Thread: Confirmed with Link: Brandon Prust to Montreal [4 years, $10M]
View Single Post
Old
07-07-2012, 11:48 PM
  #623
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blame it on PK View Post
Workforce "happiness" is something in which observation is difficult to do without asking the players in question through surveys or self-reports. And therein lies the problem. Players are very tight-lipped about what goes public and hence garnering evidence is difficult. Plus, sport psychology is still relatively new and hence a lot of things being studied are not quite conclusive yet.

Now, in a company, the "bottom line" would be what matters in making workers "happy", and yes the bottom line can be affected by addressing workers' needs. However, in hockey, there are many measures for the "bottom line", all of which can be interpreted ambiguously, and thus give an opening to those sophists who believe that stats alone can explain everything. These sophists are following the path of the behaviorists in psychology, believing that only what is observable--in fact, not even that, since stats do not keep all of the data you can see on video--is what can be "real".
very well explained... but those dogmatic about statistics, like religion, leave very little room for intelligent discussion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
The cook and wait staff? Hey, if they make 2.5mil for making enjoyable meals, good for them! I'm just glad they don't count against the cap.

There are plenty of hardworking players who give their all every practice, who don't make enough of an impact during games to find jobs. I'm sure it would be fun to have Begin hanging around the team. But, again, he'll have to make an impact during games for me to want him taking up cap space.

Yeah, there are enough players capable of being a 12th/13th/14th forward, that I'm sure off ice behaviour matters. But when you're debating the merits of bringing in players making more than a couple million, most of that money should be going towards measurable performance, if you're planning on icing a good team.
in a perfect, EAsports-like, world, you can build a roster made up of only the best production/effectiveness per dollar that you can find.

I don't think anyone has made a strong argument that Prust @ 2.5M$ is a "great" contract. We paid a premium, this much is a given wether or not you approve of the signing.

but that's the reality of the NHL. You don't successfully build a team by simply collecting ONLY the best contracts for each role you need on the team. You successfully build a team by putting together an effective roster under the cap.

My point, quite simply, is that the new leadership in our organization reviewed our situation, and decided that the attitude/character of the roster was an important element missing/needing change. Based on that assessment, they've targeted certain players, and been willing to pay a premium to get them.

It may fail. It may turn out to be a mistake. But no honest critique of their approach can ignore the reality that the Prust (or Bouillion) decisions are of a low risk nature. If Prust ends up a mistake, dealing with his 2.5M$ cap hit is FAR FAR FAR easier to manage than the 3.8 (spacek), 6 (Cammalleri), or 7.4 (Gomez) we've seen blow up in our face recently.

2.5M$... on a 70M$ cap. Is it a risk to pay Prust that much. YES. He will have to be the best version of what he has been as a pro (which he's only been in 2 seasons... though the 2 most recent), and perhaps even improve on that, to be "good value".

but even if he isn't "good value" at that cap hit, unlike Cammy, Spacek, or Gomez, even if he doesn't fully deliver in on-ice effectiveness, everything we've seen/heard about his impact on a team points to a personality that can/will have a positive effect even if his minutes drop from 11-12min/night to 9-10min/night.


Low risk... that's what 2.5M$ is in a 70M$ cap environment.

are there any other 3rd/4th line players in the league that could bring what he will/should bring to the organization at a smaller cap hit... I'm SURE of it.

are there any other that we had any chance of adding to our roster at LESS of a risk than the 4 yr/2.5M$ contract we gave prust? I'm SURE there weren't.


I'm generally not a fan of overpaying on the UFA market to fill roster needs... much prefer developing internally, or strategically targeting players via trade.

but when you can add a key roster piece at a cap hit that presents little/no risk, you do it.

argue/disagree about the philosophy/plan that Bergie is using...
complain if/when he makes moves that aren't consistent with his stated plan...

but to complain about a cap hit that is 500-750k above value, on a move that is self-explanatory given his stated objectives... that just seems a bit ridiculous to me.


how often did we hear gainey/gauthier kool-aid drinkers trying to argue that Gomez was a "need", so his cap hit was irrelevant???

yet some of those same posters are now complaining that Prust's 2.5M$ is a problem, without even considering, let alone acknowledging, the positive impact he "will" bring (or the positive impact management thinks he will bring... since right now, none of us know how good/bad he will be for us).

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote