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

Mike Gillis Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-18-2013, 01:02 PM
  #876
Diamonddog01
Diamond in the rough
 
Diamonddog01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vector209 View Post
This sums it up very well. People downplaying Ehrhoff's importance to the team either only look at the numbers and never actually watched him during the games, and his effect on others (Sedins), or they just flat out hate him for some reason.

Christian Ehrhoff was a player who, during his time in Vancouver, was worth more than the sum of his parts. He just changed how the rest of the team played whenever he stepped on the ice and made them a nightmare to defend against with a lightning fast transition game that at times seemed like it wasn't giving the opposing team any room for a breather.

Just watching how others played during his tenure here, vs now, and it's a night and day difference. He was the high octane gasoline that fueled the well oiled machine into a powerhouse and now that well oiled machine still has most of its parts intact, but is running on regular grade gasoline and just sputtering along the way.
An excellent analogy, great post.

Diamonddog01 is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 01:15 PM
  #877
Diamonddog01
Diamond in the rough
 
Diamonddog01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
These are team stats that don't correctly reflect the team's ES strength. The 5-5 F/A 1.32 ratio was very high in 2011 because AV's selective usage had Edler-Ehrhoff given softer minutes to take advantage of their offensive talents. Conversely, Malhotra and Kesler took on a disproportionate Dzone assignment to compensate. The system maximized offense and defense this way. That's why you see the differential being at it's height in 2011, when the system was first implemented.

Then the differential got progressively worse. Why? Because the talents couldn't maximized in the same way. Edler and Salo faced tougher competition than Edler and Ehrhoff. The Sedins were ground down by constantly seeing top pairs. Also, the loss of Manny made sure they couldn't exploit their specialists as much, which included Ehrhoff.
I don't really care about the reasons, (in this case Edler - Ehrhoff getting easier minutes) the fact remains that the team was better at ES (regardless of the Sedins production at ES). It's an instance, much like the twins themselves, where the sum is greater than the value of it's parts. We deploy the twins in the offensive zone, we put Kesler and a shutdown C in the defensive zone, and we enable Edler - Ehrhoff to play soft mintues and rack up the points. I don't really care how it's done, but the bottom line is we were better at ES as a team with Ehrhoff, amongst other things. There is no denying this, at the end of the day we were a better team with him than without. We can't maximize the talents in the same way, as we lost one of those talents due to an arbitrary, internal salary cap. Poor decision and our team has been worse ever since.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Ehrhoff's putrid stint in the post-season wasn't isolated to VAN alone. He did much the same in SJ. He's a Dman the team had to protect, and that isn't good.

I think you are looking at the Garrison signing wrong. It's not about position as it is about getting players, any players, that are strong ES players. Something Ehrhoff was not. Gillis went after Shultz too, he wanted both. But it didn't happen. It shouldn't however, stop him from pursuing Garrison. There's a dearth of talent in the NHL. When the team has an opportunity to get a mobile Willie Mitchell type Dman for nothing but cash, they should do it.

I know there's a segment of people that don't care about advanced stats, but this team is 6th in Fenwick close. That's without a 2nd and 3rd line C, multiple injuries, and the team playing like crap for large stretches. There's a reason. The team has better ES players like Garrison and Booth pushing the play.

To say a player like Garrison is unnecessary is folly. He's a strong addition to this team. Whether the fit is perfect or not.
What putrid stint are you referring to? I don't recall San Jose fans saying he was bad in the playoffs, in fact the vast majority said he was their best defenceman against the Ducks before he came here.

Sorry, his playoff issues have been completely exaggerated and are a convenient form of justification for a very poor managerial decision.

That's fine we're 6th in fenwick close, where we 3 years ago in fenwick close? How about 5-5 F/A or goal differential? We are worse with Garrison, who still doesn't really fit in to our top 4 due, again to him being a natural LS D, than we were with the Edler-Ehrhoff pairing.

And I think you're looking at the Garrison signing wrong, for the reasons I've already listed.

