carpandean Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 like stafford, sekera, and a 1st... :beer: :D I bet the Sharks could refuse that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 So, what you are saying is that out of the 90 "top six" forwards in the league there are only 13 worse than Pominville and Stafford? :rolleyes: I think you meant 180 forwards. Seeing this reminds me of the a lot of the Roy and Connolly are top 20 Centers that Status Quo spouted. Actually meant wingers and the point is that everyone seems to think top 6 = at least 30 goals and 80 points and as you have seen only 29 forwards scored 30 or more goals and only 9 scored 80 points. By any analysis of actual production and not anecdotal opinion, Stafford and Pominville are top 6 forwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Actually meant wingers and the point is that everyone seems to think top 6 = at least 30 goals and 80 points and as you have seen only 29 forwards scored 30 or more goals and only 9 scored 80 points. By any analysis of actual production and not anecdotal opinion, Stafford and Pominville are top 6 forwards. Stafford produced at that level this year, not before. The question with him, though, is heart not ability. He seemed to work harder this year, which led to the kind of production that we all knew he was capable of. So, did he finally get it (flipped switch theory), in which case he'll be worth quite a bit, or did his proverbial pocketbook make it worth his while to focus more this year, meaning that he'll revert back to his old self next season? Probably a little of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 This statement is simply not true, you can not simply turn $4M in cap space into one of the top 30 centermen (unless Roy continues his growth and lands on the list next year). The guys on the list that are under $4M are either RFAs or were locked up before anyone imagined they'd be that good. If this were the case, our $4.5M in timmy connoly savings should free up more than enough room to get us our guy. But to the point you made earlier, what was being argued was not that you can't find a cheaper goalie that will get you to the cup, you can, but the risk is that you end up like philly, detroit, washington, and to some extent tampa now. eventually it could catch up with you and then you have a expensive talented team that loses out because of a mediocre goalie. Philly won a series this year, you want their goalie(s) for miller and $4M in cap space? Since I already said in the ideal world where I could pick and choose players I would have traded Miller for the Caps goalie and another player - sure I still would say I would want Neuvirth. I'd also take Howard from Detroit - thanks for bringing him up! In fact now you just mentioned my top 2 goalies on my fantasy hockey team. :lol: As for the top 30 list - I believe I said "(no I'm not saying any specific player on that list - just using that as an example)". I'm only talking in generalities - not specific player x for player y. But if you are trading Miller - you are not just trading him for cheap goalie z and 4.5 million in cap space. You are making as many trades as required to get cheap goalie z and top center/dman q. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Since I already said in the ideal world where I could pick and choose players I would have traded Miller for the Caps goalie and another player - sure I still would say I would want Neuvirth. I'd also take Howard from Detroit - thanks for bringing him up! In fact now you just mentioned my top 2 goalies on my fantasy hockey team. :lol: As for the top 30 list - I believe I said "(no I'm not saying any specific player on that list - just using that as an example)". I'm only talking in generalities - not specific player x for player y. But if you are trading Miller - you are not just trading him for cheap goalie z and 4.5 million in cap space. You are making as many trades as required to get cheap goalie z and top center/dman q. Fair enough. I think that the cost-benefit analysis of trading Miller is going to be one of those things reasonable people can disagree about. Last years cup was two no-name low cost netminders, this years will likely be a battle of top 3 goalies. There are definately multiple ways to build a champion. IMO this team, with very young defense even if they sign a big FA, is best suited when they don't have to worry as much about the man in net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Actually meant wingers and the point is that everyone seems to think top 6 = at least 30 goals and 80 points and as you have seen only 29 forwards scored 30 or more goals and only 9 scored 80 points. By any analysis of actual production and not anecdotal opinion, Stafford and Pominville are top 6 forwards. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 One huge point you are missing is the influx of quality European goaltending has narrowed the gap from the top end goalies to mid-level goalies. Another is that there are just no goaltenders of the quality of a Brodeur(in his prime), Hasek or Roy in the league today. Agreed. Maybe the mid level hasn't improved that much. Perhaps the top has simply vanished. Then again, maybe the new rules created a moment in the game where goalies couldn't show their skill for a few years. I still think we're headed for a period dominated by teams with top goalies, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 new rules :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: They were fun for a season, and i miss them. But watching the playoffs now makes you wonder what rule book they are using. Its back to old time canadian style of mugging each other what the occasional wtf was that call. you can tackle a guy, check him 10 feet away from the puck but at a random time and solely at the ref's whim you will get called for placing your stick parallel to the ice and on a guys midsection. Hooking!!! new rules!! Absurd. I love playoff hockey but the league is quickly reverting back to pre lockout muggings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 new rules :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: They were fun for a season, and i miss them. But watching the playoffs now makes you wonder what rule book they are using. Its back to old time canadian style of mugging each other what the occasional wtf was that call. you can tackle a guy, check him 10 feet away from the puck but at a random time and solely at the