HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

So... No Extension for Edler..?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-20-2012, 12:43 PM
  #226
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Nobody here is anti-Edler, we're anti-Edler making 5.5m without earning it.
How many defensemen in the NHL have put up 45+ pts/82 games over 4 seasons and then signed sub $5 million deals? Frankly I can't think of a single one.

You might see that as throwing money at points, but over a large enough sample actual production begins to take precedence over Corsi ratings IMO.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 12:48 PM
  #227
kanuck87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Nobody here is anti-Edler, we're anti-Edler making 5.5m without earning it.
Based on the corsi ratings ( I have no clue how to read them or adjust them), who has consistently been some of the best defenseman over the last several seasons?

kanuck87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 12:57 PM
  #228
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
How many defensemen in the NHL have put up 45+ pts/82 games over 4 seasons and then signed sub $5 million deals? Frankly I can't think of a single one.

You might see that as throwing money at points, but over a large enough sample actual production begins to take precedence over Corsi ratings IMO.
I think 30 NHL GMs would agree with you. The stats people seem to lose track of reality. That why nobosy here actually knows a statistician, they are usually hovelled up in a cave working out numbers that will prove something that doesn't really matter.

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 01:15 PM
  #229
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
How many defensemen in the NHL have put up 45+ pts/82 games over 4 seasons and then signed sub $5 million deals? Frankly I can't think of a single one.

You might see that as throwing money at points, but over a large enough sample actual production begins to take precedence over Corsi ratings IMO.
How many defensemen play the PP with the Sedins? Edler's 5 on 5 scoring is not in the 5m+ range and failing to adjust for his favourable position on the PP would be a disservice to the team. I think Ehrhoff proved a 50point d-man on this team is not necessarily a 50pts guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kanuck87 View Post
Based on the corsi ratings ( I have no clue how to read them or adjust them), who has consistently been some of the best defenseman over the last several seasons?
Lidstrom, Chara, Keith, Hamhuis, Petreangelo to name a few. Guys having good years see their corsi go up and guys having poor years have it go down(in general). The stats needs to be put in context of the kind of minutes a guy is playing, against who, with who, but it's a really good indicator of how effective guys are imo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigcaulks View Post
I think 30 NHL GMs would agree with you. The stats people seem to lose track of reality. That why nobosy here actually knows a statistician, they are usually hovelled up in a cave working out numbers that will prove something that doesn't really matter.
Gillis let a 50point d-man walk already, and he was a good corsi player. I'd say MG agree's with me, or at least I agree with him.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 01:38 PM
  #230
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 21,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Gillis let a 50point d-man walk already, and he was a good corsi player. I'd say MG agree's with me, or at least I agree with him.
And kept a $4+ million dollar third pairing defenseman (while relying on a defenseman made of glass to replace him) on the roster instead.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 01:52 PM
  #231
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,032
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
And kept a $4+ million dollar third pairing defenseman (while relying on a defenseman made of glass to replace him) on the roster instead.
Because Ehrhoff wasn't worth the $5.5M he was asking for from us, and Gillis was banking on Ballard being able to step up when given an increased role in a season where he anticipated Ballard would be healthy.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 02:01 PM
  #232
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 21,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Because Ehrhoff wasn't worth the $5.5M he was asking for from us, and Gillis was banking on Ballard being able to step up when given an increased role in a season where he anticipated Ballard would be healthy.
Gillis doesn't decide what role Ballard would play on the team - Bowness does. And the later has proven that he has zero confidence in the defenseman. In Bowness' eyes a guy like Rome fit into the Canucks system better (right or wrong).

We don't know what Ehrhoff would've eventually settled for (maybe more/maybe less) - Gillis gave him a "take it or leave it offer" (no room for negotiations).

Sure, if you don't want Ehrhoff at X price - but why not dump both (him and Ballard) & simply go for another top four guy using Salo (as he should've been used - a 3rd pairing guy who could "fill in" easily in the top four for a period of time if somebody got hurt).

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 02:53 PM
  #233
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
why not dump both (him and Ballard) & simply go for another top four guy using Salo (as he should've been used - a 3rd pairing guy who could "fill in" easily in the top four for a period of time if somebody got hurt).
Because that player was never available. When Garrison did become available, Gillis snapped him up.

The coaching staff doesn't hate Ballard or have zero faith in him, they're turning him into a player. Unlike the teams and coaches that Ballard has played for in the past, he isn't able to get by on talent alone here. He has to play the system. He's almost there, I'm expecting a good season.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 02:56 PM
  #234
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Gillis let a 50point d-man walk already, and he was a good corsi player. I'd say MG agree's with me, or at least I agree with him.
Remember accounting 101? GIGO. You can spin nonsense all you want but it's still nonsense.

