SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

rootferdukes

Your Fav Dman is Bad
Membre depuis
25 févr. 2018
Équipe favorite
Capitals de Washington
Messages dans les forums
314
Messages par jour
0.1
Forum: Armchair-GM11 sept. 2019 à 23 h 54
Sujet: Imagine if the Nucks bought out Tanev and brought him back at 700K
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BurgerBoss</b></div><div>I meant that if the thing that Calgary did becomes commonplace, I don't see NHL approving it for very long. It's cap circumventing and they don't really like it. I frankly have never seen this done.</div></div>

I don't think it'll really catch on, and it almost certainly wouldn't have worked if the Canucks had tried this with Tanev this year. Prior to a buyout, the player has to be offered on unconditional waivers, which in most buyouts is no problem because the player sucks and no one would want to claim him or his bad contract, but guys like Tanev and Soderberg (another AGM post like this used him) are good enough players in their own right that at least one team would probably make a claim. In their cases, this amounts to just giving away a rental UFA for free instead of getting something for them, which is the opposite of good asset management. This will only work on guys that your front office is higher on than anyone else, which, considering that's how most bad free agent deals get signed in the first place, doesn't bode well for the future of your team.
Forum: Armchair-GM11 sept. 2019 à 23 h 26
Sujet: Imagine if the Jets bought out Kulikov and brought him back at 700K
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>pavelisgoat</b></div><div>As this seems like a good solution, It is NOT allowed.
You cannot buyout a player and then sign them within the next year (I think it's a year)
Thus why you have seen Orpik to Colorado type of trades

Edit: Wait, so you actually are allowed to do this?</div></div>

You are if it's not a compliance buyout (which were only a thing right after the 2013 lockout), and while you do save some cap overall, completing a buyout is not as simple as saying you've bought a guy out (like when Michael Scott loudly "declared" bankruptcy on The Office). Before initiating a buyout, you have to offer the player on unconditional waivers and the player has to clear, so if you were buying out a player with intent to re-sign them in the future as a way to slightly lessen your total cap obligation, you'd only want to do it on players that you'd be relatively certain wouldn't get claimed (i.e. bad players on bad contracts). Plus, even if it works and you complete the buyout and re-sign the guy, you've only slightly lessened your total cap obligation to that player. Kulikov currently has a hit of 4.33M, but by the end of year 2 in this scenario you've still dedicated 3.588M to him over the two seasons, so it's a whole lot of shenanigans just to kick the can down the road while retaining a mediocre to bad player.
Forum: Armchair-GM9 sept. 2019 à 18 h 45
Forum: Armchair-GM9 sept. 2019 à 17 h 57
Sujet: Andersen
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Eli</b></div><div>Whether a sample size is big enough to be significant, in stats, depends on how different the data in that sample are from the expected results. You take an undrafted college player who scores 42 points in 22 games as a 20 year old Freshman, and it starts to look reasonable to assume he might turn into something: <a href="http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=4052" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=4052</a>

Putting Texier ahead of a bunch of 1st round draft picks because of four points in ten NHL games seems to discount the tradition among veteran NHL players to help the new guy get his first couple of goals by passing to him a whole lot. And four points in ten games is just not that different from the two points an average rookie might get in their first ten games to discount that it's a couple of lucky bounces making him look good.

If the Caps' prospects beat Carolina's prospects 5-3, no one cares. 10-3 makes a statement that they're at least able to keep up with the supposedly much better group. Now, if the ranking doesn't exist, do they even feel the need to keep trying to score goals after 5-3? Maybe not. But it does, and they responded to it pretty well.</div></div>

<div class="yt_out_cont"><div class="yt_cont"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5hfYJsQAhl0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div></div>
Forum: Armchair-GM9 sept. 2019 à 13 h 40
Sujet: Andersen
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Eli</b></div><div>The Athletic has the Caps' prospects ranked 30th, overall, and the Hurricanes' prospects listed at 8th. The Caps' prospects just beat a team of Canes prospects 10-3. So.... I'm gonna stick with sleepily looking up individual stats, even if I get it wrong half the time, and not paying a former ESPN.com journalist to do quite all of my thinking for me? Given the error-correcting capability of internet forums, there's just no need!</div></div>

