Canucks News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Off-Season Edition | Not satisfied, so now what?

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Last one was over 1,000. Continue here.

Vector, here, I've taken over this original post. Here's the link to my spreadsheet. Contains regularly updated capspace totals, projected rosters, and UFA & RFA lists with AFP's contract projections.

Click to read more...

 

[bossram]

Because the 3rd line generally doesn’t get that much ice time. In terms of broad strokes (not saying this is the case for every game/series), your top 6/top 4/#1 goalie are the ones that make the biggest difference in winning games. Yes depth matters, but look at Edmonton.

"Third-liners" Garland and Joshua were both in the Canucks top six forwards in TOI/GP in the playoffs.

Garlands production and play-driving was at a 1st line level. Joshua was really at a 2nd line calibre impact. These guys were providing the impact of top-six players and playing top-six minutes.

The only reason people are confused and saying they are "depth" is because their line chart slotted them on the nominal 3rd line.

If people think they can get better top-six fowards at somehow a lower price, well I don't think that's realistic, but it's at least actually logically consistent.

Reallocating cap space from Garland/Joshua is really not reallocating from the "3rd line" to the top-six. It's removing top-six players, and then seeing what you can do with the roster spots and cap space.

 

[theguardianII]

Some issues with this:

1. Poolman's LTIR doesn't allow the team to exceed the salary cap by $2.5m
2. You are forgetting about OEL's $2.4m buyout cap hit
3. There are hardly ever NHL teams that operate with a 20-player roster. It gives you zero room for injuries—which is hardly ever the case for Vancouver.

Vegas uses LTIR all the time before the season starts and they end u with being over the cap limit by millions.

There is optimism with signing Guentzel or Lindholm. but subtract either of those and it is still a big step forward.

The team might not sign either Lindholm or Guentzel but that is leaving well over 14 mil in cap space.

 

[bossram]

I would argue that as long as your top-two lines are producing, you just need your bottom-six to tread water. The idea of a productive third line is a luxury not a necessity. Whereas an unproductive top-six is not going to get you very far in the playoffs.

	Last season:	What they need:
1st line (Miller)	++	+++
2nd line (Pettersson)	+	+++
3rd line (Garland)	++	=
4th line	=	=

Again, this is mistaken.

Garland was a top-six forward for this team. He just happened to play on the "third line". In the playoffs, the "third line" essentially was their 2nd line. Subtracting Garland means subtracting a top-six player.

By your logic, if they had just put Garland and Joshua next to Petey, it would have been perfectly in alignment with your chart there.

 

[Nuckles]

Depth is so overrated. Cups are won by riding top 4's and 6's into the ground.

Canucks upgraded their 3rd line at the deadline, just to watch it become the 2nd line, then lost to a 1 line team with a shit goalie.

Prioritize lines that actually play and are meant to outscore the opposition.

Cups are also won by good coaching and staying healthy. They lost for a lot of reasons but blaming it on the acquisition of Lindholm is bizarre.

 

[arttk]

I think that's a big mistake. You basically nuke the Canucks' depth.

Garland is giving the club 1st line performance at ES from basically anywhere in the lineup. They need to add to that.


Guys like Garland and Joshua performed like 1st and 2nd line players at ES this season. If you dump them, you're not really reallocating to the "top-six". You're losing top-six calibre guys and then replacing them. People are just confused by this because Garland/Joshua played on the nominal 3rd line, and the actual bottom-six talents were on the "second line" with Petey.

The Canucks need more. They need to add to them.

I am looking at the playoffs, they were good in the playoffs but they are not true top6 guys. If we can get a guy like Guentzel who can go ppg+ in the playoffs, you do that if the cost is letting Joshua walk and trading away Garland.

 

[credulous]

Vegas uses LTIR all the time before the season starts and they end u with being over the cap limit by millions.

There is optimism with signing Guentzel or Lindholm. but subtract either of those and it is still a big step forward.

The team might not sign either Lindholm or Guentzel but that is leaving well over 14 mil in cap space.

that's not how LTIR works. you just get to omit poolman from the roster basically. you don't get to exceed the cap unless you also include poolman's salary in your total

 

[MS]

Speaking of depth or the lack thereof,
Good-bye Jett Woo, we hardly knew ya.


