Bruins Offseason
- Thread starter MiracleOfO2704
- Start date
Lauko and Keyser signed:
View: https://twitter.com/NHLBruins/status/1676648529068957697?s=20
Lauko gets a 2-year deal, $787,500 AAV. This season is a 2-way deal, next year a 1-way.
Keyser get a 1-year, 2-way deal with a $775,000 AAV.
View: https://twitter.com/NHLBruins/status/1676648529068957697?s=20
Lauko gets a 2-year deal, $787,500 AAV. This season is a 2-way deal, next year a 1-way.
Keyser get a 1-year, 2-way deal with a $775,000 AAV.
Lauko re-signed to 2 year contract ($787.5k annual salary, 2-way for 23-24, 1-way for 24-25).
I have the Bruins with $4.4mm under the cap, with Freddy and Sway left to be signed.
I have the Bruins with $4.4mm under the cap, with Freddy and Sway left to be signed.
It's still around $6.2 million. Lauko and Keyser don't count towards the salary cap during the offseason since they are 2-way contracts. All 1-way contracts count during the offseason so Wotherspoon and Megna count at the moment but are obvious waive and demote candidates. This roster below has $7.75 million in cap space:
Marchand - Coyle - DeBrusk
JVR - Zacha - Pastrnak
XXX - Geekie - Lauko
Lucic - Brown - Greer
Lincholm - McAvoy
Grzelyck - Carlo
Forbort - Shattenkirk
Zboril
Ullmark
Brown is another demotion candidate depending on what happens with Bergy/Krejci. I think they're pretty much set on the cap front though, they can fit Swayman, Frederic and Bergy in without additional moves.
Swayman has filed for arbitration.
View: https://twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC/status/1676684618379018244?s=20
View: https://twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC/status/1676684618379018244?s=20
I'm impressed.
Given the amount of dread that was appropriate heading into the off season, the team that is shaping up if Bergeron were to come back -- where Hall then is probably the biggest loss that was not one of the rentals -- looks pretty damn good. I'm eager to see Geekie and JVR added to this mix.
It does look like a team that won't have much wiggle room at the trading deadline, but right now, before we are even at the baseball all star break, who cares?
Some updates from Sweeney at dev camp wrap up.
View: https://twitter.com/smclaughlin9/status/1677379073583230976?s=20
No updates on Bergeron and Krejci, though Bergeron's wife just had their 4th child.
Basically on Bertuzzi, most of what was speculated was accurate. 1-year contract was not an option prior to July 1. Sweeney didn't think the Bruins were in a position to wait out the market, plus they weren't getting fair value in return for the player they would have had to move to fit Bertuzzi in.
View: https://twitter.com/smclaughlin9/status/1677379073583230976?s=20
No updates on Bergeron and Krejci, though Bergeron's wife just had their 4th child.
Basically on Bertuzzi, most of what was speculated was accurate. 1-year contract was not an option prior to July 1. Sweeney didn't think the Bruins were in a position to wait out the market, plus they weren't getting fair value in return for the player they would have had to move to fit Bertuzzi in.
Two quick questions. I know Natural Stat Trick, Money Puck, NHL.com, and Hockey Reference have publicly available expected goal data on a player level. Are there any other sites you guys area aware of that have this?
Also, one stats question that I may also put in the blind leading the stupid. Suppose you have 3 years of data on a player level and you want to see what the correlation is between 2 data points. For the sake of this question, let's say it's baseball and I want to look at the correlation between line drive percentage and batting average on balls in play. The first thing I would do is determine a seasonal minimum plate appearances so the results are not skewed by tiny sample sizes, and let's call that 500 PA. Looking at all players with the minimum required PA over 3 years of individual seasons gives me a robust sample of (let's say) 1500 players, and I can run the numbers on that. But alternatively, I could also combine the player data for the 3 years and include only players with over 4000 total PA. This would give me a significantly smaller, but still large, sample of 600 players, but their data would have higher volume and presumably more time to stabilize.
Th question is, which would you prefer to see, the individual season data or the combined data? And why? Which do you think would give you a better window on the relationship between line drive rate and BABIP?
Also, one stats question that I may also put in the blind leading the stupid. Suppose you have 3 years of data on a player level and you want to see what the correlation is between 2 data points. For the sake of this question, let's say it's baseball and I want to look at the correlation between line drive percentage and batting average on balls in play. The first thing I would do is determine a seasonal minimum plate appearances so the results are not skewed by tiny sample sizes, and let's call that 500 PA. Looking at all players with the minimum required PA over 3 years of individual seasons gives me a robust sample of (let's say) 1500 players, and I can run the numbers on that. But alternatively, I could also combine the player data for the 3 years and include only players with over 4000 total PA. This would give me a significantly smaller, but still large, sample of 600 players, but their data would have higher volume and presumably more time to stabilize.