It's analagous to signing another goaltender for 4M+, after we trade Luongo and anoint Schneider as the undisputed . Maybe for some reason Lundqvist becomes available next year, and he's willing to sign with Van for 4M per season. Should we do it? According to your philosophy yes, as he's a great player who we're getting good value for. For me, I think it's pointless and redundant given the fact Schneider is our goaltender. Same thing with Garrison when we already have Hamhuis and Edler.

Diamonddog01 is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 01:46 PM
  #878
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Man there's some specious logic going on here. So the Canucks had a slightly better 5-on-5 F/A in 10-11 compared to now and that's 100% attributable to Ehrhoff?

Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the goalies putting up a .932 sv% compared to the .913 one they have so far this year. Or is Ehrhoff getting credit for that too?

Or the fact that the team actually had 3 excellent centers that year in Sedin, Kesler, Malhotra and now they have 1 in Sedin. Maybe Ehrhoff kept them all healthy? Or could he turn Ebbett into Kesler?


Given Ehrhoff's apparent impact, I guess Buffalo really got a great deal. He should be worth about $15M a year if he can make a goalie's sv% jump 20 points and make a team's weak center depth irrelevant. Though somehow that's not working in Buffalo where they're 29th in the league.

opendoor is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 01:59 PM
  #879
Diamonddog01
Diamond in the rough
 
Diamonddog01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Man there's some specious logic going on here. So the Canucks had a slightly better 5-on-5 F/A in 10-11 compared to now and that's 100% attributable to Ehrhoff?

Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the goalies putting up a .932 sv% compared to the .913 one they have so far this year. Or is Ehrhoff getting credit for that too?

Or the fact that the team actually had 3 excellent centers that year in Sedin, Kesler, Malhotra and now they have 1 in Sedin. Maybe Ehrhoff kept them all healthy? Or could he turn Ebbett into Kesler?


Given Ehrhoff's apparent impact, I guess Buffalo really got a great deal. He should be worth about $15M a year if he can make a goalie's sv% jump 20 points and make a team's weak center depth irrelevant. Though somehow that's not working in Buffalo where they're 29th in the league.
Slightly better? It was substantially better. As was the team.

Look - Ehrhoff was part of the solution, not the exclusive reason for it. Yes, a healthy Malhotra and better goaltending all played a role as well.

People just can't admit Gillis made a mistake. A GM can still be a good GM and make a mistake every now and again.

Regardless of whether Garrison is a better ES player than Ehrhoff, our team was better at ES with the hoff. That's all I really care about.

Diamonddog01 is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 02:36 PM
  #880
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamonddog01 View Post
Slightly better? It was substantially better. As was the team.

Look - Ehrhoff was part of the solution, not the exclusive reason for it. Yes, a healthy Malhotra and better goaltending all played a role as well.
Given that the Sedins (i.e. about the only line that's not missing a key component compared to 10-11) are performing much better at ES than in that year, I'm inclined to think it any drop off in team effectiveness 5-on-5 has more to do with the team's AHL caliber center ice group on lines 2-4 and existing players (particularly goalies) playing at a lower level then they were then.

You give this year's Canucks the same sv% that they had in 10-11 and their 5-on-5 F/A is 1.46 which is much better than the 1.32 they had in 10-11. Even if they only had a top 10 5-on-5 sv% (somewhere in the .923-.924 neighborhood) their 5-on-5 goal differential would be identical to 10-11. Given the talent they have in goal and what they're spending on them, I don't think a top 10 sv% is a lofty expectation. You give the team that, and voila, they have the same 5-on-5 F/A as 10-11.

Quote:
People just can't admit Gillis made a mistake. A GM can still be a good GM and make a mistake every now and again.

Regardless of whether Garrison is a better ES player than Ehrhoff, our team was better at ES with the hoff. That's all I really care about.
They were also better with Tanner Glass; the team had a .798 record with Tambellini in the lineup. This is the kind of logic the Simpsons was making fun of with that Bear Patrol episode.

