Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PR

Jason Garrison Signing Opinion

27 posts in this topic

Some quick thoughts on today’s signing of Jason Garrison by the Canucks. The Canucks already had a big hole in their D when Ehrhoff left that was never filled and really hurt the team this past season. With Salo and Rome leaving, and Edler’s terrible post-season – there are some big questions on D.

As we all know, Garrison signed for 6-years at an average of $4.6 million – which means about $27.6 million in total. It looks like Gillis was using Bieksa’s cap hit as a ceiling… Bieksa is at a $4.6 cap hit too. This is fairly common in the NHL – the Red Wings and Lidstrom’s salary are probably the most well-known case of a team using a previous contract as a bargaining chip (“Are you saying your better than NIKLAS LIDSTROM???”) but in a post-lockout salary cap world which has increased every year it’s probably an obsolete idea. And I’m sure players understand that salaries go up when the cap rises.

The cap went up over $6 million from last season – from $64 to $70 million. That’s basically a 10% increase. And you can see the effects on salaries today – Kuba for $4m, Wideman for $5.25, Allen for $3.5m, Salo $3.75m.

With Gillis presumably limiting himself to $4.6m per, he handcuffs himself into giving Garrison a longer contract. There were rumours that Garrison was asking for north of $5-6mil a season. For all the people against Luongo’s long contract – this is pretty much the same thing. Garrison’s already turning 28 in November, so this contract will take him past his peak. That being said, there’s three advantages for these long contracts: 1) reducing the cap hit 2)the fact that the cap will likely get bigger as the years go on, meaning the contract is relatively cheaper (as a percentage of the cap) and 3) there are loopholes to get out of bad contracts.

Although I am super-pumped that the Canucks actually did something on Free Agent Frenzy day *and* that it was signing a defenseman, the main reason I’m skeptical about this deal is because I think it quite the gamble. Jason Garrison played with Brian Campbell in the weakest division in the NHL. He’s a late bloomer, but how much of that is being paired with a great D-man like Campbell?

From watching videos on youtube, Garrison seems like a stiff skater – how well will he be able to handle the Canucks style of mobile D-men who form a 5-man unit for offense? Having Brian Campbell, an excellent smooth skater who can move the puck, as your partner sure can make up for a weakness in skating.

All that being said, I am all for a “go-for-it-now” strategy as the window is closing on this team to be contenders. That’s why I was so against the acquisition of Kassian. So I don’t mind the price and the term, but I’m scared that the player isn’t going to be able handle his end of the bargain and be a legit top-4 D-man on the Canucks.

One thing would make this signing awesome – if we picked up one Shea Weber. Then Garrison could play in the bottom pairing with a Tanev or Connauton – that would be great! Gillis, get on that!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was a really good signing. Our current D should be this:

K. Bieksa - D. Hamhuis

J. Garrison - A. Edler

C. Tanev - ???

I think letting go Rome and Salo really hurt our depth on D so we need to sign a few guys still.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is much of what you posted, OP, that i fully agree with.

I really do not know much of Garrison. There are some reliable scouting reports that i do take stock in, and everything that has been stated in the management camp points toward his signing, but really as far as addressing size on the blueline.

Aside from Mathieu Schnieder, Gillis has been pretty savvy with shoring the d-corps.

It IS a gamble. For all the reasons you mentioned. Aside from the $-tag, id much rather Garrison than Schultz.

If i were to read between the lines i could realistically predict with the blueline that what we have; have been given assignments to fit into different roles next season. It happened with Eddie last year. If they keep Bally (which given how much they have top spend now, he MUST be up for negotiations), id assume he would be called on to be a puck moving D.

Tanev has expressed the want to improve his shot, and Hammer is emerging as a utility d-man that can do it all, and Juice will be a 2 way guy.

I expect that there could be one more blueline move (given the current coaching staff being on record of enjoying the tactical advantage of a RH D-man), and failing that, they will certainly leave a spot for a rookie to fight for a spot.

IMO, from a quick glance, it seems like an overpayment, but for some very good reasons, as he may be risky, there could be some benefit and reward.

OP, really excellent post for discussion.

:)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched Garrison many times before - and the best I can explain him is as a mix of Ehrhoff, Hamhuis and Bieksa. His offensive style is incredibly similar to Ehrhoff (but his shot is much better), his solid defense is almost similar to that of Hammer (not as good, but still) and he throws the body and the gloves just as well as Juice (maybe better). I know this seems like a risky signing now - but give Garrison his chance. He'll impress, no doubt about it. I fully believe he can score more than his 16 goals last season playing on a powerplay with the Sedins, Kesler and Edler. I'm going bold here, but I say Garrison scores 20 to 25 goals this year. 60 points.

Bieksa - Hamhuis

Edler - Garrison

Tanev - Connauton/Alberts/Ballard

Seems pretty good. If we can ship off Ballard and lock up another cheap top 4 d to play with Tanev, our core is absolutely solid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is much of what you posted, OP, that i fully agree with.

I really do not know much of Garrison. There are some reliable scouting reports that i do take stock in, and everything that has been stated in the management camp points toward his signing, but really as far as addressing size on the blueline.

Aside from Mathieu Schnieder, Gillis has been pretty savvy with shoring the d-corps.

It IS a gamble. For all the reasons you mentioned. Aside from the $-tag, id much rather Garrison than Schultz.

If i were to read between the lines i could realistically predict with the blueline that what we have; have been given assignments to fit into different roles next season. It happened with Eddie last year. If they keep Bally (which given how much they have top spend now, he MUST be up for negotiations), id assume he would be called on to be a puck moving D.

Tanev has expressed the want to improve his shot, and Hammer is emerging as a utility d-man that can do it all, and Juice will be a 2 way guy.

I expect that there could be one more blueline move (given the current coaching staff being on record of enjoying the tactical advantage of a RH D-man), and failing that, they will certainly leave a spot for a rookie to fight for a spot.

IMO, from a quick glance, it seems like an overpayment, but for some very good reasons, as he may be risky, there could be some benefit and reward.

OP, really excellent post for discussion.

:)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched Garrison many times before - and the best I can explain him is as a mix of Ehrhoff, Hamhuis and Bieksa. His offensive style is incredibly similar to Ehrhoff (but his shot is much better), his solid defense is almost similar to that of Hammer (not as good, but still) and he throws the body and the gloves just as well as Juice (maybe better). I know this seems like a risky signing now - but give Garrison his chance. He'll impress, no doubt about it. I fully believe he can score more than his 16 goals last season playing on a powerplay with the Sedins, Kesler and Edler. I'm going bold here, but I say Garrison scores 20 to 25 goals this year. 60 points.

Bieksa - Hamhuis

Edler - Garrison

Tanev - Connauton/Alberts/Ballard

Seems pretty good. If we can ship off Ballard and lock up another cheap top 4 d to play with Tanev, our core is absolutely solid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signing M. Schneider was a great move by Gillis until MS decided to become an unprofessional diva and refuse to participate in skating drills and practices.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does every CDC member need to start their own Garrison signing opinion thread? Why not express this opinion in the original Garrison thread. Seems that's what everyone else is doing.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have Ballard and his $4.2 per year contract as a #8 behind Conn and Alberts then by far I'd say this is more of a problem for the team than a benefit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard is not behind Alberts. He is a slick skating poor mans brian campbell. I think a pairing of KB4 and Jay Garry would be a pretty solid PP/ Offensive situation pairing. Quit bashing ballard for his cap hit until after this season. Booth too. Canucks have an intense system in place. Takes a bit of time to gel.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard is not behind Alberts. He is a slick skating poor mans brian campbell. I think a pairing of KB4 and Jay Garry would be a pretty solid PP/ Offensive situation pairing. Quit bashing ballard for his cap hit until after this season. Booth too. Canucks have an intense system in place. Takes a bit of time to gel.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panthers fans didn't say many good things about Ballard, but most say Garrison is gonna be missed. Kuba is alright, but a lot older.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that this is a terrible signing. Garrison has a relatively good defensive side to his game, 4.6M to play in Van isn't terrible! He was offered "Wideman money" according to Bob McKenzie to play in Vancouver. He was also reportedly asking for 5-6M, i think he'll be a good fill on the top 4. He plays physical, can drop the bomb from the point, and can play defensively.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scale for players moves upward at this time of year. I don't think there is hard feelings for players who are estblished to make the same as a newbie that is the nature of a sliding scale. I love that this kid wants to shine in his hometown.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of now, its an overpayment. On the other hand, there was definately a hole that needed to be plugged on our blueline and prices out there are high right now. Add onto that the fact that he's still got some upside and there were other teams out there offering him more and I think this could be a great move for the Canucks. At least I hope so.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some quick thoughts on today’s signing of Jason Garrison by the Canucks. The Canucks already had a big hole in their D when Ehrhoff left that was never filled and really hurt the team this past season. With Salo and Rome leaving, and Edler’s terrible post-season – there are some big questions on D.

As we all know, Garrison signed for 6-years at an average of $4.6 million – which means about $27.6 million in total. It looks like Gillis was using Bieksa’s cap hit as a ceiling… Bieksa is at a $4.6 cap hit too. This is fairly common in the NHL – the Red Wings and Lidstrom’s salary are probably the most well-known case of a team using a previous contract as a bargaining chip (“Are you saying your better than NIKLAS LIDSTROM???”) but in a post-lockout salary cap world which has increased every year it’s probably an obsolete idea. And I’m sure players understand that salaries go up when the cap rises.

The cap went up over $6 million from last season – from $64 to $70 million. That’s basically a 10% increase. And you can see the effects on salaries today – Kuba for $4m, Wideman for $5.25, Allen for $3.5m, Salo $3.75m.

With Gillis presumably limiting himself to $4.6m per, he handcuffs himself into giving Garrison a longer contract. There were rumours that Garrison was asking for north of $5-6mil a season. For all the people against Luongo’s long contract – this is pretty much the same thing. Garrison’s already turning 28 in November, so this contract will take him past his peak. That being said, there’s three advantages for these long contracts: 1) reducing the cap hit 2)the fact that the cap will likely get bigger as the years go on, meaning the contract is relatively cheaper (as a percentage of the cap) and 3) there are loopholes to get out of bad contracts.

Although I am super-pumped that the Canucks actually did something on Free Agent Frenzy day *and* that it was signing a defenseman, the main reason I’m skeptical about this deal is because I think it quite the gamble. Jason Garrison played with Brian Campbell in the weakest division in the NHL. He’s a late bloomer, but how much of that is being paired with a great D-man like Campbell?

From watching videos on youtube, Garrison seems like a stiff skater – how well will he be able to handle the Canucks style of mobile D-men who form a 5-man unit for offense? Having Brian Campbell, an excellent smooth skater who can move the puck, as your partner sure can make up for a weakness in skating.

All that being said, I am all for a “go-for-it-now” strategy as the window is closing on this team to be contenders. That’s why I was so against the acquisition of Kassian. So I don’t mind the price and the term, but I’m scared that the player isn’t going to be able handle his end of the bargain and be a legit top-4 D-man on the Canucks.

One thing would make this signing awesome – if we picked up one Shea Weber. Then Garrison could play in the bottom pairing with a Tanev or Connauton – that would be great! Gillis, get on that!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Garrison’s already turning 28 in November, so this contract will take him past his peak.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.