Tavares Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

hotpaws

Registered User
Nov 21, 2009
21,484
6,062
There is no doubt the Clarkson signing was bad and I wonder if it's really true that Edmonton offered him more money or was it Nonis way of saying they got him at a discount? That was only reported where as with Tavares it was confirmed how San Jose offered him 7 years and $91 million, which is $13.5 million AAV.
pretty much every ufa says they were offered more and then the speculation/rumor of which team(s) begins

San Jose offering JT more was never confirmed , the typical i was offered more elsewhere statement comes out then the speculation begins until one of the "insiders" throws out something like "i believe SJ offered something over 13m" and everybody runs with oh look JT turned down 13.5m per .

for it to be confirmed someone from the Sharks would have come out and said we offered x amount of dollars or at the very least one of the insiders would say he was told by Wilson they offered JT x dollars , that to my recollection never happened

JT's overpaid , he's not worth anywhere near 11m but some of our fans need to believe he was offered for some reason like it makes any difference to what his actual value is , maybe it makes people feel better another team would have overpaid him more than us , lol .
 
  • Like
Reactions: hudster

hotpaws

Registered User
Nov 21, 2009
21,484
6,062
This is probably a big factor in why Tavares is struggling on the goals against side.

If you want Freddy to be more like Grant Fuhr he needs to be able to mentally put aside all the GA and just stop the next one. Takes a certain mindset or cocaine to be able to do that. Fuhr had both going for him.
yup Fuhr like Eddie would just do a coupe of lines and they were good to go , lol
 

Ziggdiezan

Registered User
Apr 10, 2015
10,847
5,676
I posted the glossary after you responded to every post I made except the one where I asked you to define HDCF. You brought up the stat.

I am not saying he is single handedly causing a ton of high danger chances. I am saying he is getting scored on a ton of times, way more than in the past and it is something to be concerned about. You say and I quote

"Because the reasons for that GA stat being what it is are clear. It is based on a goaltending stat being abnormal"

All at 5-5, JT On ice save % is 88.51, his HDCA per 60 is 11.86 (highest on team), His HDGA/60 is 2.01 (again highest on team), CA per 60 is 55.48. His GA60 is 3.65
AM at 5-5 On ice save % is 92.23, his HDCA per 60 is 9.43 (lowest on team), His HDGA/60 is 1.15 (again lowest on team), CA60 is 53.65. His GA60 is 2.30

What do those stats tell me, they tell me whatever is happening is happening primarily on The high danger stuff but there are differences on regular shot attempts too.

JT on non high danger corsi events against is giving up 1.64 goals per 60 (3.65-2.01) on 43.62 CA 60 (55.48-11.86) 3.76% are going in (1.64/43.62)
AM on non high danger corsi events against is giving up 1.15 goals per 60 (2.3-1.15) on 44.22 CA 60 (53.65-9.43) 2.60% are going in (1.15/44.22)
JT on high danger Corsi attempts is giving up 2.01G/60 on 11.86 attempts per 60 in percentage terms 16.95% of those attempts are going in (2.01/11.86)
AM on high danger Corsi attempts is giving up 1.15G/60 on 9.43 attempts per 60 in percentage terms 12.20% of those attempts are going in (1.15/9.43)

You seem to believe that the only explanation for these differences is goaltending, having a lower on ice save % leads to more goals against.
I am saying what if there is something else? What if something else is causing the extra goals against that would in turn affect save %.

I think the fact that all HDCA events are not the same could be a reason. Seems strange that the goalie would be that much worse with if the shot quality were the same. 1/2 a season is a significant sample size. If its not then most of these stats are meaningless.

The 2.43 extra HDCA60 can't be Freddy's fault can it?
Interesting read, I think a part of it will always be that JT is used as the matchup center while Matthews is used more as a scoring line and so plays against much better offensive players. However this was the case last year and I dont believe JT's defensive stats were that different from Matthews'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CDN24

CDN24

Registered User
Jun 17, 2009
3,459
2,771
Interesting read, I think a part of it will always be that JT is used as the matchup center while Matthews is used more as a scoring line and so plays against much better offensive players. However this was the case last year and I dont believe JT's defensive stats were that different from Matthews'.

Agreed, he probably faces the tougher opposition. Yeah last year Tavares was better defensively than Matthews in terms of actual goals against. You would expect a young guy like Matthews to improve but Tavares is almost a full goal against per 60 worst than last year. Coaching change and systems may be a part but I don't think he was any better in the first half under Babcock. It could also be the D men he is playing with, significant turnover on D as well.

