Gorbachav55

This is awful. It shows no sympathy, no compassion, and an utter lack of understanding of the trauma, insecurity, and self-doubt that sexual assault victims experience. The only thing I can say is to please try to educate yourself on the matter. You are going to do a lot more damage than angering people on a message board. If you're just trolling with this, it's reprehensible and childish. However, if these are your sincere thoughts and feelings, you need help.

Even knowing that much should have caused them to do more than they actually did, and that includes Quenneville.

Some players certainly did know, and at least one claims that they all knew: https://theathletic.com/2672134/2021/06/25/former-blackhawks-player-every-guy-on-the-team-knew-about-video-coachs-alleged-sexual-assault/ I find it very hard to believe that Quenneville didn't know SOMETHING was going on, and as head coach, it's his job to figure out what. So he either did and did nothing or he stuck his head in the sand, which is just as bad. He's part of the power structure and had authority to get the coach removed from team activities. The players are culpable in some ways too, but they didn't have any power or authority to act. The buck stops with the executives, and there's no doubt they knew and did nothing. They deserve the harshest punishment. But I don't think others involved in the Blackhawks management and coaching staff just get to wash their hands because it was kicked upstairs. Maybe Quenneville really didn't know anything. However, as Nieder says, at the very least, being called into that meeting and told that something inappropriate had happened with a coach should have made him stop and demand to know who and what. And then make sure that the person suspected was away from the team while an investigation occurred.

Too little and too late, but at least it happened. The cynical part of me wonders if this would have happened if they weren't also struggling terribly to start the season.

Kariya leaving was probably the worst moment of my pro sports fandom. I know people defend his decision, and criticize the team for the way they handled negotiations, but I was gutted. He was the franchise at that point (obviously before Selanne came back and was magical again). I booed him for years. People started talking about him re-signing with the team at the end of his career; I wanted nothing to do with him. I was against retiring his number for a long time. I eventually came to "Fine, if other people want it, but I'm not going to be supportive." I'm in a more rational place about it now, but I still have complicated feelings when it comes to Kariya.

I know he spent very little time as a Duck, and he doesn't talk much about the Ducks here, but he does talk about living in SoCal now that his hockey career is over. Mostly, this is just a fantastic interview, and I really enjoy Backes. I always hated him when he was on the Blues because he seemed like one of the few guys who could get under Perry's skin. And he loved goading Getzlaf into fighting. He talks about that in his interview, and it's not an antagonistic thing or a pest thing - he just knew that he had to play hard and physical against the other team's best players, and his best chance of success was getting them off the ice. He just seems like a really humble, hard-working, down-to-earth guy. https://theathletic.com/2913351/2021/10/26/david-backes-on-taking-the-gut-punch-of-hockeys-worst-losses-moving-on-and-his-2010-pre-olympics-rampage/ That's behind a paywall, but I'll say it again - if you can afford it, The Athletic is worth it. If you can't, go look up the Hockey Show podcast on Spotify or wherever, because the audio is there.

Again, I'm not super happy with the way Murray managed this, but if Volkov is sulking or throwing fits, there's no place for him in the organization.

I thought Volkov looked good in the preseason (I like Carrick, too, for what it's worth). Notes on three AHL games (all of which were blowout losses) don't tell us much. And not to keep harping on this, but Carrick and Volkov both deserve to be in the lineup over Grant anyway.

How do we know he's being outplayed right now by Sam Carrick? The only evidence for that is Carrick's recall, which was done by a guy (Murray) whose ability to properly evaluate NHL playing ability is seriously in question at this point. Maybe Carrick has been better in camp or maybe he hasn't, but we don't know. Carrick actually did look better than Volkov in his limited time last season, so that's legitimate. But Volkov was also far better than Grant and Deslauriers last season, so how much of that even plays into this decision? I don't love Volkov, and this is likely a very marginal move. I would have enjoyed seeing him on the 4th line alongside Groulx, but he could just as easily have had very little effect. My point is simply this: Murray has completely lost my trust in knowing how to build a hockey team, so I don't accept Carrick's call-up over Volkov as any sort of reliable evidence of current playing ability.

I'm not going to assume either way. This feels like it's probably a player thing, but then again, if I'm Volkov and I just got sent to the AHL when the Ducks have Derek Grant in the lineup, I'm justifiably ticked off. Yes, the Ducks treated him well last season. And they gave him a decent contract this offseason because he earned it. His possession stats weren't good but eight points in 18 games from a bottom six guy is solid. That's an 18-goal, 36-point pace. Then to get sent to the AHL to open the season so the Ducks could play Grant and Deslauriers and Jones? I have no idea what Volkov's work ethic was like in camp or if he showed up out of shape or if he handled the demotion poorly. So it could very well be on him. But I could easily see defensible frustration on his part towards an organization that's not giving him a fair shot.

