HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Armchair GM Thread - LXXVII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-07-2014, 05:09 PM
  #1
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,407
vCash: 178
The Armchair GM Thread - LXXVII

Continue

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 05:14 PM
  #2
Ronning On Empty
Moderator
Formerly BleachClean
 
Ronning On Empty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Sutter is a middling 3rd line center. 4 straight seasons in the 25-30 point range, and at 25 there isn't a lot of reason to think he'll improve. Smart defensively, decent PK guy, not very physical. He isn't one of the top 10 #3 centers in the league.

I look at possession, GA20 and points (among other things) to determine his value. You could say he's middling points wise, not overall IMO. The bottom6 in PIT is that bad. For him to stay afloat and finish with a positive CorsiRelQoC is a good thing. He's a play driver.


Quote:
Schenn has been juggled all over the place in Philly, saddled with possession disasters (Lecavalier) as linemates, and I'd argue his game (north-south physical player who is more of a shooter) is much better suited to the wing than center. But he's still produced solid 2nd line numbers for the last two years, and is only 22 and has loads of room to improve. I can easily see him as a consistent 25-30 goal threat for the next 5 years.

Teams succeed based on their core players. Nothing in that Pittsburgh package is ever going to be a core player for this team or one of the top 8 or so players on the squad. The moment you make a deal like that of an impact player for replaceable assets to fill the bottom end of a roster, you lose.

Schenn might not be a core player yet, but he is currently a top-6 player and you can easily see him going that direction.

By points, he's a top6 player. By other metrics, I question if he is even that. It's like Hodgson. If he gets worked in possession and GA20, but scores, what is his worth as a top6 player? Mixed at best I would say.

The linemate excuse is a red herring. For the forwards he played with 100 min or over, only Raffl saw a CF% spike. Every other forward was brought down.

Yes, he can improve. But he's going to have to first improve to be a Sutter level player, and then surpass him.



Quote:
I view Schenn as a winger and on a team where no scored more than 17 goals last year and only Daniel Sedin scored more than 40 points ... this is a player that addresses a specific role here. We need wingers with finishing skills, and need them badly. And the fact that he can play center only adds to his value.

A first rounder in the #25-30 overall range has about a 20% chance of becoming a top-6/top-4 player. Pittsburgh's #1 pick isn't a very impressive asset.

A 1st rounder is much, much better than Cousins + 3rd. You could remove them from the package and it would make little difference.

Schenn has actually looked bad on the wing. That's why Lecavalier gets pushed there instead of him...

We value Sutter and Schenn differently, I think, because we value possession differently. I like play drivers, points aside, while you prefer the points first, possession aside. As such, we won't agree on the relative worth of each player.

Ronning On Empty is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 05:20 PM
  #3
LolClarkson*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,906
vCash: 500
Benning said he wants to run with 4 lines. So I would rather have 2 first line centers then the typical checking 2nd liner. Spezza and H.Sedin would give us 2 top line centers. Then the 3rd line could do the checking. But since Spezz has one year left, getting him now makes no sense frankly. That's next years free agent signing.

What happened to Vanek and Garth Snow this year has really thrown cold water on star rentals. I don't anyone will get Spezz this year. Plus Ottawa is full of it when they are saying that they cant afford him this year. They only owe him 4 million real dollars this year. They are putting him out there to see what happens.

Either way, Keslers money will be off the books this year and next if he's traded.

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 05:29 PM
  #4
Ronning On Empty
Moderator
Formerly BleachClean
 
Ronning On Empty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,990
vCash: 500
Just to hit the point home about Schenn, and his 'progression' this year, the broadstreet hockey article states it nicely:

Quote:
Looking at raw points, Schenn appears to be trending in the right direction. He's on pace for his best offensive season of his career, which holds up even after controlling for 5v5 ice time. Unfortunately, his underlying possession numbers have not improved along with his point totals, hinting that his improvement this season may be mostly a product of elevated on-ice shooting percentages rather than sustainable development.
What does he look like with a more normalized on-ice shooting percentage next year?

Might actually be a good time for PHI to move him...

Ronning On Empty is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 05:31 PM
  #5
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
I think it's pretty clear than Schenn is the more offensive player both is skill set and actual production at the NHL, AHL and junior leagues they both played in.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 05:40 PM
  #6
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
I fully appreciate advanced stats and would freely admit that Sutter (in his 6th full NHL season) was probably more effective at playing his role in 13-14 than Schenn (in his 3rd, with his long-term position still up in the air).

