[Signing] Capitals re-sign Conor Sheary

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, canucklehead44 said:

Pearson and Sheary actually have identical career numbers (.46 points per game) and are two months apart in age. Sheary is having a better season at 11 goals 19 points vs 6 goals 11 points but Pearson is coming off of a better prior year.

 

Last year Pearson put up points but had some of the worst underlying numbers on the team. He was absolutely dreadful defensively - not that he is necessarily bad defensively but certainly not suited for that role. That said I have no issue with Pearson as a player per se and he is fine as a middle 6 forward.
 

For the same term & price id take Pearson. I initially said 2 years x 1.75 million for Pearson a few weeks before he signed which is basically in line with how I would value him vs Sheary at 2 x 1.5. I hope Pearson doesn’t take another step back otherwise he will be a buyout candidate. Very poor asset management by Benning.

Just curious where you got these numbers. I haven't really gotten into advanced stats, but interested. I would like to see how they are in relation to the competition they face. Just seems odd that someone that was used in a dual shutdown type role and a player that was relied upon to defend close games would be "dreadful defensively".

 

As for PPG, Sheary obviously had a good stretch with Crosby. He's been below that career average pretty much every since. Pearson is more up and down, but he's very recently had a 40+ point season. Pearson paid like a middle 6 forward. Sheary is paid like a bottom 6 forward and their minutes on their respective teams reflect that given the roles they play.

 

We didn't lose a valuable member of the team for nothing. Not sure how that's poor asset management. We moved a player we didn't intend on signing in Benn for a pick and as for Sutter, covid may have played a part here. Just cause you personally felt what Pearson was worth doesn't make that the market.

[smithers joe]

thinking outside the box, i feel we have the players to put 3 scoring lines together. we have 3 good centers, an established rw'er with possibly 2 new ones coming in. i'm sure the left side has some adequate players too. my dream line up would have petey, horvat and miller in the middle. boeser, lind and podkolzin on the right and hoglander, pearson and maybe motte on the left. each line has offense, defense and hopefully chemistry. in any game, the line that is going would be the # 1 line. we would have secondary scoring, pk'ers and pp'ers.

bo would help develop lind, JT would bring pods along. 

i know, get back in the box....

[Odjick29willkillyou]

18 hours ago, Josepho said:

Washington gets a better, cheaper player who also has cup pedigree for a way better contract than Pearson.

 

Neat.

By "cup pedigree" do you mean beer pong champion?  

[Ilya Mikheyev]

been watching Sheary a lot this year and he's the type of winger you'd love to have. Drives to the net way bigger than he appears, wins most puck battles, and can produce offense. IMO this contract is a steal

[Westcoastcanucks777]

16 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Depends on if that 15” laptop helps with the culture in my room. Does it work real good with my printer? Can it provide invaluable leadership experience to my young mobile phone? 

What happens if both Sherry and Pearson measure out to be 15" ??!

[JM_]

45 minutes ago, Teemu Selänne said:

been watching Sheary a lot this year and he's the type of winger you'd love to have. Drives to the net way bigger than he appears, wins most puck battles, and can produce offense. IMO this contract is a steal

no, its a reflection on Benning. Get your priorities straight man. 

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

8 minutes ago, Westcoastcanucks777 said:

What happens if both Sherry and Pearson measure out to be 15" ??!

Are you using an alternate definition of “laptop” here?  

[Conscience]

So thats what a competent gm can do

[canucklehead44]

5 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Just curious where you got these numbers. I haven't really gotten into advanced stats, but interested. I would like to see how they are in relation to the competition they face. Just seems odd that someone that was used in a dual shutdown type role and a player that was relied upon to defend close games would be "dreadful defensively".

 

As for PPG, Sheary obviously had a good stretch with Crosby. He's been below that career average pretty much every since. Pearson is more up and down, but he's very recently had a 40+ point season. Pearson paid like a middle 6 forward. Sheary is paid like a bottom 6 forward and their minutes on their respective teams reflect that given the roles they play.

 

We didn't lose a valuable member of the team for nothing. Not sure how that's poor asset management. We moved a player we didn't intend on signing in Benn for a pick and as for Sutter, covid may have played a part here. Just cause you personally felt what Pearson was worth doesn't make that the market.

Evolving Hockey - I used to have a paid subscription but not anymore so I no longer have access so the new charts are a bit crude

"

Goals Above Average & Replacement (Skaters):

• Goals Above Replacement (GAR, WAR, and SPAR) is a metric that attempts to assign a total value to each player, which represents how much that player contributed to their team in a single number. "

The goals above replacement are actual numbers, expected goals against replacement are what the expected results are based on outputs (fenwick, essentially play driving). His actual and expected were both brutal - actually below replacement level with his defensive contribution very much dragging his overall down. QOC is missing, but to my memory he did face difficult competition. So essentially he gets difficult matchups but is failing in the role. 

[theo5789]

11 minutes ago, canucklehead44 said:

Evolving Hockey - I used to have a paid subscription but not anymore so I no longer have access so the new charts are a bit crude

"

Goals Above Average & Replacement (Skaters):

• Goals Above Replacement (GAR, WAR, and SPAR) is a metric that attempts to assign a total value to each player, which represents how much that player contributed to their team in a single number. "

The goals above replacement are actual numbers, expected goals against replacement are what the expected results are based on outputs (fenwick, essentially play driving). His actual and expected were both brutal - actually below replacement level with his defensive contribution very much dragging his overall down. QOC is missing, but to my memory he did face difficult competition. So essentially he gets difficult matchups but is failing in the role. 

How does that compare to someone like Horvat who faced the same competition for the most part or worse cause he had to double shift for faceoff duties at times?

 

And based on that, it looks like his numbers have improved this season despite putting up fewer points and having a better record as a team last season.

[Ilya Mikheyev]

5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

no, its a reflection on Benning. Get your priorities straight man. 

lol true. Sheary wouldn't be playing so hard if uhhh Benning uhh you know

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Teemu Selänne said:

lol true. Sheary wouldn't be playing so hard if uhhh Benning uhh you know

he's a good player, its just weird for people to be so firm in it being a close comp. its not. Maybe if Sheary killed penalties? or was actually wanting to leave Washington? 

[wallstreetamigo]

3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

he's a good player, its just weird for people to be so firm in it being a close comp. its not. Maybe if Sheary killed penalties? or was actually wanting to leave Washington? 

True comparables are almost impossible. But you can't use them on one side of the argument then dismiss them when they support the other side. Either comparables are always garbage or they are always relevent. You can't have that both ways just to support an opinion.

 

What does him wanting to leave Washington have to do with it? Pearson didn't want to leave Vancouver, did he? I haven't seen anything to suggest he did.

Edited April 16, 2021 by wallstreetamigo