OT: Jason Garrison

[Bleach Clean]

Medgett, I believe the opposite of your take to be true. Bieksa has been atrocious. Hamhuis just behind him, and Edler third. At least Edler is staying aggressive offensively. Not floating hopers at the net like Bieksa and cashing in. Garrison has been better than Hamjuice, and on par with Edler IMO.


When your top4 is playing that badly, only the foolish disregard the environment to single out a player. The environment is near everything. It's the context. Some people disregarded the environment to start singling out certain players unfairly, while giving others a free pass. In the GDT no less, where you know opinions are always completely rational...


It speaks to someone that hasn't watched him play in FLA. It also represents an inherent bias to the known quantity. It's not Garrison's fault certain posters have no prior knowledge of his play. Yet it's because he's an unknown here, and people are watching him intently while glossing over the bigger mistakes of the "known culprits", it's somehow reasoned to be a fair and even handed analysis. I'm not buying it. Especially when (and I know certain people will hate this) stats can be brought to bear to completely shut down some of these fallacious arguments.


Bad enough that someone makes an ill thought out remark in a GDT, where emotions are running high, but to still push it as a rational opinion after the fact? When terms like "thank god a buyout is still an option". Man, talk about jumping the gun. Ugh.

 

[medgett]

Medgett, I believe the opposite of your take to be true. Bieksa has been atrocious. Hamhuis just behind him, and Edler third. At least Edler is staying aggressive offensively. Not floating hopers at the net like Bieksa and cashing in. Garrison has been better than Hamjuice, and on par with Edler IMO.


When your top4 is playing that badly, only the foolish disregard the environment to single out a player. The environment is near everything. It's the context. Some people disregarded the environment to start singling out certain players unfairly, while giving others a free pass. In the GDT no less, where you know opinions are always completely rational...


It speaks to someone that hasn't watched him play in FLA. It also represents an inherent bias to the known quantity. It's not Garrison's fault certain posters have no prior knowledge of his play. Yet it's because he's an unknown here, and people are watching him intently while glossing over the bigger mistakes of the "known culprits", it's somehow reasoned to be a fair and even handed analysis. I'm not buying it. Especially when (and I know certain people will hate this) stats can be brought to bear to completely shut down some of these fallacious arguments.


Bad enough that someone makes an ill thought out remark in a GDT, where emotions are running high, but to still push it as a rational opinion after the fact? When terms like "thank god a buyout is still an option". Man, talk about jumping the gun. Ugh.

I don't think anyone here is disregarding the environment. Good thing too, I wouldn't want to be considered a fool! Look, if someone is saying that he should be bought out, that is premature, but orcatown has said a few posts ago that they agree with that. If that is going back on a prior statement, so be it. I don't really care about that. To say that his current play warrants his contract is IMO foolish and therefore to say that you can't even consider him a buy out candidate, (with the caveat that he continues to play the way he has), is equally foolish.

As for Bieksa and Hamhuis, to clarify, I said they were rounding into form and I honestly am not sure how someone could watch the last 10 games and say they've been atrocious. True, they haven't been at the top of their game, but that seems way over the top.

Finally, Garrison's body of work that you speak of is based off one year of play. If you go back prior to the signing, many posters felt that Garrison would be a nice player, but he was likely to be very well paid and there was some risk that he was a one year wonder. I'm not making a judgment one way or the other, but its worth saying that he was a 5G 13A player in 73 games at the age of 26 before the arrival of Brian Campbell. If you want to bring the body of work into question, you have to admit there's a chance this is the player brought in rather than the 16 goal guy.

 

[leftwinglockdown]

Thomas Drance over at Canucks Army has put up a very good article about the shuffling of the defense pairs and it seems that Garrison is not really getting demoted as the media likes to point out.

http://canucksarmy.com/2013/2/21/on-garrisons-demotion-and-why-its-premature-to-abandon-the-edler-on-the-right-side-experiment

Clearly, when compared to his fellow blue-liners it shows that Garrison's possession numbers has been middle of the road in terms of Fenwick and this is expected given his arrival to a completely new team and system. It is more likely that he gets better from here on out.

Since all the pairings are given balanced minutes, there's no clear-cut top 4 but from an advanced stats point of view, clearly Bieksa has been the worst defenseman on the team and Hamhuis has not been much better. It seems most likely that the switch back to HamJuice is an attempt to fix them, especially Bieksa and not really anything to do with Edler and Garrison. In my opinion, this might just be the biggest and most pressing issue on the team right now. Hamhuis and Bieksa have to get back to being the players they were last year and the year before if this balanced ice-time approach is to work else they might just end up being the 3rd pairing.

