James van Riemsdyk signs six year contract extension
by Travis Hughes on Aug 30, 2011 12:30 PM EDT
in Philadelphia Flyers News
Email
Print
UPDATE 12:46 PM: Dave Isaac tweets that it's a $25.5 million deal over the six year term, which would put the cap hit at $4.25 million per year. That's more than Giroux makes, and that doesn't make any sense to me. It's not horrible if he can keep progressing, but well.. the focus is certainly going to be on him now, isn't it?
UPDATE 12:39 PM: JvR tweeted that he's "excited to sign a six year extension" and that he loves playing in Philly. No other details (like money and stuff) just yet.
It all started with a few tweets from his agent, hinting at big news on the James van Riemsdyk front. Now, Dave Isaac of Philly Sports Daily reports that according to a source, JvR has signed a contract extension with the Flyers and that the deal will be announced today. The Flyers announced the deal shortly after, but haven't shared many details other than it's a "multi-year" extension.
Reemer is under contract for the 2011-12 season, the final year of the entry level deal that hits the salary cap at $1.654 million per year. Any contract extension would thus go into effect for the 2012-13 season and beyond.
I look at this situation a lot like that of Claude Giroux, who signed a contract extension last season. That deal, a three-year, $11.25 million extension that begins this season, was a bit of a stop-gap between the big deal G will likely get from the Flyers before he's able to become an unrestricted free agent in a few years. He stays affordable for a few more years while still getting a worthy raise, and it's expected that he gets the long-term deal he deserves once that extension runs out.
I'd expect (well, maybe hope is the right word) that JvR's extension is similar -- he'll earn a worthy raise while still not breaking the bank, and it'll be a shorter extension that'll keep him under Flyers control as an RFA at its conclusion. We'll find out details sooner rather than later.
527 comments
|
Add comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Flyers confirm on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/#!/NHLFlyers/status/108576839349440512
Keeping alive the old Vaudeville joke, "I'd rather be dead than play Philadelphia."
I love this but am waiting for the BSH experts to tell me how to feel. I’m sure his Relative Corsi while shorthanded has a lil bit to be desired.
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
His Name is Mudd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo-WjUjzV_Q
@boknows71
by boknows71 on Aug 30, 2011 12:34 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
take a joke lately?
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
His Name is Mudd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo-WjUjzV_Q
@boknows71
That could be my bad, I’m swimming in happiness from the new BBQ place I found in the ghetto near my office.
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
His Name is Mudd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo-WjUjzV_Q
@boknows71
Local Smoke in Neptune NJ(Central Jersey Shore). They have another location near Fort Dix.
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
His Name is Mudd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo-WjUjzV_Q
@boknows71
Hmm that’s a hike, maybe next time I’m visiting the future inlaws we’ll take a trip east.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
wow
hes worth every cent .. imo him and schenn are the faces of the franchise and the two guys i deem untradeable
ehh
im higher on schenn .. i think schenn has 100 point potential .. budding super star .. i dont knock G but hes not a true superstar .. hes a good player .. kinda like getzlaf in anaheim .
you can't be serious
Its okay to be higher on schenn if you like but to say he has 100 point potential and comparing that to someone like
G who has had 70 point season is silly. G is the face of the franchise Schenn has the POTENTIAL to be but is not now. Schenn has played 8 games in the NHL lets not put a crown on him just yet for his good and ours.
ok
Well Crosby was the face of his franchise right away .. Schenn Is that good and ppl will look back at this deal and say wow what a steal for flyers cuz schenn has more talent than both Richards and grioux he’s a phenom
by JIBTA on Aug 31, 2011 5:32 PM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
What exactly have you seen of Schenn that makes you [say he is as good as Crosby and more talented than Richards or Giroux]? Have you ever seen him play? Do you think you know him better than the organization that has watched all of his games and practices, yet chose to trade him away, or do you think they knew how good he was but didn’t they needed a player of that caliber?
A complete list of the players who have had a 100-point season in the last four years: Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby, HSedin, Backstrom, DSedin.
What exactly have you seen of Schenn that makes you put him in that list? Have you ever seen him play? Do you think you know him better than the organization that has watched all of his games and practices, yet chose to trade him away, or do you think they knew how good he was but didn’t they needed a player of that caliber?
The kid has played what, 9 games in the NHL? Take it down a notch.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 31, 2011 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s JIBTA. This is how he rolls.
His handle is an acronym for a claim he once made that the Eagles (that’s American football for you Leaves) fourth round pick rookie was better than their three-time all-star. The rookie ended up playing about half a game in the NFL.
Pro-bowler*
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 Aug 31, 2011 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
whoever it is, i’d say we’re pretty lucky to have been able to trade two franchise faces and still have a handful of others.
and then there’s the goalie, who could surprise many of us and turn out to be worth the price. it’s not completely absurd to be looking back in 2020 and saying he’s been the key. and then there’s the new number one pick.
lots of franchise faces.
by flyersfaninchicago on Aug 31, 2011 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
and then there’s the goalie, who could surprise many of us and turn out to be worth the price.
I’m wondering, what would he have to do personally (meaning, not team accomplishments) to make him worth that money?
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 Aug 31, 2011 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m bummed, when you said near Fort Dix I was hoping that was a generous description and it would end up being a little closer to civilization and err on the Mt Holly side so I could give it a try… but it’s really all the way out there by the base. Darn.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 30, 2011 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions
It depends a ton on the terms of the deal.
If he got paid based on a typical improvement from a 40-points-at-21-years-old season, then I love the move. If he got paid based on the assumption that for the next six years, he’ll play 82 games like he did in the playoffs last year, then I hate it, because you might as well make him play out this year and prove it before you pay him.
In other words, paying him before he actually has a single full season performing at a high level ought to come with a significant discount for the risk the team is taking that he’ll never quite live up to the potential. If they paid him in full based on his potential, then that sucks.
OK, so now the report is 4.25M per year.
That’s about what you pay someone who averages 0.7 points per game, or 55-60 points per year.
Of course, this past off-season saw some sharp inflation for scoring forwards. And I project JvR to be in that ballpark for points — maybe a bit behind, but in the range. So the contract is fair…for a UFA. It’s too much for a player who is still fully under the team’s RFA control.
If I’m reading the CBA FAQ right, this deal covers five years of his RFA status and one year of UFA. That would mean he’s overpaid for several years and the team is taking on the risk that he gets hurt or never develops like they hoped. So I’m not crazy about this, but if I have the RFA/UFA balance wrong then it might not be too bad.
by Eric T. on Aug 30, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
yeah I don’t understand the length at all. why not make it 4 years so you still have the RFA protection if you need it. makes more sense to do 4 years and make him earn it rather than taking up a UFA year as well. homer is an idiot. so fucking shortsighted it makes me nuts.
http://restorations.bandcamp.com/
Arbitration after four years is scary? Every player is up for arbitration at that point in their careers, so I don’t see how that’s worse than locking in four years of overpayment in the hopes that you get two underpayment.
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 Aug 30, 2011 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I
see at this way lets say he has a fantastic couple of years and turns into the power foward everyone thinks he will be. We go into the arbitration on a 39 goal season and 40 assists. Now we are looking at .7 or 8 for the season and if we don’t he can walk.
JVR as an 80 point player? Everyone thinks he will be that? Based on what, exactly?
Since the lockout, that has only been done 50 times. Eight players a year have done what you just forecast, and the list is littered with names like: Ovechkin, Crosby, Kovalchuk, Stamkos, Zetterberg, Iginla, Lecavalier, and Heatley.
If that’s the doomsday scenario, I’m not worried.
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 Aug 30, 2011 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Geoff
just using that as an example of worst case senerio. Does not sound bad until you look at what that 7 or 8 million means to the team when you have other people under contract or that need a contract. I think JvR can hit 40 goals in the next 3 years. I don’t think that is unrealistic. Carter did it and I think JvR is going to be every bit as good.
1) Carter is not JVR. Jeff Carter has taken 260 shots a year for the last four years, and has averaged at least 3.17 shots per game over that time frame. van Riemsdyk took 173 each of the last two years, averaging no more than 2.31 per game.
Jeff Carter was a shooter. He’s a goal scorer. van Riemsdyk is a power forward. The two aren’t comparable.
2) That’s a worst case scenario, and it’s not at all a bad scenario. If JVR is a 39 goal scorer, let the man be paid after he got $3.5m over four years (rather than $4.25m over six).
But the best case scenario is: JVR repeats what he did last year, gets Voracek like money (after all, #7 overall pick, back-to-back 46 point seasons, one year more experience, $2m less) and then signs a two-year deal worth $3.5m still keeping him away from RFA.
Best and worst cases are not things to plan around.
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 Aug 30, 2011 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions
My
opinion on JvR is you are going to see him become a hybrid type player. Like a Ovi or Heately. I think you will see him be a shooter and a power foward who goes to the net. This kid will be special I will say it here and now. He will be the guy you saw in the Playoffs last year and more. He will be the player who can put his head down and make Chara look foolish and he will be the player that can beat any goalie in the slot. I know why Geoff is a Lawyer now it is so hard to argue with him I am tired
His deal will look like a bargin when all is said and done just like Richards and Carters contracts are team friendly this one will be too.
Ovechkin scored 50 goals in the NHL as a rookie at age 20.
Heatley scored 26 goals in the NHL as a rookie at age 21.
JVR scored 15 goals in the NHL as a rookie at age 20, and 21 goals in the NHL his second year at age 21.
Generally, players don’t become superstar-80 point players their third season.
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 Aug 30, 2011 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually, in Timmy Kerr’s first season he posted 22 goals and 23 assists. Second season – 21G 31A. Third season was shortened, but his fourth season (third full one) he posted 54 goals and 39 assists for 93 points. SO your generality needs to look at the development of power forwards, not all forwards. I see them as kinda being like defensemen and goalies – they need a couple seasons to get the hang of it. Cam Neely took four seasons to get over 40 points, and only posted a maximum of 21 goals in his first three. John LeClair only posted 19 goals in each of his first two full seasons, then exploded for 25 in only 37 games his third season.
IN short – you’re wrong.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Timmy Kerr’s third season was 19 years ago, when good goalies stopped 89% of all shots. Same with Cam Neely.
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 Aug 31, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
And Leclair? Or Lucic?
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
If anything, you’re making MY point – power forwards are a valuable commodity that don’t come very often and you need to expend resources to acquire and keep them. Compare JVR to his contemporaries in the power forward club … Lucic makes just over $4m a season. Iginla makes over $7m a season. Nash gets $7.5m; Booth gets $4.25m (oddly similar); Horton gets $4m; Ladd $4.4m; Perry $5.35m; Clowe $3.6m; Staal $8.25; Franzen $3.95m; …. Scott Fucking Hartnell makes $4.2m to fall down and deflect Danny Briere’s shots off his ass. Bobby Ryan got $5.1m a season after his second season, one in which he scored ‘only’ 64 points.
You guys are simply NOT looking at the market value of power forwards. Here’s your sign.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions
You guys are simply NOT looking at the market value of power forwards.
Once again, you’re giving a long list of people’s UFA deals when arguing about a player under RFA control. It’s just wrong. The CBA won’t even allow it in arbitration hearings, because it’s so wrong.
Never played the futures market, have you Eric? If I bid $x on a commodity today, I only make money if the market value is $x+y on the maturity date for the contract. The commodity may actually plummet in value, or may not even exist (swine flu, for example, hitting the pork bellies market). It’s a risk – but obviously plenty of people see it as a valuable one and make oodles of cash from it. A more risk-averse approach may not have offered JVR this contract, but then your potential gains are also limited to (some may say) a much greater degree.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
And AGAIN all of those “power” forwards are proven talent. JVR still hasn’t earned that money. THAT’s what makes it not awesome.
http://restorations.bandcamp.com/
Dot Com stocks? So you’re saying the risk is higher, but the return may be just as good?
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, and you know what happens in the futures market? You get a cheaper price to compensate for that risk you’re taking on. The person you’re making the contract is effectively buying insurance against price volatility.
Here, the Flyers have taken on all of that risk, and I don’t think they got a reduction in price for it. The $1 coinflip should cost 45 cents, and they paid 55.
The person you’re making the contract is effectively buying insurance against price volatility.
Not really. And have you seen the price of oil in the last five years? I understand your coinflip analogy, but it’s not accurate on more volatile markets – and I argue that elite power forwards are the most volatile salaries in the NHL, above elite puck-moving defensemen. Basically, you’re saying the payout is guarenteed to be $1, and I’m contending that there’s also a small possibility of the coin standing on edge after the flip – which pays out $20. As I’ve said, I get your point, but I still see the potential rewards justifying the risk. And no one will know better until at least a few years into the contract.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Sep 1, 2011 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think Eric feels JVR is incapable of outplaying this contract 7 years from now looking back. Eric is saying by signing early and taking on the risk, and via comparable, it should have been a lower number or signed after this season. You are starting to argue something different so we need to rope you back in here. RFA’s come with a discount, so outperforming those contracts with respect to all contracts is not uncommon or odd, in fact it’s expected; the problem Eric had is they signed early, exposing them to risk and didn’t receive a discount, and fact overpaid slightly based on current production. With respect to that, it makes it a mediocre signing, he is not making claims about looking back 7 years from now will 4.25 be good because that’s irrelevant, given the timing of this deal that number should have been lower.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
And I understand all that. But in addition, I feel that as the odds of JVR being a 70+ point player increase, the savings potential of this deal also increase. The risk to the team was that JVR would bust out and post a zillion points this season, and then they’d have to pay him twice this contract value. If that potential was less viable, it certainly is a bad contract, in view of the RFA status and whatnot. I see JVR’s potential as higher or more immediate, I guess – and that’s the difference in perceiving the contract.
But I do appreciate your efforts to keep the discussion both civil and reasonable. I do have a tendency to hare off sometimes …
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Sep 1, 2011 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions
But for that to impact the timing of this deal, he’d have to be a 70+ Point player this season. If he is a 60 to 65 point player this year, he signs roughly the same deal at the end of the season, at least going by comparables. I don’t know why you assume this deal disappears. That’s the point of all this, he has to be a 70+ point player this year for an equal value or better value deal to be off the table at the end of the season, and that’s a fairly low probability, lower than a 50 point season which would come with a discounted contract.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
He isn’t and I’m not. He still is slightly overpaid given production until this point and they still assumed risk.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
I agree. I too as of know feel he is overpaid but this contract starts next year so we will have to see what happens. Every time a player sighns a contract the team is assuming a risk.
The point of signing it now is to give yourself a discount, not wait and see. We’ve been over this ad nauseam. This was an overpay now, waiting and seeing is irrelevant to Eric and I’s point.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
how can it be an overpay now? The contract starts NEXT year. So if he explodes this year it will look extremely good.
If he’s more likely to perform at a level where the contract will look too expensive than at a level where it will look cheap, then it is an overpay.
It’s the coinflip again. If he explodes this year, the coin came up heads and you’re happy to have a dollar no matter what you paid. But that doesn’t make 55 cents a fair price — you can decide whether the price is fair without waiting to see the outcome.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
sorry I just disagree what you are basically saying is that whatever he does this year has no bearing on the future contract. yes it is sighned but it could look good or bad but this year counts. If he explodes good contract if he does not maybe not so good
Because you signed it now. To use Eric’s excellent analogy once again, if you pay $0.55 for heads in coin flip, and it comes up heads, it doesn’t mean $0.55 was a good price, the price should have been $0.50 before the flip.
Therefore, again, what happens next year, or the year after, or the year after is irrelevant because you paid $0.55 for a good valued at $0.50 (not the exact odds here obviously, just keeping the example). If you still don’t get that, I’m sorry, and there is no point in talking this any further.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
MY
original repost didn’t post but I will try again the contract starts next year so what happens this year will give us a clearer picture of the new contract
You still don’t get it. It doesn’t matter what happens this year. You just paid for a coin flip in 2011, but that coin flip won’t happen until 2012, and you paid $0.55 in 2011 for heads in 2012. If if it comes up heads in 2012, it doesn’t change that you overpaid for the coin in 2011. If you paid the proper price for the coin in 2011, $0.50, it would have been that much better of a deal, and you also paid fair value.
Getting lucky doesn’t mean you paid the proper price, it means you got lucky. This is about as clearly as I can say this. The Flyers paying a bad price on this contract is not related to how the coin ends up after this season, the fact is, they left money on the table.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
This has nothing to due with luck. This is performance two entirely different things. Pulling a slot machine is luck, playing poker has skill. The Flyers took a calculated risk and that is what every contract is they paid extra for his first two and very expensive first two year of UFA
It’s an analogy, OMG. Yes, they miss calculated JVR’s value, is that better. They overpaid today for potential, when they just could have as easily waited. So they paid today to take a calculated risk. Unfortunately for them, it is less likely for him to make the contract a steal than it is a great deal. This deal doesn’t go away at the end of the year if the Flyers wait. And the UFA deals are already calculated in to it,a nd it’s still an overpayment while banking on potential and signing early. I’ve told you Eric and I both considered the UFA years in the overpay analysis (it’s not a horrendous overpay, it’s slight, but it’s slight while assuming extra risk). It’s not smart business, it’s a MISCALCULATION. Sorry if you don’t like the analogy, but the analogy involves calculation. What’s the odds of a coin being head every time, 50%, so why pay a 5% premium, that’s the analogy, not the luck portion, Holy hell.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
as you call it the 5% premium. That is the risk factor. You are paying that premium because as an organazation you are confident that the premium is worth the risk. If it doesn’t work then you take the “5%” as a loss. But if you take the risk and it works the reward is well worth the minimal risk that you took. We have a different way of looking at it our philosophies are different. In every buisness you have to take a risk. You are getting angry (at least it looks that way by your Holy hell comment) because I don’t agree with you. It is okay if I don’t agree with you its allowed does not mean I am right and you are wrong or vice versa. The Flyers and every NHL team takes these risks all the time.
The disagreement doesn’t bother me, I’m frustrated because you continue to not understand the concept, I could care less if you agree, but the continued lack of understanding is frustrating.
1. I’m not arguing risks aren’t taken in signing contracts. That’s a completely different subject, and you need to stop expanding on to that because it’s outside the point of this discussion. Now ignore all the similar risks taken in literally every single contract, and focus on the key one here that we’ve been talking about; the risk of signing the contract now as opposed to 6 months or 12 months from now AND including in the contract payment for unrealized potential. They could easily sign the same contract after this season with JVR having a 65 point year, why sign it early without receiving a benefit from the Flyers perspective.
2. The Flyers took the risk, they should receive a discount here, not pay a premium. You don’t pay a premium to take on a risk, you never do, that’s bad business.
