210
Registered User
I will be shocked if it's more than the 2 year/$1.5M I predict, and that first season will almost certainly be two-way.
I think it is fairly productive, but not "very" productive, especially relative to his NHL-play.
I mean, he is also averaging (IIRC) half a point a game here. You have to think that that isn't a true indication of his abilities if he could barely do that in the AHL.
Irwin's 35? Dang...
Irwin's PDO is still the lowest on the team. He's honestly been that good, that his numbers look great despite that.
Define "very productive".
To believe he can score at a 41-point pace in the NHL, at his age and devlopment, I'd expect him to be able to get 55-65 points in the AHL.
Maybe because he takes shots every chance he gets, not necessarily because he's that good. He's kind of an unknown right now, but that will change once teams figure out he has a good shot.
To believe he can score at a 41-point pace in the NHL, at his age and devlopment, I'd expect him to be able to get 55-65 points in the AHL.
Weird, because he's got a high personal shooting percentage, so clearly it's everyone else on the ice with him not taking high quality shots. And man, that Boyle guy, terrible shooting. Also that Marleau guy, that Pavelski guy, that Couture guy, all terrible shooters.
I have no idea what your point is.
OK, we'll go with 60...
Cheechoo lead the WorSharks in scoring with 47 points in 10-11, and John McCarthy lead the WorSharks in 11-12 with that same 47 point total. Last season Irwin was second on the team on scoring at 42 points.
Your numbers are unreasonable considering the circumstances Irwin played.
Well the top-6 has been taking really bad shots lately, considering we average about 2 goals a game.
If his shooting percentage is high, that's something that will likely drop off. He's getting a ton of shots through, but that is also something that will likely regress. Fact is the sample size is way too small to draw any concrete conclusions yet. We'll have a better picture when he plays more, and we'll have a better understanding of his skillset once teams start realizing he's not useless like Murray.
Your argument sounds like a false dichotomy. It certainly isn't the only answer.
My guess is a two year deal, year one being $750k/$125k and year two being $800k
How is it a false dichotomy? Please explain it to me. And yes, I did take symbolic logic so you don't have to explain what a false dichotomy is to me.
So Irwin's shooting percentage will regress down, but his on-ice shooting percentage won't regress up? Now that's a huge double standard. Either you believe that his true shooting talent is 11.4%, which would be Stamkosian for a defenseman, or you believe in random variance. There's nothing false about that dichotomy.
Well you're taking a lot of other variables out of the equation and leaving it as either one choice or the other. Sounds like a false dichotomy to me. You're also putting words in my mouth on things I never even said.
You said that you thought Irwin's low PDO was due to the fact that he takes a lot of shots from any angle/distance. If that were so, it would be his personal, not on-ice, shooting percentage that was low. It's the opposite. Either you believe that Irwin's linemates, almost all top-6 forwards or Boyle, are true talent shooters of only about 5%, or you believe in random variance. There is no other option there. You're saying that there are other variables, but you aren't listing them.
You said, verbatim, "If his shooting percentage is high, that's something that will likely drop off." So that implies that you believe in variance. And yet you don't believe in random variance for the top-6 because you think that a low quality of shots is the reason for the Sharks' offensive problems, when a multitude of studies have shown that there is very little in the way of "shot quality" in the NHL, with the exception of like maybe half a dozen players.
Those numbers are unreasonable for a d-man period.