ref's whim you will get called for placing your stick parallel to the ice and on a guys midsection. Hooking!!! new rules!! Absurd. I love playoff hockey but the league is quickly reverting back to pre lockout muggings. Thank you for making me feel less like I'm taking crazy pills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Thank you for making me feel less like I'm taking crazy pills. I really feel like the league has too hard of a time balancing interests. Our northern friends who are traditionalists - playoffs = barbarian sport vs bettmanites = roller hockey on ice. Barbarian are winning. I mean last night they were literally just tackling each other away from the puck but you get such mickey mouse interference calls thereafter. Im not sure my cardiac system or vocal cords would weather the sabres in the later rounds with this type of officiating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 I really feel like the league has too hard of a time balancing interests. Our northern friends who are traditionalists - playoffs = barbarian sport vs bettmanites = roller hockey on ice. Barbarian are winning. I mean last night they were literally just tackling each other away from the puck but you get such mickey mouse interference calls thereafter. Im not sure my cardiac system or vocal cords would weather the sabres in the later rounds with this type of officiating. Don't worry about this type of officiating if the sabres make it to the finals. They'll just make up some new rules then to F#$% us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Agreed. Maybe the mid level hasn't improved that much. Perhaps the top has simply vanished. Then again, maybe the new rules created a moment in the game where goalies couldn't show their skill for a few years. I still think we're headed for a period dominated by teams with top goalies, again. The genius of Brodeur, Roy, and Hasek is not that they were good for any one game, it is that they were good for many years. They were consistent and could adjust to aging, the grind, technical flaws in their own game, and shooters. And even hide their own limitations. The middle-tier is never great for years. They get solved, and fade away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 The genius of Brodeur, Roy, and Hasek is not that they were good for any one game, it is that they were good for many years. They were consistent and could adjust to aging, the grind, technical flaws in their own game, and shooters. And even hide their own limitations. The middle-tier is never great for years. They get solved, and fade away. Well put. Tim thomas might be the closest, although he did just have an off year last year. Still, not that close to the other goalies' level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Well put. Tim thomas might be the closest, although he did just have an off year last year. Still, not that close to the other goalies' level. The Bruins are vulnerable when they get out-skated. He's been their MVP...and given them a chance to win nearly every postseason game. Loungo - while he hasn't dominated - has still been pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 I bet the Sharks could refuse that. What, you mean we're suggesting that they are a team that will want to free up salary, but we then propose a deal where they ADD salary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 What, you mean we're suggesting that they are a team that will want to free up salary, but we then propose a deal where they ADD salary? It's perfect...It'll put them over the cap, and then we can get more of their players we want. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 It's perfect...It'll put them over the cap, and then we can get more of their players we want. :lol: By sending them another bloated contract! It's a vicious cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Well put. Tim thomas might be the closest, although he did just have an off year last year. Still, not that close to the other goalies' level. Tim Thomas had surgery last year and that majorly contributed to his performance. What, you mean we're suggesting that they are a team that will want to free up salary, but we then propose a deal where they ADD salary? Rules of being a GM you can add salary if your adding more players but the sharks wouldnt be. If drew signs for 3.5 or less (which he should) then you could package him with sekera because the sharks are losing up to 3 defensmen depending on who they resign, therefore they would not be taking on salary if they brought in Sekera and let one of their more expensive resign defensmen go. They also now have 2 playrs at roughly 5.5 million instead of 2 players at roughly 6.5-7mil and they add a first round draft pick. So once again, the sharks lose Pavelski for Drew but also get a young and potentially great defender and a 1st round pick for their troubles... SO let me recap one more time. If the sharks got a rw and def and a pick and sent out a c/rw they would free up space because they would have the rw for less and be able to dump a older def for a younger guy with more upside yet less salary for another 3 years and they get to draft an extra 1st rounder.... It would make the sharks better, younger, dump salary, and give the sabres a piece they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Tim Thomas had surgery last year and that majorly contributed to his performance. Rules of being a GM you can add salary if your adding more players but the sharks wouldnt be. If drew signs for 3.5 or less (which he should) then you could package him with sekera because the sharks are losing up to 3 defensmen depending on who they resign, therefore they would not be taking on salary if they brought in Sekera and let one of their more expensive resign defensmen go. They also now have 2 playrs at roughly 5.5 million instead of 2 players at roughly 6.5-7mil and they add a first round draft pick. So once again, the sharks lose Pavelski for Drew but also get a young and potentially great defender and a 1st round pick for their troubles... SO let me recap one more time. If the sharks got a rw and def and a pick and sent out a c/rw they would free up space because they would have the rw for less and be able to dump a older def for a younger guy with more upside yet less salary for another 3 years and they get to draft an extra 1st rounder.... It would make the sharks better, younger, dump salary, and give the sabres a piece they need. Except Drew has the option to make closer to $5M. If he thinks he can replicate this past season's performance, then it would be in his best interests to force a one year arbitration deal and sign for even more next summer. I agree a 3.5M Stafford would be attractive, I just don't think that guy exists this summer. He wasn't a 30 goal scorer this past year, he was a 40 goal scorer on an 82 game season, and that is something the arbitrator will look at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Except Drew has the option to make closer to $5M. If he thinks he can replicate this past season's performance, then it would be in his best interests to force a one year arbitration deal and sign for even more next summer. I agree a 3.5M Stafford would be attractive, I just don't think that guy exists this summer. He wasn't a 30 goal scorer this past year, he was a 40 goal scorer on an 82 game season, and that is something the arbitrator will look at. he didnt score 40 because he didnt play an 82 game season. He didnt play an 82 game season because he was injured. You can not say then that he will play 82 games nor can you say he would have scored 40 goals. Stafford is not worth 5mil he had 52pts. That means there were 52 goals scored he was involved in. hes worth 4 at best. As for my original argument, if you gave him 4mil and then traded him, it would still benefit Sj, they would still be able to sign a cheaper defensemen and get a 1st round pick. They would have a net gain because 4mil for 4mil plus sekera for say oooo idk 1.5ish which adds up to 5.5mil and my original totals still apply as SJ loses 4mil + either Wallin 2.65, Huskins 1.7, or white 3, so they could potentially if they chose dump up to 7mil. Obviously this doesnt have to happen but it is a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Except Drew has the option to make closer to $5M. If he thinks he can replicate this past season's performance, then it would be in his best interests to force a one year arbitration deal and sign for even more next summer. I agree a 3.5M Stafford would be attractive, I just don't think that guy exists this summer. He wasn't a 30 goal scorer this past year, he was a 40 goal scorer on an 82 game season, and that is something the arbitrator will look at. Exactly. Stafford will make at least as much as Pavelski next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 he didnt score 40 because he didnt play an 82 game season. He didnt play an 82 game season because he was injured. You can not say then that he will play 82 games nor can you say he would have scored 40 goals. Stafford is not worth 5mil he had 52pts. That means there were 52 goals scored he was involved in. hes worth 4 at best. As for my original argument, if you gave him 4mil and then traded him, it would still benefit Sj, they would still be able to sign a cheaper defensemen and get a 1st round pick. They would have a net gain because 4mil for 4mil plus sekera for say oooo idk 1.5ish which adds up to 5.5mil and my original totals still apply as SJ loses 4mil + either Wallin 2.65, Huskins 1.7, or white 3, so they could potentially if they chose dump up to 7mil. Obviously this doesnt have to happen but it is a possibility. Based on history (which is the foundation of salary arbitration) this matters significantly less than the per game output. I don't like it any better than you, but it is the way it works until they change the language in the CBA as far as admissible evidence and method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Except Drew has the option to make closer to $5M. If he thinks he can replicate this past season's performance, then it would be in his best interests to force a one year arbitration deal and sign for even more next summer. I agree a 3.5M Stafford would be attractive, I just don't think that guy exists this summer. He wasn't a 30 goal scorer this past year, he was a 40 goal scorer on an 82 game season, and that is something the arbitrator will look at. Exactly. Stafford will make at least as much as Pavelski next year. So since drew is a 30 goal scorer doesnt that mean that it would be an upgrade from Pavelski? I mean thats your logic isnt it? He scored 30 goals, 31 actually but he scored alot and could score alot more so therefore hes worth more to others, so hes worth Pavelski straight up. See it is not logical to suggest Drew is on a new level but then say well you couldnt trade him for pavelski because hes not as good... there is no logic here. Bases on history drew only topped 50pts once in the last 5 years so now being a 45 pt a year player equals 5mil... this league is screwed because the cap is now about 85mil to make up for that. (27pts, 38, 45, 34, 52 pts) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 So since drew is a 30 goal scorer doesnt that mean that it would be an upgrade from Pavelski? I mean thats your logic isnt it? He scored 30 goals, 31 actually but he scored alot and could score alot more so therefore hes worth more to others, so hes worth Pavelski straight up. See it is not logical to suggest Drew is on a new level but then say well you couldnt trade him for pavelski because hes not as good... there is no logic here. Bases on history drew only topped 50pts once in the last 5 years so now being a 45 pt a year player equals 5mil... this league is screwed because the cap is now about 85mil to make up for that. (27pts, 38, 45, 34, 52 pts) I was trying to point out that the salary arbitrator will look at it that way. Other GMs will assess his value much like you are. This is why most of the major arbitration awards have been walk away from or bought out in the past few years. The arbitration system is set up to reward players who played great in a contract year with giant one year settlements. I expect this will be a key negotiation point in the next CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 I was trying to point out that the salary arbitrator will look at it that way. Other GMs will assess his value much like you are. This is why most of the major arbitration awards have been walk away from or bought out in the past few years. The arbitration system is set up to reward players who played great in a contract year with giant one year settlements. I expect this will be a key negotiation point in the next CBA. oooo yah, i totally agree with that. Arbitration is a sham. Drews case will be interesting and it will be fun to see what he gets and if he goes to arbitration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.