Around the NHL 2017

[LTS]

I love that they're testing that one out.  If hockey really wants to boost scoring, that would be a huge change.  That paired with the no change after an icing rule would be brutal for the PK.  The big concern though will be if it slows things down too much.  Teams will still ice the puck since it beats the alternative, so that's more stoppages of play.  That or they'll try to put the puck into the benches, which may bring on a safety issue.

 

This change has numerous issues.  It only results in a whistle and a face-off in the defensive zone.  Any coach will take his team allowing themselves a chance to reset positioning off a face-off, especially those who have centers skilled at winning face-offs.  And....

 

 

For youth hockey you're allowed to make changes after icing, that won't change on the PK.    

 

Coaches are still going to tell kids to ice the puck, this is going to slow the game down significantly IMO.    I would've rather they did something else, like force the player to serve the entire penalty no matter how many goals are scored.

 

This.  At the level of play they are implementing this, coaches can still change.  The only thing this will do is increase the number of stoppages in play.  These stoppages will result in the curfew clock being a factor in more games than usual (and it's already a high amount).

 

Finally, given that officials at the 14U level are really learning the game any changes to "increase" scoring at this level is flat out stupid.  There is a wide range in what officials consider a penalty at these lower levels.  Moreover, teams at the 14U level barely practice "systems" so power play goals are rarely that critical as there aren't that many.  

 

USA Hockey didn't provide much of an explanation as to why they are making this change.  Most people I talk to hate the change and are confused at what USA hockey was even trying to accomplish.

[pi2000]

This change has numerous issues.  It only results in a whistle and a face-off in the defensive zone.  Any coach will take his team allowing themselves a chance to reset positioning off a face-off, especially those who have centers skilled at winning face-offs.  And....

 

 

 

This.  At the level of play they are implementing this, coaches can still change.  The only thing this will do is increase the number of stoppages in play.  These stoppages will result in the curfew clock being a factor in more games than usual (and it's already a high amount).

 

Finally, given that officials at the 14U level are really learning the game any changes to "increase" scoring at this level is flat out stupid.  There is a wide range in what officials consider a penalty at these lower levels.  Moreover, teams at the 14U level barely practice "systems" so power play goals are rarely that critical as there aren't that many.  

 

USA Hockey didn't provide much of an explanation as to why they are making this change.  Most people I talk to hate the change and are confused at what USA hockey was even trying to accomplish.

 

Here's the USA Hockey explanation of why they made the rule change...

 

http://www.usahockey.com/news_article/show/804355

 

The TL;DR is to promote skill development by encouraging players to posses the puck and have to make a play with it rather than just blast it down the ice. 

 

“We want to encourage players to get their heads up, think and make skillful, intelligent plays,” said Ken Martel, the technical director of USA Hockey’s American Development Model. “To develop problem-solving skills, we need rules that encourage players to think..."

 

I understand the reasoning, but as a coach, I'm going to tell my kids to ice it anyway.    IMO, at the 14U level and below you're trying to build the correct habits for the next level.    If you have teach kids to try to posses the puck or make a skill play in your own zone on the PK, that's going to result in more turnovers and pucks in the back of your net.    They should be learning to ice the puck in those situations.

[shrader]

For youth hockey you're allowed to make changes after icing, that won't change on the PK.    

 

Coaches are still going to tell kids to ice the puck, this is going to slow the game down significantly IMO.    I would've rather they did something else, like force the player to serve the entire penalty no matter how many goals are scored.

 

Yeah, I realize it's different at that age.  I'd still like to see it at the pro level, which is why I mentioned the rest of that.  I know Hockey East tested it out a few years back.  I have no idea what conclusions they came to from it.

[TrueBlueGED]

Don't we have that already though?

To a degree, sure. I think the proposed changes have the potential to make things worse though.

[Brawndo]

From Brian Lawton

 

With what I am hearing I would not be surprised if David Pasternak @NHLBruins is traded. #contractproblems @NHLNetwork

 

Can he play LW?

