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

[Proposal] What about Sam Gagner as 3C ?


Recommended Posts

If someone was being moved, I actually wouldn't mind this to bring better depth for center.

 

When he was here before, he was being asked to complete for middle 6 minutes.

 

He has speed and he's generally defensively responsible. At 800k, I wouldn't mind him as a bottom 6 center / right wing role player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, lmm said:

-21

-17

-29

-28

-18

 

Any Tankers?

+/- shouldn't be the stat used to qualify how good a player is (more reflective of the team and the situations the player plays), but that's been discussed ad nauseam.
Gagner just isn't the type of player needed for that role, rather see what we might have in Rodrigues/ Aston-Reese if we PTO them.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

While we're at it, what about Kirill Koltsov as our "missing" D piece for league minimum, hey? :bigblush:

 

I think we're more likely to have KK return than SG, frankly.

And I'm not holding my breath for KK's return.

Oh come now,

lets stick with this century

Philip Larsen

and while we're at it

Svendo and Rodin to complete the 3rd line

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Phil_314 said:

+/- shouldn't be the stat used to qualify how good a player is (more reflective of the team and the situations the player plays), but that's been discussed ad nauseam.
Gagner just isn't the type of player needed for that role, rather see what we might have in Rodrigues/ Aston-Reese if we PTO them.
 

+/- is like the Luke Schenn/Tanner Pearson of the stat world

peopole keep trying to minimize the usefulness

but the bottom line is players the continually have bad -s play on bad teams because they are bad player that do not help their teams win.

Its true good players can have an "off year" then bounce back, Like Edley's -39 under Torts

but players that consistently  go there, do so because they are bad at defense

 

in Gagners case, not good enough for lines 1-2 not strong or defensive enough for lines 3-4

so he keeps finding work on bad/desperate teams

Edited by lmm
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, lmm said:

+/- is like the Luke Schenn/Tanner Pearson of the stat world

peopole keep trying to minimize the usefulness

but the bottom line is players the continually have bad -s play on bad teams because they are bad player that do not help their teams win.

Its true good players can have an "off year" then bounce back, Like Edley's -39 under Torts

but players that consistently  go there, do so because they are bad at defense

 

in Gagners case, not good enough for lines 1-2 not strong or defensive enough for lines 3-4

so he keeps finding work on bad/desperate teams

Is this a case of chicken or the egg though?  The fact that his skill set was rather niche (he was a 50 point guy in Columbus despite playing on the 4th line due to heavy PP deployment) might have led to him being down the list for teams' signing candidates, but the Red Wings were also historically bad at certain points in that era as they waited for vets to come off the books (likes of Gagner, Dekeyser, Abdelkader, Nielsen, Staal... etc.) as they had filler vets so the kids could play in Grand Rapids while it was throwaway seasons in the big club.  In those cases, especially on tanking teams, it's hard to take +/- seriously. 

Some other examples of guys with skill whose +/- suffered from bad teams, Phil Kessel, despite scoring 52 points with Arizona, was -24.  Chychrun from the same team was -20 (but on any other team he'd be a top-4 defenseman).  Also take Chicago, Pat Kane -19 despite a 92 point season.  Seth Jones, 50 points but -37.  Many of the Kraken stars were around or below -20.  Ducks franchise cornerstones Zegras and Drysdale were both below -20.  Lucas Raymond was -32, Dylan Larkin -18, Stutzle -27, Nick Suzuki -29.  I hope these examples show you how circumstantial this stat really is (deployment is another factor, e.g. top line stars on crappy teams still get buried in this stat if their team defense sucks), and how it's important not to read too much into it when it comes to the individual's ability.

Edited by Phil_314
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Phil_314 said:

Is this a case of chicken or the egg though?  The fact that his skill set was rather niche (he was a 50 point guy in Columbus despite playing on the 4th line due to heavy PP deployment) might have led to him being down the list for teams' signing candidates, but the Red Wings were also historically bad at certain points in that era as they waited for vets to come off the books (likes of Gagner, Dekeyser, Abdelkader, Nielsen, Staal... etc.) as they had filler vets so the kids could play in Grand Rapids while it was throwaway seasons in the big club.  In those cases, especially on tanking teams, it's hard to take +/- seriously. 

Some other examples of guys with skill whose +/- suffered from bad teams, Phil Kessel, despite scoring 52 points with Arizona, was -24.  Chychrun from the same team was -20 (but on any other team he'd be a top-4 defenseman).  Also take Chicago, Pat Kane -19 despite a 92 point season.  Seth Jones, 50 points but -37.  Many of the Kraken stars were around or below -20.  Ducks franchise cornerstones Zegras and Drysdale were both below -20.  Lucas Raymond was -32, Dylan Larkin -18, Stutzle -27, Nick Suzuki -29.  I hope these examples show you how circumstantial this stat really is, and how it's important not to read too much into it.

looking at your second paragraph

I would group those player 3 ways

 

Pat Kane is in a group by himself Superstar/Difference maker/ Floater when the season is lost, who pads his stats/ Probable 500 goal scorer/ 2 time -20 player

 

Kessel/Jones/Larkin are in the same category as Gagner and I would ad OEL, (these players can come from any line or pairing) but players cast above their ability

Kessel was not the Super star Toronto thought they were acquiring, neither is Jones or OEL, gagner, already discussed is not the 2nd liner that he sometimes appears he might be

 

 Kids, Chychrun is the oldest of the rest at 24 not ready to be prime time players but put in that role, could still round out their games

 

Of all those you listed, Larkin is the one that most fits your reasoning, he might be a really good second liner forced to play line 1

He reminds me of Horvat when he is asked to play too high up the line up

 

Sure, some guys like Kessel/Jones / Larking are good players asked to do too much and it costs them, but Gagner gets caught in between the top and bottom 6

Canuck fans often talk about players that can "Play up and down the line up" Higgins/Burrows/Hanson/Pearson come to mind

and that is where Gagner/Gaudette/Goldobin miss the mark. 

That said Gagner is a step above the other 2 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil

Chicken and egg is a good analogy

because it is hard to tell

that is why I defend +/-

it is not always reliable

but it is not always unreliable

 

so to use it exclusively would be wrong

but to dismiss it total is also wrong

IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lmm said:

+/- is like the Luke Schenn/Tanner Pearson of the stat world, people keep trying to minimize the usefulness

but the bottom line is players the continually have bad -s play on bad teams because they are bad player that do not help their teams win.

Its true good players can have an "off year" then bounce back, Like Edley's -39 under Torts

2 hours ago, lmm said:

looking at your second paragraph

I would group those player 3 ways

 

Pat Kane is in a group by himself Superstar/Difference maker/ Floater when the season is lost, who pads his stats/ Probable 500 goal scorer/ 2 time -20 player

 

Kessel/Jones/Larkin are in the same category as Gagner and I would ad OEL, (these players can come from any line or pairing) but players cast above their ability

Kessel was not the Super star Toronto thought they were acquiring, neither is Jones or OEL, gagner, already discussed is not the 2nd liner that he sometimes appears he might be

 

 Kids, Chychrun is the oldest of the rest at 24 not ready to be prime time players but put in that role, could still round out their games

 

Of all those you listed, Larkin is the one that most fits your reasoning, he might be a really good second liner forced to play line 1

He reminds me of Horvat when he is asked to play too high up the line up

 

Sure, some guys like Kessel/Jones / Larking are good players asked to do too much and it costs them, but Gagner gets caught in between the top and bottom 6

Canuck fans often talk about players that can "Play up and down the line up" Higgins/Burrows/Hanson/Pearson come to mind

and that is where Gagner/Gaudette/Goldobin miss the mark. 

