ExLeaf: Chicago re-signs Viktor Stalberg, 2yr, $875k, one way deal

[cw]

He effectively finished as a 3rd liner here after getting shots in the top 6. And he was definitely a 3rd liner in Philly. Now with Florida's weak/questionable roster, maybe he can find a spot in the top 6 and stick.

I changed that post because I didn't especially want to dwell there but, sure, to the extent that "third liner" is a dismissive label regardless of a player's abilities and contributions in that role or the circumstances that find them in that role, then sure. I'm not disputing Kris Versteeg has played on a third line. My point is that it's because he's as versatile as he is that he can be used in that role and still be effective and that's evidence of his value.

Cole Hamels is a #3 starter, Dwyane Wade is a #2 scoring option, Steve Young was a back-up QB.

I don't know about "dismissive label". He is what he is and on three teams, his coaches basically concluded his talent assessment by playing him on their third line. Using a very common term in hockey, "third liner" identifies where he fit in various groups of forwards on a hockey roster rather than merely a "dismissive label". What are we supposed to do, call him a second liner when he played mostly as a third liner or wound up on a third line when things didn't work out with him in a top 6 role?

Is calling him a "tweener" less dismissive because I think that might overstate a little?

For me, his "versatility" was kind of limited. He can put up points and he can forecheck/steal the puck - those are his strong suits. He doesn't hit much or blow you away in shot blocking. He's nothing special on the PK. His game goes up in the offensive zone - I think he's defensively suspect and lacking in interest in the D zone. His head and attitude seem to be a little more about "me" than the typical NHLer. And I'm not sure he plays real well with others - in terms of a being a good team player on the ice. Some of that's subjective but that's the impression he left me with.

I wish him the best but have no remorse he's playing elsewhere. I suspect Burke & the Flyers feel similarly.

 

[Kin]

How many 5-6 defensemen score top 50 for D in points?

The ones who get a lot of power play time?

 

[Bender]

I watched roughly 60 Leafs games last year and that is indeed what I saw. Maybe it was due to a difference of system, lack of chemistry or something, but the player I saw did not fit in the Leaf's top 6, which is kind of surprising. I remember seeing him cough up the puck with Beauchemin-like consistency. An ill-timed pass here, a silly move there, taking unnecessary slashing penalties. To some degree the stats do fly in the face of this - Grabovski had a lot more penalties called on him. But from the games that I saw I came away more with "He's great on the power play... but has little chemistry with teammates" much like I came away from Francois Beauchemin thinking "He can be responsible, but does he ever make bad plays and make errant passes at the worst times."

He finished with 35 giveaways, fewer than Kessel, Bozak, Mac and Kessel. I'd be the first guy to say the giveaway stat is dicey but it's food for thought.

Did Versteeg develop great chemistry with anyone? No, probably not although as you say he did play well on the power play and I thought he played pretty well with Armstrong in the games where he did.

Is that Versteeg's fault? I don't think so. I think Kessel largely failed in the same way. I don't think it's either of their faults. I think that for speedy, talented wingers they need a good centre for chemistry to really develop and the Leafs were so bad in that area that it reflected poorly on everyone.

I'd say that's also a pretty fair analysis.

 

[Kin]

I don't know about "dismissive label". He is what he is and on three teams, his coaches basically concluded his talent assessment by playing him on their third line. Using a very common term in hockey, "third liner" identifies where he fit in various groups of forwards on a hockey roster rather than merely a "dismissive label". What are we supposed to do, call him a second liner when he played mostly as a third liner or wound up on a third line when things didn't work out with him in a top 6 role?

I'm not sure it's asking for some ridiculous amount of nuance to say that Versteeg is a third line forward on teams where the top 6 is stacked or that, on a third line, he's still a consistent 20 goal scorer.

Two teams with amazing forwards put him on the third line. One mess of a team had him in a bigger role where his production matched his role. To sum all of that up with "third liner" strikes me as kind of being intentionally marginal and dismissive of the actual facts of how good he is and what he contributes.

