Player Discussion Andrew Peeke

[Mad-Marcus]

Rick Nash was the worst move of the bunch, overpayment on a broken down truck. Ryan Lindgren! oh boy, well Peeke never would be in the conversation.

 

[DKH]

Because their ineptness ruined a 2nd round pick with a very good pedigree. Buying him out would have just continue showing the world how incompetent they are.
They would have been better getting a coach that COULD coach him up.

You guys can bitch all you want about the contract money and length, but mark my words, by seasons end he'll be a solid NHL defenseman at a reasonable price. He was looking really good until he took that block in the hand vs TOR.


Exactly, if Quader says, I can fix this guy, then I trust him.

Yup at end of the day if Wizard Bob likes Korps and Quaider is in on peeke it’s on them if they fail

 

[PB37]

Ya I know CBJ is not a good organization. But that not good organization was about to buyout Peeke and Peeke would have been available for 1/2 the AAV this offseason. Instead we are now paying a premium for him.

They also let a former recent top 10 pick walk out the door. It's a not so good organization making not so good decisions about player development. The benching of Peeke was seen as questionable by at least one article I read.

Once the bruins win a cup in this scenario we can look back on it like this.

However this team has won multiple playoff series once under Sweeney and a huge knock has been overpayment on depth players. Still seems to be plaguing them

Peeke isn't overpaid - when you look at other comparisons of similar size, hand-ness, and playing status, he's paid appropriately.

 

[Mad-Marcus]

Peake's playoff numbers were pretty bad. Apparently the 'fixing him' only works in games that don't matter.

What Columbus PO#? no doubt, they all suck.
or coming back hurt against the eventual SC winner. fair test....

 

[LouJersey]

I think this happens more frequently than you think. I think it's kind of surprising looking back at past SCF's or even just the top teams in the playoffs and seeing certain players slotted in spots above their status. Bottom 6 role players get bumped up, rookies getting important time... I mean, we lament the fact that our RW was a hole in 2018 but Florida had Cousins playing often in their top 6. Pavel Dorofeyev was playing top 6 for Vegas. Logan Stankoven was playing top 6 for the Stars - both talented young players but fairly unproven. Evan Rodrigues isn't a top 6 guy but he played a lot of those minutes for the Panthers this past run and he responded.

It' great if it works, but doesn't sound like a great strategy. Regardless it's the offseason and good debates being had.

 

[Mad-Marcus]

Anything Columbus has touched in the last 5 years, well it comes out my dogs butt.
It a place where NHL dreams go to die.

 

[UncleRico]

Peeke isn't overpaid - when you look at other comparisons of similar size, hand-ness, and playing status, he's paid appropriately.

really? What’s the average pay of a RHD who was healthy scratched more than he played over the course of a season?

He played 38 games last year. I’d love to see a list of RHD that played let’s say 30-45 games last year and see how much they got paid in comparison.

While also comparing if it was due to injury or healthy scratches for poor play.

 

[DKH]

Peake's playoff numbers were pretty bad. Apparently the 'fixing him' only works in games that don't matter.

Broke his hand though

Kid came back with fracture

I want tough guys

Peeke is tough

 

[LouJersey]

Oh I'm aware, I'm tired of being optimistic all the time so I'm just trying to slowly make my way over to the pessimists.

At the end of the day Peeke is here now, I don't see a lot of reason to continue bitching and moaning over it, but maybe that's why I haven't been inducted into the pessimists just yet

I don't think it's a pessimism thing.

For me, I think the world of the Bruins coaches and system and now you add Leach. Peeke is a replacement level player making way too much. I believe they can make any replacement level player decent, so why not go with a guy making less? I also think it takes away from the cap advantage of having a guy like Lohrei on this deal. Then you throw on 3 million with Korpisalo when you have the goalie whisperer in Bob and a seemingly very good moldable student in Bussi. I will still be shocked if Korpi loses that battle. Nobody is claiming him off waivers.

Even if they wanted to start with Lysellm which I fully endorse,, you have some money under the cap to go after a bigger fish if he does not fit the bill. Moving Geekie there is ok in December, but do you really want that in April?

It could all be for naught, just think it's a good discussion.

Rick Nash was the worst move of the bunch, overpayment on a broken down truck. Ryan Lindgren! oh boy, well Peeke never would be in the conversation.

I liked the Nash deal, but was all in on McD and Jt.

 

[NDiesel]

I don't think it's a pessimism thing.

For me, I think the world of the Bruins coaches and system and now you add Leach. Peeke is a replacement level player making way too much. I believe they can make any replacement level player decent, so why not go with a guy making less? I also think it takes away from the cap advantage of having a guy like Lohrei on this deal. Then you throw on 3 million with Korpisalo when you have the goalie whisperer in Bob and a seemingly very good moldable student in Bussi. I will still be shocked if Korpi loses that battle. Nobody is claiming him off waivers.

Even if they wanted to start with Lysellm which I fully endorse,, you have some money under the cap to go after a bigger fish if he does not fit the bill. Moving Geekie there is ok in December, but do you really want that in April?

It could all be for naught, just think it's a good discussion.


I liked the Nash deal, but was all in on McD and Jt.

Firstly, a good majority of posters do have good views and aren't just being pessimists, and I 100% get the questions behind getting Korpisalo, baffled me once I realized he was signed for 4 years too.

2nd, I think everyone keeps missing how few RHD there are around the league, they have more value than we all think. Regardless if you and me are okay with a LHD in that spot, the team seems set on having LHD-RHD on each pair if they can help it, and they don't sign cheap unless they are vets or somewhat one dimensional.

At the end of the day, Peeke is here now and Korpisalo is here. The scouts identified them as buy low candidates, and Sweeney trusted them and got them. Maybe Peeke would have been bought out, sure. Maybe he also would have signed elsewhere if bought out and Sweeney and co liked him enough to not want to take that risk.

Where I see the pessimism is when every thread turns into a series of complaints about Sweeney instead and his move (or lack thereof) instead of just focusing on discussing the player, the good and the bad. Like we have how many discussions on Peeke and Korpi and barely anything going on Lindholm/Zadarov, seems like pessimism to me.

I think their plan is live with that hole at RW until deadline where they can decide if Lysell or whoever has done enough, or if they should upgrade that spot. If they don't get Peeke we're probably just discussing the same thing with the 3rd pair RHD, which again is a bit more rare and thus not as many options at deadline, vs probably a few more RWs being dealt.

 

[Sevendust]

It's kind of funny that the last time the Bruins were serious cup contenders they had Kuhlman or Backes in the top 6

Maybe they could have played a young rw on that line they if they would have drafted better or wouldn't have pissed their picks away like crazy. I heard that they had a young LW on his ELC on that Stanley Cup winning roster in 2011 that scored two goals in game seven? In which round was this guy drafted? What did he do at his prom in 2003? I hope he didn't lick somebody back then. Probably would have been better to waste that pick in 2003 on some third pairing defenseman.

 

[Dr Quincy]

What Columbus PO#? no doubt, they all suck.
or coming back hurt against the eventual SC winner. fair test....

Poor guy. Must be tough. I don't think there were any other players playing hurt in the playoffs. None of the Panthers were playing with injuries at all.

 

[NDiesel]

Maybe they could have played a young rw on that line they if they would have drafted better or wouldn't have pissed their picks away like crazy. I heard that they had a young LW on his ELC on that Stanley Cup winning roster in 2011 that scored two goals in game seven? In which round was this guy drafted? What did he do at his prom in 2003? I hope he didn't lick somebody back then. Probably would have been better to waste that pick in 2003 on some third pairing defenseman.

Yeah true, we should probably never trade a 3rd rounder come to think of it, could end up being Marchand. Why try to improve today when you can maybe improve in the future

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Once the bruins win a cup in this scenario we can look back on it like this.

However this team has won multiple playoff series once under Sweeney and a huge knock has been overpayment on depth players. Still seems to be plaguing them

You make that sound horrible.

Only 4 teams win multiple series every season.

 

[UncleRico]

You make that sound horrible.

Only 4 teams win multiple series every season.

And 12 teams have done it more times during that time frame

 

[Sevendust]

Yeah true, we should probably never trade a 3rd rounder come to think of it, could end up being Marchand

At least get fair value back for it. Contract length, benched on the worst team in the NHL, high cap for a third pairing defenseman. Peeke had negative value on the date of the trade no matter how anyone want to spin this. That kind of bad value doesnt return a third round pick in the cap era. I would prefer the dime a dozen chance to draft another Marchand or Point in that round then to give it away for a negative valued player. Don't have a problem with the player but spend your assets carefully.

 

[NDiesel]

At least get fair value back for it. Contract length, benched on the worst team in the NHL, high cap for a third pairing defenseman. Peeke had negative value on the date of the trade no matter how anyone want to spin this. That kind of bad value doesnt return a third round pick in the cap era. I would prefer the dime a dozen chance to draft another Marchand or Point in that round then to give it away for a negative valued player. Don't have a problem with the player but spend your assets careful.

