Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign F Ilya Mikheyev to 4-Year Deal ($4.75M AAV)

[kanucks25]

Just realized lol Bruce watches every Leafs game, he must have pitched this player, or at least gave him a positive review.

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

Hyman, Mikheyev and Bunting.

Leafs find these serviceable top 6 tweeners at a reasonable rate and junk them when they command higher salaries (Bunting is going to get paid next).

Had a brief look at Mikheyev in a Canucks jersey. Meh. Still don't get why they went for it. Hopefully not concussed too badly but this isn't a good start.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Hyman, Mikheyev and Bunting.

Leafs find these serviceable top 6 tweeners at a reasonable rate and junk them when they command higher salaries (Bunting is going to get paid next).

Had a brief look at Mikheyev in a Canucks jersey. Meh. Still don't get why they went for it. Hopefully not concussed too badly but this isn't a good start.

Elbow / Forearm in the chin? Hmm... Hope he is ok.

 

[biturbo19]

He's extremely unlikely to replicate his 32-goal pace from last year.

But for the entirety of his career he's been roughly a 20-20-40 guy with limited PP time. If he is in that neighbourhood while providing a ++ defensive/PK impact, this signing will be a major win.

Yeah. A 20-20-40pts sort of season is really what he should be expected to produce. With the bulk of that coming at even strength, it becomes a lot more valuable than it sounds on paper.


Problem is...it seems like they're intent on making him a winger for Pettersson? Which...a winger playing with our top offensive linchpin, in the sort of minutes Petey will play, kind of has to produce more than that.

As a winger for someone like Horvat, playing defensive minutes and going 20-20-40, that's great value if he can do it. As a winger for Pettersson, that's not really good enough. It's all about deploying him in the sort of role where he can be successful and fit his niche.


Obviously the injury to start the year changes or reframes things a bit. But that's the underlying reality of signing a player like this, to a contract like that. You have to leverage those minutes he plays to actually get full value for what he can bring, or it's a bad deal.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Elbow / Forearm in the chin? Hmm... Hope he is ok.

maybe he took it square on the jaw, but it does not really look like a concussion.

 

[RutherPlan]

It doesn't look that serious, and from the hit, it looks like his shoulder.

 

[kanucks25]

Yeah. A 20-20-40pts sort of season is really what he should be expected to produce. With the bulk of that coming at even strength, it becomes a lot more valuable than it sounds on paper.


Problem is...it seems like they're intent on making him a winger for Pettersson? Which...a winger playing with our top offensive linchpin, in the sort of minutes Petey will play, kind of has to produce more than that.

As a winger for someone like Horvat, playing defensive minutes and going 20-20-40, that's great value if he can do it. As a winger for Pettersson, that's not really good enough. It's all about deploying him in the sort of role where he can be successful and fit his niche.


Obviously the injury to start the year changes or reframes things a bit. But that's the underlying reality of signing a player like this, to a contract like that. You have to leverage those minutes he plays to actually get full value for what he can bring, or it's a bad deal.

Yeah it sounds like they kind of want him to play the Burrows or Hyman role (grinder to do the dirty work with top line skill players) but I don't know if he's suited for that.

I believe they tried in him that role in Toronto and it didn't work. Based on the contract, the Canucks obviously feel like there is some untapped potential there, but he still be valuable compared to his cap-hit if, as you say, he excels in a shutdown role while chipping in occasionally @ even strength.

 

[biturbo19]

Yeah it sounds like they kind of want him to play the Burrows or Hyman role (grinder to do the dirty work with top line skill players) but I don't know if he's suited for that.

I believe they tried in him that role in Toronto and it didn't work. Based on the contract, the Canucks obviously feel like there is some untapped potential there, but he still be valuable compared to his cap-hit if, as you say, he excels in a shutdown role while chipping in occasionally @ even strength.

