Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,056
- 6,632
I'm just going to get to this because it seems like the meat of our back & forth.
Before that though, I did see the chart this time around & I'm glad you posted it. Admittedly as not a huge analytics hockey fan, I find it interesting that only one team in the league is above the postive/negative. Though its really not a good look where we rank, in a perfect world I'd like to see us doing much better. I'm not oblivious to our inefficiencies.
Yes. If what your saying is what your saying. I agree with it.
I am choosing to grade it on a curve, I don't think I've made that totally unclear. It is totally an indictment of what has come before, I've said that a number of times, even laid out the bad deals on this team and how poorly our cap has been spent in me laying out the 20 million we spent last year on bottom 6 players.
Why is it that I can't be unhappy with Eriksson & giving up a first round pick, while being happy we added a top 4D. I just try to judge every move honestly as I see it. I'm not ignoring that its an overpayment, or inefficiency analytically, I'm just stating its spent on an important need & that I would actually like to see the team make a significant improvement on the ice.
I get the inefficiency, but as your chart showed it seems like every team has some kind of inefficiency. And if thats not the case why is only 1 team in the league positive??? This is an important question I have for you.
I respect your opinion & I feel like I have nothing to hide here. I think I've laid my stance out. I guess beyond this it comes down to an overall analytics debate which I don't feel is my battle here honestly.
I too respect your opinion. My higher level of engagement with your posts, I hope, speaks to this.
You're right, the chart shows absolute inefficiency across the league. Meaning, most teams do not sign adequately efficient contracts. However, the Canucks are relatively worse in this regard. Really, it's about degree. The Canucks are one of the most inefficient teams in the league at signing players per this analysis. That's not good.
What's ultimately damning is that they don't necessarily have to be. Bad teams can make relatively efficient rosters. As shown by teams like NJ and LA.
To bring this back to Myers: I too think they needed defensive help, but I can't justify that help coming by way of a poor contract. To me, the player and the contract are always tied. There's no separation when judging value. To you, they are separate enough to isolate roster value only. I don't know how that can be done if salary is not ignored? Once you acknowledge salary, the rest is informed by that initial judgement.
Last edited: