Is this the most optimistic you've been about the Canucks since 2011?

[WTG]

the fact i put the word intangibles in quotes means i am not actually relying on intangibles. i am simply relying on something that requires a little more abstract non-linear thought than a stat sheet.

he wasn't paid as the 6th best goalie in the league and that is not a valid comparison. he was paid based on his market value as a ufa, and to persuade him to come to vancouver, a city that kesler was contemporaneously demanding to get out of because he thought it would suck for 4 years. do you think he was alone in that prediction and that it had no impact on market rates?

Did he play like the 6th highest plaid goaltender in his tenure. If the answer is no, he wasn't worth his contract. It's really that simple.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Did he play like the 6th highest plaid goaltender in his tenure. If the answer is no, he wasn't worth his contract. It's really that simple.

obviously not. he's not even scottish

and it's not remotely that simple. there is no single homogenous market for nhl goaltenders that determines a market price based on statistics. that concept exists in the minds of stat hounds but not the real world.

there is a tiny ufa market for goalies each year. within that market you can use comparitors to bargain but ultimately you pay market price. market price is the price at which the goaltender is prepared to sign a contract. that is governed by a host of considerations including other offers and whether he wants to play in your market.

it's also completely wrong to assume that a goaltender is signed by a club with the expectation he will generate certain stats. he is hired to perform a role to a certain level in front of the team you give him. his stats are obviously not the exclusive indicator of whether he did that.

in our case we hired a veteran starter who we expected to bring stability and a high compete level, but nobody expected the 6th best stats in the league behind our team. we got exactly what we paid for.

 

[WTG]

obviously not. he's not even scottish

and it's not remotely that simple. there is no single homogenous market for nhl goaltenders that determines a market price based on statistics. that concept exists in the minds of stat hounds but not the real world.

there is a tiny ufa market for goalies each year. within that market you can use comparitors to bargain but ultimately you pay market price. market price is the price at which the goaltender is prepared to sign a contract. that is governed by a host of considerations including other offers and whether he wants to play in your market.

it's also completely wrong to assume that a goaltender is signed by a club with the expectation he will generate certain stats. he is hired to perform a role to a certain level in front of the team you give him. his stats are obviously not the exclusive indicator of whether he did that.

in our case we hired a veteran starter who we expected to bring stability and a high compete level, but nobody expected the 6th best stats in the league behind our team. we got exactly what we paid for.

You just described why people overpay for goaltender. Market value =/= actual value a lot of the times. Many times, a persons market value will be over their actual value and Miller goes under this.

We are debating if he was worth his 18 million dollar contract, maybe there is a disconnect between what we are saying. I'm saying his actual value wasn't worth 18 million dollars. Not his market value, I am a bit perplexed you keep doubling down on him being worth the contract.

Miller was paid to be a pure-eshalon goaltender, and he preformed like a pretty below/average one.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

Sadly, Markstrom also confirmed as a delusional benning bro.

[Miller's] lasting legacy is his mentorship of Jacob Markstrom. The more competitive and composed Canucks goalie you see today is a product of the student learning from the professor...

Markstrom credits a newfound perspective and better battle level — especially after early goals — to the tutelage of Miller.

“He called me a couple of times this summer after he signed in Anaheim and I really wanted him back in Vancouver, but he had a chance to be closer to family and you’ve got to respect that,” said Markstrom. “He helped me out a lot mentally — just to see him in practice and to talk about small technical stuff.”

 

[Krnuckfan]

Sadly, Markstrom also confirmed as a delusional benning bro.

And what an amazing influence miller has been on Markstrom. He's seized the starter role he's wanted for so long and been so successful.

Well, except for the part where he's getting outplayed by his backup. So kinda like what happened to miller during his first season here. What awesome mentorship

 

[Ryan Miller*]

Mentoring does not mean taking full responsibility for future success. Obi Wan mentored Anakin just fine, but look what happened.

Although it would be funny if this board started to make an argument that Miller is still too blame for Markstrom not being a #1 goalie.

 

[krutovsdonut]

You just described why people overpay for goaltender. Market value =/= actual value a lot of the times. Many times, a persons market value will be over their actual value and Miller goes under this.

sorry but your theory of some kind of constant value for hockey players based on performance and potential is invalid.

what you are trying to do is impose a stock market style value theory to a tiny market with limited liquidity. stocks are a fungible liquid commodity with limited metrics. they respond reasonably well to a rational hierachical valuation based on actual performance.

that's not how the free agent labour market works in hockey. there is no giant spreadsheet with all the players on it from which you extrapolate a salary for a ufa. even in an rfa arbitration, ufa contracts are discounted to allow for the fact the rfa player has no ability to shop the market.

the reason gms consistently "overpay" ufas is because of scarcity and competition in a tiny market that only occurs once a year. they have no other way to obtain that type of player and they have to compete with other more attractive markets to get them.

they are not overpaying. it is a seller's market.

 

[WTG]

sorry but your theory of some kind of constant value for hockey players based on performance and potential is invalid.

what you are trying to do is impose a stock market style value theory to a tiny market with limited liquidity. stocks are a fungible liquid commodity with limited metrics. they respond reasonably well to a rational hierachical valuation based on actual performance.

that's not how the free agent labour market works in hockey. there is no giant spreadsheet with all the players on it from which you extrapolate a salary for a ufa. even in an rfa arbitration, ufa contracts are discounted to allow for the fact the rfa player has no ability to shop the market.

the reason gms consistently "overpay" ufas is because of scarcity and competition in a tiny market that only occurs once a year. they have no other way to obtain that type of player and they have to compete with other more attractive markets to get them.

they are not overpaying. it is a seller's market.

You admit that GMs overpay for certain FAs but then say that you cannot extrapolate a salary for a UFA so you can never overpay. You contradict yourself, of course you can extrapolate a salary based on play. If you are paying the 6th highest salary for a goaltender and then they put up statistics and a performance that is average at best over the years you sign them, they are overpaid. How is this an argument? I bet you don't believe half the stuff you are currently saying, especially since you are contradicting yourself. At one point you got to admit you are wrong about Miller not being overpaid.

The quality goaltender one, doesn't equal the salary we are paying for the goaltender.

 

[krutovsdonut]

You admit that GMs overpay for certain FAs but then say that you cannot extrapolate a salary for a UFA so you can never overpay.

do you not understand what scare quotes are? that's twice in three posts you've completely misunderstood me when i used them.

 

[WTG]

do you not understand what scare quotes are? that's twice in three posts you've completely misunderstood me when i used them.

In 2 sentences, explain why Miller wasn't overpaid compared to his peers based on the performance he gave.

 

[krutovsdonut]

In 2 sentences, explain why Miller wasn't overpaid compared to his peers based on the performance he gave.

so your response to realizing you misunderstood me is to demand that i repeat myself?

how about no?

i already did explain myself. here's a novel idea: if you are genuinely interested in continuting this discussion, go back and read what i said carefully this time. if you're not interested in a genuine dialogue then, considering you are a mod, i know you will not come back with a trolling evasive comment a second time, and you will instead politely disengage.

your call.

 

[WTG]

so your response to realizing you misunderstood me is to demand that i repeat myself?

how about no?

i already did explain myself. here's a novel idea: if you are genuinely interested in continuting this discussion, go back and read what i said carefully this time. if you're not interested in a genuine dialogue then, considering you are a mod, i know you will not come back with a trolling evasive comment a second time, and you will instead politely disengage.

your call.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? I'm asking for you to clarify your position so we don't argue semantics.

Miller is overpaid, look at his peers and you'll see he was given a contract that doesn't match his level of play. It's really that simple. Your argument is we somehow take Market value into play, then some random intangible stuff sprinkled in. I'm asking for you to clarify, then you respond saying that I'm trolling or evading.

Want me to say it, I don't understand your argument. That's why I asked you to clarify.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Want me to say it, I don't understand your argument. That's why I asked you to clarify.

miller's market value was determined by the market in which he offered his services. specifically the 2014 ufa market for goalies.

the market value is driven by scarcity and competition among prospective buyers, as well as the fact the seller has a choice where to go driven by factors other than money. last place teams would need to pay more to get him that cup contenders.

a spreadsheet showing all the goalies and their stats and ages and salaries in order in 2014 does not determine miller's market value or set expectations for his performance.

your notion that miller should be the 6th best goalie in the league based on what he is paid is mistaken. in a competitive ufa marketplace any buyer would expect to pay a premium to get a player, even assuming they had an attractive team.

 

[WTG]

miller's market value was determined by the market in which he offered his services. specifically the 2014 ufa market for goalies.

the market value is driven by scarcity and competition among prospective buyers, as well as the fact the seller has a choice where to go driven by factors other than money. last place teams would need to pay more to get him that cup contenders.

a spreadsheet showing all the goalies and their stats and ages and salaries in order in 2014 does not determine miller's market value or set expectations for his performance.

your notion that miller should be the 6th best goalie in the league based on what he is paid is mistaken. in a competitive ufa marketplace any buyer would expect to pay a premium to get a player, even assuming they had an attractive team.

Alright, alright I get you. Here's my point, market value =/= actual value.

Take Eriksson, he got paid market value, but his current value is not of a 6 million dollar forward. This is the point I am making. I'm not making the argument that Miller was overpaid by Benning at the point of the signing. I'm making the argument that Miller did not live up to his contract, which was one of the highest paid contracts for a goaltender. Which is a easy and simple argument to make. Again, I think there is a huge amount of miscommunication going on.

We aren't arguing the same thing.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Alright, alright I get you. Here's my point, market value =/= actual value.

Take Eriksson, he got paid market value, but his current value is not of a 6 million dollar forward. This is the point I am making. I'm not making the argument that Miller was overpaid by Benning at the point of the signing. I'm making the argument that Miller did not live up to his contract, which was one of the highest paid contracts for a goaltender. Which is a easy and simple argument to make. Again, I think there is a huge amount of miscommunication going on.

We aren't arguing the same thing.

alright, well you are trying to revalue his contract according to a market that didn't exist and then say he didn't live up to it. that's hardly fair. nobody expected him to live up to that when he signed and that is not the reason he got paid what he was paid.

and you were and perhaps still are also using that faulty analysis to say i am wrong to say he lived up to his contract. which is also not particularly fair either.

they signed a 34 year old starter and in return got three years of steady professional competitive starter consistent with his age and his own history. his level of play never dropped below the level of the team, he avoided any goalie drama and he effectively sheltered markstrom.

that is what they signed him to do. they didn't sign him to be an exceptional goalie or to lead them to the promised land.

so he lived up to his contract.

the price they paid him was undoubtedly influenced by the fact he was the top and really only credible ufa starter that year, the fact we were clearly coming off a downturn year and looking likely to continue, the fact we are big market canadian fishbowl for an american, and taxes. none of that relates to his performance.

 

[WTG]

alright, well you are trying to revalue his contract according to a market that didn't exist and then say he didn't live up to it. that's hardly fair. nobody expected him to live up to that when he signed and that is not the reason he got paid what he was paid.

and you were and perhaps still are also using that faulty analysis to say i am wrong to say he lived up to his contract. which is also not particularly fair either.

they signed a 34 year old starter and in return got three years of steady professional competitive starter consistent with his age and his own history. his level of play never dropped below the level of the team, he avoided any goalie drama and he effectively sheltered markstrom.

that is what they signed him to do. they didn't sign him to be an exceptional goalie or to lead them to the promised land.

so he lived up to his contract.

the price they paid him was undoubtedly influenced by the fact he was the top and really only credible ufa starter that year, the fact we were clearly coming off a downturn year and looking likely to continue, the fact we are big market canadian fishbowl for an american, and taxes. none of that relates to his performance.

Alright, alright. Now you are saying it's subjective, and of course it's subjective. You are saying his "intangibles", are what made him live up to his contract, "avoidance of goaltender drama". I'm making the argument he didn't live up to his contract, because he wasn't a goaltender worth 6 million dollars.

But all things considered, this is an argument that can go back and forth forever, with all subjective arguments. However, I think I've laid forth a rather convincing argument, that's the best I can do. And I appoligize for the miscommunication, If you'll allow me the excuse of being a non-native speaker.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Alright, alright. Now you are saying it's subjective, and of course it's subjective. You are saying his "intangibles", are what made him live up to his contract, "avoidance of goaltender drama". I'm making the argument he didn't live up to his contract, because he wasn't a goaltender worth 6 million dollars.

But all things considered, this is an argument that can go back and forth forever, with all subjective arguments. However, I think I've laid forth a rather convincing argument, that's the best I can do. And I appoligize for the miscommunication, If you'll allow me the excuse of being a non-native speaker.

i did not know you were a non-native speaker. i will keep that in mind in future discussions. apologies also if i appeared frustrated with you.

i think most good older ufa goalies will come off poorly if put to the metric you are using, and i think it does not truly relate to the reason they got paid or the expectations when they were signed. you sign an old elite goalie starter to get a mentally tough steady guy to give you good but not quite elite goaltending, and to shelter and mentor a potential starter and steady a young team in front of you. they can be exceptionally good value for money. i fully understand why benning was tempted to resign miller although i think it would have been a reach to hope for more years like the last ones.

i have a harder time understanding a lot of ufa forward signings than i do goalies. i can't for the life of me understand a signing like lucic or erikkson. i have no idea what realistic expectations could justify those salaries and terms.

