HKSR Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: You'd have to be totally drunk as a GM and probably locked up if you are paying your 3rd line $11 million combined. Petey and Lindholm need around $19 million combined. You have Miller and Boeser at around $16 million after Boeser gets paid. So, I don't care how "productive" our 3rd line is, you simply cannot afford to pay them $11 million combined. Period. We have a cap. Top 6 guys get paid a certain amount, then the bottom 6. Show me one team in the NHL that is a contender that is paying their 3rd line $11 million combined. Just one team... https://www.milehighhockey.com/2022/6/15/23169593/game-1-preview-stanley-cup-final-colorado-avalanche-tampa-bay-lightning Tampa Bay Lightning had Brayden Point on their "3rd Line"... see? This is the problem, that's not a 3rd line. That's a 2B Line at worst. Stanley Cup finalist with a $9.5M player on the 3rd line? NO WAY! WTF?! We just haven't had this kinda strong depth in a LONG time... so it's weird to see this in our lineup. Top teams have this kinda situation all the time. In fact, when the Blues won their Cup, they had Stastny making $6M or $7M something like that on their "4th Line". Edit: Sorry it was Steen, not Stastny -- $5.75M on their 4th line: https://www.nbcsportsboston.com/nhl/boston-bruins/2019-stanley-cup-final-projected-lines-pairings-for-bruins-vs-blues-game-1/327083/ Edited February 2 by HKSR 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strawbone Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 4 minutes ago, Chickenspear said: Not when they play the Canucks! And I'm only really cheering for Kuzy! Rough crowd lol! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternalCanuckFan Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 I get the Brzustewicz concerns given how Gustav Forsling developed after being traded, but of the prospects the Canucks could offer, I can't fault management for giving up Brzustewicz in a package deal for Lindholm. I get the feeling that this management group has a better handle on scouting, so while it's totally possible Brzustewicz could turn out to be a stud, there are a lot of other factors to consider which lower his value to the Canucks organization now even if he does hit. I remember being a bit disappointed when the Canucks dealt Jonathan Myrenberg for Jack Studnicka and while Studnicka didn't work out, it doesn't look like BOS stole that trade either. Wingers generally don't have a ton of value so losing Kuzmenko isn't as much of a concern and the fact that the Canucks have both cleared some cap space for this season and cleared his full cap hit for next season is quite valuable, even if the return is Lindholm for about 40% of the regular season and hopefully a long playoff run (if he doesn't re-sign). The trading of the 1st stings but it was obviously in play in a season where it's pretty much guaranteed to be a late 1st. With all due respect to Jurmo, I was surprised he even registered on Calgary's radar as far as a prospect of interest. I have hoped to see Jurmo's development over the years since he was drafted but there really has never been all that much to get excited about. The condition 4th (or 3rd) is not great, but again, in a season where the Canucks want to go for it, a better option than having less pieces but dealing Lekkerimaki or Willander, or a more seasoned prospect (e.g. Podkolzin) who may be ready to make the jump. I think the Canucks win this deal if they can re-sign EP to a fair cap hit, and Lindholm to a value cap hit and term. Obviously no way to know if Lindholm will gel with this team, or how good he can be, but I have liked Lindholm's game for a long time including when he was an up and coming player with Aho, Teravainen, and Rask in Carolina. It would be quite a surprise if Lindholm wasn't able to find a fruitful way to contribute to this team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 minute ago, HKSR said: Because he actually makes the players around him better. Joshua and Bluegers possession and xGF% numbers drop dramatically once Garland is off their line. Likely the difference between 40 point players and 25 point players for both of them. Garland was crap last year. So how do you figure that it is Garland that is the difference? What statistic shows that Garland is the guy on that line and if you take him off of it the line goes to complete shit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Just now, Elias Pettersson said: Garland was crap last year. So how do you figure that it is Garland that is the difference? What statistic shows that Garland is the guy on that line and if you take him off of it the line goes to complete shit? Oh I don't wanna dig it up again... it's a MoneyPuck stat that I pulled up a couple pages back... you can find it if you're inclined. It shows Blueger Joshua and Garland together and apart and what it does to their numbers. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, HKSR said: The sample size we have of Mikheyev is that he's always recovering from some kinda injury. He hasn't played more than 54 games in a season. He has only scored more than 13 goals in a season ONCE. Our 3rd line is our life line. Without it, we're nowhere near where we are. You wanna know how good that line is? "Seventy-one forward lines in the NHL have played at least 100 minutes together and the Garland-Blueger-Joshua combo ranks 11th best with a dominant 61.5 percent control of expected goals according to MoneyPuck. They’re hemming opponents in the defensive zone with a repeated barrage of heavy shifts, generating a high volume of dangerous chances and boasting strong defensive results too." https://theathletic.com/5145416/2023/12/18/conor-garland-canucks-observations/ Let that sink in. 11th best in terms of expected goals. And even MORE facts and statistics to show how Garland is the driver of that 11th best line in the NHL: Suck it up buttercup. Garland is immensely valuable. FAR more than Mikheyev. We keep Garland on that 3rd line because he makes that line the consistent threat that it is day in and day out. Again, you keep flinging your same narrative -- OH, Mikheyev is recovering, oh Mikheyev had to carry a 2nd line with Kuzmenko and Pettersson on it... is that it? That Mik is recovering and that he was forced to carry Pettersson and Kuzmenko? THAT is your premise? 4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Garland was crap last year. So how do you figure that it is Garland that is the difference? What statistic shows that Garland is the guy on that line and if you take him off of it the line goes to complete shit? Nevermind, found it for ya... Gotta go make dinner... I'll catch up later. Edited February 2 by HKSR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 3 minutes ago, EternalCanuckFan said: I get the Brzustewicz concerns given how Gustav Forsling developed after being traded, but of the prospects the Canucks could offer, I can't fault management for giving up Brzustewicz in a package deal for Lindholm. I get the feeling that this management group has a better handle on scouting, so while it's totally possible Brzustewicz could turn out to be a stud, there are a lot of other factors to consider which lower his value to the Canucks organization now even if he does hit. I remember being a bit disappointed when the Canucks dealt Jonathan Myrenberg for Jack Studnicka and while Studnicka didn't work out, it doesn't look like BOS stole that trade either. Wingers generally don't have a ton of value so losing Kuzmenko isn't as much of a concern and the fact that the Canucks have both cleared some cap space for this season and cleared his full cap hit for next season is quite valuable, even if the return is Lindholm for about 40% of the regular season and hopefully a long playoff run (if he doesn't re-sign). The trading of the 1st stings but it was obviously in play in a season where it's pretty much guaranteed to be a late 1st. With all due respect to Jurmo, I was surprised he even registered on Calgary's radar as far as a prospect of interest. I have hoped to see Jurmo's development over the years since he was drafted but there really has never been all that much to get excited about. The condition 4th (or 3rd) is not great, but again, in a season where the Canucks want to go for it, a better option than having less pieces but dealing Lekkerimaki or Willander, or a more seasoned prospect (e.g. Podkolzin) who may be ready to make the jump. I think the Canucks win this deal if they can re-sign EP to a fair cap hit, and Lindholm to a value cap hit and term. Obviously no way to know if Lindholm will gel with this team, or how good he can be, but I have liked Lindholm's game for a long time including when he was an up and coming player with Aho, Teravainen, and Rask in Carolina. It would be quite a surprise if Lindholm wasn't able to find a fruitful way to contribute to this team. Forsling is a good example. However, he didn't break out until he was 24. By the time Hunter B is 24 we will have won 2-3 cups with Lindholm, so it doesn't really matter... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureQuickness Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 6 hours ago, spook007 said: Garland also JB (not to split hairs...) Bennings pro scouting sucked... except for Miller there were so many misses it was unreal. And people scorched Benning for the Miller trade. They were all wrong. The Miller trade was one of the few GOOD trades for Benning. There weren't many unfortunately. Benning was truly unlucky when it came to trades and/or free agent signings. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 3 minutes ago, EternalCanuckFan said: I get the Brzustewicz concerns given how Gustav Forsling developed after being traded, but of the prospects the Canucks could offer, I can't fault management for giving up Brzustewicz in a package deal for Lindholm. I get the feeling that this management group has a better handle on scouting, so while it's totally possible Brzustewicz could turn out to be a stud, there are a lot of other factors to consider which lower his value to the Canucks organization now even if he does hit. I remember being a bit disappointed when the Canucks dealt Jonathan Myrenberg for Jack Studnicka and while Studnicka didn't work out, it doesn't look like BOS stole that trade either. Wingers generally don't have a ton of value so losing Kuzmenko isn't as much of a concern and the fact that the Canucks have both cleared some cap space for this season and cleared his full cap hit for next season is quite valuable, even if the return is Lindholm for about 40% of the regular season and hopefully a long playoff run (if he doesn't re-sign). The trading of the 1st stings but it was obviously in play in a season where it's pretty much guaranteed to be a late 1st. With all due respect to Jurmo, I was surprised he even registered on Calgary's radar as far as a prospect of interest. I have hoped to see Jurmo's development over the years since he was drafted but there really has never been all that much to get excited about. The condition 4th (or 3rd) is not great, but again, in a season where the Canucks want to go for it, a better option than having less pieces but dealing Lekkerimaki or Willander, or a more seasoned prospect (e.g. Podkolzin) who may be ready to make the jump. I think the Canucks win this deal if they can re-sign EP to a fair cap hit, and Lindholm to a value cap hit and term. Obviously no way to know if Lindholm will gel with this team, or how good he can be, but I have liked Lindholm's game for a long time including when he was an up and coming player with Aho, Teravainen, and Rask in Carolina. It would be quite a surprise if Lindholm wasn't able to find a fruitful way to contribute to this team. I agree with most of this. The only part where I'm a little hesitant would be on the scouting comments. Basically, we have yet to see how good the scouting is with this management team. We have yet to see any draft pick the current management has drafted reach the NHL; however, that's mostly because it's too early for that. It's only been a year and a half since the 1st draft picks were made. That being said, there's obviously nothing wrong with hoping the management team has a good idea on drafting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureQuickness Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Garland was crap last year. So how do you figure that it is Garland that is the difference? What statistic shows that Garland is the guy on that line and if you take him off of it the line goes to complete shit? It's pretty much confirmed at this point that Garland's chemistry with the other players makes that line. There's a reason why quite a few analysts say that line is the best line in hockey (5 vs 5). Garland is a bulldog on the boards and he fits in well with players like Joshua. Garland + Joshua make that line a nightmare to play against. Then you add Blueger who is a sneaky good passer and underrated finisher. The third line is a deceptively good line. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barn Burner Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bob Long said: 8 mil - Miller 9 mil - Lindholm 11 mil - Petey I mean thats not bad for that level of C talent. That's the thing... Lindholm isn't anywhere near as good, or consistent as Miller, regardless of JT's age. Lindholm is one year younger? Why would anyone disrespect Miller doing something ridiculous like that? Some are saying Calgary's having a shit year, so that reflects on EL, but... if he's so damn good, why isn't he carrying the Lames on his back? He's their #1 C and only has 32 points in 49 games. That's a 9 mil a year player? You'd have to be right out of your mind to even offer him anywhere near that. Let's see what he adds to our team first before speculating about insane numbers to sign him. Edited February 2 by Barn Burner 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 2 minutes ago, HKSR said: Nevermind, found it for ya... Joshua is also one of our top PK'ers and is basically our only power forward on the team other than Miller, so he is also more valuable than Garland. Blueger I already agreed won't even be on the team next year. We have Suter who can replace him. I don't think anyone is denying that Garland is playing well this year. But he's not worth $5 million if he is a 3rd liner and doesn't kill penalties. Most good 3rd line players are also penalty killers in the NHL and don't get paid $5 million. We haven't really seen what Joshua/Suter/Podkolzin or Hoglander can do as a line, so we have nothing to compare. At the end of the day, this is all a moot point. If the decision is to either keep Lindholm and Joshua or Garland, the decision will be very easy for Allvin. He's definitely going to keep Lindholm and Joshua. Garland will only remain on the team if the cap works to keep him. Lindholm, Joshua, Zadorov and DeSmith are more of a priority to keep at this point... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: You'd have to be totally drunk as a GM and probably locked up if you are paying your 3rd line $11 million combined. Petey and Lindholm need around $19 million combined. You have Miller and Boeser at around $16 million after Boeser gets paid. So, I don't care how "productive" our 3rd line is, you simply cannot afford to pay them $11 million combined. Period. We have a cap. Top 6 guys get paid a certain amount, then the bottom 6. Show me one team in the NHL that is a contender that is paying their 3rd line $11 million combined. Just one team... I'm not so sure what's hard to grasp about this, but HK is struggling There's a salary cap. Garland's been a luxury under it. You keep the cheaper, complementary top 6 guy that plays both special teams and 5v5, and move the more expensive 3rd liner who doesn't...and backfill with cheaper prospects like Hoglander, Podkolzin etc while retaining/improving your top 6 / top 4. Nobody is suggesting Garland's a bad player. Apparently it's rocket dentistry Edited February 2 by aGENT 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureQuickness Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, NewbieCanuckFan said: In all seriousness, I highly doubt Gillis even knew anything about Ben Hutton (other than what his scouts told about him). NHL GM's have very little to do with later round picks. They hire amateur scouts to handle much of that. They wouldn't have the time to do their jobs if they did. What you can hold Gillis to the fire was that he had PLENTY of time to revamp the clearly inadequate domestic amateur scouting staff of the Canucks. They've sucked donkey balls for DECADES (long before Gillis). Look at one of the failed Jim Benning first round picks, Jake Virtanen. Was in the WHL when he was drafted by us. *SAME* failure from these guys. Sure, our European & US amateur scouts aren't perfect, but they've been carrying this franchise FOREVER. I laugh when Benning gave credit to Delorme for the EP pick. That guy couldn't find a "comfort woman" with a fistfull of cash at the Mustang Ranch (remember Brendan Gallagher - just one example?). Under Benning, the drafting did improve quite a bit. Demko and Hoglander are great picks for 2nd rounders. Under Gillis, all you had was miss after miss after miss. Something under Gillis just didn't work out at all. At least Nonis/Burke had the occasional find outside the 1st rounders. Gillis had three picks essentially that panned out: two HIGH 1st rounders (Horvat/Hodgson) and two whiffed ones (Jensen and Gaunce - late 1st rounders). There was Connauton (never played with the Canucks - he was traded without having played a game) who did something, and then there was Hutton. Truly bad drafting/development - and that's on Gillis. I think Benning's luck started to fade a bit with his falling out with Brackett. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimito Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Good timing on this. Lindholm can meet the new guys then go on a 5 game road trip straight. He said they are leaving to Carolina Sunday. Lot of time for real bonding. Hope they can get a practice in first. Playing every other night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Just now, Jaimito said: Good timing on this. Lindholm can meet the new guys then go on a 5 game road trip straight. He said they are leaving to Carolina Sunday. Lot of time for real bonding. Hope they can get a practice in first. Playing every other night. He's meeting a third of the team at the all star game 1 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 6 minutes ago, PureQuickness said: It's pretty much confirmed at this point that Garland's chemistry with the other players makes that line. There's a reason why quite a few analysts say that line is the best line in hockey (5 vs 5). Garland is a bulldog on the boards and he fits in well with players like Joshua. Garland + Joshua make that line a nightmare to play against. Then you add Blueger who is a sneaky good passer and underrated finisher. The third line is a deceptively good line. Nobody is denying that Garland is playing well. The issue is we have a salary cap and 8 UFA's. In order to keep this team a contender decisions have to be made. You can't be a contender in the NHL if you are paying a 3rd line $11 million. No team does that. That is the bottom line, regardless how well they are playing. You can't sacrifice letting your 2C walk (Lindholm), just so you can keep the 3rd line together. Also, it's alot easier as a 3rd line to be productive when you are matched up with the other team's 3rd line. How well would our 3rd line be if they were matched up with the top checking lines in the NHL? 1 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 29 minutes ago, HKSR said: Lines are labelled, but in reality, I look at production. If the Garland line is legit, then we are looking at 3 guys putting up 40 to 50 points a piece. That's 120 to 150 points. I put that in the $12M to $15M range in terms of cost (based on the going rate of