News Article: Has Anthony Duclair been too good for the Senators to keep?

[FormentonTheFuture]

Respectfully, that's a facile comment. Hockey is an old boys' club and race certainly plays a role. It plays a role everywhere, not just hockey. I wonder how many coaches or GMs over the years have dismissed Duclair because he didn't quite 'fit in'.
Duclair has played 60-70 games now for Ottawa. EVERYTHING I have seen during that span has shown me that he is a special talent. Especially now after the Akim Aliu story, it really makes you wonder what kind of treatment Duclair was getting in those other situations.

While I would like the Sens to sign Duclair to a medium term contract (nothing too long or too short) for decent dollars, I wouldn't want them to lock him up for like 5+ years and I don't think race has any bearing on why some people wouldn't want to sign him longterm. He is more of a one dimensional player who has worked hard to develop a PK game as well. He's a speedy shooting winger who doesn't have many tools other than that. That can be a great player for you but it's not a core player or a star player in the long run. He had an unsustainable beginning to the season and was obviously going to drop off. Ideally he'd be like our 6th-7th best forward when we are a good team.

Other similar players have been treated similarly before and it has nothing to do with race. Mike Hoffman comes to mind immediately, a guy who was passed over on waivers multiple times.

 

[slamigo]

There is absolutely no basis for suggesting that racism has played a part in how NHL front offices have viewed Duclair, or in how HF Sens views Duclair.

Get this race baiting garbage out of here.

I'm comfortable enough to look at it objectively and at least consider if race has played a role (again after the Akim Aliu story context and example after example of discrimination in youth sports and the minor leagues). There is really no need to be so aggressively dismissive of even entertaining the thought.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I'm comfortable enough to look at it objectively and at least consider if race has played a role (again after the Akim Aliu story context and example after example of discrimination in youth sports and the minor leagues). There is really no need to be so aggressively dismissive of even entertaining the thought.

Well you came on a little strong, so I’m not sure why you’re surprised that there was some push back, especially from some people who may be white, and who may like Tim Hortons.

This last post was far more inducive to having a discussion.

 

[BondraTime]

I'm comfortable enough to look at it objectively and at least consider if race has played a role (again after the Akim Aliu story context and example after example of discrimination in youth sports and the minor leagues). There is really no need to be so aggressively dismissive of even entertaining the thought.

Race played no role in his attitude and problems in the Q whatsoever, and I very highly doubt it did in his early years in the NHL. He was on many teams do not draft lists out of the Q, like Sprong was. It was because of their attitude, not their race. By all accounts that is why he has been a suitcase in the NHL.

He'd be the first to admit his attitude had been extremely bad, that coupled with his very up and down career outside of this season are the reasons, at least my reasons, for being hesitant about giving him term.

I've watched him since his Telus Cup appearance, his play in the NHL, both his season this year and his awful 3-4 year stretch prior, don't surprise me

 

[inthewings]

I'm comfortable enough to look at it objectively and at least consider if race has played a role (again after the Akim Aliu story context and example after example of discrimination in youth sports and the minor leagues). There is really no need to be so aggressively dismissive of even entertaining the thought.

We disagree strongly on that point. When there's trepidation about giving a player a long-term extension, I'm perfectly happy to assume that it's based on benign concerns about the player's likelihood of living up to that contract.

Absolutely nothing is gained from wondering out loud if HF posters who aren't yet convinced about Duclair on a long term deal are actually just racists. In fact I think it should be a bannable offense.

 

[Larionov]

‘Pump and dump’ is a gross phrase.

It's a stock market phrase describing an analyst or promoter pumping up a stock's value with all kinds of hype, then selling high just before it crashes...

 

[slamigo]

We disagree strongly on that point. When there's trepidation about giving a player a long-term extension, I'm perfectly happy to assume that it's based on benign concerns about the player's likelihood of living up to that contract.

Absolutely nothing is gained from wondering out loud if HF posters who aren't yet convinced about Duclair on a long term deal are actually just racists. In fact I think it should be a bannable offense.

Well, you're making an inference that was not implied. I accused absolutely nobody of being racist. I wondered if there was a 'bias'. There is ample evidence that race is a barrier to players in the NHL and in the minor leagues and even in youth minor hockey. There are new articles in the press almost every week. It happens all the time. To wonder out loud if it has impacted Duclair's career is not 'race baiting garbage'.
Just disagree and move along.

And as if on cue this tweet was posted within minutes of my post:

 

[SensontheRush]

It's a stock market phrase describing an analyst or promoter pumping up a stock's value with all kinds of hype, then selling high just before it crashes...

I thought it meant when you flex real hard to deal with some bad constipation...

