Gilbert Brule made $800,000 this past season and is a restricted free agent. A big story for Oilers fans this season will surround just how much he'll get on his next contract. Although the club is unlikely to be tight against the cap in 10-11, having Brule sign a value contract will make it easier for the Oilers to shoehorn a few contracts moving forward. It'll be an interesting item to track this summer.
- Boxcars: 65gp, 17-20-37
- Shots: 121
- Plus Minus: -8
- Corsi (Rel): 5.8 (5th among F's)
- GF/GA ON: 38-43
- 5x5/60: 2.36 (2nd among regulars)
- 5x4/60: 1.99 (11th among regulars)
- Quality of Competition: 10th F
- Quality of Teammates: 5th F
- FO %: 52.6 in 274 FO's
- Offensive Zone start FO %: 48.4 (5th easiest among F's)
- Cap Hit: $800,000 (RFA)
- What do these numbers tell us? Brule impressed this season as a player who can score goals. You'd love to see another season before giving him the keys of the vault but he's got that "something" goal scorers possess in terms of finding open ice and burying chances. We don't know if he's going to bury 20 a season or 30 per annum, but he looks like a goal scorer. Brule had soft-ish minutes and played much of the season with the better Oiler forwards, but overall I think we can agree he showed the Oilers he can play. One important factor to remember is that he is (like Hemsky) a skill player with some stones, and that might give him enough of an edge over Cogliano.
- How could these numbers be better? Much like Gagner, you'd like to see him do a little more with these minutes. I think it is probably asking a bit much of him to save his career and drag this bunch into playoff contention in the same season, but it is also true that a more experienced winger would have delivered more with this slot in the batting order.
- Is he going to be a complete player? Brule didn't spend his season running around without a clue ala Cogliano, but he isn't Donny Marcotte on the forecheck either. He did perform well in the FO circle. We can overrate the defensive aspects (he is after all a skill winger) but if he's playing with Penner it would be nice for the other winger to haul ass getting back every shift.
- What about that EV number? Nice, eh? If Brule can contribute at that level consistently there's little doubt he'll be an Oiler long enough to enjoy the good times. I don't think we should read too much into that PP number, he was about option 8 among Oiler forwards. If he gets more PP time that number should improve markedly.
- What about Jagr? The only way I can see Brule not making next season's top 6 is some kind of addled addition like Jagr. If we assume that Hemsky, Penner, Gagner, Seguin/Hall and Brule make up 5 of the top 6 in the fall, the obvious addition is a young, skilled LW with some size who can grow with the group. Right?
- What are his negatives? The one big problem I see (as mentioned above) is that his will not be a value contract. If Brule scores 25 goals and is signed to a good contract that's an exceptional value, but the Oilers may end up paying in full before he reaches any milestone.
- How important is Brule to the organization? He's more valuable now than he was a year ago. If they could sign him to a 3-year deal at reasonable dollars his value would rocket.
By The Numbers
- 08-09 5x5 per 60m: 1.74
- 09-10 5x5 per 60m: 2.36
By The Numbers
- 08-09 5x4 per 60m: 0.00
- 09-10 5x4 per 60m: 1.99
Performance in 2009-10: 65gp, 17-20-37 (.569)
Projected Role on 2010-11 Oilers: A top 6F role for as long as he's scoring goals
He can win faceoffs and score goals. I can hardly see him as a top 6F on a contending team right now but he has taken at least a couple of steps towards career resurrection. I like the idea of keeping him as an Oiler but worry this is exactly the kind of $2.5M X 3 kind of overpay Edmonton has been just awful with. No sense in buying out O'Sullivan and Nilsson if you're just going to overpay their replacements.
ReplyDeleteI really like the raw talent he has. I like his character. Some concern over games missed to injury however. Seems to be the only Oiler forward who can score on a slap shot outside 25 to 30 feet.
ReplyDeleteI'll be interested to see where Brule will fit on the depth chart next year. If he starts in the top 6, so be it, if he starts on the 4th line than it'll mean this team will have some depth and it might be ready to rock and roll.
ReplyDeleteIt will interesting to see what kind of payday he gets, he'll be the benchmark for others such as Cogliano, Potulny, and Pouliot, even potentially Comrie. I think Gagner stands on his own, especially if the term is long.
Yup,it's all about the money.
ReplyDeleteI think Brule and Cogliano are competing for 1 roster spot.
Gagner is the keeper,POS,Comrie and Mr.Sparkle are moved along,and 1 of Brule or Cogs is kept.The other is traded/packaged to fill a need.
It's a tough choice-both have warts but both have nice things.
Money may be the deciding factor.
I think it's worth mentioning that injuries are a huge concern moving forward with Brule.
ReplyDeleteHe's suffered many, and is a small man playing a big mans game.
2 years plus player opting for arbitration takes Brule to UFA status.
ReplyDelete3 years takes Brule to UFA status.
Eberle is a year away. Hemsky decision time is a year away.
Thus, Brule's deal should really only be another one year deal. Maybe a two year deal. Definitely NOT a three year deal.
How worried is anyone else that this season was a heavy outlier?
ReplyDeleteNot once as a pro has he shown the ability to generate these kinds of numbers and now there is talk of whether there will be 20 or 30 goals.
He just reeks of Jani Rita. Lots of tools but just no sense of how to use any of them consistantly. Even in a good year, he spent most of the season chasing the puck around and being well out of position.
Brule had a lot of the numbers on his side, but still managed to get outscored.
His line posted a 9.62 ES sh% (4th on team) and he got the benefit of a .937 ES sv% (1st) behind him.
I don't think either of those are sustainable in the future and it raises some interesting questions about what sort of value he can bring to an NHL team.
I like Brule just fine, but if he and Cogliano are competing for one roster spot, I keep the one who's likely to be a value contract and who's likely to net less in a trade. We know that Cogliano's first two seasons benefited from puck luck, but it's also true that given decent linemates (wait, am I logged in under my "Steve" account or my "Traktor" account?) his counting numbers should be better next year than this one (though likely not as good as his first two seasons). Brule might be showing the beginnings of an impressive career, but he also might be Scott Fraser. I don't think the Oilers should sign him for what he's likely to be asking (and if they do, I agree with Godot that it should be one year).
ReplyDeleteWe should sign Brule to a one year contract. That way the organization can continue to build his value and focus on dealing with the O'Sullivans and Nilsson's.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that POS or Nilsson will increase their value from what they are now but I'm sure Brule's market value will only continue to increase.
We could always trade him next year. He's still an RFA after this, right?
WAY off-topic but... @MC79:
ReplyDeleteNice Heatley dig. (On national broadcast)
The best part about Brule IMO is that he can play multiple roles on this team. If he doesn't make the cut as a top-6er, he could be Steve Ott.
ReplyDeleteWe need a Steve Ott.
Dorito: As much as we need Ethan Moreau.
ReplyDeleteOT: Watched the last half of the Avs-Sharks affair, and I think I have now seen it all. Sharks can't beat Anderson in 50 shots, but can beat Nabokov.
ReplyDeleteThe ovation Anderson got at the end gave me the chills. What a moment for any player, especially a goalie.
Incroyable!
That was an oustanding performance by Anderson. He was blitzed in the 2nd and 3rd periods and gave them nothing. This kinda stuff seems to happen to Sharks quite frequently.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the Sharks knew which goalie they were supposed to embarrass?
ReplyDeleteHistory will be made.
How worried is anyone else that this season was a heavy outlier?
ReplyDeleteIt would be worrying if you assume he's peaked.
Problem is, he only turned 23 midway through the year. He's got a strong history of scoring goals. He was drafted 6th overall, and simply was rushed into the NHL.
His numbers this year aren't overly impressive, but certainly worth waiting to see if there is untapped potential.
He just reeks of Jani Rita. Lots of tools but just no sense of how to use any of them consistantly. Even in a good year, he spent most of the season chasing the puck around and being well out of position.
Again, that assumes he won't learn over the upcoming years.
Brule had a lot of the numbers on his side, but still managed to get outscored.
His line posted a 9.62 ES sh% (4th on team) and he got the benefit of a .937 ES sv% (1st) behind him.
When a team like the Oilers allowed as many goals as they did - 30th in the league - even a .937 ES sv% should be examined more closely.
I don't think either of those are sustainable in the future and it raises some interesting questions about what sort of value he can bring to an NHL team.
I doubt his value is too much at this point on the trade market. It would be prudent to hold onto him, and assess whether there is some untapped potential (23 goals in 27 games in 2005-2006 with Vancouver).
That said, injuries may be somewhat of a concern. The key here is to sign a short term contract (1 year) unless you get a solid value with 2 years (1.5M). You do your best to avoid a Nilsson type contract as you need more 'proof' before engaging in a longer term commitment.
You still have to hold onto him though. Probably Cogliano as well.
My second favourite Stones song!
ReplyDeleteI won't mention my favourite, because I'm sure you'll use it for one of these posts later on. You have to: the title is so perfect.
These are great by the way. Nothing constructive to add, but I'm reading happily.
How exactly does Gilbert Brule in any way remind you of Jani Rita DB?
ReplyDeleteRita turned out to be a bum who slowed down at the higher levels and couldn't shoot worth a damn (which is a significant issue when you're a scoring fwd). Brule's stepped up when given a chance, and his goal scoring seldom relies on a complicated play; he either blows it by people or wins a forecheck.
I don't see how you can cast aside a tough winger that can score from a team like this. Guys like him are where a fundamental disconnect occurs between the schools of analysis.
One sees Gilbert Brule and wants to hold on to him.
The other seems to value guys like Marc Pouliot to a much greater extent.
The question at hand I believe would be "what type of player makes the difference between winning and losing", also, "what player's skill level can be duplicated.
I'm not sure how we duplicate Gilbert Brule.
Horcoff Question
ReplyDeleteHey everyone, a couple of my family members (Brother & Brother and Law) were doing the 'Horcoff is a Bum' rant. Now, I have no problem with just criticism and debate over contracts, but I do get pissed off when guys who carry about 300 pounds extra between them call a professional like Horcoff a 'bum'.
There have been a number of discussions on Horcoff here and elsewhere, can any of you identify a really great link that explains what Horcoff brings to the team so that I can forward it to these guys.
Something that demonstrates the quality of competition, defensive zone starts, etc...
LT, when it comes to contract negotiations you nail it with this:
ReplyDelete"it is also true that a more experienced winger would have delivered more with this slot in the batting order."
we're a last place team that's given these kids every opportunity to run with it and the results are still such that we're not sold on the player entirely. historically, we've overpaid on these contracts.
This summer is where i'm hoping we can crack the whip a little on middling results and sign some guys to 2 year contracts (as godot10 reasons) at very reasonable terms.
if we've learned anything from watching this string of kids, it's that progress is never a straight line and i hope we don't pay as though we expect it to be.
i think dubinsky's situation is pretty relevant and i'd view his contract as being on the high side for either brule or cogs.
this discussion has me excited to get to the D. will you do grebs? i'd like to get your take on his contract handling the last two years.
this worries me:
ReplyDelete# 07-08 5x5 per 60m: 2.37
# 08-09 5x5 per 60m: 1.22
from a contract perspective and a "place in the line up" perspective
Book;e
ReplyDelete1) Tell your brother and brother in law they are fat and sloppy. This ensures that the discussion gets off to a good start.
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Horcoff has a few facts, but since the discussion is about feelings the facts are not all that relevant. You may find a similar pattern in resolving disagreements with your wife.
3) Whatever direction the conversation takes, you will have to end up defending Horcoff's huge contract, and then by extension, defending Kevin Lowe as a GM. Decide whether this is a fight you want to get into before you start.
4) In the end, what difference will it make? Horcoff will still be here, as will your brother and brother-in-law.
Leave it alone, I say.
Gilbert Brule, Shooting Percentage By Season (min. 40GP):
ReplyDelete2006-07: 9.2%
2007-08: 1.4%
2009-10: 14.0%
Given that shooting percentage drops with age, I think we can look at this season as a higher-end performance with a fair degree of confidence.
In other words, if this guy turns into a regular 30-goal scorer I'll be very surprised.
I agree with Gerta Rauss that it's all about the money with Brule; for a reasonable contract I'd be fine with him coming back, but I don't think this is a good place to back up the Brinks truck, especially given injury history, and the way his performance looks with and without Penner.
JW,
ReplyDeleteWhile tool are you using to get the w/Penner and w/o Penner info?
Thanks.
PJO, the problem is he doesn't have a strong history of scoring goals.
ReplyDeleteHeading into the season he had 32 career goals as a pro in 212 games.
Sure, I'll concede that he did get rushed in at an early age and that definitely hurt him, but he's had issues at both the NHL and AHL levels finding his offense.
I'm just not convinced that it was anything more than just the percentages at play here, and that the Oilers are going to end up paying a premium for that.
LMHF, I compare him to Rita bcause both are similar in that they have easily identifiable skills, but don't make the best use of them.
ReplyDeleteBrule is a puck chaser. He should be a very good forechecker with his speed, but he chases the puck instead of taking angles and always ends up behind it.
He's got a plus shot (but he's always had that) and up until this year he's had issues using it as an effective tool to generate offense.
He concerns me because he plays the same game and has the same habits as he did when he came into the league.
He got better linemates and saw a huge increase in his percentages on both sides of the puck (including to his own sh%), and I'm not sure he has anywhere near the offense if all of those things don't come together in a perfect storm.
I have no issues with keeping him, but I do have issues with paying him like this is what you will get every year.
Lowball Brule on a one year deal.
ReplyDelete1.) Lots of teams have cap problems or revenue problems. This makes an offer sheet less likely.
2.) If we get an offer sheet, if it's too high, we can take the resultant pick.
I'd say 1 year 1.75MM max.
Option 1-
ReplyDelete1 year at 1.5.
