All Activity

Shoot da puck shoot da puck

I think the best way to think of Chinakhov is Jack Quinn, not exactly his game, but what he is and what he could be: A young winger who has flashed tantalizing offensive talent but has yet to break through and also battled injury and raised questions through at times spotty play. Hed have similar value based on the beholder and be a risky trade for both sides.

Has Benson ever played centre?

That seems logical to me edit: actually, does it? this bears thinking about. Probably need to let this tumble dry for a bit

Yeah. Not sure how guys like Quinn and Benson were even mentioned. This guy can’t be worth much. Worth even less because he can’t stay healthy.

As a matter of practicality I don’t see how the model *can* account for it - my point is a function of team building not raw value comp. Let’s see if I can actually convey this- Even if the model has accurately figured out the ratio and a hypothetical +1 is exactly 1/7th the on ice value of a +7, a team won’t get as much value from the 7 pieces as the 1 due to dominance of role if you could figure out EXACTLY what McDavid’s talent was and you divided it among 23 players, which do you take? McDavid or the 23?

The model says a 21 and 19 1s is literally twice as good a team as 20 1s, 1 player can make a huge difference.

So what’s his game? 2 way winger? is he projecting to be a 20 goal scorer depending on linemates/circumstances? Dont know a lot about him, but 25 yrs old he seems to be in the age wheelhouse for us, no?

Well if we score 254 (269 last year) and save 10 more extra, we’ll go from a -20 to a -25. If we score 254 and the D save us 20, we’ll get to -15

24 years old, 175 games and 34 goals/ 71 points. He is worth Krebs and maybe a B level prospect. Krebs - 24 years old, 296 games, 30 goals/94 points playing on 4th line most of the time. If this is an attempt to replace Peterka it seems more like another rebuild on the rebuild's rebuild.

The model does seem to assign far greater variation to the good players. Dahlin is worth Thompson and Tuch together, Tuch is worth Byram and Peterka together. And it recognizes that guys like Clifton and Bryson are actually negatives but not to the same degree Dahlin is a positive. I assume usage and ice time are factors What I tired to say with the previous post is a think the model actually does try to account for that

Agree, but interesting also in terms of the mechanics of how a breakdown like that translates. Cause it’s obv not an exact comp - whatever number you a lot to McDavid, say, +20 you aren’t getting equivalent value from 20, +1 players. I don’t necessarily see a +9 accumulated majorly on the fringes as equivalent to adding a +9 to your top six

What do these words mean? I don't think that's a real thing.

I guess to depends on the value of the franchise if they make the playoffs.

"the Sabres have interest in the player. " He suddenly rescinded his request and said he's never been happier in Columbus for some reason.

With our internal cap it’s actually the ~750m dollar question

The Rochester Chiefs?

Yeah, I mean it’s just an honest attempt to quantify evergreen hockey questions like who is more valuable: JJ Peterka or Bowen Byram? (They’re both +4) And it completely ignore the pertinent question of the whole not equaling the sum of its parts. For a decent reference point +9 would have been the equivalent of the Sabres losing no one and adding one good player, like a FilipnForsberg or a Noah Hanifan. Good conversation fodder, but that’s about it.

That's the $ Billion question isn't it. It's impossible to know until you seem the team play, but on paper we haven't come close to doing it. I project our scoring at 254 and I'm not sure how to project GA, except to say I think Kesselring and Timmins could be worth 10 goals saved over the course of the season. That would still leave us at a -20 differential. If the 2 new D save us 20 goals over the 289 allowed last year, this is a marginally improved non-playoff team.

Sorry i didn’t mean ever I meant this offseason You listed a 54 goal improvement above something like that would certainly qualify

Yes. We have improved scoring by 64 goals from 21/22 to 22/23 (differential went from -58 to -4) and we improved our GA from 22/23 to 23/24 by 50+(but our GF also dropped 49 goals - differential +1). Unfortunately we've never done it at the same time. The key to this season is to keep our offense at around 260 (265 GF last year) while decreasing our goals against by about .5 goals per game. PS I find differential is a easier way to compare what teams need to do each season to make the playoffs. In the last 4 years, every team with a +9 or better differential in the East made the playoffs.