HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

JVR Signs Contract Extension

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-07-2011, 03:21 AM
  #301
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
I remember in stamkos's rookie year, at the 40 game point people were calling him a bust. Stamkos is a scorer, depends on his shot and positioning. It's allot easier to translate those skills to the NHL than JVR's skill set. Battling the crease, using speed and strength to beat players on the outside, soft hands inside 10 feet of the crease.

It took Mike Knuble 10 years to figure it out, JVR is doing it at 22.

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 09:51 AM
  #302
FreshPerspective
Ed finally concedes!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 12,040
vCash: 500
JVR's progression

Overshadowed by today's tragedy but here is Bill's take on JVR which is relevant to the debate. Again..not sure why people are getting so bent around the axle when he's progressing accordingly as I and others have previously mentioned up thread..



Quote:
Ever since the Flyers signed James van Riemsdyk to a six-year contract extension that will pay him $4.25 million on the salary cap starting in 2012-13, there has been a debate over whether JVR has produced enough in his first two NHL seasons to justify confidence that he will live up to (or exceed) his salary in the years to come.

The 22-year-old van Riemsdyk has scored 36 goals and added 39 assists through his first 153 NHL regular season games (plus 10 goals and 13 points in his first 32 playoff games). These numbers are right about where they should be for a player who goes on to become an upper-echelon NHL player.

Following is a cross section of a dozen current NHL impact players, looking at their production at a similar stage of their NHL careers. Keep in mind that these are NOT always apples-to-apples comparisons.

The player's age when breaking into the NHL, the caliber of the team/teammates with whom he broke in, his early ice ice time, his playing style and the system that his team played are all important factors that affect his point production. You can't go just by the points alone.

Typically, players who are a little older and more physically mature tend to do better off at the outset of their NHL careers. Likewise, power forwards often take longer to start producing points than finesse-oriented playmakers. Young players surrounded by talented teammates on a playoff contender may get more scoring opportunities relative to their ice time but are also likely to see less overall ice time (especially on the power play) than players who break in with non-playoff clubs, such as was the case with Rick Nash.

In a few cases, the NHL lockout of 2004-05 afforded the young player the opportunity to play a full season in the AHL (at a time when the league was bolstered by the presence of other top end young players who would otherwise have been in the NHL that season). Players such as Eric Staal benefited from that AHL season in between their first and second NHL campaigns but that does not show up in the raw numbers.


Jeff Carter (first 2 NHL seasons, rookie at age 20): 143 GP, 37 G, 42 A, 79 PTS
Jarome Iginla (first 2 NHL seasons, rookie at age 19): 152 GP, 34 G, 48 A, 82 PTS
Ryan Kesler (first 3 NHL seasons, rookie at age 19): 158 GP, 18 G, 29 A, 47 PTS
Rick Nash (first 2 NHL seasons, rookie at age 18): 154 GP, 58 G, 38 A, 96 PTS
Pavel Datsyuk (first 2 NHL seasons, rookie at age 23): 134 GP, 23 G, 63 A, 96 PTS
Shane Doan (first 4 NHL seasons, rookie at age 18): 249 GP, 22 G, 40 A, 62 PTS
Nathan Horton (first 2 NHL seasons, rookie at age 18): 126 GP, 42 G, 27 A, 69 PTS
Patrick Marleau (first 2 NHL seasons, rookie at age 18): 155 GP, 24 G, 33 A, 57 PTS
Vincent Lecavalier (first 2 NHL seasons, rookie at age 18): 162 GP, 38 G, 57 A, 95 PTS
Nicklas Backstrom (first 2 NHL seasons, rookie at age 20): 164 GP, 36 G, 121 A, 157 PTS
Eric Staal (first 2 NHL seasons, rookie at age 19): 163 GP, 56 G, 75 A, 131 A
Brendan Morrow (first 2 NHL seasons, rookie at age 20): 146 GP, 34 G, 43 A, 77 PTS

As I see it, van Riemsdyk is right about where you would expect him to be at this point considering that a) he is a big player learning to use his size, b) he broke in on a Flyers team that was deep and forward and expected to contend for the Cup, and c) there were clear cut signs of progress over the course of his two seasons to date.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Bill-...72011/45/37943

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 10:13 AM
  #303
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
I remember in stamkos's rookie year, at the 40 game point people were calling him a bust. Stamkos is a scorer, depends on his shot and positioning. It's allot easier to translate those skills to the NHL than JVR's skill set. Battling the crease, using speed and strength to beat players on the outside, soft hands inside 10 feet of the crease.

