News Article: Is this the start of the downward slope for the Sedins?

[God]

No. The Sedins' production had fallen off the map relative to the to scorers.

one poor 40 game stretch and they're done, sure. i get that. what have you done for me lately. if it was a poor 40 games to start and a wonderful 40 games to finish, this wouldn't be a topic of discussion.

assuming you mean top, again, relative means nothing when depth player scoring is going up. whatever their overall rank is, it's much more subject to noise. top 30, top 90, these are all arbitrary round numbers that are nice to look at.

 

[Verviticus]

So what are you willing to put money on then?

thats a figure of speech. you dont agree, fine. go away

 

[Verviticus]

You'd think that after 15 years of being constantly under-estimated by the fanbase here, people would have learned not to under-estimate them any longer. Apparently not.

my possibly irrational hope mostly lies in their cryptic comments about "yeah we know what went wrong this year and we're going to fix it in the summer" or whatever they were hinting at. i flip-flop between wondering about possible injuries they were aware of that they never shared, or a complete disdain for the system they were playing in

 

[Fat Tony]

one poor 40 game stretch and they're done, sure. i get that. what have you done for me lately. if it was a poor 40 games to start and a wonderful 40 games to finish, this wouldn't be a topic of discussion.

assuming you mean top, again, relative means nothing when depth player scoring is going up. whatever their overall rank is, it's much more subject to noise. top 30, top 90, these are all arbitrary round numbers that are nice to look at.

Canucks' depth scoring going up? News to me.

 

[torlev*]

my possibly irrational hope mostly lies in their cryptic comments about "yeah we know what went wrong this year and we're going to fix it in the summer" or whatever they were hinting at. i flip-flop between wondering about possible injuries they were aware of that they never shared, or a complete disdain for the system they were playing in

I don't understand what you two are bickering about. Surely you're aware they're not point per game players anymore. They're in decline obviously. They're still very good players too. There is an in between. I think they'll recover and be better. But they'll never return to their top years five years ago. Or even 80+ point players. But its not like 65ish point guys are bad either. They're pretty damn good.

 

[y2kcanucks]

one poor 40 game stretch and they're done, sure. i get that. what have you done for me lately. if it was a poor 40 games to start and a wonderful 40 games to finish, this wouldn't be a topic of discussion.

assuming you mean top, again, relative means nothing when depth player scoring is going up. whatever their overall rank is, it's much more subject to noise. top 30, top 90, these are all arbitrary round numbers that are nice to look at.

They weren't very good November 1 until the end of the season. People like to conveniently ignore that.

 

[Toxic0n]

They weren't very good November 1 until the end of the season. People like to conveniently ignore that.

D. Sedin had 20 point in 26 games from Nov 1st to Dec 31st - 63 point pace. After that, the whole team kind of collapsed, as you have seen.

 

[y2kcanucks]

D. Sedin had 20 point in 26 games from Nov 1st to Dec 31st - 63 point pace. After that, the whole team kind of collapsed, as you have seen.

I see you neglected to post Henrik's stats over that period.

And yes, 63 points. Perhaps not terrible, but you expect more out of a guy who just signed for FOUR more seasons at $7M per.

 

[torlev*]

I see you neglected to post Henrik's stats over that period.

And yes, 63 points. Perhaps not terrible, but you expect more out of a guy who just signed for FOUR more seasons at $7M per.

Yes that's a fair assessment for sure. 65 points each is a pretty good set of players, but 4 years at 7 mil at age 34 for 65 points is terrible.

That's Gillis' fault though. Not theirs.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Yes that's a fair assessment for sure. 65 points each is a pretty good set of players, but 4 years at 7 mil at age 34 for 65 points is terrible.

That's Gillis' fault though. Not theirs.

And trending downward.

 

[torlev*]

And trending downward.

Yes that's why I pointed out their age.

Love the Sedins, but these contracts were a mistake. Just another mistake in a long line of them left behind by Gillis.

 

[Regal]

I see you neglected to post Henrik's stats over that period.

And yes, 63 points. Perhaps not terrible, but you expect more out of a guy who just signed for FOUR more seasons at $7M per.

Not if you look at the contracts being handed out these days you don't. Kane and Toews just signed for 10.5, and neither are consistent point per game players. Getzlaf, Perry and Giroux are all over 8. Kessel is at 8. If you're getting 65 points from players who aren't leeching off others, are playing top defenders, and dominating possession time, then 7 million is a pretty reasonable rate in this market.

 

[me2]

Not if you look at the contracts being handed out these days you don't. Kane and Toews just signed for 10.5, and neither are consistent point per game players. Getzlaf, Perry and Giroux are all over 8. Kessel is at 8. If you're getting 65 points from players who aren't leeching off others, are playing top defenders, and dominating possession time, then 7 million is a pretty reasonable rate in this market.

Indeed. Stastny just signed for $7m and those are about all I'd expect from him. Let's not even talk about the contracts the likes of Bolland or Clarkson got.

 

[torlev*]

Indeed. Stastny just signed for $7m and those are about all I'd expect from him. Let's not even talk about the contracts the likes of Bolland or Clarkson got.

I'd take stastny in a heartbeat over one of the twins, when we are talking a couple of years down the line. The other two are some of the worst contracts around. If you have to use those as benchmarks there is a problem.

 

[Regal]

I'd take stastny in a heartbeat over one of the twins, when we are talking a couple of years down the line. The other two are some of the worst contracts around. If you have to use those as benchmarks there is a problem.

Let's see how they do going forward before writing them off because of how they might decline. Currently the team isn't hampered by the contracts, there isn't anyone they're blocking from a roster spot, no one's looking as a substantial raise coming up that would be hard to find money for and I don't see anyone that the money would have been better spent on that would come here, so what's so bad about them exactly?

 

[Havre]

Datsyuk is the most "comparable" player in my opinion. Joe Thornton is another one. Compared to those contracts at least Henrik matches up well. Actually how many of these "old stars" got much better contracts (for the team) than the Sedins?

That said, generally speaking I think most "old stars" are paid far too much. A fairly significant part of their salary seems to be more for "past services" than the real value today. Don't think Gillis and the Canucks did any worse than what you see around the league for these kind of players. Neither do I think it is a given that they will decline that rapidly. In terms of professionalism, preparations and style of play why couldn't they keep going like St. Louis?

 

[MS]

Datsyuk is the most "comparable" player in my opinion. Joe Thornton is another one. Compared to those contracts at least Henrik matches up well. Actually how many of these "old stars" got much better contracts (for the team) than the Sedins?

That said, generally speaking I think most "old stars" are paid far too much. A fairly significant part of their salary seems to be more for "past services" than the real value today. Don't think Gillis and the Canucks did any worse than what you see around the league for these kind of players. Neither do I think it is a given that they will decline that rapidly. In terms of professionalism, preparations and style of play why couldn't they keep going like St. Louis?

It's the price you pay for winning. You end up in a no-win situation.

When you're where we were a year ago (and have 5 straight division titles and are a year removed from two President's Trophies) you simply can't dump your two best players, especially when you have nobody coming in behind them.

If you want to compete, you have to sign them. But they've put themselves in a position where they've earned money and term. So you pay. As everyone else does. And the back years of those contracts hurt.

 

[Havre]

It's the price you pay for winning. You end up in a no-win situation.

When you're where we were a year ago (and have 5 straight division titles and are a year removed from two President's Trophies) you simply can't dump your two best players, especially when you have nobody coming in behind them.

If you want to compete, you have to sign them. But they've put themselves in a position where they've earned money and term. So you pay. As everyone else does. And the back years of those contracts hurt.

How exactly have we placed ourselves in a position to win with these contracts?

I agree that it was a "damned if you do damned if you don't" kind of situation. As you see I'm not all that negative to these two contracts. They are slightly too high for what I expect them to produce during the contract period, but I see no reason why they should be a severe overpayment. However, my point is more that a contract is not "earned" in the sense that you should be paid by past accomplishments. A contract should reflect your value "today". Teams that reward players for previous "cheap" contracts will never win. Burrows being a much better example of this than the Sedins.

 

[kurt]

How exactly have we placed ourselves in a position to win with these contracts?

I agree that it was a "damned if you do damned if you don't" kind of situation. As you see I'm not all that negative to these two contracts. They are slightly too high for what I expect them to produce during the contract period, but I see no reason why they should be a severe overpayment. However, my point is more that a contract is not "earned" in the sense that you should be paid by past accomplishments. A contract should reflect your value "today". Teams that reward players for previous "cheap" contracts will never win. Burrows being a much better example of this than the Sedins.

A contract reflects what someone is willing to pay for services. With UFA age players, they can be acquired without giving up assets, and owners have no leverage in suppressing their earning potential. As a result, a bidding war around the league drives the price of their services up.

Will those contracts be burdensome in 2 years? Possibly. But to keep those players, it had to be done.

The Canucks are dealing with contracts far more burdensome than theirs.

 

[Havre]

A contract reflects what someone is willing to pay for services. With UFA age players, they can be acquired without giving up assets, and owners have no leverage in suppressing their earning potential. As a result, a bidding war around the league drives the price of their services up.

Will those contracts be burdensome in 2 years? Possibly. But to keep those players, it had to be done.

The Canucks are dealing with contracts far more burdensome than theirs.

Not sure what "it had to be done" means.

You don't have to sign players to contracts they are not worth.

Not saying you should compare UFA and RFA contracts. You obviously shouldn't. Still, you should only sign an UFA based on his value over the contract period - not based on past achievements. Burrows being an example of a contract that in my opinion is higher than it should have been because he has "served" the Canucks well. I guess it is a nice thing to do, but it makes it hard to win cups with that kind of mentality.

The last part I agree with you on. For me the Sedins are not that much of a problem in terms of value for money (probably a small overpayment). If they can get back to 60-70 points then you won't sign many UFAs over the next couple of years for less than 7m with a better production.

 

[kurt]

Not sure what "it had to be done" means.

You don't have to sign players to contracts they are not worth.

Not saying you should compare UFA and RFA contracts. You obviously shouldn't. Still, you should only sign an UFA based on his value over the contract period - not based on past achievements. Burrows being an example of a contract that in my opinion is higher than it should have been because he has "served" the Canucks well. I guess it is a nice thing to do, but it makes it hard to win cups with that kind of mentality.

The last part I agree with you on. For me the Sedins are not that much of a problem in terms of value for money (probably a small overpayment). If they can get back to 60-70 points then you won't sign many UFAs over the next couple of years for less than 7m with a better production.

I guess when I said that I meant for the organization to keep fan confidence & ticket sales on life support and avoid being the worst in the West for the next 4 years it had to be done.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I guess when I said that I meant for the organization to keep fan confidence & ticket sales on life support and avoid being the worst in the West for the next 4 years it had to be done.

Sure, so we may not be "worst in the west" but placing 11th in the west isn't much better. In fact it's probably worse long-term. But hey, at least we got Da Twinzz locked up.

 

[NoShowWilly]

How exactly have we placed ourselves in a position to win with these contracts?

I agree that it was a "damned if you do damned if you don't" kind of situation. As you see I'm not all that negative to these two contracts. They are slightly too high for what I expect them to produce during the contract period, but I see no reason why they should be a severe overpayment. However, my point is more that a contract is not "earned" in the sense that you should be paid by past accomplishments. A contract should reflect your value "today". Teams that reward players for previous "cheap" contracts will never win. Burrows being a much better example of this than the Sedins.

Burrows had 35, 26, 28 goals in his 3 previous seasons leading up to getting 4.5m. They re-signed him as soon as they could.

I guess we can start letting players sit til the month before free agency to try and re-sign them all. Then if they have a remotely poor season compared to the previous one we can tell them they are downward trending and don't deserve to get paid.

 

[Brock Boeser]

Sure, so we may not be "worst in the west" but placing 11th in the west isn't much better. In fact it's probably worse long-term. But hey, at least we got Da Twinzz locked up.

Bet you probably thought the exact same thing back in the summer of 09'

I mean seriously though when will these guys get the respect they deserve.

 

[topheavyhookjaw]

The large irony in the conract discussion on the Sedins, is that MG waited until the last minute and hardballed them most of the way on the first contract he signed with them. Everyone thought he was nuts, risked ruining the relationship with them and played it totally wrong. This time he did the opposite, signed them early, acknowledged what they've done for the team, and he still played it wrong.

The other thing lost in the discussion is how scoring rate has dropped league wide. If they put up 60+ points they're worth 7m, because 60 point forwards are relatively rare (certainly rarer than 3-4 years ago).