On the Kesler Deal
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 21, 2010 7:54 AM PDT
in Analysis
31 comments
A couple of days ago now the Vancouver Canucks signed Ryan Kesler to a six-year deal with a cap hit of five million dollars per season. With this contract on the books, the Canucks have chosen their core group and it's a good one: Sedin, Sedin, Kesler and Luongo are all signed through 2013-14 or later. After the jump I'll take a look at Vancouver's cap situation going forward using my usual model, Kesler in particular and then talk a little bit about the job Mike Gillis has done in Vancouver. Here's the model:
Top 3 Forwards - 27.5%
Middle 6 Forwards - 20.0%
Top 4 Defenders - 27.5%
Goaltending - 10.0%
Bottom 8 Players - 15.0%
Top 3 Forwards - Sedin, Sedin, Kesler - 17.2M - 30.7%
Middle 6 Forwards - Samuelsson, Bernier, Burrows, ???, ???, ??? - 6.5M - 11.6%
Top 4 Defenders - Bieksa, Salo, Edler, Ehrhoff - 13.6M - 24.3%
Goaltending - Luongo, ??? - 5.333 - 9.5%
Bottom 8 Players - Hordichuk, Rypien, Alberts, ???, ???, ???, ???, ??? - 2.375 - 4.2%
With Kesler signed, the Canucks are overspending a bit on their top three forwards, but it's not by much. In fact, the difference for next season is made up completely by spending a bit less than the model of the top four defenders. Luongo's contract leaves them in the same situation. Once a backup is signed, they'll likely end up spending just a bit more than the model allows for but won't have any trouble making up for it in other areas. And the four contracts they've signed should age well with the percentage of cap dollars coming down and giving them more flexibility in future seasons. In addition, they're not tied to most of these guys into their twilight years. The Sedins play the last season on their contracts at age 33. Kesler's last year is age 31. Luongo's is much dicier, ending at age 42. Even the real money doesn't end until age 39. The number looks great for the next few seasons but could really blow up down the line if Luongo ends up dealing with injuries or just has his performance fall. And as a goaltender, there's no where to hide him if his performance falls off. Still, for at least the next several years it should be great and if the Canucks bring him the Cup in the next five seasons, I doubt you'll have too many people complaining about that Luongo contract even if they are dealing with some negatives when Luongo is 39. And who knows, by that time the cap may be such that they can sign someone to tandem with Luongo and have it fit the goaltending budget. Or maybe the rules about re-negotiating contracts will be different. There will probably be two CBA negotiations between now and the end of that deal and it's awfully hard to know what things will be like in ten years.
But this is mostly about Kesler. Having established that the contract makes some sense for the Canucks in their salary structure, it's now time to look at the deal itself and determine whether or not Kesler is worth the money. So far this season Kesler has been taking on some of the toughest competition while also getting a very difficult zone start ratio (261 OZ and 327 DZ) in an effort to really shelter the Sedins. Despite these tough circumstances, Kesler's Corsi rate is a fabulous +10.2 per 60 minutes Although the Sedin-sheltering is a new twist, the Canucks have been using Kesler in a similar way for the last couple of seasons, so it's not as though he's a flash in the pan. His EV offence has been good as he's scoring north of two points per sixty minutes without the benefit of unsustainable percentages (7.0% personal shooting percentage, 7.9% On-ice shooting percentage, and points on 74.4% of his team's goals while on the ice). He's a very impressive EV player.
And he contributes in other areas. He's been one of the Canucks top penalty-killers for the last three seasons and has consistently gotten pretty good results. This season is his best by the numbers (-3.62/60 goal differential) but his usage has been consistent. He's also an excellent FO man, ranking in the league's top 25 in FO percentage each of the last three seasons despite taking many more PK than PP draws. Kesler is also good at drawing penalties, with a differential always above even. This season he's second on the Canucks with a penalty differential of +1.0/60. He also has some talent on the PP where he's accumulated more than five points per sixty minutes each of the last two years. On top of all that he's a physical player and has been very durable over the last three seasons. He had hip surgery in 2007 (and missed the end of the 2006-07 season) but that concern would seem to be clearly behind him. He's just a great, great player.
In my opinion, he's certainly worth the money. He's a lot like some of the other centers in the Northwest division who take the toughest minutes for their teams but - likely because of this role - don't quite score at that elite level. The two poster-boys for this in my view are Shawn Horcoff and Mikko Koivu. Koivu has one year left on a beauty (for the Wild) 3.25M deal which he signed as a young RFA. He'll probably be getting paid on an extension this summer. Horcoff, meanwhile, is signed at 5.5M through 2014-15 which is pretty close in terms of money to what Kesler got. Now, on the one hand, Horcoff was a pending UFA and Kesler an RFA, so it would seem like Kesler's price should have been held down but I don't really buy it. Kesler only had one more year left before he would have been unrestricted, so I'm sure the Canucks felt some of the same pressures to get his name on a long-term deal. There are other significant differences between Kesler and Horcoff that make me think the Canuck is the better player but the most pertinent difference in terms of the deals they signed is age. Horcoff was signed for his age 31 to 36 seasons, Kesler for age 26 to 31. That's just a huge difference. Yesterday, Tyler brought up an old Kesler quote about signing for less money in order to win games ("If we’re going to win the Cup, we need guys to take pay cuts. The way the salary cap is now, you really can’t get what you’re worth now if you want to win. Everybody in this locker room knows that, and for us to be a great team going forward, we’re going to have to take a pay cut.") The implication I got was that Kesler did not do this with this latest contract. If so, I disagree pretty strongly. In terms of value provided, Kesler is absolutely worth this deal and will almost certainly be able to outplay it provided he remains healthy. I'm also very confident that if he decided to play out his last year with the Canucks and go UFA (or take a second offer sheet) that he could have earned more money.