It took Mike Knuble 10 years to figure it out, JVR is doing it at 22.
We need to work on the Mike Knuble narrative. It didn't take him 10 years to figure out anything. It took coaches 10 years to figure out he wasn't just a 4th liner, and to start playing him with top scorers and giving him PP time.

In 2001-2, Mike Knuble played 9.45 a game, had 14 pts, and had 5 CAREER PP goals.

In 2002-3, Mike Knuble played 17.24 a game, had 59 pts, and 9 PP goals.

What happened? Bill Guerin signed in Dallas, and Mike Knuble took his spot in the top 6 where he proved he was quite effective at complementing elite scorers.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 09:14 PM
  #304
Hockeypete49
How you like me now!
 
Hockeypete49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 5,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
Overshadowed by today's tragedy but here is Bill's take on JVR which is relevant to the debate. Again..not sure why people are getting so bent around the axle when he's progressing accordingly as I and others have previously mentioned up thread..
Wow it amazes me that this thread is still open for debate. But then I see who just cannot let it go. I agree with you. There should not be any debate here. There is way more than just stats in hockey. However some here base everything on stats and %'s and when that is questioned they cannot give in. It is better to just ignore them and not get caught up in their BS.

Hockeypete49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 09:24 PM
  #305
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeypete49 View Post
Wow it amazes me that this thread is still open for debate. But then I see who just cannot let it go. I agree with you. There should not be any debate here. There is way more than just stats in hockey. However some here base everything on stats and %'s and when that is questioned they cannot give in. It is better to just ignore them and not get caught up in their BS.
The irony here is hilarious. Meltzer's entire argument was based on? Statistics.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 09:29 PM
  #306
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
Overshadowed by today's tragedy but here is Bill's take on JVR which is relevant to the debate. Again..not sure why people are getting so bent around the axle when he's progressing accordingly as I and others have previously mentioned up thread..
I think JVR is going to be a very good player. Always have. I think he's more than capable of being better than Giroux if/when he puts it all together.

My problem is that from a cap management perspective the Flyers should have gotten a better deal at this point in time -- you know, NOT market value for "proven" UFA scorers.

It's just part of the continuous drip of cap space... which may be a very real issue in the short term if Voracek has a break out year.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 10:53 PM
  #307
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I think JVR is going to be a very good player. Always have. I think he's more than capable of being better than Giroux if/when he puts it all together.

My problem is that from a cap management perspective the Flyers should have gotten a better deal at this point in time -- you know, NOT market value for "proven" UFA scorers.

It's just part of the continuous drip of cap space... which may be a very real issue in the short term if Voracek has a break out year.
What about in 3 or 4 years when Couturier and Schenn have their ELCs expire? Will JVR's contract still be viewed as a "drip in our cap"? Or will you be singing a different tune when we have enough cap room to retain all our young players?

Is it so hard to believe that Holmgren made a contract that was constructed with the long term future in mind?

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 10:55 PM
  #308
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
What, so we're going to let JVR walk when he's 28?

In 3 to 4 years, we're not going to be worrying about how to pay for forwards. We're going to be worrying about how to find the money to pay for the no. 1 UFA D we're going to need to sign if anyone wants to compete for the Cup.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 11:02 PM
  #309
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
What, so we're going to let JVR walk when he's 28?

In 3 to 4 years, we're not going to be worrying about how to pay for forwards. We're going to be worrying about how to find the money to pay for the no. 1 UFA D we're going to need to sign if anyone wants to compete for the Cup.
You have no idea what the defense will look like in 3 to 4 years.

But I can say with more certainty that allotting cap space for Schenn and Couturier will be an issue in 3 or 4 years if we are planning on still contending. Therefore, it's best to go for a long term steal with JVR than have to give up big money when his short term deal expires.

If we gave him a 3 year deal for $3m per year, that would very likely mean giving him a $5m deal some time around when we will have to be extending two young blue chip forwards and an established star in Giroux.

That would be irresponsible cap management. Not this.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 11:16 PM
  #310
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
You have no idea what the defense will look like in 3 to 4 years.

But I can say with more certainty that allotting cap space for Schenn and Couturier will be an issue in 3 or 4 years if we are planning on still contending. Therefore, it's best to go for a long term steal with JVR than have to give up big money when his short term deal expires.

If we gave him a 3 year deal for $3m per year, that would very likely mean giving him a $5m deal some time around when we will have to be extending two young blue chip forwards and an established star in Giroux.

That would be irresponsible cap management. Not this.
OK. Lets do some simple math.