Re-assess with still 2 years of RFA remaining.
Option 2-
5 years / 8 Mill. (1.6 per year)
Front load the contract (4,1,1,1,1)
If he goes on to be a 30 goal scorer, this would buy 2 years of UFA for a ridiculous price. This would be alot of guaranteed money for a guy who hasn't seen a big payday yet.
Worst (and probable) Option-
3 years / 7.5 Mill @ 2.5 per.
Paying him to develop (or not)and then letting him go at UFA
Matheson's got Brule as for sure returning next year, which I'm not thrilled about, given the contract I expect him to return on. I'm even less thrilled with J-F Jacques being "75% likely". On the upside, he's got Moreau, Nilsson, and O'Sullivan as definitely not returning; I guess I can live with Jacques as the thirteenth forward at what I presume will be near the league minimum if the tradeoff is that we get rid of those three.
ReplyDeleteLink
Mstheson also suggests that we get "A face-off man (how about Manny Malhotra?) because Horcoff can't take all the draws."
ReplyDeleteHe says it's a tossup whether we keep Dubnyk or JDD, but that his "gut feeling" is that we'll keep Dubnyk.
Consensus is that Matheson's less connected than he used to be, right?
Bookie,
ReplyDeleteHere are a couple for you debate on 10.
Link to a post by Tyler Dellow on Horcoff.
Link to LT's preview on this season,
Matt: you cannot offer the second option to Brule, it is against the CBA. If I remember correctly, the contract is only allowed to reduce by 50% a year (I am sorry speeds, I know you will have to correct me).
ReplyDeleteso a front loaded contract for Brule might look like: 1st year 3M, second year 2M, third 1.5M, and fourth year 1M. This would be 7.5M over four years, with a cap hit of 1.875M a season. The only problem with this contract is if you ever buy him out in the last two years, then it would be (slightly more expensive then giving him flat contract).
More from the Journal: Quinn on Strudwick:
ReplyDelete"Even though they may not be your best players, you need good character people in place, like we had with Strudwick. Is he a guy who should have played 65 to 70 games? Probably not, but as a mentor, as a guy who cared about those kids and helped them along, boy, he was important to us."
Link
That explains a certain amount of coaches' evident affection for the guy. I'm fine with Strudwick being back as a seventh defensemen, platooning with Peckham, maybe. But if we get a long-term injury to one of the top six, we need to bring in somebody else, because I can't bear to watch him more than about 30 games per year.
Strudwick is a guy I'd keep as your very last roster player and, if anyone goes down in front of him for more than a game or two, you immediately bring in an AHLer. Seems like a good character guy, but that's all I'd like to get out of him besides healthy scratches.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteThe contrast to Matheson's article is what Gregor had to say. I think taking both together you get a better sense of who stays and who goes (all my guesses on what is written).
-Strudwick stays ('cause he's good in the room, if only we could just leave him there, a la Gretzky's comment)
-Johnson goes, 'cause Strudwick is so much better in the room
-JDD goes and DD stays
-Potulny stays and Pouliot goes
-Moreau, Comrie and JFJ all stay
Gregor seems to have more inside line with the team than Matheson does these days, despite his obvious numerical challenges.
Then again, I might be completely off.
Gilbert Brule, Shooting Percentage By Season (min. 40GP):
ReplyDelete2006-07: 9.2%
2007-08: 1.4%
2009-10: 14.0%
Given that shooting percentage drops with age, I think we can look at this season as a higher-end performance with a fair degree of confidence.
I think that's a pretty weak interpretation of the linked data. Shooting percentage vs age stays pretty even until 27 or so then starts to decline. Just because you can draw a regression line does not make it linear decline. Clearly, with Brule we have no idea what his true mean is since he's been all over the map, and it's probably safe to say it will go down since it was high this year. IMO, the age vs percentage trend has no influence at his age, however. Unless the Oil sign him for greater than 4 years I don't see how the trend applies to him.
Wait a second, I'm obviously tired because I just realised we're back to this comments format. Why the change? (not that I mean to be critical, but the other one seemed to be fine)
ReplyDeleteThere have been a number of discussions on Horcoff here and elsewhere, can any of you identify a really great link that explains what Horcoff brings to the team so that I can forward it to these guys.
ReplyDeleteBookie: I dunno about "really great", but here's an article I wrote on Horcoff in the C&B archives, originally written for Oil Droppings midway through last season. Obviously it's dated, but the piece does attempt to consider the breadth of talents this player brings to the table. Some interesting back-and-forth in the comments, too.
