[[Confirmed] Jim Benning signs as new Canucks GM]

News1130's tweet doesn't make any sense

[Jason Garrison so far?]

Or yourself either way

Hey, that's not nice.

[Jason Garrison so far?]

Oh you guys and your annoying facts and rules and stuff.

But at the end of the game, he was still even. So there.

regards,

G.

Even and absolutely atrocious defensively on at least 3 of Detroit's goals.

I know +/- is a difficult stat to comprehend, once again a simple concept goes over your head. Maybe try standing up while watching the game.

[Jason Garrison so far?]

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.

[Jason Garrison so far?]

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?

[Jason Garrison so far?]

The Canucks have possibly two D men that can play better than mediocre defense, Hamhuis and Tanev.

[Jason Garrison so far?]

Elite

Garrison's primary function is as an elite defensive defenseman. For that, he has met my expectations in spades. Ever since the 2nd/3rd game of the season, he has been a defensive rock. I have not noticed any "getting better" or "starting to look better", he's been great defensively for a while. Nice to see him pick up his 2nd goal, he should get a little more pp time now that Bieksa may be out.

Not surprised at all to see he's +6

Elite is a rather strong word for Garrison's defensive game

[Jason Garrison so far?]

Are you kidding me???? Do you follow the NHL or do you just like to troll the CDC???

The market for Dmen in the NHL are at all time high right now! Garrison could have gotten a lot more from a multiple number of teams if he wanted to test the waters.... at $4.6M, you have to be an idiot to believe it's not a discount. There are more teams in need of a top 4 D than any other position and plenty of those signed top 4 D are awful....and getting paid a lot more than $4.6!

Of course he 'cashed in' considering what his salary was before....but that doesn't mean it wasn't a discount

Your posts are usually ridiculous and consistently antagonizing, but sometimes....just sometimes....there is a valid argument in there somewhere. You have been proven wrong with your theories on numerous occasions and you still stand your ground to try and argue your points (**slow clap**).

I had a friend who had similar traits, when we would go out....he would approach every girl in the bar, he gets turned down and laughed at lots....but he does eventually find a hit after multiple misses. He has grown to accept humiliation and making bad judgements due to the regularity of being turned down...his lust just overwhelms him and he considers .01% as good enough odds to endure it. He's horny and I can understand his motivation...

I just don't understand yours? What satisfaction do you get in trolling like this? Your odds on being correct are similar to his....yet you still troll CDC? I can only assume your pants are around your ankles when you get the one theory correct.... Is it worth it?

4.6 for 6 years was not a discount in any way

[Jordan Schroeder Talk]

so who has the bag of broken pucks that San Jose sent in return?

Christian Ehrhoff