Our next head coach

[Triumph]

Agreed on the Coyotes.

 

So you are saying that Scrivens's decrease is entirely random?

 

How about Dubnyk? He was .916 on the Coyotes. He's .939 on the Wild. Same season. How about Fasth in his first season on the Ducks and this one? This is not to say that save percentage is often not a good indicator of strength of goalie, but that sometimes it isn't, and the quality of the team can affect save percentage....to a degree, of course.

 

To me Mike Smith's .903 this year, is a lot more commendable than Kari Lehtonen's .907.

 

I don't know why Ben Scrivens has such a poor save percentage this year.  The quality of a team has not been shown to have a significant effect on goalie save percentage.  Viktor Fasth had all of 30 games in the NHL - it's not hard for a mediocre goalie to put together a good 30 game stretch.  Devan Dubnyk had 140 games of being a perfectly average goalie save percentage wise until his collapse last year, and Edmonton sucked all of those years, so why did it happen then?  

 

There's a ton of chance involved with whether or not a shot goes in.  Schneider is showing this year that a garbage team can have a goalie with a great save percentage, and Sabres teams of the past showed this about Dominik Hasek.

[mfitz804]

Simple formula. Figure out who the top 3 available coaches are. Figure out which is the most defense oriented, and has the best track record.

Then we'll hire someone less eligible.

[coldply123]

He's hands on with players, recommending stick changes and whatnot.  I don't see how these skills translate to GMing at all.  In addition, most GMs currently employed in the league weren't assistant coaches or coaches - that's not generally the track to moving upstairs anymore (if it ever was).

 

He wants to be an executive.

[Neb00rs]

I don't know why Ben Scrivens has such a poor save percentage this year.  The quality of a team has not been shown to have a significant effect on goalie save percentage.  Viktor Fasth had all of 30 games in the NHL - it's not hard for a mediocre goalie to put together a good 30 game stretch.  Devan Dubnyk had 140 games of being a perfectly average goalie save percentage wise until his collapse last year, and Edmonton sucked all of those years, so why did it happen then?  

 

There's a ton of chance involved with whether or not a shot goes in.  Schneider is showing this year that a garbage team can have a goalie with a great save percentage, and Sabres teams of the past showed this about Dominik Hasek.

 

Oh don't get me wrong, I absolutely think save percentage CAN be a great indicator of how good a goalie is. In Cory's case, it obviously is. He is playing with young defensemen in front of him and for a team that allows a lot of shots. That's why I have touted his save percentage #'s as much or more than anyone. Most of the time I think save percentage can tell you the quality of a goalie. But I think on the most horrendous teams, goalies' numbers can misrepresent their skill. I have watched a lot of Buffalo and some Arizona this year, they both often look like AHL teams in front of their goalie. You see teams just dance around them in their zone. Again, I think quality of team can (but not necessarily) alter save percentage to an extant. The amount to which it affects save percentage, well...I'll leave that up for debate because I really can't claim to know.

 

Also, I should mention that I think that a goalie moving to a worse team, where there is an increase in shots against, can also boost his Sv%. For instance, I think playing for the Stars is just a bad situation for goalies. In 10 GP this year for the Stars, Lindback had an .875 Sv%. In 11 GP for the Sabres, he has a .926. Conversely, Enroth had a .903 Sv% on the Sabres, and on the Stars, he's currently sporting a .877.

 

Goalies do not just randomly go from being an .875 goalie, to being a .926 goalie in a matter of games.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Neb00rs

[vadvlfan]

John Tortorella .......of course!

[Triumph]

Oh don't get me wrong, I absolutely think save percentage CAN be a great indicator of how good a goalie is. In Cory's case, it obviously is. He is playing with young defensemen in front of him and for a team that allows a lot of shots. That's why I have touted his save percentage #'s as much or more than anyone. Most of the time I think save percentage can tell you the quality of a goalie. But I think on the most horrendous teams, goalies' numbers can misrepresent their skill. I have watched a lot of Buffalo and some Arizona this year, they both often look like AHL teams in front of their goalie. You see teams just dance around them in their zone. Again, I think quality of team can (but not necessarily) alter save percentage to an extant. The amount to which it affects save percentage, well...I'll leave that up for debate because I really can't claim to know.

