Chad LaRose: A Look At the "Chuck Norris" of Canes Hockey
Chad LaRose will never be mistaken for a franchise elite hockey player. He fills a role with the Hurricanes just like the vast majority of other NHL hockey players. He is a role player, a utility player, a specialist, a character guy, all those titles of guys who fill the bottom two forward lines generally carry. When you see Chad skating like a little train across the ice, bent over and head cocked way forward, it speaks for itself. Determination, effort, desire……winning. I have often thought that you can probable sit a glass of water on his back and it would likely never spill when he skates. It is the Chad you already know. It is the Chad who is hard to miss or ignore.
It is time some effort be made to set the record straight, or at least do that in my view. This will be both a popular post and one that will be vilified. I honestly don’t care how you feel because Chad deserves better, certainly better than what has been happening recently in my opinion. I hope this will contribute something to the Chad LaRose "legend", someone who has given all he can to us and more. So I do this more as a history rather than fueling debate. I hate it when history or truth is distorted.
Chad is almost 30 years old but it does not seem that long ago that he was sort of a shrimp caught out of water when he was first called up by the Canes in that famous and unforgettable experience of the 2005-2006 Cup run. But I am getting a little ahead of myself.
Chad was not really a known hockey player in 1999-2000 when he played for Sioux Falls of the United States Hockey League, but he did notch 55 points that year and someone starting looking in on him. He was never drafted by any NHL team so he had to break into the NHL the hard way. He did not join the Karmanos owned Plymouth OHL team until the following year in mid-season but he contributed 25 points in the last 32 regular season games and another 20 points in their 19 playoff games. They gave him a chance and he took it.
His next two years with Plymouth proved to some that he was a possible hidden jewel that so many scouts work so hard to uncover. Chad has always been undersized so that always worked against him. He is listed at 5' 10” and 185 pounds but that is likely generous. No one could get a finger on a career projection back then so Chad created his own projection by his hard work. When the 2002-2003 year ended for Chad he lead that team with 61 goals and 56 assists for a total of 117 points. He also represented the US at the 2002 IHF World Junior’s scoring 2 goals and 4 total points and was an 2 time OHL/CHL All-Star.
Those successes got the attention of the Canes. They signed Chad to a 3 year entry level contract beginning with the 2003-2004 season. He split time between the ECHL and AHL in Lowell in that first year and Chad continued to grow as a hockey player. He spent all of his second season in 2004-2005 season with Lowell and at the end of that year had 42 points in 66 games. The boy had 3 hat tricks that year and 8 points in 11 post-season games.
Chad was eventually called up to the big team and after a while stuck. He was part of the Canes team during the Cup year playing in 49 games. He played in 21 of the 25 playoff games as a utility 4th liner and that was when his fan fame took off. “Charlie Hustle” was a name I heard often sitting in the stands that year as well as “Water Bug” during the cup run. Later he earned other endearing nicknames including the “Chuck Norris” of the title of this post, bestowed by a CC regular. What I remember most about this year was Chad spending more time laid out on the ice on his butt than on his skates. The little train continued to run into bigger trains but he got back up and did it again, always. Nothing kept him down for long.
Since that magical Stanley Cup year, Chad has continued to contribute and served in the roles he has been asked to perform. Here is a scouting report and career projection by professional scouts on Chad, something that has been around unchanged since about the 2006-2007 season as best as I can determine:
Flaws: His aggressive nature would be more successful at the NHL level if he were bigger and stronger, so he could use more upper-body strength. Is not a natural goal-scorer by any means.
Assets: Displays a ton of energy with every shift, and isn't afraid of mixing it up--despite a lack of size. Possesses decent offensive instincts and excels in defensive situations.
Career: Energetic two-way winger
This style of play has resulted in Chad suffering a broken leg and missing 21 games and a concussion missing 3 games during the 2007-2008 season and 24 games during the 2009-2010 season with the “lower body” injury. He suffered a head/shoulder injury and has had the “flu” and recently missing 20 games altogether, almost back to back.
Statistics are not fool-proof. They can be twisted and turned in such a way that the results can be deceiving or so misleading that false conclusions can be drawn. I am not going to try and prove anything. What follows are just statistics which are available in a number of places. Judge for yourself.
|
Plus Minus: |
Canes |
Chad |
Staal |
|
|
2006-2007 |
-13 |
-2 |
-6 |
|
|
2007-2008 |
even |
+6 |
-2 |
|
|
2008-2009 |
+4 |
+6 |
+15 |
|
|
2009-2010 |
-19 |
-2 |
+4 |
|
|
2010-2011 |
-7 |
-21 |
-10 |
|
|
2011-2012 |
-21 |
-18 |
-21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canes All Forwards Time on Ice, Chad’s Rank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Shifts |
TOI |
SH TOI |
PP TOI |
||||||||||
|
2006-2007 |
13 |
10 |
3 |
12 |
||||||||||
|
2007-2008 |
10 |
9 |
3 |
15 |
||||||||||
|
2008-2009 |
9 |
7 |
6 |
9 |
||||||||||
|
2009-2010 |
6 |
9 |
4 |
12 |
||||||||||
|
2010-2011 |
5 |
6 |
3 |
8 |
||||||||||
|
2011-2012 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
||||||||||
The first chart shows that so goes the Canes as a team goes so goes Chad. It also indicates that when compared to the franchise player (which Chad is not) those numbers are pretty much in line with his numbers. What is really interesting is when all forwards ice time is viewed with that plus/minus chart. The first couple of years after Chad stuck with the Canes he was limited to generally 4th line duty and PK work. His rank of 3rd on the PK ice time and 12th on the PP and 10th in total ice time confirms this. However, beginning in 2008-2009 there has been a gradual shift in assigned roles. Since 2007-2008 Chad has been assigned more ice time in the PP and his PK work has been reduced, relative to all other Canes forwards each year. He has been asked to do more. For someone who is not suppose to be used in this manner the Canes have not only increased his ice time close to top 6 amounts but have also increased his PP ice time to almost full time second unit ice time level as compared to all Canes forwards.
Chad’s Production
|
|
Games |
Goals |
Assists |
GWG |
SHG |
|
2006-2007 |
80 |
6 |
12 |
0 |
2 |
|
2007-2008 |
58 |
11 |
12 |
2 |
1 |
|
2008-2009 |
81 |
19 |
12 |
4 |
2 |
|
2009-20010 |
56 |
11 |
17 |
0 |
1 |
|
2010-2011 |
82 |
16 |
15 |
0 |
1 |
|
2011-2012 |
48 |
11 |
11 |
3 |
1 |
|
2011-2012 Proj. |
62 |
19 |
19 |
3 |
1 |
Playoffs: During the 2008-2009 playoff year, Chad scored 4 goals and had 7 assists or 11 points in 18 games.
In December, 20011 Elias reported that LaRose is one of only 4 current NHL players to have scored at least one goal or more shorthanded in each of the last 6 seasons.
Chad also has 3 game winning goals this year and 12 game winners over this same 6 year period.