[WildCard]

From Brian Lawton

 

With what I am hearing I would not be surprised if David Pasternak @NHLBruins is traded. #contractproblems @NHLNetwork

 

Can he play LW?

Don't care what side he plays on, if you can get him you get him.

 

That said, I would be amazed if he's traded. The haul they would want back for him would be pretty high I would guess too

@NYIslanders

#Isles Injury Update: Shane Prince out 4-6 months. Details: http://atnhl.com/2uWxnHy 

[LTS]

Here's the USA Hockey explanation of why they made the rule change...

 

http://www.usahockey.com/news_article/show/804355

 

The TL;DR is to promote skill development by encouraging players to posses the puck and have to make a play with it rather than just blast it down the ice. 

 

“We want to encourage players to get their heads up, think and make skillful, intelligent plays,” said Ken Martel, the technical director of USA Hockey’s American Development Model. “To develop problem-solving skills, we need rules that encourage players to think..."

 

I understand the reasoning, but as a coach, I'm going to tell my kids to ice it anyway.    IMO, at the 14U level and below you're trying to build the correct habits for the next level.    If you have teach kids to try to posses the puck or make a skill play in your own zone on the PK, that's going to result in more turnovers and pucks in the back of your net.    They should be learning to ice the puck in those situations.

 

 

Yes, I recall what they said.  However, as you indicate, and as every coach I've talked to about this has indicated... no one is going to teach the kids to skate the puck out of the zone.  This is why said they haven't given much of explanation. There's something admirable about wanting to increase problem solving skills, but you have to implement rules that will do that.  This isn't one of them.  Kids have a hard enough time icing the puck at the lower levels because they simple are not strong enough to do so while being chased.  At ages 12-14 the coaches are going to ice it, period.

 

Do you think parents will still scream "get it out" or "ice it"?  Do you think I can point to this rule change to get them to shut up?  

 

Nah, I didn't think so either.

[Randall Flagg]

I would do Reinhart+ for Pastrnak. Not sure if Bruins would care.

[TrueBlueGED]

I would do Reinhart+ for Pastrnak. Not sure if Bruins would care.

Depends if the contract is a real issue, or this is just standard negotiations. If it's a real problem, I can see a cost controlled 22 year old with good numbers, but not good enough to break the bank, as a solid centerpiece of a deal.

[pi2000]

Yes, I recall what they said.  However, as you indicate, and as every coach I've talked to about this has indicated... no one is going to teach the kids to skate the puck out of the zone.  This is why said they haven't given much of explanation. There's something admirable about wanting to increase problem solving skills, but you have to implement rules that will do that.  This isn't one of them.  Kids have a hard enough time icing the puck at the lower levels because they simple are not strong enough to do so while being chased.  At ages 12-14 the coaches are going to ice it, period.

 

Do you think parents will still scream "get it out" or "ice it"?  Do you think I can point to this rule change to get them to shut up?  

 

Nah, I didn't think so either.

 

 

Haha, not a chance.   They'll still scream to ice it, then the ref will blow the whistle and then they'll yell at the refs..... wash, rinse, repeat.     Especially out here in Southern California where very few parents have played the sport or know the basic rules, yet they feel they must be involved in every single play by screaming at their kid to either skate or shoot.     

 

 

I would do Reinhart+ for Pastrnak. Not sure if Bruins would care.

 

Pastrnak has a +9 TRpm on a good Bruins team.    He's a significant asset.    I'd do Reinhart+ as well.

Edited August 14, 2017 by pi2000

[Ducky]

Pastrnak is probably asking for 7.5m+ and the Bruins are balking. Their highest paid player makes 7.25m. He scored 70 points last year and he is 21.

[3putt]

I think the + will include 2 of Guhle Nylander and Mittelstadt. Pretty steep but I would consider it.

[LGR4GM]

I think the + will include 2 of Guhle Nylander and Mittelstadt. Pretty steep but I would consider it.