Yeah. Hopefully they realize this sooner, rather than later. And don't try to stick a square peg in a round hole for too long if it isn't working. He can still provide lots of value in other roles, but you have to recognize that some players just don't mesh well with "high skill" forwards like Pettersson (or Matthews/Tavares). It's a real double-edged sword with guys like that sometimes. Great that they can contribute significantly without a lot of "top quality linemates" but it does kind of cap their "upside" when they can't really operate smoothly with those sort of offensive skill players.

Kapanen is another guy with Toronto ties who seems to fall into that category. Same sort of deal as Brandon Sutter, who they spent years basically misusing, to much consternation here.

 

[F A N]

Yeah. A 20-20-40pts sort of season is really what he should be expected to produce. With the bulk of that coming at even strength, it becomes a lot more valuable than it sounds on paper.


Problem is...it seems like they're intent on making him a winger for Pettersson? Which...a winger playing with our top offensive linchpin, in the sort of minutes Petey will play, kind of has to produce more than that.

As a winger for someone like Horvat, playing defensive minutes and going 20-20-40, that's great value if he can do it. As a winger for Pettersson, that's not really good enough. It's all about deploying him in the sort of role where he can be successful and fit his niche.


Obviously the injury to start the year changes or reframes things a bit. But that's the underlying reality of signing a player like this, to a contract like that. You have to leverage those minutes he plays to actually get full value for what he can bring, or it's a bad deal.

Man you basically described Pearson and very few posters here gave him half the love.

Lucky for him, he wasn’t signed by Benning so a more fleet-footed and younger version of Pearson is likely going to endear him to Canucks fans even if his offensive production are underwhelming.

I would hope that if he’s getting top 5 v 5 minutes he isn’t lagging far behind Garland in 5 v 5 production.

 

[biturbo19]

Man you basically described Pearson and very few posters here gave him half the love.

Lucky for him, he wasn’t signed by Benning so a more fleet-footed and younger version of Pearson is likely going to endear him to Canucks fans even if his offensive production are underwhelming.

I would hope that if he’s getting top 5 v 5 minutes he isn’t lagging far behind Garland in 5 v 5 production.

Ehhh...i don't think Pearson really falls into that category of player. His results seem a lot more "scalable" with quality.

He's more the other sort of "tweener". A guy who isn't quite good enough to want in your Top-6 and top offensive minutes...but i think he scores more when he gets some of those chances than if you kept him strictly limited to Bottom-6 roles and no PP time. When he's been successful offensively in his career, it's generally been with Top-6 offensive minutes. When he's struggled, it's generally been when he gets pushed out of that role and relegated to "3rd line" or "checking duties".

I think the element that makes Mikheyev potentially valuable at his higher salary, is that he can be that 20-20-40 guy, even while playing a 3rd line role. Pearson doesn't hit those sort of numbers without significant stints in the Top-6 and PP.

 

[Shareefruck]

Man you basically described Pearson and very few posters here gave him half the love.

Lucky for him, he wasn’t signed by Benning so a more fleet-footed and younger version of Pearson is likely going to endear him to Canucks fans even if his offensive production are underwhelming.

I would hope that if he’s getting top 5 v 5 minutes he isn’t lagging far behind Garland in 5 v 5 production.

I don't dislike Pearson and think he sometimes gets unfairly maligned (especially by people who think that Hoglander is currently better), but I would disagree with this characterization, and think that's overrating Pearson.

Not only does Pearson score 40 points from scoring lines playing with great players as opposed to Mikheyev doing it from 3rd lines playing with low-offense players, treating his defensive game as anything remotely close to Mikheyev's is waaay overly generous. He's merely serviceable at it.

 

[F A N]

Ehhh...i don't think Pearson really falls into that category of player. His results seem a lot more "scalable" with quality.

He's more the other sort of "tweener". A guy who isn't quite good enough to want in your Top-6 and top offensive minutes...but i think he scores more when he gets some of those chances than if you kept him strictly limited to Bottom-6 roles and no PP time. When he's been successful offensively in his career, it's generally been with Top-6 offensive minutes. When he's struggled, it's generally been when he gets pushed out of that role and relegated to "3rd line" or "checking duties".

