This day on March 24
Acquired: Janne Niinimaa (1998)
Departed: Dan McGillis (1998)

Happy Birthday To: prc444, wylde, CheesusCrust, jerekybeef, pumpjacked_Oil_Fan

F.A.Q. Terms of Use F.A.Q. F.A.Q.
Members Members   Search Search     Register Register   Login Login   Home Home
 NHL » Brassard for Zibanejad
Switch to flat viewSwitch to tree viewCreate a new topicSubmit Reply
 Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675110]
Mon, 18 July 2016 13:55 Go to next message
messier11  is currently offline messier11
Messages: 259
Registered: July 2006
Location: Manitoba

No Cups

http://www.tsn.ca/sens-acquire-brassard-for-zibanejad-1.5285 74

Good deal for the Rangers, they get the better (and younger) player AND the higher draft pick. I like Brassard but Zib will be better, not sure what the Sens were thinking here...



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675112 is a reply to message #675110 ]
Mon, 18 July 2016 14:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Steve  is currently offline Steve
Messages: 409
Registered: October 2006
Location: Ottawa

No Cups

I disagree on who the better player is. My sense is that Zibanejad is a good 2nd line C. He brings average offense, but is only OK to poor defensively. Brassard is a more complete player.

Also, for the cash-strapped Sens, Brassard's actual salary is low compared to his cap hit. He's also a local boy.

The only downside is that Brassard is older (though at 28 he's still in his prime). The Sens might regret this 5 years from now, but for now I think they are happy.



"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."

- Calvin

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675114 is a reply to message #675112 ]
Mon, 18 July 2016 14:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10218
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Steve wrote on Mon, 18 July 2016 14:03

I disagree on who the better player is. My sense is that Zibanejad is a good 2nd line C. He brings average offense, but is only OK to poor defensively. Brassard is a more complete player.

Also, for the cash-strapped Sens, Brassard's actual salary is low compared to his cap hit. He's also a local boy.

The only downside is that Brassard is older (though at 28 he's still in his prime). The Sens might regret this 5 years from now, but for now I think they are happy.


Brassard's salary/signing bonus (from General Fanager)
2016-17 - $5MM / $2MM
2017-18 - $3.5MM / $1.5MM
2018-19 - $3.5MM / $2.5MM

I think the Rangers may have already paid that first $2MM bonus, but it looks like he's still going to be more expensive than Zibanejad (salary $3.25MM, no signing bonus)



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675113 is a reply to message #675110 ]
Mon, 18 July 2016 14:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10218
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

messier11 wrote on Mon, 18 July 2016 13:55

http://www.tsn.ca/sens-acquire-brassard-for-zibanejad-1.5285 74

Good deal for the Rangers, they get the better (and younger) player AND the higher draft pick. I like Brassard but Zib will be better, not sure what the Sens were thinking here...


Interesting deal. Brassard has come in to his own the last couple years in New York with 60 and 58 point campaigns. He's 29 in September and has three more years on his deal at $5MM per season.

Zibanejad scored 51 points this past season, is six years younger, and is way cheaper this year at $2.625MM. He's RFA next summer, but it's hard to see him commanding more than the $5MM that Brassard is getting.

I also have a hard time seeing Brassard hitting 27 goals again as he did this year. He's never crested 20 before this season. Meanwhile Zibanejad had 20 and 21 the last two years.

Hard not to see this as a win for the Rangers, especially when Zibanejad comes with a second round pick and they give up a seventh rounder with Brassard.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675116 is a reply to message #675113 ]
Mon, 18 July 2016 14:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3698
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

I think this is a good deal for the Ranger. Zib is bigger, more physical, right shot center with the biggest thing being he's only 23. Zib is just heading into his prime while Brassard soon to be 29 is at his peak right now. Zib had 51 pts so it isn't a stretch to see him at least tie or out score Brassard.

I am not sure the thinking on this trade from the Sens part because I would take a real good 23 yr old over a real good soon to be 29 yr old any day.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675118 is a reply to message #675110 ]
Mon, 18 July 2016 19:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Steve  is currently offline Steve
Messages: 409
Registered: October 2006
Location: Ottawa

No Cups

Interestingly, I'm hearing from Sens fans that Zib has underachieved and they aren't sad to see him go.

I'm curious what the advanced stats say. There is some "saw him bad" despite his respectable point totals.



"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."

- Calvin

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675121 is a reply to message #675118 ]
Tue, 19 July 2016 06:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mike  is currently offline Mike
Messages: 3622
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

3 Cups

Oh wow - the Sens sending the 2nd? I read it the other way around and thought "not terrible" - but the Sens are giving up the 2nd along with the much younger and cheaper player? That 2nd has a decent shot at being a low 30s pick. I think Brassard is probably the better player this year and maybe next, but I would think that's about it.




Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675122 is a reply to message #675118 ]
Tue, 19 July 2016 08:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3698
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Steve wrote on Mon, 18 July 2016 19:10

Interestingly, I'm hearing from Sens fans that Zib has underachieved and they aren't sad to see him go.

I'm curious what the advanced stats say. There is some "saw him bad" despite his respectable point totals.


I heard Ottawa guys saying the same thing that he has underachieved. I am curious what their expectations for this guy are. I see a big, strong, right shot center who just turned 23. He was just over 50% on faceoffs this past season, had over 110 hits. Scored 21 goals, 51 pts in 81 games playing just under 18 mins a night. By my eye, those are pretty good second line center numbers. If you look at his numbers, that have steadily increased every year. He's going into a contract year as an RFA but he's only making 2.625 mill so the Sens got pretty damn good value out of him for the numbers he put up at his contract. It wouldn't shock me if he is in the 60+ pt range this coming season. Most teams would be doing back flips if they had a player putting up those kind of numbers at his age for under 3 mill. The Rangers can double his salary and he still makes less than Nuge. He probably out scores Brassard next season and Brassard is a 5 mill cap hit. I know in real dollars Brassard is less than 5 mill but I think Brassard in owed salary is still slightly more than what Zib will make.

So I'd love to know what the Sens were expecting from this guy.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675125 is a reply to message #675122 ]
Tue, 19 July 2016 10:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Steve  is currently offline Steve
Messages: 409
Registered: October 2006
Location: Ottawa

No Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 07:28

Steve wrote on Mon, 18 July 2016 19:10

Interestingly, I'm hearing from Sens fans that Zib has underachieved and they aren't sad to see him go.

I'm curious what the advanced stats say. There is some "saw him bad" despite his respectable point totals.


I heard Ottawa guys saying the same thing that he has underachieved. I am curious what their expectations for this guy are. I see a big, strong, right shot center who just turned 23. He was just over 50% on faceoffs this past season, had over 110 hits. Scored 21 goals, 51 pts in 81 games playing just under 18 mins a night. By my eye, those are pretty good second line center numbers. If you look at his numbers, that have steadily increased every year. He's going into a contract year as an RFA but he's only making 2.625 mill so the Sens got pretty damn good value out of him for the numbers he put up at his contract. It wouldn't shock me if he is in the 60+ pt range this coming season. Most teams would be doing back flips if they had a player putting up those kind of numbers at his age for under 3 mill. The Rangers can double his salary and he still makes less than Nuge. He probably out scores Brassard next season and Brassard is a 5 mill cap hit. I know in real dollars Brassard is less than 5 mill but I think Brassard in owed salary is still slightly more than what Zib will make.

So I'd love to know what the Sens were expecting from this guy.



