Getty Images

Blackhawks should try to trade star defensemen

8 Comments

The Athletic’s Scott Powers dropped an interesting report today (sub required): Chicago Blackhawks GM Stan Bowman realizes that he’ll have a glut of defensemen soon, so he might need to make a move.

To be more specific, the impending return of Connor Murphy could make for quite a crowd. Powers notes that Bowman acknowledged that much a couple weeks ago, albeit while also resisting some of the perceived pressure to make a move.

” … Murph’s a good player, so we want to get him back as soon as we can to help our team. What that means for the other guys, we’ll sort that out,” Bowman said on Nov. 24. “If there’s a surplus and everyone’s healthy, then there’s always needs around the league for defensemen. We can maybe make a move at that point.”

Now, Powers points to Bowman trying to move a depth defenseman such as Brandon Manning or Jan Rutta merely to open up a modicum of space … but that honestly might be thinking too small.

Right now, the Chicago Blackhawks are on a six-game losing streak. They’re not technically in last place in the West with 23 points, yet they’re sagging with 30 games played already, so they’re awfully close to that mark. Maybe playing five of their next six games at home will help them save a little face, but just about every projection should hammer a painful reality home: the 2018-19 season is as good as shot for Chicago.

With that in mind, the Blackhawks should begin preparing for the future, and that means acknowledging – not continuing to ignore – the elephant in the room: it’s time to strip away significant portions of this core group.

It’s tough to imagine the Blackhawks parting ways with the $21 million duo of Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane, and in all honesty, those two could still conceivably help a team contend.

Instead, it’s time for Bowman to hit the “reset” button on an ailing defense, and he’d be foolish not to explore every avenue in doing so. Yes, that means doing whatever he can to a) convince Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook to waive no-movement clauses and b) finding trade partners for one or both of those defensemen.

The risks that come with keeping Keith

At 35, Keith isn’t at that Norris Trophy level any longer.

Defensemen aren’t always sniping machines, yet it’s troubling that he’s failed to score a goal in 2018-19, and only has two over his last 112 games. He’s not quite the source of offense he once was, and while his possession stats are respectable, they won’t knock your socks off.

Keith is still a very useful defenseman, however, and one can bet that he still enjoys a high standing in the NHL … for now.

Let’s face it; as times go on and Keith’s team declines further from past successes, his stature is likely to tumble. It doesn’t help that his average ice time is down considerably this season (22:36), and last season’s 23:50 TOI average was already a significant step down from his workhorse, 25+ minute days.

The Blackhawks need to be weary of Keith’s $5.54M cap hit, which lasts through 2022-23. Yes, it carries the scent of obvious cap circumvention, as Cap Friendly lists his salary diving from $4.5M to $3.5M next, and so on until it sinks all the way to $1.5M in 2022-23. In my opinion, Chicago would get a much better return for Keith if they traded him before he became, essentially, Marian Hossa-like contract fodder.

(Sure, the Blackhawks moved Hossa’s deal, but they had to give up a helpful, affordable, and not-yet-optimized player in Vinnie Hinostroza.)

If the Blackhawks wait too long, they might be stuck bribing a team to take the last, empty cap years of Keith’s deal, rather than getting assets that can truly help them in the future. That’s not exactly an ideal scenario for a franchise that sorely needs to restock its prospect cupboard beyond Adam Boqvist.

Finding a taker for Brent Seabrook

While Keith could conceivably fetch an interesting offer, it’s difficult to picture GMs lining up to land Seabrook, a 33-year-old with a horrendous $6.875M cap hit that doesn’t expire until after 2023-24.

On the other hand, we’ve seen some surprising trades over the years that force you to never say never.

The Habs didn’t just absorb a nightmare Scott Gomez contract, they also sent Ryan McDonagh to the Rangers. A contract Roberto Luongo despised didn’t keep him in Vancouver forever. Chris Pronger eventually drew checks from the Coyotes.

Seabrook will be easier to move in time, as his total salary goes from $9M in the first three seasons (ending in 2018-19) to $7.5M next year, and lower as the years pass. That’s a comforting thought, but are we totally certain that Bowman has been practicing due diligence to get rid of that deal as soon as possible? You never know if an old-school team might want to take Seabrook off of Chicago’s hands sooner.

All it takes is one GM/front office to think that they’re seeing something no one else understands. Unfortunately, it’s fair to wonder if Bowman is too close to the situation, and thus overrates his own players to his own detriment.