 

[Ice-Tray]

It's a stock market phrase describing an analyst or promoter pumping up a stock's value with all kinds of hype, then selling high just before it crashes...

I know, I know... it just sounds gross

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

It's a stock market phrase describing an analyst or promoter pumping up a stock's value with all kinds of hype, then selling high just before it crashes...

Yeah... and the phrase is borrowed from misogynists.

 

[BondraTime]

Yeah... and the phrase is borrowed from misogynists.

Borrowed by

 

[jhutter]

The virtue is strong in this thread.

 

[inthewings]

Well, you're making an inference that was not implied. I accused absolutely nobody of being racist. I wondered if there was a 'bias'. There is ample evidence that race is a barrier to players in the NHL and in the minor leagues and even in youth minor hockey. There are new articles in the press almost every week. It happens all the time. To wonder out loud if it has impacted Duclair's career is not 'race baiting garbage'.
Just disagree and move along.

And as if on cue this tweet was posted within minutes of my post:

You’re wondering if the people who aren’t yet sold on Duclair are the ‘Tim Hortons crowd’ who don’t accept non-white players and exhibit ‘racial bias’ in evaluating players.

You’re right that you didn’t accuse anybody specific of being racist, but you’re absolutely implying that racism is influencing people’s opinion of Duclair generally, both here and in the NHL.

I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make with the Manning tweet. That racism exists? Of course it does. It’s still true that it’s unproductive to wonder out loud if the people criticizing a black player are actually just biased because he’s black. If you see racism, call it out by all means, but absolutely nothing in this thread warranted steering the conversation in that direction.

 

[slamigo]

It’s still true that it’s unproductive to wonder out loud if the people criticizing a black player are actually just biased because he’s black. If you see racism, call it out by all means, but absolutely nothing in this thread warranted steering the conversation in that direction.

My point was that I noted that hadn’t watched Duclair at all before his time in Ottawa. But everything I have seen of his play here demonstrates that he is a top flight talent. So it makes me wonder what was going on with the other teams and situations that he played in. I hear people say things like he “doesn’t fit in” or “doesn’t listen” and you have to wonder if that’s just an easy explanation for bias. Maybe he had a light go off and he he finally put it all together? Maybe he was marginalized elsewhere? Who knows? It’s a valid question. Anyway I think the earth has been tilled enough on this issue. No more posts on it from me.

 

[Ice-Tray]

The virtue is strong in this thread.

lol, I’m not being indignant, it’s just such a sloppy sounding phrase....

Like some creep leaning over to you at a dinner party to regale you with tales of how he did the ol’ pump and dump in college...

Hahaha..... uhg.... Ok enough

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

The virtue is strong in this thread.

Maybe we should ask if the negative attitude towards Zibby among certain posters reveal racial bias in this forum, too.


But seriously, Duclair has been inconsistent throughout his career. Giving any player with consistency issues a long-term contract is a big risk. Plus, you have to factor in time and opportunity and our lack of depth helping his performance, as well (same with Pageau, which is why we should be actively looking to move Pager asap before he cools down too much.) We saw the same thing in Vegas...guys suddenly get a big role and look amazing for a year or two, then fall back to earth. It happens all the time.

 

[supsens]

Respectfully, that's a facile comment. Hockey is an old boys' club and race certainly plays a role. It plays a role everywhere, not just hockey. I wonder how many coaches or GMs over the years have dismissed Duclair because he didn't quite 'fit in'.
Duclair has played 60-70 games now for Ottawa. EVERYTHING I have seen during that span has shown me that he is a special talent. Especially now after the Akim Aliu story, it really makes you wonder what kind of treatment Duclair was getting in those other situations.

So these teams are racist and don’t want him....why on earth are they trading for him? I guess the new pucks are racist and won’t go in the net for him anymore. He has 1 assist in his last six games and a pattern of looking great than doing nothing for long stretches then being moved because of doing nothing for long stretches.
There is lots of time to see how he plays long term but 60-70 great games shooting 20% isn’t reality and it is not in line with his past.

 

[coladin]

lol, I’m not being indignant, it’s just such a sloppy sounding phrase....

Like some creep leaning over to you at a dinner party to regale you with tales of how he did the ol’ pump and dump in college...

Hahaha..... uhg.... Ok enough

How about putting lipstick on the pig?

 

[Ice-Tray]

How about putting lipstick on the pig?

It’s a bit worrisome as well, I mean why put lipstick on a pig? What comes next?!?

Poor pig

 

[TheDebater]

We should be hesitant to sign Duclair to only a one year deal again. Just a month ago we were all wondering if he was going to over price himself in a contract year and whether or not signing him to a big contract is a huge risk.

