This may sound nuts, but in the grand scheme I don't see Bieksa as a much different asset then Ballard. Both of them have been incredibly inconsistent over the past 3 seasons, are paid over $4 million and have had injury problems (which may or may not be the major reason they've struggled). Both are relatively under-sized, but physical defenseman, and both of them have 2 30+ point seasons. I still think the only major difference last year was Bieksa got to play with Hamhuis, and Ballard was supporting whatever rookie or miscellaneous plug we had on the bottom pairing with him. Also Bieksa was relatively healthy well Ballard was injured (or recovering) most of the season.
If not for Bieksa's relative improvements this year the comparison is actually shockingly similar.
I figured he would have fetched between $5.25M to $6.25M, the Nucks are lucky he decided to stay in Vancouver because $4.6M is a steal.
I think that $4.6M would have been a steal if it was a free agent signing since he would have likely gotten $4.8M-$5.2M with a chance for someone throwing stupid money at him.
I would call it more of an market value deal considering that he didn't want to leave Vancouver. At the same time I think most people see him getting $4.6M as a slight overpayment due to the fact he hasn't outplayed Hamhuis this year along with his slightly overrated offense* and some inconsistency over the past few years(ignoring the problems due to the ankle injuries).
*I think Bieksa is more of a 30-35pt player when he plays a strong defensive game yet everyone seems to still consider him a 40pt player based on a couple seasons where the coaching staff gave him lots of slack since they didn't really have any other offensive minded d-men to push the offense.
And yes we are screwed if CE goes to one of our conference rivals, as they would get the high scoring talent, while we get back to the stone age of defense with no carrying the puck up the ice with finesse skills, we will back to having a average transistion game, our powerplay will not be close top 3, probably barely top 10.
It will be like losing Jeff Brown & Lumme back in the day.
My prediction for next year is how pleasantly surprised people are going to be with how well Ballard steps in and fills the role of a puck moving defenseman.
Edit: Why am I talking about Ehrhoff in the Bieksa thread?
If not for Bieksa's relative improvements this year the comparison is actually shockingly similar.
I agree here. Ballard was stuck with whatever player they wanted to rotate in on him on the 3rd pairing while Bieksa got to play with a very steady Hamhuis all year. I was disappointed in Ballard, but it is very obvious that Bieksa got to play with the better pairings for the year. I just don't see this new contract being great value, considering that Bieksa was awful for the previous couple years in a row, and he has really only performed well in contract years.
Honestly, given the Ballard comparisons, I think it was more important to the team to keep Erhrhoff, and I think he was a complete defensive liability in the post-season. His puck rushing and passing out of the defensive zone will be sorely missed, given this is a team that starts its rush from its defenders.
My prediction for next year is how pleasantly surprised people are going to be with how well Ballard steps in and fills the role of a puck moving defenseman.
Edit: Why am I talking about Ehrhoff in the Bieksa thread?
I really really hope so.
He needs to be a 10 Goal, 40 point dman and he absolutely has the tools to do so.
Tanev should play a pretty big role next year too.
I really think it's worth the extra 300-600k to keep a lifetime Canuck of Bieksa's ilk locked down for the next half decade. Especially with how goofy the cap is becoming. I say this because I still really regret letting Ohlund go.
"I don't think money was ever a determining factor for me. I think finding a place that I want to be and a place that my family wants to be, on a team that's going to contend every year," Bieksa said during a conference call on Tuesday.
So does this mean Gillis actually thinks he's worth 4.6 and they didn't meet in the middle or anything? Makes it sound like he might have accepted less.
So does this mean Gillis actually thinks he's worth 4.6 and they didn't meet in the middle or anything? Makes it sound like he might have accepted less.
Players themselves do very little negotiating of dollars and cents. They usually just indicate an approach they would like to take to negotiations.
The only guy who took noteably more than others to remain was Alex Burrows, and popular speculation is that it was because his agent may be slightly incompetent.
Only "slightly"?
Also Dan Hamhuis also took a significant discount to sign as a UFA - he was offered $5 million plus in salary and a longer term by several teams.
I really think it's worth the extra 300-600k to keep a lifetime Canuck of Bieksa's ilk locked down for the next half decade. Especially with how goofy the cap is becoming. I say this because I still really regret letting Ohlund go.
Letting Ohlund go was the right move, especially with what he's making.
Keeping Bieksa was also the right move.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
Bieksa 5 years 23M 4.6M avg
Wiz 6 years 33 M 5.5M avg
As a Hawks fan, I got a good look at Bieksa's game (I actually saw every Van playoff game this year) and as a Canadian I've seen plenty of Wizniewski on TSN and HNIC, atdhe streams etc....
For Wiz to make more than Bieksa is absurd. Your boy just took a $10M haircut to hang out there. He must be in love with a blazing hot BC girl. Or he's an idiot.
Since he's orig from Grimbsy, the jury's out on this one.
His wife pretty good looking but from Grimsby id say. So it looks like answer #2 is correct. Lol
Not so shockingly a good portion of nuck fans were unhappy about his "overpayment".
He was at a caphit of 3.75. Before the extra cap raise was announced quite a few would have been happy about him getting 4.2. The extra .4 is basically the same as the cap raise.
Bieksa had a very good playoffs. 10 points of which 5 were goals from your shutdown guy is excellent.
He still does not get the credit he deserves and probabaly never will. But thy matters not.
Bieksa got a fair contract. Players are always overpaid on July 1st, especially defenseman. It was a discount in the sense that he would have gotten overpaid on July 1st.
