Post-Game Talk: Canucks 2, Ducks 1: Southern California gets trolled

[tantalum]

I know many posters have lamented the defensive prowess of Granlund, and if so, it's even more surprising he's survived on the line with Daniel and Henrik....because let's face it, the twins are morphing into huge defensive liabilities, particularly in their own zone.

Has Granlund improved at all on the defensive side of the puck?....and if not, why does Willie like him on that line?....because in years gone by it was Hansen and Burrows who did the heavy lifting defensively on that line.

Why does Willie like Megna or Sutter on the first PP unit?

I find it best not to think about what Willie is thinking. But honestly they don't have other options...Eriksson doesn't work. Hansen and Burrows are gone.

 

[m9]

<smacks forehead with hand> Thanks!



It does and it's why I have an inability to get excited over Granlund at all. Just as I can't get excited about Sutter or Eriksson (who is getting outproduced by Cramarossa by rate!). Is granlund as useless as Megna or Chaput? Of course not. But using a likely unfair benchmark of the Stanley Cup champs...Granlund would rank 14th among among the forwards on that team playing more than 300 minutes 5-on-5. Be a little more fair and take a bubble team like Calgary...10th. Even on equally inept offensive teams like the Devils and Canes he's in that 8-10 range. As I said it prevents me from getting excited. But, it is a start for him. The telling thing is whether he can fight off competition when other wingers (hopefully) emerge in the next 12-18 months.

I have a bit more patience just because he's a fairly young player and is developing. He will either need to take the next step offensively or improve defensively to be a plus asset to the team, but I do think he's someone up front that could be a future middle-six guy on a winning team. At the very least he has a good shot with some position flexibility.

I mean, next year we are all expecting Goldobin to make the team and I think if he went for around 20 goals, 15 assists with weak defensive play we would consider that an encouraging step forward. Granlund played most of this season as a 23 year old and Goldobin will play next next year as a 22 year old, so the age isn't far off.

 

[VanJack]

Speaking of skating, thought that both Chaput and Cramarossa show some surprising hops in this game......has Chaput gotten faster after playing a whole year in the NHL?

And for a guy with a reputation for grinder, thought Cramarossa was moving very well out there...if they can ever get Boucher up to speed on his skating, they might have something in these players.

If Horvat can dramatically improve his skating through hard work, maybe there's some hope for other guys.

 

[Shareefruck]

I know many posters have lamented the defensive prowess of Granlund, and if so, it's even more surprising he's survived on the line with Daniel and Henrik....because let's face it, the twins are morphing into huge defensive liabilities, particularly in their own zone.

Has Granlund improved at all on the defensive side of the puck?....and if not, why does Willie like him on that line?....because in years gone by it was Hansen and Burrows who did the heavy lifting defensively on that line.

Why Willie keeps them together is a moot point, considering that very few of us view him as a coach that makes sensible decisions, let alone some expert to appeal to.

The more important question is.... is that line even doing well defensively since being put together? I honestly have no clue.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Thanks. So a third line rate. About what I expected.

3rd line rate while receiving 1st/2nd line minutes. You can see why he's not having a good season (relative to his role). Add to that he's been a defensive liability, and you don't have a very good hockey player.

The big knock on Shinkaruk last year was that he wasn't very good defensively. Yet a lot of Granlund supporters seemingly ignore how poor he has been defensively.

 

[m9]

3rd line rate while receiving 1st/2nd line minutes. You can see why he's not having a good season (relative to his role). Add to that he's been a defensive liability, and you don't have a very good hockey player.

The big knock on Shinkaruk last year was that he wasn't very good defensively. Yet a lot of Granlund supporters seemingly ignore how poor he has been defensively.

ES pts/60 will account for his increased icetime. He is a mid-tier 3rd liner based on production going off ES pts/60.

 

[y2kcanucks]

ES pts/60 will account for his increased icetime. He is a mid-tier 3rd liner based on production going off ES pts/60.

Yes. And given we have a mid-tier 3rd liner playing as much as he has, that explains why this team isn't that good offensively as a collective unit. It's not all on him because Sutter and Eriksson are also producing at a similar rate as him and are all receiving top 6 ice-time.

Too many players producing like 3rd liners despite top 6 ice-time = an overall poor offensive team.

 

[m9]

Yes. And given we have a mid-tier 3rd liner playing as much as he has, that explains why this team isn't that good offensively as a collective unit. It's not all on him because Sutter and Eriksson are also producing at a similar rate as him and are all receiving top 6 ice-time.

Too many players producing like 3rd liners despite top 6 ice-time = an overall poor offensive team.

