Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - mr grieves

Pages: 1 ... 114 115 [116] 117 118
1726
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Bozak's Future
« on: June 06, 2013, 04:59:01 PM »
Which would suggest a developing team could look to go one of two ways. Build the depth so you needn't lean on a top line too heavily or find some way to get one of the few -- how many? 15 or 20 ppg types? -- out there... Former sounds more appealing, because it has the advantage of being possible, but, if you've got a winger you're paying ~$7.5m/yr, it'd be nice to have someone to play 20-21 minutes a night with him.

Well, except again I'm sort of suggesting that Bergeron is as good/capable offensively as one of those PPG(or close to it types) so "build the depth" in that context means finding more than one great centre so I don't think I'd say it sounds like the easier option.

Oh... then I don't know that I agree with the suggestion. He's never managed that many points, and, if you figure he's scored a point every 25 minutes over the last 4 seasons, to get to 75-80 his TOI would have be something like 23 or 24 minutes a game. And since Boston had fewer than 3 min of PP time per game last season, it's hard to see how he'd get that sort of time on the team he's on.

So it's not just a function of his TOI. Something else would have to give. Not only the extra minute or two per game, but playing under another system, being freed of his defensive responsibilities, and with a team that draws penalties far more frequently. 

Point was: whether Bergeron could or couldn't score at that clip, he's on a team that requires neither of its top two centers to be the thoroughly dominant offensive beasts we think of #1Cs as in order to have success.

1727
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Bozak's Future
« on: June 06, 2013, 03:07:36 PM »
But, more to the point, no one's being used like it by Boston. The team has depth enough to roll 4 lines, which keeps Bergeron's TOI (and everyone else's) below what one would expect of a heavily-relied-upon #1C. So perhaps they aren't a great model for Toronto.

That's sort of what I'm getting at. When we say "Boston doesn't have a #1" I think what we really mean is that they don't lean on their first line the way teams with less depth might.

Which would suggest a developing team could look to go one of two ways. Build the depth so you needn't lean on a top line too heavily or find some way to get one of the few -- how many? 15 or 20 ppg types? -- out there... Former sounds more appealing, because it has the advantage of being possible, but, if you've got a winger you're paying ~$7.5m/yr, it'd be nice to have someone to play 20-21 minutes a night with him.   

1728
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Bozak's Future
« on: June 06, 2013, 02:11:10 PM »
On the other hand, Boston doesn't have a complete, PPG #1C in either Bergeron or Krejci, but they make do without one.

I think Bergeron is a player at that level, he's just not being used like it by Boston. Last few years he's been at a 64 points per 82 games pace and that's with playing less ice time than most #1's and taking a big chunk of PK time. If Boston played Bergeron 20-21 minutes a night including 3+ on the PP I'm guessing he'd be at 75-80 points or so.

He only has 1 second less PP TOI/game than Krecji. And I don't know whether 3-4 more shifts per game would lead to another 15-20 points. But, more to the point, no one's being used like it by Boston. The team has depth enough to roll 4 lines, which keeps Bergeron's TOI (and everyone else's) below what one would expect of a heavily-relied-upon #1C. So perhaps they aren't a great model for Toronto.

1729
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Bozak's Future
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:29:35 PM »
To build on that post Mr G, to my thinking I don't really care if they let Bozak walk or get rid of Grabovski, but they need to keep one of them as the 2-3 center. Neither one is good enough to be the number 1 guy on a contender but either one of them works fine on the second or third line. Kadri is going to be a Leaf center and so is McClement, which leaves only the number 1 slot. It's going to be tough for Nonis to acquire a legitimate number 1 guy but that's why he gets the big bucks.

On the other hand, Boston doesn't have a complete, PPG #1C in either Bergeron or Krejci, but they make do without one. And, with the Leafs strength on the wings, I think they would too. One hopes that Kadri and Grabbo can be reliably in the 60 point range, but Nik's right that that might be hoping for a bit too much. I'm pretty sure there's even less reason to hope Bozak's there.

1730
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Bozak's Future
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:00:45 PM »
Here are a couple of other recent articles containing some stats that suggest Bozak is a weak player both offensively and defensively. Many articles conclude he is a third line center at best though thy wonder if he could be used in that role because he is so poor defensively.

[...]

The reason I'd avoid Bozak at too high a price is to maintain cap flexibility so that we can take advantage of opportunities that arise -- opportunities like the Phaneuf or Franson deals (or like the Blues did with Bouwmeester this year).  I guess I'm so pessimistic that the Leafs can do damage in the playoffs with such a weak defense and weak set of centers that I fear a rich Bozak contract preventing us from adding a top-end guy is a bigger risk than underachieving without him (we won't achieve that much even if we have him,....).

I'm also a little skeptical that, for instance, a $5 million Bozak could be traded for anything at all -- I think it would be somewhat similar to trying to trade a Komisarek though not as bad as trying to trade a Redden or a Gomez (and I say that knowing that Gomez was actually traded ... I just can't bring myself to count on GMs continuing to be so stupid).  I guess that is just what I think of his value, having read so many of these negative analytical articles.

Last, I worry that MSLE wouldn't actually pony up the cash to buy him out if he tanks next year.  A 10-15 million buyout is a lot of cash ... It would not be fun for the board to pony up that money.

A good overview of the risks of signing him.

That sounds about right to me.

Looking at the team's lines as used in the last year, the 1C is a the spot that screams out for an upgrade. And, at a more basic level than any of the points you make, which are specific to this particular context (cap space, etc.), this is the moment -- well, ideally earlier, at the trade deadline -- when you don't commit to players who aren't suited to their roles. Locking in Bozak for a number of years might give the team a bit of insurance next year -- if Kadri's development doesn't quite continue apace, etc. -- but, over the longer run, I think it's more hinderance than help.

I do hope the team's management is spending less time figuring out how to keep Bozak around than they are trying use all that cap space and some of that vaunted back-end depth to bring in, say, Stastny. 

 

1731
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Bozak's Future
« on: May 30, 2013, 11:50:22 PM »
[SNIPPED -- because I'll concede the point that Grabbo didn't have a good year. Point, with respect to paying for insurance, remains: it was a bad year in which, for some reason, he was taking fewer shots than before, among several good ones]

It's not a mystery why he took less shots. If you're struggling to advance the play, as Grabo was, and you're struggling with accuracy, as Grabo was, you're going to have fewer shots on net. Shots aren't the be all and end all but they are something of a reflection of the overall strength of a player's offensive game.

I've conceded that he didn't have a good season, and pointed out that his 'good seasons' are distinguished by a certain number of shots (since he converts at a pretty steady clip). Though I think good players having good years find a way no matter their role, I do think the above overstates the degree to which it's unrelated to Grabovski's role on the team this year. And you seem to be having it both ways to say Bozak's 1.5 sh/game average isn't his perpetual inability to take a pass or relative absence of creativity save for Kessel putting the puck on his stick, but "fitting into his role," while Grabbo's is just a guy fighting the puck all year long.

We can disagree about how Grabovski ended up on a checking line and whether his declined production was mostly cause or mostly effect of that, but I don't see the point in pretending he was not, in fact, on a checking line at all, that the zone starts are statistically meaningless, and the reason he couldn't advance the play was entirely his bad year and not on the role he played for much of the season. I mean, to get those shots he needed to "push the play" an extra 110 feet 30% more of the time than last year. This year, he was 168th among centers in the league in offensive zone starts. That's a checking line center.


And though I started with it, I'll repeat it: he'll have little value as a trade asset at $5m/yr. But a low pick and a smaller salary dump coming the other way is something, sure.

I think you'd agree though that this is where it becomes conjecture on both of our parts. And while, obviously, opinions can vary I have a little bit of trouble, and I mentioned this a post ago, with you seemingly being simultaneously of the opinion that Bozak's worth on the open market would be in the neighbourhood of 5 million dollars yet being more or less impossible to trade at that cost. I mean, either he's worth it in the eyes of the league or he's not, it can't be both.

