Player Discussion Brock Boeser - Brock Around the Clock

[Ernie]

Cherry pick?

I'm just letting you know that your numbers are flawed by using 4 yrs at 2000 minutes. Thats only 500 min per year which equates to anyone in the top10 of teams EV ice time

Safe to say a top line scorer is getting a top defensive unit and more minutes to absorb vs Nils Hoglander who doesn't PK doesn't PP and get to go balls to the wall for 12-13 minutes a game.

If you think that's cherry picking then ok sure i cherry picked. Just play Drew O'Connor for 20 minutes and see what happens

Using just one player as an example is cherry picking.

How are my numbers flawed? What would be a better cutoff, given that players are entering / exiting the league and can be injured for stretches of that time? If you expand the minutes you get far too small of a number of players for the analysis to be useful.

If your argument is that Boeser shouldn't be expected to play at a high level with top six ice time, why would you pay him to do so?

How is Drew O'Connor relevant?

 

[pitseleh]

The problem with P/60 is how many in that 172 players above him could actually sustain or be able to replicate that at bigger minutes.

Garland was a perfect example this year. Ice time went up production stayed the same. His EV p/60 went from 2.6 - 1.9 - 2.4 to 1.7

Garland’s first and third best p/60 seasons were when he got the same ice time he got this season (20/21 and 21/22).

There isn’t really any reason to attribute it to ice time going up, rather than the team around him being awful offensively and a career worst on-ice shooting percentage.

Qualcomp ends up being a small factor once you get past really sheltered players because no one goes from playing 100% of their ice time against low level competition to 100% high level competition. The difference between a first liner and a second liner might be 35-40% of their ice time against the other team’s best versus say 25-30% as a second liner. That ends up getting at least partially offset by quality of teammates and usage (o-zone starts) getting better too.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

I agree with much of what your saying but also have to weigh the alternatives

Everyone in free agency will come with as much or more pain in terms of value years. As we've seen in the past chemistry is important and how a player fits in effects their overall value as well. Bringing in 28-32yr old UFAs from other organizations that were willing to let them walk in the first place always comes with potential for stink and is more onerous for a player that hasn't earned some slack and done nothing for the organization prior.

As far as the cap space you can look at any of Hoglander 3m Joshua 3.25m or O'Connor 2.5 and ask what they bring over and above Raty Sasson or Karlsson in relation to what they bring related to Boeser. And you have to account for the PP and situational usage. As we've seen 12-14minute players struggle at 17-20minutes. We're already in a roster compilation with players slotted above prior success and asking for more usually comes with pain

Any of those 3 mentioned can leave and we replace them from within or as per another Sherwood or Joshua signing and yet a top line W to replace in trade or free agency will cost assets (cap space or picks plus players)

So here in lies the conundrum. A good argument for both can be made for certain.

Re: Allocation we simply have to send out some money as part of a trade or even in free agency if you even brought back Miller @8m. I don't think it's a big deal

Yea that is why management gets the big bucks, to make these kind of decisions (correctly).

I guess you can replace Hoggy Joshua and DoC with the Raty Karlsson Sasson etc and not lose too much offensively. I do think we need the size of Joshua and speed of DoC as we are a small and slow team up front (and even add more size and speed on top of them), but I'm not sure they justify their contract currently (of course Joshua gets a mulligan for this season for obvious reason).

You can carve out some extra cap space, how it is used is a good question. If we are successful in chasing Marner/Ehlers I think that is a good use of it, but if we are using it to bring back Boeser and a 3C, I wouldn't be very excited.

Interesting summer ahead for sure.

 

[ManVanFan]

Basically it's Boeser's agent knowing he will get 50-56 million and the probability of a better tax situation vs the 40 million the Canucks have offered.

Canucks are using the media again to try and make BB6 come down to a more reasonable term and amount before someone offers him that.

If you believe in his off ice work ethic i wouldn't be afraid to venture into 6-7yrs myself simply because Garland and Sherwood are both up next year and Lekkerimaki's upside is questionable after this year. He certainly does not look like an impact player at this stage anyway and even if he does start to show that you hold cards to play not hoping again for players to play above their past successes

You writing off Lekkerimaki after his first season over here is very Canuck fan base.

 

[StreetHawk]

Basically it's Boeser's agent knowing he will get 50-56 million and the probability of a better tax situation vs the 40 million the Canucks have offered.

Canucks are using the media again to try and make BB6 come down to a more reasonable term and amount before someone offers him that.

If you believe in his off ice work ethic i wouldn't be afraid to venture into 6-7yrs myself simply because Garland and Sherwood are both up next year and Lekkerimaki's upside is questionable after this year. He certainly does not look like an impact player at this stage anyway and even if he does start to show that you hold cards to play not hoping again for players to play above their past successes

On a max 7 year term I think he gets into the $50’s. But I doubt the AAV is into the $8’s.

 

[sting101]

You writing off Lekkerimaki after his first season over here is very Canuck fan base.

I'm very bullish on Lekkerimaki ( i even ranked him #1 ahead of Willander) but he's shown he will need some time to hit his stride.

My concern is that you would be asking too much too soon vs being able to bring him along slowly.

 

[sting101]

Garland’s first and third best p/60 seasons were when he got the same ice time he got this season (20/21 and 21/22).

