2022 Off-Season thread PT 2

[SterioDesign]

9 minutes ago, MB3 said:

I think he will have 59 points next season. Yay! I did it! 

now find me all of those players with ~200 career points making $8m per season. 

Mfitz pointed out that Jack Hughes on our own team was one.

Also I'm just not sure why 8 is the number? Is it because that's what Guadana said he wanted? Other than him i don't recall anyone suggesting 8. We all seem to agree that he's not worth Jack's deal. So I have nothing to do with that. My number is 7m. to which im sure i can find many comparable players around that number.

But still i don't mind putting some effort. Logan Couture would be a similar player to Bratt i feel and he's got 8m 

[Nicomo]

Jack isn’t the best example because they were obviously paying for potential (which is 100+ point player). He was 20 years old when he got that deal, and in all likelihood it will end up being a bargain.

At 24 - Bratt is probably much closer to his ceiling. 

[SterioDesign]

12 minutes ago, MB3 said:

1. Jack Hughes and Jesper Bratt are not the same caliber of player. They're not the same type of player. Find me a player like Jesper. Don't show me a Ford Focus and compare it to my Ferrari. 
2. Guadana has said 40 times that he's worth $8 per year. That is the entire thing I'm arguing against. 
3. LOGAN fvckING COUTURE??!!?! Prior to signing his contract for $8 per year, he had SIX SEASONS with 27+ goals scored. He had 498 points in 638 games played. That's 0.79 PPG. 

 

logan couture hahahahahahaha holy fvcking sh!t.

I never said they were the same caliber of players either. You asked to provide a situation and someone did. But that's not what you wanted. You're like running around with the goal post. 

I know Guadana said that but take that with him. I addressed something else you said that i felt was unfair, separate conversation.

Couture has been steadier for sure but he also never got a higher PPG than Bratt at any point in his career and his best days are behind him while Bratt has an entire career ahead of him and he also played on stacked teams then while Bratt mostly play with duds until Jack showed up this year. I do think Bratt could post similar numbers to Couture going forward and that's my point. Right now i'd pick Bratt over Couture.  Context matter, you're the one who said RFA Bratt is on part with UFA Huberdeau remember? 

Edited August 1, 2022 by SterioDesign

[mfitz804]

15 minutes ago, MB3 said:

1. Jack Hughes and Jesper Bratt are not the same caliber of player. They're not the same type of player. Find me a player like Jesper. Don't show me a Ford Focus and compare it to my Ferrari.

That’s now what you had said originally, you asked for a player with his production that made $8m. So I provided one. I then forecast the goalposts being moved and said you could just say Jack’s was based on potential. 

[Guadana]

39 minutes ago, MB3 said:

I think he will have 59 points next season. Yay! I did it! 

now find me all of those players with ~200 career points making $8m per season. 

You can check all actual signs like B Tkachuk, Thomas, Norris etc

[Nicomo]

6 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Bratt mostly play with duds until Jack showed up this year.

I do think Bratt makes his line mates better, regardless of who they are, but didn’t he play a lot with Nico and Hall his rookie year? I seem to recall him and Palms rotating back and forth on that line. 

[SterioDesign]

1 minute ago, MB3 said:

I know you have a rudimentary-at-best grasp on the English language, but I'm not "running around with the goal post" (which is an incredible mistranslation of the colloquialism). 

I said: "In fact I’ll even widen the goalposts. Find me a forward in the history of the NHL that signed for $8+ per year when he has 203-or-fewer career points, and then look me in the eyes and tell me “Jesper Bratt is better than this player.”

If you can't do part-two, you aren't succeeding in the task you muppet. 

It's ironique that you're commenting on my lack of grasp on english language. Yet you ignore things i said in english. Or typically you do it on purpose cause it doesn't fit your point.

You're taking a very firm black and white stance on this when it's a lot more complex than that. You ask for hard numbers and situation to prove a point... then when someone do and it does't fit what you want, then you switch to compare "players potential". That's moving the goal post. Bottom line, you're not trying to come up to a conclusion about this, you just want to be right about what you choose to believe, that's clear. 

I will repeat though: I was not arguing about the 8m, never was. I said my number was 7x7, I don't personally feel he's proven to be an 8m player yet but i think he could potentially be worth that. Hence the comparison to Jack. He didn't prove he could be a 8m player when he signed his deal. He signed based on potential. I do think Bratt's potential is closer to his last season than his previous.

And the whole black and white requirement that a player has to sign for 8m at a specific time is ignoring a lot of context and timing. Again, going back to Logan Couture, he's a current 9m player i feel Bratt will post similar numbers to from now on. And i'd pick him before Couture going forward

[SterioDesign]

21 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

I do think Bratt makes his line mates better, regardless of who they are, but didn’t he play a lot with Nico and Hall his rookie year? I seem to recall him and Palms rotating back and forth on that line. 

Maybe but Bratt was also a 19 years old, 5'1 / 100lbs, 6th pick rookie. So even if he played with good players, i don't think we can really say that that year should be an indication of his potential. Which i believe is what we're all trying to establish here.

