Confirmed with Link: [VAN/TB] Jason Garrison, 7th in 2015, Jeff Costello for TB's 2nd (50th OA)

[arsmaster*]

Yeah. Tonight's deals really just drive this point home. Moving big salaries is hard, unless you're talking about superstar players.

In light of the way other deals have gone, the fact Benning managed to move money out from out cluster**** of a back end contract wise, without taking a big chunk of salary back, is a win.

If Benning can find a way to get someone like Ehrhoff signed to replace Garrison...i'll be incredibly impressed. A Garrison for Ehrhoff swap is something that would be awfully hard to find fault with. Really does come down to what Benning can do with the cap space this move opened up, but if he uses it well...totally worth it, in spite of the lackluster return from Tampa...for an asset we picked up "for free" in the first place.

Hope the 7th doesn't turn out like palat.

It surely depends on what benning does in FA. It's a scary class.

People talk about the difficulty of moving big contracts...well I surely hope we don't give any out. Nothing on the market looks worth it.

 

[arsmaster*]

I just hope you're not one of the guys who worries about getting smaller

Purcell is 6'3". I don't get it.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

2 assets is better than one. He can play.

Had 5 less points than your boy bonino.

And he makes more than twice as much as Bonino. You're continually overlooking the salaries here.

You're probably dumbfounded Sam Gagner is worth nothing. I'm not. Even told Oiler fans as much recently when they were dreaming up a return of a good pick or prospect. I said he had no value at all...

Don't agree that 2 assets is better than 1. It's only better if they don't think you can utilize the cap space in a better way. Considering how big the pool is of UFA's, and the amount of teams that could be looking to move good players on the cheap(Loui Eriksson), I don't believe Purcell was the right gamble for this team.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Dorsett at $1.6mil was too expensive for cash strapped Rangers who have similar players in the pipeline.

There's something you're not seeing here. The new marketplace, where big money is tough to move for anything of value - especially if it's a youth based return.

Still can't believe how long it's taking fans to see the shift in the marketplace. Thought it would have sunk in at the deadline - it sure did for me.

money is tough to move, and yet we essentially expended a 2015 pick for a 1.6 million dollar 4th line player?


If money was tough to move the Rangers would have had to move Dorsett for a song, not a pick 35 later than the one we got for Garrison, that cost us a 3rd round pick in the deep 2015 draft.

if money was tough to move the Canucks wouldn't be saddled with cap dump Sbisa.

 

[BobbyJazzLegs]

Purcell is 6'3". I don't get it.

Thought he was talking about Gagner. There goes my credibility.

 

[realist99]

Hope the 7th doesn't turn out like palat.

It surely depends on what benning does in FA. It's a scary class.

People talk about the difficulty of moving big contracts...well I surely hope we don't give any out. Nothing on the market looks worth it.

Agree. The only player I would even consider as legit is Stastny. Everyone else is too old and it would be suicide giving term to any of them. The last thing we need is to be like Philadelphia with LeCavalier. Talk about short sighted

 

[arsmaster*]

I just hope you're not one of the guys who worries about getting smaller

Double post. Whoops.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

money is tough to move, and yet we essentially expended a 2015 pick for a 1.6 million dollar 4th line player?

Wasn't Dorsett traded for a very late 3rd rd pick in this years draft? That pick has what, a 5% chance of playing 100 games in the NHL?

I'm not a fan of moving picks for guys like Dorsett, but that doesn't change what the marketplace is. A marketplace where Bollig/Dorsett/Thompson are worth more than a 24 year old Sam Gagner - a kid that has averaged 50P/82GP from the age of 18-24.

It's not about the players anymore, it's about the contracts. Look what Vanek, Gaborik and Neal just went for...

 

[biturbo19]

money is tough to move, and yet we essentially expended a 2015 pick for a 1.6 million dollar 4th line player?


If money was tough to move the Rangers would have had to move Dorsett for a song, not a pick 35 later than the one we got for Garrison, that cost us a 3rd round pick in the deep 2015 draft.

if money was tough to move the Canucks wouldn't be saddled with cap dump Sbisa.

Dorsett costs $3M less than Garrison, and only has one year left on his deal. Dorsett is "small money", easy to move. Garrison has a BIG contract that extends for a bunch more years. It's not even close to comparable. And Garrison has a NTC on top of that, from which we were fortunate to get out from under while we still can.