 

Also, I should mention that I think that a goalie moving to a worse team, where there is an increase in shots against, can also boost his Sv%. For instance, I think playing for the Stars is just a bad situation for goalies. In 10 GP this year for the Stars, Lindback had an .875 Sv%. In 11 GP for the Sabres, he has a .926. Conversely, Enroth had a .903 Sv% on the Sabres, and on the Stars, he's currently sporting a .877.

 

Goalies do not just randomly go from being an .875 goalie, to being a .926 goalie in a matter of games.

 

Sure they do.  Brodeur's done it in the course of one season, and so has Hedberg.  There's a ton of luck in goaltending.

[devilsrule33]

Oh don't get me wrong, I absolutely think save percentage CAN be a great indicator of how good a goalie is. In Cory's case, it obviously is. He is playing with young defensemen in front of him and for a team that allows a lot of shots. That's why I have touted his save percentage #'s as much or more than anyone. Most of the time I think save percentage can tell you the quality of a goalie. But I think on the most horrendous teams, goalies' numbers can misrepresent their skill. I have watched a lot of Buffalo and some Arizona this year, they both often look like AHL teams in front of their goalie. You see teams just dance around them in their zone. Again, I think quality of team can (but not necessarily) alter save percentage to an extant. The amount to which it affects save percentage, well...I'll leave that up for debate because I really can't claim to know.

 

Also, I should mention that I think that a goalie moving to a worse team, where there is an increase in shots against, can also boost his Sv%. For instance, I think playing for the Stars is just a bad situation for goalies. In 10 GP this year for the Stars, Lindback had an .875 Sv%. In 11 GP for the Sabres, he has a .926. Conversely, Enroth had a .903 Sv% on the Sabres, and on the Stars, he's currently sporting a .877.

 

Goalies do not just randomly go from being an .875 goalie, to being a .926 goalie in a matter of games.

 

Name a goalie that has struggled on a bad team, and done better on a good team or vise versa, and I can give you one that stayed consistent or stayed consistent with the average goalie fluctuation from season to season. We had a similar conversation awhile back, so I am just copying and pasting what I did then...

 

Osgood's entire career where his numbers in NY and St Louis were right on par with the numbers he had with the great Detroit Red Wings. Look at goalies who played on expansion teams like Dunham, Tugnutt, Denis and Fernandez, and compare their numbers before, and after. Look at some of the best goalies to play the game like Hasek, Belfour and  Joseph, and see that none of them had better save percentages when they were on the better teams.

Edited March 31, 2015 by devilsrule33

[Pepperkorn]

So we want a goalie to be our next head coach.  Thanks  -- glad we're all on point here.

[Pepperkorn]

In case there's any confusion -- Crasher divergence = good    Diverging into totally off topic non-hockey related is fine because it's very easy to ignore.

 

This constant divergence from the thread point that IS INDEED hockey related just in a completely different off topic way is just suckville -- the board is unreadable and it's CONSTANT here.

[DJ Eco]

John Tortorella .......of course!

 

People might kill me for this, but I think he'd actually work for us, given the lineup we'll be icing 2015-2016. I mean, the Rangers team he had to work with at the time had just as many holes in their roster as we'll have next year, but under him, very young guys like Stepan, McDonaugh, Zuccarello, Kreider, and Hagelin began to take shape. They had about every right to make the ECF in 2012 as we did, and I mean that in the underdog sense. He made some spare pieces work. I think he fell out of favor the more skilled the Rangers became, ironically enough.

 

He's not the best choice, but I'd prefer him over giving Oates the job... I think he'd really kill it with our young D with Stevens by his side.

Edited March 31, 2015 by DJ Eco

[Pepperkorn]

You know,  I just dont think Tortorella is that smart.

 

He gets to a point then rather than stepping back he ruins it.  and it's a choice.  It's a choice he likes and thinks is part of who he is.  So really -- the coaching is about HIM -- that's the problem with him.  Because that's the fatal flaw.  It's usually everyone's and why Lou likes milquetoast so much.  People think that surrendering to success SUCCESSES way is weak.  they try to bend winning to their own will their own idea of what will work.  Hockey is hockey and it's your job to be hockey's bitch     Until you surrender to that you're stuck - you stagnate.

[Pepperkorn]

The problem with Oates and Stevens is too great a respect for hockey.

 

Dudes - hockey talks one-on-one yes -- this is a truth.

