Matt Stajan Is a First-Line Centre

by The '67 Sound on Dec 15, 2009 8:54 AM EST

I suppose I've been feeling some guilt about so readily proposing to jettison Matt Stajan in my salary cap post. I also have been somewhat disheartened by how readily others have dismissed Stajan's successes this year. So let's just take a minute to appreciate what a strong season Matt Stajan is having thus far.

Let's start with some stats. Matt Stajan is currently 26th in the NHL among NHL centres in points and 11th in goals, even though he's only 44th in ice time. Moreover, he's been producing at roughly a point per game pace since being teamed up with Kessel, which would project him for around the fringes of the top ten. "Aha!", I hear you cry already, "he's nothing without Kessel!" Two points in reply. First, remember Stajan actually ranks higher as a scorer than distributor thus far among centremen. Kessel is a sniper, not a playmaker, and I don't think Stajan's goal scoring success thus far can be entirely attributed to Kessel's play. Second, name me a player outpacing Stajan that doesn't play with a tier one winger? That's the thing about first line centres--they usually have the benefit of playing with first line wingers.

Let's all pause here to think wistfully about what Mats Sundin could have done with a Phil Kessel on his wing.

OK, we're back. The numbers suggest that so far this year, not only is Matt Stajan an oh-so-elusive "Top 6 forward", not only would he make a damn fine second line centre, he's actually a perfectly respectable, middle of the pack first line centre. If he were getting the minutes that other top line centres get and had played with Kessel all year, he clearly projects to the top 15. Is he a game-breaker? No. Is he a top-line centre on a Cup winner? In all likelihood, no. But he is a damn good NHL player.

So here's the other reason to appreciate him. He's one of the best values in the NHL. We always complain about the guys who are overpaid and say "I'd love him at half the salary". Well, Stajan is making $1.725MM. That's not even in the top 50 of NHL centres. Matt Stajan has as many points, and more goals, than Vinny Lecavalier ($10MM!!!). He has more points than Scott Gomez ($8MM), Jason Spezza ($8MM), Mike Richards ($5.6MM), and Jeff Carter ($5MM). He has almost three times as many points as Chris Drury ($8MM!!!).* He has more points than a commonly discussed potential UFA target, Olli Jokinen ($5.5MM). In fact, I may be wrong but if you include bonuses in entry-level contracts, I think the only NHL centre with more points and less salary than Stajan is Rich Peverley.

*Allow me a Posnanski-esque footnote here. Good lord are there some horrible contracts in the NHL! We complain about Jason Blake but he's a bargain next to some of these stiffs.

I hear some people say Stajan is "pillow soft", "not dominant" and the rest. Look, we've been spoiled by having sure-fire Hall-of-Famer Mats Sundin. Stajan is not Sundin and never will be. But he's a tenacious forechecker for his size and this year I've been seeing a pretty consistent effort level from him. He's defensively responsible. He's a Toronto-area boy, and a home-grown draft choice. What's not to love? We all drool over Bozak but he's less than two years younger than Stajan and hasn't exactly lit up the AHL yet. I'm still doubtful I'd be willing to pay what it'll take to keep Stajan next year (based on these numbers, the bidding should start around $4MM), but I do know that I'm damn glad to have him on my team this year.

PensionPlanPuppets.com is a fan community that allows members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Toronto Maple Leafs and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editor of PensionPlanPuppets.com.

Tweet Comment 62 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

There’s a dearth of acceptable alternatives out there.

The only real players who represent a clear-cut upgrade over Stajan are Marleau and Jokinen, who are 4 and 5 years older, will want a long-term deal, and will require a signfiicant cap space commitment.

The hope is that in the medium term (3-5 years from now) Kadri will have developed into the first line centre we’ve been waiting for. Given what we know about the current free agent landscape, the prudent option might be to keep Stajan for say 3 years, hope he keeps overachieving with Kessel on his wing, and groom Kadri for the role.

Resident Capologist

by clrkaitken on Dec 15, 2009 9:29 AM EST reply actions

I tend to agree. In fact, given their relative ages I’m not even sure Jokinen’s an upgrade—the guy’s playing with Iginla and is producing like Grabovski? He has no heart. The success rate of high profile UFA signings is so low I’d stay away.

I still worry about whether we can afford to resign Stajan given all the cap space tied up on our D. I think people expect we can lock him up for $2.5MM over 3 or something like that, but there’s no way that’s happening.

I actually wouldn’t mind giving Stajan a longer term (maybe 5 years) if it gave us a discount on the cap figure, and then plan to replace Grabbo at the end of his contract in 2 years with Kadri. I like Grabbo but I prefer Stajan.

by The '67 Sound on Dec 15, 2009 9:51 AM EST up reply actions

Seriously

Jokinen must be a huge disappointment for Calgary fans

Stajan – 1.75M, 11G, 15A playing part-to-full time with Kessel (who missed many games)

Jokinen – 5.25M, 7G, 15A playing almost full-time with Iginla

Leafs Nation: A drinking team with a hockey problem.

by nhlcheapshot on Dec 15, 2009 4:19 PM EST up reply actions

Stajan reminds me a little of a Brendan Morrison-type – someone who could be OK on the top line so long as you have great wingers, but not a “real” first-line centre in the Sundin mold.

Leaf, the universe and everything.

by 1967ers on Dec 15, 2009 9:56 AM EST reply actions

this is my thought, too.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Dec 15, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions

That’s I think how we should all see him. It’s the sum of the parts on the team, not the individuals. He’s never going to be a superstar, but how is it bad if he’s scoring 25 goals and popping in 45 assists and we make the playoffs. Not all stars are awesome straight away, some need seasoning to get there. Let him hit his prime.

Brain: The irony of it all, Pinky. Years of trying to take over the world, and all I had to do was say "truculence".
Follow me I'm Boring!

by blindfolded tank driver on Dec 15, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions

That's not a bad comparison

And Morrison got $3.3MM/yr five years ago, coming off a 60 pt season at age 30.

by The '67 Sound on Dec 15, 2009 10:03 AM EST reply actions

I was thinking about this; sure being 26th makes you “top 30” but if your top line is full of players who are 26th in the league than your team will probably be 26th in the league: crappy.

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Dec 15, 2009 10:24 AM EST reply actions

Agreed; but he wouldn’t be 26th if he had played all year with Kessel and if he got top 30 ice time.

I think a convincing case can be made that Stajan is one of the top 20 centres in the NHL. Is that good enough to compete for a Cup? Probably not. But he’s getting paid 3rd line money and a lot of people argue that he’s not even a worthwhile 2nd line centre. And that’s just nonsense.

by The '67 Sound on Dec 15, 2009 10:31 AM EST up reply actions

Stajan is what he is, a good stop gap until the Leafs have a legit number one center.
I don’t like him there, but as long as he is producing I can live with it, at least until the Leafs get a Marleau through a trade or Kadri is ready, whatever

Puns, Innuendo and Bad Spelling, Yes We Got That

by JaredFromLondon on Dec 15, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions

re: Stajan as a 2nd line center

The thing for me would be to look at teams that are contending, and see who their second line centers are, and how they stack.

The Pens are the top of the league, but their centers go Crosby, Malkin, Staal. Matt Stajan is no Evgeni Malkin. Quite frankly, he’s no Staal either. Of course, they play in different on-ice scenarios, so I’m not sure a comparison could be made there.

Rounding out the top teams in the league are the Devils, Kings, Capitals, Blackhawks, Sabres, Avalanche, Sharks, Predators and Canucks. Who are their second line centers? Does Stajan stack up to them? Not just in a pure “stats” argument, but in all the “behind the net” analytics (QUALCOMP, QUALTEAM, etc.)

I’d be curious to see where he sits compared to someone like Joe Pavelski on the Sharks, Brendan Morrison of the Caps or even Jarrett Stoll of the Kings. These guys are their teams respective second line centers. I won’t try to compare him against any of the top teams first line centers, because if you think Stajan is as good as Thornton, Toews, Stastny, Kopitar etc., then more power to you. I don’t see it…

I’d do the digging myself, but I’m at work (and lazy…)

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Dec 15, 2009 10:54 AM EST up reply actions

I’m not suggesting he matches up with the #1 Cs on the contenders you’ve listed. In fact, the title of the post was a deliberate provocation. But I would bet he fares quite well against #2 Cs. I’ll have to leave the advanced analytics to the experts.

The Pens comparison, I think you’d agree, is not quite fair. The list of teams in my lifetime that can match that 1-2 punch goes like this:

Gretzky/Messier Oilers
Sakic/Forsberg Avalanche
The end

by The '67 Sound on Dec 15, 2009 11:15 AM EST up reply actions

exactly

i’d exclude the Pens from any center comparison as well.

I hope my comment doesn’t come across as negative, as I’m really curious to see how it shakes down. I’m still a bigger proponent of trading Stajan, as I don’t see him fitting the mold for the top 6 players, nor the bottom 6, that Burke has been quite vocal about.

That’s not to say he can’t do the job, but that for the GM’s vision of the team, I have a tough time reconciling Stajan as a key piece.

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Dec 15, 2009 11:20 AM EST up reply actions

Where we disagree is I think Stajan is absolutely a legitimate 2nd line centre; I’m just not sure he’ll be worth the price tag he’s earning for himself next year.

We should all be cheering for our guys with long term contracts (especially Blake!) to dominate the scoresheets to keep down the price tags on our FAs and drive up trade values.

by The '67 Sound on Dec 15, 2009 11:24 AM EST up reply actions

fix that for you

We should all be cheering for our guys ~~with long term contracts~~.

PLAYOFFS!!!!1

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Dec 15, 2009 11:26 AM EST up reply actions

I'm working on this

Expect it late today or early tomorrow.

Unable to actually speak French since 1980.

by Pamplemousse on Dec 15, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions

We can also consider that because of Kessel, Matty Stajan is forced to play the best defensive lines each game.

Thus, in borrowing the words of eyebeleaf:

I believe in Matty Stajan.

by Clawson on Dec 15, 2009 11:10 AM EST reply actions

The Leafs should trade Stajan for a premium at the trade deadline. His value will never be higher.

Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...

by mf37 on Dec 15, 2009 12:51 PM EST reply actions

first rounders for stajan and white!
Package em with a prospect for a lotto pick
insanity!

Puns, Innuendo and Bad Spelling, Yes We Got That

by JaredFromLondon on Dec 15, 2009 12:54 PM EST up reply actions

See this is the flip side

if he’s a legit top 6er (which I guess I believe), that also means he’s WORTH legit top 6 trade value to other teams. And if he hits the door this season, we have the potential to ship out a very reasonably priced top 6 guy (for a while anyway) who we may not want to afford to sign next year… could be our best option in terms of increasing total team value.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Dec 15, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions

The problem with Stajan being a so-called top 6 forward is that he’ll need to be paid as such. I see him making $3.5M to $4M/year on his next deal. I think the Leafs can spend those dollars more efficiently elsewhere.

Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...

by mf37 on Dec 15, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions

this I agree with… despite my hatred for Stajan that is completely inexplicable, I don’t want to tie up $4 mill for any length of time in him. If it is just a one or two year deal, I could live with it, but I don’t see that happening, so we should trade him.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Dec 15, 2009 4:51 PM EST up reply actions

I imagine Burke has this idea ready to go for the deadline.

Brain: The irony of it all, Pinky. Years of trying to take over the world, and all I had to do was say "truculence".
Follow me I'm Boring!

by blindfolded tank driver on Dec 15, 2009 1:01 PM EST up reply actions

It will be tough to swallow if we’re battling for a playoff spot but I can’t argue with the logic if the right deal comes along.

by The '67 Sound on Dec 15, 2009 1:04 PM EST up reply actions

Just curious

Say Burke doesn’t get a “premium” offer for Stajan, and he stays past the deadline. What do you do then?

Resident Capologist

by clrkaitken on Dec 15, 2009 1:24 PM EST up reply actions

Resign him on the cheap if possible. Slot him in to a role based on whom else Burke can get.