The Canucks would probably be a better team with Ehrhoff than without. But to blame the team's ills on his absence when there are clearly bigger factors (poor goaltending, injuries, etc.) is asinine.

opendoor is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 03:24 PM
  #881
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,758
vCash: 500
Besides, doesn't all this 'we are missing Ehrhoff' thing contradict itself?

-We lose Ehrhoff, we suck. However, we still win a PT.
-We lose Ehrhoff, our PP sucks. However:

PP ranking:

2008 - 17th (-Ehrhoff -Brown)
2009 - 6th (+Ehrhoff -Brown)
2010 - 1st (+Ehrhoff +Brown)
2011 - 4th (-Ehrhoff +Brown)

Sure, it was a big loss. But it wasn't insurmountable. You could argue Brown has had an equal impact on the PP when he first got here. And when we lost Ehrhoff the PP ranking didn't fall off a cliff. Also, the PP wasn't world-beating in his first year here either.

I like a Hodgson and Ehrhoff but I think it's overstated how much we miss them or what they might or might not do here.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 03:44 PM
  #882
Diamonddog01
Diamond in the rough
 
Diamonddog01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Given that the Sedins (i.e. about the only line that's not missing a key component compared to 10-11) are performing much better at ES than in that year, I'm inclined to think it any drop off in team effectiveness 5-on-5 has more to do with the team's AHL caliber center ice group on lines 2-4 and existing players (particularly goalies) playing at a lower level then they were then.

You give this year's Canucks the same sv% that they had in 10-11 and their 5-on-5 F/A is 1.46 which is much better than the 1.32 they had in 10-11. Even if they only had a top 10 5-on-5 sv% (somewhere in the .923-.924 neighborhood) their 5-on-5 goal differential would be identical to 10-11. Given the talent they have in goal and what they're spending on them, I don't think a top 10 sv% is a lofty expectation. You give the team that, and voila, they have the same 5-on-5 F/A as 10-11.
Perhaps. It could also be true that our team's sv% is not only a result of our goaltender's play, it's also a result of having effective balanced d pairings with specified roles. We don't know for sure, we do know that as a team we were better at ES with Ehrhoff than without.

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
They were also better with Tanner Glass; the team had a .798 record with Tambellini in the lineup. This is the kind of logic the Simpsons was making fun of with that Bear Patrol episode.
I don't think a 50 point defenceman averaging 24 minutes a night is comparable to a 13th forward or 4th line plug, but nice comparison. That is not the logic of this argument, and you know it. Bravo on the strawman attempt however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
The Canucks would probably be a better team with Ehrhoff than without. But to blame the team's ills on his absence when there are clearly bigger factors (poor goaltending, injuries, etc.) is asinine.
No one is blaming the team's ills exclusively on the loss of Ehrhoff. Stop being obtuse.

Let me repeat this for you as you seem to be having some major comprehension issues with this particular point:

No one is blaming the team's ills exclusively on the loss of Ehrhoff. Stop being obtuse.

There is a variety of factors involved in our team's decline over the past few years, with a large one being Ehrhoff. When you factor in that this loss was preventable, it was clearly a poor decision.

Diamonddog01 is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 03:58 PM
  #883
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamonddog01 View Post
Perhaps. It could also be true that our team's sv% is not only a result of our goaltender's play, it's also a result of having effective balanced d pairings with specified roles. We don't know for sure, we do know that as a team we were better at ES with Ehrhoff than without.



I don't think a 50 point defenceman averaging 24 minutes a night is comparable to a 13th forward or 4th line plug, but nice comparison. That is not the logic of this argument, and you know it. Bravo on the strawman attempt however.



No one is blaming the team's ills exclusively on the loss of Ehrhoff. Stop being obtuse.

Let me repeat this for you as you seem to be having some major comprehension issues with this particular point:

No one is blaming the team's ills exclusively on the loss of Ehrhoff. Stop being obtuse.