However, if you're using Corsi to determine that a mid-career low-upside 25 point 3rd line center is a better asset than an improving 20 goal, 22 y/o top-6 forward .... you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

If these players were stuck in their current selves forever, you might have a point. But most everyone would expect that Schenn would continue to show substantial improvement at both ends of the ice over the next 2-3 years.

MS is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 05:43 PM
  #7
Random Forest
aka hockeyfreak7
 
Random Forest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Specific context can overturn the general rule, but it does not replace the general rule. The general rule is that teams want to get younger. But quality can trump youth, which is why you see teams wanting to give up futures for Kesler. It can precede the general rule.
If the general rule is broken enough times, it ceases to be a rule. Richards to LA, Carter to CBS, Brendan Morrow to PIT, etc. etc. There are dozens of examples.

I'm not even sure how this relates to Kesler and the Flyers anymore. If anything you're proving my case. The Flyers are in no position to deal youth for Kesler.


Quote:
Think about this from a pragmatic sense. You're a GM, and Holmgren has a reputation of inflating prices and backing off last minute. Are you going to treat Homer the same as every GM the next time he comes around with an offer? Nope. You're going to change tactics and your timeline in order to avoid the subterfuge. It catches up to people.

But like I said, I don't believe it, so I don't think Holmer was phoning up people to make fake offers and to drive up prices. I choose to believe Holmer isn't that stupid. Short-term manipulative, long-term stupid.
I'm not sure you're understanding. It's quite possible Gillis and Holmgren were both aware that Kesler would never be a Flyer, but were simply having names dropped to the media in an attempt to drive the price up on Pittsburgh at the last minute. It's shrewd, but it's certainly possible.

Quote:
Well Simmonds did have a higher CF% away from Schenn so... A lot of combinations Schenn was involved with performed worse, than if those players played with others.
Again, Simmonds and Schenn played together all year. I'm not comfortable using their short times apart to draw any conclusions as to who was driving the play. The second line was pretty bad altogether for most of the year. It only looked passable once Lecavalier got the boot for Hartnell.

Random Forest is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 05:57 PM
  #8
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,407
vCash: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
Poor asset management? In terms of value but not overall roster composition. We likely become a much stronger team with the cap flexibility. Individually I agree that we could deal the package for more value but we're unlikely to get 1 piece that's as good as the 1st overall. Like with the Kesler/Luongo deals teams are hesitant to give up their best prospect/piece.

Garrison hasn't been a stellar fit but he has value as a top 4 guy.
Hansen is a high end 3rd liner. Valuable secondary piece
6th overall likely picks up a good player.
Buying out Jovo = really hard to gauge value
36th overall = mystery box

1st overall = blue chip prospect

We're losing a lot of secondary pieces, but guys who aren't Horvat, '15 1st, etc. I would do the 3-4 good pieces for 1 great piece trade any day.
What use is cap flexibility when we have no one to actually spend it on? Again, we hearken back to the obsession with the "mystery box", wherein people fancy the unknown more than established roster players. In your scenario, we have virtually no alternates after the Reinhart trade and a depleted depth we have to hope UFA signings can fill.

Teams simply do not trade that much quality for an unknown commodity. Jordan Staal brought in the 8th overall, alongside Brian Dumoulin and Brandon Sutter. Coincidentally, two of those same pieces Pittsburgh now wants to trade for Kesler. Notice how, despite having a top ten pick, Carolina still had to add even though it was speculated Staal wanted to sign there anyway?

Simply put, GMs value actual proven talent over prospects.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 05:58 PM
  #9
banme*
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,573
vCash: 500
Kesler + Hansen to ANA for Etem + Theodore + 10th overall
Garrison + 1st + 2nd to FLA for 1st + Jovonovski (buyout or bury)

Draft Reinhart at 1, Virtanen at 10.

Sedin Sedin Jensen
Booth Reinhart Kassian
Burrows Matthias Etem
Higgins Richardson Downie

Hamhuis Bieksa
Edler Tanev
Corrado Stanton

(This is all assuming Garrison would waive and Florida would even want him back. My guess is at least one of those would prevent that trade, in which case I'd begrudgingly offer Tanev.)

