I was kind of musing on this the other day: Which will help this team more: Garrison or Ehrhoff? Essentially, this is the swap.
Would be nice to essentially "roll" with three pairings much like some teams "roll" with three/four forward lines. Makes for a fresher roster come playoff time.
We know that when Edler had a legit right-side partner in Ehrhoff, both excelled offensively. But perhaps Garrison will provide more balance? The key is still the chemistry between the two. I think Garrison is smart enough to play alongside Edler, but then I also thought the same of Salo... That didn't work out so well.
I'll be surprised if Garrison doesn't put up 40 points playing with Edler and getting first PP duty, plus he's going to be significantly better defensively than Ehrhoff. It's not hard to imagine that being an upgrade and Gillis didn't have to break the bank.
We have great contracts up and down the lineup, Gillis cap plan has been a great success.
If we sign Ehrhoff for 5.5m then we don't get Garrison for 4.6m, and Garrison might turn out to be the better player.
Gillis' cap plan has been a great success so far. Assuming Garrison is able to gel with Edler and Edler re-signs and we keep our salary structure, then it was a huge success. But if it causes Edler to walk, the loss of him and Ehrhoff is enough to transform what was previously a strength into a weakness. It's really, really difficult to replace top-end talent like Edler through free agency, and impossible to do while keeping the current salary structure anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean
I was kind of musing on this the other day: Which will help this team more: Garrison or Ehrhoff? Essentially, this is the swap.
We know that when Edler had a legit right-side partner in Ehrhoff, both excelled offensively. But perhaps Garrison will provide more balance? The key is still the chemistry between the two. I think Garrison is smart enough to play alongside Edler, but then I also thought the same of Salo... That didn't work out so well.
In fairness, Salo was a shade of his former self, so all things weren't equal. Interesting question nonetheless.
I really hope Garrison works out, but it was risky to let Ehrhoff walk. If we hadn't managed to sign Garrison, we'd be stuck with the dreadful Edler-Bieksa pairing that AV seemed to love near the end of the season. And even now we don't know if Garrison will work with Edler. Ehrhoff complimented Edler really well, but Garrison plays a very different style.
It's really, really difficult to replace top-end talent like Edler through free agency, and impossible to do while keeping the current salary structure anyways.
The same thing was said when Gillis let Ehrhoff walk...and now we have Garrison. Gillis has huge balls, way more than me. I probably would have paid Ehrhoff. You have to give Gillis credit though, he's sticking to it and it's paying off.
I think Garrison is smart enough to play alongside Edler, but then I also thought the same of Salo... That didn't work out so well.
In fairness, Salo was a shade of his former self, so all things weren't equal. Interesting question nonetheless.
Like you said, Salo was a shadow of the player he'd been a few years ago - no question he has the smarts to play alongside anyone in the league but his body simply can't keep up.
If Garrison does not work out on Edler's right side it'll likely be for very different reasons (unless he has a Keith Ballard like run of luck with injuries).
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks
I agree with this. And despite my assessment of Edler which (for whatever reason people disagree with) I have always maintained that we should sign him to numbers that you mention above.
This is the funny thing about this debate, I think most people's "walk away" number is within about half a million of most other people.. pretty close in terms of the salaries high end players get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble
Would be nice to essentially "roll" with three pairings much like some teams "roll" with three/four forward lines. Makes for a fresher roster come playoff time.
(eg., have both guys instead of one or the other)
Well, sure. But given the price points those two players were likely to end up at (I still see Ehrhoff's $4m cap hit as a peculiar outcome and don't think it would have been possible here) I think that comes at the long term expense of having all three of Bieksa, Hamhuis and Edler.
And anyway if we had Hamhuis, Bieksa, Edler, Ehrhoff, Ballard and Tanev all in the organization heading into this offseason is there any chance we could have signed Garrison? Leaving money on the table to sign with the team you want is one thing, but doing so and having a really poor shot at a top four role as well? That would be an awful career move for JG.
Like you said, Salo was a shadow of the player he'd been a few years ago - no question he has the smarts to play alongside anyone in the league but his body simply can't keep up.
If Garrison does not work out on Edler's right side it'll likely be for very different reasons (unless he has a Keith Ballard like run of luck with injuries).
This is the funny thing about this debate, I think most people's "walk away" number is within about half a million of most other people.. pretty close in terms of the salaries high end players get.
Well, sure. But given the price points those two players were likely to end up at (I still see Ehrhoff's $4m cap hit as a peculiar outcome and don't think it would have been possible here) I think that comes at the long term expense of having all three of Bieksa, Hamhuis and Edler.
And anyway if we had Hamhuis, Bieksa, Edler, Ehrhoff, Ballard and Tanev all in the organization heading into this offseason is there any chance we could have signed Garrison? Leaving money on the table to sign with the team you want is one thing, but doing so and having a really poor shot at a top four role as well? That would be an awful career move for JG.
Agreed. I doubt Garrison signs here with that scenario. Or if the team would want to sign him, given contracts already on the team/roles. That's why I see it as an either or debate, instead of having both.
I think Garrison has the potential to be exactly what Edler needs both offensively and especially defensively. His shot takes attention away from Edler, and his defense is superb (per advanced stats). With Ehrhoff, the pairing was fragile defensively, but great offensively. With Garrison, it stands to be good at both ends (although still not as good offensively as it would be with Ehrhoff). Ill take that trade off any day.
I'll be surprised if Garrison doesn't put up 40 points playing with Edler and getting first PP duty, plus he's going to be significantly better defensively than Ehrhoff. It's not hard to imagine that being an upgrade and Gillis didn't have to break the bank.
Yes. Really its a signing that fits exactly what this team needs. Perhaps also exactly what Edler needs.
