Connect with us

Sports

One important detail that Edmonton Oilers GM Ken Holland got absolutely right on Duncan Keith deal – Edmonton Journal

Published

 on


Article content

This in from Edmonton Oilers GM Ken Holland, his refusal to include prospects like Dmitri Samorukov, Raphael Lavoie, Dylan Holloway, Ryan McLeod, Evan Bouchard or Philip Broberg in any trade for Duncan Keith, formerly of the Chicago Blackhawks.

Advertisement

Article content

“Wayne Gretzky can be traded, so anybody can be traded,” Holland told Bob Stauffer of Oilers Now. “But certainly those players that you just rattled off are key players for this team, for this organization, because they provide hope that they can develop into regular players that can contribute to a successful hockey team. We’ve got to develop them right. In this deal for Duncan Keith, you are absolutely correct, they were absolutely non-starters.”

My take

1. I’m not sure the Oilers have the right pro advice and the right granular, in-depth, individual analytics to nail it when it comes to bringing in outside players. I’m not saying they do or they don’t, just that some deals have been iffy, most notably the signing of Kyle Turris last summer. But it bolsters my own confidence to hear Holland make this statement. Of course, it would have been insane to trade Grade A prospects like Bouchard, Holloway and Broberg for a fading superstar like Keith, but it was rumoured that Grade A- prospects like Samorukov, McLeod and Lavoie might be on the table. If Holland had included any of those A- prospects in the deal, in addition to Caleb Jones, a B+ prospect at this point, I would have considered it gross incompetence. I’m greatly relieved to hear Holland say that was never on the table.

Advertisement

Article content

2. Caleb Jones still has a chance to be a Top 4 d-man in the NHL. He got one shot at it this past year but his play took a step back. Perhaps that’s not unexpected. For example, Jeff Petry’s play took a step back in 2012-13 before he did much better in 2013-14 and 2014-15 with the Oilers (only to have the team trade him away). It could be that Jones will bounce back strong, just as Petry did, though I don’t see Jones as having the same great tools as Petry. He’s not as big, not as rangy and isn’t quite as strong a skater as Petry. I would have preferred the Oilers give Jones another shot, but it’s not like he hasn’t had a chance. He has and he stumbled a bit. The same can’t be said of players like McLeod, Lavoie and Samorukov. They are yet to stumble. They could easily develop into Core-12 players on the Oilers. It’s close to a coin flip for each of them whether they reach that level of play, I’d suggest. Those are pretty good odds for young players, so for Holland to move out both Jones and one of these A- prospects for Keith would have been a terrible own goal for the GM.

Advertisement

Article content

3. There are a lot of people with strong opinions about Duncan Keith’s value. I’ve voice a few myself, though I’ve tried to restrain any certainty I might express. Why? How many Oilers fans have seen enough of Duncan Keith’s play from last season to fairly and accurately rate his value? About 1 in 500, I would guess. I’m not in that category. I did not see him play at all.

And how many have access to granular, reliable and accurate individual analytics for a deep dive on him? Any fan? What I see is a lot of fans using shot metrics to rate him, the same numbers that are so driven by a player’s teammates, as opposed to his own on-ice play, that Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl had weak shot share numbers in 2019-20, placing them as below average forwards both in the NHL and on their team. Could the same have happened to Duncan Keith’s shot share metrics? You better believe it.

Advertisement

Article content

4. What are the percentage odds that Keith deal works out well for Oilers, that Keith provides decent value, which I define as helping team win playoff round as 2nd pairing dman? My own rough guesstimate, based on his age and fading even strength point production, is that it’s about 40/60 in year one, 30/70 in year two. But maybe Keith will exceed that expectation. I would not be surprised in the least if he were to do so, as he’s got many NHL types vouching for his ability to still play.

