Crede777
Deputized
- Dec 16, 2009
- 14,836
- 4,549
Because their goaltender in 2011-2012 was Steve Mason and their goaltender in 2012-2013 was Sergei Bobrovsky who had a .932 save percentage and a GAA of 2.00 on his way to winning the Vezina.
Speculation: Armchair GM - Offseason Thread (Summer Edition)
- Thread starter CBJWerenski8
- Start date
- Status
Key word arguably. I don't agree with your assessment but I get why you're confused. Nash was part of a team that was more ready and succeeded and you saw it, Laine has been one of the few positives in otherwise bleak roster for the last couple of seasons, waiting for these guys to grow up to make the team better but they have lost and you've been seeing that. And you can't differentiate between team and individual when it comes to Laine. All the responsibility of results is squarely on him, according to your critique.
I've seen Laine as part of a winning teams, actually often the reason for their winning. You have not yet so all you can see is how during his time in the team the team hasn't had success. Nobody can understand why you'd put that on the best player in the team, that part makes absolutely no sense at all.
There's no one player who can make a very young and inexperienced team that much better as you seem to expect from Laine alone. McDavid's oilers took a while to grow into a playoff team. By your logic, they should have gotten rid of him after 4 failed years of reaching the playoffs because clearly the only reason they failed was him not being good enough or something. It's not the rest of the team, it's the #1 guys fault.
koteka
Registered User
Are any of you armchair GMs a little freaked out by the Sanderson extension? Next summer would you give Jiricek an 8 x $8 million contract?
During that time Nash actually played defense as well (early in his career pre-Hitch he didn't help out).
We will see what happens to Laine this year under Babcock. It was an adjustment for him with Torts and I would guess it may be similar (especially early on) with Babcock.
A little, yes. And most likely I would not extend Jiricek to 8x8 next year or even the year after... that seems to be the trend though and maybe it'll become a requirement for future contenders. The hit rate has been quite good so far but some costly mistakes are bound to happen. Just gotta hope we get them right.
On second thought, if Jiricek plays well next year and shows improvement in his weaker areas, I might actually consider that extension before the cap jumps up (which I guess is impossible if the cap jumps up next year already). Ottawa is taking some gambles but the timing might be on their side with these long 8M deals.
Yes. Well, probably not next summer as I don't see him getting more than 30 NHL games this year. But in 2025? Absolutely. You have a young 1RD, you don't mess around with bridges. You give him max term and that's your window.
traffic cone
Registered User
- May 12, 2011
- 1,842
- 1,479
People are saying Sanderson is a 1D. I don’t argue against it.
Nowadays when someone signs a young top player to a long deal fans and media go ”they got their guy (1C, 1D, 1W whatever). But we have to realize there’s a huge difference between the 32nd best d-man (1D) and the best d-man. Just because you can be labeled as a top 1D doesn’t mean you’re anywhere near at the same level of the very top 1Ds in the league.
I guess what I’m trying to say is many times GMs are sort of handcuffed as they feel like they have their 1C or 1D etc. and that’s how it has to be going forward. That’s how the whole narrative is: ”Sens got their 1D for years to come”. It’s like we’re there’s only this one way to build a winning team and you always need these certain pieces etc.
Right now Jake Sanderson is a promising young defenseman. But we don’t know how he’ll progress (even if people always assume young players are just getting better and better. What if Jake Sanderson is a playoff choker for example? What if he doesn’t get better? What if he’s a top30 d-man for the rest of his career, not ever a top10 one? Is the GM still thinking ”this is our guy” while at the same time just changing the players around him year after year if the team doesn’t win (like Toronto does).
And if OTT isn’t winning anything let’s say in the next 5-6 years. Is Jake ”the 1D”Sanderson then for example completely ok if the GM brings another d-men into the team to be the 1D instead? Or is the superstar going to switch a team to ”a contender” because the last team didn’t give him a chance to win the Cup? I feel like this is happening a lot nowadays.
I’m not saying it’s a bad deal. It’s just this ”they got their guy” narrative that baffles me at times.
Nowadays when someone signs a young top player to a long deal fans and media go ”they got their guy (1C, 1D, 1W whatever). But we have to realize there’s a huge difference between the 32nd best d-man (1D) and the best d-man. Just because you can be labeled as a top 1D doesn’t mean you’re anywhere near at the same level of the very top 1Ds in the league.
I guess what I’m trying to say is many times GMs are sort of handcuffed as they feel like they have their 1C or 1D etc. and that’s how it has to be going forward. That’s how the whole narrative is: ”Sens got their 1D for years to come”. It’s like we’re there’s only this one way to build a winning team and you always need these certain pieces etc.
Right now Jake Sanderson is a promising young defenseman. But we don’t know how he’ll progress (even if people always assume young players are just getting better and better. What if Jake Sanderson is a playoff choker for example? What if he doesn’t get better? What if he’s a top30 d-man for the rest of his career, not ever a top10 one? Is the GM still thinking ”this is our guy” while at the same time just changing the players around him year after year if the team doesn’t win (like Toronto does).
And if OTT isn’t winning anything let’s say in the next 5-6 years. Is Jake ”the 1D”Sanderson then for example completely ok if the GM brings another d-men into the team to be the 1D instead? Or is the superstar going to switch a team to ”a contender” because the last team didn’t give him a chance to win the Cup? I feel like this is happening a lot nowadays.
I’m not saying it’s a bad deal. It’s just this ”they got their guy” narrative that baffles me at times.