On top of that Gillis sends a message. Buy in, or your out. Buy in, and you'll be a key player on a winning team. Buy in, and keep the culture of the team intact.
This is the funny thing about this debate, I think most people's "walk away" number is within about half a million of most other people.. pretty close in terms of the salaries high end players get.
You're right, it is quite amusing. This is one of the hottest debates the past couple weeks with two sides that just aren't agreeing, yet the dollars we're arguing over aren't that far apart. Hell in my case I've argued opposite views on Edler yet come up with the same figure of what we think he should be paid.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
The same thing was said when Gillis let Ehrhoff walk...and now we have Garrison. Gillis has huge balls, way more than me. I probably would have paid Ehrhoff. You have to give Gillis credit though, he's sticking to it and it's paying off.
The biggest reason we have Garrison (and so cheap) is because he is a BC boy with a connection to the team (MayRay). Could you imagine if we didn't get Garrison? We would still be missing that top 4 dman & I don't think Gillis would have overpaid a UFA to fill that.... however in the Luongo trade who knows?!?!
You're right Gillis does have balls & sometimes it really backfires. Gillis could have just dumped Ballard & kept Ehrhoff in reality.
The biggest reason we have Garrison (and so cheap) is because he is a BC boy with a connection to the team (MayRay). Could you imagine if we didn't get Garrison? We would still be missing that top 4 dman & I don't think Gillis would have overpaid a UFA to fill that.... however in the Luongo trade who knows?!?!
You're right Gillis does have balls & sometimes it really backfires. Gillis could have just dumped Ballard & kept Ehrhoff in reality.
Keeping/leaving Ehrhoff came down to his contract. He wanted more, Gillis didn't budge, and then he was shipped out. It had nothing to do with Ballard IMO. Ehrhoff at 5m+ was a non-starter for Gillis.
Yes, agree that getting Garrison was huge. Without him, Gillis likely targets an NHL dman in trade. It changed his needs in a big way... Too bad Shultz didn't follow.
The biggest reason we have Garrison (and so cheap) is because he is a BC boy with a connection to the team (MayRay). Could you imagine if we didn't get Garrison? We would still be missing that top 4 dman & I don't think Gillis would have overpaid a UFA to fill that.... however in the Luongo trade who knows?!?!
You're right Gillis does have balls & sometimes it really backfires. Gillis could have just dumped Ballard & kept Ehrhoff in reality.
True but we didn't know we were getting Garrison back then, in hindsight I'd take the Hoff at $5m over Ballard. We still had Salo-Bieksa-Tanev (+ continuing conversion attempt on Ballard) for the right side.
It would also have ruled us out of the Schultz sweepstakes before it began (Hoff/Bieksa/Tanev on the right, assuming he was even on Gillis's radar.
The real reason was the big prize - Weber. We were in there trying to get him until Philly screwed things up. It feels like that is what Gillis was planning for when we let Ehrhoff go. Either Bieksa or the Hoff for the second pairing - I we had Weber I'd probably take the Hoff over Bieksa - without Weber I'd take Bieksa. Ballard could always have been moved if we got Weber and Garrison.
I can always dream of what might have been in hindsight (Edler-Weber, Hamhuis-Hoff, Garrison-Tanev).
True but we didn't know we were getting Garrison back then, in hindsight I'd take the Hoff at $5m over Ballard. We still had Salo-Bieksa-Tanev (+ continuing conversion attempt on Ballard) for the right side.
It would also have ruled us out of the Schultz sweepstakes before it began (Hoff/Bieksa/Tanev on the right, assuming he was even on Gillis's radar.
The real reason was the big prize - Weber. We were in there trying to get him until Philly screwed things up. It feels like that is what Gillis was planning for when we let Ehrhoff go. Either Bieksa or the Hoff for the second pairing - I we had Weber I'd probably take the Hoff over Bieksa - without Weber I'd take Bieksa. Ballard could always have been moved if we got Weber and Garrison.
I can always dream of what might have been in hindsight (Edler-Weber, Hamhuis-Hoff, Garrison-Tanev).
I agree about Weber & for some reason I forgot about that.
When I was writing my post I was dreaming of a D like this:
On top of that Gillis sends a message. Buy in, or your out. Buy in, and you'll be a key player on a winning team. Buy in, and keep the culture of the team intact.
I've bought in, every player but Ehrhoff has bought in, HF isn't buying it
I'll be surprised if Garrison doesn't put up 40 points playing with Edler and getting first PP duty, plus he's going to be significantly better defensively than Ehrhoff. It's not hard to imagine that being an upgrade and Gillis didn't have to break the bank.
I'm wondering if Garrison will get consistant PP time on the 1st unit. I know it seemed to work when Ehrhoff was here, but that would give us two left shots from the point. Since Henrik runs the PP from the right half boards, it will be very difficult for us to bang off one timers without a right hand shot on the right point. Personally, I'd experiment some more with using Kesler on the right point with Kassian potentially in front of the net. Burrows would be another option for net prescence, but I'd rather a right handed shot.
I'm wondering if Garrison will get consistant PP time on the 1st unit. I know it seemed to work when Ehrhoff was here, but that would give us two left shots from the point. Since Henrik runs the PP from the right half boards, it will be very difficult for us to bang off one timers without a right hand shot on the right point. Personally, I'd experiment some more with using Kesler on the right point with Kassian potentially in front of the net. Burrows would be another option for net prescence, but I'd rather a right handed shot.
If Garrison's shot is as good as advertised he'll be a big benefit to the twins on the PP. Having to respect the point spreads out the D and opens up those seams the twins like to attack. It's hard to say for sure until you see it in action, but I think he'll earn that spot. Garrison is better offensively than he's getting credit for I think.