Th question is, which would you prefer to see, the individual season data or the combined data? And why? Which do you think would give you a better window on the relationship between line drive rate and BABIP?
I am not a statistician and did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
But I think maybe having a larger pool of players to examine possible correlation would be better. But honestly, I'd do both and then take the data from the group of 600 players identified in the second model and compare those results with the data for those same 600 players in the first model just to see what it looks like. If the data is fairly consistent between both models for those 600 players, then 500 PA might be enough data to figure out what you want, and if that is the case, using the model with a lot more players would be better. If the data is not consistent at all, then I think maybe there is too much noise in the smaller PA sample size and combined might be better. If that makes sense.
It depends on what you're trying to answer/predict, but I think both are valuable data points. For example, if you look at shot attempts, xg, and actual goals scored, each of them is a better predictor of future goals at different size sample data sets (at least at one point they used to be, I think better xG models have changed this, but that's not really important). If you're examining the correlation to determine how useful a stat is, it's important to know how predictive it is at various sample sizes.
I'm less familiar with advanced hockey stats and how they fit together, so I'm going to need to lean on your baseball example. That being said, both the multi-year aggregate and the single-year samples have value for different reasons and depending on what you're looking for in your data. So, in your example, the multi-year aggregate would likely give you a baseline for what a decent ballpark correlation would be between BABIP and Line Drive % as it will normalize the noise in the data. However, now that you have your multi-year baseline established, you can start looking at individual seasons, trending the same player over multiple years to determine if they're above/below average, if they're trending up or down, etc. It is also valuable when attempting to analyze if a player's offseason changes (or even in-season tweaks) are having a positive or negative impact and if it's sustained or if the league ultimately adjusts and said player returns to their baseline.
I guess to answer your last question...how the data is presented depends entirely on what you're trying to show, but you really need both looks to provide value to the data as a whole. Is 90 MPH fast? Well, that depends...is it a fastball, a changeup, or exit velocity?
Thanks for the great responses, guys! I had already decided to run the data both ways, and was glad to see some consensus on that. It will be interesting to see how the two methods compare.
In retrospect, using the baseball example was probably not the best idea. The actual data I want to look at is how 5 on 5 expected goals on ice on a player level compared to actual on ice goals. Effectively, I want to "test" the different expected goal systems to see which has the best relationship to actual on ice goals. And re: your excellent comments on sample size @veritas, we did do work on when many hockey stats stabilize, but unfortunately I cannot share them here. But my data will all be above the .70 r threshold (.5 r62).
In retrospect, using the baseball example was probably not the best idea. The actual data I want to look at is how 5 on 5 expected goals on ice on a player level compared to actual on ice goals. Effectively, I want to "test" the different expected goal systems to see which has the best relationship to actual on ice goals. And re: your excellent comments on sample size @veritas, we did do work on when many hockey stats stabilize, but unfortunately I cannot share them here. But my data will all be above the .70 r threshold (.5 r62).
So that's 8 defenseman under contract at the NHL level now. Someone has to be getting dealt.
McAvoy
Lindholm
Gryz
Carlo
Shattenkirk
Forbert
Zboril
Mitchell
Maybe the long Forbert nightmare will finally end. Hahaha
They carried 8 defenseman, 13 forwards, 2 goalies for most of the season last year on their 23 man roster. I don’t think there is a trade coming.
I thought when Riley got sent to Prov they only carried 7? Did I block something out? Haha
Aren't you both right? They carried 8 when they picked up Orlov, but I can't remember there being an 8th before that
McAvoy
Lindholm
Grzelyck
Carlo
Forbort
Clifton
Zboril
Those 7 were basically on the team all year. Reilly was around until McAvoy and Forbort got healthy. Then Orlov made 8 at the deadline. Renouf/Ahcan made cameo’s.
In any case, Mitchell is a waive and send to Providence candidate. He is not very good.
Lindholm
Grzelyck
Carlo
Forbort
Clifton
Zboril
Those 7 were basically on the team all year. Reilly was around until McAvoy and Forbort got healthy. Then Orlov made 8 at the deadline. Renouf/Ahcan made cameo’s.
In any case, Mitchell is a waive and send to Providence candidate. He is not very good.
Bruins sign NJD forward Jesper Boqvist to one-year deal at $775,000. More depth for the bottom six, I guess.
