Carter to LA

[Kin]

I guess it would depend on how much stock you put in the +/- statistic. If you took it as bible law concerning a player's defensive abilities, then no. If you thought it was a horribly flawed statistic with limited value then, yeah, it would.

If you want to try and claim that having the worst +- on your team 4 years in a row and the second worst in another year and having a career best of -12 right now and being a -21 last year on a very good team where the second worst dman had a -2 is merely just a coincidence, than be my guest. I have to say of all the people on here I'm the most surprised that you would try and make this ridiculous claim, this would seem to be the kind of thing you'd take a fellow poster to task on.
[/quote]

It'd probably help you to just respond to what I'm actually writing. I don't have faith in +/- as a measurement of defensive quality. That doesn't make it random.

And, for what it's worth, I've been pretty consistent about that over the years.

 

[Mack674]

Is there another available top 6 guy out there that you think he's got his sights on?

Well, as you mentioned, Brown and Nash. My guess is he's still trying to see if there's a deal to be made for Ryan. There's Ott, who's not really a top 6 guy, but adds the physical presence and has some offensive skills. Outside of that, who knows? One thing we've seen from Burke in his time with the Leafs is that he and his management group have been known to pull off deals under the radar.

How badly would you say he needs to pull off a deal like acquiring Brown or Nash this deadline?

I don't think its about the deadline... its about Toronto seizing an opportunity to acquire a top end player, of which they need at least one more up front to take the next step. Right now there is one top end player who is very available ... the first one all season.

My sentiments exactly. Players like this dont become available very often. At all. So when they do, if youre in need of one, you really should make a run of it. The Leafs are very fortunate that they are one of the teams he's willing to play for. I would be pretty bummed out if I were say a Capitals fan or something wanting in on this guy or Winnipeg and just flatly told "no chance".

I really think Burke will pull the trigger on this to be honest. To see Nash go to the Rangers though - I will literally vomit.

As Erndog and many others myself included have said before, Sather is just addicted to buying up any name players that come around nomatter what the circumstance. The guy is ridiculous and I feel like he just fell ass backwards into a great team this year by fluke chance that a broken clock is still right twice a day but hey, credit where its due, they are a good team this year.

But please for the love of god, get Nash.

se, forYou could argue and everyone does, that Columbus would get a better deal for him in the off season but past deals from Columbus show me that they aren't exactly brilliant tacticians at the GM game over there in Ohio and may not be as patient as some people would like. May also be under pressure from management to make some changes after this disaster season, who knows.

 

[Kin]

It is true, they do handicap the team for a long time as well, those deals are pretty ridiculous and youd better be damn sure about a player before you commit to something like that and I agree with Burke on the issue 100%.

Doesn't the fact that you're posting in a thread about Jeff Carter make you think twice about that? The Flyers committed to one of those contracts with Carter, decided they weren't sure and then traded him. It's not like it's a decision that pins you down forever.

 

[Mack674]

MadFerrett, about the Burke on Carter thing - he has said on multiple occassions that he hates deals that circumvent the spirit of the CBA and the cap and everything and wants no part of them.

It is true, they do handicap the team for a long time as well, those deals are pretty ridiculous and youd better be damn sure about a player before you commit to something like that and I agree with Burke on the issue 100%.

Im sure that was a major factor.

True but I think his attitude and off-ice behavior at times may have been more of a factor than the contract.  Or, at least you could say the former led to the conclusion that the latter was not worth the risk.

I agree with that as well. Im not saying the only factor was the contract thing, but it was a part of the equation for sure. That was another reason im not big on Carter as he's proven he's a baby and not a professional that likes to party instead of taking his outrageously overpriced career seriously.

"I dont wanna play in columbus WAHHHHHHHHH"

No thanks big wheel, go back to kindergarten. You could pay me 500,000k a year and I'd play in Siberia.
Thats not the kind of character I would want on this team.

Nobody likes a losing team and lets be honest, columbus is not many kids dream locations to live out their NHL careers but theres a way of going about this and Nash is doing it in a professional, grown up man like manner without embarassing himself or the organization. Nash tries to win on a bad team, and Carter just didnt even bother because he didnt like it there.

LA can keep him.

 

[ontariojames]

I guess it would depend on how much stock you put in the +/- statistic. If you took it as bible law concerning a player's defensive abilities, then no. If you thought it was a horribly flawed statistic with limited value then, yeah, it would.

If you want to try and claim that having the worst +- on your team 4 years in a row and the second worst in another year and having a career best of -12 right now and being a -21 last year on a very good team where the second worst dman had a -2 is merely just a coincidence, than be my guest. I have to say of all the people on here I'm the most surprised that you would try and make this ridiculous claim, this would seem to be the kind of thing you'd take a fellow poster to task on.

It'd probably help you to just respond to what I'm actually writing. I don't have faith in +/- as a measurement of defensive quality. That doesn't make it random.

And, for what it's worth, I've been pretty consistent about that over the years.
[/quote]You clearly implied that you weren't convinced that Johnson's +- trend had a whole lot of meaning.

 

[Kin]

You clearly implied that you weren't convinced that Johnson's +- trend had a whole lot of meaning.

No, I'm flat out stating explicitly that +/- itself doesn't have a whole lot of meaning.

 

[Mack674]

It is true, they do handicap the team for a long time as well, those deals are pretty ridiculous and youd better be damn sure about a player before you commit to something like that and I agree with Burke on the issue 100%.

Doesn't the fact that you're posting in a thread about Jeff Carter make you think twice about that? The Flyers committed to one of those contracts with Carter, decided they weren't sure and then traded him. It's not like it's a decision that pins you down forever.

It definitely can though and thats my point. Thats not a risk I would be willing to take personally but hey, it worked out okay for the Flyers in this particular instance in that they were able to find a willing taker.
If he doesn't work out for whatever reason in LA (im not suggesting he will or won't, just hypothesizing) then it becomes even harder to turn him into other assets via trade.

I just dont like the long term swing for the fences all or nothing deals unless that player is named Crosby or Gretzkey or Lemieux etc. I don't ever think he was considered a franchise player was he?

I think the league is moving away from that kind of stuff now after seeing the negative effects of these crazy contracts. That season or two in that time period was pretty silly for contracts on UFAs. Wasn't Kovalchuks contract around the same time ?

Anyway, side tracked. I wouldnt do it. 5 years, okay. 10 years, no.

 

[Mack674]

You clearly implied that you weren't convinced that Johnson's +- trend had a whole lot of meaning.

No, I'm flat out stating explicitly that +/- itself doesn't have a whole lot of meaning.

A stat that can be affected by just stepping onto the ice for a split second can't really hold alot of weight can it? A guy can step onto the ice in the middle of a chance and be there for 2 seconds when another team scores because of a play that happened that he wasnt involved in whatsoever, twice, and he's -2 on that game.

-2 ?! Ugh, way to lose the game for us bro.

Its really subjective and and unless its really an outrageous Jason Allison type number I wouldn't put much more than a passing interest into what it is as it can be affected by so many outside factors beyond that players control.

 

[ontariojames]

You clearly implied that you weren't convinced that Johnson's +- trend had a whole lot of meaning.

No, I'm flat out stating explicitly that +/- itself doesn't have a whole lot of meaning.

Yet, you won't come right out and say that you agree that Johnson's +- trend has meaning and shows he is horrible defensively.  So you can see why it appears that you are claiming that Johnson's trend is meaningless.

 

[Kin]

It definitely can though and thats my point.

In what case? Where has a team signed one of those contracts, wanted out, and then been unable to find a taker?

If anything, what we've seen recently is the upsides of deals like these. You could easily argue that both the Canucks team that went to the Finals and the Chicago team that won the cup had major parts of their team with deals like that. Detroit seems pretty happy with Franzen/Zetterberg. Kovalchuk is playing terrifically this year too.

Where's the evidence that the teams who signed those kinds of deals hate them?

 

[Kin]

Yet, you won't come right out and say that you agree that Johnson's +- trend has meaning and shows he is horrible defensively.  So you can see why it appears that you are claiming that Johnson's trend is meaningless.

I'm saying +/- as a whole is largely meaningless. Do you really then need me to state on a player by player basis that +/- is meaningless?

 

[ontariojames]

You clearly implied that you weren't convinced that Johnson's +- trend had a whole lot of meaning.

No, I'm flat out stating explicitly that +/- itself doesn't have a whole lot of meaning.

A stat that can be affected by just stepping onto the ice for a split second can't really hold alot of weight can it? A guy can step onto the ice in the middle of a chance and be there for 2 seconds when another team scores because of a play that happened that he wasnt involved in whatsoever, twice, and he's -2 on that game.

-2 ?! Ugh, way to lose the game for us bro.

Its really subjective and and unless its really an outrageous Jason Allison type number I wouldn't put much more than a passing interest into what it is as it can be affected by so many outside factors beyond that players control.

