HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must use the RUMOR prefix in thread title. Proposals must contain the PROPOSAL prefix in the thread title.

Jason Garrison - Canucks top of his list if he hits UFA status.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-17-2012, 04:43 AM
  #126
BillDineen
Registered User
 
BillDineen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyRoad View Post
Cool, 'no he isn't'. That's original, perhaps a little evidence to back up your sentence, maybe a further explanation.

Garrison had the best on ice corsi for any defenceman on his team this yr. His team had the puck most when he was on the ice.
Lindstrom was 7th on his team in On-ICE corsi and 7th in Relative Corsi (-6.9) in 2010-11 and won the Norris on a puck possession team.

Corsi arguments are baseless.

BillDineen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 05:00 AM
  #127
ScoreZeGoals
Back on Cloud 9
 
ScoreZeGoals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 10,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
I get the feeling that while he won't be drastically overpaid, he will be slightly overpaid and slightly under-perform. Think Paul Martin or Anton Volchenkov.
The same Paul Martin Pens fans were trying to dump on every team at the deadline? Martin isn't worth anywhere near 5 million a year.

As for Garrison, he's a 3.5-3.75 guy who is going to probably get close to 5 million.

ScoreZeGoals is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 05:05 AM
  #128
SunshineRays
Registered User
 
SunshineRays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillDineen View Post
Lindstrom was 7th on his team in On-ICE corsi and 7th in Relative Corsi (-6.9) in 2010-11 and won the Norris on a puck possession team.

Corsi arguments are baseless.

So when did the NHL start giving out Norris trophies only to d-men who have the best Corsi? What's the correlation between winning a Norris trophy and corsi? I never stated such a thing.

And you'd determine relevance of a corsi stat based on 1 persons stat-line? None of your argument makes sense.

All I originally said was Garrison had the best puck possession on his team. Not that he was going to win the Norris, not that Corsi was going to build you a championship team. Re-read my post.

SunshineRays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 05:26 AM
  #129
Laus723
#CatsAreComing
 
Laus723's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 27,632
vCash: 500
Rocky, you couldn't have watched him play, sorry. If you had, you'd have noticed that Campbell's is the one who carries the puck up and down the ice, not Garrison. Bring up as many stats as you'd like, just didn't happen. Garrison, though, is no slouch in the transition game and was always where he needed to be. A pmd, though? No. And certainly not the definition of one.

__________________
Future now!
Laus723 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 06:04 AM
  #130
BillDineen
Registered User
 
BillDineen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyRoad View Post
So when did the NHL start giving out Norris trophies only to d-men who have the best Corsi? What's the correlation between winning a Norris trophy and corsi? I never stated such a thing.

And you'd determine relevance of a corsi stat based on 1 persons stat-line? None of your argument makes sense.

All I originally said was Garrison had the best puck possession on his team. Not that he was going to win the Norris, not that Corsi was going to build you a championship team. Re-read my post.
What does Corsi have to do with puck possession? Nothing. Corsi is a flawed stat as a basis, it treats all shots equally. Further, it is not used by the NHL, only bloggers. Go search this site for the arguments against it.

BillDineen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 06:09 AM
  #131
BillDineen
Registered User
 
BillDineen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyRoad View Post
So when did the NHL start giving out Norris trophies only to d-men who have the best Corsi? What's the correlation between winning a Norris trophy and corsi? I never stated such a thing.

And you'd determine relevance of a corsi stat based on 1 persons stat-line? None of your argument makes sense.

All I originally said was Garrison had the best puck possession on his team. Not that he was going to win the Norris, not that Corsi was going to build you a championship team. Re-read my post.
Lindsrtom was 7th on Detroit. That is considering all Detroit's D and their best PMD on a team that is widely view as a puck possession team. How can you statistically explain Lidstrom's stats relative to his teammates?

You can't. Your argument is garbage and if you cannot see that from my example, you are an I diot. Go look at player's inconsistently YoY in corsi and tell me if they were vastly different players YoY.

BillDineen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 06:43 AM
  #132
pb1300
#CatsAreComing
 
pb1300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aiyio, Greece
Country: Greece
Posts: 11,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to pb1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyRoad View Post
[/B]

Actually, no. Look at the advanced stats. They say, with Garrison on the ice this yr (at even strength), his team had the puck more. More than Campbell, more than any other d-man. Is it sustainable next yr? Who knows.
Dude, watch ONE single Panther game, and you will see who the primary puck handler is on defense. Garrison improved greatly in a lot of areas this past season, but he was our primary shooter on the PP. Brian Campbell was our #1 Dman in ALL situations, and was our primary puck handler, regardless of position. Garrison wouldnt even consider himself a PMD.


