Will there be anymore deals?

[BetweenThePipes00]

Come on, Sully is too arrogant to be bothered reading message boards for the opinions of fans. He has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century with that blog on the website he occasionally updates. It's not like this is the only place Sabres fans are talking about centers ...

[X. Benedict]

Interesting you think that. I think Colorado has two #1 quality centers.

They do. And not much else.

[waldo]

Stastny has had three 70 point seasons. He had a 36 point season when he was injured and missed about half the season. The only sub-par season he's really had was this past year and he still scored 20 goals. So, he's not that inconsistent in 5 seasons. Three 70 point seasons, one that was shortened by injury and one that was 50+ points on a horrible team this past season, which is sub-par for him.

 

By the way, I think Jerry Sullivan reads this message board before writing his columns. It's quite clear to me based on this .

 

 

I smiled when i read Mr.Sullivan's statement that," Roy is inconsistent and selfish at times". If you looked up the definition of understatement in the dictionary you would find that exact quote as an example. Then he goes on to make the same error many here make by attempting to compare the two centers via their meaningless general stats vs. their games and skill sets.

 

Just go through the list and compare the two players..Start with size, speed, age,vision, passing, physicality, defensive responsibility etc etc etc. Add other critical componets if you wish. Then ask yourself where does it take you, conclusion wise. Then add price.

[X. Benedict]

I smiled when i read Mr.Sullivan's statement that," Roy is inconsistent and selfish at times". If you looked up the definition of understatement in the dictionary you would find that exact quote as an example. Then he goes on to make the same error many here make by attempting to compare the two centers via their meaningless general stats vs. their games and skill sets.

 

It's a bit of a silly exercise, but an entertaining offseason discussion. Ideally Roy would be a second line guy in the acquiring Stastny scenario, as center is the only spot were the Avs are arguably deep, its not like Roy would likely get shipped to Colorodo when the Avs need D.

 

I could see Sekera leading the AVS in ice time, if he were to go there.

[waldo]

It's a bit of a silly exercise, but an entertaining offseason discussion. Ideally Roy would be a second line guy in the acquiring Stastny scenario, as center is the only spot were the Avs are arguably deep, its not like Roy would likely get shipped to Colorodo when the Avs need D.

 

I could see Sekera leading the AVS in ice time, if he were to go there.

 

 

Did not mean to imply that he would be traded. That would be foolish if he is healthy. My point was two fold. 1. Roy is not a 1 center. Most here would agree i think.(he is much more usefull to the team as a two/with a line built around his shoot first tendancies) 2. If you want to compare players on different teams,in different divisions, general stats, given all the other variables, are not necessarily the best way to do it. It is off season banter and there is a void to fill. If you made a list of skill sets that matter the important differences between the two appears. Stats fits nicely on our one line and that is why they are hopefully still in pursuit .

[Bullwinkle]

Wow. Where to begin?

 

Let's start with some facts, and with the very important board rule that you should check your facts before you post so you don't waste everyone's time.

 

One critical fact is that (as others have pointed out within the last page of this thread) Colorado DID make the playoffs 2 seasons ago (ie spring 2010). They were the #8 seed and lost to the #1 seed, SJ, in 6 games. (This information is freely available in the public domain.) As I mentioned, Stastny led his team in scoring during the regular season that year with 79 points and led them in the playoffs in scoring as well with 5 points in 6 games.

 

That was the same year that Roy had 69 pts in the regular season and did not show up for the Sabres vs the Bruins in the playoffs.

 

While the Avalanche ALSO made the playoffs 4 years ago (which the Sabres didn't, despite Roy "putting up numbers"), this does not mean that they didn't make it 2 years ago.

 

The 57-point season you are thinking of for Stastny was this past season. He scored 57 points in 74 games for a terrible team that is being run into the ground. If you want to base your opinion of Stastny on that season plus your fantasy GM experience -- go right ahead. Perhaps you and Larry Quinn can run a team together.

