I like Gagner, but I agree on three points of concern raised in this thread
- is he the right fit as 2C given the lack of size in the top six and at centre?
- his inconsistency is very frustrating because he's useless when not putting up points
- his need to be have top ice time to perform
Not to be melodramatic but this Gagner issue IMO will be crucial to the future of this team.
Its unfair to take away his 8 point game and act like doesn't count though. And I think he'll comfortably break 50, he'll be in the 55-60 point range if he plays out the rest of the year.
I agree, however if he ends up with 50 or 51 points and 8 of those points came in a single game how much progress doe that show? If he's at 55-60 points at the end of the year that is a clear improvement.
__________________ Treat Others As You Would Like To Be Treated
I agree, however if he ends up with 50 or 51 points and 8 of those points came in a single game how much progress doe that show? If he's at 55-60 points at the end of the year that is a clear improvement.
He also only had 2 points in the first 13 games after coming back from his injury. It's no more fair to exclude his 8 point night than his first 13. Take out those first games and he has 39 points in 44 games. That's a 73 point pace.
He also only had 2 points in the first 13 games after coming back from his injury. It's no more fair to exclude his 8 point night than his first 13. Take out those first games and he has 39 points in 44 games. That's a 73 point pace.
I agree. Good point. I think it is silly to bring up either. Bottom line is he is on pace for a 60 point season, if he played the whole year. For a 22 year old, that is pretty dam good.
He also only had 2 points in the first 13 games after coming back from his injury. It's no more fair to exclude his 8 point night than his first 13. Take out those first games and he has 39 points in 44 games. That's a 73 point pace.
To be fair, he was coming off a high ankle sprain and put on the wing with Belanger and Paajarvi.
No wonder it took him a little while to get going.
I agree that 2 points in 13 games isn't a good example of his normal play obviously, but I also don't see Gagner hanging onto a 70+ point pace at this point in his career
He was also coming back from an injury and playing bottom 6 with like 12 minutes of icetime a night. Point being, it's not fair to pick and choose what stats you want to look at. As far as I'm concerned, he's a 22 year old #2C on pace for 53 points in 75 games
I agree that 2 points in 13 games isn't a good example of his normal play obviously, but I also don't see Gagner hanging onto a 70+ point pace at this point in his career
Neither do I. I'm just making the point that you can make stats say whatever you want by discrediting games (whether it's 1 game, or 13)
2 year contract for $3.25-3.5M/yr sounds fair in my mind.
Let him show us that he's still improving, while getting some recognition pay wise for his game.
I'll be honest, I'm impressed with Gagner's improvements this year. I have been one of his loudest critics on this board, and he's done well this year pas the 20ish game mark.
If at the beginning of the season you would've told me that after 57 games, Sam Gagner was sitting at 49.8% FO, I would've told you your full of ****.
His improvement this year in both his defensive game and FO's is impressive.
His only issue now is offensive consistency. If he can bring that next season, then we have our #2 of the future. He's got the offense, and the creativity, he just needs the consistency. Being a streaky guy won't get you far in this league.
Which is crazy to think, because before this season, his game was lacking on so many levels, it was hard to predict him even being an Oiler past TDD.
__________________ <-- Credit goes to The Nemesis.
Between 3 3.25 and shipping him off as soon as they draft Grigorenko is funny to say the least, was this not suggested after Lander had a good rookie camp
Between 3 3.25 and shipping him off as soon as they draft Grigorenko is funny to say the least, was this not suggested after Lander had a good rookie camp
So what would you offer for him? Cap and term? Also to be fair Grigorenko and Galchenyuk have a lot better pedigree than Lander did/does.
I'd do four years at $12M although I doubt that gets it done. He's probably going to get a minimum of $3.5M and possibly more.
I'm a fan of Sam's but he still worries me a little. Outside of his one huge game, he's on track to basically have the same season as his first four seasons in the league (40ish points, 15ish goals). The big question with him is if he'll ever take that next step and be a 65-70 point centreman who can play a consistent season.
Sam only has 5 points in his last 10 games and he's gone pointless in 7 of those (despite getting around 18 minutes of icetime a game). Is that a player who is worth more than $3M a season.
People have unrealistic views on what constitutes a decent 2nd line centre in the NHL. Not picking on you specifically, but last season only 16 centres had 65+ pts and the year before it was 22 centres with 65+ pts.
If Gagner is scoring 65-70 pts consistently he'd be a 1st liner... no ifs, ands or buts about it.
More realistically, the offensive range for 2nd line centres was 37-54 pts last year and 36-55 pts the year before that and Gagner was pretty much smack in the middle of that range each year. He IS a legit 2nd line centre when it comes to offensive numbers.
