Even if he did return, does Jagr fit in the Habs plans?
by Kevin van Steendelaar on May 15, 2011 9:06 PM EDT
in Opinions and other Habs links
Email
Print
Now that the World Hockey Championships are out of the way, Jaromir Jagr stole some of the spotlight from Gold Medal winners Team Finland today.
In a story from the Edmonton Journal's Dan Barnes, the 39-year-old winger confirmed what had been reported earlier in the tournament, listing the Montreal Canadiens amongst three teams he might be interested in playing for next season. The Pittsburgh Penguins and New York Rangers were the other two teams that he notes as possible North American returns.
Jagr never shows any clear intention of playing in the NHL in his remarks, merely that he wants to play at least one more season before finishing his career in the Czech Republic with Kladno HC.
It could just be a game of cat and mouse being played just to give the media and fans something to stir up over the summer. It wouldn't be the first time that Jagr done that since jumping to the KHL. This time last year he had the Edmonton Oilers as a possibility.
After a season with Omsk in 2009, he stated that he merely needed a break from the 82-game NHL season. But after finishing his two-year deal, and he signed on for another season in Russia. How long of a break was he talking about then?
Even if Jagr's comments of a possible NHL return are sincere, do the Habs want him and would he fit in under Jacques Martin's system?
It seems unlikely that Jagr will be seen in a Habs uniform this fall, especially if reports that Pierre Gauthier turned down a $2-million salary request to come Montreal in 2010. Jagr even acknowledged today the environment that is playing in Montreal, so you can't imagine him asking for anything less this time around.
To fit him in, and already financially focused on the blueline this summer, Gauthier would probably have to make some changes with his other forwards to get No. 68 on the roster. Benoit Pouliot's future in Montreal seems all but over, so that could open up the cap room to squeeze him in. There's also the contract of Andrei Kostitsyn to fit into next year. Gauthier would need to weigh the pros and cons of sacrificing younger talent long term for a one-year shot.
Jagr's NHL resume speaks for itself with a Hart Trophy in 1999, and a finalist five other times (his latest coming in 2006). We are all aware of his scoring ability (Five Art Ross Trophies) and despite a dip in goal production this season, he maintained a point-per-game pace with Omsk.
But at 39 years of age, and after a three season removal from the NHL, do the offensively challenged Canadiens want to pay for a player who's goal production is possibly on the wane? His ability to keep up the pace with the other Habs forwards could also be questioned. As good as he appeared with Tomas Plekanec in the WHC, could he run with the faster players on the Habs roster for 70 to 80 games?
If he can play a full season, the gamble (no pun intended on Jagr's alleged financial problems) could pay off as his post season experience could be beneficial. For all we know, the big winner could be Scott Gomez who could finally have the winger he and Brian Gionta need in Montreal night after night. If it works, Gomez gets his production numbers back up to a better dollar value. If it doesn't, it at least gives him someone else for the critics to temporarily point the finger at.
There's also the defensive minded and puck possession coaching style of Jacques Martin to work around. Personality conflicts between Jagr and his coaches in the past are nothing new. Given what appears to be a content Habs dressing room, that new addition could cause some serious imbalance. Financials aside, It's pretty much the same reason that Alex Kovalev is no longer playing for the Canadiens.
Optimistically, it could happen. Realistically, emphasized by Jagr's track record, not a chance.
More opinion on Jagr and the Habs from the Cornwall Free News and Hey My Name is Will
HabsWorld with the stats on the five Habs players/prospects at the WHC
Alexei Yemelin was injured (leg) in today's WHC semi final. No report on the extent of the injury as of yet.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think Gomez is in for a better year by default anyway. To have Pacioretty and Gionta for a whole year instead of Moen will be big.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on May 15, 2011 10:08 PM EDT reply actions
The Habs’ biggest need, once the D situation is settled, is for a tough-minutes RW capable of playing on Tomas Plekanec’s wing and bumping AKost down to the third line where he can dominate softer competition. Such an addition would also give the Habs options for shuffling their top-6 when needed and dealing with injuries.
