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

[NailsHoglander]

He's one of the teams best even strength players.
- 1st in high danger chances.
- 2nd most goals (Tied with Boeser).
- 4th most drawn penalties.
- 4th most takeaways (15th in giveaways).
- 7th in points
- 10th in TOI.

PA knows what he's doing. This contract will look like a bargain if he repeats or exceeds.

 

[sting101]

Yes! One of our most consistent players last year. Even if he isn't scoring he's valuable and feisty and fast. Love him.

You would

 

[arttk]

Does it make a big difference whether he is signed or unsigned? He is still making $1M this year. That is unchanged. What has changed is his salary going forward. If it’s perceived as a good contract then it actually adds to his value. If it is perceived as bad value or risky then it detracts from his value. Which way it goes I don’t know.

Yeah no idea which way it goes.
I guess technically it he was going to be a trade chip, technically he still can be, he would need to perform well up till TDL anyways. So if he is performing well, having 3 more years should all more value. If he’s not performing well, he wouldn’t have any value regardless.

 

[Hansen]

I think the deal ends up being a bit of an overpayment (by maybe 500k) if his scoring is lower this year, which there is risk of considering the current lineup and opportunities he is likely to get.

That said, I do not see Heinen keeping the 2nd line spot, I see Hog there and getting special teams time. If Hog develops further into a 50-60p top 6 winger, this deal is a steal. A big thing for me here is that Tocc had to approve this extension. Tocchet has been the harshest critic of Hog this whole time, has he bought in?

Hes been hot and cold offensively and defensively throughout his career so far, but he brings energy consistently. I’m really curious what will happen, because I thought there was a good chance he gets dealt to make an addition at the deadline

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Well this is a surprise. While it does seem a little high, it's a good gamble imo. With the rising cap, Hoglander will definitely be worth 3M but it could easily be a steal in two years if not sooner.

I think the deal ends up being a bit of an overpayment (by maybe 500k) if his scoring is lower this year, which there is risk of considering the current lineup and opportunities he is likely to get.

That said, I do not see Heinen keeping the 2nd line spot, I see Hog there and getting special teams time. If Hog develops further into a 50-60p top 6 winger, this deal is a steal. A big thing for me here is that Tocc had to approve this extension. Tocchet has been the harshest critic of Hog this whole time, has he bought in?

Hes been hot and cold offensively and defensively throughout his career so far, but he brings energy consistently. I’m really curious what will happen, because I thought there was a good chance he gets dealt to make an addition at the deadline

Hoglander with Miller and Boeser is the one combination I wanted to see last season. I think their stronger defensive game would do a lot for Hoglander who can sometimes struggle in that aspect.

 

[sting101]

I was referring to level of player, age, level of proven-ness.

Fair i was more after some clarity from Orca as he comped their games which i don't see .

Baertschi was 26 and still only had a career high of 18-17-35 with every opportunity to play in PP1 and with Horvat for long stretches. With his injury issues softness and lacking quality top6 scoring production to that date it was a worse gamble that things would get better than with a 23yr old coming off 24 goals in a much more impressive physical package.

Also 3 mill next season is 3.25% vs 4.23% of Bartschi which would be 3.8 million per. Absolutely he has to be more than a 4th line energy player for this to work out

 

[CanadianPirate]

Where are people seeing the Canucks not having the cap space for boeser next year? With the rumour being a 92.5 mill cap, using puckpedia, the canucks could sign boeser at 8.5 mill and still have money left. Unless puckpedia isn't taking something into account?

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Didn’t really see this one coming. I like Hoglander a lot, but it is somewhat interesting timing. Although I guess if he manages to show his 24-goal season wasn’t an anomaly, $3M is a pretty nice cost controlled deal.

If he regresses, though, different story.

I’m a die hard optimist, so hope he elevates and makes this deal a bargain.

 

[SopelFanThe3rd]

You would

Kiss me

 

[sting101]

I'm more concerned that Heinen's deal becomes one that hurts us if he's vanilla and gets outplayed by even just 2 of Hoglander Sprong and Lekkerimaki by next year.

