The Gamble That is Jiri Hudler

Kent Wilson
August 08 2012 11:05AM

 

 

The Detroit Red Wings bled a lot of talent this summer: Niklas Lidstrom retired, Brad Stuart was traded and Tomas Holmstrom is likely to pull the chute on his long career as well.

Which is why its surpising to see Holland and company let the 28-year old Jiri Hudler walk after a career high 25-goal season. Not only that, Hulder was the Red Wings 5th highest scorer last year with 50-points, well clear of 6th placed Todd Bertuzzi at 38. Notably, money wasn't really an issue in this instance - the Wings have about $14M in cap space and Hudler's contract with the Flames was relatively modest by UFA frenzy standards: $4M/year for four years.

So what the hell? On one hand, it's possible the Wings had other targets in their sites when free agency broke in July and simply neglected Hudler to the degree that he sought out other options. On the other hand, digging through his underlying numbers suggests to me the team may not have trusted Hudler's output last year - at least not as truly indicative of the player and his value to the club.

I don't know how far the Wings are into advanced stats, but I'm guessing there are at least two types of league creatures who can instinctively sense when a players numbers are "over his head" without even looking at the numbers: competent general managers and beady-eyed agents. For opposing reasons, naturally. 

Detroit know Hudler well. Despite his dalliance with the KHL back in 2009-10, he was born and bred a Red Wing, so was a known commodity to Holland and Babcock. And it may very well be that familiarity bred contempt.

Gimme Shelter 

 

The first notable red mark against Hudler is the fact he has routinely been on of the most sheltered forwards on the Detroit Red Wings. Last season was actually some of the toughest minutes he's faced in years with the 7th highest competition amongst forwards and a zone start ratio of 55.8%.

That bears repeating - those are the toughest minutes Hudler has seen in Detroit.

To put that in perspective a bit, the Flames only had two players with a zone start ratio above 50% last season: Mike Cammalleri at 52% (no doubt because he played part of the year in Montreal) and Roman Horak at about a 50/50. Of course, starting in the offensive zone more often tilts, the ice in favor of the player in question, making it more likely he will get shots/goals for and less likely for shots/goals against. It's easier to run down a hill rather than up it aferall.

Things were easier for Jiri in 2010-11: his offensive zone start ratio was 57.3% (second highest on the team) and he faced just 8th highest quality of competition. The only guys who saw lesser lights on Detroit that year were fourth liners like Mike Modano, Patrick Eaves and Justin Abdelkader.

Circumstances were even softer for Hudler back in 2008-09 before he bolted for Russia: his ZS was an eye-popping 63.6% (by far the highest on the team) and once again his quality of competition rank was 8th. Not surprisingly, Hudler set a career high for shots on goal (155) and points (57) that season. 

If we take one more step back in time, we see that 2008-09 wasn't Hudler's high water mark in terms of easy sledding. In 2007-08, the Wings treated him like a forward version of Anton Babchuk: a ZS of 67.9 (!!) and the lowest quality of competition outside of goon Aaron Downey. Hudler was a sophomore in the league that year and the Wings can afford to build glittering cages around their more fragile players because of the quality of the rest of the club, but few players see that sort of coddling at any point in their careers.

Even though things have gotten a bit tougher for the Czech native since then, he never took the big step forward from "soft minutes support guy" to "legit top-six forward". Despite consistently being fed the opposition's soft underbelly, Hudler never really put up either notable couting numbers nor praise worthy possession rates. On Detroit, Hudler has consistently been lower-middle class when it comes to corsi - even in 2008-09 with a team high zone start of 63.6%, his raw possession rate was good for just 7th on the team.   

This is likely one of the big reasons the Wings didn't prioritize re-signing Hudler - given his circumstances and results, his contributions at even strength are eminently replaceable. It's also the reason Flames management and fans should be nervous about the erstwhile Wing - his toughest season to date (ast year) would represent some of the easiest minutes for any Flames skater since about 2008-09. Calgary has no Datsyuks, Zetterbergs, Hossas or Lidstroms. Heck, they don't even have a Franzen at this point, so everyone this side of Tim Jackman is exposed to much harsher elements.

Rolling Sevens

 

Moving from under the Wings warm, protective membrane isn't the only concern for Hudler. Last year, his relatively decent output was built on the dual unsustainable pillars of a high personal shooting percentage and a high on-ice SH%. 

Hudler has never been a high volume shooter in the league. As mentioned, his career best is just 155, or 1.89 shots per game. Last year he dipped to 127 (or 1.57 shots per game), but nevertheless managed 25 goals thanks to a sky high 19.7 SH%. That's well clear of an established career average of about 13%, so there's no doubt he's in line for regression sooner rather than later.

In addition, the pucks went in while Hudler was on the ice at a ridiculously good rate last season. Part of that was probably his own shooting luck, but either way an 11.17 on-ice SH% is similarly unsustainable (14th highest in NHL amongst regular forwards), particularly for a player of Hudler's caliber. There are some elite guys who can raise the on-ice shooting of everyone around them by a percentage or two, but for everyone else it's just the wild swings of variance. 

We can safely put Hudler in the "everyone else" category, seeing as his on-ice SH% was around 7% just one year prior. The good bet is the frequency of his own shots going in and the amount the puck goes in general while he's skating both take a dive back down to earth going forward.

