Player Discussion Andrew Shaw

[Lafleurs Guy]

Continue...

Click to read more...

 

[Smokey Thompson]

Weise for Diaz was extremely hated for a while. Even when Weise was a playoff hero you had people criticizing saying just watch, Diaz will come around.

I was ecstatic when that trade went through. Diaz is the poster boy for why possession stat watching is flawed. The guy was able to move the puck when he had a ton of time and space, and he loved throwing weak, saveable shots on net. Apply an ounce of pressure on him and he'd willingly give up the puck.

There's more to hockey than possession stats.

 

[Hullois]

This isn't directed just at you, because many others in the thread have done the same thing, but why do people keep harping on offensive production as if it somehow a barometer to measuring this players worth?

It's pretty clear - and again, I don't mean you specifically - that there are a lot of people in this thread that really don't have a clue what kind of player Andrew Shaw is or what it is that he will bring to the Canadiens, so they dismiss him as a "grinder" or harp on his point totals as if that is somehow a measuring stick that "proves" he is a third line player.

There are a few nonsense arguments that keep coming and then get repeated as fact. It's like the Republic Party talking points in here. A bunch of lies and half-truths keep getting repeated until they become "fact."

Let's go through a few of these "talking points"...

1) Shaw "only" got 30 points while playing with Chicago's high end players, he'll do much worse with the Montreal's inferior offensive players.

There are a few issues with this, that have been pointed out in this thread already, but ignored because they don't fit the narrative. First of all, if Shaw is plugged into a second line agitator/go-to-the-net role that I suspect he will be, he will be playing with guys with the exact same, if not better, offensive totals than Jonathan Toews and Marian Hossa. Look at the numbers. This argument is just plain nonsense.

He spent a lot of time in Chicago playing with those two on a top six line that was given a lot of shutdown assignments by coach Quenville. This was an excellent line. Shaw helped make room, went to the net, caused distractions and was a major pain in the ass.

Even if there was a big difference between the offensive calibre of Toews/Hossa and say, Galchenyuk and Max or Plex and Gallagher - with there isn't - the notion that he is somehow "leaching" off these star players is also a total misnomer. Anybody that is familiar with his game knows that he is a thorn in the side of opponents, a guy that goes to the net, battles for rebounds, plays at the edge of the paint and tries to tip pucks and distract defensemen into battling with him instead of paying attention to the pass lanes, etc. This game would translate anywhere and with anybody. He doesn't rely on his line mates to prop him up. He wants to create situations where they can do what they do best.

2) He is a third line player

He could certainly be used on the third line. His physical play, defensive awareness and work ethic would make him excellent in that regard, but I think he would be much better deployed in the Top Six where he could really compliment two offensive players, help to create room for them and distract the other team. The simple fact that he was a Top Six player on a team that won the Cup twice and is widely regarded as one of the best teams in the league but all of the detractors here want to call him a "third liner" and a "grinder" is frankly bizarre. If he's a Top Six guy on a great team, why is he a bottom six guy on a team with issues on the wing. This makes no sense at all and is a pretty big credibility hit to any poster that keeps parroting this.

This claim becomes even more dubious when the detractors point to his 34 points as "proof" that he isn't a Top Six player. Look at the league. Look at the point totals of players on the second line. 34 points is in no way out of line with what second line guys put up on the vast majority of teams in the league. Not to mention, if you think Andrew Shaw's acquisition is strictly about the points he will personally produce, it's crystal clear that you aren't really aware of what kind of player he is.

3) This is way too much money for a player like this. This contract is a disaster.

I can at least understand the basis of the argument that people don't like a six year contract. I personally have no issue with it, because of his age and the fact that a six year deal could lower the cap hit, but to dispute how much he's being paid is really quite strange. There are tons of comparables of guys making similar money or in many cases more to do a lot less than Andrew Shaw. This is market value. Casey Cizaks, Brandon Sutter, Cody Eakin, Brooks Laich, Ryan Callahan, etc. This is by now means an outlier for a contract.

4) He's not even better than Lars Eller

How anybody could watch Andrew Shaw play and arrive at this conclusion is completely beyond me. I have seen people in this thread claiming that Eller is actually a *better* player, then they parrot off a bunch of stats. Andrew Shaw's direct contribution to the score sheet is NOT the way to gauge his value. Many Montreal fans have seen the way that Brendan Gallagher can get plugged into a line and become the engine of that line. His relentless hard work, his compete level, and his passion effects the entire line. This is what Andrew Shaw does. He does not have the offensive skill set of Brendan Gallagher, but he has the same fire, the same compete level, the same doggedness. Comparing a player like this to Lars Eller is essentially like saying "I actually don't know much about Shaw, but I looked up his numbers on the internet." Speaking of things you don't get from "the numbers..."

