Another Chump Move by Kovalchuk

[Chuck the Duck]

Yes, but the team was playing very well going into that Final iirc. Could the Devils have won without Stevens? (I honestly don't know, I was fairly young in '03)

Stevens had paid his dues and was close to retirement anyway. Kovy was not and still in the prime of his career. Were both needed? Kovy was definitely needed, but I don't know if Stevens was.

Sent from my C6725 using Tapatalk

Stevens was the heart and soul of that team. He was a force. Hell, he practically killed Paul Kariya. Yes, he was definitely needed and, although they were the better team in the finals, I don't think they win in 2003 without him.

[SterioDesign]

yeah Kovalchuk was no good lol he carried the team when Zach was gone during that insane second half run. He could win games by himself, he'd give space to the other players on his line. He was our strongest, fastest and best shooter by far. He could score from anywhere and he was our MVP in the playoffs... he fvcking made volchenkov score TWICE. if that's not something.

 

but yeah.. Kovy wasnt good and didnt have an impact on the team lol i wonder what stupid stat Tri looked at to convinced himself of that

Edited August 27, 2015 by SterioDesign

[Satans Hockey]

We wouldn't have made the finals that year without Kovy, for helping getting us there alone the move was worth it to me. He put up 19 points in 23 games.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Satans Hockey

[SterioDesign]

back to when both were still here, MANY MAAAANY posters here said if they had the choice they'd keep Kovy for the long run instead of Zach.

 

Funny enough, now that they are gone. Posters here make it sound like they were both useless bums. Sounds like a butthurt excuses to me. Like a guy who got dumped hardcore by his gf but try to make it sound like he was not really into her all along to his friends and that he's better off.

Edited August 27, 2015 by SterioDesign

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

back to when both were still here, MANY MAAAANY posters here said if they had the choice they'd keep Kovy for the long run instead of Zach.

 

Funny enough, now that they are gone. Posters here make it sound like they were both useless bums. Sounds like a butthurt excuses to me. 

 

There were concerns with both players long-term at the time, especially for the terms being talked about.  I never wanted Kovy back myself (just wasn't impressed by what I saw when he was dealt here, despite good quick-glance "eye-test" numbers) and I said that at the time.  I was encouraged by his willingness to become a better all-around player towards the end of his first full season here and throughout his second season, but then he went to Russia, decided he wanted to play there instead, and that was that.  Sucks in that his deciding to bail when he was clearly supposed to be a long-term piece had ripple effects elsewhere (on top of all of the other crap that happened with VBK having financial issues), but I still wonder how effective he would've been as an NHLer at this point in his career...maybe 2012 really was his peak here as a Devil. 

 

Zach was definitely far from being a useless bum, and he's been missed here.  His Wild career has been pretty good and his regular season performance is about what should have been expected, but one strike against him is that he hasn't made much of an impact in three straight playoff series against the Blackhawks...just basic numbers here, but in 15 GP in those Blackhawk series, Zach scored three goals, added five assists and was a -13.  Obviously those aren't be-all end-all measures, but he hasn't done much to help the Wild get over the hump...yet. 

 

For whatever it's worth, I think Zack would've still been pretty solid here if he had remained (we all thought he would, it was more what would he be 5-6 years into his contract with many years to go).  Not sure what Kovy would've done...not saying he would've outright sucked, but I think he would've had a tough time being 2012 Kovy.     

[SterioDesign]

There were concerns with both players long-term at the time, especially for the terms being talked about.  I never wanted Kovy back myself (just wasn't impressed by what I saw when he was dealt here, despite good quick-glance "eye-test" numbers) and I said that at the time.  I was encouraged by his willingness to become a better all-around player towards the end of his first full season here and throughout his second season, but then he went to Russia, decided he wanted to play there instead, and that was that.  Sucks in that his deciding to bail when he was clearly supposed to be a long-term piece had ripple effects elsewhere (on top of all of the other crap that happened with VBK having financial issues), but I still wonder how effective he would've been as an NHLer at this point in his career...maybe 2012 really was his peak here as a Devil. 

 

Zach was definitely far from being a useless bum, and he's been missed here.  His Wild career has been pretty good and his regular season performance is about what should have been expected, but one strike against him is that he hasn't made much of an impact in three straight playoff series against the Blackhawks...just basic numbers here, but in 15 GP in those Blackhawk series, Zach scored three goals, added five assists and was a -13.  Obviously those aren't be-all end-all measures, but he hasn't done much to help the Wild get over the hump...yet. 

