Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
Awful opinionated for someone with 18 posts ... you aren't going to make many friends saying things like that, FYI...
And no, I was not one of those people arguing against you.
Matt Calvert
- Thread starter jordanwill21
- Start date
Awful opinionated for someone with 18 posts ... you aren't going to make many friends saying things like that, FYI...
And no, I was not one of those people arguing against you.
you just made your own opinion at least mine was related to the topic (hockey). say what you want but at least keep it hockey oriented after all it is hf boards not facebook !
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
The actual reason I checked in on this thread:
Over/under on Matt Calvert being mentioned in a trade thread to the Leafs this year?
Last edited by a moderator:
WannabeFinn
Beloved One
TheOllieC
cajun filet
WannabeFinn
Beloved One
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
Not unless we throw in our first round pick.
You guys are way overvaluing Calvert.
hardkorejackets
Registered User
I don't know if this was partially directed towards me or not, but I didn't see anybody claim to be an expert. People just seem to be weighing in. I could see Calvert getting 15-19 in a "full season", which might not be insurmountable, but I personally don't feel confident enough to guarantee a full season and 20 goals..
Last year he had 9 goals in 56 games, prior season he had 9 goals in 42 games. Highest output is 11 goals in 42 games back in 2010-2011. So his scoring output would place him right at 15-20 goals for a full season. Like Major, I just don't know if he can play a full healthy season with no minor or nagging injuries that would end up slowing him down. His style of play, knowing the role that minor but playable injuries can slow down a player, and just how frequent injuries occur in the NHL make me hesitant. Only 3 players scored 20 goals for us last season.
I'm not going to get into this premise with you beyond saying that teams still get their top players the most minutes. Calvert, on most teams, wouldn't be given 18+ minutes. He's developed into a great role player, but he's also have a 35+ minute PROD the last two seasons. Teams wouldn't be looking to him for offense, which can affect match ups and, ultimately, lead to less minutes.
What I really wanted to comment on is I'm not sure where your "spread things around" is coming from. Here are the minutes for Jackets forwards, removing Horton and Gaborik who had comparable minutes in limited games.
Dubinsky - 18:47 - ES 14:17
Johansen - 17:39 - ES 14:01
AA - 16:36 - ES 12:28
Umberger - 16:11 - ES 13:00
Calvert - 16:06 - ES 13:00
Foligno - 16:04 - ES 14:06
Atkinson - 15:47 - ES 13:23
Letestu - 14:41 - ES 11:10
Jenner - 14:05 - ES 13:08
Seems like the minutes were pretty well spread around; not much of a disparity at ES.
Took out some stuff. First off, I'm a bit surprised that we've managed to talk about Calvert this long. He is capable of 20 goals, but he's not going to get there averaging less than 2 shots a game. He has 207 SoG's in 153 career games. Over the course of an 82 game season that is around 111 SoG's. At a 10% shooting pct that is 11 goals with 16-17 goals at a 15% shoot pct. He's probably not going to shoot at a 22% rate like he did his rookie season very often.
To your last comment, I really wouldn't use the word "only" when describing our number of players with 20+ goals. 3 is a very common number in the league and only 1 less than NY and LA had combined in the regular season; your Cup finalists.
WannabeFinn
Beloved One
To be fair, LAK went from bottom 5 in league scoring to being the highest scoring team in the playoffs by far. They had terrible regular season offense and it's nothing to strive towards, even if they did make it to and win the Cup finals. NYR actually scored slightly less in the playoffs than in the regular season, but they just happened to be riding a hot goalie.
3 20 goal scorers on a team might be commonplace, but surely it isn't something to strive for (unless 1 or 2 of those players score well above 20, a la Capitals (who actually scored fewer goals per game than the CBJ..))
I don't know what you are trying to define as fair. The point stands. I wouldn't focus on the number of 20+ goal scorers and look at team scoring as a whole - however just from the offensive perspective.
The point was, the number of 20 goal scorers in the regular season doesn't mean much. The Flyers had 7 and we were just, barely, below them in goals scored. The Ducks only had 4 (1 more than us) but where tops in the league (when you consider SO's, they topped Chicago).
Two of the better defensive teams with good goal tending made their way to the Cup finals. We can fit that description, even if we have work to do defensively, and hopefully compete for the Cup.
I can't tell if you're for or against what I said. The "tone" of your response seems like your against it but everything you posted seems to match up with it. Yes, most of the time, coaches do manage to get their most productive(not just point based) players out there more than less important players. My point is, like the CBJ, most teams nowadays don't rely that strongly on a loaded up "top 6" like in the past, and for the most part have watered it down into a "top-9" like situation while also giving the 4th line a regular shift. However this is not the case for every team/coach and I get that.
You say "on most teams" Calvert wouldn't be given 18+ min a game and I agree for the most part. My point is simply that I believe Calvert COULD play on most teams top line, with highly skilled guys, and not negatively affect them or the team. That wouldn't mean he's the 3rd best forward on the team as that's not really how MOST teams are building their lineups. I will add as I have said before that I do think he's got more offensive skill than most give him credit for, and would flourish in a more scoring role. There's roughly 90 forwards last year that had 18+ a game, and I guess most would consider them as the "1st liners" of the league. 1 big problem with looking at it like that is that 50 of the 90 are listed as centers, and besides a few, play regular shifts at center. Another issue, without looking much at other teams, is that not all teams have 3 guys playing 18+ a game. Our top minutes guy is Dubinsky and he ranks 67th. Johansen supposedly carried our team on his back while playing the 104th most minutes per game for forwards. #3 is our unskilled and worthless 3rd liner coming in at 144.
1st obvious quick thing that you can see is that like the "top 90" list our top 3 minutes guys are all centers. The next thing that stands out to me is who our top 2 wingers were in minutes. Seeing Umberger's as our highest played winger is where a lot of my questions of Richards stem from. The fact that he continued to put him out there with Johansen AND a pretty regular PP shift for most of the year is probably my biggest issue with the coaching staff the last 2 years. That brings us back to Matt Calvert, who if you haven't noticed, will be our highest minute playing winger on the team going into next year. Now I understand that Hartnell and a hopefully "healthy" Horton will affect things, and I don't have any CORSI's or PROD's to throw out there but what that is, is a hard fact that you cannot argue. The dude is a very PRODUCTIVE member to our team. More productive than Jenner, Atkinson and Letestu and I believe will be more valuable to us than Hartnell and Horton going forward.
The issue is what peoples definition of productive really is. To most of you it seems production is a number or numbers. These numbers can be as simple as goals and assists or as "advanced" as dividing and multiplying other random numbers being tracked by many other people to prove whatever point your trying to make. Also not a fan of all these backhanded compliments towards him either. Its like if your not a true elite 2 way allstar(Crosby, Toews, Kopitar, Getzlaf) then you simply cant be just a very good two way guy. The guys we have like Calvert, Foligno and Anisimov who can play any role on the ice or fill in on any line asked of them are not "role" players. Even by calling them "great" role players, it takes away how important they really are to the team. Role players are those who have to find and continuously bring 1 or 2 things they're good at to be productive to a team. But that also doesn't mean that a point producer cannot be a role player. Look at how Gaborik was for us.
Back to my 1st couple lines. Blahblah, you act as if you have an issue with me saying that the CBJ seem to have their "top 9" forwards spread out more evenly than most teams and you ask where I got the idea. Then you posted the numbers and agreed with me that it is spread out pretty evenly. Just cant get over the Wiz stuff or what?? If anything, all those numbers prove is that Matt Calvert is more valuable or PRODUCTIVE than most of you want to admit or can understand.
WannabeFinn
Beloved One
Calvert's our top RFA this year. To date he's played 209 games for the CBJ with 42 goals and 86 points on 300 shots. This averages out to roughly 33 points per 82 games played, fairly typical 3rd line production. Calvert has so far been a non-stop motor for the CBJ (when he's not injured), and a quality bottom 6 player that can slot into the top 6 in the case of injuries. However, the CBJ have acquired other forwards that have pushed him down the depth chart likely leaving him as a 4th liner when we're (mostly) healthy.
If offer sheeted in the $1,682,195 to $3,364,391, do we let him go? Compensation is a 2nd round pick. A 2nd rounder for a 3rd liner is pretty fair value but if the salary per year is low enough I would likely match it rather than let him go.
Let's say some team offers between 2.75m and 3.36m per year for Calvert. Do you match that and accept the fact that you're paying 3rd line money to a likely 4th liner? Or do you take the 2nd rounder and slot another depth guy in his place (Anderson, Bourque, etc.)
Jenner-Johansen-Atkinson
Anisimov-Dubinsky-Foligno
Hartnell-Wennberg-Dano
Calvert-Letestu-Boll
^ This was our lineup at the end of last season. By letting Letestu walk via UFA and Calvert leave via offer sheet we could see a lineup like this...
Jenner-Johansen-Atkinson
Anisimov-Dubinsky-Foligno
Hartnell-Wennberg-Dano
Clarkson/Bourque-Karlsson/Chaput-Boll
Clearly our 4th line takes a bit of a hit in terms of scoring (or so it appears) but we save several million in cap and gain a 2nd round pick compensation in addition to the ice time available for younger guys (Karlsson, Chaput, Rychel, Anderson) and vets (Bourque, Clarkson).
So CBJ HFboards, what say you? Do you love Calvert enough to match a hypothetical 2.75m+ offer sheet?
