Jump to content

2020 Free Agency Megathread


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

It would have been step-by-step for me.  Probably wouldn't even go to games for a couple of years.  Then I would start to attend some Jon Bon Springsteen games here and there, but without the same emotional investment...it would feel like, say, going to a Coyotes - Canucks game in Arizona, where I'm there, but completely detached, just kinda watching but not really taking it in.  Eventually as I got used to them being Jersey's team, I'd start to embrace them as my own.  

I would totally be in favor of the New Jersey Jon Bon Springsteens. 

I don’t think I would have waited. Partially because it irks me that I didn’t get into the Devils until 1986 so I missed the first few years. If a new team came, I’d have wanted to be in on the ground floor, so I would have gotten a jersey and been a fan from the jump. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 558
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This will probably get buried but I'm an architect and I helped design Hank's apartment a few years ago. The nicest dude you've ever met, but there's this one story that always sticks with me. We

I can't believe I never realized that "Buffalo Wild Wings" is the name of 3 hockey teams

Posted Images

11 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I would totally be in favor of the New Jersey Jon Bon Springsteens. 

I don’t think I would have waited. Partially because it irks me that I didn’t get into the Devils until 1986 so I missed the first few years. If a new team came, I’d have wanted to be in on the ground floor, so I would have gotten a jersey and been a fan from the jump. 

Yeah hard to say what I would've done for sure...I might very well have just said screw it and jumped right in with both feet.  It just would have been so heartbreaking to lose the Devils...especially off a Cup win.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Yeah hard to say what I would've done for sure...I might very well have just said screw it and jumped right in with both feet.  It just would have been so heartbreaking to lose the Devils...especially off a Cup win.  

Definitely would have been. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious to see if Fitz does indeed have another Johnsson-level move up his sleeve, as was rumored.  Assuming Fitz signs Blackwood and Bratt for a combined hit of about $5 - 6 million, he'll have plenty of room to take on a decent hit.   

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Curious to see if Fitz does indeed have another Johnsson-level move up his sleeve, as was rumored.  Assuming Fitz signs Blackwood and Bratt for a combined hit of about $5 - 6 million, he'll have plenty of room to take on a decent hit.   

Speaking of rumor chasing, I went over to peruse HF boards yesterday and saw a long lost poster over there...Tri

Edited by jagknife
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jagknife said:

Speaking of rumor chasing, I went over to peruse HF boards yesterday and saw a long lost poster over there...Tri

Yeah he moved over there some time ago.  I've always had mixed feelings about his contributions.  When he wasn't being condescending as hell, he did bring some interesting metrics perspectives to the board (even if I didn't always agree with what they were trying to tell me).  But he was never an easy guy to have any real back-and-forth with.  Even when you agreed with him, he could come off as contradictory.  

I'm a member on HF and I'd post there from time to time several years ago, but I don't even lurk there.  It just never really sang to me.  I simply like it here far more. 

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Yeah he moved over there some time ago.  I've always had mixed feelings about his contributions.  When he wasn't being condescending as hell, he did bring some interesting metrics perspectives to the board (even if I didn't always agree with what they were trying to tell me).  But he was never an easy guy to have any real back-and-forth with.  Even when you agreed with him, he could come off as contradictory.  

I'm a member on HF and I'd post there from time to time several years ago, but I don't even lurk there.  It just never really sang to me.  I simply like it here far more. 

I used to read HF, but stopped a while ago. Just not a fan of that place.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Yeah he moved over there some time ago.  I've always had mixed feelings about his contributions.  When he wasn't being condescending as hell, he did bring some interesting metrics perspectives to the board (even if I didn't always agree with what they were trying to tell me).  But he was never an easy guy to have any real back-and-forth with.  Even when you agreed with him, he could come off as contradictory.  

I'm a member on HF and I'd post there from time to time several years ago, but I don't even lurk there.  It just never really sang to me.  I simply like it here far more. 

Yeah Tri was a good contributor but im still convinced he was a robot lol He had a very cold and disconnected vision of things when it came to things like... chemistry, leadership, intangibles and stuff like that. Everything was about stats. I always suspected that he never played the game so felt getting deep into stats was the only thing he could really bring to the table that others couldn't. I mean, anyone who played the game or any sports in some competitive capacity knows how much those things are and how stats are really not everything.

As for HF.. i haven't posted there in forever cause they are incredibly sensitive lol I legit got banned for posting a meme of Kovalchuk shooting down at a jet after a game where he sniped a winning goal against the jets. I mean come on lol 

Whenever i do visit the site it's just to see if there's any rumours i havent seen yet or see what other fanbase are saying about... something. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, NJDevils1214 said:

Fridge said on the 31 in 31 Podcast around the 14 min mark that VGK had made an offer to Taylor Hall for 1 year approx 5mil. 

That's almost insulting lol

It's like asking the hottest girl in school on a date to Burger King cause you have coupons. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

That's almost insulting lol

It's like asking the hottest girl in school on a date to Burger King cause you have coupons. 

Everyone thought he wanted to win. Fridge also said CBJ offered him term but slightly lower AAV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the current environment is playing a role, but Pietrangelo got HIS money.  There was clearly a “Buyer Beware” approach with Hall, and I can understand why.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Yeah Tri was a good contributor but im still convinced he was a robot lol He had a very cold and disconnected vision of things when it came to things like... chemistry, leadership, intangibles and stuff like that. Everything was about stats. I always suspected that he never played the game so felt getting deep into stats was the only thing he could really bring to the table that others couldn't. I mean, anyone who played the game or any sports in some competitive capacity knows how much those things are and how stats are really not everything.

Meh, plenty of writers, observers and even some coaches out there who didn’t play that much (or even at all), but still have a good idea of what’s going on.

Some of the hardcore metrics crowd can definitely not factor in the human element enough.  That crowd will often tell you that there’s no such thing as clutch, that anyone can fail in a short sample.  Sure, that can happen to anyone in their first go-around during higher stakes.  But what if that happens two or three times?  Is that now wearing on that player’s mind...especially since he’s likely being asked about it and knowing that everyone is talking about his past failures in big spots?  Some guys can become permanently “unclutch” due to such earlier failures, due to feeling pressure to break through...obviously a very human reaction for some.  But the metrics crowd will often just ignore such trends, and say “Short samples, anything can happen, no such thing as clutch.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Meh, plenty of writers, observers and even some coaches out there who didn’t play that much (or even at all), but still have a good idea of what’s going on.

Some of the hardcore metrics crowd can definitely not factor in the human element enough.  That crowd will often tell you that there’s no such thing as clutch, that anyone can fail in a short sample.  Sure, that can happen to anyone in their first go-around during higher stakes.  But what if that happens two or three times?  Is that now wearing on that player’s mind...especially since he’s likely being asked about it and knowing that everyone is talking about his past failures in big spots?  Some guys can become permanently “unclutch” due to such earlier failures, due to feeling pressure to break through...obviously a very human reaction for some.  But the metrics crowd will often just ignore such trends, and say “Short samples, anything can happen, no such thing as clutch.”

 

Well yeah maybe I didn't explain myself well enough, i didnt mean that if you didnt play that you can't possibly comprehend those things. I said that i suspect that he was discarding those things as unimportant cause he couldn't bring that to the table. Obviously im just guessing but i did ask him countless times if he ever played and he always ignored the question. 

So there's a difference with not having been through something but willing to learn and acknowledge it... and someone who never been through it simply doesn't believe it cause it doesn't benefit them... kind of like females who says blue balls are a myth and something guys made up. lol 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Yeah he moved over there some time ago.  I've always had mixed feelings about his contributions.  When he wasn't being condescending as hell, he did bring some interesting metrics perspectives to the board (even if I didn't always agree with what they were trying to tell me).  But he was never an easy guy to have any real back-and-forth with.  Even when you agreed with him, he could come off as contradictory.  

I'm a member on HF and I'd post there from time to time several years ago, but I don't even lurk there.  It just never really sang to me.  I simply like it here far more. 

he was in chat for the draft (along w/ mantz, sarge, guadana). he still lurks.

not trying to speak for him, but if you appreciate how much luck and randomness is in hockey, you'd probably appreciate his point of view more.

i still think we've got some of the old timers that lurk - there's just not as many posters with not a lot going on in the hockey world. i've certainly posted considerably less even though I'm on the site every day.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sundstrom said:

he was in chat for the draft (along w/ mantz, sarge, guadana). he still lurks.

not trying to speak for him, but if you appreciate how much luck and randomness is in hockey, you'd probably appreciate his point of view more.

