Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... User Polls
 Zach Parise vs. Scott Gomez Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

( )

Posted - 08/02/2012 :  09:16:16  Reply with Quote
In another thread, a question was asked about which newly signed player would you most covet on your team, and on this list was Zach Parise.

I don't know if a comparison was done before, but I took the time to compare Zach Parise's stats (and situation) with another small player big contract signing – Scott Gomez.

Back in 2007, then 27-year-old Scott Gomez was signed by the Rangers to a 7-year $51 million deal, just after coming off three seasons with the Devils where we averaged about a point a game. We all know what happened to Scott Gomez, and should we be surprised that a hockey player would peak between the ages of 25-28 years old?

Skip ahead to this year, and we all know about Zach Parise's big contract with the Minnesota Wild – $98 million over 13 years. And guess what – Parise is also 28 years old. (Gomez actually turned 28 a few months after signing his big deal with the Rangers.)

Interestingly, I took a look at each player's stats as they signed their big deals, and their stats were almost identical.

Gomez had 548 points in 450 games, while Parise had 502 points in 410 NHL games. Their points-per-game were virtually identical at .82 ppg.

Now I know that Zach Parise is not Scott Gomez, and differences between the two players could easily be identified, but aren't points the biggest measuring stick?

And doesn't age matter? Sure, some players peak in later years, but do the Wild really believe Parise will be a dominating player for the next 13 years?

Time will tell (as always), and while I think Parise's situation is different than Gomez, how many people thought Gomez's career would slip to the extent it did? (When he signed his big deal with the Rangers.) The Rangers certainly did not, and Montreal (to an extent) did not also, when they traded Ryan McDonagh and a few other players for Gomez in 2009.

And Gomez's production didn't slip right away. He delivered 128 points in 158 games with the Rangers. How about that – .81 points per game, almost exactly as what should have been expected.

In his first year with the Habs, Gomez slipped to .75 points per game (59 points in 78 games), but in the next two seasons afterwards, his decline was more significant. He was now entering his 30's, so the decline in points production was inevitable, perhaps not to this extent.

But really – do teams expect players to get better in their 30's? For every exception provided, there are 10 times more players who's production decreases when players enter their 30's. Take the best players in the game, the average players, or the pluggers – most players peak in their mid-20's, so why do so many teams overpay for players who they know must surely have peaked, or nearly reached their peak? Maybe it's to fill seats? Or for short-term gain? But to pay a player $100 million from ages 28-41 (one who is not a top 10 or probably top 20 player in the league) is baffling to say the least.

( )

Posted - 08/02/2012 :  09:59:51  Reply with Quote
"Gomez had 548 points in 450 games, while Parise had 502 points in 410 NHL games. Their points-per-game were virtually identical at .82 ppg. "

How can their ppg be less than 1 if they have more points than games?

548 points / 450 games = 1.22 ppg
502 points / 410 games = 1.22 ppg
Go to Top of Page


157 Posts

Posted - 08/02/2012 :  10:34:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
switch the games played for the points and the points for the GP :

Gomez : 450 pts in 548 games
Parise : 410 pts in 502 games

"Bon point Jacques!" - Beno๎t Brunet
Go to Top of Page


8286 Posts

Posted - 08/02/2012 :  10:44:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think historically a player's peak starts at their fourth season in the league, reaches the apex around the 6 season, and their 8th season is thier last 'peak season' and they are into thier decline. The question is how quick of a decline to players see.

But it is a great point. It is surprising how many teams significantly overpay for players that have more road behind then than in front of them. I like Parise as a player. I think he is solid and worth $7 million today. However, in 3-4 season he will not be worth that kind of money.

C'mon CBA. Come and save these owners and GM's from themselves.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

( )

Posted - 08/02/2012 :  11:26:17  Reply with Quote
Thanks "Go_Habs_Go" for catching my typo. You figured it out correctly.

God forbid if either of these guys were at a 1.22 points-per-game clip. The Rangers would have probably paid $150 million over 13 years for Parise! :)
Go to Top of Page

( )

Posted - 08/02/2012 :  11:31:00  Reply with Quote
Another typo (I gotta sign up). I meant the Wild not the Rangers!
Go to Top of Page


240 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2012 :  21:58:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I Definitely like parises game. That being said signing a smaller player to this length of term has its risks. I'd say he is better than Gomez IMO but any more than a 5 year contract at that avg amount is such a huge risk.

66 is > than 99
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page