Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Signing] Canucks sign F Sam Gagner [3 year x $3.15M AAV]


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, J.R. said:

If Hank's gone, he just might be in ours next year.

 

In 2-3 years, maybe there's competition for that spot. In that case one moves to wing. Or you run with two 'offensive' lines as we appear to plan to this year or you trade Gagner to solve any 'problem'.  

 

 

Gagner isn't a good center.  Even Torts even stated that he didn't think he was a effective as a center and was better suited for the wing. 

 

I think/hope we the twins resign for 2 more years (maybe on a year to year basis). 

 

It's pointless to speculate, but either way. even looking at (next years) 2018-19 season, how do you see the lines.  No matter how i look at it I don't see how Gagner fits.  And not I'm not putting sutter on the 4th line, rolling lines is a great theory but never actually works out as planned. Not in tight coaching matches.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mll said:

That's why I think he is applying the Detroit model re the comments about the push from below, the competitiveness etc but you are advocating moving Tanev, Baer etc and that goes against the model (unless they end up being the worst players on the team).  

Part of the Detroit model (to keep your young players developing until they are actually NHL ready) - you can see an element of that in this team's approach - although with all the injuries last year it became a somewhat raw transition period.

 

I think that aspect -  the amount of injuries the team has faced - is being overlooked.  People can look at these signings and protest - ermagerd, where are the kids gonna play - but ironically, a large portion of them were also whining incessantly last year about the lack of depth - the need to use guys like Chaput and Megna.

 

The team went out and added Dahlen and Goldobin to the forward prospect pool - and they've added a couple UFAs to push for spots - and to make the lineup - and team - more competitive.

 

Gagner may not be the cookie cutter option we would have wanted - I much would have preferred Boone Jenner lol - but he does give the team different options and a bit of insulation for the young forwards.

 

With him in the lineup they have the option of youth wingers and a skilled fourth line that may add secondary scoring - where they can insert a young forward that otherwise may not fit in the lineup with a traditional 'fourth line'.   Sutter's line would act as the shutdown/matchup line (move Dorsett up there if healthy to create a spot for Goldobin - if not, perhaps Virtanen lands there with a pair of veterans) - Horvat's line does not need sheltering / can handle harder minutes - the Sedins can face whatever - a guy like Gagner may enable a guy like Goldobin to play tailored minutes with him and be productive, Gaunce there to provide the defensive backbone on that line...

 

ie.

 

Baer Bo Brock

Dank Hank Granny

Eriksson Sutter Dorsett/Virtanen

Gaunce Gagner Goldobin

 

(Burmistrov Chaput Rodin Virtanen Molino)

 

But even with that group of extras, you still have guys like Megna in around the 17/18 spot - where he was last year - and nevertheless was needed in the wake of the M.A.S.H. reality - so the signings in that context make more sense than simply gifting spots to the young players and then when an injury or two occurs, the team is just too shallow to be a good development environment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Gagner isn't a good center.  Even Torts even stated that he didn't think he was a effective as a center and was better suited for the wing. 

 

I think/hope we the twins resign for 2 more years (maybe on a year to year basis). 

 

It's pointless to speculate, but either way. even looking at (next years) 2018-19 season, how do you see the lines.  No matter how i look at it I don't see how Gagner fits.  And not I'm not putting sutter on the 4th line, rolling lines is a great theory but never actually works out as planned. Not in tight coaching matches.  

 

 

 

He's likely better at C than a 19 year old Petterson next year. Were you planning on us being a good team in the next couple years?

 

People and their line numbers...:picard: Sutter will be on a match up line, I could frankly give a crap what arbitrary # you want to assign it. All four of our lines are going to see pretty even 15+/- minutes IMO. Some guys will get more on PP/PK and depending on game. Sutter's line will likely see the 2nd and 3rd most minutes most nights.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, J.R. said:

 

He's likely better at C than a 19 year old Petterson next year. Were you planning on us being a good team in the next couple years?

 

No i was planning in rolling sutter hank and bo for the next 3 years.  Pettersson likely starts in the NHL on the wing.

 

 

Just now, J.R. said:

People and their line numbers... Sutter will be on a match up line, I could frankly give a crap what arbitrary # you want to assign it. All four of our lines are going to see pretty even 15+/- minutes IMO. Some guys will get more on PP/PK and depending on game. Sutter's line will likely see the 2nd and 3rd most minutes most nights.

 

That's the thing.  which team in the NHL rolls four lines the evenly thats see's 15+/- minutes?  Every team has a gap between their top line and bottom lines, a gap of at minimum 6 minutes.  That's a huge variance. 

 

It's honestly one of the stupidest things I constantly see posted over and over on this board.  It's a good theory but doesn't actually work in the real world.  Why because game situations change? Coaches match up players based on the circumstances of the game. 

 

If a team is defending a lead they will play different players, if they are trying to tie the game a different usage of players get more ice.  Now if sutter is a line match/shutdown player and canucks are a bottom feeding team.  Might be hard finding him that 15 min a game when we will be constantly trying to tie the game up.  And clearly him being with Dorsett and gaunce doesn't help the teams odds at getting that game tying goal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

No i was planning in rolling sutter hank and bo for the next 3 years.  Pettersson likely starts in the NHL on the wing.

 

 

That's the thing.  which team in the NHL rolls four lines the evenly thats see's 15+/- minutes?  Every team has a gap between their top line and bottom lines, a gap of at minimum 6 minutes.  That's a huge variance. 

 

It's honestly one of the stupidest things I constantly see posted over and over on this board.  It's a good theory but doesn't actually work in the real world.  Why because game situations change? Coaches match up players based on the circumstances of the game. 

 

If a team is defending a lead they will play different players, if they are trying to tie the game a different usage of players get more ice.  Now if sutter is a line match/shutdown player and canucks are a bottom feeding team.  Might be hard finding him that 15 min a game when we will be constantly trying to tie the game up.  And clearly him being with Dorsett and gaunce doesn't help the teams odds at getting that game tying goal.  

Can't plan assuming Hank's back IMO. A good GM will have contingency plans. Contingency = Gagner.

 

Yeah, hence the +/-. Guys like Horvat who will play lots of 5v5, PK and PP will likely be closer to 18mins. If we don't get a lot of PP's, guys like Gagner or say Goldobin (if he's not in Utica) will probably closer to the 12-14 minute mark depending on game. If we're doing things properly, the Sedins shouldn't be playing more than 16'ish.

 

I don't need a lecture on ice time ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Can't plan assuming Hank's back IMO. A good GM will have contingency plans. Contingency = Gagner.

 

Yeah, hence the +/-. Guys like Horvat who will play lots of 5v5, PK and PP will likely be closer to 18mins. If we don't get a lot of PP's, guys like Gagner or say Goldobin (if he's not in Utica) will probably closer to the 12-14 minute mark depending on game. If we're doing things properly, the Sedins shouldn't be playing more than 16'ish.

 

I don't need a lecture on ice time ;) 

Clearly you do if you think 18 minutes and 12 is "pretty even".  :picard:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Clearly you do if you think 18 minutes and 12 is "pretty even".  :picard:

 

 

*Some nights. 

 

And that's individual players. Horvat's minutes will always be higher than his 5v5 line mates as he PK's on top of 5v5 and PP. Baer's minutes most nights will likely be far closer to that +/-15 minute mark.

 

If anyone here might need a refresher on how ice time is spread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like there's been an unusual amount of heads butting on CDC lately. Ohhh, the offseason ;)

 

Personally, I'm not a fan of Sutter as 4C. I'm in the camp that believes he should center the 3rd (shutdown) line with Granlund and Eriksson flanking him. Now, this is all assuming Goldobin doesn't start the year in Utica, which is definitely a possibility with all of these recent signings. But I liked what I saw out of Goldy on the Sedin line and Granlund is the much more versatile of the two. So theoretically, I think that would be how we get the most out of our lineup. I would even go as far as saying that would quite possibly be the best 3rd line we've iced in years. They can do a little bit of everything. 

 

So that just leaves us with Gagner. He's a bit of a square peg in a round hole and I don't say that because I don't like the signing. I'm 100% OK with it actually, as it provides us with depth, insurance if a C goes down or if/when Henrik retires and it boosts our pathetic PP. But he's probably the hardest guy to slot into our lineup because we don't really know where he fits at this point. I imagine he'll be juggled around on multiple lines in the preseason to see if anything sticks, but for the time being I'd say he centers our 4th line (with 1st unit PP time) until an injury occurs, whether that be at center or on the wing. I would also consider playing him with Bo and Baer in the unlikely scenario that Brock starts the year in Utica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Players progressing faster never happens before right?

Great, then so does trading other ones :)

 

Quote

Problem is people on here are of the belief that every single move JB makes works out perfectly/exactly as planned and will defend everything to the death. 

Copious straw.  There's nothing wrong with 3 years, even if you believe the Sedins have 2 or more after this year (which I don't).  "Worst-case" you play him on the wing, likewise with Sutter, or... TRADE him for something.  Anything.  He'll only be hitting 30 and is a free assetWaive him if he's that upsetting.  There's no rational downside here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Great, then so does trading other ones :)

 

Copious straw.  There's nothing wrong with 3 years, even if you believe the Sedins have 2 or more after this year (which I don't).  "Worst-case" you play him on the wing, likewise with Sutter, or... TRADE him for something.  Anything.  He'll only be hitting 30 and is a free assetWaive him if he's that upsetting.  There's no rational downside here.

Yes, there's risk he plays like he did in Philly becomes unmovable. aka chris higgins.  3 years isn't the end of the world but 2 years would have been better. Is it really that hard to admit that two years would have been more ideal for canucks situation, when it clearly is.  There's no straw involves just stating hard facts.  People take anything suggested in the slightest way differently than JB has done as spiteful hate towards him and can't handle it. 

 

 

No what else would have been more ideal, is signing gagner to a 2 year, 900k deal.......now i'll just wait for someone to come in and defend why the 3.15 cap hit is better....good grief.  and people think TSN is bad for homerism. this board is on par.  Nothing MGMT does is wrong, everything they do is perfect, with zero need for criticism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

  No matter how i look at it I don't see how Gagner fits.  

 

 

He is an asset that can be used for other assets if Vancouver chooses or he can be used to fill in the line up while the prospects find their feet.   He is not a long term saviour so why so worried about his "fit".   Worst case scenario is you waive him at some point and you don't even lose anything really as he didn't cost you an asset to obtain.   He would be claimed later in the season with almost certainty - veteran who averages above 0.5 pts/game is a valuable commodity in today's NHL.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously portions of this fan base keep forgetting what they are upset about. Torts season "Stop only playing 2 lines" Willie Season "Stop rolling 4 lines and putting Megna with the Sedins and Bo on the 3rd line". We have no depth, we haven't had any decent, reliable depth since our Presidents Trophies days. Willie had no choice but to use the trash pieces we had and make them work with our somewhat decent pieces, didn't work cause injuries had us playing Megna and Chaput a lot. A line with Chaput Megna and Gaunce would have been embarrassed so he spread our AHLers out with our NHLers whereas Torts loaded up 2 lines and glued bums like Sestito, Dalpe to the bench. Seems like both options weren't good and did not work out.

 

So what does Benning go and do? Benning goes out and gets relatively cheap, short term depth options. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. We can finally have a roster where if things go wrong, and they will go wrong with this team, we have depth options that aren't embarrassing like Megna (sorry for continuously pooping on him he is a very good skater but yeah we seen way too much of him) and now we don't need to Deadmonton our prospects by throwing them in too soon. We can have our kids develop properly in the system, and if we get injury riddled they can get some ice time with the big boys. Some people seem to forget for the vast majority of last year we were not a bottom 3 team. Only after we traded what little NHL depth we had left at the trade deadline did things really unravel for this team. We were injury riddled, then we moved 2 very good middle 6 pieces for a young AHLer, and an unsigned teenager. Of course this team was gonna finish bottom 2 after you move what little you had left at the deadline. This team is not a bottom 3 team when healthy, even last year. We lack depth to sustain long term injuries. Benning has made moves to remedy that and also protect kids from being exposed too early.

 

Edit: I feel like I will be ranting about this all summer. Lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

Obviously portions of this fan base keep forgetting what they are upset about. Torts season "Stop only playing 2 lines" Willie Season "Stop rolling 4 lines and putting Megna with the Sedins and Bo on the 3rd line". We have no depth, we haven't had any decent, reliable depth since our Presidents Trophies days. Willie had no choice but to use the trash pieces we had and make them work with our somewhat decent pieces, didn't work cause injuries had us playing Megna and Chaput a lot. A line with Chaput Megna and Gaunce would have been embarrassed so he spread our AHLers out with our NHLers whereas Torts loaded up 2 lines and glued bums like Sestito, Dalpe to the bench. Seems like both options weren't good and did not work out.

Torts finished with 83 points,

WD finished with 75 and 69 points. 

 

Sure JB signed a few players but how is that any different than the similar players we've had.  Matthias, Santo, Richardson, Vbrata, Prust, Higgins, Vey.

 

I think the signings have far more to do with letting the youth develop slowly than it does with loading up this team for a playoff push this year.

 

4 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

So what does Benning go and do? Benning goes out and gets relatively cheap, short term depth options. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. We can finally have a roster where if things go wrong, and they will go wrong with this team, we have depth options that aren't embarrassing like Megna (sorry for continuously pooping on him he is a very good skater but yeah we seen way too much of him) and now we don't need to Deadmonton our prospects by throwing them in too soon. We can have our kids develop properly in the system, and if we get injury riddled they can get some ice time with the big boys.

 

Some people seem to forget for the vast majority of last year we were not a bottom 3 team. Only after we traded what little NHL depth we had left at the trade deadline did things really unravel for this team. We were injury riddled, then we moved 2 very good middle 6 pieces for a young AHLer, and an unsigned teenager.

Both coaches suffered massive injuries to their core players.  People seems to forget how badly injured canucks were in torts' season.  We were top 10 up until the injuries started piling up in Jan.  We lost our #1 goalie, Hank broke his rib, Burrows broke his jaw, Santo missed half the season, Booth well injured again, Edler also missed 20 games.  WD played megna, Chaput,  Torts has Stanton, Dalpe, welsh, Schroeder, jensen

 

4 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

Of course this team was gonna finish bottom 2 after you move what little you had left at the deadline. This team is not a bottom 3 team when healthy, even last year.

In the last 4 years we've been 6th worst, 3rd worst and 2nd worst. 

 

If it happened one time, sure we can say yah "bad luck", if it happens two times, we could right it off as just being "really unlucky", but if happens three times, you have to start accepting it.   We are a team that has bee relying on players who put in hard minutes.  The twins aren't getting any younger, edler and tanev are being relied on way to heavily and their bodies can't handle it.  This team if everything goes right, (completely healthy, consistent goal tending, career high for young players) is a bubble team.  That's if everything goes well.  If the last 4 years has told us anything, things never go right for us.  Our division just stacked up even more,   Realistically we are a bottom 10 bottom 5 team in the league.  If you don't want to be disappointed this year. we need to stop worrying about team season success, and worry more about player growth, player growth bring hope of a brighter tomorrow.    

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • b3. unpinned this topic
  • -SN- locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...