Bozak's Future

[mr grieves]

1. Avoid the last nightmare scenario by letting Bozak walk.
2. Play Grabbo like you pay Grabbo. Buy him out next summer if he doesn't rebound.
3. Use 1/3 to 2/3rds of Bozak's asking price to sign Boyd Gordon to play on the shutdown line.
4. Hope Kadri's game matures so he needn't play the most sheltered of minutes. 
5. Play Colburne as the sheltered top-nine center.

Well, and give me some latitude on this, but isn't that needlessly risky? If we can assume that Bozak would re-sign for 4 years/20 million and either no or a limited NTC then what's the upside in letting him walk? All you're doing is losing an asset.

If, however, you keep Bozak you have an insurance policy in case Grabo doesn't rebound or Kadri can't take another step towards well-roundedness and he can be traded if the best possible scenario plays out where Grabo rebounds, Kadri steps up and Colborne looks ready. The only downside there is if somehow between now and when that all sorted itself out Bozak became untradeable but A) that's fairly unlikely and B) even if it did happen you could use a compliance buy-out on him.

Letting Bozak walk for nothing seems like a waste of an opportunity with no real gain.

I don't think Bozak would be much of an asset with a 4 year $20m contract. But he might be useful as an expensive insurance policy, you're right... Still, if the past does anything to predict the future, I'd say Grabovski returned to a scoring role wouldn't need the likes of Tyler Bozak as an insurance policy.

Here are Grabovski's 3 years leading up to his contact, and the one after:
2009/10 -- 2.1 S/GP @ 7.9% = 10G (59 GP, broke his wrist)
2010/11 -- 3.0 S/GP @ 12% = 29G (81GP) vs.
2011/12 -- 2.2 S/GP @ 14% = 23G (74GP)
2012/13 -- 1.7 S/GP @ 11.3% = 9G (48 GP, so 16G pace, if he sustains that below-average SH%)

Let's say letting Bozak go clears the way for Grabovski to return to an offensive role. If he shoots his offensive-role average of 2.4 shots/game and manages his career shooting percentage (12.4%), he's back up at 25 goals. If he's declined to, say, 11.3%, he's still well over 20. And, briefly, consider assists: 25A, 29A, 28A in each season leading up to the contract, without finishers of Kessel's calibre on his wing.

Here are Bozak's numbers for the three years leading up to his contract.
2010/11 -- 1.5 S/GP @ 12.5% = 15G (82GP)
2011/12 -- 1.5 S/GP @ 16.5% = 18G (73GP)
2012/13 -- 1.3 S/GP @ 19.7% = 12G (46GP, so 21G pace, and only if he sustains a career-high SH%).

I'm guessing, if Bozak's re-signed, he'll play where all that chemistry the team'd be paying for is (top-line scoring role). So let's say he averages his 1.4 S/GP, and shoots a full point above his career average (which is 15.5%). He'd still be under 20 goals on the season. And, cos I gave you Grabbo's, here are Bozak's assists: 17A, 29A, and 16A (in 46GP, so say 29A) the last 3 seasons.

So? as an insurance policy, Bozak for $20M looks awfully expensive? but, hey, that's the market. So, more than that, he looks like a really risky insurance policy. He'd need to not only reproduce a career year with a career-high shooting percentage but improve on it to come close to replacing what Grabovski's pretty consistently produced when in an offensive role.

So, it seems to me like a relatively healthy 30-something getting a nasty chest cold and buying some really pricey health care plan, anticipating he's got cancer? and doing so on the American individual health-care market, where that policy won't even cover the terrible thing that he probably doesn't have.

 

[Kin]

I don't think Bozak would be much of an asset with a 4 year $20m contract.

That's leaning on the high side, though, of what I think he'll get. Regardless, if we agree that the market reflects that he's worth about that much then you'd have to concede, I think, that unless Bozak almost entirely collapses as a player to start next season that if he's worth that much in July with a declining cap he's likely to still be worth that plus at least a nominal asset in return a few months later when the cap is likely to rise.

Here are Grabovski's 3 years leading up to his contact, and the one after:
2009/10 -- 2.1 S/GP @ 7.9% = 10G (59 GP)
2010/11 -- 3.0 S/GP @ 12% = 29G (81GP) vs.
2011/12 -- 2.2 S/GP @ 14% = 23G (74GP)
2012/13 -- 1.7 S/GP @ 11.3% = 9G (48 GP, so 16G pace, if he sustains that below-average SH%)

Let's say letting Bozak go clears the way for Grabovski to return to an offensive role. If he shoots his offensive-role average of 2.4 shots/game and manages his career shooting percentage (12.4%), he's back up at 25 goals. If he's declined to, say, 11.3%, he's still well over 20. And, briefly, consider assists: 25A, 29A, 28A in each season leading up to the contract, without finishers of Kessel's calibre on his wing.

A couple things. One, I think it's a bit if an exaggeration to say that Grabovski wasn't used in an offensive role this season. He started only 8% fewer of his face-offs in the offensive zone than Bozak did which seems small enough to be less a matter of his role and more likely to fall within the boundaries of random variance/a reflection of his inability to score this year. He got legitimate opportunities on the PP, with 1:42 per game of PP ice time, and got opportunities all season to play with Kulemin and MacArthur(and Kadri/Lupul at times on the second PP unit) who were the two wingers he played with when he was far more productive. Grabo's year reads to me less a result of any decision Carlyle made with regard to his use and more just a picture of a guy having an off year.

Two, you say "without finishers of Kessel's calibre on his wing" as if it were the unfair hand he was dealt as opposed to the natural reaction of the coaching staff to the fact that when the two were paired together, as you seem to envision for next year, they weren't very good. Both players are at their most effective with the puck on their stick and neither are guys who play particularly well away from it. We've seen the Grabo-Phil show over the year and even in years where both guys were productive they didn't work well together.

