Player Discussion Alex Newhook

[Playmaker09]

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.

Because Newhook brings nothing defensively. He's nothing like Lehky.

Teams don't value one-dimensional 50 point scorers.
Teams value defensemen, two-way forwards, size, faceoff ability and goals. Which is why guys like Jeannot and Lehky command a high price.

This is about Newhook specifically and what his value would be as a 50 point 5'10 defensive liability. I don't think it's much. The only thing in his favor would be the cap hit.

 

[Habaneros]

I like the 4 yr deal ....as i think he will out play that salary .

Good job, not more 1 yr prove it deals , we got burnt in the past ....

 

[Habnot]

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.

It's like 2021 never happened....sure go out and overspend for aged vets that you are paying for what they did...

Take away the injuries last year and Habs would not of finished bottom 5 - truth is they are closer to competing that people think. If they can keep their players healthy, I expect the team to take a big step this year and competing for a playoff spot next. You don't go from bottom feeder to SC contender without spending a couple of years making the playoffs.

Newhook is a talented player that can become a core top 9 player with a 4 year cap friendly contract and ystill team controlled at the end of the term. Easy win to give up 31 and 37.

 

[Playmaker09]

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?



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.

Pittsburgh as well.

Zucker just signed for one year in Arizona of all places at 5.3 million. We could have signed him, kept our picks, acquired another 2nd at least at the deadline for him with retention, then rinse and repeat for a few years, stockpiling assets.

 

[ginomini]

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.

Newhook can also become better all around as well, not only his offensive production can go up. That is very important and certainly something Hugo are banking on.

It's true that there are 35-50 point second line wingers available every year on July 1st, however you'll notice that most of them are unidimensional wingers that rarely play for competitive teams.

Drouin, Domi, Hoffman, Nyquist, Dadonov, Athanasiou, etc. etc.

Are those players what you want to compete? Teams overpay by every year for players with similar production but who have strong 200 foot game.

Palat, Killorn, Compher, Danault (Cs but same concept).

Look just this year on the free market these are wingers who signed relatively small deals. And keep in mind this is a year where many players took short term deals because the cap is going up.

Domi 3M/1y
Bertuzzi 5.5M/1y (The only example that goes with your rationale, but this never happens any other year)
Rodrigues 3M/4y
Bunting 4.5M/3y
Engvall 3M/7y
Nyquist 3.2M/2y
Kerfoot 3.5M/2y


Most of these deals look like they could become pretty bad, and again thats in a year with a flat cap. I Honestly don't think your point is valid. Even if 1 or 2 of these guys become solid contributers, nothing guarantees you that they will be interested to sign with your team. Relying on the UFA market is always a losing strategy.

 

[Colezuki]

Pittsburgh as well.

Zucker just signed for one year in Arizona of all places at 5.3 million. We could have signed him, kept our picks, acquired another 2nd at least at the deadline for him with retention, then rinse and repeat for a few years, stockpiling assets.

Alternatively, we can use those assets to acquire a player that fits the window and doesn't totally f our contract structure. We're currently sitting at 45 contracts, we have a max of 50 allowed next year Mesar, Beck and likely reinbacher are likely joining and that adds three more. We're starting to reach a wall, it's better to trade picks that will take more time to get a potential 2nd liner then a 25% chance at an NHLer.

 

[Archijerej]

Pittsburgh as well.

Zucker just signed for one year in Arizona of all places at 5.3 million. We could have signed him, kept our picks, acquired another 2nd at least at the deadline for him with retention, then rinse and repeat for a few years, stockpiling assets.

Yeah, pretty much.

I'm not even a critic of this trade as long as it was a gamble on potential. But if the purpose was to add a 50 point player who doesn't bring much else, then I must question the asset management.

 

[ginomini]

Yeah, pretty much.

I'm not even a critic of this trade as long as it was a gamble on potential. But if the purpose was to add a 50 point player who doesn't bring much else, then I must question the asset management.