I think the element that makes Mikheyev potentially valuable at his higher salary, is that he can be that 20-20-40 guy, even while playing a 3rd line role. Pearson doesn't hit those sort of numbers without significant stints in the Top-6 and PP.

I get that but you were talking about “As a winger for someone like Horvat, playing defensive minutes and going 20-20-40” being a great value.

That’s the role Pearson has been playing since he got here and makes $3.25M not $4.75M yet his contract gets slammed by the majority here.

I don't dislike Pearson and think he sometimes gets unfairly maligned (especially by people who think that Hoglander is currently better), but I would disagree with this characterization, and think that's overrating Pearson.

Not only does Pearson score 40 points from scoring lines playing with great players as opposed to Mikheyev doing it from 3rd lines playing with low-offense players, treating his defensive game as anything remotely close to Mikheyev's is waaay overly generous. He's merely serviceable at it.

And he makes $3.25M not $4.75M. Garland makes slightly more than $4.75M and no one would call his contract a great value if he’s a 20-20-40 guy playing alongside Horvat.

 

[biturbo19]

I get that but you were talking about “As a winger for someone like Horvat, playing defensive minutes and going 20-20-40” being a great value.

That’s the role Pearson has been playing since he got here and makes $3.25M not $4.75M yet his contract gets slammed by the majority here.



And he makes $3.25M not $4.75M. Garland makes slightly more than $4.75M and no one would call his contract a great value if he’s a 20-20-40 guy playing alongside Horvat.

I mean, that's in the context of Horvat prospectively now playing "3rd line" shutdown role sort of minutes. If Pearson could do that as well, that'd be great. But i don't think that's the sort of player he is. He's played the majority of the last couple years as a Top-6 staple. With either Horvat, or mostly Miller and Boeser/Garland as a bona fide top-6 scoring line deployment.


There's a massive difference between posting 20-20-40 in that sort of scenario, vs a more limited defensive-oriented situation with marginal PP time.

 

[mriswith]

Understanding Pearson criticisms requires context. Most of us wanted Pearson traded at the deadline when his contract was expiring. He followed a mediocre 19-20 season, especially if you remove his prodigious empty net sniping, with a brutal 20-21 season.

Somehow despite having a horrible year he was still rumoured to have value and possibly could have fetched a 2nd at the deadline. Instead we kept him and then he got extended to a contract he did not deserve. That generated a lot of negative feeling about him since we were all so, so sick of useless overpaid vets getting extended and losing picks, and then finally it looks like a useless vet will drop off and/or we might acquire a pick for once only to watch Benning do Benning things again.

He had a better season last year but some people think it's more likely we get 19-20 and 20-21 Pearson instead of last years Pearson moving forward.

Personally my issue with him is that it's annoying seeing him take ice time from other players who can either do better or who have room to grow. Early last season it was aggravating to watch the ES ice time and linemates he got and then look at what Hog and Garland were getting, and all season long it was aggravating to see his ES ice time allocation compared to what Pod and sometimes Garland got. I'd rather see Pearson's minutes chopped down and the extra minutes distributed until injuries promote him back up again then see him stapled above others I think are more deserving all season long.

And he makes $3.25M not $4.75M. Garland makes slightly more than $4.75M and no one would call his contract a great value if he’s a 20-20-40 guy playing alongside Horvat.

Depends on further context.

We're expecting Mikheyev to eat hard minutes, play a ton of PK, and not get much PP time. If, like Garland last year, all that scoring is at even strength then managing 20-20 of pure ES offense would be fantastic value.

If half of those 40 points are ES and the other half are empty nets and PP points like Pearson's 19-20 season then that isn't nearly as valuable of a player. And if like Pearson he's getting those diminished points stapled to Horvat and PP2 while Hog and Pod are grinding it out in the bottom 6 with Lazar or Dickinson as a centre and no PP time, then he'll get the same heat as Pearson too.

 

[Shareefruck]

And he makes $3.25M not $4.75M. Garland makes slightly more than $4.75M and no one would call his contract a great value if he’s a 20-20-40 guy playing alongside Horvat.