5. In the end, it doesn’t matter what I think or you think of the deal. It’s done. All that matters now is Keith’s play. That said, I’ve never seen any great agreement from Oilers fans on the ability of defencemen. We will watch him play and still not come close to agreeing on his value, I can guarantee you. Why? A huge faction of fans put their faith in shot shares numbers, the same numbers that has them thinking Ethan Bear was a strong NHL player this year, and that Caleb Jones was at least OK, with both better players right now than Duncan Keith. Others who watched Bear and Jones closely each game, and don’t put much weight in shot shares numbers, saw two players who struggled mightily at times.

Advertisement

Article content

The funniest outcome for Keith next year? For him to have OKish-to-great shot shares, like Bear and Jones this year, and thus win over the shot shares crowd that way, but also for him to struggle so much and leak so many scoring chances against that the so-called eye test fans rate him poorly.

All that said, I’m not hoping for this screwball outcome, even if it would make me chuckle. I would prefer that he come in and play solid defence while moving the puck efficiently, just like Andrej Sekera did so well in 2016-17 before he got badly injured.

Fingers crossed that Keith can be the new Sekera for a year or two. I don’t think it’s likely but I don’t think it’s impossible either.

The Duncan Keith deal at the Cult of Hockey

LEAVINS: Make the case for Duncan Keith

STAPLES: Ken Holland speaks after the Duncan Keith acquisition

STAPLES: Is adding Duncan Keith to the Oilers “a major gamble”?

Advertisement

Comments

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Sports

Emma Raducanu lives to play another day at Wimbledon – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on


Britain’s Emma Raducanu celebrates beating Belgium’s Alison van Uytvanck to win a women’s first round singles match on day one of the Wimbledon tennis championships in London, on June 27.Kirsty Wigglesworth/The Associated Press

Despite all the hype, Emma Raducanu’s first-ever arrival on Centre Court on Monday afternoon took everyone by surprise.

It had been that sort of day to start this year’s Wimbledon. It rained for most of the early afternoon which meant everything was running late. Matches continued under the roof at the big court, but the opener, Novak Djokovic, found himself up against someone who hadn’t gotten the memo. South Korea’s Kwon Soon-woo played like he expected to win. If you turned your head just so, it seemed for a moment like he could.

By the time Djokovic got Kwon under control, three hours had passed and the crowd was in need of relief. When Raducanu emerged onto Centre Court 10 minutes later, there were more people in line for the toilets than there were in the stands.

Sensing the shambling nature of her entrance, the remainers leapt up to give her a standing ovation. Raducanu waved her hand at them distractedly.

This is what happens when you put too much emphasis on something that’s difficult to predict, like the scheduling of live outdoor events or tennis careers.

Raducanu, who won a surprise U.S. Open last fall and then nothing since, plays like someone who feels every eye in the place on her. Between points, she wanders off to the back wall to have a little chat with herself. During breaks, she stares ahead blankly while breathing in and out hard enough to light a fire. You just know this is a person who has really gotten into meditation, and not for fun.

Who could blame her? Right now, there may be no young athlete on Earth who feels more pressure to perform in one particular place.

Raducanu won on Monday because she sort of had to, didn’t she? Which is not to say that she won with much elan. She wore down Belgian puncher Alison Van Uytvanck 6-4, 6-4.

What was it like that first hour? To say the first set was played at a snail’s pace would be a calumny on snails. It’s one thing to play turgid tennis. It’s another to do it on a cool late afternoon at a place where they serve champagne for breakfast. You could see heads around you in the stands nodding.

But having gone through that set-long crucible of boredom, Raducanu perked up in the second. The crowd was back and the air was lighter. Then Van Uytvanck did the neighbourly thing and gave up.

Afterward, Raducanu was more than pleased. She positively glowed. She celebrated like she’d won something that mattered, which I guess she had.

“I felt the support the minute I walked out those doors,” Raducanu said, though she hadn’t really.

“Thank you to everyone who’s been here supporting …” she said, though that wasn’t totally correct either, since she made only a medium-sized dent in this tournament last year.

“ … through the tough part as well.”

Well, that is right.

Since winning the U.S. Open, Raducanu’s career has split into two streams.

First, there is her personal brand. That is rated AAA by multinationals everywhere. Raducanu is that unicorn in sports marketing – an athlete who looks like they were designed in a computer, talks like they are a normal human and emotes like your new best friend. However the tennis turns out, she will make a fortune selling things for as long as she is willing to drag herself onto a court, and probably long after.

Then there’s the tennis. That hasn’t gone so well. Pernicious injuries and false recovery starts have blighted the past nine months. After the worst of it was over on Monday, Raducanu likened it to her gap year (only, I suppose, more painful and more profitable).

This sudden rise and fall has an almost direct parallel with Canadian 2019 U.S. Open winner Bianca Andreescu. Andreescu also introduced herself to people by winning a major and also immediately fell into a thicket of injuries.

The biggest difference between the two stories is that in Canada, we’re willing to wait on our tennis stars. In this country, not so much. The British tabs have spent weeks playing up Raducanu’s Wimbledon – only her second – like it’s her last chance to win this thing.

A national injury watch was launched after she bailed out of her only match at her only warm-up tournament three weeks ago. The all-clear was announced on Saturday.

It’s not clear if Raducanu’s fit to play here, or ‘fit’ to play here. But she’s playing, however slowly.

“Looking forward to hopefully coming out and playing in front of you guys again,” Raducanu said afterward.

Maybe the “hopefully” is a verbal tic. Or maybe she actually meant it like it reads.

This is the unbearable heaviness of being British (and good at tennis and playing at Wimbledon). It is an unfair ask, until you consider the rewards being dangled for success. Win here, however young you are, and you can hire someone to write your obituary now. Unless things go very wrong, the first few paragraphs won’t change much.

What you are struck by is how much Raducanu seems to enjoy interacting with a crowd, but not while she’s playing. Every pro finds her zone, but few need to visibly grind so hard to stay in it. It speaks to a young person who senses keenly – maybe too keenly – what’s at stake.

“I’m going to play like a kid who just loves playing tennis,” Raducanu said over the weekend. She didn’t. She played more like someone trying to squeeze the racket handle to splinters.

But one win means there will be no disaster. If she loses now, she can blame her fitness – which would be more of an explanation than an excuse. The important thing is that she cemented one positive memory on the most recognizable surface in tennis.

So having done the minimum, Raducanu sounded less like a star doing PR and more like what she is – a teenager of remarkable self-possession trying to figure out how to be famous.

Her voice trembled only a little and only once, when she told the crowd, “I’m just so happy to stay another day.”

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Sports

How Colorado’s patience, intangibles challenged a Tampa offence with no answer – Sportsnet.ca

Published

 on


Over the years of their recent post-season success, which has included a pair of Stanley Cups and appearances in five of the last six Conference Finals, the Tampa Bay Lightning morphed from Team Speed & Skill, to Team Intangibles. They’ve gone from the high-flying offensive team that put others on their heels, to the positionally-sound defensive juggernaut that basically said to their opponents: “See if you can beat us, because we sure as hell won’t beat ourselves.”

And yet again, beat themselves they did not.

Beleaguered as a team can be, Tampa Bay laid back and stayed patient, even when it seemed like their opponent was taking it to them. They’ve had the ultimate trust in Andrei Vasilevskiy, as they should, and it forced opponents to get frustrated, open up, and give them just that extra chance or two that has allowed the Lightning to score and prevail. Like Tiger Woods in his prime, sometimes the size of their well-earned reputation forced others to beat themselves.

Still, at some point you have to be able to create some offence to win games, and as they got more injured, that became a bigger challenge. They didn’t have Brayden Point as they did in Round 1, where a Bolts team on the ropes saw him go directly to the Maple Leafs crease and finish a rebound goal to keep their Cup hopes alive. That obviously hurt them.

