Jason Garrison so far?

[canucksnihilist]

garrison will hold up better than salo in the playoffs. as long as he finds his game and is good defensively, it's all blah blah blah fun though...

[Kack Zassian]

3.75M/Y for 2 years, compared to 4.6M/Y over 6 years?

Yes I would of signed Salo to that contract he was our best D man, We always overlook our own players but overpay some florida slug like Ballard or Garrison to insane unjustified money.

I bet you Garrison is a better dman the next 2 years than Salo is.

Nothing against Salo, love the guy. Garrison > Salo

[UFTcan]

Garrison a +6,< Salo a +12

Better cap hit, and move leverage for when a real D-man comes available to sign aswell.

I really hope Garrison comes around cause lets admit that contract is not exactly trade friendly either.

[MoneypuckOverlord]

The difference is Salo is probably done after the next season. So it's to different situations. Would love to see Gillis try to swing a move for Sami Salo this summer or even at next years trade deadline. That would be epic.

[Gollumpus]

Garrison a +6,< Salo a +12

Yeah, and stats always tell the whole truth. Let's look at some more.

Salo plays on a team which leads the NHL in goals for at 69, compared to Vancouver's 52.

TB is also 5th in goals differential, compared to Vancouver's 9th place.

Vancouver is currently 14th in goals against, compared to TB's 25th place.

Vancouver is 6-2-2 in their last ten games. TB is 3-6-1.

Vancouver is 1st in their division, 3rd in their conference and 6th in the NHL. TB is tied for 1st in their division, tied for 8th in their conference, and is 15th in the NHL.

I'll take all of those stats which are related to Garrison, thanks.

Better cap hit, and move leverage for when a real D-man comes available to sign aswell.

Also a 35+ contract, so if Salo were to retire this year, TB is on the hook for his salary for the remainder of his contract. That's still a bit of a risk in this new cap age. Also, Garrison at just under $1 million more than Salo is making is a very good deal.

As to leverage, what is your meaning here? It's a bit unclear to me. Do you mean that the extra (almost) $1 million is something which would be useful in signing another d-man? If so, what "real" d-man are you going to get for $1 million? I'm assuming you would pay Salo with the money Garrison is getting and that Garrison wouldn't be here at all, right? So where's the rest of money to get this real d-man going to come from? Or were you thinking you'd cast aside Salo when this real d-man came along? And what would you do with the salary cap associated with Salo, who also has a NMC, and a 35+ contract?

Or are you thinking you'll hold on to Salo for two years and hope a real d-man comes along at that time, who is willing to sign here? For around the same money that Garrison is currently getting? Yeah, I'm sure Weber would have signed here for that kind of cash.

I really hope Garrison comes around cause lets admit that contract is not exactly trade friendly either.

As mentioned, Salo has a NMC and a 35+ contract. There's "trade friendly" for you. Even without those factors, and even with his more cap friendly contract, I suspect that Garrison would be the more highly sough after player if each was placed on the trading block.

regards,

G.

[Jester13]

THIS^

[Sandro17]

THAT^

[nucklehead]

He brings with him some bad habits. It will take some time to teach him right. Sorta like my rescue dog...

[gaydar]

Yeah, and stats always tell the whole truth. Let's look at some more.

Salo plays on a team which leads the NHL in goals for at 69, compared to Vancouver's 52.

TB is also 5th in goals differential, compared to Vancouver's 9th place.

Vancouver is currently 14th in goals against, compared to TB's 25th place.

Vancouver is 6-2-2 in their last ten games. TB is 3-6-1.

Vancouver is 1st in their division, 3rd in their conference and 6th in the NHL. TB is tied for 1st in their division, tied for 8th in their conference, and is 15th in the NHL.

I'll take all of those stats which are related to Garrison, thanks.

Also a 35+ contract, so if Salo were to retire this year, TB is on the hook for his salary for the remainder of his contract. That's still a bit of a risk in this new cap age. Also, Garrison at just under $1 million more than Salo is making is a very good deal.

As to leverage, what is your meaning here? It's a bit unclear to me. Do you mean that the extra (almost) $1 million is something which would be useful in signing another d-man? If so, what "real" d-man are you going to get for $1 million? I'm assuming you would pay Salo with the money Garrison is getting and that Garrison wouldn't be here at all, right? So where's the rest of money to get this real d-man going to come from? Or were you thinking you'd cast aside Salo when this real d-man came along? And what would you do with the salary cap associated with Salo, who also has a NMC, and a 35+ contract?

Or are you thinking you'll hold on to Salo for two years and hope a real d-man comes along at that time, who is willing to sign here? For around the same money that Garrison is currently getting? Yeah, I'm sure Weber would have signed here for that kind of cash.

As mentioned, Salo has a NMC and a 35+ contract. There's "trade friendly" for you. Even without those factors, and even with his more cap friendly contract, I suspect that Garrison would be the more highly sough after player if each was placed on the trading block.

regards,

G.

So Salo doesn't contribute to his team being 1st in Goals for and 5th in goal differential but Garrison's lofty play has meant so much to the Canucks 6th place record?

[Gollumpus]

So Salo doesn't contribute to his team being 1st in Goals for and 5th in goal differential but Garrison's lofty play has meant so much to the Canucks 6th place record?

Not my point, chum. Sure Salo has contributed to the goals which TB has scored, and him being +12 is reflection of that success. And look where they are in the standings.

What it comes down to is that the +/- stat, in this case, is not a true indicator of either player's contribution. They're both good players, but this is not the point. Salo is on a team which scores more but keeps out fewer goals than the Canucks, who have been scoring less than would be expected, in part due to injuries to Kesler and Booth, and the past under achievement in scoring by a number of Canucks, including Garrison.

I suspect that Garrison would easily be +12 were he to play several minutes a games with Stamkos.

However, Garrison has contributed to even greater team success (as witnessed by where the Canucks are in the standings). His defensive play, on a team which has up until the last couple of weeks been under achieveing in goals scored, is a big part of why the team is where they are. And that lack of scoring is why Garrison's +/- is where it is currently.

So which would you rather have, a d-man with a higher +/- on a team which is under-performing in the standings, or a d-man on a team which is underperforming in personal stats but is still doing very well in the standings? Garrison is part of the reason why the Canucks are where they are.

Could they be be in a better position if Garrison had scored more? Sure. As noted above, the Canucks would also likely be in a better position had they had Kesler and Booth since the first game of the season, or if the guys who were here were producing more. How would Salo's +/- look if TB didn't have their 2C or 2LW for the first 15 or so games of this season? Not quite as good would be my bet.

Give Garrison and the team some credit for what they have managed to accomplish thus far in this season. Or would you rather than Garrison had scored 10 more points but the team was borderline at making the playoffs?

regards,

G.

[nuck nit]

Garrison: CDC over hyped and now just exposed.

[gaydar]

Not my point, chum. Sure Salo has contributed to the goals which TB has scored, and him being +12 is reflection of that success. And look where they are in the standings.

What it comes down to is that the +/- stat, in this case, is not a true indicator of either player's contribution. They're both good players, but this is not the point. Salo is on a team which scores more but keeps out fewer goals than the Canucks, who have been scoring less than would be expected, in part due to injuries to Kesler and Booth, and the past under achievement in scoring by a number of Canucks, including Garrison.

I suspect that Garrison would easily be +12 were he to play several minutes a games with Stamkos.

However, Garrison has contributed to even greater team success (as witnessed by where the Canucks are in the standings). His defensive play, on a team which has up until the last couple of weeks been under achieveing in goals scored, is a big part of why the team is where they are. And that lack of scoring is why Garrison's +/- is where it is currently.

So which would you rather have, a d-man with a higher +/- on a team which is under-performing in the standings, or a d-man on a team which is underperforming in personal stats but is still doing very well in the standings? Garrison is part of the reason why the Canucks are where they are.

Could they be be in a better position if Garrison had scored more? Sure. As noted above, the Canucks would also likely be in a better position had they had Kesler and Booth since the first game of the season, or if the guys who were here were producing more. How would Salo's +/- look if TB didn't have their 2C or 2LW for the first 15 or so games of this season? Not quite as good would be my bet.

Give Garrison and the team some credit for what they have managed to accomplish thus far in this season. Or would you rather than Garrison had scored 10 more points but the team was borderline at making the playoffs?

regards,

G.

I had no idea our only two options were a defenseman with better stats but a poor team record or a good team record with a very mediocre level free agent signing. Thank you for enlightening me, chum.

[RUPERTKBD]

I recommend all Garrison bashers to read Gollumpus' last two posts. Spells it out very well.

[Nevlach]

How many goals was Garrison on for in the Detroit game? Had to be atleast 5...

[elvis15]

How many goals was Garrison on for in the Detroit game? Had to be atleast 5...

You should take the advice of the poster above you - not even Gollumpus' posts but others as well since it's already been noted Garrison had a +/- of 0 last game. Even if he were on the ice for "atleast 5" Detroit goals, that isibn't strictly an indicator of Garrison's ability. For instance, he was on the ice for the first Detroit goal by Tootoo, but he clearly had Tootoo well defended and forced a shot from the outside at a very bad angle. It's not his fault it went off Ballard and in.

