HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Anaheim Ducks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

2017-18 Roster Thread II - Yay for Summer!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-24-2017, 04:49 PM
  #276
Sojourn
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 41,452
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Off View Post
Agreed. I'm probably more pro fighting/enforcing than most (clearly aside from Dirk), but Boll just isn't good at it. In his CBJ days, he was much better. He was a dick. He was mean. Now he's too nice. My ideal type of enforcer is Kassian. What he did to Kesler in playoffs is exactly what Boll should be doing when ever he has the chance. Boll doesn't have that nastiness anymore, which makes him 95% useless. I'll say that he does have his moments where I see some value in him, but it's way too rare. Would love to get rid of him if possible.

I do think there's a time and place for staged fighting. If we're lethargic in our play, I like a fight to try and get something going. I think Getzlaf mentioned one of Boll's fights got them going during a post gamer one time. Again though, I can't stand Boll because he lacks consistency in enforcing, which is inexcusable. If you suck at hockey, can't hit because you're too slow. You better make the other team fear you. He doesn't.
I'd like to elaborate on the staged fighting point:

My issue with it isn't that it exists. I absolutely agree that we've seen occasions it has given the team a bit of a boost. Not enough that a single player should be devoted to just that, but enough that a player who can fight can help the team out in other ways.

But... as an enforcement tool, it's worthless. You don't enforce anything with those types of fights.

Boll doesn't enforce or deter the opposition. His "good"(it's relative) games are few and far between. He shouldn't be playing. He's had a few good moments, and a whole lot of moments where he contributes nothing at all. I like the good moments, but they don't even come close to overshadowing the rest of the time he does **** all.

__________________
You're a curious one, aren't you?
Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2017, 05:12 PM
  #277
liquiduck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 2,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Off View Post
Not now that Tootoo is on back 9 of his career, but over the course of their careers? That's not true. Tootoo was a pretty decent hockey player earlier in his career year. Put up more than twice as many points, and could be used on other lines. Now? Sure Tootoo sucks now.



I disagree. I think teams are paying for a bit more potential growth at 26. Maybe not much, but I'd say it's a factor, unlike 29.



As I said earlier, if he replicates his last season, which changes his averages, than it gets it closer, but that's still way too high. I'd say it's outrageous considering that's what Louie Eriksson got, and he's a much better goal scorer, who had multiple 60-70 point seasons. Assuming Silfverberg replicates last season, that's career high 23 goals and 49 points. That doesn't get you 6x6. I don't see any examples of that either.



I didn't say it was unlikely or outrageous that'd he duplicate those numbers, so no sure why you're saying that.

Palat is much more offensively productive. Taking away their short seasons at the beginning of their careers, and Palat averages .73 ppg and Silfverberg is .53. He got 5x5.3. He's also 26, which I do think you're paying a bit for potential, and GM's are going to be more okay with giving longer term to guys that are 26 than 29 year olds. Although some desperate GMs will still do it.

CapFriendly's list of guys similar to 6x6
Backes
Eriksson
Kesler
Steen
Ladd

I don't see any way Silfverberg can ask for what these guys got. All had much more leverage, stats, etc. Based off that, I'd still say 6x6 is pretty outrageous.
26 year old forwards are not paid for potential. Most forwards have had their most productive years before the age of 28. And again, Palats contract was a RFA contract. That can't be stressed enough. Silfs UFA contract will be more.

As you noted in that list you just put up, teams have had zero issues giving long term contracts to older players, and Silf will just be turning 29. He's also a better player than every player on that list except Kesler, who's paid 7 million, not 6. Eriksson is a good UFA comparable. He was 31 when he signed his new deal, with an extensive concussion history. Yes, Eriksson was more productive, but he's also older, more injury prone and not the two way player Silfverberg is. Nor does he score at the same clip as Silverberg in the playoffs. Let's also not forget that he's only broke 50 pts once in his last 6 seasons. Their contracts will be close if Silf keeps scoring IMO.


Last edited by liquiduck: 07-24-2017 at 05:17 PM.
liquiduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2017, 07:20 PM
  #278
DavidBL
Registered User
 
DavidBL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
26 year old forwards are not paid for potential. Most forwards have had their most productive years before the age of 28. And again, Palats contract was a RFA contract. That can't be stressed enough. Silfs UFA contract will be more.

As you noted in that list you just put up, teams have had zero issues giving long term contracts to older players, and Silf will just be turning 29. He's also a better player than every player on that list except Kesler, who's paid 7 million, not 6. Eriksson is a good UFA comparable. He was 31 when he signed his new deal, with an extensive concussion history. Yes, Eriksson was more productive, but he's also older, more injury prone and not the two way player Silfverberg is. Nor does he score at the same clip as Silverberg in the playoffs. Let's also not forget that he's only broke 50 pts once in his last 6 seasons. Their contracts will be close if Silf keeps scoring IMO.
I strongly disagree that Eriksson is not a 2 way player. He is actually a pretty solid comparable. I would expect Silfs next neal to be between 5.5 and 6.5 depending on if he tests the market or not. Just my 2 cents.

DavidBL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2017, 10:24 PM
  #279
liquiduck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 2,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidBL View Post
I strongly disagree that Eriksson is not a 2 way player. He is actually a pretty solid comparable. I would expect Silfs next neal to be between 5.5 and 6.5 depending on if he tests the market or not. Just my 2 cents.
I wasn't trying to imply that Eriksson isn't a two way player, just Silfverberg is the better defensive player.
Although the last couple years Erikssons defense has really slipped imo.

