pilldoc Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 @DaGreatGazoo Ok DGG....you asked for it...I am granting your wish. (He posted it in the Shoutbox...I'm posting it here) http://hockey-graphs.com/2014/06/24/the-hartnell-for-umberger-4th-rounder-swap-and-the-places-a-bad-contract-puts-you/ I had a great question from a good friend of mine, a Flyers fan, after the fervor died down from yesterday’s Scott Hartnell for R.J. Umberger and 4th round pick swap. He asked me: “From what I’m getting from the advanced stats guys, it appears that the Blue Jackets robbed the Flyers blind yesterday by getting Hartnell for Umberger (a guy they were going to compliance buyout anyhow).Is Umberger really this bad?” The short answer is that Umberger is not very good; his With-or-Without-Yous (or WOWYs; where you compare Corsi when a player is with and without a teammate on the ice) suggest that nobody plays better with him than others, outside of maybe Ryan Johansen. Now, some of that is due to zone starts, as Umberger has been saddled with a lot of time in his own zone. Even so, three years of possession in your end 55%+ of the time is a little too consistent in its futility. I’d expect at least one year there where that figure lowered to 51 or 52% if he was showing some defensive abilities. He’s still an average player in the faceoff dot, but his offensive contributions are shrinking, and at 32 it’s hard to see them recovering much. Blue Jackets beat reporter Aaron Portzline noted the Jackets were contemplating buying him out of his $4.6m/year cap hit contract, which was moving into modified no-trade clause (NTC; player can specify a list of teams he’d be willing to be traded to) years. The longer answer is that yes, Umberger is not good, but this trade is much more complicated than a player-for-player, or player-for-player-and-a-pick swap. A trade presumably always looks good enough from both sides’ perspectives in order to happen, so what were the incentives for Ron Hextall? Jarmo Kekalainen? To understand, you have to go back to August 2012, when then-GM Paul Holmgren decided to give 30-year old Hartnell a 6-year deal with an annual $4.75m cap hit and a no-move clause (NMC; Hartnell can reject any trade or demotion). Hextall was assistant GM in Los Angeles at the time; while Hartnell was turning 32 in April 2014, the Flyers were moving to promote Holmgren out of the GM position and hand the reins to Hextall. As the Flyers ended their season early, Hextall began to prepare for the team he envisioned for next season. This included wanting to become faster – and Hartnell was on the outside looking in on that vision. If a GM is going to commit to that kind of approach, all of a sudden the Hartnell contract becomes a big problem. Even initially it was a problem because it was a long-term commitment by a team that was already feeling the bite of the cuffs of the Ilya Bryzgalov and Daniel Briere contracts (in less than a year, both players received compliance buyouts). Now it was a much larger issue because the Flyers have almost zero leverage if they make it clear they want to deal. Both Hextall and the prospective teams have to know who Hartnell is willing to go to, and teams do not like taking on 5-year NMC contracts on 32-year olds, even if they have the cap room. Vancouver just learned that lesson with Roberto Luongo. Vancouver was lucky enough to find a team Luongo liked that was well under the cap in the Florida Panthers, who had some questionable young assets they were willing to offload – but that took years to find. You also have a problem regarding Hartnell’s value, which is already low. Do you continue to look for suitors, and drop him off that top line alongside Giroux and Voracek in 2014-15? Do you expect better numbers for Hartnell in that scenario, whether it’s alongside Brayden Schenn and Wayne Simmonds, or worse, on the 3rd line where he spent part of 2013-14? By waiting another year, you potentially scrap the positive value of a 52-point season, add a year to the player’s age, and further indicate that the demand is very low. What’s more, the likelihood that Hartnell improves on last season is almost non-existent. Hartnell’s shooting percentage was low last year, but he’ll lose shot volume by moving away from 1st line TOI with a possession-wizard duo towards 2nd line TOI with two shoot-first forwards. That will offset most, if not all, of his potential shooting percentage regression. Maybe a shift to set-up guy could help, but he’s never been that kind of player. So there were a lot of signs pointing to Hartnell as an asset that needed to be moved sooner rather than later. So Hextall is selling, and Kekalainen sees an opportunity to trade relatively few assets to add forward depth. He calls up Hextall, and talks personally to Hartnell to convince Hartnell that the Blue Jackets want him, and see him playing an important role on the team. It works, and now you have Hextall in a place he might not find himself again: willing trade partner for a big NMC contract, and player is approving. Why would he take Umberger and a 4th rounder, though? Isn’t he taking on a bad contract for a bad contract? What Hextall is essentially doing is making the most of a bad situation. He’s committed to the “Hartnell is not going to get better, and doesn’t fit my vision of a successful Flyers squad,” and ideally he’d like to get prospects and cap space. If he had leverage, he could probably get it; instead, he gets a contract that’s bad but not as difficult to get out of, and a 4th round pick. He goes from NMC to a modified NTC, which affords him more leverage if he can convince a team that Umberger is a good defensive flex option (he can play either center or wing) within a year. He also gets a far better buyout scenario, should he need to go that route. Per Cap Geek’s awesome buyout calculator, if you decide to buyout either player after a dismal 2014-15, you essentially incur a $1.5m cap hit for the next four years in Umberger’s case, or take on $1.2m cap hits for two years, a $1.7m cap hit on the 3rd year, a $3.2m cap hit on the 4th year, and $1.5m cap hits for the ensuing four years in Hartnell’s case. If you get an average year from either, Umberger might be trade-able, Hartnell doesn’t get any more appealing and might even go down in value. If you get a good year from either, Umberger becomes trade-able, and Hartnell holds pat (remember, he’s coming off a good season). On a player-to-player, analytical level, the trade looks bad…even if I were to rightly point out that Hartnell undoubtedly benefited from playing with Giroux and Voracek, as well as his very high zone-start percentage (58.7%) – and that Umberger has consistently been saddled with poor zone-start percentages (47% over the last 3 years). The 4th round lottery ticket Kekalainen threw Hextall’s way at least gives Hextall a shot at adding a prospect, a slightly better contract scenario grants Hextall a few better outs than Hartnell’s contract, and there’s a slim possibility that Umberger can transform himself into a defensive center with a bit of trade value. That’s about as rosy a picture you can paint here, if you’re looking strictly at who was swapped. But focusing on a “bad trade” obscures the bad contract behind it, part of what should be an enduring symbol of the tenure of Paul Holmgren, General Manager. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good read. Debate away. As I have mentioned over and over, the only good thing was getting rid of Hartnell's contract. Granted, RJ's is no better, but the conditions are what make it better, a modified NMC and the fact it is 2 yrs shorter than Hartnell's. On stats alone, RJ sucks big blue donkey balls..
mojo1917 Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 I'd rather not "revisit" that trade a good read though doc.the modified NMC seems to be the only silver lining for the Flyers.
Podein25 Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Ok DGG....you asked for it...I am granting your wish. (He posted it in the Shoutbox...I'm posting it here) I should have known that reprobate was behind this! Nothing good can come from this thread...
radoran Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Again with the "revisiting"? We're four games into the season... and thank you for bringing up such a painful memory, why don't you just give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice on it? It's actually not all that painful. But watching Umburglar is.
DaGreatGazoo Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 reprobate you love me...you REALLY love me!!
radoran Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Podein25, on 16 Oct 2014 - 2:40 PM, said:reprobate you love me...you REALLY love me!! don't get all worked up, you're really just a master baiter.
flyercanuck Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Three years from now we can all thank Hextall for making this deal. Until then, we can all bitch at Holmgren for giving Hartnell that contract.
Podein25 Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Here's a question that I should know better and not ask, but here goes: has Umberger really been that bad? (I haven't seen a second of any of their games yet)
DaGreatGazoo Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Here's a question that I should know better and not ask, but here goes: has Umberger really been that bad? (I haven't seen a second of any of their games yet) Yeah, he's literally been invisible, as far as I'm concerned. The one game I thought he was scratched, cause I didn't hear his name until 1/2 way through the 2nd period. I think the article was pretty accurate...make the best of a bad situation.
brelic Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Here's a question that I should know better and not ask, but here goes: has Umberger really been that bad? (I haven't seen a second of any of their games yet) I thought he was mostly invisible through the first 3 games, but looked sharp last game against the Ducks. He's new here too, so it's natural if it takes him a bit longer to get acclimated to not having a system. If he can put up 30-35 points doing spot duty across the lineup, that's fine. I really don't think Hartnell will get any more than 40-45 points. So it's a 10 point loss, and a net PIM gain.
mojo1917 Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Here's a question that I should know better and not ask, but here goes: has Umberger really been that bad? (I haven't seen a second of any of their games yet)he's making couturier look like paul coffey.he's been very meh, certainly not playing like a 4+ million dollar a yea cap hit player. He's new here too, so it's natural if it takes him a bit longer to get acclimated to not having a system.@brelic that is hilarious ! +1
Podein25 Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 The one game I thought he was scratched.. Yeah, that's not good.
Podein25 Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 he's making couturier look like paul coffey. Also not good
radoran Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 I really don't think Hartnell will get any more than 40-45 points. He's on a PPG pace
pilldoc Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 I should have known that reprobate was behind this! Nothing good can come from this thread... LOL....you know it reminds me of that great AC/DC song "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap"
pilldoc Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 , why don't you just give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice on it? hmmm ....seems like I have heard that before
DaGreatGazoo Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 LOL....you know it reminds me of that great AC/DC song "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" NO, NO, NO..in @podien25 's case; It's Dirty Deeds DONE WITH SHEEP!!!!
Podein25 Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 NO, NO, NO..in @podien25 's case; It's Dirty Deeds DONE WITH SHEEP!!!! That was just too easy. If I didn't know better, I'd think you and @pilldoc were in cahoots or something....
pilldoc Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 NO, NO, NO..in @podien25 's case; It's Dirty Deeds DONE WITH SHEEP!!!!Sitting at Red Robin I spit up my drink!! LOL!!! Excellent!!!
pilldoc Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 That was just too easy. If I didn't know better, I'd think you and @pilldoc were in cahoots or something....Great minds think alike!!
pilldoc Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 http://youtu.be/O-4lk2-UA_ILOL!!! Awesome!! Great find. LOL
FD19372 Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 They should have traded Hartnell and a pick to Columbus for Johannson (sp).
murraycraven Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 Three years from now we can all thank Hextall for making this deal. Until then, we can all bitch at Holmgren for giving Hartnell that contract.This about sums it up for me... Although please stop saying umbie is faster than Hartnell bc it is simply not true. The guy is beyond lost on the back check. Moreso... You will get 20 goals out of hartnell while Umberger might score 10.Umberger is another waste of a spot.... 2 years shorter on the contract is good but in the meantime Hartnell is better suited for this team.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.