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

[MarkusNaslund19]

Does a master's in social sciences mean having a TikTok account?

Asking for a friend...

"It's a Soshul expirmint bro, chill'".

No, I can definitely say it does not mean that.

 

[biturbo19]

True, it'd have to be "literally swiss, swiss army knife" or something, I stand corrected. The fact that there's no good way to use "literal" in that sentence without it sounding dumb or not making sense is what made it "interesting" to me, and I'm using words like "interesting" and "tripped up" rather than dismissive/mocking words precisely because I agree that it's not a big deal.

The incorrectness just made me go "Huh. I don't think that's how that word works," that's all.

So in other words...we're arguing about semantics over the formulation of a throwaway tongue in cheek comment. Good good.

I think you're misrepresenting the truth a bit here. Detroit reportedly offered Suter a 1 year deal (for an undisclosed amount) prior to July 1st which he rejected. Detroit then turned around and signed Compher. We don't know if Detroit circled back to Suter, but I don't think it matters. I also don't think it matters that Detroit is unwilling to offer Suter term. They don't see a longer term fit and it's not about their cap space. It's the nature of the business. Most UFA/pending UFA signings don't involve players who signed for the same term and money with a new team.

I don't think Petry is going to be in the press box. What makes you think that?

I don't think Petry is going to be in the press box either. But once again, it's about considering follow-on consequences and roles.

What acquiring Petry means for Detroit...is that on any given night with a healthy roster...one of Chiarot/Maatta/Ghostisbehere/Holl is going to be in the press box, making $3M+.

What that means in adding flavor to the Suter discussion, is that Detroit are clearly NOT cap-strapped or worried about the idea of parking salary in the press box if Steve thinks it's worthwhile depth. Where, as pertains to Pius Suter...they obviously did not think he was worth investing in as "great depth" if it meant a multi-year contract.

That's not true either. From what I have read, it's no secret that Detroit gave Suter a chance to be the team's 2C and he failed to fill that role. But he's certainly a capable NHL C. I think most of us expect Suter to compete for the 3C spot but at the very least should be able to fill the 4C spot.

Again, it's just fundamentally back to the fact i thoroughly disagree with this mentality of, "well he was a crappy Top-6C so he'll surely be at least a solid 4th Line C". That's just not how the reality of hockey works. It doesn't naturally translate like that.

But it's a choice. The "Swiss Army Knife" was/is a standard issue to Swiss Army soldiers. One can carry a swiss army knife instead of multiple tools. Many generations of people have carried it as an EDC knife. Hardly something you use in a pinch.

And in a cap world, on this team, do you prefer Copp or Suter? None of this takes away from the fact that Suter is a legitimate NHL centre.

It's a choice to represent Suter as a Swiss Army Knife type player, where it's purpose is to do a lot of different things underwhelmingly. Better than nothing...but there's a reason people who do serious work with their multitool knife, almost invariably carry a Leatherman instead. Or why for serious, purposeful work...people just carry the proper actual tool purpose built for the job.

Swiss Army Knives are basically a gimmick. Useful sometimes, but not really serious. The term is fundamentally a synonym for "compromised in everything in favour of versatility".


In a cap world, on this team in the mess they've got, i prefer Suter because we simply don't have salary space for Copp so it's a moot point. I think Suter has some utility as that 2F Center to offensive wingers we have in spades so i'm fine with it. But as a whole, i'd much prefer to shoot some of our surplus winger and bad defencemen investments into the sun and have Copp as a rock solid #3C with that money instead.

None of this happens in a vacuum. It's all about context, deployment, and roles. And in that sense, i spend the extra ~$600k to upgrade oddball runt Bottom-6 Winger Garland to to a 3C with size, a heavy game and grit, with versatility in Copp in a heartbeat. Every single time.

We're stuck rummaging around the castoffs from that in Suter...because we're already locked into a guy like Garland for that money instead. These pieces and consequences are all interconnected.

Chicago was worried about what Suter could get at arbitration. Detroit signed him to a 2x$3.25M contract. That's too rich for a player like Suter but Detroit did offer Suter a one year deal.

But again that means absolutely nothing. Teams are free to make their decisions. That doesn't mean they make the correct one. St. Louis chose Faulk and Krug over Pietrangelo and Dunn. Penguins dealt McCann because they weren't going to protect him over Blueger and Kapanen. Sometimes it isn't an indictment on the player.

No, you're right. I don't mean it as some appeal to authority of GMs who often make boldly idiotic mistakes and miscalculations.

But the fact that two teams have had Suter give them supposedly "good solid play" but decided he's not worth investing in that way, still helps to inform what he is as a player. Even if that's just in digging deeper to understand why they wanted to go a different way and spend their money elsewise.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

May I ask sir, what level of hockey did you play?

Played rep from mid to late teens up to Juvenile A (called Junior C in other provinces).

The point isn't that I played a crazy high level, I started playing at 12 so I was too late to make it super far. But I was trained by high level players including a former NHLer. I don't want to shock anyone, but giving my entire adolescence to the sport of hockey did in fact increase my understanding of the game.

It's interesting that it's always the same couple of posters (not you 4th line culture) who are so insecure when someone mentions actual experience playing the game. It's like a bat signal for them when someone posts about lived experience and they immediately have to passive-aggressively use reductio ad absurdum examples to defuse the way it makes them feel.

 

[ahmon]

Did someone just call Yanni Gourde a tweener?

wtf.

Yanni Gourde is like one of the best middle 6 forward in the game, and he just scored 13 points in 14 playoffs. Skilled enough to play top 6 on most teams, but is so versatile and gritty and good defensively that he's like the perfect 2 way forward for any team looking to win.

He was a big part of Tampa's cups.

We are talking about a player who once scored 64 points, and is someone who can you play anywhere in the lineup - that guy right. He's undersized at 5'9 but plays like he's 6'2, block shots, hits, fights (hes got what 20 fights in the NHL?). A coach's dream.

If he wasn't pricing himself out - he makes over 5 million+, Tampa would have done everything to keep him.

Not sure how he's brought up in a Pius Suter thread, who plays nothing like him.

 

[biturbo19]

Did someone just call Yanni Gourde a tweener?

wtf.

Yanni Gourde is like one of the best middle 6 forward in the game, and he just scored 13 points in 14 playoffs. Skilled enough to play top 6 on most teams, but is so versatile and gritty and good defensively that he's like the perfect 2 way forward for any team looking to win.

He was a big part of Tampa's cups.

We are talking about a player who once scored 64 points, and is someone who can you play anywhere in the lineup - that guy right. He's undersized at 5'9 but plays like he's 6'2, block shots, hits, fights (hes got what 20 fights in the NHL?). A coach's dream.

If he wasn't pricing himself out - he makes over 5 million+, Tampa would have done everything to keep him.

Not sure how he's brought up in a Pius Suter thread, who plays nothing like him.

Yeah. They're just really not comparable. The only way you can index them against one another, is to say that they're basically a mirror version.

Gourde is outstanding even in hard minutes, but has upward mobility to play a scoring role if asked.

Suter can play a scoring role in a pinch or a bad team, but has no real downward mobility to play hard minutes.

They're opposites that illustrate the difference in "versatile middle-six fixture" vs "tweener".

 

[4th line culture]

Played rep from mid to late teens up to Juvenile A (called Junior C in other provinces).

The point isn't that I played a crazy high level, I started playing at 12 so I was too late to make it super far. But I was trained by high level players including a former NHLer. I don't want to shock anyone, but giving my entire adolescence to the sport of hockey did in fact increase my understanding of the game.

It's interesting that it's always the same couple of posters (not you 4th line culture) who are so insecure when someone mentions actual experience playing the game. It's like a bat signal for them when someone posts about lived experience and they immediately have to passive-aggressively use reductio ad absurdum examples to defuse the way it makes them feel.

I played rep from my first year of atom. Played AAA, played with people that were in the nhl, played junior B, played senior mens, went to provincials multiple times in mens.

I say that to say I dont think that any of my superior experience/skill gives me any sort of authority on how the game is played. I would also guess that almost everyone here has played as much as or to the level you have. Not trying to be mean but I really thought with the way you talked you were going to at the very least say you played minor pro.

 

[Nick Lang]

So in other words...we're arguing about semantics over the formulation of a throwaway tongue in cheek comment. Good good.



I don't think Petry is going to be in the press box either. But once again, it's about considering follow-on consequences and roles.

What acquiring Petry means for Detroit...is that on any given night with a healthy roster...one of Chiarot/Maatta/Ghostisbehere/Holl is going to be in the press box, making $3M+.

What that means in adding flavor to the Suter discussion, is that Detroit are clearly NOT cap-strapped or worried about the idea of parking salary in the press box if Steve thinks it's worthwhile depth. Where, as pertains to Pius Suter...they obviously did not think he was worth investing in as "great depth" if it meant a multi-year contract.



Again, it's just fundamentally back to the fact i thoroughly disagree with this mentality of, "well he was a crappy Top-6C so he'll surely be at least a solid 4th Line C". That's just not how the reality of hockey works. It doesn't naturally translate like that.



It's a choice to represent Suter as a Swiss Army Knife type player, where it's purpose is to do a lot of different things underwhelmingly. Better than nothing...but there's a reason people who do serious work with their multitool knife, almost invariably carry a Leatherman instead. Or why for serious, purposeful work...people just carry the proper actual tool purpose built for the job.

Swiss Army Knives are basically a gimmick. Useful sometimes, but not really serious. The term is fundamentally a synonym for "compromised in everything in favour of versatility".