There is a variety of factors involved in our team's decline over the past few years, with a large one being Ehrhoff. When you factor in that this loss was preventable, it was clearly a poor decision.
But the way you argue it, you're trying to say that with this ONE factor whose effect you propose is VERY LARGE, that we would be a much better team. There is no reading comprehension involved. You're trying to relate team ES statistics to the presence of one player. That CAN work, but it has limitations that have been pointed out.

This year we are playing poorly across the board but our record is ok. If our PP was clicking we would be doing even better. By saying we were significantly better with Ehrhoff you're insinuating that if only we kept him we would be in a much different (and more successful) situation.

You also used ES GF/GA several times. Since our D is in shambles right now, you're essentially saying that with Ehrhoff we'd be playing better at ES too. This isn't any different than the 'CoHo would have helped us score in the playoffs' argument.

Maybe you should stop being so disingenuous when a guy puts up numbers that contradict yours. It's pretty clear you're conflating the current state of the team with the loss of Ehrhoff.

To be honest the effect of Ehrhoff on the team is debatable at best. It is NOT a clear-cut effect either way, that's why it's fun to argue about and why it gets brought up so much around here.

I think Gillis has made mistakes, and this may or may not be one. I personally disagree with you on the Ehrhoff thing, but you're right that he deserves criticism in general.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 05:08 PM
  #884
thepuckmonster
Global Moderator
Professional Winner.
 
thepuckmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,758
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
But the way you argue it, you're trying to say that with this ONE factor whose effect you propose is VERY LARGE, that we would be a much better team. There is no reading comprehension involved. You're trying to relate team ES statistics to the presence of one player. That CAN work, but it has limitations that have been pointed out.

This year we are playing poorly across the board but our record is ok. If our PP was clicking we would be doing even better. By saying we were significantly better with Ehrhoff you're insinuating that if only we kept him we would be in a much different (and more successful) situation.

You also used ES GF/GA several times. Since our D is in shambles right now, you're essentially saying that with Ehrhoff we'd be playing better at ES too. This isn't any different than the 'CoHo would have helped us score in the playoffs' argument.

Maybe you should stop being so disingenuous when a guy puts up numbers that contradict yours. It's pretty clear you're conflating the current state of the team with the loss of Ehrhoff.

To be honest the effect of Ehrhoff on the team is debatable at best. It is NOT a clear-cut effect either way, that's why it's fun to argue about and why it gets brought up so much around here.

I think Gillis has made mistakes, and this may or may not be one. I personally disagree with you on the Ehrhoff thing, but you're right that he deserves criticism in general.
Honestly I'd rather have Garrison (since he's fine playing the right) at 4.6 and used in a better way on the PP than Ehrhoff at the rumoured 5.2.

There's no guarantee Hoffer would fix whatever the hell is wrong with our PP right now anyhow.

thepuckmonster is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 05:17 PM
  #885
Babs
Registered User
 
Babs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 532
vCash: 500
How's Ehrhoff doing this year?

12 pts and 3 on the pp.

5.2 mill for a mid 30 points dman that's on pace for under 10 ppp's in an 82 game season. We really missed the boat on this one guys!

What a straight fool Gillis is!!?

Babs is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 05:24 PM
  #886
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,841
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babs View Post
How's Ehrhoff doing this year?

12 pts and 3 on the pp.

5.2 mill for a mid 30 points dman that's on pace for under 10 ppp's in an 82 game season. We really missed the boat on this one guys!

What a straight fool Gillis is!!?
pretty well, actually lol

Verviticus is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 05:32 PM
  #887
Waveburner
Registered User
 
Waveburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,503
vCash: 500
I still believe losing Ehrhoff was a huge mistake given his role in making the Canucks an aggressive, puck possession team. But I also agree that the loss of Ehrhoff is not the main reason the team is struggling.

Certainly the ugly C depth, poor goaltending and non existant powerplay are all much bigger reasons.

