Will Bieksa make this team's defence better or worst?

[wallstreetamigo]

For a guy prepared to go down with the ship here I am pretty sure we could work out a 2.5-3 million dollar deal. Especially if it could be a shorter term. He isn't exactly a quality top 4 minute muncher anymore.

And my take is if you can get a young guy on an elc that can do the same type of things on the ice and use the extra two million savings towards an upgrade to the top end of the d or the top 6 then you are further ahead.

The stickler for me would be absolutely no ntc though.

[THERETOOL]

Better.

100% better. This team is better with Kevin in the lineup rather than not in it. That's a fact... No clue why people bash him constantly

its because they dont really know much about hockey . they think they do , but they only prove that a little knowledge can be dangerous

[YummyCakeFace]

I thought Bieksa played a good effective game tonight. Stayed within his limits really well.

Agreed. That was my impression as well. Hardly heard his name all night. Kinda flew under the radar with a simple yet effective effort. Stable.

[Pimp C]

Bieksa playing in a 3rd pairing role next to Stanton with pk mins (occasional pp time) makes us a better team. His physicality, nastiness, and leadership are extremely important for us.

[Sean Monahan]

Bieksa playing in a 3rd pairing role next to Stanton with pk mins (occasional pp time) makes us a better team. His physicality, nastiness, and leadership are extremely important for us.

My thoughts exactly

[tyhee]

Bieksa always brings it in contract years. That is not prophecy it is reality.

And why would a guy his age not take a big final contract if it is offered to him over taking a low value short term one to stay here? How many UFA players have actually made that particular choice and why would anyone think Bieksa is any different than them? Lots of lifetime one team players took the money.

To say he is not about money at least partially is incredibly naive. He had to make 100k per more than Hamhuis made on his current contract so being the highest paid an at that time was most certainly important to him.

You've repeated this point about Bieksa bringing it in contract years several times, always without support from any facts.

The facts don't support you. In fact, Bieksa has been noticeably worse in contract years than in his other seasons. That was the case right through the year after his most recent contract year.

Looking at nhlnumbers.com Bieksa was on a 2 year contract ending 2008, and a 3 year contract ending 2011. Accordingly, his seasons before that, 2005-6; 2007-8 and 2010-11 were contract years. Let's see how he made out.

Normal stats are from Bieksa's page at hockeydb.com. CF%RelTm and CF% and his placing among Canuck defencemen with 50 or more minutes played is from stats.hockeyanalysis.com, except for CF% for his first 2 seasons which are from war-on-ice, as stats.hockeyanalysis.com only goes back to 2007-2008.

I'm including every season from the start of Bieksa's NHL career through 2011-12, the year AFTER his last contract year. Contract years are in bold print. Corsi stats are at 5 on 5.

Games G A Pts ppg +/- CF% Rank CF%RelTm Rank

2005-6 39 0 6 6 .15 - 1 51.7 7 of 13

2006-7 81 12 30 42 .52 + 1 52.6 7 of 11

2007-8 34 2 10 12 .35 - 11 46.0 8 of 10 - 3.5 9 of 10

2008-9 72 11 32 43 .60 - 4 51.5 1 of 8 +2.6 1 of 8

2009-10 55 3 19 22 .40 - 5 54.4 2 of 10 +3.3 2 of 10

2010-11 66 6 16 22 .33 +32 52.7 5 of 11 0.0 6 of 11

2011-12 78 8 36 44 .56 +12 54.8 3 of 9 +2.7 4 of 9

Note-seasons were chosen to see whether Bieksa improved or declined in and after contract years. His most recent contract year was 2010-11. After 2012, when Bieksa reached 31 years of age, his play has declined, but that isn't connected with whether he improved or declined his contract years, which were before that.

Analysis:

Scoring: Bieksa's worst 3 seasons in the 7 year period analyzed were his 3 contract years.

+/-: I wouldn't normally include this is it is of very little meaning in small sample sizes, including single seasons. Bieksa's worst, as well as best, +/- seasons of the 7 analyzed were in contract years.

Corsi:

Bieksa's 1st contract year was his rookie season, which was slightly worse than the following season.

Bieksa's 2nd contract year was the worst of the 7 year period analyzed by a substantial margin.

Bieksa's Corsi stats declined in his most recent contract year, then improved again the season after his contract year.

To say Bieksa brings it in his contract years, suggesting those years are the years he plays his best, clearly is contrary to the evidence, which indicates quite the opposite. His history is that his contract years have been worse than the years both before and after.

[zombieksa]

Honestly I see him signing a 2 year extension in the offseason for somewhere in the 3-3.5 cap hit area. He loves it here. He isn't going anywhere.

[Mongrel]

I agree with this. Bieksa can be a very effective player that has a positive impact on a game. He can also be a very ineffective player that has a negative impact on a game. Sometimes those can even happen in the same game.

He is not a garbage player. He is also not a great player. But when he stays within the proper limits and finds a balance between risk/reward he is the type of player you want on your team.

The issue this season has been the risk has far outweighed the reward most of the time and he has struggled as a result.

Yeah but you always say that.

I disagree with you though. I think there are times when you've been right and times when the opposite is true. It has not been a bad season for Bieksa it's just been a mediocre season. That's my opinion. He knows the proper balance because that's been the story of his career. The problem is that it's not as simple as just saying he needs to stay within the limits. 9 other guys on the ice making their own decisions make that impossible.

[wallstreetamigo]

You've repeated this point about Bieksa bringing it in contract years several times, always without support from any facts.

The facts don't support you. In fact, Bieksa has been noticeably worse in contract years than in his other seasons. That was the case right through the year after his most recent contract year.

Looking at nhlnumbers.com Bieksa was on a 2 year contract ending 2008, and a 3 year contract ending 2011. Accordingly, his seasons before that, 2005-6; 2007-8 and 2010-11 were contract years. Let's see how he made out.

Normal stats are from Bieksa's page at hockeydb.com. CF%RelTm and CF% and his placing among Canuck defencemen with 50 or more minutes played is from stats.hockeyanalysis.com, except for CF% for his first 2 seasons which are from war-on-ice, as stats.hockeyanalysis.com only goes back to 2007-2008.

I'm including every season from the start of Bieksa's NHL career through 2011-12, the year AFTER his last contract year. Contract years are in bold print. Corsi stats are at 5 on 5.

Games G A Pts ppg +/- CF% Rank CF%RelTm Rank

2005-6 39 0 6 6 .15 - 1 51.7 7 of 13

2006-7 81 12 30 42 .52 + 1 52.6 7 of 11

2007-8 34 2 10 12 .35 - 11 46.0 8 of 10 - 3.5 9 of 10

2008-9 72 11 32 43 .60 - 4 51.5 1 of 8 +2.6 1 of 8

2009-10 55 3 19 22 .40 - 5 54.4 2 of 10 +3.3 2 of 10

2010-11 66 6 16 22 .33 +32 52.7 5 of 11 0.0 6 of 11

2011-12 78 8 36 44 .56 +12 54.8 3 of 9 +2.7 4 of 9

Note-seasons were chosen to see whether Bieksa improved or declined in and after contract years. His most recent contract year was 2010-11. After 2012, when Bieksa reached 31 years of age, his play has declined, but that isn't connected with whether he improved or declined his contract years, which were before that.

Analysis:

Scoring: Bieksa's worst 3 seasons in the 7 year period analyzed were his 3 contract years.

+/-: I wouldn't normally include this is it is of very little meaning in small sample sizes, including single seasons. Bieksa's worst, as well as best, +/- seasons of the 7 analyzed were in contract years.

Corsi:

Bieksa's 1st contract year was his rookie season, which was slightly worse than the following season.

Bieksa's 2nd contract year was the worst of the 7 year period analyzed by a substantial margin.

Bieksa's Corsi stats declined in his most recent contract year, then improved again the season after his contract year.

To say Bieksa brings it in his contract years, suggesting those years are the years he plays his best, clearly is contrary to the evidence, which indicates quite the opposite. His history is that his contract years have been worse than the years both before and after.

I guess if point scoring from a dman is your determining factor for a player playing their best. But that is not when Bieksa is or was at his best. I judge a dman being "at their best" when their overall play actually does what it is supposed to and helps the team more than it hurts them.

2010-11 was imo Bieksa's best year as a player in that regard, points in other years not withstanding. He played a shutdown type game with Hamhuis which helped the team much more than any of his 40 point seasons with crap D. He has never been a better overall dman in any year despite the 40 point seasons where the issue was always the significant risk and porous defence it took him to achieve that. Again, the risk with him outweighed the reward in many of his years of high point totals.

I fully expect a re-commitment to his overall game next season no matter where he is. Because he has only ever been a complete dman at both ends of the ice in contract years.

[wallstreetamigo]

Yeah but you always say that.

I disagree with you though. I think there are times when you've been right and times when the opposite is true. It has not been a bad season for Bieksa it's just been a mediocre season. That's my opinion. He knows the proper balance because that's been the story of his career. The problem is that it's not as simple as just saying he needs to stay within the limits. 9 other guys on the ice making their own decisions make that impossible.

All players rely on all the other players to some degree. But Bieksa has issues with being far too slow moving the puck - whether skating it or passing it - which is sort of more on him than anyone else. He also tends to chase a bit in the defensive zone and unless you are saying he only does it because others are not doing thir job (which is ridiculous) then that is pretty much his own decision making too.

I don't buy the theory that when he does well it is all him and when he struggles it is all the fault of the other players on the ice with him.

[wallstreetamigo]

If Bieksa is in our top 4 going forward we simply do not have a good enough defense to win a Stanley Cup. Especially without a true #1 dman. The money it will take to keep him could be better spent trying to get that true #1 offensive guy as we have cheaper options for the bottom pairing that are younger. That is even more true if they have to overpay Tanev too. We simply can't afford to spend that much on D going forward.

I like Bieksa for his intangibles. I just don't like his cap hit or his over-reliance by the coaching staff in our top 4. He is a 4/5 at this point and that is not a slag on him. He is declining like most players start to do at his age.

[Mongrel]

All players rely on all the other players to some degree. But Bieksa has issues with being far too slow moving the puck - whether skating it or passing it - which is sort of more on him than anyone else. He also tends to chase a bit in the defensive zone and unless you are saying he only does it because others are not doing thir job (which is ridiculous) then that is pretty much his own decision making too.

I don't buy the theory that when he does well it is all him and when he struggles it is all the fault of the other players on the ice with him.

Neither do I and I don't believe I was implying that at all. That wasn't my intention at least.

[Blue & Green]

Wow that's a great argument.

Thanks.

[RUPERTKBD]

It seems the past few seasons that ship has sailed. Neither of them have looked particularly effective with the other. The reason they worked so well the cup run year was they were able to focus on being a shutdown pairing while Edler/Ehrhoff carried the offensive role more. Since Ehrhoff left and both have been expected to be Do it all dmen they have both struggled.

Yeah, Hamhuis struggled so badly that he was named to the Olympic team three years later...

There is zero chance Bieksa will sign a cheap contract as a UFA to stay here. Someone like Toronto will offer him multiple years at the same or more money than he makes now and he will take it. ANd I won't blame him but I will certainly blame management for not getting anything for him in return.

The Canucks will continue to pretend he is still top 4 calibre and as such they will price him out of keeping him at a fair cost.

The good news for us is that next year is a contract year so Bieksa should have a great season offensively.

Zero chance? Thanks for the update, Kreskin. I seem to remember Juice saying that he'd go down with the ship. Taking less money to stay here would seem to be in keeping with that philosophy, especially since the argument could be made that he's done so once already.

Bieksa always brings it in contract years. That is not prophecy it is reality.

And why would a guy his age not take a big final contract if it is offered to him over taking a low value short term one to stay here? How many UFA players have actually made that particular choice and why would anyone think Bieksa is any different than them? Lots of lifetime one team players took the money.

To say he is not about money at least partially is incredibly naive. He had to make 100k per more than Hamhuis made on his current contract so being the highest paid an at that time was most certainly important to him.

One man's "reality" is another man's fantasy, it appears. As Tyhee pointed out, Bieksa followed up his contract with his career best points output. He also managed to maintain a plus rating, even though he had been asked to contribute more offensively.

You've been trying to sell this "only in contract years" garbage for ages now and it never has, nor will it ever be accurate.

[wallstreetamigo]

Yeah, Hamhuis struggled so badly that he was named to the Olympic team three years later...

Zero chance? Thanks for the update, Kreskin. I seem to remember Juice saying that he'd go down with the ship. Taking less money to stay here would seem to be in keeping with that philosophy, especially since the argument could be made that he's done so once already.

One man's "reality" is another man's fantasy, it appears. As Tyhee pointed out, Bieksa followed up his contract with his career best points output. He also managed to maintain a plus rating, even though he had been asked to contribute more offensively.

You've been trying to sell this "only in contract years" garbage for ages now and it never has, nor will it ever be accurate.

Again point scoring at the expense of solid d is not when I have ever considered Bieksa at his best. I can agree to disagree if you guys believe that his 40 point years constitute his best as a Dman.

Hamhuis has not been nearly as good since being asked to help replace Ehrhoffs offense.

Neither are terrible but neither are close to as effective as they were in 2010 as dmen.

Plus minus is easy to achieve playing with 80-100 point producers playing against a weak division. It is the most useless individual stay there is when not taken in any context.

I get that my opinion on Bieksa is not popular with his strongest supporters. But that doesn't mean I don't have the right to my opinion. That is what this forum is for.

[canuck73_3]

Again point scoring at the expense of solid d is not when I have ever considered Bieksa at his best. I can agree to disagree if you guys believe that his 40 point years constitute his best as a Dman.

Hamhuis has not been nearly as good since being asked to help replace Ehrhoffs offense.

Neither are terrible but neither are close to as effective as they were in 2010 as dmen.

Plus minus is easy to achieve playing with 80-100 point producers playing against a weak division. It is the most useless individual stay there is when not taken in any context.

I get that my opinion on Bieksa is not popular with his strongest supporters. But that doesn't mean I don't have the right to my opinion. That is what this forum is for.

You have the right to your opinion it just doesn't mean it's accurate.

[RUPERTKBD]

Again point scoring at the expense of solid d is not when I have ever considered Bieksa at his best. I can agree to disagree if you guys believe that his 40 point years constitute his best as a Dman. I believe that both the year in question and the one preceding it were good years. Nobody said anything about them being "his best". However, someone did say that he "only plays well in contract years". We can agree to disagree that he played "well" in 2012, but I think you have a pretty tough sell on that one.

Hamhuis has not been nearly as good since being asked to help replace Ehrhoffs offense. Says you. Stevie Y seemed to have a different opinion. As do I.

Neither are terrible but neither are close to as effective as they were in 2010 as dmen. Depends on your definition of "effective". It seems as though you believe that Ehrhoff was, so what makes Juice or Hammer any different?

Plus minus is easy to achieve playing with 80-100 point producers playing against a weak division. It is the most useless individual stay there is when not taken in any context. What context are you taking it in then? From what I can see, it's only a useful stat when it supports your opinion, but "useless" when it doesn't.

I get that my opinion on Bieksa is not popular with his strongest supporters. But that doesn't mean I don't have the right to my opinion. That is what this forum is for. Sure you have the right to an opinion, but when others show it to be incorrect, you should man up and admit it. Your claim that he only plays well in contract years is simply incorrect and no amount of "opinion" will change the fact.

[Nurf Herder]

Cmon guys, op is only 13

I thought with his clever username he was at least 14

[alt kilgore]

At this point in his career, I don't think Bieksa makes our D any better.

But he makes our TEAM better as a whole. Gives it more swagger. He's a team leader and spokesperson. Unfortunately he was having struggles on the ice at the time they were choosing the next captain after Lu. Otherwise, in hindsight, i think it should have been Kevin as captain, and the Sedins as alternates. Not that I think Henrik has done a bad job, just that Kevin could bring some other intangibles to the table.

[wallstreetamigo]

I can only find examples of me saying he plays his best in contract years not that he ONLY plays well in contract years. Based on his overall game at both ends of the ice that is my opinion on when he has played his best.

My opinion is not incorrect. I simply have a different definition of what a player playing his best means.

Regarding plus minus I never use it in any argument as any kind of stand alone indicator because it is useless. If you candied an example of me using it in isolation either for or against a player fill your boots. I don't use it that way because it is useless as an individual stat on its own that way.

I like discussing any subject other than Bieksa with you. With Bieksa you make things up I didn't even say and lose your ability to say anything other than I am wrong. It doesn't make for a very interesting conversation so perhaps like I said before we can just agree to disagree and not try to say the other is wrong in their opinion. Because opinions can't really be wrong. That's why they are opinions. I explained my definition of playing his best and you simply chose to ignore it. Maybe you disagree and think high risk Bieksa is at his best and that is your right. But I don't feel that way. And that isn't wrong either.