Because he's a high pick, I think they wanted a first line centre, point-per-game guy. You know, to replace Alfie. I've heard him likened to Radek Bonk, in the sense that he hasn't lived up to his his super-high expectations (never-mind that Bonk scored very well in his career).

Unrealistic expectations. As Oiler fans, we know that drafting high does not necessarily equal 1st line stardom.



"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."

- Calvin

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675126 is a reply to message #675125 ]
Tue, 19 July 2016 11:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3698
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

I see this trade as impossible for the Sens to even tie. At worst Zibanejad is a pretty decent second line center who's an inch taller, almost 20lbs heavier, 6 years younger and will most likely equal Brassard's production. This trade for the Sens doesn't even address a need as they are trading a center for a center. It's a complete no brainer for the Rangers.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675127 is a reply to message #675110 ]
Tue, 19 July 2016 12:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Xombie  is currently offline Xombie
Messages: 598
Registered: March 2004
Location: E-Town

No Cups

Why are the Canadian teams getting fleeced in all the trades this off season? And why haven't the Flamers and Jets made any?


Bob Marley and the (Hartford) Wailers.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675128 is a reply to message #675127 ]
Tue, 19 July 2016 13:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10218
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Xombie wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 12:46

Why are the Canadian teams getting fleeced in all the trades this off season? And why haven't the Flamers and Jets made any?


My theory? Poor management coupled with the pressure to make changes that comes from being in a hotbed market.

Managers feel that inactivity is the worst mistake they can make. It's not, and they keep making worse mistakes instead.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675129 is a reply to message #675128 ]
Tue, 19 July 2016 13:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi  is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7766
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 13:15

Xombie wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 12:46

Why are the Canadian teams getting fleeced in all the trades this off season? And why haven't the Flamers and Jets made any?


My theory? Poor management coupled with the pressure to make changes that comes from being in a hotbed market.

Managers feel that inactivity is the worst mistake they can make. It's not, and they keep making worse mistakes instead.

You know what wins hockey games. Being bold and bold moves.

My pet theory is an ingrained culture of cronyism and a focus on changing the game rather than adapting to the changing game.



This is fine.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675131 is a reply to message #675129 ]
Tue, 19 July 2016 16:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10218
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 13:28

Adam wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 13:15

Xombie wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 12:46

Why are the Canadian teams getting fleeced in all the trades this off season? And why haven't the Flamers and Jets made any?


My theory? Poor management coupled with the pressure to make changes that comes from being in a hotbed market.

Managers feel that inactivity is the worst mistake they can make. It's not, and they keep making worse mistakes instead.

You know what wins hockey games. Being bold and bold moves.

My pet theory is an ingrained culture of cronyism and a focus on changing the game rather than adapting to the changing game.


Saw an interesting tweet yesterday from Patrick O'Sullivan, saying that he's yet to talk to any analytics person who ever had to battle Shea Weber in the corners. Mike Johnson, who's a former player, responded and introduced himself.

I imagine there's a real weird dynamic right now in NHL board rooms. You've got a lot of jocks who've been put in jobs because they were hockey players and either were stars or well-liked by the organization - which led to a job when they were done playing. But many of these jobs have nothing to do with having played the game at the highest level. You can have topped out at house league and yet still have the ability to understand the game. Scotty Bowman is the greatest coach hockey's seen and never played a minute of in the NHL.

Now you're seeing more and more geeks entering the mix - numbers guys who have analyzed what makes a hockey team successful. The best groups are going to be the ones who are able to take a little of what everyone in the room brings and synthesize it. But when you have guys who were hired to jobs they don't have much training for, they are going to be less likely to want to look at other ways of doing things and more likely to want to associate with people that are more similar to them (and thus less threatening to their position).

And that's without taking in to account the normal jock/nerd friction. It's not exactly two groups that are known for coexisting well, and while everyone is adults in these board rooms, that doesn't make that friction entirely disappear. A Craig MacTavish or Marc Bergevin isn't likely to want to listen to someone who he thinks couldn't have hoped to ever take the puck from even them on the NHL ice surface. And a lot of these nerds (think our own mudcrutch) can come off disdainful of anyone who doesn't immediately agree or see what they are thinking. That can't help ease the tension, especially if the boss starts thinking the analytics guy believes he's much smarter than the rest of them.

I think the teams that can walk that balance likely have the best chance to succeed. Right now, I look at the Oilers bloated management staff and see that other than Chiarelli, it's all a bunch of guys who are buddies and unlikely to challenge each other much. There's certainly a serious potential for groupthink there.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675142 is a reply to message #675131 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 08:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3698
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 16:15

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 13:28

Adam wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 13:15

Xombie wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 12:46

Why are the Canadian teams getting fleeced in all the trades this off season? And why haven't the Flamers and Jets made any?


My theory? Poor management coupled with the pressure to make changes that comes from being in a hotbed market.

Managers feel that inactivity is the worst mistake they can make. It's not, and they keep making worse mistakes instead.

You know what wins hockey games. Being bold and bold moves.

My pet theory is an ingrained culture of cronyism and a focus on changing the game rather than adapting to the changing game.


Saw an interesting tweet yesterday from Patrick O'Sullivan, saying that he's yet to talk to any analytics person who ever had to battle Shea Weber in the corners. Mike Johnson, who's a former player, responded and introduced himself.

I imagine there's a real weird dynamic right now in NHL board rooms. You've got a lot of jocks who've been put in jobs because they were hockey players and either were stars or well-liked by the organization - which led to a job when they were done playing. But many of these jobs have nothing to do with having played the game at the highest level. You can have topped out at house league and yet still have the ability to understand the game. Scotty Bowman is the greatest coach hockey's seen and never played a minute of in the NHL.

Now you're seeing more and more geeks entering the mix - numbers guys who have analyzed what makes a hockey team successful. The best groups are going to be the ones who are able to take a little of what everyone in the room brings and synthesize it. But when you have guys who were hired to jobs they don't have much training for, they are going to be less likely to want to look at other ways of doing things and more likely to want to associate with people that are more similar to them (and thus less threatening to their position).

And that's without taking in to account the normal jock/nerd friction. It's not exactly two groups that are known for coexisting well, and while everyone is adults in these board rooms, that doesn't make that friction entirely disappear. A Craig MacTavish or Marc Bergevin isn't likely to want to listen to someone who he thinks couldn't have hoped to ever take the puck from even them on the NHL ice surface. And a lot of these nerds (think our own mudcrutch) can come off disdainful of anyone who doesn't immediately agree or see what they are thinking. That can't help ease the tension, especially if the boss starts thinking the analytics guy believes he's much smarter than the rest of them.

I think the teams that can walk that balance likely have the best chance to succeed. Right now, I look at the Oilers bloated management staff and see that other than Chiarelli, it's all a bunch of guys who are buddies and unlikely to challenge each other much. There's certainly a serious potential for groupthink there.


One of the things I have a problem with when it comes to Advanced stats is they don't seem to give a consistent answer and the results seem to be based a lot on the guy that does them. You can look on twitter and see the debate that happens between guys like Woodguy, Willis, Lowetide, Staples, McCurdy. One guy will post some stats or a link to a chart, then the rest will chime in to talk about how one guy over or under values something or one guy left something out because it doesn't apply.