His head and attitude seem to be a little more about "me" than the typical NHLer. And I'm not sure he plays real well with others - in terms of a being a good team player on the ice. Some of that's subjective but that's the impression he left me with.

I'm not much for arguing these subjectives. I personally think that 90% of what you said here about Versteeg really applies better to Phil Kessel but I've never thought those conversations are particularly constructive or engaging. Whatever causes you to think Kris Verseeg is about himself, be it rap music or mouthguards, I can't comment on.

I think, though, that calling a guy with his track record of success any sort of impediment to team play, though, falls flat on it's face.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

How many 5-6 defensemen score top 50 for D in points?

The ones who get a lot of power play time?

With his whopping 6 power play points.

His even strength points were 22nd in the league for D.  Ahead of Karlsson, Myers, Boyle, Goligoski, Kaberle, to name a few.

 

[Kin]

With his whopping 6 power play points.

His even strength points were 22nd in the league for D.  Ahead of Karlsson, Myers, Boyle, Goligoski, Kaberle, to name a few.

Well, it's your benchmark, not mine. That's, what, 22 percent of his points or there abouts? So I guess a better answer on my part would be the healthy ones, who get PP time and have offensive talent.

I'm not entirely sure as to the point you're making here, although lord knows I love a tangent. Nashville didn't have a phenomenal top to bottom defense last year and the Leafs don't really this year. He was a bottom pairing guy last year and most people seem to think he'll have a similar role on the Leafs.

I know the thread got lost but I really liked the Franson trade. A bottom pairing guy who can really help the team's PP is a good addition.

 

[cw]

Cole Hamels is a #3 starter, Dwyane Wade is a #2 scoring option, Steve Young was a back-up QB.

Move them to another roster, where they're not behind a superstar and they're something more.

Hamels is behind two Cy Young winners

Steve Young was a backup behind Joe Montana, one of the greatest QBs of all time

Wade is behind Lebron

Three teams. Three third liner roles for Kris Versteeg. There have not been a bunch of superstars holding Versteeg out of cracking and sticking in the top 6 on the three teams he's played for. Some of those teams had some darn good forwards but no superstars come to mind - particularly within the 1-6 spots in their top 6.

 

[Kin]

Three teams. Three third liner roles for Kris Versteeg. There have not been a bunch of superstars holding Versteeg out of cracking and sticking in the top 6 on the three teams he's played for. Some of those teams had some darn good forwards but no superstars come to mind - particularly within the 1-6 spots in their top 6.

Well, again, that all hinges on things we may disagree about. The respective talents of guys like Patrick Sharp, Marian Hossa, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Mike Richards, Jeff Carter, Danny Briere, Claude Giroux as well as his role in Toronto. Like I said if memory serves he was second on the team among forwards in TOI when he got dealt. That doesn't say third liner to me any more than Joey Crabb getting time with Kessel says that he's a legitimate NHL first liner. Even if last year's Maple Leafs weren't a team that saw some pretty logic defying coaching decisions they were a team where everyone was struggling and everyone got juggled.

To say "Kris Versteeg was a third liner on the Leafs"does not at all jive with what I saw or describe his contributions to the club.

edit: and, either way, you're kind of establishing my point. Kris Versteeg is a third liner on really, really good teams and talented enough to still score 20 goals on a third line. To not include that seems like the kind of intentional lack of detail we tend to hammer around here.

 

[Tigger]

I'm saying he's a complementary player who was paid as a ufa while actually being an rfa finishing his entry level deal, that's it, that's all.

And that strikes me as pretty esoteric definition of overpaid compared to market conditions or value being contributed when compared to salary.

Maybe but it is/was an unusual situation, suits.

On a team with Bozak as the top line center ( he of the Reading Royals ) Versteeg had every opportunity and didn't get it done. During his time in Toronto I thought his defensive play was lacklustre and his offensive play was one dimensional.

