Confirmed with Link: Ducks sign Carter Rowney (3 years, 3.4m total)

[Duck Off]

A couple genuine questions: Are the scouting team and GM linked? By that I mean, if the GM goes, does the scouting team go with him or are their jobs independent of each other. Also how much of drafting is up to the GM vs his scouting team?

Just curious because while I don't have an issue with GMBM's body of work as a whole, I could understand if he was let go for accountability purposes. That being said, our drafting the past few years has been incredible imo and I would hate to lose whoever is responsible for it.

that usually depends on the new GM. They can bring in their own scouting team if they wish. I think Madden has been with the team a lot longer than Murray has. Murray is damn good at scouting young players though. He just isn't good at pro scouting at all.

 

[Paul4587]

that usually depends on the new GM. They can bring in their own scouting team if they wish. I think Madden has been with the team a lot longer than Murray has. Murray is damn good at scouting young players though. He just isn't good at pro scouting at all.

Madden was bought in in 2008 (right after the draft), when Burke was still here. 2009 was his first draft.

Plenty of our other scouts outlasted multiple GMs, it really is a case by case scenario but I would hope like hell Madden would stay if Murray left.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

That's a very odd way of looking at things IMO. That logic would suggest any player who signs any deal is "worth it". That seems a little too...literal to me. That logic would suggest that if someone signed Bieksa to 7 million this offseason, then he'd be "worth it". I don't agree with that logic at all.

Rowney has done nothing to suggest he's worth what he signed. Maybe he shows something he's never shown before, but as of today, he's done nothing to warrant that contract. If a guy can't consistently stay in the NHL, they aren't worth a multi year deal at 1+ per season. They just aren't.

It's not at all a defense of this deal specifically, I just really hate the language about athletes in general not deserving their salaries compared to the public. It was pretty off-topic and very unnecessary to add in, but here we are.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

But that is not my argument. I clearly stated Murray handed out yet another undeserved contract, then also said there is no bar low enough to pass to justify such modus operandi by Murray signing players of that ilk to such contracts. That is not the same argument you're saying I'm presenting.

Of course it is, that's the whole thing. You're just trying to skirt past the whole aspect of how he actually plays because you know how it doesn't really hold up under any scrutiny. It's understandable, the whole argument is a fairly sad attempt to preemptively claim you're right no matter what actually happens, of course you're not gonna want to focus on that.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

Of course it is, that's the whole thing. You're just trying to skirt past the whole aspect of how he actually plays because you know how it doesn't really hold up under any scrutiny. It's understandable, the whole argument is a fairly sad attempt to preemptively claim you're right no matter what actually happens, of course you're not gonna want to focus on that.

I'm not trying to skirt past anything, nor are the merits of Rowney's play related to my argument. At all. I'm telling quite you quite clearly what my argument is, and what it isn't.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I'm not trying to skirt past anything, nor are the merits of Rowney's play related to my argument. At all. I'm telling quite you quite clearly what my argument is, and what it isn't.

Right, they're not related in your mind because you're trying to ignore that, and I'm saying that's dumb! We're talking about the value of the contract(and your first reply was to a post talking specifically and solely about his play), how he actually plays is kind of a big factor in determining that.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

Right, they're not related in your mind because you're trying to ignore that, and I'm saying that's dumb! We're talking about the value of the contract(and your first reply was to a post talking specifically and solely about his play), how he actually plays is kind of a big factor in determining that.

They are simply not related to my argument, at all.

And no, you replied quoting me saying Ducks signed yet another undeserved with a counter-point of people not understanding how low of a bar he has to cross to be worth it, to which I replied that there is no bar low enough to cross to justify signing players of that ilk to such contracts. That is to say another undeserved contract has been handed out by Murray and that even if Rowney becomes better than he ever was it will still not be a justification for such modus operandi. That is the argument, the critique of Murray's modus operandi, not "Rowney will never be worth that money, no matter what".

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

They are simply not related to my argument, at all.