So what I don't like is there doesn't seem to be one way to do things. A guy can manipulate the numbers to look one way for a player, then another guy can manipulate the numbers differently and a player looks different. So who's right? How can the same player on the same play produce different numbers.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675143 is a reply to message #675142 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 08:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PlusOne  is currently offline PlusOne
Messages: 1847
Registered: July 2006
Location: Regina, Sask

1 Cup

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 08:12

Adam wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 16:15

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 13:28

Adam wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 13:15

Xombie wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 12:46

Why are the Canadian teams getting fleeced in all the trades this off season? And why haven't the Flamers and Jets made any?


My theory? Poor management coupled with the pressure to make changes that comes from being in a hotbed market.

Managers feel that inactivity is the worst mistake they can make. It's not, and they keep making worse mistakes instead.

You know what wins hockey games. Being bold and bold moves.

My pet theory is an ingrained culture of cronyism and a focus on changing the game rather than adapting to the changing game.


Saw an interesting tweet yesterday from Patrick O'Sullivan, saying that he's yet to talk to any analytics person who ever had to battle Shea Weber in the corners. Mike Johnson, who's a former player, responded and introduced himself.

I imagine there's a real weird dynamic right now in NHL board rooms. You've got a lot of jocks who've been put in jobs because they were hockey players and either were stars or well-liked by the organization - which led to a job when they were done playing. But many of these jobs have nothing to do with having played the game at the highest level. You can have topped out at house league and yet still have the ability to understand the game. Scotty Bowman is the greatest coach hockey's seen and never played a minute of in the NHL.

Now you're seeing more and more geeks entering the mix - numbers guys who have analyzed what makes a hockey team successful. The best groups are going to be the ones who are able to take a little of what everyone in the room brings and synthesize it. But when you have guys who were hired to jobs they don't have much training for, they are going to be less likely to want to look at other ways of doing things and more likely to want to associate with people that are more similar to them (and thus less threatening to their position).

And that's without taking in to account the normal jock/nerd friction. It's not exactly two groups that are known for coexisting well, and while everyone is adults in these board rooms, that doesn't make that friction entirely disappear. A Craig MacTavish or Marc Bergevin isn't likely to want to listen to someone who he thinks couldn't have hoped to ever take the puck from even them on the NHL ice surface. And a lot of these nerds (think our own mudcrutch) can come off disdainful of anyone who doesn't immediately agree or see what they are thinking. That can't help ease the tension, especially if the boss starts thinking the analytics guy believes he's much smarter than the rest of them.

I think the teams that can walk that balance likely have the best chance to succeed. Right now, I look at the Oilers bloated management staff and see that other than Chiarelli, it's all a bunch of guys who are buddies and unlikely to challenge each other much. There's certainly a serious potential for groupthink there.


One of the things I have a problem with when it comes to Advanced stats is they don't seem to give a consistent answer and the results seem to be based a lot on the guy that does them. You can look on twitter and see the debate that happens between guys like Woodguy, Willis, Lowetide, Staples, McCurdy. One guy will post some stats or a link to a chart, then the rest will chime in to talk about how one guy over or under values something or one guy left something out because it doesn't apply.

So what I don't like is there doesn't seem to be one way to do things. A guy can manipulate the numbers to look one way for a player, then another guy can manipulate the numbers differently and a player looks different. So who's right? How can the same player on the same play produce different numbers.


I think as the biggest issue is how new advanced stats really are. For a long time there was very little to go on to judge a player than the basic stats and watching. Then the first couple stats come around and next it blows up.
You are right about no one agreeing but this comes any time you try to make judgement based on A. a new stat. B. A single stat or even a couple C. Come in with a bias.
I find many people these days are using the advanced stats to prove a point that they already planned on making. Very few are going in with an open mind, reviewing a lot of numbers then presenting findings.
As time goes by I believe that some of these new stats will be seen as a fad and some will be used and become part of the standard much like +/- did years ago.

I will admit I dont follow every team really close but has there been a team that publicly acknowledged using advanced stats as a key decision making tool that actually saw success?



"I miss Kris Russell" PlusOne Dec 2018
Something I never thought would come out of my mouth

"I am 100% done with him (Russell) as a player, would rather Benning." PlusOne Feb 2019
AKA back to reality

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675144 is a reply to message #675143 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 09:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10218
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

PlusOne wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 08:36

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 08:12


One of the things I have a problem with when it comes to Advanced stats is they don't seem to give a consistent answer and the results seem to be based a lot on the guy that does them. You can look on twitter and see the debate that happens between guys like Woodguy, Willis, Lowetide, Staples, McCurdy. One guy will post some stats or a link to a chart, then the rest will chime in to talk about how one guy over or under values something or one guy left something out because it doesn't apply.

So what I don't like is there doesn't seem to be one way to do things. A guy can manipulate the numbers to look one way for a player, then another guy can manipulate the numbers differently and a player looks different. So who's right? How can the same player on the same play produce different numbers.


I think as the biggest issue is how new advanced stats really are. For a long time there was very little to go on to judge a player than the basic stats and watching. Then the first couple stats come around and next it blows up.
You are right about no one agreeing but this comes any time you try to make judgement based on A. a new stat. B. A single stat or even a couple C. Come in with a bias.
I find many people these days are using the advanced stats to prove a point that they already planned on making. Very few are going in with an open mind, reviewing a lot of numbers then presenting findings.
As time goes by I believe that some of these new stats will be seen as a fad and some will be used and become part of the standard much like +/- did years ago.

I will admit I dont follow every team really close but has there been a team that publicly acknowledged using advanced stats as a key decision making tool that actually saw success?



Yes, the best teams in the league all use Advanced Stats - although it's almost certain that their advanced stats are different from simple Corsi or Fenwick. Chicago, for example, uses some stats, but they refuse to talk about them much.

There's lots of disagreement even among those using these because there's a tendency for people to get tunnel vision on their own preferred stats. mudcrutch was terrible for this. He was dismissive of the work Staples does around scoring chances and "Neilson Numbers" and was married to the Corsi school. But as Dallas Eakins helped to prove, Corsi shows correlation to goal scoring, but not causation. Simply getting more shots from anywhere may help that stat look better, but it doesn't increase your likelihood of scoring more goals. Shots where the goalie is forced to move are the most likely to score, and while Eakins' system was better at shot suppression overall than what the Oilers had done under Krueger, the shot quality was superb and goalies were sacrificial lambs.

I think it's foolish to marry yourself to one school of thinking - to me, that's making the exact same error that old school saw-him-good guys make. The more tools you have to analyze, the better and if you can take those tools, make projections with them and then compare your projections after each year to see how accurate they are, then you can over time determine what the best tools are.

Advanced Stats are still in their infancy in hockey, and most of the best interpreters of this stuff have all been hired by teams which means we don't get to see and understand what the numbers they use are or how they're determined. I would guess though that those best teams have their video department work closely with their stats guys and they're looking at small plays throughout the game.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675145 is a reply to message #675144 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 09:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3698
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Adam wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 09:19

PlusOne wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 08:36

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 08:12


One of the things I have a problem with when it comes to Advanced stats is they don't seem to give a consistent answer and the results seem to be based a lot on the guy that does them. You can look on twitter and see the debate that happens between guys like Woodguy, Willis, Lowetide, Staples, McCurdy. One guy will post some stats or a link to a chart, then the rest will chime in to talk about how one guy over or under values something or one guy left something out because it doesn't apply.

So what I don't like is there doesn't seem to be one way to do things. A guy can manipulate the numbers to look one way for a player, then another guy can manipulate the numbers differently and a player looks different. So who's right? How can the same player on the same play produce different numbers.


