Line Combos: Question About Lines

[KaprizovEntitlelist]

I have a question about wild lines . If the nhl season resumes with all teams, & wild are playing , how should one go about playing time on 4th line?

Fiala, staal, Kaprizov
Parise, Galchenyuk, Zuccarello
Foligno, ( Koivu/ joel Eriksson / ) Luke kunin
Greenway, Koivu/donato, & Hartman

So do you sit Hartman? Donato?

For next year do you bring back Koivu if season can't return , so Koivu can retire / go out the right way?

How do wild get value for Greenway or donato if wild sign 1 or 2C's? Wouldn't the whole league know in terms of that these players will be scratched most likely;? Or do wild just release / bench Hartman?
Next year 4th line if Hartman released / traded can be :
Hartman, Koivu, Greenway?

Click to read more...

 

[BagHead]

If this year resumes those lines look pretty close to what I'd expect, assuming Kaprizov is also allowed to sign for this season. Personally, I think I'd rotate Hartman and Donato until I knew how each of them are playing after this time off. That goes for almost everyone, actually.

In regard to the off-season, I love Koivu, but if I'm sticking to an dispassionate approach, he's a good 3rd line or great 4th line center, and we already have Rask, Sturm and JEE (if we do acquire a new #2 center) under contract for those spots. I really don't see him on the team next year; even if he were to sign very cheaply, I'm not sure there's a fit.

As for Donato, Greenway and Hartman, Guerin was saying that somebody was going to have to move this off-season. I think he'll do his best to make a trade happen. I can understand people wanting to make sure we get value back for these guys in a trade, but... they don't really have that much trade value. I would, however, not trade Greenway. At least not yet. I doubt he ever gets physically assertive enough to become a dominant power forward, but he will still be a good middle six winger.

 

[DANOZ28]

well i'd pick 3rd line of greenway / kunin / donato. i say keep greenway and trade foligno after this season. trade hartman this summer just my one cent

 

[57special]

I don't see Galchenyuk(who is unsigned, anyway) being an answer at #2C over JEE, but in general the lines look about right. Big questions are whether Koivu comes back, Guerin trades for a top 6 C, and if the Parise trade gets revisited.
Can only see Greenway of Kunin being traded as part of a package for a top 6 C. Donato I can see being moved more easily.

Foligno had a good season, and is a nice mentor and example for the younger players, but I wouldn't hesitate to move him in the right deal(probably paired with a Dman such as Dumba for a top 6C).

 

[MNRube]

We need a scoring C. Period. Some fans here seem to think Zacha or another checking C is the answer - God help us if Guerin believes this nonsense . We need a C that can score to slot in on 1st or 2nd line - they don’t even have to defend that well. Just be a threat on offense.

Parise-XXX/Staal-Fiala
Kaprizov-XXX/Staal-Zuccarello
Greenway-JEE-Kunin
Foligno-Sturm-Donato/Hartman

 

[AKL]

We need a scoring C. Period. Some fans here seem to think Zacha or another checking C is the answer - God help us if Guerin believes this nonsense . We need a C that can score to slot in on 1st or 2nd line - they don’t even have to defend that well. Just be a threat on offense.

Parise-XXX/Staal-Fiala
Kaprizov-XXX/Staal-Zuccarello
Greenway-JEE-Kunin
Foligno-Sturm-Donato/Hartman

Great, tell us how we're going to get one.

 

[Digitalbooya]

He has nothing to answer for there, and btw...Leipold was very much involved.

The Zuccarello signing was horrible no matter who was involved. He wasn’t a center. It didn’t fit the direction of the team (get younger). His cap hit is/was too high and the contract is/was too long. That’s nothing to do with your boy as a player, but everything to do with making stupid management decisions.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

The Zuccarello signing was horrible no matter who was involved. He wasn’t a center. It didn’t fit the direction of the team (get younger). His cap hit is/was too high and the contract is/was too long. That’s nothing to do with your boy as a player, but everything to do with making stupid management decisions.

It has the potential to be horrible (or close to it) depending on what happens with the ED or if we lose somebody because of his money, but as of today, it has costed us almost nothing.

And even though he isn't a center, there's underlying logic that supports a signing like it, even if you disagree with the terms of the contract.

 

[TaLoN]

He has nothing to answer for there, and btw...Leipold was very much involved.

Please stop peddling this as CL making player signing decisions. He doesn't.

He's a GM that goes all in to support what his GM wants to do and uses his resources as an owner to get it done.