Brain: The irony of it all, Pinky. Years of trying to take over the world, and all I had to do was say "truculence".
Follow me I'm Boring!

by blindfolded tank driver on Dec 15, 2009 1:46 PM EST up reply actions

I set a price based not on the market but on a rational analysis of his value to the team, includign impact on the cap. I foresee that price being somewhere between $3-4MM but I leave that to Burke. I don’t pay him one cent more than that price.

by The '67 Sound on Dec 15, 2009 1:53 PM EST up reply actions

Here's a question for you:

Do we need all of:

Kaberle
White
Gunnarson?

Kaberle’s trade value is obviously the highest, but impossible to move until the off-season, and even then only if we don’t make the playoffs. White has a lot of value because I believe he’s an RFA, and has improved by leaps and bounds. I’m not a big fan of moving him, but given what I saw of Gunnarson, I’m not sure we need all three.

So does it makes sense, then, to move White, get a pick (1st?) and give Gunnarson the roster spot?

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Dec 15, 2009 1:04 PM EST reply actions

Ive said it a few times, but if a over payment is offered for white at the deadline he is gone. If not, and an over payment is offered for kabby in the offseason, he is gone.
I would be very surprised to see both back next year

Puns, Innuendo and Bad Spelling, Yes We Got That

by JaredFromLondon on Dec 15, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions

agreed

There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E"

by Matt_Roberts on Dec 15, 2009 1:11 PM EST up reply actions

Given the Leafs history with much-vaunted young defencement of the future (remember when Stralman was the next Lidstrom? When Schenn was the next captain?) I think it’s way too early to make any plans based on a few NHL games of Gunarsson.

Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...

by mf37 on Dec 15, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions

agreed

immensely.

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Dec 15, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions

While I largely agree, eventually you have to think of what having Kaberle, Komi, Beach, a resigned White, Finger, + Schenn is costing. Maybe it makes sense to part with White and go with the cheaper Gunnsarsson? Especially if someone is willing to overpay for him at the deadline….

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Dec 15, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions

or

maybe it makes sense to trade the older Kaberle and keep White and Gunnarsson.?

FWIW, Gunnarsson and Schenn’s entry level deals both run out the same year Kaberle’s does. If White can be signed for cheaper than Kaberle (and I’m fairly certain he can) then some of that money can go to the raises Schenn and Gunnarsson will be seeking.

Then, in 2011 the Leafs D will have a 27 year old Ian White, a 25 year old Carl Gunnarsson and a 22 year old Luke Schenn playing alongside 31 year old vet Beauchemin and a 29 year old Komisarek. Assuming he’s still around, Jeff Finger at 32 rounds out your top 6.

Meanwhile, Kaberle will be 33 and possibly entering the downward turn of his career, while the 3 youngest Leafs d-men will be entering or in their prime.

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Dec 15, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions

Jeff Finger is 32? I could have sworn he was under 30…
also, im sorry but Kaberle just does so much with the puck that no one else even comes close to, id rather have Kaberle for another 3-4 years than Ian White. I guess its the money that will decide this

There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E"

by Matt_Roberts on Dec 15, 2009 1:36 PM EST up reply actions

he WILL be 32, he’s 30 now

Puns, Innuendo and Bad Spelling, Yes We Got That

by JaredFromLondon on Dec 15, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions

It is the money

We can’t have 6 D making $2MM+ (Komi, Beauch, Kaberle, Finger, Schenn and soon-to-be White). It’s just foolish cap management, especially when Gunnarsson (and eventually, Mikus) looking capable of at least playing bottom pair minutes for under a million. Out of those 6, White or Kaberle has to be gone. Who goes, I think, should depend on who gives us best value for one of them.

by The '67 Sound on Dec 15, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions

why not?

Who cares what each guy makes? Are they performing up to the contract? Are they worth it? Can the team win and remain competitive for a long stretch of time, meaning, are they young enough to be useful through out the length of their contract?

Just for giggles, let’s say White get’s paid $2.5M, Schenn and Gunnarsson get $2.5M. That’s $7.5M tied up, plus Komisarek’s $4.5M, Beauchemin’s $3.8M and Finger’s $3.5 M equals $19.3M. That’s an avg of just over $3.2M per player ($3.21M if you’re curious).

Boston is currently averaging $3.14M per player on their blueline, Vancouver, in front of all-star, future Olympian goalie Roberto Luongo is averaging $3.31M per player.

