Player Discussion Joonas Korpisalo

[Demon Eyes]

Goalie Bob worked with Korpi while he was in LA, and he had really solid numbers. If Korpi can come in and give us something around a 2.50 GAA & .915 SV% then effectively gives you what Ullmark did.

What's the context behind this? I've seen this posted before, why would Goalie Bob work with a player on another team? Is there another Goalie Bob?

 

[ON3M4N]

What's the context behind this? I've seen this posted before, why would Goalie Bob work with a player on another team? Is there another Goalie Bob?

No idea, but it came from Sweeney

“Joonas has been a high-level goaltender,” Sweeney told reporters, per team-provided video. “(Goaltending coach) Bob (Essensa) did a lot of work with Joonas when he played his best hockey in LA

 

[Demon Eyes]

No idea, but it came from Sweeney

“Joonas has been a high-level goaltender,” Sweeney told reporters, per team-provided video. “(Goaltending coach) Bob (Essensa) did a lot of work with Joonas when he played his best hockey in LA

weird, Bill Ranford was their goalie coach at the time

 

[Kalus]

Source: the Athletic.

Its data-driven national media reports like this that supports the instincts of those that were critical of the Korpisalo move (and the other recent moves of Peeke, Z, and Lindholm).

 

[Aussie Bruin]

No idea, but it came from Sweeney

“Joonas has been a high-level goaltender,” Sweeney told reporters, per team-provided video. “(Goaltending coach) Bob (Essensa) did a lot of work with Joonas when he played his best hockey in LA

I heard that too, and as I said at the time, it makes zero sense. I haven't seen any explanation as to how that could even have been possible. I think Sweeney simply mis-spoke.

 

[LSCII]

View attachment 897192

Source: the Athletic.

Its data-driven national media reports like this that supports the instincts of those that were critical of the Korpisalo move (and the other recent moves of Peeke, Z, and Lindholm).

Eating bad contracts from other teams without getting anything in return is next level stupid.

 

[wintersej]

View attachment 897192

Source: the Athletic.

Its data-driven national media reports like this that supports the instincts of those that were critical of the Korpisalo move (and the other recent moves of Peeke, Z, and Lindholm).

The Athletic gave the Hampus Lindholm deal an F and listed it as one of the worst contract in the league.

And now it's a B.

Role, fit, and the team around you matter. This chart next year will look at Elias Lindholm much differently.

We will see on Joonas.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

The Athletic gave the Hampus Lindholm deal an F and listed it as one of the worst contract in the league.

And now it's a B.

Role, fit, and the team around you matter. This chart next year will look at Elias Lindholm much differently.

We will see on Joonas.

Sweeney essentially is banking on the Bruins' system to get results. On paper, there can be no argument that E. Lindholm, Zadorov and Korpisalo have all been over-paid relative to their recent performance. In that sense I get the Athletic's methodology even though I think some of their grading is too harsh. But the GM is taking a calculated gamble with all 3 guys that in the right place, with the right people and teammates around them, they can all elevate their games, or perhaps in Lindholm's case simply get back to his best.

It's risk/reward, to varying degrees. Korpisalo is the biggest punt but the lowest cost if it goes wrong, the other two are much less of a stretch but have the potential to hurt more if they don't pan out. The Joonas deal in itself was unnecessary but putting that to one side, the general strategy is understandable - the Bruins' prospect pool is shallow and they refuse any sort of serious rebuild, which means playing pretty hard in the expensive and shaky waters of free agency to fill important gaps. In their situation, some over-spend and risk in doing so is just about unavoidable.

 

[Dr Hook]

Sweeney essentially is banking on the Bruins' system to get results. On paper, there can be no argument that E. Lindholm, Zadorov and Korpisalo have all been over-paid relative to their recent performance. In that sense I get the Athletic's methodology even though I think some of their grading is too harsh. But the GM is taking a calculated gamble with all 3 guys that in the right place, with the right people and teammates around them, they can all elevate their games, or perhaps in Lindholm's case simply get back to his best.

It's risk/reward, to varying degrees. Korpisalo is the biggest punt but the lowest cost if it goes wrong, the other two are much less of a stretch but have the potential to hurt more if they don't pan out. The Joonas deal in itself was unnecessary but putting that to one side, the general strategy is understandable - the Bruins' prospect pool is shallow and they refuse any sort of serious rebuild, which means playing pretty hard in the expensive and shaky waters of free agency to fill important gaps. In their situation, some over-spend and risk in doing so is just about unavoidable.