As for Mike Gillis, he's done a good job of maintenance since getting to Vancouver but Dave Nonis must be just plain pissed that this guy is getting a fair amount of credit for signing reasonable deals with a bunch of players that Nonis and Brian Burke brought together. The pure Gillis plays? Sundin, Demitra, Samuellson, Wellwood, Bernier. The only one that's worked out is Samuellson and I'm inclined to think there's some luck in seeing a 33 year-old player blow away his career best totals (14.3%, the second time in eight seasons he's been over 10%) . But credit where due, that one seems to be working out well. Still, a lot of these deals haven't really helped. I guess I'm saying that Gillis has done a really good job of controlling costs on current talent but has had a hard time acquiring effective new talent consistently. At this point, that's what he really needs to do to make the Canucks better. If you're a Canucks fan, you can only hope that he's better at it than he's shown so far.
0 recs |
31 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Good write-up, Scott. You and I are on the same page on this one – let the bells ring out! I did some superficial research along similar lines last night when I trolled polled the members of Nucks Misconduct for their views of the deal. Everybody who responded seemed happy-to-very-happy with it.
This is what I wrote:
His numbers aren’t bad – and going up every year – especially when you consider he gets the tough minutes and comp, the own zone starts, is good on faceoffs, and delivers on the PK. His GA is higher than I would have expected, but he’s got a crappy Sv% ON behind him which is surely mostly luck? Still, to be on the plus side of the ledger with his workload is no mean feat.
I don’t think the Kesler deal is quite such a steal from a Canucks perspective as is the Burrows pact, but they have done well to lock up their key players at an affordable fraction of the cap.
the most pertinent difference in terms of the deals they signed is age. Horcoff was signed for his age 31 to 36 seasons, Kesler for age 26 to 31. That’s just a huge difference.
Couldn’t agree more. Of all the many criticisms I have of Oiler management, the tendency to lock up over-30s to 4+ year contracts is the biggest. A $4 or $5 MM cap hit to a guy in his 20s might have some upside, and indeed the Hemsky, Penner, Gilbert, and Whitney contracts are all defensible and some might even outperform. But paying some guy at 31 or 33 or 36 at ~ his current value for 4 or 5 years over which time that value is going to drop and the guy is more likely to become injury-prone, is dangerous, and to sign a whole bunch of guys to such deals – Horcoff, Moreau, Pisani, Staios, Souray, Visnovsky, Khabibulin – is death.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
Obviously, he has the potential to outplay this contract.
In that case, good for Mike Gillis and the Canucks.
But I still really think that this contract could easily turn into an overpayment – or at least, an over-commitment in the term. Aside from this year, he does not have a single season that merits this kind of contract. I’m not crazy about paying players this much for their potential.
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
I’d say that the last two years of performance have been really good. This deal is about paying for performance not about paying for potential and I’m convinced that he’ll be outperforming his cap number even if he delivers in the same way that he has over the last two years. And given his age over his contract, I’d say there’s a very good chance that he does it. It’s a pretty low risk deal.
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 21, 2010 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, Scott, Kesler is a player. You will get some dumb-ass fans (and sadly many of them will be Flames fans) who will tell you otherwise but they’re just not watching the games. Kesler can play tough minutes without elite teammates and come out on top and he’s got utility on special teams and is in the sweet spot for age and is relatively healthy. What more can you ask for?
(Other than being a better person, of course. I honestly think the guy is a terrible person. But a terrific hockey player).
And I’m totally on board with you, Gillis has some major deficiencies as a general manager. He has been good at negotiation with his top players (I should well hope so) because the contracts for Sedin, Sedin and Kesler are incredible. Of course the term on the Luongo contract is just awful but he’s going for it.
But he’s signed some other stinkers, and I’m going to totally dissent with Bruce and practically everybody about that Burrows contract, it is terrible. Not only was it an overpay for a player who is clearly (clearly!) not driving the results himself (30 goal seasons be damned, honest fans will know who is driving that) but it set an awful benchmark for his other middling players. The wundertrio of Burrows, Bernier and Samuelsson is overpaid by about $2M. That’s a ton, basically the savings from hyper-extending Luongo are gone baby gone.
We’re both in the Canucks’ division and as long as GIllis is navigating that franchise I don’t worry so much about them.
