft day) goaltender to their roster. remember that goalies are not defensemen or forwards, you can only have 2 on your game roster. factor in 3 leagues (NHL, AHL, ECHL) per organization, and 2 goalie spots per team, things get logistically very weird with more than 6 guys. point being: teams don't add depth goalies suddenly (as in the situation of a waiver-wire report) or just in case. if he were waived soon, i doubt anyone would notice.
  6. that isn't my understanding. a player that has cleared waivers does not need to clear again for 30 days or 10 NHL games, so he can be recalled and sent down like a yo-yo. he doesn't HAVE to stay anywhere, though. he's just waiver-exempt for 30 days or 10 NHL games, whichever happens sooner. if a player IS claimed, the claiming team would have to either assign him to their NHL squad or re-expose him to waivers to send him to their own AHL team. i think. i don't believe there is any functional difference in waivers depending on when they happen, though. aside from the fact that there isn't an AHL roster during the offseason/preseason, so no where to send players once they clear waivers.
  7. right right, its still camp, isn't it? yeah, stolarz is going to have to get through waivers before he goes to the phantoms, whenever he ends up being sent down. the standard argument there is you clear him more or less now, when the rest of the league is trying to trim rosters and send their own people down, let him get lost in the noise. as opposed to 2 weeks into the season when only a few dudes are on the wire, and maybe a few goalies around the league have been knocked out for a while.
  8. the timing will be a thing. if placing neuvirth on LTIR left the flyers even momentarily with 1 goalie on the NHL roster, stolarz could be brought up under emergency conditions and could then be returned to the farm when neuvirth was reactivated, waiver-free. if stolarz was already on the NHL roster when neuvirth was IR'd (and he was, if I'm following the conversation), so the flyers had at least 2 goalies at that moment...then you are right, he'll need to clear when sent down after neuvirth returns, as he wasn't recalled at all, emergency or otherwise. it would just be a normal course demotion.
  9. ah. he would not have to clear to be brought up (as recall waivers aren't a thing anymore). as I understand it, if he were recalled under emergency circumstances, he also wouldn't need to clear to be sent down (so long as he was returned as soon as the emergency was over). the requirement for emergency recall is only that the parent club be reduced below the required minimum available players at a given position (so, less than 2 goalies available), and teams are not "forced" to recall specific players or avoid specific movement restrictions if available. so, the fact that the flyers have a waiver-exempt goalie on the farm is not relevant, they can recall whoever they want, sidestepping waivers as needed. again, as i understand it.
  10. huh? what? (good lord the available emojis have gotten crazy here)
  11. in case you were curious: 1. hit by backes on trocheck was fine. reaching for a bouncing puck in the neutral zone with your head down is a bad idea. 2. ritchie hit on backes, also fine. backes had just released the puck and so was still a valid target for a hit. textbook finishing of a check. 3. hornqvist hit on mcavoy, i don't see any problem here, either. mcavoy bends at the waist for a bouncing puck, and hornqvist hit the part of him that was sticking forward. i don't know what the league is doing these days regarding head shots, I know that would have been called in the recent past. didn't like those calls then, and if they are still being made, don't like them now. are you saying you think those were all bad and should be called? i really have to ask, and i don't mean disrespect, but....when did you start watching this game? i'm trying to figure out the root of this fundamental change of attitude on checking and personal responsibility for your own safety. if you started in like 2008 or something, then i guess i understand. if you were a fan in the 80s and 90s, though, how did you survive? at what point did you go from "that's completely normal" in 1997 to "that is outrageous and i can't believe anyone could think this stuff should be allowed" today? or were you generally appalled at the NHL the whole time until recently?
