Kadri player discssion thread.

[Gary Nylund]

Just posting your own words.. Your first post seems to be implying the "facts" illustrate that maybe the gap between Zetterberg (again, a future hall of famer) and Kadri is not so large. You emphasize the use of the word "fact" in your post.

The second post, again your own words, which says "'m still waiting for why that is though," to me anyways, and maybe I'm just not a capable reader (right?) implies that your waiting for someone else to explain to you why the comparison should be disregarded.

And I already said you were already backtracking, which triggered the venomous snark I have come to expect from your posts.

At best, giving you every benefit of the doubt (and I don't), your position on this has been inconsistent..

Which part of "Before you get all angry friend, of course this doesn't "prove" that Kadri>Zetterberg." are you having trouble with?

I have never said Kadri>Zetterberg or Kadri=Zetterberg. Period. Keep looking though, it seems really important for you to find something that's not there.

Good luck.

 

[Gary Nylund]

You can use these stats in various ways to spin things to suit an agenda.

Using only last years statistics, using the same criteria mentioned - Kadri ranks 141. Grabovski and Holland are in the same ballpark.

Using the last two years, he ranks 153.

If you want to include the year where he had a head start on the rest of the NHL, played on the 3rd line and scored against third liners and bottom pairing D that is fine. But perhaps incuding all of these stats instead of only the one that makes Kadri look the best would be a good idea.

I find Kadri just digs his own grave with his dumb ass comments, suspension for off ice issues, repeated head shots, inconcistency and selfish play.

If he didn't have the worst plus minus in the NHL three games into the year, maybe be the haters would have less ammunition to trash him.

This guy is a serviceable 2nd line C. He was drafted 7 years ago and is plagued with the same issues he has had since junior. Considering the Leafs new regime is all about character and hard work, and that those things are not usually attached to Kadri I just can't see Babcock wanting a guy like this. He may have skill but he lacks almost everything else and the sooner his is shipped, I think the Leafs will be better off.

Do you mean why not use all of the last 3 years? That's what I thought I did.

 

[The Thin White Duke]

All we can say from his stats is that his absolute results look more like a function of his usage than his ability. This year his usage will be more in line with what his underlying stats suggest he should be able to handle. We'll actually be able to judge him accurately by May, why argue now when neither side can show anything conclusive?

 

[Menzinger]

"... Of (declining) point production..."

That's the rub. What do you have in Kadri? A stock going up, one that will stay flat or one that will decline?

You have to make the call this summer or sooner as his next deal can't be a bridge deal as he would become UFA when that ended.

So it's either long term deal or trade. How do you realistically decide to go long term with declining production and off ice suspension if his play continues to be uninspiring?

I personally think the risk is too great even if he plays well. 6 months just isn't enough time to undo the history.

We will just have to disagree here.

If Kadribputs up his average of 50-55 points alongside good possession numbers I think he should be resigned at a fair contract.

If they trade him I likely wouldn't be outraged if the return was good for the Leafs. But something like a late 1st + b prospect would be pointless.

 

[leafs in five]

You're lamenting the loss of Colborne. Holland is here. He's approximately equivalent and doesn't have chronic wrist/hand problems.

i don't care about colborne. i'm lamenting the attitude that informed decisions like the one made by trading him, basically behaving like we were tampa or something with no room on the roster to see if a guy could figure it out.

the same attitude that's expressed in many posts in this thread: for many kadri has proven over the past probably 80 games but especially these last three that he unequivocally cannot be a contributor on a good leafs team say four years down the road, that his presence on a team at least as a 'top-6 player' would necessarily mean that the team wasn't good. so i dunno trade him i guess? let's get it over with, time is money, wait no, time is wasting? no, we're tanking.

maybe he's not on a good team down the road. if he's not then i hope we get something decent for him at least, and don't treat it like we're clearing space for the great second line centre that doesn't yet exist even as a prospect, as if a roster spot that doesn't have him in it is worth getting rid of him for.

 

[Menzinger]

39 points is "top 6" Centerman for point production? I'm pretty sure over 60 other centermen had more points last year.

There are 180 top six forward jobs in today's NHL. Kadri's scoring pace put him at around 100 a so yes he had a down year but still put up middle of the pack top six numbers.

Further he put those 39 points up in 73 games. Which is a 43 point pace.

These are top six production levels by any criteria.

 

[leafs in five]

He may have skill but he lacks almost everything else and the sooner his is shipped, I think the Leafs will be better off.

i hope the new leafs regime is about not pretending like this kind of thinking will get you anywhere.