One to keep

If there’s one defenseman I wouldn’t take many trade calls about, it would be rookie Henri Jokiharju. The 19-year-old is already showing serious promise, and maybe just as importantly for the cap-challenged Blackhawks, he’s only in the first season of his three-year, entry-level, rookie deal.

Which brings us to some optimism:

If they can only stomach a short rebuild …

Normally, I’d refer to this idea as a “soft rebuild,” but let’s be frank: it won’t be easy for Bowman to swallow his pride and, ideally, trade Keith and/or Seabrook. Management probably wouldn’t even enjoy moving a more obvious cap-filler like forward Artem Anisimov.

Could there be some light at the end of the tunnel, though?

It certainly stings that Chicago lost some quality, affordable players in recent years because of the cap crunch and some general errors (Hinostroza, Ryan Hartman, Teuvo Teravainen, Nick Schmaltz, etc.).

They still might have some help thanks to certain cheaper options. As mentioned, Jokiharju could be part of a solution. Rising star Alex DeBrincat‘s rookie contract won’t expire until after next season. If Dylan Strome can at least bring more pros than cons, then he’s another guy who is cheap through at least 2019-20. Depending upon how he develops, Boqvist might be able to add to that group of cheap, competitive players.

According to Cap Friendly, the Blackhawks currently have 15 players carrying $62.21M in cap commitments heading into 2019-20. If Chicago moved Keith or Seabrook for futures and/or expiring contracts, they could push that number closer to $56M or so (considering overages and other cap quirks).

Suddenly, things could look more interesting with a salary cap estimated around $83M.

Perhaps the Blackhawks could right a wrong by bringing back Artemi Panarin, giving them more of a chance to outscore their problems? Maybe they could lure Erik Karlsson away from San Jose and other suitors? They could also target mid-level free agents in pursuit of depth, or extend their rebuild window by taking on some contracts from other teams (maybe they should “help out” the Maple Leafs?).

Things can start to change quickly once you gain some flexibility, with some ideas being wiser than others. Most of the bolder ideas sure beat sitting idly by, risking waiting too long to make much-needed changes.

For the sake of Blackhawks fans, here’s hoping Bowman agrees, even if it means painfully saying goodbye to some of the icons of a fading era.

MORE: Your 2018-19 NHL on NBC TV schedule

James O’Brien is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @cyclelikesedins.

Can Maple Leafs make salary cap work after signing Nylander?

10 Comments

After plenty of drama unfolded – particularly among nervous fans – the Toronto Maple Leafs hashed out a six-year deal worth just under $7 million per year for William Nylander.

Fans, coach Mike Babcock, GM Kyle Dubas, Nylander, and hockey media at large let out an exhale. But, for some, the immediate question returned: how are the Maple Leafs going to make this fit under the salary cap for 2019-20 and beyond?

After all, the futures of Auston Matthews and Mitch Marner (and even Jake Gardiner?) held up Nylander’s negotiations, to some extent, in the first place.

During the NHL’s recent Board of Governors meetings, word surfaced that the cap ceiling will be approximately $83 million in 2019-20. That number can change, yet it’s a helpful window for the Maple Leafs to consider. It’s also helpful that it’s a nice bump up from this season’s high mark of $79.5M.

Let’s be honest, though: this would probably be challenging even if the cap was at, say, $90 million.

So, what are the Leafs to do? Let’s try to break things down in different subcategories, with some guidance from the always-helpful site Cap Friendly.

I’ll throw in some of my opinions about who’s especially important to Toronto’s viability, who (to me) is an obvious player to trade, and the guys who stand in the murky middle.

This is a pretty deep dive, so buckle up.

***

Anticipated salary cap: Approximately $83 million in 2019-20, up from $79.5M this season.

Committed to cap as of today, via Cap Friendly$56.3M on 12 players. So, Marner + Matthews ($20M) would likely bump it up to at least $76.3M for 14 players.

***

The Core (already signed)

John Tavares, 28, $11 million, 2024-25
William Nylander, 22, $6.962M, 2023-24
Frederik Andersen, 29, $5M, 2020-21
Morgan Rielly, 24, $5M, 2021-22
Nazem Kadri, 28, $4.5M, 2021-22

Notes: Kadri is one of those players some might categorize differently.

To me, though, he’s an absolutely crucial bargain. It’s not just that Kadri can be a second-line center at a very reasonable price; it’s that Kadri is a credible second-line center at just $4.5M. In my book, that makes him a core piece.

Andersen and Rielly stand as absolutely crucial bargains, even more than Kadri. You can quibble about Rielly as a Norris candidate, but for $5M, a player with his skills is a dynamite deal. He’s that much more important on a defensive group that stands as Toronto’s glaring weakness. Andersen cleans up a lot of those messes at a very reasonable price.