Third, none of that is an argument for why the Leafs would be better off without Bozak as opposed to with him.

Here are Bozak's numbers for the three years leading up to his contract.
2010/11 -- 1.5 S/GP @ 12.5% = 15G (82GP)
2011/12 -- 1.5 S/GP @ 16.5% = 18G (73GP)
2012/13 -- 1.3 S/GP @ 19.7% = 12G (46GP, so 21G pace, and only if he sustains a career-high SH%).

At a glance I think those numbers sort of speak to what role Bozak really has on the club. Both the high shooting percentages and low shots are indicative of the fact that because Kessel has grown so much as a playmaker any line he's on is better with him having the puck. That makes his ideal linemates guys who can contribute in ways besides setting people up. Bozak, as we see up there, has been pretty effective at converting the relatively few shots he takes over the last couple of years(his 2011-2012 pace would be good for 20 goals over a 82 game stretch) and his 2010-2011 season, again, was his first full season in the NHL.

I'm guessing, if Bozak's re-signed, he'll play where all that chemistry the team'd be paying for is (top-line scoring role). So let's say he averages his 1.4 S/GP, and shoots a full point above his career average (which is 15.5%). He'd still be under 20 goals on the season. And, cos I gave you Grabbo's, here are Bozak's assists: 17A, 29A, and 16A (in 46GP, so say 29A) the last 3 seasons.

Ok but being as I'm presenting this as Grabo and Bozak instead of Grabo vs. Bozak the fact that Grabo has been a more productive offensive player over the years is, again, not an argument against keeping Bozak. 

So? as an insurance policy, Bozak for $20M looks like awfully expensive? but, hey, that's the market. So, more than that, he looks like a really risky insurance policy. He'd need to not only reproduce a career year with a career-high shooting percentage but improve on it to come close to replacing what Grabovski's pretty consistently produced when in an offensive role.

Well, there's no need for me to re-iterate that this isn't a case of Grabo vs. Bozak so I'll just say that because of the compliance buyouts if what you say does come to pass then the Leafs can use a buyout on Bozak and, poof, the risk is gone.  If the worst case scenario here is buying Bozak out then I'd say that it's actually pretty low-risk.

So, it seems to me like a relatively healthy 30-something getting a nasty chest cold and buying some really pricey health care plan, anticipating he's got cancer? and doing so on the American individual health-care market, where that policy won't even cover the terrible thing that he probably doesn't have.

Well, if I can play with the analogy a bit I think there are two somewhat significant oversights in your analysis. The first, and probably the most straight forward, is that you seem awfully hung up on cost when it seems to me to be a non-issue. Our hypothetical 30 year old isn't paying for the policy but, rather, his wealthy parents Jim Bell and Nancy Rogers are. And, sure, while they're limited in the amount of money they can spend on their son in order to say that the policy is a terrible idea you'd first have to present a pressing need for that money elsewhere. I don't think that need exists or, at the very least, it doesn't exist with the sort of urgency that would make getting the policy now a bad idea considering there's a no fault, no penalty cancellation of the policy available a year from now if it turns out he's cancer-free.

Secondly, and this comes back to where the analogy shines and my real point, insurance policies have value even if you don't get sick. If everything turns out hunky-dory next year you can trade Bozak and get something in return. That's his value as an asset.

Again, there really doesn't seem to be any risk here. This is opposed to your plan that basically is hope that Grabo just had an off-year and hope that Kadri is ready for the next level and hope that Boyd Gordon wants to sign here and hope that Colborne is ready for a significant role on the team next year(and hope that nobody cares about winning any face-offs).

I appreciate the optimism there but if signing Bozak lessens some of that risk, both by being a credible top 9 player and because of what he means to the PK, and there isn't a plan B that requires that money elsewhere then not signing Bozak really just seems like spite.

 

[Kin]

Maple Leafs Hot Stove has their Bozak review up:

http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2013/05/29/2012-13-player-review-tyler-bozak/

Garbage.  There's way better and fairer analysis on here.

What's unfair about it?

Well, it presents a lot of numbers almost entirely devoid of any context. For instance, it makes a big deal about how many of Bozak's points involved Kessel in some manner without talking about whether or not it's a high number compared to any other centre who plays a big chunk of his time with one of the league's most productive wingers. 75%, they say, of Bozak's points came with Kessel also getting his name on the score sheet. Is that more or less than Kane-Toews? Or the Sedins? I'm sure those numbers are available somewhere but if you're going to base the majority of your post on that fact and then not account for proper context it comes off as agenda-driven rather than information-driven.

Secondly, I think everyone would agree that people who would make the case for Bozak as a player would probably do so on the fact that he's a good two-way player but his contributions in his own end are dismissed entirely with "...he?s not overly strong defensively..." with nothing in the way of supporting evidence or argument.

Third, this bit:

His utilization on the penalty kill is misleading as he primarily plays high on the point (more of a winger role) and is often off the ice as soon as the puck as been cleared following the faceoff.

1. Does a winger's role on the PK not have value?
2. A lot of players change after the first clear. Bozak played legitimate minutes on the PK and played them well. Even if the author thinks he didn't play well on the PK he should at least say so.
3. The use of the word utilization bothers me. Use means the exact same thing, people. 

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Maple Leafs Hot Stove has their Bozak review up:

http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2013/05/29/2012-13-player-review-tyler-bozak/

Garbage.  There's way better and fairer analysis on here.

What's unfair about it?

The statistical part is without fault and should be enough to convince most to walk away from the type of commitment Bozak reportedly wants.

I can understand people taking slight issue with some of the opinion parts of the article though, even though I mostly agree.

 

[mr grieves]

Here are Grabovski's 3 years leading up to his contact, and the one after:
2009/10 -- 2.1 S/GP @ 7.9% = 10G (59 GP)
2010/11 -- 3.0 S/GP @ 12% = 29G (81GP) vs.
2011/12 -- 2.2 S/GP @ 14% = 23G (74GP)
2012/13 -- 1.7 S/GP @ 11.3% = 9G (48 GP, so 16G pace, if he sustains that below-average SH%)

Let's say letting Bozak go clears the way for Grabovski to return to an offensive role. If he shoots his offensive-role average of 2.4 shots/game and manages his career shooting percentage (12.4%), he's back up at 25 goals. If he's declined to, say, 11.3%, he's still well over 20. And, briefly, consider assists: 25A, 29A, 28A in each season leading up to the contract, without finishers of Kessel's calibre on his wing.

[SNIPPED -- because I'll concede the point that Grabbo didn't have a good year. Point, with respect to paying for insurance, remains: it was a bad year in which, for some reason, he was taking fewer shots than before, among several good ones]

Third, none of that is an argument for why the Leafs would be better off without Bozak as opposed to with him.

Right. That comes later.

Here are Bozak's numbers for the three years leading up to his contract.
2010/11 -- 1.5 S/GP @ 12.5% = 15G (82GP)
2011/12 -- 1.5 S/GP @ 16.5% = 18G (73GP)
2012/13 -- 1.3 S/GP @ 19.7% = 12G (46GP, so 21G pace, and only if he sustains a career-high SH%).

At a glance I think those numbers sort of speak to what role Bozak really has on the club. Both the high shooting percentages and low shots are indicative of the fact that because Kessel has grown so much as a playmaker any line he's on is better with him having the puck. That makes his ideal linemates guys who can contribute in ways besides setting people up. Bozak, as we see up there, has been pretty effective at converting the relatively few shots he takes over the last couple of years(his 2011-2012 pace would be good for 20 goals over a 82 game stretch) and his 2010-2011 season, again, was his first full season in the NHL.

Some points:
1.) I think that 19.7% is his ceiling; it's unlikely to be repeated.
2.) I like Grabovski, but if, in 2009/10, he'd converted something an additional 3% of shots over his max -- so, 20% -- of his shots in his 3rd season, I wouldn't have paid him like a 35 goal scorer.
3.) I used 2009/10 because that was Grabbo's 3rd season playing in the NHL. There are very few players who, after 3 NHL seasons, a GM should sign to a $5m/yr contract. They're usually drafted high in the first round.
4.) On Bozak's role with the team: he is so reliant on Kessel to produce at all offensively that I worry what would happen if Kessel's ever injured.

I'm guessing, if Bozak's re-signed, he'll play where all that chemistry the team'd be paying for is (top-line scoring role). So let's say he averages his 1.4 S/GP, and shoots a full point above his career average (which is 15.5%). He'd still be under 20 goals on the season. And, cos I gave you Grabbo's, here are Bozak's assists: 17A, 29A, and 16A (in 46GP, so say 29A) the last 3 seasons.

Ok but being as I'm presenting this as Grabo and Bozak instead of Grabo vs. Bozak the fact that Grabo has been a more productive offensive player over the years is, again, not an argument against keeping Bozak. 

If Bozak wants 5 years, it will become a matter of Bozak vs. Grabovski, if Kadri's to get his next contract. In the case that everyone's playing great, then there is, as you say, no problem -- someone gets traded. If Grabovski plays more like he's typically played and Bozak plays more like he's typically played, which seems more likely, there's one unmovable contract there. So maybe Nonis does buy that contract out or buries his mistake in the minors. Maybe he clears the cap space by moving the better player on the better contract. I'd just rather he not make the mistake to begin with.

So, it seems to me like a relatively healthy 30-something getting a nasty chest cold and buying some really pricey health care plan, anticipating he's got cancer? and doing so on the American individual health-care market, where that policy won't even cover the terrible thing that he probably doesn't have.

Well, if I can play with the analogy a bit I think there are two somewhat significant oversights in your analysis. The first, and probably the most straight forward, is that you seem awfully hung up on cost when it seems to me to be a non-issue. Our hypothetical 30 year old isn't paying for the policy but, rather, his wealthy parents Jim Bell and Nancy Rogers are. And, sure, while they're limited in the amount of money they can spend on their son in order to say that the policy is a terrible idea you'd first have to present a pressing need for that money elsewhere. I don't think that need exists or, at the very least, it doesn't exist with the sort of urgency that would make getting the policy now a bad idea considering there's a no fault, no penalty cancellation of the policy available a year from now if it turns out he's cancer-free.

Kudos on the more thoroughly TMLed analogy.

It's cheating to rewrite analogies, so I won't. But, if I could, I'd say our boy Dave's parents mightn't be willing to let him throw their money away -- or Davey's too proud to admit his foolishness -- so he turns off the heat (trade Grabbo..) or doesn't pay his credit card bills (... trade Kadri..?)... or whatever.

Fine. Point taken: it's not my money.

Secondly, and this comes back to where the analogy shines and my real point, insurance policies have value even if you don't get sick. If everything turns out hunky-dory next year you can trade Bozak and get something in return. That's his value as an asset.

And though I started with it, I'll repeat it: he'll have little value as a trade asset at $5m/yr. But a low pick and a smaller salary dump coming the other way is something, sure.

Again, there really doesn't seem to be any risk here. This is opposed to your plan that basically is hope that Grabo just had an off-year and hope that Kadri is ready for the next level and hope that Boyd Gordon wants to sign here and hope that Colborne is ready for a significant role on the team next year(and hope that nobody cares about winning any face-offs).

I appreciate the optimism there but if signing Bozak lessens some of that risk, both by being a credible top 9 player and because of what he means to the PK, and there isn't a plan B that requires that money elsewhere then not signing Bozak really just seems like spite.

The Plan B also included signing Boyd Gordon but another credible bottom-six faceoff & PK specialist would do.