It may not be as much change as some would hope for, but it would provide decent shelter for our younger players, which is important when looking a couple years down the road. I would not expect this team to be ultra-competitive by any means, and it'd be interesting to see how the year would play out; however, we'd have a much deeper prospect pool. I'd like Horvat, Shinkaruk, and Theodore (and obviously Virtanen) to spend another year developing, and I'd like to see Burrows (hopefully after a decent bounce-back year) moved at the TDL for a pick or what have you. Following year, bring in Shinkaruk at 2LW, bring in Horvat as 3C, and move Matthias to 3LW.

banme* is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 05:59 PM
  #10
Ronning On Empty
Moderator
Formerly BleachClean
 
Ronning On Empty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
I fully appreciate advanced stats and would freely admit that Sutter (in his 6th full NHL season) was probably more effective at playing his role in 13-14 than Schenn (in his 3rd, with his long-term position still up in the air).

However, if you're using Corsi to determine that a mid-career low-upside 25 point 3rd line center is a better asset than an improving 20 goal, 22 y/o top-6 forward .... you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

See, advanced stats explains this fallacy (the bolded). They explain why Schenn is seeing that increase in scoring: on-ice SH %. If that normalizes next year, and his possession holds firm, then people could be talking about 'decline' for Schenn. When really, it's not sustainable growth/decline unless his possession starts improving/dropping.

When you cite point differential as the separator, and advanced stats points out why this should not be done, then I have to think that possession and sustainable development falls secondary to points for you. Points that swing based on on-ice SH %. That's the wrong thing to value in of itself IMO. The real keys are A) Can he do this again? and B) Is there sustainable development?

From last year to this year, there really hasn't been for Schenn.


Quote:
If these players were stuck in their current selves forever, you might have a point. But most everyone would expect that Schenn would continue to show substantial improvement at both ends of the ice over the next 2-3 years.

He could, but then I wonder why even the current year's assertion is being challenged? If you want to wait to see if Schenn improves his possession numbers to get up to where Sutter are, I'm good with that. But I hope there's an acknowledgement of how they differ right now. I think you're kind of half providing that, but still cite points as the more important difference.

Ronning On Empty is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 06:02 PM
  #11
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,407
vCash: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliot20 View Post
The reason we went to the bargain bin is because it's very difficult to sign a Cammalleri or an Iginla or any high end UFA for that matter. It's a 1 in 30 chance. There are 29 other teams in the league who want to do what you just suggested.

Why play the odds and go through a bidding war to secure a guy like Cammelleri for $5+ million long term, when we have a guy who is a valuable trade piece to reset the franchise. We can start the bidding war instead.

There are a lot of 'ifs' in your list and although it may be ideal, I think the best course of action is to trade Kesler as requested before the draft. UFA starts July 1st.

With potential trade partners like Anaheim and Pittsburgh, we can trade for a top 10 pick this year + a guy like Etem.
Because Cammalleri or other UFA equivalents make us a better team in the here and now. Every current top tier team found at least one major asset through free agency and/or trade, the later of which never saw them part with core aspects of their roster. That has been the one thing we've failed to accomplish. Gaborik is damn near the reason LA is playing in the Finals right now.

Sometimes, yes, you strike out. But rarely have we even been rumored to push for any top tier UFAs or trades, the exception being Hamhuis and Garrison, who both addressed interest playing here well before we coveted them.

Provided Kesler does want to stay, I would rather explore the UFA market with our cap than rebuild the whole roster, especially because I firmly believe last year was an anomaly and that the majority (if not all) of our roster will rebound.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 06:03 PM
  #12
Diamonddog01
Diamond in the rough
 
Diamonddog01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,213
vCash: 500
Let's say Tanev + 6th actually gets Florida's attention...very unlikely but at least the value is there.

Now, this is an admittedly unrealistic pipe dream scenario, but instead of receiving assets from a Kesler trade - I wonder if somehow we could send those to Buffalo for the 2nd? IE Rakell, 10th, 24th for example to Buff for the 2nd. Not sure if the value is there, but that would certainly make a splash on draft day. Or possibly to Edmonton, but that's obviously a gamble - no assurance Buffalo takes Bennett.

Nab Reinhart and Ekblad at 1 and 2.


Last edited by Diamonddog01: 06-07-2014 at 06:13 PM.
Diamonddog01 is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 06:03 PM
  #13
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternalcashflow View Post
Kesler + Hansen to ANA for Etem + Theodore + 10th overall
Garrison + 1st + 2nd to FLA for 1st + Jovonovski (buyout or bury)

Draft Reinhart at 1, Virtanen at 10.