Edler has also not been as bad as many think on the right-side. The numbers that Drance uses show that in terms of possession, Edler on his off-side has been playing better than Hamhuis and Bieksa on their strong-sides. While he plays his best on the left, he is the most capable of making the transition over which again accentuates the fact that he is our most talented all-around d-man. Moving Tanev up might just be what AV is saying, just a look at something they want to test out. A pairing of Edler and Tanev might be the most dominant in terms of possession and I think the coaches acknowledge that and want to see where that leads but the downside might be Ballard taking a nose-dive without Tanev. This is where Garrison comes in, the numbers show he is fine defensively and the coaches might be hoping that Garrison can replicate Tanev's effect on Ballard without Ballard's play dipping too much, allowing a pairing of Edler-Tanev to happen.

I think all of the drama pertaining to the defense shows that a lot of people really just see what they want to see. Garrison has been steady, not great offensively but at least stable in his own end while Bieksa has been just awful. Those with a good eye for watching the games have probably already come to this conclusion and the stats just support that.

 

[orcatown]

Medgett, I believe the opposite of your take to be true. Bieksa has been atrocious. Hamhuis just behind him, and Edler third. At least Edler is staying aggressive offensively. Not floating hopers at the net like Bieksa and cashing in. Garrison has been better than Hamjuice, and on par with Edler IMO.


When your top4 is playing that badly, only the foolish disregard the environment to single out a player. The environment is near everything. It's the context. Some people disregarded the environment to start singling out certain players unfairly, while giving others a free pass. In the GDT no less, where you know opinions are always completely rational...


It speaks to someone that hasn't watched him play in FLA. It also represents an inherent bias to the known quantity. It's not Garrison's fault certain posters have no prior knowledge of his play. Yet it's because he's an unknown here, and people are watching him intently while glossing over the bigger mistakes of the "known culprits", it's somehow reasoned to be a fair and even handed analysis. I'm not buying it. Especially when (and I know certain people will hate this) stats can be brought to bear to completely shut down some of these fallacious arguments.


Bad enough that someone makes an ill thought out remark in a GDT, where emotions are running high, but to still push it as a rational opinion after the fact? When terms like "thank god a buyout is still an option". Man, talk about jumping the gun. Ugh.

No one is singling out Garrison here. The thread was about Garrison so that is why he is getting talked about here. If you want to start a thread on Bieksa or Hamhuis or someone else then go ahead. This thread is about Garrison and that's why he gets talked about in this thread. How hard is that to understand???

No one here is glossing over the play of so-called "known culprits" but is simply trying to isolate the discussion to the topic at hand - Garrison. Indeed, I see very little glossing over of anyone's play ( I haven't). Instead people are only trying to bring back the focus back to the point of the discussion - Garrison.

And it makes no sense to justify the play of Garrison based on the poor play of others. If you are doing a bad job at school or work then it senseless to say well others are doing worse when its your body of work under inspection. If you think Garrison is playing well then you need to point where and how he is. You need to base it on the merits of his play not on the lack of success of others.

I and others have tired to point to specific areas where we believe Garrison is not looking good. You need to do the same. Don't tell us how Bieksa is playing bad but instead tell us where Garrison is doing well. How hard is that to understand?

And don't start in with some ad hominen attack that the other person is ignorant of Garrison back ground or is irrational or biased. Deal with the substance of what the person is saying. Defend your position by saying where the other person is wrong in their description of Garrison's play. And I think people really have tried to go into depth on things they see as poor play. In fairness, you need to do the same.

To suggest I or others have some built in dislike or prejudice against Garrison is juvenile and totally unsupported by you. It's just a way of trying to taint another person's opinion without having to deal with what they are saying. I want nothing that the best for Garrison and hope he excels here. But when he doesn't IMO, I'm not going to pretend he has done well.

As far as the buy out option is concerned I would repeat that I'm very glad the buy out has become an option. This is very long term contract and if Garrison continues to play like he is then there has to be questions whether the team can carry him at his long term cap hit. This is no different than the concern with Ballard's contract going into the season. Much of that concern has been eased by the play of Ballard much as the concern about Garrison's long term contract could be if he improves his play. This is no wild, overly passionate reaction but simply a reasonable consideration given Garrison play to this point and the tight conditions created by the new CBA. The team must avoid bloated or bad contracts going ahead and IMO Garrison's contract might become that.

As I have stated I certainly haven't come to the conclusion that Garrison must be bought out. But his, like other contracts (such as Booth) where the person is playing well below expectations created by the size of their contracts, needs to to be discussed.

You may say that Garrison is showing himself fully deserving of his contract. You may think he looking like a great pick up and a real bargain. But you need to show this not by making alibis, not be putting down other players and not by attacking the credibility of people with an opposite opinion. Instead you need to show how Garrison is playing well and is fair value for his contract based on his play.

 

[opendoor]

It's easy to talk about spending someone else's $15M to pay Garrison to play for another team, but it's simply not going to happen barring a monumental collapse in his play. To suggest it as a reasonable possibility is to completely ignore the patience that the current management team has had with other players and that they will continue to have with Garrison.

Even if one accepts that Garrison has been as bad as some are saying or that buying him out could conceivably be a good idea, I'm honestly not sure how anyone could've just watched the last 2 years of the Canucks and think that Gillis is going to turn around and cast aside a guy he just signed to a long term deal. Have the Ballard and Malhotra situations taught people nothing about how this management team operates?

 

[Barney Gumble]

Finally, Garrison's body of work that you speak of is based off one year of play. If you go back prior to the signing, many posters felt that Garrison would be a nice player, but he was likely to be very well paid and there was some risk that he was a one year wonder. I'm not making a judgment one way or the other, but its worth saying that he was a 5G 13A player in 73 games at the age of 26 before the arrival of Brian Campbell. If you want to bring the body of work into question, you have to admit there's a chance this is the player brought in rather than the 16 goal guy.

That would assume that the principle reason for acquiring him wasn't for this play without the puck or defensive ability.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

And it makes no sense to justify the play of Garrison based on the poor play of others.

Really disagree here. You can't dicount how a dman's partner is playing and how it affects a duo's effectiveness. Kevin Bieksa for example has looked good with Willie Mitchell and Dan Hamuis there to carry the paring defensively but has struggled when not alongisde these 2. This season Bieksa has been very erratic and unpredictable and this will transfer over to his partner, whether that's Garrison or otherwise.

Garrison's skating and puck handling has been a bit choppy but his positioning, strength one on one and alpong the boards have been encouraging. Garrison is a bit like Mitchell in that he defends well, he just looks a bit awkward doing it. I wouldn't say he's been as good defensively as Mitchell and probably never will be but he's definately started to come around of late.

There are a ton of reasons why we can't put too much emphasis on the small sample we've seen - 9 month layoff, coming off injury, new system, new partners that haven't played well themselves... I think considering a buyout here would be akin to considering a Bieksa buyout due to his awful and inconsistent defensive play thus far.

There have been obvous signs of improvement as the season has progressed. This is what separates Garrison from Ballard's 1st year in Vancouver. Garrison is also coming off 2 seasons of strong defensive play, whereas Ballard was coming off a very poor season in Florida. Don't see these 2 as comparables in any way.

 

[jigsaw99]

i know it doesn't seem like it but Garrison has the best +/- on D for us right now.

and who has the worse?

Dan Hamhuis of all people.

 

[Barney Gumble]

There have been obvous signs of improvement as the season has progressed. This is what separates Garrison from Ballard's 1st year in Vancouver. Garrison is also coming off 2 seasons of strong defensive play, whereas Ballard was coming off a very poor season in Florida. Don't see these 2 as comparables in any way.

As I've said before, Ballard had the benefit of a training camp to "break himself in" a new system as well in his first season as a Canuck......Garrison didn't.

 

[Babs]

far.

There have been obvous signs of improvement as the season has progressed. This is what separates Garrison from Ballard's 1st year in Vancouver. Garrison is also coming off 2 seasons of strong defensive play, whereas Ballard was coming off a very poor season in Florida. Don't see these 2 as comparables in any way.

Well they both came from the Panthers and...

 

[Drop the Sopel]

As I've said before, Ballard had the benefit of a training camp to "break himself in" a new system as well in his first season as a Canuck......Garrison didn't.

Good point. And another reason why a slow start should have been expected.

I would be more worried about Garrison if I hadn't watched so much of him in Florida last season. He's still not at the top of his game and if I had to bet, he'll get there sonner than later.

