News Article: Is this the start of the downward slope for the Sedins?

[Havre]

Burrows had 35, 26, 28 goals in his 3 previous seasons leading up to getting 4.5m. They re-signed him as soon as they could.

I guess we can start letting players sit til the month before free agency to try and re-sign them all. Then if they have a remotely poor season compared to the previous one we can tell them they are downward trending and don't deserve to get paid.

No denying Burrows was a good player, but 4.5m, and a NTC, based on that kind of production with the Sedins - in their prime?

I hope he proves me wrong, I really do as I respect him as much as any hockey player, but I can't help thinking part of that contract is "you outplayed your contract for many years now - we will give you some extra this time as a thank you".

Got to say though, I don't blame Gillis much for the "mess" we are in now. Sedins, Edler and Bieksa weren't bad contract when he gave them. And I would never argue Burrows is that one contract that holds us back. Why they are all more or less suddenly not living up to their promise I don't know. Which is one of the reasons why I think we might surprise some people this year.

 

[NoShowWilly]

No denying Burrows was a good player, but 4.5m, and a NTC, based on that kind of production with the Sedins - in their prime?

I hope he proves me wrong, I really do as I respect him as much as any hockey player, but I can't help thinking part of that contract is "you outplayed your contract for many years now - we will give you some extra this time as a thank you".

Got to say though, I don't blame Gillis much for the "mess" we are in now. Sedins, Edler and Bieksa weren't bad contract when he gave them. And I would never argue Burrows is that one contract that holds us back. Why they are all more or less suddenly not living up to their promise I don't know. Which is one of the reasons why I think we might surprise some people this year.

the NTC was unnecessary. 4.5 for a guy that took 2million after scoring 28 goals and a +23. then proceeded to top 25 goals and 50 points every year after except one(49 point season) where he was injured.

How does one justify not paying a guy that proved a consistent output to a team the entire time before signing a new contract?

He may have been a product of the Sedins but the fact is that he was providing key scoring output for this team while also playing a strong defensive game. The 3 worked well together. Their 5on5 totals were very heavily in their favour. Then the 3 signed their contracts and fell off cliffs.

 

[Havre]

The large irony in the conract discussion on the Sedins, is that MG waited until the last minute and hardballed them most of the way on the first contract he signed with them. Everyone thought he was nuts, risked ruining the relationship with them and played it totally wrong. This time he did the opposite, signed them early, acknowledged what they've done for the team, and he still played it wrong.

The other thing lost in the discussion is how scoring rate has dropped league wide. If they put up 60+ points they're worth 7m, because 60 point forwards are relatively rare (certainly rarer than 3-4 years ago).

Correct.

It is not like Krejci will get 7m next year. Toews is stricly speaking a 60+ player.

Obviously both younger than Henrik and Daniel, but 60-70 points and tonnes of possession is not a bad return for 7m.

I don't love their contracts, but they are hardly that bad if they can only improve slightly from last year.

 

[Havre]

the NTC was unnecessary. 4.5 for a guy that took 2million after scoring 28 goals and a +23. then proceeded to top 25 goals and 50 points every year after except one(49 point season) where he was injured.

How does one justify not paying a guy that proved a consistent output to a team the entire time before signing a new contract?

He may have been a product of the Sedins but the fact is that he was providing key scoring output for this team while also playing a strong defensive game. The 3 worked well together. Their 5on5 totals were very heavily in their favour. Then the 3 signed their contracts and fell off cliffs.

Kind of my point. Why is his 2m contract relevant? If you want to win you can't pay players for past services.

It would be easy if you could just look at previous years production and offer good value based on that production continuing. You will never win a thing. You got to make "bets" on young(isn) players outperforming their contract (which Burrows did and helped us greatly getting to a game 7) and you got to let players asking for more than they will be worth during the next contract go. Would we have signed Burrows at 4.5m with a NTC for that many years if he had played somewhere else? I would be shocked if we did.