TSN Power Play Calculations
Power play time top 40 players who time has changed significantly: by Scott Cullen TSN as of 1/26/2012. The numbers are seconds per game average. Bowman PP ice time has increased and seems to be a popular comparison to Chad so let's look at him. Harrison was also ranked high so I also added him. First number is current year average seconds per game and the second number is last year’s with the difference in seconds the last number. Sorry about the chart, could not get it to correct.
|
21. Chad LaRose Carolina RW 103 30 +73 |
|
22. Drayson Bowman Carolina LW 101 28 +73 |
|
3. Jay Harrison 124 8 +116 |
What has Chad done during this time? 2 goals and 4 assists
What has Drayson done? 0 goals and 1 assists
What has Jay done during this same time? 2 goals and 3 assists.
Chad has outperformed with his increased PP time as compared to either Bowman or Harrison who also were given a significant additional PP ice time. Why is this important. If you have not had significant PP time and are suddenly given increased PP time how will you react? For at least the first half of this year, Chad has better utilized that increased time compared to only these two players.
Thoughts and Observations:
Chad in many ways owes his current development to Roddy. Early on Chad made a decision to stay in Raleigh after each season to team with Roddy and participate in his workouts. Chad was the first one on the ice after Roddy when each of the informal team pre-season workouts were held which was about 30 days or so before the formal and mandatory team pre-season events. When Roddy retired, Camp Roddy (or Brind'Amour) became Camp Rosy. LaRose took the lead and made it happen. Many people who sit and view practice sessions or pre-season sessions will inevitable have a story or two to tell about LaRose and his hi-jinks, some joke that he told or what they heard when Rosy whispered to someone on the ice or in the locker room but still could be heard where they sat. No better team mate than LaRose.
Chad has come back from two absences this season; 17 games for the shoulder/head injury and then (couple of games later) 3 more games for the dreaded “flu”. The observation we should keep in mind; it takes a couple of games for any player to get his game legs back under him before he is fully performing again. Skinner is a recent example. However in the very first game back a number of folks tried very hard to attribute the Cane's loss to Chad being back on the ice. Pretty low if you asked me. In spite of these absences (20 games), Chad is still on pace to achieve a tie in career number of goals with 19 and career number of assist at 19 and career number of points at 38. Pretty good compared to his scouting projection you read earlier. Most of you admit that he has the skills of a 4th liner. Yet he has and continues to exceed the expectations we think we have of his role. If everyone on the current Cane's team performs at the same level beyond their OWN scouting projections we would win the Cup, hands down. But alas, I bet you are not able to think of many other Canes who exceed their career projections quite like Chad has done; Can you?
Chad has been given a significant amount of additional responsibilities and ice time over the last couple of years and this year it has been the biggest increase Chad has ever been asked to shoulder. In a significant number of measures he has produced. He has not produced at the elite franchise player level. If you expect that of him you will always be a frustrated fan. Until such time a better choice is available to the Canes, Muller has decided Chad seems to be the best option for him. It remains to be seen if Muller continues to do so but so far he has not blink or second-guessed himself in using Chad in a variety of ways. Until such time as Muller blinks, Chad will continue to be asked by Muller to play out of his natural slot. Chad will give it the best he has; what else can you asked of him.
Chad deserves better than he is receiving from a few fans. He is not a perfect hockey player, nor are any of his teammates. All have imperfections. I choose to not follow the leader and say yes sir when it comes to vilifying Chad LaRose. I think the boy who is now a man has a bit more contribution left in him. I will continue to recognize that Chad will have his good days and his bad days just like all hockey players. When Chad gives up on himself, I will wish him well as he makes his way out the door. I am thankful Chad has toiled so hard for the team. He has contributed, he continues to contribute, he is not irrelevant.
81 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very good article.
Regarding how the fans think of LaRose. I think, and from what I read, many others think highly of LaRose for all the reasons you have pointed out. My only reservation concerning LaRose is when we don’t play him in the role he is best at. IMO he is not 1st line talent which is where Mo played him. I don’t expect LaRose to go to the coach and tell him he would rather play on the 3rd or 4th line. So, the fact that Mo played him in the wrong role is not LaRose’s doing, it’s the coach’s. I believe he is an excellent 3rd or 4th line player as long as he keeps his energy level up.
The other knock on LaRose is that he makes too much money to play on the 3rd or 4th line. Again, this is not his problem. Management agreed to his dollar value and IMO management overpaid him.
I believe if you polled the fans who frequented this site that they would express the same reservations about LaRose that I have. Most, as I, would also say they admire him for the same reasons you have pointed out. I will make one further comment. As you pointed out LaRose handled getting the pre—camp workouts together for the past two years. There was another player who helped him for one of those two years and also mentored Skinner in his first year. His name was Eric Cole. I believe one of the tragic mistakes the Canes have made was snubbing Cole when naming captains and alternate captains.
I don’t disagree with where you’ve slotted LaRose in terms of skill set.
But I will say that I don’t particularly agree with your comment that he makes too much money to play on the 3rd or 4th line. I don’t care that he makes that amount of money to play there, and I don’t believe it really prohibits us from offering money to other players. Not something I intend to defend or argue, it just doesn’t bother me that a guy like him gets $1.5m this year, and $1.9m next year, to perform his role.
by Jamie Kellner on Feb 13, 2012 10:55 PM EST up reply actions
You are probably right about the salary issue. Rosie’s pay is not excessive and may be in line with other top 3rd and 4th line players. It certainly should not be a major issue. Rosie’s a pro who came from nothing and has earned his way.
by FoxtrotSierra on Feb 14, 2012 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
Don't be sad if...
The Blackhawks and Canucks are interested in Rosey ,as of Twitter/rumor blogs today.
I made up that Blackhawks rumor. Just sayin.
by Jamie Kellner on Feb 13, 2012 10:55 PM EST up reply actions
“He has not produced at the elite franchise player level. If you expect that of him you will always be a frustrated fan.”
Yeah, people don’t like Chad because he doesn’t produce like a franchise player. Right.
Of course, the matter isn’t production, it’s how much Chad actually helps the team win hockey games. And my argument is that he doesn’t…at all. He contributes to the team losing far more often than he helps them win.
The thing about LaRose’s “numbers” is that while he gets a decent amount of goals, he rarely is a factor in someone else scoring. He has next to no ability to win battles along the boards. His play in the neutral zone is atrocious…Chad carrying the puck up the ice is a dump-in 90% of the time regardless of how many teammates are open or how much room he is..and a subsequent loss of possession once Chad loses the battle. He shoots in odd-manned situations about 95% of the time. Someone opens on the backdoor? No, let’s shoot it right into the goalie’s glove and get a whistle. 3-on-2? Slapshot from just inside blueline.
The ’Canes have been a complete and utterly disastrous offensive team at 5-on-5 for the past two seasons when LaRose has been on the ice for the reasons above.
LaRose currently sits at 1.57 goals-for per 60 minutes at even strength this season. The only regular forwards who were worse are Nodl and Dwyer, who have been on the checking line the vast majority of the time. Sutter is slightly above those three at 1.75.
Tlusty is the next worst at 2.30. After that, it’s Jokinen at 2.56. So, basically, the ‘Canes are scoring nearly an extra goal per 60 minutes at even strength when Chad or the checking line isn’t on the ice. The checking line has the excuse of its primary role being defense, being matched up against the other team’s top line and starting most of its shifts in the defensive zone? The only excuse for Chad is that he’s not particularly good at playing hockey.
