Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Mike Gillis on Team 1040 - 9/28/12


  • Please log in to reply
349 replies to this topic

#271 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,938 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 03 October 2012 - 07:34 AM

Oh, OK, so you're using the two exceptions to the rules as basis to your argument. Odds need to be weighed. The vast majorty of 1st overall picks don't end up like Daigle, much like the vast majority of undrafted ECHLers don't end up like Burrows.


It seems Garrison is also the exception to the rule as he's proven himself in the NHL. So I guess I can finally say I agree with you about something. The vast majority of undrafted ECHLers don't end up like Burrows or Garrison.

Christ you'd think we were talking about Jordie Benn not Jason Garrison.


Not only is "hits" a totally unreliable statistic, you're saying that Garrison's more valuable because he hits more frequently? I guess that means that you'd rather have Andrew Alberts than Erik Karlsson, too?

Really that's your comparison? Really? You take a day off this place and this is what you came back with?

Laughable at best.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 03 October 2012 - 07:35 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#272 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 07:46 AM

In any case and as per usual you're wrong and contradicting yourself to fit your argument. Hodgson had only proven himself over one year...at that one could make an argument that really he only proved himself for a little over a month. Making an argument that Hodgson is known and Garrison has only proven himself for 1 season is silly. Really you just never had much of an idea who Garrison was before he was signed.


LOL @ "only"

He was the second-leading goal-scorer on our team, at 21 years old and playing very sparsely.

In addition, it's not "silly", because Cody Hodgson wasn't signed to a 6-year, $4.6M deal, like Garrison. NOT COMPARABLE. And you're right, I didn't have much of an idea as to who Garrison is when he signed, because his career has been largely irrelevant!

Answer me this - do you like Calgary's signing of Wideman?
  • 0

#273 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,938 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:10 AM

LOL @ "only"

He was the second-leading goal-scorer on our team, at 21 years old and playing very sparsely.

In addition, it's not "silly", because Cody Hodgson wasn't signed to a 6-year, $4.6M deal, like Garrison. NOT COMPARABLE. And you're right, I didn't have much of an idea as to who Garrison is when he signed, because his career has been largely irrelevant!

Answer me this - do you like Calgary's signing of Wideman?

LOL @ every post you've ever made.

What on earth could Wideman possibly have to do with this. Because he came from Florida and has kept on pace or actually improved statistically ever since? Well hell that sounds great doesn't it...plus Garrison is younger and cheaper.

And yes King I'm sorry but it is silly. Many fans of other teams hadn't heard much of Hodgson either. You hadn't heard much of Garrison because like most people; myself included, your world generally ends outside of what you see and most people; myself not included, don't watch many games outside of "their teams" games.

If Cody was to sign a contract this year what do you suppose his market value would be?

King there are no signs saying that Garrison will do anything but what he's continued to do which is improve every season he's played. You've never provided a single shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 03 October 2012 - 08:10 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#274 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:26 AM

What on earth could Wideman possibly have to do with this.


A lot. This place was laughing at Calgary incessantly at signing that contract, even though Wideman's career has been far more productive. And yes, he's older - a whole year. That's it.

So if you think that Garrison is such a great signing, I'm just hoping that you think that Wideman was, as well.

King there are no signs saying that Garrison will do anything but what he's continued to do which is improve every season he's played. You've never provided a single shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.


Uh-huh, and if this post was made in 2010, you could just substitute "Ballard" for "Garrison", and it'd be the same message. You're betting on continued growth, and you have no idea how risky it is. Great, EOTM, Garrison's just going to keep ascending and ascending and ascending, until he wins a Norris, right?

We will see. I look forward to asking you about Garrison this year if there's hockey, and if/when he struggles. Better start conjuring up some clever excuses, pal.
  • 0

#275 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,938 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:35 AM

A lot. This place was laughing at Calgary incessantly at signing that contract, even though Wideman's career has been far more productive. And yes, he's older - a whole year. That's it.

So if you think that Garrison is such a great signing, I'm just hoping that you think that Wideman was, as well.


So when "this place" agrees with you it's brilliant but when it disagrees with you "this place" is bias and stupid? Wideman signing isn't as bad as what "this place" says but it would look at lot better at Garrisons cap hit than it does at 5.250.