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Dec 15, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions

It's not the average, it's the distribution

The reason Boston could pay the same as us for D but have a much better D-corps is that a huge chunk of that is Chara. My theory (and I think Burke’s) is with a given amount of money it’s better to have a star and a replacement-level player than two middling players. To put names to faces, for $8 million I’d rather have Chara and Johnny Boychuk than Komisarek & Finger.

By paying all your guys $2.5-4.5MM, you pretty much rule out having a stud #1. I know there’s no one like that available right now but you always want the flexibilty there, particularly with all the cap-strapped teams out there. Look at how many times Pronger’s been traded.

by The '67 Sound on Dec 15, 2009 2:00 PM EST up reply actions

the Leafs don’t have one now. Very few teams actually do have a “stud #1” d-man.

Pronger in Philly, Chara in Boston, Niedermeyer in Anaheim, Calgary with potentially 3 “#1” dmen in Phaneuf, Regher and Bouwmeester. Detroit has Lidstrom. Can you call Souray a stud #1? If so, then I guess he’s another. Maybe Markov in Montreal, but I don’t know that I’d include him in that class.

As far as the “stud #1” defender goes. Schenn will only be 22. People forget this. Komisarek is being paid as a top d-man right now. He’s starting to play like one as well. The Leafs won’t be the only team without an all-world defenceman. The guys you’re talking about just aren’t that common…

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Dec 15, 2009 2:09 PM EST up reply actions

Burke told McClown (at McClown’s house) that he sees his defense corps as made up of numbers

You should have a 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 – each number assigned as the quality of defenseman.

But, you can’t always have a 1, or maybe you have a 1 but no 2….

as long as your 6 guys add up to 21 or hopefully less, you will have a solid defense corps.

I don’t think they expected Schenn to regress so much, but I also don’t think they expected White to continue to step up OR Gunnarsson to excel(until he blew out his elbow.)

Right now I would say that we have a 1(Kaberle) two 2’s(Komasarek, Beauchemin) one 3(White)
Finger is hard to classify because he is playing like a 4 but is being used like a 6 – so let’s make him a 5. Also let’s make Schenn a 5 right now(last year I would have put him in the 4 spot) and a 7 (Exelby)

Gunnarsson is injured, but I think I would put him somewhere in the 3-4 range by the way he was playing, but I won’t include him in the total.

It is also unlikely we will be re-signing XLB… so let’s take him out of the equation.

So, for our current top 6, it would be Kaberle, Komi, Beuchemin, White, Finger and Schenn..total that up and you get 18.

You can move some numbers around, but I still don’t think we go over the 21. Note: this is rated by how they are playing recently… if you average out their play from the first game of the season, you would get to or go over that 21 mark.

I don’t know what point I’m trying to prove here other than no one is really irreplaceable – you just need the right mix.

"If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut."

Albert Einstein

by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Dec 15, 2009 7:26 PM EST up reply actions

Correction

They were at Burke’s house – for a BBQ

"If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut."

Albert Einstein

by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Dec 15, 2009 8:15 PM EST up reply actions

Link – in case anyone is interested in reading this in more detail.

leaf fan stuck in ottawa, a localized black hole that will suck everything in that area to oblivion.

by stucky on Dec 15, 2009 9:04 PM EST up reply actions

and

to your point re: Pronger.

He started in Hartford, was traded for Shanahan to the Blues while still in his early years(one.) Signed in Edmonton as an FA. He asked to be traded from Edmonton (two) and was traded to Philadelphia due to Selanne’s un-retirement (three.)

Heatley has already been traded twice. Stralman has already been traded twice (TO ~~CAL, CAL~~ CBJ)

Pronger’s got a few years of playing time on either of those two.

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Dec 15, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions

And as for Vancouver, you said it best yourself:

in front of all-star, future Olympian goalie Roberto Luongo

by The '67 Sound on Dec 15, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions

my point being

they’re paying a lot of money on their blue line in front of a far better goalie than we’ll ever see.

Boston’s Tim Thomas and Tukka Rask are no slouches either.

So who cares?

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Dec 15, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions

My point being I don’t think it’s entirely clear Vancouver is the best model for building a defence corp. I think their defensive success is largely attributable to Luongo.

I know none of the “studs” appear available. I also know that of the 10 guys I’d call “studs” (Chara, Lidstrom, Bouwmeester, Phaneuf, Boyle, Pronger, Jovanovski, Niedermayer, Rafalski and Gonchar), 8 have changed teams—some of them multiple times, and some of them in an unpredictable manner. The teams that have been able to snap them up are those that had the flexibility to do so. I want us to be one of those teams and that’s very hard with 6 or 7 guys making $2.5M plus.

And even if we can’t get one of these guys, I’d rather have my bottom pair make no more than $2-3MM and save the balance for a #1 forward!

by The '67 Sound on Dec 15, 2009 2:29 PM EST up reply actions

who are these teams then?

I’m using examples of stacked defensive teams. One with a clear cut #1, one without. The difference in salary is negligible. Both teams have 38 points on the year so far and are a decent mix of youth and vets.

As far as “models” go, that’s a media fallacy. There is no “model” as no two teams are alike. You build the best team you can with what you have. The Leafs would be better served in the long run by putting their money in solid, young d-men that they currently own the rights to, instead of holding out hope that something better will appear and sign for cheap in Toronto (also known as the “JFJ model” of management.)

As you’ve noted, none of these players appear available. My point with Pronger was just refuting how common an occurrence it is. Why hold out hope that, maybe, someday someone will? That’s no guarantee. If Schenn and Gunnarsson develop as expected, and White continues to improve, the Leafs could easily have 5 of the most well rounded d-men in the league with Komi and Beauchemin. I’d rather take my chances on that than on anything else.

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Dec 15, 2009 2:38 PM EST up reply actions

Your “D of the future” leaves off Kabby, and includes Gunnarsson making $800K next year. That works for me (though we’re still stuck with Finger too). I just don’t see a salary cap world where it makes sense to pay a guy $2.5M to play 15 minutes/gm, which is all your #6 can realistically expect to play.

As for “model”, how about this:

2008 Detroit Red Wings
2007 Anaheim Ducks
2006 Carolina Hurricanes
2004 Tampa Bay Lightning
2003 New Jersey Devils
2002 Detroit Red Wings
2001 Colorado Avalanche
2000 New Jersey Devils
1999 Dallas Stars
1998 Detroit Red Wings
1997 Detroit Red Wings
1996 Colorado Avalanche
1995 New Jersey Devils
1994 New York Rangers
1993 Montreal Canadiens
1992 Pittsburgh Penguins
1991 Pittsburgh Penguins
1990 Edmonton Oilers
1989 Calgary Flames
1988 Edmonton Oilers
1987 Edmonton Oilers
1986 Montreal Canadiens
1985 Edmonton Oilers
1984 Edmonton Oilers
1983 New York Islanders
1982 New York Islanders
1981 New York Islanders
1980 New York Islanders
1979 Montreal Canadiens
1978 Montreal Canadiens
1977 Montreal Canadiens
1976 Montreal Canadiens

Those are the Cup winners in my lifetime. I think Carolina is the only one that didn’t have a true #1 D.

by The '67 Sound on Dec 15, 2009 2:54 PM EST up reply actions

you're correct

and only three teams since the cap was implemented.

too small a sample size…

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Dec 15, 2009 4:29 PM EST up reply actions

Matt Stajan

I think that this is the best way to put it:

Matt Stajan is producing like a number one centre in the NHL. Probably around the mid-20s. If he is your team’s # 1 centre you’re likely around that level.

That’s where Burke’s philosophy of putting in top-end players comes into play. If you get a higher level player and plop Stajan into the 2C role he’ll do a lot more good. Then again, it all depends on $/term.

This is PPP's work account until further notice. Damn Internet.

by David Danforth on Dec 15, 2009 1:38 PM EST reply actions

It kinda bugs me when people call for trades because of ‘peak value’, as in ’you’re not going to get a better return for a player than right now’.

Say you get a player that is marginally more talented than Stajan, do you really expect him to have the chemistry with Kessel that Stajan has shown? to be as hardworking, and classy?

Say you get a hyped prospect for White. Is there a chance in hell that you replace that much heart on a team?