The ‘Canes score more than twice as often at even strength with Ruutu on the ice than with LaRose. Again, we’re not expecting LaRose to be a franchise player, but these are results you expect from an AHL call-up…actually no, our AHL call-ups have better results.
And these are just offensive numbers. LaRose boasts the third worst goals against per 60 minutes at even strength, behind only Staal and Skinner.
So, basically, LaRose provides slightly better defense than Eric Staal and Jeff Skinner and slightly better offense than Andreas Nodl and Patrick Dwyer. That’s a horrible combination, isn’t it?
To better explain this:
Nodl – 1.38 goals for, 1.51 goals against
Dwyer – 1.32 goals for, 1.58 goals against
LaRose – 1.57 goals for, 3.23 goals against
And it was the same story last year. LaRose had the third worst goals against per 60 minutes and the third worst goals for.
The Hurricanes have been an absolutely awful team at even strength when LaRose has been on the ice for the past two seasons. They are giving up close to 2 goals for every 1 that they score. The 2011-2012 Carolina Hurricanes goal differential looks absolutely pristine compared to what it would like if they extrapolated LaRose’s results to a full season.
Chad LaRose is not a good hockey player. Anyone who watches him and does not cringe has something wrong with them.
by Kahz on Feb 13, 2012 11:00 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
A slight correction to the line about the ‘Canes scoring an extra goal per 60 minutes when Chad or the checking line is off the ice. They’re actually doing far better than that. What I meant to say is that they were nearly a goal better per 60 minutes with each individual player other than Tlusty. As a team they are closer to a goal and a half.
Statistics are just facts twisted to ones pleasure sometimes. You point out your “facts” and I will point out that every time you say “Chad on the ice”, I will say “With 4 other Canes players”. When you say “not a factor in someone else scoring” I will say “he factored in at least 11 goals this year” which is almost 10% of the Canes total, by the way, plus another 11 of his own which is another about 10% so he actually factored into about 20% of all Canes goals scored in that measure. When you say “3rd worst goals against per 60 minutes” I would say "so who are the top two and did they contribute more to this “utter disaster” as you said and bear a bigger “blame”? Each “fact” that can be brought to the table has a corresponding counter-fact. So who is right? That is actually the wrong question………. “Honor to Whom, Honor is Due” Andrew Jackson, 1828.
You seemed to have missed my whole point of the post. I am sorry that I did not communicated better for you.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
Sun Tzu circa 4th Century BC
by hurricanefever on Feb 14, 2012 8:59 AM EST up reply actions
Again, I failed to provide anything of importance to you that would provide understanding for you.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
Sun Tzu circa 4th Century BC
by hurricanefever on Feb 14, 2012 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
Ignore it. Your post was well thought out and backed up with stats.
"If you can't beat 'em in the alley, you can't beat 'em on the ice." Conn Smythe
by Winter is Coming on Feb 16, 2012 11:11 AM EST up reply actions
Just cross reference LaRose’s play with Staal’s and I think you’ll find your answer. I’ve already raised this point on here. LaRose was -1 thru Oct 28. He’s -1 since the Dec 23. The time in between is when the -16 happened and that’s the time he played with Staal. Staal was -14 in the same period. In that time LaRose has 6 goals. Not bad for a player like LaRose. Eric Staal had 4. 4 goals in 26 games. That’s a pace of 13 for the year. From a guy with an $8.25M cap hit. I mean, Staal was almost down in Gomez territory. Staal’s performance early in the season brought down the team and LaRose was particularly hurt by this because he was on a line with Staal for Staal’s worst two months of the season. It’s particularly telling when you note that LaRose’s defense is slightly better than Staal’s, a guy who when signed to his big contract was noted for being a mostly even player in his career.
Is there a better time of year than the NHL Trade Deadline?
do you blame them?
" was it over when the germans bombed pearl harbor?"
by brass bonanza on Feb 14, 2012 8:00 AM EST up reply actions
Good one!
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
Sun Tzu circa 4th Century BC
by hurricanefever on Feb 14, 2012 8:59 AM EST up reply actions
If you follow more than one team on the SBN blogs you soon notice that a subset of each team’s fan base finds one or two players to constantly rag on. For them losing is just easier to explain and accept if there is one simple explanation for the failure to win. Since Maurice and Kaberle have left Chad has become the root of all evil for some on this site. The Canes are playing golf the second week in April this year. We get to put our playoff ticket money back in the grandkids college fund. Our current place in the standings is from collectively poor team play in Nov and Dec not the play of Chad LaRose. For some it is just easier to accept if there is just one person to blame. For me the problem was the old coach, his coaching decisions and demotivational deameanor. Chad got mis-slotted under Mo and got caught in propeller backwash when the boat stalled. LaRose has been a good soldier for his entire career for this team. Thanks for putting that fact back in the proper perspective.
Thanks, I believed it was needed and hope I did a credible job. But I am already seeing a trend developing with Muller and his use of Chad. It will be interesting how this develops over the next couple of weeks. Not sure I have seen enough to declare anything but we shall see.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
Sun Tzu circa 4th Century BC
by hurricanefever on Feb 14, 2012 9:02 AM EST up reply actions
Just as it is likely not appropriate to ever blame just one player it just as inappropriate to just blame the coach when things go bad. We could just as easily blame JR. Or PK. Or Staal’s poor start for where the Canes are now. Bottom line they are where they are due to a combination of all of the above. You can’t fire 20 players and the owner is likely not going to fire himself nor his long time Pres/GM/Shareholder/Friend. I tend to agree that firing the coach was the best solution, if nothing more than to make the players remember that the ultimate responsibility rests with them. You will recall that when Muller came in at first the team did not play much better….. it is a combination of a better style of play AND the players remembering that it is up to their effort on the ice to make it happen. We still don’t have a true complement of top 6 forwards. Our PP is still awful. Our PK is near the bottom of the league. We are short a top shut D to go with the offensive minded D we are assembling. Was that on Mo? If we don’t make those changes but play better and still have to battle for a playoff spot next season will that be on Kirk? We all know the answer.
Getting back to LaRose. My comments have been consistent over the years. I like his energy, his courage, his aggressiveness, his emotion and I have heard from my friends and acquaintances who are involved with the team that he is a great locker room guy and teammate. I’ve met him several times and he seems like a stand up guy. I have not and still don’t always like his decisions on the ice. In my opinion he has at best an average hockey IQ. From the perspective of a former player, he is often frustrating to watch since he makes fundamental mistakes that you are supposed leave behind in your youth….. stick waist high as you drive through the slot; forgetting your defensive lane assignment or drifting too low; not going to open ice to give your linemates a passing option (called offensive “support”) and I could go on. These shortcomings differentiate top 6 forwards from bottom 6. Do you want a guy like Chad on your team?Absolutely! Is he overpaid?…. maybe. If you consider him to be one of the top 4th line players in the league, who can PK and can be slotted higher on a spot basis is there are injuries or other guys need a breather during a game…. maybe not.
