Time to Sell on Evgeni Nabokov
by garik16 on Feb 12, 2012 2:18 AM EST
Email
PrintEditor's Note: FanPost front-paged for this hot topic of the next two weeks.
Evgeni Nabakov has been amazing for the Isles over the past few weeks, and he's certainly been responsible for the wins against LA and Philly in the last week. If he could continue to play like this, the Isles MIGHT have a shot at the playoffs.
And yet the Islanders need to trade Nabokov for a prospect/draft pick. Preferably soon.
There are two reasons for this. The first is less important, but is easier to understand so I'll start with that:
1. Nabokov's high SV% is not REAL - it's a facade caused by luck on special teams that is likely to crumble. Nabokov has essentially been the 22nd best goalie in the league this year - NOT the 7th best as his ordinary SV% suggests. He is NOT an elite goalie (though he is certainly average) and the longer he plays for the Isles, the more likely his true talent will cause his results to drop, and lower his trade value.
How can I say this? Well, SV% is a decent statistic at judging goalies, and is far better than say the older Goals Against Average. But it has one key flaw - it treats Even Strength, Power Play, and Penalty Kill minutes as if they're all the same.
But of course, they're not...a goalie's SV% on the Penalty Kill is dramatically lower than his SV% at Even Strength. You can't combine the two as they're essentially separate skills, but SV% does just that.
In addition, the amount of time a goalie spends on the penalty kill is far lower than it is at even strength, meaning fluke results can cause a goalies penalty kill SV% to be extremely high or extremely low, simply as the result of small sample size (If a goalie faces 40 minutes of PK and stops 120 shots, he has a PKSV% of 1.000, but you wouldn't use that to judge him a great goalie on the PK.....as that's essentially like using 3 games of even strength data to judge a player.). In other words, Penalty Killing SV% is EXTREMELY variable, and that has basically nothing to do with goalie skill - the sample size is too small for us to really know how much is the goalie's own talent.* The end result is that regular SV% includes as a part of it a highly variable and basically useless statistic, which can cause it to appear higher or lower than it really should based upon a goalie's true talent.
*Before anyone suggests otherwise, no one denies that stopping shots on the PK is a skill for goalies. But measuring this skill is basically impossible, and including PK SV% data is essentially including 99% luck and 1% skill.
As a result, Hockey statisticians rely instead upon Even Strength Save % (ESSV%) to judge goalies, as that way we eliminate the problems caused by including Special teams Data. And by this measure, Nabokov is actually 22nd in the league among NHL goalies with 20 games or more played (.925 SV%). The Reason why Nabokov is 7th in overall SV% is simple: He's gotten insanely lucky on the Islanders PK, with a .951 PKSV% (2nd in the league)! Before anyone asks, this is nowhere near anything Nabokov has done in his career, where he usually has PK SV%s of .880 or so.
None of this should be surprising to any of you - Nabokov's current SV% would be his career high at age 36 and far above his .913 carer average.
Long story short, Nabokov's #s are a good deal smoke and mirrors - and are far far more likely to get worse than go up. Better to strike now and sell high while his value is as much as possible than to sit and wait it out.
Of course, that' s actually the least important reason why the Isles need to trade Nabokov. The real reason they need to do is this:
2. Nabokov has no long-term future on this team, he has value and we'll lose him at the end of this year. As a Small-Market Team, we need to ensure we get something for that value.
I've talked about this before, but the Isles are essentially a small market team due to their financial situation. We can't afford to go much higher if at all above the cap floor, which is why we don't end up signing many free agents. We sign our prospects, sure, because those are cheap investments we have for long term, and we sign those players we have who have unique talents (Nielsen) who we can't find elsewhere.
But if a player would leave the team at the end of the year and the team cannot re-sign that player or that player HAS VALUE but does NOT HAVE A PLACE IN THE TEAM'S FUTURE, the team needs to trade that player to get something for that value.
Nabokov is this type of player. His contract runs to the end of the season. Moreover, he's 36. Even if he wanted to sign with the Islanders again, he's probably on his last legs and he's 6th oldest in the NHL right now. At best the Islanders could expect from him to repeat his career average (not this current performance) next year, and more likely he'll get worse. No one escapes from aging.
And even if we did want to re-sign him, it'd be only as a short-term stopgap measure. You can't commit multiple years to Nabokov, another aging goalie. And the Islanders HAVE goalies to plug the hole. Al Montoya is still on the roster and can be signed for much cheaper. Kevin Poulin and Anders Nilsson are showing lots of promise in Bridgeport. Mikko Koskinen is still in the system. And the Islanders could of course pick another goalie with a late round pick in case these goalies don't pan out.
There's no reason to waste money for next year on an aging goalie when the Islanders are in their current situation. As a small market team therefore, the Islanders need to trade him and get what hey can for him.
"BUT, BUT, PLAYOFFS!" - You Cry!
Let's be realistic here guys. First off, as I detailed above, Nabokov's performance is likely to drop a decent amount as his PK luck falls down to earth. The performances lately are the EXCEPTION, not the rule. It's not clear that Nabokov is better than Al Montoya. So even keeping Nabokov likely doesn't give the Isles a much better shot at the playoffs.
But even if it did, we have to be realistic. Let's assume that 90 points gets you into the playoffs (Probably need 92, but I'm doing this for easier math). The Isles would thus need to accumulate 36 more points this season, with 28 games remaining. That's a pace of 1.285 points per game. Essentially the Islanders would have to play like a 105 point team the rest of the way to pull that off (essentially they'd need to go 18-10 for a 64% winning percentage). They'd need to perform like a top top - Elite - team in hockey. And I don't think ANY of us thinks that the Islanders are currently an elite team - at best we're middle of the pack in talent. And that's with a low target of 90 points, when we'd probably need more.
This is why the playoff odds sites give us basically around 5% odds of making the playoffs - this is why someone came up with the historical note that no team at this point of the season under the current system has managed to make the playoffs from more than 5 points back. It's practically impossible.
The playoffs are a dream, one that every one of us would love, but is FAR from realistic. The Islanders cannot jeopardize their future to chase that dream. Keeping Nabokov jeopardize their future - it results in the Islanders losing a good valuable asset for nothing, something a small market team CANNOT do if it wants to get to the top and then STAY there.
Garth Snow, Please Trade Evgeni Nabokov. And do it soon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: A response to some very predictable comments:
1.
Thats unfair to say…What I see is a totally relaxed goalie who has closed the holes in his game…
You know, I hear this sort of thing in baseball, hockey, basketball….basically every sport. We don’t like to believe that when a player’s performance dramatically improves, it’s not a real improvement. It’s our nature – human beings like to believe improvements are skill and that luck plays a minimal role in these competitions. Even the players on the team do this – of course they have good reason to believe this, as its their own future that is affected by their teammates’ performance.
But it plays a HUGE role. It’s why a player who’s 36 suddenly starts playing better than he has EVER played in his NHL Career for a full season. Guys, players don’t suddenly improve in the final stage of their career. It DOES NOT HAPPEN.
In addition, as pointed out above, we can see where the shoe is going to drop. No goalie in the NHL can maintain a SV% of .950 on the PK – and NO GOALIE HAS! Seriously, check out every season’s stats in the NHL website (http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm?fetchKey=20092ALLGAGALL&sort=powerPlaySavePctg&viewName=specialTeamSaves). Generally the top in the league is .919 or so on the PK in each season, and I’ll tell you right now that if you look at the top players on the PK SV% each year, they don’t repeat that feat the next year.
PKSV% numbers are extremely variable and prone to luck-based swings. That’s all Nabakov has had. It CANNOT last.
2.
Jeopardizing their future by not adding an additional late third round pick?
The bottom line is you don’t just always trade someone just for the sake of trading someone…
You guys are misunderstanding how a small market team has to work. It’s GREAT to see the team with a top notch prospect system. We should be thrilled with this, especially because we’re the type of team that needs to get talent from within and cheaply.
But systems do not remain good though-out time just out of doing nothing. As guys are promoted, the system gets worse. Now if the promoted guys succeed, then you don’t feel this pain for a few years, as the team is good (If the promoted guys fail, well you’ll feel the pain immediately).
But once again, we are a small market team – or essentially are run like one due to the fact we take a persistent loss. A small market team has trouble hanging onto its own homegrown talent, who eventually WILL leave elsewhere. I know this is hard to believe living in NY – hell, the Isles just signed Tavares, Moulson, Grabner, and Nielsen! But these are quite solid exceptions – Tavares and Grabner were RFAs when they signed, meaning they had little leverage on the matter (And Tavares’ contract ends with him still at a decent age, meaning he could easily then leave for elsewhere) and Moulson has intervening circumstances (friend of Tavares). Nielsen is the only signing that is perhaps a surprise, but that’s mitigated by the fact that Nielsen is basically one of the two best defensive forwards in the game.*
*You’ll note Parenteau hasn’t signed yet. He might sign with the team, but his comments recently expressed an interest in possibly testing Free Agency. We might see that happen (or more likely, if the team can’t come to a deal with him, he’ll be traded)
It is not trading for trades sake, even if the return is just a 3rd rounder (I expect a higher return by the way). It is trading for the sake of maintaining a good team in the future. The Isles are likely to become good, due to their system, over the next few years. But if you don’t maintain the system, which you do by acquiring as many picks as possible, then it’ll just be a bump – the Isles will be good for a few years and then return to rebuilding. That’s unacceptable.
(Incidentally, if you’re all Mets fans, the Jose Reyes situation should be illustrative. It hurt the Mets a lot that they got basically nothing for him – but of course, unlike hockey, at least in baseball the Mets will get compensatory draft picks. The situation isn’t directly comparable as the Mets ARE able to spend some money, but it’s still a good example on this point.0
3.
