Performance per Dollar

[Alflives]

15 hours ago, Oliewud said:

Mike Gillis traded away 12 picks over a 6 year period. Jim Benning has traded away 12 picks over a 2.5 year period.

Plus McCann.  That's 13 friggin prospects missing from our much needed prospect t pool.  And some still argue this is a rebuild?  Really?  

[LaBamba]

19 minutes ago, drummerboy said:

No there isn't, but where we will be picking,1-5(IMO) we will be able to get what should turn out to be our #1 prospect and closer to a 1st line center, #1 Dman than we currently have.  

Liljegrin (spelling?) makes me drool thinking about the potential.  The kid could be straight up amazing. 

Patrick is a great player.  Don't need to say much more. 

Hischeir could be the fastest player in the league.  

 

Its a better draft than a few people say.   

We are going to end up really happy with whoever we get

 

 

Mobile Dmen are a top priority. You can draft a 1C and he'll tear up the league within 3 years where a PMD takes a while longer. I think we will be picking high for a few years so we might as well load up on the Dmen who dictate possession 

[VegasCanuck]

15 hours ago, JamesB said:

Today (Wednesday) was a pretty bad day for Canuck fans:

 

1. We are coming off what has to be the worst loss of the season, blowing a 3 goal lead going into the third period, ultimately surrender 6 goals in the third period.

2. Boeser won't play in the World Juniors due to surgery on his wrist.

3. Brisebois was cut from Canada's world junior team.

4. Canada will have only one player on a strong team (Juolevi) at the WJC and one more player in the tournament (Jasek). For a team coming off a couple of disappointing seasons, the Canada's presence at this year's WJC is weak

5. Utica lost again tonight (but in OT and Rodin got a point). And Utica, like the Canucks, is a long way from legitimate playoff contention.

 

Bottom line: The Canucks are sitting in 28th place, the AHL farm team is not doing well, and the amateur pipeline is not looking good either.

 

Right now the season is looking like a train wreck. And maybe we finally win a lottery pick this year -- the weakest draft year in a long time.

 

One way of looking at the problem is in terms of performance per dollar. With a cap in place, a team that pays its players "market value" or the "going rate" for a given performance level will be an average team. That is just arithmetic. In order to win a team has to get a lot from players on a per dollar basis. Winning requires getting high performance per dollar. That means that players need to be paid less than average per point scored.

 

When the Canucks made it to the SCF in 2011, they got great value from a lot of players: Ehrhoff, Edler, Hammer, Salo, were very good value, and even Bieksa was decent value. The Sedins were well paid at 6 million each, but that was a bargain given their performance. Lu was good value for his cap hit (although the length of his contract was a problem) and Schneider was great value.

 

Right now the Canucks are a bad team that is spending close to the cap. That means that some players getting  overpaid in cap terms relative to their performance. Nothing too surprising here, but here are the biggest problems.

 

1. Sedins. In 2011 Daniel had 104 pts in 82 games (1.27 PPG) and won the Art Ross trophy. He was a very impressive +30. The pattern was similar for Henrik. They were not fast or physical but they were great defensively because they spent most of a typical shift in the other team's end, making to tough for the other team to score. And their cap hit w as 6 million each. 

 

This year Daniel has 20 pts in 30 games (.67 PPG) and is -6. Still not fast or physical, the Sedins now often get trapped in their own defensive zone for long periods. And their cap hit is higher than it was in 2011. (The cap is also a bit higher but the Sedin's salary has gone up by more than the cap.) The Sedins' productivity per dollar (all things considered -- scoring and defence) is probably less than half of what it was in 2011.

 

2. Eriksson. has 12 pts in 30 games (0.4 PPG) and is -9. He is slow and soft. He is getting a cap hit of 6 million. This is very poor performance on a per dollar basis.

 

3. Miller has a cap hit of 6 million. His save percentage is .909, placing him 25th in the NHL. Not good value for money.

 

4. Gudbranson. He has 6 pts, and he is big and strong and he is supposed be a good skater for a big man. But he has really struggled in a shutdown role with Tanev and Edler out. He has the worst +/- on the D at -14. He was terrible against Carolina and played a big part in the 3rd period collapse. If we had kept Hammer instead of trading for Gudbranson we would probably have won that game. His salary is only 3.5 million, but he allegedly turned down 4.5 to sign long term with Florida. But even at 3.5 his performance to salary ratio is poor.

 

5. Sutter has 16 pts in 30 games (0.53 PPG). That is not too bad for a cap hit of 4.375 but his plus/minus is a team worst -16. He is contending for the green jacket. He is supposed to be a good skater but he has not looked fast, and he is not a physical player. And his point totals have been helped by very favorable ice time. Overall he has not been good value. 

 

6. Burrows (4.5) and Sbisa (3.6) are getting well paid but they are actually contributing pretty well also. They are are not great value, but they are not bad.

 

GOOD VALUE PLAYERS

 

Naturally, the good values in terms of perfomance per dollar are young guys on entry level and RFA contracts: Horvat, Baertschi, Stecher and other young guys have done well. And the "replacement" type players like Skille, Chaput, Gaunce, and Megna are not paid much and contrbute pretty well on a per dollar basis. Of the veterans, Hansen is of course great value.

 

The basic message is that it is hard to win without a core of good young players who provide good value per dollar. Maybe the Canucks have that young core on the team or in the pipeline but it would take rose-colored glasses to place a high probability of developing a cup contender based on the current group.

 

So I am baffled by Benning's insistence on not trading away players for draft picks at the deadline. I just hope he does not trade AWAY any more draft picks or promising young players.

 

 

I don't believe he said that he wouldn't trade players for picks, I believe he said that he wouldn't ask guys with NTC's to waive. Not going to them and saying "I want you to waive..." is completely different from saying, "So, I have a team calling that's interested in you and they are a playoff team. I'm not going to tell you to waive, but I am going to give you the opportunity to go and compete as opposed to staying here and getting an early start on golf..."

 

2 different approaches, I'm sure if there's an opportunity for Miller to get a shot at the cup, or Burrows, or any other number of players, that there will be a discussion about their immediate future prospects in the NHL.

 

[Davathor]

I came in here looking for an interesting post with actual points per dollar comparisons against the league and 2011's team...

 

I left disappointed

[Alflives]

7 minutes ago, Davathor said:

I came in here looking for an interesting post with actual points per dollar comparisons against the league and 2011's team...

 

I left disappointed

I just have to ask.  Is that Frankenstein's monster you use for your picture thing?

[Davathor]

Just now, Alflives said:

I just have to ask.  Is that Frankenstein's monster you use for your picture thing?

 

It's Taylor Halls face after his teammate skated on it.  And yes.

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, Davathor said:

 

It's Taylor Halls face after his teammate skated on it.  And yes.

Frankenhall

[Pete M]

9 hours ago, S'all Good Man said:

 

You seem like the glass half empty kinda guy.... maybe this will help you: how did Edmonton do with a bunch of kids with little in the way of veteran leadership? 

 

Hall was a 70 to 85 pt guy without vets and without a defence and with horrible goaltending. For one year

[JM_]

29 minutes ago, Pete M said:

Hall was a 70 to 85 pt guy without vets and without a defence and with horrible goaltending. For one year

 

Thats great. I think they earned 67 points that year and his 2 way play stunk. 

 

My point is, would Bo be progressing better with Burr or Megna as line mates? I think we know the answer. 

[JM_]

10 hours ago, Rocksterh8 said:

 

So without that veteran group Kesler would have been a bust huh..... Wow, now that is reaching lmfao

 

That kind of statement really makes me wonder whats going on upstairs. Homerism at it's finest folks. 

 

listen to what Crawford says about having veteran guys in the lineup to be teachers: https://www.nhl.com/canucks/video/ohlund--the-mentor/t-277437438/c-47363703 

 

~45 second mark

 

[Riviera82]

So to nicely dumb it down, our Canucks team is at the top of the cap while being at the bottom of the standings, for the second year in a row and three of the last four.

 

To me that means we have too many players on the roster who are poor value for their cap dollar, and they're not the younger players as they make a relatively low cap hit. That being the case would it not make sense to try and turn these older 'dead cap' players into whatever futures we can get (full rebuild)?

 

Clearly the whole "leadership" and "mentoring" factor of the veterans hasn't been helping our position in the standings for the most part, so could the team actually get much worse without them? After all this hasn't been just a one year anomaly and this soft rebuild we're doing now is just delaying the pain and not giving fans much to get excited about.

 

In my view it's been the recipe for the empty seats which we're seeing more and more of. Fan apathy from seeing the same tired product and hearing the same tired message from management for the last few years, which many of us realize is just BS.

[JamesB]

4 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

I don't believe he said that he wouldn't trade players for picks, I believe he said that he wouldn't ask guys with NTC's to waive. Not going to them and saying "I want you to waive..." is completely different from saying, "So, I have a team calling that's interested in you and they are a playoff team. I'm not going to tell you to waive, but I am going to give you the opportunity to go and compete as opposed to staying here and getting an early start on golf..."

 

2 different approaches, I'm sure if there's an opportunity for Miller to get a shot at the cup, or Burrows, or any other number of players, that there will be a discussion about their immediate future prospects in the NHL.

 

I do hope Benning will at least go that far. He sounded pretty negative about trading players for picks though. Maybe he is just trying to avoid last year's circus when people kept asking about Hammer (and Hansen and others).

 

1 hour ago, Riviera82 said:

So to nicely dumb it down, our Canucks team is at the top of the cap while being at the bottom of the standings, for the second year in a row and three of the last four.

 

To me that means we have too many players on the roster who are poor value for their cap dollar, and they're not the younger players as they make a relatively low cap hit. That being the case would it not make sense to try and turn these older 'dead cap' players into whatever futures we can get (full rebuild)?

 

Clearly the whole "leadership" and "mentoring" factor of the veterans hasn't been helping our position in the standings for the most part, so could the team actually get much worse without them? After all this hasn't been just a one year anomaly and this soft rebuild we're doing now is just delaying the pain and not giving fans much to get excited about.

 

In my view it's been the recipe for the empty seats which we're seeing more and more of. Fan apathy from seeing the same tired product and hearing the same tired message from management for the last few years, which many of us realize is just BS.

This is a good statement by @Riviera82 stating what I was trying to get at in my OP. Yeah, older "dead cap" players can be useful for a team trying to make a Cup run this year if they have cap room late in the year. But they are not good for a rebuild, apart from their value as mentors.

 

But how many expensive mentors do you need, especially when some young leaders are emerging. I think it was smart to keep Burrows this year instead of buying him out, because he is decently productive and he is helping Horvat and Baertschi. And if he could be traded for a second round pick at the deadline as well, that would by very smart asset management in my view.

[Westcoasting]

6 minutes ago, JamesB said:

I do hope Benning will at least go that far. He sounded pretty negative about trading players for picks though. Maybe he is just trying to avoid last year's circus when people kept asking about Hammer (and Hansen and others).

 

This is a good statement by @Riviera82 stating what I was trying to get at in my OP. Yeah, older "dead cap" players can be useful for team trying to make a Cup run this year if they have cap room late in the year. But they are good from the rebuild, apart from their value as mentors. But how many expensive mentors do you need, especially when some young leaders are emerging. I think it was smart to keep Burrows this year instead of buying him out, because he is decently productive and he is helping Horvat and Baertschi. And if he could be traded for a second round pick at the deadline as well, that would by very smart asset management in my view.

I think as this disaster moves on a few of the veterans are going to be for sale... no matter what has been said recently. 

[Standing_Tall#37]

2 hours ago, Westcoasting said:

I think as this disaster moves on a few of the veterans are going to be for sale... no matter what has been said recently. 

Exactly! The Sedins are of no value here being 35-45 pt players...  but if they would want to move, they may become nice complimentary pieces as 2nd-3rd liners on a contending team.

[Beary Sweet]

Even though we are doing terrible this year, the team is still entertaining to watch and that's all I want from this team. Sure winning would make the young players feel good about themselves and motivates them next game to keep doing what they're doing but we have to be honest with ourselves... We have a promising d corps though in Hutton, Juolevi, Guddy, Tryamkin, Brisebois, etc. now we just need more forwards. we got some in Boeser, Lockwood, Rodin in there as well, Gaudette...This team won't make it anywhere. They will be in the bottom 5 and possibly the basement. Don't hate on me. I love the team and the players we have but it's not good enough to compete. Having Patrick next season would look really good and be a good #1 C for this team for many years to come. We just have to do the right thing which is build up on assets and trade pending FAs to teams wanting a playoff run. But it will be couple more seasons till we really be competitive again and start winning President's Trophies again. That's my 2 cents

[xRussianrocket]

Lol we got some overpaid swedish mentors. Overpaid on ufa eriksson for a sweet retirement contract. We ditched Schneider for a 6 million goalie past his prime.  This club is a disaster up and down.  The only value for dollar is the seats in the arena cause nobody wants to see this team play anymore.  

[Rocksterh8]

10 hours ago, S'all Good Man said:

 

listen to what Crawford says about having veteran guys in the lineup to be teachers: https://www.nhl.com/canucks/video/ohlund--the-mentor/t-277437438/c-47363703 

 

~45 second mark

 

 

no one said get rid of all the vets, no one! your arguing the wrong point. Whats wrong with trading a vet that is on the last year of his contract at the deadline? You can always re-sign vets next year. I KNOW you need some vets so stop it already.

[Neko]

On 12/15/2016 at 1:49 AM, Oliewud said:

Mike Gillis traded away 12 picks over a 6 year period. Jim Benning has traded away 12 picks over a 2.5 year period.

He has gotten picks back as well.

6 hours ago, Beary Sweet said:

Having Patrick next season would look really good and be a good #1 C for this team for many years to come. 

This is a weak draft year, Patrick isn't even elite material, Horvat will most likely be the #1C and besides Las Vegas will have a good chance of getting Patrick anyways.

[Neko]

double posted

[Pete M]

12 hours ago, Riviera82 said:

So to nicely dumb it down, our Canucks team is at the top of the cap while being at the bottom of the standings, for the second year in a row and three of the last four.

 

To me that means we have too many players on the roster who are poor value for their cap dollar, and they're not the younger players as they make a relatively low cap hit. That being the case would it not make sense to try and turn these older 'dead cap' players into whatever futures we can get (full rebuild)?

 

Clearly the whole "leadership" and "mentoring" factor of the veterans hasn't been helping our position in the standings for the most part, so could the team actually get much worse without them? After all this hasn't been just a one year anomaly and this soft rebuild we're doing now is just delaying the pain and not giving fans much to get excited about.

 

In my view it's been the recipe for the empty seats which we're seeing more and more of. Fan apathy from seeing the same tired product and hearing the same tired message from management for the last few years, which many of us realize is just BS.

Agree. Fans aren't stupid and the empty seats confirm this...most fans see the team as old and tired that's why they are not coming to watch...JB made things worst by signing another old vet for 6 yrs. 

It must be odd for the players to see the empty seats at home; when in the past the rink was a sell out. Some games are Florida/ Arizona like...OK maybe not that bad, yet.