Which is the least likely to be traded?

likeabosski

Registered User
Jul 31, 2013
699
0
Which player of the remaining core is the least likely to be traded due to their current market value?

  1. Phanuef - 6 more years at $7 mil
  2. Lupul - 3 more years at $5.25 mil
  3. Bozak - 3 more years at $4.2 mil
  4. Gardnier - 4 more years at $4.05 mil
Out of that list, Lupul is the toughest to move.

Out of all those contracts, he is definitely the most overpaid. And 3 year term is still hard to move. And at 32 years old starting this season, he'll be 34 1/2+ when his contract expires. Phaneuf is starting at 30 1/2 and will be 36 when his contract expires. But he's got more value than Lupul at present and defensemen age more gracefully than wingers.

I have my own "capology" method that I'm cooking up right now to determine "player value" in terms of cap hit. It needs A LOT of work admittedly (it's very difficult to determine player value. Sometimes I wonder if it's even worth putting the work into this. But it's at least interesting to look at). But these are the preliminary results.

I calculated that Lupul is about $2.8 million overpaid. He missed *a lot* of ice time. And his performance has trailed off in the last 2 seasons. When I re-work my formula, Lupul may probably be worth more than $2.45 million. My formula at present doesn't distinguish between guys who are involved in play more (ie. Phil Kessel) versus passengers (ie. Tyler Bozak). My new formula is going to nerf passengers and reward players who are more involved in goals (Goals and primary assists will be rewarded equally. Secondary assists will be rewarded less for forwards but will be rewarded either equally to primary assists for defenseman or just slightly less. Passengers who don't even get secondary assists very often get nerfed). I'm going to call the "nerf" the Tyler Bozak coefficient.

If Joffrey Lupul plays on the SC1 and PP1 this season, I hope he doesn't get injured too often. Because this is a great opportunity for him to increase his value.

Phaneuf is about $1.5 million overpaid(more or less). He's not the #1 guy. He's probably a #2 guy.

Gardiner is about $1.05 million overpaid (more or less). Jake Gardiner is a good possession player. But when the team is averaging only 1.96 goals/60 mins on the 5v5 while you're on the ice across a sample size of 171 games (3 seasons), I think it's fair to say that you're not as good as the internet thinks you are. For those who are curious, the Leafs averaged 2.31 goals/60 on the 5v5 in the last 3 seasons. Note: Gardiner didn't play much in 2012-13. If you look at the last 2 seasons strictly, Leafs averaged 2.18 GF/60. Gardiner's numbers are still on the low side at any rate (averaging 1.95 goals/60 mins in 159 games in the last 2 seasons. 159 games is a pretty respectable sample and his rate is not much different from the 171 game sample. So I think it's fair to say that goal samples of that size are legit). And Gardiner hasn't impressed on the power-play either. A puck-moving defenseman should be more productive offensively.

Bozak is about $200k overpaid (probably more). Poor defensively. High goal for rate when he's on the ice. But he played a lot with Phil Kessel and James van Riemsdyk. He is likely a passenger, he doesn't score a lot or put up a lot of points and is probably worth even less than $4 million/yr. My data shows that Phil Kessel is only worth $634k more than Tyler Bozak and JVR is worth $602k more. This means that JVR is worth almost as much as Kessel. I think right now my player value evaluation of Phil Kessel (<$4.7 mil) is on the low-side. It's probably about where it should be for JVR (>$4.6 mil) And the >$4 mil estimate for Tyler Bozak seems high to me.
 
Last edited:

91Kadri91*

Guest
Gardiner is about $1.05 million overpaid (more or less). Jake Gardiner is a good possession player. But when the team is averaging only 1.96 goals/60 mins on the 5v5 while you're on the ice across a sample size of 171 games (3 seasons), I think it's fair to say that you're not as good as the internet thinks you are. And Gardiner hasn't impressed on the power-play either. A puck-moving defenseman should be more productive offensively.

