Salary Cap: Roster-Building Pt. XXI| (Fun Title Here)| Kunitz Proposal Here

[Dipsy Doodle]

There is no reason to believe Sundqvist is better than Kunitz or anyone else at this point, he might end up better.

Were his 4 points in 18 games impressive? Hos 40 in 68 ahl games? I know hes doing well 23 in 23 this year but at his age he better be putting up those types of AHL numbers or he wouldnt even be worth talking about.

Yes, actually. Sundqvist was better in his NHL call-ups than Kunitz has been this year. Now that CK doesn't have the benefit of leech points on a scoring line, you're seeing exactly how productive he is.

 

[Riptide]

This has about as much to do with "popularity" as the idea of Murray being better than Fleury does.

It's about the younger option being a clearly better one.

Based on what!? I think this says more about your views on Kunitz then it does on Guentzel.

No, he doesn't. He had 4 points in 5 games and was noticeably better than his competition, who has 1 point in his last 6 games, courtesy of an assist on an EN goal.

You keep bringing up Guentzel's production like it means something. It doesn't outside of the fact that it bodes well for his future. When someone produces at an unsustainable rate over a small sample size all it says is that it's an anomaly.

Do you know what else he did great on? His goals against. It's 50% higher than any other forward on the team. Which when added to his extremely favorable zone starts and gifted/skilled linemates is atrocious. You add that with how he was invisible or nearly so in 2 of the 4 games I watched and it's no surprise that he's not playing.

You can ***** (legitimately) about Kunitz's production all you want. I don't disagree with you at all about how dismal it's been, and I too would love to see someone better there. But while he's not really scoring and is also invisible in many games, do you know what isn't happening when he's on the ice? He's not getting scored on. He has the 4th lowest GA60 on the team.

He is absolutely an upgrade. But if you couldn't see that in the last call-up, I'm not sure what to say.

That I'm not letting my hatred for Kunitz or my love for Guentzel bias my opinion?

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Based on what!? I think this says more about your views on Kunitz then it does on Guentzel.



You keep bringing up Guentzel's production like it means something. It doesn't outside of the fact that it bodes well for his future. When someone produces at an unsustainable rate over a small sample size all it says is that it's an anomaly.

Do you know what else he did great on? His goals against. It's 50% higher than any other forward on the team. Which when added to his extremely favorable zone starts and gifted/skilled linemates is atrocious. You add that with how he was invisible or nearly so in 2 of the 4 games I watched and it's no surprise that he's not playing.

You can ***** (legitimately) about Kunitz's production all you want. I don't disagree with you at all about how dismal it's been, and I too would love to see someone better there. But while he's not really scoring and is also invisible in many games, do you know what isn't happening when he's on the ice? He's not getting scored on. He has the 4th lowest GA60 on the team.



That I'm not letting my hatred for Kunitz or my love for Guentzel bias my opinion?

There's no bias required to favor a player with 3 goals in 5 games over a player with 2 in 24 for a role in the top 9. And beyond production, if you believe Kunitz has performed better than Guentzel so far, then there's really no basis for discussion.

We'll just continue to watch Kunitz play and not score, and wait for Guentzel to come up and thrive, then revisit this thread.

 

[Riptide]

I too like making baseless claims while past evidence points in the absolute other direction.

You want to expand on that? Or are you jut going to do a drive by with nothing to back up what you're saying?

 

[Empoleon8771]

You want to expand on that? Or are you jut going to do a drive by with nothing to back up what you're saying?

Any stats I'd post to support that would just get dismissed by you because "he was getting easy minutes" or "it's not sustainable", as if that actually discredits what he did. The stats that support my opinion have already been shared here, you're just dismissing them for god knows what reason.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

You want to expand on that? Or are you jut going to do a drive by with nothing to back up what you're saying?

He had 3 goals and 4 points in 5 games, and has the highest points per 60 on the team.

Exactly what part of that suggests he's not capable of being a top 6 winger on this team right now?

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Any stats I'd post to support that would just get dismissed by you because "he was getting easy minutes" or "it's not sustainable", as if that actually discredits what he did. The stats that support my opinion have already been shared here, you're just dismissing them for god knows what reason.

They're only easy minutes for scoring when Guentzel gets them. Kunitz makes it look difficult.

 

[Riptide]

We clearly just have a very different opinion of Kunitz. If we could dump Kunitz for nothing right now, I'd do it. If for whatever reason we end up needing a better LW than what that leaves us with, make a deadline trade for one.

Kunitz may be able to do reasonably well on a team that plays slower than we do. But here, he's just completely the wrong kind of player for what we do.

I don't disagree that Kunitz is exactly the wrong player for this team. But that doesn't mean he's useless as a player, and as Ramzi points out, moving Kunitz is a permanent thing - once he's gone, he's gone. Considering how few options we have internally to replace him, there's little reason to be dumping him for the sake of dumping him.

 

[Riptide]

Any stats I'd post to support that would just get dismissed by you because "he was getting easy minutes" or "it's not sustainable", as if that actually discredits what he did.

Maybe because it's not ****ing sustainable?! I honestly do not get how this is so hard to comprehend. If you cannot sustain something, then it's meaningless when looking at future expectations based off past results.

The stats that support my opinion have already been shared here, you're just dismissing them for god knows what reason.

"God knows what reason?" That reason is a pretty damn good one, and if you can't rationalize that, then I don't know what to say. I'm not even sure how one could look at his stat line and even try to say "the stats that support my position". At least not with a straight face.

So I should be overjoyed when someone shots at 37.5% and should look at that and A) see it as completely sustainable and B) indicative of his long term success?

Do you know what Guentzel's expected stat line would be if he was shooting at something sustainable? 1g/1a, or ~33 points over 82 games. Add that in with his massive GA60 and it wouldn't be all that hard for one to make an argument that he's a net negative to the roster. Maybe his GA60 averages out with a larger sample size, but maybe not. It's not like being poor defensively at the NHL level isn't anything new or unexpected for many (most?) young players.

WC had this lovely post a while back about how easy it is for someone to hit 40 points while playing with Crosby or Malkin, and how it's nothing special when they do. So what does it say when ones stat line doesn't even suggest that they'll do that?

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

He had 3 goals and 4 points in 5 games, and has the highest points per 60 on the team.

Exactly what part of that suggests he's not capable of being a top 6 winger on this team right now?

The extremely small sample size. I bet you can find all sorts of players that had 4 points over 5 games and had/have no business being a top 6 winger.

And while i agree that Kunitz isnt very effective offensively he is extremely effective defensively and he has years worth of data to show he positively impacts possession.

So if for any reason Guentzel comes up fills the same role and doesnt soundly beat Kunitz offensive production it is likely to be either a net negative or a washout. Is that worth losing all your depth for? Really?

How about this. Be patient. Injuries will occur, let Guentzel establish himself during those situations. IF he does and IF they are ever fully healthy after doing so then make a move on Kunitz. Because most likely we will need both by the time all is said and done.

 

[Empoleon8771]

"It's not sustainable BECAUSE I SAY SO! If you can't see it, YOU'RE AN IDIOT"

Lol k. I saw absolutely no reason to say that Guentzel can't be a 50-60 point top-6 forward for the Penguins right now based on his time in the NHL. If you want to just take away goals and points because "IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE!!!", then this isn't even a discussion worth having because you're just hilariously biased. You took away 2 of his goals because it's not sustainable in your eyes and are acting like his GA/60 and his assists per game were directly on mark, I genuinely have no idea how you can make logic of doing that. Guentzel genuinely looked good when he was in the NHL and his production was due to him playing extremely well, that's the reality of it. Guentzel going to the dirty areas and scoring goals isn't "unsustainable". Guentzel winning tons of board battles and setting up his linemates with glorious chances isn't "unsustainable".

 

[Riptide]

There's no bias required to favor a player with 3 goals in 5 games over a player with 2 in 24 for a role in the top 9. And beyond production, if you believe Kunitz has performed better than Guentzel so far, then there's really no basis for discussion.

