That only prove Gilroy is not good as a ntasy pick. Dump him from your fantasy team.
You really don't see how having one of the lowest quality of competitions/most favorable zone starts could lead to somebody being a marginally plus player despite not being very good defensively? It's not that advanced of a concept.
It doesn't prove that he's sheltered and Torts doesn't trust him in most situations, that he gets the 2nd lowest ice time of all regular defenseman in the NHL? Or that he's 2nd in percentage of shifts started in the offensive zone? Or is the latter because he's such a good offensive dman.
When you look at 32 year old veteran that completed his development, you can judge his value based on past season perfornace because it is what you most likely to get next season. It is useless for rookies, they all suck and cannot be trusted. . Does it mean they have to be dumped? How about coaching them? Coaching is what differs NHL from Fantasy Hockey.
You really don't see how having one of the lowest quality of competitions/most favorable zone starts could lead to somebody being a marginally plus player despite not being very good defensively? It's not that advanced of a concept.
Nope. Not relevant. That may or may not reflect player qualities. Doesn't project any future, just says player sucked. So what? Offensive Ds are hard to read, unless you're dealing with Brian Leetch. We do not have anyone of that quality. Should we use stay-at home guys for everything? Our top 4 are all stay-at home D-men. Is THAT acceptable? I bet it's not. How many years should we hope that Stall will become PMD?
When you look at 32 year old veteran that completed his development, you can judge his value based on past season perfornace because it is what you most likely to get next season. It is useless for rookies, they all suck and cannot be trusted. . Does it mean they have to be dumped? How about coaching them? Coaching is what differs NHL from Fantasy Hockey.
Gilroy will be a 3rd year player, and is going to be 27 next season.
Why would we compare him to a 20-22 year old coming off of his rookie year?
Nope. Not relevant. That may or may not reflect player qualities. Doesn't project any future, just says player sucked. So what? Offensive Ds are hard to read, unless you're dealing with Brian Leetch. We do not have anyone of that quality. Should we use stay-at home guys for everything? Our top 4 are all stay-at home D-men. Is THAT acceptale?
Ok fine. Then where's the offense? If he was bringing it I'd agree with your point. He's an offensive defenseman who doesn't actually produce offense then?
Staal doubled his rookie+sophomore production his third season. Why can't Gilroy? 127 games NHL experience. Is that enough time?
He's one of the worst dmen in the NHL at 27 and hasn't shown anything. Yes, it's enough time.
What NHL level skills does he even possess? He has a nice skating stride and that's it. No vision, one of the worst shots in the NHL, so bad defensively that he's statistically one of the top 3 most sheltered dmen in the league.
Gilroy will be a 3rd year player, and is going to be 27 next season.
Why would we compare him to a 20-22 year old coming off of his rookie year?
Why would he be any different? He came from college. Players develop by moving from one level to another, not by getting just older. Not many get NHL ready right away. Talent is needed for that. All talented players are taken by other teams already, in case you didn't noticed. We are left to work with second best. You suggest to quit, forget the investment of time is made based on some selective stat? That is no way of doing business. Money do play role, no question. That Is why it is not as clear cut as many think.
I'd bring Eminger for the same price 10x out of 10 over Gilroy.
I don't think our coaching staff would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Line Monster
Just let Gilroy go. Torts doesn't trust him at all.
He played down the stretch, and in the playoffs over Eminger. Sounds to me like Torts trusted Gilroy. Hell, Torts had very good things to say about him towards the end of the season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos
I'm all for bringing him back, but not at $2.1m. Doing so, in regards to the Cap, would be irresponsible.
Don't get me wrong. I liked what I saw from him towards the end of the year and into the playoffs and am more than curious to see what he brings this year. I just don't think he's earned a $2.1m contract.
Agreed.
Gilroy would be the last contract I worry about. If we had the room, I think he's worth his current contract. 1.6M cap hit. Certainly not 2.1M though.
His potential replacement is probably going to cost about 1M~. And he'll likely be a veteran who's game has absolutely no room for improvement.
Is Gilroy's upside worth .500k over a veteran scrub? I think so.
He's one of the worst dmen in the NHL at 27 and hasn't shown anything. Yes, it's enough time.
What NHL level skills does he even possess? He has a nice skating stride and that's it. No vision, one of the worst shots in the NHL, so bad defensively that he's statistically one of the top 3 most sheltered dmen in the league.
What could possibly develop out of all that..
No vision? Gilroy sees the ice just fine.
Agree about his shot, it's weak and putrid.
If he was one of the worst dmen in the NHL, his +/- would reflect that. But it doesn't.
And if you think 127 games is enough time for a Dmen to figure out the hardest position in the game, then I'm just wasting my time here with you.
If he was one of the worst dmen in the NHL, his +/- would reflect that. But it doesn't.
And if you think 127 games is enough time for a Dmen to figure out the hardest position in the game, then I'm just wasting my time here with you.
Just a terrible argument. This was already explained, I see you chose to ignore it in my other posts so I'll repeat. He gets the 2nd least ice time out of all regular defenseman, and is 2nd in percentage of shifts started in the offensive zone, meaning very rarely is he out for defensive zone faceoffs.That obviously isn't because of all the good things he's going to produce offensively. He also had the 4th easiest quality of competition.
If he needs to be coddled like this just to be a +4 or whatever he is it's not worth it. He's shown no offense or skills to produce offense, and Torts doesn't trust him, as the stats show.
Might as well bring in Bruno Gervais or something if you think all young defenseman are gonna get better regardless of how bad they are.
Why do you bring in Torts all the time as if he is an expert on defense. Torts does what Sullivan tells him. Gilroy is a Sullivan project. He brings him in slowly, i.e. he played limited minutes against weakest opponents. That is why your selective stats are such. They reflect that simply. How else would you handle him? Throw him into the water and see if can swim out on his own? It is not how development works. He had to be sheltered. What your stats do not show was that Gilroy project is close to completion. The playoffs showed that more or less regardless of stats.
You're wrong about his vision. The rest you are correct. He is a great skater with average shot. Shot is the easiest to teach. Skating is most difficult. Size cannot be tought. But... you do not need the shot to move the puck and his passing is top notch. I'd see his shotcomings in size only, but Rafalsky has never beefed up.
He's one of the worst dmen in the NHL at 27 and hasn't shown anything. Yes, it's enough time.
What NHL level skills does he even possess? He has a nice skating stride and that's it. No vision, one of the worst shots in the NHL, so bad defensively that he's statistically one of the top 3 most sheltered dmen in the league.
What could possibly develop out of all that..
I like Gilroy. I think he has a long way to go to develop and I think next season he's gonna show you he can play. The guy has been playing defense for how many years? 1-2 years in college and now 2 years in the NHL. Age means NOTHING... at this point, look at experience at the position. If he was a forward I would agree with you but D develop much differently... Like you said he's one of the most sheltered D-men in the NHL. He doesn't get the ice time to improve. The off-season is where he is going to make steps up in his game. Forget his age... Athleticism isn't as crucial for a D-man as smarts. What he loses in Athleticism due to age he will make up in smarts.
Now, Do I think he should get a QO? Hell no. He hasn't lived up to that level of salary. You give him a 1.25M/1yr
Last edited by Garfinkel1: 05-24-2011 at 12:15 PM.
Just a terrible argument. This was already explained, I see you chose to ignore it in my other posts so I'll repeat. He gets the 2nd least ice time out of all regular defenseman, and is 2nd in percentage of shifts started in the offensive zone, meaning very rarely is he out for defensive zone faceoffs.That obviously isn't because of all the good things he's going to produce offensively. He also had the 4th easiest quality of competition.
If he needs to be coddled like this just to be a +4 or whatever he is it's not worth it. He's shown no offense or skills to produce offense, and Torts doesn't trust him, as the stats show.
Might as well bring in Bruno Gervais or something if you think all young defenseman are gonna get better regardless of how bad they are.
If Torts didn't trust him he wouldn't have played, simple as that. If he was as brutal as your stats suggest, Eminger, Vtank, MDZ, someone - would have been playing those 'easy' minutes instead of Gilroy.
That wasn't the case though.
How often did you see Zucs, or Christensen put on the ice for defensive zone faceoffs? How often was Boogard being used in offensive situations?
Why the hell would Torts put Gilroy in a situation when he has better options available?
Torts doesn't sugarcoat things. If he doesn't like someone, you know it. If he wasn't happy with a players performance, you would know it. He doesn't bite his tongue when he's evaluating a player.
I don't put too much emphasis on +/- either.
My stance on Gilroy hasn't changed. He's a serviceable bottom pairing dmen with upside. In my I'd rather see him @1.6M than an Eminger @1M.
