Player Discussion The Official Brock Boeser Risk Management Thread

[theguardianII]

Perfect fits for Boeser are both the Rangers and the Islanders.
He had really good seasons with Horvat and Miller.
What do they have to offer though?
Can't expect too much unless there are others included.

 

[shottasasa]

Perfect fits for Boeser are both the Rangers and the Islanders.
He had really good seasons with Horvat and Miller.
What do they have to offer though?
Can't expect too much unless there are others included.

I don’t think that’s going to be all that relevant. Need would be far more important and there are a few playoff teams that could use a top line RH goal scoring winger with a solid 2way profile and good recent playoff performances. I would think the standard pick, young roster player and prospect should be expected.

 

[Bobby9]

Target the jets.

They’re in the win now window and have pics and prospects

 

[Green Blank Stare]

They have to trade him before the deadline. It would be asinine to keep Boeser for a "playoff push" that at best, would result in getting annihilated by Winnipeg in the first round.

 

[F A N]

They have to trade him before the deadline. It would be asinine to keep Boeser for a "playoff push" that at best, would result in getting annihilated by Winnipeg in the first round.

No team gets annihilated by the Jets in the first round.

 

[F A N]

I just know that any reasonable extension for BB6 will have me anxious about the eventual drop off. It would be tough having a slow skating non-play-driving winger on the decline locked in at $7-8m for (what is likely to be) very long term. Cup contenders usually don't have too many bad contracts, even one of those can be a big/costly problem. Like most UFA contracts, all we can hope is that we get at least 3-4 "good" seasons out of him. I would really hate to have buyers remorse immediately (kind of like the Eriksson/Stamkos/Lucic type deals).

I think a team can still be competitive with strong centers, defense and goaltending, winger is the lowest on my priority list. Even if we can't replace Boeser completely, I still rather let him walk than to commit something like $8m x 8, feels like the same bullet we dodged with Lindholm (who also only really had 1 offensively great season in his career, much like Brock).

Outside of injuries and having to deal with his father's declining health and eventual passing, Boeser has scored at a 30+ pace. He put things together last season and scored 40. The other underrated part is that Boeser is a decent passer. So a solid season out of Boeser would be 30+ goals 60+ points. There has been like 0 seasons where Boeser wouldn't have had 50 points if he played 82 games. Take this season, Boeser has the same number of points as Debrusk.

I've said this before, I think the whole play driving aspect of a player can be overrated. It needs to be put into context. Garland is a play driver who can drive offense from any line and analytically is an awesome player. But you can put an elite playmakign C alongside Garland and he won't score 30+ goals. Boeser can.

People like to throw the Lindholm comparison around without factoring in the fact that Lindholm really struggled at the beginning of last season and initially here and ended up with 15 goals and 44 points. He's scoring at a similar pace this season. In short, there were red flags to be seen. Boeser too has red flags. He has had seasons where he struggled and he isn't an effective player on the 3rd line. But Boeser did make changes to his game last season (shot location being a big one) and I think that fueled his goal scoring last season and the beginning of this season before his concussion.

Boeser is the current Canucks games played leader and he seems like a great guy. I hope we find a way to keep him and I hope Boeser has success here.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Outside of injuries and having to deal with his father's declining health and eventual passing, Boeser has scored at a 30+ pace. He put things together last season and scored 40. The other underrated part is that Boeser is a decent passer. So a solid season out of Boeser would be 30+ goals 60+ points. There has been like 0 seasons where Boeser wouldn't have had 50 points if he played 82 games. Take this season, Boeser has the same number of points as Debrusk.

I've said this before, I think the whole play driving aspect of a player can be overrated. It needs to be put into context. Garland is a play driver who can drive offense from any line and analytically is an awesome player. But you can put an elite playmakign C alongside Garland and he won't score 30+ goals. Boeser can.

People like to throw the Lindholm comparison around without factoring in the fact that Lindholm really struggled at the beginning of last season and initially here and ended up with 15 goals and 44 points. He's scoring at a similar pace this season. In short, there were red flags to be seen. Boeser too has red flags. He has had seasons where he struggled and he isn't an effective player on the 3rd line. But Boeser did make changes to his game last season (shot location being a big one) and I think that fueled his goal scoring last season and the beginning of this season before his concussion.

Boeser is the current Canucks games played leader and he seems like a great guy. I hope we find a way to keep him and I hope Boeser has success here.

The problem with looking at Boeser's past is how relevant you expect that to apply to his future. To some, his track record means you are confident that he will continue to put up similar numbers going forward. To me, with his foot speed, his past performance doesn't mean too much to me when I project forward. Not being a play driver is ok when we have 2x 100 pts 1C driving plays and setting him up. When the team doesn't have anybody that can carry him, how valuable is a finisher at 8x8 if nobody can set him up?

 

[racerjoe]

The problem with looking at Boeser's past is how relevant you expect that to apply to his future. To some, his track record means you are confident that he will continue to put up similar numbers going forward. To me, with his foot speed, his past performance doesn't mean too much to me when I project forward. Not being a play driver is ok when we have 2x 100 pts 1C driving plays and setting him up. When the team doesn't have anybody that can carry him, how valuable is a finisher at 8x8 if nobody can set him up?

I think there is no question he will decline, all players do (except maybe Ovie...). I think it is about like you said a matter of how many years unitl.

I am also currently worried about fit. Without Miller we are searching for a good fit for him. His style is also going away from what it looks like we are trying to move toward with more of a speed game.

 

[F A N]

The problem with looking at Boeser's past is how relevant you expect that to apply to his future. To some, his track record means you are confident that he will continue to put up similar numbers going forward. To me, with his foot speed, his past performance doesn't mean too much to me when I project forward.

So you're only projecting how a player would age based on foot speed?

Not being a play driver is ok when we have 2x 100 pts 1C driving plays and setting him up. When the team doesn't have anybody that can carry him, how valuable is a finisher at 8x8 if nobody can set him up?

I think you're conflating not being a "play driver" and needing to be carried. A playmaking C would typically be a "play driver" but he's not going to be effective if he doesn't have someone to finish off his plays. Similarly, a natural goal scorer who is a skilled finisher will be at his best with someone capable of feeding him pucks in goal scoring positions. No GM ever thinks they don't need to find Crosby or McDavid a winger or Ovechkin a centre. You don't typically pair your worst forward and play him with your best "play driver."

 

[sandwichbird2023]

So you're only projecting how a player would age based on foot speed?



I think you're conflating not being a "play driver" and needing to be carried. A playmaking C would typically be a "play driver" but he's not going to be effective if he doesn't have someone to finish off his plays. Similarly, a natural goal scorer who is a skilled finisher will be at his best with someone capable of feeding him pucks in goal scoring positions. No GM ever thinks they don't need to find Crosby or McDavid a winger or Ovechkin a centre. You don't typically pair your worst forward and play him with your best "play driver."

Foot speed isn't the only factor but is a major factor. Pavelski doesn't have much speed to start with but was a high end 1st liner until his late 30s. But there is a reason he is the exception and not the norm. I don't think Boeser will be the exception unfortunately.

Have you seen some of Crosby's wingers over the years? Or Malkins? Of course you want Team Canada's first line if you can get it, but that's not achievable in a capped league. Boeser is a very good player IN THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT, he could even be worth an 8x8 contract in that case, but the right environment is not here. We simply doesn't have the players to maximize his abilities and skillset.

If you have a plan to bring in a 1C like JTM that can maximize Brock's skillset, by all means extend Boeser. I don't see that happening, therefore I don't advocate extending him, that's all. I have no doubt that on a team like Tampa or Florida if he plays on L1 and PP1 on those roster, he will produce like a high-end winger.

 

[F A N]

Foot speed isn't the only factor but is a major factor. Pavelski doesn't have much speed to start with but was a high end 1st liner until his late 30s. But there is a reason he is the exception and not the norm. I don't think Boeser will be the exception unfortunately.

Well Pavelski is the exception because not many players remain productive into their late 30s. I don't think we should expect that. But I think we also have to accept the reality that when it comes to signing UFA-aged players to long term contracts you should expect there to be decline. Like Miller would be 36 in his last year. Nobody should expect him to be a 30+ goal PPG player at age 36. I assume management understands this and is ok with this because we offered essentially a 30 year old Lindholm a 7 year deal.

But like I said, I have zero issues if management thinks Boeser will cease to be a 30 goal scorer when he hits ~31 years of age. Corey Perry is an example of a player who declined since age 31. Tofolli is still doing ok though and many predicted his decline.

Have you seen some of Crosby's wingers over the years? Or Malkins? Of course you want Team Canada's first line if you can get it, but that's not achievable in a capped league. Boeser is a very good player IN THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT, he could even be worth an 8x8 contract in that case, but the right environment is not here. We simply doesn't have the players to maximize his abilities and skillset.

Did Rutherford think that acquiring wingers to play with Crosby and Malkin was not necessary because they were play drivers? We are discussing the future here. The question is when the right environment is there for Boeser could we use a Boeser? I'm not advocating overpaying Boeser but there's clearly cap space for a 30+ goal 65+ point winger. The question is whether you want to spend that cap on Boeser and bet on him being that player.

If you have a plan to bring in a 1C like JTM that can maximize Brock's skillset, by all means extend Boeser. I don't see that happening, therefore I don't advocate extending him, that's all. I have no doubt that on a team like Tampa or Florida if he plays on L1 and PP1 on those roster, he will produce like a high-end winger.

That's fine but Boeser has in the past put up goals alongside Petey and Horvat. To suggest that Boeser is nothing without Miller is wrong IMO.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Well Pavelski is the exception because not many players remain productive into their late 30s. I don't think we should expect that. But I think we also have to accept the reality that when it comes to signing UFA-aged players to long term contracts you should expect there to be decline. Like Miller would be 36 in his last year. Nobody should expect him to be a 30+ goal PPG player at age 36. I assume management understands this and is ok with this because we offered essentially a 30 year old Lindholm a 7 year deal.

But like I said, I have zero issues if management thinks Boeser will cease to be a 30 goal scorer when he hits ~31 years of age. Corey Perry is an example of a player who declined since age 31. Tofolli is still doing ok though and many predicted his decline.


Did Rutherford think that acquiring wingers to play with Crosby and Malkin was not necessary because they were play drivers? We are discussing the future here. The question is when the right environment is there for Boeser could we use a Boeser? I'm not advocating overpaying Boeser but there's clearly cap space for a 30+ goal 65+ point winger. The question is whether you want to spend that cap on Boeser and bet on him being that player.


That's fine but Boeser has in the past put up goals alongside Petey and Horvat. To suggest that Boeser is nothing without Miller is wrong IMO.

I think maybe I didn't articulate my point clearly. I don't expect Boeser to be worth 8x8 because I think he needs a very specific role in order to score the goals and points to justify the contract. I don't expect Brock, on the Vancouver Canucks, to be a 30 goals 65 points player next season with the roster construction as is, nevermind a few years down the road when he is in his mid 30s. It's not even a matter of worrying about the eventual decline, it is that I project he will instantly not live up to his contract. His game and play style makes me very uneasy about committing long term to him, there is a very high chance of it turning into a Ladd/Okposo/Eriksson type situation in my opinion. If we can get him a Barkov/Draisatl/MacKinnon type to play on his line, I'm sure Brock will score 40 goals and 80+ points. But extending him to come back and play with Chytil/DOC/Hoglander/Suter/etc, how much production do you expect out of him in that situation, and does it justify 8x8?

The right environment for us to have Boeser is pretty much the last 5 seasons. We have 3 excellent centers, a good power play that allow him to do his thing, and most of all he has very little competition for prime ice time. Going forward though, I don't see the same situation.

Boeser did put up goals in the past, but I don't want to pay for the past, I want to pay what I think he is worth going forward.

 

[F A N]

I think maybe I didn't articulate my point clearly. I don't expect Boeser to be worth 8x8 because I think he needs a very specific role in order to score the goals and points to justify the contract. I don't expect Brock, on the Vancouver Canucks, to be a 30 goals 65 points player next season with the roster construction as is, nevermind a few years down the road when he is in his mid 30s. It's not even a matter of worrying about the eventual decline, it is that I project he will instantly not live up to his contract. His game and play style makes me very uneasy about committing long term to him, there is a very high chance of it turning into a Ladd/Okposo/Eriksson type situation in my opinion. If we can get him a Barkov/Draisatl/MacKinnon type to play on his line, I'm sure Brock will score 40 goals and 80+ points. But extending him to come back and play with Chytil/DOC/Hoglander/Suter/etc, how much production do you expect out of him in that situation, and does it justify 8x8?

I understand that and I don't think we're disagreeing on the validity of the conclusions you have drawn here. Like I said, if management views things the way you do then we should trade him. What I'm merely stating is (and things can change with Boeser's play) that the Canucks don't have much of an argument to not offer Boeser term if Boeser is viewed as a 30+ goal scorer going forward. Concerns over his decline are just concerns. Top (pending) UFAs get paid past the age of 35/36. How do you convince Boeser that he's not worth a 7 year deal when Debrusk and Lindholm were recently offered 7 year deals? Boeser is actually one of the younger UFAs out there too.

By the way, I'm not sure if it takes 8x$8M to re-sign him. The cap is going up though so we have to adjust our perceptions a little bit. Sam Reinhart got 7x$8.625M in a no income tax state and he's better than Boeser. Guentzel got 7x$9M in a no income tax state and he should also be considered better.

The right environment for us to have Boeser is pretty much the last 5 seasons. We have 3 excellent centers, a good power play that allow him to do his thing, and most of all he has very little competition for prime ice time. Going forward though, I don't see the same situation.

I think when we're talking about giving a $$$ long term contract to a player we're discussing long term fit. All else being near equal, I would priortize centres over wingers. But pieces of the puzzle are the pieces of the puzzle. You don't throw away a piece you think is important to complete the puzzle simply because you currently lack the center piece.

As for the PP, in terms of PP goals over the past 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. Boeser leads all Canucks in that department.

Boeser did put up goals in the past, but I don't want to pay for the past, I want to pay what I think he is worth going forward.

Sure and teams let good players go all the time. Sometimes they make the right decision sometimes they don't. But when it comes to UFA-aged players, the past is the best gauge and that includes signs of decline.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

By the way, I'm not sure if it takes 8x$8M to re-sign him. The cap is going up though so we have to adjust our perceptions a little bit. Sam Reinhart got 7x$8.625M in a no income tax state and he's better than Reinhart. Guentzel got 7x$9M in a no income tax state and he should also be considered better.

Wait, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but are you implying that Boeser is better than Reinhart!? And he should also be considered better than Guentzel!?

 

[F A N]

Wait, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but are you implying that Boeser is better than Reinhart!? And he should also be considered better than Guentzel!?

Oops. Typo. I consider Reinhart and Guentzel to be better than Boeser.