James Tanner: Christian Dvorak Is Surprisingly High on the All Time Scoring List

Imagine if there were readers warning that Dvorak's contract was awful before the ink dried.

Oh wait, that's what happened. But you lectured everyone on how Chayka was a genius.

Imagine if there were readers warning that Dvorak's contract was awful before the ink dried.

Oh wait, that's what happened. But you lectured everyone on how Chayka was a genius.
- Kooleus

But it's not an awful contract, so those readers I'm supposed to imagine were wrong then and now.

Weird comment dude.

But it's not an awful contract, so those readers I'm supposed to imagine were wrong then and now.

Weird comment dude.
- James_Tanner

Is Dvorak elite?

No.

Then he should be making $1M or less and that money should be spent on ELITE players.

The end.

Is Dvorak elite?

No.

Then he should be making $1M or less and that money should be spent on ELITE players.

The end.
- Kooleus

I am glad that you understand the basic principle of managing the salary cap, but even if mostly correct, a one-size-fits-all application is just as bad as having bad ideas.

The Coyotes have to take risks to try and hit on players, Dvorak could easily be traded without retaining money, and he could arguably become a top 10% player if you deployed him better.

I would say that the odds of Dvorak returning value on his contract are pretty good.

I am glad that you understand the basic principle of managing the salary cap, but even if mostly correct, a one-size-fits-all application is just as bad as having bad ideas.

The Coyotes have to take risks to try and hit on players, Dvorak could easily be traded without retaining money, and he could arguably become a top 10% player if you deployed him better.

I would say that the odds of Dvorak returning value on his contract are pretty good.
- James_Tanner

A top 10% player, please enlighten us how he would become that. He’s never had 40 points...

I am glad that you understand the basic principle of managing the salary cap, but even if mostly correct, a one-size-fits-all application is just as bad as having bad ideas.

The Coyotes have to take risks to try and hit on players, Dvorak could easily be traded without retaining money, and he could arguably become a top 10% player if you deployed him better.

I would say that the odds of Dvorak returning value on his contract are pretty good.
- James_Tanner

Oh wait, so its not one size fits all? So whenever its convenient, you say there are exceptions. Hjalmarsson is an exception. Now Dvorak is an exception. That's not what you've said before. When guys like Lars Eller or Colton Scissons signed deals you label them as being awful because they aren't elite. You have repeatedly said there is no room for anyone making $1M+ unless they are elite. Flip-flop. Flip-flop.

As for Dvorak maybe becoming a top 10% player...maybe you're not too skilled at identifying talent. After all, not long ago you thought Demers and Goligoski were excellent players, you thought Galchenyuk was way better than Domi, you thought Schmaltz and Keller were 85-90 point players, you thought Kessel was still a superstar. With that track record...maybe your assessment of Dvorak is a bit off. Mic drop.

Dvorak also wrote the new world symphony. The most wicked awesome symphony in existence. That is elite.

I don't think you're crazy James, and I'm with you on your analysis that you should be spending top dollar on elite talent and not middle of the road players.

But I think you're missing part of the big picture here so your analysis is not realistic.

If only the top 10% of talent of worth paying over league minimum for, that leaves roughly 2 elite players per team on average. So for an average team, you have two players in the 8-12 million range, let's just say 10 million to keep things simple.

So your team salary structure then wouldn't hit the cap floor. You have 20 million on two players and 21 million on the rest.

Now let's say every team does this and the floor doesn't exist. All of that 40 million of empty cap space doesn't roll over. So how do you squeeze out an advantage over other teams?

In the margins. You find the 2-5 million players that are marginally better than your 1 million skaters.

What else can you do if elite players aren't available?

A top 10% player, please enlighten us how he would become that. He’s never had 40 points...
- ClaudeFather

He doesn't have a ton of offensive value, but that isn't the only way to be effective in the NHL. Given his generally good peripherals, I think if he could play second or third line role he might put up a top 10% WAR, it's not impossible.

Oh wait, so its not one size fits all? So whenever its convenient, you say there are exceptions. Hjalmarsson is an exception. Now Dvorak is an exception. That's not what you've said before. When guys like Lars Eller or Colton Scissons signed deals you label them as being awful because they aren't elite. You have repeatedly said there is no room for anyone making $1M+ unless they are elite. Flip-flop. Flip-flop.