You're ignoring the fact that he's fantastic defensively (-0.53 GA60RelTM over the last three seasons; 7th amongst defensemen league-wide with 2000+ minutes played), plays top-pairing minutes, has a 99.7 PDO (indicating that he's suffered a bit of bad puck luck) over the past three season, and generates not only plenty of corsi/fenwick for, but also scoring chances.

The impact of this definition is that scoring chance numbers have been shown to be more predictive of future goals-for percentage than Corsi, though both should still be used in analysis of players.

http://alongtheboards.com/2015/02/nhl-analytics-individual-scoring-chance-leaders-hockey-analytics/

In fact, Gardiner had a HSC (high-danger scoring chance) for-percentage relative of 8.13 (5th highest among defensemen league wide). The next closest defenseman on the Leafs with at least 20 games played? Morgan Rielly, at 0.71. Gardiner also led Leafs defensemen in scoring chance (not just high-danger) for-percentage relative with a percentage of 6.13% (11th among defensemen league-wide); Rielly was second at 3.39% (31st league-wide among defensemen). Gardiner was also second on the Leafs in Individual Scoring Chances (iSC) with 61, while Rielly was first with 76 (Rielly was 9th among defensemen league-wide in this category; Gardiner was 26th).

Also, there's a metric called WAR (wins above replacement) that attempts to determine an overall value of a player's contributions, and GAR (goals above replacement) for single-season comparison. You'll notice that Gardiner is the only Toronto defenseman with a GAR above 0 this season, and a total GAR in the top-30 among defensemen league-wide this year.

http://war-on-ice.com/WARboard.html

He's also a very good passer, and should benefit from a better team (which should happen eventually). Rielly's passing numbers are there as well (spoiler: the kid is really, really good):





Also, Gardiner and Rielly play pretty well together:

 

Bluelines

Python FTW!
Nov 17, 2013
12,349
4,559
You're ignoring the fact that he's fantastic defensively (-0.53 GA60RelTM over the last three seasons; 7th amongst defensemen league-wide with 2000+ minutes played), plays top-pairing minutes, has a 99.7 PDO (indicating that he's suffered a bit of bad puck luck) over the past three season, and generates not only plenty of corsi/fenwick for, but also scoring chances.



http://alongtheboards.com/2015/02/nhl-analytics-individual-scoring-chance-leaders-hockey-analytics/

In fact, Gardiner had a HSC (high-danger scoring chance) for-percentage relative of 8.13 (5th highest among defensemen league wide). The next closest defenseman on the Leafs with at least 20 games played? Morgan Rielly, at 0.71. Gardiner also led Leafs defensemen in scoring chance (not just high-danger) for-percentage relative with a percentage of 6.13% (11th among defensemen league-wide); Rielly was second at 3.39% (31st league-wide among defensemen). Gardiner was also second on the Leafs in Individual Scoring Chances (iSC) with 61, while Rielly was first with 76 (Rielly was 9th among defensemen league-wide in this category; Gardiner was 26th).

Also, there's a metric called WAR (wins above replacement) that attempts to determine an overall value of a player's contributions, and GAR (goals above replacement) for single-season comparison. You'll notice that Gardiner is the only Toronto defenseman with a GAR above 0 this season, and a total GAR in the top-30 among defensemen league-wide this year.

http://war-on-ice.com/WARboard.html

He's also a very good passer, and should benefit from a better team (which should happen eventually). Rielly's passing numbers are there as well (spoiler: the kid is really, really good):





Also, Gardiner and Rielly play pretty well together:



What type of talent is Jake playing against? Is he getting the Crosby's and Ovie's or is he getting the Sutter's and Johansson's
 

91Kadri91*

Guest
What type of talent is Jake playing against? Is he getting the Crosby's and Ovie's or is he getting the Sutter's and Johansson's

