Player Discussion Johan Larsson

[Jame]

And you also think that Larsson played last season the same role as a center as he has played this season? Krüger never has played in that role.

Yea, Larsson got a nice run on the first line of the worst team in NHL history. While in the same age season, Kruger got 32% of his ES time with Pat Kane.

You do remember the talk about Girgs' lesser points this season compared to last season? Yeah, you're doing the same thing in a way - now just being the guy who is not able to recognize the difference between the roles...

I remember you thinking Girgs was a better defensive center than Larsson.

Any reasoning behind this, well, pretty bold statement?

Yes.

 

[brian_griffin]

...

I'm all for giving Larsson time to establish himself and keep developing. Giving him opportunity to prove that he is able to be an effective shutdown center with different players on a regular basis. He hasn't shown that yet. After his ELC Krüger got bridge deals and got better... And his value never exploded. The possibility of getting 500k cap savings just isn't worth the risk of paying above Krüger money to a player who is not on that level. Let him prove himself, and lock him long-term after that. In his perceived role, he is not going to explode offensively.

If Larsson ends up being equivalent to Krüger, we all should celebrate like a mad man.



You're talking about this 8 year deal here?

And I do remember the talk about Hodgson as well... Great value for a player who confidently will be high level performer..

It's just doesn't always go like that. That's the reason you see only rarely players having those max term deals. And the reason is not that players don't want them...



When did pro season started to matter regarding UFA-status? It has always been about accrued seasons. It's about having 7 accrued seasons or becoming 27 on the season before the season entering UFA. Larsson is July born, which gives him one "extra" year compared to the guys born on June and before that. I'm more than happy to be corrected by dotcommunism or someone else with the knowledge.

I think you're right on the pro season vs. accrued season stuff.

I would accept that reasoning, but the value is not in the cap savings, per se, it's in protecting the plan. And I don't think Larsson needs to preform Kruger-level to protect the plan. Sabres have focused heavily on centers. If Larsson doesn't pan out long-term, they'll need to slide Reinhart down or move Girgs over (both less preferred) or acquire someone from elsewhere in the NHL (more preferred). Because, I can't reasonably see Buffalo drafting centers to develop with the explicit hope/need to displace 15/23/90, because those players will be in BUF long term. Similarly, extend that reasoning to Larsson. If you drafted a future Larsson/Kruger/Pahlson now, you'd be several years away from being in BUF, unless player was Coutourier-like quality. So that means you need Larsson for, say, 4-5 more years. So that means any centers in the Sabres pipeline will be there because they were best player available, and/or intended for the AHL or as trade chips. So, I'm arguing that by default the Sabres have an implicit 4-5 year commitment to Larsson (or an acquired near-equivalent). I'd then argue that any team who had a Larsson equivalent wouldn't part with him for the same reasons Buffalo shouldn't, unless they're flush with defensive-role centers. And if Buffalo is bearish on Larsson long-term and have to give up something to get his replacement from another team, that's one less asset (pick/prospect/player) available to fill greter needs. So, if there is no Larsson replacement in the Sabres system, and there is a 4-5 year window for a drafted player to emerge, and acquiring a replacement (either a near equivalent or better player) takes assets that could be better spent elsewhere, then why not commit to Larsson long term? I see little risk, in terms of protecting the larger plan.

If there was a gaggle of cost-controlled defensive centers available every offseason then there would be less need. I don't think there are, but I also know I'm not providing evidence.

 

[Chainshot]

Pro season and accrued season is not the same thing. I already said that.

Player gets an accrued season when he stays on the roster at least 40 games (no need to play those games).

My apologies! I did mis-read that.

 

[Jame]

I think you're right on the pro season vs. accrued season stuff.