This may be the first gathering of the Chad LaRose Fan Club, but I for one will continue with my steadfast assessment of him. Great 4th liner and informal leader. Character and energy guy that every team needs. But do him a favor and don’t ask him to do more than his physical and mental hockey skill set allows him do.
Great comments……as far as your last statement…..that should be addressed to Kurt. For reasons still unknown, or at least puzzling, we see him being ask to do herculean (relative to him) things on a fairly frequent basis.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
Sun Tzu circa 4th Century BC
by hurricanefever on Feb 14, 2012 10:09 AM EST up reply actions
As usual spot on. Retrospectively (fancy way to say hindsight is 20/20), I will insist that the old coach was the problem with the Nov., Dec. Hurricanes. The team did not improve immediately when Muller appeared, but Muller made no changes in lines or style for the first 2 weeks here. He assessed the team strengths and weaknesses and then made small incremental changes one player at at time. With the same cast he created effective team defense ending a continually growing negative in team plus/minus. He got the same players to discover the gas pedal for effective breakouts that led to greatly reduced time in our defensive zone. Ward went from average to Ward-like. He got Staal’s ear, gave him the best linemates from the exact same stable and got him back on his 2005-2006 point/game pace. With the same toolbox he has built a remarkably better team. It is easy to blame the pilot when the team plane lands 100 yards short of the runway. In time crash analysis tells us if was equipment failure, weather or pilot error. All the factors I see on this one says pilot error.
As usual spot on. Retrospectively (fancy way to say hindsight is 20/20), I will insist that the old coach was the problem with the Nov., Dec. Hurricanes. The team did not improve immediately when Muller appeared, but Muller made no changes in lines or style for the first 2 weeks here. He assessed the team strengths and weaknesses and then made small incremental changes one player at at time. With the same cast he created effective team defense ending a continually growing negative in team plus/minus. He got the same players to discover the gas pedal for effective breakouts that led to greatly reduced time in our defensive zone. Ward went from average to Ward-like. He got Staal’s ear, gave him the best linemates from the exact same stable and got him back on his 2005-2006 point/game pace. With the same toolbox he has built a remarkably better team. It is easy to blame the pilot when the team plane lands 100 yards short of the runway. In time crash analysis tells us if was equipment failure, weather or pilot error. All the factors I see on this one says pilot error.
Your Key Question About LaRose
If you consider him to be one of the top 4th line players in the league, who can PK and can be slotted higher on a spot basis if there are injuries or other guys need a breather during a game
I think that statement defines the question. Is LaRose one of the premier fourth line players in the NHL? Do the Hurricanes have equally skilled players with more upper end ability who can play on the fourth line for less than half the cost? If indeed there were a totally clean slate when the players come into training camp next season such that prior history with the team was ignored and a panel of three former NHL hockey headcoaches were told to pick the roster given the salaries of each of the players, I would doubt myself that LaRose would make the cut. I have no doubt on the other hand, if the same panel of experts were told cost is not object, LaRose would make the cut as a fourth line, PK guy.
I do not see LaRose as one of the premier fourth line players in the NHL. On the other hand, last night LaRose quietly helped save the game by making a critical clear of the puck in the third period when the Habs were swarming the Hurricanes. LaRose is a great ambassador for the Hurricanes organization and an excellent role model for young players. From what I’ve read and heard, LaRose is viewed as part of the foundation of the team, so I expect LaRose to be around for the rest of his career. As a fourth line player with PK responsibilities, LaRose’s strengths are emphasized and his flaws minimized. He was a game changer last night in a good way. If the Hurricanes wanted to maximize their salary budget and their assets, they’d trade LaRose because the differential between him and other fourth line players available is not noticeable. For example, Nash can play on the fourth line and has much higher upper end potential. Bowman can play on the fourth line and has much more upper end potential. Brett Sutter can play on the fourth line and there is no drop off in effectiveness.
Still, it’s a moot point. The decision seems to be clear that LaRose’s intangibles help drive the Canes in a very good way. Those decisions really can only be made by the owner, GM, and coaches, with input from the foundational players. They see what LaRose means to the team in the locker room, in the weight room, and in the airport terminals after tough losses. For some players what they do off the ice to help the team is as significant as what they do during games.
Re: Your Key Question About LaRose
I think that statement defines the question. Is LaRose one of the premier fourth line players in the NHL?
That is not the key question. Only you have defined it as such. To suggest LaRose has to be a premier 4th line player to play with the Canes is logically in an infinite loop. The logic would then have to be that every other Canes player would also have to be the premier ___________ (insert role) in the NHL. This effort to hold a standard to LaRose that is significantly different and higher than the standard placed on other players is the very reason I submitted this fan post to begin with……….
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
Sun Tzu circa 4th Century BC
by hurricanefever on Feb 14, 2012 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
That is the question. Why pay a garden variety 4th line wing (who cannot play all three positions) $1.5 million or $1.9 million on the Hurricanes’ budget? Who else in the history of the Carolina Hurricanes has been a standard, good 4th line wing and been compensated $1.5 million or $1.9 million? As such with his salary on this team, either on the ice LaRose would have to be one of the premier 4th line players, or with the combination of his one the ice skill as a 4th line player and his qualities off the ice, he is worth that salary. It’s a highly logical analysis. The result of the analysis, however, leads inexorably to an off the ice benefit as the only basis for justifying LaRose’s salary. His play on the ice does not separate him from other Hurricanes players fully capable of handling LaRose’s on the ice duties and they do so at half the cost.
The Last Frontier
You clearly have not read my fan post above or lack the ability to understand its spirit. Well, I tried and with you, it failed. You have continually demonstrated that with this particular subject your one-track mind is seemingly locked in placed, never allowed to gain insight. Fair enough.
I make no claim to all-knowing or all-seeing, but I do know I make mistakes and errors in judgement from time to time. My only hope is that I am faster to correct than it took to make.
Here are some of your own words in earlier posts:
LaRose in the top six for the Hurricanes is a joke. Comment: January 11, 2012
I guess you mean that if Muller puts LaRose in the top six he is a joke? I thought you trusted Muller and his judgement?
He is what is known as the control. Where LaRose is is where offensive production is not. Where LaRose is is where other teams score. Comment : January 11, 2012
Nice AD, this is so blatant in its absurdity. LaRose as the magical “control”, something out of a bad science-fiction movie. Steve McQueen’s “The Blog” everything he touches he melts. I know that you know that this cannot be true ALL THE TIME!
Assuming that Muller sticks with his theme of merit-based ice team and you win, you play, LaRose would sit. We’ll see.Comment: January 13, 2012
AD: here’s logic you cannot escape: If Muller plays LaRose on the PP or on one of the top 2 lines you have a choice to make; stop criticizing LaRose or start criticizing Muller. Tough choice, Eh?
It looks like the trend suggests that Muller will continue to play LaRose out of position. He was on Staal’s line for a while and on the PP for a while last night. You may have more uncomfortable weeks ahead. The actions of Muller appear to continue utilizing LaRose and that has not yet changed. I am not sure that it will change this year, but we shall see.