Totally, it's a number of factors. The expected 1st line (Sedin, Sedin, Eriksson) has produced like 2nd liners. The 4th liners (Gaunce, Megna, Chaput) have been some of the worst producing players in the NHL. Hopefully guys like Goldobin and Boeser push Granlund, Sutter, etc down the lineup sooner than later.. and push a couple of those 4th liners out completely.

 

[Uhmkay]

3rd line rate while receiving 1st/2nd line minutes. You can see why he's not having a good season (relative to his role). Add to that he's been a defensive liability, and you don't have a very good hockey player.

The big knock on Shinkaruk last year was that he wasn't very good defensively. Yet a lot of Granlund supporters seemingly ignore how poor he has been defensively.

He's 6th on Canucks forwards for ice time and would be lower if players like Hansen were not injured. The 2nd and 3rd lines are basically interchangeable and receive about the same amount of ice time. He's basically playing in the middle 6 and only relatively recently, for a few game, has been experimented with the Sedins. So enough with the "He's getting 1st line minutes". The difference between first line Sedins, and 2nd/3rd line with Horvat/Sutter is very little. Like a shift or two.

Nobody here is expecting him to be anything more the a third line forward, so you calling him a crappy forward because he's being played above his expected roll doesn't make him a crappy forward. It means he's not a 1st line player.

And call me shocked... a guy who has never been looked at as a first line player, who is breaking personal best for goals by a wide margin, only makes 900k, and who we picked up for essentially a bust... isn't a 1st line player.

He is what he is. A third line player who could move up to the 2nd on a really bad team... like the Canucks.

And right now, he's a better hockey player than Gaunce. Gaunce 'could' improve offensively... just as Granlund 'could' improve defensively. I'd suggest that it's easier to teach defense than it is to teach offense however.

 

[WTG]

Going of what Y2K said, the only players producing like top 6 forwards at even strength this year are Horvat and Baertschi, and the Sedins.

And Baertschi will probably regress, due to his 20% on-ice SH%. It'll regress to 14%. Which shouldn't hurt him that badly if he develops to match his regression. So if I were to bet, Baertschi is probably going to produce at a 40-50 point rate next year. That's still top 6 production, so it's still good.

With Granlund, I this he'll regress a lot more, his development curve has been pretty flat, AKA he hasn't really had a spike in production over the years, to suggest a huge leap forward in development. So when his numbers get cut down next year, he'll probably get less points then this year.



If we had a better coach, Horvat/Baertschi should be getting a lot more offensive zone starts. Sedins are getting 59% ozone starts, meanwhile Baertschi a offensive guy is getting 45% o-zone starts despite being their most productive even strength forward. It's just silly.

 

[y2kcanucks]

He's 6th on Canucks forwards for ice time and would be lower if players like Hansen were not injured. The 2nd and 3rd lines are basically interchangeable and receive about the same amount of ice time. He's basically playing in the middle 6 and only relatively recently, for a few game, has been experimented with the Sedins. So enough with the "He's getting 1st line minutes". The difference between first line Sedins, and 2nd/3rd line with Horvat/Sutter is very little. Like a shift or two.

Nobody here is expecting him to be anything more the a third line forward, so you calling him a crappy forward because he's being played above his expected roll doesn't make him a crappy forward. It means he's not a 1st line player.

And call me shocked... a guy who has never been looked at as a first line player, who is breaking personal best for goals by a wide margin, only makes 900k, and who we picked up for essentially a bust... isn't a 1st line player.

He is what he is. A third line player who could move up to the 2nd on a really bad team... like the Canucks.

And right now, he's a better hockey player than Gaunce. Gaunce 'could' improve offensively... just as Granlund 'could' improve defensively. I'd suggest that it's easier to teach defense than it is to teach offense however.

He's 1 second behind Horvat, and a few seconds behind Sutter at even strength. He's been firmly on the 2nd line all year. None of this made up "middle 6" crap that's completely false. In fact, for the past handful of games he's been on the top line. Last game he led our forwards in ice-time. That's absolutely ridiculous!

He's a crappy forward because he's put up 28 points despite receiving regular top 6 minutes. He's a crappy forward because he's been eviscerated defensively in his role as well.

Scale back his ice-time and my guess is you see his points drop (not a huge stretch). Rather than having 28 points you're probably looking at 15-20 points, closer to 15 points factoring in a SH% regression. He'll probably not be as bad defensively if given weaker competition; however, now you're having to moderately shelter a 15 point player. Is that someone who's really worth much?

And I get it, for $900k there are spots for players like this. But the way people talk about him and talk like he should be expansion draft protected or that he'll be a huge part of our future is completely wrong. It's ridiculous.

 

[Hit the post]

I know many posters have lamented the defensive prowess of Granlund, and if so, it's even more surprising he's survived on the line with Daniel and Henrik....because let's face it, the twins are morphing into huge defensive liabilities, particularly in their own zone.

