Confirmed with Link: Stars sign Tyler Pitlick (3 Years, $1.000M AAV)

[LT]

I have to think what we said about Hemsky was pretty accurate.

I guess my question is what exactly does that maximum downside mean to fans though? Lets say that none of it is covered by insurance. Is Dallas in that tight that they can't afford 1mil a year? I think the biggest downside is he takes 1 of 50 contract spots, and even at that I don't know that I'd be overly worried about that.

Nothing. It's just blowing relatively small problems out of proportion for the sake of being dramatic, at this point.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

Nothing. It's just blowing relatively small problems out of proportion for the sake of being dramatic, at this point.

Can we like a post on this site? If not, then
This is the of posts

 

[Troy McClure]

When did Nill ever demote Faksa in favor of the two D men? And, how could he, since they don't play the same position?

He came up in the latter half of the 15-16 season and has been a fixture since? Are you saying him taking the full three years of his ELC to make the NHL because Nill favored others, and not part of Nill's general over ripening policy?

You again seem overly argumentative. Radulov at 5/$6.25 could be questioned, but Pitlick at 3$3M is a bit ridiculous to steam about, for all the reasons mentioned, even for a passionate Stars fan.

There were a couple of weeks that season where Faksa was sent back down after his initial call up because someone got healthy. Nill chose to send Faksa back down because he would have had to put someone on waivers because the Stars were already at the 23 man limit thanks to 1 extra forward and the 8 D. When a vet came back from injury, Faksa was going to put them at 24 men and was sent down.

He was only called back up later, as memory serves, after the trade deadline when the roster limit went away.

 

[joestevens29]

Nothing. It's just blowing relatively small problems out of proportion for the sake of being dramatic, at this point.

Nice to see it's not just on our boards/radio shows

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

There were a couple of weeks that season where Faksa was sent back down after his initial call up because someone got healthy. Nill chose to send Faksa back down because he would have had to put someone on waivers because the Stars were already at the 23 man limit thanks to 1 extra forward and the 8 D. When a vet came back from injury, Faksa was going to put them at 24 men and was sent down.

He was only called back up later, as memory serves, after the trade deadline when the roster limit went away.

Troy, thanks, I forgot he had come up earlier, or just figured it was because of injury and the plan was to send him down. He certainly made an impression and stuck on the second try. Overall, its hard to say this varies from the typical call up plan for rookies making the big squad...injury creates opportunity, those who make it stick, but sometimes roster rules make it a delay, or maybe there is some other hiccup. I guess we could look back and see if Stars faltered that month he was back in Austin, but I am not sure even that would prove the point.

However, to say the Stars would have gotten more than 109 points, or won the toughest division in hockey sooner or by a wider margin had Faksa stayed is, IMHO, grasping at straws. An impossible to prove hypothetical that while the Stars won the west, were second in points to Caps, somehow, they still could have done better if Misty were in charge? Pulleeez.....A classic case of not being able to enjoy your favorite sports team even when it is doing great.

 

[Mr Misty]

61 in 45 is a 111 point pace. 2 points better than the team did over 82. Enough to clinch the game before. Makes u think.

But we were able to hold on to Nemeth. Who is very valuable. He has as many career points as Tyler Pitlick. What a time to be alive.

 

[Troy McClure]

Troy, thanks, I forgot he had come up earlier, or just figured it was because of injury and the plan was to send him down. He certainly made an impression and stuck on the second try. Overall, its hard to say this varies from the typical call up plan for rookies making the big squad...injury creates opportunity, those who make it stick, but sometimes roster rules make it a delay, or maybe there is some other hiccup. I guess we could look back and see if Stars faltered that month he was back in Austin, but I am not sure even that would prove the point.

However, to say the Stars would have gotten more than 109 points, or won the toughest division in hockey sooner or by a wider margin had Faksa stayed is, IMHO, grasping at straws. An impossible to prove hypothetical that while the Stars won the west, were second in points to Caps, somehow, they still could have done better if Misty were in charge? Pulleeez.....A classic case of not being able to enjoy your favorite sports team even when it is doing great.

At the time, I hated it because sending him down happened because Nill refused to dispose of some dead weight. To me, it sucked seeing a guy do everything he could to earn a spot only to lose the spot all because Moen and two terrible defenders clogged up the roster.

But I don't think it mattered in the standings one bit. One 12 minute a night player playing slightly better than his replacement doesn't matter a whole lot to wins and losses.

I also don't see any risk of Pitlick creating a similar situation. By all accounts, he's a good player when he plays. He's not a risk of blocking anyone from playing because it seems like he'll either be in the lineup contributing or will be on IR. I mean, whose spot would he even be taking? McKenzie's? If Pitlick is better than McKenzie, he'll play over him.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

McKenzie is approaching his past due date. A career tweener at this point, so yeah, Pitlick replacing him or spending AHL time of one of our other Yutes outplays him is no big deal. The salary diff is a few hundred thousand.

As far as Faksa coming up fewer games than we might have liked, 20-20 hindsight is pretty good, but not perfect. While we are down on Nemeth now, a few years ago, he had as impressive a debut as Faksa, and they still thought he would or could bounce back from the wrist injury. It wasn't a terrible decision at the time.

 

[Mr Misty]

McKenzie is approaching his past due date. A career tweener at this point, so yeah, Pitlick replacing him or spending AHL time of one of our other Yutes outplays him is no big deal. The salary diff is a few hundred thousand.

As far as Faksa coming up fewer games than we might have liked, 20-20 hindsight is pretty good, but not perfect. While we are down on Nemeth now, a few years ago, he had as impressive a debut as Faksa, and they still thought he would or could bounce back from the wrist injury. It wasn't a terrible decision at the time.