Sedin Sedin Jensen
Booth Reinhart Kassian
Burrows Matthias Etem
Higgins Richardson Downie

Hamhuis Bieksa
Edler Tanev
Corrado Stanton

(This is all assuming Garrison would waive and Florida would even want him back. My guess is at least one of those would prevent that trade, in which case I'd begrudgingly offer Tanev.)

It may not be as much change as some would hope for, but it would provide decent shelter for our younger players, which is important when looking a couple years down the road. I would not expect this team to be ultra-competitive by any means, and it'd be interesting to see how the year would play out; however, we'd have a much deeper prospect pool. I'd like Horvat, Shinkaruk, and Theodore (and obviously Virtanen) to spend another year developing, and I'd like to see Burrows (hopefully after a decent bounce-back year) moved at the TDL for a pick or what have you. Following year, bring in Shinkaruk at 2LW, bring in Horvat as 3C, and move Matthias to 3LW.
Not with respect to the blueline. It all hinges on all of them staying healthy (Tanev has never played more than 65 games in one season at the professional level (AHL or NHL). Tanev is the *only* other play that Edler hasn't looked awful with. Power play continues to have no right side QB'ing D.

Assuming Corrado is even ready (didn't have the greatest season in Uttica this past year), nobody else is ready on the farm for "prime time". Easier to fill in holes up front than on the blueline in case of injuries (which the Canucks always seem to suffer from).

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 06:10 PM
  #14
Ronning On Empty
Moderator
Formerly BleachClean
 
Ronning On Empty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
If the general rule is broken enough times, it ceases to be a rule. Richards to LA, Carter to CBS, Brendan Morrow to PIT, etc. etc. There are dozens of examples.

I'm not even sure how this relates to Kesler and the Flyers anymore. If anything you're proving my case. The Flyers are in no position to deal youth for Kesler.

The Flyers can very much trade youth for Kesler. Will they? Don't know, but they certainly have the ability.

So you're saying that teams want older players and not youth, as a general rule...? Sure, ok. Agree to disagree I guess...


Quote:
I'm not sure you're understanding. It's quite possible Gillis and Holmgren were both aware that Kesler would never be a Flyer, but were simply having names dropped to the media in an attempt to drive the price up on Pittsburgh at the last minute. It's shrewd, but it's certainly possible.

Again, Simmonds and Schenn played together all year. I'm not comfortable using their short times apart to draw any conclusions as to who was driving the play. The second line was pretty bad altogether for most of the year. It only looked passable once Lecavalier got the boot for Hartnell.

Gillis was in on Holmgren making fake bids for Kesler to mess up Shero... "Shrewd" wouldn't be the word I'd go with there... Anyways.

There are multiple forwards that played with Schenn for over a 100 min in time. Even with Simmonds removed from the analysis, Schenn struggled. Dragged all but Raffl down...

Ronning On Empty is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 06:16 PM
  #15
KeninsFan
Fire Benning already
 
KeninsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,216
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
What use is cap flexibility when we have no one to actually spend it on? Again, we hearken back to the obsession with the "mystery box", wherein people fancy the unknown more than established roster players. In your scenario, we have virtually no alternates after the Reinhart trade and a depleted depth we have to hope UFA signings can fill.

Simply put, GMs value actual proven talent over prospects.
You actually answered your own question much better than I could have, we could sign a guy like Cammy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Because Cammalleri or other UFA equivalents make us a better team in the here and now. Every current top tier team found at least one major asset through free agency and/or trade, the later of which never saw them part with core aspects of their roster.

Provided Kesler does want to stay, I would rather explore the UFA market with our cap than rebuild the whole roster, especially because I firmly believe last year was an anomaly and that the majority (if not all) of our roster will rebound.
Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
xxxx - Kesler - Kassian
Higgins - Horvat - Santo
Richardson - Matthias - xxxx
Sestito

Hamhuis - Tanev
Stanton - Bieksa
Edler - Ekblad
Jovo, Weber

That a 61M roster. 10 Million to sign a 2nd liner/depth.

KeninsFan is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 06:18 PM
  #16
Random Forest
aka hockeyfreak7
 
Random Forest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
The Flyers can very much trade youth for Kesler. Will they? Don't know, but they certainly have the ability.