 

But hockey can't coach a team -- that's your job and what you are learning. 

 

Does this team have time for that?  can either step up?  Nothing else is out there that appears to comprehend the situation.  Maybe a Babcock would?  Honestly there are some guys out there, but it's hard to read and relate really to who they are.  You sort of get a feel ... but maybe that's fabricated and maybe it's not right for this team?

 

 

EDITED!!

The reason I get annoyed with the board is that so many people are setting organizational goals up as a moving target – which is like puck chasing.  You just can't do that, no mater how tempting -- Hockey is hockey and the hockey of 70s is the same as of the 80s and the 90s etc etc.  It's not a moving target and to run things that way is to lose.  I think it was rather being run that way though Lou resisted.  He had no free reign under vanderbeek.  He keeps jovial and works with what is given to the best of his abilities.  If Lou is driven out of hockey that's hockey's loss -- and it's no victory for fans. 

 

“Lou’s system doesn’t work now” – well why is that?  What’s new – well it must be hockey is new.  WRONG!  Management -- ownership is new.  Lou has answered to several different people.  Van der beek seems to be the one that messed it all up.  Makes sense too.  Sure his heart was sort of in the right place.  Lou plays the hand he’s dealt and doesn’t bitch to you and I about it.  Anyhow… I can go on and on – but that’s what bugs me.  People are saying you have to change with the times.  Hockey doesn’t change with the times.  It just doesn’t unless the NHL tries to change it on purpose to ruin your game.  Lou knows hockey so well they did that.  What so now he doesn’t?  There haven’t been that many rule changes yet. 

 

(marty think “Hey!  No WAY – I know hockey that well – it was ME!  MEEE!”  *hmmph*)

.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Pepperkorn

[jagknife]

The problem with Oates and Stevens is too great a respect for hockey.

 

Dudes - hockey talks one-on-one yes -- this is a truth.

 

But hockey can't coach a team -- that's your job and what you are learning. 

 

Does this team have time for that?  can either step up?  Nothing else is out there that appears to comprehend the situation.  Maybe a Babcock would?  Honestly there are some guys out there, but it's hard to read and relate really to who they are.  You sort of get a feel ... but maybe that's fabricated and maybe it's not right for this team?

 

 

EDITED!!

The reason I get annoyed with the board is that so many people are setting organizational goals up as a moving target – which is like puck chasing.  You just can't do that, no mater how tempting -- Hockey is hockey and the hockey of 70s is the same as of the 80s and the 90s etc etc.  It's not a moving target and to run things that way is to lose.  I think it was rather being run that way though Lou resisted.  He had no free reign under vanderbeek.  He keeps jovial and works with what is given to the best of his abilities.  If Lou is driven out of hockey that's hockey's loss -- and it's no victory for fans. 

 

“Lou’s system doesn’t work now” – well why is that?  What’s new – well it must be hockey is new.  WRONG!  Management -- ownership is new.  Lou has answered to several different people.  Van der beek seems to be the one that messed it all up.  Makes sense too.  Sure his heart was sort of in the right place.  Lou plays the hand he’s dealt and doesn’t bitch to you and I about it.  Anyhow… I can go on and on – but that’s what bugs me.  People you have t change with the times.  Hockey doesn’t change with the times.  It just doesn’t unless the NHL tries to change it on purpose to ruin your game.  Lou knows hockey so well they did that.  What so now he doesn’t?  There haven’t been that many rule changes yet. 

 

(marty think “Hey!  No WAY – I know hockey that well – ti’s was ME!  MEEE!”  *hmmph*)

.

 

See Pep, I dont see it the way you do. I see it as the game did in fact evolve. It went from a league where the bump and grind and defensive styles could dominate the league. That was when we were at our peak. Then the lockouts happened. The game became more dependant upon speed and skill. In my very humble opinion, Lou tried to remain focused on his gameplan, building defensive based teams first. Sure, we had glimmers of speed and offense first, but when times got rough, through no fault of Lous [i.e. - Parise, Kovalsuck], he went back to what he knew: got older players who used to be able to play the style he wants until he acquired Schneider and Camm.