But that clearly isn't the purpose ?

 

[Archijerej]

But that clearly isn't the purpose ?

Nope, I very much hope that was precisely the logic. I'm just surprised people consider 50 points from Newhook "a win" and a reason to praise the trade.

 

[Playmaker09]

Newhook can also become better all around as well, not only his offensive production can go up. That is very important and certainly something Hugo are banking on.

It's true that there are 35-50 point second line wingers available every year on July 1st, however you'll notice that most of them are unidimensional wingers that rarely play for competitive teams.

Drouin, Domi, Hoffman, Nyquist, Dadonov, Athanasiou, etc. etc.

Are those players what you want to compete? Teams overpay by every year for players with similar production but who have strong 200 foot game.

Palat, Killorn, Compher, Danault (Cs but same concept).

Look just this year on the free market these are wingers who signed relatively small deals. And keep in mind this is a year where many players took short term deals because the cap is going up.

Domi 3M/1y
Bertuzzi 5.5M/1y (The only example that goes with your rationale, but this never happens any other year)
Rodrigues 3M/4y
Bunting 4.5M/3y
Engvall 3M/7y
Nyquist 3.2M/2y
Kerfoot 3.5M/2y


Most of these deals look like they could become pretty bad, and again thats in a year with a flat cap. I Honestly don't think your point is valid. Even if 1 or 2 of these guys become solid contributers, nothing guarantees you that they will be interested to sign with your team. Relying on the UFA market is always a losing strategy.

I mean his entire playing history in Colorado shouldn't be leading anyone to believe he's in the latter group.

He's in the former unless he takes an astronomical leap in development defensively.

I'm much more willing to believe he has the runway offensively than defensively.

 

[Kudo Shinichi]

Is scoring 50 pts a bad thing now?
The habs had only one player score more than 40 pts last season.

 

[ginomini]

I mean his entire playing history in Colorado shouldn't be leading anyone to believe he's in the latter group.

He's in the former unless he takes an astronomical leap in development defensively.

I'm much more willing to believe he has the runway offensively than defensively.

And even then, he is paid less and younger than all of the first group. Like there is litterally no down size contract wise.

Nope, I very much hope that was precisely the logic. I'm just surprised people consider 50 points from Newhook "a win" and a reason to praise the trade.

It's a win considering he will be paid under 3M.

 

[Archijerej]

It's a win considering he will be paid under 3M.

If we're spending to the cap and competing during the next 4 years then yes, it's a positive. Otherwise, it's just Molson's money.

 

[ginomini]

If we're spending to the cap and competing during the next 4 years then yes, it's a positive. Otherwise, it's just Molson's money.

Sure but that's not a reason to criticize the deal really, if the down side is "it's Molson's money" its not really a down side isn't it ?

 

[Saundies]

If we're spending to the cap and competing during the next 4 years then yes, it's a positive. Otherwise, it's just Molson's money.

Pittsburgh as well.

Zucker just signed for one year in Arizona of all places at 5.3 million. We could have signed him, kept our picks, acquired another 2nd at least at the deadline for him with retention, then rinse and repeat for a few years, stockpiling assets.

28/30-year-old guys typically are what they are and even less than what they were. A 50 pt guy is a 50 pt guy, a 35 pt guy is a 35 pt guy etc. It's rare that these dime-a-dozen guys get any better. You know what you're getting with these guys.

The point of this trade is that the Habs feel like Newhook has more to give, and typically younger players breaking into the league do under a different environment. They think he's a better player than his 30-point self. You might not think that, or you might not think he's that much better. Fair enough. But to just completely dismiss the fact that him being young doesn't mean anything is just not true.

As for the money, "Who cares unless we're competing?" makes no sense either. If for whatever reason we want to trade him (I don't know why but go with me here), moving him at a 2.9 million dollar cap hit at his age would open up way more teams and widen the pool of assets compared to if he had a huge contract. The amount of players who don't get moved because their contracts don't work for the other team in the cap era is staggering. Look at Erik Karlsson. Best D in the league last year and nobody can take him.

It was a fair trade and a fair contract. I don't get any of the griping right now, to be honest. If he plays like 30-point Newhook, then the contract is fine. If he plays better, even better. It gives us more cap to go out and get guys to take us to the next level.

 

[Archijerej]

Sure but that's not a reason to criticize the deal really, if the down side is "it's Molson's money" its not really a down side isn't it ?

The downside is asset management if he tops as a 50 point winger (or less) that doesn't bring much beside production.

I'm not criticizing the trade, merely discussing it.

 

[sheed36]

Shane Kelly Director of Analytics of SMT was on TSN690 talking about Newhook earlier today. I don't really know much about Newhook's game but what he had to say sounded encouraging to me so hopefully this trade works out great for the Habs.

Shane Kelly: Newhook is elite skater with puck

Shane Kelly Director of Analytics of SMT joins Campbell vs Gallo to discuss Alex Newhook with Habs

www.tsn.ca

Also Newhook will be on TSN690 at 5:05 ET today.

 

[Nico Cauzuki]

Where can i watch hes zoom call?

 

[sheed36]

Where can i watch hes zoom call?

 

[JoelWarlord]

Why does that matter with regards to player value?

What do you mean? It matters because he was traded for those picks, and the decision was made based on the extremely high attrition rates of draft picks outside the top half of the 1st round relative to the combination of floor and ceiling with Newhook.

How are you going to get them if you don't make picks? How would you feel if we had traded away our 2nd last year for the next Drouin and not have Lane Hutson in our system?

What about the possibility of Newhook being the "next XYZ"? Does this upside argument only apply to 18 year old playing in junior and not 22 year olds? Keep in mind that at the same age where Newhook just put up back to back 30P seasons in the NHL, Garland was still in the AHL putting up 14P in 55 games, and 27P in 55 games, there is good reason to believe that the upside here is higher, Garland was 25 before he had a season definitively better than Newhook did even in his D+2, age 21 season.

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?

We likely could, yes. Jason Zucker himself went for Calen Addison and a 1st as a 28 year old coming off of a 42P, 64P, and 47P three-year run, Tatar went for a 1st 2nd 3rd, and Garland was part of that 7OA for OEL deal. Of course he wasn't the main piece, but Vancouver doesn't make that trade without Garland or Dvorak involved, part of the attraction was getting a youngish forward back.

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.

I think Newhook has a legitimate shot at 70 in the future, but I also recognize that it's nowhere near a guarantee and that he wouldn't have been available for this price if it were. The price is the middle ground between paying small premium for a middle-six winger based on age/potential, but not paying the full price for his potential (which was a 16th overall pick in 2019) because Newhook hasn't popped as a star yet and we can't guarantee that he will.

I wouldn't say it's damage control so much as just recognizing that every move has a floor and a ceiling and that this is still an acceptable price for a low end or mediocre outcome where we end up with a Conor Garland, but the trade comes with much more upside than just signing a vet to flip. If all he becomes is Conor Garland or Jason Zucker, we've paid a reasonable price to get that type of player on a 2.9M contract, will be able to recoup most of the value in trade, and likely got more value out of those draft picks than we would have by making the selections. That scenario (or him turning into a good 3C) is a pretty acceptable floor relative to the price paid if things don't go great, but we still have a possibility for a higher upside outcome with this player and that's ultimately the reason you do it.

Probably not many, but the question might also be posed differently: how often is there a 50 point winger available for less than what we paid for Newhook?

Relatively often with some asterisks about stylistic concerns, good ones aren't readily available but one-dimensional ones are. On that front I don't think Newhook is ever going to win a Selke or do Lehkonen stuff but it's untrue IMO to say that his two-way game isn't better than eg. a Domi/Drouin/Athanasiou.