I think as the biggest issue is how new advanced stats really are. For a long time there was very little to go on to judge a player than the basic stats and watching. Then the first couple stats come around and next it blows up.
You are right about no one agreeing but this comes any time you try to make judgement based on A. a new stat. B. A single stat or even a couple C. Come in with a bias.
I find many people these days are using the advanced stats to prove a point that they already planned on making. Very few are going in with an open mind, reviewing a lot of numbers then presenting findings.
As time goes by I believe that some of these new stats will be seen as a fad and some will be used and become part of the standard much like +/- did years ago.

I will admit I dont follow every team really close but has there been a team that publicly acknowledged using advanced stats as a key decision making tool that actually saw success?



Yes, the best teams in the league all use Advanced Stats - although it's almost certain that their advanced stats are different from simple Corsi or Fenwick. Chicago, for example, uses some stats, but they refuse to talk about them much.

There's lots of disagreement even among those using these because there's a tendency for people to get tunnel vision on their own preferred stats. mudcrutch was terrible for this. He was dismissive of the work Staples does around scoring chances and "Neilson Numbers" and was married to the Corsi school. But as Dallas Eakins helped to prove, Corsi shows correlation to goal scoring, but not causation. Simply getting more shots from anywhere may help that stat look better, but it doesn't increase your likelihood of scoring more goals. Shots where the goalie is forced to move are the most likely to score, and while Eakins' system was better at shot suppression overall than what the Oilers had done under Krueger, the shot quality was superb and goalies were sacrificial lambs.

I think it's foolish to marry yourself to one school of thinking - to me, that's making the exact same error that old school saw-him-good guys make. The more tools you have to analyze, the better and if you can take those tools, make projections with them and then compare your projections after each year to see how accurate they are, then you can over time determine what the best tools are.

Advanced Stats are still in their infancy in hockey, and most of the best interpreters of this stuff have all been hired by teams which means we don't get to see and understand what the numbers they use are or how they're determined. I would guess though that those best teams have their video department work closely with their stats guys and they're looking at small plays throughout the game.


What I don't like about the advanced stats community especially about the people that do them is they seem so bullish on them. You either believe in advanced stats completely or you are wrong.

I personally think there is a place for them. They are definitely a useful tool but they don't tell the whole story about a player and there are some things that are important and have an effect on the outcome of a game that you can't assign a number too. There is the whole "intangibles area" that some players have that an advanced stat person will roll their eyes about but when every current and former player says they are real and they are important, you can't discount them.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675147 is a reply to message #675145 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 10:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10218
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 09:27

What I don't like about the advanced stats community especially about the people that do them is they seem so bullish on them. You either believe in advanced stats completely or you are wrong.

I personally think there is a place for them. They are definitely a useful tool but they don't tell the whole story about a player and there are some things that are important and have an effect on the outcome of a game that you can't assign a number too. There is the whole "intangibles area" that some players have that an advanced stat person will roll their eyes about but when every current and former player says they are real and they are important, you can't discount them.


I think the militancy is a response to the way the mainstream media has responded to advanced stats. The response from most has been to mock these guys, who've spent a lot of time on this analysis. We heard a lot of "living in their parent's basement" and "these guys should learn to watch the game, not play with spreadsheets." That's misleading and unfair, because most of these advanced stats guys watch the game much more than you or I or Mark Spector. They're re-watching video after the game, collecting data that the NHL wasn't counting before.

These guys were showing a more in-depth way of looking at the game and providing some insights that hadn't been there before and the response was completely unfavourable. It was easier for most of the MSM guys to dismiss this as nerdy mumbo-jumbo than it was to try to learn and understand it...never mind do any analysis of their own. It's a threat to people like Spector and Rishaug, who have pretty cushy jobs that require very little critical thinking.

The downside for the rest of us, is that the back-and-forth bickering doesn't do anyone any favours in the end and tends to make everyone look bad. I had stopped following MC79 after a while, because he would chew up my timeline trying to chew out people who suggested a different line of thought.

I don't mind some of the discussion from the people you mentioned, because it is often collaborative, giving different interpretations of what the numbers tell you can be helpful. Those guys rarely devolve in to name-calling and insults.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675149 is a reply to message #675147 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 10:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3698
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Adam wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 10:01

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 09:27

What I don't like about the advanced stats community especially about the people that do them is they seem so bullish on them. You either believe in advanced stats completely or you are wrong.

I personally think there is a place for them. They are definitely a useful tool but they don't tell the whole story about a player and there are some things that are important and have an effect on the outcome of a game that you can't assign a number too. There is the whole "intangibles area" that some players have that an advanced stat person will roll their eyes about but when every current and former player says they are real and they are important, you can't discount them.


I think the militancy is a response to the way the mainstream media has responded to advanced stats. The response from most has been to mock these guys, who've spent a lot of time on this analysis. We heard a lot of "living in their parent's basement" and "these guys should learn to watch the game, not play with spreadsheets." That's misleading and unfair, because most of these advanced stats guys watch the game much more than you or I or Mark Spector. They're re-watching video after the game, collecting data that the NHL wasn't counting before.

These guys were showing a more in-depth way of looking at the game and providing some insights that hadn't been there before and the response was completely unfavourable. It was easier for most of the MSM guys to dismiss this as nerdy mumbo-jumbo than it was to try to learn and understand it...never mind do any analysis of their own. It's a threat to people like Spector and Rishaug, who have pretty cushy jobs that require very little critical thinking.

The downside for the rest of us, is that the back-and-forth bickering doesn't do anyone any favours in the end and tends to make everyone look bad. I had stopped following MC79 after a while, because he would chew up my timeline trying to chew out people who suggested a different line of thought.

I don't mind some of the discussion from the people you mentioned, because it is often collaborative, giving different interpretations of what the numbers tell you can be helpful. Those guys rarely devolve in to name-calling and insults.


There is nothing wrong with providing data to look at the game differently. The issue is the data and how they come up with their numbers isn't even close to being exact and is in fact all over the place. 3 different guys can look at the same player and come up with 3 different sets of numbers. Usually the numbers are relatively close but sometimes they aren't. Even a guy like Spector says he knows there is some value to them, he just doesn't buy into the numbers as much as the true believers do. But like I said, if 3 different guys can come up with different numbers for the same player, how can they expect people to believe in them? Who's right. So in my opinion, until the advances stats community can come up with way to calculate all these stats where the results are consistent, there is always gone to be a ton of debate against how valid they are.

I've said this point many a time. Any time an advanced stat guy and his spread sheet tells me that Fayne is better than Seabrook, I have a hard time believing that guy or his numbers. Willis wrote and article on Oilersnation saying exactly that. I don't care how much as an organization you believe in advanced stats, no GM in the NHL if he has the choice is ever going to take Fayne over Seabrook. Yet Willis wrote a legit article about making that case.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675154 is a reply to message #675149 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 12:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10218
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 10:40


There is nothing wrong with providing data to look at the game differently. The issue is the data and how they come up with their numbers isn't even close to being exact and is in fact all over the place. 3 different guys can look at the same player and come up with 3 different sets of numbers. Usually the numbers are relatively close but sometimes they aren't. Even a guy like Spector says he knows there is some value to them, he just doesn't buy into the numbers as much as the true believers do. But like I said, if 3 different guys can come up with different numbers for the same player, how can they expect people to believe in them? Who's right. So in my opinion, until the advances stats community can come up with way to calculate all these stats where the results are consistent, there is always gone to be a ton of debate against how valid they are.