Of course it can be both. We must have different understandings of what "worth" means in early July. Getting a $5m UFA contract doesn't require the "eyes of the league" to determine a player worth one. It only takes one bad GM (Jay Feaster still has a job, no?). To move such a contract takes another one. To move it for anything of value takes several. If the UFA market accurately measured the worth of players no one would ever be buried in the minors or bought out.


The Plan B also included signing Boyd Gordon but another credible bottom-six faceoff & PK specialist would do.

I mentioned Gordon. I'm a little confused as to what role you think he'd play on a team where Grabo, Kadri, Colborne and McClement are around but it doesn't matter.

Centers McClement and Komarov, pushes the thugs down the depth chart so you can roll four lines, moves up to replace Colburne when a more defensively minded 3rd line is desired... I think he's fleeter of foot than McClement, so might be a better FO specialist who takes draws and swaps out. If the Leafs biggest problems down the stretch and for the first Bruins game were controlling play, managing the puck, and wearing the other team down with bottom-six zone time, then Gordon would be useful to have.   


And spite? Well, I don't like that Carlyle thinks, though he doesn't about any other players (maybe Fraser-Franson), that the Kessel-Bozak duo is bottled magic and not to be screwed with.

I don't think he does. I just think that he believes it's the best of a group of so-so options based on the various deficiencies with Kadri's game and Grabo's track record of not really fitting in as Kessel's centre. That said, we've kicked that can around elsewhere. 

But what record is this? How many minutes have they actually played together? I don't recall more than a stretch of 3 games a year or so back.


But I mostly have an abject fear of the team repeating the errors of the mid-2000s by overcommitting to players who take up roster spots and cap space better spent elsewhere. To me, that'd be another top-4 defenseman and a proper shutdown center.

Obviously, I think we can all agree that giving 5 million dollars a year to Bozak wouldn't be anyone's ideal use of that kind of money. That said where I keep coming back to on the issue is that the Leafs aren't in a position where they need to make that choice. I really think that you're underestimating just how good the Leafs cap position is right now. As it stands they have 19.5 million dollars to spend. If they buy out Komisarek, that'd put them up to 24 million. That would mean they could sign these players to this AAV:

Bozak - 5
Kadri - 4
Komarov - 2
McLaren - 1
Orr - 1
Colborne - 1.5
Gunnarsson - 4
Franson - 4

And still be under the cap. And those numbers are ridiculous. The reality is that the Leafs could probably sign everyone on that list and still have 6 or 7 million to play around with in the hopes of adding that top 4 defenseman/PK specialist. The Leafs don't need to choose between Bozak and that pursuit.

Well, that is an obscene amount of cap space. And, unless there are plans to use it to take on bad contracts to acquire players like Franson, a competitive roster for next year -- and one that won't cripple the team in the future -- can be built with it... so why not?

I guess the only hesitations re: the insurance policy are these:
1. You've said I'm underestimating the cost of a player that tops out at 20Gs/50PTs a year. If such a player is now worth Patrice Bergeron's salary, then I wonder whether 6 or 7 million is enough for a shutdown center and a veteran top-4 Dman.
2. How many bad contracts do you see on the teams in the conference finals? One each, maybe. We've already got a few (including, it seems right now, Grabovski's). Teams with several tend not to be the perpetual contenders that the final four are. Why sign another?
3. Paying Tyler Bozak like he's Patrice Bergeron is just... wrong.

1732
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Bozak's Future
« on: May 30, 2013, 01:33:50 AM »
Maple Leafs Hot Stove has their Bozak review up:

http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2013/05/29/2012-13-player-review-tyler-bozak/

Garbage.  There's way better and fairer analysis on here.

What's unfair about it?