I do agree that they are good comparables.

liquiduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 08:55 AM
  #280
Duck Off
HF needs an App
 
Duck Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Country: United States
Posts: 16,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
I'd like to elaborate on the staged fighting point:

My issue with it isn't that it exists. I absolutely agree that we've seen occasions it has given the team a bit of a boost. Not enough that a single player should be devoted to just that, but enough that a player who can fight can help the team out in other ways. .
Agreed. No player should just be dressed simply to have staged fights. I will say that I probably think a bit higher of even staged fights than most, but I 100% agree that if it's all a player is doing, we'd be better not dressing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
But... as an enforcement tool, it's worthless. You don't enforce anything with those types of fights. .
Agreed. This is my biggest issue with Boll. I actually like staged fights and don't think they are worthless. People see how excited fans get when they happen, and I think players get a bit of a jump from them as well. Our team has issues with consistent motivation so I do like when we see these type of fights. However, it doesn't justify dressing someone who does this only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
Boll doesn't enforce or deter the opposition. His "good"(it's relative) games are few and far between. He shouldn't be playing. He's had a few good moments, and a whole lot of moments where he contributes nothing at all. I like the good moments, but they don't even come close to overshadowing the rest of the time he does **** all.
Agreed. Boll has gone full Parros. He's too nice. Nastiness is required to be an enforcer. Boll no longer (has never had in Anaheim) has it.

Duck Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 09:54 AM
  #281
Duck Off
HF needs an App
 
Duck Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Country: United States
Posts: 16,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
26 year old forwards are not paid for potential. Most forwards have had their most productive years before the age of 28. And again, Palats contract was a RFA contract. That can't be stressed enough. Silfs UFA contract will be more. .
That's exactly my point. There's a potential year or two of growth in their game at 26. Like I said multiple times, there isn't much room for improvement, but I think it's a tool used by agents. Again, it doesn't have the same merit to it that someone who's 23 would have, but there's more of a case for it there, then someone who's 28 or 29.

Palat is also younger (which you cite below as a reason Silf has over Louie), and produced more offensively. I think Yzerman overpaid here, but I think he's also paying a little bit for potential here, as I think he believes Palat steps it up a bit more next year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
As you noted in that list you just put up, teams have had zero issues giving long term contracts to older players, and Silf will just be turning 29. He's also a better player than every player on that list except Kesler, who's paid 7 million, not 6. .
I think you're ignoring when these players signed their contracts, or you're severely overvaluing Silfverberg.

How can you argue that Silfverberg deserves more (quite frankly even as much) as these players? For arguments sake, let's assume Silfverberg repeats his career year (you mentioned re-signing him next offseason).

Not going to mention Kes because you agree on that one.

Backes: For one, he's a center, and top 6 centers ALWAYS get paid a lot more. If Silfverberg was a top 6 center, he'd get that ridiculous 6x6 that you're mentioning. In the 5 seasons prior to his contract extension, Backes outscored Silfverberg's career high 4/5 years, and the 5th one, he basically matched it. Backes is also terrific defensively. Not sure how you think this is even close when you consider all the variables. Hell, Backes didn't even get 6x6.

Eriksson: Eriksson was coming off a 30+33 year, and had multiple 70 point seasons to his resume. He was also a very solid defensive player. I think you're focusing too much on his most recent year with Vancouver, which is irrelevant in this discussion.

Steen: His stats were better than Silfverberg' s every year for the 5 years prior to his contract... Not only were they better, they were much, much better. He also got 4 yrs a 5.75. That's WAY better than the 6x6 that you're mentioning.

Ladd: I personally would not have paid Ladd near this much, and I don't think it's a coincidence that this is regarded as one of worst contracts in the league. Regardless though, Ladd had consistently put up better offensive numbers than Silfverberg. Yes, Silfverberg is better defensively, but everyone knows that people value Ladd's leadership and Stanley cup experience too. I don't see an argument where Silfverberg can ask for what Ladd received, as he doesn't have the same stats. Maybe he could ask for it, but I'd definitely call it outrageous since he's done nowhere near enough to deserve such a contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Eriksson is a good UFA comparable. He was 31 when he signed his new deal, with an extensive concussion history. Yes, Eriksson was more productive, but he's also older, more injury prone and not the two way player Silfverberg is. .
Eriksson's resume is far superior to Silfveberg's, and it's not close. He had multiple 70 point seasons, and was coming off a 30+30 year. I agree Silfverberg is better defensively, but Louie was very good defensively in his time with Dallas and Boston. If you retrace the threads when he was a coming UFA, Boston fans said the good thing about him is that he'd hold his value due to being so solid defensively.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Nor does he score at the same clip as Silverberg in the playoffs. Let's also not forget that he's only broke 50 pts once in his last 6 seasons. Their contracts will be close if Silf keeps scoring IMO.
You seem to be kind of ignoring context to try and prove points. Louie has only been in the playoffs 3 times. The first two times were his first two years. Silfverberg played in playoffs his first two years too. Look at his numbers then. Silfverberg didn't really make an impact until his 4th trip to the playoffs. Louie had 1 year in his prime where he was in the playoffs. I agree that Silfverberg's pedigree is much better, but let's not pretend like they've had equal opportunity here.

As for your point comment:
6 seasons prior to extension:

2010-2011: 79 games; 73 points; PPG: .92
2011-2012: 82 games; 71 points; PPG: .87
2012-2013: 48 games (lockout yr); 29 points; PPG: .60
2013-2014: 61 games; 37 points; PPG: .61
2014-2015: 81 games; 47 points; PPG: .58
2015-2016: 82 games; 63 points; .PPG: .77

See how context helps. His "worst years" basically mirror Silfverberg's career year (two if we're assuming he replicates his career year).