I've said this point many a time. Any time an advanced stat guy and his spread sheet tells me that Fayne is better than Seabrook, I have a hard time believing that guy or his numbers. Willis wrote and article on Oilersnation saying exactly that. I don't care how much as an organization you believe in advanced stats, no GM in the NHL if he has the choice is ever going to take Fayne over Seabrook. Yet Willis wrote a legit article about making that case.


Spector has only recently stopped calling stats guys names and belittling them constantly. I think he's realizing slowly that these are becoming more mainstream ideas, and that mocking them as he has in the past may make him less likely to retain a job in the future.

Different sets of stats are going to have different outcomes, and people using these stats differently, plus more and more ways of looking at these stats means that there's going to be differing viewpoints on individual players and what their stats set means. That doesn't invalidate the stats. That just means that different people put different levels of importance on specific results.

You don't have to agree with Willis for him to be right that in the metrics he's using, Fayne performs better than Seabrook. That doesn't mean his position that Seabrook is less desirable than Fayne is necessarily valid. He's stating an opinion there based on the stats he's looking at, and that's alright. He's not necessarily wrong or right there - but certainly entitled to his opinion. And there may very well be GMs out there who agree with him.

Here's MY opinion: I think Willis is similar to MC79 in that he believes too strongly in Corsi and Fenwick, and I don't believe that those stats in isolation tell enough of the story. I think they're useful tools, but that's it. I don't think I'd take Fayne over Seabrook, but I don't really want either of those contracts. Seabrook's deal is ugly and lasts a long-time. I do not believe he'll be effective towards the end of that deal. His team is going to have to hope he gets hurt and can spend it on LTIR, and that he's not healthy but sucking - which would mean maintaining that boat anchor contract while trying to replace his contributions on the roster. He's 31, and has five more years at just under $7MM per - I think that if I was the 'Hawks, I'd have preferred to have Saad to Seabrook tied up long-term. I understand their thinking - they think they have a window for another couple of championship runs in the next couple years and they're willing to sacrifice their future for that...but I think that contract is a mistake.

Fayne's a perfectly adequate third pairing option who's getting paid like a good second pairing defenceman. That's on MacTavish. The nice thing is that that contract only runs for two more years.

Given an option of a trade, I'm not sure either team does it. Seabrook may start declining too soon, and you may need his cap for other players over the McDavid championship window, and the 'Hawks certainly don't want an expensive third pairing defenceman who never plays 20 minutes a game for the next two critical years of their window.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675163 is a reply to message #675154 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 13:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3698
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Adam wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 12:39

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 10:40


There is nothing wrong with providing data to look at the game differently. The issue is the data and how they come up with their numbers isn't even close to being exact and is in fact all over the place. 3 different guys can look at the same player and come up with 3 different sets of numbers. Usually the numbers are relatively close but sometimes they aren't. Even a guy like Spector says he knows there is some value to them, he just doesn't buy into the numbers as much as the true believers do. But like I said, if 3 different guys can come up with different numbers for the same player, how can they expect people to believe in them? Who's right. So in my opinion, until the advances stats community can come up with way to calculate all these stats where the results are consistent, there is always gone to be a ton of debate against how valid they are.

I've said this point many a time. Any time an advanced stat guy and his spread sheet tells me that Fayne is better than Seabrook, I have a hard time believing that guy or his numbers. Willis wrote and article on Oilersnation saying exactly that. I don't care how much as an organization you believe in advanced stats, no GM in the NHL if he has the choice is ever going to take Fayne over Seabrook. Yet Willis wrote a legit article about making that case.


Spector has only recently stopped calling stats guys names and belittling them constantly. I think he's realizing slowly that these are becoming more mainstream ideas, and that mocking them as he has in the past may make him less likely to retain a job in the future.

Different sets of stats are going to have different outcomes, and people using these stats differently, plus more and more ways of looking at these stats means that there's going to be differing viewpoints on individual players and what their stats set means. That doesn't invalidate the stats. That just means that different people put different levels of importance on specific results.

You don't have to agree with Willis for him to be right that in the metrics he's using, Fayne performs better than Seabrook. That doesn't mean his position that Seabrook is less desirable than Fayne is necessarily valid. He's stating an opinion there based on the stats he's looking at, and that's alright. He's not necessarily wrong or right there - but certainly entitled to his opinion. And there may very well be GMs out there who agree with him.

Here's MY opinion: I think Willis is similar to MC79 in that he believes too strongly in Corsi and Fenwick, and I don't believe that those stats in isolation tell enough of the story. I think they're useful tools, but that's it. I don't think I'd take Fayne over Seabrook, but I don't really want either of those contracts. Seabrook's deal is ugly and lasts a long-time. I do not believe he'll be effective towards the end of that deal. His team is going to have to hope he gets hurt and can spend it on LTIR, and that he's not healthy but sucking - which would mean maintaining that boat anchor contract while trying to replace his contributions on the roster. He's 31, and has five more years at just under $7MM per - I think that if I was the 'Hawks, I'd have preferred to have Saad to Seabrook tied up long-term. I understand their thinking - they think they have a window for another couple of championship runs in the next couple years and they're willing to sacrifice their future for that...but I think that contract is a mistake.

Fayne's a perfectly adequate third pairing option who's getting paid like a good second pairing defenceman. That's on MacTavish. The nice thing is that that contract only runs for two more years.

Given an option of a trade, I'm not sure either team does it. Seabrook may start declining too soon, and you may need his cap for other players over the McDavid championship window, and the 'Hawks certainly don't want an expensive third pairing defenceman who never plays 20 minutes a game for the next two critical years of their window.


I am shockingly not disagreeing with you. I am a big fan of Seabrook, I'd take Seabrook all day long on the Oilers for the next 3 or 4 years, after that it could get real dicey.

I also agree that Fayne is a 3rd pairing NHL dman, the issue with him is is contract. But Willis and even Lowetide would disagree with you and me and argue that based on their spread sheet, Fayne is an adequate second pairing dman. The 2 of them spend parts of April, all of May and all of June beating the drum that the answer to the Oilers problems was to sign Demers and play Demers and Fayne as your #1 and #2 right shot dmen. They talked about that weekly on Lowetide's show in the weekly Willis segment. They both wrote articles on the notion of running Demers and Fayne as their top 2 right shots. They wrote articles and talked on the radio that the Oilers needed to do whatever it took to sign Demers even if that meant overpaying in both money and in term. This is all because their spread sheet said so. That is insane yet those 2 very vocal advanced stats guys believe it to their core.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675165 is a reply to message #675163 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 14:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10218
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 13:57


I am shockingly not disagreeing with you. I am a big fan of Seabrook, I'd take Seabrook all day long on the Oilers for the next 3 or 4 years, after that it could get real dicey.

I also agree that Fayne is a 3rd pairing NHL dman, the issue with him is is contract. But Willis and even Lowetide would disagree with you and me and argue that based on their spread sheet, Fayne is an adequate second pairing dman. The 2 of them spend parts of April, all of May and all of June beating the drum that the answer to the Oilers problems was to sign Demers and play Demers and Fayne as your #1 and #2 right shot dmen. They talked about that weekly on Lowetide's show in the weekly Willis segment. They both wrote articles on the notion of running Demers and Fayne as their top 2 right shots. They wrote articles and talked on the radio that the Oilers needed to do whatever it took to sign Demers even if that meant overpaying in both money and in term. This is all because their spread sheet said so. That is insane yet those 2 very vocal advanced stats guys believe it to their core.


They might not have been wrong.

They're expressing opinions, just like you and I do. Doesn't make them right. Doesn't mean they're wrong. I would have preferred to sign Demers than trade Hall for Larsson. As it stands, Fayne is still the #2 right hand shot on the team's defence, since he's the only other right hand shot on defence.

We'll never be able to assess if they were right, but we're welcome to express our opinion they're wrong. It doesn't make them insane, even if they were flat out wrong.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675146 is a reply to message #675144 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 09:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 12101
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Adam wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 09:19

PlusOne wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 08:36

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 08:12


One of the things I have a problem with when it comes to Advanced stats is they don't seem to give a consistent answer and the results seem to be based a lot on the guy that does them. You can look on twitter and see the debate that happens between guys like Woodguy, Willis, Lowetide, Staples, McCurdy. One guy will post some stats or a link to a chart, then the rest will chime in to talk about how one guy over or under values something or one guy left something out because it doesn't apply.

So what I don't like is there doesn't seem to be one way to do things. A guy can manipulate the numbers to look one way for a player, then another guy can manipulate the numbers differently and a player looks different. So who's right? How can the same player on the same play produce different numbers.


I think as the biggest issue is how new advanced stats really are. For a long time there was very little to go on to judge a player than the basic stats and watching. Then the first couple stats come around and next it blows up.
You are right about no one agreeing but this comes any time you try to make judgement based on A. a new stat. B. A single stat or even a couple C. Come in with a bias.
I find many people these days are using the advanced stats to prove a point that they already planned on making. Very few are going in with an open mind, reviewing a lot of numbers then presenting findings.
As time goes by I believe that some of these new stats will be seen as a fad and some will be used and become part of the standard much like +/- did years ago.

I will admit I dont follow every team really close but has there been a team that publicly acknowledged using advanced stats as a key decision making tool that actually saw success?



Yes, the best teams in the league all use Advanced Stats - although it's almost certain that their advanced stats are different from simple Corsi or Fenwick. Chicago, for example, uses some stats, but they refuse to talk about them much.

There's lots of disagreement even among those using these because there's a tendency for people to get tunnel vision on their own preferred stats. mudcrutch was terrible for this. He was dismissive of the work Staples does around scoring chances and "Neilson Numbers" and was married to the Corsi school. But as Dallas Eakins helped to prove, Corsi shows correlation to goal scoring, but not causation. Simply getting more shots from anywhere may help that stat look better, but it doesn't increase your likelihood of scoring more goals. Shots where the goalie is forced to move are the most likely to score, and while Eakins' system was better at shot suppression overall than what the Oilers had done under Krueger, the shot quality was superb and goalies were sacrificial lambs.

I think it's foolish to marry yourself to one school of thinking - to me, that's making the exact same error that old school saw-him-good guys make. The more tools you have to analyze, the better and if you can take those tools, make projections with them and then compare your projections after each year to see how accurate they are, then you can over time determine what the best tools are.

Advanced Stats are still in their infancy in hockey, and most of the best interpreters of this stuff have all been hired by teams which means we don't get to see and understand what the numbers they use are or how they're determined. I would guess though that those best teams have their video department work closely with their stats guys and they're looking at small plays throughout the game.


Agree with all you said. I think the ultimate in advanced stats can only come when there is puck and player tracking. Knowing who passed the puck to who and where shots were taken, where the goalie was at the time of the shot or before the pass, who was in front of the goalie. You need all that stuff to understand the actual quality of a shot and to give credit to the players that created that quality and allowed it to happen. Then, if you want to try to determine that players value in the NHL overall, you have to take that a step further and try to account for the quality of teammates they have, the quality of competition and adjust for zone starts (something better than just erasing 10 seconds of data after faceoffs). There is a very long way to go.

For now, you can only get that info by watching games and taking a heck of a lot of noted, which I would guess is what teams like Chicago do. They can use some stats without watching to try to get a general idea of players they want to target, but if you really want to understand a guys value and be confident, you need to do the work watching and marking down his involvement in creating and preventing scoring chances. I recall hearing Quenneville say as well that part of the analytics work Chicago does is they do scoring chance analysis of their own games to figure out who is effective with who and what adjustments need to be made.

Where analytics are at their worst is with edge cases like Larsson. People grab onto the most basic corsi stats to paint a terrible picture of him ignoring how he and Greene had the toughest zone starts of any NHL D pairing in a decade or more. They can't fathom that there may be limitations to the stats they're using for outliers and just hide behind the stats like they're a shield of truth that no one can break through.



"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675130 is a reply to message #675128 ]
Tue, 19 July 2016 15:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3698
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 13:15

Xombie wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 12:46

Why are the Canadian teams getting fleeced in all the trades this off season? And why haven't the Flamers and Jets made any?


My theory? Poor management coupled with the pressure to make changes that comes from being in a hotbed market.

Managers feel that inactivity is the worst mistake they can make. It's not, and they keep making worse mistakes instead.


I agree. I also think being in Canada hurts due to our climate and lifestyle. This is a million dollar business. As a millionaire athlete, if you have the choice to play in Florida or Arizona vs any of the Canadian teams, where are you going to pick. I would bet that if a player has a modified no trade, a good chunk of the teams on that no trade list are Canadian and I doubt it has to do with where they are in the standings a ton. If you think about it, as storied of a franchise as a Montreal or a Toronto are, how many really big names actually go there either via trade or free agency? Think about all of Montreal's stars, every one of them were home grown. Sundin was probably the best Leaf in a very long time. They traded for him when he was really young and unproven and he grew up there basically.

So American teams have an easier time getting free agents and keeping free agents. So their teams tend to be stronger. They have less fan pressure to get better because there are less people that give a damn. They have less media guys following them around asking them questions. Edmonton is a population of a little over 1 mill and they have how many media guys in a GM's face? 10-12? How many does an Arizona team have on a usual day, 1 or 2? They have a population of probably 6 times that of Edmonton. So Americans teams are trading from a stronger position.

Case in point. Kevin Shattenkirk has been on the block for a while now. It's been reported that he will not sign an extension with any team especially a Canadian team and that he probably wants to go to Boston or the Rangers. If Shattenkirk would sign an extension, he'd be an Oiler by now. The Blues probably could have gotten a really good player, maybe even Hall for Shattenkirk given they traded Hall for Larsson straight up. What's probably going to happen is the Blues will end up keeping Shattenkirk because no one will trade for him. Then they will either trade him at the deadline as a rental or trade his rights and get some small asset. Getting a really good, top end forward for Shattenkirk is a hell of a lot better than some draft pick the Blues will end up getting.




Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675135 is a reply to message #675130 ]
Tue, 19 July 2016 21:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Team Dean  is currently offline Team Dean
Messages: 624
Registered: April 2010
Location: Central Alberta

No Cups

Weirdly reminiscent of the Subban Weber deal.

Poor poor management. Bad decision making coupled with cheapness.

Zabinejad>>Brassard

So why not give NYR a 2nd rounder too?

Idiots.

Seriously, I could do a better job as GM than 15 current GM's in the league, just by not making stupid trades like this. I could sit on my hands and be better than 15 current GMs.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675148 is a reply to message #675130 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 10:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 1977
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

1 Cup

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 14:21



I agree. I also think being in Canada hurts due to our climate and lifestyle. This is a million dollar business. As a millionaire athlete, if you have the choice to play in Florida or Arizona vs any of the Canadian teams, where are you going to pick. I would bet that if a player has a modified no trade, a good chunk of the teams on that no trade list are Canadian and I doubt it has to do with where they are in the standings a ton. If you think about it, as storied of a franchise as a Montreal or a Toronto are, how many really big names actually go there either via trade or free agency? Think about all of Montreal's stars, every one of them were home grown. Sundin was probably the best Leaf in a very long time. They traded for him when he was really young and unproven and he grew up there basically.