We'll just continue to watch Kunitz play and not score, and wait for Guentzel to come up and thrive, then revisit this thread.

And say what exactly? That it was expected based on unsustainable results last time around? Or that perhaps more time in WBS actually helped his game? Naw that couldn't be it.

Oh, we could just call up Sundqvist, another player who's better than Kunitz.

Yeah, no one is bias here. The kid hasn't played an NHL game this year and only played a handful last year... yet he's obviously better.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Yeah, I guess Guentzel didn't score those two goals because it wasn't sustainable. How unsustainable, getting in front of the net and scoring goals. No way he could ever do that again.

 

[Riptide]

"It's not sustainable BECAUSE I SAY SO! If you can't see it, YOU'RE AN IDIOT"

Lol k. I saw absolutely no reason to say that Guentzel can't be a 50-60 point top-6 forward for the Penguins right now based on his time in the NHL. If you want to just take away goals and points because "IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE!!!", then this isn't even a discussion worth having because you're just hilariously biased. You took away 2 of his goals because it's not sustainable in your eyes and are acting like his GA/60 and his assists per game were directly on mark, I genuinely have no idea how you can make logic of doing that. Guentzel genuinely looked good when he was in the NHL and his production was due to him playing extremely well, that's the reality of it. Guentzel going to the dirty areas and scoring goals isn't "unsustainable". Guentzel winning tons of board battles and setting up his linemates with glorious chances isn't "unsustainable".

He shot at 37.5%. It doesn't take a genius to see that he isn't going to sustain that. The best player in the league (who's shooting 12% above his average) is shooting significantly less than that. So why would you think that Guentzel is going to sustain that?

This should be common sense.

 

[Empoleon8771]

He shot at 37.5%. It doesn't take a genius to see that he isn't going to sustain that. The best player in the league (who's shooting 12% above his average) is shooting significantly less than that. So why would you think that Guentzel is going to sustain that?

This should be common sense.

But you can't just take away goals he scored because "it's not sustainable!!". How are his assists/game sustainable then? Why do only his goal totals fall but everything else stays the same? How is that even remotely honest to do?

He's not going to shoot 37.5% over a full season, but I see absolutely no reason that Guentzel couldn't hit 25 goals and 60 points over a full season with Crosby or Malkin. He already is at worst equal to Sheary, I personally think he's better right now. Just saying his early run wasn't sustainable doesn't disprove that. You're really showing that you didn't watch Guentzel once when he was up and are just scoreboard watching to be honest.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

But you can't just take away goals he scored because "it's not sustainable!!". How are his assists/game sustainable then? Why do only his goal totals fall but everything else stays the same? How is that even remotely honest to do?

He's not going to shoot 37.5% over a full season, but I see absolutely no reason that Guentzel couldn't hit 25 goals and 60 points over a full season with Crosby or Malkin. He already is at worst equal to Sheary, I personally think he's better right now. Just saying his early run wasn't sustainable doesn't disprove that. You're really showing that you didn't watch Guentzel once when he was up and are just scoreboard watching to be honest.

Jesus christ its no that hard.

Nobody is taking anything away from anyone, the are simple projecting his future output using the regression that WILL happen based on how he played. Under normal conditions if Jake Guentzel plays exactly as he did in those 5 games he will likely average 1 goal instead of 3 and 2 points instead of 5. Which is. 16 goal, and 32 point pace. Which is not enough to say Jake Gientzel is CLEARLY better player, especially since Kunitz is a better defensive player, that is a very effective possession player and to top it off Guentzel did this while getting substantially sheltered.

It IS possible that Jake Guentzel an mitigate the regression by improving the rate in which he creates shots, and plays defense. Not only are they incomplete because of the small sample but he can also just get better. Nobody is saying Chris Kunitz is CLEARLY better than Guentzel. We are saying there is nowhere near enough evidence to suggest Guentzel is CLEARLY better than Kunitz.

Actually the eidence is so lacking it shouldnt have even made it to trial.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Nobody is taking anything away from anyone

Riptide flat out said "if Guentzel was shooting at a sustainable rate, he would only have 1 goal and 1 assist". That is literally taking something away from Guentzel.

