The Canucks didn't follow up the Miller trade by saying - "well thank god that is over with. We now have EP as our guy and we're sticking with it". Instead he's continued to struggle and they are still trying to find a way out. He's not a great player in a toxic situation, he is the toxic situation.
vancouver is the toxic situation. miller was a key factor in that.
reinhart and eichel, while not adversarial like miller/pettersson, both were in a toxic situation in buffalo for
years. buffalo dealt eichel, he immediately turned it around, and… buffalo was still toxic. reinhart was still there. then he benefitted from leaving. buffalo's still toxic today.
it's not a coincidence that quinn hughes – who very much is vancouver's 'guy' – is apparently planning to hit the eject button if they move pettersson.
His 18% shooting sounds unsustainably high until you realize where he is shooting from, the blue paint. This is a very unique shooting profile.
it's not a unique profile at all.
I can suspend some disbelief that a player who does damage from the home plate area may be able to sustain a higher shooting percentage than league average (about 9%) – but I can't suspend disbelief for 18%. maybe something like 12%.
boone jenner's career shooting percentage is 10.7% and he's another netfront guy. chris kreider – one of the best home plate guys in the league over the last decade – has a career 14% shooter and only has two seasons above 18% one of those was his 50 goal season.
david clarkson had a similar shooting profile (lots of greasy goals) and his career shooting percentage was… 9.1 percent. his big 30 goal outlier season – which earned him the worst contract in hockey history – saw him shoot 13.2%.
He has 19 goals. His individual xG is, coincidentally, 19 goals. He comfortably leads our team in ixG.
I'm seeing his
ixG as 11.1 on NST, fwiw. NST also has his on-ice xG at 34.6 when his actual GF is at 40.
I think we've found a core piece that could be a difference maker in the playoffs for us, and we'd be incredible fools to let him go. We have so many assets to go out and get our other needs taken care of, we don't have a reason to move a core piece entering his prime.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. voronkov very much could be a core piece in the same sense that tom wilson is a core piece for washington, where the physical elements help him play above his stats.
my concern is that there are indicators in his statistical profile that led teams to make major investments with other players that pretty much immediately went belly-up. the two most obvious trends when you look at contracts over the last 10-15 years are:
- don't give term to goalies
- don't give money to guys with unsustainable shooting
he's a likable player. but it's reasonable to worry about giving first line money to a player who might ultimately be a third line piece. he was awesome in russia and but never scored at anything close to this rate. we've seen similar breakouts from power forwards that turned out to be a mirage.
I do hope that he's a core piece. maybe the org doesn't have the same concerns. clearly evason loves the guy.