How about having the worst +- on your team 4 years in a row, is that outrageous enough for you?

+- doesn't always mean anything and needs to be put into context, but there are definite trends among some players that are strong enough where you can reasonably conclude that it's an accurate reflection of that players defensive abilities.

 

[Mack674]

It definitely can though and thats my point.

In what case? Where has a team signed one of those contracts, wanted out, and then been unable to find a taker?

If anything, what we've seen recently is the upsides of deals like these. You could easily argue that both the Canucks team that went to the Finals and the Chicago team that won the cup had major parts of their team with deals like that. Detroit seems pretty happy with Franzen/Zetterberg. Kovalchuk is playing terrifically this year too.

Where's the evidence that the teams who signed those kinds of deals hate them?

Well you wont find any GMs coming out to say they hate their current deals but can you imagine the Washington capitals might be having some second thoughts on Ovechkin right about now? Theres concerns he may never actually return to form and then what? 120 million dollars for a 35 goal scorer?

Can't really blame them though, It would have been pretty difficult not to want to lock him up to that deal at the time but im just pointing out that anything can happen really and committing that kind of term/money to a human being and expecting him to perform at some kind of level for that amount of time is a little risky.

But yeah I guess you could be right now that I put some more thought into it, there arent any really glaring obvious trap contracts. I think im just biased to the whole thing because of what happened to Mogilny and how he got buried in the minors with a contract nobody was willing to take and a team that couldnt afford to pay him.

It just definitely does not make negotiating with other teams easier, and I like to keep my options open. Thats me.

 

[Tigger]

Is there another available top 6 guy out there that you think he's got his sights on?

Nash and Brown are the type of forward the Leafs need. A big guy like Carter or Ryan would obviously help, but they as aren't physical enough despite their size, and as such wouldn't fit as well as needed.

If Getzlaf ever did truly become available he would shoot straight to #1 on the list.

I'd like to include Ott's name (again.) He's probably not a top 6 guy on a lot of teams but the way Kulemin is going, Ott might represent an upgrade at this point.

If Ott isn't a top six and Kulemin gets a smaller contract I think I'd rather have Nik fwiw.

 

[ontariojames]

Yet, you won't come right out and say that you agree that Johnson's +- trend has meaning and shows he is horrible defensively.  So you can see why it appears that you are claiming that Johnson's trend is meaningless.

I'm saying +/- as a whole is largely meaningless. Do you really then need me to state on a player by player basis that +/- is meaningless?

Now you are just all over the place and I have no idea what you are trying to say, because by saying "do you really need me to state player by player basis that +- is meaningless," you are implying that Johnson's +- trend is meaningless. Yet, you denied thinking that.

Let's make this simple, do you or don't you think Johnson's +- trend means anything?

 

[Mack674]

You clearly implied that you weren't convinced that Johnson's +- trend had a whole lot of meaning.

No, I'm flat out stating explicitly that +/- itself doesn't have a whole lot of meaning.

A stat that can be affected by just stepping onto the ice for a split second can't really hold alot of weight can it? A guy can step onto the ice in the middle of a chance and be there for 2 seconds when another team scores because of a play that happened that he wasnt involved in whatsoever, twice, and he's -2 on that game.

-2 ?! Ugh, way to lose the game for us bro.

Its really subjective and and unless its really an outrageous Jason Allison type number I wouldn't put much more than a passing interest into what it is as it can be affected by so many outside factors beyond that players control.

How about having the worst +- on your team 4 years in a row, is that outrageous enough for you?

Yes, that is worth a look and I was not aware of that fact. I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker but it does at least speak something to his comittment or lack there of playing defense. I do think that Johnson was overrated though and that LA won this deal.

Im not going to argue in Carter's favor though, as I was never a fan of him and I outlined my reasons why earlier. Cry baby, plays a soft game, off ice intangibles. Don't know the guy personally but since we're all arm chair GMs here anyway im going to put my stamp on "no thanks" for this guy.

 

[ontariojames]

You clearly implied that you weren't convinced that Johnson's +- trend had a whole lot of meaning.

No, I'm flat out stating explicitly that +/- itself doesn't have a whole lot of meaning.

A stat that can be affected by just stepping onto the ice for a split second can't really hold alot of weight can it? A guy can step onto the ice in the middle of a chance and be there for 2 seconds when another team scores because of a play that happened that he wasnt involved in whatsoever, twice, and he's -2 on that game.

-2 ?! Ugh, way to lose the game for us bro.

Its really subjective and and unless its really an outrageous Jason Allison type number I wouldn't put much more than a passing interest into what it is as it can be affected by so many outside factors beyond that players control.

How about having the worst +- on your team 4 years in a row, is that outrageous enough for you?

Yes, that is worth a look and I was not aware of that fact. I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker but it does at least speak something to his comittment or lack there of playing defense. I do think that Johnson was overrated though and that LA won this deal.

Im not going to argue in Carter's favor though, as I was never a fan of him and I outlined my reasons why earlier. Cry baby, plays a soft game, off ice intangibles. Don't know the guy personally but since we're all arm chair GMs here anyway im going to put my stamp on "no thanks" for this guy.

Ok, didn't know you weren't aware of that, sorry for being a bit condescending.

 

[cw]

You clearly implied that you weren't convinced that Johnson's +- trend had a whole lot of meaning.

No, I'm flat out stating explicitly that +/- itself doesn't have a whole lot of meaning.

Yet, you won't come right out and say that you agree that Johnson's +- trend has meaning and shows he is horrible defensively.  So you can see why it appears that you are claiming that Johnson's trend is meaningless.

It's not a precise stat. I'm not crazy about it - particularly when comparing with other teams because the team a player is on influences +/- quite a bit.

So I looked at Johnson's +/- among LA dmen only. He has the worst +/- each of his four seasons there and usually by quite a margin. Therefore, I'd say that margin is so great and with the consistency of being at the bottom every year on one team, that would overcome a lot of the lack of precision in that stat and support an argument that he has defensive issues (as the scouting reports suggest).

I haven't seen enough of him to say anything beyond that.

 

[Mack674]

You clearly implied that you weren't convinced that Johnson's +- trend had a whole lot of meaning.

No, I'm flat out stating explicitly that +/- itself doesn't have a whole lot of meaning.

A stat that can be affected by just stepping onto the ice for a split second can't really hold alot of weight can it? A guy can step onto the ice in the middle of a chance and be there for 2 seconds when another team scores because of a play that happened that he wasnt involved in whatsoever, twice, and he's -2 on that game.

-2 ?! Ugh, way to lose the game for us bro.

Its really subjective and and unless its really an outrageous Jason Allison type number I wouldn't put much more than a passing interest into what it is as it can be affected by so many outside factors beyond that players control.

How about having the worst +- on your team 4 years in a row, is that outrageous enough for you?

Yes, that is worth a look and I was not aware of that fact. I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker but it does at least speak something to his comittment or lack there of playing defense. I do think that Johnson was overrated though and that LA won this deal.

Im not going to argue in Carter's favor though, as I was never a fan of him and I outlined my reasons why earlier. Cry baby, plays a soft game, off ice intangibles. Don't know the guy personally but since we're all arm chair GMs here anyway im going to put my stamp on "no thanks" for this guy.

Ok, didn't know you weren't aware of that, sorry for being a bit condescending.

lol its all good. I kind of jumped into the middle of the discussion there anyway and im not one to pretend I know all the facts about every player.

I assumed his +/- like most players was up and down and not really indicative to anything unless its a case like I mentioned Jason Allison where its just so, so bad. Like bottom of the league bad, that it can't be ignored.

 

[Kin]

Well you wont find any GMs coming out to say they hate their current deals but can you imagine the Washington capitals might be having some second thoughts on Ovechkin right about now? Theres concerns he may never actually return to form and then what? 120 million dollars for a 35 goal scorer?

Even then, though. Do you really doubt that if Washington wanted to move Ovechkin that they could?

But even if we won't get any public regrets, look at last year's UFA's to see that the wisdom of those deals is still seen. Erhoff and Richards both got long term deals with fluctuating cap numbers.

Can't really blame them though, It would have been pretty difficult not to want to lock him up to that deal at the time but im just pointing out that anything can happen really and committing that kind of term/money to a human being and expecting him to perform at some kind of level for that amount of time is a little risky.

Sure, but what balances out that risk is the increased price performance that you get from guys signing deals at below market cap hits and being able to sign them at all.

But yeah I guess you could be right now that I put some more thought into it, there arent any really glaring obvious trap contracts. I think im just biased to the whole thing because of what happened to Mogilny and how he got buried in the minors with a contract nobody was willing to take and a team that couldnt afford to pay him.

That's not really the same with Mogilny though, is it. He wasn't a long term deal.