Speculation: Rumours, Speculation, and all Armchair-GM-ing needs! v.11

[Skobel24]

Backlunds inconsistency and injury history makes me want to avoid paying him more than 3 million.

I'd offer him a 2 or 3 year deal at 3 million per. I'd probably offer Bouma 2-3 years at 2.5m or so.

 

[Taranis]

Backlunds inconsistency and injury history makes me want to avoid paying him more than 3 million.

I'd offer him a 2 or 3 year deal at 3 million per. I'd probably offer Bouma 2-3 years at 2.5m or so.

I agree, Backlunds recent injury history makes me hesitant. I'd offer him no more then 3x3. Bouma is more interesting, I wouldn't mind giving him 3-4 years at a decent cap hit of 2-2.5m or so.

 

[Anglesmith]

I'm not disputing what Backs brings to the team. Personally I'm one of his biggest fans. But you can't pay a 3rd line center 4-5 million per year.

The argument was about a 4-5 mill Backlund, which IMO is too much. At 5 mill that would put Backlund in (or very close to) the same salary range as Kesler(5), Carter(5.272), Seguin(5.75), Tavares(5.5), and Brassard(5). Even at 4 mill he is at the same level as Henrique(4) and Backes(4.5). All of these guys are decent 1C's or at the worst great 2C's on their teams. Backlund shouldn't be in this range, he is a decent 2C, great 3C. I would be willing to go 4 at the absolute most.

In the end it's not about a "thirst to be stingy", it's about fair value and ensuring we have cap flexibility down the road.

That's fair. I guess I've just seen a few posts wanting to give Backs $2M per, and that's just nonsense to me. Anything less than $3M would be a surprise to me.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Why are high-percentage outliers relevant, but not low-percentage outliers?

I'm not talking outliers, just that the NHL average is being boosted by top line forwards (doesn't have to be a Kovalchuk-type player). Nothing about Bouma's history (including the CHL and AHL) indicates that he's a player of particular offensive prowess, even in comparison to other bottom sixers. Based on that I think it's more reasonable to use the average for bottom six forwards rather than all forwards in the NHL.

If his career average wasn't abysmally low, or if he'd put up numbers at any level ever, I wouldn't be so steadfast in my belief that his numbers (again, assuming he isn't gifted PP time or anything next season) are going to tank.

And just to reiterate to anyone reading: I'm not saying Bouma sucks. I'm just saying that he's not going to be a perennial 30+ point scorer in a bottom six role.

 

[InfinityIggy]

I'm not talking outliers, just that the NHL average is being boosted by top line forwards (doesn't have to be a Kovalchuk-type player).

Okay but by that same token the average is also dragged down by bottom-line forwards and role players..so?

 

[MonyontheMoney]

Bouma could have 80 hits per game, but if he doesn't make the puck go toward the other end as much as another player, he's not as good. And I fully expect him to drop below 20 points again next season unless he's inexplicably gifted top 6 ice time or a bunch of PP time.



I'm not saying it's all fluke, but I think the majority of it absolutely is. Maybe he doesn't drop back to 6%, but even if he drops to normal shooting percentage (~8%) his goal total is immediately halved.

Paying players based on career years is almost always a bad idea, and there's no reason the Flames, with Bouma being an RFA, should be paying him >2 million dollars per season on a multi-year deal.

Yes, let's start basing player evaluations solely on his ability to move the puck towards the other teams end. That is largely based on team play and not individual ability. You cannot base an evaluation of a player off possession stats without context. Kruger, Higgins, and Helm all played on much better possession teams than Bouma. Bouma also had better possession stats than Stajan, who was listed as one of your good 3rd liners, yet Bouma wasn't despite better stats in many categories. I'm not a big believer in advanced stats anyways.

It is his second full year in the NHL, how can you possibly say what is a career year and what is not?

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

The average for all forwards in the NHL, being boosted by high percentage shooters. The average for bottom six players is not 11% (it's more like 9.5%, so I was mistaken as well).

And yet the average for Bouma's last two full years (156GP, 186 shots taken, 21 goals) of NHL play is 11.3%

Bouma could have 80 hits per game, but if he doesn't make the puck go toward the other end as much as another player, he's not as good

How do you define "making the puck go towards the other end"?

Is it defined as "being a significant possession driver"? Because bonafide possession drivers are rare. You're not going to just stack up your top 9 with elite possession drivers. There's a reason we had to let Camalleri go last season, for instance.

Is it defined as "not being an anchor on a line with a significant possession driver"? Because Bouma is that:

In a span of 14 games from January 21st to February 24th we see a spike in Bouma's CF% shoot up to 48.16% at 5v5, right around Backlund's 48.98% CF. Other factors do contribute to this but a key point can be illustrated with the SuperWOWY tool: Backlund and Bouma together within that time are breaking in at 50.2% CF.

And that's with Bouma getting unfavourable zone starts.

You can probably find similar stats for similar players on good possession teams. Dustin Brown's CF% jumps up by 6% when he's on the ice with Kopitar for instance, and that's a team that absolutely dominates possession.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

That's fair. I guess I've just seen a few posts wanting to give Backs $2M per, and that's just nonsense to me. Anything less than $3M would be a surprise to me.

Exactly. Backlund at under 3 mill is an absolute steal. I was just saying that if people expect 4-5, or if that's Backlund's asking price (like one poster mentioned someone on Fan 960 said was what they expected Backlund to get) it could be best to see what he would return.

 

[Taranis]

Exactly. Backlund at under 3 mill is an absolute steal. I was just saying that if people expect 4-5, or if that's Backlund's asking price (like one poster mentioned someone on Fan 960 said was what they expected Backlund to get) it could be best to see what he would return.

Considering he could be our third line center in two years time I'd say thats fair.

 

[Anglesmith]

Considering he could be our third line center in two years time I'd say thats fair.

We signed Stajan with that very same possibility. Except replace "third line centre" with "third/fourth line centre."

From a player's perspective, you aren't going to usually accept less than you're worth just because the team has depth at your position. Depth charts are for management to worry about, not the player. If the argument is that we can't have a third-liner worth $3M, then we should trade that third-liner, because signing him for $2M is likely not a possibility.

 

[Volica]

There is a middle ground for guys like Bouma and Backlund. They are good players to have; but players you cannot spend major bucks on; as they're bottom 6'ers in a perfect world.

I'd be good with giving Backs 12millions/4year deal. It will keep him here until he's 30 years old.
I'd be for giving Bouma 8million/3year deal.

The major thing about these two players, is even if they don't 'pan-out' as being consistent 35-40 point players, they're still ultra effective bottom 6 guys who will PK and put it all on the line.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

I would argue that a 3rd line center like Backlund should be worth more than a second line winger (the second best winger on the line, a guy like Belesky). Likewise, a good 4th line center like Stajan should be worth more than a 3rd line winger.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Okay but by that same token the average is also dragged down by bottom-line forwards and role players..so?

Fine, let's assume he settles between 9-11%. That's still a huge drop from what he shot last season.

And yet the average for Bouma's last two full years (156GP, 186 shots taken, 21 goals) of NHL play is 11.3%



How do you define "making the puck go towards the other end"?

Is it defined as "being a significant possession driver"? Because bonafide possession drivers are rare. You're not going to just stack up your top 9 with elite possession drivers. There's a reason we had to let Camalleri go last season, for instance.

Is it defined as "not being an anchor on a line with a significant possession driver"? Because Bouma is that:



And that's with Bouma getting unfavourable zone starts.

You can probably find similar stats for similar players on good possession teams. Dustin Brown's CF% jumps up by 6% when he's on the ice with Kopitar for instance, and that's a team that absolutely dominates possession.

Like I said, I don't think he's bad. I just think it's a little early to call him a good 3rd liner based on a year where he clearly experienced some good offensive luck. I doubt anyone on the boards would be calling him a "good third liner" if he'd ended up in the teens for points, regardless of how many shots he blocked or hits he laid.

And I do agree, finding a high end possession driver is not easy. But I'm not saying a bottom six player has to be able to drive possession against all players; just against other bottom sixers. And I'd take Bouma in my bottom six over a lot of other guys in the league, but I don't think he has a skillset that you pay 2.5+ million as people are suggesting he should be paid. For the most part, the most expensive aspect of a player you pay for is scoring, and I don't expect Bouma to repeat his scoring from last year, therefore I don't think it should be used as the basis for a contract.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Fine, let's assume he settles between 9-11%.

Or let's not "assume" anything from a guy who rapidly improved in his second full NHL season and hasn't had a sufficiently large sample size to form a baseline for his performance.

 

[Anglesmith]

I feel like Andrew Shaw is a good comparable. Shaw is currently in the midst of a 2-year, $2M AAV contract. Making $2.5M next season. Lance is a year and a bit older than Shaw, but they've been pro for about the same amount of time (obviously Lance missed an entire year when he could've been in the NHL). I think Shaw will be looking at more than $2.5M on his next contract, and that number is a reasonable number for Lance given what he's accomplished so far.

Or let's not "assume" anything from a guy who rapidly improved in his second full NHL season and hasn't had a sufficiently large sample size to form a baseline for his performance.

Indeed. Look at Curtis Glencross, for instance. Sustained a >15.5% shooting percentage for four straight years, and >12% for seven straight. And he's a guy who was also not supposed to be much more than a role player when he first broke into the league.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Or let's not "assume" anything from a guy who rapidly improved in his second full NHL season and hasn't had a sufficiently large sample size to form a baseline for his performance.

