Quinn Hughes has 97 points in 129 games (0.751 ppg), Girard has 116 in 273 (0.425). Sure Quinn plays 2 mins more per game and gets more offensive time but how exactly can you compare the two offensively? Defensively sure he looked like Quinn out there but they arent even close to comparables. Girards best career year is this season, so when he signed his 7 year, 5 million dollar AAV contract his career stats were 84 points in 225 games.
If that seems similar to Quinn, then just consider: if Hughes has 0 points for his next season and a half he would still have better career numbers than that.
Getting Hughes at anything near 5 million on a long term deal would be absolute robbery. We are looking at maybe around there for a bridge, but definitely 7+ for a similarly long term deal. He might be bad defensively, but lets not criminally underrate his offensive talent.
Girard doesn't get anything like the power play time (see Makar for that) Hughes gets and that's where Hughes gets most of his points with a lot of them being second assists . Also, Girard for all his defensive problems was a+ 15. Hughes was the second worse in the League at - 24. How can anyone say he is a near a franchise player with that type of defensive play? And how valuable is Hughes going to be in the playoffs when the style of play changes? As we are seeing the teams with the heavy guys who are good in their end take over in the playoffs and that is obviously not Hughes.
Tying yourself to a long term, big numbers contract is absolutely wrought with danger. And the is especially true if you are basing a long term contract on his ability to do well playing playoff style hockey. If anything Hughes is a boutique player who does real well in the light hitting, open style of the play but has demonstrated nothing to suggest he will bare up well when the grinding starts. He has some great offensive talent but that counts for little if you can't defend deep in your end and after last season there is totally open question whether he can do that (and that was in the regular season)
The idea that - well Hughes is a smart player who will figure it out - is, at present, built more around wishful thinking than any critical appraisal of Hughes play. There were times last year when he was absolutely dreadful and completely inadequate. That should not be swept under the rug. that needs to be considered.
As far as Girard I think he is a lot like Hughes. Great offensive mind, excellent break out passer who greatly facilitates and is hugely important to the quick attack of the Avs, good at the offensive blueline with probably a better and more accurate shot than Hughes. He is a good player but the question has always been can he defend and, in the playoffs this year Vegas raised bigger doubts about this.
The idea that you are going to base Hughes contract only on points is IMO very misguided. You need to look at the total package and Hughes defensive play is, right now, far from an NHL standard. 5 on 5, he was very much a negative and more so than Girard was to Colorado. If you are going to pay big money to Hughes (and anything over 5 on a short term deal is excessive IMO) you maybe strapping the team to another bad deal and really preventing them from bring in the true franchise player they might acquire moving ahead. For example would you rather have an all round player like Reilly or Nurse (who may become available next season), or their equivalent, moving ahead or Hughes. You sign Hughes to a franchise type deal and that, or any other alternative, is gone.
Saying you are going to pay him nothing less than 7 mill. (and some how in this covid strapped salary cap world you see this is as a bargain) is absurd given his defensive play. And I'd say, right now, the Avs might be re-thinking that Girard deal given the way Vegas abused him. To give Hughes that kind of money is ignore blindly the most important aspect of a defenseman's game. Can he play in his own end? Hughes needs to prove that on a short term deal before you start tossing franchise type money at him. You need to give our head a shake if you can't see this.
But you may well reflect the one dimensional and overly optimistic attitude often illustrated by Canuck management and a good chuck of Canuck fandom. Throwing money and term around on some glittering new thing rather than taking a hard look at a player seems the norm with them and that, of course, a has brought us to where we are. Toronto has graphically shown the folly of this approach and, given the present dimwits running the team, I fear we will do the same.