And Sbisa isn't a cap dump. Great player? Maybe not. But certainly not a cap dump. Even if you think he's vastly overpaid (which he's not), it's still half the price of Garrison, and he's an RFA after this year. If we want to get rid of him at that point, there's a ton of flexibility. Want to get rid of Garrison next year? Good luck, you're stuck with him.

I really don't think you're grasping the issue with "moving big contracts". The contracts you're describing are "small contracts" and give us a ton of flexibility next year and beyond, depending on what Benning wants to do. Garrison's contract is a "big contract", the type that are very hard to move. Very different.

 

[opendoor]

Dorsett costs $3M less than Garrison, and only has one year left on his deal. Dorsett is "small money", easy to move. Garrison has a BIG contract that extends for a bunch more years. It's not even close to comparable. And Garrison has a NTC on top of that, from which we were fortunate to get out from under while we still can.

And Sbisa isn't a cap dump. Great player? Maybe not. But certainly not a cap dump. Even if you think he's vastly overpaid (which he's not), it's still half the price of Garrison, and he's an RFA after this year. If we want to get rid of him at that point, there's a ton of flexibility. Want to get rid of Garrison next year? Good luck, you're stuck with him.

I really don't think you're grasping the issue with "moving big contracts". The contracts you're describing are "small contracts" and give us a ton of flexibility next year and beyond, depending on what Benning wants to do. Garrison's contract is a "big contract", the type that are very hard to move. Very different.

Garrison was blindsided by being asked to waive his NTC, turned down an offer to one team, and then accepted a trade to a very, very limited set of destinations all in the span of 24-48 hours. I'm not sure I'd classify that as a "very hard to move" contract.

Luongo was a tough to move contract; all Garrison took was a quick phone call to move.

 

[biturbo19]

Garrison was blindsided by being asked to waive his NTC, turned down an offer to one team, and then accepted a trade to a very, very limited set of destinations all in the span of 24-48 hours. I'm not sure I'd classify that as a "very hard to move" contract.

Luongo was a tough to move contract; all Garrison took was a quick phone call to move.

There are much "worse" contracts, sure. But the "difficulty" in moving Garrison is pretty clearly reflected in the meager return. Unfortunately.

 

[MS]

Garrison was blindsided by being asked to waive his NTC, turned down an offer to one team, and then accepted a trade to a very, very limited set of destinations all in the span of 24-48 hours. I'm not sure I'd classify that as a "very hard to move" contract.

Luongo was a tough to move contract; all Garrison took was a quick phone call to move.

No kidding.

He's made available, and immediately two of the NHL's top teams and best run organizations are willing to trade for his services. And TB is willing to do a rather large re-arrangement of their roster to accommodate him.

This does not sound like a player who was 'overpaid' or hard to move.

I'm still befuddled every day about the revisionist history of his play here. The guy was an excellent two-way defender for 1.5 years here and then fell off late last year along with everyone else on the team (but was nowhere near Edler-bad) while he was playing with an injury. He's a good player and a good defensive player. But somehow he's become the butt of jokes, had a 'horrible' season, was a liability ... it's freaking bizarre. None of this is true, but it's being repeated here on a pretty consistent basis.

 

[Wilch]

No kidding.

He's made available, and immediately two of the NHL's top teams and best run organizations are willing to trade for his services. And TB is willing to do a rather large re-arrangement of their roster to accommodate him.

This does not sound like a player who was 'overpaid' or hard to move.

I'm still befuddled every day about the revisionist history of his play here. The guy was an excellent two-way defender for 1.5 years here and then fell off late last year along with everyone else on the team (but was nowhere near Edler-bad) while he was playing with an injury. He's a good player and a good defensive player. But somehow he's become the butt of jokes, had a 'horrible' season, was a liability ... it's freaking bizarre. None of this is true, but it's being repeated here on a pretty consistent basis.

It's excuses after the fact. Either that or lying to themselves so they can bury their heads in the sand.

Anyone who has watched the Canucks or bother looking into his underlying numbers would know he's been far and away one of the best Canuck defenders in 2012-13, and was probably playing hurt last season but was still a serviceable player.

The worst part is, Edler's contract is far worse, has been medicore for a couple seasons and downright awful last year - yet management is expecting a bounceback from him. The only thing Edler has going for him is his age.

 

[Wisp]

No kidding.

He's made available, and immediately two of the NHL's top teams and best run organizations are willing to trade for his services. And TB is willing to do a rather large re-arrangement of their roster to accommodate him.

This does not sound like a player who was 'overpaid' or hard to move.