What the..... Did not expect that shift in argument. I disagreed with characterizing Mikheyev as "a more fleet-footed and younger version of Pearson" because it was a poor comparison where none of the suggested commonalities actually exist. Pointing out even more disparities between the two such as cap hit (even if they run in the opposite direction) doesn't help that make more sense, it does the opposite.

It kind of sounds like what you actually want to argue is "I don't care if Mikheyev and Pearson actually have anything in common that's comparable at all, I just wanted any excuse to launch into a thing about how Pearson is more worth the money than given credit for while Mikheyev is less worth the money than given credit for overall." (which I wasn't really disputing or commenting on.)

Going off what you're talking about, though, I would say that Garland's defensive game is also nowhere near as strong as Mikheyev's as well, so he doesn't really have that element that boosts his value beyond numbers alone. I would absolutely say that if, hypothetically, Garland scored MORE than 40 points without help from the third line to a degree equal to the difference in their defensive play (which probably is the case), then sure, I think he'd be great value at 4.75M (and I think he IS great value).

I'd happily pay Garland 5 mil to score 50 points from the 3rd line without help, absolutely.

 

[Shareefruck]

Just for fun, personally, I guess this would more or less be my breakdown.

Mikheyev at ~4.5.
+ can score 40 points w/o help on a 3rd line
+ high-end defensive ability
= solid value

Hypothetical Garland described by FAN at ~4.5
+ can score 40 points w/o help on a 3rd line
- average defensive ability
= less than solid value

Actual Garland at ~4.5
+++ can score 40 points w/o help on a 3rd line/50+ points on a scoring line and make those around him better
- average defensive ability
= better than solid value

Hypothetical Pearson at ~4.5
- can only score 40 points with good players on scoring lines
- average defensive ability
= terrible value

Actual Pearson at ~3
- can only score 40 points with good players on scoring lines
- average defensive ability
= slightly less than solid value?

And while we're at it:

Hypothetical Mikheyev on scoring line w/ Pettersson at ~4.5
--- can only scoring 40 points with good players while actively hurting offense of good players
+ high-end defensive ability
= terrible value

I think that's logically pretty consistent.

 

[F A N]

I mean, that's in the context of Horvat prospectively now playing "3rd line" shutdown role sort of minutes. If Pearson could do that as well, that'd be great. But i don't think that's the sort of player he is. He's played the majority of the last couple years as a Top-6 staple. With either Horvat, or mostly Miller and Boeser/Garland as a bona fide top-6 scoring line deployment.


There's a massive difference between posting 20-20-40 in that sort of scenario, vs a more limited defensive-oriented situation with marginal PP time.

What's the "3rd line shutdown role sort of minutes" that you envision that is different from the role Horvat has been playing? Horvat have been used in a shutdown role for years now and I can't see that changing and that shutdown role is more Kesler minutes than Malhotra minutes. Pearson has basically been stapled along Horvat. If that doesn't change Pearson will playing big minutes with Horvat and it doesn't matter if that's the team's 3rd line or 2nd line.

Again, what I was responding to is you saying Mikhey would be a great value if he puts up a 20-20-40 season alongside Hovat. My point is that's basically Pearson.

 

[F A N]

What the..... Did not expect that shift in argument. I disagreed with characterizing Mikheyev as "a more fleet-footed and younger version of Pearson" because it was a poor comparison where none of the suggested commonalities actually exist. Pointing out even more disparities between the two such as cap hit (even if they run in the opposite direction) doesn't help that make more sense, it does the opposite.

It kind of sounds like what you actually want to argue is "I don't care if Mikheyev and Pearson actually have anything in common that's comparable at all, I just wanted any excuse to launch into a thing about how Pearson is more worth the money than given credit for while Mikheyev is less worth the money than given credit for overall." (which I wasn't really disputing or commenting on, but okay.)

Going off what you're talking about, though, I would say that Garland's defensive game is also nowhere near as strong as Mikheyev's as well, so he doesn't really have that element that boosts his value beyond numbers alone. I would absolutely say that if, hypothetically, Garland scored MORE than 40 points without help from the third line to a degree equal to the difference in their defensive play (which probably is the case), then sure, I think he'd be great value at 4.75M (and I think he IS great value).

