Keep telling yourself that "moneypuck" means anything. It's garbage, doesn't even work in baseball, nevermind hockey. The driving force (Billy Beane)'s teams haven't even sniffed the playoffs in 5 years.
This is where someone with more time than me would insert a gif suggesting that a poster (you) has completely missed the point of something (moneyball). The gif would be both humorous and illustrative and would likely reference at least one -- if not several -- popular memes.
You guys need Winchester more than these guys, a 38 year old and a brindle Fedoruk. Gotta replace the losses of Hordichuk, Rypien and Glass....Bitz and Mancari ain't gonna cut it.
Keep telling yourself that "moneypuck" means anything. It's garbage, doesn't even work in baseball, nevermind hockey. The driving force (Billy Beane)'s teams haven't even sniffed the playoffs in 5 years.
You're wrong. Moneypuck / Moneyball still means everything. Literally every Stanley Cup winner in the Salary Cap era (save Carolina in '06) has been one of the teams that spends their money as efficiently as possible while spending to the cap.
In baseball, it's not that Moneyball doesn't work. We're talking sabremetrics here. It's the fact that the big spenders have caught onto the the fact that it does work and are now using sabremetrics to value baseball players. Why would Boston hire a 27 year old GM with no experience in Pro Baseball if they weren't relying on Sabremetrics to value players? Oakland consistently made the playoffs in the late 90's and early 2000's with a payroll a fraction of the size of the teams they would meet in the playoffs.
You guys need Winchester more than these guys, a 38 year old and a brindle Fedoruk. Gotta replace the losses of Hordichuk, Rypien and Glass....Bitz and Mancari ain't gonna cut it.
Hopefully Owen Nolan still has something left in the tank & can be a solid contributer on the wings.
Billy Beane may not have won a World Series title but the part of the "moneyball" theory about finding market efficiencies & trying to exploit them to your teams advantage is still important. The market inefficiencies change over time & it is necessary to adapt.
Once upon a time in the NHL, aging veterans were often overpaid & inefficient. Now when this type of player signs a try out contract & makes a team they often make relatively small wages. Look at Brendan Morrison last year. He provided Calgary with a very good return for a relatively small salary. Hopefully Owen Nolan is a similar success story but stays with the Canucks!
At the risk of having tomatoes thrown at me... The Sedins aren't the speediest Canucks and Nolan is a go to the net kind of guy.
Just sayin'...
The Sedins' speed is misleading. They don't have the top end speed that's going to beat you in a race down the ice, however their quickness is deceptive. Where they excel is in the first move that catches defenders off guard and gets them to start chasing. When that happens, the puck always finds it's way into the stick of someone with a great scoring chance.
What I'm starting to think is, Canucks are lacking in role players, players that are there for a particular skill they have that our best forwards don't necessarily have or its not the best use of their ice-time.
For example, the only forward we have who can stand in front of the net is Kesler and you know what, that's probably not the best use of his abilities, not to mention that he takes a lot of abuse as a result.
So if a guy like Nolan can stand in front for 5-8 minutes a game esp. on the PP, take some abuse (which by definition means less for Kes) AND pot some goals (the AND is the key - otherwise they're not role players, they're plugs), that's very valuable. The beauty of it is, the cap hit for these role players is usually low so you don't mind having 3-4 of them (ie forwards 11-14) inserted based on need.
Because if you look at the forward lineup, we have Kes, Burrows, Higgins, Raymond, Samuelsson, Hansen, Malhotra, Lappy and Sturm who play a similar game
(though at a different skill level). Which is fine by the coaching staff but maybe that lack of skill diversity is an issue in and of itself.
Edit: Of course, Nolan might be a bad example as he may already be a shadow of a shadow of his former self.
What I'm starting to think is, Canucks are lacking in role players, players that are there for a particular skill they have that our best forwards don't necessarily have or its not the best use of their ice-time.
For example, the only forward we have who can stand in front of the net is Kesler and you know what, that's probably not the best use of his abilities, not to mention that he takes a lot of abuse as a result.
So if a guy like Nolan can stand in front for 5-8 minutes a game esp. on the PP, take some abuse (which by definition means less for Kes) AND pot some goals (the AND is the key - that's why guys like Glass, Hordi or Debs are better described as plugs than role players), that's very valuable. The beauty of it is, the cap hit for these role players is usually low so you don't mind having 3-4 of them (ie forwards 11-14) inserted based on need.
Because if you look at the forward lineup, we have Kes, Burrows, Higgins, Raymond, Samuelsson, Hansen, Malhotra, Lappy and Sturm who play a similar game
(though at a different skill level). Which is fine by the coaching staff but maybe that lack of skill diversity is an issue in and of itself.
Great post! I think we are missing some diversity in our forwards. I'm not sure Nolan is the answer but I hope it is addressed.
What I'm starting to think is, Canucks are lacking in role players, players that are there for a particular skill they have that our best forwards don't necessarily have or its not the best use of their ice-time.
For example, the only forward we have who can stand in front of the net is Kesler and you know what, that's probably not the best use of his abilities, not to mention that he takes a lot of abuse as a result.
So if a guy like Nolan can stand in front for 5-8 minutes a game esp. on the PP, take some abuse (which by definition means less for Kes) AND pot some goals (the AND is the key - that's why guys like Glass, Hordi or Debs are better described as plugs than role players), that's very valuable. The beauty of it is, the cap hit for these role players is usually low so you don't mind having 3-4 of them (ie forwards 11-14) inserted based on need.
Because if you look at the forward lineup, we have Kes, Burrows, Higgins, Raymond, Samuelsson, Hansen, Malhotra, Lappy and Sturm who play a similar game
(though at a different skill level). Which is fine by the coaching staff but maybe that lack of skill diversity is an issue in and of itself.
Really good thought, I was just thinking the same thing.
Not to mention, he is a Right Handed finisher who could possibly play with the Twins on the PP in Kesler's role in front of the net.
Thus creating a 2nd unit that has oodles of decent options: Kesler-Burrows-Hodgson.
Honestly, if Nolan still has the legs, his hunger for winning a cup will be just as important as adding a player who has won one.
Not a big fan of Fedoruk, I don't see him making it. As for Nolan, it doesn't hurt to see what he can do in training camp. I'd be ok if he signed for anything under 950K, and it would be even better if it was a 2-way contract, but that's just not going to happen.
Nolan is low risk as long as his salary is at or near bare minimum.