We are talking about a 3rd round pick who, if we are lucky, might help the team out in 2030.

 

[Sevendust]

We are talking about a 3rd round pick who, if we are lucky, might help the team out in 2030.

Still teams play for the Stanley Cup in 2030. Sean O'Donnell (?) pisses the third rounder of 2006 away in 2003. Bruins never draft Marchand and this would have almost certainly worsen their chance to win the cup in 2011.

 

[NDiesel]

Still teams play for the Stanley Cup in 2030. Sean O'Donnell (?) pisses the third rounder of 2006 away in 2003. Bruins never draft Marchand and this would have almost certainly worsen their chance to win the cup in 2011.

Yeah but with the age of the core guys you don't care much about a guy who might help that long from now, you need guys today to maximize Mac/Pasta/Sways prime and Marchys last few seasons.

 

[squashmaple]

It is absolutely hysterical that you have 31 pages of discussion about Andrew Peeke.

Andrew Peeke!

Third-pairing, utterly-system-dependent, defensive defenseman Andrew Peeke.

I was always a Peeke apologist. I was stunned Columbus got anything at all in return because he’s a million dollars overpaid for what he is. If he made 1.5/yr, no one would be saying a word about him on any board. Of course he bounced back and looked adequate in an actual system, just like he had pre-Brad Larsen. Defensemen who aren’t putting up scads of points on bad teams always look horrible in analytics, and somehow those same defensemen always look magically good again when they move to good teams (and sometimes vice versa, like Damon Severson). Dom Scrabble in shambles, etc etc.

But I think you’re all forgetting one big reason Columbus got rid of him: he was redundant with Gudbranson on the roster, and Gudbranson is both more expensive (and less likely to be moved) and more important to keep for a team with an average age of 25. You can’t have two Gudbransons on a roster, and Sweeney paid for the younger model.

 

[LouJersey]

You make that sound horrible.

Only 4 teams win multiple series every season.

It is. The year they did it they beat the 8th seed in round 2.

It is absolutely hysterical that you have 31 pages of discussion about Andrew Peeke.

Andrew Peeke!

Third-pairing, utterly-system-dependent, defensive defenseman Andrew Peeke.

I was always a Peeke apologist. I was stunned Columbus got anything at all in return because he’s a million dollars overpaid for what he is. If he made 1.5/yr, no one would be saying a word about him on any board. Of course he bounced back and looked adequate in an actual system, just like he had pre-Brad Larsen. Defensemen who aren’t putting up scads of points on bad teams always look horrible in analytics, and somehow those same defensemen always look magically good again when they move to good teams (and sometimes vice versa, like Damon Severson). Dom Scrabble in shambles, etc etc.

But I think you’re all forgetting one big reason Columbus got rid of him: he was redundant with Gudbranson on the roster, and Gudbranson is both more expensive (and less likely to be moved) and more important to keep for a team with an average age of 25. You can’t have two Gudbransons on a roster, and Sweeney paid for the younger model.

The comp to Gudbranson makes me feel a lot better. Thank you. (insert screaming emoji)

 

[Sevendust]

Yeah but with the age of the core guys you don't care much about a guy who might help that long from now, you need guys today to maximize Mac/Pasta/Sways prime and Marchys last few seasons.

Yeah and I dont have a problem to support the guys with a player like Peeke (altough his cap is a little bit to high) and I hope he is going to be a mainstay on the third pairing but this still don't justify the value they gave up. I am convinced that the lack drafting good and the wasteful trading of draft picks was one of the biggest reasons a core of Marchand, Chara, Bergeron, Lucic, Rask, Krejci, Pastrnak and McAvoy (later) only won one cup.

 

[PB37]

really? What’s the average pay of a RHD who was healthy scratched more than he played over the course of a season?

He played 38 games last year. I’d love to see a list of RHD that played let’s say 30-45 games last year and see how much they got paid in comparison.

While also comparing if it was due to injury or healthy scratches for poor play.

I made that post earlier in this thread.

 

[UncleRico]

I made that post earlier in this thread.

Alright so you have the info then. Among guys who are around Peekes 38 games played let’s say 30-45 games played range. What are the salaries for those RHD

I don’t see any posts talking about RHD that played roughly the same amount of games as Peeke.

 

[squashmaple]

The comp to Gudbranson makes me feel a lot better. Thank you. (insert screaming emoji)

A large, perfectly average but extremely overpaid third pairing defenseman who is best deployed in limited minutes and never, ever on special teams? You could do worse. I mean you can and should also do better, but you could do worse.