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

[1440]

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.

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

He was not hyped as an elite defensive #3C. He was described as a defensively responsible middle-six forward, and spent time at both wing and center with Dallas. If your expectation was for him to be an elite center then you were clearly not paying attention when he was acquired.

Most analytical models correct for situation, so Dickinson's strong profile was post-correction. Even if it were the case that his strong analytical profile was largely situational then you would also have to accept that his analytical profile will be the result of his current situation too. You cannot have it both be the case that he only looked good in Dallas because he was playing on a good team and that he is somehow independently bad despite playing with weak line-mates in Vancouver. It is either one or the other and either way your argument does not hold water.

Dickinson remains a good player and his acquisition was a good one. Two months of statistically improbable poor play from his team does not erase the promising previous three years of his career. To criticize this as even a small mistake and to compare him to players with poor underlying profiles like Beagle and Sbisa just shows a lack of comprehension of hockey, analytics, and team management in general. We as fans have to be supportive of the (admittedly rare) cases of correct player evaluation process (as in the Gagner signing or the Schmidt trade) rather than blindly focusing on the results. You don't need to be an apologist for anything when the correct moves are made as is the case here, but more importantly you must not criticize these moves lest a reactionary ownership mistakenly take this as derision of analytics-based player evaluation and decide to opt for the "get meat-and-potatoes players method" that has gotten them into this mess in the first place.

 

[Samzilla]

Besides the fact Gilligan was been *FIRED* already.

Yeah, I mean, for people who say "But Gillis" as a defense of Benning, they do realize Gillis was fired, right?

Yet I don't think they're arguing Gillis should've been given more rope like Benning. Nor do I think they're arguing Benning should be given less rope like Gillis.

 

[MS]

He was not hyped as an elite defensive #3C. He was described as a defensively responsible middle-six forward, and spent time at both wing and center with Dallas. If your expectation was for him to be an elite center then you were clearly not paying attention when he was acquired.

He was definitely hyped as an elite defensive #3C. Go back and read his signing thread here. It was insanity.

I was not expecting that, as I said repeatedly at the time.

The club acquired him to be a #3C and he is unable to play that position/role.

Most analytical models correct for situation, so Dickinson's strong profile was post-correction. Even if it were the case that his strong analytical profile was largely situational then you would also have to accept that his analytical profile will be the result of his current situation too. You cannot have it both be the case that he only looked good in Dallas because he was playing on a good team and that he is somehow independently bad despite playing with weak line-mates in Vancouver. It is either one or the other and either way your argument does not hold water.

His statistical profile was generated playing mostly wing next to Benn and Pavelski. Not surprisingly, this doesn't translate to playing high-leverage #3C minutes with much worse players.

Most analytical models don't correct well for anything. Dallas - a non-playoff team - apparently had 5 of the top 14 defensive forwards in the NHL last year, including one guy who was 37 years old and another who has already been on waivers this year.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm not saying Dickinson sucks. He's a perfectly servicable low-event bottom-6 winger who can fill in at 4C in a pinch and who is probably worth in the $1.3- $1.5 million range.

Dickinson remains a good player and his acquisition was a good one. Two months of statistically improbable poor play from his team does not erase the promising previous three years of his career. To criticize this as even a small mistake and to compare him to players with poor underlying profiles like Beagle and Sbisa just shows a lack of comprehension of hockey, analytics, and team management in general. We as fans have to be supportive of the (admittedly rare) cases of correct player evaluation process (as in the Gagner signing or the Schmidt trade) rather than blindly focusing on the results. You don't need to be an apologist for anything when the correct moves are made as is the case here, but more importantly you must not criticize these moves lest a reactionary ownership mistakenly take this as derision of analytics-based player evaluation and decide to opt for the "get meat-and-potatoes players method" that has gotten them into this mess in the first place.

Jason Dickinson is not a $2.7 million player and was not worth the pick + salary cost of his acquisition. Period. The poor play of his team is not why Dickinson is a failure at C.

Your paragraph would be somewhat correct if we signed him to the David Kampf contract as a UFA. That is not what happened. A player's contract is built into the effectiveness and value of the asset. Tyler Myers is a shit asset at $6 million AAV. Tyler Myers would be a great asset at $1.5 million AAV.

Absolutely, again, he is a useful player if paid appropriately. But he is paid much more than he's worth and was a poor acquisition based on blown pro scouting and blown cap management.

 

[Scorvat]

He was not hyped as an elite defensive #3C. He was described as a defensively responsible middle-six forward, and spent time at both wing and center with Dallas. If your expectation was for him to be an elite center then you were clearly not paying attention when he was acquired.

