Welcome back to Forum Buzz, where I peruse the DobberHockey Forums and weigh in on active, heavily debated, or otherwise relevant recent threads, reminding folks just how great a resource the Forums are. Nearly anything might be covered here, other than trades and signings, which usually get their own separate write-ups on the main site and are also normally covered in the next day’s Ramblings, or questions that are specific to salary cap issues, which is the domain of the weekly Capped column. To access the specific forum thread on which a question is based, click on the “Topic” for that question.

As is now becoming tradition, I'll start the column with a nod to the "Who am I?" thread in the Forums where someone thinks of a real-life hockey player or persona, who can be from the past or present, male or female, in the NHL or not, and they give clues to help people guess who it is. You get to enter one guess per clue, and if you guess correctly you think of the next player, so it just keeps going indefinitely. For your enjoyment, here is a "Who am I?" sample. See how many clues it takes for you to guess who I am.

CLUE #1 – I'm a retired Canadian forward

CLUE #2 – To say I succeeded at juniors would be a vast understatement, as I posted 120+ points in each of my three seasons spent there

CLUE #3 – Not surprisingly, I was a first-round pick

CLUE #4 – After turning pro, I thrived in the AHL but failed to find success whenever I was called up to the NHL

CLUE #5 – Finally, after four seasons of going back and forth between the AHL and NHL, I was in the NHL to stay at age 24

CLUE #6 – That same age 24 season, after many had likely written me off, I had my first of what would be three point per game seasons in my NHL career

CLUE #7 – I had my two other point per game seasons, consecutively, while on my second team, parlaying the second into a large UFA deal for a new team

CLUE #8 – I had several very good seasons with this team as well, but then my scoring hit a wall, and my last three seasons were spent on three different teams with poor production

CLUE #7 – I was a clutch playoff performer, with nearly point per game scoring in 100+ career playoff games, versus a scoring rate of just under 60 points in a regular season career that nearly totaled 1000 games

CLUE #8 – I even led the NHL in scoring during the Stanley Cup playoffs one season, despite my team not winning the Cup

CLUE #9 – What might have made it tougher for me to break into the NHL was my height, as I was only 5'9''

CLUE #10 – I am now the General Manager for one of the teams I played for

So, who am I? Hopefully you figured it out. Check the end of the column to confirm, or, if not, to find out who I am. Now onto regularly scheduled Forum Buzz programming. And yes, I realize this is the third Forum Buzz column in as many weeks, but the Forums remain fertile ground for great questions and discussions and it's still a little too soon for a Poll or Goldipucks. And I need your questions – hint, hint – before I can publish a mailbag column.

Topic #1 – A GM owns Adam Boqvist in a points only league where PPPts count double. Is it worth holding onto him in hopes he can keep the PP1 gig in Florida and produce, or should they drop him for Devon Toews? One key is each team can make only five pick-ups all season.

I chose to answer this question less so because of the specifics, but due to it touching upon two key issues. Those are management of limited pick-ups and how long of a leash players get.

In many leagues, the number of moves is capped, and I don't mean on a per week basis, but as a whole for the entire season. The question becomes when to make a move and how to know if it is worth making. Here are my thoughts.

First, if you are in a one-year league or a limited keeper and have only eight or fewer moves, you should be prepared to use as many as half in the first month of the season. If you think that sounds crazy, go back and look at moves made in your league in 2023-24 and see which ones ended up being most impactful. I'd venture they occurred before a month's worth of games had been played. And the reason is because teams are still finding their rhythm and juggling lines. But if you see a player is clicking and has a chance to continue doing so, then I wouldn't hesitate to grab him. Of course, you always have to weigh doing so against who you'd have to drop; however, it is for this reason that I tend to like to draft at least a few risk/reward players in these types of leagues, where either they end up great or lousy, with little room in between, and you'll usually know how they'll fare very quickly. Boqvist is the perfect example. When it became apparent Florida was giving him a real shot at PP1, he was worth drafting. But if he fails to capitalize, as seems to be happening, he's easier to drop in favor of someone better.