Well, it presents a lot of numbers almost entirely devoid of any context. For instance, it makes a big deal about how many of Bozak's points involved Kessel in some manner without talking about whether or not it's a high number compared to any other centre who plays a big chunk of his time with one of the league's most productive wingers. 75%, they say, of Bozak's points came with Kessel also getting his name on the score sheet. Is that more or less than Kane-Toews? Or the Sedins? I'm sure those numbers are available somewhere but if you're going to base the majority of your post on that fact and then not account for proper context it comes off as agenda-driven rather than information-driven.

Well, there this one: http://theleafsnation.com/2013/5/21/nozak-the-chemistry-chronicles

1733
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Bozak's Future
« on: May 30, 2013, 01:19:21 AM »
Here are Grabovski's 3 years leading up to his contact, and the one after:
2009/10 -- 2.1 S/GP @ 7.9% = 10G (59 GP)
2010/11 -- 3.0 S/GP @ 12% = 29G (81GP) vs.
2011/12 -- 2.2 S/GP @ 14% = 23G (74GP)
2012/13 -- 1.7 S/GP @ 11.3% = 9G (48 GP, so 16G pace, if he sustains that below-average SH%)

Let's say letting Bozak go clears the way for Grabovski to return to an offensive role. If he shoots his offensive-role average of 2.4 shots/game and manages his career shooting percentage (12.4%), he's back up at 25 goals. If he's declined to, say, 11.3%, he's still well over 20. And, briefly, consider assists: 25A, 29A, 28A in each season leading up to the contract, without finishers of Kessel's calibre on his wing.

[SNIPPED -- because I'll concede the point that Grabbo didn't have a good year. Point, with respect to paying for insurance, remains: it was a bad year in which, for some reason, he was taking fewer shots than before, among several good ones]

Third, none of that is an argument for why the Leafs would be better off without Bozak as opposed to with him.

Right. That comes later.


Here are Bozak's numbers for the three years leading up to his contract.
2010/11 -- 1.5 S/GP @ 12.5% = 15G (82GP)
2011/12 -- 1.5 S/GP @ 16.5% = 18G (73GP)
2012/13 -- 1.3 S/GP @ 19.7% = 12G (46GP, so 21G pace, and only if he sustains a career-high SH%).

At a glance I think those numbers sort of speak to what role Bozak really has on the club. Both the high shooting percentages and low shots are indicative of the fact that because Kessel has grown so much as a playmaker any line he's on is better with him having the puck. That makes his ideal linemates guys who can contribute in ways besides setting people up. Bozak, as we see up there, has been pretty effective at converting the relatively few shots he takes over the last couple of years(his 2011-2012 pace would be good for 20 goals over a 82 game stretch) and his 2010-2011 season, again, was his first full season in the NHL.

Some points:
1.) I think that 19.7% is his ceiling; it's unlikely to be repeated.
2.) I like Grabovski, but if, in 2009/10, he'd converted something an additional 3% of shots over his max -- so, 20% -- of his shots in his 3rd season, I wouldn't have paid him like a 35 goal scorer.
3.) I used 2009/10 because that was Grabbo's 3rd season playing in the NHL. There are very few players who, after 3 NHL seasons, a GM should sign to a $5m/yr contract. They're usually drafted high in the first round.
4.) On Bozak's role with the team: he is so reliant on Kessel to produce at all offensively that I worry what would happen if Kessel's ever injured.


I'm guessing, if Bozak's re-signed, he'll play where all that chemistry the team'd be paying for is (top-line scoring role). So let's say he averages his 1.4 S/GP, and shoots a full point above his career average (which is 15.5%). He'd still be under 20 goals on the season. And, cos I gave you Grabbo's, here are Bozak's assists: 17A, 29A, and 16A (in 46GP, so say 29A) the last 3 seasons.

Ok but being as I'm presenting this as Grabo and Bozak instead of Grabo vs. Bozak the fact that Grabo has been a more productive offensive player over the years is, again, not an argument against keeping Bozak. 

If Bozak wants 5 years, it will become a matter of Bozak vs. Grabovski, if Kadri's to get his next contract. In the case that everyone's playing great, then there is, as you say, no problem -- someone gets traded. If Grabovski plays more like he's typically played and Bozak plays more like he's typically played, which seems more likely, there's one unmovable contract there. So maybe Nonis does buy that contract out or buries his mistake in the minors. Maybe he clears the cap space by moving the better player on the better contract. I'd just rather he not make the mistake to begin with.