a forward that puts up those kinda numbers). Garland at $5M Blueger at $3M Joshua at $3M Total is $11M, but we are getting 120 to 150 points out of them. THAT is value in a lineup. You'll find it all over the media outlets that this line is greater than the sum of its parts. In other words, VALUE. That's how you win Cups. As you can see above from Money Puck, take Garland out and this line immediately drops in puck possession and xGF%. That tells me a lot about how valuable Garland is. Not to mention how he's 1st in nearly every single advanced metric for this Canucks team. We just need to get away from calling this a 3rd line and maybe then people will give them the respect they deserve. It's a 2B Line, and in fact probably the 2A Line as of late. Anyways, I can guarantee you that Garland won't be traded. If there is any analytics person in management, there's no way that Garland will be moved ahead of Mikheyev. Mikheyev SHOULD be in the bottom 6 based on what he does and how he produces. Thing is, the only spot for him is on the 4th line since our so-called 3rd line has immense chemistry. People are so quick to forget how terrible our bottom 6 was before this Garland line found chemistry. Let's go there again and trade away the engine that drives it all. 2B, or not 2B... that is the question. Sorry, couldn't resist. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 23 minutes ago, HKSR said: https://www.milehighhockey.com/2022/6/15/23169593/game-1-preview-stanley-cup-final-colorado-avalanche-tampa-bay-lightning Tampa Bay Lightning had Brayden Point on their "3rd Line"... see? This is the problem, that's not a 3rd line. That's a 2B Line at worst. Stanley Cup finalist with a $9.5M player on the 3rd line? NO WAY! WTF?! We just haven't had this kinda strong depth in a LONG time... so it's weird to see this in our lineup. Top teams have this kinda situation all the time. In fact, when the Blues won their Cup, they had Stastny making $6M or $7M something like that on their "4th Line". Edit: Sorry it was Steen, not Stastny -- $5.75M on their 4th line: https://www.nbcsportsboston.com/nhl/boston-bruins/2019-stanley-cup-final-projected-lines-pairings-for-bruins-vs-blues-game-1/327083/ Are you actually trying to convince me that Braydon Point is a 3rd line player? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip The Mesh Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 10 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Joshua is also one of our top PK'ers and is basically our only power forward on the team other than Miller, so he is also more valuable than Garland. Blueger I already agreed won't even be on the team next year. We have Suter who can replace him. I don't think anyone is denying that Garland is playing well this year. But he's not worth $5 million if he is a 3rd liner and doesn't kill penalties. Most good 3rd line players are also penalty killers in the NHL and don't get paid $5 million. We haven't really seen what Joshua/Suter/Podkolzin or Hoglander can do as a line, so we have nothing to compare. At the end of the day, this is all a moot point. If the decision is to either keep Lindholm and Joshua or Garland, the decision will be very easy for Allvin. He's definitely going to keep Lindholm and Joshua. Garland will only remain on the team if the cap works to keep him. Lindholm, Joshua, Zadorov and DeSmith are more of a priority to keep at this point... I think it's more who to keep among Mikheyev, Garland, Joshua, and Blueger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 With Podz looking like he is finding his game , same as Karlson and Bains means Garland is replaceable next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammertime Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 14 minutes ago, The Lock said: I agree with most of this. The only part where I'm a little hesitant would be on the scouting comments. Basically, we have yet to see how good the scouting is with this management team. We have yet to see any draft pick the current management has drafted reach the NHL; however, that's mostly because it's too early for that. It's only been a year and a half since the 1st draft picks were made. That being said, there's obviously nothing wrong with hoping the management team has a good idea on drafting. They can't be worse than Gillis. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimito Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 minute ago, Rip The Mesh said: New pressure. Hope they don't listen to the press and get fat and happy. Coaches and the leaders need to stay focused and humble, don't underestimate their opponents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 minute ago, Hammertime said: They can't be worse than Gillis. MG was good early on but fell off a cliff after the finals. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Posted by Jaimito,
Official Trade Announcement
Recommended by Roger Neilsons Towel
10 reactions
Go to this post
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.