Player Discussion Jay Beagle

[UK Canuck]

I dunno. Check out our opponent today.

amazing how the Flyers saw what Chuck Fletcher had done to the Wild and thought, "yeah we want THAT running our franchise"

The Wild are the exact team I fear the Canucks becoming under Benning, where there's some talent, but not enough and so many bad contracts its impossible to be truly a contender, just be a bubble team for years, sometimes making it, sometimes not and getting bounced early.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Caps have next to no cap space from a quick glance and I would assume Dowd is providing the exact same level of play as Beagle, but for 700K a year.

Odd how we basically made a trade with the Caps, Dowd for Beagle.

For this season they have no space, however next year they have about 19.5M in space with the notable re-signings being Holtby, Gudas and Backstrom. I've heard rumblings they may not re-sign Holtby which just leaves Backstrom and Gudas...I mean yeah it's being incredibly hopeful but it's the only thing I can really think of to move on from this player.

 

[UK Canuck]

For this season they have no space, however next year they have about 19.5M in space with the notable re-signings being Holtby, Gudas and Backstrom. I've heard rumblings they may not re-sign Holtby which just leaves Backstrom and Gudas...I mean yeah it's being incredibly hopeful but it's the only thing I can really think of to move on from this player.

yeah, I cant see Holtby being retained when they've got Samsonov ready and waiting to go

 

[Jyrki21]

The Wild are the exact team I fear the Canucks becoming under Benning, where there's some talent, but not enough and so many bad contracts its impossible to be truly a contender, just be a bubble team for years, sometimes making it, sometimes not and getting bounced early.

As a Vancouver sports fan, it’s kind of infuriating... both the Canucks and Whitecaps have more or less taken this approach (“hope to get in and then anything can happen!”) enabled by the dumb nature of playoffs-are-everything sports. Then hoping fans actually believe it, in spite of years of evidence suggesting it’s not true. (Side note: if it were true, why bother getting emotionally invested in something that is essentially random?)

It’s a bit more accidental in the Canucks’ case, but it’s still happening.

 

[Melvin]

As a Vancouver sports fan, it’s kind of infuriating... both the Canucks and Whitecaps have more or less taken this approach (“hope to get in and then anything can happen!”) enabled by the dumb nature of playoffs-are-everything sports. Then hoping fans actually believe it, in spite of years of evidence suggesting it’s not true. (Side note: if it were true, why bother getting emotionally invested in something that is essentially random?)

It’s a bit more accidental in the Canucks’ case, but it’s still happening.

The weird thing is that the dumb GMs who believe this are the same dumb GMs who will acquire players specifically because they are "built for the playoffs" and somehow think that it's the optimal strategy to optimize your team for playoff play while simultaneously telling you the playoffs are essentially random and you just gotta get in.

I literally just read an interview with Ken Holland where he says these two completely incompatible things.

If you think the playoffs are essentially random then clearly the best strategy is to optimize your regular season performance to maximize your chances of getting in, because you cannot optimize randomness.

 

[UK Canuck]

The weird thing is that the dumb GMs who believe this are the same dumb GMs who will acquire players specifically because they are "built for the playoffs" and somehow think that it's the optimal strategy to optimize your team for playoff play while simultaneously telling you the playoffs are essentially random and you just gotta get in.

I literally just read an interview with Ken Holland where he says these two completely incompatible things.

If you think the playoffs are essentially random then clearly the best strategy is to optimize your regular season performance to maximize your chances of getting in, because you cannot optimize randomness.

I'm convinced teams should just shy away from anyone who's ever played Hockey at any level as executives and just appoint genius nerds who understand analytics and the difference between causation and correlation, I'm sure they'd do a better job, the NHL is just a hamster wheel where the same guys keep falling off and occasionally getting back on in a different place.

 

[VanJack]

I wonder if and when Sutter does return, the coach would have the courage to park Beagle in the pressbox? That's the guy who should sit, because the Canucks need a lot more out their fourth line. And the Gaudette, Roussel, Virtanen line has been reasonably effective.

