Free Agent Frenzy 2014

[Johnny DangerFace]

 

 

No one cares... Except the one time I did it and multiple posters told me not to. SDS has also told Brawndo not to do it. So somebody cares. But thanks for being your typical self.

 

The part you can't grasp for some reason is SDS told him not to do it. Mods or admins moderate, posters post. Look what YOUR post did. It has driven this topic off (not brawndos). If you are so concerned about someone else's post, REPORT IT. That's it, it's so simple.

[pastajoe]

Moulson probably played with the better offensive players on the Sabres, while Ott played against the other teams better offensive players. For what they do, I'd rather pay to see Ott play. I'm afraid Moulson might turn into another Stafford.

[Iron Crotch]

[JJFIVEOH]

Policing this place is going to cause more issues than the issues policing is supposed to fix. This is getting ridiculous.

[LGR4GM]

Moulson probably played with the better offensive players on the Sabres, while Ott played against the other teams better offensive players. For what they do, I'd rather pay to see Ott play. I'm afraid Moulson might turn into another Stafford.

:huh: What?

[JJFIVEOH]

:huh: What?

 

Saw that and said the same thing to myself.

[Hoss]

 

 

It's a topic that could fit in either thread. Brawndo probably posted in both to cover his ass so that he didn't get yelled at for posting in the wrong thread. Don't be mad he beat you to the punch. :P

 

I have not and will not ever care who posts something first.

[That Aud Smell]

Moulson probably played with the better offensive players on the Sabres, while Ott played against the other teams better offensive players.

 

Interestingly, their advanced stats don't quite bear that out. Moulson's quality of competition from last season (a jumbled mess from 3 teams) was actually higher than Ott's; as were the quality of Moulson's linemates.

 

I resisted advanced stats for a long time. But here in the midst of July, I am finding them sorta interesting. Not determinative, mind you. Just interesting.

[shrader]

Shrader cares:

 

I want one of those NBC "the more you know" graphics that say "shrader cares".

[TrueBlueGED]

 

I understand that they're not neatly comparable players in terms of how they're deployed, the game that the play, and so on.

 

But those advanced stats are interesting, and often have a way of creating an apple-to-apple comparison of otherwise dissimilar players. I threw that D'Agostini thing in there at the end -- the guy's a bottom-6 player, sure, but his "relative Corsi" (again, I'm still learning what that means) was the highest on the post July 5th UFA market.

 

And, FWIW, Vanek's Corsi numbers from last year are between Ott's and Moulson's. Just food for thought. That Corsi number is supposed to correlate with the extent to which a player tends to tilt the ice in your favor.

 

I found it interesting that Moulson did that somewhat more than Vanek, and a lot more than Ott.

 

You have to be pretty careful when using relative Corsi to compare players on different teams. Relative Corsi compares a player's Corsi to that of his teammates--so it will vary not only by player, but also by team. Example below.

 

Player A is on Team X, and has a relative Corsi of 5. Player B is on Team Y, and has a relative Corsi of -3. Is Player A a much better possession player than Player B? Maybe, but team context has to be taken into account. If Team X's Corsi is 40 and Team Y's Corsi is 55, then Player B might actually be the better possession player.

 

Put another way, the best possession player on a crappy possession team will probably have a nice looking relative Corsi while the worst possession player on a good team might have a bad relative Corsi...but that doesn't necessarily mean the former is a better possession player than the latter. Granted, that could be the case, but it doesn't have to be (which is what a straight relative corsi comparison would lead you to believe). To put names on it, Mike Richards' relative Corsi was a poor -4.1, while Johan Larsson was a terrific 11.5. Does this mean Larsson is a much better possession player than Richards at this point in their respective careers? Could be, but that would be misusing the stat (which I'm sure the Corsi critics would happily do) because you have to consider LA's team corsi-for % was 56.8 while the Sabres was 43. So while Richards pretty clearly isn't an elite-level possession player, being surrounded by elite possession players may make him look worse than he is, while the inverse is true for Larsson.

[kas23]

I find it hard to believe that Murray couldn't, or didn't offer him something better.