Burrows’ extra dollars are for his diving skills. Well worth it.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I agree on Bernier (who is still fairly young and was actually signed by the Blues in retaliation for Gillis trying to get Backes as an RFA the year previous), but on the Burrows and Samuelsson: can you name two UFAs in the last two years who you think have been out and out better and were gotten for much less? Esp. like Samuelsson, to move from one team to another?
Yeah it’s actually really easy.
Let’s say Gillis and Vigno go into the season with a plan, grind out Kesler in tough minutes to try and reduce his leverage come contract time and feed the Sedins easy icetime.
A nice winger for Kesler might have been R. Niedermayer or Moen, both played pretty tough minutes for Anaheim so they know what to do.
Glencross in 08/09 was a nice find by Calgary and he could fill an effective third line role as well. Cheaper than Bernier.
I can’t say for certain whether Niedermayer/Moen > Samuelsson or Glencross > Bernier and we can talk stats all we want but the reality is that we’re dealing in lesser roles, performance differences that are small and monetary differences that are big.
And maybe Gillis can’t sign these particular players but there are other players. The general point stands, he was filling in lesser roles and he did it with a lot of money, enough so that he doesn’t really have enough room to find another impact player.
And since the point of this exercise was to find room for an impact player, it doesn’t even make sense in this context to sign Burrows to big money. Instead the Canucks could have filled his roster spot with someone from the offseason, maybe they trade for Ray Whitney if they want to remain flexible or contend for Hossa (I would not have recommended Cammalleri as per the rumors flying last July). They may do their homework and realize Penner’s a pretty useful offensive player, and trade for him when EDM couldn’t wait to get rid of him last summer.
I dunno, it’s always very difficult to pinpoint an exact alternative to reality but the truth is there were many reasonable outcomes that Gillis could have pursued and he picked one of the worst ones to pursue.
On another note, I suspect you are greatly overvaluing these players (Samuelsson and Burrows) and it is most certainly because of their goal totals. But any honest Canuck fan would have to admit that nearly all of that is owned by the Sedins and Kesler. I only watch a fraction of Canucks games (the constant diving ruins it) but it couldn’t be more obvious.
Thanks for your reply (it was a genuine question).
Bernier I conceded immediately. Also I misremembered, and you are right, the St L. offer sheet was the previous contract, so he is completely Gillis’ fault (as he continues to try to get his value for draft picks). And if you read my post below, you’ll see that I think Bernier was a waste at 2nd/3rd rounders. Gillis was obsessed with finding a big right winger to play with the Sedins, right hand shot, and Bernier is fast, but hands of stone. Unbelievable hands of stone.
And I concede also that it is Kesler and the Sedins who drive results, being an honest Canucks fan. I’ve been reading stats sites for quite some time (thus my appreciation for this blog, as well as osme of the flames blogs), and goals do not glitter so quickly. I also very much appreciated your pointing out on another site that Vigneault puts on the Sedins against the worst competition he can find, and thus their “break out.” Still, you need to put the puck in the net. Bernier was tried with the Sedins and couldn’t do it. Similarly Pyatt (who got to 24, mind you). Burrows was already scoring with Kesler last year, mostly in a checking role. He took off with the Sedins. I think there’s genuine talent there, see 5 shorties. Samuelsson has a great shot, uses it often, and plays tough minutes. Good complement for either the Sedins or Kesler.
Trades costs players, so the Penner comparative isn’t convincing. Let’s compare Moen, Niedermeyer, Glencross, Burrows and Samuelsson:
Travis Moen, 27yrs, 1.5 million, 12.48 min 5v5, CorsiRelQofC: 0.219, 1.00 pts/60
Rob Niedermayer, 35yrs, 1 million, 13.64 min 5v5, CorsiRelQofC: 0.882, 1.42 pts/60
Curtis Glencross, 26 yrs, 1.2 million 12.35 min 5v5, CorsiRelQofC: 0.254, 1.74 pts/60
Alex Burrows, 28yrs, 2 million, 13.65 min 5v5, CorsiRelQofC: 0.314, 2.68 pts/60
Mikael Samuelsson, 32 yrs, 13.73, 2.5 million, CorsiRelQofC: 0.513, 2.28 pts/60
Like you say, we can argue about relevant stats to compare, and you will no doubt argue that the Corsi and scoring rates aren’t driven by Sedins/Kesler. However, I remember Moen and Niedermayer as hands of stone, a la Bernier (although I’m not sure who they are currently playing with), and maybe it was Pahlsson that actually did most of the tough work during the tough minutes? And for a savings of .5 million, I’d rather have Burrows, no doubt. Glencross came off the market before the Canucks were looking (they went after Demitra and Sundin, recall). Niedermayer is 35 and signed for a single year, and Scott’s original post spoke about paying players good money long past their prime.
But your point is also that a different set might have given the Canucks freedom to get another impact player. GlenX, Moen, Niedermayer would save them 3.3 million. Which single impact player would they have gotten in the UFA market for that price? Or, name the GM who successfully outdid Gillis in this range of support group, and tell me how they now afforded an impact forward? Perhaps Sutter with Bouwmeester, but Sutter did other wasteful things.