He's playing top-pairing minutes at 5on5 (http://public.tableau.com/shared/M5HZWZ26M?:display_count=yes), and all the stats posted are even-strength numbers. The difference between the the level of competition Phaneuf plays and the level of competition Gardiner plays is 1.8 goals for (meaning Phaneuf's competition scores 1.8 more goals than Gardiner's) per 1200 minutes (1200 minutes being the number of minutes a very good top-line forward typically plays at even-strength per 82 games). This, of course, supports the theory that players play similar levels of competition over the course of a full season. While some people believe that QoC is a write-off, and borderline useless given the stronger correlation between improved teammates and increased production, others believe that usage-stats provide a possible, rectifying answer to the current issue with QoC; Gardiner's usage numbers (see: Burtch's delta Corsi/Fenwick and ownthepucks vTO) are fantastic (9th highest dCorsiImpact and dFenwickImpact among defensemen this season).
 

likeabosski

Registered User
Jul 31, 2013
699
0
You're ignoring the fact that he's fantastic defensively (-0.53 GA60RelTM over the last three seasons; 7th amongst defensemen league-wide with 2000+ minutes played), plays top-pairing minutes, has a 99.7 PDO (indicating that he's suffered a bit of bad puck luck) over the past three season, and generates not only plenty of corsi/fenwick for, but also scoring chances.
Jake Gardiner is doing well defensively on the 5v5 compared to say Dion Phaneuf for example. But Jake Gardiner needs to start killing penalties. With my formula, I rewarded Gardiner more points than Phaneuf for defense on the 5v5 and 4v4 as well. But Gardiner barely does PK. So I couldn't reward him many points on defense for that. In the last 3 seasons (171 GP), he's spent 70.5 mins on the 4v5. You can't reward a player (especially a defenseman) with a lot of brownie points for defense if he's not even on the penalty killing unit.

My formula is kinda like W.A.R. It's not Goals Above Replacement. But close. www.hockey-reference.com has something called marginal goals for and marginal goals against. When you add marginals goals for and marginal goals against together league-wide, you get the number of goals scored in the league. Basically this is an exercise in attempting to estimate how many goals a player contributes to his team. Whether it's creating goals. Or preventing goals. I modified their formula. And I compare a player's gf and ga rates in 10 different situations: 5v5 tied, 5v5 up 1, 5v5 up 2+, 5v5 down 1, 5v5 down 2+, 4v4, 5v4, 4v5, pp (outside 5v4), sh (outside 4v5) with league averages in each situation. And then use league averages to calculate their marginal goals for and marginal goals against in each situation. And then I tally their marginal goals up and compare them to the team's marginal goals to estimate their contribution to the team in terms of goals created/prevented.

PDO =/= luck necessarily. PDO can be representative of player skill. Especially with larger sample sizes. 171 games is a much more accurate sample than 82 games. On hockeyanalysis.com I noticed that Gardiner's PDO reads as 100.1 in the past 3 seasons. And CPDO 100.0. He's had some bad puck luck this past season. This is why I don't like looking at one-year data and prefer to look at long-term data. Like say 3 years.

http://alongtheboards.com/2015/02/nhl-analytics-individual-scoring-chance-leaders-hockey-analytics/

In fact, Gardiner had a HSC (high-danger scoring chance) for-percentage relative of 8.13 (5th highest among defensemen league wide). The next closest defenseman on the Leafs with at least 20 games played? Morgan Rielly, at 0.71. Gardiner also led Leafs defensemen in scoring chance (not just high-danger) for-percentage relative with a percentage of 6.13% (11th among defensemen league-wide); Rielly was second at 3.39% (31st league-wide among defensemen). Gardiner was also second on the Leafs in Individual Scoring Chances (iSC) with 61, while Rielly was first with 76 (Rielly was 9th among defensemen league-wide in this category; Gardiner was 26th).
Yeah I've heard about the scoring chance statistics recently. Gardiner had a 3.24% on-ice Corsi shooting % this season (translates to low 1.74 GF/60 rate), so he was unlucky this season. Given all those high-danger scoring chances he created, you'd think his percentage would be higher. But in a sample size of 171 games (3 past seasons), his CSh% was still only 3.69% (that's below average). It's a stretch to think that Jake Gardiner has just been unlucky for that long of a stretch.

Jake Gardiner had a great rookie season. But that was 3-4 years ago. He has yet to recreate that magic. He was also sheltered more in his rookie season. That has something to do with it.

Also, there's a metric called WAR (wins above replacement) that attempts to determine an overall value of a player's contributions, and GAR (goals above replacement) for single-season comparison. You'll notice that Gardiner is the only Toronto defenseman with a GAR above 0 this season, and a total GAR in the top-30 among defensemen league-wide this year.

http://war-on-ice.com/WARboard.html
Goals Above Replacement is a great idea. Though I find it hard to believe that every Leafs D save for Gardiner and Cody Franson last season was below replacement level. Phil Kessel below replacement level. lol.

Replacement level from what I understand, is defined as a fringe NHL player. A minor leaguer who is brought in to fill-in for major league talent. I have a hard time believing that every D-man on the Leafs roster save for Jake Gardiner and Cody Franson (when he was with us) is below the level of a typical AHL call-up. The GAR needs more calibration. But I really like the idea.

I wouldn't be surprised if an AHL call-up can play defense better than Phil Kessel. Most AHL call-ups are expected to work the fourth-line, maybe third-line. The bottom 6 are typically expected to play fundamental systems hockey. Forecheck. Backcheck. Only the Top 6 guys are given a pass for being lazy. If you're a fringe NHLer, you are typically expected to play solid fundamental defensive hockey in order to maintain a job in the NHL. But I highly doubt an AHL call-up can score 25 goals and 61 points with Kessel's ice time. There are a lot of offensively skilled guys in the AHL Top 6 who end up being career AHLers for life because they develop this attitude that they are too good for bottom 6 hockey and they're not good enough to crack the NHL Top 6 for one reason or another (usually they have great hands but can't skate or read the game at an NHL pace). These guys never end up scoring 25 goals/60 points at the NHL level despite their talent.
 
Last edited:

91Kadri91*

Guest
Jake Gardiner is doing well defensively on the 5v5 compared to say Dion Phaneuf for example. But Jake Gardiner needs to start killing penalties. With my formula, I rewarded Gardiner more points than Phaneuf for defense on the 5v5 and 4v4 as well. But Gardiner barely does PK. So I couldn't reward him many points on defense for that. In the last 3 seasons (171 GP), he's spent 70.5 mins on the 4v5. You can't reward a player (especially a defenseman) with a lot of brownie points for defense if he's not even on the penalty killing unit.

You absolutely should reward a great defensive player with plenty of defensive 'brownie points', whether they're used on the PK or not. Players spend upwards of 80+ percent of their time on even-strength, while even the most oft-used PK'er will spend, at best, 15% of their TOI killing penalties. You (should) place players who are good penalty-killers, and not good 5on5, on the bottom-pairing.

My formula is kinda like W.A.R. It's not Goals Above Replacement. But close. www.hockey-reference.com has something called marginal goals for and marginal goals against. When you add marginals goals for and marginal goals against together league-wide, you get the number of goals scored in the league. Basically this is an exercise in attempting to estimate how many goals a player contributes to his team. Whether it's creating goals. Or preventing goals. I modified their formula. And I compare a player's gf and ga rates in 10 different situations: 5v5 tied, 5v5 up 1, 5v5 up 2+, 5v5 down 1, 5v5 down 2+, 4v4, 5v4, 4v5, pp (outside 5v4), sh (outside 4v5) with league averages in each situation. And then use league averages to calculate their marginal goals for and marginal goals against in each situation. And then I tally their marginal goals up and compare them to the team's marginal goals to estimate their contribution to the team in terms of goals created/prevented.

That's interesting. I wouldn't use up-2/down-2, and would instead use Close (which apparently has the strongest correlation between possession and future GF numbers), but I like the premise.

PDO =/= luck necessarily. PDO can be representative of player skill. Especially with larger sample sizes. 171 games is a much more accurate sample than 82 games. On hockeyanalysis.com I noticed that Gardiner's PDO reads as 100.1 in the past 3 seasons. And CPDO 100.0. He's had some bad puck luck this past season. This is why I don't like looking at one-year data and prefer to look at long-term data. Like say 3 years.