Zucc was purely a Fenton choice, so since his GM wanted to sign, CL put on his recruiting hat to help make it happen. Just as he's done for every major signing... like when he was using his personal jet to pick up agents across the country to meet with Zach and Suter etc to sign both of them when Fletcher was GM.

CL does not decide for himself who to sign player-wise.

 

[Digitalbooya]

It has the potential to be horrible (or close to it) depending on what happens with the ED or if we lose somebody because of his money, but as of today, it has costed us almost nothing.

And even though he isn't a center, there's underlying logic that supports a signing like it, even if you disagree with the terms of the contract.

What's that?

 

[Webster]

Oh I think the owner has the final word when he's going to invest 30 million dollars...

And the stuff about Zuccarello getting too much of this and that, it's business...market value. The Wild even included a full nmc through the expansion draft, just to make the offer look better. In other words, he's worth that contract.

Then you may ask these two questions:

Did Zuccarello deliver as expected by the Wild?
Did the Wild deliver as expected by Zuccarello?

The answer is no to both. Boudreau screwed things up, didn't make it better. How it works out in the future depends on the coaching staff and linemates. And I'm sure Guerin will do what he can to make the best use of Zuccarello's skills and experience, as planned in the first place.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

What's that?

That if you trade Granlund for Fiala and then sign a Granlund replacement in UFA with Granlund's money, you're essentially getting Fiala for free, thus improving your team if Fiala turns out to be any kind of player, which he has.

When we traded Granlund, he was a ~65 point player that was making $5.75M but was looking at probably $7M+ on his next deal (hasn't worked out that way for him, but that's what it was at the time). Instead, we signed a 59 point player (Zuccarello's last 5 years average out per 82 games) for $6M and got Fiala. Zuccarello, for all the consternation around him this year, was pacing towards ~20 goals and ~47 points which isn't ideal, but still ~72% of what Granlund was giving us in his peak seasons. Add in Fiala's production and it blows past what Granlund was giving us at his best.

The expansion draft protection is a real thing that might have consequences, but if Zuccarello's contract was 4 years at $5.5M per year (or something), there'd be a hell of a lot less talk about it. Much like Spurgeon's new deal, I just have a hard time getting all worked about something being an extra year too long or an extra million (or less) too much.

 

[Digitalbooya]

That if you trade Granlund for Fiala and then sign a Granlund replacement in UFA with Granlund's money, you're essentially getting Fiala for free, thus improving your team if Fiala turns out to be any kind of player, which he has.

When we traded Granlund, he was a ~65 point player that was making $5.75M but was looking at probably $7M+ on his next deal (hasn't worked out that way for him, but that's what it was at the time). Instead, we signed a 59 point player (Zuccarello's last 5 years average out per 82 games) for $6M and got Fiala. Zuccarello, for all the consternation around him this year, was pacing towards ~20 goals and ~47 points which isn't ideal, but still ~72% of what Granlund was giving us in his peak seasons. Add in Fiala's production and it blows past what Granlund was giving us at his best.

The expansion draft protection is a real thing that might have consequences, but if Zuccarello's contract was 4 years at $5.5M per year (or something), there'd be a hell of a lot less talk about it. Much like Spurgeon's new deal, I just have a hard time getting all worked about something being an extra year too long or an extra million (or less) too much.

Okay, that makes some sense from a pure asset point of view. Now explain why we needed another left shot winger after we already had Zucker, Parise, Fiala, Greenway, Donato, and Foligno. It's a different story if the contract is 1-2 years because there was no immediate use for the cap space. But why hamstring yourself 3-5 years down the road when that might make a huge difference? It was a shortsighted move to offer a contract like that to an older player.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Okay, that makes some sense from a pure asset point of view. Now explain why we needed another left shot winger after we already had Zucker, Parise, Fiala, Greenway, Donato, and Foligno. It's a different story if the contract is 1-2 years because there was no immediate use for the cap space. But why hamstring yourself 3-5 years down the road when that might make a huge difference? It was a shortsighted move to offer a contract like that to an older player.

Like it or not, very few GMs truly have the security to think that way all of the time. They saw the chance to nullify the loss of Granlund at the expense of only cap space. I'm not saying I 100% agree with it, but I'm saying that I can understand why they did. You just have to think like someone who gets at least gets partially graded on how much the team wins, and not so much on how the cap situation looks 5 years down the road. Personally, the NMC would've probably been a deal breaker for me, but as far as the rest of the contract details, I don't get all that worked up over it. At least not in a way that jumps all the way to HORRIBLE SIGNING.