As such, and of course depending on the price, I think the match would be fantastic; Jagr’s WC performance does tend to suggest he’s still capable of facing tough NHL-level opposition, and with Plekanec and Cammalleri on his line, he would not need to carry the unit by himself, quite the contrary. As for speed, when Halpern was on that line they used a methodical style of advance that did not require the wingers to have speed to burn; Jagr should be able to play that style as well.
Forget about matching him with Gomez — it’s been tried before and didn’t work too well, IIRC. Gionta is the RW on that line, and what they need is a solid two-way LW, a role Pacioretty has shown every indication of being able to fill brilliantly. Gomez’s production is bound to increase anyway, so that is simply not a consideration in any way. Jagr would come to Montreal to play with Plekanec anyway, and as it turns out the Habs’ primary forward need just happens to be a RW for #14.
Jagr would not need to be the Habs’ primary offensive weapon, just a complementary player, which at his age he should still be capable of being. Keep in mind, the Habs’ “popgun offense” is very different from previous years’; it was a high volume offense that generated enough chances to score many more goals than they actually did. There’s every reason to believe they won’t be a goal-starved club next season, Jagr or no Jagr. But he would create match-up problems for other coaches, problems that a Jeff Halpern, say, wouldn’t on the top unit.
Obviously it depends on the salary. Montreal could not afford to pay him five million plus. But two, three million? I think that would be a great move. If it’s available, which is the big question here, isn’t it?
Agreed - 2 years maybe?
Math Man appears to be right on all counts. The opportunity to play with Pleks might tip the balance in favor of Habs if they want Jagr and paying Jagr $4.5MM for 2 years would seem to be worth the risk, as you’re not going to find a top-line RW anywhere else for ~$2.25MM per. Signing him for just 1 year might be risky, but if he fails and Gomez’s salary drops $2MM (to $5.5MM in 12-13), then that’s $4MM you have to pay a replacement fwd.
However, I’m still not sure of the wisdom of paying AK46 approx. $3.25MM to play 3rd line with Eller & Moen/Darche. That seems high, although the clear benefit will be if the team has 3 solid lines that can score & play 2 ways, with both Eller and AK capable of scoring 15-20 goals.
Danny Briere makes $6.5M/year and plays in the third line.
Hartnell makes $4.2M/year.
Jordan Staal makes $4M/year.
Jochen Hecht makes $3.525M/year
Michael Ryder makes $4M/year
Dave Bolland makes $3.375M/year
Michal Handzus makes $4M/year
Alexei Ponikarovsky makes $3.2M/year
Matt Cullen makes $3.5M/year
Brian Rolston makes $5.0625M/year
Joe Pavelski makes $4M/year
Colby Armstrong makes $3M/year
All those players play on the 3rd line for their team. Not only is it wise to keep AK for that amount of cash, it’s affordable and quite frankly a good deal. Most good teams have high payed 3rd lines because they have scoring depth.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on May 16, 2011 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
hardly true
Briere is one of Philly’s top 3 forwards and is hardly “3rd line” … Pavelski is 2nd line and plays 18-19 min/game (and has been great in the playoffs for 3 years straight) …. Staal is young stud who plays C and has very strong 2-way game, signed long-term for his upside. Where’s AK’s upside?
Most of the other guys on your list are players that teams would gladly waive if they could to get that money back, including Ryder, Rolston, Handzus, Hecht, and Hartnell.
You’ve made your point that AK is underpaid at $3.4MM per and I respectfully disagree. The Avs just re-signed M Hedjuk for $2.6MM – he scored 22 goals last year and will play among the top 6 this season. Bad teams over-pay for 3rd liners; good teams pay players what they’re worth or are able to underpay “emerging” talent.
Also, it’s unlikely that AK will approach 20 goals if he’s getting 3rd line minutes, which is why he only makes sense at $3.5MM per if he’s good enough to log top 6 minutes.
What UFA are you going to replace AK with? We need scoring depth, and AK’s upside is high – he hits more and harder than almost all other forwards on the club, has a killer shot and great passing. He’s not perfect by a long shot and many accusing him of not living hp to his potential (if he did, he’d be a star making $6M+), but he’s a quality forward on a team that needs what he brings.
The problem with AK is unfulfilled promise, not performance – he is doing just fine for the $ he makes and is a serviceable top 6 winger or an excellent 3rd line winger.
Lastly, AK has proven that he can develop his two-way game as part of JM’s system. I don’t think he’s going anywhere.
by patience is a virtue on May 16, 2011 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed 100%. There’s just no way you could replace Kostitsyn with a player equal to him or better for the same price without giving up something substantial.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on May 16, 2011 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Curtis Glencross ?
just signed for $2.55MM per year over 4 years
Last year: 24 G, 19 A = 43 PTS (6) in 79 games with only 3 PPG, 21 even strength
By comparison – AK: 20 G, 25 A = 45 PTS (3) in 81 games with 5 PPG, just 15 even strength
Glencross is a 3rd liner equal to AK according to the stats who’ll now get paid 3rd line money. AK is overpaid by about $1MM if that’s the production you hope to get from him. The market has spoken.
Slight problem. Glencross shot 16%; his career average is 12%. His uptick in scoring is most likely a transient, one-season thing. He’s probably more of a 15-18 goal-scorer for the duration of his career.
AKost shot 10%. His career average is 12%. His goal production is therefore slightly below what it would normally have been.
What we’re seeing here, then, is a 15-goal scorer who just had 24 goals in a career season, and a 25-goal scorer who had 20 goals in a down season.
Nevermind that AKost faced tougher competition more effectively.
AKost is a significantly better hockey player than Glencross.
I like Curtis Glenncross as a hockey player, but he’s pretty definitively NOT as good as Kostitsyn. Add in that it’s a completely moot point because he signed with the Flames before he was eligible for a contract with anyone else, so how this is a relevant option to replace Kostitsyn is beyond me.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on May 16, 2011 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah yeah yeah
Or more likely we saw a 20 goal scorer score 24 goals, and AK’s a 22-24 goal scorer who scored 20 goals.
Your silly shot % mean nothing. And next year, Glencross might shoot 14.5% and score 22 goals, but AK will increase by a whole 2% and score 22 goals, and although Glencross was +6 and AK was +3, those plus goals don’t matter because AK’s +3 came vs. the top line and Glencross’s came vs. the other team’s 3rd line.
Blah, blah, blah … the team with the most goals wins and AK isn’t worth $1MM more per season based on his performance of last year. If you want to pay him more based on “potential” and “upside”, then go ahead …. it’s always good to overpay for talent. Just ask Gomez.
Shooting percentage is well-known to regress to the mean, pulling strongly towards career average. Its effects on creating “career seasons” and how those effects are not persistent have been heavily studied. Getting more goals on less shots is generally the sign of a transient “uptick” that has a very high probability to regress to the mean in the following season.
If you want to make a statistical argument you may want to do some research first. I suggest starting at behindthenethockey.com, on this very SB network, and its sister site behindthenet.ca.
Denying the importance of strength of opposition is just not a statistical research issue, it’s also intuitively silly, given how carefully coaches regulate matchups (it is one of the foremost ways coaches affect the game). The point is that if you get Glencross to do Kostitsyn’s job he will score less and likely get scored on more. If you get Kostitsyn to do Glencross’s job, well, imagine what — more goals for, less goals against.
Follow your own "trend" on this meaningless stat, Math Man
AK’s shooting % -
4 years ago – 16.67%
3 years ago – 13.61%
2 years ago – 11.03%
Last season – 10.20%
You don’t have to be a stats freak to see which way this trend line is pointing – it’s down. So your conclusion that AK will revert to his “career average” of 12% in ’11-12 may prove to be true, but the Math suggests that he could/should drop below 10% next year, with a further decline in goal production … from 26 to 23 to 20 to …. maybe 16/17.
That’s the thing about stats … you can use ‘em how you like. By comparison, Glencross’s shooting % has been all over the map and was ~20% in ‘07-08, then went from 10% to 13% to 16% while his goal production has risen over those 3 seasons from 13 to 15 to 24. Another very clear trend. So the numbers tell me that Glencross might be a player on the rise, while AK is a player either on the decline or who’s already peaked.