Perhaps, but it may have been the price Sweeney had to pay to get back into the first round. Between Ullmark’s NTC and teams that needed a starter and were willing to pay for a year and hope he is both good and would re-sign, there probably weren’t a ton of options.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

Perhaps, but it may have been the price Sweeney had to pay to get back into the first round. Between Ullmark’s NTC and teams that needed a starter and were willing to pay for a year and hope he is both good and would re-sign, there probably weren’t a ton of options.

Maybe, but even then it still wasn't necessary but a choice. A defendable one it may be said, but a choice all the same.

If what was on offer wasn't favorable, then I'd probably have just kept Linus and looked to deal him high at the deadline. A late first, a 4th liner and $2 mil saved is something, but arguably not enough especially when you're also taking on one hell of a project with a cost attached if it goes badly, albeit not a big one.

End of the day what's done is done, and as others have said for better or worse JK is here so we hope for the best, whatever that looks like exactly.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

View attachment 897192

Source: the Athletic.

It’s data-driven national media reports like this that supports the instincts of those that were critical of the Korpisalo move (and the other recent moves of Peeke, Z, and Lindholm).

I don’t like the Lindholm/Korpisalo deals as much as anyone else doesn’t like them - but I find it ironic that people will use this to be critical of the Bruins when it shows an overall $10.9M surplus.

 

[LouJersey]

If you have any faith at all in the Bruins structure, McQuaid, now Leach and goalie Bob you can't say the Peeke/Korpisalo weren't a waste of money. Doesn't mean both can't or won't be good, but both seem to be a luxury when you can't ice a bonafide top 6 because of cap space.

I don’t like the Lindholm/Korpisalo deals as much as anyone else doesn’t like them - but I find it ironic that people will use this to be critical of the Bruins when it shows an overall $10.9M surplus.

More telling is they have Brazeau at a 4 mil number and our top 2C players both at about 2 mil each overpay.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

I don’t like the Lindholm/Korpisalo deals as much as anyone else doesn’t like them - but I find it ironic that people will use this to be critical of the Bruins when it shows an overall $10.9M surplus.

Indeed. Just one thing on those surplus estimates though - they suggest that Pasta's true weighted value is $13.8m p.a., and Chucky's is $12.8m. I know salaries and the cap are going up, but that still feels excessive to me. Not a knock on either guy, just wondering about the methodology when those estimates what make each player the highest paid forward and defender in the league, respectively.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

If you have any faith at all in the Bruins structure, McQuaid, now Leach and goalie Bob you can't say the Peeke/Korpisalo weren't a waste of money. Doesn't mean both can't or won't be good, but both seem to be a luxury when you can't ice a bonafide top 6 because of cap space.


More telling is they have Brazeau at a 4 mil number and our top 2C players both at about 2 mil each overpay.

Yeah add Brazeau to my 'what gives?' list. I like what I've seen from the guy so far, but how has he done anything close to suggesting he should be worth $4 mil this coming season?

 

[EverettMike]

Finally someone* that agrees with me that the Zadorov deal is f***ING INSANE.




*A computer

 

[wintersej]

Indeed. Just one thing on those surplus estimates though - they suggest that Pasta's true weighted value is $13.8m p.a., and Chucky's is $12.8m. I know salaries and the cap are going up, but that still feels excessive to me. Not a knock on either guy, just wondering about the methodology when those estimates what make each player the highest paid forward and defender in the league, respectively.

It also thinks Brazeau deserves the same salary as Carlo and Parker Wothersoon is better than Trent Frederic.

Just because data is presented nicely, doesn't mean its good.

 

[Kalus]

Indeed. Just one thing on those surplus estimates though - they suggest that Pasta's true weighted value is $13.8m p.a., and Chucky's is $12.8m. I know salaries and the cap are going up, but that still feels excessive to me. Not a knock on either guy, just wondering about the methodology when those estimates what make each player the highest paid forward and defender in the league, respectively.

Analytics suggest that the best value in the league is at the highest end. When they break down value created per $ cap hit, top end guys present as highly underpaid. Guys like McDavid and Matthews actually look like bargains when you plot it all out.

 

[Kalus]

The Athletic gave the Hampus Lindholm deal an F and listed it as one of the worst contract in the league.

And now it's a B.

Role, fit, and the team around you matter. This chart next year will look at Elias Lindholm much differently.

We will see on Joonas.

Very fair point. This is no be all end all. Their models do seem to heavily weight the most recent year’s performance, though to be fair, that is probably statistically the most reliable indicator.

Predicting athletic performance based on data is certainly imperfect. I just see it as an input and when it correlates with your instincts, it is interesting. There will always be statistical outliers and anomalies. Guys who buck trends etc.

