Speculation: Brooks Orpik

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

At this point he can go...

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Eh.

I think when there's an apples to apples guy in the system, they'll cut the cord with an established player. Once it looked like Letang could move the puck as well (better, actually), Shero had no qualms about showing Ryan Whitney the door.

My understanding is, minus the open-ice hits, Dumoulin is a very similar player to Orpik and by most accounts he's ready for a roster spot right now (though maybe not a top 4 role).

Frankly, I think it's more likely Shero resigns Niskanen (and wouldn't the board blow up if that happened) than Orpik, though I don't really think either will happen.

Guess we'll find out in 8 months

I laugh at the idea of Dumoulin getting the job instead of Despres, oh the sh*%storm that would come out of that would be priceless.

Personally I don't see Dumoulin as Orpik's direct replacement. I see Bortuzzo stepping up his physicality and subsequent minutes.

Orpik is allowing the most goals against per min of any D man so far this year. He is averaging a goal against / 20min = 1 goal against per game.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...50&teamid=24&type=goals&sort=A20&sortdir=DESC

Orpik is allowing the highest shooting % of all D while he's out on the ice.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...teamid=24&type=shots&sort=ShPctA&sortdir=DESC

What role is he supposedly filling at his 3.5mil / year cap hit that makes us "have" to resign him to be basically our worst D man? We all know he doesn't provide any offense, so when he is our worst D man at allowing goals against, what value is there? Now look at all the young, cheap talent we've drafted. Hell, Bortz has been better than him this year and he was probably our 6th best D prospect over the summer.

Orpik's play has fallen off drastically in the last year and it is only logical to move on from here.

I'm not a huge stats backer, but this is rather damning. And the truth is he hasn't really passed the eyeball test lately, either.

Considering Martin is hovering around 1 as well, don't you think SOME of that comes from getting the more difficult assignments?

At one point does it become a good idea to reduce their 'difficult assignments'? It's a bit of a Catch-22 scenario.

I have no doubt people here can make quite the sales pitch when it comes to our players. I'd hope Shero can as well but I think we need to be realistic about what we'd get in return too. I can't remember a really good young player getting traded for a player like Orpik. It only takes one stupid GM for it to happen though. Zhitnik was a different type of player than Orpik but Waddell was dumb enough to trade a good young player like Coburn for him. Like I said, it only takes one stupid GM.

I'd like to think that Buffalo would be quite interested in bringing their local hero on board...sooner rather than risk not being able to sign him if he's at large. By acquiring him, they get a jump-start on negotiations to try to keep a guy who they may make their captain (if they deal Steve Ott).

More info on this? Didn't Cooke just do a magnificent job in cleaning his act up and actually serve well as a decent-handed grinder? I recall he was a goner solely on contractual basis.

Purely speculation on my part, but I have to think that without the Savard incident and subsequent momentum by the entire regime to get rid of fighting, Cooke would have been given the same treatment as Dupuis, Kunitz, Adams et al.

I believe Matt Cooke stopped being "one of us" after the Savard incident. I might be in the minority but that's my opinion.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

Orpik will be back because we are very thin with depth at D. If we had some quality D prospects he'd be gone. But it is what it is.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Orpik will be back because we are very thin with depth at D. If we had some quality D prospects he'd be gone. But it is what it is.

I can't tell if this is very wrong or really dry sarcasm.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

I can't tell if this is very wrong or really dry sarcasm.

I want to use a sarcasm emoticon at times but I can't stand that one so I refuse. I mean do people really put their finger over their mouth when they are being sarcastic ?

 

[Ogrezilla]

I want to use a sarcasm emoticon at times but I can't stand that one so I refuse. I mean do people really put their finger over their mouth when they are being sarcastic ?

ya I don't get the emoticon either.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

ya I don't get the emoticon either.

They should change the emoticon to a Dr. Evil pinky smirk, at least.

 

[MrBurghundy]

I want to use a sarcasm emoticon at times but I can't stand that one so I refuse. I mean do people really put their finger over their mouth when they are being sarcastic ?

The best kind of sarcasm is the kind you don't have to explain, and some people think you're actually telling the truth. Using an emoticon ruins that whole vibe.

 

[DrDangles]

What I'd like to happen: Orpik takes a decent pay cut and takes a spot on the bottom pairing. If he isn't willing to take a pay cut, let him walk.

What will happen: Orpik will get 5 year 20 million dollar contract and continue to play on our top pairing with Martin.

 

[jmelm]

I would say there is a xyt8?5x8ihjlaxdkzyw % chance of Orpik returning.


That's just my best educated guess.

 

[ObsessedCreative*]

Orpik for Ott swap! PLEASE!?!

 

[KIRK]

I want to use a sarcasm emoticon at times but I can't stand that one so I refuse. I mean do people really put their finger over their mouth when they are being sarcastic ?

Why is what you wrote sarcastic? Unless Orpik wants a massive raise, what makes you think 'the family' won't trump hockey considerations?

EDIT: That said, put me in the camp that says Orpik can go at this point. No need to wait until the end of the season.

 

[66-30-33]

I want to use a sarcasm emoticon at times but I can't stand that one so I refuse. I mean do people really put their finger over their mouth when they are being sarcastic ?

I do all the time.

 

[Speaking Moistly]

I would say there is a xyt8?5x8ihjlaxdkzyw % chance of Orpik returning.


That's just my best educated guess.

So,
8xyt [unknown sign] gibberish
8 * Horizontal value * Vertical value * time [unknown sign] gibberish
8 * Horizontal value * Orpik's age * length of contract he wants [unknown sign] Bylsma

I give, what's the horizontal value? Is it how much he wants divided by the cap?

8 * (x/cap) * y * t [unknown sign] Bylsma
(8 * (yearly salary/cap) * age * length of contract) [unknown sign] Bylsma



I've ****ing solved how they do this... we have, jmelm.

 

[66-30-33]

So,
8xyt [unknown sign] gibberish
8 * Horizontal value * Vertical value * time [unknown sign] gibberish
8 * Horizontal value * Orpik's age * length of contract he wants [unknown sign] Bylsma

I give, what's the horizontal value? Is it how much he wants divided by the cap?

8 * (x/cap) * y * t [unknown sign] Bylsma
(8 * (yearly salary/cap) * age * length of contract) [unknown sign] Bylsma



I've ****ing solved how they do this... we have, jmelm.

Even gibberish has its own math? Screw this I'm going to bed.

 

[jmelm]

So,
8xyt [unknown sign] gibberish
8 * Horizontal value * Vertical value * time [unknown sign] gibberish
8 * Horizontal value * Orpik's age * length of contract he wants [unknown sign] Bylsma

I give, what's the horizontal value? Is it how much he wants divided by the cap?

8 * (x/cap) * y * t [unknown sign] Bylsma
(8 * (yearly salary/cap) * age * length of contract) [unknown sign] Bylsma



I've ****ing solved how they do this... we have, jmelm.

You're almost there! You left out a few parts of the equation: "h" stands for "grinder", "i" for defenseman, and "w" for inability to score or add any offense.

Obviously, this organization places a very high values on grinders/grinding ability, particularly when it's coupled with an absolute void of offensive potential. And they also place an added value on defensemen in general, and also for players who have a tendency to get injured as much as possible. So, for example, my calculations indicate that if Craig Adams was a defenseman, we would have signed him to an 8 year, $43.294 million dollar contract (or an average of about .

Now, because Brooks is a defenseman and tends to be less durable than our "ironman" Adams, and because Brooks produces comparatively even less offensive contributions than Adams (particularly when factoring amount of Time On Ice), and because we value a redundancy of (especially if you value Despres' girth as counting for 2 Dmen/prospects as opposed to merely one), my calculations would suggest that Brooks would have comparatively higher internal value to us than Adams my calculations for Adams, if he was a Dman.

So my equations would suggest the Pens would really like to sign Brooks for 8 years, 77.6427 millions dollars (or about $9.7 per year). Unfortunately, that would puts us over the salaries capses, so we will instead just have to let Brooks walk in the off season as a UFA, or trade Malkin or Crosby (whichever one is less likely to become injured) to open up cap space to re-sign Brooks at that figure.

I hope this makes sense. Let me know if you agree. This is a working formula, I should add, as I refine the final details of the equation, so I'm happy to take whatever input you may care to provide.

 

[Speaking Moistly]

You're almost there! You left out a few parts of the equation: "h" stands for "grinder", "i" for defenseman, and "w" for inability to score or add offense.

Obviously, this organization places a very high values on grinders/grinding ability, particularly when it's coupled with an absolute void of offensive potential. And they also place an added value on defensemen in general, and also for players who have a tendency to get injured as much as possible. So, for example, my calculations indicate that if Craig Adams was a defenseman, we would have signed him to an 8 year, $43.294 million dollar contract (or an average of about .

Now, because Brooks is a defenseman and tends to be less durable than our "ironman" Adams, and because we value a redundancy of (especially if you value Despres' girth as counting for 2 Dmen/prospects as opposed to merely one), my calculations would suggest that Brooks would have comparatively higher internal value to us than Adams my calculations for Adams, if he was a Dman.

So my equations would suggest the Pens would really like to sign Brooks for 8 years, 77.6427 millions dollars (or about $9.7 per year). Unfortunately, that would puts us over the salaries capses, so we will instead just have to let Brooks walk in the off season as a UFA, or trade Malkin or Crosby (whichever one is less likely to become injured) to open up cap space to re-sign Brooks at that figure.

I hope this makes sense. Let me know if you agree. This is a working formula, I should add, as I refine the final details of the equation, so I'm happy to take whatever input you may care to provide.

You speak of the "gibberish" half of the equation, which may need to be re-renamed to, "Organization," or "Bylsma and the organization." You're use of h isn't specific enough, the different aspects of being a grinder are ignored, allow me,

gibberish/Bylsma/Organizaton/Organization and Bylsma = 5x8ihjlaxdkzyw

x = salary/cap
i = injury proneness, how often a player is injured, games missed/82
h = hackness, regularity of bad plays
j = jokery, the depth to replace said player with
l = laziness, pacing one's aged body, 100 - effort
a = attitude, calling out other players while not oneself
d = defenseman/defense, defensive involvement by design or role
k = knowledge, how many people are fooled by their reputation, percentage
z = offense, the 3rd axis, 1 - (points/100)
y = age
w = wins given, the number of wins that said player gives to other teams by being on the ice.


5(yearly salary/cap) * 8(injury/82 * hackness * jokery * (100 - laziness) * attitude * defense * knowledge * (1 - Offense/100 * age * (yearly salary/cap) * wins given)



(8((yearly salary/cap) * age * length of contract)) [unknown sign] (5(salary/cap) * 8(injury/82 * hackness * jokery * (100 - laziness) * attitude * defense * knowledge * (1 - Offense/100) * age * (yearly salary/cap) * wins given))

 

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Like I've said for the past few years, his physical play is greatly overrated, and does not out-weigh his glaring problems. He is often caught out of position, either looking for a big hit or just plain not playing up to par. He takes dumb penalties because of his out of position play. And his calling the team out publicly is pretty tiring, especially when he's usually one of the ones playing the worst. Martin got it bad for two years, and rightfully so, but Orpik was worse.

Orpik should be moved. I know he's been a lifer and all, but it's past due. Doesn't matter, though, he's not going anywhere. This team is a family.™

 

[Rocket of Russia]

I want to use a sarcasm emoticon at times but I can't stand that one so I refuse. I mean do people really put their finger over their mouth when they are being sarcastic ?

I'm reading an Orpik thread and this is the quote I'm drawn to. I couldn't agree more - that emoticon is awful. At the very least the wink or eyeroll are more indicative of sarcasm than a stupid "shhh" emoticon.

Anyway, good ole Bleacher Report spammed my mailbox with another top ten best top ten list and this one happened to be penalty-killing defensemen. They had Brooks on it. Apparently staring into oblivion before pushing a player over after he has scored counts as being a very effective penalty killer. Brooks 3 more at $12m comin up!

 

[BreakfastatMarios]

1000 ****ing %.


And then we'll pull Fedotenko and Sykora out of cryofreeze, trade Despres for Talbot, sign Ryan Whitney, give up James Neal for Jordan Staal, trade Scuderi+ to the Ducks for Ben Lovejoy, pay Dallas to take Goligoski back, trade Pouliot to the Wild for Cookie

and party like it's 2008!

And while we are at it can we add Colby Armstrong.

 

[Speaking Moistly]

I'm reading an Orpik thread and this is the quote I'm drawn to. I couldn't agree more - that emoticon is awful. At the very least the wink or eyeroll are more indicative of sarcasm than a stupid "shhh" emoticon.

I thought it was supposed to be a smiley putting its finger to its bottom lip or biting one...

 

[wgknestrick]

I'm reading an Orpik thread and this is the quote I'm drawn to. I couldn't agree more - that emoticon is awful. At the very least the wink or eyeroll are more indicative of sarcasm than a stupid "shhh" emoticon.

Anyway, good ole Bleacher Report spammed my mailbox with another top ten best top ten list and this one happened to be penalty-killing defensemen. They had Brooks on it. Apparently staring into oblivion before pushing a player over after he has scored counts as being a very effective penalty killer. Brooks 3 more at $12m comin up!

Such a great post (I'm ignoring the fact that you actually read a Bleacher Report list though). It is also one thing I notice about him a lot. Although he hasn't even been close enough to the scoring forward lately to even push him after the goal.

Brooksy, it was good 7 years here.

 

[Shady Machine]

Such a great post (I'm ignoring the fact that you actually read a Bleacher Report list though). It is also one thing I notice about him a lot. Although he hasn't even been close enough to the scoring forward lately to even push him after the goal.

Brooksy, it was good 7 years here.

10 years but yeah.

 

[IcedCapp]

10 years but yeah.

Maybe he means it was good for 7 of those 10 years?

 

[Shady Machine]

Maybe he means it was good for 7 of those 10 years?

Probably true but even that might be a stretch.