there's a difference between understanding role/usage... and understanding the 2013-15 Buffalo Sabres
Yes, but it really doesn't make that big of a difference.
Or are you actually saying that you have rounded up your opinion and saying the people were legitimately down on Girgs's scoring? This is the second time you're referring to the same logic that you were against on other subject...
So Larsson scoring was down on bottom-6 role because he was playing with AHLers. There wasn't really other reasons?
And Larsson scored 4 points on his rookie season in 28 games. Krüger, while being a year younger, scored 26 points in 71 games (and he didn't play with Kane...).
Or did we learn that Larsson is able to produce offense when moving up in to a scoring role on the worst team ever, and Kruger is not able to produce offense in possibly the most favorable offensive scenario in the league?
He wasn't able to produce in a scoring role this season. I have watched Larsson two seasons in Rochester where he was mainly playing as a winger, in a scoring role. He simply wasn't able to translate that dimension on NHL-level, based on this season.
"Small samples for both... yada yada."
It's not only about small sample size (nice try to proactively trying to counter an argument even you yourself cannot say anything against.
)
How Krüger did with Kane in 168 minutes doesn't really matter when we're talking about him as shut-down center. He has shown to be more productive in that role - it's all that matters.
You still think Girgs is better?
Yes. And I have offered plenty of metrics and even pointed out specific game play situations (with exact playtime markers). You have mostly concentrated on trying to ridicule your counterpart with posts like this, and trying to look smart in any other way but actually backing up your claims. Not that it isn't typical.
For example in that Islanders game Girgs replaced Larsson, he played against Tavares/Nielsen, won 67% of the face-offs, kept the unscored when he was on the ice, tied possession-wise with Tavares and created the offense in a similar way that the line did with Larsson (from down-low to blueline). Sure, that's extremely small sample-size, but it's consistent with Girgs play in a similar role with lesser linemates previously.
The metrics are never the sole argument. I've seen you struggle enough with the appropriate usage/break of the metrics.
I would love you to be more specific here, but I'm not going to hold my breathe waiting that to happen - I might became very blue!
the bolded is where you went wrong... it's why you thought Girgs was better at center (you were wrong).
Like I said, I have actually shown specific situations from a game - while you have done pretty much nothing.
For example, on that second Columbus' goal in the previous game, Larsson lacked the reach and explosiveness to intercept the player giving the pass to Foligno. Larsson wasn't to blame on that goal, but if he had have better reach and explosiveness, he might have prevented the goal.
Interesting, since you crystal ball'd Larsson becoming better than Kruger last year.
I think there is a clear difference between saying under a context of trading for a specific player that you think that a player A will be better than a player B, than to say that you're willing to give 8 year contract based on that opinion. If you had asked me that am I so confident, that I would give him 8 year deal, I wouldn't say that "yeah, I'm that confident". Far from it.
i started this conversation
The size of your ego doesn't seem to have any limits.
You weren't the person who bumped this thread up NOR you were the person who brought up the topic of Larsson's extension. You were the one who brought up this silly thing about giving a bottom-6 player with only one full season under him 8 year deal. You were just among other posters to give your opinion about the question asked by bluetooth.
When I entered this conversation, I didn't commented on your "8 year deal", because, honestly, it didn't really deserve any commenting. I simply offered a proper comparable, in my opinion, to follow.
It was you who (again) decided to grab on my posts.
You actually seem to believe that the world revolves around you.
I don't think the players where you can and should take advantage of RFA to suppress their costs (knowing they will cost significantly more in the future - scorers) is a relevant example in locking up a checking line center long term.
I have already asked you that where is this idea about Larsson significantly raising his value comes from? I asked you that do you believe that he will significantly exceed Krüger's offensive numbers in a similar, extremely offensively restricted role?
Trapping yourself with parameters like that is extremely stupid
You do understand that you're basically saying that as a GM you're not using the very leverage that the RFA/UFA system gives you? Operating like you don't have that leverage is extremely stupid.
he got that contract coming off a season in which he played nearly half the year in the AHL.
And where he potted about half of his current NHL point totals. So how was it, was the season Larsson had last year a good or bad example of his skillset? You seem to have difficulties at deciding.
i don't expect a checking line center to hit 40.
I thought so. So If Larsson exceeds Krügers numbers by with 5 or so, it affects his value pretty much zero at all. Larsson's offensive production (which is pretty much the only way to raise your value significantly) is going to jump out based on what? What exactly will make him SO MUCH more valuable player than Krüger for example? If he is playing the exact same role.
other opportunities, to make more money... after we suppressed his earnings. Low risk? maybe. But the gains you've attained through the bridge and suppress process gained little of value.
You mean like Krüger and Sean Couturier did with their respective teams? Yeah, it's a possibility. But you (or any other actual GM) don't offer 8 year deals based on the possibility of a bottom-6 player leaving fair money on the table.