And spite? Well, I don't like that Carlyle thinks, though he doesn't about any other players (maybe Fraser-Franson), that the Kessel-Bozak duo is bottled magic and not to be screwed with.

But I mostly have an abject fear of the team repeating the errors of the mid-2000s by overcommitting to players who take up roster spots and cap space better spent elsewhere. To me, that'd be another top-4 defenseman and a proper shutdown center.

 

[mr grieves]

Maple Leafs Hot Stove has their Bozak review up:

http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2013/05/29/2012-13-player-review-tyler-bozak/

Garbage.  There's way better and fairer analysis on here.

What's unfair about it?

Well, it presents a lot of numbers almost entirely devoid of any context. For instance, it makes a big deal about how many of Bozak's points involved Kessel in some manner without talking about whether or not it's a high number compared to any other centre who plays a big chunk of his time with one of the league's most productive wingers. 75%, they say, of Bozak's points came with Kessel also getting his name on the score sheet. Is that more or less than Kane-Toews? Or the Sedins? I'm sure those numbers are available somewhere but if you're going to base the majority of your post on that fact and then not account for proper context it comes off as agenda-driven rather than information-driven.

Well, there this one: http://theleafsnation.com/2013/5/21/nozak-the-chemistry-chronicles

 

[Kin]

[SNIPPED -- because I'll concede the point that Grabbo didn't have a good year. Point, with respect to paying for insurance, remains: it was a bad year in which, for some reason, he was taking fewer shots than before, among several good ones]

It's not a mystery why he took less shots. If you're struggling to advance the play, as Grabo was, and you're struggling with accuracy, as Grabo was, you're going to have fewer shots on net. Shots aren't the be all and end all but they are something of a reflection of the overall strength of a player's offensive game.

Some points:
1.) I think that 19.7% is his ceiling; it's unlikely to be repeated.
2.) I like Grabovski, but if, in 2009/10, he'd converted something an additional 3% of shots over his max -- so, 20% -- of his shots in his 3rd season, I wouldn't have paid him like a 35 goal scorer.
3.) I used 2009/10 because that was Grabbo's 3rd season playing in the NHL. There are very few players who, after 3 NHL seasons, a GM should sign to a $5m/yr contract. They're usually drafted high in the first round.
4.) On Bozak's role with the team: he is so reliant on Kessel to produce at all offensively that I worry what would happen if Kessel's ever injured.

1) I don't necessarily know if I agree but given that his 2011-2012 numbers are actually better despite the lower shooting percentage I'm not overly hung up on his ability to duplicate this year.
2) Sure but that would have been a significant improvement on what he'd proven capable of. Given that Bozak was on a 20 goal pace in 2011-2012 and a 21 goal pace this year I don't know how applicable that is.
3) Again, money is only relevant to me in this instance in the sense that if Bozak re-signs he'll get close to market value and that he doesn't get so much that he can't be dealt at a later date. Beyond that, I don't care.
4) If Kessel is injured for a significant length of time this team will have more problems than just Bozak's role.

And though I started with it, I'll repeat it: he'll have little value as a trade asset at $5m/yr. But a low pick and a smaller salary dump coming the other way is something, sure.

I think you'd agree though that this is where it becomes conjecture on both of our parts. And while, obviously, opinions can vary I have a little bit of trouble, and I mentioned this a post ago, with you seemingly being simultaneously of the opinion that Bozak's worth on the open market would be in the neighbourhood of 5 million dollars yet being more or less impossible to trade at that cost. I mean, either he's worth it in the eyes of the league or he's not, it can't be both.

The Plan B also included signing Boyd Gordon but another credible bottom-six faceoff & PK specialist would do.

I mentioned Gordon. I'm a little confused as to what role you think he'd play on a team where Grabo, Kadri, Colborne and McClement are around but it doesn't matter. 

And spite? Well, I don't like that Carlyle thinks, though he doesn't about any other players (maybe Fraser-Franson), that the Kessel-Bozak duo is bottled magic and not to be screwed with.

I don't think he does. I just think that he believes it's the best of a group of so-so options based on the various deficiencies with Kadri's game and Grabo's track record of not really fitting in as Kessel's centre. That said, we've kicked that can around elsewhere. 

But I mostly have an abject fear of the team repeating the errors of the mid-2000s by overcommitting to players who take up roster spots and cap space better spent elsewhere. To me, that'd be another top-4 defenseman and a proper shutdown center.

Obviously, I think we can all agree that giving 5 million dollars a year to Bozak wouldn't be anyone's ideal use of that kind of money. That said where I keep coming back to on the issue is that the Leafs aren't in a position where they need to make that choice. I really think that you're underestimating just how good the Leafs cap position is right now. As it stands they have 19.5 million dollars to spend. If they buy out Komisarek, that'd put them up to 24 million. That would mean they could sign these players to this AAV:

Bozak - 5
Kadri - 4
Komarov - 2
McLaren - 1
Orr - 1
Colborne - 1.5
Gunnarsson - 4
Franson - 4

And still be under the cap. And those numbers are ridiculous. The reality is that the Leafs could probably sign everyone on that list and still have 6 or 7 million to play around with in the hopes of adding that top 4 defenseman/PK specialist. The Leafs don't need to choose between Bozak and that pursuit.

Now, yes, it would not be smart to spend all that money right away when the Leafs have a lot of important players to sign next offseason but A) the remaining compliance buyout could still be used on whoever was most deserving B) most of those contracts can still be traded, including Bozak and C) the cap is almost certainly going to go up after next year, maybe substantially D) I think Liles is the odd man out right now anyway and clears up a good chunk of space on his own.

Simply put, there just isn't a need to cut Bozak loose now and I don't even think there would be next year. There could be some downside if Bozak becomes untradeable and Grabovski needs to be bought out but being as I don't think the former will happen and you don't think the latter will that strikes me as a remote possibility and not one that the Leafs should gameplan around at the expense of next year.