Support bargains

Zach Hyman, 26, $2.25M, 2020-21
Connor Brown, 24, $2.1M, 2019-20
Travis Dermott, 21, $863K expires after next season

Notes: Dermott being a good defenseman at an entry-level price is downright critical to the Maple Leafs’ hopes of surviving the pending cap crunch. His cheap deal almost makes him feel like a core piece by context.

These other two forwards are really nice to have, too, particularly Hyman. He’s not lighting the world on fire, yet Hyman’s shown that he can be a very useful top-nine forward. Brown has a 20-goal season to his name (in 2016-17).

That said, it’s not outrageous to wonder if the Maple Leafs might need to part with Brown, in particular, if the squeeze gets boa-like.

Problem/disposable contracts

Patrick Marleau, 39, $6.25M for next season
Nikita Zaitsev, 27, $4.5M, 2023-24
Nathan Horton‘s contract: $5.3M that’s been LTIR bound, expires after 2019-20

Notes: This is where things get awkward, but where work can get done.

It’s obvious that there’s a lot of organizational love for Marleau, particularly from Babcock, as James Mirtle noted for The Athletic about a week ago (sub required).

“He makes you a flat out better human being just by walking by you,” Babcock said.

That piece goes in-depth on how much Babcock and others rave about Marleau’s “intangibles,” but when basically every $100K counts, can you really justify $6.25M for being “good in the room?” Mirtle also breaks down how Marleau’s play is (understandably) decaying, and as we’ve seen with sports, Father Time can slam the door shut on your production with startling speed and cruelty.

That money could easily slot in as Gardiner’s next cap hit, and while Gardiner draws critics, the Maple Leafs need defensemen like him. And those defensemen aren’t exactly growing on trees. Perhaps the Maple Leafs could a) get a veteran presence at the veteran minimum or b) hire a retired player to serve as a mentor, one who doesn’t count against the cap?

If I were in Dubas’ shoes, I’d be looking for creative avenues to take care of this issue right now, but the most likely scenario would be for Toronto to part ways with Marleau during the summer — if at all. Marleau possesses a no-movement clause throughout his deal, so that could end up being a very messy situation. I’m not certain the Maple Leafs can actually pull off trading Marleau, but his deal is a real problem, unless there’s a pending “shady run to the LTIR” in his future. Right, Joffrey Lupul?

(The third year of Marleau’s deal boggled my mind when it was signed, and continues to drive me a little nuts.)

Speaking of messy situations, Horton’s $5.3M has gone to LTIR during his entire “run” with Toronto, as he slotted in to replace a similar nightmare with David Clarkson.

The Maple Leafs could easily LTIR Horton again next summer, although there would be some advantages to getting that off the books earlier, so let’s at least keep his contract in mind. Maybe a rebuilding team could take Horton off of their hands as part of a complex, creative deal? Perhaps it could instead be as simple as the equivalent to the Coyotes taking Marian Hossa‘s contract from the Blackhawks?

The final problem contract of note is that of Zaitsev.

It’s understandable that Toronto gave him that $4.5M cap hit after he scored 36 points and at least survived possession-wise as a rookie in 2016-17, yet it’s been a galling fall from grace for Zaitsev. It’s tough to ponder the possibility that Zaitsev’s presence could push someone far better out, whether that someone is Gardiner or perhaps a solid mid-level free agent defenseman (or a nifty trade target like, say, similarly priced Justin Faulk).

The term of Zaitsev’s contract makes it scarier, and also could make it tougher to move than Marleau, who would only burden a taker’s team through next season.

That said, at 27, there’s a chance Zaitsev could be rehabilitated. Perhaps the Maple Leafs could sell that story (along with offering up some picks as bribery) to a team that might be willing to give him a change of scenery for a price?

***

Whoppers

Auston Matthews, 21
Mitch Marner, 21
Jake Gardiner, 28

Notes: All three of these players’ situations justify their own posts.

Matthews and Marner, obviously, are rising stars. The toughest questions there revolve around how much they’ll cost, and if the Leafs can get them both to sign long-term rather than accepting “bridge” deals.

Placing myself back in Dubas’ (shinier, nicer, more expensive) shoes, I’d do whatever I could to extend both Matthews and Marner now rather than later.

At best, both forwards’ perceived values will remain the same, but there’s a strong chance that each guy could only earn more dollars with a big run this season. That only inflates if the Maple Leafs make a (very plausible) deep run in the 2019 Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Also, every day that passes brings opportunities for other contracts to serve as dangerous comparables. What if Patrik Laine breaks the bank, like, tomorrow? Mikko Rantanen might want to settle his extension now, and that deal won’t be cheap.

