HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Detroit - Vancouver

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-01-2012, 05:28 PM
  #51
MISC*
Negged.
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,691
vCash: 500
To Detroit:

Schneider, Ballard

To Van:

Kronwall, Franzen.





To Toronto:

Howard


To Detroit:

Kulemin, Kadri

MISC* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:38 PM
  #52
Tact
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MISC View Post
To Detroit:

Schneider, Ballard

To Van:

Kronwall, Franzen.





To Toronto:

Howard


To Detroit:

Kulemin, Kadri


I'm not a Wings fan, however, let's think about this...

-Trading Kronwall who is their #1 defencemen.
-Already desperately looking to UPGRADE and add to their defence after Nik Lidstrom retired

Hold on it gets better...

for Keith Ballard (Vancouver's #6 and healthy scratch for Aaron Rome) just to swap from Howard to Schneider is probably the worst asset management ever.

Did you even put much thought into that proposal? What the hell is Kulemin, Kadri, and Ballard going to do for that organization? This is while giving up Franzen in the process.

Tact is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:38 PM
  #53
Tomas W
Registered User
 
Tomas W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MISC View Post
To Detroit:

Schneider, Ballard

To Van:

Kronwall, Franzen.





To Toronto:

Howard


To Detroit:

Kulemin, Kadri
DRW need an upgrade on defense not a downgrade. Can someone give as a proposal involving a top pairing defensmen to DRW?

Tomas W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:40 PM
  #54
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Sunshine View Post
Wings fan here. I am only one voice, but I really like this deal. Ken Holland would never make a deal this big, but I would love it. Could we tweak it to look like this, Canucks fans? (added Abby for Raymond).

To Vancouver: Franzen, Abdelkader, Det 1st

To Detroit: Gunnarson, Macarthur/Kulemin, Raymond, Luongo, Another piece from Toronto(One of their better prospects/picks.)

To Toronto: Howard
I would happily do this as a Nucks fan.

Sedin-Sedin-Franzen
Booth-Kesler-Burrows
Higgins-Lapierre-Hansen
Malhotra-Abdelkader-Kassian

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Edler-Garrison
Ballard-Tanev

Schneider
Lack

We would be a little weaker than ideal at third line center, but that's a very nice looking roster. Plus we get a 1st.

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:46 PM
  #55
The Zetterberg Era
Moderator
Nyquist Explosion!
 
The Zetterberg Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ft. Myers, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 17,706
vCash: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
I would happily do this as a Nucks fan.

Sedin-Sedin-Franzen
Booth-Kesler-Burrows
Higgins-Lapierre-Hansen
Malhotra-Abdelkader-Kassian

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Edler-Garrison
Ballard-Tanev

Schneider
Lack

We would be a little weaker than ideal at third line center, but that's a very nice looking roster. Plus we get a 1st.
I don't think they would offer the first, especially not in this years draft.

The Zetterberg Era is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:49 PM
  #56
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWings19405 View Post
I don't think they would offer the first, especially not in this years draft.
They might not, but that Wings fan did

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:52 PM
  #57
Tomas W
Registered User
 
Tomas W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
I doubt that Gunnarsson is the answer for DRW defense troubles. We dont need another average defensemen, we might as well just groom Smith instead. We need someone who can fill the gap Lidström left.

At least sort of fill the gap.

Trading away Franzen would instead create a bit of a gap in DRWs offense. I wouldnt throw away Franzen for peanuts, I would like some real difference maker for DRW and that is another top pairing defensmen. DRW has one as it now (at best...) and that should be Kronwall I guess but he isnt really a guy you can build great defense around, he just not THAT good. Would we at get atleast someone around Kronwalls level (but different perhaps more defensive minded) that might do.

I rather get one difference making D-man for Franzen + average players, than a ******** of average or not needed players for just Franzen.


Last edited by Tomas W: 11-01-2012 at 06:05 PM.
Tomas W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 06:01 PM
  #58
RDRR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 746
vCash: 500
Luongo is better than Howard. It's been interesting to see the revolving door of goalies, who put up a good season or two, being called better than Luongo -- and then poof. No more talk.

Howard is actually good though, and is not a one or two hit wonder. He's just not better than Luongo, at least not yet.

Luongo's been putting up fantastic numbers for over a decade on different teams and for rosters with very different styles of play (compare how the Canucks played in 06-07 to how they played in 09-10 and how they play now).

RDRR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 06:10 PM
  #59
MISC*
Negged.
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tact View Post


I'm not a Wings fan, however, let's think about this...

-Trading Kronwall who is their #1 defencemen.
-Already desperately looking to UPGRADE and add to their defence after Nik Lidstrom retired

Hold on it gets better...

for Keith Ballard (Vancouver's #6 and healthy scratch for Aaron Rome) just to swap from Howard to Schneider is probably the worst asset management ever.

Did you even put much thought into that proposal? What the hell is Kulemin, Kadri, and Ballard going to do for that organization? This is while giving up Franzen in the process.
Bro, do we have a deal or not?

MISC* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 06:14 PM
  #60
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomas W View Post
I doubt that Gunnarsson is the answer for DRW defense troubles. We dont need another average defensemen, we might as well just groom Smith instead. We need someone who can fill the gap Lidström left.

At least sort of fill the gap.

Trading away Franzen would instead create a bit of a gap in DRWs offense. I wouldnt throw away Franzen for peanuts, I would like some real difference maker for DRW and that is another top pairing defensmen. DRW has one as it now (at best...) and that should be Kronwall I guess but he isnt really a guy you can build great defense around, he just not THAT good. Would we at get atleast someone around Kronwalls level (but different perhaps more defensive minded) that might do.

I rather get one difference making D-man for Franzen + average players, than a ******** of average or not needed players for just Franzen.
No teams with difference making defencemen are looking to trade them. Best bet might be to buy low on Markov and hope he can stay healthy.

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 06:24 PM
  #61
Mystifo
Lol Doodle.
 
Mystifo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: YYT
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 2,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MISC View Post
To Detroit:

Schneider, Ballard

To Van:

Kronwall, Franzen.





To Toronto:

Howard


To Detroit:

Kulemin, Kadri
The idea is to build up the D not take away? Kronwall is going no where. Also if Howard was going to TO then someone on D is going back.

Mystifo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 06:27 PM
  #62
P U L L H A R D
 
P U L L H A R D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Somalia
Posts: 24,151
vCash: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomas W View Post
I doubt that Gunnarsson is the answer for DRW defense troubles. We dont need another average defensemen, we might as well just groom Smith instead. We need someone who can fill the gap Lidström left.

At least sort of fill the gap.

Trading away Franzen would instead create a bit of a gap in DRWs offense. I wouldnt throw away Franzen for peanuts, I would like some real difference maker for DRW and that is another top pairing defensmen. DRW has one as it now (at best...) and that should be Kronwall I guess but he isnt really a guy you can build great defense around, he just not THAT good. Would we at get atleast someone around Kronwalls level (but different perhaps more defensive minded) that might do.

I rather get one difference making D-man for Franzen + average players, than a ******** of average or not needed players for just Franzen.
The way I'm seeing it, is that in the big 3 way deal, we are getting a slight but noticeable improvement in net, a slight downgrade in top end forward talent, but more depth, plus adding another NHL defenseman + a good a prospect in Blacker. We could put together any of our D in a package For example, Quincey + White + pick (+ prospect?) for a good, established defenseman. It'd probably have to be a guy with a big contract or something, because we aren't just going to get an awesome defenseman for no reason. But if we pull that off, we could roll with:

Kronwall - Gunnarsson
New addition - Smith
Ericsson - Colaiacovo/ Kindl

Solid depth and versatility, good mix of young and old.

Then we could have our forward lines be something like:

Filppula - Zetterberg - Brunner/Nyquist(?)
Kulemin - Datsyuk - Samuelsson
Raymond - Helm - Cleary
Bertuzzi - Emmerton - Tootoo

Then we have Eaves, Miller, and Mursak as extras. There is definitely another deal that could be made somewhere with all of these forwards. Like a team wanting to shed a big contract for a couple of smaller ones.