So, it seems to me like a relatively healthy 30-something getting a nasty chest cold and buying some really pricey health care plan, anticipating he's got cancer… and doing so on the American individual health-care market, where that policy won't even cover the terrible thing that he probably doesn't have.

Well, if I can play with the analogy a bit I think there are two somewhat significant oversights in your analysis. The first, and probably the most straight forward, is that you seem awfully hung up on cost when it seems to me to be a non-issue. Our hypothetical 30 year old isn't paying for the policy but, rather, his wealthy parents Jim Bell and Nancy Rogers are. And, sure, while they're limited in the amount of money they can spend on their son in order to say that the policy is a terrible idea you'd first have to present a pressing need for that money elsewhere. I don't think that need exists or, at the very least, it doesn't exist with the sort of urgency that would make getting the policy now a bad idea considering there's a no fault, no penalty cancellation of the policy available a year from now if it turns out he's cancer-free.

Kudos on the more thoroughly TMLed analogy.

It's cheating to rewrite analogies, so I won't. But, if I could, I'd say our boy Dave's parents mightn't be willing to let him throw their money away -- or Davey's too proud to admit his foolishness -- so he turns off the heat (trade Grabbo..) or doesn't pay his credit card bills (... trade Kadri..?)... or whatever.

Fine. Point taken: it's not my money.


Secondly, and this comes back to where the analogy shines and my real point, insurance policies have value even if you don't get sick. If everything turns out hunky-dory next year you can trade Bozak and get something in return. That's his value as an asset.

And though I started with it, I'll repeat it: he'll have little value as a trade asset at $5m/yr. But a low pick and a smaller salary dump coming the other way is something, sure.


Again, there really doesn't seem to be any risk here. This is opposed to your plan that basically is hope that Grabo just had an off-year and hope that Kadri is ready for the next level and hope that Boyd Gordon wants to sign here and hope that Colborne is ready for a significant role on the team next year(and hope that nobody cares about winning any face-offs).

I appreciate the optimism there but if signing Bozak lessens some of that risk, both by being a credible top 9 player and because of what he means to the PK, and there isn't a plan B that requires that money elsewhere then not signing Bozak really just seems like spite.

The Plan B also included signing Boyd Gordon but another credible bottom-six faceoff & PK specialist would do.

And spite? Well, I don't like that Carlyle thinks, though he doesn't about any other players (maybe Fraser-Franson), that the Kessel-Bozak duo is bottled magic and not to be screwed with.

But I mostly have an abject fear of the team repeating the errors of the mid-2000s by overcommitting to players who take up roster spots and cap space better spent elsewhere. To me, that'd be another top-4 defenseman and a proper shutdown center.

1734
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Bozak's Future
« on: May 29, 2013, 11:42:39 PM »
1. Avoid the last nightmare scenario by letting Bozak walk.
2. Play Grabbo like you pay Grabbo. Buy him out next summer if he doesn't rebound.
3. Use 1/3 to 2/3rds of Bozak's asking price to sign Boyd Gordon to play on the shutdown line.
4. Hope Kadri's game matures so he needn't play the most sheltered of minutes.   
5. Play Colburne as the sheltered top-nine center.

Well, and give me some latitude on this, but isn't that needlessly risky? If we can assume that Bozak would re-sign for 4 years/20 million and either no or a limited NTC then what's the upside in letting him walk? All you're doing is losing an asset.

If, however, you keep Bozak you have an insurance policy in case Grabo doesn't rebound or Kadri can't take another step towards well-roundedness and he can be traded if the best possible scenario plays out where Grabo rebounds, Kadri steps up and Colborne looks ready. The only downside there is if somehow between now and when that all sorted itself out Bozak became untradeable but A) that's fairly unlikely and B) even if it did happen you could use a compliance buy-out on him.

