Jump to content

2021 NHL Playoffs


Neech
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Man...the lesson would appear to be: NEVER sign a guy to a massive cap hit. Even if he's a franchise player. Just deal him away after his bridge deal.

 

It's a radical thought - indeed, almost unthinkable by standard managerial logic. But at some point you do need to look at how champions are built and act accordingly...

 

There just aren't that many 10 million plus players.... and guys at like 9.8 million (Ovechkin) or 9.5 (Malkin and Crosby) have won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Commandant said:

There just aren't that many 10 million plus players.... and guys at like 9.8 million (Ovechkin) or 9.5 (Malkin and Crosby) have won.

Yes, they have. But, still, both Pens and Caps have each made it past the first round only twice in the past five years. Even with what is arguably generational talent.

 

I will dig into this some more because it's actually fascinating how bad the numbers look.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2021 at 6:05 PM, tomh009 said:

Yes, they have. But, still, both Pens and Caps have each made it past the first round only twice in the past five years. Even with what is arguably generational talent.

 

I will dig into this some more because it's actually fascinating how bad the numbers look.

 

It does seem like an important discussion to have! If there is indeed an enduring and demonstrable pattern of teams doing better without carrying huge contracts, I’d imagine that - at least in a rational universe - it would start to affect how GMs make decisions about superstars. (Of course, there are other reasons for shovelling huge dough at superstars, e.g., marketing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

It does seem like an important discussion to have! If there is indeed an enduring and demonstrable pattern of teams doing better without carrying huge contracts, I’d imagine that - at least in a rational universe - it would start to affect how GMs make decisions about superstars. (Of course, there are other reasons for shovelling huge dough at superstars, e.g., marketing).

 

I think we need to look at percentage of cap. 

 

Of course no 10 million players won rounds in 2007 cause the cap was much lower.  So 10 million is about 1/8th of the cap... were teams on a 56 million cap winning with 7 million players?  Were teams on the 49 million cap, winning with players just over 6?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

I think we need to look at percentage of cap. 

 

Of course no 10 million players won rounds in 2007 cause the cap was much lower.  So 10 million is about 1/8th of the cap... were teams on a 56 million cap winning with 7 million players?  Were teams on the 49 million cap, winning with players just over 6?

Yes ... either X% of cap, or else top X contracts.

 

It's a bit distorted by a few deadline trades (per year) with retained salary but that's not enough to explain this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting convo.

  

On 6/3/2021 at 11:24 AM, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

It’s interesting to see how many “franchise players” fell in the first round. That stat about only one of the top 17 most expensive players making it to the second round is quite striking. Is this just a freak event, or does it tell us something about how to build a team in a cap system?

 

I'd say that it does. 

 

I've always sorta been against players with huge contracts with 1 exception.  If you're going to pay 1 player around 10mil/yr then make sure they play 60 mins/game.  i.e. it really only makes sense to pay a great goalie that much, they will earn their money.

 

The main problem with having super stars is that it makes the other teams strategy easy.  All the other team needs to do  is double team the superstar and that will usually render them useless in a series.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

I think we need to look at percentage of cap. 

 

Of course no 10 million players won rounds in 2007 cause the cap was much lower.  So 10 million is about 1/8th of the cap... were teams on a 56 million cap winning with 7 million players?  Were teams on the 49 million cap, winning with players just over 6?

 

You're correct, of course - that would certainly be the right indicator. If the cap is $200 mil, teams can carry a bunch of $10 million players.

 

3 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

Interesting convo.

  

 

I'd say that it does. 

 

I've always sorta been against players with huge contracts with 1 exception.  If you're going to pay 1 player around 10mil/yr then make sure they play 60 mins/game.  i.e. it really only makes sense to pay a great goalie that much, they will earn their money.

 

The main problem with having super stars is that it makes the other teams strategy easy.  All the other team needs to do  is double team the superstar and that will usually render them useless in a series.  

 

I think many fans would argue that it's unwise to sink that much into a goalie, period. For most of Price's career, the "Price advantage" has been negated at some point during the playoffs by a hot goalie on the other side. On the other hand, in 2014 it wasn't, and the same is shaping up to be true this year.

