Confirmed with Link: Canucks Re-Sign W Nils Hoglander to 3y/3m AAV Contract

[thecupismine]

I think what MS and others are saying is this is a small, offensively inclined forward with mediocre hockey sense who doesn’t play PP1 and can’t kill penalties, and that type of player historically doesn’t gather a ton of money on the free agent market. Look at the market for Heinen this offseason for example, who’s bigger and has PK utility.

Thus, it’s a risky bet for someone whose upside looks like a worse version of Garland, and whose downside is being a 3 million dollar fourth liner.

If he takes that next step, it’s great, but there’s significant risk attached to the deal, so I understand the wariness.

 

[GranvilleIsland]

I think what MS and others are saying is this is a small, offensively inclined forward with mediocre hockey sense who doesn’t play PP1 and can’t kill penalties, and that type of player historically doesn’t gather a ton of money on the free agent market. Look at the market for Heinen this offseason for example, who’s bigger and has PK utility.

Thus, it’s a risky bet for someone whose upside looks like a worse version of Garland, and whose downside is being a 3 million dollar fourth liner.

If he takes that next step, it’s great, but there’s significant risk attached to the deal, so I understand the wariness.

Upside is Garland? He's pretty much a Garland clone already.

 

[kanucks25]

Like many others I'm a bit surprised by the timing here and not 100% sold on the player.

Management and coaches must be convinced that he will receive regular top-9 minutes this year leading to another 20+ goals along with improved play in other areas which would give him the right to ask for something more than 3M.

Obviously his off-ice commitment has been talked about a lot and he has a ton of natural skill so there's a good base to build and improve on. Like most young players he will need to work on his consistency and play away from the puck.

With this new contract and the experience he has under his belt, he will need to perform like an everyday NHLer. Whether or not you're willing to dismiss the fact that he was deservedly a healthy scratch in important games just a few months ago, there is no denying that it cannot happen again.

 

[Vector]

Upside is Garland? He's pretty much a Garland clone already.

He has a lot to improve to reach Garland status.

 

[Spectrefire]

I think what MS and others are saying is this is a small, offensively inclined forward with mediocre hockey sense who doesn’t play PP1 and can’t kill penalties, and that type of player historically doesn’t gather a ton of money on the free agent market. Look at the market for Heinen this offseason for example, who’s bigger and has PK utility.

Thus, it’s a risky bet for someone whose upside looks like a worse version of Garland, and whose downside is being a 3 million dollar fourth liner.

If he takes that next step, it’s great, but there’s significant risk attached to the deal, so I understand the wariness.

I like how just absolutely short everyone's memory is when it comes to Hoglander.

He was absolutely on fire during his rookie year and was a stable presence in the Canucks top-six while putting up legitimately good underlying numbers:

Nils Höglander won’t get many Calder votes but he should be in the conversation

Nils Höglander has nine goals and 10 assists through 39 games and has...

canucksarmy.com

The only coach Hoglander failed under was Boudreau, who absolutely crashed his development, to the point where the team had to send him to Abbottsford just to get him away from Bruce and salvage the player.

Then he proceeded to dominate offensively at 5on5 playing under Tocchet and slowly gaining his trust, to the point where he went from starting on the 4th line to a permanent spot next to Petey on the 2nd line.

Yeah, he had an awful playoffs, but since we do we ever take a young player's first playoff run as an absolute gospel on their play?

It's like pretending Hughes was only going to be a PP specialist after his poor playoff performance in the bubble. It's absolutely silly.

Now the coach is fully singing Hoglander's praise through the offseason, management saw enough to lock him up now instead of waiting, and suddenly locking up a young player who's trending upwards to a possible steal of a contract is considered sketchy??

It's the same braindead take when people criticized the Devils for locking up Jack Hughes longterm despite having a rough start to his career.

I guarantee, if Hoglander exploded this season without this extension, then these same posters would be complaining about how the team squandered their chance to lock him up early for cheap.

 

[Regress2TheMeme]

Upside is Garland? He's pretty much a Garland clone already.