So Glencross is on the rise at almost 29 years of age, and Kostitsyn is on the decline at 26? Sure… Grasping at straws much?
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on May 17, 2011 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Kostitsyn’s Qualcomp: .039
Glencross’s Qualcomp: .029
That’s a significant different, yet Kostitsyn outproduced him overall.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on May 16, 2011 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions
upside?
His upside is high in that he’s not going to get any worse? He had his career high in goals & points, what … 4 years ago? Suddenly the light bulb is just gonna go off, right … and he’ll score 35 and play hard every shift for 80 games?
Yeah, that’s realistic. And Gomez is also a good bet to score 25/30 and the Habs have no shortage of scoring in your Dreamland.
Why exactly are you making strawman attacks and being and bringing in insults? Who said Kostitsyn would score 35? No one. He’ll score 20+ though, which has a lot of value, and he’ll hit 45+ points.
The only one in dreamland here is someone who thinks Kostitsyn is someone to throw on the trash heap because he doesn’t score 35. Since when is that a compulsory benchmark to be a positive contributor to an NHL team?
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on May 16, 2011 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions
lol
Well, it seems everyone is all hot and bothered about Misters Glencross and Kostitsyn.
Both are good. AK is just better, younger, more skilled with more potential upside, which is fundamentally important to GMs. The 4 years ago you refer to when AK put up 53 points, 26-27, was his rookie year. No, I don’t think he’s had his career high yet.
Nor do I see him as a consistent 35 goal scorer (although I wouldn’t be surprised if he hits that mark sometime one of the next few seasons). But I do bet he continues to outproduce Glencross while playing against tougher match ups.
Lastly, about Curtis – he’s from Saskatchewan and I’d guess he’s giving the Flames a hometown discount so he can stay close to his family, etc. The Habs would have had to have paid significantly more for him (like about $3.25M), if he ever entered the market that is. Which he didn’t. So, it’s not overly relevant.
by patience is a virtue on May 17, 2011 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Fun fact about 35-goal scorers. The last Cup Winners had zero of them.
Kane hit 30, and he was the only one to get that high.
Hossa was on pace for 34.5 over 82 games, but if you want to argue that route, then Gionta was on pace for over 37 that year, and Cammy for over 32.
This year, a grand total of seven players hit 35 goals. Only 29 got as many as 30. Gionta, unfortunately, just missed.
People talk about 30 and 35-goal scorers as if they were common and it was some sort of travesty the Habs don’t have one (or two). It’s really rare for a player to both score at that pace and stay healthy. That the Habs have two players who might realistically hope to hit that target (Gionta and Cammalleri) is actually rather a lot already.
And such players are going to cost a HECK of a lot more than 3.25 million.
all true
and i think AK has the stuff to do it, once or twice. but not consistently, of course ;)
by patience is a virtue on May 18, 2011 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually it's entirely true.
Danny Briere is the Philadelphia Flyers’ 3rd line center. Mike Richards and Jeff Carter take the tough competition on that team, while the line of Hartnell – Briere – Leino mops up the other team’s bottom lines. Take a gander at Behind The Net for the qualcomp scores. Danny Briere is actually one of the most sheltered players in the NHL among the top scorers.
Again you’re wrong about Pavelski, he’s playing on San Jose’s 3rd line since Logan Couture has moved into the 2nd line spot in the playoffs.
Jordan Staal’s fabled “upside” is just that, he’s a great 3rd line center and that’s about it. It was quite clear this year that he couldn’t excel against top competition, even with better wingers than Crosby or Malkin have ever had.
Of the players I wrote out, only Rolston and Ponikarovsky weren’t key contributors to their teams success this season. If you think LA would waive Handzus, Buffalo would waive Hecht, or Philly would waive Hartnell you’re sorely mistaken.
My point isn’t that AK is underpayed, it’s that he’s a valuable player who is payed appropriately that you could NOT replace at the same cost. Milan Hejduk is 35, was a -23 at ES and had just 11 points in his last 27 games of the season. Your comparison is of a player entering his prime to a player at the end of his career.