 

[leafs in five]

the sooner kadri is traded the better we'll be five years from now

 

[Deez Nuts]

Do you mean why not use all of the last 3 years? That's what I thought I did.

I could do the same thing with Lupul and make him look like a first line forward. Clearly, after Kadri was moved to the second line from the third and was no longer facing bottom pairing D his numbers fell off a cliff. His numbers the last two years is a much more accurate representation of how he ranks compared to other forwards in the league. So basically a mid tier number 2C with character issues, lots of baggage and very little production. I have not seen a single person question his wingers during the shortened season, but now it is major reason why he is not putting up good numbers.

 

[Menzinger]

I could do the same thing with Lupul and make him look like a first line forward. Clearly, after Kadri was moved to the second line from the third and was no longer facing bottom pairing D his numbers fell off a cliff. His numbers the last two years is a much more accurate representation of how he ranks compared to other forwards in the league. So basically a mid tier number 2C with character issues, lots of baggage and very little production. I have not seen a single person question his wingers during the shortened season, but now it is major reason why he is not putting up good numbers.

Firstly, his numbers didn't exactly fall off a cliff - he put up 50 points the following season, which is likely closer to what his career PPG pace will end up. And getting 50 points isn't exactly "low" In today's NHL where scoring is down league wide.

As for Lupul I'm not sure you could show he is a first line production levels - but it should be pretty clear that he's a top six forward. Something I doubt most people would challenge.

 

[rdawg1234]

Guy needs to be traded for D-help in the next off-season, dont see him as much more than a solid #2C and I think he's very replacable in the long-run through the draft.

 

[Deez Nuts]

Firstly, his numbers didn't exactly fall off a cliff - he put up 50 points the following season, which is likely closer to what his career PPG pace will end up. And getting 50 points isn't exactly "low" In today's NHL where scoring is down league wide.

As for Lupul I'm not sure you could show he is a first line production levels - but it should be pretty clear that he's a top six forward. Something I doubt most people would challenge.

Going from almost a point per game in the shortened season to about half a point per game last year is a significant drop. Also going from ranked 103 using a 3 year sample size to 153 using a 2 year sample size is also considerable. In both these scenarios there is basically a 50% drop.

Using a 3 year sample, Lupul ranks around 100 which is close to top line material. I am not even gonna bother looking at a 2 year.......I'm sure you get my point. I would say Lupul is top 6 at this point but just barely.

Overall, I think Kadri will end up averaging somewhere between the last 2 years with respect to his ppg production for his career. This is not bad at all, but considering his multiple weaknesses such as FO's, overall defence, selfish play and the baggage such as off ice issues that resulted in suspension, a pattern of friction with coaches and gm's, questionable hits and a poor work ethic I would rather ship him as soon as possible.

 

[Ovate]

If you're going to judge him for putting up 39 points amidst a team collapse, that's understandable. You're allowed to say we can't ignore a half season of data. But then you can't ignore his lockout shortened season with 44 points in 48 games.

If you include both, he's 0.668PPG over the last three years, and 0.5ESPPG. 2.34P/60 and 2.02ESP/60.

If you don't include either, he's 0.637PPG and 0.465ESPPG. I can't find easily manipulable data for TOI and ESTOI by game.

That's a difference of about 4 points over an 80 game season, not the difference between being top 6 or not. Both are clear top 6 stat lines.

His "stock" is not decreasing because he failed to produce in a total team collapse. His even strength production actually improved last year from the year before, but was counteracted by playing on the PP with Clarkson (2 PPP in 38 games under Carlyle).

I'm not posting this to convince anyone. We're never going to be able to convince people who say things like:

Kadri is garbage. I will bet this is his last season with the Leafs. Bozak is better all around. Kadri holds on to the puck too long. Does not playmake. Has on drag move which is not NHL #1 center calibre.

Just plain garbage.

I just like looking at the numbers to see if I'm right that he in unequivocaly a top 6 center, and then it feels like a bit of a waste to not share them.

 

[The Man with a Plan]

Why the hell are people saying that because Kadri will only end up as a very solid 2 way 2C we should be trading him?

We don't need him to be a 1C... That is for Nylander or Marner.

I swear for most leaf fans it is easier to ***** and moan then it is to look at the facts and the big picture.