How do you know if someone is worth grabbing? In this instance, Toews is proven enough that if he is not already owned then maybe he is not worth being owned. But a player like Connor McMichael, Kirill Marchenko or Yegor Chinakhov is intriguing, since not only are they thriving but they have a real chance to continue to do so.

Also, it used to be that you'd always wanted to save some pick-ups for the trade deadline. In recent years though, not only have there been fewer impactful deadline deals, but often the players who benefit most are already owned. But for H2H leagues, where the trade deadline can impact the playoffs that start soon afterwards, I would keep at least a pick up or two. But most H2H leagues do not put a cap on moves, so often this is a moot point.

As for the issue of player leashes, Boqvist is a great example. He was an early draft pick and still is not so far removed from being drafted that Florida felt he was worth grabbing. But he's cheap and they have other options, meaning he will likely have a short leash. Does this mean don't draft or pick up players with short leashes? Not necessarily, as if they succeed you've snagged a bargain, and if they fail it is easy to write them off and cut bait. If you draft too many "mid" players, it will be that much harder to decide which to drop if/when you need to make that decision. And it can also lead to you not picking up a player who was worth picking up.

Who are those with long leashes? Obviously players who are paid well or very established. But also they can be players who are more unique. A good example would be a right-handed shot defenseman on a team with far more left-handed shot rearguards. Or a player with size, as that is something teams always want to have and will often incent them to try whatever that can to get that larger sized player to do well. Contract status means something too, as if a player is set to be a UFA and fails to perform, he might be deemphasized, although he also might be traded and a new home could be the cure for what ails him.

In sum, don't be afraid to use a good chunk of limited pick-ups early, since that is often when the most impactful pick-ups will occur. If you're in a one-year league or limited keeper, try to draft at least a couple of risk/reward players, who if they fail are easier to jettison, since if you have too many "mid" guys you might be too afraid to cut bait and may miss a chance at getting a much better player.

Topic #2 – In a 12 team keeper with goalie stats of W, SV, and SV%, a team has as its goalies Ilya Sorokin, Alexandar Georgiev, and Cam Talbot. Should they drop one to get Lukas Dostal? If so, which of the three?

Let's get the obvious out of the way, and that's Sorokin is going nowhere. In no universe is he the drop, if there is a drop.

As for Georgiev and Talbot, the huge key here for both is GAA not counting among the league's goalie stats. Yes, Georgiev's save percentage has been even worse than his GAA thus far; however, volume-based stats account for two of the three categories, and although Justus Annunen has looked strong, Georgiev is proven and even if he's not so great when he plays, he should rack up saves and wins. That matters, as does the fact the Avs might be leery of handing the crease to Annunen, who has zero playoff experience and has never had to endure the rigors of being a #1 goalie, or even a 1A. Given the other options in play, I'm holding Georgiev and hoping, as the upside is huge, since if he rights his ship even a little he can be very useful in a league with these categories.

So that narrows it to Dostal or Talbot. The key with Talbot is he is 37 years old; and going back to 2010-11, only three goalies as old or older than Talbot started even 48 games, and they were Tim Thomas, Martin Brodeur (twice), and Marc-Andre Fleury, each being far above Talbot in terms of ability at that age. Plus, Talbot looked great early last season, before fading in a big way. So I do not have trust in him to log more than 40-45 games when all is said and done with 2024-25. And Alex Lyon has shown glimpses of strong play in the NHL, clouding things as well.

As for Dostal, he is doing all he can thus far to demonstrate to the Ducks that he should be the team's #1 even when John Gibson is eventually back to health. And it isn't like Gibson has fared so well as to be automatically thrust back into the starting role once he returns. Gibson does have a large contract; however, if the Ducks can win with Dostal, which is something Gibson has not been helping them do for quite a long time, they might finally trade Gibson or just bury him in the minors.  Dostal also has the most keeper potential.