You can disagree all you want with me it’s fine, but what I need you to understand is that my problem is that Jerry paid $10.99 for a product worth $8.50 today. In a year, that exact same product has a 25% chance of still being $8.50, a 65% chance of being worth the $10.99 he paid for it, and a 10% chance of being worth $14.00. The expect value of that product a year from now is $10.67. I’m disappointed because Jerry paid an extra $0.33 than the products expected value. Add in the issue that the product’s true value for each expectancy was 2% lower than what I gave in my $ figures, and that’s another negative.
None of this says that the product can’t be worth $14.00 a year from now, it just says that Jerry paid too much for it.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
You said a couple posts back that they SLIGHTLY overpaid in the contract. As an organazation what they are doing is taking that slight risk and weighing it against a HIGH reward. If the slight risk doesn’t pan out than not so bad. If the high reward pans out they are in much better situation which more than outwieghs the slight risk. What they are doing is making an investment. Millions do it everyday. If you invest in a company you do the reaserch look at the performance of the product and gamble that your investment will work. When you were using the $50 example. Of course nobody would invest $55 now because all it will ever be is $50. The Flyers did the research and think if they put up $55 now it will be $75 in six years not $50.
1. You don’t need to lecture me on risk, or risk analysis. I’m the leading expert at my site, and one of few company wide; it’s what I do for a living. Seriously, I don’t want to get in to the basics of risk analysis here and in to a back and forth. Further, the disconnect isn’t over risk/reward but rather where you are evaluating this at, which lead me to…
2. You still don’t understand the concept here. The reward you are talking is the discount included in RFA contracts; they typically come at a 40% discount and the point of having ELC’s and RFA’s on your team is to provide value; a team expects their RFA’s to out perform their contract when compared to all other contracts. Ignore the value of this contract looking back in 7 years, at it’s end. Everyone fully expects it to be a great value at the point, that’s the point of RFA contracts. Instead, analyze it in this regard, sign the contract today versus sign the contract at the end of the year. So in order for this to be a reward, JVR has to break out and have a 75+ point year. If he is in the 60-65 point range, you look at something similar, and if you are in the sub 55 point range, you are looking at a contract that is for less. The problem is the likelihood for JVR earning a lower value contract is much higher than the likelihood for him earning a larger value contract. 25% * $100 > 5% * $400. That’s the issue we have. And we have that issue based on comparables.
3. Again, I don’t care if you disagree. If you want to say that they should have done a similar contract to Lucic, the only similar deal to JVR’s, and set a new precedent of overpaying while also paying on potential, then that’s your prerogative. I happen to think it’s bad business. The coin analogy wasn’t meant to be a 1 to 1 example, it’s meant to be simple enough for everyone to understand while relating to the point of overpaying based on expected value.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
first of all buddy I could care less what you do for a living. I am the Logistics corr. at Phizer and I have my Masters in the field does not mean a whole lot in terms of the NHL. What you are saying about the RFA is fair but I more see a team expecting to win on a ELC and being close on RFA. None the less take into account that they bought two UFA years and they come out as you said slightly overpaying. Now take into account contract increases over the next 6 years and their obvious thinking that JvR will be a 60 to 70 point guy in the very near future and then contiue to get better from there and you have them taking a calculated risk. Now if you want to argue that they are wrong and he won’t be a 70 point player well they are willing to take that risk because the reward is far greater. They break even 60 to 65 any Eagles have been doing and have been praised in the process.
How do you figure?
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 Sep 6, 2011 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Now take into account contract increases over the next 6 years and their obvious thinking that JvR will be a 60 to 70 point guy in the very near future and then contiue to get better from there and you have them taking a calculated risk.
A) Contract increases affect UFAs, not RFAs, which means this doesn’t matter to JVR;
B) The Flyers just jacked up the RFA increase on this deal, and nobody in the NHL is happy about it;
C) You’re paying JVR half a million more for four years in the hopes that, five years from now, JVR provides value on a $5 million cap hit.
So you’re saying: Overpay for four years and get 70+ points in year five and six is a win. But to the rest of us, this deal could have waited a year where it’s more unlikely JVR earned this contract than it is likely.
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 Sep 6, 2011 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
His cap hit is not $5million. How you got 70+ in year 5 from what I said is beyond me. What I said was 60+ in 1 to 3 (very early) so in worst case 3 years is his 2nd year of new deal. At 60+ in his 2nd year breaks even than gets better. Continues improvment and in season 4,5,and 6 is at 70+. That would mean overpay first year slightly Second and Third break even and 4,5,and 6 they win. Not to mention that 5 and 6 they are his first year of UFA. Now RFA contracts have gone up not even close to the rate of UFA but have gone up. I love when you have to call in for back up twice:)
Geoff I understand your point. Consider this what happens if he explodes how do you know you get the same deal. What if he gets same money and you don’t get the two UFA years. Or worse yet he says I only want a 3 year deal and then he continues get even better each year after. I think all of what you are saying was looked at. We don’t know all of what took place in negotiations. I think the Flyers are taking a page from the Eagles, target your future stars and get them into low risk high reward style contracts. They are willing to take that $1 million gamble on a $8 million return.
If it got you off of trying to explain the basics of risks in investments, then I’m glad I brought it up…I never said it related to the NHL, rather I didn’t need a lecture from you to explain something, especially when the something you are explaining is missing my point.
So again, you are missing my point. Now please, stop and take a step back.
Now, I’m not looking at this from a, “is this a good deal over the entire contract”. I expect it to be from the fact that it is an RFA deal. And again, I’ve already factored the UFA in to it when I say it’s a slight over pay (which I think it would be if he had a 55 to 60 point season at the end of this year anyway). Okay, with those 2 down (and with no need to ever bring them up again hopefully), back to my point.
I’m analyzing this from the perspective of signing the deal today, versus at the end of the season. The only chance he has to impact that is this year. Are we on the same page? I want to know so I can either continue or give up.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
You didn’t get me off of anything. This contract and all contracts are a risk investment for a team. Listen buddy I don’t know who you think you are talking to here but I have spoken to you with respect at all times over the course of the conversation. I am a 35 yro grown man your patronizing tone is very disrespectful. I would hope that you can lose it. If you don’t agree fine but to try and talk to me as though I am a child its quite annoying.
Seriously? I’m trying to get us on the same page. You are constantly misunderstanding my point, and it’s making this completely unproductive. So because I try to get you to stop going down that path, and start over again from a common starting place I’m being disrespectful?
Seriously? I’m trying to get us starting at a common point so this misinterpreting can stop.
If you can’t handle it fine.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Also
This contract and all contracts are a risk investment for a team.
Please reference when I said earlier to basically the same thing:
1. I’m not arguing risks aren’t taken in signing contracts. That’s a completely different subject, and you need to stop expanding on to that because it’s outside the point of this discussion.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Especially if JVR is smart enough to catch on to the “if you elect arbitration against the Flyers, you’re not coming back after this contract” trend. I’m amazed people still try, at this point.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 30, 2011 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions
that could be just as scary
Did not say it is scary said it could be scary Geoff if you are going to complain about not being quoted properly than you must quote properly,.
That’s a fair point.
Although, I didn’t quote you, nor is my comment dependent upon the supposed misquote, nor did I ignore your point in making my reply.
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 Aug 30, 2011 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s actually 4 RFA years & 2 UFA years. Under the current CBA, you become a Group 3 UFA when you are 27 years old on the June 30th before the new season begins. This past June 30th he was/is 22, but he’ll be 23 when this contract becomes effective on July 1, 2012. So he’ll be 27 after 4 years of the new contract, which is 5 years from now.
I’m really really tired so I hope that made sense. Long day today.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 30, 2011 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions
And now I see that you figured it out and switched it to 4/2 down below, anyway.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 30, 2011 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions
6 years according to JVR’s twitter
Follow me on Twitter: @larrykoz.
by Flyers and Terriers on Aug 30, 2011 12:38 PM EDT reply actions
Glad that JvR has signed an extension but, like boknows said, I am reserving my judgement until I hear the deals of the contract.
Avidly opposed to Ilya Bryzgalov becoming a Philadelphia Flyer
@Mitchman88 on Twitter
by Mitchell Green on Aug 30, 2011 12:39 PM EDT reply actions
Oh crap, its a 6 year deal! This either could be really good, or really bad. Homer is involved, so I’m obviously leaning towards really bad.
Avidly opposed to Ilya Bryzgalov becoming a Philadelphia Flyer
@Mitchman88 on Twitter
by Mitchell Green on Aug 30, 2011 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
G, JVR, Schenn, Couturier, Simmonds, Vorchek, Coburn, Mez, Carle, Bobs.
Did I miss anyone in the “young guys” group?
We got the 4 aces for baseball, 3CBO in football, and the Russian Walls in hockey. Philly is no longer the blue collar losers, were primetime baby!
Good game, Lets eat
James van Riemsdyk’s deal is $25.5 million over six years. #Flyers
Avidly opposed to Ilya Bryzgalov becoming a Philadelphia Flyer
@Mitchman88 on Twitter
by Mitchell Green on Aug 30, 2011 12:45 PM EDT reply actions
Well, that’s likely an overpay.
Keeping alive the old Vaudeville joke, "I'd rather be dead than play Philadelphia."
Yeah, but in 2 years it could be the best contract in the NHL. High risk/high reward it looks like.
We got the 4 aces for baseball, 3CBO in football, and the Russian Walls in hockey. Philly is no longer the blue collar losers, were primetime baby!
Good game, Lets eat
At first glance, I am not happy at all.
Avidly opposed to Ilya Bryzgalov becoming a Philadelphia Flyer
@Mitchman88 on Twitter
by Mitchell Green on Aug 30, 2011 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Over pay now, save some later, pay again once UFA. I prefer the way they did Giroux’s. Initial reaction is a gag reflex. Need to take some time to do my comparables though.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Yeah, I’m with you on that.
Visit the BSH Store :: Get us on Twitter :: facebook, too!
Broad Street Hockey - Covering the Philadelphia Flyers. Have you accepted Ilya Bryzgalov as your savior?
by Travis Hughes on Aug 30, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
But at the same time, JVR is looked up for 6 years at $4.25M, where G could be getting near $6M in 3 years. Its an overpay now sure, but could be a steal in the future
We got the 4 aces for baseball, 3CBO in football, and the Russian Walls in hockey. Philly is no longer the blue collar losers, were primetime baby!
Good game, Lets eat
1. Claude will be an RFA still. 2. Even if Giroux gets say 5 years at $6mil per, that averages out to G at $5.16 per over 8 years. I just don’t like the timing and the numbers right now. Cap just had a huge jump this past off season, it may not move next off season, I would have preferred some patience on this one.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
He’s locked up for 6 years at $4.25M, yes. But he was due to be an RFA for most of that time, and how many RFAs get much more than $4.25M? After a career-best 40 points?
This is pretty much the way I feel about it. Everyone seems to be drooling over his 11-game streak of running like hot fire when the likelihood of repeating that performance in the coming season is pretty slim.
http://www.drivingplay.blogspot.com - The Blog with Three First Lines
Pfft, he’s definitely going to have a full season exactly like those 11 games.
52 goals, 0 assists. Book it.
yea
but this is the way the Flyers have always played it. Richards and Carter were consructed the same way and now everyone raves that they have team friedly deals.
Now that’s a legitimate point.
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 Aug 30, 2011 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s not really the best comparison, they both got “life” deals. And Carter had a 3 years RFA deal before his life deal. If they did a life deal for Carter when his first RFA was up (or even a JVR like deal), they would have over paid by a lot because it was done before the cap stagnated, and prices changed. If anything, Carter is a great example of why you wait, especially after rises in the Cap 9and especially when you know a new CBA is coming up and you are paying on projections before this season, Carter’s life deal was after he was a very known quantity). Also, in Richards and Carters life deals, that have the back end to bring down the cap hit and make them good deals. There is no “life” part of JVR’s deal, and no back end that’s bringing down the cap. When this deal is up and he is a UFA, they have to dish out big bucks or let him walk. Frankly I don’t see how this is in anyway comparable to Carter and Richards.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
That’s more than Giroux makes, and that doesn’t make any sense to me.
I hate to draw parallels to the Talbot argument I’ve been having with Geoff … but I have to. Geoff claims that an overpayment now never ever pays off in the long run – regardless of market inflation or increased output from a player. I say that you overpay for a Mercedes (or a used Toyota) because you have confidence in it retaining value and productiveness. Sure – if you crash it the next day, you lose out, but shit happens. The ceiling on JVR is unknown; it could be Timmy Kerr numbers, or it could be Mikael Renberg numbers, or it may be Alexander Daigle numbers. You pays your fee and gets your ticket to the show.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 30, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
This argument would make sense to me if the deal covered several UFA years, but I just don’t really see the upside on it.
Giroux’s deal pays him 3.75M per year for his RFA years. I don’t think JvR’s ceiling is as high as Giroux’s, and his current production isn’t even close. Let’s say JvR’s RFA years are worth something like 3M.
I believe this deal covers four RFA years and two UFA years (he has 5 RFA years left, but one of them was under the old deal, so the extension covers the remaining four). So if he’s paid $12M over those four RFA years, then he’s getting $6.75M per year for the two UFA years that the Flyers bought out. That sounds like an overpay.
This deal is fair value if he’s almost as good as Giroux, getting 3.5M per year for the four RFA years and 5.75M per year for the two UFA years. He’d have to become one of the top few players in the league for the deal to become good value.
Is that possible? Sure, we saw that potential over the 11 playoff games last year. But it’s a lot more likely that he doesn’t live up to that than that he exceeds it. Throw in the CBA risk, and I just don’t see the value here in signing the deal now over making him prove it over the coming year first.
Your analogy is terrible — you say you overpay for a Mercedes because you have confidence in its value and productiveness, and in the very same paragraph say that JvR’s future productiveness is unknown and could be Alexander Daigle. This is like paying the Mercedes blue book value to get a car from a guy who you think owns a Mercedes or two, but you’re not sure what other cars he has or which one he’s going to give you. When you have the option to wait until he pulls the car out of his garage and then pay fair market value for it.
The counter argument is that true power forwards are actually harder to find than skilled centermen. We’ve said as much in this forum previously, when we tried to define ‘power forward’. So you pay more for a more rare item. And, as I pointed out to Geoff above, power forwards tend to blossom in season 3 or 4 of their career – so expecting JVR to post 80 points is not unreasonable. It is on that basis that he has been paid: on being an 80-point or more power forward. What are his (assumed) peers in that group in the league currently? Iginla, who makes $7m a season (and I might point out, also began his climb to superstar-status in his third season)? Milan Lucic, who only came out in his fourth season and makes $4.08m a year?
The odds on the Mercedes being Daigle are minimal – and that’s what you’re paying for. If you wait until you’re sure it’s a good car (like buying a certified pre-owned one) you end up paying for something that may have had it’s best years behind it, and you still pay the same premium.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions
And, as I pointed out to Geoff above, power forwards tend to blossom in season 3 or 4 of their career – so expecting JVR to post 80 points is not unreasonable. It is on that basis that he has been paid: on being an 80-point or more power forward
First of all, drop the “or 4” from your argument. If you think this extension is better than waiting until after season 3 to sign him, a blossoming in year 4 is irrelevant — you have to show that it’s likely that he was going to have a huge season in year 3, one that would make it impossible to sign him for ~3.75-4M per RFA year.
So throw Cam Neely out — he had 14 goals and 20 assists in his third year, which would lower JvR’s price tag, not raise it. Kerr’s shortened third season wouldn’t have raised the contract bar any either.
Second of all, naming a couple of players over the last 20+ years doesn’t prove anything. If you want to predict that he’s going to have a huge year in year 3, you need to come up with a thorough list of people who had similar starts to their careers and look at how many suddenly showed up with 80 points in year 3. It’s not enough to count the people who did that; you also need to count how many didn’t. I’m not going to bother with an exhaustive list because the burden is on you to provide support for your claims, but here’s a brief indication of why you can’t evaluate a contract on the assumption that he’s going to have 80 points this year:
Player Yr1 G P | Yr2 G P | Yr3 G P
JvR 15 35 | 21 40 | ???
Frolov 14 31 | 24 48 | 21 54
Marleau 13 32 | 21 45 | 17 40
Perron 13 27 | 15 50 | 20 47
Morrow 14 33 | 20 44 | 17 35
Stafford 13 27 | 16 38 | 20 45
Iginla 21 50 | 13 32 | 28 51
You’re really going to look at that history and say it’s so likely that JvR blossoms into an elite 80+ point player next year that the team had to sign him now instead of letting him play it out for a year? That the risk of him outperforming expectations is much greater than underperforming? Because 20 years ago, a couple of great players had their first great seasons in their third or fourth year?
Remember, you’re giving him a salary that’s just a hair behind Giroux for the next six years, without knowing what the next CBA will look like, and saying you think it’s as likely as not to be a good value contract, that you think it’s better than 50% that he does much more than Marleau or Iginla did in their third years. I just don’t see it, personally.
by Eric T. on Aug 31, 2011 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
JVR is Jarome Iginla!!!!
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t see that he has to produce that next year in order to make a six year contract worthwhile. If he averages that production over the entire span of the contract, it will be more than enough. Sure, he may not hit 80 points this season (hence my qualification that it may be year 4). You’re evaluating the entire contract on the basis of next season’s numbers. Could the team have waited to sign this contract? Sure. But what happens if he DOES have a monster year in ‘11-’12? You gonna pay him the Iginla money, in the $7m a year range? It’s a gamble, sure. But it’s a gamble I’d make every time, knowing what I know (which one hopes is less than the FO does). And even if he doesn’t increase over last season by very much, you have still locked up that potential for another FIVE seasons! And at the end, he’ll only be 29, so you’ve gotten a promising young player who has shown serious potential locked into a contract that isn’t much higher than other 20-goal forwards are getting, and you have him guaranteed for the meat of his playing career.
I don’t see it as a bad move – especially given the turbulent climate following the departure of Richards and Carter. The team FO made a commitment to him as a player for six years – the best assurance they could give a strong young player in the wake of such roster upheaval. Is there some value in making their players more comfortable with the team? Absolutely. Was that maybe the driving force? Perhaps – but the real long-term economics aren’t detrimental either, so long as JVR isn’t a bust.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t see that he has to produce that next year in order to make a six year contract worthwhile.
He has to produce that next year in order to make signing that contract now worthwhile. If he has only a modest improvement then they could have just as easily signed the same deal next year, with less exposure to risk from the CBA uncertainty.
You’re evaluating the entire contract on the basis of next season’s numbers.
No, I’m evaluating the decision to sign him now on that basis. He was under team control; the only reason to rush to make the deal now is for fear that he might wildly outperform in the coming season.
But what happens if he DOES have a monster year in ‘11-’12?
Yes, in the event that he has 70+ points in the coming season, the decision to sign him now will look wise. In the event that he has under 50 points, it will look like a mistake. What I am trying to establish is that I don’t hate the deal because I expect him to be in the middle ground, but that it is more likely that he underperforms the deal than outperforms it in the coming season, and that there was no reason for the team to take that risk.
But it’s a gamble I’d make every time, knowing what I know (which one hopes is less than the FO does).
This is where we differ. You seem to think it is more likely that he will have a 70+ point season next year than I do. A lot of talented players never make that jump, and many of the ones that do don’t do it in precisely year 3. So I’m much more concerned about the risk of underperformance or a dramatic change in the CBA than I am about the risk of JvR doubling his point output this year.
And even if he doesn’t increase over last season by very much, you have still locked up that potential for another FIVE seasons!
Which they could have done after next season. If he signed this deal after two 40-point seasons, he would’ve happily signed it after a third.
The team FO made a commitment to him as a player for six years – the best assurance they could give a strong young player in the wake of such roster upheaval.
It’s an unrelated point, but surely you see the irony in calling out a long contract extension as great assurance for a strong young player in the wake of the upheaval caused by the Carter and Richards trades.
Yes – the irony wasn’t lost, but really what other encouragement could they offer?
And yes – I guess I do see it more likely that JVR has that breakout year this season. As they say in the stock market, past performance is no guarantee of future success. And looking at the other power forward types in the league, it did take most of them a few seasons to get up to speed, and they all make around $4m a year, and they (mostly) average around 60-70 points per season. So maybe the FO jumped the gun on the signing by one year, and maybe they saved themselves a whole shitload of money. We’ll know at the end of this season, and not before.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
CLARIFICATION – the 60-70 point power forwards make that $4m a year. Anything over that, and you’re in the stratospheric salaries like Eric Staal and Jerome Iginla.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, JVR’s peers make similar salaries. See my reply to Geoff above – but Booth. Lucic, Ladd … these guys are all in the $4m a season range.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Booth’s deal covers three years of RFA and three of UFA and was signed after he had 31 goals and 60 points. Factoring in the increased cost of UFA years, he’s getting less money per year, after he had more demonstrated production.
Ladd’s deal covers one year of RFA and four of UFA and was signed after he had 29 goals and 59 points. Again, less money per year when you factor the RFA issue, after more demonstrated production.
Lucic is the only one that supports JvR’s contract, and guess what? It was widely considered an overpayment.
It may have been considered an overpayment for Lucic … before last season. Now they’re effing thrilled. It’s a risk, assuredly – but not a bad one. I say JVR is a similar risk.
And I still guess I am undervaluing this UFA vs RFA thing, mostly because everyone seems to agree that power forwards are more valuable than gold or even platinum. If you can get one, get one. You’ll end up spending that $4.2m on a free agent like Hartnell, who doesn’t have nearly the potential ceiling that JVR does. Or you may actually have to spend more later, once JVR gets to that ceiling. The RFA/UFA difference I see is more between Lucic or JVR at $4m against the UFA deals for similar players (Staal, Nash, etc) well over that number. How do you research the contract terms or previous statuses (so I can properly compare Lucic and JVR, for instance)?
David Booth was also a -31 last season and only scored 40 points, just to toss out numbers. But he got his contract after (really) two-and-a-half seasons of production, one of which saw him get 10 points in 48 games, then one with 40 points in a full 73 games (when he was 22 years old – like JVR). Sure – they paid him on the 60-point basis, but they aren’t clamoring for his head down there either after last year. Power forwards are worth it.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
And I still guess I am undervaluing this UFA vs RFA thing
Here’s a list of other underpaid players:
- Sam Gagner got 2.3M/yr after three 40+ point seasons in a row
- Gilbert Brule got 1.9M/yr after having 37 pts in 65 games
- Nikolai Kulemin got 2.4M/yr after two 30+ point seasons
- David Krejci got 3.8M/yr after a 73-point season
- Blake Wheeler got 2.6M/yr after three seasons averaging 42 pts
- Bryan Little got 2.4M/yr after a 30-goal, 50-point season
- Eric Fehr got 2.2M/yr after having 39 points in 69 games
- Nathan Gerbe got 1.4M/yr after having 31 points in 64 games
- Michael Frolik got 2.3M/yr after two 20-goal, 40-point seasons
- Peter Mueller got 2M/yr after having a 20-goal, 50-point season
- Kris Versteeg got 3.1M/yr after having a 20-goal, 50-point season
- Mike Santorelli got 1.6M/yr after a 20-goal, 40-point season
- Guillaume Latendresse got 2.5M/yr after a 27-goal, 40-point season
- Patric Hornqvist got 3.1M/yr after a 30-goal, 50-point season
- Sergei Kostitsyn got 2.5M/yr after a 23-goal, 50-point season
Care to guess what they have in common? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not that they’re all power forwards.
I can pretend to be Geoff, and nitpick one name off your list to discredit the whole group, but I won’t.
You’re saying they were taking RFA contracts. I’m saying I look at that list and NONE have the potential that JVR has (except maybe Wheeler. I like his play.). Versteeg (only using him because of marginally more familiarity) may well be a 40-50 point player, and got the roughly $3m per that one would expect thereof. If that’s all I expected of JVR, I’d offer him $3m too. But I’m taking away his RFA status (a cost to him, of sorts) and giving him a salary that he can earn by increasing his production by the same margin that he did over the course of last season (in terms of PPG, not compared to the previous year). Add to that the power forward multiplier, and I still disagree that it was a bad move. Sorry. And frankly, no one can say definitively I was wrong – until after the contract is spent.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Eric isn’t saying it’s definitively wrong, he is saying the Flyers are assuming unnecessary risk by extending now and also giving a slight overpay while assuming that risk. That seems perfectly reasonable.
And please stop throwing around this nonsensical power forward multiplier term. For something that is so hard to properly define, especially from one person to the next, it is utterly ridiculous to then also give it a multiplier. Personally I don’t think JVR plays a physical enough game to be considered a true power forward, you probably disagree; who’s right? We could debate for hours, and all that proves is that this multiplier talk for being a “power forward” is utter nonsense.
Seriously, my head can’t take any more slams in to my desk.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
I concede the first statement.
I do not agree to the second – even just the perception may create the market, and I am far from the only one referring to JVR as a power forward, or claiming that such players are worth more.
And as to the third, I suggest going for a walk and following along on your smart phone to get away from the desk.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
so JVR is comparable to Lindros, Roenick, Leclair, Neely, Tkachuk, Shanahan and so on?
I don’t see that at all. He’s a big powerful forward but that doesn’t put him in the class of power forward. not even close especially considering the average forward these days is 6’1"-6’3" 200+ lbs. All would be considered power forwards when the real ones were around.
http://restorations.bandcamp.com/
JVR has the potential to be Tkachuk or Leclair, yes. We will just have to disagree. And considering that the most respected prospect rankings used around here – Hockey’s Future – ranked JVR as a 8.0B and one of their examples of 8.0 forwards is Keith Tkachuk … I rest my case.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Sep 1, 2011 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions
That doesn’t prove he is a Power Forward which is Val’s point. He listed more physical players, something he feels JVR lacks. I can find other prospects that have the same ranking in Hockey’s future that aren’t PF’s. Stop changing the point he is trying to make. You rested a case that was never made. Frick.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Perhaps I misread the intent – I was looking at talent and potential. And as I say below, if John Leclair can be a power forward, then JVR has that potential.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Sep 1, 2011 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s hardly proof that someone described at the draft as a PF would be called a PF by casual fans, but to actually come up with a definition of such a player, and then have a list of players that fit it is an entirely different matter. Get me 10 people who can agree on a definition of Power Forward for me on this board over the course of a day, I’ll be impressed. To me, he just isn’t physical enough, he has the size, sure, but to me that’s it; big bodies with skill and speed do not fully encompass “power forwards”.
Further, by any chance, do you think those “multipliers” might not be premiums because of a player type, but rather because of proven production and UFA versus RFA years. I’m pretty sure GM’s look at production, situational usages, even more advanced stats etc. and pay based on that much more than this idea of power forward. It’s convenient to say there is this multiplier based on perception, but it seems other factors actually play the larger rolls in your examples.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Whoa – somehow lost my longer post here. Shame – I;m almost outta time.
I am willing to say that your definition of power forward is the more common one – but I am saying that there are exceptions, like John Leclair, who weren’t known for their hitting as much as their puck control and crease physicality. JVR can be that player – or hell, as he gets more confident he may hit more. I don’t know.
Eric has beaten the RFA/UFA thing into my head, and although I think you don’t apply those variances to ‘franchise players’, I am willing to say perhaps they overpaid in teh short term. Long term, no one knows. It may yet be a great deal – it’s a risk.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Sep 1, 2011 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Again, I’m not trying to argue that looking back 7 years ago that this deal won’t have value when you compare him to all other deals in the league for similar players. What I’m saying is the Flyers left money on the table because they signed this deal early, taking on risk, which should have given them a discount. Add to that, that this deal is already over paying him in the short term for his current production. All I’m say here is when they extended him, the Flyers left money on the table while assuming risk, therefore it wasn’t good from their perspective. I think JVR outplays this contract over the 6 years of it, but that doesn’t mean that it was a shrewd contract by the Flyers.
Make more sense?
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
the Flyers left money on the table because they signed this deal early
Possibly. The potential exists that it will save them money. It is more likely you are correct here, but it isn’t a horrible risk (or cost).
this deal is already over paying him in the short term for his current production
Absolutely agree. They are banking on him continuing the progression we saw over the course of last season, which would increase his point production above 60 for the season (I estimate).
I think JVR outplays this contract over the 6 years of it, but that doesn’t mean that it was a shrewd contract by the Flyers.
I dunno about that. At some point, the recent upheaval has to cost the franchise something it its negotiations. Just like the Islanders or Oilers have to pay more to get people, the disregard for loyalty that the FO has shown lately means they don’t have as much goodwill coming from players (or more specifically players’ agents). So this may have been an effort to restore confidence in the FO – and what’s the value of that? It also, as you concede, may be a great investment in the long term. That’s the risk – it may blow this season, but how abotu the next five?
I think we’ve come to somethnig resembling a mutual understanding, but that may be the best we can get. I say take the risk on the bigger longer contract, you say shoulda waited and seen another season. No idea who is right.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Sep 1, 2011 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions
At some point, the recent upheaval has to cost the franchise something it its negotiations. Just like the Islanders or Oilers have to pay more to get people, the disregard for loyalty that the FO has shown lately means they don’t have as much goodwill coming from players (or more specifically players’ agents). So this may have been an effort to restore confidence in the FO – and what’s the value of that? It also, as you concede, may be a great investment in the long term. That’s the risk – it may blow this season, but how abotu the next five?
I’d agree if JVR weren’t under team control as an RFA, but he is. If we were discussing UFA’s, then sure. But even with the changes, if you sit and tell JVR he is getting his extension some point this year,a nd we will have talks throughout the year, why is there a risk of him walking when he can’t? There isn’t. That’s where the gap is I believe between us, it’s a team control perspective of an RFA versus a premium for poor markets for UFA’s.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
This list wasn’t there to try to establish JvR’s worth. It was to try to settle the RFA vs UFA thing.
Put another way: I wasn’t saying “Frolik got 2.3M after two 20-goal, 40-point seasons so that’s what JvR should get.” I was saying “RFA status is the reason Frolik got only 2.3M when Fleischmann got 4.5M and Connolly got 4.9M and Laich got 4.5M and Kopecky got 3M and yadda yadda yadda.” And that therefore you shouldn’t compare JvR to UFAs when trying to estimate his RFA salary.
Geoff claims that an overpayment now never ever pays off in the long run
News to me.
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 Aug 30, 2011 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I reserve comment on Talbot’s contract for the longer post I am planning. Perhaps I will include JVR’s contract as a talking point about market inflation and salary commesurate with player-type availability.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions
JVReemer21: Want to thank mr snider and flyers management for treating me well and showing confidence in me #firstclassorganization
As much as everyone wants to hate on Homer and the group, remember, most fans wanted to trade JVR for anything they could get early in the season. Gotta respect them for not listing to the WIP crowd.
We got the 4 aces for baseball, 3CBO in football, and the Russian Walls in hockey. Philly is no longer the blue collar losers, were primetime baby!
Good game, Lets eat
“Gotta respect them for not listing to the WIP crowd.”
Well, on this one particular player at least…
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook. Did you get your copy of the 2011 Eagles Annual yet?
If they listened to the WIP crowed, we’d still have Richie, and probably not have Bryz. Carter, well, yeah, the WIP crowd hated him.
We got the 4 aces for baseball, 3CBO in football, and the Russian Walls in hockey. Philly is no longer the blue collar losers, were primetime baby!
Good game, Lets eat
The WIP crowd was turning on Richie, too. Been reading a lot about how glad they are that “that bum is out of here”.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
I thought they already had turned on him, with the whole questioning his captaincy thing.
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
"I think there is virtue in pissing off idiots." - Fehr and Balanced
Yeah, I think so, too, but he still had vocal supporters—just the detractors were getting louder by the minute.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
i lead that
glad that bum is outta here parade .. carter >> richards
I dunno… going all out for a goalie seems like exactly what the WIP crowd wanted.
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook. Did you get your copy of the 2011 Eagles Annual yet?
WIP hated Carter, were turning on Richards, and desired a superstar goalie “for the first time since 1975.”
Homer’s actions this off-season have been nothing short of a pure fellatio of the WIP crowd.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I feel like “not listening to the WIP crowd” is a fairly low bar to be setting.
by ohnickels on Aug 30, 2011 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I don’t want to trade JvR, but at the same time, JvR hasn’t done much to earn $4.25 mil a year. This deal is based on what, JvR’s “potential”?
Avidly opposed to Ilya Bryzgalov becoming a Philadelphia Flyer
@Mitchman88 on Twitter
by Mitchell Green on Aug 30, 2011 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
If JVR can stay consistant, and put together a 30-30 year, then his contract would be on par with other other 30-30 players. Horton makes $4M, Hartnell makes $4.2M, And I would take JVR over both them right now.
We got the 4 aces for baseball, 3CBO in football, and the Russian Walls in hockey. Philly is no longer the blue collar losers, were primetime baby!
Good game, Lets eat
Yeah, but he’s under team control. Why pay him for 30-30 production on the hopes that he will put that together, when they have every opportunity to wait and see if he can do it before they pay him?
Yeah, couldn’t agree more.
Visit the BSH Store :: Get us on Twitter :: facebook, too!
Broad Street Hockey - Covering the Philadelphia Flyers. Have you accepted Ilya Bryzgalov as your savior?
by Travis Hughes on Aug 30, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Ohh, Im not arguing that, Im just saying its definitely market value fair.
We got the 4 aces for baseball, 3CBO in football, and the Russian Walls in hockey. Philly is no longer the blue collar losers, were primetime baby!
Good game, Lets eat
You’re saying it’s market value fair for a 30-30 player. We don’t yet know that JvR is a 30-30 player. He looks like he could be, but not everyone lives up to their potential.
UFA vs. RFA is completely different. RFA’s sign for roughly 40% less than UFAs who change teams. UFAs who remain with their team sign for 20% less.
Comparing Leino to JVR would actually make Leino underpaid. Which I don’t think anyone would claim.
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Leino has, by all accounts, pretty much shown his full potential. And it’s not bad – around 20 goals a season, and 60 points on a player who has decent puck skills and speed. He’s 27, and averages a half-point per game in the NHL, with expectations of closer to three-quarters point per game under the coming contract. For that sort of player, Leino is overpaid at $4.5m a season.
JVR has shown flashes of absolute dominance during the past season. He’s still inconsistent about it – but he’s still only 22 years old. He is also averaging about a half-point per game in his NHL experience, and his contract pretty much expects point-per-game totals from him (35 goals, 45 assists? Not absurd.). JVR is a power forward, a rare commodity in the NHL. He brings good vision, great puck protection, and a developing ego that gets him to charge the net and score. For that sort of player, $4.25m a season is a goddamn bargain.
For gods sake – this is the team that gave Scott “Sillylegs” Hartnell $4.2m a season for six years! For vitrually the same contract, I’d MUCH rather have JVR, wouldn’t you?
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Because Scott Hartnell’s contract as a UFA is similar to James van Riemsdyk’s contract giving up three years of RFA status.
If I lived in the overly-simplistic world where there is no such thing as restricted free agency, yeah, I’d agree that $4.2m for JVR is better than $4.2m for Hartnell. Except we have such things as RFA, which means nobody is bidding up JVR’s price. Which means he could have been had for about $1m less.
Except the Flyers wanted to buy all his RFA years, and some UFA, so they paid more. It’s not a terrible contract, but continually ignoring the differences in RFA and UFA is infuriating.
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 Aug 31, 2011 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe I don’t understand then what RFA means. Doesn’t it mean other teams can, in fact, bid up his price??? Or is this when DG gets into the discussion of what a Class-4B RFA means and doesn’t?
I admit – I do not know all the rules, nor do I know where to even look to find out what RFA status JVR has. Perhaps that will reduce the value of the timing of the deal in my eyes, but the deal itself is still good for all involved.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
From what little I know it protects them from only 2 things.
Arbitration and an offer sheet.
Offer sheets are rare enough that its unlikely one would be made or not matched by the Flyers, and Arbitration seems pretty darn unlikely as well.
My son was born in Ottawa (Go Senators!) to a Father (Go Flyers!) and a Mother (Go Canucks!) who's families root for two different hockey teams (Go Habs!)(Go Bruins!) Little Maxwell is going to have such a confusing life.
Doesn’t it mean other teams can, in fact, bid up his price???
They can, but they don’t.
For one thing, there seems to be a handshake agreement among NHL GMs not to do this, as very very few players get signed to offer sheets, even premium talents like Doughty and Stamkos.
For another, if a team signed him to a deal that paid him as much as this deal, they’d have to give up their first and third round picks. To give him a raise over 4.7M, they’d have to give up a first, second, and third round pick. They’d have to see him as a ~5.5-6M player to make that worthwhile. Which is why he’d have to have a huge leap forwards this coming year to expect a contract significantly more than the one he got.
They can, but they don’t
Umm, what about Ryan Kesler and Dustin Penner? Arguably both power forwards, and both received offer sheets. In fact, they are two of the six players that have. SO, that evidences the rarity and value of power forwards, and makes it even more imperative to lock them up away from RFA status. And if (admitted if) JVR does make that jump to over 60 points, those offers of $5+m would come rolling in.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Nobody came through with the links? I know this is late, but if you want to actually understand, see here:
CBA FAQ, Chapter 2: Restricted Free Agent Status
CBA FAQ, Chapter 3: Qualifying Offers, Offer Sheets, and RFA Compensation
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 31, 2011 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions
As always, thank you kindly. I’ll try to wrap my head around them and see if it changes my mind.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Sep 1, 2011 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions
“Market value” for a player that wouldn’t hit the market for four years.
Yeah, that’s fair.
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 Aug 30, 2011 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Gotta respect them for not listing to the WIP crowd.
These are highly paid individuals expected to be capable of being able to run a high profile organization. Giving them credits for not listening to idiots on a radio station is pushing it. And I’m not trying to slight the organization here, just saying that not listening to WIP is hardly cause for praise.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Not really. The Flyers only make money from the fans. If the fans aren’t happy with the team, they won’t go to games/buy merc/pay parking/etc…
WIP wanted to blow up the Phillies farm system fro Pence, and the Phillies did it. WIP wanted to trade McNabb and Kolb to make Vick the starter, and the Eagles did it. Its actually very common for teams to DO what the fans want them to do.
We got the 4 aces for baseball, 3CBO in football, and the Russian Walls in hockey. Philly is no longer the blue collar losers, were primetime baby!
Good game, Lets eat
The fans go to the games whether or not they are happy with the team. See Eagles for most of their existence.
WIP had nothing to do with the McNabb trades; timing and planning did. Vick was a happy accident.
The Phillies overpaid for Pence, absolutely; they did not, however, “blow up” the farm system to do it.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
I don’t know by what measure you can say the Phillies “overpaid” for PEnce, but that’s another discussion I guess.
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook. Did you get your copy of the 2011 Eagles Annual yet?
I agree
When a group of prospects are traded to one team, it is impossible to determine if it was an overpayment for at least 2-3 years. Meanwhile, Pence has balanced our lineup and is batting well over .300 since he got here, playing a good to great RF (disregarding the play last night where he slipped on the warning track the same way old people slip on ice) and has fit in perfectly with the ever-important team chemistry that Charlie produces.
I dunno, I think evaluating whether the trade was fair is different from evaluating whether it worked out well for them.
If I pay you 55 cents for the right to be given a dollar if a coin comes up heads and nothing if it comes up tails, I’ve overpaid. If the coin comes up heads, it worked out well for me and I won’t regret it, but that doesn’t mean I got a good price.
Taking need into account though, we got what we supposedly needed (this is a different argument altogether, I didn’t think we needed him at the time of the trade but now that he is here and playing well, I am glad we made the move) for pieces that may or may not have even had a chance to contribute to the big team at any point in the near future. So what we paid had less value to us than it did, or will have, to the Astros.
I disagree. Pence only improved the Phillies marginally, whereas they gave up multiple years of cost-controlled players.
The only way for the Phillies to have paid less value in the trade is if none of the prospects ever make it to MLB.
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 Aug 30, 2011 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions
But the guys they gave up aren’t a lock to ever make our big league roster, cost controlled or not. Every year we have prospects who peak in the minors, and that includes supposed blue chippers.
While one of these guys could become the modern day equivalent of Ryne Sandberg (a trade throw-in who turns into a HOFer), they had no chance of contributing in the next 2-3 years, whereas Pence does.
That doesn’t matter. There is no “window” of competitiveness unless the organization makes it so by trading away all its cost controlled talent.
Trading away a Sandberg is never good IMO. It’s the organization’s fault if they didn’t know what they had.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
But hasn’t this organization shown that they have a pretty good grasp on what they have and what it will turn into?
Look, I admit that the fact that Pence has played better in Philly than he was in Houston (which was better than he had in his career) makes it easier to justify the price that was paid (for some of us, and I was on the fence when the trade was made). I admit that having young, cheap talent (Vance W, Stutes, Bastardo, Dom Brown) that can come up and contribute is key to sustainable long term success.
We traded 4 unknowns for 1 known for the next few years. We still have potential contributors in the minors, its not like those 4 guys were the last 4 prospects we had. And as some of these big contracts fall off the books, we can selectively replace them with other known quantities.
Nobody disputes this. But you’re trading four unknowns, some of whom could be stars, that have infinitely more value to the team than the guy they brought in.
And the guy they brought in provides so little value, both in who he’s replacing and in how much he can improve the team.
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 Aug 30, 2011 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Infinitely? I think that is a little over the top and overly dramatic, isn’t it?
Pence’s value is: RH bat behind Howard that has moderate power and (right now) great average, allows Dom Brown to move to LF next year and beyond and now we don’t have to overpay for a FA in the off-season, at the worst an average defensive RF, a fit in the locker room, the fans love him.
How the value of 4 guys who may never see a big league roster (and at the very least are anywhere from a couple of years to a few years away from cracking a big league roster), but eventually could have infinitely higher value than Pence is beyond me.
Infinitely? I think that is a little over the top and overly dramatic, isn’t it?
Yes, it is.
Pence’s value is: RH bat behind Howard that has moderate power and (right now) great average
Who they already had in Shane Victorino.
allows Dom Brown to move to LF next year
Which he doesn’t know how to play. Plus the fact that Brown has outplayed Ibanez all year anyway, but it’s Brown who must be upgraded…
now we don’t have to overpay for a FA in the off-season
Because Pence will come cheap? I get that he’ll be cheaper than a random free agent, but it’s not like they just saved a whole lot of money. Ibanez got $10m this year, Pence is surely getting a raise from $7m, so… where’s the savings?
How the value of 4 guys who may never see a big league roster (and at the very least are anywhere from a couple of years to a few years away from cracking a big league roster), but eventually could have infinitely higher value than Pence is beyond me.
Because Pence doesn’t improve the Phillies chances of winning the World Series much at all. One player just doesn’t do that. And he isn’t providing better value as explained above. So they went from an average MLB rightfielder to an above-average one, marginally improved their team this year, and lost four extremely valuable pieces in the future.
The only way the Phillies win that deal on value is if the four guys never make the Majors. Otherwise, there’s a lot of value going to Houston and only some going to Philly.
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 Aug 30, 2011 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow, looks like I missed out on an interesting discussion!
/looks at his .sig.
For the record, the vast majority of us at TGP concur with HH and Geoff, that the Phils overpaid for Pence.
I led the charge to encourage the Phils to ignore Pence and go after Bourn, whom the Phils could have had for very cheap. For non-baseball fans, this is sort of like eschewing Patrick Sharp for Pavel Datsyuk, assuming they were the same age, with Detroit only wanting 3rd round draft choices for Pavel, while Chicago wanted 2 #1s for Sharp.
Of course, to continue the above analogy, to play like Pence has, Sharp would have scored about 10 goals in his first 15 games!
There is not much relationship to JvR’s signing, however, IMO.
Hunter Pence will not guarantee a WS, but, then, neither does Carlos Beltran.
Hey, I was trying to find that story posted at TGP that looked at win probabilities added by hypothetical moves, and how a team already making the playoffs doesn’t gain from adding a piece. Do you know where that is?
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions
^THIS. We gave up much less for Lee two years ago. Granted, we have Pence until control a tad longer, but Amaro will just buy him out anyway because it seems he’s terrified of arbitration. Honestly, I don’t love Pence as a player—I always thought he was overrated—but I want him to do well. Doesn’t mean they didn’t give up a shitload to get him with 2 top 10 org prospects and another one that was PTBNL who’s ceiling is very high. Meh.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
Wow you are horribly naive if you think the cause of the moves are based from the fan’s wishes. What the GM wants and what the fans want aren’t mutually exclusive in every case, and when they overlap, saying an organization made a move to keep fans happy is just, well, silly. Especially when some of those organizations have a waiting list for season tickets.
I mean come on, please tell me you know better.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Fans don’t have 100% control over the movements of a team, but your just plain stupid to think they have no say whatsoever. Fans to teams are like stockholders to major corporations, if you make them unhappy, they will turn on you. Remember, pro sorts teams ARE just a business, and the business is to make as much $$$ as possible. If your not willing to make the target market happy, then your going too see less and less sales. See Apple in the late 90’s, or Nintendo right now.
We got the 4 aces for baseball, 3CBO in football, and the Russian Walls in hockey. Philly is no longer the blue collar losers, were primetime baby!
Good game, Lets eat
Obviously teams are a business, teams need to generate revenue. Fans don’t have any kind of say on players; if the team is in a good market and you put together either an entertaining or winning product, you generate revenue. Fans don’t have to agree with moves for that to happen. You can piss off fans by trading fan favorites away, or making controversial decisions (like bring in Vick in the first place), but if the product works at the end of the day, your revenue stream will be just as strong. Obviously fans are a big part of that revenue stream (in fact, we as fans dictate players salaries in a very meaningful way), but fans having any say on team personnel is idiotic. The biggest effect a fanbase can have on a team (where there is not any cash flow from revenue sharing, which is actually an important caveat, but I’ll skip it for now), is, if, on the whole, they are impatient and that impatience is reflected in the revenue (not the case in Philadelphia). If fans stop going/watching and the league doesn’t have an effective revenue sharing system in place, the organization has to change the focus. Often in those cases though, the organizations aren’t very good at putting a successful product together anyway (note successful product doesn’t have to be with the players fans agree with, it just has to be successful). The fans wants and wishes of individual parts of the the whole are insignificant \because those opinions will be manipulated by the success/entertainment of the organization, and the marketing the organization uses on itself and it’s players.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
sorry I didn’t read this before I responded. we said pretty much the exact same thing.
http://restorations.bandcamp.com/
also the Flyers aren’t a publicly held corporation. apple, nintendo both are. no shareholders to appease in hockey, so the fans only recourse to state their disproval is to not buy merch or go to games. that’s it. that’s all you get to voice your displeasure and that’s the only way the owners would ever listen. and that will never happen because the team wins constantly.
http://restorations.bandcamp.com/
I was going to bring up that sports teams aren’t the Packers, they’re the exception. Fans have total control, but that control is limited my their lack of ability to let’s say unionize. If fans would strike (tickets, TV, merch, fantasy, websites, papers, magazines, etc), then they could exercise their control, but since, at the end of the day, most fans are in it for entertainment, completely ignoring sports on all levels simultaneously isn’t an option for them.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
how ever it’s a business the thrives on winning. so long as a team is winning they have no need to listen to the fans calls to trade players. and it’s kind of absurd that you honestly believe that what the fans want has anything to do with how the FO runs. Winning is what brings the fans not which players are playing for them.
http://restorations.bandcamp.com/
FTFY
What theGMowner wants and what the (WIP) fans wantaren’t mutually exclusiveare in alignment in every case,
Hunter Pence will not guarantee a WS, but, then, neither does Carlos Beltran.
Just for funsies, I’ll use the names you did, but in the different direction:
1. The fans wanted to scrap the prospect pool and ship off Dom Brown with them for Pence, the Phillies did neither.
2. WIP wanted Ricky Williams, they drafted Donovan McNabb
3. The city didn’t want a dog killer, they brought in Vick
The organization made the moves that made sense in their eyes to improve the on field product as a whole. If the on field product as a whole is successful, the fans will learn to like new individual pieces of that whole.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Found this interesting from John Buccigross on twitter
he was a beast in the playoffs last year. 7 goals in 11 playoff games. Looks fast and furious, Rick Nash like.
Now I think they are friends since they talk a lot on there or at least I’ve seen them talk so maybe he’s just talking up his friend?
Never change PPP
Terms not yet released, but James van Riemsdyk has signed a 6-year extension in Philly. Since he’ll be eligible for a NTC in 5 years, I’m assuming that’s when Holmgren plans to trade him.
- Draglikepull
Don’t deny you didn’t think about that!
Original member of the Mike Weber bandwagon!
To make up for lost time, the Sabres signed six seasons worth of front-loaded cap skirting contracts in one week.
You know you love us.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 30, 2011 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Here it is in a nutshell
Last year, 64 forwards carried a cap hit of 4.25M or larger. Scott Gomez was the only one who played at least 75 games without having more than the 40 points that JvR posted.
He’s being paid on future potential instead of current production. On a six-year contract, that’s a lot of risk. For a player who’s still an RFA, it’s a needless risk.
by Eric T. on Aug 30, 2011 1:12 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
This also means that either Carle or Coburn could be goners next year
We got the 4 aces for baseball, 3CBO in football, and the Russian Walls in hockey. Philly is no longer the blue collar losers, were primetime baby!
Good game, Lets eat
Rec’d. Exactly.
Avidly opposed to Ilya Bryzgalov becoming a Philadelphia Flyer
@Mitchman88 on Twitter
by Mitchell Green on Aug 30, 2011 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
For a player who’s still an RFA, it’s…needless
That’s really the only part that bothers me about it.
Keeping alive the old Vaudeville joke, "I'd rather be dead than play Philadelphia."
This reminds me of the Phillies giving Howard that huge extension before it was necessary (even though he’s already established and there’s no more potential really for increase in ability at this point). That was a much bigger overpay than this, obvs, but everything’s grander on the MLB scale with no salary cap.
What kind of plane is it? Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big ol' Tylenol.
Expected
Even though it’s a bigger number than G, which is a little odd, I kind of figured they would be proactive in locking up JVR early.
"When people see me sack the quarterback, I want them to see Jesus." - Reggie White
Twitter @JoshBernat17
by jbernat17 on Aug 30, 2011 1:14 PM EDT via iPhone app reply actions
Does the fact that JVR was a #2 overall pick play into him getting a higher cap-hit than G?
Just a thought. I know G was still a first-rounder though.
"Can I refill your eggnog for you? Get you something to eat? Drive you out to the middle of nowhere and leave you for dead?"
by PraiseMartyMoose on Aug 30, 2011 1:19 PM EDT reply actions
Obviously I’m not privy to the inner workings, but I have to believe the negotiations are based on current production and future potential. What they saw out of him this past year in the NHL will play strongest into that, and what they saw the year before will play in to a lesser extent.
What they saw four years ago in juniors to get him drafted high shouldn’t be much of a factor at this point.
College, not juniors.
Visit the BSH Store :: Get us on Twitter :: facebook, too!
Broad Street Hockey - Covering the Philadelphia Flyers. Have you accepted Ilya Bryzgalov as your savior?
by Travis Hughes on Aug 30, 2011 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
The only way this makes sense to me is if Holmgren legitimately thinks JVR will be a 40-50 goal story THIS YEAR. That’s…quite the gamble. Like you said, it seems needless when he’s under control for 5 more years. Also, why do the Flyers love taking away young players’ financial incentive to improve?
by mantis toboggan on Aug 30, 2011 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Can I just take a moment to LOL at Panotch announcing on Twitter that a source tells him the deal is worth 25.5M roughly a million minutes after everyone in the twitterverse knows it?
It’s always a good moment to LOL at Pantoch.
Nicotine, Valium, Vicodin, Marijuana, Ecstasy and Alcohol
I bitch about things at twitter
This is all an overreaction by Homer and Snider because Panotch said we have too many centers.
by hebrew hammer on Aug 30, 2011 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions
2012-13 Flyers
Forwards (9)
Daniel Briere, Scott Hartnell, Claude Giroux, Brayden Schenn, Max Talbot, Wayne Simmonds, James Van Riemsdyk, Jody Shelley, Andreas Nodl
Defensemen (5)
Kimmo Timonen, Chris Pronger, Andrej Meszaros, Andreas Lilja, Oskars Bartulis
Goaltenders (2)
Ilya Bryzgalov, Sergei Bobrovsky
Total Players Under Contract: 16
Cap Space Heading into Next Season: $13,036,071
So in summary, the Flyers will have approx. $13 mil. to sign 6 players for next season (4 forwards and two defensemen). Likely, that will include re-signing Matt Carle and Braydon Coburn and potentially making an RFA offer to Jakub Voracek. Just some perspective after the JvR extension.
Avidly opposed to Ilya Bryzgalov becoming a Philadelphia Flyer
@Mitchman88 on Twitter
Logan Couture was also 21 last year and had a 32 goal, 24 assist season. He signed a 2-year extension at 2.875M per year.
JvR had a 21 goal, 19 assist season. He gets six years at 4.25M per year.
The dollars will equal out if Couture gets a 4-year, $20M extension in two years when he’s still an RFA. So if JvR’s production catches up to Couture’s, then they will have gotten a fair value, and taken on extra risk in the meantime.
I didn’t want to hate this deal. Please stop posting.
Keeping alive the old Vaudeville joke, "I'd rather be dead than play Philadelphia."
Heh. Sorry, I’ll say it again — I really don’t hate it. I think it’s a bit of an overpay and somewhat unnecessary, but it’s not going to be an albatross unless something goes really wrong with JvR.
If he elevates from 20/20 this year to 25/25 next year and is in the ~25-30 goal, ~50-60 point range after that, would ~3M per year over the RFA part of the contract and ~5M per year over the UFA part seem reasonable? That seems in line with past contracts and comes out to a ~3.7M cap hit; factor in some inflation and we’re in the ~4M range.
If he turns out to be a ~25-30 goal, ~50-60 point guy, then it’s a reasonable deal. I think that’s a reasonable projection, so I don’t hate the deal. But I think they could’ve made him play out this year and signed him to the deal after they saw a year of 25/25ish production and what the new CBA looked like, and it’s that extra risk that I don’t like.
A little help please
Being a sabremetrically ignorant hockey fan (I am open to learning), I am curious if there are any advanced stats that can project the probability of JVR becoming an elite power forward.
You keep posting “if he can be’s” on goals/assists/points, but I have no idea how realistic they are. Can JVR turn into a 30+ goal scorer? a 35+? dare I ask, a 40+?
I know the playoffs last year are a small sample size, but it seems like he may have flicked the proverbial switch, and since it was in the playoffs, he was doing it against decent teams. Is it naive to think that he may be well on his way to reaching his full potential (that being an elite power forward)?, making the extension a bargain in the later years? I am interested to read other’s thoughts.
It’s possible to make a reasonable guess at the coming year, but a long-term projection is hard, because people are all over the map. I tried to make a list of players with comparable performance, but it was an uncompelling list.
The most relevant statistical analysis that springs to mind is something that showed that on average, players reach about 90% of their peak production at age 21 and stay there until about age 29. Obviously there’s a big range around that, but it’s a starting point.
I think it’s fair to guess that JvR is earlier in the learning curve than most, partly because we’ve seen flashes of production that make it look like his peak could be a lot better than the 40 points he achieved last year and partly because coming out of college instead of major juniors had him less well-prepared. So I bump his projection up a little over what that curve suggests based on a hunch that he’s still on the upslope.
I also think it’s likely that his ice time will go up quite a bit from 14:32/game last year, and his PP time will probably go up from 1:19/game. If he gets 18 minutes total, including 3 minutes of PP time, that alone would elevate him to around 50 points. His ice time will get tougher with the two heavy lifters gone, but he’ll improve some as well.
In the end, predicting a young player’s future is more feel than math, and comes with a wide uncertainty. My personal sense of JvR is that he ought to be somewhere in the 50-60 point range this year and will peak in the 65-75 point range. I’d be disappointed if he never cracked 60 and surprised if he became a PPG player, but both are certainly possible.
My thing with JVR is that all his goals are garbage goals. That’s great, every team needs someone like that, but… His assists will come almost exclusively from his linemates making plays and luck, while his goals will come almost exclusively from his linemates and luck.
He definitely has 60 point player written all over him – maybe not next year – but 75 point peak screams “one fluke year” to me, rather than a steady increase to a zenith.
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 Aug 30, 2011 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
My thing with JVR is that all his goals are garbage goals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq7e1O8sZvU tho
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
@chasew12 on Twitter
Sounds like selective perception to me. I hope you have some stats to back that up, which you may, but I best see them for statements like that to fly.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
I hope he’s not serious, because if he is, we all need to go “Carter’s empty stats” on his ass.
Visit the BSH Store :: Get us on Twitter :: facebook, too!
Broad Street Hockey - Covering the Philadelphia Flyers. Have you accepted Ilya Bryzgalov as your savior?
by Travis Hughes on Aug 30, 2011 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought he was joking at first. Hard to tell, not being around Geoff for a while has hampered my translation skills. If only he came to your bday.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
We went to a bar that was without a dart board. He would’ve had a miserable time.
Visit the BSH Store :: Get us on Twitter :: facebook, too!
Broad Street Hockey - Covering the Philadelphia Flyers. Have you accepted Ilya Bryzgalov as your savior?
by Travis Hughes on Aug 30, 2011 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Buy the Maple Street Press and look at where JVR scores his goals and where he takes his shots.
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 Aug 30, 2011 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Buy the Maple Street Press? Like, go down to Maple Street and buy a printing press?
Visit the BSH Store :: Get us on Twitter :: facebook, too!
Broad Street Hockey - Covering the Philadelphia Flyers. Have you accepted Ilya Bryzgalov as your savior?
by Travis Hughes on Aug 30, 2011 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Hey, why not. He can afford it :)
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 Aug 30, 2011 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Does it have shot type data, with rebounds listed etc? If all it says is that he takes shots from in close, that could just as easily tell me that he does a good job taking/getting the puck in high % scoring areas.
And you know I’ll order one once free shipping is available, I’m cheap.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
No, it doesn’t have shot type data :( But it does have shot target data.
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 Aug 30, 2011 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Regardless, i need something to back up your initial statement. You hold others to the “prove it to me” standard, so I want to keep it fair for them. All other snark is just for fun since I know you miss me.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
I know. I’m saying, all his goals come from in close. He had the 5th lowest distance for all Flyers shots, same with wrist shots.
The only four guys ahead of him – meaning those who took their shots from in closer – were playmakers (Giroux, Briere), Hartnell, and Nodl.
How many of them are goal scorers known for generating their own chances? I’ll give you Briere, but Giroux creates chances for his teammates much more frequently than for himself.
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 Aug 30, 2011 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Please, Nodl proves my sniper esc, self producing point.
But in all seriousness, I think you are jumping to a conclusion without sufficient backup. I’m not saying you are wrong, but nothing has convinced me that you are right. You are trying to lump him in to one of 4 players with similar shot distances on one team, of which, I don’t think he is like any. I think, with confidence, he lays somewhere between a Hartnell and Briere, but that’s just personal opinion.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Geoff
I don’t see the where you make the connection that a goal in close is a garbage goal I think you are making a jump there that is opinion and not fact. Sure if you look at a chart and see goals in close you think of a shot from somewhere else and then a trickle rebound and the player stuffs it in with the goalie out of position but thats not always the case.
It’s not always the case, no. Briere is the same way.
It’s great, when I use my eyes, people tell me to stop bringing opinions.
I like it, I really do. It just makes me laugh.
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 Aug 30, 2011 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I
can see where
It’s great, when I use my eyes, tell me to stop bringing opinions.
That would be annoying but all I am saying is that not all goals in close are garbage. Think about a quick bang bang play where a player goes to shelf. Or puts his head down and drives the net and scores. Or a breakaway. No garbage there
haha, I absolutely agree with you.
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Here’s a question: what do you think his shooting percentage will be in the long run?
The three people who shot from closer and got some PP time were at 14.8%, 13.8%, and 13.6%. JvR was at 12.1% — with a little better luck and/or more PP time next year, maybe he boosts into the 14%ish range.
He had 21 goals and 19 assists in 75 games at 14:32 per game.
That would be 23 and 21 in 82 games at 14:32 per game.
It would be 28 and 26 in 82 games at 18:00 per game.
It would be 33 and 26 in 82 games at 18:00 per game with 14% shooting.
If his natural growth makes up for the tougher situations he’s going to face this year, this could be a really nice year. I’m going to focus on that this evening instead of the things I don’t love about the contract.
Would he face tougher situations? If the Schenn/Simmonds line goes up against othr teams’ top lines, and Briere is continued to be sheltered, then wouldn’t he be facing similar competition to what he did last season?
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 30, 2011 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I still don’t really believe Schenn is going to get the kind of defensive assignments Richards used to get. Richards didn’t get those kinds of assignments when he was a rookie, after all — very few players do at that age.
If he does, then great. But I think we’re going to see Giroux given tougher defensive assignments. So either JvR also sees tougher defensive assignments, or he goes from having Giroux and Carter as linemates to, well, two players who won’t be as good as Giroux and Carter. Either way, his situation got tougher.
Yep that makes sense. Also depends on what lines come out of camp. For all we know they move JVR to Briere’s left and Jagr on Briere’s right and heavily shelter that line.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 30, 2011 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Among forwards who had an average shot distance within 0.2 feet of JVR last year, they averaged an 10.99% shooting percentage at even strength. JVR was at 12.50%.
Among those same forwards, those that attempted to take (shots and missed shots) at minimum 1.5 shots per game at even-strength last year, they averaged 11.49% shooting. Again, JVR has a higher shooting percentage.
Whittle it down to only those nine who attempted to take two shots per game (JVR took 2.41) and you have an average shooting percentage of 12.34%, which JVR again outpaced.
No, this doesn’t take into account rebounds, and it’s only average shot distance, but… those players in the NHL who shoot as often as JVR from an average distance just like JVR had a lower ESS% than JVR.
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 Aug 30, 2011 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions
And that’s fine. I simply see this comment as taking stats and refusing to take them as they are.
You could easily come back with a comment about why shot distance isn’t a good proxy for shooting percentage, but instead you criticize stats in general. And yet above, you told me to bring facts. I bring facts, and it’s still my opinion.
But all I’m saying is that you can’t simply say “JVR’s teammates shot 14%, so he should have too.”
The problem is that you can’t argue against shot distance having a correlation with shooting percentage, because it’s so inherently obvious even for people who hate stats. So why should JVR have shot 14%? Why should you ignore the data presented as simply me seeing what I want to see?
Could it be that during JVR’s playoff run – oft described as monster – he shot from 1.1 foot closer on average and still only scored on 12.19% of his shots?
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 Aug 30, 2011 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Know what? Neither do I.
At first, I was going off of this, found here:
But I just ran a regression on shot distance and shooting percentage for forwards with 40 games played last eyar and came up with only an r^2 of 0.025. Eliminate those who got less than 100 shots on goal, and it jumps to 0.052 of the explanation.
Eric will have to look at career numbers since a low number of shots seems to be giving an awful lot of noise in the small samples, but it’s worth pointing out that in 2009, Zona found the same high rate of noise.
Two say I’m wrong, one says I’m right. I don’t know what to think any more.
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions
I think it includes defensemen. It has to.
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions
I
think in close shots are more often than you think but i also think they are saved more often too.
Yeah, because the angle is cut down so much.
Maybe there’s little correlation because it’s the Goldilocks theory: too close, lower percentages. Too far, too much traffic. Near the dots, just right.
I don’t know.
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I delegated to Eric. It’ll take me thrice as long as him to do the work.
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Addendum:
Let’s also look at the power play, which would presumably help increase his shooting percentage.
Of those forwards who played 40 NHL games last year, those who had an average PP shot distance within 1 foot of JVR had an average shooting percentage of 11.72%. JVR was at 15.00%.
Of those same forwards who attempted at least 0.2 PP shots per game (JVR attempted 0.27), the forwards shot 11.97%. Again, JVR had a higher shooting percentage.
The one thing is that JVR didn’t take many shots at all on the PP. He just didn’t. But he still had a higher shooting percentage than Malkin, Lecavalier, Nash, and Backstrom did from similar distances (they are in this group of forwards.)
He also wasn’t far from Ryan Getzlaf’s PP shooting percentage (15.63%), so I’m not sure why you wish to give him a higher shooting percentage just because his teammates had a higher shooting percentage.
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 Aug 30, 2011 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure why you wish to give him a higher shooting percentage just because his teammates had a higher shooting percentage.
When you named the teammates who shot closer, I happened to notice that it was a very high-percentage-shooting group, looked up his shooting percentage, and wrote the comment. A look at league-wide rates for people who shot like him is probably better.
But if I’m going to have a commitment and consistency bias towards twisting the stats to say whatever I want them to, then I’ll argue that rink and scorer bias could make it so his teammates are better comparables than the rest of the league.
:) I love when we have these fights in public.
Meh, I don’t know what to think any more now that our shot distance regression came up blank.
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Besides the fact that I’m relentless. haha
And Eric is helping me be less of an antagonist. I failed him today.
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions
I
agree with most of the Carter stuff. Its just my opinion that JvR will have a break out year. He didn’t come up like Carter through the AHL and then NHL he came up through NHU. I think it took a while to get up to NHL speed and length. I just think he will have a break out year and will replace Carter in terms of goals in the near future.
I can get behind everything until “and will replace Carter”.
I’ve never seen JVR as a 35-goal guy. As a 12% shooter, JVR would need to take 292 shots to score that many goals. That’s nearly an additional 1.5 shots per game, without losing any accuracy from last year.
And that’s largely why a 75-point season from JVR, to me, would be a fluke.
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions
look at how is shots per game went up in the playoffs I think this is the JvR we will see in the future. With more ice time I can see it happening
You think JVR can continue getting 6 shots per game?
Since 1967, only three players have done that, and only Ovechkin did it since 1980. Here’s a list of 6 other players to get between 160-180 shots at age 21 while playing 70 NHL games.
One got hurt and only played 10 games last year, one never met that shot total again, one has been below that shot total twice in the four years since, two never increased their shots/game by more than 0.4, and the other is Alex Steen, who set a career high last year with 0.68 more shots than his age 21 season, five years later.
Guys don’t just start shooting 40% more frequently. But even if JVR matches the highest increase in shots per game from a 21 year old who shot roughly as often as JVR, he’d still need to improve his shooting percentage from 12.1% to 12.5% just to hit 30 goals.
In other words, if JVR increases his shots per game by the largest amount of any 21 year old since the lockout from 173 shots, he will still have to improve his shooting percentage (albeit not by much) just to hit 30 goals. He would need a 14.58% shooting percentage and 240 shots to hit 35 goals, and a 16.25% shooting percentage and 240 shots to hit 39 goals.
Since only one player in six years has increased their shots by that much – and it took them five years to do it – and since JVR has never shown the shooting talent to convert on that many of his shots, I hardly see how he’ll consistently become a 35-goal guy.
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 Aug 31, 2011 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think he will get 6 shots a game but I can see him becoming in the FUTURE a 35 goal guy. Not next year though it is possible but I would be happy and not blown away if he became a 30 to 35 goal scorer. Lets face it that is what Carter is take away his season where he got 48 (that was what it was I think or 46) and that is what Carter is. I don’t think you will see Carter get close to 50 again.
What are you basing this on?
JVR doesn’t shoot enough, he doesn’t score enough, and he doesn’t have a high enough shooting percentage. He’s not anywhere near Carter, yet people want to say he’ll be only 5 goals worse per year than Carter.
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 Aug 31, 2011 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions
I know
I am going on opinion here. Say what you want and I know I lose credibility by saying it that way but I think JvR will blosom into that. I see a guy who was going up against top competition in the playoffs and exploded. I think and the team thinks as proven by his contract that he can carry this into the season. This is just something we will have to mark and come back to during the season. I saw what he did to Chara and who ever was the number one pair in Buffulo against two top goalies and I think he is going to the next level. I am more than willing to go out and say this and we can see how it unfolds at seasons end. I think that JvR is the real deal and if he stays healthy we are going to be surprised.
I’m all well and good with liking JVR. I’ve been a hipster about him since long before people liked him. Hell, eight months ago people – regular commenters here – were willing to trade him for a 1st round pick.
But even in those 11 games, if he carried that through the season, JVR would be a 52-point player. They’d all be goals, but he’d be a 52-point 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 Aug 31, 2011 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions
so over the course of his contract you do not see JvR improving 9 to 14 goals a season. I agree 14 seems like it would be hard but 9 I can see that possibly happening this year if not next year for sure.
He would need to either have a fluke shooting percentage year, where he scores on 15% of his shots, or he’d need to start shooting the puck many, many times more.
I can see him hitting 30 goals a couple of times, I can even imagine him hitting 35 once.
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 Aug 31, 2011 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the Flyers will force JVR to take more shots – like what he did in the playoffs. Furthermore let’s not forget Rick Nash was a 40 goal guy in his second season.
and the point about progression is fair too. Carter had a season in juniors, then a season in the AHL, and then two seasons breaking into the NHL roster, before he became the player JVR is being compared to in this discussion.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 31, 2011 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions
How many more shots are they going to force him to take? And if he’s taking forced shots, his shooting percentage will fall. If he takes 275 shots, but shoots 10% (like Jeff Carter), that’s only 28 goals.
Let’s also not forget that Rick Nash’s second season came at the age of 19. And Nash had more NHL goals at age 18 than JVR had at ages 18, 19, and 20. I fail to see how Nash has anything to do with JVR.
Yes, Carter had progression. He also scored 0.61 goals per game over a three year stretch in Juniors at age 17, 18, and 19. van Riemsdyk, meanwhile, was scoring 0.42 goals per game over a two year stretch in college at age 18 and 19.
Weaker competition, shorter window of dominance, much less dominant. Jeff Carter was a goal scorer at a young age for a longer time against tougher competition before turning pro. James van Riemsdyk wasn’t.
The two are not at all similar.
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 Aug 31, 2011 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions
I brought up the Nash example because he’s a player more in the JVR mold than Carter is, and yet is still an elite goal scorer in the NHL.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 31, 2011 4:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Right. But Nash was destroying the NHL as a teenager.
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 Aug 31, 2011 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
John LeClair is an American hero, damnit. First American with 3 consecutive 50 goal seasons, so you shut your whore mouth.
<3
by BannedStreetBully on Aug 30, 2011 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
What, no “dirty pirate hooker” to finish that off? I am disappointed.
I should have been clearer, I was trying to imply that LeClair may have had some garbage goals, but certainly not 50 of them a year. If JVR can get close to being on LeClair’s level, garbage goals or not, the deal will be a bargain.
And what exactly does this “<3” mean? I see it all the time, but have no idea what it means.
It’s a heart. It signifies that I’m not serious and have nothing but love for you.
by BannedStreetBully on Aug 30, 2011 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Honestly, I though it was an elf bending over and mooning me.
The < was the top of his hat and the 3 was his ass cheeks.
Yeah, I may have an issue or two.
That is hilariously awesome.
Back during the internet bubble, worked for a company with a few old folks. One of them always ended his messenger correspondence with BTW, leaving us waiting for him to say something else.
He thought BTW meant back to work.
by BannedStreetBully on Aug 30, 2011 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
While playing with Eric Lindros and Mikael Renberg.
It’s not a knock on JVR, it’s just saying that he will be heavily dependent on his teammates and luck. It’s a reflection of the fact that he isn’t a passer, so he isn’t going to set guys up for easy goals, inflating his assist totals like Giroux. He also isn’t going to create his own shot like Carter. He’s going to be a better Scott Hartnell.
But if you put Hartnell with Richards and Nodl last year? He’s not nearly as good. He needed Carter and Briere on his line to reach even 50 points.
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 Aug 30, 2011 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I understand what you are saying. While playing with G will help his numbers b/c G is an elite playmaker, won’t G be helped by playing with a guy like JVR who can score garbage goals in close?
And I think that JVR will drastically improve his ability to drive the net (and score) as he matures physically and gets stronger.
Yes, I believe it will. It’s just that JVR had Carter on his wing last year drawing attention away from him and giving him an opportunity to get many more rebounds. Maybe JVR wants the puck from Giroux instead of waiting for a Carter rebound, maybe he’s better that way.
But there are severe problems with predicting power forwards to have the same amount of points as elite NHL players.
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 Aug 30, 2011 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d rather see a line of JVR – G – Voracek than JVR – G – Carter. Two reasons: 1) Voracek is less than half the cap hit, at least for now. 2) Allowing G to truly play center will bring out the absolute best in him.
I will not be surprised when this line scores in bunches this season. JVR is the new Leclair, G the Lindros (hopefully except the drama and head injuries) and Voracek the new Renberg. I imagine that was the thinking in the FO as well.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Are you using ‘inflate’ correctly there? I thought we found Giroux’s assist total pretty close to actual skill level because of his high rate of A1s.
Keeping alive the old Vaudeville joke, "I'd rather be dead than play Philadelphia."
Yeah, that sentence doesn’t make sense. I didn’t mean to imply Giroux’s assist totals are incorrectly inflated, even though reading it now, that’s all I can see.
So… I retract that statement because I don’t know what I meant, and it definitely isn’t what I said.
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 Aug 30, 2011 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions
3 consecutive 50 goal seasons with good linemates does not indicate a guy who would be total crap without his linemates.
Every hockey player relies on some amount of luck so saying he will be heavily reliant on luck isn’t much of a point.
He hasn’t been known to make quality play opening passes, true. However the suggestion that he can’t create his own shot like Carter is pseudoanalysis too. He had the most shots amongst the Flyers last playoffs and despite us being swept out in the second round he managed to be one of the highest shot takers in the league. That doesn’t indicate a guy that purely waits for rebounds and can’t craete anything. On top of that, as I mentioned above, he has the hardest shot in the team.
