The_Rocket

Canucks will have just over 16 million in space when Ferland is place on LTIR, assuming Rathbone, Podkolzin, and MacEwan all make the team. If these guys all were get sent down and replaced with league minimum players, it would increase the Canucks cap space by about 500k. this is also assuming a 23 man roster, if the Canucks ran with only 22 players (like Tampa will this year) then they could increase it by another 750k. basically, 8 million each is easy. Could even do more if needed. I don’t see how it gets a D- minus

Bingo

No doubt. All you have to do is look at the Hamhuis 2011 playoff injury to understand how vital these guys can be

In addition to my Athletic subscription, I also have an Evolving Hockey subscription. all I hear on Twitter is that poolman sucks analytically, and he was only projected to get a league minimum deal (guys like Drance, Blake Price, Matt sekeras, etc say this). then, I go on evolving hockey, and they project a middle class contract, and have analytics that show he is good defensively. who am I to believe, the radio hosts taking out their as***s for 3 hours a day, or a website which simply out puts results, not opinions. Hmmmmmmm

Funny thing is, he hates Poolman because of his analytics, but Poolman’s D-zone analytics are actually quite good. He’s one of those players that is good defensively, poor offensively. The eye test, the stat sheet, and the analytics show this. I honestly do not understand the hate for Poolman that many media members give him

Sometimes it feels like he is borrowing his opinions from others instead of developing his own thoughts. I like the Vancast and I like some of his work, but he will often find someone’s opinion and stick to it. His Poolman take is, in my mind, a good example of this

I think you’re being a little low on Poolman here. Strong skater, good along the boards, good in-front of his own net. He makes simple plays which limit his offense but frankly the Canucks have enough offensive d-men. Poolman fits the bill for what they need. plus, his underlying numbers are pretty good as well

Full article here drance and Dayal grading the whole off season. Full article posted in the next comment, but I encourage you to read it from the source. my biggest disagreements: D grade for the Poolman signing; I think he is better than either writer is giving credit C grade for Schmidt trade: the player had a bad season then asked out and was flexing is M-NTC. Getting any kind of return is a huge win considering the contract and D+ for the OEL deal: it’s weird how they have the trade itself a b+ (about right) but then gave OEL a D+. Doesn’t make sense. Edit: forgot to mention, grading the Hughes and Pettersson contracts a D-minus when the haven’t even signed yet makes no sense. They should have just waited until after they signed to write the article

Don’t read too much into this article. He gave the Canucks a B+ for centre depth, calling Dickinson and Horvat “quality middle 6 centres”. uhhhhhh, Horvat is much more than a middle 6 centre. based on this guys grading system, he thinks the Leafs Defense (A- grade) is better than the Canucks Centre depth (B+ grade). The leafs have 3 good defensemen, 2 mediocre, and 1 young maybe (sandin). Apparently that represents a bigger position of strength than Pettersson, Horvat, Dickinson, sutter. You can tell by his centre depth article that he is a leafs writer. He lists 5 centres for the leafs (matthews, Tavares, kampf, Engvall, and Kerfoot). For every other team, he only lists 4. Ryan Nugent-Hopkins? Not a centre! JT miller? Not a centre! Andrew Copp? Not a centre! only Toronto is allowed to have a centre/winger hybrid in their lineup. he also as this beauty to say about Toronto’s defense: “It is also worth mentioning that Kyle Dubas’ decision to expose Jared McCann instead of Holl in the expansion draft looks smart in retrospect; the price of second-pairing defenders in free agency was obnoxious this summer, and the cost to replace Holl in the lineup would have been larger than anticipated.” hmmmm let’s see, which one is more valuable. A 25 year old centre coming off a season where he paced at 61 points per 82 games, and still has one year left at less than $3 million dollars, OR a 29 year old 3rd pair defenseman who rode an 11.6% on ice shooting percentage last season and has a worse underlying profile than OEL, Tucker Poolman, and Travis hamonic? But the Canucks have the worst D-core in the division???? the mind boggles

Hey I commented on your Cap Friendly post saying Ottawa would be stupid to decline this trade and I stand by it. Pettersson is the best player in this trade hoglander just had a better season than stutzle no thanks

These charts are supposed to account for quality of teammates and quality of competition, while also being isolated from the impacts of other players. that being said, it’s also just a one year history for each player. OEL still controls possession just fine, but something (whether it be injuries, age, system, or lack or caring) has caused him to be very permissive around the front of his own net. im excited to see if he can regain form in Vancouver. If not, oh well. He’s still a fine #5 in my opinion. Overpayed, obviously, but he’s far less of a liability on the ice compared to what people make him out to be

It will be interesting see how Poolman performs with OEL. It should actually be an easier assignment for him than playing with Morrissey…..