As for Dvorak maybe becoming a top 10% player...maybe you're not too skilled at identifying talent. After all, not long ago you thought Demers and Goligoski were excellent players, you thought Galchenyuk was way better than Domi, you thought Schmaltz and Keller were 85-90 point players, you thought Kessel was still a superstar. With that track record...maybe your assessment of Dvorak is a bit off. Mic drop.
- Kooleus

You are perhaps the most annoying person in the world. You must be someone's alt cause this kind of terrible fox-news attempt to constantly gotcha people with word salad nonsense feels very, very familiar.

You can't honestly expect a real response to this insanity can you? Bu then again, you did say "mic drop" which is a real hard hitting way to win an argument with a moron, circa 2014, so I guess I'm defeated.

You are perhaps the most annoying person in the world. You must be someone's alt cause this kind of terrible fox-news attempt to constantly gotcha people with word salad nonsense feels very, very familiar.

You can't honestly expect a real response to this insanity can you? Bu then again, you did say "mic drop" which is a real hard hitting way to win an argument with a moron, circa 2014, so I guess I'm defeated.
- James_Tanner

Wouldn't it be easier to just say "I was wrong about these players"?

I don't think you're crazy James, and I'm with you on your analysis that you should be spending top dollar on elite talent and not middle of the road players.

But I think you're missing part of the big picture here so your analysis is not realistic.

If only the top 10% of talent of worth paying over league minimum for, that leaves roughly 2 elite players per team on average. So for an average team, you have two players in the 8-12 million range, let's just say 10 million to keep things simple.

So your team salary structure then wouldn't hit the cap floor. You have 20 million on two players and 21 million on the rest.

Now let's say every team does this and the floor doesn't exist. All of that 40 million of empty cap space doesn't roll over. So how do you squeeze out an advantage over other teams?

In the margins. You find the 2-5 million players that are marginally better than your 1 million skaters.

What else can you do if elite players aren't available?
- charlest

You raise some good points, but part of the reason that this strategy should work in the NHL is because of the terribly inefficient way in which other teams spend money.

If teams suddenly all adopted this strategy, it would alter the market for player contracts so fundamentally that you would need to come up with a new strategy.

But that is what happens in every game - just as you figure out how to play optimally, your opponent adjusts, forcing you to adjust, and so on and so forth.

One of the reasons this works is because teams will spend $7 million on , for example, Kevin Hayes.

Hayes is a find player, and in a league with no cap his salary would fine.

But you can pretty much find a player from the KHL for the league minimum - lets say Alex Barabanov - and while he won't be as good, he won't be six million worse either.

It is definitely hard to acquire elite players, but if you maintain cap flexibility, you should be able to add them when are available.

You can also be smart about the draft and trade down any non top 5 picks in order to add more pics - the quantity of draft picks is key. You need to find diamonds in the rough.

Again, this strategy is only an optimal strategy, you've got to make adjustments, like, for instance, betting on 22 year olds with potential by locking them in long term by over paying them in year one.

The Coyotes did this four times. If even two of them crack the ten percent barrior it's golden. If one of them becomes a superstar, it's going to be even better.

But the very fact you could easily take find a home for Dvorak right now, without retaining salary, makes it an incredibly favorable bet.

Wouldn't it be easier to just say "I was wrong about these players"?
- gergeswillems

Well no, because I don't see how I was wrong in any way. The Coyotes strategy here has been apparent from day one. It was a smart move at the time, and it's not working out badly at all.

You raise some good points, but part of the reason that this strategy should work in the NHL is because of the terribly inefficient way in which other teams spend money.

If teams suddenly all adopted this strategy, it would alter the market for player contracts so fundamentally that you would need to come up with a new strategy.

But that is what happens in every game - just as you figure out how to play optimally, your opponent adjusts, forcing you to adjust, and so on and so forth.

One of the reasons this works is because teams will spend $7 million on , for example, Kevin Hayes.

Hayes is a find player, and in a league with no cap his salary would fine.

But you can pretty much find a player from the KHL for the league minimum - lets say Alex Barabanov - and while he won't be as good, he won't be six million worse either.

It is definitely hard to acquire elite players, but if you maintain cap flexibility, you should be able to add them when are available.

You can also be smart about the draft and trade down any non top 5 picks in order to add more pics - the quantity of draft picks is key. You need to find diamonds in the rough.

Again, this strategy is only an optimal strategy, you've got to make adjustments, like, for instance, betting on 22 year olds with potential by locking them in long term by over paying them in year one.

The Coyotes did this four times. If even two of them crack the ten percent barrior it's golden. If one of them becomes a superstar, it's going to be even better.

But the very fact you could easily take find a home for Dvorak right now, without retaining salary, makes it an incredibly favorable bet.
- James_Tanner

You're basically selectively justifying the Leafs Salary Cap situation because you're a Leafs fan. Pay the stars and support them with cheap depth guys who can provide quality minutes. It's a great theory. It sounds great. The only thing is the Leafs haven't won anything yet.

