[Trade] Habs acquire rights to UFA Joel Edmundson for 5th. UPD: Signed 4 yrs x $3.5 mil

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

yeah there's something up. Neither of those posts has a post number, and when I look in private browsing, both your post and my reply don't show up. But I see them when logged in.
Never seen that before. But I promise you I didn't delete them.
The discussions about anti-racism were hard to moderate. My view was that we should let those posts sit there and the posters who made them should have to own it being part of who they are, in all its ugliness. We did ban a couple people who continued with consistent hate filled posts.

Where the line is - is hard to no. As Jon Oliver says you need to draw it somewhere though.

But I admit I specifically left some stuff up, because I wanted those that wrote them - to have it be a part of who they are. Deleting them would have done them a favor.

I appreciate that response. Thank you.

[Jiri Hrdina]

well wdf that's weird.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I don't see a deleted or edited post anywhere.

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

My previous response the same one I quoted last time. Where I pointed out I've seen borderline racist comments allowed under the guise of "discussion". So I re-posted using a more socially acceptable pointing out the double standard.

edit: Maybe there was just a weird hiccup where the post never posted, I will give the benefit of the doubt to you and the moderation team in this case.

I think this may have been my fault. I'm on my phone, which doesn't work well when attempting to moderate.

Apologies to all.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[KootenayFlamesFan]

That's it, infraction for Text coming up.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by bax

Well as my original post indicated, Scorp made a very good argument as to why Edmundson is somebody you shouldn't be spending draft capital on and I agreed with it.

I saw that a poster claimed he was a top 4 dman on a cup winning team, but that was later proved to be false.

My point is that there has been evidence presented as to why this isn't a great move and none presented as to why it is. Do you have something? I'm game for any and all view points.

Well no, nothing was proven. Some stats were presented as an argument against him being a top 4. But any conclusions from those stats are highly debatable and far from definitive.

Personally, I don't have any strong opinions or viewpoints on Edmundson, which is why I haven't presented any. But I have strong views on peoples' overuse of hockey stats, which is why I presented them.

[Crown Royal]

Back on topic.

I think Edmundson is a serviceable 4-5 defenseman, He's not an advanced stats darling by any means but he plays the game the way coaches love defensive defensemen to play by using his body and getting in shooting lanes. Getting that for a 5th round pick, assuming he signs, could be a pretty good deal for the Habs who are weak on the left side.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Well no, nothing was proven. Some stats were presented as an argument against him being a top 4. But any conclusions from those stats are highly debatable and far from definitive.

Personally, I don't have any strong opinions or viewpoints on Edmundson, which is why I haven't presented any. But I have strong views on peoples' overuse of hockey stats, which is why I presented them.

All good,

I thought I read a post that said once Dunn came back from injury he fell down the depth chart and was even healthy scratched.

I won’t pretend to be an expert on the player by any means.

[Enoch Root]

I don't disagree with that assessment, but I am surprised that someone of his caliber (a 4-6 d-man, depending on your view) warranting a 5th round pick just for his talking rights, concerns me regarding Hall.

[TheScorpion]

I can see the rationale for making the deal. Chiarot is a similar guy who exceeded expectations and they're looking for some additional toughness, which is hard to quantify. I can certainly see merit in giving Edmundson a low-commitment deal and a sheltered role where he's used primarily on the PK (which is the one spot where he appeared to be at least okay in Carolina).

But the Habs have been burned before with guys like Karl Alzner who were touted as defensive specimens before the wheels fell off. Edmundson is a little bit younger but I don't think he's ever been as good as Alzner was at his peak with the Caps.

Btw I am not of the mind that analytics "prove" anything. They are a topic for discussion and they help to inform opinions. But what really matters ultimately is winning, no matter how you get there. That's how you prove anything. Edmundson has won, and there's no disputing that he's been there and knows what it takes. That has value. I'm just saying that I don't think the odds are in his favour to do it again, that's all.

Ultimately I still stand by my assessment of his on-ice impact as pretty poor. But guys have good and bad years and everyone has a unique trajectory. All we can do as observers is try to make sense of things.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by bax

All good,

I thought I read a post that said once Dunn came back from injury he fell down the depth chart and was even healthy scratched.

I won’t pretend to be an expert on the player by any means.

Interesting, hadn't heard that.

Also, out of thanks but would have thanked your post.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think this may have been my fault. I'm on my phone, which doesn't work well when attempting to moderate.

Apologies to all.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

I had a hunch it was you.

[Poe969]

Edmondson reminds me a lot of Alzner...just not as good. Great deal for the canes.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't disagree with that assessment, but I am surprised that someone of his caliber (a 4-6 d-man, depending on your view) warranting a 5th round pick just for his talking rights, concerns me regarding Hall.

This is likely due to the elimination of the free agent courting period. I think we start seeing more 3rd-5th round picks dealt for UFA rights, but not higher because of conditions based on signing being disallowed.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by timbit

I had a hunch it was you.

So did I.

[AC]

Originally Posted by bax

I thought I read a post that said once Dunn came back from injury he fell down the depth chart and was even healthy scratched.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Interesting, hadn't heard that.

That was mine:

Originally Posted by AC

To be fair, Edmundson was used as a #5 by the Blues in the playoffs, eventually down to a #6/7 in the Finals.

Against Boston, average icetimes for the defence:
Parayko: 26.95 minutes
Pietrangelo: 26.29 minutes
Bouwmeester: 24.76 minutes
Gunnarsson: 15.30 minutes
Dunn: 13.16 minutes
Edmundson: 12.55 minutes
Bortuzzo: 10.32 minutes

Against Boston when Dunn was able to play, Edmundson played 7 and 9 minutes of icetime, and was also scratched for games 5 and 6.

I don't know enough about his play or the advanced stats in general, just pointed out that he was generally used as a #5 by the Blues, falling to a #6 and eventually a #7 in the Finals when Dunn was healthy enough to play.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So did I.

Was just having fun.

[1Nite]

This makes no sense, why would the need him when they have all star Kulak.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Quality Dman. That will shore up the Habs left side D if they get him signed.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Well, no one made that argument, so I guess you're good.

The above is what I was referring to. Aside from the instant train wreck that a thread about a...uhhh... bottom pairing defenceman became, I just found it funny that was the only positive argument towards Edmundson.

All this trust your gut talk is great, but whether Edmundson was a statistical nightmare or an eye-test daring, he’s still a replacement level player who isn’t even worth a 5th round pick. I think the Habs wasted one.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

This is the problem with looking only at advanced stats metrics for stay at home defensemen. It doesn't give you the full picture. This is why I have no respect for opinions of people who only look advanced stats

haha this thread is like the Brouwer signing all over again.

Stats don't show everything, but when the player is so objectively bad, off the charts bad, it's a sign that something isn't right.

[Poster]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I knew that your rebuttal (and original statement) would be entirely based on stats.

Not just “stats”. Fake stats!

All those made up #’s have actually no interpretive value to determine the quality of a professional ice hockey athlete.