The Official Nik Antropov watch thread

[Sarge]

Again, I' can't put too much time into composing a list but here's a small one of UFAs that are either significantly, marginally better, or arguably the same (if you like) in terms of proven scoring ability who signed for significantly less last summer.

Koivu
Recchi
Cole
Bertuzzi
Sykora
Weight
Knuble
Samuelsson
(Ok all of the above are older and/or share the same health risk but you asked for less - so here they are.)

Now, I'm not a fan of a lot of guys on this list either but I will tell you that I prefer most of their terms and cap number given the choice.

Sgt., I think most of those players leave a bit to be desired compared to Antropov, I can't even come up with a comfortable 'arguably the same' conclusion for any of them. Knuble maybe, big maybe.

Again, from a talent perspective, I totally agree. I just think there is better value with some of those guys. If I'm building a team, I allocate my draft dollars elsewhere. I just don't like Antropov and his 4.1 mil over 4 years as part of my top 3 forward group. - Sorry. Apparently, I'm in the minority and that's cool.

[Coslopus]

Again, I' can't put too much time into composing a list but here's a small one of UFAs that are either significantly, marginally better, or arguably the same (if you like) in terms of proven scoring ability who signed for significantly less last summer.

Koivu
Recchi
Cole
Bertuzzi
Sykora
Weight
Knuble
Samuelsson
(Ok all of the above are older and/or share the same health risk but you asked for less - so here they are.)

Now, I'm not a fan of a lot of guys on this list either but I will tell you that I prefer most of their terms and cap number given the choice.

Sgt., I think most of those players leave a bit to be desired compared to Antropov, I can't even come up with a comfortable 'arguably the same' conclusion for any of them. Knuble maybe, big maybe.

Right but  Samuelsson at 2.5M for 3 years saves you 1.5M a year and you're out of the contract 1 year earlier.

Knuble is similar saving you 1.2M a year and you're out of the contract 2 years earlier.

These things need to be considered when you have a young team (or were planning to) with RFA's needing raises in the near to mid future.

If it ultimately comes down to "was it a good decision to trade Nik and sign Komi for 500K more", I think the answer is obviously no.

However at the time we were a team that needed help defensively. Given the fact that our forwards have been pretty bad at defense this year, you wonder why Antro wasn't seen as a bargain at that price for all the reasons listed by others (big body, good defense, decent scoring clip).

Burke obviously wanted to put his own stamp on this team, and that didn't involve Nik. It's unfortunate because for all the #1A and #1B defensemen on this team (Komi, Phaneuf, Kabs, Beauch) we lack the kind of skill set NIk has up front. I still don't understand all the dollars tied up in this defence, with such poor results.

As some Stanley Cup champs have shown, it's not detrimental to spend some money on the forward group.

[Tigger]

Right but  Samuelsson at 2.5M for 3 years saves you 1.5M a year and you're out of the contract 1 year earlier.

Knuble is similar saving you 1.2M a year and you're out of the contract 2 years earlier.

The age of those two players should be considered too when compared to Nik, as well as what Knuble was maybe willing to take to play with Ovechkin, and maybe Samuelsson did something similar as well, Vancouver and Washington are two of the better teams around.

These things need to be considered when you have a young team (or were planning to) with RFA's needing raises in the near to mid future.

If it ultimately comes down to "was it a good decision to trade Nik and sign Komi for 500K more", I think the answer is obviously no.

However at the time we were a team that needed help defensively. Given the fact that our forwards have been pretty bad at defense this year, you wonder why Antro wasn't seen as a bargain at that price for all the reasons listed by others (big body, good defense, decent scoring clip).

Burke obviously wanted to put his own stamp on this team, and that didn't involve Nik. It's unfortunate because for all the #1A and #1B defensemen on this team (Komi, Phaneuf, Kabs, Beauch) we lack the kind of skill set NIk has up front. I still don't understand all the dollars tied up in this defence, with such poor results.

As some Stanley Cup champs have shown, it's not detrimental to spend some money on the forward group.

In hindsight, Burke might have liked that one back, but how much influence Antropov would have had inducing a more successful season in Toronto, ie making the 8th seed, leaves me wanting a bit.

On top of that, by the end of his contract he'd be getting a little old for a big man who never skated that well to begin with, and have little value left in a trade.

[MrT]

I expect better than this from you, unless you can tell me with a straight face that you're not deliberately misinterpreting me.

Your argument: We could use Antropov's skill set right now so Burke was wrong to trade him.

My contribution: Burke's decision to trade Antropov included Nik's term demands to re-sign; so arguing "he was wrong to trade him" without weighing in that factor is failing to assess the decision in a way that is meaningful to NHL general managers. One can fairly safely assume that Burke's decision revolved around projecting Nik's future production potential, assessing the team's needs in that position, assessing the salary structure of the team, and assessing the impact of adding Nik's salary demand over the term he was requiring as part of a new contract. I added my impression that Burke appeared to have balked at the term, not the dollar amount; and an observation that Burke seemed generally reluctant to offer long terms to players who were not key assets.

Now I genuinely have to ask. When you see me make the argument that Burke was wrong to make this decision do you really think that I'm making that argument without realizing that making the other decision available to him would have to come with, say, signing Nik Antropov to a contract? And that, if Burke wanted to do that, he'd have to meet Nik Antropov's terms? That, when Burke made this decision, it was based on his reading of the situation as he saw it? My response to you, initially, really had nothing to do with you but rather that if Burke made this decision on what really seems to me to be a pretty arbitrary and inconsistent rule(I fail to see, for instance, how Nik Antropov is any less a "top" player than Komisarek or Beauchemin) about contract length than it strikes me as being even dumber than just the "If we're going to try to win hockey games, it might have been nice to hang onto our best forward" rationale I was using beforehand.

I know that this tends to be a sticking point with us in some of our arguments where I criticize a move a GM makes and your counter-point tends to be more trying to justify why said GM might have felt he was right to make it as opposed to whether or not he actually was right to make it but it's a little hard for me to understand that point of view. I am genuinely sorry if you confused me calling Burke stupid with me calling you that.

Perhaps it's because I tend to think that NHL general managers -- particularly the successful ones -- have a better grasp of the overall method of operating a team than I do so my tendency is to try to identify that GM's "rules of thumb", trends, and overall philosophy and then ascertain why they might have adopted that strategy. I am inclined to assume that they have some rationale for making each of their decisions, so rather than attack it I look to "justify it" in order to understand their thought-process. Once I am confident I have a thorough grasp of that, I can then offer my own value-judgment about it. Having been in senior corporate management, I have made plenty of decisions that were predicated either by special circumstances that were not common knowledge (often not even to staff, and certainly not to the public/customer base/competition) or that worked toward long-term strategic goals even if it was at the expense of reduced short-term rewards. Thus, when I see an odd or controversial decision made by someone else in that sort of position of authority, I hesitate to label them an idiot until I'm sure I have all the necessary facts underlying their decision.

In this specific case, I think I can understand why Burke might be reluctant to sign Antropov to a 4 or 5 year deal and why he would generally prefer not to hand out a longer term contract to a similar player. I also think that his philosophy about team composition treats each position (G/D/F) in a distinctly different way, such that I am positive he would not agree with your assertion that Antropov is equally as "top" a player as Komisarek or Beauchemin. I would agree with him on that evaluation too.

IMO Antropov is not a key forward -- not one that you'd build your franchise around -- and I suspect you'd agree with me about that. The only forwards I would consider giving long term (and big dollar) contracts to are the indispensable and irreplaceable ones. You can only get those guys via the draft (top 5 or 10 usually, depending on the draft, or by considerable luck later in the draft) or via very expensive trades. They rarely come up in the UFA market, and usually command horrible overpayment on that market too. I'm referring to guys like Crosby, Ovechkin, Hossa, Staal, Heatley, Getzlaf, etc. Burke is hoping/projecting Kessel to be very close to (if not in) that category of player [and if that were the topic of this discussion, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that projection of Kessel's worth.]

The next tier of forwards are the ones who are considerably easier (though not simple or necessarily inexpensive) to lay ones hands on when one needs them. A few of them come up almost every UFA season, or on expiring contracts at trade deadline, or can be obtained via trade at other times without paying an obscene price for them. They are also more likely to come from a broader range of draft picks, or sometimes via the college or overseas route). They tend to be somewhat less consistent performers with lower total (but still very good) production, but still command relatively high salaries. This would be the typical lower end of primary scoring line or top end of the secondary scorers pool type of player. Antropov is showing favorably that he should be treated as being this class of player.