I'd happily pay Garland 5 mil to score 50 points from the 3rd line without help, absolutely.

Huh? Maybe you should read what I was actually responding to. That's the point of quoting a post and responding. If you're responding to a specific point maybe bold it or just quote the particular passage.

I was specifically responding to biturbo19 saying Mikheyev would be a great value if he puts up 20-20-40 alongside Horvat which has been Pearson's role. Pearson had one less goal and one more point 5 v 5 in less minutes than Horvat. Pearson also had more points 5 v 5 than Mikheyev in more minutes last season. If Mikheyev would be a great value putting up 20-20-40 alongside Horvat then Pearson is at least good value putting up that type of production alongside Horvat at $1.5M less no?

 

[Shareefruck]

Huh? Maybe you should read what I was actually responding to. That's the point of quoting a post and responding. If you're responding to a specific point maybe bold it or just quote the particular passage.

I was specifically responding to biturbo19 saying Mikheyev would be a great value if he puts up 20-20-40 alongside Horvat which has been Pearson's role. Pearson had one less goal and one more point 5 v 5 in less minutes than Horvat. Pearson also had more points 5 v 5 than Mikheyev in more minutes last season. If Mikheyev would be a great value putting up 20-20-40 alongside Horvat then Pearson is at least good value putting up that type of production alongside Horvat at $1.5M less no?

I think I did bold the specific part that I disagreed with, which wasn't the overarching point you were making, but the premise/framing you were using to support it. Putting up similar numbers alone doesn't make Mikheyev a more fleet foot version of Pearson, and whether or not they're great value depends on more than just those numbers (and I think that's implied in bitturbo's original comment too, without needing to be explicitly said. Given how good defensively/on the PK and self-reliant offensively Mikheyev is, 40 points on a 3rd line in general would be great value.

Aside from that, though, do we actually have the numbers for how much Pearson produced when alongside Horvat? I'm under the impression that he didn't start approaching a 40 point pace until he was played regularly with Miller (especially that latter half stretch where he looked more like a 50 point guy). I can see that before Boudreau got here, he was only on a 26 point pace, and I vaguely recall seeing Dickinson next to Horvat more than Pearson after that (with Hoglander on the other side, I believe). Could be wrong, though.

I do think you're indirectly bringing up a separate good point though-- "If Mikheyev's key strength is being able to score 40 points without relying on great players, but can't produce more than that when he does, isn't that benefit lost on a team where the weakest of the three lines he can be on still has Horvat?" He WAS great value scoring 40 points in Toronto's 3rd line, but maybe he needs to score more than 40 points to continue being great value, simply because he's with Horvat? (and he has no track record of that kind of bump happening)

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

Understanding Pearson criticisms requires context. Most of us wanted Pearson traded at the deadline when his contract was expiring. He followed a mediocre 19-20 season, especially if you remove his prodigious empty net sniping, with a brutal 20-21 season.

Somehow despite having a horrible year he was still rumoured to have value and possibly could have fetched a 2nd at the deadline. Instead we kept him and then he got extended to a contract he did not deserve. That generated a lot of negative feeling about him since we were all so, so sick of useless overpaid vets getting extended and losing picks, and then finally it looks like a useless vet will drop off and/or we might acquire a pick for once only to watch Benning do Benning things again.

He had a better season last year but some people think it's more likely we get 19-20 and 20-21 Pearson instead of last years Pearson moving forward.

Personally my issue with him is that it's annoying seeing him take ice time from other players who can either do better or who have room to grow. Early last season it was aggravating to watch the ES ice time and linemates he got and then look at what Hog and Garland were getting, and all season long it was aggravating to see his ES ice time allocation compared to what Pod and sometimes Garland got. I'd rather see Pearson's minutes chopped down and the extra minutes distributed until injuries promote him back up again then see him stapled above others I think are more deserving all season long.


Depends on further context.

We're expecting Mikheyev to eat hard minutes, play a ton of PK, and not get much PP time. If, like Garland last year, all that scoring is at even strength then managing 20-20 of pure ES offense would be fantastic value.

