Confirmed with Link: Canucks Sign Pius Suter - 2-years @ $1.6M AAV

[JohnHodgson]

You keep calling him a 3C in seasons where he wasn't a 3C.

In 20-21 he was basically Chicago's 1C.

In 21-22 he was basically Detroit's 2C.

In 22-23 he spent half the season on wing.

Again, I'm well aware he's played mostly C ... on bad teams, and not as a 3C. He shouldn't be a 3C on a good team.

I love the word "Basically" here because you are implying yourself that those labels are misleading.

We will see. Let's agree to disagree.

I think he will be a fine 3C for us. He has most of the traits you want out of a third line center. He's obviously not the perfect 3C built in a lab, otherwise he would have cost much more than what he signed for.

He can win faceoffs, plays the PK, is pretty durable, is sound defensively, and has shown offensive upside to score 30-40 points. What more do you want from a 3C making $1.6M?

 

[JohnHodgson]

What? I didn't suggest that at all-- if anything, I was mocking the sentiment. You were the one who brought up and focused on those numbers for Suter and argued that "most of his production is ES production which is a good indicator of his offensive capabilities." I was just pointing out how it's not a favorable barometer to use, when the player you're dismissing can also claim the same thing.

Granlund's a trash player and his "even strength numbers" aren't at all a good indicator of his offensive capabilities.

Granlund had one "good year" in his seven year career,

He had 80 ESP across 335 games. That's a 19.5 point pace per 82 games.

Suter has 78 ESP across 216 games. That's a 33 point pace per 82 games.

If you're looking at statistics, they aren't even in the same stratosphere. So why even compare?

You zoomed in on one "good" year where Granlund was force-fed minutes as a winger (not a center) in which he was still a terrible player and a -19. And by eye test, he was horrible as well.

Suter scored 14 goals this year in a bottom six role. That's more than ANYONE in our bottom six this year (Joshua, Dries, Aman etc). Suter has some good offensive capabilities. I don't know why that's such a bold statement to make.

 

[credulous]

Great insights and analysis here. Making exaggerated statements with ZERO support.

As per usual coming from you.

Suter is no where close to David Kampf... who's career high is 27 points. Yup ok.

Nowhere close to Nic Paul... who's career high is 32 points. Yup ok.

No where close to NIc Roy... who's career high is 39 points. Yup ok.

Like I said, no surprise with the VERY useful analysis from yourself.

it's almost like you're completely unable to grasp concepts like opportunity and usage

 

[LemonSauceD]

FWIW, I did actually like Granlund. He was a decent player for what was expected of him.

 

[JohnHodgson]

He was Detroit's 2C.

The guys he played most with - Bertuzzi, Fabbri, Zadina, Vrana - were their 2nd line wingers. Bertuzzi scored 62 points in 68 games that year.

He was a mediocre 2C on a bad team, who they decided to upgrade on. That season tells us nothing about whether he can be a good 3C on a playoff team.




He played with Kane/Debrincat at ES. Yes, he didn't play with them on the PP but that doesn't change the fact that his usage that season tells us nothing about whether he's a good 3C for a playoff team.

Chicago's Cs that season were Suter/Strome/Kampf/Kurashev. He had the highest ES TOI - by far - of any of them. He wasn't a middle-6 C and wasn't a 3C. David Kampf was the 3C on that team getting the tough defensive assignments.

This is literally exactly what happened with Jason Dickinson where people took 'listed as a C' + 'production looks 3rd line-ish' + 'good JFresh card' to decide that we'd acquired a great 3C when actually he had spent his entire career as a middle-6 wing or a 4C.

Dickinson has never won more than 201 faceoffs a year when he was in Dallas. When he did, he was winning them at a 42.9% rate.

Suter has won more than 201 faceoffs in every year he's been in the NHL.

Suter is a center that can play wing.

Dickinson is a winger that can play center.

What an awful comparison.

 

[Shareefruck]

Granlund had one "good year" in his seven year career,

He had 80 ESP across 335 games. That's a 19.5 point pace per 82 games.

Suter has 78 ESP across 216 games. That's a 33 point pace per 82 games.

If you're looking at statistics, they aren't even in the same stratosphere. So why even compare?