Uh-huh, and if this post was made in 2010, you could just substitute "Ballard" for "Garrison", and it'd be the same message. You're betting on continued growth, and you have no idea how risky it is. Great, EOTM, Garrison's just going to keep ascending and ascending and ascending, until he wins a Norris, right?

Have I ever ever ever mentioned Norris and Garrison in the same sentence prior to this? Stop being obtuse. And no I wouldn't have made this same argument for Ballard but hey if we're going to play the "make up BS" game if the Canucks had signed Campbell you'd be pissing and moaning that Campbells stats were declining before he played with Garrison and then all of a sudden he was a Norris caliber defensemen. (My scenario is sadly more realistic than yours) Perhaps though we take this back on point rather than stupid made up scenarios.

We will see. I look forward to asking you about Garrison this year if there's hockey, and if/when he struggles. Better start conjuring up some clever excuses, pal.

No pal you won't be asking me anything. Even if you last that long on here you still haven't pointed out anything that suggests Garrison will all of a sudden flop. See that's the difference between our arguments. You are certain of what's going to happen but you point to nothing to back up your "opinions". My argument is that all signs suggest Garrison is a very good defenseman. I'm not making claims about him being a Norris and the bestest ever. That's actually a pretty big difference between what I'm saying and what you're interpreting...champ.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#276 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:53 AM

No pal you won't be asking me anything. Even if you last that long on here you still haven't pointed out anything that suggests Garrison will all of a sudden flop. See that's the difference between our arguments. You are certain of what's going to happen but you point to nothing to back up your "opinions".


I'm not "certain" of anything, though I do believe strongly that the signing will not work out.

Anyway, this debate tires me, we've been through it far too often. Here's the gist:

You see the signing as another shrewd maneuver by the GM who can do no wrong, and since Garrison's improved in each of his 3 years in the NHL (2.5, really), continued improvement is what we should expect.

I see the signing as a massive commitment given to a guy who really hasn't proven much at all at the NHL level. I see it as a reactionary move in failing to land Justin Schultz, something that Gillis hinted to season ticket holders was going to happen. I see it as way too much risk for way too little reward (even the most biased Canuck probably doesn't see him as higher than our #4). I also think it would've made way more sense to just give a 2-year deal to Salo, instead, as 2 years from now, realistically, our Cup window will be sealed shut.

That pretty much covers it.

Edited by King of the ES, 03 October 2012 - 08:53 AM.

  • 0

#277 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,938 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 03 October 2012 - 09:05 AM

Here let me fix this for you man so maybe it's a little more clear.

I'm not "certain" of anything, though I do believe strongly that the signing will not work out.

Anyway, this debate tires me, we've been through it far too often. Here's the gist:

You see the signing as another shrewd maneuver by the GM who can do no wrong, and since Garrison's improved in each of his 3 years in the NHL (2.5, really), continued improvement is what we should expect.


I don't think Gillis can do no wrong. In fact I believe he's made many mistakes and sometimes he's jumped on things to early which has not worked out for the team.

I do expect continued improvement (or at least that he will keep going as he did last season, because there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

I see the signing as a massive commitment given to a guy who really hasn't proven much at all at the NHL level. I see it as a reactionary move in failing to land Justin Schultz, something that Gillis hinted to season ticket holders was going to happen. I see it as way too much risk for way too little reward (even the most biased Canuck probably doesn't see him as higher than our #4). I also think it would've made way more sense to just give a 2-year deal to Salo, instead, as 2 years from now, realistically, our Cup window will be sealed shut.





And that's a fine opinion to have but what you don't understand is that opinion isn't gospel. I find it laughable that your opinion is that we lost out on Shultz and Garrison is unproven. Would you have liked to have signed Shultz for as much as Edmonton did with the promises they made to him in regards to ice time. Also why is the window shut in two years? Do we not get to replace players as they get older or do we simply have to play with this roster forever and ever?

As I said King it's a fine opinion to have if not a little glass half empty but you have demonstrated very little to back any of it up. So hopefully you're a little more clear now as to what my position actually is...I fear though as tired as you're getting you're still going to make the exact same misinterpretations and claims you have before. Prove me wrong I guess.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#278 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 09:15 AM

Would you have liked to have signed Shultz for as much as Edmonton did with the promises they made to him in regards to ice time. Also why is the window shut in two years? Do we not get to replace players as they get older or do we simply have to play with this roster forever and ever?


The "promised ice time" thing is a joke. If he sucks, he's not going to play, period.

As for replacing players, in 2 years, Danny & Hank will be 34. Their offense will be nearly impossible to replace. Trading Cody certainly doesn't help with that.

As I said King it's a fine opinion to have if not a little glass half empty but you have demonstrated very little to back any of it up.


That's because I'm not psychic. The reality is that he's only played 2.5 years in the league, and he's 28 years old. He wasn't drafted. He's been on a pretty crappy team. We're buying high after he had a breakout season out of nowhere. A lot of reasons for concern. That's the evidence that I'm going off of.
  • 0

#279 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:42 AM

Total cash determines the cap hit, over the life of the contract. Ehrhoff's cap hit is $4.0M, which is less than Sedin's of $6.1M.

A contract being front-loaded by nature is meaningless except that it's more valuable to Ehrhoff (and nobody else) by way of having more of the cash up front. Cap hit is all that anybody should care about.



Some guys just fit well in certain places, and Ehrhoff was one of those guys here. Basically from the moment he played his first game, he was an obvious fit.

And fine, don't give him a 10-year deal. Would $5M per year over 8 years really be all that damaging? Oh no, he'd be paid more than Kevin Bieksa; who cares? He's a better player and deserves it. Look at the numbers that he put up with us. Not a lot of 50-point defencemen around the NHL.


I know full well what determines the cap hit. Do you have any idea what cap reducers are?

1 - You cannot compare a "till death do us part" contract with a standard 4 to 5 year deal. Ehrhoffs contract isn't front loaded from the final few years, those are just cap reducers. Just as the final years of Lou's contract are nothing more than cap reducers.

2 - What on earth makes you believe Ehrhoff was willing to sign for 5m a season? I'd hazard to guess Gillis would have jumped at 5m on a 4 or 5 year deal. An no, I wouldn't have signed him to an 8 year deal.

3 - I don't see Ehrhoff as better than Bieksa at all. Bieksa is capable of similar points while bringing far for to the table in physical play and is used in a shutdown role as well. Can you even imagine Ehrhoff in a shutdown role? I'd take the Bieksa type over the Ehrhoff type anytime.
  • 0
Posted Image

#280 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:54 AM

As for replacing players, in 2 years, Danny & Hank will be 34. Their offense will be nearly impossible to replace. Trading Cody certainly doesn't help with that.


The Sedins are going to be washed up at 34, yet you're upset MG wouldn't sign the 38 year old, injury prone, Salo to a 2 year deal?
  • 0
Posted Image

#281 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:35 AM

I know full well what determines the cap hit. Do you have any idea what cap reducers are?

1 - You cannot compare a "till death do us part" contract with a standard 4 to 5 year deal. Ehrhoffs contract isn't front loaded from the final few years, those are just cap reducers. Just as the final years of Lou's contract are nothing more than cap reducers.


Yes. I know this. It's called straight-line amortization. Total contract value / Total length of term in years = annual cap hit.

Cap reducers aren't relevant. Who cares when he gets his money? Why does it matter?

2 - What on earth makes you believe Ehrhoff was willing to sign for 5m a season? I'd hazard to guess Gillis would have jumped at 5m on a 4 or 5 year deal. An no, I wouldn't have signed him to an 8 year deal.


What on earth makes you believe that he wasn't? I don't know, and neither do you. But his cap hit ended up at $4.0M. Fast forward 365 days later, and we sign a guy who's far less proven for $600K more annually (cap hit) and only effectively 3 less years in term (with a difference in age between the two of them of only 2 years).

3 - I don't see Ehrhoff as better than Bieksa at all. Bieksa is capable of similar points while bringing far for to the table in physical play and is used in a shutdown role as well. Can you even imagine Ehrhoff in a shutdown role? I'd take the Bieksa type over the Ehrhoff type anytime.


That's your opinion, and that's fine. I disagree, totally. I think Ehrhoff's a far harder type to find than Bieksa is.

Edited by King of the ES, 03 October 2012 - 11:40 AM.

  • 0

#282 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:36 AM

The Sedins are going to be washed up at 34, yet you're upset MG wouldn't sign the 38 year old, injury prone, Salo to a 2 year deal?


Salo's a 4/5 defenceman, not our top line, perennial All-Star/Art Ross candidates. Impact of a decline in the Sedins' game is slightly/extremely higher, as I hope that you would acknowledge.
  • 0

#283 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,108 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 03 October 2012 - 01:31 PM

LOL @ "only"

He was the second-leading goal-scorer on our team, at 21 years old and playing very sparsely.



Where are you getting that from?

The stats page has Hodgson in a three-way tie (with Booth and Hansen) for 5th in goal scoring.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#284 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,938 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 03 October 2012 - 05:44 PM

The "promised ice time" thing is a joke. If he sucks, he's not going to play, period.

As for replacing players, in 2 years, Danny & Hank will be 34. Their offense will be nearly impossible to replace. Trading Cody certainly doesn't help with that.

So you'd be fine with signing him instead of Garrison to the contract he got even though he's proven nothing at all?



That's because I'm not psychic. The reality is that he's only played 2.5 years in the league, and he's 28 years old. He wasn't drafted. He's been on a pretty crappy team. We're buying high after he had a breakout season out of nowhere. A lot of reasons for concern. That's the evidence that I'm going off of.

You don't have to be psychic to see that in each season he's improved. You're picking which evidence to use and choosing how to interpret it.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#285 MikeBossy

MikeBossy

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,803 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 05

Posted 03 October 2012 - 05:52 PM

Not only is "hits" a totally unreliable statistic, you're saying that Garrison's more valuable because he hits more frequently? I guess that means that you'd rather have Andrew Alberts than Erik Karlsson, too?


I think you missed the part where i mentioned the need for a physical defenceman hence my bringing up the stat about hits. The fact that Garrison also has a nice hard accurate shot (much like Ehrhoff) is another reason why I take him over Ehrhoff any day of the week.
  • 0


Thanks to R.Luongo. for the amazing sig

#286 AK_19

AK_19

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,393 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 08

Posted 03 October 2012 - 06:00 PM

A lot. This place was laughing at Calgary incessantly at signing that contract, even though Wideman's career has been far more productive. And yes, he's older - a whole year. That's it.

So if you think that Garrison is such a great signing, I'm just hoping that you think that Wideman was, as well.



Uh-huh, and if this post was made in 2010, you could just substitute "Ballard" for "Garrison", and it'd be the same message. You're betting on continued growth, and you have no idea how risky it is. Great, EOTM, Garrison's just going to keep ascending and ascending and ascending, until he wins a Norris, right?

We will see. I look forward to asking you about Garrison this year if there's hockey, and if/when he struggles. Better start conjuring up some clever excuses, pal.


Not only is "hits" a totally unreliable statistic, you're saying that Garrison's more valuable because he hits more frequently? I guess that means that you'd rather have Andrew Alberts than Erik Karlsson, too?


1. Yeah, because of his cap hit of 5.5 mil. I'd laugh at the Garrison signing too if the cap hit was that, however, it wasn't so really this is an irrelevant point.

2. Well aren't you just the King of Strawmans :rolleyes:

I agree with you though that Garrison's points from last season aren't sustainable and I don't expect his goal totals to be as good as last season. But that isn't what got him signed. He has been quietly one of the best defensive d-men in the NHL over the last couple of seasons when one looks at advanced statistics.

Last season Jason Garrison faced the hardest quality of competition of anyone on Florida and, despite that, his team outshot the opponent overall when he was on the ice even-strength. You know who that reminds me of? Dan Hamhuis. Although offensive production does vary quite a bit season to season, it is quite rare for a player's defensive ability to drop off as seasons go by in a player's career (unless they are over the hill).

You are right that there are some similarities with him and Keith Ballard when he was on the Panthers. For one, they both faced the hardest quality of competition in their last season's there. However, Keith Ballard failed miserably in the duties he was given as their lead shutdown dman as over the season his team was outshot by around 20 shots at even-strength when he was on the ice. His team's worst after Viktor Oreskovich. Considering how he's been treated here by AV its not very surprising at all that he was sub-par defensively.

I really don't share the same fear that Garrison will be Ballard 2.0.

Edited by AK_19, 03 October 2012 - 06:43 PM.

  • 0

#287 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 07:57 PM

So you'd be fine with signing him instead of Garrison to the contract he got even though he's proven nothing at all?


Yes, because his upside is far greater.

You don't have to be psychic to see that in each season he's improved. You're picking which evidence to use and choosing how to interpret it.


"Each" season - he's had 1 full season in the NHL from which to improve on. I'm glad that wasn't that difficult.
  • 0

#288 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:06 PM

1. Yeah, because of his cap hit of 5.5 mil. I'd laugh at the Garrison signing too if the cap hit was that, however, it wasn't so really this is an irrelevant point.


Wideman's cap hit is $5.25. And comparing his career to Garrison's, the small difference of $600K is completely justified. In fact, it makes Wideman look like a relative bargain. In addition, his contract is for only 5 years, unlike the 6 that we're married to Garrison to.

I agree with you though that Garrison's points from last season aren't sustainable and I don't expect his goal totals to be as good as last season. But that isn't what got him signed. He has been quietly one of the best defensive d-men in the NHL over the last couple of seasons when one looks at advanced statistics.


I disagree - that's PRECISELY what got him signed. The guy had 16 goals last season! Very impressive, but very low odds that he can or will keep it up - part of the basis for my assertion that this was not a wise signing.

If you acknowledge that his point totals were likely inflated last year - and, they were only 33, far less than anything we got from Ehrhoff - how can you possibly think that this was a good signing? The "advanced stats" are crap. I don't imagine that they're used by any GMs to make any sort of investment decision. Hockey is not 1-on-1 like baseball is. There's not a Bill James on the horizon for hockey, that will revolutionize the way we analyze what's going on during a game.

Edited by King of the ES, 03 October 2012 - 08:11 PM.

  • 0

#289 AK_19

AK_19

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,393 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 08

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:59 PM

Wideman's cap hit is $5.25. And comparing his career to Garrison's, the small difference of $600K is completely justified. In fact, it makes Wideman look like a relative bargain. In addition, his contract is for only 5 years, unlike the 6 that we're married to Garrison to.



I disagree - that's PRECISELY what got him signed. The guy had 16 goals last season! Very impressive, but very low odds that he can or will keep it up - part of the basis for my assertion that this was not a wise signing.

If you acknowledge that his point totals were likely inflated last year - and, they were only 33, far less than anything we got from Ehrhoff - how can you possibly think that this was a good signing? The "advanced stats" are crap. I don't imagine that they're used by any GMs to make any sort of investment decision. Hockey is not 1-on-1 like baseball is. There's not a Bill James on the horizon for hockey, that will revolutionize the way we analyze what's going on during a game.


Why do you think he got signed just for his offensive capabilities? I personally think he hits just 30 points with less goals and more assists.

Personally it seems quite obvious to me its for his elite defensive abilities since he's been used as such by Florida. You won't believe me because you don't believe in advanced statistics and you already admitted you've barely even heard of him so you clearly don't watch him either. $4.5 mill at a 70 mil cap is really not that much. We're looking at the deal only taking up 6.5 %. In comparison, Dan Hamhuis was signed to a deal that took up 7.5% of the cap when he signed his contract and he is the player on our team most similar to him. By your reasoning he was a terrible signing too since he avged less than 30 points a season too before signing here. Most people on this board would say he's been our best dman for the past two seasons.

Also, although Garrison has one more year tagged on his contract, he's a year younger and doesn't have an NMC like Wideman. NTC's are tradeable, NMCs you're essentially stuck with the player no matter what.

Garrison in my mind is without a doubt better than Wideman especially for this team. Anyone who watches Wideman knows he is absolutely terrible at his own end. Go back and watch clips of Wash during the playoffs, he was horrendous and was reduced to 5th Dman minutes this year. Go ask Florida Panther fans yourself who they would rather have if you don't believe me.


Basically, it is more likely that Wideman will continue to score at a high level than Garrison, but if Garrison doesn't, he has another side to his game that can allow him to play 20+ useful minutes and he isn't a cap albatross the way Ballard is. Which is funny because you seem to think Garrison is the risky pick-up.


It's not a minority opinion either that WIdeman is worse/even:

http://sports.yahoo....51134--nhl.html

http://www.hockeypro...ache=1348688858

http://vansunsportsb...th-the-canucks/

Edited by AK_19, 03 October 2012 - 09:31 PM.

  • 0

#290 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,938 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:00 PM

Yes, because his upside is far greater.

So now you are psychic?

"Each" season - he's had 1 full season in the NHL from which to improve on. I'm glad that wasn't that difficult.

He's played in 3 separate seasons and showed improvement in each. Get your facts straight.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#291 Gerbera

Gerbera

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 339 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:57 AM

Wideman's cap hit is $5.25. And comparing his career to Garrison's, the small difference of $600K is completely justified. In fact, it makes Wideman look like a relative bargain. In addition, his contract is for only 5 years, unlike the 6 that we're married to Garrison to.



