Player Discussion Alex Newhook

[WeThreeKings]

That is my entire point.


Jesus Christ finally.

The amount of bootlicking in here is nauseating.

If this same thread were posted two months ago after Colorado got bounced in round 1 the takes in here would be a complete 180 from what we see now.

If that was your entire point, then the bolded below really veers off your point so drastically that it does not look like that was ever your point.

If three years from now, Newhook is a smallish 50 point 2nd line W, can we recoup the equivalent of the 31st + 37th in a loaded draft?

If the answer is no, then we lost the trade. Especially when we do not value his services for the next three years as we will not be contending for a cup in that timeframe.

And I do believe that answer is no because of how many players of that profile hit the open market as a UFA and how many are available via trade for a fraction of that price all the time.

He needs to be more than that for the trade to have been worth it, either defensively (highly unlikely) or offensively.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

No. The point is not about the current Newhook. Even if he becomes a 50 point player, what is there to differentiate him from other 50 point wingers that are in high supply around the league and can usually be acquired for lesser price?

That's the whole issue with this trade. What kind of abilities are they projecting Newhook to add to the lineup that could not have been obtained for a lesser price?

Ridiculous. 50 pt wingers aren't in high supply and certainly not 22 year old ones. And Newhook will be at least a 60 pt forward and very likely 70+ in a 2-3 years.

 

[Playmaker09]

this is only true if you think the habs want a 30 point player. But this isn’t the case. They paid for the possibility of Newhook developing into a much better player. They didn’t trade for Newhook as he is now, but for what they think he could be.

If that was your entire point, then the bolded below really veers off your point so drastically that it does not look like that was ever your point.

A "much better player" would be more than a 50 point wing.

But if that's where the nitpicking has gone to, there's not much to discuss that I haven't already said.

 

[Andy]

No. The point is not about the current Newhook. Even if he becomes a 50 point player, what is there to differentiate him from other 50 point wingers that are in high supply around the league and can usually be acquired for lesser price?

That's the whole issue with this trade. What kind of abilities are they projecting Newhook to add to the lineup that could not have been obtained for a lesser price?

give me a list of 50 point players under the age of 23 acquired for a cheaper price.

if the trade is that absurd and these players are readily available, then you shouldn’t have too much issue showing your work

 

[WeThreeKings]

A "much better player" would be more than a 50 point wing.

But if that's where the nitpicking has gone to, there's not much to discuss that I haven't already said.

I'd say yeah.. there's not much more to discuss if trading 31 and 37 is a bad trade to you, if Newhook isn't a top 60 point producing forward in the NHL.

 

[Andy]

A "much better player" would be more than a 50 point wing.

But if that's where the nitpicking has gone to, there's not much to discuss that I haven't already said.

Way to twist my words. If Newhook develops into a regular, 50 point forward, that is certainly much better than his current production

 

[Playmaker09]

give me a list of 50 point players under the age of 23 acquired for a cheaper price.

if the trade is that absurd and these players are readily available, then you shouldn’t have too much issue showing your work

Why does age matter?

You could sign a 28 year old. Then 4 years later another 28 year old. Then 4 years later another 28 year old.

And achieve the same thing.

What value does Alex Newhook bring specifically that would justify locking him in right NOW. Unless he can become much better than those players in their prime.
His winning smile?

 

[Andy]

Why does age matter?

You could sign a 28 year old. Then 4 years later another 28 year old. Then 4 years later another 28 year old.

And achieve the same thing.

What value does Alex Newhook bring specifically that would justify locking him in right NOW. Unless he can become much better than those players in their prime.
His winning smile?

you know why age matters and stop pretending like it doesn’t. If you aren’t willing to discuss in good faith don’t bother replying

 

[Playmaker09]

Way to twist my words. If Newhook develops into a regular, 50 point forward, that is certainly much better than his current production

That was my interpretation of "much better player" that he was nitpicking.

Also, I don't thing going from a 30 point C to a 50 point W when his ice time and PP time is about to go up significantly and with better linemates., constitutes a big win in player development.

 

[Andy]

That was my interpretation of "much better player" that he was nitpicking.

Also, I don't thing going from a 30 point C to a 50 point W when his ice time and PP time is about to go up significantly and with better linemates., constitutes a big win in player development.

So you don’t think a 66% increase in production is much better?cmon man now you’re just being difficult

 

[Playmaker09]

you know why age matters and stop pretending like it doesn’t. If you aren’t willing to discuss in good faith don’t bother replying

Do we need him now?

Are we competing?

Let's say we start going for it in 4 years. Why could't we have just signed a 27 year old UFA then?

Why pay the price now? If not for the potential to develop a high level player?