 

Numbers are not my thing, but it would be very interesting to see some serious numbers crunched on playoff W vs % of the cap sunk into high-salary superstars - and to see whether there are certain positions where it makes more sense to sink huge cap dollars. Most would say C, but this playoff certainly does not bear that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

2 hours ago, Commandant said:

I think we need to look at percentage of cap. 

 

 

I agree, and that is likely the best point.  The Leafs primary issue is that they are paying something like 40% of their cap to 4 players, which is way too much. 

 

I strongly believe to have a good team is you must have numerous players getting paid less than they are worth on the open market.  In a sense you can sort of circumvent the cap if you have numerous deals on players.  i.e. you'd be getting more production out of your team than you are allowed to spend. 

 

Players getting paid the most has the opposite effect.  With the majority of franchise players their priority seems to be that they are more concerned with personal wealth than winning a Cup.  i.e. if you accept slightly less $ your team will be more competitive and that increases your chance of winning.  However, most players dont seem to think like that.  

 

Also, I believe it matters as to how a team acquired the franchise player.  i.e. the UFA bidding wars are for sucker GM's because none those contracts have worked out for any team.  If you win the contract, you lose your chance to win the Cup.  ex:  one would think that the Rangers would learn from that, but apparently thats a big no.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

  

 

I agree, and that is likely the best point.  The Leafs primary issue is that they are paying something like 40% of their cap to 4 players, which is way too much. 

 

I strongly believe to have a good team is you must have numerous players getting paid less than they are worth on the open market.  In a sense you can sort of circumvent the cap if you have numerous deals on players.  i.e. you'd be getting more production out of your team than you are allowed to spend. 

 

Players getting paid the most has the opposite effect.  With the majority of franchise players their priority seems to be that they are more concerned with personal wealth than winning a Cup.  i.e. if you accept slightly less $ your team will be more competitive and that increases your chance of winning.  However, most players dont seem to think like that.  

 

Also, I believe it matters as to how a team acquired the franchise player.  i.e. the UFA bidding wars are for sucker GM's because none those contracts have worked out for any team.  If you win the contract, you lose your chance to win the Cup.  ex:  one would think that the Rangers would learn from that, but apparently thats a big no.  

 

Agree on UFA bidding wars. And yet, it is so damned tempting...

 

If you're a player, the obvious problem with signing for less money in order to help a team win is that managerial decisions are out of your hands, and that it is not always obvious whether a team will become a contender at all. And yet you're leaving millions on the table. Look at the Canucks, who will have to sign young studs like Hughes and Pettersson. If you're those guys, do you say "hey, I will take more so we can win the Cup?" Or do you say, "I sure hope it all comes together and we win, but given the way things have gone so far, I'm not betting $20 million in career earnings on that possibility."

 

I think there is a different type of reason why a player should consider taking a little less: it makes life much more pleasant within the market in the long run. With an obese contract, sooner or later you become "overpaid." And then you become a "problem" for the fanbase and sometimes even for the management. A miasma of negativity then surrounds all discussion about you and fans can even turn hostile. By contrast, take a more reasonable contract, and you stand to age out as a beloved legend in your city, carrying everyone's gratitude for having helped the team by taking less.

 

(Of course, that didn't help Patches, LOL! But it makes sense in principle).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

You're correct, of course - that would certainly be the right indicator. If the cap is $200 mil, teams can carry a bunch of $10 million players.

 

 

I think many fans would argue that it's unwise to sink that much into a goalie, period. For most of Price's career, the "Price advantage" has been negated at some point during the playoffs by a hot goalie on the other side. On the other hand, in 2014 it wasn't, and the same is shaping up to be true this year.

 

Numbers are not my thing, but it would be very interesting to see some serious numbers crunched on playoff W vs % of the cap sunk into high-salary superstars - and to see whether there are certain positions where it makes more sense to sink huge cap dollars. Most would say C, but this playoff certainly does not bear that out.