 

[mr grieves]

[SNIPPED -- because I'll concede the point that Grabbo didn't have a good year. Point, with respect to paying for insurance, remains: it was a bad year in which, for some reason, he was taking fewer shots than before, among several good ones]

It's not a mystery why he took less shots. If you're struggling to advance the play, as Grabo was, and you're struggling with accuracy, as Grabo was, you're going to have fewer shots on net. Shots aren't the be all and end all but they are something of a reflection of the overall strength of a player's offensive game.

I've conceded that he didn't have a good season, and pointed out that his 'good seasons' are distinguished by a certain number of shots (since he converts at a pretty steady clip). Though I think good players having good years find a way no matter their role, I do think the above overstates the degree to which it's unrelated to Grabovski's role on the team this year. And you seem to be having it both ways to say Bozak's 1.5 sh/game average isn't his perpetual inability to take a pass or relative absence of creativity save for Kessel putting the puck on his stick, but "fitting into his role," while Grabbo's is just a guy fighting the puck all year long.

We can disagree about how Grabovski ended up on a checking line and whether his declined production was mostly cause or mostly effect of that, but I don't see the point in pretending he was not, in fact, on a checking line at all, that the zone starts are statistically meaningless, and the reason he couldn't advance the play was entirely his bad year and not on the role he played for much of the season. I mean, to get those shots he needed to "push the play" an extra 110 feet 30% more of the time than last year. This year, he was 168th among centers in the league in offensive zone starts. That's a checking line center.

And though I started with it, I'll repeat it: he'll have little value as a trade asset at $5m/yr. But a low pick and a smaller salary dump coming the other way is something, sure.

I think you'd agree though that this is where it becomes conjecture on both of our parts. And while, obviously, opinions can vary I have a little bit of trouble, and I mentioned this a post ago, with you seemingly being simultaneously of the opinion that Bozak's worth on the open market would be in the neighbourhood of 5 million dollars yet being more or less impossible to trade at that cost. I mean, either he's worth it in the eyes of the league or he's not, it can't be both.

Of course it can be both. We must have different understandings of what "worth" means in early July. Getting a $5m UFA contract doesn't require the "eyes of the league" to determine a player worth one. It only takes one bad GM (Jay Feaster still has a job, no?). To move such a contract takes another one. To move it for anything of value takes several. If the UFA market accurately measured the worth of players no one would ever be buried in the minors or bought out.

The Plan B also included signing Boyd Gordon but another credible bottom-six faceoff & PK specialist would do.

I mentioned Gordon. I'm a little confused as to what role you think he'd play on a team where Grabo, Kadri, Colborne and McClement are around but it doesn't matter.

Centers McClement and Komarov, pushes the thugs down the depth chart so you can roll four lines, moves up to replace Colburne when a more defensively minded 3rd line is desired... I think he's fleeter of foot than McClement, so might be a better FO specialist who takes draws and swaps out. If the Leafs biggest problems down the stretch and for the first Bruins game were controlling play, managing the puck, and wearing the other team down with bottom-six zone time, then Gordon would be useful to have.   

And spite? Well, I don't like that Carlyle thinks, though he doesn't about any other players (maybe Fraser-Franson), that the Kessel-Bozak duo is bottled magic and not to be screwed with.

I don't think he does. I just think that he believes it's the best of a group of so-so options based on the various deficiencies with Kadri's game and Grabo's track record of not really fitting in as Kessel's centre. That said, we've kicked that can around elsewhere. 

But what record is this? How many minutes have they actually played together? I don't recall more than a stretch of 3 games a year or so back.

But I mostly have an abject fear of the team repeating the errors of the mid-2000s by overcommitting to players who take up roster spots and cap space better spent elsewhere. To me, that'd be another top-4 defenseman and a proper shutdown center.

Obviously, I think we can all agree that giving 5 million dollars a year to Bozak wouldn't be anyone's ideal use of that kind of money. That said where I keep coming back to on the issue is that the Leafs aren't in a position where they need to make that choice. I really think that you're underestimating just how good the Leafs cap position is right now. As it stands they have 19.5 million dollars to spend. If they buy out Komisarek, that'd put them up to 24 million. That would mean they could sign these players to this AAV:

Bozak - 5
Kadri - 4
Komarov - 2
McLaren - 1
Orr - 1
Colborne - 1.5
Gunnarsson - 4
Franson - 4

And still be under the cap. And those numbers are ridiculous. The reality is that the Leafs could probably sign everyone on that list and still have 6 or 7 million to play around with in the hopes of adding that top 4 defenseman/PK specialist. The Leafs don't need to choose between Bozak and that pursuit.

Well, that is an obscene amount of cap space. And, unless there are plans to use it to take on bad contracts to acquire players like Franson, a competitive roster for next year -- and one that won't cripple the team in the future -- can be built with it... so why not?

I guess the only hesitations re: the insurance policy are these:
1. You've said I'm underestimating the cost of a player that tops out at 20Gs/50PTs a year. If such a player is now worth Patrice Bergeron's salary, then I wonder whether 6 or 7 million is enough for a shutdown center and a veteran top-4 Dman.
2. How many bad contracts do you see on the teams in the conference finals? One each, maybe. We've already got a few (including, it seems right now, Grabovski's). Teams with several tend not to be the perpetual contenders that the final four are. Why sign another?
3. Paying Tyler Bozak like he's Patrice Bergeron is just... wrong.

 

[princedpw]

Here are a couple of other recent articles containing some stats that suggest Bozak is a weak player both offensively and defensively. Many articles conclude he is a third line center at best though thy wonder if he could be used in that role because he is so poor defensively.