Before you make a reactionary post with no basis in fact, I'd suggest doing a little research at least beforehand. That is partly a reason why this thread exists reactions to a perception that isn't really based in fact.

[Patrick Kane]

I find Garrison has too many expectations offensively. Throw in the fact he hasn't been a rock defensively, hes definitely going to be criticized.

I really hope he can shift his focus towards his defensive game and play like he did prior to his 16 goal year breakout. (Big minutes, top pairing shut-down defender)

Not every defenseman needs to be a 40+ defenseman. Look at Chicago. Seabrook, Hjalmarsson, Oduya and Rozsival are all good defenders. The points will come for them, as long as they play strong defensively.

[higgyfan]

Salo was one of the Nucks best Ds over the past few years, but I think was getting precariously close to a career ending injury. He is lucky to be playing in a soft division. If he was still in the WC, I would wager that he wouldn't fulfill his contract.

Garrison looks to be a very solid player. I suspect he will have fewer injuries than any of our D. He's a massive guy, who will be very effective in the playoffs. The goalie will love him.

Given time, I think his fantastic shot will be utilized a lot. It will be a real surprise to unsuspecting teams.

[Xur]

Hey relax! We got Tanev and Ballard, they got this guys.

Garrison has been one of our bottom 4 defensemen in terms of skill as of late, but then again so have Edler and Bieksa and Hamhuis, so I think he is right on track for his salary. Now Tanev for $900,000, thats a freaking good deal.

[Nevlach]

You should take the advice of the poster above you - not even Gollumpus' posts but others as well since it's already been noted Garrison had a +/- of 0 last game. Even if he were on the ice for "atleast 5" Detroit goals, that isibn't strictly an indicator of Garrison's ability. For instance, he was on the ice for the first Detroit goal by Tootoo, but he clearly had Tootoo well defended and forced a shot from the outside at a very bad angle. It's not his fault it went off Ballard and in.

Before you make a reactionary post with no basis in fact, I'd suggest doing a little research at least beforehand. That is partly a reason why this thread exists reactions to a perception that isn't really based in fact.

So he was on for Tootoo's goal which may have been a fluke off Ballard but Garrison looked pretty flat footed after Tootoo got around him when Garrison stopped skating, then 2 of 3 PP goals (Cleary was his man and Cleary scored, then he fell and spun as the Detroit player scored the 3rd PP goal), then just standing there on the 8th goal where he skates over to cover a guy who is already covered.... Sure he was on for Sedin's second goal in which he was just standing there and didn't contribute to the goal so yay free +1, same thing with Higgins goal he was on ice but didn't contribute just standing at the blue line.

Now does this mean he is a bad player? No. But he sure had a bad game. Cause for concern? Maybe.

[Gollumpus]

I had no idea our only two options were a defenseman with better stats but a poor team record or a good team record with a very mediocre level free agent signing. Thank you for enlightening me, chum.

Once again the point appears to have gone right over your head. Maybe standing up while you re-read my posts will help?

I'll make it easy.

1.) Salo on high scoring team = better chance that Salo has high +/-.

Garrison on lower scoring team = lesser chance that he will have a high +/-.

Suggesting that Salo is doing "better" based on +/- is not a very reliable piece of information (in this case) on which to base an argument of one being better than the other.

2.) Garrison *not* scoring as much as some folks believed he should, but still providing a very strong defensive presence is more important to the Canucks than Salo's contribution to the TB offense (more assists). Not saying Salo wouldn't provide an important contribution to the Canucks were he here, but he's not here. And other people should perhaps review their own expectations of Garrison rather than just assume that he was the next Bobby Coffey, Paul Orr. or Jason Garrison (v.2012).

The point is that what Garrison is contributing to the Canucks is more valuable than what Salo is contributing to TB. Once again, not saying Salo isn't contributing there, or that he wouldn't contribute were he here. However, increased points from Salo =/= improved team success to TB. If someone wants to use some stats to make a point, you should assume that other stats will be brought up to counter that point.

3.) Canucks being higher in the standings, while scoring fewer goals than TB, and allowing way fewer goals than TB > TB scoring lots of goals, being a borderline playoff team and having players like Salo with a high +/-. Further, with the team coming back to full strength, there is a greater chance that the Canucks will start to score more goals, and combined with the greater ability to prevent goals, could very likely result in a much higher finish in the standings for the Canucks than they currently enjoy over TB.

regards,

G.