The fact that the playoffs are a "possibility" to us fans is insane. Now I know the hurdles we have to climb, and it’s doubtful we’ll climb them all. But if you trade Nabokov for anything less than a high-end
prospect or an NHL defensemen, you’re telling the fans you don’t believe in your own team.
My point is, if we want to keep this team on Long Island or in the New York area, we’re gonna need fans to show up
Trading a player hurts. But I’d doubt heavily (and i have no research on this) that it would affect attendance at this point. Islander attendance has sat at 11-12K for the last few years, and it’s there again this year. The team simply isn’t good enough for it to cause more casual fans to show up than they already do.
Moreover, Nabokov is NOT a player the Islanders have advertised or staked their claim to being a good view about. The Isles don’t advertise with him, they advertise with the young forwards. Those are the guys the people come to see, not Nabokov – the casual fan doesn’t really know much about who our goalie is (They’ve heard of him). Attendance won’t be hurt that much.
Moreover, you’re telling the fans that you’re not sure that THIS team can make the playoffs THIS YEAR. But if you, as expected, go on to make the playoffs next year, then this really won’t resonate in fans’ minds.
Submitted FanPosts do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog or SB Nation. If you're reading this statement, you pass the fine print legalese test. Four stars for you.
166 comments
|
Add comment
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I dont think anyone is expecting Nabby to maintain this level
But he is the best goalie we have and the only one who has single handedly stolen points of late, and while I’m with you that the playoffs are unlikely, the idea is to get as far up in the standings as possible.
“He’s gotten insanely lucky on the Islanders PK”
While there is probably a small luck factor there, the Islander PK has been very strong this year. They’ve limited the amount of qaulity scoring chances and done a good job of intercepting passes, clogging shooting lanes and forcing shots from the perimeter.
I’d rather have Nabby mentor Poulin for a year or two, even if he’s a backup the 2nd year. The guy is one of the most intelligent goaltenders in the league and could teach Poulin alot.
When I go out on the ice I am at peace. This is my best element. No one can talk to me. No one can bother me. I just go play. That is why I love it so much - Chris Osgood
by backstop87 on Feb 12, 2012 9:16 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I don't think he's been lucky...
Thats unfair to say…What I see is a totally relaxed goalie who has closed the holes in his game…
by KO21 on Feb 12, 2012 10:13 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Lucky
EG: Jagr’s shot into a screened Nabby’s glove the other day.
Lucky in the sense that the puck found its way into the glove, but at the same time Nabby chose which of his 7 zones to commit to. He didnt see that shot, but he’s got a knack for recognizing shot location percentage in a given situation.
There is always a small element of luck
When I go out on the ice I am at peace. This is my best element. No one can talk to me. No one can bother me. I just go play. That is why I love it so much - Chris Osgood
by backstop87 on Feb 12, 2012 10:29 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
http://www.nhl.com/ice/recap.htm?id=2011020787
50 second mark
When I go out on the ice I am at peace. This is my best element. No one can talk to me. No one can bother me. I just go play. That is why I love it so much - Chris Osgood
I didnt call him lucky
What I said was: “While there is probably a small luck factor there…”
And there is.
Thats not the same as saying: “Nabokov’s high SV% is not REAL – it’s a facade caused by luck”…
When I go out on the ice I am at peace. This is my best element. No one can talk to me. No one can bother me. I just go play. That is why I love it so much - Chris Osgood
Semantics
Are luck and lucky the same thing? To be considered lucky, you must benefit from luck often, which is not the case with Nabby.
My point is, you said: “So if there’s always a small element of luck, you can’t call him lucky”
No one who knows anything about goaltending would call Nabokov lucky, myself included, he merely knows how to use luck to his advatage, see E.G.
When I go out on the ice I am at peace. This is my best element. No one can talk to me. No one can bother me. I just go play. That is why I love it so much - Chris Osgood
Except you're wrong.
The numbers don’t lie….Nabokov has been really lucky this year on the PK, and its made his numbers look much better than he should.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
I'm gonna wrap my head around this one more time
You’re saying that a goalie playing the better part of 477 minutes, against the most skilled players in the world while a man short behind an already bad defense…is getting lucky? I dont know if any numbers could convince me of that.
Rest assured, if some GM does decide to trade for Nabby, it wont be because of his PK S%. His scouts will watch him play, talk to his coaches and then discuss what they saw. They’ll look at his stats and briefly take note of that sparkling PK S%, but that’s not whats selling the car.
When I go out on the ice I am at peace. This is my best element. No one can talk to me. No one can bother me. I just go play. That is why I love it so much - Chris Osgood
Yes.
I understand that people have issues comprehending this, but luck makes up a large large percentage of what actually drives results and statistics in sports.
And 477 minutes is not a large sample size, despite you attempting to make it seem like it by using minutes instead of games.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
It's not that people dont comprehend it Garik
In this case, it’s understanding the position.
Post a reply if you want. I’ll read it, but I’m not going to respond as we’re at an impasse.
When I go out on the ice I am at peace. This is my best element. No one can talk to me. No one can bother me. I just go play. That is why I love it so much - Chris Osgood
Given that it's not a position, but a statistical fact.....yeah it's comprehension.
(And yes I realize this is snide, but I get annoyed when people don’t admit ignorance and just claim “No You’re wrong!” without any actual evidence)
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
It's a statistical fact that he's lucky?
He is square to every shot, he’s reading plays as they enter the Ozone, his depth is usually perfect, he’s controlling his rebounds or eliminating the scoring chances all together, he’s economical, fundamentally sound and is pulling from his repertoire at all the right times. I could go on and on. That’s not luck…that is performance. You want some evidence? Watch him play.
(And yes I realize I said I wasnt going to respond to this, but I get annoyed when people can’t see whats right in front of their face and try and attribute performance to luck by only looking at part of the picture)
When I go out on the ice I am at peace. This is my best element. No one can talk to me. No one can bother me. I just go play. That is why I love it so much - Chris Osgood
by backstop87 on Feb 13, 2012 9:38 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Is it wrong I find it funny
we’re breaking down some crazy situational statistic to pass judgement on a player?
Feels like that happened recently.
I’ll add that I dont believe Nabokov will maintain this level of play long term. He’s playing at the top of his spectrum right now. I dont equate that with luck, maybe confidence.
When I go out on the ice I am at peace. This is my best element. No one can talk to me. No one can bother me. I just go play. That is why I love it so much - Chris Osgood
My definition of LUCK:
opportunity meets preparation…
by KO21 on Feb 12, 2012 10:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It's not certain you will need 92 points. The teams fighting for 8th are really struggling of late.
Nabokov has given this team and it’s fan hope over the last few weeks. Considering the Islanders are still in it, I’m ready for Garth to show faith in the young guys and let them go for it instead of waving the white flag for some third rounder.
by Metzfan22 on Feb 12, 2012 9:25 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Hello, my name is NSIF and I.... am a waffler
It all started with trying to choose between toast and bagels for breakfast. Pretty soon, it was Tavares/Hedman and now, trade Nabby or keep him.
I see the arguments for both sides. Nabby has SOME trade value, even if that value is only a third or fourth round pick. The problem is, whether he “comes back down to earth” or not, his value doesn’t get much higher than that. If this was 2008 or 2009, with a prospect cupboard empty of talent and devoid of draft picks, you make a deal for him without question.
But this is 2012.
We’ve got a farm system that is the envy of the League. We’ve got young supporting talent that will start coming to the forefront next fall. A large part of the talent is playing in Bridgeport right now. We’ve got two young goalies in BP that are spearheading what look like a serious playoff run. Trading Nabby forces one of them to be called up to the Show to ride the pine behind AlMo. I do not think that is in their long term best interest.
Another third round pick does nothing, really for the long term strength of this franchise. Sure, I doubt Nabby signs with the Isles next summer, but you, know, you never know. If he signs here for a two year stint (pobably his last major payday), he’s the #1 golaie on a serious playoff contender in the first year and the backup potentially to a Cup Contender in year two. Not a lot of teams out there can offer that (all things NVMC considered).
Keeping Nabby shows confidence in the team by giving them the best chance at (odds against I know, but so what) making those playoffs. Two, maybe three home playoff games versus the Rags (assuming a first round exit) is payback for the fans, invaluable experience for Teh Core and 8-10 million dollars that the franchise would not otherwise have had to be used toward salaries for next season. It also allows the fan base to maintain a level of excitement in late February and March that we haven’t had for a while.
Is that more valuable than a #80-90 draft pick? Yeah, I think it is.
Praise be to Bossy. I’m cured!!!
"...I was here on Day 1 when Garth decided to do the rebuild, and I really want to see it through." -- Frans Nielsen
by Nova Scotia Isles Fan on Feb 12, 2012 9:51 AM EST up reply actions 7 recs
amen
Thanks be to Bossy.
I agree with you statements. Weren’t the Islanders 1 of 5 teams to come back from more than 5 points to make the playoffs in 2007. Hey it could happen, however many statistics say no. Like you said that 8th spot almost seems like it is dangling in front of 6 teams.
One time my whole family went fishing, and I was the only one that didn’t throw up!
Beat the odds.
When you think about it...
The Isles are 4 games back and they have 4 games in hand…If they win those extra games we are tied for the 8th spot…If the Isles keep collecting points at the same rate they have been lately they can make the playoffs…Its not that far fetched, IMHO…* points is only 4 games…The only reason its tough is because of the loser points…But the Isles do have a legit chance to get in…Lets have a little faith…
The only team they have 4 games at hand is Ottawa
They have 2 games in hand on 8th place Toronto and none on 9th place Washington.