Right now, Connor McDavid‘s $12.5M serves as something of a logical barrier for Matthews. Let’s not forget that McDavid left some money on the table, and maybe the next wave of prominent free agents won’t be so generous.

The Maple Leafs would also gain some cost certainty if they locked up Matthews and Marner now.

Oh yeah, Toronto would also avoid the threat of an offer sheet. That’s not totally irrelevant, especially since the Islanders would probably lick their chops at the prospect of getting some Tavares-revenge.

Gardiner is a tough call, and he might be the one who needs to go down to the wire. How much is he worth? How large is the fall from Gardiner to replacement-level players? Consider two possibilities in the system:

A couple defensive prospects of interest

Rasmus Sandin, 18
Timothy Liljegren, 19

Notes: Here are two defensemen who could at least conceivably step into a spot or two in 2019-20, although it’s fair to wonder if they’d truly be ready.

Both Swedes are first-rounders, with Sandin going 29th overall in 2018, while Liljegren was selected 17th in 2017. Sandin’s getting his first bit of seasoning in the AHL; Liljegren is in his second campaign with the Toronto Marlies.

As of this writing, the Maple Leafs are especially needy when it comes to right-handed defensemen (both Gardiner and Rielly are lefties), so that factor and Liljegren’s additional year of seasoning lights more of a path for the slightly older prospect.

Pending RFAs potentially playing their way out of Toronto

Kasperi Kapanen, 22
Andreas Johnsson, 24
Garret Sparks, 25

Notes: Kapanen and Johnsson emerging serves as a double-edged sword. It’s great to see a prospect stick after struggling to fight through a deep forward corps (Kapanen), and it’s also awesome to find a diamond in the rough (Johnsson). But will they play so well that they become unaffordable?

Similarly, Sparks has served as a suitable backup at a dirt-cheap price.

Assorted expiring contracts

Tyler Ennis, Ron Hainsey, Par Lindholm, Igor Ozhiganov

***

Potential solutions, closing thoughts

Phew, that’s a lot to chew on, right?

To review: the Maple Leafs have some issues to deal with, and a slew of questions to answer. Are they really going to allocate that much cap space to Marleau, and can they afford to just deal with Zaitsev’s expensive struggles? Does Gardiner rank as one of those cap casualties they just need to deal with? Is there any chance that Matthews and/or Marner would sign now, and would that be the wiser course?

The good news is that Dubas & Co. have shown early acumen when it comes to unearthing cheap options to fill in blanks. An analytics-driven mindset might help them spot more diamonds in the rough, or merely identify cheaper options that won’t drag the team down too much when their stars aren’t on the ice.

There’s also another key bullet in the chamber: veterans who might sign for cheap in hopes of chasing a Stanley Cup.

If you’re Anton Stralman, maybe you’d give the Maple Leafs a discount to be part of something special? Perhaps a similar thought would occur to Tyler Myers, who would have just completed a $38.5M contract?

(Less-ideal scenarios would involve signing, say, Dan Girardi or Babcock favorite Roman Polak … so let’s move on.)

This situation can work out in about a million different ways, and the possibilities honestly leave my brain overflowing like the old logo for “Scattergories.”

The thing is, these are good problems to have. The Maple Leafs have Tavares, Nylander, Andersen, and Rielly under contract for some time. They seem resolute in keeping, at minimum, Matthews and Marner. Almost every other NHL team would practice dark arts to land that foundation.

Can Dubas hit all the right notes to keep this roster competitive, even once the bill comes? We’ll need to wait and see, but the Maple Leafs stand as a team to watch, and are likely to stay that way for a long time.

If you want to ponder how you’d handle various situations yourself, you could always fiddle with Cap Friendly’s Armchair GM tool. Warning: your self-confidence may fall as a result, because a lot of this counts as “easier said than done.”

MORE: Your 2018-19 NHL on NBC TV schedule

James O’Brien is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @cyclelikesedins.

Trade: Coyotes send Strome, Perlini to Blackhawks for Schmaltz

Getty
8 Comments

The Arizona Coyotes have officially moved on from the Dylan Strome experience.

A little over three years after making him the third overall pick in the 2015 draft (right behind Connor McDavid and Jack Eichel), the Coyotes traded the 21-year-old Strome to the Chicago Blackhawks Sunday night.

The Coyotes also sent forward Brendan Perlini to Chicago as part of the trade.

