Thread: Extend Greening
View Single Post
09-13-2012, 07:08 AM
Registered User
Xspyrit's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
Country: Monaco
Posts: 14,449
vCash: 1000
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
Fair enough, as I've said, it's the 'common argument' but nobody has really done an in-depth analysis that controlled other variables.
I'd do that analysis, for money though

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 hope we have better options than Greening for the top-6 going forward

I was curious, but look at that. This is the Team Scoring position for the Sens in the last decade

2000-01 : 3rd
2001-02 : 5th
2002-03 : 3rd
2003-04 : 1st
2005-06 : 1st
2006-07 : 2nd
2007-08 : 1st
2008-09 : 23rd
2009-10 : 15th
2010-11 : 29th
2011-12 : 4th

When somebody ask me to name a high scoring team in the NHL, I will answer the Sens. Go ask the main board for fun to name 10 high scoring NHL teams "without looking". Sens won't be in their answers very often...

Like the Pens, Wings and Flyers (just after that there's the Sharks, Caps and Canucks), Sens are always among the highest scoring teams (except a few down years but every team has some)

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.
Agreed, don't think we need to sign him now, so much competition coming up on the wings anyway

Originally Posted by McFist View Post
I'm not sure why you would bring up Jason Spezza when your original statement was about star players hitting their peak in their late twenties. Besides getting caught up on one example, I'm saying it doesn't stop at the gifted offensive players.
Simply because you said that since Neil's best back-to-back seasons in terms of offensive output (which is not really true as I evidenced) came when he was 26 & 27 years old... so does it mean that Spezza has declined since his best offensive outputs was in his early 20's?

My "original statement" like you said now is a different subject of the discussion...

And it's just not one example... It's easy to find several examples of different situations, there is no "universal rule" like it was initially implied. Some guys "peak" early in their careers, some do it later... It depends on so many other factors than age, making it a lot less important than the weight some people want to put on it...

For every example of players benefiting from overall team success, I can come back with an example of "middling" players who had their best offensive seasons from 25-30. I don't know how you can refute that.
Like I said, no "universal rule", it depends on so many factors (like team scoring, league scoring, health of the player, team's health, intra-division competition, personal life situation of the player, "snake-bitten" season, I could go on and on...), not just the age.

We're kind of saying the same thing... I think it's because you thought that I was implying that my "original statement" was some kind of "universal rule"... which isn't. I misspoke (sorry english is my 2nd langage

In the end, what I wanted to say is I think that the vast majority of NHL players don't decline offensively until they are 32-35 y/o... and I'm sure it's even less the case (gut feeling, that's without a full analysis) for bottom-6 forwards. However, the "age of decline" goes younger with time as the league becomes younger with so many young talent available

Like CH just said above, there are a lot of variables involved, and I personally don't think you can concretely pin these things down based on enough stats and numbers. If you want to, go ahead, but I'll be sitting it out.
What I'm saying...

That was actually my initial point... people can't say "29 - just at the end of his offensive prime." like it will be inevitable

Then you said "Neil would disagree with you", and I proved with some analysis that this statement was simply false.

Conclusion, we still agree more than not though lol

Last edited by Xspyrit: 09-13-2012 at 07:18 AM.
Xspyrit is offline   Reply With Quote