To me the only problem with the Garrison signing was not subsequently ditching Ballard for scraps to save some Cap space. That plus the ongoing goalie saga. You take out Luongo's and Ballard's contracts' and you create nearly $10 million in Cap space. That was the real disaster of this offseason. A ton of wasted Cap money.

Combine that with Kesler and Booth injuries, the Malhotra forced retirement and the Canucks have well over $20 million dollars of Cap space doing nothing so far this season. Canucks are practically a $48 million dollar Cap team at the moment. That is not good.

All is not necesarily lost though, depending on what Gillis does or does not accomplish between now and the trading deadline. That and whether the team defense and goalies get it together.

Waveburner is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 05:37 PM
  #888
Babs
Registered User
 
Babs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
I have to be honest, I have no idea what any of those stats mean.

However judging by the smugness of your reply I guess all these numbers show that Ehrhoff is easily worth his current contract?

Babs is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 05:39 PM
  #889
Reverend Mayhem
In Gord We Trust
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,062
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babs View Post
How's Ehrhoff doing this year?

12 pts and 3 on the pp.

5.2 mill for a mid 30 points dman that's on pace for under 10 ppp's in an 82 game season. We really missed the boat on this one guys!

What a straight fool Gillis is!!?
I think the foolish thing is to assume he'd be doing the exact same thing here as in Buffalo. It's two totally different incomparable situations.

5.2 is too much for Ehrhoff, but I would have easily given him Edler money for him to stay here. He had a lot of blemishes, but once Salo lost his PP magic in the first half of 2011-12, the PP went to the gutter and Ehrhoff is a huge reason why.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 05:39 PM
  #890
King of the ES*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babs View Post
How's Ehrhoff doing this year?

12 pts and 3 on the pp.

5.2 mill for a mid 30 points dman that's on pace for under 10 ppp's in an 82 game season. We really missed the boat on this one guys!

What a straight fool Gillis is!!?
You don't get it. Vector209 summed it up perfectly.

Ehrhoff fit in with this team. He was an unexpected gift from the San Jose Sharks, turned out to far, far exceed expectations.

What makes us letting him walk even worse is that we've just given Jason Garrison a 6-year deal at a higher cap hit than Ehrhoff. So that "savings" from Ehrhoff was just essentially reinvested into a higher risk option! Very poorly played. Ehrhoff should have been retained.

King of the ES* is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 05:45 PM
  #891
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 23,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
I think the foolish thing is to assume he'd be doing the exact same thing here as in Buffalo. It's two totally different incomparable situations.

5.2 is too much for Ehrhoff, but I would have easily given him Edler money for him to stay here. He had a lot of blemishes, but once Salo lost his PP magic in the first half of 2011-12, the PP went to the gutter and Ehrhoff is a huge reason why.
Edler wouldn't be getting Edler money if you had signed Ehrhoff to that deal.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 05:46 PM
  #892
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
You don't get it. Vector209 summed it up perfectly.

Ehrhoff fit in with this team. He was an unexpected gift from the San Jose Sharks, turned out to far, far exceed expectations.

What makes us letting him walk even worse is that we've just given Jason Garrison a 6-year deal at a higher cap hit than Ehrhoff. So that "savings" from Ehrhoff was just essentially reinvested into a higher risk option! Very poorly played. Ehrhoff should have been retained.
Garrison's cap hit doesn't require a 10 year committment and a potential $10M cap penalty upon his retirement.

If Ehrhoff could've been had at Garrison's contract he'd still be a Canuck. In fact, I believe Garrison's contract is the exact one Ehrhoff turned down.

opendoor is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 05:51 PM
  #893
Wheatley
We Rabite You
 
Wheatley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
So Christian Ehrhoff has 8 ES points when he's on the ice with Christian Ehrhoff?

Christian Ehrhoff is awesome!

LOL. What a load of crap. No wonder you think David Booth is a superstar.

Wheatley is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 05:55 PM
  #894
Babs
Registered User
 
Babs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
Since I don't know what these numbers mean maybe you can elaborate using this data how Erhoff is the better defenseman?