I'm more concerned about Bowness and how he handles this defense. This is not a dynamic, offensively gifted group. It might be time to adopt a simpler, less aggressive game from the backend. We need to play to the strengths of the personnel...

 

[Royal Canuck]

He's just been average so far, he'll come around soon. (hopefully)

 

[vanuck]

Good point. And another reason why a slow start should have been expected.

I would be more worried about Garrison if I hadn't watched so much of him in Florida last season. He's still not at the top of his game and if I had to bet, he'll get there sonner than later.

I'm more concerned about Bowness and how he handles this defense. This is not a dynamic, offensively gifted group. It might be time to adopt a simpler, less aggressive game from the backend. We need to play to the strengths of the personnel...

How did his skating last year compare to now, if you remember? I still suspect he's not over that groin issue he had during the lockout...

Also agree about simplifying the system. The lack of a training camp doesn't help, but you'd think they would want to alleviate that problem by making things simpler for the D, especially when it usually takes new guys so long to adjust.

 

[orcatown]

It's easy to talk about spending someone else's $15M to pay Garrison to play for another team, but it's simply not going to happen barring a monumental collapse in his play. To suggest it as a reasonable possibility is to completely ignore the patience that the current management team has had with other players and that they will continue to have with Garrison.

Even if one accepts that Garrison has been as bad as some are saying or that buying him out could conceivably be a good idea, I'm honestly not sure how anyone could've just watched the last 2 years of the Canucks and think that Gillis is going to turn around and cast aside a guy he just signed to a long term deal. Have the Ballard and Malhotra situations taught people nothing about how this management team operates?[/QUOTE


I agree the money amount is going to make this difficult. I've said it's a consideration and it is. But the buy out option has not been there before. Other clubs have had to take a bath already and others will this off-season. I think Canuck management has clearly indicated they are willing to spend the money needed to improve the team and will use the buy out where appropriate but this, and you are correct here, is going to be a huge lump to swallow.

And as I have said, the buy out consideration is premature and we definitely need to get a longer look at Garrison before any conclusion can be made. However, there are some red flags that should IMO not be ignored and given the shortened season some difficult decisions may be necessary in the off season based on a less than optimum sample size.

In the past more patience could be shown because there were other options available. You could bury a person in the minors but now that is not available. Now if you don't use the buyouts you are really stuck with some long term cap problems. In the case of Garrison, that's another 5 years. Other clubs have been crippled by such contracts (such as Edmonton with Horcroff) and I hope the Canucks don't get in the same situation. Hopefully Garrison's play picks up and this issue disappears. But if it doesn't then some hard decisions may be forced on the team.

btw You bring up Malhotra. Are you now suggesting that the Canucks stuck with Malhotra when they recognized he was not valuable? That, as you say, they were patient in spite of his poor play. Seems to me that you argued for the longest time that he was valuable. That he was a integral cog in the overall game planning of the team and in money puck system employed by the team. That the coaches had this elaborate, math-based face-off system with Malhotra being the centerpiece.

My question would be if he was so effective in this system why has the team pushed him out? Why is Gillis now saying they gave him a year and more to get going and he couldn't. Isn't that a recognition that the team saw him as a liability and not the asset you claimed? Wouldn't this at least make you second guess your theory that he was so central to the club's success? And in saying the club was patient with him aren't you acknowledging that he was liability the cub patiently put up in the hope that he might regain his game? And what about Malhotra's recognition that he had very poor season last year at the same time you where saying he was playing very effectively?

Seems to me you are saying two different things. First that the club was patient with Malhotra in spite of his problems and second that Malhotra was an important and effective part of the team.

 

[leftwinglockdown]

Yikes, Hamhuis-Bieksa back together and we look like Keystone Cops in our zone to start against Dallas. If Garrison-Ballard works out, HamJuice might just be the weakest link right now on the back end.

 

[cc]

Thomas Drance over at Canucks Army has put up a very good article about the shuffling of the defense pairs and it seems that Garrison is not really getting demoted as the media likes to point out.

http://canucksarmy.com/2013/2/21/on-garrisons-demotion-and-why-its-premature-to-abandon-the-edler-on-the-right-side-experiment

Clearly, when compared to his fellow blue-liners it shows that Garrison's possession numbers has been middle of the road in terms of Fenwick and this is expected given his arrival to a completely new team and system. It is more likely that he gets better from here on out.

Since all the pairings are given balanced minutes, there's no clear-cut top 4 but from an advanced stats point of view, clearly Bieksa has been the worst defenseman on the team and Hamhuis has not been much better. It seems most likely that the switch back to HamJuice is an attempt to fix them, especially Bieksa and not really anything to do with Edler and Garrison. In my opinion, this might just be the biggest and most pressing issue on the team right now. Hamhuis and Bieksa have to get back to being the players they were last year and the year before if this balanced ice-time approach is to work else they might just end up being the 3rd pairing.

Edler has also not been as bad as many think on the right-side. The numbers that Drance uses show that in terms of possession, Edler on his off-side has been playing better than Hamhuis and Bieksa on their strong-sides. While he plays his best on the left, he is the most capable of making the transition over which again accentuates the fact that he is our most talented all-around d-man. Moving Tanev up might just be what AV is saying, just a look at something they want to test out. A pairing of Edler and Tanev might be the most dominant in terms of possession and I think the coaches acknowledge that and want to see where that leads but the downside might be Ballard taking a nose-dive without Tanev. This is where Garrison comes in, the numbers show he is fine defensively and the coaches might be hoping that Garrison can replicate Tanev's effect on Ballard without Ballard's play dipping too much, allowing a pairing of Edler-Tanev to happen.

I think all of the drama pertaining to the defense shows that a lot of people really just see what they want to see. Garrison has been steady, not great offensively but at least stable in his own end while Bieksa has been just awful. Those with a good eye for watching the games have probably already come to this conclusion and the stats just support that.

not that I totally disagree with those advanced stats, but how much of that is due to the fact that Edler is on the first unit power play and Bieksa is on the first unit PK? Bieksa gets the most ice time and I see him against the top line fairly often. I see Edler out with Sedins who generate a lot more chances than any other line.

I think advanced stats can be really twisted around to suit your argument. That being said, I think the defense has been atrocious across the board with maybe the exception of Ballard and Tanev.

 

[Tiranis]

not that I totally disagree with those advanced stats, but how much of that is due to the fact that Edler is on the first unit power play and Bieksa is on the first unit PK? Bieksa gets the most ice time and I see him against the top line fairly often. I see Edler out with Sedins who generate a lot more chances than any other line.

I think advanced stats can be really twisted around to suit your argument. That being said, I think the defense has been atrocious across the board with maybe the exception of Ballard and Tanev.

The stats are ES only. Bieksa doesn't play top lines going by ice-time of who he has faced this season. Edler and Hamhuis have been the top shutdown pairing this season. Prior to that it was Edler and Garrison being the shutdown pairing.

 

[Angry Little Elf]

Garrison and Ballard are dynamite

 

[David71]

Garrison and Ballard are dynamite

really? does ballard still have problems playing the right side? or is it vice versa?

 

[StringerBell]

Looked great tonight. Got a goal to boot.

 

[Tiranis]

Those two seemed to communicate well today. I don't know how much Florida's system has changed since Ballard left but perhaps there's some familiarity due to where they used to play?

 

[crazyforhockey]

one of the tings that gets overlooked with garrison...is that he can muscle out the big power forwards..and there habve been a few games where he has quietly done that job..

before we would have had to put alberts into the lineup...and with garrison thats not needed..

saw a few jabs about the power move hossa didd and garrison just stood there.....part of that was he had to cover his man and partly uncertainty.......
give him another 15 games to round into form

 

[Wisp]

that was a good game from him. I hope the trend continues.

I'm not too worried about him. He was not playing at his salary previously, but he has provided value to this team (certainly more than Ballard has in his first season as a Canuck). Games like this is where he's worth his full paycheck.

 

[cc]

The stats are ES only. Bieksa doesn't play top lines going by ice-time of who he has faced this season. Edler and Hamhuis have been the top shutdown pairing this season. Prior to that it was Edler and Garrison being the shutdown pairing.

Funny, it doesn't look like the coaching staff has seen it the same way. They've put Edler back on his natural left side presumably seeing that he was struggling on the right side. They've also paired him with the most defensively sound dman they have in Tanev.

 

[cc]

Garrison and Ballard are dynamite

Ballard has looked good playing on his offwing. I think he's probably the most mobile dman they have so maybe he is best able to do that. You wouldn't have been able to say that before but I'm guessing he's more familiar with the system and his defensive play has improved playing with Tanev all that time.