Another game this afternoon where the fourth line lost badly in the possession battle. The rink just seems to tilt when they're on the ice. And for reasons best known only to Green, he has both Beagle and Schaller out there killing penalties. Sad reality is that neither guy can skate well enough to put any pressure on the guy who has the puck on the pp.

I'd try a fourth line of Sutter, flanked by MacEwen and Motte. I mean how could it be worse?

 

[Canucks1096]

I wonder if and when Sutter does return, the coach would have the courage to park Beagle in the pressbox? That's the guy who should sit, because the Canucks need a lot more out their fourth line. And the Gaudette, Roussel, Virtanen line has been reasonably effective.

Another game this afternoon where the fourth line lost badly in the possession battle. The rink just seems to tilt when they're on the ice. And for reasons best known only to Green, he has both Beagle and Schaller out there killing penalties. Sad reality is that neither guy can skate well enough to put any pressure on the guy who has the puck on the pp.

I'd try a fourth line of Sutter, flanked by MacEwen and Motte. I mean how could it be worse?

I think the main issue is that Green is giving the 4th line tough mins that they can't handle. If Green plays them against other 4th lines, they will do fine. The 4th lines gets about 70% Dzone and play against top 6 F a lot of times. Horvat gets the top line and Gaudette gets the easiest mins and Petey and Beagle play against the other 2 lines. Green likes to give Petey easier mins and he doesn't trust Gaudette defensively. You complain about Horvat game in the Gaudette tread and now you are complaining about Beagle game. Do you ever not think that if Gaudette was capable of playing some of those tough mins. Maybe and just Maybe Horvat and Beagle can perform a little bit better with easier mins? Gaudette should take some blame as well for Horvat and Beagle Performance.

When Sutter gets back I would Put Sutter at center and Gaudette on the wing so they can help out Horvat line defensively and play Beagle against other 4th line and some Dzone starts.

Btw last 10 games Gaudette had 1 G five on five, Virtanen 2 G and Rousell 1 G as a line. So the third line got 4 G, I think they got more than 4 GA and all their Corsi are not that great either so lines as not doing as well as you think. You might think that because Gaudette is on that line. Gaudette came back down to earth. 2 G in his last 20 games. 7 or 8 P in the last 20 games. With Horvat 12 P in the last 7 games, I am hoping you don't that can Gaudette take over Horvat spot

 

[Jyrki21]

The weird thing is that the dumb GMs who believe this are the same dumb GMs who will acquire players specifically because they are "built for the playoffs" and somehow think that it's the optimal strategy to optimize your team for playoff play while simultaneously telling you the playoffs are essentially random and you just gotta get in.

I literally just read an interview with Ken Holland where he says these two completely incompatible things.

If you think the playoffs are essentially random then clearly the best strategy is to optimize your regular season performance to maximize your chances of getting in, because you cannot optimize randomness.

To be fair, I don't think they believe it's completely random (if anything I think Hockey Men™ actually err on the side of thinking 7-game series are far more representative of relative strength and fatalistic than they really are), it's just that I think they believe "anything can happen" far more often than it historically does*, and will point to the outliers as the reason why short-sighted moves are worth it. Like, you shouldn't really be building your strategy on getting super-lucky or dramatically beating the odds. The Whitecaps basically do this out of necessity, but the Canucks should exercise an ounce of foresight and not shoot for this scenario.

*I will grant this, though – in the cap era the extreme parity of playoff teams probably lends more credence to this approach than would have been historically true. Although I think true cinderella teams – those whose unimpressive season record actually is reflective of the team strength – still basically never win.

 

[Icebreakers]

3m for another 3 years. On pace for 9 points and two goals. We could have signed literally any player to a league minimum and it would have been the same.

 

[F A N]

amazing how the Flyers saw what Chuck Fletcher had done to the Wild and thought, "yeah we want THAT running our franchise"

The Wild are the exact team I fear the Canucks becoming under Benning, where there's some talent, but not enough and so many bad contracts its impossible to be truly a contender, just be a bubble team for years, sometimes making it, sometimes not and getting bounced early.

Actually, the Wild under Fletcher made the playoffs in his last 6 seasons. Like the Canucks prior to 2011, they couldn't beat Chicago. They lost to the Blackhawks in the playoffs 3 straight years and then they weren't as good.

I think those Wild teams are distinguishable from the Canucks. Those Wild teams drafted some good players but after their window of contention closed, they were relying on players that were over 30 and the young core they drafted up front ultimately didn't take the next step or keep progressing. Granlund, Neiderreiter, Coyle, Haula, and Zucker are all similar in age but the ways their careers developed with the Wild must have been frustrating for Wild fans.

The Canuck are on a different path. If our young core isn't good we aren't going anywhere regardless of how well we surround them. But if our young core is good I think we can build around them and make at least a couple of runs with them.

 

[Diversification]

Actually, the Wild under Fletcher made the playoffs in his last 6 seasons. Like the Canucks prior to 2011, they couldn't beat Chicago. They lost to the Blackhawks in the playoffs 3 straight years and then they weren't as good.

I think those Wild teams are distinguishable from the Canucks. Those Wild teams drafted some good players but after their window of contention closed, they were relying on players that were over 30 and the young core they drafted up front ultimately didn't take the next step or keep progressing. Granlund, Neiderreiter, Coyle, Haula, and Zucker are all similar in age but the ways their careers developed with the Wild must have been frustrating for Wild fans.

The Canuck are on a different path. If our young core isn't good we aren't going anywhere regardless of how well we surround them. But if our young core is good I think we can build around them and make at least a couple of runs with them.

Yep. That's the distinction. When you're re-building a team, there are a number of truisms: build from the net out, build from the center position and your younger players have to assume the mantle. This is especially true in the cap era where teams can no longer buy their way into contender status.

The Wild bought their way into the exact gray zone that pro-tankers fear will inevitably happen to the Canucks. They signed homestate free agents to long term contracts (Parise and Suter) as they were beginning to decline and added another declining player in Staal. That's the backbone of their team and it's not at all good comparison to the situation the Canucks face.

Our bad contracts are for aging, declining contracts, yes. But no one is depending on Eriksson or Beagle or Schaller to drive the offense. And their contracts will expire in a reasonable time frame - albeit with a cap crunch looming next season that will last 1 season. Meyers, for all of the hate he gets, fills a real need on the roster. In the meantime, our young core has absolutely taken the reins and that's all you can ask from a re-building team.

Will they take it to the next level? Can they fill in the gaps on D? Will Demko become a cost-controlled NHL starter? Those are legitimate concerns.

But whether we're headed down the same path as the Wild who bought their way into relevance for a few seasons while failing to re-build their core from within. That's IMHO a disingenuous take.

 

[Hit the post]

Myers fills a real need? He’s got like one more point than Tanev. He got his big contract to help put up points.

 

[Diversification]

Myers fills a real need? He’s got like one more point than Tanev. He got his big contract to help put up points.

Yes. He pushes Stecher, Benn and Fantenberg down the depth chart where they can adequately play a bottom pairing role. That's the need he fills.

 

[Hit the post]

Yes. He pushes Stecher, Benn and Fantenberg down the depth chart where they can adequately play a bottom pairing role. That's the need he fills.

You don't pay a guy $6 million on a long-term deal to be a #4 who hasn't provided much of the offensive side of things. But that's just my opinion. That means you have the likes of a Benn on the 3rd pairing (who's been medicore at best). Fanta (a journeyman on a better deal has fit better with Stecher than Benn).

 

[Diversification]

You don't pay a guy $6 million on a long-term deal to be a #4 who hasn't provided much of the offensive side of things. But that's just my opinion. That means you have the likes of a Benn on the 3rd pairing (who's been medicore at best). Fanta (a journeyman on a better deal has fit better with Stecher than Benn).

I don't disagree that Myers is overpaid. But a lot of that has to do with UFA signings and a failure to promote from within (the Juolevi misfire looms large). My point is that in spite of his cap hit, Myers contributes to team success far moreso than say Eriksson or Beagle by virtue of balancing team depth.

I concede that it's possible, even likely, that the team will not enjoy his cap hit in the later years of his contract. But as it stands, Myers plays minutes that neither Stecher, Fantenberg or Benn are capable of for any sustained stretches. That's a plus.