 

For whatever it's worth, I think Zack would've still been pretty solid here if he had remained (we all thought he would, it was more what would he be 5-6 years into his contract with many years to go).  Not sure what Kovy would've done...not saying he would've outright sucked, but I think he would've had a tough time being 2012 Kovy.     

 

That's all fair but how many player doesn't worry their team in the long run lol how do you think the ducks feel with 2 aging 35+ years old Perry and Getzlaf taking that much cap room? Or Toews and Kane etc etc I understand the logic in thinking "in 7 years Kovy and Zach will be on the decline so not such a good deal i want to stay away from that!" but that's silly. Would you not buy a house thinking.... ohhhh well in 20 years im gonna have to re-do the roof.

 

And of course for ANY players in the league they can injure themselves and never be the same players again. That's the risk you have to take sometimes. Seems like some posters here would rather stay in misery rather than overpaying a guy who would do the job for years and MAY decline one day. 

 

As for Kovy vs Zach... i dunno... Zach has the biggest heart and will always give his 110% on every shift. Some may say he'll break down sooner than later. Nobody knows that for sure. So i can't really put that on him and say a long term contract would suck with him cause HE WILL breakdown. Again that's just people trying to convince themselves of that. 

 

Then Kovy well Kovy is super strong and has one of the best shot in history. We've seen how strong players can last (Jagr) and we've seen how far just having a shot can bring you (sykora) so i honestly don't really know who would have been the best long term. I'd lean towards Kovy simply cause he can score without lots of efforts and from anywhere. He can have the worst game of his career but then snipe one from the blueline off the post like it's nothing.

Edited August 27, 2015 by SterioDesign

[MadDog2020]

Karma's a bitch, eh Kovy? http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/820295

[Daniel]

Karma's a bitch, eh Kovy? http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/820295

 

Since I've always been a Kovalchuk apologist praying for his return, could this be the start of one-year not playing professional hockey clock that would allow him to come back to the Devils on a new contract? 

 

The by-laws don't really specify what it means to not be playing professional hockey for the more than one year (whether you can't be under contract with another team or if you weren't playing in games during that time).  Bettman ultimately would resolve the issue. 

[MadDog2020]

Since I've always been a Kovalchuk apologist praying for his return, could this be the start of one-year not playing professional hockey clock that would allow him to come back to the Devils on a new contract?

The by-laws don't really specify what it means to not be playing professional hockey for the more than one year (whether you can't be under contract with another team or if you weren't playing in games during that time). Bettman ultimately would resolve the issue.

He's only out for three months, so I'd venture to guess the answer to that is 'no'.

[Daniel]

He's only out for three months, so I'd venture to guess the answer to that is 'no'.

 

Until he's not quite ready to come back after that three months is over, and then it drags on a little longer and then all the sudden the season's almost over.   

[2ELIAS6]

Until he's not quite ready to come back after that three months is over, and then it drags on a little longer and then all the sudden the season's almost over.

youre really reaching here arent you

[DJ Eco]

Since I've always been a Kovalchuk apologist praying for his return, could this be the start of one-year not playing professional hockey clock that would allow him to come back to the Devils on a new contract?

 

Doubt it... He knows what the backlash was back here in Jersey (and the NHL) when he left. I'm sure he's too terrified or brainwashed to proactively run out on the KHL now. Could you imagine the repercussions? I don't think the KHL or Medvedev or Putin are too keen on helping him get back into the NHL.

[thecoffeecake]

People still have this idea that Kovalchuk was good or significantly impacted the team. He didn't, not in 2 of the 3 years he was here. Plus the Devils didn't even start talking to Jagr until Kovalchuk was gone, so it's doubtful that they ever have both players, and Jagr was a better player than Kovalchuk.

Jagr objectively was not a better player than Kovalchuk during his time here. Jagr was old, slow, was ineffective at pretty much every every way except possession, board play, and play making. He couldn't play defense, and was constantly taking dumb penalties because he refused to move his feet. He drove be crazy.

To be fair, he was a smart player, and put points up. He was a fan favorite and an incredible presence in the locker room. Kovalchuk, whatever you think of him, was in terms of raw talent probably the best of all time. Only Ovechkin is even in the same conversation. I'm not defending him or wishing his return, but Jagr was not better than he was.

[MadDog2020]

Jagr objectively was not a better player than Kovalchuk during his time here. Jagr was old, slow, was ineffective at pretty much every every way except possession, board play, and play making. He couldn't play defense, and was constantly taking dumb penalties because he refused to move his feet. He drove be crazy.