I don't see any evidence that supports that Silfverberg could justify 6x6. He doesn't have the offensive numbers to get remotely close to that. However, if you actually think he has the same leverage as Eriksson, than I understand why you'd think that. I can't see that honestly due to the extreme difference in their numbers, but to each their own.


Last edited by Duck Off: Yesterday at 10:58 AM.
Duck Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 10:58 AM
  #282
liquiduck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 2,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Off View Post
That's exactly my point. There's a potential year or two of growth in their game at 26. Like I said multiple times, there isn't much room for improvement, but I think it's a tool used by agents. Again, it doesn't have the same merit to it that someone who's 23 would have, but there's more of a case for it there, then someone who's 28 or 29.

That's not potential growth that's just a player having a better season. The two are not the same. I could narrow the range even further to say most Forwards have their most productive year before the age of 27 and not be wrong.

Palat is also younger (which you cite below as a reason Silf has over Louie), and produced more offensively. I think Yzerman overpaid here, but I think he's also paying a little bit for potential here, as I think he believes Palat steps it up a bit more next year.

Palat is less than a year younger. Whoopededoo



I think you're ignoring when these players signed their contracts, or you're severely overvaluing Silfverberg.

How can you argue that Silfverberg deserves more (quite frankly even as much) as these players? For arguments sake, let's assume Silfverberg repeats his career year (you mentioned re-signing him next offseason).

Not going to mention Kes because you agree on that one.

Backes: For one, he's a center, and top 6 centers ALWAYS get paid a lot more. If Silfverberg was a top 6 center, he'd get that ridiculous 6x6 that you're mentioning. In the 5 seasons prior to his contract extension, Backes outscored Silfverberg's career high 4/5 years, and the 5th one, he basically matched it. Backes is also terrific defensively. Not sure how you think this is even close when you consider all the variables. Hell, Backes didn't even get 6x6.

Eriksson: Eriksson was coming off a 30+33 year, and had multiple 70 point seasons to his resume. He was also a very solid defensive player. I think you're focusing too much on his most recent year with Vancouver, which is irrelevant in this discussion.

Steen: His stats were better than Silfverberg' s every year for the 5 years prior to his contract... Not only were they better, they were much, much better. He also got 4 yrs a 5.75. That's WAY better than the 6x6 that you're mentioning.

Ladd: I personally would not have paid Ladd near this much, and I don't think it's a coincidence that this is regarded as one of worst contracts in the league. Regardless though, Ladd had consistently put up better offensive numbers than Silfverberg. Yes, Silfverberg is better defensively, but everyone knows that people value Ladd's leadership and Stanley cup experience too. I don't see an argument where Silfverberg has earned more than Ladd.



Eriksson's resume is far superior to Silfveberg's, and it's not close. He had multiple 70 point seasons, and was coming off a 30+30 year. I agree Silfverberg is better defensively, but Louie was very good defensively in his time with Dallas and Boston. If you retrace the threads when he was a coming UFA, they said the good thing about him is that he'd hold his value due to being so solid defensively.

I think maybe you are the one who is forgetting when these contracts were signed. Two years from now we will be comparing contracts that are at least 4 years apart. The cap will have gone up and the bar needed to get a 6x6 contract lowered. Aside from that Eriksson came off one great year after 3 straight years where he was sub 50 pts, two of those years sub 40 pts, with major injury issues. Ladd, enough said. No one here would take Ladd over SIlverberg. It doesn't matter if we consider it a bad contract. That's what UFA is about, and if Ladd could get that, Silf wouldn't be far behind him if he puts up another good offensive season. Steen is a one dimensional 50 pt winger. He had two really productive years in his late 20's.

You seem to be kind of ignoring context to try and prove points. Louie has only been in the playoffs 3 times. The first two times were his first two years. Silfverberg played in playoffs his first two years too. Look at his numbers then. Silfverberg didn't really make an impact until his 4th trip to the playoffs. Louie had 1 year in his prime where he was in the playoffs. I agree that Silfverberg's pedigree is much better, but let's not pretend like they've had equal opportunity here..

Who cares. If you don't think Silverberg's agent is going to bring up the fact that he's nearly a ppg player in the playoffs through 42 games then I don't know what to tell you. That's worth money.

I don't see any evidence that supports that Silfverberg could justify 6x6. He doesn't have the offensive numbers to get remotely close to that. However, if you actually think he has the same leverage as Eriksson, than I understand why you'd think that. I can't see that honestly due to the extreme difference in their numbers, but to each their own.

There's no extreme difference in their numbers. Over the last 3 years Silverberg has 7 less points total than Eriksson. If Silverberg puts up 50 points next year, that alone gets him to the 5 million mark. Then you factor in age, Two- way play, and playoff performance along with his UFA status and 6 million is very much in his range.
.....

liquiduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 12:16 PM
  #283
Duck Off
HF needs an App
 
Duck Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Country: United States
Posts: 16,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
That's not potential growth that's just a player having a better season. The two are not the same. I could narrow the range even further to say most Forwards have their most productive year before the age of 27 and not be wrong.
So you think that if Palat has a career year next year, that's not at all due to progression? I think that's expected by the player, GM, and agent. There's not much room for progression, but there is room, which was my point.

As for the bold: That new range you're coming up with still fits Palat's description since he will be 26 through almost of all of next season...

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Palat is less than a year younger. Whoopededoo
In the beginning, you mentioned Silfverberg being 29 when had to re-sign him. Then you mentioned 28. Either way, it's not 1 year, despite your flipflopping.