 

[ZUKI]

Why does that matter with regards to player value?

You could have Conor Garland for free right now and have kept those picks. Or Zucker as UFA.

And in the next thread you'll all whine and moan that we have no size in our lineup and no stars.

How are you going to get them if you don't make picks? How would you feel if we had traded away our 2nd last year for the next Drouin and not have Lane Hutson in our system?

Not like cup winning teams have been built off the backs of successful picks post pick 25 like Kucherov, Point, Theodore, Marchand, Bergeron, Carlson, Kuznetsov, Keith, Crawford, O'Reilly, Parayko, Richards, Toffoli and a million more past the 2nd round that I'm not going to list.

Tunnel vision
For one, there is 32 teams that can get Garland , and it won’t be for free because it will cost an over paiement to the team that will get him.
Then, the “free players” are free agents so what makes you think that they are interested to play for a team in re-build ? It sounds very easy in your mouth, but Hughes has to deal with something we call reality.

You dressed a really cute list of players that were selected after the 25th pick. I hope you will name now the names of the others selected players that left, so we can get the real value of these selections. % of getting a player top6 is a lot lower than the % that our new acquisition turns into one

 

[ZUKI]

Pittsburgh as well.

Zucker just signed for one year in Arizona of all places at 5.3 million. We could have signed him, kept our picks, acquired another 2nd at least at the deadline for him with retention, then rinse and repeat for a few years, stockpiling assets.

Zucker wanted to sign with us ? it’s the first point to consider before saying we could have signed him.
Newhook wanted, and he did it for 4 years and for less money

 

[Playmaker09]

Tunnel vision
For one, there is 32 teams that can get Garland , and it won’t be for free because it will cost an over paiement to the team that will get him.
Then, the “free players” are free agents so what makes you think that they are interested to play for a team in re-build ? It sounds very easy in your mouth, but Hughes has to deal with something we call reality.

You dressed a really cute list of players that were selected after the 25th pick. I hope you will name now the names of the others selected players that left, so we can get the real value of these selections. % of getting a player top6 is a lot lower than the % that our new acquisition turns into one

It was reported by Seravalli that the Canucks are trying to offload his salary.
The only reason it hasn't happened is because teams want an additional pick to take his salary. We could have had him for free. Still could.

Reilly Smith, Taylor Hall, Bjorkstrand, Yamamoto, Johansen at 50% all given away for nothing in the past two weeks. Cute right?

Zucker wanted to sign with us ? it’s the first point to consider before saying we could have signed him.
Newhook wanted, and he did it for 4 years and for less money

Zucker signed a one year prove it deal so he could get a bigger contract when the cap goes up next year.
You don't think he'd want to play in a market with more eyeballs on him? Instead he's playing in a college rink for a team no one watches or cares about.
Please.

 

[Playmaker09]

What do you mean? It matters because he was traded for those picks, and the decision was made based on the extremely high attrition rates of draft picks outside the top half of the 1st round relative to the combination of floor and ceiling with Newhook.

Ceiling sure. But we're not talking about upside here. This is a specific scenario where he becomes merely a 50 point winger.
If that's the case he has little value when so many other comparable options are available for free or pennies on the dollar - I've mentioned plenty of them in this thread - and wouldn't be worth what we gave up to get him.

I don't have an issue with anyone thinking he has upside. I can't tell you how a 22 year old will develop with any certainty either.

What about the possibility of Newhook being the "next XYZ"? Does this upside argument only apply to 18 year old playing in junior and not 22 year olds? Keep in mind that at the same age where Newhook just put up back to back 30P seasons in the NHL, Garland was still in the AHL putting up 14P in 55 games, and 27P in 55 games, there is good reason to believe that the upside here is higher, Garland was 25 before he had a season definitively better than Newhook did even in his D+2, age 21 season.

Obviously if Newhook develops into a core offensive player it's worth it. I never questioned that.
I never stated he won't or can't. I don't think he will, but that's my opinion.