Lastly, I have been on CC actively since early December of last year but was part of the original board many years ago when it first got started. I have learned some things about you and it is really simple. You are obsessed with Chad LaRose. Since I started commenting on this blog I viewed your approach as biased, but yet intelligent with a mission, a purpose. After observation, it became very apparent your views were heavily laced with anti-LaRose rhetoric and statistical background information in order to support your anti-LaRose views, sort of like an attorney. So for this short little time I also became obsessed with your obsession but only because of a contrary view. I finished that process with the above fan post.
Here is your obsession in a nutshell:
For the last 8 months or so you have made over 900 comments with LaRose name contained somewhere in the body of your comments. All but a couple of handfuls are negative and many much stronger than the recent examples above. There were a small number of other LaRose comments by you with those tended to be neutral or some positive. You are compelled to talk about LaRose every chance you get to proselytize your beliefs to whoever will listen (actually, read in this case). Since I am relatively new I cannot say this about myself but I would suspect a good number of CC members may be getting tired of this LaRose obsession of yours. After about 8 months of it I guess I would as well.
So, paraphrasing the words said about Spock in the last Star Trek movie “You are emotionally compromised……. Mr. AD. Your judgement regarding Mr. LaRose is to be suspect.” Now it is time I move on to other more important issues regarding the Carolina Hurricanes because the LaRose issue is likely about half-way down on any legitimate priority list. Good day.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
Sun Tzu circa 4th Century BC
by hurricanefever on Feb 14, 2012 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
I've been sitting on this, but it's time to share
So, I had some down time around the middle of January and I put some info together. It’s a measure of cap efficiency. It looks at points per $1M cap hit. Here is the link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmJDCB-jVwaFdGRlYkNVVDM1dGtwSDJtejlDQjlLMFE
At the time I created this (Jan 15 or so), Chad LaRose had more points per $1M Cap hit than Stewart, Poni, Jussi, Dalpe, and Ruutu. So, is he a logical use of cap space when he’s more efficient than those players? Yes, yes he is. (This is in the “Carolina Hurricanes” tab)
Now, maybe we should check that league wide. Awesome Idea. I took all forwards with cap hits between $1.5M and $1.9M then excluded those players who had played only 12 games or less. (This is the “LaRose” Tab). In that group the average is 21.21 points per $1M cap hit. The median is 20.57. LaRose is at 23.56. That was better than Wayne Simmonds and Radek Dvorak, players I can’t Imagine you would having troubles paying $1.7M per. Of the 13 players in the league that fell with in the group that were better than LaRose 4 were on ELCs.
Just a quick hit of comps that LaRose was better than at that point in the season: Travis Moen, Steve Downie, Jason Chimera, and Lee Stempniak. LaRose was even better than the player most of us wanted the Canes to draft in 2009, Brett Connolly.
This has been a rather good season for Chad LaRose. He is well paid within his salary range both within the team and league wide.
Is there a better time of year than the NHL Trade Deadline?
by C-Leaguer on Feb 15, 2012 10:13 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Nice effort and very interesting comparisons. I think I just heard a balloon deflating somewhere, can’t be sure what that noise was honestly.
It seems Chad is relevant after all, which of course has been there for all to see all along.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
Sun Tzu circa 4th Century BC
by hurricanefever on Feb 15, 2012 12:05 PM EST up reply actions
Very interesting stats. Thanks for sharing this.
"If you can't beat 'em in the alley, you can't beat 'em on the ice." Conn Smythe
by Winter is Coming on Feb 16, 2012 11:07 AM EST up reply actions
First Line
Excellent work. I do appreciate it.
However, your LaRose evaluation is based on points. And since we all know Chad has wracked up a lot of time on the first line he has had an opportunity to produce points well above that of most third/fourth line players.
Play Wayne Simmonds half the year with Staal and I’m sure his numbers would be LaRosian.
by drifterscape on Feb 17, 2012 10:57 AM EST up reply actions
Perhaps more to the point, I think if Maurice put Dalpe, Boychuk, Bowman, Samson, or Dadonov on the first line for the amount of time LaRose was there this season and their offensive numbers would be at least LaRosian.
How else then would you rank players, especially forwards, if not by point production? Isn’t that what matters? I think one of the values that LaRose brings to the table, and this is something I’ve said many times before, is his ability to fill in in the top 6 when a player goes down. It shouldn’t be a primary tactic, and I think JR should be tarred and feathered for building a team that relied on it this year, but it is a place LaRose adds value.
Is there a better time of year than the NHL Trade Deadline?
It's an Art
Ranking forwards by Point production is a good starting point. But there is a lot more to it. Think of Brandon Sutter for example. He’s really not paid to produce points. He’s paid to disrupt the other team’s top lines. Points are kind of irrelevant for him.
Being a GM is an art not a science. A team is assembled line by line based on an appreciation for what you have and a vision for what you need.
There seemed to be a disconnect between Maurice and JR in that respect but I have a better feeling lately about Muller and JR.
by drifterscape on Feb 18, 2012 1:28 AM EST up reply actions
Great Post
I agree with Surgalt’s point that fans will always find one or two players on which to place blame when things go badly. They also tend to identify one or two players who can do no wrong, even when they do lots of wrong. I definitely think LaRose has been placed in the former group. Personally, I like his energy and I thought he had some great shifts last night. However, I also agree that he has a tendency to take bad penalties at the worst times. That could come in part from being over slotted, if he doesn’t have the skills/IQ to handle the situation.
I do think that LaRose contributes more than he hurts us, overall. If only we could get him to use his smart mouth to draw more penalties:)
"If you can't beat 'em in the alley, you can't beat 'em on the ice." Conn Smythe
by Winter is Coming on Feb 14, 2012 11:10 AM EST reply actions
The question is...
Do you think JR would trade Rosey to clear salary to resign Ruutu?..Or is that even a worth a second of JR’s time to decide?..If that’s the case it’s goodbye Rosey.
I don’t think JR needs to trade Rosey to Re-sign Ruutu. That said, I do think it is possible that JR will trade LaRose. A 20 goal pace with a $1.7M cap hit is a good deal in this league. Throw in his intangibles and his ability to PK and his ability to play limited time as an injury fill-in in the top 6 and it’s a good package. On teams where he is used appropriately, such as on the 05-06 team here or the 08-09 team he fills a very critical role. The return for LaRose could be quite good.
That said I think the only way it makes sense is to bring a veteran in as a UFA. Lack of vet leadership has hurt this team. Staal needs a couple of guys who have been through things to bounce things off of. Muller has helped but he can’t be the only long term solution there. The team needs to supplement with Veteran players who can help take some of the load off of Staal and produce on the ice.
Is there a better time of year than the NHL Trade Deadline?
Rumors
Latest is the Canucks are offering Mason Raymond for Rosey + a 3rd rnd pick…I would do that MR is 26.
That seems a bit of an overpayment for LaRose. That said I can see the interest Vancouver would have. The low cap hit and the ability to play PK, ES, and PP makes him valuable to a team like that. His energy and playoff experience would also go well in that locker room.
Is there a better time of year than the NHL Trade Deadline?
Rumor or a bunch of fans blogging? Only reference I can find for this is a bunch of fans blogging back and forth and the stream had all kinds of mindboggling potential trades between Canes and Canucks, including Gleason. Is there a credible source that put this out?
Monday or late last week it was Lebrun/Hardy Soup or Hockeyy Insiderr I only follow those and Mcguire/McKenzie/Dreger + Chip ,and the various Cane Tweets.
If Hardy Soup I don’t know about that guy. He throws so much out there by the law of averages some of it must eventually be right. Reason I ask is that I spent a lot of time in western Canada and texted that rumor by a couple of sports writers out there. After they stopped with they LOLs they said they had never heard that and thought it highly unlikely.
We all have our trusted sources over the years. I think Mcguire is a legend in his own mind. Lebrun is good on draft stuff but always seems late on anything considered insider. Dreger and McKenzie seem to get the leaks. Chip is a loyal follower of the Canes but not plugged in beyond that.
This year almost no one seems to have much right until it happens.
LaRose and the trade rumors. Jim Rutherford would have to take a 180 degree turn from his public statements in order for LaRose to be traded. Rutherford values LaRose’s intangibles and sees LaRose as a permanent fixture for the team. Of course, these things can turn on a dime. Whitney at one point was seen as a permanent fixture who would transition into the organization; then the picture changed it seemed overnight.
Wonder whether all is forgiven and JR would bring Ray back on a one year contract to allow him to end his career here. They still have their house in Raleigh. Not sure if Ray would want to and/or if he thinks he still has two years left in the tank. Money would likely also be an issue. Doubt Ray would do it for $1mil. But maybe $3.5 split over two years. He sure would help our PP.
Ray Whitney
Jim Rutherford virtually never burns bridges. I really like Whitney and he and Muller are friends as well. I am of the mind to avoid retreads, even Whitney. I suspect Whitney will agree to waive his no trade clause (I think he does have one still with Phoenix) and will go to the Bruins who are having injury problems.
For me, I’d much rather see Muller, MacLean, and Brind’Amour work on speeding up the development of the young forwards. I’d love to see Ruutu signed to an extension and a first tier UFA top six forward signed. The comments by Muller about the Checkers forwards was pretty startling to me.
He sure was blunt. But it is consistent with some frustration that I had sensed from JD about the performance of his team of late. Good morning Lads. This your hockey wake up call!
That's a telling point...
I’m sure Muller isn’t spending a lot of time watching the Charlotte games, so he’s basing his comments mostly on what he saw of our prospects when they were up with him or from what he hears from the Staff. Maybe the staff and coach together decided a message needed to be sent.
I didn’t think about it before, but I have been dissappointed in some of the Charlotte results—and the frustrations you mention from JD would seem to back that up and may be related to issues of work ethic—not necessarily just over games, but definitely from shift to shift.
A Natural Disconnect
For players who have NHL abilities, one of the natural areas for a disconnect is they realize they have the skills to play at Carolina; but the disconnect can come where the coaches want to see that extraordinary level of execution and effort, i.e. attention to all the little details, every shift. In the AHL these guys are so talented, that some softness in positioning is not that critical. At the NHL level every mistake can easily result in either a goal against or the failure to put a goal in the back of the net. These guys are not taking shifts off in terms of floating around killing time, but sometimes they are not as sharp as they ought to be.
From the prospect’s perspective, it’s easy to think, “well, when I get to the NHL, I’ll be more focused each shift;” but from the coaches’ perspective, they are not going to bring up players until game after game, and shift after shift, the prospects are attending to all the tiny details that separate winning from losing in the NHL. It’s probably not a message that was fun to receive, but in the long run if they will take heed, it will help them get to the NHL and stay there.
Re-evaluation
The problem in Charlotte imo was due in part of the “top” prospects (Boychuk/Dalpe) were seemingly feeling entitled to there status with both teams due mostly being previously higher ranked under Mo and Co. regime ,and were not working hard enough to maintain that same status when Muller was hired ,and subsequently lost a position or two to Bowman/Nash/Samson simply ,because Bowman/Nash/Samson just kept up there “chip on the shoulder” work ethic which they have been rewarded with. Boychuk who has imo re-gressed or leveled out ,and a fire needs to be lit under the Checker bench among the “top prospects”
Dalpe has the talent ,but not working hard enough on both ends has cost him time with the Canes ,and it is a situation that should have been addressed to the Checkers players By JR when Muller was hired to make sure that “a clean slate” mean’s “the status quo is over” and every player is being re-evaluated ,so your previous position with the team no longer apply’s ,and only the hardest working consistent players will be call-ups period.
How is it . . .
That when I brought up these points about Dalpe early in the season I was roasted for it and I was told Mo is a terrible coach, but now Muller says it and everyone is on board??
Is there a better time of year than the NHL Trade Deadline?
Status quo
With the fans as it is with the the players ,and when Muller came in and “Shook up” both the Canes and Checkers some players as mentioned ,and some fans got caught up in the past ,and not the “now” position that’s continues to develop ,and will continue through training camp next season ,and Dalpe/Boychuk were kind of caught in a spot of complacency ,and will have to re-earn there place as a wake up call especially with Dadonov being brought in who has the same level ability they have ,so they can pout all they won’t ,but for them it’s just time to get back to work.
Concept of opportunity costs plus the concept of "belief"
It appears that Chad LaRose once again raises the blood pressure both positively and negatively for our Caniac fan base. I am one of those who has consistently pointed out the challenges of mis-slotting LaRose (not his fault) as well as his occasional “muffs” that could potentially be game changers. Lastly, I’m more than comfortable calling him out when he makes the bone-headed decisions (bad shot selection, untimely penalties, etc.).
Conversely, I have always maintained that Chad’s heart, hustle, and all out effort are extreme positives for this team. Quite frankly, he provides a bit of “soul” to the franchise. He’s a solid, often very good, penalty killer. There are times when Chad makes certain plays or scores timely goals that get this team back on track.
I think the statement that I most agree with is that he’s an okay 3rd liner and a very good 4th liner. There’s little to dispute there. The most difficult thing when analyzing LaRose, his value to this team, and all the options surrounding him has to do with emotion….both positively and negatively. People have strong feelings one way or the other. To my way of thinking that is something that can be considered, weighed, but really has to be discounted. In the end, any decisions surrounding player personnel have to do with value, value to this team, and opportunity costs.
All the statistics in the world still don’t tell the final piece of the picture. That piece is, what are the Hurricanes missing out on by not managing an asset appropriately. What would happen if Bowman, Dalpe, Samson, Terry, Boychuk, the other Sutter, or Nash played in 49 games (the number that Chad had played in)….up and down, on various lines. For me it wouldn’t be just about scoring either…it would be just as much about how their games developed as NHL’ers. One merely needs to go no farther than one Jiri Tlusty for an example.
And therein lies the entire question of opportunity cost…Chad’s salary, or Dwyer’s salary, or anybody’s salary is only part of the picture IF you BELIEVE that the potential replacement player (probably an AHL’er) is going to both benefit from that time in the “bigs” and, more importantly, going to grow into a significantly contributing role. In the end I believe that if one of the youngsters had been given the TOI over the course of a similar set of games they would have produced very well….perhaps even better than the player they replaced.
So this is a long winded way of saying that we need to continue considering some of the other “moves” that the franchise can/could make – a trade the involves a LaRose or a Dwyer or a Brent….not because those guys are not producing at a good value, but what might one or two or three of the Checkers bring to the table given the opportunity.
