The case for trading Jason Spezza
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 7:00 AM EDT
in Analysis
Email
PrintGiven the encouraging developments we saw in Jason Spezza this year - namely the improvements in his overall game as well as the massive growth in leadership, the headline above might come across as unthinkable. Why would the Ottawa Senators possibly consider trading their best player when he is finally starting to show fulfillment of the promise that made him the second overall pick in 2001?
The thought is not as crazy as it seems upon first glance. The Senators' current situation and their recent struggles have put them in the awkward position of potentially having their best player wasted. As much as Spezza has earned the respect of most fans with his play this year, the harsh reality is that it does the franchise no good to let him wither on the vine while he waits for them to surround him with enough talent to compete for the Stanley Cup.
As we will see, the historical implications of the logistical challenge of surrounding him with that talent means the team must consider moving him if the goal is to return to the long-term competitiveness the fans have enjoyed over the past 15 years - but first, there's a misconception we have to dispel.
The myth of the untradeable contract
Some claim that Spezza's current contract makes him untradeable. Quite simply, this is just the latest cliché in a long list of Senators clichés (no different from the "Ottawa has no grit" statement we hear so often from people who haven't watch the team play since 2003) propagated by talking heads and mindlessly parroted by sycophants who think that repeating a paid opinion somehow makes them sound smarter than having their own.
Reality is that Senators fans have a recent and relevant contract to compare Spezza's to: Dany Heatley. On October 3rd, 2007, Heatley signed a six-year, $45M contract extension with Ottawa. This gave him salary cap number of $7.5M a year. One month later, on November 3rd, 2007, Jason Spezza signed a seven-year, $49M deal. This gave him a salary cap number of $7M a year, and he will be 31 years old when it expires - this will matter later on.
As Senators fans are well aware, Dany Heatley asked for, and was granted, a trade prior to the start of the 2009-10 season. There were at least two suitors, Edmonton and San Jose (and probably more that we aren't aware of) for his contract - a contract with a larger cap hit than Spezza's.
Heatley's is certainly not the only example of an "untradable" contract being moved. Since the implementation of a salary cap, the NHL has seen trades of:
- Joe Thornton (Cap hit $5M (originally $6.6M prior to 24% salary rollback in the post-lockout CBA), 2005-06 salary cap was $39M)
- Brad Richards (Cap hit $7.8M, 2007-08 salary cap was $50.3M)
- Dion Phaenuf (Cap hit $6.5M, 2009-10 salary cap was $56.8M)
- Ilya Kovalchuk (Cap hit $6.4M, 2009-10 salary cap was $56.8M. Re-signed at cap hit of $6.7M).
Can Jason Spezza's contract be easily picked up by any NHL team? No, of course not. Does his salary cap number make him untradable in the salary cap era? Recent history clearly shows no, it does not.
What does Spezza's future hold?
Spezza's birthday, June 13th, 1983, is convenient because it synchronizes almost perfectly with the start of a new NHL season - the NHL draft. Therefore, we can comfortably say that Spezza will be X years old at the start of any season. In fact, we're giving Spezza the benefit of almost half a year in age, since almost four months will have passed between his birthday and the commencement of the regular NHL season, technically making him older than we are giving him credit for in the upcoming statistics.
To predict what kind of production it might be reasonable to expect out of Spezza, I compiled statistics for all NHL centers since the 1992-93 season. I chose this arbitrary starting point because it was the first year of the modern Senators franchise. Statistics lovers, beware: the numbers included do not take into account rule changes implemented by the NHL over the span of data, and can only be considered a rough approximation. They are not intended to make a detailed prediction of Spezza's future production.
Assuming one of the main arguments for keeping Spezza is his status as bona fide number one center, I only compared centers who had matched Spezza's worst points per game production (.70 in 2003-04) for three or more seasons - like the saying goes, "Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, three times is a pattern." I threw out "seasons" fewer than ten games in the first or last year of a player's career as anomalous, but left in all other shortened seasons - after all, Spezza has only played all 82 games once. I also threw out Spezza's stats (i.e. it doesn't make sense to compare him against himself) and Wayne Gretzky's stats - we're looking for realistic comparisons.
Looking at the chart, a few things are immediately noticeable:
- Outside of a spike from 2005-08, Spezza's statistics are more or less in line with the peer group created from the criteria above.
- Point production peaked in 2005, the first year of the post-lockout rules and the first year of Dany Heatley's time in Ottawa. Point production has fallen since then.
- If Spezza's point production remains more or less in line with the peer group, he has peaked this year, and production will begin to decline beginning next season.
It is important to note that when we talk about point production, we are talking about points per game. Spezza only played in 62 games this year, recording 57 points. It's very possible he will score more points next year, but more points do not necessarily indicate an increase in production.
It is fair to assume if Ottawa were to add a first line winger capable of posting similar numbers as Heatley, Spezza's production would increase. Because Ottawa does not have a player of that caliber on their roster or in development (a 30-goal, 30-assist season from Bobby Butler - the best current candidate - would still be 22 points fewer than Heatley's worst season) it is also fair to assume that his production will remain in line with his peer group.
What does that production look like? To achieve a rough approximation, I multiplied the peer group's PPG at each age by 70 games - Spezza's average number of games played per year for his career so far, excluding the 2002-03 season, when he only played 33 NHL games because Jacques Martin only cared about defense, and Spezza didn't skate past his own blue line yet.
At first glance, we again see that a decline is coming, but it is relatively gradual for the next three years. We can reasonably say that Spezza will continue to produce at or close to his current level during that span. After that, his point production will begin to noticeably decline.
Why is this important?
Because the Senators just traded away some of their core and are drafting 6th overall in the beginning steps of Senate Reform. Spezza's value to the team is in his role as a top center. If the team is not competing for the Stanley Cup during his peak years in that role, then his value is being wasted on the team.
With that in mind, the next step was to try to approximate how long Senate Reform might take.
To determine average rebuild time, I looked at the time span from when a team selected in the top five (i.e. lottery picks with the potential to select first overall) to when they made a playoff appearance - I consider a team that makes the playoffs to no longer be in the "rebuilding" phase. This data begins at 1995 - the first year the current lottery system was implemented, due to allegations that the Senators had intentionally lost games in order to select Alexandre Daigle in 1993. For the purposes of fairness, the first three years of any new franchises were not considered - they cannot be "rebuilding" if they haven't even had a chance to build.
As the chart shows, the frequency tends to favor the short term (which should give hope to Sens fans dreaming of a quick turnaround), but the average time from top five pick to playoff return is 2.46 seasons. Since seasons occur in whole numbers, we're forced to round that number up to three.
Not coincidentally, this is the end of Spezza's window of top center production, as well as the end of his current contract. The implications of this are very clear:
The Ottawa Senators are likely to waste Jason Spezza's remaining peak production years by missing the playoffs.
Should they choose to re-sign him after that point, they will be investing in a player four years removed from his peak, and one who will projects to have three years of top six forward production left.
To put it another way, by the time Spezza is 34, he will likely putting up the same numbers that had people saying, "Mike Fisher isn't a true second line center."
The bottom line: If the Senators choose to keep Spezza on the roster, they are giving themselves a scant three-year window to compete for the Stanley Cup before he can only be considered an ancillary piece of the puzzle, rather than a major pillar.
Conclusions
It's painful to think about, but there is evidence worth at least considering that the best interests for the long-term competitive future of the Senators involve trading their top center. There isn't any doubt that Spezza is the kind of player a team should be built around, but the Senators have already built around him and failed to win any Stanley Cups. They will be setting themselves up for failure again if they choose to squander the most productive half of his remaining six-year high output window.
The best chance for Spezza to succeed is to be on a team with young, dynamic players and scoring wingers - one where he can continue to use the leadership skills he's developed this year. It's unfortunate to acknowledge that description does not currently fit Ottawa.
Spezza is a blue-chip trade prospect. He could conceivably bring a return of a 1st plus a high end prospect from a partner, such as 1st overall plus Sam Gagner from Edmonton, 8th overall plus Ryan Johansen from Columbus, 10th overall plus Mikael Granlund from Minnesota, or 20th overall plus 51st overall plus Kyle Turris from Phoenix. All are moves that would position the team for long-term success.
Of course, the team does not have to trade Spezza - he still has a six-year window of high-end productivity left. Should the Senators decide to keep him on the roster, they need only look at his production spike with Heatley to understand why securing an elite winger - such as Alexander Semin or Zach Parise - to play with him becomes the immediate critical need for the team. Failure to do so not only wastes Spezza's value, but also handicaps the team's future by creating a narrow window for success built around him.
There's also the chance that Spezza exceeds the production of his peer group for longer than the six-year window hypothesized here. He certainly wouldn't be the first player to continue to put up great numbers past what we might consider his "prime", but we must remember that is the exception, and not the rule. We must also consider that with two back surgeries performed on him already, Spezza is not an ideal candidate to be one of those exceptions.
And of course, there's the no-trade clause in his contract. Though Spezza expressed some frustration last summer, controls his own fate. He cannot be traded if he does not desire to be, though a fresh start on an emerging team might be more appealing than being the lightning rod on a losing team for the next few years.
When Bryan Murray shook things up with trades earlier this year, he showed a willingness to make hard choices by moving well-liked players to secure the team's future success. He would be doing himself and the organization a gross disservice if he didn't continue that trend and give serious consideration to moving his most valuable player.
201 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Some good points
I still think that for a rebuild and future sucess you need some continuity between the old and the new. Despite the fact that Spezza will almost definitely decline in production I think that there is more to gain from keeping him that trading him.
You only have to look at what Lecavalier is doing in Tampa. Certainly not at his peek but still an essential part of a team making significant contributions that don’t always show up on the score sheet.
I’ve always thought that trading a player of his calibre only makes sense when they are on the last year or two of their final contract and they want one last kick at the can. Then you trade them to a contender and reap what benefits you can. Players like Spezza don’t grow on trees and the possibility of replacing his skill and experience is very unlikely.