I'm just rolling my eyes at everyone who was so hyped up about the draft, about rebuilding with a ton of draft picks, now doing a 180 and saying draft picks aren't worth shit because there's only an X% chance they ever pan out. Completely disingenuous.

We likely could, yes. Jason Zucker himself went for Calen Addison and a 1st as a 28 year old coming off of a 42P, 64P, and 47P three-year run, Tatar went for a 1st 2nd 3rd, and Garland was part of that 7OA for OEL deal. Of course he wasn't the main piece, but Vancouver doesn't make that trade without Garland or Dvorak involved, part of the attraction was getting a youngish forward back.

Those three were all widely regarded as horrible trades at the time.
There are way more examples of such players going for pennies on the dollar. I've named at least 5 from this year alone.
Complementary top 6 players are always the first to get the boot in a cap crunch. There are always deals to be made if you have the cap space.

Pittsburgh themselves learned from their mistake and only sent a 2nd for Rakell shortly after. Didn't even offer Zucker an extension. The were banking on Zucker developing into the new Kunitz next to Crosby, didn't pan out. Not dissimilar to the bet we're placing on Newhook.
Tatar had to get dumped to us and Vancouver certainly regrets their trade as well.
None of these GMs are ever making such a trade again, and others have learned from their examples, thus the current market.

I think Newhook has a legitimate shot at 70 in the future, but I also recognize that it's nowhere near a guarantee and that he wouldn't have been available for this price if it were. The price is the middle ground between paying small premium for a middle-six winger based on age/potential, but not paying the full price for his potential (which was a 16th overall pick in 2019) because Newhook hasn't popped as a star yet and we can't guarantee that he will.

I wouldn't say it's damage control so much as just recognizing that every move has a floor and a ceiling and that this is still an acceptable price for a low end or mediocre outcome where we end up with a Conor Garland, but the trade comes with much more upside than just signing a vet to flip. If all he becomes is Conor Garland or Jason Zucker, we've paid a reasonable price to get that type of player on a 2.9M contract, will be able to recoup most of the value in trade, and likely got more value out of those draft picks than we would have by making the selections. That scenario (or him turning into a good 3C) is a pretty acceptable floor relative to the price paid if things don't go great, but we still have a possibility for a higher upside outcome with this player and that's ultimately the reason you do it.

Not going to comment on upside, as again that's not what I'm contesting.

He may have value solely due to his contract but I don't see Hughes giving up on his guy. This was his client that he paid a steep price to get.

The floor is another small bottom 6er that plays no defense. We have a million of those, and they hold little value across the league.
Bringing it back to Dach again, at least he had size, playmaking and strong defensive play to fall back on.
And we swapped a player at a deep position (Romanov) and some mid round picks to do it.

Had we traded Harris and a 2nd I'd be way more comfortable.
We need size and talent. And to get that we need to make picks and hit on picks. There were so many options available from skilled players like Cristall, Heidt, Perron, to bigger guys like Edstrom, Wahlberg, Nelson, to RHDs like Dragicevic, Akey, Strbak.
We're not giving ourselves a chance to hit on anything when our first forward taken is Xhekaj's brother in the 4th round.
Which is why Newhook NEEDS to hit. He can't be just another replaceable complementary player.

 

[JoelWarlord]

Ceiling sure. But we're not talking about upside here. This is a specific scenario where he becomes merely a 50 point winger.
If that's the case he has little value when so many other comparable options are available for free or pennies on the dollar - I've mentioned plenty of them in this thread - and wouldn't be worth what we gave up to get him.

They're not comparable options though. You're mentioning 27 and 31 year olds on the back 9 of their career who cost nearly double against the cap and have nearly zero remaining potential/upside. If 22 year old Newhook's upside never materializes and he becomes a 27 year old Conor Garland clone in 5 years, we can't retroactively remove his upside at the time of the trade. It's no different than with any prospect we otherwise might have taken. If we drafted Cristall and he became Corey Locke 2.0 that doesn't mean he was retroactively not worth the gamble of selecting with a 31st or 37th overall pick.

Either way the whole point about 50 point guys is that it's an acceptable just OK situation if that's how it works out, and that's true at the price paid. We didn't trade Zucker or Tatar or Garland or the pick that could have become the next Jason Robertson for Newhook, we traded a 31st and 37th overall pick, and securing a single 50 point 2nd line winger would have been an acceptable outcome from making both of those picks. It's certainly not some big steal if that's the case, but that's still a good result out of two picks with the high attrition rates in the NHL draft, and we still get a ton of upside potential that might materialize as well.

I'm just rolling my eyes at everyone who was so hyped up about the draft, about rebuilding with a ton of draft picks, now doing a 180 and saying draft picks aren't worth shit because there's only an X% chance they ever pan out. Completely disingenuous.

Hah! Fair enough, and I can't really speak on anyone else's behalf. However, I do think the basic premise of wanting to rebuild through the draft but also being OK with this trade because of attrition rates on picks is logically consistent. Ultimately the point of tanking is to get good, young, and cost controlled players, and whether you spend the picks by saying a guy's name on draft day or trade for 21/22 year olds isn't a huge deal IMO.

Those three were all widely regarded as horrible trades at the time.

None of these GMs are ever making such a trade again, and others have learned from their examples, thus the current market.

I don't think they're the last horrible trades that will ever happen though. That's 3 trades from something like a 5 year span, it's not like I'm reaching back to the 90s or something. Even if we take eg. Bjorkstrand (which was due to flat cap constraints) for a 3rd + 4th as a floor, and the Tatar/Zucker trades as a ceiling, the middle ground between those trades is still recouping most of the value. Like yeah we might not technically get a 1st + 2nd back but those picks were 31 + 37.

Pittsburgh just paid a 2nd for Mikael Granlund, and then hired a GM that paid a 1st for Nick Foligno. I am absolutely, positively, 100% certain and can guarantee you that we have not seen the last overpay for a 2nd line winger from a desperate GM. Almost every team that considers itself a contender or wants to make the playoffs thinks it's one top 6 winger short of having a balanced top 6.

Complementary top 6 players are always the first to get the boot in a cap crunch. There are always deals to be made if you have the cap space.

Yeah, but the entire league isn't always in a cap crunch like this, which is what creates this absolute bargain-basement market. I just don't really think it's true that 50pt wingers are going to be available for peanuts indefinitely unless we're exclusively talking about Athanasiou types (and even he went for two 2nds before the flat cap). Last year 144 forwards put up 0.6PPG (50P rate over 82), that's still by definition an upper half 2nd liner and there's almost always going to be a team that feels they need one to round out their top 6 at the deadline where FOMO kicks in.

The floor is another small bottom 6er that plays no defense. We have a million of those, and they hold little value across the league.

Eh, it's probably the absolute floor but I think that would be like a 15th percentile outcome. He's already a 30P player as mostly a center where he had pretty middling linemates and got just under 14 minutes a game. A 25%+ jump in ice time and getting tons of PP and 2nd line deployment is already going to juice his numbers quite a bit.

Bringing it back to Dach again, at least he had size, playmaking and strong defensive play to fall back on.
And we swapped a player at a deep position (Romanov) and some mid round picks to do it.

Yeah Dach was definitely the better profile, but I think the price difference reflects that.

Had we traded Harris and a 2nd I'd be way more comfortable.

I think I would have preferred this too, but in Colorado's shoes I probably don't want to add Harris to the same blue line as Girard, so I assume it wasn't an option. I definitely would like to see him packaged for a forward upgrade at some point in the future.

We need size and talent. And to get that we need to make picks and hit on picks.

We won't get size with Newhook but trading picks for talented players that we already know aren't busts but are young enough to have upside is absolutely a way to get talent.