If offer sheeted in the $1,682,195 to $3,364,391, do we let him go? Compensation is a 2nd round pick. A 2nd rounder for a 3rd liner is pretty fair value but if the salary per year is low enough I would likely match it rather than let him go.
Let's say some team offers between 2.75m and 3.36m per year for Calvert. Do you match that and accept the fact that you're paying 3rd line money to a likely 4th liner? Or do you take the 2nd rounder and slot another depth guy in his place (Anderson, Bourque, etc.)
Jenner-Johansen-Atkinson
Anisimov-Dubinsky-Foligno
Hartnell-Wennberg-Dano
Calvert-Letestu-Boll
^ This was our lineup at the end of last season. By letting Letestu walk via UFA and Calvert leave via offer sheet we could see a lineup like this...
Jenner-Johansen-Atkinson
Anisimov-Dubinsky-Foligno
Hartnell-Wennberg-Dano
Clarkson/Bourque-Karlsson/Chaput-Boll
Clearly our 4th line takes a bit of a hit in terms of scoring (or so it appears) but we save several million in cap and gain a 2nd round pick compensation in addition to the ice time available for younger guys (Karlsson, Chaput, Rychel, Anderson) and vets (Bourque, Clarkson).
So CBJ HFboards, what say you? Do you love Calvert enough to match a hypothetical 2.75m+ offer sheet?
Good job framing a really tough decision.
If it wasn't for his injuries, and the risk of a shortened career, I would definitely resign him for anything up to $3m.
If it wasn't for his injuries, and the risk of a shortened career, I would definitely resign him for anything up to $3m.
WannabeFinn
Beloved One
Even without the injuries it's tough to justify signing him to such a deal, no? All of the forwards in the top 9 are here long term save for potentially Hartnell and Anisimov. Even then we've got other young guns pushing for top 9 spots like Milano, Bjorkstrand, Karlsson, Rychel, etc.
Not only would it be a lot of money to pay Calvert, but the years could also put us in a tricky situation. You could propose the idea of signing him now and trading him later but are you sure that down the road you can get equal/better value than a 2nd round pick for him?
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,603
- 6,528
I'm with you. At $2.75 million, I'd let him walk.
The FO had no problem playing hardball with Johansen, they ought to do it with Calvert. Calvert is precisely the kind of player that one should use his CBA leverage upon.
Crede777
Deputized
- Dec 16, 2009
- 14,645
- 4,166
For anything less than $3 mill a year I think we should keep Calvert. He holds an important spot even when this team is fully healthy and I think he has a little bit of growth in terms of ability left in him.
Decent physicality, great speed, decent hands. That is what we want in a 3rd line LW. He used to be too small but he has bulked up a bit so he is just slightly undersized in my opinion and I think he can play more than effectively in this league. He isn't pushed off the puck too easily.
He can play up to the 2nd line, is at home on the 3rd line, or can play down to the 4th line.
Youth, versatility, speed. I would take him on this team easily.
Decent physicality, great speed, decent hands. That is what we want in a 3rd line LW. He used to be too small but he has bulked up a bit so he is just slightly undersized in my opinion and I think he can play more than effectively in this league. He isn't pushed off the puck too easily.
He can play up to the 2nd line, is at home on the 3rd line, or can play down to the 4th line.
Youth, versatility, speed. I would take him on this team easily.
Last edited:
You left out Calvert's role on PK, which is important. He's very good at it.
It's a tough question. I still wonder how much he and Letestu are fighting for the same spot. I don't factor into my thinking the potential for ice time that prospects will get, though, I just don't think that's something that ought to be taken into account.
I don't really think he will get offer sheeted anyway
ca5150
Registered User
Why am I not at all surprised that you don't see Calvert's value? Anyone that isn't strictly a scorer should be traded or let walk, in your opinion...we would have the softest team in the league if you had your way
Because it becomes a numbers game. Sure it's easy to sit here and ***** and moan to everyone who doesn't agree with 100% of everything you say but the team has to be smart. We have Dubi, Foligno, Bob and Cam jumping up in cap hits and I know Bourque is coming off next off season and possibly Anisimov but then after that seaon there is Jenner, Murray and Savard looking for deals plus you never know who is coming in or going out. If the cap makes sense then of course, everyone here would welcome him here fully. But, if he wants too much Jarmo has a tough decision to make
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,603
- 6,528
Got an attitude issue toward me?
Can you read? I said I'd play hardball with him and let him walk for $2.75 million. That is a ridiculous salary for a player like Calvert.
Last edited:
Ad
Latest posts
-
Player Discussion The Slaf Thread - Parabolic Growth Edition- Latest: River Meadow
-
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Fort Marcy Stakes (Gr. 2) - BELMONT AT THE BIG A - RACE 8Wagers: 2Staked: $5,500.00Event closes- Updated: