Buyout Garland to Keep Maccelli?

[horseflyhab]

As the title says, I have a decision to make. In either of the decisions I make I will be able to sign Addison and Newhook, which I intend on doing.

Scenario #1: Keep Garland and try and trade away Maccelli. From all reports, Garland is a third line winger in Vancouver. Of course with his old coach Tocchet behind the helm could that change and he sees more ice time? The benefit of this scenario is that I don't end up having a 1.65 million cap hit for 6 years, although Garland is owed 4.95 for three years. Also there is the chance that Garland improves a lot and gets somewhere near his potential that he showed with the Coyotes before he was traded. Trading Maccelli may get me a little something, but this is not a given.

Scenario #2: Buyout Garland, pay 1.65 million for the next 6 years and be able to sign Maccelli for his three year contract. The question is how good is Maccelli and how well will he be used by the Coyotes? Some reports have him on the 2nd PP unit and even on the third line. Others have him potentially on PP1 with him playing in the top 2 lines. For this to be worthwhile I need him not on the 3rd line like Garland. It has been really hard to find much in the way of scouting or fantasy reports on him. Now that Cooley is playing, there is another center for him to play with.

Bonus Scenario: Trade away Garland in a salary dump. This will be very expensive to do, like Addison will have to be involved. Do I really push for this at the cost of Addison and then I can sign Maccelli or even sign Gudas? It would give me more cap flexibility as well. The big problem is finding a trade partner and so far the reception for this has been ice cold.

Thanks for the feedback.

[metaldude26]

I'd explore the salary dump option, but if a reasonably cheap option doesn't present itself then I'd keep Garland and ride out the contract. Maybe he bounces back, maybe Maccelli flops and wouldn't be worth it anyhow or maybe Garland even gets hurt and opens some flexibility for you. The key to this is patience. You don't have to do anything and at this point you've sunken the cap cost on Garland. You'll be paying longer and more expensively for a similar type in Maccelli. I'd crave the flexibility, but not enough to buy out or spend much to obtain it.

[tweetdrivr]

With the trade of Pearson Garland’s value rises a little. I would not cap dump Garland if the cost is Addison. That’s not a good option - particularly with Addisons very cap friendly deal. I would also not buy out Garland. That’s a long tough hit. Trade Macelli? That’s what I would do.

[stevegamer]

First, I prefer Gudas to Maccelli. He's a known quantity, and is worth 60 points, give or take due to the enormous amount of peripherals.

So I'd trade Maccelli for certain.

[RizzeeDizzee]

Maccelli screams regression. Less than 1 SOG per game and IPPs of 88% overall and 100% on the PP. His production is going to drop like a stone.

[Belexus75]

Maccelli also played 87 games…it’s possible stats improve and points increase….Robert Thomas mentains solid numbers with low SoG.

im not saying Macceli’s production will be better or even the same but dismissing him based on low shots total after less than 100 games played is just silly…

[tweetdrivr]

I feel like the narative on Macelli has become massive regression and I don’t think it’s entirely fair. For the purposes of the OP I agree he should shop him. But while Macelli has elevated IPP numbers and a too high shot %, his possession metrics and secondary assist rates are all pretty good and sustainable. If he makes an attempt to shoot the puck a little more and his shooting % comes back down to earth he could maintain his modest goal scoring. But it’s always been more about the assists for Macelli. It’s not like this came out of nowhere. He was better than a PPG in the AHL. It really will come down to utilization here. Arizona has a lot of good young forwards. If they spread the ice time out evenly it could hurt his production for sure. Either way he should be skating with decent line mates. I’d say yes some regression will occur. But I don’t see his production dropping like a stone at all.

[RizzeeDizzee]

Maccelli also played 87 games…it’s possible stats improve and points increase….Robert Thomas mentains solid numbers with low SoG.

im not saying Macceli’s production will be better or even the same but dismissing him based on low shots total after less than 100 games played is just silly…

Wings who don't shoot are a heck of a lot different than centers who don't shoot, and not in a good way.

[Belexus75]

Wings who don't shoot are a heck of a lot different than centers who don't shoot, and not in a good way.

everybody is different that's why im not writing off young kind after 87 games...specially that he produced quite well in rookie season despite not being your typical winger...

[RizzeeDizzee]

everybody is different that's why im not writing off young kind after 87 games...specially that he produced quite well in rookie season despite not being your typical winger...

If what he did wasn't so unprecedented I'd cede the point; however, of 1314 instances of a wing playing 41+ games while scoring at even just a 50+ point pace dating back to 2000-01, not only did no one else fail to average one SOG per game, the next lowest was 1.21 and just 13 (i.e., less than 1%) were below 1.5. That, plus his ridiculous IPPs are huge red flags for me.

[tweetdrivr]

If what he did wasn't so unprecedented I'd cede the point; however, of 1314 instances of a wing playing 41+ games while scoring at even just a 50+ point pace dating back to 2000-01, not only did no one else fail to average one SOG per game, the next lowest was 1.21 and just 13 (i.e., less than 1%) were below 1.5. That, plus his ridiculous IPPs are huge red flags for me.

What were the goal/assist ratios like for this group of wings?

[Belexus75]

If what he did wasn't so unprecedented I'd cede the point; however, of 1314 instances of a wing playing 41+ games while scoring at even just a 50+ point pace dating back to 2000-01, not only did no one else fail to average one SOG per game, the next lowest was 1.21 and just 13 (i.e., less than 1%) were below 1.5. That, plus his ridiculous IPPs are huge red flags for me.

i get it, i just look at more than just numbers....if these numbers always told whole story fantasy hockey would not existing as everybody would have right answers...still think is very premature to dismiss him like you have done...and not only him, everybody who does not fit your statistical numbers sucks or is due for regression...

[RizzeeDizzee]

i get it, i just look at more than just numbers....if these numbers always told whole story fantasy hockey would not existing as everybody would have right answers...still think is very premature to dismiss him like you have done...and not only him, everybody who does not fit your statistical numbers sucks or is due for regression...

I'm not dismissing him - I'm just betting against him because the numbers would suggest I'd be right far more often than I'd be wrong. Past results don't guarantee future outcomes. That is indeed true. But when data is so one-sided, I feel like it's trying to tell us something.

- - - Updated - - -

What were the goal/assist ratios like for this group of wings?

I'd have to wait until I'm home to look that up

[horseflyhab]

A lot of really good points brought up here. On one hand I agree and ultimately worry about the regression of Maccelli due to his statistical numbers and uncertain usage and the fact the Coyotes are just not a place where big numbers are put up. On the other hand I have a hard time writing him off as he put up similar numbers in the AHL and there is a gut feeling I have that he has more to offer or can progress his game. Those gut feeling are sometimes wrong, but sometimes right. Not to be totally ignored.

Ultimately my choice comes down to not wanting to give up Addison to rid myself of Garland, not believing Maccelli will outproduce Garland by big numbers and not wanting to saddle myself with 6 years of a buy out. I still thank that Maccelli has value in a salary cap league as his contract is not onerous and there is potential there. The best move seems to try and trade him as he has more value than Garland and for all the reasons I just said.

Thanks for all the opinions and analysis. This is why Dobber's site is so invaluable to the building of championship fantasy teams.

[RizzeeDizzee]

What were the goal/assist ratios like for this group of wings?

For those who averaged 1.5 SOG per game or fewer, these were their goal and assist totals:

15, 34
10, 39
14, 22
13, 35
13, 36
10, 17
15, 44
14, 23
11, 18

Sorry - it was actually only nine others who had under 1.5, making it even more atypical.