There are some big differences if we are going off last season. Garland drives the play which Hoglander struggles to do. Hoglander is harder to handle physically along the boards and has better finish. Big edge to Garland in overall impact because he makes his linemates better.

 

[Quinntessential]

I think what MS and others are saying is this is a small, offensively inclined forward with mediocre hockey sense who doesn’t play PP1 and can’t kill penalties, and that type of player historically doesn’t gather a ton of money on the free agent market. Look at the market for Heinen this offseason for example, who’s bigger and has PK utility.

Thus, it’s a risky bet for someone whose upside looks like a worse version of Garland, and whose downside is being a 3 million dollar fourth liner.

If he takes that next step, it’s great, but there’s significant risk attached to the deal, so I understand the wariness.

Sure if all you think about are the knocks on a player his contract seems bad.

If you also consider his 24 goals at even strength. (More than Pettersson, Malkin, Stamkos, etc.) it seems a lot better

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

I think what MS and others are saying is this is a small, offensively inclined forward with mediocre hockey sense who doesn’t play PP1 and can’t kill penalties, and that type of player historically doesn’t gather a ton of money on the free agent market. Look at the market for Heinen this offseason for example, who’s bigger and has PK utility.

Thus, it’s a risky bet for someone whose upside looks like a worse version of Garland, and whose downside is being a 3 million dollar fourth liner.

If he takes that next step, it’s great, but there’s significant risk attached to the deal, so I understand the wariness.

I think sometimes the problem is we compare players too much to bank on trajectory, but the truth is, no two players have the same careers or are the same people. I think it's foolhardy to compare Hoglander to anyone, I think he's a very unique utility-level player with Swiss-army knife upside. In a way, I think of him as our Manu Ginobli in the rough, or the Dude's rug...he just really ties the team together well.

Am I extremely biased? Oh yes. But honestly, I am rather comfortable slotting him anywhere in the lineup in a pinch. He's a fantastic 11-12min/game 5v5 4th line player, which kind of depth you can really lean on. I think he has solid PK potential, I am skeptical of him ever being put on the PP though.

In a land where we watch managers sign players every day to contracts they "will grow into", honestly the 3 years part I'm more excited about than the $3M AAV turns me off. I would say.

 

[Flik]

I just hope the kid proves my concerns are for naught, and he becomes this Canucks' team Alex Burrows value type contract.

I was so impressed with him last year, but he f***ing vanished in the post season and that was such a bummer.

 

[strattonius]

I think what MS and others are saying is this is a small, offensively inclined forward with mediocre hockey sense who doesn’t play PP1 and can’t kill penalties, and that type of player historically doesn’t gather a ton of money on the free agent market. Look at the market for Heinen this offseason for example, who’s bigger and has PK utility.

Thus, it’s a risky bet for someone whose upside looks like a worse version of Garland, and whose downside is being a 3 million dollar fourth liner.

If he takes that next step, it’s great, but there’s significant risk attached to the deal, so I understand the wariness.

This isn't a good projection of a player that's only 23 years old and has shown improvement every year - and that's basically where the argument is stuck.

 

[Wisp]

The hand wringing is silly. He's just 23 and at 3 million that’s still a figure that he should comfortably live up to, especially now we're out of flat cap.

And say the most cynical developments occur and he does turn into a pumpkin... There will be a window to buy him out out in at the U-26 rate.

 

[quat]

I like that management clearly sees upside in Hogs and is willing to bank on it now. That's exciting, because despite his flaws, I like Hoglander as a player and it would be great to see him solidify himself in the top six. Definitely room for improvement, but if he pulls things together, the contract will be excellent value.

Interesting to read that people feel he's going to regress significantly this season. From the little I've seen of him, he's stronger on the puck and looks to have a little more poise, so while his goals may drop, I suspect his point totals may stay the same or improve. Depends a great deal on where he ends up playing.

 

[LemonSauceD]

I like how just absolutely short everyone's memory is when it comes to Hoglander.

He was absolutely on fire during his rookie year and was a stable presence in the Canucks top-six while putting up legitimately good underlying numbers:

Nils Höglander won’t get many Calder votes but he should be in the conversation

Nils Höglander has nine goals and 10 assists through 39 games and has...

canucksarmy.com

The only coach Hoglander failed under was Boudreau, who absolutely crashed his development, to the point where the team had to send him to Abbottsford just to get him away from Bruce and salvage the player.

Then he proceeded to dominate offensively at 5on5 playing under Tocchet and slowly gaining his trust, to the point where he went from starting on the 4th line to a permanent spot next to Petey on the 2nd line.

Yeah, he had an awful playoffs, but since we do we ever take a young player's first playoff run as an absolute gospel on their play?

It's like pretending Hughes was only going to be a PP specialist after his poor playoff performance in the bubble. It's absolutely silly.

Now the coach is fully singing Hoglander's praise through the offseason, management saw enough to lock him up now instead of waiting, and suddenly locking up a young player who's trending upwards to a possible steal of a contract is considered sketchy??

It's the same braindead take when people criticized the Devils for locking up Jack Hughes longterm despite having a rough start to his career.

I guarantee, if Hoglander exploded this season without this extension, then these same posters would be complaining about how the team squandered their chance to lock him up early for cheap.

Dude again since when the hell did Hughes play horrible during the bubble? What are you talking about.

 

[mriswith]

I don't necessarily think he will regress, but he won't repeat last year. Last years regular season was almost 2019 Virtanen-esque levels of puck luck and then he was a huge disappointment in the playoffs.

In his rookie season he was awesome and looked prime to be a permanent top 6 fixture before getting derailed by Green, but not everyone can recover from getting derailed. Pod at one point looked like he was primed to be a high end 3rd liner for a long time and now it looks like that train is never getting back on the tracks.

If Hog matches last years output this year I'll be stoked, he'll have to be significantly better this year to match last years output barring something like being next to an on fire EP. Mgmt is betting that he'll do it.

The only coach Hoglander failed under was Boudreau, who absolutely crashed his development, to the point where the team had to send him to Abbottsford just to get him away from Bruce and salvage the player.

Green is the entire reason Hog regressed. He non-stop screwed with him. Hog came into his rookie season on fire carrying Horvat's line and then got the full on patented Travis Green confuse ray non-development development plan™ of random ice time cuts, scratches after scoring goals, etc and by halfway through the season at most the confidence, energy and assertiveness that he had started the season with was completely gone and he looked terrified to do anything for fear of getting benched.

 

[kanucks25]

LMAO, now you're blaming him for not playing a single NHL game during the NHL offseason?

Damn dude, you're really reaching hard here.

He's saying the last time we saw him he was being scratched in important games.

Typically you don't go from that to getting a decent raise without proving something in between.

 

[Spectrefire]

The hand wringing is silly. He's just 23 and at 3 million that’s still a figure that he should comfortably live up to, especially now we're out of flat cap.

And say the most cynical developments occur and he does turn into a pumpkin... There will be a window to buy him out out in at the U-26 rate.

Sometimes I feel people are so attached to the Benning years that they poo poo any hint of positive development with this team.

 

[kanucks25]

By the way, the Garland comparisons in this thread are puzzling.

Garland is an established 2nd liner that drove offense for us very consistently all season.

Hoglander would have to take a major step in his development for him to replace what Garland brings.

 

[Coffee]

By the way, the Garland comparisons in this thread are puzzling.

Garland is an established 2nd liner that drove offense for us very consistently all season.

Hoglander would have to take a major step in his development for him to replace what Garland brings.

You're actually right. Some may admit it, some may not even to themselves. But it's human nature in a way, they are both small in height but both are fearless players, that I think is the only thing I can compare them in. But people just think they are much more comparable.

Think about if Garland was 6'3 and the same player, I doubt we'd see his name come up in comparable

 

[Wisp]

interesting to read that people feel he's going to regress significantly this season. From the little I've seen of him, he's stronger on the puck and looks to have a little more poise, so while his goals may drop, I suspect his point totals may stay the same or improve. Depends a great deal on where he ends up playing.