That, IMHO, is the ultimate question and differentiating point. If one believes, as I do, that some of these youngsters would have benefited from the NHL level play and contributed to our success, then questions about LaRose’s value stop being about Chad alone. They become much more about what ultimately benefits the team the greatest.
by NotOpie on Feb 15, 2012 1:37 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
No disrepect to the Rosie fans
Of which admittedly I like the guy and his story… but our results without him playing for the second brief stretch this season sure seem to indicate we are better off without Rosie in the lineup…. We are bigger, stronger, more skilled and take less penalties. Our defense is more sound in our own zone, and our passing is better. Despite all the statistics above, it appears to me at least, he brings the team down a small tad when he’s on the ice.
It’s hard to argue with the results. I think it is less that LaRose is bringing the team down than the other players add more to the team. It’s the nature of competitive sports. For the Hurricanes there are more NHL capable forwards for the bottom nine than there are roster spots. It’s a shame everybody can’t play because all deserve a roster spot.
Look……..that logic would also suggest we are better off without Pitkanen who has not played during this stretch or Bouchard who has not played or Ruutu who has not played for a number of games. Chad has been out for 20 games recently on his first couple of problems and now he continues to experience an upper body injury which seems like a continuation of his first injury at practice. The outcome of these games while he and these others were out cannot be attributed to any of these players being out. Judge him when he comes back, plays into game condition and produces results or not……. I would think that is only fair unlike others who are eager to bash LaRose and are emotionally compromised anyway.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
Sun Tzu circa 4th Century BC
by hurricanefever on Feb 21, 2012 10:34 AM EST up reply actions
Um, not quite....
there is very clearly a loss from Ruutu, one has to look no further than the struggles of the second line to see we are short talent. Ruutu, even though he was playing on the first line, was still occasionally put with Skinner to help jump start him, and each time Muller did it it worked.
I think given how Staal and Tlusty have played, Muller might have been inclined to put Ruu with Skinner again to see if he could help that line.
Better off without Pitkanen?? No can;t make that comparison either—Rosie has played in and out of Kirk’s system, we’ve seen results both ways. Not the same for Pitkanen—nice try. What we have seen with Pitkanen is we have decent depth at defense for once so when he’s out, we can maintain our play. I have no idea right now if Pitkanen would make us better or not. I would hope he would make us better if he were 100%. I think he’d be better than Spacek, so I would think the defense would be better.
Also not sure where you could make the case we’ve been better without Boucher—Perhaps Cam wouldn’t be injured if we had a more reliable backup to take a few games more over these last few months. But if you want to argue we’re better with Cam in than Boucher? You’d get no argument from me. Again though, no not the same.
The difference is caliber of player…. So no. you could not use that same logic, and no, we obviously do not have replacements for the players you mention that bring the same type of play and result. We obviously do have players that adequately both replace LaRose, or in some minds, surpass LaRose, and usually for less dosh. So I disagree with you.
Again....not Rosey bashing....
….but promoting the thought that the other youngsters are stepping up….Nodl, Samson, to a lesser extent Bowman. That’s the reality. This isn’t saying that Rosie is the cause of bad things happening, this is considering that some of the good things that are happening because, perhaps, some of these youngsters are getting their chance to step up.
Lastly, anybody think Samson is being showcased for a potential chip in a trade?
In a Merit Based System, Talent is Allowed to Rise to the Top
The beauty of Muller’s accountability system is that talent is allowed to rise to the top. The weight is given to effort and performance rather than some old school system of paying one’s dues. Samson is definitely making a case for himself; and I could easily envision another team making an offer for Samson as part of a bigger deal that Jim Rutherford accepts. Samson has been doing extremely well; and has made the Tlusty/Staal duo better by sticking to what he does well. Samson has the self-discipline and self-awareness to play to his strengths. It’s a lesson some of the other young forwards might want to consider taking to heart.
Are you trolling?
Or do you just like to hear Doug repeat what you say? Either way. Funny stuff.
Is there a better time of year than the NHL Trade Deadline?
Well
Trolling? No, not really, but it is fun either way. Just remaking the point that LaRose, despite intangibles, is seemingly superfluous, and in the interests of getting beter for next year, his salary and position can be deleted for a net gain to the team. (imho).
And yes, if it wasn’t fun, I wouldn’t be here. Do you do things just to have no fun?? But I do find your responses droller than Dougs, so I guess there’s that.
How very droll indeed
Are you seriously making this assessment after a few games? Because, if we’re making assessments after a few games then the team should trade Cam Ward and go with Justin Peters. In the last three games Cam’s sporting a 0.857 sv% with a 4.5 GAA while Peters is 0.953 and a 1.29GAA. If saving money is really important knocking off Cam’s $6+M contract is like getting rid of 3 or more LaRoses. Even more if you think LaRose at $1.9M salary gets replaced by a guy making somewhere around 800K and you’re only saving $1.1M. Cam is going to get $6.4M next year, Peters can probably be signed on a one way for less than $2M. Getting rid of Ward is 4 times more cost effective than getting rid of LaRose.
Is there a better time of year than the NHL Trade Deadline?
No
This assessment is based on Chad’s contribution to the team last year and this year, and looking at his two sections of missed games this year. But essentially, yes if you want to look at it that way…
The part of your argument I find comical is your inference by comparison Chad is an “impact” player like Cam Ward. The fact of the matter is Cam can be and has shown to be a game changer and impact player. Last I checked for Chad? Not so much.
But I take it by your counter argument you feel Chad must be a game changer and impact player for the Canes. I’d love to be so enlightened by why you believe that.
Twas I that first inferred?
Me thinks not.
Ruutu has been out the same three games. Ward has been out the better part of these three games. Joni has been out for a while. Muller has taken over. Staal is playing at the “Staal” level. Allen and Spacek are both playing for a contract and a shot to be a rental on a good team. The team gives up only 17 shots to Washington. With all of these things going on, you say the team is playing better because of LaRose being out and I’m the one who inferred LaRose is an impact player? I’m not sure how LaRose couldn’t be an impact player if he’s to blame with all the other factors going on.
This team sucked out loud until the first of the year. Meanwhile, Chad LaRose puts up numbers at a career best pace. He’s one of the leading scorers on the team while making only $1.5 M. Outscoring guys like Jussi who make twice as much and Ruutu who makes almost 3 times as much, and Staal who makes about a Bajillion times as much. He’s not a porous sieve in net like Ward was up until the first of the year when he was posting an 0.896 sv% and a 3.24 GAA who is making $6+M.
Chad LaRose, a guy who has no business on the first line, takes the opportunity thrust on him by both Maurice and Muller and gives everything he has and acquits himself better than many other higher priced forwards. Clearly LaRose is the problem? Get real.
But go ahead, give me another response. It’s clearly important for you to have the last word or else you wouldn’t have restarted a thread that was dead for three or four days.
Is there a better time of year than the NHL Trade Deadline?
By your argument instead of refuting my position? Yes.
Whatever Dude. If you think the team plays better with Rosie in the line up then say so. I think the team is better with him out. There is no inference ANYWHERE that Rosie was the reason d’etre for our teams woes. Read it. It’s simple. Our team, imho, is better without Rosie in the line up.
