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

Around the League 2019-2026 Edition

Yeah. I love his answer there. Acquiring depth is fine, acquiring depth with some actual upside is what the real winning teams do. Leafs got guys with clear absolute ceilings, and those ceilings are 4th liner. Maybe Paul could be a 3rd liner. That's it.
 
Preston said:
Yeah. I love his answer there. Acquiring depth is fine, acquiring depth with some actual upside is what the real winning teams do. Leafs got guys with clear absolute ceilings, and those ceilings are 4th liner. Maybe Paul could be a 3rd liner. That's it.
Click to expand...
Roslovic is minimum third liner, but the others, yeah.
 
The stupidity of paying for 4th liners is twofold:

1. As we already discussed, your upside is nearly 0. They are established players, all of them. They are who they are. So there isn't any world where you're surprised and these turn into value deals. You can argue maybe Roslovic finds crazy chemistry with Matthews and works out. And MAYBE Nick Paul can revert back into a 3rd liner. But those are all still low upside events and probably pretty low probabilities.

2. Low upside does not always = high floor. These guys are all a 5% decline away from being out of the NHL. Would we really be surprised if any one of them was unplayable trash and not even an NHLer as early as next year?

So you're paying money for guys who have nearly a 0% chance of exceeding expectation and a decent chance of just being dead cap space or even worse, huge liabilities that play, but shouldn't be in the NHL. Spreading the risk out across like 7 players, in addition to low-ish AAVs and low terms may kind of reduce that risk, but it caps how good your forward group can be; you get slightly more certainty that your bottom lines will be sort of shit instead of catastrophically shit. It's the exact FUCKING opposite of a data driven approach.
 
Preston said:
The stupidity of paying for 4th liners is twofold:

1. As we already discussed, your upside is nearly 0. They are established players, all of them. They are who they are. So there isn't any world where you're surprised and these turn into value deals. You can argue maybe Roslovic finds crazy chemistry with Matthews and works out. And MAYBE Nick Paul can revert back into a 3rd liner. But those are all still low upside events and probably pretty low probabilities.

2. No upside does not always = high floor. These guys are all a 5% decline away from being out of the NHL. Would we really be surprised if any one of them was unplayable trash and not even an NHLer as early as next year?

So you're paying money for guys who have nearly a 0% chance of exceeding expectation and a decent chance of just being dead cap space or even worse, huge liabilities that play, but shouldn't be in the NHL. Spreading the risk out across like 7 players, in addition to low-ish AAVs and low terms may kind of reduce that risk, but it caps how good your forward group can be; you get slightly more certainty that your bottom lines will be sort of shit instead of catastrophically shit. It's the exact FUCKING opposite of a data driven approach.
Click to expand...
You’re murdering my soul.
 
Preston said:
The stupidity of paying for 4th liners is twofold:

1. As we already discussed, your upside is nearly 0. They are established players, all of them. They are who they are. So there isn't any world where you're surprised and these turn into value deals. You can argue maybe Roslovic finds crazy chemistry with Matthews and works out. And MAYBE Nick Paul can revert back into a 3rd liner. But those are all still low upside events and probably pretty low probabilities.

2. Low upside does not always = high floor. These guys are all a 5% decline away from being out of the NHL. Would we really be surprised if any one of them was unplayable trash and not even an NHLer as early as next year?

So you're paying money for guys who have nearly a 0% chance of exceeding expectation and a decent chance of just being dead cap space or even worse, huge liabilities that play, but shouldn't be in the NHL. Spreading the risk out across like 7 players, in addition to low-ish AAVs and low terms may kind of reduce that risk, but it caps how good your forward group can be; you get slightly more certainty that your bottom lines will be sort of shit instead of catastrophically shit. It's the exact FUCKING opposite of a data driven approach.
Click to expand...

while in principle I agree I think you're being harsh on Nick Paul. would I rather have done something else? I mean yeah probably...but now that he's here I think the upside is better than you're painting it... a 2 way 3C with size is a piece this team has been looking for for years now.

I'm actually more worried that this is the cliff year for Tavares as a top 6 centre than I am about Paul being poor or ineffective in his role, to be perfectly honest..
 
Preston said:
The stupidity of paying for 4th liners is twofold:

1. As we already discussed, your upside is nearly 0. They are established players, all of them. They are who they are. So there isn't any world where you're surprised and these turn into value deals. You can argue maybe Roslovic finds crazy chemistry with Matthews and works out. And MAYBE Nick Paul can revert back into a 3rd liner. But those are all still low upside events and probably pretty low probabilities.

2. Low upside does not always = high floor. These guys are all a 5% decline away from being out of the NHL. Would we really be surprised if any one of them was unplayable trash and not even an NHLer as early as next year?

So you're paying money for guys who have nearly a 0% chance of exceeding expectation and a decent chance of just being dead cap space or even worse, huge liabilities that play, but shouldn't be in the NHL. Spreading the risk out across like 7 players, in addition to low-ish AAVs and low terms may kind of reduce that risk, but it caps how good your forward group can be; you get slightly more certainty that your bottom lines will be sort of shit instead of catastrophically shit. It's the exact FUCKING opposite of a data driven approach.
Click to expand...
You should be GM.
 
Volcanologist said:
while in principle I agree I think you're being harsh on Nick Paul. would I rather have done something else? I mean yeah probably...but now that he's here I think the upside is better than you're painting it... a 2 way 3C with size is a piece this team has been looking for for years now.

I'm actually more worried that this is the cliff year for Tavares as a top 6 centre than I am about Paul being poor or ineffective in his role, to be perfectly honest..
Click to expand...
Yeah I just think historically, a guy his age and his playing style rarely goes from a 4c to a 3c yoy. Not many examples of it. He was apparently healthy as a clam last year too, said it felt like he had a brand new wrist. He was just having a hard time keeping up and was a 4th line caliber player in the end. Missing training camp was possibly the cause, but I don't love betting on that excuse.

But I agree, he's the one guy that could be ok. But you bring up a good point. He's their 3c but could be a 4c. Tavares is their 2c but could be a 3c. It's all downside risk, neither of them are improving from there.

Based on how good Tavares was last year though and how bad Paul was, I'm still betting that Tavares is much more likely to live up to his role.
 
I don't really have an issue with Nick Paul in a vacuum, but more the totality of what was done yesterday.

As currently constituted any injury to a Top 6er and you have guys playing up who have no business doing so really. No real depth at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top