Well no, because I don't see how I was wrong in any way. The Coyotes strategy here has been apparent from day one. It was a smart move at the time, and it's not working out badly at all.
- James_Tanner

And how many times have the Coyotes made the playoffs since Chayka took over? I'll wait.

I don't think you're crazy James, and I'm with you on your analysis that you should be spending top dollar on elite talent and not middle of the road players.

But I think you're missing part of the big picture here so your analysis is not realistic.

If only the top 10% of talent of worth paying over league minimum for, that leaves roughly 2 elite players per team on average. So for an average team, you have two players in the 8-12 million range, let's just say 10 million to keep things simple.

So your team salary structure then wouldn't hit the cap floor. You have 20 million on two players and 21 million on the rest.

Now let's say every team does this and the floor doesn't exist. All of that 40 million of empty cap space doesn't roll over. So how do you squeeze out an advantage over other teams?

In the margins. You find the 2-5 million players that are marginally better than your 1 million skaters.

What else can you do if elite players aren't available?
- charlest

Find about 10 $3-5M players that are really sound defensively, and an outstanding goalie?

Find about 10 $3-5M players that are really sound defensively, and an outstanding goalie?
- Chunk

Like the Blues? They don't know what they're doing.

Well no, because I don't see how I was wrong in any way. The Coyotes strategy here has been apparent from day one. It was a smart move at the time, and it's not working out badly at all.
- James_Tanner

I get paying the elite stars top dollar, but what is an adequate cap hit for guys that you've said are exceptions, like Hjalmarsson? Do you still try and get them on league minimum deals (or just find them really young and lose them as soon as they are proven)?

I get paying the elite stars top dollar, but what is an adequate cap hit for guys that you've said are exceptions, like Hjalmarsson? Do you still try and get them on league minimum deals (or just find them really young and lose them as soon as they are proven)?
- Chunk

What about a guy like Lars Eller who stepped up for the Cup winning Caps in the 2018 playoffs? While stars such as Backstrom and Kuznetsov missed games to injury, third line center Lars Eller was able to fill the void extremely well.

But he wouldn't be on Tanner's team because he wasn't making league minimum or a million or less. This just in. Injuries happen. Quality depth wins in the playoffs. You can't realistically expect to find 8 quality depth guys making a million or less.

The best bang for buck contracts are when you're paying star talent on entry level deals. Like the Leafs were with Matthews, Marner and Nylander. Like the Hawks when they were underpaying Toews, Kane and Keith all those years.

Any team can Ice a roster full of plugs and hope they overachieve. Some of them might. But most of them won't. Successful roster building isn't so cut and dry. If it were then everyone would be doing it. What works for the Blues may not work for the Caps or Penguins or Bruins.

Remember when Colorado had a top 6 of Sakic, Forsberg, Kariya, Selanne, Tanguay and Drury? Everyone basically declared them Cup champs in August. What happened? They were bounced in the first round.

Dvorak is about as much of a 1c as teh Bozek was while he was in Toronto. Considering cap inflation, the salary is pretty close too. His contact isn't bad, but it isn't great either. He's not a first line talent. You typically need to draft true 1c's. The Yotes have (at best) three guys who might be 2c's. At worst they're overpaid third liners. I'm more disappointed in Kessel's sharp decline (which we all knew was coming) than Dvorak skating on the first line.

Dvorak is about as much of a 1c as teh Bozek was while he was in Toronto. Considering cap inflation, the salary is pretty close too. His contact isn't bad, but it isn't great either. He's not a first line talent. You typically need to draft true 1c's. The Yotes have (at best) three guys who might be 2c's. At worst they're overpaid third liners. I'm more disappointed in Kessel's sharp decline (which we all knew was coming) than Dvorak skating on the first line.
- leafsfann

The Bozek won a Cup with the Blues last season. But he wouldn't have been on Tanner's team because he wouldn't be in his top 6 forward group. He's too overpaid. Nik Petan making league minimum would've been his guy. Could Petan do for the Blues what The Bozek did for them in their Cup run? No. Not even close.

So Clayton Keller puts up a 65-point season, and follows it up with a 47-point season.

And then Chayka locks him up at $7.15M x 8 years.

(Note: He followed this up with 44 points in 70 games, so on pace for 51 points).

But the theory is that this 47-point season was an anomaly, and he can build off this 65-point season, and hopefully turn into an ELITE (top 10% forward), well then at that point his contract becomes excellent value. Have you ever quantified the cap savings from just waiting even just 1 more year to evaluate his career progression?