 

As for where Roy is in his career and whether the Sabres were better without him -- I've said all I have to say on those points. You are free to believe as you wish (although I would hope for a bit more logical coherence than your last post exhibited -- it's not clear how he can be the #1 center and leading scorer for a bad team but yet not related to the team's struggles). I will say that I would be happy to keep Roy on the Sabres as long as they aren't relying on him to be the #1 center or for any kind of leadership.

 

Believe me, I don't want to waste your time anymore than I want you to waste mine.

 

Yes, I missed that playoff appearance. Excuse Me.

 

My opinion of Stastny is based upon the season you mentioned combined with last year's performance. I don't think that anything three years ago or later is relevant in this case.

 

As to the bolded portion...I believe my logic is sound and I have repeated my points several times. You infer that because the Sabres had a losing effort during Roy's presence on the team and reversed their fortunes when he was injured that he was somehow responsible for their failure to win games. That "logic" is clearly faulty since he was the leading point man on the team at the time of his injury. How does your logic make sense? How can a guy who is leading his team be labeled as being the reason why they were losing?

 

If I ever do meet Larry Quinn, I will be sure to introduce you to him. You'll get along fine together, I'm sure.

[Bullwinkle]

I know I threw a lot of gas on the fire on this thread, mostly in the Stastny vs. Ennis debate .... so I am not taking shots at you guys .... but I am bowing out because my head hurts.

 

Do you realize that by claiming Roy is just as good as Stastny, bullwinkle has nfreeman DEFENDING Derek Roy, whom he does not like as a No. 1 center, so as to prove that Stastny IS indeed a No. 1 center? :blink:

 

Don't let the gas bother you. What else is there to do during the Dog Days of Summer without any hockey except to debate?

[Bullwinkle]

Stastny has had three 70 point seasons. He had a 36 point season when he was injured and missed about half the season. The only sub-par season he's really had was this past year and he still scored 20 goals. So, he's not that inconsistent in 5 seasons. Three 70 point seasons, one that was shortened by injury and one that was 50+ points on a horrible team this past season, which is sub-par for him.

 

By the way, I think Jerry Sullivan reads this message board before writing his columns. It's quite clear to me based on this .

 

I measure players by PPG. This eliminates having to make allowances for shortened seasons. I put out these numbers before, but in comparison they aren't that far off. Taking the last three years into account, 08-09 Stastny .8 Roy .85 09-10 Stastny .98 Roy .86 10-11 Stastny .77 Roy 1.00

 

As I have said, they are pretty even. While goal scoring is always beneficial, the traditional job of a centerman is to accrue assists from feeding the wingers. And while the Avalanche were horrible in the latter half of last season, the Sabres had a losing record for the first half - when Roy played - so they weren't setting the league on fire either.

 

Yeah, I just read the paper today...it looks like Sullivan does read these threads. I figured after lambasting Darcy for so long that he would go into hiding for a while or write about golf.

[Bullwinkle]

I smiled when i read Mr.Sullivan's statement that," Roy is inconsistent and selfish at times". If you looked up the definition of understatement in the dictionary you would find that exact quote as an example. Then he goes on to make the same error many here make by attempting to compare the two centers via their meaningless general stats vs. their games and skill sets.

 

Just go through the list and compare the two players..Start with size, speed, age,vision, passing, physicality, defensive responsibility etc etc etc. Add other critical componets if you wish. Then ask yourself where does it take you, conclusion wise. Then add price.

 

OK, but I'm not sure how you can quantify vision and defensive responsibility. On top of that, some of those added parameters you mentioned do not necessarily equal a better player. I can name any number of players who were fast for example, but rarely scored or set up plays effectively. Age is another component that may or may not be relevant (witness Recchi).

 

The reason stats are used so often is that they are facts that we can use to make our cases as objectively as possible (although nothing is 100% objective)

[waldo]

Don't let the gas bother you. What else is there to do during the Dog Days of Summer without any hockey except to debate?

 

+1

[waldo]

OK, but I'm not sure how you can quantify vision and defensive responsibility. On top of that, some of those added parameters you mentioned do not necessarily equal a better player. I can name any number of players who were fast for example, but rarely scored or set up plays effectively. Age is another component that may or may not be relevant (witness Recchi).

 

The reason stats are used so often is that they are facts that we can use to make our cases as objectively as possible (although nothing is 100% objective)

 

 

There are guys that make a living doing it bullwinkle. It is not all statistics imo. The difference in a nut shell is 1. The kid will look for the open man and has the skills necessary to deliver the puck on time and in close quarters to the open man.Pass is his first instinct. He also is more effective down low and going to the net. Can you imagine Stats, Stafford/or Boyes and Vanek going to the net on a play? Those are three big bodies and two of them have unbelievable hands and vision. Granted they looked at him for a number of reasons. Stats first..but the statistics are not the reason they want him. It is the fit and all those skill sets and instincts not highlighted by stats.

[BetweenThePipes00]

There are guys that make a living doing it bullwinkle. It is not all statistics imo. The difference in a nut shell is 1. The kid will look for the open man and has the skills necessary to deliver the puck on time and in close quarters to the open man.Pass is his first instinct. He also is more effective down low and going to the net. Can you imagine Stats, Stafford/or Boyes and Vanek going to the net on a play? Those are three big bodies and two of them have unbelievable hands and vision. Granted they looked at him for a number of reasons. Stats first..but the statistics are not the reason they want him. It is the fit and all those skill sets and instincts not highlighted by stats.

 

I am certainly not taking bullwinkle's side on anything, that would be no fun.

 

But I must say that no, I can't imagine Boyes going to the net, not if there is anyone else who might hit him in the area. And while I love Stastny and think he is a good playmaker, Roy is as guilty as anyone on the Sabres of overpassing, especially when he is with Vanek. Those two have passed more odd-man situations to death than any combo in my lifetime. I know that is proving your point, that Stastny is better at it ... I'm just saying sometimes I wish someone would shoot the damn puck.

[nfreeman]

I don't think that anything three years ago or later is relevant in this case.

 

I believe my logic is sound and I have repeated my points several times. You infer that because the Sabres had a losing effort during Roy's presence on the team and reversed their fortunes when he was injured that he was somehow responsible for their failure to win games. That "logic" is clearly faulty since he was the leading point man on the team at the time of his injury. How does your logic make sense? How can a guy who is leading his team be labeled as being the reason why they were losing?

Who said anything 3 years ago or [i assume you meant earlier, not later] was relevant?

 

Repeating points doesn't add to their validity, or "close the case." Neither does throwing the word "clearly" around.

 

Bottom line is that you (like many other posters here) are, IMHO, ascribing far too much weight to Roy's 35 points in 35 games last season in determining whether he is a good player (or at least as good as Stastny). If I understand the bolded part correctly, you are saying that since he was their leading scorer at the time he was hurt, he couldn't possibly have been the reason they were losing -- ie his "putting up numbers" meant, by definition, that he was a good player and contributing to a winning effort.

 

Is that correct? Do you think it's possible for a player who puts up 1 PPG to be a net negative presence for a team? i.e. once a player reaches that level of scoring, there is no amount of irresponsibility/immaturity/floating/honest mistakes that can result in the conclusion that the team plays better without him?

 

If this is how you think -- it's not an outlandish opinion to have, and in the fantasy hockey world it's probably the correct view. I just don't agree with it for real-world NHL teams.

[Bullwinkle]

Who said anything 3 years ago or [i assume you meant earlier, not later] was relevant?

 

Repeating points doesn't add to their validity, or "close the case." Neither does throwing the word "clearly" around.

 

Bottom line is that you (like many other posters here) are, IMHO, ascribing far too much weight to Roy's 35 points in 35 games last season in determining whether he is a good player (or at least as good as Stastny). If I understand the bolded part correctly, you are saying that since he was their leading scorer at the time he was hurt, he couldn't possibly have been the reason they were losing -- ie his "putting up numbers" meant, by definition, that he was a good player and contributing to a winning effort.

