Player Discussion Tom Wilson, NHL All-Star (Part 3)

[HTFN]

Plus wrt Brouwer's hits they were made of cotton. They were technically hits, in that his body made contact with the player who hat the puck, but if we're being honest they were move "bumps".

Wilson otoh will truck you into space.

oh, definitely. somewhere between a bump and a nice warm hug and almost never on someone who actually still had the puck. half of brouwer's recorded hits are more like participation trophies

 

[twabby]

Really? What do you think the words "relatively equal impact" are supposed to convey in this context then?

You aren't going to backpedal this one all the way to "all players eventually decline at some point" because we already know there aren't any 62 year old men out there dominating. You've actually heard a lot of cases to suggest that Wilson will buck the trend of immediately being terrible right after 30, but you don't want to listen to them. He's bigger, faster, better, and visibly unique in a lot of standout ways that make him difficult to project but don't scream "will be overwhelmed as soon as he loses a step".

Wilson is a freak like that the way Pronger was a freak. Not from a "best in the league" sense but Pronger losing a step didn't instantly make him terrible because he was a f***ing monster who played with more talent than his frame should allow and also liked bodying people.

This is the exact same rationale we used to hear from dipknobs who were certain Ovechkin was done scoring goals after 26.

1. Chris Pronger probably did decline quite a bit in his 30s. I’d like to have data from pre-2008 to confirm this, but sadly it does not exist. He had one excellent year in Philadelphia surrounded by merely good years in his 30s with Anaheim. I suspect he was much better before 2008 while with St. Louis and Edmonton.

2. I don’t watch the games, but Tom Wilson and Chris Pronger are completely different players from what my friend tells me. Aside from playing different positions, Pronger was an incredibly cerebral player in addition to being an intimidating factor, while Wilson is much more a product of his physical gifts alone. He’s not stupid or anything, but he’s not all that similar to Pronger once you go further than surface level. As an aside, this is also why my friend thinks the Justin Williams comparison isn’t really apt for Tom Wilson. Williams relied very heavily on his hockey IQ and cerebral play, which could explain why he aged so gracefully.

 

[HTFN]

1. Chris Pronger probably did decline quite a bit in his 30s. I’d like to have data from pre-2008 to confirm this, but sadly it does not exist, He had one excellent year in Philadelphia surrounded by merely good years in his 30s with Anaheim. I suspect he was much better in his 30s.

2. I don’t watch the games, but Tom Wilson and Chris Pronger are completely different players from what my friend tells me. Aside from playing different positions, Pronger was an incredibly cerebral player in addition to being an intimidating factor, while Wilson is much more a product of his physical gifts alone. He’s not stupid or anything, but he’s not all that similar to Pronger once you go further than surface level. As an aside, this is also why my friend thinks the Justin Williams comparison isn’t really apt. Williams relied very heavily on his hockey IQ and cerebral play, which could explain why he aged so gracefully.

Noooooo shit he was better when he was younger. Way to so fully miss the point it feels like you're doing it on purpose.

The wheels didn't fall off Chris Pronger just because he got older, and he was a key part of multiple winners despite not being as good as he was. Wilson's not an idiot and not incapable of adjusting as he ages in exactly the same way Pronger was even if they play the game different (and positions are a part of that, but obviously Pronger is elite through and through). This is about two players that consistently look like men among boys, and how projectable it is that they continue to be formidable as they age because they're working from a significant advantage to begin with.

So Wilson won't always remain a heat seeking missile, there's nothing about his hands, size, or intelligence to indicate he can't Knuble it up for a while after he's lost a step and nothing about his ability to play with top line players suggests he doesn't have a hockey IQ and is fully reliant on physical tools.

You're playing this game in spreadsheets and not on the ice where it matters, and they need Wilson a lot more than you give credit for.

EDIT: Also you still need to fully explain your point about Brouwer or else this is just latching on and diverting to a new argument, i.e. trolling, and not worth following up on.

 

[twabby]

Noooooo shit he was better when he was younger. Way to so fully miss the point it feels like you're doing it on purpose.

The wheels didn't fall off Chris Pronger just because he got older, and he was a key part of multiple winners despite not being as good as he was. Wilson's not an idiot and not incapable of adjusting as he ages in exactly the same way Pronger was even if they play the game different (and positions are a part of that, but obviously Pronger is elite through and through). So Wilson won't always remain a heat seeking missile, there's nothing about his hands, size, or intelligence to indicate he can't Knuble it up for a while after he's lost a step and nothing about his ability to play with top line players suggests he doesn't have a hockey IQ and is fully reliant on physical tools.

You're playing this game in spreadsheets and not on the ice where it matters, and they need Wilson a lot more than you give credit for.

I think the point you’re missing is that Pronger had a much, much higher baseline to fall from than Wilson does. There was plenty of room for Pronger to fall and still be a very effective player.

That’s not the case with Wilson. Wilson is a good player, but he’s not a top tier player. Him undergoing a relatively normal decline suddenly puts him in bottom 6 territory pretty quickly. I don’t like the idea of giving a bottom 6 player 7 or 8 years at $6 million+ per year, which is what I suspect he’ll get if they extend him. I especially don’t like the idea when the alternative is to acquire either lucrative future assets or a stronger roster player in return.