 

Sure, we're a mere 3 years removed from a finals trip but we're also coming to the end of yet another season without the playoffs. I'm glad we had the success of the 90s'-00's and I was really glad I personally got to witness down years before the, dare I say, dynasty. But I am also tired of being nostalgic and watching people use the past as reasons for hope in the future. My aggrivations really took off when Schneider came in, had "down" games, and people are all for bringing Marty back because he was what they all knew as the face of winning. I feel as though many do the same thing when it comes to Lou and banging the old "in Lou we Trust" mantra still echoes loudly today. The problem, is that I just dont have the same faith in Lou as I once did. I feel as though he has become a predictable GM and is set in his ways that he knows best, meanwhile he has no results recently to support the, pardon my phrasing here, but sheer arrogance.

 

The game itself does not change, but the style of play absolutely does evolve. Unfortunately, I feel our GM has started to prove he is unwilling to adapt to the ever evolving game.

[Pepperkorn]

I agree to a point -- from what I saw though, Lou's hands were tied and teams weren't playing ball and the team could not afford crazy free agent signings... gave it a shot with Kovalchuk.

 

The only gripe would be the drafting.

 

Mean and slow was never a way to build a team -- it's a style but it's not hockey.  The Devils never ascribed to that - Neidermayer?  Really?  The scoring came from the crash line?  The A-line was slow handed?  Nahh.... "Devils Hockey" slowness comes not from lack of skill and speed, but over-thinking.  I can't fault Lou for liking smart players... though I dont like that he does sacrifice skill for brains.  BRAINS mind you not hockey sense.

 

Well, yeah, no, I don't think Sal has brains or hockey sense.  I don't understand those keepers.  I can't hack Steven Gionta.  These guys kill me.  BUT -- I see nothing to replace them with that we can actually get or that won't poison the mindset.  and I am still so disappointed in Marty's lack of vision and humility.  I feel he did earn some respect and patience -- but his stupid obtuse demands could not have come at a worse time.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Pepperkorn

[Triumph]

See Pep, I dont see it the way you do. I see it as the game did in fact evolve. It went from a league where the bump and grind and defensive styles could dominate the league. That was when we were at our peak. Then the lockouts happened. The game became more dependant upon speed and skill. In my very humble opinion, Lou tried to remain focused on his gameplan, building defensive based teams first. Sure, we had glimmers of speed and offense first, but when times got rough, through no fault of Lous [i.e. - Parise, Kovalsuck], he went back to what he knew: got older players who used to be able to play the style he wants until he acquired Schneider and Camm.

 

Sure, we're a mere 3 years removed from a finals trip but we're also coming to the end of yet another season without the playoffs. I'm glad we had the success of the 90s'-00's and I was really glad I personally got to witness down years before the, dare I say, dynasty. But I am also tired of being nostalgic and watching people use the past as reasons for hope in the future. My aggrivations really took off when Schneider came in, had "down" games, and people are all for bringing Marty back because he was what they all knew as the face of winning. I feel as though many do the same thing when it comes to Lou and banging the old "in Lou we Trust" mantra still echoes loudly today. The problem, is that I just dont have the same faith in Lou as I once did. I feel as though he has become a predictable GM and is set in his ways that he knows best, meanwhile he has no results recently to support the, pardon my phrasing here, but sheer arrogance.

 

The game itself does not change, but the style of play absolutely does evolve. Unfortunately, I feel our GM has started to prove he is unwilling to adapt to the ever evolving game.

 

I'm not really buying any of this.  The game hasn't changed considerably.  Penalties are at an all-time low, with referees swallowing their whistles nightly - clutch and grab isn't like how it was in the 2000s, but it's there.  Defense still wins - we saw this last year as the playoff teams were by and large the teams that gave up the fewest shots.  We're seeing this again this year.  There's obviously a few bad moves in the last few years, but Lou isn't out of touch with what wins hockey games.  Those Devils teams in the 90s and 2000s were loaded with offensive talent - they may have played a defensive game, but they had outstanding forwards most of the time.

 

Lou has a few problems - the biggest one is probably coming this year with his insistence on not giving performance bonuses - NJ isn't going to draft a Swedish player that they can cow into not taking bonuses.  I wonder how many UDFAs he's lost out on because he refuses to do this.  The other issue is that he doesn't really have the whole 'winning organization' thing to fall back on - the Devils are just another team now, and it's tough to justify those sorts of rules when you're a regular organization.  I'm not 100% convinced that Lou has it in him to do the right thing - to basically plan as if 2015-16 will be a repeat of this year and to go upwards from there - but he hasn't shown that he's 'lost it' either.

[thecoffeecake]

Don Cherry, just so I can hear him talk about how Tootoo is a decent player when his Manitoba side shows up.

[Mitico12]

How different can a new chef make an omlette when he's using the same expired eggs?

[Neb00rs]

Sure they do.  Brodeur's done it in the course of one season, and so has Hedberg.  There's a ton of luck in goaltending.

 

And in this case, clearly goalies' Sv% moves down on the Stars, and up on the Sabres.

 

Name a goalie that has struggled on a bad team, and done better on a good team or vise versa, and I can give you one that stayed consistent or stayed consistent with the average goalie fluctuation from season to season. We had a similar conversation awhile back, so I am just copying and pasting what I did then...

 

Osgood's entire career where his numbers in NY and St Louis were right on par with the numbers he had with the great Detroit Red Wings. Look at goalies who played on expansion teams like Dunham, Tugnutt, Denis and Fernandez, and compare their numbers before, and after. Look at some of the best goalies to play the game like Hasek, Belfour and  Joseph, and see that none of them had better save percentages when they were on the better teams.

 

If you read through what I wrote, I didn't disagree with this. I think that most of the time save percentage is a good indicator of goalie quality, and it is always an indicator of goalie quality to some degree. But there are also cases, as pointed out, in which moving to a different team is the beginning of a significant rise or fall in Sv%.

 

Chad Johnson is another one. .925 last year on the Bruins, .889 this year on the Islanders. Al Montoya had a .920 last year on the Jets, this year he has an .888 on the Panthers. Dubnyk, Enroth, Lindback, Scrivens, Fasth. All have faced huge jumps or spikes in Sv% after changing teams. Mike Smith's shot down as the Coyotes went from playoff team to AHL powerhouse. There things are not just coincidences. 

Edited March 31, 2015 by Neb00rs

[Triumph]

And in this case, clearly goalies' Sv% moves down on the Stars, and up on the Sabres.

 

 

If you read through what I wrote, I didn't disagree with this. I think that most of the time save percentage is a good indicator of goalie quality, and it is always an indicator of goalie quality to some degree. But there are also cases, as pointed out, in which moving to a different team is the beginning of a significant rise or fall in Sv%.

 

Chad Johnson is another one. .925 last year on the Bruins, .889 this year on the Islanders. Al Montoya had a .920 last year on the Jets, this year he has an .888 on the Panthers. Dubnyk, Enroth, Lindback, Scrivens, Fasth. All have faced huge jumps or spikes in Sv% after changing teams. Mike Smith's shot down as the Coyotes went from playoff team to AHL powerhouse. There things are not just coincidences. 

 

Sure they are - they're riddled with survivorship bias.  A team gets rid of a goalie because he's bad (or in Buffalo's case, acquires him because of that).  These are all tiny samples and it's not hard to look bad or good in tiny samples.  If goalie save percentage fluctuated as much as you think with these samples, we would see it have a much wider spread league-wide, and we would expect giant leaps and valleys among starters every year as well.  We don't really see this - every so often an average goalie goes off and has a great year, as we're probably seeing with Dubnyk right now.  

 

Mike Smith's save percentage has improved as his team got considerably worse.  Anyway, you'll never be convinced, it's clear from the above that you have some ideas about how probabiliity works that are A: not correct and B: unshakeable.  I don't think it's something inborn necessarily but it's something that takes a lot of effort to root out from one's self.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Triumph

[Neb00rs]

Sure they are - they're riddled with survivorship bias.  A team gets rid of a goalie because he's bad (or in Buffalo's case, acquires him because of that).  These are all tiny samples and it's not hard to look bad or good in tiny samples.  If goalie save percentage fluctuated as much as you think with these samples, we would see it have a much wider spread league-wide, and we would expect giant leaps and valleys among starters every year as well.  We don't really see this - every so often an average goalie goes off and has a great year, as we're probably seeing with Dubnyk right now.  

 

Mike Smith's save percentage has improved as his team got considerably worse.  Anyway, you'll never be convinced, it's clear from the above that you have some ideas about how probabiliity works that are A: not correct and B: unshakeable.  I don't think it's something inborn necessarily but it's something that takes a lot of effort to root out from one's self.

 

Yes, and Dubnyk's year magically got a lot better after his move to the Wild.

 

Hey, I don't feel like you have shown anything substantial to show me that teams can affect save percentage to a certain degree. So of course I am not convinced. To you of course I am 'unshakeable', in other words, I won't just 'listen to you'. Unless of course you were expecting me just to stop responding because YOU think the debate is over. That's not how it works, and that last line of yours is just kind of well...immature. You haven't posted anything so redoubtable as to change anyone's mind. 

[slasher72]

I'm not really buying any of this. The game hasn't changed considerably. Penalties are at an all-time low, with referees swallowing their whistles nightly - clutch and grab isn't like how it was in the 2000s, but it's there. Defense still wins - we saw this last year as the playoff teams were by and large the teams that gave up the fewest shots. We're seeing this again this year. There's obviously a few bad moves in the last few years, but Lou isn't out of touch with what wins hockey games. Those Devils teams in the 90s and 2000s were loaded with offensive talent - they may have played a defensive game, but they had outstanding forwards most of the time.

Lou has a few problems - the biggest one is probably coming this year with his insistence on not giving performance bonuses - NJ isn't going to draft a Swedish player that they can cow into not taking bonuses. I wonder how many UDFAs he's lost out on because he refuses to do this. The other issue is that he doesn't really have the whole 'winning organization' thing to fall back on - the Devils are just another team now, and it's tough to justify those sorts of rules when you're a regular organization. I'm not 100% convinced that Lou has it in him to do the right thing - to basically plan as if 2015-16 will be a repeat of this year and to go upwards from there - but he hasn't shown that he's 'lost it' either.

As a very minor example, some in the organization suggested coming up with a third jersey as a way to help generate revenue, and Lou shut it down saying absolutely not. Yes, that's not important in the grand scheme of things but Lou runs the organization as if he owns it. He dictates the style of play, demands players and coaches adapt to his system, refuses to implement changes to the system, and micromanages the coaches. As for his drafting, it's been sub par (yes, we haven't picked in the top 10 but neither have the Rangers). And his free agent moves, outside of Cammy and Jagr, leave a lot to be desired (go back 10 years and see how many duds we've had). The game may not be passing him by but he's sure as hell not convincing anyone that he's at the forefront either. Edited April 1, 2015 by slasher72

[Triumph]

Yes, and Dubnyk's year magically got a lot better after his move to the Wild.

 

Hey, I don't feel like you have shown anything substantial to show me that teams can affect save percentage to a certain degree. So of course I am not convinced. To you of course I am 'unshakeable', in other words, I won't just 'listen to you'. Unless of course you were expecting me just to stop responding because YOU think the debate is over. That's not how it works, and that last line of yours is just kind of well...immature. You haven't posted anything so redoubtable as to change anyone's mind. 

 

I haven't shown you anything substantial - I totally agree - but that's because it would take a lot of work to do that, and most people even when they see the evidence aren't convinced, because most people do not understand probability - it's not something innate to humanity and requires a leap of logic (in this instance, about the sheer randomness in hockey that persists even over several seasons) that most can't take.  I don't know where the articles are anymore that show this to be the case - Eric T had a good one on predicting save percentage that you will almost certainly say 'This has nothing to do with what we're talking about' even though it does.  So yes, in that sense I am attacking you for something that I don't know you would do, which is unfair, but I'm just using Bayes' Theorem as Eric T. suggests in that article.

[Pepperkorn]

Can we change Triumph from Mod to Vulcan? 

[Marshall]

 

Lou has a few problems - the biggest one is probably coming this year with his insistence on not giving performance bonuses - NJ isn't going to draft a Swedish player that they can cow into not taking bonuses.  I wonder how many UDFAs he's lost out on because he refuses to do this. 

 

I was actually thinking about this the other day but that explanation makes perfect sense. And made me sad.

 

Edit: are you sure about this btw? Asked a friend and he's dead certain Henrique has performance bonuses, same with Urbom, Gelinas.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Marshall

[Daniel]

I was actually thinking about this the other day but that explanation makes perfect sense. And made me sad.

 

Edit: are you sure about this btw? Asked a friend and he's dead certain Henrique has performance bonuses, same with Urbom, Gelinas.

 

I think Lou gives out bonuses for games played.  Just not for points, icetime, and the like.