You zoomed in on one "good" year where Granlund was force-fed minutes as a winger (not a center) in which he was still a terrible player and a -19. And by eye test, he was horrible as well.

Suter scored 14 goals this year in a bottom six role. That's more than ANYONE in our bottom six this year (Joshua, Dries, Aman etc). Suter has some good offensive capabilities. I don't know why that's such a bold statement to make.

First of all, I didn't bring up the comparison-- It was a comparison already made by others that I was asking for your opinion on, specifically to gauge how seriously your opinion should be taken, as I was skeptical of your optimism for Suter. Mainly just to see if you felt that Granlund was good as well (which would be pretty disqualifying, IMO), and you didn't.

I'm only referring to Granlund's one "good year" because it's obvious that his other years were awful, and that's the one year that people often fall into the trap of mistakenly believing is "good", which it isn't either, in my opinion.

When you gave your opinion, I found your actual support for your opinion to be questionable (not necessarily the opinion itself of Suter being better than Granlund-- again, he very well could be, I haven't seen him play)-- For some reason, you brought up production comparable to Granlund's "one good year" and then focused on even strength production being particularly meaningful, despite that equally applying to Granlund's "one good year" where he wasn't good at all. So I was just calling out why that bit of rhetoric didn't make sense if you're arguing that one is good and the other is trash.

I would not have brought up those head to head numbers if you didn't make that argument, nor was I making a point that "I" thought Granlund was good, nor was I suggesting that there couldn't be OTHER good reasons for finding Suter better. The keyword in "It's not an unreasonable comparison if you're using ES production as your barometer:" is IF, referring to your (in my opinion questionable) choice to use that as supporting evidence.

As for the actual reasoning you're giving now, I think that's a LITTLE more reasonable, although the importance of faceoffs seem to be grossly overstated here, and how bad the team surrounding them was (and how that affects +/-) doesn't seem particularly relevant to me either. It's also been pointed out by others that Suter did not spend most of those years in the bottom 6 but had a decent chunk of time playing with top offensive players better than Granlund had with the Sedins. But all of that is kind of moot, as I was just initially curious what your take was.

I think you might be getting too caught up in your heated arguments with other posters who have actual takes about Suter, and lumping in my questions/challenges as the same thing. I'm just poking holes and asking questions to try to grasp what seems reasonable-- I don't have a solid position that I'm actively pushing here.

 

[Nick Lang]

It's exactly the same story with Granlund that "breakout year" as it was with Suter. Markus cashed a bunch of his goals while playing 3rd wheel to the Sedins. In the same way that Suter cashed in playing with Kane and DeBrincat.

We've seen it time and again with the Sedins elevating a linemate briefly. We've also clearly seen in multiple examples what Kane used to be capable of doing to inflate linemates production.


I still think there's a very reasonable avenue to Suter being a reasonably productive Canuck in a 3rd "scoring line" role. But it's going to mean Bluegers or Aman is going to have to shoulder a huge amount of the responsibilities you'd typically assign to a 3C. It also means Pettersson/Miller probably have to continue to do heavy lifting rather than being freed up to fly at the top-end of the roster.

Aatu Raty, you are my only hope
Aatu Raty, you are my only hope
Aatu Raty, you are my only hope

 

[Vector]

FWIW, I did actually like Granlund. He was a decent player for what was expected of him.

Sir. This isn’t the Unpopular Opinion thread.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Is it just me? Or am I the only one who worries very little about the face-off % of centers? I've come around to the perspective that the main reason we talk about it is that it's an easy stat for PBP folks to yammer on about.

I'm way more interested in the quality of their play after the puck is dropped, frankly.

I disagree strongly.

I'm going to really frustrate a certain faction here by referring to playing the game myself, but starting with the puck is a hell of a lot different from having to get it back over and over.

I know that hockey is a game of turnovers, but when you have the puck you get to decide where it goes. So even if you don't hold onto the puck and create a chance, perhaps you win a defensive one draw and force the other team to regroup. perhaps also allowing a tired team (or one with a poor match up line) to get a change.

I've seen JFresh types mock the importance of face off wins and I couldn't disagree more strongly.

None of this is necessarily commentary on Suter. I like the signing and will be curious how it plays out.

