Canuck even strength offense

[JamesB]

In another thread @higgyfan posted some interesting data about 5-on-5 production. Here is the data.

 

@higgyfan wrote the following:

 

If they sign Brock to $6.5mx3 and he has another year like last season, he will be very difficult to trade (and not worth that much).

Brock has become a power play specialist, while Garland has the best 5 on 5 record on the team.  He is also a terrific play

maker, which there are too few on the Canucks.

 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/analytics-garland-canucks-5-on-5-production#:~:text= Garland is the Canucks best forward at,Chiasson (0.75) 14 Jason Dickinson (0.55) More

 

Judging by points per 60 minutes at 5-on-5, the Canucks really only have two first-line forwards on the team — Garland and Miller.

 

First-line rate

1. Conor Garland (2.34)
2. JT Miller (2.12)

 

Second-line rate

3. Tanner Pearson (1.79)

 

Third-line rate

4. Bo Horvat (1.46)
5. Vasily Podkozlin (1.37)
6. Tyler Motte (1.36)
7. Juho Lammikko (1.35)
8. Matthew Highmore (1.29)
9. Elias Pettersson (1.21)
10. Nils Hoglander (1.2)

 

Fourth-line rate

11. Brock Boeser (1.0)
12. Justin Dowling (0.94)
13. Alex Chiasson (0.75)
14. Jason Dickinson (0.55)

 

Here are my comments:

 

Yes, there was a lot of talk all season and how good Garland's 5-on-5 numbers were and how bad Boeser's were. However, it is important to remember the role of luck in goal scoring. Sometimes you run into a hot goalie and sometimes you run into a goalie who lets in some soft goals. And sample size is an issue, even for a full season. For those reasons a lot of people, including me,  prefer to look at on-ice expected goals per 60 minutes as a measure of offence. These numbers look a lot closer to the "conventional wisdom", although there are still a few surprises. Here are the numbers for all forwards who played at least 150 minutes. And I am using all even strength situations, not just 5-on-5. The data is from Natural Stat Trick

 

First Line Level:

 

Pearson  3.18

Miller 3.06

Pettersson 3.03

 

Second Line Level

 

Garland 2.9

Boeser 2.88

Horvat 2.82

Hoglander 2.77

 

Third Line Level

 

Dickinson 2.41

Podkolzin 2.4

 

Fourth Line Level 

Chiasson 2.25

Petan 2.24

Motte 2.21

Highmore 2.09

Lammikko 2.01

 

Not even legitimate 4th line level:

 

Dowling 1.55

 

There are some interesting implications. of these numbers.

 

1. Boeser was better than the scoring numbers suggest. The same is even more true of Dickinson (who has taken a lot of criticism). Due to regression to the mean we would expect both those guys to have "bounce back" seasons next year. If you were a GM trying to pick up players cheaply you would look for guys like Boeser and Dickinson. Also, Dickinson is good defensively and, next year, he could be the solid 3rd line center people were hoping he would be this year [or, maybe not -- see further discussion in later posts].  

 

2. Also, expect a big year from Petey next year. He was very good in the 2nd half this year and,  if anything, regression to the mean suggests that he will be even better next year. 

 

3. Pearson is surprisingly good.

 

4. There was a lot of positive buzz about Lammikko this year, as he was a pleasant surprise. However, overall, his offensive numbers are not very good. Of course, he was there for defence more than for offense and I have no problem with Lammikko and HIghmore as 2/3 of a cheap, fast, 4th line. Add in a cheap physical "sandpaper" guy on that line and it would be quite valuable relative to cap hit. .

 

5. Hoglander makes a lot happen offensively, But he does need to tighten up his defence. He plays with a bit an edge and has decent speed and we might expect a decent season from him next year as well. Podkolzin is better defensively and has a strong all-around game and a great work ethic. Expect him to be a solid top-6 forward next  year. 

 

6. In terms of age and cap issues I still think Miller is the likeliest forward to be traded, especially if the Canucks could get a high quality RD and good center prospect in return.  

It might not be the best time to trade Boeser or try to unload Dickinson. And I certainly wouldn't trade Garland. 

 

7. I also expect Myers to be traded. He would have some value in the trade market and, in my view, is not a great fit for the Canucks as I think he is not a good partner for either Hughes or OEL. It would not be crazy to try to sign Stecher as a cheap RHD. And Rathbone could help the D as a third pairing guy would can move the puck and improve the number of clean exits. But the Canucks still need a legitimate top pairing RHD. I don't think Myers is that guy.  

 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by JamesB

[Warhippy]

I loooove numbers.

 

Great write up

[boziffous]

Good stuff @JamesB

 

Glad to see that Pearson put up these good numbers. I like Pearson and what he brings to the team and I feel like a lot of fans around here severely underrate him. I'm also happy to see that Hoglander put up some decent numbers here as well, as it seems a lot of fans are down on him even though he is only 21 years old!

 

I'm not sure I can see Dickinson ever being a 3rd line center in the NHL, as he just doesn't seem to have enough offense and isn't very good at faceoffs either. A 3rd line winger on a shutdown line, maybe.

[BPA]

Nice write up.  So maybe Boeser doesn’t suck.  

[AK_19]

3 hours ago, JamesB said:

In another thread @higgyfan posted some interesting data about 5-on-5 production. Here is the data.

 

@higgyfan wrote the following:

 

If they sign Brock to $6.5mx3 and he has another year like last season, he will be very difficult to trade (and not worth that much).

Brock has become a power play specialist, while Garland has the best 5 on 5 record on the team.  He is also a terrific play

maker, which there are too few on the Canucks.

 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/analytics-garland-canucks-5-on-5-production#:~:text= Garland is the Canucks best forward at,Chiasson (0.75) 14 Jason Dickinson (0.55) More

 

Judging by points per 60 minutes at 5-on-5, the Canucks really only have two first-line forwards on the team — Garland and Miller.

 

First-line rate

1. Conor Garland (2.34)
2. JT Miller (2.12)

 

Second-line rate

3. Tanner Pearson (1.79)

 

Third-line rate

4. Bo Horvat (1.46)
5. Vasily Podkozlin (1.37)
6. Tyler Motte (1.36)
7. Juho Lammikko (1.35)
8. Matthew Highmore (1.29)
9. Elias Pettersson (1.21)
10. Nils Hoglander (1.2)

 

Fourth-line rate

11. Brock Boeser (1.0)
12. Justin Dowling (0.94)
13. Alex Chiasson (0.75)
14. Jason Dickinson (0.55)

 

Here are my comments:

 

Yes, there was a lot of talk all season and how good Garland's 5-on-5 numbers were and how bad Boeser's were. However, it is important to remember the role of luck in goal scoring. Sometimes you run into a hot goalie and sometimes you run into a goalie who lets in some soft goals. And sample size is an issue, even for a full season. For those reasons a lot of people, including me,  prefer to look at on-ice expected goals per 60 minutes as a measure of offence. These numbers look a lot closer to the "conventional wisdom", although there are still a few surprises. Here are the numbers for all forwards who played at least 150 minutes. And I am using all even strength situations, not just 5-on-5. The data is from Natural Stat Trick

 

First Line Level:

 

Pearson  3.18

Miller 3.06

Pettersson 3.03

 

Second Line Level

 

Garland 2.9

Boeser 2.88

Horvat 2.82

Hoglander 2.77

 

Third Line Level

 

Dickinson 2.41

Podkolzin 2.4

 

Fourth Line Level 

Chiasson 2.25

Petan 2.24

Motte 2.21

Highmore 2.09

Lammikko 2.01

 

Not even legitimate 4th line level:

 

Dowling 1.55

 

There are some interesting implications. of these numbers.

 

1. Boeser was better than the scoring numbers suggest. The same is even more true of Dickinson (who has taken a lot of criticism). Due to regression to the mean we would expect both those guys to have "bounce back" seasons next year. If you were a GM trying to pick up players cheaply you would look for guys like Boeser and Dickinson. Also, Dickinson is good defensively and, next year, he could be the solid 3rd line center people were hoping he would be this year.  

 

2. Also, expect a big year from Petey next year. He was very good in the 2nd half this year and,  if anything, regression to the mean suggests that he will be even better next year. 

 

3. Pearson is surprisingly good.

 

4. There was a lot of positive buzz about Lammikko this year, as he was a pleasant surprise. However, overall, his offensive numbers are not very good. Of course, he was there for defence more than for offense and I have no problem with Lammikko and HIghmore as 2/3 of a cheap, fast, 4th line. Add in a cheap physical "sandpaper" guy on that line and it would be quite valuable relative to cap hit. .

 

5. Hoglander makes a lot happen offensively, But he does need to tighten up his defence. He plays with a bit an edge and has decent speed and we might expect a decent season from him next year as well. Podkolzin is better defensively and has a strong all-around game and a great work ethic. Expect him to be a solid top-6 forward next  year. 

 

6. In terms of age and cap issues I still think Miller is the likeliest forward to be traded, especially if the Canucks could get a high quality RD and good center prospect in return.  

It might not be the best time to trade Boeser or try to unload Dickinson. And I certainly wouldn't trade Garland. 

 

7. I also expect Myers to be traded. He would have some value in the trade market and, in my view, is not a great fit for the Canucks as I think he is not a good partner for either Hughes or OEL. It would not be crazy to try to sign Stecher as a cheap RHD. And Rathbone could help the D as a third pairing guy would can move the puck and improve the number of clean exits. But the Canucks still need a legitimate top pairing RHD. I don't think Myers is that guy.  

 

 

I agree with mostly everything except Dickenson being a third line C. He's simply too poor on the faceoff to be a defensive centre on the third line and I see no reason why that would change. 

[JamesB]

1 hour ago, boziffous said:

Good stuff @JamesB

 

....

 

I'm not sure I can see Dickinson ever being a 3rd line center in the NHL, as he just doesn't seem to have enough offense and isn't very good at faceoffs either. A 3rd line winger on a shutdown line, maybe.

 

45 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

I agree with mostly everything except Dickenson being a third line C. He's simply too poor on the faceoff to be a defensive centre on the third line and I see no reason why that would change. 

Thanks for the comments. Some pushback on Dickenson as 3C and I cannot really disagree. Here are the faceoff numbers for each guy who took over 100 faceoffs. The number is the % won.

 

Horvat 57%

Richardson 57% (with Canucks)

Miller 54%

Lammikko 51%

Petey 44%

Dickinson 43%.

 

(It is clear that the Canucks were a very good faceoff team overall. It actually makes less difference than most people would think at 5-on-5 but it is important on special teams as possessions last longer on special teams.)

 

And, for Dickinson, that is pretty close to his career average. Probably not good enough to play 3C. So I agree, looks like the wing for him. And of course the Canucks would like to unload him to free up cap space if they could. But if he stays on the team he might actually be an asset next year as he is good defensively and should contribute more offensively. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by JamesB

[Diamonds]

4 hours ago, JamesB said:

In another thread @higgyfan posted some interesting data about 5-on-5 production. Here is the data.

 

@higgyfan wrote the following:

 

If they sign Brock to $6.5mx3 and he has another year like last season, he will be very difficult to trade (and not worth that much).

Brock has become a power play specialist, while Garland has the best 5 on 5 record on the team.  He is also a terrific play

maker, which there are too few on the Canucks.

 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/analytics-garland-canucks-5-on-5-production#:~:text= Garland is the Canucks best forward at,Chiasson (0.75) 14 Jason Dickinson (0.55) More

 

Judging by points per 60 minutes at 5-on-5, the Canucks really only have two first-line forwards on the team — Garland and Miller.

 

First-line rate

1. Conor Garland (2.34)
2. JT Miller (2.12)

 

Second-line rate

3. Tanner Pearson (1.79)

 

Third-line rate

4. Bo Horvat (1.46)
5. Vasily Podkozlin (1.37)
6. Tyler Motte (1.36)
7. Juho Lammikko (1.35)
8. Matthew Highmore (1.29)
9. Elias Pettersson (1.21)
10. Nils Hoglander (1.2)

 

Fourth-line rate

11. Brock Boeser (1.0)
12. Justin Dowling (0.94)
13. Alex Chiasson (0.75)
14. Jason Dickinson (0.55)

 

Here are my comments:

 

Yes, there was a lot of talk all season and how good Garland's 5-on-5 numbers were and how bad Boeser's were. However, it is important to remember the role of luck in goal scoring. Sometimes you run into a hot goalie and sometimes you run into a goalie who lets in some soft goals. And sample size is an issue, even for a full season. For those reasons a lot of people, including me,  prefer to look at on-ice expected goals per 60 minutes as a measure of offence. These numbers look a lot closer to the "conventional wisdom", although there are still a few surprises. Here are the numbers for all forwards who played at least 150 minutes. And I am using all even strength situations, not just 5-on-5. The data is from Natural Stat Trick

 

First Line Level:

 

Pearson  3.18

Miller 3.06

Pettersson 3.03

 

Second Line Level

 

Garland 2.9

Boeser 2.88

Horvat 2.82

Hoglander 2.77

 

Third Line Level

 

Dickinson 2.41

Podkolzin 2.4

 

Fourth Line Level 

Chiasson 2.25

Petan 2.24

Motte 2.21

Highmore 2.09

Lammikko 2.01

 

Not even legitimate 4th line level:

 

Dowling 1.55

 

There are some interesting implications. of these numbers.

 

1. Boeser was better than the scoring numbers suggest. The same is even more true of Dickinson (who has taken a lot of criticism). Due to regression to the mean we would expect both those guys to have "bounce back" seasons next year. If you were a GM trying to pick up players cheaply you would look for guys like Boeser and Dickinson. Also, Dickinson is good defensively and, next year, he could be the solid 3rd line center people were hoping he would be this year.  

 

2. Also, expect a big year from Petey next year. He was very good in the 2nd half this year and,  if anything, regression to the mean suggests that he will be even better next year. 

 

3. Pearson is surprisingly good.

 

4. There was a lot of positive buzz about Lammikko this year, as he was a pleasant surprise. However, overall, his offensive numbers are not very good. Of course, he was there for defence more than for offense and I have no problem with Lammikko and HIghmore as 2/3 of a cheap, fast, 4th line. Add in a cheap physical "sandpaper" guy on that line and it would be quite valuable relative to cap hit. .

 

5. Hoglander makes a lot happen offensively, But he does need to tighten up his defence. He plays with a bit an edge and has decent speed and we might expect a decent season from him next year as well. Podkolzin is better defensively and has a strong all-around game and a great work ethic. Expect him to be a solid top-6 forward next  year. 

 

6. In terms of age and cap issues I still think Miller is the likeliest forward to be traded, especially if the Canucks could get a high quality RD and good center prospect in return.  

It might not be the best time to trade Boeser or try to unload Dickinson. And I certainly wouldn't trade Garland. 

 

7. I also expect Myers to be traded. He would have some value in the trade market and, in my view, is not a great fit for the Canucks as I think he is not a good partner for either Hughes or OEL. It would not be crazy to try to sign Stecher as a cheap RHD. And Rathbone could help the D as a third pairing guy would can move the puck and improve the number of clean exits. But the Canucks still need a legitimate top pairing RHD. I don't think Myers is that guy.  

 

 

Interesting numbers, I love seeing the work put into a post like this. 

 

I definitely agree with your point on Pearson being surprisingly good, his numbers do kind of jump off the page. Not really sure why there's been a big push to move him as I think he provides good value for his contract. I don't expect him to suddenly start putting up 50-60 points but lines definitely seem to perform better when he's on them.

[AK_19]

1 hour ago, JamesB said:

 

Thanks for the comments. Some pushback on Dickenson as 3C and I cannot really disagree. Here are the faceoff numbers for each guy who took over 100 faceoffs. The number is the % won.

 

Horvat 57%

Richardson 57% (with Canucks)

Miller 54%

Lammikko 51%

Petey 44%

Dickinson 43%.

 

(It is clear that the Canucks were a very good faceoff team overall. It actually makes less difference than most people would think at 5-on-5 but it is important on special teams as possessions last longer on special teams.)

 

And, for Dickinson, that is pretty close to his career average. Probably not good enough to play 3C. So I agree, looks like the wing for him. And of course the Canucks would like to unload him to free up cap space if they could. But if he stays on the team he might actually be an asset next year as he is good defensively and should contribute more offensively. 

Jeez I did not realize Petey was that bad, I'm more concerned about trading Miller after seeing that. 

[JamesB]

29 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

Jeez I did not realize Petey was that bad, I'm more concerned about trading Miller after seeing that. 

Yes, faceoffs are the weakest part of Petey's game. You don't see him taking face-offs on the PK or PP for this reason, especially as Horvat is one of the best face-off guys in the league. If Miller is traded, the Canucks would probably become a below-average faceoff team, and Horvat would probably lead the league in face-offs taken. But, as I mentioned before. it is not that big a deal at 5-on-5. On the PK Horvat and Lammikko would take the faceoffs and on the PP it would be mostly Horvat. (Same with late in the game on key D-zone faceoffs.)

[bishopshodan]

50 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

Jeez I did not realize Petey was that bad, I'm more concerned about trading Miller after seeing that. 

We need to keep all 3 of our top centres.

 

[hammertime]

1 hour ago, AK_19 said:

Jeez I did not realize Petey was that bad, I'm more concerned about trading Miller after seeing that. 

This is much improved for Petey. And why Miller has been taking the majority of draws for him. 

[hammertime]

41 minutes ago, JamesB said:

Yes, faceoffs are the weakest part of Petey's game. You don't see him taking face-offs on the PK or PP for this reason, especially as Horvat is one of the best face-off guys in the league. If Miller is traded, the Canucks would probably become a below-average faceoff team, and Horvat would probably lead the league in face-offs taken. But, as I mentioned before. it is not that big a deal at 5-on-5. On the PK Horvat and Lammikko would take the faceoffs and on the PP it would be mostly Horvat. (Same with late in the game on key D-zone faceoffs.)

Doesn't Horvat already lead the league in FO's taken or close to it for several years running. 

[shazzam]

Boeser doesn't generate much offense. You got to get him the puck and make sure he has 2 whole seconds to make a shot

[JamesB]

2 hours ago, hammertime said:

Doesn't Horvat already lead the league in FO's taken or close to it for several years running. 

Yes, he is normally close to the league lead in FO's won and FO's taken. This year I think he was leading in both categories but his late injury kept his totals down a bit. 

[JamesB]

2 hours ago, shazzam said:

Boeser doesn't generate much offense. You got to get him the puck and make sure he has 2 whole seconds to make a shot

Yes, that is one of the knocks on Boeser. He does not drive play. Petey, Miller and Horvat do drive play and Boeser's role is as a finisher. He is a good player but his QO is definitely too high for what he does. It's all about performance relative to cap hit. The big question mark is whether he will agree to a reasonable cap hit or,  failing that, if JR can get a good asset in trade for him. 

 

Miller is great value at his current cap hit but would not be good value at a cap hit of 8 million plus, especially as this past year was almost certainly a career year for him that he is not likely to repeat. 

[iceman64]

10 hours ago, JamesB said:

In another thread @higgyfan posted some interesting data about 5-on-5 production. Here is the data.

 

@higgyfan wrote the following:

 

If they sign Brock to $6.5mx3 and he has another year like last season, he will be very difficult to trade (and not worth that much).

Brock has become a power play specialist, while Garland has the best 5 on 5 record on the team.  He is also a terrific play

maker, which there are too few on the Canucks.

 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/analytics-garland-canucks-5-on-5-production#:~:text= Garland is the Canucks best forward at,Chiasson (0.75) 14 Jason Dickinson (0.55) More

 

Judging by points per 60 minutes at 5-on-5, the Canucks really only have two first-line forwards on the team — Garland and Miller.

 

First-line rate

1. Conor Garland (2.34)
2. JT Miller (2.12)

 

Second-line rate

3. Tanner Pearson (1.79)

 

Third-line rate

4. Bo Horvat (1.46)
5. Vasily Podkozlin (1.37)
6. Tyler Motte (1.36)
7. Juho Lammikko (1.35)
8. Matthew Highmore (1.29)
9. Elias Pettersson (1.21)
10. Nils Hoglander (1.2)

 

Fourth-line rate

11. Brock Boeser (1.0)
12. Justin Dowling (0.94)
13. Alex Chiasson (0.75)
14. Jason Dickinson (0.55)

 

Here are my comments:

 

Yes, there was a lot of talk all season and how good Garland's 5-on-5 numbers were and how bad Boeser's were. However, it is important to remember the role of luck in goal scoring. Sometimes you run into a hot goalie and sometimes you run into a goalie who lets in some soft goals. And sample size is an issue, even for a full season. For those reasons a lot of people, including me,  prefer to look at on-ice expected goals per 60 minutes as a measure of offence. These numbers look a lot closer to the "conventional wisdom", although there are still a few surprises. Here are the numbers for all forwards who played at least 150 minutes. And I am using all even strength situations, not just 5-on-5. The data is from Natural Stat Trick

 

First Line Level:

 

Pearson  3.18

Miller 3.06

Pettersson 3.03

 

Second Line Level

 

Garland 2.9

Boeser 2.88

Horvat 2.82

Hoglander 2.77

 

Third Line Level

 

Dickinson 2.41

Podkolzin 2.4

 

Fourth Line Level 

Chiasson 2.25

Petan 2.24

Motte 2.21

Highmore 2.09

Lammikko 2.01

 

Not even legitimate 4th line level:

 

Dowling 1.55

 

There are some interesting implications. of these numbers.

 

1. Boeser was better than the scoring numbers suggest. The same is even more true of Dickinson (who has taken a lot of criticism). Due to regression to the mean we would expect both those guys to have "bounce back" seasons next year. If you were a GM trying to pick up players cheaply you would look for guys like Boeser and Dickinson. Also, Dickinson is good defensively and, next year, he could be the solid 3rd line center people were hoping he would be this year [or, maybe not -- see further discussion in later posts].  

 

2. Also, expect a big year from Petey next year. He was very good in the 2nd half this year and,  if anything, regression to the mean suggests that he will be even better next year. 

 

3. Pearson is surprisingly good.

 

4. There was a lot of positive buzz about Lammikko this year, as he was a pleasant surprise. However, overall, his offensive numbers are not very good. Of course, he was there for defence more than for offense and I have no problem with Lammikko and HIghmore as 2/3 of a cheap, fast, 4th line. Add in a cheap physical "sandpaper" guy on that line and it would be quite valuable relative to cap hit. .

 

5. Hoglander makes a lot happen offensively, But he does need to tighten up his defence. He plays with a bit an edge and has decent speed and we might expect a decent season from him next year as well. Podkolzin is better defensively and has a strong all-around game and a great work ethic. Expect him to be a solid top-6 forward next  year. 

 

6. In terms of age and cap issues I still think Miller is the likeliest forward to be traded, especially if the Canucks could get a high quality RD and good center prospect in return.  

It might not be the best time to trade Boeser or try to unload Dickinson. And I certainly wouldn't trade Garland. 

 

7. I also expect Myers to be traded. He would have some value in the trade market and, in my view, is not a great fit for the Canucks as I think he is not a good partner for either Hughes or OEL. It would not be crazy to try to sign Stecher as a cheap RHD. And Rathbone could help the D as a third pairing guy would can move the puck and improve the number of clean exits. But the Canucks still need a legitimate top pairing RHD. I don't think Myers is that guy.  

 

 

I don't see Tree going anywhere since his size does matter especially since that's a Canucks need besides "sandpaper" as we needed in Rous etc when JB finally caught on to exactly how rough a run in the bigger physical division of ours but the best out there at the time and hopefully we can do it again but not getting injured and throwing a wrench into things so JR mentioned it but to what degree can he pull it off with what will be available to him is the big question but hopefully we get there and depth for it too... Fingers crossed!

[hammertime]

24 minutes ago, iceman64 said:

I don't see Tree going anywhere since his size does matter especially since that's a Canucks need besides "sandpaper" as we needed in Rous etc when JB finally caught on to exactly how rough a run in the bigger physical division of ours but the best out there at the time and hopefully we can do it again but not getting injured and throwing a wrench into things so JR mentioned it but to what degree can he pull it off with what will be available to him is the big question but hopefully we get there and depth for it too... Fingers crossed!

I wonder if Ferland had been healthy how far they could have gone in the bubble. 

[spook007]

Thanks for great write up James. 
 

Great to see by numbers, how well Pearson actually performs... never understood the drive to send him packing. 

Good job

 

[Ilunga]

7 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

We need to keep all 3 of our top centres.

 

We can afford to do that next year however the year after those 3 guys will probably be taking up over a quarter of our cap space. 

 

We don't have quality prospects coming through that will be on ELC's to balance them out. 

 

Cup winning teams are built through drafting 

 

https://puckprose.com/2021/07/20/nhl-draft-teams-best-draft-pick-time/

 

While Jim has drafted decently players like Hughes and Petersson, they aren't giving us those few years on cheaper contracts to help build a contender.

 

While I appreciate what Hughes brings to our team he gets the same amount $7,850,000 AAV as Hedman ?

 Both have 6 years left on their contract. Hedman is a true  franchise D- man, his defensive game is just as good as his offensive game, a complete D- man.

He scored 85 points in 82 games this year.

Hughes scored 68 points in 76.

He is nowhere near the defenseman Hedman is.

 

And before anyone brings age into the discussion Lidstrom won the first of his Norris Trophies at Victors age.

If anyone reminds me of Nik it's Victor and he has already won one.

 

That however is not my point.

 

My point is using cap space and the draft wisely. 

 

The real contenders are masters of this, we not so much.

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, Ilunga said:

We can afford to do that next year however the year after those 3 guys will probably be taking up over a quarter of our cap space. 

 

We don't have quality prospects coming through that will be on ELC's to balance them out. 

 

Cup winning teams are built through drafting 

 

https://puckprose.com/2021/07/20/nhl-draft-teams-best-draft-pick-time/

 

While Jim has drafted decently players like Hughes and Petersson, they aren't giving us those few years on cheaper contracts to help build a contender.

 

While I appreciate what Hughes brings to our team he gets the same amount $7,850,000 AAV as Hedman ?

 Both have 6 years left on their contract. Hedman is a true  franchise D- man, his defensive game is just as good as his offensive game, a complete D- man.

He scored 85 points in 82 games this year.

Hughes scored 68 points in 76.

He is nowhere near the defenseman Hedman is.

 

And before anyone brings age into the discussion Lidstrom won the first of his Norris Trophies at Victors age.

If anyone reminds me of Nik it's Victor and he has already won one.

 

That however is not my point.

 

My point is using cap space and the draft wisely. 

 

The real contenders are masters of this, we not so much.

TB ... Miller makes 850k LESS on his deal playing here, then he did in the US. It's like beating a dead horse.   Those guys taxes at 36.4 vs 53%...well you do the math.   Their "discounts" aren't as big as you might think.    They are masters all right - of drafting well and LUCKY enough to afford an extra Stamkos plus (think about what we could do with say 100 million instead of 81.5) ... Absolutely agree Hedman is better.    QHs would have to be getting over 9 to have the same salary here in Vancouver.   It's not apples and apples. 

 

I absolutely agree drafting is key, as are an ability to make the right trades.   Quin was a trade master.    Nonis trading for Luongo ...Linden trade ... I can see why Millers, Brocks and even Horvats name comes up.   Not sure how Allvin will work towards making this team a contender ... we are close as far as becoming a playoff team.   Lidstrom couldn't win until the competition thinned aged out ... Hedman has got some very steep competition now, always nominated ... Rafalksi, Gonchar, Phanuef vs Makar, Josi, Fox, etc etc is quite the higher level ... QHs is likely going to have to score 100 points to beat out these guys ... tough to do.  Only a few ever have.    Hedman is probably the most complete D in the league.  

 

Your absolutely right though - having players punching above their caps is what makes a contender - an entire group of them.   TB ... you might not know this, but if you add that extra year (8), and then go to the Gavingroup calculator - Stamkos is making the same net pay that he was offered in SJ ... take a gander at what they offered him.   Hedman would have to make over 10 x 7 in most Canadian cities to get the same amount of guaranteed money.   They for sure are the envy of the league. 

Edited May 21, 2022 by IBatch