spur1 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Garrison and Edler are going nowhere.Edler needs to play less minutes against top lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Just stop with this nonsense CDC. If Garry has to go, there's lots of teams that would want him. Have a look at the UFAs this year and just wait to see the $$ they get. For that reason alone this thread really should have died a long time ago. No time like the present to let that happen though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoman13 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Theres a surprising amount of stupidity in this thread. I guess thats to be expected though in a thread wanting to buy out Garrison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desjardins' Mustache Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desjardins' Mustache Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenDrinkin Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Is trading for Erhoff a ridiculous idea? I don't think we realized just how important he was, at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Is trading for Erhoff a ridiculous idea? I don't think we realized just how important he was, at the time.we don't necessarily need Ehrhoff but he need someone on the backend that can generate offence the way he did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 we don't necessarily need Ehrhoff but he need someone on the backend that can generate offence the way he did ...who hopefully doesn't have a contract until he's 40. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raph Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 ...who hopefully doesn't have a contract until he's 40.Who cares. The expensive part of his contract is over. His cap hit is fairly easy to swallow at $3.8M or something. He's also durable as he plays a style not conducive to injuries. We'll get back the Edler of old cuz he will be able to play without thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 If you want to just look at stats and not what both players bring to the table on the ice. Man did you even watch in 2010-11 ? The Hoff ran the PP and also made Edler look like a future stud dman. I did watch. Did you? Henrik controls the PP and always has from the half boards. If Hoff is the PP QB you think he is why has he not enjoyed the same success without Henrik with Buffalo's top players? Why does he not hit the net there more than the "can't hit the net" Garrison here? Answer those questions. The stats don't lie. Garrison is actually hitting the net more than Ehrhoff is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxVerstappen33 Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 As per Tony G wondering since Booth has been playing great and showing he actually IS a hockey player and might be worth just playing out the final year of his contract Garrison on the other hand..... Surely Gillis walks the plank if Garrison is bought out. That being said I dont think Aqualini coughs up the dough for such a move. Maybe a move to bring in Brian Campbell whom Garrison had earlier success with. Thoughts? Very foolhardy idea. He was leading the league in D man points at the start of the year before the season went to hell. Hate Garrison much ? And you want to bring in a 7 million dollar Campbell ? wow,, just wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Trade Garrison for a 1st rounder for this year and we sign Matt Niskanen and pair him with Edler.I've written quite a few posts about Niskanen and how much I'd love for the Canucks to sign him. I think he's poised to become an impact player of real significance in this league (if given the right opportunity and role).I would just sign Nisky and keep both Edler and Garrison to start the season. See which one of the two has better chemistry with Niskanen and forms the better point tandem on the #1PP unit.(The above is the "tl;dr" version. Open the spoiler to read the full post.)Then, you could look to trade one of the two (either Edler or Garrison) around the deadline, depending on how Niskanen has fit-in with the team and who's forming the most effective partnership.And if the D group, with Niskanen added, is running smoothly from top-to-bottom, then don't trade anyone. Keep Edler and Garrison. Sure, that would mean having Hamhuis, Tanev (extended), Edler, Niskanen, Garrison, and Bieksa as the starting six. That's 6 legitimate top-four Ds and all of them would be making $3+ million (assuming Tanev gets around $3 million).That might seem like an expensive starting D (probably around $29 million all said) but if you look at where the salaries are going, and where the Canucks have guys locked in, it's actually a manageable salary structure for a top-tier NHL D corps (which I believe that they could become if Nisky is signed, the right coaches are added--or the current group adjusts--and they play the right system).But I don't like the idea of signing Niskanen and just assuming that he'll be a perfect match for Edler. I think there's good reason to believe they might be great together but there's certainly no guarantee that Nisky will become an "Ehrhoff 2.0" for Edler. Especially since Edler has shown that he's not always the easiest D to pair with.The Canucks should have the cap space to sign Niskanen without moving a D contract first. They only need to use their compliance buyout (ie: Booth) and/or trade one middle-six forward (take your pick) and they'll have plenty of space to re-sign Tanev, Kassian, Santorelli and also add one high end UFA (Niskanen).I'm hoping they don't spend big on any veteran UFA top-six forwards but instead they give the prospects (Horvat, Gaunce, Shinkaruk, Fox, and the rest) a chance to earn spots in the opening lineup and continue to give Kassian and Jensen the opportunity to play meaningful roles and minutes.That would give them enough cap space to make a very competitive offer for Niskanen's services (and there will be a bidding war if he hits the UFA market).Maybe look to add an impact forward via trade later in the season, but only if the team is performing well enough already to suggest they're only a few tweaks away from getting back to contention.I don't think they need to add another 30+ year old player to the forward group (which is what's mostly out there for impact UFAs). See what Kesler can do with one of the LHS C/LW rookies playing on his left wing and one of Kassian, Jensen, Santorelli on his right wing.If the Canucks don't blow their cap on a UFA forward, they can add Niskanen to the D without making any subtractions.I'd like to see what this team looks like with that kind of depth and talent on their back end (and with some of the young guys added up front). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 I've written quite a few posts about Niskanen and how much I'd love for the Canucks to sign him. I think he's poised to become an impact player of real significance in this league (if given the right opportunity and role). I would just sign Nisky and keep both Edler and Garrison to start the season. See which one of the two has better chemistry with Niskanen and forms the better point tandem on the #1PP unit. (The above is the "tl;dr" version. Open the spoiler to read the full post.) Then, you could look to trade one of the two (either Edler or Garrison) around the deadline, depending on how Niskanen has fit-in with the team and who's forming the most effective partnership. And if the D group, with Niskanen added, is running smoothly from top-to-bottom, then don't trade anyone. Keep Edler and Garrison. Sure, that would mean having Hamhuis, Tanev (extended), Edler, Niskanen, Garrison, and Bieksa as the starting six. That's 6 legitimate top-four Ds and all of them would be making $3+ million (assuming Tanev gets around $3 million). That might seem like an expensive starting D (probably around $29 million all said) but if you look at where the salaries are going, and where the Canucks have guys locked in, it's actually a manageable salary structure for a top-tier NHL D corps (which I believe that they could become if Nisky is signed, the right coaches are added--or the current group adjusts--and they play the right system). But I don't like the idea of signing Niskanen and just assuming that he'll be a perfect match for Edler. I think there's good reason to believe they might be great together but there's certainly no guarantee that Nisky will become an "Ehrhoff 2.0" for Edler. Especially since Edler has shown that he's not always the easiest D to pair with. The Canucks should have the cap space to sign Niskanen without moving a D contract first. They only need to use their compliance buyout (ie: Booth) and/or trade one middle-six forward (take your pick) and they'll have plenty of space to re-sign Tanev, Kassian, Santorelli and also add one high end UFA (Niskanen). I'm hoping they don't spend big on any veteran UFA top-six forwards but instead they give the prospects (Horvat, Gaunce, Shinkaruk, Fox, and the rest) a chance to earn spots in the opening lineup and continue to give Kassian and Jensen the opportunity to play meaningful roles and minutes. That would give them enough cap space to make a very competitive offer for Niskanen's services (and there will be a bidding war if he hits the UFA market). Maybe look to add an impact forward via trade later in the season, but only if the team is performing well enough already to suggest they're only a few tweaks away from getting back to contention. I don't think they need to add another 30+ year old player to the forward group (which is what's mostly out there for impact UFAs). See what Kesler can do with one of the LHS C/LW rookies playing on his left wing and one of Kassian, Jensen, Santorelli on his right wing. If the Canucks don't blow their cap on a UFA forward, they can add Niskanen to the D without making any subtractions. I'd like to see what this team looks like with that kind of depth and talent on their back end (and with some of the young guys added up front). An interesting idea. Most of us have wanted a top 6 UFA, but I get what you are suggesting. If the D grouping is more complete, then it makes it more plausable to play the young guys. If the rookies struggle, then trading one of the top 4 dmen could bring a solid top 6 player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 An interesting