No Sleep 'til....We Find Some Secondary Scoring
Agree - You Do Not Trade Your Starting Goaltender for a Third Round Pick, Ever
With all due respect, I’m not the least bit persuaded by the statistics and talk of small market asset management as an argument for trading an experienced starting goaltender on a young team for a marginal asset like a third round pick. Makes no sense whatsoever.
In 2007, Garth traded the equivalent of three first round picks for Ryan Smyth — Robert Nilsson, 15th overall 2003; Ryan O’Marra, 15th overall 2005; and 2007’s first rounder.
If Chicago, Detroit or somebody else wants to cough up – at minimum – their first rounder plus another first rounder we like already in their system, I listen.
Otherwise, screw ’em. The Islanders are not a farm club.
by rmblifn on Feb 13, 2012 12:37 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That's a terrible example.
Both Nilssson and O’Mara had values far lower than a first rounder….that was like a first rounder and two 5th round picks by that point.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
by garik16 on Feb 13, 2012 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I'm 100% sell
Even with the good record the last month and a half we are still 8 points back with five teams to jump. Keeping him to ‘make the playoffs’ is silly.
I would also think the chances of him resigning here are close to zero. Keeping him just to add a (potential) 2-4 points is shortsighted.
I also don’t think you wait until the deadline. His value is as high as it’s going to get and you don’t want to risk injury. Whatever we get for him will be more beneficial to the team in the long run than keeping him even if it ends up being a 3rd round pick.
No Sleep 'til....We Find Some Secondary Scoring
Approximately 12% of third round or later draft picks play one game in the NHL. Not worth it got Nabokov when we're close enough to show faith in JT, Moulson, and the kids.
Show faith in them. Give them a shot to make it instead of taking their hot goaltender away. Trading Nabokov is akin to Snow telling them I don’t think you can do it, which will not bode well for the rest of the year. Let’s see what they do. It’s not like they’re passing up a great return by keeping Nabokov. Our system is deep; we really don’t need another third rounder.
by Metzfan22 on Feb 12, 2012 10:07 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
The time is now and Nabby has some gas left. No way do you trade him for a 3rd+ pick.
When I go out on the ice I am at peace. This is my best element. No one can talk to me. No one can bother me. I just go play. That is why I love it so much - Chris Osgood
by backstop87 on Feb 12, 2012 10:13 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You're fancy stats don't tell the whole story...
This guy is playing so relaxed that its apparent…He is economical with his movements and has been making most of the saves that he should make…How frustrating was it when our goalies were letting up at least 1 soft goal per game? He is consistent and he gives them a chance to win every night…This young team needs confidence in the guy holding down the fort…Matt Martin admitted it in an interview that having confidence in the goalie is huge…The whole team appreciates him…IMHO, trading him for a 3rd or 4th rounder would be a mistake and useless, unless, we got someone that will help the team now or a high round draft pick…
The bottom line is you don’t just always trade someone just for the sake of trading someone…
by KO21 on Feb 12, 2012 10:08 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
But Fenwick, Corsi and the Koolaid Man Statistics Measure all tell the story!!
Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock...
And you say in the last paragraph the Islanders are "jeopardizing their future" by keeping Nabokov.
Are you serious? Jeopardizing their future by not adding an additional late third round pick? Unless Wayne Gretzky were available, I don’t think they are jeopardizing the future.
by Metzfan22 on Feb 12, 2012 10:12 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
That kinda misses his point
We have been unable to get decent UFAs to come here. We don’t have room to let assets walk for nothing when we have a chance to get something for them. Sure a late 3rd round pick (assuming that’s the return) isn’t likely to make a difference in the long run but it’s still an asset. You can package it for a move up,etc
No Sleep 'til....We Find Some Secondary Scoring
What can you package it with? Our third rounder to move into the late second round? You see how this really doesn't add much to the team.
And we finally do have the depth to keep Nabokov, show faith in the kids and take a shot at making a run, and let him walk.
It's by degrees though
No single trade-up package is the key, but each increases your odds of scoring a Hamonic or being able to take a chance on a Kabanov/Petrov, etc.
Look at it this way: Teams that spend to the cap can afford to take bigger risks with their UFA offers. Teams with multiple draft picks can afford to take bigger risks on “big upside” picks.
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
I agree that Nabby can't keep this pace up
I also agree that it would kind of suck to lose him for nothing in the offseason. I’m sure that would happen, and perhaps trading him would prevent that.
However, unless Snow is blown away by an offer, he can’t make this deal. The fact that the playoffs are a “possibility” to us fans is insane. Now I know the hurdles we have to climb, and it’s doubtful we’ll climb them all. But if you trade Nabokov for anything less than a high-end
prospect or an NHL defensemen, you’re telling the fans you don’t believe in your own team.
My point is, if we want to keep this team on Long Island or in the New York area, we’re gonna need fans to show up. If we’re winning and we’re telling the fans that we believe we’re ready, more fans will show up. Which is way better than a third round pick, if you ask me.
by sayvillelax94 on Feb 12, 2012 10:18 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
Anyone is tradeable @ anytime for the right price
No way would I trade Nabby now for a 3rd rounder, no way. A first or a legit physical 3rd pairing D who is signed for 3 or 4 years, I just might have to pull the trigger…a second round pick gets me to scatch my head, but probably not as it would most likely be a late 2nd rounder…
by CanadianIsleslifer on Feb 12, 2012 10:48 AM EST reply actions
Hello Chicago Blackhawks
Are you scouting over here or do you think you can make it with what you got?
by barry_hal_oliver_24 on Feb 12, 2012 10:54 AM EST reply actions
I have issue with this statement
We can’t afford to go much higher if at all above the cap floor, which is why we don’t end up signing many free agents.
I’m not sure how many times it can be repeated that we’ve made bigger offers to players that they ended up signing for. If it matter of length, then I’d say it’s Snow not being foolish.
I love how people keep assuming this to be the truth.
I’d betcha it isn’t! Most of the sources of we offered more come from THE TEAM ITSELF (and the few that didn’t come from the opposing player/agent as a way to make the player look good).
Moreover, we haven’t offered multiple free agents good money ever in the last few years of FA. We offered Ehrhoff but we were WAY below the cap when that occurred.
There’s a reason guys that we’ve been at the floor each of the last 3 years. It’s not coincidence.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
by garik16 on Feb 12, 2012 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
How do you know it's not true? It makes a lot of sense. The reason we're at the floor is because the Islanders won't spend for mediocrity. But they have been willing to spend for higher end talent.
by Metzfan22 on Feb 12, 2012 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
On top of this
It’s kind of a chicken and egg thing with the floor and high-end FA. Are we not signing them because we need to keep near the bottom limit, or are we at the bottom limit because we wind up not signing them?
Via Cap Geek: the Isles have 13 players under contract next season (8 FW, 4 D, and the Rick). There are another eight in the minors (4 FW, 2 D, 2 G). That’s 21 contracts. Call all of them up and the Isles are two players short of a 23-man roster, and about 3.45 million dollars under the salary floor. Sign PAP and that conceivably leaves you half a million short, give or take a few thousand.
Now, the Isles aren’t going to bring up their entire AHL affiliate next season. Strome, Cizikas, de Haan, Ullstrom, and Poulin are certainly in the mix but that’s not a guarantee any will make the club out of training camp. And that’s five players, exactly half of what the Isles would need for a full roster. Re-signing PAP leaves them four short. They likely will re-sign Matt Martin, and one or two of the UFA D could get offers (Eaton, Jurcina, and Reese the likeliest candidates).
Now, if the Isles make a serious push for someone like Ryan Suter, and land him (for the sake of discussion), that’s $7+ million for one guy. As a result, they would have to push over the floor to have a full complement of players on the roster. If they miss, though, then they wind up with the bottom-limit contract offers to guys like Staios and Pandolfo.
I think that landing an impact player and then surrounding him with good supporting talent will necessarily involve the Isles adding more payroll than they’ve had before, and I don’t see them turning down impact players just to be cheap. More likely, it’s like Metzfan said and they spent only what they absolutely had to once they couldn’t land the impact players they wanted.
We may be in the box, but you get the penalty.
Lighthouse Hockey - a beacon of greatness on the rocky coast of sports blog mediocrity
Non-hockey scribblings at nightflyblog
by mikb on Feb 12, 2012 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If you don't consider THE TEAM
to be a good source, I’m not sure what to tell you.
Ehrhoff was one, yes. So was Kovi. And Martin. That’s three consecutive years. It’s not coincidence.
You’re contradicting yourself tho. You say the team can’t sign big free agents because they can’t afford too, then say the past three years weve only made those offers because were below the floor. And so what if we made those offers when we were below the floor? I’m sorry, but I’m just not sure why severely overpaying for every FA out there to get to the cap would make you think the team was “serious”. Just because we COULD have offered Kovi 12m a year for 10 years doesnt mean it’s the smart thing to do. If anything, you should be pretty impressed by the fact that we’ve got a lot of young talent locked up for a very long time at very fair prices.
Snow has repeatedly said that he’s got the green light to spend.. that doesn’t mean getting mediocre talent for superstar pay. If you choose not to believe that, thats fine, but I’d take his word for it over a fans assumption.
by TA on Feb 12, 2012 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
THIS should be rec'd
James T Paulson
by Jtpdolphins2009 on Feb 12, 2012 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
The team has an obvious incentive to lie.
You’re right…the team has shown a willingness to spend to try and get one big FA every year, while they were way under the cap. But after failing on that one, they don’t show a willingness to go after others. Moreover, one big FA won’t be much help most likely, and if we sign one one year, odds are we won’t a future year.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
what other ones have there been available the last few years that we would not have had to overpay for??
other than the ones that we went after?