Here is a comparable example...

Sebastian Aho put up seasons of 49 points and 65 points (Keller was 47 and 65). Maybe Carolina could have locked up Aho for $7.125M x 8 years...but they waited one more year. Let's see if Aho's 3rd year comes closer to 49, or 65, or maybe something much bigger...

Well it was much bigger. He put up 83 points. Oh shoot. We probably could have locked him up sooner. Now we have to pay...wait for it $8.4M. So taking an extra year to be sure resulted in eating up an extra $1.3M of cap space.

Is that really significant? I know if I was managing a team and I had an undersized wimp like Keller put up 65 points, and then regress to 47 points, I'd wait another 1-2 years to see what he truly is. The next Aho? The next Point? Or is he just the next Eberle or Nyquist? Instead you make a huge gamble where the best case scenario is I save an extra $1-2M of cap space. Worst case scenario (which seems to be unfolding) is now I have a 50-point guy locked up for 7 more years at an awful price.

But Tanner refuses to even acknowledge that logic. It's Chayka. He locked up a young player. It's probably going to be a steal. There was no other way to play this. Yawn.

He doesn't have a ton of offensive value, but that isn't the only way to be effective in the NHL. Given his generally good peripherals, I think if he could play second or third line role he might put up a top 10% WAR, it's not impossible.
- James_Tanner

How have you come up with this arbitrary line at 10 percent? You say the gap between the best player and the 100th best player is 4 times the gap between 100th best player and the worst player (some prove of this would be nice). If that's the case, then the 100th best player is nowhere near the elite level, and the elite tier should be much, much smaller than the 10% you say.

From the research I've done (using Evolving-hockeys WAR) the elite tier is more like the top 3 percent. Those are the players with way better WAR numbers than the rest.
I think you should show the numbers you're using in your argument or at least tell us where to find them.

So Clayton Keller puts up a 65-point season, and follows it up with a 47-point season.

And then Chayka locks him up at $7.15M x 8 years.

(Note: He followed this up with 44 points in 70 games, so on pace for 51 points).

But the theory is that this 47-point season was an anomaly, and he can build off this 65-point season, and hopefully turn into an ELITE (top 10% forward), well then at that point his contract becomes excellent value. Have you ever quantified the cap savings from just waiting even just 1 more year to evaluate his career progression?

Here is a comparable example...

Sebastian Aho put up seasons of 49 points and 65 points (Keller was 47 and 65). Maybe Carolina could have locked up Aho for $7.125M x 8 years...but they waited one more year. Let's see if Aho's 3rd year comes closer to 49, or 65, or maybe something much bigger...

Well it was much bigger. He put up 83 points. Oh shoot. We probably could have locked him up sooner. Now we have to pay...wait for it $8.4M. So taking an extra year to be sure resulted in eating up an extra $1.3M of cap space.

Is that really significant? I know if I was managing a team and I had an undersized wimp like Keller put up 65 points, and then regress to 47 points, I'd wait another 1-2 years to see what he truly is. The next Aho? The next Point? Or is he just the next Eberle or Nyquist? Instead you make a huge gamble where the best case scenario is I save an extra $1-2M of cap space. Worst case scenario (which seems to be unfolding) is now I have a 50-point guy locked up for 7 more years at an awful price.

But Tanner refuses to even acknowledge that logic. It's Chayka. He locked up a young player. It's probably going to be a steal. There was no other way to play this. Yawn.
- Kooleus

It basically comes down to bang for the buck. If you're going to pay stars big money they'd better earn it. If you're projecting a young player to maximize the value 2 or 3 years down the road then you'd better make sure you're right.

Aho is a star and Keller isn't. The Coyotes are paying Keller to be a star and he's underachieving. He still has value. He's still a good player. But is he going to be much better than he is right now? Probably not. Aho still has another level to go to in my opinion.

A good GM will recognize potential in a young player and make educated gambles on his potential. Chayka has not made educated gambles. He's failing miserably. Capped out, depleted system and losing picks faster than he can replace them.

The Coyotes remind me of myself the first time I ran a 400m race when I was 10 years old. I ran as fast as I could and was way out in front before my lungs gave out at the 2/3 mark. I finished 6th. I wasn't prepared to go the distance. I was foolish to believe I could go all out and win the race.

So while Chayka has fast tracked his team hoping to achieve immediate success, he's not planning to win the race. The Coyotes aren't good enough to compete for a Cup and they're not bad enough to bottom out and draft top end talent.