Or Kaberle, a point-per-game defencemen this year, potential captain, and a rarity. Still people wanna move him.

This isn’t a rebuild year. We’re gonna be in the PLAYOFFS!!!1, dammit.

by Robot Godzilla on Dec 15, 2009 2:28 PM EST reply actions

we also have a history of over valuing players. there is a reason why we arent in the top group of teams in the NHL and its because the players we have arent good enough, as much as it may hurt, you have to change up the roster eventually in order to move up the standings. i dont think the current group (as well as they have played) is good enough to do any real damage

There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E"

by Matt_Roberts on Dec 15, 2009 2:41 PM EST up reply actions

at one point

Tomas Kaberle was worth Jeff Carter and a first round pick.

this past summer Tomas Kaberle and a first round pick was what Kessel’s price was.

Kaberle will never fetch anything as good as he could have with the Flyers. Best bet is to hold on to him until the summer and trade him to a team that thinks it’s a puck moving d-man away from making noise in the playoffs. What that returns is anyone’s guess…

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Dec 15, 2009 2:46 PM EST up reply actions

It kinda bugs me when people call for trades because of ‘peak value’, as in ’you’re not going to get a better return for a player than right now’.

It comes down to whether or not you think the player in question is a building block. If so, hold on to him, if not move him when his value is at peak.

I the case of Stajan, I figure he’ll want a long-term deal at $3.75M/year. At that price, he’s not worth holding on to so the option becomes either let him walk in the off-season or trade him when he’s hot.

Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...

by mf37 on Dec 15, 2009 5:40 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t understand why we would want to trade a guy (Kaberle) who is 1) relatively young 2) on an amazing contract 3) second in the NHL in points for D-men. He’s a guy you keep. Even if we have to pay him more when we resign him, pay him more.

As for Stajan, I would only move him if there is a viable replacement. There currently is not. If he wants more money, and can get it elsewhere, then perhaps the move is forced. But you only move him if you think he’s going to sign for more than you can afford. That way you recoup some loss.

by Leaf in Habland on Dec 15, 2009 3:50 PM EST reply actions

Stajan is younger than Kabby

and probably will be paid less.

It makes sense to trade Kaberle because he’s the oldest d-man on a team trying to get younger.

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Dec 15, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions

Don't let Eyebeleaf here you talking about trading Kabby

As I see it, Kaberle will still be very good for the next 5 years or so because of the style of game he plays. I have made the comparison before, but he is like a Neidermayer-lite. Not physical, but very good in most other aspects of the game.

Kaberle has said time and time again that he wants to keep playing in Toronto. If he is willing to take a discount over a 5 year period, I would give him the money and term and maybe a NTC for the first two years of his contract. After that, we will still have a premiere d-man for a great value – if we are competing and his puck moving skills are essential to the team(and we don’t have a viable replacement) we keep him… if he becomes superfluous, then after the 2 years we trade him.

Sure we won’t get the same as what we might get this summer for him, but that’s the best solution I have to ‘having your cake and eat it too’.

The trick is to make sure you can eat the cake before it goes stale.

(darn, I am verbose today.)

"If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut."

Albert Einstein

by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Dec 15, 2009 7:33 PM EST up reply actions

also as a D that doesn’t play as physically, he shouldn’t be as worn down. He could have another 4, 5 good years on him.

by Robot Godzilla on Dec 15, 2009 10:04 PM EST up reply actions

What do you mean oldest? Look at the guy, he can’t be older than 14! He’s a teenage phenom!

Seriously though, Kaberle is worth keeping for another contract. He’s the type of player who will retain his skill set into his mid-30s. Getting younger is a good thing, but it shouldn’t be a rule above all else.

by Leaf in Habland on Dec 15, 2009 11:11 PM EST up reply actions

well it all depends on what he nets.
If Kaberle can bring a young first line scoring forward (Bobby Ryanesque, just an example) plus, you have to weigh your options.
A player that might hold his play up for a few more years, but will definitely decline over time, or you get a young player who will be a big part of the team for many years to come.

Puns, Innuendo and Bad Spelling, Yes We Got That

by JaredFromLondon on Dec 15, 2009 11:37 PM EST up reply actions