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

[Shareefruck]

Random pet peeve, but "Why don't you give them the benefit of the doubt? Haven't they earned it?" never seems like a very fair line of questioning/expectation to me, personally.

Benefit of the doubt is something that you choose to extend out of charity/lack of personal confidence IF you want to, not something a person owes based on reputation. If you genuinely feel that something seems unlikely, it feels pretty gross to be urged to appeal to authority/track record instead and reverse that opinion.

 

[pitseleh]

For what it is worth, Garland scored at 0.36 PPG pace at even strength through his age 23 season. Hoglander is at 0.39. Hoglander had a SH% bender last year but so did Garland in his age 23 season - if you regress both to their career averages they’re basically neck and neck.

Garland levelled up in his age 24 season and has been closer to half a point per game at even strength since. If Hoglander can do the same he is hugely valuable on this contract. Even if he doesn’t the contract is probably fair value for what he provides.

But Garland as a better player was a contract the team struggled to move on what was more than a fair contract. Some of that was the flap cap, of course.

 

[Chairman Maouth]

 

[F A N]

Random pet peeve, but "Why don't you give them the benefit of the doubt? Haven't they earned it?" never seems like a very fair line of questioning/expectation to me, personally.

Benefit of the doubt is something that you choose to extend out of charity/lack of personal confidence IF you want to, not something a person owes based on reputation. If you genuinely feel that something seems unlikely, it feels pretty gross to be urged to appeal to authority/track record instead and reverse that opinion.

I think there are a lot of people who have trouble separating between analysis and opinion. We don't have to be judges here and render an opinion we have to support. Benefit of the doubt when extended should be part of the analysis. Like you might be 50/50 or 60/40 on a deal but the decision maker's track record might push things one way. It's like a few years a back, posters here were criticizing management for having tunnel vision for Hughes and failing to understand that it's not a criticism when you have tunnel vision for a player who goes on to win the Norris.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Canucks Even Strength Goals Leaders

1. Miller 25
2. Boeser 24
3. Hoglander 24
4. Pettersson 21
5. Garland 19
6. Joshua 17
7. Hughes 12
8. Suter 12
9. Lafferty 11
10. Mikheyev 11

Tied for 2nd in even strength goals on the team, ahead of Pettersson, and done with less ice time per game. 3M at 3 years for this talented and progressing 23 year old is a steal of a deal for the club.

 

[Regress2TheMeme]

Canucks Even Strength Goals Leaders

1. Miller 25
2. Boeser 24
3. Hoglander 24
4. Pettersson 21
5. Garland 19
6. Joshua 17
7. Hughes 12
8. Suter 12
9. Lafferty 11
10. Mikheyev 11

Tied for 2nd in even strength goals on the team, ahead of Pettersson, and done with less ice time per game. 3M at 3 years for this talented and progressing 23 year old is a steal of a deal for the club.

His goal scoring is undeniable but players can still be a drag on the team despite producing offensively if they get scored on a lot and torpedo your line's ability to drive the play. All of those other guys on the list are better at managing the puck and playing defense. I still agree that the risk of signing Hoglander for 3 x 3 isn't too great.