Player vs Player

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Player vs Player

    Which player would you take based on the last two seasons?

    Player 1:

           GP   G   A    PTs
    '12   81   24   41  65 (16:07 icetime per game)
    '11   81   17   34  51

    Career playoff stats:  6G, 11A, 17Pts in 18gms
    Cap hit:  $2.35, 1 year
    Age: 26

    Player 2:

         GP G   A  PTs
    '12 82 30 29 59 (19:05 icetime per game)
    '11 75 32 34 66

    Career playoff stats:  1G, 2A, 3Pts in 4gms.
    Cap hit: $7.8, 6 years.
    Age: 27

    Can someone explain to me why player two is worth Krejci, Rask and a pick while player two could probably be had for Thomas straight up? Please don't use words such as "game-breaker" or "elite talent" as they are purely subjective and don't actually mean anything. Please don't say it's foolish to compare the two. Both play for very bad teams. Both have weak linemates. Both are big wings. For the last two years of hockey they have scored at a very similar rate while the younger player 1 is trending up while the older player 2 is trending down. I can't figure out why player 2 is considered so valuable while player 1 is not.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    His stats would probably be a lot better in Boston than Columbus... playing with either Seguin or Bergeron as his Center....

    Still, not worth even close to what Columbus is asking. Columbus doesn't really need to move him, though, so I think they're just trying to find someone they can rip off - if I had a guess as to who they could scam I'd definitely put my money on the Leafs.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    Ok, I'm going to try to give some feedback rather than turn this into a binary debate, partly because I'd have to change my opinion otherwise and partly because I think the difference is explicable if not without warts.  In the interest of keeping name dropping out of this, let's call player one "Charmin" and player two "Nurse" based on their initials....

    It's a question of results vs. perception.  Neither is an absolute measure of a player.  It's a common opinion on this board that Krejci, Bergeron, Lucic, Seguin, maybe Horton and Marchand would have more points playing on a team with an attacking philosophy.  At very least, there's the perception that these guys have given up some offensive production by "buying in" on CJ's system.  So perception influences the way you read the results in context.  Your case re: Nurse is the other side of the coin: perception is that he's a superstar due to draft position, major awards, international record etc., but the results temper what that means in real impact.

    Perception is that Charmin's stats are inflated where Nurse's are depressed.  Charmin's Team's core forwards include two #1s overall, a Hart/Art Ross/Pearson winner and two Richard Trophy winners.  They had 19 more points this year than Nurse's team and 22 more points last year when they had over 100.  Charmin is perceived to be a depth player on a team that has the core of a 100 point team but lacks goaltending.  Nurse is the highest drafted player on his team and their leading scorer.  He's the only player on the team to have won a major award, and only one other player has even been a finalist.  To quote Parcells, they aer what their record says they are.  Perception is that team and context inflate Charmin's numbers and deflate Nurse's.

    The results are further weakend by the fact that Charmin has only 3 full seasons in despite being only two years younger than Nurse.  Nurse has played 9 seasons.  He gets the benefit of the doubt that he is at least as good as this year's results where Charmin will need at least another year at that level before perception on him shifts and he's accepted as a 60+ point player.  Jury's out.  But even so, it's also worth acknowledging here that Nurse has only topped Charmin's 65 points in 4 of his 9 seasons.

    But finally, to go back to my thread on what players get paid, perception has more to do with market than results.  Young players perceived to be on the way up get big raises.  Sometimes they live up them, but they get that salary on paper before they have results to back it up.  Same thing is true for trade value.  No GM is going to give up Nurse for Charmin straight up, and from there, no team is going to offer the same package for Charmin as for Nurse.  This follows from the other points in that Nurse is perceived to be a player who will make others around him better while Charmin is perceived to be getting the benefits of playing behind superstars.

    I think this explains it.  It doesn't argue that the Bruins should trade Krejci and Rask for either player.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    Since when does Teddy Purcell have an initial "C"?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    BTW, based on cap-hit, production, upside, what would go back the other way, and team fit, I'd take Purcell over Nash everyday of the week. Better bang for the buck.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from patriotpat99. Show patriotpat99's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    red beat me too it, i knew that was going to be teddy purcell. I also agree, I'll take Purcell over Nash. He plays the game the right way, and having him on your team for under 4 mill will never hurt. having nash for 7.8 could hurt
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    I'll assume you're talking about player 2 ;)  So if player two would score more in Boston, would player 1 also score more in Boston? ( I know you're not advocating trading a big package for player 2)

    Some more interesting numbers:

    player 1's linemates:
    C:  22G 27A 49Pts
    W:  4G 11A 15Pts

    Player 2's linemates:
    C:  14G 27A 41Pts
    W:  16G 39A 55Pts

    Not sure if either player is devoid of talent or makes their linemates better... hard to say.

    In Response to Re: Player vs Player:
    His stats would probably be a lot better in Boston than Columbus... playing with either Seguin or Bergeron as his Center.... Still, not worth even close to what Columbus is asking. Columbus doesn't really need to move him, though, so I think they're just trying to find someone they can rip off - if I had a guess as to who they could scam I'd definitely put my money on the Leafs.
    Posted by Bisson1

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    I'm not sure where to even start here. Teddy Purcell is a good player, I'd take him on my team.

    Lets say PC has two deals on the table and can make one.

    Tim Thomas for Teddy Purcell.
    Or
    David Krejci, Tuuka Rask and pick for Rick Nash.

    For me, you do the Nash deal.

    If Teddy Purcell comes here, in my opinion, perhaps his numbers go up a bit, he did get power play time with Stamkos, not sure how much but I watched enough games to know he did. 2/3 of his goals were ont he power play. Does he make Krejci,Seguin or Bergeron better players? Do their numbers go up as a result of Purcell playing with one of them? Not so sure.

    Rick Nash comes to Boston, plays with Tyler Seguin. I know what stats say, but my eyes, from watching alot of Rick Nash over the years tell me he has a chance to hit 50 while him and Seguin flirt with the 100 point mark for years to come. I'd say who ever plays the other wing also has a significant jump production wise. Now, you have teams best players concentrating on this line and I'd guess a second line of Lucic-Bergeron and who ever has their production go up.

    I think Tyler Seguin has superstar potential. I think Rick Nash is a superstar. Put the two of them together. Will Seguins potential be reached playing witht he likes of Teddy purcell and Brad Marchand or with Rick Nash and Marchand?

    Which of thsoe two lines do think has more of an impact?

    Also keep in mind, you still have Tim Thomas in net, have moved Seguin to his natural position. I would love to see how many power play goals Zdeno Chara gets with Nash/Seguin out there.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    Interesting read and it answers my question with the simple answer of "perception", as well as experience. If one player is valued more for perception than actual results, why do so many people want to make this move on this board? The experience side is more valid, but I put more weight in the present and future than the past.

    In Response to Re: Player vs Player:
    Ok, I'm going to try to give some feedback rather than turn this into a binary debate, partly because I'd have to change my opinion otherwise and partly because I think the difference is explicable if not without warts.  In the interest of keeping name dropping out of this, let's call player one "Charmin" and player two "Nurse" based on their initials.... It's a question of results vs. perception.  Neither is an absolute measure of a player.  It's a common opinion on this board that Krejci, Bergeron, Lucic, Seguin, maybe Horton and Marchand would have more points playing on a team with an attacking philosophy.  At very least, there's the perception that these guys have given up some offensive production by "buying in" on CJ's system.  So perception influences the way you read the results in context.  Your case re: Nurse is the other side of the coin: perception is that he's a superstar due to draft position, major awards, international record etc., but the results temper what that means in real impact. Perception is that Charmin's stats are inflated where Nurse's are depressed.  Charmin's Team's core forwards include two #1s overall, a Hart/Art Ross/Pearson winner and two Richard Trophy winners.  They had 19 more points this year than Nurse's team and 22 more points last year when they had over 100.  Charmin is perceived to be a depth player on a team that has the core of a 100 point team but lacks goaltending.  Nurse is the highest drafted player on his team and their leading scorer.  He's the only player on the team to have won a major award, and only one other player has even been a finalist.  To quote Parcells, they aer what their record says they are.  Perception is that team and context inflate Charmin's numbers and deflate Nurse's. The results are further weakend by the fact that Charmin has only 3 full seasons in despite being only two years younger than Nurse.  Nurse has played 9 seasons.  He gets the benefit of the doubt that he is at least as good as this year's results where Charmin will need at least another year at that level before perception on him shifts and he's accepted as a 60+ point player.  Jury's out.  But even so, it's also worth acknowledging here that Nurse has only topped Charmin's 65 points in 4 of his 9 seasons. But finally, to go back to my thread on what players get paid, perception has more to do with market than results.  Young players perceived to be on the way up get big raises.  Sometimes they live up them, but they get that salary on paper before they have results to back it up.  Same thing is true for trade value.  No GM is going to give up Nurse for Charmin straight up, and from there, no team is going to offer the same package for Charmin as for Nurse.  This follows from the other points in that Nurse is perceived to be a player who will make others around him better while Charmin is perceived to be getting the benefits of playing behind superstars. I think this explains it.  It doesn't argue that the Bruins should trade Krejci and Rask for either player.
    Posted by Bookboy007

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    You trade for Nash instead of Purcell. You spend the same amount of money on both lineups. Spending that amount on Nash means there is little left over for the bottom parts. I'll use that money to keep Pouliot and sign a bargain basement center:

    $3.5 Seguin 95 + 
    $7.8 Nash 95    +
    $2 Pouliot  30 +
    $1.5 cheap center #3 30
    =250 Pts.

    or we pull off the other trade and sign a solid third liner for $3.5 mil:

    $3.5 Seguin 95 +
    $5.5 Krejci  65  +
    $2.3 Purcell 65  +
    $3.5 Good wing 40
    =265 Pts.

    Which is a more dangerous line up? I took your suggestion that Nash would have a sudden breakout at 28 and become a 95 pt. man for the first time, though I think there is nothing to support this happening.  However, with or without Nash I think Seguin will be a 95 pt man. As you mentioned, Purcell got some time with Stamkos and didn't slow him down so I see no reason to think he would slow down Seguin, either.


    In Response to Re: Player vs Player:
    I'm not sure where to even start here. Teddy Purcell is a good player, I'd take him on my team. Lets say PC has two deals on the table and can make one. Tim Thomas for Teddy Purcell. Or David Krejci, Tuuka Rask and pick for Rick Nash. For me, you do the Nash deal. If Teddy Purcell comes here, in my opinion, perhaps his numbers go up a bit, he did get power play time with Stamkos, not sure how much but I watched enough games to know he did. 2/3 of his goals were ont he power play. Does he make Krejci,Seguin or Bergeron better players? Do their numbers go up as a result of Purcell playing with one of them? Not so sure. Rick Nash comes to Boston, plays with Tyler Seguin. I know what stats say, but my eyes, from watching alot of Rick Nash over the years tell me he has a chance to hit 50 while him and Seguin flirt with the 100 point mark for years to come. I'd say who ever plays the other wing also has a significant jump production wise. Now, you have teams best players concentrating on this line and I'd guess a second line of Lucic-Bergeron and who ever has their production go up. I think Tyler Seguin has superstar potential. I think Rick Nash is a superstar. Put the two of them together. Will Seguins potential be reached playing witht he likes of Teddy purcell and Brad Marchand or with Rick Nash and Marchand? Which of thsoe two lines do think has more of an impact? Also keep in mind, you still have Tim Thomas in net, have moved Seguin to his natural position. I would love to see how many power play goals Zdeno Chara gets with Nash/Seguin out there.
    Posted by kelvana33
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    This also neglects to talk about the money saved and youth gained in keeping Rask instead of Thomas. The value there is debateable as Thomas is real good.