If half of those 40 points are ES and the other half are empty nets and PP points like Pearson's 19-20 season then that isn't nearly as valuable of a player. And if like Pearson he's getting those diminished points stapled to Horvat and PP2 while Hog and Pod are grinding it out in the bottom 6 with Lazar or Dickinson as a centre and no PP time, then he'll get the same heat as Pearson too.

Tanner Pearson is a funny case. The positive: he is a “good pro”, non sarcastically. He is a solid player for his money. He is hilariously better value than Gudbranson. The negative: he’s just like a faint fart smell you can’t quite get out of a room. He is a relic from the Benning area and he’s in others’ way in what is realistically a who gives a f*** about results? period.

 

[F A N]

I think I did bold the specific part that I disagreed with, which wasn't the overarching point you were making, but the premise/framing you were using to support it. Putting up similar numbers alone doesn't make Mikheyev a more fleet foot version of Pearson, and whether or not they're great value depends on more than just those numbers (and I think that's implied in bitturbo's original comment too, without needing to be explicitly said. Given how good defensively/on the PK and self-reliant offensively Mikheyev is, 40 points on a 3rd line in general would be great value.

Aside from that, though, do we actually have the numbers for how much Pearson produced when alongside Horvat? I'm under the impression that he didn't start approaching a 40 point pace until he was played regularly with Miller (especially that latter half stretch where he looked more like a 50 point guy). I can see that before Boudreau got here, he was only on a 26 point pace, and I vaguely recall seeing Dickinson next to Horvat more than Pearson after that (with Hoglander on the other side, I believe). Could be wrong, though.

I do think you're indirectly bringing up a separate good point though-- "If Mikheyev's key strength is being able to score 40 points without relying on great players, but can't produce more than that when he does, isn't that benefit lost on a team where the weakest of the three lines he can be on still has Horvat?" He WAS great value scoring 40 points in Toronto's 3rd line, but maybe he needs to score more than 40 points to continue being great value, simply because he's with Horvat? (and he has no track record of that kind of bump happening)

What I'm saying is that I was specifically responding to biturbo saying that if Mikheyev can produce 20-20-40 alongside Horvat in a shutdown role that would be great value. We were talking about even strength production. My point is that's basically been the role Pearson has been playing and regardless of whether he is similar to Mikheyev or comparable to Mikheyev, Pearson has played that role, has basically been a 40 point forward while making less, and his contract gets slammed by the majority here.

Mikheyev didn't score 40 points on Toronto's 3rd line at even strength. And yes, I think if you're talking about Mikheyev's ability to produce away from Tavares and Marner etc. we have to take into consideration that Horvat is better than Mikheyev's "3rd line" linemates in Toronto. Mikheyev scored 4 goals on the PK but I'm not sure if he'll score too many goals as a Canuck. It's been many years since a Canuck scored more than 2 goals on the PK.

Anyways, the point is that if Mikheyev is logging top 5 v 5 minutes alongside Horvat and ends up being just a 20-20-40 player I wouldn't consider that great value.

 

[Shareefruck]

What I'm saying is that I was specifically responding to biturbo saying that if Mikheyev can produce 20-20-40 alongside Horvat in a shutdown role that would be great value. We were talking about even strength production. My point is that's basically been the role Pearson has been playing and regardless of whether he is similar to Mikheyev or comparable to Mikheyev, Pearson has played that role, has basically been a 40 point forward while making less, and his contract gets slammed by the majority here.

Mikheyev didn't score 40 points on Toronto's 3rd line at even strength. And yes, I think if you're talking about Mikheyev's ability to produce away from Tavares and Marner etc. we have to take into consideration that Horvat is better than Mikheyev's "3rd line" linemates in Toronto. Mikheyev scored 4 goals on the PK but I'm not sure if he'll score too many goals as a Canuck. It's been many years since a Canuck scored more than 2 goals on the PK.

Anyways, the point is that if Mikheyev is logging top 5 v 5 minutes alongside Horvat and ends up being just a 20-20-40 player I wouldn't consider that great value.