idea. Most of us have wanted a top 6 UFA, but I get what you are suggesting. If the D grouping is more complete, then it makes it more plausable to play the young guys. If the rookies struggle, then trading one of the top 4 dmen could bring a solid top 6 player.That's it in a nutshell.I'll admit that my plan is largely influenced by how highly I value Niskanen and where I see his potential ceiling. I honestly believe he might eventually become a #1D.And given that the Canucks appear to be going with an inexperienced tandem in net (Lack/Markstrom), I think that the D needs to be as deep and complete as possible.The risk comes if Niskanen doesn't meet projections and never become more than a #5D for this team. Personally, I see the chances of this as very low. He's worked hard to build a very complete game. This season, he's played every defenseman role for the Pens (from shutdown D to PPQB), and excelled at it all.He's also emerged as a leader on and off the ice and the first player that Pittsburgh's rookies turn to for advice and support.And he's still only 27 years old.I see Niskanen as a guy who could come in and be a real fix to many of the weaknesses and issues in the current overall D group (very similar to what adding Hamhuis initially accomplished--but with far more offensive impact).By upgrading the overall mobility and puck-handling ability of the D (which are among Niskanen's core strengths), there should be an overall improvement to the team transition game and puck possession, which should make the forwards perform much better offensively.This needs, of course, to be coupled with some adjustments to the system and player usage.But I think that upgrading the D (both in the personnel and their performance/execution) would create the best environment for successfully working rookie forwards into meaningful roles in the lineup (including regular spots in the top-six).And like you said: if it doesn't work, there should still be enough defensive depth to trade one of the top-4 Ds for a more experienced impact top-6 forward.EDIT:And I think adding Niskanen could help to improve Edler's performance and value, simply by taking the puck off his stick (especially in the neutral zone) and allowing Edler to move into a more secondary puck-handling role (as opposed to the primary D puck carrier--where he's never looked comfortable).Similarly, Niskanen might prove to be a natural partner for Garrison and one with the mobility to create offensive zone setups that utilize Garrison's shot to full value.But the Canucks would need to keep both Edler and Garrison around, at least for long enough to figure out what pairing (alongside Niskanen) has the most value and impact for the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missioncanucksfan Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 Very foolhardy idea. He was leading the league in D man points at the start of the year before the season went to hell. Hate Garrison much ? And you want to bring in a 7 million dollar Campbell ? wow,, just wowpay a soft pylon who cant hit the net....double wow getting a guy who actually hits, can run a power play and made said pylon the flash in the pan he was.... besides...campbell only has a year or 2 left....not 6 like he had before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 pay a soft pylon who cant hit the net....double wow getting a guy who actually hits, can run a power play and made said pylon the flash in the pan he was.... besides...campbell only has a year or 2 left....not 6 like he had before Not sure where you're getting your stats from, but according to NHL.com, Jason Garrison: 58 hits, Brian Campbell: 49 hits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxVerstappen33 Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 pay a soft pylon who cant hit the net....double wow getting a guy who actually hits, can run a power play and made said pylon the flash in the pan he was.... besides...campbell only has a year or 2 left....not 6 like he had before Have you seen how much D men get paid these days ? What are you going to get to replace him for 4.6 million ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THERETOOL Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 campbell can hit the net .. and he's way better at moving the puck out of his own zone .. my opinion anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 campbell can hit the net .. and he's way better at moving the puck out of his own zone .. my opinion anyway And yet, he has almost identical #s as Garrison, despite this being an off year for Garry. And a much bigger cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missioncanucksfan Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 Not sure where you're getting your stats from, but according to NHL.com, Jason Garrison: 58 hits, Brian Campbell: 49 hits...ya...you better believe the gospel that is NHL.com you gonna tell me what the magazines say next? listen...dont even try to compare the 2 ok...your NHL stats alone will show a lop sided comparison Garrison should take Campbell out on many drunks for settin him up with all them juicy goals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.