 

[JT Milker]

Yes. He pushes Stecher, Benn and Fantenberg down the depth chart where they can adequately play a bottom pairing role. That's the need he fills.

Who pushes Myers down where he can adequately play a bottom pairing role?

 

[Diversification]

Who pushes Myers down where he can adequately play a bottom pairing role?

you mean in the imaginary blueline we should have versus the one that we actually have?

 

[F A N]

Myers fills a real need? He’s got like one more point than Tanev. He got his big contract to help put up points.

Tanev fills a real need as well, especially if he can stay healthy. Tanev is on track to put up career high points total at age 30. But let's face it, Myers ability to score goals is better than Tanev's. Tanev's abilty to defend is better than Myers. Myers isn't that far off from his career averages over his past few healthy seasons in terms of goal and point production.

 

[Hit the post]

you mean in the imaginary blueline we should have versus the one that we actually have?

The imaginary blueline we had the season before where the pairing of Hutton & Stecher acquitted themselves fine. Course the signing of a guy outplayed by Fanta removed that option (Benn)

 

[Diversification]

The imaginary blueline we had the season before where the pairing of Hutton & Stecher acquitted themselves fine. Course the signing of a guy outplayed by Fanta removed that option (Benn)

If you believe that one of Hutton or Stecher could have filled in as a workable #4 this season with similar results then we are at an impasse.

 

[Hit the post]

If you believe that one of Hutton or Stecher could have filled in as a workable #4 this season with similar results then we are at an impasse.

"The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts".

Stecher hasn't looked good at all this season. For whatever reason, him and Ben Hutton meshed well. Much like (for opposite reasons) when Edler & Bieksa were in their primes; they were bloody awful *together*. Green used that pairing instead of Too Good Guds last season when Tanev & Edler were out of the lineup.

 

[Diversification]

"The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts".

Stecher hasn't looked good at all this season. For whatever reason, him and Ben Hutton meshed well. Much like (for opposite reasons) when Edler & Bieksa were in their primes; they were bloody awful *together*. Green used that pairing instead of Too Good Guds last season when Tanev & Edler were out of the lineup.

Chemistry between pairings is important, but I think Hutton had more or less reached his ceiling a few years back and for whatever reason wasn't able to make the transition to top 4 dman in his own right. Not terribly shook up that we didn't re-sign him and his play this year with LAK hasn't changed my mind.

The addition of Quinn Hughes to the lineup has really shaken up the blueline. He plays well with both Tanev and Myers giving us some flexibility. Will be interesting to see whether we retain Tanev in the offseason or the training wheels come off entirely for Hughes next season with a low-cost replacement.

 

[Hit the post]

The addition of Quinn Hughes to the lineup has really shaken up the blueline. He plays well with both Tanev and Myers giving us some flexibility. Will be interesting to see whether we retain Tanev in the offseason or the training wheels come off entirely for Hughes next season with a low-cost replacement.

1) Hughes incredible performance has taken the heat of of the lack of offensive production of Myers.
2) Low cost replacement on the blueline [from this management team?]? Getting a decent cheap depth guy like Fanta is one thing, getting a similiarly (as Tanev) from this management team is a 'hope and a prayer' (my opinion given the past 5+ years).

But let's turn thread topic back to the subject matter - Jay Beagle. He's vast overpayment (for replacement level performance) is another reason why Hutton isn't on the team.

 

[Diversification]

1) Hughes incredible performance has taken the heat of of the lack of offensive production of Myers.
2) Low cost replacement on the blueline [from this management team?]? Getting a decent cheap depth guy like Fanta is one thing, getting a similiarly (as Tanev) from this management team is a 'hope and a prayer' (my opinion given the past 5+ years).

But let's turn thread topic back to the subject matter - Jay Beagle. He's vast overpayment (for replacement level performance) is another reason why Hutton isn't on the team.

Agreed. 3M for Beagle is too much for a 4th line center. Especially at his age. He's one of the reasons why we'll likely lose Markstrom, Motte and possibly Tanev in the offseason.