• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

The ****ing 2017-18 Season

think they're down to 48 now.

lou apparently doesn't like sitting at 50. a centre for picks/prospects sounds about right.
 
Literally none of us knows shit about Glendenning.

I’ll laugh if we get him and see everyone suddenly like the guy after watching a game or two.
 
Unless you’ve actually watched him play several times and really paid attention when doing so, ummm yes.

You haven’t seen him in any highlights, you barely even see him when we play them.

There’s no reason why you’d have any more knowledge on the guy than you do any other no name fourth liner.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
Unless you’ve actually watched him play several times and really paid attention when doing so, ummm yes.
Click to expand...

Just Leaf games alone (which I very rarely miss) has given me 19 looks at him. Add in the random times I watch parts of Wings games (centre ice >>)....like funny enough a chunk of the 3rd period of the Wings/Preds game tonight and I've probably seen him a solid 25-30+ times in his career.

How many times do I need to see him play to develop a decent opinion on him? Especially when there's a lot that can be known on statistical profile alone.

You haven’t seen him in any highlights, you barely even see him when we play them.
Click to expand...

Highlights sure, but barely see him when we play them? This all comes off as a bunch of projection.

There’s no reason why you’d have any more knowledge on the guy than you do any other no name fourth liner.
Click to expand...

I could tell you quite a bit about most of the veteran no name 4th liners in our division. We seem them pretty frequently.
 
...and then there's the fact that even if you'd never seen him play once.....via your depth of knowledge of analytics you have a more complete picture of what he actually brings to the table....than say Joe Q public does sitting on his couch, having simply watched every Red Wings game, but only relies on the eye test.

A fact those in love with their own intuition/gut feeling who over rate their own eye test capabilities don't care to admit. (Which isn't to say eye test is useless, only incomplete & unreliable)
 
MindzEye said:
Just Leaf games alone (which I very rarely miss) has given me 19 looks at him. Add in the random times I watch parts of Wings games (centre ice >>)....like funny enough a chunk of the 3rd period of the Wings/Preds game tonight and I've probably seen him a solid 25-30+ times in his career.

How many times do I need to see him play to develop a decent opinion on him? Especially when there's a lot that can be known on statistical profile alone.



Highlights sure, but barely see him when we play them? This all comes off as a bunch of projection.



I could tell you quite a bit about most of the veteran no name 4th liners in our division. We seem them pretty frequently.
Click to expand...

I’ve seen all those same Leaf games, and bits of Wings games on Center Ice too. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t focus on the play of fourth liners of our opponents that play only a handful of minutes. Heck, even last night I was thinking to myself how very little I even noticed Ekblad, and the game before, Zetterberg. If the top players sometimes don’t even stand out, what could you possibly glean from a role player who isn’t even on the ice very much.

In my view, a lesser player like this, you actually have to kinda scout with a purpose. You’ve seen him once since these rumors started, and he wasn’t noticeable. Noticing him in passing here and there isn’t enough to form an opinion. It’s not like watching Tarasenko or Barzal a few times and forming a pretty solid take on the guy.
 
Montana said:
...and then there's the fact that even if you'd never seen him play once.....via your depth of knowledge of analytics you have a more complete picture of what he actually brings to the table....than say Joe Q public does sitting on his couch, having simply watched every Red Wings game, but only relies on the eye test.

A fact those in love with their own intuition/gut feeling who over rate their own eye test capabilities don't care to admit. (Which isn't to say eye test is useless, only incomplete & unreliable)
Click to expand...

Yeah, as noted earlier, I don’t think the stats are all that useful for fourth liners on bad teams.
 
4th liners grow on trees i don't care how super elite Chris Kelly they are, you don't sign them long term at over 1M, or at all, and you certinaly don't move assets for them.

The only way i'd like this for Toronto if it was Martin and a mid pick for Glendening, then at least you get depth at a position you need and probably a better player
 
I'm not even sure who has him at the moment or how many teams are paying his bloated contract, but for the right price i go for Marcus Kruger over Luke Glendening.
 