5) Intangibles are overrated

This is such a silly and vague argument. Just seems like a great way to dismiss the things that make the player so valuable and special. It's almost too dumb to even get into, so all I will say is Joel Quennville and Stan Bowman really disagree with the "experts" here and I will take their word on what matters when building a winning team over the HFBoard's geniuses any day of the week.

Needed to be quoted for the new thread.

 

[Price is Wright]

I was ecstatic when that trade went through. Diaz is the poster boy for why possession stat watching is flawed. The guy was able to move the puck when he had a ton of time and space, and he loved throwing weak, saveable shots on net. Apply an ounce of pressure on him and he'd willingly give up the puck.

There's more to hockey than possession stats.

Good for you but that wasn't the common view here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1597235&highlight=diaz+weise

Theres two other parts.

 

[Smokey Thompson]

Good for you but that wasn't the common view here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1597235&highlight=diaz+weise

Theres two other parts.

Several posters thought this was a good deal. Diaz is not and was not an NHL defenseman, while Weise is a capable 3rd liner. Was a great trade.

 

[Price is Wright]

Several posters thought this was a good deal. Diaz is not and was not an NHL defenseman, while Weise is a capable 3rd liner. Was a great trade.

It was a great trade. More were on the side of Andrew Berkshire and his ilk that Montreal let go of one of their best defencemen for a grinder. Much of those same folks still make the same posts every day about grinders.

 

[Smokey Thompson]

It was a great trade. More were on the side of Andrew Berkshire and his ilk that Montreal let go of one of their best defencemen for a grinder. Much of those same folks still make the same posts every day about grinders.

Yup. Berkshire tends to put too much emphasis on his stats. Sometimes a simple eye test is enough to see that a player is just too soft for the NHL (Diaz, for example).

 

[Raimu]

Good for you but that wasn't the common view here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1597235&highlight=diaz+weise

Theres two other parts.

To be fair, every trade the habs ever make would be the worst trade ever on HF boards.

 

[CGG]

I think most of the ire is also directed at the context of this Shaw acquisition... The organization prioritizing bottom6ers over top6ers at every opportunity.

Oof.

This tired rhetoric again. It’s as if the chronology of the off season moves actually matters. Now we won’t just be happy IF he gets a Top 6 player, apparently he has to get that Top 6 player FIRST before doing anything else? Give me a break. They are in no way prioritizing bottom 6ers. They happened to trade one for another one. It’s not like they’re limited to one off season move per year and that’s it, lost their shot at doing anything else. This type of twisted logic is weak and shallow and illogical. “We need a Top 6 forward. Ergo, any transaction that doesn’t include a bona fide 25+ goal scorer is a bad bad move and I will wail against it‼‼!” It’s as if a GM isn’t allowed to do multiple things at once. No trades until you acquire a Top 6 forward. No signings until you acquire a Top 6 forward. Heck, no tendering qualifying offers until you acquire a Top 6 forward. Should he let the team go to hell before July 1 gets here? Can’t do any housekeeping until then? No trades or signings until then? He’s not allowed to do anything at all until he adds a winger?

Isn’t it likely that Montreal has targeted a winger on the UFA market all along and will use that opportunity to get one with the abundant cap space they have available? So why not do some tinkering in other areas to try to improve your team, while you wait for UFA’s to become UFA’s?

No, that can’t be it. Har de har it took him 3 weeks to acquire John Scott so how can he prioritize more than one thing at once? His first move was for a “bottom 6er” so his next few moves will clearly be fore bottom 6ers too? Everything MB does, before you can even sign UFA’s, is somehow dismissed as a waste of time or raged against because it “doesn’t fill their biggest need”. What a crock.

Andrighetto re-signs below his QO amount? “What the heck are they doing signing this guy, he’s not the solution to the Top 6‼‼”
Barberio re-signs for cheap as the 7th D? “LOLZ, Montreal needs a winger, they sign a crappy defenseman instead‼‼”
Rumors that they might re-sign Bartley for AHL depth? “Bergevin sucks, Bartley isn’t a top 6 winger! Why the hell is he wasting his time with this rumor that hasn’t even happened yet?”
Essentially swaps Eller for Shaw? “Why is he wasting his time on crap like this? Shaw won’t score 25 goals next year, we need a Top 6 winger‼‼”
Bergevin gives a press conference at the draft? “Why is he wasting time speaking on TV when he could be out there getting a winger?”