-Johnson goes, 'cause Strudwick is so much better in the room
ReplyDeleteI suspect they keep both, given the state of defense. I hope I'm wrong, but to make either expendable you'd either have to find some combination of rookies and veteran acquisitions to fill three spots. Peckham is probably one of those. If we're lucky we get another one for Souray, but I'm not convinced he has positive value on the trade market. It's probably too much to hope for that we manage that and a Staios-esque UFA signing.
These articles make Strudwick sound like the anti-Moreau in the dressing room, in particular with respect to his relationship to the young guys. If that's true, then bring him back; after all we've heard about the team's culture, if having a guy who can't play very well as your seventh defenseman is going to improve it, then do it.
I also like Gregor's use of "Oil-blogosphere"; somehow seems very OTC.
Where is the room for this UFA center that can win draws?
ReplyDeleteSeguin
Gagner
Brule
Horcoff
Pouliot
Bewteen Seguin, Gagner and Brule we have offensive zone draws covered. Horcoff gets 3rd line duties and Pouliot cleans up on the 4th.
The only case that can be made is dumping Pouliot for a veteran C. I'm not even sure if it would be an upgrade considering Pouliot made some nice strides this year.
Where is the room for this UFA center that can win draws?
ReplyDeleteGregor's got Brule playing wing; if memory serves, he actually did quite a bit of that, though memory may not serve.
Potulny's a factor too, mind you.
I suspect they keep both, given the state of defense.
ReplyDeleteIf they're honest about a long-term rebuild, they should keep both. Two guys who can barely play hockey, but seem like solid character guys who are also physical are fine to have on a young, rebuilding team. You get all the benefits of the physical prescence without any of the lottery pick killing 'good at hockey' aspect.
They just need to make sure it's short term; long-term contracts during a rebuild are like having kids at 18. You better be damn sure you like and want the other party when things turn good, because they're going to be in your life for a long time.
If they're honest about a long-term rebuild, they should keep both. Two guys who can barely play hockey, but seem like solid character guys who are also physical are fine to have on a young, rebuilding team.
ReplyDeleteWell, I was sort of hoping we'd replace one with a solid character guy who *could* play a little (a Hejda or a younger Staios). But I might be dreaming.
In any event, I don't want more than one rookie on our opening night blueline. And I don't want that one rookie to be Taylor Chorney.
(Also, apologies for my unreasonable comment frequency; it's exam time.)
ReplyDeleteWhere is the room for this UFA center that can win draws?
ReplyDeleteSeguin
Gagner
Brule
Horcoff
Pouliot
Bewteen Seguin, Gagner and Brule we have offensive zone draws covered. Horcoff gets 3rd line duties and Pouliot cleans up on the 4th.
The only case that can be made is dumping Pouliot for a veteran C. I'm not even sure if it would be an upgrade considering Pouliot made some nice strides this year.
I couldn't agree more with this. Unless the Oilers are planning on shipping Gagner somewhere or playing him on the wing, I'd say and upgrade on the wings is a bigger priority.
Once we've dealt with the O'Sullivans on this team, I think we'll see major steps forward.
Unless we're going for another lottery pick (and David Musil?) next year.
Too many centers is a good thing. Pouliot and Brule can play wing.
ReplyDeleteOTC bitched about the D zone coverage by all the centers this year (and with good reason)
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Traktor that Poo took a step up this year, and Kris is right in that if your best options for wingers is to convert a few centers, then that is a good thing.
I really don't think OTC likes 89 at C, but is toeing the company line. If they pick Seguin is will be interesting to see where everyone lines up.
Gregor and others in the MSM have been running Poo out of town forever, I don't put any stock in it.
Given that it looks like Lowe hired Barnes to be his PR guy, I'd pay attention to what he says.
If this team has JFFJ at TC and not Poo hope will be diminished.
Maybe it is me but didn't we just go through a season with a largely intact core of centers and didn't they under perform. I kinda thought the proof of that was where we ended up: 30th and 12 points behind 29th.
ReplyDeleteIf we take Sequin surely we are not penciling him in to the top six and expect him to do heavy lifting in the faceoff draw and at both ends of the ice
"Too many centers is a good thing. Pouliot and Brule can play wing."
ReplyDeleteYou sound like MacT.
Pouliot was drafted as as center. He plays his best hockey at center.
We should play him on the wing!
I just can't see this management team passing up on Hall.
ReplyDeleteHe's the sexy pick, and this team loves the sexy pick.
Hall - Horcoff - Hemsky
Penner - Gagner - Eberle
MPS - Dubinsky - Brule
Jones - Pouliot - Stone
Jacques, Stortini
Whitney - Gilbert
Rozsival - Smid
Wreck'Em - Johnson
Strudwick
Khabi
DD
I'm not saying that's what I would do or even what I want, but that's what I'm expecting.