Do you honestly believe he won't improve his game? I don't think any player finds their game after 120 something games.
Professional's in the game have been labeling dmen as late-bloomers for decades and decades. Surely they must know a thing or two about a thing or two.
BLM, you're going to run into a lot of resistance trying to use advanced statistics around here. I admire your effort though!
Yeah, that's why I just kinda threw QUALCOMP there as an aside and am not really arguing with it, most people just dismiss stuff like that. The other 2 stats are just facts and averages, though.
My stance on Gilroy hasn't changed. He's a serviceable bottom pairing dmen with upside. In my I'd rather see him @1.6M than an Eminger @1M.
.
I agree. How can Sather be sure that other teams didn't see what you see and would offer him more or better terms. To much money to take a risk? May be not if cap space available.
Another thing I admire about Gilroy is he hustles. He works. His effort is rarely in question. He doesn't take stupid penalty's. I don't think he's complained once when he was watching the game from the press box. He's the type of attitude or personality that goes hand-in-hand with the teams blue-collar approach to the game.
You combine his work ethic with experience, and you get someone serviceable. Nobody can deny he'll continue improving his game. Again, the risk is worth the reward considering there aren't many dmen in our system with his mobility.
I'm absolutely shocked at how impatient our fanbase can be. If you don't like the style of game he plays, that's fine. I'm not here to argue that. But assuming his game has peaked is just asinine.
Professional's in the game have been labeling dmen as late-bloomers for decades and decades. Surely they must know a thing or two about a thing or two.
. I love that phrase. well played. But yeah, I agree with everything you said there. Sums up my feeling about it.
I agree. How can Sather be sure that other teams didn't see what you see and would offer him more or better terms. To much money to take a risk? May be not if cap space available.
Cap's going up. Sather will likely sign our RFA's for less than most expect here. Gilroy's potential salary isn't going to handcuff us.
Hell, if he doesn't improve much, Id bet Sather can probably flip him.
People are ignoring how much his replacement is going to make. How much salary we're going to save by going towards free-agency and walking away from Gilroy. Matt won't get 2.1M.
It reminds me of Avery's situation this off-season. You can buy him out and fill his hole elsewhere, but you're not saving significant $$$ doing so. Unless we need to literally nickle&dime our way through the offseason, I wouldn't look to make lateral moves that could easily backfire on us.
If Torts didn't trust him he wouldn't have played, simple as that. If he was as brutal as your stats suggest, Eminger, Vtank, MDZ, someone - would have been playing those 'easy' minutes instead of Gilroy.
That wasn't the case though.
How often did you see Zucs, or Christensen put on the ice for defensive zone faceoffs? How often was Boogard being used in offensive situations?
Why the hell would Torts put Gilroy in a situation when he has better options available?
Torts doesn't sugarcoat things. If he doesn't like someone, you know it. If he wasn't happy with a players performance, you would know it. He doesn't bite his tongue when he's evaluating a player.
I don't put too much emphasis on +/- either.
My stance on Gilroy hasn't changed. He's a serviceable bottom pairing dmen with upside. In my I'd rather see him @1.6M than an Eminger @1M.
Do you honestly believe he won't improve his game? I don't think any player finds their game after 120 something games.
Professional's in the game have been labeling dmen as late-bloomers for decades and decades. Surely they must know a thing or two about a thing or two.
Don't know how to do the quote different parts of one post thing so, 1st part.He played because they know he's not going to develop much more, kind of a stop gap. The other guys have upside so were being handled carefully in the AHL, except Eminger, who was in and out of the lineup just like Gilroy. MDZ never played as little ice time as Gilroy does because MDZ has NHL upside and should be playing a lot of minutes to develop. Last year he averaged about 5 more minutes a game than Gilroy did this year.
2nd part: Obviously, you don't want your 3rd pair out for defensive zone faceoffs, but sometimes you have to. There's a reason he never is out there though, he's terrible defensively, and looks like a little kid trying to play piggy back when he's fighting for the puck along the boards. Why do you think Staal is always dead on his skates towards the end of the game, because you have guys like Gilroy on the team.
3rd:Torts speaks loud and clear about Gilroys play with how he handed out the ice time. Gilroy got barely any PP time, with even the defensive d-men on the team getting more time. He got the 2nd least even strength ice time out of all NHL dmen.
He provides nothing and is just there until better dmen come along, most likely this coming season.