 

[Kalus]

I don’t like the Lindholm/Korpisalo deals as much as anyone else doesn’t like them - but I find it ironic that people will use this to be critical of the Bruins when it shows an overall $10.9M surplus.

Most people are critical of the recent deals given to Zadorov and Elias due to cap hit, term, and their ages. Similar sentiments to taking on the Korpisalo contract (and to a lesser extent Peeke’s).

Few had a problem with the Pasta and McAvoy deals because those were very good deals for the team.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Indeed. Just one thing on those surplus estimates though - they suggest that Pasta's true weighted value is $13.8m p.a., and Chucky's is $12.8m. I know salaries and the cap are going up, but that still feels excessive to me. Not a knock on either guy, just wondering about the methodology when those estimates what make each player the highest paid forward and defender in the league, respectively.

More telling is they have Brazeau at a 4 mil number and our top 2C players both at about 2 mil each overpay.

Personally I find the entire exercise to be bogus.

I just find it funny that there are those who will look at this chart (which is overall very favourable), pick out the deals they don’t like, and say “see! They’re dumb! Bad deals! Told ya so!”

Personally, I don’t require the algorithm to tell me that the deals I don’t like - suck… And that overall the roster is very good and relatively well-constructed.

Even if you were to take this article as gospel:
A) I’m sure that every team will have a chart with some good value deals and some bad ones. The Bruins would not be exclusive in having players on the team making more than they’re worth.

And B) If overall, you’re getting better value than what you’re paying for, then a little overpay here and there to help round out your roster is just fine. In fact, it’s probably a necessity if you have any designs to play in free agency. Nature of the beast.

 

[Number8]

There's a big difference there that you are neglecting. A lot of the everyday stats (gaa, sv%) were good for Ullmark when he was on bad BUF teams:

905 3.11
915 2.69
917 2.63

He performed well, on a bad team, there was a belief that he'd perform even better on a good team.

Korpi's last 3 years
877 4.15
914 2.87
890 3.27

It's fine to think that Essensa can make Korpisalo better than he was. It's wrong to think that Korpisalo Pre-Essensa was just as good as Ullmark Pre-Essensa.


His GSAA

Absolutely. Like all of us, I think Essensa is the man. He's obviously an extremely talented goalie coach.

However, as you say, Pre Essensa Ullmark and Pre Essensa Korpisalo are not at all one and the same.

Give a talented jeweler some Silver and some Brass. He might make a nice piece of jewelry in both cases -- jewelry that is much better than the original material alone. But asking him to make both pieces equally as valuable is a bit naive.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Absolutely. Like all of us, I think Essensa is the man. He's obviously an extremely talented goalie coach.

However, as you say, Pre Essensa Ullmark and Pre Essensa Korpisalo are not at all one and the same.

Give a talented jeweler some Silver and some Brass. He might make a nice piece of jewelry in both cases -- jewelry that is much better than the original material alone. But asking him to make both pieces equally as valuable is a bit naive.

The whole Goalie Bob argument is nothing but a turd polisher.

If Essensa can make Korpisalo better than he’s been in the past (and therefore the trade is good), then you can say the same for any goaltender on the market who could have been signed for a tenth of Korpisalo’s contract (therefore invalidating the original argument).

 

[Dr Quincy]

The whole Goalie Bob argument is nothing but a turd polisher.

If Essensa can make Korpisalo better than he’s been in the past (and therefore the trade is good), then you can say the same for any goaltender on the market who could have been signed for a tenth of Korpisalo’s contract (therefore invalidating the original argument).

I agree. I guess the decision game down to: how much do we value a 1st rd pick and getting a player who might be able to help 3 or 4 years from now, compared to cap space to use in the next 3 years. I think different people will disagree with which would be more important.

 

[NDiesel]

I agree. I guess the decision game down to: how much do we value a 1st rd pick and getting a player who might be able to help 3 or 4 years from now, compared to cap space to use in the next 3 years. I think different people will disagree with which would be more important.

Funny enough a lot of posters were saying they need to try and get into the first round this year / get a 1st at minimum for Ullmark...unfortunately Korpisalo coming back seems to have been the price to do so.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Funny enough a lot of posters were saying they need to try and get into the first round this year / get a 1st at minimum for Ullmark...unfortunately Korpisalo coming back seems to have been the price to do so.

Sure, and a lot of the posters who are now fine with 25th overall, a part time 4th liner and a 3 year cap dump were saying that Ullmark for Necas was a thing. I think everyone was off on Ullmark's value, including Sweeney.