2014 Price was solid until he got hurt. But let’s not forget that Lundquist was also just as good on the other end. So it’s no guarantee that we would have won with Price - but he was in the zone. Thing is that there are a lot of elite goalies making a lot less than him. The best next highest paid goalie is In Tampa and he’s making $2m to $2.5m less than Price. That goes a long way to being able to sign Kucherov (2nd best bargain in the league), Stamkos and Hedman. It helps having the tax advantage in Florida though. It could be much, much, much worse - Florida signed Bob to a completely stupid deal - anothe Dale Talon special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

  

 

I agree, and that is likely the best point.  The Leafs primary issue is that they are paying something like 40% of their cap to 4 players, which is way too much. 

 

I strongly believe to have a good team is you must have numerous players getting paid less than they are worth on the open market.  In a sense you can sort of circumvent the cap if you have numerous deals on players.  i.e. you'd be getting more production out of your team than you are allowed to spend. 

 

Players getting paid the most has the opposite effect.  With the majority of franchise players their priority seems to be that they are more concerned with personal wealth than winning a Cup.  i.e. if you accept slightly less $ your team will be more competitive and that increases your chance of winning.  However, most players dont seem to think like that.  

 

Also, I believe it matters as to how a team acquired the franchise player.  i.e. the UFA bidding wars are for sucker GM's because none those contracts have worked out for any team.  If you win the contract, you lose your chance to win the Cup.  ex:  one would think that the Rangers would learn from that, but apparently thats a big no.  

The issue with the leafs isn’t just that they are paying too much, the issue is that they didn’t even lock up Marner, Matthews and Nylander for 8 years. The other issue is that half of the cap hit is tied up on 4 forwards. Tampa has their money on two elite forwards, and elite goalie and and elite dman. Arguably top 3 dman, top 2 goalie, and 1 top 5 forward and another top 15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

  

 

I agree, and that is likely the best point.  The Leafs primary issue is that they are paying something like 40% of their cap to 4 players, which is way too much. 

 

I strongly believe to have a good team is you must have numerous players getting paid less than they are worth on the open market.  In a sense you can sort of circumvent the cap if you have numerous deals on players.  i.e. you'd be getting more production out of your team than you are allowed to spend. 

 

Players getting paid the most has the opposite effect.  With the majority of franchise players their priority seems to be that they are more concerned with personal wealth than winning a Cup.  i.e. if you accept slightly less $ your team will be more competitive and that increases your chance of winning.  However, most players dont seem to think like that.  

 

Also, I believe it matters as to how a team acquired the franchise player.  i.e. the UFA bidding wars are for sucker GM's because none those contracts have worked out for any team.  If you win the contract, you lose your chance to win the Cup.  ex:  one would think that the Rangers would learn from that, but apparently thats a big no.  

I actually think the Rangers got a great pickup and a lower than market hit on Panarin, but he is one of the few good high price UFA’s that they signed.  That want an overpay like Gomez, Drury, Gaborik, and others. Panarin could have got have got more money elsewhere.  Bobrosky was a severe overpay by Florida.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

The issue with the leafs isn’t just that they are paying too much, the issue is that they didn’t even lock up Marner, Matthews and Nylander for 8 years. The other issue is that half of the cap hit is tied up on 4 forwards. Tampa has their money on two elite forwards, and elite goalie and and elite dman. Arguably top 3 dman, top 2 goalie, and 1 top 5 forward and another top 15.

 

I was very surprised that the Leafs did not move Nylander when he held out. I like him a lot, as a player, but it seemed to me at that time that the smart move would have been to ship him out in order to achieve better lineup balance - exactly of the sort you describe. Oh well, sucks to be them :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about elite player. Man I love Kucherov. 17 points in the first two rounds. Also not what by, Stamkos 13, and Hedman 10. That’s how what you should expect from your highest paid players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

The issue with the leafs isn’t just that they are paying too much, the issue is that they didn’t even lock up Marner, Matthews and Nylander for 8 years. The other issue is that half of the cap hit is tied up on 4 forwards. Tampa has their money on two elite forwards, and elite goalie and and elite dman. Arguably top 3 dman, top 2 goalie, and 1 top 5 forward and another top 15.