James T Paulson
by Jtpdolphins2009 on Feb 12, 2012 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
This
..sorry Gar, but I just don’t know what youre expecting. Fla signed a lot of mid-range FA players this offseason. If washington wasn’t tanking right now (hell, if that entire division wasn’t a joke), they’d be struggling for a playoff berth with about 3 or 4 albatross contracts around their neck.
If that’s what it would take for you to feel like the team is making strides for the future, I think it’s just better to agree to disagree.
And the team has reason to omit or hide info.. not lie about it. Snow announcing BS to the NHL community isn’t going to win him anything. Telling an agent one thing and the media another isn’t the way its done. If Garth says he offered players more money but less years, I believe him. The man never says anything.. when he speaks I don’t think he’s trying to duck an issue.
by TA on Feb 12, 2012 2:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I actually think he's expecting exactly what they've done
Not to speak for Garik here, but I think his point is the Isles’ summer behavior is consistent with a small-market, low-revenue team that can’t break the bank on free agents. So: Not that they should be doing a Florida, but that they can’t and won’t.
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
It's not that simple though.
Sure, we could have signed those guys, but look at what happened:
We missed Martin/hamhuis for $5mil/yr(say), we traded for Wiz @$3.25mil for the year and were still barely above the floor. I’m not sure if the Kovy rumor was confirmed, but still and he’s an elite offensive talent.
We miss ehrhoff for $5mil+/yr, we trade for Rolston@$5mil and sign Staios@$1.6mil(and get pandolfo overpriced) and are still barely above the floor.
I don’t think we are willing to go much over the cap at all “yet”. But instead of having “cap mules” and “overpaid” players, that money would go towards a good free agent acquisition. That’s the difference.
What do you mean they won 4 cups in a row? Is that possible?
"John Tavares(a top 10 forward in the NHL)"-Neil Greenberg
Im confused
I wasn’t saying signing the top FAs is a bad idea.. Gar suggested we’re too cheap too. Was just pointing out the line on that was that we’ve tried to overpay.
Still, if I was forced to have to overpay for someone, I’d rather it be a Rolston for 1 year than an Ehrhoff for 8. Sucks, but what can ya do.
by TA on Feb 12, 2012 7:22 PM EST up reply actions
I think you are both right and wrong then. lol.
We are a cheap team, we barely have a payroll above the cap floor every year, and that team salary usually includes a cap mule or a few(this year). But we do go after big name free agents and offer them good money. The difference is though, as I said above, we would still be a cap floor team with just better players. I think that explains it.
And Ehrhoff was heavily overrated and not worth his value. Hamhuis and Martin though would have been excellent acquisitions.
What do you mean they won 4 cups in a row? Is that possible?
"John Tavares(a top 10 forward in the NHL)"-Neil Greenberg
Yeah I was bummed about Martin
I’m all for signing a big name.. if it makes sense. Ehrhoff didnt. Kovi would have – if it was short term.
Sadly, this years FA are kinda weak too after Suter. We’ll see. But that’d be a huge boost. And he’s the type of player Id have no problem throwing 5 years at. But so will half the league. We’ll see.
by TA on Feb 13, 2012 1:36 AM EST up reply actions
I don't get how you keep assuming the opposite is true as if it's an either/or statement
We know the Islanders lose money whether they’re at the floor or above. How much they want to spend above that is a judgment call by them regarding how much additional expenditure (and loss) is worth the gain.
The Islanders can ill afford to be as risky or spend-foolish as other teams can. Like mikb said, there’s more of a chicken and egg to the process than, “They never outbid teams.”
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
I don't assume the opposite is true
But i assume it’s equally likely that “Team stays at cap floor because they are losing lots of money” than “Team stays at cap floor because they can’t sign big free agents, who take less money from elsewhere.”
It sounds like I assume the opposite because well, way too many people take the team’s word for it, despite the team having a clear incentive to LIE.
I agree incidentally that the team would be willing on some occasions to spend above the floor….but I think their orders are to not be above it by very much at all, if possible. That’s the logical move for a team in the Isles’ financial situation.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
I guess I'm parsing again
But the situations just aren’t mutually exclusive, is all. It is both possible they made higher bids on Martin and Hamhuis and, upon being denied, stood pat at the floor rather than spend above it just to spend above it.
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
by Dominik on Feb 12, 2012 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Indeed.
I’d rather spend smart than just spend.
Salary management is very important in the NHL now.. and it’s tighter still if a team has it’s own budget concerns.
I’d rather make sure we’re building smart then quickly. After decades of waiting, I’d rather have 5-6+ years of being really good, than 1-2.. win a cup and then gut the team like Chi.
by TA on Feb 12, 2012 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
Incentive to lie, Just like politicians:)
In loving memory;Dad thanks for making us Islanders fans, ACC 1918-2011
I guess Doug Weight lied about what Paul Martin said..
Thats possible…But I think hes telling the truth..
by KO21 on Feb 12, 2012 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
To trade or not to trade Nabby that is the question.
This discussion reminds me of a joke.
A millionaire is speaking with a pretty girl.
Millionaire: Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?
Pretty girl: Yes, I would.
Millionaire: Would you have sex with me for $100?
Pretty girl: What!!! What do you think I am, a whore?
Millionaire: We already established that, now we’re just negotiating.
Trading Nabby, comes down to a few things.
One: What will someone offer? Chicago and Detroit both appear interested. But at what cost? Would Chicago offer Nick Liddy or a first round pick?
Two: What would trading Nabokov mean to the team this year? I think you have to take into account that by trading Nabby and/or PA; you would be sending the message to the team that management doesn’t believe in them. While, it may be realistic to expect or even hope for the playoffs, the experience of playing games that matter more could be more important than picking up a draft pick or long shot prospect.
It will all come down to how the Isles play leading up to the trade deadline and what other teams (the millionaires) are willing to offer for Nabokov or PAP.
If Snow is only offered 2nd round draft picks, why make the trade?
If he can get a good young player, that would be a tougher call to make.
by John from ATL on Feb 12, 2012 11:56 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
I don't understand how trading Nabby means that Garth doesn't believe in the team
If anything it says that they believe enough in the other 19 players that they can get by without this one.
No Sleep 'til....We Find Some Secondary Scoring
Honestly, it depends on what he was traded FOR.
If he was traded for non-ready prospects or draft picks, then thats the message it sends. If he was traded for a player who would step in right now and help the team, it doesnt.
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
by TheMetalChick on Feb 12, 2012 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
I'd think Leddy is somewhat untouchable right now, but other D prospects in their system could be available.
What do you mean they won 4 cups in a row? Is that possible?
"John Tavares(a top 10 forward in the NHL)"-Neil Greenberg
Let me quickly answer some (pretty predictable - sigh) comments here.
1.
Thats unfair to say…What I see is a totally relaxed goalie who has closed the holes in his game…
You know, I hear this sort of thing in baseball, hockey, basketball….basically every sport. We don’t like to believe that when a player’s performance dramatically improves, it’s not a real improvement. It’s our nature – human beings like to believe improvements are skill and that luck plays a minimal role in these competitions. Even the players on the team do this – of course they have good reason to believe this, as its their own future that is affected by their teammates’ performance.
But it plays a HUGE role. It’s why a player who’s 36 suddenly starts playing better than he has EVER played in his NHL Career for a full season. Guys, players don’t suddenly improve in the final stage of their career. It DOES NOT HAPPEN.
In addition, as pointed out above, we can see where the shoe is going to drop. No goalie in the NHL can maintain a SV% of .950 on the PK – and NO GOALIE HAS! Seriously, check out every season’s stats in the NHL website (http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm?fetchKey=20092ALLGAGALL&sort=powerPlaySavePctg&viewName=specialTeamSaves). Generally the top in the league is .919 or so on the PK in each season, and I’ll tell you right now that if you look at the top players on the PK SV% each year, they don’t repeat that feat the next year.
PKSV% numbers are extremely variable and prone to luck-based swings. That’s all Nabakov has had. It CANNOT last.
2.
Jeopardizing their future by not adding an additional late third round pick?
The bottom line is you don’t just always trade someone just for the sake of trading someone…
You guys are misunderstanding how a small market team has to work. It’s GREAT to see the team with a top notch prospect system. We should be thrilled with this, especially because we’re the type of team that needs to get talent from within and cheaply.
But systems do not remain good though-out time just out of doing nothing. As guys are promoted, the system gets worse. Now if the promoted guys succeed, then you don’t feel this pain for a few years, as the team is good (If the promoted guys fail, well you’ll feel the pain immediately).
But once again, we are a small market team – or essentially are run like one due to the fact we take a persistent loss. A small market team has trouble hanging onto its own homegrown talent, who eventually WILL leave elsewhere. I know this is hard to believe living in NY – hell, the Isles just signed Tavares, Moulson, Grabner, and Nielsen! But these are quite solid exceptions – Tavares and Grabner were RFAs when they signed, meaning they had little leverage on the matter (And Tavares’ contract ends with him still at a decent age, meaning he could easily then leave for elsewhere) and Moulson has intervening circumstances (friend of Tavares). Nielsen is the only signing that is perhaps a surprise, but that’s mitigated by the fact that Nielsen is basically one of the two best defensive forwards in the game.*
*You’ll note Parenteau hasn’t signed yet. He might sign with the team, but his comments recently expressed an interest in possibly testing Free Agency. We might see that happen (or more likely, if the team can’t come to a deal with him, he’ll be traded)
It is not trading for trades sake, even if the return is just a 3rd rounder (I expect a higher return by the way). It is trading for the sake of maintaining a good team in the future. The Isles are likely to become good, due to their system, over the next few years. But if you don’t maintain the system, which you do by acquiring as many picks as possible, then it’ll just be a bump – the Isles will be good for a few years and then return to rebuilding. That’s unacceptable.