Then we have Luongo and Gustavsson for a solid tandem, and ideally Mrazek is ready in ~4 years or so when Lu is nearing the end.

Just spitballing.

P U L L H A R D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 06:38 PM
  #63
Nyquist
Registered User
 
Nyquist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 4,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Sunshine View Post
The way I'm seeing it, is that in the big 3 way deal, we are getting a slight but noticeable improvement in net, a slight downgrade in top end forward talent, but more depth, plus adding another NHL defenseman + a good a prospect in Blacker. We could put together any of our D in a package For example, Quincey + White + pick (+ prospect?) for a good, established defenseman. It'd probably have to be a guy with a big contract or something, because we aren't just going to get an awesome defenseman for no reason. But if we pull that off, we could roll with:

Kronwall - Gunnarsson
New addition - Smith
Ericsson - Colaiacovo/ Kindl

Solid depth and versatility, good mix of young and old.

Then we could have our forward lines be something like:

Filppula - Zetterberg - Brunner/Nyquist(?)
Kulemin - Datsyuk - Samuelsson
Raymond - Helm - Cleary
Bertuzzi - Emmerton - Tootoo

Then we have Eaves, Miller, and Mursak as extras. There is definitely another deal that could be made somewhere with all of these forwards. Like a team wanting to shed a big contract for a couple of smaller ones.

Then we have Luongo and Gustavsson for a solid tandem, and ideally Mrazek is ready in ~4 years or so when Lu is nearing the end.

Just spitballing.
We already have a ton of depth at forward though. We need top end guys much more than depth.

Nyquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 06:42 PM
  #64
P U L L H A R D
 
P U L L H A R D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Somalia
Posts: 24,151
vCash: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Datsyuk Dangles View Post
We already have a ton of depth at forward though. We need top end guys much more than depth.
I agree. These are moves I'd make on xbox, followed by many more trades... until I had revamped the entire roster doesn't make much sense in reality.

P U L L H A R D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 08:28 PM
  #65
eklunds source
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ed Snider's basement
Posts: 7,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOGuy14 View Post
In nearly the same amount of starts, Howard was statistically better than Luongo last year, why would Detroit do this and take on that albatross contract?

Jimmy Howard: .920 SV% | 2.12 GAA | 6 SO
Roberto Luongo: .919 SV% | 2.41 GAA | 5 SO
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatsyukToZetterberg View Post
May I ask what team has Loungo played on in the same peroid..? Ah yes the Vancouver Canucks who have won back to back Presidents' Trophy (that's the best team in the regular season in case you didn't know), if you're going to say Howard is lower in the goalie Totem pole because of his team than Loungo surely has to be further down as well.

I would also argue that the wings would only move Howard for Loungo if Edler or something of similar overpayment was coming back to them. While Loungo will more than likely have a better career than Howard I don't care about what he did 10 years ago, or what he did 5 years ago. The truth is they have been almost identical stat wise the past 3 years, if it hadn't been for a midseason injury in which Howard rushed back from, he would have posted Vezina caliber numbers. With Howard being 5 years younger I don't think it's hard to see why it would take an overpayment for the wings to trade the better goalie while taking on a much worse contract.


2011-12 NHL 55 31 14 8 3162 127 1577 2.41 .919 5
2010-11 NHL 60 38 15 7 3590 126 1753 2.11 .928 4
2009-10 NHL 68 40 22 4 3899 167 1915 2.57 .913 4


2011-12 NHL 57 35 17 4 3360 119 1496 2.13 .920 6
2010-11 NHL 63 37 17 5 3615 168 1830 2.79 .908 2
2009-10 NHL 63 37 15 10 3740 141 1849 2.26 .924 3

Can you tell which goalie is which? Can you really tell that one is a top 10 goalie yet the other is only a top 15, or 20 goalie? Yes Howard had that down year in 10-11 but he absolutely stood on his head during the wings injury riddled months and unless you saw him play you don't know he kept us in games we didn't even belong in. Bringing playoffs into the picture we can see that Howard is a lot less volatile than Loungo but Howard has less of a sample size so it's pretty much a wash.