I think nobody knows exactly what he's fully capable of so that's why at the moment i personally think his floor is 50points and his ceiling like 90pts, which is a pretty wide range obviously since we didn't see him for a full season other than his rookie year and last year. Plus it's fair to bring up that he missed training camp this year and took awhile to get going. So while there's a fair suggestion that he produced more than he should this year... he also produced a lot less than he normally would (and with a very valid excuse) so i believe that even if his entire production from his last 60-65 games is a bit lower.. it might even out if he can stay steady the whole year without that slow start.

Actually circling back on what i just said... i just went back and looked at his game logs. He went pointless in his first 5 and he had 5 pts in his first 10 games. Which... 5 pts over 10 games, is it really that bad? (and i remember a great pass he made to Nico in front of the net but the goal didn't count for wtv reason, i think the clock ran out). I personally never thought he was playing bad. He looked the same to me, the puck was just not going in. And from that point he remained pretty consistent. So i mean... not producing for 5 games after missing the training camp is really not that out of the extraordinary IMO and i stand by my points that fans wanting to trade and shoot him into the sun after 5 games were a bit too dramatic. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by SterioDesign

[pumpkin cutter]

 

[SterioDesign]

In this case it's not that the number is low on one end and high on the other and... where can they meet in the middle. 

I feel almost everyone can agree that Bratt's number is basically what we've all agreed would be an amazing deal for him. 

[Guadana]

25 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Maybe but Bratt was also a 19 years old, 5'1 / 100lbs, 6th pick rookie. too dramatic. 

he grow up like a player and like a man.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Guadana

[pumpkin cutter]

5 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

In this case it's not that the number is low on one end and high on the other and... where can they meet in the middle. 

I feel almost everyone can agree that Bratt's number is basically what we've all agreed would be an amazing deal for him. 

What’s your offer if you’re gm? 

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

31 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Maybe but Bratt was also a 19 years old, 5'1 / 100lbs, 6th pick rookie. So even if he played with good players, i don't think we can really say that that year should be an indication of his potential. Which i believe is what we're all trying to establish here.

I think nobody knows exactly what he's fully capable of so that's why at the moment i personally think his floor is 50points and his ceiling like 90pts, which is a pretty wide range obviously since we didn't see him for a full season other than his rookie year and last year. Plus it's fair to bring up that he missed training camp this year and took awhile to get going. So while there's a fair suggestion that he produced more than he should this year... he also produced a lot less than he normally would (and with a very valid excuse) so i believe that even if his entire production from his last 60-65 games is a bit lower.. it might even out if he can stay steady the whole year without that slow start.

Actually circling back on what i just said... i just went back and looked at his game logs. He went pointless in his first 5 and he had 5 pts in his first 10 games. Which... 5 pts over 10 games, is it really that bad? (and i remember a great pass he made to Nico in front of the net but the goal didn't count for wtv reason, i think the clock ran out). I personally never thought he was playing bad. He looked the same to me, the puck was just not going in. And from that point he remained pretty consistent. So i mean... not producing for 5 games after missing the training camp is really not that out of the extraordinary IMO and i stand by my points that fans wanting to trade and shoot him into the sun after 5 games were a bit too dramatic. 

re:  the bolded, it wasn't just the five games...it was the ups-and-downs that came before, and even Chico himself wondered aloud during the Calgary game when the hell was Bratt going to show real signs of consistently putting it all together?  There were times where he had looked flat-out electric, and times he was borderline invisible over his first four seasons.

Again, to his credit, after he was benched, he got going, and never really slowed up much...so much so that at the moment, it's actually kind of hard to discern exactly what his value is.  Which guy is he?  I do think he should be more consistent and productive than he was prior to 2021-22 (about 46 points per 82 GP).  I think at minimum he should be about 0.7 PPG going forward...and 0.8 or higher wouldn't come as any shock.  But it wasn't "Oh WTF Bratt's pointless through five games get him the fvck outta here!"  It was "Remember how good this guy looked to start his career?  Is Jesper ever going to be that guy more often than not?"  

Edited August 1, 2022 by Colorado Rockies 1976

[mfitz804]

54 minutes ago, MB3 said:

"In fact I’ll even widen the goalposts. Find me a forward in the history of the NHL that signed for $8+ per year when he has 203-or-fewer career points, and then look me in the eyes and tell me “Jesper Bratt is better than this player.”

Was your response hours later, with and additional portion that you bolded. That is the aforementioned moving of the goalposts, highlighted. 

[SterioDesign]

5 minutes ago, pumpkin cutter said:

What’s your offer if you’re gm? 

I said yesterday that my ideal offer was 7x7 so i'll stick with that. I'd be very very happy with 6.5 or less x 7 though obviously

[SterioDesign]

9 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

re:  the bolded, it wasn't just the five games...it was the ups-and-downs that came before, and even Chico himself wondered aloud during the Calgary game when the hell was Bratt going to show real signs of consistently putting it all together?  There were times where he had looked flat-out electric, and times he was borderline invisible over his first four seasons.

Again, to his credit, after he was benched, he got going, and never really slowed up much...so much so that at the moment, it's actually kind of hard to discern exactly what his value is.  Which guy is he?  I do think he should be more consistent and productive than he was prior to 2021-22 (about 46 points per 82 GP).  I think at minimum he should be about 0.7 PPG going forward...and 0.8 or higher wouldn't come as any shock.  But it wasn't "Oh WTF Bratt's pointless through five games get him the fvck outta here!"  It was "Remember how good this guy looked to start his career?  Is Jesper ever going to be that guy more often than not?"  

Not sure i understand what you're referring to with the ups-and-downs that came before... you mean the contract stuff and him being stuck oversea

Edited August 1, 2022 by SterioDesign

[mfitz804]

13 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

In this case it's not that the number is low on one end and high on the other and... where can they meet in the middle. 

I feel almost everyone can agree that Bratt's number is basically what we've all agreed would be an amazing deal for him. 

But for a long-term deal. It’s not his number for a long term deal, guaranteed.

It is not an amazing deal when you add in that he is getting it for a year in arbitration. 

[pumpkin cutter]

4 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

I said yesterday that my ideal offer was 7x7 so i'll stick with that. I'd be very very happy with 6.5 or less x 7 though obviously

that's a fair deal. 

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Just now, SterioDesign said:

Not sure i understand what you're referring to with the ups-and-downs that came before... you mean the contract stuff and him being stuck oversea?

Performance...one can argue that ups-and-downs come with youth, but like I said, sometimes he would look electric, and sometimes he'd be invisible for several games.  For so much of last season, once he got going, we got electric Bratt.  I look forward to (hopefully) seeing more of that.  

[SterioDesign]

12 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

re:  the bolded, it wasn't just the five games...it was the ups-and-downs that came before, and even Chico himself wondered aloud during the Calgary game when the hell was Bratt going to show real signs of consistently putting it all together?  There were times where he had looked flat-out electric, and times he was borderline invisible over his first four seasons.

Again, to his credit, after he was benched, he got going, and never really slowed up much...so much so that at the moment, it's actually kind of hard to discern exactly what his value is.  Which guy is he?  I do think he should be more consistent and productive than he was prior to 2021-22 (about 46 points per 82 GP).  I think at minimum he should be about 0.7 PPG going forward...and 0.8 or higher wouldn't come as any shock.  But it wasn't "Oh WTF Bratt's pointless through five games get him the fvck outta here!"  It was "Remember how good this guy looked to start his career?  Is Jesper ever going to be that guy more often than not?"  

Also i'm trying to remember that part of the season more.

i DO clearly remember jesper being a healthy scratch and i remember thinking that it actually helped him. So i found that he was a healthy scratch on February 18th... But looking at his game logs before that (and obviously we know numbers is not everything) but it didn,t look that bad either. He had 19 points in 16 games before he was benched on February 18th. So am i missing something? 

By benching do you mean he was benched late in a game or referring to the healthy scratch? 

[mfitz804]

9 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

I said yesterday that my ideal offer was 7x7 so i'll stick with that. I'd be very very happy with 6.5 or less x 7 though obviously

 

4 minutes ago, pumpkin cutter said:

that's a fair deal. 

 

1 minute ago, MB3 said:

if he would take 6.5x7 he'd be signed by now. 

Yup. Maybe $7m too. I suspect he was asking for $8m, unless he is so intent on hitting free agency in 2 years that his team never put a counter on the table. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by mfitz804

[Crisis]

56 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

It's ironique that you're commenting on my lack of grasp on english language. Yet you ignore things i said in english. Or typically you do it on purpose cause it doesn't fit your point.

I know I'm not providing much, but if anything is ironique, it has to be this sentence.

[mfitz804]

1 minute ago, Crisis said:

I know I'm not providing much, but if anything is ironique, it has to be this sentence.

Didn’t he used to wear #14?

[SterioDesign]

6 minutes ago, Crisis said:

I know I'm not providing much, but if anything is ironique, it has to be this sentence.

Well see we can all learn from this.

I can re-read and see what i did wrong in order to learn and get better. I slipped and wrote the french word instead of english. English is not my main language, i didn't speak it until I was like 19 and i try my best to still communicate with a bunch of people who are 100% english daily. And most likely doesn't speak another language fluently either.

We learned that you're an a$$hole for mocking someone's english when it's not their main language.

And we learned that all i'll do about it is call you an a$$hole and move on. I won't block you making sure i let the entire board know that i blocked you like it's relevant to anyone, I also won't run and report your post or go cry to DM in his inbox.

How 'bout that

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

8 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Also i'm trying to remember that part of the season more.

i DO clearly remember jesper being a healthy scratch and i remember thinking that it actually helped him. So i found that he was a healthy scratch on February 18th... But looking at his game logs before that (and obviously we know numbers is not everything) but it didn,t look that bad either. He had 19 points in 16 games before he was benched on February 18th. So am i missing something? 

By benching do you mean he was benched late in a game or referring to the healthy scratch? 

He was benched in the Calgary game (for the entire third period I believe)...that was Game 5 of his season...for some reason I thought he was also scratched after that game, but turns out that he was right back out there against the Penguins, a few days later.  And then pretty much got it going from that game on, most of the time.