Thread: OT: Jason Garrison
View Single Post
02-23-2013, 05:21 AM
Ronning On Empty
Formerly BleachClean
Ronning On Empty's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,230
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by medgett View Post
Absolutely not. If you're acquiring a guy you know is a poor puck mover and is not going to contribute significantly to the offence, then you don't pay him 4.6m for the next 6 years. To reiterate my original point, I'm not saying Garrison can't do these things, but to say that the canucks would sign a player to this contract without believing those were abilities he posessed is difficult to support.

I agree with Barney Gumble here. The main thrust to acquire Garrison had to have been his defensive attributes, first and foremost. Before Campbell, his defensive statistics were 2nd only to Hamhuis. With Campbell, they were still very strong, but now he displayed his rocket shot, resulting in 16 goals. The common theme still being defensive play.

The goals and offense will fluctuate with Garrison depending on role and opportunity, but the defense will be his calling card throughout.

The money and term given depends a lot on the market and comparative salaries. What is the average defensive Dman worth in the NHL these days? 4m doesn't seem out of line. Gleason got 4m per. Hainsey is making 4.5m per. At the time, Suter was the only FA Dman that was better than Garrison, so that's a factor as well.

Last edited by Ronning On Empty: 02-23-2013 at 09:02 AM.
Ronning On Empty is offline   Reply With Quote