I suppose that's still a discount... You get my drift, though.
It's more a case of Columbus paying a premium for Wisniewski than Vancouver getting a discount on Bieksa.
The other factor with Bieksa is that he was absolutely godawful for 3 years prior to this year, one of the worst regular defenders in the NHL. Was a liability for this team in 2009-10. Then had a massive, massive turnaround over the last 60 games of 2010-11.
If he'd had several years of last year's form, I'd be more inclined to call it a 'discount'. If he returns to his form of previous years, his contract will be a huge overpayment.
It's more a case of Columbus paying a premium for Wisniewski than Vancouver getting a discount on Bieksa.
The other factor with Bieksa is that he was absolutely godawful for 3 years prior to this year, one of the worst regular defenders in the NHL. Was a liability for this team in 2009-10. Then had a massive, massive turnaround over the last 60 games of 2010-11.
If he'd had several years of last year's form, I'd be more inclined to call it a 'discount'. If he returns to his form of previous years, his contract will be a huge overpayment.
that's all true in an ideal system, and shouldn't be called a discount based on his past few years; but NHL FA has always been about what players have done most recently, and what the market is prepared to pay for them.
Seeing the NHL's FA market this offseason, seems obvious he took a big discount on his current contract. There is no doubt that he would have gotten a much bigger contract in FA than what he signed for... whether he's "earned" it or not based on his past few seasons is irrelevant here because teams in FA always pay for assets based on their most recent year and what the market allows them to pay - and both factors favoured Bieksa.
Given that, I think it's fair to say that Bieksa took a big discount to sign here. Unless he's got a clueless agent, he would have been advised on the cap situation. Teams needing to get to the floor, combined with the lack of quality at his position, he was in a position to strike gold in FA. He chose to sign early... that to me, is taking a discount - and a considerable one, compared to what he should have known he'd be able to get on the market.
The only years Bieksa looked bad were years he had a severe leg laceration.
Aside from those two years he earned his "Bieksallent" nickname.
I can't believe people still believe this BS. Completely, utterly untrue.
Bieksa started the 2007-08 as an absolute disaster. Was the team's worst player through training camp, worst player for the first month of the season. Was a total trainwreck. Go back and read threads from that time - there was a huge amount of concern for how bad this player looked.
Then he got hurt for the first time. Came back, played like crap again when he returned. Even though he looked much the same as before the injury - sure, free pass for the late-season troubles.
2008-09 he should have been fully healthy. His numbers look good statistically because he spent the whole year on the #1 PP unit, but he was again absolutely ventilated defensively. GA/60 numbers were amongst the worst of any regular defender in the NHL, finished as a minus player on a 100-point team. Was not a good player for this team, and was very poor in the playoffs against Chicago.
2009-10, he was definitely fully healthy, now 2 years removed from (at the time) his single severe injury. He was absolute garbage. Was a total liability and one of the worst regular defenders in the NHL through 40 games before getting hurt. Was so useless that he was shifted to forward for about 5 games, then had his icetime cut back to #6 minutes in the weeks before getting injured. There really aren't words for how bad he was - nearly every game was a joke.
Then he gets hurt again, and I guess again you can give him a pass for the (continued) poor play after coming back.
But for the 3 seasons before this year, his 'play coming off an injury' was exactly the same as his 'play when fully healthy'. Awful, in both cases.
I can't believe people still believe this BS. Completely, utterly untrue.
Bieksa started the 2007-08 as an absolute disaster. Was the team's worst player through training camp, worst player for the first month of the season. Was a total trainwreck. Go back and read threads from that time - there was a huge amount of concern for how bad this player looked.
Then he got hurt for the first time. Came back, played like crap again when he returned. Even though he looked much the same as before the injury - sure, free pass for the late-season troubles.
2008-09 he should have been fully healthy. His numbers look good statistically because he spent the whole year on the #1 PP unit, but he was again absolutely ventilated defensively. GA/60 numbers were amongst the worst of any regular defender in the NHL, finished as a minus player on a 100-point team. Was not a good player for this team, and was very poor in the playoffs against Chicago.
2009-10, he was definitely fully healthy, now 2 years removed from (at the time) his single severe injury. He was absolute garbage. Was a total liability and one of the worst regular defenders in the NHL through 40 games before getting hurt. Was so useless that he was shifted to forward for about 5 games, then had his icetime cut back to #6 minutes in the weeks before getting injured. There really aren't words for how bad he was - nearly every game was a joke.
Then he gets hurt again, and I guess again you can give him a pass for the (continued) poor play after coming back.
But for the 3 seasons before this year, his 'play coming off an injury' was exactly the same as his 'play when fully healthy'. Awful, in both cases.
This is all very true, but you will have a hard time convincing people on these boards. It seems to me Bieksa is only as good as his defensive partner. I think he played well this past season, mainly because he wasn't playing as wreckless and care free as he used to. However I fear that he will revert back to his old form, especially since he has a long contract and the fact the we lost Ehrhoff.
Bieksa is NOT an offensive defencemen but sometimes convinces himself he is and makes foolish reads and pinches. I REALLY hope they keep him in the same defensive role he was in this season.
Bieksa got a fair contract. Players are always overpaid on July 1st, especially defenseman. It was a discount in the sense that he would have gotten overpaid on July 1st.
I suppose that's still a discount... You get my drift, though.
Um how is that? From my understanding of economics what they get paid on July 1st is fair market value.
To think that Bieksa wouldn't have been paid more on the open market and possibly a lot more is imo more than a little naive. Bieksa took a financial hit to stay with this team.
)