I wonder if there's a scenario where we sort of hybrid Suter and Blueger into a 3rd line center at even strength. Like maybe Blueger is our 3rd line center defensively, while Suter is our 3rd line center offensively?

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Sorry bud. 5C is NOT a term used at all in any sort of hockey discussions. You just made something up and expected people to know/agree with it.

It doesn't make sense to me (and some others) but sure.

The 5C comment STILL doesn't make sense because Suter would be an above average 4th line center - he would probably be one of the best 4th line Cs in the league if I had to estimate. He's proven that he can play center adequately. He's proven he can be an offensive contributor (87 points in 216 career games - 33 point pace). He's proven to be a good defensive player and has the ability to play PK.

How is he not at LEAST a 4C?

Most analysts have said Suter is a middle six/bottom six player that can play all positions and played fine at center.

But you want to be a contrarian and pull something out of the hat and mis-label Pius Suter as a 5C - guaranteed nobody ever in hockey has called Suter this. Because 5C is not a term that's used commonly, but also it's not appropriate or correct to describe Suter in this instance (IMO).

You're deliberately being a contrarian by using terminology that NOBODY uses and then rationalizing it to make sense from your perspective, when it still doesn't make sense. Suter has proven to be an adequate 3C. Is he the best 3C in the league no? Can he be a replacement level 3C for us? Probably yes - all historical information says this is the likely outcome. Just because he's not an optimal or ideal 3C doesn't mean he's suddenly a 5C. That's like calling JT Miller a 3C because he's not an optimal or ideal center.

I probably agree with you more than most on here but I'm going to disagree that 5C is made up terminology.

Sheldon Dries is an example of a 5C type.

I think MS might have his own wrinkle to the definition in term of referring to players who have optimal utility as a 3rd line winger but can fill in at C in a pinch. And his definition makes intuitive sense, but I'm not sure it's widely used as such.

But talking about having a 5C isn't unheard of in hockey circles at all.

5C might be an unconventional label (although not really, if we're just talking about sub-4C players), sure, but I think it logically fits for someone like Shawn Matthias the year that he was with us (if he was played as a C instead of a W), at least (and doubly so for someone a lot worse who I'm seeing compared to him, like Dries, for that matter). His numbers and what I'm hearing about Suter's offense/defense breakdown sounds kind of similar (outside of PKing ability), so that's why I'm asking.

I hope you're right about Suter, but I can't say I find these indicators all that relevant or compelling. "Plays well defensively" is the thing being contested here and the thing of primary importance to me, and I don't put much stock into JFresh charts. Points are nice but insufficient, and faceoff % (especially a sub-50 one) and PK ability doesn't really tell me anything about what line a player should ideally be on, IMO.

From what I'm reading about these guys, Blueger actually sounds a little more intriguing to me, if I'm being honest (so I'm a bit surprised everyone is putting Suter over him, given the descriptions I'm reading). I'd be interested to hear what other people think about exactly who he compares to, though. "Slightly better Dries" doesn't exactly sound promising, same if Matthias' offense/defense is actually comparable (although he makes a fantastic 4W, borderline 3W tweener, IMO).

Actually, yeah, I'm kind of curious to hear, how do you think he compares to Markus Granlund when he was here?

Granlund was useless defensively and easy to push off of the puck. Suter has far superior defensive instincts.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Blueger to me is the superior 3C option by a fair bit IF he can rediscover his 2019-2022 form. For those seasons he was a legitimate solid 'playoff team' 3C who scored ~35 ES points/82, won faceoffs, took high leverage minutes with 20% zone starts, plays a gritty strong defensive game. Then he had some injury problems and his production cratered last year. But if he rebounds, he's a very good player.

Suter to me is a 'bad team' 3C if he's playing there on a fully healthy roster and you don't want a guy that small/soft/weak on faceoffs playing high-leverage minutes if you can avoid it, even though he's relatively solid positionially/defensively. In my eyes he's useful utility player/very good PK guy who is an upgrade on the roster spot that Dries filled last year.

If Blueger can't produce at the level required as a 3C, though, and ends up as the 4C, Suter probably defaults to that 3C role.

I suspect Blueger ends up being our D zone 3rd line center and Suter is probably our offensive zone and neutral zone 3rd line center.