3 x 3 = 9.
3 x 5 = 15 (and only an upgrade of 750K over his current cap hit in those years).

That's a total of 24M, and less than the contract JVR just signed. So, you've just spent less money, and you view that as "irresponsible cap management." I'm sorry, that's just baseline stupid, dude. If you want to argue that his 3rd contract would be some 6+M deal or whatever, then maybe we can talk, but not at 5 friggin M when you're already paying him 4.25M and he hasn't even proven he deserves that.

In the interim, you've gotten more cap flexibility short term, which, lets face it, this team needs EVERY *ing year... This is tied to the fact that this team faces a severe team construction problem in that its two key defenders are already on the decline (who knows with Pronger) and you only have a couple of more steps up to the plate before the D is going to need to be completely overhauled. Thus, the cap situation the next couple of years is really really important.

Next year, when JVR's contract starts, you have 51M currently committed, and need to sign two defenders that can play with Coburn and Carle expiring. Lets just say that whomever fills those two roles is going to come in at something like 7M - now we're at 58M. Lets say Voracek blows up next year... now you have your Schenn and Couturier scenario NEXT YEAR, and by everyone's admission JVR is getting overpaid today for what he's accomplished to this point.

The entire reason to lock guys like JVR, at this point in their career, into these types of deals is if you are getting assured cap savings -- i.e. below market value if that player becomes what you think he's going to become. Claiming that this contract accomplishes that is complete crap.

This deal may very well work out great. I suspect that it will. But the Flyers should have done better at this point in time in the deal they signed with JVR. Which is exactly what they did with Giroux, and why that was a good contract and this is a poorly done one.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 11:35 PM
  #311
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
OK. Lets do some simple math.

3 x 3 = 9.
3 x 5 = 15 (and only an upgrade of 750K over his current cap hit in those years).

That's a total of 24M, and less than the contract JVR just signed. So, you've just spent less money, and you view that as "irresponsible cap management." I'm sorry, that's just baseline stupid, dude. If you want to argue that his 3rd contract would be some 6+M deal or whatever, then maybe we can talk, but not at 5 friggin M when you're already paying him 4.25M and he hasn't even proven he deserves that.
Apparently you dont understand the difference between "money management" and "cap management".

And yet I'm the one that's being "baseline stupid".

Quote:
In the interim, you've gotten more cap flexibility short term, which, lets face it, this team needs EVERY *ing year... This is tied to the fact that this team faces a severe team construction problem in that its two key defenders are already on the decline (who knows with Pronger) and you only have a couple of more steps up to the plate before the D is going to need to be completely overhauled. Thus, the cap situation the next couple of years is really really important.

Next year, when JVR's contract starts, you have 51M currently committed, and need to sign two defenders that can play with Coburn and Carle expiring. Lets just say that whomever fills those two roles is going to come in at something like 7M - now we're at 58M. Lets say Voracek blows up next year... now you have your Schenn and Couturier scenario NEXT YEAR, and by everyone's admission JVR is getting overpaid today for what he's accomplished to this point.
With the cap going up, even if by just a little, next year will not be very difficult cap wise, and I'd suggest management already has a preliminary outlook on what it will be like.

You know they actually take that into consideration before handing out $25m deals to their players....but I suppose that would be giving Holgren too much credit

Quote:
The entire reason to lock guys like JVR, at this point in their career, into these types of deals is if you are getting assured cap savings -- i.e. below market value if that player becomes what you think he's going to become. Claiming that this contract accomplishes that is complete crap.

This deal may very well work out great. I suspect that it will. But the Flyers should have done better at this point in time in the deal they signed with JVR. Which is exactly what they did with Giroux, and why that was a good contract and this is a poorly done one.
This horse has been beaten to death. It's minimal risk, with a whole lot of reward.

The risk is that JVR isnt a $4.25m player by the 2012-13 season. I'd put money against that, and I'd say it's a pretty safe bet.


If you cant comprehend the point that this contract will very likely give us more cap flexibility in as soon as 2-3 years, then I cant help you. I know you said that you think this contract will be rewarding in the future, but you are so caught on to the immediate (which isn't so immediate considering the contract starts after this coming season) risk that you dont seem to realize that the whole goal is that we will gain much more flexibility in the future (when we'll need it) then we'll lose if JVR doesnt prove himself within the next 12 months.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 11:44 PM
  #312
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
Apparently you dont understand the difference between "money management" and "cap management".

And yet I'm the one that's being "baseline stupid".
What's fascinating about these two sentences is that they are in direct response to me making note of cap numbers at various points. It's as if you cannot read.


Quote:
With the cap going up, even if by just a little, next year will not be very difficult cap wise, and I'd suggest management already has a preliminary outlook on what it will be like.

You know they actually take that into consideration before handing out $25m deals to their players....but I suppose that would be giving Holgren too much credit
You'd suggest that, huh? They don't have a CBA, dude. They have no *ing clue what the outlook for next year is right now. They might be dealing with a lockout.

Quote:
This horse has been beaten to death. It's minimal risk, with a whole lot of reward.
Where's the "whole lot of reward"? If JVR becomes the player that he looks like he's going to become, that's a fair market value contract for him. Again, not the goal for the team in making a commitment at this point in time.

Quote:
The risk is that JVR isnt a $4.25m player by the 2012-13 season. I'd put money against that, and I'd say it's a pretty safe bet.
That's the risk, but that's not the fundamental problem with the contract... which apparently is too nuanced for ya.

Quote:
If you cant comprehend the point that this contract will very likely give us more cap flexibility in as soon as 2-3 years, then I cant help you. I know you said that you think this contract will be rewarding in the future, but you are so caught on to the immediate (which isn't so immediate considering the contract starts after this coming season) risk that you dont seem to realize that the whole goal is that we will gain much more flexibility in the future (when we'll need it) then we'll lose if JVR doesnt prove himself within the next 12 months.
Wait.

In 2-3 years, in your alternate scenario, the Flyers would have more than a million in extra cap space. 1.25 per year x 3 = 3.75M in cap savings. In the final three years of your alternate scenario, they lose .75M per year x 3 = 2.25M. So, over the course of those 6 years they would have GAINED 2.25M in cap flexibility in your alternate universe.

So, no, we're not gaining a ton of cap flexibility by this contract. We're losing a lot of cap flexibility short term, and getting a VERY marginal gain at the tail end -- mitigated by your assumed rise of the salary cap.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2011, 01:06 AM
  #313
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
What's fascinating about these two sentences is that they are in direct response to me making note of cap numbers at various points. It's as if you cannot read.
Then you shouldnt have brought up the salary aspect in the first place.

Your original complaint was about the cap space that the deal takes up. I responded to that.



Quote:
You'd suggest that, huh? They don't have a CBA, dude. They have no *ing clue what the outlook for next year is right now. They might be dealing with a lockout.
You dont think the team has ****ing spreadsheets outlining the cap structure next year? Really man? There doesnt need to be a CBA in place to have that...

Quote:
Where's the "whole lot of reward"? If JVR becomes the player that he looks like he's going to become, that's a fair market value contract for him. Again, not the goal for the team in making a commitment at this point in time.
Are you kidding? Fair market value for a 70 point winger is 5+m. If JVR reaches his potential, there will certainly be a whole lot of reward as he will be signed well below market price.

Just look at Bobby Ryan. He signed a 5+m deal before he even hit 70 points. Hell, 5m is the price for a 60+ point winger these days...

Cant believe I even had to explain that one...

Quote:
That's the risk, but that's not the fundamental problem with the contract... which apparently is too nuanced for ya.
Sure. Keep making digs at my intelligence. It really doesnt make your argument stronger.


Quote:
Wait.

In 2-3 years, in your alternate scenario, the Flyers would have more than a million in extra cap space. 1.25 per year x 3 = 3.75M in cap savings. In the final three years of your alternate scenario, they lose .75M per year x 3 = 2.25M. So, over the course of those 6 years they would have GAINED 2.25M in cap flexibility in your alternate universe.

So, no, we're not gaining a ton of cap flexibility by this contract. We're losing a lot of cap flexibility short term, and getting a VERY marginal gain at the tail end -- mitigated by your assumed rise of the salary cap.
Oh my God....

It's not about total cap dollars saved...it's about WHEN they're saved. If we can fit a 4.25m JVR into our cap structure next season then you take it if it means having a 4.25m JVR 6 and 7 seasons from now when Schenn, Couturier, Voracek, Giroux, etc. are demanding big money deals.

The logic is that given what JVR will likely be producing by the time the contract starts, we wont be hurting for that flexibility. But by the time we are 3 or 4 years into the contract, JVR will be so underpaid that the flexibility will allow us to build a solid team around that contract.

And you have no idea how much flexibility we're losing in the short term, so dont give me that BS. This contract doesnt start until 2012-13, so unless JVR isnt worth 4.25m by then, we have not lost any of our flexibility.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:11 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.