All in all while Loungo is certainly worth a solid package his best days are behind him, you almost certainly won't be getting anything of value from the Wings for him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
I didnt do the whole match (i could do it later if i have the time)

But the difference between having a Luongo and a Howard, according to the past 3 years is about 3-4 less goals allowed per season (if they play around 65 games) to the advantage of Luongo.

I will let you judge if the bigger cap it and the lost of asset to acquire Luongo worth the 3-4 goal difference.
Just to address Howard vs. Luongo a little bit here..

- Goalies have a lower save percentage when their team is shorthanded versus when they're at even strength. That's not rocket surgery or brain science. As such, teams who take more penalties are 'artificially' lowering their goaltenders' save percentage. The same effect is more pronounced when a team goes down 5-on-3; some years it just happens more often than others so comparing a two goaltenders' overall save percentage on different teams is useless.

- Goalies who face less shots allow less goals. That's pretty much common sense too. A good defensive team limits the number of shots they give up, so measuring goals allowed per unit of time (goals/season, GAA, etc) is useless between teams too.

- Going back to even strength save percentage... It's also very variable year-to-year. A goalie with a talent level of, let's say, 0.925sv% at even strength might post anywhere from 0.920 to 0.930 in any given year, or maybe even just outside of that. There are so many goals that occur that are completely out of a goalie's control that it's pretty much random luck. Sometimes the puck goes in when it really shouldn't, and sometimes it doesn't go in when it really should. See below:




- There's so much variance in goaltending, as it were, that it takes about 3,000 shots at even strength before you really know how good a goalie is. If you don't believe me, look at Steve Mason - he posted a 0.925sv% at even strength over his first 61 games, and since then he's been under 0.900.

Over the past 5 seasons, Luongo has had even strength save percentages of:
0.929
0.936
0.925
0.934
0.929

So we can probably safely assume that his 'talent level' is somewhere in the ballpark of a 0.930sv%. As it turns out, Luongo's even strength save percentage has been between 0.925 and 0.936 every single year of his career, including when he was in Florida.

Howard (going back 3 years):

0.925
0.916
0.929

So, probably somewhere in the ballpark of 0.923, 0.924. That could change, it's still pretty early in his career, but goaltenders don't typically improve radically after age 27..

The difference between a 0.930sv% and a 0.924sv% at even strength, if we assume a goalie faces ~1300 shots (that's about 65 games), is 8 goals a season. Goalies who are better at even strength are also better on the penalty kill, so let's say 9 goals.

A goal differential of +3 goals gives you ~1 point in the NHL standings, so the difference between Luongo and Howard as your starting goaltender is somewhere around 1.5 wins per season, or 3 points in the standings.

Of course, that doesn't take into account length of service (Howard probably has 5-6 years more than Luongo left in him) or other factors, but as a rough guide it's probably pretty accurate..

eklunds source is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 09:38 PM
  #66
Seatoo
Never Stop Poasting
 
Seatoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Interior of BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eklunds source View Post
Just to address Howard vs. Luongo a little bit here..

- Goalies have a lower save percentage when their team is shorthanded versus when they're at even strength. That's not rocket surgery or brain science. As such, teams who take more penalties are 'artificially' lowering their goaltenders' save percentage. The same effect is more pronounced when a team goes down 5-on-3; some years it just happens more often than others so comparing a two goaltenders' overall save percentage on different teams is useless.

- Goalies who face less shots allow less goals. That's pretty much common sense too. A good defensive team limits the number of shots they give up, so measuring goals allowed per unit of time (goals/season, GAA, etc) is useless between teams too.

- Going back to even strength save percentage... It's also very variable year-to-year. A goalie with a talent level of, let's say, 0.925sv% at even strength might post anywhere from 0.920 to 0.930 in any given year, or maybe even just outside of that. There are so many goals that occur that are completely out of a goalie's control that it's pretty much random luck. Sometimes the puck goes in when it really shouldn't, and sometimes it doesn't go in when it really should. See below:




- There's so much variance in goaltending, as it were, that it takes about 3,000 shots at even strength before you really know how good a goalie is. If you don't believe me, look at Steve Mason - he posted a 0.925sv% at even strength over his first 61 games, and since then he's been under 0.900.

Over the past 5 seasons, Luongo has had even strength save percentages of:
0.929
0.936
0.925
0.934
0.929

So we can probably safely assume that his 'talent level' is somewhere in the ballpark of a 0.930sv%. As it turns out, Luongo's even strength save percentage has been between 0.925 and 0.936 every single year of his career, including when he was in Florida.

Howard (going back 3 years):

0.925
0.916
0.929

So, probably somewhere in the ballpark of 0.923, 0.924. That could change, it's still pretty early in his career, but goaltenders don't typically improve radically after age 27..

The difference between a 0.930sv% and a 0.924sv% at even strength, if we assume a goalie faces ~1300 shots (that's about 65 games), is 8 goals a season. Goalies who are better at even strength are also better on the penalty kill, so let's say 9 goals.

A goal differential of +3 goals gives you ~1 point in the NHL standings, so the difference between Luongo and Howard as your starting goaltender is somewhere around 1.5 wins per season, or 3 points in the standings.

Of course, that doesn't take into account length of service (Howard probably has 5-6 years more than Luongo left in him) or other factors, but as a rough guide it's probably pretty accurate..
Excuse me Sir, could you please stop using logic and facts when p0asting it would be appreciated.

Seatoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 11:05 PM
  #67
Anchor Town
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eklunds source View Post
Just to address Howard vs. Luongo a little bit here..

- Goalies have a lower save percentage when their team is shorthanded versus when they're at even strength. That's not rocket surgery or brain science. As such, teams who take more penalties are 'artificially' lowering their goaltenders' save percentage. The same effect is more pronounced when a team goes down 5-on-3; some years it just happens more often than others so comparing a two goaltenders' overall save percentage on different teams is useless.

- Goalies who face less shots allow less goals. That's pretty much common sense too. A good defensive team limits the number of shots they give up, so measuring goals allowed per unit of time (goals/season, GAA, etc) is useless between teams too.

- Going back to even strength save percentage... It's also very variable year-to-year. A goalie with a talent level of, let's say, 0.925sv% at even strength might post anywhere from 0.920 to 0.930 in any given year, or maybe even just outside of that. There are so many goals that occur that are completely out of a goalie's control that it's pretty much random luck. Sometimes the puck goes in when it really shouldn't, and sometimes it doesn't go in when it really should. See below:




- There's so much variance in goaltending, as it were, that it takes about 3,000 shots at even strength before you really know how good a goalie is. If you don't believe me, look at Steve Mason - he posted a 0.925sv% at even strength over his first 61 games, and since then he's been under 0.900.

Over the past 5 seasons, Luongo has had even strength save percentages of:
0.929
0.936
0.925
0.934
0.929

So we can probably safely assume that his 'talent level' is somewhere in the ballpark of a 0.930sv%. As it turns out, Luongo's even strength save percentage has been between 0.925 and 0.936 every single year of his career, including when he was in Florida.

Howard (going back 3 years):

0.925
0.916
0.929

So, probably somewhere in the ballpark of 0.923, 0.924. That could change, it's still pretty early in his career, but goaltenders don't typically improve radically after age 27..

The difference between a 0.930sv% and a 0.924sv% at even strength, if we assume a goalie faces ~1300 shots (that's about 65 games), is 8 goals a season. Goalies who are better at even strength are also better on the penalty kill, so let's say 9 goals.

A goal differential of +3 goals gives you ~1 point in the NHL standings, so the difference between Luongo and Howard as your starting goaltender is somewhere around 1.5 wins per season, or 3 points in the standings.

