Welcome back to another edition of the Roos Lets Loose monthly mailbag, where I answer your fantasy hockey questions by giving advice that should be useful to all poolies even if they don't own the specific players being discussed. As a reminder, if you want your fantasy hockey question(s) answered in the next mailbag, check out the end of the column, where I explain the ways to get it/them to me as well as the details you should provide when sending. The earlier you send a question the more likely it is to be included in the mailbag, and the deeper dive I can provide with my reply.

Question #1 (Dave)

I think we really saw a true glimpse of Anton Lundell's upside while Aleksander Barkov missed time in October. But given all the extensions that Florida has already handed out, plus rumors they want to extend Sam Bennett as well, is Lundell stuck as 3C going forward? Or do you see a path to the top six for him over the next year or two?

Indeed after seeing what Lundell did when Barkov was out, his owners had visions of him having finally done enough to play his way into the top six to stay. Yet with Barkov back though, Lundell is again centering the third line, leading to many, like you, wondering if his time will come, or whether instead he'll remain on the outside looking in when it comes to the top six.

This is yet another time when I underscore one of the most important things to remember when it comes to looking at the fantasy outlook of a player. Simply put, teams make decisions based on what they think will lead them to win, which, unfortunately, does not always align with maximizing fantasy value for certain players.

In Florida, Barkov is the unquestioned #1 center. Although most would agree that Lundell, if placed in the same situation as Bennett, would outscore him, that seemingly is not what is driving who gets the other top-six center spot. Yes, Bennett and Lundell are almost carbon copies of each other in terms of size and weight, but Bennett brings an element of sandpaper that Lundell doesn't. He also is not well suited for a bottom-six role given the style he plays. Hence, Lundell and his capabilities on the defensive side of the puck get the short end of the stick.

The comparison this always evokes for me is Jordan Staal in Pittsburgh. Staal was an even earlier draft pick than Lundell; but him landing in Pittsburgh, which already had Sydney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin, led to Staal being relegated to third line duty, and, in turn, a cap on his production. Even when he too shined upon being inserted into the top-six in certain instances if one of Crosby or Malkin were hurt, Staal was back in the bottom-six once both were in the lineup again. After landing on the Hurricanes for a fresh start, and inking a ten year deal worth $60M, Staal still remained a defense-first player, in part because he had been doing it for many years and that, in turn, was where his value lay.

Could Lundell leapfrog Bennett even if Bennett were to re-sign? Never say never; however, I think it would be a long shot, at least until/unless the Panthers start losing. And that does not seem poised to happen any time soon. Also keep in mind that Florida has Aaron Ekblad, Gustav Forsling, and even Nate Schmidt in the fold, yet still have handed PP1 reins to Adam Boqvist and then Uvis Balinskis rather than one of those three. Why? Because the three provide more value by playing tougher minutes. Given that reality, banking on Lundell getting a real crack at a top-six role is a losing endeavor. Of course, if Bennett was to sign elsewhere, then Lundell likely would vault into the top-six immediately, and probably to stay. But if I'm a Lundell owner looking to contend soon in keeper, I'm using his hot start to 2024-25 to deal him before he comes back to earth due to being stuck on the third line. Good question!

Question #2 (from Michael)

For the remainder of the season, who would you rather have in a points only league where forward positions don't matter: Cole Caufield, Jason Robertson or Elias Pettersson?

It's pretty amazing for Caufield to be in the same conversation as these other two in a points only league given that Robertson and Pettersson are just two seasons removed from a 109 and 102 points seasons respectively. But oh how things can change in the span of two years.

Let's start with Robertson. Like Lundell, he is being held back; but in his case it's not because of line placement. Rather, it's due to being throttled. As I write this, Robertson currently sits OUTSIDE the top 100 in TOI per game among forwards, and barely in the top 75 in PPTOI per game. His IPPs are as solid as ever and his OZ% has remained essentially the same since 2022-23. His 5×5 team SH% though is not double digits this season like it was in 2022-23 and again in 2023-24. His SOG/60 is down a good bit in the last two seasons too. But looking at the circumstances, JRob should still be a 90+ point player if his 109 point season was not a fluke, and it seemingly wasn't based on data such as IPPs and secondary assists. He's simply a victim of suboptimal deployment. To put it in better perspective, going back to 2010-11, the highest point total for a forward who had both an overall TOI and a PP TOI less than what JRob averages now, other than Matthew Tkachuk during the magical 2021-22 Calgary season, was Kevin Fiala, with 85 points in 2021-22. However talented JRob might be, and his underlying numbers still suggest he's pretty great, his ceiling for now, realistically, is 85-90 points.