Whoopededoo

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
I think maybe you are the one who is forgetting when these contracts were signed. Two years from now we will be comparing contracts that are at least 4 years apart. The cap will have gone up and the bar needed to get a 6x6 contract lowered.
Please tell me what free agent signings just happened this year that would indicate we're trending towards that contract? If anything, free agent signings seemed smarter this year. And come on now, according to your most recent time line, we're talking about next season. There is not a giant seismic shift that happened between last offseason and next one where it's going to inflate contracts THAT much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Aside from that Eriksson came off one great year after 3 straight years where he was sub 50 pts, two of those years sub 40 pts, with major injury issues.
Context. You should use it.

One of those years was a lockout year. His PPG mirrored Silfveberg's career year. and his injury year (singular), he still matched Silfverberg's career year.

Major injury issues? He played all but 3 games in every year aside from one since 2008. There aren't major injury concerns when you follow up an injury year with one of your better years. If he didn't have that great season prior to signing, he doesn't make that much coin, which would make the injury argument valid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Ladd, enough said. No one here would take Ladd over SIlverberg. It doesn't matter if we consider it a bad contract. That's what UFA is about, and if Ladd could get that, Silf wouldn't be far behind him if he puts up another good offensive season.
100% agreed. Never said otherwise. However, as of now, Ladd had much more leverage in contract discussions than Silfverberg does. He had multiple seasons that were much better than Silfverberg's.

I actually think it does matter that the league considers that contract awful now. This year kind of showed hesitation in the buyers. We didn't see any awful contracts handed out like that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Steen is a one dimensional 50 pt winger. He had two really productive years in his late 20's
For one, I don't think, and I think Blues fans would agree with me, that he's as one dimensional as you're saying. He's not simply a "50 pt player" either. 4 seasons prior to contract:
27 (lockout year; 67 ppg pace)
62
64
52

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Who cares. If you don't think Silverberg's agent is going to bring up the fact that he's nearly a ppg player in the playoffs through 42 games then I don't know what to tell you. That's worth money.
Did I say he wouldn't? If he didn't have that to bring to negotiations, he wouldn't get nearly as much as he's going to get. Of course he's going to bring it up, and it's worth money (I never indicated otherwise). However, that doesn't let him sniff 6x6 unless he improves from last season. My comment was clarifying that you need to add more context. When evaluating their playoff performances, we aren't comparing one guy who's great, and another who disappears; one is great, and the other hasn't had much opportunity to show what he could do in the playoffs. There's a significant difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
There's no extreme difference in their numbers. Over the last 3 years Silverberg has 7 less points total than Eriksson. If Silverberg puts up 50 points next year, that alone gets him to the 5 million mark. Then you factor in age, Two- way play, and playoff performance along with his UFA status and 6 million is very much in his range
We have been discussing leverage in contracts. Why are you even bringing up Louie's numbers from last year? Those are irrelevant because he had already signed the contract. Ignoring that year, because it's irrelevant in this discussion, aside from 2 years (1 injury filled one & one just "down" year), where he matched Silfverberg's PPG, his resume is far superior, and it's not close.

I did not say that 5 or 6 million is unrealistic of, I said 6x6 is. I said I think Silfverberg remains priority over Cogliano unless his contract demands are outrageous. You said you said you could see him asking for 6x6. I said that unless he improved more than what we've seen, that is outrageous. The best comparable contracts I've seen are Palat and Steen's. I'd say 5+ on 4 years is high, but since he's a UFA, I think it's possible. 6x6 though? Hell no. Currently, he doesn't have the resume to ask for that ridiculous number.


Last edited by Duck Off: Yesterday at 02:17 PM.
Duck Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 04:07 PM
  #284
liquiduck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 2,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Off View Post
So you think that if Palat has a career year next year, that's not at all due to progression? I think that's expected by the player, GM, and agent. There's not much room for progression, but there is room, which was my point.

As for the bold: That new range you're coming up with still fits Palat's description since he will be 26 through almost of all of next season...



In the beginning, you mentioned Silfverberg being 29 when had to re-sign him. Then you mentioned 28. Either way, it's not 1 year, despite your flipflopping.

Whoopededoo



Please tell me what free agent signings just happened this year that would indicate we're trending towards that contract? If anything, free agent signings seemed smarter this year. And come on now, according to your most recent time line, we're talking about next season. There is not a giant seismic shift that happened between last offseason and next one where it's going to inflate contracts THAT much.



Context. You should use it.

One of those years was a lockout year. His PPG mirrored Silfveberg's career year. and his injury year (singular), he still matched Silfverberg's career year.

Major injury issues? He played all but 3 games in every year aside from one since 2008. There aren't major injury concerns when you follow up an injury year with one of your better years. If he didn't have that great season prior to signing, he doesn't make that much coin, which would make the injury argument valid.



100% agreed. Never said otherwise. However, as of now, Ladd had much more leverage in contract discussions than Silfverberg does. He had multiple seasons that were much better than Silfverberg's.

I actually think it does matter that the league considers that contract awful now. This year kind of showed hesitation in the buyers. We didn't see any awful contracts handed out like that one.



For one, I don't think, and I think Blues fans would agree with me, that he's as one dimensional as you're saying. He's not simply a "50 pt player" either. 4 seasons prior to contract:
27 (lockout year; 67 ppg pace)
62
64
52



Did I say he wouldn't? If he didn't have that to bring to negotiations, he wouldn't get nearly as much as he's going to get. Of course he's going to bring it up, and it's worth money (I never indicated otherwise). However, that doesn't let him sniff 6x6 unless he improves from last season. My comment was clarifying that you need to add more context. When evaluating their playoff performances, we aren't comparing one guy who's great, and another who disappears; one is great, and the other hasn't had much opportunity to show what he could do in the playoffs. There's a significant difference.