Again. I don't really mean to single out Burrows here. I think the contract is bad, but it is not 4.5m bad. So that 1m or whatever it is overpaying him wouldn't make that much of a difference anyway, but I just don't like these kind of contracts for older players - generally speaking. Especially with a NTC.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Bet you probably thought the exact same thing back in the summer of 09'

I mean seriously though when will these guys get the respect they deserve.

What respect? They're second liners now. Overpaid second liners who are in their mid-30's and just beginning their new long-term contract. This team won't go anywhere until they're off the books.

 

[ChilliBilly]

What respect? They're second liners now. Overpaid second liners who are in their mid-30's and just beginning their new long-term contract. This team won't go anywhere until they're off the books.

Is this a new position, or have you always felt this way?

Anyhow Chris, I am planning on dropping the hockey pool this year. Hope that's not a problem. I just find with the amount of travelling I have planned this year its just too much of a pain. And apparently I suck at it.

 

[NoShowWilly]

Kind of my point. Why is his 2m contract relevant? If you want to win you can't pay players for past services.

It would be easy if you could just look at previous years production and offer good value based on that production continuing. You will never win a thing. You got to make "bets" on young(isn) players outperforming their contract (which Burrows did and helped us greatly getting to a game 7) and you got to let players asking for more than they will be worth during the next contract go. Would we have signed Burrows at 4.5m with a NTC for that many years if he had played somewhere else? I would be shocked if we did.

Again. I don't really mean to single out Burrows here. I think the contract is bad, but it is not 4.5m bad. So that 1m or whatever it is overpaying him wouldn't make that much of a difference anyway, but I just don't like these kind of contracts for older players - generally speaking. Especially with a NTC.

k ditch the contract.

what do you pay a player that has scored 25 goals and 50+ points for 4 straight seasons almost entirely 5on5 while providing high end PK on the first unit?

EDIT: of course the contract is bad because he isn't performing and i get your older player concept. Just walking away from a player that frankly was not projecting to drop like he has is the wrong course of action in my opinion

 

[Nucker101]

It's hard not to imagine a bounceback from last season, but yes I do think that they're PPG days are gone. Around 60-65 points is what I expect.

 

[God]

Bet you probably thought the exact same thing back in the summer of 09'

I mean seriously though when will these guys get the respect they deserve.

He actually did and advocated for signing Gaborik and Cammalleri to replace them. Well this offseason it wasn't too late to make that happen!! It is now though.

 

[RandV]

k ditch the contract.

what do you pay a player that has scored 25 goals and 50+ points for 4 straight seasons almost entirely 5on5 while providing high end PK on the first unit?

EDIT: of course the contract is bad because he isn't performing and i get your older player concept. Just walking away from a player that frankly was not projecting to drop like he has is the wrong course of action in my opinion

Yep we basically played UFA market value for Burrows. While it's nice to get players to sign for that 'hometown discount', hell it's almost expected that if a player is resigning with his team he's taking a little less than what he could on the market, but contracts require two sides to reach an agreement. Notice that with Burrows current contract while 4.5mil is the average he was actually payed $6mil last year, and the payrate declines from there. That suggests a guy who's had enough being a 'bargain' contract player and wanted to see a payout.

And always keep in mind that he would have been a UFA in the same season David Clarkson got his ridiculous contract. And the Leafs weren't the only ones after him, rumours suggested that Edmonton was offering the same value. Burrows would have gotten paid one way or another.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I see three outlier seasons (two for the better, one for the worse), not a simple decline.

Actually there is a decline because in many peoples minds here they still see the Sedins as elite type of players, when in fact they were so only for a short period of time.

No one was talking about the Sedins being elite, or even on the cusp before their surprising breakout in 10 and to a lesser degree in 11.

All that is besides the point it's pretty obvious in the last couple of years on which direction the pair is going in, especially Daniel.

 

[Fat Tony]

The other thing lost in the discussion is how scoring rate has dropped league wide. If they put up 60+ points they're worth 7m, because 60 point forwards are relatively rare (certainly rarer than 3-4 years ago).

There were 49 60-point scorers last seasons. There were 49 60-point scorers in 2011.

 

[Regal]

Actually there is a decline because in many peoples minds here they still see the Sedins as elite type of players, when in fact they were so only for a short period of time.

No one was talking about the Sedins being elite, or even on the cusp before their surprising breakout in 10 and to a lesser degree in 11.

All that is besides the point it's pretty obvious in the last couple of years on which direction the pair is going in, especially Daniel.

I don't know anyone who thinks the Sedins are the players they were from '09-'11. They're obviously not those players anymore. Most people who think they'll have bounce back years are talking about all the years before those two seasons and the two after that before last years fall that had them as roughly point per game or a bit under guys. They declined back to their general level, and then fell off a cliff last year. I don't think I've seen anyone still call them elite, but considering only a handful of guys in this league can regularly exceed a point per game pace, they're still high end first liners if they're back to their '12 and '13 levels. Now, maybe last year was the start of a major dropoff, but I don't think the numbers are clearly showing anything at this point. Using their two career years as part of a decline, when '12 and '13 were right in line with their typical years before that is disingenuous.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't know anyone who thinks the Sedins are the players they were from '09-'11. They're obviously not those players anymore. Most people who think they'll have bounce back years are talking about all the years before those two seasons and the two after that before last years fall that had them as roughly point per game or a bit under guys. They declined back to their general level, and then fell off a cliff last year. I don't think I've seen anyone still call them elite, but considering only a handful of guys in this league can regularly exceed a point per game pace, they're still high end first liners if they're back to their '12 and '13 levels. Now, maybe last year was the start of a major dropoff, but I don't think the numbers are clearly showing anything at this point. Using their two career years as part of a decline, when '12 and '13 were right in line with their typical years before that is disingenuous.

Sorry but I think that you misunderstood my original post on the adjusted numbers, of course all of those years weren't a decline (from 10 on wards it certainly was though).

I also think it's a big if that they, as a pair, are a long shot at best to ever be considered "high end first liners" again given their ages and recent track records.

 

[Ernie]

Worth mentioning that in terms of the percentage of the cap, the Sedins actually signed for a lower amount on their new deal than they did in 2009.

 

[Alflives*]

I don't know anyone who thinks the Sedins are the players they were from '09-'11. They're obviously not those players anymore. Most people who think they'll have bounce back years are talking about all the years before those two seasons and the two after that before last years fall that had them as roughly point per game or a bit under guys. They declined back to their general level, and then fell off a cliff last year. I don't think I've seen anyone still call them elite, but considering only a handful of guys in this league can regularly exceed a point per game pace, they're still high end first liners if they're back to their '12 and '13 levels. Now, maybe last year was the start of a major dropoff, but I don't think the numbers are clearly showing anything at this point. Using their two career years as part of a decline, when '12 and '13 were right in line with their typical years before that is disingenuous.

I think the op was asking if the twins are on the decline? Why is there even a thread here, when the question is rhetorical? It's the natural order of things. We all age.

 

[Havre]

I think the op was asking if the twins are on the decline? Why is there even a thread here, when the question is rhetorical? It's the natural order of things. We all age.

Lidström was almost a point per game player at 37. Obviously not a forward, but still. St. Louis won't score 100 points again, but he was still ppg during his time at Tampa last year.

Considering their style of play I don't think it is a given that the Sedins can't keep on going for quite a few years still. Henrik was a 75-80 points player before those two seasons above 90. He then went back to 81 and he was close to ppg in the shortened season. Now it seems that most have the view that he will stay around 50-60 rather than getting back to 75-80. If we get the PP working again I really don't see why he shouldn't be up in the 75-80s again. He hasn't gotten that much older that quickly.

Daniel is slightly more complicated, but primarily because he doesn't seem to be a "pure" (he never was really pure) goal scorer any longer. If Vrbata can finish what the Sedins will still produce of good opportunities for their linemate(s) Daniel's numbers will rise again like Henrik. He won't score 40 goals again, but he could still get those 70+ points. And hopefully if Vrbata "clicks" with the Sedins Daniels confidence will help him become a bigger goal scoring threat himself.

I wish we had an intelligent goal scoring C to play alongside Daniel at times. Kesler scored goals, but he never had the intelligence to C a guy like Daniel. Daniel with someone like Stamkos would have been sensational.

 

[Regal]

Sorry but I think that you misunderstood my original post on the adjusted numbers, of course all of those years weren't a decline (from 10 on wards it certainly was though).

I also think it's a big if that they, as a pair, are a long shot at best to ever be considered "high end first liners" again given their ages and recent track records.

I don't think I misunderstood. You're talking about a decline from 09-10 to now, and using that to show they keep declining every year. Yes, technically that's the case, but basically, it was a two season spike before returning to their normal level of play where they had been at for the three years before the spike. '13 was slightly below '12, but well within the range of random variance. Last year was the first year of a real decline in performance, and considering injury/coaching/total team collapse, it's reasonable to think it might just be a one season blip. They were high end first liners 70 games ago, yet it's a long shot at best they can get back to that?

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't think I misunderstood. You're talking about a decline from 09-10 to now, and using that to show they keep declining every year. Yes, technically that's the case, but basically, it was a two season spike before returning to their normal level of play where they had been at for the three years before the spike. '13 was slightly below '12, but well within the range of random variance. Last year was the first year of a real decline in performance, and considering injury/coaching/total team collapse, it's reasonable to think it might just be a one season blip. They were high end first liners 70 games ago, yet it's a long shot at best they can get back to that?

This is a really weird way of looking at things isn't it?

Like if we take out the 2 elite years (that lot's of people were clinging to last year and the year before, then there is no decline?

Okay whatever I guess then there was no ascent either if we take out their first 4 years too? See the problem here?

And yes given their age, recent injuries and track record any return to even a 140 point combined mark by the pair is really outlandish.

That being said Henrik looks like he is aging better and should have more value than Henrik going forward but how much of a decline do you need to see before reality hits in here?

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Worth mentioning that in terms of the percentage of the cap, the Sedins actually signed for a lower amount on their new deal than they did in 2009.

Yeah but they were also quite a bit younger and had hit PPG.

 

[Alflives*]

Lidström was almost a point per game player at 37. Obviously not a forward, but still. St. Louis won't score 100 points again, but he was still ppg during his time at Tampa last year.

Considering their style of play I don't think it is a given that the Sedins can't keep on going for quite a few years still. Henrik was a 75-80 points player before those two seasons above 90. He then went back to 81 and he was close to ppg in the shortened season. Now it seems that most have the view that he will stay around 50-60 rather than getting back to 75-80. If we get the PP working again I really don't see why he shouldn't be up in the 75-80s again. He hasn't gotten that much older that quickly.

Daniel is slightly more complicated, but primarily because he doesn't seem to be a "pure" (he never was really pure) goal scorer any longer. If Vrbata can finish what the Sedins will still produce of good opportunities for their linemate(s) Daniel's numbers will rise again like Henrik. He won't score 40 goals again, but he could still get those 70+ points. And hopefully if Vrbata "clicks" with the Sedins Daniels confidence will help him become a bigger goal scoring threat himself.

I wish we had an intelligent goal scoring C to play alongside Daniel at times. Kesler scored goals, but he never had the intelligence to C a guy like Daniel. Daniel with someone like Stamkos would have been sensational.

I agree, the twins (more so 33) are still good players. However, they are still on the decline, we just hope it's not too slippery a slope.

 

[Toxic0n]

There were 49 60-point scorers last seasons. There were 49 60-point scorers in 2011.

So what does that prove?

FYI, here's a breakdown of the average scoring for Top 10 scorers in the West for the past 4 years.

Do you see a trend? Or are you going to say that top end scoring is not trending down?

2010 86.6
2011 84.4
2012 74
2013 80
2014 78.5

Also, take a look at the top scorers in the West during the same timeframe

2010 112
2011 104
2012 81
2013 93.95
2014 87

Do you see a trend?

 

[Regal]

This is a really weird way of looking at things isn't it?

Like if we take out the 2 elite years (that lot's of people were clinging to last year and the year before, then there is no decline?

Okay whatever I guess then there was no ascent either if we take out their first 4 years too? See the problem here?

And yes given their age, recent injuries and track record any return to even a 140 point combined mark by the pair is really outlandish.