There was no comment on the team suddenly improving with Rosie out. As I’ve stated elsewhere, we have been steadily improving under this coaching staff, both as a team learning, then playing and buying into the system, and also as individuals responding the the coaches challenges and calls for accountability. You brought up comparisons to franchise, impact players who have proved their worth over the years instead of responding to my assertion or defending a position that says Rosie makes us better. You chose not to.
So, as I clearly stated before, and based on this year’s and last year’s performances, with and without Rosie, I think the team plays better, more disciplined, more as a cohesive unit with Rosie NOT in the line up. I see no comment about Rosie not taking the opportunities given him, i see no comment lambasting his rising to the challenge given him. The only opinion I see from you is Chad aquitted himself better than many other high priced forwards. Good, that would be your opinion. As you have noticed, many others do not share that same view so it is obviously debatable. But that’s not THIS debate.
So, you can continue to run off on other tangents, you can continue to not answer or refute my assertion, you can lump posts from others to use against my assertion instead of reading or responding to my position, you can keep trying to turn this into a non discussion with comments about trolling or wanting the last word, whatever. I’ll talk Hockey.
You should ask Doug for some help with forensics.
Simply because the statement can’t be refuted doesn’t mean it’s true. The Scientologists believe aliens came to earth aeons ago and the spirits of dead aliens are what cause depression. Can you refute that? Do you have proof that aliens weren’t here 10 billion years ago and that dead spirits don’t cause depression? If not, then by the logic you’re using, you must admit that Aliens came to earth in the past and that spirits are what cause people to be depressed.
As for you’re “this year and last year when LaRose wasn’t in the lineup” line of thinking you do realize LaRose played in all 82 games last year? You can check out his TSN player page here if you have access to the entire internet. He’s missed 11 games this year all since Jan 10. How can you individualize the impact a player you think is a “non impact” player like LaRose has on the entire team when so many other things are in flux (Staal’s play, Muller’s impact on the team, Ruutu’s health, Joni’s health, Players playing for the deadline, other teams playing their back up against the Canes, etx). You can’t. No one can. Quite frankly there would be no way to suss out the individual impact of LaRose given the limited sample size and the other items impacting the team.
You’ve offered no proof that you’re assertion is valid. There’s not one stat. Not one. You’re also pointing to times when LaRose wasn’t in the lineup this year and last. If I had to bet I’d bet money that is the fact LaRose played 82 games last season is a shock to you.
The only way to come to the conclusion you are coming to is to start with a biased starting point, i.e. the team is better without LaRose. If you start with a position trying to determine the impact to the team when LaRose is in the line up and not in the line up there’s no way you could come to a conclusion. You’d realize that the sample size of games missed is to small and that the variables are too many to pinpoint the impact of any one, particularly the loss of a non-impact player.
It’s cool if you want to have biased and unobjective opinions. If you want to own up to it, go for it. If you don’t I’m going to call you on it.
Is there a better time of year than the NHL Trade Deadline?
I do
Last I checked—BLOG, not Science Academy. I am also aware LaRose played every game last year, thank you. By judging his play when he is on lines, and then judging play when others are on the same lines it’s easy to make comparisons, even when he is in games. Perhaps you do not understand that.
LaRose has played on multiple lines with multiple individuals. So when he leaves a line and someone else fills that spot, one can make a subjective evaluation of whether the line is better or not. By judging if individual lines are better or not, one can make judgements whether that improves a team or not. It’s really a simple issue. When one has the ability to see hpw the team performs on a whole without LaRose—this year, then it becomes another measuring gouge.
Now, what part of “opinion” did you mistake for me implying factual, measured and incontrovertibel proof??? Opions can be debated. Make your own subjective blog response.
So no, by no means does my logic have to imply me agreeing with anything you said. Perhaps you should look up deductive vs inductive reasoning, reasoning to logical conclusions, comparitive analysis, judgments vs opinion vs fact, etc. Or again, focus on hockey and what you think. Isn’t that what every one on this board does? Or are you dictating a change? Here are the opinions I feel are acceptable, and here are those I do not?
Now, what part of "opinion" did you mistake for me implying factual, measured and incontrovertibel proof???
So you’re saying your opinions aren’t based on fact or proof? I mean, I’ve always thought as much but never stated in such uncertain terms.
Is there a better time of year than the NHL Trade Deadline?
As with everyone else's
My opinions are based on my own personal observations, seasoned with conclusions drawn from reading other articles, opinions and publications, listening to commentary and news, looking at facts and statistics and using sound reasoning and assessments of the value of these inputs come to a logical conclusion.
Of course you should know that. However, your constant misinterpretations, faulty application of logic, poor inferences, and absolute disdain for what is actually being said (or a complete lack of understanding of basic english and sentence structure, or worse, just insufficient intelligence to process said sentences [apologies, I usually don’t resort to personal attacks….]) But to help you out before I peace out, What I said was clear enough, but I’ll attempt to break it down for you further:
I did not say my opinion’s aren’t based on fact. I also didn’t say they were based on fact. I didn’t specify what my opinion was based on, except in previous posts where I made it clear they were based on my in game observations over the past two years of LaRose’s play, and the play of others in his same positions with same linemates and responsibilities. OK so far?
What the statement you highlights goes on to say is I made no statement or claims that my opinion was based on a standard you seem to think applies, to whit: that it was never claimed to be FACTUAL, MEASURED, AND INCONTROVERTIBLE proof of my assertion—you know ALL those big words. i.e. I implicitly acknowledged that it would be impossible to gather every fact pertaining to my original assertion, that it would be imposssible to measure every intangible, impact, innuence of play, and that therefore there is no way to 100% provide incontrovertible proof of my opinion.
You can continue your false, obtuse, irrational responses, poorly trying to dissect or make false implications from my statements’ logic or reasoning. But it highlights your lack of any ability to contructively debate, to actually understand and respond to ideas put forth, or to appear intelligent in your responses. Good luck with that.
Do what?
I did not say my opinion’s aren’t based on fact. I also didn’t say they were based on fact.
What??
Is there a better time of year than the NHL Trade Deadline?
Please follow along.
Both statements are accurate. I am telling you very clearly what I did not say, to contrast with your imperfect inferences of what you might have thought I said, since you attributed such statements to me:
So you’re saying your opinions aren’t based on fact or proof?
You're an absolute riot!!
These tirades. What is and is not truth. It’s funny stuff.
Is there a better time of year than the NHL Trade Deadline?
I believe you’ve both made your points by now.
by Jamie Kellner on Feb 23, 2012 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
I reminded of a tennis match with all the fans heads swinging back and forth watching the ball. That was fun!
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
Sun Tzu circa 4th Century BC
by hurricanefever on Feb 23, 2012 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
No Change in Lines for Tomorrow's Game
According to Chip Alexander there appears to be no change in the lines for tomorrow’s game. I would think that as well as the Hurricanes are playing and under Muller’s accountability/merit based time on the ice, as long as the players are working hard, playing well, and winning, the coaches will stick with what is working. I wonder how that approach will be impacted when Pitkanen is 100% ready to return?

by 


