I think Lecavalier is a great comparison
I don’t have any doubt that Spezza’s career can be extended long past the so-called “peak” if surrounded by the right talent — but Ottawa doesn’t have a Stamkos or St. Louis waiting in the wings.
I also don’t dispute that it would be hard to replace a player of Spezza’s skill, but I feel the difficulty of replacing him is not relevant to the discussion of trading him. His skill is not in dispute. The argument here is that the best remaining years of that skill will be wasted while the team is rebuilding. The team will likely miss the playoffs whether he is here or not, and by the time he’s 31, he’ll need to be replaced anyway, regardless of the likelihood of that possibility — time marches on. The challenge of replacing him is not a good reason to keep him if long-term success is the team’s goal.
For the record, since Lecavalier turned 27, his PPG: 1.14→.87→.85→.83. Good thing they have Stamkos or I’d be saying the same thing about Lecavalier!
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
The idea of ’Spezza’s skill’ is also a moving target. Replacing his current skill level would be difficult, but as you’ve shown above, history has indicated that regardless of his skill, this team may still miss another several years of playoffs, after which his capabilities will likely have declined and his skills will be much easier to replace.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 30, 2011 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't think you can just look at a players ppg
and say that their skill has diminished. maybe they are putting up less points because of a more focused approach on their defensive game. Some players it takes longer for them to focus on team success in that regard rather than personal success and putting up more points because they can. alot of great offensive talents have done this and there point totals noticeably dropped. Vinny being one of those players along with ovechkin this past year. Same thing happened with stevie Y. Detroit didnt start winning cups until he stopped putting up 100+ pt seasons and focused on his defensive play.
To further compare spezza and vinny. Vince has also been the topic of trade discussions the past few years due to his decline in production but I would argue that he has never been more valuable to his team than he is now. He has been instrumental to Stamkos current success just on his experience alone.
Their production may have dropped but you could argue that at that point they became more valuable to their respective teams than they were when they were scoring at a PPG pace
This is a very good point
There are many reasons for a drop in productivity, and I accounted for none of them when looking at the numbers.
Numbers, of course, do not occur in a vacuum, and it wouldn’t be rational to assume that a drop in productivity correlates to a drop in talent. I tried to stay away from stating that specifically.
The challenge I think Ottawa has is that while in Tampa Lecavalier is surrounded by high-end talent, Spezza doesn’t have that luxury. I would argue the same thing was true for Yzerman. I don’t think the Senators are in a position where they can afford a productivity drop from Spezza because they don’t have the surrounding talent to compensate for it. By the time they do, they’ll have a small window of Spezza as an elite player left. If they can mitigate the problem with an influx of high-end NHL talent, there’s absolutely no reason at all to consider trading Spezza.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Tampa was a bottom-dweller as recently as 2 years ago
By your logic they should have traded him then but as we’ve seen things can change quickly.
Completely true
By my logic, they should have traded him. One wonders if they’ll regret not doing so in two years when Lecavalier and St. Louis aren’t capable of supporting Stamkos like they are now, and high draft picks have limited the kind of talent the team adds.
Still, if Ottawa can add high-impact talent immediately, there’d be no reason to trade Spezza. This whole discussion is about maximizing their window of competitiveness. If they can’t do it quickly, like Tampa Bay did, then their best move is to trade Spezza, in my opinion.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
good point
I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens to Tampa in the next few years
Given Yzerman's moves so far, I think they'll be all right, personally
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
In the salary cap era, I think a relevant analysis would be in terms of production per dollars. In the years past the end of Spezza’s current contract, it could make a lot of sense to keep him for a lower salary and he would still be a great asset to the team.
Interesting
But in the salary cap era, wouldn’t you have to make that calculation against cap hit instead of real dollars? In the later years of his contract, Melnyk would be getting his money’s worth, but I don’t think the team would.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Oh, I'm sorry... I totally misread that!
Yeah, no disagreements from me there. Re-signing Spezza at second-line center for second line money makes a ton of sense. That’s a tricky contract to hammer out, though — at 31, he’s going to be coming of the last year of his true “elite” production, and he’ll want to be paid like it. The challenge is that when he hits 33, that becomes a pretty steep overpayment.
Brad Richards is in this exact situation right now. I’m VERY curious to see what kind of contract he gets.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
this is true
but remember that tampa didnt always have all of this surrounding talent. 2 or 3 years ago( can’t remember exactly) Tampa was worse off than ottawa was having finished in dead last. They could have traded vinny to further increase the rebuild then but they decided to hang on to him knowing that his leadership and experience could help the young forwards they were about to draft, most notably stamkos.
Ottawa is in a similar situation where there is going to be a youth movement and we are about to draft(hopefully) a top end forward prospect. I think it would be more beneficial for that forward and all of our young guys really to have someone like spezza to talk to for advice on dealing with the pressure of being in the NHL. Especially here in Ottawa.
Also what’s interesting is that Lecavalier was older than spezza currently is when the same situation occurred in tampa.
But you’re right Ottawa needs to surround spezz with some talent or all the years of us watching him grow into the player he is would be wasted. I’d hate to see another team benefit from the effort the senators put into developing this guy.
very good article btw I normally don’t post alot on blog sites
Thanks, I'm glad you commented!
I’d also hate to see another team benefit from all of Ottawa’s work. As far as I’m concerned, a quick influx of young, NHL-ready talent makes the discussion go away, because then we’re not talking about waiting for them to be good enough to use Spezza’s talents to their full extent.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Don’t forget that getting to play with Spezza will likely accelerate the development of Ottawa’s young talent.
I'm not
But I’m skeptical that he can turn Butler into a 40-goal guy in one year. If he can’t accelerate their development enough to offset that remaining three-year window of elite play, then I don’t know if his obvious positive influence on the young talent is enough of a benefit to outweigh the prospect of adding top new talent.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
I think it will be a mistake to trade him
I won’t say we can’t trade him for anything, but unless we are the absolute clear winners, I would not do it.
I can’t remember the Kovalchuk or Richards trade, but I think those were rentals. As far as trading big players with big contracts left, Heatley and Thornton trades favoured San Jose.
Without Spezza, the club is going to have a real struggle marketing this team, with Karlsson the only other marketable player left. There will be someone who wants Spezza, I just don’t think I will like the return.
Trading Spezza makes sense if you want to make sure you are bad enough for long enough to make several top draft picks. I would personally hate that plan.
An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.
by Adnan on May 30, 2011 8:06 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
You don't think Anderson and Rundblad and Butler and Alfie are marketable?
I consider marketing value possibly the worst reason to keep a player. The team is going to have difficulty marketing a losing product the next three years regardless of Spezza’s presence. Frankly, it’s more practical to trade him, build a new young core, and market that as the future. Fans have shown they’ll support that idea based on how this season went.
There’s no way to be “sure” if you’re bad or good — the Murrays’ expectations for Ottawa and Binghamton show that very well — but the fact is that based on history, this team probably won’t make the playoffs for the next three years. Hating it doesn’t make it less of a reality.
An ostrich-like approach to reality is what got the team to this point to begin with.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Spezza stays
He turned solid assets into nothing since the lockout. He has turned Heatley. Vermette, and Meszaros, into Michalek. Cheechoo, Leclaire, Lehner, and Kuba. On top of having nothing to show for Chara, Redden, or Volchenkov (while mystically choosing Redden over Chara, extending Kuba and Phillips come trade deadlines but not Volchenkov for marginally more money for a younger better player).
No thanks to any trade by GM Murray.
The Anderson for Elliott type deal clearly isn’t normal for him in his Senators tenure.
We are better off playing out the string and hope tutelege and teaching comes from Spezza and Alfredsson (both of whom have had their offensive peak come and go, but in Spezza’s case, he has become better defensively and can still score 30 G 40 A with some better linemates…and better health).
by DontfeedtheBelak on May 30, 2011 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
You really have a hate-on for Murray, don't you?
In this case, though, I agree. Spezza must be traded for draft picks and prospects — Murray and staff’s area of strength — rather than for NHL talent. History shows that kind of move would probably be a miss and a franchise-crippling one at that.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Exactly
Drafting and developing are this regime’s strengths.
Swapping out NHL talent (with the obvious robbery of Anderson being the exception) for other NHL players, is not.
We can’t afford to trade Spezza away for lesser player(s). Simple as that.
I erred, of course, in implying it was Murray who chose Redden over Chara, but the point remains: not the guy you want making NHL player for player trades.
The Luongo/Jokinen and Bure deals of the past have a better chance of happening against us rather than in our favour.
by DontfeedtheBelak on May 30, 2011 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Yep, I would be appalled to trade Spezza away for lesser players
I can’t imagine any justification for doing so. A trade needs to be for the future, or not at all.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
One example from the past might be where the Flames traded Nieuwendyk for Iginla(who hadn’t played in the NHL yet). Nieuwendyk went on to win the cup in Dallas and have plenty more success, but Calgary got a franchise-defining star back in the deal. If Ottawa could do something like that then I would be ok with trading Spezza. Another example would be the Yashin trade that brought Spezza and Chara to the Sens.
If a deal like one of those was on offer then I could accept trading Spezza. From you article, I would accept Sam Gagner and #1 overall, but I wouldn’t accept Turris plus #20 & #51. That second offer is way too low in my books.
All around centers are rare
Nice writeup Mark… you sure know how to stir the pot early on Monday morning.
Nobody is untradeable, and there are definitely teams out there who would move their rosters around to acquire Spezza.
The main thing here is what could we get in return? For a first round pick and a player FORGET IT, unless that player is a franchise type of guy. It would have to be an impressive package of picks and players, including two or three first rounders.
Legitimate all around first line centers are very rare and for the most part need to be drafted and built. IMO RNH is probably too small to be an impact player for years to come and no one in this draft is good enough to replace the loss of a number one center like Spezza. Of course time could prove that wrong.
The Kessel debate for me is not really a debate at all. The Leafs lost BIG TIME on that one… and would have been much better off with Tyler Seguin and the other picks they lost… In the end it’s not really worth it to give away packages of draft picks for one player… but that is what it would take to make it worth it IMO.