Amazing isn't that? That the twins wouldn't look as bad if they didn't have a AHLer on their line instead of Granlund.

 

[Pip]

Going of what Y2K said, the only players producing like top 6 forwards at even strength this year are Horvat and Baertschi, and the Sedins.

That seems about right.

 

[Tinhorn1]

3rd line rate while receiving 1st/2nd line minutes. You can see why he's not having a good season (relative to his role). Add to that he's been a defensive liability, and you don't have a very good hockey player.

The big knock on Shinkaruk last year was that he wasn't very good defensively. Yet a lot of Granlund supporters seemingly ignore how poor he has been defensively.

Yes, he is very mediocre. I haven't been reading a lot of extremely enthusiastic reviews of his play, though. Maybe in the papers sometimes, but not on here. Some people like him slightly more than others, as is natural. I don't think Granlund is a major polarizing figure.

I wonder where he tops out, personally. He has a pretty good shot and some positional awareness, but seems like a bit of a weakling out there, which limits his effectiveness. Might make a good third liner if he just bulked up a bit. Who knows, though.

 

[Trelane]

What comes to mind when encountering yet another Granlund v Shink debate:

That Granlund is not a top 6 on a good team means squat in the context of the trade. Always comes down to one being an NHLer, even if for limited time, and the other being something else.

I get now that Jimbo has upped his trader quotient there are fewer targets for criticism but surely there are actually winnable battles to be had. Maybe pile more on Willie for deployment improprieties...

 

[Shareefruck]

I disagree with this sentiment that trades are evaluated in this black and white way where whichever player ends up better 100% determines the winner of the trade.

As an extreme analogy, if you trade a mid-level 1st round pick away for Derek Dorsett, Derek Dorsett is more likely to play games in the NHL, and the first round pick has a pretty good chance of busting. The fact that both those things happened doesn't make it a good trade. There are other important factors at play. (please don't misconstrue this into me saying that the difference between Shinkaruk/Granlund is comparable to this)

Despite the outcome of how they compare to each other right now, Shinkaruk vs. Granlund as a trade is very debateable depending on the circumstances when the trade occurred, how much upside/potential the two had at the time (I think Shinkaruk was more boom or bust), and whether or not the outcome is anything that ultimately ends up significant either way (I don't think it has/will be).

For my money, Granlund was already a borderline NHLer, but was unlikely to get much better than that, or become good enough to be useful on a contender, whereas Shinkaruk was far more likely to bust, but in the event that he does take the next step, is a far more interesting player to try and develop.

If the exactly same conditions came up again with identical player types/situations, I would go with the Shinkaruk-like gamble every time. I just have a hard time believing that Granlund will become good enough that we'll end up caring about the outcome either way. If he does, though, and becomes legitimately effective, I'll probably change my mind and call it a good trade. As of now, they're both inconsequential.

That seems about right.

I think Hansen and Burrows are right there too. And that makes six.

 

[me2]

That Granlund is not a top 6 on a good team means squat in the context of the trade. Always comes down to one being an NHLer, even if for limited time, and the other being something else.

Not really, you can get NHLers for free. Perfect example of this is you could ice an NHL team using nothing but UFAs and waivers. It might never win the stanley cup, it might never even make the playoffs, but it would be filled with genuine NHLers. Stempniak, Richardson, Sheary, Marchessault, Perrault, and so on. If you have a bunch of cash to waste there is always Eriksson or Ladd.

The other thing to consider is - what value am I getting when I need it (contending years). If you rebuild and it takes years to rebuild and the asset you trade for packed up and left you got no value out it. If Gudbranson takes a 1 year arbitration deal and leaves as a UFA, well got a couple of years but gain nothing for it. Even the salary cap messes with value, your cheap RFA putting up 50 points looks less exciting sucking down $6m.

Finally, you need to look at the big picture. Could a trade asset have been used in a more effective manner (packed with Hamhuis for a 1st for example), could the asset have been picked up cheap another way (3-5th for Granlund). One of things people try do is tunnel vision a trade and refuse to look at the big picture. What might have been, does it make sense, what were the other options.

 

[RobertKron]

Yes, he is very mediocre. I haven't been reading a lot of extremely enthusiastic reviews of his play, though. Maybe in the papers sometimes, but not on here. Some people like him slightly more than others, as is natural. I don't think Granlund is a major polarizing figure.

I wonder where he tops out, personally. He has a pretty good shot and some positional awareness, but seems like a bit of a weakling out there, which limits his effectiveness. Might make a good third liner if he just bulked up a bit. Who knows, though.

Yeah, since poster Beansy seems to have vanished for now, there's not really anyone out there hanging their hats on Granlund being a fantastic rising star and trying - for some insane reason - to rub that in everyone's faces while also playing the martyr.