And no, you replied quoting me saying Ducks signed yet another undeserved with a counter-point of people not understanding how low of a bar he has to cross to be worth it, to which I replied that there is no bar low enough to cross to justify signing players of that ilk to such contracts. That is to say another undeserved contract has been handed out by Murray and that even if Rowney becomes better than he ever was it will still not be a justification for such modus operandi. That is the argument, the critique of Murray's modus operandi, not "Rowney will never be worth that money, no matter what".

LOL this whole post is long winded, contrived confirmation of exactly what I've been saying for pages now. You're trying to say it's a bad deal no matter how he actually plays so you can be mad at Murray no matter what. And I'm pointing out how dumb that is.

 

[QuackinQuaker]

Honestly? I feel like Rowney is in a way replacement for Wagner (different positions, I understand).. He's a guy who can play responsibly on the fourth line, then take some shifts on the PK.

My hope is that we never, or hardly ever see Getzlaf on the PK. I understand that Getz is a great defender, but let him save his energy for power play and even strength minutes. Getz was top 5 in TOI among centers and he was visibly tired some shifts. Getzlaf is a big guy and getting older, we can't expect him to be Kopitar and log huge minutes.. Let Romney take those PK minutes and if push comes to shove, we can mix in Getz with the fourth line like the Penguins did with Crosby.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

LOL this whole post is long winded, contrived confirmation of exactly what I've been saying for pages now. You're trying to say it's a bad deal no matter how he actually plays so you can be mad at Murray no matter what. And I'm pointing out how dumb that is.

This is truly incredible. It's easier to deliberately misinterpret and misunderstand what I'm saying so you can keep this posture. Textbook strawman.

This has run it's course.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

This is truly incredible. It's easier to deliberately misinterpret and misunderstand what I'm saying so you can keep this posture. Textbook strawman.

This has run it's course.

It's not a strawman when it's a central tenant of your entire argument. We can map this out, let's say the guy comes in and is an ok to good fourth liner, completely lives up to his end of the bargain(actually that probably exceeds it but I'll be generous). You're saying that it was still a bad contract for Murray to give out because at the time of the signing, he didn't deserve that kind of commitment, and him playing well after the fact just doesn't retroactively change that. It would be like if Murray gave Rakell $6 million a year on this deal instead of $3.8, it certainly wouldn't be bad value right now that hes lived up to it, but it wouldn't change the fact that he gave a guy with one decent year the money of a first liner and it blew every comparable out of the water.

 

[Duck Off]

It's not a strawman when it's a central tenant of your entire argument. We can map this out, let's say the guy comes in and is an ok to good fourth liner, completely lives up to his end of the bargain(actually that probably exceeds it but I'll be generous). You're saying that it was still a bad contract for Murray to give out because at the time of the signing, he didn't deserve that kind of commitment, and him playing well after the fact just doesn't retroactively change that. It would be like if Murray gave Rakell $6 million a year on this deal instead of $3.8, it certainly wouldn't be bad value right now that hes lived up to it, but it wouldn't change the fact that he gave a guy with one decent year the money of a first liner and it blew every comparable out of the water.

I don't agree with that logic, though I do understand what you're saying. You're saying that theoretically someone could sign Bieksa today for 6 million a year, and then he turns around has some amazing season where he's worth 6 million that the signing ends up not being bad. I disagree with that logic. If that happened, I'd say it wound up working out and not being a bad contract, but the signing was still bad because the reality is even though he played well enough to deserve the contract, the fact of the matter is that Bieksa had done nothing to warrant that contract beforehand. So whatever GM did that lucked out, but no question, IMO, that the signing was still bad based on variables before the contract (numbers, potential/lack of, etc.). He may have ended up justifying the contract, but the fact doesn't change that he still should not have cost that much to begin with.