Of course, that doesn't take into account length of service (Howard probably has 5-6 years more than Luongo left in him) or other factors, but as a rough guide it's probably pretty accurate..
Right and the next thing to factor in is age. As you said goalies don't typically improve that much once they turn 27 (Howard), but you failed to note that goalies tend to decline when they hit about 33 (Luongo). Over the next 5+ years, a GM would be silly to choose Luongo over Howard. And this isn't even factoring contracts

Anchor Town is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 11:15 PM
  #68
The Zetterberg Era
Moderator
Nyquist Explosion!
 
The Zetterberg Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ft. Myers, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 17,706
vCash: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by the banks View Post
Right and the next thing to factor in is age. As you said goalies don't typically improve that much once they turn 27 (Howard), but you failed to note that goalies tend to decline when they hit about 33 (Luongo). Over the next 5+ years, a GM would be silly to choose Luongo over Howard. And this isn't even factoring contracts
I do think people in Detroit should start preparing for Howard to make around 5 million depending on CBA. So his contract is a big steal this year, but they will probably be close in terms of cap hit soon. I still would take Howard for the younger factor.

The Zetterberg Era is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 03:50 AM
  #69
Tomas W
Registered User
 
Tomas W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
No teams with difference making defencemen are looking to trade them. Best bet might be to buy low on Markov and hope he can stay healthy.
Well, I am thinking that DRW might also benefit in tradeing for some D depth (perhaps a good prospect?), for some of DRW large pool of decent F prospects. DRW should NOT trade a top 6 player for depth players.

Tomas W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 04:22 AM
  #70
Anchor Town
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWings19405 View Post
I do think people in Detroit should start preparing for Howard to make around 5 million depending on CBA. So his contract is a big steal this year, but they will probably be close in terms of cap hit soon. I still would take Howard for the younger factor.
And Howard's contract won't be til he's 42

Anchor Town is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 05:23 AM
  #71
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the banks View Post
And Howard's contract won't be til he's 42
The question is, would you rather have a goalie who is 33 locked up until he's 42 or a goalie who is a UFA next off-season?

I would prefer the security of knowing I actually have that talented goalie for a few years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the banks View Post
Right and the next thing to factor in is age. As you said goalies don't typically improve that much once they turn 27 (Howard), but you failed to note that goalies tend to decline when they hit about 33 (Luongo). Over the next 5+ years, a GM would be silly to choose Luongo over Howard. And this isn't even factoring contracts
The thing is, one person is using real stats about save% and the other is using made up stats about when goalies start to decline.

Neither is making positive comments about Luongo but one is fairly well proven while the other is pure conjecture.

DJOpus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 06:46 AM
  #72
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eklunds source View Post
Just to address Howard vs. Luongo a little bit here..

- Goalies have a lower save percentage when their team is shorthanded versus when they're at even strength. That's not rocket surgery or brain science. As such, teams who take more penalties are 'artificially' lowering their goaltenders' save percentage. The same effect is more pronounced when a team goes down 5-on-3; some years it just happens more often than others so comparing a two goaltenders' overall save percentage on different teams is useless.

- Goalies who face less shots allow less goals. That's pretty much common sense too. A good defensive team limits the number of shots they give up, so measuring goals allowed per unit of time (goals/season, GAA, etc) is useless between teams too.

- Going back to even strength save percentage... It's also very variable year-to-year. A goalie with a talent level of, let's say, 0.925sv% at even strength might post anywhere from 0.920 to 0.930 in any given year, or maybe even just outside of that. There are so many goals that occur that are completely out of a goalie's control that it's pretty much random luck. Sometimes the puck goes in when it really shouldn't, and sometimes it doesn't go in when it really should. See below:




- There's so much variance in goaltending, as it were, that it takes about 3,000 shots at even strength before you really know how good a goalie is. If you don't believe me, look at Steve Mason - he posted a 0.925sv% at even strength over his first 61 games, and since then he's been under 0.900.

Over the past 5 seasons, Luongo has had even strength save percentages of:
0.929
0.936
0.925
0.934
0.929

So we can probably safely assume that his 'talent level' is somewhere in the ballpark of a 0.930sv%. As it turns out, Luongo's even strength save percentage has been between 0.925 and 0.936 every single year of his career, including when he was in Florida.