Beyond that, though, they didn’t have the depth scoring come through as it has in past years, and they simply couldn’t dial it up on offence and remain as defensively stout as they knew they needed to be against an offensively-gifted Colorado Avalanche team. This time, that was the Avs’ reputation coming into play. Each of Alex Killorn (19:16 TOI per game), Anthony Cirelli (also 19:16), and Brandon Hagel (14:21) played in all 23 playoff games for the Lightning, and they combined for just five goals. Killorn, who scored 25 in the regular season (and had eight in 19 playoff games last year), was blanked with zero. So many players had to turn their attention solely to the little details of defending and positional play, and they excelled at it. But it came at a cost.

I reference Tampa didn’t have that same depth offence as they had in the past, because we all remember the Cup-winning Bolts teams getting huge goals from their third line of Yanni Gourde, Blake Coleman and Barclay Goodrow, but it’s worth noting the crucial difference: Colorado wasn’t Dallas and they damn sure weren’t Montreal, not even close. The depth guys on the Lightning this year were faced with a much different chore than Coleman-Gourde-Goodrow. The Avalanche were extremely well-coached throughout this playoff run, and they recognized Tampa Bay’s weakness: they didn’t have another offensive gear to kick it into, so they leaned harder on that struggle.

The Colorado Avalanche all but stole the game plan from Tampa, which was to play smart and positional and choke the life out their opponent, all while saying “The burden of creating offence is on YOU, and you’re going to have to go through every last one of us.”

“Offensively-gifted” or not, the Avs’ scoring was stunted down the stretch of the series, but it was a concession they were willing to make knowing Tampa Bay’s inability to create. Here’s the most telling stat of the series and why I leave the Final fixated on positional patience. If the Bolts were sitting back and waiting for the Avs to get desperate, open up and make mistakes in this series, here’s what they got off the rush:

A hot bowl of nothing.

Over six Stanley Cup Final games the Avalanche had more rush chances than the Bolts by an average of six per game (per Sportlogiq). Six extra rush chances, which in the end was the difference, wasn’t it?

The Stanley Cup game winner comes off a rush where Artturi Lehkonen makes an unbelievable off-hand one-time shot that finds the top corner, which maybe you’d call a bit “lucky” because who knows how many times out of 10 he could place that puck there again. But in very hockey fashion, it’s not luck, because they created enough chances to “get lucky” like that. As it always goes in hockey’s big picture, making your own luck is a reason to love teams like the Avs who create chances in volume.

There’s been much said about the Lightning’s injuries and their inability to be at their best in this Final, but let’s not pretend the Avs were at max capacity. Andre Burakovsky was hurt, Valeri Nichushkin was hurt, and hell, Nazem Kadri had his trainer tie his skates and played in an oven mitt (and scored an OT winner). Sammy Girard was too hurt to get in a game in the Final.

Even with their injuries, the Avalanche played with a maturity the Lightning’s other opponents could not. Colorado got the better of the Bolts to open the series, then Tampa went into full lockdown mode, playing for low scores and hoping to lean on their experience and again, patience. In Games 3, 4, 5, and 6 the Avs scored just 2, 3 (with overtime), 2, and 2 goals. But instead of starting to cheat and stretch and open up to generate more against a goalie that could’ve frustrated the heck out of them, they recognized that for Tampa to win, they’d have to score too.

The Lightning are getting deserved love as “Team Intangibles” this year, and they certainly played great and blocked shots and proved themselves to be warriors. But don’t let the Avs’ demonstration of those same things get lost.

That’s coaching, that’s leadership, that’s playing (and sometimes losing) enough big games to see that forcing plays and taking chances can bury you in the post-season. You have to trust that it will come, you have to trust the plan, and when offensively talented teams get to that point, they’re almost impossible to beat.

This Final was two teams that were “almost impossible to beat,” and as a result, the series was delightful to watch. The Avalanche used all their tough experiences of the years past to give their opponent jack squat in the biggest moments of the season, and they finished the playoffs losing only four times the whole way through.

The Lightning were worthy foes, for sure, but the Avalanche are deserving champions.

What a Stanley Cup Final.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Sports

Makar gets love from Orr after winning 2022 Norris, Conn Smythe Trophies – NHL.com

Published

 on





Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending