Conspiracy Theory - Holland's RFA leverage

[Fil Larkmanthanasiou]

DDk
Justin Abdelkader
Jurco

Off the top of my head

Certainly not Jurco. He was brought in quicker than most but following his rookie season after a slow start the next year, he never got much ice-time again and was often scratched. I think they killed his development with lack of opportunity.

 

[Fil Larkmanthanasiou]

How did it hurt their development?

Are they nowadays worse players, because they were promoted later?

Please answer with a proven fact.

Fact is they brought up Tatar a year sooner he would be a perennial 40 goal man.

 

[Oddbob]

Fact is they brought up Tatar a year sooner he would be a perennial 40 goal man.

Is this sarcasm/joke? If not, he isn't even a 30 goal man, how the heck would he turn into a 40 goal man.

 

[Claypool]

And this is the EXACT type of disingenuous response I predicted. We can only know the world how it is. In that world Nyquist and Tatar were blocked by vets when they were NHL ready. We can't know how that effected them. We can NEVER know how anything that didn't happen would affect the real world. Its a counterfactual. This is DEFINITIONAL. So please, when someone asks for a counterfactual and then you come back with YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT, you are literally just giving a 'so there', you aren't adding **** the conversation.

You said: "Nyquist and Tatar were NHL ready."

Someone in response says: "How did it hurt their development?"

You said: "Idiot, how could anyone possibly know!?"

They ended up developing top 6 players. Not bad for a 2nd and 4th round pick. But to suggest that if they came up a season earlier in a full time capacity they would have developed into star players is, frankly, what a crazy person would say.

you aren't adding **** the conversation.

Take your own advice.

 

[Shaman464]

You said: "Nyquist and Tatar were NHL ready."

Someone in response says: "How did it hurt their development?"

You said: "Idiot, how could anyone possibly know!?"

They ended up developing top 6 players. Not bad for a 2nd and 4th round pick. But to suggest that if they came up a season earlier in a full time capacity they would have developed into star players is, frankly, what a crazy person would say.



Take your own advice.

Except I gave examples of NHL ready players that have been blocked by vets. We can't know that they would have been better, but they had the potential to be better, especially Nyquist who seemed to hit his offensive peak at a young age and has declined since. Its possible that Tatar with an extra year in Detroit may have been better as well. But, given your posting history, I figured you would be post something like this. Its a counterfactual, there will never be concrete evidence, only speculation, because by definition there could never be. In the end with this is the inherent problem with this kind of question. You can't know if how the world would have turned out on a path not taken. And this question and the ones like "who could Holland traded for" ones are intellectually dishonest ones to ask when no matter what is said it will never satisfy the questioner.

But seriously Claypool, quit with your hyper aggressive behavior here, you like to take potshots and it makes it hard to take you seriously and honestly makes this board tedious at times.

 

[Leadzedder]

It's almost like there are a couple months before the season starts.

Zadina isn't Z. Dude, Zetterberg isn't even gone yet.

Had to log in to like this. Unreal, eh?

 

[Leadzedder]

Tatar and Nyquist come to mind, as they were NHL ready prior to being called up, but Holland signed retreads instead of letting them hit the NHL sooner. But its nearly impossible to play this 'what if' game because no matter who is brought up the counterfactual can be brought against it. So I think in the end, much like "who could Holland traded for" troupe, it can easily be a disingenuous "so there".

Who cares that Nyquist spent half a year too long (by some's opinion) in the AHL. He came into the league on fire. What's the problem.

Let the kids find some success at the AHL level first. It's not hard to understand. If you top prospects need to choose between juniors and nhl that's different.

Svech needs more time. Jurco needed more time. Zadina and Cholowski can certainly benefit with half year in the AHL.

 

[Claypool]

Except I gave examples of NHL ready players that have been blocked by vets. We can't know that they would have been better, but they had the potential to be better, especially Nyquist who seemed to hit his offensive peak at a young age and has declined since. Its possible that Tatar with an extra year in Detroit may have been better as well. But, given your posting history, I figured you would be post something like this. Its a counterfactual, there will never be concrete evidence, only speculation, because by definition there could never be. In the end with this is the inherent problem with this kind of question. You can't know if how the world would have turned out on a path not taken. And this question and the ones like "who could Holland traded for" ones are intellectually dishonest ones to ask when no matter what is said it will never satisfy the questioner.

But seriously Claypool, quit with your hyper aggressive behavior here, you like to take potshots and it makes it hard to take you seriously and honestly makes this board tedious at times.

The difference between being a top 6 forward and a elite superstar winger is not 60 extra NHL games in your early 20s.

I don't have any data handy, and I sure as hell don't really care enough to do the research myself, but I'm pretty confident saying players drafted outside the first round who spend more time developing have a better chance of becoming consistent, long-time NHL players. I don't know why you'd argue against this.

 

[Leadzedder]

Mantha is pretty much guaranteed 4 million now, because there is no way he looks at AA deal and doesn't demand more. Larkin will be higher, 6 isn't out of the question. Meaning Detroit will have little to no space for anyone beyond their current lineup. Adding even Cholo, Ras, or Z who are on ELCs would put them over the cap barring a trade.

If you're gonna give cap information do it better. Roster is 23 players. If a player comes in a player goes out. You don't add 3 players salaries to the top.


And shaman, the lack of cups is getting to you buddy. Your posting has fallen off a cliff over the years. Shake it off man. Your points suck and you're just participating in a debate club.

 

[Leadzedder]

And as for Bin's original post, nah, I don't think there's anything to it. Every year is clockwork. UFA's first. Then the easy RFA's. Then the bigger RFAs. The only strange thing that occurred was AA being the first of the 3. I think that's a great thing. Probably shows maturity from AA. Seems he learned from last summer.

Capwise we have 10 million. But we need 4 players to get to the full 23 roster. I don't think the plan is, or should be, to carry any less than 23 so it needs 4 bodies. Larkin and Mantha are 2 of the 4.

Some people say things like we can waive Frk or Witkowski. Well that frees up a roster spot for a kid (if you want them sitting in the press box) but it doesn't help our cap at all. The kid's salary is basically the same as those 2.

So let's assume 2 million goes to the 2 other players that are required to get to 23. That leaves 8 mil for Larkin, Mantha which isn't enough. So again, this year we will be tight / over. Things always work out (injuries or whatever). Worst case they have to do something drastic or run a roster of 22 to start the year. (not ideal).

But we're always tight at season start. I think this is by design as it allows us to get full cap from Franzen's amount. I'm not sure if that's the same this year. I think I read that because he didn't play at all last year we don't need to do the opening roster cap juggle but I could be wrong. (cap friendly ltir rookie mode)

But anyways 10 mil for 4 roster spots.

And as we'll see when the deal's are announced, Larkin and Mantha will get proper deals. And no games played due to lack of cap space. What you'll see at training camp is a roster of 21 that fits and then it will be a struggle to fit the other 2 but it won't affect Larkin / Mantha.

 

[hyduK]

How did it hurt their development?

Are they nowadays worse players, because they were promoted later?

Please answer with a proven fact.

Since you can't "prove" that they're worse players, how bout we just go with the fact that they missed out on money. In a sport where your career is probably only 10-15 years that matters. So yeah, sitting in the AHL on buses and being underpaid because Holland signed Dan Cleary is going to hurt player relations. Maybe not all of them, but it's a legitimate reason to be pissed off.

When your RFA negotiations are going to be based mostly on comparable statlines, playing low minutes because veterans are ahead of you despite being worse plays is going to hurt your contract.

 

[Winger98]

Certainly not Jurco. He was brought in quicker than most but following his rookie season after a slow start the next year, he never got much ice-time again and was often scratched. I think they killed his development with lack of opportunity.

Jurco's game went south when he messed his back up and either couldn't or wouldn't go back to using his size and speed to bully people down low in the offensive zone.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Since you can't "prove" that they're worse players, how bout we just go with the fact that they missed out on money. In a sport where your career is probably only 10-15 years that matters. So yeah, sitting in the AHL on buses and being underpaid because Holland signed Dan Cleary is going to hurt player relations. Maybe not all of them, but it's a legitimate reason to be pissed off.

When your RFA negotiations are going to be based mostly on comparable statlines, playing low minutes because veterans are ahead of you despite being worse plays is going to hurt your contract.

What money?

Tomas Tatar as a 20-25 goal scorer, 45-50 point scorer got his ELC, a 3 year deal at 2.75M, and a 4 year deal at 5.3M.

He's a 50 point guy, he's not getting better contracts than those. So... strike two.

Tomas Tatar got kept down because Z played with Damien Brunner in the lockout and liked him.

Nyquist in the years leading up to be held down till late October for Dan Cleary (probably the only legit case of what you're describing) was coming off of 7 points in 18 games and 6 points in 22 games in Detroit. He was not NHL ready. And after the Goose is loose year, he got 4 yr, 19M. For a guy who's cracked 50 points once.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Tatar and Nyquist come to mind, as they were NHL ready prior to being called up, but Holland signed retreads instead of letting them hit the NHL sooner. But its nearly impossible to play this 'what if' game because no matter who is brought up the counterfactual can be brought against it. So I think in the end, much like "who could Holland traded for" troupe, it can easily be a disingenuous "so there".

Prior to becoming full-time players:

Tatar - 27GP, 9 points
Nyquist - 58GP, 18 points

So while we can't know exactly what would have happened if they were brought up sooner, we can make a pretty good guess. It's not like they got zero chances to steal a job earlier.

Since you can't "prove" that they're worse players, how bout we just go with the fact that they missed out on money. In a sport where your career is probably only 10-15 years that matters. So yeah, sitting in the AHL on buses and being underpaid because Holland signed Dan Cleary is going to hurt player relations. Maybe not all of them, but it's a legitimate reason to be pissed off.

When your RFA negotiations are going to be based mostly on comparable statlines, playing low minutes because veterans are ahead of you despite being worse plays is going to hurt your contract.

So play better and prove you deserve more opportunity?

Most players with good heads on their shoulders look up to veteran players and try to learn from them. They don't see a Cleary as a roadblock, they see him as a valuable resource to learn from.
If you don't like being on AHL buses you have two options: act like an entitled brat and complain, or quietly work your butt off and prove that you deserve more.
One road leads to success, the other rarely does.

It's not like you get more money if you are brought up early and simply don't play well. In the long run doing what's best for your development is the best way to ensure you maximize your earning potential.

 

[Shaman464]

The difference between being a top 6 forward and a elite superstar winger is not 60 extra NHL games in your early 20s.

I don't have any data handy, and I sure as hell don't really care enough to do the research myself, but I'm pretty confident saying players drafted outside the first round who spend more time developing have a better chance of becoming consistent, long-time NHL players. I don't know why you'd argue against this.

And most top defensemen come out of the first round, but yet, sometimes they don't. Exceptions do occur here, and having hard and fast rules about development can stifle a players development.

 

[Shaman464]

Prior to becoming full-time players:

Tatar - 27GP, 9 points
Nyquist - 58GP, 18 points

So while we can't know exactly what would have happened if they were brought up sooner, we can make a pretty good guess. It's not like they got zero chances to steal a job earlier.


So play better and prove you deserve more opportunity?

Most players with good heads on their shoulders look up to veteran players and try to learn from them. They don't see a Cleary as a roadblock, they see him as a valuable resource to learn from.
If you don't like being on AHL buses you have two options: act like an entitled brat and complain, or quietly work your butt off and prove that you deserve more.
One road leads to success, the other rarely does.

It's not like you get more money if you are brought up early and simply don't play well. In the long run doing what's best for your development is the best way to ensure you maximize your earning potential.

Nyquist also averaged about 11 1/2-12 minutes in those 58 games, but the season he broke out he got nearly 17 minutes. A 5+ minute increase in ToI. Same with Tatar, he had a major increase in ToI and his numbers jumped pretty drastically.

 

[Shaman464]

If you're gonna give cap information do it better. Roster is 23 players. If a player comes in a player goes out. You don't add 3 players salaries to the top.


And shaman, the lack of cups is getting to you buddy. Your posting has fallen off a cliff over the years. Shake it off man. Your points suck and you're just participating in a debate club.

Their roster size right now is 20, 19 if you don't count Franzen. Add Larkin and Mantha they have 21, meaning they could add 2 more players without being at the roster limit. So, it was irrelevant information, as they currently aren't at the roster limit and won't be with the players they are looking to lock down.

 

[Leadzedder]

Their roster size right now is 20, 19 if you don't count Franzen. Add Larkin and Mantha they have 21, meaning they could add 2 more players without being at the roster limit. So, it was irrelevant information, as they currently aren't at the roster limit and won't be with the players they are looking to lock down.

Ok. So we just said the same thing. So we agree that they have room to sign larkin and Mantha but the challenge will be fitting in the 22nd and 23rd player on the roster, which will be the 2 kid spots.

I don’t think it’s worth sweating it at all. They’ll find room. They have 14 contracts over 3 million. If any one of those players are dealt or injured the roster is full with a replacement player for the player who’s salary is removed and the 23&24 kid roster spots.

Equaling 3 kids in that scenario. If it’s 1 vet = 3 kids I’m quite sure they’ll make room.

 

[vladdy16]

Tatar and Nyquist come to mind, as they were NHL ready prior to being called up, but Holland signed retreads instead of letting them hit the NHL sooner. But its nearly impossible to play this 'what if' game because no matter who is brought up the counterfactual can be brought against it. So I think in the end, much like "who could Holland traded for" troupe, it can easily be a disingenuous "so there".

the whole game is a what if game. What if Hronek plays this year, what if he doesnt't?

It's not a disingenuous "so there", it's "what is your guys' point specifically?What prospects do we have that are entering the overripe territory? What recent history suggests that we're not handling our farm well?"

Tatar and Nyquist are good examples, both guys maintained major shortcomings into their prime. Nyquist is basically a .5 ppg player with no grit or killer instinct, and Tatar was a healthy scratch most of his time on a contender. I can see how more time on the big club earlier, could've helped them find a way to be more involved.

But then the question still remains... y'alls ptsd aside, which players in our system now are being threatened by the same fate as Nyquist, now that Vanek and Green are here? It seems to be all hyperbole and generalizations to me.

I'm not even sure why posters are still insistent on taking data and anecdotes from the Babcock era and applying them to the rebuild. There's an obvious lack of recognition on your part in that case imo.

 

[Hammettf2b]

After looking at Mantha's new deal, I got my tin foil cap on!!!

 

[Henkka]

After looking at Mantha's new deal, I got my tin foil cap on!!!

Nah. RFAs with less than 164 game of NHL experience during their ELC always get less than expected.