Confirmed with Link: Canucks Sign Pius Suter - 2-years @ $1.6M AAV

[F A N]

The reality is...Suter played at least half his minutes last year with another Center on his line. Be that Larkin/Copp/Veleno/Sundkvist.

I think Suter was playing the wing when he was on Larkin's and Copp's line but was the C when playing with Veleno and or Sundkvist. Like I said, the fact that JT Miller spends time playing as a 1st line winger doesn't mean he's not capable of playing as a 2C in the NHL.

 

[JohnHodgson]

A guy who is better-suited on the wing but can slide into a C spot if you have injuries. It’s not saying he’s a healthy scratch.

Same deal as Rodrigues, Kerfoot and others. Guys who are pretty decent middle-6 utility players who can play C but who you really wouldn’t want as your 3C in a fully healthy roster.

Not some sort of crazy concept.

I've never seen anyone use the term "5C" in any sort of capacity in any hockey discussions.

But yeah I guess... just make up some buzz words and expect everyone to know what you mean

How do you go from talking about 3Cs to 5Cs? You just skipped the whole fourth line?

Suter would definitely be an above average 4th line C. You can just call him a 4C.

I guess to me, an ideal #7 would be a guy who can move up and down the lineup with ease, can produce like a top 6 player when given top 6 opportunities and is actually an effective 3rd line player, and is paid like a 3rd line player. Beauvillier just hasn't been that player and is paid an above average 2nd line money. A player like Mik is more of my idea of an ideal #7 than Beauvillier if we are to talk about skillset, and performance alone.




I swear you make up terms and then justify it in your own mind and then expect others to understand and agree with you. If 1C means 1st line centre and 4C means 4th line C and 1C>4C, logically when someone says 5C one thinks of a guy who is often a healthy scratch or an emergency C. It's not sort of crazy concept.

In any case, I think Suter is a capable C and has spent time playing as C. He's clearly a legitimate 3-4C if utilized that way. Whether Suter is better suited as a winger is irrelevant. JT Miller isn't a 3-5C because he's ideally suited to be a winger. He's legitimately a top 2 C if utilized that way.

Agreed. The MS worship here makes absolutely no sense to me.

5C is NOT a term that ANYBODY in likely the history of the NHL has used. MS drops the term and expects everyone to know what it means.

Dude just invented something up and expected people to know. That's the definition of gaslighting.

 

[Bougieman]

Really happy with this signing. Have liked this player for a few years now. He always seems to play well against the Canucks, so it will be fun to see him in a Vancouver jersey. Also like that he's yet another player added that can excel on the penalty kill. This off season has been HUGE for that. Pretty much everyone added can slot into our PK and help out. Management certainly seem to have realized that was the Canucks main issue last season.

 

[F A N]

I've never seen anyone use the term "5C" in any sort of capacity in any hockey discussions.

But yeah I guess... just make up some buzz words and expect everyone to know what you mean

How do you go from talking about 3Cs to 5Cs? You just skipped the whole fourth line?

Suter would definitely be an above average 4th line C. You can just call him a 4C.



Agreed. The MS worship here makes absolutely no sense to me.

5C is NOT a term that ANYBODY in likely the history of the NHL has used. MS drops the term and expects everyone to know what it means.

Dude just invented something up and expected people to know. That's the definition of gaslighting.

Exactly. Like some just go along with idiotic takes like the Canucks' handling and development of Gaudette is the worse he has ever seen as if Gaudette was destined to be one of the best in the league and somehow we screwed up his development.

 

[Nick Lang]

I mentioned this about Aman in another thread. There are some posters who see Aman as being this disruptive forechecker who is good defensively but he barely hits and his takeaway stats are abysmal. Suter hits even less than Aman but last season he had 31 takeaways. The year before he had 46. His rookie year he had 27 in 55 games. Aman had 9 takeways.