I would accept that reasoning, but the value is not in the cap savings, per se, it's in protecting the plan. And I don't think Larsson needs to preform Kruger-level to protect the plan. Sabres have focused heavily on centers. If Larsson doesn't pan out long-term, they'll need to slide Reinhart down or move Girgs over (both less preferred) or acquire someone from elsewhere in the NHL (more preferred). Because, I can't reasonably see Buffalo drafting centers to develop with the explicit hope/need to displace 15/23/90, because those players will be in BUF long term. Similarly, extend that reasoning to Larsson. If you drafted a future Larsson/Kruger/Pahlson now, you'd be several years away from being in BUF, unless player was Coutourier-like quality. So that means you need Larsson for, say, 4-5 more years. So that means any centers in the Sabres pipeline will be there because they were best player available, and/or intended for the AHL or as trade chips. So, I'm arguing that by default the Sabres have an implicit 4-5 year commitment to Larsson (or an acquired near-equivalent). I'd then argue that any team who had a Larsson equivalent wouldn't part with him for the same reasons Buffalo shouldn't, unless they're flush with defensive-role centers. And if Buffalo is bearish on Larsson long-term and have to give up something to get his replacement from another team, that's one less asset (pick/prospect/player) available to fill greter needs. So, if there is no Larsson replacement in the Sabres system, and there is a 4-5 year window for a drafted player to emerge, and acquiring a replacement (either a near equivalent or better player) takes assets that could be better spent elsewhere, then why not commit to Larsson long term? I see little risk, in terms of protecting the larger plan.

If there was a gaggle of cost-controlled defensive centers available every offseason then there would be less need. I don't think there are, but I also know I'm not providing evidence.

i didn't even read the rest yet

 

[Heraldic]

Yea, Larsson got a nice run on the first line of the worst team in NHL history. While in the same age season, Kruger got 32% of his ES time with Pat Kane.

Yeah, getting prime offensive minutes and great chunk of PP time - something Krüger has never had.

On his rookie season Krüger scored 26 points and didn't play pretty much anytime with Kane.

The season you're referring, Krüger played 520 minutes, and of those minutes he played 168 with Kane.

Despite Krüger actually really never playing with Kane, you think those 168 minutes matters in the big picture?

Talk about agenda here...

I remember you thinking Girgs was a better defensive center than Larsson.

Yeah, and I remember you saying that Larsson is significantly better. Too bad that you haven't really backed that claim. And the stats don't really support your view.

Yes.

I forgot you're the guy who doesn't really like to have actual conversation. Being "right" matters the most, and if ever talking nonsense (like thinking Bolland is a good example), you rather ignore it and pretend like you haven't talked nonsense like that.

 

[Jame]

Yeah, getting prime offensive minutes and great chunk of PP time - something Krüger has never had.

calling anything "prime offensive minutes" on the 14/15 Buffalo Sabres is pretty comical. Implying it's an advantageous scenario compared to playing 33% of your time with Pat Kane on a championship laden roster... ludicrous.

On his rookie season Krüger scored 26 points and didn't play pretty much anytime with Kane.

Neither did Larsson in his first season (13/14)

The season you're referring, Krüger played 520 minutes, and of those minutes he played 168 with Kane.

Despite Krüger actually really never playing with Kane, you think those 168 minutes matters in the big picture?

yes, those 168 minutes are also known as "one third of the time". Not sure how you came to the conclusion that they never really played together...

The interesting thing is how many points Kruger put up in that time. Zero.
gf/ga kruger w/ kane
0.71
1.78
-1.07

Yeah, and I remember you saying that Larsson is significantly better. Too bad that you haven't really backed that claim. And the stats don't really support your view.

I forgot you're the guy who doesn't really like to have actual conversation. Being "right" matters the most, and if ever talking nonsense (like thinking Bolland is a good example), you rather ignore it and pretend like you haven't talked nonsense like that.

Yes, Larsson is significantly better defensively than Girgensons (not that Girgs isn't a solid 2 way winger, who has gotten better this year). With time, more and more will see the obvious. And you won't

I love having conversations/debates. But I do make an effort to avoid traps from those who don't have anything interesting of their own to say, and merely play contrarian to others.

I think examples of contract go beyond the simplicity of points/team situation. I think this little thing called talent evaluation/projection goes a long way. Which is why Bolland DIDN'T get a 2nd line/50 point/25 year old enter contract... and instead got a 3rd line center contract. The Hawks didn't give Bolland a long term 2nd line center contract because they both didn't see that as his role, nor his skill set.