Can you expand on the luck and randomness thing actually? Cause the way i see it, it kind of feel it goes against what stats people seem to think but im curious to hear your angle on that

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sundstrom said:

he was in chat for the draft (along w/ mantz, sarge, guadana). he still lurks.

not trying to speak for him, but if you appreciate how much luck and randomness is in hockey, you'd probably appreciate his point of view more.

i still think we've got some of the old timers that lurk - there's just not as many posters with not a lot going on in the hockey world. i've certainly posted considerably less even though I'm on the site every day.

Oh I know there’s chance and randomness in hockey...his viewpoints weren’t really my issue with him...some things I agreed with, some I didn’t, and as someone who’s always enjoyed numbers, I was at least willing to hear about new ways to evaluate player performance.  I just found him to be difficult to have give-and-take conversations with, and I was far from the only one who felt that way.  Was a shame because his attitude would often detract from what he was trying to put out there.

Yeah will be nice when there’s an actual season and games again.  I sorely miss watching games with my daughter.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Can you expand on the luck and randomness thing actually? Cause the way i see it, it kind of feel it goes against what stats people seem to think but im curious to hear your angle on that

https://torontosun.com/2016/04/14/hockey-is-luckiest-major-north-american-sport-researchers

This may not be what sund is getting at, but most of the research points to hockey being the most random of the major sports.  I have also seen studies that show that the NHL has the lowest probability of the favored team to win any given game of the major sports.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sarge18 said:

https://torontosun.com/2016/04/14/hockey-is-luckiest-major-north-american-sport-researchers

This may not be what sund is getting at, but most of the research points to hockey being the most random of the major sports.  I have also seen studies that show that the NHL has the lowest probability of the favored team to win any given game of the major sports.

Well that's kind of my angle. Cause chance, context and randomness is certainly throwing a wrench in how relevant or precise many stats can be and that's NOT what stat people want. They want their stats to be relevant and something to form their opinions on. And often when the stats are not supporting what they want well thats when they throw the "well that's chance" or "it's not sustainable"

I still remember that time Tri said, precisely that "Kovalchuk wasn't really good during the playoffs run of 2012"... because wtv stats was saying so, that he was not driving plays or get controlled zone entry or god knows which one it was. I mean, nobody in their right mind who actually watched those games would let any stats tell them that kovy wasn't good during the playoffs, he was a fvcking monster" lol

Stats are good to spot tendencies and all that. But you can never look at stats without context and form an opinion. There's just soooooooooo much factors in hockey.

I mean if you compare guys based on like... corsi for example... well you may look at that stat and see that there was more line produced when he was on the ice than.. some other dude from another team. But then you have to consider if those shots were even scoring chances, from where they were taken, was there any shots blocked or missed the net, then if those shots weren't block, would they have even hit the net. Then against who those shots were taken? top competition or not? What role does the players lines were put? were they usually starting in the d zone or could have taken a shot straight from the faceoffs? Like... there's SO many factors. Nothing will replace knowing and watching the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

Well that's kind of my angle. Cause chance, context and randomness is certainly throwing a wrench in how relevant or precise many stats can be and that's NOT what stat people want. They want their stats to be relevant and something to form their opinions on. And often when the stats are not supporting what they want well thats when they throw the "well that's chance" or "it's not sustainable"

I still remember that time Tri said, precisely that "Kovalchuk wasn't really good during the playoffs run of 2012"... because wtv stats was saying so, that he was not driving plays or get controlled zone entry or god knows which one it was. I mean, nobody in their right mind who actually watched those games would let any stats tell them that kovy wasn't good during the playoffs, he was a fvcking monster" lol

Stats are good to spot tendencies and all that. But you can never look at stats without context and form an opinion. There's just soooooooooo much factors in hockey.

I mean if you compare guys based on like... corsi for example... well you may look at that stat and see that there was more line produced when he was on the ice than.. some other dude from another team. But then you have to consider if those shots were even scoring chances, from where they were taken, was there any shots blocked or missed the net, then if those shots weren't block, would they have even hit the net. Then against who those shots were taken? top competition or not? What role does the players lines were put? were they usually starting in the d zone or could have taken a shot straight from the faceoffs? Like... there's SO many factors. Nothing will replace knowing and watching the game.