To say JVR is just a “better Scott Hartnell” is a severe underevaluation.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 30, 2011 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I never said LeClair would be total crap without his linemates, nor did I say JVR would be total crap without his linemates, nor did I say Hartnell would be total crap without his linemates. I also never said he can’t create his own shot, that he purely waits for rebounds, or that he can’t create anything.
I also never said he is “just a better Scott Hartnell”.
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 Aug 30, 2011 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for proving my point.
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 Aug 30, 2011 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I know you’re going to citing the “like Carter” part of the sentence and saying you only meant he isn’t capable of creating shots on the same level as Carter. I’m pretty sure almost no one else understood it that way so you probably should have just clarified that instead of just denying you said anything of the sort.
And yes, there’s a difference between “he’s going to be” and “he is” but should we just take that to mean JVR’s ceiling is somewhere above Scott Hartnell? I can agree with that but again it didn’t come across that way at first.
I’m pretty sure almost no one else understood it that way so you probably should have just clarified that instead of just denying you said anything of the sort.
I’m sorry, I have a very literal mind. When I say something, I don’t add unnecessary words or put hidden meanings. If people read what I wrote in a manner other than what I said, I can’t control that.
Further, when people read what I wrote, see something I didn’t say, and then attack me on what I didn’t say, why should I clarify to my attacker that I’m sorry, it’s my fault they read something that wasn’t there?
As I said below: There are ways to say something doesn’t make sense (see Snevik and Don above, DG below) to you and I’ll clarify. Then there’s how you and PoL handled it, which isn’t going to get an apology from me.
I’m sorry you read what I said and thought I said something I didn’t.
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 Aug 30, 2011 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Geoff, if you honestly expect other people to be as nice as I am when they’re pointing out that you aren’t making sense during an argument, you’re officially having a really off day.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 30, 2011 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions
haha, I don’t expect it.
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 Aug 30, 2011 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions
To be honest, wouldn’t have taken it the way I did if it was anyone other than you. Expect a certain standard of analysis from you.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 31, 2011 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for the apology.
I don’t think my interpretation of what you wrote is finding a hidden meaning or anything like that.
He also isn’t going to create his own shot like Carter.
could be interpreted the way you meant it, but it could just as easily be interpreted as “JVR isn’t going to create his own shot. Carter is.”
And yes, I guess I could have asked for clarification, so that’s my bad. But honestly, trying to get you to admit you’re wrong is more fun :)
it could just as easily be interpreted as "JVR isn’t going to create his own shot. Carter is."
If it’s easy for you to do that, you aren’t reading what I write.
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 Aug 30, 2011 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions
The inflection you think I had is more important than the words I said?
That’s… worse than my girlfriend. At least she hears my inflection.
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 Aug 30, 2011 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I accept you didn’t say that JVR would be “total crap” without his linemates, so let me rephrase. I think John LeClair would’ve been an elite winger on most top lines, not just on Lindros’s wing. And I think JVR can be elite regardless of who is centering him as well.
And as for the other things you apprently didn’t say, you just have to scroll up bit to see you saying them. I’m a bit disappointed Geoff.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 30, 2011 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I did scroll up, and I didn’t say them.
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 Aug 30, 2011 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions
He’s going to be a better Scott Hartnell.
I also never said he is "just a better Scott Hartnell".
Soo you didn’t say he is just a better Scott Hartnell, you said one day he might be
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 30, 2011 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions
A) JVR isn’t yet a better Scott Hartnell;
B) I didn’t say “one day he might be”, I said “he’s going to be”;
Look, you want to read that I think JVR’s ceiling is Scott Hartnell. Fine. But I didn’t say it, and you can’t even quote me without twisting my words in the very next sentence you type.
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 Aug 30, 2011 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Alright so let’s agree to agree:
- JVR will be better than Scott Hartnell
- JVR has the capability to create his own shot and not just rely on garbage goals, although he’s not a sniper ala Carter
- JVR’s ceiling is an elite power forward
Agreed on those three points?
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 31, 2011 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree on #1, I would agree with #2 but am afraid of where you’re going with it; and I would need a definition of “elite” prior to agreeing to #3.
But we’re much, much closer.
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions
“elite” – one of the top 15 wingers in the league? I’m referring to his ceiling obviously.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 31, 2011 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions
As his ceiling, sure.
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 Aug 31, 2011 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions
OK, I think I generally misinterpreted your tone then. The impression I got from your post was that JVR has a low ceiling, weak attributes in terms of making effective shots and passes and will always be a player dependent on teammates and luck. My personal opinion is that JVR has the most potential out of all players on the current Flyers roster. If it weren’t for Couturier I would say all players in the Flyers system. That’s where my outburst came from. Apologies for the misinterpretaiton.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 31, 2011 4:36 AM EDT up reply actions
No worries.
I simply meant that his point totals will be deflated because of his player type.
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 Aug 31, 2011 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions
I think JVR’s ceiling is Scott Hartnell
I win. :)
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions
You really are backing yourself into a corner today Geoff, much worse than usual. Perhaps your wording is off and you just aren’t conveying what you really meant to say. But by saying he “isn’t going to create his own shot” and then saying you didn’t mean that he “can’t create his own shot”, it now that starts to sound like “he’s capable of doing it but he won’t bother to do so” which I don’t think is what you really mean either.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 30, 2011 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, when people chop off my sentence, I can’t really help if they paint me into a corner:
He also isn’t going to create his own shot like Carter.
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 Aug 30, 2011 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I was merely trying to point out that I don’t think you’re coming across clearly today. It wasn’t an attack, you know. If I wanted it to be an attack, believe me, you’d be able to tell.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 30, 2011 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions
haha, I know. And I don’t doubt I’m less than clear today. But there’s Snevik calling me out for that (correctly), Don calling me out for that (correctly), and PoL calling me out for something I didn’t actually say.
You, however, are acting the polite moderator as always :)
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 Aug 30, 2011 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions
And that’s fine.
But Carter is one of only 23 players since the lockout to rack up four seasons of 25+ goals and 200+ shots. One of only 24 players to rack up three seasons of 30+ goals and 200+ shots. One of only 16 players to rack up three seasons of 30+ goals, 250+ shots, and a 10% shooting percentage.
Sure, it’s not always “creating his own shot”, but Carter was elite at getting shots, scoring goals, and maintaining a high shooting percentage.
JVR hasn’t shown the ability to even come close to those goal and shot categories. Admittedly, Carter didn’t either until his third season, but they play such completely different games that I don’t see how anyone can compare the two.
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Are you fucking serious?
Geoff coming out and saying because he doesn’t score highlight reel goals he’s not a good player? That too without evidence?
Remember that backhander he scored in the playoffs, went top corner on Ryan Miller if I remember? That was just no skill garbage pickup right? The kid’s got the hardest shot in the team, is one of the fastest players in the team and has the size to be an elite power forward. Just because he likes to crash the net doesn’t make him a player who lacks skill. That’s the role he plays in the team and he can be freaking amazing at it.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 30, 2011 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow, I love how you took what I said and took it to an extreme I never took it to.
This is ridiculous. Nowhere did I say he’s not a good player. Nowhere did I say he lacks skill.
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 Aug 30, 2011 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions
His assists will come almost exclusively from his linemates making plays and luck, while his goals will come almost exclusively from his linemates and luck.
He definitely has 60 point player written all over him – maybe not next year – but 75 point peak screams "one fluke year" to me, rather than a steady increase to a zenith.
So you’re saying he’ll peak as a 60 point player with perhaps the odd 75 point fluke career year. For a #2 pick that’s pretty much a bust based on the last 10 years.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 30, 2011 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions
So you’re saying he’ll peak as a 60 point player
Not at all. Evidenced by the fact that I don’t deny he’ll reach 75-points. Which you yourself quoted.
Also, there’s quite a bit of spread between 60 and 75, which just so happens to be where Jeff Carter and Mike Richards wound up three of the last four years.
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 Aug 30, 2011 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions
In your view, if Carter and Richards hit 75 points is that a ‘fluke year’?
You’ve made it clear that you consider that the case if JVR hits 75
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 30, 2011 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions
No, it’s not a fluke year since Richards hit 75 points twice, both with over 21 minutes of ice time. Carter did it when he had over 20 minutes of ice time the only year of his career, and that was absolutely a fluke year for him. Will it be going forward? If he doesn’t hit 75 next year, yeah, it will be.
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 Aug 30, 2011 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions
If you hold ‘Future JVR’ and Carter in similar regard then we don’t have an argument. We agree.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 31, 2011 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions
So then Carter and Richards were also overpaid, as 60-75 point players (as you say JVR projects to be), since they both made more than JVR’s contract value?
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t understand why you keep ignoring the difference between RFAs and UFAs.
Citing players whose contracts include roughly ten years of UFA eligibility and one year of RFA eligibility as comparables for a player who will be an RFA for the next five years misses the point entirely.
Don’t you think there’s a reason that in arbitration with RFAs you aren’t allowed to even mention players who signed deals as UFAs? Haven’t you noticed that your simplistic viewpoint makes every 30-point RFA in the world underpaid?
What about Carter’s first contract? The 3 year 15 million one after 37 point and 53 point seasons. That was through 3 seasons of RFA eligibility and was made solely on potential. Luckily he scored 46 goals and 84 points the next season.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 31, 2011 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Muchos gracias, amigo. Even if you don’t agree with me, I appreciate the ‘bullshit’ call – thanks for that.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Sep 1, 2011 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Actually that was sign during inflated contracts. That term of 3 years saved the Flyers money for their next contract when the market came crashing back down. If they signed Carter to a similar deal as JVR, they would have been stuck even further, having to compensate for the years of UFA included in a longer term deal. That was a shrewder move in terms of length, but still not a great one based on points, though Carter was facing much tougher competition at a younger age than JVR, so I’m sure that also factored in to the contract (faced the toughest Corsi Rel QoC of forwards in 07/08 and started in the Ozone only 39.5% of the time, the 3rd hardest on the team, while playing center, a hard position. So you aren’t comparing apples to apples either. JVR last year had the 5th easiest zoen starts and 6th hardest comps.
So I call Bullshit on your comparison. Not everything relates to points. Carter was becoming a 2 way beast already with higher point totals while playing center, JVR is no where close to that.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
And and Carter’s Corsi Rel was also 2nd best on the team that year, meaning while being in the toughest situations on the team, he was pushing the play forward.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
It’s not all about Points, carter as a player was head and shoulders above where JVR is right now. And that’s not a slight at JVR, he hasn’t been asked to play those assignments yet, but Carter had been, and excelled.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
You’re wrong, you’re wrong, YOU’RE WRONG!!!!
Both JVR and Carter are listed as 6’ 3" – so Carter can’t be head and shoulders above.
:) Gotta insert some levity here somehow.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Sep 1, 2011 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh come on now, that same set of listed numbers claims Briere is 5’ 10". Those stats can’t be trusted….
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 1, 2011 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Touche, monsieur pussycat.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Sep 2, 2011 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
now
My thing with JVR is that all his goals are garbage goals
lets not get carried away look at the Islanders hat trick and look at the Bruins playoff games. A player charging to the net taking it to Chara and getting good shot off is not garbage.
You’re right. They aren’t all garbage. That was hyperbole.
But most of them are, just like Hartnell’s are.
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 Aug 30, 2011 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Which is why I’d much rather compare a power forward to a power forward than to a goal scorer or a power forward from 15 years ago.
I don’t know why everybody has this huge problem with saying JVR is better than Hartnell, but he’s not Jeff Carter. There’s a lot of room in between there. One’s a perennial 49-point guy, the other is a 35-goal scorer.
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 Aug 30, 2011 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Therefore – if JVR is better than Hartnell, who happens to be a moderately consistent 25-goal scorer, it is not unreasonable to say JVR is a 30+ goal scorer, is it not? I agree that JVR is not Jeff Carter; I’m rather happy he isn’t, in fact. While Carter was pretty damn good, with a wicked shot and (when he chose to display it) good ability at both ends of the ice, JVR is definitely a power forward. Carter, for all his size, was NOT. Jeff Carter was not an Eric Lindros – he was just a guy who took a zillion shots and benefited from some smallish percentage of them going in.
Oh, and JVR is over a million a season less expensive than Carter. And roughly the same price as Hartnell. Still all points to this being a damn good deal in my estimation.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Hartnell, who happens to be a moderately consistent 25-goal scorer
Hartnell’s goals, by year: 2, 14, 12, 18, 25, 22, 24, 30, 14, 24.
He’s had more than 25 once. He’s had fewer than 25 eight times. How do you get consistent 25-goal scorer from that?
Sorry – 20+ goal scorer. My mistake.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
185 goals in 761 career games (and that includes his rookie season) means an average of 19.9 goals per season, with it heavily weighted to recent performance. So yeah – he’s a 20+ goal scorer. Get real.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Hartnell’s goals, by year: 2, 14, 12, 18, 25, 22, 24, 30, 14, 24.
that is not a consistent 20 goal scorer. average over time means nothing. You are claiming he “consistently” puts up 20 goals. that is wrong since on 50% of his seasons has he done that. 50% is not consistent. at all. keep trying.
http://restorations.bandcamp.com/
You’re just being obtuse. In 5 of the last six seasons, he scored more than 20 goals. I would call that a 20+ goal scorer, and pretty damn consistent at that. Why don’t you include his major-junior time, while you’re at it?
BTW, repeating Eric’s comment doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
you know who was a consistent 20 goal scorer? Brendan Shanahan. 18 or 19 20+ goal seasons.
THAT is consistent. I’m being obtuse I guess. Sorry for knowing the definition of the word consistent.
http://restorations.bandcamp.com/
Ken-’sis-tent
-tending to be arbitrarily close to the true value of the parameter estimated as the sample becomes large. [emphasis added]
Sure – Shanny was far MORE consistent. But that’s not to say that over the past several seasons, Hartnell was NOT consistent. Because he was.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Sep 1, 2011 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Thought you were very literal with everything you say.
Sorry I’m just in a bad mood I guess.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 31, 2011 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions
:) I am very literal with everything I say. I’m also prone to hyperbole. And contradictions.
And bad moods. It’s all good, sorry I was in a bad mood too.
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Power forwards also take a few seasons to mature in the NHL, while skill players often make the transition quicker. However, it seems the power forwards tend to have more consistent success than skill players (I do not have any proof beyond my speculation). More skill players seem to crash and burn from expectations at the NHL level than power forwards.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
More power forwards seem to crash and burn from expectations at the NHL level than skill players. I do not have any proof beyond my speculation.
There’s proof out there Eric.
I remember reading an article on it earlier this year. I think Ovi was the only player who over 5 years had a certain amount of points/checks/+one other category.
Richards hit it 3 times, Dustin Brown hit it 3 times. J I hit it 3 I think. Pretty much it showed that the “Mythical Beast Power Forward” was the rarest and most inconsistent mold in the current NHL.
My son was born in Ottawa (Go Senators!) to a Father (Go Flyers!) and a Mother (Go Canucks!) who's families root for two different hockey teams (Go Habs!)(Go Bruins!) Little Maxwell is going to have such a confusing life.
Found the Links
It was a couple articles from Copper and Blue from 2010 and 2009:
http://www.coppernblue.com/2009/04/mythical-beast.html
http://www.coppernblue.com/2010/4/30/1452575/power-forwards-in-the-nhl
My son was born in Ottawa (Go Senators!) to a Father (Go Flyers!) and a Mother (Go Canucks!) who's families root for two different hockey teams (Go Habs!)(Go Bruins!) Little Maxwell is going to have such a confusing life.
My comment was more rhetorical than literal, but since we’re having the conversation anyway…
Many definitions of power forward, like this one, rely on certain levels of achievement — goals, hits, fights, etc. Definitions like that aren’t useful for making predictions about youngsters because the prediction is self-fulfilling: you conclude that all power forwards are successful because only successful players went on to get the title of power forward.
A big-bodied player who throws his weight around but never finds his scoring touch isn’t an unsuccessful power forward; he’s a checker or a goon. So when we try to make predictions about a player like JvR, we can’t just look at current power forwards and go back to the early part of their career; we need to go back to the early part of the careers of everyone who was thought to have power forward potential.
Being reminded of this actually helps my attitude of the deal. The spirit of the articles were that power forward type players are exceedingly rare and pretty much locked for life, not something found in a UFA market. (Due to the huge trade potential or locking them into life long contracts. See Richards, Mike)
So that may be in the front offices thinking as well. Afterall, even with the numbers he’s put forward as a #2 overall pick (many of which has labeled him a bust for several years) it did not keep him off the radar of a LOT of GMs and the organization was never willing to give him up.
My son was born in Ottawa (Go Senators!) to a Father (Go Flyers!) and a Mother (Go Canucks!) who's families root for two different hockey teams (Go Habs!)(Go Bruins!) Little Maxwell is going to have such a confusing life.
it did not keep him off the radar of a LOT of GMs and the organization was never willing to give him up.
Except for that time the organization was shopping him in an effort to dump salary for Michael Leighton, no, they never were willing to give him up.
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 Aug 31, 2011 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
You tell young children that lollipops rot their teeth, don’t you?
My son was born in Ottawa (Go Senators!) to a Father (Go Flyers!) and a Mother (Go Canucks!) who's families root for two different hockey teams (Go Habs!)(Go Bruins!) Little Maxwell is going to have such a confusing life.
by 02h32m01s on Aug 31, 2011 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
:)
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 Aug 31, 2011 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Geoff: The only man to make it to masthead kissing hands and shaking babies.
My son was born in Ottawa (Go Senators!) to a Father (Go Flyers!) and a Mother (Go Canucks!) who's families root for two different hockey teams (Go Habs!)(Go Bruins!) Little Maxwell is going to have such a confusing life.
by 02h32m01s on Aug 31, 2011 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Coming from you, that’s damn funny sir!
And yes – some of us have jobs that require a modicum of attention paid to them, so we can’t rush out and find the articles or stats to prove our points. So we make statements like that.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, it’s just that now your entire argument is based on “yuh-huh”.
It’s August; we have plenty of time to wait until you can back your comments up. Until then, I’m just going to reply “nuh-uh”.
And maybe occasionally point out that you have a bias in your memory banks because you don’t think of someone as a power forward unless they score a lot of goals and therefore are bound to conclude that power forwards are almost always successful in the NHL.