I disagree - that's PRECISELY what got him signed. The guy had 16 goals last season! Very impressive, but very low odds that he can or will keep it up - part of the basis for my assertion that this was not a wise signing.

If you acknowledge that his point totals were likely inflated last year - and, they were only 33, far less than anything we got from Ehrhoff - how can you possibly think that this was a good signing? The "advanced stats" are crap. I don't imagine that they're used by any GMs to make any sort of investment decision. Hockey is not 1-on-1 like baseball is. There's not a Bill James on the horizon for hockey, that will revolutionize the way we analyze what's going on during a game.


I seriously don't see how you can say we should sign a player for 10 years and then say how signing another player for 6 years is bad. I seriously don't see how Wideman's numbers in the past should justify him to a 5+ mil contract.
  • 0

#292 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 October 2012 - 02:32 AM

Salo's a 4/5 defenceman, not our top line, perennial All-Star/Art Ross candidates. Impact of a decline in the Sedins' game is slightly/extremely higher, as I hope that you would acknowledge.


I hate to break it to you, but last season Salo was paired with Edler as the top offensive pairing. Or top 4 if you prefer. Had he re-signed he would have been bottom pairing with Ballard this season. it baffles me you're upset the 38 year old injury Salo wasn't re-signed and a 27 year old Garrison, who scored more goals last season than Salo has ever scored in a single season in his entire career, was signed. And it's not like Gillis chose one over the other. He actually did try to retain Salo offering to sign him to one year deals as long as he wanted to play.

I wish I had your crystal ball. I can't say with any certainty the Sedins will decline at 34. Many have stayed very productive later than that just as some have declined younger. I don't have a crystal ball myself, but I'd say the risk of another Salo injury is somewhat higher than a Sedin decline at 34. High enough in fact that even Salo wasn't willing to gamble on his own health for two one year deals to stay here. Instead taking the two year guaranteed payday in Tampa.


It seems to me you pick and chose what you'll focus on and completely ignore anything that doesn't fit with your chosen agenda.
  • 0
Posted Image

#293 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,616 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 02:45 AM

It's King's thing to beat a dead horse. Yes - a 38 y/o Salo with a 2 year deal is gone, a young Hodgson who was impatient with lack of play time in his first season is gone, Erhoff left and was too greedy for even Garth Snow, Torres is serving a 25 game suspension, and somehow Gillis becomes a bad GM for making very rational choices. Need I remind you of our previous GM in Dave Nonis, who's big off season signing was Brad Isbister and the shocking deadline pick up of Matt Pettinger. I think we're better off.
  • 1

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#294 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 03:36 AM

Why do you think he got signed just for his offensive capabilities? I personally think he hits just 30 points with less goals and more assists.

Personally it seems quite obvious to me its for his elite defensive abilities since he's been used as such by Florida. You won't believe me because you don't believe in advanced statistics and you already admitted you've barely even heard of him so you clearly don't watch him either. $4.5 mill at a 70 mil cap is really not that much. We're looking at the deal only taking up 6.5 %. In comparison, Dan Hamhuis was signed to a deal that took up 7.5% of the cap when he signed his contract and he is the player on our team most similar to him. By your reasoning he was a terrible signing too since he avged less than 30 points a season too before signing here. Most people on this board would say he's been our best dman for the past two seasons.


Number 1, yes, he was signed for his offensive output. Do you really think that he would've gotten a 6-year, $4.6M per deal had he repeated his 2010-11 production of 5 goals and 13 assists? Not a chance! Had he have done that, he'd have been valued alongside a guy like Aaron Rome, and not Dennis Wideman.

You cannot compare Jason Garrison to Dan Hamhuis. Dan Hamhuis was the 12th overall pick in his draft year. He had played 6 full seasons with Nashville, averaging between 25 - 30 points in each and being very solid in all areas. Dan Hamhuis had also played three years for Canada's World Championship teams. Jason Garrison has none of this pedigree.

Edited by King of the ES, 04 October 2012 - 03:36 AM.

  • 0

#295 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 03:41 AM

I seriously don't see how you can say we should sign a player for 10 years and then say how signing another player for 6 years is bad. I seriously don't see how Wideman's numbers in the past should justify him to a 5+ mil contract.


Wideman's career: 535 GP, 67 G, 251 PTS

Garrison's career: 190 GP, 23 G, 59 PTS

You cannot possibly say the above bolded statement with any sort of credibility unless you feel the same way about Garrison.
  • 0

#296 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 03:53 AM

I hate to break it to you, but last season Salo was paired with Edler as the top offensive pairing. Or top 4 if you prefer. Had he re-signed he would have been bottom pairing with Ballard this season. it baffles me you're upset the 38 year old injury Salo wasn't re-signed and a 27 year old Garrison, who scored more goals last season than Salo has ever scored in a single season in his entire career, was signed. And it's not like Gillis chose one over the other. He actually did try to retain Salo offering to sign him to one year deals as long as he wanted to play.


Really? Well then we're going to miss him even more! I wonder why the great Kevin Bieksa wasn't part of the top offensive pairing; I believe it was you who said multiple times that his offensive abilities rivaled Ehrhoff's.

It shouldn't be too baffling, because signing Salo would've involved a lot less commitment risk at 2 years and a lower cap hit. And Garrison is 28, by the way. Pretty old to have only played 190 career NHL games, I would say.

I wish I had your crystal ball. I can't say with any certainty the Sedins will decline at 34. Many have stayed very productive later than that just as some have declined younger. I don't have a crystal ball myself, but I'd say the risk of another Salo injury is somewhat higher than a Sedin decline at 34.


I don't have a crystal ball either, but I do have the ability to perform middle-school mathematical calculations.

And the fact is that the Sedin's already have shown signs of decline.
  • Henrik got 112 points in 2009-10; he had 94 points in 2010-11, representing a 16% decline. In 2011-12, he had 81 points, which is a 14% further decline from 2010-11, and 28% lower than 2009-10.
  • Daniel had 104 points in 2010-11, and only 67 in 2011-12, which computes to a decline of 36% year-over-year. Yes, he played 10 less games, but do the calculation on a PPG basis, if you wish. Significant decline.

It seems to me you pick and chose what you'll focus on and completely ignore anything that doesn't fit with your chosen agenda.


How do my numbers above fit into your chosen agenda?

Edited by King of the ES, 04 October 2012 - 03:54 AM.

  • 0

#297 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 03:58 AM

Erhoff left and was too greedy for even Garth Snow, Torres is serving a 25 game suspension, and somehow Gillis becomes a bad GM for making very rational choices.


Ehrhoff too greedy for Garth Snow? Unlikely. Ehrhoff not having interest in playing for Long Island? Very likely.

Torres getting suspended for 25 games makes it a good decision that Gillis didn't re-sign him? Huh?

And do those "rational choices" include the Ballard acquisition, Marco Sturm, Mathieu Schneider, or the Hodgson trade?

Need I remind you of our previous GM in Dave Nonis, who's big off season signing was Brad Isbister and the shocking deadline pick up of Matt Pettinger. I think we're better off.


Nonis also brought in Willie Mitchell, which would've been a bigger off-season signing than Isbister. He also acquired that Luongo guy, who's had an OK career here. He also drafted practically this entire team's core, which is still in tact. Maybe we're not better off.
  • 0

#298 Mike62

Mike62

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 04

Posted 04 October 2012 - 06:55 AM

It shouldn't be too baffling, because signing Salo would've involved a lot less commitment risk at 2 years and a lower cap hit. And Garrison is 28, by the way. Pretty old to have only played 190 career NHL games, I would say.



I don't have a crystal ball either, but I do have the ability to perform middle-school mathematical calculations.

Yet you still ignore the possibility (probability?) of Salo being injured and Canucks being stuck with his cap hit.
  • 0

#299 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:11 AM

Yet you still ignore the possibility (probability?) of Salo being injured and Canucks being stuck with his cap hit.


He can still go on LTIR, and that's still far less impactful than the risk of Jason Garrison just not being that good.
  • 0

#300 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,938 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:31 AM

He can still go on LTIR, and that's still far less impactful than the risk of Jason Garrison just not being that good.


Is it still less impactful if he gets a 2 year contract and has to retire halfway through this season? Seriously King you do understand what a contract signed to a player over the age of 35 means right?

There are more signs pointing to Salo having a career ending injury then their are to Garrison not being good. Doesn't mean Garrison will be good but if we're talking about probabilities which you are what I've said here seems more likely.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 04 October 2012 - 08:32 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.