Jan 16, 2018
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>J2W</b></div><div>Weber is signed until he's 40, and if he retires before that (say in one of his final 3 seasons when he makes a combined 3 million) Nashville pays more than his current cap hit in recapture penalties for the seasons that he would have been playing. Those penalties go down if Nashville reacquires him now, since his salary is lower than his cap hit, and he still has a few good years while that happens.
Johansen, right now, is looking like a 55ish point C making 8 million until he is 33. That's not a contract I love either, but if it goes it's gone from Nashville's books.
Overall, if Nashville felt confident that they could get 2 seasons of Weber putting up around 45-50 points, and they don't expect Johansen to hit high 60's again, this isn't a bad deal for them with the cap recapture hanging over their future. Nashville is most likely taking cap from Weber's contract once he falls off the cliff, the only question is how much, and this helps lower that number and hopefully gets them a few productive years from him at the same time.</div></div>
Yup I get it and I think it kind of works for both teams really, the Habs would be kind of lost without Weber but if they see growth coming from their young RHD like Fleury and Petry can hold down the fort then maybe it's worth it to them.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LoganOllivier</b></div><div>Okay lets go over this point by point.
His hold out affected him last season.
Yes it did, for the first 13 or 15 games or whatever he only had 1 point as he was trying to get back up to speed. After that he scored at a little bit better than a 60 point pace. So sure it did affect him holding out but it didn't hurt him, just slowed him for a little bit.
Marner gets a pass because he produces.
Not at 5v5 so far this season, and over their careers, Nylander has been the better 5v5 scorer while playing less minutes.
Marner is a 2 way player.
There actually isn't a lot of supporting evidence for this, he's really not great defensively and doesn't create as many turnovers as Nylander does who has been one of the better take away wingers over his career.
Marner kills penalties.
Sure but the Leafs PK isn't good so what are you really praising him for?
Marner did not get any Selke consideration, that is an entirely made up sentiment.
Bringing Saad into this has no baring so I won't comment on that.
Your response is a good piece of ammo though for me. Why? Because you are saying a bunch of stuff that is commonly held as correct without any real supporting evidence. Nylander is bad defensively and Marner is a two way player. This is a fact in the minds of most people but statistically speaking holds no merit. If you were to say Marner is more engaged in the defensive zone than Nylander, that would be correct to say. What is also correct to say, is that in the offensive zone and neutral zone, Nylander is the better defensive player.
So what does Nylander deserve? Not to be called overrated all the time by people who 1) don't ever watch him play and 2) haven't looked into any of the things they are using to call him overrated.</div></div>
Just going to fact check you here. Marner was 14th in the selke voting last year. Did he win it...no, but that list has 29 people on it. <a href="https://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/voting-2019.html#selke" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">https://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/voting-2019.html#selke</a>
Nylander has literally 71 less take aways in his career than Marner. (251 - 180 = 71) and playing the PK over Nylander is very important. It literally means Marner is a better option than Nylander because he's the one that goes out there to do the job.
By the way...this is supporting evidence. NOT typing 5V5 and then just talking more. I'm providing the evidence you're looking for. You're not providing any evidence at all.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>J2W</b></div><div>From my perspective as a Habs fan, and therefore not entirely objective, Klefbom is a younger, cheaper, left handed Jeff Petry. While I wouldn't trade Petry for less than a decent(b+) prospect and an unprotected 1st, or a solid prospect(a-) and a 2nd at minimum (and that's without retention and only at the deadline if MTL is out of the Playoffs and 1 of Brooks or Fleury solid 20min/gm potential along with a Juulsen bounce back from injury), I also wouldn't expect a team that wasn't a decent 2nd pairing dman from an almost sure cup run to pay that. Romanov and Poehling are both top end Prospects, Romanov was most valuable defenseman at the Juniors, in the year immediately after he was drafted, where the older and relatively highly regarded Erik Brannstrom was also competing, and Poehling, even without the hat trick in his 1st game, has shown that he has the pieces to be at least what Danault was last season and will most likely be better. I'm not really counting him being most valuable forward at the juniors that big of a deal, he was in his last eligible year so he should be performing at that kind of level if he was worth using a 1st round pick on.
Given that Klefbom is younger, cheaper and has some term (pros), while also taking into account his injury history(cons) and that I made the comparison to Petry, I figure I'll show a Petry to EDM trade using your trade as a base. To EDM - Petry, To MTL - Yamamoto, Bouchard and a 1st. No way EDM does that trade right now, unless they have really dropped there opinion of Bouchard, never mind adding Yamamoto.
A realistic Klefbom to MTL trade in terms of value likely doesn't happen. MTL isn't in a position to give up high end prospects or unprotected 1st's, and EDM needs high end prospects or unprotected 1st's or they wouldn't be trading Klefbom.</div></div>
Thank you for your intelligent input.
As opposed to the usual "No way" or "Are you kidding?" comments, all of the rational responses I've received to this construction have me persuaded that Klefbom to Montreal is not the slam-dunk plus I thought it was. Thanks, everybody!
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MTLaveragefan</b></div><div>It is such a ballsy move.
That's a hostile take over, just pure business. Like how Ray Kroch took over McDonald's.
I also believe that MTL did offer a trade for Aho that was way superior to the compensation now. They offered the easy way... this is the hard way!</div></div>
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Joe_La_Garnotte</b></div><div>BTW Dundon is a billionaire</div></div>
And there’s the rub. Dundon <strong>is</strong> a billionaire, and MTL is asking him to put his money where his mouth is.