 

[Ovate]

the same attitude that's expressed in many posts in this thread: for many kadri has proven over the past probably 80 games but especially these last three that he unequivocally cannot be a contributor on a good leafs team say four years down the road, that his presence on a team at least as a 'top-6 player' would necessarily mean that the team wasn't good. so i dunno trade him i guess? let's get it over with, time is money, wait no, time is wasting? no, we're tanking.

His presence on the team as a top-6 player doesn't necessarily mean the team is good? A team being bad doesn't mean that every player on it is bad and can never be on a good team. Look at Arizona last year with OEL. Their 29th place finish doesn't mean OEL can never be a top pairing defenseman on a good team.

To say "especially these last three" means absolutely nothing. It's like flipping three coins, getting heads twice, and concluding that the coin lands on heads 2/3rds of the time.

Over the last season, of which he played 73 games, he was UNARGUABLY top 6 material at even strength.

Under 38 games under Carlyle, he was on pace for a 52 point season, of which 47 points would be even strength. To put that into perspective, Sidney Crosby was on pace for 56 ES points, Alex Ovechkin for 47, Stamkos for 47, Seguin for 55, Tavares for 55, Giroux for 36, and Toews for 49. Considering TOI and linemates all favoured those centers over Kadri, Kadri did VERY well.

Then, under Horachek, the whole team collapses. Kadri is on pace for a 35 point season, only 24 of which would be at even strength, which is 3C territory. This is the only time in his career where Kadri has not looked like a top 6 center. This was also where Kessel was on pace for a 38 point season, 21 at ES. If you agree that a 44 game stretch does not make Kessel a 3rd line player, then you must also agree that the same stretch does not make Kadri a 3rd line player.

 

[Deez Nuts]

If you're going to judge him for putting up 39 points amidst a team collapse, that's understandable. You're allowed to say we can't ignore a half season of data. But then you can't ignore his lockout shortened season with 44 points in 48 games.

If you include both, he's 0.668PPG over the last three years, and 0.5ESPPG. 2.34P/60 and 2.02ESP/60.

If you don't include either, he's 0.637PPG and 0.465ESPPG. I can't find easily manipulable data for TOI and ESTOI by game.

That's a difference of about 4 points over an 80 game season, not the difference between being top 6 or not. Both are clear top 6 stat lines.

His "stock" is not decreasing because he failed to produce in a total team collapse. His even strength production actually improved last year from the year before, but was counteracted by playing on the PP with Clarkson (2 PPP in 38 games under Carlyle).

I'm not posting this to convince anyone. We're never going to be able to convince people who say things like:



I just like looking at the numbers to see if I'm right that he in unequivocaly a top 6 center, and then it feels like a bit of a waste to not share them.

I am not disputing his ppg numbers are not worthy of top 6, they certainly are but not really upper echelon which should be the main goal. And I do agree that the majority of his wingers have been sub par causing his total point production to be on the low side.

Was just pointing out how in this case, there is a significant difference in ranking between a 3 year and a 2 year sample, thus making the original poster's comparison to Zetterberg questionable. I used Lupul as an example to show how including a certain year can really skew things. I think there is a way bigger chance that Kadri replicates his 39 point season than his nearly point per game season.

So while it is fair to say that Kadri's point production is that of a top 6 player, it is the countless other weaknesses and baggage along with his mediocre point production that makes me want to see this guy shipped off. Considering Babcock is all about character and hard work, I just don't see things working out for Kadri.

 

[Ovate]

I am not disputing his ppg numbers are not worthy of top 6, they certainly are but not really upper echelon which should be the main goal. And I do agree that the majority of his wingers have been sub par causing his total point production to be on the low side.

Was just pointing out how in this case, there is a significant difference in ranking between a 3 year and a 2 year sample, thus making the original poster's comparison to Zetterberg questionable. I used Lupul as an example to show how including a certain year can really skew things. I think there is a way bigger chance that Kadri replicates his 39 point season than his nearly point per game season.

So while it is fair to say that Kadri's point production is that of a top 6 player, it is the countless other weaknesses and baggage along with his mediocre point production that makes me want to see this guy shipped off. Considering Babcock is all about character and hard work, I just don't see things working out for Kadri.

You say that one year really skews things, but then base your judgment on half of a year really skewing things.

As I said above, Kadri was doing fantastically for the first half of the season before the team hit a wall. Do you think that Kadri will continue to produce like that second half despite the team around him doing better? Can you justify why, in a way that wouldn't also suggest Kessel is a 3rd line RW?

I agree that there are issues with Kadri outside of his off-ice play, but management seems to think that he can get it together, and they know a lot more about the issues than you or I. Kadri's also a hard working guy, I wouldn't lump not hard working in with his other character baggage.