So we have a few options here. Is this a Pat Maroon/Dustin Penner (redux) situation where the player showed up to camp out of shape? We know how much Bob Murray hates that. And I can't blame him all that much, but Murray doesn't seem to handle those situations in an optimal manner, either cutting guys outright or trading them for below market returns. Is this a situation where Bob is doing the guy a favor by allowing him the opportunity to be a free agent when there's no place for him on the team? This is stupid because the team has a need for bottom-6 wingers with Jones injured and other guys playing poorly. I would have loved to see Volkov given a shot alongside Groulx. Or is this a player who is discontent with the way the organization is treating him and is causing a problem? It's hard to know whose fault that might be. On the one hand, he was considered a talented player who couldn't find a spot in Tampa, although there it was easy to see why when the team was so stacked. Maybe he was a problem there, too, but we didn't know because there were other legitimate reasons he was let go. Those reasons don't apply in Anaheim. So maybe Volkov is just a malcontent? Or maybe Bob is mishandling a player unfairly and causing him to react with indignance? Either way, more wonderful asset management from Murray, although I'll grant that maybe it's a player issue. I wonder if we'll hear what happened.

Buffalo is playing a really solid game. They had one bad defensive breakdown, and then Brad Marchand somehow got away with two crosschecks right in front of the referee to set up the other goal (I thought they were cracking down?), but they've been outplaying the Bruins for large stretches. And that's consistent with how they've played all season. I don't know if Granato is a genius or if Eichel was a locker room cancer or if there's some other black magic going on here. It's crazy.

Yeah, that's rough. This was a big season for Jones. Unlike Kase, he hadn't proven that he was going to be anything more than a 4th line grinder even when healthy. He could have changed that this season when he would have gotten plenty of playing time. Staying healthy is a skill, and I don't think Jones has it.

I agree with DTS here - the only reason to give up more assets for Lindholm now is for a playoff bubble team that wants to firm up their spot in the postseason. Someone like Chicago, or maybe Ottawa convinces itself it's got a shot (and then flips Lindholm later if their run falls short). But I don't see there being enough of those teams to drive up the price significantly. From the Ducks' perspective, you have to weigh the risk that Lindholm will get hurt between now and the deadline with the chance that giving yourself the next several months to negotiate with his agent will result in a deal. So far, it's not looking good, so if the Ducks get a fair offer, they have to take a hard look at it. I'd rather re-sign Lindholm, too, but this is a two-way street. If Hampus wants to explore the market, he's free to do so and the Ducks can't do much about it other than completely overpay him.

I wouldn't be quite that vehement, but the 2022 first (unprotected) is a dealbreaker for me. Unfortunately, NOT including it is almost certainly a dealbreaker for Buffalo.

You hand-waved it away with "I can't put my finger on it." That's not an explanation. Grant has been bad for three years (actually much longer, but he had a nice lucky streak back in 2018). That's not cherry-picking.

Interesting that the one with no statistical evidence (or evidence of any kind) is accusing me of living in fantasy land. The Ducks have been one of the worst teams in the league because they can't generate offense and can't defend. Grant, as displayed above, is Exhibit A. If I'm wrong, if the stats are wrong, explain how and why. And where the heck did you come up with the trade Grant for McDavid thing? Certainly not from anything I said. I'd be happy to trade Grant for a large curly fries from Jack-in-the-box.

He's at 40% with Grant, 43% away from him. It's an improvement, but not much. Deslauriers isn't as annoying to me as traditional enforcers now are, but I'd still rather see Jones and Volkov in there, provided they're healthy. Your last point (bolded) is the only thing remotely compelling to me about a guy like Deslauriers. Mostly I wish guys like Reaves and Lucic would just go away.

Andrew Cogliano generates more offense than Grant while also being very good defensively (Cogliano is top 30 in limiting shot attempts and top 50 in limiting scoring chances). If you want someone who is good at the role Eakins has Grant playing, Cogliano is the guy you want. I would be ecstatic to see Cogliano playing alongside Groulx right now.

I agree with you that the coaches have completely misused him. He wins faceoffs, but that does not mean he's a shutdown center. His numbers wouldn't be quite as bad if he played five minutes a night against other relatively poor players, and then you gave him three minutes a night on the PK. Every time Brian Hayward makes a comment about other teams trying to get their top line away from the Grant line, I feel a strange mixture of hysteria and rage. They absolutely do not do that, nor should they. That said, how is this a winning strategy? Instead of matching bad with bad, the Ducks should try to have a 4th line that can dominate possession against the other team's 4th line. Time will tell with Groulx, but he looks promising. And I think Max Jones, even though he's a disappointment as a first round pick, could succeed in that role. Put Volkov on the other side of those two guys and you've got an energy/checking line that has value on both sides of the ice. You're still not going to play them more than 10 or 11 minutes a night, but instead of just holding their own, they're actually generating offense.