You know I'm not even sure management would disagree with my take. Clearly they see something in him that made them give up valuable assets.
I'm sure they'd be disappointed as well if he's only a one-dimensional 50 point player.

It's funny that for all this debate over the worth of a 50 or 70 point player, not one poster has replied "I think Newhook has a legitimate shot at 70".
Just damage control for what happens if he fails to do so.

 

[Goldthorpe]

Why does age matter?

You could sign a 28 year old. Then 4 years later another 28 year old. Then 4 years later another 28 year old.

And achieve the same thing.

You are going to pay way more UFA dollars for following such a strategy. These 50pts 28 years old won't be accepting 2.9M contracts the same way a RFA will.

 

[Playmaker09]

So you don’t think a 66% increase in production is much better?cmon man now you’re just being difficult

He should be able to get there in his sleep with an increased role.

You are going to pay way more UFA dollars for following such a strategy. These 50pts 28 years old won't be accepting 2.9M contracts the same way a RFA will.

Neither will Newhook in 4 years when he's 1 year from UFA.

What do the cap savings NOW get us?

 

[Goldthorpe]

Neither will Newhook in 4 years when he's 1 year from UFA.

Yes, but until then he's not, and typically a player RFA years are his most productive AND his most cheap.

Going the UFA route is almost never a good idea if you can develop internally instead.

 

[HespelerGreenFlash]

Even if there are MANY 50 point wingers ( not many at Newhooks age) and a certain team wants one of them , invariably you end up with some kind of overpayment. GM's arent stupid( edit Bergevin) .

 

[Archijerej]

Ridiculous. 50 pt wingers aren't in high supply

Really? I was under the impression they are traded like candy, or signed as UFAs, every offseason.

and certainly not 22 year old ones

That is true.

And Newhook will be at least a 60 pt forward and very likely 70+ in a 2-3 years.

If this is going to be the case, it will most certainly be a good trade. However, the point argued was not that. Other posters claim that 50 points will be enough and I was asking why.

give me a list of 50 point players under the age of 23 acquired for a cheaper price.

"Under the age of 23" is an important qualifier. Teams usually hold on to those players, because they are optimistic about their potential and are not ready to put a ceiling on their projected development, hence the price to acquire them tends to be prohibitive.

This is the whole point with this trade. If the management expects Newhook to provide important abilities beyond those 50 points (additional production, strong two way play, penalty killing) and he will hit those projections, it will turn out to be a good trade. But if he turns out to be your run-of-the-mill 50 point winger, then surely this kind of player could have been had for less.

if the trade is that absurd and these players are readily available, then you shouldn’t have too much issue showing your work

If we remove the age qualifier, I could do some digging.

 

[Andy]

He should be able to get there in his sleep with an increased role.

And if he attains 50 points given that increased role at the age of 23, at 2.9m for a late first and early second, then it's a successful trade in year one already.

"Under the age of 23" is an important qualifier. Teams usually hold on to those players, because they are optimistic about their potential and are not ready to put a ceiling on their projected development, hence the price to acquire them tends to be prohibitive.

This is the whole point with this trade. If the management expects Newhook to provide important abilities beyond those 50 points (additional production, strong two way play, penalty killing) and he will hit those projections, it will turn out to be a good trade. But if he turns out to be your run-of-the-mill 50 point winger, then surely this kind of player could have been had for less.



If we remove the age qualifier, I could do some digging.

Well no shit, the age qualifier is important. That's what everyone is saying. The cost is the cost because as you pointed out, teams don't usually let these players go. The habs don't need a 28 year old top 6 player. They need young offensive players to fit in the window of Caufield, Dach, and Suzuki's productivity.

The age qualifier is entirely relevant. The habs don't need an older player.

 

[Andy]

Do we need him now?

Are we competing?

Let's say we start going for it in 4 years. Why could't we have just signed a 27 year old UFA then?

Why pay the price now? If not for the potential to develop a high level player?

You know I'm not even sure management would disagree with my take. Clearly they see something in him that made them give up valuable assets.
I'm sure they'd be disappointed as well if he's only a one-dimensional 50 point player.

It's funny that for all this debate over the worth of a 50 or 70 point player, not one poster has replied "I think Newhook has a legitimate shot at 70".
Just damage control for what happens if he fails to do so.

The habs need young productive talent to support Caufield, Dach, Suzuki over the next few years. They have very little nhl ready point producers needed to support those three guys. Adding an older player does nothing for this team.

The problem isn't the cost, the age, cheaper older players, Newhook or his production. The problem is your inability to see the strategic aspect of the trade.

Hunting for free older options gets you crap players like Hoffman.

 

[Andy]

Pageau
Dvorak
Mantha
Copp
Tatar (from wings to Vegas)
Martin Hanzel
Lars Eller
Lekhonen
Andrew Shaw
Zucker

Go look at the cost of all these 30-50 point players in trades. All older players by the way. They don't look to have been acquired at a cheaper rate than Newhook.

 

[Playmaker09]

The habs need young productive talent to support Caufield, Dach, Suzuki over the next few years. They have very little nhl ready point producers needed to support those three guys. Adding an older player does nothing for this team.

The problem isn't the cost, the age, cheaper older players, Newhook or his production. The problem is your inability to see the strategic aspect of the trade.

Hunting for free older options gets you crap players like Hoffman.

Or Cammalleri, Gionta, Radulov, Kovalev, Toffoli.

I'd argue the young guys could benefit from more vets like Toffoli, rather than trying to build an entire top 6 of U25 players.
Then once they become vets, they can support some younger guys on ELCs themselves.

 

[Andy]

Or Cammalleri, Gionta, Radulov, Kovalev, Toffoli.

I'd argue the young guys could benefit from more vets like Toffoli, rather than trying to build an entire top 6 of U25 players.
Then once they become vets, they can support some younger guys on ELCs themselves.

Those players all commanded fairly large salaries. They were by no means cheap. Other than Radulov who was a unique gamble, those players got paid and got term at fairly significant salary (Cammalleri and Gionta occupied a large percentage of cap space at that time).

if Newhook achieves 50 points next season and remains that productive, the team will be paying 2.9 million for that production, which is excellent.

Every argument you try to make in your favor makes your point worse. Just stop.

 

[Playmaker09]

Pageau
Dvorak
Mantha
Copp
Tatar (from wings to Vegas)
Martin Hanzel
Lars Eller
Lekhonen
Andrew Shaw


Go look at the cost of all these 30-50 point players in trades. All older players by the way. They don't look to have been acquired at a cheaper rate than Newhook.

Every one of those players was traded for their defensive prowess on top of point ability. Except Tatar who was called an awful trade form day 1.
Go look what Bjorkstrand was just traded for: a 3rd and 4th.

Speaking of Lehky, he just put up 51 in 64 with Landeskog out in an increased role. Yet somehow 50 for Newhook would be a feat of development.

Those players all commanded fairly large salaries. They were by no means cheap. Other than Radulov who was a unique gamble, those players got paid and got term at fairly significant salary (Cammalleri and Gionta occupied a large percentage of cap space at that time).

if Newhook achieves 50 points next season and remains that productive, the team will be paying 2.9 million for that production, which is excellent.

Every argument you try to make in your favor makes your point worse. Just stop.

But we're not competeing for a cup?

You want players playing at high cap efficiency when we're trying to make deep runs in the playoffs. Not now. It's meaningless now.

I have no issues with the contract now. It's even what I suggested a few pages ago. But it doesn't help us in our competitive window.
It could make him more attractive in a flip for a bigger fish two years down the road, I'll give you that.

But I don't think that's management's intention. He's Hughes' guy.

 

[Andy]

Every one of those players was traded for their defensive prowess on top of point ability. Except Tatar who was called an awful trade form day 1.
Go look what Bjorkstrand was just traded for: a 3rd and 4th.

Speaking of Lehky, he just put up 51 in 64 with Landeskog out in an increased role. Yet somehow 50 for Newhook would be a feat of development.

No one said it was a feat of development. Lehkonen went from a 30 point player to a 50 point player. He was traded for roughly the same package as Newhook. If Newhook as similar development, than it was a fair cost.

Also, what does defensive prowess have to do with anything. I'm showing you 30 to 50 point players that were traded recently for comparable packages to Newhook thus demonstrating that the cost isn't as odd as you are trying to make it out to be.

 

[Andy]

You want players playing at high cap efficiency when we're trying to make deep runs in the playoffs. Not now. It's meaningless now.

Newhook didn't sign for 1 year. He signed for 4. He is cap effcient for the next four seasons. Ideally, the habs start to get into a competitive zone in the final two of those years, allowing them to spend.

The motivation of the trade, and the cap make total sense. Im really not sure why you keep digging a hole. Every response you write makes your opinion seem more absurd.

 

[Archijerej]

Well no shit, the age qualifier is important. That's what everyone is saying. The cost is the cost because as you pointed out, teams don't usually let these players go.

Yes, because teams either see a potential for something more, or need a cheap contributor while they're competing. We are not competing, so is it fair to say that we expect something more than run-of-the-mill 50 point winger?

The habs don't need a 28 year old top 6 player. They need young offensive players to fit in the window of Caufield, Dach, and Suzuki's productivity.

Why not? If the purpose was to add a 50 point player, you could churn through those late 20s', early 30s' guys during Suzuki, Caufield and Dach's window of productivity. See Detroit signing Kubalik and Perron as an example.