You don't necessarily have to have a lot of hits in my books but that is definitely something to note, same with the takeaways. I'm gong purely by the eye test with Aman. I saw a younger player who we didn't know much about play the position with speed, good positioning, and a willingness to play defensive hockey as asked. Not spectacular but better than I've seen here lately and better than I expected. There was also a sense of playing the way a fourth line is supposed to play, although he seemed to break down in the middle of the season, but to his credit rebounded fairly strongly.

As far as his takeaways I saw some untapped offensive potential and perhaps he was tentative in that sense but I thought he showed some pretty good potential overall. If Suter can be that and better then that's good but I thought Aman had a decent showing for a complete unknown going straight into the NHL.

 

[F A N]

I actually liked Suter way way back as a draft eligible when he played with Guelph. I thought he was one of those "safe bet to play" sort of guys. He did enough of everything well enough to think he'd carve out games as a depth filler 13th F "supersub" at worst.

But i've progressively liked him less and less since. He's like Markus Granlund in that he just doesn't do anything particularly well. He hasn't really developed any defining quality. He's the epitome of a "nothing" player. Just A Guy. Island of Granlunds but maybe with a better JFresh chart idk.

This is kind of what I'm talking about. You don't really like the player. You don't think he's good enough to be a centre in the NHL. If you think of him as a 5C who should only play C in a pinch I can understand that. But understand that's not clearly not what Canucks management and the majority of us see/expect. Otherwise, 2x$1.6M for a "5C/depth filler" is a stupid contract.

I think Wellwood is a fair comparable to what i anticipate they're going for with Suter. Not nearly the same skill level, but i think it's a similar concept.

I do see a lot of potential for Suter-Garland to become a really perfect duo of a winger who is weirdly productive at 5v5 without much help from his Center...and a Center who has some okay offensive chops who really needs to have his ass carried. It creates one of those weird "3rd scoring lines".

It just means that 4th line (be it Bluegers, Aman, whatever mix) is going to have to carry a much heavier load that typical defensively. It also means that either the Petey or Miller line is going to have to carry a heavier load than ideal as well. It's not the way you want to build a team. But i do appreciate that they're trying to make this messy situation work.

Was Bonino a 3C under your definition? When we acquired him there were questions as to whether he was in fact as a C. He's bigger than Suter but he was hardly known to be a physical player or great defensively. Yet he centered the 3rd line for the Cup winning Penguins.

I think Suter has been utilized as a C often for a reason. He can play that position. Whether he is better off as a winger is irrelevant. As it stands, I think he's one of the team's top 4 options to play C and he will play C for the Canucks.

 

[m9]

I admittedly knew very little about this player, but after a bit of research, he sounds precisely like the type of player the Canucks need..Rest assured, I dont think there's any doubt that he's going to help one of the leagues worst PK's next season, and be a very reliable player., with a high hockey IQ....The only downside of the player is that he isnt big

I like the way Allvin is facing the Canucks deficiencies head on..I dont see this deal looking any worse next season.

We'll see on the contract. It's a bit odd to me that two bad teams had no interest in hanging onto him recently and he was having trouble getting a 2nd year from any teams despite being fairly young. Like I said I will defer to those who seem to have followed this player more but I'm very cautious.

 

[Shareefruck]

Would we say this guy is comparable to someone like Shawn Matthias when he was in Vancouver (not in terms of size, but effectiveness)? From what I'm hearing, that's kind of what it sounds like (aside from being more viable on the PK), and would fit the 5C label (but can non-ideally work on lines 3-4 as a winger and possibly center in a pinch), in my eyes.

 

[Javaman]

Is it just me? Or am I the only one who worries very little about the face-off % of centers? I've come around to the perspective that the main reason we talk about it is that it's an easy stat for PBP folks to yammer on about.

I'm way more interested in the quality of their play after the puck is dropped, frankly.

 

[DFAC]

Is it just me? Or am I the only one who worries very little about the face-off % of centers? I've come around to the perspective that the main reason we talk about it is that it's an easy stat for PBP folks to yammer on about.

I'm way more interested in the quality of their play after the puck is dropped, frankly.

Win the faceoff just to give the puck up for the opposing team to score - a Canuck special

 

[Javaman]

Win the faceoff just to give the puck up for the opposing team to score - a Canuck special

I still think faceoff % is an overrated stat.

 

[credulous]

faceoff % is a pretty meaningless stat but it's kind of important to be able to win faceoffs. especially on the pk and pp. i'm too lazy and too busy with other projects to do it but i bet you'd find a pretty strong correlation with special teams performance and special teams faceoff percentage

 

[CherryToke]

Is it just me? Or am I the only one who worries very little about the face-off % of centers? I've come around to the perspective that the main reason we talk about it is that it's an easy stat for PBP folks to yammer on about.

I'm way more interested in the quality of their play after the puck is dropped, frankly.

Horvat is all the proof you will ever need, I'll tell you that for free.

 

[David71]

should van get another capable centerman in case injuries occur at some point during the season.?
example petey or miller goes down or if two guys are out. the other guys are just out of their element.
blueger/dries/suter/aman/ahler spare etc. we've seen this story before in seasons past. when horvat was out and petey at the same time a few seasons ago.

 

[DFAC]

should van get another capable centerman in case injuries occur at some point during the season.?
example petey or miller goes down or if two guys are out. the other guys are just out of their element.
blueger/dries/suter/aman/ahler spare etc. we've seen this story before in seasons past. when horvat was out and petey at the same time a few seasons ago.

If Miller and Petey are both out for an extended amount of time we are toast. Probably would have some combination of Raty/Suter/Dries/Aman down the middle

 

[LemonSauceD]

should van get another capable centerman in case injuries occur at some point during the season.?
example petey or miller goes down or if two guys are out. the other guys are just out of their element.
blueger/dries/suter/aman/ahler spare etc. we've seen this story before in seasons past. when horvat was out and petey at the same time a few seasons ago.

In that type of situation, whether we had Horvat as our 3C or not, I’d find it very hard you’ll be able to find a 3C anywhere in the league that is even remotely capable of matching their production. Usually if multiple top line players are injured, you can kiss the season goodbye, unless you’re the 2014 red wings. So I wouldn’t worry about trying to find guys that can play up in a pinch if our stars are injured. Suter and Garland are decent depth scoring options for maybe a 10 game stretch where Pettersson/Miller are injured. Anything longer than 10 games and you will see burnout and plateauing as the pressure builds and eventual collapse.

 

[MS]

I've never seen anyone use the term "5C" in any sort of capacity in any hockey discussions.

But yeah I guess... just make up some buzz words and expect everyone to know what you mean

How do you go from talking about 3Cs to 5Cs? You just skipped the whole fourth line?

Suter would definitely be an above average 4th line C. You can just call him a 4C.



Agreed. The MS worship here makes absolutely no sense to me.

5C is NOT a term that ANYBODY in likely the history of the NHL has used. MS drops the term and expects everyone to know what it means.

Dude just invented something up and expected people to know. That's the definition of gaslighting.

The people who aren't trying their hardest to be contrarian/willfully obtuse about everything all seemed to understand what was meant from the context of the post. It isn't some sort of crazy notion. And if you don't know what I meant, you can just ask instead of being a total jerk about it.

An NHL team generally carries 5 guys who can play C on their roster. Sometimes they carry a second 4C in the pressbox as their 5th C option. Sometimes they carry a winger who plays higher up the roster who can play C and is shifted into that role, who is essentially the 5C.

 

[tradervik]

Here's a largely positive, in-depth report on Suter with stats and video: Why Pius Suter is one of the Canucks’ most important off-season signings

 

[JohnHodgson]

Would we say this guy is comparable to someone like Shawn Matthias when he was in Vancouver (not in terms of size, but effectiveness)? From what I'm hearing, that's kind of what it sounds like (aside from being more viable on the PK), and would fit the 5C label (but can non-ideally work on lines 3-4 as a winger and possibly center in a pinch), in my eyes.

The 5C Label makes zero sense to me. I think he is being mislabeled heavily right now by a lot of people in this thread.

Is he the perfect, prototype 3rd line center on a Stanley Cup winning team? Probably not.

Will he be an adequate 3rd line center for us this year while providing the ability to play PK, be defensively responsible and chip in with some offensive production? Probably yes.

Pius had a "down year" last year but in 2021-22, he had 15 goals, 36 points in 82 games, won 495 faceoffs at a 49.3% rate, played well defensively and on the PK.

No where has he been mis-labeled as a 5C. This was just made up on the fly and doesn't logically make sense.

 

[JohnHodgson]

The people who aren't trying their hardest to be contrarian/willfully obtuse about everything all seemed to understand what was meant from the context of the post. It isn't some sort of crazy notion. And if you don't know what I meant, you can just ask instead of being a total jerk about it.

An NHL team generally carries 5 guys who can play C on their roster. Sometimes they carry a second 4C in the pressbox as their 5th C option. Sometimes they carry a winger who plays higher up the roster who can play C and is shifted into that role, who is essentially the 5C.

Sorry bud. 5C is NOT a term used at all in any sort of hockey discussions. You just made something up and expected people to know/agree with it.

It doesn't make sense to me (and some others) but sure.

The 5C comment STILL doesn't make sense because Suter would be an above average 4th line center - he would probably be one of the best 4th line Cs in the league if I had to estimate. He's proven that he can play center adequately. He's proven he can be an offensive contributor (87 points in 216 career games - 33 point pace). He's proven to be a good defensive player and has the ability to play PK.

How is he not at LEAST a 4C?

Most analysts have said Suter is a middle six/bottom six player that can play all positions and played fine at center.

But you want to be a contrarian and pull something out of the hat and mis-label Pius Suter as a 5C - guaranteed nobody ever in hockey has called Suter this. Because 5C is not a term that's used commonly, but also it's not appropriate or correct to describe Suter in this instance (IMO).

You're deliberately being a contrarian by using terminology that NOBODY uses and then rationalizing it to make sense from your perspective, when it still doesn't make sense. Suter has proven to be an adequate 3C. Is he the best 3C in the league no? Can he be a replacement level 3C for us? Probably yes - all historical information says this is the likely outcome. Just because he's not an optimal or ideal 3C doesn't mean he's suddenly a 5C. That's like calling JT Miller a 3C because he's not an optimal or ideal center.

 

[MS]

Sorry bud. 5C is NOT a term used at all in any sort of hockey discussions. You just made something up and expected people to know/agree with it.

It doesn't make sense to me (and some others) but sure.

The 5C comment STILL doesn't make sense because Suter would be an above average 4th line center - he would probably be one of the best 4th line Cs in the league if I had to estimate. He's proven that he can play center adequately. He's proven he can be an offensive contributor (87 points in 216 career games - 33 point pace). He's proven to be a good defensive player and has the ability to play PK.

How is he not at LEAST a 4C?

Most analysts have said Suter is a middle six/bottom six player that can play all positions and played fine at center.

But you want to be a contrarian and pull something out of the hat and mis-label Pius Suter as a 5C - guaranteed nobody ever in hockey has called Suter this. Because 5C is not a term that's used commonly, but also it's not appropriate or correct to describe Suter in this instance (IMO).

You're deliberately being a contrarian by using terminology that NOBODY uses and then rationalizing it to make sense from your perspective, when it still doesn't make sense. Suter has proven to be an adequate 3C. Is he the best 3C in the league no? Can he be a replacement level 3C for us? Probably yes - all historical information says this is the likely outcome. Just because he's not an optimal or ideal 3C doesn't mean he's suddenly a 5C. That's like calling JT Miller a 3C because he's not an optimal or ideal center.

Why on earth are you so riled up about this?

As I've said multiple times, I didn't call him a '4C' because he's a guy who probably has more utility as a middle-6 wing in 14 minutes than playing 10 minutes as a 4C.

It's exactly the same way I'd describe guys like Kerfoot and Rodrigues - useful C depth who you probably play on the wing and who you probably wouldn't want as a 3C in a healthy lineup but who can slide in as a 3C if you need it. This is a thing. There are lots of a players in the league who play this sort of role. Markus Granlund used to be this (badly) for us. Dries was basically this last year. For some reason you're crapping your pants about the terminology I used for a totally normal thing. It's weird.