I get talked down to on this board all the time for talking about this. Advanced stats like zone entries and high danger shots on a Tuesday are only showing you which players are more likely to be effective. If those stats are high, and their regular stats are low, and their plus/minus is low, that means that despite those stats, the player isn’t converting and that doesn’t help the team win at all.

You are hoping that the guy who takes a lot of high danger shots (on Tuesday) will wind up scoring a lot of goals to be scored or cause others to score goals. If that isn’t happening, that stat means d!ck. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sarge18 said:

https://torontosun.com/2016/04/14/hockey-is-luckiest-major-north-american-sport-researchers

This may not be what sund is getting at, but most of the research points to hockey being the most random of the major sports.  I have also seen studies that show that the NHL has the lowest probability of the favored team to win any given game of the major sports.

this is what i was getting at. you can use stats to paint a picture and give you greater probability but that just doesn't always work out. its also about recognizing that counting stats like shots aren't necessarily in a vacuum. to wit:

10 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

Well that's kind of my angle. Cause chance, context and randomness is certainly throwing a wrench in how relevant or precise many stats can be and that's NOT what stat people want. They want their stats to be relevant and something to form their opinions on. And often when the stats are not supporting what they want well thats when they throw the "well that's chance" or "it's not sustainable"

I still remember that time Tri said, precisely that "Kovalchuk wasn't really good during the playoffs run of 2012"... because wtv stats was saying so, that he was not driving plays or get controlled zone entry or god knows which one it was. I mean, nobody in their right mind who actually watched those games would let any stats tell them that kovy wasn't good during the playoffs, he was a fvcking monster" lol

Stats are good to spot tendencies and all that. But you can never look at stats without context and form an opinion. There's just soooooooooo much factors in hockey.

I mean if you compare guys based on like... corsi for example... well you may look at that stat and see that there was more line produced when he was on the ice than.. some other dude from another team. But then you have to consider if those shots were even scoring chances, from where they were taken, was there any shots blocked or missed the net, then if those shots weren't block, would they have even hit the net. Then against who those shots were taken? top competition or not? What role does the players lines were put? were they usually starting in the d zone or could have taken a shot straight from the faceoffs? Like... there's SO many factors. Nothing will replace knowing and watching the game.

again - i really don't want to speak for tri, but I'll say that he very much did NOT say kovy didn't have a good 2012 playoffs. quite the opposite. the 2012 team was pretty much all kovy, unreal luck from salvador and CBGB becoming the hottest line for 6 weeks.

tri's argument about kovy was that while he had good shot totals and counting stats, they were inflated because of just how much TOI he had and that, on a RATE basis (stats/60), he wasn't as good as it seemed. basically, there were plenty more players that accomplished more on a per 60 basis). Now I will argue that being able to play outsized minutes (just like maintaining an abnormally large shooting percentage) is a skill, I will concede that being able to do more on a per 60 basis is overall more valuable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, sundstrom said:

this is what i was getting at. you can use stats to paint a picture and give you greater probability but that just doesn't always work out. its also about recognizing that counting stats like shots aren't necessarily in a vacuum. to wit:

again - i really don't want to speak for tri, but I'll say that he very much did NOT say kovy didn't have a good 2012 playoffs. quite the opposite. the 2012 team was pretty much all kovy, unreal luck from salvador and CBGB becoming the hottest line for 6 weeks.

tri's argument about kovy was that while he had good shot totals and counting stats, they were inflated because of just how much TOI he had and that, on a RATE basis (stats/60), he wasn't as good as it seemed. basically, there were plenty more players that accomplished more on a per 60 basis). Now I will argue that being able to play outsized minutes (just like maintaining an abnormally large shooting percentage) is a skill, I will concede that being able to do more on a per 60 basis is overall more valuable.

The bolded is definitely accurate...Kovy played absolutely insane minutes that season (24:26 TOI per game...played 24:44 the following season, his last with the Devils.  By comparison Hall never topped the 20:00 TOI per game in any of his seasons as a Devil).  I think that factored into Kovy's decision to "retire"...I think he was getting beat up/worn out, and could make a ton of money playing a lot less games in the KHL.  But even if his numbers were bloated by the sheer time he spent on the ice, just the fact that he was actually ABLE to manage that is an impressive feat.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.