Well, I'm obviously not forcing you to do anything. If you want to believe that Bouma has more than an infinitesimal chance of being a career teens shooter, knock yourself out. I'm perfectly happy assuming that a bottom six grinder, who has never before scored this many goals even in junior (although I realize he did score at a slightly higher pace as an overager) is going to be in the realm of other bottom six grinders.

I feel like Andrew Shaw is a good comparable. Shaw is currently in the midst of a 2-year, $2M AAV contract. Making $2.5M next season. Lance is a year and a bit older than Shaw, but they've been pro for about the same amount of time (obviously Lance missed an entire year when he could've been in the NHL). I think Shaw will be looking at more than $2.5M on his next contract, and that number is a reasonable number for Lance given what he's accomplished so far.



Indeed. Look at Curtis Glencross, for instance. Sustained a >15.5% shooting percentage for four straight years, and >12% for seven straight. And he's a guy who was also not supposed to be much more than a role player when he first broke into the league.

Yes, that happens sometimes, but Glencross is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Anglesmith]

Yes, that happens sometimes, but Glencross is the exception rather than the rule.

It's the type of exception which shows there is no rule, though. Knowing the average shooting percentage is great. Knowing the typical variance and the likelihood to deviate from that is a whole different conversation, though.

You don't expect teams to regress to the average number of points every season, because we acknowledge differences which separate one team from another. Why do we have this tendency to do it with players?

Until there's more seasons to form the evidence, there's no way to say whether Bouma plays a certain way that helps his shooting percentage, or if his shooting percentage was high by coincidence this season. Neither one of those statements is more ridiculous than the other, yet for some reason there is this prevalent assumption that lower expectations are always more realistic.

 

[Pirate King Luffy]

It's the type of exception which shows there is no rule, though. Knowing the average shooting percentage is great. Knowing the typical variance and the likelihood to deviate from that is a whole different conversation, though.

You don't expect teams to regress to the average number of points every season, because we acknowledge differences which separate one team from another. Why do we have this tendency to do it with players?

Until there's more seasons to form the evidence, there's no way to say whether Bouma plays a certain way that helps his shooting percentage, or if his shooting percentage was high by coincidence this season. Neither one of those statements is more ridiculous than the other, yet for some reason there is this prevalent assumption that lower expectations are always more realistic.

That is true.

 

[Lunatik]

Backlunds inconsistency and injury history makes me want to avoid paying him more than 3 million.

I'd offer him a 2 or 3 year deal at 3 million per. I'd probably offer Bouma 2-3 years at 2.5m or so.

Agree with both.

I think Backlund & Bouma deserve similar contracts. I would be willing to give Backlund 3-5 years @ 2.5 or 2 years @ 3 million, not interested in going higher. With Bouma I would offer 1 year @ 2 or 3 years at 2.5, no interest in more than 3 years with his style of play.

 

[Calculon]

Eh, it's a valid debate. Fact is, a players output is largely affected by the quality of linemates, icetime, position and system, which is all obvious.

Historically, Bouma's been a third/fourth liner with matching ice-time and linemates. But for most of last season, he was on the second line with Backlund. Will that continue moving forward? Or does increased depth push him down the lineup? A third liner making ~3M is perfectly fine. For a fourth liner, that's dicey.

This was just Bouma's second NHL season and he's just 25 so there's definitely still room for growth. I do agree, all this stinginess is unwarranted and people are far too quick to label a player as such and such (reality is, one doesn't have to be a top six forward in a vacuum to play in the top six in the real world) and then never move away from that. For all we know, Bouma is Calgary's Franzen.

 

[CraigsList]

I would sign Bouma to 2m x 3 years and Backlund to 3m x 3. It's fair imo. If Backlund was a little healther, he probably could have easily made 3.5, 4m.

 

[Anglesmith]

That is true.

It's not true. It's a complete fallacy. It's akin to saying that rolling three or less on a die is more realistic than rolling four or more.

In reality, Bouma is probably just as likely to score >40 points next season as he is to score <20, but some people will allege that the latter is more realistic purely on the basis of....

I don't actually know.

 

[Pirate King Luffy]

It's not true. It's a complete fallacy. It's akin to saying that rolling three or less on a die is more realistic than rolling four or more.

In reality, Bouma is probably just as likely to score >40 points next season as he is to score <20, but some people will allege that the latter is more realistic purely on the basis of....

I don't actually know.

You're a fallacy.

 

[Lunatik]

You're a fallacy.

Dr. Feelgood is 100% right

 

[Pirate King Luffy]

Dr. Feelgood is 100% right

I know.