In exchange for those two Arizona will receive forward Nick Schmaltz.

First, here is Coyotes general manager John Chayka on what he sees in Schmaltz and where he might fit.

“Nick is a dynamic forward with top line potential. We feel he can be a core player of our team now and into the future. He’s a good complement to our evolving forward group and a rare combination of speed, skill and creativity.”

There is a lot to unwrap here, but let’s start with Chicago’s acquisition of Strome because — and with all due respect to Schmaltz and Perlini — he is going to be the player that makes or breaks this trade. For both teams.

It is a total boom-or-bust move for the Blackhawks because even with his struggles in Arizona he is still a player that is loaded with potential. He has excelled at every level he has played at (including the American Hockey League where he had 53 points in 50 games a season ago), but had not yet found a place or a permanent role with the Coyotes.

In 48 NHL games over parts of the past three seasons he has just seven goals and nine assists, including six points in 19 games with the Coyotes this season.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this deal for Chicago is the fact that it reunites Strome with winger Alex DeBrincat. The two were teammates together with the Erie Otters during their junior hockey days and absolutely ripped apart the Ontario Hockey League offensively. Together, they were unstoppable. There is obviously a massive difference between the OHL and the NHL, but the two clearly have a history together.

DeBrincat, a second-round draft pick by the Blackhawks in 2016, has already developed into a top-line NHL player and was one of the top rookies in the league a season ago. He is off to another strong start this season with 10 goals and eight assists in his first 24 games.

Will those two get a chance to play together again in Chicago? Will a change of scenery help Strome start to establish himself as an NHL player and realize his potential? Big questions, but probably a worthy gamble if you are a Chicago team that really needs to find more young, impact players given the age of their core and the perpetual struggle that is their salary cap situation.

That brings us to Schmaltz.

He was one of the few bright spots for the Blackhawks a year ago when he scored 21 goals (good enough for third on the team) in what was a breakout season. The red flag in that performance, however, was the 17.8 percent shooting percentage that drove that goal-scoring success.

So far this season the regression monster has taken a giant bite out of his numbers.

As of Sunday, Schmaltz has just two goals (and nine assists) in 23 games for the Blackhawks and has been unable to find any of the good fortunate that followed him around a year ago. Has he been a little snake bit? With a 6.1 percent shooting percentage it would be easy to say yes, but the unfortunate reality for him is that number is probably a lot closer to what should be expected from him.

He is also a restricted free agent after this season and will be in line for a pay raise.

Strome, on the other hand, is still signed through next season at a salary cap hit of $863,333.

Perlini, who had scored 31 goals in his first 131 NHL games, will also be a restricted free agent for the Blackhawks after this season.

What it all boils down to is this…

• Schmaltz has probably, by a very thin margin, been the most successful of these three players at the NHL level. But he is probably not as good as his numbers from the 2017-18 season might indicate.

He and Perlini are also very similar in the sense that they are the same age, have the same contract situation, and have nearly identical goal-scoring numbers throughout the first two-and-a-half years of their careers. Just consider that Perlini has scored 33 goals in 152 career games (with two in 21 games this season), while Schmaltz has scored 29 goals in 162 career games (with two in 23 games this season). 

Schmaltz has better assist numbers, but he has also played alongside superior talent in Chicago.

• Strome, as disappointing as he has been at the NHL level, still has what is by far the highest upside and is still young enough that he could break out if things click for him.

The Blackhawks are basically trading what will probably be a pretty good player for another pretty good player … and a potential star if they can catch lightning in a bottle.

What is not to like about that if you are the Blackhawks?

It is far from a guarantee to work, but it is a fine chance to take.

This is the fourth trade these two teams have made since the summer of 2017.

In June 2017, the Coyotes acquired defenseman Niklas Hjalmarsson from the Blackhawks in exchange for Laurent Dauphin and Connor Murphy.

This past January the Coyotes traded Anthony Duclair and Adam Clendening to the Blackhawks for Richard Panik and Dauphin.

Then, just before the start of this season the Coyotes took on the remainder of Marian Hossa‘s contract in a massive, complex trade that also saw Marcus Kruger return to Chicago and Vinnie Hinostroza go to Arizona.

MORE: Your 2018-19 NHL on NBC TV schedule

Adam Gretz is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @AGretz.

PHT Power Rankings: Best in-season NHL coaching changes

2 Comments

Evaluating NHL coaches is a tricky thing that nobody seems to have mastered.

Look no further than the recent “coach of the year” winners and how quickly many of them have been fired. Sometimes it is comically fast.