 

Is that correct? Do you think it's possible for a player who puts up 1 PPG to be a net negative presence for a team? i.e. once a player reaches that level of scoring, there is no amount of irresponsibility/immaturity/floating/honest mistakes that can result in the conclusion that the team plays better without him?

 

If this is how you think -- it's not an outlandish opinion to have, and in the fantasy hockey world it's probably the correct view. I just don't agree with it for real-world NHL teams.

 

I simply fail to understand how a PPG player can be a liability to a team. Yes, he may be poor at backchecking or in breaking out of his zone, but the point production compensates for that. Why did NJ pay tons of bucks for Kovalchuk? Because he's a good backchecker? Do they even expect him to backcheck? I doubt it.

 

Consider it this way. If every player was a PPG guy, do you think the team would lose many games? Don't think so.

 

Aside from all that you can't point at one individual and say HE is the reason the team is failing. Too much responsibility rests with the entire team to ascribe it to one individual.

[Bullwinkle]

There are guys that make a living doing it bullwinkle. It is not all statistics imo. The difference in a nut shell is 1. The kid will look for the open man and has the skills necessary to deliver the puck on time and in close quarters to the open man.Pass is his first instinct. He also is more effective down low and going to the net. Can you imagine Stats, Stafford/or Boyes and Vanek going to the net on a play? Those are three big bodies and two of them have unbelievable hands and vision. Granted they looked at him for a number of reasons. Stats first..but the statistics are not the reason they want him. It is the fit and all those skill sets and instincts not highlighted by stats.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying that you can't quantify those attributes. Thus comparison is difficult and is a matter of qualitative analysis (BTW a great course to take in college if you get the chance).

[Weave]

I simply fail to understand how a PPG player can be a liability to a team.

 

 

I present to you Alexei Yashin.

 

 

The defence rests.

[waldo]

I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying that you can't quantify those attributes. Thus comparison is difficult and is a matter of qualitative analysis (BTW a great course to take in college if you get the chance).

 

With all due respect and no insult intended ,have you ever had a chance to actually read a scouting report from a really good nhl level professional scout? They can be quantified. The point i am making is simple.. You will not see just how well he goes to the net, or sees the ice, or how quick his decision making is, or developed his hockey sense has become,or how he reacts to a heavy hit,plays under pressure, or what his other propensities he has.... in the statistics. His stats tell you he is a talent and he fits your prelim survey perameters.Your scouting reports and the judgment of the people in your recruiting circle tell you the rest. For me, he just fits on a Vanek Boyes, Stafford line like a glove . Then again it could turn out to be a disaster. :rolleyes: Replace him with Leino! Thats the beauty of it all.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I simply fail to understand how a PPG player can be a liability to a team. Yes, he may be poor at backchecking or in breaking out of his zone, but the point production compensates for that. Why did NJ pay tons of bucks for Kovalchuk? Because he's a good backchecker? Do they even expect him to backcheck? I doubt it.

 

Consider it this way. If every player was a PPG guy, do you think the team would lose many games? Don't think so.

 

Aside from all that you can't point at one individual and say HE is the reason the team is failing. Too much responsibility rests with the entire team to ascribe it to one individual.

 

You are starting to sound like you really believe you can run a real hockey team like you run your fantasy team ... as long you score enough, everything else will be ok?

 

They are not mutually exclusive things. Hell, the scoring is the hard part ... if you can do THAT, the rest of it is largely a matter of effort and giving a crap. And if you can't give a crap enough to work on the backcheck and get to loose pucks and that stuff, well, a lot of the time you're damn right you are a liability.

 

PPG players can be a liability just like guys who rarely score can be assets. There's more to the game than just numbers.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

All these posts between Pipes and Nfreeman.... it looks like Lindy is having an identity crisis!

 

Keep it up boys, it's a great read.

