Baggins
-
Posts
11,793 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Baggins
-
-
Don't get me wrong I love Burr, but I'd love him a lot more at 2.5m Not the 4.2m he's making for the kind of player he is.
What you get for around $2.5m is Matt Cooke who hasn't cracked 30 points in 82 games since the 11/12 season. Or how about Brandon Prust for $2.5m? He hasn't cracked 20 points since the 10/11 season. Eric Nystrom signed at $2.5m last year. He tied his career high 21 points last season. Sorry but $2.5m doesn't get you much of a ufa nowadays.
Burrows signed his current deal near the end of the shortened lockout season. He was on pace for a 42 point season if it were 82 games. And the the previous four seasons had 52, 48, 67 and 51 points. Considerably better than guys recently signing at $2.5m.
-
1
-
-
If his cap hit is 4.5 million per year, than he better be getting second line numbers.
Overall, he's played fairly well so far, but he needs to stop taking dumbass penalties and just play.
Last year the mean average for 2nd line production was 39 points. If Burr can keep his current pace throughout the season he'll finish the season with 50 points.
-
There was a reason why he took a pay cut in his last salary, because he knew he wasn't a top 6 forward for producing points, and didn't want to be labeled that from a contract point of view. But after the year he did have with the Sedins, it was kind of hard to not reward him with a good paying contract. It sucks because at 2-3M he is the best player to have, but at 4.5M unless he's producing points it's a waste of money.
Actually he was given an ultimatum, take the deal or we`ll trade you at the deadline.
-
Surprised this didn't happen last year.
It couldn't be done last year. You can't buyout a player while he's on long term injury. Pretty sure it's why they put Ballard in the press box down the stretch. Made sure he didn't get injured so they could at least buy him out.
-
1
-
-
Do you think Linden and Benning evaluate players solely on stats? Of course not. Your over emphasizing their importance here. I don't care about only getting shots "on net". Edler can pick the top corners well whereas Garrison keeps the majority of his shots mid to low. And Edler can shoot well from the slot or closer whereas Garrison doesn't seem to shoot well in close. Anyone watching them play can see that.
Solely on stats no. But ignoring stats would be foolish. Nor are any of us Benning or Linden. I'll take stats over the clouded opinions on this board without a second thought. The numbers don't lie. So are you attempting to dispute a higher percentage of Garrisons shots have actually gone in than Edlers? I'm not sure about your schooling but I was taught 6.5% is higher than 5.4%.
No Garrison doesn't tend to wander in deep nearly as often as Edler. But then he's not typically the d-man causing a 2 on 1 either. Personally I could give a rats tush where they shoot from or where the puck enters the net as long as it goes in. The numbers indicate Garrison has put it in the net more often than Edler per 100 shots on goal in their respective careers. End of story.
-
1
-
-
His injuries hurt his development. From being the all-time leading goal scorer for the US World Junior team.. I saw some upside.. He just hasn't been able to stay healthy once turning pro and won't catch stride.
At best, I would give him a 2 year 2-way contract. I wouldn't be sad to see him go though.
A two way contract won't make any difference. That only means he gets paid less to play in the minors. He'd still have to clear waivers and I doubt he would.
-
The injury to Hammer was a huge loss (and the Rome suspension didn't help) but I think it goes deeper than that.
As someone already pointed out, the 6 of the Canucks top 9 were playing injured, as were Bieksa, Ehrhoff and Edler. Now teams play through injuries all the time, but as we saw, it took Kesler two years to get back into form and Edler has never gotten back to where he was.
The real clincher was the powerplay. People like to lament the fact that the Bruins bullied their way to the Cup, but they didn't do things much differently than teams had been doing to Vancouver all season. The difference was, by the time the finals came along, the Canucks' skilled guys were unable to make the Bruins pay for all the time they were shorthanded.
The tally was:
Henrik back
Samuelsson out
Raymond out
Kesler groin and shoulder
Malhotra eye
Higgins broken foot
Edler broken fingers
Ehrhoff shoulder
Bieksa knee (bruised acl)
Hamhuis out
Rome out
-
It doesn't have to be a million. We can sign him to 600k.
His minimum qualifying offer is $660k. If he isn't qualified he becomes a ufa.
Edit: still a great bargain as far as I'm concerned.
-
Missing the playoffs, losing in the SCF, the end result is the same, no cup. Personally I dont want the Canucks to be 4 time cup losers before they even win once.
I'd wager there's 28 teams would rather be in the Rangers position down 3 - 1 in the finals than where they are now.
-
This guy is a flop. Always was.
It amazes me how oblivious ppl are to talent and the fact that they think if they believe in someone, that alone will make him succeed.
It also amazes me how people blame player development when a player cant make the jump to the NHL. Like really guys?
FFS, every league you thin out the crop. Most guys cant hack it, few can. Oh but wait, its not his fault, its the teams development program, or he just needs a coach.
Wow.
What happened to just going out there and putting the puck in the net.
Have a beer and watch the game. Dont comment on it. You didnt make the cut.
I'd wager you were among those calling Burrows a waste of a roster spot his first full season and wanted him off the team.
-
Totally agree.
JS had plenty of chances last season to make an impression and failed.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Yeah, that is why I qualified my statement by saying that we (well myself anyways, I suppose some know more than others...) don't know all that much about how a real pro level bench boss does things. All I am saying is that what is being observed now, as compared to then, is strikingly similar. I tend to believe there is a kernel of truth in such things and even though I have no doubt it is much overblown by the media, it is still there to some degree or another.
Personally, I think the main problem is simply that the Kings are a much better hockey club than the Rangers. This isn't much of a surprise to anyone though, and getting all the bounces, like you say, has certainly helped them pull ahead.
The only similarity is losing. The Rangers are losing due to puck luck. They outplayed LA the first two games and the start of the third game. The Rangers are relatively healthy while the Canucks in the finals were beat to crap. What the hell is a coach supposed to "adjust" to make up for six of his top nine forwards out or playing injured and five of his d-men out or playing injured? The only hope we had in those finals was Lou playing like a Vezina winning goalie every game. He did in 3 games and wasn't close in the other 4. I still believe that if we were just relatively healthy in that final we would have won. No amount of coaching can compensate for that number of injuries when the opposing goalie is playing like a Vezina winner in every game.
-
5
-
I have to agree with some people on here he is not ideal size and or for face offs. I think he is 44% or something.
Schroeder was 45.9% on faceoffs this season. Keslers rookie season (28 games played) he was 40.2% and his first full 82 game season he was 46.8%. Henriks rookie season (82 games) he was 44.1% on faceoffs. So really Schroeders faceoff percentage isn't really anything to be concerned about at this point.
-
at the time, grabner was a year younger than schroeder will be, was coming off his first partial nhl season where he had 11 pts in 20 gp including a hat trick (as opposed to schroeder's 6 pts in 26 gp in his SECOND season), and was/is arguably the fastest player in the league while possessing a lethal shot. he also isn't 5'8".
like i've asked countless times now: which team puts schroeder in their opening night 23 man roster? which team doesn't have either veterans or their own prospects to take that role instead? not to mention that when schroeder is waived at the beginning of the year there will be many better available players on the waiver wire at the same time.
The difference is when Grabner had his 11 points in 22 games he played on the second line. The reason he was dealt was he was waiver eligible, our entire top six had a career year, and he never once showed up to camp in game shape ready to compete. A problem he's continued to have. While Schroeder played primarily on our fourth line this past season and half his games the season the season prior he was playing with a shoulder injury on the third and fourth line. Certainly not the same opportunity Grabner had in his 22 games. Btw, Grabners hat trick came against superstar goalie Curtis McElhinney.
Unlike you I'd be very surprised if Schroeder wasn't claimed off waivers. A bottom feeder has nothing to lose claiming a talented young guy for free and giving him a shot just as a desperate bottom feeder claimed "I take the summer off" Grabner.
-
Some believe JS is top 6, which is comical. He doesn't fit with this group or does he fit with the type of team that Benning will be building (if he builds the same type of team he built in Boston).
You look at Boston's team and there is no JS type of player there, likely not in the minors either.
Ummmm.... Brad Marchand 5'9" 183 lbs. The only real significant differences are Schroeder isn't the weasel Marchand is and he hasn't been given the same opportunity. You're unlikely to prove your skill playing fourth line.
This thread seems to be a mix of extremes. He's a bust or he's the next great one. He's neither. He's a question mark that hasn't had any real opportunity to prove himself. Until he gets that opportunity he can't be called a quality top six or a bust.
-
Sure. I still think Edler has a more accurate shot, that is he can pick his spots better than Garrison and not just get them "on net". Garrison is better suited for the 2nd unit PP where his heavy slapper is the main threat not so much the Sedins. Edler seems to readoff them better anyways
Yet the past statistics show otherwise. Other than his partial rookie season, where he scored 1 goal on 10 shots, Edler has a career high scoring percentage of 7.1%. The only time he's been above 7% since that partial season. The fact that Garrison has seasons at 8.3%, 8.5% and 9.5% would indicate he actually has the more accurate shot. Edlers career shooting percentage is 5.4% to Garrisons 6.5% but you're certainly welcome to believe what you want.
Edler should be better at reading off the Sedins as he's had years of playing behind them while Garrison has had rather limited time behind them. Given the way Edler has played the past two seasons he may be the one better suited to the 2nd pp unit where he's less likely to get burned on a bad pinch and has the oppositions 2nd unit defending against his shot.
-
1
-
-
and yet, garrison's shooting % this year was a pathetic 3.9%, compared to 7.7% and 6.7% for ehrhoff in 09/10 and 10/11 respectively.
this wide discrepancy explains why it seemed like garrison hit the net much less frequently. in reality, while his shot hit the net just as much, it was far less dangerous this season.
And yet his "pathetic" scoring percentage was tied with Edler as best among our top four. With Bieksa at 2.4% and Hamhuis at 3.3%. All four about half or less than their shooting percentage the previous season under AV with Garrison leading the top four with 8.5%. He also has previous seasons at 8.3% and 9.5%. Ehrhoff has only been above 7% twice in his career and has never hit 8% or higher. But I was actually talking about hitting the net, not putting in the net, which what so many have been complaining about regarding Garrison.
Btw, Ehrhoff's shooting was 3.7% this season. Is that good?
-
2
-
-
 well on that basis, yep fair comments! interesting stats for sure!
and well, overblown = cdc no? lol
and given we seem to be hitting the net alot/as well as league leaders, perhaps that means we're not getting the traffic/rebounds that we should
so it actually may be more reflective of our lack performance by our forwards going to hard spots (which would be no big surprise), as goals from the point tend to come from traffic, and assists from traffic and rebounds.
interesting...those percentages are much higher than doughty's and that says ALOT
pretty amazing what you can glean from some basic stats hey? and comparisons...makes you realize the typical fan reaction of issues is often wrong and that there is alot more to it...
So true. I first checked Garrisons percentage of shots on net by comparing to Ehrhoff when somebody said how much he's missed here because he "always" got the puck on net. Ehrhoff hit the net slightly less often than Garrison this past season. What was truly surprising was that Garrison hit the net more frequently this past season than Ehrhoff did in the 10/11 season when we led the league in scoring and had the best pp.
-
2
-
-
interesting stat but....
I'd argue, Edler and Garrison NEED to be hitting the net alot more than Bieska and Hammer since they play the PP more and therefore should arguably have a little more time to get shots off.
In addition, there is more importance on them hitting the net more frequently as that goes to PP effectiveness.
I'd be interested to know how they rank on shots on net on the pp vs their peers....
NHL.com doesn't have the shots broken down to situation, just the total shots and total missed shots. But I thought I'd check Doughty out and on 274 shots he hit the net 64.6% of the time. Karlson, the best offensive d-man in the league, took 383 shots with 67.1% on net. I'll say it again, Garrison missing the net too much is rather overblown here.
-
1
-
-
Edler is much better suited to the first unit PP than Garrison is. Drillig wild shots at the Sedins isn't exactly a good idea lol. I think he'll bounce back and play a much calmer/steadier game under a new coach. He can be a locomotive out there.
Garrison missing the net is rather overblown here. The percentage of shots on net by our top 4 d-men...
Bieksa 72.9% (229 shots taken)
Edler 72.3% (246 shots taken)
Hamhuis 72.1% (208 shots taken)
Garrison 69.6% (260 shots taken)
To put that in perspective Edler hit the net roughly 5 times more than Garrison per 200 shots taken.
-
2
-
-
I hope we don't draft any more players that small. For every Martin St.Louis or Theo Fleury, there are a thousand Jordan Schroeders.
St Louis went undrafted. At 22 the Sens offered St Louis a tryout and released him. He went to play in the IHL for Cleveland. After struggling with the Flames, at 25 the they bought out the final year of his contract making him a UFA. His breakout season came in 02-03 with 70 points at age 27 for Tampa. Some players take longer than others. St Louis is a prime example of giving up too soon and a poor one for you to use in this case.
-
Sorry for all you true believers, but Edler is not the second coming of Lidstrom.If he was he'd be making close to double what he currently is.
-
1
-
-
So coddling/allowing them to coach themselves from AV didn't motivate them and being hard on them from Tortorella didn't motivate them. What exactly is left?
Has anyone considered that maybe the group needs more than cosmetic changes?
Bieksa and/or Edler need to go. One huge defensive liability on the blueline is more than enough.
Who ever said the players coached themselves?
-
What are you talking about Gillis regime? The whole damn core, is still Nonises. In fact, if we go back. I wonder, if it just stayed as Nonis's, we'd maybe have a cup by now.
Willie Mitchell, might just be on his way to his 2nd cup ever since he's left. Why did Gillis let him go again? He had injuries, but none of it was career threatening.
I can't believe we kept Bieksa and Salo, over Ehrhoff and Mitchell.
He suffered a concussion in January and still wasn't cleared to workout in July and wasn't cleared for contact in August. I'd call that pretty serious. Gillis said he was still interested in signing him but not until he showed he could take full contact. LA signed him before he was cleared. They took a big chance and it paid off for them.
Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?
in Canucks Talk
Posted
Out of curiosity, how much is a 2nd line player worth in your mind and what do you expect for point production?