Conclusion

Here's what we can reasonably assume about Hudler given the above: he's going to face tougher competition in Calgary and he's going to start less often in offensive zone at even strength. He's therefore less likely to generate as many shots on net while the team is less likely to gets shots for while hes on the ice (and to get more shots against). In addition, it's a good bet the puck is going to go in less frequently for him and the team in general.

The change in circumstances and pending regression to the mean are bound to get Hudler coming and going. Both the volume of shots and frequency of goals are likely to be shaved back, which combined would constitute a big dip in production. For example, with a career norm SH% of 13% last year, Hudler's goal total goes from 25 to 16-17 and that's assuming a stable shot rate. We'll take a deeper look at his expected output in a reasonable expectations posts later this summer.

While production isn't always the full measure of a player, the problem is Hudler doesn't really bring much else to the table: he doesn't drive possession, he's not going to suppress the other team's big guns and he doesn't kill penalties.

Flames management made noises about Hudler getting more opportunity and ice time in Calgary when he was signed, which may be what they're betting on to at least sustain his numbers. He averaged about 15:40 in total ice time last year, with about 2:14 of that coming on the PP. Overall, that was good for 5th amongst regular Detroit forwards, so I'm not sure how much room there is for an increase as a Flame. If he sticks in the top-6, then a modest bump to 16:00-17:00 minutes or so at ES isn't out of the question. He'll have to usurp one of Iginla or Tanguay from the top PP unit to get a meaningful increase at 5on4 though, which is unlikely -  Hudler's production rate with the man advantage has pretty much always been just okay. 

Overall, there are a lot of arrows pointing in the wrong direction for Hudler and the Calgary Flames. The club didn't exactly break the bank to sign him and they desperately needed an NHLer to fill the void on the right side below Jarome Iginla. Still, there's a non-trivial chance Hudler becomes another Stajan-like disappointment.

 

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current Fn contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#1 Tach
August 08 2012, 12:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

Kent,

No qualms with the analysis here, but as in all things related to NHL roster management it seems to me the question is not so much whether this move was a good move, but whether Feaster likely had other better moves he could have made. If we operate from the assumption that the Flames needed a 2nd line RW and were not going to trade other assets to get one, do you see a clear cut better alternative?

I look around the 2012 free agent signings and see lots of guys with all kinds of question marks like too old (Jagr, Sullivan, Whitney), too uncertain as to floor/ceiling (Wolski, Mueller), probably weren't going to come here no matter what (Penner, Selanne) or been there done that (Moss). I cannot come up with a clear cut better option for filling this roster spot.

Well, I can think of one better move, but I don't want to mention for fear of being deemed enigmatic.

Avatar
#2 The Last Big Bear
August 08 2012, 01:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

I think Kent (and most other commentators) are mistaken in their underlying assumption that Hudler was brought in to fill a specific hole in the roster, that he is supposed to play a role of some kind.

I don't think this is the case at all.

In the draft, some teams pick players to fill holes in their roster. Other teams, particularly rebuilding teams, simply pick the Best Player Available.

In the same fashion, I think Hudler was signed because among free agents he was the Best Contract Available.

He isn't a clear fit on the roster. But what he is, is a good NHL player on a very tradeable contract, well-priced and medium-term, with no NTC, and he cost nothing up-front to acquire.

I think it was a very astute signing by Feaster et al. Not for what it does for the Flames on the ice, but it was top-notch asset management.

Avatar
#3 mcculb
August 08 2012, 11:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

A bandaid when you really require surgery. Surgery hurts more and takes longer to recover from, but it adresses the root issue. If you wait to long to have surgery, you will continue to have issues and risk further problems. The doctor's advice is clear, and everyone knows it, however the patient chooses to ingore it.

Mr. Hudler will join the Amonte, McCarty, Bertizzi, Kotalik, Hagman and Stajan club. Good numbers elsewhere then Flameout here. With all due respect to Jiri, history will repeat with any "bandaid of this type.

Avatar
#4 Dr Philosophy
August 08 2012, 11:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

A high ZS doesn't necessarily mean "coddling". I call it putting the player in the position to succeed given his talents.

Was Hudler brought here to play D as a forward? No. Was he brought here to score? Yes. Was he brought here to score on the PP? Absolutely Yes. We can only call it coddling if he continues to be put in positions to succeed at what he's good at when he's not succeeding.

Lots of guys around here (including KW, IIRC) lamented Brent Sutter's refusal to give certain guys the Sedin ZS treatment last year. Management is, by bringing in guys like Hudler, making a move in the Vigneault direction. (See Hartley, Bob, as well.) It makes no sense to want the team to be coached like the Canucks then criticize bringing in the players to do it.

Is Hudler a Sedin? Hell no. Is Hudler a player that can and should be deployed in a Sedin-like manner? Absolutely.

Avatar
#5 McRib
August 08 2012, 12:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Will someone please answer me this.... Dennis Wideman signed for $5.25 Million and is being hailed by all as the worst off season signing of the summer. Yet Matt Carle signs for $5.50 Million and everyone is praising Tampa Bay...

Honestly I think Wideman is worth twice as much as Carle. Wideman can run an offense, yet Carle is more of a complitment to a quarterback. He picks up second assists like its his job and only managed to score 4 GOALS last year, seven less than Wideman. Wideman has also proven when he has played on defensive minded teams that he is capable of being a plus player (+16 in 2 1/2 years in Boston), where as Carle has played on top teams his entire career and think if anything he is going to have a regression. Also his last stint with Tampa Bay went horribly (the only time he hasn't played on a contender) he had two points in twelve games and they shipped him off to Philly.

Carle is also only a year younger than Wideman just don't see it.

Avatar
#6 Michael
August 08 2012, 12:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

The contract isn't outrageous if he can produce top 6 minutes and 40 - 50 points. He's penciled in to replace Jokinens points, so those points are really needed....

Avatar
#7 Baalzamon
August 08 2012, 04:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@McRib

... since you don't seem to understand what I told you, I'll say it again. Filppula and Zetterberg are the forwards Hudler spent BY FAR the most time with. If Zetterberg was just being put on Hudler's line "once [in] a while" you would not see that correlation. The next highest forward on Hudler's list was Darren Helm. He and Hudler spent a mere 129:32 together. Hudler spent 694:42 with Zetterberg. Not even close.

Hudler's most common linemates: Filppula and Zetterberg. http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=90&withagainst=true&season=2011-12&sit=5v5&type=goals

Filppula's most common linemates: Zetterberg and Hudler. http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=95&withagainst=true&season=2011-12&sit=5v5&type=goals

Zetterberg's most common linemates: Filppula and Hudler. http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=94&withagainst=true&season=2011-12&sit=5v5&type=goals

does that clarify that? If not, I don't know what to say.

Avatar
#8 Austin L
August 08 2012, 11:17AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

That last sentence scares the crap out of me..... I'm sort of expecting him to hit at least 40 points, I'd rather take 50, but that likely won't happen...

Avatar
#9 Bean-counting cowboy
August 08 2012, 11:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I don't think we need to be too worried. I mean what has past experience shown us? It's not like other players coming to Calgary from other markets have seen their production dip :)

Avatar
#11 FireOnIce
August 08 2012, 11:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I find it odd that Zetterberg's name only came up once, in passing, in this article. The soft minutes and frequently starting in the O-zone are certainly one way to pad your stats, but so is playing with the Datsyuks and the Zetterbergs. Hank Zetterberg is a way underrated player (yeah, I said it) and an assist machine, and I would stress that he is a large reason that Hudler got those points.

I would hate for Hudler to come here and fall off the face of the Earth, but if the Red Wings were unwilling to give him more money to play alongside Zetterberg again then... well... Flames may get burned.

Unless Hudler/Cervenka completely destroy the competition. Make your top lines Tanguay-Cammy-Iginla and GlenX-Cervenka-Hudler, give them all 50%+ O-zone starts, and then bury the other two lines.

Avatar
#12 RexLibris
August 08 2012, 12:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

So, a few assumptions: A.) the Flames rely on Chris Snow for analytical data B.) that they had access to as much of the information that Kent found here C.) Hudler was signed to a contract that will see him in Calgary until he is 32 at a reasonable rate of $4 million a season and as a depth scoring option and D.) that Feaster (and perhaps also Weisbrod) were aware of the data collected when making the above decision.

Based on all of that, what is one to make of the signing, but more to the point, what is one to make of the overall decision to pursue and reward this player with such a long-term contract? While there are no trade restrictions on the deal if Hudler underperforms to the extent that Stajan has (as a worst-case scenario), then it might not be the easiest asset to move.

Avatar
#13 McRib
August 08 2012, 12:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

"Hudler actually led the league in scoring amongst players playing less than 16 minutes a night. Steve Sullivan of the Pittsburgh Penguins was the only one among players who played less than 16 minutes a game who came close to Hudler's 50 points, with 48"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1155573-jiri-hudler-true-grit-one-of-the-few-red-wings-doing-the-dirty-work

Plan and simple think by playing 4-5 minutes a night and another 1-2 minutes of power play time he will easily hit 60 points. Not only replacing Olli Jokenin's numbers but Hudler has proven to play better towards the playoff stretch. Jokinen on the other hand completly falls off.

Avatar
#14 Bean-counting cowboy
August 08 2012, 12:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
McRib wrote:

"Hudler actually led the league in scoring amongst players playing less than 16 minutes a night. Steve Sullivan of the Pittsburgh Penguins was the only one among players who played less than 16 minutes a game who came close to Hudler's 50 points, with 48"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1155573-jiri-hudler-true-grit-one-of-the-few-red-wings-doing-the-dirty-work

Plan and simple think by playing 4-5 minutes a night and another 1-2 minutes of power play time he will easily hit 60 points. Not only replacing Olli Jokenin's numbers but Hudler has proven to play better towards the playoff stretch. Jokinen on the other hand completly falls off.

I think one thing to take from the article is you can't look strictly at minutes played.

Sure he scored lots with less minutes, but what led to that? High offensive zone starts and an unsustainable shooting percentage.

Playing more minutes in Calgary will only partially offset the loss of production if his shooting percentage were to fall to an average range and his zone starts were to drop between 3 & 4%.

Avatar
#15 Baalzamon
August 08 2012, 12:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Actually Kent, I think it's very likely Hudler lines up on the 1st unit. Tanguay plays on the point, remember?

Iginla - Cammalleri - Hudler (in some order..)

Wideman - Tanguay

@McRib

you must not have been paying close enough attention, because Zetterberg was Hudler's 2nd most common linemate after Val Filppula.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=90&withagainst=true&season=2011-12&sit=5v5&type=goals

Avatar
#16 jeremywilhelm
August 08 2012, 12:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Feed a line of Glencross-Backlund-Stempniak to the wolves and the top 6 run rampant at a 55+% zone start.

Problem solved, well, problem solved for everyone who isn't on the GBS line.

Avatar
#17 the-wolf
August 08 2012, 12:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@mcculb - good analogy, it never ceases to amaze me how many fans just refuse to admit that the Flames' issues run deeper than a guy who can score from the 3rd line can fix.

The deal would make more sense if it had been only 2 years, but I get it, that's the market.

Hudler, IMO, is, as McRib fairly points out, the best there is at what he does. But what does he do? As Kent answered in depth, he scores decently from the 3rd line against weak competition playing on a team that is far superior to Calgary.

It's not a knock on Hudler, but this rosy vision that he's going to score 70 points due to an increase in ice time seems to me to be quite a stretch.

Hudler strikes me as a guy who could be an important cog on a top team in order to add scoring depth or step up for short stints due to injury, etc. I think he'd have fit well with the Pens, for example. I don't, however, see him as a difference-maker.

Bottom line: a 3rd line hot-dogger and a guy from the KHL who has never played a single NHL game are not going to come in and light the league on fire (pun intended).

Avatar
#18 beloch
August 08 2012, 12:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
McRib wrote:

"Hudler actually led the league in scoring amongst players playing less than 16 minutes a night. Steve Sullivan of the Pittsburgh Penguins was the only one among players who played less than 16 minutes a game who came close to Hudler's 50 points, with 48"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1155573-jiri-hudler-true-grit-one-of-the-few-red-wings-doing-the-dirty-work

Plan and simple think by playing 4-5 minutes a night and another 1-2 minutes of power play time he will easily hit 60 points. Not only replacing Olli Jokenin's numbers but Hudler has proven to play better towards the playoff stretch. Jokinen on the other hand completly falls off.

Jokinen hasn't put in a sub-50 point season since 2001, and he's put up significantly higher totals while playing top competition. Hudler, as sheltered as he has been, has only just barely broken 50 points twice in the NHL. The season before last he put up only 37 points in 73 games (his SH% was just half what it was last season)!

So, on the one hand you have an Babchuck-style offensive creampuff who needs both shelter and luck to break 50 points. On the other hand you have a player who might not be the best two-way center out there, but can reliably produce more than 50 points while not being sheltered.

I said it before and I see no reason to change my tune so far. Feaster should have passed on Hudler and kept Joker.

Avatar
#19 McRib
August 08 2012, 01:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Baalzamon

Haha. Val Filppula got to play with Zetterberg & Datsyuk during a regular shift and then Babcock was nice enough to double shift Zetterberg once and awhile onto Hudler's line. Thats' what that means to me.

Honestly having watched coach after coach try and double shift Iggy on the Third/Fourth line, it just doesn't work. No chemistry and the double shifted forward i.e. Zetterberg or Iginla comes off early in 30 seconds, usually giving someone like Hudler very little time to actually get anything going.

@Bean-counting cowboy

So even though he may have had a lot of "offensive zone starts", his point total will increase because he will be playing a more regular shift with more regular line mates, not to mention more PP time which will further offset his OZS. Plus his OZS will only decrease about 5%, which if he averages 16-17 shifts a game then he only goes down 0.8 offensive zone starts per game. Considering he will be receiving 3-4 more shifts a game he will actually still be increasing his OZS by at least two a game.

Also considering that a player with his speed scores a lot more goals in transition OZS aren't as important. Glencross had to have scored 75% of his goals off the rush last season. Someone Hudler most likely will be playing with next season. Honestly OZS are great for a Power Forward like Iginla who works 90% of his goals off the offensive zone cycle for a quick forward like Hudler you actually want to use their speed in transition to put defenders on their heels.

Avatar
#20 McRib
August 08 2012, 01:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@beloch

Jokinen had something like three points in his last fifteen games down the stretch. Honestly he was the defference between making the playoffs and not.

He also was a major reason the dressing room was so mundane and failed to show up most nights with any sort of energy. It was like a country club last year in the dressing room with his lack of leadership.

Jokinen is 33 and on the the decline, Hudler is five years younger and still on the upswing, looking to prove he is better than a third liner.

Worse case scenerio Hudler replaces his points and brings more energy to a club that greatly needed it last year.

Avatar
#21 loudogYYC
August 08 2012, 01:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@McRib

I'm not sure Jokinen was the president of the Flames Country Club, that title belongs to the captain. Love the guy, but he's no firestarter.

And lets be honest guys, most UFA signings are risky because you rarely sign a UFA to a decent cap hit, specially when he's signed early into free agency. Hudler's play and point total will depend a lot on what the 1st and 3rd lines do next season. IMO he'll do fine if Iggy, Cammy, Tanguay, Glencross and Backlund have good seasons.

@Kent Wilson

I agree that Brent did Stajan and the Flames no favors by ignoring his existence and dumping him on the 4th line, but where do you think Hartley could use him?

Avatar
#22 Bean-counting cowboy
August 08 2012, 01:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ McRib

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Somehow the "he should easily hit 60 points" prediction seems short-sighted to me.

Detroit has capable to 6 players, Calgary does not. Playing with Cervenka (NHL unknown) and Glencross (equally outrageous shooting %)or possibly Baertschi (rookie) is not going to get it done for him IMO. Expect more like 40 to 50 points - just my prediction.

That being said, I do think Tach makes a good point regarding the move apart from all this other analysis - What better 2nd line RW option did Feaster have at his disposal? Plus no assets given up to get him - therefore I can't dis Feaster on the move, just think we need to lower expectations.

Avatar
#23 the-wolf
August 08 2012, 01:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@McRib - how many points down the stretch did Iginla get? Who weras the 'C?' Lets hang that hat where it belongs. Joker was never brought in here to be a dressing room leader.

Avatar
#24 RexLibris
August 08 2012, 02:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Here's a couple of points:

If Hudler is an offensive creampuff, was he brought in to replace Jokinen's offensive Big Mac?

I agree with loudogYYC that leadership should start with the captain and a veteran core. Questions in that area need to start there, but should not be limited to Iginla alone. Jokinen might bear some responsibility, but as I recall he finished the season with a pretty serious injury didn't he? Fans aren't privy to what he did or didn't say in the dressing room, only his on-ice performance.

Using Hudler along with Iginla to create offensive chances off the rush hinges on one question: does Hudler have the ability, speed aside, to actually drive possession and the direction of play? I don't know, that is why I am asking.

As for whether or not Hudler was being brought in to play a role, if I recall correctly Feaster was (again) quite effusive in the impact he expected of Hudler. In fact, he had this to say when he signed him "Jiri Hudler is a highly skilled and dynamic offensive player...He is one of the very best goal scorers in the NHL at even strength and he puts a very high percentage of his shots on net, generating scoring chances for himself and rebound opportunities for his teammates. He fits our need to upgrade and improve our skill...".

I think Feaster signed Hudler believing that he had acquired, through free agency, an impact 2nd line winger who could take some of the heat (pardon the pun) off of Iginla. He was also likely thinking that he was getting a player from a winning organization and that this might influence the Flames, in the way that many GMs treat that sort of voodoo thinking.

Also, mcculb's analogy has some resonance in this situation. Kent has been pretty clear in his assertion that the Flames lack elite-level talent and that acquiring such players has to be the priority for the club. Hudler isn't that player, in my opinion.

He would be a terrific complementary player on a deep team that could shelter him and place him in a situation to succeed. Like Detroit. Or Pittsburgh, Boston, Vancouver, L.A. and so on. In Calgary I believe that he is going to struggle at times and likely will not reach similar totals to his time in Detroit.

Though given the free agent options available, Feaster really didn't have a lot to work with.

Normally I would say that fans should temper their expectations of Hudler and not allow themselves to see him through Red Wings-coloured glasses. Unfortunately, I think that Feaster already has.

Avatar
#29 beloch
August 08 2012, 03:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@loudogYYC

After looking at Stajan's numbers over the past 5 seasons, his case doesn't look nearly as hopeless as I thought it would. A combination of bad puck luck and *huge* slashes in his TOI are what's put his counting stats in the basement.

There's no denying that Stajan had horrible puck luck for most of last season. After his 39th game of the season his Sh% was just 5%! It shot up to 17% over his remaining 22 games and he finished the season at 10.4% overall. This change in luck may not have been due to a change in underlying performance. e.g. His sh/60m was flat over most of the season.

Stajan's sh/60m has been flat over the last 5 years actually, hovering around 5. His Sh% was around 13% over his last few years in Toronto, but nose-dived to 7.4% in his first full season in Calgary. His minutes were also slashed from 1551 to 1080 that season and the combination put his counting stats in the basement. Despite his improved luck last season, his TOI was further slashed by another 20% to just 793 minutes. (Note: Both his minutes/game and number of games played have declined sharply.) He had roughly half the TOI last season that he did, on average per year, over his last two full seasons in Toronto and the season he was traded to Calgary.

So, as bizarrely as it sounds, Stajan might not have turned into a total piece of garbage. If he were given the same TOI he used to get in a season and his luck were to remain similar to how it's been for most of his career we could see him putting up 40-50 points again. The fans obviously hate his guts now and Butter did too, but if Hartley doesn't jump on the hate-train and actually plays him a bit we could see the old Stajan return.

As an added bonus, Stajan is a decent faceoff man who generally wins more than he loses.

Of course, the real question is whether or not the Flames will have better options than Stajan at center. His contract really is too heavy for a #4C, and if Butter hadn't destroyed his reputation by playing him so little and even demoting him the Flames might have been able to trade him by now.

Avatar
#30 SmellOfVictory
August 08 2012, 03:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

Retaining Moss comes to mind, for less years and less money, given the Flames poor possession last year. Semin, as you mention, who could have been had on a one or two year ticket.

I don't even know if the Flames had to throw money on the table this summer for this purpose. Stempniak, Comeau, Baertschi, Cammalleri/Cervenka, Glencross, Iginla and Tanguay were the existing/possible top-9 wingers.

I'd honestly have liked Semin on a multi-year contract at a lower cap hit.

Avatar
#31 MC Hockey
August 08 2012, 03:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Gotta take a middle ground here with these points:

1. Free agency signings are all about supply and demand. While other options existed, notably Semin and ex-Flame Moss, the risk may have seemed higher with them. And once they decided on Hudler as BPA for upgrading skill, perhaps they needed to go that long and that high in price to get him (hard to know, but seems likely).

2. A key thing Feaster said about Hudler was him getting a lot of his shots on net which to me implies rebounds, if not goals will come about...so that makes sense to me in terms up getting more goals and thus wins!

3. Perhaps Feaster and Weisbrod spoke to Hartley about doing more "Vigneault-like" usage of his lines by giving the top 2 lines shelter via really good Zone Start % around 55-65%. Makes me worry about the Flames checking lines (I mean lines 3 and 4) and defense however having to be excellent in their prevention of goals.

Avatar
#32 the-wolf
August 08 2012, 03:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kent - your last few posts sum up the Flames overall predicament in a very concise manner. Not enough top end talent in it's prime. You could string those comments together and make a great article on the state of the Flames.

I've always said Brent was not the reason the team struggled. Not a perfect coach by any means and he wasn't my choice, but at the end of the day it comes down to talent and as you've mentioned several times on here, coaches rarely have huge impacts on teams, at least over the duration of their tenure.

Leads me to believe that Feaster's tenure in Calgary will end at the same time as Hartley's tenure. When Jarome, Tangs and Cammi have all been put out to pasture, the blood has come gushing through all of the band-aids and an Edmonton-style rebuild is all we're left with.

Avatar
#33 Bean-counting cowboy
August 08 2012, 03:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
SmellOfVictory wrote:

I'd honestly have liked Semin on a multi-year contract at a lower cap hit.

It could be highly likey that Feaster would've wanted Semin here, but Semin perhaps was not as excited about playing in Calgary.

Who knows what goes on behind the scenes. I would've liked Semin also.

Canes have as good a top 6 now as 80% of the league methinks.

Avatar
#34 Kevin R
August 08 2012, 04:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Absorbing a lot of the very valid arguments here I think Feaster went with the best option that was out there that didnt require losing an asset to acquire. The contract is a very moveable one but I think one other thing that may have been part of the decision to sign Hudler was that he will be an excellent ambassador for Cerevenka. Cerevenka is such a huge unknown, I think Feaster decided he has to gamble big time because he only has a 1year window to acclimatize Cerevenka & establishing himself as a 1/2 centreman. Hudler probably has additional duties over and above just getting 50points. Ramo & Cerevenka are two players with potential high end raw ability the Flames lack in that age group. These guys could literally make Feaster look like a genius if they have great years & show elite talent potential at the NHL level. I for one can understand why Feaster signed Hudler.

Avatar
#35 RKD
August 08 2012, 04:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Maybe Hudler wanted to play in a Canadian market and possibly hoped to step out of the shadow of guys like Zetterberg and Datsyuk.

He could still get sheltered minutes on the Flames or maybe not. He could still put up 50 points under Hartley's "uptempo style." I don't see him fizzling out like Stajan.

There are a few players who fizzled out: Stajan, Gomez, Cheechoo, etc. However, I don't put Hudler in that category and hopefully he proves us wrong.

Avatar
#36 SeanCharles
August 08 2012, 07:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The easiest way to sum up the Flames problems is that they lack a topline center, or even effective centermen as a group. We are debating over the winger options in the top 9; Hudler was the best option for the Flames because we couldn't land an upgrade at center via trade so Feaster decided to gamble on Cammy, Cervenka and Backlund being able to hopefully fill the void until a better option becomes available. The problem with the Flames is that their team is strong in almost every area except at center, the team is led by a winger and is strong on the wings (particullarly lefthand shooters), which isnt a bad thing if you have decent centermen for them to play with. All the best teams have strength down the middle. Hudler is a player who is an upgrade, skillwise, over Moss and thats what Feaster wanted. Look at our problems: bad posession, horid faceoffs, topline can't regularily faceoff against other toplines. These issues are because our NHL-ready center depth is extremely weak, has always been weak, and even when given the opportunity via a big trade-chip (Phaneuf) Sutter never addressed it, and our team has been reeling ever since the downward spiral of Conroy and Langkows carrers. Hudler is a player brought in who may or may not succeed, but one thing is certain the Flames, and its players, will never really succeed until the center ice position gets notably stronger. The good thing is gambles like Cervenka and Jankowski are signs Feaster knows he needs to address this. Even better is the fact that since we havent landed one via trade is a good indication Feaster wont part with future key pieces of the organization to do it. Even if Hudler sucks I think Feaster is fixing this team.

Avatar
#37 Parallex
August 08 2012, 11:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Meh, I dunno...

I mean I think the more important question should be "who does Hudler more or less directly replace?" The following is the list of forwards we started the year with us last year... M. Stajan J. Iginla O. Jokinen T. Jackman T. Kostopoulos R. Bourque N. Hagman L. Stempniak D. Moss R A. Tanguay R. Horak C. Glencross

... let's eliminate those that are still here and likely to start the year with the team:

O. Jokinen T. Jackman T. Kostopoulos R. Bourque N. Hagman D. Moss R. Horak

Let's further eliminate the fouthies (since he obviously wasn't brought in to replace those guys) and let's drop Jokinen since Hudler isn't a center...

R. Bourque N. Hagman D. Moss

Looking at the three above who exactly is it that Hudler is replacing? based on TOI I would say that he's replacing Rene Bourque... feel free to disagree but give me a choice between Rene Bourque and Jiri Hudler and I'm taking Hudler.

Avatar
#38 Captain Ron
August 09 2012, 12:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
SeanCharles wrote:

The easiest way to sum up the Flames problems is that they lack a topline center, or even effective centermen as a group. We are debating over the winger options in the top 9; Hudler was the best option for the Flames because we couldn't land an upgrade at center via trade so Feaster decided to gamble on Cammy, Cervenka and Backlund being able to hopefully fill the void until a better option becomes available. The problem with the Flames is that their team is strong in almost every area except at center, the team is led by a winger and is strong on the wings (particullarly lefthand shooters), which isnt a bad thing if you have decent centermen for them to play with. All the best teams have strength down the middle. Hudler is a player who is an upgrade, skillwise, over Moss and thats what Feaster wanted. Look at our problems: bad posession, horid faceoffs, topline can't regularily faceoff against other toplines. These issues are because our NHL-ready center depth is extremely weak, has always been weak, and even when given the opportunity via a big trade-chip (Phaneuf) Sutter never addressed it, and our team has been reeling ever since the downward spiral of Conroy and Langkows carrers. Hudler is a player brought in who may or may not succeed, but one thing is certain the Flames, and its players, will never really succeed until the center ice position gets notably stronger. The good thing is gambles like Cervenka and Jankowski are signs Feaster knows he needs to address this. Even better is the fact that since we havent landed one via trade is a good indication Feaster wont part with future key pieces of the organization to do it. Even if Hudler sucks I think Feaster is fixing this team.

I couldn't have said this any better than you just did. The center ice position has been this teams most glaring weakness for a while now. Darryl Sutter in his mind was likely thinking that he did address this with the addition of Stajan and Jokinen. I was vacationing in Jamaica when I heard that he dealt Dion to Toronto and my immediate reaction was surely Dion could have been part of a deal with someone to get that legit first line center in return. Instead we end up with two cast offs that were never going to fill that role. Our defence, goaltending, and wingers are good enough for the Flames to be a playoff team. The big mystery is will the performance of Stajan, Backlund, and Cervenka be good enough to get the Flames there? Hard to feel confident in their chances with that many question marks at such a key position. If indeed we have to go to war with the centers we have now it is going to be interesting to see how Hartley handles them, and if they perform better under him or not.

Avatar
#39 Ice_Hawk
August 09 2012, 02:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I think there is some pretty far-reaching speculation in this article, which to me lacks balance.

It may be true that Hudler will not hit the lofty 19.64 SH% he achieved this year, but it is reasonable to project he will hit his average.

In Detroit he played under 16 minutes a night and will probably be playing 2 to 3 minutes more a night in Calgary. This will afford him the opportunity to take more shots which will compensate to some degree for a reduced shooting % if that is even the case.

I was shocked to read your comment "his contributions at even strength are eminently replaceable". This just shows how delving too deeply into stats can push someone into coming to puzzling conclusions.

Hudler was the second highest scorer at even strength in the entire league last year, and was a major contributor to Detroit's league leading 5-5 F/A @ .144. In contrast CGY was 7th worst in the league at a dismal .89.

Detroit's need for skill is not as critical as the Flames'. A team like the Flames who only missed the playoffs by a few points and lost 16 points in OT (tied for 2nd worst in the league) could certainly use a player who can actually score in a shootout. You are definitely not going to get that from David Moss.

I think saying there is a non-trivial chance Hudler could end up like Stajan is vastly overstating it. I wouldn't take that bet @ 100-1.

Avatar
#40 Monaertchi
August 09 2012, 08:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Baalzamon wrote:

... since you don't seem to understand what I told you, I'll say it again. Filppula and Zetterberg are the forwards Hudler spent BY FAR the most time with. If Zetterberg was just being put on Hudler's line "once [in] a while" you would not see that correlation. The next highest forward on Hudler's list was Darren Helm. He and Hudler spent a mere 129:32 together. Hudler spent 694:42 with Zetterberg. Not even close.

Hudler's most common linemates: Filppula and Zetterberg. http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=90&withagainst=true&season=2011-12&sit=5v5&type=goals

Filppula's most common linemates: Zetterberg and Hudler. http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=95&withagainst=true&season=2011-12&sit=5v5&type=goals

Zetterberg's most common linemates: Filppula and Hudler. http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=94&withagainst=true&season=2011-12&sit=5v5&type=goals

does that clarify that? If not, I don't know what to say.

Just to be clear, you're saying that Zetterberg, Filppula, and Helm were a fixed line and none of them ever played any time with Hudler?

Avatar
#41 SmellOfVictory
August 09 2012, 08:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Monaertchi wrote:

Just to be clear, you're saying that Zetterberg, Filppula, and Helm were a fixed line and none of them ever played any time with Hudler?

I can't tell if you're serious or just trolling the poor guy, but in case you're serious: he's saying ZBerg, Flips, and Hudler were almost a fixed line last season.

Avatar
#42 negrilcowboy
August 09 2012, 10:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

hudler should help the pathetic flames offense, as for stajan perhaps having to look at butter's mug got to him. couple butter's good looks with stone age bench management and you could make an arguement that cottonelle got the broom handle.

Avatar
#43 A
August 09 2012, 11:11AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The gamble? What ? How about a positive spin on something jay has done for once. Hudler is a great pickup and so was wideman.

Avatar
#44 SeanCharles
August 09 2012, 12:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Captain Ron wrote:

I couldn't have said this any better than you just did. The center ice position has been this teams most glaring weakness for a while now. Darryl Sutter in his mind was likely thinking that he did address this with the addition of Stajan and Jokinen. I was vacationing in Jamaica when I heard that he dealt Dion to Toronto and my immediate reaction was surely Dion could have been part of a deal with someone to get that legit first line center in return. Instead we end up with two cast offs that were never going to fill that role. Our defence, goaltending, and wingers are good enough for the Flames to be a playoff team. The big mystery is will the performance of Stajan, Backlund, and Cervenka be good enough to get the Flames there? Hard to feel confident in their chances with that many question marks at such a key position. If indeed we have to go to war with the centers we have now it is going to be interesting to see how Hartley handles them, and if they perform better under him or not.

A few years ago I heard that a legitimate rumor had Kaberle going to Philly in exchange for Carter, you can assume other pieces would be involved but I believe that trade could have happened considering how well Kaberle played a few seasons ago. If that were the case then there is no doubt Phaneuf could have landed a top center. GMs even said annonymously that they would have offered Calgary more for Phaneuf than Toronto. I almost cr@pped myself when I heard that trade, it was an epic fail if there ever was one, not only trade Phaneuf but also trade Aulie, Aulie was an assest that landed Toronto Carter Ashton, if I remember correctly, which is a solid prospect that would have been alot better than what we are left with now. Anyway, I think as long as the Flames improve FO% and SO and OT wins they should be a better team than last year. Im still excited for this year, it was smart of Feaster to change to a more offensive system when Beartchi and Cervenka are making the jump, and Iggy and Tanguay have been waiting for years for a more offensive system. We will see if it works out or not, but the positive thing is I dont think Feaster will let history repeat 3 times, if we struggle out of the gate for a 3rd straight year, trades will be all but guaranteed, all in all it should be a fun season. Its gonna be enjoyable just knowing Erixon isnt gonna be playing for the Rangers but instead, arguably the worst team to play for, Pheonix might be its only competition.

Avatar
#45 Reidja
August 09 2012, 01:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
A wrote:

The gamble? What ? How about a positive spin on something jay has done for once. Hudler is a great pickup and so was wideman.

Look up the defintion of the public relations term "spin". One of the main reasons that I read this site over others is the lack of spin. The cold hard reality of the numbers and the honesty of analysis.

I shouldn't apologize for Feaster, but I am sorry that you feel this club has upgraded at all this year. An objective look at the roster shows a bad to very bad hockey club, I think.

This team will be picking up the soap for much of 2012/13. But you know what? Given that it might be a short season, maybe this is a better time than most to suck. I'll be teary-eyed to see Iginla moved at the deadline, but with a little hope for the future mixed-in eh.

Avatar
#46 Baalzamon
August 09 2012, 03:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

"I almost cr@pped myself when I heard that trade, it was an epic fail if there ever was one, not only trade Phaneuf but also trade Aulie, Aulie was an assest that landed Toronto Carter Ashton, if I remember correctly, which is a solid prospect that would have been alot better than what we are left with now."

Aulie is pretty much the only thing that keeps Babchuk from being crowned the worst defenseman in the league. I was glad when I heard the Flames traded him (though the rest of the trade wasn't as fun) and Tampa got absolutely fleeced when they sent Ashton to Toronto in exchange.

Avatar
#47 SeanCharles
August 09 2012, 05:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Baalzamon wrote:

"I almost cr@pped myself when I heard that trade, it was an epic fail if there ever was one, not only trade Phaneuf but also trade Aulie, Aulie was an assest that landed Toronto Carter Ashton, if I remember correctly, which is a solid prospect that would have been alot better than what we are left with now."

Aulie is pretty much the only thing that keeps Babchuk from being crowned the worst defenseman in the league. I was glad when I heard the Flames traded him (though the rest of the trade wasn't as fun) and Tampa got absolutely fleeced when they sent Ashton to Toronto in exchange.

I agree, but the point is he was an asset that got a solid prospect in return. We could have been the team to fleece Tampa...

Avatar
#48 the-wolf
August 09 2012, 05:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
SeanCharles wrote:

I agree, but the point is he was an asset that got a solid prospect in return. We could have been the team to fleece Tampa...

Yet Aulie was a highly touted prosepct in the Flames org for years. I wonder how many of our current crop of prospects are being similarly over-hyped?

Avatar
#49 SydScout
August 09 2012, 10:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Plenty of talk of stats but it appears @Kevin R has a valid and integral point:

"Cerevenka is such a huge unknown, I think Feaster decided he has to gamble big time because he only has a 1year window to acclimatize Cerevenka & establishing himself as a 1/2 centreman. Hudler probably has additional duties over and above just getting 50points. Ramo & Cerevenka are two players with potential high end raw ability the Flames lack in that age group."

We've screwed the draft for years, so need to take chances on unproven mid twenties players. Wasn't all the talk around late June that Jagr might come to YYC to help Cervenka adjust? Clearly Hudler and Cervenka are mates having hung out back home post season.

Still feels like multi-bet gamble....while we start the process of drafting well and rebuilding appropriately.

Comments are closed for this article.