Waived: Chris Higgins (Update: Clears)

[racerjoe]

That's not even the saddest thing, IMO.

We lost our #1 goalie to injury and the team *improved*.

No, we traded Lack! Our backup goalie is just starting lots of games before he got injured.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Luongo-->Schneider
Luongo-->Lack
Miller-->Lack
Miller-->Markstrom

2012 Schneider was better than Luongo, so was 2013 Schneider...2014 Luongo vs Lack, wash-up, I go Luongo based on experience and hindsight.

Miller's just been plain awful, most goalies in the league are an upgrade over him. He's done. I hope he's the back-up next year.

 

[Cupless44]

2012 Schneider was better than Luongo, so was 2013 Schneider...2014 Luongo vs Lack, wash-up, I go Luongo based on experience and hindsight.

Miller's just been plain awful, most goalies in the league are an upgrade over him. He's done. I hope he's the back-up next year.

I don't think he has been "awful". Many games like last night you can't say he played awful.

But he certainly hasn't been a difference maker that justifies a 6 million dollar contract. He has been ok. He has a brutal defence in front of him.

Don't get me wrong, I hated the signing the day I heard it. I just think awful is a bit strong.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

I don't think he has been "awful". Many games like last night you can't say he played awful.

But he certainly hasn't been a difference maker that justifies a 6 million dollar contract. He has been ok. He has a brutal defence in front of him.

Don't get me wrong, I hated the signing the day I heard it. I just think awful is a bit strong.

Perhaps it is a bit strong. I detested the signing. I didn't think he was a $6 million goalie when he was posting .915 SV% year after year, and he's only been worse.

Awful might be a bit strong, so I'll say punch-for-punch, dollar-for-dollar, he's the worst starting goalie in the NHL. Well...I guess Cam Ward's still around...so he's not even that. 2nd worst though.

 

[Cupless44]

Perhaps it is a bit strong. I detested the signing. I didn't think he was a $6 million goalie when he was posting .915 SV% year after year, and he's only been worse.

Awful might be a bit strong, so I'll say punch-for-punch, dollar-for-dollar, he's the worst starting goalie in the NHL. Well...I guess Cam Ward's still around...so he's not even that. 2nd worst though.

Going to get interesting if Markstrom continues to outplay him. Especially for next season. How can the team sell him as the starter next year?

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Going to get interesting if Markstrom continues to outplay him. Especially for next season. How can the team sell him as the starter next year?

I don't think we'll be able to unless Benning can cultivate more MacIntyre's and ship off Markstrom while drastically forwarding Demko's development.

But that's the stupidest worst case scenario I can come up with. I mean, the casual fan is pretty damn stupid and will take whatever the management buys so long as the media can back it up in droves.

 

[alternate]

2012 Schneider was better than Luongo, so was 2013 Schneider...2014 Luongo vs Lack, wash-up, I go Luongo based on experience and hindsight.

Miller's just been plain awful, most goalies in the league are an upgrade over him. He's done. I hope he's the back-up next year.

Right, like I said, back-ups have been improving our team for a while now.

As for Miller, of goalies with over 200 minutes played, his 5v5 SV% ranks him 32nd of 64. Make it 600 minutes and he's 23 of 43. Average goaltending, statistically speaking. Then factor in our defence, health, and a coach that rode him to the breaking point early in the season, and it's a long way from "plain awful". But there's a Miller thread, so I won't say anymore on that.

http://puckalytics.com/goaliestats.html

Still interested in seeing your list of comparables to Sutter that signed recent UFA deals in the $3.3m range.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

So Markstrom has a .920 SV% with the same circumstances. But it's always excuses for Miller. The guy's ridden off one great season long enough. He's at best an average goalie, and more often than not a less than average one. All I have to say about the first sentence is too damn bad that he can't play 5 on 5 the entire time. But that's hockey for ya, gotta play all 60 regardless of what situation it is.

As for comparables, where do I start? Hanzal, Vermette, Backlund, Helm, Reilly Smith, Granlund, Desharnais, Colin Wilson, Bailey, Simmonds, Berglund, Hansen, Williams, Perreault. All have lesser values on their contracts and can provide equal or more value to the Canucks than Sutter does.

 

[EpochLink]

Burrows is next, his 4.5 million dollar contract ain't worth it anymore.

Guys 35 and just eating cap space.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Burrows is next, his 4.5 million dollar contract ain't worth it anymore.