 

[Heraldic]

I would accept that reasoning, but the value is not in the cap savings, per se, it's in protecting the plan. And I don't think Larsson needs to preform Kruger-level to protect the plan. Sabres have focused heavily on centers. If Larsson doesn't pan out long-term, they'll need to slide Reinhart down or move Girgs over (both less preferred) or acquire someone from elsewhere in the NHL (more preferred). Because, I can't reasonably see Buffalo drafting centers to develop with the explicit hope/need to displace 15/23/90, because those players will be in BUF long term. Similarly, extend that reasoning to Larsson. If you drafted a future Larsson/Kruger/Pahlson now, you'd be several years away from being in BUF, unless player was Coutourier-like quality. So that means you need Larsson for, say, 4-5 more years. So that means any centers in the Sabres pipeline will be there because they were best player available, and/or intended for the AHL or as trade chips. So, I'm arguing that by default the Sabres have an implicit 4-5 year commitment to Larsson (or an acquired near-equivalent). I'd then argue that any team who had a Larsson equivalent wouldn't part with him for the same reasons Buffalo shouldn't, unless they're flush with defensive-role centers. And if Buffalo is bearish on Larsson long-term and have to give up something to get his replacement from another team, that's one less asset (pick/prospect/player) available to fill greter needs. So, if there is no Larsson replacement in the Sabres system, and there is a 4-5 year window for a drafted player to emerge, and acquiring a replacement (either a near equivalent or better player) takes assets that could be better spent elsewhere, then why not commit to Larsson long term? I see little risk, in terms of protecting the larger plan.

I do agree with this.

But I'm not advocating shipping Larsson away. Earlier I thought that Larsson is acceptable trade piece (but not preferable). But after his showings at the end of the season, I rather let him stay on his current role and establish and develop himself.

Giving Larsson one or even two year bridge deal would protect the plan as well. You still had three or two RFA years with him, and you could lock him up. The difference most likely wouldn't be that big regarding cap hit. Unless he's willing to make +5 year deal with around 1,5 millions.

Locking Larsson up with the type of contract talked here, just contains too much risk of paying too much. Krüger absolutely is an integral part of Chicago's team. But they're not paying him 5 millions just because of that. Players like Krüger just don't get that kind of money.

If the case were either losing him to free agency or giving him a contract like that, it would be a different thing. But that's not the case with Larsson here.

My apologies! I did mis-read that.

It's okay! And apologies as well for throwing a bit spiky response!

 

[Jame]

I do agree with this.

But I'm not advocating shipping Larsson away. Earlier I thought that Larsson is acceptable trade piece (but not preferable). But after his showings at the end of the season, I rather let him stay on his current role and establish and develop himself.

Giving Larsson one or even two year bridge deal would protect the plan as well. You still had three or two RFA years with him, and you could lock him up. The difference most likely wouldn't be that big regarding cap hit. Unless he's willing to make +5 year deal with around 1,5 millions.

Locking Larsson up with the type of contract talked here, just contains too much risk of paying too much. Krüger absolutely is an integral part of Chicago's team. But they're not paying him 5 millions just because of that. Players like Krüger just don't get that kind of money.

If the case were either losing him to free agency or giving him a contract like that, it would be a different thing. But that's not the case with Larsson here.



It's okay! And apologies as well for throwing a bit spiky response!

There is risk in bridging Larsson.
2016-17 : 1.75
2017-18 : 1.75

So great, we've saved 1.75 million in each year (as opposed to the HIGH end 3.5 per 8 year deal). But we really didn't need to save that money in those years, so it's a moot point.

Let's assume that Larsson continues on trajectory. He's a checking line center, who sees offensive growth as the team grows.

In the 2018 RFA negotiations, Larsson could very well insist on a 2 year deal to UFA. At this point he should be looking at a market value similar to Kruger's but with a few years of inflations.
2018-19 : 3.0
2019-20 : 3.0

For those 2 "cup window" year, you saved 500k... but you also now have to enter an offseason with a core role player heading to UFA... where as in the long term approach, you've got him for 4 more years, locked in to an important role through the core top 6's prime.

This approach reeks of STL undervaluing Sobotka.

And what's the downside on the long term deal? If you now recognize his skillset...

 

[brian_griffin]

I do agree with this.

But I'm not advocating shipping Larsson away. Earlier I thought that Larsson is acceptable trade piece (but not preferable). But after his showings at the end of the season, I rather let him stay on his current role and establish and develop himself.

Giving Larsson one or even two year bridge deal would protect the plan as well. You still had three or two RFA years with him, and you could lock him up. The difference most likely wouldn't be that big regarding cap hit. Unless he's willing to make +5 year deal with around 1,5 millions.

Locking Larsson up with the type of contract talked here, just contains too much risk of paying too much. Krüger absolutely is an integral part of Chicago's team. But they're not paying him 5 millions just because of that. Players like Krüger just don't get that kind of money.

If the case were either losing him to free agency or giving him a contract like that, it would be a different thing. But that's not the case with Larsson here.



It's okay! And apologies as well for throwing a bit spiky response!

We understand each other well enough. I'm willing to spend $1-1.5M more per year to protect the plan, because it's cheap insurance to me (proper balance of cost/benefit/risk), given the expectations there will be with ~$30M cap hit per year in the Core Four (15,23,90,55) balanced out with ELC value "overachievers" and in-betweeners like Larsson (and hopefully Girgs).

 

[Kennerdell]

This turned into one hell of a topic pretty quick. I hope Murray reads this.

 

[dasaybz]

Who would you guys take straight up right now ... Larry, or Poms?

 

[Jame]

Who would you guys take straight up right now ... Larry, or Poms?

I wouldn't take poms for free right now

 

[brian_griffin]

I wouldn't take poms for free right now

Could we do a physics-of-hockey experiment? If Moulson and Pomminville could somehow accelerate faster than bantam players, could they skate fast enough from behind opposit goal lines, that their collision at center ice would cause their combined $10.6M per year cap hit to be absorbed into the black hole their playing ability has gone?

 

[Jame]

Could we do a physics-of-hockey experiment? If Moulson and Pomminville could somehow accelerate faster than bantam players, could they skate fast enough from behind opposit goal lines, that their collision at center ice would cause their combined $10.6M per year cap hit to be absorbed into the black hole their playing ability has gone?

How many Brad Browns are needed in that equation? I don't think they'd come close.

 

[dasaybz]

I wouldn't take poms for free right now

I haven't paid attention to him at all this year. Is he just totally broken?

 

[Jame]

I haven't paid attention to him at all this year. Is he just totally broken?

see: moulson

 

[Chainshot]

I wouldn't take poms for free right now

I'd go further and say I wouldn't take him even with incentives to take him.

Coming back to a point about contract savings specific to Johan, I'm more interested in finding incremental cap savings in the bottom 6. Having him making mid-3's sets value, and if they can keep that down 300-700K over a span of three-five guys? That is more the macro view of it for me.

Could we do a physics-of-hockey experiment? If Moulson and Pomminville could somehow accelerate faster than bantam players, could they skate fast enough from behind opposit goal lines, that their collision at center ice would cause their combined $10.6M per year cap hit to be absorbed into the black hole their playing ability has gone?

Let's call CERN and put Moulson in the LHC. The way to understand dark matter could be through the velocity anomaly Matt would generate.

see: moulson

Yep, he's living off Huala and El Niño like Moulson did off Ennis-Larry/Girgs to end last season. And his contract is worse in term and $$. Big no.

 

[SharkInABoloTie]

I'd go further and say I wouldn't take him even with incentives to take him.

Coming back to a point about contract savings specific to Johan, I'm more interested in finding incremental cap savings in the bottom 6. Having him making mid-3's sets value, and if they can keep that down 300-700K over a span of three-five guys? That is more the macro view of it for me.

If we were to give him a 5-6 year deal, what would be a reasonable cap hit for him?

 

[Jame]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=103150591&postcount=996

But Krüger, while being young, is already highly established, provides experience and is one of the best fourth-line-centers in the game - already.

And I don't see them being mutually exclusive. After Reinhart develops into legitimate top-6-center, you can insert Larsson as third-line-center (I think his offensive potential is higher, while I suspect he will be as a good shut-down-center as Krüger already is).

So, long-term (if Grigo is being traded)

Eichel
Reinhart
Larsson
Krüger

 

[1point21Gigawatts]

I haven't paid attention to him at all this year. Is he just totally broken?

It's unreal how badly his game has gone off the cliff. It has to be more than bad luck and poor conditioning.

 

[Heraldic]

calling anything "prime offensive minutes" on the 14/15 Buffalo Sabres is pretty comical. Implying it's an advantageous scenario compared to playing 33% of your time with Pat Kane on a championship laden roster... ludicrous.

Those were the best offensive minutes that the team could provide for a player in that position. It was the same with Girgs. Like we have talked, and you agreed, the role and position matters. But for some reason the pretty much exact same thing doesn't seem to apply on Larsson. Strange.

Neither did Larsson in his first season (13/14)

And you say they had the same role? You remember how Larsson produced on bottom-6 role that same year?

yes, those 168 minutes are also known as "one third of the time". Not sure how you came to the conclusion that they never really played together...

The interesting thing is how many points Kruger put up in that time. Zero.
gf/ga kruger w/ kane
0.71
1.78
-1.07

I put my words poorly. I intended to say that outside of that season where he played 34 games, they haven't played together.

And considering that Krüger got 28 points before that season and 26 points after that season, what did we learn? That Kane is so bad offensive player he drags Krüger production down? Of course not. Krüger was playing in offensive role for a brief time because Bolland went down. That 168 minutes is pretty meaningless in the big picture. If the debate was that which one of them were better center offensively for Kane in a offensive role, it would matter a lot more.

Yes, Larsson is significantly better defensively than Girgensons (not that Girgs isn't a solid 2 way winger, who has gotten better this year). With time, more and more will see the obvious. And you won't

We had this same conversation... I said that I see both of them being good defensive players. And while I think Girgs is better, I could see someone legitimately thinking otherwise. But not "significantly better".

I have several times offered metrics highly supporting my point of view. And I have seen zero attempts from you trying to prove anything else. You usually like to throw those same metrics everywhere - usually they are the sole argument. But for some reason you simply neglect all that data in this case...

They both are good defensive players with different defensive strengths. Larsson is better positionally and reading the game, while Girgs is better at breaking the possession in a puck battle (being stronger, bigger, faster and having better reach), and getting the puck out of the zone controlled. You seem to see most of the time the "classic" attributes of defensive game (positioning and reading the game).

And because I don't have crystall ball you have, I cannot say that Larsson won't become "significantly better" in the future.

I love having conversations/debates. But I do make an effort to avoid traps from those who don't have anything interesting of their own to say, and merely play contrarian to others.

Oh, it's pot calling the kettle black here. Especially from a guy who usually just throws snarky one-liners, not that often even actually saying anything to the subject.

The talk is extremely active here compared to other boards (regarding one, specific team). You usually just end up jumping into ongoing conversation. Especially because I unfortunately don't have (enough) time to write here constantly.

I think examples of contract go beyond the simplicity of points/team situation. I think this little thing called talent evaluation/projection goes a long way. Which is why Bolland DIDN'T get a 2nd line/50 point/25 year old enter contract... and instead got a 3rd line center contract. The Hawks didn't give Bolland a long term 2nd line center contract because they both didn't see that as his role, nor his skill set.

Of course he didn't, his contract covered 4 RFA years and 1 UFA years... It's the same reason you see Mark Stone, Tyler Johnson, Ryan Johansen and Ondrej Palat playing under contracts like they do.

Throwing UFA money for RFA players is extremely stupid. That's why you don't see that happening. That's why Bolland didn't get second line center contract regarding money.

There is risk in bridging Larsson.
2016-17 : 1.75
2017-18 : 1.75

So great, we've saved 1.75 million in each year (as opposed to the HIGH end 3.5 per 8 year deal). But we really didn't need to save that money in those years, so it's a moot point.

Considering that Krüger got 1,35 millions, where is this number based on? He got 800k contract after last season.

Let's assume that Larsson continues on trajectory. He's a checking line center, who sees offensive growth as the team grows.

If we see him role similar to Krüger, what is his offensive growth exactly? Close to 40 points? I mean, I doubt there is a single player in the league who plays similar role with the same usage as Krüger and pots way above 30 points a season.

In the 2018 RFA negotiations, Larsson could very well insist on a 2 year deal to UFA. At this point he should be looking at a market value similar to Kruger's but with a few years of inflations.
2018-19 : 3.0
2019-20 : 3.0

Yeah he could, but why would he if we offer him market value contract (Krüger)? You have yourself said several times that players don't like to leave guaranteed money on the table. So why would Larsson?

And that is not similar to Krüger's contract. The contract you describe eats zero (0) UFA years, while Krüger's eats two. There is massive difference. In Krüger's contract there is 1/3 RFA years, and in Larsson's 2/2.

For those 2 "cup window" year, you saved 500k... but you also now have to enter an offseason with a core role player heading to UFA... where as in the long term approach, you've got him for 4 more years, locked in to an important role through the core top 6's prime.

That scenario is based on pretty questionable presumptions.

This approach reeks of STL undervaluing Sobotka.

And what did STL offer to him? And is Larsson using KHL as leverage a legit possibility?

And what's the downside on the long term deal? If you now recognize his skillset...

Being confident is not enough. Being confident regarding Hodgson, Mike Richards, Dustin Brown, Stephen Weiss etc, is not enough. Making 8 year deals on non-franchise players based on your "confidence", gets you mike milburied pretty fast. Giving him 8 year contract is a risk, that we're not forced to take. Or why you don't think there isn't any more those contracts handed. Those same principles applies basically to any player you're "confident" in. Is that because GMs are not "confident" in any players like Larsson? Is it because the players don't like those kind of contracts? I would really like to hear an answer for that.

We understand each other well enough. I'm willing to spend $1-1.5M more per year to protect the plan, because it's cheap insurance to me (proper balance of cost/benefit/risk), given the expectations there will be with ~$30M cap hit per year in the Core Four (15,23,90,55) balanced out with ELC value "overachievers" and in-betweeners like Larsson (and hopefully Girgs).

I personally do believe that locking Larsson for overall 6-7 years shouldn't be that hard. For example after two year bridge you give him 4-5 year extension. During that time you most likely have a better grasp what you're paying for - is it a krüger or a boyd gordon.

 

[joshjull]

Folks

Let's try to stay on topic.

 

[dasaybz]

It's unreal how badly his game has gone off the cliff. It has to be more than bad luck and poor conditioning.

Man that trade is looking superb right now huh.

 

[Heraldic]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=103150591&postcount=996

By that time I was a bit blinded by Larsson's season ending regarding his offensive game (something I can admit) and potential.

I have also said that I think Larsson can be a poor man's ROR. But I don't think that anymore, really. I think Krüger is the best comparable ATM (like I said there I thought that Larsson will be better player offensively). And that would be a really good outcoming as well, but it's not granted. At that time my expectations regarding Larsson were higher. Not that I think he will be a bum or anything atm either.

Not that I wouldn't want us to have that center group any less atm. Wouldn't really matter which one of Larsson or Krüger is the fourth or third line guy.

But I give you credit for actually digging something up this time. Not that it was anything that was asked for or anything that was actually relevant here right now.

Or did you have some deeper point there? I mean, beside trying to ridicule me in general?

 

[Chainshot]

If we were to give him a 5-6 year deal, what would be a reasonable cap hit for him?

I'd like him at 5 years for $2.75M AAV since that buys a year of UFA. Three leaves him on the cusp of UFA with arbitration rights, so getting him on something longer works for me.