I just want some logical consistency. If you want to say that hindsight is not how good arguments are made, fine. It was a big mistake to send Faksa back to the AHL to preserve both Nemeth and Oleksiak. If you want to say that hindsight vindicates that choice because the team got the top seed, then you must acknowledge the current uselessness of Nemeth and Oleksiak. A bonus argument could be made that Johns was in the AHL to preserve those players but immediately leapt over them and even Jordie Benn on the depth chart once there was no roster limit. Whether you use hindsight or not, the Johns case does not look like Nill is willing to waive bad players to improve the team at all.

And to be clear, you are presenting a false choice. It isn't McKenzie vs Pitlick. McKenzie and Cracknell are near enough to the league minimum to make no difference, their presence on the roster as forwards 13 and 14 helps the team maximize spending on players who will be playing. Pitlick should be compared with any of the 1m vets who have been signed or with one of our prospects. Nobody in this range combines the total absence of resume with the incredible injury history he brings to the team. At this price point you are getting 1 of those most likely, so just pick which one you want. Why would any team choose both and give 3 years besides? And if he turns into a regular healthy scratch that is worth approximately 3x the difference in cap hit with McKenzie or whoever at the deadline. McKenzie out gives space for 1.6m to come back vs Pitlick's flat 1m at the cost of 1 point over 82 games based on their career totals.

 

[Troy McClure]

I just want some logical consistency. If you want to say that hindsight is not how good arguments are made, fine. It was a big mistake to send Faksa back to the AHL to preserve both Nemeth and Oleksiak. If you want to say that hindsight vindicates that choice because the team got the top seed, then you must acknowledge the current uselessness of Nemeth and Oleksiak. A bonus argument could be made that Johns was in the AHL to preserve those players but immediately leapt over them and even Jordie Benn on the depth chart once there was no roster limit. Whether you use hindsight or not, the Johns case does not look like Nill is willing to waive bad players to improve the team at all.

And to be clear, you are presenting a false choice. It isn't McKenzie vs Pitlick. McKenzie and Cracknell are near enough to the league minimum to make no difference, their presence on the roster as forwards 13 and 14 helps the team maximize spending on players who will be playing. Pitlick should be compared with any of the 1m vets who have been signed or with one of our prospects. Nobody in this range combines the total absence of resume with the incredible injury history he brings to the team. At this price point you are getting 1 of those most likely, so just pick which one you want. Why would any team choose both and give 3 years besides? And if he turns into a regular healthy scratch that is worth approximately 3x the difference in cap hit with McKenzie or whoever at the deadline. McKenzie out gives space for 1.6m to come back vs Pitlick's flat 1m at the cost of 1 point over 82 games based on their career totals.

The obvious difference is Nill thinks Pitlick has upside to produce better than he has to date. No one thinks McKenzie nor most all of the other old spares you listed have any upside.

Maybe there is no upside. Maybe he never stays healthy. But even so, so what? At the very worst, we know he's an equivalent spare with the guys he's competing with.

 

[Benneguin]

Just bought the jersey of Modano's heir apparent. I'm stoked.

 

[Benneguin]

Maybe Hitch asked for all these forwards so that he has more options in case some have trouble playing his system and it will be his system the players have to adopt. It wouldn't surprise me if guys like Shore and Ritchie end up with more healthy scratches than someone like Cracknell.

 

[Morry83]

The only person risking anything here is Gaglardi and his wallet. A 3 year/$3M deal is nothing. He still has some intriguing potential. I think it's worth it to see what he can do. Let's watch one game of his in a Stars jersey before deciding this the worst deal in franchise history.

 

[Satan]

I would much rather have a 25 y/o potential tweener in Pitlick rather than any of the guys that Satan compared him to.

Who cares about track record when the guys you're comparing him to are either pushing mid to late 30s, or have washed out of the NHL, or are just as injured with more chronic issues? You don't think teams need Adam Burishes? Guys with drive and willingness to play the damn game?

Between Cracknell and Pitlick, I think we'll be in good shape when it comes to down the lineup effectiveness.

I care about track record because the majority of those players have proven they can play at the NHL level and in most cases produce at a decent clip.

​

And as GM that's what you're supposed to do. Take chances on guys. What exactly is your point? Or are you doing your normal thing, arguing to argue?

I love this 'arguing to argue' thing you guys keep bringing up with Misty. It's like some people can't stand a differing opinion.

Why are we so upset about a signing that so many outsiders are praising?

It's a very strange signing.

This isn't some impossible to escape contract. If he sucks, getting rid of him will be easy. There is no risk.

Which is true. Teams will likely keep their paws off him if he's passed through the waivers since he has 2 more years.

Nothing. It's just blowing relatively small problems out of proportion for the sake of being dramatic, at this point.

Okay.

Jim Nill can do no wrong.

 

[Troy McClure]

Nill can do plenty wrong, but I save my freak outs for things like bringing back two terrible goalies for a second season even though everyone knows it doesn't work. I'm not getting too worked up about the 12th forward on the depth chart.

 

[JohnnyHockey]

Nill can do plenty wrong, but I save my freak outs for things like bringing back two terrible goalies for a second season even though everyone knows it doesn't work. I'm not getting too worked up about the 12th forward on the depth chart.

This. Would I much rather have Elie than Pitlick? Yes. Am I a fan of the signing? I'm actually pretty against it. But am I gonna freak out about the 4th line winger spot, and a guy who could be gotten rid of fairly quickly? Not particularly.