If Shaw is his only move, you’ll have a point. But maybe, just maybe, MB knows what he’s doing, as evidenced by the fact that he’s moved out Eller in conjunction with adding Shaw and has accumulated $7.4 million in cap space to use on UFA day in 3 days. Maybe Shaw was part of the plan, and a UFA is another, larger part but won't be physically possible until Friday.

 

[Habs Icing]

Oof.

This tired rhetoric again. It’s as if the chronology of the off season moves actually matters. Now we won’t just be happy IF he gets a Top 6 player, apparently he has to get that Top 6 player FIRST before doing anything else?

Many have argued for two - not one - top six players.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

Oof.

...

Chronology matters when cap-space matters.

The past four years have painted a very stark picture - one that yes, prioritizes grinders and grinding hockey while simultaneously downplaying skill (contractually, in the players we target, and in organizational rhetoric and philosophy).

Stop banging your head, maybe you'll see the light after your headache subsides.

I'm not wailing against the Shaw acquisition or the contract - the post you're quoting is actually explaining the context (as I perceive it) to the ire directed at this one move. That's the thing with BargainBin, he doesn't make big-bad-moves, he makes many small-bad-moves. This contract is within the wheelhouse of similar contracts to bottom6 intangible guys - but this organization has like nine NHL bottom6ers and ~four NHL top6ers and is facing the best UFA and RFA crop for forwards since the lockout. Allocating 4m to Shaw before July 1st is hasty - not even a bad move - just hasty and in light of how many other scrubs, busts, never-beens, has-beens, buyouts and waiver-heros BargainBin has rotated through this line up, the timing WAS, IN FACT, CAUSE FOR CONCERN.

That's it, nothing more. The rest of this post is so far up itself that there's no point even pretending we'll have a coherent discussion.

Did anyone complain about Barbs or Ghetto? Did anyone complain about QOs being tendered?

People are sensitive and chafed because BargainBin has disappointed them for FOUR YEARS - so they'll be sensitive to more BargainBinesque moves.

And Desharnais, Emelin and Pleks are still here - that's 13m in Cap Hell. That's one Steven Stamkos, btw.

So yes, many do feel like there won't be a big fish on our plates and giving such a monster deal to Shaw (who has NEVER HIT 40 POINTS) is going to be either his only move or his biggest move. The man himself said we'll be looking to score by committee - this move doesn't refute him, does it?

edit:

So I ask - after four years (and that glorious list of acquisitions) - why am I wrong for NOT having much faith but you are so self-assured and have so much faith that you need to chastise and rant to me?

I even feel that we WILL get one of these UFAs, I'm not even being a debbie-downer about it. But it is funny that the first bit of concrete news coming was about the Habs looking at Dale Weise and Patrick Bordeleau. Wow, much faith, such depth.

 

[Deebs]

 

[Darz]

Over the life of Shaws contract we have to remember the % of cap space 3.9M represents will continue to shrink. If we assume a cap increase of 5% a year over the total term of this deal, this is how his cap % would be (I didn't have the aid of a calculator, I was doing the numbers long hand so I rounded numbers off).

Year 1-contract represents 5.3% of team cap. In terms of 2016-2017 cap dollars that works out to 3.9M against a $73M cap.

Year 2-contract represents 5.03% of team cap. In terms of 2016-2017 cap dollars that would be like a 3.67M cap hit.

Year 3-contract represents 4.77% of team cap. In terms of 2016-2017 cap dollars that would be like a 3.48M cap hit.

Year 4-contract represents 4.53% of team cap. In terms of 2016-2017 cap dollars that would be like a 3.30M cap hit.

Year 5-contract represents 4.30% of team cap. In terms of 2016-2017 cap dollars that would be like a 3.14M cap hit.

Year 6-contract represents 4.08% of team cap. In terms of 2016-2017 cap dollars that would be like a 2.97M cap hit.

 

[Apoplectic Habs Fan]

If Shaw is his only move, you’ll have a point. But maybe, just maybe, MB knows what he’s doing, as evidenced by the fact that he’s moved out Eller in conjunction with adding Shaw and has accumulated $7.4 million in cap space to use on UFA day in 3 days. Maybe Shaw was part of the plan, and a UFA is another, larger part but won't be physically possible until Friday.

Speaking of tired things.

How many artificial timelines is this now?

Oh wait till the draft, umm, july 1st..... all off season... he has lots of time til the trade deadline, he cant fix things, you dont make those moves at the draft......

Ok you may finally have a point if Shaws his only move but not really because i will move the goal post again

 

[ohmyjlord]

Wait ?!? Are we really debating wHether or not trading Diaz for Weise was a good deal ?

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

Speaking of tired things.