We have been discussing leverage in contracts. Why are you even bringing up Louie's numbers from last year? Those are irrelevant because he had already signed the contract. Ignoring that year, because it's irrelevant in this discussion, aside from 2 years (1 injury filled one & one just "down" year), where he matched Silfverberg's PPG, his resume is far superior, and it's not close.

I did not say that 5 or 6 million is unrealistic of, I said 6x6 is. I said I think Silfverberg remains priority over Cogliano unless his contract demands are outrageous. You said you said you could see him asking for 6x6. I said that unless he improved more than what we've seen, that is outrageous. The best comparable contracts I've seen are Palat and Steen's. I'd say 5+ on 4 years is high, but since he's a UFA, I think it's possible. 6x6 though? Hell no. Currently, he doesn't have the resume to ask for that ridiculous number.
Yes im quite aware of your argument. It's funny that you don't see the holes in your own argument. You keep comparing players before they got their contracts to Silverberg right now. Thats not the conversation we are having. Silverberg has two more seasons before he's a UFA. Two more seasons right in his prime. Last year, and the next two are the years you need to use if you want to fairly compare numbers to other players before their UFA deals.

Silverberg is 6 months older than palat, so when you say Palat is younger, you need to clarify what you're saying or it just looks silly. Besides, your little player list there just proves my point. Every single one of those players signed for big money at an age older than what Silverberg will be. His UFA age will not hold him back. If you want to believe that Tatar being 26 right now somehow earned him extra money over a UFA to be, more power to you, but you're wrong. There's a reason players try to get to UFA as fast as possible.

Eriksson has an extensive concussion history, everybody knows about it. It's a risk. Are we really debating that? I never once mentioned him missing games.

You brought up this seasons UFA class. Radulov just signed a 5 year deal north of 6mil aav. He had 54 points, 5 more than Silverberg. He's also 31 years old and well, we all know his history. Maybe you forgot about the awful Marlaeu contract just handed out, or the awful Kulikov contract. Or the awful Girardi contract, ext. It looks like GM's are finely smartining up... oh wait.

You keep bringing up leverage. You know who has all of it? UFA's. It doesn't matter what Silverberg is or isn't worth to Anaheim, it's what he's worth with 30(now) other bidders. We seem to both agree that Silverberg likely has a career year next year, that "growth" you keep talking about. If he does he will now have two straight 50+ pt seasons under his belt. Like I said, that already puts him in the 5+ million range. Before you factor in the rest of his game, or his contract status. This is a good place to remind you again, this is ALL contingent of Silverberg having good offensive years leading up to his UFA year. If you want to keep comparing other players numbers, at least make the conversation decent and first come up with a number you expect Silf to reach for the next two years. Then at least we have something tangible to compare.

Stop comparing Steens two 60 point seasons just before he turned UFA, or Erikssons "multiple 60 pt years" years ago, to years 3/4 and 5 before Silf hits UFA.

liquiduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 05:27 PM
  #285
Duck Off
HF needs an App
 
Duck Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Country: United States
Posts: 16,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Yes im quite aware of your argument. It's funny that you don't see the holes in your own argument. You keep comparing players before they got their contracts to Silverberg right now. Thats not the conversation we are having. Silverberg has two more seasons before he's a UFA. Two more seasons right in his prime. Last year, and the next two are the years you need to use if you want to fairly compare numbers to other players before their UFA deals. .
You just keep sidestepping don't you..

Post 246 you said: "right now Silfverberg could get close to 6x6". I already told you that if he has a much better next year, than things change. However, you said that right now Silfverberg is on track to get close to 6yr, 6 million. That's the entire disagreement right there. Silfverberg has done nothing to warrant that type of contract. Even if he repeats last year's numbers. That's not a 6x6 contract. There is no player with that type of contract with a career high of 49 points, 45 pt average. Definitely no winger. I said from the very beginning that if he takes another step and improves next year, then things change, because quite frankly that's obvious.

Then, you keep sidestepping your time line. Earlier you said we'd be re-signing him at 29, then you mentioned you were talking about his trade value next offseason (which would indicate that Murray is considering either trading him then or re-signing him).

You later went on to say if he has another season like last one then that makes 6x6 even more realistic.

Contract negotiations are not just about the two previous years. I would agree that they are extremely important, but you don't dismiss the rest of a player's career. That's not how contracts work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Silverberg is 6 months older than palat, so when you say Palat is younger, you need to clarify what you're saying or it just looks silly...
Please, don't take a shot at me because you can't do math. We were clearly talking about when players will sign the deals. Hell, that was one of your first comments about the topic. "Silfverberg will be 29".

