GDT: Sens @ Canes Sept. 27, The Most Important Game Of The Year Edition

[Micklebot]

michalek is streaky and inconsistent, and when we make the playoffs he doesn't do anything. Rely on him for some penalty killing and checking, that's about it. He won't score 30 goals again.

If we could rely on him to score 30 goals, he'd be one of the better contracts in the league.

 

[God Says No]

For the SOG, I just took a look at last years total and here what it looks like:

Clarke MacArthur : 62 GP 140 SOG 2.25 shots/game
Milan Michalek: 66GP 130 SOG 1.97 shots/game
Eric Conda: 68 GP 106 SOG 1.55 shots/game
Alex Chiasson: 76 GP 105SOG 1.38 shots/game
Jean-Gabriel Pageau: 50GP 97 SOG 1.94 shots/game
Curtis Lazar: 67 GP 92 SOG 1.37 shots/game
David Legwand: 80 GP - 91 SOG 1.13 shots/game
Mika Zibanejad: 80 GP - 150 SOG 1.87 shots/game
Mark Stone: 80GP - 157 SOG 1.97 shots/game

So basically with the same ice time (and lesser linemates for half the season) as Zibanejad and Stone he's had the same amount of shots per game than these two. Michalek has also played more PK minutes than these two if I'm not mistaken.
Again, how is that not good for a bottom 6 player is beyong ridiculous. When you look at the facts it becomes more and more ridiculous that people **** on Michalek so much when he actually does his job.

EDIT: Not only does Michalek have the same amount of Shot/game than Stone, but he also played 130 minutes of PK time in 66 games (2 Minutes per games) while Stone has played 111 minutes of PK in 80 Games (1,4 minutes per game). So with less ES TOI/game, Michalek was still able to post as many shots/games as Stone... Kinda funny for a guy who has ''zero shots'' isn't it?

I'm more than pleased with that for a guy who's a bottom 6 player...

Again, you are looking at total numbers for the season. It would be interesting to see his shot totals for the first 3 months or so last year. Until the time he got scratched. Like I said, he pads his stats in his 3 or 4 hot weeks when he plays amazingly. But that usually doesn't last very long as he either gets injured, or just completely fall off the face of the earth after. Even his biggest strength which was a plus until last year was his board work. He used to win all the board battles. He seemed to struggle last year. In his Casper mode you still see him sometimes. Usually when he fumbles the puck in the offensive zone. That's pretty much it.

That's the biggest problem with this guy. His 3 hot weeks tantalize you, but you get pretty much nothing for the rest of the year.

 

[Sens Rule]

Were in for a long year

Of winning, scoring and damn exciting hockey! Can't wait!

 

[Boud]

Again, you are looking at total numbers for the season. It would be interesting to see his shot totals for the first 3 months or so last year. Until the time he got scratched. Like I said, he pads his stats in his 3 or 4 hot weeks when he plays amazingly. But that usually doesn't last very long as he either gets injured, or just completely fall off the face of the earth after. Even his biggest strength which was a plus until last year was his board work. He used to win all the board battles. He seemed to struggle last year. In his Casper mode you still see him sometimes. Usually when he fumbles the puck in the offensive zone. That's pretty much it.

That's the biggest problem with this guy. His 3 hot weeks tantalize you, but you get pretty much nothing for the rest of the year.

Again, As I said, what more can you ask for a player that played on the 4rth line with Chiasson and Legwand? He plays 2 minutes of PK per game, doesn't make any glaring mistakes defensively and eats up big defensive minutes. In the mean time he can put up 35 points and score 10-15 goals. This is a bottom 6 player we're talking about, not a top 6 player. In the mean time he was able to muster more shots than any of our other bottom 6 players. Of course that is a result of him having more quality minutes but the reality is that he did have the same amount of SOG/game as Stone while playing half the season with Legwand and Chiasson. I am aware that Stone started the season on the bottom 6, but Michalek stayed on the bottom 6 until MacArthur got hurt and by that time Stone was already playing top 6 minutes. The real question is what more can you ask from Michalek?? If Michalek was able to CONSISTANTLY be the player he was during the stretch then he WOULDN'T be a bottom 6 player, he'd be a top 6 player and he'd be making upwards of 6M which he isn't and the expectations that are set by HF sens on him are that he'd be a consistant offensive producer on the bottom 6 while making 4M ... That's just not logic at all come on...

It's simple, Michalek is a streaky player, which is the reason why he is a bottom 6 player at the moment, and the reason why he's making 4M per year. Why is it expected that he plays like he did during the last stretch of the season for a full 82 games when
1. everybody on planet earth knows that he is inconsistant offensively
2. He is getting paid according to what he brings to the team
3. He's playing on the bottom 6 unless there's an injury

Of course he is inconsistant offensively. Name me a bottom 6 player that would be able to produce like Michalek did in the stretch consistantly throughout 82 games... Those players don't exist. They are called top line forwards.

 

[God Says No]

Again, As I said, what more can you ask for a player that played on the 4rth line with Chiasson and Legwand? He plays 2 minutes of PK per game, doesn't make any glaring mistakes defensively and eats up big defensive minutes.

You're right, he doesn't make glaring mistakes. Just usual defensive mistakes. Not good enough to be playing bottom six. I'd rather have Condra than him. But that's another argument.

In the mean time he can put up 35 points and score 10-15 goals. This is a bottom 6 player we're talking about, not a top 6 player. In the mean time he was able to muster more shots than any of our other bottom 6 players. Of course that is a result of him having more quality minutes but the reality is that he did have the same amount of SOG/game as Stone while playing half the season with Legwand and Chiasson. I am aware that Stone started the season on the bottom 6, but Michalek stayed on the bottom 6 until MacArthur got hurt and by that time Stone was already playing top 6 minutes. The real question is what more can you ask from Michalek?? If Michalek was able to CONSISTANTLY be the player he was during the stretch then he WOULDN'T be a bottom 6 player, he'd be a top 6 player and he'd be making upwards of 6M which he isn't and the expectations that are set by HF sens on him are that he'd be a consistant offensive producer on the bottom 6 while making 4M ... That's just not logic at all come on...

Actually, he was playing on a top 6 line with Zib and Chiasson at the beginning of the season. But that line was miserable failure. Then he had other opportunities in the top 6. His minutes are not true bottom six minutes. I highly doubt he puts up 35 points playing in the bottom six.

It's simple, Michalek is a streaky player, which is the reason why he is a bottom 6 player at the moment, and the reason why he's making 4M per year. Why is it expected that he plays like he did during the last stretch of the season for a full 82 games when
1. everybody on planet earth knows that he is inconsistant offensively
2. He is getting paid according to what he brings to the team
3. He's playing on the bottom 6 unless there's an injury

I agree with number 1. Number 2 not so much. Number 3, I totally agree. But the problem is that we could have someone much better, who brings other things to the squad playing bottom six minutes at a much lesser price. I understand why he was signed though. To reach the cap floor at the time. But you can't tell me now that he can't be replaced at a much cheaper price.

Of course he is inconsistant offensively. Name me a bottom 6 player that would be able to produce like Michalek did in the stretch consistantly throughout 82 games... Those players don't exist. They are called top line forwards.

I'm not talking about points here. You're right, if he generated points consistently then he is a top 6 player. The problem is that he doesn't generate anything when he's in his cold streak. He doesn't create chances, he doesn't keep puck possession, he doesn't enter the offensive zone with the puck, he doesn't feed anyone else, etc. But that's Michalek. He's a fast (used to be faster) guy who will shoot the puck on the rush. He's not puck handler. So if he's not scoring he's not doing much else. That's the issue. Forget points. And his defensive game is wildly overrated here. That's usually the first counter argument by some posters. But when you actually watch him play, he's average. Just because he kills penalties a semi-decent rate, doesn't make him some kind of defensive stalwart. He's not.

 

[Boud]

I agree with number 1. Number 2 not so much. Number 3, I totally agree. But the problem is that we could have someone much better, who brings other things to the squad playing bottom six minutes at a much lesser price. I understand why he was signed though. To reach the cap floor at the time. But you can't tell me now that he can't be replaced at a much cheaper price.

I like that you're giving out your point of view, but I think we're both coming off saying the same thing but I have a positive view on things while you compare him to the league average of this year.

There's no question that in 2015, with the cap issues that most teams are having, Michalek could be replaced by a cheaper player. I look at players like Winnik, Santorelli, Boyes, Fehr and there's a ton of these guys who we're barely able to get contracts and are, for the most part very decent players. I understand that and that's totally right. If I'd have the choice to have a guy like Fehr for half the price of Michalek I'd probably do it and I'd probably even take Condra for the difference ( Only thing with Condra is he wouldn't be able to sub on the top 6 in case of injuy). The reality though is that when Michalek signed, there wasn't any financial problems like there is right now and the value of bottom 6 players has fallen dramatically due to the high number of players available for so few spots and teams not willing to commit long term to those player due, again, to financial problems.

Michalek isn't hurting this team at all, right now he's doing his job and I haven't seen any indication that a young player should take his spot on the team. We aren't in a cap crunch, there's plenty of space for Michalek and his isn't going to affect us in a negative way since next year there's only a handful of players to resign (Hoffman, Ceci, Chiasson, Wiercioch and couple others) with guys like Neil and Philips coming of the cap.

Could Michalek be replaced by someone cheaper? Yes totally and I understand that BUT, is he doing his job and the answer is yes. He is above average for a bottom 6 player and does what he needs to do so I can't ask for more on the ice. If he's able to play like a top 6 forward for parts of the season and the rest be an effective bottom 6 player (which he is contrarely to what some people say) then I'm more than happy for a guy who'll juggle from 4rth to 3rd line. For things that he can't control - like his salary, I don't like to judge.

 

[BonkTastic]

But the problem is that we could have someone much better, who brings other things to the squad playing bottom six minutes at a much lesser price.

Oh yeah, who's that?

 

[God Says No]

Oh yeah, who's that?

The funny part is that we had the perfect replacement. Condra.

 

[Othello*]

Not only on HF but also in the game itself. The issue with Michalek is that he's invisible for 75% of the season. I mean zero shots, zero defensive plays, zero impact. You wouldn't even know he was playing unless you checked the score sheet and noticed he played 16 minutes. Then he has his 3 or 4 hot weeks where he pads his 30 points per season and we're done.

Exactly. He's even worse in the playoffs.

 

[Othello*]

Oh yeah, who's that?

Uh Condra. Cheaper + better in bottom six

 

[BonkTastic]

The funny part is that we had the perfect replacement. Condra.

Uh Condra. Cheaper + better in bottom six

I loved Condra, but he wasn't nearly as versatile as Michalek was.

Better defensively, yes... but leap years worse offensively. Condra cant jump into the top-6 in case of injury like Michalek can.


This is a fun game. Keep going.

 

[bert]

I loved Condra, but he wasn't nearly as versatile as Michalek was.

Better defensively, yes... but leap years worse offensively. Condra cant jump into the top-6 in case of injury like Michalek can.


This is a fun game. Keep going.

Michalek also wears out the other team especially in the offensive zone. He is hard to play against something most of the team is not.

 

[Othello*]

I loved Condra, but he wasn't nearly as versatile as Michalek was.

Better defensively, yes... but leap years worse offensively. Condra cant jump into the top-6 in case of injury like Michalek can.


This is a fun game. Keep going.

This is no game, it's reality.

Michalek can jump into the top six but only be effective when he's ridding the coat tails in the last quarter of the season. Ex Stone/Turris - Spezza/Hemsky

Also "leap years worse" is a stretch. Michalek had 10 more points while getting prime top six and power play minutes with superior players.

 

[BonkTastic]

Michalek can jump into the top six but only be effective when he's ridding the coat tails in the last quarter of the season. Ex Stone/Turris - Spezza/Hemsky

"Player can only put up near-PPG totals when he's playing with good players"

a) That's hardly an argument, and
b) I asked for another player, because I already successfully explained away the first answer you gave. You're dodging the question.

 

[BonkTastic]

I love that we are debating a player in a preseason GDT that didn't even play in the frigging game.

This is:
a) hilarious
b) ridiculous
c) amusing
d) all of the above


(cue "the only thing hilarious/ridiculous is Michalek" comment coming in the next few minutes, because we all know where this is going)

 

[Xamar*]

Gotta agree wuth Othello on this one.We need to get rid of the mediocre players on the team and unfortunatly Michalek is one of them.

 

[Othello*]

"Player can only put up near-PPG totals when he's playing with good players"

a) That's hardly an argument, and
b) I asked for another player, because I already successfully explained away the first answer you gave. You're dodging the question.

"Leap years worse offensively" Not.
The 10 extra points Michalek had because of Turris/Stone + pp time is not that much.

a) it definitely is
b) You asked for a cheaper better bottom six player - Condra

 

[Sun God Nika]

Michalek comes in scores 15-20 goals a season, plays good defensively, has decent speed and grit. 4mill is a little high, but we got bigger problems on the team with Greening, Neil, Phillips, and Smith who just shouldn't be in the NHL right now.

 

[BonkTastic]

We need to get rid of the mediocre players on the team and unfortunatly Michalek is one of them.

I'm totally fine getting rid of Michalek, I have been for years. If the team can identify an upgrade, it obviously should pull the trigger. Michalek isn't a part of the main core, he's just an accessory piece who does a good job of being a jack-of-all-trades" kind of player.

There is a wide, chasm-like difference between "upgrading a mediocre-to-good player" and "assessing a player using nothing other than ridiculous hyperbole and what appears to be a heavy grudge".

Not accusing you of that of course, Zamar. Others, however...

 

[BonkTastic]

You asked for a cheaper better bottom six player - Condra

Look, we already went over this. My rebuttal to Michalek vs Condra is everything I already said about Mickalek vs Condra.

If you don't want to play this game properly, you shouldn't have started playing in the first place.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Gotta agree wuth Othello on this one.We need to get rid of the mediocre players on the team and unfortunatly Michalek is one of them.

I'm not sure getting rid of every mediocre player on an NHL team is possible though.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Michalek and Condra might play some of the same roles, and there are some that Condra does better, but Michalek does things Condra can't.

Condra couldn't come into the top 6 last season and put up near PPG numbers when MacArthur went down.

I think a good activity is for some people to imagine that Michalek is making 2.99 million per rather than 4M per and wonder if they'd still fixate so much on him. It is just so strange how much a slightly overpaid but good middle 6 player who played a big part in Ottawa's big run last season gets hated on. He's not bad enough to justify the amount of constant discussion about him, so it has to be him being slightly overpaid based on past performance that fuels people disliking him so much.

 

[starling]

Even though Michalek went on to put up PPG numbers on the top line, Condra and Michalek both finished with 7 even strength goals. Go figure.

 

[God Says No]

I loved Condra, but he wasn't nearly as versatile as Michalek was.

Better defensively, yes... but leap years worse offensively. Condra cant jump into the top-6 in case of injury like Michalek can.


This is a fun game. Keep going.

I also disagree about the "leap years offensively". The only thing Michalek has over Condra is the shot. But actually creating offense is another. They are a lot closer than you think. While I can definitively say that Condra is leap years better defensively. While making 1/4th the salary.

I like that you're giving out your point of view, but I think we're both coming off saying the same thing but I have a positive view on things while you compare him to the league average of this year.

There's ...<snip>.

Yeah, maybe I'm a pessimist. I just find that if he's not on a hot streak, he brings very little else.

 

[Micklebot]

You're right, he doesn't make glaring mistakes. Just usual defensive mistakes. Not good enough to be playing bottom six. I'd rather have Condra than him. But that's another argument.

I liked Condra, and his cap hit is a much better fit for the bottom 6, so no argument here, but Condra in the top 6 was a bit like Michalek with in the bottom 6; no production. They have different strengths and weaknesses.

Actually, he was playing on a top 6 line with Zib and Chiasson at the beginning of the season. But that line was miserable failure. Then he had other opportunities in the top 6. His minutes are not true bottom six minutes. I highly doubt he puts up 35 points playing in the bottom six.

Those three played together for 53 mins at 5v5 in the season, roughly 5 games worth. In fact, if we're going to be honest, he actually spent almost as much time in the first half with Zibanejad and Ryan (33 mins) as he did with Chiasson and Zibanejad, neither particularly successful.

But, there was a pretty substantial change with Michaleks performance when the coaching change happened.

Coach|GF%|CF%|OZ%|total Pts
Maclean|27.8|46.7|42.1|8 in 25 games
Cameron |56.8|50.6|49.4|26 in 41 games

Part of it was likely his linemates and usage, his toi with each center under both coaches is below (note that Zibanejad, Smith, Lazar and even Legwand all spent some time playing wing, so all that time might not be as his center)

Centers|MacLean|Cameron
Turris|22:38|252:48
Zibanejad|128:58|37:32
Legwand |21:17|80:26
Smith|88:25|0
Pageau|0|138:55
Lazar|79:45|23:13

Now, obviously, Turris is the biggest change, but it's also worth pointing out that his underlying stats with and without Turris under Cameron were not too bad given the difference in deployment and linemates:

Situation|GF%|CF%|OZ%
With Turris|62.5|52.8|56.8
Without Turris|50.0|48.2|41.7

I agree with number 1. Number 2 not so much. Number 3, I totally agree. But the problem is that we could have someone much better, who brings other things to the squad playing bottom six minutes at a much lesser price. I understand why he was signed though. To reach the cap floor at the time. But you can't tell me now that he can't be replaced at a much cheaper price.

Part of the problem is that not many guys can play in both the bottom and the top 6, particularly guys who aren't on entry level contracts (ie guys that will be top 6 players once they get the experience). Chiasson sure couldn't do it. Condra couldn't. Michalek was paid to be a tweener that could step up when called on, and insulate the younger guys. Sure, there is better value out there, but I don't see him as bad value.

I'm not talking about points here. You're right, if he generated points consistently then he is a top 6 player. The problem is that he doesn't generate anything when he's in his cold streak. He doesn't create chances, he doesn't keep puck possession, he doesn't enter the offensive zone with the puck, he doesn't feed anyone else, etc. But that's Michalek. He's a fast (used to be faster) guy who will shoot the puck on the rush. He's not puck handler. So if he's not scoring he's not doing much else. That's the issue. Forget points. And his defensive game is wildly overrated here. That's usually the first counter argument by some posters. But when you actually watch him play, he's average. Just because he kills penalties a semi-decent rate, doesn't make him some kind of defensive stalwart. He's not.

I'd say he's above average defensively, but certainly not a specialist in that regard. I think part of what you are seeing (with regards to him being overatted defensively) is defending against some people calling him poor defensively. He won't hurt you in that regard. I agree that when he's not producing offensively, he's just sortof there, but to be honest, that describes a lot of NHL players.