MyNameIsJonas said:
4th liners grow on trees i don't care how super elite Chris Kelly they are, you don't sign them long term at over 1M, or at all, and you certinaly don't move assets for them.

The only way i'd like this for Toronto if it was Martin and a mid pick for Glendening, then at least you get depth at a position you need and probably a better player
Click to expand...

I don’t necessarily disagree, but too much is made about a guy making $1.8m over a few years. Just like too much is made over Martin getting $2.5m. Naturally you can’t have too many of these - maybe just one. But the saving of a few hundred thousand over the cheaper option over Glendenning doesn’t move the needle in any material way.

So if he is some truly elite 4C, then whatever, I trust them to make that call. It’s not going to prevent us from getting Tavares, and they can trade his cheaper replacement for a pick that maybe turns out better than a fourth liner.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
I don’t necessarily disagree, but too much is made about a guy making $1.8m over a few years. Just like too much is made over Martin getting $2.5m. Naturally you can’t have too many of these - maybe just one. But the saving of a few hundred thousand over the cheaper option over Glendenning doesn’t move the needle in any material way.

So if he is some truly elite 4C, then whatever, I trust them to make that call. It’s not going to prevent us from getting Tavares, and they can trade his cheaper replacement for a pick that maybe turns out better than a fourth liner.
Click to expand...
By absolutely every statistical measure, Glendenning is barely an NHL calibre player, if he is an NHL player at all. Which is pretty far from "truly elite 4th line center".

And while a single 4th line player making $1.8M may not seem like a big deal, all of those little mistakes can add up pretty quickly in the cap world. Suddenly you can find yourself stuck paying $4.3M to two mediocre 4th line players like Matt Martin and Luke Glendenning, when you could easily fill those two roster spots with two better players for one-third or one-half of that money, and you end up having to cut an actual good player like Jake Gardiner loose when his contract's up because you just don't have the space to squeeze him under your cap.
 
Again, I don’t disagree.

I just question whether this guy is actually bad or not.

I can’t imagine the value of stats for a guy like this, but out of curiosity, how does he compare to Moore, Gauthier, and other fourth line types?
 
Based on the numbers Moore is better with the puck, but Glendenning is better without the puck.

He is very McClement-y. Which is fine, on a a Dominic Moore 1 year deal. I don't see how it benefits the Leafs to lock into a 30 year old 4th line center for 4 years though. You can litterally get these types of players every year in free agency for $1 mill.
 
Last edited:
I67jS6W.png
 
LeafOfFaith said:
I’ve seen all those same Leaf games, and bits of Wings games on Center Ice too. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t focus on the play of fourth liners of our opponents that play only a handful of minutes. Heck, even last night I was thinking to myself how very little I even noticed Ekblad, and the game before, Zetterberg. If the top players sometimes don’t even stand out, what could you possibly glean from a role player who isn’t even on the ice very much.

In my view, a lesser player like this, you actually have to kinda scout with a purpose. You’ve seen him once since these rumors started, and he wasn’t noticeable. Noticing him in passing here and there isn’t enough to form an opinion. It’s not like watching Tarasenko or Barzal a few times and forming a pretty solid take on the guy.
Click to expand...

Fair take on it, I just disagree on what can be taken from watching what a role player does (and doesn't) do out there. Take Dom Moore for example. A couple of times a game you can see him make a clever play with the puck in our zone to help maintain possession to drive a clean zone exit and likewise a couple of times a game uses his speed through the neutral zone to create a decent entry and forecheck opportunity. Now, what I also notice about him though is that he's pretty much primarily a dump and chase guy, and can't/won't attempt to carry into the zone. You win some, you lose some with him. When you're looking for the things that matter from a depth player imo (entries, exits, good cycle play, not giving away possession cheaply, keeping opposing possession to the boards defensively, etc) they don't have to be as noticeable as a star player for you to assess how good they are in that role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top