 

[Deez Nuts]

You say that one year really skews things, but then base your judgment on half of a year really skewing things.

As I said above, Kadri was doing fantastically for the first half of the season before the team hit a wall. Do you think that Kadri will continue to produce like that second half despite the team around him doing better? Can you justify why, in a way that wouldn't also suggest Kessel is a 3rd line RW?

I agree that there are issues with Kadri outside of his off-ice play, but management seems to think that he can get it together, and they know a lot more about the issues than you or I. Kadri's also a hard working guy, I wouldn't lump not hard working in with his other character baggage.

I tend to look at a full season's point totals, I was not aware his first half last year was "fantastic." I will take your word for it.

You can also split the strike year up as well if you want to go down that road. Going off memory, I recall him scoring like crazy during the first half and then slowing down in the latter half. I think he had something like 2 points in his last 10 games. Could be off, but this is what I remember.

I'm sure if you thought about it, you would agree comparing Kessel is flat out nonsense. Kessel is a multiple 30 goal scorer and all star and has established himself. Whereas I don't even think the most optimistic Kadri supporter would ever suggest he will come close to replicating his nearly point per game season where he played on the third line and scored against bottom pair D.

As for management having faith in him, all I have to look at is his contract. I think they are on the fence with him and for that reason they did not offer him a multi year deal. As for being a hard worker, Kadri himself said that if he put in the work he could be in the Tavares tier so I am not sure calling him that is accurate.

 

[leafs in five]

His presence on the team as a top-6 player doesn't necessarily mean the team is good? A team being bad doesn't mean that every player on it is bad and can never be on a good team. Look at Arizona last year with OEL. Their 29th place finish doesn't mean OEL can never be a top pairing defenseman on a good team.

To say "especially these last three" means absolutely nothing. It's like flipping three coins, getting heads twice, and concluding that the coin lands on heads 2/3rds of the time.

Over the last season, of which he played 73 games, he was UNARGUABLY top 6 material at even strength.

Under 38 games under Carlyle, he was on pace for a 52 point season, of which 47 points would be even strength. To put that into perspective, Sidney Crosby was on pace for 56 ES points, Alex Ovechkin for 47, Stamkos for 47, Seguin for 55, Tavares for 55, Giroux for 36, and Toews for 49. Considering TOI and linemates all favoured those centers over Kadri, Kadri did VERY well.

Then, under Horachek, the whole team collapses. Kadri is on pace for a 35 point season, only 24 of which would be at even strength, which is 3C territory. This is the only time in his career where Kadri has not looked like a top 6 center. This was also where Kessel was on pace for a 38 point season, 21 at ES. If you agree that a 44 game stretch does not make Kessel a 3rd line player, then you must also agree that the same stretch does not make Kadri a 3rd line player.

you I'm on your side

 

[Bluelines]

It's absolutely crazy, it's been 3 games and it's the same group of posters who will try and make up arguments out of anything.

Lets wait awhile to see how individual players are doing, shall we?

I kinda thought Kadri looks more like a top 2 line forward more this year than any other year in the past.

Kid is probably snake bitten plus maybe he feels a little pressure playing on a show me contract, 1) If he plays poor he wont get paid and 2) If he plays poor he might get traded to hockey's Siberia (Ottawa ) 3) He see's the talent in Marner and Nylander and knows that those boys will be pushing for a top 2 role sooner than later.

At any rate he just needs to forget about the white noise and let his obvious skill take over. For Naz to be Naz the great, he needs to be a little more of an a$$, when he plays that grinding, hit you through the boards game, it opens up space for him and his line mates.

He's come out pretty strong in a few games but has been a little unlucky too.

Maybe he's better suited at a wing position?

 

[Gary Nylund]

I am not disputing his ppg numbers are not worthy of top 6, they certainly are but not really upper echelon which should be the main goal. And I do agree that the majority of his wingers have been sub par causing his total point production to be on the low side.

Was just pointing out how in this case, there is a significant difference in ranking between a 3 year and a 2 year sample, thus making the original poster's comparison to Zetterberg questionable. I used Lupul as an example to show how including a certain year can really skew things. I think there is a way bigger chance that Kadri replicates his 39 point season than his nearly point per game season.

So while it is fair to say that Kadri's point production is that of a top 6 player, it is the countless other weaknesses and baggage along with his mediocre point production that makes me want to see this guy shipped off. Considering Babcock is all about character and hard work, I just don't see things working out for Kadri.