Early in their careers, tier-2 types will first go through their ELSPC (3-year deal with CBA-mandated salary range) where most break into the league at age 20-22 and will sign their second (RFA) contract to take them through to (roughly) that magic age-28 mark when they're eligible for UFA status.  Typical age of their peak production is in the 27-32 range, often with a more precipitous falloff toward the end of their careers. At about age 28 or 29 they will be on expiring RFA contracts and can often become available if the team that owns their rights is either in a cap crunch situation, doesn't have enough top-six roster spots available to accommodate their stock of tier-1 and tier-2 players, or is in a rebuilding mode and needs to convert them into other assets.  Later in their careers (after their prime-years UFA contact) you can also pick them up via trade/UFA on lower and/or shorter term deals and still get decent production from them (or sell them for decent value at the trade deadline to a contender who wants to add some extra veteran presence to the roster for a Cup push).

The age/performance window and potential sporadic production would lead me to prefer signing most tier-2 forwards to a deal that doesn't extend beyond their 32nd birthday, a luxury/risk I can take due to my confidence that I will have a reasonable ability to acquire another one via trade or at an acceptable UFA term and cost if/when I need one. I can -- and should -- pass on any who want longer terms unless they are either at the top end of that tier bracket, or I expect to be a cup-contender for at least 2 of the 4 years (or 3 of 5 years) of their term. If I'm rebuilding, I can get better value by trading them and using the roster spot to develop younger tier-2 ELSPC and/or RFA players instead.

And all of the above is also why I don't give them NMC/NTC since I want to be able to maximize my return if they are having extraordinary years, or divest myself of them if they nose-dive.

Please note: I am not saying that this is the only reason for trading Nik. Other factors also came into play to varying degree, and I'm quite sure you don't need me to itemize them for you. I'm just presenting a rationale for Burke's general preference not so extend a player like Nik (or Poni, or Stajan) for more than 3 years given the current status of the team.

[donkeyy0]

If you're arguing Nik's relative value at the time of his trade/not-resigning, how he scores with Atlanta is of no consequence. He had a pretty good season on a contract year where his stats could have been interpreted as he was playing a little over his head.

Considering his year before his contract year was actually his best, it'd be pretty hard to make that argument.

So at the time he was traded he had 1 season where he scored at a rate better than .7ppg (not sure about that, but I think that's the case). He had 1 season where he played more than 70 games (at least since the lockout, not sure if he played a ton before then). How does that warrant 4.1 mil?

Maybe if he consistently scores at a .9ppg pace (such as this season) then he's definitely worth 4.5 or 5.5 or whatever, but if he's consistently scoring at Matt Stajan's pace...maybe 3/3.5 is the most you should offer.

[Toronto Maple Leafs Fan™]

Perhaps it's because I tend to think that NHL general managers -- particularly the successful ones -- have a better grasp of the overall method of operating a team than I do so my tendency is to try to identify that GM's "rules of thumb", trends, and overall philosophy and then ascertain why they might have adopted that strategy. I am inclined to assume that they have some rationale for making each of their decisions, so rather than attack it I look to "justify it" in order to understand their thought-process. Once I am confident I have a thorough grasp of that, I can then offer my own value-judgment about it. Having been in senior corporate management, I have made plenty of decisions that were predicated either by special circumstances that were not common knowledge (often not even to staff, and certainly not to the public/customer base/competition) or that worked toward long-term strategic goals even if it was at the expense of reduced short-term rewards. Thus, when I see an odd or controversial decision made by someone else in that sort of position of authority, I hesitate to label them an idiot until I'm sure I have all the necessary facts underlying their decision.

That's fair enough but, I'm sure you agree, there's plenty of room in there to examine a decision and find that the rationale behind it comes up wanting. Trading a player like Nik Antropov in a contract year, if you really don't think he fits into future plans, is not a particularly odd or controversial decision. What's more at issue here is whether or not that decision fits into the larger scheme of things.

In this specific case, I think I can understand why Burke might be reluctant to sign Antropov to a 4 or 5 year deal and why he would generally prefer not to hand out a longer term contract to a similar player. I also think that his philosophy about team composition treats each position (G/D/F) in a distinctly different way, such that I am positive he would not agree with your assertion that Antropov is equally as "top" a player as Komisarek or Beauchemin. I would agree with him on that evaluation too.