I don’t think, as an honest hockey fan and evaluator of talent by statistical basis, that you have reasonably supported your contention that “he [Gillis] picked one of the worst ones [outcomes] to pursue.” That, like your contention that the Canucks dive more than the Flames, is not supported. (Friendly jibe.)
Too often, we get caught up in the “what ifs” as if any ideal outcome is possible (Penner to the Canucks—really?), and ignore the grungy realities of signing or trading for hockey players.
I think of it more as 3.3M plus Erhoff’s salary, I doubt the SJ trade happens if the Canucks were able to sign an impact forward to a 5M+ contract. And I don’t regard that trade as all that much of a win for the Canucks either, Ehroff is playing soft minutes which is how he’s acquiring a ton of his pluses.
Or failing that they save the space for this year instead and wait for Demitra to come off the books. The forward pickings this year are slim but there are some gems (Frolov for instance).
I don’t mean to make this a dick-measuring contest, Sutter’s made some asinine moves also. But I see a lot of praise for Gillis’ recent move and a ton of it is directly related to puck luck and the impact from his actual impact players. VAN has a good team but Gillis has little to do with it.
I completely agree that there are other paths. I disagree completely that Gillis took one of the worse ones. I also agree (as you will see below) that Gillis is reaping Nonis’ hard work. But I think he has been careful about contracts (again, see below). He got the Sedins to sign for 6.1 for 5. That’s good GM’ing. They wanted 12 years each (like Luongo got). He got Luongo to re-up, and made him captain when Luongo was furious and threatening to leave. I’m most familiar with the Northwest, but I don’t see any GM who has completely outdone him in the last 2 years. I’m also not saying he’s been the greatest ever (David Poile strikes me as probably the best right now, no?).
Ehrhoff — again see below. Many Flames bloggers now think that it was a mistake to have both Phaneuf and Bouwmeester, who are similar players. Why have Mitchell, Salo, and Ohlund, who all play the same role. Ehrhoff does different stuff, yes, soft minutes, but so what? The hard minutes is what you pay Mitchell and Salo 3.5 for. Not 7 or the like.
I don’t think that you’ve shown that Burrows-Samuelsson are “asinine” contracts, which was my original and genuine question.
Kesler is a player. You will get some dumb-ass fans (and sadly many of them will be Flames fans) who will tell you otherwise but they’re just not watching the games.
Same thing with Alex Burrows if you ask me. I don’t like the guy either, but he’s a hell of a player. You’ve got a blind spot about ten miles wide for this guy. He’s scored 60 goals over the last two years including all of 4 on the PP. He’s an agitator who can score goals and is a very effective penalty killer. There’s lots of guys making over $2 MM in this league who don’t do any of those things.
Burrows ranks fourth on the club in GVT behind just the Sedins and Luongo, all of whom make more than triple the money. He’s proved conclusively that last year’s 28-23-51, +23 wasn’t a fluke as he has improved on all four of those numbers (32-27-59, +30 with 10 games to go). Sure he’s taking advantage of playing with the Sedins, but he’s getting it done, plays good defence, draws attention from those guys, and puts the puck in the net when the chance presents itself.
On the PK his record is nothing short of amazing: 6/-11 in almost three hours of ice time. He’s pretty much accounted for the 6 GF all on his own, with 5-1-6 totals which lead the entire NHL in shorthanded scoring. With Burrows on the ice the Canucks are +2.22/-4.07 per 60; with him on the bench they are +0.22/-8.12. In other words the Canucks have scored 10 times as many shorthanded goals and allowed half the number of PPGA when Burrows is on the ice. His +/- per 60 of just -1.85 leads all NHL forwards (76 players with 30 GP and 2:00+ SH TOI/G). Are you going to credit the Sedins for that too?
Granted the guy is not the most talented player in the league and he’s more than a little bit of a d-bag, but he’s effective, responsible, and has a real nose for the net. For me that’s $2 MM extremely well spent. I don’t know what the hell you expect for that kind of money; here in Edmonton our $2 MM guys are Robert Nilsson and Ethan Moreau, and Burrows is way better than either of them. An overpay? I hardly think so.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Mar 22, 2010 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Bruce, I can look up the goal totals and other stats just fine. I can also look up the EV SH%’s and say without doubt that he is not that talented a shooter. I can look at his history without the Sedins as linemates and then look at his performance with the Sedins as linemates and look at how the Sedins influence the performance of past linemates, and come to the conclusion that Burrows does not own very much of the offence that he generates.
I mean it’s so obvious, Bruce, watch five Canucks games and who is driving the bus for that team? It’s so obviously Kesler who’s paving the road for the next line into the offensive zone against weaklings. When you see Sedin, Sedin and Burrows get shifted over the boards time and again while the puck’s moving north, then you know they’re going to score more, it’s just the way the game works. Doesn’t mean they’re better players.