Although Tyler's recent post about the new CBA not rewarding waiting on RFAs seems pretty much bang-on, I think you go ahead and treat Brule just like Grebeshkov anyway. Sign him to a one-year deal and do it all over again next summer.
ReplyDeleteAlso, dawgbone's assessment of Brule rings true with me. He does an awful lot of skating out there on the forecheck to never be on the puck. And yes, he benefitted from some atrocious goaltending on a few of those slappers.
Oh, and I'm with DB + Riv... I don't see the sustain in Brule's game and would deal him in a heartbeat.
ReplyDeleteI'm on record saying his contract will be Nilsson all over again and stand by it.
We need to keep Pouliot as a constant reminder of how good the 2003 draft went for us.
ReplyDeleteMany think Nikolai Khabibulin was a brutal signing last summer, and coupled with his back surgery and drunk driving charge, it looks even worse, but buying him out would cripple the team even more, so the only option is to stick with him for the time being.
ReplyDeleteGregor, you so silly.
I know I forgot that this was not possible on the day of the signing...But we're a long ways from that day now.
DB - I understand. I just don't see his goal totals dipping, especially since he wasn't exactly a featured PP shooter (how do you not use that slapper from the top of the circle?)
ReplyDeleteIf we want him to take better lines (which is something I will now specifically watch for next season) then we certainly have to teach him. He did enough this year that I think you have to give him a shot at being a 30-goal man. He looks it.
Which is worse...signing him for 2 years and overpaying slightly or low-balling him on a one year and then he tears the cover off the ball and you need to pay him 4 mil.
I thought we wanted some value deals?
---------
This: "Johnson goes, 'cause Strudwick is so much better in the room" is what we call batshitcrazy.
Who gives a damn if Strudwick is "good in the room". Hire him as a freaking coach at the same salary if you love him so much. I could be good in an NHL room; many of us could. He gets paid to PLAY HOCKEY. Johnson trumps him in so many ways. We gave him a chance and he ran (to the extent he could) with it so we both fail to take advantage of the fact that he's probably pre-disposed to play here and pass on him for a totally inferior player?
Unbelievable...
PDO - The difference between Brule and Nilsson is that Brule both plays like he belongs in the league and can contribute on nights where he doesn't score. Nilsson's either scoring, assisting, or invisible.
ReplyDeleteLMHF:
ReplyDeleteNot comparing the players, they're night and day in terms of style.
Just comparing that Nilsson came off a huge percentage year and was rewarded with a big contract for it and has since fallen flat... I see a similar thing happening with Brule.
Rather than continuing to focus all my procrastination on this thread, I went to my own blog and explained what I would do as GM. You probably shouldn't read it, but I thought I should explain what I'd been doing so you didn't worry about me.
ReplyDeleteWho gives a damn if Strudwick is "good in the room". Hire him as a freaking coach at the same salary if you love him so much. I could be good in an NHL room; many of us could. He gets paid to PLAY HOCKEY. Johnson trumps him in so many ways.
ReplyDeleteOh you make me laugh. If there were reasonable decisions being made about the quality of the hockey player on this team, do you even think Strudwick would have been on the roster last year? Or the 7 dwarves? Or a pursuit of Dany Heatley? Nik Khabibulin?hohoho, hahaha
Strudwick will play more than 40 games next year for the Oil and Aaron Johnson will not. Because the 'culture' of the team is the problem, not the personnel fielded. (insert one of bookie's thingumabobs here)
Bar - Now that the season is over I'm back in optimist mode again. Hurts too much being a pessimist for nearly 3/4 of the season plus.
ReplyDeletePDO - I understand, but to me it is the way Nilsson plays the game that left him vulnerable to that kind of drop-off.
Steve, it makes very little sense to buy any of those guys out.
ReplyDeleteThe Oilers are better off with the full cap for all of them in 2010-11 then be rid of them completely, as opposed to having nearly $2 mil tied up in buyout penalties in 2011-2012.
LMHF#1 said...
ReplyDeleteHurts too much being a pessimist for nearly 3/4 of the season plus.
See, now this is your problem. You should be at 3.5 yrs by now.
Easily.
New redline report is out. They seem to agree that you might be able to get the same calibre of player in the teens as in the top 5.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/columnist/woodlief/2010-04-18-red-line-report_N.htm
Interesting stuff.
-----
The solution to signing a player coming off a career year with a career shooting percentage seems obvious. Hopefully Brule is signed to a one-year "see and wait" deal. If not, this management group might be more lost than previously thought.
Interesting note in a related vein: Horcoff was signed after a career year in shooting percentage. We tend to forget that sometimes. The stink of negligence from management is still all over that contract.
I agree with DB... no buyouts please.