Even a team that is building needs to have at least one scorer to build on top of… I say we just be thankful that we have him and see if we can find and build some more strength down the middle in the next couple of years. It’s been interesting to watch Spezza build his game over the years from the player who featured the most amazing combination of highlight reel goals and giveaways all in the same game.
His game is alot more than just the sum of his stats now as he has become a solid two way player.
I agree 100%
In any given draft, the chance of drafting a player of Spezza’s calibre, even with a high pick is very low….so unless a team is willing to give us a number of high end prospects with a lot of potential (who look like they will turn into spezza’s), then i dont see the benefit.
The difficulty of replacing Spezza is not in dispute here
More importantly, the fact that it is difficult does not change the fact that it is inevitable. When Spezza is 34 and putting up second-line center numbers and the team’s playoff window is closing, will you continue to argue that we shouldn’t try to replace him because it’s going to be hard to do?
If the team is successful in building around Spezza over the next three years, they only make replacing him MORE difficult. As you say, the odds of drafting a player of his caliber are low, even with a high pick. How do you expect the team to accomplish that three years from now with higher (hopefully playoff-level) draft picks?
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
When do you determine the right time to trade Spezza?
Or any player of his calibre. This is a subjective area for most GM’s and I think that there are teams that would make this trade to keep the talent pool refreshed and then there are teams that wouldn’t because of the worry that you’ll never get full value for that player because there’s no way to see into the future.
I have to admit that it would be tempting to make this trade to see what we would get but the biggest worry is then how far back will the rebuild be set. You need Spezza at his prime to improve this team even if they might be wasted on non-playoff years. The benefit moving forward I think out weighs the potential what-ifs of a trade.
Yes, that's the challenge for Murray
Deciding how long the rebuild is going to take. If he thinks a short turnaround is realistic (and the case can be made that it is), then the strategy should be to acquire an elite wing for Spezza, and go to town on the remaining six-year window.
If the Senators had more talent on the roster, or were not in the first year of a rebuild, I wouldn’t be advocating the trade. It’s simply an unfortunate matter of timing that the rebuild will likely waste his best remaining years — it’s certainly not an indictment of him as a player or person. I love him.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
wont the teams playoff window be opening then?
with lehner, cowen, runblad, karlsson, this years first rounders, and in all probability high picks from next year are coming into their prime?
wouldnt that be a good time to have an elite veteran like jason spezza on the team instead of more kids born in 1994?
by Buz Killington on May 30, 2011 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
That would be a GREAT time to have an elite veteran like Spezza on the team
Two problems:
1) At that point he’s a UFA and may not return
2) If he does, he’s statistically got three years left at anything close to an “elite” level.
That leaves the team with a scant three-year window of Cup contention built around Spezza. After that, they face the challenge of finding his replacement anyway.
Now, if the team hits the jackpot at center this year, say, with someone like Couturier, then hey — no problem. You simply slide Spezza to the second line, laugh about your depth at center, and enjoy many years of Cup runs.
But as the dissenters have so frequently pointed out in the comments here, the odds of finding a replacement for Spezza aren’t great. They’re even less great from the draft position of a team with a playoff window just opening.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Two or three first rounders isn't market value
In fact, that’s a massive overvaluing of a player who has only played 57 games the last two years. A high first plus a former top-10 (or better) prospect is more than fair value for a top player. In fact, this is essentially what Toronto paid for Kessel, and you think Boston came out ahead of that deal “BIG TIME.” Why is the same not true for Ottawa?
As for the rest, I feel like you are missing the point entirely. Spezza’s skill and the difficulty of replacing it are not in dispute. The fact that Spezza is a player you build around is not in dispute.
But Ottawa HAS built around Spezza. That’s how we got to where we are today. He likely has six good years left. If the team takes three of those to build around him, they’ve left themselves a three-year window of competitiveness, and then we’re having this discussion again.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Whoops, I meant 60 games
57 is his point total for the last two years.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Lots of GMS pay more than MV
You’re right… two or three first rounders is way more than market value… but since when does that stop current GMS from overpaying for what they want from time to time out of desperation. You make compelling arguments…
At the same time, building around Spezza is not solely why we are where we are… weak goaltending… not managing the development of prospects… alot of factors… wasting Chara, keeping Reddon. Not to mention the Heatley abortion.
Yeah, the multiple first rounders is exaggerated… I like extreme examples too to prove a point. If we are going to trade him, at least get a little bit of overpayment so we aren’t stuck with Foligno as the number center. Again, exaggerating to prove a point…
The time to get rid of Spezza was before he became an all around player… not now when he is at his peak. And it’s really hard to judge when his point production will take a dive given that in two or three years we should have some dynamic players and a strong defence to get him more scoring chances.
There is always a market for a scorer in his waning years because teams are always so desperate for offence. After all said and done, the main reason why I favour not trading him is because after years of pulling my hair out watching his giveaways, he’s finally peaking now and could very well be headed for a career year if he stays healthy.
Of course, if we can get a GM to pay more than market value, we absolutely should
It’s not hard to judge when his skills will start to decline, though. It’s happened to every player in Spezza’s peer group, without fail, starting at age 27 — even to Gretzky. There are NO exceptions that I’ve been able to find so far.
That’s not saying that he’s falling off a cliff tomorrow. Statistically speaking, he has around six years of high production left. That number is obviously going to vary based on a number of factors, so the window is only a very rough estimate. He could easily spike back up to over a point a game playing with someone like Parise or Semin or any other elite wing.
I’m right there with you — I believe this will probably be his best all-around year. But what good does that do Ottawa if they miss the playoffs? How does wasting Spezza’s remaining prime years benefit the team?
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions
As far as Spezza being the sole reason where we are
You’re absolutely right. There is a plethora of bad decisions to go through, and I’ll be doing that next week. But I believe all of those decisions were made based on the idea that Spezza was the lynchpin of the team for the foreseeable future. It’s a complicated mess that I plan on looking at in a lot more detail very soon.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Building and rebuilding
Check out the following on the Oilers SBN site:
http://www.coppernblue.com/2011/5/29/2196060/when-does-a-re-build-start-how-long-should-she-last
This is interesting stuff about four teams that have been rebuilding following the lockout.
I believe we are on the right track with what we are doing and should build around our strengths… Spezza and the strong defence that is now building.
Developing players
When you are trying to develop players like Butler and Greening, what is better: having them work (and succeed) with a player like Spezz or letting them develop (and struggle) with a peer talent?
Personally, I believe that players learn to win from winners. Players learn to shine from stars.
Spezza the leader and role-model is as important to us as Spezza the elite center.
Great discussion …
Great points
I guess I would point to Binghamton’s run as evidence that developing with peer talent can work.
I can’t dispute that playing with Spezza is better for our youngster’s development, because I agree. I just don’t believe that it’s the best decision for the long-term health of the franchise. It leaves the team a three-year window of competitiveness based around Spezza, and forces them to find his replacement from a much weaker draft position. I don’t think that’s worth three shots at the Cup.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions
AHL success is different than NHL success
See denis hamel or more recently corey locke.
and look at what has happened to greening’s numbers since he stopped playing with spezza, Developing with peer talent doesn’t work for everybody.
Good points!
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Also
You can argue our AHL talent isn’t developing with peers: Andre Benoit, David Hale, Corey Locke, and Ryan Potulny all seem to be quite better than average AHL players.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 30, 2011 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Great story
I think that if you take an impartial, fact-based look at the situation, as Mark has done here, you see that in the long-run, the Senators will most likely benefit from trading Jason Spezza now while his value is highest and before his production begins it’s decline.
Most counter-arguments typically resort to emotional responses to the idea (I’m as guilty as anyone on that front), or ‘soft’ numbers to support keeping him around. Those points are a lot harder to defend than Mark’s are.
I don’t want to see it happen. But I can appreciate the argument in favour of trading him, and if it were to happen, I’m sure I’d be able to come to terms with it.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 30, 2011 10:35 AM EDT reply actions
Yeah... eeeeemotional response
Great discussion… Thanks for starting it, Mark. It’s true that my arguments are emotional. Can’t help it… I’d just rather soothe my emotional tantrum (if it happened) with RNH and another top six player, rather than RNH and some pie-in-the-sky prospect, when RNH at 155 pounds is no sure thing with all the head-hunting that is going on.
There's no doubt emotional response plays into it
Emotionally, I don’t want him to go. He’s the next captain of the fucking team! He’s our most talented player.
But Murray isn’t being paid to do what makes fans feel warm and fuzzy. He’s being paid to do what’s best for the team. If The Euge is comfortable with a three-year Cup window, there’s no reason to move Spezza. But if he’s looking for a longer span of competitiveness, Murray only really has two options: Keep Spezza and get him an elite winger immediately, or trade him so that we have a core of 20-year-olds, giving the team another 15-year run.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions
I know you are exaggerating to make a point, but your math doesn’t add up. If 20-years olds give a 15-year run, then Spezza should give an 8-year run.
Ha, good point!
The 15-year number was based on the team’s past history and the assumption that they won’t start trading away picks for rental players once they return to competitiveness. Statistically speaking, it looks like a center of similar skill to Spezza has about a 13-year window of “elite” play, spanning 20 years old to 33 years old.
So the math for our magical future was more a statement of hope that we won’t repeat the mistakes of recent seasons.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Let's look at the impact of the blockbuster trades
Joe Thornton for Marco Sturm, Wayne Primeau and defenceman Brad Stuart. Boston has turned it around since then, but it’s not because of the assets they got in that trade.
Brad Richards and Johan Holmqvist for Mike Smith, Jeff Halpern, winger Jussi Jokinen and a 2009 4th round draft pick. Tampa Bay has turned it around, due to sucking mightily without Brad Richards, but the actual results from that trade have not been that great.
In the case of Kovalchuk, it’s too soon to say if Atlanta/Winnipeg will benefit from that trade, but they haven’t as of yet.
So sure, while we may “waste” Spezza’s premium years, what will a likely return get us? You haven’t proven anything to say that Spezza’s likely return will be better than Spezza in the long run. All you have said is that Spezza will decline.
I don’t accept that in 4-5 years from now, Kyle Turris and a first round pick will outperform Jason Spezza. And you have said anything that says otherwise.
An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.
The impact of the blockbuster trades is not relevant
They weren’t cited as evidence that the team would improve by trading Spezza , they were cited as evidence that a contract of his size isn’t “untradeable” in the salary cap era. Using an argument outside of its original criteria is obfuscation. The return on those trades was not cited as evidence for a return on a Spezza trade.
Your continued argument of not knowing an outcome as a reason for inaction (First for Parise, now for Spezza) remains absurd. By that logic, the team shouldn’t draft, sign, or trade for anyone, because they “don’t know” what the outcome of those moves will be.
I don’t accept that in 4-5 years from now, Kyle Turris and a first round pick will outperform Jason Spezza. And you have said anything that says otherwise.
Of course I haven’t. I’m not a fortune teller! I don’t know the future and I can’t prove that the return in a Spezza trade will be better than Spezza any more than I can prove that I won’t get hit by a bus tomorrow.
The only thing I can say for certain is that trading Spezza now will get us a return with a greater opportunity to build a good team for the future than letting him walk as a free agent at 31, trading him more years removed from his peak, or building around him at 34 will.
Your demand that I prove certainty from an inherently uncertain future is both asinine and completely unreasonable.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Your reasons for trading Spezza are absurd
Basically you want to trade him because he is good now, without any consideration for how good the return will be. By your admission, you have put no thought into comparing Spezza to your hypothetical return.
Sure we could trade Spezza for a 5th round pick, and hope he is as good as Pavel Datsyuk. So there is an opportunity to have a better team in 5 years.
Just like I can play the lottery, and I have an opportunity to be rich. By your logic, we should just trade everyone on this team, that’s over whatever arbitrary age criteria you have set and then get draft picks so there might be an opportunity to be better.
Trading Jason Spezza for the returns you have suggested would be downright idiotic.
An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.
Your definition of 'absurd' mystifies
Re-read the story. Nothing in it is absurd. Your interpretation of the article seems to be completely different from what the article actually says.
Any trade of Spezza would obviously hinge on securing adequate returns for him; this isn’t an argument for trading Spezza ‘for best offer’, but demanding adequate value as determined by people who make such determinations.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 30, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
There is nothing "arbitrary" about anything I've written.
The patterns of point production by age are supported by almost 1,000 data points, and the playoff return times represent a 15-year span.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
As always, I respect the effort and time you put into your posts
Even when I don’t 100% agree. This is really well written, but may not get a lot of people agreeing, just like the one about Sens fans being partly responsible for the stop-gap decisions made for the franchise.
The way I see it, and the only reason I disagree, is because of the Leadership factor, which you don’t fully address. This is a player that, while he has had some great stats, has faced a lot of adversity coming into this league, mostly due to high expectations from fans.
First, it was said that his skating was not good enough for this level, so he got stronger and faster.
Then it was, blind passes and no defence. So he cut down on the blind passes, became the teams #1 defensive centre and one of the best faceoff men in the league.
With the end of the Alfie era, we need to keep Spezza’s newly acquired leadership. Yes, he may never score 90 points again. But if he can be the leader for the rebuild, for the next generation, I believe he should stay. And if the end of the year is any indication, he relishes the role, and has the respect of his team mates.
http://ottawasconsensus.blogspot.com/
Yeah, like Peter said, there's a pretty strong emotional attachment which is going to lead to resistance
I didn’t address the leadership factor because I don’t know how to quantify it. As you’ve said, I think Spezza has risen to every challenge presented to him by the organization. That, to me, is the kind of player I think you build around.
But what are the results of that leadership? Will the next generation fail because they don’t have Spezza to show them the way? Or will a new leader emerge out of that group? Could the team sign a veteran in the short term to bridge that gap?
These are questions I can’t answer. The frustrating nature of intangible qualities IS their intangibility. If the team believes the benefits of Spezza’s leadership outweigh the benefits of acquiring young, high-end talent, then they should definitely keep him. I just don’t know how they’d evaluate something like that. I don’t know how to evaluate something like that, so I didn’t.
Thanks for bringing it up, though. It’s a crucial part of the discussion.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
There are also intangibles that can't be quantified
For instance, Dave isn’t just resorting to emotion, he’s also arguing that there are non-statistical factors that should factor into any decision—namely, resiliency and leadership.
The problem is it’s virtually impossible (as far as I know) to quantify those attributes for comparison, while it’s easy to quantify offensive production and compare it to a peer group. So you’re mostly using ‘gut feelings’ and other unreliable measures.
Personally, I think keeping Spezza would be better than trading him, at least in general terms and when considering the likely return.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 30, 2011 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Dave makes a point I cannot refute at all
Not everyone believes in intangibles because of their unquantifiable nature, but I’m not one of those people. My own gut feeling says the benefits of trading him outweigh those intangibles, because at the end of the day, he’s not the only leader the team will ever know, but I consider someone who disagrees to have an equally valid point.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Intangibles
Yeah, there is a strong argument to be made for so-called “externalities”. I would define the term to mean, “Things that are important to making a decision, but don’t end up getting factored into it.”
In this case, I would argue that a number of externalities were left out of your analysis of players over time. The first and most important would be what I would loosely call “overall effectiveness”. Suppose you have a centre who scores 90 points, but only wins 45% of his face-offs, never blocks shots, gives the puck away and shies away from physical play. Over the years, his scoring decreases to 70 points, but he wins 55% of his face-offs, starts blocking shots, stops giving the puck away and starts to provide leadership to his teammates. Has that player’s “overall effectiveness” increased, decreased or stayed the same? I am not sure that your analysis does a very effective job of addressing that point.
Secondly, production compared to contract has to be considered in the salary cap era. A guy like Karlsson producing at a high level while on a rookie scale contract is absolutely great from a value point of view. Suppose in the case of Spezza, in 5 years he is producing at 70% of his current level (in terms of the unquantifiable metric of “overall effectiveness”), but getting paid say 60% of his current salary. Is he less valuable to the Sens because he is producing less or more valuable to them because he is producing more for the cap space he is occupying?
As you say these things are very hard to quantify. However, one could easily make a wrong judgment by giving intangibles short shrift.
No doubt about it
I think you make a very fair argument. As a fan, I don’t think it’s possible to quantify those things when making an evaluation, so I didn’t include them. I’m not sure I could effectively address those points, so I made my evaluation on what I could address. It’s only a rough approximation, and I’m not trying to represent it as definitive.
But my hope is that Murray and staff, being much more involved in the situation, are better able to judge the impact of those intangibles. If they said, “Spezza brings too much to the table, just like Alfredsson does, to consider moving him,” I’d trust that judgement. They may have already made that determination, considering Murray called Spezza “untouchable.”
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Tangibles
I think the title of my comment was a little imprecise. While I think there are plenty of intangibles that need to be considered(leadership, perseverance, media-savvy, etc…), there are also “tangibles” that are relevant such as face-off win , PK with and without player X, PP% with and without player X, give-aways, take-aways, game-winning goals, etc… It would clearly become an exhaustive study, but I think one could do a more accurate job of measuring a player’s peak years by including these factors. It is purely speculation, but I would suggest that players get smarter with experience and while their raw scoring numbers may decline in their early thirties it might be their mid-thirties before their “effectiveness” actually declines.
Hockey might not be as conducive to so-called “advanced stats” as a sport like baseball, but there have been people pursuing this area. If you want to do a rational, dispassionate, statistical analysis of whether now is the right time to trade Spezza or not then I think it would be worthwhile to consider using more advanced stats than just PPG.
This is not a criticism of the idea of the article, more a suggestion that if you want a more accurate answer consider using a wider range of tangible data.
I'll have to check if those stats are available for all those players
I don’t know if they’re available, but I agree that they’d give a more accurate picture than the rough one I painted.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 31, 2011 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Adding intangibles
Mock drafts as well as predraft ratings are very heavily weighted on numbers. It’s a scout’s and a GM’s job to add all of these intangibles. These Combines are a supreme attempt to factor the intangibles of work ethic, conditioning and personality into the equation.
For sure my personal Mock Draft is heavily weighted on numbers and size and then I adjust the pick order when I see the intangibles that players bring into game situations.
When it comes to drafting, in the first and second rounds in particular there is strength in sheer numbers of picks.
So here’s hoping that the sheer numbers of picks we have adds at least one surprise into the top six category of forwards in the next couple of years.
That is, assuming that we use these picks rather than trading up.
Yeah, my issue is also with the leadership factor
And my issue isn’t even that Spezza’s starting to show a lot of leadership, it’s that trading him would leave a huge leadership vacuum on the team. I’m not even all that concerned about quantifying the intangibles that Spezza brings to the table (I agree – it’s impossible), but I just don’t see anyone else on the team who’s remotely close to stepping into that position. There’s some leadership there to back him up, but Philly’s too old, Neil fights too much, Andy’s in nets and Gonchar’s just not right for that role either (IMO – he’s too new to the team and the fans don’t love him enough yet).
That leaves…. Regin? Foligno? Winchester? Seriously, who? We’d be looking at a huge gap for a couple of years before anyone would be in a position to step up.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
But that doesn't mean we couldn't sign a veteran in the interim to bridge that gap
Someone like Tim Connolly or Brooks Laich (who some want to pursue anyway) could help fill that vacuum.
Trading Spezza wouldn’t somehow keep us from being active in free agency. If we were super ballsy, we’d go after Richards on a short-term (3-year), high-dollar (overpayment) contract. That would let the team replace Spezza’s production and intangibles while still reaping the benefit of high-impact prospects for his value.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Of course we could sign someone,
But considering the shoes that person will have to fill, I just don’t see a new addition to the team doing it. That’s my issue with Gonchar – he’s too new. Maybe the team would get behind him, but the fans are far too skeptical I think. The only reason Andy could get away with it is his heroic stretch last season (and it always helps to start it off by stealing a game against Toronto), but you don’t put your leadership in nets.