View attachment 877125

Surprising. I'm guessing he's been told he wasn't getting qualified but he was Abbotsford's best defender last season.

I would have thought that qualifying an age 24 two-way RD who can play the minutes he can and provides the toughness that he does would have been an automatic, even if you don't view him as an NHL player.

Only caveat here is if the knee/leg injury he had at the end of the season was an ACL or something so they're walking away from that.

 

[StickShift]

But Duhaime doesn't provide 80% of what Joshua provides. It's bad logic. Duhaime is just a 15-point 4th liner who hits.

Joshua literally has been a top-6 producing forward from bottom-6 minutes. They should honestly probably be re-signing him as a potential Pettersson linemate. And if you can get a guy who produces at this rate and provides this level of physical play at $3 million ... that's a bargain.

Garland is a good linemate but playing 3rd line minutes with Conor Garland and 40% zone starts is not some sort of gravy situation to produce and if you're discounting a guy scoring 40 ES points/82 from that situation ... that's not a good conclusion to come to.

Again, I'm not trying to take down Joshua. I really like him as a player. But, also consider:

• His production is also on the back of an unsustainable 20.6% shooting percentage. His career average before this was about ~13%.
• His CF% ratio was 51.3% this season at 5v5, but it plummets when he is not playing with Garland.
  • When on the ice together Joshua (56.1%) and Garland (56.1%)
  • When Garland plays without Joshua (57.5%)
  • When Joshua plays without Garland (36.3%)

Now, I actually have a lot of time for the argument that Joshua could be an astute complementary player to the top-six at that cap-hit. But I disagree with the argument that he is worth that salary with this team in that 3LW role.

 

[bossram]

I am looking at the playoffs, they were good in the playoffs but they are not true top6 guys. If we can get a guy like Guentzel who can go ppg+ in the playoffs, you do that if the cost is letting Joshua walk and trading away Garland.

That's fine if you want to make the argument +Guentzel but -Garland/Joshua is a better overall mix. I don't really agree, but it's reasonable.

What I'm arguing is that people are minimizing the negative impact by saying the Canucks are only losing "depth" or "3rd liners". This is literally not true. These guys played like top-six players, and that is the impact you lose.

 

[arttk]

"Third-liners" Garland and Joshua were both in the Canucks top six forwards in TOI/GP in the playoffs.

And look where that got us? We had a lot of trouble scoring and it wasn't like wow Garland and Joshua was killing it offensively during the playoffs. Joshua was meh aside from like 3 games and Garland was generating a lot but hes not really a threat to score himself (except against Skinner lol).

That's fine if you want to make the argument +Guentzel but -Garland/Joshua is a better overall mix. I don't really agree, but it's reasonable.

What I'm arguing is that people are minimizing the negative impact by saying the Canucks are only losing "depth" or "3rd liners". This is literally not true. These guys played like top-six players, and that is the impact you lose.

i don't think i am minimizing it, it's just a painful tradeoff due to cap.

 

[bossram]

And look where that got us? We had a lot of trouble scoring and it wasn't like wow Garland and Joshua was killing it offensively during the playoffs. Joshua was meh aside from like 3 games and Garland was generating a lot but hes not really a threat to score himself (except against Skinner lol).

i don't think i am minimizing it, it's just a painful tradeoff due to cap.

I mean, Petey being injured and not producing, as their nominal 1C, has a lot to do with the scoring problems. Guentzel probably can cover the production of both Garland and Joshua, but then you're still in the same place.

If you're not making the "depth" minimization, then I apologize. Several others definitely are though.

 

[StickShift]

"Third-liners" Garland and Joshua were both in the Canucks top six forwards in TOI/GP in the playoffs.

Garlands production and play-driving was at a 1st line level. Joshua was really at a 2nd line calibre impact. These guys were providing the impact of top-six players and playing top-six minutes.

The only reason people are confused and saying they are "depth" is because their line chart slotted them on the nominal 3rd line.

If people think they can get better top-six fowards at somehow a lower price, well I don't think that's realistic, but it's at least actually logically consistent.

Reallocating cap space from Garland/Joshua is really not reallocating from the "3rd line" to the top-six. It's removing top-six players, and then seeing what you can do with the roster spots and cap space.