That being said Henrik looks like he is aging better and should have more value than Henrik going forward but how much of a decline do you need to see before reality hits in here?

I don't know why it's so weird. There's lots of players who have brief spikes in production during their primes, but basically have an established level below that that is their general level of play throughout their primes. Someone like Joe Thornton is similar in that he spiked after the lockout as being one of the best players in the league, but his general level has been a PPG first line center. Likewise, Vinny LeCavalier had a two year spike, but he was more of a 65-70 point guy in all his other years. I don't think the periods after their spikes are necessarily declines. I would say a real decline doesn't set in until they start falling below that established general level(which Vinny has and Joe hasn't) Last year was potentially the start of the Sedin's decline, but I'm not ready to say anything is definite from one year where everything went wrong.

I really don't see what's so outlandish at thinking they can get back to that level. You know your hockey history and there's countless examples of high end players performing well past their age. The biggest thing that seems to hit players at that age is consistency and injury problems. I wouldn't be surprised if their point totals fluctuate more during this contract as some years they'll be hit harder by the grind of a long season than others. But I would be surprised if they never hit 70 point paces again. I guess we'll have to wait and see though.

 

[Evolu7ion]

I think the so called "decline" of the Sedins is overblown and can be attributed to two driving factors:

1) They are indeed getting older, and wear and tear on the body will reduces offensive effectiveness and output; and

2) They are no longer the beneficiary of favorable offensive zone starts.

When AV was at the helm, he utilized aggressive zone-matching. Manny and Kes were given the hard defensive starts, and Kes was always matched up against the other team's top line. The Sedins were given the prime offensive zone starts (the same way Sid, Ovy, Stamkos, and other offensive players are), where if you win the face off you can instantly create a scoring chance rather than having to win the faceoff and then advance the puck and gain the zone. Statistically speaking, every offensive zone start produces an average of 0.8 more shots than a defensive zone start, so if you constantly apply that strategy the impact is huge. If you give a guy an extra 10 offensive zone starts a game rather than defensive zone starts, the team will produce an extra 8 shots while that player is on the ice which over the span of a season will boost his offensive production.

But last year Torts came up with the bright idea to start them in the defensive zone a lot more, and force them to spend more energy on defense and transition rather than focus on what they are best at, creating offense inside the offensive zone. Dale Hunter attempted to try the same thing with Ovechkin a few years back, and he had his worst offensive season ever. Zone starts and player usage can honestly have a significant impact on offensive production, we're talking a swing of 20-30 point potential.

With the new coach, I think we'll see the aggressive zone start strategy brought back, and therefore the Sedins will rebound. They have aged so there won't be any more 100 pt seasons, Kes isn't around to handle the other team's top line which will hurt production somewhat, however they should be approaching PPG if they find some decent chemistry with Vrbata, or if Burrows game is rekindled.

2014/15 Projection

Assuming they are given 6 more offensive zone starts per game (2 per period), that will produce 4.8 (6 x 0.8) shots per game while they are on the ice. Assuming a 40% chance a specific Sedin gets a point on a goal if they are on the ice, and the team's shooting % is 10% which is around league average, that will produce 0.192 (4.8 x 40% x 10%) more points per game for each Sedin, which equates to an extra 16 (0.192 x 82) points each over the span of 82 games.

Henrik was on pace for 58 points last season, so if you add 16 points that brings his 2014/15 projection to 74 if he plays 82 games.

Daniel was on pace for 52 points last season, so if you add 16 points that brings his 2014/15 projection to 68 if he plays 82 games.

Further, that was playing with struggling linemates all season, so adding Vrbata or a healthy Burrows should inject a few more points as well, at least 5 - 10 each, bringing the totals to around 75 and 80 for Daniel and Hank respectively.

 

[Hardyvan123]

zone starts is an interesting thing to look at but they were really very high for 3 years before last year when they were back to 60% area(when they weren't low overall just down from their really high peak in comparison to the rest of the league).

It could very well be that AV and the high offensive zone starts masked a decline that was already taking place.

Going forward if the Sedins once again get 60%+ of the offensive starts which players are going to do the heavy defensive lifting?