Someone mentioned a new baby, it could be enough. Curious to see his home/road splits - the new babies tend to affect home more than on the road.
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
I am not saying he is single handedly causing a ton of high danger chances.
No, you said he is single-handedly causing a ton of "super high danger" chances...
I am saying what if there is something else? What if something else is causing the extra goals against that would in turn affect save %.
Yes, you are speculating that there is something else causing this, that isn't captured in any statistic, even ones that measure that exact thing, and you are claiming that that is the primary cause of that massive difference in GA, and you are doing this with absolutely zero evidence.
Seems strange that the goalie would be that much worse with if the shot quality were the same.
No, it's not strange at all. Goalies react to identical situations differently. Yeah, maybe there is some minor quality differences, but they wouldn't be anywhere close to enough of a difference to affect the GA this much without being evident in the stats.

Based on the shots he is facing, Andersen is allowing WAY more goals than should be expected. That is the problem we have.
1/2 a season is a significant sample size.
No, it's really not, especially for drawing these type of conclusions about players, and definitely not for defensive metrics, and especially not when the previous season has the exact opposite results. Tavares was injured too, so he doesn't even have the full amount of games. And we're using 5v5, which shrinks the sample further.
If its not then most of these stats are meaningless.
Most stats are pretty limited for these types of purposes over half of a season, at least in isolation like you are doing, and especially without the full context, and again, especially with defensive metrics. Not to mention that half of that already small sample happened under completely different circumstances.

Used properly, they can still give us insight, but ignoring the huge blaring red alert that is the save percentage he is getting behind him, and just making assumptions without evidence, is not using it properly.
The 2.43 extra HDCA60 can't be Freddy's fault can it?
No, but a 3% increase in corsi against and a 25% increase in high danger chances against should not result in a 60% increase in GA and a 75% increase in HDGA.
 

CDN24

Registered User
Jun 17, 2009
3,459
2,771
No, you said he is single-handedly causing a ton of "super high danger" chances...

Yes, you are speculating that there is something else causing this, that isn't captured in any statistic, even ones that measure that exact thing, and you are claiming that that is the primary cause of that massive difference in GA, and you are doing this with absolutely zero evidence.

No, it's not strange at all. Goalies react to identical situations differently. Yeah, maybe there is some minor quality differences, but they wouldn't be anywhere close to enough of a difference to affect the GA this much without being evident in the stats.

Based on the shots he is facing, Andersen is allowing WAY more goals than should be expected. That is the problem we have.

No, it's really not, especially for drawing these type of conclusions about players, and definitely not for defensive metrics, and especially not when the previous season has the exact opposite results. Tavares was injured too, so he doesn't even have the full amount of games. And we're using 5v5, which shrinks the sample further.

Most stats are pretty limited for these types of purposes over half of a season, at least in isolation like you are doing, and especially without the full context, and again, especially with defensive metrics. Not to mention that half of that already small sample happened under completely different circumstances.

Used properly, they can still give us insight, but ignoring the huge blaring red alert that is the save percentage he is getting behind him, and just making assumptions without evidence, is not using it properly.

No, but a 3% increase in corsi against and a 25% increase in high danger chances against should not result in a 60% increase in GA and a 75% increase in HDGA.


Show me the post where I say he is single-handedly causing a ton of "super high danger" chances... I have not said that.

I am saying the stat is flawed because it lacks context- it is based on where it orginates from, if it is a rebound attempt and how long since an "event" in another zone. The biggest elements of high danger chances "odd man rushes" and if the goalie was forced to move east-west are not captured. If there is a publicly available stat that captures that point me to it.

I agree a 3% increase in corsi against and a 25% increase in high danger chances against should not result in a 60% increase in GA and a 75% increase in HDGA.

That leads me to believe that not all Corsi events and not all HD corsi events are created equal.
I don't think it is any more of a stretch to conclude that all Corsi events and all high danger Corsi events are not equal than to put all this on the goalie.
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
Show me the post where I say he is single-handedly causing a ton of "super high danger" chances... I have not said that.
You came into the Tavares thread, posted a GA stat (which is not only not a skater stat, but even if it was, represents lines more than individual ability) over a small sample, and attributed it to him, while dismissing the obvious reason that is right in front of you.

I am saying the stat is flawed because it lacks context- it is based on where it orginates from, if it is a rebound attempt and how long since an "event" in another zone. The biggest elements of high danger chances "odd man rushes" and if the goalie was forced to move east-west are not captured. If there is a publicly available stat that captures that point me to it.
It does a much, much, much, much better job of capturing what is going on than GA, so why did you come in using a limited stat in isolation in the wrong way, and then accuse a better, more detailed stat of being "flawed" with no evidence of it being flawed or how it could possibly make that big of a difference even if it was flawed? Also, as I said, expected goals takes much more into consideration.

I don't think it is any more of a stretch to conclude that all Corsi events and all high danger Corsi events are not equal than to put all this on the goalie.
Yes, it's much, much more of a stretch to suggest that Tavares is somehow causing a ridiculously high percentage of his fairly normal high danger chances against to be "super high danger" chances (whatever the heck that means), that you suggest are expected to go in essentially every time a goalie faces it, despite there being absolutely zero statistical or viewing data that supports this.

We know for a fact that the goalie is struggling heavily. We know that the goalie has not been making the saves he needs to, and that he is allowing way above expected goals. We know for a fact that Tavares has an abnormally low save percentage behind him, and that this is not normal for him. We know for a fact that Tavares' shot attempts against, shots against, scoring chances against, expected goals against, high danger chances against, etc. all suggest that he is not the primary cause.

But let's ignore all that because you think maybe somehow something could potentially be happening that you have no proof of...
 

Throw More Waffles

Unprecedented Dramatic Overpayments
Oct 9, 2015
12,889
9,737
pretty much every ufa says they were offered more and then the speculation/rumor of which team(s) begins

San Jose offering JT more was never confirmed , the typical i was offered more elsewhere statement comes out then the speculation begins until one of the "insiders" throws out something like "i believe SJ offered something over 13m" and everybody runs with oh look JT turned down 13.5m per .

for it to be confirmed someone from the Sharks would have come out and said we offered x amount of dollars or at the very least one of the insiders would say he was told by Wilson they offered JT x dollars , that to my recollection never happened

JT's overpaid , he's not worth anywhere near 11m but some of our fans need to believe he was offered for some reason like it makes any difference to what his actual value is , maybe it makes people feel better another team would have overpaid him more than us , lol .

Agree about the “leaving money in the table” comment.

Every high profile signing now comes with the caveat about doing the team a favour. Matthews “took less term to lower aav” and was (lol) thanked by Dubas. Marner “turned down higher valued offer sheets”, Tavares was offered more money by SJ.

I don’t understand how fans still fall for it. It’s specifically using the media to try and mitigate reactions to the contract.

I do, however, actually think Tavares signed for around market value for a ufa of his caliber. I don’t believe the rumours/lies that other teams offered more... but he would have got somewhere around 11x7 from someone else.
 

TheShape

Registered User
Oct 25, 2018
2,284
2,660
I honestly flip-flop whether it was worth signing this guy or not. The length of the contract scares me as he already looks to be slowing down skating wise, then again he was pushing 50 goals last year. There is no denying signing Tavares definitely threw a wrench in the salary cap.

The day Tavares was signed, 10-11m became the minimum for Matthews and Marner on their next contracts.
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
The day Tavares was signed, 10-11m became the minimum for Matthews and Marner on their next contracts.
10-11m was the minimum on their contracts when they were some of the best pre-signing producers in the entire cap era. Had nothing to do with Tavares.
 

CDN24

Registered User
Jun 17, 2009
3,459
2,771
You came into the Tavares thread, posted a GA stat (which is not only not a skater stat, but even if it was, represents lines more than individual ability) over a small sample, and attributed it to him, while dismissing the obvious reason that is right in front of you.

I came into the Tavares thread and said that there are a lot more goals being scored when Tavares is on the ice than there are when other centres are on and more than have been scored in the past with JT on. That is a fact, I said it was also concerning and it should be. I'd like to know why. You said it is the on ice save% causing it. I responded that they are certainly correlated, pucks going in the net will increase Goals against and lower a goalies save percentage but that doesn't equate to causation. ie why are more pucks going in the net.


It does a much, much, much, much better job of capturing what is going on than GA, so why did you come in using a limited stat in isolation in the wrong way, and then accuse a better, more detailed stat of being "flawed" with no evidence of it being flawed or how it could possibly make that big of a difference even if it was flawed? Also, as I said, expected goals takes much more into consideration.