    In Response to Re: Player vs Player:
    You trade for Nash instead of Purcell. You spend the same amount of money on both lineups. Spending that amount on Nash means there is little left over for the bottom parts. I'll use that money to keep Pouliot and sign a bargain basement center: $3.5 Seguin 95 +  $7.8 Nash 95    + $2 Pouliot  30 + $1.5 cheap center #3 30 =250 Pts. or we pull off the other trade and sign a solid third liner for $3.5 mil: $3.5 Seguin 95 + $5.5 Krejci  65  + $2.3 Purcell 65  + $3.5 Good wing 40 =265 Pts. Which is a more dangerous line up? I took your suggestion that Nash would have a sudden breakout at 28 and become a 95 pt. man for the first time, though I think there is nothing to support this happening.  However, with or without Nash I think Seguin will be a 95 pt man. As you mentioned, Purcell got some time with Stamkos and didn't slow him down so I see no reason to think he would slow down Seguin, either. In Response to Re: Player vs Player :
    Posted by OatesCam

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    Kel,
    If you can get Purcell for Thomas, you take it. Both have one year left on their contracts - Purcell with a cap hit of $2.362 million, Thomas with a hit of $5 million.

    Goaltending should not be a Bruins weakness, even without Thomas next year. We have no idea what's up with Horton going  forward. It doesn't matter if Purcell's numbers go up. Let's say they stay level, you just shaved off $2.438 million inn cap hit, and added a replacement for Horton. if Horton's healthy, you just added needed depth to RW, while keeping team youth and Krejci and Rask, for far less in terms of cap hit than Nash, even though Nash may have more potential in terms of points.

    I see no downside to that deal (other than having to play Thomas four times a year)
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    I see your point Oates but I would rather have Nash and Thomas rather than Purcell,Pouliot,Krejci and Rask, and I like Rask. Not putting down any of the above mentioned players. I have no doubt Seguin will get his points, i just think Nash expedites the process and enhances Seguins potential/production.

    Some players have had significant jumps in their productions from changing teams or from their team adding a player. Here are some.

    1. Bernie Nicholls --before Gretzky  32 G  46 A  78Pts
                            --Playing with:    70 G  80A   150Pts

    2. Adam Oates      1988/89 Detroit  16G  62A    78Pts
                              1989/90 Blues    23G  79A    102Pts

    3. Brett Hull          1988/89 Before   41G  43A    84Pts
                              1988/89 Oates   72G   41A   113Pts

    4. Cheechoo          year before Joe  28G   19A   47Pts
                               year with Joe    56G    37A   93Pts
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    Hull and Oates is really one example.  Nicholls/Gretzky is just a long line of guys getting to play with Gretzky.  C'mon.  Cheechoo had one big year.  Not a great enticement.

    red - Charmin is a brand of TP.  RN's are an important part of our health care system.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    This player had the following stats 2011-2012

    G      A       PTS
    37    45       82


    He's only 24 yrs old, and his contract should be considered to be below market value for that production

    Does that make him more valuable than Tyler Seguin ?

    Stats = ?????
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    In Response to Re: Player vs Player:
    Hull and Oates is really one example.  Nicholls/Gretzky is just a long line of guys getting to play with Gretzky.  C'mon.  Cheechoo had one big year.  Not a great enticement. red - Charmin is a brand of TP.  RN's are an important part of our health care system.
    Posted by Bookboy007


    Theres plenty more Book, and obviously anyone could have played with Gretzky, Nicholls numbers just stood out, bit of a reach..Bottom line, I think Nash is very talented and would put up some sick numbers here, goal totals we havent seen since Neely.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    In Response to Re: Player vs Player:
    I see your point Oates but I would rather have Nash and Thomas rather than Purcell,Pouliot,Krejci and Rask, and I like Rask. Not putting down any of the above mentioned players. I have no doubt Seguin will get his points, i just think Nash expedites the process and enhances Seguins potential/production. Some players have had significant jumps in their productions from changing teams or from their team adding a player. Here are some. 1. Bernie Nicholls --before Gretzky  32 G  46 A  78Pts                         --Playing with:    70 G  80A   150Pts 2. Adam Oates      1988/89 Detroit  16G  62A    78Pts                           1989/90 Blues    23G  79A    102Pts 3. Brett Hull          1988/89 Before   41G  43A    84Pts                           1988/89 Oates   72G   41A   113Pts 4. Cheechoo          year before Joe  28G   19A   47Pts                            year with Joe    56G    37A   93Pts
    Posted by kelvana33

    Hull and Oates just became stars at the same time. They were both just young players that finally grew into their games during their 4th seasons. Neither player actually needed the other for success. The proof of that is the fact they both played well without each other. Oates had his career best season (by 27 points) in Boston and Hull barely skipped a beat with Janney.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    Dez, don't you think if Nash were to come here Seguins point total would be significantly higher than with any of the forwards he is playing with now?