To be fair, he was a smart player, and put points up. He was a fan favorite and an incredible presence in the locker room. Kovalchuk, whatever you think of him, was in terms of raw talent probably the best of all time. Only Ovechkin is even in the same conversation. I'm not defending him or wishing his return, but Jagr was not better than he was.

So Kovalchuk had more 'raw talent' than Wayne Gretzky? Or Mario Lemieux? If that's what you think, I'll take the high road and say that we'll just have to agree to disagree... Edited September 1, 2015 by MadDog2020

[Triumph]

Jagr objectively was not a better player than Kovalchuk during his time here. Jagr was old, slow, was ineffective at pretty much every every way except possession, board play, and play making. He couldn't play defense, and was constantly taking dumb penalties because he refused to move his feet. He drove be crazy.

To be fair, he was a smart player, and put points up. He was a fan favorite and an incredible presence in the locker room. Kovalchuk, whatever you think of him, was in terms of raw talent probably the best of all time. Only Ovechkin is even in the same conversation. I'm not defending him or wishing his return, but Jagr was not better than he was.

 

No, he objectively was - him being old is meaningless when evaluating past performance, as that isn't an attribute that has anything to do with playing hockey.   He was slow, sure.  Ineffective at pretty much everything?  He scored 19 goals at even strength playing with Travis Zajac and Dainius Zubrus for most of the year.  His defense was not strong but he made up for it by how amazing his offense was.  And he took penalties, sure, but that's just the cost of having a guy who forces turnovers at a ridiculous rate - he is going to take stick fouls.

 

Kovalchuk was a great scorer, but the Devils turned him into a pretty good one.  Then you have to consider Kovalchuk's terrible play without the puck - I'm not sure I've seen a guy who is worse without it.  Then you have to consider how often he tried moves that had a low chance of success.  Good power play option?  Sure.  Would he cost you a few short-handed goals against each year?  Yes.   No, I feel pretty confident in saying that Jagr's 2013-14 was better than 2 of the 3 'full' seasons Kovalchuk played here.

[Devilsfan118]

Well Kovy apparently wrecked his knee the other day, might miss a few weeks.

 

So at this point, he's got a bad back and a potentially bum knee.

 

How badly do the Devils want/need 'damaged' goods like him at this point?  Meh.

[lazer]

Then you have to consider Kovalchuk's terrible play without the puck - I'm not sure I've seen a guy who is worse without it. 

uhm, ovechkin 

[RizzMB30]

Well Kovy apparently wrecked his knee the other day, might miss a few weeks.

 

So at this point, he's got a bad back and a potentially bum knee.

 

How badly do the Devils want/need 'damaged' goods like him at this point?  Meh.

We don't.  The ship has sailed.  Most of you guys that are so optimistic that he might return don't fully understand what has to happen for him to even come back to the NHL, let alone the Devils.  

Pls stop this madness.  Pls.  

[thecoffeecake]

No, he objectively was - him being old is meaningless when evaluating past performance, as that isn't an attribute that has anything to do with playing hockey. He was slow, sure. Ineffective at pretty much everything? He scored 19 goals at even strength playing with Travis Zajac and Dainius Zubrus for most of the year. His defense was not strong but he made up for it by how amazing his offense was. And he took penalties, sure, but that's just the cost of having a guy who forces turnovers at a ridiculous rate - he is going to take stick fouls.

Kovalchuk was a great scorer, but the Devils turned him into a pretty good one. Then you have to consider Kovalchuk's terrible play without the puck - I'm not sure I've seen a guy who is worse without it. Then you have to consider how often he tried moves that had a low chance of success. Good power play option? Sure. Would he cost you a few short-handed goals against each year? Yes. No, I feel pretty confident in saying that Jagr's 2013-14 was better than 2 of the 3 'full' seasons Kovalchuk played here.

Kovalchuk did plenty of things that drove me crazy, but there aren't a lot of situations you would rather have Jagr on the ice for. 29 year old Kovalchuk and 40+ year old Jagr aren't even comparable. Kovalchuk is an offensive weapon who is the best at what he does. Jagr is at best a complimentary player on a contending team.

[Triumph]

Kovalchuk did plenty of things that drove me crazy, but there aren't a lot of situations you would rather have Jagr on the ice for. 29 year old Kovalchuk and 40+ year old Jagr aren't even comparable. Kovalchuk is an offensive weapon who is the best at what he does. Jagr is at best a complimentary player on a contending team.

 

I would rather have Jaromir Jagr out on the ice at even strength than Ilya Kovalchuk.  He scores more points per 60 minutes, his goal scoring is comparable, and his team scores more goals when he's on the ice than with Kovalchuk (and gives up fewer, though that has more to do with goaltending).  I'm looking at both players' stats since 2011-2012, by the way.  The idea that Jagr is a complementary player on a contending team is nuts - maybe now at 43 he is, but in 2013-14, he was a 1st line forward, without question.  He carried that Devils team to a ridiculous degree.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Triumph

[themightyall]

I would rather have Jaromir Jagr out on the ice at even strength than Ilya Kovalchuk.  He scores more points per 60 minutes, his goal scoring is comparable, and his team scores more goals when he's on the ice than with Kovalchuk (and gives up fewer, though that has more to do with goaltending).  I'm looking at both players' stats since 2011-2012, by the way.  The idea that Jagr is a complementary player on a contending team is nuts - maybe now at 43 he is, but in 2013-14, he was a 1st line forward, without question.  He carried that Devils team to a ridiculous degree.

 

And were the Devils a contending team in 13/14?  No.  That was what coffeecake said.  He is a talented player that has defied time for longer than most, but you can throw out all the stats you want, Kovy is obviously a better player during that time.  You can discount all of your points by saying that Kovy played on the Devils that suppress events.   The main point of Kovy is how he is dynamic; Jagr just got old and became conventional.  No team would have to weigh their D towards him as much as they'd do Kovy.  This is not knocking Jagr, it's just what it is.  Jagr is not someone to build a team around, but would be a great part of a team that would contend.

 

I do agree though that we are getting a little pathetic arguing still about Kovy.  It's been years.  We need to stop lurking for every little thing he's done.  This is a different team/organization completely from when he was here in every way, shape and form.

[Triumph]

And were the Devils a contending team in 13/14?  No.

 

That doesn't matter.  Were the Bruins a contending team when Jagr was their 1st line RW in 12-13 in a march to the Cup Finals?  Yes.  Jagr was a legitimate 1st line RW in terms of points/60, and he was a monster playdriver to boot.  He was unlucky to not score any goals in that run. 

 

That was what coffeecake said.  He is a talented player that has defied time for longer than most, but you can throw out all the stats you want, Kovy is obviously a better player during that time.

 

Oh, okay.  We can just say anything we want now.  Stats don't matter.  You're saying it, so it's true.  It's basically impossible to proceed from this point, but I will soldier on.

 

You can discount all of your points by saying that Kovy played on the Devils that suppress events.   The main point of Kovy is how he is dynamic; Jagr just got old and became conventional.  No team would have to weigh their D towards him as much as they'd do Kovy.  This is not knocking Jagr, it's just what it is.  Jagr is not someone to build a team around, but would be a great part of a team that would contend.

 

Kovalchuk is a natural events suppressor by himself.  He was in Atlanta - in terms of shots - and he continued to be in NJ even after they altered his game to fit into the system.  Kovalchuk's supposed 'dynamism' didn't result in goals or assists often enough.  I'm not after mystical explanations, I'm after real ones.  

 

If Jagr is your best forward, you probably won't go far, I agree - you'd have to have very strong goaltending and defense.  If Jagr is your 2nd best forward and you have plenty of depth besides, you can definitely go far.  By the way, the same thing is true of Kovalchuk - if Kovalchuk is your best forward, you probably won't do all that well.  Atlanta did a good job of showing that year after year, and the Devils did a good job of showing it too.  You can invent all the mysticism you like, the ooga-booga factor of Kovalchuk really seemed to terrify people, I guess - were opposing teams not thinking about Jagr when playing NJ?  The guy who was carrying NJ's 1st line?  I'd hate to see an unconventional Jagr if the conventional version outscored the nearest forward by 14.

 

Now maybe Kovalchuk was stifled by the DeBoer system (and totally lost under MacLean) and Jagr clearly benefited from what the coaching staff put in place, but the facts are what they are. 

[themightyall]

 

That doesn't matter.  Were the Bruins a contending team when Jagr was their 1st line RW in 12-13 in a march to the Cup Finals?  Yes.  Jagr was a legitimate 1st line RW in terms of points/60, and he was a monster playdriver to boot.  He was unlucky to not score any goals in that run. 

 

 

 

 

Oh, okay.  We can just say anything we want now.  Stats don't matter.  You're saying it, so it's true.  It's basically impossible to proceed from this point, but I will soldier on.

 

 

 

 

Kovalchuk is a natural events suppressor by himself.  He was in Atlanta - in terms of shots - and he continued to be in NJ even after they altered his game to fit into the system.  Kovalchuk's supposed 'dynamism' didn't result in goals or assists often enough.  I'm not after mystical explanations, I'm after real ones.  

 

If Jagr is your best forward, you probably won't go far, I agree - you'd have to have very strong goaltending and defense.  If Jagr is your 2nd best forward and you have plenty of depth besides, you can definitely go far.  By the way, the same thing is true of Kovalchuk - if Kovalchuk is your best forward, you probably won't do all that well.  Atlanta did a good job of showing that year after year, and the Devils did a good job of showing it too.  You can invent all the mysticism you like, the ooga-booga factor of Kovalchuk really seemed to terrify people, I guess - were opposing teams not thinking about Jagr when playing NJ?  The guy who was carrying NJ's 1st line?  I'd hate to see an unconventional Jagr if the conventional version outscored the nearest forward by 14.

 

Now maybe Kovalchuk was stifled by the DeBoer system (and totally lost under MacLean) and Jagr clearly benefited from what the coaching staff put in place, but the facts are what they are. 

 

 

Stats do matter but they need to be questioned.  These advanced stats are designed to try to reduce as much as possible the qualities a player brings to the game to manageable numbers.  However, no one number is really going to do this.  You can point at even strength points/60 but you have to be critical of the number too.  Kovalchuk led forwards in TOI.  I'm not sure if this still holds true when only considering even strength but you also have to consider that he was being used so frequently and therefore became more tired and inefficient.  Being double shifted on a PP and then going out for your next even strength shift, you don't think that Kovy coasted a bit more?  Furthermore, Jagr when he was on the Bruins had the opposite problem.  Because he was on a good team, he had good linemates going up against generally lesser competition for less TOI.  This is the reason why people have brought up how Jagr isn't a feature guy.

 

It's not about mysticism or anything like that on my part, it's understanding the limitations of bringing up one stat (or a few) as a panacea.  I don't discount that looking at those numbers show how great of a player Jagr was (which is partly the reason why I feel like the Devils will be taking a major step back).  But the numbers can only do so much.  So to retort to your claim of my "mystic ooga-booga factor" I would say you can close the book of the Holy Stat Sheet that was brought down to you by the Great Statistician in the Sky.

 

Just as a side note, I meant a conventional Jagr as in comparatively to him previously, ie before Russia.

[Triumph]

Stats do matter but they need to be questioned.  These advanced stats are designed to try to reduce as much as possible the qualities a player brings to the game to manageable numbers.  However, no one number is really going to do this.  You can point at even strength points/60 but you have to be critical of the number too.  Kovalchuk led forwards in TOI.  I'm not sure if this still holds true when only considering even strength but you also have to consider that he was being used so frequently and therefore became more tired and inefficient.  Being double shifted on a PP and then going out for your next even strength shift, you don't think that Kovy coasted a bit more?  

 

Sure, I agree that Kovalchuk suffers when you consider points/60.  I wish the Devils hadn't used him so much, he was remarkably ineffective when double-shifting at ES - his offense when not with his regular ES linemates is comically bad.  The trouble is that Kovalchuk's Corsi is not good either, whereas Jagr's is, and it's clearly Jagr doing the lifting when he's on the ice, whereas Kovalchuk got Parise for a season and Parise had his worst territorial season that we know about.

 

Furthermore, Jagr when he was on the Bruins had the opposite problem.  Because he was on a good team, he had good linemates going up against generally lesser competition for less TOI.  This is the reason why people have brought up how Jagr isn't a feature guy.

 

That's the reason?  You think teams weren't going up against Marchand-Bergeron-Jagr with their top defenses?  I disagree.  

 

It's not about mysticism or anything like that on my part, it's understanding the limitations of bringing up one stat (or a few) as a panacea.  I don't discount that looking at those numbers show how great of a player Jagr was (which is partly the reason why I feel like the Devils will be taking a major step back).  But the numbers can only do so much.  So to retort to your claim of my "mystic ooga-booga factor" I would say you can close the book of the Holy Stat Sheet that was brought down to you by the Great Statistician in the Sky.

 

I'm talking about what wins hockey games - goals, and shots on goal (which lead to goals).  Does it get everything?  No, of course not.  However, you're talking about a bunch of stuff that can't be measured at all.  You are assuming you are correct without any evidence.

[Joonas #6]

Well Kovy apparently wrecked his knee the other day, might miss a few weeks.

More like few months actually.

Edit: Okay, just Read the most recent article and you're right, seems like 4-5 weeks.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Joonas #6