Cowumbus
Registered User
Massive as in what …?Voronkov’s also due for a massive raise as an RFA.
I see some predictive models saying 4-5x3.
Massive as in what …?Voronkov’s also due for a massive raise as an RFA.
love voronkov as a player, but his success has come 1) netfront on the power play and 2) at 5v5 with marchenko and monahan – two guys who have success with everyone. he's also due for a massive raise as an RFA.
they have other guys who can play that netfront role (monahan, jenner) and they've been connected to boeser, who is good netfront and in the bumper. kreider has also been reportedly available and he is a prolific netfront guy who brings a lot more pace.
Massive as in what …?
I see some predictive models saying 4-5x3.
Show me these models so I can make sure never to use them. He'll be making much more than that.
would be shocked if the number didn't start with a 6 at minimum, and that could go higher if they give him a long-term deal. the athletic's model has him worth $6.2m right now and that's after a long cold streak – he was at $8m+ when the cards first came out iirc.Massive as in what …?
I see some predictive models saying 4-5x3.
they were also the best line in the league with chinakhov before he got hurt.I think this undersells Voronkov. Marchy and Monny are successful with anyone but they were the best line in the league with Ronny, at least for that time.
5v5 GF% | 5v5 xGF% | |
Voronkov w/Marchenko | 75% | 52.76% |
Voronkov w/o Marchenko | 23.08% | 44.17% |
Marchenko w/o Voronkov | 58.33% | 49.26% |
maybe in a vacuum. I'm still not convinced that there's a substantial enough drop-off from voronkov netfront / monahan bumper on PP1 to some of the other configurations they could trot out there to hand-wave away the potential impact of adding a star player. for example:There is no netfront replacement for Ronny that can do what he does there - it's a very big drop off to anyone else.
Lists comparable as Huberdeau, Marchenko, Vrana, Fiala.![]()
CapWages - NHL Salary Cap Data
CapWages provides the latest NHL salary cap data and player contracts.capwages.com
Ok most of those contract projections are reasonable.
If we do like a two year deal that walks Voronkov to UFA, then perhaps with his lack of NHL experience, he'll accept a lower AAV like that as part of a prove-it-deal. But I don't think that's a good idea for the Blue Jackets. We make it really hard for us to keep a very special player long term, right when our cap demands are escalating.
I’d be fine with 6.2 but that doesn’t feel “massive” to me - I guess my point was that I don’t think he’s getting 10 million with his leverage. Aka, this isn’t going to be a Laine situation where the player is overpaid for their actual on-ice value and is taking up too much cap. Voronkov at 6.2 in your example, is valuable, and still gives room to improve the roster elsewhere.would be shocked if the number didn't start with a 6 at minimum, and that could go higher if they give him a long-term deal. the athletic's model has him worth $6.2m right now and that's after a long cold streak – he was at $8m+ when the cards first came out iirc.
they were also the best line in the league with chinakhov before he got hurt.
not saying he's not a good player – he is – but he's the clear third banana on that line and has not looked good this season when away from marchenko. to put numbers to that claim:
5v5 GF% 5v5 xGF% Voronkov w/Marchenko 75% 52.76% Voronkov w/o Marchenko 23.08% 44.17% Marchenko w/o Voronkov 58.33% 49.26%
he has really struggled away from marchenko this year.
and, once again, I am not saying that they should or will trade him. just that he has the trifecta of things that can lead teams to cash out on asset value:
too old to bridge. they basically have to bet on high sh% and linemate chemistry. those are not typically good business practices in the NHL.
- unsustainably high sh% (over 18%!!)
- heavy dependency on linemates
- older RFA (will be 25 on opening night next year)
on paper it's a risky investment and there's a case to be made for selling high instead to bring in a star player with less volatility. obviously my heart says to keep him (he's a very likable player) but my brain has to acknowledge that it's not a slam dunk.
I’d be fine with 6.2 but that doesn’t feel “massive” to me - I guess my point was that I don’t think he’s getting 10 million with his leverage. Aka, this isn’t going to be a Laine situation where the player is overpaid for their actual on-ice value and is taking up too much cap. Voronkov at 6.2 in your example, is valuable, and still gives room to improve the roster elsewhere.