Yeah, the risks have been illustrated.
You didn't answer the first question.
How many Swedes have used KHL as a leverage in the history? How many Swedes have left one-way contract with guaranteed roster spot on the table to go to KHL?
And being risk averse gets you bloated contracts down the line.
The Flyers bridged Couturier for 2 years, and now are paying him 4.333 for the next 5 years.
Couturier signed 6 year contract... No need to thank, I'm pretty used to correct you on these factual matters.
But it's interesting you brought up Couturier as an example. I mean, Couturier is the player you have been ready to trade picks that would have ensured you 1) Sam Reinhart and 2) Aleksander Barkov. You have also indicated Couturier becoming a player between Kopitar and ROR.
It's more than evident that you have been pretty "confident" with Couturier. And by your "confidence" route, you would have already gave him 8 year number one center money (most likely at least 6 million a year minimum). So now, taking the risk averse route, gave Philly the exact same 8 years of services, with SIGNIFICANTLY less money spent.
Similarly, Minny didn't waste time bridging Coyle. They identified him as a core piece, even though he's not a top tier talent. And the've got him for the 5 years at 3.2 per.
I'm absolutely not saying that you shouldn't ever give long-term contracts (actually, I think the opposite). But it's about figuring out the right players, in the right role to give those contracts. Is it a player who will likely play in a role and to succeed in a role that gets paid? Or is it a player playing in a role where you don't usually see big money paid, and getting raise in general is difficult?
As long as you acknowledge the risk you are taking on (Larsson drives his value up, Larsson opts for a straight to free agency contract after the bridge). Then we can agree that you are low level risk averse and I am confident in Larsson.
Yes, there is a chance of Larsson driving his value up. But in a role similar with Krüger (something we both can agree being quite probable for him in the future?), the probabilities of that to happen are not that great.
So, "because points"... you weren't actually a good judge of on ice play?
Of course I was. Just like I (and probably you?) watched Girgensons as well.
Like I said, I have actually watched Larsson a really good chunk in Rochester. He was able to produce offense there really well. I was also mirroring his games against that background, but this season took a big toll on him regarding that (he was offensively nothing like he was in Roch).
Yea, you're opinion on Larsson changed significantly over the course of the offseason. In fact, your opinion happened to change right around when "Larsson is significantly better defensively than Girgensons" happened.
Oh baby Jesus... You actually think that your opinion about a certain player affects my opinion?
This is another great example of you thinking that you're somekind of center of the universe.
No, my opinion didn't chance because of your one post.
It changed because I used to think that he has the potential to be a poor man's ROR (Frans Nielsen being a pretty good example), but I haven't seen the offense or level of play. I thought he could be a top-6 caliber center playing in a third-line. Now I see him having great chances of becoming a good possession based shut-down center being able to throw offense here and there, but not something that will be a clear aspect of his game.
Why did you think that? Besides points...
Because I have watched him a lot in Roch.
Ironically... you were closer to being right, when you thought you were blind.
Yeah, I was "closer" being right.
I'd take Larsson over Kruger right now. He's got a much better offensive tool set, while being equals defensively. I know that's hard to believe with Larsson point production. But... usage... it matters. Team/Linemates... it matters.
You have your right on your opinion. And beside you not exactly offering any reasoning (beside that irrelevant 168 minutes with Kane tidbit) behind it, I'm not throwing jabs this time.
But as you said, usage, linemates etc. matters. Let's see when Larsson gets his offensive opportunities as reduced (no PP time and less than 20% o-zone-starts etc) with changing and different linemates.
You don't think your Larsson/Kruger opinion from 12 months ago is relevant in a Larsson/Kruger debate?
After I have seen Larsson playing a full season and after seeing Larsson first time on the similar role as Krüger? No, I don't think that is that relevant. At least not that relevant that you should ignore many of my other arguments instead of that.
It wasn't to ridicule you. It was to remind you. Unfortunately, you felt they need to take the embarrassing "back track" angle
I don't really need any reminding. I do remember thinking that Larsson could have potential to be a quality top-6 caliber center based on his AHL seasons.
From that perspective, it's crazy
But be forward thinking.
Yeah, like you said. It's crazy. And you never answered to my questions (just like I thought you wouldn't):
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.
If giving 8 years deals to bottom-6 players after their first full season is so smart, why you don't see ANY GM operating that way?
Jame, are you willing to take a bet? I'm sure you think that Tim Murray must be as smart as you (or you being at least as smart as Tim Murray), I'm sure you have no problem being confident that Murray is not dumb enough to give him anything else than 8 year deal... And I'm even willing to better your chances.. If Larsson gets at least 6 year long deal, you win. If he gets anything less than that, I win. You can set the wager.
Easy win for you - assumed you think that Murray is at least as smart as you're...