 

[MS]

Great insights and analysis here. Making exaggerated statements with ZERO support.

As per usual coming from you.

Suter is no where close to David Kampf... who's career high is 27 points. Yup ok.

Nowhere close to Nic Paul... who's career high is 32 points. Yup ok.

No where close to NIc Roy... who's career high is 39 points. Yup ok.

Like I said, no surprise with the VERY useful analysis from yourself.

Of course those players are significantly better than Suter.

There are two ends of the ice. All of those players are big, defensively strong 3Cs who you can bury in hard, high-leverage minutes and who can tread water from those minutes while producing about the same amount offensively as Suter.

It's weird that you can get up in arms about someone comparing Granlund to Suter and then go make the exact same sort of bad generalizations in the other direction.

I love the word "Basically" here because you are implying yourself that those labels are misleading.

We will see. Let's agree to disagree.

I think he will be a fine 3C for us. He has most of the traits you want out of a third line center. He's obviously not the perfect 3C built in a lab, otherwise he would have cost much more than what he signed for.

He can win faceoffs, plays the PK, is pretty durable, is sound defensively, and has shown offensive upside to score 30-40 points. What more do you want from a 3C making $1.6M?

He's bad at faceoffs.

He's also very small and easily physically overmatched, which is the exact opposite of what you want in a good #3C.

He's very good on the PK but that doesn't have anything to do with his ES role.

Blueger is a far better fit as a 3C than Suter assuming he can bounce back after an off-year.

Dickinson has never won more than 201 faceoffs a year when he was in Dallas. When he did, he was winning them at a 42.9% rate.

Suter has won more than 201 faceoffs in every year he's been in the NHL.

Suter is a center that can play wing.

Dickinson is a winger that can play center.

What an awful comparison.

Holy heck, man.

The point isn't that their usage at C is exactly the same, the point is that stretching to call someone a 'good 3C' when they've never really been used as a 3C probably isn't a good idea or good logic.

 

[MS]

I disagree strongly.

I'm going to really frustrate a certain faction here by referring to playing the game myself, but starting with the puck is a hell of a lot different from having to get it back over and over.

I know that hockey is a game of turnovers, but when you have the puck you get to decide where it goes. So even if you don't hold onto the puck and create a chance, perhaps you win a defensive one draw and force the other team to regroup. perhaps also allowing a tired team (or one with a poor match up line) to get a change.

I've seen JFresh types mock the importance of face off wins and I couldn't disagree more strongly.

None of this is necessarily commentary on Suter. I like the signing and will be curious how it plays out.

I wonder if there's a scenario where we sort of hybrid Suter and Blueger into a 3rd line center at even strength. Like maybe Blueger is our 3rd line center defensively, while Suter is our 3rd line center offensively?

In theory, yes. If a team could win 60% or 70% of their faceoffs over the course of a season, this would be a statistically significant advantage.

The problem is that pretty much every team, every year finishes between 47% and 53% in the faceoff circle. League leaders this year were 54%. And the difference between being a 48% 'bad' faceoff team and a 52% 'good' faceoff team is only 1 or 2 faceoffs/game which in a sport which features literally hundreds of possession changes in a game ... just isn't statistically significant.

Outside of very rare exceptions (and the 10-11 Canucks might have been one of those exceptions) it's just not something you can drive success with. Obviously you don't want to ignore it and you don't want to be at 40%, but it isn't worth sacrificing other aspects of your roster that actually move the needle for a small impact in faceoff%.

I suspect Blueger ends up being our D zone 3rd line center and Suter is probably our offensive zone and neutral zone 3rd line center.

This isn't impossible but from what I've seen of Tocchet he's going to want both a high-leverage defensive 3rd line plus a traditional physical/defensive 4th line so I'd be a bit surprised if we see an Adam Gaudette-type 3rd line C usage.

 

[Nucker101]

John taking a beating in here but is relentless.

Hopefully the Canucks this season have half the spirit he does.

 

[Petey O]

John taking a beating in here but is relentless.

Hopefully the Canucks this season have half the spirit he does.

Reminds me of me defending Messier's time here.

There's a point where you just have to stop trying to defend a really indefensible point and concede, when the evidence is too far weighed against you.