In a cap world, on this team in the mess they've got, i prefer Suter because we simply don't have salary space for Copp so it's a moot point. I think Suter has some utility as that 2F Center to offensive wingers we have in spades so i'm fine with it. But as a whole, i'd much prefer to shoot some of our surplus winger and bad defencemen investments into the sun and have Copp as a rock solid #3C with that money instead.

None of this happens in a vacuum. It's all about context, deployment, and roles. And in that sense, i spend the extra ~$600k to upgrade oddball runt Bottom-6 Winger Garland to to a 3C with size, a heavy game and grit, with versatility in Copp in a heartbeat. Every single time.

We're stuck rummaging around the castoffs from that in Suter...because we're already locked into a guy like Garland for that money instead. These pieces and consequences are all interconnected.



No, you're right. I don't mean it as some appeal to authority of GMs who often make boldly idiotic mistakes and miscalculations.

But the fact that two teams have had Suter give them supposedly "good solid play" but decided he's not worth investing in that way, still helps to inform what he is as a player. Even if that's just in digging deeper to understand why they wanted to go a different way and spend their money elsewise.

I just had an image of a handyman showing up to do a complete reno and when the client asks where his tools are he pulls out his trusty swiss army knife.

 

[Shareefruck]

So in other words...we're arguing about semantics over the formulation of a throwaway tongue in cheek comment. Good good.

It wasn't intended to be an argument, you asked why it was interesting!

 

[biturbo19]

It wasn't intended to be an argument, you asked why it was interesting!

It's all in good fun. I was curious why that innocuous seeming comment was so interesting.

Happens plenty here in the dead of summer where random little things turn into something for no good reason.

 

[biturbo19]

I just had an image of a handyman showing up to do a complete reno and when the client asks where his tools are he pulls out his trusty swiss army knife.

I think this only works if your name is like...Angus.


No actual hate for Swiss Army Knives. They serve a purpose. But like Suter, i just think they're more show than go. Compact, looks real slick, and in a pinch they'll do a little bit of just about anything. But really more of a pocket knife with gadgets and doodads than a true "utility tool".

 

[Peen]

I played rep from my first year of atom. Played AAA, played with people that were in the nhl, played junior B, played senior mens, went to provincials multiple times in mens.

I say that to say I dont think that any of my superior experience/skill gives me any sort of authority on how the game is played. I would also guess that almost everyone here has played as much as or to the level you have. Not trying to be mean but I really thought with the way you talked you were going to at the very least say you played minor pro.

You now have the biggest penis on this board, congrats my brother

I’ll return next month to repeat this once this discussion gets brought up again

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

I played rep from my first year of atom. Played AAA, played with people that were in the nhl, played junior B, played senior mens, went to provincials multiple times in mens.

I say that to say I dont think that any of my superior experience/skill gives me any sort of authority on how the game is played. I would also guess that almost everyone here has played as much as or to the level you have. Not trying to be mean but I really thought with the way you talked you were going to at the very least say you played minor pro.

I only ever say I played at a decent level, as in by the standards of these forums. You'd be surprised by how small the percentage of people on here who have played hockey at all is.

I've also been watching and studying the game for like 28 years. I'm a big hockey nerd.

It's not like i defer to the wisdom of everyone who played higher than me. There are lots of more talented people who never really understood the game or thought much about it.
And there are people who have barely played the game who understand it better than me, but not a hell of a lot of them and I don't necessarily think there's a massive plurality of them on this website.

I'm comparing procedural knowledge of the game with people who have never been on skates. If you disagree that you and I are going to have a more innate understanding of faceoffs and their value than someone who hasn't held a hockey stick, than I have to say you're either being disingenuous or you're not really a student of the game.

This is what frustrates me. People (not you) turn this into a false dichotomy where I'm portrayed as if I'm suggesting that the fact I played hockey means I know everything and am never wrong about anything.

I predicted that Jack Eichel and Bruce Cassidy would be a bad mix and they would miss the playoffs again. I don't think it was a terrible prediction knowing the variables going into it, but I was as wrong as one can be.

But on actual on-ice nuance? You don't think playing has expanded your understanding of that?

 

[F A N]

I don't think Petry is going to be in the press box either. But once again, it's about considering follow-on consequences and roles.

What acquiring Petry means for Detroit...is that on any given night with a healthy roster...one of Chiarot/Maatta/Ghostisbehere/Holl is going to be in the press box, making $3M+.

What that means in adding flavor to the Suter discussion, is that Detroit are clearly NOT cap-strapped or worried about the idea of parking salary in the press box if Steve thinks it's worthwhile depth. Where, as pertains to Pius Suter...they obviously did not think he was worth investing in as "great depth" if it meant a multi-year contract.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Detroit did suffer some injuries on D last season and Petry might be a way to get Chiariot to bounce back. Regardless, I don't pretend to follow the Red Wings enough to provide much of an analysis. For a team that is suppose to be rounding the corner and making moves up the standing, they have a pretty old D - many with 2-3 year deals.