If he plays that well out of the gate and you get him on a deal that saves money longterm Id be all for it. We'll have to see if he even makes the team and go from there. Sanderson was playing 22minutes as a rookie and didnt look bad doing it, if Jiricek comes in and does that out of the gate Id hope Jarmo does that instead of paying 9+ a few years down the line
Or you wait it out, watch him become what you expect and then pay multiple extra million a year. Basically like we did with Z. Its also not like Sanderson came out of nowhere, he was a top 5 pick and did well everywhere even before the NHL. Heck if it were up to me Id get Johnson locked up long term now
traffic cone
Registered User
- May 12, 2011
- 1,842
- 1,479
True. But I wasn’t really arguing against the deal that much. More about the narrative.
Its becoming more and more common to identify these guys young. I feel like these guys usually hit more than the mid level guys and live up to the contracts more than someone like Wennberg.
In Jiricek's case though its not much of a topic now because we havent seen him at the NHL level. If he comes in and is Werenski's partner all year and looks good we should be hoping for a long term deal.
These kids are better prepared than ever so I dont think its a narrative, its just a new reality.
traffic cone
Registered User
- May 12, 2011
- 1,842
- 1,479
”These guys” is what I mean though. What does ”these guys” even mean?
If Sanderson isn’t skill wise or personality wise good enough to lead the Sens to a Stanley Cup is he willing to accept not being the 1D anymore and is the GM willing to make changes? Or is it just going to be year after year of recycling the guys around them - like Toronto does.
Being a 1D doesn’t mean you’re Makar, Keith or Carlson. People act like he’s going to be their 1D for 9 years now. At least the GM shouldn’t think that way - and be open for change.
Again: I’m speaking about the philosophy of team building and the narrative that gets build around some of these players and around what is deemed necessary to build a good team.
If Sanderson isn’t skill wise or personality wise good enough to lead the Sens to a Stanley Cup is he willing to accept not being the 1D anymore and is the GM willing to make changes? Or is it just going to be year after year of recycling the guys around them - like Toronto does.
Being a 1D doesn’t mean you’re Makar, Keith or Carlson. People act like he’s going to be their 1D for 9 years now. At least the GM shouldn’t think that way - and be open for change.
Again: I’m speaking about the philosophy of team building and the narrative that gets build around some of these players and around what is deemed necessary to build a good team.
koteka
Registered User
I think there is a difference between locking up a good young forward who was drafted high and played a couple of seasons in the NHL than locking up a good young defenseman who hasn’t even played 80 NHL games. Defensemen develop differently. I get the idea of the Stutzle contract because forward development is typically more linear. The Sanderson extension starts in 24-25. There was no rush to get a contract done. Unless he finishes top 5 of the Norris I doubt he would get much more next off season even if he is really good this season. Seems like all downside risk to me.
koteka
Registered User
Lucky for us it is all hypothetical with Jiricek. His contract is through 25-26 (because of a slide which gets into weird contract stuff I don’t fully understand) so we won’t be able to extend until the summer of 2025.
Jovavic
Concept of a Plan
EXTRAS
Registered User
- Jul 31, 2012
- 9,341
- 5,838
Jovavic
Concept of a Plan
I would put him in mine, but we have like 10 players for six spots so he needs to show it to Babcock
Seems like we say it every year but this is gonna be a huge camp for everyone but maybe a handful of a guys and even within that handful nothing is guaranteed outside of getting first or third line minutes.
Jovavic
Concept of a Plan
Not only are there just alot of players, but there's the Babcock factor of who he ends up liking and then working with Jarmo on the roster/who gets waived
the short answer: no.
the longer answer: this cbj admin tends to be really bridge-heavy with post-ELC contracts. imo that is the smarter approach when you look at contract sequencing.
- lower AAV than a longer-term deal
- can defer the eight-year deal to their third contract rather than second
| Term after ELC | Bridge after ELC |
|
|
The cap goes up either way. You get surplus value on the second contract either way. The bridge deal comes with a lower cap hit (and higher surplus value), while the long-term deal has more years of surplus value overall. But the contract after the bridge happens at a young enough age that it can also yield surplus value.
In other words, if you hit on a draft pick, would you rather have them in the lineup for:
- Age 19 through age 29 (UFA departure during prime)
- Age 19 through age 32 (UFA departure at end of prime)
- Age 19 through age 38 (4+ albatross years, dead cap/LTIR)
You'll find Gaudreau, Laine, Marchencko, Jenner and Johnson in the top 6 but outside of that everything is a mystery for forwards. I wouldn't want to guess.
Werenski, Severson and Provorov will fill 3/4 top 2 pairings and rest is up to camp.
Werenski, Severson and Provorov will fill 3/4 top 2 pairings and rest is up to camp.
You can't leave out that we've had players leave after/during their bridge deal. We never even had a chance to get them on an 8 year deal.
That's part of the calculation for Ottawa too. I don't think there's much risk that Sanderson is going to earn $10m with his play next year, so his contract would seem unnecessary. But this way they've got the whole core wrapped up and they don't need to worry about guys forcing trades anymore.
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
Babcock basically just told a reporter in a Q&A that every guy is a clean slate and their play in camp and preseason will determine their linemates, minutes and situational play.
Any guesses we’d make at this stage would be basically “what I would do,” although Babcock has made a couple of statements around how he’d like to structure each line with two guys who can play down low in the offensive zone.
It’s going to be a fun camp to watch unless you’re a fantasy manager.
- Status
