Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign F Jason Dickinson to 3-Year, $7.95M Deal ($2.65M AAV)

[MS]

I know that you like to scream overpayment with 90+% of the contracts signed but it is fair value when Dickinson was signed to a contract that everybody expected including Dallas fans.

Lots of bad contracts are considered 'fair value' by people who don't understand the cap. Also most of the people applauding that deal thought that Dickinson was an elite #3 defensive, a role he had basically never played.

Multiple comparables were provided illustrating the range this player should actually be in, and if anything myself and @Melvin actually overestimated Dickinson. He should have come in at $1.8-2 million, and even that would have been an overpayment as it turns out.

 

[F A N]

Lots of bad contracts are considered 'fair value' by people who don't understand the cap. Also most of the people applauding that deal thought that Dickinson was an elite #3 defensive, a role he had basically never played.

Multiple comparables were provided illustrating the range this player should actually be in, and if anything myself and @Melvin actually overestimated Dickinson. He should have come in at $1.8-2 million, and even that would have been an overpayment as it turns out.

You're conflating things. Your estimation of Dickinson's contract value is meaningless. "Fair value" is determined by the market not by your personal thoughts.

 

[MS]

You're conflating things. Your estimation of Dickinson's contract value is meaningless. "Fair value" is determined by the market not by your personal thoughts.

Then EVERY SINGLE CONTRACT is fair value. Loui Eriksson is fair value. Jay Beagle is fair value. Tyler Myers is fair value. Those contracts were 'determined by the market' too.

If this player is overrated by the market, then you don't trade for him! Same as signing Myers or Beagle. The job of a GM is to find players who provide value for money in a capped league. If the market for a player determines that you get poor value back for the cap hit, acquiring that player is a bad f***ing move.

But again, I don't think that this is what the market for this player should have been. Better players of the same age like Blueger and Hartman (who also could actually play C) signed just before Dickinson on *far* smaller deals. Those should have been the comps that determined his value. That was the market.

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

"Fair value" is determined by the market not by your personal thoughts.

have you read any michael heinrich?

 

[Raistlin]

The problem is that *everyone* on Dallas was an advanced stat darling in terms of 5-on-5 defense. A 37 y/o Joe Pavelski was apparently suddenly the best defensive forward in the NHL if you take those metrics at face value.

He's a solid low-event defensive winger but those numbers had a pile of noise and situational effect in them.

on the flipside, without a credible defensive system, everyone on the canucks is underperforming to their contract value right now, does that mean our entire tire fire of a team right now is completely worthless? there is a lot of situational noise in your evaluation of Dickinson right now too. Im not overly enamored with his performance so far, but I wasnt expecting offense and he doesnt illicit any high emotions out of me, either way.

 

[MS]

Toronto is getting a superior performance to Dickinson from David Kampf, signed for $1.5 million as a UFA.

Calgary is getting an equal performance to Dickinson from Trevor Lewis, signed for $800k as a UFA.

That's actual good management. Not trading a high pick for a winger thinking he'd be an elite #3C and paying him nearly double his actual value on a new contract.

 

[MS]

on the flipside, without a credible defensive system, everyone on the canucks is underperforming to their contract value right now, does that mean our entire tire fire of a team right now is completely worthless? there is a lot of situational noise in your evaluation of Dickinson right now too. Im not overly enamored with his performance so far, but I wasnt expecting offense and he doesnt illicit any high emotions out of me, either way.

The main thing is that he very obviously can't play the #3C role that he was acquired to fill. He can't win a faceoff to save his life and is too much of an offensive black hole to fill that role in the modern NHL.

Like I said, he's a solid enough low-event bottom-6 winger. If we'd signed him at $1.5 million as a UFA, that would be a nice bit of business. I don't think he's 'useless' or anything like that.

But when you look at Toronto nailing their pro scouting on David Kampf and getting top defensive results out of him at C for $1.5 million and no asset spend, and then us spending $2.7 million plus a #3 pick for a guy who can't even play C effectively ... that's the difference between good management and bad management.

 

[Canadian Canuck]

Yeah, if the first two lines could score nobody would even notice that the guy they brought in and paid to be their 3C is going sub-40% on face-offs and on pace for 11 points. That's absolutely normal and fine.