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2013/04/16/tyler-bozak-by-the-numbers/

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2013/03/11/tyler-bozak-comparables/

http://theleafsnation.com/2013/5/17/why-tyler-bozak-should-have-played-his-last-game-as-a-leaf

http://theleafsnation.com/2012/10/29/does-tyler-bozak-carry-some-trade-value

One reason some have concluded Bozak is poor defensively is that he is one of the very worst in the league when it comes to shots against. Eg, article 1 states that his Fenwick against (ie # of shots against, roughly speaking) per 20 minutes rank is 319 out of 324 qualifying forwards (ie with enough minutes played) over the last 3 years.  He was 309 out of 310 last year.  A good reason to look at shots totals is that they are one of the best predictors of future play, which is what we are interested in.  So, he may win a fair percentage of faceoffs but that doesn't  helped him enough when it comes to the broader goal of defending.  I bet being with Lupul and Kessel doesn't help -- they are also both terrible defensively (which is why I'd prefer they were on different lines).  So I still don't have a precise grip on Bozak's defensive play though I haven't seen a lot of reasons to believe it is any good.

Other point made repeatedly in these articles, and also if you look at with you/without you stats like these:

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=580&withagainst=true&season=2009-12&sit=5v5&type=corsi

is that Kessel does not play better with Bozak than without him.  I'm not sure where the idea that Kessel plays poorly with Grabbo comes from ... the sample size is too small, but the stats above would seem to suggest that Kessel plays significantly better with Grabbo than with Bozak. 

The reason I'd avoid Bozak at too high a price is to maintain cap flexibility so that we can take advantage of opportunities that arise -- opportunities like the Phaneuf or Franson deals (or like the Blues did with Bouwmeester this year).  I guess I'm so pessimistic that the Leafs can do damage in the playoffs with such a weak defense and weak set of centers that I fear a rich Bozak contract preventing us from adding a top-end guy is a bigger risk than underachieving without him (we won't achieve that much even if we have him,....).

I'm also a little skeptical that, for instance, a $5 million Bozak could be traded for anything at all -- I think it would be somewhat similar to trying to trade a Komisarek though not as bad as trying to trade a Redden or a Gomez (and I say that knowing that Gomez was actually traded ... I just can't bring myself to count on GMs continuing to be so stupid).  I guess that is just what I think of his value, having read so many of these negative analytical articles.

Last, I worry that MSLE wouldn't actually pony up the cash to buy him out if he tanks next year.  A 10-15 million buyout is a lot of cash ... It would not be fun for the board to pony up that money.

 

[Kin]

I've conceded that he didn't have a good season, and pointed out that his 'good seasons' are distinguished by a certain number of shots (since he converts at a pretty steady clip). Though I think good players having good years find a way no matter their role, I do think the above overstates the degree to which it's unrelated to Grabovski's role on the team this year. And you seem to be having it both ways to say Bozak's 1.5 sh/game average isn't his perpetual inability to take a pass or relative absence of creativity save for Kessel putting the puck on his stick, but "fitting into his role," while Grabbo's is just a guy fighting the puck all year long.

Well, I could say the exact same for you for Bozak vs. Grabo but I think the real point there is context. If a player's shot total drops massively from his usual I think it's fair to say that there's been a drop-off in his play. If a player's shot total remains constant I think there's more evidence that it's just a function of who he is and how he plays.

We can disagree about how Grabovski ended up on a checking line and whether his declined production was mostly cause or mostly effect of that, but I don't see the point in pretending he was not, in fact, on a checking line at all, that the zone starts are statistically meaningless, and the reason he couldn't advance the play was entirely his bad year and not on the role he played for much of the season. I mean, to get those shots he needed to "push the play" an extra 110 feet 30% more of the time than last year. This year, he was 168th among centers in the league in offensive zone starts. That's a checking line center.

I disagree. I think a just as valid explanation for a relatively low number of offensive zone face-offs is that a coach's natural inclination to give offensive zone face-offs to a line he thinks is going to make something out of them which is going to turn him away from a struggling line. A struggling offensive line doesn't simply become a checking line by default, it involves specific tasks and assignments.

And I think you're massively overstating the importance of the offensive zone statistic. Grabovski last year took 638 face-offs. Kulemin took another 20. MacArthur took 6. It's probably low but lets round up and say that Grabo was on the ice for 675 face-offs. With an offensive zone face-off percentage of 36.7 that would mean that he was on the ice for 248 offensive zone faceoffs. If he were up at glued-at-the-hip to the first line Bozak's level of 44.8 he'd have been on the ice for 302 offensive zone faceoffs or a difference of 1.13 offensive zone face-offs per game.

So, no, I don't think one face-off per game is going to have a massive impact on a player's statistics or determine whether his line is meant to be scoring or shadowing.

Of course it can be both. We must have different understandings of what "worth" means in early July. Getting a $5m UFA contract doesn't require the "eyes of the league" to determine a player worth one. It only takes one bad GM (Jay Feaster still has a job, no?). To move such a contract takes another one. To move it for anything of value takes several. If the UFA market accurately measured the worth of players no one would ever be buried in the minors or bought out.

I don't think that is really a reflection of how contracts get negotiated in the NHL. There are clearly GMs who make bad decisions but I don't think it's too often that a GM is so clueless as to the perceived value of a player around the league that they're willing to make an offer, in a AAV sense, that's much, much bigger than what a player could get elsewhere. They may give more term, and they may give a million or so more, but these guys aren't pulling numbers out of a hat. The negotiation process relies on more than "I want X" and "We want to give you Y". Agents and GMs talk about what other offers a player is getting and they use that as the basis of negotiations. There are a lot of GMs who have failed at their jobs but that doesn't mean they're doing it with their eyes closed.  Even still, I don't think Nonis is that kind of GM so I'm not worried about Stajan getting a contract from the Leafs that bears no reflection of what his actual market value is.

And while a player's value can certainly drop over time to the point that you can't move them at their current price what you're talking about is one player's value dropping at such a pace that I genuinely think that there hasn't been a case of it in the NHL.

So, no, it really can't be both.

Centers McClement and Komarov, pushes the thugs down the depth chart so you can roll four lines, moves up to replace Colburne when a more defensively minded 3rd line is desired... I think he's fleeter of foot than McClement, so might be a better FO specialist who takes draws and swaps out. If the Leafs biggest problems down the stretch and for the first Bruins game were controlling play, managing the puck, and wearing the other team down with bottom-six zone time, then Gordon would be useful to have.

That strikes me as fairly unlikely given Carlyle's propensity towards having fighters in the line-up and is a lot to invest in a 4th line even if they're getting 12 minutes per night or so but either way I have no problem with the idea of Gordon being brought on.   

But what record is this? How many minutes have they actually played together? I don't recall more than a stretch of 3 games a year or so back.

They tried it off and on during both of Kessel's first two years here. Still, you don't need to watch something not work for 20 games to see it doesn't work. Both guys are better with the puck on their stick, neither guy is a traditional finisher. I don't like the phrase "it's just common sense" so I'll just say that we've seen it, it don't work, it's why other options are considered. Trust me, you're not the first one to think of putting the team's most productive centre with their most productive winger.

I guess the only hesitations re: the insurance policy are these:
1. You've said I'm underestimating the cost of a player that tops out at 20Gs/50PTs a year. If such a player is now worth Patrice Bergeron's salary, then I wonder whether 6 or 7 million is enough for a shutdown center and a veteran top-4 Dman.
2. How many bad contracts do you see on the teams in the conference finals? One each, maybe. We've already got a few (including, it seems right now, Grabovski's). Teams with several tend not to be the perpetual contenders that the final four are. Why sign another?
3. Paying Tyler Bozak like he's Patrice Bergeron is just... wrong.

1. That's a fair point but it's misleading to look at one good value contract and hold it up as the payscale for the whole league. Vince Lecavalier is getting more than Steven Stamkos, PK Subban might win the Norris and is making less than JM Liles, James Reimer is getting a third of what Vancouver's back-up, whoever that is this week, is getting. Salaries shift.

2. I think "why sign another(bad contract)?" is a fairly loaded question given that it's pretty clear that you and I disagree as to the extent that this deal would be a bad contract. Again, my perspective is that if you sign Bozak at the market rate he's an insurance policy against some of your fingers crossed tactics not paying off and can be dealt or, if worst comes to worst, bought out. The why, there, is pretty self-explanatory.

3. If it helps, don't think of it as the Leafs paying Tyler Bozak like he's Patrice Bergeron. For one, it's more like they're paying him like he's Tim Connolly and for another the Bruins aren't even paying Patrice Bergeron like he's Patrice Bergeron.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Here are a couple of other recent articles containing some stats that suggest Bozak is a weak player both offensively and defensively. Many articles conclude he is a third line center at best though thy wonder if he could be used in that role because he is so poor defensively.

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2013/04/16/tyler-bozak-by-the-numbers/

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2013/03/11/tyler-bozak-comparables/

http://theleafsnation.com/2013/5/17/why-tyler-bozak-should-have-played-his-last-game-as-a-leaf

http://theleafsnation.com/2012/10/29/does-tyler-bozak-carry-some-trade-value

One reason some have concluded Bozak is poor defensively is that he is one of the very worst in the league when it comes to shots against. Eg, article 1 states that his Fenwick against (ie # of shots against, roughly speaking) per 20 minutes rank is 319 out of 324 qualifying forwards (ie with enough minutes played) over the last 3 years.  He was 309 out of 310 last year.  A good reason to look at shots totals is that they are one of the best predictors of future play, which is what we are interested in.  So, he may win a fair percentage of faceoffs but that doesn't  helped him enough when it comes to the broader goal of defending.  I bet being with Lupul and Kessel doesn't help -- they are also both terrible defensively (which is why I'd prefer they were on different lines).  So I still don't have a precise grip on Bozak's defensive play though I haven't seen a lot of reasons to believe it is any good.

Other point made repeatedly in these articles, and also if you look at with you/without you stats like these:

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=580&withagainst=true&season=2009-12&sit=5v5&type=corsi

is that Kessel does not play better with Bozak than without him.  I'm not sure where the idea that Kessel plays poorly with Grabbo comes from ... the sample size is too small, but the stats above would seem to suggest that Kessel plays significantly better with Grabbo than with Bozak. 

The reason I'd avoid Bozak at too high a price is to maintain cap flexibility so that we can take advantage of opportunities that arise -- opportunities like the Phaneuf or Franson deals (or like the Blues did with Bouwmeester this year).  I guess I'm so pessimistic that the Leafs can do damage in the playoffs with such a weak defense and weak set of centers that I fear a rich Bozak contract preventing us from adding a top-end guy is a bigger risk than underachieving without him (we won't achieve that much even if we have him,....).

I'm also a little skeptical that, for instance, a $5 million Bozak could be traded for anything at all -- I think it would be somewhat similar to trying to trade a Komisarek though not as bad as trying to trade a Redden or a Gomez (and I say that knowing that Gomez was actually traded ... I just can't bring myself to count on GMs continuing to be so stupid).  I guess that is just what I think of his value, having read so many of these negative analytical articles.

Last, I worry that MSLE wouldn't actually pony up the cash to buy him out if he tanks next year.  A 10-15 million buyout is a lot of cash ... It would not be fun for the board to pony up that money.

A good overview of the risks of signing him.

 

[mr grieves]

Here are a couple of other recent articles containing some stats that suggest Bozak is a weak player both offensively and defensively. Many articles conclude he is a third line center at best though thy wonder if he could be used in that role because he is so poor defensively.

[...]