Ah. There you are wrong. You can be a power forward without scoring tons of goals, but you certainly won’t be an elite one. There have been plenty of big bodies that projected to become power forwards, and never found the skating and scoring that JVR has already displayed. Pavel Brendl, for instance. Or even Pat Maroon, more recently. I am not concluding that power forwards are always successful – au contraire, I am concluding that power forwards are exceptionally rare (most teams are happy to have ONE on the roster) and ones with elite potential (60+ points) are even more sparse on the ground.
I guess there is some truth to your idea that even to define a player as a power forward means something has already been proven – but I think you’re taking it to an extreme that I am not.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess it’s just that yes – you have shown there is potential the team overpaid JVR, and made a bad move with the RFA years of his contract. I am merely saying that there is also the potential that they have made a great deal. I believe time will show that I am in the right here, and you say it won’t. No one can say. In terms of players in the NHL as a whole, your argument makes sense. In terms of high-potential power forwards, it does not (in my eyes).
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I am merely saying that there is also the potential that they have made a great deal.
We’re back to the coinflip argument. If someone pays 55 cents for the right to be given a dollar if the coin comes up heads and the coin comes up heads, they won’t regret their decision, but it doesn’t mean they made a good deal.
I think this contract is fair value for a guy who’s had a 60-point season. I think it’s possible JvR does better than that next year and the coin comes up heads — they got a cheaper deal by signing him now. I think it’s also possible he does worse than that and the coin comes up tails. And I think the median outcome is a little worse than that, so it’s a little bit of an overpayment.
Add in that I think they should’ve gotten a little bit of a discount for the term (usually players want longer deals and teams want shorter) and a little bit of a discount for the CBA risk they’re taking on, and on net I see this as a mediocre deal — not a terrible one, by any means, but not one I would’ve made.
As I said to Don, I think we’re at the point of mutual understanding – but continuing disagreeance. We won’t know who is right until after the season. Your approach is perhaps more risk-averse; mine makes certain calculated assumptions that may not come to pass. I do see your points; I just still wonder if we won’t be thrilled with the contract by this time next season.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Sep 1, 2011 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah it’s the risk they are taking on that bothers me, just frustrating. It’s not the worst move ever, just what seems to be another sign of this group not “getting it”.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Holmgren just got Ville Leino’d in this deal.
"Can I refill your eggnog for you? Get you something to eat? Drive you out to the middle of nowhere and leave you for dead?"
by PraiseMartyMoose on Aug 30, 2011 2:00 PM EDT reply actions
1 more collective meh
I eat sentimentality for breakfast, but stats stop me dead in my tracks
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Aug 30, 2011 2:59 PM EDT reply actions
I would be happy about having him here for longer…if we hadn’t dealt Carter and Richie this offseason. Now I just feel like if he hasn’t won a cup by the end of this contract he’ll be gone too.
Flyers Fans: We've survived Lock-outs, Lindros and Cooperalls. If you want to get rid of us, you'll have to split an atom or two.
I dig it.
The front office likely took a credibility hit by trading away Richards and Carter, and this unnecessary signing might help to alleviate some of the concerns younger players might have with signing long term deals.
Basically, it’s a sign to Schenn, Couturier, Simmonds, Vorchek, and Bob that the future in Philadelphia, as far as the Front office is concerned, isn’t all terrible.
by BannedStreetBully on Aug 30, 2011 4:13 PM EDT reply actions
Until they trade JVR in 2 years for Jordan Eberle and Nail Yakupov
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Meh, I hope not.
I guess I’m in the minority of people who hate short term deals. There’s something so disappointing about having a player exceed expectations, only to not be able to sign his increased salary the following year. I understand that with RFAs and such this is largely mitigated, but it’s still enough to bother me.
by BannedStreetBully on Aug 30, 2011 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow, he got Hartnell money. I’m uneasy about giving him so much because he has not put up the numbers to earn that, but no one can say he doesn’t have the potential. With everything else that happened. . .Why the F not?!
Well...
Giroux is definitely underpaid for a 70+ points per year guy, so I guess this balances that out. If JVR plays nearly as well in the upcoming season as he did in this past year’s playoffs, he has the potential to have 70+ points as well. Fingers crossed knocking on wood praying to gods in 12 different religions for that.
Bullies, Phightins, and Vickerbockers
Giroux is “underpaid” purely and entirely because he got paid during his RFA years. He’s not underpaid by all that much considering the state of restricted free agency these days.
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 Aug 30, 2011 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Still, i think he could have made another million dollars more per year in another situation, i look at him and see a steal.
Bullies, Phightins, and Vickerbockers
What other situation? He only had one situation when he signed his extension.
Keeping alive the old Vaudeville joke, "I'd rather be dead than play Philadelphia."
I would have to say the “other situation” being spoken of would be him going to arbitration against the team, or the team going to it against him. He would FOR SURE have made more money if he chose that route.
"Chris Pronger sneaked in the back door...banged it home."
Flyers Television Play-by-Play Man: Jim Jackson
Geoff
all in all I think we agree JvR is overpaid as of right now. The Flyers are banking on him becoming something special and at that time they will have another good player with a great contract. I think this was a calculated risk by the Flyers who have shown that they do a good job at trying to get their tarrgeted players into favorable contracts.
I agree entirely with this comment, adding Bryzgalov as the exception.
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 Aug 31, 2011 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions
At this point, the FO does little to surprise me in terms of financial maneuvering. It is fairly obviously that Holmgren and whoever the advisors are lack adeptness and sophistication when it comes to handling money.
That said, it does seem strange to pay him more than Giroux, unless they decided “inflation” warranted a higher contract for JVR. It also begs the question as to why they decided to do this deal now? As someone else mentioned, it smells comparatively to when the Phillies extended Howard and grossly overpaid him. One justification is, perhaps, “peace of mind,” but that hardly seems convincing enough.
We won’t know just yet if this is a “bad” contract, and in fact come three years or so we may be underpaying JVR. The unfortunate thing is, we won’t know until three years from now—and in 2011/12 it is likely an overpay for his services. I’m sure his performance in the playoffs helped his cause, though.
That said, it does seem strange to pay him more than Giroux, unless they decided "inflation" warranted a higher contract for JVR.
Giroux’s deal is for three RFA years; JvR’s is for four RFA years and two UFA years. Since players get a lot more as UFAs, you can’t really compare the two without factoring that in.
I’m putting JvR’s deal at about 3.5M per year for the RFA years and 5.75M per year for the UFA years. So he’s paid a bit less than Giroux, but not much.
No, not until the NTC kicks in.
"We didn't do it the easy way. We took the hard way to do it. But we are part of history now."
not until the year before his NTC kicks in.
Fixed.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 30, 2011 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
maybe BSH should have a “NTC Clock” ticking down for all the young’ns. And then on the other side of the page another clock ticking down the nine years we have our new goalie.
by flyersfaninchicago on Aug 30, 2011 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think Hartnell's either moved or waived at the end of this season
After this season: Jagr comes off the books, Voracek is extended, Couturier is signed to an EL contract, Schenn’s cap hit comes down (Is that last bit about Schenn right? although with the new CBA, anything could happen with the bonus cushion I’m guessing)
Briere might be the first target to be moved as we have more centers than wingers but that would be difficult
JVR’s raise roughly equals Jagr’s salary. Couturier’s EL deal + Schenn’s reduced cap hit would = Schenn’s current deal. I’m guessing (unless Briere is moved) we lose one of Coburn/Carle and extend Voracek.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 30, 2011 8:12 PM EDT reply actions
I’m holding my breath ….
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Aug 31, 2011 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
I’ve got this nagging feeling that it’s possible (speculation alert!) JVR’s contract could be a little bit inflated in case there ends up being a salary rollback in the new CBA. There have already been rumors that a potential salary rollback was the reason for the Rangers structuring Brad Richard’s deal with $18M in signing bonuses over the first two years to protect him from taking a financial hit if that happens; and since it happened in the last CBA it’s on people’s radar as something that may happen again. I could be way off, since there’s no guarantee the owners will ask for that again, but I thought I’d mention it.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
That’s definitely possible. Considering negotiations have been in the works for months and the Flyers are big players as far as owners are concerned, they may have been trying to pre-empt something. The length still surprises me though.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 30, 2011 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions
The length surprises me a bit too. The cap hit just strikes me as being something JVR could live with if there is a rollback, but that the team could live with if there isn’t one. It’s still just a “hmm, I wonder” kind of thought, anyway.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 30, 2011 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Capgeek has the contract with a modified NTC.
Any ideas what this could mean?
Mourning Gagne forever.
Panotch reported that, but he didn’t elaborate. It could mean any number of things; some people have a list of places they’re willing to go, others have a list of places they refuse to go, it could be like Avery’s where he has a full NTC during the summer but then a limited one the rest of the year… who knows.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 30, 2011 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Ah right, that’s what I suspected. The terms aren’t normally known until the player is on the trading block though?
Mourning Gagne forever.
Capgeek usually gets the dirt at some point, we’ll probably know when the contract details become more official.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 30, 2011 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Wouldn’t the modification be: “it will come into being when he qualifies for it” (and then, of course, the Flyers will trade him before it’s effective! :-(( ).
Hunter Pence will not guarantee a WS, but, then, neither does Carlos Beltran.
That’s possible, or it could still have modified terms when it kicks in, though. We can only speculate.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 31, 2011 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know if anybody else has noticed (I didn’t see it mentioned), but Capgeek now has the contract breakdown. $2.5M, 3.75M, 4.5M, 4.75M, 5M, 5M.
I’d love to chop the last 3-4 years off and deal with him going RFA at 25 or 26, but maybe the Flyers weren’t happy with the kind of RFA deals guys are currently getting in that age range and only want to have to deal with that process for Giroux. In a non-salary cap world, that wouldn’t look quite as bad if we didn’t have to deal with the inflated cap hit now, but it’s still committing to a possible overpayment later that we might regret.
The detail numbers are very similar to the 6 year deal Meszaros signed at roughly the same age, and it’s possible they may have used that as some sort of benchmark. That doesn’t mean I agree with it, though, since Mesz’s contract had exactly the same problems and likely contributed to Mesz getting traded when he struggled.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
The only reason I mentioned it is because of Nashville’s situation. Weber’s contract was up this year, with Rinne and Suter both up next year and Weber up again because they only signed a one year deal. That’s a far more extreme situation, it just factored into my rambling up there.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Sep 1, 2011 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Consider this what happens if he explodes how do you know you get the same deal. What if he gets same money and you don’t get the two UFA years.
Same money, without two UFA deals? He signs a four-year deal for $15.5 million, or a cap hit of $3.875m expiring as an RFA. He gets $125k more per year than Claude Giroux, and seeing as how Giroux “exploded” last year to 76 points, that seems fair.
Let’s also not forget that when Giroux signed his extension,
In addition to leading the team with 7 goals this season, Giroux tops the Flyers in points (14), shorthanded goals (3) and game-winners (3), while ranking second in faceoff wins (98).
So your hypothetical is: What happens if JVR “explodes” and leads the team in 1) goals; 2) points; 3) game-winning goals; 4) power play goals (substitute); and 5) ranks second in, well, something JVR has never in his career done before… he’d get half a million more per year for an additional year.
Or worse yet he says I only want a 3 year deal and then he continues get even better each year after.
So your worst-case scenario has him getting Claude Giroux’s contract? I’ll gladly, happily accept that worst-case scenario.
target your future stars and get them into low risk high reward style contracts. They are willing to take that $1 million gamble on a $8 million return.
A) How is this “low-risk”?; B) How is this “high-reward”?; C) How the hell do you come up with $1 million and $8 million?
If you break JVR’s contract down, he has a $3.875m cap hit during his RFA years – more than Claude Giroux – and a $5m cap hit during his two UFA years. The risk they are taking is that JVR will not only be better than Claude Giroux in 12-13, 13-14, and 14-15, but that he isn’t a 40 point player (as he has been for his two years in the NHL so far) and is worth giving up team control to gain $800k of cap space.
The “reward” is two years of $800k savings when JVR is 28 and 29 years old.
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
I am not personally saying he will be better or worse I am only giving why the Flyers did what they did. It makes sense to me. If going into his last RFA and those 2 year of UFA and he is a 70+ point player they want to keep he would get 7 to 8 million. If he sighned a 3 yr. deal instead of 6. So now instead of having him locked up at 4.5 he sighns for 7.5 for 3 yrs. That is a 9 million dollar difference in the end. So they took a $1 million risk for a $9 million reward. I can see where that would be a risk well worth taking.
Yet this doesn’t address the point where you replied to me. Why sign it August 2011 versus July 2012? Why take on the additional risk there while still making a slight overpay now (even with the 2 UFA years taken in to considerations). You can still offer the same 6 year deal in July if he has a year that justifies it; in fact, for him to justify anything more, he would have to take a massive leap forward in production this year.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
A) What DLJ said.
B) You can sign him to a three year deal, and he’s still an RFA. At which point, you aren’t paying him 7 to 8 million, since he still has a year of RFA.
Basically, you’re worried about JVR becoming a 70 point guy in a contract year 6 years from now. And that’s your justification for signing a six year contract when there is still one year of ELC remaining. The equivalent on the other end of the spectrum would be JVR scoring 40 points in a contract year 6 years from now, only garnering a one-year $2 million deal.
Neither are worth planning for.
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 Sep 6, 2011 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Are you kidding me I am showing you why the Flyers gave him the deal and why it makes sense to not wait until next year. I said it 10 times. If you wait and he gets 60 points this year why would he sighn for the same money and term that he sighned for this year. Obviously you are going to pay more or give up years. I have laid out why that could hurt the Flyers and by what they did more than likely will save them money in the long run. Just go to the post were you said who makes $9 million in a year. When you come in to a disscusion that is ongoing it can get confusing I realize this but this is getting rediculous no where did I say he would make $9 million.
If he gets 60 points this year, he is then in line with all the RFAs Eric showed multiple times this thread, all but one of whom got $3.1m or less.
Somehow, you think $4.2m for 40 points is fair. Despite not having any evidence that this is so, your entire $9 million bargain revolves around an unsubstantiated opinion, which has been disproven by fact.
I realize it can get confusing when multiple people are attacking you, but evidence is preferred to random hypotheses.
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 Sep 6, 2011 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Nothing says they can’t. And Steven Stamkos – eventually Drew Doughty – prove they can.
But unless you want to compare JVR to Stamkos – back-to-back 45 goal, 90 point seasons – that’s irrelevant.
None of this has to do with your contention that JVR would suddenly make more, or sign for less years, if he scored 60 points next year. And I know that because Eric has kindly laid out all the examples proving RFAs who score 60 points, and give up years of UFA status, don’t make more than $3.8m per, and only one made more than $3.1m.
So unless you have some secret example showing a 60 point RFA giving up UFA years making $4.2 million, or unless you think JVR will score 75 points next year, you’ve yet to convince anyone of your hypothesis.
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 Sep 6, 2011 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Look man I just typed what the original post was about before it got mixed around now your going back
So I shouldn’t respond to things you say, unless it’s the one you want me to respond to? I replied to both.
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 Sep 6, 2011 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
My point being you don’t know if terms let alone money is going to be the same coming off a 60 to 65 point year. Like I said above. After reading that do I make sense. I think he got 4.5 cap hit and scored 40 pts. So if he scores 60 (explodes) why would it still be the same contract. You either will pay more or less terms. Pay more thats obvious. Now if less terms but he continues to improve and goes into his last RFA at 70+ he now commands 7.5 million for what would be year 4,5,and 6 on this contract. Now he cost you $9 million more. So for the first two years on new deal at an overpay of $.5 million for each year equalling $1 million I will take the risk to save $9 million in the end.
Where are you pulling these numbers from? What NHL player makes $9 million?
You’re trying really, really, really hard to justify the contract, but you aren’t using facts and comparables. It’s not about cap hit here, it’s about RFA v. UFA. It’s about signing the deal now, vs. in the middle of next season.
If you want to worry about JVR as a 70+ point player at age 27, by all means. That’s no justification for signing him to a six-year contract with one year remaining in his ELC at age 21. That’s like worrying whether or not Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic Nomination in 2016.
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 Sep 6, 2011 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
So if he scores 60 (explodes) why would it still be the same contract.
Because that’s what the market says he should earn roughly when you use comparables (actually should be slightly less if I remember correctly). Exploding for him to have a larger contract he would have to be 70+, more likely 75+ for it to be markedly different. You are using the comparable JVR had 40 pts and got a contract worth $4.25 average yearly hit, therefore if he gets 60, he should get more. One, it doesn’t make sense to use the thing you are talking about as it’s own example, and two the only other contract since the lockout that I can think of that was similar is Lucic, who was also paid on potential and was another case where money was left on the table. You can see from the link I gave you to Eric’s previous post that RFA’s in that point range don’t command anywhere close to that hit (factor in the UFA years, they’d get closer, but still not be there).
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
That is what money would be given but he does not have to sign for 6 years. Its not that hard to understand what I am saying.
Players usually want longer terms on the contract, because the contract is guaranteed and it transfers the risk of injury, underperformance, or CBA change to the team.
Teams usually want shorter deals, except when they’re putting cap-circumventing years on the end of the deal for a 30+ year old player.
You’re right that we can’t know for sure that JvR would still sign a 6-year deal next year, but I don’t see any reason to think he wouldn’t. Can you find one example of an instance where people were shocked that the player would sign for such a long term? Normally long deals make people criticize the team, not the player.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
The whole pupose for JvR getting more money was that he gave up UFA years. The Flyers are banking on the little extra they are paying in the begining is going to save them a lot down the line in year 4,5, & 6. If you go and read my posts I explain it and it does make sense. Its hard to keep it in order when I am awnsering three of you at one time and exhausting:)
But that’s not dependent on him “exploding” next year, as you contend.
This is a tangential argument, ignoring the point you were previously arguing. JVR would have gotten the same deal next year even if he “exploded” to 60 points, which you previously argued was wrong.
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 Sep 6, 2011 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Same money but not the same term as in number of years!!! He gave the Flyers two UFA years cause they gave him extra money and I have also explained why this will probably work out in the Flyers favor in the end.
We all disagree with you, we think same money and term would be available and Eric has provided move evidence as to why below.
This is the crux of our disagreement, that we all feel it would still be there after a 60-65 point year (if we didn’t, we’d agree with you). Not only that, we have evidence, can you please show us evidence as to why this deal would not be there?
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Eric and I has already considered the 2 UFA years. I mentioned this several times above as well:
1.
Don’t forget they are buying two of his first and very precious UFA years.
He isn’t and I’m not.
2.
And the UFA deals are already calculated in to it,a nd it’s still an overpayment while banking on potential and signing early. I’ve told you Eric and I both considered the UFA years in the overpay analysis
3.