A lot of times what we think is a great coach with a great system can just be a team with a great goalie. Sometimes a bad coach can be an otherwise good team that is getting crushed by an underperforming goalie.

It is not just fans or media that get caught in this trap. Sometimes the teams themselves — the people that get paid significant amounts of money to make these decisions — get caught up in it as well. Sometimes they make a change too quickly and discard a good coach because the goalie isn’t stopping shots they should be stopping, or because pucks simply aren’t going in the net for too long of a stretch. Or, perhaps even worse, they can hang on too long because a superstar goalie is masking all of the team’s deficiencies.

After going through the entire 2017-18 season without a single in-season coaching change, the Los Angeles Kings decided to go in a different direction on Sunday afternoon when they fired John Stevens and replaced him with Willie Desjardins. As I wrote on Sunday night, I am not optimistic it is going to have the impact the Kings are hoping it will, and the whole thing just screams of desperation and a last-ditch effort to save what is already looking like a completely lost season.

[Related: Kings’ problems run far deeper than their coach]

That tends to be what happens with in-season coaching changes.

Sometimes, though, they are needed. Sometimes they do work.

In this week’s Power Rankings we take a look back at some of the best in-season coaching changes that did work.

I tried to look at this not just in terms of whether or not a team was able to win following the change, because again, sometimes it’s not always about the coach. Sometimes it is coincidental and circumstance.

I tried to look at it as which coaches actually made a tangible difference in the way a team played or the way a team went about its business.

Here we go.

1. Mike Sullivan (Pittsburgh) — The Mike Johnson era in Pittsburgh was, to say the least, forgettable.

Maybe even regrettable?

He managed to take a team with Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, Kris Letang, and — for a few months before his dismissal — Phil Kessel and made them painfully boring. They were not just producing mediocre results, they were awful to watch. He seems like a nice man. He seems like he has some good ideas and is a great fit in the Western Hockey League developing young players. But he was completely out of his element in the NHL, and after needing a win on the final day of the regular season in 2014-15 just to get in the playoffs, the Penguins were 28 games in to the 2015-16 season under Johnston and looking even worse. They were on the outside of the playoff picture. They were near the bottom of the league in shot attempt differential and scoring chance differential. They just looked … awful.

Finally, on Dec. 11, general manager Jim Rutherford pulled the plug on what was his first major decision running the team (hiring Johnston) and replaced his coach with Mike Sullivan.

It was like two different teams.

After Sullivan took control behind the bench the Penguins almost instantly transformed into one of the most dominant possession and scoring chances teams in the league (going from 22nd to 2nd in shot attempt differential, seeing an eight percent jump in their overall Corsi percentage) and overwhelmed teams with a fierce, swarming attack built on speed and skating. Sullivan was aided by having a few changes to the roster, but the overall change in approach was striking. The Penguins went on to win the Stanley Cup in 2015-16 under Sullivan, and then again in 2016-17.

This entire scenario is very similar to what played out during the 2008-09 season when the Penguins replaced Michel Therrien with Dan Bylsma.

The Therrien-led Penguins had completely fizzled out and were going nowhere. They were getting outplayed, outshot, outchanced, and in danger of missing the playoffs after reaching the Stanley Cup Final the year before. Bylsma’s arrival in Pittsburgh produced a similar and immediate turnaround.

2. Joel Quenneville (Chicago) — Like the Penguins around the same time period, the Chicago Blackhawks went through a lengthy rebuild that saw them consistently finish near the bottom of the league and stockpile top draft picks. At the start of the 2008-09 season the Blackhawks were a young, promising team that had a solid core in place but were still mostly irrelevant in the Chicago sports scene. They had made the playoffs once in the previous 10 years, while fans were still disillusioned with the team following the Bill Wirtz era when he prohibited home games from being shown on local television and raised ticket prices to near the top of the league despite the fact the on-ice product completely stunk.

Still, there was promise!

Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Patrick Sharp, Brent Seabrook, and Duncan Keith looked like the foundation of a potentially great team. The team spent big in free agency to lure players like Brian Campbell and later Marian Hossa.

But the team still wasn’t winning. It wasn’t where it needed to be even with the influx of young talent and the financial commitment from ownership.

So after two year of mediocrity under Denis Savard and a 1-2-1 start to the 2008-09 season, the Blackhawks replaced him with Quenneville who had joined the organization that summer as a scout.

Quenneville hadn’t yet won a Stanley Cup at that point but was remarkably successful with every team he had coached, and was coming off of a trip to the second-round of the playoffs with the Colorado Avalanche.