Im still skeptical on Sprong and Tocchet getting along though and Lekkerimaki being a ELC makes it tenable for certain

 

[LordBacon]

He's one of the teams best even strength players.
- 1st in high danger chances.
- 2nd most goals (Tied with Boeser).
- 4th most drawn penalties.
- 4th most takeaways (15th in giveaways).
- 7th in points
- 10th in TOI.

PA knows what he's doing. This contract will look like a bargain if he repeats or exceeds.

NERRRRRRRDDDDDD.

 

[dKs89]

Some really bizarre takes in this thread.

Having read most of them you would think he's an unproven, not everyday player that scored like 15 goals and that his potential is maxed out.

Just so we're clear he scored 24 goals with 4th line ice time. He didn't have Petey, JT, or Quinn feeding him those goals on the powerplay.

I don't have a problem with people wondering if he will be able to live up to that again. I do have a problem with revisionist history about his season and mis-representing his capabilities. He quite clearly has the talent of a top six player. Whether he can put it all together to actually be a top six player is something they SOMEWHAT seem to be betting on. Even if he doesn't turn into a full fledge top sixer that doesn't mean this extension is a failure.

Also I am simply dumbfounded by the trade talk. When you have a good team especially with forward depth, you don't dismantle that just because you can. Who in this league is better than Hoglander in a bottom six role? There's very few on that list if any who can match his skill but also his ability to win puck battles and his intensity when he does bring it. Having a bottom six that can score like we had is something most teams do not.

 

[MS]

This sub’s odd dislike (maybe dislike is too strong) for Hog is so bizarre, and wanting to trade him for this vague top 4 D unnecessary. I don’t think a trade for one hinges on Hog tbh.

I think there are narratives set by certain big voices in this place that shape opinions and people just believe it without looking into it.

Hog didn’t really “fade down the stretch”. He had 20pts in 47 games (35pt pace) pre all star game, and 16 in 33 (40pt pace). His best months were in Feb and March. His hit pace also went up in the 2nd half, from .98 to 1.64 in the 2nd half.

Writing him off based on playoffs seems a bit premature.

Hoglander is not a poor defensive player that’s basically Sprong.
View attachment 913031

His defensive metrics are perfectly fine, and took a big upswing last year. He’s been a positive cf% his entire career outside of one season.

Hoglander consistently goes to heavy traffic areas to score his goals. He’s 4th on the team in shots from high danger areas, and just 1 shot off Pete for 3rd and 12 off Miller for 2nd.

Brock was 1st with 89, in the 97th percentile in the league. All these players get much more ice and PP time than Hog.

Half of Hog’s shots came from high danger areas (59/120), tops on team in %. 19 of Hog’s 24 goals came from high danger zones, 2nd on the team. Brock was 1st, with 22.

He’ll be making 3M starting next year, which will be basically nothing, average 3rd liner money. There is basically no risk, efficient contract that he’ll likely outplay with improvement and/or ice time. Yet you have some posters wanting to trade him and have his contract benefit some other team.

Give your heads a shake, f***ing hell.

JFresh charts aren't fit to use as toilet paper.

It isn't 'disliking him'. It's understanding where he fits in the roster and what he brings.

He isn't one of the 8 or 10 most important players on the team. He's a small soft-minute skill winger who is bad defensively and offers basically nothing in the way of PK, physical play (a bit of an agitator but nothing of real value) or C utility. Never hit 40 points in his career. This is literally the lowest-value, easiest-to-replace sort of asset in the NHL. We just signed Sprong who brings much the same skillset for $900k.

This is the mushy-middle of your roster where you have to be ruthless.

And again, this was a player who was a healthy scratch in the playoffs. The last time we saw him play, he was absolutely awful.

This contract basically just turned one of our best trade chips into verging-into-negative value asset. And saying there is no risk is nuts. It's like saying the Jason Dickinson contract was 'no risk'.

Some really bizarre takes in this thread.

Having read most of them you would think he's an unproven, not everyday player that scored like 15 goals and that his potential is maxed out.