 

That's an excellent point and TB would be an exception to the general rule of thumb of not spending 40% on 4 guys.  TB hasn't royally screwed up by locking in 4 of the top players in the NHL in their respective positions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I was very surprised that the Leafs did not move Nylander when he held out. I like him a lot, as a player, but it seemed to me at that time that the smart move would have been to ship him out in order to achieve better lineup balance - exactly of the sort you describe. Oh well, sucks to be them :)

I think they should move Marner. Nylander surprised and impressed me. They can’t move Tavares - unless he wants out. Not sure if they can get Marner end Matthews to take a cut next time, and don’t even know if they want to resign. You can’t give RFA players you control high dollars and not get term. Dumb, dumb move. Hopefully they keep it up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Numbers are not my thing, but it would be very interesting to see some serious numbers crunched on playoff W vs % of the cap sunk into high-salary superstars - and to see whether there are certain positions where it makes more sense to sink huge cap dollars. Most would say C, but this playoff certainly does not bear that out.

I'll do some digging on this, but it'll take some time. All the data is available, but it'll take some work to combine the different data sources so that we have actual information that can be analyzed. Might not be until after the Habs are done for the season, depending on how long a run they manage this spring. :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Agree on UFA bidding wars. And yet, it is so damned tempting...

 

If you're a player, the obvious problem with signing for less money in order to help a team win is that managerial decisions are out of your hands, and that it is not always obvious whether a team will become a contender at all. And yet you're leaving millions on the table. Look at the Canucks, who will have to sign young studs like Hughes and Pettersson.

 

 

You're right in that situation, but I was referring to when a player is joining a team that is a bonifide contender.  It wouldn't make sense right now for Pettersson to do that in Van.  They have no real chance of winning for a quite a while.   

 

Ironically, I am somewhat worried that there is 1 team I can think of that could potentially greatly benefit from winning a UFA bidding war.  I believe you will agree too.  i.e the Senators, they could afford and totally use a Tavarese, Panarin, etc type UFA getting paid 10+ mil/yr for 6 yrs.  By the time that contract expires, the Sens will have developed an equivalent player as a replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Talking about elite player. Man I love Kucherov. 17 points in the first two rounds. Also not what by, Stamkos 13, and Hedman 10. That’s how what you should expect from your highest paid players.

 

Signing 4 guys to 40% of the cap generally isn't a good idea.  However, TB has done it right, because they've signed 4 elite guys that are known to show up in important games. 

 

  

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I was very surprised that the Leafs did not move Nylander when he held out. I like him a lot, as a player, but it seemed to me at that time that the smart move would have been to ship him out in order to achieve better lineup balance - exactly of the sort you describe. Oh well, sucks to be them :)

 

I was too, and that was probably the better move, although moving him wouldn't be a good idea either.  Its funny because the Leafs made numerous mistakes.  They never should have picked up Tavares.   They didnt really need him, and his salary forced them to start moving other lesser guys.  They would have been better off with more 20+ g scorers than several elite goal scorers.  None of their 4 players they are paying 40% of their cap to have proven that they show up in the big games.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

Me too

 

I do think that line and those two players in particular are greatly benefiting from Armia‘s strong play

I agree. Staal in particular was struggling at first after he arrived, but whether it's the playoffs or the SPA line, he now seems to have his "A" game -- or, at least "A" for the current stage for his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DON said:

Staal 6pts

Perry 5pts

 

Seems i really underestimated both of these guys.

Thing is - they are exploiting their opponents 4th line. It’s not that these guys are suddenly back to being top line players -  but matched up against a teams weakest, they shine. Cudos to MB for bringing them in, cudos to DD for proper deployment and cudos to Perry and Staal for embracing the role and excelling at it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, revvvrob said:

 cudos to Perry and Staal for embracing the role and excelling at it!

Just noticed engles bit on the two of them, actually giving team a pep talk when down 3-1 to Leafs and voila. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • dlbalr unpinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...