  12. btw, from my viewing of that play, matthews DID skate ghost into the boards, he didn't blow him up like he could have. look at the replay again. ghost is stopping, his skates are parallel to the boards and his direction of travel. matthews makes contact, and ghost's upper body launches forward while his skates stay mostly in place. it's what happens when you apply pressure to a one end of a lever while the other end is fixed in space. his skates became a fulcrum. any contact on ghost there was going to leave him in a world of hurt, his balance and skate positioning at the time ensured that. matthews had no "soft check" option, it was basically all or none. if you say he should have gone for "none", then fine, but the idea that he could have checked him less, somehow, is fiction.
  13. with respect.....that just isn't true. watch the looping gif again, the contact comes at almost the same moment as ghost's **one touch** pass back to giroux. at a guess, i'd say it happens...1/10th of a second after, maybe? i don't think there is more than one frame of video between the pass and the check. ghost doesn't skate with the puck, or hold it, he slows down to receive and one-touches it back to giroux. so, to whatever extent your read on this is based on matthews seeing ghost with the puck and deciding then to hit him needs to be re-thunk. matthews saw a pass being made to his check in the neutral zone, lined up the hit on the will-be puck carrier, and then ghost throws on the brakes rather than continuing his motion into a safer area. I'll concede that matthews probably noticed ghost slowing down in time to avoid hitting him. the time between receiving the puck and being hit, though, was just shy of nil. is defensive checking not a hockey play? "finishing your check," as taught by every hockey coach ever, means you hit your check every time he touches the puck. even if the tactical benefit of the check is no longer relevant (i.e., the player has already released the puck), the strategic benefit of putting in the other guys' heads that they will be hit every time they touch the puck remains, and creates tactical benefits as the game goes on. players start making passes too quickly, getting rid of the puck for fear of the inevitable contact. that entire concept goes away entirely when the puck carrier can become immune to hits simply by putting himself in a bad spot. while i agree the "point" of boarding calls isn't to protect players from being hit, that has become its real-world application. it just has. according to the people objecting to my point of view on this, there are places on the ice and positions players can assume that should render them unhittable. with that perspective, how can boarding calls NOT be a thing used to protect players from being hit? how can that not fundamentally change how the game works? players are obviously being trained around the concept, else ghost wouldn't have made that play in that way (because, again, i *don't* think ghost was trying to game anything, i think he felt comfortable slowing down and getting the puck in his skates back to giroux cleanly, which....how are you not horrified that a player feels comfortable in that spot??) woof, really? how long have you been watching hockey? i mean that rhetorically, not questioning your hockey knowledge or anything dumb like that. but, based on the years and years you've watched and possibly played the game, how common is it for there to be tight pressure in the neutral zone when running a breakout? like, absolutely every time, always? you think it was somehow unpredictable that ghost would have a leaf closing on him quickly? really?? but, yes, my assertion is that players should always assume there is a truck bearing down on them, and should never ever put themselves in a position to be run over by that assumed truck. that their habit and instinct should always be to not compromise their safety, even if that means making a less that perfect play. because it contaminates the concept of defensive hockey. from where i sit, matthews had 3 choices on that play: 1. go for the puck before it got to ghost. this is a no-no from a coaching perspective, first man on the puck carrier always takes the man, f2 takes the puck. if matthews reaches for that pass and misses, he is now behind ghost and has given him 30 feet of open ice. would have been physically safe, but a bad hockey play. 2. bail on the hit entirely and play ghost passively. he'd have to cut left hard and have played the boards to contain ghost from moving up ice. he would be surrendering the pass and whatever ghost did with the puck immediately after, and could then try to limit the damage, but ghost and the flyers would have broken out of their zone uncontested. 