The GA is the what, the issue is determining the why, I proposed several things that could cause it one of which is the inherent weakness in the HDCA. I showed how a shot into a empty net because the goalie could not get across would not be considered a high danger corsi event. I don't know if that meets your definition of evidence. IMO that is one of the most dangerous shots yet that stat does not capture it as such.


Yes, it's much, much more of a stretch to suggest that Tavares is somehow causing a ridiculously high percentage of his fairly normal high danger chances against to be "super high danger" chances (whatever the heck that means), that you suggest are expected to go in essentially every time a goalie faces it, despite there being absolutely zero statistical or viewing data that supports this.

We know for a fact that the goalie is struggling heavily. We know that the goalie has not been making the saves he needs to, and that he is allowing way above expected goals. We know for a fact that Tavares has an abnormally low save percentage behind him, and that this is not normal for him. We know for a fact that Tavares' shot attempts against, shots against, scoring chances against, expected goals against, high danger chances against, etc. all suggest that he is not the primary cause.

But let's ignore all that because you think maybe somehow something could potentially be happening that you have no proof of...

Would not a struggling goalie affect on ice GA for everyone? I want to know why he struggles more when some players are on the ice? Is it because of the player, his teammates or the opposition? I have explained my concerns with the high danger chance against stat, it is a component of the expected goals against stat so any bias/weakness in one stat will affect the other.

If I was a part of this teams front office/coaching staff I would be trying to understand why this is happening and would be trying to find a solution or fix to keep it from happening. Saying it is all on the goalie without exploring other possibilities would not keep me employed very long. That is not a knock on Tavares, historically he has not been scored on at these rates but know he is. The coaching staff will want to fix/alleviate that and a big part of that is finding out why it is happening. Maybe it is the goaltenders, perhaps they let in a few more when Tavares is on in games that are already blowouts because he pissed in their corn flakes. If that is the case I want to know so I can keep John away from their corn flakes. Maybe its something else that can be fixed easily.

That doesn't mean that Tavares is a problem but the amount of GA when he is on is a problem. Yeah the Leafs are going to have to outscore some of their GA problem, JT is a guy who should be outscoring his GA but he isn't. That has to be fixed.

I'm done
 

CelticDruid

Registered User
Oct 23, 2013
6,932
5,799
Penticton , BC
I'm sure they can mail their child to one of their eleven bedrooms on game nights.

People talk like they occupy one-bedroom apartments and the baby is screaming none stop in the same room.

Tavares makes over 11 million per year, I'm sure his mansion has baby proofed safe areas:)


I guess he sleeps well.

From Sportsnet.

JT: Honestly, I wouldn’t say anything has surprised me. I’ve just enjoyed it. And we’ve been really fortunate. He’s a really good baby. He sleeps good, eats well, he’s happy. So anytime you get all those things, it makes it really good. We’ve had a lot of help from friends and family, too. That goes a long way.
 

hockeywiz542

Registered User
May 26, 2008
15,909
4,983
Q&A: Maple Leafs' John Tavares on Mike Babcock, fatherhood and books - Sportsnet.ca
Sportsnet: Describe your perfect day off.

John Tavares: Start with a nice cup of coffee. I like to cook. So if I can cook a nice breakfast, a nice cup of coffee and then probably take the dogs for a good walk. Get outside, get some fresh air.

SN: Are you a coffee snob? Do you go for the really premium beans?

JT: I do. So, maybe a little bit. But I can’t say I’m very knowledgeable in all the details that go into it. Our medical staff are really into their coffee, so we’ve been spoiled with the stuff we get supplied. It’s something you enjoy coming to the rink, so it’s nice having some at home. And there’s great coffee shops where I live as well, so I can walk to many places around where I live.


SN: You live in High Park, right?

JT: Yes. So, I go up to Ronce(valles) a lot, or a little farther up to Ossington. There’s some really good spots. (After coffee) I’ll spend some time with the family, see the little guy. He’s moving around more, so just interacting and being around him more is a lot of fun. I might go somewhere good for lunch, walk and grab a nice bite. I might go see family out in Oakville. There is a good brunch place I like going out there, Kerr Stree Café. I do a lot of cooking, so I usually go grab a few groceries.

SN: What’s your specialty?

JT: My family on my dad’s side, with the Portuguese heritage, my mom’s picked up on a lot of the red pepper sauce they make. I make some really good chicken or shrimp with that. Just really good flavours. My wife really likes it, too. I don’t know if it’s my specialty per se, but it’s something I like eating. Just relax, watch some TV or read a little bit before going to bed. I listen to podcasts.
SN: Did you talk to Mike Babcock after he got fired?

JT: Yes.

SN: How did that conversation go? Or is it ongoing?

JT: Well, I just called to thank him. He was a big part of bringing me here. Also, he helped me become a better player. I had a really good year under him (a career-high 47 goals, 88 points and plus-19). He taught me a lot, and I think his commitment every day to maximize the team and maximize everybody was extremely impressive. He wanted to help do something special here. So I think just for all that, and obviously you’re disappointed it didn’t work out because, as players, we’re the ones responsible when we go out on the ice to play at a high level and get the job done and make the plays necessary to win games. So, you feel a sense of responsibility. I think (it was) owning up to that and having a good conversation and just wishing him the best and enjoying whatever downtime he has and whatever happens with his future.


SN: Do you believe he’ll be back in the NHL?

JT: I do. He’s just very competitive. Unless he’s very content — I’m not sure. But it’s hard to see him not doing what he’s done for so long, and he obviously had a lot of success with it.

SN: How specifically did Mike improve your game?

JT: He talked about a lot of things away from the puck and just committing to them on a daily basis, game in and game out. And they’ll lead to a lot of good things. It’s effort, but at the same time, it makes the game easier for you. So, it’s just buying into that and understanding that. That was probably the thing that I remember the most.
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
I came into the Tavares thread and said that there are a lot more goals being scored when Tavares is on the ice than there are when other centres are on and more than have been scored in the past with JT on.
That is not all you said.
I responded that they are certainly correlated, pucks going in the net will increase Goals against and lower a goalies save percentage but that doesn't equate to causation. ie why are more pucks going in the net.
Except literally all evidence suggests that it does equate to the primary causation.
I proposed several things that could cause it one of which is the inherent weakness in the HDCA.
Except you have no evidence that there is any significant "inherent weakness" in HDCA. You just speculate it, and you have refused to show how it could have that big of an impact without being evident in other stats, even if there was.
I showed how a shot into a empty net because the goalie could not get across would not be considered a high danger corsi event.
I don't believe you are doing these calculations for HDCA correctly (and if it doesn't show up in HDCA, it would show up in SCA), and as already explained, things like this are more accurately tracked within expected goals, which you have dismissed. Also, these type of shots do not represent the majority of shots and would not be having this big of an impact.
Would not a struggling goalie affect on ice GA for everyone?
It likely has affected everybody, and over a big enough sample, the numbers would gravitate towards each other, but it's often not evenly distributed in these small samples. Tavares also missed some time that Matthews did not, and Andersen had some good games in that time.
I want to know why he struggles more when some players are on the ice?
Because we have a small sample. If we extend the sample to include last year, the difference between him and Matthews in 5v5 GA/60 is 0.08 and the difference in OISV% is 0.07.
If I was a part of this teams front office/coaching staff I would be trying to understand why this is happening and would be trying to find a solution or fix to keep it from happening.
You're not trying to understand why this is happening. You have dismissed the most likely reason, and with zero evidence, attributed it to an individual when all the evidence says he is not the primary cause.

You have not brought any evidence or support for your claim, which contradicts existing evidence, so why should we listen to you?
 

CDN24

Registered User
Jun 17, 2009
3,459
2,771
Would not a struggling goalie affect on ice GA for everyone?

It likely has affected everybody, and over a big enough sample, the numbers would gravitate towards each other, but it's often not evenly distributed in these small samples. Tavares also missed some time that Matthews did not, and Andersen had some good games in that time.

Because we have a small sample. If we extend the sample to include last year, the difference between him and Matthews in 5v5 GA/60 is 0.08 and the difference in OISV% is 0.07.

I know I said I was done but I couldn't pass these two up. I am questioning why Leafs are giving up more goals this year with Tavares on the ice. You tell me its sample size (it might be) and I should include last year. I am trying to determine why its much worse than last year how is adding last year to this year going to help do that. Its like someone trying to figure out why January average temperature is lower than July and telling them to add in July's temps to your average its not as bad as you think.

As to the bolded, again I am trying to determine why Freddy lets in more goals when Tavares is on the ice, you tell me because Freddy has been bad and it hasn't affected everyone because Freddy played better when Tavares was out of the lineup. Do you see it?

So we know that Freddy lets in more goals when JT is on the ice. You yourself say Freddy has been subpar this year but had some good games while Tavares was out. Despite all that you cannot see how there might be something going on here related to Tavares play?

Yes Freddy/Hutch may be the cause or part of it but one has to be open to the possibility that there may be something else here. If you cannot see that possibility its pointless to continue this discussion further.
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
You tell me its sample size (it might be) and I should include last year. I am trying to determine why its much worse than last year how is adding last year to this year going to help do that.
It's worse than last year because hockey is a pretty random sport with pretty random results over small samples, and Andersen has been a mess this year. I am showing you how important sample sizes are. You refuse to accept this.
As to the bolded, again I am trying to determine why Freddy lets in more goals when Tavares is on the ice, you tell me because Freddy has been bad and it hasn't affected everyone because Freddy played better when Tavares was out of the lineup. Do you see it?
Yeah, I see you attributing Andersen's good stretch to Tavares being out, with no evidence, even though Tavares was there for the majority of Andersen's good stretch.

I didn't say that "it hasn't affected everybody because Freddy played better when Tavares was out of the lineup". I specifically said it has likely affected everybody, but not in 100% perfect distribution over this small sample. Tavares not being there during part of the good stretch is likely a minor factor in the GA, but the overwhelming biggest factor is that goaltenders are not robots that approach every shot exactly the same, always making saves at league average rates. Small samples don't give enough time for underlying randomness and metrics to average out.
Yes Freddy/Hutch may be the cause or part of it but one has to be open to the possibility that there may be something else here.
Yeah, and maybe Tavares' kid is actually an alien, and he took over Tavares' body, and so this isn't the real Tavares playing out there. I mean, we can't disprove it, so we have to be open to the possibility, right?

If you're going to come in here and make unsubstantiated claims with zero evidence, don't be surprised when people use existing evidence and data, for which there is plenty, to explain why the results are what they are.
 

LeafsNation75

Registered User
Jan 15, 2010
37,975
12,506
Toronto, Ontario
pretty much every ufa says they were offered more and then the speculation/rumor of which team(s) begins

San Jose offering JT more was never confirmed , the typical i was offered more elsewhere statement comes out then the speculation begins until one of the "insiders" throws out something like "i believe SJ offered something over 13m" and everybody runs with oh look JT turned down 13.5m per .

for it to be confirmed someone from the Sharks would have come out and said we offered x amount of dollars or at the very least one of the insiders would say he was told by Wilson they offered JT x dollars , that to my recollection never happened

JT's overpaid , he's not worth anywhere near 11m but some of our fans need to believe he was offered for some reason like it makes any difference to what his actual value is , maybe it makes people feel better another team would have overpaid him more than us , lol .
It was reported by Elliotte Friedman.

How the Toronto Maple Leafs signed John Tavares - Sportsnet.ca

Wilson wouldn’t discuss San Jose’s pitch, but word is he told Tavares, “You are the final piece for us.” It has also been rumoured (but never confirmed) that the Sharks were willing to pay $13.5 million per year for seven years. “That was a confident group,” one source says. “They felt they were the best option for John, and they showed it.”
 

hotpaws

Registered User
Nov 21, 2009
21,484
6,062
Since Elliotte Friedman is realiable I would believe it and I don't remember any confirmed reports besides rumors of Edmonton offering Clarkson more than Toronto.
Friedman literally said it was a rumor just like Clarkson being offered more was a rumor and every ufa that signs has the rumors come out team x may have offered more .

they're all just rumors that get spread to try to justify the bloated salaries they sign

teams will pay more than a player should get to add an asset at just the cost of the cap hit bit for some reason some fans need to feel they aren't overpaid and that's why these rumors pop up

but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what a player may have been offered by another team , all that matters is how he lives up to the deal he signed
 

LeafsNation75

Registered User
Jan 15, 2010
37,975
12,506
Toronto, Ontario
Friedman literally said it was a rumor just like Clarkson being offered more was a rumor and every ufa that signs has the rumors come out team x may have offered more .

they're all just rumors that get spread to try to justify the bloated salaries they sign

teams will pay more than a player should get to add an asset at just the cost of the cap hit bit for some reason some fans need to feel they aren't overpaid and that's why these rumors pop up

but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what a player may have been offered by another team , all that matters is how he lives up to the deal he signed
The difference is he actually said the reported number San Jose was willing to pay Tavares, where as with Clarkson no one knew how much more Edmonton was willing to pay him than Toronto.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->