Pettersson is worrisome, as he's been a shell of his former self since he signed his huge extension. His SOG rate, which was never that high to begin with, is barely half what it was in 2022-23, and he's done next to nothing on the PP. Beyond that, unlike JRob, EP40's 2022-23 does stand out as more of an outlier, with it being the only time he'd even had an IPP over 65%. Even last season, his 5×5 team SH% was higher than 2022-23 and he had a career best 59% PP IPP. For someone like him to not have ever hit even 60% for a PP IPP is alarming, since a top tier forward should be at least at 60%, and often well above that mark. But Pettersson has never even reached that threshold. We also know that Rick Tocchet is not above sending messages to underperforming players, which he seems to be doing with Pettersson, whose OZ% is ten percentage points under the 53% it was in 2022-23 and 2023-24. We know Pettersson has it in him to excel; however, I feel that complacency which seems to have set in since he signed his deal, coupled with Tocchet's coaching philosophy, will make this a lost season for EP40.

Caufield's TOI is right near JRob's, but he is getting more PP TOI, and it has shown in the form of four PPGs as I write this. But his inflated goal total in comparison to his assists does not bode well for him to be on a par with either of the other two, at best ending up along the lines of this season's Zach Hyman.  Caufield has also never had an IPP over 66%, and this season it is on pace to be similar to the 61% it was last season, which is not likely to get him to a point per game scoring rate when all is said and done. Not only is his SH% grossly inflated, but his 5×5 team SH% is 13.7%, which is entirely unsustainable. Considering he is shooting less than he has in either of the past two seasons, I don't even have much faith in him approaching Hyman territory, but instead finishing with a stat line of 35-40 goals but maybe 20-25 assists, tops.

We have here three players who, given where they were likely each drafted in a one-year league, will be disappointments versus expectations. But of the three, I'm taking Robetson. His floor is the highest, and his ceiling is at or above that of Pettersson, plus he has metrics which, unlike the other two, are not concerning. Good question!

Question #3 (from Adam)

In a 10 team, one-year roto league without max games limits, and goalie categories of W, SV% and SO, my team has had a great starts to the season from Igor Shesterkin and Filip Gustavsson and wins but a poor SV% from Logan Thompson. Would you drop Thompson in favor of Alexandar Georgiev, who was recently waiver by another GM?

It used to be that Georgiev was a goalie you drafted because you wanted lots of wins and thus were able to roster other goalies who might get fewer wins but better peripherals. And if Georgiev was indeed still the entrenched starter for Colorado, adding him to a duo of Shesty and Gus would be intriguing, as both of them ought to help in those areas, with Shesterkin likely also racking up wins and SOs.

The issue now though is Georgiev has gone from bad to worse. Without heaps of wins he’d be too bitter of a pill to swallow. The Avs tried to have him play through his struggles last season and early in 2024-25, but they seem to have lost their patience, instead turning to Justus Annunen and even Kappo Kahkonen for help in net. The other key is Georgiev is in the last season of his contract, so the Avs are less likely to feel they need to get him back on track, as by this time next year he could be gone.

It's too bad he has a NMC and plays for a divison rival, because what would seemingly make perfect sense is the Avs dealing for Gus' teammate Marc-Andre Fleury, who has announced it's his last season and likely was inked to guard against another poor season from Gus, but Gus looks like he's found his mojo again. The Wild would just have Gus become the true #1, plus bring up highly touted Jesper Wallstedt as his back-up to get some valuable NHL experience. But given the unlikelihood of this deal, the Avs might go the route of John Gibson if they can get Anaheim to pay part of what he is owed on his deal that runs though 2026-27. But Gibson has looked terrible too and has missed the first month of the season recovering from an offseason procedure, so would that really be an upgrade?

What about Colorado trading for a UFA to be goalie? That's not looking like a great option to say the least, as they consit of the the likes of Frederick Andersen, Jake Allen, Robin Lehner, Adin Hill, Vitek Vanecek, Anton Forsberg and Karel Vejmelka. Only Andersen and Hill might be intriguing to the Avs; however, Andersen is injury-prone and the Canes likely want to keep him around before they hand over the reins to Pyotr Kochetkov next season. Hill is a possibility, but he's not looked anything like the goalie he was in playoffs each of the last two campaigns, and is on track for all his key stats to be worse for the second season in a row.

As for Thompson, the frequency of his starts is not like it was for Georgiev until this season; however, as I write this Thompson won every game in which he's appeared, in the process almost doing an impression of Georgiev in that his peripherals are subpar yet wins keep coming. If Georgiev was signed for another season, or had put up numbers in the past that would give one any reasonable expectation that he could recover, then I'd hold and hope. But with Georgiev coming off the books after this season, the Avs firmly in win now mode, and Georgiev's poor track record in his career as a whole (only one season with over a 50% QS% and negative GSAAs in four of the past five), plus the possibility of the Avs dealing for another goalie, I'm sticking with Thompson. Good luck!

Question #4 (from Todd)

In reading your columns, I notice from time to time you mention that so-called "rough and tumble" forwards tends to see their scoring drop at age 30, sometimes by a lot. Does the data really back that up? And what of players like Jamie Benn, Alex Ovechkin, and J.T. Miller, all of whom have averaged well over a hit per game during their careers, but didn't start to fare worse at 30?

You are correct that I have mentioned this as a caution when looking at certain players. There is some pretty solid evidence to back it up, although, as you noted, it's not universal.

Since hits started being tracked, which I was surprised only began in 2007-08, and looking at players who had 200+ hits in a season at least twice prior to age 30 while also scoring 40+ points at least twice and who've already turned 30, we get the following, in alphabetical order: David Backes, Troy Brouwer, Dustin Brown, Ryan Callahan, Erik Cole, Brandon Dubinsky, Mike Fisher, Nick Foligno, Martin Hanzal, Chris Kunitz, Milan Lucic, Miller, Brendan Morrow, Ocechkin, and Tuomo Ruutu. Here is a table with pertinent scoring and age data for each player.

	Pre age 30 Highest point total (age)	Age when their scoring declined
Backes	62 (26 years old)	31 (from 58 to 47)
Brouwer	43 (29 years old)	30 (from 39 to 27)
Brown	60 (24 years old)	27 (54 to 27, but did have one season of 61 at age 33)
Callahan	54 (29 years old)	30 (from 54 to 28)
Cole	61 (28 years old)	30 (from 51 to 27, but did have one season of 61 at age 33)
Dubinsky	54 (24 years old)	30 (from 41 to 16)
Fisher	53 (29 years old)	30 (from 53 to 21, but did have three more seasons of 42-51)
Foligno	73 (27 years old)	30 (from 51 to 33)
Hanzal	41 (28 years old)	29 (41 to 26)
Kunitz	60 (27 years old)	29 (50 to 43, but did have one season of 61 at 32 and one of 68 at 34)
Lucic	59 (25 years old)	29 (50 to 34)
Miller	99 (28 years old)	29 (99 to 82, although he did have 103 points at age 30)
Morrow	74 (28 years old)	32 (from 56 to 26)
Ovechkin	112 (22 years old)	30 (81 to 71, although three times since then he's scored in the range of 87 to 90)
Ruutu	57 (27 year old)	28 (57 to 34)

Notice that Benn, despite being someone who does rack up hits, was not a two time 200+ hit guy. In fact, his high for a season was 185 as a rookie. But the table above is pretty jaw dropping if you ask me, and does, for the most part, validate my hypothesis in terms of guy who hit a lot. Yes, there are exceptions; but with Ovi you have a generational talent, and Kunitz was playing with Sidney Crosby, and Brown with Anze Kopitar. Mike Fisher broke the mold though, and J.T. Miller is seemingly doing so now.

Still, seeing this, how do you feel if you have a player that fits this profile and he's approaching 30? And yes, I'm talking to you Tom Wilson owners, as he is now 30 years old. Looking ahead, there could be concern about Brady Tkachuk as well. But other than those two, there are not many who are hitting a lot and scoring a lot. If someone does emerge who fits these criteria though, you might want to consider them as having a "sell by" date. Good question!

Question #5 (from DobberHockey Forums)

I'm in a 10 team, keep 6 H2H league with rosters of 2C, 2RW, 2LW, 1U, 4D, 3G, 2IR+, 1NA with four goalie appearances per week minimum and categories of G, A, SOG, PPP, FOW, HIT, BLK, W, GAA, SV%. SHO. I kept Leon Draisaitl, Tim Stutzle, Kirill Kaprizov, Evan Bouchard, Cale Makar, and Rasmus Dahlin. Here is what my teams looks like now:

C: Nazem Kadri, Dylan Cozens, Chandler Stephenson
RW/LW: Timo Meier, Owen Tippett 

RW/C: Martin Necas

RW: J.J. Peterka, Mark Stone
LW/C: Draisaitl, Stutzle

LW: Kaprizov
D: Bouchard, Makar, Dahlin, Dougie Hamilton, Jacob Trouba
G: Andrei Vasilevskiy, Filip Gustafsson, Semyon Varlamov, Lukas Dostal
I/R: Dakota Joshua LW/C, Robert Thomas C

As you can imagine, things are not going as great as I'd hoped. What would you in my shoes? What, if anything, did I do wrong?

I certainly cannot take exception with your keepers, which had to be among the best if not the best in the league. Perhaps I'd have entertained the idea of trying to diversify by getting a top goalie given that three are in active rosters, but where you ended up was top tier. Yes, Dahlin and Bouchard have been let downs thus far; however, they should turn things around.

One thing I'll say is Mark Stone should not still be here. The ideal time to trade him has already come and gone; as he is a ticking time bomb. If you're hesitant, consider he's 32 years old and it's not a question of whether he'll miss a chunk of time due to injury, but how much time exactly. I realize that some GMs will not want to give up a lot to get him, since his injury issues are well-documented and he's scoring so far above his career best; but all it takes is one believer. You owe it yourself to find that GM. It's called selling high for a reason. Let's also not forget that Stone is not great in multicat and has only one position eligibility. Trade him immediately.

As for what else to do, you're in a tough spot in terms of your goalies; but I'm not sure you can upgrade without paying to much to do so. If you do decide to punt on the season, I'd consider trading Gus, as I think he's a placeholder for Jesper Wallstedt; however, others might see him as having played so well as to raise his profile. Yes, maybe Gus gets traded and fares well on whatever team he lands; however, he is not the long term answer in Minnesota and won't be one of your keepers, so he might need to go.

As for what "went wrong"I think you somehow managed to draft with too much and yet also too little attention to non-scoring categories. I think you likely opted for multicat guys like Meier, Tippett, Kadri, and Trouba when I'm guessing there were other more productive players available. You do need to fare well in various categories to contend, but you cannot let it detract you from taking the best player available, at least early on. Considering there will not be even 200 players owned at any time within the league, you can plug in multicat holes as need be. Yet at the same time you ignored multicat to your detriment in that although you have three players who are wing and center eleigible, only Draisaitl takes a lot of faceoffs. Of course you were still going to keep Stutzle; however, if there was a place to "reach" in terms of multicat, that is it. Since it often does not have to come at the expense of scoring

Also, you have four center only eligible players. When only 2C start at a time, that is too many. Center is the deepest position in fantasy, so you should take as few pure centers as possible. Someone like Stephenson is a guy I'm not sure even should be rostered. Given his past numbers and the team where he landed, he seemed like a disappointment waiting to happen. As a norm, I generally try to avoid drafting players who were just UFAs, since in some cases their effort level is diminished by their newly fattened wallets, whereas in others they need to accliminate, which can take a while, with Kadri being a great case in point.

In fact, let's look at whether you did indeed reach for players by examining average Yahoo draft spot. I realize your league is not identical to Yahoo leagues and your roster compositions are different as well; however, average draft position will be able to give us a good idea of whether – and, if so, to what extent – you reached with your draft picks.

Since 60 players are kept, and 200 drafted, you should have picked someone in roughly every ten spots, i.e., one in the 60s, one in the 70s, one in the 80s, etc. So let's go down the list. Kadri was outside the top 150, as was Cozens, Stephenson, JJP, Stone, Trouba, Varlamov and Dostal. The "highlights" were Vas at 35, Meier at 63, Hamilton at 64, Necas at 124, and Gus at 145. It's pretty easy to see that you did not get good value with your draft picks. In short, you reached, whether due to multicat or hopes of getting someone poised to break out. But when you have a core of keepers the likes of the six you did, you want to think best player available, and worry about non-scoring categories later in the draft, or even after. since with only 200 players owned you'll be able to grab multicat guys on the waiver wire.

The other issue I have is many of the skaters you drafted were not even locks to be on PP1 and, at best, were poised to be second line players. You need to do what you can to get those who are entrenched in roles that will be most likely to lead to points. Guys like Cozens, Necas, and Tippett did not have roles set in stone, so I'd have opted for different players over them – though Necas has excelleled thus far, he is the exception.

From where I sit, you'll be going into 2025-26 with the same six keepers, unless somehow you swing a deal with one of them plus Stone or Gus. But I'd instead try to turn Stone into a player likely to be wanted as a keeper for another team, so you can trade that player in the offseason for a draft pick. If you see a player who is on the waiver wire and could be legitimately breaking out, I'd take a chance on him, as there could be a universe in which they become a keeper for another team, allowing you to make yet another trade for a pick. Do this especially for goalies.

I know this is not what you were hoping to hear; but I suspect you also kind of knew it was coming. Do not beat yourself up about this. In fact, having this happen allowed important lessons to be experienced which you might not have learned had you drafted a "better" team. Or to put it anoter way, it's almost better to be worse than mediocre, since you can more readily discern your mistakes and are not put in the awkward posituon of not being sure if you can contend or not. Good luck!

Question #6 (from Adam)

In a roto league where forward positions don’t matter and skater categories aer G, A, Pts, +/-, PPG, PPA, SHP, and SOG, how would you rank/project Bo Horvat vs. Artturi Lehkonen vs. Valeri Nichushkin over the rest of this season? 

It would be good to know your other forwards, since that could sway the decision. As a reminder, be sure to err on the side of inclusion when sending me questions. But I'll do my best with what I have.

First off, I'd ignore SHP entirely. Of the three, only Nichushkin has any SHPs in the past two seasons, and even then only two and three. Frankly I'm not sure why roto leagues count it, as I don't see how anyone could excel to an extent so as to make a meaningful difference in how they're rated overall.

From the start I'm eliminating Lehkonen. His issue is either he's hurt, or, if not hurt, often the odd man out when it comes to being on the top line and PP1. Plus, even when everything possible went right for him in 2022-23 he had 65 points and 20 PPPts, averaging 2.3 SOG. That's pretty good, but is closer to the floors for Horvat and Nichuskin, so he's not in the mix.

As for Nichushkin, he's gotten better and better with each passing season. He shoots a lot, piles on the PPPts, and has been a double digits plus player in three of his five seasons with the Avs. But of course he is a ticking time bomb given his track record. It does appear he is nearing a likely return and the Avs, who some thought might not welcome him back, need him more than ever given the pile of injuries they've had and still have. In short, if Nich returns, he's a good bet for point per game production with also great SOG and PP numbers.

Horvat has settled in well for the Isles. He shoots at about the same rate as Nich, but his scoring, both overall and on the PP, are a notch below. But Horvat is virtualy a lock for a 70 points pace and a PPPt per every four games and roughly three SOG per contest.

Thus, the magical question is does one opt for the "sure thing" in Horvat, at the possible expense of more points – overall and on the PP – from Nichushkin, but the very real possibility Nich gets hurt or his demons resurface? This is why seeing the rest of your line-up would be helpful. If you already have a lot of locked in offense, then I'd roll the dice with Nichushukin. But if you need to count on this player to be able to contribute over the entirely of the rest of the season, then it's Horvat. Good luck!

Question #7 (from "Shame on Ice")

In a points only keeper, would you trade my Aaron Ekblad and Jake Neighbours for Olen Zellweger and Mathew Barzal?

Let's start with Ekblad. He 's a UFA after this season and I'm guessing will leave Florida given he'll be seen as one of the prize d-men available. The question is what will his deployment be on his new team? Yes, there is season he scored at a 77 point pace; but that is looking like a major outlier, as he had by far his highest IPPs both overall and on the PP, and since then his overall PP has dropped each season, and is on pace to do so again. But his PP IPP has been 50% or higher in five of the past six seasons, which begs the question as to why Florida isn't using him in that capacity, and if a new team does so could he produce better than he has of late? Also, Ekblad is on pace for a second 5×5 team SH% of 11% or higher, which is impressive. Of course if his IPPs keep dropping then the fact that points are scored in droves while he's on the ice will not be of much, if any, added benefit. Still, on the right new team, he could do well, especially since the amount he's likely to be paid will likely bring with it better deployment.

Neighbours has not had a strong start to 2024-25. Although still goal-centric, he doesn't even average two SOG per game. Although his PP TOI is not much higher than 2023-24, his percentage share of PP minutes is up considerably, although maybe not for long inasmuch as he has no PPPts to show for it. It's also not encouraging that the only other winger in the past 40+ seasons who also was 23 or younger to]pot 27+ goals but 15 or fewer assists, with at least eight of those goals coming on the PP in one of their first three seasons was Jake DeBrusk, who's been a huge disappointment.

On the other side of the equation, there's Barzal. The last two centers who put up as many points as he did as a rookie were Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin. But Barzal, for the most part, had to since deal with lack of any semblance of a decent supporting cast, until last season, when both Noah Dobson broke out and Bo Horvat and him clicked. The result was a return to point per game scoring for Barzal, who is still only 27 years old. And although his start to 2024-25 was not great even before getting hurt, he's getting all the ice time he can handle and his tracke record of IPPs is superb. And even putting up just those five points was pretty amazing since the team's 5×5 shooting percentage with him on the ice through ten games was a miniscule 2.3%. He's still someone to hold in high regard.

As for Zellweger, the exodus of Jamie Drysdale last season made his path to the NHL a whole lot easier. And although Pavel Mintyukov was still seen as an impediment, thus far Zellweger is getting more ice time, including on the PP, so he might be getting the upper hand, which is important since pretty soon one has to think Cam Fowler will step aside for one of the youngsters to run PP1, at which poitn the other Ducks young players should be hitting their stride.

In short, there are definitely more question marks on the Ekblad and Neighbours side. With Barzal you have a player who is 100% a top line and top PP talent for the foreseeable future, and in Zellweger there's a young up and coming d-man who seems to be in the midst of leapfrogging Mintyulkov in the pecking order for the team, with only an aging Fowler to next surpass. I'm making this trade for sure. Good luck!

************************

I'm always looking for mailbag questions, so don't hesitate to sent them to me. You can get do so in one of two ways: (1) by emailing them to [email protected] with the words "Roos Mailbag" as the subject line, or (2) by sending them to me via a private message on the DobberHockey Forums, where my username is "rizzeedizzee".

When sending me your questions, remember to provide as much detail about your league/situation as possible. Examples of things I need to know include what type of league you're in (i.e., limited keeper, dynasty, or one-year; roto vs. H2H; auction – if so, what the budget is – or non-auction), how many teams are in the league, does the salary cap matter, how many players are rostered (and of those, how many start at each position as well as how many bench and/or IR spots there are), what categories are scored and how are they weighted, plus other details if pertinent. If your question involves whether to pick up or drop a player, give me a list of top free agents available and let me know if the number of pick-ups is limited or if there is a priority system for pick-ups. If you're thinking of making a trade, it would be good to know not only the roster of the other team you might trade with but also where you stand in your categories. If your question involves keepers, in addition to giving me the options for who to keep, let me know if offseason trading is allowed and to what extent it is a viable option given your league. In sum, the key is to tell me enough for me to give you a truly proper answer, and for readers of this column to benefit from the answer/advice I provide. When in doubt, it's best to err on the side of inclusion since I can always omit or disregard things that don't matter.