ayoshi
Registered User
- Nov 3, 2010
- 801
- 290
Give Joshua Mikheyev's money and fire Mikheyev into the Sun.
Give Joshua Mikheyev's money and fire Mikheyev into the Sun.
The Golden cheats seem to find a way to do it with stone every year.Unfortunately, the salary cap rules say you're not allowed to do that.
There's a whole clause in there about firing Mikheyevs into the sun.
I'm really annoyed with Dakota in the postseason. It's one thing to not be putting up numbers but he had no physical pushback whatsoever against Edmonton.Has anyone actually done the math and see what we can afford?
Everyone talks about re signing Dak, Zadorov, Lindholm, Hronek but it sounds likely that we probably keep one or two.
In both series had a great game 1 and then disappeared.
I thought he had a great season for us and you can’t take that away from him, but it makes me hesitant to pay him what he’s going to be looking for. He has it in him to be a good, good player, but it’s a risk.
There’s a chance he was injured of course. But really frustrating nonetheless.
Chicago will give Dakota 4m. Everyone gets it i.e. Foligno, Anathiosu, Perry.Dude had 8 points in 13 games and threw hits at a pace that would have paced at 450 over a full season.
People are acting like a 3rd liner is somehow a failure because he 'only' won two playoff games by himself and 'only' scored at a 50-point pace in the postseason.
He's irreplaceable and if it takes $4 million you find a way to clear that money.
I mean he was ok, but he was also playing with Lindholm and Garland who were the ones driving the bus on that line. Even in the regular season his most common linemates were Garland and Blueger and he had terrible numbers away from them while their numbers away from him and each other were fine. He's not going to repeat the production we saw this season, it's just not possible unless he has like 100% more shots next year. That 4 million could be way better spent elsewhere, Garland and Bleuger or Lindholm or whoever their center is don't need him to succeed but he very much needs especially Garland. I think if you want to bring him back he needs to come in under 3.Dude had 8 points in 13 games and threw hits at a pace that would have paced at 450 over a full season.
People are acting like a 3rd liner is somehow a failure because he 'only' won two playoff games by himself and 'only' scored at a 50-point pace in the postseason.
He's irreplaceable and if it takes $4 million you find a way to clear that money.
Dude had 8 points in 13 games and threw hits at a pace that would have paced at 450 over a full season.
People are acting like a 3rd liner is somehow a failure because he 'only' won two playoff games by himself and 'only' scored at a 50-point pace in the postseason.
He's irreplaceable and if it takes $4 million you find a way to clear that money.
It's just such a completely unsustainable pace though. Normally, i kind of hate the whole PDO talk. I think it's stupid and often applied in a lazy way. But with Joshua...it's very much a factor here. Same as Hoglander who is also a good player who had a major resurgence...but i wouldn't bank on him potting another 24G next year. That's just not reasonable.
I'd want to keep Joshua...but he's the straight up poster boy for a player who gets "overpaid". Big, physical, scored at a completely unsustainable rate. $4M long-term for a player like that whose success was driven by a $4.9M Garland...you just can't do that. And a guy who plays a physical game that tends to fall off a cliff as they approach 30...and is a kind of terrible skater who has put a ton of work into improving in that, but those guys tend to just become utterly useless as they age. Unless they're Cory Perry but that's a totally different caliber of player.,
joshua's shot rate is bottom third of the league. it's going to be really hard for him to be more than a 10-15g guy unless he gets that way up
I don't agree that it's unsustainable.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if his production goes up more if they give him more top-6/PP minutes. He absolutely deserved those minutes this year - and a long look next to Pettersson in particular - but they didn't want to break up the Garland-Joshua pairing.
But even if he only scores 30 points/82 going forward, you just can't find big reliable two-way players who bring this kind of physicality.
I also disagree with the notion that bad skaters age more poorly and think it's actually often the opposite.
He's looked pretty terrible in the brief looks they've given him in the Top-6 though. He doesn't seem to mesh with Petey or Bozo. He really thrives, and his unsustainable scoring rate is dependent upon playing with Garland.
There were 6 goals scored all year...where Joshua was on the ice and Garland wasn't. All year. Not even goals by Joshua...but just goals scored while he was even on the ice without Garland. He's hugely a product of his insane chemistry with Garland. In the same way Hoglander is a product of hist insane chemistry with Lafferty.