Last edited by pb1300: 05-17-2012 at 06:53 AM.
pb1300 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 06:52 AM
  #133
Man Bear Pig
Registered User
 
Man Bear Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 11,156
vCash: 500
A guy who wants to play for his hometown team...not exactly shocking guys. Money talks though and I doubt the Canucks can a)afford him and b)have a big shot dman as a top priority tbh

Man Bear Pig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 08:34 AM
  #134
Medium Rare*
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyRoad View Post
I love it when people try to argue you can't evaluate hockey through stats - only cause those people don't understand stats. Anyone who understands them knows very well many aspects of hockey can be valuated through stats. Those same people always use the argument about 'baseball' cause they've recently watched a movie called Moneyball and assume a does not equal b.

Hockey is very much a game of numbers. Scotty Bowman, Ken Holland, Mike Gillis, Lou Lamoriello and many other GM's help structure their teams based on players stats. Obviously there are other factors involved, but stats are a large part. The basic premise of hockey teams are statistic based - operating within budgets, salary cap etc.

So please, next time you try to use a movie as basis for an argument. Think again.

Also, I watch Garrison play.
This I doubt, in fact with the things you have been spewing in this thread I question if you have ever watched a game in any capacity.

And I used the baseball reference because I have played both hockey and baseball, I understand the statistics for both very much, but thanks for showing that concern.

Medium Rare* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 08:45 AM
  #135
The Pucks
Registered User
 
The Pucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyRoad View Post
I love it when people try to argue you can't evaluate hockey through stats - only cause those people don't understand stats. Anyone who understands them knows very well many aspects of hockey can be valuated through stats. Those same people always use the argument about 'baseball' cause they've recently watched a movie called Moneyball and assume a does not equal b.

Hockey is very much a game of numbers. Scotty Bowman, Ken Holland, Mike Gillis, Lou Lamoriello and many other GM's help structure their teams based on players stats. Obviously there are other factors involved, but stats are a large part. The basic premise of hockey teams are statistic based - operating within budgets, salary cap etc.

So please, next time you try to use a movie as basis for an argument. Think again.

Also, I watch Garrison play.
What was the old Scotty Bowman quote? Stats are for losers?

The Pucks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 08:49 AM
  #136
Ivan13
Avs/Habs fan
 
Ivan13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Zagreb
Country: Croatia
Posts: 14,353
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Pucks View Post
What was the old Scotty Bowman quote? Stats are for losers?


Touche.

Ivan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 08:50 AM
  #137
pb1300
#CatsAreComing
 
pb1300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aiyio, Greece
Country: Greece
Posts: 11,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to pb1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medium Rare View Post
This I doubt, in fact with the things you have been spewing in this thread I question if you have ever watched a game in any capacity.

And I used the baseball reference because I have played both hockey and baseball, I understand the statistics for both very much, but thanks for showing that concern.
Dont even bother man, the guy clearly doesnt have a clue.

pb1300 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 09:17 AM
  #138
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
If he wants to be closer to home and cannot get a deal done with either the panthers/canucks, I can see Edmonton and Calgary getting into a bidding war for his services. Both teams really need a guy like him.

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 09:50 AM
  #139
arsmaster
semantic romantic
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 24,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb1300 View Post
Dude, watch ONE single Panther game, and you will see who the primary puck handler is on defense. Garrison improved greatly in a lot of areas this past season, but he was our primary shooter on the PP. Brian Campbell was our #1 Dman in ALL situations, and was our primary puck handler, regardless of position. Garrison wouldnt even consider himself a PMD.
Is it at all possible you guys are arguing semantics?


To me a puck-moving defensman is a guy who can get the puck in his own end, pick his head up, and make a pass to start the rush.

I think Campbell is one also, but he is also a 'puck rushing defensman'.

Puck moving defensman is one of those terms IMO, that is open for interpretation.

Not saying he is or isn't, but if he can't make a breakout pass and start the rush, he shouldn't be getting a 4-5 million dollar/yr contract.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 10:16 AM
  #140
Medium Rare*
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Pucks View Post
What was the old Scotty Bowman quote? Stats are for losers?
and owned

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnome View Post
If he wants to be closer to home and cannot get a deal done with either the panthers/canucks, I can see Edmonton and Calgary getting into a bidding war for his services. Both teams really need a guy like him.
I can definitely see the Flames and Oilers making big offers for him. He fits exactly what uncle Feaster is trying to do.

Medium Rare* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 10:42 AM
  #141
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medium Rare View Post
and owned

I can definitely see the Flames and Oilers making big offers for him. He fits exactly what uncle Feaster is trying to do.
Yeah, it comes down to what Garrison wants. Location wise CGY is better, we also have some stability on our backend already, the Oilers are very poor in that regard. But if he wants to be part of an exciting young core and be the go to guy EDM has more to offer.

