Player Discussion Dakota Joshua | Shut up and give him his money!

[OTC]

there is always that ONE ONE DUMB GM that will give players like joshua big money and in the end it backfires. remember byran bickell from hawks? thats the comparative ive always think back to.

I do recall Bickell ties game 6 vs. Boston 17 sec. later Hawks score and win the cup. Bickell's game definitely fell off but he won a cup. Guys are going to be paid

 

[oba]

Give the boy his dough.

 

[JimmyJiveJones]

If he makes it to Free Agency i think hes good as gone. Someone will extremely overpay for his services to the point the Canucks will not match.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i fear that the breadcrumbs are telling us he won’t be re-signed unless he is willing to take a decent discount relative to his max market value

allvin talks about finding “the next dakota joshua”

ferraro on the radio says he’s not naming names, implying that he doesn’t want to implicate his spousal privilege, but “if a guy is worth four on the open market and we only go up to three, can we find someone out there to give us 80% of what he gives for $2.5m…”

but i think if you really believe joshua wasn’t in a fluke year, you have to go at least as high as $3.5m x 3, maybe even $4m x 2 if he wants to roll the dice. because we’ve seen a lot of oreskoviches but how many joshuas have we ever unearthed?

 

[EXTRAS]

Give him the jeannot contract?

 

[MS]

I do recall Bickell ties game 6 vs. Boston 17 sec. later Hawks score and win the cup. Bickell's game definitely fell off but he won a cup. Guys are going to be paid

Bickell's career fell off because he developed Multiple Sclerosis which led to his retirement at age 30, so probably not the best comparable here.

 

[Bleach Clean]

i fear that the breadcrumbs are telling us he won’t be re-signed unless he is willing to take a decent discount relative to his max market value

allvin talks about finding “the next dakota joshua”

ferraro on the radio says he’s not naming names, implying that he doesn’t want to implicate his spousal privilege, but “if a guy is worth four on the open market and we only go up to three, can we find someone out there to give us 80% of what he gives for $2.5m…”

but i think if you really believe joshua wasn’t in a fluke year, you have to go at least as high as $3.5m x 3, maybe even $4m x 2 if he wants to roll the dice. because we’ve seen a lot of oreskoviches but how many joshuas have we ever unearthed?

That has to be Joshua that Ferraro is referring to.

If he's at $3m AAV, then the thought has to be: Is finding that 80% guy for $2.5m as probable as just keeping the 100% player for $500k more? To me, landing that 80% target isn't as likely, which is why I think $3m AAV works for Joshua. At $3.5m AAV, it's a tough decision, and at $4m AAV, you have to walk.

On a team bereft of winger talent, it would be tough to see him go, but it's all about what type of replacement you can secure in his stead.

 

[God]

there is always that ONE ONE DUMB GM that will give players like joshua big money and in the end it backfires. remember byran bickell from hawks? thats the comparative ive always think back to.

I always think of Matt Beleskey. One really good year playing on Kesler's wing scoring 22 goals in the regular season and 8 goals in the post-season, gets a 5 year 3.8M AAV contract, then just falls off. I suspect that's what could happen to Joshua if he signs for a team without a good playmaker.

 

[bossram]

That has to be Joshua that Ferraro is referring to.

If he's at $3m AAV, then the thought has to be: Is finding that 80% guy for $2.5m as probable as just keeping the 100% player for $500k more? To me, landing that 80% target isn't as likely, which is why I think $3m AAV works for Joshua. At $3.5m AAV, it's a tough decision, and at $4m AAV, you have to walk.

On a team bereft of winger talent, it would be tough to see him go, but it's all about what type of replacement you can secure in his stead.

That's where I'm at too. $3M is a no-brainer. $4M is a walk. In between is tougher. If Allvin and co. just don't even want to go to $3M, then I think they are really just making a mistake.

I am not that confident they're going to find a 2nd line calibre winger (which is what Joshua was providing them) for $2.5M. Maybe like Danton Heinen, but he is obviously a different kind of player than Joshua.

 

[ahmon]

If the ask is somewhere between 3-4, you sign him no questions asked, If anything canucks need more physical players in the lineup not less.

I would move Joshua/Garland up with Petey to form a 2nd line. And add physical players to the bot 6.

 

[bossram]

If the ask is somewhere between 3-4, you sign him no questions asked, If anything canucks need more physical players in the lineup not less.

I would move Joshua/Garland up with Petey to form a 2nd line. And add physical players to the bot 6.

The hilarious part is that if they'd done that before, the argument from many that the Canucks need to sacrifice their "depth" or "3rd liners" to upgrade the top-six would have evaporated.

Joshua and Garland played at the level of, and functionally were, top-six players for the Canucks. They need to add another top-six player to this group, not subtract.

 

[VanJack]

Rick Dhaliwal, who's a bit a pipeline to the hockey agent community, reporting that Joshua and the Canucks 'aren't close' on a new deal.

At this juncture they could be more than $1m apart and Joshua's camp is looking or 'term' that the Canucks might not be comfortable with.

It always figured to be a 'tough go' with the Canucks and Joshua on a new deal. He's 28 not 22 or 23; and is undoubtedly looking to hit a home run on his next deal to carry him well into his 30's.

Looking more and more like he'll be testing the waters on July 1st. And the Canuck could have a real tough time matching.

 

[F A N]

The hilarious part is that if they'd done that before, the argument from many that the Canucks need to sacrifice their "depth" or "3rd liners" to upgrade the top-six would have evaporated.

Joshua and Garland played at the level of, and functionally were, top-six players for the Canucks. They need to add another top-six player to this group, not subtract.

Ultimately it's salary structure. If you re-unite the Lotto line, have Lindholm center Garland and Joshua, and those two lines are offensively productive, that helps with salary structure. Otherwise you're trying to find value in the top 6 which is difficult. Just look at Malkin and Crosby through the years. At which point in time did they both of them play with good wingers when not playing together? Heck, the line that everyone remembers from Rutherford's Cup years in Pittsburgh was technically their 3rd line. We're not likely to solve the winger issue for both Petey and Miller AND have a competent 3rd line and D.

If Joshua can be a top 6 fixture, paying him $4M a year is not an issue. You do it without question. But if you're thinking he's probably going to be a 15-20 goal 30-40 point 3rd line player that is tougher. This is why the Mik signing has become so frustrating. They gave what Allvin now calls a middle 6 winger top 6 money and he can't drive a line like Garland or play C.

 

[bossram]

Ultimately it's salary structure. If you re-unite the Lotto line, have Lindholm center Garland and Joshua, and those two lines are offensively productive, that helps with salary structure. Otherwise you're trying to find value in the top 6 which is difficult. Just look at Malkin and Crosby through the years. At which point in time did they both of them play with good wingers when not playing together? Heck, the line that everyone remembers from Rutherford's Cup years in Pittsburgh was technically their 3rd line. We're not likely to solve the winger issue for both Petey and Miller AND have a competent 3rd line and D.

If Joshua can be a top 6 fixture, paying him $4M a year is not an issue. You do it without question. But if you're thinking he's probably going to be a 15-20 goal 30-40 point 3rd line player that is tougher. This is why the Mik signing has become so frustrating. They gave what Allvin now calls a middle 6 winger top 6 money and he can't drive a line like Garland or play C.

Regarding the bolded, I don't see this is an issue. Like I've said in many posts, people are fixated on the literal writing of the lines as their determination of who is a "top-six" forward.

If Joshua provides 30-40 ES points and plays in the top-six of ES ice-time, he is giving you top-six forward performance, regardless of him being placed on the "third" line. He is functionally a top-six forward. Your analogy to the HBK line is illuminating, because no one at that time would refer to Kessel as a "third line" forward, just because he's nominally on the third line.

You identified the actual problem, which is that Mikheyev is occupying way too much cap space and the team would be better off if he were disappeared and better able to allocate that space. I did not support that signing from the beginning.

 

[TruGr1t]

Haha Dhaliwal is gonna get in trouble with the front office for his Joshua comments that led to a bunch of headlines “Canucks not even close with Joshua contract.” Guess he doesn’t care since he only talks to agents.

Taylor even said today something like “Rick why are you negotiating for the players on our show?” But think it was in reference to Zadorov.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Haha Dhaliwal is gonna get in trouble with the front office for his Joshua comments that led to a bunch of headlines “Canucks not even close with Joshua contract.” Guess he doesn’t care since he only talks to agents.

Taylor even said today something like “Rick why are you negotiating for the players on our show?” But think it was in reference to Zadorov.

Yeah I heard it. He's parroting the agent, but at the same time, I think Ferraro relayed the team's position: Their likely decision point is at $3m AAV.

Starting at closer to $2m AAV seems more negotiation than anything else. Joshua's camp is, I think, at $4m AAV.

 

[David71]

I always think of Matt Beleskey. One really good year playing on Kesler's wing scoring 22 goals in the regular season and 8 goals in the post-season, gets a 5 year 3.8M AAV contract, then just falls off. I suspect that's what could happen to Joshua if he signs for a team without a good playmaker.

byran bickell was one

 

[F A N]

Regarding the bolded, I don't see this is an issue. Like I've said in many posts, people are fixated on the literal writing of the lines as their determination of who is a "top-six" forward.

If Joshua provides 30-40 ES points and plays in the top-six of ES ice-time, he is giving you top-six forward performance, regardless of him being placed on the "third" line. He is functionally a top-six forward. Your analogy to the HBK line is illuminating, because no one at that time would refer to Kessel as a "third line" forward, just because he's nominally on the third line.

You identified the actual problem, which is that Mikheyev is occupying way too much cap space and the team would be better off if he were disappeared and better able to allocate that space. I did not support that signing from the beginning.

I don't think we're disagreeing here. My point is that if Petey and Miller are playing on separate lines and we're paying top 6 money to players who are not playing on the same line as Petey or Miller (like if we manage to re-sign Lindholm, Joshua, and keep Garland together), then we're not "adding" that top 6 player to play with Petey while fielding a competent D.

 

[Rowlet]

After considering it a little more, I think I'm happy to let him go. He's largely a product of Garland and his CF, FF, xGF, and HDCF are so much lower without him. He also shot at 21%.

 

[VanJack]

You can't 'replace' guys like Joshua and Zadorov on the open market. They're basically 'unicorns'.

The irony here is that they're stuck with Mikheyev's contract at close to $4.5m, which is probably $1.5m more than what it will cost to re-sign Joshua.

But Mikheyev's contract also offers up a cautionary tale. Overpaying for wingers in the UFA period every year, almost never ends up well. But some GM is bound to throw wads of bills at Joshua and his agent.

 

[credulous]

You can't 'replace' guys like Joshua and Zadorov on the open market. They're basically 'unicorns'.

this is exactly why the canucks should let them walk. they're going to pay open market prices for them and they're going to disappoint

 

[bossram]

I don't think we're disagreeing here. My point is that if Petey and Miller are playing on separate lines and we're paying top 6 money to players who are not playing on the same line as Petey or Miller (like if we manage to re-sign Lindholm, Joshua, and keep Garland together), then we're not "adding" that top 6 player to play with Petey while fielding a competent D.

The issue is they need to add another top-six forward to their current crop. Subtracting top-six calibre forwards, getting a different one, and then shuffling the line chart around doesn't really address the fundamental issue: They need more quality overall.

The biggest cap related problem is Mikheyev. He's occupying cap space that should be allocated to an impact player, but isn't. They can probably fill all or most of their needs if they can disappear Mikheyev's hit (not automatic, of course).

After considering it a little more, I think I'm happy to let him go. He's largely a product of Garland and his CF, FF, xGF, and HDCF are so much lower without him. He also shot at 21%.


View attachment 877567

If he wants too much, they'll have to let him walk regardless. I wouldn't reference the WOWY numbers with any degree of seriousness though, considering he had essentially no real playing time without Garland on his line (it's like 30 minutes there, likely displaced randomly over several games, several of which were with Beauvillier).

The shooting percentage is more concerning and will regress (though FWIW, his expected shooting percentage was highest on the team, likely from taking most of his shots in close to the net). But even if comes down to a 10 goal, 30 ES point pace, that's still quite easily worth $3M AAV given the other factors he brings (size, PKing).

If he wants something approaching $4M or more, it's a tougher justification.

 

[Rowlet]

The issue is they need to add another top-six forward to their current crop. Subtracting top-six calibre forwards, getting a different one, and then shuffling the line chart around doesn't really address the fundamental issue: They need more quality overall.

The biggest cap related problem is Mikheyev. He's occupying cap space that should be allocated to an impact player, but isn't. They can probably fill all or most of their needs if they can disappear Mikheyev's hit (not automatic, of course).

If he wants too much, they'll have to let him walk regardless. I wouldn't reference the WOWY numbers with any degree of seriousness though, considering he had essentially no real playing time without Garland on his line (it's like 30 minutes there, likely displaced randomly over several games, several of which were with Beauvillier).

The shooting percentage is more concerning and will regress (though FWIW, his expected shooting percentage was highest on the team, likely from taking most of his shots in close to the net). But even if comes down to a 10 goal, 30 ES point pace, that's still quite easily worth $3M AAV given the other factors he brings (size, PKing).

If he wants something approaching $4M or more, it's a tougher justification.

To be fair, Garland only had like 1.5 more mins at ES without Joshua

 

[bossram]

To be fair, Garland only had like 1.5 more mins at ES without Joshua

Partly, the point is the WOWYs of Garland/Joshua are meaningless because they pretty much played exclusively together.

 

[604]

If he makes it to Free Agency i think hes good as gone. Someone will extremely overpay for his services to the point the Canucks will not match.

Last year, we picked him up as a UFA for sub $1m and grabbed a bunch of guys nobody wanted for cheap.

We will have to do similar again this year.