And as far as your list goes, five of the six were LWs (Zucc is a RW) and possibly all six since I think Fiala mostly played on the left side in Nashville. Donato, Greenway and even Fiala were still varying degrees of unknowns at the time, Parise is 36 and Foligno doesn't factor into the discussion when you're talking about adding skill players.

I'll reserve my right to change my opinion, but until I know what player we have to cut loose, or what game changing free agent we're going to miss out on, or what exactly the expansion draft ramifications are, it's just not to that level yet.

 

[TaLoN]

Oh I think the owner has the final word when he's going to invest 30 million dollars...

And the stuff about Zuccarello getting too much of this and that, it's business...market value. The Wild even included a full nmc through the expansion draft, just to make the offer look better. In other words, he's worth that contract.

Then you may ask these two questions:

Did Zuccarello deliver as expected by the Wild?
Did the Wild deliver as expected by Zuccarello?

The answer is no to both. Boudreau screwed things up, didn't make it better. How it works out in the future depends on the coaching staff and linemates. And I'm sure Guerin will do what he can to make the best use of Zuccarello's skills and experience, as planned in the first place.

Nobody said the owner didn't give final OK, he does... he signs the check. He doesn't choose the personnel is the point. He didn't go to Fenton and say "Lets sign Zuccarello", Fenton went to CL and said I want to sign Zuccarello and it will likely cost this much" and CL just says "OK, go for it, I'll give you whatever resources you believe it will require".

 

[BagHead]

That if you trade Granlund for Fiala and then sign a Granlund replacement in UFA with Granlund's money, you're essentially getting Fiala for free, thus improving your team if Fiala turns out to be any kind of player, which he has.

When we traded Granlund, he was a ~65 point player that was making $5.75M but was looking at probably $7M+ on his next deal (hasn't worked out that way for him, but that's what it was at the time). Instead, we signed a 59 point player (Zuccarello's last 5 years average out per 82 games) for $6M and got Fiala. Zuccarello, for all the consternation around him this year, was pacing towards ~20 goals and ~47 points which isn't ideal, but still ~72% of what Granlund was giving us in his peak seasons. Add in Fiala's production and it blows past what Granlund was giving us at his best.

The expansion draft protection is a real thing that might have consequences, but if Zuccarello's contract was 4 years at $5.5M per year (or something), there'd be a hell of a lot less talk about it. Much like Spurgeon's new deal, I just have a hard time getting all worked about something being an extra year too long or an extra million (or less) too much.

I agree with a lot of this post, especially that it probably made us a better team this season, but straight up adding Zuccarello and Fiala's production together is a flawed way of determining value. It can't even be used to directly compare points, as now you have a player removed from the spot Zuccarello is playing, and you have to subtract that player's offense from Zuccarello's offense, and that's an unknowable number. For comparison's sake, lets say Zuccarello is playing in Coyle's old spot. Coyle averaged 43 points per year in his last 5 years with us (on pace stats, like you did with Zuccarello). Granlund's last 5 with us was an average of 59 points per full season. That means we're subtracting Granlund and Coyle from Fiala and Zuccarello and getting:

(Fiala+Zuccarello) - (Granlund+Coyle) = (69+59) - (59+43) = 26.

We're actually gaining 26 total points, not a full Fiala (69 point pace this season).

The thing is... in the above example I had to average Granlund and Coyles point totals with us because we don't know what they would have actually done with us this season, but we DO know what Zuccarello did with us (in fairness to Fenton, he could not have known this), and that was a pace of 47 points, so really let's change his 59 to a 47, and we actually gained (26-12) 14 total points out of two players over the course of a full 82 game season. If you don't like using Coyle in that spot, feel free to average Nino's seasons instead. One of those two would very likely have been on those lines, and both had similar scoring rates with the Wild. Obviously at this point the Wild don't have either player, but I don't have a very good way of figuring out what another player (like Donato, or Foligno playing up a line, or whatever) playing top 6 would have done, since it never happened for any real duration.

I think giving Donato a chance would have been better in the long run for the team, though probably not in the short term - this season, specifically. Plus, having an extra NMC come Expansion Draft time is just... I don't even know how to put it. Crippling? Is that overstating it? Maybe just painful? If it didn't hurt us the first time losing Tuch, it'll sure hurt the second time losing Brodin, Dumba or a prospect like Boldy in a vain effort to keep what we have. And it did hurt the first time.