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Besides, your little player list there just proves my point. Every single one of those players signed for big money at an age older than what Silverberg will be. His UFA age will not hold him back. If you want to believe that Tatar being 26 right now somehow earned him extra money over a UFA to be, more power to you, but you're wrong. There's a reason players try to get to UFA as fast as possible..
That list proved that unless Silfverberg greatly increases his numbers, he won't touch 6x6. All of those players had much more going for them in contract negotiations. Hell Backes and Steen didn't even get 6x6. Steen got way less. Despite both having much more leverage in contract negotiations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Eriksson has an extensive concussion history, everybody knows about it. It's a risk. Are we really debating that? I never once mentioned him missing games..
Eriksson had 1 season where he missed a significant amount of games. The other 4 out of 5 seasons; 1 game missed total. Based on his contract, I don't think they were too worried about injuries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
You brought up this seasons UFA class. Radulov just signed a 5 year deal north of 6mil aav. He had 54 points, 5 more than Silverberg. He's also 31 years old and well, we all know his history. Maybe you forgot about the awful Marlaeu contract just handed out, or the awful Kulikov contract. Or the awful Girardi contract, ext. It looks like GM's are finely smartining up... oh wait. .
The fact that you're insinuating Girardi (2 yrs, 3 million aav) and Kulikov (3 yrs 4.33 aav) is as bad as Ladd's shows that you're either reaching or just off base on the thinking. Those aav's may be a bit high, but it's the term that makes contracts bad. Everyone knows this. Let's not ignore those key pieces. Marleau's is bad, but again, 3 years. These aren't near as bad as these long contracts like Ladd's and you know it.

And come on, Radulov is by far superior to Silfverberg (so far) offensively. Everyone knows this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
You keep bringing up leverage. You know who has all of it? UFA's. It doesn't matter what Silverberg is or isn't worth to Anaheim, it's what he's worth with 30(now) other bidders. We seem to both agree that Silverberg likely has a career year next year, that "growth" you keep talking about. If he does he will now have two straight 50+ pt seasons under his belt. Like I said, that already puts him in the 5+ million range. .
I never said Silfverberg doesn't have the leverage. I said he doesn't have more leverage than those players because his numbers don't compare to theirs. Therefore, his contract demands can't be as high. If they are, they would be "outrageous", which goes back to my original statement: Unless Silfverberg's contract demands are outrageous, I don't see why Murray wouldn't value him more.

Except that the original conversation stemmed from you saying he could already get close to 6x6 NOW, which is WRONG.

I already said "for conversations sake, let's assume he matches last years total this year". That's because your claim was this his totals now warrant 6x6. That's just wrong.

If you're saying that he'll get that number because you expect him to significantly increase his totals next year, then you've wasted all this time because I said that from the very beginning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Before you factor in the rest of his game, or his contract status. This is a good place to remind you again, this is ALL contingent of Silverberg having good offensive years leading up to his UFA year. If you want to keep comparing other players numbers, at least make the conversation decent and first come up with a number you expect Silf to reach for the next two years. Then at least we have something tangible to compare. .
already said it. you just need to read better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Stop comparing Steens two 60 point seasons just before he turned UFA, or Erikssons "multiple 60 pt years" years ago, to years 3/4 and 5 before Silf hits UFA.
Let me get this straight. You think what players achieved 3 years before contract negotiations is irrelevant? Is that what you are saying. Steens numbers are relevant because they are what earned him his contract.

GM's don't just say "let's look at your last 2 years because that's all that matters". That's now how it works.

Your claim is (unless you're sidestepping again) is that Silfverberg's stats, defensive play, etc. right now warrant 6 years, 6 million or "close to". I call BS, and I see no evidence that supports that claim.

Duck Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 05:59 PM
  #286
liquiduck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 2,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Off View Post
You just keep sidestepping don't you..

Post 246 you said: "right now Silfverberg could get close to 6x6". I already told you that if he has a much better next year, than things change. However, you said that right now Silfverberg is on track to get close to 6yr, 6 million. That's the entire disagreement right there. Silfverberg has done nothing to warrant that type of contract. Even if he repeats last year's numbers. That's not a 6x6 contract. There is no player with that type of contract with a career high of 49 points, 45 pt average. Definitely no winger. I said from the very beginning that if he takes another step and improves next year, then things change, because quite frankly that's obvious.

No I actually said " Silverberg could probably come close to asking for 6x6 without it being outrageous" I never said that is what he would get

Then, you keep sidestepping your time line. Earlier you said we'd be re-signing him at 29, then you mentioned you were talking about his trade value next offseason (which would indicate that Murray is considering either trading him then or re-signing him).
Why is this so hard for you to follow? Yes, he would be a UFA at 29 years old. I originally brought it up as a reason to maybe think about trading him next year when, when he will be 28. That means he play next season for the Ducks. That's not me sidestepping, that's simply you not understanding what's being said.

You later went on to say if he has another season like last one then that makes 6x6 even more realistic.
Yup. Still not sure where you are confused

Contract negotiations are not just about the two previous years. I would agree that they are extremely important, but you don't dismiss the rest of a player's career. That's not how contracts work.

Yea you kinda do. Nobody cares what players did 5 years ago if they aren't producing at that level anymore. You think Iginla is using his career totals right now to negotiate his next contract?


Please, don't take a shot at me because you can't do math. We were clearly talking about when players will sign the deals. Hell, that was one of your first comoments about the topic. "Silfverberg will be 29".

That's not what you said. You said Palat was younger with no mention of you talking about when contracts are being signed in that post. Yet, I'm the one who can't read or do math. Ironic from the guy claiming others are taking shots at him

That list proved that unless Silfverberg greatly increases his numbers, he won't touch 6x6. All of those players had much more going for them in contract negotiations. Hell Backes and Steen didn't even get 6x6. Steen got way less. Despite both having much more leverage in contract negotiations.

Your list doesn't prove what you think it does. Or what you are saying about age being an issue for Silverberg during the negotiation of his next contract

Eriksson had 1 season where he missed a significant amount of games. The other 4 out of 5 seasons; 1 game missed total. Based on his contract, I don't think they were too worried about injuries.

No they weren't, because he was a UFA. Which was my point.

The fact that you're insinuating Girardi (2 yrs, 3 million aav) and Kulikov (3 yrs 4.33 aav) is as bad as Ladd's shows that you're either reaching or just off base on the thinking. Those aav's may be a bit high, but it's the term that makes contracts bad. Everyone knows this. Let's not ignore those key pieces. Marleau's is bad, but again, 3 years. These aren't near as bad as these long contracts like Ladd's and you know it.

Kulikov's contract is possibly worse than Ladds. I get the sense that you don't know just how bad Kulikov was last year. He's a fringe 3rd paring guy. I'm not comparing these contracts directly to anyone by the way. You said GM's stopped handing out bad contracts this year. I gave you several examples of bad UFA contracts just handed out. There were more too. But yes again, I can't read

And come on, Radulov is by far superior to Silfverberg (so far) offensively. Everyone knows this...

He had 5 more points. Yes, that's sooooo superior. Especially when you consider how the two players are used. Just so superior, like so so superior.

I never said Silfverberg doesn't have the leverage. I said he doesn't have more leverage than those players because his numbers don't compare to theirs. Therefore, his contract demands can't be as high. If they are, they would be "outrageous", which goes back to my original statement: Unless Silfverberg's contract demands are outrageous, I don't see why Murray wouldn't value him more.
Read again. We aren't talking about Silverberg right now. We are talking about Silverberg before he becomes a UFA

Except that the original conversation stemmed from you saying he could already get close to 6x6 NOW, which is WRONG.
Read again. No where did I say he would could 6x6 right now. I said after the year he just had it wouldn't be "outrageous" for him to ask for close to that.
Theres a not so subtle difference between asking and getting.


I already said "for conversations sake, let's assume he matches last years total this year". That's because your claim was this his totals now warrant 6x6. That's just wrong.
If you did I apologize. I'm to lazy to actually look

I've never once said his current totals warrant a 6 x 6. I've said in each and every post that this is contingent on Silverberg matching or slightly improving upon his numbers from last year. leading up to him becoming a UFA. Yet here we are

If you're saying that he'll get that number because you expect him to significantly increase his totals next year, then you've wasted all this time because I said that from the very beginning.
I said that from the very first post. It wouldn't take a significant raise in numbers. Maybe 5 -7 points max. Unless you consider that significant


already said it. you just need to read better.

I need to read better

Let me get this straight. You think what players achieved 3 years before contract negotiations is irrelevant? Is that what you are saying. Steens numbers are relevant because they are what earned him his contract.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Read it again.
GM's don't just say "let's look at your last 2 years because that's all that matters". That's now how it works.


Your claim is (unless you're sidestepping again) is that Silfverberg's stats, defensive play, etc. right now warrant 6 years, 6 million or "close to". I call BS, and I see no evidence that supports that claim.

No. Read again. My claim is if he improves( or even maintains) 6x6 is not outrageous. Which seems to be close to what your claiming. Weird.

We can agree to disagree. Just like we did two pages ago.

Even though in the end it seems like we weren't disagreeing at all. lol


Last edited by liquiduck: Yesterday at 06:04 PM.
liquiduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 07:46 PM
  #287
Duck Off
HF needs an App
 
Duck Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Country: United States
Posts: 16,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Even though in the end it seems like we weren't disagreeing at all. lol
I don't understand why you were in such disagreement considering my first posts mentioned that things automatically change if Silfverberg has a significantly better year next year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
No I actually said " Silverberg could probably come close to asking for 6x6 without it being outrageous" I never said that is what he would get
You're omitting the most important part of your post: "right now". That is where the ENTIRE disagreement stemmed from. You said that right now, Silfverberg could come close to asking for 6x6 without it being outrageous. A career high 23 goal, 49 point season warrants close to 6 years, 6 million? Murray would laugh him and his agent out of the ballpark if that were true. I would love to see ANY examples of a player warranting such a contract with those numbers. There aren't any. I gave you a list of comparable players according to capfriendly. All of them had much better stats (leverage during contract negotiations) and several didn't even touch 6x6.

You later said that if he replicates it, then it changes. I agree that it helps, but it still doesn't get you close to 6x6. Again, what example can anyone provide that proves this? I don't see any. I see players with better numbers, more leverage, whatever, with lower salaries. You then scoffed at the examples provided, and couldn't provide any that supported that claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Yup. Still not sure where you are confused
The confusion is clearly because you're kind of jumping around. First it was "right now", then it was "if he has another year like he just had. Kind of hard to follow you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Yea you kinda do. Nobody cares what players did 5 years ago if they aren't producing at that level anymore. You think Iginla is using his career totals right now to negotiate his next contract?
oh come on; don't be ignorant. You know there's a difference in Iggy who's been declining for years. If that's the trend, it stands out. Let's not play dumb please.

You think Vancouver paid Louie 6x6 because of 2 seasons that averaged 55 points? The previous years had nothing to do with that? I think it's pretty obvious that's not the case myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
That's not what you said. You said Palat was younger with no mention of you talking about when contracts are being signed in that post. Yet, I'm the one who can't read or do math. Ironic from the guy claiming others are taking shots at him
It was painfully obvious that were discussing when players signed their contracts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Your list doesn't prove what you think it does. Or what you are saying about age being an issue for Silverberg during the negotiation of his next contract
The list proves that guys with "close to" 6x6 have far superior numbers than what Silverberg does right now. Again, you said he's close to that right now. I gave you a list of players in that ballpark range. ALL had much better numbers than Silfverberg. I'm still waiting for your evidence that supports he's "close to" 6x6 already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
No they weren't, because he was a UFA. Which was my point
Why are you even mentioning this? Both Silfverberg and Eriksson would be UFAs in these examples. Why is this even relevant then?