I'm not advocating giving him that. What if CBJ or NSH or other team with space offers him 1.8 per. 200k is a big raise. TOR wanted him two years ago. Why wouldn't they now.
I'm not advocating giving him that. What if CBJ or NSH or other team with space offers him 1.8 per. 200k is a big raise. TOR wanted him two years ago. Why wouldn't they now.
Let them have him. Gilroy is an intriguing player, but not worth that kind of contract. Not when you can take the money and apply it towards Ehrhoff or Wisniewski. I wouldn't go anywhere near $1.5 for Gilroy.
Don't know how to do the quote different parts of one post thing so, 1st part.He played because they know he's not going to develop much more, kind of a stop gap. The other guys have upside so were being handled carefully in the AHL, except Eminger, who was in and out of the lineup just like Gilroy. MDZ never played as little ice time as Gilroy does because MDZ has NHL upside and should be playing a lot of minutes to develop. Last year he averaged about 5 more minutes a game than Gilroy did this year.
He played because the coaching staff knew he wasn't going to develop much? That's your argument . . . . . . ?
I think he played because he was the 'best available option' who could play on the left or right side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Line Monster
2nd part: Obviously, you don't want your 3rd pair out for defensive zone faceoffs, but sometimes you have to. There's a reason he never is out there though, he's terrible defensively, and looks like a little kid trying to play piggy back when he's fighting for the puck along the boards. Why do you think Staal is always dead on his skates towards the end of the game, because you have guys like Gilroy on the team.
So Gilroy's now responsible for Staal playing too many minutes? Gotcha . . .
Staal's a #1. His role is to shutdown the oppositions top line. If the opposition is playing their top line 20 minutes a night, Staal's job is to be on the ice. Toss in PK time and you have the obvious.
You can pick Gilroy's game apart as much as you like, it's doesn't diffuse the fact that he's proved to be at least a serviceable NHL dmen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Line Monster
3rd:Torts speaks loud and clear about Gilroys play with how he handed out the ice time. Gilroy got barely any PP time, with even the defensive d-men on the team getting more time. He got the 2nd least even strength ice time out of all NHL dmen.
He still gave him ice-time though. And that's what ultimately matters here. Most importantly he gave it to him instead of a legitimate veteran when the games mattered most. And he certainly didn't look out of place with that opportunity. If anything he surpassed expectations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Line Monster
He provides nothing and is just there until better dmen come along, most likely this coming season.
There's a poster here who prefers Jason Strudwick over Gilroy. Or the flat-footed Paul Mara.
If you want a glimpse of Gilroy's upside, look at his play in the playoffs. Look at his play during the first few weeks of his rookie season, when he was turning heads everywhere with his play. There is potential.
He played because the coaching staff knew he wasn't going to develop much? That's your argument . . . . . . ?
I think he played because he was the 'best available option' who could play on the left or right side.
You really don't understand that they don't want any promising prospects playing so few minutes like Gilroy did?
Quote:
So Gilroy's now responsible for Staal playing too many minutes? Gotcha . . .
Staal's a #1. His role is to shutdown the oppositions top line. If the opposition is playing their top line 20 minutes a night, Staal's job is to be on the ice. Toss in PK time and you have the obvious.
You can pick Gilroy's game apart as much as you like, it's doesn't diffuse the fact that he's proved to be at least a serviceable NHL dmen.
He makes everyone have to play more, because he can't be trusted/ is just not good at anything. You really think Staal should've been playing so much PP time? If someone like MA Bergeron, who actually contributes in other ways despite his flaws was on the 3rd pairing instead, there goes a couple minutes off of Staal's ice time in a situation he shouldn't even be in.
And no, he hasn't proven he's a serviceable dman. He's proven if you're willing to make the team worse by sheltering him a lot, he can do ok but still not contribute anything.
Quote:
He still gave him ice-time though. And that's what ultimately matters here. Most importantly he gave it to him instead of a legitimate veteran when the games mattered most. And he certainly didn't look out of place with that opportunity. If anything he surpassed expectations.
Every little good thing he does like a rush up ice that leads to nothing looks so good compared to how he usually plays. And he wasn't some playoff hero like some make him out to be. He had 1 point in 5 games and was -1. And still had to be sheltered, averaging the least toi/ game, 4 minutes less than McCabe.
Last edited by Blue Line Monster: 05-24-2011 at 01:46 PM.