I don't think your Rakell example is good either, because with Rakell potential/growth is still a part of the equation. With Rowney, you have a 29 year old guy who's never been able to consistently stay in the NHL. You're not paying for potential in this one (at least the agent has no leverage to use it anyway). If Rowney was 23 or something, then there's an argument that Murray paid a little extra because he thinks this guy is going to step up his game, and the agent also has leverage to use it in a contract deal.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I don't agree with that logic, though I do understand what you're saying. You're saying that theoretically someone could sign Bieksa today for 6 million a year, and then he turns around has some amazing season where he's worth 6 million that the signing ends up not being bad. I disagree with that logic. If that happened, I'd say it wound up working out and not being a bad contract, but the signing was still bad because the reality is even though he played well enough to deserve the contract, the fact of the matter is that Bieksa had done nothing to warrant that contract beforehand. So whatever GM did that lucked out, but no question, IMO, that the signing was still bad based on variables before the contract (numbers, potential/lack of, etc.). He may have ended up justifying the contract, but the fact doesn't change that he still should not have cost that much to begin with.

I don't think your Rakell example is good either, because with Rakell potential/growth is still a part of the equation. With Rowney, you have a 29 year old guy who's never been able to consistently stay in the NHL. You're not paying for potential in this one (at least the agent has no leverage to use it anyway). If Rowney was 23 or something, then there's an argument that Murray paid a little extra because he thinks this guy is going to step up his game, and the agent also has leverage to use it in a contract deal.

Not exactly, the problem with your Bieksa example is that hes asked to be, at minimum, a top pairing defenseman for that to work out. I actually do think if it all happened as you described, pretty much no one would criticize that GM going forward, but a guy having multiple mediocre/bad years in a row and then possibly playing the best hes ever played at age 37 is a pretty insane scenario that no one in their right mind could see coming. My entire point with Rowney is that for him to be worth it, he has to be, I dunno, not be a liability? That, on the other hand, seems quite plausible, perhaps even likely. I dont know why people think Rowney has to have some breakout(you're pretty far off on your evaluation of him, especially the sticking in the league part), if he gives what he has since getting the call, 10+ minutes a night of hard work and over 50% in the dot, that does it right there.

 

[Duck Off]

Not exactly, the problem with your Bieksa example is that hes asked to be, at minimum, a top pairing defenseman for that to work out. I actually do think if it all happened as you described, pretty much no one would criticize that GM going forward, but a guy having multiple mediocre/bad years in a row and then possibly playing the best hes ever played at age 37 is a pretty insane scenario that no one in their right mind could see coming. My entire point with Rowney is that for him to be worth it, he has to be, I dunno, not be a liability? That, on the other hand, seems quite plausible, perhaps even likely. I dont know why people think Rowney has to have some breakout(you're pretty far off on your evaluation of him, especially the sticking in the league part), if he gives what he has since getting the call, 10+ minutes a night of hard work and over 50% in the dot, that does it right there.

The Bieksa example was obviously an exaggeration, but I think the point still stands. So you're correct, if Bieksa turned in to some top pair guy, then he's probably not criticized for the move because the player justified the contract. However, I think it would be wrong to say that it was still a "good" signing when everyone knows it shouldn't have cost that much to sign him in the first place. I'm not saying your thinking is "wrong", I'm just saying it's easy to see why people wouldn't agree with it. Use this hypothetical scenario for example: Murray somehow manages to sign Tavares to a 1 year deal, 5 million contract this offseason. People would call in an incredible deal. Now, let's say that happens and for whatever reason (not injury related), JT has a god awful season. Say he puts up 5 goals and doesn't help with other intangibles. Would it be fair to say that Murray made a terrible decision? IMO, no. It seems like the logic you're applying would insinuate that it would be fair to call it bad because well, it ended up that way. I, personally, don't think it's fair to use that much hindsight when discussing it. The exception would be if you're paying for potential as part of it.

Now, I do agree that the Rowney signing is being blown out a bit. I think it's a really bad signing, but it isn't remotely back breaking or anything. I don't think my evaluation of him was pretty far off though. He's 29 and had one season where he played more than 40 NHL games. Prior to last season he played in the AHL primarily so I don't see how I'm pretty far off on my evaluation. As for what justifies his contract? If he plays and proves that he belongs in the lineup each night, that's probably pretty close. Doesn't change the fact that he hadn't done anything to warrant such a raise, let alone on a multi year deal though.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

The Bieksa example was obviously an exaggeration, but I think the point still stands. So you're correct, if Bieksa turned in to some top pair guy, then he's probably not criticized for the move because the player justified the contract. However, I think it would be wrong to say that it was still a "good" signing when everyone knows it shouldn't have cost that much to sign him in the first place. I'm not saying your thinking is "wrong", I'm just saying it's easy to see why people wouldn't agree with it. Use this hypothetical scenario for example: Murray somehow manages to sign Tavares to a 1 year deal, 5 million contract this offseason. People would call in an incredible deal. Now, let's say that happens and for whatever reason (not injury related), JT has a god awful season. Say he puts up 5 goals and doesn't help with other intangibles. Would it be fair to say that Murray made a terrible decision? IMO, no. It seems like the logic you're applying would insinuate that it would be fair to call it bad because well, it ended up that way. I, personally, don't think it's fair to use that much hindsight when discussing it. The exception would be if you're paying for potential as part of it.

Now, I do agree that the Rowney signing is being blown out a bit. I think it's a really bad signing, but it isn't remotely back breaking or anything. I don't think my evaluation of him was pretty far off though. He's 29 and had one season where he played more than 40 NHL games. Prior to last season he played in the AHL primarily so I don't see how I'm pretty far off on my evaluation. As for what justifies his contract? If he plays and proves that he belongs in the lineup each night, that's probably pretty close. Doesn't change the fact that he hadn't done anything to warrant such a raise, let alone on a multi year deal though.

I'm not even saying people can't critique it or think it's bad, it was all about the outrage. Unlike some of the more extreme hypotheticals one could come up with, this one has a pretty decent probability of working out. So for the Fire Murray crowd to get that campaign started over that seems very funny and misguided to me.

As for your Rowney evaluation, it's more saying he hasn't consistently stuck in the league. He hasn't been sent down since his, so right away that's fairly false, and he hasn't even really been healthy scratched a whole lot, maybe 15 games or so over their last 150 since his call-up. It looks weird since hes as old as he is, but he just signed his entry level deal two years ago, I'd say he made it and stuck.

 

[Duck Off]

I'm not even saying people can't critique it or think it's bad, it was all about the outrage. Unlike some of the more extreme hypotheticals one could come up with, this one has a pretty decent probability of working out. So for the Fire Murray crowd to get that campaign started over that seems very funny and misguided to me.

I don't disagree with that. My original comment was in regards to what you said to Lord: "let's say the guy comes in and is an ok to good fourth liner, completely lives up to his end of the bargain(actually that probably exceeds it but I'll be generous). You're saying that it was still a bad contract for Murray to give out because at the time of the signing, he didn't deserve that kind of commitment, and him playing well after the fact just doesn't retroactively change that."

I was just pointing out that I didn't agree with the logic, and it seems a little too literal for me. The examples I was giving were using same logic, but obviously exaggerated. I agree that it's somewhat likely he plays as a decent 4th line center, but again, I don't think that automatically means that it was a good signing if he does.

As for your Rowney evaluation, it's more saying he hasn't consistently stuck in the league. He hasn't been sent down since his, so right away that's fairly false, and he hasn't even really been healthy scratched a whole lot, maybe 15 games or so over their last 150 since his call-up. It looks weird since hes as old as he is, but he just signed his entry level deal two years ago, I'd say he made it and stuck.

I didn't/don't think there's much difference between playing in the AHL and being a consistent healthy scratch... So maybe I should have said "can't consistently crack an NHL lineup" instead of "If a guy can't consistently stay in the NHL"? I don't see how they are "pretty far off" from each other though, but to each their own I guess.

You say he made it and stuck. I see it as they don't think he's going to develop more in the AHL so it's fine if he's pasted to the press box instead of the AHL since every team needs a guy like that.

 

[70sSanO]

A contract is good or bad based on how a player performs under that contract plain and simple.

Go back a year and if Murray had signed a Derek Grant to a 3yr/$3.4m contract we may not have had close to 200 posts, but the consensus would be that Murray was an idiot for just handing money out to undeserving players.