The other part of this is the real issue here. Do you "overpay" for a 30pt-10G guy at age 28 who isn't a great skater to begin with? I say no. If you can get him on a contract that starts with a 2 and for only a few years? Heck yeah, sign him up. I just don't think that's the market he'll be in. I think he's headed far more toward that $4M+ range that you just regret all day. You still have to figure out how to replace him and that size + physicality he brings. But that's the mess we're in. You can't afford to let sentimentality overpay guys who aren't going to age well or even repeat what they did last year.
I guess it comes down to whether you see him as a Top-6F and Powerplay guy. I just don't see it. He's not nearly skilled enough and he doesn't read the play nearly well enough to be a factor there. Being big and tall is not a Powerplay skillset in and of itself. He's looked terrible in the minutes he's played in the Top-6 and on the Powerplay...the problem of a "big dude" to stand around the net is 1990s thinking. Also solved more easily by Nikita Zaddy anyway.
You sign him from 3-4 years $3-4 million/year and then laugh as he out produces his cap and takes the next step as a top 6 guy. He showed he has the game for it and his size is invaluable for this team. And like others have said, you clear cap space to keep him if needed. You guys do know he started like 65% in the d zone, right?
He pretty much never played with Pettersson and I thought that he looked very good in his brief look with Miller near the end of the year.
He isn't a 'big dude to stand around the net' - he's a guy who scored 22 goals in 76 games this year with no PP time and gets basically all his goals by ... being near the net and having great hands. Comparing that to sticking Zadorov netfront on the PP is ... weird.
I also don't think that the 'only scored with Garland' thing is any sort of gotcha.
If they let him walk, it will be a massive, massive mistake.
I mean..."he only scored with Garland" is the entire reality of the situation. You're trying to project his scoring out to a Top-6 role that he hasn't demonstrated he's capable of whatsoever. Like you said...he barely played there. But what we saw was...not great. He's just not that skilled.
Like...you're literally saying "He isn't a 'big dude to stand around the net" and then the later in the sentence you're saying..."and gets basically all his goals by ... being near the net and having great hands." I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here. But like...what?
I just don't get it. You're projecting his trajectory upward from an already kind of meteoric rise over the past season. Largely due to his chemistry with tiny Conor who meshes absolutely perfectly with him as a guy who just gets the puck to the net...always.
He's basically Marcus Foligno. Big physical 12G per year player who had one heck of a season. He's younger, but he's basically already at the same age in terms of skating. Really good player. I'd take them on my team any day. But...not at $4M per year.
Replacing his size and physicality is a heck of a challenge. But you've gotta do it, if the price hits those heights...
Comparing a guy who scored 22 ES goals in 76 games by being a great net-front guy with great hands to putting a 20-point defender in that same spot is ridiculous.
I don't think you're appreciating much of the IQ and intricacies in Joshua's game that separates him from a pure north-south guy like Foligno. But also ... Foligno was a $2.9 million player back in 2017 and a $4 million player when signing for his age 30+ years in 2021 because he's an effective player and big, physical effective players are bloody hard to find and you don't just let them walk when you have them.
Like, f*** me. Reading through some of the comments here today makes me think most of this fanbase has no idea why we were successful this year.
Yeah I disagree with the argument that Joshua its okay to let Joshua go because hes no longer one of the biggest steal contracts in the league. What he brings is what every team in the league desperately wants in the mix. I think he has more to give, and even if he doesn't, he's giving you good value anywhere in the 3.5-4.5 ballpark year over year.
I hate this kind of lazy analysis.
I get that when a guy like Sam Lafferty who has been around for years goes on a weird heater you can look at SH% and project a regression.
But not all players are the same and when you actually watch Joshua play there's a reason his shooting % is so high. Nearly every shot he takes is from <10 feet in high-danger areas.
Conversely, a guy like Podkolzin is always going to have a low SH% because he takes a ton of low-percentage shots from crappy areas.
Joshua might not shoot 21% again but I'd bet money he's consistently over 15% for the next few years. And watching the games - he's a bloody effective player. It wasn't a fluke that he produced.