There isn’t really any reason to attribute it to ice time going up, rather than the team around him being awful offensively and a career worst on-ice shooting percentage.

Qualcomp ends up being a small factor once you get past really sheltered players because no one goes from playing 100% of their ice time against low level competition to 100% high level competition. The difference between a first liner and a second liner might be 35-40% of their ice time against the other team’s best versus say 25-30% as a second liner. That ends up getting at least partially offset by quality of teammates and usage (o-zone starts) getting better too.

i guess the obvious reply then would be why are we using this past year as an indicator for Boeser then if Garland gets to say the team around him was awful offensively. I mean wasn't he the one the worst effected by losing Miller then playing with a struggling Pettersson?

I'll just leave it at that...a decent argument either way and 3 of the last 4 yrs for Boeser has been sub par for a guy getting top line RW money. We all know the circumstances i guess it just depends how much leeway people choose to give to Brock for what he's been through

 

[pitseleh]

i guess the obvious reply then would be why are we using this past year as an indicator for Boeser then if Garland gets to say the team around him was awful offensively. I mean wasn't he the one the worst effected by losing Miller then playing with a struggling Pettersson?

For sure. But Garland’s value doesn’t come from being an offensive driver and I wouldn’t pay Garland anything close to $8 million either. At that price (and on this team with the resources they have available) they need to find someone who can drive offence by themselves.

I'll just leave it at that...a decent argument either way and 3 of the last 4 yrs for Boeser has been sub par for a guy getting top line RW money. We all know the circumstances i guess it just depends how much leeway people choose to give to Brock for what he's been through

Agreed. Realize people can see this differently. Just think you’re taking on a ton of risk locking up a guy long term after he was subpar three out of the last four seasons, particularly when re-signing him means you probably aren’t going to have room to add someone who can complement him.

 

[F A N]

Agreed. Realize people can see this differently. Just think you’re taking on a ton of risk locking up a guy long term after he was subpar three out of the last four seasons, particularly when re-signing him means you probably aren’t going to have room to add someone who can complement him.

But we are offering 5x$8M. That tells me that the team doesn't think he will be "subpar" over the next few seasons.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

You writing off Lekkerimaki after his first season over here is very Canuck fan base.

Upside questionable =/= write off Lekkerimäki.

 

[Hodgy]

But we are offering 5x$8M. That tells me that the team doesn't think he will be "subpar" over the next few seasons.

Assuming the 5x$8 million offer is correct, I think that speaks more to Boeser's age and cap inflation than what the team expects out of him. Boeser is only 28 so would be great FA target if his play hadn't been relatively poor for three out of the last four years. But, even then, because he's only 28, and because the Canucks, reportedly, offered him 5 years, there isn't a ton of risk on that contract given the cap inflation. Even if he's a 27-33 goal type forward, its not the end of the world. Personally, I am not sure if I would do it, because as @pitseleh , it effectively prevents you from going after a play driving forward (preferable a centre).

 

[tyhee]

You writing off Lekkerimaki after his first season over here is very Canuck fan base.

You replied to a post from sting that didn't mention Lekkerimaki in any way, not only by inference, talking about him writing off Lekkerimaki. I frankly don't see the relevance of Lekkerimaki to the Boeser situation.

Even if it were relevant, Lekkerimaki is still a prospect who hasn't proven yet that he's ready to be an NHL regular-and before you decide I've written him off as well, saying he hasn't proven he's ready yet is in no way writing him off. He may become an NHL star next season. He may also bust next season. Probably he'll be somewhere between those extremes. So far he's shown some strengths and some weaknesses.

So far in the NHL he's played 29 games with 3 goals and 3 assists (2 of his assists on the power play) averaging 12 1/2 minutes of ice time, mostly starting in the offensive zone. Those aren't terrible numbers for someone his age from Europe whose D + 1 season was pretty much a writeoff after a summer bout with mono, but they don't prove he's ready to replace a 1st line NHL goal scorer.

 

[ManVanFan]

You replied to a post from sting that didn't mention Lekkerimaki in any way, not only by inference, talking about him writing off Lekkerimaki. I frankly don't see the relevance of Lekkerimaki to the Boeser situation.

Even if it were relevant, Lekkerimaki is still a prospect who hasn't proven yet that he's ready to be an NHL regular-and before you decide I've written him off as well, saying he hasn't proven he's ready yet is in no way writing him off. He may become an NHL star next season. He may also bust next season. Probably he'll be somewhere between those extremes. So far he's shown some strengths and some weaknesses.

So far in the NHL he's played 29 games with 3 goals and 3 assists (2 of his assists on the power play) averaging 12 1/2 minutes of ice time, mostly starting in the offensive zone. Those aren't terrible numbers for someone his age from Europe whose D + 1 season was pretty much a writeoff after a summer bout with mono, but they don't prove he's ready to replace a 1st line NHL goal scorer.

Do you have trouble reading?

Lekkerimaki's upside is questionable after this year. He certainly does not look like an impact player at this stage anyway and even if he does start to show that you hold cards to play not hoping again for players to play above their past successes

He wrote almost an entire paragraph. I replied to the paragraph that after 29 games his upside is questionable and doesn't look like an impact player. One could certainly look at that and say the person is writing someone off.