[Signing] Conner Brown re-signs in OTT avoids ARB

[Mackcanuck]

Arbitration hearing was scheduled for today

 

SEASON	CLAUSE	CAP HIT	AAV	P. BONUSES	S. BONUSES	BASE SALARY	TOTAL SALARY	MINORS SALARY
2020-21		$3,600,000	$3,600,000	$0	$0	$2,800,000	$2,800,000	$2,800,000
2021-22		$3,600,000	$3,600,000	$0	$0	$4,000,000	$4,000,000	$4,000,000
2022-23		$3,600,000	$3,600,000	$0	$0	$4,000,000	$4,000,000	$4,000,000
TOTAL		$10,800,000	$10,800,000	$0	$0	$10,800,000	$10,800,000	$10,800,000

UNCONFIRMED: Contract based on initial report. Once the details have been confirmed the contract will be updated

Edited October 22, 2020 by Mackcanuck

[Provost]

Seems like good value for the the player.    I wonder if he stays a Senator.  It seems like right in the range where they would keep him.

 

He is getting a lot of opportunity in Ottawa, I wonder how he would be on a good team in fewer minutes.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Provost

[Mackcanuck]

I don't know much about Conner Brown, but I feel Jake has more potential going into Arbitration and I don't think we can afford to pay him $3.6M per

[rekker]

20 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said:

I don't know much about Conner Brown, but I feel Jake has more potential going into Arbitration and I don't think we can afford to pay him $3.6M per

It's a cannundrum. I think Jake may have more potential but it really doesn't matter if the dedication and hard work isn't there. From what I saw watching Brown play for the Leafs, he is a hard working kid. I don't think Jake has earned a contract based on potential. Not yet. 

[theo5789]

25 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said:

I don't know much about Conner Brown, but I feel Jake has more potential going into Arbitration and I don't think we can afford to pay him $3.6M per

He plays a big role in Ottawa. His points aren't significantly higher, but he's second on the team and their offense isn't as potent as ours. The main thing though is he's a top PK forward for them and plays 20 minutes a night. Not a chance Jake gets anywhere close to 3.6. I still Jake will get under 2.5 from this contract.

[JM_]

11 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

He plays a big role in Ottawa. His points aren't significantly higher, but he's second on the team and their offense isn't as potent as ours. The main thing though is he's a top PK forward for them and plays 20 minutes a night. Not a chance Jake gets anywhere close to 3.6. I still Jake will get under 2.5 from this contract.

this is where that extra 6 or 7 minutes per night that Brown plays over Jake matters. 

 

If Jake actually goes to arbitration it might not be the worst option. I do have concerns over his motivation with a longer term deal. 

 

 

[189lb enforcers?]

As expected.

I think the Senators did well here. 

[EternalCanuckFan]

15 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

this is where that extra 6 or 7 minutes per night that Brown plays over Jake matters. 

 

If Jake actually goes to arbitration it might not be the worst option. I do have concerns over his motivation with a longer term deal. 

 

 

It's about where I thought Brown's cap hit would end up.  He might have received a bit more in arbitration based on the wide range of responsibilities he has, but not sure how many teams have the space to sign him even at this cap hit.

 

In terms of how this affects Jake, I agree that Brown's additional responsibilities would presumably matter a fair deal in arbitration.  Jake's not vastly off Brown's production over the last few years, but Brown has generally been at least in the high 20s in total points (over a full season) so far in his career and he has a 20 goal season.  Jake was on pace for 20 goals last season and while he has improved with 20 and 25 point seasons before last season, his production hasn't been at the level of Brown's.  Jake might still have an argument in arbitration for a number that Canucks management won't like, but I guess we'll have to see whether it gets to arbitration.

[Devron]

1 hour ago, Mackcanuck said:

I don't know much about Conner Brown, but I feel Jake has more potential going into Arbitration and I don't think we can afford to pay him $3.6M per

Brown is a superior player over JV. I would be shocked if he got anything over 3 

[theo5789]

27 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

this is where that extra 6 or 7 minutes per night that Brown plays over Jake matters. 

 

If Jake actually goes to arbitration it might not be the worst option. I do have concerns over his motivation with a longer term deal. 

 

 

Actually it's about 2.5 minutes a night of PK time he plays. So Brown gets a bit more PP time and is in their top 6 for even strength. He's certainly utilized more. Now that could be due to the team, but that could also be why his offensive numbers aren't as good a player on a stronger team offensively like the Canucks. Jake is reported to have off ice issues and possibly fitness issues which could hamper him in arbitration. If I were Jake, I don't know if I would want to sit in the room and get reamed on by my team where my only argument is I was on pace for 20 goals and 40 points. Just take a one year deal to prove yourself once and for all and earn a better pay cheque the next go around. He should see the window of opportunity in the top 6 next year and work his butt off.