So American teams have an easier time getting free agents and keeping free agents. So their teams tend to be stronger. They have less fan pressure to get better because there are less people that give a damn. They have less media guys following them around asking them questions. Edmonton is a population of a little over 1 mill and they have how many media guys in a GM's face? 10-12? How many does an Arizona team have on a usual day, 1 or 2? They have a population of probably 6 times that of Edmonton. So Americans teams are trading from a stronger position.

Case in point. Kevin Shattenkirk has been on the block for a while now. It's been reported that he will not sign an extension with any team especially a Canadian team and that he probably wants to go to Boston or the Rangers. If Shattenkirk would sign an extension, he'd be an Oiler by now. The Blues probably could have gotten a really good player, maybe even Hall for Shattenkirk given they traded Hall for Larsson straight up. What's probably going to happen is the Blues will end up keeping Shattenkirk because no one will trade for him. Then they will either trade him at the deadline as a rental or trade his rights and get some small asset. Getting a really good, top end forward for Shattenkirk is a hell of a lot better than some draft pick the Blues will end up getting.




I think the whole "players don't want to play in Canada", thing gets way overblown. I'm sure that there are some guys that would rather live near the beach and play golf every day. But I'm sure there are a lot of guys that would also prefer to avoid the gong show that is the US right now. I know I would. I'm not a millionaire athlete, but I'm pretty sure that I could move to Arizona and get a job in my field that pays the same or better than I make now, and buy a 4 bedroom house and golf every day. I live in Vancouver, that's a pipe dream here for most people. But there's no way I would move my family to the US right now.

I think the reality is that guys have many different reasons why they choose to sign where they do. Demers said he took less money to sign in Florida, maybe he really likes living near the beach (he played in SJ and Dallas previously). The Oilers signed the biggest free agent of the year this year in Lucic, and the most sought after defenceman free agent last year in Sekera, so I don't buy the idea that guys won't sign in Canada. And I don't think they had to wildly overpay for either.

Montreal and Toronto have to grow their own stars, because really that's what most teams have to do. Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Benn, Kane, Toews, Keith, Seabrook, Karlsson, Stamkos, have all chosen to re-sign with the teams that drafted them rather than go elsewhere in free agency. I mean go down the list, how many really impactful, elite guys have jumped ship when they became UFA's? The list is pretty small.

As for Shattenkirk, he's from Connecticut and played his college hockey at Boston University. Everyone he knows outside of hockey probably lives on the east coast. Should we be surprised that when he finally will have the opportunity to play wherever he wants that he would choose an east coast US team?

[Updated on: Wed, 20 July 2016 10:44]


Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19 pace: 232 GF / 268 GA (-36)

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675159 is a reply to message #675148 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 13:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3698
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Goose wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 10:29

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 19 July 2016 14:21



I agree. I also think being in Canada hurts due to our climate and lifestyle. This is a million dollar business. As a millionaire athlete, if you have the choice to play in Florida or Arizona vs any of the Canadian teams, where are you going to pick. I would bet that if a player has a modified no trade, a good chunk of the teams on that no trade list are Canadian and I doubt it has to do with where they are in the standings a ton. If you think about it, as storied of a franchise as a Montreal or a Toronto are, how many really big names actually go there either via trade or free agency? Think about all of Montreal's stars, every one of them were home grown. Sundin was probably the best Leaf in a very long time. They traded for him when he was really young and unproven and he grew up there basically.

So American teams have an easier time getting free agents and keeping free agents. So their teams tend to be stronger. They have less fan pressure to get better because there are less people that give a damn. They have less media guys following them around asking them questions. Edmonton is a population of a little over 1 mill and they have how many media guys in a GM's face? 10-12? How many does an Arizona team have on a usual day, 1 or 2? They have a population of probably 6 times that of Edmonton. So Americans teams are trading from a stronger position.

Case in point. Kevin Shattenkirk has been on the block for a while now. It's been reported that he will not sign an extension with any team especially a Canadian team and that he probably wants to go to Boston or the Rangers. If Shattenkirk would sign an extension, he'd be an Oiler by now. The Blues probably could have gotten a really good player, maybe even Hall for Shattenkirk given they traded Hall for Larsson straight up. What's probably going to happen is the Blues will end up keeping Shattenkirk because no one will trade for him. Then they will either trade him at the deadline as a rental or trade his rights and get some small asset. Getting a really good, top end forward for Shattenkirk is a hell of a lot better than some draft pick the Blues will end up getting.




I think the whole "players don't want to play in Canada", thing gets way overblown. I'm sure that there are some guys that would rather live near the beach and play golf every day. But I'm sure there are a lot of guys that would also prefer to avoid the gong show that is the US right now. I know I would. I'm not a millionaire athlete, but I'm pretty sure that I could move to Arizona and get a job in my field that pays the same or better than I make now, and buy a 4 bedroom house and golf every day. I live in Vancouver, that's a pipe dream here for most people. But there's no way I would move my family to the US right now.

I think the reality is that guys have many different reasons why they choose to sign where they do. Demers said he took less money to sign in Florida, maybe he really likes living near the beach (he played in SJ and Dallas previously). The Oilers signed the biggest free agent of the year this year in Lucic, and the most sought after defenceman free agent last year in Sekera, so I don't buy the idea that guys won't sign in Canada. And I don't think they had to wildly overpay for either.

Montreal and Toronto have to grow their own stars, because really that's what most teams have to do. Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Benn, Kane, Toews, Keith, Seabrook, Karlsson, Stamkos, have all chosen to re-sign with the teams that drafted them rather than go elsewhere in free agency. I mean go down the list, how many really impactful, elite guys have jumped ship when they became UFA's? The list is pretty small.

As for Shattenkirk, he's from Connecticut and played his college hockey at Boston University. Everyone he knows outside of hockey probably lives on the east coast. Should we be surprised that when he finally will have the opportunity to play wherever he wants that he would choose an east coast US team?


Name the last really big name guy that signed with a Canadian team? I'm struggling right now to think of anyone bigger than Lucic. I can't think of any big name players that has signed with the Habs in a really long time. Same goes for the Leafs. It's pretty debatable that there is a bigger team in the NHL than the Habs or Leafs.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675162 is a reply to message #675159 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 13:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10218
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 13:48


Name the last really big name guy that signed with a Canadian team? I'm struggling right now to think of anyone bigger than Lucic. I can't think of any big name players that has signed with the Habs in a really long time. Same goes for the Leafs. It's pretty debatable that there is a bigger team in the NHL than the Habs or Leafs.


Sekera?

The biggest names rarely reach free agency, but the last two years the Oilers have plucked the most coveted name off the list.

Clarkson was a pretty big name to Toronto with lots of suitors. Poor decision to sign him to that contract, but doesn't mean he wasn't coveted at the time.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675166 is a reply to message #675159 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 14:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 1977
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

1 Cup

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 12:48


Name the last really big name guy that signed with a Canadian team? I'm struggling right now to think of anyone bigger than Lucic. I can't think of any big name players that has signed with the Habs in a really long time. Same goes for the Leafs. It's pretty debatable that there is a bigger team in the NHL than the Habs or Leafs.


That's my point, name the last really big name player that has signed anywhere. You could go through almost any NHL team and ask, "who is the last really big name that signed there?"