At least you can give respect to the Sedins, they have a long and prosperous history of producing offense without having it handed to them on a silver platter. Not to this level, but extremely good nonetheless. Prior to playing the kind of butter-soft minutes that would make Bertuzzi salivate, Burrows had no history of anything.
Burrows is riding the wave of circumstance, that is so obvious. I give a lot of respect to a lot of douchey players on the Canucks (Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Luongo) vis-a-vis their ability to play hockey but what I won’t do is give credit where credit is not due.
And that PK record. Meh. He’s played three hours of icetime on the PK, that translates roughly into twenty games if you were talking about EV icetime (assuming ten minutes a game). Which with our experience is completely worthless as far as trying to analyze performance with goals. The shots data imply that Raymond is actually the superior PKer (and shot-blocking beast Ryan Johnson is actually a sieve… not a surprise, pretty much every VAN depth player blows).
I just dont’ see anything that this guy does that is not either driven by luck or teammates, and which could not be done at a similar level by someone making 500k less.
Whatever, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Burrows is good at pissing people off, and he’s obviously succeeded to such an extent with you that you aren’t prepared to give him credit for anything he does.
This is a guy who brings it every shift. A $2 MM support player who scores, defends, PKs, and agitates is a pretty good bargain in my book. Doesn’t mean I have to like the guy, though I imagine I would if he was an Oiler, or if I was – heaven forbid – a Canucks fan.
But if you want to write off three consecutive years of across the board improvement in every stat as “luck” and “circumstance”, I’m sure not going to stop you.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Mar 22, 2010 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Burrows is good at pissing people off, and he’s obviously succeeded to such an extent with you that you aren’t prepared to give him credit for anything he does.
Kesler is almost as bad at being a douchebag and Samuelsson, when it comes to diving, frankly he is worse. I still try to evaluate them honestly. I suspect, nay, I’m certain you’re being deceived by the gaudy goal totals.
Don’t be fooled by the video game model, Bruce. Hockey is played with 40+ guys on the ice, maybe only 12 at a time but make no mistake, you’re depending on the players on the ice before you to make your job easier and the players coming after you are depending on you for the same. And the coaches behind you ultimately decide your fate. How individuals help their team win is not just a matter of adding up goals or poins or plus-minus.
—
And by the way, you still haven’t addressed my contention that Burrows is a wholly average PKer. His results are strictly driven by PDO, he’s got a 0.914 PKSV% behind him (there are some goalies who can’t even do that at even strength, and Luongo is so much worse behind everyone else) and he’s shooting at a 25% clip AND the shot data is much less complimentary AND it’s still only three hours of ice time.
Burrows is the kind of player that a smart GM would have traded by now for quality. He’s never going to have numbers as high as this and he’s never going to help you win as much as his numbers imply.
In fairness to Burrows/Bruce 2M really isn’t huge money in this league. As much as you might think just anybody could hang on to Kesler and play toughs or play with the Sedins and pot goals, I don’t buy that. 2M really isn’t a lot of scratch. You can say that he can be easily replaced at 1.5M or less, but I’m not sure that’s true if you’re looking on the UFA market. And what if you do pick a guy to do it, say Niedermayer, and it turns out the guy is done? Going instead for a guy who’s been able to play a role on one of your top two lines in his prime AND plays a significant role on your PK for 2M… you could do a lot worse. His point totals this year are silly and I don’t think the contract is a fantastic bargain or anything, but it’s certainly not terrible.
As for the PK stuff, he’s been a regular for the last three years at least and has never had a really poor GD. Not sure why you’re on about Raymond. His track record has substantially less ice time and a marginally worse Corsi result than Burrows this season. Last season Burrows had far and away the best Corsi on the team for PK regulars. He actually led the entire NHL in that category a year ago for forwards who played at least 2 min per game. I’m convinced he’s a good PKer.
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 22, 2010 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not looking at Corsi but SA/60.
—
Aside: For EV I am pretty confident in Corsi as a reflector of territorial advantage as it’s a relevant notion. I was never sure about it on the PK since, aside from the notable and fairly rare PKs where you deny access to the blue line, your opponent spends most of the time in your zone and territorial advantage isn’t a relevant ntion.
I don’t really value the shot attempts in and of themselves but they reflect zone time which at EV reflect scoring chances, by eye and by number. I didn’t know what to think of PK-ing so I’m just going off what Vic had said recently about shots-on-net corresponding better to scoring chances on the PK than shots-directed-towards. Blocking passing and shooting lanes drives success on the PK. Not something I’d have picked up by eye, but there it is.
—
Anyways, with that in mind the Burrows’ SA/60 numbers are a bit all over the map. He does play a prominent role on the PK (tons of icetime) so that’s something, but he hasn’t shown consistently that he’s The Best at preventing shots than anyone else over the last three years (below average in 2007, the best in 2008, better than average in 2009).
Side note: those rankigns are all league-wide which I never really trust anyway, can’t be throwing away the team context. Relative to his teammates Burrows is a decent penalty killer but only one season where “elite” is an apt description.