I can tell you this - your line's primary purpose, regardless of which line you're playing on, is not to get caved in with shots. And yet his line does, almost every shift. Among all forwards who have skated 800 or more minutes at 5-on-5 since the beginning of 2019 (355 forwards), Derek Grant has given up the most shot attempts per 60 minutes and has the worst expected goal percentage (meaning the quality of shots his line gives up versus the quality of shots his line takes). Out of 355, he's 355th. He's in the bottom 20 forwards in both scoring chances against and high danger scoring chances against while also being in the bottom 10 in scoring chances for (these are all prorated for his time on ice). When looking at the opposition Grant faced - if you average Grant's CF% against every individual skater he took the ice against since 2019 and then you average the rest of the team's CF% against those same skaters over that time, the rest of the team is 25% better than Grant. It's the same for expected goals for percentage. With Grant on the ice, the team is expected to score 40% of the goals, with him off the ice, they should score 50% against the exact same opponents. If you want to look at teammates, of the 28 skaters who have spent more than 40 minutes on the ice with Grant over the last two plus seasons, only one played worse away from Grant than they did with him. That one is Carter Rowney, who was just slightly worse. Every other player who spent significant time on the ice with Grant was worse with him out there. It felt really good several seasons ago when this late 20's guy who had never scored a goal got some time in the top 6 due to injuries and made the most of it. It was a fun story, and even though luck played a part, he was a contributor to the team in his role. I enjoyed Elite#1C Grantzlaf just like everyone else did. But the luck has dried up and Grant has gotten older. If you want to say that his linemates have been bad, I won't disagree with you. Looking into these numbers, it's pretty clear to me that Rowney-Grant-Deslauriers has been the worst line in hockey since 2019. That's not hyperbole - they were BAD. But if your claim is that Grant apart from those two guys is a useful player, I'm going to need some sort of evidence. If it's there, I can't find it in the statistical record. When I looked at PK numbers last year, the team was a bit better with Grant out there than with other forwards. They weren't good, but they were a bit better. However, unless he's the second coming of Steve Yzerman on the penalty kill (he's not), there's no amount of PK skill he can bring to the table that will compensate for his poor play at even strength. All stats courtesy of naturalstattrick.com.

Please elucidate. Let me expand - Grant has had the worst possession (CF%), by a lot, among Ducks forwards each of the last three seasons (Deslauriers has him beat by a little this season). He's slow. Whatever goal-scoring touch he had a few seasons ago is gone. He doesn't pass well, he doesn't forecheck well, he doesn't defend well. The Ducks' terrible penalty kill is a little less terrible, relatively speaking, when he's out there, but it's not by much. If there's a worse forward on the team, show me pictures of Max Jones kicking puppies or something and I'll believe you. But from a hockey standpoint, there is no worse forward on the team, and it's not close.

I can see sheltering him a little bit, but in a tie game you need offense, and he's clearly the team's most talented player. And if you're worried about Zegras, than play Getzlaf and or Lundestrom's line. There is no reason for Grant to be getting more ice time than anyone else. He's a decent penalty killer, but is otherwise the worst forward on the team. It's maddening. If Zegras and Grant were both at 14 minutes and Getzlaf was at 17, it would still be a crime against hockey, but not quite as egregious.

Watching Andrew Cogliano score a shorthanded goal for the Sharks made a piece of my soul wither and die. I hated Cogliano on the Stars, but at least I could mostly ignore it. Seeing him in that teal? Ugh.

The Kings were free to trade their own picks for those guys (Lemieux and Fagemo) because they had acquired so many other picks in their trades. I alluded to that. Either way, we just disagree. I'm not saying Murray should have traded Silf and Henrique and Manson for draft picks and then used every single one. But he certainly could have used them to acquire other (younger) players or to move up in the draft, in which case, we'd have more long-term talent on the roster or in the pipeline. As it is, I think we can get there, but it's going to take significantly more than just Eichel. I think Eichel speeds up the move from rebuild -> playoff team, but without more talent in the system, there's a very real chance things stall out there because now you're in that mushy area where you're not competing for the division but you're also not backfilling the pipeline with high level talent, unless you get lucky in the draft. I think the Kings move is more likely to be sustainable, but it does remain to be seen.