John

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I don't disagree with that. My original comment was in regards to what you said to Lord: "let's say the guy comes in and is an ok to good fourth liner, completely lives up to his end of the bargain(actually that probably exceeds it but I'll be generous). You're saying that it was still a bad contract for Murray to give out because at the time of the signing, he didn't deserve that kind of commitment, and him playing well after the fact just doesn't retroactively change that."

I was just pointing out that I didn't agree with the logic, and it seems a little too literal for me. The examples I was giving were using same logic, but obviously exaggerated. I agree that it's somewhat likely he plays as a decent 4th line center, but again, I don't think that automatically means that it was a good signing if he does.



I didn't/don't think there's much difference between playing in the AHL and being a consistent healthy scratch... So maybe I should have said "can't consistently crack an NHL lineup" instead of "If a guy can't consistently stay in the NHL"? I don't see how they are "pretty far off" from each other though, but to each their own I guess.

You say he made it and stuck. I see it as they don't think he's going to develop more in the AHL so it's fine if he's pasted to the press box instead of the AHL since every team needs a guy like that.

He hasn't been pasted to the press box, though. My numbers might be a touch off but I believe he's played in over 80% of eligible games(and that's being conservative), that sounds to me like a guy who very much is consistently cracking an NHL lineup, and a really, really deep one at that. Some of that is as an injury fill-in but he wasn't exactly their Holzer.

 

[Duck Off]

He hasn't been pasted to the press box, though. My numbers might be a touch off but I believe he's played in over 80% of eligible games(and that's being conservative), that sounds to me like a guy who very much is consistently cracking an NHL lineup, and a really, really deep one at that. Some of that is as an injury fill-in but he wasn't exactly their Holzer.

I know he had several injuries last year but the primary Pens fan I talk to (my cousin) said that he was absolutely not a fixture in their lineup and was scratched more often than not. Now he may have been referring to more than last season, but 44 games as a high is far from establishing himself as someone who’s in the lineup consistently imo.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I know he had several injuries last year but the primary Pens fan I talk to (my cousin) said that he was absolutely not a fixture in their lineup and was scratched more often than not. Now he may have been referring to more than last season, but 44 games as a high is far from establishing himself as someone who’s in the lineup consistently imo.

Not to disparage your cousin, but if he played 44 games and missed 34 more due to injury, that absolutely isnt a guy who was scratched more often than not. It's not his fault, everyone's memory likes to lie to them. I wouldn't and didn't say he was a fixture but he was regularly cracking that deep lineup, not at all being some kind of constant scratch.

 

[Paul4587]

If Kesler is out this guy will be used as our checking line C. Think of the role Randy used McClement in on the Leafs.

 

[Duck Off]

Not to disparage your cousin, but if he played 44 games and missed 34 more due to injury, that absolutely isnt a guy who was scratched more often than not. It's not his fault, everyone's memory likes to lie to them. I wouldn't and didn't say he was a fixture but he was regularly cracking that deep lineup, not at all being some kind of constant scratch.

like I said he didn't specify a time frame in general so he could have been referring to more than just last season. That said you're also assuming that he'd be in the lineup the majority of those 34 games. Maybe he would have, but it's definitely not a given. I don't think one season of 44 games total, even if injuries are apart of it, for a 28 year old player is established every day player, or even close to it personally. We have a 29 year old forward who's played 77 career NHL games (yes, last season injuries were a part of it), but as of now, he certainly seems more like an AHL guy/NHL scratch regular than an every day player. One injury riddled season where he played more often doesn't change that to me. Not for someone who's 29. That's debatable I guess, but no question Murray gave this guy a bigger contract than he deserved, based on what he's shown so far.

 

[KelVarnsen]

Does anyone think this contract has anything to do with a potential expansion draft?

There’s really no logical explanation I can think of to justify a 3 year deal.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Trying and failing to give this much of a f*** about Carter Rowney.

 

[MMC]

So the Penguins get our good 4C at the league minimum and we sign their shit 4C to a 3 year contract. Goddamnit.