See, that just strikes me as nuts. Versteeg got every opportunity because the guy who was his centre sucked? So he had every opportunity to play out of position and go against the other team's best defensive pairing?  He had every opportunity not to get decent set-ups?

Versteeg has played center in the past and that was supposed to be part of the versatility he brought. He also played with Grabbo and didn't seem to click at all.

Kessel still seemed to score 30 with Bozak, what was holding Versteeg back, Joey Crabb? I mean the guys above him suck and he's on the third line or the guys above him are awesome and he's on the third line. It's descriptive enough to me and jives enough with what I saw of him on the ice.

35 points -13 in 53 games with the second highest toi on the team doesn't really say much more to me than Stajan did with lots of ice time.

 

[Kin]

Maybe but it is/was an unusual situation, suits.

Not really. It's more or less meaningless compared to the other definitions. If a guy is contributing in line with his salary, I don't think many people would agree that he's "overpriced" regardless of the circumstances under which his contract was signed.

In fact, his salary was a reflection of the market. He was able to get what he got from the Blackhawks because they knew he'd get something similar as a UFA. It's really no different than any other signing.

Versteeg has played center in the past and that was supposed to be part of the versatility he brought. He also played with Grabbo and didn't seem to click at all.

So had Kessel but that didn't work out either. Like I said above, nobody on the Leafs last year really developed chemistry with anyone aside from the Mac-Grabo-Nik line. It's why Kessel got paired up with Joey Crabb and various others. Nothing worked because nobody was playing centre with any kind of skill. That reflects as badly on Versteeg as it does on Kessel and everyone else.

Kessel still seemed to score 30 with Bozak, what was holding Versteeg back, Joey Crabb? I mean the guys above him suck and he's on the third line or the guys are above him are awesome and he's on the third line. It's descriptive enough to me and jives enough with what I saw of him on the ice.

35 points in 53 games with the second highest toi on the team doesn't really say much more to me than Stajan did with lots of ice time.

Again, Versteeg was one of the team's most played forwards last year. To just say "he was on the third line" is as incomplete as saying Crabb is a first-liner. Versteeg, with Bozak, was going to score 22 goals and 54 points. That's a very good total for a winger with no kind of centre.

 

[Tigger]

Versteeg has played center in the past and that was supposed to be part of the versatility he brought. He also played with Grabbo and didn't seem to click at all.

So had Kessel but that didn't work out either. Like I said above, nobody on the Leafs last year really developed chemistry with anyone aside from the Mac-Grabo-Nik line. It's why Kessel got paired up with Joey Crabb and various others. Nothing worked because nobody was playing centre with any kind of skill. That reflects as badly on Versteeg as it does on Kessel and everyone else.

...but Kessel still actually managed 32 goals.

Kessel still seemed to score 30 with Bozak, what was holding Versteeg back, Joey Crabb? I mean the guys above him suck and he's on the third line or the guys are above him are awesome and he's on the third line. It's descriptive enough to me and jives enough with what I saw of him on the ice.

35 points in 53 games with the second highest toi on the team doesn't really say much more to me than Stajan did with lots of ice time.

Again, Versteeg was one of the team's most played forwards last year. To just say "he was on the third line" is as incomplete as saying Crabb is a first-liner. Versteeg, with Bozak, was going to score 22 goals and 54 points. That's a very good total for a winger with no kind of centre.

Ponikarovsky numbers then? He was ultimately put on the third line on a regular basis in Toronto, fact. Y'know, it's funny, I just checked Dobber and he played quite a bit with Richards in Philly so not sure what to make of that but he was on pace for 33 points over 82 games with him.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

With his whopping 6 power play points.

His even strength points were 22nd in the league for D.  Ahead of Karlsson, Myers, Boyle, Goligoski, Kaberle, to name a few.

Well, it's your benchmark, not mine. That's, what, 22 percent of his points or there abouts? So I guess a better answer on my part would be the healthy ones, who get PP time and have offensive talent.