He turned out to be the missing piece for the Blackhawks’ rebuild and in his first year helped lead them to the Western Conference Final.

The next year they won their first of three Stanley Cups under his watch.

3. Bruce Boudreau (Washington and Anaheim) — Bruce Boudreau’s coaching career can be somewhat of a punchline because he has never made it out of the second round in the NHL, and because his teams have a disturbing knack for losing Game 7s or blowing series they are seemingly in control of.

And yes, all of those things count and matter when telling the story of Boudreau’s career. What also matters is that even with all of that he is still a hell of a coach and has twice helped turn around teams that were going nowhere.

He first did it in Washington during the 2007-08 season when he took over for Glen Hanlon after his two-and-a-half uninspiring seasons. What made Hanlon’s tenure so disappointing is that this was the very beginning of the Alex Ovechkin era. They were coming out of a complete teardown of the organization, were bottom dwellers for a couple of years, but had a true superstar talent they could build around. They needed to win with him. In his first two years the Capitals were a 70-point team each year, and nearly a quarter of the way through season three were on track to actually regress with one of the game’s biggest and brightest young superstars on the team. You think the Oilers are wasting Connor McDavid‘s early years? They had nothing on Glen Hanlon’s tenure with Alex Ovechkin in Washington.

Finally, in early December, the Capitals brought in Boudreau, their championship winning AHL coach to try and turn things around. He immediately proceeded to turn the Capitals’ young star players loose. The team finished the 2007-08 season playing at a 108-point pace, then won 104 regular season games over the next two years. The Capitals were not only relevant again, they were one of the absolute best teams in the league. And the most exciting. It never resulted in a championship, but the change was needed and successful and made the team a force.

Boudreau’s run in Washington ultimately ended early in the 2011-12 season when the team had stalled out after repeated early postseason exits.

He was not out of work for long.

Just a few days after being fired by the Capitals, the Anaheim Ducks, who had won just seven of their first 24 games, fired Randy Carlyle and replaced him with Boudreau. At the time the Ducks were unspeakably lousy, and just like every Randy Carlyle coached team ever were getting absolutely obliterated on the shot and scoring chance charts. They weren’t an unlucky team; they were a bad team. Almost immediately after the hiring of Boudreau the Ducks’ pace of play, style of play, and quality of play dramatically increased as they went from one of the worst possession teams in the league, to one that was suddenly flirting with the top-10. The team didn’t just improve, there was a notable change in how they played.

4. Larry Robinson (New Jersey) — The Lou Lamoriello New Jersey Devils were really something to watch because they not only won a lot, but also because Lamoriello was a complete madman in the front office that changed coaches whenever he damn well felt like it. Just consider the six year run between 1997 and 2003 when the Devils won two Stanley Cups and three Conference titles … while changing coaches four different times.

One of the most notable changes came late in the 1999-00 season when, with eight games remaining in the season and the Devils owning a 41-25-8 record, Lamoriello fired coach Robbie Ftorek and replaced him with Larry Robinson.

It was stunning because the Devils were in first place. They were Stanley Cup contenders. But nobody was happy with Ftorek. His players hated him for a lack of communication and what were described as “boot-camp practices.”

Lamoriello wasn’t happy because he “didn’t see the light at the end of the tunnel” and didn’t think they were going to pull out of a late-season slump that saw them go 5-9-2 in Ftorek’s final 16 games.

But let’s focus on the players hating him, because wow did they really hate him. Everyone that left New Jersey during Ftorek’s time behind the bench had a parting shot to deliver on their way out the door, while long-time Devils defender Ken Daneyko was one of the holdover players to speak out in support of a change.

“Let’s face it, it’s about winning,” defenseman Ken Daneyko said via the Sun Sentinnel. “Management didn’t feel the team was on the right track. Unfortunately, we didn’t have that slump in the middle, we had it at the end. [Ftorek] wasn’t getting the most out of us of late. The players weren’t responding to him. I’m not a guy who throws stones. I take things like a man. … At times you have to be adjustable and willing to change. I don’t know if Robbie was willing to change.”

So what did the Devils do under Larry Robinson? They went on to win the Stanley Cup that season, dominated the Eastern Conference the following year and were a Game 7 loss in Colorado away form winning a second consecutive Stanley Cup.

Unfortunately for Larry Robinson he, too, would eventually be one of the many Devils coaches to get fired in the middle of a season under Lamoriello getting the axe 51 games into the 2001-02 season .. only to eventually come back in 2005-06, only to resign midway through the season citing health issues.