Most analytical models correct for situation, so Dickinson's strong profile was post-correction. Even if it were the case that his strong analytical profile was largely situational then you would also have to accept that his analytical profile will be the result of his current situation too. You cannot have it both be the case that he only looked good in Dallas because he was playing on a good team and that he is somehow independently bad despite playing with weak line-mates in Vancouver. It is either one or the other and either way your argument does not hold water.

Dickinson remains a good player and his acquisition was a good one. Two months of statistically improbable poor play from his team does not erase the promising previous three years of his career. To criticize this as even a small mistake and to compare him to players with poor underlying profiles like Beagle and Sbisa just shows a lack of comprehension of hockey, analytics, and team management in general. We as fans have to be supportive of the (admittedly rare) cases of correct player evaluation process (as in the Gagner signing or the Schmidt trade) rather than blindly focusing on the results. You don't need to be an apologist for anything when the correct moves are made as is the case here, but more importantly you must not criticize these moves lest a reactionary ownership mistakenly take this as derision of analytics-based player evaluation and decide to opt for the "get meat-and-potatoes players method" that has gotten them into this mess in the first place.

Then its a failure of evaluating your own team. The money should have been spent on #3c that could handle matchups. This has been a major team weakness for the last 3 years when Jim wanted this team to compete and you can't compete without #3c that can control play.

The NHL is a results based business and this management group deserves no benefit of doubt for good process. Dickinson is a player that likely would have been exposed in ED and we paid acquire him.

But youre right about it only being 2 months. We'll see how Dickinson looks when the new coach eventually comes

And how was the Gagner signing anything but a failure. 9 Mil was spent on a player who was always a garbage time sheltered, pp specialist and he flamed out within a year. Rebuilding teams don't give limited 30 year olds that type of term to fill out the roster.

If this ownership group took fan input regarding their moves then Benning would have been ousted a while ago, let alone them taking some anti-analytics sentiment from my post. That's a weird way to say don't critique moves that aren't obviously bad

 

[4Twenty]

He was hyped as a shutdown 3C in the trade and the signing thread to deny this makes no sense at all.

 

[MS]

He was hyped as a shutdown 3C in the trade and the signing thread to deny this makes no sense at all.

This article about sums up the general mood at the time.

Further analyzing Jason Dickinson’s game and how he’ll help the Canucks

A whole article hyping Dickinson as an elite defensive C where the author apparently doesn’t realize he spent 60% of his time on the wing last season.

 

[Javaman]

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.

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "upwards career trajectory" when talking about Dickinson.

Clearly you can't mean points. Clearly you can't mean faceoff %.

Hasn't established himself as a 3C. Hasn't played a full NHL season yet.

Please explain what you mean by "upwards career trajectory" with regards to Dickinson.

 

[F A N]

i don't get what youre arguing about sometimes F A N. A mistake is a mistake, even if it's in hindsight. The Ballard trade was a mistake even if other teams were willing to pay that price. This Dickinson acquisition is looking like a mistake.

Just because other teams were willing to commit to the same mistake doesn't make it any less of a mistake. And lets not act like the Dallas stars are some model org

It's not like the process of this trade was any good either. They spent a top 3 round pick on a player that was likely to be exposed in the ED and didn't fill one of the major holes on the roster (top 4 RHD, #3 matchup center)

Knowing what we now know about Dickinson, there were clearly better options available that would have cost less. Front offices are paid to know what players to commit and pay assets too and should be better then young beat writers going off of public statistics

I don't disagree with any of that. I even said this:

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.

If you read my posts in this thread I have expressed my disappointment in Dickinson. My thinking is that he is a better fit on a better team but you are right that right now the acquisition and signing doesn't look good. I do think that a lot of teams like the player so I do think his contract is easy to trade.

But to answer your question, this is what I said:

A 3rd round pick for Dickinson was fair value.

Then MS quoted me and started talking about not separating Dickinson's contract situation with his asset value. I didn't disagree with that. What I said was that Dallas fans and some predictive models had the cost of resigning Dickinson around what he was ultimately signed for. Just because MS disagrees doesn't mean it wasn't fair value. Given that MS was the one who quoted and replied to what I said and not the other way around, I get to argue the point I was initially making instead of responding to MS's strawman arguments no?

 

[likash]

I don't disagree with any of that. I even said this:



If you read my posts in this thread I have expressed my disappointment in Dickinson. My thinking is that he is a better fit on a better team but you are right that right now the acquisition and signing doesn't look good. I do think that a lot of teams like the player so I do think his contract is easy to trade.

But to answer your question, this is what I said:


Then MS quoted me and started talking about not separating Dickinson's contract situation with his asset value. I didn't disagree with that. What I said was that Dallas fans and some predictive models had the cost of resigning Dickinson around what he was ultimately signed for. Just because MS disagrees doesn't mean it wasn't fair value. Given that MS was the one who quoted and replied to what I said and not the other way around, I get to argue the point I was initially making instead of responding to MS's strawman arguments no?

That is why they traded him. They did not want to resign him at that money. Lucky for them Jimbo came around he threw a 3 rd round pick. I'm surpised it wasn't a 2nd.

 

[F A N]

That is why they traded him. They did not want to resign him at that money. Lucky for them Jimbo came around he threw a 3 rd round pick. I'm surpised it wasn't a 2nd.

Ya in Dallas fans' minds, they kept Faksa over him.

It is interesting though. There were a lot of people who really like him as a player. The people who watched him play and thought he was meh was actually in the minority.

With that said, I really don't know what to make of Dickinson. I'm disappointed in his play based on the eye test but analytics suggest that he has come as advertised in terms of his ability to suppress shots and scoring chances. He lead all Canucks forwards with a plus minus of +4 (Garland and Hoglander are the only other forwards in positive territory). His underlying numbers suggests that he is one of if not the best defensive forward on the team. But watching him play I think he kinds of sucks.

 

[likash]

Ya in Dallas fans' minds, they kept Faksa over him.

It is interesting though. There were a lot of people who really like him as a player. The people who watched him play and thought he was meh was actually in the minority.

With that said, I really don't know what to make of Dickinson. I'm disappointed in his play based on the eye test but analytics suggest that he has come as advertised in terms of his ability to suppress shots and scoring chances. He lead all Canucks forwards with a plus minus of +4 (Garland and Hoglander are the only other forwards in positive territory). His underlying numbers suggests that he is one of if not the best defensive forward on the team. But watching him play I think he kinds of sucks.

I like him also but at 1,5/year.

 

[tantalum]

A lot of people may have liked the player. A lot of people were wrong. In the end, his contract is too much and so to is the asset given up even though it was only a third.

As with nearly every deal this GM makes, the result doesn’t move the needle at all and the only result is reduced cap flexibility and fewer future assets moving forward.

 

[Canucker]

A lot of people may have liked the player. A lot of people were wrong. In the end, his contract is too much and so to is the asset given up even though it was only a third.

As with nearly every deal this GM makes, the result doesn’t move the needle at all and the only result is reduced cap flexibility and fewer future assets moving forward.

I liked him as a player when we acquired him, but I was highly annoyed that Benning and Co had planned to use him as a 3rd line center...Benning had been saying at the end of year meetings that we weren't generating enough offense from the bottom 6, and somehow, they came up with Dickinson as a solution. As a 4th line center, sure...I'm ok with that, at a proper 4th line center price, but as a 3rd line center at a 3rd line center cost, its just another Benning beating.

 

[RobertKron]

I liked him as a player when we acquired him, but I was highly annoyed that Benning and Co had planned to use him as a 3rd line center...Benning had been saying at the end of year meetings that we weren't generating enough offense from the bottom 6, and somehow, they came up with Dickinson as a solution. As a 4th line center, sure...I'm ok with that, at a proper 4th line center price, but as a 3rd line center at a 3rd line center cost, its just another Benning beating.

IIRC, Benning also said that, offensively, Dickinson had another level or more to give or something like that.

 

[Hit the post]

IIRC, Benning also said that, offensively, Dickinson had another level or more to give or something like that.

yeah, another level to go down.

 

[Peter10]

A 3rd round pick for Dickinson was fair value.

Disagree, it may have been market value but not necessarily fair value.

 

[Bitz and Bites]

IIRC, Benning also said that, offensively, Dickinson had another level or more to give or something like that.

I seem recall JB saying that about Sutter then Green putting him on Pp1 and we all know how that went.
This looks like another pro scouting fail by Benning and another negative value contract for the (hopefully) next GM to deal with.

 

[Peter10]

I seem recall JB saying that about Sutter then Green putting him on Pp1 and we all know how that went.
This looks like another pro scouting fail by Benning and another negative value contract for the (hopefully) next GM to deal with.

He also said he is a strong penalty killer....

Canucks Sign Forward Jason Dickinson

"Jason was an important addition for our forward group this summer and we're pleased to have agreed to terms with him on a three-year deal," said Benning. "He's a versatile player that can play on both the wing and at centre, and is also a strong penalty killer."

 

[Peen]

IIRC, Benning also said that, offensively, Dickinson had another level or more to give or something like that.

Historically, these guys have no idea how to evaluate players at the pro level.

they say this kind of dumb shit about limited players all the time

 

[MS]

I don't disagree with any of that. I even said this:



If you read my posts in this thread I have expressed my disappointment in Dickinson. My thinking is that he is a better fit on a better team but you are right that right now the acquisition and signing doesn't look good. I do think that a lot of teams like the player so I do think his contract is easy to trade.

But to answer your question, this is what I said:


Then MS quoted me and started talking about not separating Dickinson's contract situation with his asset value. I didn't disagree with that. What I said was that Dallas fans and some predictive models had the cost of resigning Dickinson around what he was ultimately signed for. Just because MS disagrees doesn't mean it wasn't fair value. Given that MS was the one who quoted and replied to what I said and not the other way around, I get to argue the point I was initially making instead of responding to MS's strawman arguments no?

What strawman arguments did I make?

As someone else mentioned, there is a difference between 'fair value' relative to performance and 'market value' that others are willing to pay.

Giving Jay Beagle 4 years/$12 million was apparently what the market required. That doesn't mean that it was fair value relative to his actual level of performance.

Like I said, I disagree that the market value for this RFA was $2.7 million and have provided several examples that demonstrate this and would have been extremely persuasive in an arbitration case. However, *if* the market value of this player was $2.7 million, a good GM should recognize that this is not worth the asset and contract required and move on to the next player.

 

[VanJack]

Do we see a pattern here?

The Panthers weren't willing to pay up for Gudbranson so they dealt him to the Canucks for a haul; The Pens weren't willing to pay up for Sutter as a third line center, so they gratefully dealt him to the Canucks for another draft package. The Kings knew they'd never be able to re-sign Tofoli so they traded him to the Canucks for another higher draft pick.

So the Dickinson trade is just another in a long list of failures. Teams that realized the player would just command too high a salary for what he brings and Benning was only too willing to add in a draft pick to acquire him.

It's one of the bigger reasons why the Canucks are where they're at.

 

[theguardianII]

Another FOUNDATIONAL player. But for what team?
Coasting along in the bottom third of the league Benning has helped 4 teams to success, but not in this market.
Calgary loves him and given enough rope I am sure Edmonton will be there soon as well.

Dickinson - another RFA that only needed a qualifying offer, but no, Benning opens the vault.

I am sure Benning just signs whatever the agent slides across the desk.

Dickinson get almost double
Garland, no matter how good, RFA only needed a qualifying offer of 800K, at least to start, but he gets a contract worth 6.4 times more, $4,950,000.00.
These are done without thinking about other players on the team or their next expectations for future contracts.

Pretty sure that right now having an additional 4 or 5 mil in cap space would be handy.

 

[1440]

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "upwards career trajectory" when talking about Dickinson.

Clearly you can't mean points. Clearly you can't mean faceoff %.

Hasn't established himself as a 3C. Hasn't played a full NHL season yet.

Please explain what you mean by "upwards career trajectory" with regards to Dickinson.

Neither of those stats are important.

Wins Above Replacement (WAR).

 

[Hit the post]

Neither of those stats are important.

Wins Above Replacement (WAR).

Yeah, he sure suppresses the offensive numbers of the Canucks.

 

[1440]

Then its a failure of evaluating your own team. The money should have been spent on #3c that could handle matchups. This has been a major team weakness for the last 3 years when Jim wanted this team to compete and you can't compete without #3c that can control play.

The NHL is a results based business and this management group deserves no benefit of doubt for good process. Dickinson is a player that likely would have been exposed in ED and we paid acquire him.

But youre right about it only being 2 months. We'll see how Dickinson looks when the new coach eventually comes

And how was the Gagner signing anything but a failure. 9 Mil was spent on a player who was always a garbage time sheltered, pp specialist and he flamed out within a year. Rebuilding teams don't give limited 30 year olds that type of term to fill out the roster.

If this ownership group took fan input regarding their moves then Benning would have been ousted a while ago, let alone them taking some anti-analytics sentiment from my post. That's a weird way to say don't critique moves that aren't obviously bad

From an analytical perspective, Sam Gagner was (and frankly is still) a very good 3rd/4th line PP/shootout specialist player. He was a good value signing at the time, but was not used effectively at all. His story is a failure of in-organization player development and deployment rather than pro-scouting. Just look at his play for Detroit this year.

Part of the Canucks' problem is that their poor player management and coaching at a pro-level has both undone triumphs and compounded mistakes in player acquisition.

In this regard we can see how ownership should shoulder most of the blame for these failures. If the directive from on high keeps being to sign good players to try win now, then I cannot blame the pro scouts for identifying the likes of Gagner and even Loui as strong analytical performers at the times of their signings. This done, the follow-up has then to be: put these signings in the best possible situations to play well, allow them to accrue value, and trade them when the value is high. Because ownership has so steadfastly refused to accept the notion that the Canucks should then be sellers at any deadline in which they are not a top 10 team, they have completely hamstrung their management team.

Unfortunately I don't think firing Benning will make the difference many think it will. The bad results of his moves are largely a result of ownership's complete misreading of the Canucks' situation, and I fear that they will still meddle far too much even with a more competent GM. My point is that it is completely backwards to criticize the GM for signing good players to good contracts. Focus on the process, not the results. Too much focus on results (making the playoffs) by ownership is the very devil that has gotten the Canucks into this mess in the first place.