3. continue with the hit. a hit that, i want to point out, would have been completely normal, predictable and un-noteworthy were ghost facing any other direction and/or had not just slowed down suddenly. what you are saying is that, due to how ghost placed himself, option 3 should have been off the table, leaving matthews with a choice of two bad hockey plays that each gave ground to the flyers' breakout. ghost's positioning and facing, not his skill, should have nullified the forecheck. in fact, the bad pass into ghost's skates would have been the thing that started events forcing matthews to back off. that....is a game in trouble, when a bad pass is the one that most easily moves the puck up ice because the receiver can't receive it cleanly. i don't like this because it removes what i've always considered to be a hugely interesting aspect of the game: that to get anywhere, a team has to run a gauntlet. that the threat of a large check SHOULD impact decision-making, players SHOULD have to choose between slick plays and not getting destroyed. that sometimes a less constructive play needs to be made because the other choice is too dangerous. that "finishing your check" is specifically about putting fear in the heads of puck carriers, and that kind of intimidation is entirely valid. but all of that aside, there is the actual safety issue. you and others keep talking about how dangerous my position is. and i...can't figure that angle out. i'm saying players should always assume they are about to get run (especially in the neutral zone or the end boards), and should always carry their safety as a top priority. they should never say to themselves, "meh, i'm fine, i'm sure no one will hit me here." that they should never stop 5 feet out from the boards, that they should never play a puck in their feet while near the boards, that they should never put themselves in those kinds of uber-compromised situations, whether they explicitly see the checker coming or not. that the only person that can keep a given player safe is that player. you are saying players SHOULD feel safe stopping 5 feet out from the boards. that they should play pucks in their skates while along the boards. that they should put themselves in uber-compromised situations if the best hockey play available demands it. and that a player on the other team is best situated to keep the puck carrier safe. here's the thing: whatever rules you put in place, whatever conditioning you beat into the heads of would-be checkers, someone is going to forget. someone is going to get their timing off, or get caught up in the moment, or something....and that illegal check will happen. worse, it will happen to a player utterly convinced he should have no reason to fear and is completely unprepared for the contact. so...i say players should keep themselves safe at all times and make plays based on the assumption that someone is looking for your head. you say players should make the best plays available and their opposition should realize and be gentle if making that best play puts the carrier in a bad position. you really think mine is the more dangerous approach?
  14. only over the last 10-12 years. assuming you have been watching the sport longer than that, you remember a time when that is something absolutely no one would do. back then, you didn't carry the puck with your head down, or stand 5 feet from the boards with your back to center ice. it's a different game these days, and my "back in my day" crap means next to nothing, but don't fool yourself into thinking the game is unplayable if forwards make sure they are safe in that situation. this is a new carelessness that you are advocating.
  15. thank you for providing a perfect example of the attitude i'm talking about. you actually, literally and directly object to the idea that gostisbehere should have to be concerned about his own safety. in fact, you find it to be total bullsh t. i can't even get my head around how dangerous that attitude is. again, both for the players and the game. you think gostisbehere should have been uncheckable due to his position on the ice and the direction he was facing. more frighteningly, you think he ought to FEEL uncheckable there, he shouldn't have to worry. it's total bullsh t if he does, even. gostisbehere absolutely could have played that puck and NOT put himself in that kind of deadly position. rather than throwing on the brakes, he could have cut back into the flyers zone and circled behind giroux. it would have re-set the breakout, but he'd still have the puck. and wouldn't have eaten the boards. it is how players handled that situation for many decades before people decided players shouldn't have to be afraid of being hit when they weren't ready. back when it was expected that a player would keep his own safety high on his list of priorities, no way anyone stops like that, not there, not in that situation. you represent a newer, more gentle vision of the game that places all player safety responsibility on the adversary. tells the players they don't need to look both ways, it's up to the oncoming traffic to keep them safe. and then can't figure out why players are getting hit by trucks. i don't get it, and it won't end well for anyone.

About HF.net

 We are an enthusiastic community of HockeyFans who enjoy discussing the NHL and more in our Forums.  Our members may also write their own blogs, converse in chat, post pics in our gallery, join our fantasy hockey leagues and more.  If you are looking for a friendly community to discuss hockey then register today and begin your conversation in our NET.



Contact Us


Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!
Supporting Members help keep HockeyForums Advertisement Free