You literally just agreed in this thread that 5 or even 10 games is too small of a sample size to draw conclusions from, and now you're saying that one prospect tournament game is enough to totally discredit a guy whose whole job is to scout and evaluate prospects. Simply remarkable levels of unearned confidence on display here
Forum: Armchair-GM9 sept. 2019 à 12 h 7
Sujet: Andersen
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Eli</b></div><div>My pleasure. :) As I mentioned above, with a link, I'm responding to someone who suggested Texier for Stephenson and a 1st. Can we agree that was unreasonable, since Stephenson plays 1st PK, has won a Cup, and has played two full seasons pretty well in the NHL, plus parts of two others, while Texier has four points in his first ten games?


Yep. Ten, also.

I would still guess that Texier is not the Blue Jackets' top forward prospect behind, Robinson (half an NHL season played) and first round picks like Foudy, Milano, and Dano.

I do think that Stephenson is available for a mid-round pick or a prospect who's showing some improvement. Maybe Fix-Wolansky? I don't know. What's a cheap, established NHLer worth?</div></div>

Robinson has played 14 NHL games, so again, I'm not sure where you're getting all this bad info about CBJ prospects and how many games they've played and where. He was about a 0.5 point per game player for AHL Cleveland last year in 45 games and hasn't scored at the NHL level yet, but sure, I bet he's behind Texier, who scored nearly 0.75 ppg against men in Liiga at 19 years old, or Bemstrom, who led the SHL in goal scoring also in his age 19 season (and also against grown men), or even Foudy, who is a phenomenal skater and played well in the OHL last year. Furthermore, Bemstrom and Texier are rated as their #1 and #2 prospects by The Athletic (in the tier "very good NHL prospect), while Robinson is #9 (in the tier "legit/chance bubble"), so there's that too.

Finally, Chandler Stephenson has no NHL value. He is an offensive black hole, mediocre defensively, and is only average on the PK. Just because someone continues to inexplicably get NHL playing time doesn't mean that they are an intrinsically valuable player (take Milan Lucic, Nikita Zaitsev, Cody Ceci, etc. for examples), and in Stevie's case I think he'd be more likely to get claimed off waivers than get traded for anything.
Forum: Armchair-GM8 sept. 2019 à 19 h 51
Sujet: Andersen
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Eli</b></div><div>Hutchinson posted .914 and 2.85 in Toronto last year. Basically interchangeable with Andersen's 2.77 and .917. Andersen got signed/traded after taking the Ducks to the conference finals. Counting those conference finals, he's lost his last four straight playoff rounds. Toronto can sign Neuvirth around 800k, who has played in parts of five rounds, but only one whole one, which he won. Yes, Andersen is 25-20, career, playoffs, and Neuvirth is only 14-14, but if the difference means whether you can lock up Marner for eight years or not, Neuvirth is fine, even before you realize that Andersen in Toronto is only 11-13 in the playoffs, while Neuvirth is 14-14 with the Caps and Flyers, so he's probably a much better goalie?</div></div>

This should go without saying, but 5 NHL games is far too small of a sample size to draw conclusions on, so comparing 18-19 Hutchinson to 18-19 Andersen proves nothing about either player. Per evolving-hockey.com, Andersen has saved 41.76 goals above expected since coming to Toronto, placing him third in the league behind Gibson and Bobrovsky, and 8 GSAx better than fourth place Braden Holtby over that span, so I'd recommend looking past such bad stats as GAA if you want a better idea of how good a goalie he actually is (GSAx is still not perfect, but it's pretty close). Also, you as a Caps fan should know how truly stupid it is to place blame for playoff failures on just one player (remember all those "trade Ovi" columns from years past?), and regardless of who you root for, playoff wins and losses are ludicrously stupid stat to evaluate a player's overall value or skill. By that logic, Chris Osgood is better than Dominik Hasek because Osgood had more playoff wins than Hasek.