So if I'm this GM, I'm taking a chance on Georgiev given his team, the categories, and him still being likely to get opportunities despite playing so poorly at the end of last season and in the early going. And I like Dostal over Talbot, who is too old to be a true #1 and faded in a big way last season after a hot start, making him a risk in general, plus he has zero keeper value.

Topic #3 – In a one year, ten team H2H weekly lockout league with unlimited acquisitions and categories of G, A SOG, HIT, +/-, PIM, HIT, BLK, SV, SO, GAA, SV%, and with rosters of 12F, 6D, 2G, 6 Bench, 3 IR, a team has as its goalies Ilya Sorokin, Filip Gustavsson, and Pyotr Kochetkov. Should they drop Kochetkov for Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen?

I think a big key here is this is a one-year league, so the lure of holding Kochetkov in hopes of him being anointed the starter for 2024-25 after Frederik Andersen leaves as a UFA is not a factor. Still, Andersen is a Band-Aid boy. Yet look at the Bruins last season, where Jeremy Swayman outplayed Linus Ullmark yet they still essentially alternated starts during the regular season. I suspect the same likely will unfold in Carolina, barring an Andersen injury.

As for UPL, Buffalo inked him to a deal that, while it pales in comparison to those Swayman and Jake Oettinger recently signed, was for five seasons and just under $5M per year. This signifies they see him as the starter for the near future, or if not the starter, then the 1A.

One key though is only two goalies can start at the same time, and there are no daily moves. If this was a daily moves league, then I think there'd be a stronger argument for Kochetkov, since he can be plugged into and out of the line-up as needed, and a more "everyday" goalie like UPL would be almost overkill. Notwithstanding the lack of daily moves, however, only two of four goalie categories are volume-based, such that UPL playing more often would not be a benefit if when he plays, he plays poorly and, in contrast, when Kochetkov plays, he plays well.

All these things are relevant; however, what pushes me to UPL is the second goalie being Gus. He has looked amazing early on; however, who's to say that will continue? And the Wild have not only Marc-Andre Fleury to turn to, but also Jesper Wallstedt. So despite only half of the goalie categories being volume-based, and Kochetkov likely to put up better peripherals than UPL and having a chance to be an everyday starter if the oft-injured Andersen gets injured again, I think UPL is needed to ensure there is a Gus fallback, as if Gus imploded and Kochetkov is only playing every other game, this team could have issues in net.

Topic #4 – In one year league with skater categories of G, A, Pts, SOG, PPPts, HIT, BLK, a team needs to make room for a goalie and can't decide whether to drop Frank Vatrano, Mason McTavish, or Stefan Noesen? Who's the correct drop?

One year makes this both easier, and more difficult. On the one hand, McTavish clearly has the most upside; however, we need not factor that in since we're only concerned with the here and now. And the reality with McTavish is that after he began 2023-23 with 21 points in 22 games, he has since scored at only about a point per every other game level. Yes, after shedding TOI both overall and on the PP with each passing quarter in 2023-24 he is now right at the levels he was in that outstanding Q1 for 2023-24; but he is not shooting much at all, and the quarters last season where he shot the least were, no surprise, his worst, with only eight points in 25 games on 35 SOG.

Still that does not make McTavish the drop per se. After all, Noesen is nearly 32 years old and never once has had point per every other game scoring, while Vatrano is coming off a superb season and is playing for a new UFA deal. The concern with Noesen is he's doing what he's doing with very low TOIs. And while we have seen that not prevent some degree of fantasy success, with Daniel Sprong being the perfect example, it's normally not possible to do as well as Noesen has been if he's not seeing more TOI. And New Jersey certainly is not lacking in viable options for its top six and PP1. As such, I think the ceiling for Noesen is likely about where it was for Sprong these past few seasons, namely about 45-50 points, but the floor is 30-35.

As for Vatrano, his TOI is way down, and he's shooting the puck considerably less, to the tune of roughly one fewer SOG per game versus last season. For now though, he is on a scoring line. And the way I see it, Vatrano is likely not going to finish the season with Anaheim, as they will look to turn him into assets that will pay future dividends. And whichever team lands Vatrano likely will put him in at least as good a spot to score, if not better.

