Why Jagr may not be such of an overpayment, and why Talbot is
by PursuitOfLappyness on Jul 2, 2011 4:59 AM EDT
Email
Print
I'll get right into it.
I am firstly comparing Jaromir Jagr's contract to Nikolay Zherdev. Both were one year deals for enigmas coming out of the KHL that have had a history of locker room issues and strange fears of the defensive zone. Both also had their last NHL contracts with the New York Rangers. When it comes to a one year contract the idea is you're on a tryout, so age and future potential isn't really a major consideration.
Zherdev got 2 million. Jagr got 3.3 million.
If you consider the cap went from 59.4 million to 64.3 million; that's an increase in 8%. If you apply the same increase to Zherdev's 2 million, you get to 2.16 million. Then there's the fact that Jagr still is a better player by his KHL numbers. We'll just be really crude here and look at points. Jagr's last KHL season he scored 50 points in 49 games at 1.02 points/game. In Zherdev's last KHL season before he came to us he scored 39 points in 52 games at 0.75 points/game. Now I know this isn't how contracts work, but we often see analyses on this website of how a player performed in a certain stat per $ so along that line of thinking I'll point out that the ratio there is 1.36 on points/game. Apply that to the 2.16 million and you get up to 2.95 million. Consider the remaining 0.35 million that Jagr got a combination of him being one of the leading offensive players in the history of the NHL and the apparent need to annoy Pittsburgh and break their fans' hearts. I'd say Jagr at 3.3 million and Zherdev at 2 million aren't that different; and Zherdev at 2 million would have been a bargain if Lavvy had played him.
Of course while Jagr's contract may be acceptable, the fact that he is a Flyer is still something I don't quite have my head around. I imagine I won't be able to fully work out how I'll feel until I see him actually wearing orange.
Now to Maxime Talbot. 1.8 million per year for 5 years is what this man received. Over his past 5 NHL seasons he has played 340 games and scored 100 points. That would mean that in an 82 game season just by basic math he would be projected to score 24 points. Looking at his season-by-season stats that seems about accurate. For a comparison, Ian Laperriere in his final 5 NHL seasons (that's kinda sad) played 389 games for 132 points, projecting 28 points/82 games. Lappy was wonderful for our fourth line. What I'm trying to say is, Talbot's good for our fourth line, but I would like some decent offense coming out of our third line even if that line is primarily a shutdown line to put out there against Crosby and Ovechkin. Talbot's not providing that offense. And even as far as a shutdown defensive minded center role is concerned, Talbot was 7th on the Pens in terms of Quality of Competition based on Corsi Rel QoC and started in the offensive zone 54% of the time. I don't think relying on him to be our main defensive minded forward while the likes of Briere and Jagr are enjoying the offense on the other lines is prudent.
Talbot on the Flyers should be a fourth liner. And 5 years 9 million is not appropriate for a fourth liner in my opinion. But hey, it was a crazy crazy day.
This item was written by a member of this community and is not necessarily endorsed by Broad Street Hockey.
28 comments
|
Add comment
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Talbot played 2:55 per game in the best penalty kill in the league last season. He’s combining Lappy’s on-ice play and some of his leadership, with Carcillo’s ability to draw penalties and be scrappy. When you combine those two previously separate roles – and salaries – into one Maxime Talbot, his contract is actually very cost-effective.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
That’s a very fair assessment. The Flyers are moving away from 3 scoring lines. Talbot is an excellent fit for a defensive 3rd line and allows for flexibility to move up and down the lineup as needed.
For 1.8? Yeah, I’ll take it.
"All we want is to be treated like human beings, not to be experimented on like guinea pigs or patronized like bunny rabbits. "
"I don't patronize bunny rabbits."
In fact, Holmgren agrees.
Holmgren said Talbot was at the top of his list when the free agency market opened at noon ET on Friday.
“He’s a guy that we identified right away,” Holmgren said. “We identified Max as one of the first calls that we made. … He’s got a lot of qualities that Ian Laperriere has.”
Talbot said Holmgren mentioned the possibility of him centering the Flyers’ third line, but Talbot said he’s versatile enough to play anywhere on the team’s top three lines.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=568105&navid=DL|NHL|home
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
by MaximumTalbot on Jul 2, 2011 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions
When you combine those two previously separate roles – and salaries – into one Maxime Talbot, his contract is actually very cost-effective.
And yet you went from 2 players to 1, meaning you have to pay someone else’s cap hit to just be on the roster. Sunk cost in your example.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 2, 2011 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Or you could say it allows some flexibility in the type of player you can pick up to fill that spot.
"All we want is to be treated like human beings, not to be experimented on like guinea pigs or patronized like bunny rabbits. "
"I don't patronize bunny rabbits."
Precisely. Rather than having one player as an agitator and one as a penalty-killer, now you can have one agitator/penalty-killer, and one whatever-other-player-you-want! You could dress Shelley for every game, for example, if you felt you needed a fighter. You could sign another moderately one-dimensional player like a defensive specialist, and really stock your team with defense. You couild target another scoring forward to play with Schenn. Or whatever.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Jul 3, 2011 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
But that drives the cost up because it’s not 2 for 1, it’s 2 for 2.
That’s all I’m saying.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 3, 2011 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions
How does it drive the cost up? You still need the same amount of players signed to the team.
"All we want is to be treated like human beings, not to be experimented on like guinea pigs or patronized like bunny rabbits. "
"I don't patronize bunny rabbits."
Right. And you just paid one guy what you previously paid two. You now have to add that additional cost into the equation.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 3, 2011 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Ah I see. It’s the increase in salary that you’re mentioning. Not the 2 roles 1 player that PF mentioned. Was not clear, now I understand.
"All we want is to be treated like human beings, not to be experimented on like guinea pigs or patronized like bunny rabbits. "
"I don't patronize bunny rabbits."
You’re condensing two roles into one player. You therefore don’t need two players for those two roles. You could (in essence) call it a two-for-one, and then the second player you have room to put on the ice is a bonus. It does cost more in terms of salary, but your total effect on the ice is that of three players (previously) for only two roster spots. So Talbot takes the places of both Carcillo (an agitator that could play on almost any wing) and Powe (a penalty-killer and energy guy who could play wing or center on the fourth line). You now have an opening in your on-ice roster for someone else. YES, Talbot’s salary is basically that of Carbomb and Powe combined. And YES, you need someone else on the roster, which costs additional cap money. But the bonus here is the added roster flexibility in being able to add someone else, and not take two spots with two specialists at once.
I’d rather see Talbot play every night than see Carcillo’s $1m salary sitting in the press box, because Lavvy didn’t want an agitator that night. THAT is a waste of salary. Your effective results from salary being spent is increased – you can have Rinaldo sit in the press box (at need) for less than what Powe or Carcillo cost, and you still have the effective use of BOTH previous players skills.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Jul 3, 2011 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
But you’re basically then just upgrading two positions (Carcillo to a more cost-effective Rinaldo; Powe to Talbot).
I really don’t care that much about this distinction. Just saying your initial statement left out the fact that the amount spent didn’t include the additional roster player.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 3, 2011 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions
So no – in short it’s not ‘2 for 2’, or ‘2 for 1’, it is ‘3 for 2’.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Jul 3, 2011 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I can get behind this.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 3, 2011 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Fair. Agreed.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Jul 3, 2011 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
haha, Shake.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 4, 2011 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
playoffs
that is what it is really all about. so, if he can pick up his game in the playoffs, then he will be worth the contract.
it’s probably not a bad thing to have a guy with a stanley cup clinching goal to his credit on your roster.
"It's not me, it's Mike Richards. He's good. Look, I'm gonna make Sydney Crosby's head bleed for superfan #87 right here."
by Matt 'Puckhead' on Jul 2, 2011 12:23 PM EDT reply actions
Do you guys think Talbot will play center on the third line?
I kinda hope not. The Flyers struggled on draws last year—and we already traded away our best faceoff guy—so I was really hoping we could get someone for the third line that’s good at draws. Talbot’s numbers last year weren’t that impressive (48.6%) and they were even worse the year before (41.2%). $1.8M is a pretty hefty price to pay for a fourth line winger though, but at least he is good on the PK. I guess my question is where does he fit in? Third line LW possibly with Schenn and Simmonds? Maybe it’s too early to tell cuz the we may not be done with making moves…
If the Flyers don’t do something radical from here, likely to sign (or trade for) someone else to center the 3rd line while Schenn breaks in on the wing.
I would have preferred Handzus or Belanger, but Arnott might work. Maybe.
In preparation for NHL free agency, thinking of changing my screen name to Bhudde in 10OC.
Didn't see this fanpost before posting in the thread
But I have less of a problem with the amount in the contract (agree it is something of an overpayment) than the length. Almost certainly he won’t be worth that much 4 years from now. More potential AHL “AAAA” (to use a baseball term) players.
In preparation for NHL free agency, thinking of changing my screen name to Bhudde in 10OC.
I think Talbot is a very shrewd signing. We all knew he was a decent two way player, but he’s much more.
Consider last year. Penguinos sans Crybaby and Malkin. Talbot was one of the go-to guys from then on, and he was making great plays, while shouldering an increased workload on either end.
Not to mention he’s absolutely clutch in the payoffs…..
"Ocean: A body of water covering 2/3 of a world MADE for man....who has no gills."
go to guy?
hes a great locker room guy for sure and that is the thing the pens will miss. i think its safe to say he’s a heart and soul guy…but talbot was not a go to guy. 21 points averaging about 15min/game for a full season. yeah he tends to ratchet the play up in the playoffs but keep in mind SINCE game 7 against detroit he has scored a whopping 13g’s in a season and a half as far as games played including playoffs. so so shut down guy, brings a great energy to each shift, but like malkin said…dude has hands of stone. he’ll be missed in pitt for sure, but certainly not because he was a go to guy….
" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009
by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 3, 2011 1:10 AM EDT up reply actions
They leaned on him heavily with the injuries last year. And he played his role very well. Is he a top flight scorer? No. Never said he was. Was he a go-to guy for them last year? Yes.
"All we want is to be treated like human beings, not to be experimented on like guinea pigs or patronized like bunny rabbits. "
"I don't patronize bunny rabbits."
His role was to take on second/third line competition, and he did it markedly worse than Letestu and Kennedy (who got similar-ish minutes), making his presence on the 2011-12 Pens lineup redundant at best.
In what respect was he a go-to? If they needed a defensive stop, he wasn’t on the ice. If they needed a goal, he wasn’t on the ice. If they needed someone to kill some minutes with mediocre results so their skill players could rest, he was one of their options.
Keeping alive the old Vaudeville joke, "I'd rather be dead than play Philadelphia."
I never really understood the man. I mean one minute you think he’s one of the hardest working guys in the NHL (you’ve got to be if you’re that good) and the next minute it seems like he just can’t be bothered turning up.
Simon Gagne may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, he will always be a Philadelphia Flyer.
Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, he will also always be a Philadelphia Flyer.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Jul 5, 2011 4:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
