Two problems with them.
-"Advanced" Stats. Things that are more complicated aren't necessarily more informative. Hockey is not nearly as easily quantified as 1-on-1 (pitcher v. hitter, fielder v. ball, etc.) baseball is.
-Based on 1 year only; which is again my problem with the signing. Dion Phaneuf's been a star ever since he entered the league in 2005; and he's younger than Garrison. Jason Garrison had a breakout year. Congratulations. But a 6-year, $4.6M per deal coming from it? Buying on the breakout rarely works out. In recent years, I bet Buffalo would like to take the Ville Leino signing back. And you can say that "we don't need him to score 16 goals", but we're paying him on that expectancy. 6 years is a pretty serious commitment.
I realize you don't like "advanced" stats, but if you actually look at what they cumulatively reveal, they tend to indicate what perceptive coaches and analysts already know by observation. For example in the case of Garrison - the stats revealed what analysts claimed - he has very strong even strength corsi numbers - and strong numbers two years consecutively against high quality of competition. His numbers were the best on the Panthers (one reason he was promoted to the top pairing), and he had spent a year on their shutdown pairing - which translated into making an excellent partner for Campbell. The fact that he was good enough to be promoted to the top pairing - on his off side - says alot. Not only did he show the offensive upside they expected, but he made Campbell a much better player as well by complementing Campbell's style of game - allowing him to carry the puck and join the rush, take some risks you can't without such a solid partner. That kind of complement, imo, is precisely the kind of player that Edler could benefit from as a partner - similar to Salo - when Salo was healthy through the first half of last season, Edler was exceptionally successful - he struggled down the stretch with revolving partners. I like what Garrison brings in a dual sense as a partner for Edler. I can't say the same about Phaneuf - imo his game isn't strong enough in his own end of the ice - which is why it was questioned widely whether in fact he is actually a better defender than the young, struggling Schenn was. Phaneuf partners primarily with Gunnarson - who is the more responsible defender of the two - Phaneuf essentially needs that - and therefore, not really a good fit in the Canucks existing scheme of things. The Canucks needed a guy with shutdown abilities/responsibility much more - and signed Garrison as a result.
Phaneuf hasn't been a "star" since 2008 - he hasn't been a top 20 blueliner since then (and despite upside, has always had holes in his game). At least in the case of Garrison we are looking at the present - the player he has been over that past two years.
As with any deal, only time will really tell - but Garrison is a very good risk to take (there is risk in every single transaction), given the shutdown aspect of a players game can be counted on for more consistency than the highlight reel.
Edited by oldnews, 18 November 2012 - 11:16 AM.