This is much more simple than you are making it: Each Free agent and their agent(s) ask for said amount. They cite reasons, comparable salaries, etc. as reasons they deserve said amount. The notion that he's close to 6x6 right now is laughable. If he duplicates last year, then it gets closer, but still not close to 6x6. If you think it does, awesome. I see no evidence to support that opinion, but whatever. However, instead of taking shots at my list; try providing your own to support your claim. I don't expect you to, because I tried finding guys who were 50 point wingers that warranted 6x6. There weren't any.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Kulikov's contract is possibly worse than Ladds. I get the sense that you don't know just how bad Kulikov was last year. He's a fringe 3rd paring guy. I'm not comparing these contracts directly to anyone by the way. You said GM's stopped handing out bad contracts this year. I gave you several examples of bad UFA contracts just handed out. There were more too. But yes again, I can't read
I don't agree that Kulikov's contract is close to as bad as Ladd's. He had a bad year, but he's not a fringe 3rd pairing guy. The term alone makes his contract much better. If you disagree, I encourage you to make a poll about which one teams think is worse. I don't think it's close, but hey, that's just me.

There are bad contracts in free agency every year. I didn't say there weren't. I said there weren't many that indicated the market was worsening for bad, long term, deals. It seems to me that teams were being much more weary of giving out too much term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
He had 5 more points. Yes, that's sooooo superior. Especially when you consider how the two players are used. Just so superior, like so so superior
You may not care about his KHL stats, but I guarantee you NHL gms do. He's been an elite goal scorer in KHL for several years before this one. So yes, Radulov is definitely considered a much superior offensive player than Silfverberg.

There's a reason why two players got multi year 4+ million deals without stepping foot on the ice. If you omit the KHL, these guys should be getting cheap deals here, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Read again. We aren't talking about Silverberg right now. We are talking about Silverberg before he becomes a UFA
I guess that would depend on what post of yours we're talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
Read again. No where did I say he would could 6x6 right now. I said after the year he just had it wouldn't be "outrageous" for him to ask for close to that. Theres a not so subtle difference between asking and getting.
oh give me a break. If you're saying he could ask for 6x6, you're insinuating that's somewhat in the ballpark. There is currently zero evidence he or his agent could use throw out that number.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
I've never once said his current totals warrant a 6 x 6. I've said in each and every post that this is contingent on Silverberg matching or slightly improving upon his numbers from last year. leading up to him becoming a UFA. Yet here we are
your words:

"I'm not sure what you define as outrageous, but right now Silf could probably come close to asking for a 6x6 contract, and it wouldn't be outrageous"



nowhere here did you say anything about it being contingent on improvement. After I questioned you, you mentioned that, but you literally used the words "right now" dude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
I need to read better
I probably shouldn't have said it so rudely, so I apologize for that. I would say that you definitely needed to clarify better though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquiduck View Post
No. Read again. My claim is if he improves( or even maintains) 6x6 is not outrageous. Which seems to be close to what your claiming. Weird.
see above.

Duck Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 07:53 PM
  #288
Boogernaut
Castleton Snob
 
Boogernaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Castleton
Posts: 17,745
vCash: 50
Guys...

Boogernaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 08:12 PM
  #289
liquiduck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 2,076
vCash: 500
Yawn...

liquiduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 10:22 PM
  #290
DaGeneral
Registered User
 
DaGeneral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 967
vCash: 500
Ladies, you're both pretty!

DaGeneral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 11:17 PM
  #291
Ducks DVM
Global Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 30,129
vCash: 500
Let's take it to PM's, guys.

Ducks DVM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
Today, 07:02 AM
  #292
Spazkat
Registered User
 
Spazkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Country: United States
Posts: 1,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosbysux View Post
There are benefits to both. However, it's Tatar's high end stick skills that I think will work very well with that line. Kesler's line produced best (in the postseason at least) when Belesky was on it. Belesky isn't a great passer, so it's not necessarily needed there.
IMO the reason Bels worked on that line was his strong forecheck. Tatar's not going to be that. From what I've seen of him, he's more of a perimeter wanna-be sniper type guy. It's been a bit since I've seen many Detroit games so maybe hes changed his playstyle a bit as he matured, but from what I remember he almost goes out of his way to avoid physical contact.

Spazkat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Today, 08:32 AM
  #293
James Franco
Registered User
 
James Franco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Anaheim, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,468
vCash: 500
Vatanen and Kerdiles for Nyquist and Helm

Rakell-Geztlaf-Perry
Nyquist-Kesler-Silfverberg
Cogliano-Helm-Kase
Ritchie-Vermette-Rasmussen

Fowler-Manson
Lindholm-Montour
Megna/Larsson-Holzer

Gibson
Miller

James Franco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Today, 08:54 AM
  #294
heusy_79
9 - 20 - 8
 
heusy_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Worst Case, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,335
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Franco View Post
Vatanen and Kerdiles for Nyquist and Helm

Rakell-Geztlaf-Perry
Nyquist-Kesler-Silfverberg
Cogliano-Helm-Kase
Ritchie-Vermette-Rasmussen

Fowler-Manson
Lindholm-Montour
Megna/Larsson-Holzer

Gibson
Miller
Not sure that Nyquist is cut out to play on our matchup line, I think that lineup would make more sense with him and Cogs swapped.

I think I'd prefer to keep Vats than make that deal though.

heusy_79 is online now   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 10:35 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.