To clarify, when I say leadership I’m really referring to the next captain. As much as I advocate for a captainless season (I seriously think it’s the best way, especially if Giggles is trade material), the hole in our roster would almost call for 2-3 captainless seasons.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Fair enough
I don’t think I can dispute that. I doubt that a veteran coming in and wearing the C in the first year would be as well-respected as a player everyone in the locker room knows and is familiar with.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
And this is my issue
As good for the organization as it was to trade Fisher (and I’d also say Kelly), it left a hole in our leadership in terms of who can step up to fill Alfie’s skates when he eventually hangs them up. Also, knowing Alfie, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him play longer than he should because he knows the team isn’t ready for him to leave.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
A quick thought- I think if there’s one thing that benefits Ottawa if they are to trade Spezza- a lack of urgency. It’s not like Spezza wants out or his contract is handcuffing the Sens (Gonchar is bad one), so they won’t have to hit the panic button and make an unfavourable trade or hilariously stupid trade (see- Simon Gagne for Matt Walker). They have all the time to negotiate a fair trade.
Hell on Ice/In Lou We Trust/Twitter
Talking toilet, you may call me Jane.
by Kevin Sellathamby on May 30, 2011 11:25 AM EDT reply actions
Let's make it unfair
Yeah and since we’re holding all the cards here, screw fairness… If we decide to do this then let’s make this trade as unfair as possible in our favour!!!
Or unfair for the other team. Same thing I guess.
Hell on Ice/In Lou We Trust/Twitter
Talking toilet, you may call me Jane.
by Kevin Sellathamby on May 30, 2011 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
My own preference would be to do it before this year's draft
But you’re right, there’s no sense of urgency at all here.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Are we gonna have this discussion every year? Seriously?
He’s a point-per-game player and the #1 center on a team that just traded away 2 of their top 3 centers (Kelly, Fisher).
Why on Earth would we trade him?
Charts and graphs don’t make an argument rational.
Actually, that's exactly what rationality is
Charts and graphs don’t make an argument right or convincing, but they do make it rational.
It’s a rational argument. That doesn’t make it a popular one, nor does it make it a convincing one, nor does it make it the right thing to do.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 30, 2011 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Apparently yes
Apparently, yes. As long as the Spez is part of the team we should get used to the fact that he is unique in his ability to stir up people’s emotions in terms of “Let’s get rid of him… or… maybe not”. He stirred up alot of crap b4 he was even a part of the team… with let’s get Martin to play him… then play him more… then everytime he gave away the puck, let’s get rid of him… then when the story was he asked for a trade… well then all Hell broke loose.
Being #15’s best friend was not good PR for Spez… another reason to trade him. Now with his pending captainship, God knows how the expectations will go thru the roof.
If we have another losing season, the Sens fans will need somene to use as a punching bag, so it’ll probably be Spez again, no matter how well he does.
This kind of stuff is part of the reason why the Joe Corvos of the world take refuge in the streets of Carliina where nobody knows or cares who the Hell you are or whether your last pass went astray or not.
Please keep in mind that I am not advocating trading Spezza because I'm out to make him a punching bag
I love the guy. This article is simply a discussion of what’s best for the team’s long-term future.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Very different from Joe Corvo
This is in no way a criticism of Spezza or the style he plays; in fact, it’s based on his recently-improved performance. The criticism here is actually of the team around Spezza, and it’s potential inability to give him the tools needed to use his higher-than-average skill set to lead a team to contention.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 30, 2011 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Rationality is the exercise of logic not data.
Data informs logic it doesn’t dictate it.
Spezza is a PPG player, one of few in the NHL.
A team’s #1 center is a central building block, why would we intentionally weaken our core?
The list of centers that would be worth a one-for-one trade for Spezza is very short.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm?fetchKey=20112ALLCACAll&sort=avgPointsPerGame&viewName=points
I think you've missed my point entirely
I’m not sure if you read the article.
That a team’s top center is a central building block is not in dispute here. But the fact is that the team HAS built around Spezza, and they failed to win a Cup. They are now rebuilding, and based on a plethora of historical data, by the time they are done building around him again, his prime years as a point-per-game player will have passed. Logically, then, it makes sense for the team to trade Spezza while his value is at its peak, in order to build around youth.
Building around a player past his prime is not a recipe for long-term success. That’s the crux of the argument.
I am not proposing a one-for-one trade of Spezza.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I realize your not proposing a one-for-one trade, my point is that a good gauge of a player’s value is usually by how many players you would make such a trade for.
If the number is high then he’s probably not that valuable, if it’s low, as is the case here, you probably have a good one on your hands.
They did build around Spezza but then the whole thing fell apart due to no fault of his.
Heatley, Chara, complete failure in goal, none of these things are Spezza’s fault.
I am not one who espouses the “short rebuild” myth, I think it is gonna take 3-4 years but that is no reason to intentionally weaken the team and trade away a key asset who can only help the younger players improve.
Your extrapolation of numbers doesn’t take any of the intangibles into consideration which is a huge factor in any rational argument.
We all know hockey, more than possibly any other sport, is more than a numbers game.
Please use the reply button to keep discussions grouped together
I’m not claiming anywhere that the failure of the team is the fault of Spezza. As a player and a person, I am a fan of his. I’m not someone who has ever advocated trading him because of his lack of defense, or claimed he “sucked” because of his blind passes.
If Spezza isn’t easily replaced, what good does it do the team in three years to have improved younger players and a past-his-prime Spezza? He’ll still need to be replaced — especially if he leaves via free agency — and the team will (hopefully, because they’ve improved since this year) be in a worse position to draft his replacement. What they’d have to give up at that point in trade to acquire a similar player would be painful (as you’ve pointed out, PPG centers aren’t exactly common), and trading or drafting would be the only way to acquire someone similar — PPG centers in their prime simply don’t hit the UFA market.
I respect the intangibles argument, even if I disagree with its weight in considering a trade.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
If the numbers were way off then I could see yous argument but they are pretty freakin’ good even with his injuries and the decline of the team around him.
So when the numbers are that good the intangibles absolutely matter in making any rational argument.
$7 mil is not a bad cap hit in today’s NHL for a PPG player.
He’s only 27 which most would still consider his prime.
His game is evolving more every year.
The team needs continuity in the forward ranks with Alfie retiring soon.
Replacing a #1 center is really hard.
Opportunity cost only matters if the opportunity is not a complete crapshoot as drafts normally are.
I just don’t see how numbers and charts make any kind of reasonable argument in this case.
$7 mil is not a bad cap hit in today’s NHL for a PPG player.
He’s only 27 which most would still consider his prime.
His game is evolving more every year.
The team needs continuity in the forward ranks with Alfie retiring soon.
Replacing a #1 center is really hard.
All of this is true. None of it disproves the argument presented.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 30, 2011 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions
It's hard to disprove the argument that Mark provided..
… because it’s based on numbers and trends. Makr provided a reason to consider trading Spezza and that it’s not farfetched for Spezza to be traded due to his age (prime) and the situation the team is in.
I think people are just adding the intangibles that were not included in Mark’s argument. Since the numbers can’t be used against Mark’s argument, the only other way people can contend his argument is to use the intangibles.
by Los Blancos Chicca on May 30, 2011 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Absolutely right
And absolutely fair.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 30, 2011 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
There are facts to argue against me
The people arguing the intangibles are taking the article as criticism of Spezza, rather than the team surrounding him, as Peter so eloquently pointed out. I’m looking at that side of the coin next.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Hmm maybe..
But how can you argue that Spezza is in his prime and he will decline? And that the team is in rebuild mode? And that we will get the best return on Spezza if we trade him now? These are all BIG reasons to advocate trading him. So the reasons for him to stay are all the other things he brings to the team (his intangibles) and the uncertainty that the return we will get for him will actually result in something that equals or is better than Spezza.
Anyways that was the only way I knew how to contend your argument, considering I didn’t have time to gather info on previous trades and draft success and all these other historical trends.
by Los Blancos Chicca on May 30, 2011 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
All I can say is that PPG chart is based on about 1000 seasons of data. No center over the age of 27 avoided a decline in production, not even Gretzky. Several were able to continue to produce at a high level (.8 PPG or so) until they retired, and some even saw spikes of fantastic years, but there’s pretty compelling evidence that Spezza’s production will now start to drop.
I can argue that the team is rebuilding because we traded like 50 players at the deadline and finished with the 5th-worst record in the league. How long the rebuild takes is much more nebulous. The fan in me wants to believe we have a head start, but the realist in me points out that a 15-year average is a pretty strong indicator.
The length of the rebuild wasting the remainder of Spezza’s prime is the focal point of my argument; if it can be shortened (and that’s what comes next), then the rationale for trading Spezza goes right out the window.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
I don’t disagree with your chart of points, but you will need charts mapping everything from face-off win % for centres as the age to shot blocking stats to penalty killing % numbers, and on and on if you want to do a fully quantitative analysis of the value of a number one centre to a team.
For total impact, you're absolutely right
My charts only show that in the most obvious area of impact — goal generation — Spezza’s productivity will drop.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Let's go through this point by point, because I feel I've adressed these in the article
$7 mil is not a bad cap hit in today’s NHL for a PPG player.
Not in dispute, and not brought up as a reason for trading him.
He’s only 27 which most would still consider his prime.
Completely agree, and the crux of the argument: He is in his prime now; his team is just beginning the rebuilding process. When it is complete, he will no longer be in his prime, and will have a very small window of high-end productivity left.
His game is evolving more every year.
Completely agree. Not in dispute.
The team needs continuity in the forward ranks with Alfie retiring soon.
Agreed, though Spezza is not the only forward the team will ever have to achieve this.
Replacing a #1 center is really hard.
Not in dispute. The fact that it is really hard doesn’t change the inevitability of the need to do so, nor the fact that the more the Senators improve and Spezza’s value depreciates, the harder the task becomes. Spezza’s refusal to stop aging means he must be replaced at some point.
Opportunity cost only matters if the opportunity is not a complete crapshoot as drafts normally are.