On your last point, you’re confusing 3rd line minutes with 3rd line assignments. Kostitsyn averaged 15:53 per game this season, most of it hard minutes at even strength. I doubt he’ll see any less ice time next season even if he does play on the 3rd line because he’ll still get PP time and a stronger 3rd line will get more icetime than a weak one.
Kostitsyn averaged 15:59 last season, 15:35 in 08-09, and 15:41 in 07-08. Every year he was on a 20 goal or better pace. Considering on the third line he’ll be getting better matchups and similar icetime, I fail to see how you think he won’t hit the 20 goal mark.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on May 16, 2011 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
And if the Habs could've signed Curtis Glencross ....
they could have the exact same production that AK will give them for $2.5MM per year … well, actually, better production if your focus is on goals.
Glencross had an up year on the shooting, but he generated fewer chances than AKost against weaker competition. In other words, Kostitsyn generated more real offense in tougher circumstances. There’s no reasonable basis to believe he’s not a much better offensive player than Glencross.
Glencross is not a bad player. Kostitsyn is just significantly better.
That’s not how it works. If AK plays against third-line competition and his icetime stays level (and there’s no reason to think it wouldn’t; he’s playing 13:36 a game at evens), he would score more, not less, because he gets easier minutes. He’d also get scored on less.
Players do not score more because they play in the top six; it’s the other way around, they play in the top six because they are good players and thus, usually score more.
As usual you’re spot on tonight, but I don’t think Watty4ever is interested in facts when it comes to AK.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on May 16, 2011 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Your facts?
Andrew – you can’t have it both ways. You say that the Habs should sign AK for $3.4MM or $3.5MM this season because he’s neither under- nor over-paid, and then play him on the 3rd line because “good teams have 3-line depth” (and you note all of the high scoring 3rd line players for support) … OK, that’s fine … So riddle me this, strawman, know-it-all : If the Habs pay AK $3.5MM to score 20 goals on the 3rd line, who’s going to fill the gaping hole at RW on the 1st line? Or will AK play both 1st and 3rd line because he’s such an overwhelming bargain & dominant 2-way player.
That’s up to Habs management, but that was never part of the conversation so I’m not sure why you’re moving the goal posts, perhaps it’s because you can see your argument is incredibly weak so you’re panicking.
If you recall, how all this started was that YOU said they should replace AK46 with someone else for the top line. Who that happens to be is irrelevant, because MathMan and my responses were that AK46 was still worth keeping at that salary in a 3rd line role to add scoring depth.
Try to organize your thoughts before you reply again because you’re just rambling.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on May 17, 2011 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
corrections
Jagr is reported to have asked for $2M for one year. While I expect he may actually want and get more (say $3M), $4.5M is high. Furthermore, it is exactly because he is after a one year deal that this could work for the Habs – they need his cap space the following year to help resign Price, PK and Eller.
Gomez’s cap hit will not drop from $7.3M per season until his contract expires in 13-14, despite the fact that the amount he will actually make in 12-13 and 13-14 will go down substantially. That’s how the cap calculation in the CBA works: the average of all the years on the contract is the cap hit for all the years of the contract, hence all the weasel moves with the long contracts with low return in later years which bring down the overall average/cap hit.
by patience is a virtue on May 16, 2011 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I can't see this happening.
Comebacks like this usually don’t end well. While it’s not like he’s coming back from two or three seasons of retirement, I just don’t see a place for him in the NHL as anything except a third or fourth line surprise scorer. I don’t see him lining up with Gionta and Gomez. I’m not saying he should be sent to Edmonton or Colorado or Columbus, but I don’t see him working on any of the lines of teams like Montreal or Pittsburgh.
My guess is that he wanted to say something that would get his name back into the NHL-following press. I’ve been wrong before on such things, but I just don’t see him coming back to North America.
Let's Go Blues!
Support your local NAHL team. Seriously.
by Paperwork Ninja on May 16, 2011 2:29 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Habs Eyes On The Prize
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