Points mean absolutely nothing as a defensive shutdown center. He’s been disappointing in the faceoff department forsure but the contract isn’t the end of the world. I’d much rather him be our 4th line winger where he’s much more suitable and we get more of two way 3rd line center who can put up points. Also I’d flip Motte to try and recoup that 3rd round pick or hope for a 2nd

 

[KingofSurrey]

Points mean absolutely nothing as a defensive shutdown center. He’s been disappointing in the faceoff department forsure but the contract isn’t the end of the world. I’d much rather him be our 4th line winger where he’s much more suitable and we get more of two way 3rd line center who can put up points. Also I’d flip Motte to try and recoup that 3rd round pick or hope for a 2nd

Dim doesn't move canuck players for picks.... Dim prefers to give up Canuck picks when he overpays / acquires scrubs from other teams.....

 

[F A N]

Then EVERY SINGLE CONTRACT is fair value. Loui Eriksson is fair value. Jay Beagle is fair value. Tyler Myers is fair value. Those contracts were 'determined by the market' too.

If this player is overrated by the market, then you don't trade for him! Same as signing Myers or Beagle. The job of a GM is to find players who provide value for money in a capped league. If the market for a player determines that you get poor value back for the cap hit, acquiring that player is a bad f***ing move.

Again, you're conflating things. Fair value doesn't mean it's a good signing for the team. You're arguing against the latter and conflating it with the former.

 

[1440]

Lots of bad contracts are considered 'fair value' by people who don't understand the cap. Also most of the people applauding that deal thought that Dickinson was an elite #3 defensive, a role he had basically never played.

Multiple comparables were provided illustrating the range this player should actually be in, and if anything myself and @Melvin actually overestimated Dickinson. He should have come in at $1.8-2 million, and even that would have been an overpayment as it turns out.

Criticizing management for making moves like the one which saw the acquisition of Dickison, which both fits the bill of trading from a position of strength (Dallas was going to lose him anyway) and acquiring players with strong analytical profiles is ludicrous.

Even if Dickinson hasn't lit the world afire with his play (I would also suggest his mediocre stats are more indicative of the team than the player) these are exactly the sorts of low-risk, high reward moves that every team should make.

Also, in what world does it make sense to complain about 25 year olds signing for multiple years at under 3M per? Locking down players who are still on an upwards career trajectory to cheap deals is also the correct thing to do irrespective of whether the players actually continue to improve since the potential rewards far outweigh the risks. Look at the Garland and Miller contracts if you want to see what the upside looks like.

Plenty is rotten in the state of Denmark, but Dickinson (both the trade and the contract) just isn't it. Scraping the bottom of the barrel like this to come up with slights against Canucks management is just incredibly myopic. There is so much to legitimately complain about that such spurious arguments just underscore the biases that you hold and undermine the credibility of any valid remonstrations that you might make.

 

[Raistlin]

The main thing is that he very obviously can't play the #3C role that he was acquired to fill. He can't win a faceoff to save his life and is too much of an offensive black hole to fill that role in the modern NHL.

Like I said, he's a solid enough low-event bottom-6 winger. If we'd signed him at $1.5 million as a UFA, that would be a nice bit of business. I don't think he's 'useless' or anything like that.

But when you look at Toronto nailing their pro scouting on David Kampf and getting top defensive results out of him at C for $1.5 million and no asset spend, and then us spending $2.7 million plus a #3 pick for a guy who can't even play C effectively ... that's the difference between good management and bad management.

comparing our management to Toronto's is just suicidal. We can compare our management to Toronto's playoff record, that is oranges to oranges.

lets hope they find their candidate and move on from there. I meant your posts are basically damning management, but everyone here knows its a lame duck by now. Hes not a value signing sure, but dickinson can be paired with a winger that can win faceoffs, or he can get better at faceoffs, the rest of his game has value, he is defensively dare I say good 5on5, and we have so few personnel that provides a defensive presence. the trade value is market value, not UFA value, chalk that up to one of the thousand cuts, but this one i dont have too much problem with because I'd rather have Dickinson than anyone else thats from within our organisation. this team is going to get better, once regression to the mean happens, I believe we will see the value of this guy. As you say, low event guy, they dont move the needle to the naked eye.

 

[F A N]

The problem is that *everyone* on Dallas was an advanced stat darling in terms of 5-on-5 defense. A 37 y/o Joe Pavelski was apparently suddenly the best defensive forward in the NHL if you take those metrics at face value.

Pavelski has received Selke votes throughout his career. There are certainly media people who considered him worthy of the Selke and this goes back to his San Jose days. So this isn't at all a "sudden" transformation.

 

[God]

Pavelski has received Selke votes throughout his career. There are certainly media people who considered him worthy of the Selke and this goes back to his San Jose days. So this isn't at all a "sudden" transformation.

Surely you understand the concept of age, right?