Uncertainty cannot be cited as a detriment to opportunity cost due to the nature of everything being uncertain, especially since the success or failure of players received in return has absolutely no effect on the continued inevitable decline of Spezza’s skills, nor on the inevitable need to replace him in the future.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
A numbers-based argument is only half an argument
I’m not going to argue your numbers, my point is that no trade or player decision can be based solely on numbers, to do so is not a rational analysis of the situation.
The opportunity cost of keeping Spezza is at least somewhat known, we know who he is, have a body of work to reference and can compare against others.
The opportunity cost of some prospect or draft pick is far more uncertain, we have little to base any analysis on so you can’t just assume the best case scenario and extrapolate from there.
You're right, and I tried not to do that
And of course, the opportunity cost of Spezza vs draft pick A is far more known. The question in my mind, and the reason for advocating the trade, is what his opportunity cost will be three years down the road, when the team returns to competitiveness. From this point out, it’s diminishing, so if the team can’t quickly maximize it internally, the rational move to me is to maximize it externally.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Columbus again
I think the Columbus deal is the only one that looks anywhere near value, but that’s just me. I haven’t embraced the idea of a three year wait for the play-offs yet, but having 3 first round picks and the winner and runner up for prospect of the year in our system is making me drool. With our depth in draft picks this year we could easily par lay the 6th and 8th into two top 5 picks. We could also trade down with one of them and be almost unaffected. I think trading Spez for a package of the 8th, Johansen, and probably some salary would not only help the team in 10 years, it would help the team in 2 years also.
Also, I fucking love Spezza
I own a jersey. I vote for him every year for the all star game. I wrote a letter to the CBC about Glenn Healey’s unfair commentating against specifically Spezza.
I love him too!
This has nothing to do with my personal opinion of him
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
A trade with Columbus and a little wheeling and dealing from Murray could make the net return for Spezza something pretty hefty
Like Landeskog-Couturier-Zack Phillips plus Johansen hefty. That’d be two top center prospects and two top wing prospects.
It’s probably too much to hope for.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
That's the kind of return I was talking about
Landeskog-Couturier-Zack Phillips plus Johansen is the kind of return that would make this rebuild REALLY interesting … Yeah, probably too much to hope for. But who knows… BM is due for a miracle.
But hey, it sure is fun to play armchair GM.
That kind of return is possible, though I don't know if it's likely
Really, it involves too many factors to claim that it’s a likely return for Spezza. All we can say for certain is that getting a 1st round pick and high-end prospect in return opens up the possibility of that kind of return. It still takes maneuvering to make it happen, and, of course, those players actually panning out!
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Now we are talking....
I would be in favour of any Spezza trade where the other team is overpaying. If Tampa is looking to unload Stamkos, Bergenheim and this year’s first rounder then I am all ears!
What are the precise details of the supposed Columbus trade? I have heard a few variants that don’t sound that attractive.
The proposed trade with Columbus would be the 8th overall pick in this year's draft plus Ryan Johansen
More on Johansen here. The goal would then be to upgrade our 6th overall and 8th overall picks to something like 3rd and 4th, respectively. We’d still have Nashville’s 21st to work with, though we’d lose a bunch of second round picks (we have three to work with).
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Great work Mark!!
From an unemotional, numbers-based opinion, I too think it could be in the team’s and Spezza’s benefit to trade him sooner rather than later. If we are looking at this based on the data you provided, which sums up everything that could be quantified. So based on what you provided, I agree. But of course, it’s not just numbers.
As Peter mentioned, the emotional aspect of this is hard to ignore. I know I would freak out of Spezza was being considered for trade, let alone actually being traded. I am the type of fan that gets attached to players that put their all for their team and fans. It was so hard for me to see Kelly and Fisher go, it will be even harder for me to see Spezza go. And I would probably faint if Alfie was to go.
Also there are the intangibles. The Sens have never been through a major rebuild. Nonetheless, if at one point over the past 10 years they were to go through a rebuild, having Alfie around as the constant and leader would have made it easier. Seeing as Spezza is stepping up to be the next leader of the team, it makes sense that he sticks around. Being the leader and having this team as his own, is what made him thrive this year as an all-around player. You could see it on his face, he was beaming with pride. He won’t have that (right away) going to another team.
I don’t want to make it seem like I missed your point, because I didn’t. If you are to consider a trade, you can’t not consider the return. Based on your chart considering the rebuild, if we were to become competitive in 3 years, I would want my number one centre to be in his prime by then, or producing like other number one centres in their prime. So unless the trade yields back in a number one centre ready to carry the team in 3 years, then I wouldn’t contemplate it, for the same reasons you considered Spezza should be traded in the first place.
by Los Blancos Chicca on May 30, 2011 1:23 PM EDT reply actions
Of course
It’s NOT just numbers. I love Spezza, just like I loved Fisher and (kind of) Kelly. I’ve spent almost all of my entire life watching Alfie play. I don’t like thinking about the team without him on it.
As fans, we have an emotional investment in the team and the players. As GM, I don’t think Bryan Murray has that luxury. If he feels Spezza’s intangibles outweigh the potential return in a trade, he should keep him. If he doesn’t, then he has to move him while his value is at its peak, like he did with Fisher and Kelly.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
No offense
But the loss of Jason Spezza is a whole lot more impactful than the loss of both Fisher and Kelly combined….
My Jason Spezza Obsession is Perfectly Healthy!
haha thanks
Im fortunate enough to be following an awesome Manchester U fan on twitter, enjoyed the teasing
My Jason Spezza Obsession is Perfectly Healthy!
Emotionally?
Not for me; Fisher was my favorite player.
I know where you’re coming from, though, so no offense taken.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
I agree 100%.
There is a reason we are fans and not GM’s. It’s just going to be really hard to justify trading Spezza if the return doesn’t work out.
by Los Blancos Chicca on May 30, 2011 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
If the return doesn't work out, Murray would be fired.
It’s as simple as that.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
If that was the case
why is he still here?
Meszaros for Kuba and Picard and a pick, resigning Kuba?
That pick for Comrie/Campoli?
Vermette for a 2nd (Lehner, thank god) and Leclaire?
Heatley for Cheechoo/Michalek?
Or, taking a team with 11 playoff seasons in a row into also ran status?
Its not as simple as that, or he would have been gone already.
by DontfeedtheBelak on May 30, 2011 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think those deals have the same kind of impact as blowing a Spezza deal, that's why
My personal belief is that the Elliott-for-Anderson trade saved his job. A Spezza trade would be too high-profile of a failure to ignore, because it would set the franchise back years.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Oh boy
I just ordered my Spezza jersey yesterday, and now I’m reminded of the last time I bought a sports jersey, which was an Ottawa Senators Hossa jersey the month before he was traded.
Thanks Mark
by Alexander Calloway on May 30, 2011 2:16 PM EDT reply actions
No, it's OK
Because the Senators jersey you ordered this time is ugly.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
No more "do-overs"
From the looks of some of the moves already made, it looks like BM is not in the same “safety first” kind of mood he always seemed to be in before when he pulled off a move.
He’s not exactly “Dale Talon-like” all out wheeler-dealer, but it looks like he’s been given a pretty wide mandate to change the face of this team and he has done that. He could pull off a Spez blockbuster, but that’s just it… he doesn’t get any more “do-overs”. One more mistake and he’s out to pasture.
Question.
Team trades Spezza – would that destroy goodwill in the FA market? I.e. once you peak, we’ll get rid of you when you start declining?
Sure, we got some goodwill from keeping Phillips, and trading Fisher to Nashville, but I wonder if trading Spezza would kill FA interest in a small town Canadian franchise?
Wow, I didn't think about that
I would hope not, since the reasons for trading him lie in not wasting his talent, but I could see how it would be perceived that way in the market.
How much do you think goodwill matters? Players love to point out that sports are “a business” when they sign their huge UFA deals… do you think that blade cuts both ways?
This is a really great point.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
I think it does.
I think when players are looking to sign their last big deal, they’re looking for stability for their kids, their wives, all of that off ice stuff. Plus an opportunity to play for a winner. Hence why players take cuts to stay at their current place right?
Money drives a lot of players, but I think an equal number of guys sign for family/home and other factors too.
Ottawa is a goalie graveyard – don’t you think that discourages people to sign here? How about coaches – if you’re looking at jobs and you see Ottawa is open and Florida is too, do you pick Ottawa that has gone through a million in the last two years?
Then do players only get to claim sports are a business when it suits them?
There’s no perceived loyalty in chasing dollars over organization — this is what led to some fans’ ill will (though not by me) towards Volchenkov last summer. If the roles are reversed, and the organization doesn’t show loyalty to the player by trading them when it best suits the team’s goals, does that somehow make them less attractive to free agents?
I don’t know. If I had to guess, I’d say there’s probably a difference in perception between trading a career guy versus a known mercenary.
But you know the saying — “If Gretzky can be traded…”
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Not to mention
It could also be seen as letting him play his peak years on a contender team. I think it’s something to consider, but with an NTC it’s not really like we can screw him anyway (not that we would, but you know what I mean). I don’t see it as a huge issue….
Oh Captain, my Captain!
You're right
I think the perception would definitely depend on the destination.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 30, 2011 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm glad to hear it
Though I don’t know why it would make your day. I don’t generally have a problem acknowledging others’ good points, especially with something like this article, where I feel the case is compelling but hardly decisive — even more so when we start talking about something as blurred as the perception of a trade in the market of potential players.
I’m totally open to other points of view when they’re rational. Frankly, I wouldn’t expect less from a legal mind. ;)
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 31, 2011 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions
I just enjoy validation of my opinions, really.
Particularly when it’s worded “you’re right”. It’s a nice treat after always arguing with Adnan!
Oh Captain, my Captain!
I posted this on twitter
harsh but to a degree true or may become so:
“It really is a tough job being a Sens plyr: you’re bad you get booed and criticized to no end.You become good,fans want 2 trade you 4 picks”
and yes I do understand the point of this blog wasnt the return
My Jason Spezza Obsession is Perfectly Healthy!
Ha
Sens fans have some serious unrealistic expectations, as I think Craig Anderson is about to find out next year. Spezza, in particular, has been subject to a ton of what I feel is unfair criticism. He’s the team’s whipping boy (though that may now be Kuba), and whatever he does will never be enough.