Under normal conditions if Jake Guentzel plays exactly as he did in those 5 games he will likely average 1 goal instead of 3 and 2 points instead of 5. Which is. 16 goal, and 32 point pace.

Okay, where's your evidence for this? Because you say so? Because that really seems to be the only basis of your argument and Riptide's argument. Why are his goals falling but everything else is staying the same? It's just stupid, I don't even have another word to use for it.

Which is not enough to say Jake Gientzel is CLEARLY better player, especially since Kunitz is a better defensive player, that is a very effective possession player and to top it off Guentzel did this while getting substantially sheltered.

Oh spare me the "he was substantially sheltered" bull****. He was used in literally the same exact role was that Kunitz was being used in before he got hurt.

It IS possible that Jake Guentzel an mitigate the regression by improving the rate in which he creates shots, and plays defense. Not only are they incomplete because of the small sample but he can also just get better. Nobody is saying Chris Kunitz is CLEARLY better than Guentzel. We are saying there is nowhere near enough evidence to suggest Guentzel is CLEARLY better than Kunitz.

So again, why is his shot totals and defense sustainable and needing improvement but his goal scoring isn't sustainable? Don't you see how stupid it is to say that his good things are not sustainable but all of his bad things are?

Over a full season, I have no doubt that he'd be a 20-25 goal, 50-55 point player who makes his linemates better. Just taking away goals from him and saying "see, if his stats were sustainable, he'd only be a 32 point player over a full season" is just nonsensical unless you think a gifted playmaker like Guentzel could only get 1 assist every 5 games.

 

[PensandCaps]

And say what exactly? That it was expected based on unsustainable results last time around? Or that perhaps more time in WBS actually helped his game? Naw that couldn't be it.



Yeah, no one is bias here. The kid hasn't played an NHL game this year and only played a handful last year... yet he's obviously better.

kunitz would suck in the AHL

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

Riptide flat out said "if Guentzel was shooting at a sustainable rate, he would only have 1 goal and 1 assist". That is literally taking something away from Guentzel.



Okay, where's your evidence for this? Because you say so? Because that really seems to be the only basis of your argument and Riptide's argument. Why are his goals falling but everything else is staying the same? It's just stupid, I don't even have another word to use for it.



Oh spare me the "he was substantially sheltered" bull****. He was used in literally the same exact role was that Kunitz was being used in before he got hurt.



So again, why is his shot totals and defense sustainable and needing improvement but his goal scoring isn't sustainable? Don't you see how stupid it is to say that his good things are not sustainable but all of his bad things are?

1. Its not taking anything away. Its projecting using sustainable rates. If you dont know the difference there is no helping you.

2. I mentioned that ots possible for the bad stuff to get better and mulitiple reasons why it could happen but even with improvement his value wont triple.

3. Guentzel had nearly an 80% offensive zone faceoff rate. Kunitzs has a 67% rate.

4. Again as i mentioned his shot rates and defense COULD improve. But his shooting percentage WILL regress and by a **** ton no less.

So based on what he HAS control over (shots, playing defense) there is no reason to believe under normal circumstances (normal shooting %) he is CLEARLY better than Kunitz.

 

[Shady Machine]

He shot at 37.5%. It doesn't take a genius to see that he isn't going to sustain that. The best player in the league (who's shooting 12% above his average) is shooting significantly less than that. So why would you think that Guentzel is going to sustain that?

This should be common sense.

No kidding but he has produced no matter where he has played. He won't continue shooting at 37%, but I expect him to get more shots the next time he's up. He could still score 3 goals in every 5 games, if he's getting 4+ shots a game.

The point is that the kid has produced in the AHL and it's been sustainable and he's produced in a small sample size in the NHL. What more does he have to prove before you admit he should be playing more up here?

 

[Empoleon8771]

1. Its not taking anything away. Its projecting using sustainable rates. If you dont know the difference there is no helping you.

So I'll repeat again, why was only his goals/game unsustainable? Why was his 1 assist in 5 games not sustainable. To say that "a sustainable rate is 16 goals and 32 points" is downright nonsensical. It's hilariously biased and doesn't even deserve a serious response, you're twisting the data you don't agree with and using data you do agree with.

3. Guentzel had nearly an 80% offensive zone faceoff rate. Kunitzs has a 67% rate.

As if that's a significant difference

To act like Guentzel was sheltered on that line any more than Kunitz is just false.

4. Again as i mentioned his shot rates and defense COULD improve. But his shooting percentage WILL regress and by a **** ton no less.

So based on what he HAS control over (shots, playing defense) there is no reason to believe under normal circumstances (normal shooting %) he is CLEARLY better than Kunitz.

No, Guentzel is a better hockey player than Kunitz because I have eyes and can watch him significantly outplay Kunitz. You can manipulate stats all you want to try and disprove that, but that's the reality of it.

 

[Shady Machine]

1. Its not taking anything away. Its projecting using sustainable rates. If you dont know the difference there is no helping you.

2. I mentioned that ots possible for the bad stuff to get better and mulitiple reasons why it could happen but even with improvement his value wont triple.

3. Guentzel had nearly an 80% offensive zone faceoff rate. Kunitzs has a 67% rate.

4. Again as i mentioned his shot rates and defense COULD improve. But his shooting percentage WILL regress and by a **** ton no less.

So based on what he HAS control over (shots, playing defense) there is no reason to believe under normal circumstances (normal shooting %) he is CLEARLY better than Kunitz.

Why do you assume his shooting % comes down but his shots stay flat?

It'd be one thing if a player that produces modestly in the AHL comes up and has a weird burst of production in the NHL. You could probably assume that player's production was an anomaly. Guentzel is a highly skilled and smart young prospect that left college and lit up the AHL, came back this season and lit up the AHL, was called up and produced immediately, and went back down and kept producing. Sure there will be lulls and adjustments in the NHL, but he's going to produce if given consistent time here.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

So I'll repeat again, why was only his goals/game unsustainable? Why was his 1 assist in 5 games not sustainable. To say that "a sustainable rate is 16 goals and 32 points" is downright nonsensical. It's hilariously biased and doesn't even deserve a serious response, you're twisting the data you don't agree with and using data you do agree with.



As if that's a significant difference

To act like Guentzel was sheltered on that line any more than Kunitz is just false.



No, Guentzel is a better hockey player than Kunitz because I have eyes and can watch him significantly outplay Kunitz. You can manipulate stats all you want to try and disprove that, but that's the reality of it.

The because i say so argument!!!! Yay!!!!!!

P.S. You not being good at math isnt the same as manipulating stats.

 

[Empoleon8771]

The because i say so argument!!!! Yay!!!!!!

P.S. You not being good at math isnt the same as manipulating stats.

Is that not exactly what you're doing? No, you're manipulating stats. I'd be willing to bet I'm pretty solid at math, but that's really irrelevant from you twisting stats to support your agenda.

Why do you assume his shooting % comes down but his shots stay flat?

It'd be one thing if a player that produces modestly in the AHL comes up and has a weird burst of production in the NHL. You could probably assume that player's production was an anomaly. Guentzel is a highly skilled and smart young prospect that left college and lit up the AHL, came back this season and lit up the AHL, was called up and produced immediately, and went back down and kept producing. Sure there will be lulls and adjustments in the NHL, but he's going to produce if given consistent time here.

He's assuming that his shooting% comes down but everything else stays flat, it's straight up nonsense.

 

[Riptide]

But you can't just take away goals he scored because "it's not sustainable!!". How are his assists/game sustainable then? Why do only his goal totals fall but everything else stays the same? How is that even remotely honest to do?

He's not going to shoot 37.5% over a full season, but I see absolutely no reason that Guentzel couldn't hit 25 goals and 60 points over a full season with Crosby or Malkin. He already is at worst equal to Sheary, I personally think he's better right now. Just saying his early run wasn't sustainable doesn't disprove that. You're really showing that you didn't watch Guentzel once when he was up and are just scoreboard watching to be honest.

Uhh... I honestly do not even know what to say or how to respond to this.