Player Discussion Josh Norris (C) 6’-1” - Part 3
- Thread starter AchtzehnBaby
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Jan 22, 2010
- 10,627
- 5,962
DylanSensFan
BEESHIP: NBH
I think this is a bit much, don't you? If he's doesn't have 60 to 70 points by the end of the season, then you can call him overpaid. But he is not VASTLY overpaid.
Tuna99
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2009
- 16,505
- 8,410
Agree, Norris is easily $7 million on the open marketer so he’s overpaid by about 900K
- Jan 22, 2010
- 10,627
- 5,962
He's on pace for like 48 which is low-2nd / high-3rd line production among centers last year. The problem is he's paid like a good (not great) 1st liner. Last year, guys like Max Domi, Philip Danault, Adam Henrique, and Tommy Novak were around that just with less goals. Even if you add a 'goalscorer premium', he's still not worth anywhere near 7.950
If he gets close to 70 I'll eat crow and be happy to do it.
FTR: I think he's about 2 million (~25%) overpaid.
Do Make Say Think
& Yet & Yet
- Jun 26, 2007
- 51,542
- 10,396
He's great on faceoffs and is solid defensively.
He's fine. Dorion overpaid him but it has worked out ok.
He's fine. Dorion overpaid him but it has worked out ok.
Chandler Stephenson, as a UFA, got a 7 year deal at $6.25M AAV last summer. Career high of 65 points, but the year before signing, scored 51 points in 75 games. More of a playmaker, not much goal scoring (career high of 21 goals).
If Norris rounds out as a 50-55 point guy (~30 goals), he's probably getting a bit more than Stephenson considering his age, faceoff ability, goals being worth more than assists, etc.
I think FMV would be $6.5M-6.75M for Norris, so he's about $1.25-1.5M overpaid.
If he ups his production to 60-70 points, he's a $7M guy. So we'd be paying market value + the cold weather tax. Not terrible.
Personally I'd still try him on Stützle's wing since I think he can be a 35-40 goal triggerman, but I'm not to coach.
I thought this was interesting:
Honestly we’re probably a better team with Norris at centre because when everyone’s going it allows us to run 4 decent lines, but during one of the cold streaks they really should try Norris on Stützle’s wing. Feels like that would be a game changer if they ended up having great chemistry.
Honestly we’re probably a better team with Norris at centre because when everyone’s going it allows us to run 4 decent lines, but during one of the cold streaks they really should try Norris on Stützle’s wing. Feels like that would be a game changer if they ended up having great chemistry.
Agent Zuuuub
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2015
- 15,608
- 13,225
that could be so good.
Stutzle is shy about shooting but has creativity up the wazoo.
Norris is a shooter but lacks creativity to take the next step.
And together I think they could also be part of one of the better defensive lines in hockey too.
Stutzle-Norris
Brady-Pinto
Greig-Batherson
as three lines we could roll. and just move Batherson up when a spark is needed.
Stutzle is shy about shooting but has creativity up the wazoo.
Norris is a shooter but lacks creativity to take the next step.
And together I think they could also be part of one of the better defensive lines in hockey too.
Stutzle-Norris
Brady-Pinto
Greig-Batherson
as three lines we could roll. and just move Batherson up when a spark is needed.
