Player Discussion: Adam Pelech

[dlawong]

I don't have any problem with 6 for Pelly. And I agree, wouldn't mind seeing him get a shot on the PP and see how it goes. He'd almost certainly get the puck on net more than Pully. It wasn't on the PP, but that goal he had against Boston was a laser. I also seem to remember some pretty nice end to end rushes during the playoffs as well. Still, until he can consistently prove his offensive chops (and I doubt BT will give him the freedom to do so), he is mostly one-dimensional.

With Pelech, I just think he plays conservatively and does not like to take too much risk. He knows what his role is and how he needs to play. He has capability to put up more offense numbers if needed, as he did have good assist numbers in junior. He is not going to score that much but he knows how to pass accurately. Despite being a decent skater he does not have top end speed so he prefers to stay back. He however is valuable in his role shutting down top offensive threat on opposing team and that itself has high value, especially in playoff and crucial divisional games. I think 6M per year is quite reasonable for him, but of course preferably Isles can resign him for 5.5m to help improve the cap situation. You also have to check if Isles have anyone similar to him in the system to replace him couple years down the road - can any of their top LHD be counted on to shut down opposition? Top shutdown d is actually hard to find around the NHL and most teams do not let them go until their game start to decline due to age or injuries. Yes it is also true they are generally resigned for less than top producing offensive d because when RFA contract negotiations goes to arbitration they only looked at stats, not actual game plays.

As for Pulock, he definitely has some potential not yet reached. His play this coming year can tell as I bet that he will tried exceptionally hard to prove his value on the last year of his RFA. I do think it is easier to find replacement for Pulock than Pelech though. I honestly think that if it comes down between choosing between these two, I will personally favor Pelech because I think he is the smarter player of the two and puck management decision is one of the most important tool for defenseman, besides skating and puck handling. Lou however may have a total different perspective and may value Pulock higher than Pelech.

 

[pursuit81]

With Pelech, I just think he plays conservatively and does not like to take too much risk. He knows what his role is and how he needs to play. He has capability to put up more offense numbers if needed, as he did have good assist numbers in junior. He is not going to score that much but he knows how to pass accurately. Despite being a decent skater he does not have top end speed so he prefers to stay back. He however is valuable in his role shutting down top offensive threat on opposing team and that itself has high value, especially in playoff and crucial divisional games. I think 6M per year is quite reasonable for him, but of course preferably Isles can resign him for 5.5m to help improve the cap situation. You also have to check if Isles have anyone similar to him in the system to replace him couple years down the road - can any of their top LHD be counted on to shut down opposition? Top shutdown d is actually hard to find around the NHL and most teams do not let them go until their game start to decline due to age or injuries. Yes it is also true they are generally resigned for less than top producing offensive d because when RFA contract negotiations goes to arbitration they only looked at stats, not actual game plays.

As for Pulock, he definitely has some potential not yet reached. His play this coming year can tell as I bet that he will tried exceptionally hard to prove his value on the last year of his RFA. I do think it is easier to find replacement for Pulock than Pelech though. I honestly think that if it comes down between choosing between these two, I will personally favor Pelech because I think he is the smarter player of the two and puck management decision is one of the most important tool for defenseman, besides skating and puck handling. Lou however may have a total different perspective and may value Pulock higher than Pelech.

I'm not sure why you mention it but let's hope we don't have to make a choice between the two. We've lost enough D over the past year and still have to find at least one top four replacement, not to mention needing Dobber to make a pretty big leap this coming season.

And when I mentioned 6 for Pelly, that was my upper limit. As for Pulock, hoping 20-21 was an outlier and that he will return to double digit goal, pushing 40 pt form. Why he can't get the f*cking puck on net remains a mystery.

 

[Seph]

I've specifically been talking about a short term contract. I've made that clear.

I didn't say your examples can't be used, I said the forwards are meaningless. Nor did I say he shouldn't be sign to a higher value deal. You're creating a straw man.

I'm on mobile until tomorrow sometime so I'll respond more then if necessary.

You said shorter than 7 or 8, I don't know that means it's clear you are talking about a 1 or 2 year contract. But you also made the blanket statement "offensive production is the biggest statistical measurement used to determine salary, Pelech doesn't have good offensive numbers and so he shouldn't be paid like he does," which is the statement I took issue with. But to be clear, do you want the Islanders to sign Pelech to a 1-2 year deal here? And do you think that's what most people are talking about when they discuss AAvs they'd be willing to do for him?

OK, I feel like you're being weirdly pedantic on the word choice here, as I'm also not sure what the difference of saying something is a meaningless example and that it can't be used as an example is. Both feel like they get to the same place, that either way you're saying that my point that good teams are willing to pay players for high end defensive play is not demonstrated by examples of good teams paying players for high end defensive play.

 

[dlawong]

I'm not sure why you mention it but let's hope we don't have to make a choice between the two. We've lost enough D over the past year and still have to find at least one top four replacement, not to mention needing Dobber to make a pretty big leap this coming season.

And when I mentioned 6 for Pelly, that was my upper limit. As for Pulock, hoping 20-21 was an outlier and that he will return to double digit goal, pushing 40 pt form. Why he can't get the f*cking puck on net remains a mystery.

That is why Isles needs to be very careful with the contracts they bringing in this summer, especially long term ones, if they are going to spend money on all 3 - Pelech, Pulock, and Dobson, because Pulock will be an UFA next summer. If they aim to keep all three and then add some big long term contract acquiring a forward, then they will end up have to either trading one of Beau/Wally/Sorokin or losing Barzal as UFA. The point is that there is only so much money to go around and everyone want to get paid if they play well, especially if still in prime and healthy.

Also ideally you keep Pulock if he has a big UFA year, but if he is not extended by the deadline, you may want considering trading him for a big package instead of losing him for nothing. He will generate a lot of interest from teams including Seattle, most of the Canadian teams, and all teams competing with Isles for a playoff spot on the East coast with more cap space than Isles.

 

[Quickdraw2828]

OK, I feel like you're being weirdly pedantic

 

[PK Cronin]

You said shorter than 7 or 8, I don't know that means it's clear you are talking about a 1 or 2 year contract. But you also made the blanket statement "offensive production is the biggest statistical measurement used to determine salary, Pelech doesn't have good offensive numbers and so he shouldn't be paid like he does," which is the statement I took issue with. But to be clear, do you want the Islanders to sign Pelech to a 1-2 year deal here? And do you think that's what most people are talking about when they discuss AAvs they'd be willing to do for him?

In previous posts I made it clear I was talking about a shorter range deal, 2-3 years but it might've been in another thread. Anything that eats into substantial UFA years will cost more money. You even liked a post where I mention that earlier, so it's not like I'm unaware that it costs more money when you buy those UFA years.

OK, I feel like you're being weirdly pedantic on the word choice here, as I'm also not sure what the difference of saying something is a meaningless example and that it can't be used as an example is. Both feel like they get to the same place, that either way you're saying that my point that good teams are willing to pay players for high end defensive play is not demonstrated by examples of good teams paying players for high end defensive play.

I said the biggest factor in their paycheck is based on their offensive production, which is true. You even said it was a major factor. It seems like the disconnect in the conversation came where you brought up top teams paying guys for more than their offensive stats (referencing the forward group in addition to the defense, which I didn't pick up on until re-reading).

I asked for examples and you gave Vlasic and Parayko (which I like, but weren't during a flat cap period), then a bunch of forwards that I believe(d) are irrelevant to the discussion because we're discussing RFA defensemen.

I've never said defense shouldn't be factored in, that I don't want Pelech, or that I don't think he's more valuable. My stance has always been that he will not get paid as much as people are predicting because he lacks the offensive statistics and is an RFA.

His offensive numbers aren't good and when you compare him to other players he should slot into the ~$4-5M range. The fact he's a top tier shutdown guy is worth something, but how much on a contract? I don't think that bumps him up to $7M. Lamoriello needs to keep him happy of course, but he also can't give a blank check to a guy who provides such little offense.

Lastly, I'm an idiot and was reading/replying on mobile which I just shouldn't do because I get more curt and don't re-read things as much because it's more of a hassle, so my bad.

 

[Seph]

In previous posts I made it clear I was talking about a shorter range deal, 2-3 years but it might've been in another thread. Anything that eats into substantial UFA years will cost more money. You even liked a post where I mention that earlier, so it's not like I'm unaware that it costs more money when you buy those UFA years.

I liked a post where you were saying that eating up more UFA years tends to cost more per year, which I understand you know and we both agree on. What I disagree with is the notion that RFAs should be paid primarily based on their offensive stats as a more important factor than their overall value to the team. But also I think most people are wanting to sign him for more than 1-2 years, so when they are discussing what they are OK with him getting they are looking at contracts that are mostly UFA years. But that's also why I was asking you to clarify if you were wanting to sign him to a 1-2 year deal, as that would explain why you were only discussing that option.

I said the biggest factor in their paycheck is based on their offensive production, which is true. You even said it was a major factor. It seems like the disconnect in the conversation came where you brought up top teams paying guys for more than their offensive stats (referencing the forward group in addition to the defense, which I didn't pick up on until re-reading).

I do agree that it's a major factor, as offensive contribution certainly is a major factor when determining a player's overall value to the team. I just see defense as a major factor as well. But fair enough that there was a disconnect there, that happens pretty easily on message boards.

I asked for examples and you gave Vlasic and Parayko (which I like, but weren't during a flat cap period), then a bunch of forwards that I believe(d) are irrelevant to the discussion because we're discussing RFA defensemen.

I've never said defense shouldn't be factored in, that I don't want Pelech, or that I don't think he's more valuable. My stance has always been that he will not get paid as much as people are predicting because he lacks the offensive statistics and is an RFA.

I mean, yes, while we are talking about Pelech here, we are also talking about the overall notion that RFAs should be paid based more on offensive production vs. overall value to the team. The list included forwards because they illustrated the overall point of how the value to the team that they are getting paid on is largely based on their defensive play.

And sorry if I implied you were trying to say defense isn't a factor at all, that wasn't my intent. I simply disagree that a team should value offense so much more than defense that a player with a higher value to the team should be paid less than someone who is less valuable to the team but has better stats. That Lou has a history of basing contracts on overall value to the team rather than primarily on offensive stats is one of the major reasons I like him as a GM, as I feel that's the right way to do things also. Not that there aren't GMs who do primarily pay based on offensive stats (cough, Dubas, cough cough) but I also feel those are the GMs whose teams are most likely to disappoint in the playoffs.

His offensive numbers aren't good and when you compare him to other players he should slot into the ~$4-5M range. The fact he's a top tier shutdown guy is worth something, but how much on a contract? I don't think that bumps him up to $7M. Lamoriello needs to keep him happy of course, but he also can't give a blank check to a guy who provides such little offense.

Lastly, I'm an idiot and was reading/replying on mobile which I just shouldn't do because I get more curt and don't re-read things as much because it's more of a hassle, so my bad.

The post you were disagreeing with when I first responded to you in this chain was simply saying that they were OK with him getting as much or a bit more than Pulock, which would be more like 5-6mil, which hardly seems like giving him a blank check, especially in light of other top pairing defensemen that are signing right now. Given his value to the team, I am fully OK with him getting that, even if his offensive stats aren't as good as Pulock's because I feel his value to the team is just as high as Pulock's, if not higher.

But no worries, I do appreciate you giving me a more clear explanation of your thoughts on the subject, and sorry if I came off as being antagonistic.

 

[PK Cronin]

I liked a post where you were saying that eating up more UFA years tends to cost more per year, which I understand you know and we both agree on. What I disagree with is the notion that RFAs should be paid primarily based on their offensive stats as a more important factor than their overall value to the team. But also I think most people are wanting to sign him for more than 1-2 years, so when they are discussing what they are OK with him getting they are looking at contracts that are mostly UFA years. But that's also why I was asking you to clarify if you were wanting to sign him to a 1-2 year deal, as that would explain why you were only discussing that option.

I do agree that it's a major factor, as offensive contribution certainly is a major factor when determining a player's overall value to the team. I just see defense as a major factor as well. But fair enough that there was a disconnect there, that happens pretty easily on message boards.



I mean, yes, while we are talking about Pelech here, we are also talking about the overall notion that RFAs should be paid based more on offensive production vs. overall value to the team. The list included forwards because they illustrated the overall point of how the value to the team that they are getting paid on is largely based on their defensive play.

And sorry if I implied you were trying to say defense isn't a factor at all, that wasn't my intent. I simply disagree that a team should value offense so much more than defense that a player with a higher value to the team should be paid less than someone who is less valuable to the team but has better stats. That Lou has a history of basing contracts on overall value to the team rather than primarily on offensive stats is one of the major reasons I like him as a GM, as I feel that's the right way to do things also. Not that there aren't GMs who do primarily pay based on offensive stats (cough, Dubas, cough cough) but I also feel those are the GMs whose teams are most likely to disappoint in the playoffs.



The post you were disagreeing with when I first responded to you in this chain was simply saying that they were OK with him getting as much or a bit more than Pulock, which would be more like 5-6mil, which hardly seems like giving him a blank check, especially in light of other top pairing defensemen that are signing right now. Given his value to the team, I am fully OK with him getting that, even if his offensive stats aren't as good as Pulock's because I feel his value to the team is just as high as Pulock's, if not higher.

But no worries, I do appreciate you giving me a more clear explanation of your thoughts on the subject, and sorry if I came off as being antagonistic.

Nah, all my fault for not being more careful and clear when I was reading and responding.