How many artificial timelines is this now?

Oh wait till the draft, umm, july 1st..... all off season... he has lots of time til the trade deadline, he cant fix things, you dont make those moves at the draft......

Ok you may finally have a point if Shaws his only move but not really because i will move the goal post again

Yup.

The next deadline is "by the end of summer" and then it's (like last year) "by the trade deadline" - where, somehow, trading assets for a player in demand is a better option than signing one without giving up assets...

I give BargainBin until 2020! That's surely when our window should think about starting the process to open.

 

[CH25]

[MOD]

Thats true but which of MB's recent move warrant a positive reaction ? He deserves the hate.

 

[Agalloch]

Good contract. No NTC or anything like it.

 

[Raimu]

Thats true but which of MB's recent move warrant a positive reaction ? He deserves the hate.

Eh, he's made a few good moves, and a lot of poor to bad ones.

[MOD]

Trade Eller for far more than he should be worth? Bad move. Now lets try to find away to rationalize that presupposition. (Immediately overpaying for Shaw is what most people go for.)

Don't qualify Lessio? Bad move. Lets rationalize why.

I'm not saying MB doesn't deserve a lot of criticism for his constant shuffling of bottom 6 players and handing out term like candy, but goddamn could we at least use some critical thought before declaring every move bad?

 

[ohmyjlord]

Good contract. No NTC or anything like it.

I agree. I'd say it's probably a year and $150k to 400k more than I had hoped, but I'll gladly look the other way for a deal without a NTC.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Needed to be quoted for the new thread.

Couple of notes:

This isn't directed just at you, because many others in the thread have done the same thing, but why do people keep harping on offensive production as if it somehow a barometer to measuring this players worth?

It's pretty clear - and again, I don't mean you specifically - that there are a lot of people in this thread that really don't have a clue what kind of player Andrew Shaw is or what it is that he will bring to the Canadiens, so they dismiss him as a "grinder" or harp on his point totals as if that is somehow a measuring stick that "proves" he is a third line player.

There are a few nonsense arguments that keep coming and then get repeated as fact. It's like the Republic Party talking points in here. A bunch of lies and half-truths keep getting repeated until they become "fact."

Let's go through a few of these "talking points"...

1) Shaw "only" got 30 points while playing with Chicago's high end players, he'll do much worse with the Montreal's inferior offensive players.

There are a few issues with this, that have been pointed out in this thread already, but ignored because they don't fit the narrative. First of all, if Shaw is plugged into a second line agitator/go-to-the-net role that I suspect he will be, he will be playing with guys with the exact same, if not better, offensive totals than Jonathan Toews and Marian Hossa. Look at the numbers. This argument is just plain nonsense.

He spent a lot of time in Chicago playing with those two on a top six line that was given a lot of shutdown assignments by coach Quenville. This was an excellent line. Shaw helped make room, went to the net, caused distractions and was a major pain in the ass.

Even if there was a big difference between the offensive calibre of Toews/Hossa and say, Galchenyuk and Max or Plex and Gallagher - with there isn't - the notion that he is somehow "leaching" off these star players is also a total misnomer. Anybody that is familiar with his game knows that he is a thorn in the side of opponents, a guy that goes to the net, battles for rebounds, plays at the edge of the paint and tries to tip pucks and distract defensemen into battling with him instead of paying attention to the pass lanes, etc. This game would translate anywhere and with anybody. He doesn't rely on his line mates to prop him up. He wants to create situations where they can do what they do best.

No argument there, but that doesn't mean he would justify his salary or usage.

2) He is a third line player

He could certainly be used on the third line. His physical play, defensive awareness and work ethic would make him excellent in that regard, but I think he would be much better deployed in the Top Six where he could really compliment two offensive players, help to create room for them and distract the other team. The simple fact that he was a Top Six player on a team that won the Cup twice and is widely regarded as one of the best teams in the league but all of the detractors here want to call him a "third liner" and a "grinder" is frankly bizarre. If he's a Top Six guy on a great team, why is he a bottom six guy on a team with issues on the wing. This makes no sense at all and is a pretty big credibility hit to any poster that keeps parroting this.

This claim becomes even more dubious when the detractors point to his 34 points as "proof" that he isn't a Top Six player. Look at the league. Look at the point totals of players on the second line. 34 points is in no way out of line with what second line guys put up on the vast majority of teams in the league. Not to mention, if you think Andrew Shaw's acquisition is strictly about the points he will personally produce, it's crystal clear that you aren't really aware of what kind of player he is.

