[Signing] Canucks sign Ilya Mikheyev

[Smashian Kassian]

 

[kenhodgejr]

Im really happy about this signing. Great move by Canucks new management 

[ButterBean]

Petey/Miller/Boeser/Horvat/Garland/Mikheyev/Podkolzin/Kuzmenko/Pearson/Hoglander. We got a surplus of forwards right now somebody has to be on their way out…

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

 

"hands of stone"? 

 

 

[Darius]

21 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I don't think we are close to our window so we either have patience and don't force it by getting rid of good players for top 3 dmen or we distribute picks to shed cap if you're really impatient on a contract like OEL's.

 

This team never ever takes advantage of teams when they're in a crunch. We never pick off the teams that are strapped for cap space and we never leave extra cap room to take advantage of those times.

 

We already know we need to get rid of contracts already and I anticipate this crew will be looking at already finding ways to do so. I just think it's dumb to do it in the form of near-sighted trades.

 

The whole point of being a good gm is finding value contracts. So when you get them, don't ship them out. Garland is under a good term at a good cap hit and it runs into a potential window of a competitive team. The timing is right with him. We know how he fits on the team. That was "supposedly" a down year for him. I just think it's a horrible idea that we will regret doing if we get rid of him. Similar with how Toronto let Hyman walk. 

Garland makes close to 5 million per year, its not like its a steal for sub 20 goals and about 50 points.  Probably closer to fair to good value.  Which is fine.  I dont have a problem with Garland, i see him as a solution to a bigger problem though.

 

The team has glaring holes on the back end.  They generate little in terms of offence and goal tending covers up a lot of the problems they have on the blue line- Rutherford , who is as honest as they come, has publicly conceded this.  Almost every analyst that has commented on this team's needs makes a comment about the thin defence.
 

I agree they should be patient, but in light of all the offensively minded wingers they have on the roster, and who they selected this year in the draft, its a position of strength for this team.  The most effective way to upgrade the d would be to move a winger that will get you a good return.  

 

I dont think trading Garland for a similar aged d man who is a legit top 4 is 'dumb' or will downgrade the team.  This is not similar to letting Hyman walk....Toronto let him walk for nothing..the Canucks would hopefully be trading him for someone that has impact on the back end that Garland has had on the front end.  We can agree to disagree on this.   

 

 

[cuporbust]

The Yanik Hansen we were missing . Love it. 

[Baggins]

9 minutes ago, kloubek said:

That's based on last year's production  I bet. Would you say the same based on the year prior?

 

You might, actually. But i would not.

 

Also, keep in mind what Bess has gone through with his father. Now he can hopefully move on and be the player he is capable of being.

 

Not to take anything away from Garland. I don't agree with those who want to move him, and I feel he's young enough he will still get better.

Hey. I like Boeser the person. But the truth is he doesn't provide much other than scoring. So even if he scores 40 what does he provide the other 42 games? Nor is he that good defensively. For a North American kid he doesn't play particualry physical at all. Last season he was dead last in hits per 60 minutes among all our forwards with 20+ games. He doesn't PK, he's not particularly strong along the boards. What does really he provide other than being a shooter? Last season he was basically a PP specialist. Again among all forwards with 20+ games, he was 10th in in both ES goals and points per 60 minutes last season. I'll give him a mulligan on his production last year but the rest stands. He not that good defensively, not particularly strong along the boards, and isn't very physical. I'm not opposed to keeping him, but I wouldn't weep if he was moved.

[hammertime]

I feel like this Signing will be at the expense of Garland which on the one hand really sucks because Garland is a firecracker. At the same time Mikheyev only cost money where Garland might be able to get you a Defenseman, and that would would be good asset mgmt.  

[N4ZZY]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

It's not like Garland is gonna fetch us a top 2 dman though. I'd rather keep him unless some miracle happened and he did.

 

Garland was so severely underrated by this fan base. Nobody cared for all of the finer details he did to help the team succeed. Having somebody that can control the puck in the offensive zone is a very difficult trait to find in a player and is extremely valuable to their linemates. Yet nobody seems to give a rats ass. It's as if we can just go out and find another Garland easily. We had to pay a steep price for him. To just offload a good contract like that for something that isn't going to be equal in value just to fill a position of need is going to be a really stupid move. 

There’s a bias with this fan base and their obsession with larger players. Garland is criticized as much as he has been, not because he can’t play, but because he’s small in stature. 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

There’s a bias with this fan base and their obsession with larger players. Garland is criticized as much as he has been, not because he can’t play, but because he’s small in stature. 

having larger players isn't an obsession, its a necessity in the playoffs. 'lil is fine for the regular season tho. 

 

I like Garland, appreciate what he can do 5 on 5. But if we can turn him into a right side d upgrade it would be a solid move. I'd prefer it be Pearson since he's now overpaid for a bottom 6 role, but Garland likely can net a better return.

 

[MikeyD]

23 minutes ago, R3aL said:

I disagree. He shored up his defensive game quite a bit, and was very strong on puck battles and board battles that year.

 

with a healthy body and less off ice distractions and grieving he should have a big bounce back year.

 

if we see the return of his shot too it really could all come together.

 

stay optimistic you want him to shine. 

Yeah I'm really hoping it was a down year due to the unfortunate passing of his father and the huge weight that took on him.

 

With that said, he's been inconsistent like that ever since his sophomore season so I think I'm just kind of hoping at this point.

 

But yes, obviously we should all want him to have a great season next year. Not only as a Canucks fan but as a fan of Brock as an individual. 

[hammertime]

6 minutes ago, JM_ said:

 

"hands of stone"? 

 

 

[Mustard Tiger]

Imagine all 3 of AK, IM and VP all go off this year. Could be the make or break factor for playoffs this year other than injuries 

[Darius]

Just now, JM_ said:

having larger players isn't an obsession, its a necessity in the playoffs. 'lil is fine for the regular season tho. 

 

I like Garland, appreciate what he can do 5 on 5. But if we can turn him into a right side d upgrade it would be a solid move. I'd prefer it be Pearson since he's now overpaid for a bottom 6 role, but Garland likely can net a better return.

 

I agree with you JM...for me its not only that Garland is small.  The Canucks had Cliff Ronning in 94 and he was fantastic.  Cliff was like 5'7" max....but he was surrounded by a hard nosed tough team.  Even Bure would take your head off if you slighted him,

 

The composition of this roster magnifies Garland's stature.  Petey, Hughes - two core players are not exactly huge to say the least.  Then you have the other core players like Bo - who is a bull when he is charging in with the puck, but maybe not as physical or intimidating as we would like..and Brock...we wont get into Brock right now...that will derail this completely. 

 

[MikeyD]

8 minutes ago, Darius said:

Garland makes close to 5 million per year, its not like its a steal for sub 20 goals and about 50 points.  Probably closer to fair to good value.  Which is fine.  I dont have a problem with Garland, i see him as a solution to a bigger problem though.

 

The team has glaring holes on the back end.  They generate little in terms of offence and goal tending covers up a lot of the problems they have on the blue line- Rutherford , who is as honest as they come, has publicly conceded this.  Almost every analyst that has commented on this team's needs makes a comment about the thin defence.
 

I agree they should be patient, but in light of all the offensively minded wingers they have on the roster, and who they selected this year in the draft, its a position of strength for this team.  The most effective way to upgrade the d would be to move a winger that will get you a good return.  

 

I dont think trading Garland for a similar aged d man who is a legit top 4 is 'dumb' or will downgrade the team.  This is not similar to letting Hyman walk....Toronto let him walk for nothing..the Canucks would hopefully be trading him for someone that has impact on the back end that Garland has had on the front end.  We can agree to disagree on this.   

 

 

Definitely an agree to disagree thing for sure, but I don't think it's fair to just value his contract as a sole point getting player. I think at his cap hit he makes a fair value if he's one dimensional and points is all he is useful for.

 

I just personally place a huge value on things like forechecking ability, effort, consistency, 5 on 5 play, ability to maintain puck possession, tenacity, etc. and many of the other things he does well that majority of this team doesn't do well. It's the reason why I'm excited about Mikheyev, because he's more than just a point getter. I understand why you countered with your point with Hyman and you're not wrong, but the reason I brought it up is because it left a huge hole in that team and was the thing that would have finally allowed them to get past the first round had they kept him. 

[RomanP]

17 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

I keep on cringing on the incorrect pronunciation of his last name by the commentators. It started with "MikhAyev" and then settled on "Makeyev" when in reality it's "MI(as in "ee")HEEV". The "i" is pronounced as "e" (same way as "i" in PodkolzIn). "KH" should sound as "H" in "hat". And finally "EYEV" - think of "ye" in "yellow" twice.

[Baggins]

5 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

There’s a bias with this fan base and their obsession with larger players. Garland is criticized as much as he has been, not because he can’t play, but because he’s small in stature. 

And yet Hogs was declared a core player his rookie season. The problem with Garland imo is we didn't draft him. People seem to overlook all that he adds that doesn't show up on the scoresheet.

[bad alice french]

My favourite Toronto player last year. Keeping in mind I pretty much hate everybody on that team. So take it with a grain of salt. seriously though he is exactly the kind of forward depth upgrade we were looking for. We just got bigger and faster and didn’t break the bank doing it

[N4ZZY]

1 hour ago, Junkyard Dog said:

In theory, yes. It checks on an initial box.
 

More to it then that to make it a good signing. Like line chemistry, player to coach chemistry and so on and so forth. 

 

a lot of those boxes get checked during the season. 

Yes. But you can’t grade the other stuff until the season begins. So far, though, he seems to be a decent signing. 

 

Guess we’ll see soon enough if there’s player 

[Darius]

1 minute ago, MikeyD said:

Definitely an agree to disagree thing for sure, but I don't think it's fair to just value his contract as a sole point getting player. I think at his cap hit he makes a fair value if he's one dimensional and points is all he is useful for.

 

I just personally place a huge value on things like forechecking ability, effort, consistency, 5 on 5 play, ability to maintain puck possession, tenacity, etc. and many of the other things he does well that majority of this team doesn't do well. It's the reason why I'm excited about Mikheyev, because he's more than just a point getter. I understand why you countered with your point with Hyman and you're not wrong, but the reason I brought it up is because it left a huge hole in that team and was the thing that would have finally allowed them to get past the first round had they kept him. 

Fair enough Mikey.  I think we both want the team to succeed and weve suffered our fair share lol.  Lets see what management can do in the coming months .  I do agree with you that there is no rush right now.  This team is probably 2-3 big moves away from really challenging for anything no matter what they do in the immediate future..