ReplyDeleteLMHF:
Of course, there's the fact that Brule is a small man playing a big mans game (likely moreso the reason for the injuries rather than him just being injury prone), and takes a boat load of low percentage shots.
If he has a bad percentage year or gets hurt again, where are we left? He makes a lot of low percentage plays... rolled 'em well this year, but if he rolls 'em more where you would expect him to next year...
Even with his shot (and it's a cannon, no doubt), there's not much reason to expect him to be scoring on clappers from the half boards on the rush....
In that Oilers live chat the Journal just hosted, Matheson said flat-out: "Hemsky will be going in two years when he's unrestricted free-agent. Bet on it "
ReplyDeleteOh lord.
That live chat was a gong show. I've never had less confidence in the supposed "go-to" guys in the mainstream media. The entire time they seemed to struggle simply in not contradicting each other. Half the stuff was nonsense and the other half was plainly apparent as speculation.
ReplyDeleteGood for him, he has put up with enough bullshit on a discount for a team that can't win. Let's send him to a nice farm somewhere, with lots of room for him to run around, and all kinds of high-end shooters for him to play with...
ReplyDeleteI'm just thrilled that they posted my question about the media shivving popular ex-players and Matty didn't even in blink in saying that the whisper campaign hadn't started yet.
ReplyDeleteThat live chat was a colossal waste of time. Cannot beleive I wasted my lunch hour on it.
ReplyDeleteWhich is worse...signing him for 2 years and overpaying slightly or low-balling him on a one year and then he tears the cover off the ball and you need to pay him 4 mil.
ReplyDelete... which is more or less what happened with Grebeshkov, whom I agree is an excellent comparable from a contract perspective. Grebs had a fine season at the bargain rate of $1.5 MM, but more than doubled that on the re-up and wound up getting shipped out as an overpay.
Another comp is Smid; if he had signed for just one year last summer, how much would he command in a fresh one-year deal 2010-11? As opposed to being locked up at a second year for a fairly reasonable rate. His year was somewhat similar to Brule's: mostly promising, when not sick or injured. But a solid step in the right direction in both cases.
Pouliot is another in comparable circumstances as Brule, Grebs, and Smid - slowly developing first rounder in his RFA years. Gagner and Cogliano are also emerging into that category. Of the lot of them, I think only Gagner can comfortably be identified as a core player, so he's the one the org looks to lock up for the longer term. I'm not sure any of the others can yet be identified as a core player, so 1 or 2 years in the low seven-figure range makes sense in most cases.
The counter-examples of Nilsson and O'Sullivan suggest that longer term at bigger dollars could be the worst of both worlds.
Even in a rebuilding year, I don't see how it makes sense to spend roster spots on O'Sullivan and Nilsson. Even if the team's not going to win, I'd think it makes sense from a cultural/morale standpoint to have people earning their roster spots, which those two aren't (Nilsson sometimes does for brief spurts, I guess). As for Moreau, I agree that the major problem with the Oilers is that their players aren't good enough, but having Lt-Cmndr Dinkwallet as their nominal leader doesn't help either. I suppose they could keep him, strip him of the captaincy, and then try to marginalize him, but that doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that would make Edmonton a UFA hotspot.
ReplyDeleteStill, I admit to not being clear about the cap ramifications of buying guys out, but I thought it was negligible in the case of O'Sullivan and Nilsson. Is most of that $2 million figure from Moreau?
2-year Cap hits after buy-outs:
ReplyDeleteEthan Moreau
$666,667, $666,667
Robert Nilsson
-$83,333, $416,667
Patrick O'Sullivan
$935,417, $397,917
Matty was pretty unclear about this in today's Journal.
Matty was pretty unclear about this in today's Journal.
ReplyDeleteThat's because Matheson is stuck in an era where players were sold like cattle. None of the media have shown any interest in actually getting up to speed on the salary cap portions of the new CBA.
Which pisses me off to no end, considering we do this as a hobby and they do it as a living.
Sorry Steve, it's closer to $1.5 mil (over-estimated there).
ReplyDeleteSully - $400k cap hit in 11-12
Moreau - $667k cap hit in 11-12
Nilsson - $416k cap hit in 11-12
If Unless the Oilers are planning to rebuild immediately (as in sign a bunch of value-vets this summer), they don't really need the cap space in 2010-11. If they don't need it, it makes little sense to eat up any of the 2011-12 cap space which is when they should be in better position (and actually have a need for it).
considering we do this as a hobby and they do it as a living.
ReplyDeleteAnd that there are websites that actually do the work for you!
LMHF #1 said...
ReplyDeleteWho gives a damn if Strudwick is "good in the room".
Pretty much every NHL coach and GM has said this quality is important to them. Scouts include this factor in their reports on junior age prospects.
Reporters all over the world wring their hands over the "cancer in the room".
Just thought you should know.
;o)
Woodlief with his ante penultimate:
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/y7uz2s9
@ Schizo
ReplyDeleteThat's because Matheson is stuck in an era where players were sold like cattle. None of the media have shown any interest in actually getting up to speed on the salary cap portions of the new CBA.
Which pisses me off to no end, considering we do this as a hobby and they do it as a living.
YOU ARE WRONG.
No, wait, that's not it. Oh, right: You Are Not In The Hall of Fame, How Dare You Question, etc.
Furthermore, it is entirely inappropriate for you to question the uniformly high standards of Edmonton's hockey media; pistols at dawn!
Schitzo,
ReplyDeletePhhhhhtt! CBA SchmeeBA, they have ACCESS to the team and players and know all.
They know things you could never know because of they are actually in the locker room.
They'll never publish what they know becuase then they would lose their access, but that's beside the point.
John Short is on Gregor's show and he just ripped the reporters who follow the team.
He talked about veterans having attitude problems with the kids, and once the organization conceded that the vets needed to go, the beat writers lined up saying they saw signs of that throughout the last few years.
Short: "if you saw it, why didn't you write about it!!"
Thanks John.
Woodguy said...
ReplyDeleteSchitzo,
John Short is on Gregor's show and he just ripped the reporters who follow the team.
He talked about veterans having attitude problems with the kids, and once the organization conceded that the vets needed to go, the beat writers lined up saying they saw signs of that throughout the last few years.
Short: "if you saw it, why didn't you write about it!!"
Thanks John."
He did. More than once.
RE: Matheson
ReplyDeleteI love Hemsky the player (think he is underrated by most), but I am coming around to the position that the writing is on the wall and he will be gone. If this is true--that Hemsky won't stick around--the team really needs to deal him today rather than tomorrow. a) His value drops every day because of his value contract b) He is capable of keeping this team out of the lottery, but we're a far ways from a rebuilt team c) He has injury history and you never know when another season ending injury comes up
Pretty much every NHL coach and GM has said this quality is important to them. Scouts include this factor in their reports on junior age prospects.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the way I look at it being good in the room doesn't justify keeping around a guy making three million if his play doesn't justify it. But for your seventh defenseman, making well under a million, on a team whose veteran leadership has built up a rift with the young guys? I can live with choosing that guy based on character and ability to bridge that gap.
2-year Cap hits after buy-outs:
Ethan Moreau
$666,667, $666,667
Robert Nilsson
-$83,333, $416,667
Patrick O'Sullivan
$935,417, $397,917
I hadn't realized the cap consequences were that dire. I guess we hope we can trade Moreau to get him out of the dressing room. I might still support buying out one or both of the younger guys, though; O'Sullivan's will cost a lot next year, but we're not going to be a cap team anyways.
Incidentally, I cannot possibly derive the buyout formula is from those three cases; it looks completely random to me.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteExactly. For the decision-makers, it's added value at the bottom of the roster, or perhaps helps makes the decision between two closely ranked players.
This might not necessarily be the best example, but apparently it was one of the deciding factors between signing Roli or Tambo's pal from the bar.
The Braintrust was not happy with Roli's treatment of the other Oiler netminders in the years prior.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I cannot possibly derive the buyout formula is from those three cases; it looks completely random to me.
Thank god we dont have to.. :)
http://capgeek.com/buyout_calculator.php?Player=28&buyout_y=2010&buyout_m=06&buyout_d=15&Calculate=CALCULATE+BUYOUT
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe cap and buyout formula is simple.
ReplyDelete1) The players receives 2/3rds of the remaining salary , (unless the player is 25 or under, in which case the player will receive 1/3rd of remaining salary), with the cap hit of the payout paid out over twice the duration of the remaining years of the contract. If the contract is a 35+ contract, the full salary before the buyout counts against the cap.
2) if the contract was backloaded (i.e. Nilsson) there is addition cap space recovered in the first buyout year, because the actual dollars out was less than cap space used in early contract years.
3) if the contract was frontloaded (Moreau, O'Sullivan) there is an additional cap hit on the first buyout year, because the actual dollars out was greater than the cap space used in the early contract years.
The actual method of calculating buyouts is here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nhlscap.com/cap_faq.htm#buyouts
It's a bit wordy, but pretty easy to follow and understand
John Short is a man of integrity. He's one of the finest sports reporters and without doubt the finest sports talk show host this city has had over the ~40 years I've lived here. I always found his reporting to be very balanced, so on those rare occasions that he did rip somebody a new one you knew they had it coming. As do the local MSM in this case.
ReplyDeleteWell done, John.