 

[2Pair]

I agree with a lot of this post, especially that it probably made us a better team this season, but straight up adding Zuccarello and Fiala's production together is a flawed way of determining value. It can't even be used to directly compare points, as now you have a player removed from the spot Zuccarello is playing, and you have to subtract that player's offense from Zuccarello's offense, and that's an unknowable number. For comparison's sake, lets say Zuccarello is playing in Coyle's old spot. Coyle averaged 43 points per year in his last 5 years with us (on pace stats, like you did with Zuccarello). Granlund's last 5 with us was an average of 59 points per full season. That means we're subtracting Granlund and Coyle from Fiala and Zuccarello and getting:

(Fiala+Zuccarello) - (Granlund+Coyle) = (69+59) - (59+43) = 26.

We're actually gaining 26 total points, not a full Fiala (69 point pace this season).

The thing is... in the above example I had to average Granlund and Coyles point totals with us because we don't know what they would have actually done with us this season, but we DO know what Zuccarello did with us (in fairness to Fenton, he could not have known this), and that was a pace of 47 points, so really let's change his 59 to a 47, and we actually gained (26-12) 14 total points out of two players over the course of a full 82 game season. If you don't like using Coyle in that spot, feel free to average Nino's seasons instead. One of those two would very likely have been on those lines, and both had similar scoring rates with the Wild. Obviously at this point the Wild don't have either player, but I don't have a very good way of figuring out what another player (like Donato, or Foligno playing up a line, or whatever) playing top 6 would have done, since it never happened for any real duration.

I think giving Donato a chance would have been better in the long run for the team, though probably not in the short term - this season, specifically. Plus, having an extra NMC come Expansion Draft time is just... I don't even know how to put it. Crippling? Is that overstating it? Maybe just painful? If it didn't hurt us the first time losing Tuch, it'll sure hurt the second time losing Brodin, Dumba or a prospect like Boldy in a vain effort to keep what we have. And it did hurt the first time.

If you want to go that far down the hypothetical road. How do you factor in how no Boudreau, Zucker, Parise, Spurgeon from the start of the season would've/could've affected things?

 

[BagHead]

If you want to go that far down the hypothetical road. How do you factor in how no Boudreau, Zucker, Parise, Spurgeon from the start of the season would've/could've affected things?

Which is exactly why I said there is a lot we simply can't know, because certain events never happened. Still, we do know there was an opportunity cost in the Zuccarello trade, so we can't just say "we switched Granlund with Zuccarello and added a full Fiala." It's also why we can't say we added a 59 point player in Zuccarello - just because he averaged that in the past 5 years doesn't mean that's what we're getting.

There are an exact number of spots open on a roster, so adding a player means removing another player. We know that for sure, and that's what I was getting at. I just thought it would also be useful to show what other players in Zuccarello's position have done, but I guess that muddled the argument. My bad.

 

[Webster]

I've never seen Fiala and Zuccarello on the same line, if Fiala can play left side it should be a no-brainer. Then hit the market and find a top center, and we'd have a very dangerous line.

 

[Digitalbooya]

I've never seen Fiala and Zuccarello on the same line, if Fiala can play left side it should be a no-brainer. Then hit the market and find a top center, and we'd have a very dangerous line.

Zuccarello is such a weird way to spell Kaprizov.

 

[DeagleJenkins]

I've never seen Fiala and Zuccarello on the same line, if Fiala can play left side it should be a no-brainer. Then hit the market and find a top center, and we'd have a very dangerous line.

Fiala can and has played left side, with Zuccarelo. it did not go very well which is why they are not together. Kaprizov - Staal - Fiala will do just fine.

 

[Webster]

Zuccarello is such a weird way to spell Kaprizov.

Kaprizov isn't here. And when he is I'm not sure they'll throw him to the wolves right away.

 

[P10p]

Kaprizov isn't here. And when he is I'm not sure they'll throw him to the wolves right away.

Kaprizov is the wolf.

 

[Digitalbooya]

Kaprizov isn't here. And when he is I'm not sure they'll throw him to the wolves right away.

Even with Kaprizov not here yet, Fiala popped off with Parise as his winger. I have a really hard time justifying Zuccarello on a line with Fiala. Using statistical arguments, why should Zuccarello play above Parise?

 

[57special]

I'd call him a wolf cub till he proves otherwise.