Thread: Extend Greening
View Single Post
Old
09-08-2012, 08:35 PM
  #36
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xspyrit View Post
29 y/o is pretty damn young... unless I'm getting too old I dont know

I don't think being 29 y/o will affect a guy like Smith to score more or less. It goes more with opportunity IMO, role on the team, younger guys taking more space...

It's weird to talk about "offensive prime" when talking about bottom 6ers...

The decline is more in the mid 30's. However, young stars and elite players will score the most of their careers in their mid 20's I agree



And that's my next point. Chris Neil is actually the first guy I thought about...


2001-02 72 10 7 17
2002-03 68 6 4 10
2003-04 82 8 8 16
2004-05 22 4 6 10
2005-06 79 16 17 33
2006-07 82 12 16 28

2007-08 68 6 14 20
2008-09 60 3 7 10
2009-10 68 10 12 22
2010-11 80 6 10 16
2011-12 72 13 15 28

Now if you put it in paces per 82 games

2001-02 82 11 8 19
2002-03 82 7 5 12
2003-04 82 8 8 16
2005-06 82 16 18 34
2006-07 82 12 16 28

2007-08 82 7 17 24
2008-09 82 4 10 14
2009-10 82 12 14 26
2010-11 82 6 10 16
2011-12 82 15 17 32

Reality is more that Neil had "down seasons" in 2008-09 and 2010-11

And you know what? Those seasons are the same where the Sens struggled offensively... probably the only 2 years where the team wasn't among the best in NHL scoring in the last 15 years... Hartsburg and Clouston, no confidence in goaltending, no faith in the team potential success in a given season, etc will make you score less...

AND... The best Neil seasons (2005-06 & 2006-07) were during the high scoring years just after the lockout, NHL scoring has largely decreased since then. It was also when the Sens were easily the best offensive team in the league.

I think when you take that into account, best Neil offensive season was just last year.

And that's it. The only way to change somebody's opinion is to show them evidence. Then, they have to accept that evidence, of course.

So, do you agree?
Fair enough, as I've said, it's the 'common argument' but nobody has really done an in-depth analysis that controlled other variables.

That withstanding, you can still use your argument (playing time, role on team, offensive abilities of the team as a whole) against Greening here. How likely is it that Greening gets chances to play alongside Spezza and in the top-6 going forward? How likely is it that this team is consistently one of the top teams in the league offensively every year? How likely is it that Greening plays a full 82 games every year going forward? How likely is it that he repeats his 46 pt season?

I think signing Greening for four years now would be a bad idea, simply because Greening's production would probably command more money (could see him get up to 3M per). It'd make the contract more risky than Smith's contract.

__________________
CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
CanadianHockey is offline   Reply With Quote