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 03:06 PM
  #235
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 21,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Because that player was never available.
IMHO, you don't a player walk if you can't fill that vital position via trade or free agency. If overpaying is that distastefull; then offer player a short-term deal (don't know if Ehrhoff would've hated that as again, he wasn't even given that option). Dump Ballard to more than cover for the short-term overpayment (Rome would've been more than adequate to cover that 3rd pairing spot vacated by Ballard).

With respect to today/future: If Ballard needs to be "trained to be a top four guy" - why not use Edler instead? I'd easily pay a million more ($5.2 million) for a guy I already know has filled that role in the past (his only problem is consistancy - as well as getting used to "revolving door of defensive partners"). If Ballard could play the right side, then obviously I'd feel different (as he has never looked good on the right side). Being a left side D, I don't see Ballard ever passing Hamhuis or Garrison on the depth chart (even if Edler regresses further or walks/is dealt). $4.2 million is too expensive an "insurance policy" for someone who *might* be able to handle a top four role.


Last edited by Barney Gumble: 09-20-2012 at 03:42 PM.
Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 03:15 PM
  #236
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,032
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
IMHO, you don't a player walk if you can't fill that vital position via trade or free agency. If overpaying is that distastefull; then offer player a short-term deal (don't know if Ehrhoff would've hated that as again, he wasn't even given that option). Dump Ballard to more than cover for the short-term overpayment (Rome would've been more than adequate to cover that 3rd pairing spot vacated by Ballard).
Or simply realize that Ehrhoff isn't as good as he appeared to be and wouldn't be worth the raise? Kinda like how people here think Edler is our best defenseman and should get $6M/year when in reality he's worth less than that because he's not our best defenseman.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 03:18 PM
  #237
Co Ho*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Or simply realize that Ehrhoff isn't as good as he appeared to be and wouldn't be worth the raise? Kinda like how people here think Edler is our best defenseman and should get $6M/year when in reality he's worth less than that because he's not our best defenseman.

Coming from someone who CONSTANTLY complains about our lack of offense and scoring, you sure take for granted our best offensive dman.
In reality he's worth at least 6 mill on the open market, if not more.

Co Ho* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 03:39 PM
  #238
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,032
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Co Ho View Post
Coming from someone who CONSTANTLY complains about our lack of offense and scoring, you sure take for granted our best offensive dman.
In reality he's worth at least 6 mill on the open market, if not more.
What a player is worth and what a player is offered are two different things.

I value Bieksa's even strength offense more than Edler's ability to dish the puck to the Sedin's on the PP. Notice how Edler struggled in the second half when PP's were down?

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 04:18 PM
  #239
Co Ho*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
What a player is worth and what a player is offered are two different things.

I value Bieksa's even strength offense more than Edler's ability to dish the puck to the Sedin's on the PP. Notice how Edler struggled in the second half when PP's were down?
Now you're just debating semantics by drawing a distinction between 'worth' and 'value' (what Edler would be valued at on the open market as a UFA). What Edler is worth is entirely subjective so we should not even debate it as we will have different interpretations, however we can both agree that he is valued at 6 mill or higher as a UFA. Wideman and Carle at 5.5 mill have easily set the standard for what Edler will be valued at.

And great, you're applying exceptions due to circumstance to Edler's points, but yet you always scrutinize the Canucks for lack of offense in the playoffs and Edler is our top offensive dman in recent years (even including his abysmal performance this year) in the post-season.

Co Ho* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 04:25 PM
  #240
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
IMHO, you don't a player walk if you can't fill that vital position via trade or free agency. If overpaying is that distastefull; then offer player a short-term deal (don't know if Ehrhoff would've hated that as again, he wasn't even given that option). Dump Ballard to more than cover for the short-term overpayment (Rome would've been more than adequate to cover that 3rd pairing spot vacated by Ballard).
I'm curious how you know he wasn't offered a short term deal worth more money? It's common knowledge that Gillis wasn't willing to break the "cap" on a long term deal, do you know he didn't offer a shorter term?

Basing what you are willing to pay players on availability in FA or trade leaves you open to making moves out of desperation. I don't think that's the best way to run a franchise long term.