Even with the shots stuff Burrows is clearly in the ballpark this year (though only Johnson is far gone) and was just dominant relative to his teammates a year ago. I have no problem calling his PK ability a + skill. I’m satisfied by the results and by the usage that he’s good at it. And I really don’t get why you’d complain about sample size with Burrows and then talk about Raymond as a PK ace.
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 22, 2010 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
My sample size complain was with regards to the goals analysis that Bruce was putting out, but yeah, I don’t want to put too much stock on Raymond, I didn’t notice that he was only getting a min and a half per night.
Side note: +/- on the PK, I might be crazy but I think that is crazy. Even if a dude gets four hours of ice time (3 minutes a night), a five-season snapshot only encompasses the equivalent of about 1.25 seasons if the icetime were at EV. And over that time frame we’ve seen +/- affected by luck by a ton. Context of icetime on the PK is a bit different, it’s mostly tough, but still.
Not directed towards you or even Bruce, I’m just saying, a lot of this PP/PK analysis hasn’t fleshed out yet.
Well, we only have what we have when it comes to special teams. IMO it’s even harder to suss out team and individual performance on special teams since there are a lot more set plays on both sides. You’re right about +/- though. There’s going to be a lot of luck in it. For me, it’s a mixture of results (mostly Corsi rates but maybe shot rates are better, I don’t know) and usage that I key on. Burrows does pretty well by both measures, so I’m satisfied that he’s pretty good. It’s one of the reasons I think the Oilers were foolish to lose Brodziak. He’s done enough to make me think he’s a real good performer on the PK.
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 22, 2010 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Side note: +/- on the PK, I might be crazy but I think that is crazy. Even if a dude gets four hours of ice time (3 minutes a night), a five-season snapshot only encompasses the equivalent of about 1.25 seasons if the icetime were at EV. And over that time frame we’ve seen +/- affected by luck by a ton.
I understand what you’re saying, but disgree in principle, that SH TOI is commensurate with EV TOI. (“5 seasons at 3:00 SH TOI = 1.25 seasons at 12:00 EV TOI”). The stat in question, +/-, is measured in Goals, and those are scored at a much higher rate in odd-man situations. So that should be factored in.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Mar 24, 2010 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions
About running similar plyaers in place of guys like Burrows:
What I was trying to thought-experiment up were ways that the Canucks could put a fourth impact forward onto their roster. It’s relevant to think of what signing Burrows cost the Canucks. Basically it set up the salary structure for their middling-forwards group, i.e. Samuelsson and Bernier. If Burrows or his equivalent were making 1.2.-1.5 million instead, I can’t imagine that Samuelsson and Bernier (or their equivalents) would be making $4.5M combined.
And you do bring up a good point that guys like Niedermayer or Moen might not cover their bets but that’s fine, if I’m the Canucks GM I’m okay with that. Because my goal would have been to save enough money to sign a real impact forward to either play with the Sedins or most likely Kesler.
There were some scary forwards on the market last season that the Canucks could have been in play for especially if they buried or perma-IR’d Demitra. Gaborik, Hossa, Havlat. Some injury concerns in there but we’re talking bonafide impact talent there. Or they could have traded for Penner, as much as it is laughed at it’s a plausible notion. The Oil wanted to get rid of him, the smart view of him was that he was a very useful offensive player, it was a perfect buy-low time.
I don’t know, I’m a man on an island here but the Canucks had some real money to play with and now they have less money to play with.
I don’t buy that at all. If the plan is to play Burrows in the top six, Steve Bernier can’t walk up and demand that coin since he’s not going to have the same role. Did Gillis make a bad deal with Bernier? You bet. Was it because of the Burrows contract? That seems far-fetched. The Samuelsson comparison is even stranger since he came over from Detroit. There’s really no reason to think that the Samuelsson camp was pointing at Burrows as a comp when they were fielding UFA offers from various teams. I again think the Samuelsson signing was a mistake but there’s no reason to think it was influenced by Burrows.
As for adding an elite player, they could probably have done it and adding someone like that would have been advisable but i don’t lay that on the Burrows deal. They could have just let Samuelsson and Bernier sign elsewhere (they’d even get a pick if someone sheeted Bernier) and then move that 4.75M plus a bit more for a better player. That said, there were some pretty challenging deals to beat out there. Havlat’s not always healthy and 6 years at 5M is a hefty chunk of cash for a guy with his injury history and he’s likely the best bet of the three guys you named. Hossa’s deal is 12 years and starts at 31 and it’s still 5.25M per. I can see why Chicago won that bidding war. And then Gaborik at 5 years and 7.5M. Well that’s some big coin. It’s just not easy to add a really good player at a decent price. With Penner… maybe they could do it but we have no idea about the asking price. The only deal we know about had him going for a pretty elite talent in Heatley. I don’t know what the Canucks could have offered that the Oilers would have smiled upon.