I've always had a vision of Erik Cernak on this team (well, the old team but think he'd be a great fit on this team moving forward). don't see any way TBL move him, but he could fit well with Zach or with Denton and keep Fabbro as the other top 4 RHD. Pushes Severson down and who knows with Gudbranson. That seems like an upgrade to me and woudl really solidify this group.Is a dependable-in-their-own-zone RD with size a "true #1"? Can you find someone who fits that description who's not a "true #1"? I think that would be the approach.
Cernak would be a great get, although his durability is a bit of a question mark. Doubt we'll land him, but that's a different conversation. I think you picked a great example to fit DSL's description, though!I've always had a vision of Erik Cernak on this team (well, the old team but think he'd be a great fit on this team moving forward). don't see any way TBL move him, but he could fit well with Zach or with Denton and keep Fabbro as the other top 4 RHD. Pushes Severson down and who knows with Gudbranson. That seems like an upgrade to me and woudl really solidify this group.
I think he meets your description above?
yeah, obviously voronkov is awesome and has been very fun to watch, but it's fair to question just how sustainable the production is moving forward.Oof that's ugly.
we're talking about two different types of risks here.We've seen you be perfectly willing to take enormous risks in acquiring players from other clubs who are either struggling or injured or both, being very bold about how they would fit on our club and so on... And I think we both understand that you sometimes have to take big risks to build a true contender.
the vibes are off-the-charts good. the metrics aren't as encouraging.So why wouldn't you extend that boldness to a player like Voronkov, who very well could be a star for us in the playoffs?
we're talking about two different types of risks here.
- betting on a distressed asset (pettersson) who has a five-year track record of being a top-15 player at his position (or better) to regain that form after leaving a toxic situation (as was the case with jack eichel)
- committing money and term to a player whose statistical profile suggests an enormous amount of puck luck (18% shooting and a PDO when playing with marchenko of over 1.10)
vancouver is the toxic situation. miller was a key factor in that.The Canucks didn't follow up the Miller trade by saying - "well thank god that is over with. We now have EP as our guy and we're sticking with it". Instead he's continued to struggle and they are still trying to find a way out. He's not a great player in a toxic situation, he is the toxic situation.
it's not a unique profile at all.His 18% shooting sounds unsustainably high until you realize where he is shooting from, the blue paint. This is a very unique shooting profile.
I'm seeing his ixG as 11.1 on NST, fwiw. NST also has his on-ice xG at 34.6 when his actual GF is at 40.He has 19 goals. His individual xG is, coincidentally, 19 goals. He comfortably leads our team in ixG.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. voronkov very much could be a core piece in the same sense that tom wilson is a core piece for washington, where the physical elements help him play above his stats.I think we've found a core piece that could be a difference maker in the playoffs for us, and we'd be incredible fools to let him go. We have so many assets to go out and get our other needs taken care of, we don't have a reason to move a core piece entering his prime.
The important thing is that Provorov wants to stay here. Also his brother plays at the university. In addition, let's not forget about the salary cap.Sure, someone will give him 7 years but at less than what he is probably currently asking. With the projection of the cap rising ($25 million in 3 years?) a lot of teams will spend like they've just won the lottery so maybe someone will be a fool and do it.
I liked Gabrikov, but at his age I'm not a 7 year bidder. I like Shea Theodore, but it's the age deal again. Chychrun is in my preferred age bracket, but I haven't watched him that closely. His simple stats seems ok, but I have no clue how his advanced stats look. I'll guess he gets a ton of money thrown at him so I'll leave it to the FO to decide whether he's worth it or not.
Overall, if the price isn't right, then I'd prefer that the CBJ don't buy. The team is in such a strong cap/asset position that they could pull a blockbuster trade if they want.
The important thing is that Provorov wants to stay here. Also his brother plays at the university.
Oops, my mistake.His brother is currently playing U16 in New Jersey and planning on playing at Ohio State in 27-28. We’ll see if that happens.
![]()
Vladimir Provorov - Stats, Contract, Salary & More
Eliteprospects.com hockey player profile of Vladimir Provorov, 2008-02-09 Yaroslavl, RUS Russia. Most recently in the THF 16U with New Jersey Rockets 16U AAA. Complete player biography and stats.www.eliteprospects.com