Confirmed with Link: Luke Glendening re-signed for 4 years 1.8m/yr

obey86

Registered User
Jun 9, 2009
8,013
1,274
He had 12 goals one year, not saying I think he will get 20 but the stars could align for him one year. Maybe he gets a net-front role on the PP, maybe injuries put him up with more skilled players, maybe he just shoots at 25% one season. It's not that farfetched. Guys like Glenny sometimes have those weird years and end up overpaid. Nice to avoid that.

If Glendening gets a net front role on the PP and get 18 minutes of ice time a game, this team has a top 5 pick.
 

InjuredChoker

Registered User
Dec 25, 2011
31,402
345
LTIR or golf course
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...0&teamid=0&type=goals&sort=SvPct&sortdir=DESC

Somehow goalies tend to have great SV% when Glendening is on the ice. That is a 4-season sample size, so not anything short-sighted with a luck factor. I includes Howard's bad seasons only, and Gustavsson's "solid" efforts from recent years. Not just superb Mrazek stats.

I back again on my theory, he pushes people to shoot from bad angles and more from point (lesser probability for a goal), and goalies can cherrypick again.

Steve Ott also bounced up from the same list. When looking these Ott statistics, good things bouncing up here and there, and I'm more and more convinced that he will outplay Miller with landslide for a 4th line spot and Miller is just an injury replacement. 14th forward at maximum or waived.

Gledening+Ott is a nice double-pest duo for becoming season. Not just Glendening alone anymore. they should be a lot more effective together. Pain to play against.

that link you quoted has glendening with less than 1500 minutes played. not really 4 season sample either as he has played 3 seasons in the NHL.

players above glendening who are medicore or awful defensively: neil, wilson, ott, campbell and mcleod.

prime datsyuk defensively (07-11) ranked didn't even crack top 90.

there's just too much randomness when it comes to on-ice sv%. 9 other skaters + goalie. erik condra led the league from 10-14 with the same criteria. didn't even crack top 150 the last 2 seasons. dustin brown was in top from '10-14, last 2 seasons couldn't crack top 100. nathan gerbe in top, now not even in top 200 etc.

some more links on this

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2013/7/4/4487304/save-percentage-variability-regression-defense

http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/news/the-gift-of-on-ice-save-percentage/1okvng54lfrqt1pqcpps9hltc7



glendening could have slight impact on ice-sv% but unless he's some generational player and has defensive ability that even the likes of datsyuk haven't shown, it's not as much as it has been the past 3 seasons. and largely negated by the fact that he's so poor in preventing shots.

not sure if there's sites that show shots by location (war-on-ice used to) that could give some more info if it's just luck/randomness or if luke has been able to keep shots to the outside. that still wouldn't count for everything like pre-shot movement/traffic which is very important. in some cases more important than the location. and wouldn't show that luke can actually maintain that if he's been able to keep other teams players on the outside for weak shots more than avg.
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,200
14,889
crease
prime datsyuk defensively (07-11) ranked didn't even crack top 90.

Well, I've seen enough then.

TMV1KKM.gif
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
We are in the same place. And it's funny, because I don't really hate this deal, but it brings out all those feelings. It's another example of players being locked up for Presidential terms or longer that aren't star quality on a roster that has underachieved. The frustration. The apparent apathy in the management. The lack of entertaining hockey (goals help).

I think that's my new measuring stick. If you're getting tenure for longer than the President of the United States, you better be really damn good.

eh, depends on the president. We've had some odd numbered ones lately that would set a pretty low bar. Glendening might clear it low.

Is it? That sounds like something you made up.

What part of "front-loaded four year offer" makes you think it was any less than $2.5 million a year? How could you possibly front-load a deal worth $1.5 million a year in any way that's substantial to this player?

The Wings gave a competitive offer, with the same term, to a guy you claim is overpaid. That's the point. If you're going to laugh at the idea of signing Martin to that contract, you need to consider the Wings were prepared to do the exact same thing.

Yeah, I think you have to assume our offer was at least in the ballpark, and we could have easily afforded him if we hadn't signed Miller and Helm. Oddly enough, it would have also accomplished that thing Holland said he wanted to do about getting harder to play against. Which sort of explains why it didn't happen, it would have filled a stated need.
 
Oct 18, 2006
14,327
1,896
He had 12 goals one year, not saying I think he will get 20 but the stars could align for him one year. Maybe he gets a net-front role on the PP, maybe injuries put him up with more skilled players, maybe he just shoots at 25% one season. It's not that farfetched. Guys like Glenny sometimes have those weird years and end up overpaid. Nice to avoid that.
How many times do I have to say this? He scored 5 empty net goals that year. He beat the goalie 7 times. He will never score 20.
 

jaster

Unregistered User
Jun 8, 2007
13,086
8,210
Love this deal. Good for Luke, and good for the Wings. Dude's an old school hockey player. Solid 4th-line anchor for years to come.
 

jaster

Unregistered User
Jun 8, 2007
13,086
8,210
I thought we hired analytics people? Great to see we are using them.