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 22, 2010 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Don’t be fooled by the video game model, Bruce. Hockey is played with 40+ guys on the ice, maybe only 12 at a time but make no mistake, you’re depending on the players on the ice before you to make your job easier and the players coming after you are depending on you for the same. And the coaches behind you ultimately decide your fate. How individuals help their team win is not just a matter of adding up goals or poins or plus-minus.
Well, duh. That is a shortcoming of any statistical analysis of any player. Of course Alex Burrows’ stats need context, but so do Ryan Kesler’s and Danrik Sedin’s for that matter.
W.r.t. Burrows, by eye – the “video game model” ? – he has been an effective player on a shutdown line with Kesler, and an effective player on a scoring line with the Sedins. The stats back up that he’s a versatile guy with a range of skills.
As for shorthanded scoring, yes of course that’s always a small sample size right across the league. Burrows was in the top ten in the NHL last year for SHG and SHP, and in the top one this year, so it’s not like he just came out of the blue. He’s an opportunistic little so-and-so, be it shorthanded or even strength. Moving into the “seen him good” side, I’ve seen two games this season that absolutely turned on SHG by Burrows. Write that off as anecdotal if you like, but I’ve been watching Travis Moen or Rob Niedermayer for a long time without seeing them turn very many games.
I just dont’ see anything that this guy does that is not either driven by luck or teammates, and which could not be done at a similar level by someone making 500k less.
A similar level being Rob Niedermayer and his 10 goals?
I know you don’t like goals as a currency so will discount anything I say that is based in them, but let’s put it this way: of the 14 NHLers not on entry level contracts who have scored 30+ goals, Alex Burrows makes the least of any of them at $2 MM. Next least is Mikael Samuelsson at $2.5 MM. The rest are anywhere from $3.125 MM right up to $9 MM. So to try and make the case that Mike Gillis is an idiot for wasting money on Burrows and Samuelsson are belied by actual results, whatever your personal opinion of those guys might be. I agree that analyzing them with modern statistical techniques might show that objects in the mirror are not as good as they appear, but that’s a long way from writing them off as foolish contracts.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Mar 24, 2010 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Bruce, it’s not like I have a disdain for high-scoring forwards. Kesler has scored a ton this year and I think he is probably almost as good a forward as either Sedin. Certainly his offensive achievement this year is more impressive, context considered.
SImilarly I think Crosby and Ovechkin are amazing players. But Malkin and Kovalchuk I wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole (unless I had Crosby/Ovechkin types ahead of them on the depth chart to generate the tougher offence).
It’s all about the context in which offense is generated.
Speaking of which, you denigrate Niedermayer but you do realize if he was playing the kind of icetime that Burrows was and had the favor of Lady Luck too, that he’d plausibly score 30 as well? That’s a reasonable expectation for a guy getting soft minutes and shooting lights out.
Great post. Found your blog over the Olympics, and have been coming regularly ever since. Love the analysis and the wit. In fact, just going by quality of blogs, I sometimes wish I were an Oilers’ fan (Flames get second place).
Re: Nonis vs Gillis: Yup, Gillis is reaping a lot of hard work by Nonis, especially in rebuilding the farm team. But boy were the Nonis bottom six players difficult to watch—Brad Isbister, signed in September out of desperation to fill out the roster? Wellwood, Johnson, Glass, even Hordichuk, now Bernier (no longer top 6) have been decent pick ups for their roles. Well, Bernier wasn’t worth a 2nd & a 3rd, so that has to be held against Gillis. Nonis paid for his mistakes mismanaging the cap at the outset of his tenure (the same fate may befall Tambellini eventually).
I also think that getting the Sedins to re-up for 6.1 each was good work. I like the Luongo deal as well, b/c the idea is that at some point the cap goes up. Kesler, I think Gillis wanted to wait out and get for less, but Kesler attracted a lot of attention during the Olympics and that probably scared Gillis. The Ehrhoff deal I think was also good: basically Ohlund and Mitchell played the same role, and Ehrhoff (not a brilliant defender, everyone agrees) gave them one defender with wheels. And basically for taking on Lukowich’s salary. And except for the Bernier deal, Gillis like Nonis before him has been good at not giving up draft picks. Burke really left the cupboard bare (it’s amazing how long it takes to rebuild a whole organization). The one big gaffe has been the relationship with Cody Hodgson since his injury. Hodgson looks like a player. Media relations disaster waiting to happen.
I also like your comps of Horcoff and Koivu for Kesler. We’ll see how he does.
Thanks antro. I generally agree that Gillis has done well managing the cap and signing his own core players to pretty good deals. That said, I think he’s been pretty lucky to get big numbers and minutes out of Samuelsson. The guy is banging out a career year at 33 which is great for both him and the Canucks but I’ll be pretty surprised if that contract still looks like a good bet at age 34 and 35. The Burrows deal is similar though not as bad. It’s shorter term and a younger player so it’s not nearly as bad but I’d say his performance to date needs to be considered the extreme high-end of expectations. I know I wasn’t expecting his 16.0% shooting percentage to hold up but he’s actually increased it to 17.3% so far this season. He’s also been in on 74% of the offence which may not be unsustainable but is still nicely above average. I could definitely see him having a couple poor offensive seasons coming up. That said, it’s only 2M and he’s pretty much an elite penalty killer and as much as it’s easy to think Kesler could walk around with anyone playing tough minutes, it isn’t true. Defensively I think Burrows has proven that he has some chops provided elite support.
I guess I just haven’t been overly impressed with many of his adds and at this point, that’s what he needs to do. There are no more elite home-grown talents. He’ll want to get Raymond signed but after that he’s looking for talent from outside the organization and, to this point, he hasn’t demonstrated that it’s a strength.
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 21, 2010 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks for your reply, I think that your assessment is fair, including the Burrows sh% (I too think it’ll come down).
On homegrown talent, I disagree a bit. I do think there’s a chance that Cody Hodgson will be elite (CHL player of the year etc etc). Casual observers compare him to Mike Richards. If I knew how to use Gabe Desjardins’ equivalency, I would look at that. Also, Grabner has shown signs of being a player. The question this summer is how to shore up the defence, esp. re-signing/replacing Mitchell.
I do think that Gillis has managed to make a name for himself with his getting deals done with Luongo, Sedins, Kesler. I imagine that Sutter got Bouwmeester with the right contract, but also in part by saying, “Look, we have Iginla, Phaneuf, Kiprusoff, Regehr, etc”. I might be wrong, but something tells me that, contracts being equal, the image of a team helps attract good UFAs more than the statistical profile.
No question he’s done well with the hand he’s been dealt and the “winning environment” thing can be big. There are more reasons than money for Hossa signing in Detroit and then Chicago and there are plenty more examples than just Hossa. So yeah, the “core four” should continue to pay dividends when it comes to attracting free agents. We’ll see if Gillis can take advantage.
As for the pipeline, I’m not impressed by Grabner as an offensive talent. He never put up big totals in the WHL and his offence in the AHL is nothing to get excited about. His track record is less impressive than a guy like Marc Pouliot. I haven’t seen much of him but I think his very high end is probably a 3rd minutes guy and odds are he’ll be less than that.
Hodgson is a different story. His NHLE this season isn’t helpful since he hasn’t played many games but last year it was 19-23-43 which is darn impressive and a nice step forward from his draft year. Richards was 15-23-38 at the same age and they’re similar in size, position, maybe style though I don’t really know. Good comp I’d say (not to get you too excited).
Still, Hodgson has three more years to go on an entry-level deal so it’s not like Gillis needs to work on an extension soon. The next two years will be about bringing talent in via UFA (and RFA?) and trade. Gillis might yet be good at it but I haven’t been impressed so far. Samuelsson looks a bit lucky at this point and the other signings haven’t looked too good: Sundin, Demitra and Bernier all look like mistakes to some degree. I actually liked the Ehrhoff trade, so there’s that. We’ll see.
As for Mitchell, I wouldn’t be surprised if Gillis lets him walk and pursues a younger model in Michalek or Hamhuis to fill out a top six of Edler, Bieksa, Salo, Ehrhoff and Alberts. That is, unless Mitchell is willing to sign for two or three years. Any longer likely wouldn’t be prudent.
by Scott Reynolds on Mar 22, 2010 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions
The one good thing about Sundin: made Kesler realize that he’s a player. I know, I know, I won’t get much credit for such a statement here, but I still remember that turning point. Taking off a checking line, and made into a two-way player.
Yeah, I think I agree with most of what you say about picking up UFAs. (I’m not sure about Samuelsson, b/c he got him to move from a championship team, where he was perhaps underutilized.) But generally, you’re right, this off-season will be the test. I say that in light of what I mentioned about Gillis’ success at signing players. I’m not sure he had much of a chance prior to this year. I remember Gillis’ first moves in his first year at the draft, when someone leaked he was shopping the Sedins. Completely embarrassed him. I’m not sure that any self-respecting player (like Hossa) would have signed at the time. Couldn’t be sure the team wouldn’t implode under this rookie GM. Now Gillis has built up his street cred, so there’s a chance he’ll be able to look further than just his old clients (Demitra, Schneider).
Thanks for the Hodgson analysis! I wish that there were some way that Gillis would pick up analytically-convincing UFA bloggers. It’s a treat to read.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on The Copper & Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Oilers Schedule
Next 5 Games
Calgary
|
Thu 10/07 | 7:00 PM PDT |
|
Florida
|
Sun 10/10 | 5:00 PM PDT |
|
@
Minnesota
|
Thu 10/14 | 5:30 PM PDT |
|
@
Calgary
|
Sat 10/16 | 7:00 PM PDT |
|
Minnesota
|
Thu 10/21 | 6:00 PM PDT |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Anaheim
|
Sun 04/11 | L 2 - 7 |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Sat 04/10 | SO - W 4 - 3 |
|
Colorado
|
Wed 04/07 | OT - W 5 - 4 |
|
Minnesota
|
Mon 04/05 | W 4 - 1 |
|
@
Phoenix
|
Sat 04/03 | SO - L 2 - 3 |
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
