The Washington Capitals signed "former" player Brooks Orpik to a one year one million dollar contract.
This deal was met with almost near universal approval, and even those who acknowledged that he is a bad player didn't care too much since it's such a cheap deal.
Others pointed out that Orpik has value 'in the room' and that he hits etc.
My view is that the NHL is so competitive that there is no amount of off-ice team related good things that you can do that make up for being a bad player. If all that matters so much, have him retire and be an assistant coach - the best of both worlds.
At the NHL level there is no way that a role player can do role player things and have them make enough impact to overcome the fact that the other team consistently wins when he's on the ice. That is impossible.
People routinely disparage and ignore conclusions that challenge their assumptions and the player's reputation on the basis that they ignore statistical evidence.
Orpik was a -5.46% CF when he was on the ice relative to his team when he wasn't. That means that shot-attempts against go up almost 6% when he hits the ice.
That is the sixth worst rating in the entire NHL for defenseman who played 1000 minutes 5v5 last year.
Only 16 other defensemen allowed as many shots against per minute.
Also he'll turn 38 before the season starts.
And he has gone around 200 games or so without scoring an actual regular season goal.
I submit that even if other players were terrified to the point of ridiculousness of Orpik's physical game, and even if he is the best leader of all time and has the most veteran intangibles in the history of the earth and even space, that, even then, this could not be enough to make up for the fact that the Washington Capitals literally become one of the NHL's worst teams when he's on the ice.
Washington Capitals Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»