We did. It's just that, unlike most posters on this forum, those people actually understand advanced stats, and know how to use them, with appropriate context applied ;)
 

SpookyTsuki

Registered User
Dec 3, 2014
15,916
671
We did. It's just that, unlike most posters on this forum, those people actually understand advanced stats, and know how to use them, with appropriate context applied ;)

You mean they use other facts while using the advanced stats? Whaaaaaaaat
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,682
We did. It's just that, unlike most posters on this forum, those people actually understand advanced stats, and know how to use them, with appropriate context applied ;)

Ok, to be clear, I am good with extending Glendening, and both the term and caphit given.

That comment was made in regards to the Holland comment that he can play 16-18 minutes a game against top lines.

You think he should be utilized like that? I'd like to know what advanced stats or context supports that. I like Glendening when Glendening is used how he should be.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,682
If Holland did give Glendening just a 2 year deal, the cap hit would be higher (which is worse) and then we would hate even more the deal we gave Glendening in 2 years when he's a UFA. (See deal just given to Helm)

This 1.8 million going to Glendening (a year from now), for the next 4 years til he's 32, is literally very low on the list of things we should be worried out. If prospects pass him or his game drops off, we could bury over half the deal in the AHL and be on the hook for 850k. Big whoop. This contract is really whatever, in the grand scheme of things.

The only issue I have with Glendening is how he is used, which isn't his fault, and separate from how I feel about this contract.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,842
8,561
If Holland did give Glendening just a 2 year deal, the cap hit would be higher (which is worse) and then we would hate even more the deal we gave Glendening in 2 years when he's a UFA. (See deal just given to Helm)

This 1.8 million going to Glendening (a year from now), for the next 4 years til he's 32, is literally very low on the list of things we should be worried out. If prospects pass him or his game drops off, we could bury over half the deal in the AHL and be on the hook for 850k. Big whoop. This contract is really whatever, in the grand scheme of things.

The only issue I have with Glendening is how he is used, which isn't his fault, and separate from how I feel about this contract.
I'd take 2.2 x 2 over 1.8 x 4 any day of the week.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,682
I'd take 2.2 x 2 over 1.8 x 4 any day of the week.

And then what's the next contract? Cause you think Holland is going to walk away from a Michigan kid who is great in the locker room?

It's going to go down when he's a UFA to be? Yeah, no way. So it's 1.8 X 4 or something like 2.2 X 2 followed by 2.75-3 X 2.

This deal is fine, we seriously have way more important **** to worry about.
 

topdawg

Registered User
Jan 17, 2016
142
93
Ok, to be clear, I am good with extending Glendening, and both the term and caphit given.

That comment was made in regards to the Holland comment that he can play 16-18 minutes a game against top lines.

You think he should be utilized like that? I'd like to know what advanced stats or context supports that. I like Glendening when Glendening is used how he should be.

Whatever takes minutes away from z so he's not worn down by playoffs
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,077
12,077
Tampere, Finland
If Holland did give Glendening just a 2 year deal, the cap hit would be higher (which is worse) and then we would hate even more the deal we gave Glendening in 2 years when he's a UFA. (See deal just given to Helm)

This 1.8 million going to Glendening (a year from now), for the next 4 years til he's 32, is literally very low on the list of things we should be worried out. If prospects pass him or his game drops off, we could bury over half the deal in the AHL and be on the hook for 850k. Big whoop. This contract is really whatever, in the grand scheme of things.

The only issue I have with Glendening is how he is used, which isn't his fault, and separate from how I feel about this contract.

What if Glendening raises his level of play and Holland extends him to 6-year deal worth 5 million at age of 32...? :)
 

topdawg

Registered User
Jan 17, 2016
142
93
Easiest would be giving 2-3 mins for Athanasiou.

Z from 21min--> 18min
AA from 9min --> 12min

Kind of... reasonable?

I do agree aa needs more minutes but i don't think he can handle minutes z plays, not quite ready for it yet. We have 3 centres on the team that can play against elite offensive talent, start of season z, neilson and glenny. Neilson will be eating up datsyuks minutes so the only other player to take some minutes away from z is glenny.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,735
14,704
Sweden
How many times do I have to say this? He scored 5 empty net goals that year. He beat the goalie 7 times. He will never score 20.
According to NHL.com Glenny had 3 EN goals that year, but nevertheless the point isn't that Glendening is a great goalscorer it's that there are many guys like him who end up having one of those years where the puck just goes in. Then you run the risk of paying someone who generally scores 5-10 goals like he's a 20 goal scorer.
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
Easiest would be giving 2-3 mins for Athanasiou.

Z from 21min--> 18min
AA from 9min --> 12min

Kind of... reasonable?

That would be ideal, but I worry that if the Wings struggle early on that Blashill will worry about his job and start overplaying the veterans again since it will be human nature. Hopefully the Wings have a consistently strong season so that doesn't happen.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->