That said Gagner is a step above the other 2 

So are they good players being victims of bad teams, or bad players?  Your two posts here contradict each other.
(If someone like Larkin "might be a really good second liner forced to play line 1", is he really a "bad player that doesn't help their team win", even if he's the best option the team has and he (along with Suzuki, Stutzle, etc.) are still more than holding their own and producing?  Isn't it more that that stat is a product of how bad the TEAM is and not them as an individual "bad player that does not help their team win"?).  Think about that (also, if Kane's bad +/- you just called a "superstar" a "bad player" which, again does not make logical sense).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, lmm said:

+/- is like the Luke Schenn/Tanner Pearson of the stat world

peopole keep trying to minimize the usefulness

but the bottom line is players the continually have bad -s play on bad teams because they are bad player that do not help their teams win.

Its true good players can have an "off year" then bounce back, Like Edley's -39 under Torts

but players that consistently  go there, do so because they are bad at defense

 

in Gagners case, not good enough for lines 1-2 not strong or defensive enough for lines 3-4

so he keeps finding work on bad/desperate teams

Edler was -39 or whatever it was, and guess who his partner was?  Chris Tanev who was only around -12 (too lazy to look it up so take my word for it lol!)  What does that say?   It absolutely is a useful stat and always will be.   No context even matters, provides a litmus test rather quickly once context is added (was Tanev injured... who did Edler play with, how did the team do out of the gate etc).   A quick glance at a difference in plus minus on a team...but does require some insights.  

 

For example Bure was often close to even.    However as soon as you consider what he did on special teams his value sky rockets.    You never have to see him play ... but his positive ability to affect winning percentage becomes apparent rather quickly doesn't it.   

 

A great example is Wayne Gretzky's last Art Ross trophy (94).   Was a terrible minus player.   But once you look at the details, he was still a positive influence to the team.   Because his linemates at the time, what was going on with the team, and of course what he added to their special teams.    They won more games with him in the lineup despite that gross looking minus.    

 

Advanced stats are ever evolving.   Maybe one day they will hit the sweet spot but we aren't their yet.    The basics are there for a reason.   Bruce has even commented on plus minus.   You can bet that the management group has a lot of players in the league on the wall (ok that's Lou, he's old school) or spreadsheets and plus minus is always something they look at.   

 

GAA used to determine what goalie won the Vezina.    That was goofy and changed.    A team stat for sure.   Plus minus for sure also is a team stat to a degree.   Once you delve deeper though it makes it pretty easy to figure out the why.   And if one or two guys on a regular line, have a much different plus minus ... Then that's something too. 

Edited by IBatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, joe-max said:

Scouting report:

The son of former NHL forward Dave Gagner is long removed from the player who once registered EIGHT points in a game (in 2012). He still has good hands, very good offensive moves and vision in his mid-30s. Can help on both special teams. Lacks the overall game to earn major minutes. Smallish, he is also not physical and does not win a lot of puck battles. Can be useful as a mentor to younger forwards. ((https://sportsforecaster.com/nhl/p/16052/Sam_Gagner)

 

So, no, not as a 3rd line center anyways.

That scouting report pretty much sums up the results from the Oilers player development regime back in the days that Gagner was drafted. They would pretty much rush any 18 year old to the NHL instead of giving them 2-3 extra years to develop properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Phil_314 said:

So are they good players being victims of bad teams, or bad players?  Your two posts here contradict each other.
(If someone like Larkin "might be a really good second liner forced to play line 1", is he really a "bad player that doesn't help their team win", even if he's the best option the team has and he (along with Suzuki, Stutzle, etc.) are still more than holding their own and producing?  Isn't it more that that stat is a product of how bad the TEAM is and not them as an individual "bad player that does not help their team win"?).  Think about that (also, if Kane's bad +/- you just called a "superstar" a "bad player" which, again does not make logical sense).

YOu are not  even trying to understand, so I will stop now.

YOu have half-read half of what I said

It'ds what  my gf calls "playing silly bugger"

I'm out

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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