The reason I'd avoid Bozak at too high a price is to maintain cap flexibility so that we can take advantage of opportunities that arise -- opportunities like the Phaneuf or Franson deals (or like the Blues did with Bouwmeester this year).  I guess I'm so pessimistic that the Leafs can do damage in the playoffs with such a weak defense and weak set of centers that I fear a rich Bozak contract preventing us from adding a top-end guy is a bigger risk than underachieving without him (we won't achieve that much even if we have him,....).

I'm also a little skeptical that, for instance, a $5 million Bozak could be traded for anything at all -- I think it would be somewhat similar to trying to trade a Komisarek though not as bad as trying to trade a Redden or a Gomez (and I say that knowing that Gomez was actually traded ... I just can't bring myself to count on GMs continuing to be so stupid).  I guess that is just what I think of his value, having read so many of these negative analytical articles.

Last, I worry that MSLE wouldn't actually pony up the cash to buy him out if he tanks next year.  A 10-15 million buyout is a lot of cash ... It would not be fun for the board to pony up that money.

A good overview of the risks of signing him.

That sounds about right to me.

Looking at the team's lines as used in the last year, the 1C is a the spot that screams out for an upgrade. And, at a more basic level than any of the points you make, which are specific to this particular context (cap space, etc.), this is the moment -- well, ideally earlier, at the trade deadline -- when you don't commit to players who aren't suited to their roles. Locking in Bozak for a number of years might give the team a bit of insurance next year -- if Kadri's development doesn't quite continue apace, etc. -- but, over the longer run, I think it's more hinderance than help.

I do hope the team's management is spending less time figuring out how to keep Bozak around than they are trying use all that cap space and some of that vaunted back-end depth to bring in, say, Stastny. 

 

 

[caver]

To build on that post Mr G, to my thinking I don't really care if they let Bozak walk or get rid of Grabovski, but they need to keep one of them as the 2-3 center. Neither one is good enough to be the number 1 guy on a contender but either one of them works fine on the second or third line. Kadri is going to be a Leaf center and so is McClement, which leaves only the number 1 slot. It's going to be tough for Nonis to acquire a legitimate number 1 guy but that's why he gets the big bucks.

 

[mr grieves]

To build on that post Mr G, to my thinking I don't really care if they let Bozak walk or get rid of Grabovski, but they need to keep one of them as the 2-3 center. Neither one is good enough to be the number 1 guy on a contender but either one of them works fine on the second or third line. Kadri is going to be a Leaf center and so is McClement, which leaves only the number 1 slot. It's going to be tough for Nonis to acquire a legitimate number 1 guy but that's why he gets the big bucks.

On the other hand, Boston doesn't have a complete, PPG #1C in either Bergeron or Krejci, but they make do without one. And, with the Leafs strength on the wings, I think they would too. One hopes that Kadri and Grabbo can be reliably in the 60 point range, but Nik's right that that might be hoping for a bit too much. I'm pretty sure there's even less reason to hope Bozak's there.

 

[Kin]

On the other hand, Boston doesn't have a complete, PPG #1C in either Bergeron or Krejci, but they make do without one.

I think Bergeron is a player at that level, he's just not being used like it by Boston. Last few years he's been at a 64 points per 82 games pace and that's with playing less ice time than most #1's and taking a big chunk of PK time. If Boston played Bergeron 20-21 minutes a night including 3+ on the PP I'm guessing he'd be at 75-80 points or so.

 

[pnjunction]

Kadri is going to be a Leaf center and so is McClement, which leaves only the number 1 slot. It's going to be tough for Nonis to acquire a legitimate number 1 guy but that's why he gets the big bucks.

You're putting McClement as the #3?  I kind of liked him in the #4 spot so he can rack up all the minutes on the PK.  Also he doesn't really have any offensive spark so we'd be missing the depth production we got from the 3rd line with Kadri last year.

 

[mr grieves]

On the other hand, Boston doesn't have a complete, PPG #1C in either Bergeron or Krejci, but they make do without one.

I think Bergeron is a player at that level, he's just not being used like it by Boston. Last few years he's been at a 64 points per 82 games pace and that's with playing less ice time than most #1's and taking a big chunk of PK time. If Boston played Bergeron 20-21 minutes a night including 3+ on the PP I'm guessing he'd be at 75-80 points or so.

He only has 1 second less PP TOI/game than Krecji. And I don't know whether 3-4 more shifts per game would lead to another 15-20 points. But, more to the point, no one's being used like it by Boston. The team has depth enough to roll 4 lines, which keeps Bergeron's TOI (and everyone else's) below what one would expect of a heavily-relied-upon #1C. So perhaps they aren't a great model for Toronto.

 

[caver]

Kadri is going to be a Leaf center and so is McClement, which leaves only the number 1 slot. It's going to be tough for Nonis to acquire a legitimate number 1 guy but that's why he gets the big bucks.

You're putting McClement as the #3?  I kind of liked him in the #4 spot so he can rack up all the minutes on the PK.  Also he doesn't really have any offensive spark so we'd be missing the depth production we got from the 3rd line with Kadri last year.

No. I like McClement at 4. I had Kadri and (one of Grabo or Bozak) as 2-3 and a new star  center at 1. Wishful thinking !

 

[sneakyray]

don't forget colborne is going to get a shot with the big club next year

 

[Kin]

He only has 1 second less PP TOI/game than Krecji.

I'm really more comparing him to #1's around the league in that regard than to anyone on his own team.

But, more to the point, no one's being used like it by Boston. The team has depth enough to roll 4 lines, which keeps Bergeron's TOI (and everyone else's) below what one would expect of a heavily-relied-upon #1C. So perhaps they aren't a great model for Toronto.

That's sort of what I'm getting at. When we say "Boston doesn't have a #1" I think what we really mean is that they don't lean on their first line the way teams with less depth might.