Tank Nation UNITE!!!

[Sweenbot]

I will be at the game tonight and I am torn on who I want to win. On one hand I am fully on board with tank nation. A win to me now is a loss and a loss a win. In saying that, I dislike the canucks so much that having to sit in that arena listening to their goal horn and fans is very painful, it hurt my heart. So looking at the standing I think I am hoping for a win tonight followed by losing every other game this season.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't know if JVR is a keeper, at this point it's hard to tell. He has looked as bad as anyone on the team over the past 30-40 games.

By the way, congratulations are due to Phil Kessel, first to -30 for the Leafs. Barely beat out Bozak and JVR. Maybe he can make a run at -40...it's not 40 goals, but it's something.

Who cares?  Ovechkin was minus 1000 last season, he's +11 this season. *must've figured it out this off-season!*

 

[Kin]

I think the real question with Connor McDavid and Arizona is how much more likely he makes them to stay there if they lose enough money to get out of their lease. On the one hand he'll help them sell more tickets there but on the other hand he'd also probably make the team that much more attractive to a new market. It's a little bit like the Sonics drafting Kevin Durant and then moving to Oklahoma City. If you can excite a new market with a very high profile star that can go a long way towards really establishing a fan base.

 

[Chris]

I don't know if JVR is a keeper, at this point it's hard to tell. He has looked as bad as anyone on the team over the past 30-40 games.

By the way, congratulations are due to Phil Kessel, first to -30 for the Leafs. Barely beat out Bozak and JVR. Maybe he can make a run at -40...it's not 40 goals, but it's something.

Who cares?  Ovechkin was minus 1000 last season, he's +11 this season. *must've figured it out this off-season!*

Kessel has been a negative every year except his last with Boston, so yeah, I'm sure he'll "figure it out this off-season". Ovechkin has been a positive most years.

 

[Kin]

I don't know if JVR is a keeper, at this point it's hard to tell. He has looked as bad as anyone on the team over the past 30-40 games.

By the way, congratulations are due to Phil Kessel, first to -30 for the Leafs. Barely beat out Bozak and JVR. Maybe he can make a run at -40...it's not 40 goals, but it's something.

Who cares?  Ovechkin was minus 1000 last season, he's +11 this season. *must've figured it out this off-season!*

Kessel has been a negative every year except his last with Boston, so yeah, I'm sure he'll "figure it out this off-season". Ovechkin has been a positive most years.

Except he wasn't just not "a negative" in his last year in Boston. He was a +23. So what's more likely, that one year Kessel decided to be a defensive dynamo or that +/- is a team dependant statistic?

 

[lamajama]

I will be at the game tonight and I am torn on who I want to win. On one hand I am fully on board with tank nation. A win to me now is a loss and a loss a win. In saying that, I dislike the canucks so much that having to sit in that arena listening to their goal horn and fans is very painful, it hurt my heart. So looking at the standing I think I am hoping for a win tonight followed by losing every other game this season.

I'm going too but for the first time in my live I'm cheering for the Canucks. It's just not worth
the win.

 

[Bates]

Arizona lost $16 million in year one with new owners and deal.  Year 2 is looking like significantly less losses based on more corporate sponsors.  I doubt they get to use the 5 year out clause as they will not meet the losses needed.  This info from Anthony LeBlanc this past week. 

I think the real question with Connor McDavid and Arizona is how much more likely he makes them to stay there if they lose enough money to get out of their lease. On the one hand he'll help them sell more tickets there but on the other hand he'd also probably make the team that much more attractive to a new market. It's a little bit like the Sonics drafting Kevin Durant and then moving to Oklahoma City. If you can excite a new market with a very high profile star that can go a long way towards really establishing a fan base.

 

[Kin]

Arizona lost $16 million in year one with new owners and deal.  Year 2 is looking like significantly less losses based on more corporate sponsors.  I doubt they get to use the 5 year out clause as they will not meet the losses needed.  This info from Anthony LeBlanc this past week.

It's a little more complicated than that. As seen in this article here the total amount of losses they incurred this season is actually 34.8 million.

Here's the relevant text:

Coyotes president and CEO Anthony LeBlanc said the team lost $16.458 million, but for Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), it also had to include its one-time acquisition and closing costs ($7.878 million), along with the complete amount of the Mike Ribeiro buyout ($10.495 million), bringing the total operating loss to $34.831 million.

The latter is the figure that counts toward the team's oft-mentioned "out clause," which can be exercised within a 180-day window after five years and allows the team to leave Arizona if it reaches or exceeds $50 million in losses.

So to meet the 50 million in losses all they'd need to do is lose 16 million dollars over the next four years. That seems pretty likely.

 

[Chris]

Except he wasn't just not "a negative" in his last year in Boston. He was a +23. So what's more likely, that one year Kessel decided to be a defensive dynamo or that +/- is a team dependant statistic?

All stats are "team dependent" to varying degrees. I have to laugh at the ways some people try to spin them. During one of the recent games, the announcers were discussing Phil's scoring troubles and pointing to a lower than average shooting percentage over the past 30 or so games... essentially claiming this was just "bad luck". Except they neglected to point out that the low shooting percentage is really a product of lack of effort, and taking easy shots from bad angles.

Anyway, put Kessel on a team like the 2008-2009 Bruins and you cover up for his defensive weaknesses. Put him on a team like the 2014-15 Leafs, or a rebuilding team, and there's nowhere to hide. Things get tough, he sulks/withdraws, and the negatives pile up.

It's actually good for a tank, but I don't think it's good for younger players to be around.

 

[Bates]

Not quite true.  They have to have losses over $50 million after 5 years.  So as it now looks like profit will be achieved in year 3 according to Leblanc I doubt they are over $50 million down after year 5.  And I highly doubt they would win a challenge of the $50 million loss clause on using a buyout as a loss.  Anyway if they continue down the present path they will not be leaving AZ.

Arizona lost $16 million in year one with new owners and deal.  Year 2 is looking like significantly less losses based on more corporate sponsors.  I doubt they get to use the 5 year out clause as they will not meet the losses needed.  This info from Anthony LeBlanc this past week.

It's a little more complicated than that. As seen in this article here the total amount of losses they incurred this season is actually 34.8 million.

Here's the relevant text:

Coyotes president and CEO Anthony LeBlanc said the team lost $16.458 million, but for Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), it also had to include its one-time acquisition and closing costs ($7.878 million), along with the complete amount of the Mike Ribeiro buyout ($10.495 million), bringing the total operating loss to $34.831 million.

The latter is the figure that counts toward the team's oft-mentioned "out clause," which can be exercised within a 180-day window after five years and allows the team to leave Arizona if it reaches or exceeds $50 million in losses.

So to meet the 50 million in losses all they'd need to do is lose 16 million dollars over the next four years. That seems pretty likely.

 

[Kin]

Not quite true.  They have to have losses over $50 million after 5 years.  So as it now looks like profit will be achieved in year 3 according to Leblanc I doubt they are over $50 million down after year 5.  And I highly doubt they would win a challenge of the $50 million loss clause on using a buyout as a loss.  Anyway if they continue down the present path they will not be leaving AZ.

Well, for starters I'd maybe take any predictions of future profitability from the owner with a grain of salt and secondly, there's really no "challenge" to the idea that the money they have to spend to buyout Ribeiro counts against their total operating loss.

If you're going to throw around words like "true" they actually have to be based on facts, not what you think the future might hold.

 

[Kin]

Anyway, put Kessel on a team like the 2008-2009 Bruins and you cover up for his defensive weaknesses. Put him on a team like the 2014-15 Leafs, or a rebuilding team, and there's nowhere to hide. Things get tough, he sulks/withdraws, and the negatives pile up.

Exactly. On a good defensive team his +/- is good, on a bad one it's bad. Lots of good defensive players but up bad +/- numbers on bad defensive teams too. It's just not an individual statistic with any real meaning behind it.

 

[Bates]

It's the US, land of the lawsuit.  They will be challenged in court if they use things like acquisition costs and buyouts to trigger a favorable out clause.  If you think in year 5 they could just do a buyout and claim the $50 million loss and walk away leaving a City holding the bag without any claims then I'm not sure what to tell you. And the true was in reference to the clause being after year 5.  So if they have $51 million in losses after year 4 and more than $1 million in profit in year 5 the clause is gone.

Not quite true.  They have to have losses over $50 million after 5 years.  So as it now looks like profit will be achieved in year 3 according to Leblanc I doubt they are over $50 million down after year 5.  And I highly doubt they would win a challenge of the $50 million loss clause on using a buyout as a loss.  Anyway if they continue down the present path they will not be leaving AZ.

Well, for starters I'd maybe take any predictions of future profitability from the owner with a grain of salt and secondly, there's really no "challenge" to the idea that the money they have to spend to buyout Ribeiro counts against their total operating loss.

If you're going to throw around words like "true" they actually have to be based on facts, not what you think the future might hold.

 

[Kin]

It's the US, land of the lawsuit.  They will be challenged in court if they use things like acquisition costs and buyouts to trigger a favorable out clause.  If you think in year 5 they could just do a buyout and claim the $50 million loss and walk away leaving a City holding the bag without any claims then I'm not sure what to tell you. And the true was in reference to the clause being after year 5.  So if they have $51 million in losses after year 4 and more than $1 million in profit in year 5 the clause is gone.

I acknowledged that though. I said that in order to hit 50 million dollars in losses they would need to lost 16 million dollars "over the next 4 years". That's pretty clear.

And we heard lots of that lawsuit talk throughout this saga. How Balsillie would sue the NHL and win, how Moyes would and on and on. Unfortunately for lawsuits to actually matter they have to be based on law and it's just a fact that right now the Coyotes total operating losses are at 34.8 million in that stretch. If the City wanted to base the opt-out on something else, they should have negotiated on that basis but, obviously, couldn't because they were up against it. They had to agree to the terms they did or definitely lose the team because nobody else was interested in buying it and the League wasn't going to foot the bill any more.

Some things are just black and white. This is one of them.

 

[Rebel_1812]

Arizona lost $16 million in year one with new owners and deal.  Year 2 is looking like significantly less losses based on more corporate sponsors.  I doubt they get to use the 5 year out clause as they will not meet the losses needed.  This info from Anthony LeBlanc this past week. 

I think the real question with Connor McDavid and Arizona is how much more likely he makes them to stay there if they lose enough money to get out of their lease. On the one hand he'll help them sell more tickets there but on the other hand he'd also probably make the team that much more attractive to a new market. It's a little bit like the Sonics drafting Kevin Durant and then moving to Oklahoma City. If you can excite a new market with a very high profile star that can go a long way towards really establishing a fan base.

Let me get this straight your talking in positive tones about a business that has never made a profit? 

 

[moon111]

So they'll move the club?  So maybe McDavid will play in Toronto, just not with the Leafs. 

 

[Chris]

Anyway, put Kessel on a team like the 2008-2009 Bruins and you cover up for his defensive weaknesses. Put him on a team like the 2014-15 Leafs, or a rebuilding team, and there's nowhere to hide. Things get tough, he sulks/withdraws, and the negatives pile up.

Exactly. On a good defensive team his +/- is good, on a bad one it's bad. Lots of good defensive players but up bad +/- numbers on bad defensive teams too. It's just not an individual statistic with any real meaning behind it.

Not exactly what I said. How do you explain someone like Santorelli being +10 (or so) before he was traded? Same bad defensive team as Kessel.

All stats can be mis- or over-interpreted, whether it be something simple like +/- or the modern analytics. Leaf possession numbers improved when Horachek took over, yet the results on the scoreboard got worse. Does that mean those stats are also meaningless?

 

[Kin]

All stats can be mis- or over-interpreted, whether it be something simple like +/- or the modern analytics. Leaf possession numbers improved when Horachek took over, yet the results on the scoreboard got worse. Does that mean those stats are also meaningless?

I can tell you with virtual certainty that a Venn diagram of people who put a lot of stock in analytics and people who put a lot of stock in +/- as a means of measuring individual defensive acumen would essentially just be two circles with no overlap.

And I explain the Mike Santorelli thing the same way I explain Mike Santorelli being a -4 on the Predators or him being a consistently minus player before going to the Canucks. +/- is largely meaningless.

 

[brothert]

All stats can be mis- or over-interpreted, whether it be something simple like +/- or the modern analytics. Leaf possession numbers improved when Horachek took over, yet the results on the scoreboard got worse. Does that mean those stats are also meaningless?

I can tell you with virtual certainty that a Venn diagram of people who put a lot of stock in analytics and people who put a lot of stock in +/- as a means of measuring individual defensive acumen would essentially just be two circles with no overlap.

And I explain the Mike Santorelli thing the same way I explain Mike Santorelli being a -4 on the Predators or him being a consistently minus player before going to the Canucks. +/- is largely meaningless.

i guess by that logic the first line has the unfortunate luck of playing in front of every combination of godawful defenders and goalies this season. the three of them do constitute at least half of the team at even strength when they are on the ice. i think its a situation where the stat can be treated more significantly than it usually is.

 

[Chris]

Taken in isolation/out of context, it's probably not a particularly useful stat. But if you watch the Leaf games, you see exactly why Kessel is now -32 and dropping. And it has nothing to do with bad luck.

I think enough has been said about +/- and it's meaningful- or meaningless - ness. I won't argue about it any more but will be watching to see if Phil can surpass Ovechkin's -35. If so, maybe it will be a good sign for next year.