His shooting percentage is definitely going to regress. But he's 23, he can continue to level up and contribute as a more complete player in a larger roll.

 

[HairyKneel]

By the way, the Garland comparisons in this thread are puzzling.

Garland is an established 2nd liner that drove offense for us very consistently all season.

Hoglander would have to take a major step in his development for him to replace what Garland brings.

Garland is also five years older.

 

[kanucks25]

Garland is also five years older.

I'm mostly responding to the people who think Hog can already provide what Garland does.

Can he provide a similar impact in the future? Maybe, but he'll need to prove that first.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

And I've watched nearly every one of Hoglander's games both in the NHL and AHL for the last 4 years and I'll tell you flat out that he is not the sort of shooter where 20% is sustainable.

And 'healthy scratch in playoffs' trumps regular season production.

Hoglander has literally the easiest skillset in the NHL to replace at good value and is a depth player here projected to start on our 4th line. These are the guys you squeeze every dime out of and flip on as currency if you can't keep their contract cheap.



Getting healthy scratched in the playoffs in your 4th NHL season is about as big of a black mark as a player can possibly have.

He's about the 15th most important player on this team. He plays 12 minutes/game and with the extra depth this year that isn't likely to go up much. This is not a player you rush to hand $9 million to a year before you need to. Vegas or TB would not be handing out this contact, and that should be the measuring stick people use.

I think you've become a bit myopically focused on a certain player type that you dislike. It didn't serve you well with Boeser and it probably won't serve you well here.

Shooting percentage fluctuates, but in some ways it's a reflection of that fact that there are a lot of bounces in hockey.

Sometimes you get the last bounce and the puck goes in 20 times on 100 shots but you didn't get the bounce on earlier plays where perhaps you would have gotten 140 shots in a year with more 'luck'.

But more than that, I concur that JFresh is a charlatan but I think you're a bit hyper fixated on stats too. These aren't video game mites. The fact that he scored 24 goals will give him confidence and help instil a belief that he belongs in this league. No, he's not going to shoot 20 percent again, but he's probably gonna generate quite a few more shots/chances.
Also, it's not like he was scoring on a bunch of random dump-ins. He gets into the high danger areas and those tend to lead to higher shooting percentage.

But to me there are a couple of primary things that make this a decent bet.

1. He is clearly a contributing NHLer who can, at worst, play on a skill based 3rd line somewhere and make them feisty and skilled. That's worth 3 million, particularly as the cap goes up.

2. I think the team is projecting on micro skills and he has some really elite ones. His puck control/ability to win battles in tight spaces is like watching Brad Marchand. He wins so many 40/60 puck battles that it's wild. I'm not saying he has the hockey sense of Brad Marchand (of course, neither did Brad for the first 5 or 6 years of his career), but he's an absolute menace on the forecheck with top 5 percentile abilities on certain microskills on winning puck battles and maintaining possession in phone booth situations.

The problem has been that he's been poor defensively, though improving, and that his hockey sense isn't always great in terms of knowing when to make the simple play or defer to the teammate who is in a better position than he is.
But if he didn't have those drawbacks, he would be signing a 5x5, not a 3x3.

 

[Regal]

I’m wondering if Hoglander and Garland can keep things going together on the 3rd line even when Joshua is back and Joshua can move up next to Miller and Boeser. I feel like Hoglander is in a weird place where he doesn’t really fit the top 6 and is too good to be the 4th line if he’s making 3 million.

 

[krutovsdonut]

the contract amount and term tells the tale. $2.5-3.5m deals with term as a first rfa contract are a bit of a soft middle involving players with some good stats but also flaws. the team reconciles itself to paying the player by taking some term gambling they will improve into $5m players. a lot of guys signing deals like this regress on their next contract. hopefully hoglander shows us otherwise.

 

[TruGr1t]

I assume there's no movement clause on this deal. I don't think this particularly influences whether they move Hoglander one way or another. The deal isn't prohibitive at this point, though it could be if he struggles as some have noted. I still think there's not an insignificant chance he's moved post-extension.