Overall, with this being a one-year league, and taking everything into account, McTavish is indeed likely the drop. I do feel Noesen is poised to produce Sprong-like numbers, which would be good enough, and Vatrano has motivation to succeed and might be dealt to a team which will use him in a way to boost his scoring, which, given what we saw last season, is pretty solid.

Topic #5 – In a league where goalie categories and scoring are GAA (-1.5), SV(0.3), W(2), SO(2), which goalie is the best own for this season: Alex Lyon, Joel Hofer, or Ilya Samsonov?

I wrote above as to how Cam Talbot is a risky own, and part of the reason is Lyon lurking. I do think Detroit would like for Talbot to thrive; however, even if he does, Lyon could see upwards of 30 starts, while if Talbot – who is only being paid $2.5M – falters, then the vision of Talbot starting perhaps 45-50 games and Lyon only 30-35 could be flip-flopped.

Hofer has been waiting patiently in the wings for an opportunity, with his SV% and GSAA both rising with each season, while Jordan Binnington, until last season, had been trending in the wrong directions in nearly all goalie stats. But Binnington had – and still has – the fat contract paying him $6M per season. That dwarfs what Hofer makes, and has given Binnngton many lives. If Binnington didn't still have two more seasons after this before his deal expired, I think the Blues could indeed turn to Hofer. And they still may, since when Binnington struggled in 2022-23 Hofer was too inexperienced to be seen as a reliable #1 or even 1A. Now though he has played in the NHL for parts of three prior seasons, and logged 30 games in 2023-24. So the Blues could hand him the reins, although it would take Binnington doing very poorly on top of Hofer doing very well, plus Hofer would have to hold onto the job, and for sure his leash would be a lot shorter than Binnington's.

Sansonov's career since coming to North America has, as a whole, been a huge disappointment. Once mentioned in the same breath as Igor Shesterkin and Ilya Sorokin, Samsonov was shaky right from the start, with decent but certainly not great AHL numbers, and then he got worse rather than better with each passing season in Washington, causing them to cut ties. He did impress in 2022-23 for the Leafs in 42 games, yet when looked to for 2023-24 as the possible starter, he proceeded to put up his worst NHL numbers. Now with Vegas, Samsonov is playing for his NHL future. But so too is Adin Hill, who after playoff heroics earned him a nice deal with the Knights, has largely disappointed, and that's when he hasn't been hurt.

Looking at the stats, volume definitely matters, as although there is a GA penalty, a mere five saves makes it a wash for every goal allowed. For what it's worth, the Wings are giving up the third most SOG, on average, per game; but St. Louis is not far behind in seventh and the Knights are ninth. The Knights figure to be the best of the three teams, but not necessarily by much, as truthfully wins and shutouts are nice but can be offset by more shots faced. In the end, although I have very little trust in Talbot, Lyon being a high-volume starter is too unlikely, and the same is probably true for Hofer. So I'm taking Samsonov here, but it's close.

Topic #6 – In a 12 team, H2H cats league that alternates between keep 1 or keep 3 and has categories of G, A, (+/-), PIM, PPPts, SHP, SOG, HIT, BLK, W, GAA, SV, SHO and rosters of 2C, 2LW, 2RW, 4D, 1Util, 2G, 4Bench, 2IR+, a GM who owns Juraj Slafkovsky was approached by another GM who offered Pyotr Kochetkov for Slaf, which was declined, and then offered Linus Ullmark for Slaf, which also was declined, and then offered Igor Shesterkin for Slaf, which was accepted but then vetoed. The league had a history of questionable trades, which led to there being a three GM trade committee, and the GM who offered Shesterkin has had a history of making many of these questionable trades. Was the veto reasonable?

I've wanted an excuse to discuss trade vetoes in general, and this is great opportunity. So while I of course am going to answer the question, this will be more about trade vetoes/committees.