 

I'm pretty sure he did. But, it's likely Ott and his agent said "we'll keep looking" thinking the'd get a better offer elsewhere. GMTM then said "fine, suit yourself" and went on his FA shopping spree and effectively took Ott's original offer off the table. Ott rolled the dice and lost. Looks like the NHL didn't value his play that much either.

[That Aud Smell]

You have to be pretty careful when using relative Corsi to compare players on different teams.

 

Boy, I'll say. Thanks for the science. I' ve officially exceeded the limits of my understanding. For now.

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

I'm pretty sure he did. But, it's likely Ott and his agent said "we'll keep looking" thinking the'd get a better offer elsewhere. GMTM then said "fine, suit yourself" and went on his FA shopping spree and effectively took Ott's original offer off the table. Ott rolled the dice and lost. Looks like the NHL didn't value his play that much either.

 

Or rolled the dice and won. He'll be 32 next year and wouldn't have been around long enough in Buffalo to be able to reap the benefits of the rebuild. Good for him - glad to see he landed on a good team for what appears to be a halfway decent salary given his production. In 29 games for the Blues he didn't score once. Given his style of play it's hard to believe high levels of production as he ages too.

[pastajoe]

 

:huh: What?

 

Stafford had a good season in a contract year, got a big payoff, and has been inconsistent since. I fear Moulson will do the same. I didn't like the 5 year contract.

[LastPommerFan]

Stafford had a good season in a contract year, got a big payoff, and has been inconsistent since. I fear Moulson will do the same. I didn't like the 5 year contract.

 

Matt Moulson has averaged 30 goals per season (lockout adjusted) for the past 5 years. He is the 13th leading goal scorer in the NHL over that time.

 

He might well flame out, but even then he won't be a one-hit-wonder like Staff.

 

He (135) currently sits between Bobby Ryan (134) and James Neal (137) in winger goal scoring this decade.

[darksabre]

 

 

Matt Moulson has averaged 30 goals per season (lockout adjusted) for the past 5 years. He is the 13th leading goal scorer in the NHL over that time.

 

He might well flame out, but even then he won't be a one-hit-wonder like Staff.

 

He (135) currently sits between Bobby Ryan (134) and James Neal (137) in winger goal scoring this decade.

 

My favorite people are the people who don't like Matt Moulson. How does that even happen.

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

My favorite people are the people who don't like Matt Moulson. How does that even happen.

 

My favorite thing about Moulson is that it seems his goal scoring ability comes from smarts rather than physical ability. It seems like he has a chance to succeed for the bulk of the 5 years he's been signed for, at least in my opinion. I just question why good teams don't seem to want him?

[LastPommerFan]

I definitely don't want to sign a guy who only managed to be the 7th best goal scoring winger in the world since his first full season in the NHL.

 

My favorite thing about Moulson is that it seems his goal scoring ability comes from smarts rather than physical ability. It seems like he has a chance to succeed for the bulk of the 5 years he's been signed for, at least in my opinion. I just question why good teams don't seem to want him?

 

That's the thing, I'm certain that they did want him. Minnesota wanted him 4 months ago. I'd bet he had offers in the $4.5M-$5.5M range from at least half a dozen teams. But some how, magically he liked us best.

[Brawndo]

Matt Moulson has averaged 30 goals per season (lockout adjusted) for the past 5 years. He is the 13th leading goal scorer in the NHL over that time.

 

He might well flame out, but even then he won't be a one-hit-wonder like Staff.

 

He (135) currently sits between Bobby Ryan (134) and James Neal (137) in winger goal scoring this decade.

 

Ryan will be a rich man come July 1, 2015.

My favorite thing about Moulson is that it seems his goal scoring ability comes from smarts rather than physical ability. It seems like he has a chance to succeed for the bulk of the 5 years he's been signed for, at least in my opinion. I just question why good teams don't seem to want him?

 

Who said they didn't?

 

He said on WGR the next morning the Sabres where his first choice. He also confirmed his agent had talks with Leafs and Isles (yes I realize those are not good teams) amongst other unnamed teams. It appears he was in demand.

 

The Sabres offered his family the chance to be close to home and probably offered the best term and salary.

 

Moulson and Reinhart should be a great tandem for the next few years.

[thewookie1]

I wonder if we could convince Bobby Ryan to sign with us? If we finish at the bottom and have 1 or 2 overall, just acquire his rights and sign him.