I feel like you are proving my own point. Just because they were top-six forwards in TOI/GP in the playoffs and because their production was top-six on the Canucks doesn't mean that is what they are. It is more indicative of the lack of top-six production that this Canucks team had. The "top-six forwards" you are comparing them to in this case include Pius Suter, Nils Hoglander, and Ilya Mikheyev. Do you think they would still have that much ice time and production if they were playing on a team with more depth in the top-six?

To quote John Tortorella:

"I thought David Booth was our best player tonight. Which is great for David Booth, not so good for the Vancouver Canucks."​

 

[Bleach Clean]

I dont get how they could be reluctant to give Joshua 3 when they gave Mikheyev nearly 5

They saw him chasing the play in the playoffs. It's one part negotiation and one part recognizing poor play, imo.

"Third-liners" Garland and Joshua were both in the Canucks top six forwards in TOI/GP in the playoffs.

Garlands production and play-driving was at a 1st line level. Joshua was really at a 2nd line calibre impact. These guys were providing the impact of top-six players and playing top-six minutes.

The only reason people are confused and saying they are "depth" is because their line chart slotted them on the nominal 3rd line.

If people think they can get better top-six fowards at somehow a lower price, well I don't think that's realistic, but it's at least actually logically consistent.

Reallocating cap space from Garland/Joshua is really not reallocating from the "3rd line" to the top-six. It's removing top-six players, and then seeing what you can do with the roster spots and cap space.

It's that "lower price" caveat that is key. There are clearly better top6 forward options, and Joshua at 0.51 P/GP just edges into the top6 level (192nd rank forward), but it comes down to the price that will decide if he's the best option available (or potentially available).

Edit: I think they'll work it out to be at the $3m AAV, which is far better than $4m AAV projections being bandied about here. What their initial offer tells me is that they won't go anywhere near $4m AAV to keep him, and that is the right call.

 

[bossram]

I feel like you are proving my own point. Just because they were top-six forwards in TOI/GP in the playoffs and because their production was top-six on the Canucks doesn't mean that is what they are. It is more indicative of the lack of top-six production that this Canucks team had.

To quote John Tortorella:

"I thought David Booth was our best player tonight. Which is great for David Booth, not so good for the Vancouver Canucks."​

No, I'm literally not. You're just willfully misinterpreting what I am saying.

If Garland/Joshua were playing top-six minutes but were not good players, then you'd be right. But they were playing top-six minutes and providing top-six impact. They are top-six calibre players. If you remove them, you are removing top-six impact. You're not removing "depth" or "bottom-sixers".

Your quote on Booth is irrelevant and doesn't apply here.

 

[sting101]

Depth is so overrated. Cups are won by riding top 4's and 6's into the ground.

Canucks upgraded their 3rd line at the deadline, just to watch it become the 2nd line, then lost to a 1 line team with a shit goalie.

Prioritize lines that actually play and are meant to outscore the opposition.

this is proven false every playoffs.

Oilers rode the 2 headed monster every year till they are 27/28yrs old and what has that given them. they finally have the Bouchard Ekholm pairing and a decent 3rd pair with Hyman Kane and Holloway Brown helping and they still look like the Stars have better depth and might take them out. The salary cap has made it almost impossible to squeeze depth from a roster. The minute you have some success the 3rd and 4th liners and 3rd pair guys want to get promotions or raises.

The key is to have the highest quality 5-6 players possible and goalie to keep you a contender and then the next 7-9 players on good enough contracts that this group is 9 not 5 with a bunch of players getting worked over

 

[MS]

Again, I'm not trying to take down Joshua. I really like him as a player. But, also consider:

• His production is also on the back of an unsustainable 20.6% shooting percentage. His career average before this was about ~13%.
• His CF% ratio was 51.3% this season at 5v5, but it plummets when he is not playing with Garland.
  • When on the ice together Joshua (56.1%) and Garland (56.1%)
  • When Garland plays without Joshua (57.5%)
  • When Joshua plays without Garland (36.3%)

Now, I actually have a lot of time for the argument that Joshua could be an astute complementary player to the top-six at that cap-hit. But I disagree with the argument that he is worth that salary with this team in that 3LW role.

Joshua without Garland is basically just October when he was out-of-shape and playing 4th line minutes.

Looking at numbers like this out of context is how bad decisions get made. And again, acting like playing 3rd line minutes with Conor Garland is some sort of great situation that it's easy to produce from could not be more wrong.