Devils' fans all seem positive on him saying he's at worst unnoticeable, and at best flashes some high end skills. If he can be a Nosek replacement that maybe the team can unlock a bit more offensive consistency from, he could be a real useful piece. And if he's unnoticeable, we'll, that's perfectly whelming for a bottom line, minimum salary guy.
View: https://twitter.com/dominictiano/status/1680940659341967361?s=46&t=OXP-P0l2aEBrD1Q_l9zjsg
“ I just realized that unless Oskar Steen plays in 54 #NHL games for the #NHLBruins during the upcoming season, he becomes a Group 6 UFA next summer. He's 25, has completed 3 professional seasons and under 80 NHL games making him eligible.” - Dominic Tiano
“ I just realized that unless Oskar Steen plays in 54 #NHL games for the #NHLBruins during the upcoming season, he becomes a Group 6 UFA next summer. He's 25, has completed 3 professional seasons and under 80 NHL games making him eligible.” - Dominic Tiano
For the case where you do not combine over the three years, can you analyze the data from years 1 and 2 and then use that to make predictions about season 3 that you can then test?
Great question! You absolutely can use prior years to test and predict future results. I found a simple Marcel the Monkey calculation using 3 years of results with higher weighting for more recent years did a very good job predicting future results. You could also attempt to determine how players would perform with different roles/teammates/lines/oz starts, etc., but that got into the weeds a bit.
Unfortunately, I’m not interested in playing around with the numbers at this point and won’t be posting any results in the immediate future. I’m experiencing some weird new symptoms of my cavernous malformation and it’s taken up much of my attention.
Sad to see Nosek officially gone, even if it was obvious some time ago that he'd not be back. Seems like not much money to have kept him?
For whatever reason, I suspect if the B's had offered him a 43% pay cut it would be seen as insulting.
For another team, it's just a business transaction for what they feel is market value, and the player can accept the offer or not.
I think this applies for all teams now in the cap era where even a few hundred thousand dollars saved can impact a team's flexibility throughout the season.
Agree, but I would have hoped he would have went back to Sweeny and told what NJ was offering to see if they would counter. Maybe he did of course, but it seems like $1M/1Yr would have been something the B's would have taken a run at.
Nosek is a dime a dozen. Maybe they would've brought him back at 1/$1 million on 7/1 but there's really no need to extend for him now. They filled up the bottom 6 with Lucic, Boqvist, Brown, Megna plus have Beecher, McLaughlin and others coming up. Nosek isn't much of an upgrade on any of those guys.
I actually hate this line of thinking. Even if he is a dime a dozen you now have to replace him and compete in the market to do it. If you have someone already in the system that fits, keep him. Who cares if you can replace him.
Samsanov has his arbitration hearing today, barring a last-minute agreement.
Samsonov filed at $4.9 million while the Leafs submitted at $2.4 million.
Do we know what numbers were exchanged for Swayman and Frederic?
Samsonov filed at $4.9 million while the Leafs submitted at $2.4 million.
Do we know what numbers were exchanged for Swayman and Frederic?
Not that I've seen reported, Gustavsson with the wild also filed for arbitration and haven't seen any numbers reported for him either. His case is the week after Sway's
Mitchell Miller officially not a property of the Boston Bruins since sometime in February 2023.
https://nypost.com/2023/07/22/bruins-divorce-of-mitchell-miller-finalized-in-february-settlement/?utm_source=reddit.com
https://nypost.com/2023/07/22/bruins-divorce-of-mitchell-miller-finalized-in-february-settlement/?utm_source=reddit.com
Samsonov does have two more years of service time and almost twice as many appearances as Swayman. I think Swayman is the better goalie, but if hockey arbitration is anything like baseball, service time matters.
I'll readily admit I don't know much on how hockey arbitration works so you're probably right. I just assumed numbers and other young goalie contracts were also used so between Otti's deal and Sammy's ruling I just assumed Sway would be closer to 3.75ish. BUT what you're saying does make more sense
To resolve it more quickly so he can head to Europe or Russia where it may be easier to bury the whole thing under the rug.
Fair enough, and depending on how much the Bruins offered to make it go away, the "lost money" may be worth the time and headache and legal dispute.
What a stupid, ridiculous situation. And I'm so relieved that they investigated themselves and held no one accountable.
Some semi-recent goalie comps, players coming off their ELC:
Oettinger: 23 years old (2022): 77 GP, 2.48 GAA, .913 SAV, 12.1 GSAA...signed for 3 years, $4 million AAV (not arb eligible)
Shesterkin: 25 years old (2021): 47 GP, 2.59 GAA, .921 SAV, 16.6 GSAA...signed for 5 years, $5.6 million AAV (arb eligible)
Vasilevsky: 22 years old (2017): 90 GP, 2.60 GAA, .915 SAV, 2.7 GSAA...signed for 3 years, $3.5 million AAV (not arb eligible)
Hart: 22 years old (2021): 101 GP, 2.88 GAA. .905 SAV, -11.2 GSAA...signed for 3 years $3.979 million AAV (not arb eligible)
Swayman 24 years old (2023): 88 GP, 2.24 GAA, .920 SAV, 32.1 GSAA...signed for ?