First and foremost, if there is a GM in a league who has a history of making deals that most of the other GMs feel are unreasonable, the way to solve the problem is boot that GM from the league. Certainly you give them warnings before doing so; but if someone is routinely rocking the boat with their trades, then they need to go, period. Problem solved.

But in general, how should leagues "rule" on trades? I've seen it done by polling all teams not directly involved in the trade, or by having a commissioner. The issue with a commissioner is if it is a league member, what happens when they're involved in a trade? Some solve this by a commissioner being someone who used to be in the league but no longer is, to give an impartial yet informed opinion, but that is not often a viable option. Others use a person without any former connection to the league but who can supposedly look at things objectively and render a verdict. That is far from perfect, as without having actually been in the league the completely detached commissioner will be less able to make truly informed decision. Still, it is a solution, even if imperfect, and I favor it over one where the decision is made by people in the league, since even if they're not directly involved in the trade, it likely will impact one or more of them in terms of the standing, and, as such, might cloud their impartiality.

Regardless of who makes the decision, there needs to be a clearly articulated standard for when a trade can be vetoed. In my main league, we all felt that fewer vetoes were better, as when that hadn't been the case all sorts of arguments and accusations would occur. So the standard we came up with is that a trade should not be vetoable unless it would violate the integrity of the league. Basically, a trade can be one no one else but those who are involved would make; however, if it was made with both GMs having full information and having decided it was in their best interest, then who are we to tell them it can't happen, unless it would threaten the integrity of the league, which, while there is no set definition, basically means it would be so far and away lopsided and with such significant repercussions that it cannot be allowed to stand. And guess what – it's worked amazingly. Am I saying that is what you should do in you league? Not necessarily. But I do believe that fewer vetoes is a goal to seek to achieve.

So basically, if you do have a veto system in your league, my advice is to make sure you can define what would qualify as a veto. And do your best to have the decision made in the most impartial way. Also, whatever the rule/standard is, don't change it midseason. And if it is a recurring issue, see if the cause is a GM who is pushing the envelope, as removing them from the league might solve the problem.

The other piece of advice I'd give is to factor the type of league and number of retentions when setting the veto standard/requirement for your league. What I mean by that in general a trade is more impactful in a one-year league. You might argue that is not the case, since all players are tossed back into the draft pool every year. But one-year leagues can often be among the closest and thus trades can be most impactful. And even if all players are up for grabs again come the draft for next season, there are still things like draft order that are impacted, that is unless yours is an auction league. And for keeper leagues, the more the keepers the more trades matter. I can see how that might seem counterintuitive, as if more players are kept wouldn't that lessen the impact of a bad trade? Perhaps; however, with more players being kept it is more difficult for a team to get its hands on a player it doesn't own, so trades are indeed more impactful. If there are only a few keepers, then, not surprisingly, the standard/criteria lies in the middle.

That gets us to the trade in question, namely Shesterkin for Slaf. It is worth noting that next season will be a keep three season, such that trades should get more scrutiny. Also, with it being a 2G starter league, the value of Shesterkin is comparatively higher. And with a mere seven forwards at most in a starting line-up, Slaf does have less value, and most would agree that he is unlikely to really begin to thrive for several more seasons, such that it is highly unlikely that when the league goes back to one keeper that he'd be kept, whereas Igor could be a conceivable keep even in a keep one season. So this is for sure a trade I'd not make if I'm the Shesterkin owner. But is it so far out of the realm of fairness as to veto it? According to my league's standard, not even close. And I'd like to think it would not be vetoable in most leagues, as if it was I fear you'd be dealing with this issue far too often. And if indeed the GM trading Igor is someone who does this a lot, then vote to get rid of them, and the problem solves itself.

The ANSWER TO WHO THE PLAYER IS……….Daniel Briere!

************

Questions for Mailbag column needed

The upcoming edition of my monthly mailbag still has room for more questions, which you can send me by either private messaging “rizzeedizzee” via the DobberHockey Forums, or emailing [email protected] with “Roos Mailbag” as the subject line.