(Incidentally, if you’re all Mets fans, the Jose Reyes situation should be illustrative. It hurt the Mets a lot that they got basically nothing for him – but of course, unlike hockey, at least in baseball the Mets will get compensatory draft picks. The situation isn’t directly comparable as the Mets ARE able to spend some money, but it’s still a good example on this point.0
3.
The fact that the playoffs are a "possibility" to us fans is insane. Now I know the hurdles we have to climb, and it’s doubtful we’ll climb them all. But if you trade Nabokov for anything less than a high-end
prospect or an NHL defensemen, you’re telling the fans you don’t believe in your own team.
My point is, if we want to keep this team on Long Island or in the New York area, we’re gonna need fans to show up
Trading a player hurts. But I’d doubt heavily (and i have no research on this) that it would affect attendance at this point. Islander attendance has sat at 11-12K for the last few years, and it’s there again this year. The team simply isn’t good enough for it to cause more casual fans to show up than they already do.
Moreover, Nabokov is NOT a player the Islanders have advertised or staked their claim to being a good view about. The Isles don’t advertise with him, they advertise with the young forwards. Those are the guys the people come to see, not Nabokov – the casual fan doesn’t really know much about who our goalie is (They’ve heard of him). Attendance won’t be hurt that much.
Moreover, you’re telling the fans that you’re not sure that THIS team can make the playoffs THIS YEAR. But if you, as expected, go on to make the playoffs next year, then this really won’t resonate in fans’ minds.
PS: I’m going to edit this into the post above.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
It is happening right now lol no need to say it CANNOT happen; the reason you are accentuating those words is because it is happening right now. No one is saying it's going to last but Nabokov has been fantastic.
Instead of dumping him for a late third rounder and telling the team they can’t make it this year, it’s more beneficial for them to go for it, play meaningful games now, and make the team see what can happen next year.
First of all, why do you assume Nabby will only bring back a third rounder?
Second of all, yes even if it’s a third rounder, you cannot let a player go away for nothing.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
We won't be letting him go for nothing.
In exchange for the remainder of his salary, the Isles will have gotten 28 more games with him in an Isles Jersey.
The fundamental difference in our positions is that I feel
(1) Regardless of whether he regresses in the next three weeks, he’ll not likely fetch more than a 3rd rounder from Chicago/Detroit. If those two franchises want to prove me wrong, then I’m more than happy to see what they have to offer. A Second Rounder? A First? I think we have to take a First. A second? I’m not sold. If we get value for him, then trade him. If not, I’m happy to have him play out the string here.
(2) By “value” I mean not only the value of him as a 36 year old goalie playing over his had, but the value to the franchise of having him play the reaminder of the season. This has value to me far in excess of a third round pick.
(3) And yes, you can let a payer walk away for “nothing”, if that’s what makes sense.
Now ask me the same question about Parenteau and we’ll have a discussion.
"...I was here on Day 1 when Garth decided to do the rebuild, and I really want to see it through." -- Frans Nielsen
by Nova Scotia Isles Fan on Feb 12, 2012 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
exactly
if we can get a 1st round pick or an immediate impact player, you entertain the thought of trading, but trading him for a 3rd round pick to me is a slap in the face of the players, the organization and the fans.
we will continue this process of missing the playoffs if we keep selling like this year after year.
James T Paulson
by Jtpdolphins2009 on Feb 12, 2012 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
Of course not. You have to evaluate your own team.
It’s pretty clear by any metric – scouting, casual fan eyes, statistics – that this is at best an average team this year. That’s what it is. So is this the team that’s likely to make up that gap? Almost certainly not.
In another situation, if the team is 5 points out but has simply been unlucky, then you might want to go for it. This year for example, Montreal might think about being buyers (They’re probably not good enough either, but it’s certainly closer). By Contrast, Minnesota is going to look awfully silly when they inevitably buy and fall short.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
Average makes the playoffs if you are average all year.
The Islanders weren’t…they’re trying to make it up. And 7-2-2 is nice, but they’re getting really lucky with goaltending in a lot of these games. Even poor teams have these stretches, and the overall numbers don’t make it seem like the team is just playing the same recently, if not worse (They’re better than they looked at the beginning, but they’re still just average.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
so you want to trade away the only reason that we are winning now?
well according to you anyway
James T Paulson
by Jtpdolphins2009 on Feb 12, 2012 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
First of all I never said luck has nothing to do with it...
But to say hes simply been lucky is fucking ridiculous…You are not always right, bro…
by KO21 on Feb 12, 2012 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I know the casual fan doesn't know much about our goalie
But I assume they do know how to read the standings in the paper, and I noticed you mentioned he’s been playing well because he has. This past week, we don’t take 4 of 6 points without him. We take ZERO. That hurts, and I know from having season tickets with my dad: if they’re winning, fans’ll show. If they’re losing, they won’t.
They’re by no means selling out, but 12K is far better for the team than 9K, right?
by sayvillelax94 on Feb 12, 2012 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
Nabby's Value
to this team would be as the #1 starter next year. Sure he has value as the starter for the last 25 games of the season, but THAT value would easily be offset by a second round pick or a depth RFA defenseman.
I agree with almost all of what Garik has posted, except I could reasonably see the Islanders going with Nabby next year. They need to sign either Nabby or Montoya for next year, and Nabby has been healthier, and better (luckier?) than Montoya to this point.
I think I’d rather have Montoya, but probably, like Parentau, he wants too much term, and there is just too much behind him, and too much committed to already. Nabby fits better in the plan.
I guess we’ll see soon.
I believe in ELI! Go Blue!
@JPinVA
Not sure Nabby wants to be here next year. I think it's more likely that he's playing out his contractual duty to the Islanders, and then will split in FA. I would rather sign Montoya longer term than Nabby.
That being said, you have to keep Nabby. They could very easily be 6 points out of a playoff spot with games in hand at the end of play today (Rangers beat WSH at home (LIKELY), Penguins beat Lightning at home (LIKELY), Islanders beat Panthers (we’ll see lol)).
This was my thought too
Not so much for this season, but as a starter next year, and as a backup the following if he wanted to. Doubtful he will be worse than DP, a rook or Monty (by much anyway) next season…when they will absolutely need to make the playoffs or really start to lose credibility.
Neil Smith @bigdealneil94 @KeithLHHockey @craigjbutton hey keith GFY
Website:Lighthouse HockeyTwitter: @KeithLHHockey
We are still....
assuming the Montoya we saw at the end of last year is what we’ll get in the future. That’s a little bit of a reach, Nabby is a proven NHL goalie. Remember Duby looked good for a short while as well, look how that turned out.
No one is sitting in the locker room and really knows the impact. All I will say is I’ve played on many teams when we lost one of our key players to injury (similar situation) and it can take the wind out of your sails. Just look at the collective sign when Hamonic got hurt, to a man everyone was questioning how do replace him. Trading Nabby can have a similar effect and keep in mind we want to build a winning organization, well Bridgeport is on a run, why upset their run by taking one of their goalies.
In loving memory;Dad thanks for making us Islanders fans, ACC 1918-2011
by bossy2219 on Feb 12, 2012 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
THIS more than anything
Considering the sample size issue in goalie evaluation, we’re still not sure what we have beyond Nabby. I want to believe in those guys, but none of them is a lock…yet.
I agree that if he doesn’t want to stay, move him and try to get what you can. (Or package him and get even more). But if there’s any chance he really does want to stay, (which I believe becomes more likely on a daily basis), you keep him and try to deal Montoya.
The reason I think he may want to stay (and this applies to PAP also) is more “psych” than sport.
- As a “rental”, he is going to have to move while still only being under contract until whenever he gets eliminated from the playoffs. * He’ll go to a “contender” that most likely will be up against the cap or at least spend far more than the Isles.
- that high cap number is probably why they need a goalie in the first place…translation being that they may not be able to pay him what he’s “worth” next season.
- he may then have to go back into free agency where he will be competing with guys as good, better, younger and/or cheaper again (At the very least, Vokoun). And we know how that worked out for him last time.
- then he may have to move a second time in three months…and still not be making what could be had here in term and $ because nobody is going to give him more than two years most likely.
This “go to a contender” thing may be a little overrated in my mind. Of course anyone would want a championship, but at the stake of potentially millions and bad situations, I doubt it gets done as often as we assume it does.
I know the Ray Bourque’s and Doug Weights make a great story, but the NHL is littered with far more players who DON’T do that (at least on their own terms)…it’s just not publicized.
Neil Smith @bigdealneil94 @KeithLHHockey @craigjbutton hey keith GFY
Website:Lighthouse HockeyTwitter: @KeithLHHockey
by Keith Quinn on Feb 13, 2012 6:26 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
And furthermore, the "go to contender" thing
It mostly happens when the team first wants to send you to a contender for parts. Bill Guerin had a choice (NTC) and a desire. Roloson had a desire. Of course both signed here in part with that endgame in mind. Bourque and Weight wanted nothing of the sort until it was practically foisted upon them.
Nabokov is a special, weird case as he wanted to get back into the NHL and he thought Detroit would give him the time and the competitive joy to make even backing up worthwhile.
(Long way of saying I agree, millions and playing time may be more important.)
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
by Dominik on Feb 13, 2012 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed with you're thinking.
What do you mean they won 4 cups in a row? Is that possible?
"John Tavares(a top 10 forward in the NHL)"-Neil Greenberg
My totally definitive answer - uh...it depends
Nabokov is basically house money. He’s playing very well right now. So well, that the words “Islanders” and “Playoffs” can conceivably be used in the same sentence, albeit with caveats. But they got him for nothing and he’s given them everything thus far.
Whether he stays of goes depends on what Garth is offered. That’s why he’ll be an Islander until at least Feb. 26th. If Steve Yzerman or Stan Bowman panics and sends the moon (aka quality prospects, picks, etc) for Nabokov, Garth’s gotta take it. It would be a tough pill to swallow, especially if the Islanders are still in the race at the time, but for the long term future, it has to be done.
But if the best he can get is a midround pick, then keep Nabokov and try to bring him back next year.
Personally, I’d give him an extension if he’d take it. To my mind, signing him would be a strong message to both the Islanders and the rest of the league that this is a team worth playing for. Nabokov has said that, after playing here, he likes the team, the area and the organization. What better way to get that memo out to the NHL than to say, “I’m sticking around for a while.” Then the Islanders can make him director of russian scouting or something.
"He's depriving some small village of a pretty good idiot" - Mike Milbury on Ziggy Palffy's agent. On Twitter: @Dan_of_Science
by PGI on Feb 12, 2012 12:56 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Trade him if you have a good buyer, but again
I’m not assuming there are teams willing to make a good offer.
I’m also not assuming teams like Chicago will really see his value higher now (when his save % is as garik pointed out at an unsustainably higher level) than closer to the deadline when his save percentage might be lower. Don’t think Chicago is that naiive.
Nabokov’s just as likely to have higher value if a team is truly desperate around deadline time and has no other options.
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
by Dominik on Feb 12, 2012 1:33 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Somewhat agree
I think i didn’t make this clear, but I’ve observed in the last few years that the goalie market seems to be very small. There are 2-3 teams every year who might trade for a goalie, and they tend to want to trade for them early. The end result is that if you hold on to your cards too long, it’s very possible for there to be no buyers left at the deadline.
Unlike forwards or D-Men, who are always still valuable at the deadline, goalies are not..once you’ve filled that hole, you’re done.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
Agree, I just think that's what also may keep the price low
And also might make a sale never happen. It’s possible Chicago (or whomever) scouts will really like one goalie, not another, etc. They were quite content with Crawford last year. Willing to run with Niemi the year before. They may need a scouting reason to “believe” that one candidate will be a true upgrade over what they have rather than just a recent hot hand in relief of their current cold hand.
Just a lot of possible scenarios. Basically I could see myself as disappointed they traded too soon as waited too late. Maybe someone tears a groin Feb. 25.
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
There's plenty of risk involved in WHEN to trade him
and I’m not sure why people are so focussed upon Chicago. But I do know trading him is what the team needs to do. I am not an expert in marketing or negotiations with other teams.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
Chicago, just because there are few teams in need
And MSM reports have indicated some probing for another goalie by them.
Chicago makes an illustrative hypothetical when there are few clear bidders out there for a goalie. No one’s going to go after Nabokov simply to upgrade their already fine goaltending. Only a team whose suffered an injury or who has shattered confidence in their current tandem will even bother. That might be Chicago. Howard is already skating again in Detroit. As for the rest of the league…?
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
If hes simply getting lucky and hes just not that good then why would anyone trade anyone of value for him?
What do u think is worth a trade? A 2nd, a 3rd or a 4th rounder? How bout a bag of pucks? lol Seriously, how much or who do u think we can get for, as you describe, a “lucky” and an “aging asset”?
Thats a very good point...
I’m also not assuming teams like Chicago will really see his value higher now (when his save % is as garik pointed out at an unsustainably higher level) than closer to the deadline when his save percentage might be lower. Don’t think Chicago is that naiive.
If Nabbys just been lucky then he really isn’t worth as much as you think and you would think that the Wings feel the same…But I don’t discredit a guy by saying hes been simply lucky…
Except, you know, he’s been pretty lucky. That’s not to say that he isn’t playing very well right now, just that it’s not sustainable.
=d
There is a reason luck has swung his way...
You create luck…
"Luck is the residue of design"
To be slightly longer-winded, it means that the bounces tend to even out… so the deciding factor is, who is more skilled? And I think that it’s a side-effect of skill and experience to recognize and then take advantage of this, where weaker teams aren’t as able to. Also, a superior team tends to be able to overcome the breaks that go against them, leading people to tend to forget those and only remember the ones that went their way. Hence, the better-skilled team seems to just catch a break when they need it.
We may be in the box, but you get the penalty.
Lighthouse Hockey - a beacon of greatness on the rocky coast of sports blog mediocrity
Non-hockey scribblings at nightflyblog
Luck is just a variable that the statisticians have failed to define.
You cannot base an argument on empirical evidence AND luck, since luck is not quantifiable. Just my two cents when discussing a player isn’t as good as their stats because they are “lucky”. All along I thought stats were defined to determine actual performance.
Luck is quantifiable.
And I just wrote a long piece on this only to randomly have it deleted. I hate my computer.
Anyhow, the point is this: Luck is quantifiable to a certain extent – it’s essentially what statisticians call “random variance”, which is caused by the fact that goalie statistics, and all player statistics, stem not just from player true talent, but also things out of a goalie’s control (how hard the shots are, random deflections, etc.) as well as the human body’s inability to repeat the same action the same exact way every time. Just like if you flip a coin 20 times and then repeat the process 99 times you won’t end up with the same # of heads all 100 times (unless you’re Harvey Dent) – you’ll get a range of different outcomes -, in hockey a player’s performance varies greatly from what you’d expect on average, especially in smaller sample sizes.
So what statisticians have done is they attempt to find out ways to measure this amount of variance and to determine what signs there are that someone is succeeding due to random variance, or luck, instead of due to skill.
In baseball, for example, hitters can sometimes overperform due to getting lucky on balls they put into play….shortstops fail to make routine plays, or the hitter hits the ball in his first 10 ABs randomly where a fielder has just vacated. So baseball has a statistic called BABIP which can be used to measure when hitters and pitchers are getting lucky on the outcomes of balls put into play.
In hockey, for goalies, when trying to see where regular SV% is inflated due to luck, we look at someone’s PK SV%, which is EXTREMELY variable due to its small sample size. No Goalie maintains a PK SV% that is near what he has at even strength – it’s physically impossible. The best goalies usually maintain a PK SV% over their career that is something like .890 or so. If a goalie is having a PK SV% that is much higher or much lower – such as Nabokov’s insane .950%, we expect it to “regress” down to the usual amount, because a goalie CANNOT keep that up. And that’s what we mean by luck…this is simply a fluke of a sample size, not a real result.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
Again, what I said in short hand sarcasm.
Luck is random and equivalent to magic. Variance is the part of the stastic that the statistician is unable to compile sufficient data on to firmly define its affect. Luck comes from 4 leaf clovers, variance just happens to be all of those things that you cannot measure in sufficient quantities to trend and determine the impact.
by Hockey1919 on Feb 14, 2012 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
or in other words
Just because I don’t know how to measure “it”, doesn’t mean I don’t have some control over the affect “it” has.
No.
Variance is the natural product of how humans work.
Think about this: You stand at center ice with the puck all alone. There’s no one else on the ice and you have to score on an empty goal. You fire 20 shots from that spot at the goal.
You then repeat this feat 4 more times.
The amount of times you score in each set of 20 will vary. Not due to skill, but because the human body cannot repeat certain feats perfectly 100% of the time.
That’s variance. And we CAN measure it.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
A thing about language in these cases
Nabokov’s high SV% is not REAL – it’s a facade caused by luck on special teams
Not to pick on your words, garik16, but I think this type of statement (“real” and “facade”) is why underlying stat arguments don’t always go over well with some people. It’s just something I notice in a lot of stat blogs that are trying to sway a suspicious audience but probably unknowingly mix in statements that keep that audience’s suspicion high.
I know exactly what you mean here, but his high save percentage is quite real, it is just quite subject to change. It is there, for all to see. It is the reality of what has happened this year. Will it change? Almost certainly, yes (though maybe not even this year, which makes conveying the case all the more difficult).
Everything changes. Players return to their norms (until they age too far, and the norm is no longer in reach). A hat trick is real. It does not mean the player will score three goals per game, or score 50 because the hat trick puts him on a 50-goal pace. A slumping scorer with 1 goal in 20 games is real. It does not mean he’s only a four-goal scorer, but it does mean he has only produced one goal in a given stretch, and it can’t be completely ignored as if it’s not part of his reality.
(Likewise, players don’t suddenly get more talented in their 30s, but they can improve from month to month whether thanks to overcoming nagging injury, or in response to coaching to fix holes — yes, holes — or adapt to tendencies that opponents target. This isn’t a common or long-term occurrence but it happens, and just because we cannot know when it has happened nor quantify it does not mean it does not exist.)
I’m not sure if there are people arguing to keep Nabokov because they think he is “elite” or whatever, or if that’s rather the case for selling now rather than in two weeks. But I think the key to that part of the case is stating that EV Save% is the key (or at least best we have) indicator, and by that indicator Nabokov is still an average-but-not-great NHL goalie. And if anyone is misled by his overall save% they should know that sort of thing isn’t reliable thanks to PK data being in the mix.
(Sorry, not meaning to pick on one sentence here, as I frankly agree with the essential premise of the post. I just watch how these debates go and I think there are ways to make them more approachable at the outset.)
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
by Dominik on Feb 12, 2012 2:06 PM EST reply actions 7 recs
I find that wording goes over better than "not indicative of true talent"
There’s really no good way to say it though.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
Agreed. We end up with a bunch of conditional phrases.
And sorry, didn’t meant to turn that into a green counterpoint-looking thing (I hope people aren’t seeing it as a counterpoint). I’m just a facilitator by nature.
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
Statistically all indications were that the Rangers were going to fall apart in the scond half.
I contended it was better to have the points and let the statistics sort themselves out. The points they have accumulated are real, the statistics point to a trend that has a higher probablity of happening but no gaurantee.
At the time, I could not explain my argument coherently, but what I meant to say, was as long as you are getting points, you could always statistically improve your play. You may have terrible possession numbers, but be wining games. The points gained still count. Over the next half of the season, your possession numbers may drastically improve and support the number of points you gain in the second half. Just because a team had poor possession numbers doesn’t mean they wouldn’t improve.
Well
1. If a team’s statistics improve, of course our predictions on how good they are changes. We were just saying w/regards to the Rangers, was that their early start was fluky. But they did improve a good bit, which has prevented a relapse (in combination with Lundqvist’s play). That said, I’d still very much not bet on them – they’re clearly now a good team, but they’re not a great team. They’ll still live or die on their goaltending, though they now have more of a basis that they can survive an only OKAY Lundqvist against most teams.
--I’d point out that the Wild, Stars and Oilers have fell apart as predicted.
You can improve your underlying stats, but more often than not, that’s not what happens.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
You can improve your underlying stats, but more often than not, that’s not what happens.
Just to add, the Rangers have a quite noticeable inflection point at game 20317 (about 17-18gms into the year), which was the addition of Hagelin and Mitchell to the lineup. Nobody can truly explain WTF happened, but they went from about a 45% possession team to a 52% team overnight. It’s a complete statistical anomaly. The only other similar case recently was when Bylsma took over PIT. For the most part, the ~30gm point can tell you what a team is going to be.
That said, I’d still very much not bet on them – they’re clearly now a good team, but they’re not a great team.
Depends what you’re betting on. Cup? Agree. Anything less than a Conf. Finals appearance at this point though would be disappointing. Only Boston and a (maybe don’t even need to be)healthy PIT are really at their (new found) level in the East.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Feb 13, 2012 10:10 PM EST up reply actions
All I was saying is that "fluky" can go either way
It was fluky that they were winning with such poor puck possesion, but getting the points was more important than their puck possession. Or I could have said, their poor puck possession is not indicative of the type of team they are based on their point totals. I thought that there possession numbers would increase because they looked like a team that was capable of winning.
You can improve your underlying stats, but more often than not, that’s not what happens.
And why past performance is no gaurantee of future performance. OR sometimes we are just looking at the wrong metrics for the period of performance we are measuring. Yes you can ride a hot goaltender for a season, but maybe not for his entire career.
BOOOOOOO!!!!
I would say alot more but it’s clear you don’t love Nabby as much as I do, so no point in it.
GO SHARKS!
Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin (see profile for more info on this quote)
by Angy on Feb 12, 2012 2:55 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
I’d be interested in reading what you have to say.
bullet point your thoughts if you don’t have time.
by noomz on Feb 12, 2012 8:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Me too. I want know!
What do you mean they won 4 cups in a row? Is that possible?
"John Tavares(a top 10 forward in the NHL)"-Neil Greenberg
I'd trade Nabokov if DP were available for backup duty
The thing I dislike the most about the idea of selling Nabby is that it leaves a hole to plug.
Bridgeport is kicking ass and taking names right now, and I really feel it’s more to Nilsson and Poulin’s benefit that they stay down in the AHL, playing games that matter instead of riding the pine behind or swapping starts with Montoya for the remainder of an NHL season that’s already down the tubes. I don’t know exactly what the situation is with Miko so I can’t offer any informed opinion with regard to him.
If you want to throw in the towel on the season and sell high, I’d want a pick (even a pretty low one) and a middling goalie prospect from someone’s farm team that can plug that gap so as to avoid disrupting the development of our real future goal tenders.
Still feels weird cheering for Nabokov
Hole to plug
I’m sympathetic to that argument, and certainly with all the goalie turmoil this team has been through the past few years you can imagine the worst happening (again) and it feeling like, “Why did we do this again … for Ty Wishart?” (or his equivalent). What effect that chain of events would have inside the players’ heads is worth considering.
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
Is this real?
Because I love the headline at the top right about opening the cranium with a “saw” as opposed to a “hammer” as a medical “breakthrough”.
Additionally weird that at the bottom, Fleischmann’s Yeast shows up after appearing in today’s game thread.
Neil Smith @bigdealneil94 @KeithLHHockey @craigjbutton hey keith GFY
Website:Lighthouse HockeyTwitter: @KeithLHHockey
Also
fuck that lying Herbert Hoover because 80 years later, still no airplane in my garage.
Neil Smith @bigdealneil94 @KeithLHHockey @craigjbutton hey keith GFY
Website:Lighthouse HockeyTwitter: @KeithLHHockey
by Keith Quinn on Feb 12, 2012 8:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
God I'm stupid
nevermind.
Neil Smith @bigdealneil94 @KeithLHHockey @craigjbutton hey keith GFY
Website:Lighthouse HockeyTwitter: @KeithLHHockey
by Keith Quinn on Feb 12, 2012 8:11 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
LOL! :)
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
by TheMetalChick on Feb 12, 2012 8:12 PM EST up reply actions
I love this.
Official choice of Lighthouse Dog #1.
by Fabtraption on Feb 13, 2012 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
Subtitle: Three minutes inside Keith's head
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
by Dominik on Feb 13, 2012 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Seriously
You should ask for The Onion’s “Our Dumb Century” book for uh, Valentine’s Day or something.
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
Don't worry man
Just bought my girl a Valentine’s card without properly reading it… Turns out it’s supposed to be from a woman to a man.
Yeah.
by sayvillelax94 on Feb 13, 2012 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Try and resign Nabby, if he turns it down move him for whatever we can get(likely between a 3rd and a 1st rounder).
Better then losing him for nothing, and the playoffs are already a far cry away.
Same with PAP, resign him for what he wants or move him for a 2nd/1st rounder. If we accumulate these picks, for all we know we could move up into a top 3 pick. Or as the saying goes, the more lottery tickets you have the higher chance you have of hitting the jackpot(or acquiring future nhlers).
What do you mean they won 4 cups in a row? Is that possible?
"John Tavares(a top 10 forward in the NHL)"-Neil Greenberg
NTC
You cannot trade Nabokov “for whatever you can get” you can only trade him where he personally feels like going.
Its a point that everyone needs to keep in mind. Nabokov has all the power in this…. he is getting the same pay whether he uproots and moves or not, and he might prefer to finish the season where he is and then mull through contracts in the offseason. You just dont know.
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
by TheMetalChick on Feb 12, 2012 8:09 PM EST up reply actions
Good point. I keep forgetting about that NTC.
What do you mean they won 4 cups in a row? Is that possible?
"John Tavares(a top 10 forward in the NHL)"-Neil Greenberg
Indeed. I suspect if he went to a contender he'd waive it easily.
He’d make more money next year by impressing on a contender (and possibly in the playoffs) than on the Isles.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
Possibly.
But theres another way of looking at it.
He might not want to be “the guy” on a team desperate for a goalie to bring them through the playoffs and possibly fall short… it will negatively affect the offers he will get this summer. And he will get offers. If he finishes here on LI playing great, he (probably) gets an early start on the summer AND will be able to mull over multiple offers- probably including one from the Isles if nothing else, which he seems not to even mind.
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
by TheMetalChick on Feb 12, 2012 8:21 PM EST up reply actions
Indeed. Nabby's thoughts on his NTC could make this whole thing moot.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
Thats what Im thinking.
I mean, for all we know he might have already told Garth he isnt interested in going anywhere. Maybe thats why Garths saying he doesnt want to move him?
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
by TheMetalChick on Feb 12, 2012 9:39 PM EST up reply actions
To be fair, Garth should be saying that regardless
To negotiate for the best possible deal, you have to make it seem like you can always walk away. Hence, Garth saying he doesn’t want to move him.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16
Definitely.
Totally agree he should say that no matter what. Im just saying there could be more to it for all we know. Thing is, we’re not gonna know- except maybe someday in retrospect.
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
by TheMetalChick on Feb 12, 2012 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
No.No. No. Garth is an idiot.
I am laughing at the Wing blogs that are calling Garth a stupid back-up because he declared he won’t be trading Nabokov. These are the same people that treat Stevie Y is a god.
You know the guy that apprenticed at the foot of Ken Holland and ran the Canadian Olympic team yet dealt for Roloson and re-signed him after Snow saw the writing on the wall. The same super-genius that has his team struggling to outpace the “lowly” Islanders.
The “stupid” backup has a legit first string goaltender at 575k per year thanks to the Red Wings not quite understadnding that they negotiated for the Islanders to taks a goaltender for minimum wage. The “backup” then got a full season out of him instead of 20 games burned off at the end of the season.
by Hockey1919 on Feb 13, 2012 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think usually how this works
Is the GM says, “You’ll need to make me a good offer before I even broach the topic with my NTC player.”
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
Start Thinking 2012-2013
All transactions made at the trade deadline, Nabokov or otherwise, needs to be looked at through the lens of competing next year. We can all root for a miracle run at the end of this year, but the timetable has always been to be a playoff team in 2012-2013. That being said, requesting draft picks for Nabokov does not satisfy that need. The Isles need to be asking for players that can bring depth or compete for roster spots next year. They have a core they want to start building around, let’s not ask for a draft pick that is unlikely to contribute unitl 3 or 4 years down the road.
Wasn't Nabokov one of the best goalies in the league
before he left the NHL to play abroad? Didn’t he make multiple All Star teams? He just passed Billy Smith in wins. Why is his play of late a fluke? It seems he has a track record that proves otherwise. If you can get quality for him in return, fine, trade him, but I just don’t see his strong play as luck.
Well his current save percentage is higher than any previous season
A goalie doesn’t typically have his best season in his career at 36 years old.
No Sleep 'til....We Find Some Secondary Scoring
Tell that to Tim Thomas. :)
Just be sure to wear a tricorner hat with Liptons hanging off of it when you do.
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
by TheMetalChick on Feb 13, 2012 12:01 PM EST up reply actions
Agree
He should be moved if he can, though I do think there should be a caveat on what he returns.
It is not trading for trades sake, even if the return is just a 3rd rounder (I expect a higher return by the way).
I’m not sure I agree that a third rounder would serve the long-term interests of the team as much as winning down the stretch would (even though I harbor no playoff hopes). It’s debatable, and there’s merits on both sides, but another low % dart has a lot less value for the 2012 Islanders than the 2010 ones.
I’m not sure why you’d expect a higher return though. I’m pretty sure we both thought the Isles would be lucky to get a third for him even a month ago. Granted he’s played better, but you yourself have pointed out there’s a lot of smoke and mirrors there. NHL teams are aware of that if we are. An even bigger issue is that there seems to be little to no market for goalies this year, so we’d need a team to in essence bid against itself, and Omar Minaya isn’t a GM in the NHL.
Two other things to consider
1. If Nabby is traded by the deadline, and Monty/Poulin do not perform well, its not losing out on the play-offs that is a concern, because that is a very long shot, – but rather it does not create a good environment for our developing forwards if the goals against go way up.
2. As to Nabbys “real numbers” they undoubtubly would be better if he were playing behind the D and the whole squads of either say the Wings or the Hawks.
A few thoughts on Nabby
- Just hypothesizing on why his numbers are at a career high this year: Nabby was able to take some time off last year and really get his head on straight after bouncing to Russia, then back to the NHL and being unhappy with what team he was going to have to play for. I think taking the time to realize that hockey is what’s important to him was a good thing. So being rested with his head on straight is one possible reason for the numbers spike.
- Another possible reason for the numbers spike is that he’s playing in a new conference where his stand up style of goaltending isn’t often seen. It’s going to take some time for guys to get used to shooting on that style of goaltending. This would suggest his numbers aren’t going to last forever if that’s the case.
- I think one of the advantages of trading Nabby would be to see what we really have in Montoya for the rest of the year. He’s going to be a UFA and I’m not sure right now that we’d really want to offer him anything more than a low 1 year deal with how little he has played. Without seeing him for a long stretch we could end up exposed if he comes back next year and sucks.
- There’s the psych value to keeping Nabby for the team but I think most of the guys realize this is a business and have seen the growing pains that comes with already. While Roloson isn’t a great comparison, he’s an example of a guy that was in a similar contract position and was dealt away. Nabby is a more valuable asset because of the outside shot we have at the playoffs but I’m not sure the team would see dealing him as a soul crushing blow.
Definitely a poster at Lighthouse Hockey until 2015, then maybe somewhere else.
Regardless of the playoff shot or not I think the fact that Nabokov has been better than Roloson is key.
For all of the goaltenders the Islanders have used, there is still no clear indication of who will be ready and/or available next season. Roloson played well for the Islanders, but that was just about average. He looke stellar since we were used to a crap-fest in goal. Montoya is unsigned, DP is DP and the AHL netminders should have a mentor when they reach the NHL.
Nabokov isn’t the long term answer, but another season or two would allow for some stability. Either way I would be guessing since I don’t know if he would waive his NTC for a trade and what he would the possible return would be and I have no idea if he would be willing to sign for a couple of seasons or what terms he would be looking for until Poulin, Montoya, Kiskonnen, Nilsson or even Cody Rosen is ready.
Putting in my .02 cents (whether you like it or not LOL)
I can totally understand where you’re coming from garik. I too would like to see some value on something we picked up for nothing in Nabokov. However, let me propose an angle that you may not have previously considered:
The reason Nabokov is not being traded is not because the Islanders have a legimate shot at the playoffs (which we all know are slim pickens), it’s because the Sound Tigers do!
Consider this: Kevin Poulin and Anders Nilsson are receiving an education in trial-by-fire down in BP and succeeding. If you trade Nabokov, then one of those two has to come up to play backup to Monty and potentially lose the groove they’re currently in. I for one, would rather see those two goalies gain immeasurable experience in the playoffs down in the A rather than riding the pine up in the NHL.
Whether the Islanders make the playoffs or not or trade Nabby for a 3rd rounder is immaterial. If you want your homegrown talent to learn and cultivate a winning attitude, you have to let them do it at the lower level and then let them translate that mentality to the big league. Trading Nabokov in my opinion would be the worst thing you could do if the intention is grow the talent you drafted in Poulin and Nilsson.
Now, would Nabokov bring back enough in a trade to really justify bringing either of the two prospects up to the NHL? My simple answer is “no”.
From the Penalty Box to the Blog Box! Check it out at Isles Official's Outlook!
by IslesOfficial on Feb 13, 2012 4:10 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Can the Isles bring Koskinen to BPT?
Then bring up Nilsson to the Island and have this:
NYI: Montoya, Nilsson
BPT: Poulin, Koskinen
"Seriously that's the last time you guys f#@%ing won?" -RSH (about beating the Penguins in '93)
To put it plainly...no
Once the Islanders loaned him to his Finnish league team, it was for the entire season. As I’m aware. If I’m wrong someone please correct me.
From the Penalty Box to the Blog Box! Check it out at Isles Official's Outlook!
by IslesOfficial on Feb 13, 2012 10:44 PM EST up reply actions
Well done Garik, I agree
I do think Nabby’s numbers are going to deflate, especially considering our defensive corps. With Hamonic and Reese down, and terrible chemistry between Eaton and Jurcina (mostly Juice looking out of place), our goalie is going to face more quality scoring chances. Regardless of your stances on luck vs. performance, you have to conceed that with a worse defense in front of you, it negatively effects both. If the Isles are looking to sell, maybe its time to play Montoya just a bit more.
A different direction with Nabby...
Instead of shipping him out for an unproven prospect or draft pick, they try to package him with another player or two to get a decent proven asset?
Not a ‘shoot for the moon’ asset like Iginla or Nash but:
Nick Hjalmarsson — signed though 2014
Luca Sbisa — through through 2015
Stephane Robidas — through 2014
Stephen Weiss — through 2013
Matt Greene — through 2014 (especially if LA pulls off a trade giving away Bernier)
Nick Schultz — through 2014
Anton Volchecnkov — through 2016
Montoya's performance last night..............
gives cause for concern. Next season say: Nabby is gone, Montoya plays the same way, then either Nilsson or Poulin become a #1 goalie on hopefully a play-off bound club? thats gambling on the most important position on the team with 2 unproven players.
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lighthouse Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Islanders Schedule
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Who are the Non-Smythe candidates for the Devils, Kings?
- End is near for Rick Nash, Blue Jackets as trade discussions set to resume
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
SBNation.com Recent Stories
1979-80
Source: Uploaded by user via NYIslanders on Pinterest
May 24, 1980: Tonelli to Nystrom. At long last, the steady build of the New York Islanders from expansion doormat to surprise semifinalist to annual contender reaches the promised land: Buoyed by a late season trade for Butch Goring that gave the team the depth up the middle GM Bill Torrey had been seeking, the Islanders knock off the Philadelphia Flyers in six games.
The victory justified the faith in coach Al Arbour who guided them from their second season to their first Stanley Cup seven seasons later. The Islanders would not be the first expansion team to win the Stanley Cup, but they would be the only one capable of a dynasty.
1980-81
Source: Uploaded by user via NYIslanders on Pinterest
May 21, 1981: This time it was much easier. After falling to "only" 91 points in the 1979-80 season, the Islanders returned to their division title tradition, piling up 110 points -- a whole 13 points over second-place Philadelphia.
Between the quarterfinals (where they beat the upstart Oilers in six games) and the finals, the Islanders reeled off eight consecutive wins -- with a four-game sweep of archrival Rangers in between. As they defeated the Minnesota North Stars in five games for their second Cup, their goal difference in the final was a combined +10.
1981-82
Source: Uploaded by user via NYIslanders on Pinterest
May 16, 1982: Another year, another landslide title. The Islanders won the Patrick Division by a whopping 26 points over the second-place Rangers, and were seven points clear of their nearest competition for the President's Trophy, the still-not-quite-ripe Edmonton Oilers.
A first-round scare against the Pittsburgh Penguins turned in the Isles' favor thanks to John Tonelli's heroics, and a true dynasty was on its way: Past the Rangers in six games, then an eight-game sweep of the Quebec Nordiques and Vancouver Canucks to run away with the Stanley Cup.
1982-83
Source: Uploaded by user via NYIslanders on Pinterest
May 17, 1983: Not so fast, whipper-snappers. The Edmonton Oilers' steadily rising challenge for league supremacy took them all the way to the finals for the first time, where the New York Islanders summarily dispatched them in a four-game sweep. For the Islanders, the Dynasty was secured. For the Oilers, it was a powerful lesson in where talent ends and the demands of playoff hockey begin.
Four years, four Cups, 16 consecutive playoff series wins (a record that would grow to 19 until the rematch with the Oilers the following year). Mike Bossy scored 60 goals yet again, and Wayne Gretzky became acquainted with Billy Smith's crease.