Last edited by Scurr: 09-20-2012 at 04:34 PM.
Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 04:25 PM
  #241
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
How many defensemen play the PP with the Sedins? Edler's 5 on 5 scoring is not in the 5m+ range and failing to adjust for his favourable position on the PP would be a disservice to the team. I think Ehrhoff proved a 50point d-man on this team is not necessarily a 50pts guy.
Edler played primarily on the 2nd unit in 2 of the 4 seasons yet still put up 42 pts/82 games in those 2 years. Perhaps he's helping drive those results on the 1st unit?

As for Ehrhoff, his production has been lower when not on the Canucks, but not by a whole lot. In the year before he came to the Canucks and the year after he left he put up 42 pts/82 games. In 2 years with the Canucks he put up 48 pts/82 games. So there's a difference, but not a huge one, especially when you factor in that with the Canucks he was paired with Edler and not Douglas Murray and Jordan Leopold like he has been in those other years.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 04:28 PM
  #242
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigcaulks View Post
Remember accounting 101? GIGO. You can spin nonsense all you want but it's still nonsense.
You made the argument that NHL GM's put more stock in points then I was, I gave you an example of a GM that wasn't willing to pay the 5.5m+ for 50 points that the rest of you are. That isn't a spin, it's a fact.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 04:31 PM
  #243
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
he was paired with Edler and not Douglas Murray and Jordan Leopold like he has been in those other years.
Ehrhoff spent a lot of time with O'Brien in his first season and Edler was injured for a large portion of his second. Ehrhoff spent significantly more time w/o Edler than with iirc.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 05:16 PM
  #244
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
You made the argument that NHL GM's put more stock in points then I was, I gave you an example of a GM that wasn't willing to pay the 5.5m+ for 50 points that the rest of you are. That isn't a spin, it's a fact.
I wasn't in the meeting, what exactly was the sticking point for Ehrhoff? How did that turn out?

It is impossible to have this discussion with someone so emotionally involved in it. If you do not beleive that GM's put a high value on points (obviously as well as the other attributes they bring OUTSIDE of corsi) then I've just wasted 38 seconds typing.

Rather than skirt around with anecdotal crap, look at the broad picture. Hell, look at what Garrison got and supposedly turned down for what amounts to 2 solid seasons and ONE offensive year.

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 05:27 PM
  #245
Askel
Registered User
 
Askel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Malmö/Vancouver
Posts: 1,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
How many defensemen play the PP with the Sedins? Edler's 5 on 5 scoring is not in the 5m+ range and failing to adjust for his favourable position on the PP would be a disservice to the team. I think Ehrhoff proved a 50point d-man on this team is not necessarily a 50pts guy.
Edler was 10th in the league in Evenstrengh scoring, he scored as many even strengh points as Pietrangelo, how is that not 5+ million range?

Askel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 05:32 PM
  #246
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigcaulks View Post
Hell, look at what Garrison got and supposedly turned down for what amounts to 2 solid seasons and ONE offensive year.
MG signed Garrison because of his corsi, not his points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Askel View Post
Edler was 10th in the league in Evenstrengh scoring, he scored as many even strengh points as Pietrangelo, how is that not 5+ million range?
Because Kevin Bieksa finished 2nd and Dan Hamhuis was only 2pts behind and they both make 4.6m. Again, you shouldn't pay for points anyway, you should be paying for effectiveness.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 05:35 PM
  #247
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Askel View Post
Edler was 10th in the league in Evenstrengh scoring, he scored as many even strengh points as Pietrangelo, how is that not 5+ million range?
It would be a travesty to see Edler making Gonchar, Myers, Carle, Wideman, Keith, Seabrook money. All of these players are FAR better and always will be. Maybe we can sign him for $5M and trade him for Paul Martin or Z Michalek.

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 05:39 PM
  #248
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
MG signed Garrison because of his corsi, not his points.
I get the idea you don't even need to actually watch hockey. You can just read the corsi ratings and decide who played well.

BTW, did MG take Campbell into account? Again, I am not in these meetings so I am not privy to Mike Gillis' decision making.

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 05:47 PM
  #249
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigcaulks View Post
I get the idea you don't even need to actually watch hockey. You can just read the corsi ratings and decide who played well.
There are a lot of differing opinion, not all of them can be correct. Corsi is a good way to make an argument. If you don't think corsi is relevant, that's fine, but you're wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
BTW, did MG take Campbell into account? Again, I am not in these meetings so I am not privy to Mike Gillis' decision making.
Garrison played well with Mike Weaver the season before, so yes, he did take it into account.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 05:52 PM
  #250
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Garrison played well with Mike Weaver the season before, so yes, he did take it into account.
Now you're just putting words into my mouth.

Chubros 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 05:13 PM.

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.