 

[MS]

Again, you're conflating things. Fair value doesn't mean it's a good signing for the team. You're arguing against the latter and conflating it with the former.

No I'm not.

There are two things that are possible here :

1) The deal was actually 'fair value' based on the market and interest around the league but poor value for the level of performance Dickinson had provided and would continue to provide.

2) The market for Dickinson should have been set by the Blueger/Hartman signings and a GM who has blown pretty much every contract negotiation since he's been here did the same thing yet again and badly overpaid the player relative to the market.

I believe that (2) is the case. However, if (1) is the case ... that also is terrible management and reflects poorly on Benning.

And again, if you use the 'He got the contract, so that was market value!' argument, then there is literally no such thing as a bad contract in the NHL.

 

[MS]

Criticizing management for making moves like the one which saw the acquisition of Dickison, which both fits the bill of trading from a position of strength (Dallas was going to lose him anyway) and acquiring players with strong analytical profiles is ludicrous.

Even if Dickinson hasn't lit the world afire with his play (I would also suggest his mediocre stats are more indicative of the team than the player) these are exactly the sorts of low-risk, high reward moves that every team should make.

Also, in what world does it make sense to complain about 25 year olds signing for multiple years at under 3M per? Locking down players who are still on an upwards career trajectory to cheap deals is also the correct thing to do irrespective of whether the players actually continue to improve since the potential rewards far outweigh the risks. Look at the Garland and Miller contracts if you want to see what the upside looks like.

Plenty is rotten in the state of Denmark, but Dickinson (both the trade and the contract) just isn't it. Scraping the bottom of the barrel like this to come up with slights against Canucks management is just incredibly myopic. There is so much to legitimately complain about that such spurious arguments just underscore the biases that you hold and undermine the credibility of any valid remonstrations that you might make.

What on earth.

At the time of the deal I said that :

1) this player being hyped as a 'elite defensive #3C' has been playing wing for the most part and has virtually never played in the role he's being signed for. And that his offensive production would be an issue at 3C in the modern NHL.
2) the player's 'strong analytical profile' was obviously situationally influenced in addition to being generated in a different position in a different role.
3) the contract comps for this player should put him in the $1.8 million range.

All of this has turned out to be 100% true. If anything I overestimated Dickinson. The guy can't play C and we're stuck with a huge overpayment for a decent bottom-6 winger.

And if course it makes sense to complain about 26 y/os getting signed for under $3 million if that player is only a $1.5 million player. This is how the organization blew $millions on Sbisa/Schaller/Beagle/Roussel/Gagner etc. Cap space matters.

As per your last paragraph, obviously there are bigger issues. That doesn't mean that smaller dumb decisions can't be discussed.

 

[VanJack]

It makes little difference whether Dallas is convinced that Dickinson would be picked or they don't want to pay him what he can get as an RFA. It doesn't change the fact that the player had trade value.

A 3rd round pick for Dickinson was fair value.

Yep...just like a second rounder was fair value for Vey; a second rounder good value for Baertschi; a fourth rounder a steal for Pouliot; a second and fourth for Gudbranson; a second rounder for Sutter; a third rounder for Pedan; a fifth rounder for Prust; a fifth rounder for Larsen; a second rounder for Tofoli; a first and second rounder for OEL and Garland..etc...etc.....you get the picture.

You keep trading draft picks for 'fair value' and sooner or later you're where the Canucks are now.

 

[MarkMM]

Benning isn’t in charge. He has no authority to make a trade. Will our president make a trade? It’s possible but highly unlikely. They made the decision to fire Green and Benning weeks ago but they are too cowardly to role with interim options until they decide on a new GM

Not sure what the problem is. He's fine as a defensive 3rd/4th liner who cares about the points he puts up. This would not even be talked about if our first two lines could score a goal.

The problem is he's not worth losing another 3rd round pick OR the cap space when we could have replaced this level of performance without losing a pick and for less money. It's straight bad management and another unforced error.

 

[F A N]

Yep...just like a second rounder was fair value for Vey; a second rounder good value for Baertschi; a fourth rounder a steal for Pouliot; a second and fourth for Gudbranson; a second rounder for Sutter; a third rounder for Pedan; a fifth rounder for Prust; a fifth rounder for Larsen; a second rounder for Tofoli; a first and second rounder for OEL and Garland..etc...etc.....you get the picture.

You keep trading draft picks for 'fair value' and sooner or later you're where the Canucks are now.

Like I was telling MS, you're conflating what is fair value to what is a good deal for the team. If someone offered me two lower bowl club seats for $200 all-in I would normally think that is fair value, but that doesn't mean I think it is a good deal for me to pay that to go watch the Canucks play the Sabres this season.

And you're absolutely right. If you keep trading away top draft picks, sooner or later you'll have to pay the piper.

 

[Pavel96]

Like I was telling MS, you're conflating what is fair value to what is a good deal for the team. If someone offered me two lower bowl club seats for $200 all-in I would normally think that is fair value, but that doesn't mean I think it is a good deal for me to pay that to go watch the Canucks play the Sabres this season.

And you're absolutely right. If you keep trading away top draft picks, sooner or later you'll have to pay the piper.

Keep rambling on with this nonsense because you feel you've caught someone with specific wording, when you are clearly overlooking/ignoring the intent and meaning of their post. I guess it helps distract and deflect from the horrible job this GM is doing.

 

[F A N]

No I'm not.
...
And again, if you use the 'He got the contract, so that was market value!' argument, then there is literally no such thing as a bad contract in the NHL.

Yes you are. And that isn't my argument. Even Dallas fans believe what it took to re-sign Dickinson is around where Dickinson signed for. There are models that predicted Dickinson's salary to be the same.

As for the player, everyone has their opinion. Yours means as much as anyone else here. I can quote people too:

 

[F A N]

Keep rambling on with this nonsense because you feel you've caught someone with specific wording, when you are clearly overlooking/ignoring the intent and meaning of their post. I guess it helps distract and deflect from the horrible job this GM is doing.

Thanks for this nonsense.

 

[MS]

Yes you are. And that isn't my argument. Even Dallas fans believe what it took to re-sign Dickinson is around where Dickinson signed for. There are models that predicted Dickinson's salary to be the same.

As for the player, everyone has their opinion. Yours means as much as anyone else here. I can quote people too:

You are totally not getting this.

Like I said, this may be the case. I don't agree that it's the case, but it may be the case.

If this is the case, THEN IT'S STILL TERRIBLE MANAGEMENT. If the market for this player was a 3rd round pick + $2.7 million/year ... you stay the hell away from this player. Acquiring the player and paying that price for him was a poor decision. It's Tyler Myers or Jay Beagle all over again - just because some other team might have been willing to give an inflated contract to a player, that doesn't mean that it's an excuse for you to be doing it.

Again :

- Toronto spending no assets and paying $1.5 million for David Kampf to be killing it as a #3C -> good management.
- Calgary spending no assets and paying $800k for Trevor Lewis to be a solid #3/4C -> good management.
- Vancouver spending a #3 pick and $2.7 million for Jason Dickinson to not even be able to play C -> bad management.

Also Harman Dayal's analysis was crap.

 

[Scorvat]

Criticizing management for making moves like the one which saw the acquisition of Dickison, which both fits the bill of trading from a position of strength (Dallas was going to lose him anyway) and acquiring players with strong analytical profiles is ludicrous.

Even if Dickinson hasn't lit the world afire with his play (I would also suggest his mediocre stats are more indicative of the team than the player) these are exactly the sorts of low-risk, high reward moves that every team should make.

Also, in what world does it make sense to complain about 25 year olds signing for multiple years at under 3M per? Locking down players who are still on an upwards career trajectory to cheap deals is also the correct thing to do irrespective of whether the players actually continue to improve since the potential rewards far outweigh the risks. Look at the Garland and Miller contracts if you want to see what the upside looks like.

Plenty is rotten in the state of Denmark, but Dickinson (both the trade and the contract) just isn't it. Scraping the bottom of the barrel like this to come up with slights against Canucks management is just incredibly myopic. There is so much to legitimately complain about that such spurious arguments just underscore the biases that you hold and undermine the credibility of any valid remonstrations that you might make.

I dont get this line of reasoning. The Dickinson contract and acquisition shows another failure of pro scouting, team building and cap management. It's not a one off, its the norm for this group. Talking about small failures when they happen infrequently is stupid. When they happen regularly they should be criticized so the party involved changes.

Opportunity cost exists. Instead of signing Dickinson we could have, you know, signed our franchise cornerstones so they didn't have to miss 90% of training camp. Or gotten a player like MS said with Kamp that could actually fill the hole #3c. This is an all in year and the this group needed all the help it could get

Excusing small mistakes or ridiculing people who point them out has been the Benning apologists MO since he came here. One day you're doing the Kassian trade and assigning Mackenzie Stewert to a contract slot. Soon you fail to trade the best defensemen on the market at the tdl and get dinged for tampering with stars

 

[Pavel96]

Thanks for this nonsense.

It was too obvious not to comment on - my pleasure.