Debates are fun, though.

 

[JohnHodgson]

John taking a beating in here but is relentless.

Hopefully the Canucks this season have half the spirit he does.

Reminds me of me defending Messier's time here.

There's a point where you just have to stop trying to defend a really indefensible point and concede, when the evidence is too far weighed against you.

Debates are fun, though.

LOL. My position is that Suter is going to be a fine 3C for us that can play PK, be defensively sound, be a decent faceoff guy, and score 30-40 points. But yeah... guess this is some huge hot take.

I'm saving all these receipts.

I can't wait to come back when people do their mental gymnastics. If I'm wrong I'll take the L.

I just can't wait to come back to this thread after Suter is a good 3C for us. The 5C comments are going look really silly

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Blueger will probably start the season in the 3 hole, I could see Suter doing some spot duty. We may get a half a season of competent 3C play, but ultimately I'm a teensy bit disappointed we could have tried to target Colton who I feel much more comfortable in that spot throughout the season even though last year he got bumped from center duty.

Suter does make the team better but I'm not sold that it's at center. If that's where he's at then Aman pretty much has to be the 13th forward or in Abby part-time.

 

[JohnHodgson]

Of course those players are significantly better than Suter.

There are two ends of the ice. All of those players are big, defensively strong 3Cs who you can bury in hard, high-leverage minutes and who can tread water from those minutes while producing about the same amount offensively as Suter.

It's weird that you can get up in arms about someone comparing Granlund to Suter and then go make the exact same sort of bad generalizations in the other direction.



He's bad at faceoffs.

He's also very small and easily physically overmatched, which is the exact opposite of what you want in a good #3C.

He's very good on the PK but that doesn't have anything to do with his ES role.

Blueger is a far better fit as a 3C than Suter assuming he can bounce back after an off-year.



Holy heck, man.

The point isn't that their usage at C is exactly the same, the point is that stretching to call someone a 'good 3C' when they've never really been used as a 3C probably isn't a good idea or good logic.

Illogical fallacy again.

This is the equivalent of saying... Pettersson's never really been used as a 3C, so he probably wouldn't be a good 3C.

Regardless how you want to label him, here are the facts:

- He's played C most of his NHL career
- His ES career pace is 33 points per 82 games (through a variety of linemates, some good, some bad)
- He's shown the ability to be semi-decent at faceoffs, he had 49% in 2021-2022 the year he won 495 faceoffs
- Blueger has never scored more than 28 points or 9 goals in a year.. he's only 6 pounds and an inch taller according to Yahoo... what makes him a "Far better fit"?
- Both Suter and Bleuger are defensively responsible players

I'm pretty sure Suter has the inside track to be our 3C this year. So let's see if the coaches agree with you.

No point in debating any further except keeping receipts at this point.

 

[JohnHodgson]

Blueger will probably start the season in the 3 hole, I could see Suter doing some spot duty. We may get a half a season of competent 3C play, but ultimately I'm a teensy bit disappointed we could have tried to target Colton who I feel much more comfortable in that spot throughout the season even though last year he got bumped from center duty.

Suter does make the team better but I'm not sold that it's at center. If that's where he's at then Aman pretty much has to be the 13th forward or in Abby part-time.

Aman was statistically one of the worst players on our team last year.

If this team is serious about winning, they should put Aman on the wing or in Abby.

 

[credulous]

Aman was statistically one of the worst players on our team last year.

If this team is serious about winning, they should put Aman on the wing or in Abby.

finally something we agree on

 

[Petey O]

LOL. My position is that Suter is going to be a fine 3C for us that can play PK, be defensively sound, be a decent faceoff guy, and score 30-40 points. But yeah... guess this is some huge hot take.

I'm saving all these receipts.

I can't wait to come back when people do their mental gymnastics. If I'm wrong I'll take the L.

I just can't wait to come back to this thread after Suter is a good 3C for us. The 5C comments are going look really silly

I admire the fire, bro. If you're right, I have no qualms giving you the deserved praise. Just remember to tag me, lol.

 

[JohnHodgson]

I admire the fire, bro. If you're right, I have no qualms giving you the deserved praise. Just remember to tag me, lol.