I'm not entirely sure as to the point you're making here, although lord knows I love a tangent. Nashville didn't have a phenomenal top to bottom defense last year and the Leafs don't really this year. He was a bottom pairing guy last year and most people seem to think he'll have a similar role on the Leafs.

I know the thread got lost but I really liked the Franson trade. A bottom pairing guy who can really help the team's PP is a good addition.

That if Kris Versteeg is not a third line winger by virtue of his skill and the totals he has put up over his career, that Franson is more than a #5-6 guy based upon the totals he was able to put up, which were in the Top 30 for d-men at even strength, and top 50 overall.

It's less of trying to go off track, and more of not agreeing that Franson is a #5-6 because he was used as a #5-6 but Versteeg is not a third liner despite being used as a third liner.  I agree he is more than just a third liner, much as I think Franson is more than a #5-6.

 

[Kin]

...but Kessel still actually managed 32 goals.

So Matt Moulson numbers then?

He was ultimately put on the third line on a regular basis in Toronto, fact.

No, fiction.  Near the end he had about 7 games of reduced ice time but just about everyone on the team had a similar stretch over the course of the year.

Y'know, it's funny, I just checked Dobber and he played quite a bit with Richards in Philly so not sure what to make of that but he was on pace for 33 points over 82 games with him.

You could consider that it might say something about what being a "third liner" meant on Philadelphia, or Chicago, but that might be talking crazy.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

...but Kessel still actually managed 32 goals.

So Matt Moulson numbers then?

Rick Nash numbers.

 

[Tigger]

...but Kessel still actually managed 32 goals.

So Matt Moulson numbers then?

Maybe but not Kris Versteeg numbers.

He was ultimately put on the third line on a regular basis in Toronto, fact.

No, fiction.  Near the end he had about 7 games of reduced ice time but just about everyone on the team had a similar stretch over the course of the year.

Back to Joey Crabb.

Y'know, it's funny, I just checked Dobber and he played quite a bit with Richards in Philly so not sure what to make of that but he was on pace for 33 points over 82 games with him.

You could consider that it might say something about what being a "third liner" meant on Philadelphia, or Chicago, but that might be talking crazy.

...a 33 point pace does it for you then, allrighty.

 

[Kin]

That if Kris Versteeg is not a third line winger by virtue of his skill and the totals he has put up over his career, that Franson is more than a #5-6 guy based upon the totals he was able to put up, which were in the Top 30 for d-men at even strength, and top 50 overall.

It's less of trying to go off track, and more of not agreeing that Franson is a #5-6 because he was used as a #5-6 but Versteeg is not a third liner despite being used as a third liner.  I agree he is more than just a third liner, much as I think Franson is more than a #5-6.

Ah, I see. Fair enough.

I suppose the difference I'd see there is that the things I'd read about Franson said that his real failings are defensive. A 5-6 defenseman power-play specialist, or offensive specialist, is not terribly uncommon and the things that hold them back from progressing into a top 4 role are their defensive liabilities.

So the difference I see is that Franson's status as a 5-6 guy is a result of his failings and that he hasn't shown that he's able to contribute in a more valuable role by playing the defense necessary to be in the top 4. By contrast Versteeg has played well in more prominent roles and, to my eyes, the only thing that's held him where he is are the multitude of super talented forwards on the teams he's been with.

Which isn't to say Franson won't become a good enough defensive defenseman to have an increased role, I hope he does. Being a really talented offensive defenseman isn't enough, though, to earn the increased role.

 

[Kin]

Maybe but not Kris Versteeg numbers.

Not Kris Versteeg's versatility either.

Back to Joey Crabb.

Phil Kessel also spent some time off the top line for, if I remember correctly, John Mitchell. You're not going to score a lot of points by establishing that the Leafs sucked last year and Ron Wilson made bad decisions.

...a 33 point pace does it for you then, allrighty.

I'll take 20 goals from my third liners regardless of the small sample size.

 

[Tigger]

I'll take 20 goals from my third liners regardless of the small sample size.

You're quite welcome to them.