[Bullwinkle]

With all due respect and no insult intended ,have you ever had a chance to actually read a scouting report from a really good nhl level professional scout? They can be quantified. The point i am making is simple.. You will not see just how well he goes to the net, or sees the ice, or how quick his decision making is, or developed his hockey sense has become,or how he reacts to a heavy hit,plays under pressure, or what his other propensities he has.... in the statistics. His stats tell you he is a talent and he fits your prelim survey perameters.Your scouting reports and the judgment of the people in your recruiting circle tell you the rest. For me, he just fits on a Vanek Boyes, Stafford line like a glove . Then again it could turn out to be a disaster. :rolleyes: Replace him with Leino! Thats the beauty of it all.

 

No insult taken. I have never seen an actual scouting report from a hockey scout. How does he convert how well a player goes to the net with numbers or how much hockey sense he has into a number? Quantification means using numbers.

[Bullwinkle]

You are starting to sound like you really believe you can run a real hockey team like you run your fantasy team ... as long you score enough, everything else will be ok?

 

They are not mutually exclusive things. Hell, the scoring is the hard part ... if you can do THAT, the rest of it is largely a matter of effort and giving a crap. And if you can't give a crap enough to work on the backcheck and get to loose pucks and that stuff, well, a lot of the time you're damn right you are a liability.

 

PPG players can be a liability just like guys who rarely score can be assets. There's more to the game than just numbers.

 

ha ha ha...I know a fantasy team isn't run the same way. Of course I know that. But if you don't score, you don't win no matter how great your defense is. Right? (Yashin only hit a PPG twice in his NHL career BTW) Kovalchuk is a good example of my point. He was hired to score and that's it. That is his value. Drury was hired to backcheck and provide PK duties. That was his value. Can you compare them? Not easily since their roles are different. That's the qualitative difference.

 

And yes, there's more to the game than just numbers but my point is that numbers give us the basis for objective analysis - although that's imperfect too. But it's a lot more objective than the qualitative elements Waldo is suggesting.

 

Let me make myself as clear as I can be. Hockey players are measured quantitatively and qualitatively. Both are important. We all have our own observations and opinions and we don't always agree with each other on this board. However when discussing quantitative facts we have a better chance of being on the same page as opposed to qualitative facts. That is what I'm trying to say.

 

e.g. I know Roy and Stastny are similar quantitatively. I am using that as a basis to argue that they are similar qualitatively, although I know that isn't entirely true. No two players are the same qualitatively. I think that Statny's qualitative assets are overrated by many. That's my opinion.

[BetweenThePipes00]

ha ha ha...I know a fantasy team isn't run the same way. Of course I know that. But if you don't score, you don't win no matter how great your defense is. Right? (Yashin only hit a PPG twice in his NHL career BTW) Kovalchuk is a good example of my point. He was hired to score and that's it. That is his value.

 

I really could not care less about the Stastny vs. Roy thing anymore, I just have to challenge this very black-and-white view of the game you seem to have.

 

First of all: "But if you don't score, you don't win no matter how great your defense is. Right?"

So it follows then you would agree that if you never allow a goal, you can never lose, no matter how bad your offense is. In that case, Kovalchuck has zero value and is getting paid to do something that is almost completely irrelevant. I mean, sure, you need to score ONCE, but a lot of guys can do that. Does this make sense? Of course not, because you have to be able to both with some sort of proficiency, both on the team and individual level.

 

"He was hired to score and that's it. That is his value."

That is his value, but it's only true value if he does the other things at least average. If a player is below average in another area, it still diminishes his value. Perhaps just from $7 million to $6 million or $5 million, but it diminishes it, nonetheless. In other words, he is paid to score MORE than the average player, but not JUST to score. He still needs to do the things an average player would do. When he doesn't, his value falls closer to that of the average player. If he's skating around being less than average half the time, he can certainly be a liability.

 

Maybe it can be covered up a lot of the time because he scores a lot, but that will only get you so far. For better or worse, they don't look at everything you did over 82+ games and hand the Cup to the team with the prettiest stats. You have to win it head-to-head in the playoffs. And history tells us that everyone scores less in the playoffs, and guys who are a liability half the time cost their teams games. And therefore, they are liabilities if you are trying to win a Cup.

[nfreeman]

I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying that you can't quantify those attributes. Thus comparison is difficult and is a matter of qualitative analysis (BTW a great course to take in college if you get the chance).

But that's not what you're saying at all. You're saying that if a player scores 1 PPG, then by definition he can't be a net negative for his team. And your original premise was that Stastny is not better than Roy because their stats are so similar (well, regular-season stats anyway). That is 100% quantitative analysis -- not qualitative.

 

Also, Kovy is hardly the guy to choose to support your argument -- the Thrashers got significantly better immediately after he left, and the Devils completely fell off the table the minute he arrived.

 

I don't know how I'm going to make it to October.

 

PPG players can be a liability just like guys who rarely score can be assets. There's more to the game than just numbers.

Well said.

[Bullwinkle]

I really could not care less about the Stastny vs. Roy thing anymore, I just have to challenge this very black-and-white view of the game you seem to have.

 

First of all: "But if you don't score, you don't win no matter how great your defense is. Right?"

So it follows then you would agree that if you never allow a goal, you can never lose, no matter how bad your offense is. In that case, Kovalchuck has zero value and is getting paid to do something that is almost completely irrelevant. I mean, sure, you need to score ONCE, but a lot of guys can do that. Does this make sense? Of course not, because you have to be able to both with some sort of proficiency, both on the team and individual level.

 

"He was hired to score and that's it. That is his value."

That is his value, but it's only true value if he does the other things at least average. If a player is below average in another area, it still diminishes his value. Perhaps just from $7 million to $6 million or $5 million, but it diminishes it, nonetheless. In other words, he is paid to score MORE than the average player, but not JUST to score. He still needs to do the things an average player would do. When he doesn't, his value falls closer to that of the average player. If he's skating around being less than average half the time, he can certainly be a liability.

 

Maybe it can be covered up a lot of the time because he scores a lot, but that will only get you so far. For better or worse, they don't look at everything you did over 82+ games and hand the Cup to the team with the prettiest stats. You have to win it head-to-head in the playoffs. And history tells us that everyone scores less in the playoffs, and guys who are a liability half the time cost their teams games. And therefore, they are liabilities if you are trying to win a Cup.

 

Of course a player must be "average" in ability and hockey sense...come into his own zone on defense for example instead of hanging at the red line. And a defenseman has to cross the red line when attacking, etc. Naturally since all elements of the game are included in a good team, all aspects of the game must be represented by that team.

 

This is obvious, yes?

 

So using that as a given, I will take a PPG player on my team any time. You will notice that there aren't that many of them, and so if you have one you hold on to him.

[Bullwinkle]

But that's not what you're saying at all. You're saying that if a player scores 1 PPG, then by definition he can't be a net negative for his team. And your original premise was that Stastny is not better than Roy because their stats are so similar (well, regular-season stats anyway). That is 100% quantitative analysis -- not qualitative.

 

Also, Kovy is hardly the guy to choose to support your argument -- the Thrashers got significantly better immediately after he left, and the Devils completely fell off the table the minute he arrived.

 

I don't know how I'm going to make it to October.

 

A PPG player shouldn't be a net negative for his team given the "hockey sense" I mentioned in the above post. Every player has to play defense and offense. That's a given. Kovalchuk was a disappointment for the Devils mainly because he wasn't scoring - which is why they got him. That's a big reason why they fell off the table.

 

And I agree with your assessment of my assessment. I was making a quantitative comparison. Yes! Correct! You finally got it! And because qualitative assessments are more subjective, I didn't use them. One reason is that I see Roy more than I see Stastny and didn't feel qualified to make those kind of comparisons. If I watched Stastny 40 games a year, I would venture a comparison on that level. Maybe you've seen him play 40 times last year so you can make a judgment on that. I have not.

 

October? Jezus, I'm shooting for September and I'm not sure I'm going to make that.