Guys 35 and just eating cap space.

Wasn't worth it the morning he signed it, and I'm sure I let it be known on here back then at the time, too.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

If Luongo wins the Vezina, does Vancouver get small credits since he's still on the payroll?

 

[Addison Rae]

What was the cap at 10 years ago? 5 years ago? etc. Nothing wrong with Sutter's contract, peeps just don't seem to recognize that the cap is higher, therefore equivalent players get paid more. $4.375m for the prime years of a quality middle 6 player with a strong 200 foot game and can provide 15-20 goals is about right.

Funny to hate on that contract while defending one that is now costing us $1.5m to play in the minors.

Chris Higgina outperformed his contract in the first 2 years of it, 2.5 million for an a good middle 6 winger who can chip in ~40 points and play a solid two-way game is a very good contract. Sure, his game dropped off this seasons, and now it isn't looking like a great contact, but he was essentially performing similarly to Brandon Sutter who's contract you're advocating right now.

Brandon Sutter hasn't scored 35 points in 5 seasons he's an above average 3rd line centre, not a foundational player or a a guy who should be paid 4.5 million a season. How many forwards in the NHL who haven't scored more than 35 points in 5 seasons are making more then 4 million a season, if you can't find any it simply shows the Canucks are overpaying for Sutter.

 

[Bleach Clean]

What is the "refutation" of my points?

Maybe i've missed them amongst the flood of absurdist anti-Benning rhetoric piled on thick in this thread without basis. But i have yet to see how your assertion that "Higgins' value will stabilize" is anything but a shot in the dark

The fact that you've missed these things is of no concern to me. It's only your choice to dismiss it as "absurdist anti-Benning rhetoric". With that rationale, no counter argument would add understanding to what you know.

As to the regression of Higgins' value, it's quite logical. If he was a 36 in 77 game point producer last year, then suffered injury and missed camp this year, then it stands to reason that he will return to his previous form at some point. There was an injury between then and now. Unless you are contending that his recent foot injury has permanent adverse effects, and that this is his 'new normal'? If you want to make that case, make it.

Bunch of assumptions and unsupported opinions.

1. Higgins was a solid asset that could have been moved for equivalent value.

2. Saying I can't see a scenario were I can understand getting equivalent value for equivalent value is playing rhetorical games and unfairly putting words in my mouth. Nothing I said indicated that and if want to argue at least deal with what I said.

I have never seen a post of yours from last season recommending that Higgins be moved...

3. Benning let Higgins drop to his lowest value.

Well, according to you, Benning shouldn't have got rid of Higgins last year since he was a valued asset. I think it fair to assume that you felt they should have kept Higgins going into this year.

As I see it, Benning did everything consistent with your opinion and now you criticize for doing it. My bet is that if he had managed to move Higgins for something (say a 4th) last summer you would have criticized him for moving a valued asset. In other words, Benning could never win with you no matter what he did with Higgins.

4. Higgins is better than Prust and Dorsett.

You state this like a fact.

It is a fact. He is simply a better hockey player. His visible play says this, and the underlying numbers say this. Toughness doesn't matter. What is the net on-ice effect of toughness? How do you measure that effect vs. having a better hockey player? That this management team (and yourself) values/value toughness over actual on ice effectiveness is telling here.

He should have kept Higgins if he wasn't getting anything. It's the same with Lack. You don't have to trade these players until someone pushes them off the roster. With Lack, he was pushing Miller off the roster but was instead traded. With Higgins, Prust and Dorsett don't compare, so why deal the superior player? He will help your team more than they do - at hockey things.

 

[Addison Rae]

Interesting that you used Colin Wilson as a comparable and suggested that they produced similar offence,

Over the past 4 seasons (before they signed their contacts)

Colin Wilson - 126 points in 251 games (.51 PPG ~41 point pace in a season)

Brandon Sutter - 110 points in 291 games (.38 PPG 31 points in 82 games)

So Wilson averages 10 more points per season which is far from "comparable offense" Wilson's point average over the past 4 seasons is higher than Sutter's career high in points,.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

So Wilson averages 10 more points per season which is far from "comparable offense" Wilson's point average over the past 4 seasons is higher than Sutter's career high in points,.

I used the contracts as comparable. i.e. Wilson has a smaller contract than Sutter and produces more than him. That's more of what I was getting at. Players who make less than Sutter and who I believe can replicate or exceed the impact Sutter brings to the team.

 

[ahmon]

It is a fact. He is simply a better hockey player. His visible play says this, and the underlying numbers say this. Toughness doesn't matter. What is the net on-ice effect of toughness? How do you measure that effect vs. having a better hockey player? That this management team (and yourself) values/value toughness over actual on ice impact is telling here.

He should have kept Higgins if he wasn't getting anything. It's the same with Lack. You don't have to trade these players until someone pushes them off the roster. With Lack, he was pushing Miller off the roster but was instead traded. With Higgins, Prust and Dorsett don't compare, so why deal the superior player? He will help your team more than they do - at hockey things.

Toughness does matter. Just because it is not easy to measure doesn't mean there is no value.

Just because Higgins has more skilled than Prust/Dorsett doesn't mean he has a more positive impact on the ice especially in a bottom 6 role.

And the fact that an "energy" and physical player in Prust/Dorsett even has more points than Higgins should be telling.

There are lots of players in the AHL/Europe more skilled than Zac Rinaldo, Andrew Desjardins, Jordan Nolan, Ryan Reaves, Shawn Thornton, Ryan Garbutt, J.T Brown.

Higgins is never a fit on a 4th line. The fact that his point production - which is what allow him to play in the NHL - has fallen off, means he's basically useless.

Higgins can't be used in the top 6, and really brings nothing that coaches look for in the bottom 6. And when you factor that Higgins has a very poor track record in playoff production and also ageing, he goes unclaimed through the waivers.

 

[alternate]

Interesting that you used Colin Wilson as a comparable and suggested that they produced similar offence,

Over the past 4 seasons (before they signed their contacts)

Colin Wilson - 126 points in 251 games (.51 PPG ~41 point pace in a season)

Brandon Sutter - 110 points in 291 games (.38 PPG 31 points in 82 games)

So Wilson averages 10 more points per season which is far from "comparable offense" Wilson's point average over the past 4 seasons is higher than Sutter's career high in points,.

Sutter has scored ~32 points/pace in 3 of the last 4 seasons.

Wilson's PPG is skewed from the 2012/13 season where he scored 19 points in 25 games (62 point pace). Other than that, he's scored 34, 35 (in only 68 games), 33 and 42 points. So more offence, but generally comparable.

He also signed his deal as a RFA so that brings down the cost a bit. I'm not sure about Wilson's usage, but I know he wasn't playing behind Crosby/Malkin so I'd guess he got more offensive ice time. I'd say it's comparable offensive production based on real terms, even with the difference in PPG.

And mayhem, your list of comparables isn't very good. Hanzal signed his current deal as a rfa. Vermette is old and don't agree he offers as much. Backlund, rfa. Helm, rfa. Reilly Smith, rfa. Granlund, rfa. Desharnais, rfa. Bailey, rfa. Simmonds, sigh, rfa. Berflund, rfa. Hansen, okay. Never scored more than 16 goals, but okay. Williams, old. Perrault, career high of 25 points.

So yeah, if you're going to compare a guy going into UFA to guys that are still RFAs when they sign their deals, things look less than stellar. But most wouldn't consider that an apples to apples comparison.

edit: I should also remind, that THIS season Sutter is only $3.3m.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

And mayhem, your list of comparables isn't very good. Hanzal signed his current deal as a rfa. Vermette is old and don't agree he offers as much. Backlund, rfa. Helm, rfa. Reilly Smith, rfa. Granlund, rfa. Desharnais, rfa. Bailey, rfa. Simmonds, sigh, rfa. Berflund, rfa. Hansen, okay. Never scored more than 16 goals, but okay. Williams, old. Perrault, career high of 25 points.

So yeah, if you're going to compare a guy going into UFA to guys that are still RFAs when they sign their deals, things look less than stellar. But most wouldn't consider that an apples to apples comparison.

edit: I should also remind, that THIS season Sutter is only $3.3m.

Just because they are RFA eligible doesn't mean they'll necessarily get less, unless you can provide me with some numbers that say otherwise. I mean, I get the logic behind it, it's certain there. I just want to see hard proof. I admit the Granlund one was a reach, I was debating taking him off altogether.

Just because Vermette and Williams are old isn't good enough, but you believe Vermette doesn't offer as much as Sutter does...that's your opinion, OK, I can live with that though I don't agree with that.

What Perreault do you think we are talking about here though?