 

[WTG]

i did not know you were a non-native speaker. i will keep that in mind in future discussions. apologies also if i appeared frustrated with you.

i think most good older ufa goalies will come off poorly if put to the metric you are using, and i think it does not truly relate to the reason they got paid or the expectations when they were signed. you sign an old elite goalie starter to get a mentally tough steady guy to give you good but not quite elite goaltending, and to shelter and mentor a potential starter and steady a young team in front of you. they can be exceptionally good value for money. i fully understand why benning was tempted to resign miller although i think it would have been a reach to hope for more years like the last ones.

i have a harder time understanding a lot of ufa forward signings than i do goalies. i can't for the life of me understand a signing like lucic or erikkson. i have no idea what realistic expectations could justify those salaries and terms.

Yeah, sometimes I misunderstand things a bit, sorry for that. I don't think a lot of people were expecting elite goaltending or Miller even being a top 6 goaltender in the league. The numbers he put up were as expected as a goaltender of his stature. But if you were to compare him to others getting paid the same, you are left wanting for more. I'm also not a believer in paying extra for "intangibles", arguing about intangibles gets real messy real quick too, because they aren't tangible. But if this is the argument you are going with, I don't think there really is much to argue about. We simply don't agree on enough common ground to come to a conclusion on who is right or wrong.

So I'll concede on this argument. Hopefully I wasn't that frustrating to deal with

 

[Horse McHindu]

Peter 10,

I've always been an advocate of the idea of trying to compete even when a team is placing an emphasis on getting younger and getting the kids to earn their ice-time and supplant the vets. A GM should always be active via free agency to try and make the team better, but these vets shouldn't take away roster spots of kids that are ready to be impact roster players (which in my opinion, is right in line with what Benning is doing). We can all lament the fact that we overpaid on Eriksson, or have guys like Vanek and Gagner on the roster, but they aren't holding any of the young talent back in my opinion. When Virtanen grows up a little (maturity), and if Goldobin continues to impress, the vets will be moved accordingly. Virtanen and Goldobin are in the roles that they should be.

Rebuilds via "blowing it up" via veteran firesale is very high risk, and there's a reason why all/most GM's employ this strategy as a last resort. Ken Holland is one of the most highly regarded GM's in the league, and there's a reason why he never "blew it up" in 2010 even when it was fairly obvious that Detroit's 'hey day' was coming to an end. There's also a reason why Toronto only decided to completely 'blow things up' just two years ago.

I'd much rather see an oraganization become fantastic at developing players rather than tanking, hoping, and praying. Tampa Bay and San Jose are excellent examples of teams that consistently field competitive teams and yet seem to develop players even with lower end picks. Chicago and Los Angeles were the same way, as well as Detroit, New Jersey, and Colorado back in the day.

Even with the Canucks - Boeser seems to be one of the best prospects that we've ever had and look where we drafted him. Horvat and Tryamkin weren't lottery picks either. Drafting lottery picks obviously help, but they aren't the end all and be all.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Peter 10,

I don't think 2nd round picks are garbage. What I was saying in the Vey situation, was that the entire trade will likely turn out to be garbage on both ends (i.e. Vey didn't pan out for us and likely won't do anything significant in the NHL, while the jury is still out on Roland McKeown.......and if we're being honest, McKeown hasn't exactly shown much so far). So in this case - the 2nd round pick will likely be considered garbage.

However - I don't think the idea of trading a 2nd round pick for a decently talented young RH center is garbage. In the case of Vey, we should also keep in mind that the stuff going on with his father likely affected him.

 

[F A N]

Lack had harder starts in the 1st year, Miller got to pick his starts and took advantage of it.

Lack, simply put, outplayed Miller. That season, Lack was a better goaltender and a big part of making the playoffs. 2nd year, Miller didn't definitively outplay Markstrom. 3rd year, Miller played well.

Miller over his tenure was not worth his contract.

The same fans who thought Lack "outplayed" Miller thought he "outplayed" Luongo too. Not saying that Lack didn't during certain stretches, but a lot of posters here don't realize that being a #1 goalie is different from being a backup. Canucks fans have frequently held "backup" goalies in high regard. At one time or another, the likes of Troy Gamble, Corey Hirsch, Backup Bob, Jason Labarbara, Alex Auld etc. "outplayed" the starter.

The truth is that Lack was never a #1 goalie and isn't. Heck, he isn't even an NHL backup right now. Meanwhile, Miller and Luongo are HOF calibre goalies. Outplaying someone for a stretch of games mean nothing.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Why people ignore the fact that Lack has been HORRIBLE the past two seasons while Miller was considered quite solid and value for the money by MOST, is beyond me.

Do you think it's possible that after the 2015 playoffs, Benning and Linden simply saw something in Lack that they didn't like?

Ridiculous that there are posters on here that would have kept Lack over Miller.

If Lack had been here and had played the way that he had these past two years, the Canucks would have likely been out of playoff contention by December or January, similar to how teams like Arizona and Colorado have been.

I know many people on here think that this would be a good thing because we would have dropped and drafted Barzal (or whoever), but being out of playoff contention MID-SEASON is bad bad bad.........and destroys morale, team culture, and results in most young kids "phoning it in," for months on end. The long term effects of kids 'phoning it in' can be disasterous.

We can all lament the fact that the Canucks finished in the bottom 3/bottom 2 these past two seasons, but the fact of the matter is that the vets got the kids to compete as hard as they could for almost the entire season. Perhaps last year when they became out of contention with over a month left, we saw some lacksadasical efforts amongst the kids, but atleast they weren't doing that for half a season.

People on here think that getting a guy like Barzal would have been 'worth it' in the end, but I disagree. If you start cultivating a "losing culture" (losing mindset) where it becomes acceptable to start 'phoning it in' when the going gets tough, then the attitude of that core starts to permeate in a negative way. Case in point - Edmonton, Colorado, Arizona, etc.

That's why I still contend that even if we'd drafted a guy like Barzal, we would actually be in a worse off position due to the fact that this core will have been conditioned to 'phoning it in' since mid-season for years on end.

People laugh at Benning's insistence on having a 'winning culture' here (due to the fact that we've done very little winning while he's been here), but 'winning culture' is a lot more than playing .700 hockey. Winning culture is about developing your kids into men. Developing the right habits, having vets holding the kids accountable, getting the kids to compete hard every night, forcing the kids to push for a playoff spot, being professional both and off the ice. This is what winning culture AND this is what Linden and Benning are all about.

 

[Horse McHindu]

6 Ways The Canucks Have Whiffed On Their Attempt To Rebuild On-The-Fly

We're also discussing it in the Management thread, as this has been vetted.

So if you turn to Lack and the team does worse than 28th and 29th....we end up 30th and 30th, so what? We end up with Auston Matthews and Cale Makar (most likely). Not a bad result.

Who's forcing anyone into a role they aren't ready to be in? Lack was our starting goalie from February to the end of the season in 2015. He performed very well in that role.

To steal a quote from The Rock, "Who is this roody poo?" :wtf:

Jackson McDonald is a Canucks army blogger. How would a jabronie like Jackson McDonald know that the 9th overall pick was being offered for Ryan Miller? I mean - it's one thing for guy like Darren Dreger and Bob McKenzie to be speculating, but not some popcorn fart licker like Jackson McDonald who's guess is as basically as "good" as yours and mine.

 

[y2kcanucks]

To steal a quote from The Rock, "Who is this roody poo?" :wtf:

Jackson McDonald is a Canucks army blogger. How would a jabronie like Jackson McDonald know that the 9th overall pick was being offered for Ryan Miller? I mean - it's one thing for guy like Darren Dreger and Bob McKenzie to be speculating, but not some popcorn fart licker like Jackson McDonald who's guess is as basically as "good" as yours and mine.

LOL. This has been discussed in the Canucks management thread. I verified where he got the rumour, and it came from the Canucks Army managing editor JD Burke who received the information directly from a source within the Canucks. Whether you choose to believe it or not is irrelevant, it happened. It’s been hard to accept for some people who have chosen the denial route, but it is what it is. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean Canucks Army isn’t credible.

 

[Horse McHindu]

LOL. This has been discussed in the Canucks management thread. I verified where he got the rumour, and it came from the Canucks Army managing editor JD Burke who received the information directly from a source within the Canucks. Whether you choose to believe it or not is irrelevant, it happened. It’s been hard to accept for some people who have chosen the denial route, but it is what it is. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean Canucks Army isn’t credible.

I don't like nor dislike Canucks Army, but I'm just having a difficult time conceptualising as to how they have an inside source or how they are credible? How is this "JD Burke" guy in the same neighborhood as the Darren Dreger's and Bob McKenzie's of this world in terms of credibility?

Do a quick search on Google, and the only one that mentions this Miller/9th overall pick is Canucks army.........and HF moderator WTG. Elliotte Friedman? Dreger? McKenzie? Bueller? Nope.....