Even if the only thing Robinson did was “don’t be hated and loathed by your entire team” that was still a massive improvement over the Robbie Ftorek era, and enough to be one of the most successful in-season coaching changes in recent memory.

5. Pat Quinn (Vancouver) — Throughout the late 1980s the Vancouver Canucks were largely irrelevant, consistently finishing in last place in the Smythe Division under coach Bob McCammon. After nearly full season of irrelevance, the Canucks fired McCammon late in the 1990-91 season and replaced him with Pat Quinn.

This was already a bizarre situation given the way Quinn joined the Canucks.

Quinn had already been in the organization serving as the team’s general manager since the 1987-88 season, but was restricted from coaching until the 1990-91 following a dispute with the Los Angeles Kings.

You see, Quinn had agreed to join the Canucks while he was still under contract with the Kings, arguing that Los Angeles had missed a deadline option on his contract that allowed him to negotiate with other teams. NHL president John Zeigler’s solution to all of this was to not allow Quinn to take over the Canucks’ front office operations until after the season, and to not allow him to coach until the 1990-91 season.

Once Quinn was allowed to coach again, he made an immediate impact on the Canucks. They saw significant improvement in the second half of the season under Quinn, and with largely the same roster (with the significant addition of a young hot-shot rookie named Pavel Bure in 1991-92) the organization did a complete 180 and became a playoff team in all three of his full seasons behind the bench. That run included a trip to the 1994 Stanley Cup Final where they would ultimately lose in Game 7 to the New York Rangers.

6. Daryl Sutter (Los Angeles) — One of the recent in-season coaching changes to result in a championship that very season. And just like the examples of Mike Sullivan and Dan Bylsma in Pittsburgh, the Kings saw a pretty significant improvement in their overall play under Sutter. It is not that the Kings were necessarily a bad team prior to his arrival, but they weren’t really anything special. They didn’t have the look of a Stanley Cup contender or play like one. They were decent, they were improving, but they needed someone to push them to the next level. Under Sutter the Kings became one of the NHL’s most dominant puck possession teams and one of the stingiest defenses in the league. In his first three years behind the bench they won two Stanley Cups and were a Western Conference Finalist in the one year they did not reach the Final.

7. Bruce Cassidy (Boston Bruins) — I almost didn’t include this one from the 2016-17 season because even though the Bruins’ stalled out under Claude Julien toward the end of his tenure, they were still a pretty good team, and a lot of their shortcomings in 2015-16 and 2016-17 were more related poor decisions from the front office than anything Julien was or was not doing. And in the year where Julien was actually fired and replaced by Cassidy, the Bruins were doing a lot of good things. They were controlling the play, they were near the top of the league in possession and shot metrics, they were just getting crushed by percentages. But I also think there is a little bit of truth to the idea that after a decade a coach’s message can get stale and there might be a need for a change. And Cassidy has been outstanding for the Bruins since taking over.

MORE: Your 2018-19 NHL on NBC TV schedule

Adam Gretz is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @AGretz.

Will NHL reduce Tom Wilson’s 20-game suspension?

8 Comments

Tom Wilson will get a chance to state his case to reduce his 20-game suspension via an appeal hearing with the NHL on Thursday, a process Bob McKenzie discusses in the video above this post’s headline.

To catch you up to speed, note that this is part of the appeal process where Wilson brings his case to Gary Bettman. After that, Wilson also has the option to bring his case to an independent arbitrator.

Wednesday’s New York Rangers – Washington Capitals game represents the sixth of 20 games. Note that Wilson loses more than $60K for every game he’s suspended for, so a reduction in his sentence could mean a lot of dough for the polarizing hitter.

What are his chances of getting a lighter punishment, then? As McKenzie notes, they aren’t great, particularly when it comes to Bettman cutting down a suspension.

That said, there are two cases worth noting:

  • Raffi Torres’ hit on Marian HossaIn July 2012, Wilson-like hitter Torres saw a 25-game suspension fall to 21 games for his check on Marian Hossa. This is probably the most directly comparable situation, at least when you consider the types of hits and the rap sheet for the players involved.
  • In June 2014, Dan Carcillo saw an “abuse of official” suspension reduced from 10 games to six.

Now, a neutral arbitrator might be more likely to ease the duration of Wilson’s suspension. Consider these two cases, which aren’t necessarily directly comparable:

All things considered, it’s easy to see why Wilson would go through this process. It’s quite plausible that he’ll get back into the lineup sooner and lose less money from the suspension, even if it’s not fair to call the possibility “likely.”

MORE: Your 2018-19 NHL on NBC TV schedule

James O’Brien is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @cyclelikesedins.