Just so we're clear he scored 24 goals with 4th line ice time. He didn't have Petey, JT, or Quinn feeding him those goals on the powerplay.

I don't have a problem with people wondering if he will be able to live up to that again. I do have a problem with revisionist history about his season and mis-representing his capabilities. He quite clearly has the talent of a top six player. Whether he can put it all together to actually be a top six player is something they SOMEWHAT seem to be betting on. Even if he doesn't turn into a full fledge top sixer that doesn't mean this extension is a failure.

Also I am simply dumbfounded by the trade talk. When you have a good team especially with forward depth, you don't dismantle that just because you can. Who in this league is better than Hoglander in a bottom six role? There's very few on that list if any who can match his skill but also his ability to win puck battles and his intensity when he does bring it. Having a bottom six that can score like we had is something most teams do not.

Dude was a healthy scratch in the playoffs.

People quoting 'he scored 24 goals so he'll get goals' sound like Jim Benning. He is *extremely* unlikely to duplicate that production or his SH% which was like double what he ever put up at any level before.

And it's also the timing. We had another year to sign him. The only way this deal saves us money over next year is if he scores 30 goals or something ... and that isn't going to happen for a guy who looks to be starting the year on the 4th line and doesn't get much PP time.

 

[ChilliBilly]

JFresh charts aren't fit to use as toilet paper.

It isn't 'disliking him'. It's understanding where he fits in the roster and what he brings.

He isn't one of the 8 or 10 most important players on the team. He's a small soft-minute skill winger who is bad defensively and offers basically nothing in the way of PK, physical play (a bit of an agitator but nothing of real value) or C utility. Never hit 40 points in his career. This is literally the lowest-value, easiest-to-replace sort of asset in the NHL. We just signed Sprong who brings much the same skillset for $900k.

This is the mushy-middle of your roster where you have to be ruthless.

And again, this was a player who was a healthy scratch in the playoffs. The last time we saw him play, he was absolutely awful.

This contract basically just turned one of our best trade chips into verging-into-negative value asset. And saying there is no risk is nuts. It's like saying the Jason Dickinson contract was 'no risk'.

I usually like your takes, but this is unusually negative. FFS he scored 24? last year. Find me someone else in the league who did this for less money, and not in the top 6. At the worst this is slightly bad contract, at the best he's once again a steal.

 

[logan5]

Scoring 24 goals by the age of 23 (all even strength - 12 min/game) is a pretty good sign. Not too many young players do that. Baertschi and Sprong didn't come close to that, so I like the progression of Hoglander much better. And so far this management group has made good decisions, so I am not too worried.

 

[logan5]

JFresh charts aren't fit to use as toilet paper.

It isn't 'disliking him'. It's understanding where he fits in the roster and what he brings.

He isn't one of the 8 or 10 most important players on the team. He's a small soft-minute skill winger who is bad defensively and offers basically nothing in the way of PK, physical play (a bit of an agitator but nothing of real value) or C utility. Never hit 40 points in his career. This is literally the lowest-value, easiest-to-replace sort of asset in the NHL. We just signed Sprong who brings much the same skillset for $900k.

This is the mushy-middle of your roster where you have to be ruthless.

And again, this was a player who was a healthy scratch in the playoffs. The last time we saw him play, he was absolutely awful.

This contract basically just turned one of our best trade chips into verging-into-negative value asset. And saying there is no risk is nuts. It's like saying the Jason Dickinson contract was 'no risk'.



Dude was a healthy scratch in the playoffs.

People quoting 'he scored 24 goals so he'll get goals' sound like Jim Benning. He is *extremely* unlikely to duplicate that production or his SH% which was like double what he ever put up at any level before.

And it's also the timing. We had another year to sign him. The only way this deal saves us money over next year is if he scores 30 goals or something ... and that isn't going to happen for a guy who looks to be starting the year on the 4th line and doesn't get much PP time.

He is still only 23, so he hasn't hit his peak years yet. He is just getting there now, so he is likely to progress even further in the next 4 years or so.