This can kind of just fade off, really. If you think he's an example of a bad player making hay on a bad team, then that will be apparent soon. If you think he's a strong young player establishing himself in the league, same deal. Agree to disagree, and revisit it in eight months or whatever.

I guess you've got a couple people who will claim everything is going hunky dory, but they're obvious by now. You've got some folks claiming every single thing ever is the worst thing that has ever happened, but they're obvious, too.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

What comes to mind when encountering yet another Granlund v Shink debate:

That Granlund is not a top 6 on a good team means squat in the context of the trade. Always comes down to one being an NHLer, even if for limited time, and the other being something else.

I get now that Jimbo has upped his trader quotient there are fewer targets for criticism but surely there are actually winnable battles to be had. Maybe pile more on Willie for deployment improprieties...

If you at going to continue ignoring the actual argument that people are making then you may as well just stop posting.

There is no Shinkaruk vs granlund debate. You are making that up. Nobody thinks Shinkaruk is having a better season than granlund. Nobody. Not a soul.

There are two groups.

The people who stupidly compare granlund to Shinkaruk and declare victory because granlund is having a better season.

And

The people who view granlund as the type of player who defines fungibility, like Reid Boucher, and think that giving up an asset for him, any asset, even a guy who ended up being a bust, is a bad move. If we had traded Virtanen for Boucher that would have been bad move too, even if Virtanen is a bust. We got Boucher for free. Some people think granlund is that type of player. They are not necessarily correct. Time will tell, as they say.

But stip ****ing pretending that anyone cares about hunter mothercunting Shinkaruk and ****ing comparing those two players like that is in any way ****ing relevant. I thought little of Shinkaruk at the time of the trade. It does not matter. It does not ****ing matter. Stop this already. It is ****ing asinine.

These are the two positions that people actually hold. The longer that you stick your head in the sand and ignore this, the dumber you look.

 

[Mal Reynolds]

What comes to mind when encountering yet another Granlund v Shink debate:

That Granlund is not a top 6 on a good team means squat in the context of the trade. Always comes down to one being an NHLer, even if for limited time, and the other being something else.

I get now that Jimbo has upped his trader quotient there are fewer targets for criticism but surely there are actually winnable battles to be had. Maybe pile more on Willie for deployment improprieties...

To borrow the very next line from that movie... "Would you, Quintus? Would I?"

The implication being people as a whole lack self-awareness, as well as have a very strong confirmation bias. We see what we want to see.

 

[Trelane]

A lot of going around in circles here. I've read the arguments below several times:

how much upside/potential the two had [at the time of trade]...
Shinkaruk was more boom or bust...
Granlund... unlikely to get much better...
Shinkaruk...far more interesting player to try and develop...
As of now, they're both inconsequential.

All garden variety symptoms of fans overvaluing their team's prospects. Typically, the younger the prospect the greater the overvaluation. If Shink had more value he would have fetched more. Been on the block for a while as I remember it. So unless someone has info that they didn't call around and jumped on the first (as distinct from only) offer, the value finally obtained is the actual value, determined by the league market place as opposed to fan inspired fantasies.

The players here are close to the same age and could be compared directly. The pure futures deals, or vet for prospects/buying a lottery, distinction doesn't apply. Fans labeling one as more boom or bust is a great exercise for the imagination.

 

[Black Noise]

He's 1 second behind Horvat, and a few seconds behind Sutter at even strength. He's been firmly on the 2nd line all year. None of this made up "middle 6" crap that's completely false. In fact, for the past handful of games he's been on the top line. Last game he led our forwards in ice-time. That's absolutely ridiculous!

He's a crappy forward because he's put up 28 points despite receiving regular top 6 minutes. He's a crappy forward because he's been eviscerated defensively in his role as well.

Scale back his ice-time and my guess is you see his points drop (not a huge stretch). Rather than having 28 points you're probably looking at 15-20 points, closer to 15 points factoring in a SH% regression. He'll probably not be as bad defensively if given weaker competition; however, now you're having to moderately shelter a 15 point player. Is that someone who's really worth much?

And I get it, for $900k there are spots for players like this. But the way people talk about him and talk like he should be expansion draft protected or that he'll be a huge part of our future is completely wrong. It's ridiculous.

75th out of all forwards in 5v5 ice time this season. Ya thats top 6 bordering on first line minutes.

Markus Granlund - 63 GP - 848 minutes
Sean Monahan - 66 GP - 862 minutes

I get the feeling he wouldn't be getting nearly as many point if he were still on Calgary.



Also, something I found really funny. Out of the 74 players ahead of Granlund in TOI, only 9 have a worse P/60. Sutter and Eriksson are 2 of the 9.