Éditer l'avatar
  • png, jpeg
  • La grandeur minimale recommandée se veut de 800px par 800px
  • Grandeur maximale: 1MB
Glisser l'image pour repositionner


Membre depuis
5 jun 2018
Messages dans les forums
Messages par jour
Sujets de discussion
I would be a great GM, hit me up NHL
Forum: Armchair-GMil y a 10 heures
Forum: NHL Signingsil y a 13 heures
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>drewjenkins</b></div><div><strong>1.</strong> McAvoy (23) is already better then Pulock (27).
<strong>2.</strong> Pulock had just finished his rookie season at 23.
<strong>3.</strong> McAvoy's been a top 10 defender for like 3 years.

Also this:

McAvoy's deal starts when he's <strong>24</strong> and ends when he's <strong>32</strong>.
Pulock's deal starts when he's <strong>28</strong> and ends when he's <strong>36</strong>.

A players prime is usually around <strong>26-27</strong>, so that's quite a disparity.

<strong>PS - I'm a Leafs fan. </strong></div></div>

A. Actually the prime for defensemen is actually 25-26. But if you actually new anything about those statistics, you'd know that defensemen have a much slower decline in their ability than forwards. Which is why defensemen can tend to play well at say 34 where forwards don't.

B. Pulock and McAvoy are two different kind of defensemen. Don't confuse that for one being "better" than the other. Pulock is much better than McAvoy in his own zone. Period.

C. it's not when you got your start that determines how good of a player you are. When did Panarin finish his rookie deal? 24? does that mean guys who finished theirs at 21 are better players....clearly it does not.

D. McAvoy hasn't been a top 10 defender for 3 years. If anything over that time frame, McAvoy has been prone to be injured. He's had how many concussions at this point?
His health on the ice is suspect. You can't say that about Poluck.

So when you want to sit here and talk about the length of the deal and act like McAvoy is younger and that's so much better, it really avoids the question of will McAvoy actually last longer in the league than Pulock at a high level.
There is no really proof of any of that but you like to assume it. Pulock declining, past 34 is just as likely as McAvoy getting injured throughout that contract and eventually on a LTIR out.
On top of it, McAvoy on a rebuilding BOS team without support is a far less effective player than a Pulock on a NYI team that will continue to be competitive. So I wouldn't be rushing to use stats as your end all be all of judgements.

Fact is Pulock took a huge discount. He should have been paid more, and that is really on his agent. If you don't get that, somethings wrong with you.
Forum: Armchair-GMil y a 15 heures
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>DeadWingsv2</b></div><div>You're missing the whole point. The goal is to do the rebuild the right way, not give up assets for players that don't move the needle. You're tired trope of "Staal, DeKeyser and Leddy suck, hur, hur" is Jim Rome level garbage. Leddy is still very useful and DeKeyser and Staal are respected vets that are placeholders. Same thing with Osterle, he's certainly not winning a Norris, but he's fine as a 3rd pairing placeholder while we rebuild. Next, your ignorance of our pipeline is comical. Sebrango and McIsaac both looked ready out of camp, but why rush them now? That doesn't mean they won't be ready by next year.

You're clearly only here to stir **** and know nothing about the Wings, nor are you even remotely interested in understanding it, so this will be the last reply I make to you.</div></div>

You clearly don't get at the end of the day you still have to field an NHL caliber team. You can sit here with your tropes of "Stall and DeKeyser are respected vets, but none of that is even remotely true. No one looks at them as good hockey players. No one. Hell if DeKeyser offered leadership it was teaching young guys it's not worth it, we such, go on IR.

You want to talk about "building the right way" but you don't really seem to get that this team has been "rebuilding" for years on years. It has gone no where.
One of the reasons for that is there isn't enough talent on the ice to help any of the young players. You aren't helping to teach your young forwards when you give them defensemen that are AHL caliber and can't either move the puck up ice or held defensively. You need at least a decent level of talent around them to help them develop. Otherwise what you get is poor development and a failed rebuild. AKA see the current one, as this team has had the same issues going forward year after year after year.
So this, everyone doen't know anything about the wings, and you're the "REAL" expert snobbish pompous attitude can shove off.
This is a team that will need to rebuild it's entire left side next year. In a free agent market that is insane for defensemen, on a team that no one really wants to join.
Those are just facts. Their options are to A. take horrible cap dumps to play defense, aka their current strategy, that if failing. B. play AHL level guys, their earlier strategy that was a failure, or C. realize they need at least a level of play capable of developing younger guys.
Otherwise, not only will they screw up development of younger guys that are rushed onto the ice with 0 help, but they will end up chasing every player out the door before they can ever get the team off the ground and be nothing but a perpetual farm team.
Forum: NHL Signingsil y a 15 heures
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>budgeteam</b></div><div>You have to account for cap inflation.