Shaw has never been a permanent top-6 player in Chicago. He usually finished between 7-9 in TOI among Chicago forwards. Shaw's production is also exactly in line with either a very productive 3rd liner or a very unproductive 2nd liner. His points/60 at even strength, which is his production rate, was exactly the same as Weise and Flash and only slightly better than Eller's. So yes, there is plenty of even basic evidence to suggest that he's a 3rd liner. As for playing him up the line-up? Sure, that could work, but you need significantly more secondary scoring to justify it.

3) This is way too much money for a player like this. This contract is a disaster.

I can at least understand the basis of the argument that people don't like a six year contract. I personally have no issue with it, because of his age and the fact that a six year deal could lower the cap hit, but to dispute how much he's being paid is really quite strange. There are tons of comparables of guys making similar money or in many cases more to do a lot less than Andrew Shaw. This is market value. Casey Cizaks, Brandon Sutter, Cody Eakin, Brooks Laich, Ryan Callahan, etc. This is by now means an outlier for a contract.

Uh, you just listed a small sample and called it the standard (or rather, not on outlier). You need to provide a lot more comparable to prove that. You could just as easily list contracts like Kadri, Gallagher, Simmonds, Coyle, Lee, etc. to prove the opposite point. And Eakin does do more than Shaw.

4) He's not even better than Lars Eller

How anybody could watch Andrew Shaw play and arrive at this conclusion is completely beyond me. I have seen people in this thread claiming that Eller is actually a *better* player, then they parrot off a bunch of stats. Andrew Shaw's direct contribution to the score sheet is NOT the way to gauge his value. Many Montreal fans have seen the way that Brendan Gallagher can get plugged into a line and become the engine of that line. His relentless hard work, his compete level, and his passion effects the entire line. This is what Andrew Shaw does. He does not have the offensive skill set of Brendan Gallagher, but he has the same fire, the same compete level, the same doggedness. Comparing a player like this to Lars Eller is essentially like saying "I actually don't know much about Shaw, but I looked up his numbers on the internet." Speaking of things you don't get from "the numbers..."

Uh, Eller's contribution isn't on the score sheet either.

5) Intangibles are overrated

This is such a silly and vague argument. Just seems like a great way to dismiss the things that make the player so valuable and special. It's almost too dumb to even get into, so all I will say is Joel Quennville and Stan Bowman really disagree with the "experts" here and I will take their word on what matters when building a winning team over the HFBoard's geniuses any day of the week.

Intangible's aren't overrated, but they're ill defined and seem to go from player to player. Weise has intangibles. So did Clarkson. If you're looking for positive trade examples, Ladd had intangibles too. Joel Quenneville and Stan Bowman also loved the intangibles of Dave Bolland and didn't want to lose him too. Doesn't mean he was worth his raise either.


I don't know how Shaw will turn out, but there is reason to be concerned, even if you look past the 'GM falling in love with his player' angle. I hope it works out, but you can't waive away the red flags.

 

[Agalloch]

I agree. I'd say it's probably a year and $150k to 400k more than I had hoped, but I'll gladly look the other way for a deal without a NTC.

We have no forwards with one. That's crazy. Stamkos will have one if we sign him

 

[Le depisteur]

Over the life of Shaws contract we have to remember the % of cap space 3.9M represents will continue to shrink. If we assume a cap increase of 5% a year over the total term of this deal, this is how his cap % would be (I didn't have the aid of a calculator, I was doing the numbers long hand so I rounded numbers off).

Year 1-contract represents 5.3% of team cap. In terms of 2016-2017 cap dollars that works out to 3.9M against a $73M cap.

Year 2-contract represents 5.03% of team cap. In terms of 2016-2017 cap dollars that would be like a 3.67M cap hit.

Year 3-contract represents 4.77% of team cap. In terms of 2016-2017 cap dollars that would be like a 3.48M cap hit.

Year 4-contract represents 4.53% of team cap. In terms of 2016-2017 cap dollars that would be like a 3.30M cap hit.

Year 5-contract represents 4.30% of team cap. In terms of 2016-2017 cap dollars that would be like a 3.14M cap hit.

Year 6-contract represents 4.08% of team cap. In terms of 2016-2017 cap dollars that would be like a 2.97M cap hit.

Very good post. But 5% by year seems to me a bit high. This year, cap raised of only 2,4%...

 

[JohnLennon]

Needed to be quoted for the new thread.

Wow, thanks for quoting that. Great post FerrisRox. Well articulated.

 

[Deebs]

Very good post. But 5% by year seems to me a bit high. This year, cap raised of only 2,4%...

It's only for two years, so the impact isn't that great as a whole. Shaw's will be dropping while guys like Chuckie, Patches and Price will be going up. Smart way to structure it imo