Right now he has cooled down (injury related or not) and we have a chance to sign him to a two or three year deal at a reasonable price and reap the benefits of him continuing his strong offensive play for the next few years at a bargain price.

If we go one year, and he gets even better next season in what would be another "contract year", we could very well end up in a tougher situation trying to decide if he is "worth all that money".

I think Duclair situation will be very telling as to what type of GM Dorion is; risk taker or play it safe type.

 

[Crosside]

We should be hesitant to sign Duclair to only a one year deal again. Just a month ago we were all wondering if he was going to over price himself in a contract year and whether or not signing him to a big contract is a huge risk.

Right now he has cooled down (injury related or not) and we have a chance to sign him to a two or three year deal at a reasonable price and reap the benefits of him continuing his strong offensive play for the next few years at a bargain price.

If we go one year, and he gets even better next season in what would be another "contract year", we could very well end up in a tougher situation trying to decide if he is "worth all that money".

I think Duclair situation will be very telling as to what type of GM Dorion is; risk taker or play it safe type.

I think we have allready have your answer. He is a risk taker

 

[bert]

We should be hesitant to sign Duclair to only a one year deal again. Just a month ago we were all wondering if he was going to over price himself in a contract year and whether or not signing him to a big contract is a huge risk.

Right now he has cooled down (injury related or not) and we have a chance to sign him to a two or three year deal at a reasonable price and reap the benefits of him continuing his strong offensive play for the next few years at a bargain price.

If we go one year, and he gets even better next season in what would be another "contract year", we could very well end up in a tougher situation trying to decide if he is "worth all that money".

I think Duclair situation will be very telling as to what type of GM Dorion is; risk taker or play it safe type.

He should be signed to a 1, 3 or 4 year deal in my opinion. 2 years brings him right to UFA, id be inclined to give him a 3 year deal personally if they can get it done for 3 years at 4 million I think thats a good deal for both sides.

He is a streaky player but the pure talent is undeniable. He is the right age and appears to be part of the core leadership group with Chabot, White etc. I hope this gets done sooner rather than later.

 

[DrEasy]

We're not a team that's going to attract the big time FAs out there. If we're serious about winning and willing to spend to the cap (a very big IF), we'll have to use the money for something. Guys like Duclair are our opportunity to spend our money. High risk, high reward. Sign him for 5 years, $5M per. Take a leap of faith.

And if it doesn't work out it's still not as bad as most big FA contracts in their later years.

 

[TheDebater]

He should be signed to a 1, 3 or 4 year deal in my opinion. 2 years brings him right to UFA, id be inclined to give him a 3 year deal personally if they can get it done for 3 years at 4 million I think thats a good deal for both sides.

He is a streaky player but the pure talent is undeniable. He is the right age and appears to be part of the core leadership group with Chabot, White etc. I hope this gets done sooner rather than later.

I had suggested 3 years earlier as well, I think that would be best. I had not thought about the two year contract bringing him right to UFA so that is a good point by you. It would have been the "ideal" term however because if he had a bad year next year, we can either trade him in his last year or just play it out Boedker style (not that I think Duclair would ever become that useless anytime soon).

I personally have no problem however going three or more years as I am firmly in the Duclair bandwagon and I believe he will be worth every penny going forward.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

To me, they either go 1 year or they go long in the 4-6 year range.

That's obviously assuming both sides can agree on terms.

I don't think 2-3 makes much sense because either the team doesn't believe he is the real deal, in which case going 1 year through arbitration makes the most sense because he will be cheaper to extend long term in the summer of 2021 after he comes back to earth, or the team believes he is the real deal in which case locking him down with more term makes sense because the price only gets higher as he proves himself more, and it doesn't make sense for the team to put themselves in a position where they have to consider trading him 1-2 years from now because he's hit 30+ multiple times and then wants 7-9 million.

With that said, I don't think it will come to a 1 year contract, because if that's the opinion the team has of him I'd imagine they'd explore selling high on him via a trade. Of course, there's a possibility teams don't offer enough. This isn't my opinion, but if THEY have the opinion that this is his career year, and he'll never do this again, if they can get a 2020 2nd for him, they should take it and run. If they have that opinion of him, then projecting forward they would be selling way high on him.

That 2nd can then be used as capital to either trade up and get a guy way higher on our list if someone is on the board, or the prospect we select with that pick gives us more ammunition to trade for a better player down the line. Not to mention the salary savings next season since Duclair is likely to get a decent salary award from arbitration.

I like what I've seen from Duclair this season but I'm not in the room or close to the situation. I have no way of knowing if he's done enough to make management less cautious of committing to him long term. I would like to see them keep him, but I won't riot if we get a nice asset in a trade either.