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 11:05 AM
  #142
Meatwagon
Blues=Overrated
 
Meatwagon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Bi-polar Express
Country: United States
Posts: 1,877
vCash: 50
5yrs -22 million

Meatwagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 11:13 AM
  #143
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoreZeGoals View Post
The same Paul Martin Pens fans were trying to dump on every team at the deadline? Martin isn't worth anywhere near 5 million a year.

As for Garrison, he's a 3.5-3.75 guy who is going to probably get close to 5 million.
That is what I am saying. If Martin were making ~$3.5, I doubt as many Pens fans would be upset with his performance.

bluemandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 11:18 AM
  #144
frostyflo
#peskyblues
 
frostyflo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 3,174
vCash: 500
St. Louis is also closer to BC than Florida, no?

oh man would he look good next to Petro, too bad we`ll get outbid again

frostyflo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 11:32 AM
  #145
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Bear Pig View Post
A guy who wants to play for his hometown team...not exactly shocking guys. Money talks though and I doubt the Canucks can a)afford him and b)have a big shot dman as a top priority tbh
We could easily afford the guy. We have nobody on any substance salary wise to re-sign this offseason, just 4th liners and maybe a 3rd line center. Not only that, but if Luongo does infact get traded and Schneider re-signs for a bit less that will easily cover all of our re-signings. We could also move Ballard if we had to in order to make room for a guy who can play the right side or another top 6 forward. On top of all of that, there are rumors that the salary cap could take a huge leap forward next season. That alone could pay for the signing of Garrison. The bottom line is Vancouver has a ton of wiggle room this offseason, we have the money to bring in a big contract.

Luck 6 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 11:37 AM
  #146
chasespace
Registered User
 
chasespace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Williston, FL
Posts: 5,943
vCash: 500
If he wants to stay in Florida I hope Tampa gives him an offer.

chasespace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 12:45 PM
  #147
arsmaster
semantic romantic
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 24,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
We could easily afford the guy. We have nobody on any substance salary wise to re-sign this offseason, just 4th liners and maybe a 3rd line center. Not only that, but if Luongo does infact get traded and Schneider re-signs for a bit less that will easily cover all of our re-signings. We could also move Ballard if we had to in order to make room for a guy who can play the right side or another top 6 forward. On top of all of that, there are rumors that the salary cap could take a huge leap forward next season. That alone could pay for the signing of Garrison. The bottom line is Vancouver has a ton of wiggle room this offseason, we have the money to bring in a big contract.
If Garrison is the 'Big money signing' then the Canucks are in trouble.

They need a bigger shake up than that, and IMO it needs to come on the form of a top line forward.

We need to upgrade the 'big 4' (Sedin's, Kesler, Burrows) If you can upgrade Burrows position (not suggesting moving him, just dropping him down the depth chart) with a Parise or whoever it makes the team substantially better.

Right now Vancouver's big 4 is losing ground to Chicago's (Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp) among others (Kopitar, Richards, Carter and Brown).

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 12:55 PM
  #148
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
If Garrison is the 'Big money signing' then the Canucks are in trouble
Garrison would maybe be the third best UFA on the market in regards to Vancouver after Parise and Suter. I don't see Parise signing with us and there are no other UFA forwards I would pay market value for. Who do you suggest we sign?

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 12:58 PM
  #149
Skead
Registered User
 
Skead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverback91 View Post
If the Canucks lose out on Schultz, Garrison would be the next option in my opinion. Since u say he plays best on the right side and thats what we need

Maybe even sign both and then work out who to trade later incase Schultz doesn't make the team
D. Sedin - H. Sedin - Burrows
Edler - Garrison
Goal Scoring Line

Booth - Kesler - Higgins
Hamhuis - Bieksa
2 Way Playing Line

________ - ________ - Hansen
Ballard - Tanev
Defensive Shutdown Line

Skead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 01:04 PM
  #150
arsmaster
semantic romantic
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 24,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
Garrison would maybe be the third best UFA on the market in regards to Vancouver after Parise and Suter. I don't see Parise signing with us and there are no other UFA forwards I would pay market value for. Who do you suggest we sign?
Addition not signing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skead View Post
D. Sedin - H. Sedin - Burrows
Edler - Garrison
Goal Scoring Line

Booth - Kesler - ________
Hamhuis - Bieksa
2 Way Playing Line

Higgins- ________ - Hansen
Ballard - Tanev
Defensive Shutdown Line
I moved Higgins to the shutdown line.

They need to upgrade the 2nd line.

Worst part is Kesler is gone until December.

So as it stands the Canucks are short a top 6 winger, a 3rd line center (hoping Schroeder slides into the spot Hodgson started in last season), and to start a #2C.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:22 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.