Flames stars Sean Monahan and Johnny Gaudreau stick together

[JiriHrdina]

This is one of those threads where I have no idea even what is being argued about any more.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Why is it that teams pay more for players who score more? Seems rather arbitrary to not pay the most valuable players as much . . .

Seems like a premium is put on points because its very hard to score in the NHL, and scoring wins you hockey games.



Again, why do you think it is that teams pay more for players who score more points?

Also, Chicago has done pretty well with Patrick Kane, no?

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Well, kind of, because there are more players available who could potentially replace him than there are guys who could replace Gaudreau.

Gaudreau in the same category as Ovechkin, Malkin, Iginla, and Fleury?

I'll just leave this here:

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

Gaudreau in the same category as Ovechkin, Malkin, Iginla, and Fleury?

I'll just leave this here:

The players that Malkin and Ovechkin are today? Sure. Iginla and Fleury? Yes, though its very close with prime Iggy, different players.

[Frequitude]

What it boils down to is that Gaudreauvertime has high confidence (i.e. low standard deviation) in the extrapolation between two data points, while everyone else would like at least one or two more data points before backing the truck up.

We all can agree on one thing though. We hope Gaudreauovertime is right and we are wrong.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

The players that Malkin and Ovechkin are today? Sure. Iginla and Fleury? Yes, though its very close with prime Iggy, different players.

[jemjey]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Well, kind of, because there are more players available who could potentially replace him than there are guys who could replace Gaudreau.

Well, not really, because if we're just talking about the existence of scoring wingers who we could hypothetically replace Johnny with, it wouldn't be hard to come up with a list as long as your's.

Your argument is that Monahan is replaceable because we could go out and "replace" him with Mcdavid. Wouldn't that make Johnny easily replaced because we could hypothetically replace him with Kane?

I mean, we could "potentially" replace all our players with other teams' rising stars; but it's not going to happen, so why argue the point?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Why is it that teams pay more for players who score more? Seems rather arbitrary to not pay the most valuable players as much . . .

Seems like a premium is put on points because its very hard to score in the NHL, and scoring wins you hockey games....

Because points are easily quantifiable and legitimately arbitrary. It is extremey difficult to quantify the value of individual players relative to his team-mates on a team-to-team basis, and the reason for that is because individual contributions to winning are subtle combinations of hundreds of factors in each and every game played.

Agents can readily make the case that X is a larger number than Y, and while a team may believe that Player X's contribution to winning is not as significant as Player Y's, it is difficult to counter because the numbers just simply do not exist to show it.

To put it another way: if the highest scoring players were always the most valuable, then it would stand to reason that the highest scoring team would win the Stanley Cup every year. That does not happen.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Well, kind of, because there are more players available who could potentially replace him than there are guys who could replace Gaudreau.

You are correct to point out that Gauydreau's offensive contributions are not easily replaced, but players like Monahan will be depended upon to do a lot more than merely produce offense. This is why he is potentially a more important player than Gaudreau, and also a player who is perhaps not as easily replaced.

Even if Gaudreau eventually plays for another team, it is entirely possible for the Flames to equal or improve on their success with him with another, lower scoring winger. A lot of that has to do with how dependable Gaudreau's centre is.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by jemjey

Well, not really, because if we're just talking about the existence of scoring wingers who we could hypothetically replace Johnny with, it wouldn't be hard to come up with a list as long as your's.

Your argument is that Monahan is replaceable because we could go out and "replace" him with Mcdavid. Wouldn't that make Johnny easily replaced because we could hypothetically replace him with Kane?

I mean, we could "potentially" replace all our players with other teams' rising stars; but it's not going to happen, so why argue the point?

My list of players are all U24 players. There aren't any U24 wingers I can think of who could replace Gaudreau for the next decade.

That's not to say Monahan would be easy to replace. But there are more players like Sean Monahan than there are like Gaudreau. So if push came to shove, you could consider moving Monahan for a Scheifele or Draisaitl etc. If you are going to lose Gaudreau you aren't very likely to find a young LW who can replace what he brings.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Because points are easily quantifiable and legitimately arbitrary. It is extremey difficult to quantify the value of individual players relative to his team-mates on a team-to-team basis, and the reason for that is because individual contributions to winning are subtle combinations of hundreds of factors in each and every game played.

Agents can readily make the case that X is a larger number than Y, and while a team may believe that Player X's contribution to winning is not as significant as Player Y's, it is difficult to counter because the numbers just simply do not exist to show it.

To put it another way: if the highest scoring players were always the most valuable, then it would stand to reason that the highest scoring team would win the Stanley Cup every year. That does not happen.

Contracts take 2 sides. Sure, it's easier for agents to make the case that production should mean dollars. But there have to be GMs on the other side of the table agreeing with that valuation approach in order for it to actually become the standard. And it seems they have for the most part, but you still see highly productive 1 dimensional forwards getting less money than a lot of other guys.

Players that produce like Johnny Gaudreau are scarce in today's NHL and their value on the open market reflects that. If Treliving feels like Gaudreau's market value is higher than the value he provides to this team, he should recognize the opportunity to arbitrage and move him to a team who values him more - the bounty on a guy like Johnny would be significant. Like Hall +, Mackinnon +, Marner + Nylander etc.

Edit: Lastly - teams that score the most goals make the playoffs and do win cups very often. The top 8 teams in scoring all made the playoffs.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Contracts take 2 sides. Sure, it's easier for agents to make the case that production should mean dollars. But there have to be GMs on the other side of the table agreeing with that valuation approach in order for it to actually become the standard. And it seems they have for the most part, but you still see highly productive 1 dimensional forwards getting less money than a lot of other guys.

Players that produce like Johnny Gaudreau are scarce in today's NHL and their value on the open market reflects that. If Treliving feels like Gaudreau's market value is higher than the value he provides to this team, he should recognize the opportunity to arbitrage and move him to a team who values him more - the bounty on a guy like Johnny would be significant. Like Hall +, Mackinnon +, Marner + Nylander etc.

Gaudreauvertime

Join date: Aug 2016

Blind love for Johnny.....

Mom? Girlfriend? Agent?

Hmmm........

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

Gaudreauvertime

Join date: Aug 2016

Blind love for Johnny.....

Mom? Girlfriend? Agent?

Hmmm........

Good response. Care to address any of my points?

[Robbob]

I don't know where you are getting the top 8 scoring teams made playoffs.

Boston was 5th, Ottawa as 7th, Flames were 11th. Detroit made the playoffs and they were 23rd. I will agree that the teams that score the most goals in a game, will win the game.

[Robbob]

To add to that. There is a better correlation with playoff teams and goals against then there is for goals for. If you look at the teams ranked 1 to 16 then 4 in the top 16 for scoring missed versus 2 of the top 16 teams in goals against.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Good response. Care to address any of my points?

Nope, but I'll hand you a shovel...

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I don't know where you are getting the top 8 scoring teams made playoffs.

Boston was 5th, Ottawa as 7th, Flames were 11th. Detroit made the playoffs and they were 23rd. I will agree that the teams that score the most goals in a game, will win the game.

Ottawa was 9th, but you're right about Boston, I'm a moron and forgot they missed.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Robbob

To add to that. There is a better correlation with playoff teams and goals against then there is for goals for. If you look at the teams ranked 1 to 16 then 4 in the top 16 for scoring missed versus 2 of the top 16 teams in goals against.

Undoubtedly goal prevention is huge. I subscribe to the logic that one player of a 5 man group cannot have near the impact preventing goals as he can creating goals.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Good response. Care to address any of my points?

At this point, what are you hoping to gain?

Everyone is taking an issue with at least some aspect of every argument you're making. Are you just going to keep arguing it? Because it doesn't seem like you're going to convince anyone at this point of... well... whatever it is you're still trying to convince everyone of.

Johnny is great? Yes.

If that's it, you probably would've saved yourself the novella you've written thus far if you had just said that and that alone, without comparing him to all-time greats, dismissing other players, and insisting on your prediction of contract payout.

I legitimately have no idea what your argument is at this point except being against anything that isn't 100% unconditional praise of Gaudreau.

[TheScorpion]

Let's start a new thread: Johnny Gaudreau is No Good

[jemjey]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

My list of players are all U24 players. There aren't any U24 wingers I can think of who could replace Gaudreau for the next decade.

That's not to say Monahan would be easy to replace. But there are more players like Sean Monahan than there are like Gaudreau. So if push came to shove, you could consider moving Monahan for a Scheifele or Draisaitl etc. If you are going to lose Gaudreau you aren't very likely to find a young LW who can replace what he brings.

Panarin? Tarasenko? Kucherov?

My point is that simply because comparable players exist, doesn't mean you can go out and acquire one as easily as you seem to think it is.

Toews and Kane are making the same money despite Kane scoring more. Should the Blackhawks have let him walk just because they could hypothetically replace him with Tavares or Crosby? I guess your argument just doesn't make much sense to me. Most NHL GMs agree that center is the most important position to build your team around, the position that can usually have the biggest impact on the result of the game. Toews makes what he does because he brings as much or more to the team as Kane does, though in different ways. Your list of comparable young centers was 17 names long in a league of 30 teams. Teams will not part with these players like you seem to think they will.

As much of a Johnny fanboy as I am, he is essentially bringing only one thing to the team (on the ice) - scoring. While you're right, there aren't a lot of U24 wingers with his scoring ability, scoring can come from other positions and often does. It's one of the easier parts of a hockey team to "replace".

Leadership, faceoffs, defense, physicality, IQ - all things we are hoping Monahan continues to grow and excel in - are harder to quantify but also to replace.

I think a lot of CP agrees with you, Johnny is an amazing young player.
I hope he signs an 8-year deal. We just have a problem with building the team around him, not through any fault of his, but because in the larger perspective of building and running a hockey team, it would be unwise.