 

[MS]

I usually like your takes, but this is unusually negative. FFS he scored 24? last year. Find me someone else in the league who did this for less money, and not in the top 6. At the worst this is slightly bad contract, at the best he's once again a steal.

He scored 24 goals because he shot double what he ever had before in his career.

He was a healthy scratch in the playoffs. This was a fringe player on last year's team when the games mattered.

The takes here sound like when Markus Granlund scored 19 goals in 69 games and people defended the signing because ON PACE FOR 23 GOALS even though he was an obviously shit hockey player. Hoglander is obviously better than Granlund but just blindly repeating '24 goals' doesn't make it a good signing.

 

[logan5]

He scored 24 goals because he shot double what he ever had before in his career.

He was a healthy scratch in the playoffs. This was a fringe player on last year's team when the games mattered.

The takes here sound like when Markus Granlund scored 19 goals in 69 games and people defended the signing because ON PACE FOR 23 GOALS even though he was an obviously shit hockey player. Hoglander is obviously better than Granlund but just blindly repeating '24 goals' doesn't make it a good signingt

All of us here watch most to all Canuck games during the season, so we aren't just blindly saying 24 goals.

 

[Tables of Stats]

I would have much preferred we re-sign Boeser before another 40 goal year leading into FA.

We should get fine value on this deal and there is upside but we need Hoglander to make a big step in the way he sees the game to make him a good top6 option. He'd be great on our top line with a but more passing sense.

I also think he might get some real PP time as a netfront trigger man this year.

Why would Boeser sign now instead of betting on himself to equal, if not better, his performance from last season?

 

[sting101]

Hoglander with Miller and Boeser is the one combination I wanted to see last season. I think their stronger defensive game would do a lot for Hoglander who can sometimes struggle in that aspect.

The only issue is if Miller has to be leaned on to play a primary match up role. But if they continue to deploy Hughes Hronek with them i can see it working as they will dominate possession and having Hoglander finishing or on the forecheck could really work

Also to summarize last year for Hoglander fairly when he got promoted after Kuzmenko was traded Mikhayev was just a shell of a player Pettersson was struggling for much of it and Lindholm also didnt exactly pop with those 2 with his own injury struggles and positional fit.

NHL playoffs can be a little bit of a shocker to the system for Euro bred players vs CHLers who get conditioned to the physicality. I'm making excuses now but i do think it should be considered that it can get easier with experience and if he does end up with Pettersson and Debrusk that this years versions of line mates would be a lot more conducive for success

 

[dKs89]

Dude was a healthy scratch in the playoffs.

People quoting 'he scored 24 goals so he'll get goals' sound like Jim Benning. He is *extremely* unlikely to duplicate that production or his SH% which was like double what he ever put up at any level before.

And it's also the timing. We had another year to sign him. The only way this deal saves us money over next year is if he scores 30 goals or something ... and that isn't going to happen for a guy who looks to be starting the year on the 4th line and doesn't get much PP time.

Yes he was a scratch as many young players do get scratched. How is that a mark on a young player his first go around lmao. It's not like he's 27 years old and it's the same old story.

I don't like your assessment of calling him a skill winger. People generally throw that out there as some kind of negative attribute because it's implied they don't like to battle. That is just simply...not Hoglander at all. He is one of the best puck retrievers we have. He consistently wins puck battles and is a high intensity player when he brings it. It's not just about the goals he has other attributes like the aforementioned that make him a worthwhile player.

This feels like arguing in bad faith to me. This deal is ONLY good if he scores 30? It's only good if he plays to a point where he'd sign for like 5M+? It can't be good if he consistently scores 20? What kinda consistent 20 goal scorer only gets paid 3M? You say that lineup and opportunity don't favour him going forward. Uhhh..they didn't favour him last season either. He had FOURTH LINE ice time and no powerplay time. He still did what he did. Not like lineup and opportunity are ever set in stone either.


Again I think it's fine to question whether or not he is capable of scoring at or close to that rate again. It ain't okay to misrepresent him as a player and what he has already accomplished.

 

[MS]

All of us here watch most to all Canuck games during the season, so we aren't just blindly saying 24 goals.

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.

Yes he was a scratch as many young players do get scratched. How is that a mark on a young player his first go around lmao. It's not like he's 27 years old and it's the same old story.

I don't like your assessment of calling him a skill winger. People generally throw that out there as some kind of negative attribute because it's implied they don't like to battle. That is just simply...not Hoglander at all. He is one of the best puck retrievers we have. He consistently wins puck battles and is a high intensity player when he brings it. It's not just about the goals he has other attributes like the aforementioned that make him a worthwhile player.

This feels like arguing in bad faith to me. This deal is ONLY good if he scores 30? It's only good if he plays to a point where he'd sign for like 5M+? It can't be good if he consistently scores 20? What kinda consistent 20 goal scorer only gets paid 3M? You say that lineup and opportunity don't favour him going forward. Uhhh..they didn't favour him last season either. He had FOURTH LINE ice time and no powerplay time. He still did what he did. Not like lineup and opportunity are ever set in stone either.


Again I think it's fine to question whether or not he is capable of scoring at or close to that rate again. It ain't okay to misrepresent him as a player and what he has already accomplished.

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.

 

[Peen]

And it's also the timing. We had another year to sign him. The only way this deal saves us money over next year is if he scores 30 goals or something ... and that isn't going to happen for a guy who looks to be starting the year on the 4th line and doesn't get much PP time.

I would have to dig to find the quotes on the specifics, but I've heard Sat and Drance say a few times that the arbitration case for Hoglander would be pretty strong if he repeats his production this year. If you ask them to address it on their shows tomorrow, they probably would.

And that uncertainty neuters trade value. If you were a team trading for him, you are making a bet that would have required you to sign him regardless.

I actually think making a decision before the season started was the right move. I just would have made the other decision, which would have been to deal him.

Look at Kurashev's numbers before his arbitration last year. They settled at 2.25x2 out of arbitration, and that was in a flat cap environment.

When you factor everything, the timing absolutely made sense. It's whether or not you think it's the right bet that's the more interesting argument.

 

[Tables of Stats]

He scored 24 goals because he shot double what he ever had before in his career.

He was a healthy scratch in the playoffs. This was a fringe player on last year's team when the games mattered.

The takes here sound like when Markus Granlund scored 19 goals in 69 games and people defended the signing because ON PACE FOR 23 GOALS even though he was an obviously shit hockey player. Hoglander is obviously better than Granlund but just blindly repeating '24 goals' doesn't make it a good signing.

In that case the entire team is due for regression, and we should be sellers. OUr team wide shooting percentage was 11.9 on 28.4 shots per game last season compared to 11.1 on 29.7 shots per game the season before. We could well have missed the playoffs last season if we were short 21 goals in games decided by a goal or two.

So, do you think last season was a mirage for the entire team or just certain players?

 

[MS]

I would have to dig to find the quotes on the specifics, but I've heard Sat and Drance say a few times that the arbitration case for Hoglander would be pretty strong if he repeats his production this year. If you ask them to address it on their shows tomorrow, they probably would.

And that uncertainty neuters trade value. If you were a team trading for him, you are making a bet that would have required you to sign him regardless.

I actually think making a decision before the season started was the right move. I just would have made the other decision, which would have been to deal him.

Look at Kurashev's numbers before his arbitration last year. They settled at 2.25x2 out of arbitration, and that was in a flat cap environment.

View attachment 913068

When you factor everything, the timing absolutely made sense. It's whether or not you think it's the right bet.

I would have been planning to flip Hoglander either at the deadline or before 25-26. I don't think his skillset is worth investing significant $ in.

We're a looooooooong way away from a 2025 arbitration hearing. If he comes out and scores 13 goals in the first 41 games of next season ... sure, sign this contract.

Right now we're signing him off a SH% bender when he's been poor for most of the last 3 years and reverted to being poor in the playoffs. I do not think that this is a good bet.

Like. we're paying him $200k less than Dakota Joshua got as a UFA, for Hoglander's RFA years. When you look at their respective performances over the last two years, that's insane.