If his shooting % drops and he's 'only' a 15-15-30 3rd liner who throws 300 hits/year and is one of your best PK guys ... he's still easily worth $3 million in today's market. But if he gets put on a line with Pettersson instead of Blueger ... what does his production do then?

I love stats but I hate when people get lost in bad stats.

1) Joshua produced. And then produced in the playoffs.
2) Joshua looked great by the eye test.
3) Joshua has traits (size, physical play, PK skills) that go beyond his pure statistical value.
4) Joshua's age and development curve fit where the team is at.

Don't galaxy brain this shit. Sign the obviously effective players who are the right age and fit your roster needs. Don't get stuck in 'welllllllll ... his CF% in this specific situation might mean that some sort of regression will happen'. It's dumb as f***.

 

[Hodgy]

I am starting to think Guentzel, or another high end winger, is the Canucks' number one target going into free agency. While the exact impact of Pettersson's injury is somewhat unknown, we do know he was garbage from and after the Lindholm trade after losing Kuzmenko. Now I get that Kuzmenko wasn't going to work here because of his defensive game, but I think the loss of his offensive game had a significant impact on Pettersson. I think both Tochett, and Alvin/Rutherford know this too. Its why, when the games mattered most, they moved Lindholm up with Pettersson. While they would, in an ideal scenario, have depth, its more important for this franchise to have Pettersson playing at his best. And now that his cap hit is going up next year it is imperative, really, that he provides full value, or close to it, for his contract, and I think they are going to need to add another quality, relatively top end winger, for that to happen. Because if Pettersson with his $11 million cap hit is below a point per game this team is going to struggle to score and make the playoffs.

Let's put this in another context:

Would you rather their top-six UFA signings be Premium 3rd-Line Winger/Average Top-Six Winger or Average 3rd-Line Winger/Premium Top-Six Winger?

I like Joshua as a player and loved the jam of our third line, but investing in that feels like a pyrrhic victory if your top-six is not generating offense like it could.

This is it for me. If you can sign Joshua and/or Zadorov, then great. But you need to add a top end winger to play with Pettersson....and if you try to cheap out there with a guy like Joshua or Arviddsson, or whatever, you could look like the Oilers perpetually cheaping out on goaltending.

But Duhaime doesn't provide 80% of what Joshua provides. It's bad logic. Duhaime is just a 15-point 4th liner who hits.

Joshua literally has been a top-6 producing forward from bottom-6 minutes. They should honestly probably be re-signing him as a potential Pettersson linemate. And if you can get a guy who produces at this rate and provides this level of physical play at $3 million ... that's a bargain.

Joshua may be a luxury though. I think its far more important to get Pettersson and his $11 million dollar cap hit going, then to have a standout third line. Up front I'd work backwards from signing/trading for a top end type winger, and after doing so or allotting cap space to do so, I'd see if there was room for Joshua. Frankly, it would surprise me if they sign Blueger first as well, since he will be cheaper, likely, and with Garland can form two thirds of a decent third line.

"Third-liners" Garland and Joshua were both in the Canucks top six forwards in TOI/GP in the playoffs.

Garlands production and play-driving was at a 1st line level. Joshua was really at a 2nd line calibre impact. These guys were providing the impact of top-six players and playing top-six minutes.

The only reason people are confused and saying they are "depth" is because their line chart slotted them on the nominal 3rd line.

If people think they can get better top-six fowards at somehow a lower price, well I don't think that's realistic, but it's at least actually logically consistent.

Reallocating cap space from Garland/Joshua is really not reallocating from the "3rd line" to the top-six. It's removing top-six players, and then seeing what you can do with the roster spots and cap space.

Again, this is mistaken.

Garland was a top-six forward for this team. He just happened to play on the "third line". In the playoffs, the "third line" essentially was their 2nd line. Subtracting Garland means subtracting a top-six player.

By your logic, if they had just put Garland and Joshua next to Petey, it would have been perfectly in alignment with your chart there.