This is the kind of stuff I really love. Very little of this deal has to do with Hockey. This is all about business economics crossing over with sports management. As someone who’s taken a few economics courses in University (as electives lol). Strictly from a business perspective, this deal is a nightmare. Accepting this deal basically forces you to take the next few years at a loss in terms of revenue. Dundon will probably have to dip in the capital from another one of his business’s or of his own personal stash to deal with this, and that’s just bad business, period. From a sports management perspective on the other hand, this is a no brainer. The compensation for letting Aho leave just isn’t good enough. It’s actually crap. The AAV is also almost spot on, and although the term isn’t what CAR want, it’s still manageable. But Wadell right now has no say anymore on what happens next. This guy is literally just going to his boss saying ‘’hey, I have this ****ty offer sheet I need to deal with... I just need $12mil cash for it to go away right now....and another $9mil cash next July 1st...’’
So it’ll be interesting what Dundon decides.
It’s easy for us mortals to tell a billionaire how to spend $21+ million, and odds are CAR matches. But it’s cool to see GMs try something like this, it really doesn’t happen often.
Forum: NHLJun 22, 2019 at 9:44 <div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Random2152</b></div><div>That plus minus is a useless stat for one. It is literally the first thing you learn. Ron hainsey led the leafs in +/- this year for example.
There are other dmen who get buried in their own zone and put up positive Corsi numbers and the like. Pesce, Theodore, Rielly, the list goes on and on.
Dzone starting % is also not as important statistically as one might think it is in determining how a player is affected stats wise. It does play a part, that is not in question, but we overcompensate for it in our heads relative to what it is actually worth.
You know, I'm trying to be helpful here, no need to act like a child with the last bit there.</div></div>
Looking at stats the way you look at them is simply off.
Numbers don't tell whole stories unless they are broken down into such small samples they are meaningless.
Which is why there are people who don't rely all that heavily on analytics.
They don't tell you if the player is mismatched. They don't tell you about the chemistry with the other players on the ice, or if the player is simply being put in a bad position or is being asked to do something out of his actual skill set. It's just a bunch or raw data that with no context is simply meaningless.
Just about every stat (there are one or two exceptions) you can list can be boiled down to be just as worthless as any other. Be it corsi or +/- or whatever. Which is why saying some are "good" while others are "bad" is fairly meaningless statement.
On a side note if you want to know what an exception is, I would say the faceoff stat. You either win it or lose it and it has very little to do with anything else on the ice other than a 1 to 1 match up. And it's a stat that definitely effects the game and is one of the most important and useful stats in hockey. Although personally I think it should be changed to "who gains possession" as you can "win" the faceoff and not get possession of the puck. But that's a different conversation.
The +/- stat like any other stat does tell you something on the ice just like the corsi does. If you have a high +/- goals are going in for your team and not the other team. Yes there maybe reasons for it other than the player, but the same can be said about the corsi stat too. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the team is winning with them on the ice. The corsi stat is also famously known for not meaning anything because having possession does not mean winning. There are plenty of teams and games where one hold possession of the puck and they don't score. A simply example, the penguins had a corsi advantage over the islanders in 4 playoff games this year.....they got swept. Furthermore, a players corsi can be boosted by other players holding the puck and winning puck battles not the player in question. They simply get credit for it. There are indeed "corsi vultures" just as much as there are "+/- vultures." So it's really a meaningless stat in that regard. It doesn't say that this player is the reason the team has possession of the puck, but only that the team had possession of the puck and they happened to be on ice when it happened.
Does that mean stats are useless, no but it does mean that looking at some stats and saying "those are the good ones" and ignoring others because they don't fit the narrative is a bad way to look at statistics. They don't show you what is happening on the ice. Players mesh together well. They might be losing the corsi consistently, they might be giving up more shots, higher fenwick whatever. But at the end of the game they are always coming out a goal ahead consistently which is why they are a +20 as opposed to a -10. If you want an example of that, the penguins beat CBJ in the playoffs on route to a cup several years ago and CBJ was dominating in about every statistical category but 1, the score board. CBJ was so frustrated little matt calvert broke his stick blind siding Kunhackle from the side. They let CBJ has possession, they let them take all the shots in the world, they even had more high danger shots. No stat will show you why they lost, but it just is that way. At the end of the game the only stat that counts is the score board.
Which is why the eye test is, and will always be the 1st thing used in looking at a player and the vast majority of the "advanced" stats or whatever mean very little unless given a lot of context. Which is why broad generalizations and clumps of stats to make any kind of reasonable decision about a player, team, system etc... is ill advised.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>STLBlues17</b></div><div>Has Madison Bowey ever played 28 minutes in consecutive games against Connor Mcdavid and held him off the board at even strength? That’s okay, maybe he’s an offensive dynamo. Oh wait, he has 1 career goal. I’m a big fan of Eller, but he’s a 3c and the Blues already have 4 centers so he doesn’t help us.</div></div>
You can probably flip Eller for Puljujarvi. Edit: or you can keep Eller to match up against the Penguins. I don't think Trotz even paid attention to who was out against who, and they did okay).
Bowey has more p/60 this year than Parayko, and he had back to back 60 pt seasons in juniors, so, yeah, he should be pretty good. Do you want Hughes and Puljujarvi and Bowey, or do you want Colt Parayko and a fourth overall pick?
I mean, imagine yourself with Hughes and Bowey, and whatever prospects you get for Eller, and someone offers to trade you Parayko and some other prospect they think is almost as good. You don't know whether Hughes will even make the NHL yet, let alone shadow one of the all time greats, for an hour. But you do know that, in limited minutes, Bowey is slightly outscoring Parayko, by rate. Do you make the trade?
Forum: NHLNov 7, 2018 at 1:41