Again, it's just fundamentally back to the fact i thoroughly disagree with this mentality of, "well he was a crappy Top-6C so he'll surely be at least a solid 4th Line C". That's just not how the reality of hockey works. It doesn't naturally translate like that.

I think you're missing the argument here. It's not like Suter is a crappy top-2 C for a crappy team that we expect to fill the 3C/4C role. Suter isn't Sam Gagner. Suter has played a bottom-2C role in the NHL. You can disagree on how well he has filled that role but all evidence suggests that management targeted him for his ability to fill that role.

Maybe I missed it somewhere but you still haven't answered my question. Do you think management believes that they are signing a bottom 6 winger here? And what is your opinion of this signing?

In a cap world, on this team in the mess they've got, i prefer Suter because we simply don't have salary space for Copp so it's a moot point. I think Suter has some utility as that 2F Center to offensive wingers we have in spades so i'm fine with it. But as a whole, i'd much prefer to shoot some of our surplus winger and bad defencemen investments into the sun and have Copp as a rock solid #3C with that money instead.

I don't disagree as I prefer a good 3C. But there is a huge difference in cap and for $1.6M, what you're getting is a "tweener" like Suter to fill that bottom 2 C role. Last year we tried to acquire a long term 4C in Lazar but that didn't work out.

No, you're right. I don't mean it as some appeal to authority of GMs who often make boldly idiotic mistakes and miscalculations.

But the fact that two teams have had Suter give them supposedly "good solid play" but decided he's not worth investing in that way, still helps to inform what he is as a player. Even if that's just in digging deeper to understand why they wanted to go a different way and spend their money elsewise.

I think the fact that Suter signed with us for 2x$1.6M is an indicator what GMs around the league think of him. But I don't think it's an indictment on the player. I mean Schenn got three straight 1 year contracts until we gave him a 2X$850K deal. He now has a 3x$2.75M deal at 33 (which is a rarity). Meanwhile, after Gudbranson is entering year 2 of a 4x$4M AAV deal with a modified NTC.

Again, I don't pretend to know what Yzerman is thinking. I know that some who like the Hronek deal here point to the fact that Dmen like him rarely become available; yet, Yzerman made him available. Does it inform what Hronek is as a player?

 

[biturbo19]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Detroit did suffer some injuries on D last season and Petry might be a way to get Chiariot to bounce back. Regardless, I don't pretend to follow the Red Wings enough to provide much of an analysis. For a team that is suppose to be rounding the corner and making moves up the standing, they have a pretty old D - many with 2-3 year deals.

Again...I mean that they have so many defencemen on significant contracts, acquiring Petry means that one of the guys making more than $3M is going to be in the press box if they're all healthy.

Walman-Seider
???-Petry
???-???
???

Insert Chiarot/Maatta/Ghostisbehere/Holl for the ??? as desired. One of those $3M+ defencemen is eating popcorn.


Regardless, if you don't pretend to follow the Red Wings closely enough to provide that sort of analysis...what makes your assessment of Pius Suter with them so robust?

Not trying to pull the, "you clearly don't watch the games" card because i absolutely despise that shit. But genuinely, if you don't have the appreciation for what that situation entails and haven't followed the Wings closely enough for that, what lends credibility to your evaluation of Pius Suter there? I'm not pretending to be an expert on the Red Wings, but i've certainly watched enough of their games to get a general lay of the land. That's what's informing my perspective on Suter.

I think you're missing the argument here. It's not like Suter is a crappy top-2 C for a crappy team that we expect to fill the 3C/4C role. Suter isn't Sam Gagner. Suter has played a bottom-2C role in the NHL. You can disagree on how well he has filled that role but all evidence suggests that management targeted him for his ability to fill that role.

Maybe I missed it somewhere but you still haven't answered my question. Do you think management believes that they are signing a bottom 6 winger here? And what is your opinion of this signing?

Once again though, he hasn't really actually played this Bottom-6C role you're speaking of in any meaningful way in his career.

He's been a Top-6C with two bad teams now. And a mostly sort of 2C/W mix with a bad but rising team with spurts in the bottom-6.


As to what management thinks? f*** if i have any clue. I'm not in their heads. They do lots of weird stuff that makes no sense.

But i do get the impression that they've signed Suter as a Center. As they should, because that's essentially what he is. He's not really an impact bottom-6 Winger and we're already absolutely flooded with wingers everywhere to begin with.


My opinion of this singing, is that it's a "Hail Mary" #2F Center signing to play with our various skilled wingers. Because i'm an optimist and that's the only way it makes any real sense.

I don't disagree as I prefer a good 3C. But there is a huge difference in cap and for $1.6M, what you're getting is a "tweener" like Suter to fill that bottom 2 C role. Last year we tried to acquire a long term 4C in Lazar but that didn't work out.

That's where i don't think it's even really a pertinent question between Suter vs Copp. They have to fit within the roster and salary context. Where it's actually more like...Copp vs Garland, and that answer is easy as heck.

Suter is the band-aid you throw own because that's all the cap space you've got. Hope it works. 2-years is unusual for a band-aid.

I think the fact that Suter signed with us for 2x$1.6M is an indicator what GMs around the league think of him. But I don't think it's an indictment on the player. I mean Schenn got three straight 1 year contracts until we gave him a 2X$850K deal. He now has a 3x$2.75M deal at 33 (which is a rarity). Meanwhile, after Gudbranson is entering year 2 of a 4x$4M AAV deal with a modified NTC.

Again, I don't pretend to know what Yzerman is thinking. I know that some who like the Hronek deal here point to the fact that Dmen like him rarely become available; yet, Yzerman made him available. Does it inform what Hronek is as a player?

GMs do mess up all the time. And Yzerman has messed up plenty himself.

But...i will say that didn't like the Hronek deal much. It felt like a big price to pay for a player we didn't really need. Not that he isn't a solid 2nd pairing offensive RHD...but...that's not really something we needed. Certainly not at the price of a 1st and very high 2nd round pick. I've been vocal about the fact it makes very little sense to me when your 1st pairing is already anchored by a tiny offensive-minded rover of a defenceman in Hughes.

It feels like the same mentality of "this guys got a good chart and is available let's get him!" that acquires Suter.

Hronek > Gostisbehere...easily. But at the end of the day...Steve Izerman probably replaced that production in an offensive role that was vacated, with a player he acquired for free as a stopgap. While acquiring a 1st and 2nd pick and a bit of cap space.



It's not that they are useless players. It's just...the same issue that we're stuck with in Garland now. He's a good player. But ain't nobody willing to take on a $5M diminutive scoring winger who doesn't seem to have chemistry with our Top-6 Centers. You have to be careful and deliberate where you make your investements.


Suter is a very small one...but at the same time, that extra year and $600k could be the difference between an Andrew Copp overpayment and a Conor Garland.

 

[4th line culture]

You now have the biggest penis on this board, congrats my brother

I’ll return next month to repeat this once this discussion gets brought up again

Not what I was going for

 

[F A N]

Again...I mean that they have so many defencemen on significant contracts, acquiring Petry means that one of the guys making more than $3M is going to be in the press box if they're all healthy.

Walman-Seider
???-Petry
???-???
???

Insert Chiarot/Maatta/Ghostisbehere/Holl for the ??? as desired. One of those $3M+ defencemen is eating popcorn.

I still don't know what that's got to do with Suter except you're saying Red Wings is willing to have someone making more than the minimum as a health scratch? I personally would have a Dman making under $1M as the team's 7th Dman but Yzerman saw a need to "upgrade" from Lindstrom. And the guy sitting in a healthy lineup could very well be Petry who is 35 and will be 36. The Kings sat Edler in back to backs last season.

As mentioned, Yzerman wanting to bring back Suter is also a fact.

Regardless, if you don't pretend to follow the Red Wings closely enough to provide that sort of analysis...what makes your assessment of Pius Suter with them so robust?

I don't think my assessment is robust. But I have read up and listened up on the player, including from media/analysts/fans who follow the Red Wings. I think Suter having spent time playing a checking line C role and his advanced stats suggesting that he's good defensively are facts. Neither you nor MS has provided anything but generalizations that does not appear to be supported by facts.

Not trying to pull the, "you clearly don't watch the games" card because i absolutely despise that shit. But genuinely, if you don't have the appreciation for what that situation entails and haven't followed the Wings closely enough for that, what lends credibility to your evaluation of Pius Suter there? I'm not pretending to be an expert on the Red Wings, but i've certainly watched enough of their games to get a general lay of the land. That's what's informing my perspective on Suter.

Same. I mean I've watched Suter play when he played against the Canucks. That's not a whole lot. I remember him playing C. I haven't read/heard anything from "media" or "analysts" who are saying we signed a winger not a C.

Once again though, he hasn't really actually played this Bottom-6C role you're speaking of in any meaningful way in his career.

He's been a Top-6C with two bad teams now. And a mostly sort of 2C/W mix with a bad but rising team with spurts in the bottom-6.

I think you are wrong here. Suter was not playing 2C for the Red Wings, particularly last season. When he played up the lineup he was playing left wing.

As to what management thinks? f*** if i have any clue. I'm not in their heads. They do lots of weird stuff that makes no sense.

But i do get the impression that they've signed Suter as a Center. As they should, because that's essentially what he is. He's not really an impact bottom-6 Winger and we're already absolutely flooded with wingers everywhere to begin with.

Ok. So what are we even arguing here? You agree that Suter is a C. Again, I have no issue with you thinking he's no good as a 3/4C and not ideal for that position but clearly you are here saying Suter is a C and that's what he is. And you think management signed him as a center.

My opinion of this singing, is that it's a "Hail Mary" #2F Center signing to play with our various skilled wingers. Because i'm an optimist and that's the only way it makes any real sense.

What does #2F Center mean? So you're saying we are hoping he plays on the 2nd line?

Suter is the band-aid you throw own because that's all the cap space you've got. Hope it works. 2-years is unusual for a band-aid.

That's what I've been trying to say, however ineloquently. We started this summer with the likes of Aman, Dries, and Studnicka as the team's other Cs besides Petey and Miller with unproven non-bluechip prospects in the AHL. 3C was a need and we signed Blueger to a 1 year deal and now Suter.

I don't think 2 years is unsual for a band-aid. First of all, 2 years was probably offered to get it done (as Suter had 1 year offers). But it really depends on what you have and the timeline. I don't see much downside here.

GMs do mess up all the time. And Yzerman has messed up plenty himself.

But...i will say that didn't like the Hronek deal much. It felt like a big price to pay for a player we didn't really need. Not that he isn't a solid 2nd pairing offensive RHD...but...that's not really something we needed. Certainly not at the price of a 1st and very high 2nd round pick. I've been vocal about the fact it makes very little sense to me when your 1st pairing is already anchored by a tiny offensive-minded rover of a defenceman in Hughes.

It feels like the same mentality of "this guys got a good chart and is available let's get him!" that acquires Suter.

Hronek > Gostisbehere...easily. But at the end of the day...Steve Izerman probably replaced that production in an offensive role that was vacated, with a player he acquired for free as a stopgap. While acquiring a 1st and 2nd pick and a bit of cap space.

That's fair. One thing I would discuss is need. We absolutely need a good 2nd pairing RHD, but even a solid one will do. But I agree with your take on Hronek vis a vis acquisition price. But there were Red Wings fans who felt that the deal didn't make sense for the Red Wings who will need a Hronek type Dmen when they are ready to contend.

It's not that they are useless players. It's just...the same issue that we're stuck with in Garland now. He's a good player. But ain't nobody willing to take on a $5M diminutive scoring winger who doesn't seem to have chemistry with our Top-6 Centers. You have to be careful and deliberate where you make your investements.


Suter is a very small one...but at the same time, that extra year and $600k could be the difference between an Andrew Copp overpayment and a Conor Garland.

I agree that you got to be careful where you spend you market. At the end of the day I think it depends on what you're looking for. All else being equal I prefer C to wingers.

Personally I think Garland is underrated. His size and lack of playoff track record obviously hurts his trade value. I think the trade market in terms of willingness to acquire salary is depressed but I don't really see Garland type player signing for say $3M so I think that things will even out.

 

[rypper]

Not what I was going for

If you don't want that title, I'll take it.

 

[4th line culture]

I only ever say I played at a decent level, as in by the standards of these forums. You'd be surprised by how small the percentage of people on here who have played hockey at all is.

I would like to apologize for being as ass yesterday, took being stressed about the fires out on you

I've also been watching and studying the game for like 28 years. I'm a big hockey nerd.

It's not like i defer to the wisdom of everyone who played higher than me. There are lots of more talented people who never really understood the game or thought much about it.
And there are people who have barely played the game who understand it better than me, but not a hell of a lot of them and I don't necessarily think there's a massive plurality of them on this website.

I'm comparing procedural knowledge of the game with people who have never been on skates. If you disagree that you and I are going to have a more innate understanding of faceoffs and their value than someone who hasn't held a hockey stick, than I have to say you're either being disingenuous or you're not really a student of the game.

I do think having played will give us a massive advantage when it comes to actually taking faceoffs. I do not think that translates to added knowledge about how important faceoffs are to the game as a whole.

This is what frustrates me. People (not you) turn this into a false dichotomy where I'm portrayed as if I'm suggesting that the fact I played hockey means I know everything and am never wrong about anything.

I predicted that Jack Eichel and Bruce Cassidy would be a bad mix and they would miss the playoffs again. I don't think it was a terrible prediction knowing the variables going into it, but I was as wrong as one can be.

But on actual on-ice nuance? You don't think playing has expanded your understanding of that?

I think playing has helped me understand the talent involved in individual plays. I dont think it has given me a proper understanding of how important those plays/skills are to winning nhl games. I would defer to the stats nerds that.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

I would like to apologize for being as ass yesterday, took being stressed about the fires out on you

I do think having played will give us a massive advantage when it comes to actually taking faceoffs. I do not think that translates to added knowledge about how important faceoffs are to the game as a whole.


I think playing has helped me understand the talent involved in individual plays. I dont think it has given me a proper understanding of how important those plays/skills are to winning nhl games. I would defer to the stats nerds that.

Apology accepted mate. I genuinely hope you and yours are safe and that you're lucky enough to not experience property damage as well.

 

[biturbo19]

I still don't know what that's got to do with Suter except you're saying Red Wings is willing to have someone making more than the minimum as a health scratch? I personally would have a Dman making under $1M as the team's 7th Dman but Yzerman saw a need to "upgrade" from Lindstrom. And the guy sitting in a healthy lineup could very well be Petry who is 35 and will be 36. The Kings sat Edler in back to backs last season.

As mentioned, Yzerman wanting to bring back Suter is also a fact.

It's blatantly obvious. The relevance to Suter is that Detroit is obviously not a team that "can't afford" to keep players. They could've easily spent whatever to keep Suter.

Instead...they decided he's not someone worth a multi-year commitment.


Petry would immediately slide into a role as the 1st pairing RHD on the Canucks roster. lol. He's not washed like Edler yet. Petry is also costing them less than Cole/Soucy. Which is fully a product of geopolitics. But nonetheless...

I don't think my assessment is robust. But I have read up and listened up on the player, including from media/analysts/fans who follow the Red Wings. I think Suter having spent time playing a checking line C role and his advanced stats suggesting that he's good defensively are facts. Neither you nor MS has provided anything but generalizations that does not appear to be supported by facts.

If the advanced stats are showing that Suter was a "Checking line C", the stats are wrong, you're reading the wrong stats, or you're reading them wrong without proper context. Flat out.


You're dismissing the "eye test" of people who have watched him play. Ok. But even then, leaning on the statistics...it's very easy to see that he was not a defensive matchup #3C.

Same. I mean I've watched Suter play when he played against the Canucks. That's not a whole lot. I remember him playing C. I haven't read/heard anything from "media" or "analysts" who are saying we signed a winger not a C.

I don't think anyone is really disputing this. Suter was a poor #2Cish player for most of his Wings tenure. The other part was...basically as a top-6W. His minutes in Detroit where he actually played in the Bottom-6 are...limited, and with often with other Centers.

I think you are wrong here. Suter was not playing 2C for the Red Wings, particularly last season. When he played up the lineup he was playing left wing.

Yes.

Ok. So what are we even arguing here? You agree that Suter is a C. Again, I have no issue with you thinking he's no good as a 3/4C and not ideal for that position but clearly you are here saying Suter is a C and that's what he is. And you think management signed him as a center.


What does #2F Center mean? So you're saying we are hoping he plays on the 2nd line?

I think Suter is a natural Center. I just don't think he's good enough to fill a Top-6 scoring role, he's also not the right sort of pivot to handle tough 3C minutes or find a way to thrive as 4th line Energy C. That's what makes him a "5C".


You can draft your own terminology if it helps. The reality is...Suter is basically a crappy Top-6C who they're probably hoping has some utility as a pretend 2nd tier 2nd line overflow Center with our offensive wingers.

That's what I've been trying to say, however ineloquently. We started this summer with the likes of Aman, Dries, and Studnicka as the team's other Cs besides Petey and Miller with unproven non-bluechip prospects in the AHL. 3C was a need and we signed Blueger to a 1 year deal and now Suter.

I don't think 2 years is unsual for a band-aid. First of all, 2 years was probably offered to get it done (as Suter had 1 year offers). But it really depends on what you have and the timeline. I don't see much downside here.

It's not like we didn't need to address the dire lack of Center depth. It's more just a question of...how are the two guys they globbed onto going to fit together effectively?

That's fair. One thing I would discuss is need. We absolutely need a good 2nd pairing RHD, but even a solid one will do. But I agree with your take on Hronek vis a vis acquisition price. But there were Red Wings fans who felt that the deal didn't make sense for the Red Wings who will need a Hronek type Dmen when they are ready to contend.



I agree that you got to be careful where you spend you market. At the end of the day I think it depends on what you're looking for. All else being equal I prefer C to wingers.

Personally I think Garland is underrated. His size and lack of playoff track record obviously hurts his trade value. I think the trade market in terms of willingness to acquire salary is depressed but I don't really see Garland type player signing for say $3M so I think that things will even out.

I don't think Garland is really underrated. He has a somewhat peculiar ability to produce offense from a depth role. He doesn't fit with either of our Top-6C so that's where he's at.

But he's exhibit A in why i think Suter could end being useful here. Playing with a guy like Garland who is a 2W caliber player who is pushed out of the Top-6 due to lack of chemistry. Garland is a guy who can drive play offensively.

That's why my first instinct would be to staple Suter-Garland together as a "third duo" like Pete-Kuze + JT-Boeser.


If it doesn't work, so be it. But that'd be my immediate instinct.

 

[F A N]

It's blatantly obvious. The relevance to Suter is that Detroit is obviously not a team that "can't afford" to keep players. They could've easily spent whatever to keep Suter.

Instead...they decided he's not someone worth a multi-year commitment.

Honestly I don't know what the relevance of this is. What does being able to "afford" to keep player have anything to do with not wanting to give term to Suter? There could be many reasons why they don't want to give Suter term. Nobody here is saying Suter is some sort of core player.

Petry would immediately slide into a role as the 1st pairing RHD on the Canucks roster. lol. He's not washed like Edler yet. Petry is also costing them less than Cole/Soucy. Which is fully a product of geopolitics. But nonetheless...

Edler two seasons ago was still pretty good with last season having a noticeable drop of. Petry is coming off a relatively poor season and turns 36 in December. It's conceivable that he declines some more. Petry does have term on his contract where Cole does not. Soucy is 29 years old. Petry was certainly far away the better player when he was 29 but he's turning 36.

If the advanced stats are showing that Suter was a "Checking line C", the stats are wrong, you're reading the wrong stats, or you're reading them wrong without proper context. Flat out.

Or you are flat out wrong?

You're dismissing the "eye test" of people who have watched him play. Ok. But even then, leaning on the statistics...it's very easy to see that he was not a defensive matchup #3C.

No one is saying he's a defensive matchup #3C. If he is, he wouldn't be able to sign him for 2x$1.6M.

I don't think anyone is really disputing this. Suter was a poor #2Cish player for most of his Wings tenure. The other part was...basically as a top-6W. His minutes in Detroit where he actually played in the Bottom-6 are...limited, and with often with other Centers.

Not true. He played significant minutes in the bottom 6. And I don't know why you keep repeating the line that he was playing with other Centers when he was the one centering the line when playing with other centers in the bottom 6.

I think Suter is a natural Center. I just don't think he's good enough to fill a Top-6 scoring role, he's also not the right sort of pivot to handle tough 3C minutes or find a way to thrive as 4th line Energy C. That's what makes him a "5C".

No. That just makes him an average 3C/4C. Name 10 centers making less than $2M who you think is "the right sort of pivot to handle tough 3C minutes" and also name 10 centers who "thrive as 4th line energy C"

You can draft your own terminology if it helps. The reality is...Suter is basically a crappy Top-6C who they're probably hoping has some utility as a pretend 2nd tier 2nd line overflow Center with our offensive wingers.

So you are saying management signed Suter with the idea that he will play in the top6?

It's not like we didn't need to address the dire lack of Center depth. It's more just a question of...how are the two guys they globbed onto going to fit together effectively?

Management acquired players whose plays speaks for themselves. Blueger is what he is. You know what you're going to get from him. The same with Suter. Even at the beginning of UFA, they looked like the best UFA options to fill the bottom 2C roles.

I don't think Garland is really underrated. He has a somewhat peculiar ability to produce offense from a depth role. He doesn't fit with either of our Top-6C so that's where he's at.

Garland is an even strength monster who is one of the best on the team at transporting the puck up ice and maintaining possession. He also has the ability to produce at even strength regardless of who he plays with. It's funny how some could be critical of a player who is a complementary player and reliant on the PP and then be equally critical of a player who drives his own line and produces at even strength.

But he's exhibit A in why i think Suter could end being useful here. Playing with a guy like Garland who is a 2W caliber player who is pushed out of the Top-6 due to lack of chemistry. Garland is a guy who can drive play offensively.

That's why my first instinct would be to staple Suter-Garland together as a "third duo" like Pete-Kuze + JT-Boeser.


If it doesn't work, so be it. But that'd be my immediate instinct.

I agree and I think that's the plan. I think Suter is more "skilled" than Blueger but Blueger might actually be the better playmaker. Then again, I think Blueger is the better defensive player so it'll be interesting to see how Tocchet roll his lines.

 

[VanJack]

I don't think the Canucks signed Suter for his 'offense', although 14 goals would be a welcome addition on the third line if he could ever replicate it this season.

It was his defense; penalty killing; and faceoff abilities that were attractive, particularly at the price-point he comes in at--$1.6m a season.

 

[Peter Griffin]

For some reason you're crapping your pants about the terminology I used for a totally normal thing. It's weird.

It’s this poster’s MO. He’ll latch onto one comment rather than the whole idea around the post.

 

[andora]

Very interesting stuff the last 5 pages.. probably could have all been said in one page 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

Why does it always have to feel like an escalating argument in a bar

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

It’s this poster’s MO. He’ll latch onto one comment rather than the whole idea around the post.

When I read his posts now, my brain automatically pulls this up:

Not a joke btw, this genuinely happens to me.