Don’t misconstrue this article as wanting to trade Spezza because “he’s good,” though. You won’t find me advocating a trade of Karlsson, Anderson, Michalek, Alfie, or even Rundblad. This is about the Senators’ current level of competitiveness, and Spezza’s career path, and nothing more. There’s nothing here that disparages his talent, leadership, or intangibles.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
is kuba a whipping boy
or is he just the worst player on our team. is it unfair not to like a player as bad as kuba?
by Buz Killington on May 30, 2011 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, that's kind of subjective, right?
I don’t think Kuba was as bad as, say, Lessard, but I wouldn’t argue that he was terrible this season, just like Phillips was for much of the year.
I would argue that Kuba is going to rebound next season, because it’s the first time in two years he’ll be entering the offseason healthy. The last time he was healthy, wasn’t the liability he is now — he was a reliable top 4, 40-point defenseman. I’m willing to bet he plays closer to that level this year. Hopefully well enough to get traded!
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Plus it’s a contract year, and he had a heck of a season in his most recent contract year.
I really hope we don’t re-sign him, though. I think people would march on Scotiabank Place with torches and pitchforks if that happened.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 31, 2011 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions
It's hard to believe the team would value a 34-year-old guy over the young prospects we have coming up
CHRIS PHILLIPS YOU DON’T COUNT
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 31, 2011 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions
if you want a surefire way to mire the sens in losing for many years
do the deal for sam gagner and rnh and see what happens
I'd prefer to take Larsson in that scenario
But… you no likey Gagner? Why not?
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Spezza for Backstrom
One scenario that has not yet been discussed in this thread would be to trade Spezza to a team that is in “win-now” mode for a young established star centre. Say for example, Spezza to the Capitals for Nicklas Backstrom. The contracts match up pretty closely, although Backstrom’s is much longer. Spezza’s emerging two-way game, leadership and playoff experience seems like it would be exactly what the Capitals need to take the next step. On the other side of the ledger, the Senators get a bonafide #1 centre in return with an elite-level window that is 4 years longer according to Mark’s statistical analysis. It feels like a win-win in the same vein as the Hossa for Heatley trade (at least at the time). Of course, there could be other combinations that could work (Spezza for Kopitar?)
This is not a trade that I am necessarily advocating. I just want to add another bit of fodder to what has been a pretty interesting discussion.
Thanks for starting the topic Mark and for keeping it collegial.
Imagine Spezza and Ovechkin?
Would be a pretty crazy duo. No one else on the ice would ever touch the puck.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 31, 2011 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Not as exciting, but...
…with some draft day engineering the Sens could ice a Landeskog-Backstrom-Alfredsson top line next season.
Would be crazy
Although I don’t think Landeskog or Alfredsson will be playing top-line minutes… It would probably look more like Michalek-Backstrom-Butler or something.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 31, 2011 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
No one else would need to!
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 31, 2011 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Definitely an interesting proposal
It sure feels like a win-win to me upon first glance — it addresses directly my concerns about the team’s competitive position. The Caps would be in a position to directly maximize Spezza’s remaining six years of elite performance, while the Senators, assuming a three-year rebuild, get seven years from Backstrom — with all of their talent peaking within that window.
This kind of trade isn’t one I had even considered because I was so focused on the idea that Spezza’s return had to be building blocks for the future. Thanks for posting it — it’s practically its own discussion by itself.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on May 31, 2011 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Your trade proposals are outlandish.
Edmonton would not trade the 1st overall by itself, let alone with Gagner, for Spezza. Columbus would never ever trade Johansen and the 8th for Spezza.
If they wouldn't
Then a trade wouldn’t make sense for Ottawa, and it wouldn’t get done. It’s as simple as that.
In my opinion, though, you’re heavily undervaluing Spezza.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 31, 2011 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Proposals are fair if not a little low
The Sens are under no obligation to move Spezza. They will only do it if an offer knocks their socks off. Those proposals would be interesting, but not so interesting that you would have to take them if they were offered. It is quite possible and even likely that no player taken in this year’s draft will turn out to be as good as Spezza is now.
Spezza isn't as good as you all think. 57 points in 62 games, 57 points in 60 games, 73 pts in 82 games the past three seasons.
That’s a really good player, but not incredible. And he makes SEVEN MILLION A YEAR!! You think Columbus would rather Spezza at $7M instead of Johansen, Strome/Murphy, plus whatever you can get for $5M? You can get two more solid players for that. If Ottawa insists on these crazy packages, be prepared to keep Spezza.
Well, this is more of an opinion
You don’t think Spezza is “incredible”, and that’s fine. Determining player value is a subjective thing.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
But do you think Columbus should want Spezza instead of Johansen, Strome/Murphy, plus $5.4M in cap space to address other needs?
I think most people would think Columbus should walk away. That’s all I’m saying. I like Spezza a lot, and I actually think he belongs in Columbus. It’s a good fit. Just not for such a big package. Brassard or Voracek, plus the 8th pick, and another pick or prospect would be a good deal for both teams. And like you said, if Ottawa was underwhelmed, then they keep Spezza, and everyone is still relatively happy.
I partially agree with you
If there is not a deal that makes both sides happy then there won’t be a trade. Ottawa is not going to take anything less than a high pick first rounder and a top notch prospect.
The Sens might be willing to take some salary back to facilitate a trade if their other conditions were met.
I think it really depends on what Columbus's goals are
If they’re serious about getting the right player to maximize Nash, then I think they should want Spezza instead of that package and cap space. This draft isn’t the last chance they’ll have to acquire talent — they’ll have five more shots at a draft, and there’s nothing stopping them from replenishing talent by drafting well. Johansen and the draft pick aren’t going to be immediate contributors to either club. Columbus would essentially be trading to top prospects for a six-year window of elite play. If that were there goal, then they should pursue it, and worry about the future in the future.
Honestly, I originally had Brassard in there and I switched it to Johansen because I figured Columbus would balk at giving up a roster player.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
It's been three full seasons since Spezza has played like a star. He still gets paid like one.
No one is trading two top-notch assets (and you think it should be more) for him right now. If he has a 95-100 point season this season, then maybe that changes. But right now, Spezza has regressed a decent amount these past few years. Let’s see him prove he’s still a top-notch player himself.
Last season for bad for everyone though.
No one played well. The team sucked royally. We went into the season thinking “if” – if everyone was healthy, played to their potential etc. The season could have easily gone the other way if the fates had willed it.
Yeah, if Ottawa requested deals like that, I don't think a deal gets done. I think you're overvaluing him.
Why would Columbus want to take on a big contract when Johansen has a legit chance to be at or near Spezza’s level for 20% of the money, plus Ryan Strome, Ryan Murphy, etc.? I just looked up Spezza’s numbers- he’s ~a point a game center making $7M a year. I can’t see a young team like Edmonton or Columbus giving up two prime, top-notch assets for that.
Ottawa is not shopping Spezza
If Columbus called they would be the buyers and Ottawa would be setting the price. Columbus could take it or leave it.
Fair enough
That’s their call. If they are happy with what they have now then that’s great for them.
Because of the "chance" and because of the time
The assets Ottawa would receive are much farther behind Spezza in terms of development, and their success is far from assured. That’s why virtually any player-for-prospects/picks deal is made.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 31, 2011 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
But weigh the "chance" versus the salary: $7M per year for Spezza, $800,000 for Johansen.
Plus, $800,000 for either Strome or Murphy, either of whom will also be impact players. You now have $5.4M to spend on another impact player, or two solid players, etc. It’s not worth locking all that $7M, and losing 3-4 solid to impact players for a guy who, frankly, has regressed quite a bit these past three seasons. Let him prove he’s still worth the $7M before he costs two top-notch assets.
“Plus, $800,000 for either Strome or Murphy, either of whom will also be impact players”
Either of whom MAY be impact players.
That's your call...
Sure, and for the first few years you will get $800,000 level production from him. Almost all top scorers(excluding maybe Stamkos, Crosby, maybe Kane) take a few seasons to start producing. Looking just at #1 picks, you have guys like Thornton, Lecavalier, Tavares. They all take a while to come on stream.
Down the road if/when Strome starts producing then you can pay him accordingly. He certainly won’t be looking for $800K in his second contract.
Tavares just had ten more points than Spezza had, on a worse team, in his second season, then led the Canadian team in scoring at the worlds. He's not coming along that slowly.
But I see your point. I just don’t think Spezza is worth trading so much for, AND paying so much to. Columbus would either pay a free agent $7M and keep their assets, or trade those assets for a more cost-effective option.
You'd probably be paying $1.4M for Strome
Because, including bonuses, that’s about what his cap hit would be. And ‘rolling the dice’ isn’t exactly a realistic way to build a franchise.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on May 31, 2011 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
But it's not like Spezza is a sure thing either. That's my main point.
For $7M a year, I want a guy who I know is a star. Spezza is a good top line player, and is a really good all around player, and would make any team better, but that cap hit is high. You can get so much more value for that $7M, including Johansen, Strome, other free agents, another trade, etc. I think it’s likely that Johansen and Strome will combine for more value than Spezza these next ~5 years, and even at 1.4, make around #3M combined.
If by “more value” you mean more points then maybe. If you mean that Columbus will have a better shot at a deep playoff run with them rather than Spezza then I don’t think I agree with you. Maybe by year 5, but by then you will paying the two of them combine as much or more than Spezza.
All of that is assuming that neither or Johansen or Strome turns out to be a bust.
No, by more value I just meant more a better cost-benefit ratio. They will each cost a lot less and combine for more production.
Let’s say Johansen disappoints a tad bit and ends up a 50-60 point center with very solid two-way skills, in the mold of a Spezza, within the next few years. Strome also is very likely to, at least, be a 40-50 point scorer, while his ceiling is that of a 90 point forward. So you could have two top 6 or top 9 forwards rather than one top 3 forward. If they become those players, they’d probably combine to make $7-8M a year.
I just think paying one player $7M demands top-notch results, and while Spezza is a really good two-way center, I’m not sure he’s worth that $$.
