The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 8 minutes ago, dlbalr said: It's one of those trades I don't like for either side. I don't think Raty's that great of a prospect (I think he's more of a third line ceiling than a second line one), the first-rounder could be middling if NYI makes the playoffs, and the Isles were trying to give away Beauvillier dating back to last season with no takers. That's the best they could do? It seems to me better offers would have been there closer to the deadline. Meanwhile, the Isles are still a pretty flawed team that's trying to win 2-1 most nights except they don't have the defensive structure they did under Trotz. Should they be moving a first-round pick and their top prospect (from a bad prospect pool) for a rental that they'll have to overpay to keep to go from being mediocre to...slightly less mediocre? That's basically an all-in move for a team that's nowhere near being good enough to go all-in. Assuming they intend to re-sign Horvat, the Islanders also look to be committing to paying 30-goal scorer Bo Horvat like a 50-goal scorer for the next eight years. The longer-term ramifications of the deal will likely be terrible for the organization. Regarding Beauvillier, Allvin is obviously gambling that he needs a change of scenery and can offer reasonable performance for his salary. He’s only 25, so presumably that is not out of the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 45 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: Assuming they intend to re-sign Horvat, the Islanders also look to be committing to paying 30-goal scorer Bo Horvat like a 50-goal scorer for the next eight years. The longer-term ramifications of the deal will likely be terrible for the organization. Regarding Beauvillier, Allvin is obviously gambling that he needs a change of scenery and can offer reasonable performance for his salary. He’s only 25, so presumably that is not out of the question. Its a better gamble than most cap dumps, but I think he was mostly included for cap reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 43 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: Assuming they intend to re-sign Horvat, the Islanders also look to be committing to paying 30-goal scorer Bo Horvat like a 50-goal scorer for the next eight years. The longer-term ramifications of the deal will likely be terrible for the organization. Regarding Beauvillier, Allvin is obviously gambling that he needs a change of scenery and can offer reasonable performance for his salary. He’s only 25, so presumably that is not out of the question. I actually like the trade for the Isles - I think this is one of their better recent deals. I like Horvat, much more than Miller, and don’t get why the Canucks wouldn’t have prioritized signing him over Miller. If he continues to produce like a 30-35 goal scorer it’s a good move for the isles - as long as they don’t pay hi like a regular 50 goal guy. The first they gave up is protected, for this year. As long as they intend on improving its a good move - they dumped a contract they didn’t want to as well. as far as the Canucks I had to laugh when I read Allvin the chipmunk saying they basically got three first round picks🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 53 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said: I actually like the trade for the Isles - I think this is one of their better recent deals. I like Horvat, much more than Miller, and don’t get why the Canucks wouldn’t have prioritized signing him over Miller. If he continues to produce like a 30-35 goal scorer it’s a good move for the isles - as long as they don’t pay hi like a regular 50 goal guy. The first they gave up is protected, for this year. As long as they intend on improving its a good move - they dumped a contract they didn’t want to as well. as far as the Canucks I had to laugh when I read Allvin the chipmunk saying they basically got three first round picks🙄 Allvin the Chipmunk - LOL. The Miller-over-Horvat decision looks absolutely terrible in retrospect. In fairness to these boobs, however, I think they assumed Horvat would be signable as a 60-point C. Instead he exploded into a 50-goal pace during his contract year. They weren’t banking on his having a crazy outlier season and expecting to get paid accordingly, and that’s why he’s no longer a Canuck. Further to this, I don’t believe Horvat is going to get paid according to his career norms. Like every other guy who has an aberrant contract year (see Gomez, Scott), he will get paid according to his production during that one season. All it takes is one idiot GM with cap space. So think, what, 8.5, 9 mil, something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 37 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: The Miller-over-Horvat decision looks absolutely terrible in retrospect. In fairness to these boobs, however, I think they assumed Horvat would be signable as a 60-point C. Instead he exploded into a 50-goal pace during his contract year. They weren’t banking on his having a crazy outlier season and expecting to get paid accordingly, and that’s why he’s no longer a Canuck. Further to this, I don’t believe Horvat is going to get paid according to his career norms. Like every other guy who has an aberrant contract year (see Gomez, Scott), he will get paid according to his production during that one season. All it takes is one idiot GM with cap space. So think, what, 8.5, 9 mil, something like that. I saw some speculation yesterday that their original offer to Horvat was basically the $5.5M he's getting now. A while back, someone reported the original offer was actually less than what he's getting now (the current Nugent-Hopkins contract with Edmonton). I think they completely misread his value even back then. I kept expecting to see something come out about an offer in the $7M range but it almost feels like they circled back to Miller only when they realized Horvat wasn't going to settle for a below-market offer in the summer. I thought they'd come to their senses a couple months ago and actually try a fair market offer but I don't think they even came close. I think you're pretty close on what the next contract would be. I had him in the mid-$7M range before this season and I could see his output this year pushing him closer to the mid-$8M range. That would give the Isles a pretty expensive centre group though with Barzal's $9.15M starting next season as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 32 minutes ago, dlbalr said: I saw some speculation yesterday that their original offer to Horvat was basically the $5.5M he's getting now. A while back, someone reported the original offer was actually less than what he's getting now (the current Nugent-Hopkins contract with Edmonton). I think they completely misread his value even back then. I kept expecting to see something come out about an offer in the $7M range but it almost feels like they circled back to Miller only when they realized Horvat wasn't going to settle for a below-market offer in the summer. I thought they'd come to their senses a couple months ago and actually try a fair market offer but I don't think they even came close. I think you're pretty close on what the next contract would be. I had him in the mid-$7M range before this season and I could see his output this year pushing him closer to the mid-$8M range. That would give the Isles a pretty expensive centre group though with Barzal's $9.15M starting next season as well. I think anyone would be nuts to give him more than $8m, but I think $7m to $7.5m is FMV for him. I think Lou would be nuts to give him over $8m, but then I thought the Canucks for giving Miller that contract when Hughes and Patterson should be the ceiling setters. Even without his big year, Horvat should have been the priority over Miller, and I’d take Horvat over RNH any day, so don’t think he was a good comparable even before this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 So happy not to be a Canucks fan ... shades of Jaroslav Halak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Kinda looks like Habs-Canucks will have 2 similar 1st round picks in draft at moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 42 minutes ago, GHT120 said: So happy not to be a Canucks fan ... shades of Jaroslav Halak. What I don’t get is that Rutherford is an incredibly experienced hockey man, and Allvin’s credentials are impeccable. Yet since coming to the Canucks, they’ve been a complete clown car. That’s one more reason why I tend to think the deeper problem with this so-called “organization” is the ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 4 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: What I don’t get is that Rutherford is an incredibly experienced hockey man, and Allvin’s credentials are impeccable. Yet since coming to the Canucks, they’ve been a complete clown car. That’s one more reason why I tend to think the deeper problem with this so-called “organization” is the ownership. But is ownership responsible for the medical treatment issues. You have Hughes who said they need to look at their medical approach and advice after the Caufield shutdown, and than you have Rutherford, that their saying their are no issues with medical care after the mid diagnosis they went through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 The Athletic surveyed 20-ish All-Stars on a variety of questions ... two I found interesting were that by 12-4 (not all players answered all questions for some reason) they favoured bumping 3-on-3 to 10 minutes and by 14-2 opposed a NBA-ish "play-in" rould for the platyoffs ... the article has several other questions and quotes from some players on their responses. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 2 minutes ago, DON said: Thanks ... that would make some sense of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 40 minutes ago, GHT120 said: The Athletic surveyed 20-ish All-Stars on a variety of questions ... two I found interesting were that by 12-4 (not all players answered all questions for some reason) they favoured bumping 3-on-3 to 10 minutes and by 14-2 opposed a NBA-ish "play-in" rould for the platyoffs ... the article has several other questions and quotes from some players on their responses. Paywalled, of course, but I for one do like McDavid’s proposal to extend 3-on-3 OT to 10 minutes and abolish the shootout. I’ve always been skeptical of the shootout. I never accepted that ties were the end of the world, and 3-on-3 is open enough that ‘playing for the tie’ would probably be hard to sustain over 10 minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomh009 Posted February 3 Author Share Posted February 3 4 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: Paywalled, of course, but I for one do like McDavid’s proposal to extend 3-on-3 OT to 10 minutes and abolish the shootout. I’ve always been skeptical of the shootout. I never accepted that ties were the end of the world, and 3-on-3 is open enough that ‘playing for the tie’ would probably be hard to sustain over 10 minutes. If you would like a code for a free trial, let me know ... I do have some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 I was always in favour of 3-3 OTs. Yes, is more like pond hockey with so much open ice, but is often very entertaining. Didnt think the players would go for longer OTs; but, anything to decrease shootouts is good by me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 24 minutes ago, DON said: I was always in favour of 3-3 OTs. Yes, is more like pond hockey with so much open ice, but is often very entertaining. Didnt think the players would go for longer OTs; but, anything to decrease shootouts is good by me. The issue IMO is less would they go for longer O/Ts than what they would want in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plutarch Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 Figure this is the right thread for this question/comparison. I haven't been able to watch much hockey at all this season. So, I'm curious about Kovacevic vs Romanov. Roman - Kova GP: 52 - 46 TOI: 20.0 - 16.4 G/a: 1-15 - 1-5 Both have basically the same zone usage and play PK. Advanced Stats Expected Goals for Against difference. Kova -6.3 Roman -4.0 PDO Kova 99.8 Roman 101.6 Corsi/Fenwick (even strength) Kova +3.4/+2.5 Roman -3/-2.6 Seems like Romanov is just a better Kova... But what's with the Corsi/Fenwick? How interchangeable are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 Corsi includes blocked shots, shots on goal and shots that miss the net. Fenwick only includes shots on goal and shots that miss the net. As things have advanced, I like xGF% more. Not all shot attempts are equal. A shot from the front of the net and a shot from the perimeter are not the same. In a few years when we have better player tracking, we probably will get an even newer stat that is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomh009 Posted February 4 Author Share Posted February 4 Their 5-on-5 xGF% is nearly identical (using naturalstattrick.com data) but Romanov is playing on the stronger team. Arguably Kovacevic is reasonably close to Romanov, based on the advanced stats. And while the Habs flipped Romanov to get Dach, they got Kovacevic for nothing at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmethead Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 Anyone watching this junk??? It might be the worst thing I’ve ever witnessed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plutarch Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 21 minutes ago, Commandant said: Corsi includes blocked shots, shots on goal and shots that miss the net. Fenwick only includes shots on goal and shots that miss the net. As things have advanced, I like xGF% more. Not all shot attempts are equal. A shot from the front of the net and a shot from the perimeter are not the same. In a few years when we have better player tracking, we probably will get an even newer stat that is better. Sorry I knew the difference in Fenwick Corsi. I meant I was surprised to see it reflect better on Kova when the others favor Romanov. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomh009 Posted February 4 Author Share Posted February 4 17 minutes ago, Plutarch said: Sorry I knew the difference in Fenwick Corsi. I meant I was surprised to see it reflect better on Kova when the others favor Romanov. xGF% is pretty much even between the two on naturalstattrick.com. Which site were you using for your stats? Everyone has a somewhat different algorithm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 24 minutes ago, Plutarch said: Sorry I knew the difference in Fenwick Corsi. I meant I was surprised to see it reflect better on Kova when the others favor Romanov. I think part of it is in the time on ice. It looks like Romanov is a 2nd pair guy while Kovacevik is third pair. This is a difference in strength of opponent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 22 hours ago, GHT120 said: The issue IMO is less would they go for longer O/Ts than what they would want in return. I thought the argument against longer OTs, was that they would get too tired to play longer, not compensation as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.