The contract Landeskog signed as an RFA might be the best comparable. Landeskog signed for 7 years with an 8.66 cap hit percentage. This was after two ELC seasons where he averaged similar numbers to Brady, also as a power forward, and also with some leadership intangibles. That would work out to a shade over 7x7 when adjusted for the current salary cap ceiling.

Hischier also signed for about that with similar production. Not a power forward, but he is a center and not a winger, so maybe it equals out.

People are reasonably accurate to say he is around a million overpaid per season. That is if you just look at on ice value. Brady's value to the franchise off the ice makes this a good deal. People who don't follow the Senators don't understand how important this signing is to the fan base and to the team the Senators spent the last 5 seasons rebuilding. The alternative was a bridge deal, which likely would have lead to a trade. A trade would rip the soul out of the rebuild and the fan base.</div></div>

Landeskog deal is a horrible example. 1st he's a UFA, 2nd, he had 3 seasons of 30 goal pace before he signed it, 3rd, two of those seasons he was at a 70 point pace, Which he signed in july 2021, and he only got 7.
Brady is a RFA, he's never sniffed 30, and never sniffed a 70+ point pace. If you were trying to make the case why this should have been at 6 range, you just did.
As for Hischier , that's an oranges to apples. So I'm not going there. Centers will always be paid more. That's a statistical average though out the league.
As for the intangibles. see below. Intangibles is a two way street for a guy who's surrounded by a lot of young talent that is probably more skilled at putting points up than him.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MadLin27</b></div><div>Thats a fair rebuttal. I would contest that I am not "assuming", but rather predicting that he could score more on a different team.
Good players create synergy. There haven't been enough good players on Ottawa for Tkachuk to create such synergy.

The contract is high. 100%. It also could set a bad precedent for Stutzle, but I think its obvious Tkachuk is a very important piece of this teams core. Tanglibles and intangible.</div></div>

I get what you are saying here, but part of the "intangible" is also the effect it has on the teams future cap. This team has a LOT of good young prospects. If it can't get fair deals now, what are they all to think?
Like I said it's the TOR effect.
If there is one thing that can kill an awesome rebuild job that they have done, it's when the cap gets crazy.
I know this is a really good young team stacked with talent, no one has to convince me of that. But the future is not just Brady, it's keeping the WHOLE team together. That in the end is going to take cap magic especially when you are handing out overpays. Because you can bet, everyone is looking at it like Lunch time, I want to eat too.
I get what the player brings to the ice, I just don't agree that it's A. worth as much as he got over paid, and B. in the best interest of the whole team going forward. Because soon there will be a lot of mouths to feed., and a lot of them could be demanding a lot more money partially by using this as a comparable if they pan out to the players they are expected to.
I don't think anyone in OTT wants to be paying Stutzle McDavid money, or looking at all the top round defensemen the team is stacked with ending up getting contracts like McAvoy just got.
At some point if this team is going to be successful, they need the younger guys to buy in, not all cash out. I think this contract sets a bad example. But that's my take.
Forum: Armchair-GMThu at 6:18 pm
Forum: Armchair-GMThu at 2:43 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Lancebmx</b></div><div>They can keep both as far as I'm concerned, unless they want to offer us something worth while to take on one of those deals Detroit will just stay away from them. Also Zucker too.</div></div>

you really over estimate DET.
you got 3 LD over 30 years old with expiring contracts none of which are any good. Leddy and staal suck. DeKeyser is made of glass.
Whole LD is probably gone next year. Unless you live in a cave you realize by now there is a massive shortage of defense in the NHL. FFS Jack Johnson is playing for COL right now. That should tell you something about the state of the league and defensemen.

So yeah, talk big, but when DET is looking for defensemen because most FA aren't going to want to come and play for the perpetual rebuild that is going nowhere team, and the prospects aren't ready at 20 years old, then needs for stop gap defensemen who are at least NHL level will be required.
When you don't have any players to really trade, the only other thing to work with is picks or taking cap dumps.
So you can keep having a defense of cap dumps like Staal, which do nothing but hurt the team and player development.

As for Zucker, he wouldn't OK a trade to DET, and he most likely gets traded to a contender. There are teams looking for help on LW. He's only got 1 more year on his contract after this year.
So if he's moved he's a glorified rental where ever he goes. He's also not a bad player. Not every guy is going to be a 40 goal guy. But plenty of teams don't mind guys who score at 20 goal paces.
Sure the salary is a bit high, but he's a capable player, and someone with cap room looking to make a push and has the space will take a run to improve the team knowing that contract in the end isn't going to be hard to move if they have to.
That's even if the penguins trade him. He might go next year, at which point, it will be a nothing of a deal as it's a pure rental and off the books.
Forum: NHL SigningsThu at 2:25 pm
Forum: Armchair-GMThu at 12:20 pm
Sujet: Kravtsov