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

So Markstrom has a .920 SV% with the same circumstances. But it's always excuses for Miller. The guy's ridden off one great season long enough. He's at best an average goalie, and more often than not a less than average one. All I have to say about the first sentence is too damn bad that he can't play 5 on 5 the entire time. But that's hockey for ya, gotta play all 60 regardless of what situation it is.

As for comparables, where do I start? Hanzal, Vermette, Backlund, Helm, Reilly Smith, Granlund, Desharnais, Colin Wilson, Bailey, Simmonds, Berglund, Hansen, Williams, Perreault. All have lesser values on their contracts and can provide equal or more value to the Canucks than Sutter does.

Half these guys haven't scored 20 goals once let alone twice

How's about finding me the list of players with these comparables:
20+ goals twice, 25-28 years old, Center

Thanks.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Half these guys haven't scored 20 goals once let alone twice

How's about finding me the list of players with these comparables:
20+ goals twice, 25-28 years old, Center

Thanks.

So what I've deduced here is that you only care about youngish centers who can score 20 goals every blue moon?

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

So what I've deduced here is that you only care about youngish centers who can score 20 goals every blue moon?

Yes, that's what he is. He's a youngish Center that has scored 20 goals twice.

 

[F A N]

As for comparables, where do I start? Hanzal, Vermette, Backlund, Helm, Reilly Smith, Granlund, Desharnais, Colin Wilson, Bailey, Simmonds, Berglund, Hansen, Williams, Perreault. All have lesser values on their contracts and can provide equal or more value to the Canucks than Sutter does.

This is so tiring. Posters trying to devalue Sutter by bringing up players with similar or better offensive production with cap hits that are lower than Sutter's extension years because they are or were paid for their RFA years.

Sutter's extension hasn't kicked in yet. If you're going to bring up comparisons, use Sutter's $3.3M cap hit, which is what his "contract value" is this season.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Toughness does matter. Just because it is not easy to measure doesn't mean there is no value.

Just because Higgins has more skilled than Prust/Dorsett doesn't mean he has a more positive impact on the ice especially in a bottom 6 role.

Last year, and for his entire career before that, Higgins proved to be the better player. I agree, skill alone does not determine who is more effective. That's why one does not auto-draft the most purely skilled player. There's more to it. However in this case, Higgins has _proven_ to be better in everything but 25 games this season. History matters.

Toughness doesn't matter. When toughness helps score a goal, sets up a goal, helps carry the puck into the OZone or aids in moving the puck from Dman to forwards, I'll be on board. But sadly, the team cannot punch the puck into the net. The only value to toughness is that which GMs place upon a non-hockey related attribute.

And the fact that an "energy" and physical player in Prust/Dorsett even has more points than Higgins should be telling.

There are lots of players in the AHL/Europe more skilled than Zac Rinaldo, Andrew Desjardins, Jordan Nolan, Ryan Reaves, Shawn Thornton, Ryan Garbutt, J.T Brown.

Higgins is never a fit on a 4th line. The fact that his point production - which is what allow him to play in the NHL - has fallen off, means he's basically useless.

Higgins can't be used in the top 6, and really brings nothing that coaches look for in the bottom 6. And when you factor that Higgins has a very poor track record in playoff production and also ageing, he goes unclaimed through the waivers.

Prust/Dorsett having more points in 25 games is only pertinent if that is expected to continue. Can you say with certainty that it will? If you can, then what are you basing this upon? A normal regression for all three players, in terms of conversion, should have Higgins ahead once again. Yes, Prust and Dorsett are more in the traditional mould of 4th liners, but it's not imperative to follow that mould. Higgins is a better player. It should trump 'role'. That it doesn't means that the understanding of some teams is archaic, not that this should be normal.

Higgins has most of the attributes to make a good 3rd liner. He battles well along the wall, plays in straight lines, supports the puck well and is good defensively. Don't know where you're getting "he brings nothing coaches look for in the bottom6"?

 

[alternate]

Someone is confusing "was" and "is".

 

[Addison Rae]

Yes, that's what he is. He's a youngish Center that has scored 20 goals twice.

Over the past 3 seasons he's scored at a near identical pace to Shawn Matthias.

Find me a list of forwards in the history of the national hockey league who haven't scored more than 40 points in a season who make 4 and a half million a season?

This notion of 4.5 million being market value for a 30 point centre is ridiculous. All your guys examples feature better players on better contacts. He's cracked 35 points once in his career, he's not a foundational player nor is he worth his cap hit.