I think Swayman probably deserves something north of $4.5 million, probably somewhere in the $5 million range based on these comps. These are just surface numbers and don't include context of the team in front of them (so Hart's numbers look awful but part of that is Philly).
We'll see how it plays out. I can't find the schedule now but I believe Swayman's hearing is near the end and in mid-August or something. The filing numbers don't usually get released until just before the hearing. Sweeney has never gotten that far with a player but I can see one going the distance. My guess is Swayman comes in around or above Shesterkin, call it $6 million, Bruins come in around $3.5. The arb award is genearlly meet in the middle and since the player elected arbitration the team elects the term, so the end result is probably 1-year, $4.75ish million. Then they'll try to figure out a longer term deal when the cap jumps next year and the Bruins have more maneuverability.
Oettinger: 23 years old (2022): 77 GP, 2.48 GAA, .913 SAV, 12.1 GSAA...signed for 3 years, $4 million AAV (not arb eligible)
Shesterkin: 25 years old (2021): 47 GP, 2.59 GAA, .921 SAV, 16.6 GSAA...signed for 5 years, $5.6 million AAV (arb eligible)
Vasilevsky: 22 years old (2017): 90 GP, 2.60 GAA, .915 SAV, 2.7 GSAA...signed for 3 years, $3.5 million AAV (not arb eligible)
Hart: 22 years old (2021): 101 GP, 2.88 GAA. .905 SAV, -11.2 GSAA...signed for 3 years $3.979 million AAV (not arb eligible)
Swayman 24 years old (2023): 88 GP, 2.24 GAA, .920 SAV, 32.1 GSAA...signed for ?
I think Swayman probably deserves something north of $4.5 million, probably somewhere in the $5 million range based on these comps. These are just surface numbers and don't include context of the team in front of them (so Hart's numbers look awful but part of that is Philly).
We'll see how it plays out. I can't find the schedule now but I believe Swayman's hearing is near the end and in mid-August or something. The filing numbers don't usually get released until just before the hearing. Sweeney has never gotten that far with a player but I can see one going the distance. My guess is Swayman comes in around or above Shesterkin, call it $6 million, Bruins come in around $3.5. The arb award is genearlly meet in the middle and since the player elected arbitration the team elects the term, so the end result is probably 1-year, $4.75ish million. Then they'll try to figure out a longer term deal when the cap jumps next year and the Bruins have more maneuverability.
I guess it would be cap circumvention to guarantee Swayman a slightly above-market deal next year when the Bruins have space in exchange for a lower number this year when they are feeling the crunch.
It would be a shame for the Bruins to go through the arbitration process with Swayman when they likely know he's at least worth $4-5M. Why would the Bruins limit the term to 1 year If they could get a 3-4 year deal for 4.75ish? If Swayman plays well this year, his market value is only going up.
It would be a shame for the Bruins to go through the arbitration process with Swayman when they likely know he's at least worth $4-5M. Why would the Bruins limit the term to 1 year If they could get a 3-4 year deal for 4.75ish? If Swayman plays well this year, his market value is only going up.
In arbitration they can only elect a 1 or 2 year contract. I’m guessing they’d elect for 1-year because it’ll keep the cap hit down in the crunch year. Kind of in the wink wink, nudge nudge we’ll take care of you next year type of things.
I would guess in a few weeks. Last year they officially announced both in Augst after (well at the same time, really) they had the RFA business settled (Zacha), though they publicly were a lot more optimistic it was going to happen leading up to the official announcement. This year feels like more of a true 50/50, at least in Bergy's case. If he was going to retire I feel like he would've announced that already but the team is also not as confident and there wasn't any "I spoke to Bergy" from the incoming UFA class like last year. I'm sure he did reach out but the players were pretty careful not to say anything, including Lucic who said the only players he's previously played with in Boston were Marchand and Pastrnak.
Sway's Hearing is 30 July, Freddie's is on 1 August, so they are running out of time to avoid arbitration for them both. I'm with you though, at least for Sway I think it goes the distance and they hopefully work out a long term deal when the cap jumps and they actually have space.
Not even close.
Congrats on the 1-year, $3.4 million deal Jeremy!
View: https://twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC/status/1684923926219272192?s=20