I'm still befuddled every day about the revisionist history of his play here. The guy was an excellent two-way defender for 1.5 years here and then fell off late last year along with everyone else on the team (but was nowhere near Edler-bad) while he was playing with an injury. He's a good player and a good defensive player. But somehow he's become the butt of jokes, had a 'horrible' season, was a liability ... it's freaking bizarre. None of this is true, but it's being repeated here on a pretty consistent basis.

Well, he did have a bad season. And this talk about talk about 'liability' started in 2012, though it's something he's been dealing with as far back as 2010!
Here's a report from December 2012!

Medically cleared by the Vancouver Canucks after overcoming a chronic groin strain that has hampered the White Rock native the last two years, the defenceman was more concerned Tuesday about preparing for the festive season that wondering if his groin will hold up when the NHL lockout ends. With local physiotherapist Rick Celebrini strengthening his core through a vigorous training regimen, Garrison is confident the ailment has been cured. As for being a holiday host, he’s not so sure.

I'm getting frustrated with those insisting this talk has come from nowhere. I cried bloody murder when he went to the world champs because I thought he should be rehabbing himself. He's been dealing with groin issues his entire career, turned 30, and just had a season where his mobility has looked awful. There's a very real possibility it's turning to doom and gloom.

An NHL team could go either way on these things. Good for Tampa for taking a gamble - they're going to be challenged to find a player with Garrison's track record for that sort of salary during free agency. Good for Vancouver for escaping some potential liability.

 

[Wilch]

Well, he did have a bad season. And this talk about

Listen MS, this talk of 'liability' started in 2012, though it's something he's been dealing with as far back as 2010!

Here's a report from December 2012!


I'm getting frustrated with those insisting this talk has come from nowhere. He's been dealing with groin issues his entire career, turned 30, and just had a season where his mobility has looked awful. There's a very real possibility it's turning to doom and gloom.

An NHL team could go either way on these things. Good for Tampa for taking a gamble - they're going to be challenged to find a player with Garrison's track record for that sort of salary during free agency. Good for Vancouver for escaping some potential liability.

I can say the same about Edler's lack of effort and back injuries - which has haunted his defensive play for a while now.

 

[Wisp]

It's excuses after the fact. Either that or lying to themselves so they can bury their heads in the sand.

Anyone who has watched the Canucks or bother looking into his underlying numbers would know he's been far and away one of the best Canuck defenders in 2012-13, and was probably playing hurt last season but was still a serviceable player.

If he was injured, why did he go to the World Championships?

 

[Wilch]

If he was injured, why did he go to the World Championships?

For the same reason Shinkaruk played through a serious hip injury to crack the WJC roster?

 

[Wisp]

I can say the same about Edler's lack of effort and back injuries - which has haunted his defensive play for a while now.

Then perhaps you should regard Garrison with the same standards.

 

[MS]

Well, he did have a bad season. And this talk about talk about 'liability' started in 2012, though it's something he's been dealing with as far back as 2010!
Here's a report from December 2012!


I'm getting frustrated with those insisting this talk has come from nowhere. I cried bloody murder when he went to the world champs because I thought he should be rehabbing himself. He's been dealing with groin issues his entire career, turned 30, and just had a season where his mobility has looked awful. There's a very real possibility it's turning to doom and gloom.

An NHL team could go either way on these things. Good for Tampa for taking a gamble - they're going to be challenged to find a player with Garrison's track record for that sort of salary during free agency. Good for Vancouver for escaping some potential liability.

He hasn't missed games and has still played well. And I disagree that his mobility looked 'awful' - he looked a bit off late in the season but nowhere near as bad as you're making out.

Unlike #23 with his back problems. Who utterly stinks and has looked a shadow of his former self for 3 years ... but we're apparently building our defense around him.

 

[Barney Gumble]

If he was injured, why did he go to the World Championships?

Probably wasn't serious enough (like a back injury for example) for him to not be able to play (much like the reason why, again, he only missed two NHL games the past two seasons). This isn't to say, he wasn't negatively impacted (then or in the future) by having to play thru the injury(ies).

Guy wanted to play for his country; tough to knock him for wanting to do that (though I'd preferred he stayed home).

 

[Wisp]

He hasn't missed games and has still played well. And I disagree that his mobility looked 'awful' - he looked a bit off late in the season but nowhere near as bad as you're making out.

Unlike #23 with his back problems. Who utterly stinks and has looked a shadow of his former self for 3 years ... but we're apparently building our defense around him.

You're mistaken - he didn't play well at all. He was a negative possession player this year. Here's Jason Garrison, buyout candidate:

http://canucksarmy.com/2014/4/29/jason-garrison-compliance-buyout-candidate
At 5v5, Garrison was moved away from the successful partnership he had enjoyed with Hamhuis the previous season, to play with Alexander Edler (which is also something I thought would work prior to the season, and didn't, so feel free to throw rocks at me). The two were negative possession players, and their goals for rate was horrifically low (which as Cam outlined recently, was all part of Edler's forgettably unlucky campaign). Interestingly enough, Edler's corsi for % actually jumped up from 49.8% with Garrison to an impressive 53.9% without him.

Which sort of speaks to the larger problem, because aside from Hamhuis, Garrison didn't really work with anyone else. He and Bieksa were even worse together, posting a 47.6% corsi rate. Same goes for with Yannick Weber, and he was only just slightly better next to Ryan Stanton. The fact that Garrison only put up decent numbers this past year when strapped to Hamhuis' hip is worrisome; Hamhuis is known for making everyone he plays with better, so his success with him doesn't exactly give us much insight.

As for Edler, I don't even care to talk about him, but I'm amused by the pair of you insisting one player is just peachy and the other is a catastrophe. Apply the same standards to both.

and I'm not completely unsympathetic of the idea Garrison can bounce back, but part of me is exhausted with asking this of former Florida Panthers every year.

 

[Wilch]

Then perhaps you should regard Garrison with the same standards.

Garrison didn't have an effort issue. So it's hard to regard them the same way.

I understand this may be subjective, but I thought I saw Edler take shifts off far too many times.

Garrison had a subpar season and is older, but Edler had a putrid season.

As such, it's hard to view them in the same standard.

What's infuriating is that management apparently threw all of that out the window and decided to give Edler another chance based on... God knows what. Stuff from 2-3 seasons ago?

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Wasn't Dorsett traded for a very late 3rd rd pick in this years draft? That pick has what, a 5% chance of playing 100 games in the NHL?

Dorsett was acquire with the 2014 3rd round pick we acquired from the Ducks for our 2015 3rd round pick. A stunning move.

 

[Wisp]

Garrison didn't have an effort issue. So it's hard to regard them the same way.

I understand this may be subjective, but I thought I saw Edler take shifts off far too many times.

Garrison had a subpar season and is older, but Edler had a putrid season.

As such, it's hard to view them in the same standard.

What's infuriating is that management apparently threw all of that out the window and decided to give Edler another chance based on... God knows what. Stuff from 2-3 seasons ago?

which is why I'm dismissing it. people are usually projecting their own frustrations when they such things.

also: according to Ray Ferraro, based on analytic data that both Edler and Burrows production would regress in their favour next year. Whether you buy into that stuff or not... *shrugs* Shooting percentages are a bit more predictive than groin injuries, I guess.

 

[Barney Gumble]

You're mistaken - he didn't play well at all. He was a negative possession player this year. Here's Jason Garrison, buyout candidate:



As for Edler, I don't even care to talk about him, but I'm amused by the pair of you insisting one player is just peachy and the other is a catastrophe. Apply the same standards to both.

and I'm not completely unsympathetic of the idea Garrison can bounce back, but part of me is exhausted with asking this of former Florida Panthers every year.

I'm guessing the pairing of Garrison-Tanev was never used as that linked article makes no mention of it?

Interestingly enough, Edler's corsi for % actually jumped up from 49.8% with Garrison to an impressive 53.9% without him.

Part of the reasoning I'd imagine was the pairing of Edler-Tanev; though in this post by Iceberg Slim, he or she expands on it further:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=84700641&postcount=976

Similarly, of the eight defense partners (Bieksa, Salo, Ehrhoff, Garrison, Hamhuis, Tanev, Ballard, Rome) with whom Edler's played 100 minutes or more (5v5) since 2010-11 (which is when Tanev joined the team), only Edler-Rome has produced a worse on-ice (team) goals for/against (GF%) than Edler-Tanev.

Those results just scream "bad fit" to me, which is surprising since the Edler-Tanev pairing has always seemed quite sound in theory and on paper.

I expect that some people will still (even given everything noted above) point to the Corsi ratios as proof of the Edler-Tanev pairing's potential (and discount the goals-against as "bad luck" and/or "small sample size"). But even then, the events numbers show that the Edler-Tanev pairing basically neuters Edler's offensive production--they've produced very few team goals and even their shooting events are woefully low--which is something I really don't believe to be in this team's best interest (especially in getting value out of their $5 million top "offensive" defenseman).

I'll be the first to admit though, all this stats talk tend to over my head.