 

[HTFN]

I think the point you’re missing is that Pronger had a much, much higher baseline to fall from than Wilson does. There’s plenty of room for Pronger to fall and still be a very effective player.

That’s not the case with Wilson. Wilson is a good player, but he’s not a top tier player. Him undergoing a relatively normal decline suddenly puts him in bottom 6 territory pretty quickly. I don’t like the idea of giving a bottom 6 player 7 or 8 years at $6 million+ per year, which is what I suspect he’ll get if they extend him. I especially don’t like the idea when the alternative is to acquire either future assets or a stronger roster player in return.

Your projection is based on the same "relatively normal" decline that freaks don't have, Pronger and Ovechkin included. You're already back to rates and ignoring individuals.

Explain your Brouwer false equivalency or we're done here.

 

[twabby]

Your projection is based on the same "relatively normal" decline that freaks don't have, Pronger and Ovechkin included. You're already back to rates and ignoring individuals.

Explain your Brouwer false equivalency or we're done here.

Ovechkin did decline. But he fell from an elite player to merely a good one.

Wilson is a good player now. He’s not elite. If he declines like known freak Alex Ovechkin declined, Wilson will be a bottom 6 player very soon.

 

[HTFN]

Ovechkin did decline. But he fell from an elite player to merely a good one.

Wilson is a good player now. He’s not elite. If he declines like known freak Alex Ovechkin declined, Wilson will be a bottom 6 player very soon.

Got it, so we're done here. You're backpedaling to "time eventually takes all" and have no actual vision for the next few years. Why do I constantly take you seriously?

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Got it, so we're done here. You're backpedaling to "time eventually takes all" and have no actual vision for the next few years. Why do I constantly take you seriously?

I have much more fun interacting with @twabby once I stopped that. I mean for a guy who constantly claims to never watch, why not have some fun with it?

 

[HTFN]

I have much more fun interacting with @twabby once I stopped that. I mean for a guy who constantly claims to never watch, why not have some fun with it?

I'm always getting tricked into wanting the best for people against their own will and thinking it's right around the corner so long as they stay reasonable and engage willingly.

 

[Vilica]

Let's try a different track to get away from any Brouwer-Wilson comparisons. If Wilson signs an extension, he will start that extension exactly 3 months younger than TJ Oshie did when he signed his 8 year deal back in the summer of 2017. We can lean on analytics to say if that contract has been worthwhile, or how it has aged, but we paid in years to reduce the AAV. Given the circumstances we were in at the time, that's what made sense. Now that we're on the backside of a contention window, I think a Wilson contract should go the opposite way, and trade AAV for years. I'd much rather pay him 3-22.5m (7.5) than 8-44m (5.5), give or take a bit in AAV.

With a 3 year deal, you buy the time to see how your retool goes, and then at the 25-26 deadline, you can get a haul for 2 playoff runs of Wilson if the rebuild needs to start at the end of Ovechkin's contract.

 

[HTFN]

Let's try a different track to get away from any Brouwer-Wilson comparisons. If Wilson signs an extension, he will start that extension exactly 3 months younger than TJ Oshie did when he signed his 8 year deal back in the summer of 2017. We can lean on analytics to say if that contract has been worthwhile, or how it has aged, but we paid in years to reduce the AAV. Given the circumstances we were in at the time, that's what made sense. Now that we're on the backside of a contention window, I think a Wilson contract should go the opposite way, and trade AAV for years. I'd much rather pay him 3-22.5m (7.5) than 8-44m (5.5), give or take a bit in AAV.

With a 3 year deal, you buy the time to see how your retool goes, and then at the 25-26 deadline, you can get a haul for 2 playoff runs of Wilson if the rebuild needs to start at the end of Ovechkin's contract.

Honestly the Oshie deal seemed like a mistake but actually paid off big time, and is now fully manageable and reasonable to deal with in the final years, so if that's the example... yeah. They can also retain on that final year deadline-wise and make him a pretty tasty piece.

 

[twabby]

Got it, so we're done here. You're backpedaling to "time eventually takes all" and have no actual vision for the next few years. Why do I constantly take you seriously?

Yes? Are you suggesting that I don’t factor in the aging curve and when decline is likely to hit?

It’s especially odd because the two players you cited as comparables, Ovechkin and Pronger, did show a pretty steep decline as they entered their 30s and yet I am also being told that Wilson probably won’t undergo a similarly timed decline. It’s not a convincing argument and is logically inconsistent.

 

[g00n]

I think we need an offseason "silly season" thread to contain all these throwaway takes

 

[StrikingDistance]

I think we need an offseason "silly season" thread to contain all these throwaway takes

The Hot-take Takedown.

Where random people post absurd opinions and rational people spend hours debating and questioning their sanity. Sponsored by AA.

 

[kicksavedave]

A live look in at how Tom Wilson is spending his summer.

 

[usiel]

A love look in at how Tom Wilson is spending his summer.

Not sure I get this as much as I'm a cat person TW is a dog person.

 

[kicksavedave]

Not sure I get this as much as I'm a cat person TW is a dog person.

Dude just kinda looks like Willy a little, but I should not be permitted to post after 10pm.