Honestly, Poolman could score literally 0 points and I wouldn’t mind. Goal scoring won’t be a hughe issue for the Canucks this year. They should be more focused on keeping the picks out of their own net. Fortunately Poolman should help in this regard, compared to the player he is replacing….

Overrated player. Wonder what the AAV is. I find it weird that Detroit seems to bridge every player they have.

they had pretty similar results last year. Stecher better offensively but defensively they’re pretty close. Slight edge to poolman this model is supposed to adjust for quality of competition and usage, but I will still note that Poolman was given far tougher assignments than stecher was. in terms of play style, stecher is definitely a better puck carrier but Poolman will win more battles in front of the net and in the corners. Both are above average skaters. Poolman loves to take wristers from the point where as stech was better at walking the line.

Good deep dive into Poolman can be found here TLDR: THE GOOD: Poolman has good size and speed, decent gap control, strong defensive play when involved in a structured system, good at keeping chances away from the front of his net. THE BAD: Poolman can get overwhelmed or lost when matched up against elite players, is solid in his own right but doesn’t make up for his partners defensive short comings, poor counter-attack/transition game, doesn’t create offense. imo, given the cap hit and the places where Vancouver struggled last year, I really can’t complain. Solid signing for what he capable of bringing. He can play in the top 4 this year, but if the Canucks add a high end RHD at some point, his cap hit is low enough that you can easily justify reducing his role.

Nah I think it’s worth retaining petey at 11 or 12 million. He’s better than whatever those 4 picks will end up being. Once you get close to 13 million though, it really hamstrings your cap situation and unless he turns into a generational level player, it is a guaranteed overpayment based on my model. i reaaalllyyy really doubt anyone submits an OS for that much though

My walk away number for Pettersson is 12.85 million per season, any term. Anything less and I likely match

Where are we saucing the criteria for the xGF60 and CF% for play styles? And how are we defining play styles? Why do players suddenly change styles based on which wing they are on? How are we deriving values for consolidated statistics for different line combo’s? How could it be possible that the optimal line combination for the Vancouver Canucks puts JONAH GADJOVICH on the first line? some of the data seem rigorous and precise, while other pieces seem ambiguous and qualitative. How were determine whether some one is a playmaker or shooter? Simply by watching highlights? how are we adjusting for quality in teammates and competition? Bumping Dickinson up into the top 6 means top 6 match ups. Moving Sutter to the 4th line means 4th line matchups. how do we conclude that a line of 3 playmakers is the best possible line? Where are we drawing data from to come to that conclusion? not gunna lie, this just gives me way more questions than answers

Plugging in $7 million instead of $7.25 million lowers all contracts by about 100-200k annually. Not much of a difference. Increasing it to $7.5 million similar. Just bounces around the AAV’s in the margins. On all my number’s I would recommended viewing them as a range of +/- 5%. that’s interesting about the 2 years at $5 million. Personally I think that is too low. Evolving-Hockey has a similar number for a 2 year deal (4.9 I believe) but they seem to be really underestimating Pettersson’s contract. They have him at $8 million for 8 years. Anything shorter and they have for under $8 million AAV. Dhaliwal has reported on Donnie and Dhali that Barzal is the direct comparable they (the player agents) are using for the petey contract, so I feel very comfortable with my 3 year projection. It’s relatively easy to build out the UFA years using cap-hit %, though admittedly I may be undervaluing those years. 3 of the comparables are multi-cup winners (Kane, toews, and Kopitar) so I think they’re values are over inflated compared to what Petey’s next deal will be. as for the offer sheet at 5 x 10…. It would be a super bad move for Minny. Canucks will instantly match but they will also likely hold a grudge. Minny will be in cap hell in 2 years when prarise and suter buy penalties are $15 million in dead cap. Not a good time to make an enemy if I’m them.

COPY AND PASTED FROM A DIFFERENT THREAD: here are my Petey estimates: 8 years @ 9.6 million 7 years @ 9.3 million 6 years @ 8.9 million 5 years @ 8.4 million 4 years @ 7.6 million 3 years @ 7.25 million i think the most likely scenario is either 3 or 6 years, based on Petey’s confidence in the team, the uncertainty of how the cap will increase over time, and how much petey thinks he will improve explanation: I made a contract estimator on excel and ran different scenarios for what Pettersson’s contract might look like on different terms. Here are my assumptions: A 3 year deal is 7.25 million AAV based on Barzal comparable + a little bit more due to Pettersson’s status and reputation. UFA years (years 5-8 of any contract he signs) are worth $11.5 million per year in future dollars. That’s around ~$10.5 million in today’s dollars. I used players like draisaitl, point, Tavares, toews, courtourier, kopitar, and eichel to derive this number. His UFA years could be more expensive depending on inflation and how close to those players he and the Canucks believes he will be when he is 26 years old. To estimate salary cap increase, I used 2 calculations. One assumes a 3% increase per year, the other assumes a flat $1 million increase per year. I estimate out 4 years (to Pettersson’s first UFA year) to adjust his future dollars into real terms. Then I took the average of the two calculations for my model. I assumed that Petey’s final RFA year (the 4th season from now) is worth his Qualifying Offer on a 3 year bridge at 7.25 million. The QO would be 120% of the AAV of the bridge deal (assuming backloaded), or $8.4 million. I weighted this value into all calculations of 4 years or more. Finally, right before posting this, I Ran kaprizov’s rumoured $9x5 contract through the model using all the same assumptions. The only thing I changed was the number of RFA years (kaprizov only has 3 left, compared to Patterson’s 4). If we assume kaprizov is a comparable, then I found his new contract perfectly fits my model when adjusting for RFA years remaining. So I plugged in all the different term options and here are my results. Please note that my assumptions are based on a known value of a 3 year deal, so I’m not able to use the model to calculate 1 or 2 year deals.

here are my Petey estimates: 8 years @ 9.6 million 7 years @ 9.3 million 6 years @ 8.9 million 5 years @ 8.4 million 4 years @ 7.6 million 3 years @ 7.25 million i think the most likely scenario is either 3 or 6 years, based on Petey’s confidence in the team, the uncertainty of how the cap will increase over time, and how much petey thinks he will improve explanation: I made a contract estimator on excel and ran different scenarios for what Pettersson’s contract might look like on different terms. Here are my assumptions: A 3 year deal is 7.25 million AAV based on Barzal comparable + a little bit more due to Pettersson’s status and reputation. UFA years (years 5-8 of any contract he signs) are worth $11.5 million per year in future dollars. That’s around ~$10.5 million in today’s dollars. I used players like draisaitl, point, Tavares, toews, courtourier, kopitar, and eichel to derive this number. His UFA years could be more expensive depending on inflation and how close to those players he and the Canucks believes he will be when he is 26 years old. To estimate salary cap increase, I used 2 calculations. One assumes a 3% increase per year, the other assumes a flat $1 million increase per year. I estimate out 4 years (to Pettersson’s first UFA year) to adjust his future dollars into real terms. Then I took the average of the two calculations for my model. I assumed that Petey’s final RFA year (the 4th season from now) is worth his Qualifying Offer on a 3 year bridge at 7.25 million. The QO would be 120% of the AAV of the bridge deal (assuming backloaded), or $8.4 million. I weighted this value into all calculations of 4 years or more. Finally, right before posting this, I Ran kaprizov’s rumoured $9x5 contract through the model using all the same assumptions. The only thing I changed was the number of RFA years (kaprizov only has 3 left, compared to Patterson’s 4). If we assume kaprizov is a comparable, then I found his new contract perfectly fits my model when adjusting for RFA years remaining. So I plugged in all the different term options and here are my results. Please note that my assumptions are based on a known value of a 3 year deal, so I’m not able to use the model to calculate 1 or 2 year deals.

Take this with a grain of salt but, Tucker Poolman’s 2020-2021 season vs Chris Tanev’s 2019-2020 (his last season in Van). There is a chance Poolman can replace Tanev quite effectively. Poolman’s teammates just could not get any finnish while he was on the ice

Reminds me of when he posted a Nils Hoglander card a few months ago. Many pointed out the penalty impacts must be wrong. He said he would look into them but never ended up posting anything about why there is a discrepancy. that’s my only problem with these models. Data are collected, input, and displayed to be informative. However, so much information is lost along the way. Why is there a discrepancy between what we see and what the data indicate? Is it bad data? Input error? Are we missing something when we’re watching? How is an expected goal calculated? How does coaching impact the data and how is it accounted for? How do we know that the data be used are in fact the best metrics for determining how much a player contributes to their team winning? even if these questions were answered, they aren’t answered in the player card that gets shared and retweeted around to make definitive points (by some) on which players are good an which are bad. I think there may be some merit to an argument that these cards cause more harm than good in informing discussions of player value