Canucks News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Off-Season Edition | Not satisfied, so now what?
- Thread starter Mr. Canucklehead
- Start date
- Status
He's a player I've talked about lots here before and I'd have major interest but I'd also be surprised if TB isn't planning on integrating him into their bottom-6 next year.
Necas is interesting to me just for his ability to gain the blue line on the PP. I had thought Hughes or Pettersson could handle that but it's a hole in this team's makeup.
Once again, no. You continue to willfully misrepresent my argument, just like you brought up incorrect facts I did not mention.
Garland scores at a 1st line clip at ES and drives shot/chance share when he's on the ice. This is what I mean by providing a 1st line ES impact. Blueger does not, which is why I classify Garland as a top-six forward and not Blueger. Are there any other points I can easily refute, which you falsely claim that I'm arguing?
Sure, trading Garland could allow them to sign another top-six forward, depending on the roster makeup. It also means you're subtracting a top-six forward, as I've clearly established and you've been fundamentally unable to disprove.
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 31,481
- 27,753
My whole angle is that I think the biggest focus for the team next year should be to find another top end player and top end defenseman, and that's on top of re-signing Hronek.
Joshua and Zadorov/Myers aren't those guys, and because of that, I'm not prioritizing moves to fit them. Preserve the space and assets for finding elite talent. They need to do that first and foremost.
I think you can get another decent D in free agency, but unless they're getting Guentzel (which by the way, would mean they're definitely not bringing back multiple guys), that really good that F they need is not happening if you start overly allocating cap to middle/bottom end of the lineup guys.
And I don't agree with @MS arguments on Joshua's playoffs. I do agree with the end conclusion - that this is a player who gave you 8 points and gives you defensive responsibility and physicality and that's good value for $3MM - but he really did only play the two standout games. Just saying he was ok-ish in the other ones seems revisionist because I think if you go through a lot of those games, he was genuinely bad in a lot of them. Like I said, I agree with the conclusion on the immense value he can provide at 3MM - but don't rewrite the history. There were more bad games than good ones.
... And the biggest priority needs to be the bolded I mentioned at the start of this.
Joshua and Zadorov/Myers aren't those guys, and because of that, I'm not prioritizing moves to fit them. Preserve the space and assets for finding elite talent. They need to do that first and foremost.
I think you can get another decent D in free agency, but unless they're getting Guentzel (which by the way, would mean they're definitely not bringing back multiple guys), that really good that F they need is not happening if you start overly allocating cap to middle/bottom end of the lineup guys.
And I don't agree with @MS arguments on Joshua's playoffs. I do agree with the end conclusion - that this is a player who gave you 8 points and gives you defensive responsibility and physicality and that's good value for $3MM - but he really did only play the two standout games. Just saying he was ok-ish in the other ones seems revisionist because I think if you go through a lot of those games, he was genuinely bad in a lot of them. Like I said, I agree with the conclusion on the immense value he can provide at 3MM - but don't rewrite the history. There were more bad games than good ones.
... And the biggest priority needs to be the bolded I mentioned at the start of this.
Frankie Blueberries
Dream Team
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,414
- 10,992
No need to be a condescending assclown.
You used 5v5 ice time as an indicator that Garland is a top 6 forward. That same measurement would include Teddy Blueger as a top 6 forward - it’s literally shown in the screencap you posted lol. I just extended your argument to show that it’s not particularly persuasive. You have provided greater context now so I’m happy to drop it. No need to be a dick, though.
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 31,481
- 27,753
Yeah, I agree. He was struggling with the pace and fighting the puck in ways he hadn't recently.
And, I don't think that line had good chemistry consistently - they really should not be bringing Lindholm back.
Bolded is the issue. Mikheyev occupies cap space that should be allocated to an impact player, and it is not. It was a poor signing from the beginning, and Allvin will have to rectify it if he wants to truly upgrade the roster.
Last edited:
You've said this a lot of time, but how many people are arguing to just gut the depth of the team, in isolation? It would seem basically everyone on here that is advocating to not re-sign Joshua is doing so in order that we can add high end talent. Seems like the whole notion that posters are arguing to gut the depth of the team is largely a strawman.
For my part, I think its a pretty open discussion whether its better to have, for example, Joshua on the third line and a guy like Arvidsson playing with Pettersson, verses having a milion dollar player on the third line with Garland, or whatever, and a Reinhart or Guentzel on Pettersson's wing. I can see arguments for both, and obviously if you really hit on a player like Arvidsson, and he plays great with Pettersson, then the depth option is probably better. But if that players misses then look out.
You're the one resorting to name-calling, but calling me the dick.
We wouldn't have to go through this if you actually had some reading comprehension. Because I've made the same arguments several times with you, repeatedly, and you continually ignored them or moved the goalposts. I said repeatedly that I considered Garland a top-six forward because of his ES impact (i.e ES production and play-driving).
Your responses were to continually to ignore that, and then say he can't be a top-six player because he doesn't play top-six minutes, to which I provided evidence that he does, in fact, play top-six minutes at ES. The TOI factor was never the only, or even the primary, part of my argument.
Calm down folks. I don't want to have to give out warnings, delete, or edit posts.
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 31,481
- 27,753
I don't think it was a bad signing at the time. He blew out his knee and is now likely going to just fall off like Roussel did barring some miracles this summer.
I think if he never blows out his knee, he's not going 60 games with 1 goal. Definitely a more disruptive player and likely a tradeable asset right now.
If he was the exact same player he was in Toronto right now, we are probably even getting an asset for him. Beauvillier is the most useless player I've seen make that much money in recent years and there was a taker for him.
No. I actually get the argument that -Garland&Joshua but +Jake Guentzel (example) could be a positive tradeoff. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think it's a reasonable argument.
What I'm arguing against is the fact that several here do not consider that Garland/Joshua actually were de facto top-six players, given their on-ice impacts. I don't think some people are accurately calculating the loss side of the equation there. It's not reallocating cap space from "depth" or "3rd liners" to the top-six. You are actively losing top-six calibre players, but hopefully making up for it.
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 24,742
- 9,412
Jerry the great
Registered User
- Jul 8, 2022
- 965
- 996
I don't want to steal your thunder, so I'll leave the shot based stuff for you to get into, but the scoring/60 5V5 data is pretty ironic:
Disagree. And my take now is the exact same as it was then.
At the time of the signing, the Canucks didn't have a ton of flexibility. They could basically add one medium-large signing, and they chose Mikheyev despite already having quite a glut of forwards. It was unnecessary from the start.
I said at the time too, from watching quite a few Toronto games, that if Mikheyev were forced into the top-six, people would be disappointed. If you're a contender, he's a guy you ideally have playing bottom-six, defensive-oriented minutes. Even if they had "Toronto Mikheyev", still no one would want him playing with Petey. His best utility was in a defensive role with Kampf and Engvall. But the Canucks have paid him too much to use him like that in Vancouver, but he was always going to disappoint as an offensive piece.
Yes.
Frankie Blueberries
Dream Team
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,414
- 10,992
I find the reading comprehension issue ironic given it has applied to many of your posts, such as alleging that I am advocating for gutting the depth of the roster. I literally said I’m agnostic to trading Garland twice, and merely pointed out the advantages.
The 5v5 ice time argument was in relation to one of your earlier posts which was the main point on why Garland is a top 6 forward, it was the only point mentioned in the post. I did not bring up Blueger to be insulting, just to show how the measurement wasn’t a great indicator on its own.
I am not a fan of your condescending, “I can easily refute your points because you can’t read” approach to disagreements. It’s not conducive to anything other than showing that you are arrogant.
Right, but my point is that no one is just advocating the slashing of depth, in isolation. Whether it is worth it to sacrifice a second or third line player (and those terms can be debated) for a first line player is a valid debate as we both recognize. Ultimately, the definitions of second and third line players are debatable, and arguably, both are considered "depth" behind your first line. nd for sure, if you get a Guentzel or Reinhart, and play him with Pettersson, then almost certainly the Garland line becomes "depth", so its kind of all semantics.
And if I am not mistaken, I thought @bossram was the first person to reference TOI/G (in the playoffs) in the context of whether a player was a top six player or not? So your reference to TOI/G in the regular season seems like a reasonable retort.
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 31,481
- 27,753
I understand what you're saying and I don't debate that people felt that way at the time. I remember talking in those threads about how every top six forward in toronto had their offensive rate stats tank with Mikheyev on their line.
I do think they thought they may be able to get more out of this player than what was there and that's why they gave him that contract. That was a miss. There's no debate.
I'd still argue that Toronto Mikheyev with two years left at 4.75 is finding a taker at positive value. And if that injury never happens, they get two years of utility from him and move him on to a team that needs Toronto Mikheyev when they need to reallocate the space.
I think my biggest issue with the signing at the time was that we were just paying too many wingers.
I've had a decent/cordial back-and-forth with some on this topic, including people where our arguments diverge, like @Hodgy and @arttk
I've gotten ornery with you because you have continually moved the goalposts, misconstrued my argument, and then literally claimed I was wrong about something by providing evidence that wasn't actually what I referenced.
On Garland, I made many posts on why I consider him a top-six forward that is unrelated to ice-time. You just continually ignored those points. @Jerry the great posted quite an illuminating chart on the ES production.
Garland's always been a pretty high-end ES contributor. I don't think subtracting him from the lineup will be easy to make up, especially at a more cost efficient AAV.
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 31,481
- 27,753
Gonna be honest and say I hate getting into the debates about what classifies a player as x/y and what the cut offs are and i think they're pretty pointless tbh
It's like the Myers debates for years when he was utilized on a bottom pair against opponent bottom sixes and was getting killed most of the time but he played 20+ minutes so there was always an "akshually he's used as a top four guy" argument. Which I don't want to say is invalid because how you define what x or y is is totally subjective. I just think it's the most pointless thing to argue about because people (Not saying anyone in this thread) will draw the dumbest lines in the sand on it
It's like the Myers debates for years when he was utilized on a bottom pair against opponent bottom sixes and was getting killed most of the time but he played 20+ minutes so there was always an "akshually he's used as a top four guy" argument. Which I don't want to say is invalid because how you define what x or y is is totally subjective. I just think it's the most pointless thing to argue about because people (Not saying anyone in this thread) will draw the dumbest lines in the sand on it
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,468
- 7,164
On an expiring deal... If Mikheyev is in the final year of his deal on a 30-40 point pace, he could maybe garner a mid round pick, but that's definitely not the blueprint for someone you're signing to be a top6 forward...
With a blown knee, he's a buyout candidate. Without the blown knee, he's still someone who has to get to 20 goals on shot volume... A bad bet.
That signing to me was bad the moment it was made, and what we're seeing now is one of the worst case scenarios for it. One where even his backers have to abandon him. But there always was a higher probability his stone hands and lack of top6 IQ would hold him back from 20 goals/50 points regardless. You pay top6 money for that at your own peril.
My main points about Garland providing 1st line level impact were never really about the ice-time, more about his impacts (i.e. rate production and play-driving). I brought up ice time as an additional point that he was functionally deployed as a top-six forward for the team anyway.
My argument is mainly that subtracting a guy like Garland is a bigger loss than others are estimating, given his on-ice impacts. And it's going to be pretty hard to make up for that in an economical way.
EDIT: Going through the posts, Frankie Blueberries actually was the first one to bring up ice time in any way.
Last edited:
Like I said before, I think it was a bad, unnecessary (too many wingers) bet at the time, and it's panned out in the worst case scenario.
I agree that yeah, if he didn't blow his knee he would definitely be a much more moveable asset. But still one the club would be looking to move to reallocate the cap space more effectively.
Frankie Blueberries
Dream Team
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,414
- 10,992
In regards to Garland, I think the holistic view here was not appreciated, and too much emphasis has been placed on how efficient a player Garland is (which I'm not debating). The argument isn't that Garland isn't a great contributor/good value/etc.
It's that if you were to replace Garland with a player who is, for the sake of argument, about 70% as productive as Garland for 1/3 the cap hit (which this management group has proven they can do), and then in part use that cap space to acquire an 80+ point, 40+ goal winger, is that a net gain? Because if Guentzel or Reinhart are available, that would be the reasoning for it.
This team lost in the playoffs mainly because they couldn't score enough and the powerplay was trash. It was evident in the Nashville series and became even more apparent as the Edmonton series went on. A player like Reinhart may have turned the tide there. It's definitely an idea worth considering, assuming the cost to move Mikheyev is exorbitant.
It's that if you were to replace Garland with a player who is, for the sake of argument, about 70% as productive as Garland for 1/3 the cap hit (which this management group has proven they can do), and then in part use that cap space to acquire an 80+ point, 40+ goal winger, is that a net gain? Because if Guentzel or Reinhart are available, that would be the reasoning for it.
This team lost in the playoffs mainly because they couldn't score enough and the powerplay was trash. It was evident in the Nashville series and became even more apparent as the Edmonton series went on. A player like Reinhart may have turned the tide there. It's definitely an idea worth considering, assuming the cost to move Mikheyev is exorbitant.
- Status