Of course other factors do come into play... defense, physicality, faceoffs, leadership etc... and you could argue the sum of all parts of his game put him at a lower level than the average 2nd line centre... but that's debatable. Facts are if we expect him to ratchet up his offense to 65-70 pts a year then he becomes a 1st line player worthy of 1st line money.
i would try and trade him, he is not on the score sheet enough to be worth a 3-4 mill a year contract. I say try to package him for help on the back end or a goalie.
Might be hard for Gagner, but 98 other players managed to do it last year.
only 34 centers did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryanbryoil
Also will he score 50 simply because he had one historic game? In the end it doesn't matter, but he'll need more consistency going forward to continue reaching and topping that mark.
The fact he had a historic game shows how much skill he has.
I find it hard to believe people are using that as a negative. And also don't take into account the injury suffered in training camp which meant he wasn't in game condition at the start of the season.
-------------------
At the end of the day he's averaging just under 17 minutes a game, his season pace would result in 21 goals 60 points, and his faceoffs are at 49.8%.
It's a dicey situation if we don't think he can take that next step. He's still only 22 and the comparable I always think of for Sam is Marc Savard.
Savard has a 65 point season with Calgary at age 24 and then broke out in 2003-04 at 26 years old with a point per game in a shortened season. If Gagner isn't capable of that kind of leap in production, it seems really dangerous to me to pay him $3.5M long-term.
The real question we have to ask is this: Is Sam Gagner the long-term answer behind Nugent-Hopkins as our #2 centreman. If the answer to that question is "no," then we need to start thinking about possible options. If we're in a position to draft Grigorenko and we're sold on him being a great centreman, it might be worth trying to package Gagner with some assets to try to get an upgrade on the blueline. I like Gagner but I'm still up in the air with regards to his long-term future in this organization. Grigorenko has some huge questions to his game but he does have the size to be a good guy on the 2nd line behind RNH.
I said goodbye to Sam the day we drafted RNH. And it has nothing to do with his ability to take the next step or not. I don't care if he can get to a point per game because I care about winning in the playoffs and when the games get tough I cannot see a team winning with two small centres in their top 6. Gagner could really help a team that already has a large centre and large wingers but when the going gets tough I do not see a team with as many small soft players as Edmonton has being able to compete and we just had two examples of this with St. Louis and Dallas in town. So Sammy's regular season point totals - the subject of so much admiration and speculation on this board - really don't mean sweet all if he can't do it when we are down to 8 or 4 teams and every other team has at least one 210 pound centre who is leaning on Gagner from the start of the game to the end of it.
Trade him for a dman and choose Galchenyuk or Grigorenko. That would solve two problems and get us close to a playoff spot next year.
I chose other. 3 yrs/10mil for a hit of 3.33per. Gives up one year of UFA eligibility. Stagger the dollars to reflect what he'd likely get on one year deals for those particular years (3, 3.25, 3.75). He does have arbitration rights this year though, so unless they get crackin right away, it might not be in Tambo's hands.... OR he might settle for less to get the 2yr deal and the earliest possible UFA status (an arbitrator could also do this).
Bottom line, we should avoid overpaying him at all costs.
Gagner's contract is a very significant issue going forward. If he is not traded at the draft, this deal needs to take into consideration that it must still be an open question as to whether or not he is a key piece of the puzzle going forward. Until Hall, Eberle and RNH are all locked up tight I would be very cautious of giving term and money to anyone.
I still don't see Gagner as the right guy for the number two role going forward. If they end up with Yakupov, maybe. That said, 3 years at $3-3.5M is probaby a tradeable contract if you need to make a move. Front loading it a bit may make it even more so.
The fact he had a historic game shows how much skill he has.
I find it hard to believe people are using that as a negative. And also don't take into account the injury suffered in training camp which meant he wasn't in game condition at the start of the season.
-------------------
At the end of the day he's averaging just under 17 minutes a game, his season pace would result in 21 goals 60 points, and his faceoffs are at 49.8%.
Seems a lot of people don't have realistic expectations as to what a 2nd line center should be scoring.
For a lot of us it is not the number of points he gets that is the issue but whether or not his over all game complements the guys he is behind on the teams pecking order. Personaly, I don't think it does.
What your numbers do show though is that he should have a fair bit of value in a trade.
The fact he had a historic game shows how much skill he has.
I find it hard to believe people are using that as a negative. And also don't take into account the injury suffered in training camp which meant he wasn't in game condition at the start of the season.
-------------------
At the end of the day he's averaging just under 17 minutes a game, his season pace would result in 21 goals 60 points, and his faceoffs are at 49.8%.
<-- Credit goes to The Nemesis.