Who are you referring to? I hope it's not me as I've gone out of my way more than once to say things like "I'm not saying Kadri>Zetterberg". It's these strawmen like ("#1C", "better than Zetterberg/Tavares", )that make it hard to have a discussion and I've never seen anyone make these claims.

I tend to look at a full season's point totals, I was not aware his first half last year was "fantastic." I will take your word for it.

You can also split the strike year up as well if you want to go down that road. Going off memory, I recall him scoring like crazy during the first half and then slowing down in the latter half. I think he had something like 2 points in his last 10 games. Could be off, but this is what I remember.

I'm sure if you thought about it, you would agree comparing Kessel is flat out nonsense. Kessel is a multiple 30 goal scorer and all star and has established himself. Whereas I don't even think the most optimistic Kadri supporter would ever suggest he will come close to replicating his nearly point per game season where he played on the third line and scored against bottom pair D.

As for management having faith in him, all I have to look at is his contract. I think they are on the fence with him and for that reason they did not offer him a multi year deal. As for being a hard worker, Kadri himself said that if he put in the work he could be in the Tavares tier so I am not sure calling him that is accurate.

I believe this is true. I remember looking at some details for that year, what I found IIRC was that the claim that he benefited from being in "mid-season" form when the season started was false - his first 10 games he produced roughly at the same pace as the rest of the season but yes, he did fade away at the end. I don't know if he did the same 2 years ago, if so, then there might be a legit concern about him producing over 82 games. If that is the case, we can only hope his new-found devotion to conditioning in the summer helps with this.

 

[Ovate]

Kadri had 4 points in his last 10 games of the lockout season, and another 4 points in the 7 game series against Boston.

Of course the comparison to Kessel was nonsense. I asked you to say why you thought Kadri wouldn't improve from the last half of the second season, and I added the Kessel qualification to make sure it was something that applied specifically to Kadri. You didn't actually answer the question, and instead just attacked the qualification.

Management gave him a bridge contract, because he wasn't over his issues yet. But they did give him a bridge contract because they think he can get over it eventually.

On the quote:

“I think talent-wise there’s not too much difference, to be honest,” Kadri said. “Johnny’s a guy that works hard and that's something he’s learned from Day 1, so I’m getting my work ethic going and doing everything I can to be one of those players.”

Basically, Kadri's not saying he'll be at Tavares's level if he puts in the work. He's saying he's putting in the work because he wants to be at that level.

The talent line was egotistical, no doubt about it. But I don't think ego implies bad character.

 

[cookie]

I tend to look at a full season's point totals, I was not aware his first half last year was "fantastic." I will take your word for it.

You can also split the strike year up as well if you want to go down that road. Going off memory, I recall him scoring like crazy during the first half and then slowing down in the latter half. I think he had something like 2 points in his last 10 games. Could be off, but this is what I remember.

I'm sure if you thought about it, you would agree comparing Kessel is flat out nonsense. Kessel is a multiple 30 goal scorer and all star and has established himself. Whereas I don't even think the most optimistic Kadri supporter would ever suggest he will come close to replicating his nearly point per game season where he played on the third line and scored against bottom pair D.

As for management having faith in him, all I have to look at is his contract. I think they are on the fence with him and for that reason they did not offer him a multi year deal. As for being a hard worker, Kadri himself said that if he put in the work he could be in the Tavares tier so I am not sure calling him that is accurate.

Whether or not he's a multiple 30 goal scorer is besides the point. Kessel could not produce under Horacek and the same could be said about Kadri and the rest of our crew. Kadri's ES points were in line with the prior season's meaning that he struggled mightily on the PP. If he were to replicate his PP performance from the year before, he'd have 11 more points: 50 in total.

Would this thread still have the same number of pages? Probably.

 

[Menzinger]

I'll never understand why people consider cockiness to be a necessarily a bad trait. I like it when players actually develop personalities that are more interesting than the stereotypical hockey player.

 

[Purity*]

I'll never understand why people consider cockiness to be a necessarily a bad trait. I like it when players actually develop personalities that are more interesting than the stereotypical hockey player.

It can go either way.

Alex Ovechkin is cocky but he's got WAY more than enough hardware to back it up.

If Kadri wants to be cocky, he needs to back it up with his play, which he has at times, and hasn't at times. I happen to love the agitation/penalty drawing part of his game, it's more valuable than people think.

I do 100% agree that personalities like that are much more interesting than stereotypical hockey players.