Again, I'd be curious if the numbers last season actually bear that out (both in Pearson and Mikheyev's case). Personally, I don't buy the relevance/impressiveness of being able to score a certain number of points while merely playing in a defensive role alone-- To me, the crux of why Mikheyev's reputation deserves praise/elevation (if it's accurate, anyways-- I haven't seen anything that suggests otherwise) is specifically that he's really successful and great in that role. That's what matters, not the role itself.

Hypothetically, if you threw Garland onto the third line in that role and he played exactly the same defense he usually does while producing exactly the same number of points he usually does, and that line consequently isn't very good at actually stopping the opposition's best players, the fact that he put up those numbers in that role doesn't all of a sudden elevate how impressive he is, IMO. In contrast, a guy like Jannik Hansen scoring 30 points on a shutdown 3rd line massively elevates him beyond what 30 points normally would because he legitimately is also incredible defensively and wildly successful at shutting down the opposition. It isn't a double standard to treat the two cases completely differently and praise one over the other, despite involving the same role.

Bitturbo can clarify if he hasn't already, but I think that was implied in his original statement, without needing to be explicitly said. 40 points in that role would arguably be impressive/worth the contract GIVEN what we know of Mikheyev's capabilities within that role, which Pearson doesn't scale to at all.

If you remove how comparable the actual quality you're getting in that role is from consideration, you're rendering the sentiment completely meaningless.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Apparently he's possibly torn his ACL

 

[RutherPlan]

Apparently he's possibly torn his ACL

Debunked.

 

[F A N]

Again, I'd be curious if the numbers last season actually bear that out (both in Pearson and Mikheyev's case). Personally, I don't buy the relevance/impressiveness of being able to score a certain number of points while merely playing in a defensive role alone-- To me, the crux of why Mikheyev's reputation deserves praise/elevation (if it's accurate, anyways-- I haven't seen anything that suggests otherwise) is specifically that he's really successful and great in that role. That's what matters, not the role itself.

Hypothetically, if you threw Garland onto the third line in that role and he played exactly the same defense he usually does while producing exactly the same number of points he usually does, and that line consequently isn't very good at actually stopping the opposition's best players, the fact that he put up those numbers in that role doesn't all of a sudden elevate how impressive he is, IMO. In contrast, a guy like Jannik Hansen scoring 30 points on a shutdown 3rd line massively elevates him beyond what 30 points normally would because he legitimately is also incredible defensively and wildly successful at shutting down the opposition. It isn't a double standard to treat the two cases completely differently and praise one over the other, despite involving the same role.

Bitturbo can clarify if he hasn't already, but I think that was implied in his original statement, without needing to be explicitly said. 40 points in that role would arguably be impressive/worth the contract GIVEN what we know of Mikheyev's capabilities within that role, which Pearson doesn't scale to at all.

If you remove how comparable the actual quality you're getting in that role is from consideration, you're rendering the sentiment completely meaningless.

I don’t get what you mean by “if the numbers”… etc. The numbers/stats are the stats. You can interpret the numbers however you want.

You want to pay guys based on their role and production. A 4th line winger with size who can provide solid defense and put up 15-15-30 is great but not if you’re paying him Petey type money. I think we would all agree that playing McKinnon or McDavid in a 4th line role in typical 4th line minutes with 4th line calibre linemates at their salaries is not going to be good value.

Hansen was a beast in his prime and was criminally underpaid for years. If he was paid good 2nd line money alongside Kesler, the point production expectations would be much higher.

Garland for his part puts up too even strength production. He he did it seemingly regardless of linemates. That’s what you’re paying him for.

Pearson was paid with the expectation that he would continue to play a middle 6 role and spend time playing alongside Horvat and he has. He was worth his contract last season.

I don’t think that it’s in dispute that typically goals are worth more than assists which are worth more than defense in terms of player salaries. An elite defensive 3rd line C who puts up 13-16 goals and 30-40 points isn’t going to get good 2nd line C money or shouldn’t based on market dynamics.