    Nash comes here he instantly becomes the Bruins biggest goal scoring threat. If the playoffs this year are any indication of what they will be like for the next few years wouldnt you want a guy like Nash on your team? For me, he's that guy that in a tie score or down a goal with a face off late int he game that you design a play for. I'd love to see him here.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from patriotpat99. Show patriotpat99's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    In Response to Re: Player vs Player:
    This player had the following stats 2011-2012 G      A       PTS 37    45       82 He's only 24 yrs old, and his contract should be considered to be below market value for that production Does that make him more valuable than Tyler Seguin ? Stats = ?????
    Posted by JWensink


    ya, but kessel is only good in the offensive zone. i do not think he gets paid below market value
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    In Response to Re: Player vs Player:
    Dez, don't you think if Nash were to come here Seguins point total would be significantly higher than with any of the forwards he is playing with now? Nash comes here he instantly becomes the Bruins biggest goal scoring threat. If the playoffs this year are any indication of what they will be like for the next few years wouldnt you want a guy like Nash on your team? For me, he's that guy that in a tie score or down a goal with a face off late int he game that you design a play for. I'd love to see him here.
    Posted by kelvana33

    Maybe Kel but that's not enough to gut the lineup for. Frankly, I'm surprised you see the reasons to go after Nash but don't think attempting to sign Parise is more practical. I really like his game but acquiring Nash would take real players out of the lineup. If I have to choose between the 2, I pick Parise all day (only because it'd much easier to pull off). Cheers!
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    Yeah...Bruins could have used some help in the offensive zone against the Caps.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from patriotpat99. Show patriotpat99's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    sure could have, but not from him, when they depend on players like that they break away from the organizational structure that won them the cup
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    The point isn't about Kessel - it's a response to the premise of this post, how stats alone don't represent a given players value. If they did, then Phil Kessel is more valuable than anyone on the current B's roster. Apparently, you missed that.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    In Response to Re: Player vs Player:
    The point isn't about Kessel - it's a response to the premise of this post, how stats alone don't represent a given players value. If they did, then Phil Kessel is more valuable than anyone on the current B's roster. Apparently, you missed that.
    Posted by JWensink

    That's assuming point total is the only stat you look at. Kessel was also -10 with an average of 5 seconds per game killing penalties. I don't think anyone could argue Kessel wasn't more valuable offensively than any Bruin. The Bruins just weren't as good a team with him in the lineup. Cheers!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    No, and for several reasons. Tyler Seguin is much younger (at just 20yrs) and cheaper. Seguin is still improving as a player, while this player has, after 6 years in the league, leveled off as a player. Expecting big point increases at this stage are unrealistic. Also, the player in question averages 20 minutes per game while Tyler Seguin gets just 17 minutes.

    I gave an example of a player who is younger, dramatically cheaper, more productive last year in significantly less minutes per game and has more proven playoff stats than another player who has more name value and questioned why anyone would prefer trading for the more expensive, vastly more trade-asset costly option. You gave an example of the exact opposite scenario and, I think, were trying to use it to question the initial premise, but you are in fact doing the opposite.

    I would, however, suggest that Kessel is a younger, more affordable, more productive option than Rick Nash.


    In Response to Re: Player vs Player:
    This player had the following stats 2011-2012 G      A       PTS 37    45       82 He's only 24 yrs old, and his contract should be considered to be below market value for that production Does that make him more valuable than Tyler Seguin ? Stats = ?????
    Posted by JWensink
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share