[JeremyCuddles]

Just like I said, 3.5 region is fair for Brown. This should hopefully mean we can get Virtanen in the 2-3 range. He's not as proven as Brown.

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, Mackcanuck said:

I don't know much about Conner Brown, but I feel Jake has more potential going into Arbitration and I don't think we can afford to pay him $3.6M per

Virtanen does far less than what Brown brings to the table, who has played etween 18 to 21 mins, plus some PK time as people have said. Therefore Virtanen, I think, will settle before he goes to arbitration because he won't get more than 3. Brown also has a slightly larger body of work with regards to point production.

 

I think it's possible that the Canucks will settle with him, but may flip him after teams know what the salary cap hit is. The Canucks can then use that cap space to sign Fantenberg or someone else.

 

I can also envision Canucks getting a great steal on someone like Duclair who probably has to lower his asking price significantly if he wants to get a contract. Then again, since he's representing himself, he might have trouble getting a contract at all if he isn't reasonable with his asking price. But everyone else, anyone signing will be likely a bargain sign, which will really help the Canucks going forward.

 

I just don't see the Canucks staying with Virtanen if they can get their hands on a nicer UFA. I'm sure the Canucks are well aware of his off-ice issues, if they are in fact still true.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Dazzle

[oldnews]

I think this is close to 'expected' - if anything Ottawa is probably fortunate to get that cap and term - after such an arbitration lowball...

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, Mackcanuck said:

I don't know much about Conner Brown, but I feel Jake has more potential going into Arbitration and I don't think we can afford to pay him $3.6M per

This doesn't help us to ballpark an arbitration settlement because it wasn't determined via arbitration - but Brown had a much stronger case to command that money  (possibly a bit more).

 

Brown had a lot of more solid indicators than Virtanen (flushed out in the 'Brown wants too much' thread...)

 

40.1% offensive zone starts was the lowest of any forward (only Borowiecki had lower).

48.6% corsi -only 4 regular F had better corsi - all of those forwards well over 50% ozone starts.

20 Senators gave up more on ice goals per 60 than Brown.

37 of Brown's 43 points came at even strength....Brown was 12th among Senators, 8th among regulars in pp ice time.

He was their lead forward penalty killer at 2:36 pk ice time/game.

 

I think  Mangiapane is better comparable for a Virtanen contract.

 

[Bad_BOI_pete]

brown, is a better player than virtanen, his point production is higher while playing against stiffer competition.

[J.I.A.H.N]

My bet on Virtanen is 3 years at 2.75 per season

[Dazzle]

15 minutes ago, oldnews said:

This doesn't help us to ballpark an arbitration settlement because it wasn't determined via arbitration - but Brown had a much stronger case to command that money  (possibly a bit more).

 

Brown had a lot of more solid indicators than Virtanen (flushed out in the 'Brown wants too much' thread...)

 

40.1% offensive zone starts was the lowest of any forward (only Borowiecki had lower).

48.6% corsi -only 4 regular F had better corsi - all of those forwards well over 50% ozone starts.

20 Senators gave up more on ice goals per 60 than Brown.

37 of Brown's 43 points came at even strength....Brown was 12th among Senators, 8th among regulars in pp ice time.

He was their lead forward penalty killer at 2:36 pk ice time/game.

 

I think  Mangiapane is better comparable for a Virtanen contract.

 

What about Nichushkin? Similar amount of points, (27 for nichushkin vs 36 for virt). However, I saw that Nichushkin plays the PK and his analytics apparently suggests he is very good defensively.

 

https://jfresh.substack.com/p/how-valeri-nichushkin-became-2020s

 

Virtanen, i think, will have to settle for lower than 2.5. He's definitely not better than Nichushkin.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

11 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

My bet on Virtanen is 3 years at 2.75 per season

I don't think he will get higher than 2.5. Around the league, other players like Brown got 3.6 (settlement), Nichushkin signed for 2.5, both of whom are deployed in more situations than Virt.

 

On the other hand I think the Canucks should keep Virtanen after all.

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Dazzle

[JM_]

1 hour ago, EternalCanuckFan said:

It's about where I thought Brown's cap hit would end up.  He might have received a bit more in arbitration based on the wide range of responsibilities he has, but not sure how many teams have the space to sign him even at this cap hit.

 

In terms of how this affects Jake, I agree that Brown's additional responsibilities would presumably matter a fair deal in arbitration.  Jake's not vastly off Brown's production over the last few years, but Brown has generally been at least in the high 20s in total points (over a full season) so far in his career and he has a 20 goal season.  Jake was on pace for 20 goals last season and while he has improved with 20 and 25 point seasons before last season, his production hasn't been at the level of Brown's.  Jake might still have an argument in arbitration for a number that Canucks management won't like, but I guess we'll have to see whether it gets to arbitration.

this is certainly well above the ceiling Jake should get.

 

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Actually it's about 2.5 minutes a night of PK time he plays. So Brown gets a bit more PP time and is in their top 6 for even strength. He's certainly utilized more. Now that could be due to the team, but that could also be why his offensive numbers aren't as good a player on a stronger team offensively like the Canucks. Jake is reported to have off ice issues and possibly fitness issues which could hamper him in arbitration. If I were Jake, I don't know if I would want to sit in the room and get reamed on by my team where my only argument is I was on pace for 20 goals and 40 points. Just take a one year deal to prove yourself once and for all and earn a better pay cheque the next go around. He should see the window of opportunity in the top 6 next year and work his butt off.

yeah its pretty clear from a deployment pov Jake can't make the same case. 

 

It would be nice if Jake took a 1 year deal but I don't know why he would, unless its a sign and trade to a new place he wants to be. 

[oldnews]

18 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

What about Nichushkin? Similar amount of points, (27 for nichushkin vs 36 for virt). However, I saw that Nichushkin plays the PK and his analytics apparently suggests he is very good defensively.

 

https://jfresh.substack.com/p/how-valeri-nichushkin-became-2020s

 

Virtanen, i think, will have to settle for lower than 2.5. He's definitely not better than Nichushkin.

Good comparable - not sure I'd call him a penalty killer (13th on Colorado with 35 seconds/game) - but a very good young two way player.

Their outcomes are comparable in a lot of ways - as are their game (3rd line type deployment, good production versatility, solid turnover differential, big, physical guys that are mobile and talented...

 

I skimmed the article - it's interesting in that it is a rare case of someone attempting to deal with the faults and limits of typical analytics models...Yes, a solid forecheck is part of playing 'defense' - and forwards play a critical role in team defense...

 

Where I'd depart from that kind of 'read' of the player - is in the assumptions made about the "low quality" of team-mates he played with. 

The typical mentality is that depth defensive players are 'replacement' players - relatively interchangeable - who don't have much 'impact' on the game - and that the truly 'good' players are the 'offensive' ones.   That is a really underdeveloped conception of the game and it reflects strongly in the largely poor pool of 'analytics' that the public consumes.

 

But to the point of Nichushkin's controversial "eliteness"...

 

Calvert scored 25 pts in 50 games...(Nichushkin 27 in 65).

Bellemare had 22 himself.

Both Calvert and Bellemare had lower ozone starts than Nichushkin and comparable underlying/'possession' numbers.

Both Calvert and Bellemare were regular penalty killers (over 2 minutes/game each).

Are those truly "low quality" linemates?  Calvert had 4 shorthanded points....Nichushkin had 1 pp pt - with 1:33/game of pp ice time...

It's really not possible to separate Nichushkin's 'defensive' numbers from his linemates - and if he's "elite" - then they need to be considered to be far better than 'low quality'. 

 

And therein lies the problem with most popular 'analytical' assumptions about these kinds of player.  Guys like Calvert and Bellemare can be highly valuable - because they're not only capable of playing 'shutdown' ie deployed in 'defensively' weighted situations, but they can also provide counterpunch secondary scoring.  Think of it this way = once a line of Calver Bellemare Nichushkin regain possession - are they 'better' offensively than their opponents (who may be considered "high quality" competition) than those opponents are 'defensively'?

Who has the advantage - a line of two way .5ppg players with the puck vs a one way top six line playing defense?   It shows not only the importance of bottom six players that can handle hard minutes, but also that top 6 forwards need to develop their defensive game or they will find themselves giving back all their talent when they don't have possession - because there are some pretty talented 'defensive' forwards around the league that can actually score at a respectable clip despite playing hard minutes - that counterpunch effect can be a real hidden knockout punch when bottom six lines get the better of top 6, or an opponents relatively weaker bottom six....

When guys like Motte and Beagle get 60, 70, or even 80% range defensive zone starts - and, for example, come out of the playoffs with an even 0 (Motte) or +2 (Beagle) = that is incredibly valuable - when your 'bottom 6' have those kinds of goal metrics (not unlike the Avs') - then 'analytics' that corsi gaze alone, or believe these players were getting "buried' 5 on5  - is plain negative value analytics - and ignorant of their real value and impact - particularly when they blind themselves to something as simple as 5 on 5 goal metrics.  These players must be "expected" to give up more goals than they produce 5 on 5 in that kind of deployment - and when that's not the case, it's very valuable to a team....Referring to all these "bottom six" player as if they are "low quality" is plain ignorance - and if you build a team around these misconceptions, it's a failure to really understand the 'defensive'/'offensive' balance of the game - and the generally devalued "defensive" aspects of the game.  Given those persisting devaluations of 'defensive' players - they are, ironically, arguably a team's best opportunity to improve at a lower cost than it does to improve a top 6 (and adding one-way scoring alone to a top 6 does not necessarily improve it)....