Carbonneau Already Tearing It Up

[Mr.Snuggleupagus]

I appreciate that Carbonneau is going to be putting up a lot of points with a talented team, but would his overall game have been better developed if he had gone the NCAA route?

Prolly - What do you think?

[2forDiving]

I appreciate that Carbonneau is going to be putting up a lot of points with a talented team, but would his overall game have been better developed if he had gone the NCAA route?

Prolly - What do you think?

Personally, I wanted him to go to BC or BU, forget which one, but I am not familiar enough with the Q to offer an informed opinion.

[zamadoo]

Both Broberg and Holloway will get 8x8 ish we are aways out from worrying about paying Carbonneau

I hear Broberg could command up to 10 million and Holloway will get around 9 per season.

In the meantime until Carbonneau's future max deal; they'll have Neighbours, Binnington, Hofer & Snuggeruud's contracts to deal with. A good player or two are gonna have to go, at the expense of the Kyrou & Buchnevich deals.

How can Broberg command "up to 10 million" right now, he has one full NHL of 68 games and 29 pts. He will go to arbitration IF Army waits that long which probably means that Broberg didnt overwhelm the Blues and they feel reluctancy. He can command whatever he wants but to do in that rare air of contracts he'll need a monster season.
Same story with Holloway, one pretty good season also arbitration eligible.
I would love these monster deals to be a given because that means both players exceeded expectations but we have to get there first

Because Lacombe & L.Hughes both just received 9 per season and Broberg has played just as good or slightly better than both early in their careers. Anyway, take it up with BK & Ferrario...they're the ones that said it.

This seems debatable. Certainly not Luke Hughes, who put up almost double the points Broberg did last year in his age 20 and 21 seasons.

So far, L.Hughes has never had a plus season. As I said "just as good or slightly better early in their careers".

So, the contract negotiations will start around 9 million. I'd be surprised and relieved if it was any lower.

Oh, and 44 isn't double 29 (that would be almost 60)

I don't think +- is a major consideration in contract negotiations, where scoring is, and other statistics and indicators are. It depends how Broberg does this season, but I generally agree he will be in that range and would be pleasantly surprised if he signed an $8x8.

Hughes played 82 games and had 47 points at 21 minutes a night his age 20 season. -26
Broberg - 23GP, 13min ATOI, 3pts, -8

Hughes played 71 games and had 44 points at 21 minutes a night in his age 21 season. -9
Broberg 46GP, 12min ATOI, 8pts, +6

Hughes 1GP, 2pts, +-0 age 22 (will play max min/games for rising team)
Broberg 12GP, 11min ATOI, 2pts, -3

Broberg has had one good season and has never played more than 68 games.

I'd have no problem signing him to the same contract they got.

[Mr.Snuggleupagus]

I don't think +- is a major consideration in contract negotiations

It should, defensemen are supposed to be paid to defend.

...and I think Broberg will get minimum 8 (the ESPN guys said "up to 10")

[zamadoo]

I don't think +- is a major consideration in contract negotiations

It should, defensemen are supposed to be paid to defend.

Yeah, that's what the other statistics and indicators are used to measure along with +-.

[Mr.Snuggleupagus]

I don't think +- is a major consideration in contract negotiations

It should, defensemen are supposed to be paid to defend.

Yeah, that's what the other statistics and indicators are used to measure along with +-.

A minus defenseman for 2 seasons on teams above .500 is not a good sign.

Broberg's agent can say "if he's worth 9 per season, my player as worth at least that".

[zamadoo]

I don't think +- is a major consideration in contract negotiations

It should, defensemen are supposed to be paid to defend.

Yeah, that's what the other statistics and indicators are used to measure along with +-.

A minus defenseman for 2 seasons on teams above .500 is not a good sign.

Broberg's agent can say "if he's worth 9 per season, my player as worth at least that".

Yeah, and Army and the arbitrator will point to the stats I just showed will also include Broberg as a minus player on two 104pt teams.

Again, offensive output is a higher driver of dollars earned in the NHL. It's also more highly considered in the Norris vote each year. It seems to be more highly valued by those in the game. Perhaps that could change, and perhaps Broberg will continue being good offensively, and perhaps even better.

[Mr.Snuggleupagus]

I don't think +- is a major consideration in contract negotiations

It should, defensemen are supposed to be paid to defend.

Yeah, that's what the other statistics and indicators are used to measure along with +-.

A minus defenseman for 2 seasons on teams above .500 is not a good sign.

Broberg's agent can say "if he's worth 9 per season, my player as worth at least that".

Yeah, and Army and the arbitrator will point to the stats I just showed will also include Broberg as a minus player on two 104pt teams.

Oh boy, he was minus as a part time player in 35 games in 2 seasons (-11 in those 35 games). You conveniently left out his +6 season in Edmonton in 46 games. At least he was never an atrocious -25 in one season; his agent might say.

[zamadoo]

I don't think +- is a major consideration in contract negotiations

It should, defensemen are supposed to be paid to defend.

Yeah, that's what the other statistics and indicators are used to measure along with +-.

A minus defenseman for 2 seasons on teams above .500 is not a good sign.

Broberg's agent can say "if he's worth 9 per season, my player as worth at least that".

Yeah, and Army and the arbitrator will point to the stats I just showed will also include Broberg as a minus player on two 104pt teams.

Oh boy, he was minus as a part time player in 35 games in 2 seasons (-11 in those 35 games). You conveniently left out his +6 season in Edmonton in 46 games. At least he was never an atrocious -25 in one season; his agent might say.

You gave specific parameters while using only a vague statistic like +- in discussions of defensive metrics involving a younger player already receiving a long-term contract at $9M compared to a soon-to-be arbitration eligible 25 y/o RFA who was never played 82 games and failed to stick in the NHL until being acquired by a retooling team from a conference finals team who is known to be lacking in D due to paying so much for their incredible top forwards

I'd be nice if Broberg could take over the game and get some scoring going for his team early this season like he did last season before getting hurt.

[Mr.Snuggleupagus]

As the ESPN guys said; Broberg "could be" getting around a Jackson Lacombe/Luke Hughes type contract (up to 10).

I'd prefer he take a 3-4 year bridge deal around between 5-7 million.

[tfriede2]

As the ESPN guys said; Broberg "could be" getting around a Jackson Lacombe/Luke Hughes type contract (up to 10).

I'd prefer he take a 3-4 year bridge deal around between 5-7 million.

That would take him straight to UFA

[Mr.Snuggleupagus]

As the ESPN guys said; Broberg "could be" getting around a Jackson Lacombe/Luke Hughes type contract (up to 10).

I'd prefer he take a 3-4 year bridge deal around between 5-7 million.

That would take him straight to UFA

Then the ESPN guys are correct, they're gonna have to fork over the dough.

[Mr.Snuggleupagus]

This is why they should've traded Kyrou: Snuggeruud & Carbonneau are the future RWs

Buchnevich isn't needed either (Neighbours can play LW with Thomas)

Too bad the both have NTCs.

I agree, they are the main future RWs but trading a proven 40 goal scorer and a proven almost PPG player and replacing them with basically unproven talent at this point is pure folly.

See, the Blues would be fine right now with Bolduc & Snuggy as the RWs until Carbonneau was ready in a couple seasons.

Kyrou and his 8+ million weren't needed. Bolduc 3 - Kyrou 0