And again, I’ve already factored the UFA in to it when I say it’s a slight over pay
That’s not the where our problem comes from.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Ales Hemsky had 77 points in his third season before signing a 6-year, $24.6M deal that covered four RFA years and two UFA years.
Joe Pavelski was coming off a 25-goal, 59-point season when he signed a 4-year, $16M deal that covered one RFA year and three UFA years.
Ryan Clowe was coming off a 22-goal, 52-point season when he signed a 4-year, $14.5M deal that covered one RFA year and three UFA years.
Joffrey Lupul had two 25+ goal, 50+ point seasons when he signed a 4-year, $17M deal that covered two RFA years and two UFA years.
Andrew Ladd had a 29-goal, 59-point season before signing a 5-year, $22M deal that covers one year of RFA and four years of UFA.
I could go on, but you get the point. There are at least a dozen contracts that point to this deal being a) possible after a ~60 point season, and b) above fair market value before he had that season. Can you cite any examples to support your claim that this deal would not have been on the table after a ~60 point season?
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
I have already discussed this several times I think everything is out of order I got three guys and I am one I can’t keep jumping around a awnser one question and then have to explain same thing 5 more times 10 min apart. This started totally different from where it has gone and with different people I will gladly explain but I got smoke a cig I will be back. If you go back to beging and somehow track it maybe you will see but as soon as I write a response to you you are gone and i am trying to awnser something else.
So it should be simple for you to copy and paste, or at least direct us to your examples.
I, as I’m sure Eric and DLJ, eagerly await your response.
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 Sep 6, 2011 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Tell me where and when I can lay this out one time and everyone can see it and I am not awnsering questions 20 min after i have already tried to awnser someone else
Anywhere you want. The people you are arguing against have read every comment, so nothing is getting lost. If anything, it is being misunderstood.
The problem isn’t where you comment.
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 Sep 6, 2011 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
okay first off let me explain what me and DJL were origanally talking about I was trying to explain to him why the Flyers took a minamal risk and why I think they were smart and it will pay off in the long run DJL that is what we were talking about correct
low risk high reward
And you haven’t convinced anyone that there is a low risk, or a high reward. Because JVR got more money, for more years, than any other similarly situated 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 Sep 6, 2011 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Stay with me JvR had 40 pts this year
Still has a year left the Flyers gave him more money than a player would normally get normal for 60 would be 4.5
What the Flyers said was in my opionion we will give you the extra money you can give us two UFa years
By doing this the Flyers next year if he scores 60 points will have at his Elc money now going foward even if he doesn’t eventually we agree he will so if he does it 3 years form now it will be on year two of new deal We expect him to keep getting better eventually 70 to 75 could be better dont really know but very possible So if 5 years from know he is at 70+ points consistenly he will have been slightly overpaid for maybe one year or maybe not because it goes into affect next year……. worst case senerio he is overpaid one year ………… year two three he is paid fairly but in 4, 5, 6 he is scoring 70 to 75+ he could essentially be getting underpaid three years so if he is slightly overpaid 1 year and then paid rate for two …. then under paid 3 the Flyers win and the deal works out in their favor now the numbers as far as 60 to 65 points being 4.5 mil and 70 to 80 points being overpaid were the numbers DLJ used I just went off what he said I can break it down Geoff to explain the how they could end up saving 7 to 9 million if you would like I have been typing for like 5 hrs sorry if it is a little incoherent I will try to awnser any questions…… I was only trying to point out that I think the Flyers could end up taking low risk but getting a high reward back by locking him up this year and not waiting….. I will add that if he scored 60 this year and they made the deal I don’t think the Flyers get 2 UFA years and that is where they will benfit the most
the numbers as far as 60 to 65 points being 4.5 mil and 70 to 80 points being overpaid were the numbers DLJ used
But you are now misusing them. I’ve told you repeatedly that my thresholds were only for the 2011/2012 season since my problem is with them signing this contract for this value in 2011 rather than waiting for 2012. I’m not concerned about years 2,3, 4, 5, 6, I’m not even concerned about year one. My problem is, they gave him a contract extension starting in 2012 for a proven 60 to 65 point player with 4 RFA years left to a player in 2011 who is only a proven 40 point player. They are paying early (and slightly too much) for something that hasn’t, and may not, happen before the contract kicks in.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Ding ding.
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 Sep 6, 2011 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
In return the Flyers got two UFa years they don’t get them next year at 60 points they get RFA and that is it
And they get it at over $1m cheaper.
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 Sep 6, 2011 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
If JVR scores 60 points in 11-12, and they only get RFA years – as you suggest – he would be closer in comparables to Jakub Voracek than $4.2m/6 years.
But at worst, they get him for roughly Giroux, which is $3.75m/3 years. Which is half a million cheaper than they just got.
For some reason, you’re afraid of Giroux’s contract.
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 Sep 6, 2011 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions
cause I have a hard time spelling it I always forget the I so i use G. Those two years is where they benfit so much if he goes into them with a G type season from this year and they want him he could command 6 to 8 on open market if you factor that in I can understand why they would do it
Those two years is where they benfit so much
So the benefit is 5 years away?
he could command 6 to 8 on open market if you factor that in I can understand why they would do it
In five years, the fear that he could command $6 to 8 million makes it worth it to sign this extension now, rather than in three months – when Giroux’s was signed – or six months or even a year, despite no outside teams bidding the Flyers up?
You really seem to be worried about the distant future in trying to argue this deal couldn’t wait a year. Despite evidence suggesting it easily could wait a year.
Because the Flyers could sign JVR to this exact same contract even if he puts up 60 points this upcoming season, which is what we are arguing. What you’re arguing against, I no longer know.
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 Sep 6, 2011 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
No it’s not in return. I already told you a million times, I’ve taken in to consideration the 2 UFA years, we’ve listed comparables where they still get UFA years, it has nothing to do with the 2 UFA years. If you disagree that he is worth more than the current contract if he gets 60 points this year, you need to list examples not a theory, because we have have listed examples that shows the same cap hit and the same years (including the 2 UFA years) is possible and reasonable for 60-65 point players at this stage in their career.
You are literally going in circles repeating yourself now.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Said I was done but…… I don’t dissagree with that what I am saying is the Flyers said we will pay u that even though you only had 40 this year but in exchange we get 2 years ufa which is worth more. The Flyers know that 40 point player doesn’t make 60 point money they gave it to him to get 2 ufa years they negotiated their not dumb those 2years are worth more than 1 or 2 million
I don’t dissagree with that what I am saying is the Flyers said we will pay u that even though you only had 40 this year but in exchange we get 2 years ufa which is worth more. The Flyers know that 40 point player doesn’t make 60 point money they gave it to him to get 2 ufa years they negotiated their not dumb those 2years are worth more than 1 or 2 million
And what I am saying is that a 60-65 point player gets he 6 year deal at $4.25 per season, Eric has given you comparables that prove it. So the Flyers gave him what a 60 to 65 point player would get, gave it to him early, and got nothing in return.
You keep giving your hypothetical, but with no comparables. Eric has shown that 60 to 65 point players under team control are in that ballpark salary, term, and give up years of UFA status.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
The onus is on you to prove your claims. It’s called Russell’s Teapot.
Eric has supported his claims, you have not. And rather than support your own claim, you disparage the evidence presented you. That’s not convincing at all.
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 Sep 6, 2011 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
last thing, I said it to many times all contract extensions are a risk the Flyers thinking is that the risk is minimal and could have higher reward.
I am done good night god bless
Something we’ve already been over many times in this thread, and something nobody disagrees with.
In other words: This is redundant at best, purposeful misdirection at worst, but irrelevant no matter what.
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 Sep 6, 2011 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Ugh.
We aren’t talking about general inherent risks involved in contracts (which none of us disagree with), we are talking about a very specific risk of giving JVR a contract a year early, a contract which, in terms of years and cap hit, correlates to proven 60 to 65 point players while he’s only proven to be a 40 point player.
You have yet to actually prove what the Flyers are thinking with any comparables just continue to theorize. That’s fine if it’s your opinion, but your complete disregarding of the comparables and constant repetition of things not pertinent to our actual POV does nothing to prove your any of your repetitious statements that have yet to address our problem with the contract.
When 3 people are constantly telling you the same thing, maybe, instead of digging your heels in, maybe try taking a step back and understand what we’re talking about. You’ve made it clear you never quite grasped the initial point, and I’m sorry if I failed to help get you there.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
So your saying the Flyers are so stupid that they will pay a 40 point player 60 point money and not get anything. Or could it be at all possible an organazation that has been in buisness a little longer than I’ve been a live made a deal that in the long run they think will save them more than the little they could lose if there is a major malfunction and he wakes up and forgets how to play.
And we have a winner!
Ye Olde Trusted Organeyezation argument is the trump.
Rather than question the notion that maybe, just maybe, those criticizing the contract have a point, fall back on the notion that these are professionals, who have been successfully not winning a championship for 36 years, claim.
Much better than admitting that one is wrong.
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 Sep 6, 2011 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Yea could never happen. I can’t see not knowing how many points one of your “future faces of the franchise” put up three months ago. It would be mildly amusing however.
So the bar is simply “How many points did one of our cornerstones score”?
That’s a really, really low bar to warrant unquestioned loyalty.
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 Sep 6, 2011 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions
i did not say he is the face i used quotes because everyone seems to say that. I see this as what the Flyers philosphy has been with contracts for a while and it has worked. I think this one will work as well. His cap number will be a bargin in 3 years.
Nobody is disputing JVR will be a bargain on this deal. That’s the whole point of having players on ELCs and RFA deals. It’s not about whether he’ll be a bargain, it’s about the fact that they paid him like a 60 point player before he scored 41.
You’re an optimist, which is fine. I bet you’re fine believing the Flyers knew Pronger was a 35+ contract too, even though they’ve admitted it was an oversight. No matter, you clearly don’t understand what Eric, Don, and I are trying to explain to you.
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 Sep 6, 2011 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Feel free to block quote me every time I’ve basically said:
Nobody is disputing JVR will be a bargain on this deal. That’s the whole point of having players on ELCs and RFA deals.Or link to it. It blows my mind that it hasn’t seemed to sink in yet. I’m honestly at a loss; I want to explain it just for the sake of understanding, not agreement, and I have no idea how to get there.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
I literally just said this above:
They’re not dumb, but they screwed up in negotiations.Teams sign players to bad contracts all the time. Dave Tallon has a lot more experience than me, and look what he did this off season. Teams make mistakes, this one is one of timing.
Plus all this is you still missing our problem with the deal, and you are so dug in now, you can’t see it; I don’t need you to agree, I’d just love for you to understand our point, but it doesn’t seem to be in the cards. Too bad.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
No. I’ve said repeatedly that I’m not concerned about the long run. My complaint is all about the timing of the contract and paying for potential, while simultaneously overpaying that potential.
I’m saying, by signing 6 to 12 months early, the Flyers took on a unnecessary risk, while simultaneously paying above market value for JVR (including his 2 UFA years). That the smart move would have either been to receive a discount by signing the contract early, or to wait for the end of the season to sign it since I believe anything between 60-65 points would yiled the same contract, 55 points and less would yield a more favorable contract for the Flyers, and 75 or more would have cost the Flyers money. I looked at his numbers and projected them forward, and he is much more likely to have a 55 or sub season than 75,a likelihood that outweighs the magnitude in salary difference of an explosion of 75 points plus.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
i don’t think that he will be overpaid. If he gets 60 this year he is still being paid ELC wage he would be dramatically underpaid. Now if it takes three to get there he is it is still only year two of new contract so only two of those years would be slightly overpaid. If he gets 60 this coming year I don’t think he would give the Flyers 2 UFA. So if the Flyers sighn him for remainder of RFA at 4.5 after this coming yearand at the end of that he is at 75+ going into UFA with rising salary they could be looking at 7 to 8 for his first two UFA years instead of 4.5 they have them at now
1. I’m not talking about his ELC. I’m talking about the extension. And the point of having ELC’s is that they are underpaid contributors.
2. I’m not concerned about any of the years of his contract, I’ve said that so many times now. My complaint about his contract is not related to his performance during it, it’s about the timing of it, the comparables given production to that point, and the $’s given.
Please stop referring to years 1,2,3,4,5,6…my point never had anythign to do with them. My point is, as I stated above, they gave a contract that would normally be for a player who has already proven to be a 60 to 65 point guy at the time of the signing. They gave it to him without him proving that.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
Just for funsies
Pretend this extension wasn’t signed and the sides waited. What might happen?
Defending this contract means either arguing that the path on the right is more likely than the path on the left (which overlooks the clear history to the contrary), or arguing that those dollar figures could not be achieved over those terms (which also overlooks a clear history).
I thought you were making the latter argument, but now I’m not as sure. In any case, I haven’t seen any evidence to support either.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
by Eric T. on Sep 6, 2011 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I tried but at least in the years to come when everyone is praising the Flyers for another team friendly contract we can come back to this
I’ll repeat myself, from the initial comment of mine you responded to:
I don’t think Eric feels JVR is incapable of outplaying this contract 7 years from now looking back.None of us are arguing JVR doesn’t out play this contract looking back in 7 years, making it a good value when compared to all other contracts (that’s the point of having players under team control). This is talking about the contract being signed in 2011 versus 2012, therefore there are no “years to come” only one year, which Eric’s flow depicts in a very simple way.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
I’ve gone back to the beginning for you, and block quoted where I have already said the things that you repeatedly bring up and have no real baring on what we are in disagreement with. I’ve again told you repeatedly that they are missing the crux of the argument. I’ve been here the whole time and firmly believe you have run yourself in circles.
Just to bring everyone else back to where this started:
I said:
I don’t think Eric feels JVR is incapable of outplaying this contract 7 years from now looking back. Eric is saying by signing early and taking on the risk, and via comparable, it should have been a lower number or signed after this season. You are starting to argue something different so we need to rope you back in here. RFA’s come with a discount, so outperforming those contracts with respect to all contracts is not uncommon or odd, in fact it’s expected; the problem Eric had is they signed early, exposing them to risk and didn’t receive a discount, and fact overpaid slightly based on current production. With respect to that, it makes it a mediocre signing, he is not making claims about looking back 7 years from now will 4.25 be good because that’s irrelevant, given the timing of this deal that number should have been lower.In a conversation I was having with PenguinsFan.
He said:
don’t forget they are buying two of his first and very precious UFA years.
I said:
He isn’t and I’m not. He still is slightly overpaid given production until this point and they still assumed risk.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
To make this simple for you.
Differences:Geoff, Eric, and I all believe that if JVR has a 60-65 point season in 11/12, he’d get roughly the same deal in terms of money and years. Eric has given you back up for the reason we all believe this. You believe that the same amount of production would have resulted in a larger cap hit for the same length of contract (or possibly a similar number for lesser years), but haven’t provided examples. Geoff, Eric, and I think the Flyers took an unnecessary risk by signing the contract 6 to 12 months early because of the first difference I listed.
Similarities: We all have taken in to consideration the 2 years of UFA’s when looking at this.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
No I think it’s money and term, I think this exact deal is available since they signed this on the potential that he has a 60-65 point season (using comparables). And that’s the crux of the disagreement.
And it was never hard to know what I was saying this whole time, since I said the following above during our back and forth:
This deal doesn’t go away at the end of the year if the Flyers wait.
They could easily sign the same contract after this season with JVR having a 65 point year,
So in order for this to be a reward, JVR has to break out and have a 75+ point year. If he is in the 60-65 point range, you look at something similar, and if you are in the sub 55 point range, you are looking at a contract that is for less.
If you disagreed with just this point, all you had to do was say that as I presented it several times, but it took until now to get there. I was hardly unclear.
You sir are a gentleman of four outs!
I think he got 4.5 cap hit and scored 40 pts. So if he scores 60 (explodes) why would it still be the same contract. You either will pay more or less terms. Pay more thats obvious.
I think we just hit the root of it. It’s only obvious that 60 points would get him a bigger deal than this one if you assume that this one is fair market value for a player with 40 points, that a player who has 60 points will get more.
However, comparisons to past RFAs show this not to be the case at all. Go back to this list and think about what fair value is for a 40-point RFA and a 60-point RFA.
•Sam Gagner got 2.3M/yr after three 40+ point seasons in a row
•Gilbert Brule got 1.9M/yr after having 37 pts in 65 games
•Nikolai Kulemin got 2.4M/yr after two 30+ point seasons
•David Krejci got 3.8M/yr after a 73-point season
•Blake Wheeler got 2.6M/yr after three seasons averaging 42 pts
•Bryan Little got 2.4M/yr after a 30-goal, 50-point season
•Eric Fehr got 2.2M/yr after having 39 points in 69 games
•Nathan Gerbe got 1.4M/yr after having 31 points in 64 games
•Michael Frolik got 2.3M/yr after two 20-goal, 40-point seasons
•Peter Mueller got 2M/yr after having a 20-goal, 50-point season
•Kris Versteeg got 3.1M/yr after having a 20-goal, 50-point season
•Mike Santorelli got 1.6M/yr after a 20-goal, 40-point season
•Guillaume Latendresse got 2.5M/yr after a 27-goal, 40-point season
•Patric Hornqvist got 3.1M/yr after a 30-goal, 50-point season
•Sergei Kostitsyn got 2.5M/yr after a 23-goal, 50-point season
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
If he gets 60 points this year without sighning the new contract there is no way you get same years and same cap hit
Yeah, so that’s where we disagree. I think this contract represents fair value for a player who had 35 points his first year, 40 points his second year, and something like 60 points in his third year. I base that on comparison to dozens of previous RFA’s.
You think that if he has 60 points in his third year, he would be paid much more than this. I’m not sure what you base that on.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
not saying paid more neccasarly but would either get same money less years or more money. I say if he go 60 this year he does not give up the UFA years. He took extra and gave up 2 UFA years to compensate for the lack of points. Is that making sense its about as clear as I can make it. That being said I see why the Flyers would do it and if you read other posts it will make sense i just can’t type the same thing again I have explained why this will benifit the Flyers by them having a backend bargin.
Yeah, it makes sense; I just don’t understand what your basis for making this claim is.
Lots of other players have signed deals comparable to this one after having a 60ish point season. What makes you so sure that JvR wouldn’t? Usually the player pushes for as long of a term as possible.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Let’s take this out of the realm of your hypothesis, and enter the world of Eric’s reality, shall we?
It’s all well and good you have a theory, but if the NHL doesn’t follow your theory, it’s not a very applicable theory.
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 Sep 6, 2011 4:15 PM 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
Related FanShots on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
- Adam Henrique sends New Jersey Devils to Stanley Cup Final with OT goal vs. Rangers (VIDEO)