Sekera was the best defensive prospect in the UFA pool last year - he's a solid second pairing defenceman. Demers was the biggest ufa defenceman this year. Also, a solid second pairing player. The top guys just don't get to free agency that often.

This year, everyone was writing pages and pages about where Stamkos was going to sign. Tim Murray came out and said that Buffalo was going to break the bank for Stamkos. What happened? He ended up signing back in Tampa.

In 2014 the top free agents that switched teams were guys like Paul Statsny, Benoit Pouliot (Oilers are really killing this free agency thing), and Anton Stralman. All good, but not great players.



Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19 pace: 232 GF / 268 GA (-36)

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675169 is a reply to message #675166 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 14:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3698
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Goose wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 14:16

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 12:48


Name the last really big name guy that signed with a Canadian team? I'm struggling right now to think of anyone bigger than Lucic. I can't think of any big name players that has signed with the Habs in a really long time. Same goes for the Leafs. It's pretty debatable that there is a bigger team in the NHL than the Habs or Leafs.


That's my point, name the last really big name player that has signed anywhere. You could go through almost any NHL team and ask, "who is the last really big name that signed there?"

Sekera was the best defensive prospect in the UFA pool last year - he's a solid second pairing defenceman. Demers was the biggest ufa defenceman this year. Also, a solid second pairing player. The top guys just don't get to free agency that often.

This year, everyone was writing pages and pages about where Stamkos was going to sign. Tim Murray came out and said that Buffalo was going to break the bank for Stamkos. What happened? He ended up signing back in Tampa.

In 2014 the top free agents that switched teams were guys like Paul Statsny, Benoit Pouliot (Oilers are really killing this free agency thing), and Anton Stralman. All good, but not great players.


That's one way to look at it. My point is, if you take the best players of a UFA class, regardless of your opinion of how good the player is, the better ones are usually signing in the States unless the Canadian team is willing to offer more years or money or both which is usually the case.

Sekera is a good top 4 dman but I doubt any team offered Sereka more money of more term than the Oilers did. I'm a huge fan of the Lucic signing my only concern is the term. Lucic got market value for money but I doubt other teams offered more term than the Oilers did.

It's pretty rare you see a Canadian team getting what most think is a steal of a contract on any UFA. I like Troy Brouwer as a player but at 31, I doubt he gets a better deal than the 4 yrs, 4.5 mill Calgary gave him.

[Updated on: Wed, 20 July 2016 14:31]


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675171 is a reply to message #675169 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 14:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 1977
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

1 Cup

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 13:29


That's one way to look at it. My point is, if you take the best players of a UFA class, regardless of your opinion of how good the player is, the better ones are usually signing in the States unless the Canadian team is willing to offer more years or money or both which is usually the case.

Sekera is a good top 4 dman but I doubt any team offered Sereka more money of more term than the Oilers did. I'm a huge fan of the Lucic signing my only concern is the term. Lucic got market value for money but I doubt other teams offered more term than the Oilers did.

It's pretty rare you see a Canadian team getting what most think is a steal of a contract on any UFA. I like Troy Brouwer as a player but at 31, I doubt he gets a better deal than the 4 yrs, 4.5 mill Calgary gave him.


The question you asked was, "when was the last time a Canadian team signed a really big name player", not when was the last time they signed one of the best free agents from that year.

Regardless, I don't think it's because teams are in Canada that guys don't sign bargain deals during free-agency, that's the nature of free agency. Guys always get more term and money than they probably should. Okposo is a pretty fair comparable to Lucic - he signed an identical deal in Buffalo, Backes is a worse player than both and 4 years older - he got 6x6 from Boston, Frans Nielson was overpaid on a 6 year deal at $5.25MM from Detroit, Andrew Ladd got 7 years at $5.5MM from the Islanders. I don't think anyone is offering any of those guys a lot (if any) more money than those deals.

And yes, more free agents sign with American teams each year. There's also 4x as many American teams as there are Canadian teams, so it's not exactly a fair comparison.

[Updated on: Wed, 20 July 2016 15:01]


Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19 pace: 232 GF / 268 GA (-36)

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675173 is a reply to message #675171 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 15:19 Go to previous message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10218
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Goose wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 14:59

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 20 July 2016 13:29


That's one way to look at it. My point is, if you take the best players of a UFA class, regardless of your opinion of how good the player is, the better ones are usually signing in the States unless the Canadian team is willing to offer more years or money or both which is usually the case.

Sekera is a good top 4 dman but I doubt any team offered Sereka more money of more term than the Oilers did. I'm a huge fan of the Lucic signing my only concern is the term. Lucic got market value for money but I doubt other teams offered more term than the Oilers did.

It's pretty rare you see a Canadian team getting what most think is a steal of a contract on any UFA. I like Troy Brouwer as a player but at 31, I doubt he gets a better deal than the 4 yrs, 4.5 mill Calgary gave him.


The question you asked was, "when was the last time a Canadian team signed a really big name player", not when was the last time they signed one of the best free agents from that year.

Regardless, I don't think it's because teams are in Canada that guys don't sign bargain deals during free-agency, that's the nature of free agency. Guys always get more term and money than they probably should. Okposo is a pretty fair comparable to Lucic - he signed an identical deal in Buffalo, Backes is a worse player than both and 4 years older - he got 6x6 from Boston, Frans Nielson was overpaid on a 6 year deal at $5.25MM from Detroit, Andrew Ladd got 7 years at $5.5MM from the Islanders. I don't think anyone is offering any of those guys a lot (if any) more money than those deals.

And yes, more free agents sign with American teams each year. There's also 4x as many American teams as there are Canadian teams, so it's not exactly a fair comparison.



Not to mention, we really don't know what other teams are offering these guys. Sekera may have been paid head and shoulders above every other offer, or the Oilers could have been offering less money than another team. We just don't know.

We can say with certainty that he chose to sign here, regardless of how cold Edmonton winters can get or the fact the team has been out of the playoffs since sometime during the reign of Henry VIII.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Brassard for Zibanejad [message #675172 is a reply to message #675110 ]
Wed, 20 July 2016 15:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
OilPeg  is currently offline OilPeg
Messages: 616
Registered: December 2010
Location: Winnipeg

No Cups

Some context for the UFA signings in Canada argument, although off topic. Here's a brief scan of the UFA signings from the 5 years and the bigger named players signing in Canada.

2012
O Jokinen WPG
J Schultz EDM
J Hudler CGY
J Garrison VAN
2013
A Ference EDM
J Corvo OTT
D Clarkson TOR
D Briere MTL
2014
J Hiller CGY
S Robidas TOR
M Perreault WPG
R Miller VAN
N Nikitin EDM
D Legwand OTT
M Fayne EDM
B Pouliot EDM
2015
A Sekera EDM
A Semin MTL
M Frolik CGY
2016
M Lucic EDM
A Radulov MTL
L Eriksson VAN
M Martin TOR

While not all are the biggest names, and some were terrible signings, it still points to a willingness for players to play in Canada to a certain extent.



Skookum Jim wrote on Sat, 02 June 2012 00:29

But he (Belanger)'s as soft as room temp. margarine.

Send a private message to this user  

 
Previous Topic:Lupul & the Maple Leafs
Next Topic:Brad Richards Retires
Oilers NHL Minors Speculation For Sale 


Copyright © OilFans.com 1996-2019.
All content is property of OilFans.com and cannot be used without expressed, written consent from this site.
Questions, comments and suggestions can be directed to oilfans@OilFans.com
Privacy Statement


Hosted by LogicalHosting.ca