I would really appreciate the chance to ask him about that then. I really can't look at what I've ever seen from any of those guys and come to that same conclusion. I can certainly understand the reluctance to give Antropov a 4 year deal. I can understand the reluctance to give him a three year deal. At issue here is whether or not that one year difference would justify the decision. I'm not sure there's a convincing argument here as to why that one extra year would make have that much impact as to the decision.

IMO Antropov is not a key forward -- not one that you'd build your franchise around -- and I suspect you'd agree with me about that. The only forwards I would consider giving long term (and big dollar) contracts to are the indispensable and irreplaceable ones. You can only get those guys via the draft (top 5 or 10 usually, depending on the draft, or by considerable luck later in the draft) or via very expensive trades. They rarely come up in the UFA market, and usually command horrible overpayment on that market too. I'm referring to guys like Crosby, Ovechkin, Hossa, Staal, Heatley, Getzlaf, etc. Burke is hoping/projecting Kessel to be very close to (if not in) that category of player [and if that were the topic of this discussion, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that projection of Kessel's worth.]

See, I think that what we have to get at here is the actual application of these "rules". We hear a lot about them, about how Burke won't sign anyone to a 5+ year deal, how Antropov or guys of his ilk aren't worth a 4 year deal and so on and very little that justifies why these rules exist. It would, I think you agree, be pretty stupid if Ryan Getzlaf insisted on a 6 year deal and Burke's response was "Well, we don't do that here, have fun negotiating with the Columbus Blue Jackets".

The problem here with how I think you're looking at things is the idea that Antropov's deal somehow can fit into a blanket "big money/long-term" statement. Looked at in that context it's easy to say why you wouldn't want to sign it. But in context I'm not sure it is. I think of a big money deal for a guy who's a second tier forward and I think of Ryan Smyth. I think of long term for a second tier forward and I think of Ryan Malone. I absolutely can understand a GM's reluctance to sign deals like that, that's not this though.

The next tier of forwards are the ones who are considerably easier (though not simple or necessarily inexpensive) to lay ones hands on when one needs them. A few of them come up almost every UFA season, or on expiring contracts at trade deadline, or can be obtained via trade at other times without paying an obscene price for them. They are also more likely to come from a broader range of draft picks, or sometimes via the college or overseas route). They tend to be somewhat less consistent performers with lower total (but still very good) production, but still command relatively high salaries. This would be the typical lower end of primary scoring line or top end of the secondary scorers pool type of player. Antropov is showing favorably that he should be treated as being this class of player.

I know Burke has a tendency to break players down into numbers and assign them universal values but where I think this falls short is that Antropov not only provided attributes that would be particularly useful to the Leafs but he's also a relatively unique type of player. Guys like him aren't available every offseason. Guys who provide other things may be but there's no guarantee that you can get them interested in signing here or that you can get them at a reasonable rate.

Like I've said, I think you can make a convincing and reasonable argument that if the team were engaged in a traditional, patience based rebuild that trading Nik made a lot of sense. Once it became readily apparent that wasn't the case I think you have to call the wisdom of that into question. It was only after Burke's first shot at building while competing was such a complete and egregious failure that we saw the  selling off of assets.

I think that what we all saw from Nik Antropov in his years here speak pretty well to how he'd have fit in here in a hockey sense. I think that there's really nothing concrete in what you've said that indicates that there's a specific reason why 3 years should be the difference between medium and long term deals. The deal still strikes me as being pretty short sighted and arbitrary.

[draeko17]

Another two points tonight from Big Nik, +/- 18 on the year.  Really solidifying himself as a leader on the team.

[Hockey_gal]

Another two points tonight from Big Nik, +/- 18 on the year.  Really solidifying himself as a leader on the team.

I miss Nik bit good for him

[Potvin29]

2 more goals tonight, 61 points in 66 games (assuming he doesn't get any more points tonight, but he's awesome so maybe he will).

[Lucky666]

Is he playing center in Atlanta?

[MrT]

Is he playing center in Atlanta?

Yes

[Strangelove]

His two goals tonight were vintage Antropov tips, along with his usual classy, understated celebration..

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Another 2 points tonight for big Nik... goal and an assist...

[Potvin29]

63 points in 67 games now so far, and a +17, depending on how the rest of the game goes though.

[Strangelove]

And Antro is first star again.  Ho hum.

Love that guy.