Totally agreed on the third line thing. And for whatever reason the viewing of the Garland/Lindholm/Joshua line as a third line persisted during the playoffs. But in my view, any configuration where your $11 million dollar centre/winger is effectively on the "third" line, or scoring at a 50-60 point pace, or whatever it is, is a terrible outcome that absolutely must be avoided. And as I stated earlier, I'd be pretty hesitant to cheap out, relatively speaking, with Pettersson's wingers by having him play with Joshua and Garland (and of course this assumes the chemistry works which I actually don't think it will).

 

[Hansen]

They saw him chasing the play in the playoffs. It's one part negotiation and one part recognizing poor play, imo.





It's that "lower price" caveat that is key. There are clearly better top6 forward options, and Joshua at 0.51 P/GP just edges into the top6 level (192nd rank forward), but it comes down to the price that will make him worth being the best option of the field.

Edit: I think they'll work it out to be at the $3m AAV, which is far better than $4m AAV projections being bandied about here. What their initial offer tells me is that they won't go anywhere near $4m AAV to keep him, and that is the right call.

He was injured in the first round, see the video of him limping badly after game 2 or 3? No shit he was chasing the play, and despite that he was still one of our best players. Hes what every team wants in the mix and he will be at the bare minimum worth his contract at 3M and Id offer him up to 4

 

[Bleach Clean]

A possibility?

I'm low on the AAV for Tanev and Guentzel, I know.

 

[sting101]

that's not how LTIR works. you just get to omit poolman from the roster basically. you don't get to exceed the cap unless you also include poolman's salary in your total

The problem with his contract is you don't get to accrue cap space for the deadline unless were more than his 2.6 below the upper threshold which is why they are probably trying to figure some things out for him and Mikhayev right now to get to the real cap numbers they will be working with next year

 

[MS]

That's fine if you want to make the argument +Guentzel but -Garland/Joshua is a better overall mix. I don't really agree, but it's reasonable.

What I'm arguing is that people are minimizing the negative impact by saying the Canucks are only losing "depth" or "3rd liners". This is literally not true. These guys played like top-six players, and that is the impact you lose.

This is spot on.

There could be nothing dumber in my eyes than not signing Joshua who scored 40 ESP/82 for $3 million because he's 'just a bottom 6 guy' in order to spend $6 million on Tero Teravainen and his 32 ESP/82 because you get caught up in labels and PP production/minutes that that player wouldn't get here.

Or, likewise, thinking that a 12-15 ESP/82 extremely limited 8-10 minute 4th liner like Duhaime is '80% of Joshua'.

Joshua played like a f***ing top-6 player this year. If he walks it's a huge loss.

 

[WTG]

If Brady Tkachuk is available, you kind of have to go all in on him, right?

 

[Hodgy]

This is spot on.

There could be nothing dumber in my eyes than not signing Joshua who scored 40 ESP/82 for $3 million because he's 'just a bottom 6 guy' in order to spend $6 million on Tero Teravainen and his 32 ESP/82 because you get caught up in labels and PP production/minutes that that player wouldn't get here.

Or, likewise, thinking that a 12-15 ESP/82 extremely limited 8-10 minute 4th liner like Duhaime is '80% of Joshua'.

Joshua played like a f***ing top-6 player this year. If he walks it's a huge loss.

I think we can make the playoffs without Joshua on the third line. I am not sure that we can make the playoffs with Pettersson centreing Mikeyev and Hoglander, or whatever.

 

[MS]

Joshua may be a luxury though. I think its far more important to get Pettersson and his $11 million dollar cap hit going, then to have a standout third line. Up front I'd work backwards from signing/trading for a top end type winger, and after doing so or allotting cap space to do so, I'd see if there was room for Joshua. Frankly, it would surprise me if they sign Blueger first as well, since he will be cheaper, likely, and with Garland can form two thirds of a decent third line.

They need two (and maybe 3) top-6 wingers. They can't afford two top-6 wingers.

Their literal best option for that 2nd top-6 winger is the guy who played like a top-6 winger internally this year and produced like a top-6 winger and can be signed WAY cheaper than the top-6 wingers available on the UFA market.

 

[I am toxic]

Joshua's offensive numbers were driven by Garland's forechecking. Petey is not going to do that for Joshua, nor is Joshua going to be able to boost Petey's numbers.

Joshua brings a lot of other attributes that the Canucks absolutely need. Sadly, other teams will overpay. It's a conundrum*.

*no, that's not a percussion instrument, you maroons. It means there is no good answer.