Letting Bozak walk for nothing seems like a waste of an opportunity with no real gain.

I don't think Bozak would be much of an asset with a 4 year $20m contract. But he might be useful as an expensive insurance policy, you're right... Still, if the past does anything to predict the future, I'd say Grabovski returned to a scoring role wouldn't need the likes of Tyler Bozak as an insurance policy.

Here are Grabovski's 3 years leading up to his contact, and the one after:
2009/10 -- 2.1 S/GP @ 7.9% = 10G (59 GP, broke his wrist)
2010/11 -- 3.0 S/GP @ 12% = 29G (81GP) vs.
2011/12 -- 2.2 S/GP @ 14% = 23G (74GP)
2012/13 -- 1.7 S/GP @ 11.3% = 9G (48 GP, so 16G pace, if he sustains that below-average SH%)

Let's say letting Bozak go clears the way for Grabovski to return to an offensive role. If he shoots his offensive-role average of 2.4 shots/game and manages his career shooting percentage (12.4%), he's back up at 25 goals. If he's declined to, say, 11.3%, he's still well over 20. And, briefly, consider assists: 25A, 29A, 28A in each season leading up to the contract, without finishers of Kessel's calibre on his wing.

Here are Bozak's numbers for the three years leading up to his contract.
2010/11 -- 1.5 S/GP @ 12.5% = 15G (82GP)
2011/12 -- 1.5 S/GP @ 16.5% = 18G (73GP)
2012/13 -- 1.3 S/GP @ 19.7% = 12G (46GP, so 21G pace, and only if he sustains a career-high SH%).

I'm guessing, if Bozak's re-signed, he'll play where all that chemistry the team'd be paying for is (top-line scoring role). So let's say he averages his 1.4 S/GP, and shoots a full point above his career average (which is 15.5%). He'd still be under 20 goals on the season. And, cos I gave you Grabbo's, here are Bozak's assists: 17A, 29A, and 16A (in 46GP, so say 29A) the last 3 seasons.

So… as an insurance policy, Bozak for $20M looks awfully expensive… but, hey, that's the market. So, more than that, he looks like a really risky insurance policy. He'd need to not only reproduce a career year with a career-high shooting percentage but improve on it to come close to replacing what Grabovski's pretty consistently produced when in an offensive role.

So, it seems to me like a relatively healthy 30-something getting a nasty chest cold and buying some really pricey health care plan, anticipating he's got cancer… and doing so on the American individual health-care market, where that policy won't even cover the terrible thing that he probably doesn't have.



1735
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Bozak's Future
« on: May 29, 2013, 07:46:04 PM »
Kadri was spotted really well by Carlyle.  Grabs has lost his grip.  Not saying Bozak is a true #1, but what are your options?  Funny if they gave him big bucks and Kessel bolted.

1. Avoid the last nightmare scenario by letting Bozak walk.
2. Play Grabbo like you pay Grabbo. Buy him out next summer if he doesn't rebound.
3. Use 1/3 to 2/3rds of Bozak's asking price to sign Boyd Gordon to play on the shutdown line.
4. Hope Kadri's game matures so he needn't play the most sheltered of minutes.   
5. Play Colburne as the sheltered top-nine center.

With the Komi buyout, that'd leave you with about $10m find another top-4 defenseman, someone to replace MacArthur (if he's not wanted back), and give Kessel the raise he's got coming... And, I guess, re-sign Phaneuf at about what he's making.

1736
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Bozak's Future
« on: May 29, 2013, 12:45:39 PM »
Maple Leafs Hot Stove has their Bozak review up:

http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2013/05/29/2012-13-player-review-tyler-bozak/

1737
Whether Bozak can be had for it or not, a player who can manage around 45 points with Phil Kessel on his wing surely can be had for $2-2.5m. Heck, we had someone doing it at a $1.5m cap hit for the last two seasons.

But that's just not real. That's like saying that you can find a guy who can score 80+ points for 3.75 million because Philadelphia had Claude Giroux do it for the last few years. RFA salaries are artificially low.