And if I'm wrong, please make sure to tag me so I can feel shame

 

[ahmon]

LOL. My position is that Suter is going to be a fine 3C for us that can play PK, be defensively sound, be a decent faceoff guy, and score 30-40 points. But yeah... guess this is some huge hot take.

even if all those things happen, he's not on the same tier as some of the players you listed like:

Jordan Staal, Nic Roy or even Nick Paul.

The players you listed don't even belong on the same tier.

Jordan Staal is matchup 3C where he can play against the other teams top lines. His offense is starting to decline (as he age) but its not even his main strength. Has had a tons of success in that role and won cups as a high end 3C in this league.

Nic Roy younger than Staal but also huge 6'4, has been playing on a deep Vegas team. He's lowkey a big part of that team, brings size, grit, 2 way play.

Nick Paul, probably worse out of the 3, but still brings size, grit and decent 2 way play

Pius Suter is 5'11 - and plays like it - will never bring the elements that players like Staal/Roy/Paul bring.

it seems like you just look at Suter points totals and say well he scores around 30 points and isn't bad defensively so he must be on the same tier as them.

 

[JohnHodgson]

even if all those things happen, he's not on the same tier as some of the players you listed like:

Jordan Staal, Nic Roy or even Nick Paul.

The players you listed don't even belong on the same tier.

Jordan Staal is matchup 3C where he can play against the other teams top lines. His offense is starting to decline (as he age) but its not even his main strength. Has had a tons of success in that role and won cups as a high end 3C in this league.

Nic Roy younger than Staal but also huge 6'4, has been playing on a deep Vegas team. He's lowkey a big part of that team, brings size, grit, 2 way play.

Nick Paul, probably worse out of the 3, but still brings size, grit and decent 2 way play

Pius Suter is 5'11 - and plays like it - will never bring the elements that players like Staal/Roy/Paul bring.

it seems like you just look at Suter points totals and say well he scores around 30 points and isn't bad defensively so he must be on the same tier as them.

I don't see Suter being that different in terms of tiers than the guys I posted (especially Steel, Kampf, Paul etc.) - Staal is a tier or two ahead of Suter for sure but he's also turning 35 in a month.

Like I said, If I'm wrong then I'll gladly take the L. If I'm right, you bet I'll be resurrecting this thread.

There's no point debating the 3C/5C anymore - it's just a wait and see if Suter can deliver.

 

[MS]

Illogical fallacy again.

This is the equivalent of saying... Pettersson's never really been used as a 3C, so he probably wouldn't be a good 3C.

Regardless how you want to label him, here are the facts:

- He's played C most of his NHL career
- His ES career pace is 33 points per 82 games (through a variety of linemates, some good, some bad)
- He's shown the ability to be semi-decent at faceoffs, he had 49% in 2021-2022 the year he won 495 faceoffs
- Blueger has never scored more than 28 points or 9 goals in a year.. he's only 6 pounds and an inch taller according to Yahoo... what makes him a "Far better fit"?
- Both Suter and Bleuger are defensively responsible players

I'm pretty sure Suter has the inside track to be our 3C this year. So let's see if the coaches agree with you.

No point in debating any further except keeping receipts at this point.

It's not impossible that he steps up in a bigger defensive role as a 3C but I certainly wouldn't be banking on it.

And your Pettersson example isn't the same thing. Saying that a proven elite player who finished top-10 in Selke voting this year could play a smaller role he hasn't played before isn't the same as saying a 27 y/o journeyman can step up into a far bigger defensive role than he's ever played before.

Blueger scored at a higher ES rate than Suter from 2019-2022 while playing true 3rd line C minutes with 3rd line linemates on a playoff team. He's a 3C. He's proven. He's done it before. He's bigger, stronger, more physical.

Suter may have the inside track. I don't know. They're paying him less than Blueger and Blueger was a July 1 signing as opposed to an August signing so I suspect it's Blueger's job to lose, though.

If Suter is the 3C taking hard defensive matchups, I suspect we'll be talking about 3C being a significant weakness all year. As others have noted, though, Suter might get the sort of usage that Adam Gaudette got when he was the '3C' here in 19-20 on a soft minute '3rd line' and Beagle was the '4C' playing the hard minutes.