So you're saying that teams want older players and not youth, as a general rule...? Sure, ok. Agree to disagree I guess...
No...I'm not.

I'm saying there is no general rule. I'm saying it depends on team-to-team context.

And the Flyers can trade youth, of course...should they? Probably not. They're not going to be competing for the Cup for another couple years, so they might as well wait for Schenn.


Quote:
Gillis was in on Holmgren making fake bids for Kesler to mess up Shero... "Shrewd" wouldn't be the word I'd go with there... Anyways.

There are multiple forwards that played with Schenn for over a 100 min in time. Even with Simmonds removed from the analysis, Schenn struggled. Dragged all but Raffl down...
Sure. If that's the conclusion you draw, then that's your prerogative. I'm not here to change your mind. But I don't think it's so black and white. WOWY stats are not infallible.

For example, Lecavalier finally got demoted to the fourth line...and he went on a hot streak. Your explanation would be "Schenn stopped dragging him down". Mine may be "the demotion woke him up, and he elevated his play".

I am a major proponent of advanced stats, but I constantly advise that they should be used with caution. It's very easy to assume causal connections when the stats say one thing, but the explanation may be more qualitative in nature. And there may be no explanation at all.

Random Forest is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 06:42 PM
  #17
Ronning On Empty
Moderator
Formerly BleachClean
 
Ronning On Empty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
No...I'm not.

I'm saying there is no general rule. I'm saying it depends on team-to-team context.

Every team prefers to get younger rather than older. This is known. It's a common idiom on the lips of every GM. Said over and over again. If you want to say the opposite, or that certain cases overturn the rule, or some teams want to get older and some younger, you are free to do so. I don't agree, of course.

I think all teams, if given a choice, prefer to get younger. Quality being the same. And that certain cases don't overturn the MO. This is something I thought was pretty straight forward, but I'm OK with leaving it here.


Quote:
Sure. If that's the conclusion you draw, then that's your prerogative. I'm not here to change your mind. But I don't think it's so black and white. WOWY stats are not infallible.

For example, Lecavalier finally got demoted to the fourth line...and he went on a hot streak. Your explanation would be "Schenn stopped dragging him down". Mine may be "the demotion woke him up, and he elevated his play".

WOWY is the first step. Check out his possession stats on behindthenet, his GA and FF numbers on ExtraSkater, or even just the article by broadstreet hockey that was posted. His possession game needs improvement... and hasn't had it despite the increased points this year.

Lecavalier and Schenn technically brought each other down. It wasn't one way.


Quote:
I am a major proponent of advanced stats, but I constantly advise that they should be used with caution. It's very easy to assume causal connections when the stats say one thing, but the explanation may be more qualitative in nature. And there may be no explanation at all.

This is well understood, but I wonder what qualitative explanation there is to outline why Schenn did the same thing with every forward but Raffl?

Ronning On Empty is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 06:44 PM
  #18
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,407
vCash: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
You actually answered your own question much better than I could have, we could sign a guy like Cammy



Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
xxxx - Kesler - Kassian
Higgins - Horvat - Santo
Richardson - Matthias - xxxx
Sestito

Hamhuis - Tanev
Stanton - Bieksa
Edler - Ekblad
Jovo, Weber

That a 61M roster. 10 Million to sign a 2nd liner/depth.
FORWARDS
Daniel Sedin ($7.000m) / Henrik Sedin ($7.000m) / Nicklas Jensen ($0.863m)
Mike Cammalleri ($6.000m) / Ryan Kesler ($5.000m) / Zack Kassian ($1.500m)
Chris Higgins ($2.500m) / Mike Santorelli ($1.550m) / Alexandre Burrows ($4.500m)
Brad Richardson ($1.150m) / Shawn Matthias ($1.750m) / Jannik Hansen ($2.500m)
Tom Sestito ($0.750m) /
DEFENSEMEN
Alexander Edler ($5.000m) / Chris Tanev ($3.000m)
Dan Hamhuis ($4.500m) / Jason Garrison ($4.600m)
Ryan Stanton ($0.550m) / Kevin Bieksa ($4.600m)
Yannick Weber ($0.715m) /
GOALTENDERS
Eddie Lack ($1.150m)
Jacob Markstrom ($1.200m)
BUYOUTS
David Booth ($0.000m)
Keith Ballard ($0.000m)
RETAINED SALARIES (1.13% of upper limit)
Roberto Luongo ($0.800m—15.00%)
------
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(estimations for 2014-15)
SALARY CAP: $71,100,000; CAP PAYROLL: $68,178,333; BONUSES: $0
CAP SPACE (22-man roster): $2,921,667


And this is a better roster, especially since we could get Cammalleri for less and still have 3M to play with (more since that addition would replace Jensen or Hansen). Horvat making the team hinges on if he unseats someone else, which would prompt us to either trade Hansen or scratch Richardson and maybe bump Santorelli. I do not fancy just giving rookies a spot. They should be taking it simply because they've outperformed someone else.

Alternatively, we can afford to sign Cammalleri even if Kesler goes. In either case, we do not lose a plethora of depth just to move up five spots. In your scenario, we may actually not be able to spend to the cap, making such a ridiculously one-sided trade wasted.

In layman's terms: Dal Colle/Ehlers/Ritchie + Garrison/Tanev + Hansen + 2nd (36th) > Reinhart/Ekblad

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 06:45 PM
  #19
LolClarkson*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,906
vCash: 500
An offer from Ottawa. Posted for humor's sake.


Spezza, Anderson

Tanev, Markstrom, Shinkaruk, 1st



Just goes to show how badly people mis-value a pending UFA player.

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 06:51 PM
  #20
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,407
vCash: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by HC Davos View Post
An offer from Ottawa. Posted for humor's sake.


Spezza, Anderson

Tanev, Markstrom, Shinkaruk, 1st



Just goes to show how badly people mis-value a pending UFA player.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 06:52 PM
  #21
KeninsFan
Fire Benning already
 
KeninsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,216
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
FORWARDS
Daniel Sedin ($7.000m) / Henrik Sedin ($7.000m) / Nicklas Jensen ($0.863m)
Mike Cammalleri ($6.000m) / Ryan Kesler ($5.000m) / Zack Kassian ($1.500m)
Chris Higgins ($2.500m) / Mike Santorelli ($1.550m) / Alexandre Burrows ($4.500m)
Brad Richardson ($1.150m) / Shawn Matthias ($1.750m) / Jannik Hansen ($2.500m)
Tom Sestito ($0.750m) /
DEFENSEMEN
Alexander Edler ($5.000m) / Chris Tanev ($3.000m)
Dan Hamhuis ($4.500m) / Jason Garrison ($4.600m)
Ryan Stanton ($0.550m) / Kevin Bieksa ($4.600m)
Yannick Weber ($0.715m) /
GOALTENDERS
Eddie Lack ($1.150m)
Jacob Markstrom ($1.200m)
BUYOUTS
David Booth ($0.000m)
Keith Ballard ($0.000m)
RETAINED SALARIES (1.13% of upper limit)
Roberto Luongo ($0.800m—15.00%)
------
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(estimations for 2014-15)
SALARY CAP: $71,100,000; CAP PAYROLL: $68,178,333; BONUSES: $0
CAP SPACE (22-man roster): $2,921,667


And this is a better roster, especially since we could get Cammalleri for less and still have 3M to play with (more since that addition would replace Jensen or Hansen). Horvat making the team hinges on if he unseats someone else, which would prompt us to either trade Hansen or scratch Richardson and maybe bump Santorelli. I do not fancy just giving rookies a spot. They should be taking it simply because they've outperformed someone else.
There's really no difference between our rosters. I prefer Garrison dealt because I believe it improves our transition game. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say Garrison > Ekblad but Hansen on the 4th line is easily replaceable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
In layman's terms: Dal Colle/Ehlers/Ritchie + Garrison/Tanev + Hansen + 2nd (36th) > Reinhart/Ekblad
Disagree, historically the #1 is worth much more than a #6 pick. Adding in 3rd liners and top 4 guys won't make up the difference when the #1 pans out.

A slight downgrade on the 2nd pairing (Garrison/Ekblad) and losing a 4th line RW isn't a huge price to pay to jump from #6 to #1.

KeninsFan is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 06:54 PM
  #22
Random Forest
aka hockeyfreak7
 
Random Forest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Every team prefers to get younger rather than older. This is known. It's a common idiom on the lips of every GM. Said over and over again. If you want to say the opposite, or that certain cases overturn the rule, or some teams want to get older and some younger, you are free to do so. I don't agree, of course.

I think all teams, if given a choice, prefer to get younger. Quality being the same. And that certain cases don't overturn the MO. This is something I thought was pretty straight forward, but I'm OK with leaving it here.
Then why are teams lining up their young prospects for Kesler?!

I get the feeling you're being deliberately difficult on this point. Why doesn't Boston just dump Chara for futures if youth is the ultimate priority? They don't because youth is not the ultimate priority. For some teams (not all), experience is the next step. This is not an outrageous claim.

Quote:
WOWY is the first step. Check out his possession stats on behindthenet, his GA and FF numbers on ExtraSkater, or even just the article by broadstreet hockey that was posted. His possession game needs improvement... and hasn't had it despite the increased points this year.

Lecavalier and Schenn technically brought each other down. It wasn't one way.
I don't disagree with this. Schenn needs to be better, and I'm not claiming any different. As long as you recognize that other players are indeed responsible for the poor performance of that line as well. Some more than Schenn.


Quote:
This is well understood, but I wonder what qualitative explanation there is to outline why Schenn did the same thing with every forward but Raffl?
Okay, enough with the "every forward" thing. We're talking about Simmonds, Lecavalier, and Hartnell here. Everyone else had marginal time with Schenn.

And like I've been saying all along, that line was poor until Lecavalier got bumped. Hartnell-Schenn-Simmonds was actually quite effective. You're implying that Schenn was the anchor that brought that line down which is not the case. For most of the season, Lecavalier was quite obviously the anchor.

That doesn't mean Schenn was excellent, but the picture you're painting is disingenuous.

Random Forest is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 07:00 PM
  #23
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,031
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Just to hit the point home about Schenn, and his 'progression' this year, the broadstreet hockey article states it nicely:

What does he look like with a more normalized on-ice shooting percentage next year?

Might actually be a good time for PHI to move him...
What exactly is not "normal" about an 8.4% on ice shooting percentage? That was barely above the median for top 6 forwards this season.

And if we're talking shooting percentage, then you have to consider that he had the lowest 5-on-4 on ice S% among the top 6 forwards on his team, so I'd argue there's room for an increase on the 9 PP points he put up. Especially if he got more time with the man advantage.

opendoor is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 07:15 PM
  #24
slappipappi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternalcashflow View Post
l
Garrison + 1st + 2nd to FLA for 1st + Jovonovski (buyout or bury)

If you are Florida do you cash in an exceptionally great trade chip to get Garrison?

We are talking about Garrison, who likely isn't even worth his contract.

I get that Vancouver is throwing in it's first which has great value.

But the first overall would bring in a premium talent. They aren't trading it for a bunch of stuff.

slappipappi is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 07:36 PM
  #25
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
See, advanced stats explains this fallacy (the bolded). They explain why Schenn is seeing that increase in scoring: on-ice SH %. If that normalizes next year, and his possession holds firm, then people could be talking about 'decline' for Schenn. When really, it's not sustainable growth/decline unless his possession starts improving/dropping.

When you cite point differential as the separator, and advanced stats points out why this should not be done, then I have to think that possession and sustainable development falls secondary to points for you. Points that swing based on on-ice SH %. That's the wrong thing to value in of itself IMO. The real keys are A) Can he do this again? and B) Is there sustainable development?

From last year to this year, there really hasn't been for Schenn.





He could, but then I wonder why even the current year's assertion is being challenged? If you want to wait to see if Schenn improves his possession numbers to get up to where Sutter are, I'm good with that. But I hope there's an acknowledgement of how they differ right now. I think you're kind of half providing that, but still cite points as the more important difference.
As noted by opendoor, there's really nothing that unusual about Schenn's on-ice shooting %.

And again, use of advanced stats to determine that a young developing top-6 forward is a worse asset moving forward than a mid-career 25-30 point middling 3rd line center is just ridiculous to me.

Sutter is 2 years from UFA. He's a 3rd liner who scored 26 points last year. To consider him a substantial trade chip is just baffling.

Most young centers struggle in their first few years. If we use your metrics, most young skilled top-6 centers in their first couple NHL seasons have lower value than effective veteran checkers. And that isn't the case. Is Dainus Zubrus a better asset than Nathan McKinnon, to take it to an extreme?

Schenn will continue to improve. He also might play a different position with less responsibility. And in terms of building a team, guys who can score goals are a hell of a lot harder to find that guys who can 'drive possession' while scoring 25 points in 3rd line minutes.

MS is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:36 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.