I think I am starting to get it. Some people in this fan base love to love the pieces that we trade away all the while hating on the pieces we have. This way they always have something to whine about which for some bizarre reason gives them great satisfaction.

Babs is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 06:02 PM
  #895
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamonddog01 View Post
Perhaps. It could also be true that our team's sv% is not only a result of our goaltender's play, it's also a result of having effective balanced d pairings with specified roles. We don't know for sure, we do know that as a team we were better at ES with Ehrhoff than without.
Did they have that last year? Because the Canucks had the #3 sv% at ES in the league last season at .929. You're seriously grasping at straws if you're going to attribute the drop in team sv% to the loss of Ehrhoff.

Quote:

No one is blaming the team's ills exclusively on the loss of Ehrhoff. Stop being obtuse.

Let me repeat this for you as you seem to be having some major comprehension issues with this particular point:

No one is blaming the team's ills exclusively on the loss of Ehrhoff. Stop being obtuse.

There is a variety of factors involved in our team's decline over the past few years, with a large one being Ehrhoff. When you factor in that this loss was preventable, it was clearly a poor decision.

When you keep harping on this point:

Quote:
as a team we were better at ES with Ehrhoff than without.
how is anyone supposed to take it?

All you've established is a causal relationship between the team's ES play and Ehrhoff while ignoring the real reasons why they've seen a drop in 5-on-5 play. Like I said above, if the team was simply getting the goaltending it had gotten over the past few seasons their ES goal differential would be better than it ever was with Ehrhoff. So unless you're going to try to tie in Luongo and Schneider's sv% with Ehrhoff's absence, your argument has no foundation.

opendoor is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 06:07 PM
  #896
King of the ES*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Garrison's cap hit doesn't require a 10 year committment and a potential $10M cap penalty upon his retirement.

If Ehrhoff could've been had at Garrison's contract he'd still be a Canuck. In fact, I believe Garrison's contract is the exact one Ehrhoff turned down.
I'll very easily take 10 years of Ehrhoff on this team, at $4M, over 6 years of Garrison, again, on this team, at $4.6M.

King of the ES* is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 06:08 PM
  #897
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
Sulzer's numbers look quite similar:

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...012-13&sit=5v5


I'd argue it's a function of those guys getting about the softest minutes of any regular on the team. Look at Foligno's WOWY numbers while getting similar minutes:

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...012-13&sit=5v5


It's only natural when you get offensive zone starts against the other team's crappiest players that your teammates numbers will suffer when they're not with you because by definition they're going to be playing against better players in tougher situations.

opendoor is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 06:18 PM
  #898
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
I'll very easily take 10 years of Ehrhoff on this team, at $4M, over 6 years of Garrison, again, on this team, at $4.6M.
I guess you're a lot more confident in Ehrhoff's ability to remain an effective player into his mid to late 30s than I am. There's a very good chance that contract is going to look like an albatross in a few years.

Garrison's on the other hand is done when he's 33 so there's little chance of him regressing due to age.

opendoor is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 06:33 PM
  #899
Outside99*
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 500
How on earth is Ehrhoff getting soft minutes when he's playing 27 minutes a game?

Outside99* is offline  
Old
03-18-2013, 06:48 PM
  #900
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outside99 View Post
How on earth is Ehrhoff getting soft minutes when he's playing 27 minutes a game?
The same way he did in Vancouver and the same way the Sedins have in previous years despite leading the forwards in ice time. A shut down pairing works in concert with a checking line to handle the other teams' top lines while Ehrhoff plays mostly with his team's top 2 lines against other teams' depth players.

Regardless of what adjective you want to use to describe his minutes, the fact remains that on the aggregate he plays against players with the lowest Corsi ratings. And when the argument that he's playing well is based on the idea that his teammates' Corsi ratings suffer when they're not with him, that's a pretty important point to consider.

opendoor is offline  
Closed Thread

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 09:07 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.