Because they have a need for an elite center in his prime to play alongside their elite winger in his prime
Strome or Johnansen might match Spezza’s production at some point in the future, but while the Jackets wait for that to happen, they will be wasting Nash’s prime years of productivity. Spezza would give them the chance to win now, rather than pairing an ascending center with a declining winger.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
That's a good point, but they're saying Brad Richards is asking for $7-8M per year.
I think it’d behoove them to just sign him, and keep Johansen. They don’t have to trade Johansen and the 8th for Spezza; they can offer Richards $8M (or even 8.5 or 9 to persuade him to come to Columbus), who is better than Spezza, and still keep what they’d lose for Spezza. They are thrilled about Johansen, so I don’t think they’d even trade him straight up for Spezza.
A fair trade would be something like Brassard or Voracek, the 8th pick, and another prospect or draft pick. That’s a more fair trade for Spezza. Johansen is possibly the top prospect in hockey right now.
Ottawa isn't looking for a "fair" trade
Why bother trading their franchise centre for “fair” value. If the trade is not at least good or very good then why do it at all?
If Columbus can sign Richards then great. He is a very good player who would certainly help them.
That's my point, though. Spezza's not worth overpaying for.
“Then why do it at all?”
My whole point. No one will accept those proposed trade offers. Spezza’s contract is a problem.
Spezza’s contract might be a stumbling block for a cost-sensitive team like Columbus, but imagine if a rich team like the Leafs had the chance to grab him and pair him with Kessel on their top line. They could care less about his salary.
Of course, the Leafs have trade most of their valuable assets away, so I don’t think could put together an attractive enough package to pique Ottawa’s interest (leaving aside the fact they are hated divisional rivals).
Sorry, but Johansen is not an elite center in his prime
He is a very good prospect with a lot of potential (and some serious hype, apparently), but his prime is at least four years away still, statistically speaking. You’re making him out like he’s already won the Hart.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Welcome to the site!
The proposals may be outlandish, but I think they’re market value for an elite player. If the Senators can’t get market value for him, there’s not much sense in trading him in spite of everything I’ve written.
He also has a no-trade clause and has been deemed untouchable by management, so the whole thing is probably moot anyway.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Thanks! Yeah, I think a Spezza trade just wouldn't work out- it doesn't work for any of these teams, especially if Ottawa thinks Spezza is as good as you guys think he is.
He has regressed these past three years- the onus is on him to prove he’s still worth $7M.
I would argue that he hasn't regressed
He hasn’t been given the talent to produce at his previous level. There’s a difference playing with Dany Heatley versus Bobby Butler, after all.
Besides, the important thing is not how good Ottawa thinks Spezza is, it’s how good a potential trading partner thinks he is.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
That is a good point.
Johansen is just too much, even straight up, for Spezza. He might be the best prospect in the world right now. At $800,000 a year, or whatever the rookie contracts are, he’s such a valuable asset for a small market team like the Jackets.
A more fair trade would be: Brassard or Voracek, the 8th overall pick, and another pick or prospect.
Speaking over-valuing I think you are getting a little too excited about Johansen. The guy has not even played a single NHL game as far as I can see. Heck, Sens fans might argue that Rundblad (Hockey’s Future’s #1 prospect outside the NHL) is worth more than Johansen.
Until he shows something in the NHL Johansen’s value is speculative at best.
It is possible that Johansen will be the second coming of Sidney Crosby, but it is more likely that it will take him a few seasons to get everything figured out. Once he becomes a “~PPG, strong two-way center” he will be several years into his career and looking for the kind of paycheck that such a player can demand.
Except that Johansen is not at that level, and may not ever reach that level
If you’re going to talk about value statements, Spezza’s is known, and Johansen’s is not. Your argument is based solely on the fact that he may reach Spezza’s level, but outright ignores the equal likelihood that he may not. That’s not a rational judgment of value, it’s an idealistic one.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
A prospect is too much straight up for a PPG center in the prime of his career?
That’s a really hard statement to take seriously.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
The other point is that Columbus could do better if they decided to shop Johansen.
There are plenty of teams who would offer more value than Spezza for Johansen.
This article isn't about what Columbus could do with Johansen
It’s about whether the best long-term move for the Senators is to trade Jason Spezza.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Just a thought on Murray's approach
Isn’t it coincidental that Bryan labeled Spezza as untradeable, and Bryan got extended for three years (while Spezza’s contract is up in three years)? We ought to be reading between the lines.
You’d have to think that (besides his larger body of work, positive and negative) after botching the Heatley situation and getting a minimal return, he’d be under strict instruction from Melnyk to not even approach a Spezza trade unless the co-conspiring GM is worshipping the very ground Spezza walks on. I’m talking a Yashin-like return. Because after all, Heatley pulled a Yashin-like stunt, and Murray ultimately lost that battle of wills badly, while Marshall Johnston won with Yashin. All this to say, Bryan doesn’t dare approach trading an upper-echelon player again unless he nets a blue chip prospect and a top 3 overall pick. Simple as that given the context.
Well, I'm not a fan of "reading between the lines", because supposition usually creates self-serving conclusions
I’m more a believer in Occam’s Razor. In this case, I think it’s more likely that Murray’s extension coincides with the average length of rebuild time: If at the end, the team has improved, he’ll continue on; if not, it will be someone else’s turn.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Oh and another point, on Spezza's production
Spezza proved that he could very well be just a step below generational talent based on his production after the lockout. He has proven to be capable of an assist per game with the right surrounding cast.
Since the team around him regressed after the cup finals appearance, and so too did the quality of his linemates, his numbers have suffered.
I’d argue, though, that when (not if) management surrounds him with adequate scorers again, his numbers will return to post-lockout-ish production relative to league scoring, because the more we become removed from those years, the more I realize that Spezza was the offensive glue between Alfie and Heatley. He was, and is, the offensive catalyst, whereas Alfie brought all around game, and Heatley had the goal scoring radar but was very dependent.
We saw a dip in quality of teammates with Spezza in the past three years, which unfortunately coincided with him approaching his offensive peak if the numbers in your graph are to be believed. He set a precedent of production almost approaching generational numbers by anchoring the best scoring line in recent memory in the first three post lockout years, and then deteriorating health and teammates saw him merely return to the relative norm of other bonafide scoring centres… but assuming the teammate issue is addressed, I wouldn’t be surprised if he approached that assist-per-game threshold, and became an outlier once again. I think he still has that potential to shift into, or revert back to a higher offensive gear
I completely agree with this assessment
It’s what my whole argument is based upon. There’s absolutely no reason to think Spezza’s production wouldn’t return to the post-lockout level with the right talent surrounding him.
If the team desires to maximize his value, they either need to get him a scorer immediately, or trade him because the length of time it would take to develop a scorer in-system would leave them a very small window where Spezza’s still capable of that production level.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
On that note
One possibility is for the Senators to trade their top first-round draft pick and one of their defensive prospects for an élite scorer, which would be the same kind of deal you have been advocating for the team to get in return for Spezza. Said player would have to be near Spezza’s age, preferably younger.
Yep, definitely a possiblility
In my mind, that would completely eliminate any reason for discussing a trade.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Intersting but...
Another take:
Everyone is talking about leadership for Spezza, but to me…when there isn’t any pressure, nothing is really expected of you and you’re not playing for anything, how much leadership is there? Don’t get me wrong, Spezza is a good player but leadership is going to be evident when and if he takes the “C”, which brings me to my next point.
This town has just come through almost 15 years of Alfredssson captaincy when he retires (which may be sooner than expected if news about his back is true…that it’s in bad shape).
People will have Alfredsson in their minds as their “prototypical captain”, let me paint you a picture. It’s late November, the team has just suffered a heart-breaking loss to the Montreal Canadiens (or any team). Spezza didn’t get much done offensively. Team 1200 post-game:
:“Where was Spezza tonight? He’s getting paid seven million dollars and he’s not working. He’s the captain isn’t he?”
Eastwood:
“Players have offgames sir…Spezza is an excellent player, you have to be patient.”
:
“Daniel ALfredsson used to own the Habs. He’d always come through in the clutch. If Alfie were here…”
DO you get what I’m saying here? I’m really afraid that this town has ALfredsson SO imprinted on its psyche that they’ll judge Spezza with a jaundiced eye, that if he doesn’t play a north-south game like Alfie, lay his body on the line every night, the fickle fans in this area will tear him apart.
I would hate to see that happen, personally. But I can see it happening.
I’d like to keep Spezza at 5.0 for his next contract….and maybe a secondary leadership role. Ease him into it…
As for the trading, I would have done this a few years ago, like in 2009. When Heatley was traded, that was the time to do the blow-up. You knew the core would never be the same again, so….
by Quizzical Quorum on Jun 5, 2011 5:30 PM EDT reply actions
Very good point
As others have pointed out, though, Spezza has risen to every challenge he’s faced in the organization so far. You’d have to believe he’d rise to the shadow of Alfie as well and make his own mark as a captain.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
He'd have to win a cup.
That’s it. Otherwise, he’ll constantly be in Alfie’s shadow. You know they’ll retire Alfie’s jersey the day after he’s done (as they should), and the only way Spezza can beat that is by winning a cup.
I, for one, believe he can, with the right talent supporting him
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Silver Seven
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Rangers, Devils back at MSG for pivotal Game 5; NHL 13 screenshots (Playoff Puck Previews)
- CBC announces ‘While the Men Watch Hockey Night,’ sets off backlash over sexism
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 Phoenix Coyotes
- Alain Vigneault signs extension with Vancouver Canucks because he’s excellent
- Dubinsky returns for Game 5; No hearing for Brown; Spacek rips Habs (Puck Headlines)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Dubinsky, Prust back in Rangers lineup for Game 5
- Dubinsky, Prust return to Rangers lineup for Game 5 of East finals vs. Devils
- St. John's IceCaps optimistic for future despite being knocked out of playoffs
- Jackets sign Dorsett to three-year deal
- Columbus Blue Jackets sign NHL penalty minutes leader Derek Dorsett to a 3-year contract