I wouldn't trade Nylander or Mittelstadt and definitely not Guhle. Let alone toss in Sam Reinhart. 

 

We've never seen Reinhart in his natural spot or under a good coach. Guhle is literally the only defensive prospect we have. Nylander is my least favorite of the least but he also played in Rochester under a garbage system last year. Mittelstadt I wouldn't trade straight up for Pastrnak and yes I am overvaluing a prospect but he just seems to check every box, all the time. 

 

We need to stop trading multiple assets, especially young assets. We will need those cheap cost controlled contracts sooner rather than later. Also why do the Bruins any favors?

If you trade for Pastrnak then Reinhart has to be a center. There is no better 3rd center on this team currently. 

[TrueBlueGED]

I think the + will include 2 of Guhle Nylander and Mittelstadt. Pretty steep but I would consider it.

2? That price would be far above what other star players have been traded for recently.

[WildCard]

2? That price would be far above what other star players have been traded for recently.

Reinhart + Nylander + Mittelstadt better fetch me Karlsson + 

[TrueBlueGED]

I wouldn't trade Nylander or Mittelstadt and definitely not Guhle. Let alone toss in Sam Reinhart.

I'm not sure you appreciate how good Pastrnak is. You're going to have to part with a prime asset for him...and he'd be worth it.

[Sabel79]

I'm not sure you appreciate how good Pastrnak is. You're going to have to part with a prime asset for him...and he'd be worth it.

A prime asset probably. Three prime assets, nah.

[TrueBlueGED]

A prime asset probably. Three prime assets, nah.

Right. But Liger said he wouldn't trade any of our best assets, which I take issue with.

[3putt]

For a division rival to trade in the division there will be a premium.

[Randall Flagg]

I wouldn't trade Nylander or Mittelstadt and definitely not Guhle. Let alone toss in Sam Reinhart.

 

We've never seen Reinhart in his natural spot or under a good coach. Guhle is literally the only defensive prospect we have. Nylander is my least favorite of the least but he also played in Rochester under a garbage system last year. Mittelstadt I wouldn't trade straight up for Pastrnak and yes I am overvaluing a prospect but he just seems to check every box, all the time.

 

We need to stop trading multiple assets, especially young assets. We will need those cheap cost controlled contracts sooner rather than later. Also why do the Bruins any favors?

 

If you trade for Pastrnak then Reinhart has to be a center. There is no better 3rd center on this team currently.

Are you saying you wouldn't trade any one of those prospects by themselves for Pastrnak? Or just that you wouldn't combine them?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

This is not going to happen.

[Wyldnwoody44]

One for one is all I would do, player-wise, maybe a draft pick swap or sweetener makes sense, but that's about it. And I see neither team doing it, what would Boston even want? And would a 7 million dollar contract kinda just shaft what we are building here?

[WildCard]

This is not going to happen.

Nope. He's not being traded out of Boston, let alone to us. 

 

But, it's fun to fantasize 

[LGR4GM]

Right. But Liger said he wouldn't trade any of our best assets, which I take issue with.

I'd trade Nyalander for him. 

Are you saying you wouldn't trade any one of those prospects by themselves for Pastrnak? Or just that you wouldn't combine them?

I wouldn't combine them. 

 

Reinhart, Nylander, and Guhle for 1 winger... no. Mittelstadt involved at all I might shy away from because I am blinded by his awesomeness. 

[TrueBlueGED]

One for one is all I would do, player-wise, maybe a draft pick swap or sweetener makes sense, but that's about it. And I see neither team doing it, what would Boston even want? And would a 7 million dollar contract kinda just shaft what we are building here?

 

Not when that contract is for a player as good as Pastrnak. Though it likely would stamp Kane's ticket out of Buffalo, one way or another.

Nope. He's not being traded out of Boston, let alone to us. 

 

But, it's fun to fantasize 

 

I mean, I'd agree, but they did trade Seguin and Hamilton. Sliver of hope?