 

 

Just imagine......

 

Moulson-McDavid-Ryan

Hodgson-Reinhart-Stewart? Armia?

Ennis-Girgs-Gionta

Kaleta-Foligno-Delaurie/McCormick/Flynn

 

 

[Huckleberry]

I wonder if we could convince Bobby Ryan to sign with us? If we finish at the bottom and have 1 or 2 overall, just acquire his rights and sign him.

 

 

Just imagine......

 

Moulson-McDavid-Ryan

Hodgson-Reinhart-Stewart? Armia?

Ennis-Girgs-Gionta

Kaleta-Foligno-Delaurie/McCormick/Flynn

 

I really hope grigorenko shows up next season because i keep wondering who will win faceoffs

Edited July 11, 2014 by Heimdall

[Kristian]

I really hope grigorenko shows up next season because i keep wondering who will win faceoffs

 

Can Grigo take faceoffs? I have to admit, that was probably the last part of his game I paid attention to while he was here.

[LGR4GM]

Can Grigo take faceoffs? I have to admit, that was probably the last part of his game I paid attention to while he was here.

I don't have his numbers in front of me but I want to say he was in the 55-60% range. I know it is something he has worked on.

I really hope grigorenko shows up next season because i keep wondering who will win faceoffs

lol me too

My favorite thing about Moulson is that it seems his goal scoring ability comes from smarts rather than physical ability. It seems like he has a chance to succeed for the bulk of the 5 years he's been signed for, at least in my opinion. I just question why good teams don't seem to want him?

Moulson said the Sabres were number 1 on his list because of the Pegulas (Kim really made his wife happy and feel apart of things) and because he liked the way the organization.

[LGR4GM]

Stafford had a good season in a contract year, got a big payoff, and has been inconsistent since. I fear Moulson will do the same. I didn't like the 5 year contract.

Drew Stafford: 136g in 513 games for a total of: 0.265gpga with a 0.109 career shot%

Matt Moulson: 141g in 397 games for a total of: 0.355 gpga with a 0.136 career shot%

 

The interesting part is Moulson's best full season (42+ games) 0.164% but Stafford's best season, the contract year you talk about 0.173% which means that while Moulson at his outlier was 0.028% above average, Stafford at his outlier was 0.064% above average. Moulson is better than Stafford and a much more consistent shooter. Even btw three teams last season Moulson had a 0.131% on only 176 shots. So why did Moulson only have 23 goals last season? Not because his skilled has necessarily dropped off but because he shot 176 times as opposed to the average of 196 times he was capable of. If you run the math on his shots he should have had 26 goals last season and 196 shots. Since his shooting percentage was also slightly below average last season (he would have scored 1 extra goal at his AVG sh%) and because he played for 3 different teams in the course of 6 months, I would actually expect regardless of the center for Matt Moulson's goals to be right around 28-30 this year if he stays at his average which is more than likely.

 

Drew Stafford on the other hand should have 2.427 shots per game X 0.109sh% = 0.265 X 82 games = 21.692 so I will say 21-22 goals on the year for Drew if he plays 82games.

 

 

Disclaimer: This is based solely on the shooting percentages and averages for these players and did not look at advanced statistics such as corsi and the like. The main purpose was to show why Matt Moulson is a better goal scorer than Drew Stafford. Please kindly let me know of any errors and I will correct them.

Edited July 11, 2014 by LGR4GM

[kas23]

Or rolled the dice and won. He'll be 32 next year and wouldn't have been around long enough in Buffalo to be able to reap the benefits of the rebuild. Good for him - glad to see he landed on a good team for what appears to be a halfway decent salary given his production. In 29 games for the Blues he didn't score once. Given his style of play it's hard to believe high levels of production as he ages too.

 

True. You could look at it that way. I was mostly saying that because TM probably offered him more money than what he ended up getting from STL. And perhaps other teams did too and he held out.

 

Stafford had a good season in a contract year, got a big payoff, and has been inconsistent since. I fear Moulson will do the same. I didn't like the 5 year contract.

 

That's fine. He'll be great for the Tank then. And then he'll light it up in 5 years when McDavid & Rheinhart & co are gunning for the Cup.