Howard (going back 3 years):

0.925
0.916
0.929

So, probably somewhere in the ballpark of 0.923, 0.924. That could change, it's still pretty early in his career, but goaltenders don't typically improve radically after age 27..

The difference between a 0.930sv% and a 0.924sv% at even strength, if we assume a goalie faces ~1300 shots (that's about 65 games), is 8 goals a season. Goalies who are better at even strength are also better on the penalty kill, so let's say 9 goals.

A goal differential of +3 goals gives you ~1 point in the NHL standings, so the difference between Luongo and Howard as your starting goaltender is somewhere around 1.5 wins per season, or 3 points in the standings.

Of course, that doesn't take into account length of service (Howard probably has 5-6 years more than Luongo left in him) or other factors, but as a rough guide it's probably pretty accurate..
Very nice analysis, we use the the same method.

Now the real question is How much does this 3 point in the standing worth in term of cap hit / lost of asset to make the upgrade ?

will downgrading the defense to upgrade the goal-tending have a greater positive or negative impact?


Last edited by palindrom: 11-02-2012 at 07:10 AM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 08:32 AM
  #73
probertrules24
Registered User
 
probertrules24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,692
vCash: 500
Just throwing this out there to see if it's close.

Van
Franzen + Abdelkader + Tvrdon/Pulkkinen/frk

Det
Bieksa + Kassian

Van would get a guy to play top line wing and a fourth line center/winger plus a talented Vancouver prospect.

Det would get a gritty right handed Dman to play in the top 4 plus a big prospect who can help down the road.

Of course it would be dependent on Bieksa waiving his NTC. Not sure if value would be close or if it's way off.

Thoughts?

probertrules24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 09:26 AM
  #74
Tomas W
Registered User
 
Tomas W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by probertrules24 View Post
Just throwing this out there to see if it's close.

Van
Franzen + Abdelkader + Tvrdon/Pulkkinen/frk

Det
Bieksa + Kassian

Van would get a guy to play top line wing and a fourth line center/winger plus a talented Vancouver prospect.

Det would get a gritty right handed Dman to play in the top 4 plus a big prospect who can help down the road.

Of course it would be dependent on Bieksa waiving his NTC. Not sure if value would be close or if it's way off.

Thoughts?
Might work....Bieksa would be an upgrade on the D. Losing Franzen would be hurtfull for our goalscoring production, but he could perhaps be replaceable...it would be interesting what other DRW fans think. I dont think its way off because in my mind we would really use another established top 4 D.

This is from DRW point of view.

Does the canucks need this type of player?:

Franzen is a trigger man, he have a good accurate shot. He isnt super fast obviously though. He can sometimes suprise with a pretty good acceleration, he can go from really slow to pretty quick to shake of defensemen, or at least he does it when he is at his best. He is obviously a lot better when he have access to a good playmaker.

Franzen has been fighting injuries sometimes in the past. Not sure how he will hold up going forward in that department.


Last edited by Tomas W: 11-02-2012 at 09:43 AM.
Tomas W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 10:04 AM
  #75
Boondock
Registered User
 
Boondock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by probertrules24 View Post
Just throwing this out there to see if it's close.

Van
Franzen + Abdelkader + Tvrdon/Pulkkinen/frk

Det
Bieksa + Kassian

Van would get a guy to play top line wing and a fourth line center/winger plus a talented Vancouver prospect.

Det would get a gritty right handed Dman to play in the top 4 plus a big prospect who can help down the road.

Of course it would be dependent on Bieksa waiving his NTC. Not sure if value would be close or if it's way off.



Thoughts?
That's not a very good deal for the Nuck's. Bieksa is the only physical Dman the Canucks have and he's part of the Canucks shutdown pair and has emerged as real leader on and off the ice. Kassian was traded for Hodgson and was targeted to fill an organizational need. Franzen is a good piece but given his style of play, age and contract I think Franzen is a big risk. Abdelkader is an alright bottom 6 guy but not a Vancouver need and those prospects aren't enough to entice the Canucks to make a move like this

Boondock is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.