The PDO I referenced was the zone-adjusted number.

Yeah I've heard about the scoring chance statistics recently. Gardiner had a 3.24% on-ice Corsi shooting % this season (translates to low 1.74 GF/60 rate), so he was unlucky this season. Given all those high-danger scoring chances he created, you'd think his percentage would be higher. But in a sample size of 171 games (3 past seasons), his CSh% was still only 3.69% (that's below average). It's a stretch to think that Jake Gardiner has just been unlucky for that long of a stretch.

He's still just entering his prime. I'd be more inclined to agree with you if the three seasons you were referencing weren't three of the first four seasons of his career (one of the seasons being 12 games). The next couple of years will be telling, in terms of how effective offensively Jake Gardiner will ultimately be; he's already great defensively.

Obviously peak age for forwards (and overall shot generation for any player) in terms of PPG/P60 tends to be around 25, but I believe a defenseman's peak time frame is 26-30.

It should also be noted that Gardiner increased HSCF60 from 14.54 in 13/14 to 16.46 in 14/15, which is a significant increase. He also increased his HSCF%Rel from 4.62 in 13/14 to 8.13 in 14/15, his SCF60 from 26.67 in 13/14 to 27.25 in 14/15, and his SCF%Rel from 3.98 in 13/14 to 6.13 in 14/15. This should, theoretically, lead to an increase in GF60.

Jake Gardiner had a great rookie season. But that was 3-4 years ago. He has yet to recreate that magic. He was also sheltered more in his rookie season. That has something to do with it.

His usage numbers are incredible (9th highest dCorsi Impact among defensemen league-wide this season; 9th highest dFenwick Impact; 2 year dCorsi/Fenwick stabilization, and his numbers were just as impressive last season); his GF60 struggles have nothing to do with the competition/minutes he's playing.

Goals Above Replacement is a great idea. Though I find it hard to believe that every Leafs D save for Gardiner and Cody Franson last season was below replacement level. Phil Kessel below replacement level. lol.

To be fair, Kessel had a very good GAR for many seasons prior to this one. He had a pretty bad year, and pretty much every metric will tell you that. There's no Kessel-precedent for this level of poor play, however, so it's safe to assume he will rebound next season.

Replacement level from what I understand, is defined as a fringe NHL player. A minor leaguer who is brought in to fill-in for major league talent. I have a hard time believing that every D-man on the Leafs roster save for Jake Gardiner and Cody Franson (when he was with us) is below the level of a typical AHL call-up. The GAR needs more calibration. But I really like the idea.

It's dependent on team quality, even if it tries not to be. All of the poor teams in the league will have poor GAR totals. Obviously one would argue that a poor team should have low GAR totals (that is, after all, the point of the metric), but when Morgan Rielly has great metrics (excluding GAR), and has a very poor goals-above-replacement, questions will inevitably arise. You're right, though, it does need some calibration.

Nonetheless, the math appears pretty sound (from what I read of their 11 part series explaining the metric), and even if you acknowledge that the metric needs some fine-tuning, Gardiner's GAR is still outstanding; no other Leafs defenseman was even in the vicinity, and that isn't a happy accident.
 

JMilne*

Guest
Phaneuf by far , only one team wants him LAK , but they can't afford him Lupul is great when he is healthy but he never stays that way long , Jake g fits in our game plan at the moment , he's young he's pretty good top 3-4 pairing Dman , I think the new coach can make him better. Lupul if he's healthy in 3 years at the dead line a team will pick him up for cheep if we retained like 50% for a team trying to make a play off run
 

Bluelines

Python FTW!
Nov 17, 2013
12,349
4,559
Since this thread has kinda moved to focus on Jake, do you guys think Jake plays differently since his concussion?

I've noticed, especially last year, Jake goes into the corners to retrieve the puck kind of hesitantly, he typically has a good gap between him and the forecheckers, then he slows up around the face off dot, the forechecker closes the gap and then it becomes a battle for the puck against the boards. IMO it feels like he's making puck retrieval much more difficult than it has to be. I'm not going to say he plays scared against the forecheck because I don't know what goes on in his mind but it feels to me like he would rather be doing anything else than retrieving dump ins.
 

Quares27

Registered User
Apr 3, 2013
6,981
162
Gardiner probably because the Leafs want to keep him. Phaneuf would be the hardest to move i'd say and Bozak the easiest
 

Semantics

PUBLIC ENEMY #1
Jan 3, 2007
12,150
1,449
San Francisco
Bozak is going to be annoying to move. His contract is back loaded for some reason - he earns $5M this year. And he has a limited NTC (12 teams). No good team will want him, and his contract ensures he's not friendly to cap floor teams either. ****ing Nonis and Loiselle. :shakehead

Lupul is obviously unmovable as well since he makes $6.75M (LOL!) this year and has a 14-team list. I think we'll be able to move him for a bag of pucks in two years though when his salary drops to $3.75M, assuming he's still in one piece by then. Paying only 71% of his cap hit will be nice for a cap floor team.

I foresee Bozak as a very expensive scratch/bottom six/AHLer the year after this when Nylander and Marner take jobs. If we can't move him and Lupul, I think we keep them around as floor insurance, rather than buy them out. We haven't seen the current group's buyout strategy, but I'm expecting that they won't be using them until we're a cap team again. The $1.3M hit for three years for Gleason looks gross (again, thanks Nonis).
 

champs*

Guest
babcock may turn Bozak into a good player, who knows? What else is there for babcock to do this season lol teach phaneuf,kadri,gardiner,etc to be all stars!!
 

Ducati1098VII

Registered User
Nov 11, 2008
621
0
Which player of the remaining core is the least likely to be traded due to their current market value?

  1. Phanuef - 6 more years at $7 mil
  2. Lupul - 3 more years at $5.25 mil
  3. Bozak - 3 more years at $4.2 mil
  4. Gardnier - 4 more years at $4.05 mil

None.

Bozak is a serviceable third line C.
Gardnier is sick. Hopefully Babcock can help his decision making.
Lupul will LTIR himself anyway but he can be moved with salary retention but probably next year. But with injury history ugh.
Phanuef. He has potential to turn it around. But less minutes no C.
 

Daisy Jane

everything is gonna be okay!
Jul 2, 2009
70,255
9,266
Bozak is going to be annoying to move. His contract is back loaded for some reason - he earns $5M this year. And he has a limited NTC (12 teams). No good team will want him, and his contract ensures he's not friendly to cap floor teams either. ****ing Nonis and Loiselle. :shakehead

Lupul is obviously unmovable as well since he makes $6.75M (LOL!) this year and has a 14-team list. I think we'll be able to move him for a bag of pucks in two years though when his salary drops to $3.75M, assuming he's still in one piece by then. Paying only 71% of his cap hit will be nice for a cap floor team.

I foresee Bozak as a very expensive scratch/bottom six/AHLer the year after this when Nylander and Marner take jobs. If we can't move him and Lupul, I think we keep them around as floor insurance, rather than buy them out. We haven't seen the current group's buyout strategy, but I'm expecting that they won't be using them until we're a cap team again. The $1.3M hit for three years for Gleason looks gross (again, thanks Nonis).

Seriously. what were Nonis and Losielle thinking with some of these contracts?
 

Gabriel426

Registered User
Jun 30, 2015
16,883
10,534
If I am running a team, I will never buy out a player. Bc u r essentially paying someone in full to play against you. Retaining salary in trade is one thing bc u actually are getting someone back. But buying out means you are paying someone for the services that he didn't provide to go away.
On top of that, if I am a professional player like them, I would consider a team buying me out an insult and will beg to stay and show them what I can for them before they completely give up on me.
 

likeabosski

Registered User
Jul 31, 2013
699
0
Joffrey Lupul makes $6.75m in salary this year? Oh MAN. LOL.

Good luck trading Lupul to a small-market team. For a small market team, cap doesn't matter. So as long as they are above the minimum. It's the actual salaries that matter more. $6.75m for a 2nd line winger who might be injured for like 30 games or something. lol.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad