I’m starting to get the feeling not everyone agrees about the Brooks Orpik signing. The ex-Penguin defender brings experience and grit to a blue line that lacked both, and for some that makes him a good acquisition. For others, he’s an aging, struggling player on a too-long and too-expensive contract. I count myself among that camp. I think Neil Greenberg at WaPo did a good job summarizing that position.
Still, there’s always a chance I’m wrong. I’ve certainly been wrong before. I was wrong about the decline of Marcus Johansson. I was wrong about the viability of the Chimera-Ward pairing. I was wrong about the Capitals’ playoff chances in 2013. I could be wrong about Orpik. Like any rational person, I reserve the right to change my mind when more information is presented.
Maybe this is a good opportunity to set terms. What would make for a successful tenure for Brooks Orpik in Washington? I’ve got a proposal for you.
Inspired by @nogoodtrying138, I call it The Orpikalypse Test.
A. Brooks Orpik shall automatically be a success if the following conditions is met:
- The Washington Capitals win the Stanley Cup with Orpik on the active roster. Duh.
B. Brooks Orpik shall be a success if any TWO of the following conditions are met :
- Orpik posts a positive relative possession score in three or more seasons.
- Orpik improves the WOWY possession score of his most frequent defensive pairing partner.
- Orpik averages above 21 minutes of ice time through the life of his contract (3+ years).
- Orpik scores 10 goals and 30 assists in two out of five seasons.
- Orpik plays top-4 minutes in the final year of his contract.
C. Brooks Orpik shall NOT be a success if ANY of the following conditions are met:
- The conditions in sections A and B are not met.
- Orpik is bought out.
- Orpik is traded with salary retained.
- Orpik fails to play in 75% of games in three or more seasons.
- Esa Tikkanen.
D. The test shall be deemed inconclusive if ANY of the following conditions are met:
- Orpik is traded before his third season and no salary is retained.
- Orpik fails a physical for concussion or catastrophic injury. (The Pronger Clause)
Does this sound fair? Any recommendations for additions or edits?