 

[Shareefruck]

The 5C Label makes zero sense to me. I think he is being mislabeled heavily right now by a lot of people in this thread.

Is he the perfect, prototype 3rd line center on a Stanley Cup winning team? Probably not.

Will he be an adequate 3rd line center for us this year while providing the ability to play PK, be defensively responsible and chip in with some offensive production? Probably yes.

Pius had a "down year" last year but in 2021-22, he had 15 goals, 36 points in 82 games, won 495 faceoffs at a 49.3% rate, played well defensively and on the PK.

No where has he been mis-labeled as a 5C. This was just made up on the fly and doesn't logically make sense.


View attachment 736201
View attachment 736202

5C might be an unconventional label (although not really, if we're just talking about sub-4C players), sure, but I think it logically fits for someone like Shawn Matthias the year that he was with us (if he was played as a C instead of a W), at least (and doubly so for someone a lot worse who I'm seeing compared to him, like Dries, for that matter). His numbers and what I'm hearing about Suter's offense/defense breakdown sounds kind of similar (outside of PKing ability), so that's why I'm asking.

I hope you're right about Suter, but I can't say I find these indicators all that relevant or compelling. "Plays well defensively" is the thing being contested here and the thing of primary importance to me, and I don't put much stock into JFresh charts. Points are nice but insufficient, and faceoff % (especially a sub-50 one) and PK ability doesn't really tell me anything about what line a player should ideally be on, IMO.

From what I'm reading about these guys, Blueger actually sounds a little more intriguing to me, if I'm being honest (so I'm a bit surprised everyone is putting Suter over him, given the descriptions I'm reading). I'd be interested to hear what other people think about exactly who he compares to, though. "Slightly better Dries" doesn't exactly sound promising, same if Matthias' offense/defense is actually comparable (although he makes a fantastic 4W, borderline 3W tweener, IMO).

Actually, yeah, I'm kind of curious to hear, how do you think he compares to Markus Granlund when he was here?

 

[Vector]

@Shareefruck the problem with Blueger as a 3C is he has a poor history of being a distributor so having him as your primary 3C potentially kills the offense of that entire line.

Neither should be regular 3Cs but between the two of them, smart distribution should be able to create a decent centre out of them.

 

[Shareefruck]

@Shareefruck the problem with Blueger as a 3C is he has a poor history of being a distributor so having him as your primary 3C potentially kills the offense of that entire line.

Neither should be regular 3Cs but between the two of them, smart distribution should be able to create a decent centre out of them.

I see, so that's the primary reason people are placing Suter over Bluegers?

Personally, if they're equivalent caliber players and Blueger's legitimately solid defensively (especially a year removed from being a 30 point sort of guy), I'd probably favor that over someone questionable defensively but a better distributor in a 3C role (although I agree that both sound frustrating).

Especially on a team with a potentially dynamite top 6 that does a lot of the offensive heavy lifting, and potentially Garland on the same line if he stays, who is the odd type of player who seems to be able to generate offense and drive possession on his own without a distributor (and that himself is the type that doesn't mesh well with strong distributors).

If Suter is actually better, that's a different story, though, obviously.

 

[Vector]

I see, so that's the primary reason people are placing Suter over Bluegers?

Personally, if they're equivalent caliber players and Blueger's legitimately solid defensively (especially a year removed from being a 30 point sort of guy), I'd probably favor that over someone questionable defensively but a better distributor in a 3C role (although I agree that both sound frustrating).

Especially on a team with a potentially dynamite top 6 that does a lot of the offensive heavy lifting, and potentially Garland on the same line if he stays, who is the odd type of player who seems to be able to generate offense on his own without a distributor.

Suter isn't considered questionable defensively, however. He's actually quite good. He lacks size and brings no physicality, though.

Depending on how the roster shakes out, I could see Tocchet rotating between them situationally.