Now, if what you're saying is that the Leafs can replace Bozak internally then, you know, fair enough although I think that's not accurate.

It's not real if the only place you can go to replace that production is the UFA market. That's the market I find "artificial" -- I don't know any other word for a world in which Tyler Bozak is the second/third best center available.  If all options for replacing a center are on the table -- sign a UFA, trade for an RFA or someone under contract, or promote someone internally -- then a center who can score 1.55 P/60 (81st in the league among centers) can be had without devoting another $4m+ to the center position.

But you're right. The difference of opinion has to do with whether Bozak can be replaced internally. Promoting Grabovski or Kadri to Bozak's spot will at least replace his 1.55 P/60 production -- in fact, it'll probably improve on the production from the 1C spot. To me, the hole that'd be left by the subtraction of Bozak is not at the top of the depth chart but farther down. And it points to  need the team's had all season: a #3C for a shutdown line that's suited to the role and not paid $5.5m/year. Re-signing Bozak to the money he wants, and playing where Carlyle plays him, would continue that misallocation of cap space.

1738
Except that his chemistry with other top line players is a myth and his inability to take or make a pass while on PP results in as many icings as his faceoff wins prevent.

But, yes, if you need a reliable and accurate stat that has something to do with possession, faceoffs might be the best of a sorry lot.

[...]

I think you're exaggerating Bozak's deficiencies. Even if you want to call it a familiarity with Kessel/Lupul as opposed to chemistry, Bozak still produced at a rate that would work out to 21 goals and 50 points over an 82 game season. Considering his play on the PK and his ability to win face-offs I don't think you're anywhere close in thinking a player like that is only worth 2-2.5 million on the open market.

First, the difference between familiarity and chemistry is something my ex-girlfriends could tell you about. Mistaking one for the other is to be avoided, as it can lead to all sorts of terrible investments. You know, like Tyler Bozak.

Second, on pace for 50 points this season isn't nothing. But in previous seasons where 82 games were actually played, and with the same elite scorer on the wing, Bozak managed 32 and 47 points. If we assume the 50 points this season, that's an average of 43 points. And that production makes him about as appealing a center as Matt Stajan in the contract year the Leafs traded him (cap hit on his next contract: $3.5m).

Whether Bozak can be had for it or not, a player who can manage around 45 points with Phil Kessel on his wing surely can be had for $2-2.5m. Heck, we had someone doing it at a $1.5m cap hit for the last two seasons.

I don't doubt that Tyler Bozak will likely command more than $3.5m on the open market, which is why the Leafs will sign him by early July or won't sign him at all.

1739
Fair enough. And I didn't mean to suggest that Corsi was the greatest measure of possession either. And, yes, FO stats do very well in measuring how many faceoffs you win. But it does seems FO Win% is often taken to measure something other than it does -- on the strength of his numbers there, Bozak's thought to be a good fit for third-line defensive center; on the strength of those numbers, Carlyle evidently thought he was the ideal center on the top PP unit -- and that's what I find objectionable.

I don't know if those two judgments are just about face-off numbers. I think most people who think that about Bozak believe he plays a pretty sound defensive game regardless and I think his presence on the PP was more about Grabo having a terrible year and Bozak's chemistry with the other guys on the top PP unit(that said I think that FO% is pretty important on the PP considering the other team can just ice the puck if the win the draw).

So ideal? No. But the best of a bad group of options maybe.

Except that his chemistry with other top line players is a myth and his inability to take or make a pass while on PP results in as many icings as his faceoff wins prevent.

But, yes, if you need a reliable and accurate stat that has something to do with possession, faceoffs might be the best of a sorry lot.   

1740
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Bozak's Future
« on: May 27, 2013, 06:51:03 PM »
Not sure how well Bozak's side is sourced, but apparently it's 5-5.5m he's looking for.

http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/tor130525.html

A Stajan cap hit ($3.5m) would be tolerable, except that signing him at all means RC would probably keep him on the top line.

Pages: 1 ... 114 115 [116] 117 118